The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeotechnical Rpt Lots 54-77, 115 6/20/2002i 7 t B� 0 b t PETRA OFFICES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Jule 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 BGR No. 010340 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES 104 West Grand Avenue, Suite A Escondido, California 92025 Attention: Mr. Gary McCoy Subject: Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 54 through 77 and 115, Tract 23066-1, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California This report presents a summary of the observation and testing services provided by ' Petra Geotechnical, hic. (Petra) during rough -grading operations to complete the development of Lots 54 through 77 and 115 of Tract 23066-1 located in the Temecula area of Riverside County, California. Conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the suitability of the grading for the proposed residential construction are provided herein, as well as foundation -design recommendations based on the as -graded soil conditions. Preliminary rough -grading within the golf-course/tract interface was performed within the subject tract in 1998 through 1990 under the purview of Petra. Petra reported on the interface grading in a report issued in December 2001 (see References). REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Cuts, removals and recompaction of unsuitable low-density surface soils, lot overexcavations and placement of compacted fill under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation and with selective testing by Petra. The earthwork was performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 41640 Corning Place . Suite 107 . Murrieta . CA 92562 . Tel: (909) 600-9271 . Fax: (909) 600-9215 z [1 F I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 2 previous geotechnical reports by Petra (see References) and the Grading Code of the County of Riverside. The completed earthwork has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the construction now planned. On the basis of our observations, as well as field and laboratory testing, the recommendations presented in this report were prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further warranty is implied nor made. SUMMARY OF AS -GRADED SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS As -Graded Conditions Remedial grading during the 1989 and 1990 interface grading generally involved the removal and recompaction of low-density surficial soils that included alluvial and colluvial soils subject to hydrocollapse or excessive consolidation, as well as near - surface weathered bedrock materials. Remedial grading of the site at that time consisted of removal and recompaction of all low-density surficial material, removal of haul roads and loose end -dumped fill piles. Remedial grading during the recent phase of rough grading included similar removals plus surficial overexcavation and recompaction, on the order of up to 12 feet. Remedial grading also included overexcavation of the cut portions of cuUfill transition lots. The compacted fills range in depth from approximately 4 to 36 feet. A lot -by -lot summary of the compacted -fill depths and a summary of soil conditions is presented in the attached Table 1. A general description of the soil and bedrock materials underlying the subject tract is provided below. • Compacted Engineered Fill (map symbol afe) —The compacted fill soils placed in 1989 through 1998 generally consist of silty sand and sandy silt with variable clay. The compacted -fill soils placed in 2002 are also comprised of onsite -derived soil A 3 I 11 1] 11 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 3 and bedrock materials and generally consist of fine- to coarse-grained sand, silty sand and clayey sand. • Pauba Formation Bedrock (Ons) — The Pauba Formation consists of dense, fine- grained and well -graded sandstones, clayey sandstone and clay beds with occasional gravel and cobble beds. A cross -bedded, well -graded sand unit is contained within the Pauba Formation. SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND DENSITY TESTING Clearing and Grubbing At the time of grading, a majority of the tract was covered with a light growth of grasses and weeds. This light vegetation was removed during overexcavation to existing grades and mixed with the excavated soils in an acceptable manner (i.e., the resultant blend contained less than l percent organic materials). Heavy vegetation that existed in local areas, as well as some constriction debris, were removed from the site. Ground Preparation • 1988 - 1990 - During the interface grading performed in 1989 and 1990, unsuitable soils were removed and replaced with compacted fill. Removal of unsuitable soils was performed to facilitate future grading by eliminating the need to encroach into the completed golf -course fairways during final rough grading of the subject tract. Removal of unsuitable soils extended laterally into the golf -course fairways at a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:vj) projection from the proposed toe -of -slopes to the bottom of the overexcavation in order to provide sufficient lateral support for the embankment fills. As a result of the removals, the alluvial soils anticipated to be subject to hydrocollapse or excessive consolidation that existed within the broader valley areas were removed. In areas to receive compacted fill, all deposits of existing low-density surficial soils (slopewash and alluvium) were removed to competent bedrock. In general, removal of unsuitable surficial materials varied from approximately 3 to 10 feet below the original ground surface. All removals were also extended into adjacent street areas to receive compacted fill. • 2002 - Prior to placing structural fill, existing low-density surficial soils were first removed to competent unweathered bedrock, or previously placed compacted fill I/ I Lot Overexcavations To mitigate distress to residential structures related to the potential adverse effects of excessive differential settlement, the curt portion of cut/fill transition lots were overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finish grade and replaced with compacted fill. Fill Placement and Testin ' All fill soils were placed in lifts restricted to approximately 6 to 8 inches in maximum thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum moisture t conditions and then compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Compaction was achieved by wheel - rolling with an 824 rubber -tired dozer and loaded scrapers. The maximum vertical depth of fill placed within the subject lots is approximately 36 feet. Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with nuclear - gauge test methods ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017, respectively. Occasional field density tests were also performed in accordance with the sandcone method (ASTM Test Method D1556). Field density test results for 1989 and 2002 are RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 ' TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 4 materials. Removals throughout the lots varied from approximately 2 to 9 feet. ' Previously compacted -fill materials exposed in removal areas exhibited an in-place minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. ' Prior to placing fill, exposed bottom surfaces in all removal areas were first observed ' and approved by our project geologist or senior soil technician. Following this approval, the exposed bottom surfaces were scarified to depths of approximately 6 to ' 8 inches, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a moisture content equal to or slightly above optimum moisture content and then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Lot Overexcavations To mitigate distress to residential structures related to the potential adverse effects of excessive differential settlement, the curt portion of cut/fill transition lots were overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finish grade and replaced with compacted fill. Fill Placement and Testin ' All fill soils were placed in lifts restricted to approximately 6 to 8 inches in maximum thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum moisture t conditions and then compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Compaction was achieved by wheel - rolling with an 824 rubber -tired dozer and loaded scrapers. The maximum vertical depth of fill placed within the subject lots is approximately 36 feet. Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with nuclear - gauge test methods ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017, respectively. Occasional field density tests were also performed in accordance with the sandcone method (ASTM Test Method D1556). Field density test results for 1989 and 2002 are ' All cut slopes expose competent Pauba Formation bedrock and were constructed at a maximum ration of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum height of 12 feet (Lot 115). 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 ' Page 5 presented on the attached Tables II and 111, respectively, and approximate test locations ' are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map with Density Test Locations (Plates I and 2). Field density tests were taken at vertical intervals of approximately 1 to 2 feet and the ' compacted fills were tested at the time of placement to verify that the specified moisture content and minimum required relative compaction of 90 percent had been ' achieved. At least one in-place density test was taken for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed and/or for each 2 feet in vertical height of compacted fill. The actual number of tests taken per day varied with the project conditions, such as the number of ' cartlmmovers (scrapers) and availability of support equipment. When field density tests 90 produced results less than the required minimum relative compaction of percent or ' if the soils were found to be excessively above or below optimum moisture content, the approximate limits of the substandard fill were established. The substandard area ' was then either removed or reworked in-place. Visual classification of earth materials in the field was the basis for determining which for density test. Single maximum dry density value was applicable a given -point ' checks were performed to supplement visual classification. Fill Slopes All fill slopes were constructed at a maximum ratio of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum height of approximately 30 feet. All fill slopes were overfilled an average of 4 to 5 feet during construction and then trimmed back to the compacted core. Cut Slopes ' All cut slopes expose competent Pauba Formation bedrock and were constructed at a maximum ration of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum height of 12 feet (Lot 115). 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [1 I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 6 LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type observed during grading were determined in our laboratory in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values for each phase of grading (1989 and 2002) are summarized in Appendix A. Expansion Index Tests Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of soil existing at or near finish -pad grade within the subject lots. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Test results are also summarized in Appendix A. Atterberg Limits Atterberg limits were determined for selected soil samples per ASTM Test Method D4318. Test results are presented in Appendix A. Soluble Sulfate Anal Soluble sulfate analyses were determined for representative samples of soil existing at or near finish grade within the subject lots. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method No. 417. Test results are summarized in Appendix A. Chloride Resistivity and pH Analyses Water-soluble chloride concentration, resistivity and pH were determined for selected samples in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 422 (chloride) and 643 (resistivity and pH). The results of these analyses are summarized in Appendix A. it r% I 11 1 1 1 I IJ r, I I I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 7 FOUNDATION -DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Foundation Types Based on as -graded soil and geologic conditions, the use of conventional slab -on - ground foundations is considered feasible for the proposed residential structures. Recommended design parameters are provided herein. Allowable Soil -Bearing Capacities An allowable soil -bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for 24 -inch square pad footings and 12 -inch wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth, to a maximum value of 2,500 psf Recommended allowable soil -bearing values include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third when designing for short -duration wind and seismic forces. Anticipated Settlement Based on the general settlement characteristics of the compacted 611 soils, as well as the anticipated loading, it has been estimated that the maximum total settlement of building footings will be less than approximately 0.75 inch. Maximum differential settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be about one-half the total settlement. The maximum anticipated differential settlement of 0.38 inch in 30 feet may be expressed as an angular distortion of 1:960. Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf may be used to determine lateral -bearing resistance for building footings. Where structures such as masonry block walls and retaining walls are planned on or near It a I 1 1 1 I 1 I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 8 descending slopes, the passive earth pressure should be reduced to 150 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 1,500 psf. In addition a coefficient of friction of 0.40 times the dead -load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral -sliding resistance. An increase of one-third of the above values may also be used when designing for short -duration wind and seismic forces. The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. For foundations founded in cut areas ofPauba Formation, the coefficient of friction should be 0.30. Footing Observations All footing trenches should be observed by a representative of Petra to verify that they have been excavated into competent hearing soils and to the minimum embedments recommended herein. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of fornis, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture -softened soil and any, construction debris should be removed prior to placing concrete. Excavated soils derived from footing and utility trench excavations should not be placed in slab -on -ground areas unless the soils are compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. Expansive Soil Considerations Results of laboratory tests indicate onsite soil and bedrock materials exhibit VERY LOW, LOW and HIGH expansion potentials as classified in accordance with 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-1-B. A lot -by -lot breakdown for the different levels of expansion is provided below. I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 9 • Very Low Expansion Potential - Lots 57 through 59, 63 through 77 and 115 • Low Expansion Potential - Lots 55, 56, 60, 61 and 62 • High Expansion Potential — Lot 54 ' Design and construction details for the various levels of expansion potential are provided in the following sections. Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less) The following to lots the foundation recommendations pertain as -graded where soils exhibit a VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18-1-B. For soils exhibiting expansion indices of less than 20, the design of slab -on -ground foundations is exempt from the procedures outlined in 1997 UBC Section 1815. Based on this soil condition, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following minimum criteria. However, additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement should be ' provided as required by the project architect or structural engineer. • Footings - Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated in 1997 UBC Table 18-1-C (i.e., 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and 18 - inch minimum depth for two-story construction). Interior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one- and two-story buildings, respectively and should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one ' bottom. - Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as ' second -story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of l8 inches below the 10 tRICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 10 lowest adjacent final grade. No special reinforcement of the pad footings will ' be required. ' Floor Slabs - Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and reinforced with either 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded -wire fabric (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 ' WWF) or with No.3 bars spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ' ensure the desired placement near mid -depth. - Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be seated and at least 2 inches of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the ' concrete. Garagc-floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and should be reinforced in a similar manner as living -area floor slabs. Garage -floor slabs should also be placed separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion -joint materials and quartered with weakened-planejoints. A 12 -inch -wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one lop and one bottom. Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all concrete slab -on -ground should be prewatered to promote mrifonn curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 21 to 501 ' The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils 1 exhibit a LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18-I-13. The 1997 UBC specifies that slab -on -ground foundations (floor slabs) ' resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 require special design considerations in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815. The design procedures ' outlined in 1997 UBC Section 1815 are based on the thickness and plasticity index of [1 I 1 1 lJ 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 11 each different soil type existing within the upper 15 feet of the building site. For final design purposes we have assumed an effective plasticity index of 12 in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815.4.2. The design and construction recommendations that follow are based on the above soil conditions and may be considered for minimizing the effects of slightly (LOW) expansive soils. These reconmmendations have been based on the previous experience of Petra on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed in accordance with these recommendations has been found to minimize post -construction movement and/or cracking, they generally do not positively mitigate all potential effects of expansive soil action. The owner, architect, design civil engineer, structural engineer and contractors must be made aware of the expansive -soil conditions which exist at the site. Furthermore, it is recommended that additional slab thicknesses, footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than recommended below be provided as required or specified by the project architect or structural engineer. • Footings Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated in 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -C (i.e., 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and 18 - inch minimum depth for two-story construction). Interior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one- and two-story buildings, respectively and should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as 1 second -story decks, patio covers and similar constriction, should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 1 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, near the bottom - third of the footings. /;L ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 12 • Floor Slabs The project architect or structural engineer should evaluate minimum floor -slab thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815 based ' on an effective plasticity index of 12. Unless a more stringent design is recommended by the architect or the structural engineer, we recommend a ' minimum slab thickness of 4 inches for both living -area and garage -floor slabs and reinforcing consisting of either 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded - wire fabric (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) or No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on ' concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -height. Living -area concrete -Floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. t Garage -floor slabs should also be placed separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion - joint materials and quartered with weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch wide grade ' beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. ' Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living -area and garage - floor slabs should be pre -watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optmium-moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade soils. High Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 91 to 130) The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots which would exhibit a HIGH expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B. foundations The 1997 UBC specifies that slab -on -ground (floor slabs) on soils with ' an expansion index greater than 20 require special design considerations in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815. The design procedures outlined in 1997 UBC Section ' 1815 are based on a plasticity index of the different soil layers existing within the �3 1 [1 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 13 upper 15 feet of the building site. Based on subsurface stratigraphy and distribution of the different soil types, we have assumed an effective plasticity index of 30 in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815.4.2. The design and construction recommendations that follow are based on the above soil conditions and may be considered for minimizing the effects of highly expansive soils. These recommendations have been based on the previous experience of Petra on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed in accordance with these recommendations has been found to minimize post -construction movement and/or cracking, they generally do not positively mitigate all potential effects of expansive soil action. The owner, architect, design civil engineer, structural engineer and contractors must be made aware of the expansive -soil conditions which exist at the site. Furthermore, it is recommended that additional slab thicknesses, footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than recommended below be provided as required or specified by the project architect or structural engineer. • Footings - All exterior footings for both one- and two-story construction should be founded a minimum depth of 24 -inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Interior continuous footings may founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one- and two-story buildings, respectively, and should be reinforced with four No. 4 bars, two top and two bottom. - Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as second story decks, patio covers and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, near the bottom -third of the footings. - Interior isolated pad footings supporting raised -wood floors should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded a minimum depth of 24 inches below iy RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 14 the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, near the bottom one-third of the footings. • Floor Slabs The project architect or structural engineer should evaluate minimum floor -slab thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815 based on an effective plasticity index of 30. Unless a more stringent design is recommended by the architect or the structural engineer, we recommend a minimum slab thickness of 5 inches for both living area and garage floor slabs and reinforcing consisting of No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -height. Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or equivalent placed on top of a 4 -inch -thick sand or gravel base. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and an additional 2 inches of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. ' Garage -floor slabs should have a minimum slab thickness of 5 inches on a 4 - inch -thick sand base and should be reinforced in a similar manner as living -area ' floor slabs. Garage -floor slabs should also be placed separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion -joint materials and quartered with weakened-planc joints. A 12 -inch - wide by 24 -inch -deep grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two top and two bottom. Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living -area and garage - floor slabs should be presoaked to achieve a moisture content that is 5 percent or greater above optimum moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 24 inches into the subgrade soils. Presaturation of the subgrade soils will promote uniform curing of the concrete ' and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. 1 Alk 15 1 I 1 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula POST -TENSIONED SLABS June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 15 In lieu of the preceding recommendations for conventional footings and floor slabs, post -tensioned slabs may be used. The actual design of post -tensioned slabs is referred to the project structural engineer who is qualified in post -tensioned slab design, using sound engineering practices. The post -tensioned slab -on -ground should be designed in general conformance with the design specification os 1997 UBC Section 1816. Alternate designs are allowed per 1997 UBC Section 1806.2 that addresses the effects of expansive soils when present. However, to assist the structural engineer in his design, the following parameters are recommended. Expansion index .� ,Very Low and Low 0 to 50) High = 91tto,130 _. Assumed percent clay 30 70 Clay type Montmorillonite Approximate depth or constant sucti011(feet) 7.0 7.0 Approximate soil suction (pF) 3.6 16 Approximate velocity or moisture flow (inches month) 0.7 0.7 Thomwaite Index -20 -20/0' Average edge moisture v,n o,nou depth, (feet) Center lift 4.6 6.0 Edge lift 2.2 4_I Anticipated swell, y,, (inches) Center lilt 1.4 4.5 Edge lift 0.4 1.7 ' Edge conditions only • Perimeter footings for either one- or two-story dwellings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 and 18 inches below the nearest adjacent final -ground surface for Very Low to Low and High expansion potential, respectively. Interior footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of the finish -floor slab. it %f0 I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 16 • All dwelling -area floor slabs constructed on -ground should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen. A minimum of 1 inch of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. • Presaturation of subgrade soils below slabs -on -ground will not be required, except for highly expansive soils which should be prewatered to achieve a moisture content that is 5 percent or greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should penetrate to a minimum depth of 24 inches into the subgrade soils. However, all subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete. • The design modulus of subgrade reaction (k) should be 300 tons per cubic foot. 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 characteristics, occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system and on the building height. For structural design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (UBCSEIS, 1998/1999) was utilized which compiles fault information for a particular site using a modified version of 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 inforniation for a particular site including the distance of the site from each of the faults in the data file, the estimated slip -rale for each fault and the "maximum moment magnitude" of each fault. The program then selects the closest Type A, Type B and Type C faults from the site and computes the seismic design coefficients for each of /7 I 1 1 11 I I I I I I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 17 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 the computer generated data using UBCSEIS, the Elsinore -Julian (Type A) segment of the Elsinore fault zone, located approximately 12.1 kilometers from the site, could generate severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 7.1 and anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. However, the closest Type B fault which is the Elsinore -Temecula fault located 1.3 kilometers to the southwest of Tract 23066-2 would probably generate the most severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 and anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. Based on our evaluation using UBCSEIS, the following 1997 UBC seismic design coefficients are recommended for the proposed residential structures. These criteria are based on the soil profile type as determined by existing subsurface geologic conditions, on the proximity of the Elsinore -Temecula fault and on the maximum moment magnitude and slip rate. It E 1997 UBC TABLE FACTOR Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone 4 16-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.4 16-U Seismic Source Type B 16-J Soil Profile Type S„ 16-S Near -Source Factor N. 1.3 16-T Near -Source Factor N, 1.6 16-Q Seismic Coefficient C, 0.44 N, = 0S7 16-2 Seismic Coefficient C 0.64 N, = 1.02 It E I 1 I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 18 SOIL CHEMISTRY . Laboratory test results indicate onsite soils contain negligible soluble -sulfate contents As such, concrete in contact with soil may utilize Type I or Il Portland cement. The laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH indicate onsite soils may be moderately corrosive to buried steel in direct contact with onsite soils. RETAINING WALLS Footing Embedments The base of retaining -wall footings constricted on level ground may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where retaining walls are proposed on or within 15 feet from the top of any adjacent descending fill slope, the footings should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (one-third the slope height) is maintained between the outside bottom edges of the footings and the slope face, however, the minimum footing setback should be 5 feet. The above -recommended minimum footing setbacks are preliminary and may require revision based on site-specific soil and/or bedrock conditions. All footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that the footing trenches have been excavated into competent -bearing soils and/or bedrock and to the minimum embedments recommended above. These observations should be performed prior to placing forms or reinforcing steel. Active and At -Rest Earth Pressures An active lateral -earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (Low) and 50 pcf (1-ligh) should tentatively 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 63 pcf (Low) and 87 pcf it 19 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 19 (High). All retaining walls should 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 density of 60 pcf (Low) and 75 pcf (High) should tentatively be used for walls supporting a level backfill. This value should be increased to 95 pcf (Low) and 125 pcf (High) for an ascending 2:1 (h:v) backfill. Drainage A perforated pipe -and -gravel subdrain should be installed 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 embedded in 1.5 cubic feet per foot of 0.75- to 1.5 -inch open -graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent. In lieu of a pipe and gravel subdrain, weepholes or open vertical masonry joints may be considered for retaining walls not exceeding a height of approximately 3 feet. Weepholes, if used, should be 3 inches 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 continuous gravel fill, 12 inches by 12 inches, should be placed behind the weepholes or open masonry joints. The gravel should be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent infiltration of fines and subsequent clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of Miraft 140N or equivalent. The backfilled portions of retaining walls should be coated with an approved waterproofing compound to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. It .?0 I 1 1 I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 20 Temporary Excavations To facilitate retaining -wall construction, the lower 5 feet of temporary slopes may be cut vertical and the upper portions exceeding a height of 5 feet should then be cut back at a maximum gradient of 1:1 (h:v) for the duration of construction. However, all temporary slopes should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant for any evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, flatter temporary slopes may be necessary. The potential effects of various parameters such as weather, heavy equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary excavations and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary slopes. Wall Backfill All retaining -wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch maximum lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum -moisture conditions and compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. MASONRY BLOCK WALLS Construction on or Near the Tops of Descending Slopes Continuous footings for masonry block walls proposed on or within 7 feet from the top of any descending slope should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal clearance of 5 feet is maintained between the outside bottom edge of the footing and the slope face. The footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. Plans for any top -of -slope block walls proposing pier and grade -beam footings should be reviewed by Petra prior to construction. Al I 11 1 H RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 21 Construction on Level Ground Where masonry block walls are proposed on level ground and at least 5 feet from the tops of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should also be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. Construction Joints In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of differential settlement, positive separations (construction joints) should be provided in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 25 feet and at each corner. The separations should be provided in the blocks only and not extend through the footings. The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as effective "grade beams" along the full lengths of the walls. CONCRETE FLATWORK Thickness and Joint Spacing To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete sidewalks and patio -type slabs should be at least 3.5 inches thick, except for areas of highly expansive soils where the concrete sidewalks and patio -type slabs should be at least 5 inches thick with 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6, welded -wire fabric with thickened edges around the perimeter that borders landscape areas and provided with construction or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Concrete driveway slabs should be at least 4 inches thick, except for areas of highly expansive soils where they should be at least 5 inches thick with 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6, welded -wire fabric and provided with construction or expansion joints every 10 feet or less and with thickened edges around the perimeter that borders landscape areas. it as I 1 [] 1 [1 11 I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 22 Subgrade Preparation As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete-flatwork areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent and then thoroughly wetted 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 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. A representative of the project soils engineer should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete. PLANTERS Area drains should be extended into all planters that are located within 5 feet of building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry block garden walls to minimize excessive infiltration ofwater 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. UTILITY TRENCHES All utility -trench backfill within street right-of-ways, utility easements, under sidewalks, driveways and building -floor slabs, as well as within or in proximity to slopes should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. Where onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. Density testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project soils engineer or his representative, to verify proper compaction. W a3 I 1 1 I 1 [] 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 23 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. 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, 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, observation, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed. To avoid point -loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported sand bedding should be placed at least I foot above all pipe in areas where excavated trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand -bedding materials should be thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill. Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to any building footing (interior and/or exterior trenches), 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. SLOPE LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE The engineered slopes within the subject tract are considered grossly and surficially stable and are expected to remain so under normal conditions provided the slopes are landscaped and maintained thereafter in accordance with the following minimum recommendations. • Compacted -earth berms should be constructed along the tops of the engineered fill slopes to prevent water from flowing directly onto the slope surfaces. It .7y ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-I Lots 54-77 & ll 5/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 24 ' The slopes should be landscaped as soon as practical when irrigation water is available. The landscaping should consist of deep-rooted, drought -tolerant and maintenance -free plant species. A landscape architect should be consulted to ' determine the most suitable groundcover. If landscaping cannot be provided within a reasonable period of time, jute matting (or equivalent) or a spray -on product designed to seal slope surfaces should be considered as a temporary measure to inhibit surface erosion until such time permanent landscape plants have become well-established. • Irrigation systems should be installed on the engineered slopes and a watering program then implemented which maintains a uniform, near -optimum moisture condition in the soils. Overwatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils Should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry -out is also detrimental to slope performance. ' Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of sprinkler lines in trenches is not recommended. • During construction of any terrace drains, downdrains or earth berms, care must be taken to avoid placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces. • A permanent slope -maintenance program should be initiated for major slopes not maintained by individual homeowners. Proper slope maintenance must include the care of drainage and erosion control provisions, rodent control and repair of leaking or damaged irrigation systems. • Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage, maintenance and landscaping, the potential for deep saturation of slope soils is considered very low. ' • Property owners should be advised of the potential problems that can develop when drainage on the building pads and adjacent slopes is altered in any way. Drainage can be altered due to the placement of fill and construction of garden walls, retaining walls, walkways, patios, swimming pool, spas and planters. 11 r I II 1 I 1 I I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES June 20, 2002 TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 25 POST -GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Petra should be notified at the appropriate times in order that we may provide the following observation and testing services during the various phases of post grading construction. • Building Construction - Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and competent soil-beafing conditions. - Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough, saturated or compressible soils. - Observe pre-soaking of subgrade soils below living -area and garage floor slabs to verify adequate moisture content and penetration. • Retaining -Wall Construction - Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and competent soil -bearing conditions. - Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough, saturated or compressible soils. - Observe and verify proper installation of subdrainage systems prior to placing wall backfill. - Observe and test placement of all wall backfill to verify adequate compaction. • Masonry Block -Wall Construction - Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and competent soil -bearing conditions. - Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough, saturated or compressible soils. d6 1 1 t 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 26 • Exterior Concrete-Flatwork Construction - Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete- fl atwork areas to verify adequate compaction and moisture content. • Utility -Trench Backfill - Observe and test placement of all utility -trench backfill to verify adequate compaction. • Re -Grading - Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades shown on the approved grading plans. I\/ 17 I I I 1 1 U I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 & 115/Temecula June 20, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 27 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. L.J i ' w� 62 r �e . J ns No• I�� en or sso to Geologist ExP.el 62 �TFOFCP�% /TLJ/SMP/keb *plien4M . Poole Senior Associate E GE 692 Attachments: Table I - Lot -By -Lot Summary of As -Graded Soil Conditions Table II - Field Density Test Results (1988-1990) Table Ill - Field Density Test Results (2002) References Plates 1 and 2 - Geotechnical Maps with Density Test Locations (in pocket) Appendix A - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data Appendix B - Seismic Analysis Distribution: (4) Addressee (2) Riverside County Building and Safety Attention: Mr. Mack Hakakian w w C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [1 1 I 1 I I TABLE I LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY 1 PETRA 1 a9 M M M M=1 M M M M M M M M i M M M M w TABLE I Tract 23066-1 LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS Lot Number Maximum Fill Depth (ft) Differential Fill Thickness (ft) Estimated Differential Settlement Soil Expansion Index/ Potential Post- Tensioned Slab Chloride Exposure Sulfate Exposure Soil Condition Codes* Remarks 54 0 0 1:960 113/1-ligh Moderate Negligible E 55 1 0 0 1 1:960 29/Low Moderate Negligible E 56 4 1 1:960 29/Low Moderate Negligible E 57 11 3 1:960 5/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 58 20 5 1:960 5/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 59 35 5 1:960 5/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 60 36 6 1 1:960 40/Low Moderate Negligible E 61 35 5 1:960 40/Low Moderate Negligible E 62 32 4 1:960 40/Low Moderate Negligible E 63 20 8 1:960 4/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 64 20 10 1:960 4/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 65 20 10 1:960 4/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 66 20 10 1:960 20/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 67 20 10 1:960 20/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 68 20 10 1:960 201V Low Moderate Negligible Z 69 20 10 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 70 20 10 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z * per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001 Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 UBQJ E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2) C For corrosion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4 D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table I8 -III -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if> 1:4801 P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T -I 1 Q TABLE I Tract 23066-1 LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS Lot Number Maximum Fill Depth (ft) Differential Fill Thickness (ft) Estimated Differential Settlement Soil Expansion Index/ Potential Post- Tensioned Slab Chloride Exposure Sulfate Exposure Soil Condition Codes* Remarks 71 15 5 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible z 72 15 4 1:960 16/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 73 20 9 1:960 16/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 74 25 t0 1:960 16/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 75 25 7 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 76 25 7 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 77 25 5 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 115 12 7 1:960 12/V Low Moderate I Negligible Z " per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001 Code Definitions (Reference: /997 UBC): E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2) C For corrosion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4 D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table 18 -III -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if> 1, 480] P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used W Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-12 TABLE 11 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (1988 - 1990) 1 PETRA I 1 I I TABLE II Field Density Test Results 08/11/88 A134 Slope Lot 77 1114 14.3 117.6 91 2 08/11/88 A135 Slope Lot 76 1112 11.1 120.0 93 2 08/11/88 A136 Slope Lot 75 1 1 18 11.7 115.8 93 7 08/11/88 A137 Slope Lot 74 1110 11.1 116.8 91 2 08/11/88 A138 Slope Lot 77 1116 11.7 121.8 91 6 08/11/88 A139 Slope Lot 74 1112 12.4 119.2 90 9 08/12/88 A141 Slope Lot 75 1115 13.0 107.8 92 1 08/12/88 A142 Slope Lot 73 1114 11.1 119.5 91 9 08/12/88 A145 Slope Lot 74 1117 16.4 115.1 90 5 10/18/88 A174 Slope Lot 76 1118 10.5 120.2 91 9 10/18/88 A178 Slope Lot 74 1117 9.9 124.1 93 6 10/24/88 A179 Slope Lot 70 1105 9.9 119.0 90 9 10/24/88 A180 Slope Lot 67 1 104 11.1 119.4 90 9 10/24/88 A181 Slope Lot 68 1106 11.7 119.4 90 9 12/15/88 A182 Slope Lot 70 1107 10.2 126.3 94 6 12/15/88 A183 Slope Lot 67 1108 14.5 125.5 94 6 12/15/88 A184 Slope Lot 69 1108 9.9 111.0 95 1 12/15/88 A185 Slope Lot 71 1109 9.9 113.4' 91 7 12/15/88 A186 Slope Lot 61 1089 9.9 112.5 90 7 12/15/88 A187 Slope Lot 62 1091 10.5 112.9 91 7 12/16/88 A188 Slope Lot 61 1092 11.7 115.2 92 10 12/16/88 A189 Slope Lot 61 1092 11.7 119.2 93 5 12/16/88 A190 Slope Lot 61 1093 10.5 118.8 93 5 12/16/88 A191 Slope Lot 61 1094 11.1 116.9 91 5 12/28/88 A192 Slope Lot 62 1095 11.1 119.0 93 5 12/28/88 A193 Slope Lot 62 1095 12.4 119.8 94 5 12/28/88 A194 Slope Lot 61 1096 10.5 114.0 91 10 12/28/88 A195 Slope Lot 61 1097 12.4 117.1 91 5 12/28/88 A196 Slope Lot 61 1099 14.9 106.4 91 1 12/28/88 A197 Slope Lot 62 1101 12.4 117.3 92 5 12/28/88 A198 Slope Lot 62 1106 10.5 112.2 90 7 12/28/88 A199 Slope Lot 62 1102 10.5 123.1 93 9 03/07/89 A367 Slope Lot 60 1096 13.2 119.2 91 12 03/07/89 A368 Slope Lot 60 1102 12.5 119.8 91 12 03/07/89 A369 Slope Lot 60 1098 16.7 120.2 92 12 03/07/89 A370 Slope Lot 62 1103 13.4 120.1 92 12 03/07/89 A371 Slope Lot 60 1102 10.1 120.0 91 8 03/07/89 A372 Lot 60 1101 12.3 1179 92 5 03/08/89 A376 Slope Lot 62 1164 14.9 115.2 93 11 03/09/89 A378 Slope Lot 62 1104 13.6 118.7 91 12 03/09/89 A379 Slope Lot 61 1 104 13.6 1 1 1.9 90 7 03/09/89 A380 Slope Lot 60 1104 12.4 115.3 92 4 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54 - 77 115 ' J.N. 188-01 1989-1990 T� a 30e-lacla -It -3 TABLE T-11 1 .33 TABLE II Field Density Test Results 03/10/89 A381 Slope Lot 61 1105 11.7 112.8 91 7 '03/10/89 03/10/89 A382 A383 Slope Lot 61 Slope Lot 60 1106 1105 9.9 12.4 113.7 114.7 91 91 7 4 03/10/89 A384 Slope Lot 65 1106 11.7 115.9 92 4 '11/01/89 A559 Lot 59 1107 11.1 121.4 91 6 11/01/89 A560 Slope Lot 61 1107 11.8 120.8 90 6 11/01/89 A561 Lot 62 1106 10.1 120.8 90 6 11/03/89 A562 Slope Lot 60 1106 9.5 122.0 91 6 11/03/89 A563 Slope Lot 61 1019 10.8 126.0 94 6 11/03/89 A565 Lot 61 1110 13.2 125.7 94 6 '11/08/89 A566 Slope Lot 61 1111 8.6 125.6 94 6 11/08/89 A567 Slope Lot 62 1112 13.6 126.1 94 6 11/15/89 11/15/89 A568 A569 Slope Lot 61 Slope Lot 62 1113 1114 15.5 15.4 113.5 114.6 90 91 4 4 11/15/89 A570 Slope Lot 60 1111 12.2 118.7 90 9 A571 Slope Lot 60 1112 11.8 122.8 93 9 '11/15/89 11/15/89 A572 Slope Lot 60 1113 12.3 123.1 93 9 12/14/89 A573 Slope Lot 62 1115 11.7 118.31 93 14 12/14/89 A574 Slope Lot 62 1115 11.9 115.9 91 14 12/14/89 A575 Slope Lot 60 1114 12.9 118.9 93 14 12/14/89 A576 Lot 60 1113 13.1 120.3 94 1 '12/15/89 A577 Slope Lot 59 1112 12.9 120.1 91 9 12/15/89 A578 Lot 59 1113 10.4 115.5 90 14 12/15/89 A579 Slope Lot 62 1113 6.6 117.5 92 14 12/15/89 A580 Lot 62 1114 9.8 115.1 90 14 12/15/89 A581 Slope Lot 60 1115 9.9 119.2 93 14 '12/15/89 01/04/90 A582 A583 Lot 61 Lot 62 1116 1115 17.1 11.1 114.3 117.5 91 92 4 14 01/04/90 A584 Pine Circle 1116 9.6 120.7 91 9 01/04/90 A585 Slope Lot 59 1116 13.5 118.0 92 14 01/04/90 A586 Lot 59 1117 12.6 117.2 92 14 01/04/90 A587 Lot 60 1117 15.1 109.2 91 22 01/04/90 A588 Slope Lot 60 1114 13.1 117.6 92 14 01/04/90 A589 Lot 60 1115 15.0 114.3 90 21 01/04/90 A590 Lot 61 1114 15.1 116.9 91 14 '01/04/90 A591 Slope Lot 61 1115 15.8 112.3 93 22 01/04/90 A592 Slope Lot 68 1110 14.0 117.7 92 14 01/04/90 A593 Slope Lot 69 1111 13.6 116.0 91 14 1 01/04/90 A594 Slope Lot 65 1109 13.7 113.6 90 21 01/04/90 A595 Slope Lot 66 1110 16.1 1 1 1.7 90 7 t01/05/90 01/05/90 A596 A597 Slope Lot 70 Slope Lot 69 1112 1113 12.8 12.6 113.3 115.5 90 90 21 14 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54 - 77 115 ' J.N. 188-01 1989-1990 TABLE T -ll 2 341 I I TABLE 11 Field Density Test Results 01/05/90 A598 Slope Lot 65 1111 14.6 115.4 90 14 01/05/90 A599 Slope Lot 66 1112 14.8 116.0 91 14 01/05/90 A600 Lot 62 1116 12.6 115.5 90 14 01/05/90 A601 Lot 62 1117 14.6 112.4 90 7 01/05/90 A602 Lot 60 1118 13.2 113.5 91 7 01/05/90 A603 Lot 60 1119 9.8 109.2 88 7 01/26/90 A604 RT No. 603 -- 11.2 115.8 93 7 01/26/90 A605 Slope Lot 59 1116 11.7 115.6 90 14 01/26/90 A606 Lot 59 1118 10.8 120.4 94 14 01/26/90 A607 Slope Lot 59 1119 16.6 113.3 91 7 01/26/90 A608 Slope Lot 61 1116 12.5 117.9 92 1 01/26/90 A609 Lot 61 1117 13.8 119.4 93 14 01/29/90 01/29/90 A610 A611 Lot 59 Lot 58 1118 1119 12.0 11.4 111.8 115.7 90 90 7 14 01/29/90 A612 Lot 63 1118 11.4 112.1 90 7 01/29/90 A613 Lot 63 1119 16.0 119.4 93 14 01/29/90 A614 Slope Lot 60 1119 12.8 117.3 92 14 01/29/90 A615 Slope Lot 59 1120 13.1 113.8 91 7 01/29/90 A616 Slope Lot 61 1117 11.9 114.2 92 7 01/29/90 A617 Slope Lot 61 Ills 13.0 120.0 94 14 01/30/90 A618 Slope Lot 60 1116 15.5 116.5 91 14 01/30/90 A619 Lot 60 1117 16.2 114.5 92 7 01/30/90 A620 Lot 62 1117 15.5 106.5 91 13 01/30/90 A621 Lot 62 1118 12.5 114.3 92 7 01/31/90 A622 Slope Lot 60 1120 12.7 116.5 91 18 01/31/90 A623 Slope Lot 61 1121 14.1 110.6 90 20 01/31/90 01/31/90 A624 A625 Slope Lot 61 Slope Lot 61 1121 1122 11.4 11.8 119.2 111.6 93 91 18 20 01/31/90 A626 Lot 61 1120 15.9 114.8 90 18 01/31/90 A627 Lot 62 1121 13.1 112.6 92 20 01/31/90 A628 Lot 60 1120 12.9 113.7 92 20 01/31/90 A629 Lot 59 1121 14.4 111.6 91 20 01/31/90 A630 Slope Lot 62 1117 15.3 114.3 93 20 01/31/90 A631 Slope Lot 62 1119 12.6 115.4 90 18 01/31/90 A632 Lot 61 1122 10.2 118.6 93 18 01/31/90 A633 Lot 60 1123 12.0 115.2 90 18 02/01/90 A634 Slope Lot 65 1121 14.0 114.6 91 21 02/01/90 A635 Slope Lot 62 1123 13.7 116.6 93 21 02/01/90 A636 Slope Lot 60 1124 10.3 109.9 87 21 02/01/90 A637 Slope Lot 59 1125 11.4 111.9 89 21 02/01/90 02/01/90 A638 A639 Pine Circle Lot 59 1124 1125 10.9 9.1 113.3 109.6 90 87 21 21 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54 - 77 115 J.N. 188-01 1989-.1990 TABLE T-113 I F1 1 lJ 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 11 Field Density Test Results 02/01/90 A640 RT No. 636 9.9 118.9 94 21 02/01/90 A641 RT No. 637 -- 9.9 112.9 90 21 02/01/90 A642 Slope Lot 58 1129 10.7 122.4 96 18 02/01/90 A643 Slope Lot 59 1 130 10.4 116.9 91 18 02/01/90 A644 RT No. 639 -- 11.6 110.1 92 22 02/01/90 A645 Slope Lot 59 1127 17.9 128.6 97 16 02/01/90 A646 Lot 58 1128 9.2 107.0 89 22 02/01/90 A647 Lot 61 1124 9.0 108.0 90 22 02/01/90 A648 Lot 60 1125 9.8 108.2 90 22 02/02/90 A649 Slope Lot 59 1129 14.1 116.3 91 28 02/02/90 A650 Lot 58 1130 15.3 112.4 91 20 02/02/90 A651 Lot 62 1124 11.1 103.8 87 22 02/02/90 A652 Pine Circle 1125 11.6 106.8 89 22 02/02/90 A653 RT No. 646 -- 13.5 109.5 91 22 02/02/90 A654 Slope Lot 61 1125 10.6 113.7 92 20 02/02/90 A655 Slope Lot 61 1 126 10.1 1 1 1.9 91 20 02/02/90 A656 RT No. 651 -- 9.8 113.8 93 20 02/02/90 A657 RT No. 652 -- 11.7 113.5 92 20 02/02/90 A658 Lot 57 1127 9.5 114.2 93 20 02/05/90 A659 Lot 59 1132 13.5 113.4 92 20 02/05/90 A660 Lot 58 1133 15.4 110.9 90 20 02/05/90 A661 Slope Lot 62 1124 14.1 114.7 93 20 02/05/90 A662 Lot 62 1125 15.7 111.8 91 20 02/05/90 A663 Lot 61 1126 13.4 108.0 92 23 02/05/90 A664 Lot 59 1128 13.7 106.3 90 23 02/05/90 A665 Slope Lot 67 1114 10.8 120.9 94 18 02/05/90 A666 Slope Lot 65 1116 12.1 118.2 92 18 02/06/90 A667 Slope Lot 66 1117 12.5 117.7 92 18 02/06/90 A668 Slope Lot 67 1118 12.8 112.5 91 20 02/06/90 A669 Slope Lot 70 1113 12.3 127.6 96 16 02/06/90 A670 Slope Lot 71 1114 14.2 120.6 91 16 03/01/90 A746 Slope Lot 71 1115 9.1 123.6 97 14 03/01/90 A747 Slope Lot 70 1116 10.0 122.6 96 14 03/01/90 A748 Slope Lot 76 1120 10.6 108.3 93 13 03/01/90 A749 Slope Lot 77 1123 12.7 112.0 93 22 03/01/90 A750 Slope Lot 75 1123 14.0 110.7 92 22 03/01/90 A751 Slope Lot 76 1124 13.4 107.1 92 1 03/01/90 A760 Slope Lot 74 1120 13.7 106.2 91 1 03/01/90 A761 Slope Lot 75 1122 11.8 108.2 92 13 03/02/90 A766 Slope Lot 72 1118 10.2 108.0 90 22 03/02/90 A767 Slope Lot 73 1121 6.8 107.9 88 20 03/02/90 A772 RT No. 767 -- 11.5 104.8 91 13 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54 - 77 115 J.N. 188-01 1989-1990 TABLE T -H 4 ,36 ITABLE 11 Field Density Test Results 37 Vy.w.:: 1 : . '. :, :: 1.trsl ::tl /0T . I., % v,: 1: kv) q�' k 70). 03/02/90 A773 Slope Lot 73 1123 13.8 106.7 92 1 03/05/90 A778 Lot 74 1124 11.2 113.6 90 4 03/05/90 A779 Lot 75 1125 13.0 106.4 90 23 03/05/90 A780 Slope Lot 69 1117 15.2 115.1 90 14 03/05/90 A781 Slope Lot 70 1118 15.4 113.6 90 4 03/05/90 A782 Slope Lot 76 1125 12.7 120.2 94 14 03/05/90 A783 Lot 76 1126 12.3 119.1 93 14 03/05/90 A786 Slope Lot 76 1126 12.2 112.6 94 22 03/05/90 A787 Slope Lot 77 1127 12.9 114.7 91 4 03/05/90 03/07/90 A792 A796 Slope Lot 71 Slope Lot 68 1122 1119 19.1 10.1 104.9 120.0 90 92 1 3 03/07/90 A797 Slope Lot 66 1120 10.6 114.1 91 27 03/07/90 A802 Slope Lot 67 1121 10.6 120.7 92 3 03/07/90 A803 Slope Lot 65 1122 10.5 118.8 91 3 03/07/90 A804 Slope Lot 59 1128 11.8 113.9 91 10 03/07/90 A805 Slope Lot 60 1127 13.2 113.9 91 10 03/07/90 A806 Slope Lot 60 1130 14.3 110.1 92 22 03/08/90 A807 Slope Lot 61 1120 8.1 116.9 91 5 03/08/90 A808 Slope Lot 61 1125 9.9 122-5 92 16 03/08/90 A809 Slope Lot 61 1124 11.1 116.6 90 2 03/01/90 A810 Slope Lot 61 1120 9.9 117.0 91 2 03/08/90 A811 Slope Lot 61 FG 13.6 112.7 90 10 03/08/90 A812 Slope Lot 61 FG 23.1 108.4 92 1 03/08/90 03/08/90 A813 A816 Slope Lot 61 Slope Lot 70 FG, 1123 11.4 12.7 117.5 117.2 91 92 2 18 03/08/90 A817 Slope Lot 72 1124 10.9 103.9 87 22 03/08/90 A818 Slope Lot 66 1124 9.4 119.7 92 25 03/08/90 A819 Slope Lot 65 1125 11.7 114.5 91 27 03/09/90 A822 RT No. 817 -- 13.8 110.5 92 22 03/09/90 A823 Slope Lot 72 1125 10.7 112.8 90 27 03/09/90 A824 Lot 77 1133 12.7 118.3 92 18 03/12/90 A828 Slope Lot 75 1128 11.7 120.3 93 17 03/12/90 A829 Slope Lot 76 1129 11.2 116.5 91 14 03/12/90 A830 Slope Lot 68 1125 10.3 115.7 92 21 03/12/90 A831 Slope Lot 67 1126 10.4 115.7 92 21 03/12/90 A832 Lot 69 1124 7.6 119.2 92 17 03/12/90 A833 Lot 68 1125 7.5 1179 91 17 03/12/90 03/12/90 A834 A835 Lot 76 Lot 75 1127 1128 10.0 9.2 114.9 112.0 90 88 18 18 03/13/90 A840 Lot 74 1129 11.2 113.9 92 21 03/13/90 A841 RT No. 835 -- 13.6 118.0 92 18 03/13/90 A842 Lot 67 1126 7.9 110.2 86 18 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54 - 77 115 J.N. 188-01 1989-1990 TABLE T-115 37 I 1 [l 1 [1 [l I r 03/13/90 A843 Lot 68 03/13/90 A844 Slope Lot 62 03/13/90 A845 Lot 62 03/13/90 A846 Lot 59 03/13/90 A847 Lot 59 03/13/90 A848 Slope Lot 64 03/13/90 A849 Slope Lot 75 03/13/90 A850 RTNo. 842 03/13/90 A851 RT No. 843 03/14/90 A852 Lot 60 03/14/90 A853 Lot 61 03/14/90 A854 RTNo. 847 03/14/90 A855 Lot 59 03/14/90 A856 Slope Lot 61 03/14/90 A857 Lot 62 03/14/90 A858 Slope Lot 66 03/14/90 A859 Slope Lot 67 03/14/90 A860 Slope Lot 73 03/14/90 A861 Slope Lot 72 03/14/90 A862 Lot 61 03/14/90 A863 Lot 62 03/14/90 A864 Slope Lot 65 03/14/90 A865 Slope Lot 65 03/14/90 A866 Lot 61 03/14/90 A867 Lot 61 03/15/90 A868 Lot 63 03/15/90 A869 Lot 64 03/15/90 A870 Lot 68 03/15/90 A871 Lot 67 03/15/90 A872 Lot 77 03/15/90 A873 Slope Lot 77 03/15/90 A874 RT No. 869 03/15/90 A875 Lot 63 03/15/90 A876 RT No. 871 03/15/90 A877 Lot 69 03/15/90 A878 Slope Lot 58 03/15/90 A879 Slope Lot 60 03/15/90 A880 Slope Lot 60 03/15/90 A881 Slope Lot 61 03/15/90 A882 Slope Lot 61 03/19/90 A883 Slope Lot 74 03/19/90 A884 Slope Lot 76 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC J.N. 188-01 90 TABLE II Field Density Test Results 1127 7.6 111.8 87 18 1131 10.8 112.2 91 29 1132 11.0 110.5 90 29 1135 8.17 111.3 90 29 1136 7.5 110.0 89 29 1127 10.9 116.8 93 18 1130 11.5 114.5 92 18 -- 8.3 115.3 90 18 -- 8.6 116.4 91 18 1134 9.5 110.4 92 22 1135 9.8 109.0 91 22 -- 9.7 113.4 92 20 1137 10.3 117.3 94 19 1128 9.7 109.8 92 22 1129 8.7 110.2 92 22 1127 11.0 121.3 92 9 1128 10.2 120.2 91 9 1128 11.5 116.2 91 5 1129 12.1 121.4 92 9 1132 12.3 113.9 93 20 1133 10.6 113.7 92 20 1130 11.0 112.8 92 20 1131 12.6 111.9 91 20 1136 8.0 109.3 91 22 1137 11.7 106.8 91 13 1126 10.5 115.6 90 5 1127 9.3 108.6 89 10 1128 8.4 119.3 91 3 1129 7.8 116.0 89 3 1130 13.5 109.7 91 22 1131 14.8 109.0 91 22 -- 14.2 112.7 90 10 1129 16.3 110.5 90 20 -- 16.3 110.5 90 20 1130 12.5 108.1 90 22 1130 13.0 116.6 91 5 FG 14.9 115.6 90 5 FG 12.4 118.1 92 2 FG 13.0 118.6 91 3 FG 13.6 117.6 92 5 1131 10.4 113.9 93 20 1132 11.8 122.4 93 3 TR 23066-1 Lots 54 - 77 115 1989-1990 TABLE T-116 TABLE 11 Field Density Test R esults 39 03/19/90 8889 Slope Lot 76 1133 84 117.0 Yl 5 03/19/90 &890 Lot 77 1134 18 120.9 92 ] 03/20/90 /l907 Lot 76 1129 11.5 119.4 91 3 03/20/90 /\908 Lot 77 ll]A 11.4 1106 90 20 03/21/90 /\920 Lot 76 1131 14.5 1116 91 20 mm 03/22/90 /\960 Lot 68 1131 10.9 119.3 Vl 26 03/22/10 /\961 Lot 70 1128 112 117.3 90 26 N� 07/22/90 /\962 Slope Lot 73 1130 10.5 1197 Yl 26 � 03/22/90 /\964 Slope Lot 76 1134 10.1 1}8] 92 18 03/22/90 /l965 Slope Lot 77 1136 96 114,8 90 18 N� � 03/22/90 /\966 Lot 63 1128 15.7 103.0 92 S 03/22/90 /\967 Pine Circle 1129 13.5 111.4 y\ 20 03/22/90 /\968 Pine Circle 1130 97 |lkl 92 ll 03/22/90 &969 Lot 59 1131 10.3 117.6 93 l} 03/26/90 /\998 Lot 57 1131 13.5 111.5 91 20 03/26/90 /l999 Lot 57 1122 146 1013 91 22 03/16/90 /\|O00 Lot 66 1128 16} 11I3 90 21 03/26/90 /\1001 Lot 65 1129 8.5 1247 93 6 03/26/90 /\lA02 Lot 61 1134 136 111.3 90 20 �= 03/26/90 /\10O] Lot 60 1135 12.6 107.0 87 20 03/26/90 /\1004 Pine Circle 1131 9.4 l\IS 93 20 N� 03/26/90 /\1005 Lot 58 1132 9.3 113.5 92 20 03/26/90 /\1006 Pine Circle 1132 124 1046 85 20 03/26/90 /\lV07 Lot 59 1133 15.9 l\|7 91 20 0� 03/27/90 /\1008 RT No. 1003 '' 14.9 ll].S 93 20 03/27/90 /\1009 Lot 60 1137 15.3 108.8 91 22 03/27/90 /\1010 RT No. 1006 ' 102 116.8 91 5 03/27/90 Al0ll Lot 58 1134 8.9 117.8 92 5 03/27/90 /\1012 Lot 71 1130 9.8 127.5 94 ll 03/27/90 /\1013 Slope Lot 72 1131 10.3 130.3 97 ll 03/27/90 /\1014 Lot 67 |l]U 10.5 129.0 96 ll 03/27/90 /\1015 Lot 68 1131 9.0 127J 94 ll 0� 03/27/90 /\1016 Pine Circle 1132 13.8 1127 92 20 � 03/27/90 /\1017 Lot 62 1131 13.1 114.1 43 20 03/27/90 /\1018 Lot 75 113I 11 115Y 40 2 0� 03/27/90 /\1019 Lot 74 1133 114 118.2 90 3 03/27/90 /\iO20 Lot 66 1122 l|J 120] 92 3 03/27/90 /\|O2| Lot 68 l|}] 10.3 123.5 01 ll N� 03/28/90 /\1022 Lot 62 1135 15.4 110J 90 20 03/18/90 &1023 Lot 64 1136 8.8 113.9 91 19 03/28/90 &1024 Lot 74 1133 llj 119.1 Vl 3 03/28/90 /\1025 Lot 73 1134 12.5 119J 91 3 PETRiA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23O66^1Lots 54^77115 N� � J.N.188^O1 1989~1998 TABLE T -H 7 39 ' TABLE II TTryT ...�..... ....,.._. Field Density Test Results ureic si�y. s:cf�..naivi♦ <<.t/ .l/oi lPcll :'. llaj<, FYYL ' 03/28/90 A1026 Lot 63 1134 8.3 114.0 91 10 03/28/90 A1027 Lot 57 1135 7.4 119.0 95 10 03/28/90 A1032 Lot 64 1133 12.6 121.1 92 3 03/28/90 A1033 Lot 66 1134 12.2 123.1 94 3 03/28/90 A1036 Lot 66 1135 10.2 113.2 90 27 03/28/90 A1037 Lot 67 1 133 8.2 121.5 93 3 03/28/90 A1038 Lot 72 1133 11.8 115.4 92 27 03/28/90 A1039 Lot 71 1134 7.7 118.0 90 3 03/29/90 A1040 Tiburcio Dr 1129 8.9 118.0 94 27 A1041 Tiburcio Dr 1131 12.8 104.1 81 5 '03/29/90 03/29/90 A1044 Lot 77 1138 8.8 118.8 93 5 03/29/90 A1046 Slope Lot 71 1134 8.5 124.7 95 3 A1047 Lot 72 1135 9.4 121.6 93 3 '03/29/90 03/29/90 A1048 Slope Lot 69 1134 29 122.3 93 3 03/29/90 A 1049 Lot 70 1135 9.8 116.8 91 5 03/29/90 A 1051 RT No. 1041 -- 11.0 112-3 90 19 03/29/90 A1052 Lot 63 1133 12.8 115.9 91 5 03/29/90 A1053 Lot 64 1136 11.5 119.7 91 3 03/29/90 A1054 Lot 63 1 137 12.4 114.5 91 27 03/29/90 A1055 Lot 71 1135 7.8 114.9 91 27 03/29/90 A1056 Lot 70 1 136 10.0 117.9 92 5 03/29/90 A 1057 Lot 75 1 131 11.6 119.4 91 3 03/29/90 A1058 Lot 73 1133 9.2 117.2 92 5 03/30/90 03/30/90 A1066 _ A1067 Slope Lot 76 Slope Lot 75 1135 1136 7.8 10.1 123.0 115.8 94 90 3 5 03/30/90 A1070 Lot 69 1137 8.2 117.6 90 3 A1071 Lot 67 1138 11.9 122.2 93 3 '03/30/90 04/03/90 A1091 Lot 71 1137 12.2 121.8 91 6 04/03/90 A1092 Lot 72 1138 12.3 119.7 91 3 A1093 Lot 67 1136 10.9 119.8 91 3 '04/03/90 04/03/90 A1094 Lot 68 1137 6.4 118.1 90 3 04/03/90 A1099 Lot 73 1138 8.4 119.9 92 3 '04/03/90 A1100 Lot 74 1139 10.3 117.9 90 3 04/03/90 A1101 Lot 74 1139 10.3 117.9 90_ 3 04/03/90 A1101A Lot 68 1138 10.9 124.6 93 6 04/03/90 A1102 Lot 70 1139 9.8 124.9 93 6 04/03/90 A1105 Lot 115 1144 10.6 123.7 94 3 '04/03/90 04/03/90 A1106 A1107 Lot 115 Tiburcio Dr 1145 1136 11.8 10.7 121.5 122.9 93 94 3 3 04/03/90 Al 108 Slope Lot 115 1138 11.1 120.5 92 3 A1111 Slope Lot 73 1140 15.5 104.9 90 1 '04/03/90 04/03/90 Al 112 Slope Lot 74 1142 13.9 119.4 91 3 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54 - 77 115 ' J.N. 188-01 1989-1990 TABLE T -ll 8 yo I TABLE II Field Density Test Results ' utv i r tvvtit) (to) tpctl i io) 1 YY 04/03/90 A 11 13 Lot 64 1 138 10.2 118.4 93 5 04/03/90 A1114 Lot65 1139 12.8 106.4 91 13 04/03/90 A1128 Lot69 1141 8.3 113.9 91 10 04/03/90 A1129 Lot 70 1142 8.8 114.2 91 10 '04/03/90 Al 130 Lot 76 1145 9.1 111.6 91 20 04/03/90 Al 131 Lot 77 1147 9.7 109.5 89 20 04/05/90 A1134 RT No. 1 131 -- 10.3 115.7 93 10 04/05/90 Al 136 Lot 72 1 143 12.4 115.7 93 10 04/05/90 Al 137 Lot 73 1144 11.6 115.1 92 10 A 1 170 Slope Lot 73 FG 9.3 112.5 90 7 '04/06/90 04/06/90 A 1 171 Slope Lot 72 FG 9.9 109.1 91 22 04/06/90 A 1 172 Slope Lot 71 FG 11.1 116.2 92 4 A1191 Slope Lot 67 FG 11.1 109.7 91 22 '04/10/90 04/10/90 A1192 Slope Lot 68 FG 13.0 119.4 91 3 04/10/90 Al 193 Slope Lot 69 FG 12.4 117.9 90 3 04/13/90 A 1 198 Slope Lot 66 FG 11.1 122.1 92 16 04/13/90 A1199 Slope Lot 65 FG 8.1 113.0 90 27 04/18/90 A1203 Slope Lot 74 FG 10.5 121.1 91 16 04/18/90 A1204 Slope Lot 75 FG 8.7 115.3 90 14 04/19/90 A1205 Slope Lot 76 FG 9.9 120.1 90 16 1 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54 - 77 115 J.N. 188-01 1989-1990 TABLE T -ll 9 -772 a3o6cla -/, -3 q1 I 1-1 1 1 1 TABLE III 1 1 [1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (2002 ) 1 PETRA V,. I TABLE III 04/29/02 467 Lot 73 1138.0 12.4 120.1 90 2 04/29/02 468 Lot 74 1139.0 9.4 127.5 96 2 04/30/02 491 Lot 74 1140.0 6.1 113.0 86 1 04/30/02 492 Lot 75 1141.0 9.0 115.0 87 2 '04/30/02 497 Lot 73 1147.0 9.9 122.7 92 2 04/30/02 498 Lot 73 1148.0 9.2 116.1 88 1 04/30/02 499 Lot 71 1140.0 13.1 109.9 90 D I04/30/02 500 Lot 72 1140.0 11.4 110.4 90 D 04/30/02 501 RT No. 491 -- 7.1 109.8 83 1 502 RT No. 492 9.2 113.9 87 1 '04/30/02 04/30/02 503 RT No. 498 == 8.6 117.3 89 1 04/30/02 504 RT No. 501 -- 6.3 115.3 88 1 517 Lot 77 1144.0 11.8 109.5 89 D '04/30/02 04/30/02 518 Lot 77 1143.0 12.3 108.0 88 D 04/30/02 527 RT No. 503 -- 10.9 119.9 91 1 04/30/02 528 RT No. 517 7.8 112.4 92 D 04/30/02 529 RT No. 518 12.9 111.3 91 D 04/30/02 530 RT No. 502 -- 10.1 117.4 91 4 04/30/02 531 Lot 75 1145.0 10.8 116.0 90 4 05/01/02 559 Lot 76 1141.0 11.1 121.1 92 2 05/01/02 560 Lot 76 1142.0 12.7 118.1 92 4 ' 05/02/02 584 Lot 76 1141.0 10.8 120.7 90 2 05/02/02 585 Lot 76 1142.0 10.5 126.5 95 2 ' 05/02/02 05/02/02 586 587 Lot 73 RT No. 504 1140.0 -- 12.2 12.2 115.8 120.5 90 90 4 2 05/02/02 623 Lot 75 1145.0 7.7 122.0 91 2 05/02/02 624 Lot 75 1146.0 8.5 123.6 93 2 05/02/02 625 Lot 72 1143.0 12.5 118.1 90 9 05/02/02 626 Lot 72 1144.0 8.5 123.6 93 2 851 Lot 65 slope 1146.0 10.3 107.2 92 5 '05/13/02 05/13/02 852 Lot 65 slope 1147.0 11.1 108.4 93 5 05/16/02 902 Lot 115 1137.0 10.2 106.1 83 4 05/16/02 903 RT No. 902 -- 10.6 117.5 91 4 05/16/02 922 Lot 72 1140.0 12.4 119.5 92 9 05/16/02 923 Lot 69 1138.0 9.0 115.0 90 3 05/16/02 924 Lot 66 1135.0 10.5 121.2 91 2 05/16/02 925 Lot 66 1136.0 9.8 120.8 91 2 05/15/02 930 Lot 65 1136.0 8.9 120.6 90 2 ' 05/15/02 931 Lot 65 1134.0 9.2 121.4 91 2 05/15/02 932 Lot 67 1138.0 10.6 116.5 91 4 933 Lot 67 1136.0 9.0 119.0 93 4 '05/15/02 05/15/02 934 Lot 71 1142.0 8.9 118.4 92 4 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 115 JUNE 2002 ' J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -III 1 y3 TABLE III LAX A5/l5/A2` 935 Lot 71 11400 9.4 110.0 Yl 4 05/16/02 943 Lot 60 1135.0 11.4 121.8 91 2 N�05/16/0I 944 Lot 58 1134.0 13.1 116.5 91 4 05/16/02 945 Lot 63 1124.5 9.4 115.8 Vl 4 05/16/02 946 Lot 67 1139.0 13.0 112J Yl 10 m� 05/16/02 947 Lot 67 11400 10.6 114.4 92 10 05/16/02 948 Lot 63 11365 124 114.8 90 4 N� 05/16/02 949 Lot 60 1136.5 13.1 116.5 Vl 4 � 05/16/02 950 Lot 58 1130.0 8.3 121.3 91 2 N� � 05/16/82 05/16/02 956 957 Lot 115 Lot 115 1145.0 1147.8 9.4 102 \l].] 116.3 91 91 10 4 05//6/02 958 Lot 115 1143.0 89 118.2 vl 9 05/16/82 950 Lot 115 11420 9.5 1186 91 V N� 05/16/02 466 Lot 115 1144.0 10Y 121.0 Yl 2 05/16/02 967 Lot 115 1145.0 14.0 108.9 90 8 05/17/02 968 Lot 115 1148.0 100 121�0 91 2 0� 05/17/02 969 Lot 115 1149.0 87 121.3 91 2 05/17/02 974 Lot 56 1135.5 10.9 119.7 91 7 00 05/17/02 975 Lot 56 1137.0 8.5 1170 91 4 � °= 05/17/02 991 Lot 115 1148.0 11.3 1152 90 3 05/17/02 992 Lot 115 1150.0 8.0 113.9 92 10 N� 05/23/02 1161 Lot 71 1188.0 10.6 114.8 90 3 � 06/01/02 1276 Lot 65 P0 98 116.7 95 2 � 06/01/02 06/01/02 1277 1278 Lot 66 Lot 67 F8 EG 108 12.6 125.6 119.4 94 90 2 7 06/01/02 1279 Lot 69 P8 13.9 121.3 91 2 06/01/02 1280 Lot 69 FG 11.3 122.5 92 % 06/01/02 1281 Lot 70 F{} 80 122.8 92 2 06/01/02 1282 Lot 71 P(} 6.3 120.3 90 % 06/01/02 1283 Lot 72 P(} 8.9 126.7 95 2 06/01/02 1284 Lot 73 PG 8.4 126.4 95 2 06/01/02 1285 Lot 74 F6 8.5 124.3 93 2 86/01/02 1286 Lot 75 FG 8.0 126�1 94 2 � =° 06/01/82 1287 Lot 76 f(3 7.9 127.2 95 2 06/01/02 1288 Lot 77 F(; 8.8 128.5 96 2 06/08/02 1422 Lot 64 FG 8.0 120.9 Vl 12 � 06/08/02 1423 Lot 63 F0 14.1 113.6 01 lA N�06/08/02 � 06/08/02 1424 1425 Lot 62 Lot 61 FG P8 7.0 6.9 123.3 114.7 92 yl l\ 12 06/08/02 1426 Lot 60 FU 10.3 121.2 Vl ll 06/08/02 1427 Lot 59 FG 7.8 124.7 93 l} 06/08/02 1428 Lot 58 FG 6.5 114.4 90 7 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066^1 Lots 54~77115 JUNE 2002 � J.N. 188^01 *Sandomne TABLE^1112 1 ' TESTI: ' DATE.. 06/08/02 '06/08/02 06/13/02 06/13/02 '06/13/02 06/15/02 06/15/02 06/15/02 06/15/02 1 t TABLE III Field Density Test Results 1429 Lot 57 FG 8.9 120.8 90 11 1436 Lot 115 FG 5.9 121.4 91 2 1548 Tiburcio Dr 1115.0 9.0 115.8 90 4 1549 Tiburcio Dr 1116.0 11.3 120.9 91 11 1550 Tiburcio Dr 1120.0 9.6 119.5 92 9 1622 Lot 115 slope 1145.0 8.8 111.8 90 10 1623 Lot 115 slope 1150.0 10.1 109.1 90 8 1624 Lot 115 FG 9.8 121.2 90 11 1625 Lot 56 FG 10.1 124.3 93 11 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 54-77 115 J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone JUNE 2002 ,TABLE -III 3 y5 I 1 1 1 1 REFERENCES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PETRA M I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 Blake, T.F., 1998/1999, "UBCSEIS" Version 1.03,A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code," Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, dated April 1997. Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1987, Evaluation of Faulting and Liquefaction Potential, Portion of Wolf Valley Project, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated November 20, 1987. 1988, Preliminary Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Red Hawk Project, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated February 2, 1988. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, CDMG Special Report 131. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1989, Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066 and 23067, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, Volumes I and 11. J.N. 298-87, dated May 8, 1989. , 2001 a, Due -Diligence Geotechnical Assessment of Planned Grading and Site Development, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 30, 2001. , 2001b, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation,'fract 23066-3, Lot 129, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April, 18, 2001. , 2001c, Response to Riverside County Geotechnical Report Review Sheet Dated April 24, 2001, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, Califomia; for The Garrett Group LLC, J.N. 188-01, dated December 11, 2001. , 2001d, Documentation of Previous Interface Grading Adjacent to Golf Course Fairways, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3, Temecula Area of Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated December 10, 2001. 2001 e, Geotechnical Review of 40 -Scale Rough Grading Plans, Tracts 23066, 23066-I, 23066-2 and 23066-3, Temecula Area of Riverside County, California, dated December 11, 2001. , 2002a, Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and 30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 20, 2002. , 2002b, Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Geotechnical Report Review Sheet, Dated February 21, 2002 and Grading Plan Review Report, Tract 30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, BGR No. 020159, J.N. 188-01, dated March 21, 2002. 2002c, Geotechnical Design Parameters for Medium Expansive Soils, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and 30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 26, 2002. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JUNE 2002 J.N. 188-01 Y7 ' REFERENCES (Continued) 2002d, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Model Lots, Tract 23066-1, ' Lots 3 through 5, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3, 2002. , 2002e, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Phase 1, Tract 23066-2, Lots 10 through 39, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3, 2002. 2002£, Geotechnical Recommendations, Post -Tensioned Slabs, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and 30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 9, 2002. ' , 2002g, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots 1 through 8, Tract 23066-2, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 26, 2002. ' 2002h, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 9 through 39, Tract 23066-2, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated May 8, 2002. ' 2002h, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots 92 through 95, Tract 23066-1, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated May 30, 2002. 0 1 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JUNE 2002 ' J. N. 188-01 09 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA LABORATORY TEST DATA Tib 02i�a D 93 -/, -c, 3 ♦ PETRA lK APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values are given on Plates A-1 and A-2. Expansion Potential Expansion index tests were performed on selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM "Pest Method D4829. Expansion potential classifications were determined from 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B on the basis of the expansion index values. Test results and expansion potentials are presented on Plates A-3 and A-4. Soil Chemistry Chemical analyses were performed on selected samples 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 presented on Plate A-5. Alterbere Limits Atterberg limit tests (Liquid Limit and Plastic Index) were performed on selected samples to verify visual classifications. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Test results are presented on Plate A-5. ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC JUNE 2002 J. N. 188-01 So LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY 1989 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I.N. 188-01 JUNE 2002 Plate A-1 .51 Ma' 6n 't py 117.0 14 127.5 2 129.0 16 132.5 3 131.5 17 130.0 4 126.0 18 128.0 5 127.5 19 124.5 6 134.0 .20 122.5 7 124.5 21 126.0 9 132.0 22 129.0 10 125.0 23 118.0 11 135.5 26 130.5 12 130.0 27 125.5 13 117.5 11 11 124.5___j PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I.N. 188-01 JUNE 2002 Plate A-1 .51 I I I [1 I I 11 I I [] LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY' (Continued) 2002 r(1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D1557 [J I I I I r PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JUNE 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-2 r I tr2 a, ay�r ' H Yi+.sit Sod Type t K i NEW— Fnyrc F vv....J Y.l y Sl$p OpttmumIR€,Ma MOlstllP /O .I. mum Dry DensRy C 1 Dark brown Clayey Silty fine SAND 8.5 131.5 2 Light brown Silty SAND 8.0 133.5 3 Brown Clayey fine SAND 10.5 127.5 4 Light brown Silty, Clayey fine- to medium -grained SAND 10.0 128.5 5 Light brown very fine Sandy SILT 14.0 116.0 7 Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel 8.5 132.0 8 Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and Silt 12.5 120.5 9 Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay 8.5 130.5 D Light brown Clayey SAND 13.0 122.0 10 Medium brown Clayey SILT 11.5 124.5 11 Medium brown Clayey medium to coarse SAND with cobbles 8.0 133.5 12 Light brown Silty to Clayey fine SAND 10.5 126.5 r(1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D1557 [J I I I I r PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JUNE 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-2 r I L 1 [1 1 1 L EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA 1E4*.. gg ��. a ''I Fu' - ..FExpanstonE Re resentatrve�Lots��,,�„ x x Expanston� 54 54 113 High 56 55 and 56 29 Low 58 57 through 59 5 Very Low 61 60 through 62 40 Low 64 63 through 65 4 Very Low 67 66 through 68 20 Very Low 70 69 through 71 0 Very Low 73 72 through 74 16 Very Low 76 75 through 77 0 Very Low 115 115 12 Very Low ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JUNE 2002 J. N. 188-01 Plate A-3 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA (Continued) mp13f € No y+x".-.'ar' .�,3Y. Yom$ �§ '.r 'rDes fi��tion� s ;� ai' saga`�� 'c' 1s.Ai " F Expans�onbExpanston t Index E"^"0 potenhal 1 Dark brown Clayey Silty tine SAND 11 Very Low 2 Light brown Silty SAND 18 Very Low 3 Brown Clayey fine SAND 81 Medium 4 Light brown Silty, Clayey tine- to medium -grained SAND 75 Medium 5 Light brown very tine Sandy SILT 16 Very Low 6 Light yellowish brown fine SAND 0 Very Low 7 Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel 2 Very Low 8 Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and Silt 3 Very Low 9 Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay 1 20 Very Low (2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829 (3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE I8 -1-B PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC JUNE 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-4 5e SOLUBLE CHEMISTRY ,r s"'Y=5)� :' * ` Lot§Nos �'a+ ,J i ' vq a Sulfate `fi �" F SI Chlonile r a pII .k:*'' .uLD kReststrvtty t moi, is* 2hp.: re^ Corrosrvtty Potential x *� 9'� 7 i-x.(%a) (P 18 f` N�'* i(ohm cm)u... . _l 15 17 10 Clayey SILT .> r 54 0.01 60 6.8 3,300 concrete: negligible 8 �{ yI ��L�ot No j�p ry steel: moderate 63 through 65 ND -- -- -- concrete: negligible Clayey SAND 23 15 8 29 steel: 75 through 77 ND 98 6.7 2,000 concrete: negligible 15 19 36 Silty SAND 27 steel: moderate ATTERBERG LIMITS' �.,rSam le No 3, P Ps T 3 NOW _y� G: fi'x,F :s ...,SotltTy I f *sF - Ltgmdv '� Ss Lrnut p i 'RMa ",' Plastic ti z.. _Ltrtutc , Pl ,#et;,»N o asttctty rIndexi 3 Clayey SAND 32 14 18 4 Silty, Clayey SAND 32 15 17 10 Clayey SILT 28 24 4 I Clayey medium to coarse SAND with cobbles 26 18 8 �{ yI ��L�ot No j�p ry 20 through 23 Silty SAND 32 16 16 26 Clayey SAND 23 15 8 29 Silty SAND 33 15 18 35 Silty SAND 34 15 19 36 Silty SAND 27 13 14 31 Silty SAND 22 19 3 33 Silty Clayey SAND 30 14 16 (4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417 (5) PER CALIFORNIA TESL' METHOD NO. 422 (6) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643 (7) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643 (8) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4318 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. J. N. 188-01 JUNE 2002 Plate A-5 -05 I 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B 1 SEISMIC ANALYSIS 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PETRA 1 1 1 S� OUT 1 JOB NUMBER: 188-01 02 JOB NAME: Richmond Redhaw FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.4677 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.0860 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 ' UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SO ' NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 12.1 km ' NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA DISTANCE: 1.3 km 1 NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.3 'NV: 1.6 Ca: 0.57 Cv: 1.02 TS: 0.716 TO: 0.143 1 ' Page 1 DATE: 04-13-20 57 ' U B C S E I S version 1.03 COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 188-01 02 JOB NAME: Richmond Redhaw FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.4677 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.0860 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 ' UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SO ' NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 12.1 km ' NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA DISTANCE: 1.3 km 1 NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.3 'NV: 1.6 Ca: 0.57 Cv: 1.02 TS: 0.716 TO: 0.143 1 ' Page 1 DATE: 04-13-20 57 OUT .............::c:k.....,.......k'.c'.ck'c...,.,.,......'.e'.......... '.c :k :k .. .. ., .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. �k'.; is �k :k',. .. .. :'c :k .. .. :: �k'.c CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are limited in number and have been digitized from small s� scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently, the estimated fault -site -distances may be in error b y several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. ...... ...................... ............:r i......, :: ik:...................................., ................., ., ........ ., is i... --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 1 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - FAULT ABBREVIATED TYPE FAULT NAME I(SS,DS,BT) ELSINORE-TEMECULA I SS ELSINORE-JULIAN I SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I SS ROSE CANYON I SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I 2.6 I B 1 6.8 5.00 1 12.1 I A 1 7.1 I 5.00 1 31.2 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I 33.3 I A I 7.2 I 12.00 I 34.1 I B 1 6.9 I 12.00 I 46.5 I B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 49.0 1 B 1 6.9-1 1.50 1 53.6 I B 1 6.8 I 4.00 I 56.6 I B 1 6.5 I 2.00 Page 2 55 OUT I SS CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I DS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern I SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER SS PINTO MOUNTAIN SS CORONADO BANK I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I SS PALOS VERDES I SS BURNT MTN. I SS CUCAMONGA I DS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I DS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO SS EUREKA PEAK I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I DS SAN JOSE I DS CLEGHORN I Ss SIERRA MADRE (Central) I DS LANDERS SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I SS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I SS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I SS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I DS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I SS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I SS RAYMOND I 60.0 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I 62.7 I B I 6.7 I 12.00 I 63.0 I A I 7.4 I 24.00 I 66.8 I B I 6.8 I 2.50 I 73.8 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 I 74.1 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 I 79.1 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I 81.5 I B I 7.1 I 3.00 I 84.6 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I 86.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I 87.4 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I 87.8 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I 87.9 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I 89.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I 90.4 ( B I 6.7 I 0.50 I 91.0 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I 91.1 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I 94.8 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I 99.2 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I 102.4 I B. I 7.1 I 0.60 I 102.4 I A I 7.8 I 34.00 I 107.0 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I 111.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I 111.6 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I 112.9 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I 115.4 I B I 6.5 I' 0.50 Page 3 59 OUT I DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I SS VERDUGO I DS ELMORE RANCH I SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK I SS CALICO - HIDALGO SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I SS HOLLYWOOD I DS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA I SS SANTA MONICA I DS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I DS I 120.2 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 j 123.5 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I 124.2 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I 124.3 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I 125.0 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I 126.3 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I 128.5 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I 128.6 I B I 6.5 I 25.00 I 138.9 I B I 7.0 I 3.50 I 140.4 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I 143.8 I B I 6.7 I 2.00 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - 1 I APPROX.ISOURCE I FAULT I SLIP ABBREVIATED 1 I TYPE I (km) I(A,B,C)I FAULT NAME 1 I(SS,DS,BT) 7.0 I SAN GABRIEL 1 I SS 0.30 MALIBU COAST 7.0 I I DS I 157.0 I B I IMPERIAL 1 I SS 7.3 I GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 I SS ANACAPA-DUME I DS i 1 I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I 145.6 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I 148.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.30 I 153.5 I A I 7.0 I 20.00 I 157.0 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I 159.9 I B I 7.3 I 3.00 Page 4 In OUT SANTA SUSANA. I 161.7 I B 1 6.6 1 5.00 I DS HOLSER 1 170.7 I B 1 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS BLACKWATER I 173.2 1 B I 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 181.7 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 1 DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA 1 183.3 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS SAN CAYETANO I 189.1 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 1 DS SNTA SSEZ (East) I 208.3 I B I 7.0 I 2.00 WARLOCK (West) I 213.3 I A 1 7.1 I 6.00 1 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 214.2 1 B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS WARLOCK (East) I 219.9 I A 1 7.3 1 7.00 1 SS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 222.8 I B I 6.7 I 0.40 1 DS PLEITO THRUST I 225.2 1 B I 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS RED MOUNTAIN I 228.5 I B 1 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 1 232.7 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 1 DS BIG PINE 1 233.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 1 SS OWL LAKE I 238.6 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 1 SS PANAMINT VALLEY 1 238.9 I B I 7.2 I 2.50 1 SS WHITE WOLF I 240.0 1 B I 7.2 I 2.00 1 DS TANK CANYON I 242.2 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS So. SIERRA NEVADA 1 242.6 I B 1 7.1 I 0.10 I DS LITTLE LAKE I 243.9 1 B I 6.7 I 0.70 1 SS DEATH VALLEY (South) I 245.3 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 1 SS SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 262.0 1 B 1 6.9 I 2.00 1 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 268.8 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 288.9 1 B I 6.9 I 4.00 1 DS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE I 305.1 I B I 6.8 1 0.70 1 DS Page 5 OUT OWENS VALLEY I SS LIONS HEAD I DS SAN JUAN I SS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I, DS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I SS CASMALIA (OrCUtt Frontal Fault) I DS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I SS INDEPENDENCE I DS LOS OSOS I DS HOSGRI I SS RINCONADA I SS BIRCH CREEK I DS WHITE MOUNTAINS I SS DEEP SPRINGS I DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) I SS I 314.0 I B I 7.6 I 1.50 I 322.5 I B I 6.6 I 0.02 I 325.6 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I 330.2 I B I 7.0 I 0.20 I 336.2 B I 7.0 I 2.50 I 339.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.25 I 342.9 I A I 7.2 I 5.00 I 350.0 I B I 6.9 I 0.20 I 359.5 B I 6.8 I 0.50 I 368.7 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 I 377.7 I B I 7.3 I 1.00 I 406.9 I B I 6.5 I 0.70 I 410.4 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 I 428.0 B I 6.6 I 0.80 I 428.1 I B I 5.0 I 34.00 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- I FAULT ABBREVIATED I TYPE FAULT NAME I(SS,DS,BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mths.) I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/Yr) I 431.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I 443.2 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 Page 6 OUT I DS FISH SLOUGH I 449.6 I B 1 6.6 1 0.20 1 DS HILTON CREEK I 469.5 1 B 1 6.7 1 2.50 1 DS HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 494.6 1 B 1 6.6 1 0.50 ORTIGADLITA 1 509.4 I B 1 6.9 1 1.00 5S CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 1 517.1 1 B 1 6.2 I 15.00 I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 1 523.1 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.50 1 DS PALO COLORADO - SUR 1 526.3 I B I 7.0 1 3.00 1 SS QUIEN SABE 1 529.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 I SS MONO LAKE 530.8 I B 1 6.6 1 2.50 1 DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES I 549.2 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.10 I SS SARGENT 1 554.0 1 B 1 6.8-1 3.00 1 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 1 554.4 1 A 1 7.9 1 24.00 1 SS ROBINSON CREEK 1 562.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 I DS SAN GREGORIO 1 598.2 1 A 1 7.3 5.00 I SS GREENVILLE 1 601.0 I B 1 6.9 I 2.00 1 SS ANTELOPE VALLEY 1 603.0 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.80 1 DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) 1 603.1 I B I 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 1 604.1 1 B I 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 622.4 1 A 1 7.1 I 9.00 1 55 CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 622.4 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 55 GENOA 1 629.2 ( B 1 6.9 1 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 1 668.8 I B 1 6.9 1 6.00 1 SS RODGERS CREEK 1 708.1 I A 1 7.0 1 9.00 1 SS WEST NAPA 1 708.3 I B 1 6.5 1 1.00 I SS POINT REYES 1 729.3 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.30 1 DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 1 729.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 6.00 Page 7 0 OUT ' I 55 1 6.9 1 MAACAMA (South) I 786.2 I ISS ' COLLAYOMOMI I 788.6 I I SS 1 7.1 I BARTLETT SPRINGS ' A I 7.1 I MAACAMAS(Central) I 870.5 I I SS I 7.1 I MAACAMA (North) ' I SS I 6.8 I ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) ' I s5 BATTLE CREEK I 6.5 I I DS I 933.6 I LAKE MOUNTAIN ' I 55 I 951.5 I GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND I 6.9 I I SS 11008.7 I MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE ' 35.00 1 1013.7 I LITTLEDSALMON (Onshore) ' I DS MAD RIVER 11015.4 I 1 DS I 7.1 1 CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE ' I DS I 8.3 I MCKINLEYVILLE 11026.1 I I DS I 7.0 I TRINIDAD ' I DS I 7.3 I FICKLE HILL 11028.2 I I ' TABLE BLUFF 11034.4 I I DS I 7.0 I LITTLE SALMON (offshore) ' I DS I 770.1 I B 1 6.9 1 9.00 I 786.2 I B 1 6.5 1 0.60 I 788.6 I A 1 7.1 I 6.00 I 811.7 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I 870.5 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I 875.3 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 1 892.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I 933.6 I B I 6.7 I 6.00 I 951.5 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 11008.7 I A I 7.4 1 35.00 1 1013.7 I A I 7.0 1 5.00 11015.4 I B I 7.1 1 0.70 11023.1 I A I 8.3 I 35.00 11026.1 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 11027.4 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 11028.2 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 11034.4 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 11047.6 I B I 7.1 1 1.00 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP ' I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE 1 TYPE 1 ' Page 8 to / OUT FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)l (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) BIG LAGOON BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1063.9 B 7.3 0.50 DS Page 9 -7;�fj c;?,5 0 6 6 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 0 1.50 L 1.25 U Q 1.00 0.75 U a 0.50 c� 0.25 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Period Seconds