The URL can be used to link to this page

0106-115 (SIGN) Geotechnical InvestigationRE C E I V E ECEIVE D NOV 0 3 ?nnn LYONS. WAREN A -ARM., INC. CITY OF LA QU I NTA BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT: APPROVED- FOR PPROVED-FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE eI BY oA*W 9Y�� SO cal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. I :1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT NWC State Highway 111 at Depot Drive La Quinta, California for Jack'in the Box, Inc. Southern California Geotechnical i I Attention: Lisa Lovejoy Construction Coordinator Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Jack in the Box Restaurant NWC State Highway 111 at Depot Drive La Quinta, California November 2, 2000 Project No. OOG219-1 Dear Ms. Lovejoy: In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation of the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, So thern California Geotechnical, Inc. okEnaineer itchell, GE 2364 Pr* cipa Joh'1®mNara, CEG 2125 Prin 'D eol gist /QPOFESS70\ K. M�TC�glc�` CIO LU c7 No. 2364 z M- Exp. 09/30/04 m � � a \s�q0 rFc HNA ��`P PF CALV Distribution: (2) Addressee (1) Foodmaker Inc., (San Diego) Attn: Cassandra Haynes (1) California Neon Products, Attn: Bob McCarter (5) Lyons, Warren and Associates, Attn: Steve Schneider (1) Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, LLP, Attn: Kevin Poutre i SEN, ® No. 2125 CERTIFIED \ENGINEERING -o, GEOLOGIST, A 1 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim California 92807-1951 714 777-0333 • Fax(714)777-0398 � ( ) Jack in the Box, Inc. 100 North Barranca Avenue Suite 200 West Covina, California 91791 I Attention: Lisa Lovejoy Construction Coordinator Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Jack in the Box Restaurant NWC State Highway 111 at Depot Drive La Quinta, California November 2, 2000 Project No. OOG219-1 Dear Ms. Lovejoy: In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation of the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, So thern California Geotechnical, Inc. okEnaineer itchell, GE 2364 Pr* cipa Joh'1®mNara, CEG 2125 Prin 'D eol gist /QPOFESS70\ K. M�TC�glc�` CIO LU c7 No. 2364 z M- Exp. 09/30/04 m � � a \s�q0 rFc HNA ��`P PF CALV Distribution: (2) Addressee (1) Foodmaker Inc., (San Diego) Attn: Cassandra Haynes (1) California Neon Products, Attn: Bob McCarter (5) Lyons, Warren and Associates, Attn: Steve Schneider (1) Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, LLP, Attn: Kevin Poutre i SEN, ® No. 2125 CERTIFIED \ENGINEERING -o, GEOLOGIST, A 1 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim California 92807-1951 714 777-0333 • Fax(714)777-0398 � ( ) 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 3.1 Site Conditions 3 3.2 Proposed Development 3 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 4 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 4 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 6.1 • Seismic Design Considerations 8 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 9 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 10 6.4 Construction Considerations 12 6.5 .Foundation Design and Construction 13 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 15 6.7 Pavement Design Parameters 15 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 18 APPENDICES A Plate 1: Site Location Map Plate 2: Boring Location Plan B Boring Logs C Laboratory Test Results D Grading Guide Specifications E UBCSEIS Computer Program Output ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 1 1 t 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Site Preparation • The existing sparse to moderate vegetation at the ground surface should be stripped and removed from the site. No significant topsoil was encountered at the boring locations. • The near surface soils at this site consist of very dry, loose sands. These soils possess a potential for moderate collapse when exposed to moisture infiltration. • The soils within the proposed building area should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below existing grade and at least 2 feet below proposed pad grade. • The overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability for new fill placement. The resulting subgrade soils should be scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned (flooded) and surface compacted with a heavy vibratory roller to further densify the underlying soils in- place. Building Foundations • Conventional Shallow Foundations supported in newly placed compacted fill. • 2,500 psf maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. • Reinforcement consisting of at least two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom) in strip footings; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. Building Floor Slab • Conventional Slab -on -Grade, 4 -inch minimum thickness. • Standard Jack in the Box floor slab, incorporating Fibermesh® reinforcement is considered suitable, subject to the design of the structural engineer. Pavements • Asphaltic Concrete: • Auto Parking Stalls: 3 inches asphaltic concrete over 2 inches aggregate base. • Auto Drive Lanes: 3 inches asphaltic concrete over 4 inches aggregate base. • Portland Cement Concrete (PCC): • Autos Only: 5 inches PCC over compacted subgrade. • Truck Lanes: 6 inches PCC over compacted subgrade. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal No. 99P230, dated September 14, 1999. The scope of services included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis. These data were used to provide criteria for the design of the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot pavements. Also included in this report are site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. The evaluation of environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. Southern Callfornia Geotechnical L_ Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 2 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Conditions The subject site is located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Depot Drive. The subject site is an outlot of a larger shopping center located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street. This shopping center is anchored by a Home Depot store. The site is bounded to the north and west by vacant properties, to the east by Depot Drive and to the south by Highway 111. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 in Appendix A. The subject site is a generally rectangular parcel with overall dimensions of 230± feet by 146± feet. The site is presently vacant with no signs of previous development. Ground surface cover generally consists of exposed soil with very sparse native grass and weed growth. However, moderate vegetation is present along Highway 111 including several trees as well as smaller shrubs, bushes and grass. The surficial soils throughout most of the site are in a very dry and very loose condition. ' Detailed topographic information was not available at the time of this report. Visually, site topography consists of relatively level terrain. The eastern two-thirds of the site dips slightly downward to the east, towards Depot Drive, whereas the western one-third of the site is 1 to 3 feet lower than the east, and drains to the west. The south or front portion of the site is slightly elevated above the remaining portion of the site, and may ' have been previously filled. 3.2 Proposed Development Information regarding the proposed development has been obtained from a preliminary ' site plan provided by the client. This plan indicates that the proposed development will consist of a new single -story restaurant identified as the MK -813F68 prototype, which is 2,868 ft2 in size. This rectangular building will have overall dimensions of 37 by 79± ' feet. The proposed structure will be of wood -frame or masonry block construction, and is typically supported on a shallow foundation system. ' Detailed grading plans are not currently available. We have assumed that the finished floor elevation of the new structure will be within 3± feet of existing site grades. Based on this assumption, cuts and fills of less than 3± feet will be required to achieve the new site grades. However, these estimates are exclusive of site preparation and overexcavation requirements. We should be notified if the proposed site grades are ' modified significantly. from those stated above, since revision to the geotechnical recommendations may be appropriate. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA - Project No. OOG219-1 Page 3 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of five (5) borings advanced to depths of 5 to 15± feet below currently existing site grades. The borings were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. The borings were ' advanced with hollow -stem augers. Due to the very loose consistency of the surficial soils, a track mounted limited access rig was required to gain access to the boring locations. Representative bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler" containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain ' their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. ' The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the ' laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. ' 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions A layer of possible fill soil was encountered at boring B-5, drilled near the southeastern ' corner of the property. This layer of possible fill consists of loose light gray fine sand extending to a depth of 2± feet. The remainder of the boring locations encountered ' native soils, comprised of light gray fine sands with trace silt extending to depths of 15± feet. Samples of the sands encountered at depths of 10 to 15 feet possess slightly higher silt contents. Nearly all of the recovered samples are in a dry to very dry condition. The soil samples recovered during the performance of the geotechnical investigation ' were classified in the field by a staff engineer, and again in the laboratory by a principal engineer. During these two procedures, we did not detect any odors or discolorations ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 4 that were considered indicative of the presence of VOCs or other hazardous materials within the samples. Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the five borings. In addition, delayed readings did not measure any water within the open boreholes. Based on the lack of free water within the borings and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 15± feet. a Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 5 7 L 1 Ll 1 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths. Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. supplemented with additional visual classifications USCS classifications are shown graphically on the referenced throughout this report. In-situ Density and Moisture Content Unified Soil Classification System Field identifications were then and/or by laboratory testing. The Boring Logs and are periodically The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs. ' Consolidation Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in ' accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one -inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the ' resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-4 in Appendix C of this report. 1 ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 6 Soluble Sulfates Representative samples of the 'near -surface soils have been submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are not yet available. These test results, an recommendations for any sulfate -resistant concrete mix designs that may be necessary, will be presented in an addendum report. Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA `` Project No. OOG219-1 Page 7 1 1 1 fl 1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. 6.1 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 possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. ' Seismic Design Parameters The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The 1997 UBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer program published by ' Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). A copy of the output generated from this program is included in Appendix E of this report. Based on this output, the following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: ' • Nearest Type A Fault: San Andreas -Southern (8 km) • Nearest Type B Fault: - Burnt Mountain (28 km) ' . Site Factor: Sp • Seismic Zone Factor (Z): 0.40 • Seismic Coefficient (Ca): 0.48 ' Seismic Coefficient (C,): 0.88 • Near -Source Factor (Na) 1.1 • Near -Source Factor (Nv) 1.4 A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by UBCSEIS is also included ' in Appendix E. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 8 1 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, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess .clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The subsurface conditions encountered at the subject site are not conducive to liquefaction. The static water table in this area is considered to exist at a depth in excess of 50± feet. Furthermore, the site is not located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone, as determined by the County of Riverside. Therefore, liquefaction is not considered to be a significant design concern for this project. 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations I General 1 The subject site is generally underlain by very loose to medium dense native sands within the upper 10± feet. The relative density of these soils generally increases with depth although the moisture contents remain low to a depth of at least 10± feet. The upper portion of these native sands generally possess unfavorable consolidation characteristics and therefore remedial grading will be required to provide a building pad suitable for support of the proposed structure. This remedial grading will also add moisture to the building 'pad subgrade soils, thereby increasing the stability of excavations for foundations or utilities. ISettlement The results of the consolidation/collapse testing indicate that the near surface native soils possess a moderate potential for collapse when exposed to moisture infiltration. The collapse potential of the native soils generally decreases with depth and therefore complete removal of the dry sands is not considered warranted. However, the presence of these soils will necessitate remedial grading in the foundation and floor slab areas of the proposed structure. Following completion of the recommended grading, the post -construction settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 9 ' Liquefaction 1 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, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess .clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The subsurface conditions encountered at the subject site are not conducive to liquefaction. The static water table in this area is considered to exist at a depth in excess of 50± feet. Furthermore, the site is not located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone, as determined by the County of Riverside. Therefore, liquefaction is not considered to be a significant design concern for this project. 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations I General 1 The subject site is generally underlain by very loose to medium dense native sands within the upper 10± feet. The relative density of these soils generally increases with depth although the moisture contents remain low to a depth of at least 10± feet. The upper portion of these native sands generally possess unfavorable consolidation characteristics and therefore remedial grading will be required to provide a building pad suitable for support of the proposed structure. This remedial grading will also add moisture to the building 'pad subgrade soils, thereby increasing the stability of excavations for foundations or utilities. ISettlement The results of the consolidation/collapse testing indicate that the near surface native soils possess a moderate potential for collapse when exposed to moisture infiltration. The collapse potential of the native soils generally decreases with depth and therefore complete removal of the dry sands is not considered warranted. However, the presence of these soils will necessitate remedial grading in the foundation and floor slab areas of the proposed structure. Following completion of the recommended grading, the post -construction settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 9 ' Expansion The near -surface on-site soils consist of sands and silty sands. These soils have been ' visually classified, as very low expansive. Therefore, no design considerations relative to expansive soils are considered necessary for this project. ' 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface ' conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance ' with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site specific recommendations presented below. ' Site Stripping and Demolition Initial site preparation should consist of stripping of surficial vegetation as well as any surficial organic materials. Based on conditions encountered at the time of the subsurface exploration, stripping of sparse to moderate native grass and weed growth is expected to be necessary throughout the site. Additional stripping and removal of trees, including tree root balls, may be necessary along the southern property line where landscaping has been installed. It should also be noted that significant growth of vegetation and/or the development of a topsoil horizon could develop between the time ' of this report and the start of grading operations. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer, based on the organic content and stability of the -materials encountered. ' Treatment of Existinq Soils: Building Pad ' The proposed building area is underlain by dry native sands extending to depths of 10± feet. The surficial portion of these soils is very loose although the relative density generally increases with depth. Based on the results of the collapse testing, and to provide stability for foundation and utility excavations, it is recommended a portion of ' these existing native soils be removed and replaced as compacted fill. It is also recommended that surface compaction techniques be utilized to further densify the ' remaining soils. Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, it is recommended the ' existing soils within the proposed building area be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below existing grade. The depth of overexcavation should also extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below the proposed building pad subgrade elevation. Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 10 1 t The overexcavation of the building pad should extend at least 5 feet beyond the edge of the perimeter foundations, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill below foundation bearing grade. If the proposed structure incorporates any exterior columns (such as for ' a canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas. After completion of the overexcavation within the proposed building area, it is recommended that the exposed subgrade soils be thoroughly flooded and surface compacted using a heavy vibratory roller. It is recommended that vibratory roller capable of exerting at least 10 to 12 tons of static load be utilized for this process. ' After the subgrade soils have been thoroughly moisture conditioned (flooded), the vibratory roller should be used to make at least five passes over the entire building pad, in both perpendicular directions. Due to the very low in-situ moisture content of the ' existing subgrade soils, it is expected that additional moisture conditioning will be necessary throughout the surface compaction process. The effect of the moisture conditioning and surface compaction should be verified by a representative of the ' geotechnical engineer. Depending upon the results of this evaluation, additional moisture conditioning and/or surface compaction may be required. In addition, density tests should be taken at the completion of compaction to verify that at least 90 percent ' of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density has been achieved throughout the building area. Treatment of Existing Soils: Parking Areas Based on economic considerations, overexcavation of the low strength, collapsible soils ' in the new parking areas is not considered warranted, with the exception of areas where lower strength soils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading. Subgrade preparation in the new parking areas should initially consist of removal of all ' soils disturbed during stripping operations. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils within the proposed parking area should then be thoroughly ' moisture conditioned and surface compacted in manner similar to that previously recommended for the proposed building area. ' Fill Placement • Prior to placement of any new fill, all subgrade soils should be scarified, ' thoroughly moisture conditioned to at least 2 to 4 percent above optimum and recompacted. • Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near -horizontal lifts, moisture ' conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted. ' . On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. • All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance ' with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the requirements of the City of La Quinta. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 11 1 ' • All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. • Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications. Imported Structural Fill All imported structural fill should consist of very low to non -expansive, well graded soils. Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D. 1 Utility Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and flooded in place. Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of La Quinta. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere. Utility trenches which parallel a footing, from the outside edge of the footing compacted to at least 90 percent of the should not be used for these trenches. 6.4 Construction Considerations Excavation Considerations and extending below a 1h:1v plane projected should be backfilled with structural fill soils, ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal -OSHA regulations. Based on the presence of loose, predominantly granular soils throughout the site, moderate caving of shallow excavations is expected to occur. Flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to mitigate caving of shallow excavations. Deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. Frequent moisture conditioning of the on-site soils will also improve excavation stability characteristics. Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 . 1WPage 12 ' Groundwater Based on the water levels measured in the borings and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the water table is considered to exist at a depth in excess of 15 feet below grade. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed grading activities. 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pad area will be underlain by newly placed structural fill soils used to replace the existing variable strength, collapsible soils. These new fill soils are expected to extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below proposed building pad grade, underlain by additional soils that have been surface compacted in-place, as verified by the geotechnical engineer. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structure may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system. Foundation Design Parameters New shallow spread footings may be designed as follows: •- Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 Ibs/ft2 • Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches • , Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom). Minimum foundation embedment: 1.2 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. The allowable bearing pressures presented above may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement may be necessary -for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 �`��— Page 13 7 1 ' Foundation Construction The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as ' discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly ' placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing native soils/compacted structural fill, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations. The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Since it is typically not feasible to moisture condition foundation subgrade soils that have become excessively dried during construction, the foundation and floor slab subgrade soils should be kept moist throughout the grading process. Estimated Foundation Settlements Post -construction total and differential settlements of a conventional shallow foundation system designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of this report are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. The differential movements are assumed to occur over a 20 -foot span, resulting in an angular distortion on the order of 0.002 inches per inch. This deflection is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure, subject to the determination of the structural engineer. 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. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: • Passive Earth Pressure: 300 lbs/ft' • Friction Coefficient: 0.35 A one-third increase in these values may be used for short duration wind or seismic loads. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable compacted structural fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 2500 Ibs/ftz. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 14 1 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floor of the new structure may be constructed as a conventional slab -on -grade supported on newly placed structural fill, used to replace the existing loose, potentially collapsible soils that were encountered in the building area. These new fill soils are expected to extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below finished pad grade. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slab may be designed as follows: • Minimum slab thickness: 4 inches • Minimum slab reinforcement: Not required for geotechnical considerations; the standard Jack in the Box floor slab design using Fibermesh® reinforcement is considered suitable. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by_ the structural engineer, based on the imposed loading. • Slab underlayment: 10 -mil vapor barrier, overlain by 2 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier and 2 -inch layer of sand may be eliminated. ' . Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. ' • Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. ' The actual design of the floor slabs should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement. ' 6.7 Pavement'Design Parameters + Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction ' monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20 -year pavement service ' life. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 15 1 11 1 Pavement Subgrades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be supported on the existing possible fill and native soils that consist of fine to medium sand, or similar imported materials. These soils are considered to possess good pavement support characteristics, with estimated R -values of 50 to 70. Since R -value testing was not included in the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is based upon an assumed R -value of 50. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. It may be desirable to perform R -value testing after the completion of rough grading to verify the R -value of the as -graded parking subgrade. If the subgrade soils possess higher R -values, a thinner pavement section could be utilized. Asphaltic Concrete Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. An alternate pavement section has been provided for use in parking stall areas due to the anticipated lower traffic intensity in these areas. However, truck traffic must be excluded from areas where the thinner pavement section is used; otherwise premature pavement distress may occur. The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI's) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI's are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Materials Thickness (inches) Auto Parking TI = 4.5 Auto Drive Lanes TI = 5.5 Asphalt Concrete 3 3 Aggregate Base 2 4 Aggregate Subbase --- --- Compacted Subgrade 12 12 The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 �� Page 16 IPortland. Cement Concrete ' The preparation of the subgrade soils within Portland cement concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows: • Automobile Parking and Drive Areas ' 5 inches Portland Cement Concrete over 12 inches compacted subgrade (95% minimum compaction) • Truck Traffic Areas (TI = 6.0) 6 inches Portland Cement Concrete over 12 inches compacted subgrade (95% minimum compaction) The concrete should have a 28 -day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within all pavements should be designed by the structural engineer. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. The actual joint spacing and reinforcing of the Portland cement concrete pavements should be determined by the structural engineer. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Duinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 17 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by 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. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants with to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance. on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have ' been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. ' Southern California Geotechnical Jack in the Box—La Quinta, CA Project No. OOG219-1 Page 18 APPENDIX A SITE LOCATION MAP BORING LOCATION PLAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I MILES g .G ., eBamAr W 19 r ZO . co ._AV MID A 'q cl a IwAne �srxr .aur OR i �� AHIrVxrfH AV `. ndtr _ pF "qq f11 VFAtEwE Cf gSLSSINI � RIVER 6 3 ors EllE:IWNARD cf , ZO r�ie.'PRINfFION AV DIO-A•^ ' I In v. fDLD PA M1 u u p/t,NjA nv - .'ajI fACsols - - pOR0711Y IN ' S .. U WINIA r:: -• . r ... i . .. ,- rER ":,a - ..AEr •PAS TESORI) IN L 6�" 80700 •� PECK P SAID:~ PAM t - in T4 ,PAS 1hF , .;r / ru suae 47TH . •r _ BooBO ,w.`T'x. �' a DISM AN f6 -t, 1 AY ! Y # z ...\•i .I. 'S [ raiur vE i h 30 ruga a� { 7 I t 4 Am W .: rTAuaLE, Yu ST. 61iEY.' ,� ... \ :.6 - m 7EE Sr I 1Q � 1 .,1 _ � � 1 , .A f t5 Y -_ ' •, I CI .6. O A '.s ,+ 4 48 +_•,.' { •-'6�TE' Y:r; �a:T�1 A y 48 1 .-. '; AVM 48 ` .. 7� ♦�Ei� YtSu AVEMIEA-- UES , WE yJlQ10 W r *Y, ➢%a 4+ -or ,7 ep S 1 Mayo tS F _ ray oa A 1YCr } PR AV r 33 j qrMfDr., AYE KMW- mow' tx { I zYA r< ! 1 AVE;' AVE bU 81000" em LA y 1 Ptpts; QUI NTA POMELO -v TR CH LA FN CAUE �a r u TAMPtCOo ` T H a .auE I,'' Y;r 7esoB VENUE .OLD AV... �,. ..... ,.......... A'y .� � ,..•_'_-.ti.._......._...�.....,..._.....r......_�rt ...-.�.�.. 't SITE LOCATION MAP PROPOSED JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT SOURCE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA THOMAS GUIDE, 1998 1' = 2400' DRAWN: RB Southern California Geotechnical CHKD: GKM SCG PROJECT OOG219-1 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92807 PLATE 1 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398 Q C) t _ D *B-2 0 V) W _ m C> z Co 00 ElM Ic o GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND µ -+ APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION B-5 o —o — 17 R&R DESIGN (714) 375-6625 LANDSCAPE y IMPORTANT NOTICE Q THIS PLAN WAS PRODUCED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF m " SURVEY. SITE PLAN BOUNDARIES AND 41 IW - DIMENSIONS, BUILDINGS, OCCUPANTS, MONUMEN - In IMPROVEMENTS AND AREAS SHOWN ARE SIGN Lr. 0 PRELIMINARY AND ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION AND MODIFICATION AT ANY TIME. ti Go �o BORING LOCATION PLAN 145.92' I I, PROPOSED JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT i; LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ;. SCALE: 1'= 30' HIGHWAY 111! DRAWN: GKM southern California Geotechnical CHKO: JAS SCG PROJECT OOG219-1 1260 North Hancock Street,_Suite-101 PLATE 2 Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398 SHOPPING CENTER ACCESS DRIVE 157.85' — — SITE SCHEMATIC #1 7 MAY 1, 2000 I ' ' B-4 PROPOSED DRIVE - THRU EW C/O DUNE PALMS RD. rB 0 MENU SPEAKER &HIGHWAY 111 (6TH CAR) LAQUINTA, CA. TRASH ENCLOSURE CV p PROPOSED tf� TRANSFORMER DRIVE - THRU 2,868 S. F. M_ LANDSCAPE NI PROPOSED PARKING: 36 STALLS REQUIRED o - PARKING: 29 STALLS Q C) t _ D *B-2 0 V) W _ m C> z Co 00 ElM Ic o GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND µ -+ APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION B-5 o —o — 17 R&R DESIGN (714) 375-6625 LANDSCAPE y IMPORTANT NOTICE Q THIS PLAN WAS PRODUCED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF m " SURVEY. SITE PLAN BOUNDARIES AND 41 IW - DIMENSIONS, BUILDINGS, OCCUPANTS, MONUMEN - In IMPROVEMENTS AND AREAS SHOWN ARE SIGN Lr. 0 PRELIMINARY AND ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION AND MODIFICATION AT ANY TIME. ti Go �o BORING LOCATION PLAN 145.92' I I, PROPOSED JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT i; LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ;. SCALE: 1'= 30' HIGHWAY 111! DRAWN: GKM southern California Geotechnical CHKO: JAS SCG PROJECT OOG219-1 1260 North Hancock Street,_Suite-101 PLATE 2 Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 BORING LOG LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SAMPLE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION AUGER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED) ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH ADIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. CORE TYPICALLY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK. SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO .GRAB SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM "0 (DISTURBED) CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.O. SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1 -INCH HIGH C � BRASS RINGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED) N R NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER ISA 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT SPT BARREL, DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT on S � SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SAIL COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above. BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 Ib hammer with a 30 -inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more. POCKEN PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by the pocket penetrometer. GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic soil symbol, as depicted on the following page. DRY DENSITY: Dry Density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample. MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic. PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of material finer than the #200 standard sieve. UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED) CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.O. SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1 -INCH HIGH C � BRASS RINGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED) N R NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER ISA 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT SPT BARREL, DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED) S � SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SAIL AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED) VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR VANE DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT CLAYS -NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. 1 1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ' �� ' �� • �•• •� GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ° �° °° bo o pOo p O Q o0 O GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION GRAVELS WITH FINES ° °° p O o ° GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES SAND AND CLEAN SANDS SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN SANDY NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ::. SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITHSILTY FINES SM SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLECLAYEY AMOUNT OF FINES) SC+ SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS FINE GRAINED SOILS AND LIQUID LIMIT CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS — — — OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THANN NO. 200 SIEVE MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS L,��' ��' ��' PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-1 JOB NO.: OOG219 DRILLING DATE: 10/31/00 WATER DEPTH: Dry 0 0 d W U O a o0i N ci O O J H PROJECT: Jack in the Box - DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 3.5 feet LOCATION: La Quinta, CA LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS o DESCRIPTION LABORATORY RESULTS Z W LL Z o Z o Z o LL t W W = z W Z)W w ZN Z� W = F- J 2 Q L) 0_ >.LL LZ 0 5~ NH U5 U) �w W t 0 a ov C1 M g M ai m a SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL o t a D C/) o Light Light Gray Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, loose to medium dense -dry 28 2 Disturbed Sample 31 1 Disturbed Sample 5 30 98 1 26 92 2 27 82 2 10 — moist at 13 to 15 feet 29 8 Boring Terminated at 15' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-1 1 1 Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-2 JOB NO.: OOG219 DRILLING DATE: 10/31/00 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: Jack in the Box DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 3 feet LOCATION: La Quinta, CA LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS o LABORATORY RESULTS W z z F �.�, W o v DESCRIPTION z � z c9 W F, t z w a le— a 0^ �w h p U zN z� o w W lL t 0 iL fn F- fn H a <a M 0 ai m a SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL o a a Zi C4 Z Light Gray fine Sand, trace Silt, loose to medium dense - dry 13 98 1 18 96 1 5 36 102 2 34 102 2 33 88 2 10 Light Gray to Gray Silty fine Sand, dense - damp 34 7 Boring Terminated at 15' co TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-2 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-3 JOB NO.: OOG219 DRILLING DATE: 10/31/00 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: Jack in the Box DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 1.5 feet LOCATION: La Quinta, CA LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS O DESCRIPTION LABORATORY RESULTS Z W LL Z o~ z v o, LL t w z WZ w a g 9 0LL a rLL 9Z 5~ U)if- U) C) O� W vai m a t SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL o a a �a u=i v Light Gray fine Sand, loose to medium dense - dry 80 2 - Root encountered at 2 feet 32 2 Boring Terminated at 5' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-3 TBL OOG219.GPJ SOCALGEOWT 11/2100 m O X Z ci r O G) r D m ao .4 DEPTH (FEET) mO 0 0 SAMPLE o 0 p z a m COUNT (�/� c -BLOW o POCKET PEN. r °' (TSF) cn r s GRAPHIC LOG °' fD 0 o. D x r U' _s m • m G7 C � 03 -1 D ca P, M0 m o�� r- cn G)FF (D �m C7 mzz <i7 0 0ca o -DI �D m D CD O m Z O z1 (D B 0 U!, Z o q 0 CL , W 2 c 3 NO w 0 0 CL(n m � N r cn T m 3 CL m DRY DENSITY r - (PCF) W MOISTURE Q N CONTENT(%) x LIQUID i D D LIMIT � v m m PLASTIC -< Z 0 ;o LIMIT X V v m -� PASSING (n � #200 SIEVE (%) Z C UNCONFINED —I m 0 SHEAR (TSF) cn °= =° `z 0 0 COMMENTS 0 Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-5 JOB NO.: OOG219 DRILLING DATE: 10/31/00 WATER DEPTH: Dry J fO H PROJECT: Jack in the Box DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 1.5 feet LOCATION: La Quinta, CA LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion FIELD RESULTS O DESCRIPTION LABORATORY RESULTS w u zz o ou Lu u- W z � z W a w t Z CL a 3: Y v0 LL a �� z �� vii►- No OV� o ¢ cn m a c� SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL a00 o a� a D c o v POSSIBLE FILL: Light Gray fine Sand, trace Silt, loose to medium dense - dry 26 1 Light Gray fine Sand, little Silt - dry . 21 1 Boring Terminated at 5' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-5 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING 1 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 2 4 Water Added at 1600 psf c N o 6 'p .O to C O V 8 10 12 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: Light Gray fine Sand, trace Silt Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) 1 Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 22 Depth (ft) 1-2 ft. Initial Dry Density (pcf) 94.3 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 105.3 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 4.04 Jack in the Box Southern California Geotechnical La Quinta, California Project No. OOG219 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 PLATE C- Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398 0 2 4 a c U) 0 6 M v .o C C O U 8 10 12 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 1'11'111® PrWater Added _____.7 ll at 1600 psf 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: Light Gray fine Sand, trace Silt Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) Depth (ft) 3-4 ft. Initial Dry Density (pcf) Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) Specimen Thickness (in) '1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 1 22 96.1 101.9 1.39 Jack in the Box Southern California Geotechnical La Quinta, California Project No. OOG219 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 PLATE C- 2 Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 2 -�4 Water Added at 1600 psf 4 e c U) 0 6 w v .o a c 0 U 8 10 12 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: Light Gray fine Sand, trace Silt Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) 2 Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 20 Depth (ft) 5-6 ft. Initial Dry Density (pcf) 98.1 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 105.0 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 1.67 Jack in the Box Southern California Geotechnical La Quinta, California Project No. OOG219 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 PLATE C- Anaheim,Callfornla 92807 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398 1 1 1 1 1 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0- 2w 2Water ater Added at 1600 psf 4- E N 0 6 0 v .o a c 0 U 8- 10- 1012 12 ' 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: Light Gray fine Sand, trace Silt Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) 2 Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 20 Depth (ft) 7-8 ft. Initial Dry Density (pcf) 99.1 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 105.9 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 1.57 Jack in the Box Southern California Geotechnical La Quinta, California Project No. OOG219 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 PLATE C- �A# Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) Fax: (714)777.0398 APPENDIX D GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS Grading Guide Specifications Page 1 1 GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. General • The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and Uniform Building Codes. The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman -like manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor. ' The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job - site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the 1 specified compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. • Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, ' subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. Itis the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection. • Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. ' Site Preparation • The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. • If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately. ' • Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Grading Guide Specifications Page 2 • Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the ' Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be formulated. ■ Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. ' Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill. ' • Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted • The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing. Compacted Fills • Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided • Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Acceptable methods typically include windrows. Oversize materials should not be placed within the range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate excavations. Rock placement should be kept away from slopes (minimum distance: 15 feet) to facilitate compaction near the slope. • Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously 1 prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. ' • Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557 unless otherwise indicated. • Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated," and shall be low to non -expansive with a maximum expansion index (EI) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6 inch particle size, except as noted below. • All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer. • Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Acceptable methods typically include windrows. Oversize materials should not be placed within the range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate excavations. Rock placement should be kept away from slopes (minimum distance: 15 feet) to facilitate compaction near the slope. • Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously 1 prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. ' • Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557 unless otherwise indicated. • Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, L7 ' Grading Guide Specifications Page 3 ' equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. After compacted fills have been tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer, the contractor should moisture condition the soils as necessary to maintain the compacted moisture content. Compacted fill soils that are allowed to become overly dry or desiccated may require removal and/or scarification, moisture conditioning and replacement. Soils with medium to high expansion indices are especially susceptible to desiccation. Sandy soils that are allowed to dry can also lose density Foundations • The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside ' edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward at a % horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination. • Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. • Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above ' foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation. Fill Slopes ' • The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core. • Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the • Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and ' recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. • Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5 -to -1 inclination (horizontal -to -vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G-5. • Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate G-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. • Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration. • Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. Foundations • The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside ' edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward at a % horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination. • Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. • Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above ' foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation. Fill Slopes ' • The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core. • Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the Grading Guide Specifications Page 4 slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. • Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. • All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate G-5). • • All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. • The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G-2). Cut Slopes • All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations. • Cutslopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. • All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate G-5. • Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates G-6. Subdrains • Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate G-3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square -cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. • Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions.- Clean %-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four -inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CUT LOT LG� J ./ MAE1AIALE S' MIN. COMPACTED FILL L• , �/� OVEREXCAVATE AND 3' MIN.' - RECOMPACT • COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER CUT FILL LOT (TRANSITION) MIN. COMPACTED FILL / Pe�,E �• oP L COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER TRANSITION LOT DETAIL PLATE G-1 OVEREXCAVATE AND 3' MIN.• J RECOMPACT DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER IN STEEP TRANSITIONS. Southern California Geotechnical CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE SHOWN ON -AS-BUILT' COMPETENT MATERIAL NATURAL GRADE CUT SLOPE CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MAT- ERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER BEDROCK OR APPROVED COMPETENT MATERIAL FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL; PLATE G-2 COMPACTED FILL 'MA�AIAL EµOVE. VARIABLE . P 4 - MIN. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS a FEET OR AS RECOM- MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI- NEER —MINIMUM V TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) Southern California Geotechnical ORIGINAL GROUND 4" MIDI MIN G'.DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1% SLOPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATERIAL OVER SUBDRAIN ADS CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE 8 TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 20 PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35 SUR 21 100 -CLEANOUT 'EXCAVATION MINUS V CRUSHED ROCK COPPLETELY SURROUtIDED BY FILTER FABRIC; OR CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL SCHEMATIC ONLY NOT TO SCALE CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Southern California Geotechnical PLATE, G-3 t■ COMPETENT MATERIAL OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS COMPACTED FILL PER PLATE NO.4 TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT ' 0:1 MAX). � • ' BACKCUT-VARIES / N6U1jAa i11A 2' MINIMUM. KEY DEPTH PLACE COMPACTED . BACKFILL TO ORIG- INAL GRADE IICTTYAT IPI ouum itni MAI• ERIAL. MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN S' IN HEIGHT. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL PLATE G-4 9111113-1� VARIABLE • MIN. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM- MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGF MINIMUM f TILT BACK NEER OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) NOTE BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE ' EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. Southern California Geotechnical v I TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER 15' Minimum COMPACTED FILL FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE :/ / j;.. COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE /e VARIABLE SOIL ENGINEER 100001, MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS t FEET OR AS RECOM- MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI- NEER MINIMUM I' TILT BACK OR 2 PERCENT N SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL PLATE G-5 15' Minimum or 2 Slope Height Southern California Geotechnical 1 11 1 1 DESIGN FINISH SLOPE OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTER- VALS. EXTEND 12 INCHES BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH GRAD ING CONSTRUCTION. BUTTRESS OR SIDEHILL 10' MIN, . FILL 25' MAX MAX15* 2.- . 1 4 -INCH DIAMETER NON -PERFORATED 2' OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD CLEAR BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. ':"FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFI- jCATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO ,EMA STD. PLAN 323) SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 NO.4 25-40 NO.8 18.33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON- NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW -NOTES: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL STABILIZATION FILL SUBDRAINS PLATE G-6 BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY SOIL ENGI- NEER "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1%" 100 NO.4 50 NO. 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT - MINIMUM OF 50 FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFI- CATION. ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MAT- ERIAL- FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC, SEE ABOVE FOR I GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC. SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES ON ALL.JOINTS. MINIMUM 4 -INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEASE 1,000 POUNDS. WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. Southern California Geotechnical 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E uacsEis COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT Spectral Acceleration (g) 0 0 ry o �n o in o O O Cn 0 *********************** * U B C S E I S * * * Version 1.03 * * COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: OOG219 DATE: 11-02-2000 JOB NAME: JITB La Quinta FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.7077 SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2703 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: SAN ANDREAS - Southern DISTANCE: 7.9 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: BURNT MTN. DISTANCE: 28.2 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE:• 99999.0 km , SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.1 Nv: 1.4 Ca: 0.48 ` Cv: 0.88 Ts: 0.734 To: 0.147 * 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 --------------------------- 9 , ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) SAN ANDREAS - Southern I 7.9 I A I 7.4 I 24.00 I SS BURNT MTN. I 28.2 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS EUREKA PEAK I 29.5 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS ' SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 34.8 I A I 7.2 I 12.00 I SS SAN JACINT07COYOTE CREEK I 35.5 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 48.8 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 I SS ' EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. LANDERS' I 50.6 I 52.4 I B I I B I 6.9 I 7.3 I 0.60 0.60 SS I SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK I 53.7 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 56.9 B I 6.6 I 4.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 59.9 I B I 6.9 I 12.00 I SS ' NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 62.7 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 65.2 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 I SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 65.8 I B I 6.5 I 25.00 I SS ' JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 69.8 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I SS ELSINORE-JULIAN I 70.9 I A I 7.1 I 5.00 I SS CALICO - HIDALGO I 72.3 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS ELMORE RANCH I 77.7 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I SS ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 77.9 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I 79.4 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 82.4 B I 7.0 1.00 I DS ' ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 83.0 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 85.8 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 87.0 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 92.3 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 95.8 I B I 6.7 I 12.00 I SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 99.9 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS CLEGHORN I 107.5 B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS IMPERIAL I 109.2 I A I 7.0 I 20.00 I SS ' ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA I 115.0 I B I 7.0 I 3.50 I SS CUCAMONGA I 120.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS ' CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) ROSE CANYON I 120.8 I 123.5 I B I I B I 6.7 I 6.9 I 1.00 1.50 I DS I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I. 123.5 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER I 127.5 B I 6.8 2.50 I SS SAN ANDREAS = 1857 Rupture I 134.4 I A I 7.8 I 34.00 I SS ' SAN JOSE I 138.9 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE I 142.7 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS SIERRA MADRE (Central) I 143.5 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I DS ' CORONADO BANK I 147.9 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 153.3 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 157.3 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS PALOS VERDES I 161.2'I B I 7.1 I 3.00 I SS ' BLACKWATER I 161.9 B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS RAYMOND I 168.4 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS VERDUGO I 177.5 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS ' --------------------------- Page 2 --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- I I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME- I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) HOLLYWOOD 1 187.0 I B 1 6.5 I 1.00 I DS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 1 197.7 I B 1 6.7 I 2.00 I DS SAN GABRIEL 1 197.9 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I SS SANTA MONICA 1 202.1 I B I 6.6 1 1.00 I DS ' DEATH VALLEY (South) I 209.9 I B I 6.9 1 4.00 I SS GARLOCK (East) 1 210.3 I A 1 7.3 1 7.00 I SS MALIBU COAST SANTA SUSANA I 212.4 I 1 216.9 I B I B I 6.7 1 6.6 I 0.30 I 5.00 I DS DS OWL LAKE I 218.5 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 I SS PANAMINT VALLEY 1 219.4 I B 1 7.2 1 2.50 I SS HOLSER I 225.0 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS ' ANACAPA-DUME 1 226.4 I B I 7.3 ( 3.00 I DS TANK CANYON I 233.5 I B 1 6.5 I 1.00 I DS GARLOCK (West) 1 237.0 I A 1 7.1 I 6.00 I SS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 238.5 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 242.6 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS SAN CAYETANO I 244.3 I B I 6.8 1 6.00 I DS LITTLE LAKE 1 247.2 I B I 6.7 1 0.70 I SS So. SIERRA NEVADA I 254.5 I B I 7.1 I 0.10 I DS SANTA YNEZ (East) I 261.5 I B 1 7.0 1 2.00 I SS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 265.4 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I DS ' PLEITO THRUST I 271.0 I B 1 6.8 1 2.00 I DS WHITE WOLF 1 271.0 I B I 7.2 I 2.00 I DS VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 274.8 I B 1 6.8 I 1.00 I DS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 280.9 I B 1 6.7.1 0.40 I DS ' BIG PINE •1 281.8 I B I 6.7 1 0.80 I SS RED MOUNTAIN 1 288.9 I B I 6.8 I 2.00 I DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND I 301.8 I B 1 6.8 I 1.00 I DS OWENS VALLEY I 318.4 I B I 7.6 1 1.50 I SS ' DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 1 320.7.1 A 1 7.2 1 5.00 1 SS SANTA YNEZ (West) I 322.8 1 B 1 6.9 1 2.00 1 SS ' HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 326.4 1 338.2 1 B 1 I B I 7.0 1 6.9 1 2.50 1.00 1 SS I DS INDEPENDENCE I 353.4 I B 1 6.9 1 0.20 1 DS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE I 365.7 I B I 6.8 I 0.70 1 DS SAN JUAN I 377.0 I B 1 7.0 1 1.00 I SS ' LIONS HEAD 1 382.9 I B 1 6.6 I 0.02 I DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 386.7 1 B 1 7.0 I 0.20 1 DS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 398.9 1 B I 6.5 1 0.25 I DS BIRCH CREEK 1 409.4 I B 1 6.5 1 0.70 I DS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 410.8 1 B I 7.1 I 1.00 1 SS LOS OSOS I 416.1 I B I 6.8 1 0.50 I DS DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 421.3 I A 1 7.0 1 5.00 I SS ' DEEP SPRINGS I 425.2 1 B 1 6.6 I 0.80 I DS HOSGRI 1 428.8 I B I 7.3 1 2.50 I SS RINCONADA I 430.6 I B I 7.3 I 1.00 I SS 11 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 ---------------------------------- =-------------------------------------------- I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) I 448.8 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS FISH SLOUGH I 451.3 I B I 6.6 I 0.20 I DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) I 471.8 I B I 5.0 I 34.00 I SS HILTON CREEK I 475.3 I B I 6.7 I 2.50 I DS ' HARTLEY SPRINGS I 501.9 I B I 6.6 I 0.50 I DS MONO LAKE I 538.1 I B I 6.6 I 2.50 I DS ORTIGALITA CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I 546.8 I I 558.0 I B I B I 6.9 I 6.2 I 1.00 15.00 I SS I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 569.0 I B I 7.1 I 0.50 I DS QUIEN SABE I 569.4 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS ROBINSON CREEK I 569.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS ' PALO COLORADO - SUR I 575.5 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I SS ZAYANTE-VERGELES I 590.3 I B I 6.8 I 0.10 I SS SARGENT I 594.2 I B I 6.8 I 3.00 I SS ' SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 595.5 I A I 7.9 I 24.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I 610.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 I DS GREENVILLE I 636.3 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 I SS GENOA I 638.9 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 641.3 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS SAN GREGORIO I 643.1 I A I 7.3 I 5.00 I SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 644.0 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS ' HAYWARD (Total Length) I 659.6 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 659.6 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 703.2 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS - WEST NAPA I 742.3 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS RODGERS CREEK I 743.2 I A I 7.0 I 9.00 I SS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 761.0 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS POINT REYES I 768.4 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 I DS MAACAMA (South) I 803.7 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS COLLAYOMI I 818.3 I B' I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 818.6 I A I 7.1 I 6.00 I SS ' MAACAMA (Central) MAACAMA (North) I 845.1 I I 902.3 I A I A I 7.1 I 7.1 I 9.00 9.00 I SS I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 904.4 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS BATTLE CREEK I 909.7 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS LAKE MOUNTAIN I 962.4 I B I 6.7 I 6.00 I SS ' GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND I 981.6 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 11040.4 I A I 7.4 I 35.00 I DS MAD RIVER 11042.0 I B I 7.1 I 0.70 I DS ' LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 11042.1 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS McKINLEYVILLE 11053.0 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD 11053.8 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 I DS FICKLE HILL 11054.8 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I DS ' CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE. 11056.1 I A I 8.3 I 35.00 I DS TABLE BLUFF 11063.2 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 11076.0 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 I DS 1 11 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 4 ---------=--------------------------------------------------------------------- .I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED• IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 11089.5 I B I 7.3 I 0.50 I DS