The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeotechnical Investigation 10/31/2002 VW% 4% CounIllos t 1 tiwat � - S•� � ta si• iirk. - .4%•'* 's Iii 0 I a ii i:It ii: :::114 \wo- SW 10 * StrOitt *tin % IS e°00 _--. 4 °As site clot* ifill ume: ass IP_......WIP _suss i:::: : ':: ;: II • its tessser.:. oiaws. : : :, :::..:: „ *, 40100,-!:HoHilH:. OW” ..„„tia . ..::••:,.:;::::HE:•HH..-t•19:.•,•:,:a•.•-:..:,t:„::;!...•.::::.*: .:*t..:;t:.,: 75! ::: „.••••••00.0...::::::::::::H:HL:h: 211s.,,:,•.t.. .t.,„..c .400A: ifiggi-anta: • •••••••*:HHHi::: • • •• • • •,<T-riHH:HH:*::::.4 .:7-swifitta..."7- 00 Ns, 4 44 ■:.:::::::.::::::::1:::.:t: ::*.......-----::::::•• • :::::::::::::HH::•,...•• •ripmettit takc::::::T:„.......,„ ••:•:•• 4r-- „......:;_c----. -00-mas :.:- .0...". ..modistyir.Apriais: *•...46-: Vii .♦ : H :.!7;::;:0::it:: ::iiis.: :1,4 ® �� '`sem ®® kr, qtV e°F COUNTY OF RIVERS DE ,5 Es. ' • a rV O j O y • ' t • TRANSPORTATION AND ;? ; a LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY er=® " ' E. ONAntl LAND fl" + DE4 3. Richard K. Lashbrook Planning Department Ron Goldman Agency Director Interim Planning Director March 3, 2003 Pages 4 (including cover) Petra Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (909) 600-9215 Attention: Stephen Jensen RE: Conditions of Approval County Geologic Report No. 1127 (Geotechnical Investigation) Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, Located Southeast of Apis Road and State Highway 79 South, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California Please see the attached comments pertaining to the subject report. Please call me at (909) 955-3211 or David Jones at (909) 955-6863 if you have any questions. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ron Goldman, Interim Planning Director Wayne A. ssion, Chief Engineering Geologist RG 6916, CHG 671, CEG 2168 Attachments: Conditions of Approval cc: Applicant: Mathew Fagan, Fax: (909) 694-4474 Planner: Tracie Wheaton, Riverside Office, Fax: (909) 955-3157 File: GE001127, PP18432 Y:\Geology Team\CGR\geo01127 COA.doc Riverside Office. 4080 Lemon Street,9th Floor Indio Office. 82-675 Hwy 1 1 1,2nd Floor Murrieta Office. 39493 Los Alamos Rd. P.O. Box 1409• Riverside,California 92502-1409 Room 209, Indio,California 92201 Murrieta,California 92563 (909)955-3200 Fax (909)955-3157 (760) 863-8277 • Fax(760) 863-7040 (909)600-6170 • Fax (909) 600-6145 03/03/03 Riverside County LMS Page : 1 13 : 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN:TRANSMITTED Case # : PP18432 Parcel : 960-020-041 10 . GENERAL CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 10 . PLANNING. 1 MAP - LIQUEFACTION REPORT RECOMMND County Geologic Report (GEO) No . 1127 was prepared for this project by Petra and is entitled "Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, Located Southeast of Apis Road and State Highway 79 South, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California" , and dated October 31, 2002 . GEO No . 1127 concluded: 1 . Free groundwater was encountered at 31 . 9 feet below the existing ground surface . The historic high groundwater has been established at approximately 16 feet below the existing ground surface . 2 .No active or potentially active faults are known to project through the site . The subject site does not lie within a Sate of California Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone . 3 .The closest active fault to the site is the Wildomar fault located approximately 2 . 0 kilometers southwest of the site . 4 .The estimated magnitude-weighted peak ground acceleration at the site was determined to be 0 . 55g. 5 .The anticipated maximum liquefaction-induced settlement is 1 . 85 inches . The maximum localized differential settlement across the building may be assumed to be 1 . 2 inches . 6 . The site is not considered subject to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. 7 .The potentially liquefiable soil layers are overlain with a sufficient amount of non-liquefiable soils to mitigate the surface effects of earthquake-induced liquefaction. GEO No. 1127 recommended: 1 .All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Grading Code of the County of Riverside, in addition to the provisions of the 1997 UBC . 03/03/03 Riverside County LMS Page : 2 13 : 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN:TRANSMITTED Case # : PP18432 Parcel : 960-020-041 10 . GENERAL CONDITIONS 10 . PLANNING. 1 MAP - LIQUEFACTION REPORT (cont . ) RECOMMND 2 .Grading should also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Standard Grading Specifications prepared by Petra for GEO No . 1127 . GEO No . 1127 satisfies the requirement for a liquefaction study in accordance with the General Plan. Final Planning Department approval of GEO No. 1127 is hereby granted. An environmental constraints sheet (ECS) shall be prepared for this project as further described elsewhere in this conditions set . The ECS shall indicate the area of the project site that is subject to the potential hazard of liquefaction. 03/03/03 Riverside County LMS Page : 1 13 : 12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN:TRANSMITTED Case # : PP18432 Parcel : 960-020-041 50 . PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT 50 . PLANNING. 1 MAP - ECS LIQUEFACTION RECOMMND An environmental constraints sheet (ECS) shall be prepared for this project . The ECS shall indicate the area of the project site that is subject to the potential hazard of liquefaction. In addition, a note shall be placed on the ECS as follows : "This site, as delineated on this ECS map and as indicated in County Geologic Report (GEO) No. 1127 , is subject to the potential hazard of liquefaction. Therefore, mitigation of this hazard, in the form of remedial grading and structural design improvements, is required prior to placement of settlement sensitive structures on this site. " I-,, y P y• j { r (( \ 4t5k. � �, t� t W l 1 . fi { / S 4 4 iY S .i i t t .r t t il � C'£O▪ #FCHNICAL INVEST/CATION I PROPOSFD?COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT' • LOCATED$OtrTHEAS,T'OF APISrROAD,<A-•;-N.,---D1 AND rTEHIGHWAY79 SOUTH, TEMECIJLAAREA RIVERSIDECOUNTY, CALIFORNIA ' s. - - r t Y'.. P 4 1 4 4 t D ▪ ° T. t 5 r At .'1 Y . IE 1' YF 1 g�sJ lv > - "� ✓ i �/ �}; imp ,, PRICELEGAC17K- O )7140 Bernardo Cenfer Drove Sq�1er300 San pregot Calrlornia 91128 ...,.:.,.,..,,,7,..,.,. ,...,. .....,,......... . . .. ., .„ . „ . . . .,.. „. ,fr . ,. ,. . ... .. ... ,.,„ I Ull �J> y t E ^ ,?:.„,..:„)...,,...„,.„.?„,„„,:, .,.. ..z: ..., .., . a • ,_.. ._,....„„ ! " ',` r t ,.-- • October 3.Y 1 N 376-02` I 0 cit'.;!i-i.---.:-,-k:-Tri-±.±...i5,:,-.::!-' 2„,:;&...ir:;24;--,-;',',-t-,?z'.-F•51, --..f....4.'..-:' ,-,-,-. V. ::?:1,4•:::"E;t.er,-;, :„,..y:A:;',;Y:,,..--,--.;,,.:7H5;1„,,:.;::::::,...-.:4•-_,..:,,,,2,,,:i3;;;;;;. " k h _ t t t r ii "4 1 y F ; r ,"'..Th aY , J'--"x11;. st 1 -_t?, 1 • i 4 L 3 4 • x g.'. n !J Y▪ - 4 i3, > �- s ' l ' r i y 1 y P S'• 1tt5 f S 't 'i' y 4 .4r ' �. S 1 t �.,,,i 5 J JM t 1+ .. 4 Ci ) M{S ar1 f ♦ l • 'Y � hr zc ✓ Y .Vr J I2 'MZ1 ▪ k >i r ' c.T E • " t 'fi " —t a sr r ;' " k • 1 ' i .a 4 ;:;u 4i xcr: t 1 ::` o t r ;.-Srx , yv fLRr2 , • V:I�r * : s ,^ s ,x Y1 ,Y, qtY *t PETRA OFFICES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA October 31, 2002 J.N. 376-02 PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92128 Attention: Ms. Susan Wilson Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, Located Southeast of Apis Road and State Highway 79 South, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California Petra Geotechnical, Inc. is pleased to submit herewith our geotechnical investigation report for a proposed commercial development located in the Temecula area of Riverside County, California. This work was performed in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our Proposal No. 1464-02 dated September 27, 2002. This report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing and our engineering judgement, opinions, conclusions and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical design aspects of the proposed commercial development. It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • Gra y5on R. Walker Senior Associate Engineer LAB/CB/GRW/SWJ/keb Distribution: (6) Addressee • PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 41640 Corning Place • Suite 107 • Murrieta • CA 92562 • Tel: (909) 600-9271 • Fax: (909) 600-9215 PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Pagei TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page • INTRODUCTION 1 Location and Site Description 1 Proposed Development/Grading 7 Background Information 2 Purpose and Scope of Services 3 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4 Aerial-Photograph Analysis 4 Field Exploration 4 Laboratory Testing 5 FINDINGS 6 Regional Geologic Setting 6 Local Geology and Soil Conditions 7 Groundwater 7 Faulting 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 General 8 Site-Specific Liquefaction Analysis 9 Earthwork 12 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 12 Clearing and Grubbing 13 Excavation Characteristics 13 Groundwater 13 Processing of Existing Ground 14 Temporary Backcuts 15 Fill Placement 15 Import Soils for Grading 16 Shrinkage and Subsidence 16 Geotechnical Observations 17 Post-Grading Considerations 17 Utility Trenches 17 Site Drainage 18 Foundation-Design Recommendations 18 General 18 Allowable Soil-Bearing Capacities 20 • PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial DvIp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Static Settlement 21 Lateral Resistance 21 Footing Observations 21 Seismic-Design Considerations 22 Ground Motions 22 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity 23 Soil Corrosivity 24 Retaining Walls 25 Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures 25 Drainage 25 Wall Backfill 26 • Concrete Flatwork 26 Preliminary Pavement Design 27 Planter Areas 28 GRADING-PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 28 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS 29 L. Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map References Appendices Appendix A - Logs of Borings/Logs of Test Pits Appendix B - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data Appendix C - Seismic Analysis • Appendix D - Liquefaction Analysis Appendix E - Standard Grading Specifications GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF APIS ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) is pleased to submit herewith the results of our geotechnical investigation for a proposed commercial development in the Temecula area of Riverside County, California. The purposes of this investigation were to determine the nature of subsurface-soil conditions, evaluate their in-place characteristics and then provide geotechnical recommendations with respect to site grading and for design and construction of building foundations. This investigation also included a review of published and unpublished literature, as well as geotechnical maps with respect to active and potentially active faults that lie in proximity to the site and which may have an impact on the proposed construction. Location and Site Description The proposed commercial site encompasses 12.2 acres and is located southeast of the intersection of Apis Road and Highway 79 South in the Temecula Area of Riverside County, California. The site is bordered on the south by Wolf Store Road, on the west by Apis Road, on the north by Highway 79 South and on the east by a vacant parcel and an Indian burial area. An Ultramar gas station, car wash and automotive service center border the site on the northwest. The general location of the site is shown on Figure 1. The subject site is elevated approximately 4 to 6 feet above the surrounding roadways. The topography slopes gently to the southwest at a gradient of approximately 2 percent. Several graded ditches traverse the site that direct surface runoff to the southwest. Associated with the ditches are 2- to 3-foot high fill berms. At the time of our investigation the site was covered with a sparse to moderate growth of shrubs with 5- to 6-foot high riparian vegetation observed within the drainage ditches. Trash piles, PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 • Page 2 a trailer and a truck were observed in the northeastern portion of the site. Based on data extrapolated from the USGS Pechanga Quadrangle map, the site lies at an elevation of approximately 1,085 feet above mean sea level with approximately 6 feet of relief across the site. Proposed Development/Grading Based on an unsealed site map provided by the client, the development will consist of two 5,600- to 6,000-square-foot commercial buildings along Highway 79 South and an anchor building with four shops (4,800, 19,400, 25,000 and 30,000 square feet) within the south-central portion of the site. Parking lots are planned throughout the remainder of the site. The foundation systems of the proposed structures are not known at this time. However, based on our experience with similar commercial developments in the vicinity of the site, it is anticipated that the buildings will consist of either single-story masonry structures with interior columns founded on conventional shallow foundations or conventional wood-frame and stucco construction. • The original site location map provided by the client indicated that the property extended eastward and south of the Indian burial area. However, the most recent site plan received from the client indicates that the eastern boundary of the site is aligned with the western boundary of the Indian burial area. Therefore, in an effort to provide coverage throughout the entire site, Test Pit TP-5 was excavated south of the Indian burial area. BackEround Information The site was originally graded in 1994 via an assessment district established for the improvement of Temecula Creek. Observation and testing of the grading were provided by GeoCon Incorporated (GeoCon) and Geotechnical and Environmental • PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 3 Engineers Incorporated. Up to 7 feet of compacted fill was observed in our exploratory borings and test-pits. During grading GeoCon encountered soft silts along Temecula Creek, immediately south and southwest of the subject site. Settlement monuments were placed within this area, however, no settlement data was available for our review at the time of our investigation. A settlement monument was also installed in the north-central portion of the site to monitor settlement of the fill placed over alluvium. Purpose and Scope of Services The purposes of this study were to obtain information on the subsurface conditions within the project area, evaluate the data and then provide conclusions and recommendations for site grading and for design and construction of the proposed • structures, as influenced by the subsurface conditions. The scope of our investigation consisted of the following. • Review of available published and unpublished data concerning geologic and soil conditions within, as well as adjacent to the site that could have an impact on the proposed development. This included review of data acquired by other engineering firms for adjacent properties (see References). • A stereoscopic aerial-photograph review for the years 1962 to 2000. • Conducting an initial site reconnaissance and mapping of site conditions. • Excavation of ten exploratory test pits to observe and evaluate the fill previously placed on the site, well as to observe the conditions at the fill/native soil contact. Approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2 and descriptive logs are presented in Appendix A. • Drilling, logging and selective sampling of five exploratory borings to depths of up to 51.5 feet. Approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2 and descriptive • logs are presented in Appendix A. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 4 • Laboratory testing and analysis of representative samples of soil (bulk and undisturbed) obtained from the exploratory test pits and borings to determine their engineering properties. Laboratory test criteria and test results are presented in Appendix B. • Preparation of the enclosed geotechnical map (Figure 2). • • Engineering and geologic analysis of the data with respect to the proposed development. • An evaluation of faulting and seismicity of the region as it pertains to the site. • Performing a site-specific liquefaction analysis. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations for the proposed development. INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Aerial-Photograph Analysis Sequential stereo-aerial photographs covering the site area were reviewed and analyzed by Petra for the years 1962 to 2000. These photographs, obtained from Riverside County Flood Control, are at scales ranging from 1 inch equals 1,600 feet to 1 inch equals 2,000 feet. Field Exploration Subsurface exploration was performed on October 11 and 13, 2002, and involved the • excavation of ten exploratory test pits to depths of 2.5 to 7.5 feet utilizing a Case 55 backhoe equipped with an extend-a-hoe. Five exploratory borings were also drilled to depths ranging from 21.5 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface with a hollow-stem auger drill rig. Prior to subsurface work, an underground utilities clearance was obtained from Underground Service Alert of Southern Califomia. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 5 Earth materials encountered within the exploratory test pits and borings were classified and logged in accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System. The approximate locations of the exploratory test pits and borings are shown on the enclosed geotechnical map (Figure 2) and descriptive logs are presented in Appendix A. Associated with the subsurface exploration was the collection of bulk (disturbed) samples and relatively undisturbed samples of soil from the hollow-stem auger borings for laboratory testing. Undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch outside diameter modified California split-spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. The soil • sampler was driven with successive 30-inch drops of a pneumatically-operated, 140- • pound automatic trip hammer. The central portions of the driven-core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing. The number ( of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler 12 inches was recorded in the boring logs. Standard Penetration tests were also performed within saturated materials in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Procedure D1586. This method consisted of driving an unlined standard split-barrel sampler 18 inches into the soil with successive 30-inch drops of the 140-pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts were recorded for each 6-inch driving increment; however, the number of blows required to drive the standard penetrometer sampler for • the last 12 of the 18 inches was identified as the standard penetration resistance, or N- count, and recorded in the boring logs. Disturbed soil samples from the unlined standard split-barrel sampler were placed in plastic bulk bags and transported to our laboratory for testing. Laboratory Testing Expansion potential, grain-size analysis, pH, chloride content, soluble-sulfate content, remolded shear strength and consolidation tests were performed on selected disturbed t PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 6 (bulk) and/or undisturbed samples of soil, considered representative of those encountered. In-situ moisture content and unit dry density were also determined for the undisturbed core samples. A brief description of laboratory test criteria and summaries of the test data are presented in Appendix B. In-situ moisture content and dry unit weight are included in the exploration logs in Appendix A. An evaluation of the test data is reflected throughout the Conclusions and Recommendations Section of this report. • FINDINGS Regional Geologic Setting • The site is located within the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Range Province is characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend west to northwest. Specifically, the property is located east of the Elsinore Trough, a fault-controlled, down-dropped graben which borders the Santa Ana Mountains on the northeast and the Penis Block on the southwest. The Elsinore Trough is bounded on the northeast by the Wildomar fault and on the southwest by the Willard fault. These faults are part of the Elsinore fault zone which extends from the San Gabriel River Valley to the United States/Republic of Mexico border. The Wildomar fault is • considered active and the Willard fault is considered potentially active (Jennings, 1994). The 1962 photos revealed agricultural operations north of the Indian burial area and the natural flood plain of the Temecula Creek to the south. Site conditions remained relatively unchanged until 1995 when photos indicated the site had been graded to its present configuration. Surrounding development(Ultramar gas station, Apis and Wolf Store Roads) were constructed between 1995 and 2000. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 7 Local Geology and Soil Conditions The earth materials encountered in the exploratory borings and test pits consisted of artificial fill and Quaternary alluvium. Detailed descriptions of the soil units are provided in the boring and test-pit logs (Appendix A); however, a general description of the soil conditions is provided below. • • Artificial Fill, Compacted (map symbol: Afc) —Fill materials were encountered across the site. The depths of compacted fill were noted to range from •• approximately 2.5 to 7.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The fill materials are generally comprised of dark grey to black and olive-brown well-graded sand and silty sand with occasional thin, dark grey silt layers. Soil in the upper 1 to 2 feet was generally dry and loose to medium dense. The deposits below 2 feet were • typically observed to be damp to moist and dense to locally very dense. Fill comprising the berms along the drainage ditches was dry and loose and did not appear to have received compactive effort during placement. '`•• • Quaternary Alluvium (Oaf)—Quaternary alluvial deposits underlie the entire site and exist to a depth greater than 51.5 feet as observed in Boring B-3 (deepest boring). The alluvial deposits are comprised predominately of light brown to grey well-graded and poorly graded sand, light brown silty sand and silt interbeds. In general, the alluvial deposits were found to be loose to medium dense. Groundwater • Free groundwater was encountered in Boring B-3 at 31.9 feet below the existing ground surface. Historically, the groundwater table in the vicinity of the subject site has been higher than it now exists. However, groundwater has been lowered due to the removal of percolation ponds which were located immediately north of Highway 79 South and due to the channel improvements along Temecula Creek which lowered the channel approximately 14 feet. Therefore, based on prior investigations and studies by Petra and other consultants (see References), the historic high groundwater level has been established at approximately 16 feet below the existing ground surface. t • PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 8 Faulting The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. Faults, such as the • Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas, are major faults in this system and all are known to be active. In addition, the San Andreas, Elsinore and San Jacinto faults are known to have ruptured the ground surface in historic times. Based on our review of published and unpublished geotechnical maps and literature, no active or potentially active faults are known to project through the site. Furthermore, the subject site does not lie within a State of California Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (formerly called an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). . Geologic literature indicate the closest active fault to the site is the Wildomar fault which is located within the Temecula area of the Elsinore fault zone, approximately 2.0 kilometers southwest of the site. The Wildomar fault is the most significant fault with respect to anticipated ground motions due to its proximity to the site. This fault has been determined to be active (within the last 10,000 years) and capable of producing a large magnitude earthquake. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General From a soils engineering and engineering geologic point of view, the subject property is considered suitable for the proposed development provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and project specifications. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial DvIp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 9 Site-Specific Liquefaction Analysis For the purposes of evaluating the potential for liquefaction of the alluvial deposits existing within the site, a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis was first performed to determine anticipated peak ground accelerations using the computer program "FRISKSP" (see References). This program was originally developed by the United States Geological Society and later upgraded by Blake (2000). The earthquake magnitudes used in this program are based upon the current California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Model. This method of analysis evaluates the probability of experiencing different ground accelerations within the site over a period of time and • the probability of exceeding expected ground accelerations within the lifetime of the proposed structures. In evaluating liquefaction potential, the California Division of Mines and Geology and the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) have adopted the standard of using a peak • ground acceleration that has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (which is roughly equivalent to the design life of an average development). Therefore, our liquefaction analysis was performed using this probabilistic method and on an attenuation relationship for deep alluvial soils published by Bozorgnia, et al. (see Blake, 2000). In addition, in order to account for the difference in duration of various earthquake magnitudes, magnitude weighting with respect to a magnitude 7.5 earthquake was performed using a magnitude weighting factor recommended by Idriss (see References). The estimated magnitude-weighted peak ground acceleration at the site, based on a 10 percent probability being exceeded in 50 years, was determined to be 0.55g. A liquefaction analysis was performed for the soil conditions observed in Boring B-3. The computer program "LIQUEFY2" (Version 1.50) developed by Blake (see References) was used for the liquefaction analysis. The analysis is based on the t PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial DvIp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 • Page 10 NCEER procedure (Youd and Idriss; 1997) using a magnitude-weighted peak ground acceleration of 0.55g as determined by our probabilistic seismic analysis. Since the peak ground acceleration was weighted based on an earthquake magnitude of 7.5, this same earthquake magnitude was used in the liquefaction analysis. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 31.9 feet below the existing ground surface in Boring B-3. However, prior studies have established that the historic high groundwater level has been as shallow as 16 feet. Therefore, a groundwater level depth of 16 feet below existing grade was utilized in the liquefaction analysis. The results of the liquefaction analysis for Boring B-3 for existing soil conditions • indicate potentially liquefiable soil layers exist at depth intervals of approximately 25.5 to 36 feet and 47 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Printouts of the liquefaction analysis generated by LIQUEFY2 for Boring B-3 are presented in Appendix D. Liquefaction-related hazards include ground subsidence, lateral spreading and manifestation of liquefaction at the ground surface. Each of these potential hazards are discussed below. • Liquefaction-Induced Settlement (Subsidence) — The following evaluation of maximum seismic-induced settlement due to liquefaction is based on empirical procedures developed by Tokimatsu and Seed (see References). The estimated settlement is based on the relationship between cyclic stress ratio and standardized N-values and volumetric strain for saturated sand. Based on our liquefaction analysis, potentially liquefiable soil layers were identified in Boring B-3 at depth intervals of 25.5 to 36 feet and 47 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. At the noted depth intervals, the cyclic stress ratios (Sr) and corrected (Nl)60 blow counts from LIQUEFY2 (Appendix D) resulted in the following values. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 11 - Soil layer @ 25.5 to 36 feet: Sr= 0.432 and (N1)60 = 28.4 - Soil layer @ 47 to 51.5 feet: Sr= 0.422 and (N1)60 = 27.0 Based on a chart by Tokimatsu and Seed showing a proposed relationship between cyclic stress ratio (Sr), corrected blow counts [(N1)60] and volumetric strain for saturated sand (%), the volumetric strains for the above potentially liquefiable layers have been estimated at 1.0 and 1.1 percent, respectively. According to Tokimatsu and Seed, the estimated liquefaction-induced settlement can be taken as approximately equal to (1/100)(volumetric strain - %)(thickness of liquefiable layer). Therefore, the estimated maximum liquefaction-induced settlement(S) that could occur within the site is as follows. - Soil layer @ 25.5 to 36 feet: S = (1/100)(1.0)(10.5)(12) = 1.26 in. - Soil layer @ 47 to 51.5 feet S = (1/100)(1.1)(4.5)(12) = 0.59 in. Total = 1.85 in. In summary, it is expected that the maximum liquefaction-induced settlement that may occur within the site will be approximately 1.85 inches for a worst-case condition. As stated in CDMG Special Publication 117 (Weber, 1997), the empirical procedures developed by Tokimatsu and Seed for relatively clean, sandy soils have been found to provide reasonably reliable settlement estimates for sites not prone to significant lateral spreading. On the other hand, it is very difficult to reliably estimate the amount of localized differential settlement likely to occur as part of the overall predicted settlement. However, localized differential settlements on the order of two-thirds of the total estimated settlement could be assumed for a worst-case condition. Therefore, based on an anticipated maximum liquefaction- induced settlement of 1.85 inches, maximum localized differential settlement across the building due to liquefaction may be assumed to be equal to approximately 1.2 inches. Assuming the differential settlement occurs within a horizontal distance of 30± feet, the maximum estimated liquefaction-induced differential settlement expressed in terms of angular distortion is approximately 1:360 for a worst-case condition. • Lateral Spreading—The potential for liquefaction-induced lateral spreading was evaluated using the soil data for Boring B-3 and on studies by Bartlett and Youd (see References) for a free-face site condition due to the existence of the nearby drainage channel. The liquefaction analysis presented in Appendix D for the boring resulted in corrected standard penetration test (N1)G0 blow counts of 27.0 and 28.4 for the potentially liquefiable soil layers. - v PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 12 According to Bartlett and Youd, the potential of lateral-ground displacement on liquefiable sites located in proximity to a "free-face" (such as the nearby drainage • channel) is strongly correlated with the distance of the site from the "free-face." Other factors affecting the potential for lateral-ground displacement include the earthquake magnitude, distance from the earthquake epicenter, thickness of the liquefiable soil layers, average grain size and fines content of the liquefiable soils and corrected standard penetration test (N1)60 blow counts. Bartlett and Youd • further indicate that in order for the site to be susceptible to lateral spreading, each of the above factors must lie within a specific range. With the exception of(N1)60 values, all other factors generally fall within a range that suggest a potential for lateral spreading. However, Bartlett and Youd have concluded that lateral spreading is restricted to sediments having (N1)G0 values of between 1 and 15 and that sediments with (N1)60 values greater than 15 are resistant to lateral • displacement for a moment magnitude Mw of less than 8.0. Therefore, since our liquefaction analysis of the site resulted in (N1)60 values greater than 15 for the potentially liquefiable soil layers identified in Boring B-3, the site is not considered subject to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. • Evaluation of Liquefaction-Induced Ground Fissures, Sand Boils or Foundation- Bearing Failure—Manifestation of liquefaction at the surface and the potential for development of ground fissures or sand boils or a foundation-bearing failure were evaluated on the basis of studies by K. Ishihara (see References). Ishihara developed a chart showing the thickness of a non-liquefiable surface layer (e.g., dense compacted fill) required to mitigate the surface effects of earthquake-induced • liquefaction. The thickness of the surface layer necessary to prevent manifestation of liquefaction at the surface is dependent on the thickness of the underlying liquefiable soil layers and maximum horizontal acceleration. The potentially liquefiable soil layers identified in Boring B-3 are overlain with 25.5 feet on non-liquefiable soils. Therefore, based on studies by Ishihara, the • potentially liquefiable soil layers are overlain with a sufficient amount of non- liquefiable soils to mitigate the surface effects of earthquake-induced liquefaction. Earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Grading Code of the County of Riverside, in addition to the • \/ PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial DvIp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 13 provisions of the 1997 UBC, Appendix Chapter A33. Grading should also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the attached Standard Grading Specifications (Appendix E) prepared by Petra, unless specifically revised or amended herein. Clearing and Grubbing Prior to grading, all significant weeds, grasses and shrubs should be stripped and removed from the site. Clearing operations should also include the removal of all trash and construction debris, as well as abandoned vehicles and trailers. The project geotechnical consultant should be notified at the appropriate times to provide observation and testing services during clearing operations to verify compliance with the above recommendations. In addition, should any buried structures or unusual or adverse soil conditions be encountered during grading that are not described or anticipated, herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the geotechnical consultant. Excavation Characteristics Based on the results of our exploratory borings, onsite soils will be readily excavatable with conventional earthmoving equipment. Occasional oversized rock greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension was observed within the existing fill materials in isolated areas. Therefore, any oversized materials encountered during grading should be stockpiled and then removed from the site. • Groundwater Free groundwater was encountered in Boring B-3 at a depth of approximately 31.9 feet • below existing grade. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to be a factor during grading or construction. • PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 14 Processing of Existing Ground • Anchor Store Building—A compacted-fill mat extending from finish grade to a depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the deepest footing is recommended below the proposed main anchor building comprising four shops. The soils used for construction of the compacted-fill mat should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on ASTM Test Method Dl557. To accommodate the compacted-fill mat, existing grades should be overexcavated to a depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the deepest footing and the soils replaced at 95 percent minimum relative compaction. Overexcavation of existing grades should also extend to a minimum horizontal distance of 15± feet beyond the perimeter footings. Prior to placing structural fill, the exposed overexcavated surfaces should first be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, watered as necessary to achieve a moisture content that is 2± percent above optimum moisture content and the soils then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. • Compacted-fill deposits presently exist below the building site to a depth of approximately 7 feet, as observed in Borings B-3, B-4 and B-5. However, a minimum overexcavation depth of 6 to 8 feet below proposed finish grade should be performed in this area to assure that fill materials within 5 feet of the bottoms of the building footings are compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. • Smaller Buildings -- The building sites for the two smaller commercial buildings are presently underlain with compacted-fill deposits extending to a depth of approximately 7 feet as observed in Borings B-1 and B-2. The existing fill materials underlying the building site have been compacted to minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Overexcavation of the existing fill materials and replacement at a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent will not be required as recommended for the anchor building; however, the existing ground surfaces should be overexcavated to a depth of 1 to 2 feet to remove and recompact existing loose surface soils. • • Drainage Ditches—The existing drainage ditches within the site locally extend to depths of approximately 2 to 4 feet below the surrounding grade. Therefore, minimum overexcavation depths of 2 to 4 feet are tentatively recommended along • the drainage ditches to remove loose surface soils. However, depending on subsurface conditions exposed along the ditches, deeper removals may be required. Fill materials placed within the ditches that are located below the recommended compacted-fill mat for the anchor building may be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Prior to placing fill, the exposed overexcavated PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 15 surfaces should first be scarified and watered in a similar manner as recommended • above and then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. • Parking-Lot Areas -- Loose surface soils that presently exist in parking-lot areas should be overexcavated and the soils recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Removals should extend to underlying soils exhibiting an in-place relative compaction of 90 percent or greater. Based on test-pit data, removals on the order of approximately 1 to 2 feet are anticipated. Temporary Backcuts During overexcavation of existing grades, temporary excavations should not exceed a ratio of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) to mitigate potential distress, settlement or movement of existing road improvements and/or other nearby structures. As removals are performed, the project geotechnical consultant should observe the temporary excavations for any evidence of potential instability. Depending on these observations, flatter temporary backcut slopes may be necessary. Fill Placement All fill should be placed in 6- to 8-inch thick maximum lifts, watered as necessary to achieve a moisture content that is 2± percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of either 90 percent or 95 percent in accordance with the following guidelines. Fills extending from finish grade to a depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the deepest footing within the area of the main anchor building pad should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. Fills placed at depths greater than 5 feet below the bottom of the deepest footing within the anchor building pad and within • areas outside the building pad, including the two smaller buildings, should be compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The laboratory • PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 • Page 16 maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Import Soils for Grading If import soils are required to achieve final-design grades, any import materials should consist of clean soils that are free of deleterious materials and rock exceeding a maximum dimension of 6 inches, as well as exhibit non-expansive properties. All prospective import should be observed, tested and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to being brought onsite. Shrinkage and Subsidence Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite soils are replaced as properly compacted fill. Accordingly, it is estimated that a shrinkage factor of 3 to 8 percent will occur when existing fill soils are excavated and recompacted to the minimum relative compactions specified herein. This estimate is based on in-place densities of the fill materials and on the estimated average degree of • relative compaction achieved during grading. Subsidence from scarification and recompaction of exposed bottom surfaces in • removal areas to receive fill is expected to be on the order of approximately 0.05 to 0.15 foot. The above estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and subsidence that occur during the grading operations. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 17 Geotechnical Observations • An observation of clearing operations, overexcavation of existing grades and general grading procedures should be provided by the project geotechnical consultant. Fills should not be placed without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant. The project geotechnical consultant or his representative should be present onsite during grading operations to verify proper placement and adequate compaction of fill, as well as to verify compliance with the other recommendations presented herein. Post-Grading Considerations Utility Trenches All utility-trench backfill within street right-of-ways, utility easements, under sidewalks, driveways and building-floor slabs should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Where onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. Density testing, along with probing, should i.. be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify adequate compaction. For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately 1- to 2-foot thick maximum lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydra-hammer, pneumatic tampers or similar equipment that can achieve the required compaction. For • deep trenches with sloped-walls, backfill materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12-inch thick maximum lifts and then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment. As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment, such as under building-floor slabs, onsite soils or imported clean sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 18 observation, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that imported sand backfill materials are adequately compacted and will not be subject to adverse settlement. Where a utility trench is proposed in a direction that parallels a building footing (interior and/or exterior trench), the bottom of the trench should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Site Drainage Positive-drainage devices such as sloping sidewalks, graded-swales and/or area drains should be provided around the building to collect and direct all water away from the • structures. Neither rain nor excess irrigation water should be allowed to collect or pond against building foundations. All drainage should be directed to adjacent driveways, streets or storm-drain facilities. Foundation-Design Recommendations General The results of our preliminary laboratory test indicate onsite soils exhibit a VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18-I-B. Since the soils exhibit an expansion index less than 20, the design and construction of slab-on-ground foundations are exempt from the design for expansive soil conditions, as indicated in 1997 UBC Section 1806.2. However, it is recommended that expansive soil conditions be re-evaluated during and at the completion of rough grading to verify the anticipated condition. The design and construction details presented below may be considered for conventional footings and floor slabs underlain with non-expansive foundation soils. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 • Page 19 • However, these details are subject to possible modification depending on actual as- graded soil conditions. Furthermore, it should be noted that additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than the minimum recommendations that follow should be provided as recommended by the project architect or structural engineer. • Standard footing dimensions, width and depth, may be used as indicated in 1997 UBC Table 18-I-C with respect to the planned construction. • All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 5 bars, • two top and two bottom, to mitigate distress related to the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement and static settlement of the underlying alluvial deposits. • Interior-pad footings supporting steel columns should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final-pad grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 5 bars spaced 18 inches on center, both ways, near the bottom one-third of the footings. • Exterior isolated-pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs should also be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final-pad grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 5 bars spaced 18 inches on center, both ways, near the bottom one-third of the footings. • • Concrete-floor slabs should have a minimum actual thickness of 5 inches and reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches on center, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid-depth. In areas of high loading, such as concentrated storage racks, consideration should be given to increasing the slab thickness to 6 inches. • Where floor slabs are to be subjected to traffic loading, such as forklifts, especially those with hard rubber wheels, the performance of the floor slab is critical with respect to movements between adjacent slab areas and spalling of joints. Proper design and construction to provide shear transfer between adjacent slab units and • proper joint details is critical to provide proper service of these floors. The project structural engineer should be consulted regarding the design of the slab thickness, reinforcing and joint design spacing and details for these slab areas. Proper control t PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 20 of concrete slump and curing to minimize slab "curling" and the resultant voids under the slab is also critical. • • Concrete-floor slabs in areas to receive carpet, tile, or other moisture-sensitive coverings, should be underlain with a moisture-vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane such as 6-mil Visqueen or equivalent. The membrane should be properly lapped, sealed and protected with at least 2 inches of sand. • If floor slabs are constructed before building construction is completed, block-outs should be provided around interior columns to permit relative movement and mitigate possible distress to the floor slabs due to differential settlement that will occur between pad footings and adjacent floor subgrade soils as building loads are applied. • The concrete contractor and underground subcontractors should not place excess soils derived from footing and utility-trench excavations on slab-on-ground areas unless the soils are compacted to at least 90 or 95 percent of maximum dry density in the building area previously specified herein. • Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below slab-on-ground areas should be watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a depth of 12± inches and maintained in the subgrade during concrete placement to • • promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. Allowable Soil-Bearing Capacities An allowable soil-bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot(psf) may be used for 12-inch wide continuous footing and 24-inch square pad footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final-pad grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width and depth, to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Recommended allowable-bearing values include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third when designing for short- duration wind and seismic forces. • Net \/ PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 21 Static Settlement If a compacted-fill mat extending to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the deepest footing is constructed below the proposed buildings, maximum static settlement due to foundation loads and surcharges is estimated to be less than approximately 0.75 inch. This estimate presumes that proposed building-pad grades will be no more than 4 feet higher than existing grades. This estimated static settlement is based on the consolidation tests data presented in Appendix B. The resultant differential settlement has been estimated at approximately one-half the total settlement, or approximately 0.38 inch. Assuming the differential settlement occurs within a horizontal distance of 20±feet,the maximum estimated differential settlement expressed in terms of angular distortion is approximately 1:630 for a worst-case condition. Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf t_. may be used to determine lateral-bearing resistance for building and retaining-wall footings. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 times the dead-load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral-sliding resistance for building and retaining-wall footings. The above values may be increased one-third when designing for short-duration wind and seismic forces. Footing Observations All building-footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent-bearing soils. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 22 All loose, sloughed or moisture-softened soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. Excavated soils from footing and utility excavations should not be placed in slab-on- . ground areas unless the soils are compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. Seismic-Design Considerations Ground Motions - Structures within the site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in 1997 UBC Sections 1626 through 1633. The method of design is dependent on the seismic zoning, site characterizations, occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system and building height. For structural design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, a computer program, • "UBCSEIS" developed by Thomas F. Blake (see References), was used to compile fault information for this particular site using a data file of approximately 183 California faults that were digitized by the California Division of Mines and Geology and the U.S. Geological Survey. This program computes various kinds of information for a particular site, including the distance of the site from each of the faults in the data file, the estimated slip-rate for each fault and the maximum moment magnitude of each fault. The program then selects the Type A, Type B and Type C faults closest to the site and computes the seismic design coefficients for each of the fault types. The program then selects the largest of the computed seismic design coefficients and • designates these as the design coefficients for the subject site. Based on our evaluation of available data, the Wildomar fault segment of the Elsinore fault zone in the Temecula area, located approximately 2 kilometers from the site, • C PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 23 would probably generate the most severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 and an anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. The following 1997 UBC seismic design coefficients should be used for the proposed structures. These criteria are based on the soil profile type as determined by existing subsurface geologic conditions, on the proximity of the Wildomar fault and on the maximum moment magnitude and slip rate. FACTe. OR ;k Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone 4 Table 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.4 Table 16-U Seismic Source Type B Table 16-J Soil Profile Type Sp Table 16-S Near-Source Factor Na 1.3 Table 16-T Near-Source Factor N„ 1.6 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient C, 0.44 Na=0.57 Table 16-R Seismic Coefficient C,, 0.64 N,,= 1.02 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity Secondary effects of seismic activity,normally considered as possible hazards to a site, include several types of ground failure as well as induced flooding. Various general types of ground failures which might occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking at the site include landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow-ground rupture and liquefaction. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, subsoils, groundwater conditions and other factors. Based on data from our subsurface exploration and from previous subsurface explorations performed in this area, with the exception of liquefaction which has been discussed elsewhere in this report, the is PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 24 remaining secondary effects of seismic activity noted above are considered unlikely at the site. Seismically induced flooding which might be considered a potential hazard to a site normally includes flooding due to a tsunamis (seismic sea wave), a seiche(i.e., a wave- like oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed basin that may be initiated by a strong earthquake) or failure of a major reservoir or retention structure upstream of the site. Since the site is located nearly 22 miles inland from the nearest coastline of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation in excess of 1,000 feet above mean sea level, the potential for seismically induced flooding due to a tsunamis run-up is considered nonexistent. Since no enclosed bodies of water lie adjacent to the site, the potential for induced flooding at the site due to a seiche is also considered nonexistent. Soil Corrosivity Laboratory testing was performed on selected samples to determine pH and the i,.; concentrations of soluble chlorides and sulfates to evaluate whether onsite soils will be corrosive to buried steel and/or concrete. The soil sample tested exhibited a pH value of 8.8, which is slightly basic, resistivity of 1,700 ohm-cm, and a soluble- chloride concentration of 62 ppm,which indicate the soils may be corrosive to buried steel in direct contact with soil. The laboratory test results also indicate that the soils tested contain water-soluble sulfate concentrations of 0.05 percent. According to 1997 UBC Table 19-A-4, a 0.05 percent soluble-sulfate concentration could cause a negligible exposure to sulfate where concrete is placed in contact with the onsite soils. Therefore, Type II cement is appropriate for portland cement concrete. The above recommendations are based on a single sample of the soil; however, the initiation of grading at the site could blend various types of onsite earth materials and PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial DvIp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 25 any import soils, altering the chemistry of the foundation materials. Accordingly, it is recommended that additional testing be performed at the completion of grading to verify soil chemistry within the graded-building pads. Retaining Walls Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures An active lateral-earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 35 pounds per . cubic foot (pcf) may be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a drained, level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above value should be increased to 52 pcf. All retaining walls should also be designed to resist any surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or structures in addition to the above active earth pressures. For design of retaining walls that are restrained at the top, an at-rest earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 53 pcf should be used for walls supporting a level backfill. This value should be increased to 78 pcf for an ascending 2:1 (h:v) backfill. Drainage Perforated pipe-and-gravel subdrains should be placed behind all retaining walls to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. Perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch • minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS SDR-35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be encased in a 1-foot wide column of 0.75- to 1.5-inch open- graded gravel extending above the footing a minimum height of 1.5 feet. The gravel should be completely wrapped in filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Solid outlet pipes should be connected to the subdrains and routed to a suitable area for discharge of accumulated water. f ' PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 • Page 26 For walls retaining less than 3 feet of backfill, weepholes or open vertical masonry joints may be used in lieu of a pipe-and-gravel subdrain. Weepholes should be 3 inches in minimum diameter and provided at minimum intervals of 6 feet along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints, if used, should be provided at 32-inch minimum intervals. A minimum of 1 cubic foot of open-graded gravel should be placed behind each weephole or open masonry joint. The gravel should be completely wrapped in filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. • The sides of retaining walls supporting backfill should be coated with an approved waterproofing compound to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. • Wall Backfill All retaining-wall backfill should be placed in 6-to 8-inch maximum lifts, watered as is necessary to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions and then compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Concrete Flatwork • Concrete sidewalks and patio-type slabs should be at least 3.5 inches thick and • provided with construction or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. To minimize cracking, the subgrade soils below concrete-flatwork areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent and then thoroughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should extend to a depth of approximately 12 inches below subgrade and maintained in the soils during placement of concrete. Pre- watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. The project geotechnical consultant should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior to pouring concrete. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 27 Preliminary Pavement Design R-value tests were not performed, although tests conducted by EnGen Corporation(see References) indicated a R-value of 48. Based on Petra's experience on projects with • similar soil conditions, it is anticipated that the subgrade materials that will exist with the driveway and parking areas at the completion of rough grading will exhibit.R- values in excess of 40. Therefore, assuming a conservative R-value of 40 and traffic indices of 5.0 for light vehicle parking and 6.0 for heavy vehicle traffic-use areas, the following tentative pavement-design sections have been prepared for preliminary planning purposes. 4 ffiz fPavit emr entArk eaa4A. a tihH .�E t ' . :e ra vKT , tig � mi eTreaff(Tic I-70 ei a rPaAvcgeam)n 6e4ntr„Se"'sctitBun+Yr3' Light vehicle parking 5.0 3.0 over 4.0 Heavy vehicle traffic and driveway areas 6.0 3.0 over 6.0 Notes: l.. AC =Asphaltic Concrete (inches) AB =Aggregate Base (inches) Subgrade soils immediately below the AB should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 to a depth of at least 12 inches. Final subgrade compaction should be performed prior to placing AB and after all utility-trench backfills have been compacted and tested. AB materials should consist of Class 2 AB conforming to Section 26-1.02B of the State of California Specifications or either crushed AB, crushed miscellaneous base or processed miscellaneous base conforming to Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). AB materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial DvIp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 • Page 28 D1557. AC materials and construction should conform to Section 203 of the Greenbook. Planter Areas Area drains should be extended into all planter areas that are located within 5 feet of building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry garden walls to minimize excessive infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface of the ground in these areas should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the walls and foundations. Drip-irrigation systems are also recommended to prevent overwatering and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils. GRADING-PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Price Legacy Corporation to assist the project engineer and architect in the design of the proposed development. It is recommended that Petra be engaged to review the final-design drawings and specifications prior to construction. This is to verify that the recommendations • contained in this report have been properly interpreted and are incorporated into the project specifications. If Petra is not accorded the opportunity to review these documents, we can take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. We recommend that Petra be retained to provide soil-engineering services during construction of the excavation and foundation phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 29 If the project plans change significantly(e.g., building loads or type of structures), we should be retained to review our original design recommendations and their applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those indicated in this report, this office should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required. INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS This report is based on the project as described and the geotechnical data obtained from the field tests performed at the locations indicated on the plan. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory investigation are believed representative of the total area. However, soils can vary in characteristics between excavations, both laterally and vertically. The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the described geotechnical evaluations and represent our best professional judgement. The findings; conclusions and opinions contained in this report are to be considered tentative only and subject to confirmation by the undersigned during the construction process. Without this confirmation, this report is to be considered incomplete and Petra or the undersigned professionals assume no responsibility for its use. In addition, this report should be reviewed and updated after a period of 1 year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described above. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. I. PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION October 31, 2002 Proposed Commercial Dvlp/Temecula Area J.N. 376-02 Page 30 The professional opinions contained herein have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed of implied. Respectfully submitted, roFESsiof PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 0N R. W9(��F, �OEERINc cF -fco--53 z `` �N W. ,/cN Ol �w No.871 m ti� �a sF� 111 � EXP. 3 31 03tiw m E.G• jp74 • .t en Gra son R. Wa e3E, taipal G ogist Senior Associate ;,T 1�P�* EYpkesll� c,t. 1704 GE 671 lF-vi Sit,4rE of F°z LAB/CB/GRW/SWJ/keb :, • \/ .,<yr▪ F,`zt-Y'',Q J f/RT��y`�:..:."'c�1P�ayna 1C r5 ,\'\'\rr�/r.l��,'✓�\\,.S.kCy/."t.-�y1��-s�`�-y`A�,errt C.• �m L`'-3 y/4L`�y Rw\/�f.Ef'y�1".O�♦!l nI"�yl1-.i t(1?y `'1/�'♦�F„.�f,`l'\��1I`rtiY�tt'.`.:e''.' Ll:J X-i0F_l0F�,wL ( t!� ,i^ iA Jr am/ f ' ' 1 • t • LP • Kii C. h. PL�:'` t ` ) i,'!„ n srF\- 4 z r.: ir ,Cw j oC . ll� +i Fr ,,7'wi l lrr 1. L- /. w' l` io1L ' ' ,-'1 , j-.-2y l t- t�Ve -r r 0 0 1 I ^ - jr�Z f 1r 1^.:, jThjr r crp %' t. y- rr Ihr _1 Ia.l- 'N I ` \l il' ' ' k' p.• 1` ,ts2 : I ).4.4 f c ' oy J _r 1./%1;.... -.7:-,7, 7Fi/ / / F . f f' 1 1 k /r- - J- )iy:::,'.;41.13,‘ rr it; \ l !ynlrVr .J .0 ! .:,),-.:4,1,61. yF ' � S �t II T vr % y 2).,/,..,72,:.� 74 / :., iti11� '' �La , 3..,(7,:<:- ,�t of-ti1111 - �W }< � �r �"L � rJr 1. r -, 'r , !I\ i i r . rsY �rcr! r..:2!„,:,171). :1'T.6.61/ 1�� r � , r • t tb ( ,Y ( 1.; Jr tiil(\:':.4.;:64) t�j1 J /_w .. 1 r {. . _P ', (1 cJ- i / T 11: flOa x 1. CCi' r _y, ,� �— �/r'y y �1n ` \ l moi z/ ; it J 1` fJ \ . a '` <_ t�a sdL b • i 3.- ` .--1 i ..: : t Y� :. lQ4r VaSITE( 1 ` 7.-,--- .2.&,,-t.,-,...s=?.-\--.56 � : t' L ' � ;.6:‘k;:. ( tn fes „/ � VM C1 . -r \ Lt J a/ � ▪ / y i rR- _/ 1 =. yr y - 1 r„' ..' t -1 2qq �` 4 .i i?'. . -` ` JiS msPi"'� ! _ l�� r �_”` / s � T „ "�11:C : \ t y? 7. / r. 6 X.:>::.......' 6 :6' , ir... ......*.'H.': .y.....‘ it- jtr% t. kt • • is c. .6i 1. -- - cCr � C oQ-� '�... � e r . 7ylt '7 .�- a -4 < J,J rt ` ~ pn1 dF v f � l 'll( ,;:i `tLµ.G- r. y _....:::,',11 ~�\3.1s ,! i" y '♦ 1 _7 rn4;,-_-z.„74 ,1.-.22-al-al �ii F� y • : r_ r k � -J ((.k � `i' r mss�� y a } i� u \ F/;it' C.:1: 6;:; 4.';' J , . t1 - 1l9 I;1:14t,.'” " ,\ xf - r : � iys - 51 • ` rc v_ .77 c. ' V� \ • C C x ;: PO M o '- f1• <\` l titJ 1 , r' k'--:52:,,,_ l -.:::,..1: \ ! W ` �r ,;-„- V ` c f' o c i1r . rr -7 f2P C\ • f t 9 : \ -.c Yy 4SntJ/S ,' . ,-,e.;',----:. yi\ r . sri1 j i\ \ 3 6. r y " ct dlf \ 77---':. " ? rn .a 'V.6A / _ a r __ " ,. lit; SITE LOCATION MAP REFERENCE: PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. il USGS 7.5 Minute Series, a Special Studies Zones map, 0 OCT.,2002 NORTH 2000 FEET JN 376-02 Pechanga Quadrangle, w revised date: 1/1/90. SCALE FIGURE 1 Co • EXPLANATION • (LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE) of u ARTIFICIAL FILL COMPACTED I FUEL STATION S 1 TP-1 O I ETDI1 _ GEOTECHNICAL TEST PIT REMOVAL I RECOMMENDED DEPTH _ 1 IN FEET ` 1 1-2 • , B-5_ ..,„, ji 7 GEOTECHNICAL BORING WITH _I - ) RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH IN FEET - Z • • - I 5-7 _ -i q N319' DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER - 1 - - - - • I • SETTLEMENT MONUMENT -I 9 3 I •... I , -Ell --.. \ m.•mil mi i No,„ / . . \ ., vs. ...7 ........., I,"PORT (NOT TO SCALE) \ �` GEOTECHNICAL MAP I 40- PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JN 376-02 OCT..2002 FIGURE 2 REFERENCES Bartlett, S.F., and Youd,T.L., 1995, "Empirical prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,"American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 121,n.4,pp. 316-3295. Blake, T.F., 1998, "LIQUEFY 2", Version 1.50, A Computer Program for the Empirical Prediction of Earthquake- Induced Liquefaction Potential,Version 1.50. , 1999, "UBCSEIS" Version 1.03, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources. ,2000, "FRISKSP"-Version 4.0,A Complete Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D faults as Earthquake Sources. Campbell,K.W.,and Bozorgnia,Y., 1994,"Near-Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Worldwide Accelograms Recorded from 1957 to 1993";Proceedings of the Fifth U.S.National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,Vol. III, Earthquake Engineering Institute,pp. 283-292. Campbell, K. W., 1997, "Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1,pp. 154-179. • EnGen Corporation, 2000a, Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed Redhawk Towne Center, South Side of Route 79 South,Between Redhawk Parkway and Apis Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, dated April 7, 2000(Part of Appendix F, Volume 2 of Subsequent EIR). , 20006, Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed Expansion of Existing Historic Structures, South Side of Route 79 South Between Redhawk Parkway and Apis Road, Temecula Area, County of • Riverside, California, dated April 28, 2000. Envicom and County of Riverside Planning Department, 1976,County of Riverside Seismic Safety and Safety Elements, • dated September, 1976. GeoCon Incorporated, 1994, Report of Testing and Observation Services During Remedial Grading for Vail Ranch Commercial Site, Tentative Tract 23172,Temecula,California, dated September 1994 (Part of Appendix F, Volume 2 of Subsequent EIR). ,1999,Geotechnical Investigation,Walmart at Temecula,Temecula,California,dated May 18, 1999(Appendix E, Volume 2 of Subsequent EIR). Geotechnical and Environmental Engineers,Inc., 1992,Response to County Review County Geologic Report No. 813, Assessment District 159,Temecula Creek and Disposal Area, Riverside, California, dated January 21, 1992 , 1995, Report of Rough Grading, Temecula Creek Channel Improvements and Disposal Areas, Tract Nos. 23172 (MDC Vail), 26861, 23267 (Presley Homes), Parcel Map 18993 (LandGrant), and 23063 (Park Site), Approximately from Station 114+000 to Station 225+00, Riverside County, California, Work Order No. 225301.22, dated April 26.. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. 376-02 REFERENCES (Continued) • Hart,Earl W.and William,A.Bryant, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California,Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Map, Special Publication 42,Revised 1997, Supplements 1 • and 2 added 1999. • Highland Soils Engineering, Inc., 1988, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 700+ Acre Vail Ranch, Southeast Corner of Intersection of Margarita Road and State Highway 79, Rancho California, Riverside County, California, dated March 11, 1988 (Part of Appendix C, Volume 2 of Subsequent EIR) Idriss,I.M., 1988,An update of the Simplified Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure, presentation Notes, Second Japan- Turkey Workshop, Istanbul Technical University, February 23-25, 21pp, • International Conference of Building Officials, 1997,Uniform Building Code,Volume 2,Structural Engineering Design Provisions, dated April 1997. , 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portion of Nevada, February 1998. Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes," Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Volume I, pp. 321-376, August 1985. Jenkins,Olaf P., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, Scale 1:250,000, California Division of Mines and Geology, GAM019. Jennings,C.W., 1985a,an Explanatory Text to Accompany the 1;750,000 Scale Fault and Geologic Maps of California, California Division of Mines and Geology,Bulletin No. 201. , 1985b, An Explanatory Text to Accompany the 1:750,000 Scale Fault and Geologic maps of California: Bulletin 201, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. , 1994,Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Corridor Design Management Group,Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000'. Kennedy,Michael P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, Corridor Design Management Group Special Report 131. Morton, D.M. and Gray, C.H.,Jr., 1971, Geology of the Northern Peninsular Ranges, Southern California: Geologic Guide and Road Log, University of California, Riverside Geological Excursions in Southern California, March, 1971. Petra Geotechnical,Inc., 1998,Geotechnical Investigation of Liquefaction Potential, Commercial Parcel Located West of the Intersection of Redhawk Parkway and Via Rio Temecula, Temecula Area of Riverside County, California, J.N. 488-98, dated September 16, 1998. , 1999, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation of Liquefaction Potential, Commercial Parcel Located West of the Intersection of Redhawk Parkway and Via Rio Temecula Road,Temecula Area of Riverside County, California,J.N. 131-97A, dated April 27, 1999. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC OCTOBER 2002 J.N. 376-02 REFERENCES (Continued) , 2000a, Review of Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study Proposed Redhawk Towne Center, Rout 79 South, between Redhawk Parkway and Apis Road, Temecula, County of Riverside, California, J.N.208-00, dated April 25, 2000(Appendix H, Volume 2 of Subsequent EIR). , 2000b, Revised Seismic Design Parameter Table for the Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed Redhawk Towne Center, Route 79 South Between Redhawk Parkway and Apris Road, Temecula, County of Riverside, California, dated May 8, 2000. • , 2000c, Geotechnical Investigation,Proposed Walmart at Redhawk Towne Center, Route 79 South Between Redhawk Parkway and Apis Road,Temecula, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 208-00, dated May 30, 2000 (Appendix E, Volume 2 of Subsequent EIR). , 2000d,Response to Riverside County Review of Redhawk Towne Center Review Report Dated April 25, 2000. Plot Plan No. 16535. County Geologic Report No. 1013, J.N. 208-00, dated June 29, 2000, revised July 17, 2000. • , 2000e, Response to Riverside County Second Review of Liquefaction Report for Redhawk Towne Center, County Geologic Report No. 1013,J.N. 208-00, dated July 18,2000. , 2001a, Geotechnical Investigation, 12±-Acre Site, Proposed Commercial Development, Southwest of the Intersection of State Highway 79 and Mahlon Vail Road, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 202-01, dated April 30, 2001. , 2001b, Supplemental Information for the Liquefaction Hazard Analysis, Redhawk Towne Center,Historical Commercial Area A-Vail Ranch at Rancho California, County of Riverside, Final Environmental Impact Report Number 240,J.N. 208-00,dated August 27, 2001. , 2002a, Summary of Geotechnical Investigations, Proposed Redhawk Towne Center, South of Route 79 between Redhawk Parkway and Apis Road,Temecula,County of Riverside,J.N. 208-00,dated March 5, 2002 (revised). , 20026, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Kohl's Department Store, Redhawk Towne Center, State • Highway 79 South,Temecula Area,Riverside County, California,J.N. 141-02, dated April 12. Protech Environmental and Testing, 1997, Preliminary Geotechnical and Liquefaction Investigation, Proposed Commercial and Retail Development, Lots 41-46, Tract 23172, Highway 79, Vail Ranch Commercial Development, County of Riverside, California, dated November 11, 1997. Ranpac, 1991,Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Channel Improvement Plan for Temecula Creek and Disposal Area, Riverside County, California, dated June 19, 1991. Seed,H.B., Tokimatsu,K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985, "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. GT12, pp. 1425-1445. SPC Geotechnical, 1997,Geotechnical Investigation,Redhawk Town Center, Lots 37-40,Temecula, California, dated April 18, 1997. PETRA.GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. 376-02 REFERENCES (Continued) State of California Department of Water Resources, 1971, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed,Riverside and San Diego Counties, California, USGS Bulletin No. 91-20, dated August 1971. State of California Special Study Zone Map Series, Temecula Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000', dated January I, 1990. , Pechanga Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000', dated January 1, 1990. Tokimatsu, K., and See, H.R., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking; Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, V. 113,N. 8,pp. 861-878. Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., (eds.), 1997, Summary Report, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Technical Report NCEER-97-0022,pp.1040. Weber,F.H.,Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones,Northwestern Riverside County, California, CDMG Open File Report 77-4 LA, May, 1977. Riverside County Flood Control Aerial Photos Reviewed O� zare y . iar toNumthei ,t a chfeet 01/30/62 3-401/402 2000 06/20/74 1040/1041 2000 05/04/80 1058/1059 2000 11/27/83 201/203 2000 04/10/90 19-22/23 1600 02/03/95 19-17/18 1600 04/12/00' 9-18/19 1600 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. 376-02 �-1 APPENDIX A LOGS OF BORINGS LOGS OF TEST PITS 1 PETRA J U j • Key to Soil andBedrockSymbols and Terms • PETRA Unified, s elass>tficattonmsystem`�� 4 t' - re's-- S {}{4 3 4 r GRAVELS Clean Gravels GW Well-graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or no tines tit -,e o = u more than half of coarse (less than 5%fines) GP Poorly-graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or no tines o .g n fraction is larger than#4 Gravels CM Silty Gravels-poorly-graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures ° g c ' °' m- sieve with fines CC Clayey Gravels,poorly-graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures 9 i x _ - co SANDS Clean Sands SW Well-graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines n ' t h m' 5_ more than half of coarse (less than 5%fines) SP Poorly-graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no tines C U — n 'fa ° fraction is smaller than#4 Sands SM Silty Sands,poorly-graded sand-gravel-silt mixtures A 1 -2 sieve with tines SC Clayey Sands,poorly-graded sand-gravel-clay mixtures Inorganic silts&very tine sands,silty or clayey tine sands, = o v, ,', SILTS&CLAYS ML clayey silts with slight plasticity ,ce _ Liquid Limit Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,gravelly clays. v = v o c Less Than 50 CL sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays E A r', r9 -• OL Organic silts&clays of low plasticity ce c 42Z Szi SILTS&CLAYS MH Inorganic silts,micaceous or diatomaceous tine sand or silt Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays • A '" Greater Than 50 OH Organic silts and clays or medium-to-high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat,humus swamp soils with high organic content ?nw'.911eetw.,.r.mslfteek ,'+.db,..s �,�. .`oea "' ` ;u+-stk'- a..+lialan, Description Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size Boulders >12" >12" Larger than basketball-sized Cobbles 3 - 12" 3 - 12" Fist-sized to basketball-sized coarse 3/4 - 3" 3/4 - 3" Thumb-sized to fist-sized Gravel fine #4- 3/4" 0.19 -0.75" Pea-sized to thumb-sized coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19" Rock salt-sized to pea-sized 41011 Sand medium #40 -#10 0.017-0.079" Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized 1111r fine #200 - #40 0.0029 -0.017" Flour-sized to sugar-sized to 1 Fines Passing#200 <0.0029" Flour-sized and smaller S. n ' iikivc x..rec n t t in T tr«�=e n Via-- icf, a'n�`aL`.ii -ra-' er r pr a s mow+ LAporato Test,Abbrev>lahons' li ,ar. ages ay, r 4Modifiers s em, " h . ....__._..__-__.?�' , - _��'..� atL".�.,�, � <�a,._t,.�,,.,�,�.��..s..n4a-'^ „ �,.-.,".v..�.. .., ...t'�^..,.�:'�.�t`�.,,_....w:str�r.„ MAX Maximum Dry Density MA Mechanical(Partical Size)Analysis Trace < 1 % EXP Expansion Potential AT Atterberg Limits Few 1 - 5% SO4 Soluble Sulfate Content #200 #200 Screen Wash Some 5 - 12% RES Resistivity DSU Direct Shear(Undisturbed Sample) Numerous 12 - 20% pH Acidity DSR Direct Shear(Remolded Sample) CON Consolidation HYD Hydrometer Analysis SW Swell' SE Sand Equivalent r++ s .,6r4Q 4-#N 7 s. r1n aar -NVvr-max nar r " a 'V4 p SamplerandSymbol Descrippons k ipedrocicamnee z+aa v ,4 � Can be crushed and granulated by 2 Approximate Depth of Seepage Soft hand;"soil like"and structureless Y Approximate Depth of Standing Groundwater Can be grooved with fingernails; Moderately gouged easily with butter knife; I Hard crumbles under light hammer blows Modified California Split Spoon Sample f/ Cannot break by hand; can be j Standard Penetration Test Hard grooved with a sharp knife: breaks with a moderate hammer blow 77 Bulk Sample L- Very Hard Sharp knife leaves scratch; chips with repeated hammer blows /'j No Recovery in Sampler Notes: Blows Per Foot: Number of blows required to advance sampler 1 foot(unless a lesser distance is specified). Samplers in general were driven into the soil or bedrock at the bottom of the hole with a standard(140 lb.)hammer dropping a standard 30 inches. Drive samples collected in bucket auger borings may be obtained by dropping non-standard weight from variable heights. When a SPT sampler is used the blow count conforms to ASTM D-1536 • EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-1 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1085 Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB Samples Laboratory Tests Material Description a Blows CC B Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- e Per r 1 Content Density Lab • (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests ARTIFICIAL FILL(Afc). @ 2.0 feet: Silty SAND to Well-graded SAND (SM/SW): light 88 4.9 129.5 to dark grey, dry to damp, very dense; fine-to very fine-grained, — with occasional cobbles. • • 5 @5.0 feet: Silty SAND(SM): dark grey, moist, dense; fine-to 39 11.7 123.2 medium-grained, few 1 centimeter diameter twigs, strong • organic odor. g; %t • QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Qal) 13.6 105.7 Sandy SILT(ML): olive, damp,very stiff; fine-grained, micaceous, charcoal in sample, slightly porous. 18 r — 10 @ 10.0 feet: SILT(ML): dark grey, moist, firm; abundant 15 5.8 106.8 porosity. I @ 10.5 feet: Well-graded SAND (SW): very light brown, dry to damp, medium dense; fine-to coarse-grained, nonindurated. • @ 15.0 feet: Poorly graded SAND (SP): light brown, damp, 13 12.1 97.0 a_ medium dense; fine-grained, iron-oxide staining, nonindurated. o a Lu w a 0- 0— 0 m C 0 PLATE A-1 Petra Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-1 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1085 Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB Samples I Laboratory Tests Material Description a Blows CB Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- e Per or I Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests @ 20.0 feet: Sandy SILT(ML): dark grey, very moist, firm; 10 18.4 86.6 cnsol fine-grained, micaceous, few 1 millimeter diameter roots, slightly to moderately porous. — 25 — @ 25.0 feet: SILT(ML): dark grey, very moist, fine; 12 ir 31.8 83.3 micaceous, few 1 millimeter diameter roots, slightly porous. TOTAL DEPTH=26.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED BORING BACKFILLED 10/12/02. 0 0 t7 LU 0. 0. ELI 0 0 u, c9 • 0 PLATE A-2 O. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-2 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1085 . Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB Samples Laboratory Tests w Material Description a Blows CB Moisture Dry Other C Depth Lith- e Per r t Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pct) Tests ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc). — @ 3.0 feet: Well-graded Silty SAND(SM): light brown to dark 63 c; 5.6 128.1 grey, damp, very dense; fine-to coarse-grained, nonindurated. .41 -74 — 5 — @ 6.0 feet: Silty SAND(SM): black, damp, dense; 4812.2 122.2 fine-grained, occasional organics.— I QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Qap Poorly graded SAND(SP): light brown, damp; fine-grained, nonindurated. — : @ 9.0 feet: Poorly graded SAND (SP): light brown, dry to 18 Ir 17.6 100.7 damp, medium dense; fine-grained, nonindurated. — 10 — @ 12.0 feet: Poorly graded SAND (SP): very light brown to 19 r 2.6 105.2 white, damp, medium dense; fine-grained, slight iron-oxide — staining, nonindurated. — 15 — _: @ 15.0 feet: Well-graded SAND (SW): light brown, moist, 29 r 3.5 108.7 a _4medium dense; fine-to coarse-grained, nonindurated. u :_2°- 4 I- W 0. 'a t7— e m o _ o .- z z o PLATE A-3 s Petra Geotechnical, Inc. w . EXPLORATION LOG • Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-2 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1085 Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB Samples Laboratory Tests Material Description a Blows CB Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- e Per or I Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests @ 20.0 feet: Silty Well-graded SAND(SW): brown, very 24 1117 13.7 109.1 moist, medium dense; fine-to very coarse-grained. • TOTAL DEPTH = 21.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED BORING BACKFILLED 10/12/02. 0 0 0 0LU w a 0 0 0 0 PLATE A-4 Petra Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-3 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1083 s Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB Samples Laboratory Tests Material Description a Blows CB Moisture Dry Other C Depth Lith- Per r Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) _ Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, damp, dense; fine-to medium-grained. fl _ 11 39 1 4.0 111.5 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Qat). ' 1 _ _ 11 — 10 — @ 10.0 feet: Very fine Silty SAND(SP/SM): light brown, 97.3 97.1 cnsol damp, medium dense; some iron-oxide staining. 1 .1 - 15 - 11 @ 15.0 feet: Sandy SILT to Silty SAND (ML/SM): dark 9 1 24.7 97.9 brown, moist, firm. 0 0 • - w 111 a 'c c PLATE A-5 0 x Petra Geotechnical, Inc. Li • EXPLORATION LOG • Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-3 Location: Highway 79 &Apis Road Elevation: 1083 Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB ' Samples Laboratory Tests w Material Description a Blows CB Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- e Per r C I Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pet) Tests @ 20.0 feet: SILT(ML): dark brown and dark grey, very moist, 6 III 30.7 91.5 cnsol soft to firm; laminated, sparse decaying organics (fine roots). — — 25 @ 25.0 feet: SILT(ML): dark grey, moist, very stiff. 26 r 3.7 103.1 sieve @ 25.5 feet: Poorly graded SAND(SP): grey, wet, medium -r dense; fine-to coarse-grained. — is — _ — 30 — @ 30.0 feet: Poorly graded SAND(SP): grey, wet, medium 28 20.5 110.6 sieve dense; fine-to coarse-grained, massive, nonindurated. — i -. co— 35 @ 35.0 feet: Poorly graded SAND (SP): grey, wet, medium 4 31.7 sieve = c dense; locally massive, nonindurated. I c @ 36.0 feet: SILT(ML): dark grey, saturated, soft to firm. J • g— w r3. • • C • 0 z R PLATE A-6 0 UJ Petra Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-3 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1083 Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB • Samples Laboratory Tests W-- Material Description a Blows CB Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- 'Dr Per r I Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests 4 1- sieve — @ 41.5 feet: Well-graded SAND (SW): grey, wet. @ 45.0 feet: Well-graded SAND (SW): light grey, wet, 25 medium dense. • — 50 —a • @ 50.0 feet: Well-graded SAND (SW): light brown, wet, 21 — e medium dense; fine-to coarse-grained. T TOTAL DEPTH = 51.5 feet GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED @ 31.9 feet BORING BACKFILLED 10/12/02. 0 a 0 0 u 0. 0. a 4 0 0 0 • o PLATE A-7 Petra Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG • Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-4 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1083 Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB Samples Laboratory Tests Material Description a Blows CB Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- e Per °r I Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) _ Silty SAND (SM): light olive, dry in upper 2 feet, damp below, medium dense; fine- to coarse-grained. 5 @ 5.0 feet: Silty SAND (SM): light brown, damp, medium 35 Ir 8.1 101.2 dense; fine-to edium-grained(Cal densified in-place). QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM(Qat). — 10 @ 10.0 feet: Poorly graded SAND(SP): light brown, moist, 5 16.5 89.2 cnsol medium dense; fine-grained,some iron-oxide staining. — 15 @ 15.0 feet: Poorly graded SAND(SP): light brown, moist, 11 19.7 99.8 a \medium dense. - . @ 15.5 feet: Well-graded SAND (SW): light brown, moist, 0 - medium dense; fine-grained. 0- -- • 0 PLATE A-8 Q ctct Petra Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: 13-4 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1083 Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB • Samples Laboratory Tests Material Description a C Blows CB Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- e Per r I Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests @ 20.0 feet: Fine Sandy SILT/Silty SAND (SP): dark grey, I I 29.5 91.4 very moist, firm. — 25 • @25.0 feet: Well-graded SAND (SW): light grey, damp, 26 3.9 102.3 medium dense. – ' . TOTAL DEPTH=26.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED BORING BACKFILLED 10/02/02. e 2 0 0 C K • W a C, 0 0 • PLATE A-9 Petra Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-5 Location: Highway 79 & Apis Road Elevation: 1082 • Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB Samples Laboratory Tests Material Description a Blows CB Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- a C Per r 1 Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcf Tests ARTIFICIAL FILL(Afc). @ 2.0 feet: Silty SAND(SM): olive and dark brown, dry, very 64 7.4 120.9 dense; fine-to coarse-grained. • 44 8.6 120.7 Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, damp, medium dense; fine- to — \ medium-grained; )>>)>>-. /- @ 7.0 feet: Poorly graded SAND(SP): light brown, damp, 11 5.1 94.5 medium dense; iron-oxide staining, locally massive. •— 10 @ 10.0 feet: SILT(ML): black and orange, moist; laminated, 11 9.3 93.9 with iron-oxide staining and carbonate. • — 15 @ 15.0 feet: Well-graded SAND(SW): light brown, damp, 8 2.5 115.6 Smedium dense. o @ 16.0 feet: SILT(ML): brown, moist, firm. 0 Ui w u 9— F 0 z o PLATE A-10 w Petra Geotechnical, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG • Project: Proposed Commercial Development Boring No.: B-5 Location: Highway 79&Apis Road Elevation: 1082 Job No.: 376-02 Client: Price Legacy Date: 10/12/02 Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auger Hammer/Drop: 140 lbs/30 in Logged By: LAB Samples Laboratory Tests • Material Description a Blows C B Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- t Per o ° Content Density Lab (Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pcfl Tests @ 20.0 feet: SILT(ML): dark grey, moist, firm; oxidation 12 24.7 103.2 around root casts, pinhole porosity. • — 25 a •.-•• @ 25.0 feet: Well-graded SAND (SW): light brown, damp, 42 Ir 5.1 106.2 dense; fine-to coarse-grained. TOTAL DEPTH=26.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED BORING BACKFILLED 10/12/02. e 0 0 CD LU w 6 O 4 N U O Z O a PLATE A-11 3 w Petra Geotechnical, Inc. • LOGS OF TEST PITS +TEST 7i LqF„,: .yAa ' '.�,�z' #A4 h� 4'3 xE.*. ,c4rC »# G.i�' 3-^.� 'gym tc, NUMBERS DEPTHS r DESCRIPTIONw `# �7.'�-x-.� z;.” rh tl L#� x� �- ....4 MFp�s i ":�.. '�Cl,c -=x: ��.� ad as� In Y.� ` ' '� * �., "fit zhv�i`:"<...en&A,3"�sL4,t :ktPir.:t.�*tro.-s'aGrvJs nk'.ca`.:;ii(C� .b` f':iti,'" d"iF..,a.'E�y � rz. r.S5..�..'s.3,`fe�S"':.fi:.aXu-+�z M.6" .. TP-1 0.0 - 3.5 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) Silty SAND (SM): brown to dark grey, dry in upper 1 foot, damp to moist below,medium dense to dense; fine-to very coarse-grained, horizontal layers 1 to 6 inches thick 3.5 -4.0 SILT(ML): dark brown to dark grey, moist, stiff; micaceous horizontal lamination 4.0 - 6.0 Silty SAND (SM): dark grey to black, moist, medium dense to dense; fine- to coarse-grained, some 2-centimeter diameter twigs, strong organic odor TOTAL DEPTH = 6.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-2 0.0 -4.0 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afcl Silty SAND/Well-graded SAND (SM/SW): dark grey to olive brown, dry in upper 2 feet, moist below, medium dense to dense; interlayered, horizontally layered approximately I to 6 inches thick 4.0 -6.5 Well-graded SAND (SW): dark grey, very moist, medium dense; fine- to coarse-grained 6.5 -7.5 OUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oaf} Well-graded SAND (SW): light grey to brown, damp, loose to medium dense; fine-to coarse-grained, with 2-centimeter diameter roots and rootlets, nonindurated TOTAL DEPTH = 7.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. Plate A-12 LOGS OF TEST PITS ax..rg WA5;9i z q', `i ,,,3r i?'S, g " ",Ax- T r 'n + ^srzny`,` n;-2�„r G i a z TESSTIT °•sv3"tria w;4t '�fi'y y f S �x M �?ivi' d d 'x� �� rk y` u�3yr k YP{ tet%-�' y4'9+i W�tl, t-" .:z«`4i' u^urr ,.. r I y" �, sNUMBER 'DEPTH S '' �` ^ pESCRIl'TION4 i "n' gi 'v*�'�r' �r Y3 Y L'++.a'i � 3?. H a' i-f��"P'e' A a}'�," XrMh b f � Y to �i �f t^3*"F 5 YY.. �i v v g:g` '._' #�h.'„ (ft a o i s, +'ww'+ '.y_` ."_ - '` s -A, ,.,,,yS `T ki>o;. ' ' '.'< :r �Tt �>r1 n.._�_kif�.....m-s..x�' TP-3 0.0 - 3.0 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) Silty SAND/Well-graded SAND(SM/SW): light olive to black, dry in upper 2 feet damp below, medium dense to dense; interlayered, predominately silty sand 3.0 - 5.0 SILT(ML): some roots, flaser-like structure, processed zone 5.0 - 5.25 Well-graded SAND (SW): dark brown, damp, dense; black orange staining at contact/processed zone 5.25 - 6.5 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (QM) Poorly graded SAND/SILT(SP/ML): light olive, damp, medium dense; sand is very fine-grained, some manganese staining or charcoal, occasional fine roots TOTAL DEPTH = 6.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-4 0.0 -2.5 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) Silty SAND (SM): yellow brown, dry, loose in upper 2 feet, medium dense below; fine-to very coarse-grained 2.5 -4.0 Silty SAND (SM): dark grey and olive, damp, medium dense; fine- to medium-grained, some clay, I- to 3-inch thick horizontal layers 4.0 - 6.5 Silty SAND (SM): olive, damp, medium dense 6.5 - 7.0 SILT (ML): black, moist, firm to stiff 7.0 - 7.5 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qa1) Poorly graded SAND (SP): light olive, moist, medium dense; very fine- grained, with orange iron-oxide staining, few fine roots TOTAL DEPTH= 7.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED • • PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. Plate A-13 LOGS OF TEST PITS � fs ' il n wx - , ,� tr NESTPsI e" m r, h rsiav r v :i M , Calma l ��NUMBER�; � �a�, 0s�t� DESCRTIONpt4 ; r0 r i di � " jt ' flil s- £ t IS,y � ma.,x4x t ,rax•' TP-5 0.0 - 1.5 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) Silty SAND (SM): light brown, dry, loose; fine-to very coarse-grained, root zone at 8 inches 1.5 - 3.0 Silty SAND (SM): dark olive, damp, medium dense to dense; fine-to medium-grained, with few coarse grains 3.0 -4.0 Very Silty SAND (SM): dark grey to black, moist, medium dense to dense; fine- to very coarse-grained 4.0 -4.5 Well-graded SAND (SW): light yellow brown, damp, medium dense; fine- to very coarse-grained 4.5 -6.5 Silty SAND (SM): dark grey, moist, medium dense; fine- to very coarse- grained, few 2-centimeter diameter twigs and branches TOTAL DEPTH = 6.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-6 0.0 -3.0 RECENT OUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oat) Poorly graded SAND/SILT (SP/ML): light olive, dry, loose; fine-grained, few fine roots, 2-centimeter diameter thick laminated layers 3.0 -4.0 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afe) Silty SAND (SM): dark grey brown, dry, dense; fine- to coarse-grained 4.0 -6.0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oat) Poorly graded SAND (SP): dry, medium dense; fine-grained, locally massive, some iron-oxide staining TOTAL DEPTH = 6.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. Plate A-14 LOGS OF TEST PITS a " t z ti4ti, x , TETPTln " 4ti 4 z Ll 3 i .ffDEHnz w " te „� ?DSCION ) tk ' r '*M 21tA ° f -- sg ' n elsa- �hki ' � fri"; 4hs1- r.wx ? u_ellet� TP-7 0.0 -3.0 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afu) Silty SAND (SM): light olive, dry, loose to medium dense; fine-to coarse- - grained, carbonate within soil at 2.5 feet 3.0 - 3.75 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) Well-graded SAND (SW): very light brown, dry, medium dense; fine-to coarse-grained, horizontal layer in-situ densification 3.75 - 6.0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Dai) Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, moist, medium dense; fine-grained, few fine roots, laminated silt at contact with Afc TOTAL DEPTH = 6.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-8 0.0 - 3.5 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) Silty SAND (SM): light brown, dry, medium dense to dense; fine-grained, roots in upper 1 foot 3.5 - 6.0 OUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oat) Silty SAND (SM): light olive, dry, dense; carbonate stringers in bottom 2 feet of trench TOTAL DEPTH= 6.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-9 0.0 - 1.0 RECENT QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (OA Silty SAND (SM): light brown, dry, loose; fine- to very coarse-grained 1.0 - 3.0 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) Silty SAND (SM): light brown, dry, dense; fine-to medium-grained, few fine roots 3.0 - 5.5 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oa!) Silty SAND (SM): brown, damp, medium dense to dense; fine-to coarse- grained, carbonate stringers at 4.5 feet TOTAL DEPTH = 5.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. Plate A-15 LOGS OF TEST PITS wNn UMs,�BER }'i iDt E„'FSPn tz " mi z" ^ wa1rij ,. 3 s t " 23 sL&a I _i a+'+-¢l- itoce ,rw e P R * DEPT -xvirt + f s. n. +s:ssOFrx . d. u.,±ie '"`'nti ..,,. r..Sly-at .,_,f,4.6?4 ;Ityt t?w.ra TP-10 0.0 -2.5 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afc) Silty SAND (SM): light brown to dark brown, dry in upper 1.5 feet; damp below, medium dense to dense; fine-to coarse-grained 2.5 - 5.0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, damp, medium dense to dense; fine-grained, carbonate-lined root casts (very fine roots) 5.0 - 7.5 Poorly graded SAND (SP): very light brown, damp; fine-grained, locally massive, manganese and iron-oxide staining in vertical cracks (discontinuous) TOTAL DEPTH = 7.5 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. Plate A-16 .l rl 711 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA LABORATORY TEST DATA 11 ) 11 1 J J 1 PETRA 1 J APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA Soil Classification Soils encountered within the exploration borings and test pits were initially classified in the field in general accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D2488). The samples were re-examined in the laboratory and the classifications reviewed and then revised where appropriate. The assigned group symbols are presented in the boring and test pit logs, Appendix A. • In-Situ Moisture and Density Moisture content and unit dry density of in-place soil materials were determined in representative strata. Test data are summarized in the boring and test pit logs, Appendix A. Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values are given on Plate B-1. Expansion Potential An expansion index test was performed on selected sample of soil in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. The expansion potential classification was determined from 1997 UBC Table 18-I-B on the basis of the expansion index value. The test result and expansion potential is presented on Plate B-I. Soil Chemistry Chemical analyses were performed on a selected sample of onsite soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate • and chloride, as well as pH and resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 417 (sulfate), 422 (chloride) and 643 (pH and resistivity). Test results are included on Plate B-1. Direct Shear The Coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion, were determined for a select sample remolded to 90 percent of maximum dry density. This test was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3080. Three specimens were prepared for each test. The test specimens were artificially saturated, and then sheared under varied normal loads at a maximum constant rate of strain of 0.05 inches per minute. Results are summarized on Plate B-2. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. 376-02 APPENDIX B (Continued) Consolidation Consolidation tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D2435. Axial loads were applied in several increments to a laterally restrained 1-inch-high sample. Loads were applied in a geometric progression by doubling the previous load, and the resulting deformations were recorded at selected time intervals. The test samples were inundated at a surcharge loading approximately equal to the existing or proposed total overburden pressures in order to evaluate the effects of a sudden increase in moisture content (hydrocollapse potential). Results of these tests • are graphically presented on Plates B-3 through B-6. Grain-Size Analysis Grain-size analyses were performed on selected samples to verify visual classifications performed in the field. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D422. Test results are presented on Plates B-7 through B-10. • • PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. OCTOBER 2002 J.N. 376-02 LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY` �'x itw rte~, ,crirU,11ta xe. ci W' 4; I wilt -;R,va¢` -` „s- A f a i' -4r--h5 9ie�!' ( s x arhb yka `aOptunumMaxtmum` Test Ptt/De th° ��1 "i 2 Sitl T "e' TI " R`t w w4 t s -Tes x Moisture a Dr a� enstt P .a, yP s a k � A y,. i 9 : oi r feet i"`'L+ "h1.4at*.t�?.w' ' t .t ..`9 r '�.... as'A.Ji 5�r4t�"' d:s�d�a{'t i(°/o)�,711. y z. ,-C,(pc r TP-1 @ 2.0 Grey-brown Silty fine to coarse SAND 9.0 127.0 EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA u$^ x r4 ,: s rqf* -i '° 4rz v4 -vg A,y^ 10.-Test PIUDepth -" rXF"d'z5r amu-4'�.F sx ▪'"x t 1. EXpaI1510Il r EXPflILS70II Ps A..' a F n.` ;; :,(feet) ° .xa ?may z•u t _ a Sotl Type,. w " .. .,.,:riv. :Indexr- ;,Potential. TP-8 @ 3.0 Light brown Silty SAND 6 Very Low SOIL CHEMISTRY R"c.a.i e s �. A`s--�+i a 7:sr zW 4 4 r t, 6 At iiia z.- $ '%vi ' t' *fi"*' ri r ^rFf^ " Te Pit/I)epth tt Sulfatte°-'t Clilordes , spH�t x▪ R(olun`cm) Corrosivi 5'otent;a1' �i,, i-2:,(feet) . ..m�%),.t,., , (PP )., > TP-1 @ 2.0 0.05 62 8.8 1,700 concrete: mild steel: corrosive (1)PER ASTM TEST METHOD D1557 (2)PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829 (3)PER 1997 UBC TABLE 18-1-B (4)PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417 (5)PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 422 (6)PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO.643 (7)PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643 • PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC OCTOBER 2002 J.N. 376-02 PLATE B-1 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 c - .. ....._... ... ._ .. . . .. . a 3,000 g 2, 00 ..Ltid� ... ........_ .. ... a 2,000 • 1,500 1,000 1 .......... ... ... 500 00 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL STRESS-pounds per square foot SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION COHESION LOCATION ANGLE(°) (PSF) •TP-1 @ 2.0 Silty SAND-Peak 32 276 0 m TP-1 @ 2.0 Silty SAND-Ultimate 31 60 0 C e Ui w a NOTES: U g Remolded Test Samples J.N. 376-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA October, 2002 s PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. REMOLDED TEST SAMPLES PLATE B-2 SAMPLE MATERIAL _ INITIAL INUNDATED LOCATION DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTURE SATURATION LOAD (pc0 (I) (%o) (ksl) • B-1 @ 20.0 Sandy SILT 86.6 18.4 52 2.80 0.18 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.8 5.6 11.2 22.4 44.8 0.0 el__________41„. I I I 1 1 1 1.0 — 2.0. - - 3.0 - z 0 - . F 0 4.0 0 rn z 0 U z 5.0I\ ..*. - O w _ a 6.0 . - - —, 7.0 8.0 \,� ;,,- \\ o - g 9.0 10.0 0.1 1 10 100 rc VERTICAL STRESS-kips per square foot 1- to i 0 P. J.N. 376-02 October,2002 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS o PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PLATE B-3 U SAMPLE MATERIAL INITIAL INUNDATED LOCATION DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTURE SATURATION LOAD (pct) (%) (%) (ksf) • B-3 @ 5.0 Silty SAND 97.1 7.3 27 1.40 0.18 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.8 5.6 11.2 22.4 44.8 0.0 I II I I 1 1.0 �'_`♦ 2.0 3.0 0 F 0 4.0 a 0 N z F 5.0 U U a, _ U _ ' 4 6.0 7.0 8.0 0 0 uJ 9.0 w a O. C 10.0 0.1 1 10 100 2 VERTICAL STRESS-kips per square foot z 0 o J.N. 376-02 October,2002 o CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS z PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PLATE B-4 U • SAMPLE MATERIAL INITIAL INUNDATED LOCATION DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTURE SATURATION LOAD (pct) (%) (%) (kst) • B-3 @ 20.0 SILT 91.5 30.7 98 2.80 0.18 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.8 5.6 11.2 22.4 44.8 0.0 a 1.0 • 2.0 - 3.0 z 0 0 4.0 O z 0 H 5.0 U cu 0. 6.0 • 7.0 8.0 a 2 0 a 9.0 Lu w a O 10.0 z 0.1 1 10 100 VERTICAL STRESS-kips per square foot N z O J.N. 376-02 October,2002 o CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS z PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PLATE B-5 U SAMPLE MATERIAL INITIAL INUNDATED LOCATION DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTURE SATURATION LOAD (pcf) (%) (%) (ksf) • B-4 @ 10.0 Poorly graded SAND 89.2 16.5 50 1.40 0.18 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.8 5.6 11.2 22.4 44.8 0.0 1.0 2.0 - - 3.0 z 0 _ in 4.0 ..7 _ 0 z 0 U 5.0 U m a 6.0 7.0 0 8.0 a u cc 9.0 0. 0- 0 10.0 0.1 1 10 100 cc VERTICAL STRESS-kips per square foot in z 0 J.N. 376-02 October,2002 o — CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS o PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,INC. PLATE B-6 V U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/41/28 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70100140200 100 - I I 1 t 1 I T I t I i I III 90 — - E 80 — — R _ C N 70 T ` - -' F 1 60 — N E -• - R • 50 B • Y • 1 E40 - •I G 30 T • 20 • • • 10 • y I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES coarse GRAVEL fine coarse med umND fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu • B-3 25.5 Poorly graded SAND 0.95 3.6 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D50 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay P. • B-3 25.5 9.50 0.41 0.207 0.3180 0.3 96.0 3.7 C o_ i- 0 0 14 r w - C- 0 4 m N J.N. 376-02 • October,2002 I, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. i PLATE B-7 o U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/41/23/8 3 1 6 810141620 30 40 50 70100140200 100 I I I 11 I IT "�' 11 i i l i i 90 — 1 P 80 R C • N • 70 T . F 1 60 N E . R 50 • B . Y E • 40 G T30 20 10 I' . I 0 - • 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu • B-3 30.0 Poorly graded SAND 21 1.25 4.8 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D50 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay a • B-3 30.0 4.75 0.50 0.255 0.4070 0.0 93.8 6.2 a 1- 0 0 cc 1- w n i (V b M • N J.N. 376-02 October,2002 2 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PLATE B-8 15 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 8 3 4 6 810 7416 20 30 40 50 70100140200 100 I 1 I I I p t I 11 I I 1 I III 90 1111 IF E80 liii I►t� R C I N 70 I T IF 160 N ill Y50 E 40 II I G T 30 20 . 10 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu • 8-3 35.0 Poorly graded SAND w/ Silt 32 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D50 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • 6-3 35.0 9.50 0.46 0.183 0.3328 0.4 86.5 13.1 0 0 0 a ec1- u, 0. a (S N 9 (0 N. N J.N. 376-02 October,2002 • PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS 3 PLATE B-9 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 1/2 8 3 4 6 810 141620 30 40 50 70100140200 100 i - I 11 1 11 1 -r 1 I I—t- • 90 • — E 80 - - - R C - - N70 • • . T F 160 - - N E R 50 - _ B Y E40 ti • G T30 . 20 -L - - • 10 t 0 • 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND coarse fine coarse medium 1 fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu • B-3 40.0 SILT Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D50 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay A • 8-3 40.0 9.50 0.28 0.1609 0.8 562 43.0 a i- a 1g a a. 4 m L.NI J.N. 376-02 October, 2002 a PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - 0 PLATE B-10 ..i .1 APPENDIX C SEISMIC ANALYSIS ` l J I� J 1 PETRA TEST.OUT *********************** * * * UBCSEIS * * * Version 1 . 03 * * *********************** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: ' 000000000 DATE: 10-08-2002 JOB NAME : Price/Legacy - FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME : CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES : SITE LATITUDE : 33 . 4815 SITE LONGITUDE : 117 . 0895 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0 . 4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME : ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE : 13 . 6 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA DISTANCE : 2 . 0 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME : DISTANCE : 99999 . 0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS : Na : 1 . 3 Nv: 1 . 6 Ca : 0 . 57 Page 1 TEST.OUT Cv: 1 . 02 Ts : 0 . 716 To : 0 . 143 ******************************************************************** * CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are * * limited in number and have been digitized from small- * * scale maps (e .g . , 1 : 750 , 000 scale) . Consequently, * * the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by * * several kilometers . Therefore, it is important that * * the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and * * adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. * ******************************************************************** SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 1 I APPROX. ISOURCE MAX. SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE MAG. I RATE TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A, B, C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS, DS,BT) I I I I ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 3 . 5 I B I 6 . 8 I 5 . 00 SS ELSINORE-JULIAN 13 . 6 I A 7 . 1 5 . 00 SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 30 . 0 I B I 6 . 8 I 5 . 00 SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA 32 . 3 I A 7 . 2 I 12 . 00 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 32 . 9 I B I 6 . 9 I 12 . 00 Page 2 TEST.OUT SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 47 . 2 I B 6 . 9 1 . 50 SS ROSE CANYON 49 . 9 B 6 . 9 1 . 50 SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 54 . 0 B 6 . 8 I 4 . 00 SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 57 . 7 B 6 . 5 2 . 00 SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE . (Elsinore) 58 . 7 B 6 . 7 1 . 00 DS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 61 . 1 I B 6 . 7 12 . 00 SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern 61 . 7 A 7 . 4 24 . 00 SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER I 65 . 5 B 6 . 8 2 . 50 SS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 72 . 6 I B I 7 . 0 I 2 . 50 SS CORONADO BANK I 74 . 8 B 7 . 4 I 3 . 00 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 78 . 5 I B I 6 . 9 1 . 00 SS j'. PALOS VERDES i 81 . 6 I B 7 . 1 I 3 . 00 SS BURNT MTN. 83 . 9 I B I 6 . 5 0 . 60 SS CUCAMONGA I 84 . 4 A 7 . 0 5 . 00 DS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 86 . 2 I B I 7 . 0 1 . 00 DS EUREKA PEAK I 88 . 4 B 6 . 5 I 0 . 60 SS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 88 . 6 I B 6 . 8 4 . 00 SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 88 . 8 I B 6 . 6 I 4 . 00 SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 89 . 1 B ' I 6 . 7 0 . 50 DS CLEGHORN I 89 . 5 B 6 . 5 I 3 . 00 SS SAN JOSE I 89 . 6 I B 6 . 5 0 . 50 DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) 93 . 4 I B I 7 . 0 3 . 00 DS LANDERS I 98 . 2 B 7 . 3 I 0 . 60 SS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 100 . 8 I A I 7 . 8 I 34 . 00 Page 3 TEST.OUT SS HELENDALE - S . LOCKHARDT 101 . 0 B 7 . 1 0 . 60 SS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 105 . 8 B 7 . 3 0 . 60, SS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 109 . 7 B I 6 . 5 0 . 50 DS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 110 . 5 B I 6 . 7 0 . 60 SS EMERSON So . = COPPER MTN. 112 . 1 B 6 . 9 0 . 60 SS RAYMOND 114 . 1 B 6 . 5 0 . 50 DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 121 . 1 B 6 . 6 5 . 00 SS VERDUGO ( 122 . 3 I B I 6 . 7 0 . 50 DS PISGAH-BULLION MTN. -MESQUITE LK 123 . 6 I B ( 7 . 1 0 . 60 SS CALICO - HIDALGO 124 . 0 B 7 . 1 I 0 . 60 SS ELMORE RANCH 125 . 1 B 6 . 6 1 . 00 SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 127 . 2 B 6 . 6 4 . 00 SS HOLLYWOOD I 127 . 4 B 6 . 5 1 . 00 DS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 129 . 1 B I 6 . 5 I 25 . 00 SS SANTA MONICA 139 . 3 B 6 . 6 I 1 . 00 DS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 140 . 1 B 7 . 0 3 . 50 SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 142 . 6 B 6 . 7 2 . 00 DS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 2 APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX . I SLIP FAULT Page 4 TEST.OUT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE i MAG. I RATE TYPE FAULT NAME (km) I (A, B, C) J (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS, BT) I I I I I - SAN GABRIEL 144 .4 I B 7 . 0 1 . 00 SS MALIBU COAST 147 . 1 B ( 6 . 7 0 . 30 DS IMPERIAL I 154 . 4 A 7 . 0 20 . 00 SS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 155 . 5 B 6 . 9 0 . 60 SS ANACAPA-DUME I 159 . 0 B I 7 . 3 3 . 00 DS SANTA SUSANA I 160 . 5 I B 6 . 6 I 5 . 00 DS HOLSER 169 . 5 I B I 6 . 5 I 0 . 40 DS BLACKWATER I 171 . 7 I B I 6 . 9 0 . 60 SS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 180 . 5 I B 6 . 9 I 4 . 00 DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 182 . 2 I B I 6 . 7 1 . 00 DS SAN CAYETANO 188 . 0 I B 6 . 8 I 6 . 00 DS SANTA YNEZ (East) i 207 . 1 I B I 7 . 0 2 . 00 SS GARLOCK (West) 211 . 9 I A 7 . 1 I 6 . 00 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 213 . 1 B I 6 . 8 I 1 . 00 DS GARLOCK (East) I 218 . 4 I A 7 . 3 I 7 . 00 SS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA I 221 . 7 B I 6 . 7 I 0 . 40 DS PLEITO THRUST I 223 . 9 I B 6 . 8 I 2 . 00 DS RED MOUNTAIN ' 227 . 5 B I 6 . 8 2 . 00 DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 232 . 0 B 6 . 8 I 1 . 00 DS BIG PINE I 232 . 0 B 6 . 7 0 . 80 SS OWL LAKE ' I 237 . 1 B I 6 . 5 I 2 . 00 SS Page 5 i TEST.OUT PANAMINT VALLEY 237 . 4 B 7 . 2 2 . 50 SS WHITE WOLF 238 . 6 B 7 . 2 2 . 00 DS TANK CANYON 240 . 7 I B 6 . 5 1 . 00 DS So. SIERRA NEVADA 241 . 1 B 7 . 1 0 . 10 DS LITTLE LAKE 242 . 4 B 6 . 7 0 . 70 SS DEATH VALLEY (South) 243 . 9 B I 6 . 9 I 4 . 00 SS SANTA YNEZ (West) 261 . 0 B 6 . 9 2 . 00 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND 268 . 1 B 6 . 9 I 1 . 00 DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 287 . 4 I B 6 . 9 4 . 00 DS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE 304 . 1 I B 6 . 8 0 . 70 DS OWENS VALLEY I 312 . 5 B 7 . 6 1 . 50 SS LIONS HEAD 321 . 5 B 6 . 6 0 . 02 DS SAN JUAN 324 . 4 B 7 . 0 1 . 00 SS SAN LUIS RANGE (S . Margin) 329 . 1 B 7 . 0 0 . 20 DS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 334 . 6 B 7 . 0 2 . 50 SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 338 . 8 B I 6 . 5 0 . 25 DS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 341 . 4 A 7 . 2 I 5 . 00 SS INDEPENDENCE I 348 . 5 B 6 . 9 I 0 . 20 DS LOS OSOS I 358 . 5 B 6 . 8 I 0 . 50 DS HOSGRI I 367 . 7 I B 7 . 3 I 2 . 50 SS RINCONADA 376 . 6 B I 7 . 3 I 1 . 00 SS BIRCH CREEK I 405 . 3 I B 6 . 5 I 0 . 70 DS WHITE MOUNTAINS 408 . 9 I B I 7 . 1 1 . 00 SS DEEP SPRINGS I 426 . 4 I B I 6 . 6 I 0 . 80 DS Page 6 TEST.OUT SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) I 426 . 8 I B I 5 . 0 I 34 . 00 I SS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 3 I APPROX. ISOURCE MAX. SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE TYPE FAULT NAME (km) (A, B, C) (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS, BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamonga) I 429 .4 A I 7 . 0 5 . 00 SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S .N.Mtns . ) 441 . 6 B I 6 . 8 I 1 . 00 DS FISH SLOUGH 448 . 0 I B 6 . 6 I 0 . 20 DS HILTON CREEK I 468 . 0 B I 6 . 7 2 . 50 DS HARTLEY SPRINGS 493 . 0 I B 6 . 6 I 0 . 50 DS ORTIGALITA I 508 . 0 B 6 . 9 I 1 . 00 SS CALAVERAS (So . of Calaveras Res) I 515 . 8 B 6 . 2 15 . 00 SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 521 . 8 B 7 . 1 0 . 50 DS PALO COLORADO - SUR 525 . 1 B I 7 . 0 I 3 . 00 SS QUIEN SAGE I 528 . 3 B 6 . 5 1 . 00 SS MONO LAKE 529 . 2 B 6 . 6 I 2 . 50 DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 547 . 9 I B I 6 . 8 0 . 10 SS SARGENT 552 . 6 I B I 6 . 8 3 . 00 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 553 . 1 A I 7 . 9 I 24 . 00 Page 7 TEST.OUT SS ROBINSON CREEK 560 . 7 I B 6 . 5 0 . 50 DS SAN GREGORIO I 596 . 9 I A I 7 . 3 5 . 00. SS GREENVILLE 599 . 7 B 6 . 9 I 2 . 00 SS ANTELOPE VALLEY 601 . 5 B 6 . 7 0 . 80 DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 601 . 8 B 6 . 5 3 . 00 SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 602 . 8 B 6 . 5 0 . 40 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) 621 . 0 I A 7 . 1 9 . 00 SS CALAVERAS (No . of Calaveras Res) 621 . 0 B 6 . 8 6 . 00 SS GENOA 627 . 6 B 6 . 9. 1 . 00 DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 667 . 4 B I 6 . 9 6 . 00 SS RODGERS CREEK I 706 . 7 A 7 . 0 9 . 00 SS I WEST NAPA 706 . 9 I B 6 . 5 1 . 00 SS POINT REYES I 728 . 0 I B 6 . 8 0 . 30 DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 728 . 0 I B I 6 . 9 6 . 00 SS MAACAMA (South) I 768 . 7 B 6 . 9 9 . 00 SS COLLAYOMI 784 . 8 B 6 . 5 0 . 60 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 787 . 2 A 7 . 1 6 . 00 SS MAACAMA (Central) I 810 . 3 A 7 . 1 9 . 00 SS MAACAMA (North) 869 . 1 I A I 7 . 1 9 . 00 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S . F.Bay) 873 . 8 B 6 . 8 6 . 00 SS BATTLE CREEK I 891 . 3 B 6 . 5 I 0 . 50 DS LAKE MOUNTAIN 932 . 2 I B I 6 . 7 6 . 00 SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 950 . 0 B 6 . 9 I 9 . 00 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1007 . 3 I A I 7 . 4 35 . 00 Page 8 TEST.OUT DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1012 . 2 A I 7 . 0 5 . 00 DS MAD RIVER 1014 . 0 I B 7 . 1 I 0 . 70. DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1021 . 7 I A 8 .3 35 . 00 DS McKINLEYVILLE 1024 . 6 B I 7 . 0 0 . 60 DS TRINIDAD 1025 . 9 I B 7 . 3 2 . 50 DS FICKLE HILL i 1026 . 8 B I 6 . 9 I 0 . 60 DS TABLE BLUFF 1033 . 0 I B 7 . 0 0 . 60 DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1046 . 1 B I 7 . 1 I 1 . 00 DS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 4 I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. RATE TYPE FAULT NAME 1 (km) I (A, B, C) (MW) (mm/yr) I (SS, DS, BT) I I I I I - BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN. FLT. ZONE 11062 . 4 I B I 7 . 3 0 . 50 I DS •********************************************************************* ********* Page 9 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD 2 . 50 2 .25 ;- 2 . 00 2 . 00 C) c 1 . 75 0 C 1 . 50 1 .25 U < 1 . 00 a' 0 . 75 _ U x0 .50 Co _ 0 .25 - 0 . 00 - 1 1L 1111 III 1111 _ IIII IIH Illi IIII 1111 IIII 0.0 0.5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Period Seconds PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE • BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR HS COR 1 • • 25 yrs 50 yrs • V 100 _ 75 yrs 100 rs • 90 ., 80 0 >., 70 m 60 ° 50 0 8 40 c -co \\\\.% 30 a) a) 0 20 w 10 0 viii iii II �= 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) RETURN PERIOD vs . ACCELERATION BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR HS COR 1 10000 U) L _ 0 0 a) 1000 a_ C LJ_ 100 11 iii iii II In 0 .00 0.25 0 .50 0. 75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) 1 1 APPENDIX D ;1 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1 J .l 1 1 PETRA ***************************** * L I Q U E F Y 2 * * * * Version 1.50 * * ***************************** EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: 376-02 DATE: 10-24-2002 JOB NAME: Price Legacy SOIL-PROFILE NAME: LIQTEST.LDW BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 16.00 ft CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 16.00 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 7.50 Mw SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.550 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.15 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1 .30 N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.20 MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1998, in press) Magnitude Scaling Factor: 0.988 rd-CORRECTION METHOD: NCEER (1997) FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS. Rod Stick-Up Above Ground: 3.0 ft CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0. 6 NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 1 File Name: LIQTEST.OUT I CALC. I TOTAL' EFF. 'FIELD I FC I CORR. ILIQUE. I IINDUC. ILIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C I (N1) 60IRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO. (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1_601 N I (B/ft) I RATIO' d I RATIOIFACTOR ----+ + + + + + + + + + + 1 0 .25 0.015 0.015 26 - * * * * * ** 1 0 .75 0.044 0.044 26 - * * * * * ** 1 1 .25 0.073 0.073 26 - * * * * * ** 1 1 .75 0. 102 0. 102 26 - * * * * * ** 1 2 .25 0. 131 0. 131 26 - * * * * * ** 1 2 .75 0. 160 0.160 26 - * * * * * ** 1 3.25 0.189 0.189 26 - * * * * * ** 1 3.75 0.218 0 .218 26 - * * * * * ** 1 4 .25 0.247 0.247 26 - * * * * * ** 1 4 .75 0.276 0 .276 26 - * * * * * ** 1 5.25 0. 305 0.305 26 - * * * * * ** 1 5.75 0.334 0.334 26 - * * * * * ** 1 6.25 0.363 0.363 26 - * * * * * ** 1 6.75 0.392 0.392 26 - * * * * * ** 2 7 .25 0.419 0.419 6 - * * * * * ** 2 7.75 0.445 0.445 6 - * * * * * ** 2 8.25 0.471 0.471 6 - * * * * * ** 2 8 .75 0.497 0.497 6 - * * * * * ** I 2 9.25 0.523 0.523 6 - * * * * * ** 2 9.75 0.549 0.549 6 - * * * * * ** 2 10.25 0. 575 0.575 6 - * * * * * ** i 2 10.75 0.601 0. 601 6 - * * * * * ** 2 11.25 0. 627 0.627 6 - * * * * * ** 2 11.75 0.653 0.653 6 - * * * * * ** 2 12.25 0. 679 0.679 6 * * * * * ** 2 12 .75 0.705 0.705 6 - * * * * * ** 3 13.25 0.733 0.733 6 - * * * * * ** 3 13.75 0.764 0.764 6 - * * * * * ** 3 14 .25 0.794 0.794 6 - * * * * * ** 3 14 .75 0.825 0.825 6 - * * * * * ** 3 15.25 0.855 0.855 6 - * * * * * ** 3 15.75 0.886 0.886 6 - * * * * * ** 3 16.25 0.916 0. 908 6 - - - - - - -- 3 16.75 0.947 0.923 6 - - - - - -- 4 17.25 0.977 0.938 4 - - - - - - -- 4 17.75 1.007 0. 952 4 - - - - -- 4 18.25 1.037 0. 967 4 - - - - -. -- 4 18.75 1.067 0. 981 4 - - - - - -- 4 19.25 1.097 0. 996 4 - - - - - - -- 4 19.75 1.127 1.010 4 - - - - - -- 4 20.25 1.157 1.024 4 - - - - - - -- 4 20.75 1 .187 1 .039 4 - - - - - - -- 4 21.25 1 .217 1.053 4 - - - - - - -- NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2 File Name: LIQTEST.OUT CALC. I TOTAL! EFF. ( FIELD I FC I I CORR. ILIQUE. I IINDUCHLIQUE. SOIL! DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N ! DELTA! C ! (N1) 601RESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO. ! (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1_601 N I (B/ft) I RATIO! d I RATIOIFACTOR ----+ + + + + + + + + + + 4 21 .75 1.247 1 .068 4 - - - - .- -- 4 22 .25 1.277 1.082 4 - - - - - -- 4 22 .75 1. 307 1 .096 4 - - - - - -- 4 23.25 1.337 1 .111 4 - - - - - - -- 4 23.75 1.367 1 .125 4 - - - - - - -- 4 24 .25 1 .397 1.140 4 - - - - - - -- 4 24 .75 1 .427 1. 154 4 - - - - - - -- 4 25 .25 1.457 1. 168 4 - - - - - - -- 5 25.75 1. 489 1. 184 18 0.36 0. 867 28 .4 0.344 0. 940 0.422 0.80 5 26.25 1.522 1.202 18 0.36 0 .867 28. 4 0.344 0. 939 0.425 0 . 80 5 26.75 1 .555 1 .220 18 0 .36 0 .867 28. 4 0 .344 0 . 938 0.427 0.79 5 27 .25 1 .588 1 .237 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0 . 936 0.430 0.79 5 27 .75 1 . 622 1.255 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0 .935 0. 432 0.79 5 28 .25 1. 655 1.273 18 0. 36 0.867 28 .4 0.344 0.934 0. 434 0.78 5 28 .75 1 .688 1 .290 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0.933 0.436 0.78 . 5 29.25 1.721 1.308 18 0.36 0.867 28 .4 0.344 0. 932 0 .438 0.77 5 29.75 1.755 1 .326 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0. 931 0 .440 0.77 5 30 .25 1.788 1 .343 18 0.36 0 .867 28.4 0 .344 0. 928 0.441 0.77 5 30 .75 1 .821 1 .361 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0. 924 0. 442 0.77 5 31 .25 1 .854 1.379 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0.920 0.442 0.77 5 31 .75 1.888 1.396 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0. 344 0.916 0.443 0.77 5 32 .25 1. 921 1.414 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0.912 0 .443 0.77 5 32 .75 1. 954 1 .432 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0. 907 0.443 0.77 5 33.25 1. 987 1 .449 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0. 903 0.443 0.77 5 33 .75 2.021 1 .467 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0.899 0. 443 0.77 5 34 .25 2.054 1.484 18 0. 36 0.867 28.4 0.344 0.895 0.443 0.77 5 34 .75 2. 087 1.502 18 0.36 0.867 28.4 0. 344 0.891 0.443 0.77. 5 35 .25 2 . 120 1 .520 18 0.36 0.867 28. 4 0.344 0. 887 0.442 0.77 5 35.75 2 . 154 1 .537 18 0.36 0.867 28. 4 0.344 0 .883 0.442 0.77 6 36.25 2 .185 1 .553 4 - - - - -- 6 36.75 2 .215 1.568 4 - - - - - 6 37 .25 2 .245 1.582 4 - - - - - - -- 6 37 .75 2.275 1 .597 4 - - - - - - -- 6 38 .25 2.305 1. 611 4 - - - - - - -- 6 38 .75 2 .335 1.625 4 - - - - - - -- 6 39 .25 2 .365 1. 640 4 - - - - - - -- 6 39.75 2 .395 1. 654 4 - - - - - - -- 6 40.25 2 . 425 1 .669 4 - - - - - -- 6 40.75 2 . 455 1 .683 4 - - - - - -- 6 41 .25 2 .485 1. 697 4 - - - - - -- 7 41 .75 2.516 1 .713 25 0.04 0.746 33.5 Infin 0. 834 0.438 NonLiq 7 42 .25 2. 549 1 .730 25 0 .04 0 .746 33.5 Infin 0.830 0.437 NonLiq 7 42 .75 2 .581 1 .747 25 0.04 0 .746 33.5 Infin 0 .826 0.436 NonLiq 7 43.25 2 . 614 1.764 25 0.04 0.746 33.5 Infin 0.822 0. 436 NonLiq NCEER (1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 3 File Name: LIQTEST.OUT I CALC. I TOTAL( EFF. ( FIELD I FC I I CORR. ILIQUE. I IINDUC. ILIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C I (N1) 601RESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO. 1 (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1 601 N I (B/ft) I RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR 7 43.75 2 .646 1 .781 25 0.04 0.746 33 .5 Infin 0.818 0 .435 NonLiq 7 44 .25 2 . 679 1 .798 25 0.04 0 .746 33. 5 Infin 0. 814 0.434 NonLiq 7 44 .75 2 .711 1.815 25 0.04 0.746 33 .5 Infin 0.810 0.433 NonLiq 7 45 .25 2 .744 1 .831 25 0. 04 0.746 33.5 Infin 0.806 0.432 NonLiq 7 45.75 2 .776 1. 848 25 0.04 0.746 33.5 Infin 0. 802 0. 431 NonLiq 7 46.25 2 .809 1 .865 25 0.04 0.746 33. 5 Infin 0.798 0.429 NonLiq 7 46.75 2 .841 1.882 25 0.04 0.746 33.5 Infin 0. 794 0.428 NonLiq 8 47 .25 2 .874 1 .899 21 0.03 0.715 27.0 0.289 0.789 0.427 0. 67 8 47 .75 2 .906 1.916 21 0.03 0.715 27 .0 0 .289 0.785 0 .426 0. 67 8 48.25 2.939 1 . 933 21 0.03 0.715 27 .0 0.289 0.781 0. 425 0. 67 8 48 .75 2 . 971 1.950 21 0.03 0.715 27.0 0.289 0. 777 0.423 0. 67 8 49.25 3.004 1. 967 21 0.03 0.715 27 .0 0.289 0.773 0.422 0. 68 8 49.75 3.036 1 .984 21 0. 03 0.715 27 . 0 0.289 0.769 0.421 0. 68 8 50 .25 3 .069 2.000 21 0.03 0.715 27 .0 0.289 0.765 0. 420 0. 68 8 50.75 3. 101 2 .017 21 0.03 0.715 27.0 0.289 0.761 0.418 0. 68 8 51 .25 3 . 134 2.034 21 0.03 0.715 27 .0 0.289 0.757 0.417 0. 68 APPENDIX E STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS li J J ro PETRA LI J STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations performed under the control of Petra Geotechnical, Inc. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist. I. GENERAL A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the Owner's or Builder's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, supervision by the Soils Engineer includes that inspection performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils report. B. All clearing, site preparation,or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer. D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year. E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. II. SITE PREPARATION A. All vegetation and deleterious material such as rubbish shall be disposed of offsite. This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill. B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed and wasted from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Soils Engineer. C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, t shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Page 1 - STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested, and approved by the Soils Engineer. D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer. E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut/fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or unweathered bedrock materials, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. (Typical details are given on Plate SG-1.) Ill. COMPACTED FILLS A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer. B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine grained material to surround the rocks. 3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. • C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken offsite or placed in accordance ! with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is given in Plate SG-2.) D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill. E. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon as possible. F. Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless • otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer,the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Engineer. - Page2 - STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D 1557-78, the five-layer method, will be used.) If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to received fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the • grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report. • I. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium,alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. J. The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG-3.) • K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given in Plate SG-4.) L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the soils report. N. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soils prior to placing fill. (See detail on Plate SG-7.) IV. CUT SLOPES • A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet. B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these • conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer, and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Plates SG-5 and SG-8.) C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a nonerodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. - Page 3 - • STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS • • D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. V. GRADING CONTROL A. Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 fea of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil • conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate numberof field density • tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. C. Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as required by the Soils Engineer. D. All cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection. VI. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS A. Erosion control measures,when necessary,shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. • • Page 4 - • • • NATURAL GROUND PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL • REMOVE • UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 'TOPSOIL ALLUVIUM COLLUVIUM TYPICAL BENCHING 2% :fl COMPETENTNATIVE$0/I. �-1 OR-BEDROCK MATERIALS See Detail Below APPROVED BY THE , GEOTECHNICAL . FILTERMATERIAL- Gee�®� °® :OF OPIEN-GRADED GRAVEL OOT ,...;;.�60 e �® (g p ;`: ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. r' 12•MINI. ' v74�+o®e®�a`�e�®�® %�;SPECIFICAT ONSFOR GRAVEL TYPICAL)..®0 t3l�3y�`+J g g®P"11„r O®e®®O eq. FARIC SHALL DEPTH AND BEDDING MAY ®030 a a atm,040 eeeo g0®0® 00 "COIF LTER MIRAFI84ON OR APPROVEIDT VARY WITH PIPE AND LOAD s `�' ¢>© 9 p n ' 0e ; EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC. CHARACTERISTICS. �� (3'TYPICAL) �o eel®® f6 ®®®x®®`36:.'....,'::SHOULD BE LAPPED A MINIMUM 09 ® OF 12 INCHES. • ' pm�`-�'�o®� r9 �a�. "•ALTERNATE :tan? UM OF 6(1) "•91CUBCLTER bFEET RPER LINEA FOOT. "•"::,."."..:••••:•••••••••:•....::": a 4-9cIee b0t�®p®E90®pe1 <'":SEE PLATE SG-3 FOR FILTER MIN.::®o .D oel se 8 a aeo°4"� ogee:..r' MATERIAL PECIFICATIONS. • ®m ®poOFi 'e43�si"� te® .000 Cego Cone e@OGGe (3'TYPICAL) MINIMUM 6-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCHEDULE 40,OR ABS SDR-35 WITH A MINIMUM OF EIGHT 1/4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATIONS PER LINEAL FOOT IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. PIPE TO BE LAID WITH PERFORATIONS FACING DOWN. • NOTE$: 1.FOR CONTINUOUS RUNS IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET USE 8-INCH DIAMETER PIPE. 2.FINAL 20 FEET OF PIPE AT OUTLET SHALL BE NON-PERFORATED AND BACKFILLED WITH FINE-GRAINED MATERIAL. tPETRA CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL PLATE SG-1 OVEREXCAVATE PAD AS RECOMMENDED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT\ PROPOSED GRADE bt__- 15'MINIMUM TO TOP OFBACKCUT OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100'MAX.INTERVALS.• ••••��\ \\ EXTEND 12'BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF COMPACTED FILL / '"" ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE _;•.+;.';.";e;:;r;r;r;�;y„j;?; r;:;:;%;?;j?,�/""',"" GRATES TO PREVENT RODENT NESTING. f -4 NON PERFORATED SUBDRAIN See Detail • : PLATE SG 3 r rt f r ✓ r� ' < COMPETENT . r r : ,.� ' ` r� ti NATIVE MATERIA[ � - 30'MAX 1C\ : r r SPACING :;e1 1 ;`1%k;. _ TYPICAL BENCHING'`, - ,.}r^''.Y.S:.};• :• }t •: 7:j;;.?:?'rj?,:;i%} ; t^:}: {P;., .sem,-:.%.:::.:.....:..:..:.:..:..:..::'..: FINISHED '•� r i •" GRADE j4 NON PERFORATED SUBDRAIN 4 TYPICAL yr • VARIABLE „ � (10'TYPICAL) 15'MINIMUM - - ' Z MIN.KEY DEPTHINTO . . I .:. APPROVED SOIL MATERIALS ”: NOTES: 1. 30'MAXIMUM VERTICAL SPACING BETWEEN SUBDRAIN SYSTEMS. • 2. 100'MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPES. (See Below) 3. MINIMUM GRADIENT OF 2%FOR ALL PERFORATED AND NON-PERFORATED PIPE. 100'max. `I H 50' + 50' U a OUTLET PIPE(TYPICAL) • OUTLET PIPE(TYPICAL) PERFORATED PIPE(TYPICAL) PETRA BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION PLATE SG-2 V FILL DETAIL "'l'f•{;:`;:;:;;is tiff %"'•%-'". APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL(MIRAFI • °%" '.;1;:;:;%:'•'."``"`l-• 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALEN SLOPE FACE\ t.,;,.r; ,;.•;- T1- ti.............f 5 CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER LINEAR /•' FOOT OF PIPE,WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC. l wf r �, IE .•;',...;..,..:...i 3 CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER LINEAR + f l FOOT WITH FABRIC. �� -7..-. SIIIIMMINMM.IIIIIMMMMIIIIMyp FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE LAPPED A `� - MINIMUM OF 12-INCHES r r A 4-INCH PERFORATED PIPE WITH d l• PERFORATIONS DOWN. MINIMUM _, �,� „,`,;4-INCH NON-PERFORATED PIPE. 2%GRADE TO OUTLET PIPE. MINIMUM 2%GRADE TO OUTLET. I Y:•":` OVED ON SITE MATERIAL PER SOILS ENGINEER 12"min. ;.•:�-COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90%MAXIMUM DENSITY. :JINCH NON-PERFORATED PIPE H—t2'min.—'I SECTION A - A (OUTLET PIPE) I PIPE SPECIFICATIONS: 1. 4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PVC SCHEDULE 40,OR ABS SDR-35. 2. FOR PERFORATED PIPE, MINIMUM 8 PERFORATIONS PER FOOT ON BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. FILTER MATERIAL/FABRIC SPECIFICATIONS- ALTERNATE' OPEN GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL PER CALTRANS (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT) STANDARD SPECIFICATION 68-1.025. PFN GRADED CLASS2 SFIVE 317F PERCFNT PASSING SFIVF SI7F PERCENT PASSING 1 1/2-INCH 88- 100 1-INCH 100 1-INCH 5-40 3/4-INCH 90- 100 3/4-INCH 0- 17 3/8-INCH 40- 100 3/8-INCH 0-7 No.4 25-40 No.200 0-3 No.8 18-33 No.-30 5- 15 No.-50 0-7 No.200 0-3 PETRA BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION PLATE SG-3 U FILL SUBDRAIN FINISHED GRADE SLOPE FACE 10' CLEAR AREA FOR FOUNDATIONS. UTILITIES AND SWIMMING POOLS T ;'/.i.\. < ,\�!//\�<."/�:'\`✓i,/\\\ri/.\\✓,//\\.i//.\jam STREET WINDROW COMPACTED FILL 5'OR MIN.OF 2'BELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH, WHICHEVER IS GREATER TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (END VIEW) GRANULAR SOIL JETTED OR FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS - }jSr HORIZONTAL LIFTS-. C�:'J.'r:5 VIrM1 RS _ _ ��.sti.�kgA Z�rRY'�✓R+1 - /; \`i/A7 <//\ . //\Y/'A\\ii\ \\ '</,K\\'//\\\/ \\\//i\\\/i\\\///\\ .; 14 15'MIN. 'Jl TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (PROFILE VIEW) JETTED OR FLOODED GRANULAR SOIL ,. .. :. ....:.:.:•:'..10'MIN. : - _ �" 1rrj if �s +i.r;x `�"l= pi'tirA�s+rs t.e"A.�^If* gsria-s'�+eMM1�:Y+. ' ey�ti3�at5 j+tirR1 s et ,£ S � .a� �e '1r �'�� a; ` -A + ' 4ft " d x - S.“1xZaAM1: atsr 11- ~ " uni :1LS- j .h., 5, t. ielAy>kcr •c3. i. /\.\\/\.\\\ /,/\ :\\' , /\\\V//\\ <//\\\ / \\\//i\\ � \\\ / \\//i\\ //\ .\/% \\ / I1 100'MAX. • NOTE: OVERSIZE ROCK IS DEFINED AS CLASTS HAVING A MAXIMUM DIMENSION OF 12"OR LARGER • PETRA TYPICAL ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL PLATE SG-4 PROPOSED GRADE �- �_ _• �, REMOVE UNSUITABLE r COMPACTED FILL -��; MATERIAL • TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN ';' r•r•�`•'•• P1Ep .;{. r...• a TYPICAL PLACECOMPACTED FILLILLTO NATURAL SLOPE GRADE .6 � SOIL ALtJ M1 / TYPICAL BENCHING EXISTING GROUND \ ��. Pa 4 \\� Y r r fir• r SURFACE S• � '' •v' •'r•r'• 4 r COMPETENT iE6ROCK OR SOlL.MATERIALS r• : r �,••••• APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT':' ,. r. r r '.4r r r -MAINTAIN 15 MIN,HORIZONTAL WIDTH , r r r 'FROM SLOPE FACE TO BENCH/BACKOUT 15 MINIMUM ) KEY WIDTH `7MIN.•KEY DEPTH INTO COMPETENT BEDROCK OR 'APPROVED SO L M NOTES: 1. WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY; HOWEVER, FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL. 2. SOILS ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF SUBDRAIN IS REQUIRED. • PETRA ALL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE PLATE SG-5 • • • PROPOSED GRADE COMPACTED FILL ,• . S%UTl FILI CONTACT r;..�;.;.,;, r•r-• ._. • �:./�.. SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN SHOWN ON AS-BUILT f • ; 4 TY P. REMOVE UNSUITABLE THEPED T.-4 e, - ' VARIABLE--�{ MATERIAL N1�` /� ,t 10 TYPICAL NATURAL GROUND �G,OLLUVIUM r �r" COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS r - \ APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SURFACE\ "!' .MAINTAIN 15'MIN.HORIZONTAL WIDTH tOP5014 ----15'MINIMUM :, / .`•.`Y✓.FROM SLOPE FACE TO BENCH/BACKOUT CUT +':'i '�:'<:;;::':".;':'%C:".:):;t�T;.;'T:':;;;,'dINSTALL SUBDRAIN. SEEPLATESG-2AND?•; _.y,i;; ','SG-3 FOO TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DEfA1LS ,moi. r �`TFiECUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED:;', "',`�•,`,��`�' �1'AND EVALUATED BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PRIOR';':':':'.;::':'.','%Y?;' :'.:TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION OF THE SLOPE • PETRA FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE PLATE SG-6 CUT LOT UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT PAD • ORIGINAL GROUND ` SURFACE • i PROPOSED GRADE , REMOVE I I MATERIABLE I WEAnHEREO UNSUfTABEDROCK (D)or I COLLUVIUM, / I (D)or I45 MIN.1 I1 •..-. ALLUNUM• ISS MIN.)) Er" `.SOIL:; � . - ' ,.,.•J:• _ _ ��.•i: .•i{ —.'1 -.. COMPACTED ; - �- ~IrA ..a..3- -kasr+� ' ) • . ..'5• , FILL. I d y�- j OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT: r r�"r '""° .� .COMPETENT BEDROCK OR'SOILMATER/ALS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHMCAL CONSULTANt TYPICAL BENCHING,;•,..,..:�i`,.,•1 .::j'...:... ::,'✓;:,: t,: ....,..,.:':.' CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT I I ORIGINAL GROUND I • SURFACE PROPOSED GRADE REMOVE I (D)or UNSUITABLE I 6' 5' I MATERIAL 1 _jai .a! .l.d.Nd: a':.ra.•..: f:r: n . v.` •.':d.:.:nr�: . r5 r r y r COMPACTED r ,�Dpb4 r •:i;r.r;:.:•:ti•.:.:ti•ti•ti:::•r : r r - r FILL.. r E�ED - .:{{..:.. . 1};•.;};. . " : :.d. ." r7•.::::r :.: i :ar 0.iN•- .•L:r:•�id.:. :.. t 1 YQE S •�1 1•..1 •.• ,. .=°r r - �� r OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT :Y•r-: ..l`.,51 1• d •• ^:;:;i::,::�l:.ibPst ~ '! "-.COMPk7ENT BEDROCK OR SOILMATERIALSt ',�, ,`-:;:1'.,,- • "• APPROVED BY THE CEO.TECHNICAL;CONSUL'TANT,,; "•; TYPICAL BENCHING ;,s,'a',`::...'.'. ..-:-:',:.:'..,,_,,,.. :'..:::',. ✓:,.f.;,�..__(.::. :; . MAXIMUM DEPTH OF FILL(Fl DEPTH OF OVERFXCAVATION(Dl FOOTING DEPTH TO 3 FEET EQUAL DEPTH 3 TO 6 FEET 3 FEET GREATER THAN 6 FEET 1/2 THE THICKNESS OF FILL PLACED ON THE . "FILL"PORTION(F)TO 15 FEET MAXIMUM • eU PETRA CUT LOTS AND CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOTS PLATE SG-7 TYPICAL REMOVAL OF UNSUITABLE SURFICIAL SOILS BEYOND PROPOSED TOE OF FILL SLOPE :t:7-,.. PROPOSED 2:1 FILL SLOPE a•".rj'p,',",•; 1: EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ,f>r. , }; • :•;•:.*:.:*:S11•7..,1 DESIRED REMOVAL r;i-„e :•:•: a^� LIMITS BEYOND TOE r r . SZOFSd/r r �' t. �< 2D >� s ; r s s • S C9ZC(jyij,. :e.;;E r • �' �. r ^' 11 BEQRQOK L : r r '' r r r r .: r;,,.r;:▪ D ”.1 .'; -,l y r~ r ; ~ v � � temporaryslope; J_ �_,•. r; ---1 MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING INTO /a' PETENT BEDROCK ;:','OR APPROVED SOIL ;':IS MINIMUM KEY WIDTH +`;:FILL TO NATURAL ;::MATERIALS :',`;EMBEDDED A MINIMUM OF 7 •SLOPE GRADE :-:INTO COMPETENT BEDROCK D=RECOMMENDED DEPTH OF REMOVAL PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PETRA REMOVALS IL BSLOPE TOE PLATE SG-8 SHEAR KEY ON DAYLIGHT CUT LOTS EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROPOSED DAYLIGHT CUT PROPOSED CUT LOT RECONSTRUCT AT 1.5:1 OR FLATTER lr COMPACTED FILL c÷cG SPL O\ ~~ INSTALL 6-INCH PIPE SUBDRAIN PER PLATES SG-4 AND SG-8 NOTE: 'V" SHALL BE 10 FEET OR AS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PLATE SG-9 LD.ETS OF ROCK DISPOSAL 4 � T F v1Si 110'NEN", GRADE Ca.CecOGc=G Oc.CocOGc0c OGOoc OGceGCGOoC OGc=cOGC'=c Op CeoOGQoG OGC�or'1GCaG OGC=GCGcoc Op C<GOGC=G Occor'iOGCoC OGceGOGC=G OG.. r'�G-^'oG AW •"N OGr=GCGC=G CGC=G O^,-^=G-`GCoc A- ;'ROCK BLANCT MCP) L�GcocOGceG OG=ecOa�eG CGGoc0G CeGO G CecO'Gc CONTETENT NLATERDLL PER SOILS ENGINEER • ^- ' SECTION A% �•- - - - - L'NETS OFROCK DiSPOS"_r 3 FtiTSH SLOPE FACE 3'ROCK BL"-tvtii. (YP.) 0'N2`+. G'OGC=GOGC=G is'Nom'. CGCoGL`p C=G O'G.-�e�__.0=c OGC=G C'GGeGCGC=G CG==GOGCeG CC -=G iNEN - OGc=GOG ec OGCocOGcoc C'a.c c 'GC=G Qa.c cO C=G COt‘.C9_N T NLA-'tet PER SOIL E C']`'—i SECTION B-B' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • PLATE SG-10