The URL can be used to link to this page

BRES2016-0240 Infiltration testing1 I!MR. AND MRS. SWENSON 62 ELLENWOOD AVENUE LOS GATOS, CA 95030 RITCEIVED N|:)\/ t 8 2019 INTEITWEST COr.rSuLTlNG GROUP INFILTRATION TESTING FOR STORMWATER RETENTION FEASIBITITY PROPOSED RESIDENCE 77.2LO LOMA VISTA LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA REVIEWED 'JAN 0 Z Zrlll coNltlif^flEsforo February LL,20L4 RECEIVED Nol/ 0 I 20t9 oIY 0F tA QUIITA DESIGN AND OEVELOP|,|EiI DEPART}4ENI @ 2OL4 Earth Systems Southwest Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Earth systems Southwest. File No.: L2L24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-708 \g Earth Systems I e Southwest 79-8118 Country Club Drlve Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (760) 34s-1588 (800) e24-7015 FAX (760) 345-7315 February 7L,2014 File No.: 72124-01 Doc. No.: 14-02-708 Mr. and Mrs. Case Swenson 62 Ellenwood Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: lnfiltration Testing for Stormwater Retention Feasibility Project: Proposed Residence 77-210 Loma Vista La Quinta, Riverside County, California Earth Systems Southwest (Earth Systems) presents this Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed residence to be Iocated at77-270 Loma Vista in La Quinta, Riverside County, California. This report presents our findings and recommendations for storrnwater disposa! at the lower driveway area of the property, This report should stand as a whole and no part of the report should be excerpted or used to the exclusion of any other part. This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement SWP-13-008, dated January 25, 2013. Other servicesthat may be required, such as plan review and grading observation, are additional services and will be billed according to our Fee Schedule in effect at the time services are provided. Unless requested in writing, the client is responsible for distributing this report to the appropriate governing agency or other mernbers of the design team. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services. Please contact our office if there are any questions or comments concerning this report or its recommendations, Respectfu lly sub m itted, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTH M:,aKevin L. Paul Senior Engineer cE 70084 GE 2930 SER/rcrlklplmss/ms Distrlbution: z/fr(r. and Mrs. Swenson A/The Altu m G rou p 1/BD File Senior Engineering PG 38OO EG 1L74 o a a o( GE0r-06lST No,tt71 CERTIFIEO ENGINEERINO 0 orq ALf f' i TABTE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1 INTRODUCTION I I I I 1.1 Project Description 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services Section 2 METHODS OF EXPLORATION AND TEST!NG...............................,.....................3 2.L Field Exploration.......... 3.1 Soil Conditions L.2 Site Description 3.2 Groundwater. aJ 4 5 5 5 5 6 8 9 9 3.3 Collapse/Consolidation Potential 3.4 Retention Basin lnfiltration Testing 3.5 Site Drainage and Maintenance Section 4 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERV|CES...............o...............o...r................... 4.L Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations.......... APPENDIX A Plate 1- Site Vicinity Map Plate 2 - Preliminary Precise Grading Plan Plate 3 - Boring Location Map Terms and Symbols Used on Boring Logs Soil Classification System Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 'February LL,2OL4 File No.: L2L24-0L Doc. No.: 14-02-708 INFILTRATION TESTING FOR STORMWATER RETENTION FEASIBTLITY PROPOSED RESIDENCE 77-2LO IOMA VISTA LA QUUTITA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description This report has been prepared for the proposed residence to be located at77-210 Loma Vista in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. We assumed that the proposed structure will be one custom-built single family residence and the one-story structure will of light-frame construction supported on conventional shallow foundations. lnfiltration for stormwater disposal from the residence site is proposed in the form of drywells and/or infiltration trenches located onsite near the southwest portion of the property in the driveway area. L.2 Site Description The site is currently a partially graded Iot which appears to be a combination of shallow bedrock with some perimeter fills. The existing access road has been cut into the hillside, with near vertical cut slopes (in bedrock) and undocumented fills on the fill side of the roadway. The site has a general elevation on the order of 68 feet above mean sea tevel. The site location is shown on Plate L. Stormwater infiltration drywells or infiltration trenches are proposed at the western edge of the property adjacent to the existing access road and existing box culverts. The existing box culvert invert elevations are understood to be on the order of 6 feet deep below existing grades. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services The purpose for our services was to evaluate the infiltration rate of soils encountered at our test locations and to provide professional opinions and recommendations regarding stormwater disposal using the proposed drywell and trench methods. The scope of services included: 1. Surficial site conditions were visually assessed and selected published reports were reviewed for the site, including prior reports by Earth systems. 2. Near-surface soil conditions were explored by means of drilling 3 exptoratory borings at the site which were logged and had infiltration testing performed within them. Exploratory borings were accomplished using a truck-mounted drilling rig equipped with hollow-stem augers which extended to a maximum depth of approximately 5 to 22 feet betow the ground surface. The boring locations were pre-marked and cteared for underground utilities by Underground Service Alert. The exposed soi! profites were observed retative to soil and bedrock conditions. Samples of the surface and subsurface materials were collected at various intervals, logged by our representative, and returned to our taboratory. The borings were backfilled with soil derived from the drilling after completion of our activities. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST L .t 'February LL,2OL4 File No.: L2L24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-7Og 3. Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings. Testing included unit densities, moisture content, particle size analysis, and collapse potential. These test results aided in the classification and evaluation of the pertinent engineering properties of the various soils encountered at the site. 4. Engineering analysis of the data generated from this study was performed and a written report prepared to present our findings and recommendations, which includes the following: o A description of the proposed project including a site plan showing the approximate boring locations; o A description of the surface and subsurface site conditions as encountered in our field exploration; o A discussion of site conditions, including the geotechnical suitability of the site for the general type of construction proposed; o Recommendations for collapsible soils and the potential effect on the nearby culverts should water be infiltrated into the supporting soils; o An appendix, which includes a summary of the field exploration and laboratory testing program. 5. ln general accordance with the guidelines of the County of Riverside, the scope of services for the infiltration testing for storm water retention generally consisted of the following: Three borings were drilled at the proposed locations of the drywells and trench and backfilled with perforated PVC pipe and gravel. The borings were pre-saturated with potable water prior to testing. Field percolation testing of the borings was performed using the falling-head test method at depths between 5 and 22feel below existing grade at the test locations. The data was organized and evaluated to identify subsurface site characteristics and site-specific infiltration rates for storm water disposal at the elevation of the proposed systems. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 2 o a o 'February LL,2OL4 3 File No.: L2L24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-708 Section 2 METHODS OF EXPLORATION AND TESTING 2.L Field Exploration Three exploratory borings were drilled to depths ranging from about 5 to 22 feet below the existing ground surface to observe soil profiles and obtain samples for Iaboratory testing. The borings were drilled on February 6, 2OL4 using an 8-inch outside diameter hollow-stem auger. Augers were powered by a Mobile 8-61 drilling rig. The boring locations are shown on Plate 3 in Appendix A. The locations shown are approximate, established by pacing and line-of-sight bearings from adjacent landmarks and survey stakes. A staff scientist 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 depending on the materials encountered onsite. Samples were obtained within the test borings using a Modified California [MC] ring sampler (ASTM D 3550 with those similar to ASTM D 1586). The MC sampler has a 3- inch outside diameter and a 2.4-inch inside diameter. The ring 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 a MC type ring sampler within the borings was recorded. 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 Iines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, although the transitions may be gradational. ln reviewing the logs and legend, the reader should recognize that 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, the presence of cobbles or boulders, 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 Iogs 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 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 'February LL, 2OL4 File No.: L2L24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-708 in interpreting soil characteristics, possibly resulting in soil descriptions that vary somewhat from the legend. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Samples were reviewed along with field logs to select those that would be analyzed further. Those selected for laboratory testing include soils that evaluated to be typical of soils expected to be encountered during project construction. 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: o Density and Moisture Content of select samples of the site soils (ASTM D 2937 & 22L61. o Particle Size Analysis to classify and evaluate soil composition. The gradation characteristics of selected samples were made by sieve analysis procedures (ASTM D 6e13). o Consolidation/Collapse Potential to evaluate the compressibility and hydroconsolidation (collapse) potentia! of the soil upon wetting (ASTM D 5333). 4 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST ' Februa ry LL,2OL4 File No.: L2L24-0L Doc. No.: L4-02-7O8 Section 3 DtscussroN 3.1 Soil Conditions The field exploration indicates that site soils consist generally of silty sand overlying granitic bedrock (Unified Soils Classification System symbol of SM). The soils were typical of alluvial fan type deposits. The bedrock was encountered at depths of approximately 15 feet below existing grades and was generally in a weathered condition. The boring logs provided in Appendix A include more detailed descriptions of the soils and rock encountered. 3.2 Groundwater Free groundwater was not encountered in the borings or during exploration. The depth to groundwater in the area is believed to be over 100 feet. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with precipitation, irrigation, drainage, regional pumping from wells, and site grading. 3.3 Collapse/Consolidation Potential 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. ln arid climatic regions, granular soils may have a potential to collapse upon wetting. Collapse (hydroconsolidation) may occur when the soluble 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.L, the severity of collapse potential is commonly evaluated by the following Table 1, Collapse Potential Values. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 5 'February LL, 2OL4 File No.: L2L24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-708 Table 1 Collapse Potential Values Collapse Potential Value Severity of Problem o-L%No Problem L-5o/o Moderate Problem s-Lo%Trouble LO-20%Severe Trouble > 20%Very Severe Trouble The project site is located in a geologic environment where the potential for collapsible soil exists. The results of collapse potential tests performed on selected samples from different depths indicated a range of collapse potential on the order of 0.8 to L.3 percent at an applied vertical stresses of 1,000 to 2,000 psf (to simulate varying overburden pressures). Collapse Potential Conclusions: lf the tota! soil I ayer adjacent to the existing culverts is moistened significantly, we have estimated that there is a potential for soil collapse (consolidation) assuming the soils below the culverts are in a similar condition to the soils adjacent to the culverts at our boring location. The estimated settlement of the soil between the bottom of the culvert (at a depth of 6 feet below existing grades) and the bedrock below is on the order of L inch. 3.4 Retention Basin lnfiltration Testing The site soils within the proposed infiltration areas consisted of silty sand (SM) soils overlying bedrock which was encountered at approximately 15 feet below existing grades. To evaluate the soils encountered three infiltration tests were performed (see Plate 3 for locations). At each location, 8 inch diameter borings were drilled and backfilled with perforated PVC pipe and gravel to minimize soil caving. The presence of gravel and the PVC pipe were accounted for in the infiltration rate calculation. The borings were pre-saturated with potable water prior to testing. Field percolation testing of the borings was performed using the falling-head test method at depths of 1.0 to 20 in Boring L,7 to 20 in Boring L, 7 to 15 in Boring 2, 10 to 15 in Boring 2 and 2-Ll2to 5-L/2 feet in Boring 3. All depths are as measured below existing grade at the test locations. Test results are as follows. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 6 ' Februa ry LL, 2OL4 File No.: L2L24-0L Doc. No.: L4-02-7O8 Table 2 Retention Basin lnfiltration Results *Field Values, No factor of safety applied. Typical factors of safety range from 3 to 12 depending on the type of system which will be designed using the field values and depending on the level of pre-treatment and influent which wil! be discharged into the basins (Riverside County Stormwater Quality Design Handbook, 2006). lnfiltration Conclusions and Recommendations: ln com paring the test results to the soil/bedrock zones encountered, the test results indicate that the primary infiltration zone is approximately 2%to 9 feet below existing grades. Bedrock and near bedrock soils had very low infiltration rates. Based upon our tests results and evaluation of the field boring Iogs, it is our opinion that infiltration drywells are not feasible due to the shallow depth of bedrock and the low infiltration rate at deeper depths. lt is our opinion that shallow infiltration trenches are better suited for this site. General recommendations are presented as follows: It is our opinion that for the upper 7 feet of soil, an unfactored infiltration rate of 4.6 gallons/square foot/day may be used for design purposes. The bottom of proposed infiltration trenches should not be founded deeper than 7 feet below existing grades in order to utilize the above infiltration rate. Deeper systems should consider that the bedrock provides no infiltration capacity and that soils appeared to increase in fines content at depth. For infiltration trench sizing purposes,LOO%o of the bottom area excavated in soil may be considered as contributory for infiltration. Typically only zero to % of the trench side wal! is allowed as contributory for infiltration. lt is our opinion that % of the trench sidewall contribution may be utilized forthe above maximumT foot deep trenches due to the sandy soils encountered. All gravel backfill should be separated from native soils by a geofabric such as Mirafi 140N or direct equivalent. The bottom of infiltration trenches should also be covered with geofabric (Mirafi 140 N or direct equivalent). Gravel backfill mayconsist of 3f8" pea-gravel or%inch open(gap) gradedcrushedrock. 7 a a o o Test Pit Test Description Soil Condition USCS Soil Description in Test Zone Test Zone Below Existing Grade (feet) Estimated Basic lnfiltration Rate* (gallons/square foot/day) B-1 Falling Head Alluvium and Bedrock Silty Sand and Bedrock 10-22 0.1 B-1 Falling Head Alluvium and Bedrock Silty Sand and Bedrock 5-22 0.45 B-2 Falling Head Alluvium and Bedrock Silty Sand and Bedrock 7 -15 4.0 B-2 Falling Head Alluvium and Bedrock Silty Sand and Bedrock 10-L5 0.6s B-3 Falling Head Alluvium Silty Sand (SM)2%-s%5.3 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST ' Februa ry LL,2OL4 8 File No.: t2t24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-7OB When calculating trench volumes, areas filled with gravel backfill may be considered to have a void ratio of 0.40 (40%1. Grave! should be tamped into place during and after final placement to reduce potential settlement. Structures should not be founded over infiltration trenches. Fill placed over infiltration trenches should be compacted to at least 90% compaction relative to ASTM D 1557. The trenches above are only recommended to dispose of occasional stormwater runoff events. Nuisance water from landscape irrigation or other runoff associated with daily household activities will saturate the soils in the infiltration trenches and they will not infiltrate in an expedient manner if needed during a storm event. 3.5 Site Drainage and Maintenance o o o a o o Proposed trenches should not be based in fine grained soils. Excavation should extend through any fine grained soils encountered and extend into the site sandy soils. Maintenance of drainage systems and infiltration structures can be the most critical element in determining the success of a design. They must be protected and maintained from sediment-laden water both during and after construction to prevent clogging of the surficial soils and filter medium. The potential for clogging can be reduced by pre-treating structure inflow through the installation of maintainable forebays, biofilters, or sedimentation chambers. ln addition, sediment, leaves, and debris must be removed from inlets and traps on a regular basis. Since these and other factors (such as varying soil conditions) may affect the rate of water infiltration, it should be considered to apply a conservative factor of safety [FOS] to the unfactored Basic Percolation/lnfiltration Rates presented within to provide a reliable basis for design. ln order to account not only for the unknown factors above but also for changes of conditions during the use of the structures such as potential clogging effects due to washing in of soil fines, a FOS between 3 and 12 should be applied in the design as recommended in the Riverside County Stormwater Quality Design Handbook, 2006. The factor of safety should be selected by the project drainage engineer and may be dependent on agency guidelines and the presence of filters and sedimentation structures. lf these measures are provided, the factor of safety can be reduced. The drainage pattern should be established at the time of final grading and maintained throughout the life of the project. Additionally, drainage structures should be maintained (including the de-clogging of piping, bottom cleaning, bottom silt removal, etc.) throughout their design life. Maintenance of these structures should be incorporated into the project plans and any deed amendments as necessary. It is expected that trench soils will be graded with heavy, construction grade earth moving equipment which can compact soils during grading. Compacted soils have a reduced inability to infiltrate water. As such, we recommend leaving trench bottom soils in a native, undisturbed or scarified condition to maintain infiltration rates. o o EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 'February LL,2OL4 File No.: L2L24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-708 Section 4 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES 4.L Uniformity of Conditions and Limitations Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Conditions will vary between or beyond the points explored. 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. Final grading and foundation plans were not available for our review prior to the preparation of this report, and therefore, the recommendations presented within may change pending a review of the final grading plans. Recommendations presented in this report should not be extrapolated to other areas or be used for other projects without our prior review. The planning and construction process is an integral design component with respect to the geotechnical aspects of this project. Because geotechnical engineering is an inexact science due to the variability of natural processes and because we sample only a small portion of the soil and material affecting the performance of the proposed structure, unanticipated or changed conditions can be disclosed during demolition and construction. 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. Therefore, we recommend that Earth Systems be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to 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 this commission. lf 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. 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. lt 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. tf the scope of the proposed construction changes from that described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 9 'February LL, 2OL4 10 File No.: L2L24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-708 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. Findings of this report are valid as of the issued date of the report. However, 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. !n 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 controt. 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 atso has the responsibility to verify that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. lt is further understood that the owner or the owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. As the Geotechnica! Engineer of Record for this project, 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. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and the Client's authorized agents. Earth Systems should be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. lf Earth Systems is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. The owner or the owner's representative has the responsibility to provide the final plans requiring review to Earth Systems' attention so that we may perform our review. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Earth Systems of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Earth Systems may require that additiona! work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Earth Systems from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party. Although available through Earth Systems, the current scope of our services does not include an environmental assessment or an investigation for the presence or absence of wettands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST ' Februa ry LL, 2OL4 LL File No.: L2L24-0L Doc. No.: 14-02-708 4.2 Additional Services This report is based on the assumption that a program of client consultation, construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final design and construction phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining Earth Systems as the geotechnical consultant from beginning to end of the project will provide continuity of services. The geotechnical engineering firm providing tests ond observotions sholl ossume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services provided by our firm. The costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements, but can be obtained from our office. The recommended review, tests, and observations include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: o Consultation during the final design stages of the project. o A review of the building and grading plans to observe that recommendations of our report have been properly implemented into the design. o Observation and testing during site preparation, grading, and placement of engineered fill. . Special lnspection for concrete, masonry, steel during construction. o Consultation as needed during construction. -o0o- Appendices as cited are attached and complete this report. EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST ' Februa ry LL, 2Ot4 L2 File No.: L2L24-OL Doc. No.: 14-02-708 REFERENCES American Society for Testing Materials, 20L3, Annua! Book of Standards Day, R.W.,2000, Geotechnical Engineers Portable Handbook McGraw-Hill Companies. Dept. of the Navy, 1986, NAVFAC DM 7.Ot: Soil Mechanics. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia. Dept. of the Navy, 1986, NAVFAC DM 7.02: Foundations and Earth Structures. Nava! Facilities Engineering Com mand, Alexandria, Virginia. Riverside County Stormwater Quality Design Handbook, 2006 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST APPENDIX A Plate 1- Site Vicinity Map Plate 2 - Preliminary Precise Grading Plan Plate 3 - Boring Location Map Terms and Symbols Used on Boring Logs Soil Classification System Logs of Borings EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST .I i 1 "I IL \ N x rr tr s t S.'-,51 -{rlJ-t T! tc+, ,+:ItI \t rt Ellt F I T IitI iI IIIf,lt i,,l st5f, ]l0 .? 9,tg l.Jja BT f. dl ftJ5 (ndrn-ta-ao Z, f]rn CN Urn -De- ft + m mdII F nl t. 3rat 2 .lt UI >ilt4 titr[E $I lp [[ 'tr li I T'ru rT'lta -l (- 7{(r, f) > ilo n : o 4 v, ,}ltP -r td ,t 3p I)t I a,I J t tt I ;ta 'rt J iit I t .t l-t I '-a t tril\ Itr ,.t a lt' Ta a t a I t t t- I / ! II I t a \ ) -l sr irl I Ir' I toIt L L. I A s f t ,a 7 i>. ! IT t. aIE] r I + \ ffi I lllllrlr]Flr lurF(lolr+ IG t3lo ttsllollEllr+H'ttf lg l-l:llul lEl F", rJ C7 .E I ?t trtt-*+r ETTtcQ85;E3gi*t7a a t o T6. l; I, \ a t\,) l1 .r't.tl,rt I .Ii, g: t' .e T=PIit'o(D61 6t d*:fit Eg, :, iIIt 6s T $t iiil,ilul ;I,trI t j i E .+ rEl!le 1 tt i (- a.t ril I o ljt-a ir ( rl I t Approximate Site Location 1 T l'2'.-."/i).J ti.-;-',-+-< t 3 I aL Qonu t asTAtn a o a I o \OA!IE trEPt'(;:: T I \I Reference: La Quinta, California NE/4 Palm Desert 15'Quadrangle dated 1959, Photorevised 1980 x I LEGEND lr'\. i._J APProximate site Location Approximate Scale: 1" = 1 Mi 0 1Mi 2Mi Plate 1 Site Vicinity Map Swenson Residence 77-zto Loma Vista La Quinta, Riverside Countv, CaliforniaeEarth Systqms Southwest 2/1.1/2014 File No.: 12L24-OL 4.tr C r't I \ *=--:#l Plate 3 Location MaBorin Swenson Residence 77-270 Loma Vista La Quinta, Riverside Cou CaliforniaeEarth Systems Southw est 2/Lu201,4 File No.: !2t24-OL LEGEND O Approximate Boring and B-3 infiltration Locations , Existing Culvert Location J.5FG 71 t FGt- 1:1 tut, w **t}, 71 ff. ITIDE BROW D]TCH 75.6TW :l 73 t t GB \-\.. I 71.lToP 73,E{a -: (//- q{nuo,ft 77 \ PIPE 1 \ NOTE \RETATNTNG WAII- GTJARI AI.ID FAI,IX ROCK STAINI T0 BLS{D NfO Dffinlt t.ANDSCAPE. 49,M \6 49I \R/r Bll' NG 12.Z ?\ x I / B-2 /\,i \IN) u \\ \\\ PROPOSE) FLOOD CONTROL ACCESS{ OEPRESSED PTANIER AREA Approximate Scale: l" = 20' 0 20' 40' NOTE t PA \. Terrns and Symbols Used on Boring Logs Earth Systems@Southwest DESCRIPTIVE SOIL C LASSIFICATION Soil classllicallon ls based onASTM Dcsignalions O 2407 andD 2,18E (Uniried Soil Classilication System). lnfo.mation on csch boiing log ls a compilation ot subsurface conditions oblained liom the field as well as from laboaatory testing or selcctcd ramptes. The indlcated boundari€s belween slrala on tha borlng log3 are approxlmate only and may bo trahsitionrl. SOIL GRAIN SIZE U,S. STANDARD SIEVE 12"tt 40 200 305 76.2 19.1 4.76 2.00 0-42 0.074 0.002 SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOTLS (GRAVELS, SANOS, AND NON-PLAST|C STLTS) Easily push a 112-inch reinforcing rod by hand Push a 112-inch reinforcing rod by hand Easily drive a 1|Z-inch reinforcing rod wlth hamrner Drive a 112-inch reinforcing rod 1 foot with dltflculty by a hammer Drive a 112-inch relnforclng rod a few inches with hamrner 'N=Blows per root in lhe Standard Penetration Test at 60o/o theoretlcal eneigy, For the 3-inch diameter Modltled Callrornla sampler,'140-pound vreight, multlply the blow count by 0.63 (about 2,3) to estlmate N. It automatic hamm€r is used, multiply a fac,tor ol '1.3 to 1,5 to eslimate N. RD=Rclatlvc Density (%). G=Undraincd shcar strcngth (cohesion). coNslsTENcY oF coHEstvE sorLs (CLAY oR cLAYEy sorLs) 'N=0{ N=5-10 N=1130 N=31-50 N>50 Very Loose Loo,se Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Very Sofi Soft Mediurn Stif{ stiff Very Stiff Hard Molslure Condition: Molsture Content: DESCRIPTION Nonplastic Low Medlum High RD=0-30 RD=30-50 RD=50-70 RD=70-90 RD=90-100 'C=0-250 psf C=250-500 psf C=500-1000 psf C=1000-2000 pst C=2000-a000 psf c>4000 'N=0-1 N=2{ N=5€ N=9-15 N=16-30 N>30 Squeezes between fingers Easily rnolded by Iinger pressure Molded by strong finger pnessure Oented by strong finger pnessure Dented sllghtly by flnger pressure Oented slightly by a pencil point or thurnbnail RELATIVE PROPORTIONS MOISTURE DENSIry An observational terrn; dry, darnp, nloist, wet, saturated. The weight of water in a sample divided by the weight of dry soil in the soil sample expressed as a percentage. The pounds of dry soll In a cubic foot.Dry Density: MOISTURE CONDITION Dry......--.............Absence of molsture, dusty, dry to the touch Damp.........,...,..SI ight i ndication of rnoistu re Mois(..,.,............Co1or change with shod period of air exposure (granular soil) Below optimum rnolsture content (cohesive soll) Wet............---.-...High degree of saturation by visual and louch (granular soll) Above optimurn moisture content (cohesive soil) Saturated.,,,....,,Free sudace water Trace--...---..--.minor arnou nt (<5%) with/some......slgnlfl cant amo unt modlfi erland...sufliclent amount to infl uence material behavior (Typically >30%) LOG KEY SYM BOLS 8ulk, Bag or Grab Sample Standard Penetratlon Spllt Spoon Sarnpler (2" outside diarneter) Modifi ed Cal ifornia Sampler (3" outside diameter) No Recovery PlSSTICITY FIELD TEST A1l8ln- (3-rnrn) thread cannot be rolled at any moisture content. The thread can barely be rolled. The thread ls easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastlc llmit The thread can be rerolled severaltirnes afler reaching the plastic limit. I II I IGROUNDWATER LEVEL V V Water Level (during dritling) Water Level (measured or after drilling) GRAVEL SAND BOULDERS COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH IC SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS t I a GW Wellgraded gravels, gravel.sand rnixlures, litlle or no fines CLEAN GRAVELS t-i!{{fiflf,fi t,i'.. j.. i'..i... J.. J., J.. ;.4..4,,4..t..t. - 1.- a.-a,--., J.' J., f.. i., J.. 4.. J.. aa. a. a. l. l. lt t. t.t.-i..i'., I..].' J.. 1.. t-. :a. a. ,. I' l. l. ., a.- GP Poorly.graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures. Little or no fines E GM Silty grave ls, gravel-sand.silt mixtures GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve GRAVELS WITH FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand+lay mixtures stn/Well-graded sands, gravelly sands little or no finesCLEAN SAND (Little or no fines) SP Poorlygraded sands, gravelly sands, little or no flnes SM Silty sands, sand+ilt mixtures COARSE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% of rnaterial ls larger than No. 200 sieve size SAND ANO SANDY SOILS More than 50o/o of coarse fractlon oassino No.4 sieve SAND WITH FINES (appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures ML lnorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sllty low clayey Ilne sands or clayey silts with slight plasticily CL lnorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays L]QUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity MH lnorganic silty, mlcaceous, or diatomaceous fine sand or silty soils CH lnorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays FIN E.GRAIN ED SOILS More than 50% of material is smaller than No, 200 sieve size SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 OH Organic clays of rnedium to high plasticity, organlc sllts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ,vYvvvvvvvvvv/./Jr\n/yyjryJ/i/.x)l/ Y.Y \Y.Y'Y.Y V t'Y \/y\fil ,,)l/.)rur\zJrJrjl\rjr\),.,y./\),.-l llJw-lVJ w-7Jv-I'Y V./ V,Y n \Y a/ l)rY\f jY PT Peat, humus, swamp soils with high organic contents VARIOUS SOILS AND MAN MAOE MATERIALS Fili Materials MAN MADE MATERIALS Asphalt and concrete Soil Classification System e Earth Systems Southwest IEEHEHHHffiEHEI NEEEEEETNnFnEFrrrrXEEEfrtr*flB IEfiETIEEEts5B3Enrnr 1ililililililililililtilil l|[flilil[ilflililflil[ ililililililiriiiiltililit IIIIIII EIEETC EI EFr Er !I!IIITIl- -- lITIT a a a a a ilrr.l I Boring No: B-l Project Narne: Swenson Residence File Number: 12124-01 Boring Location: See Plate 3 Drilling Date: February 6, 2013 Drilling Method: 8" HSA DrillType: Mobile 86l Logged By: Rich Howe Sarnple Type L..; @ Q Ao2 +F =O-Ov) Penelration Resisunce (BlowV6") 6 -o Eha aOa = f! E o.()o b QaOJLo8 co -o(.)a\ uo\!- 6J Cr! -<EzoO Description of Units Note: The stratifica!aon lines shorvn represent the approximate boundary behveen soiland./or rock types and the transition may be gradational. Page I of I Graph ic Trend Blow Count Dry Density @ Earth Systems Southwest ?9-8t lB Country Club Drive, Bcnnuda Duoes, CA Phooe (760) 345-l 588 Fax (760) 345'73 I S 5 l0 l5 z0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 SM SILTY SAND: yellow brown, moisl, medium d?nse, fine grained sand increase in fines conlenl loose {/4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A BR WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK:gray brown, fine lo coarse grained, moderately weathered, moderately slrong. Recovered As: Gravel with Sand, gray brown, fine lo coarse gravel, fine to coase sand 10, t 2, t6 2,2,4 3,3,5 2,3,6 2,3,9 2028,23 5014" 50/4" ll6 105 90 90 9l t29 6 't 8 7 9 3 Total Depth 22 ll2 f*r No Grou ndr,r,aler Encoun(ercd Refusal at22ln feet, due to hard drilling in bedrock, lnstalled 3 ll2" gerfonted pipe wilh cloth sleeve, gravel pack 60 Boring No: B-2 Project Name: Swenson Residence File Number: 12124-01 Boring Location: See Plate 3 -t\ 0.(uo Penetration Resistance (Blows/6") 6 -o E>rv) Sample Type .(t() -v,,o CAU)z (n Q <n = '68coBb-o Drilling Date: February 6, 2013 Drilling Method: 8" flSA Drill Type: Mobile 86l Logged By: Rich Flowe Description of Units Note: The stratification lines shorvn represent the approximate boundary berween soil and/or rock types and the transition may be gradational. Page I of I Craphic Trend Blow Count Dry Density rOtD o\ E= Qhv'69 =kzoO e Earth Systems Southwest 79-8 t I B Counlry Club Drivc, Bcrmuda Dunes, CA Phone (760) 345-1588 Fax (760)345-7315 10,21,22 il0 2 5 3,5,5 3,5,6 4,8,14 105 2 93 4 r0 lr9 2 14,32,24 t25 J l5 18,30,36 139 2 20 25 30 35 40 45 s0 55 Total Depth 16ll2 feet No Groundrvater Encounlered Refusalat l5 feet due to hard drilling in bedrock, Instatled 3 l/2" perforated pipe with cloth sleeve, gravel pack SM SILTY SAND: yellorv brown to gray brown, medium dense, damp, fine lo medium grained sand loose fine grained sand increase in fines content BR WEATHERED GRANITIC BEDROCK:gray brorvn, fine to coarse grained, weathered, moderalely slrong. Recovered as: Gravel with Sand, gray brown, fine to coarse gravel, fine lo coarse sand 60 L Earth Systems@Southwest 79-8 I I B Country Club Drive, Bermuda Dunes, CA Phone 345-1588 Fax (760) 345.7315 Boring No: B-3 Project Name: Swenson Residence File Number: 12124-01 Boring Location: See Plate 3 Dritling Date: February 6, 2013 Drilling Method: 8" HSA DrillType: Mobile 86l Logged By: Rich Howe G. o.q)o Sample TYP. ".., 6*rB Aqz Penetration Resistance (Blows/6") E -o E>ra c/) C) U)) .Brh (D q< AC) h-o G.Oo\ klv E-= EEzo L) Description of Units Nole: The stratification lines shown represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types and the transition may be gradational. Page I of I Graphic Trend Blow Count Dry Density SM SILTY SAND: ycllow brown, very loose, moist, line grained sand 6,6,5 2,1,2 5 t0 t5 40 45 55 20 25 30 35 s0 Total Depth 5 l/2 feet No Groundwaler Encountered Cleanout boring to 5 fecl, Installed 3" perforated pipe with cloth sleeve, gravel pack 60 8s 5 APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 12124-01 Febmary 11,2014 Lab No.: 14-054 UNIT DENSITIES AND MOISTURE CONTENT AsrM D2s37-04 &D22r6-0s Job Name: Swenson Residence BI BI B1 B1 B1 B1 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.s 1s 116 10s 90 90 91 t29 6 7 8 7 9 3 SM SM SM SM SM BEDROCK B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.s 1s 1r0 l0s 93 119 t2s r39 2 2 4 2 3 2 SM SM SM SM BEDROCK BEDROCK Sample Location Depth (feet) Unit Dry Densify (p"0 Moisture Content (%) USCS Group Symbol B3 4 8s 5 SM EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 12124-01 Lab No.: 14-054 SIBVE ANALYSIS 2lt t t2014 ASTM D69I3.09 Job Name: Swenson Residence Sample ID: Bl @ l0 feet Description: Silty Sand (SM) Sieve Size % Passing allJ 2" l-112" 1 r' 314" t t2" 3/8" #4 #10 #16 #30 #40 # 100 #200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 97 95 94 75 18.0 Coar:e Gravel Flne Gravel Coarse Sard Medium Sand Fine Sand Sllu and Clays 100 90 80 70 60 bo .E frso O. \oo\ 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 0.1 0.01 SIEVE Size, mm I -t -=} lil il ilt ilt ilt ilt I ilt \ ilt ill %o Coarse Gravel: 0 % Fine Gravel: 0 Yo Coarse Sand: % Medium Sand: % Fine Sand: 2 4 76 Cu: NA Cc: NA Gradation o/o Total Gravel 0 %o Total Sand 82 % Fines: l8 NA EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 1 File No.: 12124-01 Lab No.: 14-054 SIEVE ANALYSIS 211112014 ASTM D69I3-09 Job Name: Swenson Residence Sample ID: B I @ 12 ll2 feet Description: Silty Sand (SM) Sieve Size % Passing attJ 2" | -l12" 1" 314" U2" 3/8" #4 #10 #t6 #30 #40 # 100 #200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 93 89 86 84 70 24.0 Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Coarse Medium Sand Fine Sand Silts and Clays 100 90 80 70 Sand 60 a0 aU,(\, o. rOc)\ 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 SIEVE Size, mm il U 'l t.- U\ '1 F ilt ill ilt \ I ilt ilt %o Coarse Gravel: 0 % Fine Gravel: 3 %o Coarse Sand: 5 % Medium Sand: 8 % Fine Sand: 60 Cu: NA Cc: NA Gradation Yo Total Gravel 3 o/o Total Sand 73 % Fines: 24 NA EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST ilt til I I til File No. . 12124-01 Lab No.: 14-054 SIEVE ANALYSIS 211t 12014 ASTM D69I3.09 -l L \ \ \ \ I \ \ Job Name: Swenson Residence Sample ID: B2 @ 2 | 12 feet Description: Siity Sand (SM) Sieve Size % Passing alrJ 2" |-U2" 1" 314" l12" 3/8" #4 #10 #16 #30 #40 #100 #200 r00 100 100 100 100 98 95 92 82 76 68 63 44 17.3 Coarre 6revel Fine Grevel 10 finc 9nd Slltr end ClayrMedium Sand 1 SIEVE Size, mm Coanc Seod100 90 80 70 60 bI) .= frso O. 1o 40 30 20 10 0 100 0.1 0.01 % Coarse Gravel: 0 % Fine Gravel: 8 oA Coarse Sand: % Medium Sand: o/o Frne Sand: 9 19 46 Cu: Cc: NA NA Gradation o/oTolal Gravel I % Total Sand 74 % Fines: 17 NA EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST tlt ilt ilt ilt ilt ilt ilt ilt File No.: 12124-01 Lab No. . 14-054 SIEVE, ANALYSIS 2lt I120t4 ASTM D69I3.09 Job Name: Swenson Residence Sample ID: 83 @ 4 feet Description: Silry Sand (SM) Sieve Size % Passing 3.' 2" 1-1/2" l" 3/4" 1/2" 3/9" #4 #10 #16 #30 #40 # 100 #200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 96 94 93 73 19.1 Coarse Grrvel Flne Gnvel Coarse Send Medlum Sand tine Sand Sllu rnd Clayr 100 90 80 70 00 ht) L fisoA 1Qo\ 40 30 20 't0 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 SIEVE Sizc, mm -- I \ \ \ I ili I I t I l \ lil I IT oZ Coarse Gravel: 0 % Fine Gravel: 1 %o Coarse Sand: % Medium Sand: % Fine Sand: 2 4 73 Cu: NA Cc: NA Gradation % Total Gravel I o/o Total Sand 19 oZ Fines: 20 NA EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST File No.: 12124-01 Lab No.: 14-054 February 11,2014 CONSOLIDATION TEST A.STMD2435-04&D5333 Swenson Residence B-l @ 5 feet Silty Sand (SM) Ring Sample Initial Dry Density: 104.7 pcf Initial Moisture, 7o: 1.0% Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.592 Hydroco llapse: ), .3% @ I .0 ksf oh Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram +Before Saturation erzuaf{y6|rocollapse -+Rebound r Afler Saturalion -tL 0 I I I I I I I \ I L\* f-\I - t I I 2 -Cao) -\) '6 e-4.; OIRE -\, (I, t)-6 E(l,(ra L 'lotL -8 -9 -10 -11 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf -12 0.1 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 10.0 File No .: 12124-01 Lab No.: 14-054 February ll,2014 Swenson Residence B-l @7 ll}feet Silry Sand (SM) Ring Sample ASTM D2435-04 & D5333 lnitial Dry Densiry: 86.0 pcf Initial Moisfure, o/o: 7.8% Specifrc C.raviry (assumed): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.937 2 Hydrocollapse: 0.8% @ I .0 ksf "h Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram *..^-.,* H yd ro col I a pse -)t(- Rebound I I I I I ) I \ 1-\*--.---t I l._ I I I I I 1.0 Vertical Eflective Stress, ksf 1 0 E, .9 o,E .E o, E') N o oo o,(L -2 -3 -4 _q -b -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 0.1 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 10,0 CONSOLIDATION TEST .-€- I - After Saturation Saturation I File No .: 12124-01 Lab No.: 14-054 February 11 . )fi14 ASTMD2435-04&D5333 Swenson Residence B-1 @ l0 feet Silt Sand (SM) Ring Sample Initial Dry Density: 85.8 pcf Initial Moisture, 04: 7.4% Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.944 Hydrocollapse: 1 )% @ 2.0 ksf o/" Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagranr +-e Saturation G=l apse I After Saturation + Rebound -pe fter Saturation 2 0 -2 &, ED'a -tr-4.; El Ec-!,a o-6 o(ra o 0- -8 -9 -10 -11 1.0 Verticat Effective Stress, ksf I I I (I \ )-\. \ I \-\\ /\ I -12 0.1 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 10,0 CONSOI,IDATION TF"ST File No.: lZl24-01 Lab No.: 14-054 February 11,2014 Swenson Residence B-2 @7 ll2 feet Silt sand (sM) Ring Sampte ASTMD2435-04&Ds333 Initial Dry Density: 96.0 pcf Initial Moisture, o/o: 4.4% Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio: 0.737 2 Hydrocollapse: l.l% @ 1.0ksf oh Change in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram --*Before Saturation r After Saturation apse + Rebound Saturation I I (l-\ ) I 1-.. \- )__---l I I 0 -2 E-?orv'6 -E-4,; O)a (! Eo-6 coo-, o tL -8 9 -10 -11 1.0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf -12 0.1 EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 10.0 t CONSOLIDATION TEST a *File No.: 12124-01 Lab No.: 14-054 February 11,2014 CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTrUD243s-04&Ds333 Swenson Residence B-Z @ 10 feet Silty Sand (SM) Ring Sarnple Initial Dry Density: 96.0 pcf Initial Moisture, o/o: 2.2% Specific Gravity (assurned): 2.67 Initial Void Ratio : 0.736 Hydrocollapse: 1.2% @ 2.0 ksf oh Chanse in Height vs Normal Presssure Diagram -€E aturation *_*rHydrocollapse -{{- Reboundr After Saturation -psly After Saturation 2 1 0 1 -2 .C _rlCDv'6 tr-4,; .U ..qo-6 trq,Oal- 0, o- -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 0 1,0 Vertical Effective Stress, ksf I I I I I \ \.. \\) I I I t \ L \* a EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST 10.0 \I i I I / -\ >- E f- ' - - - - ' = - - -N l :3r + *- \ a. - . - 7 . . / ' - ' \ /' - ' + \UI ,< s .< \= .r r \ . 2 ' f ' r , , r r - . , . c ; .J : t t ! r r d ! ' : a ,l ? __ _ _ / .f p oqFl -* / "1 / I it ;! A ^ o\ 6 b, J €-I€ \ \ \1 rl \ -I \o 5 -IhJ l- I ii a T(. )o\ \t r - l ^r { \ ,* 1 , i ', : . . i1r; o P \-v!{D9 ll r r \-l -\ J tl[r I f, I t,(J E- ' = . - . - l. ,_ \ ,a t, - .ro :{F -l\o \p /{5 s- ^ ' O) 1' . ,\ . \-i2 !.II /< . FIu O-- - l In D9 . ,, : n E s N) I \,a \ oaEt I o\ //oeFl /I tet- . t I -f i // ''I \- f 1\ o *\., Y r / I D' JS ,7 \ ?. - 1 / / \D? It i, - : - \- - - - r , , \ \ \ ? c / r* . a ' \a \. / t " 1 I /' r ' / l t D9 \ ,5 ' r t ,I tI t: t i oe- I , / ); i,i 'i p I !\! t' ! If \\$r " 'l t I i Db ,J + r t 1 Y t I (J J @ NJ z m!lrt*IJ o olio =)o oo Et-Jtoot@ -!Da 5'P F (}Flo o o!)o' -t J -t U) -J { N, l g o8 5! l9F H8<* o)s3 a-. al . r! I'Y ll-tr 3 aD 9 L- l FF fD t' 1 ) !. t+ l o oqE. (l )7t D3 ( t [' B H i- Bg h' Jz 3 *v E. !, rn i Z, C 2 r $E =. tD rn L/ _I 5{ h' oq F{ \ \ dV - dT f {- OA V ) O r- - - -r -t Fr -! 7f ,r 7f 7f (D o ( D ( ? ii n # EE E : 1 Tt r t = 6 ' ol ' o ' o U c= = =L = - i' r O H.e3 ' -- I I oai r I De !e D? Jr r Fr lr r n /1 i -O T] T. l i' e- f =? = = *' 7 6 Hc I I 6' E' F =. D 3 I E = ? =? c' ,. pe - a = De 3 65 0 - 5 =' c 5a o- o o, O- . ] u) Fr d S l A ) 86 - E e ,o e oaEl *> - # r F E ? p p { I -i)(? Ia, r- l d -l--D9N !e -a ) fr- E a tD A) OQEt -- . 1 .f - l oa- ,1 7 . f r , * . > I I I /, A -Z = E - l- lr t IA tt lh=12 t-lv I /, 1 ( -- < 1 a\ )- / ! D9 J' * r J 1 ?i oA I Ft __ _ l -- , \; E- ! 1) \9 \ \i i ,r r oaEt i I o\ h. ) I I) )> ) l I r\+t. -: . . {I i tt ,t \i - 4 \I 1. \ r\ . \r \ *q .1 . $. _- - _ f ) - \' \. {- I 'r l (D zI N) NJ5 I ]J I 1 r' 1 ,) ,\( L ', i ,- It I r. , lq 't 'l .t *J :^ ,7 = ' , i ,- ) / r! ,y ' t . " H l: ,, .- t {r 1, . , r 'l ' t: f .! ' t; t \ \, j ( !- = = - - * ' \- t1 li I -t I I I i I t'I I I tI I I (/ .{ -1 1 ( t-I )It it I 'l \ '. 1 1 a ,* t I ii n ' " + q ' 'r - t j: / . ' ;r , - , i^ ' i . - .- - . " ., ' , ' \ J ; 'l T; 4 ) - ' - * 1 \- - ' * 1 i' - - r 7 0" I .- ' rl 't ' ' : t \ . ". r i .' .t '\ $ 1 , ,' _ * * ** , \, - oq- _t t, l - : - ,> -, ( r\ I +' ( } d 1 *9 -v ! C) ff i I I I t I t. . o : ,1 . ) , ' ' '\ | ,/ tl - J \d i il i i ,1 t t *' i ,J L3 , { i i\ 't I i: l /) i , : A r- l l, F (Y - I rt ' r- f r f f i - ' . '+ l L ' - ii ' l' I t, ' .! J I ( \j " I l, ) ;, rl k' ,Y X i ;i )i i' i i . n i, ' i( i' j "! /AV i 't ' r n . . \\t r- v )ir 'r ) \i t '\ :"\(t jt J \L \I l' I q* , " - . ^ ,. S ! r = . \ -i , '\ . I I t. . 4 .1 ' _ ! - ,| ; ,1/ ' I { r= I. I t ,, .. \L i ). I )' ' \ 'r - ' ,, ,, ^ \\I I J\ / ;. J r- - ,t ' ," ' | it4i ', t *' 7 !' /Y , / lt tt \ # '{ -, . : , : , \ . \1 . i (\ -! / !- n ( ., / . , tl r \i \i\ I n, /t '4 " ^ N/ : P]- /l .. 4 - 't t ;,h tr _ (E \\uI i /) . h Plate 4 Geologic Cross Sections Swenson Residence 77-210 Loma Vista La Quinta, Riverside County, California Earth SystemseSouthwest 310812013 -- ^f-7b--o,L2-s--- -l I gr gr t t I \ I I It_ I , -, tr-r -l a ,t- .l , -t \ t !\ 9-', tl- I af Jr --2 rr I SW A.A'NE r00 100 Cd P-r LEGE,NT) 80 E cdoil =afc 80 af Artificial Fill ,tr o 60 C) rr.l obod oB c gr Gnessic granite rock 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 150 SW B.B'NE 100 F.,.100 80 E c0o& =c 80 C.) b0 (B c!$rc f ,tr o CB 60 () H 60 Approximate Scale: l" :20' 0 20' 40' 40 40 0 II I J )\ I 1 4r-t- -\ tgr lr\ ( "I /- \ -'/l 20 20 40 60 80 100 t20 140 160 r80 200 20 File No.: 12124-01 ) \ I I t t rl Plate 5 Geologic Cross Sections Swenson Residence 77-210 Loma Vista La Quinta, Riverside County, California Earth Systems Southweste 310812013 File No.: 12124-01 I -l ./l It gr \ gr- i C.C'SE NW 100 'O c0o& =c EdA 100 LEGEND af Artificial Fill tro (B 0) rrl 80 80 gr Gnessic granite rock 60 60 40 40 0 20 40 60 rt0 100 f)-f)' West East 100 d Or 100 80 80 ,ts o (B (.) rrl 60 60 40 40 Approximate Scale: l" :20' 0 20' 40' 0 ./l /l af .' / L/.l \ / \/\gr \ I \ gr 20 20 40 60 80 100 t20 t40 150 20 I (I lr I / I rf , r \ \ gr -- \ - \ --., | ' | -\