Loading...
9804-031 (CSST) Geotechnical Engineering Report1 1 1 1 1 PROJECT SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - 3rd CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING DEPARTMENT PLAN CHECK NO. 9804-031 Project Title: SOUTHLAND LAPIS FUEL SYSTEMS LLC. MOBIL OF LA QUINTA - LOT I 79-513 Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road La Quinta, California LO -1m, L BUILDING STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS IL CANOPY STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS M. TITLE 24 CALCULATIONS 1V. HVAC V. PROJECT SOILS GARY ENGI 4901 Morena B San Diego, ( (619) (619) 4 PORT 14' �' - T 0 Y E.7 BUILDING & SP, -FE Y DEPARIHIMIENT COODI TIOINIALLY AC(-`,rE-rPTED FORR * bpUBJ.-tC,T'TOINS-IP�,LL.C',-I!Oi-�'Az"�IPE,,'4 fitted EPSL'- LAPPLICAB! - CoDt�:s W Suite 304 92117to �18 BY. September 1, 1998 S ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ' HIGHWAY 111 & DUNE PALMS ROAD LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA , ' PREPARED FOR LAPIS ENERGY CORPORATION SS -6032-P1 MAY 22, 1996 1 ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS 1 ' Earth Systems Consultants Buena Engines Dtrw«, ' �• Southern California 79-8118 Country Club Drive E Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 (619) 345-1588 ' (619) 328-9131 FAX (619) 345-7315 May 22, 1996 SS -6032-P1 ' 96-05-761 ' Lapis Energy Corporation 4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 207 Encinitas, California 92024 ' Attention: John Gabbard ' Project: Proposed Fueling Site and Mixed Use Commercial Project Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road La Quinta, California ' Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Presented herewith is our Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed fueling site ' and mixed use commercial development to be located on the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road in the City of La Quinta, California. ' This report incorporates the tentative information supplied to our office and in accordance with the request, recommendations for general site development and foundation design are provided. This report was prepared to stand as a whole, and no part of the report should be excerpted or used to exclusion of any other part. ' This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement. Other services which may be required, y req ed, such as plan review and grading observation are additional services and ' will be billed according to the Fee Schedule in effect at the time services are provided Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions concerning this report or the ' recommendations included herein. Sincerely, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS ' Southern California 1 Hogan R. W � � xa s•:a;a g right Brett L. Anderson, Staff Engineer � c Clayton R. Masters o." c/ ' pc/SER CEG 1636 ' Copies: 6/Lapis Energy Corporation 1/VTA File TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................. 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK ......................................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................2' FIELD EXPLORATION...................................................... 2 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................... 2 SOIL CONDITIONS.......................................................... 3 GROUNDWATER............................................................. 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...................................................... 4 LOCALGEOLOGY ........................................................... 4 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS...................................................... 4 Primary ................... Secondary.................................................................. 5 Non-Seismic............................................................... 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................6 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING....................................6 SiteDevelopment - Grading ................................................. 6 SiteDevelopment- General .................................................. 7 Excavations................................................................ 8 UtilityTrenches............................................................. 8 STRUCTURES.......................................... g ...................... Foundations................................................................ 8 Slabson Grade......................................................:...... 9 SettlementConsiderations................................................... 9 Frictional and Lateral Coefficients. .......................................... 10 RetainingWalls............................................................1 0 SlopeStability.............................................................1 0 Expansion......10 .................................... Additional Services........................................................1 1 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS..................11 REFERENCES...............................................................1 3 APPENDIX A Site and Vicinity Map Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Summary of Test Results Table 2 ' APPENDIX C Infiltration Test Results ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 -1- SS -6032-P1 ' 96-05-761 ' INTRODUCTION This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed fueling site and mixed use commercial development to be located on the southeast corner of Highway 111 ' and Dune Palms Road in the City of La Quinta, California. A. It is our understanding that the proposed project will include a fueling site, a mini ' storage and several other mixed use commercial structures. B. It is assumed that the proposed structures will be of relatively lightweight steel -frame, ' masonry or wood -frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow continuous or pad footings. C. Structural considerations for building column loads of up to 30 kips and a maximum ' - wall loading of 2.0 kips per linear foot were used as a basis for recommendations related to the construction of the proposed structures. These values were assumed based on expected loading for similar structures. If design loading is to exceed these values, it may be necessary to reevaluate the given recommendations. E. All loadingis assumed to be dead plus reasonable live load. ' PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions, and to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the site and the proposed development. The ' scope of work includes the following: A. A general reconnaissance of the site. ' B. Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling five borings. ' C. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings. D. Review of selected technical literature pertaining to the site. ' E. Evaluation of field and laboratory data reladvc to soil conditions. F. Engineering analysis of the data obtained from the exploration and testing programs. G. A summary of our findings and recommendations in written report. ' Contained In This Report Are: A. Discussions on regional and local geologic and soil conditions. ' B . Graphic and/or tabulated results of laboratory tests and field studies. C. Discussions and recommendations relative to allowable foundation bearing capacity, ' recommendations for foundation design, estimated total and' differential settlements, lateral earth pressures, site grading criteria, geologic and seismic hazards. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 -2- SS -6032-P1 96-05-761 Not Contained In This Report: ' A. Our scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation to determine the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, ' groundwater or air, on, below or around this site. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the southeast comer of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road in the_ City of La Quinta, California. A. The site is presently vacant and covered with scattered desert brush, short grass, weeds and debris. I , B . The site is generally level overall but dunes provide topographic relief of up to twenty feet. ' C. There are existing utilities along Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road. D. The adjacent properties include vacant land to the east, the Desert Sands Unified ' School District Administration complex to the south and a date grove to the west. FIELD EXPLORATION ' Exploratory borings were drilled to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for further analysis. ' A. Five borings were excavated for soil profiling and sampling to a maximum depth of 25 feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were excavated on May 8, 1996, using eight inch diameter hollow -stem augers powered by a CME 45B drilling ' rig. The approximate locations of the borings, as indicated on the attached plan in Appendix A, were determined by pacing and sighting from existing streets and property corners. The locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to locate the borings. B . Samples were secured within the borings with a 2.5 inch inside diameter ring sampler (ASTM D 3550, shoe similar to ASTM D 1586). The samples were obtained by t driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammcr, dropping 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler one foot was recorded. Recovered soil samples were sealed in containers and returned to the laboratory for further classification and possible testing. C. Bulk disturbed samples of the soils were obtained from cuttings developed during ' excavation of the test borings. The bulk samples were secured for classification purposes and represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths. D. The final logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs, and the ' results of the laboratory observations and tests of the field samples. The final logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types although the transitions may be gradual. ' LABORATORY TESTING ' After a visual and tactile classification in the field, samples were returned to the laboratory, classifications were checked, and a testing program was established. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 -3- SS -6032 -PI 96-05-761 ' A. Samples were reviewed along with field logs to determine which would be further analyzed. Those chosen were considered as representative of soil which would be exposed and/or used during grading and those deemed within the area of building ' influence. B. In' situ moisture content and unit dry weights for the core samples were developed in accordance with ASTM D 2937. C. The relative strength characteristics of the subsurface soils were determined from the ' results of direct shear tests. Specimens were placed in contact with water at least twenty-four (24) hours before testing, and were then sheared under normal loads ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 kips per square foot to general accordance with ASTM D 3080. D. 'Settlement and hydroconsolidationtential was evaluated from the results of consolidation tests performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2435. ' E. Classification tests consisted of: Expansion Index (UBC Standard No. 29-2), Maximum Density -Optimum Moisture (ASTM D 1557) and Hydrometer Analysis (California Test Method 203). F. Refer to Appendix B for tabular and graphic representation of the test results. SOIL. CONDITIONS As determined by the borings, site soils were found to consist primarily of fine grained ' windblown sands with scattered thin silt layers. The boring logs in Appendix A contain a more detailed description of the soils encountered. A. The soils were found to be loose near the surface but sampler driving resistance ' indicate that density generally increases with depth. The soils were generally found to be dry throughout. B. Clay and silt contents of the soils exhibit low plasticity. Expansion tests indicate soils to be in the very low,expansion category in accordance with Table 2 in Appendix B of this report. Refer to Section G of the structures section for specific explanadons ' and requirements dealing with expansive soil. C. Scattered thin silt layers were encountered in several of the borings. ' D. Consolidation testing indicates that the soils may be susceptible to hydroconsolidation and compression related settlements. E. Soils should be readily cut by normal grading equipment. GROUNDWATER ' Face groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. The depth to groundwater in P the area is generally in excess of 50 feet. Fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur due ' to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors. Groundwater should not be a factor in design or construction. ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS t May 22, 1996 -4- SS -6032-P1 96-05-761 ' REGIONAL G .OLO tY The site is located in the Coachella Valley, which is part of the Colorado Desert geomorphic province. A significant feature of the Colorado Desert province is the Salton Trough, ' which is a large northwest -trending structural depression that extends from San Gorgonio Pass approximately 180 miles to the Gulf of California. Much of this depression in the area of the Salton Sea is at an elevation below sea level. The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough and contains a thick sequence of sedimentary rocks and deposits that are Miocene to Recent in age. Mountains t surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rocks. The San Andreas fault zone in the t upper portion of the Coachella Valley consists of the Garnet Hill fault, the Banning fault and the Mission Creek fault, which traverse along the northeast margin of the valley. ' LOCAL GEOLOGY The site is located in the northeasterly portion of the City of La Quinta within the Coachella ' Valley. The site is located approximately one-eighth of a mile south of the present Whitewater River Channel and within an active sand dune complex. The primary sediments observed on the site were alluvial and/or aeolian deposited sands. ' The site is approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the active San Andreas fault zone. No faults are known to exist on or adjacent to the site. 'GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A. Primary Seismic Hazards: Primary seismic geologic hazards that may affect an property in the seismically Y Y P Pent y active southern California area include: ' 1. Fault Rupture: The project site is not located in a Statc of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake ' Fault Zone. Nor are any faults mapped through or adjacent to the project area. Fault rupture will most likely occur along previously established fault traces. ' However, fault rupture may also occur at locations where faults have not been previously mapped. ' 2. Ground Shaking: Strong ground motion generated by nearby earthquakes can be expected to ' occur during the design life of the proposed development. Based upon the historical and prehistorical record, the Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas fault is likely to generate an approximate magnitude eight (8.0) or greater earthquake within the next 50 years. The highest magnitude are ' anticipated if the Coachella Valley segment ruptures concurrently with the adjacent San Bernardino segment. This earthquake represents the strongest ground shaking potential for the site. Peak accelerations are estimated to range ' from 0.37g to 0.65g, based on attenuation curves prepared by Campbell, 1990, and Boore, Joyner and Fumal 1994. EARTH SYSTERAS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 -5- SS -6032-P1 96-05-761 tThe project area is mapped in Ground Shaking Zone IV B as designated by the County of Riverside, California. Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance ' from causative faults (San Andreas fault) and underlying soil types (alluvium of intermediate thickness, 200-2000 feet). ' B. Secondary Seismic Hazards: Secondary seismic hazards include settlement, liquefaction, ground lurching, and seismically induced flooding. 1. Settlement, seismically and non -seismically induced, is considered a potential hazard in the Coachella Valley area. Historic records report significant episodes ' of settlement in the Coachella Valley area due to seismic forces and/or heavy rain fall and flooding. ' 2. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength as a result of an increase in pore water pressure due to cyclic seismic loading. Conditions for liquefaction include relatively high water table (within 40 feet of surface), low relative densities of the saturated soils and susceptibility of the soil to liquefy based on grain size ' distribution. No free groundwater was encountered in our exploratory borings and groundwater in the area of the site is generally in excess of 50 feet deep. ' 3. Ground lurching is cracking of the ground without significant displacement generally caused by violent shaking and/or differential movement. Due to the distance of the site from any known active faults and the relatively flat ' topography of the site, the possibility of ground lurching affecting the site is considered low. 4. Seismically induced flooding may result from tsunamis (tidal waves), seiches (waves oscillating in an enclosed body of water) and reservoir failure. Based on the location and topography of the project site, it is our opinion that the probability of the above hazards affecting the property are negligible. C. Non -Seismic Hazards: ' Non -seismic geologic hazards include landslides, subsidence, flooding and erosion. 1. The subject property is located on level ground and is not adjacent to any steep ' hills. No evidence of past landsliding was observed at the site nor are any known landslides mapped in or around the project site. 2. At this time there is no evidence of subsidence due to groundwater depletion in ' this portion of the Coachella Valley. 3. Flooding and erosion are always a consideration in and regions. Increased ' erosion may occur as a result of construction activity. 4. Aeolian erosion and deposition could impact the site during and after ' construction. The owner may wish to sequence construction and/or provide wind breaks to minimize this hazard. 1 . ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS -6- SS -6032 -Pi ' 96-05-761 �L[ISIONS ND R ('nMlyi NnaTInNS ' The following is u summary of our conclusions and professional opinions based on the data obtained from a review of selected technical literature and the site investigation. ' A. The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is strong ground shaking from eanhquakcs originating on nearby faults. The site is located in southern Californi;t wlticlt is an active seismic area. In our opinion, a major seismic event originating ori the San Andreas fault would be the most likely cause of significant earthquakeactivity at the site within the estimated design life of the proposed development. ' B. Settlement duc t() seismic factors or flooding is a potential hazard in the Coachella Valley area. Adherence to the following grading recommendations should limit potentiaj rcttlemctit problems due to seismic forces, heavy rainfall, flooding and the ' weight of the intended structures. C. Arca% of ;,lluvi;ll and aeolian soils may be susceptible to erosion. Fluvial and aeolian ' erosion rnaY affect the site during and after construction. Preventative measures to mini="c sc,tsonttl flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. ' D. Other hartrds including ground rupture, liquefaction, lurching, landslides, subsidence and seismically induced flooding are considered negligible. E. The proJe t site Is in seismic Zone 4 as defined in Section 2312 (d) 2. of the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that any permanent structure constructed on the site besetting,(1Csibncd by a qualified professional who is aware of the project's seismic F. Itis our opinion that the site soils should provide adequate and uniform support for ' the pr(pr14ed buildings provided the building areas are prepared as recommended G. It is r=)mmcttticd that ' Earth. Systems Consultants be retained to provide Geotechnical Engineering servces during, desi excavation, gra(lin ► �� site development, observe 11)w dcrrncc �w th the designnconcep C spc bon clfications and reommhases of the work. endadons is s, ' and to a11r,w de;%ign changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. H. Plans and specifications should be provided to Earth Systems Consultants prior to grading. Plans Should include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details. Preferttbly, structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans. .NT AND GRADIN IP.�or to any c r,nstructiciit operations, areas to be graded should be cleaned of vegetation and ' cr�cr deleterious matcrials. I� �LYOLi.G 1�'If)ilmrr�� �inQ ' Site gracding anti the bottom of all excavations should be observed by a representative I of Earth SystemS Consultants prior to placement of fill. Local variations in soil condition' may wnn'ant increasing the depth of overexcavation. ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS 1 n 11 May 22, 1996 -7- SS-6032-PI 96-05-761 1. Prior to site grading the surface should be stripped of all organic growth and non -complying fill which, along with other debris, should be removed from the site. 2. Depressions resulting from these removals should have debris and loose soil removed and be filled with suitable fill soils compacted as recommended herein. No compacted fill should be placed unless the underlying soil has been observed by Earth Systems Consultants 3. In order to help minimize potential settlement problems associated with structures supported on a non-uniform thickness of compacted fill, Earth Systems Consultants should be consulted for site grading recommendations relative to backfilling large and/or deep depressions resulting from removal under item one above. In general, all proposed construction should be supported by a uniform thickness of compacted soil. 4. Building areas should be overexcavated to a depth of two feet below original grade or two feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. The exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density. The previously removed soils should be placed in thin layers at near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density. The intent is to have building foundations supported by at least three feet of soil compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. 5. These grading recommendations apply to building areas and to areas at least five feet beyond building limits. 6. Auxiliary structures including freestanding or retaining walls should have the existing soils beneath the structure processed as per item four above. The grading recommendations apply to three feet beyond the footings. If plans for auxiliary structures and walls are provided for our review, these recommendations may be revised. 7. Potential grading losses include shrinkage and subsidence along with clearing losses. Based upon the information obtained during the investigation summarized in this report, we would expect shrinkage losses on the order of 20 to 25 percent for the upper five feet. This is based on compactive effort needed to produce an average degree of compaction of approximately 93 to 94 percent and will vary depending upon contractor methods. Subsidence is estimated at two tenth (0.1) to three tenths (0.3) of a foot. Site Development - General 1. The following general recommendations listed in this section are in addition to those listed in the "Grading" section A above. 2. All rocks larger than eight (8) inches in greatest dimension should be removed from fill or backfill material. 3. Import soil used to raise site grades should be equal to or better than on-site soil in strength, expansion, and compressibility characteristics. Import soil will not be prequalified by Earth Systems Consultants Comments on the characteristics of import will be given after the material is on the project, either in-place or in stockpiles of adequate quantity to complete the project. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 -8- SS -6032-P1 96-05-761 4. Areas around the structures should be graded so that drainage is positive and away from the structures. Gutters and down spouts should be considered as a way to convey water out of the foundation area. Water should not be allowed to pond on or near pavement sections. C. Excavations 1. All excavations should be made in accordance with applicable regulations. From our site exploration and knowledge of the general area, we feel there is a potential for construction problems involving caving of relatively deep site excavations (i.e. utilities, etc.). Where such situations are encountered, lateral bracing or appropriate cut slopes should be provided. 2. No surcharge loads should be allowed within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope, equal to the depth of the excavation. D. Utility Trenches 1. Utility trench backfill within building areas should be placed in strict conformance with the provisions of this report relating to minimum compaction standards. In general, service lines may be backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density. 2. Backfill operations should be observed and tested by Earth Systems Consultants, to monitor compliance with these recommendations. Based upon the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that the structure foundation can be supported by compacted soils placed as recommended above. The recommendations that follow are based on "very low" expansion category soils. A. Foundations It is anticipated that foundations will be placed on firm compacted soils as recommended elsewhere in this report. The recommendations that follow are based on "very low" expansion category soils. 1. Table 2 gives specific recommendations for width, depth and reinforcing. Other structural consideration may be more stringent and would govern in any case. A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade for one story_ structures and 18 inches for two story structures should be maintained. 2. Conventional Foundations: Estimated bearing values are given below for foundations on recompacted soils, assuming import fill (if required) to be equal to or better, than site soils: a. Continuous foundations of one foot wide and 12 inches below grade: i. 1500 psf for dead plus reasonable live loads. ii. 2000 psf for wind and seismic considerations. b. Isolated pad foundations 2' x 2' and bottomed twelve (12) inches below grade: i. 1800 psf for dead plus reasonable live loads. ii. 2400 psf for wind and seismic considerations. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 -9- SS -6032-P1 96-05-761 ' 3. Allowable increases of 200 psf per one (1) foot of additional footing width and 300 psf for each additional six (6) inches of footing depth may be used. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3000 psf. ' 4. Soils beneath footings and slabs should be premoistened prior to placing concrete. '5. Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on floor slabs and foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation stem walls. Lateral capacity is based partially on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent ' to foundations and grade beams is properly compacted 6. Foundation excavations should be visually observed by the soil engineer during ' excavation and prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Local variations in conditions may warrant deepening of footings. ' 7. Allowable bearing values are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected) and are applicable for dead plus reasonable live loads. B. Slabs -on -Grade 1. Concrete slabs -on -grade should be supported by compacted structural fill placed in accordance with applicable sections of this report. 2. In areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor barrier should be installed in order to minimize vapor transmission from the subgrade soil to the slab. We would suggest that the floor slabs be underlain by an impermeable membrane. The membrane should be covered with two (2) inches of sand to help protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. A low -slump concrete should be used to help minimize shrinkage. ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS 3. Reinforcement of slab -on -grade is contingent upon the structural engineers recommendations ' and the expansion index of the supporting soil. Since the mixing of fill soil with native soil could change the expansion index, additional tests should be conducted during rough grading to determine the expansion index of the subgrade soil. Additional rcinforcement due to the expansion index ' of the site soil should be provided as recommended in section G below. Additional reinforcement may also be required by the structural engineer. ' 4. It is recommended that the proposed perimeter slabs (sidewalks, patios, etc.) be designed relatively independent of foundation stems (free-floating) to help mitigate cracking due to foundation settlement and/or expansion. C. Settlement onsidera6ons 1. Estimated settlement, based on footings founded on firm soils as recommended, ' should be less than one (1) inch. Differential settlement between exterior and interior bearing members should be less than one-half (1/2) inch. ' 2. The majority of settlement should occur during construction. ' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 -10- SS -6032-P1 ' 96-05-761 D. Frictional and Lateral Coefficients ' 1. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting on the base of foundations, a coefficient of friction of 0.45 may be used for dead load forces. ' 2. Passive resistance acting on the sides of foundation stems equal to 300 pcf of equivalent fluid weight, may be included for resistance to lateral loading. ' 3. Passive resistance of soils against grade beams and the frictional resistance between the floor slabs and the supporting soils may be combined in determining the total lateral resistance, however the friction factor should be reduced to 0.30 of dead load forces. 4. A one-third (1/3) increase in the quoted passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. E. Retaining Walls . ' 1. For cantilever retaining walls backfilled with compacted native soils, it is recommended that an equivalent fluid pressure of thirty-five (35) pcf be used for well drained level backfill conditions. An equivalent fluid pressure of fifty- five (55) pcf should be used for restrained walls with level well drained backfill. 2. The lateral earth pressure to be resisted by the retaining walls or similar structures should be increased to allow for surcharge loads. The surcharge considered should include the loads from any structures or temporary loads that would influence the wall design. 3. A backdrain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into the retaining wall design. Our firm can provide construction details when the specific application is determined. Backfill immediately behind the walls should be a free -draining granular material. 4. Compaction on the retained side of the wall within a horizontal distance equal to one (1) wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other light weight compaction equipment. This is intended to reduce potential "locked -in" lateral pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment_ 5. Water should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. To accomplish this the final backfill grade should be such that all water is diverted away from the retaining wall. Slope stability calculations were not performed due to the anticipated minimal slope height (less that 5 feet). If slopes exceed five (5) feet in height, engineering calculations should be performed to substantiate the stability of slopes steeper than 2 to 1. Fill slopes should be overfilled and trimmed back to competent material. G. E. ansion The design of foundations should be based on the weighted expansion index (UBC Standard No. 29-2) of the soil. As stated in the soil properties section, the expansion index of the surface soil is in the "very low" (0-20) classification. However, during EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS may 4.4, iyyo -11- JJ-oUJ-)-P1 96-05-761 site preparation, if the soil is thoroughly mixed and additional fill is added, the expansion index may change. Therefore, the expansion index should be evaluated after the site preparation has been completed, and the final foundation design adjusted accordingly. This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, construction monitoring and testing will be performed during the final design and construction phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining Earth Systems Consultants, as the soil engineering firm from beginning to end of the project will help assure continuity of services. Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services provided by our firm. The costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements. The recommended tests and observations include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Consultation during the final design stages of the project. 2. Review of the building plans to observe that recommendations of our report have been properly implemented into the design. 3. Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placement of engineered fill. 4. Consultation as required during construction. LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the five borings excavated on the site. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. Findings of this report are valid as of this date. However, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of eighteen (18) months. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the building are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project and are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. It is also the owners responsibility, or his representative, to insure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. It is further understood that the owner or his representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS I May 22, 1996 -12- SS -6032-P1 96-05-761 ' Earth Systems Consultants, has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are ' made as the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement, and included in the report. ' It is recommended that Earth Systems Consultants, be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in ordcr that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If Earth Systems Consultants, is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. ' Our scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation to determine the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on, below or around this site. Prior to purchase or development of this ' site, we suggest that an environmental assessment be conducted which addresses environmental concerns. i I, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 -13- SS -6032-P1 96-05-761 1. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E., 1994 Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: An ' Interim Report, Part 2,: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 94-127. 2. California Division of mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California Santa Ana Sheet, Scale 1:250,00, (Fifth printing, 1986), compiled by Thomas H. Rogers. ' 3. Campbell, K. W., 1990, Empirical Prediction of Near -Source Soil and Soft Rock Ground Motion for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site, San Luis Obispo County, ' California; Consultant Report Prepared by Dames & Moore for the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, Dated September 1990. 4. Envicom, Riverside County, 1976, Seismic Safety EIement. 5. Greensfelder, Roger W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Accelerations from Earthquakes in California, CDMG Map Sheet 23. ' 6. Krinitzsky, E.L., Chang, F.K., Magnitude -Related Earthquake Ground Motions, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists Vol. XXV, No. 4, 1988, Pgs. ' 399-423. 7. Ploessel, M. R. and Slosson, J. E., "Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from ' Earthquakes", 1974 California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, Pgs. 195-199. 8. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. 9. Seih, Kerry, 1985, 'Tarth uake P " n7' q Potentials Along The San Andreas Fault", of The National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, March 29-30, 1985, ' USGS Open File Report 85-507. 10. Van de Kamp, P. C., "Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin, ' California: A Reconnaissance". Geological Society of America, Vol 84, March 1973 11. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1988, Probabilities of Large Earthquakes Occurring in California on the San Andreas Fault; U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 88-398. EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS Siormwater Percolation Test Proposed Fueling Site Performed: 5-22-96 Toct 41 - rnntinuort QQ_r-n,2n o. Inner Ring Outer Ring Infiltration Rate Elapsed Time Reading Change Reading Change Convers. Inner Outer Time (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) Factor Ring Ring (in.) (inJhr.) (inJhr.) 2:30 2:45 255 23.40 19.60 3.80 27.20 23.30 3.90 4.49 15.2 17.9 2:45 3:00 270 19.60 15.80 3.80 23.30 ! 1 4.00 I 19.30 4.60 15.2 I I j f 18.4 ! 3:00 15.80 19.30 I 3:15 285 12.10 3.70 I 3.90 15.40 4.49 14.8 17.9 3:15 3:30 300 12.10 8.30 3.80 I 15.40 I 4.00 I 11.40 I 4.60 I 15.2 18.4 3:30 3:45 ' 315 I 23.80 I3.80 20.00 11.40 4.00 I 7.40 4.60 I 15.2 I 16.4 3:45 4:00 330 20.00 16.20 3.80 28.30 i 3.80 4.37 i 15.2 I 24.50 17.5 4:00 4:15 345 16.20 12.50 3.70 24.50 i 20.70 3.80 4.37 i 14.8 i 17.5 4:15 4:30 360 I 12.50 8.70 20.70 3.80 3.90 16.80 4.49 i 15.2 I 17.9 I i I � i I I I I I I I i I • I I i siwi1nSNOO sw31SAS H1NV3 r . r . r 1. r r r s2UUOg JO SSO-I duW krum'A pum OITS . 1 r i r r r r. Td'ZE09-SS *ON sor 96/L/9 :31va siNd.L-insNoo sw3.LsJls H.Luv3 uoquoorj ;say uoysiooiad a;surtYoiddy . 1R u 0jg1?3 's;utn?3 8rT ;aaCoid 13131au=00 ash Pa)nw suot}Bao l 2uuog a;surpco.iddy P= -,qtS 2uian3 pasodord - -- -- `; YtrlL;.� ra•,), .. ,•t..� a""- a: . L'tt•�.�f1rpC�itl�FY:�- • � . . •-, i. _ - . .. r:: , _ . , j,�-•y Sr � _ ` ... - zz Nc 'i? TCR 7a( �'«i:•:• ti; ... ,. ! :l - - t'�.^ r? _ cS - PEou surd auna -- - -- `, y. �1'' ;� ;�•.a f:-_. .�y : i ; r.; __ �-•t s �t'��l �: � � 'r > tv 71.7 - ''�' m > ►'- -.: `iiy'i.�};moi..' l: .Y ;� .-r �t :l - •j a -. �a -- - '�� lia., - � �.._ :t .. ..... .- -- _ .���._.. �5 < �J-��:T7 �.��- _---- '\ � f � �•�..++.1. .r.-j.�:., �- _:�: - �3ri1S'i ...�J :i'- _ - •. 1l'_-•.:N �_•�s_••�'�.•Y �- 'e. ':•�•�='- p: -- -- rr.��a R •�`� i.w--. . r' �y:•',Jt� - • �• - - t ' f - ,r . .. _ i _ - f ,i. :�\:: i;- — f0• .`z 1 f( i r • y^"/ f i 't • ' f i rj -.• T '-1' - �.-r_. . r .-. -—••••�: � 1• T - • i er D :�- 'i 1' y e! 1 j t,�• J i �•t ! r i r i ! 1 L:�:' '!' - s `J 1 1 CD 54 3 mi •1' :i• 'mit: - i ••n`•-.x +.'�.. ��__..- _- _ _ - .''► 1 r ��^,�:,`� �Sfr�- - t mss.. r ;. '•y r ^ -'2• ::•-' '.l -Y:I (! .'t•.•• - t, t is A ~'C - . •r r. YS+ I = �. ' :ti ;-• �'. �" o=-.:i''�-� .cam. _ ;� t � i1 :�.- - _. gi p e: r_f*If-.!.•� s r.. •Rti it - .•.\'�'t''lw'�':'�"`. �-•' • r �.r �{: � :�. - - _ �y•i:vi':- ,r:•.. ��• •1 i:. is �_:f.,r .. •, l _•_��• •Y•:•:. •�: .1 r f e•► rte• ■n :�,•.1t.r .. _ - 1• 'J .:^�'C='-�.dr-•_� :yL 3. 77 er ay►: :.,r �i.'j:'•r, - —_ •_—__. _ _ .- _- - - _ 1..?•{-v `1i-•3 a^r '.ri 1 ��� - :i r :fjft•: .,e •.�"•1. :?� y•. •i•, ,l - Ct:. �.i1i-ei�'7~ `s. _ .► �. _ —_ -� — i - - -- i ,rI • - tv y — r - • Ari• , i` - 1 :. .' - ' ' (Padoianapu� s_1a� 1 r,_r `S�_'-�r;� rte'• _ . Proposed Fueling Site I Commercial Development Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 1 File No. SS -6032 -Pi 2a m o E m `0 3 DESCRIPTION CL z m y c m m REMARKS CD -c. cn U ° o O U ° Q E C c ° 0 A 1 : Gray brown silty fine SM grained sand 5 V. _ A2: Gray brown slightly SM/SP _j.silty fine grained sand 10 15 - Total Depth = 15' - No Free Water No Bedrock 20 25 30 35 40 45 - Note: The stratification - lines represent the - approximate boundaries - between the soil types; the 50 transitions may be gradual. Proposed Fueling Site / Commercial Development Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 2 File No. SS -6032 -Pt t m n� E E m ° DESCRIPTION m �_ o m H m o m a REMARKS p� cn U o _^ a:E U) C U e O 0 A 1 : Gray brown silty fine SM grained sand 5 u u u u n n A2: Gray brown slightly SM/SP 10 - silty fine grained sand 15 - Total Depth = 15' - No Free Water No Bedrock 20 25 .30 35 40 45 - Note: The stratification - lines represent the - approximate boundaries - between the soil types; the 50 1 1 1 11 transitions may be gradual. Proposed Fueling Site / Commercial Development Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 3 File No. SS -6032-P1 m` > v $ DESCRIPTION CD m ' C m o REMARKS Q . to .2 O - 2 N C ae 0 e Q 0 A 1 : Gray brown silty fine SM grained sand " 20 5 19 Brown fine grained sandy ML • clayey silt 88.2 26.3 - - - _ A 1 : Gray brown silty fine SM _ grained sand 10 _ 22 � p 85.6 2.0 84 Silt layer 3 inches thick 15 23 p 11 p ' - Relatively undisturbed Total Depth = 16' ' ring sample No Free Water No Bedrock 20 ® No recovery 25 30 35 40 45 - Note: The stratification - lines represent the - approximate boundaries - between the soil types; the 50 transitions may be gradual. 11 11 Proposed Fueling Site / Commercial Development Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 4 File No. SS -6032-P1 ... Ex o E m DESCRIPTION v 3 a 3 o m o m o > = a REMARKS CD C N 0 ¢ C U a e o o U 0 A 1 : Gray brown silty fine SM " grained sand ' 17 5 22 " A3: Gray brown silty fineSM Dry silt layer, 1 inch thick " grained sand 10 26 n u If 15 25 If tl A 20 " 45 89.0 2.1 77 25 40If - Relatively undisturbed Total Depth = 26' ' ring sample No Free Water " No Bedrock 30 No recovery 35 40 45 - Note: The stratification _ lines represent the - approximate boundaries - between the soil types: the 50 transitions may be gradual. Proposed Fueling Site / Commercial Development Date: 5/8/96 Location: Per Plan BORING NO. 5 File No. SS -6032 -Pi m E m N. m o6 REMARKS O 5, c L) C o U o m a 0 Cn C a o a U 0 A 1 : Gray brown silty fine SM • grained sand 22 95.4 0.9 93 5 18 94.1 3.4 92 • t 1 0 24 �„ A3: Gray brown silty fine SM grained sand 15 26 p „ 87.6 1.2 76 - All: Gray brown silty fine SM 20 30 grained sand Scattered thin silt layers 25 42 " . Relatively undisturbed Total Depth = 26' ring sample No Free Water 30 ®No recovery No Bedrock 35 40 45 - Note: The stratification • lines represent the • - approximate boundaries - between the soil types: the 5 0 transitions may be gradual. 1� 1� 1� 1� l� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� APPENDIX B Summary of Test Results Table 2 1 EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS May 22, 1996 B ORING/DEPTH USCS SOIL DESIGNATION MAXIMUM DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) ANGLE OF INT. FRI COHESION (psf) EXPANSION INDEX ,V SS -6032-P1 96-05-761 1 @ 0-5' 1 @ 6-10' 4 @ 5-10' SM SM/SP SM Al A2 A3 102.4 --- 115.6 14.9 -- 12.2 0 -- GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%) GRAVEL 0.0 0.0 SAND 80.5 87.2 SILT. 15.1 9.8 CLAY 4.4 3.0 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS: A1: Gray brown silty fine grained sand (SM) A2- Gray brown slightly silty fine grained sand (SM/SP) A3: Gray brown slightly clayey silty fine grained sand (SM) EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS 0.0 61.7 27.4 10.9 m ' o N> X -' D p DRY DENSITY IN POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT ® M cn C o m u, v .. 0 0 02 033 (' o0 to o m 3 z Z D m in o 0 on N m w O A v m C El z C m O � in c � C v m _ A � co N c c �v < m m U) T 0 w N May L[, 1yyO $-2 33-oujL-Y1 1 1 1 IACF. DFNSTIIFS 96-05-761 1 ' BORING & DEPTH 3 @ 5.0 DRY DENSITY % MOISTURE 88.2 26.3 COMP��N --- 1 10.0 85.6 2.0 84% ' 4 @ 20.0 89.0 2.1 77% 1 - 5 @ 2.0 95.4 0.9 93% ' 5.0 94.1 3.4 92% 1 15.0 1 I 1 1 , 1 1 87.6 1.2 . 76% 1 1 . 1. 1 1 1 . 1 EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS SS -6032 -Pi F- 8 U 116 in D U Q w a cn o 115 O a z cn z w 114 Q a 10 12 14 MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT METHOD OF COMPACTION ASTM D-1557-78, METHOD A or C SOIL TYPE A3 Boring 4 ® 5 - 10' MAXIMUM DENSITY 115.6 pcf OPTIMUM MOISTURE 12.2 % MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVE SS -6032 -Pi :"S 3.5 N H p 3.0 w C CL Y 2.5 C w 2.0 Cn a z a 1.5 w Cn 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT ) DIRECT SHEAR DATA Soil type: Al Boring and depth: 1 @ 0 - 5' Angle of internal friction: 30.° Cohesion: 110 Dsf Samples remolded to 90 % of maximum density ❑ Samples relatively undisturbed C 1 SS -6032-P 1 4.0 3.5 N- I'- p 3.0 C CL Y 2.5 Cn Cn w N 2.0 a z EC 1.5 w Cn 1.0 0.5 i 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT ) DIRECT SHEAR DATA Soil type: A3 Boring and depth: 4 ® 5 - 10' Angle of internal friction: 260 Cohesion: 215_ psf Samples remolded to 90 % of maximum density ❑ Samples relatively undisturbed Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 C .03 �ff�ct�dciin� r .0 .0 0. t U c .01rr d d of H— r .02 c ElE HEv c c 0 0 .0 o fA .04 C 0 U .0 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 ronsolidation Diagrim Proposed Fueling Site Boring 3 Q 5' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS Date: 5/21/96 Job No.: SS -6032-P l �ff�ct�dciin� r Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 03 _ - _ _ _ __ _ _ _ c .02 .01 ci .01 - — - —_ - * - - — _ — c .L02 E�ofEAdln e _ _ _ _ _ _ saber= 03 U .05 .06 .07 - - - - - - - - - - _- C - - 08 =RZ=nd .09 .0 .0 .0 0. 0.5 Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 t u .; .0 d a s .0 u .r c c 0 .0 a 72 z 0 m Ulf c 0 U .0 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 C:onsnlidntinn Di-icrnm Proposed Fueling Site Boring 5 Q 2' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS Date: 5/21/96 Job No.: SS•6032•Pl Ac V .01 V d a cn CD .0: V r C c 0: O W o .OS aJ C O U 0; .Of .Oi .Of .09 Ac Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.5 t n n A n 8n Proposed Fueling Site' . Boring 5 @ 5' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS Date: 5/21/96 Job No.: SS -6032.P1 I C — — — __ Eff=f Adding= - -_ - — - -1tar - — - — Proposed Fueling Site' . Boring 5 @ 5' EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS Date: 5/21/96 Job No.: SS -6032.P1 I .03 .02 .01 0.0 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 Ac Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.5 t n 9n en X Proposed Fueling Site Boring 5 © 15' ! EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS. Date: 5/31/96 Job No.: SS•6032•P1 f zEffeq7ar-AddL g _stems — zz = f Proposed Fueling Site Boring 5 © 15' ! EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS. Date: 5/31/96 Job No.: SS•6032•P1 TABLE NO. 2 MINIMUM FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS* (1) (10) Footings for slab & Raised Floor Systems (2) (5) (10) Concrete Slabs 3 1/2• Minimum Thickness All Perimeter Interior footings Weighted N N v c Footings for slab and Premolslening control Expansion m m c ,c u (6) raised floors 6 ()Piers for soils under footings. under Index c Reinforcement Reinforcement Total piers and slabs raised floors for (4) thickness (5) (6) z E ki Depth below natural continuous of sand in o u_ surface of ground footings Inches and linish grade (3) (8) INCHES 0-20 1 6 12 6 12 12 1-04 top 6X6 Moistening of ground Piers allowed Very low 2 8 15 7 18 18 and 10/10 2 prior to for single (Non- 3 10 18 8 24 24 bottom WWF placing concrete floor loads only expansive) recommended 21-50 Low 1 6 12 6 15 12 1-04 lop 6X6- 120% of optimum moisture Piers allowed 2 8 15 7 18 18 and 10/10 content to a depth of 21• P for single 3 10 18 8 24 24 bottom WWF 4 below lowest adjacent grade. floor bads only Testing Required 6X6- 1 6 12 6 21 12 1-04 top 6/6 WWF 130% of optimum moisture 51-90 2 8 12 8 21 18 and bottom or 03 bars 4 content to a depth of 27' Piers not Medium 3 10 15 8 24 24 @ 24• e.w, below lowest adjacent grade. allowed #3 bars @24' in exterior footing Testing Required and bent X into slab 9 6X6- 91-130 1 2 6 8 12 12 6 8 27 12 1-f15 top 6/6 WWF 140% of optimum moisture High 3 10 15 8 27 18 and bottom or 03" bars 4 content to a depth of 33• Piers not 27 24 24- e.w. below lowest adjacent grade. allowed x3 bars @ 24' in exterior footing 1 Tosting Required and bent X into slab(91 Above 130 Very High SPECIAL DESIGN BY LICENSED ENGINEER/ARCHITECT 07 1 1 95�}IY! M ' FOOTNOTES TO TABLE 2 1. Premoistening is required where specified in Table 2 in order to achieve maximum ' and uniform expansion of soils prior to construction and thus limit structural distress caused by uneven expansion and shrinkage. Other systems which do not include premoistening may be approved by the Building Official when such alternatives are ' shown to provide equivalent safeguards against adverse effects of expansive soils. 2. Underfloor access crawl holes shall be provided with curbs extending not less than six (6) inches above adjacent grade to prevent surface water from entering the ' foundation area. 3. Reinforcement for continuous foundations shall be placed not less than three (3) ' inches above the bottom of the footings and not less than three (3) inches below the top of the stem. ' 4. Reinforcement shall be placed at mid -depth of slab. 5. After premoistening, the specified moisture content of soils shall be maintained until concrete is placed. Required moisture content shall be verified by an approved testing ' laboratory not more than twenty-four (24) hours prior to placement of concrete. ■ 6. Crawl spaces under raised floors need not be premoistened except under interior ' footings. Interior footings which are not enclosed by a continuous perimeter foundation system or equivalent concrete or masonry moisture barrier complying with UBC Section 2907 (b) shall be designed and constructed as specified for perimeter footings in Table 2. 7. A grade beam not less than twelve (12) inches by twelve (12) inches in cross section, reinforced as specified for continuous foundations in Table 2 shall be provided at Igarage ' door openings. 8. Foundation stem walls which exceed a height of three (3) times the stem thickness I above lowest adjacent grade shall be reinforced in accordance with Sections 2418 and ' 2614 in the UBC or as required by engineering design, whichever is more restrictive. 9. Bent reinforcing bars between exterior footing and slab shall be omitted when floor is I t designed as an independent, "floating" slab. 10. Fireplace footings shall be reinforced with a horizontal grid located three (3) inches above the bottom of the footing and consisting of not less than number four (#4) bars ' at twelve (12) inches on center each way. Vertical chimney reinforcing bars shall be hooked under the grid. I 1 EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS Earth Systems Consultants Southern California June 7, 1996 Lapis Energy Corporation 4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 207 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. John Gabbard, Vice President Buena Engineers Division 79-8118 Country Club Drive Bermuda Dunes, CA 922Q : (619)345-1588 (619) 328-9131 FAX (619) 345-7315 SS -6032 -PI 96-06-706 Project: Proposed Fueling Site, Commercial Development and Mini -Storage Facility La Quinta, California As requested, we have performed infiltration testing for storm water retention on the above referenced project. A single test was performed in the southeast portion of the site in the area of the proposed retention basin. The site soils in this area consist primarily of silty fine grained sands. The test was performed on May 22, 1996, in general accordance with ASTM D 2285 utilizing a double -ring infiltrometer. The test result is as follows: 1IRIUMMMM-M : 1 The infiltration rate provided is an ultimate value and has not had safety factor applied. Because the water to be introduced into the systems will be storm water runoff, the potential silting of the percolating soils should be addressed. The percolation test was performed at a depth of approximately one foot below the existing ground surface. The approximate test location is indicated on the plan in Appendix A. If there are any questions concerning this letter, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS Hogan R. Wright, Staff Engineer HRW/BLA HD/Letters- Copies: 6 - 1 - 1 Lapis Energy Corporation VTA File Li,�T Brett L.nders E. 9so 9 x No. C045369 Exp 9.30.98 i c civ+ c� c O Stormwater Percolation Test Proposed Fueling Site Performed: 5-22-96 Inner Ring Outer Ring Infiltration Rate Elapsed Time Reading Change Reading Change Convers. Inner Outer Time (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) Factor Ring Ring (in.) (inJhr.) (inJhr.) ' 10:30 34.40 27.50 10:45 15 29.60 4.80 22.30 5.20 5.98 19.2 23.9 10:45 29.60 22.30 11:00 . 30 25.00 4.60 17.60 4.70 5.41 18.4 21.6 11:00 25.00 17.60 11:15 45 20.70 4.30 13.00 4.60 5.29 17.2 21.2 11:15 20.70 13.00 11:30 60 15.90 4.80 8.00 5.00 5.75 19.2 23.0 11:30 15.90 8.00 11.45 75 11.20 4.70 2,90 5.10 5.87 18.8 23.5 11:45 11.20 28.30 ' 12:00 Y 90 6.70 4.50 23.60 4.70 5.41 18.0 21.6 12:00 6.70 x,60 12:15 105 2.40 4.30 4.50 5.18 17.2 20.7 19.10 12:15 35.90 19.10 12:30 120 31.70 4.20 14.60 4.50 5.18 16.8 20.7 12:30 31.70 14.60 12:45 135 27.6 0 4.10 10.10 4.50 5.18 16.4 20.7 12:45 27.60 10.10 1:00 150 23.30 4.30 5.70 4.40 5.06 17.2 20.2 1:00 23.30 27,60 1:15 165 , 19.30 4.00 23.30 4.30 4.95 16.0 19.8 1:15 19.30 23.30 1:30 180 15.50 3.80 19.30 4.00 4.60 15.2 18.4 1:30 15.50 19.30 .1:45 195 11.60 3.90 15.10 4.20 4.83 15.6 19.3 1:45 34.90 15.10 2:00 210 31.00 3.90 11.20 3.90 4.49 15.6 17.9 2:00 31.00 11.20 2:15 7225 27.10 3.90 7.50 3.70 I 4.26 15.6 17.0 2:15 27.10 7.50 240 2:30 23.40 3.70 3.50 4.00 4.60 14.8 18.4