05-3262 (CSCS) Geotechnical Exploration Report®ToBuild Oc,
jj�, `Engineering CConsulting Testing
NOS. 1 0 2005 � /Ca5! �
7
!.�? 4a0 7
1.
+ •cztr
rj� � i Information
r�� ®To Build On
Engineering • ConsuRing • Testing
Q� O�
December 19, 2005 F �P�1�®� 5'
Mr. Chris Caras
Newmark
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Foundation and Grading Plans Review
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development
NEC of Highway 111 & Dune Palms Road
La Quinta, California y
PSI Project No. 056-55001
Dear Mr. Caras:
As requested, Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) has reviewed the
foundation and grading plans for the above -referenced project in La Quinta,
California. The geotechnical recommendations contained in the PSI report dated
February 1, 2005 have been properly incorporated into the plans.
We appreciate the opportunity to perform this foundation review and look forward to
continued participation during the construction phases of this project. If you have
any questions pertaining to this letter, or if we may be of further service, please
contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
P SIONAL SE VICE INDUSTRIES, INC
ri A. Riutort PLO PA A. AV <
Pr ' t Engineerco
Qua 9iG�
CE 58623 Exp. 12/31/06 -Or 5s 0
Lu z
a: 8 - m r ,
m
X
s r
'A9j CIVIL
OF CALIFCP�
Professional Service Industries, Inc. • 3960 Gilman Street • Long Beach, CA 90815 • Phone 562/597-3977 - Fax 562/597-8459
7B� l//
J
ri�YKFInformation .To Build On
Engineering • Consulting • Testing
December 20, 2005
Re: Amended Address for Mr. Chris Caras of Grubb & Ellis
Subject: Foundation and Grading Plans Review
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development
NEC of Highway 111 & Dune Palms Road, La Quinta, California
PSI Project No. 056-55001
To Whom It May Concern:
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) understands that the correct contact
information for Mr. Chris Caras is as follows:
Mr. Chris Caras
Grubb & Ellis
445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 596-2223
Fax: (213) 488-0819
Therefore, please disregard the 725 S. Figueroa Street address in Los Angeles,
California on the attached 'Foundation and Grading Plan Review' letter.
Respectfully submitted,
PR F SSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Stephanie Mont ery
Project Manager
Professional Service Industries, Inc. • 3960 Gilman Street • Long Beach, CA 90815 • Phone 562/597-3977 • Fax 562/597-8459
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
PROPOSED RETAIL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
NEC of HIGHWAY 111 & DUNE PALMS ROAD
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
1
Information
/r .ToBu 1d On
Engineering • Consulting • Testing
February 1, 2005
Mr. Chris Caras
Newmark
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development
NEC of Highway 111 & Dune Palms Road
La Quinta, California
PSI Project No. 056-55001
Dear Mr. Caras
Professional Service Industries, Inc. is pleased to submit our 'Geotechnical
Exploration Report for the referenced project. This report presents the results of our field
investigation, laboratory testing, and our engineering analysis for preparing
recommendations for site preparation, and foundation and pavement design. Enclosed
please find two (2) copies of the report. Copies have also been sent to those listed at the
bottom of this letter, as requested.
We appreciate the opportunity to perform this Geotechnical Study and look
forward to continued participation during the design and construction phases of this
project. 1f you have any questions pertaining to this report, or if we may be of further
service, please contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Stephanie Montg m ry ri e A. Riutort, RCE
Staff Geologist Di rict Manager
CE 58623 Exp. 12/31/06
Reviewed by: Q1koFEss/ON
James W. Niehoff Q�o4�� A. R�G� �2
Senior Technical Professional CD ?Q o Q
W Cp5 6 M
fr FxP! / M
Cc: (1) Jeff Lowden
(1) Mark Giles, KKE s�q CNIL �P
OF CA"Of0 �
Professional Service Industries, Inc. • 3960 Gilman Street • Long Beach, CA 90815 • Phone 562/597-3977 • Fax 562/597-8459
February 1, 2005
Mr. Chris Caras
Newmark
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA. 90017
Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development
NEC of Highway 111 & Dune Palms Road
La Quinta, California
PSI Project No. 056-55001
Dear Mr. Caras:
Professional Service Industries, Inc. is pleased to submit our Geotechnical
Exploration Report for the referenced project. This report presents the results of our field
investigation, laboratory testing, and our engineering analysis for preparing
recommendations for site preparation, and foundation and pavement design. Enclosed
please find two (2) copies of the report. Copies have also been sent to those listed at. the
bottom of this letter, as requested.
We appreciate the opportunity to perform this Geotechnical Study and .look
forward to continued participation during the design and construction phases of this
project. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, or if we may be of further
service, please contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
Stephanie Montgomery Enrique A. Riutort, RCE
Staff Geologist District Manager
RCE 58623 Exp. 12/31/06
Reviewed by:
James W. Niehoff
Senior Technical Professional
Cc: (1) Jeff Lowden
(1) Mark Giles, KKE
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development
NEC of Highway 1.11 & Dune Palms Road
La Quinta, California
PSI File No. 056-55001
PREPARED FOR '
Mr. Chris Caras
Newmark
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90017 '
February 1, 2005
BY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
3960 GILMAN STREET
• LONG BEACH;, CALIFORNIA 90815
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................1
PROJECT INFORMATION................................................................................................4
• Project Authorization.............................................................................................4
• Project Description................................................................................................4
• Purpose and Scope of Services ........................
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................:....................................................5
• Site Location and Description................................................................................5
• Subsurface Conditions..........................................................................................5
• Groundwater Information..................................................................:...................6
SEISMICITY....................................................................................................................7
• Seismicity and Faulting.........................................................................................7
• Earthquake Design Parameters............................................................................9
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION........:...............................................:
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. :.............................. ......1.0
• Site Preparation ....................
• Shrinkage/Swell Factors.....................................................................................12
• Temporary Excavations......................................................................................12
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................13
• Structural Foundations........................................................................................13
• Interior Floor Slab................................................................................................14
• Static Settlement............................................................... :................................. 14
• Soil Sulfate Content............................................................................................14
• Pavement Recommendations.............................................................................15
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................16
• Moisture Sensitive Soils/Weather Related Concerns..........................................16
• Drainage and Groundwater Considerations................................................ :....... 17
• Excavations.........................................................................................................17
• Trench Backfill.....................................................................................................18
ADDITIONALSERVICES..............................................................................................19
1.
REPORTLIMITATIONS................................................................................................19
FIGURES
• Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
• Figure 2: Boring Location Map
APPENDICES
• Appendix A: References
• Appendix B: Exploration Logs
• Appendix C: Laboratory Test Results
• Appendix D: Seismic Analysis - Computer Output
• Appendix E: Standard Guidelines For Grading Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For your convenience, the following paragraphs and tables present the major
findings and provide recommendations for the proposed retail/commercial development in .
La Quinta, California.
To provide for uniform support of the new structure, overexcavation and
recompaction of near -surface soils is recommended for both slab and foundation support.
The existing fill materials should be completely removed within the building pad area.
Provided the overexcavation is performed, the structure can be supported on shallow
spread footing foundations. The recommended depth of overexcavation is approximately
36 inches below the bottom of proposed footings. The recommended depth of
overexcavation for parking areas is 12 inches below existing grade.
The native soils may represent a moderately corrosive environment with respect to
concrete. Type II cement with a maximum water -cement ratio of 0.50 is minimally
recommended for concrete in contact with the ground. The final concrete mix design
should be evaluated after sulfate testing is performed on actual subgrade:materials.
The regional seismicity is comparable to the rest of southern California. The '
nearest potentially active fault is the San Andreas Fault — Southern Segment, located
approximately 5.1 miles (8.2 km) from the site. The site is not located within a currently
established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone. The site is not located within a
seismic hazard zone for liquefaction potential. The Uniform Building .Code should be
followed with respect to seismic design.
Table 1 presents a summary of our recommendations.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
3
2
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Design Item
Recommended Design
Parameter
FOUNDATIONS:
Allowable Bearing Pressure
2,000 psf
Minimum Footing Width
15 inches continuous footing
24 inches isolated spread footing
Minimum Footing Embedments
18 inches
Minimum Reinforcement
Structural engineer to design for
low expansion potential
Estimated Foundation Settlement
1 inch total/
1/2 inch differential
Cement Type, & Water -Cement Ratio
Type 11 & 0.50
PAVEMENTS:
Asphalt Concrete Pavement:
Parking Areas
3.0" over 4.0" Class 2 AB
Heavy Traffic
3.0" over 6.0" Class 2 AB
PCC Pavement:
Light Traffic
5.0" over 4.0" Class 2 AB
Heavy Traffic
6.0" over 4.0" Class 2 AB
CONCRETE SLABS:
Interior/Exterior:
Slab Subgrade Preparation
As recommended in report text
Minimum Reinforcement
Structural engineer to design for
low expansion potential
PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS:
Soil Sulfate Content
Moderate
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
Design Item Recommended Design
Parameter
Expansive Nature Of Site Soils Low expansion potential
Groundwater Depth Encountered Not encountered
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA "
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
3
PROJECT INFORMATION
Proiect Authorization
0
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) has completed a geotechnical
exploration for a proposed retail/commercial to be located on the northeast corner of
Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, in La Quinta, California. Authorization for the
geotechnical services was issued by Chris Caras of Newmark on January 15, 2005.
Project Description
Project information in the form of a conceptual site plan and oral discussion was
provided by Newmark. Based on our review of the provided information, we understand
the proposed construction will include the following:
Construction of four single -story, slab -on grade buildings between 8,600 and
10,000 square foot in plan in the northern three acres,
A paved parking lot;
Underground utilities and other associated improvements.
The presently vacant six -acre parcel will be developed as northern and southern
portions, each three acres. The northern three acres will be developed with the four
proposed buildings and parking and driveway areas. The southern three acres will be
developed in the future. Preliminary plans call for the proposed buildings to be supported
by conventional shallow foundations with maximum column and wall loads on the order
of 120 kips and 3.5 kips per linear foot, respectively.
The geotechnical recommendations presented in this, report are based on the
provided project information, proposed building, location, and the subsurface materials
described in this report. If any of the noted information is incorrect, please inform PSI in
writing so that we may amend recommendations presented in this report if appropriate.
PSI will not be responsible for its recommendations when it is not notified of changes in
the project.
Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site to
enable an evaluation of acceptable foundation systems for the proposed construction. This
report briefly outlines the testing procedures, describes the site and subsurface conditions,
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
5
and presents geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and for general site
development.
Our scope of services included drilling seven test borings at the site. Additional
work included appropriate laboratory testing and preparation of this geotechnical report.
This report briefly outlines the testing procedures, presents available project information,
describes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents preliminary recommendations
regarding the following:
• Grading procedures for site development;
• Foundation types, depths, allowable bearing capacities, and an estimate of
potential settlement;
• Comments regarding factors that will impact construction and performance of. the
proposed construction.
Our scope of did not include an environmental assessment for determining
the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock,
surface water, groundwater, or air on or below, or around this site. Any statements in this
report or on the boring logs regarding .odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or
conditions are strictly for informational purposes.
SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . .
Site Location and Description
The proposed buildings will be located within an existing commercial area at the
northeast corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, in the City of La Quinta. The site
is currently vacant of structures. The site is bounded by Highway 111 to the south, Dune
Palms Road to the west, an irrigation channel to the north, and existing retail/commercial
properties to the east.
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored with seven soil test borings.
Four of the borings were drilled within the proposed building pads for the buildings in the
northern three acres and the remaining three borings were drilled within the southern three
acres, with one boring in each acre. The borings within the building pads were drilled to
approximate depths ranging between 20 and 50 feet below existing grade, and the borings
within southern three acres were drilled, to an approximate depth of 20 feet below existing
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
0
grade. All the test borings were advanced using hollow stem auger drilling methods and
representative undisturbed soil samples were collected. Drilling and sampling techniques
were accomplished generally in accordance with ASTM procedures.
As observed in our exploratory borings, the subject site is mantled by alluvial
deposits, which extend at least to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet
below existing site grade. The alluvium consisted of light and dark brown sands (SP),
silty sands (SM) and silts (ML). These materials were noted to be dry to slightly moist and
very loose/stiff to very dense/hard at the time of our exploration. The near -surface soils
are considered to have a low expansion potential (UBC 18-2).
The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the major
subsurface *stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs included in
the Appendix should be reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations.
These.records include soil descriptions, stratifications, penetration resistances, locations of
the samples. and laboratory test data. The stratifications shown on the - boning logs
represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations at the time of our exploration.
Variations may occur and should be, expected between :boring locations.
The stratifications. indicated on. the .boring logs represent the approximate
boundaries between subsurface materials. The actual transitions may be. gradual. Water
level information obtained during field operations is also shown on these boring logs. The
samples which were not altered by laboratory testing will be retained for approximately 60
days from the date of this report and then will be discarded.
Select soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine materials properties
for our evaluation. Laboratory testing was accomplished generally in accordance with
ASTM procedures. A brief discussion of the laboratory tests performed and the results of
our testing are presented in Appendix C.
Groundwater Information
Groundwater was not -encountered during our field exploration to the maximum
explored depth of approximately 50 feet below ground surface. It should be noted,
however, that seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
A
SEISMICITY
Seismicity and Faulting
7
Reqional Seismicity — Generally, seismicity within California can be attributed to
faulting due to regional tectonic movement. This includes the San Andreas Fault and
other sub -parallel strike -slip faults, as well as normal and thrust faulting within the State.
The area of the subject site is considered seismically active. The subject site is situated in
the UBC Seismic Zone 4. Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to potential
ground shaking resulting from earthquake events along nearby or more distant faulting.
. According to the regional geologic literature, the closest known Late Quaternary
fault is the San Andreas Fault — Southern Segment, located approximately 5.1 miles (8.2
km) from the site. Several potentially active and Pre -Quaternary faults also occur .within
the regional vicinity.
. Seismic Analysis — The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing deterministic
methods for active Quaternary faults within -:the regional vicinity. According to the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1.972 (revised 1993) Quaternary faults have been
classified as active ..faults which show apparent surface. rupture during the last .11,000
years (i.e., Holocene time).. This site is not within .a currently mapped: Earthquake Fault
Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1992).
Deterministic seismicity at the site was evaluated with the Eqfault computer
program (Blake, 1995), which utilizes a digitized map (updated 1998) of known Late
Quaternary earthquake faults, a catalog of the estimated credible and potential
earthquakes for each fault, and a user specified attenuation relationship (Campbell &
Bozorgnia, 1997). The fault database includes additional Quaternary faults that may be
potentially active according to some researchers, although these faults may not be
considered active as determined by the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Output from the
Eqfault program is presented in Appendix D.
Historical Seismicity — Three significant historical events (7.1 M or greater) have
affected the site vicinity during this century. They are as follows:
• Hector Mine Event - On October 16, 1999 a magnitude 7.1 ML earthquake
occurred within the Bullion Mountains (Toppozada 2000).
• Landers Event - On June 28, 1992, the. Yucca Valley was subjected to the largest
seismic event to strike Southern California in 40 years. The Landers earthquake
had a main shock magnitude MS 7.5 (7.3 MW). Surface rupture occurred just
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
u
n
south of,the town of Yucca Valley and extended some 70 km (43 mi.) towards
Barstow along portions of Camp Rock -Emerson, Johnson Valley, and
Homestead Valley Fault systems. Surface horizontal offsets attained a maximum
of 21 feet (OSMS 1992).
• Big Bear Event - Some three hours after the Landers event of June 28, 1992, a
magnitude 6.6 MS event occurred 10 mi southeast of Big Bear Lake. The
earthquake occurred on a previously unknown fault trending northeast from the
San Andreas Fault in the San' Bernardino Mountains (OSMS 1992).
Seismic Hazard Assessment
Although earthquake predictions of time, place, and magnitudes have not been
scientifically developed, significant geologic information and statistical analysis have
been compiled, intensely analyzed, and published by various agencies over the past 25
years.
The primary seismic source nearby to the project site is the San Andreas Fault —
Southern ,and Coachella Segments, which. lie approximately 5.1 to 5.5 miles (8.2 to 8.8
km) from the site.
Ground motion: The primary seismic hazard .at the project site is strong ground
motion from 'earthquakes .'along nearby active faults. The Maximum Credible .
Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of
occurring under the presently known tectonic framework. Based on our analysis,
the site is subject to an MCE magnitude of 7.4 along the San Andreas Fault —
Southern Segthment with a corresponding median Peak Ground Acceleration of
0.42g, and 84 percentile (one standard deviation) PGA of 0.62g.
The Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) is based on 10% probability of exceedance in
50 years. Based on CGS seismic ground motion analysis for the latitude -longitude
at the site, the ground motions representing the DBE are shown in the table below:
10%PE in 50 yr
PGA
0.593
0.2 sec SA
1.329
1.0 sec SA
0.772
PGA = Peak Ground Acceleration
PE = Probabilistic Exceedance
SA = Spectral Acceleration period length.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
N
E
Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture: The project site does not lie within a State
of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Fault rupture is not
anticipated to occur at the project site because of the well -delineated fault lines
through this region. However, due to the active seismicity of California, this
possibility cannot be completely ruled out. In this light, the unlikely hazard of
lurching or ground -rupture should not preclude consideration of "flexible" design for
on -site utility lines and connections.
Landsliding: Seismically induced landsliding is not considered a hazard on, or
adjacent to the site. This conclusion is primarily based on the lack of hillsides or
slopes on or adjacent to the site. No evidence of prior landsliding was observed
on the site during our investigation, despite several historic seismic events. .
Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement: Liquefaction and seismically
induced settlement typically occur in loose granular soils with groundwater near the
ground surface. During an earthquake, ground shaking causes the soil to collapse
and the groundwater to rapidly rise to the surface, resulting in a sudden loss of soil
bearing strength. Fine-grained soils are not generally susceptible to:liquefaction or
to short-term settlerrient.due to seismic loads.
Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration to the maximum,
explored depth of approximately 50 feet below ground surface.
Tsunamis and Seiches: Inundation by tsunamis (seismic or "tidal waves") or
seiches ("tidal waves" in confined bodies of water) are not considered to be a
significant threat to the subject site due to the absence of proximal large bodies of
water.
Earthquake Design Parameters
A review of the 1997 Uniform Building Code Maps of Active Fault Near -Source
Zones indicates that the nearest fault is the San Andreas Fault — Southern Segment,
located approximately 2.0 miles (3.3 km) away. Ground shaking from this fault and the
other potentially active and Pre -Quaternary faults in the region is the most likely event that
will affect the site. The site is located within UBC Seismic Zone 4. In conjunction with the
soil classifications provided in Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, our field exploration indicates
that the geologic subgrade at the subject site can be characterized as soil.profile type SD.
The proposed structure should be designed in accordance with seismic design
requirements of the UBC 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, utilizing the' following
criteria:
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
10
UBC Chapter 16
Seismic Parameter
,, Value
Table 16-1
Seismic Zone Factor, Z
0.4
Table 16-J
Soil Profile Type
SD
Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, Ca
0.47,
Table 16-R
Seismic Coefficient, C„
0.86
Table 16-S
Near Source Factor, Na
1.1
Table 16-T
Near Source Factor, N„
1.3
Table 16-U
Seismic Source Type
A
In addition, design of structures should comply with the requirements of the
governing jurisdiction's building codes and standard practices of the Structural Engineers
Association of California.
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
As previously discussed, the primary. geotechnical issue at the site that will affect .
the construction of the proposed structure is the presence of some loose material across
the proposed building pads and parking areas.
Based upon the assumed column loads, the proposed structure can be supported
on conventional shallow foundations, provided that they are entirely supported by properly
compacted fill. The existing fill materials should be excavated, moisture conditioned, then
replaced as uniformly compacted fill to provide for uniform bearing across the building pad.
The recommended depth of overexcavation is approximately 36 inches below bottom of
- footings. The recommended depth of overexcavation for parking areas is 12 inches below
existing grade or finished grade, which ever is deeper.
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed construction at the site should be performed in accordance with the
following recommendations and the standard guidelines for grading projects included in
Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations should supersede those in
the Appendix.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional.Service Industries, Inc.
11
Site Preparation
Initially, all existing structures, pavements, utilities and deleterious material should
be removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend a
minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical.
To assist in the mitigation of potentially compressible layers and also to provide for
a more uniform foundation base, it is recommended that the existing near -surface soils be
removed and replaced as properly compacted fill in areas that are to receive buildings or
other settlement sensitive structures. Based upon the results of our subsurface
exploration, the required excavation is anticipated to extend approximately 36 inches
below the bottom of footings. The required excavation for parking areas is 12 inches below
existing grade or finished grade. The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should
be moisture conditioned, proof rolled and densified using a heavy vibratory drum roller.
The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent above optimum
moisture content, or more as needed to achieve at least 90 percent relative compaction
(based on ASTM Test Method D1557) until design finish grades are reached. This
earthwork should extend laterally. at least four feet beyond the building I.imits, whenever
practical: .
The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift
and be adequately keyed'into:the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches). subgrade
soils. Fill materials, .including import soil, should be free of organic or other deleterious
materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an
expansion index of less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on sites soils appear to be
reusable as structural fill. During the course of grading operation, oversized material
(particles greater than 3 inches) may be generated. These materials should not be placed
within the compacted fill. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Designation D1557. _ _
Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should to moisture
conditioned and compacted to at least 3 percent above the optimum moisture content, or
more as needed to achieve 90 percent relative compaction. If water must -be added, it
should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying.
Each lift of compacted -engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The edges of compacted fill
should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior to sloping.
Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide
lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
1
1''
12
minimize the development of excessive unbalanced lateral pressures. The type of. fill
material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical
engineer with consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design.
As discussed in the Subsurface Conditions section of this. report, alluvial deposits
underlie the site. As such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can
generally achieved with conventional earthmoving equipment.
In pavement areas, the. upper 12 inches of finish subgrade. should be removed /
scarified; moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent above optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on Test Method D1557. The
upper 12-inch densification should be performed immediately prior to the placement of
base material and not during the initial grading operation.
All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of
the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
(Appendix E), and local governmental standards which have jurisdiction over this project.
Shrinkage/Swell Factors
.,Shrinkage and swell. factors area preliminary estimate of the volume.change of the--'-.
excavated onsite materials, upon recompaction as engineered -fill.-.The. actual
shrinkage/swell factors are dependent on soil type, location, and compactive effort. As
discussed in the Subsurface Conditions section of this report, alluvium deposits underlie
the site. Based on a comparison between in -situ densities and the laboratory maximum
density (ASTM D1557-00), the soils are estimated to undergo shrinkage on the order of 2
to 4 percent during grading operations, with no appreciable swell expected.
Temporary Excavations
Temporary construction excavations may be cut to a near vertical grade without
shoring to a maximum depth of 4 feet. For deeper cuts, the surface above 4 feet should be
properly sloped back to a grade of at least. 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter.
Groundwater is not expected to pose a problem during grading.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.,
13
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
Structural Foundations
Conventional continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for structural
support of the proposed one-story structure loads. Footings are anticipated to be entirely
supported by properly compacted fill materials. Continuous footings which are at least 15
inches wide and supported at a depth of at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent
finish grade, may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Isolated
spread footings which are at least 24 inches wide and also supported at a depth of at least
18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade, may also be designed for an allowable bearing
pressure of 2,000 psf. The allowable soil bearing values may be increased by one-third for
loads of short duration, including wind and seismic forces. Appropriate foundation
reinforcement should be provided in accordance with the Structural Engineer's design
based upon a low expansion potential.
Resistance to lateral loads may be calculated by any rational method that
incorporates sliding friction and/or passive earth pressure. An allowable friction coefficient
of 0.35 may be. utilized at the concrete -soil interface. The design. may incorporate an
allowable passive earth pressure of 250 psf/ft below a depth of 1 foot, provided that the
footing concrete is.:poured tightly against properly compacted fill materials. No reductions
are necessary when combining the frictional and passive resistance .of the soils to
determine the total lateral resistance.
The foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of PSI prior to
steel or concrete placement to assess that the foundation materials are capable of
supporting the design loads and are consistent with the materials discussed in this report.
Soft or loose soil zones encountered at the bottom of the foundation excavations should
be removed as directed by the geotechnical engineer. Cavities formed as a result of
excavation of soft or loose soil zones should be backfilled with lean concrete or dense
graded compacted crushed stone.
After opening, foundation excavations should be observed and concrete placed as
quickly as possible to avoid exposure of the foundation bottoms to wetting and drying.
Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to
pond. If possible, the foundation concrete should be placed during the same day the
excavation is made. If it is required that foundation excavations be left open for more than
one day, they should be protected to reduce evaporation or entry of moisture.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
14
Interior Floor Slab
-The floor slab should be supported on properly compacted structural fill. The slab
section may be designed by the structural engineer using a coefficient of subgrade
reaction of 70 pci and assuming a low expansion potential (UBC 18-2) for the near -surface
soils at the site. Based on geotechnical considerations, it is recommended that the interior
slabs be at least 5 inches in nominal thickness, and reinforced in accordance with the
structural engineer's requirements.
Slabs should -be underlain by a capillary break of a thickness of at least 4 inches,
consisting of clean sand or fine gravel with a 10-mil visqueen sheet placed midheight
within the capillary break material. The visqueen sheet should be sealed along the edges
to prevent lateralmigration of soil moisture from adjacent non-visqueen areas. Prior to
placement of clean sand and slab -on -grade, the visqueen sheet should be thoroughly
inspected for cracks, punctures, tears, and holes. If necessary, the visqueen should be
replaced or patched to assure a fully functional entity.
Some minor cracking of slabs can be. expected due to shrinkage. The potential
for this.slab cracking can be reduced by careful control of water/cement: ratios in the
concrete. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during. the pouring
of concrete: in hot weather to minimize the cracking of slabs. We recommend that a
slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted fill, tile, or other crack -sensitive floor
covering is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in
accordance with structural considerations.
Static Settlement
Based on the known subsurface conditions and site geology, and our experience,
we anticipate that properly designed and constructed foundations supported on the
recommended compacted fill materials should experience maximum total and differential
static settlements of less than 1-inch and Y2- inch, respectively. While settlement of this
magnitude is generally considered tolerable for structures of the type proposed, the design
of masonry walls should include provisions for liberally spaced, vertical control joints to
minimize the effects of cosmetic "cracking".
Soil Sulfate Content
A representative sample of onsite soils was
content. Results of testing indicate that the onsite
content with respect to concrete corrosion. For
tested in our laboratory for sulfate
soils may have "negligible" sulfate
preliminary design purposes, we
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
15
recommend a minimum of Type II cement and a maximum water -cement ratio of 0.50
(by weight), for concrete in contact with on -site soils.
Final concrete mix design should be evaluated after - sulfate tests have been
performed on the actual subgrade material. Concrete mix design should follow the
minimum requirements of Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
Pavement Recommendations
The recommended thicknesses presented below are considered typical. and
minimum for the assumed parameters. We understand that budgetary considerations
sometimes warrant thinner pavement sections than those presented. However, the client,
the owner, and the project principals should be aware that thinner pavement sections
might result in increased maintenance costs and lower than anticipated pavement life.
The appropriate pavement section depends primarily upon the type of subgrade
soil, shear strength, traffic load, and planned pavement life. For preliminary. purposes, we
have assumed traffic indices of TI=5:O.for parking areas and TI=6.5 for those driveway'and
--.truck- lanes subject to relatively heavy traffic. .These assumed .traffic indices should be
verified by the, project civil engineer prior to .construction. 'For preliminarypurposes; we
have. assumed an 'R-value of .30 for the .near -surface soils within. pavement .areas: Since
an evaluation of the characteristics.of the actual soils at pavement subgrade can only be
provided at the completion of grading, the following pavement sections should be used for
planning purposes only. Final pavement designs should be evaluated after R-value tests
have been performed on the actual subgrade material.
Pavement
Loading
Conditions
Assumed Traffic
Index
Preliminary Pavement
Section
3.0 inches A.C. over 4.0 inches
Parking Areas
5.0
Class 2 Aggregate Base
3.0 inches A.C. over 6.0 inches
Heavy Traffic
6.5
Class 2 Aggregate Base
Where rigid concrete pavements are planned to support vehicular traffic, the
following minimum sections are recommended:'
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA
Professional Service Industries, Inca
• f
16
Pavement
Loading
Conditions
Assumed Traffic
Index
Preliminary Pavement
Section
Light Traffic
5.0
5.0 inches PCC over 4.0 inches
Class 2 Aggregate Base
Heavy Traffic
6.5
6.0 inches PCC over 4.0 inches
Class 2 Aggregate Base
Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections should incorporate appropriate
steel reinforcement and crack control joints as designed by the project structural _
engineer. We recommend that sections be as nearly squared as possible and no more
than 12 feet on a side. A 3,500 psi mix may be utilized. The actual design should also
be in accordance with design criteria specified by the governing jurisdiction. Asphalt
Concrete (A.C.), Portland Cement. Concrete, and. Class 2 aggregate base should
Conform to and be placed: in. -accordance. with the latest revision of. the California
.-:.Department of Transportation Standard Specifications and American Concrete: Institute.
(ACI) codes..Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95.percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) prior to placement of-A.C. Subgrade
preparation for pavement areas is included in the Site Preparation section of this report.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
It is recommended that PSI be retained to provide observation and testing of
construction activities involved in the foundation, earthwork, and related activities of this
project. PSI cannot accept any responsibility for any conditions which deviate from
those described in this report, nor for the performance of the foundation if not engaged
to also provide construction observation and testing for this project.
Moisture Sensitive Soils/Weather Related Concerns
, The upper soils encountered at this site may be sensitive to disturbances caused
by construction traffic and to changes in moisture content. During wet weather periods,
increases in the moisture content of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil
strength and support capabilities. In addition, soils which become wet may be slow to
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
17
dry and thus significantly retard the progress of grading and compaction activities. It
will, therefore, be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundation construction
activities during dry weather.
Much of the on -site soils may be susceptible to erosion during periods of
inclement weather. As a result, the project Civil Engineer/Architect and Grading
Contractor should take appropriate precautions to reduce the potential for erosion.
during and after construction.
Drainage and Groundwater Considerations
Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration the maximum
explored depth of approximately 50 feet below ground surface. It should be noted,
however, that variations in the ground water table may result from fluctuation in the
ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, precipitation, irrigation, and other
factors that may not have evident at the time of our exploration. This sometimes occurs
where relatively impermeable and/or cemented formational materials are overlain by fill
soils. In addition, during retaining wall excavations, seepage maybe encountered. We
recommend that .a representative of PSI be :present during grading operations. to
'evaluate. areas of seepage:::Drainage devices for reduction of water accumulation can .
be recommended if -these conditions: occur.
Water should not be allowed to collect in the foundation excavation, on floor'slab
areas, or on prepared subgrades of the construction area either during or after
construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to
facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive
site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the
perimeter of the building and beneath the floor slabs. The grades should be sloped
away from the building and surface drainage should be collected and discharged such
that water is not permitted to infiltrate the backfill and floor slab areas of the building.
Excavations
In Federal Register, Volume 54, No.' 209 (October 1989), the United States
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended
its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part .1926, Subpart P". This
document was issued to better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or
excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be
utility trenches, basement excavation or foundation excavations, be constructed in
accordance with the OSHA guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed the owner and the contractor
could be liable for substantial penalties.
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable,
temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of. the excavations
as required to maintain stability• of both the excavation sides and bottom. The
contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the
soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no
case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench
excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. PSI does not
assume responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's or other parties'
compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other regulations.
Trench Backfill
Except where extending perpendicular under proposed foundations, utility trenches .
should be constructed outside .a 1:1 projection from the base -of -foundations. Trench.,
excavations::for :utility lines,.�.which. extend under structural areas should be- properly.
backfilled and compacted:
Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil
to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and
compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. All required trench backfill should be
mechanically compacted in layers to at least 95% of maximum dry density based on
ASTM D1557. Flooding should not be permitted. _
The remainder of the backfill shall be typical on -site soil or imported soil which
should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, watered or aerated to at least
3 percent above the optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to at least 90
percent of maximum dry density (based on ASTM D1557).
Some settlement of the backfill may be expected and any utilities within the
trenches or concrete walks supported on the trench backfill should be designed to accept
these differential movements.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
19
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The recommendations made in this report are based partially on the assumption
that an adequate program of tests and inspections will be performed during construction
to verify the field applicability or subsurface conditions and compliance with the
recommendations that are the basis of this report. The firm that provides testing and
observation during construction shall assume the responsibility of the geotechnical
consultant of record, performing additional investigation and testing as needed .to
determine the appropriate foundations and soil preparation to be used. for site
development. It is recommended that PSI be retained to provide observation and
testing of construction activities involved in the foundation, earthwork, and related
activities of this project.
These tests and inspections should include, but not necessarily limited to, the
following:
Full-time observation and testing by the geotechnical consultant of record during
site clearing, grading, excavation, .placement of fills, and backfilling of utility.
trenches. Critical observations. and: testing should be made during benching,
removal depths, and fill density .testing;
Inspection of foundation excavations, footings, and reinforcing steel before concrete . .
placement;
Consultation as may be required during construction.
In addition, the project plans and specifications should be reviewed by us to verify
compatibility- with our recommendations and conclusions. Additional information
concerning the scope and cost of these services can be obtained from our office.
REPORT LIMITATIONS
The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface
information obtained by PSI and the design concept you provided for the proposed
project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the
subsurface conditions noted in this or any supplemental report prepared by PSI are
encountered during construction, PSI requires we be notified immediately to determine if
changes in our recommendations are required. If PSI is not retained to perform these.
functions; PSI will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the project.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on current
information regarding the proposed construction. The conclusions and
recommendations provided may be invalid if:
• The structural loads change from those stated or the structures are relocated;
• The Additional Services section of this report is not followed;
• This report is used for adjacent or other property;
• Changes of grade or groundwater occur between the issuance of this report and
construction other than those anticipated in this report;
• Any other change is implemented, which materially alters the project from that
proposed at the time this report was prepared.
PSI warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional
advice contained herein have been made in accordance ' with generally accepted
professional'geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties
are implied or expressed.
After the plans andspecifications are more complete, PSI should be retained and
..� . provided the opportunity. -to review the final design plans and specifications to -check: that
our engineering recommendations. have been properly incorporated into the design
.....documents.
PSI did not provide any service to investigate or detect the presence, of. moisture,.
mold, or otherbiological contaminants in or around any structure, or any service that was
designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk of the occurrence of the amplification of
the same. Mold is ubiquitous to the environment with mold amplification occurring when
building materials are impacted by moisture. Site conditions are outside of PSI's control,
and mold amplification will likely occur, or continue to occur, in the presence of moisture.
As such, PSI cannot be held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of mold
amplification.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Newmark for the specific
application to the proposed retail/commercial development at the northeast corner of
Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, in the City of La Quinta, California.
r
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
r �
0
FIGURES
0
21
c
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
il
, p , A..
-A I
L
ZEN
-
N
ro
t
oil.
NU
L
OWU
E&
ot,
f—
, 9,7.
N.
Ael
-14
C*)
..... .
aeu
so
q,
Pp
A(
f
—Eg
t
60
P\R0QEDY-RE
n p!
%
BW _7,
IN
29.
Ef I V.:
10—IM-289
iW
-
30
R. T r 71� • .
.....
j
ARR1'i--,,),1"1-`
Trail
-T P
V N,
4
P:ff* k
6---40
MIR
I
jAl
?nm
we
C.
AZI
3-3- �:6
C
EAW Wei
.........
A A
M
ID
10
*60
•
,ai.
4 .
I G
,'I
w AVENUE
7r,
Z
r
Y'
- T.f—
M11
"Hill, co It
av—z
oa
HE
"n
S-D TopeQuid; CapyA& 0 IM DtL=w Yniavu&. hS 04096 Some rata.- USGS mit uu- -i -.'2s,cca Dom: is-o Db.- wrsu
Environmental
PROJECT NAME:
SITE VICINITY MAP
Geotechnical
Figure 1
Construction
Consulting * ' Engineering • Testing
PROPOSED RETAIL/COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Map:
N
3960 Gilman Street
La Quinta, California
Long Beach, CA 90815
NEC of Highway 111 & Dune Palms
Rd
Quadrangle
562/597-3977
Fax 562/597-8459
La Quinta, California
7.5'USGS Topographic Map
PROJECT NO. 073-55001
LOADING
RO
ED
95�
PROPOSED o
PEE
B
�
S,D
YLL
RETAIL A
o PROPOSED
8.75 SF
8, z
SF
REmS4
o • ��� ,F
t
1
5'
8,600 SF
j
I 5TALL5
4 x..•• :..o• i...,
{--
36.100 5F.
fI
1000
I'
22 22
22 .
22
22
22
t9
±178'-6"
t159-0'
2t59'-5"
P
1"7
F"I��ronmoRPy
PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3
127 10,000 sf. Bldg. Max. 15,000 sf. Bldg. Max.
PROPOSED
RETAIL 1 41,g31 s.F. - 6RO55 42,141 s.P. - 6R055
2 1 38,123.f,�t T 36,253 S-1§rET
15
)00 sf. Bldg. Max.
46,g(v0 s.F. - G 055
IQ nAd F _ MPT '
fi��; evir"menta/ PROJECT NAME:
�� Geetechnica/
Censtructi4in PROPOSED RETAIL/COMMERCIAL
Consulting • Engineering • Testing DEVELOPMENT
3960 Gilman Street
Long Beach, CA 90815 NEC of Highway 111 & Dune Palms Rd
562/597-3977 La Quinta, California
Fax 562/597-8459
PROJECT NO.073-55001
BORING Approximate
LOCATION MAP Boring Location
Figure 2`
N
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
• a c
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA
P
0
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
0
REFERENCES
1. Blake, T.F., 1995, Documentation for Egfault Version 2.01 Update, Thomas F.
Blake Computer Services and ,Software, Newbury Park, California, p. 79 and
appendices.
2. Blake, T. F., 1998, New Fault -Model Files For FRISKSP and EQFAULT, Thomas
F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California.
3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Official Map, La
Quinta Quadrangle, Scale: 1:24,000.
4. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near -Surface Attenuation of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration From Worldwide Accelerograms Recorded From 1957 to
1993, Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vol III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp. 283-292.
5. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 1994, Fault -rupture Hazard Zones in California,
California' Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
6. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and 'Adjacent Areas, scale.
1:750,000, California Division of Mines and'Geology.
7. ° Jennings, C.W. and Strand, R.G. 1969, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Geologic Map of
California, Los Angeles Sheet, California Division of Mines and 'Geology,' Scale:
1:250,000.
8. US Geoloqical Survey La Quinta Quadrangle California 'United States
Department of the Interior, Scale: 1:24,000, 1999.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
n
f
p
APPENDIX B °
EXPLORATION LOGS
BORING 131
CLIENT: Newmark
PSI PROJECT NO.: 056-55001
PROJECT: The Dunes Business Park
BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger
LOCATION: La Quinta, CA
ELEVATION: Approximately 60 ft above m.s.l.
DATE
DRILLED:
01/20/2005
LOGGED BY: SM
o
a
❑ Standard ■ Shelby Q Water Level
Split -
,
Spoon Tube ATD
2
w _
°' u
oC
E
°'
a
E
Modified Bulk 1 Static Water
B ®
(O
3
o
_
N a�i
o
N
e'
0 a
�
Field Notes
California Sample Table
m
0
i o
Z
~
to
SOIL DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)
Surface: Silty SAND (SM), light and dark brown, dry to slightly
moist, fine to medium grained sand, sparse low growing
Sulfate
T.
vegetation.
Proctor
BULK: SILTY SAND (SM), light and dark brown, slightly moist,
21
fine grained sand.
50
0.5
107.8
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, very dense, fine
5
grained sand.
10
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
12
1.2
100.1
fine grained sand.
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slightly moist, stiff, trace iron
4
oxidation.
180
6.3
91.3
10
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff, trace
5
iron oxidation.
4
2.8
112.2
15
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff, trace
8
iron oxidation, crude horizontal bedding.
10
20
SAND (SP), light brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine
9
grained sand.
10
14
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
Groundwater was not encountered.
s
Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.
S
j Info nnation
LI'"''U On
FIGURE NO.
.TbBuild
Englneerfng •'Consuftfng -'Testing
BORING B2
CLIENT: Newmark PSI PROJECT NO.: 056-55001
PROJECT: The Dunes Business Park BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger
LOCATION: La Quinta, CA ELEVATION: Approximately 60 ft above m.s.l.
I DATE DRILLED: 01/20/2005 ' 1 LOGGED RY- SM I
o
o
❑ Standard ■ Shelby Q Water Level
Split Spoon
t
J
,
Tube ATD
N
a
U
n
m
a
Modified Bulk 1 Static Water
B ®
t0
3
.r .r
N m
0
N
°' "
p u
j h
�,
Field Notes
E
California Sample Table
m
F-
U
o
SOIL DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)
Surface: Silty SAND (SM), light and dark brown, dry to slightly
moist, fine to medium grained sand, sparse low growing
vegetation.
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
9
fine grained sand.
14
0.5
102.5
5
SILT.(ML), light brown and brown, dry to slightly moist, stiff.
4
5
3.9
94.7.
.
9
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, fine
,
grained sand.
5
9
0.9
101.0
10
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slighlty moist, very stiff,
14
manganese nodules, some caliche, trace iron oxidation.
1s
12.7
9�.�
15
Silty SAND (SM), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium
9
dense, fine grained sand, crude horizontal bedding, trace iron
s
oxidation.
20
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,10
fine grained sand.
12
2s
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
crude horizontal bedding, trace silt.
5
S
30
SAND (SP), light brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine
9
grained sand.
i2
35
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
19
fine grained sand, trace silt.
30
:Infonnation
Build On '
FIGURE NO.
.To
Engineering • Consufting • Testing
BORING B2
CLIENT: Newmark
PSI PROJECT NO.: 056-55001
a
PROJECT: The Dunes Business Park
BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger
LOCATION: La Quinta, CA
ELEVATION: Approximately 60 ft above m.s.l.
DATE
DRILLED:
01/20/2005
LOGGED BY: SM
�'
Standard ■ Shelby Q Water Level
J
CL
Split Spoon Tube ATD
r
a^
rj
U
C
y
a
Modified Bulk 1 Static Water
B ®
to
V5
o
w C
o a)
N
C �•
p a
a +�-
M m
Field Notes
m
E
10
California Sample Table
00
g
o
~
c7
U
SOIL DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
fine grained sand.
114
5
15
45
SAND (SP), light brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine to
ao
medium grained sand.
0/5.5
50
SAND (SP), light brown, slightly moist, very dense, fine to
20
medium grained sand.
30
25
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
Groundwater was not encountered.
Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.
t
J
i
I
I
1
2 _
fiA"'T'��j Infomwtion
'"�� On
FIGURE NO.
,ToBuild
Engineering •'consulting • Testing
a
' BORING B3
CLIENT: Newmark
PSI PROJECT NO.: 056-55001
PROJECT: The Dunes Business Park
BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger
LOCATION: La Quinta, CA
ELEVATION: Approximately 60 ft above m.s.l.
DATE
DRILLED:
01/20/2005
LOGGED BY: SM
❑ Standard ■ Shelby Q Water Level
o
T
Split Spoon Tube ATD
o
o
a
a
B Modified ®Bulk 1 Static Water `.
o
o
o a
p a
_j iu
Field Notes
E
19
California Sample Table
m
g U
o"
C7
SOIL DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)
Surface: Silty SAND (SM), light and dark brown, dry to slightly
moist, fine to medium grained sand, sparse low growing
vegetation.
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, dense, fine
18
grained sand.
35
0.5
108.7
5
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, fine
3
grained sand.
8
3.T
101.Z
SAND (SP), light brown; dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
5
fine grained sand.
8
10
1.6
98.4'
10
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
5
fine to medium grained sand.
7
11
1.0
103.7
15
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
5
fine grained sand.
7
12
20
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slightly moist, very, stiff.
8
12
14.
o
N
,
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
o
Groundwater was not encountered.
Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.
m
Z
0
J
°
N
a
'
IL
0
ai
,
0
J
z
Z
0
m
O
N
N
N
O
0
J
"
F
a
�
JV�fInnnation
ToBuild On
FIGURE NO.
0
Englneedng • Consultlng • TestIng - -
BORING B4
CLIENT: Newmark PSI PROJECT NO.: 056-55001
PROJECT: The Dunes Business Park Rr1RINr; TYPE- Hnllnw cram Alma,
LOCATION: La Quinta, CA
ELEVATION: Approximately 60 ft above m.s.l.
DATE
DRILLED:
01/20/2005
LOGGED BY: SM
Standard ■ Shelby S[ Water Level
o
J
;
Split Spoon Tube ATD
2
L
o
a
�
a
e Modified ® Bulk 1 Static Water
(O
o
� --•
o a
VI
o C'
@ �'
Field Notes
2
E
California Sample Table
Cog
o
Zu
U
cn
U
O
SOIL DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)
Surface: Silty SAND (SM), light and dark brown, dry to slightly
moist, fine to medium grained sand, sparse low growing
vegetation.
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, fine
2
grained sand.
3
5
0.9
90.5
5
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, fine
4
grained sand, trace silt.
8
1.1
100.8
SAND (SP), light and dark brown, slightly moist, medium
7
dense, fine grained sand, some iron oxidation.
9
11
3.8
109.3
10
SAND (SP), light and dark brown, slightly moist, medium
9
dense, fine grained sand, some iron oxidation.
19
1.2
1os.1
15
SAND (SP), light and dark brown, slightly moist, medium
dense, fine grained sand, some iron oxidation.
i
20
SILT (ML), light brown, slightly moist, stiff.
4
4
4
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
Groundwater was not encountered
Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.
S
i
c
•
[po'�i .Information
.ri Build On
FIGURE NO.
.To
Engineering • Consulting • 7bsting ,
BORING B5
CLIENT: Newmark
PSI PROJECT NO.: 056-55001
PROJECT: The Dunes Business Park
BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger
LOCATION: La Quinta, CA
ELEVATION: Approximately 60 ft above m.s.l.
DATE
DRILLED:
01/20/2005
LOGGED BY: SM
o
❑ Standard ■ Shelby S[ Water Level
;
Split Spoon Tube ATD
0
a
s
Modified Bulk 1 Static Water
B ®
o
.o aa)
p n
.�
J
Field Notes
m
California Sample Table
m
Z> o
Z
~
SOIL DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)
Surface: Silty SAND (SM), light and dark brown, dry to slightly•
moist, fine to medium grained sand, sparse low growing
vegetation.
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
8
fine grained sand.
10
0.2
100.511
5-SAND
(SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, very loose, fine
2
Direct
grained sand.
3
1.3.
92.4
Shear
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slightly moist, stiff.
2
5
3.0
81.9
8
10
SILT (ML), light and dark brown and beige, slightly moist,
16
hard, mottled coloration,31
20
13.6
105.6
15
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, dense, fine
16
grained sand, minor interbedded silt.
24
20
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slightly moist, verystiff.
10
13
a'
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
o
Groundwater was not encountered.
Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.
m
a
Z
o
a
a
fN
C9
O
J
,
z
'
_Z
R
m
O
N
O
U'
0
•
F
a
•
ffip%79�� :InfOY191LiZlOYIFIGURE
''� Build On
NO.
Om
.To
Engineering •'Consulting •'Testing Y '
RING 136
CLIENT: Newmark
.y
PROJECT: The Dunes Business Park
LOCATION- In Oijintn CA
PSI PROJECT NO.: 056-55001
BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger
PI PVATInKi- ean a .,ti,..,,...... i
DATE
DRILLED:
01/20/2005
LOGGED BY: SM
❑ Standard ■ Shelby Water Level
J
Split Spoon Tube ATD
o
y
L
o
a
n
e Modified ®Bulk 1 Static Water
o
o m
0
�
p a
a .J
_j�
Field Notes
E
California Sample Table
m
C
SOIL DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)
Surface: Silty SAND (SM), light and dark brown, dry to slightly
moist, fine to medium grained sand, sparse low growing
'
vegetation.
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to sligthly moist, loose, fine
2
grained sand.
46
0.6
100.9
5
SAND (SP), light brown and rusty brown, dry to slightly moist,
7
loose, fine grained sand.
6
1.7
92.0
SAND (SP), light.brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
6
fine grained sand.
8
9
1.4
93.0
10
SILT (ML), light brown and beige, dry to slightly moist, very
15
stiff.
17
20
9.7
98.5
15
SILT (ML), light brown and beige, dry to slightly moist, hard.
13
11
20
20
SILT ML light brown and beige, d to slightly moist, very
( )� 9 9� dry 9 Y ►Y
'
stiff.
o
n
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
Groundwater was not encountered.
Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.
S
.Infonnation
FIGURE NO.
.ToVuil.�.On /
Engineering • Consulting • Testing
BORING B7
CLIENT:
Newmark
PSI PROJECT NO.: 056-55001
PROJECT:
The Dunes Business Park
BORING TYPE:
Hollow Stem Auger
LOCATION: La Quinta, CA
ELEVATION:
Approximately 60 ft above m.s.l.
DATE
DRILLED:
01/20/2005
LOGGED BY:
SM
o
Standard
Shelby
Q Water Level
J
H
Split Spoon
Tube
ATD
o
N
t
o
r
a
m
a
Modified
B
Bulk
®Sample
1 Static Water
o
Mno a;
°' "
a
�'
�,
Field Notes
12
E
California
Table
m
C
�
~
U
Q
SOIL
DESCRIPTION and CLASSIFICATION (USCS)
Surface: Silty SAND (SM), light and dark brown, dry to slightly
moist, fine to medium grained sand, low growing'vegetation.
SAND (SP), dark brown, moist, very loose, fine grained sand,
3
rootlets.
2
5
8.3
95.1
5-SAND
(SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, fine
2
Direct.
grained sand.
5
1.5
93.3
Shear
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
6
fine grained sand, trace iron oxidation, transitions into SILT
9
a.s
105.2
(ML), light brown and beige, dryto slightly moist, stiff.
10
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff.
12.
15
19
15.5
101.2
15
SILT (ML), light brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff.
s
10
11
20
SAND (SP), light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense,
5
fine grained sand.
10
Total Depth: 21.5 Feet
Groundwater was not encountered.
Boring was backfilled with soil cuttings.
S.
M�.j .I31fOYY1lLlilori
On '.
FIGURE NO.
,ToBuild
Engineering • Consulting • Testing `
a
APPENDIX C
.LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
u
U
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA
O
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Laboratory Testing Program
Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine
their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed in general accordance with
test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards.
The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used.
Classification - Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil
Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of
selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are
shown on the Exploration Logs, Appendix B.
In -Situ Moisture/Density - The in -place moisture content and dry unit weight of
selected samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the linear
rings of a 2.38 inch I.D. modified California Sampler. The dry unit weight and moisture
content are shown on the Exploration Logs, Appendix B.
Direct Shear Tests - Consolidated, drained, direct shear tests were performed on
undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM D-3080. The undisturbed
samples were tested in a saturated condition using normal loads of 1 ksf, 2 ksf, and 4
ksf.
Soluble Sulfate - In order to estimate the concrete degradation potential of soils,
the content of soluble sulfates was determined in general accordance with Cal Test
Method 417A. Soils with a sulfate concentration greater than 0.07% may be corrosive to
metals; concentrations greater than 0.10% are considered potentially harmful to
concrete and would require following the current Uniform Building Code for "moderate"
or "severe" sulfate exposure requirements.
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA IProfessional Service Industries, Inc.
Report .of Moisture Density Relationship of Soil
ASTM D 1557
Date: 01/21/05
Tested For
Project: 056-55001
Attention:
Report No
Test Data
Visual Classification: Brown Sandy Silt
Procedures Used: ASTM D 1557 - A
Material Source:
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Sample Source: Bl @ 0 - 5 fi_
Test Results .
Maximum Dry Density: 117.7 lbsfft
Optimum Moisture Content: 14.6 %
Specific Gravity: 2.65 (estimate)
1 ls.o
117.0
C 116.0
115.0
a
as
114.0
A-
113.0
A 12.0
Lab No.:. 2389
Reviewed by:
Lab Tech.: J. Lim
Preparation Method Moist
Remarks:
Moisture Density Relationship of SQU
ASTM D1557
'0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Moisture Content (%)
cc Client Respec d6fly Submitted,
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
Mike Azmoudeh
Department Manager
REPORTS MAY NOT BB REPRODUCED. EXCEPT IN FUrl, wnHOUr wpir EN PER?4s=N BY PRCFESSMNAL SERVICE DMUSIRIES. INC. .
t
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
RESULTS OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST .
(ASTM D 3080)
SAMPLE LOCATION
COHESION
PHI ANGLE
B5 @ 5 ft.-
31 psf
28 degrees
B7 @ 5 ft.
0 psf
35 degrees,
RESULTS OF SULFATE TEST
(CAL .417A)
SAMPLE LOCATION
SOLUBLE SULFATE
0.174% by weight
B1 @ 0 — 5 ft.
(Degree: of Attack — Moderate)
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REGRESSION ANALYSIS
CURVE FIT BY LEAST SQUARES METHOD
PROJECT: Proposed Retail/Commercial Development BORING NO.: B5
PROJECT NO.: 056-55001 DEPTH: 517t
DATE: 1/31/2005 SAMPLE TYPE: Undisturbed
DATA POINTS
1 X (ksf) Y (ksf)
0.60 0.34
1.05 0.61
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
f 3.00
an
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
RESULTS
Angle phi = 28 degrees
Cohesion = 31 lb/sq ft
Direct Shear Test Data Plot
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Normal Stress (ksf)
• ,Test Data
Curve Fit
fip;C52Adr
�j Information =
6 .To Build On
Engineering • Consu/ting • Tbsting
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REGRESSION ANALYSIS
CURVE FIT BY LEAST SQUARES METHOD.
PROJECT: Proposed Retail/Commercial Development BORING NO.: B7
PROJECT NO.: 056-55001 DEPTH: 5Ft
DATE: 1/31/2005 SAMPLE TYPE: Undisturbed
DATA POINTS RESULTS
X (ksi) Y (ksi)
0.60 0.41 Angle phi = 35 degrees
1.05 0.75 Cohesion = 0 lb/sq ft
5.00
4.00
3.00
p 2.00
CID
1.00
0.00
0,
-1.00
x
Direct Shear Test Data Plot
0 1. 0 2. 0 3.)0 4.)0 5. 0 6.
Normal Stress (ksf)
• Test Data
Curve Fit
11
NibInformation
fi—YAROM.'ToBuildOn
Engineering • Consulting • 7bsting
a
APPENDIX D
SEISMIC ANALYSIS - COMPUTER OUTPUT
a
2
a
0
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
a
a
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Dunes Business Park
90(
80C
70C
500
400
300
200
100
Cal
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400- 500 600
DB. OUT
E Q. F A U L T
* version 3.00
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 056-55001
DATE: 01-21-2005
JOB NAME: Dunes Business Park
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE.LATITUDE: 33.7081
SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2754
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 14) Campbell.& Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Alluvium
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
Page 1
DB. OUT
---------------
EQFAULT SUMMARY
---------------
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JESTIMATED
MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE I
-------------------------------
ABBREVIATED I
DISTANCE .MAXIMUM
I PEAK
JEST. SITE'
FAULT NAME I
mi
(km) JEARTHQUAKEI
SITE
JINTENSITY
MAG.(MW)
I ACCEL. g
JMOD.MERC.
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella
5.5(
8.8)1
7.1
1 0.420
1 X
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
5.5(
8.8)1
7.4
1 0.451
1 X
BURNT MTN.
17.5(
28.1)1
6.4
1 0.108
VII
EUREKA PEAK
18.3(
29.5)1
6.4
1 0.102
VII
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 1
19.0(
30.5)1
7.3
1 0.197
VIII
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1
21.6(
34.7)1
7.2
1 0.159
VIII
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1
22.0(
35.4)1
6.8
1 .0.114'
VII
PINTO•MOUNTAIN 1
30.3(
48.7)1
7.0
1 0.091
VII
EMERSON So. = COPPER MTN. 1
31.6(
50.8)1
6.9
1: .0.079
VII
LANDERS 1
32..5(
52.3)1
7.3
1 0.107
viI
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1
33.6(
54.0)1
7.1
1 0:087
VII-
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
35.5(
57.1)1
.6.6
1 0.053
vi
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
37.0(
59.5)1
6.9
1 0.065
1 vI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
38.3(
61.6)1
6.7
1 0.054
1 VI
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
40.5(
65.1)1
6.5
1 0.041
1 V
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
41.2(
66.3)1
6.4
1 0.037
1 V
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1
43.3(
69.7)1
6.7
1 0.045
1 VI
ELSINORE-JULIAN 1
43.9(
70.7)]
7.1
0.062
VI
CALICO - HIDALGO 1
44.9(
72.3)1
7.1
0.060
VI
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
48.2(
77.6)1
6.8
0.042
VI
ELMORE RANCH
48.6(
78.2)1
6.6
1 0.035
1 V
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI
49.2(
79.2)1
7.3 1
0.064
1 VI
'NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1
50.2(
80.8)1
7.0 1
0.046
1 VI
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1
51.6(
83.1)1
6.8 1
0.039
1 V
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1
53.4(
86.0)1
6.6 1
0.031 '1
V
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto))
54.2(
87.3)1
6.6 1
0.030
1 V
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1
57.2(
92.0)1
7.1 1.
0..044
1 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
59.3(
95.4)1
6.7 1
0.030
1 v
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
,61.8(
99.5 )l
6.8 1
0.031
v
CLEGHORN
66.5(
107.1)1
6.5 1
0:021
Iv
IMPERIAL
68.4(
110.0)1
7.0 1
0.032
V
LAGUNA SALADA
71.6(
115.3)1
7.0 1
0.030
V
CUCAMONGA
75.4(
121.4)1 '
7.0 1
0.026
1 V
CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1
75.4(
121.4)1
6.7 1
0.020
1 IV
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (offshore) 1
76.6(
123.2)1
6.9 1
0.025
1 V
ROSE CANYON 1.
76.6(
123.2)1
6.9 1
0.025 1
V
WHITTIER 1
78.9(
127.0)1
6.8 1
0.022 1
IV
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 1
83.3.(
134.0)1
7.1
0.027
V
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture- �I
83.3(
134.0)1
7.81
0.051
VI
SAN JOSE
86.5(
139.2)1
6.5 1
0.014
IV
Page
2
r
DB. OUT
------------------ 7----------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
-----------------------------
Page 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE
-------------------------------
ABBREVIATED
DISTANCE
MAXIMUM I
PEAK
JEST. SITE
FAULT NAME
mi
(km)
JEARTHQUAKE1
, SITE
INTENSITY
MAG.(MW) I
ACCEL. g
JMOD.MERC.
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE
88.5(
142.5)1
6.9 1
0.021
1 IV
SIERRA MADRE
88.9(
143.1)1
7.0 1.
0:021
1 IV
ELYSIAN PARK THRUST
91.7(
147.5)1
6.7 1
0.016
1 IV
CORONADO BANK
91.7(
147.6)1
7.4 1
0.031
1 V
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin)
95.1(.153.0)1
6.9 1
0.019
1 IV
COMPTON THRUST
98.0(
157.7)1
6.8 1
0.015
1 IV
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
98.9(
159.2)1
6.5 1
0.012
1 III
....�irsY�ir�irirsYirir'.r:ss:�'.r'.r�����',c�•it���'r�sY'.r::��':ir��:r�:ci.•�';.:r:ri:irir����irir':'.:�::�.;k�ir'r'rir'.r::iri:ir�irtc'r�
.
-END OF SEARCH- 47 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN
THE SPECIFIED SEARCH
RADIUS.
THE SAN ANDREAS - Coachella
FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE
SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 5.5 MILES (8.8 km)
AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM -EARTHQUAKE SITE
ACCELERATION:-0.4510 g
is '��.. �'�*�.. sir s'r�� �.. .. �•s: k:r�ir
E Q F A U.L T
version 3.00..
* it
wit sY sY �'..•': '.r��ic':�� � �ir�'.r :c is is '.r
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 056-55001
DATE: 01=21-2005
JOB NAME: Dunes Business Park
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis -
FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.7081
SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2754
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 14) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Alluvium
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: -0
Page 3
DB. OUT
COMPUTE PEAK.HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
a
z
j
EQFAULT
----------------
SUMMARY
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC
-----------------------------
SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE
--------------
w
DISTANCE
MAXIMUM I
PEAK .
JEST. SITE
FAULT NAME
mi
(km)
JEARTHQUAKE1
SITE
JINTENSITY
MAG.(MW) I
ACCEL. g
JMOD.MERC.
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella
1 5.5(
8.8)1
7.1 .1
0.620
1 X
SAN ANDREAS -Southern
5.5(
8.8)1
7.4, 1
0.666
► ' XI
BURNT MTN.
17.5(
28.1)1
6.4 1
0.175
1 vIII
EUREKA PEAK
18.3(
29.5)1
6.4 1
0.167-
1 viii
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino
1 19.0(
30.5)�
7.3 1
0.293
1 iX
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
1 21.6(
34.7)1
7.2 1
0.245
1 IX
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
1 22.0(
35.4)1
6.8 1
0.183.
1 vIII
PINTO MOUNTAIN
1 30.3(
48.7)1
7.0 1
0.152
1 VIII
EMERSON SO.. - COPPER MTN.
1 31.6(
50.8)1
6.9 1
0.135
1 vIII
LANDERS
1 32.5(
52.3)1
7.3 1
0.174 .1
:VIII
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK
1 33.6(
54.0)1
7.1 1
0.146
1 VIII
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO.
1 35.5(
57.1)1
6.6 1
0.092
1 vII
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
1 37.0(
59.5)1
6.9 1
0.113
1 VII
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
1 38.3(
61.6)1
6.7 1.
0.093
1 VII
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1
40.5(
6.5.1)1
6.5 1
0.071
VI
Page 4
DB.OUT1
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
41.2( 66.3)1
6.4
1 0.063
1 vI
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
1 43.3( 69.7)1
6.7
1 0.077
1 VII
ELSINORE-JULIAN
1 43.9( 70.7)1
7.1
1 0.108
1 •VII
CALICO - HIDALGO
1 44.9( 72.3)1
7.1
1 0.105
1 VII
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
1 '48.2( 77.6)1
6.8
1 0.074
1 VII
ELMORE RANCH
1 48.6( 78.2)1
6.6
1 0..061
1 VI
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSJ
49.2( 79.2)1
7.3
1 0.111
1 VII
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
1 50.2( 80.8)1
7.0
1 0.080
( VII
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN
1 51.6( 83.1)1
6.8
1 0.067
1 VI
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
I 53.4( 86.0)1
6.6
1 0.054
1 VI
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto))
54.2( 87.3)1
6.6
1 0.053
1 VI
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
1 57.2( 92.0)1
7.1
1 0.077
1 VII
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
59.3( 95.4)1
6.7
1 0.051
1 -VI
ELSINORE-GLEN.IVY
61.8( 99.5 )1
6.8.
1 .0.053
1 VI
CLEGHORN
66.5( 107.1)1
6.5
1 0.037
1 V
IMPERIAL
68.4( 110.0)1
7.0 1
0.056 1
VI
LAGUNA SALADA
71.6( 115.3)1
7.0 1
0.052 1
VI
CUCAMONGA
75.4( 121.4)1
7.0 1.
0.045 1
VI
CHINO -CENTRAL• AVE. (Elsinore) 1
75.4( 121.4)1
6.7 1
0.036 I
V
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1
76.6( 123.2)1
6.9
. 0.044 1
vI
ROSE CANYON 1
76.6( 123.2)1
6.9 1.
0.044 1
vI
WHITTIER 1
78.9( 127.0)1.
6.8 1
0.039 1
V
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 1
83.3( 134.0)1
7.1 1
0.047 1
vi
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture
83.3( 134.0)1
7.8 1
0.088 1
VII
SAN JOSE
86.5( 139.2)1
6.5 1
0.025 1
V
s
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC-SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
--------------------------------------------------=----------------------------
JESTIMATED MAX.
EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE
-------------------------------
ABBREVIATED
DISTANCE,
MAXIMUM I
PEAK
JEST. SITE
FAULT NAME
mi
(km) JEARTHQUAKE1
SITE
JINTENSITY.
1
MAG.(MW) I ACCEL. g
JMOD.MERC.
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1
88.5(
142.5).1
6.9 1
0.036
1 V.
SIERRA MADRE 1
88.9(
143.1)1
7.0 1
0.036
1 V
ELYSIAN PARK THRUST . 1
91.7(
147.5)1
6.7 1
0.027
1 V
CORONADO BANK 1
91.7(
147.6)1
7.4 1
0.054
1 VI
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1
95.1(
153.0)1
6.9 1
0.033
1 v
COMPTON THRUST 1
98.0(
157.7)1
6.8 1
0.026
1 V
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1
98.9(
159.2)1
6.5 1
0.021
1 IV
-END OF SEARCH- 47 FAULTS FOUND
WITHIN
THE SPECIFIED SEARCH
RADIUS.
THE SAN ANDREAS - Coachella FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE
IT IS ABOUT 5.5 MILES (8:8 km) AWAY. .
LARGEST MAXIMUM -EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.6661 g
Page 5
MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES
Dunes Business Park
0
c�
L
U
U
El
.01
EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES & DISTANCES
Dunes Business Park
7.75
7.50
5
..7.25
E
7.00
C
co
6.75
6.50
.1 1 10 100
Distance (mi)
DB. OUT
is ^
U B C S E. I S
* *
version 1.03
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER: 056-55001
JOB NAME: Dunes Business
FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.7081
SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2754
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: SAN ANDREAS - Southern
DISTANCE: 8.2 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: BURNT MTN
DISTANCE: 28.0 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME:
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
DATE: 01-21-2005
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.1
Nv: 1.3
Ca: 0.47
Cv: 0.86
Ts: 0.729
To: 0.146
* CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are
* limited in number and have been digitized from small-
scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently,
* the estimated fault -site -distances may be in error by
* several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that
the distances be carefully checked for accuracy.and
* adjusted as needed, before they are used in design.
**'.t:r::�•**i;�•it*..***:'c****'cic***'c*..*irsY'.r**'.c�•**�-3r***.l:;:it*::fe**iri:**'.r'rstdc:cic*ic'.r::i;sY
---------------------------
Page 1
DB. OUT
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
------------- -------------
Page 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
---------------------------------
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
BURNT MTN.
EUREKA PEAK
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
PINTO MOUNTAIN
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.
LANDERS
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I
ELSINORE-JULIAN
CALICO - HIDALGO
ELSINORE-TEMECULA I
ELMORE RANCH'
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
,HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
SAN JACINTO-SAN.BERNARDINO I
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY,
CLEGHORN
IMPERIAL
ELSINORE-L'AGUNA SALADA I
CUCAMONGA
CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
ROSE CANYON
ELSINORE-WHITTIER
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I
SAN JOSE
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE I
SIERRA MADRE (Central) I
CORONADO BANK
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
PALOS VERDES
BLACKWATER
RAYMOND
VERDUGO I
APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX.
I SLIP
I FAULT
DISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
(km)
I(A,B-,C)I
(MW)
I (mm/Yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
8.2
I A I
T.4 I
24.90
1 SS
28.0
.I B I
6.5 I
0.60
I SS
29.4
I B I
6.5 10.60
I SS
34.6
I A I
7.2 I
12.00
I SS
35..2
I B I
6.8 I
4.00
I Ss
48.6
I B I
7.0 I
2.50,
I SS
50.7.
i B I
6.9 I
0.60
I SS
52.2
I B I
7.3 I
0.60:
I SS
53.9
I B I
7.1 I
O.W
I SS
57.0
I B I
6.6 I
4.00•
I SS
59.5
I B I
6.9 I
12.00
I SS
62.4
I. B I
6.7 I
0.502
I DS
65.0
I B I
6.5 I
2.00..
I ss
66.2
I B I
6.5 I
25.00
I SS
69.6
I B I.
6.7 I
0: 60
I -SS
.70.6
I A I
7.1 I
5.00
I SS
72.3
I B I
7.1 I
0.60
I SS
77.5
I B I
6.8 I
5.00•
I -.SS
78.1
I B I
6.6 I
1.00.
I SS
79.1
I B I
7.3 I
0.60
I 'SS
82.1
I B I
7.0 I
1.00:
I DS
83.0
I B I'
6.8 I
4.00
I <SS
86.0
I B I
6.6 I
5.00.
I 1.SS
87.2
I B I
6.6 I
4.00..
I SS
91.9
I B I
7.1 I
0.60
I SS
95.3
1 B I
6.7 1.
12.00
I SS
99.5
I B I
6.8 I
5.00
I ss
107.1
I B I
6.5 I
3.00.
I SS
109.5
I A I
7.0 I'
20.00
I ss
115.2
I B I
7.0 I:
3.50
I SS
119.6
I A I
7.0 I
5.00•
I DS
120.3
1 B I
6.7 I
1.00
i DS
123.1
I B I
6.9 I
1.50
I SS
123.2
I B I
6.9 I
1.50
I Ss
127.0
I B I
6.8 I.
2.50
I SS
134.0
I A I
7.8 I
34.00
I SS
138.4
I B I
6.5 I
0.50
I DS
142.5
I B J
6.9 I
0..601
ss
143.1 I
B I
7.0 I
3.00
I DS
147.6 I
B I
7.4 I
3.00
I SS
152.8 I
B I
6.9 I
1.00
I SS
156.8 I
B I
6.5 I
0.50. I
DS
160.8 I
B I
7.1 I
3.00 I
Ss
161.6 1
B I
6.9 I
0.60 I
SS
167.9 (
B I
6.5 I
0.50 I
DS
177.1 I
B I
6.7 I
0.50 I
DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 2
DB. OUT
Page 2
--------------------------------=-----------=----------------------------------
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
HOLLYWOOD
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
SAN GABRIEL
SANTA MONICA
DEATH VALLEY (South)
GARLOCK (East)
MALIBU COAST
SANTA SUSANA
OWL LAKE
PANAMINT VALLEY
HOLSER
ANACAPA-DUME
TANK CANYON
GARLOCK (West)
OAK RIDGE (Onshore)
SIMI-SANTA ROSA
SAN CAYETANO
LITTLE 'LAKE
So. SIERRA NEVADA
SANTA YNEZ (East)
DEATH VALLEY (Graben)
PLEITO THRUST
WHITE WOLF
VENTURA - PITAS POINT
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA
BIG - PINE
RED MOUNTAIN
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
OWENS VALLEY
DEATH VALLEY (Northern)
SANTA YNEZ (West)
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY
SANTA ROSA ISLAND
INDEPENDENCE
LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE
SAN 3 UAN
LIONS HEAD
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin)
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault)
BIRCH CREEK
WHITE MOUNTAINS
LOS OSOS
DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I
DEEP SPRINGS 1
HOSGRI
RINCONADA I
APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX.
I SLIP
I FAULT
DISTANCEI TYPE• I
MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
(km)
I(A,B,C)I
(MW) I
(mm/Yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
186.5
I B 1
6.5 I
1.00
1 DS.
197.2
I B 1
6.7 1
2.00
1 DS
197.4
I B I
7.0 I
1.00:
1 SS
201.6
1 B 16.6
1
1.00.
1 DS
209.9
1 B 1
6.9 I
4.00
1 SS
210.2
I A I
7.3 1
7.00.
1 SS
211.9
I B 1
6.7 1
0.30
I DS
216.4
I B I
6.6 I:
5.00
1 DS
218.3
I B I
6.5 I-
2.00
I SS
219.3
I B I
7.2 I
2.50
1 SS
224.5.1
B I
6.5 I:
0.40
I DS
225.9
I B 1
7.3 I
3.00
1 DS
233.2
I B 1
6.5.1.
1.00
1 DS
236.6
1 A 1
7.1 I.
6.00-
I SS
238.0
I B 1
6.9 1
4.0&
1 DS
242.2
I B I
6.7. 1
1.00
I DS
243.9
I B I
6.8 1
6.00
I DS
246.9
I B 1
6.7 1
0.70
I SS
254.2
I B I
7.1 1
0.10
I DS
261.0
1 B 1
7.0 1
2.00
I.. SS
265.3
1 B ►
6.9 I'.
4.00
I DS
270.6
I B 1
6.8 .1
2.00
1 DS
270.6
1 B I
7.2 I
2.00:
,
I DS
274.4
I B 1
6.8 1
1.00
I DS `•'
280.5
1 B 1
6.7 1
0.40
I DS
281.3
1 B I
6.7 I
0.80
I SS,
288.4
1 B 1
6.8 1
2.00.
1 DS
301.3
I B I
6.8 I
1.00.
1 DS
318.1
1 B I
.7.6 I
1.50..
I SS
320.6
I A I
7.2 I
5.00
1 SS
322.4
1 B. I
6.9 1
2.00
I SS
326.2
1 B 1
7.0 1
2.50
I SS
337.7
1 B 1
6.9 1
1.00
1 DS'
353.2
1 B I
6.9 1
0.20
1 DS
365.2
I B I
6.8 I
0.70
1 DS
376:6
1 B I
7.0 1
1.00.
I SS
382.4
1 B I
6.6 I
0.0Z
1 DS
386.3
1 B 1
7.0 1
0.20-
I DS
398.5
1 B I
6.5 I
0.25.,
I DS
409.1
( B I
6.5 1
0.70
1 DS
410.6
I B 1
7.1 1
1.00
I SS
415.6
1 B 1
6.8 1
0.50
1 DS '
421.1 1
A 1
7.0 1
5.00
I SS
425.0 I
B. 1
6.6 I
0.80
I DS
428.3 I
B 1
7.3 1
2.50
I SS
430.1 1
B 1
7.3 .1
1.00.
1 SS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 3
--------------------------------------
I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP 1 FAULT'
Page 3
DB. OUT
ABBREVIATED
---------_-FAULT- NAME
----------------------------------
ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.)
FISH SLOUGH
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping)
HILTON CREEK
•HARTLEY SPRINGS
MONO LAKE
ORTIGALITA
CALAVERAS (So.of CalaveraS Res)
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS
QUIEN SABE
.ROBINSON CREEK
PALO COLORADO - SUR
ZAYANTE-VERGELES
SARGENT
SAN ANDREAS (1906)
'ANTELOPE VALLEY
GREENVILLE
.GENOA
HAYWARD (SE Extension)
SAN GREGORIO
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON
'HAYWARD (Total Length)
CALAVERAS (No.of CalaveraS Res)
CONCORD - GREEN. VALLEY
WEST NAPA
RODGERS CREEK
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA.
POINT REYES
MAACAMA (South)
COLLAYOMI
BARTLETT SPRINGS
MAACAMA (Central)
MAACAMA (North)
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay)
BATTLE CREEK
LAKE MOUNTAIN
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE
MAD RIVER
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore)
MCKINLEYVILLE
TRINIDAD
'FICKLE HILL 1
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1
TABLE BLUFF
LITTLE SALMON (offshore) I
DISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
(km)
I(A,B,C)1
(MW)
I (mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
448.6
1 B 1
6.8 1
1.00
1 DS
451.0
1 B 1
6.6 1
0.20
1 DS
471..3
1 B 1
5.0'.1
34.00
1 SS
475.1
I B I
6.7 I
2.50
I DS
501.6
1 B 1
6.6 I
0.50 'I
DS
537.9
1 B I
6.6 1
2.50
1 DS
546.4
I B 1
6.9 I
1.00
I SS
557.6
1 B 1
6.2 1
15.00
1. SS
568.6
1 B 1
7.1 1
0.50
1 DS
56.9.0
1 B 1
6.5 I
1.00
1 SS
569.5
1 B 1
6.5 I
0.50
i DS
575.1
i B 1
7.0 I
3.00
1 SS
589.9
1 B 1
6.8 1
0.10
I SS
593.8
1 B 1
6.8 I'
3.00
1. SS
595.1
1 A 1
7.9 1
24.00 .1
SS
610.0
I B 1:
6.7 1
0.80
1 DS
636.0
1 B I.
6.9 I
2.00
I SS
638.6
I B I
6.9 1
1.00
1 DS
640.9'
1 B 1
6.5 1
3.00
1 SS
642.7
1 A I
7.3 I
5.00
1 SS
643.6
1 B 1
6.5 1
0.40.
i DS
659.2
1 A I
7.1 I
9..00
1 SS
659.2
I B I
6.8 1
6.00
I :SS
702.9
1 B 1
6.9 I
6.00 1
SS.
741.9
1 B I
6.5 1
1.00 .1
SS
742.8
1 A 1
7.0 I.
9.00 1
SSA
760.E
I B. 1
6.9 1-
6.00 < 1
:. SS �`
768.0
1 B I
6.8 1
0.30 1
DS:.'
803.4
I B . I
6.9 1
9.00 .1.
ss
818.0
1 B 1
6.5 I
0.60 :1,
SS
818.3
I A 1
7.1 I
6.00 1
SS
844.8
1 A 1
7.1-1
9.00 1
SS
902.0
1 A 1
7.1 1
9.00 1,
SS
904.0
1 B I
6.8 1.
6.00 1'
SS
909.4
I B 1
6.5 1
0.50 1
DS
962.0
1 B I
6.7 1
.. 6.00 1
SS
981.2
I B 1
6.9 1
9.00 1
SS
1040.-0
1 A 1
7.4 I
35.00. 1
-DS
1041.6
I B 1
7.1 1
0.70 I
DS
1041.8
1 A 1
7.0 1
5.00 1
DS
1052.7
1 B '1
7.0 I
0.60 I
DS
1053.5
I B I
7.3 I
2.50 1
DS
1054:4
I B 1
6.9 1
0.60 I
DS
1055.7
1 A 1
8.3 1
35.00 1
DS
1062.9
1 B 1
7.0 1
0.60 1
DS
1075.7
I B 1
7.1 1
1.00 1
DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
ABBREVIATED 1DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I• RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT)
Page 4
r.
DB. OUT
BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1089.2 B 7.3 0.50 DS
..'.:k'.riri:..............i:*ici.iss:isi;irititir........�iri:'.c�'riric�....�ir�sYi;is��..........��i:ski:'.rir�......�i:iricicicit�•a:'..'.ririri:
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
2.50
2.25
2.00
1'75
0
1.50
L
(D
1.25
U
Q
1.00
�
0.75
U
�.
0.50
cn
a..
0.25
0.00
Seismic Zone-: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -2.0 Z5 3.0
Period Seconds
3.5 - 4.0 4.5 .5.0
APPENDIX E
STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
Proposed Retail/Commercial Development, La Quinta, CA Professional Service Industries, Inc.
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
Presented By;
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
TABLE OF CONTENT
GENERAL.............................................................................................................................................. SG-1
DEFINITIONOF TERMS..........................................................................................................................
1
OBLIGATIONSOF PARTIES...................................................................................................................
5
SITEPREPARATION.................................................................................................................................
5
SITEPROTECTION...................................................................................................................................
6
EXCAVATIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 7
UnsuitableMaterials................................................................................................................................ 7
CutSlopes.................................................................................................................................................. 7
PadAreas.................................................................................................................................................. 8
COMPACTEDFILL.................................................................................................................................... 8
Placement..................................................................................................................................................
8
Moisture..................................................................................................................................................10
FillMaterial .................................... :............................. ...........................................................................
10
FillSlopes................................................................................................................................................
12
Off -Site Fill..............................................................................................................................................13
DRAINAGE................................................................................................................................................13
STAKING...................................................................................................................................................14
SLOPEMAINTENANCE.........................................................................................................................
14
LandscapePlants....................................................................................................................................
14
Irrigation.................................................................................................................................................
14
Maintenance.....................................................................................:......................................................
15
Repairs.....................................................................................................................................................15
TRENCHBACKFILL...............................................................................................................................15
STATUSOF GRADING............................................................................................................................16
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
GENERAL
The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent
this firm's standard recommendation for grading and other associated operations on
construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project
specifications.
All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these guidelines.
The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior
recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and the approval of the Client or his
authorized representative. Recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and/or
Client should not be considered to preclude requirements for the approval by the
controlling agency prior to the execution of any changes.
These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard Details may be modified and/or
superseded by recommendations contained in the text of the preliminary Geotechnical
Report and/or subsequent reports.
If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading guidelines or standard
details, the Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the governing interpretation.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
ALLUVIUM — Unconsolidated soil deposits resulting from flow of water,
including sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans and
estuaries.
AS -GRADED (AS -BUILT) The surface and subsurface. conditions at
completion of grading. -
' BACKCUT — A' temporary construction slope at the rear of earth retaining
structures such as buttresses, shear keys, stabilization fills or retaining walls.
BACKDRAIN — Generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage " system placed
behind earth retaining structures such buttresses, stabilization fills, and retaining walls.
BEDROCK — Relatively undisturbed formational rock, more or less solid, either,
at the surface or beneath superficial deposits of soil.
BENCH — A relatively level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping
ground on which fill is to be placed.
BORROW (Import) — Any fill material hauled to the project site from off -site
areas.
SG-1
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
BUTTRESS FILL — A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by
engineering calculations to retain slope conditions containing adverse geologic features.
A buttress is generally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum
backcut angle. A buttress normally contains a back -drainage system.
CIVIL ENGINEER — The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm
responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as -graded
topographic conditions.
CLIENT — The Developer or his authorized representative who is chiefly in
charge of the project. He shall have the responsibility of reviewing the findings and
recommendations made by the . Geotechnical Consultant and shall authorize the
Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services.
COLLUVIUM — Generally loose deposits usually found near the base of slopes
and brought there chiefly by gravity through slow continuous downhill creep (also see
Slope Wash).
COMPACTION — Densification of man -placed fill by mechanical means.
CONTRACTOR — A person or company under contract or otherwise retained by
the Client to perform demolition, grading and other site improvements.
DEBRIS — All products of clearing, grubbing, demolition, and contaminated soil
materials unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill, and/or any other material so designated
by the Geotechnical Consultant.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST — A Geologist holding a valid certificate of
registration in the specialty of Engineering Geology.
ENGINEERED FILL — A fill of which the Geotechnical Consultantor his
representative, during grading, has made sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that
the fill has been ,placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Consultant and the governing agency requirements.
EROSION - The wearing away of ground surface as a result of the movement of
wind, water, and/or ice.
EXCAVATION — The mechanical removal of earth materials.
EXISTING GRADE — The ground surface configuration prior to grading.
FILL — Any deposits of soil, rock, soil -rock blends or other similar materials
placed by man.
SG-2
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
FINISH GRADE — The ground surface configuration at which time the surface
elevations conform to the approved plan. I
GEOFABRIC — Any engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications
including subgrade stabilization, and filtering.
GEOLOGIST — A representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and
trained in the field of geology.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT — The Geotechnical Engineering and
Engineering Geology consulting firm retained to provide technical * services for the
project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Geotechnical
Consultant include observations by the Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer,
Engineering Geologist and those performed by persons employed by.and responsible to
the Geotechnical Consultants.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER — A licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Civil
Engineer who applies scientific methods, engineering principles' and professional _
experience to the acquisition, interpretation and use of knowledge of materials of the
earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering problems. Geotechnical Engineering
encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics,
geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences.
GRADING — Any operation consisting of excavation, filling or combinations
thereof and associated operations.
LANDSIDE DEBRIS — Material, generally porous and of low density, produced
from instability of natural or man-made slopes.
MAXIMUM DENSITY — Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight.
Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unity weight shall be determined in
accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 1557-91.
OPTIMUM MOISTURE — Soil moisture content at the test maximum density.
RELATIVE COMPACTION — The degree of compaction '(expressed as a
percentage) of dry unit weight of a material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight
of the material.
ROUGH GRADE — The ground surface configuration at which time the surface
elevations approximately conform to the approved plan.
SITE - The particular parcel of land where grading is being performed.
SG-3
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
SHEAR KEY — Similar to buttress, however, it is generally constructed by
excavating a slot within a natural slope, in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope
without grading encroaching into the lower portion of the slope.
SLOPE — An inclined ground surface, the steepness of which is generally
specified as a ration of horizontal: vertical (e.g., 2:1)
SLOPE WASH — Soil and/or rock material that has been transported down a slope
by action of gravity assisted by runoff water not confined by channels (also see
Colluvium).
SOIL — Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or combinations
thereof.
SOIL ENGINEER — Licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer
experienced in soil mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer).
STABILIZATION FILL — A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically
related to slope height and specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the
stability of locally adverse conditions. A stabilization fill is normally specified by
minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A stabilization fill may
or may not have a backdrainage system specified.
SUBDRAIN — Generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed
beneath a fill in the alignment of canyons or formed drainage channels.
SLOUGH — Loose, non -compacted fill material generated during grading
operations.
TAILINGS — Non -engineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equipment
haul -roads.
TERRACE — Relatively level step constructed in the face of a graded slope
surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes.
TOPSOIL — The presumable fertile upper zone of soil, which is usually darker in
color and loose.
WINDROW — A string of large rocks buried within engineered fill in accordance
with guidelines set forth by the Geotechnical Consultant.
SG-4
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observation and testing services and
should make evaluations in order to advise the Client on Geotechnical matters. The
Geotechnical Consultant should report his findings and recommendations to the Client or
his authorized representative.
The client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his
authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have
authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide
services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on -
site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make
decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project.
The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory
completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects,
including but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans,
specifications and controlling agency requirements. During grading, the Contractor or
his authorized representative should remain on -site. Overnight and on days off, the
Contractor should remain accessible.
SITE PREPARATION
The Client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a
meeting among the Grading Contractor, the Design Engineer, the Geotechnical
Consultant, representatives of the appropriate governing authorities as well as any other
concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice.
Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush,
grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials
from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all
proposed excavation and fill areas.
Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations,
reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage
pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and man-made surface and subsurface
improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper
capping and/or re-routing pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of
wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of the demolition..
Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or
demolished should be protected by the Contractor from damage or injury.
SG-5
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should
be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off -site. Clearing, grubbing and
demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical
Consultant.
The Client or Contractor should obtain the required approvals for the controlling
authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and
removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with
grading operations.
SITE PROTECTION
Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of
the Contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the
concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to
preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such
time as the entire project is complete as identified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the
Client and the regulating agencies.
The Contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary
excavations. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant pertaining to temporary
excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed
project and therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the
Contractor. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered
to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies.
Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations
and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or
improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy
season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low
areas can not be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water
during periods of rainfall.
During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessible to
prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of
rainfall, the Contractor should install check -dams de -silting basins, rip -rap, sandbags or
other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions.
During periods of rainfall, the Geotechnical Consultant should be kept informed
by the Contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e.g.,
pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.).
Following periods of rainfall,. the Contractor should contact the Geotechnical
Consultant and arrange a walk -over of the site in order to visually assess rain related
damage. The Geotechnical Consultant may also recommend excavations and testing in
order to aid in his assessments. At the request of the Geotechnical Consultant, the
Contractor shall make excavations in order to evaluate the extent of rain related damage.
SG-6
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
Rain -related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to,
erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions
identified by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as
Unsuitable Materials and should . be subject to overexcavation and replaced with
compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths
greater then 1 foot, should be overexcavated to unaffected, competent material. Where
less than 1 foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in -place to achieve near
optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the
applicable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials
should be overexcavated then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications.
In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of
greater than 1 foot, should be over -excavated to unaffected, competent material. Where
affected materials exist to depths of 1 foot or less below proposed finished grade,
remedial grading by moisture conditioning in -place, followed by thorough recompaction
in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the
• desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and
• replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein.
As field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recommended by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
EXCAVATIONS
Unsuitable Materials
Materials which are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may
not be limited to dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured,
weathered, soft, bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials.
Materials identified by the Geotechnical Consultant as unsatisfactory due to its
moisture conditions should be overexcavated, watered or dried, as needed, and
thoroughly blended to uniform near optimum moisture condition (per Moisture guidelines
presented herein) prior to placement as compacted fill. ,
Cut Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by
the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1
(horizontal: vertical).
If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured or
otherwise suitable material, overexcavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials
SG-7
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
with a compacted stabilization fill should be accomplished as recommended by the
Geotechnical Consultant. -Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Consultant,
stabilization fill construction should conform to the requirements of the Standard Details.
The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut slopes during excavation. The
Geotechnical Consultant should be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope
excavations.
If during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical
conditions are encountered which were not anticipated in the preliminary report, the
Geotechnical Consultant should explore, analyze and make recommendations to treat
these problems.
When cuts slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non -
erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top -of -cut.
Pad Areas
All lot pad areas, including side yard terraces, above stabilization fills or
buttresses should be over -excavated to provide for a minimum of 3-feet (refer to Standard
Details) of compacted fill over the entire pad area. Pad areas with both fill and cut
materials exposed and pad areas containing both very shallow (less than 3-feet) and
deeper fill should be over- thickness (refer to Standard Details). Cut areas exposing
significantly varying material types should also be overexcavated to provide for at least a
3-foot thick compacted fill blanket. Geotechnical conditions may -require greater depth of
overexcavation. The actual depth should be delineated by the Geotechnical Consultant
during grading.
For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be
established away from the top -of -slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm
and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top -of -slope
of 2 percent or greater is recommended.
COMPACTED FILL
All fill materials should be compacted as specified below or by other methods
specifically recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified,
the minimum degree of compaction (relative compaction) should be 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum density.
Placement
Prior to placement of compacted fill, the Contractor should request a review by
the Geotechnical Consultant of the exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise
recommended; the exposed ground surface should then be scarified (6-inches minimum),
watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture
SG - 8
l
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
conditions, then thoroughly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum
density. The review by the Geotechnical Consultants should not be considered to
preclude requirements of inspection and approval by the governing agency.
Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches in
loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be watered or dried as needed,
thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions then thoroughly
compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum
dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until, the desired finished grades
are achieved.
The Contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction
equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being
placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials. If necessary,
excavation equipment should be "shut down" temporarily in order to permit proper
compaction of fills. Earth moving equipment should only be considered a supplement
and not substituted for conventional compaction equipment.
When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1
(horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the
adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least 6-foot
wide benches and minimum of 4-feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural
ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed
in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been reviewed by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved
sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the
horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have
been included within the accompanying Standard Details.
Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate
fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false
slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a
3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved
compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least
3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved.
Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction
and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of
Testing D 1556-64, D 2922-78 and/or D2937-71. Tests should be provided for about
every 2 vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as
field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading
recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
SG-9
c
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant and/or his
representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing
compacted fill.
As recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor should
"shutdown" or remove any grading equipment from an area being tested.
The Geotechnical Consultant should maintain a plan with estimated locations of
field tests. Unless the client provides for actual surveying of test locations, by the
Geotechnical Consultant should only be considered rough estimates and should not be
utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing test locations or in any case
for the purpose of after -the -fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement.
Moisture
For field testing purposes, "near optimum" moisture will vary with material type
and other factors including compaction procedures. "Near optimum" may be specifically
recommended in Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may be evaluated during
grading.
Prior. to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other
grading delay, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be processed by
scarification, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near -optimum moisture
conditions, then recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry
density. Where wet or other dry or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater
than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated. '
Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no
additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial
grading performed as described herein.
Fill Material
Excavated on -site materials which are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant
may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious
materials are removed prior to placement.
Where import materials are required for use on -site, the Geotechnical Consultant
should be notified at least 72 hours in advance of importing, in order to sample and test
materials from proposed borrow sites. No import materials should be delivered for use
on -site without prior sampling and testing by Geotechnical Consultant.
Where oversized rock or similar irreducible material is generated during grading,
it is recommended, where practical, to waste such material off -site or on -site in areas
designated as "nonstructural rock disposal areas". Rock placed in disposal areas should
be placed with sufficient fines to fill voids. The rock should be -compacted in lifts to an
SG- 10
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
unyielding condition. The disposal area should be covered with at least 3-feet of
compacted fill, which is free of oversized material. The upper 3-feet should be placed in
accordance with the guidelines for compacted fill herein.
Rocks 12 inches in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized .within the
compacted fill, provided they are placed in such a manner that nesting of the rock in
avoided. Fill should be placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. The
amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the3/4-inch sieve size.
The 12-inch and 40 percent recommendations herein may vary as field conditions dictate.
During the course of grading operations, rocks or similar irreducible materials
greater than 12-inch maximum dimension (oversized material) may be generated. , These
rocks should not be placed within the compacted fill unless placed as recommended by
the Geotechnical Consultant.
Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater that 12-inches but less than
4-feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be
placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the accompanying
Standard Details is recommended. Rocks greater than 4 feet should be broken down or
disposed off -sire. Rocks up to.4-feet maximum dimension should be placed below the
upper 10-feet of any fill and should not be closer than 20-feet to any slope face. These
recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical,
oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures of deep utilities are
proposes.
Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or
unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported
granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and
around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material
should. be staggered so that successive strata of oversized material are not in the same
vertical plane.
It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate
and as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant at time of placement.
Material that is considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Consultant should not
be utilized in the compacted fill. -
During grading operations, placing and mixing the materials from the cut and/or
borrow areas may result in soil mixtures which possess unique physical properties.
Testing may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill areas in order to verify
conformance with the specifications. Processing of these additional samples may take
two or more working days. The Contractor may elect to move the operation to other
areas within the project, or may continue placing compacted fill pending laboratory and
field test results. Should he elect the second alternative, fill placed is done so at the
Contractor's risk.
SG- 11
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant, and/or in other areas, without prior notification to the
Geotechnical Consultant may require removal and recompaction at the Contractor's
expense. Determination of overexcavations should . be made upon review of field
conditions by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Fill Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by
the regulating agencies, permanent,fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical).
Except as specifically recommended otherwise or as otherwise provided for in
these grading guidelines (Reference Fill Materials), compacted fill slopes should be
overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual
amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not
achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the
guidelines of the Geotechnical Consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased
until the desired compacted slope. surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by
the Contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the
overbuilt slope surface.
Although no construction procedure produces a slope free from risk of future
movement, overfilling and cutting back of slope to a compacted inner core is, given no
other constraints, the most desirable procedure. Other constraints, however, must often
be considered. These constraints may include property line situations, access, the critical
nature of the development, and cost. Where such constraints are identified, slope face
compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including
backrolling techniques upon specific recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant.
As a second best alternative for slopes of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter,
slope construction may be attempted as outlined herein. Fill placement should proceed in
thin lifts, (i.e., 6 to 8 inch loose thickness). Each lift should be moisture conditioned and
thoroughly compacted. The desired moisture condition should be maintained and/or
reestablished, where necessary, during the period between successive lifts. Selected lifts
should be tested to ascertain that desired compaction is being achieved. Care should be
taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend
horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately
establish desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to .roll off at
the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope.
Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift
down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding 4-feet in vertical slope height or the
capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly
backrolled utilizing a conventional sheepsfoot-type roller. Care should be taken to
maintain the desired moisture conditions and/or reestablishing same as needed prior to
backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the slopes should again be moisture conditioned
SG - 12
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
and thoroughly backrolled. The use of a side -boom roller will probably be necessary and
vibratory methods are strongly recommended. Without delay, so as to avoid (if possible)
further moisture conditioning, the slopes should then be grid -rolled to achieve a relatively
smooth surface and uniformly compact condition.
In order to monitor slope construction procedures, moisture and density tests will
be taken at regular intervals. Failure to achieve the desired results will likely result in a
recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant to overexcavate the slope surfaces
followed by reconstruction of the slopes utilizing overfilling and cutting back procedures
and/or further attempt at the conventional backrolling approach. Other recommendations
may also be provided which would be commensurate with field conditions.
Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed,
the fill slope configuration as presented in the accompanying standard Details should be
adopted.
For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from
the top -of -slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least
2-percent in soil area.
Off -Site Fill
Off -site fill should be treated in the same manner' as recommended in these
specifications for site preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc.
Off -site canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future additional fill, as
shown in the accompanying Standard Details.
Off -site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should -be surveyed for
future relocation and connection.
DRAINAGE
Canyon sub -drain systems specified by the Geotechnical Consultant should be
installed in accordance with the Standard Details.
Typical sub -drains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill
masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying
Standard Details.
Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of
structures to suitable disposal areas via non -erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts,
concrete swales).
For . drainage over soil areas immediately away from structures (i..e., within 4-
feet), a minimum of 4 percent- gradient should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2
percent should be maintained over soil areas. Pad drainage may be reduced to at least 1
SG - 13
r
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
percent for projects where no slopes exist, either natural or man-made, or greater than 10-
feet in height and where no slopes are planned, either natural or man-made, steeper than
2:1 (horizontal to vertical slope ratio).
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained
throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering
drainage patterns can be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance.
STAKING
In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior to the placement of the stakes.
This particularly is important on fill slopes. Slope stakes should not be placed until the
slope is thoroughly compacted (backrolled). If stakes must be placed prior to the
completion of compaction procedures, it must be recognized that they will be removed
and/or demolished at such time as compaction procedures resume.
In order to allow for remedial grading operations, which could include
overexcavations or slope stabilization, appropriate staking offsets should be provided.
For finished slope and stabilization backcut areas, we recommend at least 10-feet setback
from proposed toes and tops -of -cut.
SLOPE MAINTENANCE
Landscape Plants
In order to enhance - superficial slope stability, slope planting should be
accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope, planting should consist of deep -
rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the Southern California area
and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-
arid and and areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect would be the best
party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration.
Irritation
Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches
excavated into slope faces.
Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on
irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during
periods of rainfall
Though not a requirement, consideration should be give to the installation of near -
surface moisture monitoring control devices. Such devices can aid in the maintenance of
relatively uniform and reasonably constant moisture conditions.
SG- 14
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
Property owners should be made aware that over -watering of slopes is detrimental
to slope stability.
Maintenance
Periodic inspections of landscaped slope areas should be planned and appropriate
measures should be taken to control weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants.
Some areas may require occasional replanting and/or_ reseeding.
Terrace drains and downdrains should be periodically inspected and maintained
free of debris. Damage to drainage improvements should be repaired immediately.
Property owners should be made aware that burrowing animals can be detrimental
to slope stability. A preventative program should be established to control burrowing
animals.
As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept
on hand, to protect allslope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged
rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time prior
to landscape planting.
Repairs
If slope failures occur, the Geotechnical Consultant should be contacted for a field
review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair.
If slope failure occurs as a result of exposure to periods of heavy rainfall, the
failure areas and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to
protect against additional saturation.
In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are
illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer 1 foot to
3 feet of a slope face).
TRENCH BACKFILL
Utility trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by
mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be
a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density.
As an alternative, granular material (sand equivalent greater than 30) may be
thoroughly jetted in -place. , Jetting should only be considered to apply to trenches no
greater than 2-feet in width and 4-feet in depth. Following jetting operations, trench
backfill should be thoroughly mechanically compacted and/or wheel -rolled from the
surface.
SG - 15
Standard Guidelines
For Grading Projects
Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1:1 projection from
the outer edge of foundations should be mechanically compacted to' a minimum of 90
percent of the laboratory maximum density.
Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to 1 foot
wide and 2 feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or
by mechanical means. If on -site materials are utilized, they should be wheel -rolled,
tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density
testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on
review of back -fill operations during'construction.
If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in
close proximity to a buried conduit, the Contractor may elect the utilization of light
weight compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular
material, which should be thoroughly jetted in -place above the conduit, prior to initiating
mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also
be appropriate, upon review by the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of construction.
In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native
materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered
subject to review by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Clean Granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas
unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential build-up of
seepage forces.
STATUS OF GR ADING
Prior, to proceeding with any grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant
should be notified at least two working days in advance in order to schedule the
necessary observation and testing services.
Prior to any significant expansion of cut back in the grading operation, the
Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with adequate notice (i.e., two days) in order
to make appropriate adjustments in observation and testing services.
Following completion of grading operations and/or between phases of a grading
operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with at least two working
days notice in advance of commencement of additional grading operations.
SG - 16
4" DIAMETER PERfORATEO
PIPE BACKOR4/N�
4 " DIAMETER NON-PEA'FURATED
' P/PE LATERAL DRAIN
2.OX
SLOPE PER PLAN r—
'/ 2 D9'
s--
X.O% 5.09'
�ilM/N/MUA/
`— BENCH/NG '
H12
4
`PROVIDE N ADD177 1 PER AACI(DCKDRAI 4/N
DETAIL. AN ADD/T10NAL BACKORA/N
AT MID -SLOPE WILL BE REOU/RED FVR
SLOPE IN. EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH
KEY -DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER
(GENERALLY 112 SLOPE HEIGHT, 15' MINIMUM.)
InformationGEOTBCBN[rAL SEBRCBS
® To Build on TYPICAL STABILIZATION &man st,,,,t
tong earn, calrfam b qZa1a
�a�•••• • co•v.r/�w • T.• FILL DETAIL M8.2) M7-J977
C
4 " DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE BACKDRAIN
4" DIAMETER NON —PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL ORA/N
SLOPE PER PLAN
2.09
X. oz
'PROS/DE 94CKDR41N PER BACKDRA/N
DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRA/N
AT MID —SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR
SLOPE /N EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH
CKKE)-DIMENSIGN PER SOILS ENGINEER
Jp Information VEOTECHNICAL SE)MICBS
To Build on TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL M60 Stvst
callromfo �a..•�a ' ca�.w�.o • r.,rtio 9Oe7Q
DETAIL `°°' (562) 597-.3977
0VEREXCAVATE
FINAL LIMIT OF DAYLIGHT
EXCAVAT/ON LINE F7N/SH PAD
OVEREXCAVATE
B' AND REPLACE
WITH COMPACTED /
FILL
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
20' MAX/MUM 1 �
i
FIRM COMPETENT BEDROCK —
i
i
� EQUIPMENT
W/D TYPICAL BENCHING
15' MIN/MUM BASE
/ 2' MINIMUM
/ PROV/DE BACKDRA/N PER 54CKDR41N
DETAIL. LOCATION OF 94CKDR4/1V AND
OVERBURDEN OUTLETES PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR
(CREEP -PRUNE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING
GRADING
® Inforrnat2on CBOTBomw SBRYlCBS
��® Ul Build 70 DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL ��9 Bdc*, r0, ��aBs
EnphM►ao Canru/dng • Tistti� (5e2j ss7�077
NATURAL GROUND
PROPOSED GRADING
1.5
�I
COMPACTED FILL 1.5
w- P�'^E WEAKNESS
PROVIDE SACKORAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL,---,z
AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRA/N AT MID —SLOPE WILL
BE REOU/RED FOR BACK SLOPES IN EXCESS OF
40 FEET HIGH. LOCATIONS OF 9ACKOR41NS AND
OUTLETS PER SOILS ENC/NEER AND/OR ENCINEERING
CEDLOCISr DURINC GRADINC.
P� ® Information
�® Ta Build 0n
ffi79b* &w - coenwhym • Tirtkw
TYPICAL SHEAR KEY
DETAIL
BASE WIDTH 'W" DETERMINED
BY SOILS ENGINEER
CE07WRNIVAL SERVICES
5900 07mon Jrmat -
Leng Boots, 02r/ornie 90473
(562) 597—J977
FILL
rOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN -
i
i
L/M/Is OF
i
F71VAL EXCAVA710N �
F71VAL' NATURAL 7PF i ofRIA i
ORV
- - - - - UN5UI1A0
/0' TYPICAL BENCH -�
/ WIDTH VAR/ES
ZI
COMPETENT FsWTH
MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCH
HE/CHT
M/N/MUM
DOWNSL OPF
15' MINIMUM QASE -I
KEY DEPTHTH KEY WIDTH PROVIDE 84CKDR4/N AS REWIRED
PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS
ENGINEER DURING GR-40ING
WHERE N4TURAL SLOPE /S 5.1 OR LESS
BENCHING /S N01- NECES54RY, HOWEVER, FILL IS
NOT TO 9E PLACED ON COMPRESS/BLE OR
UNSUMASLE MATERNAL
dom. ® Infarma�tion
® FILL SLOPE ABOVE BEOTBC6V C4 b S trwet -S
� To Build On .�� �,»o„ sh..r
NATURAL GROUND DETAIL
r
REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLW/UM AND CREEP MATER/4L FROM FILL
TRANSITION
'
SEMOV E
CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ' CREEP
ON GRADING PLAN ' SUM
TopAND
COL
IL. D �
so
4' rYPICAL
CUrIFILL CONTACT SHOWN j
ON AS —BUILT
NATURAL
TOPOGRAPHY
BEDROCK OR APPROVED
i FOUNDATION ABATER/AL
' CUT SLOPE 15' MINIMUM
V
NOTE' • CUT SLOPE PORT70N SHALL BE MADE
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL.
® Information
® FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT C�OT�caNlcu S'Wrear S
To Build On .�� ���„�, u.,,,:
ffmy...�.a • cci ru/tlna • r aHiav S LOPE DETAIL a«� " an ma's
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
3 FT 2 MIN/MUM PER LINEAL FOOT
OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE"
TAPE AND SEAL AT CONTACT
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID
OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
A
2Z MINIMUM GRADIENT
A
DETAIL 7A7-A]
COMPACTED FILL -
,-- SUPAC S-P FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFOR4 T ED PIPE
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MIN/MUM 2% GR40/ENT
R7 OUTLET
BENCH INCLINED
TOWARD DRAIN
TYPICAL BENCHING
- TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
COMPACTED
BACKF/LL
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER
12" MINIMUM COVER
APPROVED SOL/D
OUTLET PIPE
0_1011
*NOTE'.' AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE S/ZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
12" M/N/MUM
"
1 1/2" 100
i" 5-40
3/4" 0-17
T/8" O-7
NO. 200 0-3
Information
To Build On
C�yM�erhy . Consalmv • TistNp
BACKDRAIN DETAIL
(GE®FABRIC)
GEOTECBNIC L SBAFTCES
J960 Q/mvn 5frOW0
Long Beach 6b///ornlo ftV15
(sea) sD7-7077
F7N/SH SURFACE SLOPE
3 FT. J MINIMUM PER LINE4L FOOT
APPROVED FILTER ROCK*
4 " MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID
OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REOUIREMEIV75 DURING
GRADING
/ A
2% MINIMUM GRADIENT
A
DETAIL :A -A
i
COMPACTED FILL
4 " MIN/MUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE**
(PERFOR4TIONS DOWN)
/NIMUM 2% GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
BENCH INCLINED
TOWARD SLOPE
TYPICAL BENCHING
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
COMPACTED
84CKFILL
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER
12" MINIMUM COVER
APPROVED SOLID
OUTLET PIPE
FILTER ROCK MATERIAL
TO MEET FOLLOW/NG
SPECIRCAT/ON OR APPROVED EQUAL
SIEVE SIZE
PERCENTAGE
12" MINIMUM
I .
100
3/4 "
90-100
3/8"
40-100
"APPROVED PIPE TYPE.
NO. 4
25-40 V
SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
NO. 30
5-15
(P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MIN/MUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI.
NO. 50
0-7
NO. 200
0-3
jr��® Informatio7b CdOTBCBMCdL SERYICB9
�`�°®® To Build On TYPICAL BAGKDRAIN DETAIL Long fily o�h Com/oo°"15
�i►�fi►MNAy .COMA/tMy . TWI/Ay (562) M7-M77
SURFACE OF
FIRM EARTH
\ COMPACTED FILL /
\ / REMOVE UNSUMABLE
TYPICAL BENCH/NC MATERIAL
Q �INCL/NE TOWARD
DR4/N
SEE DETAILS BELOW
r
TRENCH DETAIL
6" MIN/MUM OVERLAP
OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL
SUPAC 8-P FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
6" MIN/MUM OVERLAP
24 "
MINIMUM 24 "
1 MINIMUM
1 MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER UM:4L
FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN
M4T£RL4L
50To 90,
DR41N MATERAL TO MEET FOLLOWINC
M/N/MUM Y FT3 PER L/N64L
FOOT OF APPROVED DR4/N
MATER/AL
SUPAC 5-P FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
SPEC/F/G4T/ON OR APPROVED EQUAL:
ADD MIMMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE WHEN GRAD/ENT /S
SIEVE SIZE
PERCENTAGE PASSING
LESS TbAN 2X
.88-100
1 "
5-40
APPROVED PIPE TO 'BE SCHEDULE 40
314"
0-17
POLY -VINYL -CHLORIDE (P.V..C.) OR APPROVED
3/8"
0-7
EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSAI STR NCT/•/ 1000 psi.
N0.:200 0-3
® Informatwn GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
®.o�® To Build On GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN DETAIL ��g ,Cg7tm SMmt g,
�p�Nd� • Ov-np/Mvy - TswBnp
(56ZJ 597-TD77
BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
F/LL SLOPE
_ �'TERIAL --'-
5' MINIMUM — REMoVE UNSU'r— 4 TYPICAL
' 10' TYP/C4L
10' MIN. INCLINED 2X
INTO SLOPE)
BENCHING FILL OVER CUT
11
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
FINISH FILL SLOPE n
UNSUrrA E MATERIAL/4 TYPICAL
FINISH CUT SLOPE — 'REMad
— 10' TYPICAL
15' MINIMUM OR STABIL/TY EQU/VALENT
PER SOIL ENGINEERING (INCLINED 29
MINIMUM INTO SLOPE)
�® Information BENCHING FOR COMPACTED CEOTEC6/'fc4z S- - ES
To Build On J960 VIM" Clgh?bm��J
e,.yim...i,� • cens,/Usy • r.,aRy FILL DETAIL (.sev 5V7-.79n
a
FINISHED GRADE
CLEAR AREA FOR
FOUNDATION - U TUTIES 10,
AND SWIMMING POOLS
SLOPE FACE
O CD
STREET15, STRE
WINDROW
5' OR BELOW Of-FTH
OF DEEPEST UnUrY TRENCH'
(EDGE VIOUV1
GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED
—\
TO FILL VOIDS
HORIZONTALLY PLA
CED D COMPACTION rUL
VEW,
ff7 Info rm a tion 9AFodor ffCffXrCAL SYRUCES
TftV 01mon Wrmf ® Build On ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL L«v gova/b "ems On
"15
(382) "7--TO77
SURFACE OF
FIRM EARTY
\ COMPACTED FILLf
MOI/E UNSUlfABLE
TER/AL
TYP/C4L BENCHINGOOARD
OR4/N
SEE DETAILS BELOW—"`r
TRENCH DETAIL
MIN/MUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAL
FOOT OF APPROVED
FILTER MATERIAL
•
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS
DOWN)
6" FILTER MATERIAL
BEDDING
14"
MIN/MUM
FILTER -AM TER14L TO MEET FOLLOW/NC
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40
POLY —VINYL —CHLORIDE (P. V 0.) OR APPROVED
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE
EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psG
!" f00
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.
SUBJECT TO FIELD RENEW BASED ON ACTUAL
314 "' 90-100
CEOTECHN/CAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING
3/8" 40-100
GRADING
NO. 4 25-40
LENCTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER
NO. 30 5-15
UPPER 500' • 4 "
NO. 50 0-7
NEXT 1000' 6"
NO. 200 0-3
> 1500' 8"
® Information
•®e Tv Build On
TYPICAL
CANYON SUBDRAIN
GBQT&czrxlc` SERvrc'S
J980
DETAIL
G11mc" Samar
`°"° �) � n� n eoo�s
I
0
CUT LOT
— — — _ TOPSOIL, COLLU�/UM AND
5• WEATHERED BEDROCK 5•
ORIGINAL
GROUND
i
CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSIT/ON)
1
ORICIMAL
GROUND
i
COMPACTED FILL ' 5•
i
i
0VEREXCAVATE AND
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK REGR40E
TOP SOIL i
COLLIN/UM AND
WEATHERED
BEDROCK i
Information CBOTBCHMCAL SUMICBS
To Build on TRANSITION LOT DETAIL ��9 °�."�oStIOW
m;s scef5
IrmIftNrino • CanwlNtp
r5ez1 5s7-a977