HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Rpt Lots 39-95 8/27/2002-0
0
0
V L-P,'�YIYL-
1 PETRA
OFFICES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
' August 27, 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 39 through 95,
Tract 23066-3, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
41640 Corning Place . Suite 107 . Murrieta . CA 92562 . Tel: (909) 600-9271 . Fax: (909) 600-9215
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 39 through 95 within Tract 23066-3 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.
tPreliminary
rough -grading within the golf-course/tract interface was performed within
the subject tract in 1989 through 1990 under the purview of Petra. Petra reported on
the interface grading in a report issued in December 2001 (see References).
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Cuts, removals and recompaction of unsuitable low-density surface soils, lot
'
overexcavations and placement of compacted fill under the purview of this report have
been completed under the observation and with selective testing by Petra. The
'
earthwork was performed in accordance with. the recommendations presented in
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
41640 Corning Place . Suite 107 . Murrieta . CA 92562 . Tel: (909) 600-9271 . Fax: (909) 600-9215
I
1
C
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 2
previous geotechnical reports by Petra (see References) and the Grading Code of the
County of Riverside.
The completed earthwork has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the
construction now planned. On the basis of our observations, as well as field and
laboratory testing, the recommendations presented in this report were prepared in
conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further
warranty is implied nor made.
SUMMARY OF AS -GRADED SOIL. AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
As -Graded Conditions
Remedial grading during the 1989 and 1990 interface grading generally involved the
removal and recompaction of low-density surficial soils that included alluvial and
colluvial soils subject to hydrocollapse or excessive consolidation, as well as near -
surface weathered bedrock materials. Remedial grading of the site at that time
consisted of removal and recompaction of all low-density surficial material, removal
of haul roads and loose end -dumped fill piles. Remedial grading during the recent
phase of rough grading included similar removals plus surficial overexcavation and
recompaction, on the order of up to 2 to 4 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 58 feet. A lot -by -lot summary of the compacted -fill
depths and a summary of soil conditions is presented in the attached Table I. A general
description of the soil and bedrock materials underlying the subject tract is provided
below.
• Compacted Engineered Fill (map symbol afc) — The compacted -fill soils placed
in 1989 through 1998 generally consist of silty sand and sandy silt with variable
clay. The compacted -fill soils placed in 2002 are also comprised of onsite -derived
Ea
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 3
soil and bedrock materials and generally consist of fine- to coarse-grained sand,
silty sand and clayey sand.
Pauba Formation Bedrock (Ons) — The Pauba Formation consists of dense, fine-
grained and well -graded sandstones, clayey sandstone and clay beds with
occasional gravel and cobble beds. A cross -bedded, well -graded sand unit is
contained within the Pauba Formation.
SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK
OBSERVATIONS AND DENSITY TESTING
Clearing and Grubbing
At the time of grading, a majority of the tract was covered with a light growth of
grasses and weeds. This light vegetation was removed during overexcavation to
existing grades and mixed with the excavated soils in an acceptable manner (i.e., the
resultant blend contained less than 1 percent organic materials). Heavy vegetation that
existed in local areas, as well as some construction debris, were removed from the site.
Ground Preparation
1988 - 1990 - During the interface grading perforated in 1989 and 1990, unsuitable
soils were removed and replaced with compacted fill. Removal of unsuitable soils
was performed to facilitate future grading by eliminating the need to encroach into
the completed golf -course fairways during final rough grading of the subject tract.
Removal of unsuitable soils extended laterally into the subject tract at a I:1
(horizontal: vertical [h:vl) projection from the proposed toe -of -slopes to the bottom
of the overexcavation in order to provide sufficient lateral support for the
embankment fills. As a result of the removals, the alluvial soils anticipated to be
subject to hydrocollapse or excessive consolidation that existed within the broader
valley areas were removed. In areas to receive compacted fill, all deposits of
existing low-density surficial soils (slopewash and alluvium) were removed to
competent bedrock. In general, removal of unsuitable surficial materials varied
from approximately 3 to 10 feet below the original ground surface. All removals
were also extended into adjacent street areas to receive compacted fill.
• 2002 -Prior to placing structural fill, existing low-density surficial soils were first
removed to competent unweathered bedrock, or previously placed compacted -fill
VAI
I
' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area I.N. 188-01
' Page 4
'
materials. Removals throughout the lots varied from approximately 3 to 8 feet.
Previously compacted -fill materials exposed in removal areas exhibited an in-place
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
'
Prior to placing fill, exposed bottom surfaces in all removal areas were first observed
'
and approved by our project geologist or senior soil technician. Following this
approval, the exposed bottom surfaces were scarified to depths of approximately 6 to
'
8 inches, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a moisture content equal to or
slightly above optimum moisture content and then recompacted in-place to a minimum
'
relative compaction of 90 percent or 95 percent where fill thickness exceeds 50 feet.
1
L
7
J
1
I
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. Cut lots on which expansive clay beds were exposed at grade were
also overexcavated on the order of 8 feet to minimize the effect of expansive soils.
Canyon Subdrains
Canyon subdrains were placed in areas where the depth of structural fill exceeded 15
feet. Subdrains consisted of 6- to 8 -inch diameter PVC pipe with perforations placed
down. The pipe was surrounded by 0.75 inch gravel and wrapped in filter fabric
(Mirafi 140 or equivalent). Subdrain locations are provided on Plates 1 and 2.
The subdrains are outletted to the golf course at the toe -of -slope near Lots 57, 83 and
109.
S
I
1
1
J
1
n
�J
I
I
r --
L]
1
I
11
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 5
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 58 feet on Lot 92.
Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with nuclear -
gauge test methods ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017. Occasional field density
tests were also performed in accordance with the sandcone method ASTM Test
Method D1556. Field density test results for 1989 and 2002 are presented on the
attached Tables Il and 111, respectively, and approximate test locations are shown on
the enclosed Geotechnical Map with Density Test Locations (Plates 1 and 2).
Field density tests were taken at vertical intervals of approximately 1 to 2 feet and the
compacted fills were tested at the time of placement to verify that the specified
moisture content and minimum required relative compaction of 90 percent had been
achieved or 95 percent relative compaction where fill thickness exceeds 50 feet. 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 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.
2-
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 6
Visual classification of earth materials in the field was the basis for determining which
maximum dry density value was applicable for a given density test. Single -point
checks were performed to supplement visual classification.
Fill Slopes
All fill slopes were constructed at a maximum ratio of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum
height of approximately 40 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.
Fill keys were constructed along the toe -of -slope at the tract/golf-course interface
within Lots 64 through 66 and 74 through 77. The keys were 15 to 25 feet wide and
were 5 feet deep.
Cut Slopes
All cut slopes expose competent Pauba Formation bedrock and were constructed at a
maximum ration of 2:1 (h:v) and to a maximum height of 22 feet (Lot 73). The cut
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
Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values for each phase of grading (1989 and 2002)
are summarized in Appendix A.
F,
\✓
2
I
I
1
F
1
[1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 7
Expansion Index Tests
Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of soil existing at or
near finish -pad grade within the subject lots. These tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Test results are also summarized in
Appendix A.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits were determined for selected soil samples per ASTM Test Method
D4318. Test results are presented in Appendix A.
Soluble Sulfate 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 pH Analyses
Water-soluble chloride concentration, resistivity and pH were determined for selected
samples in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 422 (chloride) and 643
(resistivity and pH). The results of these analyses are summarized in Appendix A.
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.
2
I
1
[]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 8
Allowable Soil -Bearing Capacities
ities
An allowable soil -bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used
for 24 -inch square pad footings and 12 -inch wide continuous footings founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may
be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth, to a maximum
value of 2,500 psf. Recommended allowable soil -bearing values include both dead
and live loads and may be increased by one-third when designing for short -duration
wind and seismic forces.
Anticipated Settlement
Based on the general settlement characteristics of the compacted 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
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.
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
d
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 9
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 minimum of 90
percent of maximum dry density.
Expansive Soil Considerations
Results of laboratory tests indicate onsite soil and bedrock materials exhibit VERY
LOW, LOW and MEDIUM expansion potentials as classified in accordance with
1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18 -I -B. A lot -by -lot breakdown for the
different levels of expansion is provided below.
• Very Low Expansion Potential - Lots 39 through 41, 44 through 61, 67, 68, 74
through 78, 80 through 82, 84 through 88 and 92 through 95
• Low Expansion Potential - Lots 42, 43, 62 through 66, 68, 71, 72, 79 and 83
• Medium Expansion Potential — Lots 69, 70, 73 and 89 through 91
-IX9 -2 3 &-� Zo 6 - /j - 'OP7 j __9 It
►a
I
1
I]
1
1
1
L1
1
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 10
Design and construction details for the various levels of expansion potential are
provided in the following sections.
Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less)
The following 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 minimum criteria.
However, additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement should be
provided as required by the project architect or structural engineer.
• Footines
Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated
in 1997 UBC Table 18-1-C (i.e., 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and I8 -
inch minimum depth for two-story construction). Interior continuous footings
for both one- and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth
of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should
have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one- and two-story buildings,
respectively and should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one
bottom.
Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as
second -story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a minimum
of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 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.
it
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
' TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 11
' All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to
ensure the desired placement near mid -depth.
Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor
barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or
equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches
' of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the
concrete.
' Garage -floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and should be reinforced in a similar
manner as living -area floor slabs. Garage -floor slabs should also be placed
separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained
1 with 3/8 -inch minimum, felt expansion joint materials and quartered with
weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch wide grade beam founded at the same depth
as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade
' beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one
bottom.
' - Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all concrete slab -on -ground
should be prewatered to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize
' the development of shrinkage cracks.
' Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 21 to 50)
The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils
' exhibit a LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC
Table 18-1-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
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.
1 �
1
[2
I
1
1
I
1
11
I
11
11
1
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 12
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
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.
• Footines
- 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 minimum
of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4
bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, near the bottom -
third of the footings.
• Floor Slabs
- The project architect or structural engineer should evaluate minimum floor -slab
thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815 based
on an effective plasticity index of 12. Unless a more stringent design is
recommended by the architect or the structural engineer, we recommend a
Ea
`Y
I
' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
' TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area I.N. 188-01
Page 13
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 joints. A 12 -inch wide grade
' beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across
garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two
' No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living -area and garage -
floor slabs should be pre -watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least
equal to or slightly greater than 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 901
The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots which exhibit a MEDIUM
expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B. The
1997 UBC specifies that slab -on -ground foundations (floor slabs) on soils with an
expansion index greater than 20 require special design considerations in accordance
with 1997 UBC Section 1815. The design procedures outlined in 1997 UBC
' Section 1815 are based on a plasticity index of the different soil layers existing within
the upper 15 feet of the building site. Based on subsurface stratigraphy and distribution
tof the different soil types, we have assumed an effective plasticity index of 17 in
accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815.4.2.
n
/I f
i
iJ
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 14
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.
'
• Footines
- 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.
'
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 index of 17. Unless a more stringent design is
plasticity
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
2
/s
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 15
1 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.
I
11
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
- Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor
barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or
equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches
of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the
concrete.
- Garage -floor slabs should also be placed separately from adjacent wall footings
with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion -
joint materials and quartered with weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch -wide grade
beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across
garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two
No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
- Prior to placing concrete, 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
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.
M2
F
r
I
I
I
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 16
Eaparisiowlndex ,,, -
-
Yery Lar
and Low
((1 to s(l)
'
Dledium
15140 9fr%
Assumed percent clay
30
70
Clay type
Momma illomte
Apioximate depth of constant suction (feel)
70
70
Approximate soil suction (pp)
3 6
3 6
Approximate velocity til moisture Flow lurches/month)
07
0.7
Thomwaite Index
-20
-20
Average edge
Nloistwe variation depth, q„
(feet)
Center lift
46
i 3
Edge lift
2 2
3 7
Anticipated well, y„
(Inches)
Center lift
14
32
Cd -e lilt
03
I I
• 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.
h Interior footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 Inches below the top
rl ofthe 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
Visquccn. A minimum of I inch of clean sand should be placed over the
membrane to promote unifom1 curing of the concrete.
• 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
W
/7
lJ
[1
I
I
I
I
I
1
[1
u
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 17
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 nim/year. However, the closest
Type B fault which is the Elsinore -Temecula fault located 1.3 kilometers to the
southwest of Tract 23066-3 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 nim/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.
I
L
I
I
I
11
1
1�
I�
\J
J
Ll
I
1
LJ
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 18
SOIL CHEMISTRY
Laboratory test results indicate onsite soils contain negligible soluble -sulfate contents.
As such, concrete in contact with soil may utilize Type I or II Portland cement. The
laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH indicate onsite soils
may be moderately corrosive to buried steel in direct contact with onsite soils.
RETAINING WALLS
Footing Embedments
The base of retaining -wall footings 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
Cd
/y
1997 UBC TABLE
FACTOR
Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone
4
16-I
Seismic Zone Factor Z
0.4
16-U
Seismic Source Type
B
16-J
Soil Profile Type
So
16-S
Near -Source Factor N,
1.3
16-T
Near -Source Factor N,
1 6
16-Q
Seismic Coefficient C.
0.44 N, = 0.57
16-R
Seismic Coefficient C
0.64 N = 1.02
SOIL CHEMISTRY
Laboratory test results indicate onsite soils contain negligible soluble -sulfate contents.
As such, concrete in contact with soil may utilize Type I or II Portland cement. The
laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH indicate onsite soils
may be 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
(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
Cd
/y
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
J
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
CJ
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 19
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) 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 for an ascending
2:1 (h:v) backfill.
Drainage
A perforated pipe -and -gravel subdrain should be installed behind all retaining walls
to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. Perforated pipe should consist of 4 -inch
minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS SDR -35, with the perforations laid
down. The pipe should be embedded in 1.5 cubic feet per foot of 0.75- to 1.5 -inch
open -graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N
or equivalent.
In lieu of a pipe and gravel subdrain, weepholes or open vertical masonry joints may
be considered for retaining walls not exceeding a height of approximately 3 feet.
:a
I
�l
J
1
I
1
I
I
11
I
I
1
I
r
L_
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 20
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 l :1 (h:v) for the duration of construction. However, all
temporary slopes should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant for any
evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, flatter
temporary slopes may be necessary. The potential effects of various parameters, such
as weather, heavy equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary excavations
and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary
slopes.
Wall Backfill
All retaining -wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch maximum lifts, watered or
air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum -moisture conditions and compacted in
place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
0
it
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 21
Construction on or Near the Tops of Descending Slopes
Continuous footings for masonry block walls proposed on or within 7 feet from the top
of any descending slope should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal clearance
of 5 feet is maintained between the outside bottom edge of the footing and the slope
face. The footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top
and one bottom. Plans for any top -of -slope block walls proposing pier and grade -beam
footings should be reviewed by Petra prior to construction.
Construction on Level Ground
Where masonry block walls are proposed on level ground and at least 5 feet from the
tops of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded at a minimum
depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should also
be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Construction Joints
In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of
differential settlement, positive separations (construction joints) should be provided
in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 25 feet and at each comer. The
separations should be provided in the blocks only and not extend through the footings.
The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as
effective "grade beams" along the full lengths of the walls.
Ci
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 22
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.
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
away from the walls and foundations. Drip -irrigation systems are also recommended
to prevent overwatering and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils.
0
07.3
I
1
I
1
1
1
11
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 23
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 l- 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 1 foot above all pipe in areas where excavated
trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand -bedding materials should be
thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill.
Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to any building footing (interior and/or
exterior trenches), the bottom of the trench should not be located within a t :1 (h:v)
plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing.
2
a1v
I
1
I
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 24
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.
' 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.
1
�5
• 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.
t•
Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of
sprinkler lines in trenches is not recommended.
'
• During construction of any terrace drains, downdrains or earth berms, care must be
taken to avoid placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces.
• A permanent slope -maintenance program should be initiated for major slopes not
maintained by individual homeowners. Proper slope maintenance must include the
'
care of drainage and erosion -control provisions, rodent control and repair of leaking
or damaged irrigation systems.
' Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage,
maintenance and landscaping, the potential for deep saturation of slope soils is
considered very low.
1
�5
I
I
1
1
[l
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area
August 27, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 25
• 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.
• Buildine 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.
- 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.
0
;4
I
I
1
I
1
[1
1
I
I
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 26
• 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 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.
ra
I
1
I
1
1
I
11
I
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES August 27, 2002
TR 23066-3 Lots 39-95/Temecula Area J.N. 188-01
Page 27
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions,
please contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
L. JF
iy `
s�
F`4- uQi�• _
176
�
w
r No.
ins Steen M. Po
EXP
s i
e Geologist Senior Associat
* CE 2
GE 692 FC
sT�TFOFC
' /TLJ/SMP/keb
Attachments:
Table 1 - Lot -By -Lot Summary of As -Graded Soil Conditions
Table II - Field Density Test Results (1988-1990)
Table III - Field Density Test Results (2002)
References
Plates I 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
Attention: Ms. Robin Finnell
(1) Richmond American Homes - Field Office
Attention: Mr. Craig Peters
(2) Riverside County Building and Safety
Attention: Mr. Mack Hakakian
(3) Hunsaker & Associates
Attention: Mr. Dan Hosseninvadeh
MIC
•
CA
;9
I
1
1
1
1 TABLE
1
LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF
1
AS -GRADED SOIL CONDITIONS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PETRA
1 �Q
M
TABLE I Tract 23066-3 Lot 39 - 95
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
39
3
0
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
Z
40
3
0
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
Z
41
1 .960
a \ Low
moderate
negligible
Z
42
h
-
1:960
28/Low
moderate
negligible
E
43
15
1:960
28/Low
moderate
negligible
E
44
14
7
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
Z
45
10
5
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
Z
46
13
5
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
z
47
14
7
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
1.
48
_'u
8
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
L
49
20
8
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
Z
50
25
5
1:960
ION Low
moderate
negligible
1
51
25
5
1:960
ION Low
moderate
negligible
"L
52
30
5
1:960
ION Low
moderate
negligible
Z
53
28
8
1:960
I IN Low
moderate
negligible
Z
54
25
5
1:960
1 IN Low
moderate
negligible
Z
55
25
5
1960
1 IN Low
moderate
negligible
Z
per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 UBC):
E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2)
C For corrosion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable
S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4
D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table 18 -III -
GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) (noted ij>1:4801
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
M► Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-1 1
O
TABLE I Tract 23066-3 Lot 39 - 95
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
56
30
7
1:960
20/V Low
moderate
negligible
Z
57
25
9
1:960
201V Low
moderate
negligible
Z
58
25
8
1:960
20N Low
moderate
negligible
Z
59
30
14
1:960
2/V Low
moderate
negligible
Z
60
35
5
1:960
2N Low
moderate
negligible
Z
61
40
20
1:960
2N Low
moderate
negligible
Z
62
40
20
1:960
22/Low
moderate
negligible
E
63
40
10
1:960
22/Low
moderate
negligible
E
64
40
10
1:960
22/Low
moderate
negligible
E
65
40
10
1:960
22/Low
moderate
negligible
E
66
25
13
1960.
22/Low
moderate
negligible
E
67
9
6
1:960
6N Low
moderate
negligible
Z
68
9
6
1:960
6/V Low
moderate
negligible
Z
69
0
0
1:960
53/Medium
moderate
negligible
E
70
0
0
1:960
61/Medium
moderate
negligible
E
71
13
5
1:960
40/Low
moderate
negligible
E
72
13
5
1:960
4011.ow
I
moderate
negligible
E
• per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 UBQ:
E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2)
C For corrosion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable
S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4
D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table 18 -111 -
GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if > 1.480]
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
�1 Z If none of the above is applicable Plate T-1 2
M
G►
TABLE I Tract 23066-3 Lot 39 - 95
LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS
Lot
Numlter
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
73
0
0
1:960
61/Medium
moderate
negligible
E
74
12
8
1:960
19N Low
high
negligible
C
75
Ili
6
1:960
19N Low
high
negligible
C
76
1 u
5
1:960
19N Low
high
negligible
C
77
9
5
1:960
19/V Low
high
negligible
C
78
3
0
1:960
19/V Low
high
negligible
C
79
0
0
1:960
24/Low
moderate
negligible
E
80
U
0
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
Z
81
0
0
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
Z
82
20
10
1:960
ON Low
moderate
negligible
Z
83
40
30
1:960
32/Low
moderate
negligible
E
84
50
40
1:960
13/V Low
moderate
negligible
Z
85
45
35
1:960
13N Low
moderate
negligible
Z
86
29
15
1:960
13/V Low
moderate
negligible
Z
87
4
1
1:960
5/V Low
moderate
negligible
Z
88
0
0
1:960
2/V Low
moderate
negligible
Z
89
8-T-7
1:960
56/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-A4
D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table 18 -111 -
GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) (noted if > 1:480)
P if post -tensioned slab system is to be used
Z If none of the above is applicable
Plate T-13
�= M M M == M M M M M M� M== M M
TABLE I Tract 23066-3 Lot 39 - 95
LOT -BY -LOT SUNINIARY 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*
Remark,
90
33
23
1:960
56/Medium
moderate
negligible
E
91
40
18
1:960
56/Medium
moderate
negligible
E
92
S5
7
1:960
15N Low
moderate
negligible
z
93
-
23
1:960
15N Low
moderate
negligible
Z
94
I I
6
1:960
ISN Low
moderate
negligible
Z
95
11
6
1.960
1 IN 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 I8411 -
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 -I 4
w
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
!
1
1
TABLE II
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
(1988-1990)
72x3066 -i �, -3
1 PETRA
Yif
I
TABLE 11
' Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY CONIP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (ft) CV-) (pct) (%) TYPE
01/19/89 A200 Slope Tioga Street 1137 12.4 120.6 92 3
'01/26/89
01/19/89
A201
Slope Tioga Street
1139
11.1
120.6
92 3
A218
01/19/89
A202
Tioga Street
1140
12.4
118.9
92 2
Slope Lot 64
01/19/89
A203
Tioga Street
1137
8.7
111.9
90 7
119.9
01/19/89
A206
Tioga Street
1142
9.9
112.5
92 7
13.6
01/23/89
A207
Tioga Street
1144
10.5
117.6
92 5
1 1 17
11.1
A211
Slope Lot 49
1142
11.1
115.0
90 5
'01/24/89
01/24/89
A212
Tioga Street
1146
11.7
119.6
93 5
A226
01/25/89
A213
Slope Lot 63
1108
11.1
114.9
90 5
01/27/89
01/25/89
01/25/89
A214
A215
Slope Lot 63
Slope Lot 64
1112
1106
12.4
11.7
116.5
116.9
91 5
91 5
'01/31/89
01/25/89
A216
Slope Lot 64
1113
12.4
120.6
92 3
'01/26/89
A217
Slope Lot 63
1112
13.0
116.8
91 5
'01/25/89
01/26/89
A218
Slope Lot 63
1117
1;0.5
116.4
91 5
01/26/89
A219
Slope Lot 64
1114
8.7
123.5
92 6
'01/26/89
A228
A220
Slope Lot 64
1117
10.5
122.9
92
6
RTNo.A226
01/26/89
A221
Slope Lot 63
1116
7.5
116.1
91
5
114.9
01/26/89
A222
Slope Lot 63
1 1 19
11.1
119.9
92
12
'
01/27/89
A223
Slope Lot 64
1116
13.6
114.4
87
12
01/27/89
A224
Slope Lot 64
1 1 17
11.1
120.3
92
12
01/27/89
A225
Slope Lot 63
1 117
13.6
114.1
87
12
'01/30/89
01/27/89
A226
Slope Lot 63
1 119
12.4
114.8
88
12
01/27/89
A227
RT No. A223
--
12.4
117.6
90
12
01/27/89
A228
RT No. A225=
13.0
118.9
91
12
01/27/89
A229
RTNo.A226
11.1
119.5
91
12
01/27/89
A230
Slope Lot 62
1122 14.6
114.9
90
5
15
A231
Slope Lot 62
1121
11.7
120.1
94
5
'01/27/89
01/27/89
A232
Slope Lot 62
1118
16.3
113.5
91
7
01/27/89
A233
Slope Lot 64
1120
13.6
116.0
93
7
15
01/30/89
A234
Slope Lot 64
1118
11.1
124.4
93
6
01/30/89
A235
Slope Lot 64
1121
13.6
118.0
90
12
01/30/89
A236
Slope Lot 63
1123
13.0
119.8
91
12
01/30/89
A237
Slope Lot 63
1124
12.4
119.8
91
12
01/30/89
A238
Slope Lot 60
1124
10.5
117.6
90
17
A239
Slope Lot 60
1125
11.1
118.1
90
12
'01/30/89
01/31/89
A240
Slope Lot 60
1126
10.5
117.1
91
5
01/31/89
A241
Slope Lot 64
1125
10.5
122.5
91
6
'01/31/89
01/31/89
A242
A243
Lot 64
Slope Lot 64
1122
1124
12.4
9.9
116.5
121.9
91
93
5
12
01/31/89
A244
Slope Lot 64
1123
14.9
115.6
90
5
A245
Slope Lot 63
1127
11.7
120.5
95
12
'01/31/89
01/31/89
A246
Slope Lot 62
1127
11.1
117.9
90
12
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1988-1990
'
J.N.
188-01
TR 23066-3/Lots 39-95
TABLE
T-11 1
15
I
TABLE 11
Field Density Test Results
TEST
TEST
TEST
ELEV,
MOISTURE
DENSITY
COMP.
SOIL
'
DATE
NO.
LOCATION
(ft)
(%)
(Pcf)
(%)
TYPE
02/01/89
A249
Slope Lot 61
1129
10.7
122.0
91
02/01/89
A247
Slope Lot 64
1124
12.4
119.8
91
12
'02/01/89
A248
Slope Lot 64
1126
10.6
122.4
91
6
02/01/89
A249
Slope Lot 61
1129
10.7
122.0
91
6
02/01/89
A250
Slope Lot 56
1130
12.0
120.0
91
12
'02/01/89
A251
Slope Lot 55
1133
12.4
119.8
91
12
02/02/89
A252
Slope Lot 58
1137
12.4
116.4
91
5
A253
Slope Lot 64
1128
14.9
115.4
90
5
'02/02/89
02/02/89
A254
Slope Lot 64
1132
14.9
115.6
90
5
02/02/89
A255
Slope Lot 55
1135
13.6
116.7
91
5
'02/03/89
02/03/89
A256
A257
Slope Lot 55
Slope Lot 56
1135
1134
12.3
10.7
122.9
123.7
94
92
12
6
02/03/89
A258
Slope Lot 60
1132
10.9
123.0
92
6
A259
Slope Lot 54
1135
12.0
121.8
93
12
'02/03/89
02/06/89
A260
Slope Lot 52
1131
12.1
120.0
92
12
02/06/89
A261
Slope Lot 50
1133
12.4
115.5
90
5
'02/06/89
A262
Slope Lot 50
1132
10.5
120.6
94
5
02/06/89
A263
Slope Lot 51
1135
13.0
116.4
91
5
02/06/89
A264
Slope Lot 54
1136
13.6
120.3
92
12
'
02/06/89
A265
Slope Tioga Street
1131
14.9
112.9
96
13
02/16/89
A308
Slope Tioga Street
1138
12.4
117.5
91
2
02/16/89
A309
Slope Lot 50
1137
11.7
117.2
91
2
1
02/16/89
A310
Slope Lot 52
1136
12.4
118.3
92
2
02/16/89
A31 I
Slope Lot 53
1135
11.7
117.8
91
2
02/16/89
02/16/89
A312
A313
Slope Tioga Street
Slope Tioga Street
1138
1140
13.6
12.4
112.7
115.5
96
90
U
I
02/16/89
A314
Slope Lot 50
1139
11.1
117.2
91
2
A315
Slope Tioga Street
1142
12.4
115.7
90
I
'02/16/89
02/16/89
A316
Slope Lot 50
1140
11.7
117.8
90
1
02/16/89
A317
Slope Tioga Street
1141
11.1
117.8
91
2
'02/16/89
A318
Slope Lot 52
1139
11.7
116.9
91
1
02/16/89
A319
Slope Lot 56
1137
12.4
115.9
91
I
02/20/89
A320
Slope Tioga Street
1142
12.4
119.4
93
5
'
02/20/89
A321
Slope Tioga Street
1143
12.4
117.8
92
5
02/20/89
A322
Slope Lot 51
1142
14.9
105.7
90
1
A323
Tioga Street
1144
12.4
120.3
92
12
'02/20/89
02/22/89
A324
Slope Lot 53
1138
13.6
115.9
92
4
02/22/89
A325
Slope Lot 50
1143
16.3
105.7
90
1
02/22/89
02/22/89
A326
A328
Slope Tioga Street
Slope Lot 53
1146
1140
13.6
12.4
116.3
117.1
92
93
4
4
02/22/89
A329
Slope Lot 50
1144
16.3
106.1
91
1
A330
Tioga Street
1148
16.3
105.9
91
1
t02/22/89
02/23/89
A331
Lot 50
1145
13.6
115.0
91
4
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1988-1990
'
J.N. 188-01
TR 23066-3/Lots 39-95
TABLE
T -II 2
I
TABLE II
Field Density Test Results
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
02/23/89
TEST
TEST
TEST
ELEV.
MOISTURE
DENSITY
CONIP,
SOIL
A333
DATE
NO.
LOCATION
(ft)
(%)
(pef)
02/23/89
TYPE
Slope Lot 54
1140
9.9
117.1
92
5
02/23/89
A335
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
02/23/89
A332
Tioga Street
1148
10.5
117.5
92
02/23/89
A333
Slope Lot 52
1141
9.9
117.6
92
5
02/23/89
A334
Slope Lot 54
1140
9.9
117.1
92
5
02/23/89
A335
Slope Tioga Street
1148
14.9
108.0
92
1
02/23/89
A336
Slope Tioga Street
1149
14.3
109.0
93
1
02/23/89
A337
Lot 55
1141
10.5
121.6
93
12
02/27/89
A344
Tioga Street
1156
11.7
119.8
91
12
02/27/89
A345
Tioga Street
1157
11.1
118.9
93
5
02/27/89
A346
TR 23066-2/Tioga Street
1165
11.7
120.1
92
12
02/28/89
A348
Tioga Street
1159
12.4
107.6
92
13
03/14/89
A396
Tioga Street
1152
13.6
114.9
90
14
03/16/89
A402
Slope Lot 49
1150
11.1
119.2
91
12
03/16/89
A403
Slope Lot 49
1152
13.0
119.1
91
12
03/16/89
A404
Slope Lot 44
1151
11.7
117.4
92
5
03/16/89
A405
Slope Lot 49
1151
11.1
116.8
91
5
03/18/89
A406
Slope Lot 49
1160
11.7
116.6
91
5
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1988-1990
J.N. 188-01 TR 23066-3/Lots 39-95 TABLE T -ll 3
37
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I]
I
TABLE
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
(2002)
1 PETRA
IF
' TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COMP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (ft) (%) facf) (%) TYPE
04116/02 213 TR 23066-3/Lot 53 slope 1142.0 10.0 127.1 95 2
'04/16/02
214
TR 23066-3/Lot 53 slope
1143.0
12.8
120.5
90 2
'04/16/02
04/16/02
215
TR 23066-3/Lot 52
1144.0
9.3
117.0
91 4
04/16/02
216
TR 23066-3/Lot 52
1145.0
7.4
122.9
93 7
'04/16/02
231
217
TR 23066-3/1-ot 51 slope
1140.0
15.5
114.3
89 z
232
04/16/02
218
RT No. 216
114.6
17.9
118.8
93
Lot 54 slope
04/16/02
225
Lot 54
1142.0
11.9
123.2
92 2
'
04/16/02
226
Lot 54
1143.0
8.9
126.0
94 2
04/16/02
227
Lot 52
1142.0
13.3
116.1
90 3
04/16/02
228
Lot 53
1143.0
9.2
121.8
91 2
'
04/16/02
229
Lot 50
1146.0
13.4
117.9
90 1
04/16/02
230
Lot 50
1147.0
12.0
121.3
92 1
04/16/02
231
Lot 56 slope
1146.0
12.4
121.1
91 2
' 04/16/02
232
Lot 56 slope
1147.0
10.4
114.6
86 2
04/16/02
233
Lot 54 slope
1147.0
12.7
119.2
91 1
'04/16/02
234
Lot 54 slope
1148.0
11.4
117.2
88 2
'04/16/02
04/16/02
235
Lot 54 slope
1149.0
14.5
114.2
87 1
04/16/02
236
Lot 51 slope
1144.0
14.6
118.3
89 2
'04/16/02
245
237
Lot 51 slope
1145.0
12.3
121.5
91* 2
Lot 52
04/17/02
238
RT No. 232
04/17/02
10.5
120.9
91 2
105.6
04/17/02
239
Lot 56 slope
1147.0
9.9
120.4
90 2
'
04/17/02
240
RT No. 236
--
12.6
120.5
90 2
04/17/02
241
Lot 51
1145.0
13.6
119.1
91 1
04/17/02
242
RT No. 234
--
9.5
122.0
91 2
'
04/17/02
243
RT No. 235
--
12.7
118.8
90 1
04/17/02
244
Lot 52 slope
1147.0
11.2
108.0
84 3
t04/17/02
245
RT No. 244
-- 13.7
115.9
90 3
'04/17/02
04/17/02
246
Lot 52
1148.0 9.2
107.0
84 3
04/17/02
247
Lot 51
1149.0 10.6
105.6
83 3
t04/17/02
248
RT No. 246
11.2
117.2
90 3
'04/17/02
04/17/02
249
RT No. 247
-- 12.8
118.6
92 3
04/17/02
250
Tioga St
1147.0 12.2
112.7
88 2
t04/17/02
251
Tioga St
1148.0
12.3
121.0
91 2
04/17/02
252
RT No. 250
9.2
120.5
90 2
04/17/02
253
Lot 44
1151.0
10.6
123.8
93 2
'
04/17/02
254
Lot 44
1152.0
13.2
119.5
91* 1
04/17/02
255
Lot 54
1147.0
15.3
118.0
92 4
04/17/02
256
Lot 54
1148.0
10.3
106.1
84 4
'
04/17/02
257
Lot 56
1145.0
11.3
115.6
90 4
04/17/02
258
Lot 56
1146.0
11.8
116.2
90 4
04/17/02
259
Lot 57
1149.0
8.8
123.3
92 2
'
04/17/02
260
Lot 57
1150.0
10.4
123.5
93 2
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95
AUGUST 2002
'
J.N.
188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE -III 1
39
' TABLE III
' Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COINIP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION tftl 19'nl tocll M TYPE
(/a
04/17/02
261
Lot 53
1148.0
7.0
114.8
87
1
262
Lot 53
1147.0
10.0
116.1
90
4
'04/17/02
04/17/02
263
RT No. 256
--
9.0
120.8
90*
2
04/17/02
264
Lot 56
1148.0
10.9
124.5
93*
2
'04/18/02
281
Lot 50
1151.0
12.8
117.8
92*
4
04/18/02
282
Lot 50
1152.0
12.4
120.4
90*
2
04/18/02
283
Lot 52 slope
1151.0
9.2
117.7
92
4
'
04/18/02
284
Lot 52 slope
1152.0
8.8
127.6
96*
2
04/18/02
285
RT No. 261
--
11.5
117.1
91
4
04/18/02
286
Lot 53 slope
1151.0
16.5
112.7
88
4
'
04/18/02
287
RT No. 267
--
11.6
116.9
91
4
04/18/02
288
RT No. 268
10.7
117.6
92
4
04/18/02
289
RT No. 269
--
11.8
117.4
91
4
04/18/02
290
Lot 59 Isope
1135.0
12.1
114.8
90
3
04/18/02
291
Lot 591sope
1136.0
12.5
116.2
90
4
04/18/02
292
Lot 63 slope
1132.0
9.9
115.4
91
3
04/18/02
293
Lot 63 slope
1133.0
11.9
115.1
90
3
04/18/02
294
Lot 55
1148.0
11.3
124.0
93
2
'04/18/02
295
Lot 55
1149.0
11.4
123.6
93
2
04/18/02
296
Lot 51
1152.0
14.9
117.0
91
4
04/18/02
297
Lot 51
1153.0
13.7
112.7
92
D
'
04/18/02
298
Lot 63 slope
1130.0
10.1
113.2
92
D
04/18/02
299
Lot 63
1126.0
11.3
113.6
93*
D
04/18/02
300
Lot 63
1127.0
10.7
115.8
90*
4
'
04/18/02
301
Lot 55
1149.0
11.4
120.0
92*
1
04/18/02
302
Lot 55
1150.0
10.8
121.8
91
2
04/18/02
303
Lot 52
1152.0
14.1
116.5
91*
4
'
04/18/02
304
Lot 52
1153.0
10.1
118.4
92
4
04/19/02
313
Lot 56
1150.0
11.4
117.7
92*
4
314
Lot 56
1151.0
12.6
120.7
90*
2
'04/19/02
04/19/02
315
Lot 61 slope
1134.0
11.7
117.2
91
4
04/19/02
316
Lot 61 slope
1135.0
11.6
119.2
91
1
'04/19/02
317
RT No. 286
--
14.6
115.2
90
3
04/19/02
318
Tioga St
1156.0
13.7
121.2
91
2
04/19/02
319
Lot 54 slope
1153.0
8.2
119.5
91*
1
'
04/19/02
320
Lot 54
1154.0
12.5
117.5
91
4
04/19/02
321
Lot 63 slope
1132.0
13.6
117.4
91
4
04/19/02
322
Lot 63 slope
1133.0
11.1
117.6
91
4
'
04/19/02
323
Lot 63 slope
1129.0
12.5
114.6
94
D
04/19/02
324
Lot 63 slope
1130.0
11.1
118.4
92
4
04/22/02
326
Lot 55
1152.0
12.4
123.8
93
2
'
04/22/02
327
Lot 55
1153.0
13.4
120.9
92
1
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95
AUGUST
2002
'
J.N.
188-01
` Sandcone
TABLE -111 2
(/a
I
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
V1
TEST
DATE
TEST
NO.
TEST
LOCATION
ELEV.
(ft)
MOISTURE
(%v)
DENSITY
(PC f)
COMP.
(fib)
SOIL
TYPE
04/22/02
328
Lot 60 slope
1133.0
11.9
120.2
91
1
04/22/02
329
Lot 60 slope
1134.0
12.4
123.3
92
2
04/22/02
330
Lot 53
1155.0
11.7
121.8
91
2
04/22/02
331
Lot 53
1156.0
13.0
120.6
90
2
'04/22/02
332
Lot 58 slope
1138.0
13.2
115.3
90
3
04/22/02
333
Lot 58 slope
1139.0
11.3
121.2
91
2
04/22/02
334
Lot 64
1130.0
13.6
118.4
90
1
'
04/23/02
335
Lot 64
1131.0
9.9
125.4
94
2
04/23/02
336
Tioga St
1152.0
11.7
121.2
91*
2
'
04/23/02
04/23/02
337
338
Lot 59 slope
Lot 63 slope
1138.0
1128.0
8.1
12.3
120.8
118.8
90*
90*
2
1
04/23/02
339
Tioga St
1152.0
10.7
118.3
92
4
340
Tioga St
1153.0
12.2
119.2
93
4
i04/23/02
04/23/02
341
Lot 59 slope
1138.0
6.8
126.0
94
2
04/23/02
342
Lot 59 slope
1139.0
10.3
119.6
90
2
343
Lot 63 slope
1128.0
10.0
121.5
91
2
'04/23/02
04/23/02
344
Lot 63 slope
1129.0
13.3
115.8
90
3
04/23/02
345
Lot 57 slope
1130.0
10.8
120.6
92
1
'04/23/02
346
Lot 57 slope
1131.0
8.0
121.3
92
1
04/23/02
347
access road slope
1124.0
11.0
110.3
84
1
04/23/02
348
Lot 55 slope
1148.0
12.3
118.2
90
1
04/23/02
349
Lot 55
1149.0
12.6
115.2
90
3
04/23/02
350
Lot 62 slope
1136.0
8.9
114.1
93
D
'
04/22/02
04/22/02
351
352
Lot 62 slope
RT No. 347
1137.0
--
12.3
9.1
113.7
119.2
93
91
D
1
04/22/02
365
Lot 55
1152.0
9.0
122.4
92
2
366
Lot 55
1153.0
11.9
123.5
92
2
'04/22/02
04/22/02
367
Lot 58
1149.0
11.4
121.6
91
2
04/22/02
368
Lot 58
1150.0
12.1
121.7
91
2
04/22/02
369
Lot 60
1141.0
11.9
122.0
91
2
04/22/02
370
Lot 60
1142.0
11.9
121.3
91
2
04/22/02
371
Lot 63
1130.0
10.2
121.4
91
2
'04/22/02
372
Lot 63
1132.0
10.6
120.0
91
1
04/22/02
373
Lot 53
1153.0
8.8
123.4
92
2
04/22/02
374
Lot 53
1154.0
9.6
118.6
90
1
t04/22/02
375
Lot 53
1154.0
8.1
117.8
92*
4
04/23/02
376
Lot 55
1152.0
11.7
126.4
95*
2
'
04/24/02
04/24/02
389
390
Lot 52
Lot 52
1157.0
1158.0
7.0
5.4
119.7
117.0
91
91
1
4
04/24/02
391
Lot 55
1154.0
9.8
126.6
95
2
392
Lot 55
1155.0
11.7
124.0
93
2
'04/24/02
04/24/02
393
Lot 59
1144.0
13.7
118.7
90
1
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-311-ots 39-95
AUGUST
2002
'
J.N.
188-01
' Sandcone
TABLE -III 3
V1
TABLE 111
I
Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY _COMP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (ft) M (prt) (36) TYPE
04/24/02
394
Lot 59
1145.0
12.7
119.2
91
395
Lot 62
1135.0
15.8
108.7
90
8
'04/24/02
04/24/02
396
Lot 62
1136.0
8.8
113.9
93
d
04/24/02
401
Lot 61
1146.0
10.7
121.7
91
2
04/24/02
402
Lot 61
1147.0
9.0
118.3
90
1
04/24/02
403
Lot 64 slope
1133.0
10.5
121.3
91
2
04/24/02
404
Lot 64 slope
1134.0
11.3
116.5
91
3
fl04/25/02
405
Lot 57
1152.0
9.6
124.2
93
2
04/25/02
406
Lot 57
1153.0
8.2
123.2
92
2
'
04/25/02
04/25/02
407
408
Lot 65 slope
Lot 65 slope
1131.0
1132.0
12.0
13.1
117.7
120.8
90
90
9
2
04/25/02
409
Lot 61
1135.0
13.2
118.0
90
9
410
Lot 61
1136.0
12.8
119.4
91
9
'04/25/02
04/25/02
411
Lot 49
1158.0
9.9
120.1
90
2
04/25/02
412
Lot 43
1155.0
10.6
127.1
95
2
04/25/02
413
Tioga St
1155.0
9.7
120.6
90
2
04/25/02
414
Lot 59
1146.0
12.9
110.3
86
3
04/25/02
415
Lot 49
1157.0
11.3
114.8
90
4
'04/25/02
416
Lot 49
1158.0
9.6
109.2
91
8
04/25/02
417
Lot 43
1155.0
9.4
113.4
94
8
04/25/02
418
Lot 43
1156.0
10.2
114.3
94
8
'
04/25/02
419
Tioga St
1154.0
9.0
126.9
95
2
04/25/02
420
Tioga St
1155.0
9.4
123.7
93
2
04/25/02
04/25/02
421
422
RT No. 414
Lot 59
--
1146.0
92
8.2
116.2
115.4
90
90
3
4
04/25/02
423
Lot 63
1137.0
9.2
108.0
83
1
424
Lot 63
1138.0
8.0
117.9
90
1
'04/25/02
04/25/02
425
RT No. 423
--
13.4
117.9
90
1
04/25102
426
Lot 59
1159.0
8.1
123.0
93
2
427
Lot 62
1144.0
9.5
123.0
92
2
'04/25/02
04/25/02
428
Lot 62
1145.0
11.0
120.4
90
2
04/25/02
429
Lot 64 slope
1138.0
13.6
115.3
90
4
'04/25/02
430
Lot 64 slope
1139.0
15.1
111.9
92
D
04/26/02
433
Lot 58
1154.0
10.8
126.2
95
2
04/26/02
434
Lot 58
1155.0
12.6
124.7
93
2
'
04/26/02
435
Lot 60
1150.0
12.2
112.9
94
8
04/26/02
436
Lot 60
1151.0
10.4
123.8
93
2
'
04/26/02
04/26/02
437
438
Lot 62 slope
Lot 62 slope
1145.0
1146.0
7.6
10.2
116.7
110.6
91
92
4
8
04/26/02
439
Lot 65 slope
1140.0
10.6
113.3
93
D
440
Lot 65 slope
1141.0
8.7
116.6
91
4
'04/26/02
05/10/02
845
Lot 56 slope
1158.0
12.3
117.6
90
1
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95
AUGUST
2002
'
J.N.
188-01
' Sandcone
TABLE -III 4
I
[1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
TEST 'TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COMP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (ft) M) (pcf) (%) TYPE
05/10/02
846
Lot 56 slope
1159.0
12.1
116.7
91
4
05/10/02
847
Lot 61 slope
1148.0
8.1
109.8
91
8
05/10/02
848
Lot 61 slope
1149.0
8.5
122.2
93
8
05/10/02
849
Lot 58 slope
1156.0
11.1
122.3
92
2
05/10/02
850
Lot 58 slope
1157.0
10.4
128.7
96
2
05/13/02
864
Lot 64
1142.0
10.5
118.5
90
2
05/13/02
865
Lot 64
1143.0
10.0
113.0
91
10
05/13/02
866
Lot 64
1144.0
9.8
114.0
93
10
05/13/02
867
Lot 62
1140.0
11.4
111.5
93
D
05/13/02
868
Lot 26
1150.0
9.8
108.8
93
5
05/14/02
869
Lot 52
1162.0
13.5
118.6
90
1
05/14/02
870
Lot 52
1163.0
13.3
114.0
93
10
05/14/02
871
Lot 55
1164.0
9.1
122.7
92
2
05/14/02
872
Lot 55
1165.0
11.3
124.6
93
2
05/14/02
873
Lot 53
1163.0
15.5
115.3
90
4
05/14/02
874
Lot 53
1164.0
15.2
114.2
92
10
05/17/02
999
Elchismal/access road
1145.0
12.1
120.1
92
2
05/17/02
1000
Elchismal/access road
1147.0
11.7
120.2
90
2
05/17/02
1001
Lot 64
1152.0
11.8
105.9
91
5
05/17/02
1002
Lot 64
1154.0
12.3
107.0
92
5
05/17/02
1003
Lot 61
1158.0
11.5
118.2
91
9
05/17/02
1004
Lot 61
1160.0
9.6
121.5
93
9
05/21/02
1032
Lot 59 slope
1158.0
11.8
117.6
90
9
05/21/02
1033
Lot 59 slope
1159.0
13.0
119.8
91
7
05/21/02
1034
Lot 63 slope
1150.0
11.6
119.1
90
7
05/21/02
1035
Lot 63 slope
1151.0
10.9
117.1
91
4
05/21/02
1036
Lot 65 slope
1148.0
11.6
123.1
93
2
05/21/02
1037
Lot 65 slope
1149.0
12.7
119.6
91
7
05/21/02
1042
Tioga St
1148.0
12.1
116.0
90*
4
05/21/02
1043
Tioga St
1149.0
13.0
119.7
93*
4
05/21/02
1044
Lot 59 slope
1156.0
8.7
115.8
90*
4
05/21/02
1045
Lot 59 slope
1157.0
9.9
115.8
90*
4
05/21/02
1046
Lot 57
1159.0
14.7
116.2
90*
4
05/21/02
1047
Lot 57
1160.0
13.0
118.5
91*
9
05/21/02
1058
Lot 58
1161.0
12.4
118.6
91
9
05/21/02
1059
Lot 58
1162.0
11.2
115.1
92
10
05/21/02
1060
Lot 60
1157.0
9.6
123.0
92
2
05/21/02
1061
Lot 60
1158.0
13.1
118.2
91
9
05/21/02
1062
Lot 63
1149.0
14.1
109.6
91
8
05/21/02
1063
Lot 63
1150.0
13.6
116.6
93
4
05/21/02
1064
Lot 61
1153.0
11.6
120.9
91
2
05/21/02
1065
Lot 64 slope
1149.0
7.9
121.0
91
2
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-3/Lots 39-95 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -III 5
V
I
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -111 6
yy
,f EST
DATE
TEST
NO.
TEST
LOCATION
ELEV.
(ft)
MOISTURE
(%)
DENSITY
f cll
COMP.
(°o)
SOIL
TYPE
05/21/02
1066
Lot 56
1164.0
10.8
116.2
87
2
1067
RT No. 1066
--
11.1
120.4
90
2
'05/21/02
05/21/02
1068
Lot 64
1152.0
10.3
118.5
91
9
05/21/02
1069
Lot 59
1158.0
8.4
121.2
91
2
05/21/02
1070
Lot 62
1156.0
10.7
121.1
91
2
05/21/02
1071
Lot 62
1157.0
9.6
123.6
93
2
05/21/02
1072
Lot 57
1163.0
11.6
112.9
86
9
'
05/21/02
1073
Lot 65 slope
1147.0
11.5
113.6
86
1
05/21/02
1074
Lot 65 slope
1148.0
13.5
114.2
87
1
05/21/02
1075
TR 23066-2/1-ot 64
1152.0
14.4
113.4
86
1
'
05/21/02
1076
Lot 64
1153.0
12.6
121.0
91
2
05/21/02
1077
Lot 61
1158.0
11.7
117.5
90
9
05/21/02
1078
Lot 61
1159.0
11.2
119.7
91
l
'05/21/02
1079
RT No. 1073
--
11.7
118.6
90
l
05/21/02
1080
RT No. 1074
10.8
119.2
91
l
1081
RT No. 1072
11.9
117.8
90
9
'05/21/02
05/21/02
1082
RT No. 1075
13.6
118.4
90
1
05/21/02
1083
Lot 63 slope
1159.0
10.3
123.4
92
2
'05/21/02
1084
Lot 63 slope
1160.0
10.9
120.3
90
2
05/21/02
1085
Lot 61
1162.0
4.4
120.9
91
2
05/21/02
1086
Lot 61
1163.0
5.8
126.0
94
2
'
05/21/02
1087
Lot 56
1164.0
11.8
124.6
93*
2
05/21/02
1088
Lot 56
1165.0
10.0
122.2
92*
2
1089
Lot 60
1162.0
10.3
124.1
93*
2
'05/21/02
05/22/02
1090
Lot 60
1163.0
12.5
121.6
91*
2
05/22/02
1091
Lot 66
1152.0
13.1
114.9
86*
2
05/22/02
1092
Lot 62
1163.0
8.8
115.7
87*
2
05/22/02
1093
Lot 60
1162.0
10.0
113,5
85*
2
05/22/02
1096
RT No. 1092
--
9.6
124.0
93*
2
1097
RT No. 1093
6.3
124.4
93*
2
'05/22/02
05/22/02
1098
RT No. 1091
6.8
123.1
92*
2
05/22/02
1099
Lot 65
1150.0
8.4
121.0
91*
2
'05/22/02
1100
Lot 65
1149.0
11.3
118.5
90*
1
05/22/02
1101
Lot 61
1163.0
11.1
123.3
92
2
05/22/02
1102
Lot 61
1164.0
8.6
120.8
90
2
'
05/22/02
1113
Lot 44
1158.0
12.7
117.9
92
9
05/22/02
1114
Lot 44
1159.0
15.4
114.9
90
3
05/22/02
1115
Lot 48
1159.0
12.1
121.6
91
2
'
05/22/02
1116
Lot 48
1160.0
10.4
119.8
93
4
05/22/02
1117
Lot 64
1160.0
11.8
116.0
90
4
05/22/02
1118
Lot 64
1161.0
11.6
121.0
91
2
05/22/02
1119
Tioga St/Sta 18+30
1156.0
6.2
120.1
92
9
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -111 6
yy
TABLE III
' Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COMP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (Pt) (% (PcC) (°T) TYPE
S/S
05/22/02
1120
Tioga St/Sta 18+32
1155.0
8.1
115.2
90
10
1121
Lot 65 slope
1154.0
9.0
119.0
91
9
'05/22/02
05/22/02
1122
Lot 65 slope
1155.0
12.2
113.1
91
10
05/22/02
1123
Lot 63
1161.0
9.9
121.0
91
2
'05/22/02
1124
Lot 63
1160.0
10.7
117.6
90
9
05/23/02
1133
Lot 43
1163.0
13.4
118.1
91
9
05/23/02
1134
Lot 43
1164.0
14.2
118.7
91
9
'
05/23/02
1135
Lot 49
1164.0
11.0
119.6
92
9
05/23/02
1136
Lot 49
1163.0
10.1
115.8
90
4
05/23/02
1137
Lot 45
1162.0
11.3
120.2
92
9
'
05/23/02
1138
Lot 45
1163.0
10.8
119.6
92
9
05/23/02
1139
Lot 66
1161.0
11.3
119.1
90
7
1140
Lot 66
1162.0
9.2
119.8
91
7
'05/23/02
05/23/02
1141
Lot 65
1162.0
9.7
122.8
92
2
05/23/02
1142
Lot 65
1163.0
12.2
118.9
90
7
1143
Lot 62
1163.0
12.0
121.3
91
2
'05/23/02
05/23/02
1144
Lot 62
1164.0
11.3
120.3
90
2
05/23/02
1145
Lot 92
1159.0
8.3
116.4
93
10
'05/23/02
1146
Lot 92
1160.0
9.5
111.7
93
8
05/23/02
1147
RT No. 824
9.8
120.7
92
1
05/23/02
1151
Lot 85
1159.0
7.4
111.8
88
3
'
05/23/02
1152
Lot 85
1158.0
13.1
118.8
90
1
05/23/02
1154
Lot 91
1157.0
8.5
120.1
91
7
05/24/02
1175
TR 23066-1/1-ot 92
1159.0
9.7
112.9
91
11
'
05/24/02
1176
Lot 85
1161.0
9.9
114.6
90
3
05/24/02
1177
RT No. 1151
--
7.6
111.4
88
3
05/24/02
1178
Lot 85
1156.0
12.5
110.4
92
8
05/24/02
1179
Lot 85
1157.0
11.0
111.6
93
8
05/24/02
1180
Lot 92
1162.0
12.0
115.5
91
3
05/24/02
1181
Lot 92
1165.0
10.6
114.4
90
3
05/24/02
1182
RT No. 1177
--
9.7
116.1
91
3
05/28/02
1187
Lot 92
1263.0
12.9
116.5
91
4
'05/28/02
1188
Lot 92
1259.0
9.7
119.6
89
2
05/28/02
1189
RT No. 1188
1259.0
10.4
121.7
91
2
05/28/02
1190
Lot 92
1264.0
12.3
114.6
92
10
'
05/28/02
1191
Lot 92
1264.0
13.1
113.3
91
10
05/28/02
1192
Lot 92
1265.0
11.3
117.1
91
4
05/28/02
1193
Lot 92
1266.0
6.9
120.2
90
2
05/28/02
1194
Lot 91
1266.0
11.4
115.8
93
10
05/28/02
1195
Lot 106
1258.0
9.6
124.0
95
9
1200
Lot 92
1166.0
11.0
113.4
91
10
'05/28/02
05/28/02
1201
Lot 92
1166.0
10.3
115.8
90
4
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-3/Lots 39-95
AUGUST
2002
tJ.N.
188-01
' Sandcone
TABLE -III 7
S/S
I
I
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
4
TEST
TEST
TEST
ELEV. 'f`
MOISTURE
DENSITY
COMP.
SOIL
'05/28/02
DATE
NO.
LOCATION
(ft)
M
(pCf)
(%)
TYPE
4
05/28/02
1202
Lot 92
1167.0
11.3
110.7
89
10
'05/28/02
1203
Wiki Circle
1180.0
9.1
120.9
91
2
05/28/02
1204
Wiki Circle
1181.0
10.5
117.8
90
9
05/28/02
1205
Lot 85 slope
1175.0
10.0
118.9
91
9
'05/28/02
1206
Lot 85 slope
1176.0
11.5
116.8
91*
4
05/28/02
1207
Lot 85 slope
1170.0
11.6
118.9
91*
9
1208
Lot 85 slope
1171.0
12.2
119.5
92*
7
'05/28/02
05/28/02
1211
Lot 85 slope
1180.0
12.8
117.2
91
4
05/28/02
1212
Lot 85 slope
1181.0
13.5
116.5
91
4
05/28/02
05/28/02
1215
1216
Lot 83 slope
Lot 83 slope
1130.0
1131.0
11.2
7.5
118.0
122.3
92
95
4
4
05/29/02
1217
Lot 87
1163.0
8.8
120.7
90
2
1218
Lot 83 slope
1138.0
12.6
114.7
89
4
'05/29/02
05/29/02
1219
Lot 83 slope
1t39.0
13.8
110.7
89
10
05/29/02
1220
RT No. 1218
11.9
119.5
96
10
'05/29/02
1221
RT No. 1219
--
10.8
116.2
90
4
05/29/02
1222
Lot 84
1240.0
10.9
115.8
90
4
05/29/02
1223
Lot 84
1241.0
11.9
109.9
95
5
'
05/30/02
1226
Lot 91
1182.0
19.5
107.3
93
5
05/30/02
1227
Lot 91
1181.0
17.0
112.5
90
10
05/30/02
1228
RT No. 1202
--
12.3
112.4
90
10
i05/30/02
1231
Lot 83 slope
1138.0
9.5
107.4
93
5
05/30/02
1232
Lot 83 slope
1140.0
7.9
113.1
91
10
05/30/02
05/30/02
1233
1234
Lot 84
Lot 83
1149.0
1146.0
11.2
14.8
109.6
108.7
91
90
8
8
05/30/02
1235
Lot 83
1147.0
12.7
104.5
90
5
1238
Lot 83 slope
1151.0
10.9
113.7
91
10
'05/30/02
05/30/02
1239
Lot 83 slope
1152.0
8.9
114.9
92
10
05/31/02
1242
Lot 84 slope
1153.0
14.5
112.6
90
10
'05/31/02
1243
Lot 84 slope
1154.0
13.6
114.9
92
10
05/31/02
1246
Lot 84
1155.0
15.0
114.2
91
10
05/31/02
1247 '
Lot 84
1156.0
16.1
108.7
90
8
'05/31/02
1248
Lot 83 slope
1157.0
13.6
104.8
90
5
05/31/02
1249
Lot 83 slope
1156.0
12.4
113.0
91
10
05/31/02
1253
Lot 83
1154.0
13.0
117.9
92
4
05/31/02
1254
Lot 83
1156.0
12.2
111.2
89
10
06/03/02
1258
RT No. 1254
--
8.7
113.5
91
10
'
06/03/02
06/03/02
1259
1262
Lot 83
RT No. 1251
1164.0
--
14.0
13.5
114.1
110.8
90
96
12
5
06/03/02
1269
Lot 83 slope
1260.0
14.0
113.9
90
12
06/03/02
1270
Lot 83 slope
1261.0
16.0
112.0
88
12
06/03/02
1271
Lot 84
1267.0
15.0
114.7
91
12
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL,
INC.
TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95
AUGUST
2002
J.N.
188-01
" Sandcone
TABLE -III 8
4
' TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
TEST TESTTEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COMP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (ft) (%) (VC f) M TYPE
y7
06/03/02
1272
Lot 84
1268.0
12.2
116.7
91
4
06/03/02
1275
Lot 92
1280.0
12.9
114.6
91
12
06/03/02
1301
Lot 83 slope
1167.0
14.1
105.8
88
8
06/03/02
1302
Lot 83 slope
1168.0
10.9
103.6
89
5
06/03/02
1305
Lot 85
1171.0
15.1
106.4
88
8
06/03/02
1306
Lot 85
1172.0
11.9
105.5
91
5
06/03/02
1307
RT No. 1301
--
9.7
108.6
90
8
1
06/03/02
1308
RT No. 1302
11.8
104.9
90
5
06/03/02
1309
RT No. 1305
10.6
108.7
90
8
'
06/03/02
06/04/02
1310
1311
RT No. 1270
Lot 83 slope
--
1173.0
12.4
15.9
115.8
110.5
92
89
12
10
06/04/02
1312
Lot 83 slope
1174.0
10.1
118.5
91
9
1315
Lots 83-84 slope
1174.0
14.9
108.6
90
8
'06/04/02
06/04/02
1316
RT No. 1311
--
11.7
115.5
91
12
06/04/02
1321
Lot 82 slope
1177.0
5.6
104.3
87
8
06/04/02
1322
Lot 85
1178.0
8.1
112.2
90
10
06/04/02
1323
Lot 85
1179.0
11.8
114.6
91
12
06/04/02
1326
Lot 83
1180.0
11.2
114.9
91
12
'06/04/02
1327
Lot 83
1181.0
8.7
121.3
91
11
06/04/02
1330
RT No. 1321
15.4
108.6
90
8
06/05/02
1332
Lot 85
1185.0
7.0
120.4
92
9
'
06/05/02
1333
Lot 85
1186.0
11.1
119.5
91
9
06/05/02
1334
Lot 91
1184.0
8.6
112.4
90
10
'
06/05/02
06/05/02
1335
1340
Lot 91
Wiki Circle
1185.0
1185.0
11.7
7.5
112.6
121.4
90
91
10
11
06/05/02
1341
Wiki Circle
1184.0
10.6
110.9
89
10
1342
RT No. 1341
--
14.1
116.7
89
9
'06/05/02
06/05/02
1343
RT No. 1342
13.3
116.2
89
9
06/05/02
1344
RT No. 1343
--
10.2
117.8
90
9
1345
Lot 84
1185.0
11.9
118.4
91
9
'06/05/02
06/05/02
1346
Lot 84
1186.0
9.8
117.5
91
9
06/05/02
1347
Lot 91
1189.0
7.2
112.9
87
9
'06/05/02
1348
Lot 91
1190.0
8.4
115.7
90
4
06/05/02
1349
RT No. 1347
14.7
113.8
87
9
06/05/02
1350
Lot 84
1188.0
9.0
120.4
92
9
'
06/05/02
1355
Lot 93
1189.0
16.8
107.3
86
10
06/05/02
1356
Lot 93
1190.0
12.9
108.7
87
10
06/05/02
1357
Lot 86
1190.0
13.1
117.8
90
9
S06/06/02
1358
Lot 86
1192.0
14.0
115.9
90
4
06/06/02
1359
Lot 85 slope
1195.0
13.0
115.0
89
4
1360
RT No. 1359
--
11.5
116.7
90
4
'06/06/02
06/06/02
1361
RT No. 1355
13.9
114.8
89
4
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95
AUGUST
2002
'
J.N.
188-01
` Sandcone
TABLE -III 9
y7
' TABLE III
' Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COMP. SOIL
DATF NO. LOCATION (ft) (%) (Dc) (%) TYPE
a
06/06/02
1362
RT No. 1361
--
12.7
118.4
90
9
06/06/02
1363
Lot 84
1190.0
13.6
117.9
90
4
06/06/02
1364
RT No. 1356
--
15.0
113.8
91
10
06/06/02
1365
RT No. 1349
--
10.4
120.9
93
9
'06/06/02
1368
Lot 85 slope
1194.0
9.0
117.5
90
9
06/06/02
1369
Lot 85 slope
1195.0
11.8
117.0
89
9
06/06/02
1373
RT No. 1369
--
10.2
118.4
91
9
'
06/06/02
1374
Lot 82
1192.0
11.8
120.7
90
11
06/06/02
1375
Lot 82
1193.0
10.7
119.8
92
9
06/06/02
1376
Lot 91
1193.0
12.4
116.7
91
4
06/06/02
1377
Lot 91
1194.0
11.0
115.8
90
4
06/06/02
1382
Lot 84
1192.0
12.7
120.9
91
11
06/06/02
1383
Lot 84
1191.0
10.1
117.0
91
4
06/07/02
1390
Wiki Circle
1192.0
13.7
115.4
91
12
06/07/02
1391
Wiki Circle
1191.0
12.5
116.8
91
4
06/07/02
1394
Lot 90
1194.0
13.5
112.4
90
10
06/07/02
1395
Lot 90
1195.0
12.0
120.1
90
9
06/07/02
1396
Lot 84
1189.0
9.4
118.4
91
9
06/07/02
1397
Lot 84
1190.0
12.9
117.5
90
9
06/07/02
1398
Lot 92
1193.0
12.5
117.9
90
9
06/07/02
1405
Lot 86 slope
1182.0
14.2
113.2
91
10*
06/07/02
1406
Lot 86 slope
1183.0
11.4
116.5
92
12
06/07/02
1407
Lot 85
1189.0
8.4
116.3
92
12*
06/07/02
1408
Lot 85
1190.0
16.3
111.8
93
8*
06/07/02
1409
Lot 84
1190.0
12.5
109.4
88
10*
06/07/02
1410
Lot 84
1191.0
8.2
108.0
87
10*
06/07/02
1411
RT No. 1409
--
12.8
112.3
90
10
06/07/02
1412
RT No. 1410
--
11.9
114.0
92
10
06/07/02
1415
Lot 84 slope
1183.0
10.4
105.7
88
8
1416
Lot 84 slope
1184.0
10.2
108.9
90
8
'06/07/02
06/07/02
1417
Lot 91 slope
1191.0
15.1
109.6
90
8
06/07/02
1418
Lot 91 slope
1192.0
11.9
112.7
91
10
'06/10/02
1445
Lot 93
1195.0
7.7
116.1
90*
4
06/10/02
1446
Lot 93
1196.0
12.1
121.6
91*
11
06/10/02
1447
Lot 83
1192.0
8.9
124.0
93*
11
'06/10/02
1448
Lot 83
1193.0
10.8
121.1
90*
11
06/10/02
1449
Lot 85
1192.0
10.6
115.2
91
12
06/10/02
1450
Lot 85
1193.0
8.3
121.3
93
9
'
06/10/02
1453
Lot 83 slope
1190.0
10.0
120.7
90
11
06/10/02
1454
Lot 83 slope
1191.0
10.1
119.6
92
9
'
06/10/02
1459
Lot 82
Lot 82
1194.0
1195.0
9.4
9.3
111.3
115.1
89
90
10
12
06/10/02
1460
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-3/Lots 39-95
AUGUST 2002
'
J.N.
188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE
-III 10
a
TABLE III
' field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COMP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (ft) (%) (pcf) (%) TYPE
1
[1
1
1
1
06/10/02
1465
Lot 93
1194.0
14.9
109.8
87
12
06/10/02
1466
Lot 93
1195.0
8.3
115.2
91
12
06/10/02
1467
Lot 85
1193.0
10.4
108.2
90
8
06/10/02
1468
Lot 85
1194.0
11.5
104.8
90
5
06/10/02
1469
Wiki Circle @ Lot 92
1196.0
10.8
110.5
92
8
06/10/02
1470
Wiki Circle @ Lot 92
1197.0
11.9
112.8
91
10
06/11/02
1473
RT No. 1462
--
12.1
116.7
91
4
06/11/02
1474
RT No. 1459
13.2
117.2
91
4
06/11/02
1475
RT No. 1465
--
12.4
115.3
91
12
06/11/02
1476
Lot 82
1190.0
7.8
120.7
92
9
06/11/02
1477
Lot 82
1190.0
7.5
122.9
94
9
06/11/02
1482
Lot 91
1193.0
10.9
116.9
92
12
06/11/02
1483
Lot 91
1197.0
8.7
122.0
96
12
06/11/02
1484
Lot 90
1194.0
13.3
117.8
93
12
06/11/02
1485
Lot 83
1190.0
12.8
119.9
95
12
06/11/02
1486
Wiki Circle
1198.0
12.4
118.8
94
12
06/11/02
1487
Lot 93
1198.0
9.9
118.1
93
12
06/11/02
1490
Lot 86
1194.0
7.8
114.5
91
12
06/11/02
1491
Lot 86
1193.0
9.1
121.7
91
11
06/11/02
1492
Lot 92
1196.0
11.5
116.6
92
12
06/11/02
1493
RT No. 1415
--
14.5
108.5
90
8
06/11/02
1494
TR 23066-3/1-ot 84
1198.0
11.7
112.8
91
10
06/11/02
1497
RT No. 1488
--
8.9
117.4
91
4
06/12/02
1512
Lot 84
1194.0
9.8
119.6
93
4
06/12/02
1513
Lot 83
1194.0
9.9
120.2
93
4
06/12/02
1517
Lot 93
1200.0
8.9
120.0
92
9
06/12/02
1518
Lot 88
1195.0
9.3
119.9
92
9
06/12/02
1521
Lot 93
1201.0
10.6
118.1
90
9
06/12/02
1523
Lot 90
1199.0
11.0
117.6
93
12
06/12/02
1524
Lot 94
1201.0
10.8
120.1
92
9
06/18/02
1651
Lots 73-77
1151.0
10.6
108.6
85
4
06/18/02
1652
RT No. 1651
--
6.5
109.2
85
4
06/18/02
1653
RT No. 1652
--
8.4
117.4
91
4
06/18/02
1654
Lots 73-77
1153.0
10.3
107.2
89
8
06/18/02
1655
RT No. 1654
--
12.6
119.8
96
8
06/18/02
1656
Lots 71-72
1162.0
7.5
112.2
87
4
06/18/02
1657
RT No. 1656
1162.0
9.3
115.3
90
4
06/18/02
1658
Lot 89
1290.0
11.2
122.9
93
4
06/18/02
1659
Lot 90
1190.0
10.4
122.3
93
4
06/18/02
1660
Lots 71-72
1163.0
10.4
115.1
90
4
06/19/02
1663
Lots 71-72
1165.0
12.6
111.0
90*
10
06/19/02
1664
Lot 90
1201.0
10.9
118.8
91
9
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95 AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -III 11
y4
' TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY CONIP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (f0 M (PCI) (%I TYPE
50
06/19/02
1665
Lot 90
1202.0
13.5
112.6
90
10
06/19/02
1666
Lot 72
1164.0
18.0
100.15
87
06/19/02
1667
Lot 72
1163.0
15.8
104.7
90
S
06/19/02
1668
RT No. 1666
--
18.6
99.2
91
6
'06/19/02
1669
Lot 71 slope
1166.0
17.7
98.3
90
6
06/19/02
1670
Lot 71 slope
1167.0
9.8
109.4
91
8
06/19/02
1671
Lot 72 slope
1169.0
20.1
102.8
89
5
1
06/19/02
1672
RT No. 1671
--
18.2
103.5
89
5
06/19/02
1673
RT No. 1672
-
19.4
104.7
90
5
06/19/02
1674
Lot 72
1171.0
13.0
116.7
92
12
'
06/19/02
1675
Lot 72
1172.0
11.6
114.8
91
12
06/20/02
1676
Lot 76
1162.0
19.3
108.8
90
8
06/20/02
1677
Lot 76
1163.0
15.8
109.1
91
8
'
06/20/02
1678
Lot 72
1175.0
14.7
110.0
91
8
06/20/02
1679
Lot 72
1176.0
11.5
112.9
91
10
06/20/02
1680
Lot 75 slope
1164.0
10.1
128.3
96
11
1
06/20/02
1681
Lot 75 slope
1165.0
11.8
119.5
92
9
06/21/02
1686
Lot 76
1170.0
10.2
107.7
93
5
'06/21/02
1687
Lot 76
1169.0
10.5
113.8
91
10
06/21/02
1688
Lot 64
1161.0
9.8
122.4
92
11
06/21/02
1689
Lot 64
1162.0
10.6
120.3
90
11
'
06/21/02
1690
Lot 65
1161.0
15.8
104.9
90
13
06/21/02
1691
Lot 65
1162.0
16.2
105.5
91
13
06/21/02
1692
Lot 71
1178.0
13.5
118.7
94
12
'
06/21/02
1693
Lot 71
1177.0
14.3
115.0
88
9
06/21/02
1694
RT No. 1693
--
13.6
117.9
91
9
06/21/02
1695
Lot 76 slope
1170.0
12.7
108.8
90
8
'
06/21/02
1696
Lot 76 slope
1172.0
14.0
110.4
92
8
06/21/02
1697
Lot 75 slope
1176.0
11.4
116.1
92
12
1698
Lot 75 slope
1177.0
17.0
104.7
90
13
'06/21/02
06/21/02
1699
Lot 76
1178.0
15.8
105.3
91
13
06/21/02
1700
Lot 76
1179.0
10.2
112.5
91
13
06/21/02
1701
Lot 75
1178.0
11.8
112.5
90
10
06/21/02
1702
Lot 75
1179.0
10.2
113.8
91
10
06/21/02
1703
Lot 72
1180.0
13.0
104.7
90
13
'06/21/02
1704
Lot 72
1181.0
16.1
106.5
92
13
06/25/02
1735
Lot 48
116.0
12.1
127.2
97*
11
06/25/02
1736
Lot 46
1165.0
11.1
123.5
93*
11
'
06/25/02
1737
Lot 44
1162.0
13.6
123.6
93*
11
06/25/02
1738
Lot 47
1166.0
13.6
121.6
91*
11
06/25/02
1739
Lot 43
1164.0
10.5
120.9
91*
11
'
06/25/02
1740
Lot 66
1164.0
11.7
124.6
93*
11
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95
AUGUST
2002
'
J.N.
188-01
' Sandcone
TABLE -III 12
TiP
3 0 6 6 -//
50
I
TABLE III
'
Field Density Test Results
TEST
TEST
TEST
ELEV. MOISTURE
DENSITY
COMP.
SOIL
DATE
NO.
LOCATION
(ft)
(%)
(pcf)
(%)
TYPE
06/26/02
1741
Lot 48
1167.0
16.2
116.2
90*
4
06/26/02
1742
Lot 46
1167.0
12.4
126.7
95*
II
06/26/02
1743
Lot 42
1167.0
11.1
119.1
93*
-1
06/27/02
1745
Access easement
1154.0
9.9
119.3
91*
1
'06/28/02
1753
Access easement
1160.0
11.1
118.7
90*
1
07/01/02
1758
Cozy Wy
1163.0
14.3
120.9
91*
11
07/01/02
1759
Cozy Wy
1166.0
8.7
105.6
82*
4
'
07/01/02
1760
Lot 67
1169.0
14.3
118.5
90*
1
07/02/02
1763
RT No. 1759
--
8.1
105.7
82*
4
07/02/02
1764
RT Nos. 1759/1763
--
14.9
123.8
93*
it
1
07/02/02
1767
Easement
1259.0
11.1
123.8
93*
11
07/02/02
1768
Lot 50 finish slope
1264.0
11.8
100.3
92
6
1769
Lot 50 finish slope
1257.0
10.4
107.4
93
5
'07/02/02
07/02/02
1770
Lot 50 finish slope
1263.0
9.9
107.1
92
5
07/02/02
1771
Lot 51 finish slope
1257.0
8.5
110.4
92
8
07/02/02
1772
Tioga St
1160.0
10.7
120.7
90
2
07/02/02
1773
Tioga St
1161.0
14.8
115.8
90
4
07/03/02
1776
Lot 68
1169.0
9.9
116.6
91*
4
'07/03/02
1777
Lot 53 finish slope
1155.0
10.5
106.5
92
5
07/03/02
1778
Lot 54 finish slope
1162.0
8.3
104.2
89
5
07/03/02
1779
Lot 55 finish slope
1155.0
11.9
106.3
92
5
'
07/03/02
1780
Lot 56 finish slope
1154.0
7.5
111.4
89
10
07/03/02
1781
Lot 57 finish slope
1164.0
11.3
113.1
91
10
07/03/02
1782
Lot 58 finish slope
1152.0
9.4
116.5
91
4
'
07/03/02
1783
Lot 59 finish slope
1156.0
8.5
109.9
91
8
07/03/02
1784
Lot 60 finish slope
1164.0
10.9
116.0
90
4
07/03/02
1785
Lot 61 finish slope
1146.0
10.5
115.9
90
4
07/03/02
1786
Lot 62 finish slope
1151.0
11.6
116.4
90
4
07/05/02
1787
Lot 68
1176.0
8.7
119.2
93*
4
07/08/02
1788
Lot 67
1170.0
10.5
120.1
90*
11
07/08/02
1791
Lot 49
1166.0
13.0
120.2
91*
1
07/09/02
1795
Lot 52
1168.5
6.1
116.5
91*
4
'07/09/02
1796
Lot 48
1168.0
12.4
117.7
92*
4
07/09/02
1798
Lot 53
FG
5.7
122.7
92
11
07/09/02
1799
Lot 54
FG
7.8
130.0
97
ll
07/09/02
1800
Lot 55
FG
6.5
126.2
95
ll
07/09/02
1801
Lot 56
FG
5.8
128.2
96
ll
07/09/02
1802
Lot 57
FG
6.4
127.1
95
ll
'
07/09/02
1803
Lot 58
FG
5.7
128.0
96
ll
07/09/02
1804
Lot 59
FG
6.6
130.5
98
11
07/09/02
1805
Lot 60
FG
7.6
123.6
93
ll
'
07/09/02
1806
Lot 61
FG
10.2
124.7
93
ll
PETRA
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TR 23066-311-ots 39-95
AUGUST
2002
J.N.
188-01
* Sandcone
TABLE -III
13
h
1
I
1
I
1
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COMP. SOIL
DATE NO. I.00ATION (ft) (%) (Pcl) (%) TYPE
07/09/02
1807
Lot 62
FG
7.3
121.3
91
II
07/09/02
1808
Lot 63
FG
6.2
125.5
94
11
07/09/02
1809
Lot 64
FG
8.7
122.4
93
2
07/09/02
1810
Lot 65
FG
11.4
127.2
95
2
07/09/02
1811
Lot 66
FG
10.1
121.8
91
2
07/10/02
1813
Lot 43
1168.0
14.3
116.0
90*
4
07/10/02
1814
Lot 45 slope
1172.0
14.9
121.5
93*
9
07/11/02
1817
Lot 74
1180.0
13.0
115.5
91*
3
07/11/02
1818
Lot 76
1179.0
10.5
116.9
91*
4
07/11/02
1819
Lot 77
1179.0
11.1
109.7
91*
8
07/11/02
1820
RT No. 1778
--
9.3
105.4
91
5
07/11/02
1821
RT No. 1780
--
8.0
112.6
90
10
07/11/02
1822
Lot 71
1179.0
11.4
121.4
92
1
07/11/02
1823
Lot 71
1180.0
10.8
119.9
91
1
07/11/02
1824
Lot 64 finish slope
1144.0
7.9
117.7
92
4
07/11/02
1825
Lotg 65 finish slope
1180.0
12.3
116.5
91
4
07/12/02
1826
Lot 41
1173.0
10.3
116.8
91
4
07/12/02
1827
Lot 41
1174.0
11.7
113.5
89
12
07/12/02
1828
RT No. 1827
--
9.1
114.7
91
12
07/12/02
1829
Lot 40
1177.0
8.6
118.6
93
4
07/12/02
1830
Lot 40
1178.0
9.4
122.0
92
11
07/12/02
1831
Lot 39
1178.0
7.5
118.9
91
9
07/12/02
1832
Lot 39
1179.0
6.6
122.7
91
10
07/15/02
1840
Lot 42
1171.0
7.8
119.5
92
9
07/15/02
1841
Lot 87
1193.0
6.2
125.7
94
11
07/15/02
1842
Lot 89
1201.0
8.9
118.0
90
9
07/15/02
1843
Lot 89
1202.0
7.8
117.5
90
9
07/15/02
1844
Lot 72 finish slope
1176.0
8.9
123.6
93
11
07/15/02
1845
Lot 71 finish slope
1180.0
6.5
119.8
92
9
07/16/02
1851
Lot 86
1195.0
13.6
117.8
90*
9
07/16/02
1852
Lot 84
1195.0
14.3
124.0
93*
11
07/16/02
1853
Lot 41
1174.0
9.3
115.3
91*
3
07/16/02
1854
Lot 35 slope
1166.5
10.5
119.5
92*
9
07/16/02
1855
Lot 34 slope
1169.0
11.7
119.6
92*
9
07/17/02
1856
Lot 34
1168.0
9.9
120.8
90*
11
07/18/02
1858
Lot 49
1169.5
11.1
120.2
90*
11
07/18/02
1859
Lot 45
1168.5
8.1
114.8
90*
3
07/18/02
1860
Lot 47
1169.0
9.9
124.2
93*
ll
07/18/02
1861
Lot 46
1169.0
13.0
127.4
95*
11
07/18/02
1862
Lot 41
1175.0
11.1
117.1
91*
4
07/18/02
1876
Lot 51
FG
6.1
121.3
91
11
07/18/02
1877
Lot 52
FG
5.8
120.5
92
9
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066.311-ots 39-95 AUGUST 2002
' J.N. 188-01 ' Sandcone TABLE -III 14
S1�-
I
I
1
1
1
1
11
1
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
TEST TEST TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DENSITY COMP. SOIL
DATE NO. LOCATION (Ft) (%) (pct) (%) TYPE
07/19/02
1879
Lot 45
FG
11.1
123.4
92*
11
07/19/02
1880
Lot 44
FG
10.5
121.3
91*
ll
07/19/02
1881
Lot 43
FG
12.4
120.6
90*
4
07/19/02
1882
Lot 67
FG
10.5
114.8
90*
3
07/22/02
1885
Lot 34 slope
1174.0
12.9
123.6
93*
11
07/22/02
1886
Lot 34 slope
1176.0
13.0
124.0
93*
11
07/22/02
1888
Lot 99
FG
10.5
117.4
90*
9
07/23/02
1889
Lot 97
FG
8.1
118.3
91*
9
07/23/02
1890
Lot 98
FG
9.2
118.7
90*
9
07/23/02
1891
Lot 96
FG
7.5
119.2
91*
9
07/23/02
1892
Lot 95
FG
10.5
109.9
91*
8
07/23/02
1893
Lot 94
FG
9.9
108.1
90*
8
07/23/02
1894
Lot 93
FG
11.1
115.1
90*
3
07/23/02
1895
Lot 92
FG
13.0
124.9
94*
11
07123/02
1896
Lot 91
FG
13.6
118.7
92*
8
07/23/02
1897
Lot 90
FG
9.3
120.1
92*
8
07/23/02
1898
Lot 89
FG
7.5
118.7
91*
8
07/24/02
1899
Lot 71
FG
7.5
114.8
90
3
07/24/02
1900
Lot 72
FG
7.3
111.9
93
8
07/24/02
1901
Lot 74 finishslope
1179.0
13.0
106.4
91
5
07/24/02
1902
Lot 75 finish slope
1173.0
13.5
105.5
91
5
07/24102
1903
Lot 76 finish slope
1178.0
15.1
105.6
91
5
07/24/02
1904
Lot 82 finish slope
1194.0
12.1
116.8
92
12
07/24/02
1905
Lot 83 finish slope
1185.0
10.9
115.9
92
12
07/24/02
1906
Lot 83 finish slope
1180.0
11.1
116.2
90
4
07/24/02
1907
Lot 84 finish slope
1193.0
9.0
110.1
91
8
07/24/02
1908
Lot 84 finish slope
1195.0
15.4
108.8
90
8
07/24/02
1916
Lot 83 finish slope
1170.0
9.4
161.8
91
4
07/25/02
1917
Lot 74
FG
5.4
124.1
93
11
07/25/02
1918
Lot 75
FG
7.3
124.8
93
11
07/25/02
1919
Lot 76
FG
5.7
117.2
91
4
07/25/02
1920
Lot 77
FG
8.4
123.1
92
11
07/25/02
1921
Lot 78
FG
6.7
118.6
91
9
07/25/02
1922
Lot 87
FG
7.8
122.8
92
11
07/25/02
1923
Lot 86
FG
7.8
124.2
93
it
07/25/02
1924
Lot 85
FG
16.4
107.6
92
5
07/25/02
1925
Lot 84
FG
8.7
117.5
90
9
07/25/02
1926
Lot 83
FG
10.6
122.4
92
11
07/25/02
1927
Lot 82
FG
5.4
117.7
90
9
07/26/02
1928
Lot 31
1184.0
7.5
117.0
91*
4
07/26/02
1929
Lot 34
1178.0
9.9
121.0
91*
11
07/26/02
1932
Lot 34 slope
1486.0
14.9
122.1
92*
11
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TR 23066-3/1-ots 39-95 AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 * Sandcone TABLE -III 15
51
I
TABLE III
TEST
DATE
TEST
NO.
L
07/26/02
1933
Lot 35 slope
07/29/02
1934
Lot 35
07/29/02
1935
Lot 34 slope
COMP.
07/30/02
1947
Lot 35
(pcD
07/30/02
1948
Lot 33
08/01/02
1952
Wiki Crcl
1483.0
08/02/02
1956
Lot 68
'08/02/02
1186.0
1957
Lot 42
94*
08/02/02
1958
Lot 41
123.7
08/02/02
1959
Lot 40
11.1
08/02/02
1960
Lot 39
1186.0
9.3
122.6
92*
11
1200.0
9.9
106.7
84*
3
FG
9.9
120.6
90*
11
FG
6.4
118.1
91*
9
FG
8.1
120.9
91*
11
FG
5.2
116.3
91*
4
FG
7.5
119.4
91*
9
TABLE III
Field Density Test Results
TEST ELEV. MOISTURE
DENSITY
COMP.
SOIL
CATION (ft)
M
(pcD
(%)
TYPE
1483.0
9.9
126.2
95*
II
1186.0
11.1
124.9
94*
II
1187.0
11.7
123.7
93*
11
1185.0
11.1
118.5
91*
9
1186.0
9.3
122.6
92*
11
1200.0
9.9
106.7
84*
3
FG
9.9
120.6
90*
11
FG
6.4
118.1
91*
9
FG
8.1
120.9
91*
11
FG
5.2
116.3
91*
4
FG
7.5
119.4
91*
9
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC
' J.N. 188-01
TR 23066-3/Lots 39-95
'Sandcone
AUGUST 2002
TABLE -III 16
Sf�
I
1
1
1
1 REFERENCES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 PETRA
i
1
1 ss
I
1
1
J
LJ
I
I
I
I
I
7
I
I
1
Blake, T.F., 1998/1999, "LJBCSEIS" 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
Califomia Area, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated February 2, 1988.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County,
California, CDMG Special Report 131.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1989, Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of
Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066 and 23067, Rancho California,
County of Riverside, California, Volumes I and 11, J.N. 298-87, dated May 8, 1989.
2001 a, Due -Diligence Geotechnical Assessment of Planned Grading and Site Development, Tracts 23066-1,
23066-2 and 23066-3, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01,
dated March 30, 2001.
, 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, California;for The
Garrett Group LLC, J.N. 188-01, dated December 11, 2001.
2001d, Documentation of Previous Interface Grading Adjacent to Golf Course Fairways, Tracts 23066-1,
23066-2 and 23066-3, Temecula Area of Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated December 10, 2001.
, 2001 e, Geotechnical Review of 40 -Scale Rough Grading Plans, Tracts 23066,23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3,
Temecula Area of Riverside County, California, dated December 11, 2001.
, 2002a, Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and
30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 20, 2002.
, 2002b, Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Geotechnical Report Review Sheet,
Dated February 21, 2002 and Grading Plan Review Report, Tract 30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County,
California, BGR No. 020159, J.N. 188-01, dated March 21, 2002.
2002c, Geotechnical Design Parameters for Medium Expansive Soils, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and
30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 26, 2002.
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01
Si
I
1
1
1
1
REFERENCES (Continued)
, 2002d, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Model Lots, Tract 23066-1,
Lots 3 through 5, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3, 2002.
, 2002e, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Phase 1, Tract 23066-2,
Lots 10 through 39, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3, 2002.
, 2002f, Geotechnical Recommendations, Post -Tensioned Slabs, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and 30246,
Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 9, 2002.
20028, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots 1 through 8, Tract 23066-2, Temecula Area,
Riverside County, California. J.N. 188-01, dated April 26, 2002.
, 2002h, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 9 through 39, Tract 23066-2, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated May 8, 2002.
. 2002i, 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.
, 2002j, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 54 through 77 and 115, Tract 23066-1, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, Califictma, J.N. 188-01, dated June 20, 2002.
, 2002k, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 40 through 82, Tract 23066-2, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California. J.N. 188-01, dated August 13. 2002.
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J. N. 188-01
I
AUGUST 2002
1 52
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
LABORATORY TEST DATA
-7Ra1o6&/-' "3
PETRA
w
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-) 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 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.
' Atterbere 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]
1
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01
I
j
I
1
1
1
1I
I
1
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
1989
Soil Type
Maximum Dry Density
( ef)
it Type
Maximum Dry Density
(PCA
1
117.0
14
127.5
2
129.0
16
132.5
3
131.5
17
130.0
4
126.0
18
128.0
5
127.5
19
124.5
6
134.0
20
122.5
7
124.5
21
126.0
9
132.0
22
129.0
10
125.0
23
118.0
11
135.5
26
130.5
12
130.0
27
125.5
13
117.5
11
124.5
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
j. N. 188-01
1
AUGUST 2002
Plate A-1
1 ba
1
1
11
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY' (Continued)
2002
Sample
No.
Soil Type
I
OptimumMaximum
Moisture
I (%)
Dry Density
(cf)
I
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
7
Yellowish light brown fine to coarse SAND with Clay and Gravel
8.5
132.0
8
Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and Silt
12.5
120.5
9
Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay
8.5
130.5
D
Light brown Clayey SAND
13.0
122.0
10
Medium brown Clayey SILT
11.5
124.5
11
Medium brown Clayey medium to coarse SAND with cobbles
8.0
133.5
12
Light brawn Silty to Clayey fine SAND 1
10.5
126.5
' (1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D1557
1
1
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC AUGUST 2002
J. N. 188-01 Plate A-2
t
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA
Lot No.
Representative Lots
Expansions
Index
Expansion}
Potential,',
39
39 through 41
0
Very Low
43
42 and 43
28
Low
44
44 through 46
0
Very Low
47
47 through 49
0
Very Low
51
50 through 52
10
Very Low
54
53 through 55
11
Very Low
56
56 through 58
20
Very Low
60
59 through 61
2
Very Low
65
62 through 66
22
Low
68
67 and 68
6
Very Low
69
69
53
Medium
70
70
61
Medium
71
71 and 72
40
Low
73
73
61
Medium
76
74 through 78
19
Very Low
79
79
24
Low
81
80 through 82
0
Very Low
83
83
32
Low
86
84 through 86
13
Very Low
87
87
5
Very Low
88
88
2
Very Low
89
89 through 91
56
Medium
92
92 through 94
15
Very Low
95
95
11 1
Very Low
' (2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829
(3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE I8 -1-B
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
f. N. 188-01 Plate A-3
1
6;L
I
1
1
k
I
1
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA (Continued)
Sample
No.
Description
Expansion
Index
Expansion'
Potential
I
Dark brown Clayey Silty fine SAND
I 1
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 fine 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 Silly SAND with trace Clay
20
Ve Low
' (2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829
(3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE 18-1-B
1
1
1
1
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-4
6;
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOLUBLE CHENHSTRY
Lot Nos.
Sulfate
Chlorides
PH'
I Corrosivity Potential
M
(ppm)
(ohm cm)
39 through 41
0.01
95
7.2
2,400
concrete: negligible
steel: moderate
50 through 52
ND
--
--
--
concrete: negligible
steel: --
59 through 61
0.01
5
7.0
3,200
concrete: negligible
steel: moderate
74 through 78
ND
191
7.2
1,900
concrete: negligible
steel: high
85 through 87
ND
72
7.3
2,300
concrete: negligible
steel: moderate
(4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417
(5) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 422
(6) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
(7) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1.N. 188-01
AUGUST 2002
Plate A -S
k(1-1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ATTERBERG LIMITS'
Lot No.
Soil Tvpe
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
73
Clayey SILT
36
29
7
Sample No.
Soil Type
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
3
Clayey SAND
32
14
18
4
Silty, Clayey SAND
32
15
17
10
Clayey SILT
28
24
4
11
Clayey medium to coarse SAND with cobbles
26
18
8
12
Silty fine SAND
I
NP
(8) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4318
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AUGUST 2002
J. N. 188-01 Plate A-6
1
1
`S
[1
1
1
I
1 APPENDIX B
1
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
1
1
1
1
I
1
[1
1
1
1 PETRA
i
1
I pe 02,3 o�� -/ -c�,
46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
x
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
67
1
-it���:".r��•��i.•�'..•�-�::�•��:`.��-si;��s'r�-ski•kkk•�'..•::�k�'.;x��i�3���:';k�•k��-�s
�s k�::�
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
I APPROX.ISOURCE
I MAX.
I SLIP
I FAULT
'
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI TYPE
I MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
'
FAULT NAME
I(SS,DS,BT)
I (km)
I(A,B,C)I (Mw)
I (mm/yr)
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
1 SS
I 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
1 SS
'
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (offshore)
I 46.5
I B
I 6.9
I 1.50
1 SS
ROSE CANYON
I 49.0
I B
I 6.9
i 1.50
'I
SS
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
I 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
' Page 2
1
I
1
1
[l
1
F
1
1
I Ss
CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)
1 60.0 I
B
1 6.7 1
1.00
I DS
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
1 62.7 1
B
1 6.7 1
12.00
1 SS
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
1 63.0 1
A
1 7.4 I
24.00
1 ss
ELSINORE-WHITTIER
1 66.8 1
B
1 6.8 I
2.50
1 SS
PINTO MOUNTAIN
1 73.8 1
B
1 7.0 I
2.50
I SS
CORONADO BANK
1 74.1 I
B
1 7.4 1
3.00
1 SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin)
1 79.1 1
B
1 6.9 1
1.00
I ss
PALOS VERDES
1 81.5 1
B
1 7.1 1
3.00
1 SS
BURNT MTN.
1 84.6 1
B
6.5 1
0.60
1 SS
CUCAMONGA
1 86.0 1
A
1 7.0 1
5.00
I DS
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN
1 87.4 I
B
I 6.8 I
4.00
I SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
1 87.8 1
B
1 7.0 1
1.00
DS
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
1 87.9 I
B
1 6.6 1
4.00
1 SS
EUREKA PEAK
I 89.1 1
B
1 6.5 1
0.60
1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
1 90.4 1
B
1 6.7 I
0.50
I DS
SAN JOSE
I 91.0 I
B
1 6.5 1
0.50
I DS
CLEGHORN
1 91.1 1
B
1 6.5 1
3.00
1 SS
SIERRA MADRE (Central)
1 94.8 1
B
1 7.0 1
3.00
1 DS
LANDERS
1 99.2 1
B
I 7.3 I
0.60
1 SS
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
1 102.4 I
B
I 7.1 I
0.60
I SS
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture
1 102.4 1
A
1 7.8 1
34.00
1 Ss
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
1 107.0 1
B
1 7.3 1
0.60
1 SS
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
1 111.1 1
B
1 6.5 1
0.50
I DS
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
1 111.6 I
B
1 6.7 1
0.60
1 SS
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.
1 112.9 I
B
1 6.9 1
0.60
1 SS
RAYMOND
1 115.4 i
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
Page 3
1
APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX.
I SLIP
I FAULT
DS
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
I 120.2 I
B
1 6.6 I
5.00
(Mw) I
S
I(SS,DS,BT)
SAN GABRIEL
VERDUGO
1 123.5 I
B
I 6.7 I
0.50
'
ELMOREDRANCH
I 124.2 I
B
I 6.6 I
1.00
1 DS
I SS
IMPERIAL
1 153.5 I A I
7.0 I
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK
I 124.3 I
B
I 7.1 I
0.60
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE
S
6.9 I
0.60
1 SS
CALICO- HIDALGO
I 125.0 I
B
I 7.1 I
0.60
1 DS
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 1
1.00
'
DS
BRAWLEYSSEISMIC ZONE
I 128.6 I
B
I 6.S 1
25.00
1 SS
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA
I 138.9
B
I 7.0 I
3.50
'
1 SS
SANTA MONICA
I 140.4 I
B
I 6.6
1.00
I DS
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
I 143.8 I
B
I 6.7 I
2.00
'
1 DS
1
1
1
1
1
[1
1
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 2
Page 4
1 74
APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX.
I SLIP
I FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
FAULT NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)I
(Mw) I
(mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
SAN GABRIEL
I 145.6 1 B 1
7.0 I
1.00
I SS
MALIBU COAST
I 148.1 I B I
6.7 I
0.30
1 DS
IMPERIAL
1 153.5 I A I
7.0 I
20.00
1 SS
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE
1 157.0 1 B i
6.9 I
0.60
1 SS
ANACAPA-DUME
I 159.9 1 B 1
7.3 1
3.00
1 DS
Page 4
1 74
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
[1
1
1
SANTA SUSANA
I 161.7 I
B
I 6.6 I
5.00
1 DS
HOLSER
1 170.7 1
B
I 6.5 I
0.40
1 DS
BLACKWATER
I 173.2 I
B
I 6.9 1
0.60
1 Ss
OAK RIDGE (Onshore)
1 181.7 I
B
1 6.9 I
4.00
1 DS
SIMI-SANTA ROSA
I 183.3 1
B
I 6.7 1
1.00
I DS
SAN CAYETANO
I 189.1 I
B
1 6.8 I
6.00
1 DS
SANTA YNEZ (East)
1 208.3 I
B
I 7.0 1
2.00
1 Ss
GARLOCK (West)
1 213.3 I
A
1 7.1 I
6.00
1 SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT
I 214.2 I
B
I 6.8 1
1.00
I DS
GARLOCK (East)
1 219.9 I
A
1 7.3 1
7.00
1 SS
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA
1 222.8 1
B
I 6.7 I
0.40
1 DS
PLEITO THRUST
1 225.2 I
B
I 6.8 I
2.00
1 DS
RED MOUNTAIN
1 228.5 1
B
1 6.8 1
2.00
DS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
I 232.7 1
B
1 6.8 1
1.00
I DS
BIG PINE
1 233.2 1
B
1 6.7 1
0.80
1 SS
OWL LAKE
1 238.6 I
B
I 6.5 I
2.00
1 SS
PANAMINT VALLEY
1 238.9 I
B
1 7.2 1
2.50
1 SS
WHITE WOLF
1 240.0 I
B
I 7.2 1
2.00
1 DS
TANK CANYON
1 242.2 1
B
I 6.5 I
1.00
I DS
So. SIERRA NEVADA
1 242.6 1
B
I 7.1 I
0.10
I DS
LITTLE LAKE
1 243.9 1
B
I 6.7 i
0.70
1 SS
DEATH VALLEY (South)
I 245.3 I
B
1 6.9 I
4.00
1 SS
SANTA YNEZ (West)
1 262.0 1
B
1 6.9 I
2.00
1 SS
SANTA ROSA ISLAND
I 268.8 I
B
1 6.9 1
1.00
I DS
DEATH VALLEY (Graben)
1 288.9 1
B
1 6.9 1
4.00
1 DS
LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE
I 305.1 I
B
I 6.8 I
0.70
1 DS
Page 5
71
1
APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX. I
SLIP
I FAULT
OWENS VALLEY
I 314.0 I
B
1 7.6 1
1.50
MAG. I
1 SS
1 TYPE
'
LiONS HEAD
I 322.5 I
B
1 6.6 I
0.02
I(SS,DS,BT)
DS
DEATH VALLEY (N.
'
SAN IUAN
I SS
I 325.6 I
B
I 7.0 I
1.00
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin)
I 330.2 1
B
1 7.0 1
0.20
6.8 I
D
t
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY
I 336.2 I
B
I 7.0 I
2.50
I SS
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault)
1 339.8 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
1 DS
I 350.0 I
B
1 6.9 1
0.20
LOS OSOS
1 359.5 I
B
I 6.8 1
0.50
I DS
'
HOSGRI
1 368.7 I
B
1 7.3 1
2.50
1 SS
RINCONADA
I 377.7 I
B
1 7.3 1
1.00
I SS
'
BIRCH CREEK
1 406.9 I
B
1 6.5 I
0.70
1 DS
'
WHITE MOUNTAINS
I SS
1 410.4 I
B
1 7.1 1
1.00
DEEP SPRINGS
I 428.0 I
B
1 6.6 I
0.80
1 DS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping)
1 428.1 1
B
I 5.0 I
34.00
1 SS
.1
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 3
Page 6
712
APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX. I
SLIP
I FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG. I
RATE
1 TYPE
FAULT
NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)1
(Mw) I
(mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
DEATH VALLEY (N.
of Cucamongo)
I 431.0 I A I
7.0 1
5.00
1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (E.
of S.N.Mtns.)
I 443.2 I B 1
6.8 I
1.00
Page 6
712
I
1
1
Il
1
1
1
1
1
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
I SS
QUIEN SABE
I SS
MONO LAKE
I DS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES
SS
SARGENT
I 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)
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
I 6.6 I
0.20
I 469.5 I
B
I 6.7 I
2.50
I 494.6 I
B
I 6.6 I
0.50
I 509.4 I
B
I 6.9 I
1.00
I 517.1 I
B
I 6.2 I
15.00
I 523.1 I
B
I 7.1 I
0.50
I 526.3 I
B
I 7.0 I
3.00
I 529.7 I
B
I 6.5 I
1.00
I 530.8 I
B
I 6.6 I
2.50
I 549.2 I
B
I 6.8 I
0.10
554.0 I
B
I 6.8
3.00
I 554.4 I
A
I 7.9 I
24.00
I 562.3 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
I 598.2
A
I 7.3 I
5.00
I 601.0 I
B
I 6.9 I
2.00
603.0 I
B
I 6.7 I
0.80
I 603.1 I
B
I 6.5 I
3.00
I 604.1 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.40
I 622.4 I
A
I 7.1 I
9.00
I 622.4 I
B
I 6.8 I
6.00
I 629.2 I
B
I 6.9 I
1.00
I 668.8 I
B
I 6.9 I
6.00
I 708.1 I
A
I 7.0 I
9.00
I 708.3 I
B
I 6.5 I
1.00
I 729.3 I
B
I 6.8 I
0.30
I 729.5 (
B
I 6.9 I
6.00
Page 7
73
I SS
' MAACAMA (South)
I SS
COLLAYOMI
t I SS
BARTLETT SPRINGS
SS
MAACAMA (Central)
MAACAMAS(North)
I SS
' ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay)
I SS
BATTLE CREEK
' I Ds
LAKE MOUNTAIN
SS
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND
' I SS
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE
I DS
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore)
I DS
MAD RIVER
DS
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE
I DS
MCKINLEYVILLE
'I Ds
TRINIDAD
I DS
' FICKLE HILL
I DS
TABLE BLUFF
I DS
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore)
I DS
' Page 4
------------
I 770.1 I
B
I 6.9 I
9.00
I 786.2 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.60
I 788.6 I
A
I 7.1 I
6.00
I 811.7 I
A
I 7.1 I
9.00
I 870.5 I
A
I 7.1 I
9.00
I 875.3 I
B
I 6.8 I
6.00
I 892.8 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
I 933.6 I
B
I 6.7 I
6.00
I 951.5 I
B
I 6.9 I
9.00
11008.7 I
A
I 7.4 I
35.00
11013.7 I
A
I 7.0 I
5.00
11015.4
B
I 7.1 I
0.70
11023.1
A
I 8.3 I
35.00
11026.1 I
B
I 7.0 I
0.60
11027.4 I
B
I 7.3 I
2.50
11028.2 I
B
I 6.9 I
0.60
11034.4 I
B
I 7.0 I
0.60
1047.6 I
B
I 7.1 I
1.00
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
' I FAULT I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP
TYPE ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE
' I
I Page 8
74f
I
FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)l (Mw) I (mm/yr)
1 I(SS,DS,BT)
' BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 11063.9 I B I 7.3 I 0.50
D4S�t.•�:4 kx �•k�9� :•x�:4t<:4�.�....,:. k:4k k:4 ::3kk'.,•-_k�:4 :4 ••� •�k:4'..--:'t k'w -k-S-��k�'h #sk
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
[1
1
1
I
Page 9
M � M nEar�,Mlr MET;PT)ITST Tp7r(7 1 1\V 1V1
2.50
2.25
2.00
0.25
0.00
Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period Seconds
4.5 5.0
1.75
0
1.50
L
1.25
U
Q
1.00
75
0.75
U
a
0.50
W
0.25
0.00
Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period Seconds
4.5 5.0