The URL can be used to link to this page

Point Happy TR 31348 BCPR2022-0003Project Details PROJECT NUMBER Cit of La Quinta BCPR2022-0003 Description: POINT HAPPY / TRACT CONSTRUCTION PLANS - SFDx3 Status: APPROVED Type: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW (WEB) Status Date: Subtype: TRACT RESIDENTIAL Applied: 2/23/2022 Address: 46201 WASHINGTON ST Approved: 7/15/2022 City, State, Zip: LA QUINTA,CA92253 Closed: Project Manager: JAKE FUSON Expired: Details: POINT HAPPY / TRACT CONSTRUCTION MASTER PLANS FOR DWELLINGS (SFDx2) -- PLANS 1, 2, & 2X FOR THE 2019 CODE CYCLE. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES. PLAN 1 : 2,752 SF PLAN 2 : 3,215 SF PLAN 2X : 3,055 SF REVISION 1- DELTA 2 FRAMEWALK REVISIONS. DAYS REVIEWS ACTIONS INSPECTIONS CONDITIONS CASE OPEN OPEN COMPLETED i I • CHRONOLOGY TYPE STAFF NAME ACTION DATE COMPLETION DATE NOTES EMAIL AARON HICKSON 2/24/2022 2/24/2022 REQUESTED STIR CALCULATIONS NOTIFIED APPLICANT OF 1ST REVIEW COMMENTS, SENT EMAIL JAKE FUSON 4/22/2022 4/22/2022 CORRECTION LIST VIA EMAIL. 2ND SUBMITTAL PLANS RECEIVED, REVIEW WILL BE NOTE JAKE FUSON 6/7/2022 6/7/2022 SCHEDULED WHEN RESPONSES AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED. 2ND PC SUBMITTAL JAKE FUSON 6/8/2022 6/8/2022 RECEIVED EMAIL JAKE FUSON 7/15/2022 7/15/2022 NOTIFIED APPLICANT THAT PLANS ARE APPROVED AND READY FOR FEE PAYMENT. EMAIL JAKE FUSON 3/6/2023 3/6/2023 NOTIFIED ZACH NORDBY THAT REVISION 1 PLANS ARE APPROVED AND READY FOR FEE PAYMENT. Printed: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:18:13 PM 1 of 8 CENTRALSQUARE GI C,i Project Details PROJECT NUMBER City of La Quinta BCPR2022-0003 NAME TYPE NAME ADDRESSI CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL APPLICANT WILLIAMS HOMES INC 24911 Avenue Stanford SANTA CLARITA CA 91355 (323)351-8296 AGASPARELLA@WILLIA MSHOMES.COM ARCHITECT WHA Architect Planners Designers 680 Newport Center Newport Beach CA 92660 (323)351-8296 linday@whainc.com Drive, Ste 300 CONTRACTOR WILLIAMS HOMES INC 24911 Avenue Stanford SANTA CLARITA CA 91355 (323)351-8296 AGASPARELLA@WILLIA MSHOMES.COM DEVELOPER Williams Homes Inc 24911 Avenue Stanford Santa Clarita CA 91355 (323)351-8296 agasparella@williamsh omes.com ENGINEER Mor Engineers 1401 Dove Street, Suite Newport Beach CA 92660 (323)351-8296 kyle@morengineers.co 520 m OWNER WILLIAMS HOMES INC 24911 Avenue Stanford SANTA CLARITA CA 91355 (323)351-8296 AGASPARELLA@WILLIA MSHOMES.COM PRIMARY Autumn Gasparella 24911 Avenue Stanford Santa Claria CA 91355 (323)351-8296 agasparella@williamsh CONTACT omes.com CLTD DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CITY AMOUNT PAID PAID DATE RECEIPT # CHECK # METHOD PAID BY BY HOURLY CHARGE - CITY 101-0000-42600 2 $322.00 $322.00 7/22/22 WEB12571 672441952 CREDIT 734097 ECON BUILDING STAFF HOURLY CHARGE - CITY 101-0000-42600 1 $161.00 $161.00 3/6/23 WEB14530 827707870 CREDIT 734097 ECON BUILDING STAFF HOURLY CHARGE - INTERWEST PLANS 101-0000-42600 28 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 7/22/22 WEB12571 672441952 CREDIT 734097 ECON EXAMINER Total Paid for BUILDING STAFF - PER HOUR: $3,283.00 $3,283.00 FIRE STAFF - PER HOUR 101-0000-42420 1 $167.00 $167.00 7/22/22 1 WEB12571 1 672441952 CREDIT 1 734097 ECON Total Paid for FIRE FEES: $167.00 $167.00 Printed: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:18:13 PM 2 of 8 CENTRALSQUARE !� ylProject Details PROJECT NUMBER City of La Quinta BCPR2022-0003 CLTD DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CITY AMOUNT PAID PAID DATE RECEIPT # CHECK # METHOD PAID BY BY RECORDS MANAGEMENT FEE - 101-0000-42416 0 $21.00 $21.00 7/22/22 WEB12571 672441952 CREDIT 734097 ECON MAJOR Total Paid for RECORDS MANAGEMENT FEE - MAJOR: $21.00 $21.00 TECHNOLOGY 502-0000-43611 0 $5.00 $5.00 7/22/22 WEB12571 672441952 CREDIT 734097 ECON ENHANCEMENT FEE Total Paid for TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT FEE: $5.00 $5.00 NEW CONSTRUCTION - 101-0000-42400 0 $667.00 $667.00 7/22/22 WEB12571 672441952 CREDIT 734097 ECON 5+ RESIDENTIAL UNITS Total Paid for ZONING CLEARANCE - PLANNING PLAN $667.00 $667.00 CHECK: INSPECTION TYPE INSPECTOR SCHEDULED DATE COMPLETED DATE RESULT REMARKS NOTES RETURNED REVIEW TYPE REVIEWER SENT DATE DUE DATE STATUS REMARKS NOTES DATE REVISION 1 - DELTA 2 FRAMEWALK REVISIONS. 1ST BLDG (1WK) JAKE FUSON 1/26/2023 2/2/2023 3/6/2023 APPROVED REVISION 1 NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE REVISION NARRATIVE. 1ST BLDG INTERWEST 2/28/2022 3/14/2022 3/15/2022 REVISIONS REQUIRED COMPLETE (2WK) 1ST BLDG NS (3WK) JAKE FUSON 2/28/2022 3/21/2022 4/22/2022 REVISIONS REQUIRED SEE ATTACHED 1ST REVIEW CORRECTION LIST. 1ST FIRE (2WK) 2/28/2022 3/14/2022 3/26/2022 APPROVED HEOHL ATTACHMENTS 1ST PERMIT AARON 2/23/2022 2/24/2022 3/7/2022 COMPLETE TECHNICIAN (1DAY) HICKSON Printed: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:18:13 PM 3 of 8 CENTRALSQUARE !� ylProject Details PROJECT NUMBER BCPR2022-0003 Cityof La nuinta Ot T\4F. 1ST PLANNING (1 SIJIFREDO 1/26/2023 2/2/2023 2/1/2023 READY FOR APPROVAL REVISION 1 SEE NARRATIVE IN ATTACHMENTS FOR SCOPE OF DAY) FERNANDEZ REVISIONS. 1. PLANS ARE BEING SUBMITTED AT RISK. 2. COMMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE 1ST PLANNING SIJIFREDO 2/28/2022 3/14/2022 3/14/2022 REVISIONS REQUIRED DEPENDING ON WHAT IS APPROVED THROUGH (2WK) FERNANDEZ THE MODIFICATION BY APPLICANT THAT IS BEING PROCESSED. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS ISSUANCE, PAD CERT AND COMPACTION REPORT NEED TO BE 1ST PUBLIC WORKS AMY YU 2/28/2022 3/14/2022 3/11/2022 APPROVED- SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS FOR APPROVAL (2WK) CONDITIONS AND PRECISE GRADING PLAN NEEDS TO BE APPROVED 2ND BLDG INTERWEST 6/8/2022 6/15/2022 6/16/2022 APPROVED- see PCF LETTER COMPLETE (2WK) CONDITIONS 2ND BLDG NS (2WK) JAKE FUSON 6/8/2022 6/15/2022 7/15/2022 APPROVED PERMITS SHALL NOT BE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE 2ND PLANNING SUIFREDO 6/8/2022 6/15/2022 6/15/2022 APPROVED- END OF THE MBA APPEAL PERIOD. THE APPEAL (1WK) FERNANDEZ CONDITIONS PERIOD SHALL END ON JUNE 30TH. • • • 1 1141 . 11 Attachment Type CREATED OWNER DESCRIPTION PATHNAME SUBDIR ETRAKIT ENABLED DOC 2/23/2022 Etrakit Contractor 1ST SUBMITTAL PLANS Point Happy - Building 1 Plans 2.16.2022.pdf DOC 2/23/2022 Etrakit Contractor 1ST SUBMITTAL ENERGYDOCUMENTS Title 24.pdf 1 Point Happy - Plan, DOC 2/23/2022 Etrakit Contractor 1ST SUBMITTAL COLOR Color and Elevation 1 AND ELEVATION Assignments.pdf DOC 2/23/2022 Etrakit Contractor 1ST SUBMITTAL AT RISK Point Happy - At Risk 1 LETTER Letter.pdf Printed: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:18:13 PM 4 of 8 CENTRALSQUARE !� ylProject Details PROJECT NUMBER City of La Quinta BCPR2022-0003 Attachment Type CREATED OWNER DESCRIPTION PATHNAME SUBDIR ETRAKIT ENABLED Point Happy Post- 1ST SUBMITTAL POST tension Placement Calcs DOC 2/28/2022 Etrakit Contractor TENSION 1 (Delta 1 Dated 02-18-22) CALCULATIONS -stamped.pdf 1ST SUBMITTAL DOC 2/28/2022 Etrakit Contractor STRUCTURAL 1-18 - Point 1 H Happy - Calcs.pdf Happy CALCULATIONS 2ND SUBMITTAL - DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor STRUCTURAL 01_Point Happy_S 1 Calcs_Delta 1.pddff CALCULATIONS 2ND SUBMITTAL - 02_Point DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor FOUNDATION PLAN Happy —Foundation Plan 1 REVIEW LETTER Review letter.pdf DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor 2ND SUBMITTAL - 03_Point Happy_Truss 1 TRUSS CALCULATIONS Plans.pdf 04_Point Happy_Arch DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor 2ND SUBMITTAL - CITY Response Letter 1 RESPONSES —La Qunita_Delta 1.pdf 05-Point Happy_Energy DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor 2ND SUBMITTAL - Response Letter_La 1 ENERGY RESPONSES Qunita_Delta 1.pdf 2ND SUBMITTAL - 06 Point Happy_Struct DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor CORRECTION Response Letter 1 RESPONSES —La Qunita_Delta 1.pdf (DUPLICATE?) 07_Point Happy_Arch DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor 2ND SUBMITTAL - Response 1 INTERWEST RESPONSES Letter_Interwest_Delta 1.pdf Printed: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:18:13 PM 5 of 8 CENTRALSQUARE !� ylProject Details PROJECT NUMBER City of La Quinta BCPR2022-0003 Attachment Type CREATED OWNER DESCRIPTION PATHNAME SUBDIR ETRAKIT ENABLED 08_Point Happy_Struct 2ND SUBMITTAL - DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor STRUCTURAL Response 1 Letter_Interwest_Delta RESPONSES 1.pdf Point Happy - ORIGINAL DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor 2ND SUBMITTAL - Geotechnical 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Engineering Report (1).pdf DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor 2ND SUBMITTAL - Updated Geotechnical 1 GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Report LGC 12.7.21.pdf Point Happy Post- DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor 2ND SUBMITTAL - POST tension Placement Plans 1 TENSION PLANS (Delta 1 Dated 05-16- 22).pdf 00_Point DOC 6/7/2022 Etrakit Contractor 2ND SUBMITTAL - Happy_Complete 1 PLANS Set —Delta 1 2022.06.02.pdf Point Happy_Frame DOC 1/26/2023 Etrakit Contractor REVISION 1 - 1ST Walk HOA 1 SUBMITTAL PLANS _ Revisions Delta 2.pdf Point DOC 1/26/2023 Etrakit Contractor REVISION 1 - 1ST Happy_Framewalk 1 SUBMITTAL NARRATIVE Revisions List.pdf 76751 TR 31348 46201 DOC 3/15/2022 INTERWEST 1ST REVIEW INTERWEST Washingont BCPR2022 0 INVOICE -0003.pdf La Quinta-BCPR2022- DOC 3/15/2022 INTERWEST 1ST REVIEW INTERWEST 0003-PC1-New- 0 COMMENTS Residential-Dev.docx Printed: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:18:13 PM 6 of 8 CENTRALSQUARE !� ylProject Details PROJECT NUMBER City of La Quinta BCPR2022-0003 Attachment Type CREATED OWNER DESCRIPTION PATHNAME SUBDIR ETRAKIT ENABLED 2ND REVIEW - DOC 6/16/2022 INTERWEST INTERWEST La Quinta-BCPR2022- 0 TRANSMITTAL 0003-PCF.docx (CONDITIONS) DOC 6/16/2022 INTERWEST 2ND REVIEW - 79183Residential - TR 0 INTERWEST INVOICE 31348 - Plan 1A-2XB.pdf BCPR2022-0003 - 1ST DOC 4/22/2022 JAKE FUSON 1ST REVIEW COMPLETE REVIEW COMPLETE 1 CORRECTION LIST CORRECTION LIST.pdf DOC 7/18/2022 JAKE FUSON PLAN 1 TAKEOFF SHEET BCPR2022-0003 - PLAN 1 1 TAKEOFF SHEET.pdf DOC 7/18/2022 JAKE FUSON PLAN 2 TAKEOFF SHEET BCPR2022-0003 - PLAN 1 2 TAKEOFF SHEET.pdf DOC 7/18/2022 JAKE FUSON PLAN 2X TAKEOFF BCPR2022-0003 - PLAN 1 SHEET 2X TAKEOFF SHEET.pdf DOC 7/18/2022 JAKE FUSON PLANS (APPROVED) BCPR2022-0003 - PLANS 1 (APPROVED).pdf BCPR2022-0003 - FOUNDATION PLAN DOC 7/18/2022 JAKE FUSON REVIEW LETTER FOUNDATION PLAN 1 (APPROVED) REVIEW LETTER (APPROVED).pdf BCPR2022-0003 - DOC 7/18/2022 JAKE FUSON GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE 1 (APPROVED) (APPROVED).pdf BCPR2022-0003 - ORIGINAL ORIGINAL DOC 7/18/2022 JAKE FUSON GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECHNICAL 1 INVESTIGATION (APPROVED) INVESTIGATION (APPROVED).pdf Printed: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:18:13 PM 7 of 8 ;4 CENTRALSQUARE !� ylProject Details PROJECT NUMBER City of La Quinta BCPR2022-0003 Attachment Type CREATED OWNER DESCRIPTION PATHNAME SUBDIR ETRAKIT ENABLED BCPR2022-0003 - STRUCTURAL DOC 7/18/2022 JAKE FUSON CALCULATIONS STRUCTURAL 1 (APPROVED) CALCULATIONS (APPROVED).pdf BCPR2022-0003 - RFI - DOC 9/12/2022 JAKE FUSON RFI - PLAN 1 SHEAR PLAN 1 SHEAR WALL 1 WALL RELOCATION RELOCATION.pdf BCPR2022-0003 - RFI - RFI - FOR APPROVAL OF FOR APPROVAL OF DOC 11/22/2022 JAKE FUSON FRAMING FRAMING 1 COMBINATION COMBINATION INSPECTION ITEMS INSPECTION ITEMS.pdf BCPR2022-0003 - DOC 3/6/2023 JAKE FUSON REVISION 1 -PLAN REVISION 1 - PLAN SET 1 SHEETS (APPROVED) (APPROVED).pdf BCPR2022-0003 - FIRE DOC 3/26/2022 KOHL HETRICK FIRE CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONS OF 1 APPROVAL APPROVAL.pdf Printed: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:18:13 PM 8 of 8 CENTRALSQUARE UNDERLYING ADDRESS 46201 WASHINGTON ST APPLICATION BCPR2022-0003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION VALID UNITL DATE 12/31/2023 POINT HAPPY - PLAN 1 Mechanical Units New Construction FURNACE 1 HEATER CONDITIONED/AC (SF) 2,752 APPLIANCE (ALT/ADD) GARAGE/UNCOND (SF) 773 COMPRESSOR 1 PATIO/COVERED (SF) 398 AIR HANDLER EVAP COOLER VENT FAN 6 FIRE SPRINKLER (SF) 3,525 EXHAUST HOOD 1 MISC MECHANICAL CODE EDITION 2019 CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB Electrical Units GOOD YES- / NO NUMBER OF FLOORS 1 NEW ELECTRICAL (SF; 3,525 NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 3 + FLEX and/or NUMBER OF UNITS 1 RECEP/SWITCH/LIGHT OCCUPANT LOAD plus OCCUPANCY R-3/1-1 APPLIANCE - RES MSHCP (DU/ACRE) 1.6 APPLIANCE - NONRES (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, EX: 43,560SF/7,000SF Lot = 6.22DU/ACRE) POWER APPARATUS SIGNS Options SERVICE TEMPORARY SERVICE MISC ELECTRICAL LIGHT POLES PV SYSTEM - ARRAY PV SYSTEM - MISC EQ Plumbing Units Grading FIXTURE/TRAP 16 TRACT 1 SEWER 1 CUSTOM HOME <=7KSF SEPTIC CUSTOM HOME >7KSF ROOF DRAIN WATER HEATER 1 GREASE INTERCEPTOR WATER PIPING 1 BACKFLOW GAS OUTLETS 4 REVISED: 5/15/2019 UNDERLYING ADDRESS 46201 WASHINGTON ST APPLICATION BCPR2022-0003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION VALID UNITL DATE 12/31/2023 POINT HAPPY - PLAN 2 Mechanical Units New Construction FURNACE 2 HEATER CONDITIONED/AC (SF) 3,215 APPLIANCE (ALT/ADD) GARAGE/UNCOND (SF) 653 COMPRESSOR 2 PATIO/COVERED (SF) 486 AIR HANDLER EVAP COOLER VENT FAN 6 FIRE SPRINKLER (SF) 3,868 EXHAUST HOOD 1 MISC MECHANICAL CODE EDITION 2019 CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB Electrical Units GOOD YES- / NO NUMBER OF FLOORS 1 NEW ELECTRICAL (SF; 3,868 NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 3 + FLEX and/or NUMBER OF UNITS 1 RECEP/SWITCH/LIGHT OCCUPANT LOAD plus OCCUPANCY R-3/1-1 APPLIANCE - RES MSHCP (DU/ACRE) 1.6 APPLIANCE - NONRES (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, EX: 43,560SF/7,000SF Lot = 6.22DU/ACRE) POWER APPARATUS SIGNS Options SERVICE TEMPORARY SERVICE MISC ELECTRICAL LIGHT POLES PV SYSTEM - ARRAY PV SYSTEM - MISC EQ Plumbing Units Grading FIXTURE/TRAP 16 TRACT 1 SEWER 1 CUSTOM HOME <=7KSF SEPTIC CUSTOM HOME >7KSF ROOF DRAIN WATER HEATER 1 GREASE INTERCEPTOR WATER PIPING 1 BACKFLOW GAS OUTLETS 6 REVISED: 5/15/2019 UNDERLYING ADDRESS 46201 WASHINGTON ST APPLICATION BCPR2022-0003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION VALID UNITL DATE 12/31/2023 POINT HAPPY - PLAN 2X Mechanical Units New Construction FURNACE 2 HEATER CONDITIONED/AC (SF) 3,055 APPLIANCE (ALT/ADD) GARAGE/UNCOND (SF) 580 COMPRESSOR 2 PATIO/COVERED (SF) 246 AIR HANDLER EVAP COOLER VENT FAN 6 FIRE SPRINKLER (SF) 3,635 EXHAUST HOOD 1 MISC MECHANICAL CODE EDITION 2019 CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB Electrical Units GOOD YES- / NO NUMBER OF FLOORS 1 NEW ELECTRICAL (SF; 3,635 NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 3 + FLEX and/or NUMBER OF UNITS 1 RECEP/SWITCH/LIGHT OCCUPANT LOAD plus OCCUPANCY R-3/1-1 APPLIANCE - RES MSHCP (DU/ACRE) 1.6 APPLIANCE - NONRES (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, EX: 43,560SF/7,000SF Lot = 6.22DU/ACRE) POWER APPARATUS SIGNS Options SERVICE TEMPORARY SERVICE MISC ELECTRICAL LIGHT POLES PV SYSTEM - ARRAY PV SYSTEM - MISC EQ Plumbing Units Grading FIXTURE/TRAP 16 TRACT 1 SEWER 1 CUSTOM HOME <=7KSF SEPTIC CUSTOM HOME >7KSF ROOF DRAIN WATER HEATER 1 GREASE INTERCEPTOR WATER PIPING 1 BACKFLOW GAS OUTLETS 6 REVISED: 5/15/2019 0 Invoice No.: 76751 1W Invoice Date: 3/15/2022 INTERWEST Remit to: Interwest Consulting Group PO Box 18330 Boulder, CO 80308 Number of Reviews: 1 Direct questions to: Sarah Gray (970) 795-2103 sgray@interwestgrp.com Building & Safety Plan Review Professional Services for the Period January 1 through March 15, 2022 Bill to: City of La Quinta Attention Danny Castro, Design & Development Director 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Jurisdiction # IW # Project Total BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0016 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan lA $500.00 BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0017 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 1B $500.00 BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0018 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2A $500.00 BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0019 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2B $500.00 BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0020 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2XB $500.00 Invoice Total 1 $2,500.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan IA Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Jenny Truong Plan Check Engineer 3/13/2022 2.5 $125.00 $312.50 Charles Nganga Plan Check Engineer 3/20/2022 0.5 $125.00 $62.50 Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 3/20/2022 1.25 $100.00 $125.00 $500.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 1B Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Jenny Truong Plan Check Engineer 3/13/2022 2.5 $125.00 $312.50 Charles Nganga Plan Check Engineer 3/20/2022 0.5 $125.00 $62.50 Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 3/20/2022 1.25 $100.00 $125.00 $500.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2A Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Jenny Truong Plan Check Engineer 3/13/2022 2.5 $125.00 $312.50 Charles Nganga Plan Check Engineer 3/20/2022 0.5 $125.00 $62.50 Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 3/20/2022 1.25 $100.00 $125.00 $500.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2B Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Jenny Truong Plan Check Engineer 3/13/2022 2.5 $125.00 $312.50 Charles Nganga Plan Check Engineer 3/20/2022 0.5 $125.00 $62.50 Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 3/20/2022 1.25 $100.00 $125.00 $500.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2XB Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Jenny Truong Plan Check Engineer 3/13/2022 2.5 $125.00 $312.50 Charles Nganga Plan Check Engineer 3/20/2022 0.5 $125.00 $62.50 Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 3/20/2022 1.25 $100.00 $125.00 $500.00 0 Invoice No.: 79183 1W Invoice Date: 6/16/2022 INTERWEST Remit to: Interwest Consulting Group 444 N. Cleveland Avenue Loveland, CO 80537 Number of Reviews: 2 Direct questions to: Sarah Gray (970) 795-2103 sgray@interwestgrp.com Building & Safety Plan Review Professional services for the period May 1 through June 16, 2022 Bill to: City of La Quinta Attention Danny Castro, Design & Development Director 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Jurisdiction # IW # Project Total BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0016 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan lA $100.00 BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0017 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 1B $50.00 BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0018 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2A $50.00 BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0019 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2B $50.00 BCPR2022-0003 LAQ22-0020 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2XB $50.00 Invoice Total 1 $300.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan IA Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 6/19/2022 1 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 1B Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 6/19/2022 0.5 $100.00 $50.00 $50.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2A Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 6/19/2022 0.5 $100.00 $50.00 $50.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2B Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 6/19/2022 0.5 $100.00 $50.00 $50.00 BCPR2022-0003 Residential - TR 31348 - Plan 2XB Person Title Week Hours Rate Total Adrienne Peterson ICC Certified Plans Examiner 6/19/2022 0.5 $100.00 $50.00 $50.00 LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting May 17, 2022 Project No. 203034-01 Ms. Autumn Gasparella Reviewed for Code Compliance Williams Homes June 15, 2022 24911 Avenue Stanford Interwest Consulting Group Santa Clarita, California 91355 Subject: Geotechnical Foundation Plan (Delta 1) Review for the Proposed Estates Development at Point Happy Ranch, Tract 31348, La Quinta, California References: LGC Valley, Inc., 2020, Geotechnical Update Report for Lots 1 through 7, 25, 33 through 38, 40 through 47, and 66 through 72, The Estates Development at Point Happy Ranch, Tract 31348, La Quinta, California. Project No. 203034-01, dated December 6, 2021. LGC Valley, Inc., 2022, Compaction Report, Lots 1 through 7, 25, 36 through 38, 40 through 47, and 66 through 72, The Estates Development at Point Happy Ranch, Tract 31348, La Quinta, California. Project No. 203034-01, dated May 17, 2022. Suncoast Post -Tension, 2022, Post -Tension Plans and Details for Point Happy, La Quinta, California for Williams Homes. Job No. 21-8154, dated December 28, 2021/Delta 1 Dated May 16, 2022. LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) has reviewed the latest Post -Tension foundation plans for the proposed Estates Development at Point Happy Ranch of Tract 31348 located in the city of La Quinta, California. The latest Post -Tension Foundation Plans, Details, and Specifications prepared by Suncoast Post -Tension (Delta 1 dated May 16, 2022) was the subject of our geotechnical review. Based on our review, it is our opinion that the recommendations included in the referenced geotechnical reports (LGC, 2021) have been properly incorporated in the project plans and specifications. Therefore, LGC finds the plans are acceptable from a geotechnical point of view provided the recommendations of the referenced report are implemented during construction. Based on our review, the structural design minimum slab thickness of 4.5 inches for very low expansion potentials (finish grade expansion potentials between 0 to 5 and were found to be non -plastic soils) is acceptable from a geotechnical point of view for the subject development. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. The undersigned can be reached at (661) 702-8474. Sincerely, LGC Valley, Inc. Basil Hattar, GE 2734 Principal Engineer BIH/ Distribution: (1) Addressee BCPR2022-0003 CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING DIVISION REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE DATE07/18/2022 BY iF POINT HAPPY / TRACT CONSTRUCTION PLANS - SFDx3 28532 Constellation Road • Valencia • CA 91355 • (661) 702-8474 • Fax (661) 702-8475 m r ENGINEERS September 7, 2022 To: Williams Homes Subject: Shear Wall Location Shifts See attached sheets Plan l: Move shear wall per markups on attached framing/foundation sheets. Shear wall length to remain the same If you have any questions, please contact us. Yours very truly, mor ENGINEERS Kyle Morris P.E. President 1401 Dove Street, Suite 520 1 Newport Beach, CA 1 92660 949.502.5323 [Office] I www.morengineers.com RM. 2 BA. 2 a IN 2 SD-3 41)( 2 SD-3 SHEET 1-2.0 ALSO APPLICABLE TO SHEETS S1-2.1 AND S1 X-2.0 KEEP 4X4 POST z a. z co �I N0-�iB- NID�a SHEET 1-2.0 ALSO APPLICABLE TO SHEETS S1-2.1 AND S1 X-2.0 0 REPLACE HDU8 WITH STHD14 1 5'-1' 1 m r ENGINEERS Date: November 21, 2022 To: Drew Kiley Superintendent 24911 Ave. Stanford I Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 Dkiley@williamshomes.com Subject: Point Happy Field Conditions Drew - Based on our field observations here are the clarifications to some of the framing items: 1. Per detail 1-SD-3 the 2x outlookers are per detail. The top chord of the truss is to be cut/notched to accept the 2x outlooker. 2. The corbels are installed per architectural details. The 2x blocking over the plate per detail 2/SD-3 is to be cut to accommodate the outlooker. 3. For shear walls provide square plate washers per detail 5/SD-1. For exterior walls and interior bearing walls a round plate washer can be used. 4. For 2x studs with drilled holes greater than what is allow per detail 10/SD-2 provide Simpson stud shoes. Maximum hole size is 2 3/4" diameter. If you have any questions, please contact us. Yours very truly, mor ENGINEERS Kyle Morris P.E. President 1401 Dove Street, Suite 520 1 Newport Beach, CA 1 92660 949.502.5323 [Office] I www.morengineers.com LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting BCPR2022-0003 CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING DIVISION REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE DAH07/18/2022 BY J POINT HAPPY / TRACT CONSTRUCTION PLANS - SFDx3 Reviewed for Code Compliance June 15, 2022 Interwest Consulting Group GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT FOR LOTS I THROUGH 7, 25, 33 THROUGH 38, 40 THROUGH 47, AND 66 THROUGH 72, THE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT AT POINT HAPPY RANCH, TRACT 31348, LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Dated: December 6, 2021 Project No. 213034-01 Prepared For: WILLIAMS HOMES 24911 Avenue Stanford Santa Clarita, California 91355 28532 Constellation Road. Valencia. CA 91355. (661) 702-8474. Fax (661) 702-8475 LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting December 6, 2021 Ms. Autumn Gasparella Williams Homes 24911 Avenue Stanford Santa Clarita, California 91355 Project No. 213034-01 Subject. Geotechnical Update Report for Lots I through 7, 25, 33 through 38, 40 through 47, and 66 through 72, The Estates Development at Point Happy Ranch, Tract 31348, La Quinta, California Introduction LGC Valley, Inc., (LGC) is pleased to present this update geotechnical report for the proposed residential development of 29 lots (Lots 1 through 7, 25, 33 through 38, 40 through 47, and 66 through 72) at The Estates Development at Point Happy Ranch, Tract 31348, La Quinta, California. The purpose of our review was to evaluate the existing onsite geotechnical conditions, review the previous geotechnical and geologic reports and maps pertinent to the site, and prepare an update report indicating our findings, conclusions, opinions, and updated recommendations for site development. This update report presents the results of our review, site reconnaissance, and provides our updated recommendations relative to the latest proposed development plans. The purpose of this letter is to provide updated geotechnical design parameters in accordance with the adopted building code (i.e. 2019 California Building Code). In preparation of this document we reviewed the reports, plans and documents outlined in the References section of this report and performed a site reconnaissance. This geotechnical update report incorporates the conclusions and recommendations of previous site reports and provides updated geotechnical recommendations, as necessary. This document can be considered as a stand- alone document that provides all the necessary design and remedial earthwork recommendations for the proposed site development. Chanze of Consultant of Record LGC Valley, Inc. has reviewed information performed by the previous professional geotechnical consultant, Earth Systems Southwest (ESS) with respect to the subject site and accepts responsibility as geotechnical engineer -of -record for their work. LGC will become the geotechnical engineer -of -record for the future proposed work including the development of the proposed residential lots and the associated remaining work for completion of the project development. Based on our review, a rockfall fence was constructed in 2019 under the supervision of Kane GeoTech, Inc. The rockfall fence was constructed at the rear of Lots 25, 40-47, and 66-72. The rockfall fence was previously approved and constructed, LGC takes no responsibility with the rockfall fence or any rockfall hazards affecting the subject pads. Also, the site development includes existing basins, utilities, and street improvements, that were completed under the supervision of others. LGC takes no responsibility for the previous work performed for the site basins or within the existing site interior streets. 28532 Constellation Road 9 Valencia • CA 91355 • (661) 702-8474 • Fax (661) 702-8475 Site Location, Site Description and Site Reconnaissance Visit The subject site is located near the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway I I I and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, California. Grading of Tract 31348 for 72 residential lots was previously performed between March of 2004 and September of 2005 under the supervision of Earth Systems Southwest. The subject lots were graded as a part of the entire Tract 31348. It is our understanding that a total of 29 lots remain empty/vacant, and the remainder have been built out. Our site reconnaissance visit was performed on December 5, 2021 and consisted of performing an observation and evaluation of the vacant previously graded pads, the existing interior streets, and slopes. At the time of our observation, the lots were observed to have only minor weeds and vegetation, and other miscellaneous material, with only minor desiccation and weathering of the near -surface materials since the completion of grading. Lots 1 through 7 was observed to have a stockpile of soil, debris, and large rocks, these pads were found to have significant debris and erosion across the pad. The existing pads were generally found to be dry and loose to dense in the upper 1 to 2 feet, except for Lots 1-7 which is anticipated to be dry, loose, and disturbed in the upper 3 feet. Lot 33 is currently landscaped and covered with grass and plants and trees. A rockfall fence was observed at the rear of Lots 25, 40-47, and 66-72, with a ditch in front of the fence. Only minor debris was observed in the ditch in front of the fence. The basin slopes were observed to be in generally good shape; however, was observed to have some erosion or weathering. The existing streets areas generally appeared to be in good shape, however tension cracks and signs of typical aging were observed in portions of the pavement areas. The cracks ranged from a fraction of an inch to less than approximately one inch in width. No depressions or alligator cracking was observed around the areas of the proposed lots. The purpose of our site reconnaissance was to observe the existing conditions to provide necessary geotechnical recommendations (contained herein) for precise and post -grading. Background Review The site was originally graded between March of 2004 and September of 2005 under the supervision of Earth Systems Southwest. For the subject lots, grading consisted of overexcavations/remedial removal and recompaction of the upper 4 feet below the existing or design grades, whichever was deeper. The grading operations were documented in the referenced report (ESS, 2005b). The majority of the site lots were developed between 2005 and 2009. The subject lots remain vacant and undeveloped since 2005. Lots 1-7 appear to have been the lots used for disposal of large rocks and debris associated with the construction of the lots within the tract between 2005 and 2009. It appears the only other work on the subject lots, was construction of a rockfall fence in 2019 under the supervision of Kane GeoTech, Inc. The rockfall fence was constructed at the rear of Lots 25, 40-47, and 66- 72. The rockfall fence was previously approved by the City of La Quinta and constructed under the observation and testing by others. Based on our review, it would appear that the lots have been cleared, grubbed, and sprayed over the years. No other work was observed or documented on the subject lots between 2005 to the present. Project No. 213034-01 Page 2 December 6, 2021 Proposed Development The proposed site development consists of construction of twenty-nine light wood framed single family residential structures. Based on our review of the current site conceptual plans, the proposed overall site configuration is generally the same as the rough/precise graded plans. We anticipate minor cuts and fills to accommodate the proposed buildings to be on the order of 1 foot or less. Site Soils Site soils consist of compacted fills placed under the observation of Earth Systems Southwest (ESS, 2005b). Existing compacted fill soils consist of brown very fine silty sands. The existing compacted fills are underlain by bedrock at depth. Previous Expansion and Corrosion Testing Based on our review, expansion and corrosion testing of representative site soils were performed during previous site investigations by ESS. The test results indicate the site soils on the lots have a very low expansion potential, were found to have a negligible soluble sulfate content (ranging from 0.0270 to 0.0525%), and were found to be corrosive to metals (Chloride Content — 229 to 1,543 ppm). Therefore, the onsite soil should be considered to be very low expansive and are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACI 318R Table 19.3.2.1. Therefore, concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with ACI 318R Table 19.3.2.1 for the So/negligible category. It is also our opinion that onsite soils should be considered corrosive to buried metals. Conclusions Based on the results of our geotechnical review of referenced reports and our observation of the existing site conditions, it is our opinion that the proposed development is suitable from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are considered and incorporated into the project design process. The following is a summary of the primary geotechnical factors determined from our study. • The project site is underlain by compacted fills over bedrock at depth. • The upper approximately 1 to 2 feet (on Lots 25, 33-38, 40-47, and 66-72) and the upper 3 feet (on Lots 1-7) of existing artificial fills are considered to be dry, loose, and potentially compressible/collapsible soils. Existing artificial fills below the upper 1 to 2 feet are considered to be dense and suitable for support of the proposed improvements. • Based on our review of previous testing by others, the onsite soils are considered to have a Very Low expansion potential. • Based on our review of previous testing by others, the onsite soils have a negligible potential for soluble sulfate attack on normal concrete but should be considered as corrosive to ferrous metals. • From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as fill, provided they are relatively free from rocks (larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and organic material. It is anticipated that the onsite soils may be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. Project No. 213034-01 Page 3 December 6, 2021 RECOMMENDATIONS Uto F"VthWfJVL7 We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation and remedial grading followed by construction of slab -on -grade type foundations, house connection utility installation, and concrete flatwork. We recommend that earthwork be performed in accordance with the recommendations contained herein and the City of La Quinta Grading Requirements or other governing agencies. The following recommendations supersede the recommendations included in Appendix B. Site Preparation Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures, the ground surface should be cleared of obstructions, existing debris, potentially compressible material and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below finished site grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to a near -optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557). Removal and Recompaction As previously discussed, the upper portion of the site is underlain by potentially compressible/collapsible soils (upper approximately 1 to 2 feet for Lots 25, 33-38, 40-47, and 66-72, and upper approximately 2 to 3 feet for Lots 1-7), which may settle under the surcharge of fill and/or foundation loads. Compressible/collapsible materials not removed by designed cuts should be scarified and recompacted. We anticipate the depth of reworking (i.e. scarification and recompaction) to be on the order of approximately 2 feet for Lots 25, 33-38, 40-47, and 66-72, and up to approximately 3 feet for Lots 1-7 below the existing grade. However, localized, deeper removals should be anticipated where deemed necessary by the geotechnical consultant based on observations during grading. The remedial removal bottom should be moisture conditioned, scarified, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. From a geotechnical perspective, material that is removed may be placed as fill provided the material is relatively free from large rocks, organic material and construction debris, is moisture -conditioned or dried (as needed) to obtain above -optimum moisture content (approximately 2% above optimum), and then recompacted prior to additional fill placement or construction. Shrinkame/Bulkin The preliminary estimated shrinkage factors of 1 to 3 percent for the existing fills may be used for consideration of earthwork calculations. These are preliminary rough estimates which may vary with depth of removal, stripping losses, field conditions at the time of grading, etc. Project No. 213034-01 Page 4 December 6, 2021 Temporary Stability of Removal Excavations All excavations for the proposed development should be performed in accordance with current OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Agency) regulations and those of other regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Temporary excavations maybe cut vertically up to five feet. Excavations over five feet should be slot - cut, shored, or cut to a 1H:1V (horizontal, H: vertical, V) slope gradient. Surface water should be diverted away from the exposed cut, and not be allowed to pond on top of the excavations. Temporary cuts should not be left open for an extended period of time. Fill Placement and Compaction From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are screened of rocks greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension, organic materials and construction debris. Areas prepared to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be moisture conditioned, scarified, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. If possible, import soils should contain no materials over 6 inches in maximum dimension and have a very low expansion potential. Trench Backfill and Compaction The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of rocks and other material over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM Test Method D1557). If trenches are shallow and the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities; clean sand, having sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater, should be used to bed and shade the utilities. Sand backfill should be densified. The densification may be accomplished by jetting or flooding and then tamping to ensure adequate compaction. A representative from LGC should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project specifications. Foundations Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and foundation construction are presented herein. When the structural loads for the proposed structures are known they should be provided to our office to verify the recommendations presented herein. The following foundation recommendations are provided. The three foundations recommended for the proposed structures are: (1) Conventional foundation for very low to low expansion potential; (2) Post - Tension foundations; or (3) Mat Slabs. Project No. 213034-01 Page 5 December 6, 2021 The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design nor impede those recommendations by a corrosion consultant. Should conflict arise, modifications to the foundation design provided herein can be provided. Bearinz Capacity Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 lb/ft2 (gross), for continuous footings a minimum of 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and spread footings 24 inches wide and 18 inches deep, into certified compacted fill. A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the above bearing capacity value. This value maybe increased by 300 psf for each additional foot in depth and 150 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Bearing values indicated above are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads. The above vertical bearing may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. Lateral forces on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction at the bottom of the footing. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.4, and a passive earth pressure of 300 lb/ft2/ft to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. The passive earth pressure incorporates a factor of safety of greater than 1.5. The above passive pressure may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. Lateral passive resistance is based on the assumption that backfill next to the foundations is properly compacted. All footing excavations should be cut square and level as much as possible, and should be free of sloughed materials including sand, rocks and gravel, and trash debris. Subgrade soils should be pre - moistened for the very low to low expansion potential. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:IV) conditions only. Conventional Foundations Conventional foundations may be used to support proposed structures underlain by very low expansive soils (i.e. Plasticity Index less than 15). Continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches or 15 inches for one-story or two- story structures, respectively. Individual column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footings for proposed structures should have minimum depths (below lowest adjacent finish grade) of 18 inches and 12 inches for exterior and interior footings. The subgrade should be moisture -conditioned and proof -rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, relatively unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder (i.e. an equivalent capillary break method) may consist of a minimum 15-mil thick vapor/moisture retarder (or equivalent) in conformance with ASTM E 1745 Class A material, placed in general conformance with ASTM E1643, in direct contact with the concrete (unless superseded by the Structural/Post-tension engineer*) with 1 to 2 inches of sand below the moisture/vapor barrier. The sand layer requirements above the vapor barrier are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with Project No. 213034-01 Page 6 December 6, 2021 ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction". These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance expectations of the foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and concrete mix design, which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder described above is considered a suitable alternative in accordance with the Capillary Break Section 4.505.2.1 of the CALGreen code. Subgrade soils should be pre -saturated to 1.2 times optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for a very low expansion potential. The minimum thickness of the floor slabs should be at least 4.5 inches, and joints should be provided per usual practice. We recommend that the concrete slabs be reinforced at slab mid -height with a minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18-inch on center each way to resist cracking and some differential movement of the subgrade. These recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design nor impede those recommendations by a corrosion consultant. Post -Tension Foundations Based on the existing site geotechnical conditions, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the anticipated structures using a post -tensioned slab -on -grade foundation system, for very low expansive soils. The following section summaries our recommendations for the foundation system. The following table contains the geotechnical recommendations for the construction of PT slab on grade foundations. The structural engineer should design the foundation system based on these parameters including the foundation settlement as indicated in the following section to the allowable deflection criteria determined by the structural engineer/architect. Project No. 213034-01 Page 7 December 6, 2021 Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post -Tensioned Foundation Desi,-n Parameter Value Expansion Classification (Assumed to be confirmed at Very Low Expansion the completion of grading): Thornthwaite Moisture Index From Figure 3.3 : -20 Constant Soil Suction From Figure 3.4 : PF 3.6 Center Lift Very Low to Low Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 9.0 feet 3.6), em: 0.35 inches Center lift, m: Edge Lift Very Low to Low Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: 5.2 feet Edge lift, yn,: 0.65 inches Soluble Sulfate Content for Design of Concrete Mix in Negligible Exposure Contact with Site Soils in Accordance with American Concrete Institute standard 318, Section 4.3: Corrosivity of Earth Materials to Ferrous Metals: Corrosive Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming resaturation as indicated below): 150 pci(Very Low to Low Additional Recommendations: 1. Presaturate slab subgrade to at least 1.2 times optimum moisture, to minimum depth of 12 inches below ground surface for very low to low expansion potentials. 2. Install a 15-mil moisture/vapor barrier (or equivalent) moisture/vapor barrier in direct contact with the concrete (unless superseded by the Structural/Post-tension engineer*) with 1 to 2 inches of sand below the moisture/vapor barrier. 3. Minimum perimeter foundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12 inches for very low to low expansion potentials. 4. Minimum slab thickness should be 4.5 inches. * The above sand and Visqueen recommendations are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation recommendations although they are generally not a major factor influencing the geotechnical performance of the foundation. The sand and Visqueen requirements are the purview of the foundation engineer/corrosion engineer (in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction") and the homebuilder to ensure that the concrete cures more evenly than it would otherwise, is protected from corrosive environments, and moisture penetration of through the floor is acceptable to future homeowners. Therefore, the above recommendations may be superseded by the requirements of the previously mentioned parties. The proposed foundations/slab-on-grade for the lots underlain by very low expansion potential soils (EI of 0 to 20) can be designed using the California Slab (Spanability) Method. A coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used to evaluate the pressure distribution beneath the slab/foundation. Minimum perimeter foundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12 inches for very low expansion potential. Presaturate slab subgrade to at least 1.2 times optimum - moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches below ground surface for very low expansion potential. Install a 15-mil moisture/vapor barrier (or equivalent) moisture/vapor barrier in direct contact with the concrete (unless superseded by the Structural engineer) with 1 to 2 inches of sand below the moisture/vapor barrier. Minimum slab thickness should be 4.5 inches for the very low expansion potential. Project No. 213034-01 Page 8 December 6, 2021 Mat Foundations A mat foundation can be used for support of proposed residential buildings. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be used for the design of the mat at the surface under the slab area. The allowable bearing value is for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. A coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction, k, of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used to evaluate the pressure distribution beneath the mat foundation. The magnitude of total and differential settlements of the mat foundation will be a function of the structural design and stiffness of the mat. Based on assumed structural loads, we estimate that total static settlement will be on the order of an inch at the center of the mat foundation. Post construction differential settlement can be taken as one-half of the maximum estimated settlement. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.4. Minimum perimeter footing embedment provided in the previous sections maybe reduced for the mat slab design. Coordination with the structural engineer will be required in order to ensure structural loads are adequately distributed throughout the mat foundation to avoid localized stress concentrations resulting in potential settlement. The foundation plan should be reviewed by LGC to confirm preliminary estimated total and differential static settlements. Foundation Settlement Based on our understanding of the project, the results of our review and evaluation and the recommended shallow foundations embedded into recertified compacted fills or existing competent fills, we estimate the post -construction settlement of the site to be less than 1-inch with a differential settlement of approximately of %2-inch in 30 feet for shallow foundations. Seismic Design Criteria The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). Representative site coordinates of latitude 33.7117' N and longitude-116.2972' W were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMs and Smi) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDs and SDI) for Site Class D are provided in the following table. Project No. 213034-01 Page 9 December 6, 2021 Seismic Design Parameters Selected Parameters from 2019 CBC, Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads Seismic Design Values Site Class per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 D Risk -Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (Ss) 1.598g Risk -Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods (Si) 0.64g Site Coefficient Fa per Table 1613.3.3(1) 1.0 Site Coefficient Fv per Table 1613.3.3(2) N/A Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SMs) for Site Class D 1.598g Note: SMs = FaSs Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SMi) for Site Class D N/A [Note: SMi = FvSI] Design Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SDs) for Site Class D 1.065g Note: SDs = /3 SMs Design Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SDI) for Site Class D N/A [Note: SDI = (2/3)SMI] Seismic Design Category (per Section 1613.2.5) D Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake ground motions, Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for the geotechnical evaluations. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.75g (USGS Seismic Design Maps based on ASCE/SEI 7-16 and ASCE/SEI 7-16 Table 1.5-2). A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 7.34 at a distance of approximately 9.42 km (5.85 mi) from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014). Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (MACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment." From a geotechnical viewpoint, the "environment" is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebar, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil. In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. ACI 318R Table 19.3.2.1, provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000 ppm. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532. Based on previous site soil testing (by others), the onsite soils are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACI 318R Table 19.3.2.1. As a preliminary recommendation due to results of sulfate content testing, concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with ACI 318R Table 19.3.2.1 for the "So"/negligible category. It is also our opinion that onsite soils should be considered corrosive (Cl) to buried metals. The client and/or other members of the design team should consider this potential as they determine necessary. Project No. 213034-01 Page 10 December 6, 2021 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaininz Walls (If Any) The following lateral earth pressures may be used for the design of any future site retaining walls (If Any). Due to the low expansive nature of onsite soils, we recommend site retaining walls be backfilled with on -site soils. Select on -site soils should consist of clean, granular soils (less than 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of very low expansion potential (expansion index 20). The recommended lateral pressures for approved select soils for level or sloping backfill are presented in the following table. Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill Sloping Upwards Approved Select Material Approved Select Material Active 35 50 At Rest 51 80 For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water and backfilled with approved on -site soils is provided in the table above. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free -draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual -case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated on Figure 2. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water, which contains soluble salts, migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf/ft of depth or pcf. These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil. For sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. Refer to the bearing capacity section in this report for passive resistance and allowable soil bearing. Retaining wall footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into compacted fills or native soils. Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, etc.) have a high potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil -moisture fluctuations because these slabs are typically much thinner than foundation slabs and are not reinforced with the same dynamic as foundation elements. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in the following table. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. Project No. 213034-01 Page 11 December 6, 2021 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Homeowner City Sidewalk Sidewalks Private Drives Patios/Entryways Curb and Gutters Minimum City/Agency Thickness (in.) 4 5 5 Standard Wet down Presoak to 12 Presoak to 12 City/Agency Presaturation inches inches Standard No. 3 at 24 No. 3 at 24 inches City/Agency Reinforcement — inches on centers on centers Standard or Welded Wire or Welded Wire Mesh 6x6 6/6 Mesh 6x6 6/6 City/Agency Thickened Edge — 8" x 8" — Standard Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep tool joint to a tool joint to a tool joint to a Crack Control minimum of 1/3 minimum of 1/3 minimum of 1/3 City/Agency the concrete the concrete the concrete Standard thickness thickness thickness 10 feet or quarter Maximum Joint 5 feet cut whichever is 6 feet City/Agency Spacing closer Standard Swimminz Pool and Spa Recommendations Based on our review of the site soils, recommended over -excavations, and proposed improvements, proposed pool and spa excavations will occur in engineered fill and native soils and are anticipated to be relatively uniform consisting of the silty sands or bedrock. Based on previous site laboratory testing, the site soils were found to generally have a very low expansive potential, have negligible soluble sulfates, and corrosive to buried metals. Any proposed pool and spa and associated improvements should be constructed in accordance with the attached Figure 3, Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction. Consideration should be given to the Very Low to Low expansion potential of onsite soils in design of the pool. The subject pool/spa should be designed using a minimum lateral equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Also, concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with the So/negligible category of ACI 318R Table 19.3.2.1. Excavation and subsequent fill placement for pool, including the placement of drains, outlets, water- proofing, etc. should be performed under the observation and testing of a geotechnical consultant. Observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during pool excavation to verify that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with the design assumptions. Project No. 213034-01 Page 12 December 6, 2021 Depending on the depths of the design pool/spa, additional over -excavation maybe required to have a uniform thickness of compacted fills underlying the pool and spa. Due to inherent differences in supporting capacity of fill and cut ground, it is undesirable to have structures partially supported on soils having different geotechnical characteristics or materials having different engineering characteristics. Although not anticipated after site over -excavations, if a cut/fill transition condition exists, the cut portion of the transition should be excavated and converted to compacted fill (usually impractical for pool/spa construction), or the pool/spa can be designed with additional reinforcement and/or a thicker shell in order to cope with potential differences in supporting capacity and expansive potential. Consideration should be given to the very low/low expansive potential of onsite soils in design of the associated decking. Concrete flatwork adjacent to the pool should be a minimum of 5-inches thick reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 24-inches on center each way with an 8-inch cut-off footing. Construction joints or weakened plane joints should be provided in all flatwork to a minimum depth of 1.5 inches at frequent internals (5 feet or less). The pool deck can be placed directly on the very low to low expansive soils, with no sand/base requirement. The subgrade should be presaturated to a minimum 1.2 times optimum to a depth of 12 inches. The subgrade should be inclined so that any moisture that seeps through cracks in the concrete due to irrigation, rain, or pool splash will be directed away from the pool. Also due to the very low to low expansive soils a perimeter drainpipe is not considered necessary. All other recommendations should be considered in accordance with the attached Figure 3. Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet, and further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters are recommended and reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Over - watering must be avoided. It is our opinion that the above alternative recommendation is suitable from a geotechnical point -of -view for the intended purpose of directing surface water away from planned structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent soil conditions or proposed building foundations. Based on our review of the site conditions as the Engineer of Record, it is our determination that considering the site conditions including the soil and the climate, the recommended site drainage slopes indicated above shall be satisfactory and do not warrant the more conservative requirements of the building code. Construction Observation and Testing The recommendations provided in this report are based on our review of the previous site work and our limited site observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC. Construction observation and testing should also be performed by the geotechnical consultant during future grading, excavations, backfill of utility trenches, preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base, foundation or retaining wall construction or when an unusual soil condition is encountered at the site. Foundation plans, and final project drawings should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. Project No. 213034-01 Page 13 December 6, 2021 Limitations Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in -situ field testing performed are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Closure If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LGC VALLEY, INC. Basil Hattar, GE 2734 Principal Engineer BIH Distribution: (1) Via Email Attachments: Figure 1 — Site Location Map (rear of text) Figure 2 — Retaining Wall Detail, Sand Backfill (rear of test) Figure 3 — Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction Appendix A — References Appendix B - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Project No. 213034-01 Page 14 December 6, 2021 r WY'111%; II&T 0"' dw, 1 0 t Ir CD X\ IJi/ • 1 ` �Of Approximate Siie Locat o • ►- 1. � IP Arr Y ��1 M Project Name Williams Homes/Point Happy Figure 1: Project No. 213034-01 Site Location Map Eng./Geol. B1H Scale n/a Date l 2/6/21 FENCE EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GRFATF NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90 % RELATIVE COMPACTION PER ASTM1557-D 1' MINIMUM WATER PROOFING PER CIVIL ENGINEER FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL _ SE 30 OR GREATER BACKCUT PER OSHA MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT ` BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF ••� 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE FOOTING/WALL DESIGN PER CIVIL ENGINEER Figure 2: Retaining Wall Detail, Sand Backfill x .d — Project Name Williams Homes/Point Project No. 213034-01 Eng. / Geol. 131H Scale N/A Date 12/6/21 SCHEDULE Depth of Lateral Expansion moisture cut-off Slope creep Equivalent Index footing zone distance Fluid Pressure distance "B" A (pcf) low -very low 8 inches 7 feet 60 medium 12 inches 10 feet 85 high 18 inches 15 feet 105 very high 24 inches 20 feet 125 Portion of pad most susceptible to slope creep. Concrete deck, minimum of 5 inches thick with #3 bar 18 inch on center each way with construction joints 1.5 inches deep (minimum) with maximum spacing of 5 feet. Flexible sealant between pool coping and concrete decking ' m Clean sand backfill JI U) / (4" minimum) 2 N ... \ 10 mil visqueen � SIO a creep zone P P / moisture barrier / Pool shell to be \\Y/ Perimeter Drain (perforated pipe designed for any added wrapped in approved filter fabric and load of adjacent outletted). Pool Shell structures. / Pressure relief valve For pools adjacent to descending slopes, the pool shell should be designed assuming total loss of soil support for the portion of the pool located within the assumed "creep zone". For design purposes, the creep zone should be considered to extend a distance "A" from the top of slope (see schedule "A" above). The creep zone should be considered as parallel to the slope face. Concrete flatwork adjacent to the pool should be a minimum of 5 inches thick reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18-inches on center each way with a perimeter cut-off footing per the above schedule. Construction joints or weakened plane joints should be provided in all flatwork to a minimum depth of 1.5 inches at frequent internals (5 feet or less). The concrete slab should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clean sand underlain inturn by a 10-mil Visqueen barrier. Presoaking of the subgrade prior to placing the Visqueen barrier should be performed in accordance with the recommendations included in the project geotechnical report. The presoaking should saturate the subgrade to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The subgrade below the Visqueen barrier should be inclined so that any moisture that seeps through cracks in the concrete due to irrigation, rain, or pool splash will be directed away from the pool. A perforated pipe wrapped in approved filter fabric should be installed to transport the collected moisture away from the pool area. The drain pipe is not considered necessary for soils of low to medium expansion potential. The contractor must ensure that the Visqueen is properly lapped, sealed and not punctured during construction. All pool design should be performed by a qualified designer, using the equivalent fluid pressures shown in the schedule. A geotechnical consultant should be contacted to review the final design which is based on the recommendations of this detail. This is not a design document and has been provided for INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY unless stamped and signed by LGC and pertaining to a specific pool. To reduce the potential of lifting and cracking of the pool decking, landscape planters should not be located in islands within the decking unless they are lined with a waterproof membrane and provided with a subdrainage system to prevent moisture variations below the decking. The pool shell should be designed to account for any additional loading due to improvements (building, raised planters, etc.) Raised planters should not be located at the top of slopes unless specially designed by the geotechnical consultant. The recommendations above will not eliminate all movement of the pool and associated improvements, however they should reduce the degree of movement, and promote cracking along construction joints, not flatwork. Version 12/07/2001 Figure 3 Geotechnical Project Name Willams/Point Happy Guidelines for Project No. 213034-01 Swimming POOL 11Z:3 Eng. / Geol. BIH Scale Not to Scale Construction Date 1 12/6/21 APPENDIX A REFERENCES ASCE, 2021, https://asce7hazardtool.online/ American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2017. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2019, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 and 2 of 2. City of La Quinta, On-Linr Permit Wall/Fence, Permit No. BHWFE2019-0139, Approved date 7-25-2019, Issued Date 7-29-2019. Earth Systems Southwest, 2003, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Point Happy Ranch, West of Washington Street, South of Highway 111, La Quinta, California, File No.:09026-02, Doc.No.:03-09-818, dated September 26, 2003. Earth Systems Southwest, 2005a, Report Update, Point Happy Tract 31348, La Quinta, California, File No.:09026-04, Document No.:05-04-714, dated April 5, 2005. Earth Systems Southwest, 2005b, Final Report of Testing and Observations Performed During Grading, The Estates at Point Happy Ranch, Tentative Tract 31348, La Quinta, California, File No.:09026-04, Doc.No.:05-10-737, dated October 12, 2005. Earth Systems Southwest, 2013, Geotechnical Engineering Report Update with Supplemental Recommendations, Tract 31348 - The Estates at Point Happy Ranch, Washington Street, South of highway 111, La Quinta, California, File No.: 09026-06, Doc. No.: 13-09-702, dated September 5, 2013. Google Maps at http://www.goo leg mgps.com Kane GeoTech, Inc., 2013, Point Happy Ranch Rockfall Investigation La Quinta, California, Design Calculation Report. KGT Project No. GT13-38, Dated December 13, 2013 Kane GeoTech, Inc., 2013, Point Happy Ranch Rockfall Mitigation Design, Rockfall Barrier Protection System, La Quinta, California. KGT Project No. GT13-38, Dated December 20, 2013 Kane GeoTech, Inc., 2019, Technical Memorandum - Site and Specified Material Verification Point Happy Rockfall Mitigation Updated Rockfall Analyses and Original Plan Revisions La Quinta, Riverside County California. Dated April 3, 2019. Kane GeoTech, Inc., 2019, Point Happy Rockfall Mitigation GEOBRUGG GBE-100A-R and GBE-500A-R Systems, La Quinta, California. KGT Project No. GT13-38 KGT 19-18, Dated November 5, 2019 Kane GeoTech, Inc., 2019, Point Happy Rockfall Mitigation Tract No. 31348 Final Submittal Package, La Quinta, California. KGT Project No. GT 13-38, KGT 19-18, KGT 19-43, Dated November 5, 2019 Project No. 213034-01 Page A-1 December 6, 2021 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Cont'd United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008a, "2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps — Fault Parameters" Retrieved December 17, 2013, from: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/hf search_main.cfin USGS, 2013, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, retrieved from: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/usibatch.php#csv, accessed November 2021. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, retrieved from: https:Hearthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/, accessed November 2021. Project No. 213034-01 Page A-2 December 6, 2021 APPENDIX B LGC VALLEY, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications For Rough Grading 1.0 General 1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture -conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture -conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page I of 6 responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "equipment" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing.. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor's sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. 2.0 Preparation ofAreas to be Filled 2.1 Clearinz and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 10 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 2 of 6 2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free from oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free from uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic -rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General. Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free from organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 3 of 6 3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near -horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture -conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91. 4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 4 of 6 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over -excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill -over -cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 5 of 6 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 6 of 6