The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGeotechnical Rpt, Lots 1-8 4/26/2002Please OUTING & REQU sf ❑ Read To: ❑ Handle _/�or�ee ❑ Approves ��i�a✓oii�/ r And... ❑ Forward ❑ Return ❑ Keep or Recycle ❑ Review with Me From: AFf tivwc:WL7eesoartes3 Dales m n 1 I I I %40"- PETRA OFFICES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 BGR No. 010340 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES 104 West Grand Avenue, Suite A Escondido, California 92025 Attention: Ms. Jarnne Gardner Subject: Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots 1 through 8, Tract 23066-2, Temecula Arca, Riverside County, California This report presents a summary of the observation and testing services provided by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) during rough -grading operations to complete the development of Lots I through 8 within of Tract 23066- 2 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 and 1990, under the purview of Petra. Petra reported on the interface grading in a report issued on December 10, 2001 (see References). REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Cuts, removal and recompaction of unsuitable low-density surface soils, lot overexcavations and placement of compacted fill under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation and with selective testing by Petra. The earthwork was performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in previous geotechnical reports by Petra (see References) and the Grading Code of the County of Riverside. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 41640 Corning Place . Suite 107 . Murrieta . CA 92562 . Tel: (909) 600-9271 . Fax: (909) 600-9215 r [l I 1 I 1 1 [1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8fremecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 2 The completed earthwork has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the construction now planned. On the basis of our observations, as well as field and laboratory testing, the recommendations presented in this report were prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further warranty is implied nor made. SUMMARY OF AS -GRADED SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS As -Graded Conditions Remedial grading during the 1989 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 during the recent phase of rough grading included similar removals plus surficial overexcavation and recompaction of up to 30 feet. Highly expansive claystone was overexcavated from Lots 5 through 7 to a depth of 30 feet. Remedial grading also included overexcavation of the cut portions of cut/fill transition lots. The compacted fills range in depth from approximately 5 to 10 feet. A lot -by -lot summary of the compacted fill depths 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 (man symbol afc) — The compacted fill soils placed in 1989 and 1990 generally consisted of silty sand and sandy silt with variable clay. The compacted -fill soils placed in 2002 are comprised of onsite -derived soil and bedrock materials and generally consist of fine- to coarse-grained sand, silty sand and clayey sand. • Pauba Formation Bedrock (Qps) — 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. i 1 ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 3 ' SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND DENSITY TESTING ' Clearing and Grubbing At the time of the recent grading operation, a majority of the tract was covered with ' a light growth of grasses and weeds. This light vegetation was removed during overexcavation of existing grades and mixed with the excavated soils in an acceptable ' manner (i.e., the resultant blend contained less than 1 percent organic materials). tGround Preparation • 1989 - 1990 — During the interface grading performed in 1989 and 1990, unsuitable t 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 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 5 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 compacted -fill materials. Removals throughout the lots were from approximately 1 to 2 feet. Previously compacted -fill materials exposed in removal areas exhibited an in-place relative compaction of a minimum of 90 percent. Prior to placing fill, exposed bottom surfaces in all removal areas were first observed and approved by our project geologist or senior soil technician. Following this approval, the exposed bottom surfaces were scarified to depths of approximately 6 to 8 inches, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a moisture content equal to or 4 ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 ' Page 4 slightly above optimum moisture content and then recompacted in-place to a minimum ' relative compaction of 90 percent. ' Lot Overexcavations To mitigate distress to residential structures related to the potential adverse effects of excessive differential settlement, the cut portion of cut/fill transition lots were overexcavated to a minimum depth of 5 feet below finish grade and replaced with compacted fill. The bedrock exposed in Lots 5 through 7 consisted of a clay bed with an expansion index of 169 (HIGH). Therefore, overexcavations were extended to 10 feet below finish grade within these lots. ' Fill Placement and Testing All fill soils were placed in life 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. Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with nuclear - gauge test methods ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017, respectively. Occasional Field density tests were also performed in accordance with the sandcone method ' (ASTM Test Method D1556). Field density test results are presented on the attached Table II and approximate test locations are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map ' with Field Density Test Locations (Figure 1). S I [] L 11 1 [] RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 5 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 earth - 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, including those constructed during 1989 and 1990, were constructed at a maximum ratio of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum height of approximately 6 feet. All fill slopes were overfilled an average of 4 to 5 feet during construction and then trimmed back to the compacted core. Cut Slopes Cut slopes were excavated at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 (h:v) and a maximum height of 5 feet. They descend ascend to the adjacent golf course from Lots 5 and 6. The cut slopes expose well -graded, cross -bedded sandstones of the Pauba Formation which trend northeast and dip only a few degrees to the northwest (neutral to the slope face). I C] 1 1 1 I 1 1 I, 1 1 J 1 LJ 1 1 P 1 [1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 6 LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type observed during grading were determined in our laboratory in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values 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 and for the majority of the maximum dry density soil types identified during the rough -grading operations. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Test results are also summarized in Appendix A. Atterberg Limits Atterberg limits were determined for selected soil samples that were classified as expansive soils. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Test results are presented in Appendix A. Soluble Sulfate Analyses 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. 'rest results are summarized in Appendix A. I I I I I I J 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 7 Chloride, Resistivity and PH Analyses Water-soluble chloride concentration, resistivity and pH were determined for a selected sample in accordance with California 'rest Method Nos. 422 (chloride) and 643 (resistivity and pI-I). The results of these analyses are summarized in Appendix A. FOUNDATION -DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Foundation Types Based on as -graded soil and geologic conditions, the use of conventional slab -on - ground foundations is considered feasible for the proposed residential structures. Recommended design parameters are provided herein. Allowable Soil -Bearing Capacities An allowable soil -bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (pso may be used for 24 -inch square pad footings and 12 -inch wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth, to a maximum value of 2,500 psi'. 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 W a L' I] I �J d I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 8 total settlement. The maximum anticipated differential settlement of 0.38 inch in 30 feet may be expressed as an angular distortion of 1:960. Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf may be used to determine lateral -bearing resistance for building footings. Where structures such as masonry 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 farces. 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. 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. 6 I �l 1 I 1 1 I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 9 Expansive Soil Considerations Results of laboratory tests indicate onsite soil and bedrock materials in the upper 15 feet exhibit expansion potentials of VERY LOW and MEDIUM as classified in accordance with 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18 -I -B. The classification of soils in the upper 15 feet is based upon the soil classification as determined during field density testing. The laboratory test results indicate that the soils within the upper 5 feet and from 10 feet and lower are classified as having a VERY LOW expansion potential. Some of the soils within the zone from 5 to 10 feet have a MEDIUM expansion potential. Overall, the subject lots should be classified as having VERY LOW expansion potential. Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less) The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils exhibit 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 design for expansive soil conditions as indicated in 1997 UBC Section 1806.2. 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, at /D I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 10 respectively and should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one rbottom. 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. 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 I ensure the desired placement near mid -depth Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and 2 inches or more 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. r I I I I P I I I 11 I I 11 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temccula J.N. 188-01 Page 11 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 23066-2 would probably generate the most severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 and anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. Based on our evaluation using UBCSEIS, the following 1997 UBC seismic design coefficients are recommended for the proposed residential W l,2 I I 11 11 1 I 11 I I I I 1 I I I I I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 12 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 slightly 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 slope, the footings should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 it 13 1997 UkIABLE 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 So 16-S Near -Source Factor N. 13 16-T Near -Source Factor N, 1.6 I6 -Q Seismic Coefficient C, 0.44 N, = 057 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 slightly 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 slope, the footings should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 it 13 I I I I E I 1 I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 13 (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 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should tentatively be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a drained level backfill. VAhere the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above value should be increased to 52 pcf. 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 53 pcf should tentatively be used for walls supporting a level backfill. This value should be increased to 78 pcf for an ascending 2:1 (h:v) backfill. Drainage 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 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 14 open -graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent. In lieu of a pipe and gravel subdrain, weepholes or open vertical masonry joints may be considered for retaining walls not exceeding a height of approximately 3 feet. Weepholes, if used, should be 3 inches minimum diameter and provided at minimum intervals of 6 feet along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints, if used, should be provided at 32 -inch minimum intervals. A continuous gravel fill, 12 inches by 12 inches, should be placed behind the weepholes or open masonry joints. The gravel should be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent infiltration of fines and subsequent clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of 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. ��3a��_� 3 W 45 I 1 L.' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots I-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 15 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 garden 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 5 feet or more 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. L I [1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 16 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 3.5 inches or more thick and provided with construction or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Concrete driveway slabs should be 4 inches or more thick and provided with construction or expansion joints every 10 feet or less. Suberade Preparation As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete-flatwork areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent and then thoroughly wetted to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should extend to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade and maintained in the soils during placement of concrete. Pre -watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. A representative of the project soils engineer should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete. PLANTERS Area drains should be extended into all planters that are located within 5 feet of building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry block 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 W /7- I ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 ' TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 17 ' 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 ' density 90 Where slopes should be compacted to a minimum relative of percent. onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. Density his testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project soils engineer or trepresentative, to verify proper compaction. For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately 1- to 2 -foot thick maximum lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydra -hammer, pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For deep trenches with sloped -walls, backfill ' 8- 12 lifts materials should be placed in approximately to -inch thick maximum and then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment. As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe may be damaged by mechanical ' compaction equipment, such as under building -floor slabs, imported clean sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into ' place. No specific relative compaction will be required, however, observation, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed. To avoid point -loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported tsand bedding should be placed 1 foot or more above all pipe in areas where excavated trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand -bedding materials should be ' thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill. • I I I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 18 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. Overwatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry -out is also detrimental to slope performance. • Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of sprinkler lines in trenches is not recommended. • During construction of any terrace drains, downdrains or earth berms, care must be taken to avoid placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces. • A permanent slope -maintenance program should be initiated for major slopes not maintained by individual homeowners. Proper slope maintenance must include the /f I ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 ' Page 19 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. IPOST -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 - 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. MIVI 0 I I I I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula April 26, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 20 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. • Exterior Concrete-Flatwork Construction - Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete-Flatwork areas to verily adequate compaction and moisture content. • Utility -Trench Backfill - Observe and test placement of all utility -trench backfill to verify adequate compaction. • Re -Grading - Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades shown on the approved grading plans. I 1 [1 I I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES April 26, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 1-8/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 21 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. G�NEERINC, L JF cc L. ei k s 4Sphen M. Pc w No 1762 °S i r Associ e Geologist Senior Associ; cmr L) EV/,j��ry _ 1762 GE 692 �'�_�? OFC c No. 692 Attachments: Figure 1 - Geotechnical Maps with Field Density Test Locations Table I - Lot -By -Lot Summary of As -Graded Soil Conditions Table II - Field Density Test Results (2002) "fable III- Field Density "fest Results (1988-1990) References Appendix A - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data Appendix B - Seismic Analysis Distribution: (4) Addressee (2) Riverside County Building and Safety Attention: Mr. Mack Hakakian J;! 187. A1,33 Al 380 9.76' F i.J" 77 P=1193.0' 9I.Ql, \-I C F YJ V EXPLANATION (LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE) X 11 jL7!:�iaq of 12 7 i icil I AT22: 3 A 132 Al11> Pzzi III }4.2 All 0 i :21 x 116 Al Ow. Al; 211 20 A 'l b-2 A121 0 3 378. 2 A131 p ..,-A_ P= 1183.8 A F i.J" 77 P=1193.0' 9I.Ql, \-I C F YJ V EXPLANATION (LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE) X 11 jL7!:�iaq of � CONTACT ARTIFICIAL FILL, COMPACTED awGEOLOGIC QPS QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION SANDSTONE 44 BURIED JOINT ATTITUDE 379 DENSITY TEST LOCATION BURIED VERTICAL JOINT ATTITUDE A133 DENSITY TEST LOCATION (1989) jgv zzS p -7 GEOTECHNICAL MAP WITH DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS (MODEL LOTS 1-8) North PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC 0 Scale 40 Feet JN 188-01 APR. 2002 lmmmm%m� FIGURE I m TABLE I Tract 23066-2 Lots 1 through 8 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 17 11 1:960 0/V Low No Moderate Negligible Z 2 30 20 1:960 0/V Low No Moderate Negligible Z 3 30 10 1:960 0/V Low No Moderate Negligible Z 4 20 10 1:960 0/V Low No Moderate Negligible Z 5 10 0 1:960 3/V Low No Moderate Negligible Z 6 l0 0 1:960 3/V Low No Moderate Negligible Z 7 10 0 1:960 14/V Low No Moderate Negligible Z 8 10 5 1:960 17/V Low I No 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 I8 -111 -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted tf>]: 480] P if post -tensioned slab system is to be used Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T -I I I TABLE I1 Field Density Test Results PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-2/Model Lots 1 - 8 APRIL 2002 ' J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -ll 1 ') 5 04/11/02 140 Lot? 1179.0 12.9 119.8 91* 1 04/11/02 .141 Lot 1181.0 12.8 115.5 91 3 04/11/02 155 Lot? 1179.0 14.7 114.9 87* 1 04/11/02 156 Lot? 1181.0 16.4 109.8 84 1 04/11/02 163 Lots 1175.0 14.8 110.8 91 D 04/11/02 164 RT No. 155 -- 14.0 117.0 91 4 04/11/02 165 RT No. 156 -- 15.1 115.6 91 3 04/12/02 174 Lot 1178.0 13.7 118.6 90 1 175 Lot? 1179.0 15.1 115.4 91 3 '04/12/02 04/12/02 185 Lot 1 1178.0 12.9 115.2 90 3 04/12/02 186 Lott 1179.0 10.3 125.6 94 2 187 Lot 1180.0 14.8 113.1 93 D '04/12/02 04/15/02 196 Lot 1181.0 12.7 116.0 90* 4 04/15/02 197 Lots 1180.0 15.0 120.5 94 4 '04/15/02 198 Lot? 1184.0 10.0 108.4 84 3 04/15/02 199 Lot? 1186.0 9.1 107.5 84 3 04/15/02 200 Lots 1179.0 7.2 109.3 86 3 04/15/02 201 Lots 1180.0 12.6 116.6 91 3 04/15/02 202 RT No. 198 -- 9.5 111.6 88 3 203 RT No. 199= 10.9 114.2 89 3 '04/15/02 04/15/02 204 RT No. 200 14.1 108.0 85 3 04/15/02 205 Lott 1187.0 10.8 106.4 90 F 04/15/02 206 _ Lot 1188.0 14.1 108.0 92 F 04/15/02 207 RT No. 202 -- 13.7 115.9 91 3 04/15/02 208 RT No. 203 14.0 112.1 92 D 04/15/02 209 RT No. 204 10.1 108.6 91 F 04/15/02 210 Lot 1188.0 14.7 113.8 93 D 04/15/02 211 Lot 2 1180.0 14.6 112.5 92 D 04/15/02 212 Lot 1180.0 13.8 111.3 91 D 04/23/02 377 Lot I FG 15.9 104.8 90 5 04/23/02 378 Lot 2 FG 13.5 111.3 92 8 04/23/02 379 Lot 3 FG 15.5 112.1 93 8 04/23/02 04/23/02 380 385 Lot 4 Lot 8 FG FG 9.5 16.0 110.5 10.1 91 90 8 8 04/23/02 386 Lot? FG 12.4 116.1 95 D 04/23/02 387 Lot 6 FG 12.3 115.7 95 D 04/23/02 388 Lot 5 FG 9.9 109.3 91 8 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-2/Model Lots 1 - 8 APRIL 2002 ' J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -ll 1 ') 5 TABLE III Field Density Test Results I 1 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Model Lots 1-8 J.N. 188-01 1989-1990 TABLE T -Ill 1 'j 41 08/02/89 A102 Slope Lot 1154 10.0 123.0 92 6 '08/02/89 A103 Slope Lot 6 1155 8.4 119.3 93 18 08/02/89 A104 Slope Lots 1156 6.5 116.7 91 18 A105 Slope Lots 1157 9.6 126.3 94 11 '08/02/89 08/02/89 A106 Slope Lot 6 1159 12.4 120.3 90 6 08/02/89 A107 Slope Lot 6 1160 8.8 123.4 92 6 08/02/89 A108 Slope Lots 1161 8.6 126.5 94 11 08/02/89 A109 Slope Lots 1162 9.8 122.2 93 3 08/03/89 A 1 10 Slope Lot 7 1163 11.4 121.8 93 3 08/03/89 A111 Slope Lot 1164 12.4 120.4 92 3 08/03/89 A112 Slope Lots 1166 10.0 119.2 91 3 08/03/89 08/03/89 Al 13 A114 Slope Lots Slope Lot 1168 1168 13.0 9.9 119.7 122.1 91 93 3 3 08/03/89 A115 Slope Lot 1169 10.3 116.7 94 7 08/03/89 A116 Slope Lot 1171 10.2 111.9 91 20 08/03/89 A117 Slope Lot 6 1173 12.7 122.2 91 6 08/03/89 A l 18 Slope Lot 7 1 174 13.7 117.9 95 7 08/04/89 Al 19 Slope Lot 1175 14.5 114.2 92 7 08/04/89 A120 Slope Lot 1176 13.0 120.1 90 6 08/04/89 A121 Slope Lot 1177 13.4 119.2 90 9 08/04/89 A122 Slope Lot? 1177 14.1 120.2 91 9 08/04/89 A123 Slope Lot? 1178 14.3 118.4 91 17 08/04/89 A124 Slope Lot 1176 14.3 118.6 91 17 08/04/89 A125 Slope Lot 1177 15.0 119.4 92 17 08/05/89 A126 Slope Lots 1178 14.4 117.8 91 17 08/05/89 A127 Slope Lots 1179 12.6 118.6 91 17 08/05/89 A128 Slope Lot 1178 11.6 120.2 92 17 08/05/89 A129 Slope Lot 1180 14.9 117.0 90 17 08/05/89 A130 Slope Lot 1180 15.2 118.2 91 17 08/05/89 A131 Slope Lot 1181 13.7 123.2 92 6 '08/05/89 A132 Slope Lot 1182 14.4 124.4 93 6 08/05/89 A133 Slope Lot 1184 13.5 125.4 94 6 1 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Model Lots 1-8 J.N. 188-01 1989-1990 TABLE T -Ill 1 'j 41 I 1 11 I 1 1 I I Blake, T.F., 1998/1999, "UBCSEIS" Version 1.03, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code," Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, dated April 1997. Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1987, Evaluation of Faulting and Liquefaction Potential, Portion of Wolf Valley Project, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated November 20, 1987. , 1988, Preliminary Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Red Hawk Project, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated February 2, 1988. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, CDMG Special Report 131. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1989, Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066 and 23067, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, Volumes 1 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, J.N. 188-01, dated March 30, 2001. 2001 b, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tract 23066-3, Lot 129, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April, 18, 2001. 11 2001c, Response to Riverside County Geolechnical 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-I, 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-I, 23066-2, 23066-3 and 30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 26, 2002. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APRIL 2002 J.N. 188-01 .?7 1 1 1 1 t 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 I, 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. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1.N. 188-01 APRIL 2002 APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA LABORATORY TEST DATA a - 1 PETRA 01v APPRNDIX A LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry. density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values are given on Plates A-1 and A-2. Expansion Potential Expansion index tests were performed on selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Expansion potential classifications were determined from 1997 UBC Table 18-1-B on the basis of the expansion index values. Test results and expansion potentials are presented on Plate A-3. Soil Chemistry Chemical analyses were performed on selected samples of onsite soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate and chloride, as well as pH and resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 417 (sulfate), 422 (chloride) and 643 (pH and resistivity). Test results are presented on Plate A-4. Atterberk Limits Atterberg limit tests (Liquid Limit and Plastic Index) were performed on selected samples to verify visual classifications. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Test results are presented on Plate B-2. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC APRIL 2002 1.N. 188-01 LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY' 1989 Sirll Type Dark brown Clayey Silty tine SAND i 74imum i3ra 1)e.... Soli 2 Maxlrt tltf D4 p Deus £y 8.0 133.5 3 Brown Clayey fine SAND 10.5 fc. 3 Light brown Silty, Clayey fine- to medium -grained SAND 131.5 11 5 135.5 6 116.0 134.0 17 13.0 130.0 7 Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel 124.5 18 8 128.0 9 120.5 132.0 20 8.5 122.5 1 Dark brown Clayey Silty tine 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 6 Light yellowish brown fine SAND 13.0 109.0 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 F Light brown SAND with Silt 13.5 118.0 (1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D1557 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APRIL 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-1 31 I 1 1 1 1 C 1 1 1 1 EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA I Dark brown Clayey Silty fine SAND 11 Very Low 2 Light brown Silty SAND 18 Very Low 3 Brown Clayey fine SAND 81 Medium 4 Light brown Silty, Clayey fine- to medium -grained SAND 75 Medium 5 Light brown very tine Sandy SILT 16 Very Low 6 Light yellowish brown fine SAND 0 Very Low 7 Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel 2 Very Low 8 Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and Silt 3 Very Low 9 Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay 20 Very Low Lots 1-3 Brown SAND 0 Very Low Lot 4 Brown SAND 0 Very Low Lots 5-6 Brown SAND 3 Very Low Lot 7 Light brown Silty SAND 14 Very Low Lot 8 Brown Silty SAND 17 Very Low (2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829 (3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE I8 -I -B PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APRIL 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-2 3;k SOLUBLE CHEMISTRY ATFERBERG LIMITS' (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 (8) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4319 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APRIL 2002 1. N. 188-01 Plate A-3 31 -E!jil . t Nil .. . . . ....... . . ...... . . .. . .. .. .... .. ..... . ... 7 0.01 142 6.5 3,100Concrete: Negligible Steel: Moderate 1-3 0.01 103 6.8 3,200 Concrete: Negligible Steel: Moderate _J1 ATFERBERG LIMITS' (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 (8) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4319 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APRIL 2002 1. N. 188-01 Plate A-3 31 I I I C] I i I I I 11 L I I I I .] I I i I APPENDIX B SEISMIC ANALYSIS It PETRA 5v DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD 2.50 2.25 2.00 .-. 1.75 C: 0 4-0 1.50 1.25 T77\L U Q 1.00 0.75 U 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Period Seconds 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: SO 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 36 1 1 1 1 OUT CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are limited in number and have been digitized from small scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently, the estimated fault -site -distances may be in error b y several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ FAULT ABBREVIATED TYPE FAULT NAME I(SS,DS,BT) ELSINORE-TEMECULA I SS ELSINORE-JULIAN I SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (offshore) I Ss ROSE CANYON SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I Ss EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I 2.6 I B ( 6.8 I 5.00 12.1 I A ( 7.1 I 5.00 I 31.2 ( B I 6.8 I 5.00 I 33.3 I A I 7.2 I 12.00 I 34.1 I B I 6.9 I 12.00 I 46.5 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I 49.0 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I 53.6 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I 56.6 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 Page 2 f7� OUT SS CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I DS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern I SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER I SS PINTO MOUNTAIN I SS CORONADO BANK I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I SS PALOS VERDES SS BURNT MTN. I SS CUCAMONGA I DS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I DS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I SS EUREKA PEAK I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I DS SAN JOSE I DS CLEGHORN I SS SIERRA MADRE (Central) I DS LANDERS I SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I SS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture i SS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I SS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I DS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I SS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I SS RAYMOND I 60.0 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I 62.7 I B I 6.7 I 12.00 I 63.0 I A I 7.4 I 24.00 I 66.8 I B I 6.8 I 2.50 I 73.8 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 74.1 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 I 79.1 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I 81.5 I B I 7.1 I 3.00 I 84.6 i B I 6.5 I 0.60 I 86.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I 87.4 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 87.8 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I 87.9 I .. B I 6.6 I 4.00 I 89.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I 90.4 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I 91.0 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I 91.1 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I 94.8 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I 99.2.1 B I 7.3 I 0.60 I 102.4 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I 102.4 I A I 7.8 I 34.00 I 107.0 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I 111.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I 111.6 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I 112.9 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I 115.4 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 Page 3 rj 3=? OUT I DS 1 FAULT SLIP ABBREVIATED ' SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 120.2 I B I 6.6 i 5.00 I SS SAN GABRIEL I 148.1 1 B I I SS 0.30 VERDUGO 1 123.5 I B I 6.7 I O.SO I DS I SS 7.3 I GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE ELMORE RANCH I 124.2 I B I 6.6 ► 1.00 I SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 124.3 I B I 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS CALICO - HIDALGO 1 125.0 I B 1 7.1 I 0.60 1 SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 126.3 I B I 6.6 1 4.00 1 SS HOLLYWOOD I 128.5 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 128.6 1 B I 6.5 1 25.00 I SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA I 138.9 I B I 7.0 I 3.S0 I SS SANTA MONICA 1 140.4 I B 1 6.6 I 1.00 I DS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 1 143.8 I B 1 6.7 1 2.00 1 DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ I APPROX.ISOURCE I 1 FAULT SLIP ABBREVIATED ' 1 TYPE I (km) I(A,B,C)I FAULT NAME (mm/Yr) 1 145.6 I B I 7.0 I SAN GABRIEL I 148.1 1 B I I SS 0.30 MALIBU COAST 7.0 I I DS 1 157.0 I B 1 IMPERIAL ' I SS 7.3 I GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 SS ANACAPA-DUME DS I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I (km) I(A,B,C)I (MW) I (mm/Yr) 1 145.6 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I 148.1 1 B I 6.7 I 0.30 I 153.5 I A I 7.0 I 20.00 1 157.0 I B 1 6.9 I 0.60 I 159.9 I B I 7.3 I 3.00 Page 4 3.9 OUT SANTA SUSANA, 161.7 I B I 6.6 1 5.00 DS HOLSER 1 170.7 B 6.5 0.40 1 DS BLACKWATER 173.2 B I 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 181.7 I B 1 6.9 4.00 1 DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA 183.3 B 6.7 1.00 DS SAN CAYETANO 189.1 B 6.8 1 6.00 1 DS SANTA YNEZ (East) 208.3 B 7.0 2.00 GARLOCKS(West) 213.3 A 7.1 6.00 1 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT 214.2 1 B 6.8 1.00 DS GARLOCK (East) 219.9 A 7.3 7.00 1 SS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 222.8 B 6.7 0.40 1 DS PLEITO THRUST 225.2 B 6.8 2.00 1 DS RED MOUNTAIN 228.5 B 6.8 2.00 DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 232.7 B 6.8 1.00 DS BIG PINE 233.2 1 B 6.7 0.80 1 SS OWL LAKE 238.6 1 B 6.5 2.00 1 SS PANAMINT VALLEY 238.9 B 7.2 2.50 1 SS WHITE WOLF 240.0 B 7.2 1 2.00 1 DS TANK CANYON 242.2 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 I DS So. SIEERRA NEVADA 1 242.6 B 1 7.1 I 0.10 DS LITTLE LAKE 243.9 B 6.7 1 0.70 1 SS DEATH VALLEY (South) 245.3 B 6.9 4.00 1 SS SANTA YNEZ (West) 262.0 B 1 6.9 2.00 1 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND 268.8 B 1 6.9 1.00 DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 288.9 B 6.9 4.00 1 DS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE 1 305.1 B 1 6.8 0.70 1 DS Page 5 a OUT 1 ' OWENS VALLEY I 314.0 I B 1 7.6 I 1.50 I SS ' LIONS HEAD 1 DS I 322.5 I B I 6.6 1 0.02 SAN JUAN I 325.6 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I 55 ' SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 330.2 I B I 7.0 I 0.20 1 DS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 336.2 I B 1 7.0 I 2.50 1 ss ' CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 339.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.25 1 DS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 342.9 I A 1 7.2 1 5.00 ' I Ss INDEPENDENCE I 350.0 I B 1 6.9 1 0.20 1 DS ' LOS OSOS I 359.5 1 B I 6.8 1 0.50 1 DS HOSGRI I 368.7 1 B 1 7.3 i 2.50 I ss ' RINCONADA I 377.7 1 B I 7.3 I 1.00 I SS BIRCH CREEK 1 406.9 I B I 6.5 1 0.70 ' 1 DS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 410.4 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 I SS DEEP SPRINGS ( 428.0 I B I 6.6 1 0.80 ' 1 DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) I 428.1 I B I 5.0 1 34.00 ' I ss --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) DEATH VALLEY (N. Of CUCamongo) 1 431.0 I A I 7.0 I S.00 ' I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 1 443.2 I B I 6.8 ► 1.00 Page 6 'L L� 1 1 1 1 1 1 OUT I DS FISH SLOUGH I 449.6 I B I 6.6 1 0.20 1 DS HILTON CREEK I 469.5 I B I 6.7 I 2.50 1 DS HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 494.6 I B I 6.6 1 0.50 I DS ORTIGALITA 1 509.4 I B 1 6.9 1 1.00 I SS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I 517.1 I B I 6.2 I 15.00 I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 523.1 I B I 7.1 1 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO.- SUR I 526.3 I B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 SS QUIEN SAGE I 529.7 1 B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS MONO LAKE I 530.8 I B I 6.6 I 2.50 1 DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 1 549.2 1. B 1 6.8 I 0.10 I SS SARGENT I 554.0 I B 1 6.8 I 3.00 1 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 1 554.4 1 A 1 7.9 1 24.00 1 SS ROBINSON CREEK 1 562.3 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN GREGORIO I 598.2 1 A 1 7.3 1 5.00 I SS GREENVILLE I 601.0 1 B 1 6.9 1 2.00 1 SS ANTELOPE VALLEY 1 603.0 I B I 6.7 1 0.80 1 DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) 1 603.1 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 1 SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 604.1 1 B I 6.5 I 0.40 1 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 622.4 1 A 1 7.1 I 9.00 1 SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 1 622.4 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 SS GENOA 1 629.2 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 668.8 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 1 SS RODGERS CREEK I 708.1 i A I 7.0 I 9.00 1 SS WEST NAPA I 708.3 I B 1 6.5 I 1.00 I SS POINT REYES I 729.3 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 1 DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 729.5 I B I 6.9 1 6.00 Page 7 0- 1 1 1 1 OUT --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 4 FAULT I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE TYPE 1113 MAACAMAS(South) 770.1 B 6.9 9.00 1 SS COLLAYOMI 786.2 B 6.5 0.60 1 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS 788.6 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS MAACAMA (Central) 811.7 A 7.1 9.00 SS MAACAMA (North) 870.5 A 7.1 9.00 1 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 875.3 B 6.8 6.00 SS BATTLE CREEK 892.8 B 6.5 0.50 DS LAKE MOUNTAIN 933.6 B 6.7 6.00 1 SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 951.5 B 6.9 9.00 1 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1008.7 A 7.4 35.00 1 DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1013.7 A 7.0 5.00 DS MAD RIVER 1015.4 B 7.1 0.70 1 DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1023.1 A 8.3 35.00 DS MCKINLEYVILLE 1026.1 B 7.0 0.60 1 DS TRINIDAD 1027.4 B 7.3 2.50 DS FICKLE HILL 1028.2 B 6.9 0.60 1 DS TABLE BLUFF 1034.4 B 7.0 0.60 1 DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1047.6 B 7.1 1.00 DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 4 FAULT I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE TYPE 1113 OUT I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I 11 I Page 9 FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)l (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(ss,DS,BT) ----------------- BIG LAGOON BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1063.9 B 7.3 0.50 I DS I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I 11 I Page 9