Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Rpt Lots 40-82 8/13/2002CITY OF.TEMECUEA;, RIVERSIDE. COUNTY •:CALIFORNIA ti RICHMOND%AMERIGA'N NOMES Y (7I14 West Grand Ave»ue,Suire`A: Escondido,: California, 94925,.: i i August I$ 2002,, N 1$80I q No • 0f0340 c CoUn of Rwerside BUII Inn R Cafpty " y AUG 14 2002 o RIVERs IQE Q I I I J 1 I I 1 I PETRA OFFICES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA August 13, 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 40 through 82, Tract 23066-2, City of Temecula, 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 40 through 82 within 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 to 1990 under the purview of Petra. Petra reported on the interface grading in a report issued in December 2001 (see References). REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Cuts, removals and recompaction of unsuitable low-density surface soils, lot overexcavations and placement of compacted fill under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation and with selective testing by Petra. The earthwork was performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in 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 I I [1 I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 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 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 5 feet. Remedial grading also included overexcavation of the cut portions of cut/fill transition lots. The compacted fills range in depth from approximately 3 to 40 feet. A lot -by -lot summary of the compacted -fill depths and a summary of soil conditions is presented in the attached Table 1. A general description of the soil and bedrock materials underlying the subject tract is provided below. • Compacted Engineered Fill (mapssvmbol afe) — The compacted fill soils placed in 1989 to 1990 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 and bedrock materials and generally consist of fine- to coarse-grained sand, silty sand and clayey sand. 4* 3 I L 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 3 • 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 Forniation. 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 I percent organic materials). Heavy vegetation that existed in local areas, as well as some construction debris, were removed from the site. Ground Preparation • 1989 - 1990 - During the interface grading performed in 1989 to 1990, unsuitable soils were removed and replaced with compacted fill. Removal of unsuitable soils was performed to facilitate future grading by eliminating the aced 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 (liotizontal: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. lu 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 materials. Removals throughout the lots varied from approximately 2 to 5 feet. Previously compacted -fill materials exposed in removal areas exhibited an in-place minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. W I I 11 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 4 Prior to placing fill, exposed bottom surfaces in all removal areas were first observed and approved by our project geologist or senior soil technician. Following this approval, the exposed bottom surfaces were scarified to depths of approximately 6 to 8 inches, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a moisture content equal to or slightly above optimum moisture content and then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Lot Overexcavations To mitigate distress to residential structures related to the potential adverse effects of excessive differential settlement, the 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 Testing 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 40 feet on Lot 62. Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with nuclear - gauge test methods ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017, respectively. Occasional field density tests were also performed in accordance with the sandcone method (ASTM Test Method D1556). Field density test results for 1989 to 1990 and 2002 are presented on the attached Tables II and III, respectively, and approximate test locations are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map with Density Test Locations (Plates 1 and 2). 5 I I I 1-7 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 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 611. The actual number of tests taken per day varied with the project conditions, such as the number of earthmovers (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 Slones All fill slopes were constructed at a maximum ratio of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum height of approximately 15 feet. All fill slopes were overfilled an average of 4 to 5 feet during construction 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. 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 13 I 1 I I I [1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 6 Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values for each phase of grading (1989 to 1990 and 2002) are summarized in Appendix A. Expansion Index Tests Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of soil existing at or near finish -pad grade within the subject lots. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Test results are also summarized in Appendix A. Atterherg Limits Atlerberg limits were determined for selected soil samples per 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. Test results are summarized in Appendix A. Chloride Resistivity and p1l Anal Water-soluble chloride concentration, resistivity and pH were determined for selected samples in accordance with California "rest Method Nos. 422 (chloride) and 643 (resistivity and pH). The results of these analyses are summarized in Appendix A. It 7 I I 1 I I I I I Cl RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 7 FOUNDATION -DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Foundation Types Based on as -graded soil and geologic conditions, the use of conventional slab -on - ground foundations is considered feasible for the proposed residential structures. Recommended design parameters are provided herein. Allowable Soil -Bearing Capacities An allowable soil -beating capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for 24 -inch square pad footings and 12 -inch wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth, to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. Recommended allowable soil -bearing values include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third when designing for short -duration wind and seismic forces. Anticipated Settlement Based on the general settlement characteristics of the compacted 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. 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 Elm I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [1 1 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 8 descending slopes, the passive earth pressure should be reduced to 150 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 1,500 psf. In addition a coefficient of friction of 0.40 times the dead -load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral -sliding resistance. An increase of one-third of the above values may also be used when designing for short -duration wind and seismic forces. The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. For foundations founded in cut areas of Pauba Formation, the coefficient of friction should be 0.30. Footing Observations All footing trenches should be observed by a representative of Petra to verify that they have been excavated into competent 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 mininmm 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 MEDIUM expansion potentials as classified in accordance with 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-1-B. A lot -by -lot breakdown for the different levels of expansion is provided below. I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 13, 2002 ' TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 9 • Very Low Expansion Potential - Lots 40 through 43, 47 through 49, 62 through 64 and 68 through 82 • Low Expansion Potential - Lots 50 through 55 and 65 through 67 • Medium Expansion Potential —Lots 44 through 46 and 56 through 61 Design and construction details for the various levels of expansion potential are provided in the following sections. Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less) "Che 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 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 mmimunr 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 bottom. Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as second -story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a nummum ' of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the /D I I I I I LSI RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 10 lowest adjacent final grade. No special reinforcement of the pad footings will be required. • Floor Slabs - Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and reinforced with either 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded -wire fabric (60-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) or with No.3 bars spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -depth. - Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisttne-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. I - 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-minimu111, felt expansion joint materials and quartered with weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch -wide grade beam founded at the lune 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 18-1-B. 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 I ' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 13, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/1'emecula J.N. 188-01 Page i l 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 of Petra on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed in accordance with these recommendations has been found to minimize post -construction movcnment and/or cracking, they generally do not positively mitigate all potential ' eflects of expansive soil action. The owner, architect, design civil engineer, structural engineer and contractors most 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. 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. • Footings - Exterior continuous footings maybe 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. RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 13, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 12 ' Floor Slabs - The project architect or structural engineer should evaluate minimum floor -slab thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815 based ' on an effective plasticity index of 12. Unless a more stringent design is recommended by the architect or the structural engineer, we recommend a ' minimum slab thickness of 4 inches for both living -area and garage -floor slabs and reinforcing consisting of either 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded - wire fabric (60-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) or No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -height. - Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches ' of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. ' - 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 joi tits. A 12 -inch wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. - Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living -area and garage - floor slabs should be pre -watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum -moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade ' soils. Medium Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 51 to 90) The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots which would exhibit a MEDIUM 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 13 [1 1 [1 I [] RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 13 within the upper 15 feet of the building site. Based on subsurface stratigraphy and distribution of the different soil types, we have assumed an effective plasticity index of 16 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 moderately expansive soils. These recommendations have been based on the previous experience of Petra on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed in accordance with these recommendations has been found to minimize post -construction movement and/or cracking, they generally do not positively mitigate all potential effects of expansive soil action. The owner, architect, design civil engineer, structural engineer and contractors must be made aware of the expansive -soil conditions which exist at the site. Furthermore, it is recommended that additional slab thicknesses, footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than recommended below be provided as required or specified by the project architect or structural engineer. • Footings Exterior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Interior continuous footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for both one- and two-story construction. 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 one- third of the footings. W OW N RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 13, 2002 ' TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 14 ' Interior isolated pad footings supporting raised -wood floors should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded 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 one-third of the footings. J I 1 • 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 16. 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 No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -height. - Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. - Garage -floor slabs should also be placed separately tom adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion - joint materials and quartered with weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch -wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. - Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living -area and garage - floor slabs should be pre -watered to achieve a moisture content that is 5 percent or greater than optimum -moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 18 inches into the subgrade soils. 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 /5 [1 I� 1 [1 d 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 15 to the project structural engineer who is qualified in post -tensioned slab design, using sound engineering practices. The post -tensioned slab -on -ground should be designed in general conformance with the design specification os 1997 UBC Section 1816. Alternate designs are allowed per 1997 UBC Section 1806.2 that addresses the effects of expansive soils when present. However, to assist the structural engineer in his design, the following parameters are recommended. Ezpansinn,lndex rr ..,. Very Low and Low Iiie0turn Assumed pcicent clay 30 50 Clay type Montmorillonite Approximate depth of constant suction (feet) 7.0 7.0 Approximate soil suction (p P) 3-6 3.6 Approximate velocity or moisture flow(inches/month) 0-7 0.7 'I'homwaite Index -20 -20 Average edge Moisture variation depth, e,,, (feet) Ccutcr lift 46 5.3 Edge lifit 2.2 2.5 Anticipated swell, y," h ) Center lift 1 d 3.2 Ld,oe lift 1 0.4 0.8 * Edge conditions only • Perimeter footings for either one- or two-story dwellings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the nearest adjacent final -ground surface. 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. I &v RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 16 Presaturation of subgrade soils below slabs -on -ground will not be required. However, all subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete. • The design modulus of subgrade reaction (k) should be 300 tons per cubic foot. SEISMIC -DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Ground Motions Structures within the site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in 1997 UBC Sections 1626 through 1633. The method of design is dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system and on the building height. For structural design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, a computer program developed by "fhomas 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.t and anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. However, the closest I I I I I I 11 I 11 I I I I I I I I I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 17 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 nun/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 lI 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. It 15 1997 UBC TABLE FACTOR Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone 4 16-t Seismic Zone Factor Z. 04 16-U Seismic Source Type B 16-I Soil Frofile'rype S„ 16-S Near -Source Factor N, 1.3 16-T Near -Source Factor N, 1.6 16-Q Seismic Coefficient C, 0.44 N, = 0.57 I6 -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 lI 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. It 15 I I 1 I I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 13, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 18 RFTAINING 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 (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) 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. 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 should tentatively be used for walls supporting a level backfill. This value should be increased to 95 pcf an ascending 2:1 (h:v) backfill. 19 LJ I I 11 1 I 1 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 13, 2002 TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula J.N. 188-01 Page 19 Drainage A perforated pipe -and -gravel subdrain should be installed behind all retaining walls to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. Perforated pipe should consist of 4 -inch minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS SDR -35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be embedded in 1.5 cubic feet per foot of 0.75- to 1.5 -inch open -graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent. In lieu of a pipe and gravel subdrain, weepholes or open vertical masonry joints may be considered for retaining walls not exceeding a height of approximately 3 feet. Weepholes, if used, should be 3 inches minimum diameter and provided at minimum intervals of 6 feel along the wall. Open vertical masonryjoints, 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 \/4 ,?U I I [1 I I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 20 and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary slopes. Nall 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 bats, 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 It P RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 21 separations should be provided in the blocks only and not extend through the footings. The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as effective "grade beams" along the full lengths of the walls. CONCRETE FLATWORK Thickness and Joint Spacing To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete sidewalks and patio -type slabs should be at least 3.5 inches thick. Concrete driveway slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints every 10 feet or less. Subgrade Preparation As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete-flatwork areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent and then thoroughly wetted to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should extend to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade and maintained in the soils during placement of concrete. Pre -watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. A representative of the project soils engineer should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete. PLANTERS Area drains should be extended into all planters that are located within 5 feet of building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry block garden walls to minimize excessive infiltration 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 4 A2 I I k I I I I I I I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 22 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 1- to 2 -foot thick maximum lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydra -hammer, pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For deep trenches with sloped -walls, backfill materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12 -inch thick maximum lifts and then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment. As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment, such as under building -floor slabs, imported clean sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, observation, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed. To avoid point -loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported sand bedding should be placed at least I foot above all pipe in areas where excavated trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand -bedding materials should be thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill. V as I I I I I I I I I I I I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 23 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 constricted along the tops of the engineered 611 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. Ovenvatering 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 bernts, 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 aq I 11 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 24 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 -arca 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. as 11 1 1 1 1 1 d [1 1 1 lJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 25 - 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 Garden 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 verify adequate compaction and moisture content. • Utility -Trench Backfill - Observe and test placement of all utility -trench backfill to verify adequate compaction. • Re -Grading - Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades shown on the approved grading plans. a& LJ �1 I I 1] I RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES TR 23066-2 Lots 40 - 82/Temecula August 13, 2002 J.N. 188-01 Page 26 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, c�Q C No.l EGc 4 EXP Y OF logist /kcb INC. S#phen Poole Senior Associate GE 692 Attachments: Table I - Lot -By -Lot Summary of As -Graded Soil Conditions Table II - Field Density Test Results (1989 - 1990) Table III - Field Density Test Results (2002) References Plates 1 and 2 - Geotechnical Maps with Density Test Locations (in pocket) Appendix A - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data Appendix B - Seismic Analysis Distribution: (1) Addressee (1) Richmond American Homes (Irvine 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 4 a7 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I TABLE LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF AS -GRADED SOIL CONDITIONS 1 PETRA jiK TABLE I Tract 23066-2 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 40 3 0 1:960 3/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 41 3 0 1:960 3/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 42 3 0 1:960 3/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 43 6 3 1:960 3/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 44 10 5 1:960 53/Medium Moderate Negligible E 45 12 6 1:960 53/Medium Moderate Negligible E 46 20 10 1:960 53/Medium Moderate Negligible E 47 I8 9 1:960 12/V Low Moderate Negligible Z ' 48 14 7 1:960 12/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 49 14 7 1:960 I2/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 50 15 8 1:960 48/Low Moderate Negligible E 51 20 5 1:960 48/Low Moderate Negligible E 52 20 5 1:960 48/Low Moderate Negligible E 53 20 8 1:960 23/Low Moderate Negligible E 54 16 8 1:960 23/Low Moderatc Negligible E 55 14 7 1:960 23/Low Moderate Negligible E 56 6 3 1:960 62/Medium 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 Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-1 1 eO TABLE I Tract 23066-2 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 57 6 3 1:960 62/Medimn Moderate Negligible E 58 6 3 1:960 62/Medium Moderate Negligible E 59 8 2 1:960 80/Medium Moderate Negligible E 60 39 10 1:960 80/Medium Moderate Negligible E 61 35 10 1:960 80/Medium Moderate Negligible E 62 40 15 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 63 35 25 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 64 38 18 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 65 25 15 1:960 31/Low Moderate Negligible E 66 30 15 1:960 31/Low Moderate Negligible E 67 30 15 1:960 31/Low Moderate Negligible E 68 20 10 1:960 11/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 69 10 5 1:960 1I/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 70 6 3 1:960 1I/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 71 6 3 1:960 1I/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 72 6 3 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 73 5 2 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: /997 UBC): E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2) C For corrosion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4 D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table I8 -111 -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if> 1:480] P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used yj, Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T -I 2 TABLE I Tract 23066-2 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 - 74 5 2 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 75 1 5 2 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 76 4 1 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 77 5 2 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 78 4 1 1:960 10/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 79 4 1 1:960 10/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 80 6 3 1:960 10/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 81 6 3 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z 82 6 3 1:960 0/V Low Moderate Negligible Z r per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001 Code Definitions (Reference.' /997 UBC): E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2) C For corrosion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4 D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table 18 -111 -GG (consider Prefab Roof Ti usscs) [noted if> 1, 480] P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-13 I 1 1 1 1 TABLE II 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 11 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (1989 - 1990) 1 PETRA TABLE 11 Field Density Test Results 01/19/89 A204 Lot 62 1140 9.9 119.7 91 3 01/19/89 A205 Lot 62 1134 12.4 113.3 91 7 01/23/89 A208 Lot 63 1137 12.4 110.6 86 5 01/23/89 A209 RTNo. A208 -- 11.7 115.3 90 5 01/24/89 A210 Embassy Ave 1139 12.4 115.5 90 5 02/07/89 A270 Lot 61 1138 10.5 123.7 92 6 02/07/89 A271 Embassy Ave 1142 9.9 118.1 92 5 02/07/89 A272 Lot 61 1144 10.5 117.9 92 5 02/13/89 A277 Lot 64 1139 11.7 107.9 92 13 02/13/89 02/13/89 A278 A279 Lot 62 Embassy Ave 1140 1143 13.6 12.4 116.4 119.4 91 93 5 5 02/13/89 A280 Lot 62 1145 12.4 117.8 92 5 02/13/89 A281 Lot 63 1146 11.7 122.9 94 12 02/13/89 A283 Embassy Ave 1147 12.4 121.9 93 12 02/14/89 A293 Embassy Ave 1148 10.5 123.7 92 6 02J22/89 A327 Slope Lot 60 1152 13.6 115.1 91 4 02/23/89 A338 Tioga Street 1150 16.3 107.6 92 1 02/24/89 A339 Embassy Ave 1148 11.7 116.1 91 5 02/24/89 A340 Lot 61 1151 12.4 125.1 93 6 02/24/89 A341 Lot 62 1150 117 119.7 94 5 02/24/19 A342 Tioga Street 1155 11.1 120.4 92 12 02/24/89 A343 Embassy Ave 1149 ILI I t9.7 94 5 02/27/89 A346 Tioga Street 1165 11.7 120.1 92 12 02/28/89 02/28/89 A350 A351 Lot 62 Embassy Ave 1151 1157 9.9 12.4 116.5 108.0 91 92 18 13 02/28/89 A352 Tioga Street 1167 10.5 114.2 91 27 03/01/89 A354 Embassy Ave 1152 11.7 118.6 93 5 03/01/89 A355 Lot 60 1150 7.5 119.3 91 12 03/01/89 A356 Embassy Ave 1151 8-7 119.4 91 12 03/02/89 A357 Embassy Ave 1153 12.4 117.6 92 5 03/02/89 A358 Slope Lot 61 1157 11.7 118.1 92 5 03/02/89 A359 Slope Lot 61 1156 13.0 119.2 91 12 03/04/89 A360 Lot 64 1155 10.5 116.6 91 5 03/04/89 A361 Lot 66 1160 11.1 119.1 91 12 03/04/89 A362 Lot 61 1159 10.5 117.4 92 5 03/04/89 A363 Embassy Ave 1154 9-9 116.8 91 5 03/04/89 A364 Slope Lot 63 1150 11.7 117.5 92 5 03/07/89 03/07/89 A365 A366 Lot 61 Lot 67 1160 1158 13.6 16.6 110.6 112.2 94 95 23 23 03/08/89 A373 Lot 66 1162 12.4 118.0 91 12 03/08/89 A374 Tioga Street 1165 11.7 117.1 91 12 03/08/89 A375 Tioga Street 1163 11.7 120.0 94 12 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1989-1990 J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-2/Lots 40 - 82 TABLE T-111 D la -c77/ 3 33 c;22 4�a ITABLE 11 Field Density Test Results 3'K DATE NO. (ft)z: .0 (0/1 03/08/89 A377 Lot 65 1162 14.9 115.6 93 11 03/11/89 A385 Slope Lot 65 1155 12.4 114.8 90 14 03/11/89 A386 Slope Lot 65 1150 12.4 106.8 83 14 03/11/89 A387 Embassy Ave 1164 9.9 120.1 94 14 03/11/89 A388 Slope Lot 59 1163 11.1 119.4 93 14 03/11/89 A389 RT No. A386 -- 12.4 115.0 90 14 03/11/89 A390 Embassy Ave 1165 13.6 117.2 91 2 03/11/89 A391 Slope Lot 65 1152 12.4 115.3 90 14 03/14/89 A392 Slope Lot 65 1154 12.4 118.0 91 12 03/14/89 03/14/89 A393 A394 Slope Lot 64 Slope Lot 66 1156 1158 14.9 16.3 112.4 111.1 90 92 11 K 03/14/89 A395 Tioga Street 1164 12.4 115.8 90 14 03/15/89 A397 Slope Lot 65 1162 12.4 117.1 94 ji 03/15/89 A398 Slope Lot 64 1161 11.1 113.1 91 ji 03/15/89 A399 Embassy Ave 1164 11.7 110.4 91 w 03/16/89 A400 Slope Lot 59 1165 12.4 117.6 92 5 03/16/89 A401 Slope Lot 60 1166 11.1 118.1 92 5 03/20/89 A416 Slope Lot 53 1162 12.4 118.7 92 2 03/20/89 A417 Slope Lot 55 1166 11.7 119.1 92 2 03/21/89 A418 Slope Lot 54 1163 12.4 118.6 92 2 03/21/89 A419 Slope Lot 52 1165 12.4 119.2 92 2 03/21/89 A420 Slope Lot 50 1170 11.7 119.5 93 2 03/21/89 A421 Slope Lot 53 1165 11.8 118.6 92 2 03/21/89 A422 Slope Lot 54 1169 10.5 119.3 92 2 03/23/89 A423 Slope Lot 52 1172 12.4 118.3 92 2 03/23/89 A424 Slope Lot 51 1172 22.0 104.1 93 KK 03/23/89 A425 Slope Lot 53 1171 20.5 104.4 93 KK 03/23/89 A426 Slope Lot 52 1176 19.0 103.7 93 KK 03/23/89 A427 Slope Lot 54 1175 19.0 104.9 94 KK 03/23/89 A428 Slope Lot 52 1179 17.6 107.8 96 KK 03/23/89 A429 Slope Lot 50 1178 17.6 107.4 96 KK 03/24/89 A430 Slope Lot 50 1181 14.9 113.6 94 K 03/24/89 A431 Slope Lot 53 1180 15.6 113.7 94 K 03/24/89 A432 Slope Lot 52 1182 14.9 112.6 93 K 03/24/89 A433 Slope Lot 54 1184 14.9 109.7 91 K 03/27/89 A434 Slope Lot 51 1183 14.9 114.7 92 7 03/27/89 A435 Slope Lot 51 1183 9.3 117.2 92 5 03/27/89 A436 Slope Lot 51 1184 8.7 113.7 94 K 03/27/89 A437 Lot 53 1185 14.9 114.2 92 7 03/27/89 A438 Lot 51 1185 15.6 114.8 92 7 03/27/89 A439 Lot 52 1184 16.3 112.8 93 K 03/27/99 A440 Lot 52 1185 13.6 114.1 94 K PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1989-1990 J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-VLots 40 - 82 TABLE T-11 2 3'K ITABLE 11 Field Density Test Results IS 03/27/89 A441 Slope Lot 53 1185 15.6 113.2 94 K 03/28/89 A442 Lot 52 1187 14.9 117.9 95 7 03/28/89 A443 Slope Lot 50 1186 14.3 115.0 92 7 03/28/89 A444 Lot 51 1185 15.6 119.4 93 2 03/28/89 A445 Slope Lot 63 1161 11.1 108.4 90 K 03/28/89 A446 Slope Lot 52 1189 13.0 118.2 92 5 03/28/89 A447 Slope Lot 50 1188 14.9 116.3 91 5 03/28/89 A448 Slope Lot 54 1190 13.6 116.2 92 4 03/29/89 A449 Slope Lot 54 1191 14.9 105.1 90 1 03/29/89 A450 Lot 51 1190 17.6 102.0 91 8 03/29/89 A451 Slope Lot 82 1195 9.3 105.9 84 4 03/29/89 A452 Slope Lot 51 1192 16.3 103.5 92 8 03/29/89 A453 Lot 52 1189 17.6 103.2 92 8 03/29/89 A454 Slope Lot 52 1192 14.9 109.4 93 1 03/30/89 A457 Slope Lot 49 1191 16.3 110.5 86 5 03/30/89 A458 RT No. A457 -- 15.6 108.5 90 Q 03/30/89 A459 Slope Lot 51 1192 16.3 108.3 90 Q 03/30/89 A460 Lot 49 1191 14.9 108.9 91 Q 03/30/89 A461 Lot 52 1191 13.6 109.9 92 Q 03/30/89 A462 Lot 50 1192 15.6 108.9 91 Q 03/31/89 A463 Lot 53 1195 13.0 117.9 92 5 03/31/89 A464 Lot 49 1193 14.9 108.3 90 Q 03/31/89 A465 Slope Lot 45 1197 8.7 121.8 92 9 03/31/89 03/31/89 A466 A467 Slope Lot 61 Slope Lot 61 1166 1168 10.5 10.5 119.5 118.9 92 91 12 12 03/31/89 A468 Lot 54 1195 14.9 110.1 92 Q 03/31/89 A469 Lot 51 1196 13.6 112.1 93 Q 03/31/89 A470 Slope Lot 60 1169 14.9 109.7 91 Q 03/31/89 A471 Lot 61 1169 13.0 116.3 94 7 03/31/89 A472 Slope Lot 50 1197 12.4 113.4 91 7 04/01/89 A473 Slope Lot 46 1198 8-0 126.4 96 9 04/01/89 A474 Lot 60 1169 11.1 110.9 92 Q 04/01/89 A475 Slope Lot 59 1171 8.7 116.1 91 5 04/01/89 A476 Lot 60 1172 9.3 119.7 94 5 04/01/89 A477 Lot 61 1173 8.0 117.3 91 2 04/01/89 A478 Slope Lot 60 1174 14.9 110.1 92 Q 04/01/89 A479 Lot 61 1170 10.5 111.7 93 Q 04/03/89 04/03/89 A480 A481 Lot 61 Lot 61 1171 1174 14.9 13.6 107.9 109.6 90 91 Q Q 04/04/89 A482 RT No. A451 -- 11.1 118.4 94 4 04/04/89 A483 Slope Lot 82 1198 10.5 123.3 96 2 04/04/89 A484 Slope Lot 82 1201 9.9 118.6 92 2 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1989-1990 J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-2/Lots 40 - 82 TABLE T -I/ 3 IS I I 11 iLI I TABLE Il Field Density Test Results 04/10/89 A509 Slope Lot 82 1204 12.4 107.8 87 7 04/10/89 A510 RT No. A509 -- 12.4 112.0 90 7 04/10/89 A515 Slope Lot 82 1206 11.1 114.4 90 N 04/10/89 A516 Slope Lot 82 1208 11.1 117.3 91 2 04/10/89 A517 Slope Lot 82 1210 12.4 115.8 91 2 04/12/89 A518 Lot 60 1176 19.0 103.4 92 8 04/12/89 A519 Lot 60 1175 17.6 100.6 90 8 04/12/89 A520 Lot 59 1177 13.0 108.1 90 Q 04/12/89 A521 Lot 61 1178 11.7 119.1 92 2 04/12/89 A522 Lot 61 1179 13.0 110.7 92 Q 04/12/89 A523 Lot 59 1180 12.4 110.7 92 Q 04/12/89 A524 Lot 60 1180 12.4 112.0 93 Q 04/13/89 A530 Slope Lot 58 1182 10.5 116.9 91 2 04/14/89 A538 Slope Lot 82 1212 13.0 116.1 90 2 04/03/90 A 1 1 15 Embassy Ave 1 160 11.7 122.4 93 3 04/03/90 Al 116 Embassy Ave 1162 12.8 118.8 93 5 04/03/90 Al 117 Embassy Ave 1165 10.4 125.2 96 3 04/03/90 AI 1 l8 Embassy Ave 1166 10.0 124.6 95 3 04/03/90 At 119 Lot 64 1 160 10.5 130.0 96 11 04/03/90 A1120 Embassy Ave 1163 14.0 114.6 91 4 04/03/90 Al 125 Embassy Ave 1164 11.0 I 1 1.7 91 20 04/03/90 Al 126 Lot 63 1162 10.8 110.7 92 2 04/03/90 Al 127 Lot 63 163 9.5 124.7 92 11 04/05/90 Al 148 Slope Lot 62 1164 13.2 108.8 91 22 04/05/90 At 149 Lot 62 1166 13.7 113.8 93 20 04/05/90 At 150 Embassy Ave 1168 13.5 112.5 90 19 04/05/90 A1151 Embassy Ave 1169 14.0 107.2 86 19 04/05/90 A1152 Slope Lot 65 1168 11.4 114.3 91 19 04/05/90 At 153 Slope Lot 66 1170 12.3 113.8 91 19 04/05/90 A1154 Lot 63 1168 17.5 100.7 86 1 04/05/90 Al 155 Lot 62 1169 129 104.6 89 1 04/05/90 A1156 RT No. A1151 -- 15.3 108.0 92 1 04/05/90 Al 157 Lot 66 1170 13.8 110.7 90 20 04/06/90 At 158 RT No. A1154 -- 17.0 108.6 93 1 04/06/90 Al 159 RT No. A1155 -- 1 16.6 110.0 94 1 04/06/90 A1160 Lot 60 1172 14.2 108.9 93 1 04/06/90 All161 Lot 59 1174 14.2 108.0 92 1 04/06/90 Al 162 Lot 65 1171 13.4 110.5 92 22 04/06/90 Al 163 Lot 64 1171 12.2 111.1 93 22 04/06/90 A1164 Embassy Ave 1174 14.6 112.7 92 20 04/06/90 A 1165 Lot 60 1 176 16.4 109.4 91 22 08/01/90 A1250 Lot 59 1176 12.1 112.2 90 7 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1989-1990 J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-2/Lots 40 - 82 TABLE T-114 AV I I [1 1 d 1 I TABLE 11 Field Density Test Results 08/01/90 A1251 Lot 59 1178 11.4 110.2 89 7 08/01/90 A1252 Embassy Ave 1173 13.9 117.0 91 14 08/01/90 A1253 Lot 67 1174 14.2 116.7 91 14 08/01/90 A1254 Lot 64 1170 14.3 118.9 93 14 08/01/90 A1255 Lot 64 1171 15.7 114.3 92 7 08/01/90 A1256 Lot 66 1174 7.1 108.5 93 13 08/01/90 A1257 R"CNo. A1251 -- 9.6 111.6 90 7 08/01/90 A1258 Embassy Ave 1175 12.8 120.8 94 14 08/01/90' A1259 Embassy Ave 1174 14.7 117.5 92 14 08/01/90 A1260 Embassy Ave 1172 12.2 114.8 90 14 08/01/90 A1261 Embassy Ave 1173 11.2 120.3 91 9 08/01/90 A 1262 Lot 68 1 181 16.6 105.7 85 7 08/01/90 A1263 Lot 68 1182 11.0 109.7 88 7 08/01/90 A1264 Lot 60 1176 8.1 114.9 90 14 08/01/90 A1265 Lot 60 1172 11.3 120.2 91 9 08/01/90 A1266 Lot 68 1183 14.9 114.2 92 7 08/01/90 A1267 Embassy Ave 1180 13.0 115.7 93 7 08/01/90 A1268 RT No. A 1263 14.0 1 1 1.8 90 7 08/01/90 A1269 RT No. A 1262 -- 14.1 107.2 92 13 08/01/90 A1270 Lot 65 1171 17.6 109.1 93 13 08/01/90 A1271 Lot 65 1173 13.8 114.4 92 7 08/03/90 A 1272 Lot 59 1 182 14.1 110.7 95 13 08/03/90 A1273 Lot 67 1 182 17.6 102.7 88 13 08/03/90 A1274 Lot 67 1183 17.3 105.7 90 13 08/03/90 A1275 RT No. A 1273 -- 16.0 104.8 90 13 08/03/90 A1276 Lot 69 1184 15.6 110.5 94 13 08/03/90 A1277 Lot 63 1171 12.0 106.9 91 13 08/03/90 A1278 Lot 64 1172 16.7 107.8 92 13 08/06/90 A1279 Lot 69 1184 13.4 114.0 90 21 08/06/90 A1280 Lot 68 1185 15.7 113.9 90 21 08/06/90 A1281 Lot 65 1175 12.8 113.2 90 21 08/06/90 A1282 Lot 66 1176 11.3 113.6 90 21 08/06/90 A1283 Embassy Ave 1184 15.2 111.8 90 7 08/06/90 A1284 Lot 66 1178 7.7 117.2 92 14 08/06/90 A1285 Lot 69 1186 14.0 109.8 94 13 08/06/90 A1286 Lot 64 1175 12.1 116.3 91 14 08/06/90 A1287 Lot 45 1200 9.1 98.6 84 13 08/07/90 A1288 RT No. A1287 -- 11.9 110.1 90 20 08/07/90 A1289 Lot 45 1201 12.1 108.2 92 13 08/07/90 A1290 Lot 68 1188 15.1 106.8 91 13 08/07/90 A 1291 Lot 69 1189 11.0 108.8 93 13 08/07/90 A1292 Lot 65 1176 11.6 114.1 92 7 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1989-1990 J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-2/Lots 40 - 82 TABLE T-115 17 ' TABLE II Field Density Tet Results mrn�. nrT; PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1989-1990 ' J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-2/Lots 40 - 82 TABLE T -l/ 6 m 08/07/90 A1293 Lot 64 1174 12.8 110.6 90 20 A1294 Lot 58 1185 15.2 112.2 91 20 '08/07/90 08/07/90 A1295 Lot 61 1175 14.8 110.0 92 22 08/08/90 A1296 Lot 58 1186 17.4 109.2 91 22 A1297 Lot 58 1187 17.4 109.7 91 22 '08/08/90 08/08/90 A1298 Lot 61 1 177 16.3 1 1 1.6 93 22 08/08/90 A1299 Lot 61 1178 15.8 107.8 90 22 '08/08/90 A1300 Lot 50 1198 15.8 108.2 90 22 08/08/90 A1301 Lot 49 1 199 17.2 101.3 90 8 08/08/90 A1302 Lot 52 1191 17.2 111.7 93 22 08/08/90 A1303 Lot 53 1190 17.4 105.0 90 13 08/08/90 A1304 Lot 45 1204 21.7 102.5 92 8 08/08/90 08/09/90 A1305 A1306 Lot 44 Lot 49 1205 1201 14.9 14.3 114.2 109.6 92 91 7 22 08/09/90 A1307 Lot 50 1202 13.2 115.2 90 14 A1308 Lot 54 1191 11.4 114.8 90 14 '08/09/90 08/09/90 A1309 Lot 48 1204 16.9 104.9 90 13 08/09/90 A1310 Lot 47 1205 15.7 107.8 90 22 08/09/90 A1311 Lot 53 1193 18.7 108.5 90 22 08/09/90 A1312 Lot 52 1194 15.6 107.5 90 22 08/10/90 A1313 Lot 69 1192 15.9 105.9 91 13 08/10/90 A1314 Lot 69 1193 15.6 110.6 92 22 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1989-1990 ' J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-2/Lots 40 - 82 TABLE T -l/ 6 m 1 1 TABLE III FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (2002) PETRA 3F I 1 1 1 1 TABLE III Field Density Test Results 04/30/02 521 Lot 76 1142.0 13.8 104.7 91 5 04/30/02 522 Lot 76 1143.0 8.1 106.8 92 5 05/14/02 880 Lot 56 1187.0 12.5 112.7 91 10 05/14/02 881 Lot 56 1188.0 14.6 117.4 91 4 05/14/02 882 Lot 52 1195.0 10.8 117.0 91 4 05/14/02 883 Lot 53 1196.0 15.0 115.1 92 10 05/14/02 884 Lot50 1202.0 14.2 114.8 92 10 05/14/02 885 Lot 51 1203.0 14.9 113.7 91 10 05/14/02 894 Lot 58 1185.0 12.4 118.7 92 4 05/14/02 895 Lot 58 1186.0 13.3 115.8 90 4 05/14/02 896 Lot 56 1190.0 12.8 119.0 93 4 05/14/02 897 Lot 56 1191.0 13.5 116.5 91 4 05/14/02 898 Lot 55 1192.0 14.4 111.7 93 8 05/14/02 899 Lot 54 1193.0 13.8 118.3 92 4 05/14/02 900 Lot 49 1204.0 12.0 120.1 93 4 05/15/02 901 Lot 49 1208.0 16.3 110.4 92 8 05/16/02 912 Lot 61 slope 1173.0 8.7 120.0 91 7 05/16/02 913 Lot 61 slope 1176.0 7.6 121.6 91 2 05/15/02 926 Lot 46 1206.0 11.8 118.7 91 9 05/15/02 927 Lot 47 1207.0 11.8 115.8 90 4 05/15/02 928 Lot 48 1202.0 14.0 109.8 91 8 05/15/02 929 Lot 48 1203.0 15.3 111.0 91 8 05/15/02 936 Lot 59 1182.0 14.6 115.4 91 4 05/15/02 937 Lot 59 1183.0 13.5 116.9 91 4 05/15/02 938 1-ot55 1192.0 15.2 115.3 90 4 05/15/02 939 Lot 55 1193.0 13.2 121.2 91 2 05/15/02 940 Lot 52 1198.0 10.9 121.2 91 2 05/15/02 941 Lot 52 1199.0 13.7 119.0 90 7 05/15/02 942 Lot 50 1200.0 10.6 118.5 91 9 05/16/02 951 Lot 48 1206.0 11.7 102.0 89 8 05/16/02 952 Lot 48 1207.0 10.0 105.7 88 8 05/16/02 953 Lot 46 1209.0 14.4 110.4 92 8 05/16/02 954 Lot 46 1210.0 14.3 113.8 94 8 05/16/02 955 Lot 43 1214.0 19.2 100.5 92 6 05/16/02 960 RT No. 951 -- 12.5 112.3 90* 10 05/16/02 961 RT No. 952 -- 11.7 119.4 90* 7 05/16/02 962 Lot 51 1202.0 11.4 123.8 93 2 05/16/02 963 Lot 51 1203.0 10.4 122.4 92 2 05/16/02 964 Lot 54 1196.0 14.5 117.6 90 9 05/16/02 965 Lot 55 1194.0 12.9 121.9 91 2 05/17/02 976 I-ot50 1203.0 14.9 115.0 92 10 05/17/02 977 Lot 50 1204.0 12.9 118.6 93 4 ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-2 Lots 40-82 AUGUST 2002 J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -III 1 yo ' TABLE III Field Density Test Results Y/ 05/17/02 978 Lot 47 1210.0 14.9 115.8 90 4 05/17/02 979 Lot 47 1211.0 13.0 114.1 92 10 05/17/02 980 Lot 45 1214.0 10.5 116.7 91 4 05/17/02 981 Lot 45 1215.0 12.9 119.5 93 4 '05/17/02 982 Lot 44 1217.0 10.8 118.5 92 4 05/17/02 983 Lot 43 1218.0 8.7 112.0 87 4 05/17/02 987 Lot 68 1184.0 14.1 107.2 86 10 ' 05/17/02 988 RT No. 987 -- 16.7 96.1 83 5 05/17/02 989 RT No. 988 14.9 103.2 89 5 05/17/02 990 RT No. 989 -- 13.4 105.3 91 5 05/17/02 993 Lot 75 1202.0 11.2 119.1 90 7 05/17/02 994 Lot 74 1203.0 10.0 122.6 92 2 995 Lot 71 1196.0 15.9 111.4 92 8 '05/17/02 05/17/02 996 Lot 72 1197.0 16.6 110.9 92 8 05/17/02 1014 Lot 66 1182.0 4.1 119.1 91 9 05/17/02 1015 Lot 67 1184.0 14.0 116.5 91 10 05/17/02 1016 Lot 68 1187.0 14.4 1 10. 1 88 10 05/17/02 1017 Lot 69 1189.0 13.2 111.4 89 10 ' 05/17/02 1018 Lot 70 1192.0 12.9. 115.0 92 10 05/17/02 1019 Lot 70 1193.0 13.3 117.6 90 9 05/17/02 1020 Lot 72 1197.0 9.6 120.1 92 9 05/17/02 1021 Lot 73 1200.0 12.4 116.1 90 4 05/17/02 1022 Lot 74 1201.0 12.6 119.7 93 4 05/17/02 1023 Lot 76 1205.0 10.3 119.4 93 4 05/17/02 1024 Lot 76 1206.0 11.2 123.4 92 2 05/21/02 1029 Lot 79 1212.0 16.6 104.8 90 5 05/21/02 1030 Lot 77 1206.0 8.2 113.3 91 10 05/21/02 1031 Lot 77 1207.0 10.4 118.1 90 9 05/21/02 1038 Lot 67 1180.0 9.6 112.2 90 10 05/21/02 1039 Lot 67 1181.0 6.1 126.2 95 2 05/21/02 1040 RT No. 1017 9.6 116.1 93 10 05/21/02 1041 RT No. 1016 -- 10.2 114.8 92 10 05/21/02 1048 Lot 81 1218.0 7.4 119.7 92 7 05/21/02 1049 Lot 78 1210.0 8.9 116.4 91 4 05/21/02 1050 Lot 77 1208.0 9.1 115.7 90 4 05/20/02 1051 RT No. 983 10.6 113.0 91 10 06/27/02 1744 Lot 41 1220.0 11.3 120.6 92* 1 06/27/02 1746 Lot 42 1222.5 8.7 116.4 91 4 06/27/02 1747 Lot 43 1220.5 10.5 110.3 92 8 06/27/02 1748 Lot 44 11219.0 15.6 118.8 . 90 1 06/27/02 1749 Lot 45 1216.5 11.1 117.0 91 4 06/27/02 1750 Lot 46 1214.5 8.1 114.8 90 3 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-2 Lots 40-82 AUGUST 2002 ' J.N. 188-01 ` Sandcone TABLE -III 2 Y/ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 L TABLE III Field Density Test Results 06/27/02 1751 Lot 47 FG 12.4 119.3 91* 1 06/27/02 1752 Lot 48 FG 10.5 121.4 92* 1 07/08/02 1789 Lot 62 slope 1163.0 8.7 116.0 90* 4 07/08/02 1790 Lot 62 slope 1164.0 13.7 119.0 93* 4 07/08/02 1792 Tioga St 1164.0 9.9 119.8 93* 4 07/08/02 1793 Tioga St 1165.0 11.1 120.7 90* 11 07/09/02 1794 Lot 62 1164.0 14.3 117.3 91* 4 07/10/02 1812 Lot 64 slope 1173.0 8.1 118.0 90* 9 07/10/02 1815 Lot. 64 1175.0 13.7 121.3 93* 9 07/10/02 1816 Lot 63 1172.0 ILL 118.9 93* 4 07/13/02 1833 Lot 82 FG 6.5 121.0 91 11 07/13/02 1834 Lot 81 FG 9.6 114.8 91 12 07/13/02 1835 Lot 80 FG 8.8 124.1 93 11 07/13/02 1836 Lot 79 FG 11.0 117.5 91 4 07/13/02 1837 Lot 78 FG 8.1 120.7 92 4 07/13/02 1838 Lot 77 FG 5.5 122.4 92 11 07/15/02 1839 Lot 76 FG 6.7 115.2 91 12 07/15/02 1846 Lot 75 FG 10.1 114.3 90 12 07/15/02 1847 Lot 74 FG 8.4 125.4 94 11 07/15/02 1848 Lot 73 FG 9.2 116.7 91 4 07/15/02 1849 Lot 72 FG 6.7 117.3 9 4 07/15/02 1850 Lot 71 FG 7.6 118.2 91 91 07/18/02 1863 Lot 70 FG 5.4 120.9 91 11 07/18/02 1864 Lot 69 FG 5.5 118.3 92 4 07/18/02 1865 Lot 68 FG 7.8 122.5 92 11 07/18/02 1866 Lot 67 FG 9.3 124.5 93 11 07/18/02 1867 Lot 66 FG 5.9 127.9 96 11 07/18/02 1868 Lot 65 FG 9.8 120.4 90 11 07/18/02 1869 Lot 64 FG 6.2 117.9 92 4 07/18/02 1870 Lot 63 FG 5.7 117.6 90 9 07/18/02 1871 Lot 62 FG 8.6 115.7 90 4 07/18/02 1872 Lot 81 finish slope 1217.0 10.1 112.8 91 10 07/18/02 1873 Lot 81 finish slope 1213.0 8.6 110.9 92 8 07/18/02 1874 Lot 80 finish slope 1216.0 4.7 116.3 91 4 07/18/02 1875 Lot 50 1169.5 7.0 120.8 90 11 07/19/02 1878 Lot 40 FG 11.7 120.1 92* 9 ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-2 Lots 40-82 AUGUST 2002 J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -III 3 1/; I 1 1 1 1 REFERENCES 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 PETRA 40 I 11 1 REFERENCES Blake, T.F., 1998/1999, "UBCSEIS" Version 1.03, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sow ces. 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. 2001x, Due -Diligence Geotechnical Assessment of Planned Grading and Site Development, Tracts 23066-I, 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. , 2001c, Response to Riverside County Geotechnical Report Review Sheet Dated April 24, 2001, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, Califomia; for "17re Garrett Group LLC, J.N. 188-01, dated December It, 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. , 200le, Geotechnical Review of40-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 1.N. 188-01 IV d 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 I 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. 11 ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002 J.N. 188-01 4S 1 - 1 1 i 1 APPENDIX A 1 LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA 1 LABORATORY TEST DATA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 PETRA 1 1 ilk I ' APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA Laboratory Maximum Dry Density ' Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values are given on Plates A-1 and A-2. ' Expansion Potential t 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 Plates A-3 and A-4. Soil Chemistry ' Chemical analyses were performed on selected samples of onsite soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate and chloride, as well as pH and resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 417 (sulfate), 422 (chloride) and 643 (pH and resistivity). Test results are presented on Plate A-5. Atterberg Limits !. Atterberg limit tests (Liquid Limit and Plastic Index) were performed on selected samples to verify visual classifications. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Test results are presented on Plate A-6. 1 lJ 1 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002 ' J.N. 188-01 I 1 11 1 1 I �1 L�I LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY 1989 F Soil`<T i 7" ift9t"y., �°M xa unumiDr D nsit y y ���� �i� Sml TY � � �' j ype,--=f �.MaximumxDryiDensity- ... � �' �� f'.L Y� ii^�jP �` "3 oat, l 117.0 18 128.0 2 129.0 19 124.5 3 131.5 20 122.5 4 126.0 21 126.0 5 127.5 22 129.0 6 134.0 23 118.0 7 124.5 26 130.5 9 132.0 27 125.5 10 125.0 K 121.0 11 135.5 KK 112.0 12 130.0 U 124.5 13 117.5 N 127.0 14 127.5 Q 120.5 16 132.5 W 212.5 17 130.0 1f ,�f•+ 4-'4 jf�"}af. ii-f.X Y tf Y''14`S int;k^fF PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. J.N. 188-01 AUGUST 2002 Plate A-1 I/ f( LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY' (Continued) 2002 S3(o'S #pryk„.,L� u EN 54M` 'S Simple °b' Y rt 5 jk k `/' }STI Wr.Hk` 4 :�t"X1K}(i .i}+*Kq "'9. f A } "R^ r��-i.�yy" "9: CL'YPun-11-44 G Lf -'F4"' s'i' ix TTIY xhF. .hC r s a r �3 r 3odsT�Motsture ,Y.T 29 •° 5 Yy�'a Yw J.Y i5:� R k,k Y i° to uS'{..% `�f OIItIIIIURi`-h''�MfIXtITIUITI x + d�Gi �a'4`A �Y 1't•A'.�C'�'£. atr i w Dcp'Denstt V', err p: 1 Dark brown Clayey Silty fine SAND 8.5 131.5 2 Light brown Silty SAND 8.0 133.5 3 Brown Clayey fine SAND 10.5 127.5 4 Light brown Silty, Clayey fine- to medium -grained SAND 10.0 128.5 5 Light brown very fine Sandy SILT 14.0 116.0 7 Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel 8.5 132.0 8 Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and Silt 12.5 120.5 9 Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay 8.5 130.5 D Light brown Clayey SAND 13.0 122.0 10 Medium brown Clayey SILT 11.5 124.5 I 1 Medium brown Clayey medium to coarse SAND with cobbles 8.0 133.5 12 Light brown Silty to Clayey fine SAND 10.5 126.5 (1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D1557 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-2 I EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA (2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829 (3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE 18-1-B ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-3 1 Sn Re"�es%n[alive=LotsIndex.,s-,yiPofenital;;1' Expansion ; a , A 41 40 through 43 3 Very Low 44 44 through 46 53 Medium 47 47 through 49 12 Very Low 50 50 through 52 48 Low 55 53 through 55 23 Low 58 56 through 58 62 Medium 67 59 through 61 80 Medium 63 62 through 64 0 Very Low 65 65 through 67 31 Low 69 68 through 71 11 Very Low 73 72 through 74 0 Very Low 76 75 through 77 0 Very Low 79 78 through 80 10 Very Low 82 81 and 82 0 Very Low (2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829 (3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE 18-1-B ' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-3 1 Sn I SOLUBLE CHEMISTRY -3• . �,'. r ✓ c .,: -x} r -s - s S x , '�' d4 P -. a 5 �,Chlonde -s ur "j �rr - E 'to .iRestshvrty. �` WOR mm r `• H a""; �Corros,vdy Potephat ,,�pH�� �.�.,`- ME 44 through 46 ND concrete: -- steel: negligible 50 through 52 ND 83 7.2 2,100 concrete: moderate steel: negligible 56 through 58 ND concrete: -- steel: negligible 81 and 82 ND 158 6.9 2,000 concrete: moderate steel: negligible (4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417 (5) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 422 ' (6) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METIIOD NO. 643 (7) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643 1 1 1 1 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002 J.N. 188-01 Plate A-4 t 1 S� A'FFERBERG LIMITS' (8) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4318 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC AUGUST 2002 I.N. 188-01 Plate A-5 I 7sticLiqufdo�ffign�Plastic ty� 3 Clayey SAND 32 14 18 4 Silty, Clayey SAND 32 15 17 10 Clayey SILT 28 24 11 Clayey medium to coarse SAND with cobbles 26 18 8 12 Silty fine SAND I I NP (8) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4318 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC AUGUST 2002 I.N. 188-01 Plate A-5 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 APPENDIX B SEISMIC ANALYSIS it PETRA 1 �o COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 188-01 02 JOB NAME: Richmond Redhaw FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAL 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 Paye 1 DATE: 04-13-20 5F 1 11 Page 2 4'S 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 J before the y are used in design. SUMMARY SUMMARY --------------------------- OF FAULT --------- PARAMETERS --- ' Page 1 APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I tFAULT 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) ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 2.6 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE-JULIAN I 12.1 I A I 7.1 I 5.00 I SS ' ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 31.2 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS ' SAN JACINTO-ANZA I I SS 33.3 I A I 7.2 I 12.00 SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 34.1 I B I 6.9 I 12.00 ( SS ' NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 46.5 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I SS ROSE CANYON I 49.0 I B i 6.9 I 1.50 SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK ( 53.6 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 1 SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 56.6 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 1 11 Page 2 4'S C 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 11 I SS CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I DS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern I SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER I SS PINTO MOUNTAIN I SS CORONADO BANK SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) SS PALOS VERDES I SS BURNT MTN. SS CUCAMONGA I DS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I DS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I SS EUREKA PEAK SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I DS SAN JOSE 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 I 74.1 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 79.1 I B I 6.9 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 6.8 I 4.00 I 87.8 B I 7.0 I 1.00 I 87.9 B I 6.6 I 4.00 I 89.1 I B I 6.S I 0.60 90.4 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I 91.0 B 6.5 I 0.50 I 91.1 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 94.8 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I 99.2 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I 102.4 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I 102.4 I A I 7.8 I 34.00 I 107.0 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I 111.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I 111.6 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I 112.9 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I 115.4 I B ( 6.5 I 0.50 Page 3 s6 I I DS ' SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I SS VERDUGO I DS ELMORE RANCH I SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK ' I Ss CALICO - HIDALGO I Ss ' SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I Ss HOLLYWOOD DS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA ' I SS SANTA MONICA I DS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I DS 1 11 I 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 ( 1.00 I 124.3 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I 125.0 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I 126.3 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I 128.5 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I 128.6 I B I 6.5 I 25.00 138.9 I B I 7.0 I 3.50 I 140.4 B 6.6 I 1.00 I 143.8 I B I 6.7 1 2.00 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ FAULT ABBREVIATED TYPE FAULT NAME I(SS,DS,BT) SAN GABRIEL I SS MALIBU COAST I DS IMPERIAL SS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE I SS ANACAPA-DUME I DS I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/Yr) I 145.6 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I 148.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.30 I 153.5 I A I 7.0 I 20.00 I 157.0 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I 159.9 I B I 7.3 I 3.00 Page I 0 I 1 I LJ 1 1 1 1 I I SANTA SUSANA 1 161.7 I B 1 6.6 I 5.00 I DS HOLSER I 170.7 I B 1 6.5 I 0.40 I DS BLACKWATER 1 173.2 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 1 SS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 1 181.7 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 183.3 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS SAN CAYETANO 1 189.1 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 1 DS SANTA YNEZ (East) I 208.3 I B I 7.0 I 2.00 I SS GARLOCK (West) I 213.3 I A I 7.1 I 6.00 1 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 214.2 I B 1 6.8 1.00 I DS GARLOCK (East) I 219.9 I A I 7.3 I 7.00 1 SS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA I 222.8 I B I 6.7 1 0.40 DS PLEITO THRUST I 225.2 I B 1 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS RED MOUNTAIN 228.5 B I 6.8 I 2.00 I DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND I 232.7 I B 1 6.8 1 1.00 I DS BIG PINE 233.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 1 SS OWL LAKE I 238.6 I B I 6.5 1 2.00 1 SS PANAMINT VALLEY 1 238.9 I B I 7.2 I 2.50 I SS WHITE WOLF I 240.0 I B I 7.2 I 2.00 I DS TANK CANYON 1 242.2 1 B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS So. SIERRA NEVADA I 242.6 I B I 7.1 I 0.10 I DS LITTLE LAKE I 243.9 I B I 6.7 I 0.70 1 SS DEATH VALLEY (South) I 245.3 1 B I 6.9 I 4.00 1 SS SANTA YNEZ (West) I 262.0 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 'I SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 268.8 I B I 6.9 1 1.00 I DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) i 288.9 1 B I 6.9 I 4.00 1 DS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE I 305.1 I B I 6.8 1 0.70 I DS Page 5 Sf --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS 1 Page 3 OWENS VALLEY I 314.0 I B I 7.6 1 1.50 I SS I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP 'FAULT LIONS HEAD I 322.5 I B I 6.6 I 0.02 1 DS IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE SAN JUAN I 325.6 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 ' SS NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (MW) I (mm/yr) SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 330.2 I B I 7.0 I 0.20 1 DS of Cucamongo) 1 431.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 ' HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 336.2 I B 1 7.0 I 2.50 I SS of S.N.Mtns.) I 443.2 I B 1 6.8 I 1.00 CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 339.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.25 I Ds Page 6 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 t I DS LOS OSOS I 359.5 I B I 6.8 I 0.50 I DS ' HOSGRI I 368.7 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 1 SS RINCONADA I 377.7 I B I 7.3 I 1.00 SS 'I QIRCH CREEK I 406.9 I Q 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 I 428.0 i B I 6.6 I 0.80 1 DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 428.1 I B I 5.0 I 34.00 1 SS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS 1 Page 3 I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP 'FAULT 1 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) _____________=====1========1=======1======1=====___ DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 431.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) I 443.2 I B 1 6.8 I 1.00 Page 6 I 11 I 1 1 I DS FISH SLOUGH I DS HILTON CREEK I DS HARTLEY SPRINGS I DS ORTIGALITA I SS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I DS PALO COLORADO - SUR SS QUIEN SABE I SS MONO LAKE I DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES SS SARGENT SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 1 SS ROBINSON CREEK I DS SAN GREGORIO I SS GREENVILLE I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I SS GENOA I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I SS RODGERS CREEK SS WEST NAPA I SS POINT REYES I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 449.6 I B 1 6.6 I 0.20 I 469.5 I B 1 6.7 I 2.50 1 494.6 I B 1 6.6 I 0.50 I 509.4 I B 1 6.9 I 1.00 I 517.1 1 B I 6.2 1 15.00 I 523.1 I B 1 7.1 1 0.50 I 526.3 B I 7.0 I 3.00 I 529.7 I B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 530.8 I B 1 6.6 1 2.50 I 549.2 I B I 6.8 I 0.10 I 554.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 3.00 I 5.54.4 I_ A I 7.9 I 24.00 562.3 I B 1 6.5 I 0.50 598.2 I A I 7.3 I 5.00 i 601.0 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 I 603.0 I B 1 6.7 I 0.80 I 603.1 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I 604.1 I B 1 6.5 I 0.40 1 622.4 I A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 622..4 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 629.2 I B 1 6.9 I 1.00 1 668.8 I B 1 6.9 I 6.00 I 708.1 I A I 7.0 I 9.00 I 708.3 I B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 729.3 I B I 6.8 1 0.30 I 729.5 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 Page 7 ' $4 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- ' Page 4 I FAULT I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP TYPE ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I Page 8 u !c'D I Ss ' MAACAMA (South) 1 770.1 I B I 6.9 1 9.00 1 SS COLLAYOMI I 786.2 I B I 6.5 1 0.60 1 ss BARTLETE SPRINGS 1 788.6 1 A I 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS MAACAMA (Central) I 811.7 I A 1 7.1 I 9.00 ' MAACAMAS(North) I 870.5 I A 1 7.1 I 9.00 1 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 1 875.3 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 ' 1 SS BATTLE CREEK I 892.8 1 B I 6.S I O.SO I Os ' LAKE MOUNTAIN 933.6 1 B 1 6.7 I 6.00 1 SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 951.5 1 B I 6.9 I 9.00 ' 1 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1008.7 1 A 1 7.4 I 35.00 1 DS LITiLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1013.7 A 1 7.0 1 S.00 ' I DS MAD RIVER 1015.4 I B 1 7.1 1 0.70 I DS ' CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1023.1 I A 1 8.3 I 35.00 1 DS MCKINLEYVILLE 11026.1 1 B 7.0 1 0.60 ' 1 DS TRINIDAD 1 1027.4 1 B 1 7.3 I 2.50 1 DS FICKLE HILL 1 1028.2 I B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 DS iABLE BLUFF :1.034.4 I B 1 7.0 I 0.60 'I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 11047.6 1 B 1 7.1 I 1.00 i DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- ' Page 4 I FAULT I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP TYPE ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I Page 8 u !c'D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 FAULT NAME I (km) l(A,B,C)l (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1063.9 B 7.3 0.50 DS Page 9 17ESP7) �TST 7ryr (7Mt" Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD 2.50 2.25 2.00 C- 1.75 0 1.50 L 1.25 U Q 1.00 0.75 U a 0.50 M a 0.25 0.00 r C 71111 LI L11 LH ii M IIILI M M 1117, 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Period Seconds 4.0 4.5 5.0