The URL can be used to link to this page

PGA West - Coral Mountain TR 34243 BCPR2021-0024 - Geotechnical ReportQ%"'s Earth Systems MWOMF 79-811 Country Club Drive, Suite B I Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 1 Ph: 760.345.1588 1 www.earthsystems.com December 16, 2020 Alta Verde Coral Mountain, LLC PO Box 13290 Palm Desert, CA 92255 Attention: Mr. Russell Jones Project: Coral Mountain Tract 34243 (aka Pasatiempo) Avenue 58 West of Madison Street La Quinta, Riverside County, California Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Update File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 In accordance with your request, Earth Systems Pacific [Earth Systems] has reviewed the referenced documents for the purpose of updating the soils reports and providing supplemental recommendations in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code. Our conclusions and recommendations are provided below. Additionally, please review the limitations section of this report as the information presented is integral to the understanding of this document. This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our Change Order No. 3 BD- 10109-06 with new File No.: 300310-002, dated November 10, 2020. Unless requested in writing, the client is responsible for distributing this report to the appropriate governing agency or other members of the design team. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our offices if there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations. Qc ErSS/p,�,_ Respectfully submitted,�co�,� EARTH SYSTE S P CIFIC � �' � (DUJ No.b0�02 Anthony Colarossi Project Engineer CE60302 M 11. sj. CIV� Distribution: 4/Alta Verde Builders 1/Mr. Russell Jones (riones@altaverdebuilders.com) 1/BER EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background....................................................................................................................1 SiteReconnaissance...........................................................................................................1 FieldExploration................................................................................................................3 LaboratoryTesting..............................................................................................................4 CollapsePotential...............................................................................................................4 Groundwater....................................................................................................................6 Ground Subsidence Due to Groundwater Withdrawal........................................................8 Earthquake Settlement (2019 CBC).....................................................................................9 Conclusions and Supplemental Recommendations...........................................................11 Site Development —Grading .............................................................................................11 Excavations, and Utilities..................................................................................................12 Foundations..................................................................................................................12 SeismicDesign Criteria.....................................................................................................14 RetainingWalls................................................................................................................15 Grading Observation and Testing.....................................................................................17 Limitations..................................................................................................................17 References..................................................................................................................19 Attachments: Vicinity Map Exploration Map Fault Parameters Historic Faults Terms and Symbols Boring Logs Site Specific Liquefaction Settlement Dry Seismic Settlement Lab Results EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 1 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 Background This residential project's soil report was first initiated in 2005 and grading operations for the 20- acre site was documented in our Report of Testing and Observations Performed During Grading (Earth Systems, 2007). The original Tract Map 34243 shows 70 numbered lots and 13 lettered lots. Based on a historical aerial photo review (Google 2020) found in Section "Site Reconnaissance", construction of individual homes completed varied between years of 2008 and 2015. Note aerial photos were not available for the years 2007 and 2008 where some homes noted on the 2009 aerial photo may have been completed earlier. Based on client information, a site visit and google aerial review, there are a remaining 40 residential homes to be constructed, see bounded red borderline in Figure 1. The infrastructure appears to be completed. This report contains additional explorations that were conducted to study possible groundwater influence by nearby groundwater recharge ponds located approximately 6,300 linear feet south of this project. Review of reports of nearby projects indicated groundwater was rising between 2008 and 2016. The groundwater readings were published for wells located near the Trilogy Resort in La Quinta, California. For additional information on groundwater levels, please see the section "Groundwater" in this report. Site Reconnaissance Earth Systems personnel visited the site on November 11, 2020. During our site visits, site conditions were visually observed and a summary of our findings of our site visit are presented below. ■ In general, the site appeared in relatively good shape with no significant distress noted; ■ Vacant pads appeared in relatively good shape with little erosion damage; ■ Vacant pads were walked and did not find significant cracking along the pads. Green erosion preventive sealant was still visible on the pads; ■ Asphalt pavement had traverse and longitudinal cracking, typical of aged pavement in the hot desert climate. o One measurement was 30 feet wide. o Some cracks though appeared wide at 1 inch; o Traverse and longitudinal cracks appeared to be filled in with sealant; o It was noted that traverse cracks of the asphalt did not continue through the curb and gutter nor interlocking pavers. o From the information above, Earth Systems believes the cracking is caused by heat and cooling due to the desert environment. ■ Walls along the south, west, and lots 17 to 19 were visually observed and appeared in good shape with little cracking and only hairline width cracks if found; ■ Depressions at the surface of the column making up the fence/wall dividing between pads 26 to 30 and the retention basin located in the middle of the project was noted; EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 2 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 ■ The basin has slopes with retaining walls. The height of basin slopes were measured at approximately 4 to 5 feet between bottom of basin and top of pads; ■ Basins looked in good shape and clean as if no flooding occurred, see Photo 7 and 8. Photo 7 shows an underground drainage system. The slopes soil surface within the basin appeared to be soft or very loose. However, the slopes have well grown landscaping covering the majority of the slope surface; ■ Slopes along the perimeter of the project (south, west, and lots 17 to 19) looked, in general, in good shape with little erosion issues. Slopes are descending into the project; ■ Residential homes observed during the walks looked in very good condition from the street distance; ■ Flatwork, including driveways, C&G, ditch aprons, and sidewalks, at various locations looked in good condition; and ■ Drainage is based on sheet flow to the street and then to street inlets to underground piping to the basin is assumed. — + � _ ■ b1rNt pt ri - _ 1 —I- I I +I I it • n l I n m r 22 v » A I I N « " a I -- _n so I II m r- II • I I w 1 3 _ to as 's I r 36 • I' �R I�I --- r I - " 36 M I I vsw IA�o n— — • I ` Liflm;F - — Lt-* t*+ 21 AVEWX 36 [ 'ft ft•Sf :.'asp' :« nna Z Figure 1 Thick Line Shows Location of Vacant Lots (40 total residential lots). EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 3 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 Field Exploration Exploratory Borings Two exploratory borings were drilled to depths approximately 51%2 feet below the existing ground surface to observe soil profiles, ground water, and obtain samples for laboratory testing. The borings were drilled on December 2, 2020, using a 8-inch outside diameter hollow -stem auger. Augers were powered by a Mobile B-61 truck -mounted rubber -tired drill rig subcontracted by Cal Pac out of Calimesa, California. The boring locations are shown on the Exploration Location Map, Plate 2, in the back of this report. The locations shown are approximate, established by pacing and line -of -sight bearings from adjacent landmarks and consumer grade GPS coordinates (+/- 15 feet). Refusal was not encountered to a depth of 51-1/2 feet bgs but groundwater was discovered in boring B-2 at a depth of approximately 49 feet below the ground surface. A representative from Earth Systems maintained a log of the subsurface conditions encountered and obtained samples for visual observation, classification and laboratory testing. Subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were categorized and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System [USCS] and ASTM D 2487 and 2488 (current edition). Our typical sampling interval within the borings was approximately every 2% to 5 feet to the full depth explored; however, sampling intervals were adjusted as needed depending on the materials encountered onsite. Samples were obtained within the test borings using a Standard Penetration [SPT] sampler (ASTM D 1586) and a Modified California [MC] ring sampler (ASTM D 3550 with those similar to ASTM D 1586). The SPT sampler has an approximate 2-inch outside diameter and a 1.38-inch inside diameter. The MC sampler has an approximate 3-inch outside diameter and a 2.4-inch inside diameter. Both the ring and SPT samplers were mounted on drill rod and driven using a rig -mounted 140- pound automatic hammer falling for a height of 30 inches. The number of blows necessary to drive either a SPT sampler or a MC type ring sampler within the borings was recorded. Design parameters provided by Earth Systems in this report have considered an estimated 72% hammer efficiency based on data provided by the drilling subcontractor. The number of blows necessary to drive either a SPT sampler or a MC type ring sampler within the borings was recorded. Since the MC sampler was used in our field exploration to collect ring samples, the N- values using the California sampler can be roughly correlated to SPT N-values using a conversion factor that may vary from about 0.5 to 0.7. In general, a conversion factor of approximately 0.63 from the recent study at the Port of Los Angeles (Zueger and McNeilan, 1998 per SP 117A) is considered satisfactory. A value of 0.63 was applied in our calculations for this project. Bulk samples of the soil materials were obtained from the drill auger cuttings, representing a mixture of soils encountered at the depths noted. Following drilling, sampling, and logging the borings were backfilled with native cuttings and tamped upon completion. Our field exploration was provided under the direction of a registered Geotechnical Engineer from our firm. The final logs of the borings represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the results of laboratory testing performed on the samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. The final logs are included in Appendix A of this report. The stratification lines EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 4 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, although the transitions may be gradual. In reviewing the logs and legend, the reader should recognize the legend is intended as a guideline only, and there are a number of conditions that may influence the soil characteristics observed during drilling. These include, but are not limited to cementation, variations in soil moisture, presence of groundwater, and other factors. The boring logs present field blowcounts per 6 inches of driven embedment (or portion thereof) for a total driven depth attempted of 18 inches. The blowcounts on the logs are uncorrected (i.e. not corrected for overburden, sampling, etc.). Consequently, the user must correct the blowcounts per standard methodology if they are to be used for design and exercise judgment in interpreting soil characteristics, possibly resulting in soil descriptions that vary somewhat from the legend. Laboratory Testing Samples were reviewed along with field logs to select those that would be analyzed further. Those selected for laboratory testing include soils exposed and used during grading and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed structures. Test results are presented in graphic and tabular form in Appendix B of this report. The tests were conducted in general accordance with the procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] or other standardized methods as referenced below. Our testing program consisted of the following: ➢ Density and Moisture Content of select samples of the site soils collected (ASTM D 2937 & 2216). ➢ Maximum density tests to evaluate the moisture -density relationship of typical soils encountered (ASTM D 1557). ➢ Particle Size Analysis to classify and evaluate soil composition. The gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by percent passing the #200 sieve and sieve analysis procedures (ASTM D 1140). ➢ Consolidation (Collapse Potential) to evaluate the compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potential of the soil upon wetting (ASTM D 5333 and D 2435). Collapse Potential Earth Systems further evaluated collapse potential at the site. Collapsible soil deposits generally exist in regions of moisture deficiency. Collapsible soils are generally defined as soils that have potential to suddenly decrease in volume upon increase in moisture content even without an increase in external loads. Soils susceptible to collapse include loess, weakly cemented sands and silts where the cementing agent is soluble (e.g. soluble gypsum, halite), valley alluvial deposits within semi -arid to arid climate, and certain granite residual soils above the groundwater table. In arid climatic regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse (hydroconsolidation) may occur when the soils are lubricated or the soluble EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 5 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 cements (carbonates) in the soil matrix dissolve, causing the soil to densify from its loose configuration from deposition. The degree of collapse of a soil can be defined by the Collapse Potential [CP] value, which is expressed as a percent of collapse of the total sample using the Collapse Potential Test (ASTM Standard Test Method D 5333). Based on the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Design Manual 7.1, the severity of collapse potential is commonly evaluated by the following Table 1, Collapse Potential Values. Table 1 Collapse Potential Values Collapse Potential Value Severity of Problem 0-1% No Problem 1-5% Moderate Problem 5-10% Trouble 10-20% Severe Trouble > 20% Very Severe Trouble Table 1 can be combined with other factors such as the probability of ground wetting to occur on -site and the extent or depth of potential collapsible soil zone to evaluate the potential hazard by collapsible soil at a specific site. A hazard ranking system associated with collapsible soil as developed by Hunt (1984) is presented in Table 2, Collapsible Soil Hazard Ranking System. Table 2 Collapsible Soil Hazard Ranking System Degree of Hazard Definition of Hazard No hazard exists where the potential collapse magnitudes are non - No Hazard existent under any condition of ground wetting. Low hazards exist where the potential collapse magnitudes are small Low Hazard and tolerable or the probability of significant ground wetting is low. Moderate hazards exist where the potential collapse magnitudes are Moderate Hazard undesirable or the probability of substantial ground wetting is low, or the occurrence of the collapsible unit is limited. High hazard exists where potential collapse magnitudes are High Hazard undesirably high and the probability of occurrence is high. The results of collapse potential tests performed on 3 selected samples from depths ranging from 10 to 35 feet below the ground surface indicated a collapse potential on the order of 0.2 to 0.9 percent. The goal of the collapse testing was to identify soils and densities where the potential for collapse decreased to accepted levels. This accepted level is defined as where on -site soils had collapse potential less than 1% to 2% or the estimated relative compaction is greater or equal to 85%, which is the typical standard of care based on the above Table 1 (1%) or where soil collapse becomes a concern for structural soils (2%) (County of Los Angeles, 2013). Based on the EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 6 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 above criteria and our field and laboratory findings, we estimate there is a "Low" collapse potential from soil layers between 10 to 35 ft bgs. Groundwater Earth Systems used four methods to estimate the groundwater elevations: field exploration, nearby well readings, and historic groundwater map. Field Exploration: Both current borings reached a depth of 51% feet below the ground surface (bgs). Free groundwater was encountered in boring B-2 at a depth of approximately 49 feet bgs, but groundwater was not encountered at B-1. Deeper exploration was not conducted at boring B-2, so the distinction between a perched water condition and "normal" groundwater condition caused by a rising groundwater could not be verified; however, these levels seem consistent with rising levels in the general area. Nearby Well Information: Earth Systems found one California Department of Water Resources well located approximately % mile east of the intersection of Monroe Street and Avenue 60 and being called 336145N1162237W001. The well is located downstream of the project and recharging ponds based on surface topography. Well monitoring data shows readings taken between December 2011 to June 2020 (see Figure 2 below). The well has a surface elevation of - 81.5 feet and the ground water readings ranged in elevation from-135.15 to-106.15 feet, which equates to a depth below the ground surface (bgs) from 53.6 to 24.6 feet bgs. The project surface is found at approximately minus forty (-40) feet Mean Sea Level (msl). Groundwater Levels for Well 336145N1162237WO01 - ------------------------------------------------- t Mter surface - - Ground Surf— T O.M.rrI Wt, Figure 2 Well 33614SN1162237WO01 From the graph shown in Figure 2 above, there appears an increase in groundwater elevation. Based on the well data and averaging each year's data, Earth Systems used regression analysis to estimate the potential for future years groundwater rise or decline at the well site based on the well data. As shown in Figure 3, a slight rise in groundwater was observed and projected out for 12 years, which will have the groundwater elevation reach the top of the well having an elevation of -81 feet. Please note however, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has information of existing tile drains constructed in the past to control upper groundwater (two aquifers can exist in this general area) from reaching elevations that could damage agricultural production (see Section: Research of Tile Drain System below). Figure 3's well data also shows a drop in groundwater between 2015 and 2020. This information could indicate the tiles drains or EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 7 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 CVWD control of the recharge ponds is maintaining the groundwater elevation below the -100 elevation at the well site. Groundwater based on No Groundwater Rise from Well Data Figure 2 (No Head on Subsurface Drainage): Based on the well's groundwater elevation -106.1 feet and projecting that depth to groundwater at the project site, the groundwater is approximately 66 feet below the ground surface (106-40). This is only an estimate and does not include a possible head of water that may exist since information of the subsurface drainage moves toward the southeast or from the project toward the Salton Sea. Groundwater based on Groundwater Rise from Well Data Figure 2 (No Head on Subsurface Drainage): Trendline information was used to estimate groundwater depth at the project for determining liquefaction settlement, lateral spreading, groundwater seepage and other parts of this report. Based on the regression analysis, we estimate the groundwater elevation at the well will be at the wells ground surface in 12 years and that ground surface is -81 ft MSL. Therefore, the groundwater will be 41 feet below the ground surface at Coral Mountain (81-40). 1. Coral Mountain's historic WSE was stated to be 30 feet below the ground surface. Assuming the ground surface is -40 feet MSL, the WSE is -70 feet MSL (Earth Systems, 2005). 2. Based on the well data's surface at -81 and this being achieved in 12 years, the depth of groundwater at Coral Mountain will be approximately 40 feet bgs. State Well Monitoring Data 5 2010 2015 2020 2025 _T 35 y = 2.4767x - 5112.6 .40 60 0 d v 0 t N y -100 A 3 c -lzo a 2 — 06S07E26Q001S > -140 Q —Linear (Well06S07E26QO01S) -16n -lc Figure 3 Yearly Averaged Data for Groundwater Readings and Projected Rise for 25 years. EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 8 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 Research of Coachella Valley Water District Groundwater Level Increases and Tile Drain System: Subsurface tile drainage systems were installed in the 1950s to control the upper high-water table conditions in the lower Coachella Valley and to intercept poor quality return flows (CVWD, 2012, pp 4-5), see Figure 4. Subsurface agricultural tile drains are typically buried at depths between 5 and 10 feet below ground which collects shallow saline groundwater and conveys it to the Salton Sea (pp 6-41). The District operates and maintains a collector system of 166 miles of pipe. All agricultural drains empty into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) except those at the southern end of the Valley, which flow directly to the Salton Sea (4-5). Based on a CVWD map showing drainage and storm outlet systems, (CVWD,1965), a drain line called "West Drain Line" was constructed at the intersection of Avenue 58 and Madison and runs easterly to additional drain lines. On a communications call with CVWD, Earth Systems was informed that the drainage line located on public roadways, like Avenue 58, are sealed, but the drain tiles located on private property (used for controlling high groundwater for agricultural purpose are open. The District indicated that they have no authority on private property to prevent the removal of tile drains. From the CVWD WMP (pp 4-33), estimated flows to the Salton Sea shows that drainage water initially increases while the East Valley is gaining storage. However, as growth occurs and pumping increases, tile drainage decreases in response to declining groundwater levels. The District does have some control of the groundwater levels based on the 2012 condition of the drainage systems, but the accuracy of a final groundwater table at the project cannot be confirmed yet based on information contained. \ \ Project Location •\ / �. �.' J i\' S • /,}' \ / 4`� •o+ / r / eh ` ®` ".emu fp \ / \\ \ / \y/ o. ^, •+e� }\ �i \ OP g� OJ 60 0� ec �, t0 Figure 4 CVWD Provided Drawing Showing Drain Lines Ground Subsidence Due to Groundwater Withdrawal As stated in the 2011 update report (Earth Systems, 2011), the project is in a Subsidence Study Area called La Quinta Area 3. Since 1996, the USGS has been investigating regional land subsidence in the Coachella Valley. The areas of subsidence coincide with localized ground- water -level declines due to overdraft. The USGS suggests that this documented subsidence is due EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 9 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 to aquifer -system compaction. They go on to state that "the subsidence may also be related to tectonic activity in the valley." A review of the USGS data indicates that the project site is at the southeastern margin of the La Quinta (Area 3) zone. While the reported areal subsidence is approximately 40 to 60 mm, the site is at the margin of the subsidence area, which can result in an area of greater tensional stress and possible surface manifestation of earth fissures. It is our opinion, and that of the City of La Quinta that, while predicting the location of surface ground ruptures as a result of fissuring is difficult to impossible, the potential hazards from fissuring and continued subsidence should be mitigated. While, to date, no evidence of fissuring has been noted on the project site, the potential of damage from fissuring exists and has been documented in this portion of the Coachella Valley. The foundations and structures should be designed to accommodate this possible settlement as a means of mitigating the hazard for life -safety. The recommendations that follow are based on "very low" expansion category soils. Changes in pumping regimes can affect localized groundwater depths, related cones of depression, and associated subsidence such that the prediction of where fissures might occur in the future is difficult. In the event of future nearby aggressive groundwater pumping and utilization, the occurrence of deep subsidence cannot be ruled out. Changes in regional groundwater pumping could result in areal subsidence. The risk of areal subsidence in the future is more a function of whether groundwater recharge continues and/or over -drafting stops, than geologic processes, and therefore the risk cannot be predicted or quantified from a geotechnical perspective. The local water agencies are aware of the groundwater withdrawal subsidence caused by past pumping regimes. Soil improvement recommended within can reduce the potential for subsidence distress. As the degree of continued groundwater pumping, pumping patterns, and their combined effect on the overlying soils is unknown, we believe it is prudent for future homes to utilize a stiffened foundation to reduce the potential for distress due to differential settlement until the risk from areal subsidence is more fully understood. Earth Systems reviewed Riverside County GIS information (Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency, 2017). The County of Riverside Parcel Report for this site has a subsidence designation of "Active". Earthquake Settlement (2019 CBC) Soil Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shacking (usually earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which saturated soil loses shear strength and deforms as a result of increased pore water pressure induced by strong ground shaking during an earthquake. Dissipation of the excess pore pressures will produce volume changes within the liquefied soil layer, which can cause settlement. Shear strength reduction combined with inertial forces from the ground motion may also result in lateral migration (lateral spreading). Factors known to influence liquefaction include soil type, structure, grain size, relative density, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose sandy soils and low plasticity clay and silt. EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 10 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 In general, for the effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptible to liquefaction. We consider the potential for liquefaction to occur at this site as moderate to high because historic groundwater is generally less than 50 feet below the ground surface. In a previous section, "Groundwater" we found the historic groundwater is estimated at 30 feet below the ground surface. We used a Magnitude Earthquake of 8.2 on the San Andreas Fault Zone having a peak ground acceleration of 0.63g. Liquefaction output considering historic groundwater levels are presented in Appendix A for current exploration B-2, which appeared to be the highest settlement for liquefaction. For three deep borings (current and past exploration), results indicate a liquefaction settlement at depths greater than 30 feet are estimated to range between 1% to 1%. Dry Seismic Settlement: As will be discussed in a proceeding section called "Seismic Design Criteria", the 2019 Building Code procedures finds the design seismic acceleration has increased at the project site: previously 0.48g and now 0.63g. The amount of dry seismic settlement is dependent on relative density of the soil, ground motion, and earthquake duration. In accordance with current CGS policy (Earth Systems discussion with Jennifer Thornburg, CGS May 2014), we used a site peak ground acceleration of % PGAM and an earthquake magnitude of 8.2 to evaluate dry seismic settlement potential. The peak ground acceleration values were obtained from the OSHPD Seismic Design Maps on November 20, 2020. Based upon methods presented by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and our current 2020 exploration and analysis, the potential for seismically induced dry settlement of soils above the groundwater table for the full soil column height (30 feet) was estimated to range between %8 to % inch. For the original soils report, the dry settlement is estimated to be approximately % inch using the 2005 boring log and current seismic information. This estimate is based on the current conditions for B-1 and B-2 explored in 2020. Based on Special Publication 117 (2008), the calculated differential settlement is estimated to be approximately half of the total dry seismic settlement. The combination (seismic and loading) for total and differential settlements is addressed in a later Section of this report. Vertical Settlement from Liquefaction and Dry Seismic Analysis: Due to the general uniformity of the soils encountered, seismic settlement is expected to occur on an areal basis and as such per Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). For the combination of liquefaction and dry seismic settlements, Earth Systems estimates boring B-2 explored during our 2020 exploration represents the maximum settlement. The combined settlement for B-2 is 1%8 inches. The differential settlement is estimated to be approximately % of the total combined settlement for liquefaction and dry seismic settlement. Half of the total which is approximately 1 inch, and this considers the current soil conditions for boring B-2. Lateral Spreading: The potential for liquefaction induced lateral spreading under the proposed project is considered low due to the fact liquefaction is estimated to occur deeper than 30 feet below the ground surface. Based on a well-known and practiced study (Bartlett and Youd, 2002) lateral spreading is typically considered for liquefied layers occurring at depths between ground surface and 30 feet below the ground surface. Onsite basins are also shallow. EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 11- File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 Conclusions and Supplemental Recommendations Based upon our review of the referenced reports in light of the requirements of the 2019 California Building Code, it is our opinion that the recommendations provided in the project geotechnical (soils) reports referenced above, remain applicable to the proposed project; however, updated recommendations are provided below and supersede the referenced geotechnical report recommendations as applicable. Earth Systems has not reviewed the project grading plans or structural plans but should for geotechnical conformance. Geotechnical Constraints and Mitigation: ➢ Based on 2019 California Building Code seismic design procedures, the acceleration at the site has increased. ➢ Dry seismic settlement was reanalyzed. ➢ Groundwater was anticipated in this report to reach the historic groundwater level of 30 feet below the ground surface. ➢ Liquefaction settlement at this site was estimated for the historic groundwater return. Site Development — Grading A representative of Earth Systems should observe site clearing, grading, and the bottoms of excavations before placing fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction and over -excavation. The building pad areas should be precise graded by removing any organic growth from the pad surface. The pad surface should be prepared and verified to have a minimum relative compaction of 90% (ASTM D 1557) at near optimum moisture content. If the grade is to be raised from its current elevation, non -expansive granular fills should be placed in maximum 8-inch lifts (loose) and be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) near its optimum moisture content prior to the placement of subsequent lifts. If the pad is to be lowered in elevation and depending upon the depth of cut (if any), additional over -excavation and compaction may be required such that an adequate depth of fill is present below foundation areas. Soils can be readily cut by normal grading equipment. Recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Engineering Report by Earth Systems dated May 18, 2005 remain valid. Each lot development, site plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant relative to lateral extent of foundations, depth of foundations, basements, and hardscaping to confirm validity. Surcharge Load Restrictions: No fill or other surcharge loads shall be placed adjacent to any building or structure unless such building or structure is capable of withstanding the additional loads caused by the fill or the surcharge. Existing footings or foundations that will be affected by any excavation shall be underpinned or otherwise protected against settlement and shall be protected against detrimental lateral or vertical movement, or both. Exception: Minor grading for landscaping purposes shall be permitted where done with walk -behind equipment, where the grade is not increased more than 1 foot from original design grade or where approved by the building official. EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 12 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 Excavations, and Utilities Where excavations will reduce support from any foundation, a registered design professional shall prepare an assessment for the structure as determined from examination of the structure, the review of available design documents and, if necessary, excavation of test pits. The registered design professional shall determine the requirements for underpinning and protection and prepare site -specific plans, details and sequence of work for submission. Such support shall be provided by underpinning, sheeting and bracing, or by other means acceptable to the building official. Foundations Structural Slab Foundations or Conventional Reinforced and Tied Together Shallow Foundations The foundations and structures should be designed to accommodate the estimated settlements as a means of mitigating the hazard for life -safety. The recommendations that follow are based on "very low" expansion category soils. Foundation Design: In our professional opinion, structures should be founded on a structural slab using either conventionally reinforced and tied shallow foundation (grade beam), post -tensioned, or similar thickened or waffle slab (or similar), designed to accommodate the estimated differential settlement of 2 inches in a 40-foot span (1:240 distortion ratio). Foundations should be bearing on a zone of properly prepared and compacted soils placed as recommended above under "Site Grading". Foundation design of widths, depths, and reinforcing steel are the responsibility of the Structural Engineer, considering the structural loading and the geotechnical parameters given in this report. A minimum footing depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained. A representative of Earth Systems should observe foundation excavations before placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Loose soil or construction debris should be removed from footing excavations before placement of concrete. Foundation and grading plans should be reviewed to confirm adequate fill thickness below foundations (2 feet typical). Allowable Bearing Pressure: Allowable soil bearing pressures are given below for foundations bearing on recompacted soils as described above. Allowable bearing pressures are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected). 1500 psf for dead plus design live loads. No allowable increases are permitted. The allowable bearing value indicated is based on the anticipated maximum loads stated in the referenced reports. If the anticipated loads exceed these values, the geotechnical engineer must reevaluate the allowable bearing values and the grading requirements. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: Structural mat rigidity can be estimated by using a modulus of subgrade reaction (ksi) of 200 pci for the underlying subgrade. Static elastic settlements of foundations can be estimated using an effective modulus of subgrade reaction (kb) that is EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 13 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 dependent on the effective width (b) of the foundation, where kb = k51 [(b+1)/2b]2 and "b" equals the foundation width in feet. The estimated elastic settlement is then equal to the effective bearing pressure (qe) in psi divided by kb. The effective bearing pressure (qe) may be computed as total design load divided by the effective bearing area. Estimated Settlements for Shallow Foundations based on Static Loading: Based on the project soils report, Earth Systems estimated a total settlement less than 1 inch based on static loading settlement. Differential settlement from this settlement condition is estimated as approximately inch of the total settlement. As such, considering differential settlement for the settlement condition (Static Loading) applied over a typical foundation distance of 40 feet, the angular distortion (1:480) meets the allowable 1:480 (Riverside County, 2003). Earth Systems should review the foundation plan to review and analyze the actual distortion angles. The structural engineer should submit the plans and column and wall loading for review and analysis. Estimated Settlements for Shallow Foundations based on All Settlements including Seismic: We estimated a total settlement of approximately 2% inches based on static loading and dry and liquefaction seismic settlements. Differential settlement from both conditions is estimated as half of the total settlement conditions or 1% inches. As such, considering differential settlement for the combined settlement conditions (Static and Seismic) applied over a typical foundation distance of 40 feet, the actual angular distortion (1:280) does not meet the allowable 1:480 (Riverside County, 2003). Per SP117A, these settlements fall under the category of structural mitigation. Considering liquefaction, structural mitigation measures should be applied to achieve a foundation that can withstand a distortion of 1:280. Considering subsidence, we recommend a more stringent settlement case of 1:240 be used for design (2 inches in 40 feet). Earthquake Performance Statement: Depending upon the extent of structural and geotechnical design of structures, exterior flatwork, walls, utilities, roadways, and other similar site improvements, some damage due to seismic events will occur. We recommend a standard statement for purchasers of the property and within title reports that seismic induced damage may occur. Note that all of southern California in general is in earthquake country. Site developments in southern California are typically not designed to mitigate anticipated seismic events without some damage. In fact, the Building Code is intended to provide Life -Safety performance, not complete damage -free design. In other words, some damage from earthquakes in the form of structural damage, settlement, cracking, and disruption of utilities is expected and that repair after an earthquake event will likely be required. It is not the current standard of care for site developers to fully mitigate all anticipated earthquake induced hazards. It is incumbent on the developer to advise the end -users of the project of the anticipated hazards in the form of disclosure statements during the initial and subsequent purchase processes. According to literature form Robert W. Day, doors and windows may stick at distortion angles between 1:240 and 1:175. In this situation, a human being could be put in a life -threatening situation. Therefore, Earth Systems recommends the maximum distortion angle using all the EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 14 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 settlement conditions including seismic settlements be 1:240. For all settlement conditions excluding seismic settlement, the structure's maximum distortion angle should be the California Building Code's 1:360. Seismic Design Criteria This site is subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along regional faults including the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones. Engineered design and earthquake - resistant construction increase safety and allow development of seismic areas. The minimum seismic design should comply with the 2019 edition of the California Building Code and ASCE 7- 16 using the seismic coefficients given in the table below. General Procedure seismic parameters are presented below per ASCE7-16 exception, considering a Site Class D (based on Vs shear wave velocity) for structures not greater than 0.5 seconds in period. Structures greater than 0.5 seconds in period will require a Site -Specific Seismic evaluation and the values presented below are not valid (ASCE7-16, Section 20.3.1). For foundations described within, site soils are not subject to bearing failure. General Procedure for seismic parameters is presented below considering a Site Class D shear wave velocity (results in Appendix A). Values were obtained from a web site (OSHPD Seismic Design Maps) using a coordinate location of Latitude 33.6280°N and Longitude 116.2543°W. The structural design engineer should use the most conservative results based of the specific building design and spectral response. Further design values are attached with this report. Table 3 2019 CBC (ASCE 7-16) Seismic Parameters Site Class: D Risk Category: II Seismic Design Category D Maximum Considered Earthquake [MCE] Ground Motion Short Period Spectral Response SS: 1.500 g 1 second Spectral Response, Si: 0.600 g Code Design Earthquake Ground Motion Fa 1.0 Fv 1.7 FPGA 1.1 SMs 1.500g SMi 1.020g Short Period Spectral Response, Sps 1.00Og 1 second Spectral Response, SDI 0.680g Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) Eq 11.8-1 0.63g The intent of the CBC lateral force requirements is to provide a structural design that will resist collapse to provide reasonable life safety from a major earthquake but may experience some EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 15 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 structural and nonstructural damage. A fundamental tenet of seismic design is that inelastic yielding is allowed to adapt to the seismic demand on the structure. In other words, damage is allowed. The CBC lateral force requirements should be considered a minimum design. The owner and the designer may evaluate the level of risk and performance that is acceptable. Performance based criteria could be set in the design. The design engineer should exercise special care so that all components of the design are fully met with attention to providing a continuous load path. An adequate quality assurance and control program is urged during project construction to verify that the design plans and good construction practices are followed. This is especially important for sites lying close to the major seismic sources. Estimated peak horizontal site accelerations are based upon a probabilistic analysis (2 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years) is approximately 0.75 g for a stiff soil site (https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/...). Actual accelerations may be more or less than estimated. Vertical accelerations are typically % to % of the horizontal accelerations, but can equal or exceed the horizontal accelerations, depending upon the local site effects and amplification. Retaining Walls • Retaining walls should not be backfilled with compacted soils unless verified to be "very low" in expansion potential. If testing is not performed by the contractor, we recommend that proposed retaining walls and below grade walls be backfilled with non -or expansive, or "very low" expansive import soil. Provided the wall is backfilled at a 1:1 projection upward from the heels of the wall footings with non -expansive granular backfill, an active pressure of 40 pcf of equivalent fluid weight for well -drained, level backfill may be used. Similarly, an active pressure of 50 pcf of equivalent fluid weight may be used for well - drained backfill sloping at 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). For the restrained level backfill condition, a pressure of 61 pcf of equivalent fluid weight should be used. • In addition to the active or at rest soil pressure, the proposed wall structures should be designed to include forces from dynamic (seismic) earth pressure (Atik and Sitar, 2010). Dynamic pressures are additive to active and at -rest earth pressure and should be considered as 24 pcf for flexible walls, and 38 pcf for rigid walls. Seismic pressures are based on PGAM of 0.63g, Friction Soil Angle (�) of 311, and a maximum dry density of 125 pcf. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be used in stability analysis except for dynamic earth pressure where a factor of safety of 1.2 is acceptable. • Retaining wall foundations should be placed upon compacted fill described in the referenced (Earth Systems, 2005) project soils report. • A backdrain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into the wall design, whereby the collected water is conveyed to an approved point of discharge. Design should be in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code. Drain rock should be wrapped in filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N as a minimum and have at least 1 cubic foot of rock per foot of length. Backfill immediately behind the retaining structure should be a free -draining granular. Waterproofing should be according to the designer's specifications. Water should not be allowed to pond or infiltrate near the top of the wall. To accomplish this, the final backfill grade should divert water away from retaining walls. EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 16 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 • Compaction on the retained side of the wall within a horizontal distance equal to one wall height (to a maximum of 6 feet) should be performed by hand -operated or other lightweight compaction equipment (90% compaction relative to ASTM D 1557 at near optimum moisture content). This is intended to reduce potential locked -in lateral pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment or dislodging modular block type walls. • The above recommended values do not include compaction or truck -induced wall pressures. Care must be taken during the compaction operation not to overstress the wall. Heavy construction equipment should be maintained a distance of at least 3 feet away from the walls while the backfill soils are placed. Upward sloping backfill or surcharge loads from nearby footings can create larger lateral pressures. Should any walls be considered for retaining sloped backfill or placed next to foundations, our office should be contacted for recommended design parameters. Surcharge loads should be considered if they exist within a zone between the face of the wall and a plane projected 45 degrees upward from the base of the wall. The increase in lateral earth pressure should be taken as 50% of the surcharge load within this zone. Retaining walls subjected to traffic loads should include a uniform surcharge load equivalent of 240 psf for auto and 450 psf for truck traffic located at least 3 feet from the wall back edge. Closer loads will impart greater pressures on the wall. Retaining walls should be designed with a minimum factor of safety of 1.5. Frictional and Lateral Coefficients: • Resistance to lateral loads (including those due to wind or seismic forces) maybe provided by frictional resistance between the bottom of concrete foundations and the underlying soil, and by passive soil pressure against the foundations. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between cast -in -place concrete foundations and slabs and the underlying soil. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used between pre- cast or formed concrete foundations and slabs and the underlying soil • Allowable passive pressure (for granular backfill referenced above) may be taken as equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid weighing 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Vertical uplift resistance may consider a soil unit weight of 105 pounds per cubic foot. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be considered when calculating passive pressure unless confined by overlying asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement concrete slab. The soils pressures presented have considered onsite fill soils. Testing or observation should be performed during grading by the soils engineer or his representative to confirm or revise the presented values. • Passive resistance for thrust blocks bearing against firm natural soil or properly compacted backfill can be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf. The maximum passive resistance should not exceed 1,500 psf. • Construction employing poles or posts (i.e. lamp posts) may utilize design methods and parameters presented in Section 1807.3 of the CBC for sand (ML) material class. If design uses toe bearing stress, the contractor shall allow safe access for testing of the bottom of the excavation. EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 17 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 • The passive resistance of the subsurface soils will diminish or be non-existent if trench sidewalls slough, cave, or are over widened during or following excavations. If this condition is encountered, our firm should be notified to review the condition and provide remedial recommendations, if warranted. Grading Observation and Testing Proper geotechnical observation and testing during construction is imperative to allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process, to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during construction and is required by the 2019 California Building Code. Observation of fill placement and soils inspection by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be in conformance with Section 17 of the 2019 California Building Code as applicable. California Building Code requires observation by the geotechnical consultant or his representative during site grading (fill placement). It is also recommended that footing subgrade, backfill, utility trench backfill, etc. be verified for minimum soil compaction level. Therefore, we recommend that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to provide testing and observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing our previous study where shoring or underpinning are required, recommendations should be provided on a case -by -case basis by the geotechnical consultant. Limitations Except as modified in this report, it is our opinion that the referenced documents, including limitations, are applicable to the proposed development in regard to geotechnical and geologic constraints. This report and our scope of services are not intended to address any environmental issues or constraints related to the site or our observations. Earth Systems has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. Observations reported are those existing at the time of our services and may not be the same or comparable at other times. Our scope of work was to present our client with a source of professional opinion. Our observation and opinions presented are not insurance, nor do they guarantee construction of any type. This assessment does not include, and specifically excludes, observation of inaccessible areas. Only those conditions apparent upon reasonable visual observation are noted. If additional information becomes available, we must be consulted to review the effect of the information on our conclusions. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on our points of current and previous field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, our findings and recommendations are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil or groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. It is recommended that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 18 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing this commission. If we are not accorded the privilege of performing this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. The above services can be provided in accordance with our current Fee Schedule. The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Our evaluation of subsurface conditions at the site has considered subgrade soil and groundwater conditions present at the time of our study. The influence(s) of post -construction changes to these conditions such as introduction or removal of water into or from the subsurface will likely influence future performance of the proposed project. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions due to the limitation of data from field studies. The availability and broadening of knowledge and professional standards applicable to engineering services are continually evolving. As such, our services are intended to provide the Client with a source of professional advice, opinions and recommendations based on the information available as applicable to the project location, time of our services, and scope. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in our reports, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations of our reports are modified or approved in writing by Earth Systems. Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report and are strictly for the client. Changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time, whether they are from natural processes or works of man, on this or adjoining properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards occur, whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or the owner's representative has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project so that they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. The owner or the owner's representative also has the responsibility to take the necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. It is further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC December 16, 2020 - 19 - File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 20-12-712 References Bartlett, F. Steven., and Youd T. Leslie., 2002, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction -Induced Lateral Spread, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 121 (4), 316-329. Coachella Valley Water District, 2012, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (Final Report), Prepared by MWH, dated January 2012, 286 pages. Coachella Valley Water District, 1965, Coachella Valley Drainage and Stormwater Outlet System, Drawing No.: 46-8, 1 sheet. Earth Systems, 2005, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed 20-Acre Residential Development, 80-700 Avenue 58, West of Madison Street, La Quinta, California, File No. 10109- 01, Doc No.: 05-05-771, dated May 18, 2005. Earth Systems, 2006, Update to Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Residential Development, 80-700 Avenue 58, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109-04, Doc. No.: 06-11-700, dated November 1, 2006. Earth Systems, 2007, Report of Testing and Observation Performed during Grading, Tract 34243; Pasatiempo, Avenue 58 West of Madison, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109-05, Doc. No.: 07- 04-857, dated May 1, 2007. Earth Systems, 2007, Proposed Interlocking Concrete Pavers, Tract 34243; Pasatiempo, Avenue 58 West of Madison, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109-05, Doc. No.: 07-08-790, dated August 9, 2007. Earth Systems, 2011, Geotechnical Engineering Report Update with Supplemental Recommendations, Tract 34243; Pasatiempo, Avenue 58 West of Madison, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109-06, Doc. No.: 11-05-752, dated May 31, 2011. Earth Systems, 2012, Foundation Plan Review, Tract 34243; Coral Mountain Residential Developments (formerly known as Pasatiempo), Avenue 58 West of Madison, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109-06, Doc. No.: 12-12-705, dated December 6, 2012. Earth Systems, 2013, Report of Testing and Observations for Pad Certifications, Lots 43, 57, 59 & 61, Tract 34243; Coral Mountain Residential Developments, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109- 07, Doc. No.: 13-02-708, dated February 7, 2013. Earth Systems, 2013, Report of Testing and Observations for Pad Certifications, Lots 48 Through 55, Tract 34243; Coral Mountain Residential Developments, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109- 07, Doc. No.: 13-08-721, dated August 14, 2013. Earth Systems, 2013, Post Tension Reports; Multiple Reports; Coral Mountain Residential Developments, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109-09, Doc. No.: Multiple Documents. Earth Systems, 2014, Report of Testing and Observations for Pad Certifications, Lots 17 Through 28, Tract 34243; Coral Mountain Residential Developments, La Quinta, California, File No.: 10109- 07, Doc. No.: 14-03-704, dated March 5, 2014. Riverside County Planning Department, 2003, Geotechnical Element of the Riverside County General Plan. EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC C O A / H E L C rj • 4 __ .. 1 i 12 V ,A L J� .. I) IrD1.D ,) —1Approximate Site ,^._T • ti R Location - (33.6281 116:2550O ILI 1 , ` L i<• i 1 '— - - Avenue 581- r yy fll r _ 1 as 1 t Q LA q o i 0 • �.. o Ll ) rout. r•nlss. i kM r. • �I • 7 Source: Google Earth satellite image with USGS topographic map overlay. Plate LEGEND Site Vicinity Map Coral Mountain (Previously Pasatiempo) Approximate Site Boundary Avenue 58, West of Madison Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Approximate Scale: 1" = 1 Mile N Earth Systems 0 1 Mile 2 Miles 12/16/2020 File No.: 300310-002 t 4 • y - 1 ,. -� n Photo 1 June 2009 Aerial Photo R-� 4:1 Photo 2 November 2011 Aerial Photo Vc. � Ina 2 �- Photo 3 April2014 Aerial Photo Photo 4 March 2015 Aerial Photo ML 58th-Ave- 12/2019_ - —2019 rav v IF Roll A •. _ . -Mom- 5 Coral Mountain (aka Pasatiempo) 301432-002 Table 1 Fault Parameters Fault Section Name Distance (miles) (km) Upper Seis. Depth (km) Lower Seis. Depth (km) Avg Dip Angle (deg.) Avg Dip Direction (deg.) Avg Rake (deg.) Trace Length (km) Fault Type Mean Mag Mean Return Interval (years) Slip Rate (mm/yr) San Andreas (Mojave S) 7.2 11.6 0.0 13.1 90 206 180 98 A 7.7 102 29 San Andreas (Coachella) rev 8.3 13.4 0.0 11.1 90 224 180 69 A 7.2 69 20 San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HIII) 11.1 17.8 0.0 12.8 58 20 180 56 A 7.6 219 10 San Andreas, (North Branch, Mill Creek) 11.1 17.8 0.0 18.2 76 204 180 106 A 7.5 110 17 San Jacinto (Clark) rev 16.6 26.8 0.0 16.8 90 214 180 47 A 7.6 211 14 San Jacinto (Anza) rev 17.7 28.5 0.0 16.8 90 216 180 46 A 7.6 151 18 San Jacinto (Coyote Creek) 19.0 30.5 0.0 15.9 90 223 180 43 A 7.3 259 4 Blue Cut 19.1 30.8 0.0 13.1 90 177 na 79 B' 7.1 Joshua Tree (Seismicity) 21.2 34.1 0.0 13.3 90 271 na 17 B' 6.5 Burnt Mtn 22.6 36.3 0.0 15.9 67 265 180 21 B 6.7 0.6 Eureka Peak 23.5 37.9 0.0 15.0 90 75 180 19 B 6.6 0.6 San Jacinto (Borrego) 29.2 47.0 0.0 13.1 90 223 180 34 A 7.0 146 4 Brawley (Seismic Zone), alt 1 31.6 50.8 0.0 13.2 90 250 na 60 B' 7.0 Mission Creek 31.7 51.0 0.0 17.7 65 5 180 31 B' 6.9 Pinto Mtn 35.6 57.3 0.0 15.5 90 175 0 74 B 7.2 2.5 Earthquake Valley (No Extension) 35.7 57.5 0.0 18.8 90 221 180 33 B' 6.9 Earthquake Valley 36.3 58.5 0.0 18.8 90 217 180 20 B 6.7 2 So Emerson -Copper Mtn 36.8 59.3 0.0 14.1 90 51 180 54 B 7.0 0.6 San Gorgonio Pass 37.0 59.6 0.0 18.5 60 11 na 29 B' 6.9 Brawley (Seismic Zone), alt 2 37.1 59.8 0.0 13.2 90 250 na 61 B' 7.0 Pisgah -Bullion Mtn -Mesquite Lk 38.0 61.1 0.0 13.1 90 60 180 88 B 7.3 0.8 Calico -Hidalgo 38.0 61.2 0.0 13.9 90 52 180 117 B 7.4 1.8 San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley, stepover) 38.3 61.6 0.0 16.1 90 224 180 24 A 7.4 199 9 Landers 38.5 62.0 0.0 15.1 90 60 180 95 B 7.4 0.6 San Jacinto (Anza, stepover) 38.7 62.2 0.0 16.8 90 224 180 25 A 7.6 151 9 San Jacinto (Stepovers Combined) 38.7 62.2 0.0 16.5 90 229 180 25 B' 6.7 Earthquake Valley (So Extension) 39.5 63.5 0.0 18.8 90 204 180 9 B' 6.3 San Andreas (San Bernardino S) 39.7 63.9 0.0 12.8 90 210 180 43 A 7.6 150 16 Elsinore (Julian) 39.8 64.1 0.0 18.8 84 36 180 75 A 7.6 725 3 Elmore Ranch 44.8 72.1 0.0 11.4 90 310 0 29 B 6.6 1 Elsinore (Coyote Mountain) 45.4 73.0 0.0 13.2 82 35 180 39 A 7.1 322 3 Superstition Hills 45.9 73.9 0.0 12.6 90 220 180 36 A 7.4 199 4 San Jacinto (Superstition Mtn) 46.9 75.4 0.0 12.4 90 210 180 26 B' 6.6 Elsinore (Temecula) rev 47.3 76.1 0.0 14.2 90 230 180 40 A 7.4 431 5 Superstition Mountain 47.9 77.0 37.1 37.1 37 37 37 37 B 7.0 0.1 Johnson Valley (No) 48.7 78.4 0.0 15.9 90 51 180 35 B 6.8 0.6 North Frontal (East) 49.6 79.8 0.0 16.6 41 187 90 27 B 6.9 0.5 San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley) rev 51.6 83.1 0.0 16.1 90 223 180 18 A 7.4 199 18 Lenwood-Lockhart-Old Woman Springs 54.6 87.8 0.0 13.2 90 43 180 145 B 7.5 0.9 Helendale-So Lockhart 57.8 93.1 0.0 12.8 90 51 180 114 B 7.4 0.6 Reference: USGS OFR 2007-1437 (CGS SP 203) Based on Site Coordinates of 33.628 Latitude,-116.2543 Longitude Mean Magnitude for Type A Faults based on 0.1 weight for unsegmented section, 0.9 weight for segmented model (weighted by probability of each scenario with section listed as given on Table 3 of Appendix G in OFR 2007-1437). Mean magntude is average of Ellworths-B and Hanks & Bakun moment area relationship. Coral Mountain (aka Pasatiempo) 301432-002 Site Coordinates: 33.628 N 116.254 W Table 2 Historic Earthquakes in Vicinitv of Proiect Site, M >= 5.5 Epicenter Distance Latittude Longitude from Magnitude Day Year (Degrees) Site (mi) MW 3/25 1937 33.46 116.44 15.8 5.6 2/9 * 1890 33.40 116.30 16.0 6.8 4/11 1910 33.50 116.50 16.7 5.8 4/23 1992 33.96 116.32 23.2 6.2 3/19 1954 33.29 116.07 25.6 6.4 6/6 1918 33.60 116.70 25.7 5.5 10/2 1928 33.60 116.70 25.7 5.5 12/4 1948 34.00 116.23 25.7 6.0 4/3 1926 34.00 116.00 29.5 5.5 5/28 *1892 33.20 116.20 29.7 6.5 9/30 1916 33.20 116.10 30.9 5.7 7/8 1986 34.00 116.61 32.8 6.0 4/9 1968 33.17 116.09 33.0 6.6 6/29 1992 34.10 116.40 33.6 5.7 6/28 1992 34.12 116.32 34.2 5.7 6/28 1992 34.13 116.41 35.8 5.8 6/28 1992 34.20 116.44 40.9 7.3 2/7 1889 34.10 116.70 41.4 5.6 5/2 1949 33.99 115.67 41.8 5.7 4/21 * 1918 33.75 117.00 43.7 6.8 12/25 * 1899 33.80 117.00 44.4 6.7 9/21 1856 33.10 116.70 44.6 5.5 11/24 1987 33.09 115.79 45.8 6.0 11/24 1987 33.02 115.85 48.0 6.5 8/15 1945 33.16 115.61 49.2 5.8 3/15 1979 34.33 116.44 49.6 5.5 10/22 1942 33.28 115.50 49.7 5.7 11/22 1880 34.00 117.00 49.9 5.5 12/19 1880 34.00 117.00 49.9 5.9 6/28 1992 34.16 116.85 50.1 5.5 6/28 1992 34.20 116.83 51.5 6.5 4/26 1981 33.10 115.62 51.6 5.9 1/16 1930 34.20 116.90 54.1 5.5 10/21 1942 32.97 115.74 54.3 6.4 8/26 2012 33.02 115.55 13.0 5.5 10/16 1979 33.01 115.56 58.5 5.6 10/16 1999 34.24 117.04 61.7 5.6 9/20 * 1907 34.20 117.10 62.5 5.8 7/23 *1923 34.00 117.25 62.6 6.2 10/23 1894 32.80 116.80 65.3 6.1 From full earthquake catalog in USGS OFR 2007-1437h as updated with current events through 2019. For events with an asterisk, alternate solutions are given in DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification is based on ASTM Designations D 2487 and D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System). Information on each boring log is a compilation of subsurface conditions obtained from the field as well as from laboratory testing of selected samples. The indicated boundaries between strata on the boring logs are approximate only and may be transitional. SOIL GRAIN SIZE U.S. STANDARD SIEVE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 305 76.2 19.1 4.76 2.00 0.42 0.074 SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS ME RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS (GRAVELS, SANDS, AND NON -PLASTIC SILTS) Very Loose *N=0-4 RD=0-30 Easily push a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod by hand Loose N=5-10 RD=30-50 Push a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod by hand Medium Dense N=11-30 RD=50-70 Easily drive a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod with hammer Dense N=31-50 RD=70-90 Drive a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod 1 foot with difficulty by a hammer Very Dense N>50 RD=90-100 Drive a 1/2-inch reinforcing rod a few inches with hammer *N=Blows per foot in the Standard Penetration Test at 60% theoretical energy. For the 3-inch diameter Modified California sampler,140-pound weight, multiply the blow count by 0.63 (about 2/3) to estimate N. If automatic hammer is used, multiply a factor of 1.3 to 1.5 to estimate N. RD=Relative Density (%). C=Undrained shear strength (cohesion). CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS (CLAY OR CLAYEY SOILS) Very Soft *N=0-1 *C=0-250 psf Squeezes between fingers Soft N=24 C=250-500 psf Easily molded by finger pressure Medium Stiff N=5-8 C=500-1000 psf Molded by strong finger pressure Stiff N=9-15 C=1000-2000 psf Dented by strong finger pressure Very Stiff N=16-30 C=2000-4000 psf Dented slightly by finger pressure Hard N>30 C>4000 Dented slightly by a pencil point or thumbnail MOISTURE DENSITY Moisture Condition: An observational term; dry, damp, moist, wet, saturated. Moisture Content: The weight of water in a sample divided by the weight of dry soil in the soil sample expressed as a percentage. Dry Density: The pounds of dry soil in a cubic foot. MOISTURE CONDITION RELATIVE PROPORTIONS Dry .....................Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Trace ............. minor amount (<5%) Damp................Slight indication of moisture with/some...... significant amount Moist.................Color change with short period of air exposure (granular soil) modifier/and... sufficient amount to Below optimum moisture content (cohesive soil) influence material behavior Wet....................High degree of saturation by visual and touch (granular soil) (Typically >30%) Above optimum moisture content (cohesive soil) Saturated .......... Free surface water PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST Nonplastic A 1/8 in. (3-mm) thread cannot be rolled at any moisture content. Low The thread can barely be rolled. Medium The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. High The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. GROUNDWATER LEVEL L Water Level (measured or after drilling) Water Level (during drilling) LOG KEY SYMBOLS ' Bulk, Bag or Grab Sample Standard Penetration Split Spoon Sampler (2" outside diameter) ' Modified California Sampler (3" outside diameter) No Recovery GRAPHIC LETTERSYMBOL MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand GW mixtures, little or no fines CLEAN . •. •. •. •. •. •. •. ................. rrrrrrrr' GRAVELS GRAVEL AND GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand GRAVELLY ?;rrrrrr. mixtures. Little or no fines SOILS r r• r• r• r• r• r• r• CC GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt COARSE More than 50% of GRAVELS ............. mixtures GRAINED SOILS coarse fraction WITH FINES retained on No. 4 Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay sieve GC mixtures SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, SAND AND little or no fines CLEAN SAND SANDY SOILS (Little or no fines) SP Poorly -graded sands, gravelly More than 50% of sands, little or no fines material is larger than No. 200 sieve size SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures SAND WITH FINES ::......::.T.T. More than 50% of (appreciable coarse fraction amount of fines) passing No. 4 sieve 11111111!1el SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, ML rock flour, silty low clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity LIQUID LIMIT �� Inorganic clays of low to medium FINE-GRAINED LESS THAN 50 CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy SOILS clays, silty clays, lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity SILTS AND Inorganic silty, micaceous, or CLAYS MH diatomaceous fine sand or silty soils More than 50% of material is smaller LIQUID LIMIT CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, than No. 200 GREATER fat clays sieve size THAN 50 OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts J J'J'J'J'J'J'J'J'J'J'y lylylylylylylylylylylyly`' Peat, humus, swamp soils with HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS J J'J'J'J'J'J'J'J'J'J'J yyyyyyyyyyyy PT high organic contents yyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyyy VARIOUS SOILS AND MAN MADE MATERIALS Fill Materials MAN MADE MATERIALS Asphalt and concrete Soil Classification System Earth Systems Earth �/ 1680 Illinois Ave., Suite 20, Perris, CA 92571 Phone (951) 928-9799 Boring No. B-1 Drilling Date: 12/2/202 Project Name: Coral Mountain Drilling Method: B-61 w/autohammer Project Number 300310-002 Drill Type: 8" HSA Boring Location: See Plate 2 Logged By: A. Lee Samp Typelw Penetration °' Page 1 of 1 Description of Units0 y ro Resistance �0 CIO U 0 o (� ¢, � � O 2 Note: The stratification lines shown represent the p boundary between Graphic Trend ;4 E~ Q o approximate soil and/or rock types �1 a. 0 (Blows/6") A U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 SM SILTY SAND: olive gray, dense, dry, fine grained sand . 16,21,33 112 3 • SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: olive gray, damp, dense, fine grained sand 12,20,38 SM SILTY SAND: olive gray, dry, fine grained sand . 8,12,13 104 2 medium dense . 5,10,10 100 2 . 5,7,10 89 4 ML SANDY SILT: olive gray, damp, very stiff, fine grained sand . 6,15,23 106 2 ; SM SILTY SAND: olive gray, dry, medium dense, fine grained sand . 4,8,14 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY: olive brown, very stiff, damp, fine grained sand 6,13,22 ? SM SILTY SAND: olive gray, medium dense, dry, fine grained sand 4,6,10 87 34 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY: dark olilve brown, stiff, very moist, fine grained sand 9,16,24 110 2 SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: olive gray, dense, dry, fine grained sand . 12,16,22 111 2 medium dense . 4,8,7 86 38 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY: dark brown, stiff, wet, fine grained sand Total Depth 51-1/2 feet Backfilled with cuttings No groundwater encountered, No free water observed Earth �/ 1680 Illinois Ave., Suite 20, Perris, CA 92571 Phone (951) 928-9799 Boring No. B-2 Drilling Date: 12/2/202 Project Name: Coral Mountain Drilling Method: B-61 w/autohammer Project Number 300310-002 Drill Type: 8" HSA Boring Location: See Plate 2 Logged By: A. Lee Samp Typelw Penetration °' Page 1 of 1 Description of Units0 y ro Resistance �0 CIO U 0 o (� ¢, � � O 2 Note: The stratification lines shown represent the p boundary between Graphic Trend ;4 E~ Q o approximate soil and/or rock types �1 a. 0 (Blows/6") A U and the transition may be gradational. Blow Count Dry Density 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 SM SILTY SAND: olive gray, dense, dry, fine grained sand . 18,24,33 11,11,16 103 3 medium dense, damp 7,8,13 3,3,4 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY: olive gray brown, stiff, moist, fine grained sand 6,7,10 SM SILTY SAND: olive brown, medium dense, damp, fine grained sand 3,5,7 12 4,7,11 8 SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: olive brown, medium dense, damp, fine grained sand, trace clay 6,9,12 5 ? SM SILTY SAND: olive brown, dense, damp, fine grained sand 6,7,9 37 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY: dark brown, very stiff, fine grained sand and silt free water 2,3,3 39 stiff Total Depth 51-1/2 feet Backfilled with cuttings Groundwater encountered at 49 feet Boring No. B-2 Project and Number Coral Mountain (Pasal 300310-002 ESSW Field Staff Notes: Soils Remediated t Upper 5 feet Drilling Company Dr!lling Method 6-8" H 5 A HSA Inner Diameter 3" Site Latitude (North) Decimal Degrees Site Longitude (West) Decimal Degrees Date Drilled Hammer Weight (lbs) 140 Hammer Drop (inches) 30 Hammer Efficiency (Em) 72 Borehole Correction (Cb)' 1 inside diameterof Hollow Stem Auger Sampler Correction Mod Cal to SPT 0.63 Sampler Liner Correction (Cs) 1.2 Applied if SPT Sampler Used 1.0 Applied if Cal Sampler Used Rod Length Above Ground (ft) 3 Depth to Estimate Vs Over (ft)' 1100 *Caltrans Estimation Method 'N,,,g Value Desired For Column 6 70 Only Used for Calculating Nsub otherwise not used by program (i.e.Nso. N]o. N80. etc) Calculation Results Ave. SPT NaoHE-value (blows/ft) #DIV/01 (Based on Upper 0 feet) Ave. Shear Wave Velocity (ftlsec) #DIV/0! (Based on Upper 0 feet) Soil Profile Type (Site Class) #DIV/01 (Based on Upper feet) Ave. Friction Angle (degrees) #NUM! (Based on Upper feet) Estimated Shear Wave Velocity'* Based on Depth Less than 100' u 718 (ft/sec Upper 100 feet) Soil Profile Type (Site Cl-)** D Based on . Shear Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 219 (m/sec Upper 100 feet) Ave. Field SPT N-value (blows/ft) #DIV/01 (Based on Upper 0 feet) Ave. Field SPT N-value (blows/ft) InEff- (Based on Upper 100 feet) Soil Profile Type (Site Class)** D Based on Ave. FiaidBlow Count 16 (Upper 100 feet) Equipment Typical Correction ariaGe %/100 Donut Hammer 0.50 to 1.00 Safety Hammer 0.70 to 1.20 Automatio- Tnp Donut - Energy rMio (Skempton, 1906) Hammer 0.80 to 1.30 Bottom of Layer Depth(ft) Blow Court*** Type of Sampler di (feet) N. (blows/ft) N70 (blowslfl) NWHE (blowslfl) V- (misec) V,i (ff/sec) ml (degrees) NNW- diA/,l di/mi Consistency if Coarse Grained (Based on ASTM and Corrected for N60) Consistency if Fine Grained (Based on ASTM and Corrected for N60) 2.5 57 c 2.5 32.32 27.70 43.09 299.32 981.78 36.37 0.05802 0.00255 0.068742 Dense Hard ....................:....................... 5.0 57 c 2.5 32.32 27.70 43.09 299.32 981.78 36.37 0.05802 0.00255 0.068742 Dense Hard 7.5 27 c 2.5 15.31 13.12 20.41 241.01 790.51 32.36 0.12248 0.00316 0.077265 Medium Dense Very Stiff ......................:....................... 10.0 27 c 2.5 15.31 13.12 20.41 241.01 790.51 32.36 0.12248 0.00316 0.077265 Medium Dense Very Stiff .......................:...................... 15.0 21 i....................... c 5.0 13.49 11.57 15.88 224.07 734.94 31.19 0.31494 0.00680 0.160325 Medium Dense Stiff ....................... 20.0 7 !....................... s 5.0 9.58 8.21 8.40 186.30 611.06 28.57 0.59524 0.00818 0.174998 Loose Stiff ...................... 25.0 17 s 5.0 23.26 19.93 20.40 240.97 790.37 32.35 0.24510 0.00633 0.154543 Medium Dense Very Stiff .......................!....................... 30.0 12 [....................... s 5.0 17.28 14.81 14.40 217.82 714.44 30.75 0.34722 0.00700 0.162578 Medium Dense Very Stiff ....................... 35.0 18 s 5.0 25.92 22.22 21.60 245.00 803.58 32.63 0.23148 0.00622 0.153228 Medium Dense Very Stiff ..................... _!....................... 40.0 21 s 5.0 30.24 25.92 25.20 256.20 840.32 33.40 0.19841 0.00595 0.149687 Dense Hard ............................................... 45.0 16 s 5.0 23.04 19.75 19.20 236.77 776.60 32.06 0.26042 0.00644 0.15594 Medium Dense Very Stiff 50.0 j 6 s 5.0 8.64 7.41 7.20 178.15 594.34 28.01 0.69444 0.00856 0.178529 Loose Stiff -50.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #NUMI #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #NUMI Very Loose Very Soft Total: 10..0 "it" Feet Total: I #DIV/01 I #DIV/01 I #NUMI **Used When Boring Depths are less than 100 feet to estimate Shear Wave Velocity over 100 feet. Caltrans Geotechnical Services Design Manual, Version 1.0, August 2009 using N60HE corrected only for Hammer Energy (Empirical Calculation) *** Uncorrected blowcount not to exceed 100 blows as entry per CBC rasa. rlru> r s crr+o rar tiy.. vrrr yr � IW� a>a.w iMr rr r ' •rinsr Ir arar� IN �>rr �>ar>rrrr Ir lu r'r . r uea.>e re r r�r •r a ■ r�r Mr �M .i�Yrr Ir Spreadsheet Version 2.6, 2019: Prepared by Kevin L. Paul, PE, GE - Hammer energy as related to the standard 60%delivered energy, i.e. a 72%hammer has and energy ratio of 1.2, i.e. (72/60=1.2) EARTH SYSTEMS - EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Corral Mountain (aka Pasatiempo) Project No: 300310-002 1996/1998 NCEER Method Ground Compaction Remediated to 5 foot depth Boring: B-2 2020 Earthquake Magnitude: 8.2 PGA, g: 0.63 Calc GWT (feet): 30 Cyclic Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Volumetric Strain (%) SPT N 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 a ro a a &0 030 ° 0 0 30 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 --i—EQ CSR -*--CRR fSPT N -4-N1(60) Total Thickness of Liquefiable Layers: 10.0 feet Estimated Total Ground Subsidence: 1.7 inches EARTH SYSTEMS - EVALUATION OF DRY SEISMIC SETTLEMENT Corral Mountain (aka Pasatiempo) Project No: 300310-002 1996/1998 NCEER Method Ground Compaction Remediated to 5 foot depth Boring: B-2 2020 Earthquake Magnitude: 8.2 PGA, g: 0.42 Calc GWT (feet): 30 Cyclic Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Volumetric Strain (%) SPT N 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0 0 0 moo 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 a a a &0 030 &0 0 30 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 50 --i—EQ CSR —4o-.-CRR fSPT N —4—N1(60) Total Thickness of Liquefiable Layers: 0.0 feet Estimated Total Ground Subsidence: 0.2 inches File No.: 300310-002 December 14, 2020 Lab No.: 20-214 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D2937 & D2216 Job Name: Coral Mt. Sample Location Depth (feet) Unit Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content N USCS Group Symbol B1 2.5 111.8 2.6 SP-SM B1 7.5 103.6 1.6 SM B1 10 99.6 2.4 SM B1 15 89.2 3.5 ML B1 20 105.6 2.2 SM B1 35 86.7 34.1 CL B1 40 110.1 2.4 SP-SM B1 45 111.4 2.4 SP-SM B1 50 86.2 37.9 CL B2 10 103.3 2.6 SM B2 30 --- 11.6 SM B2 35 --- 8.1 SP-SM B2 40 --- 5.4 SM B2 45 --- 36.9 CL B2 50 --- 38.9 CL EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC File No.: 300310-002 Job Name: Coral Mt. Lab Number: 20-214 December 14, 2020 ASTM D-11 or Earth Systems Method (circle one) AMOUNT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (Earth Systems ethod Transfers Sample until water runs clear) Fines USCS Sample Depth Content Group Soaking Location (feet) N Symbol Time 61 2.5 8.0 SP-SM 10 131 45 10.4 SP-SM 10 B2 0-5 16.1 SM 10 B2 35 9.7 SP-SM 10 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC File No.: 300310-002 Lab No.: 20-214 CONSOLIDATION TEST Coral Mt. 131 @ 10 feet Silty Sand (SM) Ring Sample 2 1 0 -1 -2 December 14, 2020 ASTM D 2435 & D 5333 Initial Dry Density: 93.0 pcf Initial Moisture: 6.0% Specific Gravity: 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.792 Hydrocollapse: 0.5% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Pressure Diagram Before Saturation :-Hydrocollapse ■ After Saturation --Rebound Poly. (After Saturation) 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 1u.0 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC File No.: 300310-002 Lab No.: 20-214 CONSOLIDATION TEST Coral Mt. 131 @ 15 feet Sandy Silt (ML) Ring Sample 2 1 0 -1 -2 December 14, 2020 ASTM D 2435 & D 5333 Initial Dry Density: 82.5 pcf Initial Moisture: 6.6% Specific Gravity: 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 1.021 Hydrocollapse: 0.9% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Pressure Diagram Before Saturation :-Hydrocollapse ■ After Saturation --Rebound Poly. (After Saturation) 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf 1u.0 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC File No.: 300310-002 Lab No.: 20-214 CONSOLIDATION TEST Coral Mt. 131 @ 35 feet Clay (CL) Ring Sample 2 1 0 -1 -2 December 14, 2020 ASTM D 2435 & D 5333 Initial Dry Density: 86.0 pcf Initial Moisture: 37.3% Specific Gravity: 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.939 Hydrocollapse: 0.2% @ 2.0 ksf % Change in Height vs Normal Pressure Diagram Before Saturation Hydrocollapse ■ After Saturation --Rebound Poly. (After Saturation) 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf IDAIJ EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC File No.: 300310-002 December 14, 2020 Lab No.: 20-214 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY / OPTIMUM MOISTURE ASTM D 1557 (Modified) Job Name: Coral Mt. Sample ID: #1 Location: B-1 @ 0-5 Description: Silty Sand (SM) Maximum Dry Density: 116 pcf Optimum Moisture: 13.1% Corrected for Oversize (ASTM D4718) 130 125 120 115 105 100 95 I Procedure Used: A Preparation Method: Moist Rammer Type: Mechanical Lab Number: 20-214 Sieve Size % Retained (Cumulative) 3/4" 0.0 3/8" 0.8 #4 2.0 <_____ Zero Air Voids Lines (ZAV), sg =2.65, 2.70, 2.75 0 5 10 15 20 Moisture Content. percent 25 30 3E EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC Alta Verde Coral Mountain, LLC PO Box 13290 Palm Desert, CA 92255 BCPR2021-0024 CITY OF LA QUINTA BUILDING DIVISION REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE ,, „, 12/13/2021 Rr CORAL MOUNTAIN / PATIO COVER STRUCTURE OPTION Structural Plan Review for Geotechnical Conformance Proposed Pool Structures at Coral Mountain Tract 34243 Avenue 58 West of Madison Street La Quinta, Riverside County, California November 15, 2021 © 2021 Earth Systems Pacific Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Earth Systems Pacific. File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 21-11-715 Earth Systems 79-811 Country Club Drive, Suite d I Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 I Ph: 760.345.1588 1 www.earthsystems.com November 11, 2021 Alta Verde Coral Mountain, LLC PO Box 13290 Palm Desert, CA 92255 Attention: Mr. Russel Jones Subject: Structural Plan Review for Geotechnical Conformance Project: Proposed Pool Structures at Coral Mountain Tract 34243 Avenue 58 West of Madison Street La Quinta, Riverside County, California References: File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 21-11-715 1. Earth Systems, 2011, Geotechnical Report Update with Supplemental Recommendations, Tract 34243; Pasatiempo, Avenue 58 West of Madison, La Quinta, Riverside County, California, File No.: 10109-06, Doc No.: 11-05-752, dated May 31, 2011. 2. Earth Systems, 2020, Geotechnical Report Update, Coral Mountain Tract 34243 (aka Pasatiempo), Avenue 58 West of Madison, La Quinta, Riverside County, California, File No.: 300310-002, Doc No.: 20-12-712, dated December 16, 2020. 3. Option One Consulting Engineers, 2021, Coral Mountain, Individual Lot Pool Structure in Graded Area Per Project Soils Report, TM 34243, Letter Confirming ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 Exception 2 and Foundation designed distortion angele of 1:240. 4. Prest-Vuksic-Greenwood Architects in Conjunction with Option One Consulting Engineers 2021, Coral Mountain Pool Building, Riverside, La Quinta, California, Option One Job No.: 0221-2504 and Arch Job No.: PVG 220030, Revision Date 10/21/2021, 8 Sheets, attached. 5. Option One Consulting Engineers, 2021, Coral Mountain, Pool Accessory Building, Calculations, Eng. J.N. 0221-2504, dated October 22, 2021, 26 sheets. In accordance with your request and authorization, Earth Systems Pacific [Earth Systems] is submitting this structural foundation plan review of Reference No 4. Our review was performed from a geotechnical perspective. Our review of these plans and the appropriateness of report recommendations are contingent on the foundation loads. As such, it is our assumption that this criterion has been met. If loading is different than that stated in Reference 1 and 2 the November 15, 2021 2 File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 21-11-715 recommendation of the project soils report and this approval letter will require further review and comment. Our conclusions to these two plan reviews are provided below. Conclusion Based on the latest plan sheets reviewed (Reference 4), it is our professional opinion that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the plans reviewed have been prepared in substantial conformance with the intent of the recommendations in the referenced project soil reports. Additionally, it is our opinion that the recommendations provided in the project soil reports remain applicable to the proposed project. Earth Systems structural plan review approval is only valid if Earth Systems performs the observation and testing during grading to substantiate the soil conditions are as anticipated and provide further recommendations if needed and if not Earth Systems, the new Geotechnical Engineer of record must accept this plan review and the project soils report. Proper geotechnical observation and testing during construction is imperative to allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process and to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during construction and is required by the 2019 California Building Code. Observation of grading and fill placement by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be in conformance with Section 17 of the 2019 California Building Code. California Building Code requires full time observation by the geotechnical consultant during site grading (fill placement) and in accordance with the requirements of the project plans. Therefore, we recommend that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to observe compliance with the geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing our study. Please review the limitations presented below as they are vital to the understanding of this letter. Limitations Conclusions contained in this letter are based on our previously documented field observations and subsurface explorations, laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. Variations in soil or groundwater conditions could exist between and beyond the exploration points. The nature and extent of these variations may not become evident until construction. Variations in soil or groundwater may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. If during construction, soil conditions are encountered which differ from those described, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by Earth Systems. Additionally, this letter should be included with the project geotechnical (soils) report and specification documents. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or the owner's representative has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project. The recommendations presented within are predicated upon the recommendations presented in the referenced project 11e1 1.719 1.WYM01► M21114119M November 15, 2021 3 File No.: 300310-002 Doc. No.: 21-11-715 soils reports. Information and recommendations presented in this supplement should not be extrapolated to other areas or be used for other projects without our prior review and response. If Earth Systems is not retained to provide grading observation and testing during construction, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation or the applicability of our recommendations. The above services can be provided in accordance with our current Fee Schedule. The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests and observations shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Earth Systems has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. No warranty or guarantee express or implied is made. Please note that it is not within our scope of work to check the reviewed documents for conformance to codes or other client and government requirements. As Earth Systems does not practice architectural or structural design, we make no representation as to the accuracy of dimensions, measurements, calculations, or any portion of the design. We appreciate the opportunity to_pxQvide our professional services. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if there are ., clrjesW& —.or comments concerning this report or its conclusions. %�,da'� Respectfully Submitted, ,FART SYSTEM P IFIC Project Engineer CE60302 LTR/ac/klp/mr Attachments: Structural Engineer Letter Distortion and ASCE Exception 2 Final Structural Plans (8 sheets) Distribution: 4/Alta Verde Builders Email/Russel Jones: rjones@altaverdebuilders.com Email/Tatiana Barbuzza: tatianab@pvgarchitects.com 1/BD File irevir:�y��ra► Ey�_�yi�ry option one November 5, 2021 Russell Jones, President/Project Manager Alta Verde Builders PO BOX 13290 Palm Desert, CA 922SS RE: Coral Mountain Individual Lot Pool Structure in Graded Area Per Project Soils Report, TM 34243 Mr Jones, Pursuant to your request regarding the above captioned project, we submit the following" 1-ASCE 7-16's Section 11.4.8 Exception 2 applies to the structures applicable to these geotechnical reports. 2-Foundation is designed for a distortion angle of 1:240. Sincerely, Option One Consulting Engineers Gary A. McClanahan, PE P n Option One Tel 714.556,1916 Consulting Engineers 2755 Bristol St., Suite 100, Costa Mesa. Ca 92626 Fax 714.556.1952 0 Option One Consulting Engineers Site -Specific Ground Motion Procedure ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8 A site response analysis shall be performed in accordance with Section 21.1 for structures on Site Class F sites, unless exempted in accordance with Section 20.3.1. A ground motion ies 21.2 for the following: 1. Seismically isolated structures and structures with damping systems on sites with S, Z 0.6, 2. Structures on Site Class E sites with S, ? 1.0 and, 3. Structures on Site Class D and E sites with S, ? 0.2. Exception: A ground motion hazard analysis is not required for structures other than seismically isolated structures and structures with damping systems where: 1. Structures on Site Class E sites with Ss 2: 1.0, provided the site coefficient Fa is taken as equal to that of Site Class C. 2. Structures on Site Class D sites with S, Z 0.2, provided the value of the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined as follows. i. T<1.5T, ....Cs is determined by: Cs= Sos+(R11.) Eq. 12.8-2 ii. Ti_>_T>1.5T5 ....Cs is determined by: Cs= 1 5`{SD1T[T'(R/1e)]) Eq. 12.8-3 iii. T>Tr ...Cs is determined by Cs= 1.5`{(S0j'Tr)y[T"(R/1e)]) Eq. 12.8-4 Cs shall not be less than Cs= 0.044SsD'le >_ 0.01 Cs shall not be less than Cs= 0.5'S,=(R/I j Where S,? 0 6 Assume Approximate Period Fundamental period T=T,,=C,h`, Coefficients C, & x per Table 12.8-2. C,= 0.02 for wood bearing wall system x=0.75 for wood bearing wall system h = Distance in ft. from base to average height of roof To= 0.2'(SD,lSDs) Ts= SD,/Sos TL= Long -period shown per Fig. 22-14 to 22-17. Where: CaIH. T V, 1 IN l• 1` \ J .\ 12 'y • Fig. 22-14 T '(s SDs= Design spectral response acceleration parameter in short period range per Sect. 11.4.5 or 11.4.8 SD,= Design spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1.0 s, per Sect. 11.4.5 or 11.4.6.. S1= Mapped maximum considered earthquake MCER (spectral response acceleration t .4t d dance with Section 11 4 2 or 11 4 4 ......I ... ,...... I nuu ... .1........... 0 680 parame er a ermine In aacor . ................................................. T= Fundamental period of the structure(s) determined in Section 12.8.2(s)................................0.29 TI.= Long -period transition period(s) determined in Section 11.4.6(s)......................................... 8 R= Response modification factor in Table 12.2-1................................................................... 6.50 la Importance factor determined in accordance with Section 11.5.1......................................... 1 00 h„ (ft.) T=TB (s) Tc (s) T, (s) 1.5'Ts I Is T51.5'T ? I Is TL2:T>1.5T,? I Is T>T,? Cs = 1.4 35.00 0.29 8 0.453 0.680 Yes.....Eq.12.8-2 No No 0.1618 raVc• L.z 2504_PoolStructure_LAT �� Option One Consulting Engineers PROJ.: "Coral Mountain" / Pool Acce55ory Building J.N.: 0221-2504 GRADE BEAM DESIGN: DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT CBC 2019 / ACI 318-14 Design Assumptions: A minimum one-story code described concrete footing has been assumed to resist forces induced by uniform differential deflection. The differential deflection criteria should be assigned by the project geologist. By maintaining the typical foundation geometry constant (moment of inertia, I, is constant), we have derived the maximum design potential moment and/or shear developed in footings due to estimated differential settlement based on minimum concrete compressive strength. Differential settlement per soils report(d)................................. 2.000 in Length of grade beam subject to settlement (L) ......................... 40.0 ft Design Equations: Mo=6dEI / LZ Mu=1.6M eM >! M� Vo=2M / L Vu=1.6V '/:BV >_ V„ a=ASFY / 0.85f,b M,=ASFy(d-a12) V=2(f,)"Zbd o=0.90 (ACI 21.2.1) 0=0.75 (ACI 21. 2.1) Concrete Modulus of Elasticity (ksi)........................................ E = 57000`(f J............ 2,550 Moment of Inertia for a rectangular block (in°) ...........................I = bd3/ 12 ................. 1,728 Maximum design moment (Mo) due to induced differential settlement .............................. 21.35 Maximum design shear (Vo) due to induced differential settlement ................................. 1.07 Yield strength of reinforcing steel (Fy).................................1... 60.0 ksi, Grade 60 Steel Compressive strength of concrete (f`J..................................... 2.5 ksi ksi in k-ft k Ftg. Section Width Depth AS I (in ,) No. Bar a M„=1.6Mo V,� 1.6Vo OM, %:eVn Rm eark Moment Shear 12 18 5,532 2 5 1.925 34.20 1.71 38.76 5.06 O.K.! 8a,x O.K.! Sax STFF?ESS FATd1 DtE TO RANSLATI011 'A B UKOWbm SHAPE DME W SHAPE IV� V. MOTE Foam Wn M Allai BUT M ROTATIM AT BOTH W. California Building Code (CBC), 2019 Edition Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-14 Page: 4.5 2504_PoolSlrudure_Foundalion (Rev.08/2019) CORAL MOUNTAIN FOR ALTA VERDE U"M LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA E7 A B B R E V I A T I O N S SYMBOL LEGEND CITY NOTES REFERENCE CODES ACT Acoustic Ceiling Tile HC Hollow Core T&G Tongue And Groove AD Area Drain HI High TELE Telephone AFF Above Finished Floor HM Hollow Metal TLT Toilet ALUM Aluminum HP High Point THE To Match Existing ANOD Anodized HR Hour TO Top Of BSMT Basement HS Hard Surface TOC Top Of Concrete BYND Beyond HVAC Heating, Ventilating, And Air Conditioning TOE Top Of Eave BO By Others IRGWB Impact Resistant Gypsum Wall Board TOP Top Of Parapet BOT Bottom ILO In Lieu Of TOSH Top Of Sheathing BOB Bottom Of Beam INSUL Insulated or Insulation TOSM Top Of Sheet Metals CIP Cast In Place INT Interior TOS Top Of Steel CHNL Channel LO Low TOW Top of Wall CJ Control Joint LP Low Point TPD Toilet Paper Dispenser CLG Ceiling MAX Maximum T/D Telephone/Data CLR Clear MO Masonry Opening TYP Typical CMU Concrete Masonry Unit MECH Mechanical UNO Unless Noted Otherwise COL Column MEMBR Membrane U/S Underside CONC Concrete MIN Minimum VIF Verify In Field CONT Continuous MRGWB Moisture -Resistant Gypsum Wall Board VP Vision Panel CPT Carpet MTL Metal W/ With CT Ceramic Tile N New WC Wall Covering CTYD Courtyard NIC Not In Contract WGYP Waterproof Gypsum Board DBL Double NO Number WD Wood DEMO Demolish or Demolition NOM Nominal DIA Diameter OC On Center DIM Dimension OFCI Owner Furnished Contractor Installed DIMS Dimensions OFOI Owner Furnished Owner Installed DN Down OH Overhang or Opposite Hand DR Door OPP Opposite or Opposite Hand DWG Drawing OZ Ounce E Existing PCC Pre -Cast Concrete EA Each PLUMB Plumbing EJ Expansion Joint PLYD Plywood EL Elevation PT Pressure Treated or Paint ELEC Electrical PNT Paint or Painted ELEV Elevator or Elevation PVC Polyvinyl Chloride EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene M-Class (Roofing) RBR Rubber EQ Equal RCP Reflected Ceiling Plan EXP JT Expansion Joint RD Roof Drain EXT Exterior REQD Required FD Floor Drain or Fire Department RM Room FEC Fire Extinguisher Cabinet SIM Similar FF Finish Floor SPEC Specified OR Specification FIN Finish SPK Sprinkler or Speaker FIXT Fixture SSTL Stainless Steel FLR Floor STC Sound Transmission Coefficient FND Foundation STL Steel FO Face Of STRUCT Structure or Structural FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic SV Sheet Vinyl Base GA Gauge GALV Galvanized GYP Gypsum Wall Board VICINITY MAP � •�� i ••a � T♦i�,,,.►�..,�;��• fir. • % ••� ♦ r.+►♦ ` STRUCTURAL OPTION ONE 277 BRISTOL STREET SUITE 100 COSTA MESA, CA 9262E (714) 556-1916 JITE" C O N ELECTRICAL • S i S U L T RAYA ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING DESIGN RALPH RAYA 1494 UNION STREET, SUITE 802 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 T. 760.437.5291 A N T S 0 NUMBER SHALL RUN HORIZ. (L-R) AND LETTERS VERT. (T-B) IN GRID PATTERN 1 SIM DETAIL NUMBER A101 SHEET NUMBER SINS 1 SECTION NUMBER A101 SHEET NUMBER SIM 1 ELEVATION NUMBER A101/ — SHEET NUMBER Room name 101 ROOM NUMBER 101 DOOR REFERENCE 1i WINDOW REFERENCE 1F TYPE OF FINISH FINISH NUMBER N 4er REVISION NUMBER CW CABINET WORK INDICATOR FC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET 1i PARTITION TYPE NUMBERED KEYNOTE - REFER TO SHEET TITLE BLOCK FOR CONTENT TARGET INDICATES WHERE PLAN IS BROKEN OR DIMENSIONING STARTS CENTER LINE 8' - 611 91 - 6" CHANGE OF CEILING HEIGHT CEILING HEIGHT REVISION BUBBLE CITY OF LA QUINTA CONSTRUCTION NOTES Note to Design Engineer: These General Notes are intended for use on all public works plans and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), including mass grading, rough grading, street improvement, storm drain improvement, and precise grading/paving plans. 1. All work shall be done in accordance with the latest edition of the STANDARD PLANS OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA and the latest edition of the STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION. 2. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to apply to the City of La Quinta Public Works Department for the necessary permits and to be responsible for satisfactory compliance for all current environmental regulations during the life of construction activities for the project. Additional studies and/or permits may be required. 3. The contractor shall obtain all permits as required by the City of La Quinta or other governing agencies. 4. The contractor shall notify the City of La Quinta Public Works Department forty-eight (48) hours prior to any grading, brushing, or clearing and each phase of construction at (760) 777-7048. 5. The locations of existing underground utilities are shown in an approximate way only. The contractor shall determine the exact location of all existing utilities before commencing work. The contractor agrees to be fully responsible for any and all damages which might be occasioned by his failure to exactly locate and preserve any and all utilities. 6. The contractor shall be responsible for the removal, replacement, or relocation of all regulatory, warning and guide signs. 7. The City Engineer shall approve the design and installation of all street name signs, traffic control signs, traffic striping, legends, and pavement markers type and location. 8. The contractor shall not disturb existing survey monuments or bench marks noted on the plans, or found during construction. Removal and replacement shall be done by a registered Civil Engineer with an R.C.E. NUMBER BELOW 33,966, or a LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR ONLY. 9. Construction operations and maintenance of equipment within one half mile of human occupancy shall be performed only during the time periods as follows: October 1 st to April 30th: Monday through Friday 7:OOAM to 5:30PM May 1 st to September 30th: Monday through Friday 6:OOAM to 7:OOPM Work shall be prohibited any time on Sundays or on Federal Holidays. No reduction of the traveled way width shall be permitted on any City street on weekends or holidays, ore when active work is not being done, unless prior authorization to do so is granted by the City Engineer. No lane closures shall be permitted or allowed on any City street before 8:30AM and after 3:30PM unless authorization to do so is granted by the City Engineer. 10. All traveled ways must be cleaned daily of all dirt, mud and debris deposited on them as a result of the grading operation. Cleaning is to be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. All construction areas shall be properly posted and lighted in conformance with the California State Manual of Warning Signs, Lights, and Devices for use in the performance of work upon highways in order to eliminate any hazards. 12. Construction projects disturbing more than 1-Acre must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Owners/Developers are requited to: a) file a notice of intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b) prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and c) have a Monitoring Plan for the site. The NPDES is a National Program to control non -point source pollutants carried by storm water. The program is implemented and enforced by the SWRCB. S EPARATE PERMITS &DEFERRALS SEPARATE PERMITS: SITE RETAINING WALLS, BLOCK WALLS, BBQ, GRADING AND LANDSCAPE ARE NOT PART OF THIS PERMIT AND REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMIT. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: TRUSS CALCULATIONS, FIRED SPRINKLERS. SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS FOR DEFERRED SUBMITTAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE, WHO SHALL REVIEW THEM AND FORWARD THEM TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH A NOTATION INDICATING THAT THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REVIEW AND THAT THEY GHAVE BVEEN FOUND TI VE UB GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. THE DEFFERES SUBMITTAL ITENS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THEIR DESIGN AND SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICAL. ALL CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY TO THE FOLLOWING CODES: MUNICIPAL CODE FROM PERMITTING CITY 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (CAC) PART 1, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) PART 2, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) Based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) PART 2.5, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) Based on the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) PART 3, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) Based on the 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC) 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) PART 4, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) Based on the 2018 Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) PART 5, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) Based on the 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE PART 6, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC) PART 9, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) Based on the 2018 International Fire Code (IFC) 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE PART 11, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR) PROJECT DATA PROJECT ADDRESS CORAL MOUNTAIN HOUSING PROPERTIES, LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA 92253 BUILDING DATA OCCUPANCY U TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION V-B SPRINKLER NO NO. OF STORIES 1 TRACT MAP: 34243 SQUARE FOOTAGE POOL STRUCTURE 159 SQ. FT. SCOPE OF WORK CONSTRUCTION OF NEW POOL STRUCTURE FOR MODELS J, J-MOD AND Z AT CORAL MOUNTAIN. SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. SHEET NAME AO.00 TITLE SHEET A2.00 ACCESSORY POOL STRUCTURE B A8.00 EXTERIOR FINISH & FIXTURE SCHEDULE S.POOL POOL BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FRAMING PLAN SN1 GENERAL STRUCTURE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS SN2 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES AND DETAILS SN3 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES AND DETAILS SN4 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES AND DETAILS E2.00 POWER AND LIGHTING PLAN NOTES 1. APPLICATIONS FOR WHICH NO PERMIT IS ISSUED WITHIN 180 DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF APPLICATION SHALL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE. (CRC R105.3.2) 2. EVERY PERMIT ISSUED SHALL BECOME INVALID UNLESS WORK AUTHORIZED IS COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OR IF THE WORK AUTHORIZED IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS. A SUCCESSFUL INSPECTION MUST BE OBTAINED WITHIN 180 DAYS. (CRC R105.5) 3. ALL FOOTING EXCAVATIONS SHOULD BE INSPECTED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER OR HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE TO CONFIRM FOUNDATIONS ARE WITHIN COMPACTED FILL AND PREVIOUS OVEREXCAVATION. 4. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT UPDATE: FILE NO.: 10109-06, DOC NO.: 11-05-752, DATED MAY 31, 2011. 5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT UPDATE, FILE NO.: 300310-002, DOC NO.: 20-12-712, DATED DECEMEBER 16, 2020. PRESTI VUKSIC I GREENWOOD A R C H I T E C T S I N T E R I O R S 44530 SAN PABLO AVE, STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 760 . 779 . 5393 T info@pvgarchitects.com www.pvgarchitects.com No. Description Date 2 2ND PC CORRECTION 10/18/2021 CORAL MOUNTAIN FOR ALTA VERDE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA TITLE SHEET Scale: NTS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF PRIEST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS. THEY ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY, NOR DISCLOSED OR ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF PRIEST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS. DAVID G. PRIEST, AIA C-8690 V ARC ri F V C-19210 �� JOHN J. VUKSIC, AIA C-19210 JOHN T. GREENWOOD, C-38012 N .31 .23 Q Project Number 220030 RENEWAL �� DATE Q� OP C Date 07/22/2021 CODE UPDATE SET AOOOO 9 01 J SIDE ELEVATION 2(oi 1 /4" " = 1'-01 SIDE ELEVATION 1 1 /4" = 1'-0" 1 0.1 SECTION 1 I ( 11 -E .14 01 T.O. FASCIA B.O. FASCIA _41 SET FLANGE IN SOFTENED MEMBRANE. MTL. FLASHING MUST BE PRIMED BOTH SIDES WHERE IT WILL CONTACT MEMBRANE NAIL 3" O.C. STAGGERED ROOF EDGE OR GRAVEL STOP NOTE: FOR ADDITIONAL BITUMINOUS FLASHING REQUIREMENTS, REFER TO JOHNSMANVILLE SPECIFICATIONS FASTENER 18" O.C. FIBER CEMENT BOARD: HARDIETRIM 12" 4/4 BOARDS SMOOTH - CUT TO FIT FASTENER 18" O.C. - VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT BOARD SEAMS TO BE FLUSH AND LEVEL BUILDING PAPER EXT. PLASTER J MOLD BUILDING PAPER CEMENT PLASTER - PAINTED 20/30 FINISH PLASTER SEE ELEVATION FOR FINISH ROOF TRUSS (SEE STRUCTURAL DWG'S.) FRONT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" I'l1 - All REAR ELEVATIONy-__ --,\' 1 /4" = 1'-0" 10 9 3/4" FLAT ROOF OVERHANG DETAIL 3" = 1'-0" 2x6 WOOD STUDS @ 16" O.C. ifflln.l1►142MMUMEJ METAL LATH CEMENT PLASTER - PAINTED 20/30 FINISH PLASTER SEE ELEVATION FOR FINISH LAP PAPER OVER WEEP SCREED FLANGE - 4" MIN. GALVANIZED SHEET METAL FLASHING, SET W/ TYPE M. CONTINUOUS MASTIC. EXTEND 6" ABOVE SLAB AND 2" BELOW SLAB @ EXTERIOR, ALL SIDES OF WOOD 0 0 A2.0018 LINE OF A2.00 18 OPTIONAL BLOCKING AS REQ'D 2X WOOD SILL PLATE - SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ATTACHMENT STEM WALL PER STRUCTURAL DRA IN PLASTER FOUNDATION WEEP SCREED WILL BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES ABOVE THE EARTH OR 2 INCHES ABOVE PAVED AREAS. 1 FOUNDATION PER STRUCTURAL ° a DRAWINGS a ° VARIES ° as EQ EQ 45 MIL FIBERTITE-SM MEMBRANE. H-SHIELD CG HUNTER PANELS ENERGY SMART REFLECTED CEILING PLAN i POLYISO. 1 1 /2" = 1'-0" CRRC PROD. ID. 0634-0001 OFF-WHITE-� PAINTED METAL COLUMN, TYP. 161 - 4" V 9 EXT. PLASTER - INT. PLASTER / STEM WALL°° 1 1 /2" = 1'-0" -------------- OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE FLOOR PLAN, fill 1 /2" = 1'-0"��Jj ❑ EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1. CEMENT PLASTER - LIGHT SAND TEXTURE, PTD. FINISH. SEE CP1 KEYNOTE ON A8.00 2. PAINTED CEMENT BOARD FASCIA. SEE CP3 KEYNOTE ON A8.00 3. PAINTED METAL COLUMN, TYPICAL. SEE CP3 KEYNOTE ON A8.00 159 GSF ACCESSORY POOL STRUCTURE B PRESTI VUKSIC I GREENWOOD A R C H I T E C T S I N T E R I O R S 44530 SAN PABLO AVE, STE 200 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 760 . 779 . 5393 T info@pvgarchitects.com www.pvgarchitects.com No. Description Date 1 1 ST PC CORRECTION 09/27/2021 CORAL MOUNTAIN FOR ALTA VERDE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ACCESSORY POOL STRUCTURE B Scale: As indicated INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE THESE DRAWINGS ARE AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF PRIEST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS. THEY ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY, NOR DISCLOSED OR ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF PRIEST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS. DAVID G. PRIEST, AIA C-8690 O A v O`r C-19210 JOHN J. VUKSIC, AIA C-19210 JOHN T. GREENWOOD, C-38012 N . 31 . 23 Q Project Number 220030 u' RENEWAL 7 DATE o� OF Date 07/22/2021 CODE UPDATE SET A2000 LO 0 N ti N O N LO X" THICK A36 BASE EXPANSION JOINT PLATE TYP. AS SHOWN ROOF SHT'G, , SLOPE 1/4" ® ® z PER FT. MIN. 4- FOR DRAINAGE TYP. ALL AROUND M �.-.-.-.-. - E. N. . E. N. . 2 TYP. TYP. RAFTER CONT. 2X12 RIM PER PLAN W/3-16d PER RAFT. PLAN OFFSET COL BASE RAISED POCKET BEAM 2X BLK'G. W/LTP4 PER PLAN. NOTCH RAFTER AT BEAM. 2x BLK'G. WITH CL FT'G. & COL. 16d AT 4" O.C. EACH SIDE OF STEEL COLUMN (TS) (4)-3/4" DIA. X 14" (A307) ALL BEAM PER FRM'G. PLANS THREAD RODS, TOTAL OF (4)) WITH DBL NUTS FOR LEVELING, U.N.O. ISOLATION JOINT (EMBED RODS MIN. 7" INTO (BLOCK -OUT PER CONC. PAD) PROVIDE 2-3/4" SQ. CONTRACTOR) X 5/16" ANCHOR PLTS. W. NUT FINISH SLAB AT BOTT. OF EACH ROD W/ .. ,. ° SPECIAL INSPECTION REQ'D. (4" `° ••t• ::.. '� • A.B. PROJECTION ABOVE FINISH 4 SHEAR TRANSFER CONCRETE. I PROVIDE PROTECTIVE ; COATING FOR STEEL BELOW REFER TO GRADE. ISOLATE COLUMN ¢ FOUNDATION PLAN FROM ADJACENT FINISH FOOTING SIZE AND MATERIALS W/EXP. JOINT.. :. REBARS. ROOF S T'G., SLOPE 1/4" +, •`f '° ' •a ' °�'•• -1 /2" NON -SHRINK DRYPACK PER FT. MIN. �'' •,� FOR DRAINAGEA. z/t E.N. E.N. - --_ REFER TO .°.a FOUNDATION PLAN ^��"'='-�^�, FOR PAD SIZE AND - °•• • d = '- ;.•,• : ' RAFTER CONT. 2X12 RAFT. PER PLAN f REBARS. = ' A. :A•.• 3ff MIN. #4 BARS AT 12" O.C. EACH WAY 16d AT 6" O.C. RAISED POCKET AT TOP AND BOTTOM, U.N.O. AFTER ROOF BEAM PER PLAN IS LOADED ELEVATION GEN. SHOP NOTES SPEC: AISC LATEST EDITION MATL: ASTM A36 PAINT. AS PER SPECS. (NO PAINT ON SHOP CONTACT SURFACES) WELD: ALL WELDS TO BE 1/4" FILLET, E70XX (U.N.O.) NOTE: DELAY CONC. POUR AT BLOCK - OUT UNTIL SLAB IS 21 DAYS OLD 5 SHEAR TRANSFER 1 COLUMN BASE TO CONCRETE PAD �ruao, GRADE BEAM WITH STEM WALL MIN. 6" CURB WHERE HEIGHT FROM GRADE EXCEEDS 10": ROOF SHT G., SEE ARCH. DWGS. „ EQ EQ 1 . ADD 4 VERTICAL BARS AT 16 O.C. SLOPE 1/4" 1)-#4 HORIZ. 2). ADD 4 INTERMEDIATE HORIZIZONTAL BARS PER FT. MIN. BAR AT STEM (VERTICAL SPACING BETWEEN HORIZONTAL FOR DRAINAGE BARS SHALL NOT EXCEED 14") SLAB 2„ CONT. RIPPED E•N• ;°.': '4° : , 24" MAX. RAFTER WITH .A�I�: ; 8" MIN. LTP4 AT 24" O.C. GRADE NOTE: LAP REBARS "G" MIN. INTERMEDIATE jj 4 �\ 24" INTO ADJACENT CONCRETE RAISED POCKET BEAM PER PLAN / / HORIZ. BAR �v �, •: jv/� 6" MIN. SLAB AND/OR FOOTING, U.N.O. •Ir, .. WHERE OCCURS"" / II ,� (DEEPEN SLAB TO RECEIVE LTP4 AT 32" O.C. ILRAFTER ;2GRADE BEAM, IF REQUIRED). i r' PER PLAN +4 " (2)-#5 BA18 RS 2X STUDS AT TOP & BOTT. PER PLAN •��• ..•� : 3"' ' : /� BOTTOM OF GRADE BEAM SHALL MATCH BOTTOM OF ADJACENT FTG., U.N.O. (EXCEPTION: MAT -SLAB) 12" GRADE GRADE BEAM WITHOUT 6" MIN. STEM WALL °. J /\a• •° ' ..;;2T-#5&BARS _ ' ; • 18" 6 TRANSFER �a. P 07AT O6°SHEAR BOTTOM OF GRADE BEAM SHALL MATCH BOTTOM OF ADJACENT FTG., U.N.O. �.` (EXCEPTION: MAT -SLAB) 12" t� :\ • SLAB <• bd°' L SLAB G�yc y -'�s f ISOMETRIC VIEW _ ISOMETRIC VIEW GRADE BM. W STEM RADE BM. W O STEM I GRADE BEAM TO EXISTING CONCRETE I -�-30"MIN.-� / EDGE EXISTING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONCREETT SLAB E ELEMENT •• •`-• •. ' G.B. • EXTEND GRADE BM. I EACONDR I I ELEVATION PLAN VIEW (MAT SLABi MAT -SLAB -d••' :, .; ROUGHEN EXISTING CONCRETE (MIN. 1/4"). CLEAN SURFACE OF DEBRIS. USE BONDING - AGENT AT CONTACT SURFACES. BACK -FILL 6" ° �4"'�° '° 44 '' SOLID W/SIMPSON "SET-XP" EPDXY -TIE ' .° • ` ADHESIVE. (ICC #ESR-2508) INSTALL PER ° MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS. C�-.I-- : --a- - A. r " GRADE BEAM REBARS "G" I NOTES: 1. PROVIDE SPECIAL INSPECTION PER IBC CBC SECTION 1704. 2. VERIFY MIN. CLEARANCE TO TENDONS AGAINST POST -TENSION DRAWINGS (WHERE OCCURS). - 2 CONVENTIONAL GRADE (TIE) BEAM #F031(2019)_conv: 12/2019 SIMPSON COLUMN CAP O O "CCO" AT CONT. COND. I "CCCO" AT CROSSING COND. I "CCTO" AT TEE-COND. 0 0 j 1/2" THICK CAP PLATE I 1/4" TYP. I i STEEL TUBE I PER PLAN I I I I -----------------I_______________-- I I I I OFFSET IN LINE I I I I I I MAX. 3" NOTES: 1. ALL WELDS ARE 1/4" FILLET WELD, ALL AROUND, U.N.O. 2. ALL STEEL TO CONFORM TO ASTM A36 (U.N.O.) 3. SEE ARCH. PLANS FOR DIM. - 3 CANTILEVER STEEL COLUMN (TS) FRAMING SYMBOLS AND NOTES SYMBOLS INDICATES SHEAR ELEMENT. REFER TO "SHEAR ELEMENT SCHEDULE AND NOTES". 1 X INDICATES SHEAR ELEMENT LENGTH OR DESIGNATION. X'-X" *�� APPLY SHEAR ELEMENT MATERIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF POP -OUT, FURRING, SOFFIT, OR ADJACENT INTERSECTING WALL. 2. X INDICATES SHEAR ELEMENT NUMBER PER CALCULATIONS. 3. A/ INDICATES STRUCTURAL BEAMS AND HEADERS PER CALCULATIONS. 4. �INDICATES INTERIOR BEARING AND/OR SHEAR WALLS. INDICATES LESS THAN FULL STORY WALLS FRAMED W/CRIPPLE STUDS NOT REACHING TOP PLATES. INDICATES NON-STRUCTURAL FURRING -WALLS. DENOTES DETAIL NUMBER INDICATES PORTIONS OF DETAIL 5. XX DENOTES TABLE NUMBER WHICH MAY VARY PER TABLE. X DENOTES SHEET NUMBER DETAILS SHALL BE APPLIED ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WALL. 6• ' INDICATES AREAS OF OVERSTACK (CALIFORNIA) FRAMING. (MIN. 2x6 RAFTERS AT 24" O.C. WITH A MAX. SPAN OF 6'-0"f. BRACE TO FRAMING BELOW). SEE DETAIL 7/SN2. 0� INDICATES REVISION NUMBER. -INDICATES A HORIZONTAL STRAP 7• INDICATES AREAS OF REVISION.AS DEPICTED PER DETAILS AND B. FRAMING PLANS. 9. FRAMING LAYOUT LEGEND: 10. WASTE -LINE AND PLUMBING WALL a). INDICATES (2)-INDEPENDENT ��PLUMBING SIMPLY SUPPORTED MEMBERS MIN. 2x6 �� DIRECTION OF �BR'G. WALL r ` WASTE -LINE z.suDwaL (OR BM.), TYP. b). INDICATES CANTILEVER MEMBERS �BR'G. WALL (OR BM.), TYP. c). INDICATES CONTINUOUS SPAN MEMBERS Vl--BR'G. WALL (OR BM.), TYP. 12. REFER TO ALL "SN" SHEETS FOR GENERAL NOTES, SHEAR ELEMENT SCI I i ,TRACE OF WATER -CLOSET AT FLOOR ABOVE 2x6 FURRING FOR PLUMBING 11. BEAM/HEADER TIGHT TO PLATES INDICATES NO TOP CRIPPLES ABOVE BEAM/HEADER AS SHOWN BELOW. INSTALL BEAM DIRECTLY UNDER TOP PLATES GENERAL DETAILS AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. JEDULE AND NOTES WOOD STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEAR WALLS (CBC 2019)13 6,9,10 3,4 8,11.12 2.5 5,16 2,8 1,2 2 13 VERTICAL AND MUDSILL SHEAR COMMON OR NAIL EDGE NAIL HORIZONTAL SIZE AND SOLE PLATE NAILING: DESIGN WALL STRUCTURAL GALVANIZED AND JOINT FIELD JOINT MEMBER ANCHOR BOLT MIN. 2X WITH 16d CAPACITY TYPE PANEL TYPE BOX NAILS SPACING SPACING WIDTH SPACING P-NAIL (GUN), U.N.O. (PLF) 2X MUDSILL PIS SHEATHING 8d 6" O.C. 12" O.C. 2X 119 DOA. AT MIN. 25 (1AT 4" D.C. 260 (WEND) 2X MUDSILL P4 SHEATHING 8d 4" O.C. 12" O.C. 2X 1/2' DIA. AT 32 O.C. (1AT 4" 0.C.d 500 (WEND) X'-X. 15 2X MUDSILL 14 P3 SHEATHING 8d STAGGERED 12 O.C. (ALT. 3X 1/2*1� 6„ DIA. AT (2`_ROWS 16d AT 41 O.0 PER STAGGERED OW 490 490 (WEND) x'-x' 15 2X MUDSILL is 8d 12" O.C. 3X 1/2"1/16 DIA. AT (211_ROWS 16d AT 4'r O.C. PER ROW P2 SHEATHING STAGGERED (ALT. 16" O.C. STAGGERED 540 (WEND) 15/32" 2X MUDSILL 14 (2))-ROWS SIMP. SOS 2 STRUCT. SHEATHING 10d O.C' STAGGERED 12 O.C. 3X 1/2DIA. AT 12 O.C. 1/4"k 4-1/2" AT 8" O.C. PER ROW STAGGERED (MIN. 4 PER 16" BAY) 870 1040 END ) 3X MUDSILL 3X SOLE PLATE 14 DOUBLE -SIDED 3/8" SHEATHING 8d 3" O.C. STAGGERED 12" O.C. 3X 1�2' DIA. AT 2* I ' (2 -ROWS SIMP. SIDS )4"X 6" AT 6" O.C. PER ROW STAGGERED 980 EQ.) 1200 (WIND) DBL SIDED W 3X SIl1 (MIN. 4 PER 16" BAY) 3X MUDSILL 3X SOLE PLATE 14 DOUBLE -SIDED a 15/32 STRUCT. 10d 2 O.C. STAGGERED 12"O.C. 3X 3/4' DIA. AT 12)4"X 6S ATM4" O.C. 2400 (WEND) 12" O.C.SHEATHING PER ROW STAGGERED (MIN. 8 PER 15" BAY) NOTES: 1. ANCHOR BOLTS AT SHEAR WALLS REQUIRE 0.229' X 3' X 3' PLATE WASHERS, U.N.O. ON THE FRAMING PLANS. ALL NON -SHEAR WALL ANCHOR BOLTS MAY USE STANDARD CUT (ROUND) WASHERS. PLATE WASHERS MAY BE SLOTTED PER THE FOLLOWING: FOOTNOTES: a). PLATE WASHER SIZE IS REFERENCED FROM NDS SDPWS-2015 SECTION 4.3.6.4.3. b). ANCHOR BOLT NUTS SHALL BE TIGHTENED JUST PRIOR TO COVERING THE FRAMING. c). PLATE WASHERS SHALL EXTEND TO WITHIN 1/2" OF THE EDGE OF THE BOTTOM PLATE ON THE SHEATHED SIDE. d). POSITION SIMP. BPS3/4"-6 PLATE WASHER WITH STD. CUT ROUND WASHER AT DOUBLE SIDED SHEAR WALLS 1/2" FROM EDGES OF SILL PLATE. 2. REFER TO DETAIL 1/SN3 FOR FASTENER SPACING AT PLATES AND ABUTTING PANEL JOINTS. FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES #3-#16, REFER TO SHEET •SNY. FOR TYPICAL WOOD FRAMING SECTION 11 AND ELEVATION, REFER TO DETAIL sN2 V V ROOF TRUSSES PER MANUF. AT 24' O.C. FRAMING LEGEND SPAN (L)* HANGER TYPE CARRIED BY (1)-PLY G.T. CARRIED BY MIN. (2)-PLY G.T. L =< 10' L =< 16' LUS24 10' <L=< 14' 16' <L=< 24' LUS26 14' <L=< 20' 24' <L=< 36' MUS26/LUS28 NOT ALLOWED 36' <L=< 50' HUS26 NOT ALLOWED I L > 50' SEE PLAN " SPAN LL) = CLEAR DISTANCE BETWEEN OESIGNED SUPPORTS XGT GIRDER TRUSS PER MANUF. "X" = NUMBER OF PLIES PLIES HANGER ONE HUS26 TWO HHUS26-2 THREE + SEE PLAN ULJIUN U.I. IU AUUUMUUAIL FULL NAILING OF REQ'D. HNGRS. TRUSS JACKS AT 24" O.C. HNGR.=DETAIL 1/SN2 vv\i U 1v/v RIP 41/4"PER FT. TO DRAIN HNGR.=(SINGLE):LUS28 (DBL): LUS28-2 2X CEILING JOISTS - SEE DETAIL T-A ALIGN ROOF TRUSS W/E.N. T-F STRUCTURAL "FILL" TRUSS W/E.N. T-L ROOF TRUSS ON LAYOUT W/E.N. T-0 OFFSET ROOF TRUSS W/E.N. T-W ROOF TRUSS ON WALL W/E.N. F-A ALIGN FLOOR JOIST W/E.N. BEAM BEAM WIDTH DEPTH (in.) (in.) iTP�\ E GLB GLULAM LSL LAMINATED STRAND LUMBER LAMINATED LVL VENEER LUMBER PSL PARALLEL STRAND LUMBER D.F. DOUGLAS FIR SAWN LUMBER ENGINEERED LUMBER BEAM HANGER BEAM HANGER 4X4 LUS 1-3/4" X 9-1/2" IUS 4X6 LUS 1-3/4" X 11-7/8" IUS 4X8 LUS 1-3/4" X 14" IUS 4X10 HUS 3-1/2" EWP HU 4X12 HUS 3-1/8 EWP HU 6X6 HU 5-1/4" EWP GLN 6X8 HU 5-1/8" EWP GLT 6X10 HU 7" EWP GLN 1. SEE PLANS, OR CONTACT ENGINEER, FOR SIZES NOT SHOWN. 2. CALL -OUT INDICATED ON FRAMING PLANS SHALL SUPERSEDE THE HANGERS INDICATED ABOVE. 3. CONCEALED FLANGE HANGERS MAY BE USED WHERE REQUIRED. 4. SEE DETAIL 13/SN4 FOR ALTERNATE PRODUCTS. ROOF FRAMING PLAN SCALE: 1 /2" = V-0" 15'-10" FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE: 1/2)) = 1 '-0" FOUNDATION 1. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED BASED ON THE MINIMUM ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2500 psi AT 28 DAYS. NOTE THAT THIS IS THE MINIMUM DESIGN VALUE. HIGHER VALUES MAY BE REQUIRED PER: a). SITE CONDITIONS, b). SOIL ENGINEER, c). BUILDING OFFICIAL, d). BUILDER SPECS., AND e). SPECIAL EXPOSURES PER THE IBC/CB . REFER TO DETAIL S/SN4 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2. CONCRETE FOR SLAB -ON -GRADE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM SLUMP OF 5" (4" SLUMP FOR MAT FOUNDATION SLAB -ON -GRADE) PER A.S.T.M.C-143. MAX. 4" SLUMP FOR FOOTINGS AND GRADE BEAMS, U.N.O. ON PLANS. 3. ALL CEMENT USED SHALL CONFORM TO A.S.T.M. C-150. 4. FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE SHALL CONFORM TO A.S.T.M. C-33 FOR NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE AND A.S.T.M. C-330 FOR LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE. 5. READY -MIX CONCRETE SHALL BE MIXED AND DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.S.T.M. C-94. 6. PROVIDE 3/4" CHAMFERS AT ALL EXPOSED CORNERS, U.N.O. BY ARCH. SPECS. 7. FOUNDATIONS WITH INTERIOR/EXTERIOR RIBBED FOOTINGS: VAPOR RETARDER (WHERE REQUIRED) SHALL EXTEND 2" INTO EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR FOOTINGS & SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 6". PUNCTURED RETARDER SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED. MAT -SLAB FOUNDATIONS WITH THICKENED SLAB EDGE: VAPOR RETARDER (WHERE REQUIRED) SHALL BE TERMINATED AT INSIDE EDGE OF PERIMETER FOOTINGS & SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 6". PUNCTURED RETARDER SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED. 8. SILL FASTENING: EXTERIOR WALLS AND SHEAR WALLS: DIAMETER PER "SHEAR ELEMENT SCHEDULE" x 10"LONG ANCHOR BOLTS 7" INTO CONCRETE, 6'-0" O.C. MAXIMUM (U.N.O.). MIN. OF (2)-BOLTS PER PIECE WITH (1)-BOLT LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 12" OR LESS THAN (7)-BOLT DIAMETERS FROM EACH END AND/OR SPLICE OF THE PIECE, U.N.O. INTERIOR NON -SHEAR WALLS: ICC-ESR APPROVED SHOT PINS WITH CADMIUM WASHERS, 32" O.C. MAXIMUM, 6" FROM CORNERS AND SPLICES U.N.O. ON PLANS. 9. ALL CONTINUOUS GRADE BEAM FOOTINGS TO HAVE MIN. (1)-#4 REINFORCING BAR AT TOP AND BOTTOM, U.N.O. ON PLANS. 10. PROVIDE #3 x 24" LONG DOWELS AT 24" O.C. AND 12" FROM CORNERS AT ALL CONCRETE STOOPS AND PORCHES, U.N.O. ON PLANS. 11. ALL REINFORCING STEEL, ANCHOR BOLTS, DOWELS, AND OTHER INSERTS SHALL BE SECURED INTO POSITION AND INSPECTED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE PLACING OF ANY CONCRETE. (MUDSILL ANCHOR BOLTS, AND/OR DOWELS MAY BE "STABBED" IF ALLOWED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIAL). 12. VERIFY LOCATION OF HOLDOWNS, ANCHOR BOLTS, AND OTHER INSERTS WITH FRAMING CONTRACTOR TO ASSURE PROPER AND ACCURATE INSTALLATION. 13. FOOTINGS SHALL BE OBSERVED AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE PROJECT SOILS/GEOLOGY ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSPECTIONS AND PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE. (IF SO REQUIRED BY THE SOILS REPORT AND/OR BLDG. DEPT.). 14. FOUNDATION (WIDTHS AND DEPTHS) AND REINFORCING AS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE TO BE SUPER - CEDED BY LOCAL CODES, ORDINANCES, OR A VALID CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT WHICH REQUIRE INCREASES OF THE SAME. 15. WAITING PERIOD FOR CONCRETE SLABS -ON -GRADE PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION IS AS FOLLOWS (NOTE: RECOMMENDED, BUT NOT REQUIRED BY CODE): CONVENTIONAL SLABS: a). WALK ON SLABS 24 HOURS AFTER CONCRETE HAS BEEN POURED. b). BEGIN WALL FRAMING 4-5 DAYS AFTER CONCRETE POUR. c). BEGIN ROOF/FLOOR FRAMING 7-10 DAYS AFTER CONCRETE POUR. d). DO NOT LOAD ROOF PRIOR TO 14 DAYS AFTER CONCRETE POUR. POST TENSION SLABS: a). WALK ON SLABS 24 HOURS AFTER CONCRETE HAS BEEN POURED. b). BEGIN WALL FRAMING 3 DAYS AFTER CONCRETE POUR IF CYLINDER BREAKS INDICATE MIN. 2000 psi STRENGTH. c). BEGIN ROOF/FLOOR FRAMING AFTER SLABS ARE STRESSED. d). DO NOT LOAD ROOF PRIOR TO STRESSING OF SLABS. 16. REQUIREMENTS FOR POST TENSION SLABS (IF APPLICABLE:): a). CONDITION WHERE POST -TENSION IS DESIGNED BY OTHERS: LOADS FROM THE STRUCTURE ABOVE SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO THE POST TENSION ENGINEER PRIOR TO DESIGN. ANCHOR BOLTS AND OTHER HARDWARE TO BE SHOWN ON POST TENSION PLANS TO AVOID MIS -LOCATION OF HARDWARE. b). CONDITION WHERE POST -TENSION IS DESIGNED BY OPTION ONE: REFER TO POST -TENSION FOUNDATION PLANS INCLUDED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS. 17. BUILDER TO SUBMIT A COPY OF VALID SOILS REPORT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR PLAN CHECK PURPOSES. 18. ALL SOILS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE PART OF THIS APPROVAL AND SHALL ALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIELD UNDER THE OBSERVATION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. 19. REFER TO ARCH. DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS, A/C PAD SIZE AND LOCATIONS, SIZE AND LOCATIONS OF CONCRETE STOOPS AND STEPS, DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, ETC. FOUNDATION SYMBOLS AND NOTES SYMBOLS -- -� INDICATES EXTENT OF SHEAR WALL / ANCHOR BOLTS NUMERIC VALUE INDICATES ANCHOR BOLT SPACING IN "INCHES ON CENTER" AT MUDSILL, OR XX ALPHABETIC VALUE INDICATES ALTERNATE SHEAR ELEMENT. REFER TO "SHEAR ELEMENT SCHEDULE AND NOTES" FOR DESIGNATIONS. (X)-AB INDICATES MINIMUM QUANTITY OF ANCHOR BOLTS AT MUDSILL. INDICATES LENGTH OF ANCHOR BOLTS SPACING AT MUDSILL OR ALTERNATE SHEAR ELEMENT SIZE OR DESIGNATION. POST W INDICATES BOLTED TYPE HOLDOWN CONNECTORS. HOLDOWN POST W INDICATES STRAP TYPE HOLDOWN CONNECTORS. HOLDOWN TYPICAL MUDSILL ANCHOR BOLT DIAMETERS TO BE PER "SHEAR ELEMENT SCHEDULE" x 10' LONG, ASSUMING (MONOLITHIC) FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS USED (i.e. NO COLD -JOINT BETWEEN SLAB AND FOOTING. ANCHOR BOLT SPACING MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK INDICATES ANCHOR BOLTS WITH A 4" PRO- JECTION FROM THE SLAB AND/OR TOP OF CURB (TO ACCOMODATE A 3X MUDSILL). * * ANCHOR BOLT SPACING MARKED WITH A DOUBLE ASTERISK INDICATES 3/4" ANCHOR BOLTS IN LIEU OF STANDARD ANCHOR BOLTS. BOLTS SHALL HAVE A 4" PROJECTION FROM SLAB AND/OR TOP OF CURB (TO ACCOMODATE A 3X MUDSILL). NOTES: 1. ANCHOR BOLTS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DETAIL 3/SN4. 2. FOR SIMPSON "MASA" MUDSILL ANCHOR ALTERNATE, REFER TO DETAIL 8/SN3. FOOTING LEGEND INDICATES FOOTING INDICATES GRADE BEAM INDICATES PAD FOOTING NOTE: REFER TO FOUNDATION PLAN OR DETAIL SHEET FOR REQUIRED FOOTING SIZES AND REINFORCEMENT. SPECIAL NOTES PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 0 1• ALL FOOTING EXCAVATIONS SHOULD BE INSPECTED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER OR HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE TO CONFIRM FOUNDATIONS ARE WITHIN COMPACTED FILL AND PREVIOUS OVEREXCAVATION. 04 0 0 a N e� O 7 �e b � d p( U W W V1 N z O � � W � b O W Pml za0 • •�� v z�� U � kn eV ATTEST TO STRUCTURAL ONLY p,�` O QRpFESS1MC uj Z N C 4 * Exp. - �P q T CIVI`,- F _ OF,CAL�� OCT. 22, 2021 DIGITAL SIGNATURE ACCEPTABLE FOR BLDG. DEPT. SUBMITTAL eV t� eV V a � la 06 1 �aN W o c~n 0-4 A N ® 04 � U W ICI O Vlk �a will W � x W a rA Y I t� M r Y z ry� U w O 1"1 ArA U z cV o A o z a OPTION ONE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. CHANGED. OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF OPTION ONE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THESE PLANS BY A THIRD PARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD OPTION ONE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. HARMLESS. ENGINEER T.M./V.C. PRINCIPAL G.A.M. BLDG. DEPT. SUN. DATE 05/26/2021 PLOT DATE 10/22/2021 OPTION ONE JOB NO. 0221-2504 ARCHITECT'S JOB NO. PVG 220030 CODE 2019 CBC TRACT NO. / LOT NO. TRACT NO.: 34243 TOTAL LOTS: 40 DESIGN CRITERIA SEISMIC DESIGN CAT. "D" WIND SPEED 110 mph WIND EXPOSURE "C" SHEET SoPOOL r N N N N O T LL O a w co) H w H a w 0 CD 0 J_ m CAD FILE: 220030-S.POOL