Loading...
04-3699 (OFC) Geotechnical InvestigationSladden-Engineering 6782 Stanton Ave., Suite E, Buena Park, GA.90621' (562) 864-4121 (714) 523-0952 Fax (714) 523-1369 r' 39-725 Garand Ln., Suite G, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772-3893' Fax (760) 772-3895 October 12, 2001. Project No. 544-1247 01-10-511 The Construction Zone + 77-799 Jackal Drive, Suite B Palm Desert, California 92211 , Attention: Mr. Charles Topalian Project: Proposed Medical/Office Complex Lake La Quinta Drive , La Quinta, California Subject: Geotechnical Investigation , Presented herewith.is the report of our Geotechnical Investigation conducted at the site of the proposed medical/office complex to be located near the northeast corner of Lake La Quinta Drive and Washington - Street in the City of La Quinta, California. The investigation was performed in order to provide recommendations for site preparation and to assist in ,foundation design for the proposed medical/office buildings and the related site improvements. -This report presents the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing along with conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and site preparation.. This report completes our original ;j scope of services as understood. We appreciate the opportunity to.provide service to,you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, -please contact the undersigned Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINEERIN OQFtOFESS/p Brett L. Anderson No. C 45389 Principal Engineer Exp. 9-30-2002 sr CIVIi- a\P "':'OF cn��Foa ' SER/pc --� Copies.: 6/The.Construction Zone A Q1nrlrJnw Fs+�icrnnriw� GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MEDICAL/OFFICE COMPLEX .,, LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE -.PARCEL 6 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA October 12, 2001 ji �. TABLE OF CONTENTS IINTRODUCTION.....................................::................................................................................ 1 SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................ ........... ...................... 1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS......... ................................................................................ 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................... :..................... FoundationDesign............................................ :::............................ ..................................... 3 Settlements-, ........................................................................................................................ 3 -- Lateral-Design ....... ,................ :. Retaining Walls......................:......................... .............................................................. 4 ' ExpansiveSoils..................................................................................................................... 4 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade................................. .:............ 4 Soluble Sulfates.......................................... .........:....:..:..:...............:..........:......................... `. 4 Tentative Pavement Design ................................................ Shrinkage and Subsidence GeneralSite Grading.................................................................................................. ....... 5 . ............................................ . . 1. Clearing and Grubbing.......................... 5 2. Preparation of Building and Foundation Areas.....................................:................:... 5 3. Preparation of Surfaces to Receive Compacted Fill...................................... ....... 5 4. Placement of.Compacted Fill......................................................... 5 5. Preparation of Slab and Paving Areas........................................................................ 6 6. Testing and Inspection........:...........................................................................:............ 6 GENERAL.................................................................................................................................. 6 APPENDIX A - Site Plan and Boring Logs Field Exploration APPENDIX B - 'Laboratory Testing Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C - 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria (�lnriiin r+ rHlll rrnn/I/rA October 12, 2001 d: i Project No. 544-1247 01-10-51.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our. Geotechnical Investigation performed in order to provide recommendations for site preparation and to assist in the design and construction of the foundations for the proposed medical/office buildings: The project site is located on Parcel 6 near the no corner of Lake, La Quinta Drive and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, California. The preliminary plans -- indicate that the proposed project: will consist of 2 'or 3 medical/office buildings along with various associated site improvements. The. associated- site improvements are expected to include paved parking . areas, driveways, concrete walkways, landscape areas and various underground utilities. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our investigation was to determine certain engineering characteristics of the near surface soils on the site in order to develop recommendations for foundation design and -site preparation. Our investigation included field exploration, laboratory ,testing, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. Evaluation of environmental issues or hazardous wastes was not within the scope of services provided. Our investigation was performed in accordance with contemporary geotechnical engineering principles and practice. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. .-. PROJECT. DESCRIPTION . The project site is located on Parcel 6 near the northeast corner of Lake La Quinta Drive and .Washington Street in the City of La Quinta; California. The preliminary plans indicate that the project will consist of 2 or 3 medical/office buildings along with various associated site improvements. It is our understanding that the' proposed commercial structure will be of relatively lightweight reinforced our or wood - frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow spread footings and concrete slabson grade. The associated site improvements will include paved parking areas, concrete walkways, landscape areas and various underground utilities. The project site is -presently vacant and the site has been recently graded and leveled. The parcels directly south and north of the site remain vacant and have also been graded for a commercial development. Washington Street and Caleo Bay are paved adjacent to the site. Underground utilities exist along the adjacent streets. Based upon our previous experience with lightweight wood -frame or reinforced masonry structures, we _ expect that isolated column loads will be less than 30 kips and wall loading will be' less than.to 3.0 kips per linear foot. Grading is expected to include minor cuts and fills to match the nearby elevations and to construct slightly elevated building pads to accommodate site drainage. This does not include removal and recompaction of the foundation bearing soils within the building areas. If the anticipated foundation loading or site grading varies substantially from that assumed, the recommendations included in this report should be reevaluated. t - i October 12, 2001 -2- Project No. 544-1247 01-10-511 V ' SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The near surface soils observed within our borings consist primarily of artificial fills overlying fine- grained silty sands with scattered (generally thin) clayey silt layers. Fine grained silty sands were the most prominent soil type observed but several generally thin clayey silt layers were also observed within our borings: Engineered fills were observed within the upper -6 to 7 feet within each of our borings. In general, the engineered fills were very firm and the underlying native soils appeared somewhat loose. Laboratory test results and sampler penetration resistance (as measured by field blowcounts), suggest that the native soils become firmer with depth. Relatively undisturbed samples indicated dry density varying from 83 to 108 pcf. The site soils were found to be dry throughout the depth of our borings but some of the silt and clay layers were wet. Moisture content varying from 0.5 to 22.7 percent was determined for the samples obtained. Laboratory classification testing indicates that the near surface soils consist primarily of fine grained silty sands. Expansion testing indicates that the majority of the surface soils are non -expansive and fall within the "very, low" expansion category in accordance with the Uniform Building Code classification system. Groundwater, was not encountered within our borings that extended to a maximum depth of approximately 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater should not be a factor in foundation design or construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our field and laboratory investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed commercial development is feasible from a soil mechanic's standpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are considered in building foundation design and site preparation. Due to the presence of engineered fill soils throughout the site, remedial grading should 'be limited to minor overexcavation and recompaction of the proposed building areas. We recommend that remedial grading within the proposed building areas include overexcavation and recompaction of the weathered surface soils. Specific recommendations for site preparation are presented in the Site Grading section.of this report. Groundwater was not encountered within our borings that extended to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Due to the depth to groundwater, specific liquefaction analyses were not performed. Based upon the depth to groundwater the potential for liquefaction and the related surficial affects of liquefaction impacting the site are considered negligible. The site is located within an active seismic area of Southern California within approximately 9.7 kilometers of the San Andreas Fault system. Strong ground motion resulting from earthquake activity along the nearby San Andreas or San Jacinto fault systems is likely to impact the site during the anticipated lifetime of the structure. Structures should be designed by professionals familiar with the geologic and seismic setting of the site. As a minimum, structure design should conform to Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. Pertinent seismic design criteria as outlined in the 1997 UBC, is summarized in Appendix C of this report. October 12, 2001 -3- Project No. 544-1247 01-10-511 Caving did occur to varying degrees within each of our exploratory borings and the surface soils may be .� susceptible to caving within deeper excavations. All excavations should be constructed in accordance with the normal CalOSHA excavation criteria. On the basis of our observations of the materials encountered, we anticipate that the subsoils will conform to those described by CalOSHA as Type B or C. — " Soil conditions should be verified in the field by a "Competent person" employed by the Contractor. The majority of the surface soils encountered during our investigation were found to be non -expansive. Laboratory testing indicated an Expansion Index of 0 for the silty sands that dominate the site, which — correspond with the "very low" expansion category in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2. If imported. soils are to be used during grading, they should have an Expansion Index of less than 20. The following recommendations present more detailed design criteria, which have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory investigation. -- Foundation Design: The results of our investigation indicate that either.conventional shallow continuous footings or isolated pad footings, that are supported upon properly compacted soils, may be expected to provide satisfactory support for the proposed structures. Overexcavation and recompaction should be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Footings should extend at least 12 inches beneath lowest, adjacent grade. Isolated square or rectangular footings at least 2 feet square may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. Continuous footings at least 12 inches wide may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1800 pounds per square foot. Allowable increases of 200 psf for each additional 1 foot of width and 200 psf for each additional 6 inches of depth may be utilized if desired. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3000 psf. The allowable bearing pressures are for dead. and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by 1/3 to resist wind, seismic or other transient loading. - - Care should be taken to see that bearing soils are not allowed to become saturated from the ponding of rainwater or irrigation. Drainage from the building areas should be rapid and . complete. The recommendations made in the preceding paragraphs are based on the assumption that all footings will be supported upon properly compacted soil. All grading shall be performed under the testing and inspection of the Soils Engineer or his representative. Prior to the placement of concrete, we recommend that the -footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they -- extend into compacted soil and are free of loose and disturbed materials. Settlements: Settlements may result from the anticipated foundation loads. These estimated ultimate settlements are calculated to be a maximum of 1 inch when using the recommended bearing values. As a practical matter, differential settlements between footings can be assumed as one-half of the total settlement. Lateral Design: Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by a combination of friction acting at the base of the slabs or foundations and passive earth pressure along the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.45 between soil and concrete may be used with dead load forces only. A passive earth pressure of 275 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may be used for the sides of footings, which are poured against properly compacted native soils. L October 12, 2001 -4- Project No. 544-1247 01-10-511 Passive earth pressure should be ignored within the upper 1 foot except where confined (such as beneath'a floor slab). When used in combination, either the passive resistance or the coefficient of friction should be reduce&by one-third. 1. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls may be required to accomplish the proposed construction. Cantilever retaining walls may be designed using "active" pressures. Active pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf for native backfill soils with level free - draining backfill conditions. i • For walls that are restrained, "at rest" pressures should be utilized in design. At rest pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf for native backfill soils with level free -draining backfill conditions. Expansive Soils: Due to the prominence of non -expansive soils,on the site, special expansive soil design criteria. should not be necessary for the design of foundations and concrete slabs -on - grade. Because the mixing and blending associated with the recommended remedial grading may change expansion potential, final design criteria should be established by the Structural Engineer based upon post grading expansion test results. Concrete Slabs -on -Grade: All surfaces to receive concrete slabs -on -grade should be underlain by recompacted soils as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Where slabs are to _ receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or where dampness of the floor slab is not desired, we recommend the use of an appropriate vapor barrier. Vapor barriers should -be protected by sand in order to reduce the possibility of puncture and to aid in obtaining uniform concrete curing. Reinforcement of slabs -on -grade in order to resist expansive soil pressures may not be required. However, reinforcement will have a beneficial effect in containing cracking due to concrete shrinkage. Temperature and shrinkage related cracking should be anticipated in all concrete slabs -on -grade.. Slab reinforcement and the spacing of control joints should be determined by the Structural Engineer. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate concentrations of the surface soils were determined to be 333 parts per million (ppm). The test results suggest that some of the surface soils may be potentially corrosive with respect to concrete. The use of Type V cement or special sulfate resistant concrete mixes may be necessary dependent upon post grading test results. Tentative Pavement Design: All paving should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 12 inches (excluding aggregate base). This may be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. The following preliminary pavement sections are based upon a design R -Value of 50 and correspond with the typical minimum pavement section as determined by the City of La Quinta. Onsite Roadways (Traffic Index = 6.0) Use 3.0 inches of asphalt on 4.5 inches of Class 2 base material Aggregate base should conform to the requirements for Class 2 Aggregate base in Section 26 of CalTrans Standard Specifications, January 1992. Asphaltic concrete should conform to Section 39 of the CalTrans Standard Specifications. The recommended sections should be provided with a uniformly compacted subgrade and precise control of thickness and elevations during placement. Clnrlrlrn F.nninrrrinfr f October 12, 2001 -5- Project No. 544-1247 01-10-511 Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material, which is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill should be anticipated. We estimate that this shrinkage . should vary from 15 to 20 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces which are scarified and compacted should be between 0.1 and 0.2 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. These values for shrinkage and subsidence are exclusive of losses, that will occur due to the stripping of the organic material from the site, the removal of deleterious materials and the removal of debris, trees and other subsurface obstructions. .General Site Grading: All grading should be performed in accordance with the grading ordinance of the City of La Quinta, California. The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory testing: 1. Clearing and Grubbing: Proper clearing of any existing vegetation, debris, foundations; slabs, pavements and underground utilities will be very important. All surfaces to receive compacted fill should be cleared of roots, vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials that should be removed from the site. Soils that are disturbed due to site clearing should be replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soils Engineer. 2. Preparation of Building and Foundation Areas: Building areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade or 1 foot below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. The exposed surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted so that a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction is attained. Once deleterious materials are removed, the native material may be placed as controlled compacted fill. Overexcavation should be observed by. a representative of Sladden Engineering and. compaction should be verified by testing. 3. Preparation of Surfaces to Receive Compacted Fill: Other areas to receive compacted fill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of !90 percent relative compaction. 4. Placement of Compacted Fill: Fill materials. consisting of on-site soils or approved imported granular soils, should be spread in thin lifts, and'compacted at near optimum moisture content to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Imported material shall have an Expansion Index not exceeding 20. The contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 48 hours in advance of importing soils in order to provide sufficient time for the proper evaluation of proposed import materials. The contractor shall be responsible for delivering material to the site, which complies with the project specifications. Approval by the Soils Engineer will be based upon material delivered to the site and not the preliminary evaluation of import sources. Our observations of the material encountered during our investigation indicate that compaction will be most readily obtained by means of heavy rubber -wheeled equipment and/or vibratory compactors. _ October 12, 2001 -6- Project No. 544-1247 ;;. 01-10-511 5. Preparation of Slab and Paving Areas: All surfaces to receive asphalt concrete paving or concrete slabs-on-grade, should be underlain by a minimum compacted,fill thickness of 12 inches. This may be accomplished by a combination of scarification and recompaction of the surface soils and placement of the fill material as controlled compacted fill. Compaction of the slab and pavement areas should be to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. . 6. Testing and Inspection: During grading tests and observations should be performed by the Soils Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with acceptable ASTM test methods. The minimum acceptable degree of.compaction should be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557-91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until. retesting .indicates satisfactory compaction. GENERAL The findings and recommendations presented in this'report are based upon an interpolation of the soil conditions between the exploratory boring locations and extrapolation of these conditions throughout the proposed building area. Should conditions encountered during grading appear different than those indicated in this report, this office. should be notified. This report is considered to be applicable for use by The Construction Zone for the specific site and project described herein. The use .of this report by other parties or for other projects is not authorized. The recommendations of this report are contingent upon monitoring of the grading operation by a representative of Sladden Engineering. All recommendations are considered to be tentative pending our review of the grading operation and additional testing, if indicated. If others are employed to perform any soil testing, this office should be notified prior to such testing in order to coordinate any required site visits by our representative and to assure indemnification of Sladden Engineering. We recommend that a pre job conference be held on the site prior to the initiation of site grading. The purpose of this meeting will be to assure a complete understanding of the recommendations presented in this report as they apply to.the actual grading performed. R. Sladden Engineering . - - ♦ 4 is �� + r • ,r ♦ { [ �t it � +.. ,. APPENDIX•A . r Site Plan Boring Logs • ! ' aI r. � i '_ � 1 �Yr • _rte. i '• � • - � + •. J_r , • .. +' •ink i • , •� •• • � • ... �' Sladden Engineering APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION For our field investigation, five exploratory borings were excavated on September 17, 2001, using a truck mounted hollow stem auger rig (Mobile B61) in the approximate locations indicated on the site plan included in this appendix. Continuous logs of the materials encountered were made on the site by a representative of Sladden Engineering. Boring logs are included in this appendix. Representative undisturbed samples were obtained within our borings by "driving a thin-walled steel penetration sampler (Cal ifornia'split' spoon sampler) -or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler with a 140 pound hammer dropping approximately 30 inches (ASTM D 1586). The number of blows required to drive the samplers 18 inches was recorded in 6 inch increments and blowcounts are indicated on the boring logs. The California samplers are 3.0 inches in diameter, carrying brass sample.rings having inner diameters of 2.5 inches. The standard penetration samplers are 2.0 inches in diameter with an -inner diameter of 1.5 inches. Undisturbed samples were removed from the sampler and placed in moisture sealed containers in order to preserve the natural soil moisture content. Bulk samples were obtained from the excavation }, spoils and samples were then transported to our laboratory for further observations and testing.. . QJniiilnn Fnoiyrnpr►n� j , _ r J J ..... ............ brX EXISTING_ �— LAKE l LOT OTO HB 227/77-85 \ / LOT DD PE (60.80) EXISTING S -ORM \ i� MB 227/77-65 DRAIN AND(RECREATION CATCH BASINS {RECREATION LOT} r/� I \ APN 617-070-035 `"1 A-530' L-15' ! •\ i, PE (61 80) t\. �� EXIS-ING STORM ORAIN• a �� s CATCH BASINS �r- PARC 'L 7 2.92 A C . �' ;,o \�0,eA Y •• ��' — - \ GROSS /NET cn �? m N U PAR) 6 ( � 1 - D LO. T ' DDGROSS/XFT ��`�4fRCE� 5 > o� MB 214/69-82 .v AC. N ;\ M P-2780- 1 c� Of X' STIv^ p/w���X cz -- -- - t� �— - CURS EX — � TER rte•; JTZNG ra.�'"�'� '�- � i 'I' 5,9 158. 3a H12iON -- - ��—= - = =. - � —'►OKI - _ � . �. -vTfF �� - --_ �.�-�-�-QJti.w•.• ar]Ar�-� La Quinta Arts Foundation EXISTI ORYHEL a 6 o 6-A f,_."l r --i - N tiA N o >~ � Lo U ao 00 z 0 v ��v •S �O'� W O ►� a b F Q. EXISTI ORYHEL a 6 o 6-A f,_."l r --i - , i Proposed Medical Office Building. Parcel 6 /-Lake La Quinta Drive / La Quinta;.California — Date: 9-17-01.• Borin No. 2 Job No.: 544=1247 c DESCRIPTION q o a REMARKS o o vz •' ° Artificial Fill; Sand: Brown, SP/SM slightly silty, fine grained upper 6 - T F " 22/40/50 Artificial Fill; Silty Sand: Brown, SM 107 3.1 93 , « . very silty, fine grained - b 12/23/36 108 2.0 94 } + a ` 1 10 10/20%20 Silty Clay: Brown CL ` 83 8.7 --- r 15*, 17/30/50 Sand: Brown, SP/SM ' 0.5 slightly silty, fine grained ' ' 20 16/22/27 'Sand: Brown; fine grained SP - 0.5 --- Trace medium and - h coarse grained sand 1 ,r– F 25 12/22/28 Silty Clay: Brown` CL 22.7 Thin interbedded fine to medium ' ...grafined sand layers-, - Recovered Sample Total Depth = 26.5' 1' i ®Disturbed Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 30 35 40 F�. 45 50. - Note: The stratification lines ' 55 represent the approximate - e boundaries between the soil types; j' the transitions maybe gradual. .1 4. Proposed Medical Office Building Parcel 6 / Lake La Quinta Drive/ La Quinta, California -- Date: 9-17-01 BoringNo.3 Job.No.:544-1247 a � DESCRIPTION q $ 0 o. 0 0 REMARKS 01 P A U° Pq CO Wit `- U 0 - - _ Artificial Fill; Sand: Brown, SP/SM Fill upper 8'' slightly silty, fine grained , 5 " 14/21/30 0.5 t 10 . Sand: Brown, SP/SM 1.0 - 5/10112 slightly silty, fine grained- i5 Silty Sand: Brown, SM '. "1 6/12i17 very silty, fine grained 1.5 I Disturbed,Sample Total Depth = 16.5' No Bedrock 20 Standard Penetration -No Groundwater Sample _ 25 30 y C. .� 35 40 , 45. ' _ 50 - Note: The stratification lines 56 represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types; 3- the transitions may be gradual. - ._ r t Proposed Medical Office Building Parcel 6 / Lake La Quinta Drive / La Quinta, California Daae: 9-17-01 oring No.4 Job No.: 544-1247 17, Proposed Medical Office Building Parcel 6 / Lake La Quinta Drive / La Quinta, California Daae: 9-17-01 oring No.4 Job No.: 544-1247 m DESCRIPTION q o REMARKS a wo� cc 2 4; A ra U P4 �.� . U ' Artificial Fill; Silty kSand: SM- Fill upper 6 -.T Brown,. fine grained 7/12/20 '98 1.5 Silty Sand: Brown, SM fine grained io 10/22/38 Clayey Silt: Brown ML 87 4.2 15 Sand: Brown, , ". SP/SM 12/25/37 slightly silty, fine grained 105 1.0 - Recovered Sample Total Depth = 16.5' No Bedrock 20 No Groundwater ., 26 30.. 35 - 40 - r 46 60 - Note: The stratification lines . 55 represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types; - the transitions may be gradual. s. � � y ��" APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field and returned to our laboratory for additional observations and testing. Laboratory testing was generally performed in two phases. The first phase consisted of testing in order to determine the compaction of the existing natural soil and the general engineering classifications of the soils underlying the site. This testing was performed in order to estimate the engineering characteristics of the soil and to serve as a basis for selecting samples for the second phase of testing. The second phase consisted of soil mechanics testing. This testing including consolidation, shear strength and expansion testing was performed in order to provide a means of developing specific design recommendations based on the mechanical properties of the soil. f CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION TESTING Unit Weight and Moisture Content Determinations: Each undisturbed sample was weighed and ._ measured in .order to determine its unit weight. A small portion of each sample was then subjected to testing in order to determine its moisture content. This was used in order to determine. the dry density of the soil in its natural condition. The results of this testing are shown on the Boring Los. Maximum Density -Optimum Moisture Determinations:- Representative soil types were selected for maximum density determinations. This testing,was performed in accordance with the ASTM,Standard D1557-91, Test Method A. The results of this testing are presented graphically in this appendix. The maximum densities are compared to the field densities of the soil in.order to determine the existing relative compaction to the soil. 'This is shown on the Boring Logs, and is useful in estimating the strength and compressibility of the soil. Classification Testing: Soil samples were selected for classification testing. This testing consists of mechanical grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits determinations. These provide information for developing classifications for the soil in accordance with the Unified Classification System. This classification system categorizes the soil into,groups having similar engineering characteristics. The results of this testing are very useful in detecting variations in the soils and in selecting samples for -- further testing. SOIL MECHANIC'S TESTING Direct Shear Testing: One bulk sample was selected for Direct Shear Testing. This testing measures the shear strength of the soil under various normal pressures and is used in developing parameters for foundation design and lateral design. Testing was performed using recompacted test specimens, which were saturated prior to testing. Testing was performed using a strain controlled test apparatus with. normal pressures ranging from 800 to 2300 pounds per square foot. Expansion Testing: One bulk sample was selected for Expansion testing. Expansion testing was performed in accordance with the UBC Standard 18-2. This testing consists of remolding 4 -inch diameter by 1 -inch thick test specimens to a moisture content and dry density corresponding to approximately 50 percent saturation. The samples are subjected to a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and allowed to reach equilibrium. At that point the specimens are _ inundated with distilled water. The linear expansion is then measured until complete. Consolidation Testing; Four relatively undisturbed samples were selected for consolidation testing. For this testing one -inch thick test specimens are subjected to vertical loads varying from 575 psf to 5760 psf applied progressively. The consolidation at each load increment was recorded prior to placement of each subsequent load. The specimens were saturated at the 575 psf or 720 psf load increment. SVadden Eneineerine 11s 115 a. 114 •N q •A w 113 A 112 111 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 Moisture Content.(%) METHOD OF COMPACTION ASTM D-1557-91, METHOD A OR C - BORING- MAXIMUM UNIT WEIGHT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT 1@0-5' 115 11.1 MAXIMUM DENSITY -OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVE 0 2 .4 .6 .8 ' 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOO12)} r 1.8 1.6 �1 1.4 O O 1.2 Z, 1.0 H .2 0 0 2 .4 .6 .8 ' 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOO12)} r z 0 2 .4 .6 .8 ' 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOO12)} r Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.000 0.720 2.880 5.760 0.0 .01 '�_ ffecfflddi .02 C �Rebosand \---- .03 U .04 7-=: w a� a a .05 a 06 0 CO o q 0 U .07 .08 .09 0.1 .11 Zzzz .12 —N-- -ZI- ZZzzz .13 zmzzzz Parcel 6 / Lake La Quinta Drive Consolidation Diagram Boring 1 @ 10' SLADDEN ENGINEERING Date. 10/17/01 Job No.: 544-1247 �Rebosand Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.000 0.720 2.880 5.760 l�ffec 0.0 _ _ _ _ _ .01 .02 Z. .03 q .04 a�i a .05 7z ❑V A .06 0 Z. CO b o .07 U) 0 ::4U .08 .09 0.1 .11 .12 ZIE .13 z 7z Parcel 6 / Lake La Quinta Drive Consolidation Diagram Boring 2 @ 10' SLADDEN ENGINEERING Date: 10/17/01 Job No.: 544-1247 l�ffec _ _ _ _ _ r' Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.0 0.000 .01 4.600 .02 .03 .04 a� P4 .05 U A .06 0 c� 0 07 CD 0 .08 Consolidation Diagram Parcel 6 / Lake La Quinta Drive Boring 4 @ 10' SLADDEN ENGINEERING 10/17/01 Job No.: 544.1247 Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.000 .575 2.300 4.600 z - — -- —E€feej-�#`Addi g = - _€—a - _ - _ _ - er_ — - - = - — _ - _ — _ - � — — — _ _ _ = Z _ _ _ _ = —' - = __ _ _ _ = _ _ — _ _ 77 +- mz 77 - - _ _ _ - _ _ — - i_ - _ - _ Z = - C - — - Consolidation Diagram Parcel 6 / Lake La Quinta Drive Boring 4 @ 10' SLADDEN ENGINEERING 10/17/01 Job No.: 544.1247 Project No.: 544-1247 GR AIN .SIZE , M M n PARTICLE SIZE, JvJM ': ■■■■■■■aa■■■■■■■�■�i�:.■o■■lis■■mini ■■■■1■■■■■■■■■1IP'►1■1��■tl NEW a III NMI Nazi NINE! 0 IN Mimi INN moil mini �■i�=0 ME NMI _. ■■■■■■■1®■■ii■iii ilii ■■��■■■I■■m11■m1�■■11�■■I■1 ®■■II���I/1 PARTICLE SIZE, JvJM PARTICLE SIZE, MM Slodden Engineering . • =:ems■■■■INN= ■1/II■®■■■NI■M■�■1 ;,■■®�■■■I ■■■III ■II■IS■■11�■■ ■� MEW ■■■■■I■■;■II■II■1■■■11■■■'�� .. =:■�■■■■I■■I■��■I�■�■■■1 ■�_■■■I■■I//■1■il■1■■■1 ■■■ ■� ■■■I■1 ' MEN ME ■■loso■1■II■1■■■1 ■■■i■1 . =����■■■I■�I11■II■11■■■1 111101111111111121. �■■■I■■I■�1■�I■©®■■i ■Meet ■■1■ ■1 0010. ®R, M -to RO-04-111�t6stiess's! . .. PARTICLE SIZE, MM Slodden Engineering NMI =■■i■�■■■■■�,'/1■II■1�■■11�■will ■■■�■■■'■■ //!1■��■�■■■���■■I■1 NMI! NEW =:■i�■■1■■■�■�®11■il■1�Moll ®■■I■� ' . ■■■��■■■I■■®�I■��®®®11��■ill • _ �■■®■■fir■■i..o■■�:■.�■.�.---1------ ryI { PARTICLE SIZE, MM •" i CLAY— SI LT 7 F I SAND N E COARS SANDE— GRAVEL GRAVEL us STANDARD SIEVES— �I • r � p o Q - Boring 2@ 5' 0 0 0 0 0 0 p N- I Do Z 2 _ • Z flo Q ago u 2 • W Io a o 1 1 gO cs o o — — — -- �I PARTICLE SIZE, 'MM ' Slodden Engineering ANAHEIM TEST LABORATORY f. " 3008 S. ORANGE AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707- SEP 2 6 RECD PHONE (714) 549-7267 . Y + SLADDEN ENGINEERING: -- 6782 STANTON AV.E SUITE E DATE: 9/25/01 BUENA PARK, CA. 90621 I� eo. No. Chain of Custody Shipper No. ATTN: BR,ETT/DAVE ,r Lab. No. B 9100 .,.. Specification: Material: SOIL PROJECT: #544-1247 BUlk H-1 @ 0-5' ANALYTICAL REPORT i CORROSION SERIES , ' .SUMMARY OF DATA pH SOLUBLE SULFATES. SOLUBLE CHLORIDES MIN. RESISTIVITY per Ca. 417 per Ca. 422 per. Ca. 643 ppm ppm = ohm -cm :.: 7.3 333 74 _ 657 RESPE FULL SUBM D 7 POPPY ID ER a i Chemist.: A . z i APPENDIX C 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria • October 12, 2001' ' 12- . Project No. 544-1247 01-10-511 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE INFORMATION The International Conference of Building' Officials 1997 Uniform Building Code contains ti ~ substantial revisions and. additions to the earthquake engi,rieering section summarized in Chapter 16. Concepts contained in the. 19.97 code ihk'kwi1l; likely be relevant to construction of the • -proposed structure are summarized below.: . • - ' Ground shaking is expected to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site, based upon ' proximity to significant faults capable' of .generating large earthquakes. Major fault zones considered to be most likely to create strong ground sliaking at the'site are listed below. ` Fault Zone Approximate Distance From Site Fault Type r 1997 UBC L Seismic '. Seismic Seismic San Andreas 9:7 kin A San Jacinto „ ` • .33.4 km A Based on our field observations and _understanding„ofilocal•geologic conditions,,the soil profile type judged applicable to this site is Sp, 'generally described as stiff or dense soil. The site is located within UBC. Seismic Zone 4.% The following table presents additional coefficients and factors relevant•to+seismic mitigation for new construction upon adoption of the 1997 code. Near=Source Near -Source. Seismic '. Seismic Seismic Acceleration Velocity Coefficient Coefficient Source Factor, Na Factor, N,, Ca C„ San Andreas 1.0 ” 1.2 0.44 Na 0.64 N„ San Jacinto -1.0, .; 71011._]"O 0.44 Na 0.64 N„ , * E Q F A U L T * Version 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM_DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 544--1247 a DATE: 09-20-2001 JOB NAME:, Lake La Quinta Dr. & Washington St. / La Quin CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES:. SITE LATITUDE: 33.7047 SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2949 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 5) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. - SOIL '(3 10) .` UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number'of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cd_2drp SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: - COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: -CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH.VALUE (km): 0.0 ro , y ---------------- --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY r DETERMINISTIC ----------------------------- SITE PARAMETERS Page 1. ------------------------------------------------ I ---------- ---------------- (ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE 1------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK [EST. SITE FAULT NAME 1 mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI•- , SITE 11NTENSITY - I I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. 9 1MOD.MERC: SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 1 $.0( -9.7)1 7.1 1 0.349 .1 IX SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 6.0( 9.7)1 7.4 1. 0.408 1 X BURNT MTN. 1 17.3( 27.8)1 6.4 1, 0.117 I VII EUREKA PEAK 1 18.3( 29.5);1 6.4 1 0.112 1 VII SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 1 18.4( '29.6)1 7.3 1 0.179 1 VIII SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 20.8( 33.4)1 7.2 1 0:155 1 VIII r SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 21.1( 33.9)1 6.8 1 0.124 1 VII PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 30.0( 48.2)1 .7.0 1 0.106 1 VII EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 31.9( 51.4)1 6.9 1 0.095 1 VII •LANDERS I 32.4( 52.2)1 7.3. 1 0.116 1 VII PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 34.2( 55.1)1 7.1 1 0.100 1 VII ` SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 35.4( 56.9)1 6.6 1 0.075 1 VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 35.9( 57.7)1 6.9 1 0.087 1 VII NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 37.2( 59.9)1 6.7 1 0.093 1 VII _ EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 39.7( 63.9)1 6.5 1• 0.065 1 VI BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 41.9( 67.4)1 6.4 1 0.059 1 VI ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 43.0( 69.2)1 7.1 1 0.084 1 VII JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 43.2( 69.6)1 6.7 1 0.068 1 VI CALICO - HIDALGO 1 45.2( 72.7)1 7.1 I 0.081 1 VII ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 47.1( 75.8)1 6.8 .1 0.067 1 VI LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 48.9( 78.7)1 7.31 0.085 1 VII NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 49.1( 79.0)1 7.0 1 0.088 1 VII • ELMORE RANCH 1 49.2( 79.2)1 6.6 .1 0.058 1 VI _ ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 51.3( 82.5)1 6.8 1 0.063 I VI SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 53.6( 86.3)1 6.6 1 0.055 1 VI SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)1 54.5( 87.7)1 6.6 1 0.054 1 VI HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 56.7( 91.2)1 7.1 1 0.068 1 VI SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 58.3( 93.9)1 6.7 1 0.054 1 VI ` ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 60.7( 97.7)1 6.8 1 0.055 I VI CLEGHORN 1 65.8( 105.9)1 6.5 1 0.044 I VI. IMPERIAL 1 68.8( 110,.7)1 7.0 1 0.056 1 VI LAGUNA SALADA 1 71.7( 115.4)1 7.0 1 0.054 I VI -- CUCAMONGA 1 73.4(.118.2)1 7.0 1 0.064 1 VI CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 73.7( 118.6)1 6.7 1 0.055 1 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 75.4( 121.4)1 6.9 1 0.049 1 VI ` ROSE CANYON 1 75.5( 121.5)1 6.9 1 0.049 1 VI WHITTIER 1 77.9( 125.3)1 • 6.8 1 0.045 1 VI SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 1 82.5( 132.7)1 7.1 1 0.051 1 VI SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 82.5( 132.7)1 7.8 1 0.074 1 VII SAN JOSE 1 85.1( 136.9)1. 6.5 1 0.044 1 VI r ;- ---------------=------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS I- Page 2 it-------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- I IESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE 1------------------------- _ ABBREVIATED" I DISTANCE '"I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST SITE --- FAULT. NAME I mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE (INTENSITY I I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC.- SIERRA MADRE 1 88.0( 141.6)1 7.0 1 0.056 1 VI GRAVEL.HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 88.3( 142.1)1 6.9 1 0.043 1 VI ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 90.1( 145.0)1 6.7 1 0.047 1 VI CORONADO BANK 1 90.7( 146.0)1 7.4 1 0.055, 1, VI" •NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 94.0(.151.2)1 6.-9 1 0.041 1 V CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT .1 96.6(-155.4)1 6.5 1 0.040 1 V COMPTON THRUST I 96.7( 155.7)1 6.8 1 0.047 1 VI . PALOS VERDES' 1 98.9(' 1;59.2)1 7.1 I. 0.049 I VI -END OF SEARCH'- 48 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIF.IED:SEARCH RADIUS. THE SAN ANDREAS - Coachella FAULT I -S CLOSEST -TO THE.SITE. IT IS ABOUT 6.0 MILES (9.7 km) AWAY. .�" LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE.SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4084 g