RFP Retention Basin Improv - Misc. Locations Project 2023-35 Amendment 3ta 62�uiitra
DATE: February 19, 2025
TO: All Prospective Engineering Consultants
RE: RFP Miscellaneous Retention Basin Improvements Project, City Project No. 2023-35
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3
The following shall be considered as incorporated into the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the above -
referenced project. Portions of RFP that are not specifically mentioned in this addendum remain in
force.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Question 1: On Page 8/14 of the RFP, is the Transmittal Letter the same as the Cover Letter?
Answer 1: No, the transmittal letter lists the details of what is included in the package and the cover
letter is the cover of the Proposal.
Question 2: Also on Page 8, is there a description for Section 3. Staffing and Project
Organization? There is no current description in the RFP. Should we include an
organization chart as part of section 3? Basically, I'm not sure what to include in
Section 3 besides the resumes that will be in an appendix.
Answer 2: Yes, please include an organization chart that includes the staff that will be working on
this particular project.
Question 3: Will there be as-builts included in the geotechnical report (referenced on page 5)?
Answer 3: Please see attachments 2 and 3 for geotechnical reports. We do not have any as-builts.
Question 4: Can you please provide the Hydrology Memo and Geotechnical Report for
Location 3 — Retention Basin at the X-Park?
Answer 4: Please see attachments 1, 2, and 3. All remaining documents will be released to the
selected consultant.
Question 5: What level of bid and construction support will this proposal have? See RFP pages
6 and 7.
Answer 5: Answer questions and provide revisions as needed.
APPROVED:
!tl:
7bAd.AV& feb 20 025 09:56 PST)
Ubaldo Ayon, Jr.
Assistant Construction Manager
END OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 3
Page 1 of 1
LANUMAIIK
"'fif (" mf, my
MEMO{ZANDVM
Rilm Desert Office
Date
To
From
Subject
J r, I y 30, 2024
Mr. Ubaldo Ayon
City of La Quinta
Greg M. Chandra, P.E.
ATTACHMENT 1
Neu N. 4th Street
El Centro, CA 92243
(760) 370-3000
landmark@landmark-ca.com
77-948 Wildcat Drive
Palm Desert. CA 92211
47601360-0665
9chandre@landrnark-cs.com
gchandraL I_andmark -ca.com
X-Park & Dune Palm Retention Basin
L Cl Project No. L P24032
With reference to our report dated May 31, 2024, the proposed dry -well
depth along the bottom of the existing retention basin, should be at
minimum depth of 15 feet below the existing grade or 5 feet of sand (SP)
layer, whichever deeper.
o�),;�OF ESSIQN
rr
UJ No. C 34432
CIVIL
OF CA1'
780 N. Fourth St.; El Centro. CA =43;(760070-3000
11 948 Wildcat Drive; Palm Desert. CA 92211;(760)360-0665
ATTACHMENT 2
LANDMARK
a MBE Company
May 312024
Mr. Ubaldo Ayon
City of La Quinta
7,R495 Calle Tampico
1.a ( )uinta, CA 92253
-- . 4! _t(_?t
El Centro. CA 92243
1780) 370-3000
landmark@landmark-ca.com
77-948 Wildcat Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92211
1760) 360.0665
gchandra@iwxknork-ce.com
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Report for X-Park 8t Dune Palm Retention Basin
La Quinta. ('alifOrnia
L(7 Report .Vo.: LP24032
Referenced: (tcottcchniealReport for X-Park and Dune Palm Retention lla,ln. prepared h\
Landmark Consultants, Inc.. dated I )ecenlher 21, 2018
Dear Mr. Ayon:
As requested, we are providing this limited geotechnical report for the eaisam, retention basin
located alone the north-east corner of X-Park. in the city of La 0, uinta, California. The purpose of
our rclwrt is to revic%\ the soil layer below the existing basin. The project site is baundcd by
Wcsh\ and Ho Drive to the north and east of Dune Palms Road. boils are pay ed roadways.
Field Exploration
Suhsurt`uccexploration �%asperforrnedon %larch25,2024,usin' -IR DrillingofOntario, California
to ad-, ancc t�%o (2) borings to depths of31.5 Meet heluw existing, ground surface. The horings wcrc
advanced with a trick -mounted. Mobile C-75 drill rig using 8-inch diameter, hollow -stem,
continuous -flight augers. The approximate boring locations \ere established in the field and plotted
on the site map h\ si,,hting to disccrnahlz Site features. The boring locations are shown on the Site
and Lxploratiun Plan (Plate A-2).
Our geo-technician observed the drilling operations and maintained a log ofthe soil encountered and
sampling depths, visually classified the soil encountered .luring drilling in accordance with the
Lnitied Soil ClassiIicationSystern. :Ater and �alllpllll`a the sail. the cxploratoryboring,gas
backtillcd with the excavated material. I he hacktill ��as looscl% placed and % as notcotnlpacted to
the requirenlents specified for engineered till.
-Park. I ;i l )uinta. CA I l I Kcport \o.: 1 1''4U32
I he snh�uriace logs are prc�cnted on Plates B-1 dt B-2 in Appendix B. A key to the log symbols is
presented on Plate B-3. The stratification lines shown on the subsurface logs represent the
.approximate boundaries bet-wecn the various strata. However, the transition from one stratum to
;utother may be Lridual o%cr some ranee M (lepth.
Laborator) l esting
L.aboratory tests were conduetcd on selectedbulh �oiI ainplc, ion iid in � l,issitication and c%aluatitIn
of selected properties of the site soils. The test, �IIere conducted in general conformance to the
procedures of the American Society for TestinP, and Materials (AS'I M) or other standardised
method.:» rctcrenccd below. The lahorator% tc"niw, proL!r in consisted ofthe follok%inL, teas:
< Particle Size Analyses (ASTM D422)
I he lahoratorN test results are presented on the suhsurtacc logs (.Appendix B) and Appendix C.
higinecring rarametersofsoilstrcngth,contpressibility,aitcI relati\cdensityutili/vd fordcvcloping
design criteria pro\ ided within this report\\ere extrapolated t'rom data ohtained tom [he field and
lahoratory testing program.
Subsurface Soil%
SuhsurlacesOilscncountered durini the held cxplOration conducted on March 25,2024, consist of
11.117ficial sandy silts and interbcddcd silty sand and sand to a depth cl' 31.5 feet, the maximum depth
f exploration. The near surface soils are non -expansive in nature. The substnfwe logs (Plates B-1
and 13-2) depictt h c s t r atigraphic relation Fi i l» o t the various soil types.
Finding
I;:iscd onourrevicw ofthc field Nrork, lahorator,, tcstin-,midreviewofthc rc<ultswith rctcrenccd to
thegeotechnical reportforthc,,uhjcct site hackin2Ul8. it is our opinion that the soilla%crhdo\% the
subject retention basin are similar mth ,oil la%er as indicded in the referenced hoeing logs.
Closure
We have prepared this report for your exclusive Use in accordance with the generally accepted
gentechnical cnzineerMt! practice as it existed within the site :area at the time of our study.
LandMark Consultants. Inc. Page 2
X-Park, La Q u i n t a. ('A I ('I k e port No.: LP24032
We appreciate [Ile Opportunihe ut "Cr%ICe
o fI i cc at (760)360-0665.
Sincerely Yours,
I.and lfark Concuttatits, lM
Greg M. C h a n, ra, P.E., M.ASCE
Principal F n i 111 Ck r
Attachments:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Should you have any qu e ,, t i o n s, please call our
Q .01 Essib v
2-1
32 No. C 344m
Vicinit\ and Site Maps
Subsurface Soil Logs and Soil KL'_,
Laboratory Test Results
y civil_
LOF CAS
I .nidVark Con,,ultant.. Inc. 1' 1 "
•
Project Site
r�
LANIJUAIIK
Plate
Project No.: LP24032
Vicinity Map
A-1
Legend
Approximate Boring Location
hANUMARK
Project No.: LE24032
B-W
B-1
Site and Exploration Map
Plate
A-2
=
a
FIELD
LOG OF BORING No. B-1
SHEET 1 OF 1Li
LABORATORY
w
`a
:n
D U
o
o0 U
w f
O
'C- G
7Z�
n n
�Z
30--
1 L
OTHER TES'
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
5
�s
30
35
:0
45
50
60
—
ANDY SILT (ML): Brown, moist b very moat, medium dump
ve flow b Ana road sand
P.,A MO-,
-
1'
T.
TIT
TY BIWO (W: Brown. moat, medium dame,
-ANO=301
oundwow not m c m li -a m at drm of
:claMed wN� szCslvaMd aoN
DATE DRILLED: , j - •'- TOTAL DEPTH: 3U tenet L )!:PTH I U WAI ER. NA
LOGGED BY. J. La eru aw TYPE OF BIT: Hdow SWM A ger < ' A VETER: 8 in.
SURFACE ELEVATION: ApproWmalely, , HAMMER WT.: 140 lbs. 30 h
PROJECT NO. LP24032
LANDMARK
PLATE B-1
a
FIELD
LOG OF BORING No. B-2
SHEET 1 OF 1LLJ
LABORATORY
Lij
i
tl
Q
vi
� to
cV) J
I- ?
J O
w s
Y
o w
W
xi
oo'
30
OTHER TESTS
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
5
10
15
20
�5
!f
35
40
45
50
55
AND(SPSM): Bro+.n, ctisr,t, i
grokod
1-TY SAND (SM): Brown, ffWK mG&" dense
e WMIned
AND (SPSM): Brown, moot, ,indium, derac
ne pitlrr�d
TOM Depth 30 IL
i t ound~ not aro m tj an d at 6M d drNrq
LIA ~dwitfiexr ' ad
DATE�-kILLLU. 03IM4 TOTAL DEPTH: 30tNt Jtr':rtlu:Yhitft NA
LOGGED BY: J. LomnTa)a TYPE OF BIT. 1 b1ow Str-rr Au j,n DIAMETER: 8 in.
RFACE ELEVATION: App•„z mate.". N5' HAMMER WT.: DROP: 30 in.
PROJECT NO. LP24032
1A ,
PLATE B-2
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GRAIN SIZES
200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 12"
US Standard Series Sieve Clear Square Openings
BlowaMt.'
Number of blows of 140 lip. hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. (1 3/8 in I.D.) split spoon (ASTM D1586).
* Unconfined compressive strength in tons/s.f. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the Standard
Penetration Test (ASTM D1586), Pocket Penetrometer, Torvane, or visual observation
Type of Samples:
Q Ring Sample N Standard Penetration Test 1 Shelby Tube Bulk (Bag) Sample
®
Drilling Notes:
1. Sampling and Blow Counts
Ring Sampler- Number of blows perfoot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches.
Standard Penetration Test - Number of blows per foot
Shelby Tube - Three (3) inch nominal diameter tube hydraulically pushed.
2. P. P = Pocket Penetrometer (tons/s.f.).
3. NR = No recovery.
4. GWT T = Ground Water Table observed @ specified time.
LANDMARK
Plate
Project No. LP24032 Key to Logs B-3
Gravels GW Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, litt
le or no fines
Clean gravels (less
ri is •;
than 5 % fines)
GP
Poorly graded gravels, or gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
More than half of
coarse fraction is
Silts and Clays
Sand
Gravel
Cobbles
Bors
ulde
Fine Medium Coarse
Fine Coarse
Clays 8 Plastic
Silt.
Sands, Gravels, etc.
SVength " Blows/ft.'
Very Soft 0-0.25
0-2Very Loose 0-0 Soft 0.25-0.5 2-4Loose 4-10 Firm 0 5-1 0 44-8Medium Dense 10-30
Stiff 1 0.2 0 &16
Dense 30-50 Very Sit
2.OA 0 16-32
Very Dense Over50 _JJ
Hard Over 4 0 Over 32
;IEVL ANALYSIS HYDRO'N'; T r F• : 'd• I
m i.7 I Jet ire
c— 1 -1- — FYI!
LANDMARK
Project No.: LP24032 11 Grain Size Analysis
ATTACHMENT 3
(;cc�tcc hnic al Rcpoll
La Quinta X-Park
La Quinta, Califomia
Prepared for:
City of la Quinta
78-I.1). , ("alit l cuiil)ic()
I.i Qijinta, LA 92153
LiNijMAitk
PI k � p. I I cd by:
l and.Mark Consultants, Inc.
i i -') IS WII(lcat t)11%C
P,ilm Descrt, CA 92211
)ccenibcr- 2018
IiANI-1VARK
December 21, 2019 .1 MBE Company
Mr. Steve Howlett
City of La Quinta
78495 Cale 1 arttpico
La Quinta, CA 92253
(.'cutcchnical Report
-earl. and Dune Palm Retention Basin
SF..0 Dune Paints Road and %%eshNand Ho Uric
La Qtilnta, California
LCI Report .Vo. LP18I9I
Dear Mr. I lowlett:
780 N. 4th Street
El Centro, CA 92243
17601 370-3000
landmark@landmark-ea.com
77-948 Wildcat Drive
Palm Desen. CA 92211
1760) 360-0665
gchandrn@landmark-ca.com
I he altachcd geotechnical report is provided fordesignand constructionoftile proposed \-Park and
Lune Pahl hetetl[IO11 Basin located on the south-ca>tcornerofDaic Palms (Load and We.,mard IIo
I11 the clt\ of La QUinta, 1 ahtUrtlla. ()Ilr geotechnical lll\'estigatton \\'ati C0IldIleted fit re ponsc to
\our rcyucst for our set -\'Ices. The cno:1o�cd report descrlhesoursoil engineering in\eAil!atioli and
prescnt our professional opinions rcgard1nL! geotechnic.11 conditions at the site.
I he finding, of this study indicate the :ite is underlain by intcncCdded Silty &IIIdS and "clnds. I he
near surface sandk and silt\ sand-, are c\pcetcd to he non-c\pansive. The Subsurface Soils arc
generally medium dense in nature. Ground\\alcr \\as not encountered in the borings during the tilde
of a\ploratioa.
Elevated sulfate and chloride le\ cis \\ ere not encountered in the soil samples tested for this ,tud\ .
Hox\cver, the soilissc\,crcl\corrosivetometal.\\creconiniendaminimum of2,500psi concrete
of Y\pc II Portland Cement \\ith amaximum \\atcr cement iatiu of 0.60 (by weight) should he used
for concrete placed in contact \\ ith native soils of this project.
Seismic settlements of the dr\ >and-s have been Calculated to he approximately 1/4 inch. The
Sculenlcnt tronl the collapse potential atrilysiswas determined to he approximatelyless than %:'Inch
for the upper 15 fret. The structure should he designed to acconiniodatc an estiniatcd different
settletnent of i nlininlum of 1 inch o\ cr a distance of 10O feet (angular distortion Of 1:1200).
We did not cncoutiter soil conditions that would preclude de\ eloping the proposed shoppimo center
at the site pro\ ided the professional opinions contained inthiS report arc implemented in the deign
and construction of this project. Otlr findings, professional opinions. and application options are
related only through reading thejull report, and are hest c\aluatcd \\ ith the active participation of
the cn__incor of record \\ ho de\ cloped thcnl.
-Park & Itctcntion Kf:slfl,. I a (,►uintu_ ('A L (_'1 hci)ort No. LP19191
We appreciate; the opportunity to provide our findings and pnot'c>siunal opinlon> rczardinr
"CotcchnIcal condition, at (lie Site. If YOU hay c any yuc,tiuns or co�mmcnt: rc�ar�lin,, our tin�lings,
please call our ot"t i cc at (760) 360-0665.
lZe;per(t,ull� Submitted,
1.and farA Con uhanh, Inc.
(Dreg M
Principa
1)i,trihution:
Client (p(1t)
M.ASCE
M c�tiol�Z
U rn
c No C 34432 1
CIVIL
4F CA1
I ;lndMark ( on>ultants. Inc.
X-1'.rrl. K,- I:ctentl�m li,r:in:. I a ( luinta- C \ I (I IZepw-t N,� 11' 1 ti 101
IA 131,E OF CONTENTS
Page
Section1..........................................................................................................................................1
DaRODU (_' 1 I O...............................................................................................................I........ I
1.1 Pro j e c t Description ...........................................................................................................1
1.2 Purrw, c artd Scope of Work..............................................................................................1
1.3 Authoriiation...................................................................................................................I
Section2..........................................................................................................................................3
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................3
2.1 Field Exploration.............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Laboratory Testing.......................................................................................................... 4
Section3................................................................................... ..................................................... .
DISCUSS I0.\........................................................................................................................... .
3.1 Site Condition............................................................
3.2 Geologic Setting.............. ...............................................................................................
3.3 Subsurface Soil .. .......................................................................................................0
3.4 Grp,und��ater......................................................----.........................6
3.5 rat,ltirlg.............................................................................................................................7
3.6 General Ground Motion Analy:is..................... ................................................................7
3.7 Seismic and Other I larards................._............................................................................8
3.9 Sci.mic Sctticnlent.............................................................9
3.9 I IN drn)-cmisolidation........................................................................................................9
3.10 Ite_1011al Strbsidenee.....................................................................................................10
Section4........................................................................................................................................ I I
DESIGNCRITF.RIA.................................................................................................................11
4.1 Site Pi-cparation...............................................................................................................1 1
4.2 Foundation; and Settlements.........................................................................................1
4.3 Slabs-()rl-Or►de.............................................................................................................14
4.4 Concrctc \,,li\es and('c)rrosivity.....................................................................................16
4.5 Excavations.......... 17
4.6 Lateral I arth Pres.ures...................................................................................................17
4.7 Seismic De.iirl...............................................................................................................17
4.8 Pavewcnt........................................................................................................................ 18
Sectioni ............................................................................. 19
...........................................................
LMTATIONS A N U A I) I )1 I'IONAL SERVICES...................................................................19
5.1 Limitations......................................................................................................................19
5.2 Additional Scniccs....................................................................................................20
APPENDIX A. VIClnit\ and Site N1aPs
APPENDIX B: Sub.urf,icc Soil Loy,. and Soil }tee
APPENDIX C: Laboratorn I c.t Kc.ults
APPENDIX D: Dr\ and ('011aP.e POtential Settlenlellt Calculations
APPENDIXE: Soil lnl►ltrltit)II
APPENDIXF: Relcrenccs
LandMark Consultants. I n c .
-1'arK & Retentit)rt 11,1,in,. 1 ,1()uint.+.( \ I l•I Rct)''rt \,� I P18Prl
1\ I W)I)1 ( I I(
1.1 I'rojcct Ucu•ripti��n
This report present., the findings of our geoicchnical exploration and laboratory CValuation of
recovered soils for the proposed X-Park and Dime I'alnt Retention Basin located on the southeast
conicrOfDate Palms Road and West�%.ird 1{o Drive inthe city ofLaQuinta,Califomia(SeeVicinity
Map, Plate A-1). The proposed development will consist ofa pro shop and restroom building, skate
park and retention basin areas. A schematic design plan for the proposed development dated
No% e n n h e r 7, 2018, was provided by your office.
The pro shop and restroom building is planned to consist of single -story, masonry and metal fume
construction founded on shallo\\ concrete footings, concrete slabs -on -grades. Footing leads at
exterior hearin-, \\.ills are e:tlnialcd at I to 5 kips per iMcAl 60ot. C OILIInn ioad, are estint,rted to he
up to 30 kips.
If structural loads exceed those stated above, we should he not tied so %\ e may c� aluate their impact
onfoundation �,ettlenrent and bearing capacith. Site de\elopntcnt \gill include building
pad preparation. underaruund utility installation. skate park subgrade. parking lot construction,
�ide�� alk placement, and de\ elupntent of retention hasins and landscape areas.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this geotechnical stud\ was to review the original geutechnical report and conduct
additional investigation the tipper 51.51'ect of suhsurface soil at selected locations within the site for
e\ aluation of in -situ soil strength and physical engineering properties. Professional opinions %sere
developed from field :end laboratorN teat data and are pro\ ided in this report regardinggeoteelinical
C011ditions at thissite and the effect on design and construction. The scope of our ser%ices consi;ted
of the following:
< F ield exploration and in-s a testing of the site soils at selected locations and depths.
< i tboratory testing for phN �ical and/or chemical propertiesofselectcd recovered soil
samples.
R c \ t cw of literature and publications pertaining to local geology, faulting, and
LandMark Consultant-, Inc. Page 1
-Park &' Rctentlon I .l (',�, I ( I Rcta-rt \,,. I P I N 1 1) 1
,cisnlicity.
I. n,!ineering analysis and evaluation of the data collected.
< Preparation of this report presentilli! OUr tindingsand professional opinion regardino
the �oeotechnical aspects of project design and con,trLlCtion.
This report addre„e, the following �!coteehnical pararlleters:
< Subsurface soil and ground -water conditions
< Site geology, re p unal fault i n 2 ., n d seismicity, near -source seismic factors, and site
scil�tnic arccicrations
< I i y tic faction potential
< Dry and I lydro-Collapse potential
< Expansive soil and methods of mitigation
< Aggressive soil conditions to metal. and Concrete
f'ri�trai��n:rl opinions with regard to the ahoy\ c parameters are rrc,cntcd t6r the following:
< Mass grading and carthwork
< Building pad and foundation subgrlide prepar:ttlOn
< Allowable soil hearing, pre„ureS and eXpceted ,ctticnlcnt,
< Concrete slabs -on -grade
< Miitigation of the potential el'fects of salt concentrations in native soil to concrete
mixes and steel reinforcement
< Excavation conditions and huried utility installations
< Lateral earth pressures
< Seismic design parameter,
Soil intiItrat ion rate,
< Pa%ement ,tructural scL t60n,
Our scope of x\ork for this report did not include an evaluation of the site for the presence of
environmentally lm/.irdcur, material, or conditik)rl,.
1.3 luthuriiatiun
Ms. Julie N( ignugna of City of La Quinta provided authorization by written agreement to proceed
with our work on November 7, 2019. We conducted our work according to our \N ritten proposal
dated August 16, 2019.
LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 2
-I'aIk & RetL.Irtroil Ii,r,rn,, I a t ►roots. l :1 I ( , I I Z " t � - \ , � I I'I `I'�'
I.
section 2
2.1 Ficid Exploration
The original subsurface exploration was performed on November 18, 2018 using 2R Drilling of
Ontario California to ad% ance four (4) borings to depths of 16.5 to 51.5 feet below existing ground
surface. The borings were ads anCed with a true I.-rnounted. CME 75 drill rig using 8-inch diameter,
hollow -stem, continuous -flight augers. The approximate boring locations were established in the
field and plotted on the site map by sighting to discernable site features. The boring locations are
shoe n on the site and Exploration Plan (I'I,rte A-2).
A staff engineer observed the drilling operations and maintained a log of the soil encountered and
sampling depths, visually classified the soil encountered during drilling in accordance with the
1'nified Soil Classification System. and obtained drive tube ,end bulk sample: w-the sul"Lirtare
materials at selected intervals. Relatively undisturbed soil samples �Nere retr1c%ed u.in_ a -inch
out�iLie diameter (OD) split -spoon sampler ora 3-inch OD NlodIIled California split -Barrel (ring)
sampler. The samples wcreobtained bydriving the 4;nipleraheadoftheaugcrtihatselecteddepths.
The drill rig %gas e�luipped %pith it 140-pound CNIE automatic hamincr \vtth a 30-inch drop for
conducting standard I'eiietratiun 1 gists (SPT) in accordance with ASTM D1586. The number of
blows required to drive the samplers the last 12 itiches of an 18 inches drive length into the soil is
recorded on the boring logs as "blows per foot". Blow counts recorded for automatic hanlnlcr.
operated at about 909/6efficiency, were corre c red to the 6tr" ,, eneruy level normalk achic\ ed by rope
and cathcad systems. Blow count for the ring sampler \�crc I'urthcr adjusted by a tactor of 0.67 to
account lur the larger sampler diameter as compared to standard 2-inch O.D. SPT sampler.
After lugging and sampling the soil_ the <.\plurator\ borings \\ere back -tilled \\itli the excavated
material. The hackiill was loosely placed and �\ as not compacted to the reytlirements specified for
engineered fill.
I, r n d% l ark Consult ants, Inc. Page 3
-l'ark X kctc!)"Wil it,r,ir,�, I ,1 t.rulnt,r. t ' \ I ( I Kcport No. LP18191
The subsurface logs are presented on Plates 11-1 through B4 in appendix B. A key to the log
symhols is presented on Platc it-S. i he stratification lines shown on the subsurface logs represent
the approximate boundaries hct%%ccn tlie various strata. l lo\�e\er, the trans ILion fro rll one stratum to
another may be gradual o� er ,onus range of depth.
2.2 Laboraton Testint,
Laborator% tests %%crc Conducted on ,elcctcd hull: and relati%el% undisturbed soil sample; to aid in
classification and c%aluation of selected eng.ulcering properties of the site soils for the original
geoteehnieal repurt and thi, report. The tests were Conducted in general conformance to the
procedures of the American society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other standardi/ed
method, as referenced below. The laborator% testing program consisted of the folio,%ink tests:
< Particle Size Aiiak scs (ASTM D422) — used for soil classification and IiyuetaCtion
cvaluatiun.
< Unit Dry Densities (ASTM D2937) and Moisture Contents (ASTM D2216) - used for
insitu soil parameters.
< Moisture-IhrtsityRelationship (ASTMD1557)-usedforsoilcompaction deterniinations.
< Chemical Analyses (soluble sulfates t- chlorides, pi I, and resistivity)(Caltrati,; Methods) -
used for concrete mix c%ahiatlons and corrosion protection requlrement~s.
l he lahorator% test results are prc,cntcd on the subsurface logs and on Plates C-1 thuu C-3 in
\I)pcnLiiz C.
l nginecrinbparametersofsoilstrength,conipressibilityandrelativedensityutilizedfortie%elopin-,
dCsign criteria provided within this report \%ere either extrapolated from data obtained from the IIcId
and laborator% testing program.
LandMa& ( o rl sultanas, Inc. Page 4
t-PLA & Retention Basin,, i ,i ()uinta, ('-1 I ( I Rcport NI 1 1' 1 S' P) I
Section
3.1 Site Conditions
i he current project site is rectangular -shaped in plan view, is relatively flat-lhine. slopes gently to the
south, and consi,ts of approximately 5.3 acres of vacant undc� eloped land. I he •itc is bounded on
the north h% Wcsmitrd Ho, the west by Diitc 1)' lrns, and residential homes the ,outh and byavacant
lot to the cast. Adjacent properties are flat -lying and are approximately at the same elc� ation %% ith
this site. The site is surrounding by single-fanuly residential complex to the srntth, east and north
across Westward Ho, and by La Quinta I ligh School across Date Palms to the %\est.
I lie project site tics at an elcNation of approximately 50 to 60 feet aM-)%c mean sea level in the
Coachella Val ley region oftheCalifornia low desert. Annual rainfall in thi, aril region is less than 4
inches per N car with four months of aN erage summertime temperatures above 100 T. Winter
Icrrrpcmtures are nAld, seldom reaching freezing.
3.2 Geologic Setting
I he project site is located in the ('oachella Vallee portion of the Salton I rough phN siographic
pro% ince. The Salton I rough is a geologic structural depre,sion resulting front large scale regional
faulting. 'l he trough is boundedon the northeast bythe Satz Andreas I rtult raid Chocolate N7uuntains
and the south\\est by the Peninsular Range and fault, of the San Jiicinto Fault 1011e. I he Salton
rough rcprc,cnts the north\Nard extension of the (;ulfOf California. containing hoth marine and
nun -marine sedirrtents since the \'llocenc 1-poch. Tectonic activity that formed the trough continues
at a high rate as eN idenced b) dc1brtned young sedimentary deposits and high le\ cis of seismicity.
Figure I shows the location of the site in relation to regional faults and ph. Rio, raphic features.
I he Surrounding regional -eolog� include, the Peninsular flanges (Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains) to the south and »est, the Salton Basin to the southeast, and the I r,utsN erse Ranges
(Little San Bernardino and Clrocopia Mountains) to the north and east. I l undred: of i'Cct to sc\ crrl
thousand feet of Quaternarn ffin MI. lacestrine, and aeolian soil deposits underlie the Coachella
Vallc\.
I a n dM a r k Consultants, Inc. Page
-P,ii-k & RetcniWil I i Qmfi!.r. ( A I ( I Report No I PIti1')1
I'lic southeastern part of the Coachella Valley lies below sea level. In the geologic past, the ancient
Lake Cahuilla submerged the area. Calcareous tufa deposits may be obsm ed along the ancient
shore I i n e as high as elevation 45 to 50 fret \ I S I . along the Santa Rosa Mounta i ns from I ,t Q t t i n t a
soutIm ard. Lacustrine (lake bed) deposits conlpri ,e the subsurface soils over much of the ea,tcrn
Coachella Valley with alluvial outwash along, the Clanks of the valley.
3.3 Subsurface Soil
Suh,Urface soils encountered during the I ield exploration conducted in No%cnlher 2018 Consist of
zcnerally medium dense silty sands (SM) and sands (SP) to a depth of 51.5 feet. the maximum depth
of exploration. I he rlearsitrfacesoils are non -expansive in nature. The 1uhsurfacelogs (Plate, B-1
through B-4 of Appendix B) depict the ,trtth-raphic relation,hips of the various soil types.
3.4 Groundwater
Oround�%ater was not encountered in the borings during the time of exploration. Pic well
infornt.►non collected near the subject site (Well 337132NI 162893W001), has indicated that the
ground %%ater level ranges from 170 feet to 192.5 feet below the ground surfaces in the last 5 years.
There is Uncertainh in the Uecurac% of short-term %%titer lc\ el measurements. Ground\�atcr lei cl,
nlaV Iluetuate. with precipitation, irrigation of adjacent properties, drainage;, and site gi-adino. I hL
groundwater level noted should not be interpreted to represent an accurate or permanent condition.
Based on the regional topography, groundwater flow is assumed to be generally to�N arils the south -
ea st \\ i t h i n the site area. Flow directions m a\ \ ary lmi l l \ III the vicinity of the site.
Historic groundwater records in the vicinity of the project site indicate that ground«ate-r has
fluctuated between 100 0 and 215 feet below the ground surf ace over the last 60 veare according to a
report "Coachclla Valle, lnvcsti'-ation" conducted h\the Iki),in llent ot'Watcr Resources, published
July 1904.
LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page o
-P,rrk & KetrntI01I BA111I". 1 :r Orime_ (A I (•I IZep('rt \,, I I'11191
3.5 Faulting
I he project site is located in the ;ci;mically active Coachella Valley of southern California with
numerous trapped faults ofthe San Andreas Fault System traversing the region. We have performed
a computer -aided search of known faults or seismic zones that lie within a 44-mile (70 kilometer)
radius of the proicct .;ite i i il)lc 1).
A fault map illustrating known active faults relative to the site is presented on Figure 1, Regional
Fault Map. Figure 2 shows the project site in relation to local faults. The criterion for fault
classification adklpted by the California Geological Sur\ e\ defines Eart}tytrak:: Fault Zones along
active or potentially active faults. An active fault is one that has ruptured durin^ iolocene time
(roughly within the last 11,000 }ears). A fault that has ruptured during the last 1.8 million years
(Quaternary time), but has not been proven by direct evidence to have not moved within Holocene
time is considered to be potentially acti\ e. A fault that has not mo\-ed during Quaternary time is
considered �nsidered to be inactive.
Rer•iew of the current .-llyuist-Yriolo F.arlhyuaAe Fault Zone maps WGS. 2000a) inelicatev that
the neare•ct mapped Earthquake F•aull Zone is the San Andreas-Coac•helhr built located
approxintatetv 5.0 miles northeast of*the project .cite.
3.6 (;encral Ground \liptimi Xnal\.is
1 he project site is cow lderrd likely to be subjected to muder,rte to slron-, around motion from
cartl1+41kes in the region. Ground motions are deperldcrit prinrarik on the earthklual.e Iturgnitude
and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone. Acceleration nrainitudes also are dependent upon
attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture and type of fault; thereturc. ground
motions ma\ \ ary considerably in the ,.rate general area.
CBC General Ground Motion Pimmeters: The 2016 CBC general ground motion parameter; are
hated on the Risk -Targeted %la.xmturnConcideredEarthquake (MCER). The U.S.Geulogical Sur\ey
"U.S. Scl,nric Design flap. WebApplication"(USGS,2018)was rr;ed it) ohtain thc;itc coctticients
.end adju;tcd rnadmurn e►_�n;iI.lered rarth�luake spectral response acceleration parameter.. The site
%oil% hai-e been chmilieel a\ .Site Chm 1) (still ►oil pr)ile).
Lan d N lark Lonsultants, inc. Page 7
-P,Iih &\ Kctcntimi liatiuu. I a (.1tlinl,t. (' \ I ( i Rct),,lt \t-). LP18191
Ihsign spectral rcSpunseacceleration paranicter.� are defined as the eartheltlal.e ground motions that
are two-thirds (2/3) of the confesponding NICER ground motions. Design earthquake ground motion
parameters are provided in Table 2. A Rick C'ategort• 11 wa% eletcrtniueel u%in,, "l'uhle' 1604.5 anal
the Se•isnrir Design Categor►• is F_ sinc•e Si is greater than 0. -5
1 I i c Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric N 1 e. t n (MCEc) peak ground acceleration (PGAat)
%,title V';IS detern,ined from the "U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application' (USGS, 2018) for
Iiytic f:Ictionand seism icsett lclncntanalysis inaccordance with2016CM' Section 1803.5.12(PGAM
F r�, ; \ * PGA). A PFGAm value of 0.66g has been deterinine it /Or the project vile.
3.7 Seismic and Other Ilazards
P. Groundshaking. i he hrimar\ seismic hazard at the project site is the potential for strong
gruundshaking during earthquakcs along the Can Andreas fault. A further discussion of
groundshakin;, follows in "ection 3.4.
► Surfacc Rupture. i he project site does not lie within a State of ('alifornia, Alqui,t-l'riolo
l.arthhluakc 1 aultZonc. Surface faultrup[urc is considered to beunlikel} at the pn.jcct site heeau•e
ofthe well -delineated fault lines diroughthe Coachella Valley as shown on USGS and MINK] maps.
However. hecauseofthe high tectonic activity and deep alluc ium oftheregion. see cannot preclude
the potential for surface rupture on Undiscovered or nc%\ faulty that may underlie the ,Ile.
P. Liquefaction. Liqrtcfaction is unlikely to be a potential ha/ard at the site, due to roLlIld\\ater
deeper than 50 feet ( the maximum depth that liquctaction is known to occur).
Other Potential (Teologic I lazards.
► Landsliding. The hazard of landsfiding is unlikely due to the regional planar topozraphy. No
ancient landslides are shown on geulogic maps of the region and no indications of landslides were
ohserved during our site investigation.
► \ nIca riIc Im/:Irds. The site is not lOCatedIII proXimitytoany known VOlcanicall, acti\carea and
the ri,k of volcanic hazards is considereel very low.
► l'sunanus, sieclim and flooding. The site does not lie near any large bodies ut' \� titer, so the
threat ul'tsunami, sieche,. or other seismically -induced lloodlni is unlikely.
► Expansive soil. i he near CUrt:tce soils at the pro jest site con,,i•t of silty sands which are non-
expansiN e.
LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 8
-P'trk & R lcntlon li,l,in�. I .1 (,1 lime. CA I ( I R'-port No. l 1'l,lyl
3.8 Seismic Settlement
An evaluation ul' the non -liquefaction seismic settlement potential was performed using the
relationships developed by Tokinultsu and tired (1984. 1987) for dr\ ,ands. This method is an
empirical approach to quantif\ seismic settlement 1lsing SPTblowcounts and PGAestinlate, from
the probabilistic seismic harlyd anal\sis.
the soils beneath the site consist primarily of medium dense to dense silt\ sands and loose to
medium dense sand\silts. Based on the empirical relationships, total induced settlements are not
expected to exceed % inch in the event of a MCF.c earthquake (0.66g peak ground acceleration).
Should settlement occur, huried utility lines and the buildings may not settle equally. Therefore, we
recommend that utilities. especially at the points of entry to the buildings, he designed to
accorllIII odLite differential movement:. The computer printout, forthe estinrrte, of induced settlement
are included in Appendix D.
Z.`1 ll\ 11r�i-l'�Irl�nlldah�lll
In arid climatic regions. granular soils ha\ e a potcntla.1 to collapse upon \\citing. I hi" collapse
(hy droconsolidation) phenomena is the result of UIC lubrication of soluble cements (carbonates) in
the soil matrix causing the soil to densify from its loose Cool figuration during deposition.
Based on our experience in the \ icinity Of the project site. there is a slight risk of Collapse upon
inundationfix)m at the site. I hereture, de\'eloplticnt ofbuilding ti>undation is nut requi►rd to include
provisions for III IIIgatlrig, the h\droconsolidattioncaused bysoil saturatiorl from landscape irri_ation
or broken unlit, litre~.
We ha\'e conducted an evaluation of the potetltlal for h\ dro-collapse of the sub -soils at the project
site using, the ntethodofCoduto(2001). The collapse potential at boring B-1 isestinlated around0.4
inches over 1-5 feet depth. However, the proposed project is located III the --high" risk areas and
Should he designed to aCCo1111110date at least 91 inch of different settlement over a 50-foot distance
expressed as an angular distortion of, 1 : 1200.
I andMark Inc Page 9
-Park &- Retention lia,in'. I :f t_►uint.r. (A I ('I Rt:ot1rt No. LP18P)I
3.11) Regional Subsidence
The project is located in the Coachella Valley which has experienced up to 12 inches of regional
subsidence hetvveen 19%and 2005 (USGS, 2007). The risk of regional subsidence atthe project site
is CUn,idcred moderate. The project site is located in RI%crsidc l'ountN dcsiznated area ot*acti\c
,ulh,idcncc (Plate A-6).
I he project is located in the Coachella Valley which has experienced up to 12 inches ,it' regional
suhsidencc hctx ccn 1996 96 and 2005 (USGS,2007). 1 he risk ol'regional Sub,idenCc at the project site
is considered moderate.
3.10 Soil Infiltration Kate
'A total of two (2) infiltration test: «crc conducted on \o\-cmher 16 and Noy emher 19, 2019 attthe
proposed location fir the on -site storm -stater retention%%•tcm asshownonthe Site Plan (P1ateA-2).
In lieuofthe double ring inf iltrometer test (AS I M D3385). the soil infiltration testswerc perfumed
to the guideline from Design Handbuuk for Low Impact Development Best Managenieut Practices.
prepared by Riverside CountN Flood Control (RCFC) and Water Conservation District (RCFC),
:appendix A, dated �,cptcnnccr 2011.
I he tests %�crc perlurntcd using 6-inch diatueter perforated pipes inside an 8-inch diameter tlii-,lit
auger borehole made to depths of approximately 5 leet helo\r the existing ground surface.
corresponding to the anticipated honom depth of the retention basin. I he pipe, \ere filled \\ ith
\ aterand succcaite readings of drop in water- le\els \\ere made c\cr\ IU minute', for atotal elapsed
time of 60 minute.. until a stabilization drop \\ a, recorded.
I he test results indicate that the stahiliied soil infiltration rate for the soil ranges from 4 7 to 8.6
inches lkr hour. A ruaximum soil infiltration rate of'4.7 inches per hour maYbeused for the de,is!n
of on -site storm-�%ater retention s\ stem. An oiVHatcr separator shuuld he installed at inlet" to the
stormt,\ atcr retention b&sin to prevent sealing of the basin bottom with silt and oil residue,.
I :urd\lxk Consultants, lnc. I'a,e 10
Y-Park R R tention Ra.rrls, I .I Quinta. CA I CI ILcpoit No 1 I'1511)1
ection 4
DE'SI N CRITE..RIA
4.1 Site Prcparatiun
Pre-gradeMeeting.: Prior to site preparation, a meeting should be held at the site with as a minimum,
the o\�ner's rcpresenfafl%e,grading contractor and geotechnical enLinccr in attendance.
Clearinr` and Grubbing :III surface improvements, dc1)ris and vegetation inc lLid 1ng grass, trecs. and
\� reds on the site at the time of construction should he removed from the construction area. Root
halls should he completer excavated. Organic strippin,- should be hauled from the site and not used
,is till.: m tra.h,construction dchri:. concrete slit hs. old pa�enlei it. landfill, and buried ohstrllctiun"
such as old foundations and utility lines exposed during ro t]gh grading should be traced to the limits
ot' the foreign imiterials and removed. Any excavations resulting from site clearing and gruhhing
should he dish shaped to the lowest depth Ofdisturhance and back Filled with engineered till.
%tars Ciradill: Prior to placing any fills, the surface 12 inches of soil �hollld he relno�cd, the
exposed surface uniformly moisture conditioned to a depth of 8 inches by discing and wetting to at
least 2% Over optimum moisture, and re-conlpacted to at least 90" of ASTM D1557 nla\imunl
density. Native soils ma% he used for mass grading, placed in 6 inches maximum lifts, rinitin 111k
moisture Collditlorled to a depth of 8 Niches by discing and v\cttln,, to at lead % Over oplln1tI111
mOiStWC. alld re-eoIII paCtCd to at least L1t1" a of ASTM D1557 maxIll ILlIII deilslty.
Pro-ShoplRestroom Building Pad Preparation: The existing surface soil within the pro
:hop restroombuilding pad area should he rentovedto 36 inc lies below the lowe.t t`►undati011 grade
or 54 inches below the original grade (whichever is deeper), extending fiN e feet beyond all exterior
v.-all/column lines (including adjacent concreted areas). The exposed sttbgrade should he saturated to
a depth of49 Inches below the horttont of the excavation and compacted t1 [Ili a large \ 1brator-V dnITII
rollcr to at least ()()°%ofASTM D1557maxinlurll density. Vibrator rolling diouldcont inuc until
Icss than 0.25 i riches of consolidation occurs bom ecrl roller passes.
Skate Well and Ramp Preparation: I he existin-' surface soil within the propo:ed skate \�cl I and
ramp arc,I: should be �carilied t�� a depthOf 12 inches. uttifonlll� rttoilsturecclnditiunrd toy at least „' ��
over optlnll1111 IIIOISture Content, and re -compacted a minimum of 9Wo of the maximum dellsllN
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557 methods.
LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page I i
-I'ark & Rc(cimon fia�in,, l a Oulnta,C,A I ('I RetIort \o I P191Q1
l he on -site soils are suitable for use as compacted t i 11 and utility trench hacks I I I. Inyortcd fill soil
(if required) should similar to onsite soil or nun -expansive, granular soil meeting the USCS
elassiticntiom of SM, SP-SM, or SW-SM with a maximum rock size of 3 inchtcs.
Tltegrulrc lrrri� ul rrr� irrre r shmild approve im1wrie d fill coil %ourc'e v be fort, hauling materiel to the
,ire-. Native and imported materials should be placed in lifts no treater than 8 inches in loose
thickness. unifortnl\ moistureconditioned to at least 2%over optimum moisture, and re -compacted
to at Ica,t 90%of ASTM D1557 nrrximunt den,M.
In areas other than the huilding pad, skate well and ramp arras, which are to receive concrete slabs
and asphalt concrete pavement. the around surface should be over -excavated to a depthof 12 inches.
uniti)nnlymoisture conditioned to at lead „'oover opt irnurn moisture, and re-cornhactedtoat least
90' o of AS I M Dl `,S? maximtrrn densit.
Trench Baekfill, t )n-site ;oil flee ot'dehri,,, vc,-etation. and other deleterious matter may he suitable
tier use as utility trench hacklill. liackilil \%ithin road\Naysshould he placed in la\ers not more that6
inches in thickness, uniformly moisture conditioned to at least -" o over optimum moisture and
mechanically compacted to a niiinnium of 9U /o of the ASTIM D 1557 niaximurn dry density except
for the top 12 inches of the trench which shall be compacted to at least 95%. Native backfill should
Only be placed and compacted alter encapsulatin`, hurled pipe. �%ith suitable bcddint and pipe
cm elope material.
Pipe envelopelbedding should eitherbe clean ,and (Sand Fquix�alent SE>30) or crushed rock whin
cncounterinr. ,,nrund�+atcr. .A geotextile litter fabric (Mirati 14tt\ or equivalent) should he u.ed to
encapsulate the cru,hcd rock to reduce the potential for in -washing of tlrlcs into the gravel void
space:. Precautions should he taken in the compaction ofthe hackfill to avoid damage to the pipe,
and structures.
Moisture Control and Drainage: 1 he moisture condition of the buildint pad should be maintained
during trenching and utility installation until concrete is placed or should be rewetted before
initiatintdelaN,edconstruction. Positive drainage should be maintained away $+omall stntchtres(5%
fors feet minimum across unpaved areas) to prevent pondint and sub;rquent;atirratlonofthe native
soil. Gunter; and do�Nn,puuts ma% he considered as a mcaristoconvey water awa\ frOMfoundatiims.
It landscape irritation i; allo\�ed next to the building,dripirrigations)steins or lined planter boxes
I andti1ark (on.ultants. lnc. Pa-e 12
-P.irk & Retention II,I;in., I :I O► lints. (:A I ('I I\'eI)Ort \( -. 1 I' i X I `) it
should he used. I he ,uh,,radc Soil should be maintained in �t moist, but 110t ;aturatcd :talc. And not
al lo%� ed to dry out. Dralna_c should be maintained without ponding.
Observation and Density Te.5ting: All site preparation and till hlacCIllellt should he continuously
obscr\ed and tested by a representative of a qualified ieotechnical engineering firm. Full -tune
observation services during the excavation and scarification process is necessary to detect
undesimble i micrials or conditions and soft area, that Ina\ he encountered in the construction area.
I he ueotechnical line that provide; oh;creation and testing, during construction .hall ii>st1111C the
responsihility of "gentechniculen�ineerufrecurd" and, as such, shall pertiOrm additional tests and
in\c,tigationasnecessarytosatisfy thciwl cIvesastot lie site conditions and the recommendations for
site de\elopmenl.
Auxiliary Structures Foundation Preparation: Aux IIiarn structures such as ircc .;tmidingor rcialiiinU,
walls sliolild have the existinL soil hclleath the structure foundation prepared in the ni-inner
recommended for the huiildini had except the preparation needed only to extend 18 inches helm\ and
he\ and the footill"
4.2 Foundations .end Settlements
Shallowcoltin111 footings and continuous wall tiwtirlgs are suitableto support the structures provided
tIicy art: founded on a I;tyer of properl\ prepared and compacted soil as described in Section 4.L The
ti0undations Ina) be designed using an allowable: soil bearing pressure of2,000 psf for wall footings
and 2,400 psf fOr column footings. I'he allowable soil pressure may be increased by 400 psfforeach
foot of embedment depth in excess ot" 18 inches and by one-third for short term load, induced by
wind, or seismic e\ents.
AU exterior and interior foundations should be embedded a 1111111111t11n of 18 inches below the
building;upportpadorlowestLiRicenttinaloradc,«hiche\crisdeeper. ContinuoUswallfootinks
should ha\ e a minimum \\ idth ot" i ? inches. Isolated coltililil tootlllL',� shtltlld ha\ c a niWmuni \\ I(ith
of .4) inchc; Ret-ommended concrete reinjorc•ement and sizing fur all footings should be provided
bi• the ,lruc rural en4inccr.
I ;IncN,irk Cmi,tlltants, Inc. I
-1'xk &- hctciulon Basin,,. I t t.►uinta. (' \ I (l RL*j)01't \0 I N S19l
Resistance to hor-Wontal loads will be dc\ eloped by passive earth prc,�surc on Lhe sides of footings
andfrictional resistancedeveloped a1onL! the hases of footings and concrete slabs. Passive resistance
to lateral earth pressure nuiv he CaICL1latCd Ll,,iltg an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf to resist
lateral loadincs.
The top one foot of etn hedment should not be considered in compta i ng passive resistance unle'� the
adiacent area is eontined by a slat) or pa\ erttcnt. An allowable fricti(m cocl icient of 0.35 may ako
he used at the have oftlte footinc,, to resist lateral loadllIV.
Foundation movement under the estimated static loadings and seismic site conditions are estimated
to not creed % inch with ditierential mo xement of about two-thirds of total movement for the
loading asswnptions stated ahme \\hcn the suhgrade preparatlon guidelines ul%cn above are
folly\\ed. Foundation mo\elllellti LlndCr the u'I,Illle loadlil-_' dnC to do 'ettlelllent and collapse
Ix)tcntlal ;ettlemcnt are provided in Section ?.h and :.9 of this report.
4.3 Slabs -On -Grade
Concrete slab, and flat\\ork should he a mlltlmuinof5 inches thick. Concrete floor slabs may either
be monolithically placed with the foundation or dowelled after footing }placement. The concrete
slabs maybe placed on granular- suhgradc that has been compacted at least 9W'o rclati\c roltlpac11011
(AS-1 \1 DI 557).
American Concrete Institute (ACI) guideline, (ACI 302.1R-04 Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3) provide
recontnlcndations retarding the use of nloi,,ture harriers beneath concrete slabs. The concrete floor
'labs should be underlain b\ a lt)-till pol\ethN lene \apor retarder that works as acapillar\ hrcak to
reduce moisture migration into the slab,ection. All laps and scann should beoverlaplvd G-inchcsor
as recommended by the manufacturer. The vapor retarder should he protected front puncture. The
joints and pcnetrations should be scaled \\ith the manufacturer's reconlnlcnded adhesi\ c, pre,,surc-
'cnsm\ c tape. or both. The \ apor retarder ;hould ex tend ,I ntinintum of 12 inches into the footing
e\ra\ ations. I he \ apor retarder should he covered h\ 2 inches of clean 'and (Sand Equivalent
SE>30).
LandMark Con,ultants, Inc. Page 14
-f',rrl. fi I�elentWll lia-since. L.11,►uint.l. (.\ 1 l 1 Ket��trt \�� I I'I\I'�I
Placing ,and overthe vapor rctardcr nia\ increasemoisturc trarisniisslon through the slab, because it
provides a reservoir for bleed water front the concrete to collect. i he sand placed over the vapor
retarder play also move and mound prior to concrete Placement, resulting in an irregular slab
thicknc".
For areas with moisture sensitive flooring materials, ACI recommends that concrete slabs he placed
\kithotit a sand c(-)\cr directly over the vapor retarder, provided that the concrete ml\ u;c; a 1(m-
\k atcr cement ratio and concrete cuniw methods arc eniploN A to compensate tier release of bleed
water through the top Of the slab. The �aptlr retarder shroud ha%e a r111111111LIr11 thlcknesR of 15-inil
(Stego-Wrap or equivalent).
Concrete .lab and llamork rein10rccment should consist of chaired rebar slah reinforcemcnt
(minimuni ofNo.4 bars at 18-inchcentcrs, both 11067ontal directions) placed at ;lah nlid-hci��-,httn
resist potential swell tierces and cracking. Slab tlrit-Arrt-cc andskel reinfnrcenrtvrt art, mininrrrnM
on/r and �hoald he ve•rifred b►• the structural Ano►s•in„ t/r,, actual hroJ*t'( t
loadings. I tic cunstnletion joint bct��ccn the toundation and an) mots strips side\\alks placed
adjaccrittOf0undat]o11;,houldbe scaledwith apolyurethane basednvn-hardening -sealant to prevent
moisture migration hctx\ cen the Joint.
Control joints should he 1)rt1\ ided in all coIicretesIahs-on- trade at a maximum spaci11g(in feet)of2
to 3 tlnic. the slah thicknc;. (in inches) as recommended by :American Concrctc institute (ACC
guidelines. All joints should fomi approximately square patterns to reduce randomly oriented
contraction cracks. Contraction joints in the slabs should he tooled at the time of the pour or sawcut
(%. of' ;lab depth) within 6 to 8 hours of concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints in
fOLIIIdations and area tlamork should either he thickened butt -joints with dowels or a thickened
kc\ cd joint designed to resist vertical detlectiion at the joint. All joints in flatwork should lNc sealed
to prevent moisture, vermin, or foreign material intrusion. Precautions should be taken to prc\ cat
c lll-l1111-[ Of slab, in this arid desert rc,iun i refer to ACI guidelines).
A l l independent concrete tlatw arks should be underlain by 12 inches of moisture conditioned and
compacted soils. All llatwork should he jointed in square patterns and at irregularities in shape at a
maximum ;pacing of 10 fret or the Icastwidth of the side\�alk.
i ; u i d \ I ark Consultants, Inc. Page 15
f'.u4 �\ I:etenti++n f�,r,in�. l .r r,►uinta. ( I ('I Report NO. LP IsI')1
4.4 Concretc Mixes and Corrosis it -
Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on bulk samples of the near surface soil
from the project site (Plate C-2). The native soils tested \\ ere shown to have low levels of sulfate
and chloride ion coticrntrations. Resistivity determinations on the soil indicate moderate potential
lox metal loss becau�C e►1 electiochernical corrosion processes.
A minimum of 2,500 psi concr cte of Type H Portland Cement with a maximum \\ aterlcenrent ratio
of 0.60 (by weight) should lx u,ed for concrete placed in contact with native soil on this project
(siteworl, including Late wells. hard c.tpe area. and fi►undatI(iris).
Concrete Mix Design Criteria clue to `oluhlc Sulfatc Exposure
Sulfate
\\ .tier -soluble Sulfate
\l,r\irnunt \\ atCr-
Minirnunt
I 1 pc
C enieat ratio Li\
strCllLth CC
Exposure
( St ) :) in soil, MITICement
�sciht
( p"i )
Negligihlr
U-1,000
—
-
—
\iuder,nC
l.�uiu-',000
11
(I.�CI
l.rtttrt
Sc\ere
2,0oo-20,000
V
u. t;
4.-Sut►
Very Severe
O\ er. 20.000
V (plus Poaolon)
i l.4
4,500
Note: from AU 319-11 Table 4.2.1
A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inc he, is recommended around Meel reinforcing or embedded
components (anchor bolts, hold -do\. n�,. etc.) exposed to native soil or I;utd,capc \e titer (to 18 i nche,
above pr,ide). The concrete sh,+uld al.Se► he thorouwhly \ ihrated klurin+2 plaeCmCnt.
1 amlinarh does not practie•r corrosion en;;ineerin,. If e• re conrmend that a yualilied corrosion
e•n,,inrer evaluate the corrosion potential on rnetal e-onstrvice tion nratcriaA and concrete at the site.
L.awdNlark Consultants, Inc. Page 16
i-Park R Retention Fusin,. I a( Uinta, CA 1 CT RZ:il� in No. I P I t{ I Q 1
4.5 Exca\ atielns
All trench excavations should conform to CalOSHA requirements for Type C soil. The cotliractor is
solely responsible for the safety of \\ orkers entering trenches. Temporary excavations with depths of
.1 feet or less nil\ he cut nearlyvertical for short duration. hcmporan slopes shoLild he no steeper
than 1.5:1(horizontal: \ crtIcaI). Sandy soil slopes ;hould be kept moist. but nut saturated. to reduce
the ptlicntial ofra\elingorsloughing.
Trench coca\ ations deeper than 4 feet \\ i II require shoring or slope inclinations in conformance to
CAVOSHA regulations forT\ pe C soil. Surcharge loads of stock pi led soil or con.strrlctiun materials
should he set back trom the top of tlt<e slope; a minimwn distance equal to the height ul the slope. All
permanent slopes should not be steeper than 3t1 to reduce wind and rain erosion. Protected slopes
with ground cover nla\ he as steep as 2:1. How-c\ er. maintenance \\ Ith nlotorl/ed eelulprllellt 111a\ not
he possible at this inclination.
4.6 Lateral Farth Pressures
I arth retaining strticritres, such as retaining walls. ,huuld he designed to resist the soil pressure
imposed by the retained soil mass. \Valls \\ith granular dra1tied backlill ma\ he cicsi-ned tier an
assumed static earth pressure equivalent to that exerted b\ It fluid weighing 30 pcf for unrestrai tied
(active) conditions (able to rotate 0.1 1 1, ofHalI height). and 55 pcf for restrained (at -rest) conditions.
I hose \aloes should he \crified at the actual \\all locations during construction.
4.7 Scismic Design
I hi, site is located in the seismically active southern (alifOrnia area and the "ite structures are
subject to strong grhlllld shaking due to potential fault mo%cincnts along the San Andreas I ault.
Engineered design acid earthquake: -resistant eonsttluetiuti are the eonuiwn solutions to increase safety
and development of seismic areas. Designs should comply with the latest edition oftheCBC for Site
Class D using the .clsinic coefficients gi\ en in Section 3.6 of this report.
I and%lark COn.u1t,lnt1. lnc. Pate 17
'%-Pat-k R Retention Basin,, I a ()uinta. CA I (I Rcpovt No. 1 1' IN 1 1) 1
4.8 Pay enrcnts
Pa%crnents should be de ►bncd according to CALTRANS or other acceptable methods. Traffic
indices were not provided by the project engineer or owner, therefore, we have provided stntctural
;ectionsforse\eral traffic indices for ci)nlparati%ee%'aluation. I he puhlic aLcncN or design engineer
should determine the appr0�priate trattic ln(lex for the ;itc. Nlainlenunce of proper drainage is
necessary to prolon;, the sere ice life of the I,a\ cmcnt�.
Ba�cd on the cun-cnt State of C:allf'Ornia CALTR ANS method. c,tinlatcd IZ-%aluc ol' 5o fir the
suhgrade soil and assumed trat'Iic indiCeS, the f011OwiJIQ tahle pion ide, tructurc thicl.nes,es for
asphaltic concrete (AC) anti I'urtlan i Cement Concrete (P(V) pa\cnlent sect1,011".
PAVEMENT STFUHIRAL SECTION'S
R-Value of'Subvrade ti,,il - �U (n MI'Munl) Desien \lethod - (':\I I'RAtiti -'U1'
Traffic
Flexible Pavements
Rigid (PCC) Pavements
Asphaltic
Aggregate
Concrete
aggregate
Index
Concrete
Base
Thicknes,
Base
(assumed)
Thicknes,
Thickness
(in.)
Thickness
(in.)
(in.)
0 n.)
4.(J
-).0
4,0
6.0
-I.(_t
9.0
J..'
U.0
-
-
Notes:
1) Asphaltic concrete shall he ('altran;r/2, I � pe R. inch maximum mediumgmding,compactc,l
toil III IIIII11U111 of 9570 Of the 7�-bloc% \l.Irshall density (AS 1 \1 DI 559).
2) Aggregate base shall conform to Caltrans Uass 2 (3/a in. nlaxinlum). compaiteJ to a
minimum of95%of AS I \1 D1557 maximum dr% density.
�) Place pavements on 12 inchesofmoisture conditioned 1mininuun 4'/o ibo%a optimum) nati\ e
soil colrlpactcd to a nlirlinulrn of 95% of the maxinlurn dry density determined by AS I \1
D1557, or the ,,overnim-, ,t,cnc% re(luirements.
4) Portland ceinent concrete for pa\ etnents should have 1'\ pe V ccnrc•nt. a minimum
comprc;;i\ e arength of 3,250 psi at 28 day., and a Inaxirnunl eater -cement ratio of 0.55.
Final pay enlent sectiuns may need to be determined hy samphng and R-\ clue testin, during ,r idin,-,
operations \1 hen actual subirade soils ,Ire cxpo;cd.
I and\lark (WI,(Ilkalt,. 111C.
iletCnttk)n li,r.ins. I .f t rU11ita, (:1 I l'I hers rt \ I I'I`I'rl
Section
1.1NIITAT10NS A1) 1)1)ITI0NA1. tii RN ICES
�.l I.irnitatic►n�
1 he t i nd i n s and professional opinions within this report are based on current information regarding
the proposed X-Park and Dune Palm Retrntion Basin located onthe southea,,t comerofnate Palms
Road and \\ est\\:rrd l Io Drive in the cit\ ol'LitQuinta,Cali lOrni.r. i*lie coiicIti wiisand prot'•;;ional
opinions of this Report are ins alid IL
< Proposed building(s) location and size are changed from those shown in this report
< Strucitiral loads change from those stated or the stnrctures are relocnted.
< The Additional Services section of this report is not tulluwed.
< This report is used for adjacent or other property.
< Changes of grade or ground%katcr occur bemeen the issuance of this report and
coastnlCtion other th.ui those anticipated in tliis report_
< Any other change that materiall\ alters the project from that proposed at the time this
report was prepared.
Findings and protes,,ional opinions in this report are hascd on selected points Of field e\pIoration,
geologic literature, laboratory our u n de rnr 1 nd i ag of the proposed project. Our anal; sis of
data and professional opinions presented herci n are based on, the assumption that soil conditions do
not vary significantly from those found at .pecific exploratory locations. Variations in soil
conditions Can exist hctx%Ccn and be\"nd the exploration points or groundN\ater elevations may
change. II' detected, these conditions nia� reyuirC additional studies_ con.ultation, and possible
design revisions.
This report contains information that mar• he u%e/ul in the preparation of e ontrart.�pt'e ifie ution.�.
However, the report is not worded is vuch a manner thatwe re commend it% u.ce• a.% a construction
%pec•i/icatiort docuntent without proper modi/ic•ation, fire u.se o/ itt%ormation contained in MIA
report/or hiddinI,, purposcr% should he done tit the contrac for' option anti ri.�k.
This report \\as prepared according to the �_cncrallyaCeeptCLI,'eoteeimieal enginr,'rirr Ni nr,hrrdsof
1rruc-ricethat existed inRivc:r�ide Cuuntyat the brie the report Naas prepared. Noexpress or implied
warranties are made in connection with our scr\ iCCIN.
l anti%hrk ( onsultams, Inc.
-Pirk A, ILetention li,t•in,. I a ()mw,r. ( A I ( I iZCp art \k�. 1 111 IS' 11)1
i his report diould be COnsidered invalid I'or periods alter two years fiom the rcpurt date without a
rcN-iew of the validity Of the findings and prol"essional opinions by our fine, because of potential
changes in the Geotechnical I n`ainccrin'o Standards of Practice.
The client has responsihilityto see that all parties to the project including, designer, contractor. and
subcontractor are made aware of this entire report. The use of inforttlation contained in this report
for hiddinL, purpose: shorlld be done at the contractor's option and risk.
5.2 Additional Ser,*leeS
We recommend that a Llualiticd i.!eoteclulical consultant he retained to provide the tests .and
obser\ ations scr\,ices durinLzconstruction. Ilie geotechnieal engineeringfirm providing such tests
and observations shall he c ome the geotechn wed engineer ofrecord and ass ., i� rtic responsibilityfor the
project.
The professional opinion. pre,ented in this report are hated on the aaumption that:
< Consultation during developnlentofdesi,rl and construction documents to check that the
gcotechnieal protCssional opinions arc appropriate for the proposed project and that the
gcotechnical protCssional opinions arc properIN interpreted and incorporated into the
documents.
< Land.11a/A ( 'unmultaim, Me. will ha%c the opportunit" to rcvlc�� and comment on the
plans and specifications for the project priorto the issuance ot'such tier hidding.
< Continuous ohser\ ation. inspection, and testing by the gcoteclutical Consultantof record
during `ite clearing. cxca� ation, placement ol' tills. hudding pad and suh,, radc
preparation, and hacktilling of utilitN trenches.
< ( bwr%ation Of finuadation cxcavations and reinforcing Stec l brtitre concrete placement.
< Other wnsultation as necessary during design and construction.
We emphasize our review ofthe project plans and,pecifications tocheck foreompatibUitywith our
professional opinions and C011Clusions. Additional intOrmation conccming the scope and cost of
these scr� ice, can he ohtained from our office.
I andNI;rrk Con,ultant,. Inc Page20
I a ( )u l n t a ti ka t c Park - La Quinta. C \ LCI Project No. LP18191
fable 1
Summan of Characteristics of Closcst Know n Acti%v Faults
.Jolt \anlc
;�1'I n\II11 dtC
'_)utdn:c
(miles)
•\hhr„ \III1d'C
ii�l`11
\h\ m m
\1„!11CIlt
%1,l2Illt ILIC
Fault �. curpll
(kill,
'-dip i�.'.
(Mm') I
1.111 \n,lrca' - \•In licln.l'd Illy'
. � ,Ir-a.-\wilt:-ijrJ.rl,,I\-rth,
1Rz+Tip
-
( 1,unct l
FurAa 11cdh
- -
Obf04
fart 1a:lm., - Ama
I
1.1: I [Ito - Coyote Creek
41 t 4
t t
I' Irnt \t l
11
1.4
23.5
`
Pint'. \tin.
AA
4--1
'a
f'I.c,lil Mill - \lr,yultc I dI c
31.9
%.3
8y z `!
0.6t 0.4
l dnrlcl
Z? ?
4' 3
R? R 4
I {. •I 11tr IIl �'.� �
ti,ul la:ulh- Ei,rrc_��
1 ,11 1d�lll(, - tidll I,1: Illl•.` \ .:
'
f nl:rsnn-Coppcl \ltrl
arth,juA: \ ;dlc%
-.1.9
1,lhn�lm \ allc\ morthurl)
41.S
'—r1h E r 1111,11 1 .Illlt /OHL- - 1 .Itil: n
43.4
ray 7
I'.Isinorc - Julian
43.6
69.7
\ ,t: 1 .lull, lint indu,1c11 nl Jdtd:Id�'C.
i. r I� I. r t r I'., r k- La Quinta. CA LCT Prged N, I. PI 8 N I
Table 2
2016 Callim-nia Building Code (CRC') and AS(•E '-Ill Seismic Parameters
l-Iil Iti'iK',::
Sal Site Class. D I .,hic 20.3-1
Latitude: 33.7139 N
Longitude:-1161770 W
Risk Category: 1
Design Cm, ,, , E
\la%imum ( un.ulcrcd t.arthyual.c INU L) (;round Motion
MCEa Shur t Period Sp"tnd Response
S,
1.647 g
Figure 1613.3.1(1)
Mapped MCER I second Spectral Response
Sr
0.7911S
Figure 1613.3.1(2)
Short Period (0.2 s) Site Coefficient
F.
1.00
Table 16133.3(1)
Long Period (1.0 s) Site Coefficient
F.
1.50
Table 1613.3.3(2)
MCER Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter (0.2 s)
1.647 g
- F. • S, Fqu ation 16.37
MCERSpectral Response ALcdl r.,rl„r, P r.,n'. ,�r(I.OsI
��1
1.172g
-F„•S, I ,Ir..rri-,r 16-39
Design F.arthquakc (;round NLltion
Design Spectral Response Acceleration Rimmeter (U.2 s)
Sae
1.098 g
- 2/3•S%a
Equation 16.39
Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter (1.0 s)
Sal
0.791 g
- 2/30S,ai
Equation 16-40
Risk Coefficient at Short Periods (less than 01 s)
Cm
1.018
ASCE Figure 22-17
Risk Coefficient at Long Periods (greater than 1.0 s)
Car
0.982
ASCE Figure 22-18
TL
8.00 sec
ASCE Figure 22-12
To
0.14 sec
-0.2•Sor/Sos
Ts
0.71 sec
-Soi/Sos
Peak Ground Acceleration
PGAM
0.66 g
ASCE Equation 11 S-
www-w--w-
wwww+'
wr
w--www�
---
s--�-
.-ww�www-
■■�:
-i-
U.
1
.
3.C,-1
0.44
1
0.96
1
1
1
0.56
1
1
0.33
0.30
1
0.22
0.20
0.06
1.65
1
1 .84
1 -76
0.69
1 .53
0.49
0.45
1 .42
029
1
wwwlwwl
i
Q-Yi-ra.w�•
�irii-wl•�
�i�wi
Inman
I �a■a■■so■■e�m■�■■■■�■Ix
O--ii-iii
wwwl�
�►
V
raa\�--iw�i
Nwwwlwwwlwwwl-
�■i--iiii--
-w
-1.1
P=--ii_wla
----------,
---------■ate■■-■-
Ili-wii-iii�-it\��---�-
i
-------------+--`--
---
---
.iw----------------
-
---MMM
-i--i-
=---------==�i��s
_-IMME-
/ �w-w-��-®111■-�■per
1 1 1 1 1
pi
U
�u^O
C.L
L ,
W�
C ,
u � . y . ..
L�
0
U
O
Q
S —
O Y
EXPLANATION
Fault (races on land are indicated by solid lines where well located, by dashed lines where approximately
located or inferred, and by doffed lines where concealed by younger rocks or by lakes or bays Fault traces
are queried where continuation or e"stence is uncertain Concealed faultsm me Great Valley are based on
maps of selected subsurface horizons, so locations shown are approximate and may indicate structural
trend only All offshore faults based on seismic reflection profile records are shown as solid lines where well
defined, dashed where inferred, quened where uncertain
FAULT CLASSIFICATION COLOR CODE
Hndicming Recency of Mo, cmchD
�lllllllla I Fault along which historic (last 200 years) displacement has occurred and is associated with one or more
of the following.
(a) a recorded earthquake with surface rupture (Also Included are some well-defined surface breaks
caused by ground shaking during earthquakes, e g extensive ground breakage, not on the White Wolf
fault, caused by the Arvin-Tehachap earthquake of 1952) The date of the associated earthquake is
indicated Mere repeated surface ruptures on the same fault have occurred. only the date of the latest
movement may tie indicated, especially if earlier reports are not well documented as to location of ground
beaks
(b) fault creep slippage - slow ground displacement usually without accompanying earthquakes
(e) displaced survey lines
A triangle to the right or left of the date indicates termination point of observed surface displacement Solid
red triangle indicates known location of rupture lermmation point Open black mangle inch rates uncertain or
estimated location of rupture termination point
Date bracketed by to angles indicates local fault break
No triangle by date indicates an intermediate point along fault break
Fault that exhibits fault creep slippage Hachures indicate linear extern of fault amp Annotation (creep
-e'-P with leader) indicates representahve Iocabon where fault creep has been observed and recorded
Square on fault indicates where fault creep slippage has occured that has been triggered by an earthquake
� 0 on some other fault Date of causative earthquake indicated Squares to right and left of date indicate termi-
nal points between which fs ed tree sli poi gger p ppage has occurred (creep either continuous of intermittent
between these end points)
Holocene fault displacement (during past 11,700 years) without historic record Geomorphic evidence for
Holocene faulli ng includes sag ponds, scarps shoving little erosion, or the following features m Holocene
age deposit: offset stream courses, linear scarps, shutter ridges, and triangular faceted spurs Recency
of faulting offshore is based on the interpreted age of the youngest Straus displaced by faulting
i Late Quaternary fault displacement (during past 700,000 years) Geomorphic evidence similar to that
described for Holocene fault except rest— are less distinct Faulting may t younger, but lack of
Younger overlying deposit precludes more accurate age el—fication
Quaternary fault (age une ifferemiated) Most fault of this category shay evidence of dlsplamment soma,
lime during the past 18 million years, possible exceptions are fault which displace rocks of undifferenti-
ated Plio-Pleistocene age Unnumbered Quaternary fault were based on Fault Map of California, 1975
See Bulletin 201, Appendix D for source data
Pre,Quaternary fault (older that 1 5 million years) or fault without recognized Quaternary
displacement Some faults are shown In this category because the source of mapping used was
of reconnaiunce nature, or was not done with me object a dating fault displacement Faults
In this category are not necessarily inactive
ADDITIONAL FAULT SYMBOLS
ear and hall on downthrovm side (relative or apparent)
__-..---, Arrows along fault indicale relative or apparent dir,n.n of lateral movement
Arrow on fault nd eater direction of dip
Low angle fault (barbs on upper pale) Fault surface generally dips less than 45' but locally may have been
subsequently steepened On offshore fault. barbs simply indicate a reverse fault regardless of steepness
of dip
OTHER SYMBOLS
Numbers refer to annilebom Gated meta appendices of the act . panfmg report Annotations include fault
name. age of fall displacement, and perarrmt fsfe—ces Indudnp Earthquake Fault Zone maps where
ISO lys been:oned by tho Algtad-Priolo Earthxake Faub Zxang Act This Act requires the Slate Geolo,
2u to dellnealal zones to encem on" taUb raft Holocee displa-Moroi
—.._—.._. _..__ Structural discontinuity (offshore) separating differing Neogene structural domains May indicate discontl-
matim belween basaRmnt forts
Bra.Ney Sesmc Zone. a linear zone of seismicity locally up to 10 km,vide associated with me releasing
step bahwmh Lhe rmpmia, and San Andreas fault
Years
DESCRIPTION
Geologic
Before
Fault
Recency
Time
Present
S, robot
of
Scelc
(Appros)
Mo, cmcnt
ON LAND
OFFSHORE
—
��.aawrcr..n is„n, �(e,n SanaMrmslauM1 1906`
d ,
a
coo
3
€
��r
7
—
11100
i
7WA00
O
s
3
'
t 5g] g�i
e.ras.nna
-at, eyx �aQana�
C
rnq+x�l
pualerruiy dapacemenr o'
Y"wwp wAere N no
atlaaea
�_
draperemenr during gaaiarvry
�m Mn nevwnly auaxe
a 5 bill",
duarer,vry rw. rw"gnued as mrmdirva 1p: 6 Ma agaaa antl boeuwn z—) c„.—, N.— uis „ay.wara web-. —, ins
p "uat6Me aaerar
NATIONAL T. li «....... _
r � _ . ; r • L. irit 'QH a ��
Q li �( i ! i I� .p :i•• ��•1 MONUMENT
y�' _ �. � � �i ! v.. � '� • � � � -�`. oho 41pU -
r -
1 �y "two
VI .
« ' .w
- �fl � tom.: •..., � "- MI _ ,, �o •� � - - .�4J
RATiiDCIT
NDI
I r
� ' ruw.c : � � s ..r � - — 1 � .. .� ,-. •fir
I`
wna.,
Project Site
I1
r�
IAlrUVIRK
Plate
Project No.: LP18191 Vicinity Map A-1
S
r
4i-- -
Legerid
Approximate Boring Location
/tnproxirnate Infiltration Test Locition
P"ItE�
Project No.: LE18125 Site and Exploration Map A-2
h
Project Site
ry,
• r'� —
I • �
i
•I
I �
Vill
b I
a we+e Iwo soe sen :_.� fw:.c
�' �wr.+r l att jpwle7e.A0u•.ect!�'.Ll'1VM J
Ks4ZOO.". fAm110,200 :ter:. M� H14m ^TM 5e7e bca um3w* mV! am
I4AJr4 Ri 9riumia-5 INO Soll l"a-ty 1."b1?J'XJS
lmaAr.W{:n :1w.e hat{x�.it,oyx�tu�5o�1?�n.�N pad: 1 e+'
1,1NIli�ill�k
USDA Soil Conservation
Project No.. I P 181 J 1 Soil Service Map A >
0
Z
w
0
w
J
Sa
G
'0
N 'Q a)
a)
.L..
N
m
d
a)
(6 p N
Q)
a) r `6
I6
U >, O D
Q
U
U O
N
Q
m
U
p
N 7 C
N O.
U N
cc
N
E
a�
u) 7
aai c N E�
w
a)
N
N
c� E
d
cfU
7 2 E
�
UJ
> .— N
a '�
`�'
>
G
E
— U N
N
L) f0 m
O. M
°
o )1)
a�i
m N O'
Cn
m
N
C
' o
rn
N
U
N E C
L
co M
.L.-�
C O N
N O
a)
N
E f0 N ?�
a,
N
N
N U'
N
O N L N
"O m
Z
U O
N
E 7 a)
-Cc
U fn "O
3
N
L
_
O L
W
C a
al 4 N 7
Q
O
O
L 2` N
O
_,
N a 3 N
d C
E
U Lu
p 6 O N
L
O
!7
L) co
co
L
�i N O N
CO L
L
m
w
N Q
0
�Ey�
a�
2 a
��Lco
0
a)
cn
m
o
❑gym
m E
>
-�c>
c
o a)
Co
U o
Nn
°
a
ETmN
H
a
�'m oL
O
aNi
° o
o�
m C
m
a
0m E
E
c
5
�an2
U)1'on_5
-D
0
m
�acm
U
O
E U
c1°i
in7
>v
J>
N CC p
19—
> >
�,-. O
m
E
N«
aoa�m
a
6�
Z
U1
��QO c
`mom
L
m
L
oN oa
U)O
E C F N
a)
L..
>
a) cO
m a) a
.0.
0) 9
M. �
��
O : N 'N
C.
M Z U
F U
'N c
Q
CL
0-0 d
7
(n
a) y E C1
O C
>• al
(1) a)
Lp.
{Cp 7 U
7 N
y E
7 0
cD
N
m
G c0 N E
N O
OI
N U N
2
N 7
0— CQ
N O C
O O a) a) ,p.,
U
O O
>
'�= Q
7 C T
a 0
ca 0
O LL)
0
L O
C ' cm
N
E
: a 1° a)
f0 7
N cn
a5 m
` -0
7 L `p
N U C cn O
d� a) 7
a a)
Vf L
(n O N
_ :_
E
_ O
.N_. O
N
p 'a a) C
L N
H
i
C N C O U
W E_ c� m
a) a)
a E
p >a) p
co > U
f6 O V) L U
8- a Q o
L
H o
'O (6 7
CO U Cn
O �,+?
U)
(9 p
L O p L
H U .- N
m
(U m
m T
Y c m L
a1 a) a
o a) cm t m
a a
U) O
m O C c a] _ (a MO
N a O O J m « O O L
Q n N p It a
.cn
C �' N N N m L" a'
o O N
0 O N L n m C a1 N U) 10 U .
U) co > O U) in o a a Q
� m c
®v (3 aCL
3 m
0
c
O Im m m a1 d
Q _T a) .0 CO Cn
O
cn O O .=p O_
10c
m a -1 a E
n>,a)
a) « =
c c E p °a0 °OD O O O aw OW
a) n
a0 m a
o a o � o U))i 0 a4)
ca > D (D Ya)
W = __O a >
°nUm° -2
7 0,im n¢ <n ) mc) U C(7 a n mn m U
a, a
c �
07)NX0X .®� 4(00>+X �AV.
o )
Q U)
ODco
m
z
Sod Map —Rivers de i;cjnty, Coachella Valley A -ea -ahfurnia
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Ma')
Totals for Area of Interest
Map Unit Namo
. ,n a fine sand 5 to 15
percent slopes
Acres In AOI Percent of AOI
&!
100.0'
L,sD.% Natural Resources Web Sal Scrvey ' 2117,'2018
Conservation Service Natwn al Concerative Sol Survey Page 3 of 3
I
�
Project Site
•
o
� e
t a?•
"�C
•
J•,
H
IU1 1•`li
� 1•
• n
ip�pQi(� ra1MOb���w\)MGM Immo cGfGf _ AI�li 1:1M�DwiDlOrsRL7r
1.I�uflM�t�x
Project No.. L P18191
Topographic Map
A
Fault Map
I.- cl -f
P Deser t _ •� tom. �� .�_ r..F
1771� 7
rni.r
cl
'i ian Wells
MI-Adib
in
Y' `Y' rol.ect Site • 4i
r +~
J
i Leglend
a
DµaJrla
NOIes
O
•- x t, F A:
*lu-
i.Y.R�17i: Laze rx .r• Ire k ee •rw •a7.drrnt� KJ'Maa't en� Yaa• YaL'r1 av ua+•n
r :1 w• •i.ne.r.r/l ..t.Jaewtir.r.�x'"'0""�QiiCM •fsA7s114.�wyr -
.arM'� � .;Ww w ri M Tv 904" 7a tMat..a aY+ 71/# %won oC:Yn7 '•eeaw.t
pt.s.11 atd riu.. ro Wool r a• t« r•;rv. .
rN n.�w .4. i:.dHtJ Wut wf I arias astM711�Yr1trwrlir: 1a/a. T�yAi�u•. ..
:h IwM
1w'���T Rt17iF,T.'x. 7:.�7ip'+ 47 µ4a Sli lnwssl : Atay
'A
LANDMARK Riverside County
Geographic Information System (GIS) P110(,
Project No.: LP18191 Fault Map A-�;
=
Ui
o
FIELD
LOG OF BORING No B-1
SHEET 1 OF 1
LABORATORY
-
a
rn U)
W Q
- z
w s
Y-
J L
)TWRTES'
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
-
,.YR. ary, tned
�+� ^rsinprl
,wYy QOD � ti
ld
19
SILTY SAND (SM): Gray4xown, dry, medium dense to drt
Me Brained
•a
.;AYu {SP-SM): Gray -Drown. dry. rredArm dens,
■ne grahed
I
t
29
l �M): Gray -town. dry. medium �;ui
t
raW DopM = 51.5
Grorrrdrwtsr rot arroourMred at Wm d dump
®addrad wM arrcavMed ad
�Tt DRILLED: 11,18/18 TOTAL DEPTH: 51.5 Feat UL_' i N t v A'�A: _R. NA
J)WED BY: G. Ctendra. PE TYPE OF BIT. (blow SMm Anger DIAMETER: • In.
JRFACF 7. FVATION App =&rw" W HAMMER WT.: 140 be. DROP: 30 in.
PROJECT NO. LP18191
LmoMw
PLATE B-1
=
FIELD
LOG OF BORING No. B-2
SHEET 1 OF 1
LABORATORY
u-'
i
f
Q
:n
O
O
w
U Z
O �
�W
n Z
50
)THER TES
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
r�
45
'i
I
To
t5
SILTY SAND (SM): &Hv-f, ,wn, dry. rt -
ins pnk»d
1W b
ucw =
f$ay4brown. dry, medi&m. dansa.
fine grained
Iptal DapM = 21N
3roirtdle not enooarMmdatWw.. ,., u .
Hsdrm vft ae»oaralad ed
„\ I L DRILLED: I' of TOTAL DEPTH: 21.5 Fast DEPTH TO WAT Lit- NA
()GGED BY: G. Chandra. PE TYPE OF BIT. Hdm Stem Auger DIAMETER: 8 in
URFACE ' [VATION: Approximately 65' HAMMER WT.: 140 be CROP 3l)
PROJECT NO. LP18191
LANDMARK
PLATE B-2
=
FIELD
LOG OF BORING No. B-3
SKEET 1 OF '
LABORATORY
J
IL
to
U) Q
F
> z
° o
W :n
w -- .
O L
r
'-
�W
mm l ..
iA W 3
oo;�
OTHER TESTS
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
15
i
30
35
AS
xx
Ul
XX
'3
16
SILTY SAND (SMr Grey -brown, dry. m ckm, da,,,,.
the premed
No recovery
SF'3
I
ToW Deph = 21.6
o1RldwMef not ermir1bred al th-e a :.: i w, j
Bedded wllh eoxe�eNd t+oN
r
)ATE pit�LJ 11/fttd iUTALD_7aTh. 21.E Feel JLPTttiUb1ATLK. NA
I OGGED BY: G. Chandra, PE TYPE Or SIT. F d w Stye A+pei DIAMETER: a In.
SURFACE ELEVATION-__ Ap xi to 65 FAV %lF R WT.: 141 lb,. 30 in.
PROJECT NO LP18191
LANDMARK
PLATE B-3
a
W
FIELD
LOG OF BORING No. B-a
SHEET 1 OF 1
LABORATORY
J
a-
,J)
L
o O
m L-
o
r
i
r
o*
OTHER TES
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
i
t)
t5
50
P.
b
SAND (SP-SSA): Gray -brow dry.
an waned
ft
Vrrrw�W - �
Mlfg azoo • YJ1L
SAND /SP)' Gay4vown, dry, modkirn dense, Ir -
FoW Depth = 21.5-
Groundiew nOt encountered at time of ;nll na
BeddlNed whh excovaMd sol
T-
)
)ATL 11/18/18 TOTAL DEPTH. 21.5 Fog 0:. ' ; "'.A Nil
JGGED BY: G. Chendra, PE TYPE OF BIT. Ebbw Stem Auger DIAMETER: 8 in.
URFACF r I FVATION: AgroxInWMy W HAMMER WT.: 140 be. D R 3 F,- 90 in.
PROJECT NO, LP18191
LANDMARK
PLATE B-4
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIf1NS SYMR0 1 R QFrnWnARV nIVICIr11dC
Gravels
o:o•c
?: a
'ri�ri�f
GW
Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
Clean gravels (less
than 5% fines)
GP
Poorly graded gravels, or gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines
More than half of
• - �'�
GM
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines
coarse fraction is
larger than No- 4
sieve
Gravel with fines
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -day mixtures, plastic fines
Coarse grained soils Mine
han half of material is lar
Sands
•'t`'`
�:�:�
$W
Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
that No. 200 sieve
Clean sands (less
than 5% fines)
$p
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines
More than half of
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines
coarse fraction is
smaller than No. 4
Sands with fines
sieve
.ff
$C
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines
Silts and clays
l l l l ll
ML
Inorganic silts, clayey silts with slight plasticity
CL
Inorganic days of low to medium plasticity, gravely, sandy, or lean days
Liquid limit is less than 50
Fine grained soils More than
i lit
it
OL
Organic silts and organic days of low plasticity
half of material is smaller
Silts and clays
I l
l l
MH
Inorganic sifts, micaceous or diatomaceous silty soils, elastic silts
than No. 200 sieve
CH
Inorganic days of high plasticity, fat clays
Liquid limit is more than 50%
'N
%%'•''
OH
Organic days of medium to high plasticity, organic silts
Highly organic soils
PT
Peat and other highly organic soils
GRAIN SIZES
Sand Gravel
Silts and Clays Cobbles Boulders
Fine Medium Coarse dine Coarse
200 40 10 4 3/4" Y
Sands, Gravels, etc.
Blowsrft-
Very Loose
0-4
Loose
4-10
Medium Dense
10-30
Dense
30-50
Very Dense
Over 50
US Standard Series Sieve Clear Square Openings
Clays & Plastic Silts
Strength "
Blowslft.
Very Soft
0-0.25
0-2
soft
025-0.5
2-4
Firm
0.5-1.0
4-0
Stiff
1.0-2.0
8-16
Very stiff
2.0.4.0
16-32
Hard
Over 4.0
Over 32
Number of blows of 140 Ib, hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. (1 3/8 in. I.D.) split spoon (ASTM D1586)
Unconfined compressive strength in tons/s.f. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the Standard
Penetration Test (ASTM D1586), Pocket Penetrometer, Torvane, or visual observation.
Type of Samples:
11 Ring Sample Ig Standard Penetration Test 1 Shelby Tube ® Bulk (Bag) Sample
Drilling Notes:
1. Sampling and Blow Counts
Ring Sampler- Number of blows perfoot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches.
Standard Penetration Test - Number of blows per foot.
Shelby Tube - Three (3) inch nominal diameter tube hydraulically pushed.
2. P. P. = Pocket Penetrometer (tons/s.f.).
3. NR = No recovery.
4. GWT !T = Ground Water Table observed @ specified time.
LANDMARK
Plate
Project No. LP18191 Key to Logs B-5
ANAL
SIFW
YqIS HYDROMET I A'.
Gowd Sit wo C
•
•
LANDMARK
plat.
Project No.: LP1 1191 Grain Size Analysis c 1 1
SIFW
YqIS HYDROMET I A'.
Gowd Sit wo C
•
•
LANDMARK
plat.
Project No.: LP1 1191 Grain Size Analysis c 1 1
i
n
IN
IVNII
I
�III��I
-.J
��I�
LANDMARK CONSULTANTS, INC.
CLIENT: City of La Quwnta
PROJECT: La Qutnta Skate Park - La Qulnta, CA
JOB No.: LP18191
DATE: 12i12,18
Boring:
Sample Depth, ft:
pH:
Electrical Conductivity (mmhos):
Resistivity (ohm -cm):
Chloride (CI), ppm:
Sulfate (SO4). ppm:
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
B-1 Caltrans
0-3 Method
643
424
3,300 �4i
80 422
35 1t-
Ge•.eral Gu Jr.hnes for So I Corros vit
Ma'er al
Chemical
Amount -
Degree -)`
A"ected
Agent
S-nl ,,,^.pm
Corros vity
Co'lcrete
Soluble
0- 1. 00
Lcw
SUlfateS
1,000-2,000
Moderate
2,000-20,000
Severe
> 20,000
Ve,y Severe
Norrrat
Solr.ble
0 - 200
tow
Grade
Chlorides
203 - 700
Moderate
Steel
l00 - 1,500
Severe
> 1,500
Very Severe
Normal
Res stivey
1 - 1,000
Very Severe
Grace
1,000 - 2,003
Severe
Steel
2,000-10,000
Moderate
> 10,000
Low
LANDMARK Selected Chemical Pla
te
� to
Test Results C 2
Project No.: LP18191
Client: C ty oft a Quinta Soil Description. .)live -:;ray Fine Silty Said
Project: La Quwnta Skate Falk - I a Qum;a CA Sample Location: B-1 a 0-3 fl
Project No.: LP18191 Test Method: ASTM U-1557 A
Date. 12/5/2018 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 112.4
Lab. No.. NA Optimum Moisture Content (%): 11.7
I
iL
115
X
NA
Clxvea Of 100%
- sahxalkm for -
avacMlc glavib
equal to:
2.75
or
2.70
2.65
106
- -
Qs
1
5 10 16 2C 25 3
Momture Content I'/,1
LANDUARK
Plate
Moisture Density Relationship C-3
Project No.: LP18191
Y
m
d
u
�a�
m
m
Y
n O v O O
r 0 N IO In
m
o Ic
� m
J m
EZ C
N
Z LI U
Cr
m p
L
m>
0 a
w O
O N
LL
N C
U
m C m 'E C
c
(j
o U w
C
x n E
H =
O 0 2
J
Q m
� � N
C
w 0
m N
v N
N N
N N
m
E0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
m
N
vinvvvv�vvv
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
C
w w
w w
w w
w w
w w
W
m N
o m
o m
a
Oi N
T
r 11
v lnvvvcvvav
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
�
w w
w w
w w
W w
w 111
Wvw0r-vvm00
rnN9Coomplmrol
_c
e G
a v
v v
v v
v v
v v
g
o 0
0 0
Lomu,U,
0 0
0 0
0 0
rnui
m m
m C7
m O
of
T CD
m 10
<O N
w r
In
� r
W n
m 0
N
m
N
N
E
0 c�'1
o
m w
O
O1 O
w
O
0;
Z
COI N
O
O fO0
CJ ld
C
• o
c e
o
N
r r
r nu-,vvv
LL p
v
v
U
m
O
a' ❑
4
n 10
� 0I
t0 N
N It)
Z�r°Di
um-,vavl�n
li lNn
m
n G
0 If)
0 IO
0 In
O N
O In
-
O
O O
O O
O O
$
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
o f
N 1(]
N N
III 1[]
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
U1 N.
N N
❑ E
O G
G C
o 0
66
0 0
VI
w_
U
H
=
ao
O
0
O O
0 0
C O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
w Z
cU
tD
(D
O
IG
❑
N
N M
M O
O u'I
Cn
N
N
N h
o U
Cl
n
q O
O
U7 m
m O
c a U W
C O m N
U c
o
q O
W U C
W CI CI
E O Q d
To J C
n p J
O r C Q
C O p
O w CI C
a Of J -
J
Q W
m O O W
t - d C
O 3 Y w
aI �pU`m
m In W V
ap` m z - O
c
c
y c m v '
�2 w
u) v E
j Lai w Q
m O m w C
U
m
N a m
cn M 0I M
O
V q 01 - O
en
q N C
U m c d a
z uj E ° J
N
d' G m 0
wiF ulia`cn
w m
LANDMARK CONSULTANTS, INC
Project:
X-Par'a
Project No:
1 P1819'
Date
1
Test Hole No:
I I-'
Tested By:
Alex A
Depth of Test Hole, DT:
63'
USCS Soil Classification:
Test Hole Dimensions (inches)
length
Width
Diameter (if round)=
Sides (if rectangular)-
Sandy Soil Criteria Test`
Trial No.
StartTime
Stop Time
Time
Interval,
(min.)
Initial
Depth to
Water (in.)
Final
Depth to
Water (in.)
Change in
Water
Level (in.)
Greater
than or
Equal to 6"?
(y/n)
11
8 50
1 9.15
1 2500
1 900
4200
33.00
1v
21
9 15
1 Cj 40
1 25.00
1 1200
1 3700
2500
1v
.If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25
minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes.
Other wise, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at lean
six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".
Trial No.
Start Time
Stop Time
At
Time
Interval
(min.)
D,,
Initial
Depth to
Water (in.)
Dr
Final
Depth to
AD
Change in
Water
Level (in.)
Percolation
Rate
(min./in.)
1
942
952
1000
1500
1,Oc
29 00
2
9:52
1002
10 00
14 00
-15 03
31 00
3
10 02
10 12
1 ;; 00
12 00
38 03
26 OC
4
10 12
10 22
10 00
20 00
41 00
21 23
5
1022
1032 1
•0 00
15 00
39 00
24 30
6
1032
1042
10 03
13 00
33 OO
20 00
7'
8
9
10
11
12
COMMENTS:
LAN14111K
P1,1te
11 Project No.: LP18191 11 Percolation Test Results 11 11
PERCOLATION RATE CONVERSION
CLIENT: City of La Quinta
PROJECT- X-Park and Date Palm Retention Basin
PROJECT NO.: LP18191
DATE: 11; 2012018
TEST HOLE NO: 1-1
Time interval At = 10 minutes
F-nal Depth to Water. Df = 33 ;nches
'Tes' Hole Radius. r = 3 inches
The conversion equation is used
Ini*ial Depth to Water, Dp = 13 inches
1 otal Depth of Test Hole. DT - 60 inches
_ �H 60 ►-
t 3((1 +2H,1�'�;
"{{ is the initial height of water at the selected time interval
ti„ = 1)-,- - Do = 60-13 = 47a(dies
E{(" s the final height of water at the selected time interval
Ilt = I)r 1)t = 60-:1:1 = 27 mches
is the change in height over the time interval
Ali - AI) = If, - fit - 47-27- 20 ittkhe
"I{ lvi,^ is the average head height over the time interval
Hays=(Ho + Hf)/2
"It" is the tested infiltration rate
It At (r+21]avg)
LANDMARK
Project No.. LP18191
- (47+27)/2 = 37 indic-S
(20 in)(60min;7r)Oin►
-10 ming(3 in) + 2 (37 in))
Percolation Rate Conversion
Plate
E-1A
LANDMARK CONSULTANTS, INC
Project:
X-P ark
Proiect No:
LP1?.1
Date:
1 111 �11 F
Test Hole No:
I I -<
Tested By:
Alex A
Depth of Test Hole, D :
5C '
USCS Soil Classification:
Test Hole Dimensions (inches)
Length
Width
Diameter (if round)=
6"
Sides (if rectangular)=
Sandy Soil Criteria Test'
Trial No.
Start Time
Stop Time
Time
Interval,
(min.)
Initial
Depth to
Water (in.)
Final
Depth to
Water (in.)
Change in
Water
Level (in.)
Greater
than or
Equal to 6"?
(y/n)
1
854
9 19
25 00
1 11.00
3600
1 25.00
y
21
9 19
1 944
1 25 00
1 12.00
34 00
1 22.00
v
.If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25
minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes.
Other wise, pre-soak (fill) overnight. Obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least
six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25".
Trial No.
Start Time
Stop Time
At
Time
Interval
(min.)
D,
Initial
Depth to
D,
Final
Depth to
Water (in.)
AD
Change in
Water
Level (in.)
Percolation
Rate
(min./in.)
11
944
9 54
10 00
12.00
47 00
35 00
2
9 54
1004
10 00
17.00
50 00
33 OC
3
1004
10 14
10 00
M00
49 00
34 00
4
10 14
1024
1 ] 00
12.00
45 00
33 00
5
10 24
1034
1 � 00
17 00
4 � 00
31 nr�
6
10 34
1044
1 J 00
1 5 Ott
4-, 00
3:1 �.
7
8
9
10
11
12
COMMENTS
LANDMARK
Plate
Project No.: LP1819' Percolation Test Results 1 -•
PERCOLATION RATE CONVERSION
CLIENT: City of La Quinta
PROJECT: X-Park and Date Palm Retention Basin
PROJECT NO.: LP18191
DATE 11 /2012018
TEST HOLE NO: I-2
Time interval at - 10 minutes
Final Depth to Water, Df = 45 inches
'Tes' Hole Rad us r = 3 inches
Initial Deotn to Water I). = 15 inches
To,al Depth of Test Hole D t- = 60 n�:hes
The conversion equat cn is used:
{ AH60r
t __ At(r+2Havg
NHo" is the initial height of water at the selected time interval
Ho = DT - Do - 60-15 = 45 ipcheg
"I I;" is the final �e ght of water at the selected time rterval
III =I)t.-1),-60-45=1>tnch s
"J{{" s the change it height over the t me interval
JII = c D = II„ — lit - 45-15= 30 niches
"II aV7; " •s the average nead height over the tame interval
H,, "', _ (Ho ♦ I It ) /2
is -he tested infiltraticn rate
-1II60r
At
LANDMARK
Project No. LP18191
- (4S+1S)/2 = 30 inches
(30 n)(60min/hr)(3in; = 8,57 W/hr
10 min)((3 in) + 2 :33 i'lii
Percolation Rate Conversion
Plate
F-2A
REFERENCES
Ainertc-an ('oncretc InIII tutr (ACI), 2013, ACI Manucil 0I ( oncretc Pi-aitice 302.1R-04
Arncrican `ocI . ofCivilEngineers(ASCE),2010,Minimum Design Load; fin- Ruildin,;
and Uther Structures: ASCE Standard 7-10.
California Building Standard', Commission, 2017, 2016 California Building Code.
California Code of Regu, ld t ions, Title 24, Part 2, Vol. 2 of 2.
(-altrans, 2012, Highway Design Manual
California Division of Mines and Gcof u,) (CUNIG). 1996. California Fault Parameter;:
available at httP:%l��N�v.a,nan-ca.�oy/dmt:lshcznitltinde�.html.
California Geological survey (CGS), 200S. Guidelines for Evaluating and �1iti�atin�
Seismic I la/ard; in California, Special Nuhlir.ttion 117.A. 9,Sp.
Calit-)rnia Ge(doLical Survey (CGS), 2UI8. Fault Map of California
httn://%%k'".guake.ca.auv/email%/F'AM/faultaCLivi[N'map.htmI#.
Calitonua Gcological Survey (CGS), 2018, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fauk Zone Maps.
htta:Hniaps.conservation.ca.,.tovtces/informationw,irehouscrindex.htm I?map=reeul
atorymap
('ctin. K. O.. seed, R. B., Der Kiurc,hian, A., Tokimat;u. K.. Harder, L. F., Jr., Kayen, R.
I ..:ind Moss, R. L. S., 2004. standard penetration test-ha;ed pmhabilistic and
deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potcimal: ASCLJGGE,Vol.,
130, No. 12, p. 1314-1340.
Geologismiki, 2017, CLiq Computer Pro, -,ram, www.geologismiki.gr
I.hihara. K. (1985), Stability ot* natural deposit, dunni earthquakes, Proe. I lt" Int. Conf,
()n Soil Mech And Found. I Vol. 1, A. A. Balkenta, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 321-3 7 t,.
Jones, A. L., 2003, An Analytical Modcl and ;application for Ground Surface I.ftects from
Liquefaction. 1'hD. Dissertation, University of Washington, 362 p.
NLA'rink. I'. P., Pridmore. C. L., Tinsley, J. C., Siekler. R. R.. Rrandcnhen,, S. J., and
`tc%%art, J. P., 2011. 11quefaetion and Other Ground failure, in Imperial County,
('alit*Ornia, from the April 4. 2010. Ul \1,►\ 0r-4'urapa1 I arthyuake, C6S Special
Report 220,USGSOpcn File Report _'ul 1-1071. 94 p.
Post-Ten,i,,nin Institute (PTI� 2007a, Standard Requirements for Analysis of Shallow
Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils (31 Edition).
Post-Tensionin; Institute (PTI� 2007b, Standard Requirements for Design of Shallow
Post- I cnsiuncd Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils (2ad Edition).
Rohertson. P. K., 2014, Seismic liquifaction CPT -based methods: EERI 1' Workshop on
(;eotechnical Earthquake En-ineer-ine — Liquefaction Evaluation, Mapping,
Simulation and N1itigation. UC San I)iegoCampus, 10/12/2014.
Rolicrimm. P. K. and Wride. t . E., 1997, Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation ha,ed on
the SPT and C1' I, Proceeding of the NCCLR \Workshop on L�aluation of
I iquclactimi Re,i:tancc of Soils. NCE)"R Technical Report 97-0022, p. 41-88.
Rymer, MJ., Treiman, J.A., Kendrick, KJ., Lienkacmper. J.J., Weldon, RJ., IIilhanr,
Wei, M., Fielding, EJ., Hemcindez, J.L., Olson, B.P.E.. Irvine, P.J., Kncppr;tth. N.,
Sickler, R.R., Tong, .X., and Siem, M.F., 2011, Triggered surface slips in southern
California associated with the 2010 ICI . ayor-t ucapah. Baja California, Mexico,
carthguake: U.S. t Teological Survey Open -Idle Report 2010-1333 and California
(iculogical Sunc\ Special Report 221, 62 p., availahle at hup://pubs.usp.gov/ofy
2010/1333/.
U.S. Geological Surrey (USGS), 1990, The San Andre.t, Fault System, California,
Professional Paper I �; 1 �;.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. US Seismic Design Maps \Vch Application,
available at http://geohazards.usas.govldcsiLnmaps/uslapplication.php
Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRUCRSr), 2003, Design of Slab-on-GrOund Foundations,
Tech Fact, TF 70t r- R-03, 23 p.
Youd, T. L., 2005, Liquefaction -induced flow, lateral spread, and L!round oscillation.
Abstracts with Progr-ams, Vul. 37, No. 7, p. 252.
Youd, T. L. and (iarris, C. T., 1995, Liquefaction induced ,round .;url'acc disruption:
ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 121, No. 11.