The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3900 S Bristol St - Soils Report (2)ECEPIVEJAN 1 1 2006 City of Santa Ana -3 Geotechnical â€¢ Coastal â€¢ Geologic â€¢ Environmental 1 FOUNDAION RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED REMODELING EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AT 1307 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE CITY OF SANTA ANA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA For PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP ONE CORPORATE PLAZA, SECOND FLOOR NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 W.O. 4976-Al-OC NOVEMBER 2,2005 Geotechnical â€¢ Coastal â€¢ Geologic â€¢ Environmental 1446 E. Chestnut Ave. Â· Santa Ana, California 92701 Â· (714) 647-0277 Â· FAX (714) 647-0745 November 2,2005 W.O. 4976-Al -OC Pacific Development Group One Corporate Plaza, Second Floor Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention:Mr. Tony Zarinelli, Construction Manager Subject:Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Remodeling, Existing Shopping Center at 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, California Gentlemen: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to present the results of our geotechnical investigation for the site. The purpose of this report is to present the results of our investigation, as well as to provide preliminary foundation recommendations for the currently planned remodeling and related improvement(s). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of data, field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analyses, the site appears suitable for its intended use, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are implemented. Alluvium underlies the entire tract area. Groundwater was encountered on site at depths of 17.5 to 21.5 feet during this study. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our site investigations. However, historical groundwater is recorded to be at approximately 5 feet. The site is designated by CGS (California Geological Survey) as a seismic hazard- E-ne-having a potential for liquefactiof The site is underlain at depth by alluvial deposits that are overlain by engineered fill materials. Based on GSI's evaluation of the underlying fine sandy soils, the site has a potential for liquefaction. Â· Lateral spreading of the site due to seismic shaking is not likely. Â· Surface disruption and manifestation, as a result of site liquefaction, are not likely. - No faults or landslides are known to cross/exist on the subject site development area. Â· Site soils tested are low to high in expansion potential (per Table 18-I-B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code) and low in sulfate content (per Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC). TDe recommendations-Efesented in.this report should be incorporated into the design and' construction considerations of the project. = The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you haVe any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hes iiate-to--* contact the undersigned.*RBEe><--7,r 3 2Â«91 lile \Respectfully submitted, ,C a 1 2051 4 IaineÂ·j , 1 W..ling j jGâ€¢n-Rnil= Inr *LE j - i â‚¬04399>/8 < No 569I e-6,2,-640- -I Edmond Vardeh Fred AflakianCivil Engineer, RCE 56992 OV/L Engineering Geologist, CEG 2051 t- 4 (1:12 FAED E ft<Ck_ O, Cn S Reviewed by: <t < FREDERICK CURTIS '\ -NO. 1044 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING 6E0LIST Dharma Shakya, Ph.D. DY U /3, *77- Civil Engineer, RCE 55172422 OF CA\-\F FOFESSOEV/FA/DXS/agw #/0.---'% 1, 1/4&*An. 84(05&ba \ En{ 31STâ‚¬,GNEEDistribution: (5)Addressee _ (1) Tildin Engineering; Attn: Mr. Farid Dinari a WT No. C-0551/z , 0,â€¢ Pacific Development Group File:\serverandree\4900\497681.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al -OC Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. Â¢ TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ... ......-.............. SITE DESCRIPTION ........ .................. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................... BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS . CURRENT INVESTIGATION ...... .............. EARTH MATERIALS ....... ................... FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY.......... GROUNDWATER........... LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ... LABORATORY TESTING ....... General ....., ...... Field Moisture and Density Consolidation Testing .... Expansion Index .... Sulfate/Corrosion Testing . CONCLUSIONS . FOUNDATION DESIGN ................. General .... Bearing Capacity of Existing Footings . Flag Pole Caisson Design .......... New Foundation Construction (if any) . Settlement . WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS (if applicable) . . Conventional Retaining Walls ......... Restrained Walls........... Cantilevered Walls ............ Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage ... Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions . GeoSoils, Inc. O 00 000000 N NIa)C)C)C)C) Ch Ul W 6, W DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ....... .........15 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA........................ Drainage Erosion Control Landscape Maintenance Gutters and Downspouts Subsurface and Surface Water .......... ....,...................18 Site Improvements ...... .......18 Tile Flooring Additional Grading Footing Trench Excavation .....................................19 Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts .......................19 Utility Trench Backfill ..... .........20 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING ...... .........20 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS .............. ......21 PLAN REVIEW ....... LIMITATIONS ...... FIGURE: Figure 1- Site Location Map ... DETAILS: Detail 1- Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail .......... 12 Detail 2- Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail, Geotextile Drain... 13 Detail 3- Retaining Wall and Subdrain Detail, Clean Sand Backfill ...... 14 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References Appendix B - Logs of the Exploratory Borings Appendix C- Laboratory Test Results..... ........... Appendix D - Seismicity Analysis Appendix E - Liquefaction Analysis .................. Appendix F - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines . Plate 1 - Plot Plan . . . . . ................... Pacific Development Group File:\server\andree\49004976al.foundshopctr GeoSoils, Inc. Rear of Text . . Rear of Text . . Rear of Text . . Rear of Text . . Rear of Text Rear of Text . . Rear of Text Table of Contents Page ii FOUNDATION RECOMMENDAMONS PROPOSED REMODEUNG, EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AT 1307 WEST SUNFLOWER AVENUE, CITY OF SANTA ANA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CAUFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has consisted of: 1. Review of the referenced items. 2. Excavation of 4 hollow stem auger borings to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet on the site. 3. Laboratory testing of materials collected from the excavations. 4. Geologic engineering and analysis of data obtained from field work, laboratory testing and referenced items. 5. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommenda- tions for the anticipated site development. This report includes a copy of a Plot Plan (Plate 1) which was used to show the approximate locations of the Borings; References (Appendix A); Logs of the Exploratory Borings (Appendix B); Laboratory Test Results (Appendix C); Seismicity Analysis (Appendix D); Liquefaction Analysis (Appendix E); and General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines (Appendix F). SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located at the southwest corner of Bristol and Sunflower Avenue in the City of Santa Ana (see Site Location Map, Figure 1 ). The subject site was originally graded under the testing and observation of Leroy Crandall & Associates in 1971. The site was proposed originally for a single department store building, J.C. Penny Company Inc. However, it is currently converted to several smaller shops (i.e., Rossi Sportsmart, small shops, and fast food restaurants). It is proposed that the front and south portions of Ross and Sportmart be remodeled with new interior design. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A Plot Plan is included as Plate 1 at the back of this report which was used as a base map to show the location of our borings. It is GeoSoils Inc.'s understanding that the subject site will be remodeled mostly at the south and east exterior portions of the Ross and Sportsmart Buildings. Conventional design is anticipated to be utilized in building foundation construction. GeoSoils, Inc. 3 052Â¥ It; -I-El 2 EA INT Stâ‚¬ 9 -I-<2"0 E' 81 3./ %=if-- **' 4 1 #b.,â€¢ ., I Â· -Ch f g .1 f 7/9,<5 Loâ€¢04 -!GFLirm, â€žD. 1 JN LOREN; 0 AV E 0 200 I tz *E -WEEDev-.-M.m 1 4 2 SAMLENCK HS le CARRIAGE 1 ..01 DR I t CARRIal M 13 - 4,,/ 5. 22 Al .I gl -4 4 12:|Ellm' 11 , -f IAVAH 300-1 .- 600 J 01 NT kpke.8 QZW m 31 COLMB INEi. COL:l.IMA'â€¢f \Â·CI*@1.ME: 100 U.A f41LIRIE-651 Il-9 !I|k__ C/</4 E # -Â«,0<Â·d55 4 .IUME C*EEK P =I MACARIBUR -cr- a,!PER J..MB-----849350. Me:M too BLVD ,rÂ«.ZZ 3*E--- 1.GRMET: 1 V 71# 1-1 4- PA.9 2. D143 J#tw[UGE | p E 12.12 1 CA _LENS ke-yKELLE1 CiE UPEE / /#-Â·mojj y a .'.5* TQIk "4Â·-*04tu vilfyilget_Â«.n E--7-- : â€¢ud <F' 74â‚¬1 * = 2 21 7 44 99â‚¬- 10 *<9,-moo f -f \ 1, 14 lA.314% 56 ]STEVENS A_AV__.2 _....aw--r=-f--- ----- SUNFLOWER@...E.X _. â€žÂ·?,#t - -3.. 61 = 1 9.65.'Ft t - f:Av. 29 , 4#/ 6 59&01"&-94121 2 00;= .1 M E:, lein-7 72 'FIMIRA RAY ./ - i -*67 4 4, q -10 7NSTIn/TE "4377% 0â€ž1,1 //4 WESUY,VI *AY ilÂ·.- ,i,r'Â·h ' \Â° - -1-< CIR r / FA"mv 51.'TURLOCIaDR..-.<Â·U| d &1 Brar' Â· ,1-1,.Â· - Irm-,., -.IL- -1 -1 *1 . 1.21-6!8 1 cc 'L.-43*4.-:'b--93*"- -RUE-,0 *V ntal ANTM H g..sm,- 0-'5- 2f 44 . '4* 4 -H- 0---33[At, fiÂ·TE- + 1/ A SKY PARLE m .....75 Â·=M;?21%73LIFFITYLES SWImi 312TTEUY=hâ€¢ FI'lel /.:,-C/0,# r.' 1Lgpll ' ST.i, Â·.CONC[TAMAIR PL Â· Â·flf 5OLIME -L.'mi .1,1 -TOYERSE ORi*soAI-2-Zi 'Â· Â·: ./S-URGEON DR 485Â£u94 -iygi . 714 -EgRiONT-DR /,]3'ft -r-jr-gi-.39:6 L- ,'2 | Dllâ€¢1'ZiES - MEUWO .1 .; -<S?!R!9\ 2%4 1,42, :Ii;_Ii=q t # 9-940.4, ,I - 0-16.P-.13=30*04,1A LVEK' 1 -|2 wl.1:ly ''Â·s Â·Â· Â·625 * 8(A'FLEF'471- -Â·%02:.: +-.:134 J+21.6,1// b-4Eim Q Arl r 701 -J 127--551 / yti ' [ 901 --6-:.I 34,9/-.0-Â»41:ur/*t/.-y=Ma,at,-il1 1. 49 h.eli .0 //027,9 Â·r 21.*41 13440// 9/â€ž,0 18/ ,*AE=ty ** f. -24/' b.,Â·risb,/.,ru.w//rd,Â·I=/-4 //.: tr#6 4, MARRIOTT IRVINE . 1 ..02<4 Th--- 1 %% 6. . 7 x3 2201_EL r/-Il%3l-1.3JÂ·iMISSitN 1 06*m-0*im t.d 471 b SAI'ERT dip'i il IRFIrM.4/ /4*Â«,-Â»Â·iliftit49Â·98*i- r Â£ly.Â·*U % 1 21 4/ 4<44q Â·Â·:i.....:.ioaG/:/*72% '42*64* IEÂ·|1 8 94,81.FARÂ¥ -; 1 1 2|.pS :| 5 Jh2Â©<gati!2 1%Â· B 11. , ...1,1. M L 5 4\ .0/4* Rifis,Â·'1..- . 91, 21.-*TIO*AL .40/A#444-,& 01 f :':,,-5, :72*.'24Â«. 70*2 -i}64-?4,Â¥4T.INiME,r**r , I '',: 4 / Â»l Â·-3 ..0 :Â·4' U.'1:P.'Â·Pky('G.i2' 77'':y.â€¢@ 'Â¢.4 f 1 -3.Â·31Â·.Â®*74 uv*f".Â·-'Â·'='%44#, 4'04 4 1,360>& L1,-ICIN(PHITHEARAÂ·+ ..... Â·Â·. f.'41.'ORANGE.tooNT '-:,Â·'Â·=9'-Â·'@cÂ·j.pÂ·:.-02Â»,--, . wVA 7 .'Â·i?Aiwe,>- i*SEMÂ·'EXPOSITION-ttÂ· -Â·2-,9.3*44.W;226 4-Pat.9/2... J *41 7625â‚¬27.ljR't..1. 5 36'622*â‚¬ =4 9 ,... r F.. &%3:977Â· '.Whib:445:11% f -011â€¢ 4% ,"1% =TTI ...0 \7 1 --NUOA *m .3 i .:Â· 91,1,5, %Â¥27Â· ' 1240 Gkl-tt; AV 17 "f 5Â· " sIFRR V n I ... BRISTOL- 1Et)[10 *1.E f k IHE 1 NOm 7 3 3)WNER /Fll*Â» IBM RAL]h i PARK >' MI t f I h. R 2777<4 /*DEPARTMENT OF am IRVINA .97 47 23, L 3*F e.. J V>C Thomas Guide 2005,Page 859 1" =2400' SITE LOCATION MAP DATE 11/2/05 W.O. NO. 4976-Al-OC Geotechnical â€¢ Geologic â€¢ Environmental FIGURE 1 Foundation building plans were not available at the time of providing this report. However, based on a phone conversation with the project structural engineer (Tildin Engineering), the maximum additional surcharge loads will not exceed 600 pounds per square foot for over the exterior footings. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS GSI has reviewed various published reports and maps available in our library with respect to the regional geology and geotechnical considerations (see Appendix A, References). CURRENT INVESTIGATION GSI's subsurface field investigation was performed on September 5, 2004. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are shown on the Plot Plan, Plate 1. A total of four (4) hollow stem auger borings were advanced to depths of approximately 21.5 to 51.5 feet. A GSI field engineer observed the excavation operations and collected bulk and drive samples of materials encountered for visual examination and subsequent laboratory testing. Drive samples were collected in a 2.4-inch inside diameter sampler lined with 1 -inch-high brass rings. Soils encountered in the borings were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), as described in Appendix B. The logs of the Borings are presented in Appendix B and are based on visual examination of the samples, materials observed from the excavations, and results of laboratory tests. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials encountered on the subject property included documented compacted fill materials reported by Leroy Crandall & Associates (see Appendix A), which consisted of silty sand, light brown to grayish brown, moist to very moist, and medium dense to dense in consistency. The depth of encountered fill within the site is approximately 5 feet. Quaternary age alluvial material was encountered in all borings excavated on the site. The alluvial materials observed generally consist of grayish brown, light brown to grayish green silty sand, silt and silty clay that were typically moist to very moist and stiff to medium dense in consistency. Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:kervenandree\4900297681.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY No known active or potentially active faults are shown crossing the site on any recently published maps reviewed (Jennings, 1994). No Seismic Hazard or Earthquake Fault Zones have been identified to cross the subject property by the State of California. There are a number of fault zones in the southern California area which are considered active and will have an effect on the site in the form of moderate to strong ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are not limited to: the San Joaquin Hills faultzone, the San Andreas faultzone, the Newport-Inglewood and Elsinore- Whittier fault zones. The approximate locations of these and other major faults relative to the site are presented in Appendix D. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The San Joaquin Hills fault zone is located as close as approximately 3.9 kilometers from the site, and the Newport-Inglewood (L.A. Basin) is as close as 7.3 kilometers from the site. A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis was performed using the computer program FRISKSP Version 4.00 (Blake 2000a). The necessary input for such an analysis consists of (1) a source model incorporating known regional active faults, (2) a seismic activity and frequency magnitude relationship, and (3) an attenuation equation relating maximum horizontal ground acceleration, earthquake magnitude, and source-site distance. Major active and potentially active faults within approximately 100 kilometers of the project site were considered in this seismic risk analysis and modeled as linear sources. The probability of exceedance (%) of various levels of maximum horizontal ground acceleration (g) for exposure times of up to 100 years are presented in Appendix D. The average return periods (years) for various levels of maximum horizontal ground acceleration are also presented in Appendix D. The data is summarized for a 50 and 100 year design life in the table below. Detailed results are presented in Appendix D. Calculated Peak Probability of Ground Calculated Design Life Earthquake Exceedance Acceleration Return Period (years)Level (%)(g) (years) 100 Operating 50 0.18 144 100 Contingency 10 0.36 949 50 Operating 50 0.14 72 50 Contingency 10 0.27 475 The following seismic design parameters should be used to draw the Design Response Spectrum, per Chapter 16 of the 1997 UBC: Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\serveriandree\4900\497681.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. 1997 U.B.C.DESCRIPTION FACTOR Table 16-J Soil Profile Type So Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone 4 Table 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.49 Table 16-R Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.86 Table 16-S Near Source Factor, Na 1.1 Table 16-T Near Source Factor, Nv 1.3 Table 16-U Seismic Source Type B Nearest Fault San Joaquin Hills 3.9 Km GROUNDWATER The subject site is located on a portion of the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) 7.5 Minute Newport Beach Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Zones Map showing potential for liquefaction. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 17.5 to 21.5 feet below the existing ground surface. However, historic high groundwater elevation was reported to be 5 feet below the existing surface. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake- induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table; but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil, as excess pore water dissipates. One of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater. Typically, liquefaction has a low potential where groundwater is greater than 40 feet deep and is virtually unknown below 60 feet. Liquefaction analyses were performed using the computer program "LIQUEFY 2" version 1.50 developed by Thomas F. Blake (see Appendix E). The program was written to include the procedure recommended by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER, 1997). Liquefaction potential analysis and estimate of seismically induced settlement were performed for the design earthquake events that have 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (475 years of return period), as per CDMG Chart (Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim & Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\server\andree\4900\4976al.foundshopctr GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 5 Orange County, California, 1998). Results of the analyses indicate that a safety factor against liquefaction of less than 1.3 is present at a depth of 15 to 20 feet and 25 to 30 feet (B-1). The historic high groundwater depth of 5 feet was used in the calculations. A simplified method proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) involving SPT UN"-Values was used to estimate earthquake induced soil settlement at liquefiable zones. Since materials encountered in the upper 19 to 23 feet were predominantly dense fills with relatively high in-place densities orcohesive alluvial materials, the potential for the surface manifestation at the subject site is considered very low (Ishihara, 1985). LABORATORY TESTING General As previously indicated, laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials collected for the present geotechnical investigation, primarily in order to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties with respect to anticipated site development. The test procedures used and subsequent results are presented below: Field Moisture and Densitv Field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for relatively "undisturbed" samples of earth materials obtained from GSI's exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry weight. Water contents were measured in general accordance with ASTM D-2216. Results of this testing are summarized on the logs in Appendix B. Consolidation Testing Consolidation testing was performed on a selected undisturbed sample. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-3080. Test results are presented in Appendix C. Expansion Index Representative samples of soil near surface grade were tested for expansivity. The expansion index (El) test was performed according to UBC Standard #18-2, as outlined in Section 1803 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Laboratory test results indicate that the soil expansion potential for the on-site soils are low to high (El= 22 and 98). Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\server\andree\4900\497631.foundshopctr GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 6 Sulfate/Corrosion Testing A corrosivity test was performed on a representative sample from the site. The test was performed in accordance with the CalTrans Test Methods CT-417and CT-532 (643). Sulfate 1 + Minimum Resistivity Location (%By Weight)(6hm.cm) ph B-1 @ 0-5'0.0910 560 7.95 The resistivity of the on-site soils is determined to be 560 ohm-cm. The correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity is as follows: Below 1,000 ohm-cm 1,000 to 2,000 ohm-cm 2,000 to 10,000 ohm-cm Over 10,000 ohm-cm Severely corrosive Corrosive Moderately corrosive Mildly corrosive The Ph values do not indicate a high acidic or alkaline environment. However, the onsite soils are considered severely corrosive. The final determination on corrosivity should be made by a Certified Corrosion Engineer. All applicable guidelines, codes, and ordinances should be followed in the design of structure in contact with the on-site corrosive soils. Sulfate resistant concrete Type 11 with a cemenUwater ratio of 0.5 and a minimum 28 days strength of 4,000 psi is required during construction. CONCLUSIONS Based on the field exploration, our previous work in the area (References), laboratory testing and engineering and geological analyses, it is GSI's opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, providing that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into design and construction phases of development. The primary geologic and geotechnical conditions that affect proposed site development are summarized below: Liquefaction Potential. Engineering properties of onsite materials (expansion, sulfates, corrosion, etc.). L The possibility of strong seismic shaking to occur during a seismic event on one ofthe regional faults of southern California. Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\servenandree\4900497681.foundshopctr GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 7 The geologic and engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein, have been completed using the information provided. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report are verified or modified in writing by this office. The following general recommendations are preliminary and will require updating subsequent to review offinal sitegrading and development plans. FOUNDATION DESIGN General This report presents minimum design criteria forthe design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer. The structural engineer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer has any questions or requires further assistance, please do not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit his requests. Bearing Capacity of Existing Footinas An allowable bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for existing exterior continuous footings with footing dimensions of 15 inches wide and 36 inches deep. Since the existing footing width is 1'-9" (as per the plan, dated 11/17/72), the bearing value maybe-increaidd to a maximum of 2,200 psf. -The above values may be increased by one-third when considering shdnduration seismic or wind loads. For lateral sliding resistance, a coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. Ftssive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 psfper foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\se,verandreeW;904976al.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. All footings should maintain a minimum five-foot horizontal setback from the base-gilt12.- Tooting,al-d any aqjacent desqending sldpeand comply witn tne guide ines depicted in the 1997 UBC. Flag Pole Caisson Design Point of Fixity:Located a distance of 2.0 times the caisson's diameter. ./-...... I.- Passive Resistance:Passive earth pressure of 200 psf per foot of deeth lia maxiliiGFvalue.o.f.2.0.0.0.psf.may be used to determine caisson depth and spaging, provided that they- mpet_OL.e-*c-eed the minimum requ,!rements stated above. To determine the total literarrasistance, the contribution of the zone above the point of fixity, to passive resistance, should be disregarded. For Flag Pole Design, twice the above value may be used in the design calculations. Allowable Axial Capacitv: Shaft capacity:250 psf applied below the point of fixity over the surface area of the shaft. Tip capacity:2,000 psf. As an alternative, flag poles may be designed based on the UBC 1997, Chapter 18, Section 1806.8.2. New Foundation Construction (if any) Based upon our observations and test data, the onsite soils are low (fill materials, upper 3-5 feet) to high (alluvial materials) in expansion potential. The following preliminary foundation construction recommendations are presented for planning purposes: 1. / The minimum width for continuous wall footings supporting one-story floor loads should be 15 inches, and 18 inches for walls supporting two-story floor loads, withminimum embedment depth of 36 inches. The square column footings should be at least 24 inches by 24 inches in minimum plan dimensions. 2. All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 reinforcing bars at the top and two No. 4 reinforcing bars at the bottom. Square column 1 \ footings should be minimally reinforced with No. 4 bars placed at 18 inches on \genter, both ways, near the bottom of the footing. Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana Filelse,verandree\4904976al.foundshopctr GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 9 Settlement A total settlement, due to additional loading, is estimated to be less than 3/4", and the differential settlement to be less than 1 /4" over a horizontal span of 30 feet. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS (if applicable) Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below assume that either non expansive soils (Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) g[ native materials (up to and including an expansion index [E.1.] of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (i.e., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans.Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superseded by City and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\server\andree\4900;4976al.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. SURFACE SLOPE OF RETAINED MATERIAL (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT. P.C.F. (SELECT BACKFILL) EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (NATIVE BACKFILL) Level' 35 45 2 to 1 50 60 * Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1,2, and 3, present the back drainage options discussed below. Bad<drains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 1/2-inch to %-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials should be used behind the wall. This material should be continuous (i.e., full height) behind the wall, and it should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail). For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed in accordance with Detail 2 (Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain). Materials with an El potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the retaining wall should conform with Detail 3 (Retaining Wall And Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill). Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than *100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of weep holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.I. 5 90). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either: Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\serveAandree4900\497681 -foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. DETAI LS N.T.S. 12"lilli, 2 ///Native Backfill 1%/ Provide Surface Drainage -Slope or Level V +12" -4* Â£*-EE@-E Â® Rock Native Backfill -==.DE*QI /*r-- @ Filter Fabric *Waterproofing Membrane (option- .- -*@34/ 11, A /Il La / 1 or Flatter @ Weep Hc 1:=E:EEE=EEE=EEEE Native Backfill C L.-------------- L.-------------I KE,3,E<E<E)f &3383385 Finished Surfacâ‚¬ WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. Â® ROCK: 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. @ PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point (Perforations down). WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface (No weep holes for basement walls.). ah ,-#.9-,/*ch/â€¢â€¢va TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE DETAIL DETAIL 1 Geotechnical â€¢ Coastal . Geologic. Environmental DETAILS N.T.S. 6"lilli-Native Backfill Â¥A 073 2 ///Native Backfill 1// Provide Surface Drainage - -Slope or Level \Â« A/l *V *Waterproofing Membrane (optional) Â® Drain lilli I 1 Â® Weep Hole -- 1 or Flatter Â® Filter Fabric Finished Surface - 41 * WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. DRAIN: Miradrain 6000 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls. Miradrain 6200 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (All Perforations down). FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. @ PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point. @ WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) . RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL GEOTEXTILE DRAIN DETAIL 2 Geotechnical â€¢ Coastal . Geologic . Environmental F- @ Pipe DETAILS N.T.S. +12" - 2 *.....-Native Backfill Provide Surface Drainage Q>-- Slope or Level H/2 . v min. 244 27Â© Waterproofing I ./11 Membrane (optional) l_] 1 or Flatter @ Weep Hole -9 - : 1 JÂ¢ N N694, - r e Filter Fabric Â® Clean Sand Backfill Finished Surface *1...6?:%% Heel Width c WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. Â® CLEAN SAND BACKFILL: Must have sand equivalent value of 30 or greater; can be densified by water jetting. FILTER FABRIC: MIrafi 140N or approved equivalent. @ ROCK: 1 cubic foot per linear feet of pipe or 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. qD PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point (Perforations down). WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) RETAINING WALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL CLEAN SAND BACKFILL DETAIL 3 Geotechnical â€¢ Coastal o Geologic . Environmental I a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1 /360 for a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened footings). If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify any homeowners or homeowners association of this long-term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. The moisture content of the subgrade should be verified within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. If very low expansive soils are present, the rock or gravel or sand may be deleted. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. 3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana Filelserver\andreek4900\4976al.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. 4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, 16 to 3/8 inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. 5. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 4,000 psi. 6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. 9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10.Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. 11.Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post- construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association. 12.Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erosive outlet. Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:kerver\andreeW900\.497681.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. 13.Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, downspouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Downspouts, or drainage devices, should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet.As an alternative, Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\server\andree4900\4976al.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended forestablishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non-erosive devices (e.g., paved swales or ditches; below grade, solid tight-lined PVC pipes; etc.), that will carry the water away from the house, to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Pools and/or spas should not be constructed without specificdesign and construction recommendations from GSI, and this construction recommendation should be provided to the homeowners, any Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\server\andree49005497681.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. homeowners association, and/or other interested parties. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork, etc. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between tile end concrete slabs-on-grade. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street, driveway approaches, driveways, parking areas, and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to evaluate that the excavations have been made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. Trenchinq/Temporary Construction Backcuts Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees [except as specifically superceded within the text of this report]), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or soil engineer from GSI, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes.Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. The above recommendations should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, etc., that may perform such work. Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\server\andree4900\4976al.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to evaluate the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the ?3113Wing-coFistrOLiiui I bldyeb. - During grading/recertification. Â· During excavation. During placement of subdrains, toe drains, or other subdrainage devices, prior to - placing fill and/or backfill. A{ter excavation of Quilding footings, retaining wall footings, and free sta-d-iQgâ€ž-,wa-lls footings, prior to the placement of Feinforcing steel or concrete. J Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building paas andherliatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcirlg bt=17'85Ellary break (i.e., san*-bea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barrifrs (i.e., visqueen, Â·EL -- Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\server\andree4900#4976al.foundshopdr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 20 GeoSoils, Inc. During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. During placement of backfill for aRa drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, Sgretai;Iing-Wall-@0111. During slope construction/repair. I - When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction- operations, subs-equent-to-the issuance ot this repor YYb-en any developer orho-meowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed, prior to construction. 1 A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. GSI should review project sales documents to homeowners/homeownersassociations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. At that stage, GSI will provide homeowners maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the recommendations contained herein are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the Pacific Development Group 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana File:\server\andree\4900\4976al.foundshopctr W.O. 4976-Al-OC November 2,2005 Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. PLAN REVIEW f Final project plans (grading, precise grading,imicetion, retaining wall, landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so--tfiatTEonstruction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the client, in writing. Pacific Development Group W.O. 4976-Al -OC 1307 West Sunflower Avenue, Santa Ana November 2,2005 File:\server\andree\4900\497681.foundshopctr Page 22 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES Appendix A REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., 2000a, (Revised 2004) FRISKSP, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Accelerations and Uniform Hazard Spectra using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources. , 2000b, (Revised 2004) Eqfault, Eqsearch, Computer Programs for the Deterministic and Historic, and Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration for Digitized California Faults. , 2000c, UBCSEIS Version 1.03, A Computer Program to Determine UBC Seismic Factors. Boore, et. al, 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 128-153. California Department of Water Resources,2003,Water, Data Library (www.well.water. ca.qovo. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. , 1998 Maps of Known Active Fault Nudear-source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. , 1997, Uniform Building Code: Whittier, California, Vol.'s 1,2, and 3. Ishihara, 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proceeding, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation EngineeMng, Vol. 1 PP. 321-376. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California, scale 1:750,000, DMG Open File Report 92-03. Leroy Crandall & Associates, 1971 a, Interim Report, Inspection and Testing of Compacted Fill, Proposed Department Store, Sunflower Avenue and Bristol Street, Santa Ana, California, Job No. B-71236, dated November 30. , 197lb, Supplementary Recommendations, Proposed Partial Basement, The Treasury Department Store, Sunflower Avenue and Bristol Street, Santa Ana, California, Job No. A-71009, dated November 22. , 1971 c, Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed Department Store, Sunflower Avenue and Bristol Street, Santa Ana, California, for J.C. Penny Company, Inc. Job No. A-71009, dated February 8. Tokimatsu and Seed, H.B. (1987), Evaluation of Settlements in Sand due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 1.113 No. 8, PP.861-878 APPENDIX B LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS , LOG OF BORING B-1 Sheetl of 1 FA/EVDate Drilled:10/5/05 Logged by: Equipment:8" Hollow Stem Driving Weight and Drop:140# 30" Surface Elevation(ft):Depth to Water(ft): EPPT u Modified SZ Water Level - California -ADT SAM PLES U DJGrab Shelby -7 Static Water - Sample Tube -TableI <0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 0 -1 -Essm 73.5" Asphalt / FILL: Silty SAND, light brown to black gray, very moist, dense to 0 very dense TACEUVIUM:-ST[ty-CLA-Â¥Ji#F-bmwi ve@ mBEt,-siiff,-some - 12 28.8 94.6 carbonate-veins - - 10 24â€ž///h, %10' Clay (CH), graish brown, wet, soft, very plastic X 3 44.5 lllllllll, 15 -_ @15' Same as above 16 17.7 107.8 -111111 111. - 20 -35555: Silty SAND,to SAND (SM-SP), tan to brown, wet, medium dense X 17 15.4 I..... T 25 4131: @ 25' SAND to Gravelly SAND, light brown, wet, loose X 9 17.5 ..... ..... ..... - 30 ......3Â·3Â·30 @ 30' same as above, becomes denser X 26 14.7 ...... F 35-:i::::::::: @35'Gravellycoarse SAND, light brown, wet, dense X 30 13.5 ..... - 40 -Clayey SILT (ML-CL), grayish green, very moist, very stiff X 11 30.8 - 45 -@ 45' Silt to Clayey SILT, grayish green, very moist, very stiff X 13 29.8 50 55 @50' SILT (ML), greenish gray, moist, very stiff X 14 37.8 TOTAL DEPTH = 51.5' GROUND WATER @ 18.5' HOLE BACKFILLED AND TAMPED GSI GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, California Phone: 7 14-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP SANTA ANA 4976-Al-OC Plate B-1 USCS SYMB. LAGNNN01 4976.GPJ LAGNNN01.GOT 11/14/05 LOG OF BORING B-2 Sheetl of 1 Date Drilled:10/5/05 Logged by:FA/EV Equipment:8" Hollow Stem Driving Weight and Drop:140# 30" Surface Elevation(ft):Depth to Water(ft): ePT , Modified - Water Level - California -ADT SAM PLES U Grab Shelby ,Static Water Sample Tube --TableI <0 0Â£ O SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS O -3 joÂ©000<>74.5" Asphalt Ek, -338888 FILL: Silty SAND, brown to yellow brown, very moist, dense 15 16 107.9- 6,6'<'b.6 1 5 - .......... JI**â€¢â€¢â€¢ts - - 10 -........1 - 't'.'*'., - 15 ......... - - - 20 11'SS"St - 2 -077/////1 - - 25 - - 30 - - 35 - - 40 - - 45 - - 50 - - 55 - Fat CLAY, dark gray, very moist, stiff -ALLUVIUM: Silty CLAY to Clayey SILT(ML-CL), dark gray, very-z 18 24.6 99.4 moist, very stiff @ 10' Silty CLAY (CL), tan brown, very moist, medium stiff,el 4 36.6 slightly porous @ 15' Silty CLAY(CL), grayish brown, very moist, very stiff X 15 28.4 96.5 @20' Silty CLAY, grayish brown, very moist, stiff X 6 22.8 TOTAL DEPTH = 21.5' NO WATER HOLE BACKFILLED AND TAMPED GSI GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, California Phone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP SANTA ANA 4976-A 1 -OC Plate B-2 USCS SYMB. LAGNNN01 4976 GPJ LAGNNN01.GDT 11/14/05 LOG OF BORING B-3 Sheetl of 1 Date Drilled:10/5/05 Logged by:FA/EV Equipment:8" Hollow Stem Driving Weight and Drop:140# 30" Surface Elevation(ft):Depth to Water(ft): Â®SPT Modified SZ Water Level California -ADT SAM PLES U D Grab Shelby ,Static Water Sample Tube -TableEC <0 05 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 0J 75'hallt-311Â®se.Rock_ - - - - - - FILL: Silty SAND, yellow brown, moist, dense - 5 - - Silty CLAY, tan brown, moist to very moist, very stiff .ALLUVIUM: Silty CLAY, dark gray, very moist, very stiff -*1 16 30.5 91.5 10 d ,"pd3 - NL @10' same as above X 6 34.7 15 y 1,4 3 1/:ll /11 \@15' same as above, trace of coarse SAND 10 28.8 96.2 Jli-ll.ili,Silty CLAY, grayish brown, very moist, stiff J:Ill 11 , F 20 -F - 14*92_ ...... ...... @ 20' Sandy CLAY, reddish brown very moist, stiff, trace offine X11 19.7 Gravels -2237-Coarse SANDISwrirayto yellowish brown, wet, loose, few fine gravels X 8 16.2 - TOTAL DEPTH = 26.5' - GROUND WATET AT 17.5' - 30 -HOLE BACKFILLED TAMPED - 35 - - 40 - - 45 - - 50 - - 55 - GSI GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, California Phone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP SANTA ANA 4976-Al-OC Plate B-3 USCS SYMB. LAGNNN01 4976.GPJ LAGNNN01.GDT 11/14/05 LOG OF BORING B-4 Sheetl of 1 Date Drilled:10/5/05 Logged by:FA/EV Equipment:8" Hollow Stem Driving Weight and Drop:140# 30" Surface Elevation(ft):Depth to Water(ft): Â®SPT Modified 9 Water Level California -ADT SAMPLES 62 Grab Shelby .Static Water Sample Tube -TableI 0- <0 2 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS O -1 5 AsphalUBase, 2.5"/12" - :i -FILL: SiTE-SAND,-littie-ciay,irayish-brown, moist,dense@ 2' Silty to Sandy CLAY, dark gray, very moist, stiff . @ 2' Silty to Sandy CLAY, dark gray, very moist, stiff .-i stiffALLUVIUM: silty CLAY (CL), grayish brown, very moist, medium B 12 29.9 94.4 - -jilillilli,@10' Clay (CL), grayish brown, very moist, medium stiff X 4 35.7 - -1111111111,- 15 -7 32.9 98.6 Sandy CLAY, brown, very moist, stiff - 2 -ff - 20 -X 17 16-_3?21'sillfLAY-(27,-grayiPrown' vel '=P, vel-3-5 -__ _ 055:.St-2 Gravelly SAND (GW), brown, wet, loose, grayish brown, fine to - 25 -k:15â‚¬: coarse gravels X 1 1 21.8 - - TOTAL DEPTH = 26.5' - - GROUND WATER AT 18.5' - 30 -HOLE BACKFILLED AND TAMPED - 35 - - 40 - - 45 - - 50 - - 55 - GSI GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, California Phone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP SANTA ANA 4976-Al-OC Plate B-4 USCS SYMB. LAGNNN01 4976.GPJ LAGNNN01 GDT 11/14/05 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Oct 12 05 01:17p CALLAND ENG 714-671-1090 P.2 Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultant Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil Engineering SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA Client Name: GeoSoils, inc. Project Name: Pacific Development Group Project No.: W.O. 4976-Al-OC QCI Project No.: 05-029-010b Date: October 12, 2005 Summarized by: ABK Sample ID Depth Feet pH Chloride Sulfate Resistivity CT-532 CT-422 CT-417 CT-532 (643) (643)(ppm) (%By Weight)(ohm-cm) B-1 5.0 7.95 86 0.0910 560 576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 626-512-0945, 714-671-1050, Fax: 714-671-1090 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Specimen Identification Classification 1; MC% c 0 â€¢ B-3 5.0 92 31 940 17 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut AvenueGSI Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-1 Number: 4976-Al-OC US DIRECT SHEAR , 975 GPJ US LAB GDT 11/3/05 OUCAD OTOCk,PTU ..i 100 1,000 10,000 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification b MC% â€¢ B-2 5.0 97 31 GSI GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-2 Number: 4976-Al-OC US CONSOL STRAIN 4976.GPJ US LAB.GOT 11/3/05 STRAIN, % 0 . 1 2 3 4 5 \6 7 8 100 1,000 10,000 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification â€¢ B-3 15.0 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut Avenue GSI Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 Classification ld MC% 95 31 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-3 Number: 4976-Al-OC US CONSOL STRAIN 4976.GPJ US LAB GDT 10/14/05 STRAIN, % 0 1 2 3 4 \5 6 7 8 9 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 100 I 95 90 85 4 3 2 1.5 1 1/2 1- 3/3 3 14%1 4 \* 6 810 14 111 16 10 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 80 ' ' ''\ lilli 1 1 1 1 1 1 75 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 70 65 9 60 >- 55 00 1 1 1 1 \1 1 1 1 , /1 1 2 \1 1 50m '11 +121-45 Z ' 1 1 W ' ' ' 1 1 1 1 1 1240 1 1 1 1W , i i 35 ' ' ' '\IE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 1 1 1 1\ 1 1\ 25 1\ 1 1 1 1\ 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ 1 / 1 1\ 1 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 ' I i \ 1 1 1 1lilibi 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 0 â€¢ Â· 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc CU â€¢ B-1 30.0 POORLY GRADED SAND SP 1.08 5.10 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay â€¢ B-1 30.0 18.85 0.832 0.384 0.163 4.9 GSI GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-4 Number: 4976-Al-OC US GRAIN SIZE 4976.GPJ US LAB.GOT 11 2/05 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 100 I 4 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 tE 60 LU Â» 55 00 50 LL 1- 45 Z W @ 40 k' 35 30 25 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 20C1.5 314 33 4 8 14 20 40 60 140 11 11 1 lilli 111 t t t 20 15 10 5 0 10 1 0.1100 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc CU â€¢ B-1 20.0 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay â€¢ B-1 20.0 18.85 1.227 0.36 6.8 GSI GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-5 Number: 4976-Al-OC US GRAIN SIZE 4976 GPJ US LAB.GOT 11 3/05 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 100 I 4 95 90 85 80 75 70 35 25 20 15 10 5 0 2 1.5 1 1/23/4 33/8 6 810 164 30 50 10014204060 2(140 i 10 1 0.1 65 &2 60 Â» 55 LU 50 Z E 1 1- 45 Z LU g 40 W 1 30 100 0.01 .0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc Cu â€¢ B-3 25.0 POORLY GRADED SAND SP 1.16 5.69 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay â€¢ B-3 25.0 18.85 1.054 0.476 0.185 6.8 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut AvenueGSI Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-6 Number: 4976-Al-OC US GRAIN SIZE 4976.GPJ US LAB.GDT 10/17/05 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 100 I 4 3 2 1.5 1 95 . 90 85 :14 1/2 03 43 6 -10 16 30 50 100 20014204060140 '\L 1 I ' I I I l l 11 70 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 10 1 0.1 80 1 1 1 1/ 1 1 1 /1 175 65 960 U.1 i 1 1 /1 1 1 1 Â»55 m It I 1 1 H 1 50 1 1 1 $ 1 1 1 1 1-45 Z 1 1 W 1 1 1 /1 1 140 1 1 1 1 //1 0 100 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc CU â€¢ B-4 25.0 POORLY GRADED SAND SP 1.14 3.20 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay â€¢ B.4 25.0 18.85 0.535 0.319 0.167 3.5 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut AvenueGSI Santa Ana, California Telephone:- 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-7 Number: 4976-Al-OC US GRAIN SIZE 4976 GPJ US LAB GDT 1017/05 0 CL-ML 20 400 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification â€¢ B-1 10.0 33 23 10 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut AvenueGSI Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-8 Number: 4976-Al-OC 60 8 8 50 P L A S 40 T 1 C 1 T 30 Y 1 N 20 D E X 10 US ATTERBERG LIMITS 4976 GPJ US LAB.GDT 10/14/05 50 P L A S 40 T C T 30 Y N 20 D E X 10 CL-ML 0 0 20 40 60 8 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification â€¢ B-1 45.0 34 25 9 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut AvenueG SI Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-9 Number: 4976-Al-OC 60 Â©* US ATTERBERG LIMITS 4976.GPJ US LAB.GOT 11/3/05 0 CL-ML @ E 20 400 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification â€¢ B-2 10.0 46 22 24 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut AvenueC; SI Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-10 Number: 4976-Al-OC 60 Â®6 50 P L A S 40 T 1 C 1 T 30 Y 1 N 20 D E X 10 US ATTERBERG LIMITS 4976.GPJ US LAB.GDT 10/17/05 0 CL-ML 20 400 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification â€¢ B-4 10.0 40 21 19 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut AvenueC; SI Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-11 Number: 4976-Al-OC 60 50 P L A S 40 T 1 C 1 T 30 Y 1 N 20 D E X 10 US ATTERBERG LIMITS 4976.GPJ US LAB.GDT 1 la/05 1 N 20 D E X 10 CL-ML 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen Identification LL PL PI Fines Classification â€¢ B-3 15.0 69 32 37 GEOSOILS, INC. 1446 East Chestnut AvenueGSI Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLATE Location: SANTA ANA C-12 Number: 4976-Al-OC 60 8 8 50 P L A S 40 ly T 1 C 1 T 30 Y 1 US ATTERBERG LIMITS 4976.GPJ US LAB.GOT 11/11/05 APPENDIX D SEISMICITY ANALYSIS *********************** * * UBCSEIS * * * Version 1.03 * I I **********************I COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 4976-Al-OC DATE:10-11-2005 JOB NAME: Pacific Develop FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE:33.6955 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.9168 UBC SEISMIC ZONE:0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE:SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME:ELSINORE-WHITTIER DISTANCE:26.2 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME:San Joaquin Hills DISTANCE: 3.9 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE:99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.1 Nv:1.3 Ca:0.49 CV:0.86 Ts:0.704 To:0.141 * 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 by * * several kilometers.Therefore, it is important char * the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and * * adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. * SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 1 APPROX. SOURCE MAX.SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCE TYPE MAG.RATE TYPE FAULT NAME (km)(A, B,C)(Mw)(mm/yr)(SS,DS,BT) NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin)7.3 B 7.1 1.00 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)11.6 B 7.1 1.50 PALOS VERDES 24.6 B 7.1 3.00 ELSINORE-WHITTIER 26.2 A 6.8 2.50 CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)30.1 B 6.7 1.00 ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 31.3 A 6.8 5.00 SAN JOSE 38.4 B 6.5 0.50 CORONADO BANK 47.5 B 7.4 3.00 SIERRA MADRE (Central)49.4 B 7.0 3.00 CUCAMONGA 50.9 B 7.0 5.00 RAYMOND 51.6 B 6.5 0.50 ELSINORE-TEMECULA 52.9 A 6.8 5.00 VERDUGO 53.2 B 6.7 0.50 CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 54.2 B 6.5 0.50 HOLLYWOOD 55.3 B 6.5 1.00 SANTA MONICA 62.5 B 6.6 1.00 MALIBU COAST 68.1 B 6.7 0.30 SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 69.4 B 6.7 12.00 SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 72.3 B 6.9 12.00 SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)73.6 B 6.7 2.00 SAN ANDREAS - Southern 76.8 A 7.4 24.00 SAN GABRIEL 76.9 B 7.0 1.00 SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 77.2 A 7.8 34.00 ROSE CANYON 77.6 B 6.9 1.50 ANACAPA-DUME 78.8 B 7.3 3.00 CLEGHORN 80.2 B 6.5 3.00 SANTA SUSANA 88.0 B 6.6 5.00 NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)89.9 B 7.0 1.00 ELSINORE-JULIAN 90.8 A 7.1 5.00 SAN JACINTO-ANZA 92.6 A 7.2 12.00 HOLSER 96.9 8 6.5 0.40 SIMI-SANTA ROSA 105.0 B 6.7 1.00 OAK RIDGE (Onshore)105.2 B 6.9 4.00 SAN CAYETANO 113.6 B 6.8 6.00 PINTO MOUNTAIN 117.6 B 7.0 2.50 NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)119.5 B 6.7 0.50 HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 122.3 B 7.1 0.60 SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 133.0 B 6.8 4.00 SANTA YNEZ (East)133.3 B 7.0 2.00 VENTURA - PITAS POINT 134.3 8 6.8 1.00 EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 136.1 B 6.5 2.00 LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 139.4 B 7.3 0.60 M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 144.1 B 6.7 0.40 BURNT MTN.145.2 B 6.5 0.60 JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)147.0 3 6.7 0.60 LANDERS 148.2 B 7.3 0.60 SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 2 APPROX. SOURCE MAX.SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCE TYPE MAG.RATE TYPE FAULT NAME (km)(A,B,C)(Mw)(mm/yr)(SS,DS,BT) RED MOUNTAIN 148.6 B 6.8 2.00 EUREKA PEAK 148.7 B 6.5 0.60 SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 151.5 B 6.8 1.00 GARLOCK (West)153.4 A 7.1 6.00 PLEITO THRUST 155.4 B 6.8 2.00 EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.157.9 B 6.9 0.60 GRAVEL HI LLS - HARPER LAKE 159.4 B 6.9 0.60 BIG PINE 160.6 B 6.7 0.80 ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 165.2 B 6.8 4.00 CALICO - HIDALGO - 167.6 B 7.1 0.60 SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 168.6 B 6.6 4.00 BLACKWATER 169.6 B 6.9 0.60 PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 175.3 B 7.1 0.60 GARLOCK (East)177.0 A 7.3 7.00 WHITE WOLF 178.4 B 7.2 2.00 SANTA YNEZ (West)181.4 B 6.9 2.00 SANTA ROSA ISLAND 187.7 B 6.9 1.00 SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)200.4 B 6.6 5.00 So. SIERRA NEVADA 203.4 B 7.1 0.10 ELMORE RANCH 204.7 B 6.6 1.00 SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)206.8 B 6.6 4.00 BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 208.1 B 6.5 25.00 LITTLE LAKE 214.2 B 6.7 0.70 ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 217.0 B 7.0 3.50 LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE 224.3 B 6.8 0.70 TANK CANYON 225.0 B 6.5 1.00 PANAMINT VALLEY 232.9 B 7.2 2.50 OWL LAKE 233.2 B 6.5 2.00 IMPERIAL 233.8 A 7.0 20.00 LIONS HEAD 241.7 B 6.6 0.02 SAN JUAN 248.6 B 7.0 1.00 SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin)250.1 B 7.0 0.20 DEATH VALLEY (South)254.6 B 6.9 4.00 CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault)259.2 B 6.5 0.25 OWENS VALLEY 277.5 B 7.6 1.50 LOS OSOS 279.7 B 6.8 0.50 DEATH VALLEY (Graben)281.8 B 6.9 4.00 HOSGRI 287.7 B 7.3 2.50 RINCONADA 299.4 B 7.3 1.00 INDEPENDENCE 312.4 B 6.9 0.20 HUNTER MTN. -SALINE VALLEY 312.4 8 7.0 2.50 DEATH VALLEY (Northern)331.2 A 7.2 5.00 SAN ANDREAS (Creeping)354.4 8 5.0 34.00 BIRCH CREEK 366.9 8 6.5 0.70 WHITE MOUNTAINS 373.3 B 7.1 1.00 DEEP SPRINGS 393.3 8 6.6 0.80 --------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 3 APPROX. SOURCE MAX.SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCE TYPE MAG.RATE TYPE FAULT NAME (km)(A,B,C)(Mw)(mm/yr)(SS,DS,BT) ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.)399.9 B 6.8 1.00 DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo)402.9 A 7.0 5.00 FISH SLOUGH 409.9 B 6.6 0.20 HILTON CREEK 425.5 B 6.7 2.50 ORTIGALITA 438.7 B 6.9 1.00 CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res)444.0 B 6.2 15.00 MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 447.0 B 7.1 0.50 HARTLEY SPRINGS 448.5 B 6.6 0.50 PALO COLORADO - SUR 448.5 B 7.0 3.00 QUIEN SABE 457.3 B 6.5 1.00 ZAYANTE-VERGELES 475.7 B 6.8 0.10 SAN ANDREAS (1906)480.9 A 7.9 24.00 SARGENT 481.0 B 6.8 3.00 MONO LAKE 484.0 B 6.6 2.50 ROBINSON CREEK 514.8 B 6.5 0.50 SAN GREGORIO 522.1 A 7.3 5.00 GREENVILLE 530.9 B 6.9 2.00 MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 531.0 B 6.5 0.40 HAYWARD (SE Extension)531.1 B 6.5 3.00 CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res)550.8 B 6.8 6.00 HAYWARD (Total Length)550.8 A 7.1 9.00 ANTELOPE VALLEY 554.5 B 6.7 0.80 GENOA 578.7 B 6.9 1.00 CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 598.6 B 6.9 6.00 RODGERS CREEK 637.1 A 7.0 9.00 WEST NAPA 638.1 B 6.5 1.00 POINT REYES 655.8 B 6.8 0.30 HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 660.8 B 6.9 6.00 MAACAMA (South)699.8 B 6.9 9.00 COLLAYOMI 716.8 B 6.5 0.60 BARTLETT SPRINGS 720.6 A 7.1 6.00 MAACAMA (Central)741.3 A 7.1 9.00 MAACAMA (North)800.8 A 7.1 9.00 ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay)807.4 B 6.8 6.00 BATTLE CREEK 834.1 B 6.5 0.50 LAKE MOUNTAIN 865.6 B 6.7 6.00 GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 882.5 B 6.9 9.00 MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 938.3 A 7.4 35.00 LITTLE SALMON (Onshore)945.5 A 7.0 5.00 MAD RIVER 948.6 B 7.1 0.70 CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 951.7 A 8.3 35.00 McKINLEYVILLE 958.9 B 7.0 0.60 TRINIDAD 960.6 B 7.3 2.50 FICKLE HILL 960.9 B 6.9 0.60 TABLE BLUFF 965.9 B 7.0 0.60 LITTLE SALMON (Offshore)979.3 B 7.1 1.00 *********************** * * EQFAULT * * * Version 3.00 * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 4976-Al-OC DATE: 10-11-2005 JOB NAME: PAIFIC DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION NAME: 4976 FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE:33.6955 SITE LONGITUDE:117.9168 SEARCH RADIUS:100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION:14) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Alluvium UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas:1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE:cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth:5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED:C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km):3.0 EQFAULT SUMMARY DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE ------------------------------- DISTANCE MAXIMUM PEAK EST. SITE mi (km)EARTHQUAKE SITE INTENSITY MAG. (Mw)ACCEL. g MOD.MERC. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 2.4(3.9)6.6 0.960 XI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin)4.7(7.5)7.1 0.651 X NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)7.5(12.0)7.1 0.541 X PALOS VERDES 15.5(24.9)7.3 0.353 IX PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST 16.3(26.3)7.1 0.317 IX WHITTIER 16.9(27.2)6.8 0.238 IX ELSINORE (GLEN IVY)19.6(31.5)6.8 0.206 VIII CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)19.6(31.5)6.7 0.209 VIII SAN JOSE 24.3(39.1)6.4 0.135 VIII UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST 27.9(44.9)6.4 0.114 VII CORONADO BANK 29.6(47.6)7.6 0.235 IX RAYMOND 32.0(51.5)6.5 0.102 VII SIERRA MADRE 32.7(52.6)7.2 0.160 VIII ELSINORE (TEMECULA)32.9(53.0)6.8 0.120 VII CUCAMONGA 33.1(53.2)6.9 0.130 VIII VERDUGO 34.1(54.9)6.9 0.126 VIII HOLLYWOOD 35.0(56.4)6.4 0.083 VII CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 35.4(56.9)6.5 0.089 VII SANTA MONICA 39.0(62.7)6.6 0.084 VII MALIBU COAST 42.6(68.5)6.7 0.080 VII SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 43.4(69.9)6.7 0.077 VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 45.2(72.7)6.9 0.087 VII NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge)47.0(75.6)7.0 0.088 VII SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)47.4(76.3)6.7 0.069 VI SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2 47.6(76.6)7.7 0.156 VIII SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3 47.6(76.6)7.4 0.125 VII SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-1 47.6(76.6)7.5 0.135 VIII SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-lb-1 47.6(76.6)7.8 0.167 VIII SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-la 47.6(76.6)8.0 0.193 VIII SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b â€¢47.6(76.6)7.7 0.156 VIII SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a 47.6(76.6)7.8 0.167 VIII SAN GABRIEL 47.8(77.0)7.2 0.106 VII ROSE CANYON 48.7(78.4)7.2 0.103 VII CLEGHORN 49.9(80.3)6.5 0.054 VI ANACAPA-DUME .,50.3(81.0)7.5 0.118 VII SANTA SUSANA 55.7(89.6)6.7 0.055 VI NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)56.4(90.7)7.2 0.080 VII ELSINORE (JULIAN)56.5(90.9)7.1 0.078 VII SAN JACINTO-ANZA 57.6(92.7)7.2 0.083 VII HOLSER 60.3(97.1)6.5 0.042 VI DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 2 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE ------------------------------- DISTANCE MAXIMUM PEAK EST. SITE mi (km)EARTHQUAKE SITE INTENSITY MAG. (Mw)ACCEL. g MOD.MERC. SIMI-SANTA ROSA 61.8( 99.5 )7.0 0.060 VI OAK RIDGE (Onshore)65.2( 105.0)7.0 0.055 VI SAN CAYETANO 71.6( 115.3)7.0 0.049 VI PINTO MOUNTAIN 73.1( 117.7)7.2 0.061 VI NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)73.6( 118.5)6.7 0.037 V HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 76.0( 122.3)7.3 0.063 VI SAN ANDREAS - Carrizo M-lc-2 77.2( 124.3)7.4 0.068 VI OAK RIDGE(Blind Thrust Offshore)78.9( 127.0)7.1 0.046 VI CHANNEL IS. THRUST (Eastern)80.0( 128.8)7.5 0.062 VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 82.6( 133.0)6.6 0.030 V SANTA YNEZ (East)82.9( 133.4)7.1 0.047 VI VENTURA - PITAS POINT 83.8( 134.9)6.9 0.036 V EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 84.6( 136.1)6.5 0.027 V SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-lc-5 84.7( 136.3)7.2 0.050 VI LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 86.6( 139.4)7.5 0.064 VI OAK RIDGE MID-CHANNEL STRUCTURE 87.1( 140.2)6.6 0.027 V BURNT MTN.89.3( 143.7)6.5 0.025 V M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 90.6( 145.8)7.2 0.041 V JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)91.2( 146.7)6.7 0.029 V LANDERS 91.6( 147.4)7.3 0.050 VI EUREKA PEAK 92.3( 148.6)6.4 0.022 IV RED MOUNTAIN 93.4( 150.3)7.0 0.033 V SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 94.1( 151.5)7.0 0.033 V GARLOCK (West)95.3( 153.3)7.3 0.047 VI PLEITO THRUST 96.3( 155.0)7.0 0.032 V EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.97.9( 157.6)7.0 0.035 V GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE ,99.1( 159.5)7.1 0.037 V BIG PINE 99.9 ( 160.7)6.9 0.031 V ******************I.*********************************************************** -END OF SEARCH-68 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 2.4 MILES AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.9602 g ************************* * * EQSEARCH * * * Version 3.00 * * ************************* ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS JOB NUMBER: 4976-Al-OC DATE: 10-11-2005 JOB NAME: PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQSEARCH\ALLQUAKE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE:34.4708 SITE LONGITUDE: 119.6917 SEARCH DATES: START DATE: 1800 END DATE:2000 SEARCH RADIUS: 100.0 mi 160.9 km ATTENUATION RELATION:14) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Alluvium UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas:1.0 ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: SS [SS=Strike-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=Blind-thrust] SCOND:0 Depth Source: A Basement Depth:5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km):3.0 EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 1 | 1 | TIME 1 SITE SITEI APPROX. FILE|LAT. |LONG. DATE |(UTC) DEPTH|QUAKE ACC. MM | DISTANCE CODEI NORTH WEST |H M Sec (km) MAG.|g |INT. 1 mi [km] --0---lit-----i-it--9--t---Ilt-----lit----t--Ii---- T-A 34.5000 119.6700 06/01/1893 12 0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.228 IX 2.4(3.8) MGI 34.4000 119.7000 03/25/1806 8 0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.176 VIII 4.9(7.9) T-A 34.4200 119.8200 00/00/1862 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.70 0.218 IX 8.1( 13.0) PAS 34.3470 119.6960 08/13/1978 225453.4 12.8 5.10 0.129 VIII 8.5( 13.8) DMG 34.3670 119.5830 07/01/1941 75054.8 0.0 5.90 0.222 IX 9.5( 15.2) DMG 34.5000 119.5000 06/29/1926 2321 0.0 0.0 5.50 0.140 VIII 11.1( 17.8) DMG 34.5000 119.5000 08/05/1930 1125 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.091 VII 11.1( 17.8) MGI 34.3000 119.8000 07/03/1925 1638 0.0 0.0 5.30 0.098 VII 13.3( 21.4) MGI 34.3000 119.8000 07/03/1925 1821 0.0 0.0 5.30 0.098 VII 13.3( 21.4) DMG 34.3000 119.8000 06/29/1925 144216.0 0.0 6.25 0.206 VIII 13.3( 21.4) DMG 34.2000 119.8000 12/21/1812 19 0 0.0 0.0 7.00 0.233 IX 19.7( 31.7) DMG . 34.1180 119.7020 07/05/1968 04517.2 5.9 5.20 0.042 VI 24.4( 39.2) DMG 34.1000 119.4000 05/19/1893 035 0.0 0.0 5.50 0.042 VI 30.5( 49.1) DMG 34.0000 119.5000 02/18/1926 1818 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.023 IV 34.3( 55.2) DMG 33.9860 119.4750 08/06/1973 232917.0 16.9 5.00 0.022 IV 35.7( 57.4) DMG 34.0000 120.0170 04/01/1945 234342.0 0.0 5.40 0.029 V 37.4( 60.2) DMG 34.7000 120.3000 01/12/1915 431 0.0 0.0 5.50 0.031 V 38.0( 61.2) DMG 34.7000 120.3000 07/31/1902 920 0.0 0.0 5.50 0.031 V 38.0( 61.2) DMG 34.8000 119.1000 09/05/1883 1230 0.0 0.0 6.00 0.045 VI 40.6( 65.3) MGI 34.6000 120.4000 07/28/1902 657 0.0 0.0 6.30 0.058 VI 41.3( 66.4) MGI 34.6000 120.4000 08/01/1902 330 0.0 0.0 6.30 0.058 VI 41.3( 66.4) DMG 34.7000 119.0000 10/23/1916 254 0.0 0.0 5.50 0.027 V 42.4( 68.2) MGI 34.8000 120.4000 12/12/1902 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.70 0.029 V 46.2( 74.4) DMG 34.0650 119.0350 02/21/1973 144557.3 8.0 5.90 0.034 V 46.8( 75.3) MGI 34.9000 120.4000 03/29/1928 625 0.0 0.0 5.30 0.018 IV 49.9( 80.4) DMG 34.8670 118.9330 09/21/1941 1953 7.2 0.0 5.20 0.016 IV 51.0( 82.1) DMG 34.0000 119.0000 09/24/1827 4 0 0.0 0.0 7.00 0.081 VII 51.1( 82.3) MGI 34.0000 119.0000 12/14/1912 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.70 0.025 V 51.1( 82.3) DMG 34.9000 118.9500 08/01/1952 '13 430.0 0.0 5.10 0.015 IV 51.5( 82.9) DMG 34.9410 118.9870 11/15/1961 53855.5 10.7 5.00 0.013 III 51.5( 82.9) DMG 34.9320 118.9760 03/01/1963 02557.9 13.9 5.00 0.013 III 51.6( 83.1) DMG 35.0000 119.0330 07/21/1952 12 2 0.0 0.0 5.60 0.023 IV 52.3( 84.1) DMG 35.0000 119.0170 01/12/1954 233349.0 0.0 5.90 0.029 V 52.9( 85.2) DMG 35.0000 119.0170 07/21/1952 115214.0 0.0 7.70 0.139 VIII 52.9( 85.2) DMG 34.9830 118.9830 05/23/1954 235243.0 0.0 5.10 0.014 IV 53.5( 86.2) DMG 35.0000 119.0000 02/16/1919 1557 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.013 III 53.6( 86.3) DMG 35.0000 119.0000 07/21/1952 12 531.0 0.0 6.40 0.045 VI 53.6( 86.3) T-A 34.9200 118.9200 05/23/1857 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.013 III 53.7( 86.4) T-A 34.9200 118.9200 01/20/1857 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.013 III 53.7( 86.4) DMG 34.9000 118.9000 10/23/1916 244 0.0 0.0 6.00 0.031 V 53.8( 86.6) GSB 34.3790 118.7110 01/19/1994 210928.6 14.0 5.50 0.019 IV 56.2( 90.5) GSP 34.3770 118.6980 01/18/1994 004308.9 11.0 5.20 0.014 IV 57.0( 91.7) DMG 34.9500 118.8670 07/21/1952 121936.0 0.0 5.30 0.015 IV 57.3( 92.2) GSP 35.1490 119.1040 05/28/1993 044740.6 21.0 5.20 0.014 IV 57.5( 92.5) GSP 34.3260 118.6980 01/17/1994 233330.7 9.0 5.60 0.020 IV 57.5( 92.5) DMG 35.3000 119.8000 01/09/1857 16 0 0.0 0.0 7.90 0.147 VIII 57.6( 92.7) GSP 34.3940 118.6690 06/26/1995 084028.9 13.0 5.00 0.011 III 58.5( 94.1) GSP 34.3690 118.6720 04/26/1997 103730.7 16.0 5.10 0.012 III 58.5( 94.1) MGI 35.0000 120.5000 11/19/1927 332 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.011 III 58.6( 94.4) T-A 34.8300 118.7500 11/27/1852 0 0 0.0 0.0 7.00 0.068 VI 59.0( 94.9) DMG 35.0000 118.8330 07/23/1952 181351.0 0.0 5.20 0.013 III 60.9( 98.0) DMG 35.0000 118.8330 07/23/1952 75319.0 0.0 5.40 0.015 IV 60.9( 98.0) GSP 34.3780 118.6180 01/19/1994 211144.9 11.0 5.10 0.012 III 61.5( 98.9) EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 2 1 TIME SITE SITE APPROX. FILE|LAT. 1 LONG. |DATE (UTC) DEPTHIQUAKE ACC. | MM DISTANCE CODE NORTH WEST I |H M Sec| (km) MAG.| g |INT.| mi [km] PAS 34.9430 118.7430 06/10/1988 23 643.0 6.8 5.40 0.015 IV 62.9(101.3) DMG 34.3000 118.6000 04/04/1893 1940 0.0 0.0 6.00 0.025 V 63.3(101.9) GSP 34.3050 118.5790 01/29/1994 112036.0 1.0 5.10 0.011 III 64.4(103.7) PAS 33.6710 119.1110 09/04/1981 155050.3 5.0 5.30 0.013 III 64.4(103.7) DMG 34.9000 120.7000 11/04/1927 135053.0 0.0 7.50 0.094 VII 64.5(103.7) GSB 34.3010 118.5650 01/17/1994 204602.4 9.0 5.20 0.012 III 65.3(105.0) GSP 34.2130 118.5370 01/17/1994 123055.4 18.0 6.70 0.043 VI 68.2(109.7) PAS 33.9440 118.6810 01/01/1979 231438.9 11.3 5.00 0.009 III 68.2(109.8) DMG 35.1330 118.7670 07/21/1952 194122.0 0.0 5.50 0.014 IV 69.6(111.9) DMG 33.9500 118.6320 08/31/1930 04036.0 0.0 5.20 0.011 III 70.4(113.3) MGI 35.2500 120.5000 07/10/1917 045 0.0 0.0 5.30 0.012 III 70.6(113.7) MGI 35.2500 120.5000 07/10/1917 043 0.0 0.0 5.30 0.012 III 70.6(113.7) MGI 35.2500 120.5000 07/09/1917 2222 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.009 III 70.6(113.7) MGI 35.2500 120.5000 07/09/1917 2238 0.0 0.0 5.30 0.012 III 70.6(113.7) GSP 34.2310 118.4750 03/20/1994 212012.3 13.0 5.30 0.011 III 71.3(114.7) DMG 34.3080 118.4540 02/09/1971 144346.7 6.2 5.20 0.010 III 71.4(114.9) DMG 35.2170 118.8170 07/23/1952 1317 5.0 0.0 5.70 0.016 IV 71.5(115.0) PAS 33.9190 118.6270 01/19/1989 65328.8 11.9 5.00 0.009 III 71.8(115.5) DMG 34.4110 118.4010 02/09/1971 14 041.8 8.4 6.40 0.030 V 73.6(118.5) DMG 34.4110 118.4010 02/09/1971 14 1 8.0 8.0 5.80 0.017 IV 73.6(118.5) DMG 34.4110 118.4010 02/09/1971 141028.0 8.0 5.30 0.011 III 73.6(118.5) DMG 34.4110 118.4010 02/09/1971 14 244.0 8.0 5.80 0.017 IV 73.6(118.5) DMG 35.3330 118.9170 08/22/1952 224124.0 0.0 5.80 0.017 IV 73.9(119.0) MGI 34.0000 118.5000 11/19/1918 2018 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.008 III 75.4(121.3) DMG 34.0000 118.5000 08/04/1927 1224 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.008 III 75.4(121.3) DMG 35.1500 118.6330 01/27/1954 141948.0 0.0 5.00 0.008 III 76.2(122.6) DMG 35.3000 118.8000 12/23/1905 2223 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.008 III 76.3(122.9) DMG 35.1830 118.6500 07/21/1952 151358.0 0.0 5.10 0.009 III 76.8(123.6) MGI 35.1700 120.7500 12/01/1916 2253 0.0 0.0 5.70 0.015 IV 77.0(123.9) T-A 35.2500 120.6700 00/00/1830 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.70 0.015 IV 77.2(124.3) T-A 35.2500 120.6700 12/17/1852 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.70 0.015 IV 77.2(124.3) DMG 35.3830 118.8500 07/29/1952 7 347.0 0.0 6.10 0.021 IV 79.0(127.1) MGI 35.3000 120.7000 12/07/1906 640 0.0 0.0 5.90 0.017 IV 80.9(130.1) DMG 35.4000 118.8170 07/29/1952 8 146.0 0.0 5.10 0.008 III 81.0(130.4) DMG 35.2330 118.5330 07/21/1952 174244.0 0.0 5.10 0.008 II 84.1(135.4) DMG 33.2670 119.4500 11/18/1947 2159 3.0 0.0 5.00 0.007 II 84.3(135.6) DMG 34.5190 118.1980 08/23/1952 10 9 7.1 13.1 5.00 0.007 II 85.1(136.9) DMG 35.3330 118.6000 07/31/1952 12 9 9.0 0.0 5.80 0.014 IV 85.8(138.1) MGI 34.0000 118.3000 09/03/1905 540 0.0 0.0 5.30 0.009 III 85.8(138.1) MGI 34.0800 118.2600 07/16/1920 18 8 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.007 II 86.0(138.4) DMG 33.2910 119.1930 10/24/1969 82912.1 10.0 5.10 0.007 II 86.3(138.9) MGI 35.5000 120.6000 01/01/1830 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.007 II 87.7(141.1) DMG 35.3670 118.5830 07/23/1952 03832.0 0.0 6.10 0.018 IV 88.1(141.8) DMG 35.3670 118.5830 07/23/1952 31923.0 0.0 5.00 0.007 II 88.1(141.8) T-A 34.0000 118.2500 01/10/1856 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.007 II 88.5(142.4) T-A 34.0000 118.2500 03/26/1860 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.007 II 88.5(142.4) T-A 34.0000 118.2500 09/23/1827 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.007 II 88.5(142.4) DMG 35.3150 118.5160 07/25/1952 194323.7 11.2 5.70 0.012 III 88.5(142.4) DMG 35.3110 118.4990 07/25/1952 1313 8.2 2.8 5.00 0.006 II 89.0(143.3) DMG 35.3170 118.4940 07/25/1952 19 944.6 5.5 5.70 0.012 III 89.5(144.1) DMG 35.5000 118.7000 01/06/1905 1430 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.006 II 90.5(145.7) DMG 33.8500 118.2670 03/11/1933 1425 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.006 II 92.0(148.0) DMG 35.6000 118.8000 06/30/1926 1331 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.006 II 92.8(149.4) EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS 3 | TIME | SITE |SITE| APPROX. LAT. |LONG. |DATE (UTC) |DEPTHIQUAKE| ACC. 1 MM | DISTANCE NORTH WEST |1 H M Sec| (km)1 MAG. 1 g |INT.| mi [km] till----t---lillit-------I--t---Ill--+--I--t---i-+I---i--t----t----I--I-i-- 35.7500 120.2500 03/10/1922 112120.0 0.0 6.50 0.023 IV 93.8(150.9) 34.1000 118.1000 07/11/1855 415 0.0 0.0 6.30 0.019 IV 94.3(151.8) 34.0730 118.0980 10/04/1987 105938.2 8.2 5.30 0.008 II 95.0(152.9) 33.7830 118.2500 11/14/1941 84136.3 0.0 5.40 0.009 III 95.1(153.0) 35.7500 120.3300 08/18/1922 512 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.006 II 95.4(153.5) 34.0610 118.0790 10/01/1987 144220.0 9.5 5.90 0.013 III 96.3(154.9) 34.2620 118.0020 06/28/1991 144354.5 11.0 5.40 0.008 III 97.4(156.7) 35.8000 120.3300 06/08/1934 447 0.0 0.0 6.00 0.014 IV 98.6(158.7) 35.8000 120.3300 06/05/1934 2148 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.006 II 98.6(158.7) 35.8000 120.3300 12/28/1939 121538.0 0.0 5.00 0.006 II 98.6(158.7) 35.8000 120.3300 06/08/1934 430 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.006 II 98.6(158.7) 34.6090 121.4350 11/05/1969 1754 7.9 10.0 5.60 0.010 III 99.6(160.3) ******************************************************************************* -END OF SEARCH-118 EARTHQUAKES FOU TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH:1800 TO LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME:201 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER a-value=1.469 b-value=0.386 , beta-value= 0.890 ----------0------il----------------0 TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES: ND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA. ABOUT 2.4 MILES (3.8 km) AWAY. THE SEARCH RADIUS: 7.9 FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.233 g RECURRENCE RELATION: 2000 Earthquake I Number of Times I Cumulative Magnitude 1 Exceeded No. / Year 4.0 | 118 0.59000 4.5 118 0.59000 5.0 118 0.59000 5.5 1 48 0.24000 6.0 1 20 0.10000 6.5 8 0.04000 7.0 6 0.03000 7.5 3 0.01500 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL 2 100 go LA . A 25 yrs 50 yrs . V 75 yrs 100 yrs 80 70 60 Z R\\ 50 40 2 \\ 30 \4 ' 20 3 10 I lili_Illl lili.I 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (q) Exceedance Probability (%) CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL 2 1000000 100000 10000 1000 T 1 100 1 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (q) Return Period (yrs) MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE S PAIFIC DEVELOPMENT 1 = - A >% 1 4Â·.4 \ .01 .001 -+ 1 11 Ililli 1 1 11 lilli 1 1 11 lilli .1 1 10 100 Distance (mi) Acceleration (g) EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDIRS & DISTANCES PAIFIC DEVELOPMENT 8.00 - â€¢ . 7.75 - . . 7.50 - - 0. -... 7.25 - - 0 - I - 0. 0 ... 7.00 - ... - 0. .. - I . 6.75 - - 0 -0. -... 6.50 - -... - -0. 7 1 1111 lili 1 1 111 lili 1 1 111 lili .1 1 10 100 Distance (mi) Magnitude (M) EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT 100 1 10 .1 .01 .001 lili lili lili lili lili lili lili lili lili lili 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 Magnitude (M) Cummulative Number of Events (N)/ Year 1 Number of Earthquakes (N) Above Magnitude (M) PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT 100 - 10 - 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 . b 7.0 7.5 1 l 11111111111 8.0 8.5 9.0 Magnitude (M) Cumulative Number of Events (N) CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP PAIFIC DEVELOPMENT 1100 1000 - 900 - 800 - 700 - 600 - 500 - 400 - 300 - 200 - 100 -E 0- -100 lili lili ltllllllllllllIll lilli 1 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 4C EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT 1100 1000 - 900 - f 800 - 700 - 600 - 500 - 400 - 300 - 200 - 100 - O - 0 > M -100 111 -400 / .lie GEND -s =4 =5 =6 =8 1111 lili lili lili 1111111111111 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 APPENDIX E LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS ***************************** I I * LIQUEFY2 * * * Version 1.50 * * ***************************** EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER:4976-Al-OC DATE:11-03-2005 JOB NAME:PACIFIC DEVELOP SOIL-PROFILE NAME:PAC2.LDW BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH:5.00 ft CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH:5.00 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE:6.60 Mw SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION:0.270 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR:1.05 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR:1.10 N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR:1.20 MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD:Idriss (1997, in press) Magnitude Scaling Factor:1.387 rd-CORRECTION METHOD:NCEER (1997) FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS. Rod Stick-Up Above Ground:3.0 ft CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR:1.044 tsf MINIMUM CN VALUE:0.6 NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 1 File Name:PAC2.OUT CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD FC I 1 CORR.LIQUE.INDUC. ILIQUE. SOIL DEPTHSTRESSSTRESS N DELTA C (Nl)60RESIST r STRESSSAFETY NO. I (ft) (tsf)I (tsf)I(B/ft)IN1_60I N I (B/ft) 1 RATIO|d I RATIOIFACTOR 1 0.25 0.015 0.015 7 - * * * * * " 1 0.75 0.045 0.045 7 - * * * * * ** 1 1.25 0.075 0.075 7 - * * * * * " 1 1.75 0.105 0.105 7 - * * * * * ** 1 2.25 0.135 0.135 7 - * * * * * ** 1 2.75 0.165 0.165 7 - * * * * * ** 1 3.25 0.195 0.195 7 - * * * * * ** 1 3.75 0.225 0.225 7 - * * * * * ** 1 4.25 0.255 0.255 7 - * * * * * ** 1 4.75 0.285 0.285 7 - * * * * * ** 2 5.25 0.315 0.307 7 - - - - - __ 2 5.75 0.345 0.322 7 - - - - _ __ 2 6.25 0.375 0.336 7 - - - - _ _ __ 2 6.75 0.405 0.350 7 - - - - - - -- 2 7.25 0.435 0.365 7 - - _ . _ _ __ 2 7.75 0.465 0.379 7 - - - - - - -- 2 8.25 0.495 0.394 7 - - - - - - -- 2 8.75 0.525 0.408 7 - - - - - - -- 2 9.25 0.555 0.422 7 - - - - - - __ 2 9.75 0.585 0.437 7 - - - - _ _ __ 3 10.25 0.615 0.451 3 - - - - - -- 3 10.75 0.645 0.466 3 - - - - - - -- 3 11.25 0.675 0.480 3 - - - - -- 3 11.75 0.705 0.494 3 - - - - - -- 3 12.25 0.735 0.509 3 - - - - - -- 3 12.75 0.765 0.523 3 - - - - - - -- 3 13.25 0.795 0.538 3 - - - - - - -- 3 13.75 0.825 0.552 3 - - - - - - -- 3 14.25 0.855 0.566 3 - - - - - - -- 3 14.75 0.885 0.581 3 - - - - - - -- 4 15.25 0.915 0.595 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.964 0.260 0.90 4 15.75 0.945 0.610 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.963 0.262 0.89 4 16.25 0.975 0.624 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.962 0.264 0.89 4 16.75 1.005 0.638 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.961 0.265 0.88 4 17.25 1.035 0.653 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.960 0.267 0.88 4 17.75 1.065 0.667 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.959 0.269 0.87 4 18.25 1.095 0.682 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.957 0.270 0.87 4 18.75 1.125 0.696 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.956 0.271 0.86 4 19.25 1.155 0.710 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.955 0.273 0.86 4 19.75 1.185 0.725 10 0.02 1.200 15.5 0.169 0.954 0.274 0.86 5 20.25 1.215 0.739 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.953 0.275 1.47 5 20.75 1.245 0.754 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.952 0.276 1.47 5 21.25 1.275 0.768 17 ;0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.950 0.277 1. --------0------------- NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2 File Name:PAC2.OUT CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD I FC CORR.|LIQUE.|IINDUC. ILIQUE. SOIL DEPTHISTRESS|STRESS| N DELTA C I(Nl)6OIRESISTI r STRESSSAFETY NO. I (ft) I (tsf)I (tsf)I(B/ft)IN1_60I N I (B/ft) 1 RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR 5 21.75 1.305 0.782 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.949 0.278 1.46 5 22.25 1.335 0.797 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.948 0.279 1.45 5 22.75 1.365 0.811 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.947 0.280 1.45 5 23.25 1.395 0.826 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.946 0.280 1.44 5 23.75 1.425 0.840 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.945 0.281 1.44 5 24.25 1.455 0.854 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.943 0.282 1.44 5 24.75 1.485 0.869 17 0.03 1.096 25.4 0.292 0.942 0.283 1.43 6 25.25 1.515 0.883 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.941 0.283 0.68 6 25.75 1.545 0.898 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.940 0.284 0.68 6 26.25 1.575 0.912 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.939 0.285 0.68 6 26.75 1.605 0.926 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.938 0.285 0.67 6 27.25 1.635 0.941 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.936 0.286 0.67 6 27.75 1.665 0.955 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.935 0.286 0.67 6 28.25 1.695 0.970 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.934 0.287 0.67 6 28.75 1.725 0.984 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.933 0.287 0.67 6 29.25 1.755 0.998 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.932 0.287 0.67 6 29.75 1.785 1.013 9 0.02 1.015 12.7 0.139 0.931 0.288 0.67 7 30.25 1.815 1.027 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.928 0.288 NonLiq 7 30.75 1.845 1.042 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.924 0.287 NonLiq 7 31.25 1.875 1.056 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.920 0.287 NonLiq 7 31.75 1.905 1.070 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.916 0.286 NonLiq 7 32.25 1.935 1.085 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.912 0.285 NonLiq 7 32.75 1.965 1.099 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.907 0.285 NonLiq 7 33.25 1.995 1.114 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.903 0.284 NonLiq 7 33.75 2.025 1.128 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.899 0.283 NonLiq 7 34.25 2.055 1.142 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.895 0.283 NonLiq 7 34.75 2.085 1.157 26 0.04 0.950 34.3 Infin 0.891 0.282 NonLiq 8 35.25 2.115 1.171 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.887 0.281 NonLiq 8 35.75 2.145 1.186 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.883 0.280 NonLiq 8 36.25 2.175 1.200 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.879 0.280 NonLiq 8 36.75 2.205 1.214 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.875 0.279 NonLiq 8 37.25 2.235 1.229 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.871 0.278 NonLiq 8 37.75 2.265 1.243 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.867 0.277 NonLiq 8 38.25 2.295 1.258 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.863 0.276 NonLiq 8 38.75 2.325 1.272 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.859 0.275 NonLiq 8 39.25 2.355 1.286 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.855 0.275 NonLiq 8 39.75 2.385 1.301 30 12.32 0.896 49.6 Infin 0.851 0.274 NonLiq 9 40.25 2.415 1.315 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.846 0.273 1.08 9 40.75 2.445 1.330 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.842 0.272 1.08 9 41.25 2.475 1.344 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.838 0.271 1.08 9 41.75 2.505 1.358 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.834 0.270 1.09 9 42.25 2.535 1.373 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.830 0.269 1.09 9 42.75 2.565 1.387 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.826 0.268 1.09 9 43.25 2.595 1.402 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.822 0.267 1.10 i--------------------------------------- NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 3 File Name:PAC2.OUT CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD FC | CORR.|LIQUE.|INDUC.LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH|STRESS|STRESS| N |DELTA| C |(Nl)60|RESIST|r |STRESS|SAFETY NO. I (ft) I (tsf)I (tsf)I(B/ft)IN1_60I N I (B/ft) 1 RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR 9 43.75 2.625 1.416 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.818 0.266 1.10 9 44.25 2.655 1.430 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.814 0.265 1.11 9 44.75 2.685 1.445 11 7.53 0.850 20.5 0.211 0.810 0.264 1.11 10 45.25 2.715 1.459 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.806 0.263 1.22 10 45.75 2.745 1.474 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.802 0.262 1.22 10 46.25 2.775 1.488 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.798 0.261 1.23 10 46.75 2.805 1.502 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.794 0.260 1.23 10 47.25 2.835 1.517 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.789 0.259 1.24 10 47.75 2.865 1.531 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.785 0.258 1.24 10 48.25 2.895 1.546 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.781 0.257 1.25 10 48.75 2.925 1.560 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.777 0.256 1.25 10 49.25 2.955 1.574 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.773 0.255 1.26 10 49.75 2.985 1.589 13 7.86 0.811 22.5 0.231 0.769 0.254 1.26 11 50.25 3.015 1.603 14 8.04 0.802 23.6 0.244 0.765 0.253 1.34 11 50.75 3.045 1.618 14 8.04 0.802 23.6 0.244 0.761 0.251 1.35 11 51.25 3.075 1.632 14 8.04 0.802 23.6 0.244 0.757 0.250 1.35 --------0----------0--- APPENDIX F GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratorv and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test methods ASTM designation D-1556, D-2937 or D-2922, and D-3017, at intervals of approximately *2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractots Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface Pacific Development Group File:\server\andree49004976al .foundshopctr Appendix F Page 2 processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compaded as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the soil engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to 1,6 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. Pacific Development Group Filelserverandree4900497681.foundshopctr Appendix F Page 3 COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer, These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Per the UBC/CBC, oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces (any variation will require prior approval from the governing agency). To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material) should not be placed within 10 feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developer's representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. Pacific Development Group Filelserver\andreei4900\497681.foundshopctr Appendix F Page 4 After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation D-1557, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. In general, per the UBC/CBC, fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be' made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 12 to 18 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to Pacific Development Group File:\se,ver\andree\4900\497681 .foundshopctr Appendix F Page 5 achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compadion after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction.Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Pacific Development Group File:\se,verandree\490497631.foundshopctr Appendix F Page 6 Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractofs responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conduded during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safely conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Pacific Development Group File:\se,venandree\4900497681.foundshopctr Appendix F Page 7 Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests:Safety vests are provided for, and are to be wom by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags:Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractots representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location. Orientation. and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established forall test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. Pacific Development Group File:\server\andree\49004976al .foundshopctr Appendix F Page 8 The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. Pacific Development Group File:Sefvemndree\49004976al.foundshopctr Appendix F Page 9 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A --7 0 PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL 1 " , i. 9--NATURAL GROUND ,19 -COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE} /V//60 *4*i 14\3Â» / ' / - il / Offaip. 5/1* 351 / ------0--is \\\/4,BEDROCK 1,/4/2 'llÂ» Ill,TYPICAL BENCHING ,7 Lf,Hv-n..:5..7/\\\"3= p ///27 SEEÂ· ALTERNATIVES TYPE B t i PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL / /7/, -A '0 -NATURAL GROUND //9\ i 641 1./// -COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) e 0 1 . & 111-1 0 1 999#*/11,/ P *1 0 / /*Z.f'* f Ids' I [S*9:,BEDROCK '40*' / lip * TYPICAL BENCHING/ \SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. PLATE EG- CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 12- MINIMUM_ FILTER MATERIAC MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.' 4.=voly;':15*'\ / /LINEAR FT. 6' 0 ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPRO' SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/4 0} PERFS.NIMUM LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. ASTM 02751, SOR 35 OR ASTM 01527. SCHO. ASTM 03034, SOR 35 OR ASTM 01785 SCHO, LO B.11'"'IMUM FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 560 FT. USE 8'0 PIPE 6 MINIMUM. 6111 . MI A-1 VED 40 ,C o LIlli FILTER MATERIAL SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 .0-7 NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND FILTER FABRIC wK-- 6 - MINIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP '*--4 A "7\Un In,-6- MINIMUM COVER 9 <.B 2' MINIMUM BEDDING C MINIMUM BEDDINGZ:q[ GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FT'/LINEAR FT.B-2 PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG-2 69 A-2 DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOENG OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN COMPACTED FILL - ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL -ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE /23%BACKCUT - VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS,BACKCUT 11\SHOULD BE MADE NO Â·@fSTEEPERÂ·THA:1 OR AS NECESSARY <>ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY L*ONSIDERATIONS, DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER. PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT, SITE CONDITIONS AND/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL ------------ -I... PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE J J< * TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL -9% A FOR DRAINAGE ONLY - -- Qal #23. Qal /6 (TO BE REMOVED} (EXISTING COMPACTED FILL} 41 /*I.fil,*Fli41Vfllm LEGEND TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Qal ALLUVIUM PLATE EG- 3 TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100'MAXIMUM INTERVALS, AND SHALL EXTEND 12- BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION. BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED 15'MINIMUM BY THE SOIL ENGINEER . DESIGN FINISH SLOPE 10'MINIMUM 15' TYPICAL 25'MAXIMU'l t i135 TYPICAL BENCHING BUTTRESS OR SIOEHILL FILL |<4-DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE AND BAO<DRAIN (SEE ALTERNATIVES) 1-2' CLEAR -t>- -2% GRADIENT p--'.1/ -- 3'MINIMUM KE BEDROCK Ati TOE HEEL/7"y//*741 -Â»\\\0'TR.>/35 W=15'MINIMUM OR H/2PLATE EG- 4 TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM OF FIVE FP/LINEAR Fl OF PIPE OR FOUR Fl'/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE CUT TRENCH. ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE ENCASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12-ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 2- MINIMUM MINIMUM 4- DIAMETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM 0-2751, SOR 35 PIPE OR ASTM O-1527 SCHEDULE 40 PVC-ASTM 0-3034, SOR 35 OR ASTM D-1785 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1,000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF MINIMUM 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE PIPE -INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2% TO OUTLET PIPE.OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO SUBORAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW. NOTE. 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL. 2- MINIMUM 2. BACKORAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FIRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. /GIJRkh 1 NnWINIW.E FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 1/2 INCH 100 NO. 4 50 NO. 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 50PLATE EG-5 i FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL SIDEHILL FILL COMPACTED FILL PROPOSED GRADE 'MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15' WIDTH TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN - / SLOPE TO BENCH/ BACKCUT +1 - PROVIDE A 1.1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY / AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT REMOVE: TOPSOIL COLLUVIUM. OR UNSUITABLE MATERIALNATURAL SLOPE TO -|/4\11/*Ill- MINIMUMl/- BE RESTORED WITH -/lit<444.17ic\Wi\\'/I, 4><51 COMPACTED FILL - 7 - 1i//7(1/J <1 9/ BACKCUT VARIES BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY 1--- 3'MINIMUMfififi-Fir ' / 4 . NOTE: 1. WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE 1' MINIMUM KEY WIDTH DESIGN SLOPE RATIO, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE 2'X 3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. > 2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED 2'MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS.n APPROVED MATERIAL. 1 1-/1 1 6- Â£-W FILL OVER CUT DETAIL CUT/FILL CONTACT MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15'FILL SECTION FROM 1. AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN BACKCUT TO FACE OF FINISH SLOPE -r 2. AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT \ PROPOSED GRADE -..-COMPACTED FILL /Â«\.j //k/// ANTERIA// ,Â» - â‚¬ 14'MINIMUM-1- TOPEEELLuvIUM.=--=-UNSUITAORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY -1-1-20 MINIMUM b 4 CUT SLOPE- .,,Â·.///,c\.//Â«777*gr-A BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY OWEST BENCH WID THI I . 15'MINIMUM OR H/2 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED AND EVALUATED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION. 52 PLATE EG-7 STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT SLOPE REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL NATURAL SLOPE 15' MINIMUM 1 A A ./PRPPOSED FINISHED GRADE -. %44'//Pal UNWEATHERED BEDROCK / / '9% i OR APPROVED MATERIAL H 2 yo--<-000' REMOVE. UNSTABLE //*c\Vt, CA I1 ; 1* M MATERIAL .12* -COMPACTED STABILIZATION FILL W 1 -I-*- EÂ¢*7719711Â¥\INIMUM TILTED BACK w ./ >I IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING 2' GEOLOGIST. THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY ' - REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED FILL. NOTE: 1. SUBORAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, 2. -W' SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (151 FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER' THAN 25 FEET -W- SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL -W' BE LESS THAN H/2. PLATE EG-8 SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND / ORIGINAL SLOPE -PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 15'MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM 3'MINIMUM PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT -Â»f/1/.4 *YA\<42 ViIf\**>RÂ·PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE /3 \*\\\0 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL 7 /41 %lf,>9997 44 id?->r<'<... 2' MINIMUM <f| Â»0 3' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH -4 .15'MINIMUM KEY WIDTH NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. 2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. k PLATE EG-9 DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED FILL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER [MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREA). --1 NATURAL GRADE . OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT REPLACEMENT ALL <*r /PROPOSED FINISH GRADE AVOID AND/OR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE QI) / 'MINIMUM BLANKET FILL 23,Li,FPEE,333\TU:7 - Â» BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL ,d#1 20 MINIMUM KEY DEPTH 11 <f' Af" TYPICAL BENCHING*11 'â€ž a liT>-=fl% GRADIINT 4 NOTE: 1. SUBORAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN. 2. PAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.PLATE EG-10 TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE 5'MINIMUM PAD GRADE ---i. M OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT ,Â¢38\\\ COMPACTED FILL- 0 -lx\Â«\\4/Â»aÂ«\\40/\\1/// 6///647 \\14 3 **INIMu M * UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL/'Et*62/11\9 111,7/ ,\ 4- TYPICAL BENCHING -77iE#/ CUT-FILL LOT (DAYUGHT TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE PAD GRADE ;-se EiFEE- -1 5-1IM u M/' OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT COMPACTED FILL LUVIUM,COL 3' MINIMUM * 4 - â‚¬5> 9/,li//**o\42 UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL 11 Jll 0- TYPICAL BENCHING///OX:/0 NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG-11 OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMAIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. VEIW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (El 00 00 00 COjo 1.-1 15-LMINIMUM {A) (B) co 0..00 (G)20'MINIMUM OO1/00 00 00 (DO D (Fl ,15' MINIMUM Q 00 00 Kcsb $5Â·MINIMUM (Cl1'>i\\92\\9*\\\*/\\/4#\./0,0/B*4/091\\4%*P\\\5'%*CÂ©MA@,P\\\04*9/,0\45/ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MAfERIAL VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) 06Â»coe.occpo, 100'MAXIMUM (B)H OOOOCDOCO,00000Fer-XPO=XXXZX0 3' MINIMUM ( G) 00000000000 c;=000<52)0 cÂ»CO 10' MINIMUM 10' MINIMUM 00000 00=$=o==,0 4 (F) --' MINIMUM (C)\\//AN//60%3Â¥/AÂ«//,4//6\Â¥/44/4,vÂ«Â©>///iÂ©07Â©\9/,\V//40* li BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERNG GEOLOGIST.WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIALS OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. CD) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHALL BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES, FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. (F) VOIDS IN WINDROW SHALL BE FILLED BY FLOODING GRANULAR SOIL INTO PLACE. GRANULAR SOIL SHALL BE ANY SOIL WHICH HAS A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (UBC 29-1) DESIGNATION OF SM, SP, SW, GP, OR GW. ALL ALL OVERAND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATWE COMPACTION. (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHALL BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A O-9 OOZER OR EQUIVALENT. CH) OVERS[ZED ROCK IS DEFINED AS LARGER THAN 121 AND LESS THAN 4 FEET IN SIZE.PLATE EG-12 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT ) , GRANULAR MATERIAL I \'.U LARGE ROC}< --'---1 COMPACTED FILL 1 1 1 1 1 1 y SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE COMMENSURATE I WITH ROCK SIZE. 1 1 1 1 1 NOTE: 1. LARGE ROCK IS DEFINED AS ROCK LARGER THAN 4 FEET IN MAXIMUM SIZE. 2. PIT IS EXCAVATED INTO COMPACTED FILL TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO 1/2 OF ROCK SIZE. 3. GRANULAR SOIL SHOULD BE PUSHED INTO PIT AND DENSIFIED BY FLOODING. USE A SHEEPSFOOT AROUND ROCK TO AID IN COMPACTION. 4. A MINIMUM OF 4 FEET OF REGULAR COMPACTED FILL SHOULD OVERLIE EACH PIT. 5. PITS SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY AT LEAST 15 FEET HORIZONTALLY. 6. PITS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 20 FEET OF ANY FILL SLOPE. 7. PITS SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN DEEP FILL AREAS. PLATE EG-13 SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 1/4- STEEL PLATE -STANDARD 3/4' PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. 233/4- X 5'GALVANIZED PIPE STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE, ADD IN 5'INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE 1 - MAINTAIN 5'CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. -L-Â».MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL -r-* LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND 4 ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 5'5' 1 MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5' .. VERTICAL WITHIN A 5'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE ANDWITHIN 5' (VERTICAU FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULDBE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER 5'(VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE, CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5'RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE. FROM RISER. 4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2'OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA, CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG-14 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT FINISH GRADE A - - - 3/8- DIAMETER X 6- LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT 1-6- DIAMETER X 3 1/2' LENGTH HOLE 3'-6 - CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG-15 TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW SPOIL PILE XELTESTPIT-r ( NOT TO SCALE ) TOP VIEW 100 FEET * 1. 50 FEET tr,50 FEET./ D __ SPOIL f::3 TEST PIT gRUyÂ·Â¥ FLAG PILE APPROXIMATE CENTER ' OF TEST PIT ( NOT TO SCALE ) PLATE EG-16 A -- I. ,$ : 'â€¢ $ f . =9 1--1 91 1.[.1.:j. 1.11-1-1171{.1.-R ,0111ilillilll FLI-ip! - 1 2 ; 1 --1- Tr-- 2.LE_. -i ,* li I EUST?NG -"inST/NÂ¢*ARKNG L_- Â·- 1 5 i 1 SHOP DUILDJNG --1// --- 4--1 No.*Â¢* : -u -21 i l.l lilli l.i.: '17-STORY) 17.529 5/ 1 110 1,1 tu]Illilil E I 1.-3 -4/.CALL Â·- 1- 11 ' 3 ji /1 AICOAL,W 1 R VU-:../ 1 1.111-1 - 1 li ...RESTALKANT i - r. r :i :- 11 11 itill{ il.i-Â·1 ": 5. . CF'fi I i Bl .| it E i.1 4.33!â€¢ 1U ' ----- PARCEL AnA Mia c.,4.Â£oed i 2.58 AC.-1 2-ill/1411 .s81- Ki*tiftilfA..t....14 1:.iÂ·Â·fÂ·f.- i%-1 ; 1 SmINTRJ Eli.. , -,4 1- 1 - -- 4-4 4. 1 :EXISTING PA,RKLNG ;%3 ...2 Lk'-9 0-19.-9*24Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· .ftilf-j#:,*y:tift ; F-:be-1;:E'{t:.4.1 -1 -| r .25- ' .Â·::,.7?-41:- ..'. ;.2. -1.--4. iF... ... il if' *141 11 .ii Â£ : :i ........ 1 - I 223 -:-' 4Â·1Â·:">â‚¬Â·.Â·' -t .1: -20Â·Â·:Nl'Â·.iÂ· 1.3 - 11 4Â· rÂ·i i i:U Tvl;UÂ·Â· parcf Lâ€¢le , # EGSTING DANK=37 i El ..: 22.-1: 111 J i ./-2-i 'i by:.i ul :tilÂ·.i{;tw *lit..4 Z 1 Forte' LIne,-- -4- J-13â‚¬EXISI/bl.G 8.Ull-DEN.9 KEÂ·13 FI /' :EXISTING PARKING i -kials 4 5 'IÂ·.:'26.4.91'-m.it ':y:., Â·38%5*.' .. 1 1 1 '1 1- 11, 1 LeÂ·l 13!:;p- ...,? F. -se-- : tI.Â· ..DWISBEYOND. .3 .1 :2--== 21917.165 AC il.1..41 lj*.1.i' L,1 4 16.1..i...1-ti h -:1';;21 14 --Â·7 * 08 7,66>kiNG'} 3 i:100,04) =AL ARA-:..4 '. --"f,Â·k+vig*-i 1,81.- 5-2...5..-:.1 .- 21-*-1 {Ifii ;:iI: :11.;1{ i: .11:{'':I! il 111" ---1 1, ...Ull,!liti M Â¤41 -14 62- h:=*.Â·eÂ· ..4..2 -f)*46'.126244.190 -8,111 %' 02 1;1 :lui,: .3: 1'1Â· ' -:ti - .- Â· 6: 1 / r-, ''i< Â·.Of'O K/>4 li AC '' Iti i.: :: : 5. :0/:1 9.- 3+F:.?Y'MAKET "Jilf.....j.tt3 0- *IP'.2 1.--:,11 i..;i,%:1 1.41 1 .'Â· 1 ..2 ' '11 ro 1/ 1..1.:9"42. 1 .Gcze r- -9-...!":0- 1 EXIS?#443*KING 0.90#W 7- i B-4 11_.1 L; L Â· tgAM 1.4 i m litt{ 1 '9<Â·%("CE-1 w. 7 ---F-- ---,i"-" ---i*4 EWSUNG MARKING - i 7IT- 07-- - --/No chon,/jÂ·-/------ -397'* 11 liu -%VA,- V -6** 0 mITNG i i 37*Â·-1 MLAIL 3,0 2 1 LUNGS 1 BUILDING ; 11 .' 01 4 ff il385 :F 4 -3 .1 1 L- 2:; 1 taSTING -7 RETAft SHO, 81#LDING 1 64- ! Iii.'I--- . - " - -f--2.3.37-2 -Â»--1.Â¢ fc....j.I'.=.-1+++L.--1.j--- 1 132zkiiÂ»Â·Â·Â·j--*t-1--Â·z Â·:t,jiÂ·zeÂ·Â·r-Â·Â·Â·Â·:-co-f3%- - ---Â·i.-n_ SUNFLOWER AVENUE k Approximate location of GSI's Boring. PLOT PLAN ' - ;:.2..4. DATE 11/2/05 W.O. NO. 4976-Al-OC Geotechnical â€¢ Geologic â€¢ Environmental PLATE ....... ..AL :iÂ·{I:.i.i i., I