0109-212 (CSCS) Supplemental RecommendationsCITY OF LA QUIN IA
BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT.
APPROVED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
DATE BY
Supplemental Recommendations
Proposed Circle "K" Convenience Store and
UNOCAL 76 Service Station
NWC ,of Highway 111 and Washington Street,
La Quinta, California
FOR:
TOSC0.111arketing Company
3626 Highland Avenue
Costa 11esa, C4 92626
DATE:
jVovember 2, 2001
PROJECT AVO.
00-1821
PREPARED BY. -
Anthony -Taylor Consultants
304 Enterprise Street
Escondido, California 92029
(760) 738-8800
November 1, 2001
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
3525 Highland Avenue
Costa Mesa, California, 92626
r
Attention: Mr. David Harris
Subject: Supplemental Recommendations
Proposed Circle "K" Convenience Store and
UNOCAL 76 Service Station
NWC of Highway 111 and Washington Street,
La Quinta, California.
References: 1. Anthony -Taylor Consultants, 2000, Report of Geotechnical Investigation,
Proposed Circle "K" Convenience Store and UNOCAL 76 Service Station.
NWC of Highway 111 and Washington Street, La Quinta, California. Project
• No. 00-1821, dated December 15, 2000.
2. Earth Systems Southwest, 2001, Report of Testing and Observations
Performed During Grading. Point Happy, La Quinta, California. File No.
07074-02, 01-02-753, dated February 20, 2001.
Dear Mr. Harris:
In accordance with your request Anthony -Taylor Consultants has prepared these
supplemental recommendations to the referenced Geotechnical Report (Reference 1), to
address the present conditions at the subject site. It is our understanding that some grading
has taken place .on the subject site since we performed our field investigation for. the
referenced geotechnical report. It is also our understanding that the building pad has been
graded to near finish pad grade and that the fill compaction has been certified by others (see
reference No. 2). Also, in accordance with a representative of the grading contractor
(California Infrastructure), an unspecified amount of uncertified fill has been placed outside
the building pad area (canopy, drive and paving areas).
Documents Review
Review of the available references (Reference No. 2) indicates that the soils within the
building pad area, were reworked by removing approximately 3 feet of the existing soils and
replaced with compacted fill. This report also indicates that approximately 2 feet of fill soils
have been added to reach the proposed finish pad grade. This report also indicates that all fill
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 001821
November 2, 2001
-Page 2 of 4
soils have been -moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative
F compaction based on ASTM 1557-92. The report also states that grading of the building pad
is in conformance with the geotechnical engineering report for the entire site prepared by
Earth Systems Consultants Southwest, dated March 24, 1999 as well as the grading
ordinances of the City of La Quinta.
Supplemental Recommendations
Based on our latest site visit and observations performed on October 30, 2001 and the review
of the available references pertinent to the site (references 1 and 2 above), we present the
following supplemental recommendations and amendments to our Report of Geotechnical
Investigation, referenced above:
Building Pad: It is our opinion that the grading performed for the building pad is suitable
for the intended purposes, provided that the removals were extended a minimum of 3 feet
beyond the building footprint. Due to site conditions and evaporation, we recommend that
prior to fine pad grading, the uppersoils be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches below
existing grade elevations, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture conditions and
be recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method
D1557-91). All the other recommendations concerning the building pad presented in our
Report of Geotechnical Investigation (Reference 1) remain applicable.
Undocumented Fill Soils: As noted previously, an unspecified amount of uncertified fill has
been placed outside the building pad area (canopy. drive and paving areas). We recommend
that all the undocumented fill placed outside of the building pad be removed and replaced with
properly compacted fill. It is anticipated that the undocumented fill removal depths will be
on the order of 3 to 3 %2 feet below existing grade elevations. Following removal of the upper
fill soils, the bottom of the excavation(s) should be observed and approved by a representative
of this office to verify that dry potentially compressible materials have been properly removed.
All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements, shall be scarified to a minimum
depth of 8 inches below removal grade elevations, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum
moisture conditions and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on
ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
We recommend that in the concrete drive, canopy slab and pavement areas, the upper 6 to
8 inches of subgrade soils be conditioned as necessary to achieve a near optimum moisture
content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test
Method D1557-91), or in'accordance with the minimum compaction requirements of the
County of Riverside and/or the City of La Quinta. The untreated Class 2 aggregate base
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
November 2, 2001
-Page 3 of 4 -
material
material placed as part of the pavement structural section should meet the requirements of
Caltrans `specifications and be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction
(based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
Tank Excavation: Based on our site observations and the results of our field investigation,
it is our opinion that due to the dry sandy nature of the existing soils, shoring of the
excavation may be necessary to prevent caving of the excavation walls:
Canopy Foundations: We recommend that cylindrical caisson type foundations be used to
support the canopy. Dimensions and reinforcement of these foundations shall be designed by
the project structural engineer incorporating the minimum design criteria presented in the
referenced Report of Geotechnical Investigation (Reference 1). We also recommend that prior
to pouring the concrete for the foundation, the bottom of the excavation be flooded for:24
hours. This procedure can be achieved by lowering a "Sonotube" within the excavation to
maintain the hole open and pouring water inside the "Sonotube Minimum depths of the
caisson foundation is recommended to be at least 8 feet below finished subgrade elevations.
The foundation can be designed as a friction pile or an end bearing caisson. If the foundation
is designed as a .friction pile, the "Sonotube" should be "pulled" as the concrete for the
foundation is being poured. If the foundation is designed as an end bearing caisson, the
"Sonotube" can be left in place.
Concrete Slabs: We recommend that the canopy slab, drive entrances and other areas
subject to heavy vehicle loading receive a full -depth Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.)
section of 5 inches over 4 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. This rigid section is
based upon a minimum concrete strength of 3000 psi. We also recommend for these areas
a minimum reinforcement consisting of No. 3 rebar spaced at 18 inches on center in two
directions. Concrete (P.C.C.) parking areas may utilize a minimum reinforcement of No. 3
rebar spaced at 24 inches on center in two directions. We recommend that the rebar be
placed midheight in each slab. Care should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the
reinforcement is placed and maintained at slab midheight. We recommend that crack control
joints for concrete pavement be provided with a minimum spacing of 12 feet and a maximum
of 15 feet, or in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. We also
recommend that every third control joint be converted to an expansion joint. We suggest that
slab sections be nearly square as possible. Placement of concrete should be performed in
accordance with the guidelines of the American Concrete Iristitute (A.C.I.) and all local
building codes.
,. rmco Mark0log f'ompaov Project No. 00-18:1
November S. 20111
41at e J of .I-
ofthc technical information `.zathercd. our undcrstandin�g, of the proposed construction, and
our general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and judgments
rendered meet current professional standards. All other terms and conditions presented in
Our referenced reports remain applicable to the project and are included by reference herein.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. [f you have questions or need further
information, please refer to, Project No. 00-1321 to expedite your requests.
ResneCtfillly Submitted.
ANTIMONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
.'.n Anthom-'ravlor Compam
KI _
J _7()J
hul Hector L.' " elia
eniorct ;=n.gineer. Pro'eci toList
O QAQFESSIpN �-
GE �'i0. 15_� yQ� �L 9lEyc
v
4� OF Cpl\FSP t.
Distribution: ``3 addressee (2 originals and 1 copy)
Hecrud en/vupplemenral recs.wprl
i
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
304 Enterprise Street • Escondido, CA 92029 • (760) 738-8800 • (760) 738-8232 fax
4
September 12, 2001
Tosco Marketing Company
3525 Highland Avenue
Costa Mesa, Call fomia; 92626
Project No. 00-1821
Attention: Mr. Courtland Holman
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation
_Proposed Circle "K" Convenience Store and
UNOCAL 76 Service Station
NWC of Highway 111 and Washington Street,
La Quinta, California.
Dear Mr. Holman:
In accordance with your request, Anthony -Taylor Consultants has performed a Geotechnical
In.:�estigation to address the geotechnical conditions existing at the subject site. It is our
understanding that the proposed development will include the construction of a new single -
story convenience store/food store structure, a new canopy and pump islands, new concrete
drive slab extensions, new asphalt pavement, new underground storage tanks and December
151 2000 other related improvements. The purposes of the investigation were to determine
the general engineering characteristics of the soils underlying the subject site to. the depths
explored and to provide engineering recommendations for the construction of the proposed
structures at the subject site.
This report describes: the investigation performea; the results anu opinions ui uur inidings;
and our geotechnical recommendations for construction.
SCOPE
I. OP
The scope of our geotechnical investigation was based upon the planning information
provided to us, and consisted of field, laboratory; and engineering evaluation of site
conditions, to include:
Review of readily available documents pertinent to the.subject site (Appendix
A);
2. The excavation of 6 exploratory test borings within building pad,
underground tanks, canopy and parking areas. The soils encountered in the
excavations were logged by our Field Geologist and relatively undisturbed
San Diego, CA • San Francisco, CA 0 Houston, TX
{
R
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001 Y
-Page 2 of 21 -
and loose bag samples were collected at selected intervals in the various soil
types to the maximum depth of the ekploration;
3. Laboratory analysis of the collected samples;
4. Geotechnical analysis of the data and information obtained; and
5. Preparation of this report, presenting our conclusions and recommendations.
411110a" 11 Wisi !14 1 W
1. General: The property consists of an irregular shaped lot located west of
Washington Street just north of Highway 111 in the City of La Quinta Riverside
County California. At the time of our investigation, the site was undeveloped and the
exposed surface consisted of dirt. This site is located in a generally commercial area
and is, bounded to -the north and east by undeveloped properties, to the south by
Highway 111, and to the west by a road. It is our understanding that the proposed
structures and improvements are to be constructed upon surface grades which are
approximately similar in elevation to those currently existing.
2. Site Geology: Regional geologic maps of the area (CDMG, 1966), indicate that the
subject site is located in an area near a contact between Quaternary (recent) -aged
dune sand deposits (alluvium), and Mesozoic granitic rocks. The site is located
approximately 9.4 kilometers from the Coachella Valley and the Southern Portions
of the San Andreas Fault Zone, 26.8 kilometers from the Burnt Mountain Fault Zone,
28.4 kilometers from the Eureka Peak Fault Zone and 28.8 kilometers from the San
Bernardino portion of the San Andreas Fault Zone. These fault zones are reported to
have shown indications of Late Quaternary -Holocene and historic seismic activity.
Our review of the proper literature (Hart, E. W. 1997) indicates that the subject site
lies outside the present Earthquake Fault Zones, which are described in the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act as being placed along active faults.
3. Subsurface Conditions: Subsurface materials encountered within our excavations
consisted of dune sand. (alluvium) deposits. Detailed descriptions of this material can
be found in the excavation logs (refer to Figure Nos. IIa through IIf). Based on our
field investigation and laboratory testing, the general characteristics of this unit is
described below.
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001
-Page 3 of 21 -
Dune Sand (Alluvium) De osi s: The encountered native soils are mapped in the
literature for this area (CDMG, 1966), as being'part of the Quaternary (recent) -aged
Dune sand (alluvium) deposits. These alluvial soils were observed to generally
consist of tan sandy silt, silty sand and sand. The sands generally ranged from very
fine to medium and very fine to coarse grained. These soils were generally observed
to be dry to damp and have a medium dense to dense consistency. This material was
found to extend to depths in excess of our deepest exploratory boring (approximately
51'/2 feet in exploratory boring B-1). A detailed description of these soils is
presented in our excavation logs, Figure Nos. IIa through IIf
4. Groundwater: Free groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory
excavations to the maximum depths explored (approximately 51'/2 feet below
existing site grades), A more detailed description of the subsurface materials
encountered in our exploratory borings is presented on the Boring Logs (Figure Nos.
IIa through IIf).
1J W14 W K41 � ►
Six (6) exploratory borings were drilled, logged and sampled -for this study by our Field
Geologist on November 30, 2000 at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan
(Figure No. Ib). The borings were advanced using a truck -mounted drill rig with a 6 -inch
diameter, hollow -stem auger. Drive samples, recovered from all borings, were obtained
using a Modified California Drive Sampler (2.5 -inches inside diameter and 3 -inches outside
diameter) with thin brass liners, and a Standard Penetrometer-( 2 -inches outside diameter
and 1 -3/8 -inches inside diameter). The samplers were driven 12 to 18 inches into the soil
by a 140 -pound hammer free -falling for a distance of 30 -inches. The number of blows
required to penetrate the last 12 inches is shown on the Boring Logs. The obtained samples
were carefully removed, sealed to minimize moisture loss, and returned to our laboratory for
further classification and testing.
Representative bulk samples were collected from cuttings obtained from the. borings. The
bulk samples were selected for classification and testing purposes and may represent a
mixture of soils within the noted depths. Recovered samples were placed in transport
containers and returned to our laboratory for further classification and testing.
The classifications listed in the excavation logs are a result of visual classification of soil
with existing moisture contents while in the field. The classifications were assigned in
accordance with ASTM D-2488: "Description of Soils (Visual -Manual Method)", and all
applicable field soil -identification procedures described therein. These may or may not
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001
-Page 4 of 21 -
correspond precisely to those indicated by subsequent laboratory methods. Classifications,
made in the field from auger cuttings and drive samples, were verified in the laboratory after
further examination and testing of samples.
Conditions between boring locations may vary considerably and it should be expected that
site conditions may or may not be precisely represented by any one of the borings. Soil
deposition processes and topographic forming processes are such that soil and rock types and
conditions may change in small vertical intervals and short horizontal distances.
Stratification lines, as indicated on the Boring Logs, represent approximate changes in soil
and rock composition, moisture and color, as approximated by field personnel logging the
drilling operation and by the engineer in the laboratory from sample recovery data and by
observation of the samples. Actual depths to changes in the field may differ from those
indicated on the logs, or transitions may occur in a gradual manner and may not be sharply
defined by a readily obvious line of demarcation.
The location of the borings as shown on Figure No. Ib were approximately determined and
should be considered accurate only as a reference guide.
Laboratory tests were performed on both disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples
in order to evaluate their pertinent physical and engineering properties. The following tests
were conducted on the sampled soils:
1)
Moisture Content
ASTM D2216-71
2)
Density Evaluations
ASTM D1557, Method A and others
3)
Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil
ASTM D1428, D516
4)
Direct Shear Test
ASTM D3080
5)
Consolidation Test
ASTM D2435
6)
. Sieve Analysis
ASTM D422
7)
Expansion Index Test
ASTM D4928, UBC 18-2
* The relationship between the moisture and density of undisturbed soil samples give
qualitative information regarding the in-place soil strength characteristics and soil
conditions. Results of our in-place moisture and density testing are presented on the
Boring Logs (Figure Nos. Ha through IIf). The results of our maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content determinations are presented on Figure No. IIIa.
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001
-Page 5 of 21-
* The water soluble sulfate_ content of the near surface soils was determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Methods D1428 and D516, in order to estimate the
potential for sulfate attack on normal Type VII cement. The results of our testing are
presented on Figure No. IIIa.
*, N
Direct shear testing was performed on a representative sample of the near surface
soils remolded to a relative compaction of 90 percent (based on ASTM D1557-91)
and on a representative sample of the native soils in their natural state. Results of
this testing (Figure No. IIIe, IIIf and IIIg) indicate that in their properly compacted
state, the near -surface soils possess an apparent cohesion of 176 psf and an internal
friction angle of 30 degrees, and the native soils in their natural state have apparent
cohesions of 165 and 202 psf and internal friction angles of 33 and 35 degrees
respectively.
* The consolidation test is used to estimate the consolidation/settlement that could
potentially occur within a soil under specific loadings (such as may be imposed by
buildings, walls, piers, etc.). The results of our testing are presented in Figure Nos.
IIIb, IIIc and IIId.
* Representative samples of the subsurface materials were subjected to mechanical
grain -size analysis by wet -sieving with U.S. Standard brass screens. The grain size
distribution curves are presented in Figure Nos. IIIh through IIIs.
The expansion index of the upper foundation soils was evaluated in accordance with
ASTM Test Method D4928 (UBC 18-2), where representative soil samples are tested
at saturations near 50 percent. Expansive soils are classified as follows (by the
Expansion Index Test):
0 to 20 Very Low
21 to 50 Low
51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
Above 131 Very High
The tested soil sample yielded an Expansion Index of 0, which indicates a very low
expansion potential for the sampled soils remolded to 90 percent relative compaction
(based on ASTM D1557-91).
r Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001
-Page 6 of 21- ,
V.
1. General: Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed
structures can be constructed as planned, provided that the recommendations
presented herein are implemented. It is our opinion that the on-site soils (when
properly processed and recompacted as recommended herein) should provide
adequate foundation support for the proposed structures and improvements.
2. Groundwater: As discussed previously, free groundwater was not encountered in
any of our exploratory borings at the site to the depths explored (51'h feet). Research
with the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, indicated that
the groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site was measured at 135 to 140 feet
below surface grades. It is our opinion that this is a reasonable representation of the
minimum local groundwater depths at the site at the time of drilling. It should be
noted, however, that fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to
variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, irrigation,
and other possible factors which may not have been evident at the time of our
investigation.
3. Moisture Content: The in-place moisture contents of the samples obtained from the
upper soils, (upper 5 feet) in the proposed building area at the subject site, were
observed to range from 1.2 percent to 4.2 percent, with an average moisture content
of 2.9 percent. The optimum moisture content for these upper soils was determined
during our laboratory testing to be 9.3 percent, indicating that the near -surface soils
underlying the proposed construction area, generally possessed moisture contents that
were well below optimum at the time of drilling and will require moisture
conditioning during grading operations See Figure Nos. IIa through IIf for moisture
content data of near surface soils.
4. Expansive Soils: The near -surface soils (upper 1 to 5 feet) encountered in our
exploratory borings were observed to consist mainly of sands. Based on our
laboratory testing of representative samples obtained at the subject site, these
materials appear to possess a very low potential for expansion. The likelihood for
expansive soils to affect the overall performance of .the proposed structure
foundations and associated improvements (e.g. paving) appears to be low. Anthony -
Taylor Consultants may provide additional recommendations if indications of a
significant change in the near -surface soils' expansion potential are encountered
" during construction.
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001
-Page 7 or 21-
5. Water Soluble Sulfate in Soils: The principal cause of deterioration of concrete in
foundations and other below ground structures is the corrosive attack by soluble
sulfates present in the soil and groundwater. The results of water soluble sulfate
testing performed on a representative sample of the soils underlying the proposed
building structure near present finish grade elevations, indicate that proposed cement -
concrete structures that are in contact with the underlying soils are anticipated to be
affected with a negligible sulfate exposure.
6. Soil Corrosivity and Chemical Attack: Resistivity, pH and chloride tests were
performed on a sample of the near surface soils. Results of this testing indicate that
the near surface soils have a moderate degree of corrosivity to ferrous metals and
that special measures should be taken in the design of buried conduits and other
metal items. The sampled soils yielded a pH value of 8:74, indicating that the soils
are moderately alkaline and does not correlate to a significant effect on soil
corrosivity.
Test
B-1 @ 1-5 ft.
Resistivity (Ohm -cm)
1164
pH Value
8.74
Chloride (mg/kg)
50
7. Land Slippage and Erosion: No significant indications of either land slippage or
erosion were noted at the site. Therefore, it is our opinion that the potential for land
slippage or erosion to affect the proposed 'improvements at the site is minimal,
provided that the recommendations presented herein are implemented.
8. Potentially Compressible Soils: The existing upper native soils are considered to
be potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of structural loads in their
current condition. As a result, these upper soils should be properly reprocessed in
accordance with the recommendations presented herein.
9. Seismic Considerations:
9.4 Regional and Local Faulting: The principal seismic considerations for
improvements at the subject site are surface rupture of fault traces, damage
caused by ground shaking during a seismic event, and seismically -induced
ground settlement. The potential for any or all of these hazards depends upon
the recency of fault activity and the proximity of nearby faults to the subject
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 8 of 21- '
Project No. 00-1821
site. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered unlikely,
'since no active faults are known to cross the site and no evidence of active
faulting was noted during our investigation. The nearest major active faults
are the Coachella Valley and the Southern portions of the San Andreas Fault
Zone, located approximately 9.4 kilometers from the area of study. Review
• of the available literature (Blake 2000) indicates that these faults are capable
of maximum earthquake magnitudes of 7.1 and 7.4 respectively.. Other
regional faults include the Burnt Mountain Fault Zone, located at
approximately 26.8 kilometers from the area of study. This Fault Zone is
considered to be capable of a maximum earthquake magnitude of 6.4. The
Eureka Peak Fault Zone, located at approximately 28.4 kilometers from the
subject site and considered capable of a maximum earthquake magnitude of
6.4 earthquake and the.San Bernardino portion of the San Andreas Fault
Zone,.located approximately 28.8 kilometers from the subject site. This Fault
Zone is considered to be capable of a maximum earthquake magnitude of 7.3.
A.list of active and potentially -active faults located within a 80 kilometer
radius of the subject site is presented in Appendix C.
9.2 Seismicity and Seismic Hazards: The review of the available references,
indicate that the subject site is located outside the present Seismic Hazard
Zones (CDMG, 2000) which are described in the literature (Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act) as "Zones of Required Investigation" where sites are required
to determine the need for mitigation of potential liquefaction and/or
earthquake -induced landslide ground displacement. The seismic hazard most
likely to'impact the site is ground shaking due to a large earthquake on one
of the major active regional faults. Because of the proximity to the subject
site and the maximum credible event, it appears that the Coachella Valley and
the Southern portions of the San Andreas Fault Zone, are most likely to affect
the site with severe- ground shaking should a significant earthquake occur
along any of these faults. A' summary of seismic design parameters
associated with the major faults located within a radius of 80 kilometers of
the site is presented in Appendix C.
9.3 Liquefaction: Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory
motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate
that loose, mostly fine sands or predominantly granular soils are susceptible
to 'liquefaction, while the stability of rock is not as adversely affected by
vibratory motion. Liquefaction is generally known to occur primarily in
saturated or near -saturated granular soils at depths shallower than about 100
feet and is also a function of relative density, soil type and probable intensity
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 9 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
and duration of ground shaking. Because of the relatively deep groundwater
table and the presence of layers of dense soil and layers of cohesive materials
in the underlying soils, it appears that the potential for liquefaction at the site
during a major seismic event is relatively low.
Lateral Spreading
The results of this study indicates that there is a very low potential for lateral
spreading at the subject site. Lateral spreading would occur where there is
+ a liquefaction potential, the ground is gently sloping and/or is located
adjacent to a body of water. The subject site is located in an area that is
generally flat and is not located near a body of water. Also, as noted
previously, the potential for liquefaction appears to be low.
Settlement
Based upon the results of our test boring, the results of our Geotechnical
investigation, and our liquefaction analysis, it is our opinion that the
underlying soils are generally medium dense to dense (based upon blow
count data from six (6) test borings) and there does not appear to be a
potential for seismic settlement that would affect the proposed improvements.
Surface Manifestations
The low potential for liquefaction and the relatively deep groundwater
indicate that it is unlikely that surface manifestations, such as sand boils or
sink holes, would be present following a seismic event on one of the
controlling faults for this site.
9.4 Design Earthquake Magnitude: The review of readily available references
pertinent to the subject site indicates that structures should be designed to
resist moderate earthquakes with a low probability of structural damage. Such
design shall resist major or severe earthquakes with some structural damage,
but with a low probability of collapse. The moderate and major earthquakes
have been interpreted to represent the maximum probable and maximum
credible earthquakes, respectively. The maximum credible earthquake is
defined as the largest event that a specific fault is theoretically capable of
producing within the presently known tectonic framework and is established
based on mechanical relationships of the fault and fault mechanisms and does
not consider rate of recurrence or probability of occurrence. The maximum
probable earthquake is generally defined as that seismic event along a
particular fault which has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50
years. For the subject site the appropriate ground acceleration was calculated
f_f
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 10 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
to be 0.68g. The graphics presented in Appendix C illustrate the probability
of exceedance for the subject site, given in percent, for the ground motion
magnitude (acceleration). These graphics also show the average return period
in years of a given acceleration for the subject site. These graphics can be
used to understand the relative significance of different combinations of
magnitude and distance to the generation of a specific ground motion level.
It may be expected that for the lower levels of ground motion (e.g., 0.1g)
many faults and combinations of magnitude and distance are likely to have
made substantial contributions to the probability of exceedance of that
ground motion. For higher levels of ground motion, fewer combinations of
magnitude and distance contribute to the probability of exceedance of that
ground motion. The following table shows the return period and probability
of exceedance of a given peak ground acceleration for the subject site:
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Return period (years)
Probability of
Exceedance
0.2
25
85 percent in 50 years
0.4
90
42 percent in 50 years
0.6
300
15 percent in 50 years
The probability of exceedance for 25, 50, 75, and 100 years for the subject
site, is presented in Appendix C.
WANINFRX010,10 I D10
Based on our geotechnical study at the site, our review of readily available reports and
literature pertinent to the site (Appendix A), and our understanding of the proposed final
grades, it is our opinion that development and/or improvement of the site is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint, provided the conclusions and recommendations included in this
report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of any proposed structures.
There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated
by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering
properties of the underlying materials, surface drainage, and anticipated degree of seismic
risk offer conditions comparable to the other sites surrounding the subject project. The
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001
-Page 11 of 21 -
following sections provide geotechnical recommendations that should be incorporated into
the design of the proposed improvements at the site.
1. Seismicity: The design acceleration that is considered appropriate for structural
design of residential and commercial buildings, (CBC, 1998 and UBC, 1997), is
estimated to be 0.68g based on a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
The effects of seismic shaking can be mitigated by adhering to the current edition of
the California Building Code (1998 CBC, Title 24), the Uniform Building Code „
(1997 UBC) and/or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural
Engineers Association of California. The following earthquake design parameters are
recommended for the subject site based on the 1998 California Building Code and
the 1997 Uniform Building Code:
Table 16 - I
Table 16 - J
Table 16 - Q
Table 16 - R
Table 16 - S
Table 16 - T
Table 16 - U
Z =
0.40
Soil
Type -SD
Ca.
= 0.44 Na
C,
= 0.64 N,
Na
= 1.0
N„
= 1.2
Source Type -A
2. Earthwork: Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the
following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the foilowing recoinrnendations shall
supersede those presented in Appendix E.
2.1. Site Preparation: Prior to earthwork or construction operations, the site
should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions and stripped of any
vegetation in the areas proposed for development. Removed vegetation and
debris should then be properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from
removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should
be backfilled with suitable fill soils compacted to a minimum 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
2.2. Removal of Unsuitable Soils: As noted above, the existing upper soils are
considered to be potentially compressible in their current condition. As a
result, we recommend the reprocessing of these existing soils in all areas to
receive new buildings (where not anticipated to be removed during proposed
site development). Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, it
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 12 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
is anticipated that the removal depths in the vicinity of the proposed building
pad will be on the order of 5%2 to 6 feet below existing grade elevations.
Following removal of the upper soils, the bottom of the excavation(s) should
be observed and approved by a representative of this office to verify that
these potentially compressible materials have been properly removed. All
areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements, shall be scarified to
a minimum depth of 8 inches below removal grade elevations, brought to at
least 2 percent over optimum moisture conditions and recompacted to at least
90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
These operations should be performed under the observation and testing of
a representative of this office. It should be understood that based on the
observations of our field representative, localized deeper or shallower
removals may be recommended. Any removed soils shall be moisture
conditioned as necessary to achieve a moisture content of at least 2 percent
over optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). This
earthwork should extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond the proposed footing
limits.
2.3. Fill Placement and Compaction: If necessary, the on-site soils are suitable
for reuse as compacted fill, provided they.are free of organic materials and
debris'and material larger than 6 inches in diameter. All areas to receive fill
and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth
of 8 inches, brought to a moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum
moisture content and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative cumpactiun
(based on ASTM D 1557-91). Should import soils be utilized for near -surface
fills, these soils should be predominately granular, possess a low or very low
expansion potential, and be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to
their transportation to the site. Lift thicknesses will be dependent upon the
size and type of equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform
lifts not exceeding 8 inches. Placement and compaction of fill should be
performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation
and testing of the geotechnical consultant.
We recommend that if encountered, oversize materials (materials greater than
6 inches in maximum dimension) be removed from the upper 3 feet of fill or
placed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
contained in Appendix E.
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 13 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
2.4. Trench Excavations and Backfill: Trenches are anticipated to be excavated
with moderate effort using conventional construction equipment in good
operating condition. To satisfy OSHA requirements and for workmen's
safety, it .will be necessary to shore excavations deeper than 5 feet.
The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened
of rock sizes over 6 inches in maximum dimension and organic matter.
Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches
in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91).
3. Foundations and Slab Design: Foundations and slabs should be designed in
accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations.
These recommendations assume that soils exposed at finish pad grade will have a
low potential for expansion. These recommendations may be verified by performing
additional expansion tests after grading is completed. Localized areas of higher
expansion may be possible.
3.1 Foundation Design: All proposed building and non -building improvements
that are anticipated to constitute a structural load may be supported by an
appropriate foundation system designed by the project structural engineer in
accordance with the guidelines of the Uniform Building Code and/or all
applicable local building codes. Footings adequately founded in firm natural
soils or properly compacted fill soils should be a minimum 18 inches deep
by 12 inches wide for a one-story building structure and 24 inches deep by
15 inches wide for a two-story building. At these dimensions, footings
adequately founded properly compacted fill soil may be designed for an
allowable soil bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. These values
may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration including wind or
seismic forces. Foundations should be properly reinforced in accordance
with the project structural engineer's recommendations. Minimum
reinforcement shall consist of two No. 4 rebar at the top and two No.4 rebar
at the bottom of the footing. We estimate that the total and differential
settlement for the proposed improvements will be on the order of 1 -inch and
approximately 1/0 -inch between structural elements.
To reduce the potential for misalignment of garage door openings at the site
(if they are proposed), we recommend that a grade beam be constructed,
across each garage door entrance. These grade beams should be designed
and reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements.
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 14 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
We redommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of
descending slopes and/or retaining walls for all structural footings and
settlement -sensitive structures. This distance is measured from the outside
bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face or wall face -and
should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height or wall height (in
feet). The setback should not be less than 5 feet and need not be greater than
10 feet. Please note that the soils within the structural setback area may
possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls,
pools, sidewalks, fences, pavement, etc.) constructed within this setback area
may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement.
All foundation excavations should be observed and tested by a representative
of Anthony -Taylor Consultants prior to placement of steel and concrete.
3.2 Concrete Slabs: Interior concrete slabs should have a minimum thickness
of 5 inches and be underlain by a 10 -mil visqueen moisture barrier underlain
with a 2 inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent of at least 30). The
visqueen moisture barrier should be overlain by a 2 inch layer of clean sand
to aid in concrete curing. All slabs should be constructed with preferred
minimum reinforcement consisting of No. 3 bars placed mid -height in the
slab and spaced on 18 inch centers in both directions. Welded wire mesh is
not an acceptable alternative.. Crack control joints should be provided in
accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer.
Exterior concrete flatwork (sidewallks, etc.) should have uiTilniTnuni thlckriCSS
of 4 inches, be underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sand, and reinforced with
a minimum 6x6 -10/10 welded wire mesh placed midheight in the slab. Care
should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the reinforcement is placed
and maintained at slab midheight. We recommend that crack control joints
for exterior flatwork be provided with a minimum spacing of 12 feet and a
maximum of 15 feet, or in accordance with the structural engineer's
recommendations. We also recommend that every third control joint be
converted to an expansion joint.
Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for
this slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios.
The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring
of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend
that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if crack -sensitive flooring is
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 15 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in
accordance with structural considerations.
3.3 Cement Type:-, As noted.before, our laboratory testing of a representative
sample of the near surface indicated a negligible concentration of soluble
sulfates. Based on the guidelines presented in the current edition of the
Uniform Building Code, a minimum Type II cement may be utilized in
concrete that will be in direct contact with the near -surface soils.
3.4 Moistening of Foundation Soils: Footing excavations and slab subgrades
should be thoroughly moistened prior to placement of concrete. The soil
moisture should be at least 2 percent over optimum to a depth of at least 24
inches below finish grade..
4. Preliminary Pavement Design: Based on the results of our laboratory testing and
for design preliminary design purposes, an R -Value of 60 was used for the subgrade
soils. Additional R -Value testing may be warranted if a change in the soils exposed
at finish subgrade elevations is encountered during grading. For preliminary
purposes, we have assumed traffic indices of 4.5 for parking areas and 6.0 for drive
areas. These assumed traffic indices should be verified by the project civil engineer
prior to construction. The recommended structural pavement sections were
calculated in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and are
summarized below:
Main Drive Areas
Design R -Value = 60, Assumed T.I. = 6.0
1 3.0 inches of asphalt concrete over 4.0 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.
Parking Areas
Design R -Value = 60, Assumed T.I. = 4.5
3.0 inches of asphalt concrete over 4.0 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.
We recommend that drive entrances and other areas subject to heavy vehicle loading
receive a full -depth Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) section of 5 inches over 4
inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. This rigid section is based upon a
minimum concrete strength of 3000 psi. We also recommend for these areas a
minimum reinforcement consisting of No. 3 rebar spaced at 18 inches on center in
two directions. Concrete (P.C.C.) parking areas may utilize a minimum
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12. 2001
-Page 16 of 21- '
reinforcement of No. 3 rebar spaced at 24 inches on center in two directions. We
recommend that the rebar be placed midheight in each slab. Care should be taken by
the contractor to ensure that the reinforcement is placed and maintained at slab
midheight. We recommend that crack control joints for concrete pavement be
provided with a minimum spacing of 12 feet and a maximum of 15 feet, or in
accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. We also recommend
that every third control joint be converted to an expansion joint. We suggest that slab
sections be nearly square as possible. Placement of concrete should be performed in
accordance with the guidelines of the American Concrete Institute (A.C.I.) and all
local building codes.
We recommend that curbs, gutters and sidewalks be designed by the project civil
engineer or structural engineer. We suggest control joints at appropriate intervals as
determined by the civil engineer or structural engineer be considered.
Based on the'results of our subsurface investigation, and the presence of loose topsoil
in the proposed parking and drive areas, it is anticipated that the removal depths in
these areas will be on the order of 1 to 1'/2 feet below existing grade elevations.
Following removal of the upper soils, the bottom of the excavation(s) should .be
observed and approved by a representative of this office to verify that these
potentially compressible materials have been properly removed. All areas to receive
fill and/or other surface improvements be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches
below existing grade elevations, brought to a moisture content at least 2 percent over
the optimum moisture content for these soils and recompacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). The upper G to S
inches of pavement subgrade soils should be conditioned as necessary to achieve a
near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91), or in accordance with the
minimum compaction requirements of the County of Riverside. The untreated Class
2 aggregate base material placed as part of the pavement structural section should
meet the requirements of Caltrans specifications and be compacted to a minimum
95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend
some measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from
becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curbing separating the
landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the
ends of the sections where heavy landscape watering may have access to the
aggregate base. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas
subject to concentrated surface runoff.
w•
Tosco Marketing Company ,
September 12, 2001
-Page 17 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
5. Metal Protection: As noted previously, the results of our laboratory testing indicated
that the soils at the subject site are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. We
recommend that conventional corrosion mitigation measures be taken, including but
not limited to the following:
• All steel and wire concrete reinforcement should have at least 3 inches of
concrete cover where cast against soil.
• Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such building floors
or walls, use plastic sleeves, rubber seals or other dielectric material to
prevent pipe contact with the concrete and reinforcing steel.
• Below -grade ferrous metals should be given a high-quality protective coating,
such as 18 -mil plastic tape, extruded poly -ethylene, coal -tar enamel or
Portland Type V cement mortar.
• Above -grade steel appurtenances that will be in contact with the surface soils,
such as bolts, harnesses couplings etc. should be given a protective coating
such as coal tar enamel, rubber mastic, epoxy or wax tape.
• Below -grade metals should be electrically insulated (isolated) from above -
grade metals by means of dielectric fittings in ferrous utilities and/or exposed
metal structures breaking grade.
• We recommend the use of PVC schedule 40 in non -pressurized applications.
6. Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance: For design purposes, the following
lateral earth pressure values for level and free -draining backfill are recommended for
retaining walls (if nosed) backfilled with on-site soils, and for those backfilled
` with select soils (possessing an internal friction angle of at least 30 degrees and
extending at least 0.514 from the upslope face of the wall, where H is the wall height).
a
r
�
4f/
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001
-Page 18 of 21 -
EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT (PCF)
Conditions
On -Site Backfill Select Backfill
PHI>30 Degrees)
Active
36 35
At -Rest
55 55
Passive Fill Soils
350 350
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for an active equivalent
pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at
the top (nonyielding), such as basement walls or re-entrant corners, the at -rest
pressures should be used. For areas of re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design
should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the
corner. The above values assume backfill soils will have a very low expansion
potential and free -draining conditions. If conditions other than those covered herein
are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressures should be provided on an individual
basis by the geotechnical engineer. Retaining wall structures should be provided
with appropriate drainage. Typical drainage design is illustrated in Appendix E.
Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Wall footings should
be ,designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and
1 reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we
recommend a minimum horizontal distance from the outside base of the footing to
daylight of 8 feet.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained
from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a
friction coefficient of 0.30 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These
values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration
including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the
frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed
two-thirds of the total resistance.
7. Surface and Subsurface Drainage: Our experience indicates that surface or near
surface ground water conditions can develop in areas where ground water conditions
did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial
increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. This
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 19 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
sometimes occurs where relatively impermeable and/or cemented formational
materials are overlain by fill soils. In addition, during retaining wall excavations (if
they are proposed), seepage may be encountered. We recommend that Anthony -
Taylor Consultants be present during grading operations to evaluate areas of seepage.
Drainage devices for reduction of water accumulation can be recommended if these
conditions occur.
We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade the site, such that
a '
surface drainage is directed away from structure foundations, floor slabs, and tops of
slopes, at a 2 percent minimum grade for a minimum distance of 5 feet for subgrade,
and 1 percent minimum grade for a minimum distance of 5 feet for hard finish
surface (pavement, walkways etc.). Ponding of water should not be permitted, and
installation of roof gutters which outlet into a drainage system is considered prudent.
Planting areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage directed away from
all buildings. Drainage design for these facilities should be provided by the design
civil engineer.
8.. Construction Observation and Plan Review: The recommendations provided in
this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by field reconnaissance and
widely -spaced exploratory borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should
'be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Anthony -Taylor
Consultants. We recommend that on-site excavations be observed during grading for
the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions by a representative of this
firm. Construction observation and field density testing of compacted fill should be
performed by a representative of this firm to erasure tilai wuSLruLtiull IS i11 aLCuluall X
with the recommendations of this report. The final grading plan and building plan
should be reviewed by this office prior to construction.
u MKINIII&I
This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption
that -the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our
exploratory excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information
gathered, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience in the
geotechnical field. We do not provide a guarantee or warranty (either expressed or implied)
of the performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgements meet the
standard of care of our profession at this time.
Tosco Marketing Company Project No. 00-1821
September 12, 2001
-Page 20 of 21-
, I ,
In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions
cannot be discounted. Any deviations or unexpected conditions observed during construction
should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any required
supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay to the' project.
If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the
existing information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes
and the final grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Of particular importance would be extending development to new areas, changes
in structural loading conditions, postponed development for more than one year, or changes
in ownership.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or
owner's representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein
are called to the attention of the Atchitects and Engineers for the project and incorporated
into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the Contractors and
Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is also subject to
review by the controlling authorities for this project.
Tosco Marketing Company
September 12, 2001
-Page 21 of 21 -
Project No. 00-1821
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have questions or need further
information, please refer to Project No. 00-1821 to expedite your requests.
Respectfully Submitted,
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
An Anthony -Taylor Company
Bruce -T for e L chal
President enio oject Engineer pFESL
SI
CEG No. 1960 RCE No. C42590 ��
hQ�� Mt�Fyy
LU NO. 21S ^T'
.D GFOC oQROFESSja,� coo \GPv\7*
TECt+N a
OF C AL\11
dr
Hector strell ¢ BRUCE W. TAYLOR
Project a Logi * NO. 1960 * ec No. c 42590
CERTIFIED E"�
ENGINEERING
�j►9 GEOLOGIST
OF CALF
Distribution: 3 addressee (2 originals and 1 copy)
HectorIJlm/TOSCO La Quinta GEO.wpd
VICINITY MAP
N
NOT TO SCALE
® ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
-
S D .Do (C9.pera2., s— /t—i.. Guy C-1 A—
1...1 530
".. 1-250 0 .— "o. 560
N
E2<e.,,. C6 92029 Sen Eren,iree .,.9.05 w.•m ft 1100,
12601 2366600
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
DATE:
112/05/00.-1la
FIG. N0.
BORING LOCATION MAP
B-2
B-3
.
NOT TO SCALE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
® S.. 04.9. (C.V-ft) s- ?--4.
0. .,.. 250 5XC,W Co A-
0 1... .,.. mo
E.cone.eo. CA 92029 9.105 1. 1100,
,
Gai 36. soo
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
NUMBER:
I REVIEWED BY:JOB
DATE:
EXCAVATION LOG
EQUIPMENT:
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION:
DATE LOGGED:
HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIG •
12" DIAMETER AUGER BORING
11/30/00
SURFACE ELEVATION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
LOGGED BY:
BORING No:
EXISTING ELEVATION
NONE ENCOUNTERED
KHM
B-1
)
Uj
J
L
FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
X
o
v
o
®
U- J
o_ W
S- r-.,..... 6, (/ C...I .n.
cnm n.e. c 270 5300 u.mam. 760
.•ma ."g.lq T. 11001
W
SPT SAMPLE
o
DRIVE SAMPLE
TOSCO LA QUINTA
aI j
* *
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
SITE ADDRESS:
w N
� < m
p
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
C?
N
~
cn
a ~
H
M ~
x Ui
w
# DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No.
m U
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
cn
o
o_
I z
p o
a z
°
zo
�ov
VERY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, LOOSE, DRY, TAN.
SP
57
BECOMES DENSE.
1.4
104.0
9.3
111.8
SANDY SILT/SILTY VERY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, HARD/
NL/SII
5
DENSE, DAMP, TAN.
60.
2.2
105.6
SILTY VERY FINE TO COARSE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE,
SM
DAMP, TAN.
46
2.5
101.1
10
27
1.8
90.2
SLIGHTLY SILTY, VERY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, DENSE,
15
DAMP,TAN.
SP
59
0.9
106.6
SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND, DENSE, DAMP, TAN.
SM
20 11.1
60
BECOMES FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, GRAYISH TAN.
2.2
111.5
{;:,:I:I
25
71
1.3
105.8
4:4.:!
30-
0
)
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
1
WATER TABLE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
$— pc=A.
®
LOOSE BAG SAMPLE
p.' -t.)
u ", ca. 92o2 P7
E,....... 3. 92079 6v
11601 »8.8800
S- r-.,..... 6, (/ C...I .n.
cnm n.e. c 270 5300 u.mam. 760
.•ma ."g.lq T. 11001
0
SPT SAMPLE
JOB NAME:
DRIVE SAMPLE
TOSCO LA QUINTA
* *
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
SITE ADDRESS:
*
DISTURBED SAMPLE
N.W. CORNER OF HWY
111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
DATE:
12/05/00
I FIG. N0.
fla
# DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No.
EXCAVATION LOG
EQUIPMENT:
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION:
DATE LOGGED:
HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIG
12" DIAMETER AUGER BORING
11/30/00
SURFACE ELEVATION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
LOGGED BY:
BORING No:
EXISTING ELEVATION•
NONE ENCOUNTERED
I KHM
B-1 (CONT.)
( )
w
FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
TABLE
w
0 -
^
4 w
m
1
Q
wwv
3. (n
7
imc n19. p, o n: Ta „G0,
,co. c
0
a
�v
��
U
�..
O
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
=
H
TOSCO LA QUINTA
N
m M
Q
o~
w
a''
F- F~
*DISTURBED SAMPLE,
�0
z
la
o
m
a
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
o
v
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
U
bl
Z N
—0
a N
I z
a N
o o
x N
a z
w.
m°
m
za
two
v
30
. t!.{::!
SILTY VERY FINE TO COARSE SAND, DENSE, DAMP,
SM
40
GRAYISH TAN.
2.5
3 5 :t:!: a::!
57 #
1.0
40
31
1.5
45
40
3.0
. d:a
C
)0
31
DUNE SAND
1 3.6
TOTAL DEPTH = 51.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING
BACKFILLED: 11/30/00
55
60
( )
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
IWATER
TABLE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
s -01.E«
J0. Cn4•pA J„S-.�
. OvC—t A•a
� 250 5300 ..-1.1.X ,i 560
®
LOOSE BAG SAMPLE-
�,.�„o• So 97019 Son
9202
17601 .JB-BB00
7
imc n19. p, o n: Ta „G0,
,co. c
0
SPT SAMPLE
JOB NAME:
DRIVE SAMPLE
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
* * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
*
*DISTURBED SAMPLE,
N.W. CORNER OF HWY
111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
DATE:
112/05/001
FIG. NO. �.
Ila
# DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT NO.
)
EXCAVATION LOG
EQUIPMENT:
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION:
DATE LOGGED:
HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIG
12" DIAMETER AUGER BORING
11/30/00
SURFACE ELEVATION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
LOGGED BY:
BORING No:
EXISTING, ELEVATION .
NONE ENCOUNTERED
KHM
B-2
)
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
o Z
p
M
o
o
Saw.. ..e c, I C�., A-
c•.w. 2,0 Y.nmi.1. 560
O
M
a
W \
a 3 rn
3300 ,I
i,mw a 9.a, waa„an. 2 1100,
co. c
U W
Q
v
W
.°x
��
a
�•�
�-o
CL
�
a
N Jm D
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
* * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
a
a N
N
a N
x
W
HGEWED BY:
m
O)
(Groin size, Density, Moisture, Color)
vi
Z1 0
—
0
o
OX
v
O
VERY FINE . T0. MEDIUM SAND, LOOSE, DRY, TAN. ' ' ° =
SP
1 i:1::!
SILTY VERY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP,
SM
'1i:{::i
TAN.
43
6.3
86.3
i.{.•�
is
22
6.8
90.6
10
1:!.a::!
26
1.4
93.1
53
9.9
100.6
15
53
2.3
102.4
FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP, GRAYISH
SP'
20
TAN.
40
DUNE SAND
1.6
107.7
TOTAL DEPTH = 21.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING
BACKFILLED: 11130100
25
,
)
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
1
WATER TABLE
® S.. a.,. «�.,
30. Cnu ,.. SI...I 3.5
Saw.. ..e c, I C�., A-
c•.w. 2,0 Y.nmi.1. 560
LOOSE BAG SAMPLE
E,c11601 Ca 92029 Sm
12601 1766600
3300 ,I
i,mw a 9.a, waa„an. 2 1100,
co. c
0
SPT SAMPLE
JOB NAME:
DRIVE SAMPLE
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
* * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
*
DISTURBED SAMPLE
N.W. CORNER OF HWY
111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NI HZ I UMBER:
00 -
HGEWED BY:
DATE:112/05/001
FIG. NO-
o. lIb
# DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT NO.
EXCAVATION LOG
EQUIPMENT:
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION:
DATE LOGGED:
HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIG
12" DIAMETER AUGER BORING
11/30/00
SURFACE ELEVATION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
LOGGED BY:
BORING No:
EXISTING ELEVATION
NONE ENCOUNTERED
KHM
B-3
)
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
W
IWATER
FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
s°. o:.,° «°,,°.a., S_ f
IN`7000"°
w
^
H
J
m
d
W
V.
3:tn
SPT SAMPLE
W v
am
Cl
v
O t]
0
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
N
~
>
Q
N<
aJ
m D
J
W�
U
a-
I�
1,
Z
W
N
(�
m
N
L)
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
U
I�
ZN
dVI
IZ
(ON
XUi
8
?
0
o
o
FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, DRY, TAN.
SP
62
4.2
102.2
i
SILTY VERY FINE TO FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP,
SM
TAN.
5
27
2.4
95.7
1.1.f
10
:�.i.l•!
BECOMES GRAYISH TAN WITH -LENSES OF FINE TO MEDIUM
43
SAND.
1.4
106.4
3.
j4l'-!
!
'
Iil:i
58
DUNE SAND
0.9
108.81
TOTAL DEPTH = 16.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING
BACKFILLED: 11130100
20-
25—
)
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
IWATER
TABLE
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
s°. o:.,° «°,,°.a., S_ f
IN`7000"°
50. ,° ]2 ]t]
a, CIV C-1.111
250 ]]00 wlmool. 560
i,°mo„o.
®
LOOSE BAG SAMPLE
Od, C
°° 92029 ,-
2
11601 1]b BB00
0
`' °� 9.105 �,1". " ;7007
0
SPT SAMPLE
JOB NAME:
DRIVE SAMPLE
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
* * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
*
DISTURBED SAMPLE
N.W. CORNER OF HWY
111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
DATE:
12/05/00
FIG. N0.
iiC
# DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT NO.
EXCAVATION LOG
EQUIPMENT:
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION:
DATE LOGGED:
HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIG
12" DIAMETER AUGER BORING
11/30/00
SURFACE ELEVATION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
LOGGED BY:
BORING No:
EXISTING ELEVATION
NONE ENCOUNTERED
KHM
B-4
)
a
FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
WATER TABLE
wtF
o
,0. Enin
J
®
w
3v\i
�.,. ` ,
�.mc oC9.i0, Ma.,lan.., ;.00.
w
aw
SPT SAMPLE
o
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
a
M
a
ii
_j Zm
ai~
w�>-ow>_
<F=~p
*
DISTURBED SAMPLE
N.W. CORNER OF HWY
111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
o
v
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
ci
ZN
o rn
xN
o\
m
j
zz
—
o
v
0
VERY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, DRY, :TAN,
SP
WITH GRAVEL.
33
SILTY VERY FINE TO FINE SAND. MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP.
SM
1.7
106.7
5 ..j.y.t.:!
TAN.
I_
j• a::l
75
BECOMES DENSE. '
1.8
112.1
BECOMES VERY FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED AND MEDIUM
•:i t.:t:;!
40
DENSE.
3.0
98.4
15
51
1.8
101.3
j :t:.t::l
20 e!r:i
65
DUNE SAND
1.9
101.E
TOTAL DEPTH 20.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING
BACKFILLED: 11/30/00
25—
)
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
1
WATER TABLE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
S317* f6eev 1 sa .a..e,e
In
,0. Enin
a I:WJ Com., .wo
c�.m 7,0 „Op N.maN.
®
LOOSE BAG SAMPLE
C. 9202 S.
E,...aeo. �e 91079 San
I7601 .,BB800
�.,. ` ,
�.mc oC9.i0, Ma.,lan.., ;.00.
Q
SPT SAMPLE
JOB NAME:
e
DRIVE SAMPLE
TOSCO LA QUINTA
*
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
SITE ADDRESS:
*
DISTURBED SAMPLE
N.W. CORNER OF HWY
111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
DATE:
112/05/00
FIG. NO.
old
## DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT NO.
EXCAVATION LOG
EQUIPMENT:
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION:
DATE LOGGED:
HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIG
12" DIAMETER AUGER BORING
11/30/00
SURFACE ELEVATION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
LOGGED BY:
BORING No:
EXISTING ELEVATION
NONE ENCOUNTERED
KHM
B-5
VALUE
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
J
a
1
FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
v
o
v
o
s.. „a �..o
F'...OWJ C. -I An9
®
J
m
a
W
a
\
3�
SPT SAMPLE
W
Q�
a
ow
o
�o
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
vi
=
a
r
N
a
m 0
a_
W"
aI.-
, D
��
�
Z
W
o
N
0
m
N
O
U
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
U
I N
J Ui
z
a. y
O
X
w
o\
?-
0
oz
—
0
o
v
0
SILTY VERY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, MEDIUM DENSE,
SM
DRY, TAN.
40
BECOMES DAMP.
3.9
104.0
5
21
2.6
99.0
FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, LOOSE, DAMP, TAN.
SP
15
10
1.3
100.0
BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE.
40
1.1
107.9
BECOMES DENSE.
15 .:::::
60
DUNE SAND
0.9
108.9
TOTAL DEPTH = 15.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING
BACKFILLED: 11/30/00
20
5
25—
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
1
WATER TABLE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
®S"0u99 rEo
nolo
]Oa Enrvori,. Slr,.i ]2]
s.. „a �..o
F'...OWJ C. -I An9
®
LOOSE BAG SAMPLE
E„9760,. 30 92029 Son
12601 2]&6900
,I., o„9 2ro0 S]„0 N,m to ii00160
irm 0,ie. c W„on
Q
SPT SAMPLE
JOB NAME:
DRIVE SAMPLE
TOSCO LA QUINTA
* *
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
SITE ADDRESS:
*
. DISTURBED SAMPLE
N•W, CORNER OF HWY
111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
IREVIEWED BY:
1 HGE
DATE:
12/05/00
FIG. NO.
Ile
## DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT NO.
m
EXCAVATION LOG
EQUIPMENT:
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION:
DATE LOGGED:
HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL.RIG
12" DIAMETER AUGER BORING
11/30/00
SURFACE ELEVATION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
LOGGED. BY:
BORING No:
EXISTING ELEVATION
NONE ENCOUNTERED
KHM
B-6
w
FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
WATER TABLE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
S— 0- « �, 5�
0E,.1160)
^.
L w
m
a
a
w
ii
�`
3. v)Lo
``'`'
o a
�`�
o
o
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
w
TOSCO LA QUINTA
0
m j
a N
SITE ADDRESS:
a
X~
w
N.W. CORNER OF HWY
m
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
(Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)
vi
Z
I wm
wZo o
..
SILTY VERY FINE TO FINE SAND, LOOSE, DRY, GRAYISH
SM
! !
TAN.
21
BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE.
1.2
5
:i.t•.I::!
30#
BECOMES DAMP, TAN.
1.3
10
12
DUNE SAND
1
0.7
TOTAL DEPTH = .1.0.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
NO CAVING
BACKFILLED: 11/30/00
520 15-
2 0
25
VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE
1
WATER TABLE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
S— 0- « �, 5�
0E,.1160)
JOa E.h•w�,,. J�•eer ),!
C. 2029 =m
,., ,�, GW C-1 A—
fr.mC1„o L 200 JJ„0 N.mo.�oL "0
E.an�n, a. 9.pJ „„1..... 71001
®
LOOSE BAG SAMPLE
1,601 130.0800
Q
SPT SAMPLE
JOB NAME:
DRIVE SAMPLE
TOSCO LA QUINTA
* *
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
SITE ADDRESS:
*
DISTURBED SAMPLE
N.W. CORNER OF HWY
111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
DATE:
12/05/00,
FIG. N0.
Ilf
## DISTURBED, BLOWCOUNT NO.
LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY
150 -1 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST
1NKM
igr
S
C.�
120 W
F—
Z
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY 1 2 3
100 (pcf) 111.8
OPTIMUM MOISTURE 9 3
CONTENT (%)
90 MOISTURE CONTENT
0 5 10 15
EXPANSION TEST DATA
SOIL TYPE 1
INITIAL DRY DENSITY pcf) 104.2
INITIAL WATER CONTENT (%) 1.4
LOAD psf) 144
PERCENT SWELL 0
2.70 \
,,,-2.50
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
2.60 �
ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES
20
SOIL
TYPE
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
BORING
TRENCH
DEPTH
JOB NAME:
NO.
NO.
{
1
.TAN, SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND.
B-1
-
1.0 TO 5.0 FT.
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
Smw Dw
30.E 9o!m7vS-e ' , !75 ie"hau4ee 250 530W C—i Im
MO
E.rrnmto. CG 92029 San hon<nto. ra. 9m0! .-1tn. T% 17007
® 17601 736.6800
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
{
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
'
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
I REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. N0.
ilia
HGE
12/05/00
CONSOLIDATION - PERCENT
O cD 00 V' rn N A W N O
K O
m O
m �
N O
Z
� D
� r
C �
O_
N
C
;u '
m
100
Jo
oeS Z
0
" =a
g„„a x0
O
•
�z
z
>
D
<
c
720
(-
1000
0
O
z
1440
M
>
c
O
wig, `3
N
2880
c
n
00
Om�Mom
ZL
�Q
OZ
5760
cn
�0,�c
v
O>
O
Nm
�A
pA
;oN
M
r••
D
0
>
cn
to
M
0
O
Z
mM
0<
of
m
M m
z
m=
o
D
�
M
m
75
�
m
D
Z
I
No
,,,Di
Om
Ln
p
O
U)
m
2
C0
O
zp
z
o
oZ
N
100
0
O
360
z
Li
0
720
(-
1000
0
1080
1440
M
>
O
mz
N
N
2880
c
I
m
�
5760
m
r
10000
N
cn
11520
0
m
0
M
C
m
100000
r'l
..40
O
of
.......................
.......................
Ijllllllllll
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
eeeeecece_:_:_eeec_ec.�c .•
-min
mom
GiGri■iGiGiGiGiGiGi'GiG[��iC
�
SEEM ..7G7i�iC
• • f
�
.■■■.■■■■■.■■■nom■■■.■■■
� ���NONE �
mom==
mom==����=m=m=mmmmmm���
..
.......................
• • • • •
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
NONE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
.
.......................
..............e
mmmm.....
•
.......................
___
mom
r'l
0
:151,
a
lzg -
,zo
]
'so3
0O
•
O
z
r
1000
0
a
D
9�
b
>
1
r
C
7;[)
D
eI3
0
m
P _l
m
O
Jr.
n
N
O
c
I
z
1
m
5760
m
r
m
N
0�3
Z
N
C
11520
D
n
0oy
Om
Z
�o
O
�c
�m
V)m
CIO
O
t
n0
A
O>
O
Nan
�A
OA
Z
m
r
D
A
Ln
ml*
M
Q
z
0:5
C
m m
Z
rn
v
=
D
co
ND
D
I
--4
m
Z
0
COn
,
o
N
2
m
�
O
z0
oZ
z
O
N
CONSOLIDATION - PERCENT
O t0 co V a- Cl1 A W N O
�o
100
0
.O
360
z
O
720
r
1000
0
1080
1440
>
O
ri
N
z
N
2880
c
I
1
m
5760
m
r
m
N
110000
N
C
11520
D
:E)
m
t
4
C
m
100000
SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION FRICTION
COHESION (psf) REMARKS
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DIRECT
SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
�
3000
I
I
. .I •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOSCO LA QUINTA
-
I
I
i
I
L—
'
2000
- I
I
I
I
I
I
N
0—
I
I
I
1
~
I
I
I
I
Z
W
N
cr
I
I
I
I
w
1 1
I
I
I
I
(=
1000
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
2308
0 ,577 1000 1154 1731 2000
3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION FRICTION
COHESION (psf) REMARKS
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
ANGLE °
�
B-1 ® 1.0 TO 5.0 FT
•
176
30'
REMOLDED � 90%
R.C. SATURATED
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION FRICTION
COHESION (psf) REMARKS
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
��. Dvp9 Ic° y° aa1 s— ,. ';. awl c9.d ,-
30. En4r9rfc. SH..i 113 E'.nonr
®
230 S30D waab. 760
Efconei.o. C° 92029 Sw Er ancnco, o. 9.,07 Hanlon, fY )100c
17601 736.6000
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
DATE:
1.2/os/oo
FIG. N0.
Ille
,DIRECT SHEAR TEST- RESULTS
3000
COHESION (psf)
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ANGLE °
I� 2000
•
I
I
I
I
I
REVIEWED BY:
HGE 112/05/00
DATE:
N
I
I
I
I
CL
I
I
I
Z
w
V)
w
I
I
I
I
(= 1000.
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
0
I
I
i
577 1000 1154 1731 2000
0
2308 3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
SYMBOL
SAMPLE LOCATION
COHESION (psf)
FRICTION
REMARKS
5700 4�.a•�a. 1 560
E�nna�o'Ce 92029 is 0,19103 Hanlon, i[ >200�
17601 756.6000
ANGLE °
�
B-1 � 5.0 FT
202
35'
NATURAL- FIELD SHEARS
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE 112/05/00
DATE:
FIG. N0.
���f
SATURATED
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
0 a.°e (Corps ehf Sen hmiet,ee Ce{/ Coal Ins
30.230
®
5700 4�.a•�a. 1 560
E�nna�o'Ce 92029 is 0,19103 Hanlon, i[ >200�
17601 756.6000
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE 112/05/00
DATE:
FIG. N0.
���f
'LOCATION
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
3000
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
�
•
2000
I I
I
I I
I
�
v
I I
I I
C�
•
Z
I I
I I
W
N
'
I I
I
I• I
I
Li
I I
I I
I I
N
1000
I I
I I
0
I I
I I
I I
I I
0
577 1000 1154
1731 2000 2308
3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
+
CONSULTANTS
® S30� w i2aS 4f Saw hvacfAcO C��Caaal Ana
E.co -. Ca 92029 San frmcp'co 1., le. 270 l3M0 .a, 760
12601 X30.0000 9..05 H m mer 72002
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY .111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. N0.
00-1821 HGE 12/05/00 ���g
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
50 8D
N
GRAVEL
SAND
RET.
W
#16
0.0
100.0
mm
SILT AND CLAY
99.7
#50
10.2
89.8
#100
O
53.2
U
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
ME01Uu
FINE
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS #4
SAMPLE
RET.
% PASS
#16
0.0
100.0
#30
0.3
99.7
#50
10.2
89.8
#100
46.8
53.2
#200
77.5
22.5
0
0
z
U)
a
IL
r -
z
W
U
C
W
IL
BORING: B-1
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 1.0 TO 5.0 FT.
S— aE a 1.i 30w 7b .io 2•A 33a� w m..�
30i Eirnp�ii Slriil 3)3 crimen
Ecco—, C0 97029 U F-- co. 9.100 wilan T. 11001
17601 136.6800
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST,
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. N0.
00-1821
1 HGE
12/05/00
111h
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS -.
SIEVE
TEST
DATA
mm
O
541' AND CLAY
0.0
100.0
j/50
t.8
98.2
�
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
FINE
DATE:
FIG. NO.
7 4
0
00-1821
3 2 11 t/ 4 610 14 20 30 40 560 800
200 325
illi
100
10-
90
20
80
61
30
70
Z
Z '
F
40-
-60
N
W
0:
Q +
0
F-
50
50
F
Z
Z
U
6p
40
U
K
0:
a
70
30
a
so
20
90-:=10
02-
100
0
100
50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1.
.05 .01
.005 .001
-
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
f
S
m
J
GRAVEL
'
'SAND
RET.
mm
O
541' AND CLAY
0.0
100.0
j/50
t.8
98.2
�
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
4EOIU1,1
FINE
DATE:
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS #4
.SAMPLE
RET.
% PASS
/%30
0.0
100.0
j/50
t.8
98.2
i/t00
i5.t
Ba.9
(/ 200
48.3.
REVIEWED BY:
BORING: e-1
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 5.0 FT.
sm 0(F90 lce.vA.Ae./ sm F".... ;° 230 l3wo�u T�;a ",1:. wo
]0. E+M1•pne 3rrr.i 3�, Freina+
Ecc 0. CA 92029 S. Fhuncbco. co. 9.,05 w.rvn, f1 ••002
12601 •38.8800
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 1 1 1 AND WASHINGTON • ST.
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. NO.
00-1821
HGE
12/05/00
illi
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS -
SIEVE TEST
DATA
SAMPLE
% PASS
ye
o.0
-U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
100.0
m
SILT AND CLAY
TOSCO LA QUINTA
99.8
74
so 6o
3 2 11 z 1 34 1/ 3/a 1 4 4 610 14 20 30 40 60 100
200 325
O
u
COARSE
COARSE
FFINE
COARSE
COARSE
°
FINE
FINE
22.5
HGE
��.s
100
58.0
10-
0
20
20
80
W
3O
70
(�
Z
Z
a0
60
H
W
�
so
a
o.
z
so
F
z
W
U
6O
40
U
It
La
O
70
30
W
0.
80
20
9O
10
100
100
s° 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1
.05
0
.01 .005 .001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAvEL SAND
N
MINUS
RET.
#4
SAMPLE
% PASS
ye
o.0
100.0
m
SILT AND CLAY
TOSCO LA QUINTA
99.8
y30
0.6
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
O
u
COARSE
COARSE
FFINE
COARSE
COARSE
MEDIUM
MEOIum
FINE
FINE
22.5
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS
RET.
#4
SAMPLE
% PASS
ye
o.0
100.0
y 16
0.2
TOSCO LA QUINTA
99.8
y30
0.6
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
99.4
y50
4.2
FIG. N0.
95.8
yloo
22.5
HGE
��.s
y200
58.0
42.0
BORING: 6-1
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 8.0 FT.
s30 °":'� A :"' 315 f � ana�. o p c...1 A.
5500 Mune -.
160
E.cm.fa.. C< 92029 6°• ir.nal. °. 9.10 T.•
11601 1586800 M0Vf1°°
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. N0.
00-1821
HGE
12/05/00:
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS -
SIEVE TEST
DATA
N4
W
J
tao.o
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
0.2
,
m
m
O
SILT AND CLAY
0.3
99.7
7 4
50 80
3 2 1/2 1 3/ 1/ 3/ 1,! 4 610 14 2030 40 60 100
200 325
O
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
0
FINE
N 200
61.2
38.8
100
10
90
20 -
so
W
30
70
V
Z
Z
a0
BO
�
W
C
so
Q
0
�
50
►-
2
Z
U
60
40
V
aw
70
30
W
d
60
HIIN
20
90
t0
100
0
100
50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1
.05
.01 .005 .001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
N
canvEU
SAND
N4
W
J
tao.o
NS
0.2
,
m
m
O
SILT AND CLAY
0.3
99.7
N30
0.4
99.6
O
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
N 200
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS #4
RET.
SAMPLE
% PASS
N4
0.o
tao.o
NS
0.2
99.8
#16
0.3
99.7
N30
0.4
99.6
Nso
1.3
98.7
#100
9.6
90.4
N 200
61.2
38.8
BORING: 8-1
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 11.0 FT.
SaE pn «cp 5 5""'
M- m r""77o Ow C—t A—
C4 92029 SES F� ,itFo ,..9�05 $S Mwyon n�lv. 7700160
17601 136.6600
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. NO.
Illk
HGE
12/05/00
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA
t
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
so so
li
100 so 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .os .01 .005 ..001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
IA
f
SAND
RET.
L
#16
IA
GRAVEL
SAND
RET.
% PASS
#16
0.0
100.0
of
0)
O
SILT AND CLAY
96.6
#50
46.3
53.7
/100
O
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
12/05/00
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS #4
SAMPLE
RET.
% PASS
#16
0.0
100.0
#30 -
3.4
96.6
#50
46.3
53.7
/100
81.6
18.4
#200
92.4
7.6
O
a
Z
In
in
Q
a
1-
2
U
D:
W
a
BORING: B-1
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 15.0 FT.
®sA m,.o rcA.,A.A�I s. ...�e 6uv r�.l ..v
l0a Enl,rmn, 9rr„r 5700 M,marm. , 760
E.... . CA 97029 1. c.rna,c9 ca.19.10 rru•,ryrr, 1y 11001
17601 >36.6600
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
'SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. N0.
00-1821
HGE
12/05/00
un
•
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS.
SIEVE TEST
DATA
SAMPLE
% PASS
W
J
o.0
JOB NAME:
100.0
a)
SILT AND CLAY
SITE ADDRESS:
98.7
y6
3.6
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
m
O
y16
�
COARSE
SINE
7 6
50 80
3 2 1'/2 1 3/ 1/ 3/ 1/4 6 610 14 2030 40 60 100
200 325
80.0
y50
31.5
0
yloo
a9.o
s1.o
100
73.4
/0
90
20
80
W
30
)0
U
z
Z
40-
60
tn
W
5o
Q
a
r
s0
zLLI
I—
z
C
60
s0
cr
La
7;
30
W
a
eo
zo
90
10
1000
100
50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1
.05
.01 .005 .001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
r
N
GRAVEL
SAND
SAMPLE
% PASS
W
J
o.0
JOB NAME:
100.0
a)
SILT AND CLAY
SITE ADDRESS:
98.7
y6
3.6
REVIEWED BY:
m
O
y16
�
COARSE
SINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
TINE
80.0
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS
RET.
#4
SAMPLE
% PASS
y3/e �
o.0
JOB NAME:
100.0
y4
1 .3
SITE ADDRESS:
98.7
y6
3.6
REVIEWED BY:
96.4
y16
6.4
93.6
y30
20.0
Illm
80.0
y50
31.5
68.5
yloo
a9.o
s1.o
y200
73.4
26.6
BORING: B-1
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 20.0 FT.
sm Amo rEe.pu v1.f :,�"If C-1 ...6
70. Enrerw�.1 S�•cH 315 f.cmpnr 250 1300 N.mor�w, r 560
EuarMae. Ca 9xOx9 Sw'"C'sco. car9aW5 wwlrm, .. 11001
11601 136.8800
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. N0.
00-1821
HGE
12/05/00
Illm
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS -
SIEVE
TEST
DATA
m
.p
U
SILT AND CLAY
COARSE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
yt00__-St.B
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
0
7 a
go
3 2 112 1 3/ 1/ 3/ 1/ 4 610 1a 20 30 40 560 100 200 325
i6.t
00-1821
HGE
112/05/00.1
IIIA
100
0
:0-
80
O
Sp
70
L3
z
Z
F
!0
60
in
rc
n
so
�
F
z
V
60
♦p
z
U
0:
¢
IL
70
,
30
(-
BO
20
9p
10
1D0
0
lop
50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1
.05 .01
.005 .001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
N
W
GRAVEL
SAND
% RET.
m
.p
U
SILT AND CLAY
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
U.S. STD. SIEVE
'
MINUS #4
SAMPLE
% RET.
% PASS'
#30
o.o
-
t oD.o
y50 -
3.7
96.3
yt00__-St.B
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
a8.2
y200
83.9
i6.t
BORING: B-1
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 25.0 FT.
® S30 allE Sn.°''11—tl) 315 -wl I,. ° c4v Cowl 'm
250 53M0 4.1. r(`, 560
E..9.ma,. En 92029 S. G—il— i.. 9.105 w.1e 11001
17601 1$8.6$00
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. N0.
00-1821
HGE
112/05/00.1
IIIA
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
- SIEVE TEST
DATA
y4
O1
100.0
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
0.2
99.8
//t6
•.
7 a
y30
ao
3 2 11 2 1 3/ 1/ 3/ 1/` s 610 14 20 30 40 560 100
200 325
O
COARSE
TINE
COARSE
0
FINE
yzoo
e1.a
19.2
t00
10
90
20
60
W
30
70
V
Z
Z
r
40-:60
h
W
C
50
Q
O
H
50
H
2
2:
uj U
60
40
U
w
• Wa
70
30
R
Wa
so
zo
90
10 '
100
0
100
50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1
.OS
.01 .005 .001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
SILT AND CLAY
O
N,
W
MINUS #4
RET.
SAMPLE
% PASS
y4
O1
100.0
y8
0.2
99.8
//t6
0.7
99.3
y30
m
96. t
O
COARSE
TINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
yzoo
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS #4
RET.
SAMPLE
% PASS
y4
o.0
100.0
y8
0.2
99.8
//t6
0.7
99.3
y30
3.9
96. t
y50
22.1
77.9
yloo
6z.7
37.3
yzoo
e1.a
19.2
BORING: B-1
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 30.0 FT.
r �� , 919 1..men1'""�", a 1,4 C-1 A-
5]Oa1ne•.. Ser ! 2b 9]00 Wmaof. „ 560
Eu -ado. CG 92029 Son E.-utco, e.19ai09 out,-; T[ 11CD1
® 11601 1]6.6600
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED I
DATE:
FIG. N0.
1110
HGE
12/05/00
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS -SIEVE
MINUS
RET.
TEST
DATA
W
o.o
JOB NAME:
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
m
- 0.2
.
99.8
7 4
0
a.5
50 80
3 2 11 2 1 34 1/ 3/ 1/4 4 6 10 14 20 30 40 60 100
200 325
H50
�
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
}},7
//200
100
, }.7
10-:=90
20
60
70
Z
Z
Fa
40
60
In
to
s
a
50---50
z
z
U
60
s0
U
0:
d
70------30
O:
d
20
90
10
1010
0
.
100
50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1
.05 .01
.005 .001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SANG
s1Lr AND cur
0
r
en
MINUS
RET.
#4
SAMPLE
% PASS
W
o.o
JOB NAME:
,00.o
m
- 0.2
.
99.8
#30
a.5
JOB NUMBER:
m
H50
�
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
}},7
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS
RET.
#4
SAMPLE
% PASS
N8
o.o
JOB NAME:
,00.o
//, 6
- 0.2
99.8
#30
a.5
JOB NUMBER:
95.5
H50
27.6
72.4
(%,00
66..3
(��p
}},7
//200
86.}
, }.7
BORING: 8-1
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 35.0 FT.
® :A„ 01r9. (carp. tr) S A.. r.m..t.r. 61 v C-1 A-
30- E.1 . 4. 5�r..i 325 — .1. 250 Wmm:m. . 560
lw 1111.1,.C..i.. 9.107 5]MO
EIC -1. EA 92029 Ta 1100r
an1m,
17601 '39.6800
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. N0.
00-1821
HGE
12/05/00
(��p
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS -
SIEVE TEST
DATA
e
m
o.0
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
SILT AND CLAS
#16
0.3
SITE ADDRESS:
99.7
7 a
3 2 t12 t 3/ 1/ 3/ 80
1 < 4 610 14 20 30 40 50 60 00
200 325
u
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
0
7FINE
aa.7
uia
51.3
100
7a.o
10
90
20
60
W
70
U
Z
Z
H
40
60
N
W
o
Q
a
r
soSo
ZLi
U
60
40
r
Z
V
w
a
70
No
30
4
60
20
90
/0
100
100
50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1
.05
.01 .005 .001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
m
W
GRAVEL
sawo
SAMPLE
% PASS
m
o.0
JOB NAME:
SILT AND CLAS
#16
0.3
SITE ADDRESS:
99.7
y.30
m
O
JOB NUMBER:
u
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
uEOWu
7FINE
aa.7
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS
RET.
#4
SAMPLE
% PASS
ya
o.0
JOB NAME:
100.0
#16
0.3
SITE ADDRESS:
99.7
y.30
0.5
JOB NUMBER:
99.5
Nso
e.z
sl.e
y 100
aa.7
uia
51.3
yzoo
7a.o
2z.o
BORING: B-1
ANTHONY—TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 40.0 FT.
5— 61 f e . C,, EO6,,,,,,
]0� En�n p;.�s1r1 313 `mT Nawe4,Be 20!30 1300 Mnnafi ii00560
Elcana�ao. CO 92029 Son ronmc we m
11601 1366600
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. N0.
00-1821
HGE
12/05/00
uia
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS -
SIEVE TEST
DATA
i/3/8
m
700.0
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
SILT AND CLAY
99.5
•
0.9
,99.7
7 4
so
} 2 tt 2 lI }/ t/ }/ 1 4 610 14 20 30 40 560 00
200 325
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
0
94.7
a 100
39.7
60.9
100
6a.2
3s.e
t0
90
20
80
W
}0
70
V
2
2:
C
a
so
50
z
z
U
60-
40
U
C
a:
a
70
}0
a
fio
20
90
10
100
0
•
100
50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1
.05
.01 .005 .001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
r •
• N
W
GRAVEL
SANG
i/3/8
m
700.0
Na
SILT AND CLAY
99.5
•
0.9
,99.7
i%76
�
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
5.9
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS
RET.
#4 SAMPLE
% PASS
i/3/8
0.0
700.0
Na
0.5
99.5
{/8 1
0.9
,99.7
i%76
7.2
98.8
H30
1.5
98.5
NSO
5.9
94.7
a 100
39.7
60.9
N2oo
6a.2
3s.e
DEPTH: 45.0 FT.
®saivA reA y, el.1 sA�
10 na Elie, c..y C-1 AZI
J0. Enincr:.c SIre.I J2! crcma• 250 lSNO 4nmer•a�, r !fi0
E.cenpee. CA 92029 San i•en<i.co, v� 9.i0! o .Im, to 2>•CO2
12601 238.8800
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
00-1821
REVIEWED BY:
HGE
DATE:
12/05/00
fIG. N0.
ilir
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS -SIEVE TEST DATA
O
W
Z
Q
La
W
D:
F -
Z
U
0:
W
IL
1
100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
so eo
N
1q
GRAVEL
SAND
Jj3/8"
J
0l
m
100.0
N4
SILT AND CLAY
99.6
N8
0.8
99.2
#16
O
U
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
6.8
U.S. STD. SIEVE
MINUS #4
RET.
SAMPLE
% PASS
Jj3/8"
0.0
100.0
N4
0.4
99.6
N8
0.8
99.2
#16
1.6
98.4
#30
2.9
97.1
#50
6.8
93.2
X1100
27.7
72.3
#200
53.7
46.3
BORING: 6-1
ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS
DEPTH: 50.0 FT.
SAO ou4.5`°'S1:.:N �.s -:`'"` ;1°. �>o »o�..�.t AT.6
E.c 64* EO 97029 San F.p.c F 9..05 w0—= ii iFao,
In 17601 I36.6800
JOB NAME:
TOSCO LA QUINTA
SITE ADDRESS:
N.W. CORNER OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST.
JOB NUMBER:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
FIG. 140.
00-1821
HGE
12/05/00
�118
z
xlQ��aa�
r-
y
4
r
r i
xlQ��aa�
APPENDIX A
Blake, T.F., 2000, FRISKSP Software, Version 4.0
Blake, T.F., 2000, EQFAULT Software, Version 3.0
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999. Index to Seismic
Hazard Zone Maps. Last Revised: June 15, 2000.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, California
Geomorphic Provinces. DMG Note 36.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997. Guidelines for
Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 117, 74p
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996. Guidelines for
Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture, DMG Note 49. -
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996. Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California. Open -File Report 96-08
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet.
Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, compiled by C.W. Jennings, Scale 1:250,000, Fourth Printing,
1992.
California Building Standards Commission, 1998, California Building Code, Volume 2, 497p.
Campbell, K.W., 1993, Empirical Prediction of Near -Source Ground Motion from Large
Earthquakes, in Proceedings of International Workshop on Earthquake Hazard and Large
Dams in the Himalaya, Sponsored by the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural
Heritage (INTACH), New Delhi, India, January 15-16.
Hart,. E. W., W. A. Bryant, 1997, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, `Department of
Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised 1997.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, 492p.
Jennings, C.W., 1992, Preliminary Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and
Geology Open -File Report 92-03.
.. ,
«S» xi(IN:lddv
r
x
4
t'
E
'
• Y
� x
� N
r
e
r
«S» xi(IN:lddv
r
x
4
t'
'
• Y
� x
� N
Unified Soil Classification Chart
Soil Description
COARSE-GRAINED
More than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve.
GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS
GW
More than half of coarse fraction is larger
than No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3".
GP
GM
GRAVELS WITH FINES
(appreciable amount)
GC
SW
SAND WITH FINES
(appreciable amount)
SP
SM
FINE:GRAINED
More than half of material is smaller than No.200 sieve
Sc
SILT AND CLAYS
ML
Liquid Limit Less Than 50
CL
OL
Liquid Limit Greater Than 50
MH
CH
OH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS P`r
Well -graded gravel and sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel -sand -silt
mixtures
Clay Gravels, poorly graded -sand silt
mixtures
Well -graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no
fines
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, littlle or
no fines
Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty
mixtures
Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay
mixtures
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour,
sandy silt and clayey -silt sand mixtures with
a slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays lean
clays.
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low
plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatommaceous
fine sandy or silty soils elastic silts
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat
clays
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity
Peat and other highly organic soils
* *
* E Q F A U L T
* Version 3.00
' DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
' JOB NUMBER: 00-1821
DATE: 09-12-2001
JOB NAME: Tosco La Quinta
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.7156
SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2955
SEARCH RADIUS: . 50 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 10) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor..-Holocene Soil -Cor.
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
---------------
EQFAULT SUMMARY
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
-----------------------------
Page 1
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
I
(ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE I
-------------------------------
- ABBREVIATED I
DISTANCE I
MAXIMUM I
PEAK
JEST. SITE
FAULT NAME 1
mi
(km) (EARTHQUAKE(
SITE
(INTENSITY
I
I
MAG.(Mw) I
ACCEL. g
1MOD.MERC.
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 1
5.8(
9.4)1
7.1 I
0.375
1 IX
SAN ANDREAS,- Southern 1
5.8(
9.4)1
7.4 J
0.410
J X
BURNT MTN. 1
16.7(
26.8)1
6.4 1
0.111
J VII
EUREKA PEAK 1
17.6(
28.4)1
6.4 1
0.105
I VII
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 1
17.8(
28.7)1
7.3 I
0.184
I VIII
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1
21.4(
34.5)1
7.2 1
0.145
1 VIII
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I
21.7(
35.0)1
6.8 1
0.110
1 VII
PINTO MOUNTAIN 1
29.3(
47.1)1
7.0 1
0.093
I VII
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1
31.3(
50.3)1
6.9 1
0.081
1 VII
LANDERS 1
31.8(
51.1)1
7.3 1
0.105
1 VII
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK J
33.6(
54.1)1
7.1 1
0.086
1 VII
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1
35.8(
57.6)1
6.9 1
0.071
1 VI
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I"
36.2(
58.2)1
6.6 1
0.057
1 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) .1
37.3(
60.1)1
6.7 1
0.083
1 VII
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1
40.5(
65.1)1
6.5 1
0.047
1 VI
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1
42.4(
68.2)1
6.4 1
0.042
1 VI '
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1
42.6(
68.5)1
6.7 1
0.051
1 VI
ELSINORE-JULIAN 1
43.6(
70.2)1
7.1 1
0.066
I VI
CALICO - HIDALGO 1
44.5(
71.6)1
7.1 I
0.065
I VI
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1
47.5(
76.4)1
6.8 1-
0.049
1 VI
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI
48.3(
77.7)1
7.3 1
0.068
1 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1
49.1(
79.0)1
7.0 1
0.077
I VII
ELMORE RANCH. 1
.49.8(
80.1)1
6.6 1
0.041
I V
-END OF SEARCH- 23 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE SAN ANDREAS - Coachella FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 5.8 MILES (9.4 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM -EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4102 g
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
-BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR HS COR 1
_. 0 0 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Acceleration (g)
100
90
80
70
01
0
.%
60
ca
°
50
a
a�
U
m
40
(D
U
X
UJ
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Acceleration (g)
1000
100
RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION
BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR HS COR 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Acceleration (g)
"CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Tosco La Quinta
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
�.; 200
100
0
-100
-400 -300 t -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
t
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Tosco La Quinta
-50
TE
t
�� \
zuu 250 300 350 400 450
y
��
. =::�
{
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
► t:.
A. These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork.
and grading, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill,
installation of sub -drains and excavations. The recommendations contained
in the geotechnicalreport are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines
and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of
conflict. Evaluation performed by the consultant during the course of
grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these
guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report.
B. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork
in accordance with provisions of the.project plans and specifications. The
project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or
their representatives should -provide observation and testing services, and
geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project.
II. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
A. Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant
(soil 'engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose
of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with
the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans,
and applicable grading codes and ordinances.
The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that
determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified.
It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep
them appraised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so theat they may
schedule their personnel accordingly.
All clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and sub -
drains should be observed and documented by the project engineering
geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor's
responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such
areas are ready for observation.
• B. Laboratory and Field Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree.of compaction should be
-+ performed in accordance with AmericanStandard Testing Materials test
method ASTM designation D-1557. Random field compaction tests should
be performed in with method ASTM designations D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-
2922 & D-3017, at intervals of approximately two (2) feet of fill height or
every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria would vary depending
on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency
of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
C. Contractor's Responsibiliy
All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should
be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants
and staged approval by the governing agencies. It is the contractor's
responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the
satisfaction of the soil engineer: And to place, spread, moisture condition,
mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil
engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non -earth material
considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer.
It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment
and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable
grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading pians.
Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction. equipment should be provided
by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of
placement, and climatic conditions. If, the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive
oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc.;
are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will
inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions,
and if necessary, stop work until'conditions are satisfactory.
During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to
maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall
take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of
graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control
measures have been installed.
A. All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and
other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These
removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium,
colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering
geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to fill
-:� placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be
reused as compacted fill. Any - materials incorporated as part of the
compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer.
B. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shags,
tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to
grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil
engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground
extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve
the condition should be over excavated down to firm ground and approved
by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Over
excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture -
conditioned should be recompacted to the minimum relative compaction as
specified in these guidelines.
C. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills
should be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches or as directed by the
soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture or
greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein.
If the scarified zone is greater than 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to
remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about six (6)
inches in compacted thickness.
D. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be
over excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils
engineering geologist. 'Scarification, dicing, or other acceptable form of
mixing should continue until'.the soils are broken down and free of large
lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform. and free from
ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit
compaction as described in Item III, C, above.
E. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to. vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest
bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
should be at least two (2) feet deep into firm material, and approved by the
soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
In fill over cut slope conditions the recommended minimum width of the
lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, ans
designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless
specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum
width of fill keys should be approximately equal to one-half (1/2) the height
of the slope. -
4
F. Standard benching is generally four feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm,
acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials,
although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed four
feet. Pre -stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of
four feet in thickness.
G. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe of
fill benches should. be observed and approved by the soil engineer .and/or
engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly
placed and compacted until design grades are attained.
IV. COMPACTED FILLS..
A. Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in
the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the
soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other
organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should
. be, removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor
gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength
characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may
require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material.
B. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed
throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock -derived material.
Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed
only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact.
C. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a
• maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed
in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically
approve by the soil engineer.
Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with
recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock
disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically
of finish .grade or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate
trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation
excavations,. future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically
approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative.
D
If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the
material to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory
by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other
than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate
analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as
possible.
E. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in
near -horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed six (6) inches
in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates
the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved
with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and
blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction.
F. Fill layers at a moisture content less thanoptimum should be watered and
mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be
blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of
the fill layers should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture
content at or above optimum moisture.
G. After each layer has been evenly- spread, moisture -conditioned and mixed, it
should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum
density as determined by ASTM test designation, D 1557-78, or as otherwise
recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be
adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or
of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction.
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is
below the required density and/or moisture content has been. attained. No
.additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of till has
been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is
approved by the soil engineer.
H1. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over -building a minimum
of three (3) feet horizontally, and 'subsequently trimming back to the design
slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to
evaluated compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may
be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone.
Final_slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose
materials with appropriate equipment.
A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation
and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are
:j designed steeper than 2:1, specific material types, a higher minim= relative
compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recommended.
I. If an alternative to over -building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes
is selected, then special effort should be mad to achieve the required
compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the
following:
Ia. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short-shanked
sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes
continuously as fill is placed: 'The sheepsfoot roller should also be
used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope
to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope.
Ib. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each
lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed
slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re -rolling.
Ic. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) two (2)
to eight (8) feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals,
subsequent to compaction operations.
Id. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with
a small tractor and then re -rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve
compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify
compaction, the slopes should be grid -rolled to achieve. cornpacr;n.,
to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction
after grid rolling.
Ie. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor
will be responsible to 'rip; water, mix and recompact the slope
materials as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing
should be performed to verify compaction.
If. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the
project civil engineer in compliance with the ordinances of the
controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the
recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist.
V. SUB -DRAIN INSTA ,I,ATinN
A. Sub -drains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the
approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant.
Sub -drain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without
approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering
geologist may recommend and direct changes in sub -drain line, grade and
drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of
constructed sub -drains should be recorded by the project civil engineer.
VI.: EXCAVATIONS
A. Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the
engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer. If directed by the
engineer geologist, further excavations or over -excavation and refilling of cut
areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be
performed. When fill over cut slopes . are to be graded, unless otherwise
approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineer
geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion
of the slope.
B. The engineer geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified
by the contractor when cut slopes are started.
If, during the course 'of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse
geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil
engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat
these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing; should be
based on in -grading evaluations by the engineering geologist, whether
anticipated previously or not...
Unless otherwise specified in soil and -geological reports, no cut slopes should
be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of
temporary cut slopes or temporary excavation is the contractors
responsibility.
E. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil
engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the
controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the
recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist.
C.
D.
If, during the course 'of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse
geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil
engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat
these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing; should be
based on in -grading evaluations by the engineering geologist, whether
anticipated previously or not...
Unless otherwise specified in soil and -geological reports, no cut slopes should
be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of
temporary cut slopes or temporary excavation is the contractors
responsibility.
E. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil
engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the
controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the
recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist.
s,
VII. COMPLETION
A. Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should
be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that
all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project
specifications.
B. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering
geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be
submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No
further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification
of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
C. All finished.cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be
planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended
` by a° landscape architect. Such protection and/or, planning should be
undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading.
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
RETAINING WALL
WTERPROOFING AS NOTED
IN THE ATTACHED FIGURE
c
FINISHED GRADE
COMPACTED
_ _ _=1F APPLICABLE= = _ _-
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
PER ASTM 01557
_MIN .
ja
.1.6� M N _ _- FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
a
r EQUIVALENT)
1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL
1' MIN. _ 4•• '(MIN) DIAMETER PERFORATED
•. _ _ PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
• _ _ = EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
� — MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
TO- SUITABLE OUTLET
3" MIN.
WALL FOOTING —/ \_*
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOT TO SCALE
ANTHONY -TAYLOR
CONSULTANTS
ii�r� � I�� MN i �•N���r��IrN � I �� � /- M Nr/, �
i� .,Z WIi •rA•. Y Yi1� �I F N\ wIV ��N YMW� MIw
ItM IIF..
IMI IMNN
YM Y�.I�y IN•�MrM1 .
-�
HL' fwnI., t-