The URL can be used to link to this page

30903 (2)/ 0 q 'mmmmN�000 14 IE '2, adk--an CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING ENGINEERS 6820 AIRPORT DRIVE, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 TEL: (951) 688 -0241 • FAX: (951) 688 -0599 www.adkan.com September 30, 2008 City of La Quinta Department of Public Works Regarding: Washington Park, Tract 30903, Revised Hydraulic Calculations To whom it may concern; Attached are revisions to the Hydrology Report and a revised Hydrology Map for Tract 30903, Washington Park, Phase 4, in the City of La Quinta, CA. The northeastern parking area behind proposed pads 6, 7 and 8 has been revised per the following: Drainagz .Area -11 has been eliminated along with the drop inlet catch basin and storm drain line #1. The flows from Area 11 have been diverted to an existing storm drain inlet in Area 12 and a proposed inlet in Area C. 2. The .ribbon gutter and drop inlet in Area C have been removed and replaced with a curb, gutter and curb inlet. Storm drain line #3 has been revised to reflect the relocation of the storm drain inlet. 3. There is no increase in storm drain flows to the existing detention basin. Sincerely, a .tear® eMC 'IT1EeR5 E gyA J� U No. 53390. T M UP. 6-30-09 # Of Charissa. Leach, P.E. Executive Vice.President CLte "Celebrating 25 years of Client Satisfaction" a, fly. Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD /CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2004 Version 7.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 09/24/08 File:areallrevlO.out ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydroloy Study Control Information * * * * * * * * ** English (in -%) units used in input data file ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tarr job No. 7002 Area 12 Prepared By:j.Contreras Chk By:j.Salumbides jr. P.E. September 25, 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adkan Engineers, Riverside, California S/N - 561 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 2 year, 1 hour precipitation = O.5O0(In.) 100 year, 1 hour precipitation = 1.6OO(In.) Storm event year = 10.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = O.953(In /Hr) Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.6000 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Process from Point /Station 12.000 to Point /station 13.000 * * ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION * * ** initial area flow distance = 174.O0O(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 69.76O(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 68.16O(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 1.6OO(Ft.) Slope = 0.00920 s(percent)= 0.92 TC = k(O.3OO) *[(lengthA3) /(elevation change)]AO.2 Initial area time of concentration = 6.034 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.779(In /Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.891 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 2.289(CFS) Total initial stream area = O.68O(AC.) Pervious area fraction = 0.100 End of computations, total study area = 0.68 (AC.) The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100 Area averaged RI index number = 75.0 Area 12 -10 Page 1 of 1 Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD /CIVILDESIGN Engineering software,(c) 1989 - 2004 version 7.0 Rational Hydrology study Date: 09/24/08 File:areallrev.out ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydroloy Study Control Information * * * * * * * * ** English (in -%) Units used in input data file ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tarr job No. 7002 Area 12 Prepared By:].Contreras Chk By:].Salumbides Jr. P.E. September 25, 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adkan Engineers, Riverside, California S/N - 561 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 3 2 year, 1 hour precipitation = 0.500(in.) 100 year, 1 hour precipitation = 1.600(In.) Storm event year = 100.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 1.600(In /Hr) Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.6000 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Process from Point /Station 12.000 to Point /Station 13.000 * * ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION * * ** Initial area flow distance = 174.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 69.760(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 68.160(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 1.600(Ft.) Slope = 0.00920 s(percent)= 0.92 TC = k(0.300) *[(lengthA3) /(elevation change)]A0.2 initial area time of concentration = 6.034 min. Rainfall intensity = 6.348(In /Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.897 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 88.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 initial subarea runoff = 3.874(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.680(AC.) Pervious area fraction = 0.100 End of computations, total study area = 0.68 (AC.) The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100 Area averaged RI index number = 75.0 Area 12 Page 1 of 1 T1 TARR JOB NO 7002 T2 STORM DRAIN LINE 3 T3 PREPARED BY:J.CONTRERAS So 1000.000 61.810 1 R 1040.300 62.620 1 SH 1040.300 62.620 1 CD 1 4 1 000 1. Q 7.920 .0 CHK BY:J.SALUMBIDES JR. P.E. 61.810 .013 62.620 000 .000 .000 .000 .00 000 .000 0 FILE: 7002L3.WSW W S P G W - EDIT LISTING - Version 14.01 Date: 9 -25 -2008 Time: 8:20:12 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 CARD SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) CODE NO TYPE PIER /PIP WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP CD 1 4 1 1.000 W S P G W PAGE NO 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING HEADING LINE NO 1 IS - TARR JOB NO 7002 HEADING LINE NO 2 IS - STORM DRAIN LINE 3 HEADING LINE NO 3 IS - PREPARED BY:J.CONTRERAS CHK BY:J.SALUMBIDES JR. P.E. W S P G W PAGE NO 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 1000.000 61.810 1 61.810 ELEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1040.300 62.620 1 .013 .000 .000 .000 0 ELEMENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 1040.300 62.620 1 62.620 FILE: 7002L3.wsw W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 14.01 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 1297 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 9 -25 -2008 Time: 8:20:13 TARR JOB NO 7002 STORM DRAIN LINE 3 PREPARED BY:J.CONTRERAS CHK BY:J.SALUMBIDES JR. P.E. Invert I Depth 1 water I Q I Vel vel I Energyy 1 Su er IcriticallFlow ToplHeight /IBase wtl INO wth Station I Elev I (FT) 1 Elev I (CFS) I (FPS) Head I Grd.E1.I Elev I Depth I Width IDia. -FTIOr I.D.I ZL IPrs /Pip -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I L /Elem ICh Slope I I 1 l SF Avel HF ISE DpthIFroude NINOrm Dp I "N" I X -Fa111 ZR IType Ch I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1000.000 61.810 .985 62.795 7.92 10.12 1.59 64.38 .00 .98 .25 1.000 .000 .00 1 .0 .2071 .0201 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- .04501 .01 -1 .981 1.00 -I .013 -1 .001 .00 1PIPE I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1000.207 61.814 1.000 62.814 7.92 10.08 1.58 64.39 .00 .98 .00 1.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- 1- 40.093 .0201 .0473 1.90 1.00 .00 1.00 .013 .00 I I .00 PIPE I I I I I I I I I I I 1040.300 62.620 2.175 64.795 7.92 10.08 1.58 66.37 .00 .98 .00 1.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- I- T1 TARR JOB NO 7002 T2 STORM DRAIN LINE 310 T3 PREPARED BY:J.CONTRERAS So 1000.000 61.810 1 R 1040.300 62.620 1 SH 1040.300 62.620 1 CD 1 4 1 000 1. Q 4.680 .0 CHK BY:J.SALUMBIDES JR. .013 000 .000 .000 .000 P. E. 61.810 62.620 .00 000 .000 0 FILE: 7002L310.WSW W S P G W - EDIT LISTING - Version 14.01 Date: 9 -25 -2008 Time: 8:20:31 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - CHANNEL DEFINITION LISTING PAGE 1 CARD SECT CHN NO OF AVE PIER HEIGHT 1 BASE ZL ZR INV Y(1) Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(5) Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(9) Y(10) CODE NO TYPE PIER /PIP WIDTH DIAMETER WIDTH DROP CD 1 4 1 1.000 W S P G W PAGE NO 1 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - TITLE CARD LISTING HEADING LINE NO 1 IS - TARR JOB NO 7002 HEADING LINE NO 2 IS - STORM DRAIN LINE 310 HEADING LINE NO 3 IS - PREPARED BY:J.CONTRERAS CHK BY:J.SALUMBIDES JR. P.E. W S P G W PAGE NO 2 WATER SURFACE PROFILE - ELEMENT CARD LISTING ELEMENT NO 1 IS A SYSTEM OUTLET U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 1000.000 61.810 1 61.810 ELEMENT NO 2 IS A REACH U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT N RADIUS ANGLE ANG PT MAN H 1040.300 62.620 1 .013 .000 .000 .000 0 ELEMENT NO 3 IS A SYSTEM HEADWORKS U/S DATA STATION INVERT SECT W S ELEV 1040.300 62.620 1 62.620 FILE: 7002L310.wsw W S P G W- CIVILDESIGN Version 14.01 PAGE 1 Program Package serial Number: 1297 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 9 -25 -2008 Time: 8:20:33 TARR JOB NO 7002 STORM DRAIN LINE 310 PREPARED BY:J.CONTRERAS CHK BY:J.SALUMBIDES JR. P.E. I Invert I Depth I water I Q I vel Vel I Energyy I Super ICriticallFlOW TOplHeight /lBase WtI INO Wth station I Elev I (FT) I Elev I (CFS) I (FPS) Head I Grd.E1.I Elev I Depth I width IDia. -FTIOr I.D.I ZL IPrs /Pip -I- L /Elem -I- ICh Slope -I- I I -I- -I- -I- I I -I- SF Avel -I- HF -I- ISE DpthlFroude -I- NINorm -I- DP -I- I "N" I X -I- -Fa11I -I ZR IType Ch 1000.000 I 61.810 I .765 62.575 I I 4.68 7.26 I .82 63.39 I .00 I I .90 .85 I I 1.000 I .000 .00 I 1 .0 -I- 29.670 -I- .0201 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- .0189 -I- .56 -I- .77 -I- 1.47 -I- .76 -I- .013 -I- .00 .00 1- PIPE 1029.670 I 62.406 I I .802 63.208 I I 4.68 6.93 I .75 63.95 I .00 I I .90 .80 I I 1.000 I .000 .00 I 1 .0 -I- 8.441 -I- .0201 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- .0172 -I- .14 -I- .80 -I- 1.33 -I- .76 -I- .013 -I- .00 .00 1- PIPE 1038.111 I 62.576 I I .845 63.421 I I 4.68 6.61 I .68 64.10 I .00 I I .90 .72 I I 1.000 I .000 .00 I 1 .0 -I- 2.189 -I- .0201 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I- .0158 -I- .03 -I- .85 -I- 1.18 -I- .76 -I- .013 -I- .00 .00 1- PIPE 1040.300 -I- I 62.620 -I- I I .898 -I- 63.518 -I- I I 4.68 6.29 -I- -I- I .62 -I- 64.13 -I- I .00 -I- I I .90 -I- .60 -I- I I 1.000 -I- I .000 -I- .00 I 1 .0 I- Worksheet Worksheet for Grate Inlet In Sag Project Description Worksheet Area -11 Type Grate Inlet In Sag Solve For Spread Input Data 3.48 ft Discharge 7.92 cfs Gutter Width 3.00 ft Gutter Cross Slope 0.083000 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Grate Width 3.00 ft Grate Length 3.00 ft Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression Width 4.00 ft Grate Type P -50 mm (P- 1 -7/8 ") Clogging 50.0 % Results Spread 3.48 ft Depth 0.25 ft Gutter Depression 2.3 in Total Depression 6.3 in Open Grate Area 4.0 ft2 Active Grate Weir Length 6.00 ft Project Engineer: JERRY A. SALUMBIDES JR.,P.E. Adkan Engineers FlowMaster v6.1 [6140] © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 Worksheet Worksheet for Grate Inlet In Sag Project Description Worksheet Area -C Type Grate Inlet In Sag Solve For Spread Input Data Discharge � 7.92 cfs / Gutter Width 2.00 ft Gutter Cross Slope 0.083000 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Grate Width 2.00 ft Grate Length 2.00 ft ✓ Local Depression 4.0 in Local Depression Width 4.00 ft Grate Type P -50 mm (P- 1 -7/8 ") Clogging 50.0 % Results Spread 14.94 ft Depth 0.42 ft i Gutter Depression 1.5 in Total Depression 5.5 in Open Grate Area 1.8 ftz Active Grate Weir Length 4.00 ft 5,q 9 X55 b� �S 0 Imum '-JLr) 2"\ P" G\"\ Project Engineer: JERRY A. SALUMBIDES JR.,P.E. Adkan Engineers FlowMaster v6.1 [6140] © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD /CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c) 1989 - 2004 version 7.0 Rational'Hydrology Study Date: 09/24/08 File:areacrev.out ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control information * * * * * * * * ** English (in -lb) units used in input data file ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tarr Job No. 7002 Area C Prepared By:].Contreras Chk By:7.Salumbides Jr. P.E. September 25, 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adkan Engineers, Riverside, California S/N - 561 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 3 2 year, 1 hour precipitation = 0.500(in.) 100 year, 1 hour precipitation = 1.600(In.) storm event year = 100.0 calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 1.600(In /Hr) Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.6000 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Process from Point /Station 14.000 to Point /Station 17.000 * * ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION * * ** Initial area flow distance = 250.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 72.630(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 68.130(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 4.500(Ft.) Slope = 0.01800 s(percent)= 1.80 TC = k(0.300) *[(lengthA3) /(elevation change)]A0.2 initial area time of concentration = 6.099 min. Rainfall intensity = 6.308(In /Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.897 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil groue D = 1.000 RI index for soil(AMC 3) = 88.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 initial subarea runoff = 7.925(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.400(AC.) Pervious area fraction = 0.100 End of computations, total study area = 1.40 (AC.) The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(AP) = 0.100 Area averaged RI index number = 75.0 Area C Page 1 of 1 Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD /CIVILDESIGN Engineering software,(c) 1989 - 2004 version 7.0 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 09/24/08 File:areacrevIO.out ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control information * * * * * * * * ** English (in -lb) units used in input data file ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tarr job No. 7002 Area C Prepared By:3.Contreras chk By:7.Salumbides jr. P.E. September 25, 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adkan Engineers, Riverside, California S/N - 561 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood control & water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 2 year, 1 hour precipitation = 0.500(In.) 100 year, 1 hour precipitation = 1.600(In.) Storm event year = 10.0 calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 0.953(In /Hr) Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.6000 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Process from Point /Station 14.000 to Point /Station 17.000 * * ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION * * ** Initial area flow distance = 250.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 72.630(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 68.130(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 4.500(Ft.) Slope = 0.01800 s(percent)= 1.80 TC = k(0.300) *[(lengthA3) /(elevation change)]A0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 6.099 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.755(In /Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff coefficient = 0.890 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 4.681(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.400(AC.) Pervious area fraction = 0.100 End of computations, total study area = 1.40 (AC.) The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(AP) = 0.100 Area averaged RI index number = 75.0 Area C10 Page 1 of 1 The watermark for drainage solutions." April 30, 2008 Washington Park Retail Center 78365 Highway 111 No. 351 La Ouinta, CA 92253 Proposal #: 8 -2 -3 -4 Re: Maintenance Agreement — Washington Park — Phase IV 46660 Washington St. La Quinta, CA Dear Bill: 0 TORRENT R E S 0 U R C E 5 This letter is intended to confirm our proposal to perform annual inspection services and cleaning estimates on the MaxWeIP Drainage System installed on the referenced project for a 1 -year period, commencing on the systems 1� year of service. The suggested format begins with a thorough visual examination of the drywells that should be performed annually, followed by recommendations as dictated by the yearly inspection. When we are contracted for this service, the Client receives a written report that includes our assessment of the structural integrity of the interior components. Exterior characteristics are also evaluated during this assessment, including examination of inlets, covers, drainage way, and any surface staining. Cleaning is typically recommended if silt, sediment and debris are found to occupy 15% or more of the original chamber volumes. Should repair be needed, descriptions of deficiencies and estimated costs for suggested corrections will be provided. We propose to undertake the first inspection on or around December 2009. The cost for inspection will be $450 for the entire contract, payable every September 1st. If the inspection reveals that maintenance is needed, our itemized proposal for cleaning will follow within two weeks of our physical evaluation. If this format is acceptable, please so indicate by your signature in the space provided. We look forward to fulfilling your maintenance needs on this project. 'aszo� Accepted By (Customer) Sincerely, Kevin White California Operations Manager Torrent Resources, Inc. KCW /acw Date 1/ 2406 Torrent 5esmces Incorporated 350? East Eir;oed Street Rbaeaiz Amona 85040.1353 aAOne E02.NE -O755 N. 502- 265 -OE20 w,ow.JorrentResources. con A2lir. ROC370465 A, 80EWN? 8 -4; AMUR 363 CA lit. 528080 A, Lag. 8Q NV lit. 8035350 A . NM lit. 90504 LE04 An evaiu'M of Mctiuc: -.n OrMiq Sladden Engineering 77 -725 Enfield Lane, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772 -3893 Fax (760) 772 -3895 6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523 -0952 Fax (714) 523 -1369 450 Egan Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 845 -7743 Fax (951) 845 -8863 March 24, 2008 Washington 111, Ltd. 78 -365 Highway 111, Suite 351 La Quinta, California 92253 Attention Mr. Bill Sanchez Project: Washington Park — Phase 4 NEC Washington Street & Avenue 47 La Quinta, California Project No. 544 -2106 08 -03 -168 Subject: Remaining Plan Check Comments Regarding Multi -Plate Storm Water Retention System Design This memo has been prepared to provide a formal response to the remaining geotechnical contents indicated by City of La Quinta Engineering Department plan check personnel regarding the design and construction of the proposed multi -plate storm water retention system. The remaining comments include ongoing concerns the potential effect of buoyancy on the stability of the buried Multi -Plate Arch retention structure to be manufactured by Contech. The final comments relate to the support of the foundations for the multi -plate structure. Because the proposed multi -plate structure includes an open bottom and is vented through the manholes, the potential effect of buoyancy on the overall stability of the structure is negligible. The manholes will include grates that will allow for adequate venting in the case of rapid inundation. The use of crushed rock beneath the foundations (as opposed to the previously specified aggregate base material) should allow for water level equalization from the outside of the system in the event of rapid drawdown. The fact that the multi -plate joints are not water tight should also aid in water level equalization within and along the outside of the multi -plate structure. As discussed above, we recommend that crushed rock be utilized in lieu of the previously specified aggregate base beneath the foundations to allow for water to pass freely. The crushed rock should be surrounded by filter fabric to prevent the migration of fine soil particles. The bearing soil beneath the foundations and at least 2 feet on either side of the foundations should be compacted to at least 90 percent of relative compaction prior to the placement of filter fabric and crushed rock. The soil exposed within the open bottom of the multi -plate system should be scarified but not compacted to allow for future infiltration. March 24, 2008 -2- Project No. 544 -2106 08 -03 -168 As requested, we have reviewed the structural calculations prepared by Contech for the multi - plate system foundation design. Based upon our review, it appears that the previous recommendations have been properly incorporated into design. The friction factor utilized in design (0.30) is actually conservative considering the use of crushed rock directly beneath the foundations. If you have questions regarding this memo, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINEERING Brett L. Anderson Principal Engineer Letter /gl Copies: 6 /Washington 111, Ltd. Sladden Engineering Sladden Engineering 6782 Stanton Avenue, Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523 -0952 Fax (714) 523 -1369 450 Egan Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 845 -7743 Fax (951) 951 - 845 -8803 77 -725 Enfield Lane, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (766) 772 -3893 Fax (760) 772 -3895 February 11, 2008 Washington 111, Limited 78 -365 Highway 111, Suite 351 La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: Mr. Bill Sanchez Project: Washington Park Development Highway 111 & Washington Street La Quinta, California Subject: Max -Well Performance Evaluation Project No. 544 -2106 08 -02 -082 As requested, this memo has been prepared to ,provide a brief summary the results of the performance testing of the existing Max -Well previously installed by Torrent Resources within the central retention basin of the Washington Park commercial development. Performance testing was performed within the previously installed Max -Well within the retention basin located just south of the Circuit City store. The existing Max -Well system consists of a Max -Well Plus de- silting chamber attached to an approximately 50 feet deep drywell. A 2,500 gallon water truck: was used to perform our evaluation of the Max -Well system performance. Water was absorbed by the Max -Well system at a stabilized rate of approximately 0.22 cubic feet per second' (cfs). The testing was performed for approximately 2 hours. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINEERING Nicholas S. Devlin Engineer Letter /nd Copies: 2/Washington 111, Limited Brett L. Ander �lon� _ '? "�" Principal Engineer. _ �. a . ercolation Data Sheet Project: C I ACy 1-1 C IT,/ 0 in/•4SN /DARK) Job No.. -, 5L -1 - 2-106 Test Hole: hRx w.F--c -L- Date Excavated: Depth of Test Hole: Soil Classification: Check For Sandy Soil Criteria Tested By: Date: r. Actual Percolation Test Run By: JOSH Date: 0/- 2y- 200' I Reading Time of . Time Total Depth Initial Water Final Water Change of No. Reading Interval of Hole (ft) Level (ft) Level (ft) Water Level (ft) A \2f B 2 /o s 2 .2 U to 3 4 21 111 5 6 rt zl(v S 3.0 7 1/4,�D /I z 2.9 .0 8 1t55 1202 310 s 1203. �,� 1210 _ 11 / 2.0 . �1 '�3 12 123-r ` / f. ••� Sladden Engineering Sladden Engineering 6782 Stanton. Ave., Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523 -0952 Fax (714) 523 -1369 77 -725 Enfield Lane, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772 -3893 Fax (760) 772 -3895 450 South Egan Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 845 -7743 Fax (951) 845 -8863 January 17, 2008 Washington 111, Limited 78 -365 Highway 111, Suite 351 La Quinta, California 92253 Attention: Mr. Bill Sanchez Subject: Geotechnical Update Project: Washington Park — Phase 4 La Quinta, California Project No. 544 -2106 08 -01 -047 Ref: Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Sladden Engineering dated August 28, 2002; Project No. 544 -2106, Report No. 02 -08 -485. Grading Report prepared by Sladden Engineering dated June 18, 2003; Project. No. 522 -2106, Report No. 03 -06 -372. As requested, we have reviewed the referenced Geotechnical Investigation reports as they relate to the design and construction of Phase 4 of the proposed commercial development. The project site is located north of Avenue 47 between Adams Street and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, "California. The referenced Geotechnical Investigation report includes recommendations for the design and construction of the commercial building foundations and related site improvements. Based upon our review of the referenced report and our previous site observations, it is our opinion that the recommendations included in the above referenced report remain applicable for Phase 4 of the Washington Park development. Footings should extend at least 12 inches beneath lowest adjacent grade. Isolated square or rectangular footings at least .2 feet square may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. Continuous footings at least 12 inches wide may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1800 pounds per square foot. Allowable increases of 200 psf for each additional 1 foot of width and 200 psf for each additional 6 inches of depth may be utilized if desired. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3000 psf. The allowable bearing pressures are for dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by 1/3 to resist wind, seismic or other transient loading. January 17, 2008 -2- Project No. 544 -2106 08 -01 -047 The recommendations made in the preceding paragraph are based on the assumption that all footings will be supported by properly compacted soils. Prior to the placement of the reinforcing steel and concrete; we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they extend into the firm compacted soils and are free of loose and disturbed materials. Settlements may result from the anticipated foundation loads. These estimated ultimate settlements are calculated to be a maximum of 1 inch when using the recommended bearing values. As a practical matter, differential settlements between footings can be assumed as one half of the total settlement. These elastic settlements are expected to occur during construction. Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by a combination of friction acting at the base of the slabs or foundations and passive earth pressure along the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 between soil and concrete may be used for dead load forces only. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may be used along the sides of footings which are poured against properly compacted native or approved import soils. Retaining walls may be required to accomplish the proposed construction. Cantilever retaining walls may be designed using "active" pressures. Active pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf for native backfill soils with level free - draining backfill conditions. For walls that are restrained, "at rest' pressures should be utilized in design. At rest pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf. Walls should be provided with adequate drainage. It is our opinion that the remedial grading performed during rough grading and summarized in the referenced Grading report adequately addresses. foundation support concerns. The remedial grading necessary at this time should include over - excavation of the surface soils within any proposed building areas that extend beyond the previously over - excavated building pads. The previously graded building pad areas should be cleared of any surface vegetation prior to grading. Building areas that extend beyond the previously - graded - pads should be over - excavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever. is deeper. The exposed surface should then be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to a 'minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The previously removed soils and fill material may then be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. It should be noted that the site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California and it is likely that the proposed structures will experience strong ground shaking as a result of an earthquake event along one of the faults in the region during the expected life of the development. As a minimum, structures should be designed based upon Seismic Zone 4 design criteria included in the California Building Code (CBC). The potential for liquefaction occurring at the site is considered to be negligible. Sladden Engineering January 17, 2008 -3- Project No. 544 -2106 08 -01 -047 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project, if you have any questions regarding this letter or the referenced reports please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINEERING QPOFESSJO ANDF9 �22C r Brett L. Anderson (D M w x Principal Engineer MA ENP. 9.30,2008 a SER /pc Copies: 4/Washington 111, Limited Sladden Engineering r„ January 17, 2008 -4- Project No. 544 -2106 08 -01 -047 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN INFORMATION The California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (2001 California Building Code) and 1997. Uniform Building Code, Chapter 16 of this code, contain substantial revisions and additions to earthquake engineering design criteria. Concepts contained in the code that will be relevant to construction of the proposed structures are summarized below. Ground shaking is expected to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site, based upon proximity to significant faults capable of generating large earthquakes. Major fault zones considered to be most likely to create strong ground shaking at the site are listed below. Fault Zone Approximate Distance From Site Fault Type . (1997 UBC) San Andreas 9.1 km A San Jacinto 34.0 km A Based on our field observations and understanding of local geologic conditions, the soil profile type judged applicable to this site is So, generally described as stiff or dense soil. The site is located within UBC Seismic Zone 4. The following table presents additional coefficients and factors relevant to seismic mitigation for new construction upon adoption of the 1997 code:, Sladden Engineering Near - Source Near- Source Seismic Seismic Seismic ; Acceleration Velocity Coefficient Coefficient Source f Factor, Na Factor, NY Ca C, San Andreas 1.03 1.27 0.44 Na 0.64 Nv San Jacinto 1.0 1.0 0.44 N. 0.64 N� Sladden Engineering Sladden Engineering 77 -725 Enfield Lane, Suite 100, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772 -3893 Fax (760) 772 -3895 6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523 -0952 Fax (714) 523 -1369 450 Egan Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 845 -7743 Fax (951) 845 -8863 January 16, 2008 Washington 111, Ltd. 78 -365 Highway 111, Suite 351 La Quinta, California 92253 Attention Mr. Bill Sanchez Project: Washington Park — Phase 4 NEC Washington Street & Avenue 47 La Quinta, California Project No. 544 -2106 08 -01 -012 Subject: Review Comments Regarding Multi -Plate Storm Water Retention System Design This memo has been prepared to provide a formal response to remaining geotechnical concerns recently expressed by City of La Quinta Engineering Department personnel regarding the design and performance of the proposed multi -plate storm water retention system. It is proposed to utilize buried Multi -Plate Arch structures manufactured by Contech for subsurface storm water retention within Phase 4 of the Washington Park retail development in the City of La Quinta, California. It is our understanding that the remaining Engineering Department concerns (see attached list) were presented in a previous meeting with City of La Quinta personnel. f The initial concern relates to the potential affect of inundation or saturation of the supporting soil J/ underlying the multi -plate foundation system as well as the potential for buoyancy related design considerations. The City of La Quinta reviewers requested that the potential buoyant forces associated with saturation be addressed. As indicated within our previous submittals, it remains our opinion that the allowable bearing pressures previously provided should be applicable for use in the design of the foundations for the proposed Contech multi -plate arch retention /storage structures. Based upon the nature of the proposed storm water retention l structure, our previous evaluation included the consideration of buoyant forces in determining ojJ allowable foundation bearing pressures. It should be noted that our initial evaluation also included the consideration of "net' pressures in determining allowable foundation bearing pressures. The actual increase in pressure on the underlying soil resulting from the installation of kwl jot � � the multi -plate system that should be considered in settlement estimates is limited. The consideration of "net' pressures more than compensates for any actual reductions in allowable bearing pressure that may be realized due to buoyancy within the supporting soil. The y consideration of buoyancy would also result in equivalent reductions in the weight of the backfill soil and the effective pressures within the soil underlying the stru tufe : P January 16, 2008 -2- Project No. 544 -2106 08 -01 -012 The second comment concerns the potential for significant torsion within the multi -plate structure related to differential settlement. Based upon the limited effective pressures resulting from the installation of the proposed multi -plate system and the expected fairly uniform distribution of the storm water throughout the system, the potential for significant differential settlement is our opinion limited and well within the settlement tolerances of multi -plate systems in accordance with applicable AASHTO specifications. The third comment concerns the potential settlement of nearby structures related to inundation of the subsurface soil related to infiltration of storm water within the proposed multi -plate retention system. It should be noted that the potential for hydro - consolidation settlement within the subsurface soil was considered in the development of the remedial grading recommendations. Over - excavation was performed throughout the building areas to minimize potential differential settlements in the event that the potentially compressible soil becomes saturated. The installation of the proposed multi -plate subsurface retention system should not result in a significant increase in potential settlement. The fourth comment concerns the friction factor utilized in foundation design and the potential impact of saturation. Although the "arch' nature of the proposed multi -plate system inherently results in minimal lateral forces towards the interior of the structure, in some cases saturation can result in decreases in frictional resistance: In our opinion, the use of base material beneath the multi -plate system foundation would significantly enhance frictional resistance and should be incorporated into system design. The use of base material would also provide the additional benefit of enhanced drainage beneath the system foundation that would result in more rapid equalization of water levels within and surrounding the multi -plate system as well as increased stability. We recommend that the multi plate system foundations be underlain by at least 2 feet of aggregate base material. The final comment concerns the proposed configuration of the bottom of the retention system. Specifically, the City Engineer has expressed concerns with the proposed 2 to 1 descending slope angle. In our opinion the proposed 2 to 1 slope angle does present some long term stability concerns primarily. related to erosion and potential degradation during routine system maintenance operations. In our opinion the native soil may be susceptible to detrimental erosion in the proposed 2 to 1 configuration. It should be noted that the native soil would also be susceptible to similar erosion concerns at the 3 to 1 configuration suggested by City of La Quinta personnel. In our opinion the recommended use of aggregate base material beneath the multi - plate system foundations will provide adequate protection against erosion. Aggregate base material should be expected to remain stable in the proposed 2 to 1 slope configuration. Because the previous analytical testing indicated a soluble sulfate content of over 1000 ppm for one of the samples obtained within the area of the proposed multi -plate storm water retention system, special sulfate resistant concrete should be used for the foundations. Concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi and a maximum water /cement ratio of 0.50 in accordance with Table 19 =A -2 of the 2001 CBC (attached). Sladden Engineering January 16, 2008 -3- Project No. 544 -2106 08 -01 -012 If you have questions regarding this memo, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINE RING Brett L. Anderson' E^ Principal Engineer Copies: 4/Washington 111, Ltd., Sladden Engineering Sladden Engineering 6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523 -0952 Fax (714) 523 -1369 39 -725 Garand Ln., Suite G. Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772 -3893 Fax (760) 772 -3895 114 S. California Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 845 -7743 Fax (951) 845 -8863 Date: December 21, 2006 Account No.: 544 -2106 Customer: Washington 111, Limited Location: Hwy 111 & Target, La Quinta Corrosion Series Bottom 1 2nd Bench From Stm 1 Bottom 2 2nd Bench From Btm 2 Analytical Report Soluble Sulfates per CA 417 ppm 8 1,120 147 ND 8 d l80U0089'ON /8£:6 '1S /0b1 9002 lZ D3001) 1NOW( H- N340w1S WOd3 TABLE 19- A- 2— REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EXPOSURE CONDITIONS TABLE 19 -A -3— REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE - CONTAINING SOLUTIONS MINIMUM 1", MAXIMUM NORMAL- WEIGHS AND WATER- CEMENTimus LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE CONCRETE, MATERIALS RATIO, BY AGGREGATE WEIGHT, NORMAL - WEIGHT pal x 0.00689 for MPa EXPOSURE CONDITION AGGREGATE CONCRETE Concrete intended to have low permeability when I' Normal - WaIght exposed to water 0.50 4,000 Concrete exposed to freezing and thawing in a moist WATER-SOLUBLE condition or to deicing chemicals 0.45 4,500 For corrosion protection for reinforced concrete SULFATE (Sol) NSOIL, exposed to chlorides from deicing chemicals, salts or ge Normal -W1pM Aggregate Concrete, pa lt brackish water, or spray from these sources 0.40 5,000 TABLE 19 -A -3— REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE - CONTAINING SOLUTIONS IA lower water- cementitious materials ratio or higher strength may be required for low permeability or for protection against corrosion of embedded items or freezing and thawing (Table 19 -A -2). 2Seawater. 3Ponolan that has been determined by test or service record to improve sulfate resistance when used in concrete con - taining Type V cement. (r&I-L-V LIGHTWEIGHT NORMAL- WEIGHT AGGREGATE AGGREGATE CONCRETE Maximum Water- I' Normal - WaIght WATER-SOLUBLE Cementltlous MaterialsRetlo, by and Lghtwelght SULFATE SULFATE (Sol) NSOIL, ge Normal -W1pM Aggregate Concrete, pa lt PERCENTAGE BY , SULFATE (SO4) IN Aggregate x 0.00689 for MP. EXPOSURE WEIGHT WATER, ppm CEMENT TYPE Concretes Negligible 0.00-0.10 i 0 -150 — — — Moderate2 0.10-0.20 150 -1,500 II, IP(MS), IS 0.50 4,000 (MS) Severe 0.20 -2.00 1,500 - 10,000 V 0.45 4,500 Very seven Over 2.00 Over 10,000 V plus 0.45 4,500 pozzolan3 IA lower water- cementitious materials ratio or higher strength may be required for low permeability or for protection against corrosion of embedded items or freezing and thawing (Table 19 -A -2). 2Seawater. 3Ponolan that has been determined by test or service record to improve sulfate resistance when used in concrete con - taining Type V cement. (r&I-L-V GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR SOIL CORROSIVITY' DEGREE MATERIAL CHEMICAL SOIL AMOUNT IN SOIL AMOUNT IN WATER RESISTIVITY OF AFFECTED AGENT PROPERTY (PPM) (percent) (ppm) (percent) (ohm -cm) CORROSIVITY Concrete Soluble - - -- 0-1000 0.0-0.1 0- 150 0.000 -0.015 - Lou' Sulfates 1000 -2000 0.1-0.2 150 -1000 0.015-0.100 - --- Moderate' 2000 -5000 0.2 -0.5 1060 -2000 0.100 -0.200 Severe' > 5000 > 0.5 > 2000 > 0.200 -- -- Very Severe' Normal Soluble - - -- 0- 200 0.00 -0.02 - -- - --- Low Grade Chlorides 200- 700 0.02 -0.07 - - -- ---- Moderate Steel 700 -1500 0.07 -0.15 - -- - -- ---- Severe > 1500 > 0.15 --- --- -- -- Very Severe - --- Electrical' - - -- > 10,000 Very Low Resistivity - -- - -- - -- 5,000 - 10,000 Low -- - - 1,000- 5,000 Moderate - - -- - -- - 500- 1,000 Severe . -- - -- < 500 Very Severe Notes: 1) pH may be used as a general indicator for soil corrosivity. 0 - 2 - likely problem 2 - 5 and > 8 - possible problem 6 - 8 - probably okay 2) Use Type I or II Portland Cement; water /cement ratio < 0.55; 5 sacks of cement per cubic yard of concrete. 3) Use Type II Portland Cement; water /cement ratio < 0.50; 6 sacks of cement per cubic yard of concrete 4) Use Type 11 Portland. Cement; water /cement ratio < 0.45; T sacks of cement per cubic yard of concrete or Type V Portland Cement; water /cement ratio < 0.50; 6 sacks of cement per cubic yard of concrete 5) Electrical resistivity of sea water and clean dry sand is 15 to 35 and greater than 1 x 10 °, respectively.. Standard Specification For Highway Bridges 17th Edition, 2002 Section 12 SOIL - CORRUGATED METAL STRUCTURE INTERACTION SYSTEMS 12.1 GENERAL 12.1.1 Scope The specifications of this Section are intended for the structural design of corrugated metal structures. It must be recognized that a buried flexible structure is a composite structure made up of the metal ring and the soil envelope, and that both materials play a vital part in the structural design of flexible metal structures. Only Article 12.7 is applicable to structural plate box culverts. 12.1.2 Notations A = required wall area (Article 12.2.1) A = area of pipe wall (Article 12.3.1) AL = total axle load on single axle or tandem axles (Ar- ticles 12.8.4.3.2 and 12.8.4.4) C, = number of axles coefficient (Article 12.8.4.3.2) C, = number of wheels per axle coefficient (Article 12.8.4.3.2) Cd, = dead load adjustment coefficient (Article 12.8.4.3.2) Cr, = live load adjustment coefficient (Article 12.8.4.3.2) D = straight leg of haunch (Article 12.82) Em = modulus of elasticity of metal (Articles 12.2.2 and 12.3.2) Em = modulus of elasticity of pipe material (Articles 122.4 and*] 2.3.4) FF = flexibility factor (Articles 12.2.4 and. 12.3.4) f, = allowable stress — specified minimum yield point divided by safety factor (Article 12.2.1) f, = critical buckling stress (Articles 121.2 and 12.3.2) f. = specified minimum tensile strength (Articles 12.2.2 and 12.3.2) f,. = specified minimum yield point (Article 12.3.1 ) H = height of cover above crown (Article 12.8.4.4) 1 = moment of inertia; per unit length, of cross section of the pipe wall (Articles 12.2.4 and 12.3.4) 339 k = soil stiffness factor (Articles 12.2.2 and 12.3.2) Md, = dead load factored moment (Article 12.8.4.3.3) M11 = live load factored moment (Article 12.8.4.3.3) Ma = crown plastic moment capacity (Article 12.8.4.3.3) M,, = haunch plastic moment capacity (Article 12.8.4.3.3) P = design load (Article 12.1.4) P = proportion of total moment carried by the crown. Limits for P are given in Table 12.7.4D (Article 12.8.4.3.3) r = radius of gyration of corrugation (Articles 12 2.2 and 12.3.2) r, = radius of crown (Table 12.8.2A) rh = radius.of haunch (Table 12.8.2A) R = rise of box culvert " Articles 12.7.2 and 12.8.4.4') Rh = haunch moment reduction factor (Article 12.8.4.3.3) S = diameter of span (Articles 12.1.4. 12.2.2. 12.8.2. and 12.8.4.4) S = pipe diameter or span (Articles 12.2.4. 12.3.2. and 12.3.4) SF = safety factor (Article I2.2.3) SS = required seam strength (Articles 12.2.3 and 12.3.3) T = thrust( Article 12.1.4) TL = thrust, load factor (Articles 12.3.1 and 12.3.3) T, = thrust, service load (Articles 12.2.1 and 12.2.3) t = length of stiffening rib on le_ (Article 12.8.2) V = reaction acting in leg direction (Article 12.8.4.4) A = haunch radius included angle (Table 12.82A) y = unit weight of backfill (Articles 12.8.4.3.2 and 12.8.4.4) d> = capacity modification factor'(Anicles 12.3.1 and 12.3.3) 12.1.3 Loads Design load. P. shall be the pressure acting on the struc- cure. For earth pressure, see Article 3.20. For live load. see Articles 3.4 to 3.7. 3.11, 3.12, and 6.4, except that the . 12.7.2.2 DIVISION 1— DESIGN 0 0 0 ROUNO VERTICAL ELLIPSE PIPE ARCH 0 I ARCH UNDERPASS HORIZONTAL ELLIPSE I MVERTEO PEAR FIGURE 12.7.1A Standard Terminology or Structural Plate Shapes Including Long -Span Structures 12.7.2,2 Acceptable Special Features (a) Continuous longitudinal structural stiffeners con- nected to the corrugated plates at each side of the top arc. Stiffeners may be metal or reinforced concrete ei- ther singly or in combination. (b) Reinforcing ribs formed from structural shapes curved to conform to the curvature of the plates, fas- tened to the structure as required to ensure integral ac- tion with the corrugated plates, and spaced at such in- tervals as necessary to increase the moment of inertia of the section to that required by the design. 12.73 Foundation Design 12.7.3.1 Settlement Limits Foundation design requires a geotechnical survey of the site to ensure that hoth the structure and the criti- cal backtill zone on each side of the structure will be 341.) properly supported. within the following limits and con- siderations; (1) Once the structure has been backfilled over the crown, settlements of the supporting backfill relative to the structure must be limited to control dragdown forces. If the sidefill will settle more than the structure. a detailed analysis may be required. (2) Settlements along the longitudinal centerline of arch structures must be limited to maintain slope and preclude footing cracks (arches). Where the structure will settle uniformly with the adjacent soils. long spans with full inverts can be built on a camber to achieve a ( 3) Differential settlements across the structure (from springline to springy= =line) shall not exceed 0.01 (Span)=/ rise in order to limit excessive rotation of the structure. More restrictive settlement limits may be required to protect pavements, or to limit longitudinal differential deflections. LOW PROFILE ARCH ❑ tlJJt HiGH PROFILE ARCH I MVERTEO PEAR FIGURE 12.7.1A Standard Terminology or Structural Plate Shapes Including Long -Span Structures 12.7.2,2 Acceptable Special Features (a) Continuous longitudinal structural stiffeners con- nected to the corrugated plates at each side of the top arc. Stiffeners may be metal or reinforced concrete ei- ther singly or in combination. (b) Reinforcing ribs formed from structural shapes curved to conform to the curvature of the plates, fas- tened to the structure as required to ensure integral ac- tion with the corrugated plates, and spaced at such in- tervals as necessary to increase the moment of inertia of the section to that required by the design. 12.73 Foundation Design 12.7.3.1 Settlement Limits Foundation design requires a geotechnical survey of the site to ensure that hoth the structure and the criti- cal backtill zone on each side of the structure will be 341.) properly supported. within the following limits and con- siderations; (1) Once the structure has been backfilled over the crown, settlements of the supporting backfill relative to the structure must be limited to control dragdown forces. If the sidefill will settle more than the structure. a detailed analysis may be required. (2) Settlements along the longitudinal centerline of arch structures must be limited to maintain slope and preclude footing cracks (arches). Where the structure will settle uniformly with the adjacent soils. long spans with full inverts can be built on a camber to achieve a ( 3) Differential settlements across the structure (from springline to springy= =line) shall not exceed 0.01 (Span)=/ rise in order to limit excessive rotation of the structure. More restrictive settlement limits may be required to protect pavements, or to limit longitudinal differential deflections. 11 2 12.5 x 3.14159 = 245.4 SF 2 2 x 18 = 36 SF = 307.4 SF 17 + 9 x 2 = 26 SF 2 CROSS SECTION AREA = 307 SF- 12.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 1 1 2.0 7.0 0.5 4.0 9.0 4.0 O.s 7.0 CROSS SECTION - UNDERGROUND BASIN 1. Bouyancy (ie elevated high water table due to poor percolation) 2. Differential settlement estimate (design for torsion) 3. Settlement of nearby buildings 4. Friction for footings 5. Stability of 2:1 slope vs 3:1 in saturated soil condition GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED TARGET STORE & SURROUNDING RETAIL COMPLEX SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY I I I BETWEEN WASHINGTON & ADAMS STREETS LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA - Prepared By- Sladden Engineering 39 -725 Garand Lane, Suite G Palm Desert, California 92211 (760) 772 -3893 Sudden En,oineerino OSladden Engineering 6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A. Buena Park, CA 90621 (562) 864 -4121 (714) 523 -0952 Fax (714) 523 -1369 39 -725 Garand Ln., Suite G, Palm Desert, CA 92211 '(760) 772 -3893 Fax (760) 772 -3895 August 28, 2002 Washington I 1 I, LTD. c/o Dale Frank Associates 7825 Southeast 76th Street Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Attention: Mr. Dale Frank Project: Proposed Target Store R Surrounding Retail Center HI'uhway 1 I I Between Adams Street and Washington Street La Quinta, California Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 544 -2106 02 -08 -485 Presented herewith is the report of our Geotechnical Investigation conducted at the site of the proposed Target Store and surrounding nlixed use commercial development to be located on the south side of Hiah\�---ay I I I bet-,veen Adanls Street and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, California. The investigation was performed in order to provide recommendations for site preparation and to assist in foundation design for the proposed Target Store as \\ell as the associated rerail /commercial structures and the related site improvements. This report presents the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing alone with conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and site preparation. This report completes our original scope of services as outlined within our proposal dated .lone 26. 2002. We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned Respectfully submitted, SLADDEN ENGINEEI Brett L. Anderson Principal 1:11gineer SL'- R /pc Copies: 6 /Dale Frank & Associates GEOTECHN"ICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSID TARGET STORI_; &, SURROUNDING RETAIL COMPLEX HIGHWAY I I 1 BETWEEN ADAMS AND WASHINGTON STREETS LA QUINTA; CALIFORNIA ilugust 28,200-) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................... ............................... SCOPEOF WORK- ........................................... ............................... PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. ............................... SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................... .. .............................. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN. DATIONS ............................. I'011ndation Design ........................................ ............................... Settlements.................................................... ............................... LateralDesign ............................................... ............................... RetainingWalls ........... ........... :..................................................... ExpansiveSoils ............................................. ............................... Concrete Slabs -on- Grade ........ :.................................................... Soluble Sulfates ......... ................... ........ ....................... --- ......... . Tentative Pavement Desi`;n .......................... ............................... Shrinkage and Subsidence ............................ ............................... General Site Grading.: ................................................... .............. I. Clearing and Grubbing ........................... :.......................... 2. Preparation of Building and Foundation Areas ................. 3. Preparation of Surfaces to Receive Compacted Fill .......... 4.. Placement of Compacted Fill ............. ............................... 5. Preparation of Slab and Paving Areas ............................... f. Testing and Inspection ......................... ............................... GENERAL:......................................................... ................I.............. APPENDIX A - Site Plan and Boring Logs Field Exploration APPENDIX B - Laboratory Testing, Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C - 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria ................. 3 APPENDIX D - Leigliton &. Associates Geotechnical Report 1991 �'InrLlr+u 1- �nairir�r +rirru August 28, 2002 -I Project No. 544 -2106 02 -08 -485 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Geotechnical investigation performed in order to provide recommendations for site preparation and the design and conslr'uction of the liwndarlolts for the proposed Target Store and surrounding retaWcommercial compleX. The project site is located on the south side of Highway I I I between Adams Street and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, California. The preliminary plans indicate that the proposed project will include a ne\w Target Store and several surrounding multi -unit retail /comnle.rcial buildings. The associated site improvements are expected to include paved roadways and parking areas. concrete walkways, landscape areas and various underground Utilities. SCOPE OF \VORK The purpose of our investigation was to determine certain engineering characteristics Of the near surface soils on the site in order to develop recommendations for foundation design and site preparation. Our investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing, a review of previous geotechnical reports prepared for the site, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. The scope of services provided was based in part upon the requirements for Geotechnical Investigations summarized within the Target Developer's Guide. Evaluation of environmental issues or hazardous wastes was not within the scope of services provided in this report. Our investigation was performed in accordance with contemporary oeotechnical engineering_ principles and practice. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the south side of Highwav .I I I between Adams Street and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta, California. The preliminary plans indicate that the project vvill consist of a large commercial complex including a Target Store to be located just east of the existing Lo��e's facility. In addition, numerous retail buildings and related commercial structures are proposed alone with various associated site improvements. It is Our understanding, that the proposed structures will be of relatively lightweight wood- frame, steel - frame, or reinforced masotlry COl1SU'llCtlOtl. The proposed structures will be supported by conventional Shallow spread footings and concrete slabs on grade. 'rhe associated site improvements will include paved roadways and parking areas. concrete walkway's. landscape areas, and Various underground utilities. The project site is presently vacant. and the majority of the site remains in a basically native desert condition. The western portion of the site has been cleared and leveled most likely in conjunction with the development of the Lowe's site. A iar,e retention basin has been excavated within the central portion of the site. The eastern portion of the site includes several large sand dunes that provide surface relief of over 10 feet. 'File existing Lo�we's faciliry is located just \\est of the Target building site alone Hi�gil�wav I 1 1. Avenue 47 forms the southern property boundary for the majority of the site. Underground utilities exist along each of the roadways surrounding the site and service the nearby buildings. The majority of the around surface is covered with scattered short Grass and heeds. Based upon ow- previous CXpCI'IenCC �� Illl relatively II! ht\VCI" 11 conllllercial st'uCtures.a.S Well as the loading information provided Within the 'target Developers Guide , we expect that isolated column loads may be up to 120 kips and wall loading may be up to 3.0 kips per linear foot. Grading; is expected to include minor cuts and fills to match the nearby elevations anti to construct s1i`ghtly elevated building, pads to accommodate site drainage. This doles not include removal and recompaction of the Foundation beeli -1111 ;oils Vwithin the building areas. 11' the 11MCIP31ed foundation lording), or site grading. varies substanrialh Irons that assumed: the recommendations included in this report should be reevalucued. AuatlSt 28. 2002 -?- Project No. 544 -2106; 02 -08 -485 SLiBSURFACC CONDITIONS The near surface soils observed within our borings consist primarily of fine grained silty sands and sandy silts. The soils within the upper 30 feet consisted primarily of fine ,rained silty sands with scattered 0eneraliv thin silt layers. In general, the site soils appeared somewhat loose throughout the upper 5 to 10 feet but laboratory test results and sampler penetration resistance (as measured by field bloWcounts) suggest that the. site soils generally become. firmer with depth. Laboratory testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples indicated dry density varying from 85 to I i3 pounds per cubic foot (pef). The site soils were found to be dry throu01101.1t the majority of our borings but some of the deeper silt layers were wet. Laboratory testing indicated moisture content varying from immeasurable to 29 percent. Laboratory classification testing indicates that the near surface soils consist primarily of a somewhat inconsistent combination of silty sands and sandy silts. Expansion testing indicates that the majority of the surface soils.are classified as non - expansive and fall within the "very low" expansion category in accordance with the Uniform Building Code classification system. Consolidation testing indicates that the near surface silty sands and sandy silts are potentially compressible and may be susceptible to detrimental hydroconsolidation and /or compression related settlements. Groundwater was not encountered within our borings that extended to a maximum depth of approximately 50 feet belo\\ the existing around surface but Groundwater should not be a factor in foundation design or construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our field and laboratory investigation, it Is our opinion that the proposed Target Store and surrounding retail /commercial development are feasible from a soil mechanic's standpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are considered in building foundation design and site preparation. Due to the somewhat loose and compressible conditions of the near surface soils, remedial grading including overexcavation and recompaction is recommended for the proposed building areas. We recommend that remedial grading Nwithin the proposed building areas include overexcavation and recom pact ioil of the loose surface soils and the primary foundation bearing soils. Specific recommendations for site preparation are presented in the Site Grading section of this report. Groundwater was not encountered within our borings that extended to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Due to the depth to groundwater, specific liquefaction analyses were not performed. Based upon the depth to 01-oundwater and the prominence of non - liquefiable silts underlying the site, the potential for liquefaction and the related surficial affects of liquefaction impactina the site are.considered ne0halble. The site is located within an active seismic area of Southern California within approximately 9.1 Kilometers of the San Andreas Fault system. Strong ground motion resuitin; from earthquake activity alone the nearby San Andreas or San Jacinto fault systems is likely to impact the site during the anticipated lifetime of the structures. Structures should be designed by professionals familiar with the aeolo,aic and seismic setting of the site. As a minimum, structure design should conform to Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. Pertinent seismic design criteria as outlined in the 1997 UBC, is summarized in .Appendix C of this report. -- -- --- .._ - - - -- --- - - - -_- -- .5 /rrrlrlr�n l•�n�,irrr.�trirt�, August 28. 2002 -3- Project No. 544 -2 106 02 -08 -485 Caving did occur to varying de-recs within each of our exploratory borings and the surface soils may be susceptible to caving wlthln deeper excavations. All excavations should be constructed in accordance with the normal CaIOSHA excavation criteria. On the basis of our observations of the materials encountered- we anticipate that the majority of the subsoils \\ ill conform to those described by CaIOSI- A as Type C. Soil conditions should be verified in the I-eld by a "Competent person" employed b\ the Contractor. The majority of the surface soils encountered dtn-in�, our investigation \were found to be non- expansive. Laboratory testing indicated expansion indices less than 20 for the surface silty sands and sandy silts that correspond with the "very low" expansion category in accordance with UBC Standard 18 -2. If imported soils are to be used during grading, they should have an Expansion Index of less than 20. 'File following recommendations present more detailed design criteria, which have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory investigation. Foundation Design: The results of our investigation indicate that either conventional shallow continuous footings or isolated pad footings, which are supported upon properly compacted soils, should be expected to provide satisfactory support for the proposed structure. Ove.rexcavation and recampaction should be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. Footings should extend at least 12 inches beneath to % \ -est adjacent grade. Isolated square or rectangular footings at least'_ feet square may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot. Continuous footings at least 12 inches wide may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 1800 pounds per square foot. Allowable increases of 200 psf for each additional I foot of width and 200 psf for each additional 6 inches of depth may be utilized if desired. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3000 psf. The allowable bearino pressures are for dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by to resist wind, seismic or other transient loadinn. Care should be taken to see that bearing soils are not allowed to become saturated from the ponding of rainwater or irrigation. Drainage fi-om the building areas should be rapid and complete. The recommendations made in the preceding paragraphs are based on the assumption that all footings will be supported upon properly compacted soil. All grading shall be performed under the testing and inspection of the Soils Engineer or his representative. Prior to the placement of concrete, we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they extend into compacted soil and are free of loose and disturbed materials. Settlements: Settlements may result from the anticipated foundation loads. These estimated Ultimate settlements are calculated to be a maximum of I inch 'when using the recommended bearing values. As a practical matter. differential settlements between footinn can be assumed as one -half of the total settlement. Lateral Design: Resistance to lateral loads can be pro \.1ded by it combination of friction acting at the base of the slabs or foundations and passi\ e earth pressure along the sides of the t01-indations. A coefficient of friction of 0. t0 between soil and concrete may be used with dead load forces only. A passive earth pressure of ? �0 pounilS per Square. frot, per foot of depth. may be used for the sides of Iootings. which are poured it oliist properly compacted native soil:. August 28, 2002 -4- Project No. 544 -21 OC 02 =08 -485 Passive earth pressure should be ignored Within the upper I foot except where confined (such as beneath a floor slab). When used in combination either the passive resistance or the coefficient of- friction should be reduced by one - third. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls may be required to accomplish the proposed construction. Cantilever retaimm), walls may be designed using "actin e" pressures. Active pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 35�pcf for native- backfill soils with level drained backfill conditions. For walls that are restrained, "at rest" pressures should be utilized in design. At rest pressures may be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf for native backfill soils with level drained backfill conditions. Expansive Soils: Due to the prominence of non - expansive soils on the site, special expansive soil design criteria should not be necessary for the. design of foundations and concrete slabs -on- grade. Because the mixing and blending associated with the recommended remedial grading may change expansion potential, final design criteria should be. established by the StructUral Engineer based upon post grading expansion test results. Concrete Slabs -on- Grade: All surfaces to receive concrete slabs -on- grade should be underlain by recompacted soils as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. A minimum floor slab thickness of 4.0 inches is recommended Where slabs are to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or where dampness of the floor slab is not desired, we. recommend the use of an appropriate vapor barrier. Vapor barriers should be protected by sand in order to reduce the possibility of puncture and to aid in obtaining uniform concrete. Carina. Reinforcement of slabs -on -grade in order to resist expansive soil pressures may not be required. However, reinforcement will have a beneficial effect in containing cracking due to concrete shrinkage. Temperature and shrinka`,c related cracking should be anticipated in all concrete slabs -on- grade. Slab reinforcement and the spacing of control joints should be determined by the Structural Engineer. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate concentrations of the surface soils were determined to be 49 and 440 parts per million (ppm). This is within the usual allowable limits for the use of Type 11 cement and the use of Type V cement or special sulfate resistant concrete mixes should not be necessary. Tentative Pavement Design: All paving.. should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 12 :aches (excluding aggregate base). This may be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report. The following preliminary pavement sections are based upon a design R -Value of 50. Onsite Driveways and Parking areas (Traffic Index = 5.5) Use 3.0 inches of asphalt on _4.0 inches of Class 2 base material Roadways and Main Truck Drive Areas.(Traftic Index = 6.5 Use 4.0 inches of asphalt on 6.0 inches of' Class 2 base material Ao- rebate base should conform to the requirements for Class 2 Aggregate base in Section 26 of CalTrans Standard Specii-kcations, .Innua,-V 1992. :asphaltic concrete should confonii to Section 39 of the CalTrans Standard Spec ification >. 4'111,1 a n r"(, ,r"t,ri)r" August 28, 2002 -5- Project No. 54 4-2106 4 0208485 .d Ut,,t'i (�Tecommended pavement sections s uld be provided with a uniformly compacted subgrade ° � ecisc Control of>hict„r�z s bons durin` placement. Compaction should be verified by testing. Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumes is shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill should be anticipated. We estimate that this shrinkage could vary from 20 to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted should be between 2 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual decree of compaction attained. General Site Grading: All grading should be performed in accordance with the grading ordinance of the City of La Quints, California. The following recommen.dations have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory testing: L Clearing and Grubbing: Proper clearing of any existing vegetation, debris, foundations, slabs, pavements and underground utilities \, ill be very important. All surfaces to receive compacted fill should be cleared of roots_ vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable material; that should be renloved from the site. Soils that are disturbed due to site clearing should be replaced as controlled compacted Fill under the direction of the Soils Engineer. 2. Preparation of Buikling and Foundation Areas: Building, areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing `rade or 4 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. The exposed surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted so that a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction is attained. Once roots and Her unsuitable materials are removed, the native material may be placed as controlled compacted fill. Overexcavation should be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering and compaction should be verified by testing. Wet soils removed during excavation should be dried back to near optimum moisture content or mixed with dry soils prior to placement as engineered fill material. The bottom of the excavations should be stable and unyielding prior to Fill placement. I Preparation of Surfaces to Receive Compacted Fill: Other areas to receive compacted fill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. 4. Placement of Compacted Fill: Fill materials consisting of on -site soils or approved imported granular soils, should be spread in [hill lifts, and compacted at near optimum moisture content to a nlininlU n of 90 percent relative compaction. Imported material shall have an Expansion Index not exceeding 20. The contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 48 hours in adwiKe of importing soils in Mer w provide sutticient time for the proper evaluation of proposed import materials. Ile commcwr shall be responsible for delivering= material to the site, which complies with the project specifications. .Approval by the Soils Engineer \rill be based upon nrttcrial delivered to the site and not the preliminary evaluation of import sources. August 2S; 2002 -6 Project No. 544 -2106' 02 -08 -485 Our observations of the material encountered during our investigation indicate that compaction will be most readily obtained by means of Ileavv rubber - wheeled equipment and /or vibratory compactors. 5. Preparation of Slab and Paving Areas: All surface, to receive asphalt concrete paving or concrete slabs -on- grade, should be underlain by a inimmurn compacted fill thickness of 12 inches. This may be accomplished by a combination of scarification and recom_paction of the surface soils and placement of the fill material as controlled compacted fill. Compaction of the slab and pavement areas should be to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. 6. Testing and Inspection: During grading tests and observations should be performed by the Soils Engineer or his representative in order to verify that the grading is being performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density testing shall be performed in accordance with acceptable ASTM test methods. The minimum acceptable degree of compaction should be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557 -91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactioe effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory compaction. GENERAL, The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based upon an interpolation of the soil conditions between the exploratory boring locations and extrapolation of these conditions throughout the proposed building area. Should conditions encountered during, grading appear different than those indicated in this report, this office should be notified. This report is considered to be applicable for use by Washington 11. LTD and Target for the specific site and project described herein. The use of this report by other parties or For other projects is not authorized. The recommendations of this report are contingent upon monitoring of the grading operation by a representative of Sladde.n Engineering. All recommendations are considered to be tentative pending our revie\v of the trading operation and additional testing.. if indicated. lCothers are employed to perform any soil testing. this office should be notified prior to such testing in order to coordinate any required site visits by our representative and to assure indemnification of Sladden Engineering. We recommend that a pre.-job conference be held on the site prior to the. initiation of site grading. The purpose of this meeting will be to assure a complete understanding of the recommendations presented in this report as they apply to the actual grading performed. -- - - Sleidd, )r .Elf,linceriu_1 APPENDIX A Site Plan Boring, Loas APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION For our field investigation, 18 exploratory borings were excavated on July 8, July 10 and July 24, 2002, using a truck mounted hollow stem auger rig (Mobile 1361) in the approximate locations indicated on the site plan included in this appendix. Continuous logs of the materials encountered were made on the sire by a representative of Sladden En,,ineerin`�. Borin, logs are included in this appendix. Representative undistm-bed samples ,were obtained within our borings by driving a thin - walled steel penetration sampler (California split spoon sampler) or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler with a 140 -pound hammer dropping approximately 30 inches (ASTM D1586). The number of blo\a,-s required to drive the samplers 18 inches was recorded in 6 -inch Increments and WOWC011nts are indicated on the bOrina logs. The California samplers are 3.0 inches in diameter, carrying brass sample rings having inner diameters of 2.5 inches. The standard penetration samplers are 2.0 inches in diameter with an inner diameter of 1.5 inches. Undisturbed samples were removed from the sampler and placed in moisture sealed containers in order to preserve the natural soil moisture content. Bulk samples were obtained from the excavation spoils and samples were then transported to our laboratory for further observations and testin(Y . Sladth,)i Fiwiiwerim, Polm pp 33143 7-: N3 75' ij�.il � � Or y i r•1 ..___- y J i a F! 1 or� �.•` N33° �it� SITE J* 4fl WAIW t low - 1933`42 -25' i 0 z hiQurc 1 - Vicinity Map Target Store - La Quinta 11 Washington Street & Highway 1 1 1 La Oulnt 1. California Sladden Emmeerin,, ?i I s\ - Parcel C ' Parcel B { 0 z Parcel A ' AREA SUMMARY PARCEL ORO" AREA (A A 2XIme 0 20" c aae 0 4.87 r=A&E lade TOTAL 64.80 Parcel D ,I. Figure 2 - Parcet Map Target Store - La Quinta II Washington Street & Hiohvvav l I 1 La QUinW, Cailfornla Sladden Entlinecrim, PI-01e,ct \tumbe.r: 5,44 -2106 1 Date: 8 -5 -0' :.t � ��: •�f'Y-�... , .. .� a� f +fir � .•� �'• � �' - -- - �� ' �• � •dig:.:' :� S ✓' L":.'•� i I Figure 3 - Boring, Location Plan Target Store - La Quinta H r 0 Washington Street R Highway 1 1 l Z LZI QUillM. California Sladden l.:n��ineerin', Taiset Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -8 -02 BorinE, No. 1 Job No.: 544-2 006 c o o w DESCRIPTION Q REMARKS CU 0 o 0 rz) t ] U o q r� �Do� U 0 Silty Sand: Brown, SM fine grained 5 28/40/50 113 1 ... 10 8/10/12 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 94 3 Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -5 -02 Boring No. 2 Job No.: 544 -210 ! ,.. o `~ �, DESCRIPTION Q � r � RENURKS CL E U) U q cn U 0 Silty Sand: Brown, S fine grained 5/10/15 Sandy Silt: Brown, clayey ML 95 G - -- to 9/14/22 Sand: Brown, SP /S 103 1 - slightly silty, fine grained 1s 14/22/27 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 102 1 - -- _ fine grained 20 11/17/24 Sandy Silt: Brown, clayey ML gg 2 Total Depth = 21.51 7 - Recovered Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 25 30 i 35 40 as I I 50 - 1 I i Ii ;`ow: The 5,ratit'ic:16oll lines 53 represent the approximate � boundlaries bet��cen the sail types: the tvanstt10n., ma: he gradual. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -8 -02 BorinzNo. 3 Job 544 -2106 J ^J o DESCRIPTION Q REMARKS a � o? U C4 t!1 \ u o Sand: Brown, S' /SM 1 slightly silty, tine grained 5 '7/8/9 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 0 very silty, fine grained 10 9/11/12 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 1 fine grained i� 5/8110 Sand: Brown, SP /SM - -- 0 - -- slightly silty, fine grained with clayey silt layer 1 " thick 20 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 518/12 very silty, fine grained 1 with clayey silt layer 2" thick 25 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 8115116 fine P rained 1 r-81-1 _ I I I Total Depth = 26.5' 30 35 40 • t5 i I i t :i0 I IIi II Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types: t.ran.= itions may be gradual. — r --r Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Dote: 7 -8 -02 Boring No. d Job No.: 544 -210(3 DESCRIPTION ` REMARKS — Q� 0 � � 0 Silty Sand: Brown, SM rifle drained . s 3/7/7 10 616/6 0 l 15 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 6/8/9 fine to medium grained - -- 2 ® Standard Penetration Total Depth = 16.5' No Bedrock Sample No Groundwater 20 _ ` I 25 30 1 i 35 40 lv . 50 i Nuu•: The stratification lines 55) I I represent the appru.Nimatc houndairte� bet.wecn the soil types; i I i the n- ansituuts may be ;rndual. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -8-02 Boring No. 6 Job No.: 544 -2106 J p o DESCRIPTION °�; q REMARKS >~ Q :z:,, co a U CY1 c° = •`. U 0 Silty Sand: Brown, SM tine grained ' 4/7/14 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 98 0 ._. very silty, fine grained 10 9/11/15 Sandy Silt: Brown, ML gg •_> very sandy 15 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 9/15/20 very silty, tine grained 1 99 3 Total Depth = 16.5' ® Recovered Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 20 25 30 35 40 .15 I 50 i I I I � More: The stratit'icardon lines I I represent. the approximarc ;i3 ! 1 boundaries butween the .soil t. tics: rho transition.., may he - ridual. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 I La Quinta, California Date: 7 -8 -02 Boring* No. 7 Job No.: 544 -2106 o co DESCRIPTION a co c REMARKS y Q c) V f� cn°_ �° U 0 Sand: Grey broxvn, SP /SM " slightly silty, fine ;rained 5 3/3/5 1 10 5/7/9 Sandy Sill: Bro,vn, ML J ___ slightly clayey t5 Sand: Brown, SP /SM 10/12116 sli�htl sil fine ��rained 1 ""- Total Depth= MY ® Standard Penetration l No Bedrock 20. Sample No Groundwater 25 I ' 30 35 40 • I <t 5 50 i _ I Note: The stratificarion Liles , represent the approximate 55 boundaries bettaeen the s�)il types: the trait iumis may he gradual. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -8 -02 Boring- No. 8 Job No.: 5,1.1 -2106 3 I o o DESCRIPTION Q cu REMARKS .� _� � o C jo U 0 f� to r U 0 Silty Sand: Brown, SM _ ti ne grained with thin I interbedded clayey silt layers s 13/20/26 to Silty Sand: Brown, SM 9/16/25 very silty, fine grained Total Depth = 11.5' ® Disturbed Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 1s - ?0 1 2; 30 35 v 40 .l 5 i 30 Note: The smitificstion lines 55 represent Qw 1ppvoxi111;1tc I 130undarie,; between the soil types: dic transitions mal the gradusl. . . . . , U IQ . . . . . . � Depth 5 o �; o o cj, o {in feet) D Symbol Core IL o o — — - Blows /ft. cv rD - — o y co a MM- d , lt^✓r, 01 d o y y r, n ci- c* CD y ' V, o x r Soil 'Type Uq ai o � � Unit Dry Wt. SIPCO } a N � '% Moisture C r� - - - -- AD %o Relative 11 � Compaction o 0 c+ � `Md 'C Gi /ll = o o F�� N OZ •y :J, G- O is U I l oa 15/20/33 Sandy Silt: Brown, slightly clayey ML 1 Total Depth = 21.5' ® Disturbed Sample No Bedrock No Groundwater 25 30 3 :5 '10 45 . I 1 i I f Now: The stratification line: j f 1 represent the approximate '' j I I biiundaries between the soil nvpes: ithe transitions Inay he gradual. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -24 -02 Borina, No. 11 Job No.,- .544--9-106 J DESCRIPTION Q' o 'Z � REMARKS ' '� Q Cn U GY] cr°� U o Sand: Grey brown, SP /SM slightly silty, fine grained 1 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 148% I4!4/G fine grained with interbedded 3 passing #200 clayey silt layers to 417110 Sand: Brown, SP /SM 1 -_- 24% passing '&200 slightly silty, fine grained t' > 8115/:..0 Silt Sand: Brown, )' SM • -• 1 -•- 18% passing A'200 fine to medium grained 20 13/13/20 Clayey Silt: Brown, sandy ML - -- 3 - -- 74% passing #200 7/16/23 Sand: Brown, SP /SM _ -- 1 12% passing ,"200 slightly silty, fine grained so 11/20/30 Silty Sand: Brown, SM .._ 1 - -- 19% passing #200 fine grained 35 7/16/23 Sand: Brown, SP /SM - -- 1 13% passing '200 - slightly silty, fine grained 40 8117124 Silty Sand: Brown, SM 1 16°, o passing 4200 fine grained 15!21/21 Clayey Silt: Brown, sandy 1\4L 3 - -- 7/8% passing -200 50 G/18/21 3 74% passing 4200 Total Depth = 51.5' y Recovered Sample Note: The stratificauon 11nC5 No Ykdroch 05 I Standard Penetration, represent the approximate No Ground1�°atee bound:u•ies between the soil tYpes; I Sample the t.rzinsitions ntu)- be gradual. Target Stole - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7- 24 -02_ Borit5No• 12 Job No.: 544 -2106 o � DESCRIPTION > Cz co REMARKS '0 G Q T Cn O U co M V O s 10/13/23 Sand: Brown, tine grained SP 98 1 10 10/23/32 Silty Clay: Brown CL 89 10 15 12/31/23 Silty Sand: Brown, fine grained SM 103 1 -•- Total Depth = 16.5' ® Recovered Sample No Bedrock 20 2.5 No Groundwater 30 35 40 - l 50 Wore: The 4tratificetti()n lines cepra,cnt the approximate 1 hound:�ric:• brt„cen thc. ;coil t�pc ;; 'ilk! transitions may be gradual. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 ! La Quinta, California Date: 7 -24 -02 Boring 'o. 13 Job No.: 544 -2106 e C.) o o DESCRIPTION ; Target Store - La Quinta II Developinent Washington Street and Highway I11 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -24 -02 Boring No. 14 Job INTO.: 544 -2106 o DESCRIPTION Cz co REMARKS to Cj _� L Silty Sand: Brown, SM very silty, fine grained s 5 17 /12 Clayey Silt: Brown with ML • -• 6 - -- interbedded silty fine sand layers to 41416 Sand: Brown, fine grained SP 0 - -- - 15 Clayey Silt: Brown with ML I 7/1.2115 interbedded sil fine sand lavers --- 0 Total Depth = 16.5' m Standard Penetration I Into Bedrock Sample No Groundwater pp I I 25 :3Q 35 :1U 45 • 5U I 1 I Now: The gratification lines represent the approximate boundaries bet-ven di.+ soil t.ypcs: I the transitunn; Ilia%' be _raduai. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7- 2=1 -02 Boring No. 15 Job No.: 54 -2106 3 N o U DESCRIPTION � Q 0 C-) RENLARKS ow E 3 O C- N q T co C Ci M O W V O 0 Sandy Silt: Brown, ML slightly clayey 5 4/7/12 Clayey Silt: Brown ML ES 29 - -- 10 6/16/21 Clayey Silt: Brown, sandy ML 87 18 . -- 15 7/16/25 Sand: Grey brown, SP /SM 95 1 :20/26/40 slightly silty, fine grained Total Depth = 21.5 ® Recovered Sample No Bedrock - No Ground%vater 25 30 35 40 =S 5 30 l I I Note: The stroLification lines 5a ` repren o:iuiae { i boundaries between the soil types; 1 the cransicion� ninY be gradual. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 i La Quinta, California Dag: 7-24 -02 BorinL, No. 16 Job No.: 54=1 -2106 y ' C O I o DESCRIPTION T Q REMARKS cn o 'V C T O p to C U a - N O �u 0 - Sandy Silt: Brown, ML slightly clayey with scattered interbedded silty sand layers 5 2/2/4 - -- 13 10 4/8/9 20 1s 6/12/15 ., ., --- 14 ... m Standard Penetration Total. Depth = 16.5' No Bedrock - Sample No Groundwater 20 25 30 35 40 45 I 1 .i0 Note: The sivaLiCication lines i Irepresent Elie approximate boundaries botween the soil ow : the tran.sitiun: may he gradual. Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -24 -02 Boring No. 17 Job INTO.: T44 -2106 DESCRIPTION Q N REMARKS ° — Q `. >, co o U W co 0 Silty Sand: Bro \vn, SM fine grained 5 5!8!15 Sandy Silt: Brown, ML 89 5 slightly clayey 10 8! 12! 18 Sil ty Clay: Brown, sand y CL 87 4 15 10/15/28 Sandy Silt: Brown, clayey ML 85 1 - -- Total Depth = 16.5' ® Recovered Sample No Bedrock - No Groundwater 20 25 30 Target Store - La Quinta II Development Washington Street and Highway 111 / La Quinta, California Date: 7 -24 -02 Borinv No. 18 Job Into.: 544 -2106 J d ~ a) o DESCRIPTION Q cu 0 RENLARKS 'C: E �, U1 U 0.1 U1 \ U 0 Silty Sand: Brown., SM Fine grained s fl]U3/416 3 10 6/15119 Sand: Brown, SP /SM 1 - slightly silty, fine grained Silty Sand: Brown, SM is 8/17/25 fine grained 2 Total Depth = 16.5' m Standard Penetration No Bedrock Sample No Groundwater 20 25 30 - I 35 40 :fig I j 50 I � The strxtiCiCHtion lines I I j rcpre;cnt the approximate 55 i hLmrldaries hch%een the soil types: ` i I{ I the transitiuns m.iy be gr,,dual. APPENDIX LuhornnoryTcstino Laboratory Test Kcsuks '-------- --- — APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field and returned to our laboratory for additional observations and testing. Laboratory testing was generally performed in two phases. The First phase consisted of testing in order to determine the compaction of the existing natural soil and the general engineering classifications of the soils tmderlyin, the site. This testing was performed in order to estimate the engineering characteristics of the suit and to serve as a basis for selecting samples for the second phase of testing. The second phase consisted of soil mechanics testing. This testin; including consolidation, shear strength and expansion testinLl was performed in order to provide a means of developing specific design recommendations based oil the mechanical properties of the soil. CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION TESTING Unit Weight and Moisture Content Determinations: Each undisturbed sample was \veiglled and measured in order to determine its unit weight. A small portion of each sample was then subjected to testing in order to determine its moisture content. This was used in order to determine the dry density of the soil in its natural condition. The results of this testin; are shown on the Boring Logs. Maximum Density- Optimum Moisture Determinations: Representative soil types were selected for maximum density determinations. This testing was performed in accordance with the ASTIVI Standard D1557 -91. "lest Method A. The results of this testing are presented graphically in this appendix. The maximum densities are compared to the field densities of the soil in order to determine the existing relative compaction to the soil. This is shown on the Boring Logs, and is useful in estimating the strength and compressibility of the soil. Classification Testing: Soil samples were. selected for classification testing. This testing consists of mechanical grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits determinations. These provide information for developing classifications for the soil in accordance with the Unified Classification System. This classification system categorizes the soil into groups hayin o similar engineering characteristics. The results of this testing are very. useful in detecting variations in the soils and in selecting samples for further testing. SOIL MECHANIC'S TESTING Direct Shear Testing: One bulk sample was selected for Direct Shear Testing. This testing measures the shear stren�,_th of the soil under various normal pressures and is used in developing parameters for foundation desi_n and lateral design. Testing was performed using recompacted test specimens, which were saturated prior to testing. Testing was performed using a strain controlled test apparatus with normal pressures ranting from 800 to 2300 pounds per square foot. Expansion Testing: One bulk sample was selected for Expansion testin;. Expansion testing was performed in accordance Nvith the UBC Standard 18 -2. This testin, consists of remolding 4 -1nch diameter by I -inch thick test specimens to a moisture content and dry density corresponding to approximately 50 percent saturation. The samples are subjected to a surcharge of 144 p01.111ds per square foot and alto' ed to reach equilibrium. At that point the specimens are inundated with distilled water. The linear expansion is then measured until complete. Consolidation Testing: Five relatively undisturbed samples \�,ere selected) I'or consolidation testing'. For this testing one -inch thick test specimens are subjected to vertical loads viir\ ing from 575 psf to 115,10 pst- applied progressively. The consolidation at each load increment was recorded prior to placement ul -each subsequent load. The specimens \\ere saturated at the 575 psf or 720 psf lead increment. Sladden Engineering; August 14, 2002 6752 Stanton AVC JILIe. SUlle A Buena Park. CA 90621 (7 14) 523 -0952 FAX (714) 523 -1369 Maximum Density /Optimum Moisture Proctor- ASTM D698 -D1 >i7 Project Number: 544 -2106 Procedure Used: DI;;7 -A Project Name: Target Prep. Method: Dry Lab ID Number: Rammer Type: Mechanical Sample Location: Bulk 3 0 -S' Description: Silt\ F Sand (SM) Sieve Size "/, Retained Max Density : 109 pef 3!4" Opt Moisture: 12' /o 3/8" n4 0.0 lay 1.10 135 130 12� 120 III 110 IUD 11,04 - - - -- Zero Air Voids Lines, s�z =2.65. 2.70: 2,75 I(( I` '_(( _: I () 35 40 4 i Sladden Engineering August Id, 3003 6753 Stanton .<lvrnue, SUite A Buena Pm-k. CA 90631 (7)4) 33 -0952 FAX (71-1) 533 -1369 %laximum Dcnsitv/Optimum Moisture Proctor AS 1 \1 D69, :D I 3 Project Nunil?er: 5a- 1 -3111h Procedure Used: Dl5i7 -A Project Name: l ar-'rt Prep. Method: Dry Lab ID Number: Ranuner Type: (Mechanical Sample Location: Bulk 5 •ii: 0 -s' Description: Silty F Sand (SIM) Sieve Size % Retained Max Density: 1 12.5 pct' 314" Opt Moisture: 13'Y, 3%8" IJ; I-tu 130 125 120 115 110 100 + li #4 0.0 - - - - -- Zero Air Voids Lines. s„ =3.65. 3.70. 3.75 /,00,% DIRECT SHEAR TEST 1.6 1.4 O C 1.2 1.0 .8 z .6 1 --- 4 W .4 C/D 2 I 2 .4 .6 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT-) 0 =29° c = 90,0sf where 0 = Slim- Angle c = Cohesion Boring 3 @ 0 - 5' Target Store - La Quinta 11 Development NY.--ishin.uton Street and Highw;iy 11.1 La Quinta, California Sladden Eng'.1neering DATE: 8-20-02 IJOB NO.: 544-2106 T--T 7 i — I 2 .4 .6 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT-) 0 =29° c = 90,0sf where 0 = Slim- Angle c = Cohesion Boring 3 @ 0 - 5' Target Store - La Quinta 11 Development NY.--ishin.uton Street and Highw;iy 11.1 La Quinta, California Sladden Eng'.1neering DATE: 8-20-02 IJOB NO.: 544-2106 1.9 1.4 O 0 1.2 V) 1.0 C/1) 6 W�..�,� 4 .2 DIRECT SHEAR TEST I .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT 0 = 290 c = I 00psf where 0 = Shear Angle c = Cohesion Boring 8 a 0 - 5' Target Store - La QuinLa II Development W:1,;Ilillololl strect and 111 Quinta, California Sladden Engineering DATE: S -20.0 2 1 J 0 13 NO.: 5,14. '2'100 71 I .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 NORMAL LOAD (KIPS / FOOT 0 = 290 c = I 00psf where 0 = Shear Angle c = Cohesion Boring 8 a 0 - 5' Target Store - La QuinLa II Development W:1,;Ilillololl strect and 111 Quinta, California Sladden Engineering DATE: S -20.0 2 1 J 0 13 NO.: 5,14. '2'100 0.0 .01 .02 03 r �= .04 u� .05 J r r .06 c o .Ot r c U W. .09 0.1 .11 .12 .13 Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.010 0.7 20 2.880 5,760 Consolidation Diagram 0.0 .01 .02 .03 U .04 1-. N N .05 U r r .06 0 o .07 U r O U 08 .09 0.1 .11 .1� P-essurc in KIPS per Square Foot 0.010 0.720 2.880 5.760 Consolidation Diagram 0.0 .01 .02 .03 U 04 J .05 !J .06 0 .y O .07 r_ U U 03 .09 0.1 .11 .12 .13 Pressure in KIPS per Square Foot 0.010 .575 2.300 4.600 Consolidation Diasn-ain 0.0 .01 .02 .03 .. 04 cu .05 V n G .06 O c0 'O O •07 O U 08 .0J 0.1 .11 .12 .13 PrcS;ure iii 1QPS per Squ31-c, POOL 0.010 .. -15 2.300 4.600 Effect of Adding Water Consolid;atiOtl Di3a1'3m 0.0 .01 .02 .03 U .04 .05 U r .06 O c0 .O o .07 ul r_ O U .0S .09 0.1 11 12 1? Pressure in NIPS per Square Foot. 0.010 .575 2.300 4.600 Consolidation Diaeram E 0 cc 0 X X r C> IM AS bf -r--Ky •� LN7 a1.1 sz O I � i � ll,TH�l L. Q Z: r . . ......... .7-7. Fl--L O I � i � L. Q Z: r O 0 Llr5j,A 49 Y3SeYOO LW3383.d Q 2 0 7' o i l y l I CIO 7 :s LD LIJ I Id > cr- I 1 1--.7• T= IS g l � l � i 7- .� j j � � i l k � i l i I I a ........... 0 7' o i l y l I CIO 0 7' CIO 7 :s LD LIJ > cr- IS 0 7' CIO 7 :s LD U. S. SIANOARO SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U. S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROUmR 6 4 3 7 I I { 3 4 6 1 10 14 16 10 30 40 50 70 100 140 100 1 10 -L IT _ _ j _ 10 10 — i 1 L ' j 1 — — IIII I J 30 b S rn K yy Su Ti 10 1 . 60 80 ffl+ _ I iJ I U: w 10 1 0.5 0.1 0 DS 0.01 0.003 0 (A )1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMIETERS - - _—_ Cobb[[, GRAV(L I co A^l I lln( SANO SPIT OR CLAY - -- ( 1 Y(OW" IIN( -- S.4 rn Nu. (Iry w Dr VR+ c4 ui(iu(ion Hal w % LL PL PI Prol °d -___. -- Arir GRADATION CURVES D+Ie ENG r"' ;, 2087 Project No.: 544 -2106 Boring 4 @ 10' r U. 5. STANOAAO SIM OPENING IN INCHES U. i STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS KYDR01 MA 1 6 t 3 2 l 1 1 4 6 1 10 1416 20 30 40 50 70 t00 140 200 I ! � I 901 1— F—r- -- - - I I 1 m it I i I - — i I I — — - I — 0 10 I I ICO 100 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS CODUI[S GRAVEL— — SAND SILT OR CLAY i [Ir. w Cn Pfl CI+wAu wn NCI K X LL PL PI Plo�ed '--- --'� ----.. .__'- -• —'--- -- —" -- -- Area g?o Inj No — -- —' -- - -- -- - - -- -'— — — Date GRADATION CURVES ENG µ °" �, 2087 Project No.: 544 -2106 Boring 7 @ 5' U. S SW(DA.R0 6 ) I N� + —; —� —; - - -- • I i , I 30 f . I I � I I 1 ' I i I 0. JEVE Z OPENING ! 1 IN INDIES } } } ) L 6 1 10 U. S. STANDARD 14 16 20 SIEVE NUMBERS 30 40 SO 70 )00 10 200 WDR04dmR 10 � Y 30. 7 90 — - - — — -- — - 1 CA so 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 005 0.01 0.0)5 0 001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS C06BLCS CRAVCI SAND S+LI OR CLAY I ppwy( Y(OIUM IIM[ co,,ast ItM( Ur, a G<I,m CL.$41hc.bon NII w X LL PL PI nele GRADATION CURVES �►�� 2087 Project No.: 544 -2106 A ^' Boring 8 a 5' 07/29 "' 2002 09:41 7145491847 AhJAHEIM TEST LAB ANAHEIM TEST LABORATORY 3008 S. ORANGE AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 PHONE (714) 519 -7267 T0: SLADDEN ENGINEERING: 6782 STANTON AVE. SUITE E BUENA PARK, CA_ 90621 ATTN: BRETT /DAVE PaGE 03 OAT': 7/29/02 ►O.No. Chain of Custody snipow No. Lob. No. A-1 728 SDecftcllQR . PROJECT: p544 -2106 moverlol: SOIL BULK 3 @ 0 -5' ANALYTICAL REPORT CORROSION SERIES SUMMARY OF DATA pH SOLUBLE SULFATES SOLUBLE CHLORIDES MIN. RESISTIVITY per Ca. 417 per Ca. 422 per Ca. 643 ppm ppm ohm -cm 7.2 440 148 7.30 ILESPE LY &CMA 02 POPPY chmf =IK ANAHEIM TEST LABORATORY 300S S. ORANGE AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 PHONE (714) 549 -7267 SLADDEW ENGINEERING: 6782 STANTON AVE. SUITE E DATE: 7/23/02 BUENA PARK, CA. 90621 Po. No. Chain of Custody ATTN : BRETT / DAVE Shipper No. fl Lob. No. A-1702 SOedficcl-ton: r Morenoi: SOIL PROJECT: #544 -2106 BULK 8 @ 0 -5' M e2 ANALYTICAL REPORT CORROSION SERIES SUMMARY OF DATA pH SOLUBLE SULFATES SOLUBLE CHLORIDES MIN. RESISTIVITY per Ca. 417 per Ca. 422 per Ca. 643 ppm ppm ohm -cm 7.5 49 630 1,533 Cbcalist APPENDIX C 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria 1997 UNIFORNI 13UILDING CODE INFORMATION The International Conference of Building Officials 1997 Uniform BUilding Code contains substantial revisions and additions to the earthquake engineering section summarized in Chapter 16. Concepts contained in the 1997 code that Nvill likely be relevant to construction of the proposed structure are. summarized below. Ground shaking is expected to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site, based upon proximity to significant faults capable of generating large earthquakes. Major fault zones considered to be most likely to create strong ground shaking at the site are listed below. Fault Zone Approximate Distance From Site Fault Type (1997 UBC) San Andreas 9.1 km A San Jacinto 34.0 km A Based on our field observations and understanding of local geologic conditions, the soil profile type judged applicable to this site is Sp, generally described as stiff or dense soil. The site is located within UBC Seismic Zone 4. The following table presents additional coefficients and factors relevant to seismic mitigation for new construction upon adoption of the 1997 code. Near- Source Near- Source Seismic Seismic Seismic Acceleration Velocity Coefficient Coefficient Source Factor, N, Factor, N, I C, C,. San Andreas _ 1.03 1.27 I 0.44 N, N,. San Jacinto 1.0 1.0 0.44 N, ____0.64 0.64 N,. - E Q Ta U L T Versi ". 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 549 -2106 DATE: 10 -02 -2002 JOB NAME: Target Store - La Quinta II Development La Quinta, California CALCULATION NAME: Test Run =analysis FAULT - DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.7097 SITE LONGITUDE: 116.2905 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 51 800re et al. (1997) Hori =. - SOIL (310) UNCERTAINTY (M= Median, Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cd__2drp SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE Am): 0.0 --------------- SUMMARY --------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T RM It,) IS'.' 7 E R�.! ;:'T ----------------------------- Page 1 -------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7 I jFSTIMATED MAX. EARTHQU._'.�;L EVENT I APPROXIINIATE I------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MA.XIMUM I PEAK !EST. SITE FAULT NAME (1, m) JEARTHQUAKE1 SITE IT•TENSITY I .'v]AG. (-.,,Jw) I ACCE-T. g !HOD.MERC. SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 1 5.'7(. 9.111 7.1 i 0.3*62 1 ix SAN ANDREAS - Southern C -,.7( 9-1)1 7.4 1 0.424 1 x BURNT MTN. 1 17.0( 27.44)1 6.4 1 0.118 1 VTI EUREKA PEAr< 1 1,; - .0 . 29-0) i 6. 4 1 0.113 1 -,j , I SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino I le-31 29.9)1 7 . 3 1 0.180 "T T I SAN JIICTNTO-ANZA 1 21.1 34.0)1 1 0.15l SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 21.4% 1 0.123 1 VIT, PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 29.70 47.8%11 i 0.106 1 vii EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 31.6( 50.8)i 6.9 1 0.096 1 vii LANDERS 1 32.1( 51.7)1 7.3 i 0.117 1 vii PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 33.8( 54-4)i 7.-., 1 0-101 i, VII SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 35.7! 37.9)i 0.6 i 0.075 1 vii SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 36.0( 58.0): 6.9 0.087 vii NORTH L -RONTA-, FAULT ZONE (East) 1 37 . 0: =:9.c) 0.093 EARTHQUAKE VAT-LEY 64.6) 1 0.065 BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 41.91 67.4); 6.4 0.059 vi JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 42.9( 69-1)i 6.7 1 0.068 1 vi ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 43.4( 069.9)1 7.1 0.084 1 II CALICO - HIDALGO I 44.8( 72.1)1 7.11 1 0.082 1 vii ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 47.5' 736.4)1 6.11; 1 0.067 1 1 !1 LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSJ 49.7! 7.9.4)1 -l.3 I 0.085 1 :II NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 49.0( 8.8)1 7.0 i 111.080 II ELMORE RANCH 1 49.3;. 'i9.3)1 6.6 1 0.058 VT ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 51-6: 3-1.1". 6.6 1 0.062 SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jac-into) I ( 96.7)1 6.06 1 0.054 1 vi SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jac-into)l 541.7( 88.1)1 6.6 1 0.054 1 vi HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 56-5( 91.0)i 7.1 1 0.068 1 vi SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 58.41,;1 9-1.0)1 6.7 0.054 ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 61 9 8 . 1 6.3 0 . 0 C 1z vi CLEGHORN I 65.771 1, 0 5 R 6.= 0.099 VI v IMPERIAL I 6 9 . 0 11 ";1 i 0.055 LAGUNA SAL D` -7 1 0 .054 i V I CUCAMONGA 77 0-064 ;T CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 73.9 118' 9 6.,-' 1 0.055 1 vi NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 75 . 5 122.0): 6.9 0.049 1 vi ROSE CANYON i 75.9f 1,2.1;; 0.0A9 WHITTIER 1 -73.0: ,s 6.6 0.045 +Lq ANDREAS - Mojave 1 1 SAN ANIDFE.:'-.: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1, '. DETER-]T -NI STIC SITE : I ERS ----------------------------- Page 2 THE SAN ANDREAS - Coachella- FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.7 M7TES (9.1 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-E-,,R'rPQUA.KE SITE ^.CCELERATION: 0.4237 g i ESTIMATED T H Q ri A. i APPROXIMATE ------------------------------- ABBR'L:%,'*7.'.TE-D I STAN DISTANCE tCE 1 .1 E.' -.K FAULT NAME 1EARTHQUAKE! SITE IINTIEN ST'�y — i MAG. (Mw) 1 ACCEL. g I MOD.!,-lER-C. GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 88.0( 141.7); 6.9 1 0.043 1 vi SIERRA MADRE 1 88.0( 141.711 7.0 1 '.056 1 Vi. ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 90. 3( 145. 1 6.7 --,4 7 V T CORONADO BANK. i 91.1( 1�6.6)1 7.4 1 V--r NEWPORT-INGLEWOCD ;L.A.Basin) i 94.2(-151.6)! 6.9 'j.oAJ CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT, i 96.6( 155.5)l 6.5 'x.040 I v COMPTON THRUST 96.9( 156.01)! 6.8 I 1.097 1 V7 PALOS VERDES 99-2( 159.-,.; 7.1 :1 '-.044 1 iI LACKWATER 100.0( 160.7 6.9 1 x.039 1 V -END OF SEARCH- -19 FAULTS FOU:-!C. WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE SAN ANDREAS - Coachella- FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.7 M7TES (9.1 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-E-,,R'rPQUA.KE SITE ^.CCELERATION: 0.4237 g 1100 1000 •m :rte ullmi 500 400 co• 200 100 0 -100 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Target Store - La Quinta Il / La Quinta SITE o � i -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Pi STRIKE -SLIP FAULTS 5) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. - SOIL (31.0) n C - W U U I 1 .1 .01 .001 M =5 M =6 M =7 M =8 1 10 100 Distance (adist] (km) DIP -SLIP FAULTS 5) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. - SOIL (-'3 10) 1 U U Q .01 .001 M =5 M =6 M =7 M =8 1 10 100 Distance (adistl (km) o .1 ca a� U U Q .01 .001 M =5 M =6 M =7 M =8 1 10 100 Distance (adistl (km) c BLIND - THRUST FAULTS S) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. - SOIL (3 l 0) 1 0 1 4--1 c� aD a� U U Q .01 .001 M =5 M =6 M =7 M =8 1 10 100 Distance [adist] (km) It MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES Target Store - La Quinta 11 / La Quinta 1 .01 .001 1 1 10 100 Distance (mi) o .1 r� a� W U U Q .01 .001 1 1 10 100 Distance (mi) EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES & DISTANCES 7.75 7.50 7.25 a� 7.00 c� 6.75 6.50 Target Store - La Quinta 1I / La Quinta 1 1 10 100 Distance (mi) | \ \ \ \ ! / / / / \ � \ ! \ \ | \ \ ( ! | > { � \ � \ \ / I ` � --=�_ ' AREA= ACRES== /�� L� A,° ''^^',_ /7�O� � w'= /l�/7D� � ^''"= TIME OF CONCENTRATION= FL/lN/ LENGTH= /lkic7� FLOW `',^-'` ' '_`,,, D"`E`~''`^',-_ �7/lN/ /��T7�== FLOW PATH- AREA AREA U Orld 0-3,2006 Edition Lt L-,-6N-- U VE, 30 T531 R 7 l u