Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-3226 (CONR) Geotechnical Engineering
Yellow Geotechnical .engineering Exploration and .Analysis Proposed Wendy's .Restaurant Proposed "The Centre at La Quinta" SEC LaQuinta Drive and High way .r..1.1 La Quinta, California Prepared Foy: Wendy's International Roseville, California 1k1cat•ch 9, 2005 Project Vo. 2C-0502010 0 GILES ENGINEERING t JSSUCIATES, INC. "�rcJ' �� DIES ENGINEERING F)SSOCIATES. INC. Alia'hta GA GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS ....... ... Dallas. !.'X I YI' [J.,0`X Los Arvics, CA .......... . . Orland, ,, Washincilon. D.C. i klaM 9, 2004 rl 65.3 3 E. Cotton Gin Loop, Suite 110 Phoenix, Arizona 8540 Attention: lkls. sonva Blonde Development Coordinator u bli. ec t: Geotechnica I Fmlgineerino Ex.plormllion and. Anlflys 0 is Proposed Wendy's Restaurant Proposed "The Centre at La Quirita" Shopping Center SPEC LaQUInta and.1-1-ighway 1'1 I La Quinta, California Project No. 22G-050210.10 ]XarJNlIs..I3londe*. has been conducted for the above referenced project. ConclUSiOTIS and recon-mi.endations developed from the exploration: ani] analysis are discussed in the accornp-anyi ng* report. We appreciate. the opportunity to be of service on this -project. If we may be of additional assistance, Should geotechnical related problems OCC.Ur or to provide monitoring and testing services during constj please do not hesitate to call at any firrie. Very trLlIV YOL117S, G11.17'S ENGINE-1-PRING A.SSOCIATES,INC. 4-wl Nlichelle A. Wickers Sta.-IffEriginecring Geologist F Alex Shiraz! P.F."'. ABPAS • Selliol PI ect I.." oincer SHAOMAN SHMAZI ol R.C.E._'64z?_)7 . No. 3 NO.C65237 5_ r Cl I V 1'7flCI0,SLlI_C: Report No. 2("; -0 502010 1)i U-ibi i i on: (I) Addressee 4675 "Eas' Llnl",i�jliii Aveo;i*r - Stiilr.- Fin? - An,,he:m. CA 92807 7l,V'79-0Q)52 - F,-,)( 714-1. 779-01068 - E -Mail YELLOW TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED WENDY'S RESTAURANT PROPOSED "THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA" SHOPPING CENTER SEC LA QUINTA DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 2G-0502010 Description 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................... 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES......................................................................................... 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................: 3.1 Site Description.................................................................................................. 3.2 Proposed Project................................................................................................ 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION....................................:.................................... 4.1 Subsurface Exploration....................................................................................... 4.2 Subsurface Conditions....................................................................................... 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 5.1 Soil Vapor Scan..........................:...................................................................... 5.2 Seismic Design Considerations ............................ :............................................ 5.3 Site Development Recommendations................................................................. 5.4 Site Construction Considerations....................................................................... 5.5 Foundation Recommendations........................................................................... 5.6 Floor Slab Recommendations...................................................................:........ 6.0'GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REFERENCES Appendices: Appendix A: Project Details Appendix B: Figures (2), Test Boring Logs (6) and UBCEIS Output (2) Appendix C: Field Procedures Appendix D: Laboratory Testing and Soil Classification Appendix E: General Information (Modified Proctor Procedures) and Important. Information About Your Geotechnical Report ©Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005 Page ......1 �►a 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 8 9 ...10 ...11 e YELLOW GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED WENDY'S RESTAURANT PROPOSED THE. CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SEC LA QUINTA DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 11 1 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 2G-050201 0 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE 'The Executive Summary is provided solely for purposes of overview. Any party who relies on this report must read the report in its entirety. The Executive Summary omits a number of details, any one of which could be crucial to the,proper application of this report. Yellow: Due to the presence of possible variable strength characteristics of existing soils encountered in the proposed building area, preparation of the building area is recommended to include a minimum overexcavation and recompaction to provide a more uniform subgrade. Subsurface Conditions • The subsurface soil profile generally consisted of loose to dense relative density silty fine to medium sand. A soil classification of SD is recommended for seismic design. Site Development • Site Preparation: Preparation is anticipated to require 6 to 8 inches of stripping is areas with vegetative coverage. Vegetative c6verage is minimal. • Building Pad. Preparation: Due to the presence of possible variable strength characteristics of existing soils encountered in the proposed building area, preparation of the building area should include overexcavation, moisture conditioning and recompaction of the upper 3 feet of existing material below existing grade or planned bearing grade, whichever is greater in the foundation areas. A minimum of 2 feet below existing grade or at least 18 inches below floor subgrade (not including granular layer) is recommended below the slab area. Building pad overexcavation should be performed to a minimum lateral extent of 5 feet beyond the building footprint. • Excavation bank stability problems should be expected where steep excavation banks are attempted in non- cohesive granular soils. Building Foundation 0 Shallow spread footing foundation system supported on properly prepared subgrade designed for a 2,000 psf allowable soil bearing pressure. • Minimum reinforcing in the strip footings is recommended to consist of four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom) to provide greater rigidity due to the potential variability of underlying native soils. Building Floor Slab • Minimum 4 -inch thick slab -on -grade or turned -down slab supported on suitable existing material. • Minimum steel reinforcing is recommended to consist of at least standard welded wire fabric (6x6 -W 1.4x W 1.4 WWF). ' W_AJ-1LCS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 2 Pavement Asphalt Pavements: 3 inches of asphalt concrete underlain by 5 or 7 inches of base course in parking stalls at drive lane areas, respectively. Portland Cement Concrete: 6'/2 inches in thickness underlain by 4 inches of base course in high stress areas such as entrance/exit aprons, drive-thru lane and the trash enclosure -loading zone. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services authorized for this project included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slab and pavement sections. Site preparation recommendations and construction/design considerations are also presented for the proposed development. General comments and other limitations relative to this report are presented in Appendix E. In addition to the previously described geotechnical services, all below -grade soil samples recovered from the field exploration program were subjected to a Limited Volatile Organic Compound Vapor Scan using a Photoionization Detector. Further evaluation of the environmental aspects of the site was beyond the authorized scope of services, but will be addressed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by our firm (Project No. 2E-0502004) submitted under separate cover. 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Description The proposed site is a parcel located in the south region of the proposed Centre at La Quinta at the southeast corner of La Quinta Drive and Highway 111 in La Quinta, California. At the time of field exploration, the subject site consisted of vacant lot. The surrounding developments include a car lot to the west, retail stores to the south and east and new development to the north. Site topography was relatively level with less than l foot of elevation difference between test boring locations. 3.2- Proposed Project Description A description of the proposed development is presented in Appendix A which includes the assumed structural loads and parking lot traffic intensity. The preliminary project information provided for our use did not indicate the planned finished floor elevation for the proposed building. Therefore, an assumed finished floor at El. 103.5±, relative to the temporary benchmark indicated on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2) enclosed in Appendix B'has been assumed for this analysis. Existing site grades at the test boring locations in the proposed building area were determined to range from El. 102.3 to EI. 103.0. Site grading is, therefore, expected to require minimal grading to establish the necessary site grades to accommodate the assumed finished floor elevation, exclusive of site preparation or overexcavation .requirements. C(�JIILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 3 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Subsurface Exploration ,Field exploration consisted of seven test borings extended to depths of 5 to 15 feet below existing grade. The approximate test boring locations are indicated on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). The. Boring Location Plan, as well as copies of the Test Boring Logs (Records of Subsurface Exploration) are enclosed in Appendix B. Field and laboratory test procedures are enclosed in Appendix C and D, respectively. The terms and symbols used on the Test Boring Logs are defined on the General Notes in Appendix E. 4.2 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions as subsequently described have been simplified somewhat for ease of report interpretation. A more detailed description of the subsurface conditions at the test boring locations are described on the test boring logs enclosed in Appendix B of this report. eon The subsurface soil profile generally consisted of loose to dense relative density silty fine to medium sand. Boring.Nos. 1 and 3 encountered partially cemented dense relative density fine sandy silt to silty fine sand 8 to 1.0 feet below existing grade down to maximum depth explored, 15 feet. Soluble Sulfate Test - Representative samples of the near surface soils, which may contact structural concrete, have been submitted to an analytical testing laboratory to determine the concentrations present of water soluble sulfate which could result in chemical attack of cement. Upon completion of this testing, an addendum to this report will be issued' which presents the results of testing and pertinent recommendations for concrete mix design. Corrosivity Selected samples of the near -surface soils have been submitted to an analytical testing laboratory to evaluate the potential for corrosion to buried utility conduits, especially cast iron and ductile iron as well as the potential for attack on structural concrete that may contact the soils. An addendum to this report will be issued upon completion of testing which presents the results of the tests, as well as appropriate recommendations for protection of underground utilities and concrete mix designs. W -IG -i -LES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered at the test boring locations during the field exploration. On the basis of the field observations in conjunction with the relative moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the groundwater table was estimated to have existed at depths in excess of 15 feet at the time of exploration. However, the water table is subject to seasonal fluctuations depending on precipitation and surface water runoff and perched water conditions can develop where more permeable soils are underlain by less pervious materials. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conditions imposed by the proposed development have been evaluated on the basis of the estimated finished floor elevation of the building and engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered in the borings and their anticipated behavior both during and after construction. Conclusions and recommendations presented for the design of building foundations, building floor slab and pavement sections, along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations are discussed in the following sections of this report. Soils exposed to grading operations are sensitive to water and difficulties may be encountered during site preparation. Recommendations in this report are predicated upon site preparation, foundation and pavement construction observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. 5.1 Seismic Design Considerations Faulting and Seismicity Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the probability of fault rupture to occur at the site is considered to be low. The site is, however, subject to strong ground shaking during a seismic event. The structural engineer should perform the design of the proposed building in accordance with the current version of the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC seismic coefficients were determined by using the "UBCS.EIS" (v 1.0) software package developed by Thomas Blake, Computer Services and Software. The program uses a digitized fault data file developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS) in conjunction with the longitude and latitude coordinates for the subject site to calculate the closest distance to each fault. The coefficients are then determined in accordance with the procedures described in Section 16 of the CBC based on fault type and distance. The program output file is included with this report. The results of the analysis yielded the following CBC coefficients: --F-ES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 5 CBC Seismic Coefficients Seismic Zone Factor 0.4 Soil Profile Type Na 0 Nv 1. Ca0.46 Cv 0.83 Ts 0.720 To 0.144 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore -water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors, which influence the potential for liquefaction, include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, and relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth below ground surface in which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact development and structures supported on shallow foundations is typically considered to be 50 feet. The subject site is located within an area that has not been mapped by the state of California to determine if it is potentially susceptible to liquefaction. An Environmental Hazard Map for Riverside County was also researched to determine if the subject site is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone and it was determined that it does not exist in a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The potential for liquefaction to occur at the proposed site is, therefore, considered to be low an nota significant factor for the site development. 5.2 Site Development Recommendations The estimated planned finished floor elevation of the building and the finished site grade may require minor grading to establish finish site grade in the building area. The recommendation presented in the subsequent sections of this report for the design and construction of the building foundation and floor slab and new parking lot pavement have been based on the assumption that only minor site grading will be necessary to establish finished site grades. Material imported to the site should be provided to the geotechnical engineer at least 48 hours prior to importing so that the material can be properly evaluated. The recommendations subsequently presented for site development are based upon the soil conditions encountered at the test borings at the time of exploration. Bids for site preparation should be based upon the time of year -in which development is planned. ILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 6 Site Clearing Initial site preparation should include removal of any debris or other deleterious materials that may exist at the time of development. A minimum 6 to 8 inches of stripping is anticipated to be required within areas with vegetative coverage. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should determine the actual depth of stripping based on the stability of the soils. Building Area Due to the potential for non-uniform and low strength subgrade conditions, the existing subgrade soils are not anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. Preparation of the building area should include overexcavation and recompaction of the upper 3 feet of existing material below existing grade or planned subgrade, whichever is deeper in the foundation areas. A minimum of 2 feet below existing grade or at least 18 inches below floor subgrade (not including granular layer) is recommended below the slab area. Building pad overexcavation should be performed to a minimum lateral extent of 5 feet beyond the building footprint. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the bearing suitability of the subgrade within the areas of footing influence at the time of footing area overexcavation. Soils suitable to serve as the subgrade in the areas of footing influence and provide indirect foundation support should exhibit'at least a loose relative density (average N -value of at least 4) for the recommendation bearing pressure. Evaluation of the foundation bearing soils is recommended to be performed to a minimum depth of 4 feet below the structural fill subgrade using the appropriate field testing methods. The actual depth of evaluation may be revised at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer. Dry Weather/Conditions Gradin No significant additional overexcavation or undercutting is expected to be necessary during site preparation due to unstable soil conditions. Areas requiring overexcavation may be encountered during the preparation due to the presence of low strength native soils and the potential for variances in support characteristics. Wet Weather Construction or Wet Conditions. In the event subgrade stability problems are encountered, additional overexcavation or undercutting on the order of 10 to 16 inches should be expected to be necessary to achieve a stable subgrade. Alternate stabilization techniques consist of chernical modification of the soils by the addition of hydrated lime or Portland cement or by placement of a coarse crushed aggregate working mat. If undercutting or special subgrade stabilization measures are necessary, a representative of our firm should W-,IGTLCS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 7 provide the appropriate recommendations based on field evaluation and testing. Proofroll and Compact Subgrades Proofroll Subgrades Subgrades within the proposed building and parking areas as well as areas to serve as the subgrade for placement of structural fill should be proofrolled in the presence of a representative of the geotechnical engineer with appropriate rubber -tire mounted heavy construction equipment or a loaded dump truck to detect loose, soft, yielding soils which must be removed to a stable subgrade. Following proofrolling and completion of any necessary overexcavation, the subgrades should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557-00) maximum dry density. Low areas and excavations may then be backfilled in lifts with suitable low to non -expansive (EI less than 30) structural compacted fill. The selection, placement and compaction of structural fill should .be performed in accordance with the project specifications. The Guide Specifications included in Appendix E (Modified Proctor) of this report may be used as an aid in developing the project specifications. The need may arise to recompact the floor slab and pavement subgrades immediately prior to construction due to the effects of weather and construction traffic on a previously prepared subgrade. Reuse of On-site Soils On-site material may be reused as structural compacted fill within the proposed building and pavement areas with proper control of the moisture content provided they do not contain significant quantities of organics or otherwise deleterious materials in accordance with Item No. 4 of the Guide Specifications enclosed in Appendix E. The near surface soils that are expected to be excavated and subsequently recompacted as part of overexcavation activities are sensitive to water. Care must be used to control the moisture content of the soils. Recompaction of the on-site soils is recommended to be performed at a moisture content within a narrow range of optimum moisture content. All subgrade soil recompaction as well as the selection, placement and compaction of new fill soils should be performed in accordance with the project specifications under engineering controlled conditions. W_A--ILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 8 Import Structural Fill The soils imported to the site for use as structural fill should consist of low to non -expansive soils (EI less than 30). Material designated for import should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer no less than two working days for evaluation. In addition to expansion criteria, soils imported to the site should exhibit adequate shear strength characteristics for the recommended allowable soil bearing pressure; soluble sulfate content and corrosivity; and pavement support characteristics. Subgrade Protection The soils that will be exposed during site grading and construction activities are sensitive to water and unstable soil conditions may develop if the soils are exposed to water infiltration or free-flowing water. The site should be graded to prevent water from ponding within construction areas and/or flowing into excavations. Accumulated water must be removed immediately along with any unstable soil. Foundation concrete should be placed and excavations backfilled as soon as possible to protect the bearing grade. The degree of subgrade instability and associated remedial techniques will be dependent, in part, upon the precautions used by the contractor to protect the subgrade and develop positive drainage. Silt fences or other appropriate erosion control devices should be installed in accordance with local, state and federal requirements at the perimeter of the development areas to control sediment from erosion. Since silt fences or other erosion control measures are temporary structures, careful and continuous monitoring and periodic maintenance to remove accumulated soils and/or replacement should be anticipated. 5.3 Construction Considerations Soil Excavation The near surface soils in which shallow footing and utility trenching is expected consist of sands with varying silt content, which may result in excavation bank stability problems. Shallow excavations that extend into generally non -cohesive granular soils should be adequately sloped for stability. Deeper excavations may require some form of external support such as shoring or bracing if the excavation banks cannot be sloped for stability. All excavations should be performed in accordance with Cal -OSHA regulations, which is the responsibility of the contractor. Construction Dewatering - Groundwater was not encountered to a depth of 15 feet during field exploration and is anticipated to exist below depths of excavations typical for the proposed development. In the event shallower W-1G5L_E_,SENG1NEER1-NG ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 9 perched water conditions develop, filtered sump pumps placed in pits in the bottoms of excavations are expected to be suitable if dewatering becomes necessary. 5.4 Foundation Recommendations Vertical Load Capacity Upon completion of the recommended building pad preparation,the proposed structure may be supported -by a shallow spread footing foundation system. The foundation system may consist of either independently poured spread footings or monolithically poured foundation and floor slab (thickened slab) in which walls are supported by continuous strip footings and columns are supported by isolated square pad footings. Foundations should be underlain by suitable existing Material that extends throughout the foundation influence zone. Foundations may be designed for a maximum, net, allowable soil -bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pso, which may be increased by one-third for short-term transient loading conditions.. Minimum footing widths are recommended to be 14 and 24 inches for walls and columns, respectively. Footing Reinforcing The recommended minimum quantity of longitudinal reinforcing for geotechnical considerations within continuous strip footing is four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom) continuous through column pads. The recommended quantity of longitudinal reinforcing pertains to a minimum 12 -inch thick and a maximum 24 -inch wide footing pad; additional reinforcing may be necessary if a thinner or wider footing pad is used to develop equivalent rigidity. The reinforcing recommendation is intended to provide greater rigidity due to the variable strength characteristics of the existing material and the resulting potential for differential movements. Conventional reinforcing is considered suitable in isolated column pad footings. A qualified structural engineer should determine the actual reinforcing details. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. Passive pressure and friction may be used in combination, without reduction, in determining the total resistance to lateral loads. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for short duration wind or seismic loads. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces for footings placed on undisturbed native soils or low to non -expansive structural compacted fill. An allowable passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of footing depth below the lowest adjacent grade (pcf) may be used for the sides of footings placed against undisturbed native soils or newly placed structural fill. '11_/'11i�ILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES; INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta,.California Project No. 2G-0502010 .Page 10 y 1 W-IGILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES; INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 1 l Bearing Material Criteria Evaluation of the foundation bearing soils is recommended to be performed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer at the time of footing construction prior to placement of reinforcing steel or forms. Soils suitable to serve as the subgrade in the areas of footing influence and thereby provide indirect foundation support, should exhibit at least loose relative density (average N -value of at least 4) for the recommendation bearing pressure. Evaluation of the foundation bearing soils is recommended to be performed to a minimum depth of 4 feet below bearing grade using the appropriate field testing methods. The actual depth of evaluation may be revised at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer. Disturbed or unsuitable bearing soils that may be encountered due to weather or disturbance effects should be excavated to a suitable bearing soil subgrade and to a lateral extent as defined by Item No. 3 of the enclosed Guide Specifications, with the excavation backfilled with structural compacted fill. Foundation Embedment A minimum 18 -inch foundation embedment depth for single -story construction is recommended for the proposed building. Interior footings may be supported at nominal depth below slab grade. Additional embedment may be required for structural engineering design considerations. All footings must be protected against weather and water damage during and after construction, and must be supported within suitable bearing materials as described herein. Estimated Settlement Post -construction total and differential settlement of a shallow foundation system designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report are estimated to be 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. The estimated differential settlement is anticipated to result in an angular distortion on the order of 0.0021 inches per inch on the basis of a minimum clear span of 20 feet. The maximum estimated total and differential settlement is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure, provided that the structural design adequately considers this distortion. 5.5 Floor Slab Recommendations Sub rg ade The floor slab subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the appropriate recommendations presented in the Site Development Recommendations section of this report, which includes overexcavation of the existing soils and recompaction of a minimum thickness structural fill layer under engineering controlled conditions. Foundation, utility trenches and other below -slab excavations should be backfilled with structural compacted fill in accordance with the project specifications. '/GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES; INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 12 Design Based on the recommended subgrade preparation and the anticipated live floor loading, the floor of the proposed structure may be designed and constructed as a minimum 4 -inch thick slab -on -grade - The minimum slab reinforcing is recommended to be at least a standard welded wire fabric (6x6- W1.4xW1.4 WWF) placed at mid -height. If desired, the floor slab may be poured monolithically with perimeter foundations where the foundations consist of thickened sections thereby using a "turned -down" slab construction technique. The design of the floor slab should be performed by the structural engineer to ensure proper reinforcing and thickness. The slab is recommended to be underlain by a 4 -inch thick layer of clean granular material. A synthetic sheet should be placed below the floor slab to serve as a vapor retar er to protect moisture sensitive floor coverings (i.e. tile, or carpet, etc.). The sheets of the vapor retarder material should be evaluated for holes and/or punctures prior to placement and the edges overlapped and taped. If materials underlying the synthetic sheet contain sharp, angular particles, a cushion layer of sand approximately 2 inches thick or a geotextile should be provided to protect it from puncture. An additional 2 -inch thick layer of sand may be needed between the slab and the vapor barrier to promote proper curing. The sand layers above and below the synthetic sheeting may serve as the 4 -inch clean granular material below the slab. Proper curing, techniques are recommended to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking and slab curling. Estimated Settlement Post -construction total and differential settlement of the floor slab designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report are estimated to be 0.5 and 0.3 inches, respectively under static conditions. Settlements on the order of those estimated for foundations should be expected when the foundation and floor slab are structurally connected or constructed monolithically. The estimated differential settlement is anticipated to occur across the short dimension of the structure. The maximum estimated total and differential settlement is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure, provided that the structural design adequately considers this distortion. 5.6 Pavement Recommendations Pavement Subgrade Following completion of the recommended subgrade preparation procedures, the pavement subgrade is expected to consist of existing materials and/or new fill comprised of soils that are very low to non -expansive. In consideration of possible need for fill to raise grade and the unknown borrow source, the soils that may be used as fill have been assumed to consist of soils similar to the near surface soils at the site, i.e. silty.fne to medium sands. The anticipated subgrade soil type is classified as a fair ILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California 'Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 13 subgrade soil based on the Unified Soil Classification System designation of SP -SM. Subgrade soils of the assumed type are anticipated to exhibit an R -value in the range of 20 to 50 when properly prepared. Since an R -value test was not included in the authorized scope of services, an R -value of 25 has been used for pavement design. The City of La Quinta may require a specific R -value testing to allow the use of the following design sections or may specify a code section in lieu of R -value testing. To use this R - value for design, all fill added to the pavement subgrade must have pavement support characteristics at least equivalent to the existing soils, and must be placed and compacted in accordance with the project specifications. Asphalt Pavements The following table presents the thickness for a new flexible pavement structure consisting of asphalt concrete over a granular base, along with the appropriate CALTRANS specifications for proper materials and placement procedures. An alternate pavement section has been provided for use in parking stal l areas due to the anticipated lower traffic intensity in these areas. However, care must be used so that truck traffic is excluded from areas where the thinner pavement section is used, since premature pavement distress will occur. In the event that heavy vehicle traffic cannot be excluded from the specific areas, the pavement section recommended for drive areas should be utilized throughout the parking lot. ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thickness inches CALTRANS Specifications Parking Stalls Drive Lanes Materials Asphalt Concrete 1 1 Section 39, (a) Surface Course b Asphalt Concrete 2 2 Section 39, (a) Binder Course b Crushed Aggregate 5 7 Section 26, Class 2 Base Course(R-value at least 78 NOTES: (a) Compaction to density between 95 and 100 percent of the 50 -Blow Marshall Density (b) The surface and binder course may be combined as a single layer placed in one lift if similar materials are utilized. Asphalt concrete pavement recommendations are based upon CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty-year design period and assume proper drainage and construction observation and testing. It is, therefore, recommended that a representative of the geotechnical engineer monitor and test subgrade preparation, and that the subgrade be evaluated immediately before pavement construction. ILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California Project No. 2G-0502010 Page 14 Portland Cement Concrete The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described in Section 5.3 for proposed asphalt pavement areas. Portland Cement concrete pavement is recommended for areas of the parking lot and site that are subjected to intense vehicle traffic such as the entrance/exit ramps or subject to intense loading such as the trash enclosure loading zone. -Portland Cement concrete pavements are recommended to be at least 6'/z inches in thickness underlain by a 4 -inch thick crushed aggregate base course and contain at least No. 3 bars at 18 -inch on -center spacing each way. The maximum joint spacing within the Portland Cement concrete pavements is recommended to be 15 feet or less to control shrinkage cracking. Load transfer reinforcing will be required at construction joints perpendicular to traffic flow if construction joints are not properly keyed. Materials and construction procedures for concrete pavements should be in accordance with Section 40 of the CALTRANS Standard Specifications. 6.0 Geotechnical Evaluation Reference Earth Systems Southwest, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Phase II Development, The Centre at La Quinta, in La Quinta, California, April 30, 2002. W_IGJ L'-NGINEERI.NG ASSOCIATES. INC. { APPENDIX B FIGURES AND TEST BORING. LOGS The Boring Location Plan contained herein was prepared based upon information supplied by Giles's client, or others, along with Giles's field measurements and observations. The diagram is presented for conceptual purposes only and is intended to assist the reader in report interpretation. The Test Boring Logs and related information enclosed herein depict the subsurface (soil and water) conditions encountered at the specific boring locations on the date that the exploration was performed. Subsurface conditions may differ between boring locations and within areas of the site that were not explored with test borings. The subsurface conditions may also change at the boring locations over the passage of time. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. `I. AUTOS ENTER AT LA).QUIN.TA- (E-V )NW, p cntLettuht H i rlNicr IryRTI- LU li N07 A f'AJiT 7 I FLrrljRE I - ` D VElck'MFfvt (: CRSS) 11 f 14 • �` 1 unci u�t • r�« 7 t�.e . FiTE � , - t� t 1.'i+� A,3.A. • RDtAE t � m X 8.[.� NEA • AEtiSt � QiN4. _. f f 4 1 P, —�A14 pp ._? p 1 i o tBenchmark r (} USN L kss�rned El. 100' , L� +x =5` ---- Ia r, 5 s 16T4 1 r' I I T q + +� T eI 24+ 1 9' 19' ( 26' t 0 1 rn 9 ,I r GILES ENGINEERING P)SSOCIATES.INC. 0 10 30 60 Figure 2 Scale 1 inch = 30 feet Boring Location Plan Job: Proposed Wendy's Restaurant Project No.: 2G-0502010 I 7.l Approximate Boring Location Location: La 9uinta, Colifornio Date: March 2005 1 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION BORING NO. & LOCATION: PROJECT: 1_ CNW Building Corned _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Proposed Wendy's Restuarant _ _ _ _ _ _ SURFACE ELEVATION: - PROJECT LOCATION: 103.0 GILES ENGINEERING - COMPLETION DATE: ____-SECLaQuintaDriveandHighway_111 ASSOCIATES, INC. 2/22/05 La Quinta, California Milwaukee Atlanta --------------- FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: ----------------------------- Dallas Wasington, D.C. Brian Johnson GILES PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-0502010 Los Angeles Orlando MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Sample No. & N qu qp qs PID NOTES Surface Type ( fl ( q �ts� Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand- Moist 1 ss 7 11 BDL 2 CS 25 8 BDL Dd 103 pcf (Dry) 3 CS 17 3 BDL Dd 92 pcf 5 2 BDL FCS10 11 1 BDL Dd 100 pcf Light Gray Brown Silty fine Sand (Partially 10 Cemented)- Dry Dd 92 pcf 6 SS 15 5 BDL Boring Terminated at 15 feet 15 WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING: None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 8 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: —: i i.nanges in strata maicatea by the lines are apppproximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION BORING NO. R LOCATION: PROJECT: 2 NE Buildin Corner _ _ _ _ — — — Proposed Wendy's Restuarant SURFACE ELEVATION: PROJECT LOCATION: 102.8------ La Quinta Drive and Highway 111 GILES ENGINEERING COMPLETION DATE: -----SEC ASSOCIATES, INC. 2/22/05 La Quinta, California Milwaukee Atlanta FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Dallas Wasington, D.C. Brian Johnson 17--GILES PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-0502010 Los Angeles Orlando Feet Sample MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Below No. & N qu qp qs w PID NOTES Surface Type (tsq (tsp (tsf) N Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand- Moist ISS 7 10 BDL 2 SS 16 8 BDL (Dry) 3 SS 10 3 BDL 5 • 4 SS 8 3 BDL 5 SS 6 4 BDL 10 6 SS 8 4 BDL Boring Terminated at 15 feet 15 V WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS Q WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING: None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL. 9.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: R —:CAVE 1 ..�•y �+ ••• .auww u• uy aic unca al0 a uUd UU U UCIWCCII JV II Ly Flex. I lie dULUdl Cran5ition may oe graoual ano may vary conslaerawy oetween borings. Location of Test Bonng is shown on a Boring Location Ian. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION BORING NO. & LOCATION: PROJECT: _3 SNE Building Corned _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Proposed Wendy's Restuarant ---------- SURFACE ELEVATION: PROJECT LOCATION: La Quinta Drive and Highway 111 GILES ENGINEERING ______103.0-----_ COMPLETION DATE: -----SEC ASSOCIATES, INC. 2/22/05 La Quinta, California Milwaukee Atlanta FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Dallas Wasington, D.C. Brian Johnson GILES PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-0502010 Los Angeles Orlando Feet Sample MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Below No. & N qu qp qs PID NOTES Surface Type (tsq (tsp (tsq (%) Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand- Moist 1 ss 5 11 BDL 2 CS 30 7 BDL Dd 109 pcf (Dry) 3 CS 28 3 BDL Dd 104 pcf 5 4 CS 13 2 BDL Dd 96 pcf Light Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt (Partially Cemented)- Moist 5 CS 12 16 BDL Dd 85 pcf 10 6 SS 6 23 BDL Boring Terminated at 15 feet 15 WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS V- WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING: None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 9 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: S[ —: 1 miag a.-yc� aua a ai�we.au uy uie ureas area roxnndie oounaa oerween son rypes. he ac[uai vansmon may be gradual and may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Bonng is shown on a Boring Location Ian. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE- EXPLORATION CP5 BORING NO. & LOCATION: PROJECT: 4 LSW Building Corned _ _ _ _ — — _ _ Proposed _Wendy's Restuarant _ _ _ _ _ — SURFACE ELEVATION: _ PROJECT LOCATION: 102.3______ _____SEC LaQuintaDrive and Highway GILES ENGINEERING COMPLETION DATE: _111 ASSOCIATES, INC. 2/22/05 La Quinta, California Milwaukee Atlanta FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: _ Dallas Wasington, D.C. Brian Johnson GILES PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-0502010 Los Angeles Orlando Feet Sample MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Below No. & N q. qp qs w PID NOTES Surface Type (tsq ( � ( f) %) Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand- Moist 1 AU 4 11 BDL 2 SS 16 5 BDL (Dry) 3 SS 23 3 BDL 5 4 SS 12 3 BDL 5 SS 7 4 BDL 10 6 SS 12 5 BDL Boring Terminated at 15 feet 15 WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS S_Z WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING: None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: 1 ........ 1 ® ChangesLin strata inbicateb by the fines are approximate bounaary between sou types. the actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on a Boring Location Plan. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION BORING NO. & LOCATION: PROJECT: 5 NE Trash Enclosure --— --——— — — — —— _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Proposed Wendy's Restuarant _ SURFACE ELEVATION: _ _ _ _ _ PROJECT LOCATION: 103.1 La Quinta Drive and Highway 111 GILES ENGINEERING -----_ COMPLETION DATE: ----_SEC ASSOCIATES, INC. 2/22/05 --------------- La Quinta, California ----------------------------- Milwaukee Atlanta FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Dallas Wasin ton D.C. g , Brian Johnson GILES PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-0502010 Los Angeles Orlando Feet Sample MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Below No. & N qtr" qp qs w PID NOTES Surface Type (tso (ts� (tsp N Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand- Moist 1 ss 7 9 BDL 2 SS 17 9 BDL 3 SS 13 2 BDL (Dry) Boring Terminated at 5 feet 5 WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS 4 WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING: None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 3 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: I? —: 1 F-mro �••��� •,• ��a� ••• a .,y �� �� �� a r ��AI'—W wunua ueMeen svu types. i ne ac[uai transition may oe gradual ana may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Bonng is shown on a Boring Location Ian. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION BORING NO. & LOCATION: PROJECT: 6 (SE Drive La_n_e)__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Proposed Wendy's Restuarant --------- SURFACE ELEVATION: PROJECT LOCATION: 103.1_____— GILES ENGINEERING COMPLETION DATE: ---_—SECLaQuintaDriveandHighway_111 ASSOCIATES, INC. 2/22/05 --------------- La Quinta, California ----------------------------- Milwaukee Atlanta FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Dallas Wasington, D.C. Brian Johnson GILES PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-0502010 Los Angeles Orlando Feet Sample MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Below No. & N qu qp qs w PID NOTES Surface Type (tsq (tsq (tsq %) Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand 1 ss 6 2 SS 15 3 SS 14 Boring Terminated at 5 feet 5 WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS _V WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING: None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 4 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: _Z 1 auy�� ,sae111-0— uy u1a noea ere a ruxunaie uounua between sou types. ine accuai transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on a Boring Location Ian. *********************** * * r * U B C S E I S * * * Version 1.00 * * COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 2G-0502010 DATE: 03-08-2005 JOB NAME: Proposed Wendy's Restaurant La Quinta, California FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.7063 SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2823 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: SAN ANDREAS - Southern DISTANCE: 8.8 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME:, BURNT MTN. DISTANCE: 28.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: T.0 Nv: 1.3 Ca: 0.46 - Cv: 0.83 Ts: 0.720 •To: 0.144 * 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. --------------------------- SUMMARY OF .FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 1 I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) 1(A,B,C)1 (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) SAN.ANDREAS - Southern 1 8.8 1 A 1 7.4 1 24.80 I s.s 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) ELSINORE-JULIAN CALICO - HIDALGO ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELMORE RANCH LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGE NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) SUPERSTITION HILLS.(San Jacinto) HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO . ELSINORE-GLEN IVY CLEGHORN IMPERIAL ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA CUCAMONGA CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) ROSE CANYON NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) ELSINORE-WHITTIER SAN ANDREAS - 1857 -Rupture SAN JOSE GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE SIERRA MADRE (Central) CORONADO BANK NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) CLAMSHELL- SAWPIT PALOS VERDES BLACKWATER RAYMOND VERDUGO 1 28.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS 1 29.4 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS 1 34.1 1 A 1 7.2 1 12.00 1 SS 1 34.7 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS 1 48.5 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS 1' 51.0 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS 1 52.3 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 1 SS 1 54.4 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS 1 56.9 1 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 1 SS 1 58.8 1 B 1 6.9 1 12.00 1 SS 1 62.4 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS 1 64.6 1 B 1 6.5 1 2.00 1 SS 1 66.6 1 B 1 6.5 1 25.00 1 SS I 69.7 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.60 1 SS I 70.1 1 A 1 7.1 1 5.00 1 SS 1 72.5 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS 1 76.9 1 B 1 6'.8 1 5.00 1 SS 1 78.4 1 B 1 6.6 1 1.00 1 SS 1 79.0 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 1 SS 1 81.9 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 DS 1 82.8 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS 1 86.0 1 B 1 6.6 1 5.00 1 SS 1 87.4 1 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 1 SS 1 91.7 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS 1 94.8 1 B 1 6.7 1 .12.00 1 SS 1 98.8 1 B 1 6.8 V 5.00 1 SS 1 106.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS 1 109.7 1 A 1 7.0 1 .20.00 1 SS I 115.2 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.50 1 SS. 1 119.1 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS 1 119.7 1 B 1 6.7 1 1.00 1 DS 1 122.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS 1 122.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS 1 126.4 1 B 1 6.8 .1 2.50 1 SS 1 133.5 1 A 1 7.8 1 34.00 1 SS 1 137.9 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS 1 142.4 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS 1 142.6 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 I DS 1 146.9 1 B 1 7.4 1 3.00 1 SS 1 152.1 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 SS 1 156.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS 1 160.1 1 B 1 7.1 1 3.00 1 SS 1 161.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS 1 167.4 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS 1 176.5 1 B I 6.7 I n 5n I ns SOILS SUMMARY 4 Project: PROPOSED WENDY''S RESTAURANT Project Location: SEC La Quinta Drive and Highway Soils Report Request By: Sonya Blonde Geotechnical Company Name: Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Company Address: 4875 E. La Palma Ave., 4608, Anaheim, California Contact: Jim Borden Phone: # (714) 779-0052 Fax: # (714) 779-0068 Field Work Done By: Brian Johnson Date: February 22, 2005 Report Prepared By: Michelle Wickers and Alex Shirazi Site Condition Are there existing structures or foundations on-site?—No Is there evidence of contamination on-site? No Was a PID vapor scan conducted? Yes Was anything detected? No Is there potential for soil expansion? No Is there evidence of wetlands or other environmental issues? No UU11 1111_ 1'UU11L1a.1VJ1 Is existing soil suitable for bearing? Yes. Explain: Due to the potential for non-uniform and low strength subgrade conditions, the existing subgrade soils are not anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. Preparation of the building area should include overexcavation and recompaction of the upper 3 feet of existing material below existing grade or planned subgrade, whichever is deeper in the foundation areas. Are special foundations required? No. What is the allowable bearing capacity of soil? 2,000 psf Type footing or foundation recommended: Shallow foundation system with increased reinforcement consisting of a minimum four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom). tsuuatng z!taa Area Is existing subgrade suitable to support slab? Yes, however, a minimum 2 feet overexcavation and recompaction is recommended for floor slab subgrade. Type of slab recommended: Conventional slab on grade. Pavement Area Was there existing pavement on the site? No. Is existing subgrade adequate? Yes - Recommendation for base course: 5 inches in parking area, 7 inches in drive lanes. Recommendation for asphalt in concrete: 3 inches. Recommendation for concrete pavement: 6'/z inches of Portland concrete over 4 inches at base course. Sign Foundation Is soil in sign area suitable to support a pylon sign foundation? The sign location was not indicated on the provided site plan. Design strength of soil at sign: 2,000 psf summary Wendy's Field Engineer Comments: ,Dm `sllylOOSSv S3'1I9 'uta,taq paprno id am sal!D dq patudofiad dluotutuoa sa.tnpaowd play pun $utgsai `$urldutns aqi fo suvqdt rasap far rg , -saldutnd poS 2u.tmodsumy Pun 2u.'"asatd JOf ao1700-4d pInpun7S„ palMua OZZt Q uO'Ivu21saP NTSN dq papuaunuoaad sa.tnpaooad aql qpm aOubpr000n jmauaS ut ddojn,tognl s,sal!D of pamodsuma pun pan.tasaid a.iam saldutns Itod -suot;no fftaads aunnala i iagio io1puv jood pun pod 2uildwvS sof aptnD pmpuo�d„ paljtaua 0,7f Q u011>,u21sap (L jgV) slat jdjvN pun Buwgsal iof djatood unot.i9wV agj dq papuawwoaa.i s,?dnpaao td agl ql!m aauopwoon In raua2 ur paianpuoo a Lana suoamaclo play age SYYnGYD0Yd (TUI,d D XIGNgddV N GENERAL FIELD PROCEDURES Test Boring Elevations The ground surface elevations reported on the Test Boring Logs are referenced to the assumed benchmark shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Unless otherwise noted, the elevations were determined with a conventional hand -level and are accurate to within about ]foot. Test Boring Locations The test borings were located on-site based on the existing site features and/or apparent property lines. Dimensions illustrating the approximate boring locations are reported on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Water Level Measurement The water levels reported on the Test Boring Logs represent the depth of 'free " water encountered during drilling and/or after the drilling tools were removed from the borehole. Water levels measured within a granular.(sand and gravel) soil profile are typically indicative of the water table elevation. It is usually not possible to accurately identify the water table elevation within cohesive (clayey) soils, since the rate of seepage is slow. The water table elevation within cohesive soils must therefore .be determined over a period of time with groundwater observation wells. It must be recognized that the water table may fluctuate seasonally and during periods of heavy precipitation. Depending on the subsurface conditions, water may also become perched above the water table, especially during wet periods. Borehole Backfilling Procedures Each borehole was backfilled upon completion of the field operations. If potential contamination was encountered, and/or if required by state or local regulations, boreholes were backfilled with an "impervious" material (such as bentonite slurry). Borings that penetrated pavements, sidewalks, etc. were "capped" with Portland Cement concrete, asphaltic concrete, or a similar surface material. It must, however, be recognized that the backfill material may settle, and the surface cap may subside, over a period of time. Further backfilling and/or re -surfacing by Giles' client or the property owner may be required. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES Auger Sampling (A U) Soil samples are removed from the auger flights as an auger is withdrawn above the ground surface. Such samples are used to determine general soil types and identify approximately soil stratifications. Auger samples are highly disturbed and are therefore not typically used for geotechnical strength testing. Split -Barrel Sampling (SS) — (ASTMD-1586) A split -barrel sampler with a 2 -inch outside diameter is driven into the subsoil with a 140 - pound hammer, free falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer -blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of an 18 -inch sample interval is defined as the "Standard Penetration Resistance" or "N -value. " The N -value is representative of the soils' resistance to penetration. The N -value is therefore an index of the relative density ofgranular soils and the comparative consistency of cohesive soils. A soil sample is collected from each SPT interval. Shelby Tube Sampling (ST) — (ASTMD-1587) A relatively undisturbed soil sample is collected by hydraulically advancing a thin-walled Shelby Tube sampler into a soil mass. Shelby Tubes have a -sharp cutting edge and are commonly 2 to 5 inches in diameter. Unless otherwise noted, Giles uses 3 -inch diameter tubes. Bulk Sample (BS) A relatively large volume of soil is collected with a shovel or other manually -operated tool. The sample is typically transported to Giles' materials laboratory in a sealed bag or bucket. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DC) — (ASTMSTP 399) This test is conducted by driving a 1.5 -inch -diameter cone into the subsoil using a 15 pound steel ring (hammer), free fulling a vertical distance of 20 inches. The number of hammer -blows required to drive the cone 1'/ inches is an indication of the soil strength and density, and is defined as "N. " The Dynamic Cone Penetration test is commonly conducted in hand auger borings, test pits and lvithin excavated trenches. -Continued- GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Ring -Lined Barrel Sampling— (ASTMD 3550) In this procedure, a ring -lined barrel sampler is used to collect soil samples for classification and laboratory testing. This method provides samples that fit directly into laboratory test instruments without additional handling/disturbance. A Sampling and Testing Procedures The field testing and sampling operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (AST* andlor other relevant specifications. Results of the field testing (i.e. N -values) are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Explanations of the terms and symbols shown on the logs are provided on the appendix enclosure entitled "General Notes. " GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX D LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION The laboratory testing was conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM and/or other relevant specification. Brief descriptions of laboratory tests commonly performed by Giles are provided herein. GILE.S ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. s i APPENDIX D LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION The laboratory testing was conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM and/or other relevant specification. Brief descriptions of laboratory tests commonly performed by Giles are provided herein. GILE.S ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION In this procedure, soil samples are `scanned' in Giles' analytical laboratory using a Photoionization Detector (PID). The instrument is equipped with an]]. 7 eV lamp calibrated to a Benzene Standard and is capable of detecting a minute concentration of certain Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) vapors, such as those commonly associated with petroleum products and some solvents. Results of the PID analysis are expressed in HNu (manufacturer's) units rather than actual concentration. Moisture Content (w) (ASTMD2216) Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water contained within a soil sample to the weight of the dry solids within the sample. Moisture content is expressed as a percentage. Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) (ASTMD2166) An axial load is applied at a uniform rate to a cylindrical soil sample. The unconfined compressive strength is the maximum stress obtained or.the stress when 15% axial strain is reached, whichever occurs first_ Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance (qp) The small, cylindrical tip of a hand-held penetrometer is pressed into a soil sample to a prescribed depth to measure the soils capacity to resist penetration. This testis used to evaluate unconfined compressive strength. Vane -Shear Strength (qs) The blades of a vane are inserted into the flat surface of a soil sample and the vane is rotated until failure occurs. The maximum shear resistance measured immediately prior to failure is taken as the vane -shear strength. Loss -On -Ignition (ASTM D2974; Method C) The Loss -On -Ignition (L. 0. 1.) testis used to determine the organic content of a soil sample. This procedure is conducted by heating a dry soil sample to 440°C in order to burn -off or "ash " organic matter present within the sample. The L. 0.1. value is the ratio of the weight lost due to ignition compared to the initial weight of the dry sample. L. 0.1. is expressed as a percentage. —GI—LES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Particle Size Distribution (ASTMD 421, D 422, and D 1140) This test is performed to determine the distribution of specific particle sizes (diameters) within a soil sample. The distribution of coarse-grained soil particles (sand and gravel) is determined from a "sieve analysis, " which is conducted bypassing the sample through a series of nested sieves. The distribution of fine-grained soil particles (silt and clay) is determined from a "hydrometer analysis, " which is based on the sedimentation ofparticles suspended in water. Consolidation Test (ASTMD 2435) . In this procedure, a series of cumulative vertical loads are applied to a small, laterally confined soil sample. During each load increment, vertical compression (consolidation) of the sample is measured over a period of time. Results of this test are used to estimated settlement and time rate of settlement. Classification of Samples Each soil sample was visually -manually classified, based on texture and plasticity, in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTMD-2488-75). The classifications are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTIR and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the laboratory tests are provided on the Test Boring Logs or other appendix enclosures. Explanation of the terms and symbols used on the logs is provided on the appendix enclosure entitled "General Notes. " GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test ASTM D71833 ,j The CBR test is used for evaluation of a soil subgrade for pavement design. The test consists of measuring the force required for a 3 -square -inch cylindrical piston to penetrate 0.1 or 0.2 inches into a compacted soil sample. The result is expressed as a percent of force required to penetrate a standard compacted crushed stone. Unless a CBR test has been specifically requested by the client or heavy traffic loads are expected, the CBR is estimated from published charts, based on soil classification and strength characteristics. - A typical correlation chart is indicated below. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO-C!R• 7 • O .A D O 2D b 70 40 1 50 40 TO e0 90100 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. ASTM FI SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM' tip6W lLow li w Ctoss.litgllenli I Sn I 5P WL F ti Hw , AAS►fT0 SOIL cLASSIrtC++ATgN •-' I I I I . 3 FEDERAL AVIATION AOMINISTPATION SOIL CLASSIFICATION I 1 I I I 1 I " ` I ► I I RESISTANCE VALVE -R• S I D 20 3o b SO sD I To 1 I MOOVLVS , R OF SUBGRADE MEACTION • PSI PER jN I i I Iso I � too 27D 70o Roo so0 soo Too BEARING MALUE. PSI I I 20 ]0 .o .0 W I I I CALIroRlNA BEAR" c RATIO- ceR a • s s� a 9 .o D O 2D b 70 40 1 50 40 TO e0 90100 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. JNI 'S3JLVI1-.)0SSV OmmHaNION3 S31R) kmssaoau punOJ jt 'pastnaJ usld SuipiaB ayi pus p-muojsad uaoq say stsSleue pua uotluaoldxa leotugoaloa2 olsudoidde uu (!)un Lara tegl olut pa»oJd lou p[noys �IJom mp '2tnlly Jo 8utilm .Sq iaglsa polmio 8utaq st uotitpttoo a[qulsun tte 'sonsteluasarda-d s,raumo nql Jo raaufta silos aql To uo!u!do ayl ul 'ranaJagM •u21sop 1fLm aql ut pasn amssaJd lu plcl agl icj uotierap!suoo yltm Jaaut2ua spos paououodxa ue kq panordde pull palsal ,C1Jadojd aq isntu (s[lem 2ututeiai pue siltm itrawmq a -t) sl[em apllB molaq of luaaefpe pooald leualaut [Ig jo adfi� aqj •dolanap lou op sarnssaid leJals( paatmlegtm aAISSaaxa amsx) of areo tlltm paloedutoa pus pamid aq ism sham hole lilnoeg •1Joddns lc.raiLl aptnord o1 uostun to pooeld oT �112o!dfq PInrr, jig [eml.ruls m luaoefpe Ilg [smlonrys-uol i iuois.Ss umpiopun uc to uotsn[out ro uosstnaJ arnpaoord uotlontlsum algtssod sol �iaicipaurun uotlualls s,J0ow2uo silos mp of pal leo aq isnw uusiorulsuuo uoqupuncj/aps 2 8trunp paolunooua aBudaas Jaieh Jo .%9uudS •tttx�Treld 2uolrom a[gelins a aptnord 01 pauterp Jo podwnd aq llags paraltmww ralum 20udaas puu's2uuds'uotlL1tdtrxud •untsoJa jo lon wo mdotd pue sawq llL le a8euseJp aptnord Iltm tall► aauonbos pum .strum a ut potttrojrad aq 1[eys uorlr.Jpdard aper apsr2gns'2trgg totianaoxg y -uotloedtuuo Joj algeltns lou X[lcotd�l ale salotyan paJlae.q Jelrtuts .lo srazopling.•uo!lot dwoo itos Joj patn3isap dlleotpoads ivawdinba leotusgoaw algclins jo istsuoo pinoys luawdtnba uormduroo oql porn 2utaq tuawdtnba «utloedwoo pus s[eualew ju adi(t agl uogeJapisuoa owt 2urlei Joautilua silos atp Xq panordde kllsogtaads ssa[tm 'sluawaned pus sgcls Joog Joj sagout 0 t pue suotlLpunoj roj sagout 8 go ssatDionli asoo[ umumw a tp!tA sJahl to pamid aq Ilsgs llt3 •aneag aJnlnj 11wti of luwluoo amisiow umunldo anoge luatttoo amisiotu lu=md I =FE a is uorlxAsuoo of Joud paurclutew pue palosdwoa `paoe[d aq 'ranamoy 'pinogs (S 1 <I,T) slLtlttalod uoisuedxa q2ty o1 alLrapow gltm silos antsago:I •uotloedwoo puL lummuld ayi BurnJasgo raaui8ua silos ayi Sq panorddu/papuaunuoaar ,(peoU!oads ssaltm 'paloadiuoaaJ Jo palaedwt» pup paarld uaym wnwtldo oyi wo_g luao_nd E':F loss Jelnuuzi pue luotuo:i amistout imo-Kwl E+ of I- uegt;row :(q t(ran lou llugs spos an[sago7 •12aj OZ dol aql uegl ratfdtq luaoJad S Jo (ilsuap kT umtutx-uw sit jo luwJad c6 jo fitsmp oaeld-ul umummu L aney ppio4s foal OZ .a+olaq unilJod ayi 'loaj OZ uetp mleaA st yldaP llg pamtoruls atg aizgtA -sleLialew IPj le tnpruls 2urdlrapun uegl Jaq�tq luaoJad S Jo `,Qtsuap tirp wnwtxew jo luaoJad 56JO .(itsuap nits-ut ttmunuau a aney 1ptys yanlm aprA its luatuanad go sagout Z [ doi ayi jo uotldaoxa a11 gltm QM -Cl Patppoyq ,(q pautuualap se t(itsuap .4Jp umwlxcw ot;l jo luawocl 06 uegl ssal aq lou [legs sapvA pus apsr2gns palg!raos pue lig paloedwoo loJnloruls aql jo nitsuap aql Taal oZ tragi ssal sglcbp Ilia lamlonrls Jai s weisSS uotlaogtssvn svoS pail!un Jad dS Jo MS 'dt)'MJ uealo a ss pa>,pmlo aq ism p 'soiisualoe mqo olglldaosns isutj-uou aptnord of st fill ayij[ .tuawaoeld o1 rout! raat[t2ua situs paouauadxa ue jo uonoanp agt raptm panordde pue payee[ aq ymw TetJaiew Ilei lId 'Jaaw2ua silos paououadxa ue nq panoJdde n[leogtoods sso[un rolauretp your q utnwixew a 111 paloedwoo SuiSlrapun [Ie pus ralatue!p Noimd gout £ umunxaw a aneg pinogs [iii paiaadwoo go sagaut Z I do) OILL •Jaatrt2ua silos paouatJadxa ue .Sq panordde pue satlJadord antsutdxa mal aney of punnj pue Trslsai =fun '.Sianrpidsa.t'S I PLm OE go (bZb-Q W.LSV) Xapul ,(i!otlseld Pup (iZh-Cl W lSti1 ltwrl ptnbt•I wnuuxew r. qpm aysusd),a-mot nq flays puu '„paieunuemo, se pagtssala 8utaq fuLmquw atp ui i[nsw Sinn Imp slaoiuiayo ou uteluoo [iLgs `Jaiiew uazorl ro 'otuvBJo 'snou;Dlalap go oog aq-[mils slsualuw 1[g palasdum ayi •Jaoul2ua silos paouauacim us jo uogoolip oql Japtm lauuosJad p gilenb nq panordde XjImgtoods loup uolleU of paJtnbaJ se payounq Jo poddais aq tsnw Jo odols (A) l:(H)S s uo palaLdwtro pus paaeld ay days 1113 2tnpltnq agl aptsui apeJ2gns Joo[l of (o) pua'2utpltnq atp ap!slno aped 2upuoj a^oge 1003 l (v `aduls (A)1:(I-I)S-0 tunwxst tu a uo apui2gns lig paloedwoo of whop pule opui2gns la luawanad Jo apvA 2uLmaq 1s uoilepunoj ayi jo APO Joualxa aql puonaq ammistp leralel looj 1 wntunnut a (e) puaixa Isnw IiJ paloedwoo agl 's = pg puL uo[leneaxaJano ul ,a3uew1gpzd Jadurd Joj krassaoau aq Xcur 2uilsaloi pus Eunlromar pus amjJns llg paloedwoo aSsurep ,Caw luawdinba uotl:mrlsum pue JagluM -seaJe Jaglo uegl Jay3ty we apbilgns ivawaned Joj sluawannbw uotlaedwo;j :mot[ 'S wall rapun Palsolpm [eualew Jepums Joj parmbw ,pisuap nl!s-ui umwtutw auras of uotlaedwowu (p) pue 'ponnbw ss silos agl Outuotltpuoo aimstow (a) 'sagout 8 of 9 dol 2ut.(jtreas (q) '1noJopun oq isnw 1Lgi s[Luatew a19Llsun Jaglo Jo stns 2uiplat,( `lam `gos 10alap 01 2w11oJjooJd (e) jo isisuoo llegs sltualsw algsltnsun Jaglo Jo oiLmV io 'uoiiela2an 2uiddLns imp sapmdgns jo uotisredaud =ul2w silos paouatJadxo ue 2u[IuasaJdaJ [auuosrad 2maow2ua pagllenb ,{q panordde pus palsal 'pa,.rasgo (o) put 'leuaiew snoualaiap Jatpo Jo'uazoJj osuAio lie jo aog (q) '[eualew 2uueaq algeltns 4q tns[rapun (e) aq llsgs sapL12 pue'sapA. gns'llg palaedwoo IIV Z sangsluasardw srq Jo/pue Jaaw2ua slios pooueuadxa ue , q pauuojnd aq I[egs uutloedwoo pus ltrmuaoald 'uotloalas [Ig Pus ivawaned pue geis Jobe 'uopupunol 'lig roj sopetJ put sopebgns jo 2utlsol put 2uuolruow uogonJlsuo:) S32II1Q3J0?ld 1101jolid (IMMOW 9Nlsfl 3'UOS 71111 30 N0LL3VdWOO QNV 1N3W3JV'Id'N0LLO3'T3S QNV `•.L'dOddflS JN3W3AVd QNV 8V'iS 1100'I3'N01.LVQN 0J "I'lld UO3 N01JLV'dVd3iid QNV mvd9gfIS uod SNOI.Lvaimaus 3wfi9 GENERAL COMMENTS The soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration will be retained for a period of thirty days. If no instructions are received, they will be disposed of at that time. This report has been prepared exclusively for the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. Copies'of this report may be provided to contractor(s), with contract documents, to disclose' information relative to this project.. The report, however, has not been prepared to serve as the plans and specifications for actual construction without the appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. Reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Giles. This report has been 'based on assumed conditions/characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available. It is recommended that the architect, civil engineer and structural engineer along with any other design professionals involved in this project carefully review these assumptions to ensure they are consistent with the actual planned development. When discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to ensure they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been correctly interpreted. The analysis of this site was based on a subsoil profile interpolated from a limited subsurface exploration. If the actual conditions encountered during construction vary from those indicated by the borings, Giles must be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. ` The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty is either expressed or implied. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Ca1A KAC; I ER1J 11C;S AND RATINGS OF UNIFIED SOIL SYSTEM CLASSES FOR SOIL CONSTRUCTION * Max. Dry Value as Value as Temporary Density Subgrade Pavement Class Compaction Standard Compressibility Drainage and Value as an When Not Value as Base With Dust With Characteristics Proctor and Expansion Permeability Embankment Subject to Course .(PC') Material Frost Palliative Bituminous Treatment GW Good: tractor, rubber -tired, steel 125-135 Almost none Good drainage, 'Very stable Excellent Good Fair to Excellent wheel or vibratory roller pervious Poor GP Good: tractor, rubber -tired, steel 115-125 Almost none Good drainage, Reasonably. Excellent Poor to fair ' Poor wheel or vibratory roller pervious stable to good GM Good: rubber -tired or light 120-135 Slight Poor drainage, Reasonably Excellent Fair to poor Poor Poor to fair sheepsfoot roller semipervious stable to good GC Good to fair: rubber -tired or 115-130 Slight :' Poor drainage, Reasonably Good Good to, fair Excellent Excellent sheepsfoot roller impervious stable «» SW Good: tractor, rubber -tired or 110-130 Almost none Good drainage, Very stable Good Fair to poor Fair to Good vibratory roller pervious poor SP Good: tractor, rubber -tired or 100-120 Almost none Good drainage, Reasonably Good to Poor Poor Poor to fair vibratoryroller pervious stable when fair dense SM. Good: rubber -tired or sheepsfoot 110-125 Slight Poor drainage, Reasonably Good to Poor Poor Poor to fair roller impervious stable when fair dense SC Good to fair: rubber -tired or 105-125 Slight to Poor drainage, Reasonably. Good to Fair to poor Excellent Excellent sheepsfoot roller medium impervious stable fair ML Good to poor: rubber -tired or 95-120 Slight to Poor drainage, Poor stability, Fair to Not suitable Poor Poor sheepsfoot roller medium impervious high density poor required CL Good to fair: sheepsfoot or 95-120 Medium No drainage, Good stability Fair to Not suitable Poor Poor rubber -tired roller impervious poor OL Fair to poor: sheepsfoot or 80-100 Medium to high Poor drainage, Unstable, Poor Not suitable Not Not suitable rubber -tired roller impervious should not be suitable used MH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot or 70-95 High Poor drainage, Poor stability, Poor Not suitable Very poor Not suitable rubber -tired roller impervious should not be used CH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot roller . 80-105 Very high No drainage, Fair stability,. Poor to Not suitable Very poor Not suitable impervious may soften on very poor expansion OH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot roller 65-100 High No drainage, Unstable, Very poor Not suitable Not Not suitable impervious should not be suitable used Pt Not suitable Very high Fair to poor Should not be Not Not suitable Not Not suitable drainage used suitable suitable "The Unified Classification: Appendix A - Characteristics of Soil, Groups Pertainintt to Roads and Airfields, and Anoendix B - Characteristics of Soil Groups Pertainine to Embankments and Foundations," Technical Memorandum 357, U.S. Waterways Ixperiment Station, Vicksburg, 1953. k* Not suitable if subject to frost. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. A. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, (ASTM D-2487) -- - or. I UN- and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. -Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28. bBorderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example: GW -GC, well -graded gravel -sand mixture with clay binder, C75(j: GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Group Major Divisions Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria N � e N o u GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mix. c o m D E D60 10301 ^y ` c tures, little or no fines o, Cu = — greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3 Dlo D10 v N X D60 m ou GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel -sand mix. U tures, little or no fines m Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW > > N O N u J C N H e m 0 °z N d 7 CT N C d 7 C O d N O 0` C ro Z y d CL . OO in N ar Z C ca d = "' E _ m GM a Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures N 3 in to Q, Atterberg limits below "A" Above "A" line with P.I. r d m a, ; a ._ u " Z c a, a U -C line or P.I. less than 4 between 4 and 7 are border. O m ZZ p M m c Z ?� c line cases requiring use of GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mix- Atterberg limits below "A" cl tures �, 0 0 m line with P.I. greater than 7 dual symbols N V o. Q Q p E m N c SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little D60 (D3 0) o v .2 V E = . _ or no fines > u Cu ` — greater than 6; Cc between 1 and 3 D10 0 0— c a 510 x D60 SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, meeting all gradation requirements for SW N o CNot U little or no fines c cN > y c .. � y N O a J _ N d O — d O C urn O ycC d 2 d MV'0WI r ^ �� .c E SMe Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures ac, a a " n E Atterberg limitt above "A" L m u u a ._ � ry u line or P.I. less than 4 Limits plotting in hatched A m 5 v c 3 M - d c o In ^ Zi c° zone with P.I. between 4 W E W N V O SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures W O1 —° m n c c u L N Atterberg limits above "A" and 7 are borderline cases a 'M d d line with P.I. greater than.? requiring use of dual sym. V) Q. a,a 9co d bots Q' d y—J2tA .. O O Inorganic silts and very line sands, c ML rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands, M or clayey silts with .slight plasticity d plasticity. Chart" Inorganic clays of low to medium o c CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, '— ` N E silty clays, lean clays Z $0 ::. Ol Organic silts and organic silty clays of c 9 low plasticity J ' CH o d x 40 E in N o Inorganic silts, micaceous of diatoma rn A t MH ceous fine'sandy or silty soils, elastic _ T 30 E m > d silts P OH and MH' LL : E CH Inorganic clays o1 high plasticity, fat 20 r= .E clays CL OH Organic clays of medium to high C in = v 1'0 CL -ML 5 plasticity, organic silts :MLand 0 _ 0 OL 10 _ 20 30 40 50 60 70. 80 go 100 0 >'V Z ,'o Pt Peat and other highly organic soils Liquid limit S p tn: -- - or. I UN- and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. -Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits; suffix d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u used when L.L. is greater than 28. bBorderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group symbols. For example: GW -GC, well -graded gravel -sand mixture with clay binder, C75(j: GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION ,All samples are visually classified 'in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487-75' or D-2488-75) DESCRIPTIVE TERM (% BY DRY WEIGHT) Trace: 1-10% Little: 11-20% Some: 21-35% And/Adjective 36-50% PARTICLE SIZE (DIAMETER) Boulders: 8 in and larger Cobbles: 3 in to 8 in Gravel: coarse -'/4 to 3 in fine - No. 4 (4.76 mm) to'/4 in Sand: coarse - No. 4 (4.76 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) medium - No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) fine - No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt: No. 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (Non -plastic) Clay: No. 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (Plastic) SOIL PROPERTYSYMBOLS DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS Dd: Dry Density (pcf) SS: Split -Spoon LL: Liquid Limit, percent ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D. (except where noted) PL: Plastic Limit, percent CS: 3" O.D. California Ring Sampler PI: Plasticity Index (LL -PL) DC: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer per ASTM LOI: Loss on Ignition, percent Special Technical Publication No. 399 Gs: Specific Gravity AU: Auger Sample K: Coefficient of Permeability DB: Diamond Bit w: Moisture content, percent CB: Carbide Bit qp: Calibrated Penetrometer WS: Wash Sample . Resistance, tsf RB: Rock -Roller Bit qs: Vane -Shear Strength, tsf BS: Bulk Sample qu: Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf Note: Depth intervals for sampling shown on Record of qc: Static Cone Penetrometer Resistance Subsurface Exploration are not indicative of sample Correlated to Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf recovery, but position where sampling initiated PID: Results of vapor analysis conducted on representative samples utilizing a Photoionization Detector calibrated to a benzene standard. Results expressed in HNU-units (BDL=Below Detection Limits) N: Penetration Resistance per 6 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for a standard 2 inch O.D. (1% inch I.D.) split spoon sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free -falling 30 inches. Performed in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test Specifications (ASTM D-1586). N in blows per foot equals sum of N values where plus sign is shown Nc: Penetration Resistance per 1'/4 inches of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Approximately equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N -Value in blows per foot. Nr: Penetration Resistance per 6 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for California Ring Sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free - falling 30 inches per ASTM D-3550. Not equivalent.to Standard Penetration Test N -Value. SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS COHESIVE (CLAYEY) SOILS NON -COHESIVE (GRANULAR) SOILS UNCONFINED COMPARATIVE BLOWS PER . COMPRESSIVE RELATIVE BLOWS PER . CONSISTENCY FOOT (N) STRENGTH (TSF) DENSITY FOOT (N) . Very Soft 0-2 0-0.25 Very Loose. 04 Soft 34 0.25-0.50 Loose 5-10 Medium Stiff 5-8 0.50-1.00 Firm 11-30 Stiff 9-15 11.00-2.00 Dense 31-50 Very Stiff 16-30 2.004.00 Very Dense 51+ Hard 31+ 4.00+ DEGREE OF DEGREE OF PLASTICITY, PI EXPANSIVE POTENTIAL PI None to Slight 04 Low 0-15 Slight 5-10 Medium 15-25 Medium 11-30 High 25+ High to Very High 31+ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims and disputes. The following information is provided to help you manage your risks. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical .engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one—not even you— should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • Not prepared for you, • Not prepared for your project; • Not prepared for the specific site explored, or • Completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotech-nical engineering report include those that affect: • The function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • Elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • Composition of the design team, or • Project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes — even minor ones — and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on' or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professionaljudgement to render an opinionabout subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observations is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Inose recommendations are not (nal, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgement and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. the geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject To Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observations` Do Not Redraw the Engineer's logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance . Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations;' many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not . rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Rely on Your Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit to everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with an ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2133 Facsimile: 301/589-2011 e-mail: info@asfe.ora www.asfe.org Copyright 1998 by ASFE, Inc. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited. Re -use of the wording in this document, in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes of review or scholarly research. I IGER06983.5M GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 7 ' AUC LA, ;�C"�TECTU�� ARCHIT€CT'S SUPPLEIVFE=P�TARY , 2994 Rochester Circle INSTRUCTION �� Corona, California 92879 (X) Owner (X) Architect (X) Field Book (X) Contractor () HUD () Hsg. Consult. () Other Project: Goodyear — La Quinta, CA ASI No.: 4 Owner: La Quinta Ventures Date: 10/21//04 Hamner Ave LLC Project No.: 0301 1242 N. Kennymead Orange, CA To: Miller Construction 1241 Distribution Way Vista, CA 92081 The work shall be carried out in accordance with the following supplemental instructions issued in accordance with the contract documents without change in contract sum or contract time. If you consider that a change in contract sum or contract time is required, please submit your itemized proposal to the Architect immediately and before proceeding with this work. If your proposal is found to be satisfactory and in proper order, these instructions will be superseded by a Change Order. 4.1 Detail 13/SD1 shows (2) #5 cont. bars at the top course of masonry walls at lines 1, 3, A and B. Move these cont. bars down one course. 4.2 # 3 ties may be omitted at #7 horizontal lintel bars. Omit two total per pilaster. All ties may be omitted above the Upper #7 lintel bars. 4.3 Refer to the attached supplemental details SD -2, dated 10/21/04, for masonry wall at tire storage and trash enclosure. Issued by: Gilbert M. Alcala' Project Manager Page 1 of 1 SLOPE STUCCO TO DRAIN -� - -�� -• -,:, �� -1-#4 CONT. TOP&807ii1i;. -I i '—III -i I—� i I—I I—� i i—� I I I I IEI I IE I IAI I ME I I-1 2' o"I_I-1 I I -"i 11=1 I I—I 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=i I I —I� LIE I 1=�=i1_I=1 I - MAS. WALL AT TRASH ENCL. USE SAME DETAIL WrTHOUT CURB AT USED TIRE --TOR. 1/2' m 1'-0" alcala' architecture DRAWN BY: GMA RLE:H:\2003\0301\Architectural\Const P 2994 ROCHESTER CIRCLE GOODYEAR TIRE STORE , .A 92878 a l c a I a CORONACPROJECT N0.0301 LA QUINTA, CA (909) 737-9622 (909)371-5927 FAX DATE_ 10/21/04 DETAIL NO. SD -2 Issued by: Gilbert M. Alcala' Project Manager Page 2 of 1 —�I A I I ASTUCCO TO MATCH BUILDING / #5 VERTS @ 24-A LAP WITH FOOTING DOWELS PARKING TRASH , LOT ENCLOSURE #4 CONT @ 24"dc z rl , ASPHALT PARKING LOT C? , / 8" GRAY CONC. PERCISION BLOCKw! FLUSH JOINTS 8" CONCRETE CURB • f 5" CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE / 8. wl WIRE MESH REINF. SLOPE SLAB OUT TO DOORS 1 % ' A: w. co - -I11�z -I ~_— I I-1 I I ...........................':::....: ?• . I- 111= ! I 1_ �i 11= 111=! I I -III -III -III -I I I 45 DOWELS TO MATCH VERT. M -;-El I I f I I I-REINF. @ 24" o/c. ALTERNATE — =1!.BENDS II_I�I- I. -� - -�� -• -,:, �� -1-#4 CONT. TOP&807ii1i;. -I i '—III -i I—� i I—I I—� i i—� I I I I IEI I IE I IAI I ME I I-1 2' o"I_I-1 I I -"i 11=1 I I—I 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=i I I —I� LIE I 1=�=i1_I=1 I - MAS. WALL AT TRASH ENCL. USE SAME DETAIL WrTHOUT CURB AT USED TIRE --TOR. 1/2' m 1'-0" alcala' architecture DRAWN BY: GMA RLE:H:\2003\0301\Architectural\Const P 2994 ROCHESTER CIRCLE GOODYEAR TIRE STORE , .A 92878 a l c a I a CORONACPROJECT N0.0301 LA QUINTA, CA (909) 737-9622 (909)371-5927 FAX DATE_ 10/21/04 DETAIL NO. SD -2 Issued by: Gilbert M. Alcala' Project Manager Page 2 of 1