The URL can be used to link to this page

0003-017 (CSCS) Geotechnical InvestigationReport of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Commercial Building State Highway I 11, West of Washington Avenue Plaza La Quinta La Quihia, Riverside County, California -?S -4-3-7 Owl Ilk CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION DArE _jjjjet&_0 BY FOR: cTfte-4 CV#Y M & H Property Management, LLC Attn: Mr. Glen Goodman 12555 High Bluff Drive,. Suite 385 San Diego, Calif6mia 92130 DATE: February 3, 2000 PROJECTNO. 00-1562 D BY. - PREPARE Anthony -Taylor Consultants 3 4 17,nterprise Sti-ect 0 Escondido, California 92029 (760) 738-8800 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................... H. SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 2 IGyneral .............................................................. 2 2. SiLc-L.C1,114"Y' . . : ....................................................... 2 3. Subsurface Condition ........ : .......................................... 2 4. Groundwate .......................................................... 3 Ill. FIE D EXPLORATION ........................................................ 3 IV. LABOR ATORY TESTING ...................................................... 4 V. CONCT I ISIONS .............................................................. 6 1. General ............................................................... 6 2. Gyroundwite .......................................................... 6 3. \Yloisrure Conten ....................................................... 6 4. FxpansiveSnik ........................................................ 7 5. Water Soluble Sulfate inSnilg ............................................. 7 6. 1 ind Slippage and Frosion ............................................... 7 7. Potentially eompressible Soils ............................................ 7 8. Seismic Considerations .................................................. 7 V1. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 10 I., Seismicity ........................................................... 10 2., Farthwork .. ............ ............................................ I I 3. Foundat ons and Slab Design ............................................ 13 4. Preliminary Pavement Mtsip ............................................ 15 5. Later3l Farth Pressures and Resistance ..................................... 16 6. Surface and Subsurface Drainagc ......................................... IS 7. Construction Observation and Plan Review .................................. 18 Vil. I-IN-11TATIONS .............................................................. Is FIGURES: la Vicinity Map lb Site Map Ila - lIc Excavation Logs Illa Laboratory Soil Data Summary Illb - Illc Direct Shear Test Results Illd - Ille Consoliddtion-Pressure Curve lIlf - Illp Mechanical Analysis - Sieve Test Data APPENDICES: A References B Unified Soil Classification Chart C Seismicity and Local Faulting D Earthwork and Grading Guidelines F Empirical Prediction of Earthquake - Induced Liquefaction Potential wfifflcvmw� ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 304 Enterprise Street 0 Escondiclo, CA 92029 0 (760) 738-8800 s (760) 7.38-8232 fax February 3, 2000 NI&H Property iNlanagement, LLC Project No. 00-1562 12555 High BlUffDrive, Suite 385 San Diego, California, 92130 Attention: Mr. Glenn Goodman Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation 0 Proposed Commercial Building, State Highway 111, West of Washington Ave 6 to Plaza La Quinta, La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Dear Mr. Goodman: In accordance with your request, Anthony -Taylor Consultants has performed a Geotechnical Investigation to address the geotechnical conditions existing at the subject site. It is our understanding that the proposed development will include the construction of a 6,600 square foot commercial -type building, cement -concrete drive entrances, asphalted drive and parking areas, and other associated improvements. The purposes of the investigation were to determine the aeneral enoineerina characteristics of the soils underlying the subject site to the depths explored and to provide engineenincy recommendations for the construction ofthe proposed structures at the subject site. This report describes: the investigation performed; the results and opinions of our findings; and our geotechnical recommendations for constru'c'tion. 1. SCOPE The scope,.of our geotiechnical investigation was based upon the planning information I provided to us, and consisted of field, laboratory, and engineering evaluation of site conditibn's"'; to include:; I Peview of readily available documents pertinent to the subject site (Appendix A); ' 2. Tlic excavation of 3 cxplorntory test horillgs withill bUildin(I J)Idand pirldn- C. 0 area. The soils cncountcrcd-in the excavations were logged by our Field Geologist and relatively undisturbed and loose bag samples were collected S;tl) Diego, CA * Smi Franci..ico, CA - HOLISE011, TX M&II Property Manacemcm. LLC Project No. 00-1562 Vchmar v 12000 -Poce 2, or n. at selected intervals in the various soil types to the maximum depth of the exploration; 3. Laboratory analysis of the collected samples; 4. Geotechnical analysis of the data and information obtained; and 5. Preparation of this report, presenting our conclusions and recommendations. [HEMEN111"I WN.31WIDN' 1. General: The property consists of an irregular shaped lot with the approximate dimensions of 214 by 167 feet. The area of study consists of an approximately 0.8 acre undeveloped lot located on the south side of State Highway III at approximately 330 to 490 feet west of Washington Street, just east of the entrance to'Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center, in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, California. This site is located in a generally conunercial area and is bounded to the north, by Highway 111, to the south and east by an asphalted parking area, and to the west by the entrance to the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center. Presently the site's exposed surface consists of grass. It is our understanding that the proposed structures and improvements are to be constructed upon surface crrades which are 0 approximately similar in elevation to those currently existing. 2. Site Geolo-,Y: Regional geologic maps of the area (CDMG, 1966), indicate that the subject site is located in an area near a contact between Quate rn ary'(rec ent)-7 aged dUne sand deposits (alluvium), and Mesozoic granitic rocks. The site is located approximately 5.7 miles from the Coachella Valley Portion of the San Andreas Fault Zone, 6 miles from the San Gorgonio -Banning Fault Zone, 14 miles from the Blue Cut Fault Zone:and 17 miles from the Hot Springs -Buck Ridge portion of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. These fault zones are reported to have shown indications of Late QpAternary-Ho.locene and historic seismic activity. Our review of the proper fiterature (Hak, E. W. 1990) indicates that the subject site lies outside the present Earthquake Fault Zones, which are described in the Alquist-Pr1olo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act as being placed along active faults. 3. S.tibstirfau—Coliditioils: Subsurface materials encountered within our excavations ColisisLed Of ki11dSCZ1pC tOpSoil (Fill) and dune sand (alhi%'11.1111) dcposits. Detailed descriptions of U.-icsc matcrials can be found in the excavation logs (refer to Figure 2"Mr1r3,3 M&11 Properl) Mmiagriiiew. LLC Project No. 00-1562 Februin. 3, .1000 .1141:c 3 . if 20. Nos. Ila through 11c). Based on Our Field investigation and laboratory testing, the general characteristics of these units (from youngest to oldest) are described below. I andscape Topsoi 1: We encountered minor amounts of landscape topsoll/fi I I soils in all Of Our exploratory excavations. These fill soils were observed to have a thickness of approximately Yz foot in the vicinity of our excavations. The encountered topsoil/ fill soils were observed to consist of brown sandy clay to clayey sand. This fill material is considered to be potentially compressible and unsuitable to support any structural loads in its present condition. Dune Sand (Alluvium) Deposits: The encountered native soils are mapped in the literature for this area (CD1'VIG, 1966), as being part of the Quatemary (recent) -aged Dune sand (alluvium) deposits. These alluvial soils were observed to generally consist of gray brown to olive brown and gray silty to clayey sands, sandy clays, and sands. The sands crenerally ranged from very fine to fine and occasionally very fine to medium arained. These soils were generally observed to be damp to very moist and have a medium dense to dense consistency. This material was found to extend to depths in excess of our deepest exploratory boring (approximately 51 V2 feet in exploratory boring B-2). A detailed description of these soils is presented in our excavation locys, Fiaure Nos. Ha throu-h Hc 0 1-7 -7 4. Groundwater: Free groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory excavations to the maximum depths explored (approximately 51 V2 feet below existinc, site arades), although evidence of perched water and wet conditions were en ' countered at depth. A more detailed description of the subsurface materials encountered in our exploratory borings is presented on the Boring Logs (Figure -Nos. Ha through He). Three (3),.exploratoryi;borings were drilled, logged and sampled for this study by our Field Geologist on January 20, 2000 at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan (Figure ' No. [b). The borings were advanced using a truck -mounted drill rig with an 6 -inch diameter, solid-steni MI-er. Drive samples, recovered from all borings were obtained using a Modificd Callfl�rriia Drive Sampler (2.5 -inches inside diameter and 3 -inches outside diameter) with thin brass liners, and a Standard Penetrometer ( 2-inclics outside diameter and I -3/8-hiclics hiside dianietcr). Thc samplers were drivcn 12 to IS Inclics into the soil by a 140-POUnd hammer frec-falling for a distance of 30-inclics. The number of blows required to penetrate the last 12 inches is shown on the Boring Logs. The obtained samples M&II Properly NIjiu�cmew. LIX Project No. 00-1562 February 12000 .1'age 4 of 20. were carefully removed, scaled to minimize moisture loss, and returned to our laboratory for further classification and testing. Representative bulk samples were collected from cuttings obtained from the borings. The bulk samples were selected for classification and testing purposes and may represent a mixture of soils within,the noted depths. Recovered samples were placed in transport containers and returned to our laboratory for further classification and testing. The classifications listed in the excavation logs are a result of visual classification of soil with existing moisture contents while in the field. The classifications were assigned in accordance with ASTM D-2488: "Description of Soils (Visual -Manual Method)", and all applicable field soil -identification procedures described therein. These may or may not correspond precisely to those indicated by subsequent laboratory methods. Classifications, made in the field from auger cuttings and drive samples, were verified in the laboratory after further examination and testing of samples. Conditions between boring locations may vary considerably and it should be expected that site conditions may or may not be precisely represented by any one of the bonings. Soil deposition processes and topographic forming processes are such that soil and rock types and conditions may change in small vertical intervals and short horizontal distances. Stratification lines, as indicated on the Boring Logs, represent approximate changes in soil and rock composition, moisture and color, as approximated by field personnel logging the drilling operation and by the engineer in the laboratory from sample recovery data and by observation of the samples. Actual depths to changes in the field may differ from those indicated . on the logs, or transitions may occur in a gradual manner and may not be sharply defined by a readily obvious line of demarcation. The location of the borin-s as shown on Fi-ure No. Ib were approximately determined and 0 0 should be considered accurate only as a reference guide. �� WLII till MEN UsErm I OLIN I Laboratory tests were performed on both disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to cvalLl,-ItC tI ' icir pertincnt physical and crigincering properties. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: I ) ' Moisturc Content 2) Density Evalt.1,16011S ASTM D2216-71 ASTM D 1557, Mctliod A and.others NI&II Properl Y M-An.-ircment. LLC Proftcl No. 00-1562 February 3. .1000 42te 5 of 20. 3) Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil ASTM D1428, D516 4) Direct Shear Test ASTM D3080 5) Consolidation Test ASTN4 D2435 6) Sieve Analysis ASTNI D422 7) Expansion'Index Test AST?VI D4928, UBC 18-2 The relationship between the moisture and density of undisturbed soil samples give qualitative information regarding the in-place soil strength characteristics and soil conditions. Results of our in-place moisture and density testing are presented on the Boring Logs (Figure Nos. Ha through IIc). The results of our maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determinations are presented on Figure No. 111a. I The water soluble sulfate content of the near surface soils was deter -mined in accordance with ASTIN/I Test Methods D1428 and D516, in order to estimate the potential for sulfate attack on normal Type I/II cement. The results of our testing are pr esented on Figure No. IIIa. Direct shear testing was performed on a representative sample of the near surface soils remolded to a relative compaction of 90 percent (based on ASTM D1557-91) and on a representative sample of the alluvial soils in their natural state. Results of this testing (Figure No. IIIb and HIc) indicate that in their properly compacted state, the near -surface soils possess an apparent cohesion of 255 psf and an intemal friction angle of 32 degrees, and the alluvial soils in their natural state have an apparent cohesion of 190 psf and an internal friction angle of 33 degrees. The consolidation test is used to estimate the consolidation/settlement that could potentially occur within a soil under specific loadings (such as may be imposed by buildings, walls, piers, etc.). The results of our testing are presented in Figure Nos. JIld and Ille. R i e . presentative' samples of the subsurface materials were subjected to mechanical grain -size analysis by wet -sieving with U.S. Standard brass screens. The grain size distribLiti011 Curves are presented in Figure Nos. IlIf through IlIp. I The expansion index of the Lipper foundation soils Was evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Pvlctliod D4928 (UBC 18-2), whCI-C I-CpI'CSCJJt!JtI Ve Sol I SItIIII)ICS il[*C tCS(CLI a I a % t SlItUrations near 50 percent. Expansive soils are classified s folio vs (by the Expansion Index Test): � ffi M& It Propert). Matugettirm. I.I.0 Project No. 00-1562 Febriiary 3, 2000 -Pace 6 or 20. 0 to 20 Very Low 21 to 50 Low 51 to 90 Medium 91 to 130 High Above 131 Very High The tested soil sample yielded an Expansion Index of 15, which indicates a very IoNv expansion potential for the sampled soils remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTIM D 15 5 7-9 1). 1. General: Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed structures can be -constructed as planned, provided that the recommendations presented herein are implemented. It is our opinion that the on-site soils (when properly processed and recompacted as recommended herein) should provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structures and improvements. 2. Groundwater: As discussed previously, free. gToundwater was no ' t encountered in any of our exploratory borings at the site, although a minor zone ith perched water w was encountered at depth. It is our opinion that this is a reasonable representation of the minimum local groundwater depths at the site at the time of drilling. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, imigation, and other possible factors which may not have been evident at the -time. of our investigation. I 3. Pyloisture Conten : The in-place moisture contents of the samples obtained from the upper soils, (upper 5 feet) in the proposed building area at the subject site, were observed to range ftom 7.9 percent to 17.7 percent, with an average moisture content .of,12.5 percent., The optimum moisture content for these upper soils was determined ''during our laboratory testing to range from 9.4 to 12.6 percent, indicating that the ncar-SUrface soils underlying the proposed building pad area, generally possessed moisture contents that were near optimum at the time of drilling. IVIOiStLire contents of the near surface soils (upper 3 feet), within other areas of the site (i.e. drive and parking areas), are anticipated to have similar moisturc contents. See Figure Nos. Ila thl'OL11111 11C f01- 1110*1SILIN Content (k1t.1 Of 11CM- SUIT�ICC SO11S. 0 N1,1411 Proprrl.v MamiCemew. I.I.0 Project So. W1562 Februan 1 .1000 -pate 7 d 20. 4. Expansive Soil : The near -surface soils (upper I to 5 feet) encountered in our exploratory borings were observed to consist mainly of sands. Based on our laboratory testing of representative samples obtained at the subject site, these materials appear to possess a very low potential for expansion. The likelihood for expansive soils to affect the overall perfon-nance of the proposed structure foundations and associated improvements (e.g. paving) appears to be low. Anthony - Taylor Consultants may provide additional recommendations if indications of a si nificant chan-e in the near -surface soils' expansion potential are encountered 9 0 durinor construction. 0 5. Water Soluble Sulfate in Soils: The principal cause of deterioration of concrete in foundations and other below ground structures is the corrosive attack by soluble sulfates present in the soil and groundwater. The results of water soluble sulfate testing performed on a representative sample of the soils underlying the proposed building structure near present finish grade elevations, indicate that proposed cement - concrete structures that are in contact with the underlying soils are anticipated to be affected with a nealicrible sulfate exposure. t� 0 6. I -and Slippage and Fro-sion: No significant indications of either land slippage or erosion were noted at the site. Therefore, it is our opinion that the potential for land slippage or erosion to affect the proposed improvements at the site is minimal, 0 provided that the recommendations presented herein are implemented. 7. Potentially Compressible Soils: As noted before, the existing topsoil and upper alluvium soils are considered to be potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of structural loads in their current condition. As a result, these upper soils should be properly reprocessed in accordance with the recommendations presented herein. M 8.1 Regional and Local Faulting: The principal seismic considerations for improvements at the subject site are surface rupture of fault traces, damage caused by ground shaking during a seismic event, and scismically-induced ground settlement. The potential for any or all of these hazards depends upon the recency Of fault activity and the proximity of nearby faults to the subject site. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered unlikely SHICC 110 ',ICtIVC EMIUS 11'C IWOW11 tO UOSS tlIC SitC 111d 110 CVidCIICC Of IIC(iVe ElUlting MIS noted during our investigation. Review of geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that the Subject sitc is located in an arca Surrounded M&II 11rupert * %' Nhwignitroil, I.I.0 Project No. 00-1562 February 3. 2000 -Page 8 of 20 - by active and potentially active fault zones. Tile nearest major active faults are the Coachella Valley portion of the San Andreas Fault Zone, located approximately 5.7 miles from ' the area of study, the San Gorgonio -Banning Fault Zone, located approximately 6 miles from the subject site, tile Blue Cut Fault Zone, located at approximately 14 miles from tile site and, the Hot Springs -Buck Ridge portion of the San Jacinto Fault Zone, located at approximately 17 miles from the area of study. A list of active and potentially active faults located within a 100 mile radius of the subject site is presented in Appendix D. 8.2 Seismicity: The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shakin- due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. Because of the proximity to the subject site and the maximum probable event, for this fault, it appears that the San Gorgonio -Banning Fault Zone is most 0 ID likely to affect the site with severe ground shaking, should a significant earthquake occur along, this fault. A maximum probable event along this fault zone could produce a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 0.46g at the subject site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area within similar -eolocic settin-s. A summary of seismic desip g parameters associated with the major faults located within a radius of 100 miles of the site is presented in Appendix D. 8.3 Liquefaction: Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and histonical data indicate that loose, mostly fine sands or predominantly granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of rock is not as adversely- affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is generally known to occur pnimarily in saturated or near -saturated granular soils at depths shallower than about 100 feet and is also a function of relative density, soil type and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Because of the relatively deep groundwater table and the presence of layers of dense soil and layers of cohesive materials in the. underlying soils, it appears that the potential for liquefaction at the site dUring'a major seismic event is relatively low. As noted previously the Subject site is situated in an area underlain by predominantly silty sands and sandy slits and a relatively deep groundwater table. We have evaluated the potential for liquefaction at the site using the LIQUEFY2 COIIII)LIICI' (1313kC, 1998). OLII' 'ifflillySiS, Which MIS 1� performcd in accordance with the procedure rcconimcnded by Seed, ct. al. (IM), incorporatcs the gcotechnical data obtained from our exploratory U1 SIMI Properly Nhwigemcm, LLC February 12000 -rate 9 ur 20 - Project No. 00-1562 boring B-2 and addresses a niaxiinuni probable seismic event along San Gorgonio -Banning Fault Zone. Our subsurface investigation did not encounter a ground water table to the maximum depth explored (approximately 51.5 feet in Boring B-2). Therefore it is anticipated that the liquefaction potential is low for this site. However, we assumed that the depth to the groundwater table could hise at some time in the future and we performed additional calculations assuming a groundwater table at both 20 and 40 feet below existing site grades. The results of these calculations (Appendix D) indicate that for groundwater at a depth of 20 feet, the subsurface materials generally possess a factor of safety against liquefaction of greater than 1.25 but may be potentially liqUefiable at depths between 19 and 25 feet. For the encountered depth to (2round water of greater than 25, the subsurface materials generally possess a factor of safety against liquefaction of greater than 1.25. As a result, it appears that the soils encountered at the site under the present conditions, are not considered to be potentially liquefiable. The liquefaction analysis was performed using existinc, conditions at the time of dnilling and for groundwater at depths of 20 and 40 feet. Changes in the existing conditions may affect the results of this analysis, such as a fluctuation in the depth of groundwater, may affect of the depth to liquefiable soils by raising or lowering, this depth. The underlying soils were found to be generally dense to very dense to the depths explored, and consist predominantly of sands and silty sands with an approximately 3- to 5 -foot layer of very fine plastic soils at a depth of 36 feet. Based on these conditions, the potential for liquefaction of the upper soils at the subject site is considered to be relatively low. As such, surface manifestations as dynamic settlement and lateral displacement can be expected to not affect the site during or after a seismic event. Based on evaluations of seismically -induced settlements and lateral spreading in accordance with the procedures suggested by TokimatSU and Seed (1987) and Bartleit and YOLid (1995), respectively, and based on our evaluations of Subsurface soil conditions, we estimate that total and differential dynamic settlements across the proposcd building pad will not be large enough to affect the proposed site construction. 8A SCiSllliC SCUIC111CIlt: SCiS1111C SCUIC111CIA OCCLII"; WlICII loose to IIIC(liLlill- c1cii.se, granular soils consolidate (IL11-ing ground shaking. The materials which underlie the Subject site were observed to be primarily a niedium dense silty /A M&II Propert ' % Mimagrmetit. LLC Project NO. 00-1562 Februny 3. .10()U -PACC 10 of 20 - sands. As such, it appears that the soils underlying the subject site possess a relatively IoNv potential for seismically induced settlement in their present condition. . 8.5 Design Eirtliquake Magnitude: The review of readily ava liable references pertinent to the subject site indicates that structures should be designed to resist moderate earthquakes with a low probability of structural damage. Such design shall resist major or severe earthquakes with some structural damage, but with a low probability of collapse. The moderate and major earthquakes have been interpreted to represent the maximum probable and maximum credible earthquakes, respectively. The maximum credible earthquake is defined as the largest event that a specific fault is theoretically capable of "D I producing within the presently kno-wri tectonic framework and is established based on mechanical relationships of the fault and fault mechanisms and does not consider rate of recurrence or probability of occurrence. The maximum probable earthquake is generally defined as that seismic event along a 0 1.7 particular fault which has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The repeatable high bedrock acceleration, which is considered appropriate for structural desip, is estimated to be approximately two-thirds of the peak acceleration for events within a radius of about 20 miles of the site and is considered equal to the peak acceleration beyond 20 miles (Ploessel and Slosson, 1974). �WRDEKSMIDIX91 Based on our geotechnical study at the site, our review of readily available reports and literature pertinent to the site (Appendix A), and our understanding of the proposed final grades, it is our opinion that development and/or improvement of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoin ; t, provided the conclusions and recommendations included in this report are'properly incorporated into the design and construction of any proposed structures. There appear to be no .significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper plannin,'),, d e2sign, and utilization Of Sound construction practices. The engineeHng properties of the underlying materials, surface drainage, and anticipated degree of seismic risk offer conditions comparable to the other sites surrounding the subject project. The following sections provide geotechnical recommendations that should be incorporated into the design orthe proposcd improvements at the sitc. Sdsifflrity: The MaXilllUm anticipated bedrock acceleration at the site is estimated to be oil tile order of 0.46g, based oil a maximum probable earthquake on the San =ZZILE11 NI&II Property NUstagcmew, LIX Project No. 00-1562 February 3, 2000 -Page It of 20 - Gorgonio -Banning Fault Zone. However, sites founded upon non -bedrock materials (e.g. alitlVil.11111 or compacted fill) may experience higher values of acceleration. For design Purposes, two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration may be asSLII-ned for the repeatable high ground acceleration. The effects of seismic shakin- can be mitigated by adhering to the current edition of the Uniform Building 0 0 Code and/or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of Califomia. The following earthquake design parameters are recommended for the subject site: Table 16 - I Z = 0.40 Table 16 - J Soil Type —SD Table 16 - Q C:�. = 0.44 N� Table 16 - R C, = 0.64 N, Table 16-S N;� = 1.0 Table 16 - T N, = 1 2 Table 16 - U Source Type -A 2. Farthivork: Grading, and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the followinc, recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines C, included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those presented in Appendix E. 24. Site Preparation: Pnior to earthwork or construction operations, the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions and stripped of any veo,etation in the areas proposed for development. Removed vegetation and 'D I debris should then be properly disposed of off-site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be backfilled with suitable fill soils compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). �2.2. Removal of Unsuitable Soils: As noted above, the existing landscape topsoil . -fill and upper alluvium soils are considered to be potentially * compressible in their current condition. As a result, we recommend the reprocessing of these existing soils in all areas to receive new buildings (where not anticipated to be removed during proposed site development). Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, it is anticipated that the NMOV�ll dCl)[11S ill thC ViCillity Of [11C J)l'OJ)OSCd bl.lildillg pad will bC Oil tllc orcicr of 3 to 3 Y2 feet below existing grade elevations. Following removal of the Lipper soils, tile bottoni of the cxcavation(s) should be observed and a1z =171- NU11 Properly Mmuigemew. Project No. 00-1362 February 3. 2000 -Page I I of 20- approvcd by a representative of this office to verify that these potentially compressible materials have been properly removed. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements, shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches below removal grade elevations, brought to near-optimurn moisture conditions and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTNI Test Method D1557-91). Theseoperations silo u Id be performed Linder the observation and testing of a representative of this office: It should be understood that based on the observations of our field representative, localized deeper or shallower removals may be recommended. Any removed soils shall be moisture conditioned as necessary to achieve a moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTIVI Test Method D 1557-9 1). This earthwork should extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond the proposed footing limits. I 2.3. Fill Placement and Compaction: If necessary, the on-site soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials and debris and material larger than 6 inches in diameter. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, brought to a moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Should import soils be.utilized for near -surface fills, these soils should be predominately granular, possess a low or very low expansion potential, and be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their transportation to the site. Lift thicknesses will be dependent upon the size and type of equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with lo cal grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. We recommend that if encountered, oversize materials (materials greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension) be removed from the upper 3 feet of fill or placed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines 'D contained in Appendix E. 2.4. Trench Excavations and Backfill: Trenches are anticipated to be excavated with moderate Cff0i-t using conventional construction equipment in good operatilig condition. To Satisfy OSIIA 1'C(lUi1'C111C111S U11(i f01_ \\'01'1�111CII'S 0 safety, it will be necessary to shorc excavations deeper than 5 feet. ME �i hI&II Properly %I;ma�vmcw. I.I.0 February 3. 2000 -raze t3 or 20 - Project No. 00-1562 The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of rock sizes over 6 inches in maximum dimension and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in unifor-ril lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). 3. Foundations and Slab Design: Foundations and slabs should be desi-ned in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that soils exposed at finish pad grade will have a low potential for expansion. These recommendations may be venified by performing additional expansion tests after grading is completed. Localized areas of higher expansion may be possible. 3.1 Foundation Design: All proposed building and non -building improvements that are anticipated to constitute a structural load may be supported by an appropriate foundation system designed by -the project structural engineer in accordance with the guidelines of the Uniform Building Code and/or all applicable local building codes. Footings adequately founded in firTn natural soils or properly compacted fill soils should be a minimum 18 inches deep by 12 inches wide for a one-story building structure and 24 inches deep by 15 inches wide for a two-story building. At these dimensions, footings adequately founded properly compacted fill soil may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. These values may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces. Foundations should be properly reinforced in accordance with the project structural engineer's recommendations'. ' Minimum reinforcement shall consist of two No. 4 rebar at the top and two No.4 rebar at the bottom of the footing. We estimate that the total and differential settlement for the proposed improvements will be on the order of 1 -inch and approximately V4 -inch between structural elements. To reduce the pbtential for misalignment of gara-e door openings at the site (If th ey are proposed), we recommend that a grade beam be constructed across each garage door entrance. These grade beams should be designed and reinforced in accordance with tile structural engineer's requirements. We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from tile face of dCSCCIldiIIg SIOI)CS 1111(1/01' I-C(MililIg WIIIIS f0l' !III StRICtUr,11 footings 111d SCttICI1lCI1t-SCIlSitiVC StRICtUres. This distance is Measured fi-0111 tile Outside bottom edge ofthe footing, horizontally to the slope face or wall face and NU11 Property Mamigement, LLC Project No. 00-1562 February 3. 2600 -Page 14' of 20. Should be a rnininium of H/2, where H is the slope height or wall height (in feet). Tile setback Should not be less than 5 feet and need not be greater than 10 feet. Please note that the soils within tile structural setback area may possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, pools, sidewalks, fences, pavement, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. All foundation excavations should be observed and tested by a representative of Anthony -Taylor Consultants prior to placement of steel and concrete. 3.2 Concrete Slabs: Interior concrete slabs should have a minimum thickness o f 5 inches and be underlain by a I 0 -mil visqueen moisture barrier underlain With a 2 inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent of at least 30). The visqueen moisture barrier should be overlain by a 2 inch layer of clean sand 'd in concrete curin-. All slabs should be constructed with preferred to al minimum reinforcement consisting of No.. 3 bars placed mid -height in the slab and spaced on IS inch centers in both directions. Welded wire mesh is not an acceptable altemative. Crack control joints should be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer. 0 Exterior concrete flatwork (sidewalks, etc.) should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, be underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sa ' nd, and- reinforced with a minimum 6x6 - 10/10 welded wire mesh placed midhelght in the slab. Care should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the reinforcement is placed and maintained at slab midheight. We recommend that crack control joints for exterior flatwork be provided with a minimum spacing of 12 feet and a maximum of 15 feet, or in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. We also recommend that every third control joint be converted to an expansion joint. Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for this slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize crackin,, of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if crack -sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordi . nce with structural considerations. 3.3 Cenient Type: As noted before, our laboratory testing of a representative sample of tile ncar surface indicated a negligible concentration Of Soluble IN1.0411 llrolwrly Maiw�cmrnl. LLC Project No. 00- 1562 February 3, 2000 -Plage 15 of 20. sulfates. Based on the guidelines presented in the current edition of the Uniform Building Code, a minimum Type 11 cement may be utilized in concrete that will be in direct contact with the near -surface soils. 3.5 Moistenina of Foundation Soils: Footing excavations and slab subgradds to should be thorouahly moistened prior to placement of concrete. The soil 0 moisture should be at least 2 percent over optimum to a depth of at least 24 inches below finish grade.. 4. Preliminary Pavement Desian: For design purposes and based on our experience with similar soils, we assumed an R -Value of 30 for the subarade soils. Actual 1.7 paving sections based on laboratory test results should be performed on samples obtained from finish grade elevations. For preliminary design purposes, we have assumed traffic indices of 4.5 for parkina areas and 6.0 for drive areas. These 0 assumed traffic indices should be verified by the project civil engineer prior to construction. The preliminary recommended structural pavement sections were calculated in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and are 0 summarized below Main Drive Areas Design R -Value = 30, Assumed T.I. = 6.0 4.0 inches of asphalt concrete over 6.0 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. Parking Areas Design R -Value = 30, Assumed ID T.I..=.4.5 3..0 inches of asphalt concrete over 4.0 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base We recommend that drive entrances and other areas subject to heavy vehicle loading recei * ve a full -depth Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) section of 5 inches over 4 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. This rigid section is based upon a minimum concrete strength of 3000 psi. We also recommend for these areas a miniIIIUm reinforcement consisting of No. 3 rebar spaced at 18 inches on center in two directions. Concrete (P.C.C.) parking areas may utilize a minimum reinforcement of No. 3 rcbar spaced at 24 inches on cc ' ntcr in two directions. We recommend that the rebar be placed midlicight in each slab. Care should be taken by the contractor to ensure that the reinforcement is placed and maintained at slab =3=14.%&A M&II Propert.s LIA, Prnlect No. 00-1562 Vchruary J. MHO .112ge 16 of 20. midlicight. We recommend that crack control joints for concrete pavement be ided with a minimum spacing of 12 feet and a maximum of 15 feet, or in provi 1 -D accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. We also recommend that every third control joint be converted to an expansion Joint. We suggest that slab sections be nearly square as possible. Placement of concrete should be performed in accordance with the guidelines of the American Concrete Institute (A.C.I.) and all local building codes. I We recommend that curbs, gutters and sidewalks be designed by the project civil encyineer or structural enaineer. We suggest control joints at appropriate intervals as deten-nined by the civil encrineer or structural en-ineer be considered. 0 0 Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, and the presence of loose topsoil in the proposed parking and drive areas, it is anticipated that the removal depths in these areas will be on the order of I to 1'/2 feet below existing grade elevations. Following removal of the upper soils, the bottom of the excavation(s) should be observed and approved by a representative of this off -ice to verify that these potentially compressible materials have been properly removed. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches below existing grade elevations, brought to a moisture content at least 2 percent over the optimum moisture content for these soils and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-�91). The-uppei-6 to8 inches of pavement subcYrade soils should be conditioned as necessary to achieve a near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91), or in accordance with the minimum compaction requirements of the County of Riverside. The untreated Class 2 aggregate base material placed as part of the pavement structural section should meet the requirements of Caltrans specifications and be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D 1557-9 1). If 'pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curbing separating the landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the ' sections where heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate basc. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff. S. LatuaLL, arili Pres mas—awl Resistaila: For design purposes, the following 11IM-111 C111-111 pl-CSSUre V,11LICS for level and frce-draining backfill are rcconinicrided for N1,0411 Priplirri ' y Mmiagemew. LLC FebruarY J. .10011 -Pace I I of 20- 1'rojcct No. 00-1562 rctaining walls (iLpmpD,=-d) backfillcd with on-sitc soils, and for those backfillcd with sclect soils (possessing an intcmal friction angle of at least 30 degrees and extendinI.; at least 0.5H from the upslopc face of the wall, where H is the wall height). EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT (PCF) Conditions I On -Site Rackfill Select Backfill 1 (PHI�29 Degrees) Active 36 -1 35 At -Rest 56 55 Passive (Fill Soils) 375 350 Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for an active equivalent pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (nonvielding), such as basement walls or re-entrant comers, the at -rest pressures should be used. For areas of re-entrant comers, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twilice the height of the wall laterally from the comer. The above values assume backfill soils will have a very low expansion potential and free -draining conditions. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressures should be provided on an individual basis by the geotechnical engineer. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage. Typical drainage design is illustrated in Appendix E. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend a minimum horizontal dista-rice from the outside base of the footing to daylight of 8 feet. Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.30 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration illCILIC1111g Willd 01- SCiS111iC 10,1(ls. The total rcsist,�mcc may be takcii is the sum ofthc frictional and passive resistance providcd that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. I - ff- M&II Prolwrty M;sfia�cmrw. LLC Proiccl No. 00-1562 Ftbriury J. 2000 -Pige Im ir n. 6. SjLrLace and SubsurLice Drainage: Our experience indicates that surface or near Surface ground water conditions can develop in areas where ground water conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in Surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. This sometimes occurs where relatively impermeable and/or cemented formational materials are overlain by fill soils. In addition, during retaining wall excavations (if they are proposed), seepage may be encountered. We recommend that Anthony - Z Taylor Consultants be present duning grading operations to evaluate areas of seepage. Drainage devices for reduction of water accumulation can be recommended if these condutions occur. We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade the site, such that Surface drainage is directed away from structure foundations, floor slabs, and tops of slopes, at a 2 percent minimum grade for a minimum distance of 5 feet for subgade, and I percent minimum grade for a minimum distance of 5 feet for hard finish su rface (pavement, walkways etc.). Ponding of water should not be pen-nitted, and installation of roof gutters which outlet into a drainage system is considered prudent. 0 ZD Planting areas at gade should be provided with positive drainage directed away from all buildings. Drainage design for these facilities should be provided by the design c i 'I en,7ineer. ivi 7. Construction Observation and Plan Review: The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by field reconnaissance and widely -spaced exploratory borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during, construction by a representative of Anthony -Taylor Consultants. We recommend that on-site excavations be observed during -grading for the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions by a representative of this firm. Construction observation and field density testing of compacted fill should be performed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. The final grading plan and building plan -should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. V11. LIMITATIONS This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that 01C SUbSurfacc conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our CXJ)101-M01'y CXCaVat1011S. 01.11' I-CCommendations arc based on the tcclinical inflort"ation gallicred, 0L11- Undcrstanding of the proposcd construction, and Our cxperience in the geotcclinical ficid. We do not provide a guarantee or warranty (either expressed or implied) WAMCCOMT M& It Property Maiucemcm. LLC Project No. 00-IS62 Vchmars- 3. 2000 -11ne 19 of of the perfon-nance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgements meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. In vicxv of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions cannot be discounted. Any deviations or unexpected conditions observed during construction should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any required supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay to the project. If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the final grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would be extending development to new areas, changes ges in structural loading conditions, postponed development for more than one year, or chan., in ownership. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or owner's representative to ensure th ' at the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is also subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. M& If Property Min2fienicni. I.I.0 1'ehruary 3. !000 -11ace 10 or lo - Project No. 00-1562 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have questions or need further information, please refer to Project No. 00-1562 to expedite your requests. Respectfully Submitted, ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS An Anthony -Taylor Company "16 2d) 12 -1 Bruce Ta rry ichal 'or U President enio roject Engineer CEG No 9760 RCE No. C42590 0 3-S CID ORME W. C M 1z No. C 4�590 M CEMIED 040104"EANO ExpfL4(,6 Hector. ella GEOLOWST Project I -ist OF C Distribution: 3 addressee (2 originals and I copy) HCCt4r1J1M1LA 000A GFO.wpd TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL RETAINING WALL WTERPROOFING AS NOTED IN THE ATTACHED FIGURE FINISHED GRADE ------------------- ��.comp ED FILL -----IF APPLICABLE----------. SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTio.-i PER ASTM D1557 18"-MI.N. 6" MIN. 'FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 7---7-' (MIRAF1 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 3/4" - 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL :L7 1 MIN - 4" (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORA, 7 ED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATICNS ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED - - - MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET 3" MIN. WALL FOOTING :7 COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOT TO SCAL ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS XIUN3ddV L I Q U E F Y 2 Version 1.20 EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: 00-1562 DATE: Thursday, February 3, 2000 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: LA QUINTA LIQUEFACTION STUDY SOIL -PROFILE NAME: SANGERL GROUND WATER DEPTH: 20.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 7.00 SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.462 g K sigma BOUND: M rd BOUND: M N60 CORRECTION: 1.00 FIELD SPT N -VALUES < 10 FT,DEEP ARE CORRECTED FOR SHORT LENGTH OF DRIVE RODS NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations o f �. !'.. . I Giuliani -and Nicoll (1982). ----------------------------- LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Seed and Others (1985) Method PAGE ----------------------------- I CALC.1 TOTALI EFF. IFIELD lEst.D I I CORR.ILIQUE.1 JINDUC.ILIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESS1 N I rl C I(NI)601STRESSI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO.1 (ft) I (tsf)l (tsf)I(B/ft) I M I N l(B/ft)l RATIO1 d I RATIOIFACTOR ----------------------------------- 7 ------------------------------------------- 1 1 0.251 0.0131 0.0131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 0.751 0.0381 0.0381 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 1.251 0.0631 0.0631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 1.751 0.0881 0.0881 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 2.251 0.1131 0.1131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 2.751 0.1381 0.1381 14 1 .71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 3.251 0.1631 0.1631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ 1 0 1 @ @ 1 1 3.751 0.1881 0.1881 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 -1 4.251 0.2131 0.2131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 4.751 0.2381 0.2381 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 5.251 0.2631 0.2631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 5.751 0.2881 0.2881 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 6.251 0.3131 0.3131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 6.751 0.3381 0.3381 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 7.251 0.3631 0.3631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 7.751 0.3881 0.3881 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 8.251 0.4131 0.4131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 8.751 0.4381 0.4381 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 9.251 0.4631 0.4631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 9.751 0.4881 0.4881 15 1 66 1. @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 10.251 0.51410.5141 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 10.751 0.5411 0.5411 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 11.251 0.5671 0.5671 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 11.751 0.5931 0.5931 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 12.251 0.6191 0.6191 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 12.751 0.6461 0.6461 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 13.251 0.6721 0.6721 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 13.75.1 0.6981 0.6981 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 14.251 0.7241 0.7241 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 14.751 0.7511 0.7511 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 15.251 0.7771 0.7771 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 15.751 0.8031 0.8031 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I' @ @ 3 1 16.251 0.8291 0.8291 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 16.751 0.8561 0.8561 22 1 74 .1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 17.251 0.8821 0.8821 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 17.751 0.9081 0.9081 22 1 74 1 @ I - @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @- 3 1 18.251 0.9341 0.9341 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 -1 - 8.751 0.9611 0.9611 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4:1 19.251 0.9871 0.9871 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 19.751 1,0131 1.0131 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 ;,J'�0.251 1.03'91 1.0321 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21310.9571 0.2901 0.74 4 1 20.751 1.0661 1.0421 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21310.9551 0.2931 0.73 4 1 21.251 1.0921 .1.0531 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21310.9541 0.2971 0.72 4 1 21.751 1.1181 1.0641 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21310.9521 0.3011 0.71 4 1 22.251 1.1441 1.0741 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21310.9511 0.3041 0.70 4 1 22.751 1.1711 1.0851 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21210.9491 0.3081 0.69 ----------------------------- Seed and Others (1985] Method PAGE ----------------------------- I CALC.1 TOTALI EFF. IFIELD lEst.D I I CORR.ILIQUE.1 JINDUC.ILIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N I rl C I(Nl)601STRESSI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO. I (f t) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/f t) I I N l(B/ft)l RATIOJ d I RATIOIFACTOR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1 23.251 1.1971 1.0961 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21210.9471 0.3111 0.68 4 1'23.751 1.2231 1.1061 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21210.9461 0.3141 0.68 4 1 24.251 1.2491 1.1171 18 1 63 10.9951 17.9 1 0.21210.9441 0.3171 0.67 5 1 .24.751 1.2761 1.1271 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9431 0.320IInfin 5 1 25.251 1.3021 1.1381 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9411 0.32311nfin 5 1 25.751 1.3281 1.1491 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9391 0.32611nfin 5 1 26.251 1.3541 1.1591 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9371 0.32911nfin 5 1 26.751 1.3811 1.1701 46 1 .98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9341 0.331IInfin 5 1 27.251 1.4071 1.1811 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9321 0.33411nfin 5 1 27.751 1.4331 1.1911 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9301 0.33611nfin 5 1 28.251 1.4591 1.2021 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9281 0.338IInfin 5 1 28.751 1.4861 1.2131 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9261 0.341IInfin 5 1 29.251 1.5121 1.2231 46 1 98 10.9541 43.9 lInfin 10.9231 0.34311nfin 6 1 29.751 1.5381 1.2341 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 lInfin 10.9211 0.34511nfin 6 1 30.251 1.5641 1.2451 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 [Infin 10.9191 0.347[Infin 6 1 30.751 1.5911 1.2551 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 lInfin 10.9161 0.34911nfin 6 1 31.251 1.6171 1.2661 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 lInfin 10.9131 0.350IInfin 6 1.31.751 1.6431 1.2771 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 lInfin 10.9101 0.35211nfin 6 1.32.251 1.6691 1.2871 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 lInfin 10.9071 0.35311nfin 6 1-32.751 1.6961 1.2981 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 [Infin 10.9041 0.35511nfin 6 1 33.251 1.7221 1.3091 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 lInfin 10.9021 0.35611nfin 6 1 33.751 1.7481 1.3191 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 lInfin 10.8991 0.35811nfin 6 1 34.251 1.7741 1.3301 54 1 104 10.9161 49.5 lInfin 10.8961 0.35911nfin 7 1 34.751 1.8011 1.3401 28 1 73 10.8881 24.9 lInfin 10.8931 0.360IInfin 7 1 35.251 1.8271 1.3511 28 1 73 10.8881 24.9 lInfin 10.8901 0.361IInfin 7 1 35.751 1.8531 1.3621 28 1 73 10.8881 24.9 lInfin 10.8861 0.36211nfin 7 1 36.251 1.8791 1.3721 28 1 73 10.8881 24.9 lInfin 10.8821 0.36311nfin 7 1 36.751 1.9061 1.3831 28 1 73 10.8881 24.9 lInfin 10.8781 0.36311nfin 7 1 37.251 1.9321 1.3941 28 1 73 10.8881 24.9 lInfin 10.8741 0.36411nfin 8 1 37.751 1.9581 1.4041 69 1 11i 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8701 0.36411nfin 8 1 38.251 1.9841 1.4151 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8661 0.36511nfin 8 1 38.751 2.0111 1.4261 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8621 0.36511nfin 8 1 39.251 2.0371 1.4361 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8581.0.366IInfin 8 1 39.751 2.0631 1.4471 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8551 0.36611nfin 8 1 40.251 2.0891 1.4581 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8501 0.36611nfin 8 1 40.751 2.1161 1.4681 69 1 113 '10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8451 0.36611nfin 8 1 41.251 2.1421 1.4791 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8401 0.36611nfin 8 1 41.751 2.1681 1.4901 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8361 0.36511nfin 8 1 42.251 2.1941 1.5001 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8311 0.36511nfin 8 1,42.751 2.2:�lj 1.5111 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8261 0.36511nfin 8: 1 �3.251 2.2471 1.5221 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8211 0.36411nfin 8 1 43.751 2 ' .2731 1.5321 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8161 0.36411nfin 8' -Il . 44.251 2.2§91 1.5431 69 1 113 10.8611 59.4 lInfin 10.8111 0.36311nfin 9 1 44.751 2.3261 1.5531 33 1 77 10.8361 27.6 lInfin 10.8061 0.36311nfin 9 1 45.251 2.3521 1.5641 33 1 77 10.8361 27.6 lInfin 10.8011 0.36211nfin 9 1 45.751 2.3781 1.5751 33 1 77 10.8361 27.6 lInfin 10.7961 0.36111nfin 9 1 46.251 2.4041 1.5851 33 1 77 10.8361 27.6 lInfin 10.7911 0.360IInfin 9 1 46.751-2.4311 1.5961 33 1 77 10.8361 27.6 lInfin 10.7861 0.360IInfin 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 47.251 2.4571 1.6071 33 1 77 10.8361 27.6 lInfin 10.7811 0.35911nfin L I Q U E F Y 2 Version 1.20 EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: 00-1562 DATE: Thursday, February 3, 2000 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: LA QUINTA LIQUEFACTION STUDY SOIL -PROFILE NAME: SANGERL GROUND WATER DEPTH: 40.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 7.00 SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.462 g K sigma'BOUND: M rd BOUND: M N60 CORRECTION: 1.00 FIELDSPT N -VALUES < 10 FT DEEP ARE CORRECTED FOR SHORT LENGTH OF DRIVE RODS NOTE: ..Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliaiii,and Nicoll (1982). ----------------------------- LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Seed and Others (19851 Method ----------------------------- PAGE I CALC.] TOTALI EFF. IFIELD lEst.D I I CORR.ILIQUE.] JINDUC.JLIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESS1 N I rl C I(Nl)60]STRESSI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO. I (f t) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/f t) I I N l(B/ft)l RATIO1 d I RATIOIFACTOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 0.251 0.0131 0.0131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 0.751 0.0381 0.0381 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 1.251 0.0631 0.0631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 1.751 0.0881 0.0881 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 2.251 0.1131 0.1131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 2.751 0.1381 0.1381 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 3.251 0.1631 0.1631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 3.751 0.1881 0.1881 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 4.251 0,2131 0.2131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 4.751 0.2381 0.2381 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 5.251 0.2631 0.2631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 5.751 0.2881 0.2881 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 6.251 0.3131 0.3131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 6.751 0.3381 0.3381 14 1 71 1 @ 1 4 1 @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 7.251 0.3631 0.3631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 7.751 0.3881 0.3881 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 8.251 0.4131 0.4131 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 8. 751 0.4381 0.4381 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 1 1 9.251 0.4631 0.4631 14 1 71 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 9.751 0.4881 0.4881 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 10.251 0.5141 0.5141 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 10.751 0.5411 0.5411 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 11.251 0.5671 0.5671 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 11.751 0.5931 0.5931 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 12.251 0.6191 0.6191 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 12.751 0.6461 0.6461 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 13.251 0.6721 0.6721 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 13.751 0.6981 0.6981 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 2 1 14.251 0.7241 0.7241 15 1 66 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 14.751 0.7511 0.7511 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I' @ @ 3 1 15.251 0.7771 0.7771 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 15.751 0.8031 0.8031 22 1 74 '1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 16.251 0.8291 0.8291 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 16.751 0.8561 0.8561 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @- 3 1 17.251 0.882,1 0.8821 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 1 1.7.751 0.90811 0.9081 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 3 :1 18.251 0.9341 0.9341 22 1 74 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 18.751 0.9611 0.9611 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 'i9.251 0.98)1 0.9871 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ 1 6 1 @ @ 4 1 19.751 1.0131 1.0131 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 20.251 1.0391 1.0391 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 20,.751 1.0661 1.0661 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 21.251 1.0921 1.0921 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 21.751 '1.1181 1.1181 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 22.251 1.1441 1.1441 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 22.751 1.1711 1.1711 18 1 63 1 @ I @ 1 0 1 @ I @ 1 0 @ Seed and Other3 (1985) Method PAGE ----------------------------- I CALC.1 TOTALI EFF. IFIELD lEst.D I I CORR.ILIQUE.1 JINDUC.ILIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N I rl C I(NI)601STRESSI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO.1 (ft) I (tsf)l (t3f)I(B/ft) I I N l(B/ft)l RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1 23.251 1.1971 1.1971 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 23.751 1.2231 1.2231 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 4 1 24.251 1.2491 1.2491 18 1 63 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 24.751 1.2761 1.2761 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 25.251 1.3021 1.3021 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 25.751 1.3281 1.3281 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 26.251 1.3541 1.3541 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 26.751 1.3811 1.3811 46 1 .95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 27.251 1.4071 1.4071 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 27.751 1.4331 1.4331 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 28.251 1.4591 1.4591 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 28.751 1.4861 1.4861 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 5 1 29.251 1.5121 1.5121 46 1 95 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1 29.751 1.5381 1.5381 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1 30.251 1.5641 1.5641 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1 30.751 1.5911 1.5911 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1 31.251 1.6171 1.6171 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1.31.751 1.6431 1.6431 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1.32.251 1.6691 1.6691 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1,32.751 1.6961 1.6961 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1 33.251 1.7221 1.7221 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1 33.751 1.7481 1.7481 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 6 1 34.251 1.7741 1.7741 54 1 98 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 7 1 34.751 1.8011 1.8011 28 1 68 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 7 1 35.251 1.8271 1.8271 28 1 68 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 7 1 35.751 1.8531 1.8531 28 1 68 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 7 1 36.251 1.8791 1.8791 28 1 68 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 7 1 36.751 1.9061 1.9061 28 1 68 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 7 1 37.251 1.9321 1.9321 28 1 68 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 8 1 37.751 1.9581 1.9581 69 1 102 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 8 1 38.251 1.9841 1.9841 69 1 102 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 8 1 38.751 2.0111 2.0111 69 1 102 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 8 1 39.251 2.0371 2.0371 69 1 102 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ I @ @ 8 1 39.751 2.0631 2.0631 69 1 102 1 @ I @ I @ I @ I @ r @ @ 8 1 40.251 2.0891 2.0821 69 1 102 10.7331 50.6 lInfin 10.8501 0.25611nfin 8 1 40.751 2.1161 2.0921 69 1 102 .10.7331 50.6 lInfin 10.8451 0.25711nfin 8 1 41.251 2.1421 2.1031 69 1 102 10.7331 50.6 lInfin 10.8401 0.25711nfin 8 1 41.751 2.1681 2.1141 69 1 102 10.7331 50.6 lInfin 10.8361 0.25711nfin 8 1 42.251 2.1941 2.1241 69 1 102 10.7331 50.6 [Infin 10.8311 0.258IInfin 8 1 -4.2.751 2.22il 2.1351 69 1 102 10.7331 50.6 lInfin 10.8261 0.258IInfin 8: 1 43.251 2.2471 2.1461 69 1 102 10.7331 50.6 lInfin 10.8211 0.258IInfin 8 1".43.751 2.2731 2.1561 69 1 102 10.7331 50.6 lInfin 10.8161 0.258IInfin 811 '44.251 2.29;91 2.1671 69 1 102 10.7331 50.6 lInfin 10.8111 0.25911nfin 9 1 44.751 2.3261 2.1771 33 1 70 10.7151 23.6 lInfin 10.8061 0.25911nfin 9 1 45.251 2.3521 2.1881 33 1 70 10.7151 23.6 lInfin 10.8011 0.25911nfin 9 1 45.751 2.3781 2.1991 33 1 70 10.7151 23.6 lInfin 10.7961 0.25911nfin 9 1 46.251 2.4041 2.2091 33 1 70 10.7151 23.6 lInfin 10.7911 0.25911nfin 9 1 46.751-2.4311 2.2201 33 1 70 10.7151 23.6 lInfin 10.7861 0.258IInfin 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 47.251 2.4571 2.2311 33 1 70 10.7151 23.6 lInfin 10.7811 0.258[Infin SOIL PROFILE LOG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S'OTL-PROFILE NAME: SANGERL --------------------------- LAYtR BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD -N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES D (mm) DEPTH OF # I (ft) (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) %<#200 50 SPT (ft) ----- 1 ---------- 4.0 ----------- 50.0 ----------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) --------- 133.0 ------ 26.0 ------ 0.080 -------- 2.25 ----- 2. ---------- 9.0 ----------- 26.0 ----------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) --------- 104.0 ------ 26.0 ------ 0.080 -------- 5.25 -- 3 ---------- 14.5 ----------- 40.0 ----------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) --------- 122.0 ------ 10.0 ------ 0.110 -------- 12.25 ----- 4 ---------- 20.0 ----------- 29.0 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 114.0 ------ 27.0 ------ 0.085 -------- 15.25 ----- 5� ------ ---------- 25.0 ---------- ----------- 20.0 --------- - ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) ----------------- --------- 118.0 --------- ------ 58.0 ------ ------ 0.048 ------ -------- 20.25 -------- .6 310.0 7 20.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 131.0 33.0 0.120 25.25 7 7 7 - 34.0 : ----------- 25.0 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 7 -------- 118.0 ------ 87.0 ------ 0.003 -------- '30.25 ----- �8 ---------- 39. 0 ----------- 39.0 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 138.0 ------ 48.0 ------ 0.080 -------- 35.25 ----- .9 ---------- 44.0 ----------- 27.0 ----------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) --------- 119.0 ------ 27.0 ------ 0.090 -------- 40.25 7 - - - 10. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - 51.5 ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - 31.0 ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUSCEPTIBLE (1) ----------------- - - - - - - - - - 115.0 --------- - - - - - - 19.0 ------ - - - - - - 0.095 ------ - - - - - - - - 46.25 -------- VICINITY MAP ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS C�v C—t 1- 5300 OW �. 66�0560 1:7 7, 71 1 'C' A W19 go, ? 30. ,boo u w 1534 SCALE: NTS JOB NAME: LA OUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: DATC: ��FIG, No. 00-1562 HGE 101/2 XOO la SITE MAP (A z u (A B-3 B-1 PAD 3 B-2 6,600 SO FT LEGEND ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF Z�m -1 ;s -Dell. .,c, 92029 U. 04105 176010 38-8600 V C.-4 A— 530co,w,.�. 1... 540 TR 7�1001 Ml .6, 35 6 B-3 EXPLORATORY BORING JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 00-1562 I REVIEWED BY: HGE I DATE: 8/001 01/2 FIG. NO. lb 49mmuw=4 4 EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIC 6" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 01120100 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOG ED BY: GR BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED W B-1 Li -i IZZ FIELD DESCRIP11ON AND CLASSIFICATION et — tZ 0 M a- :E Uj -, a- Lj � U w Lj 0 a. M < 0 Z 5 w 5 0' ::1 67, Q- >- Lj 0 V) m Z) DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Vi CL I CL �: D > :1 , _ Z a < m 0 rain size, Density, Moisture, Color) Ln Z LA — 0 I r Z 'i — Z CL 0 Ln 0 x Z w Lj 0 — 7T7 SILTY SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND, STIFF/LOOSE, MOIST. CIL BROWN. LANDSCAPE TOPS01 L 'S -C 16 SILTY VERY FINE TO FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, SM 17.7 104.9 9.4 131.0 BROWN TO CRAY BROWN. 61 BECOMES.DENSE. 7.9 120.8 5 24 SLIGHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, VERY FINE TO FINE SAND, SID MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, LIGHT GRAY BROWN. 10 55 BECOMES DENSE. 7.8 100.7 15 - 12 SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, LOOSE, MOIST, LIGHT GRAY, BROWN. ALLUVIUM 10.5, 20- TOTAL DEPTH 6.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING BORING BACKFILLED: 01/20/00 25 - VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE WATER TABLE ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 10A SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: -LA QUINTA DRIVE SAMPLE NO SAMPLE RECOVERY SITE ADDRESS: DISTURBED SAMPLE W OF HWY I 11 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTAI CA. # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. .1, 00- 1562 1 HGE I 01/28/001 Ila EXCAVATION LOG EQUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIC 6" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 01/20/00 -SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: -EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED RW B-2 '"W411" _j RELD DESCRIP71ON AND CLASSIFICATION X -U 0 LA. _j 0 a- 2 Uj _j (L V) L) L' U M LJ X M :) CL m :1 4 V) :2 < 0 _j Z m D DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 6 CL D 1 ,, 0- I D 0- �-_ V) m >- t: ;7< v) 0M Z - 0 LA 0 V) 0 U (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) 7 Z 0 Z m 0— 7. .1 SILTY SANDY CLAY, CLAYEY SAND, STIFF/LOOSE, MOIST, SC BROWN. LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL CL SILTY FINE TO VERY FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, VERY Sm 12.1 118.6 50 MOIST, BROWN TO OLIVE BROWN. 12.6 122.0 SLIGHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, S P 5 DAMP TO MOIST, BROWN -TO OLIVE BROWN AND GRAY. �_M 27 25 6.8 96.7 10 40 12.7 108.1 WATER SEEP, PERCHED VWER. - 15 SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, LIGHT SP 29 GRAY—BROWN. 5.1 20- 20 SILTY FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, LIGHT SM 8.1 j GRAY—BROWN. I 2 5 20 SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SANDY SILT, VERY MOIST, BROWN M L 20.6 — . . X. TO LIGHT GRAY —bROWN. VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTFIONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS Y WATER TABLE ,- -, —1, - - --on., 11 :7:! . . . . 6.1 47:.' A. .. 32's 1. '" LOOSE BAG SAMPLE . '.. I... . . ).(!= .=.,C. W. C. ud.3 CA .415W L.. 1.41 SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. NO SAMPLE RECOVERY DISTURBED SAMPLE JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: I DATE: FIG. NO. 11b # DISTUR-BED BLOWCOUNT No. 00-1562 HGE 01/2 8/001 '"W411" EXCAVATION LOG EOUIPMENT: DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: .HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIG 6" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 01120100 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED RW B-2 CON7 ) Uj ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS y FiELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION X _U SPT SAMPLE' JOB NAME: LA. _j 0 _j LU _j N11 NO SAMPLE RECOVERY DISTURBED SAMPLE DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. 1 Uj U LU LU q Q. — I DATE: 0 01/28/0 1 FIG. NO, 11b' vi V) a- m 3: V) 0 j Z a: CL =1 (L W :2 Z CL >_ Uj Ln V) M DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 6 Z'i Uj 0 0 U (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) vi Z' —0 Z 0 0 Z 30— 25 SILTY FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN TO Sm 9.0 OLIVE BROWN AND CRAY. FINE SANDY, CLAYEY SILT, HARD, VERY MOIST TO WET, ML 35 LIGHt BROWN. IYK �v 39 27.1 S I LTY, VERY FINE TO FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, VERY M 4 0 MOIST, BROWN TO OLIVE—BROWN AND GRAY. 27 9.9 .4 .,::1 BECOMES DENSE. 4 5 32 6.9 SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND, MOIST, LIGHT GRAY —BROWN TO BROWN. 50 30 ALLUVI um 6.6 55— TOTAL DEPTH 51.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING BORING BACKFILLED: 01/20/00 ) VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS y WATER TABLE LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Is — I I=:T:!. — " "o' CA 64.� SPT SAMPLE' JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. # NO SAMPLE RECOVERY DISTURBED SAMPLE DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. 1 JOB NUMBER: 00-1562 I REVIEWED BY: HGE I DATE: 0 01/28/0 1 FIG. NO, 11b' ammmaSu'l EXCAVATION LOG EOUIPMENT: FIELD DESCRIPrI7ION A ND CLASSIFICATION DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION: DATE LOGGED: FIOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILL RIC 6" DIAMETER AUGER BORING 01/20/00 SURFACE ELEVATION: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: LOGGED BY: BORING No: EXISTING ELEVATION NONE ENCOUNTERED RW B-3 tZ FIELD DESCRIPrI7ION A ND CLASSIFICATION 0 Uj 3: Ln U Lj X m 0 01— Z M D DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS "n :E Z Ln L) < (A 0 U (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) vi F5 Z Lj 0 05 x < Z w 0 m 0 0— SILTY SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND, STIFF/LOOSE, MOIST, CL BROWN. LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL 42 SILTY VERY FINE TO FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, Sm BROWN TO GRAY BROWN. 26 5 SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE TO VERY FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, SP DAMP, BROWN. 25 10 — SILTY VERY FINE SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN. Sm 20 j 1, :1:.1: T:1 S P J: 15 1.:�: 1. : 12 ALLUVIUM 20— TOTAL DEPTH 16.5 FT. - NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED NO CAVING BORING BACKFILLED: 01/20/00 25— VALUE AS PER SIMILAR SOIL TYPE EM ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS WATER TABLE LOOSE BAG SAMPLE loll SPT SAMPLE JOB NAME: DRIVE SAMPLE LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. NO SAMPLE RECOVERY DISTURBED SAMPLE JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. # DISTURBED BLOWCOUNT No. 00-1562 I HGE 01/28/00 11c I . I LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY I ISO 140 130 irce ifEl owe nn 0 10 20 30 40 UBLE SULFATE IN SOIL (%) JE SULFATE CEMENT I EXPOSURE TYPE 5 NEGLIGIBLE 2 'XPANSION TEST DATA TYPE 1_ 2 RY DENSITY (pcf) 116.6 ATER CONTENT 8.4 f) 144 SWELL 1.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES. SOIL BORING TRENCH SOIL CLASSIFICATION SOIL CLASSIFICATION TYPE NO NO 1 BROWN, SLI ' GHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, B-1 x 2.0 TO 4.0 FT VERY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND. 2 GRAY, BROWN, SILTY VERY FINE TO B-2 x 3.0 TO 7.0 FT FINE SAND. 3 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSUIJANTS A Dug. (C—p—t-) S 3300 Y.C. E.".' '. 315 V.. .'.. 250 11;60 5.0 920 s— N.W.— C. 91.05 '36. 17601 swo 1"31 061.3556 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DA� FIG. NO. 00— 1562 HGE 101 28/00 ilia 7777= DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 3000 1-1� LL- 2000 (A 11- Lij Of ry Ld —17 (A 1000 0 0 .577 1000 1154 1731 2000 2308 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) 3000 SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION ANGLE (a) REMARKS 0 8— 1 @ 2.0 TO 4.0 FT 255 32 REMOLDED @ 90% R:C. SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. Psamr= ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS S r— - C.V C —1 A- 30 . ..... F'.. �, $I.. ".. 150 �30 ". 560 3" — . 0 (59-1d . CA 9202 no.cisco. ca. 94io fx I? of 17601' 738. adoo M31 06,3536 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NumeER: I REVIEWED Ely: DAT� 1 FIG. NO. 111b 00-1562 HGE 28/001 Psamr= 3C 1-1% LL- 2000 V) CL z LLJ V) LLJ —F Lf) 1000 I '01 DIRECT SHEARTEST RESULTS 0 577 '1000 1154 1731 2000 2308 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) 3000 i SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION ANGLE REMARKS 0 Ef-3 @ 8.5 FT 190 33' NATURAL FIELD SHEARS SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY I I I AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QU NTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 00-1-562 PWMI ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS fcwp—.t.) I", C"v C-1 30 c� —".. 51 ... I _4 s '50 5300 W--.. m E ... X, CA 92029 S.- "o 01 ,60, , 36-OWO JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY I I I AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QU NTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 00-1-562 REVIEWED BY: HGE DATE: 101/28/001 FIG. NO. 111c 1 I . CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE PRESSURE — LBS/SQ FT 0 0 0 0 .0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 -t co (o 0 0 (D 04 0 t co r- 0 0 04 Lo — 0 2 3 ui 4 uj 0- 5 Z 0 6 - - -T I < I I I 7 0 Ln F ---- T-- z III 0 8 H 9 10 ORIGINAL MOISTURE 0 SATURATED CONSOLIDATION REBOUND JOB NAME: LA QUINTA ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS SAMPLE -13-11 a 7.5 Fr. SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DA TE: NO. 1 101/28/00 FlIG- lild 00-1562 HGE I CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE 0 2 3 u of 4 uj EL 5 0 6 n 7 0 v) z 0 9 10 4 4 PRESSURE - LBS/SQ FT C) C) 0 0 0- 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 't 00 (D C) 0 C14 C) It 00 r- C) r�, — — c"I Lo C3 (j) ORIGINAL MOISTURE SATURATED CONSOLIDATION REBOUND JOB NAME: LA QUINTA ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS SITE ADDRESS: SAMPLE B-2 6.5 Fr. —�. .., *— —, E. - . . . . . . . . . W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. ,— v —z -1 DATE: F"I G. N 0. -FREVIEWE JOB NUMBER: D BY: 00-1562 1 HGE 01/28/001 ille MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA 0 10 20 30 z 40 0: 50 II - z w Go u IL 70 80 90 100 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 50 ao 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 100 20 so 70 60 0 (A 4 50 z 40 w 0 cz L.j 30 Q. 20 10 0 .001 U.S. STD. SIEVE CRAVEL SAND #4 0.0 100.0 #8 - 0.0 m #16 0.0 SILT AND CLAY #30 0.0 100.0 #50 2.0 m 0 #100 UP COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE U.S. STD. SIEVE MINUS #4 % RET. SAMPLE % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 #8 - 0.0 100.0 #16 0.0 100.0 #30 0.0 100.0 #50 2.0 98.0 #100 30.1 69.9 #200 68.7 31.3 BORING: B-1 PIM ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 341..c I j— ........ c. lao ........ lool Ir4ol 734 -moo DEPTH: 15.0 FT. JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: WOFHWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1562 IHGE p 1 /28/00 .MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA S G.y C. -I 4'.. 315 )to I I ... 11 --os MESA .1601 135-6400 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: 7 50 80 4 3 2 I'/l 3/ 1/ 3/ 1/ 4 610 14 20 30 40 60 100 200 325 JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: 1 DATE: 101/28/001 FIG. No. lllg 0- 00-1562 2 8 100 io- 90 20- -so 0 3 - -70 0 z 0- -60 W (A Li 50- - 50 CL z !-40 z w w Q 60- u cc (r w w (L 70- 30 (L 80- 20 go- 0 100- 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 .001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT AND CLAY 0 COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE MINUS #4 SAMPLE U.S. STD. SIEVE % RET. % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 #8 0.0 100.0 #16 0.0 100.0 #30 0.0 100.0 #50 1.6 98.4 #100 33,.4 66.6 #200 1 73.7 26.3 am— I- — BORING: B-2 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 9.0 FT. S G.y C. -I 4'.. 315 )to I I ... 11 --os MESA .1601 135-6400 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUI TA, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: 1 DATE: 101/28/001 FIG. No. lllg 00-1562 BORING: B-2 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 9.0 FT. S G.y C. -I 4'.. 315 )to I I ... 11 --os MESA .1601 135-6400 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUI TA, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: 1 DATE: 101/28/001 FIG. No. lllg 00-1562 HGE 'M'"ECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA c — — I., I ?w 1 1-1 ... 0",!. --r I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES JOB NAME: LA QUINTA 7 so ao 4 3 2 1 "2 3/ 1/ 3/ 1/ 4 5110 14 20 30 40 60 100 200 325 W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA 01,111 TA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 0- 4 - - FIG. NO. 100 HGE 01/28/00 io- 90 20- 80 3 70 ul c AD- v) Li cc 5 10 50 CL z z Ld Li Go - -40 Li L'i (L 70- 30 (L so- 20 go- 10 too- 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 .001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT AND CLAY 0 u COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE MINUS #4 SAMPLE U.S. STD. SIEVE % RET. % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 #8 0.0 100.0 #16 0.0 100.0 #30 0.0 100.0 #50 13.8 86.2 #100 69.2 30.8 #200 89.7 10.3 BORING: B-2 ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANrrs DEPTH: 16.0 FT. c — — I., I ?w 1 1-1 ... 0",!. --r I 1, ........ lool C. 920as T; JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA 01,111 TA, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1562 HGE 01/28/00 111h MECHANICAL A.NALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA 0 10 20 0 30 La z 40 w so z Go w (L 70 80 90 100 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES so so loo so 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 01 .005 .001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS In CRAVEL SANO #4 co 0 SILT ANO CLAY -�OARSE 0.0 100.0 #16 0.0 u #30 TIME COARSE MEDIUM FINE 97.2 U.S. STD. SIEVE MINUS #4 % RET. SAMPLE % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 #8 0.0 100.0 #16 0.0 100.0 #30 0.0 100.01 #50 2.8 97.2 # 100 32.4 62.6 #200 72.4 27.8 0 (L z Li u (L BORING: B-2 ANTIJONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 21.0 FT. Allf..I.l 313 Mil 0. It .... . .. C. 02019 fi� 144S ... 1. 11.0 1 11401 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUII TA, CA. JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: JDAT E 0 1 FIG. N 0. 00-1562 HGE 01/28/0 vascm.1m MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA 0 to 20 30 z 4 40 so z UJI 60 u It. 70 80 90 100 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 50 80 too 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 100 90 ao 70 60 (L 50 z 40 w u (z 61 30 Q. 20 10 0 .001 U.S. STD. SIEVE CRAVEL SAND #4 C3 0 100.0 #8 SILT AND CLAY 100.0 #16 0.4 99.6 #30 u COARSE I FINE C0.7RSE MEDIUM I FINE 24.6 U.S. STD. SIEVE MINUS #4 % RET. SAMPLE % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 #8 0.0 100.0 #16 0.4 99.6 #30 0.7 99.3 #50 4.5 95.5 #100 24.6 75.4 #200 42.1 57.9 BORING: B-2 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 26.0 FT. 1, , Cl C. -I A— 0,i ... E .... 02.21 ...... 100, 11601' 38.6400 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 00— 1562 REVIEWED BY: 1 HGE DA7 101 :28/00 FIG. No. ilij w=a6br.zi. I MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA 0 to 20 30 z 40 so z w Go u 0: w Q. 70 so 90 100 U.S. STANDARO SIEVE SIZES 50 80 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 100 90 80 70 60 V) (L 30 z 40 w 30 Q. 20 10 0 .001 U.S. STD. SIEVE GRAVEL SAND #4 10 0 100.0 #8 SILT AND CLAY 100.0 #16 0.5 99.5 #30 u COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE 31.4 U.S. STD. SIEVE MINUS #4 % RET. SAMPLE % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 #8 0.0 100.0 #16 0.5 99.5 #30 0.8 99.2 #50 4.0 96.0 #100 31.4 68.6 #200 1 66.6 33.4 BORING: B-2 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 31.0 FT. '....4f , no C. 92020 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUII TA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 00-1562 REVIEWED BY: 1 HGE DATE: 101/28/00 FIG. NO. 1 111k MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA 1.1-W, CA 11019 . ....... 116*1 U.S. STANOARO SIEVE SIZES LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: 7 4 50 so 3 2 1 /2 1 31 1/ 3/ 1 4 610 14 20 30 40 60 100 200 323 DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1562 I HGE 01/28/00 100 10 90 20 80 70 (5 z 40 60 w tn Li a: so -50 0. z z 60 40 Lj u ix lx w CL, 70- 30 w (L 80- 20 0 - 10 ,:0 0 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 .001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT AND CLAY C3 0 u COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE MINUS #4 SAMPLE U. S. STD. SIEVE % RET. % PASS #4 0.6 99.4 #8 1.2 98.8 #16 2.2 97.8 #30 3.2 96.8 #50 4. 1 95.9 #100 6.7 93.3 #200 12.8 87.2 BORING: B-2 ANTHONY -TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 36.0 FT. "y C-1 -. 50 1.1-W, CA 11019 . ....... 116*1 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1562 I HGE 01/28/00 MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA 0 10 20 a 30 Li z 40 Li 50 z w 60 u 0! w 0. 70 so 90 100 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 50 80 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 .001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS (A GRAVEL SAND #4 C3 0 SILT AND CLAY #8 1.3 98.7 #15 1.7 u COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 97.3 U. S. STD. SIEVE MINUS #4 % RET. SAMPLE % PASS #4 0.7 99.3 #8 1.3 98.7 #15 1.7 98.3 #30 2.0 98.0 #50 2.7 97.3 #100 25.5 74.5 #200 69.6 30.4 00 D D D Z (A (L D z D w u 0 D D BORING: B-2 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 41.0 FT. 1- 11 .. - r C. C., '(1 - 315 150 C. 42029 9.0s ........ 1. JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA OUI TA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 00- 1562 REVIEWED BY: 1 HGE DATE: 10 1 128ZOO FIG. N 10. I Him Wga�-w t MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA 0 10 20 a 30 Li z 40 Li 50 z Ll 60 u 0: W a. 70 so 90 100 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 50 ao 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS too go 80 70 0 z 80 tA vi n so z 40 uj u 30 (L 20 10 0 001 U.S. STD. SIEVE GRAVEL SAND % RET. 0 StLT AND CLAY ZT1, 100.0 # a . . 0.0 100.0 u 0.0 N E COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE #50 U.S. STD. SIEVE MI -NUS #4 SAMPLE % RET. % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 # a . . 0.0 100.0 #16 0.0 100.0 #30 0.0 100.0 #50 3.7 96.3 #100 36.7 63.3 #200 72.4 27.6 13ORING: 8-2 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 46.0 FT. S. P -w.. I "'i "o CA'o :2'024 r—,.. 45 1?601 ?35-6800 JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUII TA, CA. JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: DATE: NO. Illn 00-1562 HGE _I 01/28/00 MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA - too , C.y C. -t. I... I .... C. 910)t U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: 7 so 60 4 3 2 1 /2 '1 3/. 3/. 1/4 4 510 14 2030 40 60 WO 200 325 W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 00-1562 I REVIEWED BY: HGE DAT 01728/001 FIG. NO. 1110 - I 100 10- 20- so a 3wo - 70 La z .4 40 60 Ln Ln (L Of 50 50 t - z z La w Go 40 u cr cc w 70 30 (L so 20 90 0 100 0, 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 .001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS CRAVEL SAND SILT AND CLAY ,-SE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE C3 0 u MINUS #4 SAMPLE U.S. STD. SIEVE % RET. % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 #8 0.0 100.0 #16 0.0 100.0 #30 0.0 100.0 #50 1.2 98.8 #100 35.3 64.7 #200 81.4 18.6 BORING: B-2 A NTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 51.0 FT. - too , C.y C. -t. I... I .... C. 910)t 11401, JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: W OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. JOB NUMBER: 00-1562 I REVIEWED BY: HGE DAT 01728/001 FIG. NO. 1110 - I MECHANICAL ANALYSIS - SIEVE TEST DATA U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: 7 4 so so 6 100 3 2 1 '2 1 3/ 14 3/ 1/ 1 510 14 20 30 40 0 200 325 REVIEWED BY: 1 HGE DATE: 101/28/001 FIG. NO. HIP 100 10 go 20 ao 30 70 z 40- 60 tn V) 50- 50 z z La w u Go- -40 u a: a. 70- 30 80 20 90 10 00 :110 100 50 10.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .005 .001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND -FlINE SILT AND CLAY 03 0 u COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE MINUS #4 SAMPLE U.S. STD. SIEVE % RET.. % PASS #4 0.0 100.0 #8 0.0 100.0 #16 0.0 100.0 #30 0.0 100.0 #50 4.3 95.7 #100 33.0 67.0 #200 73.2 26.8 lt2V&ktWA I BORING: B-3 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 16.0 FT. v.lm"A. -s-1.1 "y C-1 I... C. 170)9 t, ..... JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. -W JOB NUMBER: 00- 1562 REVIEWED BY: 1 HGE DATE: 101/28/001 FIG. NO. HIP BORING: B-3 ANTI-IONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS DEPTH: 16.0 FT. v.lm"A. -s-1.1 "y C-1 I... C. 170)9 t, ..... JOB NAME: LA QUINTA SITE ADDRESS: OF HWY 111 AND WASHINGTON ST. LA QUINTA, CA. -W JOB NUMBER: 00- 1562 REVIEWED BY: 1 HGE DATE: 101/28/001 FIG. NO. HIP APPENDIX A Engm! M.'am Blake, T.F., 1996, EQFAULT Software, Version 2.20 Blake, T.F., 1998, LIQUEFY2 Software, Version Campbell, K.W., 1993, Empirical Prediction of Near -Source Ground Motion from Large Earthquakes, in Proceedings of International Workshop on Earthquake Hazard and Large Dams in the Himalaya, Sponsored by the Indian National Trust for Art and 0 Cultural Heritage (INTACH), New Delhi, India, January 15-16. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet. Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, compiled by C.W. Jennings, Scale 1:250,000, Fourth Printing, 1992. Greensfelder, R., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration From Earthquakes in California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23, dated 1972 and revised August, 1974. Hart, E. W., W. A. Bryant, 1997, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised 1997. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provision. Dated April 1997. International Conference of Building Officials, 1998, Maps of Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. To be used with the 1997, Uniform Building Code. Dated February 1998 Jennings, C.W., 1992, Preliminary Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 92-03. Murphy, J.R., and O'Brian, L.J., 1978, Analysis of Worldwide Strong Motion Data Sample to Develop an Improved Correlation Between Peak Acceleration, Seismic Intensity, and Other Physical Parameters, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREd-0402. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes - - Important Design Criteria, California Geology, vol. 27, no. 9. APPENDIX B 'UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION COARSE-GRAINED N11dre than half of material is larger than a No. 200 sieve GRAVELS. CLEAN GRAVELS More that half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3" GRAVELS WITH FINES (appreciable amount) SANDS, CLEAN SANDS More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than a No.4 Sieve SANDS WITH FINES (appreciable amount) FINE-GRAINED More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve SILTS AND CLAYS Liguid Limit Less Than 50 Liguid Limit Greitcr Than 50 I ll(;I ILY ORGANIC SOILS 04�&ww,� t P'I G W Well -graded gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines. GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines GN,l Silty gravels. poorly graded OL grave I-sand-si It mixtures. GC Clay gravels, poorly graded NTH gravel -sand silt mixtures. SW Well -graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no Fines. S?vI Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures. SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey -silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, clean clays. . OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. NTH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays 01.1 Organic clays of medium to high plasticity 11catand other highly organic soils xlaNgddv DATE: Tuesday, February 1, 2000 E Q F A U L T Ver. 2.20 (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: M&H Property Management, LLC JOB NUMBER: 00-1562 JOB NAME: La Quinta SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.7149 N -LONGITUDE: 116.296 W SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 1) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1994) Horiz. Alluvium UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+l-Sigma): M. S60ND: 0. COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CALIFLT.DAT -SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F=Fault Data File): A ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IMAX. CREDIBLE EVENTJIMAX. PROBABLE EVENT1 I APPROX. I ------------------- 11 ------------------- I ABBREVIATED IDISTANCE I K;LX.1 PEAK I SITE 11 MAX.1 PEAK I SITE I FAULT NAME I mi (km) ICRED.1 SITE JINTENSI]PROB.1 SITE IINTENSI I 'I I MAG.JACC. gl MM 11 MAG.IACC. gl MM I -------------------------- I IBLUE CUT 1 --------- 14 I ( 22)l ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.2211 ------ 11 IX 11 ----- I 6.001 ------ I 0.1041 ------ I VII I I-------------------------- I ISORREGO MTN. (San Jacinto)l --------- 36 I ( 58)l ----- I 6.501 ------ I 0.0481 ------ 11 VI 11 ----- I 5.751 ------ I 0.0241 ------ I V I I-------------------------- IBRISTOL MOUNTAIN --------- 69 I (111)1 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0321 ------ 11 V 11 ----- I 5.751 ------ I 0.0101 ------ I 111 1 I-------------------------- ICALICO NEWBERRY 1 --------- 46 I ( 74)1 ----- I 7.201 ------ I 0.0641 ------ 11 VI 11 ----- I 5.751 ------ I 0.0181 ------ I IV I I-------- ------------------ I ICAMP ROCK-EMER.-COPPER MTNI --------- 32 I ( 51)1. ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0861 ------ II VII 11 ----- I 5.751 ------ I 0.0291 ------ I V I I-------------------------- I ICASA LOMA-CLARK (S.Jacin.)l --------- 20 I ( 32)l ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.1491 ------ 11 VIII 11 ----- I 6.751 ------ I 0.1221 ------ I VII I I-------------------------- I ICHINO 1 --------- 71 (115)1 7.001 ------ I 0.0281 ------ 11 V 11 ----- I 5.501 ------ I 0.0081 ------ I 111 1 I----- 7 -------------------- I ICOYOTE CREEK (San Jacinto)l --------- 22 I ( 35)1 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.1331 ------ 11 VIII 11 ----- I 5.751 ------ I 0.0461 ------ I VI I I-------------------------- I ICUCAMONGA 1 --------- 73 I (117)1 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0271 ------ 11 V 11 ----- I 6.251 ------ I 0.0151 ------ I IV I I-------------------------- I IELSINORE' 1 : --------- 43 I ( 69)l ----- I 7.501 ------ I 0.0901 ------ 11 YII 11 ----- I 6.751 ------ I 0.0471 ------ I VI I I--------- ----------------- I IGLN.HELEN-LYTLE CR-CLREMNTI --------- 37 I ( 60)l ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0701 ------ 11 VI 11 ----- I 6.501 ------ I 0.0451 ------ I VI I I-------------------------- I IHARPER 1 z --------- 89 I (144)1 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0231 ------ 11 IV 11 ----- I 5.251 ------ I 0.0051 ------ I 11 1 I------------ ------------- I IHELENDALE 1 --------- 45 I ( 72)1 ----- I 7.301 ------ I 0.0721 ------ 11 VII 11 ----- I S.751 ------ I 0.0181 ------ I IV I I-------------------------- I IHOMESTEAD VALLEY - 1 --------- 39 I ( 63)1 ----- I 7.501 ------ I 0.1011 ------ 11 VII 11 ----- I 4.001 ------ I 0.0051 ------ I 1 1 I-------------------------- I IHOT S -BUCK RDG.(S.Jacinto)l --------- 17 I ( 28)l ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.1751 ------ VIII 11 6.001 ------ I 0.0781 ------ VII I-------------------------- I JIMPERIAL - BRAWLEY 1 --------- 68 I (110)] ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0321 ------ 11 V 11 ----- I 6.751 ------ I 0.0261 ------ V I I-------------------------- I IJOHNSON VALLEY 1 --------- 32 I ( 51)1 ----- I 7.501 ------ I 0.1291 ------ 11 VIII 11 ------ I 5.251 ------ I 0.018'1 ------ I IV .1 I-------------------------- I ILA NACION 1 --------- 77 I (123)1 ----- I 6.501 ------ I 0.0171 ------ 11 IV 11 ----- I 4.251 ------ I 0.0031 ------ I 1 1 I-------------------------- I ILENWOOD-OLD WOMAN SPRINGS 1 --------- 43 I ( 69)l ----- I 7.301 ------ I 0.0761 ------ 11 VII 11 ----- I 5.251 ------ I 0.0121 ------ I 111 1 I-------------------------- I ILOCKHART., 1 --------- 92 I (148)1 ----- I 7.301 ------ I 0.0281 ------ 11 V 11 ----- I 5.751 ------ I 0.0071 ------ I 11 1 I--------------------- I ILUDLOW ... 1 0 ; 1 -------------------------- I --------- 55 --------- ( 89)l I 7.001 ----- I ------ I 0.0421 ------ I ------ 11 VI 11 ------ 11 5.751 ----- I ------ I 0.0141 ------ I ------ IV I ------ I IMANNIX 1 87 (139)1 6.60 1 -------------------------- I --------- I ----- INEWPORT-INGLEWOOD-OFFSHOREI 78 (125)1 7.00 1 --------------- 7 ---------- I --------- I ----- INORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE 1 47 ( 76)1 7.70 1 -------------------------- I --------- I ----- IPALOS VERD-CORON.B.-A.BLANI 92 (148)1 7.50 1 -------------------------- I --------- I ----- 0161 IV 11 5.751 0.0081 11 0271 V 11 5.751 0.0091 111 ------ I ------ I I ----- I ------ I ------ 1 0.0951 VII 11 5.751 0.0171 IV I ------ I ------ 11 ----- I ------ I ------ 1 0.0341 V 11 6.751 0.0171 IV I ------ I ------ 11 ----- I ------ I ------ I ------------------------------ DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IMAX. CREDIBLE EVENT11MAX. PROBABLE EVENT I APPROX. I ------------------- 11 ------------------- ABBREVIATED IDISTANCE I K;LX.1 PEAK I SITE 11 MAX.1 PEAK I SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) ICRED.1 SITE JINTENS11PROB.1 SITE JINTENS I I MAG.JACC. gl MM .11 HAG.JACC. gl MM -------------------------- I IPINTO MOUNTAIN - MORONGO 1 --------- 28 I ( 45)1 ----- I 7.301 ------ I 0.1271 ------ 11 VIII 11 ----- I 5.751 ------ I ------ 0.0341 V I--------------------------- I JPISGAH - BULLION 1 --------- 35 I ( 57)1 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0751 ------ 11 VII 11 ----- I 6.001 ------ I ------ 0.0311 V I-------------------------- I [ROSE CANYON 1 ---------- 76 I (122)1 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0281 ------ 11 V 11 ----- I 6.001 ------ I 0.0111 ------ 111 I-------------------------- I ISAN ANDREAS (Coachella V.)J --------- 6 I ( 9)1 ----- I 8.001 ------ I 0.4921 ------ 11 X 11 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.3931 ------ X I -------------------------- I ISAN ANDREAS (Mojave) 1 --------- 78 I (126)1.8.301 ----- I ------ I 0.0841 ------ 11 VII 11 ----- I 8.001 ------ I 0.0651 ------ VI I-------------------------- I ISAN ANDREAS (S. Bern.Mtn.)l --------- 25 I ( 41)1 ----- I 8.001 ------ I 0.2361 ------ 11 IX 11 ----- I 6.751 ------ I 0.0911 ------ Vii I-------------------------- I ISAND HILLS 1 --------- 42 I ( 67)1 ----- I 8.001 ------ I 0.1401 ------ 11 VIII 11 ----- I 6.751 ------ I 0.0491 ------ VI I----- I --------------------- I ISAN GORGONIO - BANNING 1 --------- 6 I ( 10)1 ----- I 7.501 ------ I 0.5101 ------ 11 X 11 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.4621 ------ X I-------------------------- I ISIERRA MADRE-SAN FERNANDO 1 --------- 91 I (146)1 ----- I 7.501 ------ I 0.0301 ------ 11 V 11 ----- I 6.001 ------ I 0.0091 ------ 111 I-------------------------- I ISUPERSTITION HLS.(S.Jacin)l : --------- 54 I ( 88)1 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0431 ------ 11 YI 11 ----- I 6.251 ------ I 0.0221 ------ IV I-------- ------------------ I ISUPERSTITION MTN.(S.Jacin)l --------- 53 I (.86)1 ----- I 7.001 ------ I 0.0441 ------ 11 VI 11 ----- I 6.251 ------ I 0.0231 ------ IV I-------------------------- I 1WHITTIER - NORTH ELSINORE 1 --------- 70 I (113)1 ----- I 7.501 ------ I 0.0481 ------ 11 VI 11 ----- I 6.001 ------ I 0.0131 ------ 111 --------------------------- I --------- ------ I ------ 11 ------ I ------ -END OF SEARCH- 37 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE SAN ANDREAS (Coachella V.) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.7 MILES AWAY. LARGEST KAXIMUM-CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.510 g LARGEST MAXIMUM -PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.462 g wtm�w_u Y Based on equation of Murphy & O'Brian (1978) for western U.S xii Damage total or nearly total. 1.0— xi z 0 xMajor damage, such a's collapse of weak buildings and Ixcracking of strong buildings v I I I Moderate damage, such as fractues of weak walls and top.pled chimneys. V I I Same structural damage, such as �4 V I cracks in walls and chimneys. Felt by most people; objects disturbed; no structural damage. IV 0.01 Felt indoors by some people; no damage Not g'eneraily felt by people. COMPARISON OF PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION AND MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENS" Based on equation of Murphy & O'Brian (1978) for western U.S EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES 1. GENERAL A. These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading. including preparation of areas to be filled. placement of fill, installation ofsub-drains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluation performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. B. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineenng geologist (geotechnical consultant) or It . 4 their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. 11. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING A. Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the conunencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical. consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose 0 0. of observinQ earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the reconunendations of the geotechr&al report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them appraised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so theat they may schedl.l.lie their personncl accordingly. All clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and sub - drains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing any fill.' It is the contractor's responsibility to nolify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. M3=w--W- i 0 B. Laboritory and Field Test Maximum dry density tests to determine tile degree ofcompaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test rilethod ASTNM designation D- 15 5 7. Random field compaction tests should be performed in with method ASTNI designations D-1 556-82. D-2937 or D- 2922 & D-3)0 17. at intervals of approximately two (2) feet of fill height or every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria would vary depending on the'soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. C. Contractor's Responsibility - All clearing. site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staaed approval by the governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface, to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer. And to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non -earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, ' unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. Durina construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintdin"good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. Ill SITE PREPARATION A. All major vegetition, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material ShOUld be removed and disposed of oft-sitc. These removals nlUst be coilcludc(l prior to placing f1l. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, U, C011LIVium, or rock materials det ' ermined by tile soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon tile soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fill. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted Cills should be approved by the soil engineer. B. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extendina to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be over excavated down to firm cyround and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Over excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture - conditioned should be recompacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. C. Existing, gound which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches or as directed by the soil en2ineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture or greater and mixed,.the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about six (6) inches in compacted thickness. D. Emsting ground which is not satisfacto to support compacted fill should be over excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineering geologist. Scarification, dicing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compacti on as described in Item III, C, above. E. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least two (2) feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 flect with tile key founded on firm material, ans dcsignatcd by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless I., specifically recommended otherwise by tile Soil Engineer. the minimum %vidth oCtill keys should beapproximately equal to one-halt*(1/2) the height oCtlie slope. F. Standard benching is generally four feet (minimum) vertically. exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed, four feet. Pre -stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of four feet in thickness. G. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades are attained. IV. CONIPACTED FILLS A. Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other orQanic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. B. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock -derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fillfbedrock contact. C. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills,un'less the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approve by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with reco I mmendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate trenching, rock should not be placed within the range or foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. it' import material is required j -or grading, representative samples Of the D. as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory material to be utilized determine its physical . properties- If any material other by he soil engineer to tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate than that previously al should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as analysis of this materi possible. ill in E. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive f near-hOrizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed six (6) inches thicker lifts if testing indicates in thickness- 'Me soil engineer may' approve paction is being achieved ing procedures are such that adequate com the grad . with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and . of material and moisture suitable for compaction. blended to attain _un_i_f_0_rM__1t_Y— F. Fill lavers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and by scarification or should be mixed, and Nvet fill layers should be aerated ng and mixing of blende . d with drier material. 'i'vloisture conditioning, blendil " 'form moisture til the fill materials have a uni the fill lavers should continue un content at or above optimum moisture. been evenly spread, moisture -conditioned and mixed', it G. After each layer has . . Urn of go percent of Maximum should be uniformly compacted to a minim -78, or as otherwi . se density as determined by ASTNI test desiLrnation, D 1557 tgineer. Compaction equipment should be recommended by the soil er ction or ately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compa adequ degree of compaction. of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion'thereof, is below the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No ntil the last placed lift of till has additional fill shall be placed in an area u equirements, and is been tested and found to meet the density and moisture r approved by the soil engineer. inimum e accomplished by over -building a m Compaction of slopes should b ently trimming back to the design of three (3) feet horizontally, and subsequ rformed as the fill is elevated to slop e configuration. Testing shall be pe Special efforts may evaluated compaction as the fill core is being developed. be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materialS with appropriate equipment. Q paction should be based on observation A final actcrmination of fill slope com III slopes are c face. Where compacted r and/or testing of tile finished stop aterial types, a relative designed steeper than 2. 1, aa�_d& m may be recommended. compaction, and pacted Fill slopes r -building and cutting back the com if an alternative to Ove effort should be mad to achieve the required is selected. then special of each lift of fill by undertaking the compaction in the outer 10 feet following* LVV short-shanked ent consisting of a hea Ia. An extra piece of equipm nta-1) parallel to the slopes sheepsfOOt should be used to roll (horizO hould -also be as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller s continuously and extend out over the slope used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope- er the face of the slope as each 1b. Loose fill should not be spilled out OV x a previously completed lift is compacted. Ariy . loose ,,, spilled ove e-rollin-a", ed off or be subject to r slope face should be triMM (horizontal) two (2) Ic. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer, vertical intervals, to eight- (9) feet of the slope at appropriate ction operations. subsequent to compa slope, the slope face should be shaped with Id. After completion of the epsfoot to achieve a small tractor and then re -rolled with a she nt to testing to verify n to near the slope face. Subseque compactio s should be grid -rolled to achieve compaction compaction, the slope testing should be used to confirm compaction to the slope face. Final . after grid rolling. than adequate action, the contractor sting indicates less comprecompact the Slope le. Where te water, m.ix and ,yill be responsible to rip, I testing to achieve compaction. Additiona materials as necessary -ipaction. should be performed to verify con drainage devices should be designed by the if. Erosion control and 1pliance with the ordinances of the project civil engineer in con' ies, and/or in ,1ccordance with the controlling govcmmental agenc lincering geologist. recommendations Of the soil engineer Or eng A V. S1jB_i)gA1N INSTALLATION A. SUb-drains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Sub -drain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering izeologist may recommend and direct changes in sub -drain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed sub -drains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. V I. EX- , �kv A T =Nt� A. Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading- by the locrist and/or geotechnical engineer. If directed by the ensaineer-ing geo C, engineer geologist, further excavations or over -excavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should . be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineer ill portion geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fi of the slope. B. The engineer geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified 1.7 0 by the contractor when cut slopes are started. C. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse. or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate', evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stab il izi ng,'should be based on in -grading evaluations by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated previously or not. ' . D. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of Additionally, short-term stability of controlling gov.emmental agencies. the contractors -y cut slopes or temporary excavation is temporar responsibility. E. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and ShOUld be constnicted in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the reconimendations of the s . oil engineer or engineering geologist. MOMM"11 VII. al consultant should A. Observation, testing and consultation by the gcotechnic an opinion that be conducted during the grading operations in order to state all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the app roved project Spec i fications. B. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering their observations of the work, final reports should be inished No geologist have r review by the controlling governmental agencies. submitted subject to ftuther excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification . eering geologist. of the soil engineer and/or engin C. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be roject. specifications and/or as recommended planted in accordance with the p h protection and/or Planning should be by a landscape architect. Suc ter completion of grading. undertaken as soon as practical af