HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Rpt 8/7/20029
00
RIVERSIDE
d
it ICALREPORT OF ROUGH GRADING.
JOTS J,TlIR6()6I1.5J,,78 THROUGH 91 AND
!:`96 THROUGH 114, TRACT 23066-1
irly OF IF MECUIA, RIVERSIDE COUN 7 Y
CALIFORNIA
... .. ... ..
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES.
104 S Md A venuem, SteA.,,',
Escondido;i ,
4 if&na92025
RIVERSIDE
P E T R A
' OFFICES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
August 7, 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 1 through 53, 78
through 91 and 96 through 114, Tract 23066-1, City of Temecula,
' Riverside County, California
' This report presents a summary of the observation and testing services provided by
Petra Geotechnical, true. (Petra) during rough -grading operations to complete the
development of Lots 1 through 53, 78 through 91 and 96 through 114 within
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 1989 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
toverexcavations and placement of compacted fill under the purview of this report have
i 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
F
' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula 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
Ilaboratory 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 cut/fill transition lots. The compacted fills range
in depth from approximately 4 to 36 feet. A lot -by -lot summary of the conmpacted-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 afc) —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
U
3
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula 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). I-leavy vegetation that
existed in local areas, as well as some construction 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:v]) 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
W
IN
1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/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 611, 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 strictures related to the potential adverse effects of
excessive differential settlement, the cut 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 Testine
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
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 30 feet on Lots 96 through
100 and 106.
1 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
5
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
' Page 5
(ASTM Test Method D1556). Field density test results for 1989 and 2002 are
presented on the attached Tables 11 and III, respectively, and approximate test locations
are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map with Density Test Locations (Plates 1
' through 3).
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
card -movers (scrapers) and availability of support equipment. When field density tests
produced results less than the required minimum relative compaction of 90 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
maximum dry density value was applicable for a given density test. Single -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 constriction and then trimmed back to the compacted core. The fill slopes
are considered grossly and surficially stable to the heights and inclinations at which
' they are constructed.
U
�J
I
[]
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 6
Cut Slopes
All cut slopes expose competent Pauba Forniation bedrock and were constructed at a
maximum ration of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum height of 29.5 feet (Lot 49). The cut
slopes are considered grossly and surficially stable to the heights and inclinations at
which they are constructed.
Stability -Fill Slopes
Stability -fill slopes were constructed on Lots 38 through 46 and 50 through 52 due to
clean, flowing sands which were exposed at cut grade. The stability fills were 15 feet
wide and 2 feet deep. Upon keyway approval, backdrains were installed along the heel
of the keys.
Fill keys were also constructed along the toe -of -slope at the tract/golf-course interface
within Lots 7 through 15. The keys were 15 to 25 feet wide and were 5 feet deep. A
backdrain was installed within Lots 7 through 12 and a canyon drain was installed
within Lots 13 and 14.
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
77 c� 3D/ae� "3
7
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 7
accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Test results are also summarized in
' Appendix A.
Atterberg Limits
1 Atterberg limits were determined for selected soil samples per ASTM Test Method
D4318. Test results are presented in Appendix A.
tSoluble Sulfate Analyses
1 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.
1 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 arc 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
I
M
02
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 8
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 fill 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.
' 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 of Pauba Formation, the coefficient of friction should be 0.30.
I
W
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
'
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 of Pauba Formation, the coefficient of friction should be 0.30.
I
W
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 9
Footing Observations
All footing trenches should be observed by a representative of Petra to verify that they
' have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedments
recommended herein. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the
' placement of forms, 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.
• Very Low Expansion Potential - Lots l through 20, 24 through 30, 36 through 50,
78 through 91 and 96 through 114
• Low Expansion Potential - Lots 21 through 23 and 31 through 35
• High Expansion Potential — Lots 51 through 53
1
Design and construction details for the various levels of expansion potential are
provided in the following sections.
I
U
/0
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 10
Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less)
The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils
texhibit a VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC
Table 18 -I -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 -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
Obottom.
a
- 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 18 inches below the
O
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.
U
I
I
1
I
D
N
0
I
I
I
I
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula I.N. 188-01
Page l 1
- 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.
- Garage -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 -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 concrete slab -on -ground
should be prewatered to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize
the development of shrinkage cracks.
Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 21 to 50)
The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils
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
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 recommendations have been based on the previous experience
[1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
W
1
1
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 12
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 18-1-C (i.e., 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and 18 -
inch minimum depth for two-story constriction). 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 18 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.
• 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
to
/3
'
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 13
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.
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, time subgradc soils below all living -arca and garage -
floor slabs should be pre -watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least
equal to or slightly greater than optimum -moisture content. This moisture
content should penetrate to a 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
HIGI4 expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18-1-B.
The 1997 UBC specifies that slab -on -ground foundations (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
Lipper 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.
12
I
1
1
1
11
I
0
0
I
I
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots I-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 14
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 maximums 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
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 -stab
thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815 based
on an effective plasticity index of 30. Unless a more stringent design is
it
/5
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 15
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
Q
0
I
I
J
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 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.
POST -TENSIONED SLABS
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
��p
I
I
I
I
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula
August 7, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 16
of expansive soils when present. However, to assist the structural engineer in his
design, the following parameters are recommended.
Expa Ston Index t art
s�f u F
tttgh
...(Oto so)
Io 130)4—'
Assumed percent clay
30
70
Clay type
Montmorillonite
Approximate depth of constant suction (feet)
7.0
7.0
Approximate soil suction (pF)
33.
3.6
Approximate velocity or moisture flow (inches/month)
0.7
0.7
Thomwzite Index
-20
-20/0'
Average edge
Center lift
4.6
6.0
Moisture variation depth, e,,,
Edge lift
2.2
4.1
(feet)
Anticipated swell, v,.
Center lift
L4
4.5
Ed 2c lift
0.4
1.7
(inches)
. 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.
• 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 I 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
1 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.
W
I
I
I
J
1
I
1
[J
1
[1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 17
• 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
information for a particular site including the distance of the site from each of the
faults in the data file, the estimated slip -rate for each fault and the "maximum moment
magnitude" of each fault. The program then selects the closest Type A, Type B and
Type C faults from the site and computes the seismic design coefficients for each of
the fault types. The program then selects the largest of the computed seismic design
coefficients and designates these as the design coefficients for the subject site.
Based on 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 23066-1 would probably generate the most severe site ground
motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 and anticipated slip
it
H
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula
August 7, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 18
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.
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 II Portland cement. The
laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH indicate onsite soils
may be mild to moderately corrosive to buried steel in direct contact with onsite soils.
RETAINING WALLS
Footing Embedments
The base of retaining -wall footings constructed 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
i
/g
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
Sp
16-S
Near -Source Factor N.
1.3
16-T
Near -Source Factor N,
1.6
16-Q
Seismic Coefficient C.
0.44 N, = 0.57
16-R
Seismic Coefficient C„
0.64 N,. = 1.02
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 II Portland cement. The
laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH indicate onsite soils
may be mild to moderately corrosive to buried steel in direct contact with onsite soils.
RETAINING WALLS
Footing Embedments
The base of retaining -wall footings constructed 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
i
/g
C
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 19
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 (High) 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
(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
0
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 20
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 filler fabric to prevent infiltration of fines and subsequent
clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 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.
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.
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 21
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.
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.
4
C x
I
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 22
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.
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.
1 .
U
a0
I
I
I
1]
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 23
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 of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface
of the ground in these areas should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent
away from the walls and foundations. Drip -irrigation systems are also recommended
to prevent overwatering and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils.
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.
For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately I - 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.
L
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 24
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.
• 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. Overwaterng 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.
as
' 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.
' 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 -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 pre-soaking of subgrade soils below living -area and garage floor slabs
to verify adequate moisture content and penetration.
' Retaining -Wall Construction
1
4
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
'
Page 25
• 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 of loose soil on the slope surfaces.
placement
• 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.
' 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 -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 pre-soaking of subgrade soils below living -area and garage floor slabs
to verify adequate moisture content and penetration.
' Retaining -Wall Construction
1
4
I
' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula J.N. 188-01
' Page 26
- 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Exterior Concrete-Flatwork Construction
- Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete-flatwork 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 -Gradin-
- Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades
shown on the approved grading plans.
)7
I
I
I
[1
I
1
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 7, 2002
TR 23066-I Lots 1-53, 78-91 & 96-114/Temecula 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.
�aG\E LR/NGO'
O G F
�-W No 1762 0' lace L. n s Stephen M.
o ~ en r Asso i, c Geologist Senior Asso
�� Exp �' R 1762 GE 692
OFCp,0`" O AB/TLVSMP/keb
Attachments: Table I - Lot -By -Lot Summary of As -Graded Soil Conditions
Table 11 - Field Density Test Results (1988-1990)
Table III - Field Density Test Results (2002)
References
Plates 1 through 3 - Geotechnical Maps with Density Test Locations
(in pocket)
Appendix A - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data
Appendix B - Seismic Analysis
Distribution: (1) Addressee
(1) Richmond American Homes (Imine Office)
Attention: Ms. Robin Finnell
(2) Richmond American Homes (Field Office)
Attention: Mr. Craig Peters
(2) Riverside County Building and Safety
Attention: Mr. Mack Hakakian
FF
0
I
1
1
1
1 TABLE I
1
1
1
I
1
1]
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF
AS -GRADED SOIL CONDITIONS
1 PETRA
Em
M M M M M i M M M M M = = M M M = M M
LAI
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
1
20
12
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
2
17
9
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
3
8
4
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
4
3
0
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
5
3
0
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
6
2
0
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
7
0
0
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
8
13
6
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
9
15
7
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
10
20
10
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate -
Negligible
Z
11
20
10
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
12
9
0
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
13
14
7
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
14
16
8
1:960
19/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
15
8
5
1:960
19/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
16
3
0
1:960
19/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
-
17
18
9
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
* per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference. 1997 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 I9 -A-4
D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table I 9 -111 -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) (doted if> 1:480J
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
Z If none of the above is applicable
Plate T-1 1
y
W
TABLE I Tract 23066-1
LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS
Lot
Number
Maximum
Fill Depth
(R)
Differential
Fill
Thickness
(ft)
Estimated
Differential
Settlement
Soil
Expansion
Index/
Potential
Post-
Tensioned
Slab
Chloride
Exposure
Sulfate
Exposure
I Soil
Condition
Codes*
Remarks
18
20
10
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
19
6
3
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
20
6
3
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
21
3
0
1:960
37/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
22
3
0
1:960 -
37/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
23
3
0
1:960
37/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
24
3
0
1:960
TV Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
25
6
3
1:960
7/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
26
7
4
1:960
7/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
27
3
0
1:960
7/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
28
3
0
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
29
10
5
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
30
16
8
L960
5/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
31
10
5
1:960
46/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
32
3
0
1:960
46/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
33
2
0
1:960
25/Low
Moderate
Negligible -
E
34
4
1
1:960
25/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
* per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Cade Definitions (Reference: 1997 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 I8 -Ill -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if>1.480]
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
rw Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-! 2
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
35
4
1
1:960
25/Low
Moderate
Negligible
E
36
14
7
1:960
15/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
37
20
10
1:960
15/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
38
17
8
1:960
15/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
39
16
8
1:960
9/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
40
8
4
1:960
9/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
41
3
0
1:960
- 9/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
42
0
0
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
43
0
0
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
44
5
2
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
45
4
1
1:960
2/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
46
3
0
1:960
2/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
47
0
0
1:960
2/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
48
0
0
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
49
0
0
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
50
0
0
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
-
51
0
0
1:960
113/High
Moderate
Negligible
E
* per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 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 I8 -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-13
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
52
0
0
1:960
113/High
Moderate
Negligible
E
53
0
0
1:960
113/High
Moderate
Negligible
E
78
20
10
1:960
1I/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
79
20
10
1:960
11/V.Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
80
20
10
1:960
11/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
81
18
2
1:960
6/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
82
15
7
1:960
6/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
83
23
13
1:960
6/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
84
15
5
1:960
6/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
85
15
5
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
86
25
5
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
87
25
5
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
88
20
10
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
89
20
10
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
90
12
6
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
91
8
4
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 UBQ.
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 -111 -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if> /:480]
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
W Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-14
�sd
TABLE 1 Tract 23066-1
LOT -BY -LOT SUNINIARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS
Lot
Number
Maximum
Fill Depth
(ft)
Differential
Fill
Thickness
(ft)
EstimatedSoil
Differential
Settlement
Expansion
Index/
Potential
Post-
Tensioned
Slab
Chloride
Exposure
Sulfate
Exposure
Soil
Condition
Codes*
Remarks
96
30
10
1:960
19/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
97
30
15
1:960
19/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
98
30
5
1:960
19/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
99
30
5
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
100
30
15
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
101
16
8
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
102
j 5
2
1:960
1I/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
103
6
3
1:960
1I/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
104
8
4
1:960
1I/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
105
10
5
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
106
30
20
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
107
16
8
1:960
0/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
108
6
3
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
109
6
3
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
Ito
0
0
1:960
4/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
111
0
0
1:960
2/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
I Z
* per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 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 -111 -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if>1: 480]
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
Z If none of the above is applicable
Plate T-15
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
112
0
0
1:960
2/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
113
0
0
1 1:960
2/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
114
0
0
1:960
12/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
* per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 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 -111 -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if> 1:480]
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-16
I
1
TABLE III
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
1
( 2002 )
1
1
.1
I
I
I
1
PETRA
I
i 36
I
1
1
P
1
1
TABLE ll
Field Density Test Results
08/12/88
A143
Slope Lot 82
1123
25.0
95.4
82
1
08/12/88
A144
Slope Lot 80
1119
23.5
939
80
1
08/16/88
A146
R'I'No.143
--
17.4
106.8
91
1
08/16/88
A147
RT No. 144
--
16.8
105.7
90
1
08/16/88
A148
Slope Lot 86
1125
12.4
108.5
93
1
08/16/88
A149
Slope Lot 85
1127
14.3
106.4
91
1
08/16/88
A150
Slope Lot 83
1129
11.7
120.0
92
3
08/16/88
A151
Slope Lot 86
1129
12.4
119.2
90
9
08/16/88
A152
Slope Lot 87
1130
10.5
116.9
91
2
08/16/88
A153
Slope Lot 87.
1125
11.7
113.5
91
8
08/16/88
A154
Slope Lot 88
1130
11.7
118.2
92
2
08/17/88
A155
Slope Lot 87
1128
99
121.0
94
2
08/17/88
A156
Slope Lot 85
1130
11.1
118.9
92
2
08/17/88
A157
Slope Lot 87
1131
11.1
120.4
93
2
08/17/88
A158
Slope Lot 87
1130
13.6
115.5
93
7
08/17/88
A159
Slope Lot 87
1131
16.3
108.9 -
93
1
08/17/88
A160
Slope Lot 88
1133
12.4
119.4
93
2
08/17/88
A161
Slope Lot 87
1133
.13.0
113.3
91
7
08/17/88
A162
Slope Lot 85
1132
12.4
117.4
93
4
08/17/88
A163
Slope Lot 87
1134
14.9
113.8
90
4
08/18/88
A164
Slope Lot 88
1135
17.0
109.4
94
1
08/18/88
A 165
Slope Lot 87
1135
14.3
112.3
90
7
08/18/88
A166
Slope Lot 88
1137
16.3
106.6
95
8
08/19/88
A167
Slope Lot 86
134
11.1
107.3
92
1
08/19/88
A168
Slope Lot 87
1136
16.3
115.9
90
2
08/19/88
A169
Slope Lot 87
1134
14.9
115.4
93
7
08/19/88
A170
Slope Lot 88
1138
12.4
117.8
95
7
08/19/88
A171
Slope Lot 88
1140
12.4
117.1
93
4
08/19/88
A172
Slope Lot 79
1121
11.1
117.2
92
5
08/19/88
A173
Slope Lot 81
1120
11.7
117.6
92
5
10/18/88
A175
Slope Lot 79
1122
11.1
122.5
91
6
10/18/88
A176
Slope Lot 80
1124
11.1
122.2
93
9
10/18/88
A177
Slope Lot 78
1119
10.5
122.1
92
9
02/28/90
A736
Slope Lot 87
1138
11.2
120.8
94
14
02/28/90
A737
Slope Lot 88
1139
13.4
106.4
91
13
02/28/90
A738
Slope Lot 79
11225
12.4
115.5
90
14
02/28/90
A739
Slope Lot 78
1124
12.2
109.4
94
13
02/28/90
A740
Slope Lot 88
1141
8.7
105.5
90
13
02/28/90
A741
Slope Lot 88
1142
9.0
103.3
88
13
02/28/90
A742
Slope Lot 85
1134
11.9
106.7
91
13
02/28/90
A743
Slope Lot 86
1135
13.5
104.8
90
13
02/28/90
A744
RT No. 741
--
10.0
108.9
93
13
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1988-1990
J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-1 Lots 78-91 TABLE T -II 1
L
3/
'
TABLE ll
Field Density Test Results
3F
03/13/90
A838
Lot 82
1142
9.4
117.0
91
18
03/13/90
A839
Lot 82
1143
10.1
118.7
93
18
03/19/90
A885
Slope Lot 80
1140
13.2
117.0
91
5
03/19/90
A886
Slope Lot 81
1143
10.8
111.4
91
20
03/19/90
A887
Slope Lot 86
1150
8.8
116.7
91
5
03/19/90
A888
Lot 87
1151
12.5
115.8
90
5
03/20/90
A909
Slope Lot 84
1142
9.2
106.9
91
13
03/20/90
A910
Lot 85
1146
11.3
116.9
91
5
03/20/90
A911
Lot 86
1147
13.3
116.3
91
5
03/20/90
A912
Slope Lot 88
1153
9.9
122.5
94
3
03/20/90
A914
Slope Lot 82
1144
12.6
119.2
93
5
03/20/90
A915
Lot 82
1145
10.4
123.6
94
3
03/21/90
03/21/90
A916
A917
Slope Lot 78
Slope Lot 80
1138
1142
11.6
9.9
116.8
115.6
91
90
5
5
03/21/90
A918
Slope Lot 86
1146
10.0
117.6
92
5
03/21/90
A919
Slope Lot 87
1150
11.4
120.9
94
2
03/21/90
A921
Slope Lot 78
1139
11.9
120.5
92
26
03/21/90
A922
Slope Lot 83
1145
12.7
120.1
92
26
'03/21/90
A923
Slope Lot 85
1147
9.9
122.7
94
26
03/22/90
A963
Slope Lot 79
1132
8.7
124.5
95
26
03/28/90
A1028
Lot 80
1144
10.6
124.0
92
11
03/28/90
A1029
Lot 81
1145
12.7
121.2
93
13
03/28/90
A1030
Lot 78
1140
11.3
118.0
90
3
A 1031
Lot 79
1141
13.5
115.6
90
5
'03/28/90
03/28/90
A1034
Slope Lot 88
1155
10.0
115.0
90
18
03/28/90
A1035
Slope Lot 88
1156
12.4
115.O
90
18
t03/29/90
03/29/90
A1042
A 1043
Slope Lot 83
Lot 84
1146
1148
9.1
12.2
123.5
112.8
94
90
3
27
03/29/90
A1045
Lot 78
1141
10.6
114.5
91
27
03/29/90
A1050
Slope Lot 85
1140
10.5
102.0
87
1
03/29/90
A1059
Lot 82
1145
10.9
123.7
94
3
03/29/90
A1060
Lot 81
1146
8.8
119.5
91
3
03/30/90
A1061
Slope Lot 89
1150
7.5
99.2
85
13
03/30/90
A1062
Slope Lot 89
1151
11.7
96.3
82
13
03/30/90
A1063
Slope Lot 87
1139
22.0
92.2
79
13
03/30/90
A1064
Lot 84
1149
7.8
118.3
92
5
03/30/90
A1065
Lot 84
1150
8.9
119.2
93
5
03/30/90
A1068
Lot 79
1146
9.1
123.5
94
3
03/30/90
A1069
Lot 80
1148
11.9
122.2
93
3
03/30/90
A1072
Slope Lot 89
1155
10.2
113.8
90
4
03/30/90
04/02/90
A1073
A1074
Slope Lot 89
RTNo.1050
1156
14.8
11.7
118.2
102.9
90
92
3
8
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1988-1990
J.N. 188-01
TR 23066-1 Lots 7
TABLE T -II 3
t
�1
��3o�t/ -,
-e:;;21
�3
3F
I
[1
I
I
1
I
TABLE 11
Field Density Test Results
04/02/90
. A1075
Slope Lot 86
1135
9.9
101.7
91
8
04/02/90
A1076
RT No. 1061
--
7.5
114.2
91
4
04/02/90
A 1077
RT No. 1062
7.5
115.2
91
4
04/02/90
A1078
RT No. 1063
--
8.7
118.5
92
2
04/02/90
A1079
TiburcioDr
1146
10.5
122.0
93
3
04/02/90
A1080
Lot 82
1147
9.1
120.8
92
3
04/02/90
A1081
Lot 88
1150
8.3
118.4
93
5
04/02/90
A 1082
Lot 87
1152
14.2
118.2
92
5
04/02/90
A1083
Slope Lot 85
1150
10.6
118.2
92
5
04/02/90
A1084
Slope Lot 87
FG
8.8
117.2
92
5
04/02/90
A1085
Slope Lot 87
FG
11.7
101.1
90
8
04/02/90
A1086
Slope Lot 87
FG
22.0
100.5
90
8
04/03/90
A1087
Slope Lot 88
1 156
10.7
118.4
90
3
04/03/90
A1088
Lot 89
1 157
8.2
121.5
93
3
04/03/90
A 1089
Slope Lot 89
1144
11.2
123.0
92
6
04/03/90
A1090
Lot 79
1 145
9.1
126.9
95
6
04/03/90
A 1 103
Lot 89
1 159
12.5
113.6
90
27
04/03/90
A 1104
Slope Lot 89
1161
10.3
116.8
91
5
04/03/90
A] 109
Slope Lot 84
1 152
13.9
117.3
92
5
04/03/90
A1110
Lot 85
1153
12.3
118.4
93
5
04/03/90
A1132
Lot 89
1163
9.3
112.5
90
10
04/03/90
Al 133
Lot 88
1164
9.8
115.2
92
10
04/05/90
Al 135
Lot 79
1148
9.7
119.0
91
3
04/05/90
Al 138
Lot 83
1153
12.9
119.9
92
3
04/05/90
Al 139
Lot 84
1154
10.4
114.8
91
10
04/05/90
Al 140
Lot 83
1150
10.5
118.5
93
5
04/05/90
Al 141
Lot 84
1151
11.4
121.2
91
16
04/05/90
A1142
Lot 86
1151
9.7
1242
93
16
04/05/90
Al 143
Lot 87
1153
11.4
121.6
91
16
04/05/90
Al 144
Slope Lot 87
1157
12.4
117.4
91
2
04/05/90
Al 145
Lot 88
1159
11.9
121.4
91
16
04/05/90
Al 146
"Ciburcio Dr
1165
15.7
109.9
92
22
04/05/90
A1147
Lot 88
1166
15.3
115.0
90
14
04/06/90
A1166
Tiburcio Dr
1154
15.6
117.1
93
4
04/06/90
Al 167
Lot 89
1155
11.0
122.7
92
16
04/06/90
Al 168
Slope Lot 85
1158
10.9
116.5
91
5
04/06/90
Al 169
Lot 86
1159
11.2
112.8
90
10
04/06/90
Al 173
Lot 80
1150
13.5
118.2
90
3
04/06/90
A1174
Lot 81
1152
13.6
112.8
90
4
04/06/90
A1175
Lot 84
1153
13.0
117.5
92
5
04/06/90
Al 176
Lot 85
1154
10.5
114.8
91
4
04/06/90
A1177
Slope Lot 89
1165
9.9
120.5
92
3
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1988-1990
J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-1 Lots 78-91 TABLE T -II 4
1/0
' TABLE It
Field Density Test Results
11
1
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1988-1990
J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-1 Lots 78-91 TABLE T -II 5
y/
04/06/90
Al 178
Slope Lot 88
1166
10.7
114.7
91
4
At 179
Tiburcio Dr
1151
14.1
104.7
90
1
'04/09/90
04/09/90
At 180
Lot 83
1153
11.3
117.6
92
5
04/09/90
Al 181
Lot 88
1167
9.9
109.5
94
13
'04/09/90
A1182
Lot 89
1168
10.0
110.2
92
22
04/09/90
At 183
Tiburcio Dr
1152
25.9
95.9
86
8
04/09/90
At 184
Lot 86
1154
14.4
119.1
92
2
04/09/90
Al 185
Lot 87
1164
14.0
110.1
94
1
04/09/90
Al 186
Lot 88
1167
11.7
109.8
94
1
04/09/90
Al 187
Lot 82
1154
14.1
108.3
93
1
04/09/90
Al 188
Lot 85
1160
12.8
111.1
95
1
04/09/90
At 189
RT No. 1 183
--
18.5
101.6
91
8
'04/09/90
04/11/90
At 190
Al 194
Lot 89
Slope Lot 88
1160
FG
14.3
14.9
116.1
104.2
90
89
2
1
04/11/90
A1195
Slope Lot 87
FG
10.5
11.1.7
91
20
A1196
Slope Lot 86
FG
8.1
115.7
90
5
'04/12/90
04/12/90
At 197
RT No. 1 194
7.5
114.0
93
20
04/17/90
A1200
Slope Lot 83
FG
14.3
110.8
90
20
04/17/90
A1201
Slope Lot 82
FG
19.1
106.3
90
23
04/17/90
A1202
Slope Lot 81
FG
9.9
119.8
90
16
04/19/90
A1206
Slope Lot 78
FG
9.9
119.6
93
14
04/20/90
A1207
Slope Lot 79
FG
8.7
117.3
92
14
04/20/90
A1208
Slope Lot 80
FG
8.7
115.3
90
14
11
1
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1988-1990
J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-1 Lots 78-91 TABLE T -II 5
y/
I
1
1
I
1 TABLE II
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
(1988-1990)
1 PETRA
4:2
' TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
D
4
4
4
D
D
4
D
4
8
4
4
4
4
4
si
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53,78-91 96-114 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 ` Sandcone TABLE -III 1
113
04/29/02
441
Lot ll slope
1153.0
6.7
110.5
91
442
Lot 10 slope
1155.0
7.8
116.2
90
'04/29/02
04/29/02
443
Lot 10 slope
1152.0
9.4
116.4
90
04/29/02
444
TR 23066-1/Lot 83
1153.0
6.4
111.5
87
445
Lot 87
1154.0
11.9
112.1
92
'04/29/02.
04/29/02
446
Lot 86
1155.0
9.2
114.2
94
04/29/02
447
Lot 99 slope
1152.0
8.0
116.1
90
04/29/02
448
Lot 99 slope
1153.0
9.2
110.6
91
04/29/02
449
Lot 96 slope
1148.0
9.9
118.2
92
450
Lot 96 slope
1149.0
11.5
108.4
90
'04/29/02
04/29/02
451
Lot 84
1140.0
12.2
119.1
93
04/29/02
452
Lot 84
1150.0
11.5
118.5
92
04/29/02
04/29/02
453
454
Lot 86
Lot 86
1155.0
1156.0
8.8
9.7
114.3
113.5
89
88
04/29/02
455
RT No. 444
--
6.4
118.5
92
04/29/02
456
RT No. 453
--
11.5
116.2
90
04/29/02
457
Lot 85
1152.0
6.3
115.9
88
04/29/02
458
Lot 84
1153.0
4.8
119.4
91
04/29/02
459
Lot 96 slope
1154.0
10.6
118.8
90
04/29/02
460
Lot 97 slope
1155.0
9.8
116.3
91
04/29/02
461
RT No. 453
--
12.9
117.7
91
04/29/02
462
Lot 97 slope
1156.0
11.2
115.7
90
04/29/02
463
RT No. 457
6.7
120.9
91
04/29/02
464
Lot 84
1154.0
11.1
126.1
94
'
04/29/02
465
Lot 99 slope
1154.0
10.8
121.8
91
04/29/02
466
TR 23066-1/1-ot 99 slope
1155.0
10.4
121.7
91
04/29/02
469
Lot 83
1152.0
11.8
121.3
91
04/29/02
470
Lot 82
1153.0
12.2
123.3
92
04/29/02
471
TR 23066-1/Willowick St
1159.0
7.6
118.6
89
472
TR 23066-1/Willowick St
1160.0
5.3
116.2
87
'04/29/02
04/29/02
473
Lot 96 slope
1160.0
10.5
122.3
92
04/29/02
474
Lot 96 slope
1161.0
11.2
122.4
92
475
Lot 78
1151.0
5.4
116.2
87
'04/29/02
04/29/02
476
Lot 78
1152.0
9.2
120.2
90
04/29/02
477
Lot 81
1151.0
8.5
121.7
91
'04/29/02
478
Lot 81
1152.0
10.5
122.8
92
04/30/02
481
RT No. 471
11.9
117.9
90
04/30/02
482
RT No. 472
--
10.4
118.0
90
1
04/30/02
485
Lot 84
1155.0
11.6
125.1
94
04/30/02
486
Lot 84
1156.0
9.9
120.9
95
04/30/02
487
TR 23066-1/Lot 83
1153.0
6.9
116.7
89
'
04/30/02
488
TR 23066-1/Lot 83
1154.0
9.0
118.6
90
D
4
4
4
D
D
4
D
4
8
4
4
4
4
4
si
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53,78-91 96-114 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 ` Sandcone TABLE -III 1
113
I
11
1
1
1
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
04/30/02
489
Lot 81
1152.0
10.0
108.3
82
04/30/02
490
RT No. 489
--
9.7
124.3
93
04/30/02
493
Lot 82
1152.0
9.2
118.2
90
04/30/02
494
Lot 82
1153.0
10.5
120.7
90
04/30/02
495
Lot 78
1151.0
8.0
106.7
81
04/30/02
496
RT No. 495
--
9.0
121.5
91
04/30/02
505
Lot 82
1150.0
10.3
127.8
96
04/30/02
506
Lot 82
1151.0
11.1
122.1
91
04/30/02
507
Lot 100
11520
14.2
115.9
90
04/30/02
508
Lot 100
1158.0
13.2
119.0
93
04/30/02
509
Lot 99 slope
1159.0
13.5
112.7
92
04/30/02
510
Lot 99 slope
1160.0
15.3
110.9
91
04/30/02
511
Lot 96
1157.0
10.6
119.6
91
04/30/02
512
Lot 96
1158.0
13.2
117.8
92
04/30/02
519
Lot 98 slope
1164.0
8.8
112.6
88
04/30/02
520
RT No. 519
--
11.0
118.8
90
04/30/02
525
Lot 98
1165.0
7.3
116.1
90
04/30/02
526
RT No. 487
--
11.8
119.2
91
05/01/02
535
Lot 10 slope.
1162.0
9.2
121.3
91
05/01/02
536
Lot 11 slope
1163.0
11.1
121.5
91
05/01/02
540
Lot 100
1166.0
7.2
110.4
86
05/01/02
541
RT No. 540
--
8.9
115.8
90
05/01/02
542
Lot 100
1167.0
10.3
110.9
91
05/01/02
543
Lot 100
1168.0
12.0
118.8
90
05/01/02
546
Lot 96
1164.0
12.1
118.7
90
05/01/02
547
Lot 96
1165.0
10.0
118.7
90
05/01/02
548
Lot 11 slope
1168.0
12.0
106.4
92
05/01/02
549
Lot 11 slope
1169.0
]14.2
105.3
91
05/01/02
550
Loth slope
1170.0
12.3
114.4
89
05/01/02
551
Lot 10 slope
1163.0
9.1
121.3
91
05/01/02
552
Lot 10 slope
1164.0
11.0
121.8
91
05/01/02
553
Lot slope
1167.0
9.6
114.7
94
05/01/02
554
Lot slope
1168.0
13.9
115.4
90
05/01/02
555
Lot 79
1146.0
7.1
113.0
86
05/01/02
556
Lot 80
1147.0
12.5
108.0
82
05/01/02
557
Lot 81
1147.0
14.0
116.2
88
05/01/02
558
Lot 82
1148.0
12.1
112.8
86
05/01/02
561
RT No. 550
--
11.3
116.9
91
05/01/02
562
Lot 10 slope
1170.0
11.2
114.6
93
05/01/02
563
Lot 10 slope
1170.0
12.5
118.5
90
05/01/02
564
Lot 78
1144.0
6.7
110.4
84
05/01/02
565
Lot 79
1144.0
14.1
114.2
87
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
D
D
1
4
4
4
1
2
2
4
4
D
I
1
1
5
5
4
2
2
D
4
1
1
4
D
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 96-114 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -III 2
yy
I
I
I
D
1
1
1
I
1
1
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
05/01/02
566
Lot 96 slope
1166.0
12.1
116.2
90 4
05/01/02
567
Lot 96 slope
1167.0
11.8
116.6
91 4
05/01/02
568
Lot 100 slope
1163.0
12.1
115.9
90 4
05/01/02
569
Lot 100 slope
1166.0
11.4
119.7
91 1
05/01/02
570
Lot 10 slope
1173.0
9.8
118.7
92 4
05/01/02
571
Lot 10 slope
1174.0
9.8
118.1
92 4
05/01/02
572
Lot 9 slope
1174.0
9.9
120.2
92 1
05/01/02
573
Lot 9 slope
1175.0
8.6
118.0
92 4
05/01/02"
574
Lot 99 slope
1164.0
9.7
115.4
90 4
05/01/02
575
Lot 99 slope
1165.0
12.4
116.9
90 4
05/02/02
576
Lot 88
1162.0
10.1
125.9
94 2
05/02/02
577
Lot 88
1163.0
9.4
125.3
94 2
05/02/02
578
RT No. 555
--
11.7
118.8
91 9
05/02/02
579
RT No. 556
11.8
117.6
90 9
05/02/02
580
RT No. 557
11.1
122.7
92 2
05/02/02
581
RT No. 558
12.8
119.1
90 7
05/02/02
582
RT No. 564
9.9
120.4
90 2
05/02/02
583
RT No. 565
--
11.5
120.6
90 2
05/02/02
588
Lot 10
1183.0
7.1
106.2
88 8
05/02/02
589
Lot 10
1184.0
8.0
104.8
87 8
05/02/02
590
Lot 9
1186.0
11.5
104.4
87 8
05/02/02
591
Lot
1187.0
11.0
106.0
88 8
05/02/02
592
RT No. 588
--
9.3
110.0
92 8
05/02/02
593
RT No. 589
--
10.2
110.1
91 8
05/02/02
594
Lot 10 slope
1180.0
11.5
115.9
90 4
05/02/02
595
Lot 10 slope
1180.0
10.9
117.2
91 4
05/02/02
596
Lot slope
1178.0
12.8
118.6
92 4
05/02/02
597
Lot slope
1179.0
11.8
115.9
90 4
05/02/02
598
RT No. 590
--
12.5
110.3
91 8
05/02/02
599
RT No. 591
--
11.8
110.6
92 8
05/02/02
600
Lot 8 slope
1182.0
12.3
117.2
91 4
05/02/02
601
Lot slope
1183.0
11.5
118.4
92 4
05/02/02
602
Lot 81
1152.0
11.3
122.7
92 2
05/02/02
603
Lot 82
1153.0
9.4
119.3
91 9
05/02/02
605
Lot 78
1147.0
9.8
121.0
91 2
05/02/02
608
Lot 10
1186.0
9.4
116.7
91 4
05/02/02
609
Lot 10
1187.0
11.8
109.2
85 4
05/02/02
610
Lot 10 slope
1186.0
9.0
11.4
93 D
05/02/02
611
Lot 10 slope.
1187.0
7.3
114.1
94 D
05/02/02
612
Lot 9 slope
1185.0
12.6
119.4
91 4
05/02/02
613
Lot 9 slope
1184.0
12.7
117.4
91 4
05/02/02
614
Lot slope
1189.0
6.5
112.6
87 4
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53,78-91 96-114 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -III 3
y5
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
05/02/02
615
Lot slope
1185.0
6.8
110.1
86
4
05/02/02
616
RT No. 614
--
10.8
1123
91
4
05/02/02
617
RT No. 615
11.5
116.0
90
4
05/02/02
618
RT No. 609
12.2
116.1
90
4
05/02/02
619
Lot 80
10.7
118.4
90
1
05/02/02
620
Lot 80
--
10.4
124.8
93
2
05/02/02
621
Lot 78
1148.0
13.1
117.8
90
9
05/02/02
622
Lot 78
1149.0
8.6
124.4
93
2
05/02/02
627
Lot slope
1188.0
11.2
1158.8
.90
4
05/02/02
628
Lot 8
1189.0
11.1
110.4
90
D
05/02/02
629
Lot
1187.0
10.3
115.6
90
4
05/02/02
630
Lot 9
1188.0
12.0
119.8
91
1
05/02/02
631
Lot 11 slope
1189.0
10.2
118.6
90
1
05/02/02
632
Lot II slope
1189.0
12.6
115.8
90
4
05/03/02
633
Lot 97
1167.0
13.4
116.9
91
4
05/03/02
634
Lot 97
1168.0
11.7
121.6
91
2
05/03/02
635
Lot 99
1163.0
10.1
123.4
92
2
05/03/02
636
Lot 99
1164.0
9.9
127.1
95
2
05/03/02
637
Lot 37
1168.0
9.2
114.8
89
4
05/03/02
638
Lot 37
1169.0
9.9
112.3
88
4
05/03/02
639
Lot 100 slope
1163.0
10.8
127.0
95
2
05/03/02
640
Lot 101 slope
1164.0
11.8
121.5
91
2
05/03/02
641
Lot 97
1170.0
8.2
113.0
87
9
05/03/02
642
Lot 98
1171.0
7.1
117.0
91
4
05/03/02
643
Lot slope
1164.0
13.5
109.0
90
D
05/03/02
644
Lot slope
1165.0
10.2
111.8
91
D
05/03/02
645
Lot slope
1169.0
14.1
110.4
90
D
05/03/02
646
Lot I slope
1170.0
18.2
113.1
92
D
05/03/02
647
Lot
1187.0
15.9
110.5
90
D
05/03/02
648
Lot
1188.0
16.0
111.9
91
D
05/03/02
649
Lot slope
1188.0
14.3
113.1
92
D
05/03/02
650
Lot slope
1189.0
14.1
112.4
92
D
05/03/02
651
Lot I slope
1174.0
14.2
110.0
90
D
05/03/02
652
Lot 1
1175.0
12.0
112.7
92
D
05/03/02
653
Lot 96
1169.0
11.6
117.5
90* >
9
05/03/02
654
RT No. 641
-
??
112.2
87*
4
05/03/02
655
Lot 99
1170.0
14.3
102.7
85*
8
05/03/02
656
Lot 99
1171.0
9.7
114.2
89*
4
05/03/02
657
RT No. 654
--
11.7
120.3
90
2
05/03/02
658 '
Lot 96
1172.0
12.8
119.7
91
l
05/03/02
659
RT No. 655
--
8.0
127.2
95
2
05/03/02
660
RT No. 656
--
7.8
120.9
91
2
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-9196-114
AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE
-III 4
yG
I
1
TABLE 111
Field Density Test Results
y7
05/03/02
661
Lott
1178.0
5.9
123.1
92
2
05/03/02
662
Lot
1179.0
10.4
118.8
90
1
05/03/02
663
Lot 1
1182.0
11.6
113.9
93
D
05/03/02
664
Lot slope
1182.0
8.0
110.4
90*
D
05/03/02
665
Lot slope
1185.0
10.8
113.4
93*
D
05/03/02
666
Lott slope
1185.0
10.5
114.4
94
D
05/03/02
667
Lot
1187.0
9.8
118.4
92
4
05/03/02
668
Lot
1188.0
10.9
115.7
90
4
05/03/02
669
Lot
1183.0
11.2
116.9
91
4
05/03/02
670
Lot 1
1184.0
10.5
115.5
90
4
05/06/02
671
RT No. 637
14.0
104.6
90
5
05/06/02
672
RT No. 638
--
11.1
112.4
92
D
05/06/02
673
Lot 99 slope
1170.0
11.4
114.4
94
D
05/06/02
674
Lot 99 slope
1171.0
9.6
123.6
93
2
05/06/02
675
Lot 98
1172.0
8.4
118.0
90
9
05/06/02
676
Lot 98
1173.0
11.5
120.5
90
2
05/06/02
677
Lot 96 slope
1174.0
10.0
123.5
93
2
05/06/02
678
Lot 96 slope
1175.0
11.2
123.0
92
2
05/06/02
686
Lot 22
1191.0
17.3
103.0
90
5
05/06/02
687
Lot 22
1192.0
13.0
103.9
90
5
05/06/02
688
Lot 24
1190.0
8.9
111.7
92
D
05/06/02
689
Lot 25
1191.0
11.0
116.9
91
4
05/06/02
690
Lot 26
1189.0
10.7
113.6
93
D
05/06/02
691
Lot 27
1190.0
11.5
116.8
91
4
'
05/06/02
697
Lot 39 slope
1177.0
6.7
102.1
85
8
05/06/02
698
Lot 39 slope
1178.0
7.9
105.9
88
8
699
Lot 46 slope
1176.0
7.6
117.3
88
9
'05/06/02
05/06/02
700
Lot 46 slope
1177.0
6.9
107.7
89
8
05/06/02
701
Lot 101
1172.0
12.5
113.8
93
D
702
Lot 101
1173.0
15.0
116.3
91
4
'05/06/02
05/06/02
703
Lot 97
1174.0
14.6
114.3
94
D
05/06/02
704
Lot 97
1175.0
16.1
113.6
93
D
05/07/02
705
RT No. 700
--
12.8
118.1
90
9
05/07/02
706
RT No. 697
13.3
100.3
83
8
05/07/02
707
RT No. 698
--
7.2
107.3
89
8
'05/07/02
708
Lot 89
1159.0
12.8
105.8
87
7
05/07/02
709
RT No. 706
13.?
116.7
91
4
05/07/02
710
RT No. 707
--
14.7
114.1
89
4
t05/07/02
711
Lot 44 slope
1173.0
7.9
115.2
90
4
05/07/02
712
Lot 44 slope
1174.0
9.5
119.3
92
4
05/07/02
713
Lot 106 slope
1141.0
13.0
116.7
89
9
05/07/02
714
Lot 106 slope
1142.0
14.7
114.1
87
9
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91
96-114
AUGUST 2002
J.N.
188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE -III 5
'
-7-e
a3 6&Ze? -i,
-e:�
-3
y7
TABLE 111
Field Density Test Results
'
:Ltl1L
::.':L\V•
05/07/02
715
Lot 106
1154.0
9.4
110.8
86
4
05/07/02
716
RT No. 713
--
14.3
110.5
92
5
05/07/02
717
RT No. 714
8.1
111.1
91
5
05/07/02
718
RT No. 710
--
10.1
115.7
90
4
05/07/02
719
Lot 39 slope
1183.0
??
119.4
90*
7
05/07/02
720
Lot 45 slope
1177.0
13.0
112.2
92*
D
05/07/02
721
Lot 45 slope
1178.0
12.?
115.8
90*
4
05/07/02
722
Lot 43 slope
1180.0
11.0
120.9
91
2
05/07/02
723
Lot 43 slope
1179.0
13.4
114.6
93
D
724
Lot 106 slope
1144.0
10.9
116.1
90
4
Q05/07/02
05/07/02
725
Lot 106 slope
1145.0
10.2
119.1
90
7
05/07/02
726
Lot 98
1176.0
10.5
119.8
91
1
05/07/02
727
Lot 98
1177.0
8.4
120.6
92
1
05/07/02
728
Lot 104 slope
1162.0
9.9
115.2
88
1
05/07/02
729
Lot 101
1177.0
11.8
120.2
90
2
05/07/02
730
Lot 101
1178.0
8.8
126.5
94
2
05/07/02
731
Lot 96
1176.0
12.8
120.6
90*
2
05/07/02
732
Lot 96
1177.0
12.6
118.3
90*
1
05/07/02
733
RT No. 728
--
11.5
121.7
93*
1
05/07/02
734
Lot 103 slope
1163.0
12.7
121.7
93*
1
05/07/02
735
Lot 105 slope
1160.0
12.9
119.2
91
1
05/07/02
736
Lot 105 slope
1161.0
14.5
113.2
92
D
05/07/02
737
Lot 99
1179.0
12.8
116.3
91
4
05/07/02
738
Lot 100
1180.0
11.8
118.7
90
9
05/07/02
739
Lot 97
1179.0
11.9
119.6
91
1
05/07/02
740
Lot 97
1180.0
8.3
122.1
91
2
05/07/02
741
Lot 103
1177.0
11.1
121.2
91
2
05/07/02
742
Lot 102,
1177.0
11.8
118.3
90
1
05/08/02
743
Lot 105 slope
1165-0
11.3
119.2
90
8
744
Lot 105 slope
1166.0
9.3
126.1
94
2
'05/08/02
05/08/02
745
Lot 106 slope
1155.0
8.5
118.6
92
4
05/08/02
746
Lot 106 slope
1156.0
10.3
118.8
92
4
'05/08/02
747
Lot 102 slope
1170.0
12.4
120.2
91
l
05/08/02
748
Lot 102 slope.
1171.0
12.6
114.6
94
D
05/08/02
749
Lot 105
1168.0
10.6
114.9
94
D
'
05/08/02
750
Lot 105
1169.0
11.3
125.8
94
2
05/08/02
751
Lot 104 slope
15.6
112.4
92
D
05/08/02
752
Lot 104 slope
12.3
116.9
91
4
'
05/08/02
753
Lot 40
1183.0
11.7
112.1
87
4
05/08/02
754
RT No. 753
--
12.4
117.7
92
4
05/08/02
755
Lot 38
1174.0
11.7
117.3
91
4
i
05/08/02
756
Lot 38
1175.0
9.8
122.7
92
2
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53,78-9196-114
AUGUST 2002
J.N.
188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE -111 6
116
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
I/?
L111L
y,\
-.: 'N:-'.::
;(a•
/[r
:.:: ua)::_:::
}
05/08/02
757
Lot 35
1170.0
13.5
113.2
93
D
758
Lot 35
1171.0
12.9
114.3
93
D
'05/08/02
05/08/02
759
Lot 36
1172.0
10.1
120.6
92
1
05/08/02
760
Lot 36
1173.0
9.3
115.3
94
D
a05/08/02
761
RT No. 708
--
11.2
121.2
92
1
05/08/02
762
Lot 89
1160.0
13.4
118.7
90
1
05/08/02
763
Lot 42 slope
1181.0
6.5
117.7
92
4
05/08/02
764
Lot 42 slope
1182.0
12.1
115.1
90
4
05/08/02
765
Lot 45 slope
1182.0
11.3
116.7
91
4
05/08/02
766
Lot 45 slope
1183.0
9.1
116.7
91
4
05/09/02
767
Lot 89
1160.0
11.7
124.0
93
2
05/09/02
768
Lot 89
1161.0
9.5
119.6
90*
7
n
05/09/02
769
Lot 41 slope
1184.0
12.2
117.5
90
9
U
05/09/02
770
Lot 41 slope
1185.0
10.3
120.6
92
9
05/09/02
771
Lot 44 slope
1186.0
12.4
111.0
91
D
772
Lot 44 slope
1187.0
12.3
113.0
93
10
D05/09/02
05/09/02
773
Lot 90
1166.0
9.4
118.5
90
1
05/09/02
774
Lot 90
1167.0
12.4
110.5
89
10
05/09/02
775
Lot 44 slope
1188.0
11.1
121.9
93
1
05/09/02
776
Lot 89
1163.0
8.7
114.7
89
4
05/09/02
777
Lot 89
1164.0
8.0
117.5
89
1
'
05/09/02
778
Lot 44 slope
1189.0
11.7
115.5
90
4
05/09/02
779
Lot 42 slope
1189.0
9.7
125.5
94
2
05/09/02
780
Lot 42 slope
1190.0
9.9
123.0
91
2
05/09/02
781
RT No. 774
7.9
118.1
90
1
05/09/02
782
Lot 90
1168.0
10.1
113.4
91
10
783
RT No. 776
--
12.6
116.9
91
4
'05/09/02
05/09/02
784
RT No. 777
12.1
124.0
93
2
05/09/02
785
Lot 36
1179.0
8.8
127.0
92
2
05/09/02
786
Lot 36
1180.0
11.1
121.8
91
2
05/09/02
787
Lot 36 slope
1180.0
8.2
118.3
90
1
05/09/02
788
Lot 36 slope
1181.0
10.2
125.0
94
2
'05/09/02
789
Lot 38 slope
1180.0
13.2
115.6
90*
4
05/09/02
790
Lot 38 slope
1181.0
12.0
120.2
91
1
05/09/02
791
Lot 35
1177.0
10.3
124.5
93*
2
05/09/02
792
Lot 35
1178.0
11.7
123.8
93*
2
05/09/02
793
Lot 39
1180.0
9.6
121.6
91
2
05/09/02
794
Lot 39
1181.0
12.8
119.5
91
7
'
05/09/02
795
Lot 91
1168.0
11.7
122.0
91
2
05/09/02
796
Lot 91
1169.0
11.4
124.0
93
2
05/09/02
797
Lot 89
1163.0
8.8
118.9
91
9
05/09/02
798
Lot 89
1164.0
8.6
120.9
91
2
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91
96-114
AUGUST 2002
'
J.N.
188-01
*
Sandcone
TABLE -III 7
I/?
' TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
05/09/02
799
Lot 89
1165.0
12.2
112.9
86
1
05/09/02
800
Lot 89
1166.0
14.3
111.6
85
1
05/09/02
801
Lot 29
1177.0
12.3
116.5
91
4
05/09/02
802
Lot 29
1178.0
10.8
122.9
92
2
05/09/02
803
Lot 90
1167.0
15.6
110.6
91
D
05/09/02
804
Lot 90
1160.0
14.3
112.0
90
10
05/09/02
805
Lot 36
1175.0
12.0
119.6
90
8
05/09/02
806
Lot 36
1176.0
19.8
107.5
93
5
05/09/02
807
Lot 14 slope
1165.0
11.3
117.2
91
4
05/09/02
808
Lot 14 slope
1168.0
10.9
121.5
91
2
05/09/02
809
Lot 14 slope
1171.0
10.6
120.7
90
2
05/10/02
810
Lot 14 slope
1174.0
8.9
119.4
90
2
05/10/02
811
Lot 14 slope
1176.0
12.3
118.6
91
9
05/10/02
812
Lot 31
1187.0
19.7
105.4
91
5
05/10/02
813
Lot 32
1188.0
20.7
105.4
91
5
05/10/02
814
Lot 30
1187.0
21.2
105.5
91
5
05/10/02
815
Lot 30
1188.0
17.8
109.0
94
5
05/10/02
816
RT No. 799
--
13.4
119.8
91
7
05/10/02
817
RT No. 800
--
10.5
117.2
91
4
05/10/02
818
Lot 14 slope
1180.0
16.5
106.8
88
8
05/10/02
819
Lot 14 slope,
1181.0
13.6
116.0
90
4
05/10/02
820
RT No. 818
-
14.3
111.5
93
8
05/10/02
821
Lot 14 slope
1182.0
15.7
107.5
93
5
05/10/02
822
Lot 106 slope
1150.0
11.9
109.6
91
8
05/10/02
823
Lot 106 slope
1151.0
11.5
116.2
90
4
05/10/02
826
Lot 91
1170.0
14.0
107.3
89*
8
05/10/02
827
Lot 91
1171.0
15.0
104.8
87
8
05/10/02
828
Lot 14 slope
1183.0
11.7
109.7
88
10
05/10/02
829
Lot 14 slope
1184.0
13.8
111.5
89*
10
05/10/02
830
Lot 13
1186.0
9.1
126.8
95*
2
05/10/02
831
Lot 12
1187.0
9.0
125.1
94*
2
05/10/02
832
RT No. 828
--
13.4
110.1
91
8
'05/10/02
833
RT No. 829
--
12.5
112.6
90
10
05/10/02
834
Lot 11
1185.0
9.6
122.4
91
2
05/10/02
835
Lot 11
1187.0
9.1
121.9
91
2
05/10/02
836
RT No. 715
--
9.5
113.8
89
4
05/10/02
837
RT No. 836
--
7.5
121.2
91
2
05/10/02
838
Lot 107 slope
1153.0
13.3_
114.8
89
4
05/10/02
839
Lot 107 slope
1154.0
8.2
113.2
88
4
05/10/02
840
RT No. 838
--
10.0
118.5
90
1
841
RT No. 839
--
11.4
125.1
94
2
t05/10/02
05/10/02
842
Lot 106
1159.0
12.2
115.7
90
4
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91
96-114
AUGUST 2002
J.N.
188-01
*
Sandcone
TABLE -III 8
.10
I
D
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
VH3G
sA\V.
-LVVtta3lJ11
1k5j
;;1 wj
1{R'lj
1Mj�
33'Ca`v
05/10/02
843
Lot 14 slope
1185.0
10.8
120.2
92
1
05/10/02
844
Lot 14 slope
1186.0
9.6
120.3
92
1
05/13/02
853
Lot 107
1161.0
10.6
120.2
91
7
05/13/02
854
Lot 107
1162.0
13.7
116.5
90
4
05/13/02
855
Lot 106
1162.0
13.7
116.5
90
4
05/13/02
856
Lot 106
1163.0
11.2
120.5
91
7
05/13/02
857
Lot 106 slope
1162.0
11A
121.0
91
2
05/13/02
858
Lot 106 slope
1163.0
12.2
121.2
91
2
05/13/02
859
Lot 106 slope
1164.0
9.7
118.1
92
4
05/13/02
860
Lot 106
1163.0
11.0
117.3
91
4
05/13/02
861
Lot 106
1162.0
11.0
120.8
92
7
05/13/02
862
Lot 107
1164.0
9.4
124.4
93
2
863
Lot 107
1164.0
12.8
117.6
91
4
'05/13/02
05/14/02
875
Lot 105
1165.0
10.9
118.6
90
2
05/14/02
876
Lot 109 slope
1162.0
9.2
116.1
90*
4
05/14/02
877
Lot 109 slope
1163.0
10.9
113.5
91*
10
05/14/02
878
Lot 108
1164.0
11.7
116.7
91
4
05/14/02
879
Lot 108
1165.0
10.9
112.8
91
10
'05/14/02
886
Lot 105
1170.0
9.0
121.5
92*
1
05/14/02
887
Lot 105
1171.0
11.2
120.0
92*
1
05/14/02
888
Lot 106
1165.0
11.4
115.0
92
10
05/14/02
889
Lot 106
1166.0
11.4
116.1
93
10
05/14/02
890
Lot 107 slope
1167.0
12.6
110.6
91
D
05/14/02
891
Lot 109 slope
1156.0
11.4
111.2
91
D
05/14/02
892
Lot 109 slope
.1157.0
9.4
112.6
90
10
05/14/02
893
Lot 109 slope
1158.0
9.6
109.0
90
D
904
RT No. 826
--
14.4
113.9
92
10
'05/16/02
05/16/02
905
RT No. 827
7.3
115.4
90
3
05/16/02
906
Lot 109 slope
1163.0
12.1
118.2
91
9
907
Lot 109 slope
1164.0
11.7
122.2
92
2
'05/16/02
05/16/02
908
Lot 105
1173.0
12.7
118.3
91
9
05/16/02
909
Lot 106
1174.0
13.0
119.0
91
9
05/16/02
910
Lot 103
1176.0
13.2
120.0
92
9
05/16/02
911
Lot 102
1177.0
9.8
125.8
96
2
05/16/02
916
Lot 34
1176.0
8.6
128.0
96
2
05/16/02
917
Lot 34
1177.0
8.0
129.2
97
2
05/16/02
918
Lot 38
1176.0
10.1
113.5
91
10
05/16/02
919
Lot 38
1175.0
10.4
116.7
94
10
'
05/16/02
920
Lot 41
1178.0
10.4
123.9
93
2
05/16/02
921
Lot 41
1177.0
10.0
122.8
92
2
05/17/02
970
Lots 4445
1175.0
10.5
109.3
91
8
05/17/02
971
Lot 44
1174.0
10.9
110.1
91
8
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91
96-114
AUGUST 2002
'
J.N.
188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE -III 9
S`
' TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
S.)
05/17/02
972
Lot 46
1170.0
7.1
120.7
90
2
05/17/02
973
Lot 46
1172.0
7.5
117.2
88
2
05/17/02
984
Lot 39
1179.0
9.0
124.8
94*
2
05/17/02
985
Lot 37
1180.0
12.8
122.4
93*
9
05/17/02
986
Lot 35
1178.0
8.6
120.2
92*
9
05/17/02
997
RT No. 973
10.7
116.4
91
6
05/17/02
998
Lot 104
1176.0
9.2
123.1
94
9
05/17/02
1005
Lot 108
1170.0
13.5
113.9
94*
8
05/17/02
1006
Lot 106
1173.0
10.3
116.4
90*
4
05/17/02
1007
Lot 104
1175.0
6.8
108.5
84*
4
05/17/02
1008
Lot 22
1189.0
5.8
120.9
90*
2
05/17/02
1009
Lot 30
1188.0
12.9
115.8
90*
4
05/17/02
1010
Lot 28
1190.0
10.3
130.3
97*
2
05/17/02
1011
Lot 26
1191.0
10.5
125.2
94*
2
05/17/02
1012
Lot 24
1192.0
11.2
126.3
95*
2
1013
RT No. 1007
1175.0
9.1
118.5
91
9
'05/17/02
05/18/02
1025
Lot 52 slope
1157.0
10.9
114.5
92
05/18/02
1026
Lot 52 slope
1158.0
10.2
116.7
91
4
05/18/02
1027
Lot 52 slope
1159.0
10.1
114.3
92
10
05/21/02
1028
Lot 52 slope
1213.0
18.6
104.4
90
5
05/20/02
1052
Lot 13
1188.0
10.3
119.6
91
7
05/20/02
1053
Lot 13
1189.0
10.4
124.6
93
2
05/20/02
1054
Lot 14
1189.0
13.6
115.7
90
4
05/20/02
1055
Lot 15
1190.0
11.0
117.5
90
9
05/20/02
1056
Lot 17
1186.0
15.0
112.9
91
5
05/20/02
1057
Lot 17
1187.0
13.0
107.7
93
5
05/22/02
1094
Lot 16
1191.0
18.1
106.4
92*
5
05/22/02
1095
Lot 16
1192.0
16.7
105.8
91*
5
05/22/02
1103
Lot 11
1190.0
15.9
114.6
92
10
05/22/02
1104
Lot 12
FG
14.3
118.3
91
9
05/22/02
1105
Lot 15
FG
19.4
109.6
91
8
05/22/02
1106
Lot 16
FG
15.0
117.0
91
4
05/22/02
1107
Lot 1
FG
9.3
119.8
92
9
05/22/02
1108
Lott
FG
12.0
112.8
91
10
05/22/02
1109
Lot
FG
10.1
118.5
91
9
05/22/02
1110
Lot 4
FG
11.3
115.8
90
4
05/22/02
1111
Lot 5
FG
10.0
121.3
91
2
05/22/02
1112
Lot 6
FG
8.9
120.8
90
2
05/22/02
1125
Lot 30
FG
6.9
117.9
90
9
05/22/02
1126
Lot 29
FG
10.7
117.3
91
4
05/22/02
1127
1128
Lot 28
Lot 27
FG
FG
9.9
6.9
123.3
116.4
92
90
2
4
05/22/02
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,
INC. TR
23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91
96-114
AUGUST 2002
J.N.
188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE -III 10
S.)
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
S3
05/22/02
1129
Lot 26
F8
8.6
117.5
90
A
05/22/02
1130
Lot 25
P0
7.8
124.1
92
2
N�
05/22/02
1121
Lot 24
FG
11.9
112.5
YV
10
05/22/02
1132
Lot 30
9G
9.4
1157
90
4
05/22/02
1159
[o\ 16
1190A
7.0
113.7
89
3
05/22/02
1160
8l`No. 1159
-
10.8
110.0
YA
4
05/23/02
1162
Lot 14
1185.0
13.8
116.1
90
4
0�
05/23/02
1163
Lot 14
1188.0
13.4
118.8
92
4
�
~=
05/23/02
1164
Lot 96
FG
86
118.8
Al
9
05/21/02
1165
Lot 97
FG
8.1
122.1
91
I
N�
0�
05/23/02
^ �|66
Lot 98
P0
89
�
1231
92
2
-
05/23/02
1167
Lot 99
F8
9.1
1250
94
2
05/23/02
1168
Lot 100
F8
98
1112
91
2
05/23/02
1169
Lot 101
P0
84
122.4
92
%
05/23/02
1170
Lot 102
FG
12.1
126.6
95
2
05/23/02
1171
Lot 103
PG
7.8
1187
91
9
05/23/02
1172
Lot 104
P8
9.1
122.3
92
2
05/23/02
1173
Lot 105
FG
6.9
122.1
91
2
05/23/02
1174
Lot 106
F0
10.8
112.1
93
N�
05/24/02
1183
Lot 8%slope
1115.0
83
1079.0
93
5
05/24/02
1184
Lot 82slope
1118.0
12.7
109J
91
8
N�
05/24/02
1185
Lot 82slope
1145.0
94
104�6
90
5
�
~�
05/24/02
1186
Lot 82slope
1148.0
10.5
1052
91
5
05/29/02
1217
Lot 87
1163.0
8.8
110.7
90
2
�0
06/01/02
1289
Lot 78
P0
8.0
122J
92
2
06/01/02
1290
Lot 79
FG
8.0
126.0
95
%
N�
�
06/01/02
06/01/02
1291
1292
Lot 80
Lot 81
FG
P(]
80
9.1
124.9
1219
93
92
2
2
06/01/02
1293
[o^8%
FG
8.8
125.6
94
2
06/01/02
1294
Lot 83
F{}
7.5
128.4
96
2
0�06/01/02
1295
Lot 84
FG
59
1191
90
2
06/01/02
1296
Lot 87
P8
8.5
121.8
91
2
06/01/02
1297
Lot 88
98
8.0
119 .1
90
7
�
06/01/02
1298
Lot 89
FG
0.1
118.8
01
y
06/01/02
1299
Lot 90
FG
103
118.1
90
9
0�06/01/02
1300
Lot 91
FG
7.1
121.8
91
2
�
mw06/08/02
1400
Lot 40finish slope
1188.0
8.9
112.7
91
10
06/07/02
1401
Lot 50slope
1188.0
9.6
126.5
95
]i
0�06/07/02
1402
Lot 5>slope
1189.0
9.3
124.3
93
ll*
�
86/07/02
1403
Lot 19
1190.0
106
123.1
42
l]*
06/07/02
06/08/02
1404
1419
Lot 19
Lot 4lfinish
1191.0
1185.0
12.0
78
121.9
115.1
91
42
]l*
slope
10
PETRAGEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066~1 Lots 1-53, 78-91
96^114
AUGUST 2002
J.N.188^O1
°SaMdcnne
TABLE~11111
S3
I
I
1
11
I
1
[1
[1
1
-1
I
TABLE 111
Field Density Test Results
06/08/02
1420
Lot 46 finish slope
1180.0
9.4
116.9
91
4
06/08/02
1421
Lot 47 finish slope
1190.0
8.6
117.8
92
4
06/08/02
1430
Lot 108 finish slope
1167.0
10.1
122.0
91
11
06/08/02
1431
Lot 107 finish slope
1168.0
12.7
118.5
91
9
06/08/02
1432
Lot 105 finish slope
1170.0
8.4
125.3
94
2
06/08/02
1433
Lot 101 finish slope
1177.0
9.9
117.9
92
4
06/08/02
1434
Lot 99 finish slope
1174.0
7.5
122.6
92
2
06/08/02
1435
Lot 96 finish slope
1178.0
8.4
119.7
90
7
06/11/02
1495
Lot 52 slope
1158.0
9.6
124.5
93
11
06/11/02
1496
Lot 52 slope
1159.0
10.3
119.5
89
11
06/11/02
1497
RT No. 1488
--
8.9
117.4
91
4
06/11/02
1498
RT No. 1496
-
12.2
122.1
91
11
06/11/02
1499
Lot 50 slope
1160.0
16.6
112.1
87
4
06/11/02
1500
Lot 50 slope
1161.0
12.5
115.5
90
4
06/11/02
1501
Lot 52 slope
1163.0
11.9
117.5
91
4
06/11/02
1502
Lot 52 slope
1164.0
11.3
114.6
91
12
06/11/02
1503
RT No. 1499
--
12.6
115.7
90
4
06/12/02
1526
Lot 50
1160.0
8.6
124:6
93
11
06/12/02
1527
Lot 50
1161.0
9.7
121.4
91
11
06/12/02
1528
Lot 51 slope
1162.0
11.8
114.0
90
12
06/12/02
1529
Lot 51 slope
1163.0
10.5
116.3
92
12
06/12/02
1530
Lot 52 slope
1162.0
13.6
112.7
91
10
06/12/02
1531
Lot 52 slope
1163.0
14.5
113.2
91
10
06/12/02
1532
Lot 53 slope
1166.0
10.3
115.8
90*
4
06/12/02
1533
Lot 53 slope
1167.0
8.6
122.9
92
11
06/12/02
1534
Lot 18 slope
1168.0
11.2
117.5
92
4
06/12/02
1535
Lot 18 slope
1169.0
12.8
116.8
91
4
06/12/02
1536
Lot 86
1151.0
13.0
114.5
91
12
06/12/02
1537
Lot 86
1150.0
12.4
113.9
90
12
06/12/02
1538
Lot 86
1153.0
9.5
116.0
90
4
06/12/02
1539
Lot 86
1154.0
10.8
118.3
92
4
06/12/02
1540
Lot 86
1156.0
8.6
122.8
92
11
06/12/02
.1541
Lot 86
1157.0
9.1
120.4
90
11
06/13/02
1542
Lot 18
1184.0
13.3
118.9
91
9
06/13/02
1543
Lot 18
1185.0
12.8
119.2
91
9
06/13/02
1544
Lot 52 slope
1170.0
7.9
120.9
91
11
06/13/02
1545
Lot 52 slope
1171.0
10.3
124.6
93
11
06/13/02
1546
Lot 17
1185.0
13.8
116.7
91
4
06/13/02
1547
Lot 17
1186.0
13.4
116.8
91
4
06/14/02
1570
Lot 17
1192.0
9.5
118.7
92
4
06/14/02
1571
Lot 17
1191.0
10.2
116.8
91
4
06/14/02
1572
Lot 18
1189.0
14.3
114.7
90
12
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 96-114 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -III 12
.S�(
LJ
I
I
1
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
06/14/02
1573
Lot 18
1190.0
13.8
115.5
91
12
06/14/02
1574
Lot 85
1155.0
9.5
119.9
89
ll
06/14/02
1575
RT No. 1574
--
10.1
121.9
90
11
06/13/02
1601
Lot 52 slope
1180.0
13.6
120.6
92
7
06/13/02
1602
Lot 52 slope
1181.0
9.6
122.6
92
11
06/13/02
1603
Lot 18
1184.0
9.5
118.7
92
4
06/13/02
1604
Lot 18
1185.0
11.0
113.6
91
10
06/13/02
1605
Lot 18
1186.0
14.7
114.7
91
12
06/13/02
1606
Lot 18
1187.0
13.5
116.3
91
4
06/14/02
1607
TR 23066-1/Lot 52 slope
1120.0
11.6
118.6
91
9
06/14/02
1608
TR 23066-1/1-ot 18
1121.0
9.8
117.8
90
9
06/14/02
1609
Lot 18
1187.0
11.1
121.3
91
11
06/14/02
1610
Lot 18
1188.0
10.7
114.5
90
12
06/14/02
1615
Lot 101
1205.0
10.6
115.3
90*
3
06/14/02
1616
Lot 108
1208.0
13.7
116.3
91*
4
06/15/02
1617
Lot 96 finish slope
1177.0
8.1
122.2
92*
11
06/15/02
1618
Lot 97 finish slope
1172.0
9.3
115.3
90*
3
06/15/02
1619
Lot 98 finish slope
1166.0
12.3
121.0
91 *
11
06/15/02
1620
Lot 99 finish slope
1172.0
7-8
108.5
90*
8
06/15/02
1621
Lot 100 finish slope
1161.0
11.1
119.8
91*
7
06/15/02
1626
Lot 31
FG
5.9
119.3
94
12
06/15/02
1627
Lot 30
FG
10.3
122.0
92
11
06/15/02
1628
Lot 32
FG
9.1
123.8
93
11
06/15/02
1629
Lot 86
FG
8.5
124.1
93
11
06/15/02
1630
Lot 85
FG
6.9
122.0
91
11
06/15/02
1631
Lot 43
FG
12.3
105.2
91
5
06/15/02
1632
Lot 42
FG
15.7
109.0
91
8
06/15/02
1633
Lot 41
FG
8.0
121.2
91
11
06/15/02
1634
Lot 40
FG
11.8
118.2
91
9
06/15/02
1635
Lot 34
FG
8.1
120.9
91*
11
06/15/02
1636
Lot 35
FG
5.3
126.1
94*
11
06/15/02
1637
Lot 36
FG
8.8
117.0
91*
4
06/15/02
1638
Lot 37
FG
9.3
115.8
90*
4
06/15/02
1639
Lot 38
FG
6.4
115.2
90*
3
06/15/02
1640
Lot 39
FG
12.7
110.7
92*
8
06/17/02
1645
Lot 52 slope
1210.0
10.3
118.1
90
9
06/20/02
1682
Lot 10 finish slope
1188.0
14.6
108.9
90
8
06/21/02
1683
Lot 10 finish slope
1180.0
11.9
114.8
92
10
06/21/02
1684
Lot 10 finish slope
1177.0
11.5
105.8
91
13
06/21/02
1685
Lot 11 finish slope
1178.0
10.5
112.2
90
10
06/22/02
1705
Lot 8
FG
7.9
120.7
90
11
06/22/02
1706
Lot 9
FG
6.3-
119.8
92
9
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 96-114 AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -III 13
`Tie c?6 D,? 3 -/, 3
ss
I
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 96-114 AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -III 14
.S6
06/22/02
1707
Lot 10
FG
9.1
121.6
91
11
06/22/02 .
1708
Lot II
FG
6.3
123.1
92
11
06/22/02
1709
Lot 12
FG
5.7
120.3
90
6
06/22/02
1710
Lot 13
FG
7.6
119.2
91
9
06/22/02
1711
Lot 14
FG
9.4
116.3
91
4
06/22/02
1712
Lot 15
FG
10.2
117.7
90
9
06/22/02
1713
Lot 16
FG
7.8
120.4
90
11
06/22/02
1714
Lot 17
FG
11.0
113.8
92
12
06/22/02
1715
Lot 18
FG
10.1
116.2
90
4
06/22/02
1716
Lot 19
FG
6.9
122.0
91
11
06/22/02
1717
Lot 20
FG
7.9
124.6
93
11
06/22/02
1718
Lot 21
FG
5.6
120.7
90
11
06/22/02
06/22/02
1719
1720
Lot 22
Lot 23
FG
FG
10.8
6.1
117.9
125.1
92
94
4
11
06/22/02
1721
Lot 24
FG
7.7
116.5
91
4
1722
Lot 25
FG
8.2
119.3
91
9
'06/22/02
06/22/02
1723
Lot 52 finish slope
1187.0
10.8
122.6
92
11
06/22/02
1724
Lot 52 finish slope
1180.0
8.8
124.0
93
11
'06/22/02
1725
Lot 52 finish slope
1175.0
7.9
117.8
90
9
06/22/02
1726
Lot 52 finish slope
1266.0
9.8
116.5
91
4
06/22/02
1727
Lot 52 finish slope
1258.0
7.9
118.3
92
4
06/22/02
1728
Lot 51 finish slope
1261.0
8.1
121.4
91
11
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-1 Lots 1-53, 78-91 96-114 AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -III 14
.S6
I
1
1
1
1 REFERENCES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 PETRA
1
1
1 57
I
11
1
1
1
I
I
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998/1999, "UBCSEIS" Version 1.03, A Computer Programfor 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.
, 2001a, 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, LN. 188-01,
stated March 30, 2001.
, 2001b, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tract 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, California; 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, 23066-1, 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. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
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.
, 2002f, 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.
, 2002i, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 54 through 77 and 115, Tract 23066-1, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated June 20, 2002.
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01
5q
I
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
1
LABORATORY TEST DATA
1
11
1
1
1
I
1
1
1 PETRA
1
1
1 60
I
1 APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
1
Laboratory Maximum Dry Density
1 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.
1 Expansion Potential
1 Expansion index tests were performed on selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM
Test 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.
1 Soil Chemistry
1 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.
i
Atterberc Limits
1 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-6.
1
1
I
I
I
1
1 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01
i
11
C]
11
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
1989
Soil Type 7
SE
t A"ks.�9wGaat
Maxnnum Dry DensrtyF
awgAmMiewN
r;Wk
1Soil Type 1
` ' ab
i Maximum)DryiDensigA
l
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
124.5
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-1
6 0.
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY' (Continued)
2002
'Sam�le
isilVU?:hr
w-,�„Solrert,” ;��i
2 ::(n -..k VUt. ` .. •:... a._z�P..Y.`i.�`�-.x,.+3 "
(%)' ,
Ma miim
Dr Densr
' is'3.ej
I
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
1 Light brown Silty to Clayey fine SAND
10.5
126.5
(1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD Dt557
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-2
103
I
U
[1
1
1
.r
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA
tMO 6d� , x r�=� �4" a��3 a i
„„ ,LoLNumbens�,
%aExpanston 41,,Exp
Indexes,,
rnston
yPotential.�
4/1 through 4
4
Very Low
7/5 through 7
0
Very Low
8/8 through 10
0
Very Low
11/11 through 13
0
Very Low
15/14 through 16
19
Very Low
19/17 through 20
3
Very Low
23/21 through 23
36
Low
26/24 through 27
7
Very Low
29/28 and 29
4
Very Low
30/30
5
Very Low
31/31 and 32
46
Low
34/33 through 35
25
Low
37/36 through 38
15
Very Low
39/39 through 41
9
Very Low
42/42 through 44
3
Very Low
45/45 through 57
2
Very Low
48/48 through 50
0
Very Low
51151 through 53
113
High
79/78-80
11
Very Low
82/81 - 83
6
Very Low
85/84-86
4
Very Low
88/87- 89
4
Very Low
91/90-91
0
Very Low .
97/96 through 98
19
Very Low
100/99 through 101
0
Very Low
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-3
-W
I
1
1
1
[1
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA (Continued)
��-��.,�,,3L-ot Numbers � � -
;,� ,Index�.<i��
� #�Potenttal•;„_
103/102 through 104
11
Very Low
106/105 through 107
0
Very Low
110/108 through 110
4
Very Low
111/111 through 113
2
Very Low
114/114
12 1
Very Low
(2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829
(3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE t 8 -I -B
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-4
[I
/P.5
I
SOLUBLE CHEMISTRY
4 Fiw n-*�yyt
'0-p os ,u t
Sulfate
"�5}.,
RMO e
#^ x?r�p
pH
-& "
"'fre" ge
vRestshvttyv
a l core.. r
Corros�vtty Potential
a
,� S
(%)`�,."�'�.,�
;5s�2`
�(
2 _ 7-
t
n n s w
.Y��
Am)
! s���
a��i(ohm:`cm)z�
1 through 4
ND
154
6.4
2,100
concrete: negligible
steel: moderate
28 through 30
ND
46
6.7
4,900
concrete: negligible
steel: moderate
39 through 41
ND
--
--
--
concrete: negligible
steel: --
50 through 53
0.01
60
6.8
3,300
concrete: negligible
steel: moderate
85/84 - 86
concrete: negligible
steel: moderate
88/87 - 89
ND
--
--
--
concrete: negligible
steel: --
99 through 101
0.01
110
6.6
7,400
concrete: negligible
steel: mild
111 through 114
ND
--
--
--
concrete: negligible
steel: --
1
(4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417
(5) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 422
(6) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
(7) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
1
1
11
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-5
1
44
ATTERBERG LIMITS'
ate§
t Sample4Nogt
�iC"fl.�E
-F11 d N � fiSoil.Type
L�gwdasticrt?y#..
3
Clayey SAND
32
14
18
4
Silty, Clayey SAND
32
15
17
10
Clayey SILT
28
24
4
11
Clayey medium to coarse SAND with cobbles
26
18
8
12
Silty fine SAND
I NP*
NP*
NP*
(8) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4318
' NP - Non Plastic
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-6
/o %
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
[1
1
1
1
1
1
[1
1
1
APPENDIX B
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
1 PETRA
1 b 6'
OUT
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: SD
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 12.1 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA
DISTANCE: 1.3 km
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
Page 1
DATE: 04-13-20
5
OUT
1
1
............. A : ::• • ..: aA:
CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are
1 limited in number and have been digitized from small
1 scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently,
the estimated fault -site -distances may be in error b
1 y
several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that
the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and
1 adjusted as needed, before they are used in design.
1
SUMMARY
OF FAULT
PARAMETERS
1
---------------------------
Page 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1
------------
I APPROX.ISOURCE
I
MAX. I
SLIP
I FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI
TYPE I
MAG. I
RATE
1
I TYPE
FAULT NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)I
(Mw) I
(mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
I 2.6 I
B I
6.8 I
5.00
1
I
ELSINORERE-JULIAN
I 12.1 I
A I
7.1 I
5.00
I 5S
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
I 31.2 I
B I
6.8 I
5.00
1 SS
1
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
I 33.3 I
A I
7.2 I
12.00
I SS
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
I 34.1 I
B I
6.9 I
12.00
1
1 5S
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
I 46.5 I
B I
6.9 I
1.50
i SS
1
ROSE CANYON
I 49.0 I
B (
6.9 I
1.50
I SS
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
I 53.6 I
B I
6.8 I
4.00
I SS
1
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
I 56.6 I
B I
6.5 I
2.00
1
Page 2
1
V,
OUT
'
I SS
CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)
1 60.0
I B
I 6.7 1
1.00
I DS
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
I 62.7
I B
1 6.7 1
12.00
'
1 SS
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
I 63.0
I A
I 7.4 1
24.00
1 SS
ELSINORE-WHITTIER
1 66.8
I B
1 6.8 1
2.50
1 SS
PINTO MOUNTAIN
1 73.8
I B
1 7.0 I
2.50
'
1 SS
CORONADO BANK
1 74.1
1 B
I 7.4 1
3.00
1 SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin)
I 79.1
I B
1 6.9 1
1.00
'
I SS
PALOS VERDES
1 81.5
1 B
I 7.1 1
3.00
'
I SS
BURNT MTN.
1 84.6
1 B
1 6.5 1
0.60
1 SS
CUCAMONGA
1 86.0
I A
I 7.0 1
5.00
'
I DS
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN
1 87.4
1 B
1 6.8 1
4.00
1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
I 87.8
1 B
1 7.0 1
1.00
I DS
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
1 87.9
1 B
1 6.6 1
4.00
'
I SS
EUREKA PEAK
1 89.1
1 B
I 6.5 1
0.60
1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
I 90.4
1 B
1 6.7 1
0.50
DS
SAN JOSE
I 91.0
i B
1 6.5 I
0.50
I DS
CLEGHORN
1 91.1
I B
1 6.5 1
3.00
'
SIERRASMADRE (Central)
1 94.8
I B
i 7.0 1
3.00
DS
LANDERS
1 99.2
1 B
1 7.3 1
0.60
1 SS
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
1 102.4
1 B
I 7.1 I
0.60
1 Ss
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture
1 102.4
1 A
1 7.8 I
34.00
1 SS
'
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
1 SS
I 107.0
I B
( 7.3 1
0.60
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
1 111.1
I B
1 6.5 1
0.50
1 DS
'
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
1 111.6
I B
1 6.7 1
0.60
1 SS
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.
1 112.9
1 B
1 6.9 i
0.60
'
RAYMONDS
I 115.4
I B
1 6.5 1
0.50
Page
3
T�c:;2-3e51!!� /,
A
-3
91
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-LACUNA SALADA
I SS
' SANTA MONICA
DS
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
I DS
I
I
I
Page 2
I 120.2 I
B
I 6.6 I
5.00
I 123.5 I
B
I 6.7 I
0.50
I 124.2 I
B
I 6.6 I
1.00
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 4
7a
I APPROX.ISOURCE
I
MAX.
I SLIP
FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI
TYPE I
MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
FAULT NAME
I (km)
I(A,B,C)I
(Mw)
I (mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
SAN GABRIEL
I 145.6
I B I
7.0 I.
1.00
I SS
MALIBU COAST
I 148.1
I B I
6.7 I
0.30
I DS
IMPERIAL
I 153.5
I A I
7.0
I 20.00
GRAVELSHILLS - HARPER LAKE
I 157.0
I B I
6.9 I
0.60
I SS
ANACAPA-DUME
I 159.9
I B I
7.3 I
3.00
I DS
Page 4
7a
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
OUT
SANTA SUSANA.
1 161.7 1
B
1 6.6 1
5.00
I DS
HOLSER
1 170.7 1
B
1 6.5 1
0.40
1 DS
BLACKWATER
1 173.2 1
B
1 6.9 1
0.60
1 55
OAK RIDGE (Onshore)
1 181.7 1
B
1 6.9 (
4.00
1 DS
SIMI-SANTA ROSA
I 183.3 1
B
1 6.7 1
1.00
I DS
SAN CAYETANO
1 189.1 1
B
1 6.8 1
6.00
1 DS
SANTA YNEZ (East)
1 208.3 1
B
1 7.0 1
2.00
1 SS
GARLOCK (West)
1 213.3 1
A
1 7.1 1
6.00
I SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT
1 214.2 1
B
I 6.8 1
1.00
DS
1 219.9 1
A
j 7.3 1
7.00
1 SS
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA
1 222.8 1
B
1 6.7 1
0.40
1 DS
PLEITO THRUST
1 225.2 1
B
1 6.8 1
2.00
1 DS
RED MOUNTAIN
1 228.5 1
B
1 6.8 1
2.00
1 DS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
1 232.7.1
B
1 6.8 1
1.00
1 DS
BIG PINE
1 233.2 1
B
1 6.7 1
0.80
1 SS
OWL LAKE
1 238.6 1
B
1 6.5 1
2.00
1 SS
PANAMINT VALLEY
1 238.9 1
B
1 7.2 1
2.50
1 55
WHITE WOLF
1 240.0 1
B
1 7.2 1
2.00
1 DS
TANK CANYON
1 242.2 1
B
1 6.5 1
1.00
I DS
50. SIERRA NEVADA
1 242.6 1
B
I 7.1 1
0.10
I DS
LITTLE LAKE
1 243.9 1
B
1 6.7 1
0.70
1 SS
DEATH VALLEY (South)
1 245.3 I
B
1 6.9 ►
4.00
1 SS
SANTA YNEZ (West)
I 262.0 1
B
I 6.9 1
2.00
1 55
SANTA ROSA ISLAND
1 268.8 1
B
1 6.9 1
1.00
I DS
DEATH VALLEY (Graben)
1 288.9.1
B
1 6.9 1
4.00
1 DS
LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE
1 305.1 1
B
1 6.8 1
0.70
1 DS
Page 5
93
OUT
1
'
OWENS VALLEY
I 314.0 I
B I
7.6 I
1.50
I SS
LIONS HEAD
I 322.5 I
B I
6.6 I
0.02
1 DS
SAN JUAN
I 325.6 I
B I
7.0 I
1.00
I SS
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin)
I 330.2 I
B 1
7.0 I
0.20
t
1 DS
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY
I 336.2 I
B I
7.0 (
2.50
I ss
'
CASMALIA (OrCUtt Frontal Fault)
I 339.8 I
B I
6.5 (
0.25
1 DS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern)
I 342.9 I
A I
7.2 I
5.00
I ss
'
INDEPENDENCE
I 350.0 I
B I
6.9 I
0.20
1 DS
'
Los oSOS
I 359.5 I
B I
6.8 1
0.50
HOSGRIDS
I 368.7 I
B I
7.3 I
2.50
I SS
RINCONADA
I 377.7 I
B I
7.3.1
1.00
I SS
BIRCH CREEK
I 406.9 I
B I
6.5 I
0.70
1 DS
'
WHITE MOUNTAINS
I 410.4 I
B I
7.1 I
1.00
I SS
'
DEEP SPRINGS
1 DS
I 428.0 I
B I
6.6 I
0.80
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping)
I 428.1 I
B I
5.0 I
34.00
I 55
'
---------------------------
SUMMARY
OF FAULT
PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'
I APPROX.ISOURCE
I
MAX. I
SLIP
FAULT
IDISTANCEI
TYPE I
MAG. I
RATE
'ABBREVIATED
I TYPE
FAULT NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)I
(Mw) I
(mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
'
DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo)
I 431.0 I
A I
7.0 I
5.00
1 SS
'
ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.)
I 443.2 I
B I
6.8 I
1.00
Page 6
1
V
OUT
'
FISH SDS
LOUGH
I 449.6 I
B
1 6.6 I
0.20
I DS
HILTON CREEK
I 469.5 I
B
1 6.7 I
2.50
'
1 DS
HARTLEY SPRINGS
I 494.6 I
B
I 6.6 1
0.50
'
I DS
ORTIGALITA
I 509.4 I
B
I 6.9 I
1.00
I SS
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res)
I 517.1 (
B
I 6.2 I
15.00
'
I SS
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS
I 523.1 I
B
I 7.1 I
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 I
B
1 6.5 1
1.00
'
I SS
MONO LAKE
I 530.8 I
B
I 6.6 I
2.50
1 DS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES
I 549.2 I
B
I 6.8 I
0.10
I SS
SARGENT
I 554.0 I
B
I 6.8 I
3.00
1 SS
SAN ANDREAS (1906)
I 554.4 I
A
I 7.9 1
24.00
1 SS
ROBINSON CREEK
I 562.3 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
DS
SAN GREGORIO
1 598.2 I
A
I 7.3 I
5.00
I SS
GREENVILLE
I 601.0 I
B
I 6.9 I
2.00
1 SS
t
ANTELOPE VALLEY
I 603.0 I
B
I 6.7 I
0.80
I DS
HAYWARD (SE Extension)
I 603.1 I
B
I 6.5 I
3.00
1 SS
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON
I 604.1 1
B
I 6.5 I
0.40
HAYWARDS(Total Length)
I 622.4 I
A
I 7.1 1
9.00
1 SS
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res)
I 622.4 I
B
I 6.8 1
6.00
SS
'
GENOA
1 629.2 I
B
I 6.9 1
1.00
I DS
'
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY
► 668.8 I
B
I 6.9 I
6.00
RODGERSSCREEK
I 708.1 I
A
I 7.0 I
9.00
1 SS
'
WEST NAPA
I 708.3 I
B
I 6.5 1
1.00
I SS
POINT REYES
1 729.3 I
B
I 6.8 I
0.30
'
HUNTINGSCREEK - BERRYESSA
I 729.5 1
B
I 6.9 I
6.00
Page 7
21
OUT
'
I SS
MAACAMA (South)
1 770.1 I
B
1 6.9 (
9.00
1 SS
COLLAYOMI
I 786.2 I
B
1 6.5 1
0.60
'
1 SS
BARTLETT SPRINGS
1 788.6 1
A
1 7.1 1
6.00
SS
MAACAMA (central)
1 811.7 1
A
1 7.1 1
9.00
1 SS
MAACAMA (North)
I 870.5 1
A
I 7.1 1
9.00
'
1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay)
I 875.3 1
B
I 6.8 1
6.00
1 SS
BATTLE CREEK
1 892.8 1
B
i 6.5 I
0.50
'
I DS
LAKE MOUNTAIN
1 933.6 1
B
1 6.7 I
6.00
'
I SS
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND
1 951.5 I
B
1 6.9 1
9.00
1 SS
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE
1 1008.7 1
A
I 7.4 1
35.00
'1
DS
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore)
1 1013.7 1
A
1 7.0 I
5.00
1 DS
MAD RIVER
11015.4 1
B
1 7.1 1
0.70
1 DS
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE
1 1023.1 1
A
1 8.3 1
35.00
DS
MCKINLEYVILLE
1 1026.1 1
B
I 7.0 1
0.60
1 DS
TRINIDAD
11027.4 1
B
1 7.3 I
2.50
'
1 DS
FICKLE HILL
1 1028.2'1
B
1 6.9
0.60
1 DS
TABLE BLUFF
1 1034.4 1
B
1 7.0 I
0.60
1 DS
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore)
1 1047.6 1
B
1 7.1 1
1.00
I DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT
PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 4
'
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX.ISOURCE
I MAX. I
SLIP
1 FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI
TYPE
I MAG. I
RATE
1 TYPE
1
Page 8
//0
OUT
I
J(SS, FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)l (Mw) I (mm/yr)
IDS,BT)
-----------------
=BIG LAGOON BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1063.9 B 7.3 0.50
DS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 9
11
7DTM SPONSE SPECTRUM
2.50
2.25
2.00
c
1.75
0
1.50
L
1.25
U
Q
1.00
0.75
U
0.50
M
0.25
0.00
0.0
Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period Seconds
4.5 5.0