Loading...
404, Construct a tennis court, Studies & Reportsr GEOTECHNICAL �A��®ENGINEERING „_,..,..... CONSULTANTS. INC. 2483 E. ORANGETHORPE AVE. / FULLERTON, CA 92631-5304 / (714) 773-1232 Toll Free: (800) 422-4117 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS, #2 MORGAN LANE, ROLLING HILLS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 8, MORGAN LANE JOB NO. 5676-pl-A7 June 2, 1987 PREPARED FOR: Mr. Mike Gray 4125 Miraleste Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90274 Job No. 5676-P1-A7 June 3, 1987 Mr. Mike Gray 4125 Miraleste Drive Rancho Palos'Verdes, Ca. 90274 Subject: Geotechnical Review of Grading Plans #2 Morgan Lane, Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, California Legal Description: Lot 8, Tract 33871. References: 1. AAKO Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, Inc., 1 April 1985, "Grading Compaction Report for the Backfill of the Storm Drain Trench, Water Line and Utility Trench, Morgan Lane, Tract 33871, Rolling Hills Estates, California," Job #4499-C1-85. 2. AAKO Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Inc., 21 November 1984, "Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading Observation for Morgan Lane, Lots 1-8, Tract 33871, Rolling Hills Estates, Los Angeles County California, "Job #4499-C2-85. 3. AAKO Geotechnical Engineering Consultants, Inc., 24 October 86, "Addendum Geotechnical Engineering Report of Rough Grading Evaluation for Development of Morgan Lane, Tract 33871, Rolling Hills Estates, Los Angeles County, California," Job No. 4499-C1B-A6. 4. County of Los Angeles, "Soils Engineering Section Report Review Sheet", several dates. 5. Eastman, Ray, Engineering Geologist, 9 September 1986, "Geologic Inspections, Canyon Cleanout for Compacted Fill and Separate Subdrain Installation, Lot 8, Morgan Lane, Rolling Hills, California", Project No: 383. 6. Lockwood -Singh and Associates, 1 June 1978, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tract No. 33871, Located East of Morgan Lane, Rolling Hills, in the County of Los Angeles California," Project Number 86-122. 7. Norcal Engineering, 8 September 1986, "Inspection of Grading Operations - Portion of Lot 8, Tract 33871, Located East of Morgan Lane, Rolling Hills, in the County of Los Angeles, Calfifornia," Project Number 86-122. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 5676-p1-A7 June 3, 1987 -2- 8. Sayre -Smith & Nesbit, Inc, undated, "Site Plan," Job No. 8714. 9. South Bay Engineering, 10 August 1981 "Grading Plan for Tract 33871", Job No. G-0418-5. 10. U.S.G.S., 1964, "Topographic Qudrangle Map -Torrance Sheet," 7.5 Minute Series, photorevised 1981 at 2000 scale. Dear Mr. Gray: In accordance with your request and authorization, a geotechnical engineering review of the Reference #3 plans has been performed. This letter presents the findings of the review, plus conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project. This review is based on .the Reference #6 report, and on inspections made for the grading of Morgan Lane (References #1, #2 and #3). The subsurface and foundation conditions are discussed and preliminary recommendations for the soils engineering aspects of the project are presented. If you have any questions concerning our findings, please call at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. =Z -tee/ ��n t•REbtkit: CURI 1S, C.t.ti. 1044 Engineering Geologist FC/JRG/rlh FREDERICK CURTIS NO. 1044 CERTIFIED ENGINEE.ING • GEOLOGIST EXP. FESSIONry ��NR G'F�Ft m No. 24711 Exp. 12.31.89 CIV1��� FOFCA1.\O AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 5676-P1-A7 June 3, 1987 -3- SCOPE The findings, conclusions, and recommendations reflect our best estimate of 'soil conditions based on the data obtained from a limited subsurface exploration performed during the previous field investigations and inspections performed at the site. The conclusions and recommendations are based on generally accepted engineering principles and practices. No further warranties are implied nor made. Due to the possible variability of soils and subsurface conditions within the site, conditions may be encountered during grading and development that may differ from those presented herein. Should any variations or unusual conditions become apparent during grading and development, this office shall be contacted to evaluate these conditions prior to continuation of work and to make any necessary revisions to the recommendations. This office shall be notified if changes of ownership occur or if final plans for the site development indicate structure areas, type of structures, or structural loading conditions differing from those presented in this report. If the site is not developed or grading does not begin within 24 months following the date of this report, further investigation may be required to ensure that the surface or subsurface conditions have not changed. Any charges for necessary review or updates will be at the prevailing rate at the time the review work is performed. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A one and two story dwelling is planned for the subject site. The structure is proposed to be supported on continuous and spread footings. Loads on the footings are unknown at this time but are not anticipated to exceed 2000 plf for continuous footings and 50 kips for column loads. Anticipated grading will include cuts and fills of up to 12 feet. SITE CONDITIONS The subject site is roughly triangular, with an area of approximately 2.2 acres. The property is situated on a gentle southwest facing natural slope with slopes ranging from 5:1 to 10:1 (horizontal to vertical). The property is covered with seasonal weeds and grasses. Natural drainage is by sheet flow into a natural swale draining southwesterly through the center of the property. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 5676-P1-A7 June 3, 1987 -4- The western mid section of the site in the natural swale area contains fill placed under the observation of others. The fill has subsequently .been observed by the undersigned and appears adequately compacted. See the plot plan and the Reference #3, 5, and 7 reports for approximate limits of fill and description of fill placement. Adjoining the property are the following: N'ly--Vacant Property E'ly--Morgan Lane S'ly--Morgan Lane W'ly--Residences EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials on the site include fill, slopewash and bedrock. Earth materials are briefly described. Fill (Symbols-af and afe) Fill comprise of clayey silt derived from the natural slopewash (i.e., topsoil) at the site with varying amount of siltstone and sandstone bedrock fragments. The limits of loose fill (af) less than 1' in thickness, and engineered fill (afe) are shown in the attached Site Plan/Geologist Map. Slopewash (Symbol-Qsw) Slopewash is composed of clayey silt with moderate to abundant amounts of siliceous siltstone, poorly consolidated, porous, and prone to downslope creep. Bedrock (Symbol-Tma) Bedrock belonging to the Miocene age Alamira member of the Monterey formation is moderately hard to hard and comprises interbedded siltstone and sandstone. Bedding planes of within the bedrock generally closely parallel the existing topography. No groundwater was encountered. However, very moist to wet bedrock was encountered in the canyon cleanout for the Morgan Lane road fill near the southerly margin of the site, per Reference #2 Expansion Characteristics Results of previous laboratory expansion tests indicate the typical on -site slopewash and fill soils as being moderately to highly expansive with expansion index values ranging from 61 to 113. Visual examination and classification indicate the bedrock to be moderately to highly expensive. AAKO�NE`"N"AL ONS<J ERING LTANTS. INC Job No. 5676-P1-A7 June 3, 1987 -5- SEISMICITY The subject property is situated in earthquake prone Southern California. 'Proximally, as well as regionally, there is evidence of geologically youthful fault movement. Moreover, earthquakes associated with historic events have been qualified by nonlinear measure (intensity) and quantified by linear measure (seismograph/magnitude). No active faults (i.e., having ruptured the surface within the last 11,000 years) known to be present within or in the near vicinity of the property. Accordingly, the site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone and, therefore, does not require a comprehensive subsurface exploratory fault investigation. Significant faults, historic earthquake epicenters and their location relative to the site are delineated on Drawing S-1 fault location map in Appendix F. Of the regional faults shown, those considered to be causative faults (i.e., active faults having the potential for a Richter magnitude 5.0 or greater earthquake that could affect the site) are listed on Table S-1 in Appendix F. Numerous lesser faults have been mapped in the nearby foothill and mountainous terrain of the Palos Verdes Hills and San Monica Mountains. Public and private investigators have obtained limited, but not necessarily conclusive, evidence of Quaternary displacement for some. Based on the presented data on Table S-1, the design earthquake for the site is a 6.8 Richter magnitude event along the Newport - Inglewood fault which underlies the northeasterly portion of the site. The following seismic parameters can be assumed at the site: Peak Bedrock Acceleration Repeatable Ground Acceleration Peak Event Period of Bedrock Acceleration Estimated Duration of Strong Ground Shaking CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 0.32g 0.21g .35 sec 15-24 sec In the opinion of the undersigned, the subject property is suitable for the proposed residential development from a soils engineering and engineering geologic standpoint, provided the recommendations contained hereinafter are incorporated in the project designs and specifications. Earth materials on the site will be adequate for the support of proposed structures and compacted fills. The proposed structures, grading, and other site improvements will not cause adverse safety hazards or instability to adjacent properties or structures. Conversely, the adjacent properties or their structures will not cause adverse safety hazards or instability to the proposed AAKOGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 5676+ 1-A7 June 3, 1987 -6- development. The site is stable and there is no risk of land failure resulting from the planned development. o There are no known active or potentially active faults that transect the subject property or proximity. o Existing loose fill, slopewash deposits, and near surface weathered bedrock deposits are deemed unsuitable for the support of compacted fill and structures. Moreover, these materials extend 5' to 7' or more below existing site grade. o Competent bedrock and engineered fill are deemed suitable for the support of structures and fill. o Data obtained from grading inspections site reconnaissance suggest that the bedrock underlying the site will be stable for support of the planned dwelling and appurtanances. o Surficial instability is limited to minor erosion features and creep of the outer surface of the weathered bedrock and soil mantle on the natural slope. o Excavation and trenching in bedrock should be readily accomplished with slight to moderate difficulty using conventional earthmoving equipment. o Anticipated subgrade earth materials are classified moderately to highly expansive. o All natural materials are suitable for use in fills when compacted in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. o Geologic conditions at the site are consistent with those described in Reference 3. o A subdrain must be constructed above the existing canyon fill to intercept potential subsurface water seepage. o Being located in Southern California, the site is subject to strong ground shaking by nearby or distant earthquakes. However, the performance of wood -frame structures built in compliance with current building codes and founded in firm ground, such as occurs within the underlying bedrock, has generally proven to be satisfactory under conditions of earthquake -induced strong ground shaking. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 56764:1-A7 June 3, 1987 -7- Seismic Design Criteria A repeatable ground acceleration of 0.21g may be expected to affect the 'subject site within the economic lifetime of the planned dwelling. If this value is used for structural design of the dwelling, a design earthquake can be expected to cause very little or no damage to the structure. However, to design a building for this acceleration would impact considerable, and possibly unnecessary, expense to the design. Based on empirical data, if one or two story wood frame structures are designed for potential acceleration of 50% to 60% of the repeatable ground acceleration, minor to moderate damage will be sustained by the structure. However, in total structural failure or collapse would be likely. It is the responsibility of the structural engineer to evaluate the allowable degree of structural damage from a design earthquake, and design the dwelling accordingly. Rough Grading Recommendations All existing vegetation and debris shall be removed from areas to receive compacted fill. Man-made obstructions shall be overexcavated and exported from the site. Trees and their root systems shall be overexcavated down to competent soils, ensuring that at least 95% of the roots are removed. In areas to receive fill, all existing loose fill, slopewash, and unsuitable weathered bedrock should be overexcavated down to competent bedrock, which may require overexcavation to depths of 5' to 7' or more below existing site grade. In fill areas where the natural slope exceeds 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), fill shall be properly keyed and benched into competent bedrock. Keys and benches shall be sloped back into the hillside at a minimum 2% gradient. Minimum fill key width shall be 15'. The cut portion of shall building pads shall be overexcavated a minimum depth of 3' below finish grade. This blanket fill will; 1) support structures and minimize the potential for excessive differential settlements due to differing compressibility of the fill and bedrock, and; 2) minimize the potential for infiltration of surface water into the bedrock. The project Engineering Geologist shall inspect all overexcavation areas prior to placement of fill. All overexcavation bottoms and areas to receive fill shall be scarified a minimum of six(6) inches, watered or aerated as necessary to obtain near optimum moisture content, mixed to a uniform consistency, and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maximum density. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL NEERING 'ONSULTANTS.INC. Job No. 5676-P.1-A7 June 1987 -8- A shrinkage factor of 16 to 17 percent for soil and slopewash and 1 to 2 percent for bedrock may be assumed in estimating earthwork quantities. Minimal subsidence of the bedrock due to grading is anticipated: All fill soil, whether natural or import, shall be approved by the soils engineer or his representative prior to placement as compacted fill. All fill soil shall be free from vegetation, organic material, and debris. Approved fill soil shall be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6 inches in thickness, and watered or aerated and mixed as necessary to obtain a uniform near -optimum mixture content. Following placement, each lift shall be completely and uniformly compacted to not less than 90% of the laboratory maximum density as determined be ASTM test method D-1557-78. The soil►engineer or his representative shall observe the placement of fill and shall take sufficient tests to verify the moisture content, and uniformity and degree of compaction obtained. In -place soil density should be determined by the sand -cone method, in accordance with ASTM test method D-1556-64 (74), or equivalent test method acceptable to the local building authority. Finish fill and cut slopes shall not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Fill slope surfaces shall be compacted to 90% of the laboratory maximum density by either overfilling and cutting back to expose a compacted core or by approved mechanical methods. If southerly or westerly facing cut slopes are planned, they may expose unsupported bedding planes (i.e., daylighted bedding). Any such slopes must be inspected during grading to provide timely recommendations for safe construction. Foundation Recommendations A foundation system consisting of continuous and spread footings is recommended for the support of the proposed dwelling structure. Footings shall be founded into competent bedrock or properly compacted fill. Footings in bedrock shall extend a minimum depth of 18 or 24 inches (for 1 or. 2 story structure respectively) into competent bedrock as determined by Engineering Geologist. Notwithstanding, embedment of all footings on or near existing or proposed slopes should be determined by a minimum 5' horizontal edge distance measured from the bottom ouside edge of the footing to the slope face or the soil/bedrock interface. Continuous footings shall be a minimum of 15" wide and shall be reinforced with a least two (2) #4 reinforcing bars at the top and two (2) #4 reinforcing bars at the bottom of the footings. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 5676-.1-A7 Juhe 3, 1987 -9- A safe allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 p.s.f. is recommended for the design of the continuous and spread footings at a typical 18" depth into the bedrock and a typical 15" footing width. This value may be increased by 15% for each additional foot of depth and/or width, to a maximum of 3,500 p.s.f.. A 1/3 increase in the above bearing value may be used when considering short term loading from wind or seismic sources. Using this bearing value, settlement of the proposed structure is not anticipated to exceed a maximum of 1/2" or a differential settlement of 1/4" between foundation elements. Footings in properly compacted fill comprised of onsite slope wash and bedrock earth maerials, shall be founded a minimum depth of 24" below lowest adjacent finished grade. Continuous footings shall be a minimum width of 15" and be reinforced with at least two (2) #4 reinforcing bar at the top and two (2) #4 reinforcing bars at the bottom of the footings. A safe allowable bearing value of 1,800 p.s.f. is recommended for the design of the continuous and spread footings at a typical 18" depth into fill soils, and a typical 15" footing width. This value may be increased 10% for each additional foot of depth and/or width, to a maximum of 3,500 p.s.f. A 1/3 increase in the above bearing value may be used when considering short term loading from wind or seismic sources. Using this bearing value, settlement of the proposed structure is not anticipated to exceed a maximum of 1/2" or a differential settlement of 1/4" between foundations elements. The proposed dwelling should be designed in accordance with applicable earthquake standards contained in Chapter 23 of the Uniform Building Code. Retaining Wall Recommendations Retaining walls supporting compacted fill shall be designed to support the following active lateral soil pressures: o Equivalent Fluid Pressure: 40 p.c.f. - Level Backfill 45 p.c.f. - 3:1 Sloping Backfill 55 p.c.f. - 2:1 Sloping Backfill Other surcharge loads acting on the backfill shall also be considered in the design. The footings shall be found to the same depths as for standard foundations and may be designed for the same allowable bearing value. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 5676- 1-A7 June 3, 1987 -10- Due to the shallow angle of bedding planes encountered in the exploratory test pits, additional surcharge due to geologic planes of weakness need not be considered in the design of retaining walls. This conclusion shall be confirmed by geologic mapping by the Engineering Geologist during site grading. Additional retaining wall design parameters. will be provided in the final rough grading observation report. For lateral restraint the following soil design parameters may be used when all foundation recommendations are followed: o Passive Lateral Pressure: Bedrock: 350 p.c.f. equivalent fluid pressure Fill: 250 p.c.f. equivalent fluid pressure o Coefficient of Friction: 0.35 An adequate subdrain system shall be constructed behind and at the base of all retaining walls to allow adequate drainage and to prevent buildup of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Backfill directly behind retaining walls may consist of self compacting 3/8" maximum diameter pea -gravel or clean sand water jetted into place to obtain proper compaction. If other types of soil are used for backfill, mechanical compacting methods will be necessary to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90% of maximum density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls shall not be compacted by wheel, track or other rolling unless the wall is designed for the surcharge loading from the compaction equipment. If gravel, clean sand, or other imported granular backfill is used behind the retaining wall, the upper 18 inches of backfill shall consist of typical on -site soils to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain system. Retaining Wall Construction Cut Recommendations Construction cuts for retaining walls will be a maximum of 20 feet in height. The following are our recommendations to ensure construction safety and stability of the unsupported, temporary construction cuts: 1. Temporary construction cuts in fill made during the dry seasons (when precipitation is not anticipated) should be inclined at 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical). If unseasonal rainfall is encountered, the protection methods in recommendation #2 (below) should be followed. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 5676e 1-A7 June 3, 1987 -11- 2. Temporary construction cuts in fill made during the wet seasons (when precipitation is anticipated) should be inclined at 1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). In addition, during rains, and overnight, the open cut shall be adequately protected from precipitation and/or erosion, by plastic sheeting and adequate temporary drainage to carry runoff away from the cut slopes. 3 Temporary cuts in bedrock may require flatter back cuts. Recommendation for bedrock back cuts will be provided by the Engineering Geologist during site grading. 4. Where more restrictive, the safety requirements of OSHA regulations shall be followed. 5. Workers should not be allowed to stand or walk behind retaining walls (i.e, between the retaining wall and the back cut area) at any time during construction due to the possibility of injury by falling rock fragments or back cut failures. Floor Slab Recommendations Concrete floor slabs shall be constructed for high expansive soil conditions in accordance with the following section: o 5 inches of concrete reinforced with #4 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on -center, in each direction, at the vertical center of the slab, and structrually tied to the footings with #4 reinforcing bar at 18 inches o.c. o 6 inches of sand or approved granular soil over natural subgrade. In living areas or where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, a 6 mil plastic moisture barrier should be placed beneath the concrete slabs. The plastic moisture barrier shall be overlain with a minimum of 2 inches of sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize the potential for punctures during construction. The slab subgrade shall be presaturated to a least 125% of optimum moisture content to a depth of 24 inches prior to pouring concrete. As an alternate to the above, a post tensioned slab is highly recommended. The post tensioned slab must be designed by a qualified engineer. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 56761,1-A7 June 3, 1987 -12- Finish Grading Recommendations To provide positive site drainage, finish lot grading should include a minimum positive gradient of 3% away from structures for a minimum distance of six (6) feet, and a minimum gradient of 2% to the street or other approved drainage course. Where drainage is over paved surfaces or V-drains, only a 1% drainage gradient is necessary. All roof or canopy runoff and pad drainage shall be conducted to the street or off the site in an approved non -erosive manner. Drainage off the property shall be accomplished in an approved manner to prevent erosion or instability. Water from off -site sources should not be allowed to discharge onto the subject property. The watering of slopes on the site should be limited to the minimum amount required for plant growth. Trench Backfill Recommendations Utility trench excavations in slope areas or within the zone of influence of structures should be properly backfilled in accordance with the following recommendations: • Pipes shall be bedded and backfilled with self compacting backfill, or approved granular soil, to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe. This backfill shall be uniformly compacted, by mechanical means, to a firm and unyielding condition. Water jetting of the granular soils is not recommended due to the impermeable nature of the on -site soils. The remainder of the backfill may be fine grained non -granular soils, which shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness, watered or aerated to near optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maximum density. Where utility trenches are within 5 feet of a top of slope or on a slope, the trench shall be bedded with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of 1 foot over the pipe. The remainder of the backfill shall consist of typical on -site suricial soil and shall be mechanically compacted as noted above, not water jetted, to achieve compaction. These trenches should have a minimum of 2' of soil backfill over the sand to minimize the potential for washout. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL CCONSULTANTS, INC Job No. 5676i)1-A7 June 1987 -13- Inspection Subsequent to formulation of final development plans and specifications, but prior to construction, grading and foundtion plans should be reviewed by the project Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist to verify compatibility with site geotechnical conditions, and conformance with recommendations contained herein. All rough grading of the property must be performed under the observation and testing of the Geotechnical Consultant. Rough grading pertains to, but is not limited to, overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and temporary and permanent cut slopes. The project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist should inspect all foundation excavations. Inspections should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and reinforcing steel, to verify or modify, if necessary, conclusions and recommendations in this report. If any or all of these inspections to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by this firm, liability for the safety and stability of the project cannot be accepted by the undersigned. In order to provide timely inspections, this firm should be notified at least 48 hours in advance of excavation. CLOSURE The undersigned warrant that this report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted principles and practice in the field of engineering geology and soils engineering. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. The findings conclusions and recommendations reflect our best estimate of soil and bedrock conditions based on the data obtained from a limited subsurface exploration performed during the field investigation. The conclusions and recommendations are based on generally accepted engineering principles and practices. No further warranties are implied nor made. Due to the possible variability of soil and subsurface conditions within the site, conditions may be encountered during grading and development that differ from those presented herein. Should any variations or unusual conditions become apparent during grading and development, this office shall be contacted to evaluate these conditions prior to continuation of work and to make any necessary revisions to the recommendations. This office shall be notified if changes of ownership occur of if final plans for the site development indicate structure areas, type of structures, or structural loading conditions differing from those presented in this report. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Job No. 5676-P1-A7 June 3, 1987 -14- If the site is not developed or grading does not begin within 24 months following the date of this report, further investigation may be required to ensure that the surface or subsurfce conditions have not changed. Any charges for necessary review or updates will be at the prevailing rate at the time the review work is performed. -o0o- AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. APPENDIX A TECHNICAL REFERENCES AAKO;TBANC. Job No. 5676-P1-A7 June 3, 1987 -15- TECHNICAL REFERENCES 1. Barrows, Allen G., 1974, "A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport -Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California," Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 114. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 3 February 1975, "Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum Credible and Maximum Probable Earthquakes", C.D.M.G. Note Number 43. 3. Cleveland, George B., 1976, "Geology of the Northeast Part of the Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles, California," Map Sheet 27, Published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. 4. Greensfelder, R.W., "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration From Earthquakes in California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 5. Jennings, C.W., 1962, "Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Long Beach Sheet", 1:250,000 scale, California Division of Mines and Geology. 6. Jennings, C.W., 1968, "Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet", 1:250,000 scale, California Division of Mines and Geology. 7. Jennings, C.W., 1962,"Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Los Angeles Sheet", 1:250,000 scale, California Division of Mines and Geology. 8. Jennings, C.W., 1962, "Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Los Angeles Sheet", 1:250,000 scale, California Division of Mines and Geology. 9. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., September 1974, "Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes", California Geology. 10. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, P.B., April, 1973, "Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 501-516 11. U.S.G.S., 1972 Revision, "Torrance, California" Quadrangle Map 7 Minute Series, Scale 1"=2000'. 12. Ziony, J.I., et. al., 1974, "Preliminary Map Showing Recency of Faulting in Coastal Southern California," at 1:500,000 Scale, Unite States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-585. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 'ONSULTANTS. INC. APPENDIX B DRAWINGS AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. • ilia sttt qA L a &vUKtY o qt • • t ,• L • S It et lox 3 • Off i .6 c` n CARTOGRAPHY DRAFTED BY VIVIAN W. HUSTON GEOLOGIC INDEX MAP Scale: 1:12,000 low w ArAw -21 Drawing 3 AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONY II TANTS INC. APPENDIX C FAULT LOCATION MAP TABLE S-1 A AKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. \•, 1971 ® (e.4) "1893 • 6%14 (0.0) Oq: • se) , •. • • Gan T zqyz. ® 1952 Epicenter. date and magnitude (8.4) of post - 1933 earthquakes O 10 20 30miles SCALE ••••••f. •.y ( LAKE (�?C- 01T 0) ARROWHEAD •••• soh BIG E LAKE 8 AR • M0.14gh • • •. 31.64, MARE. (0.0,0'.Q3A` FAUCT• ;\ J.- .• ...—••••• ••• %RE, \ • /et A BERNARDINO�i . / MALIBU FLT. ...Ai'. ••• `M/ens s3 ��� ipNC` eLOS ANGELES •�•. • • �� ` 1907 9 7 � 17e9 p p . .a♦ F � ' MONICA 1855`Q 0,9 (7M' ly.. rr� \ RIVERSIDE 1023\ 9ANNINO • FAu ` FkP(.` v%�N/y FRUIT •:� ` .•. 1 • �• • ;�� �• %% PALM SPRINGS° �N. ; •• • O ` • ` �• •C� I ♦ate 1018a• ..% tNDIO° • -N (e.8) •% • • • ..N • 1 (.0) OMISSION VIEJO 18099 • ,� - ♦ (e.3) SANTA ` LAGUNA 933 CATALINA ` ISLAND �, BEACH e SAN JUAN _A _ - N• . . ♦ ♦ �._ . LEGEND 0 1918 Epicenter. date and magnitude OCEANSIDE 00 11•% (8.8) of pre - 1933 earthquakes 0 1.1 <1 p. 0 Z 1 tv 9y NOTE: Fault traces are indicated by solid lines where well located. by dashed lines where approximately located or inferred. and by dotted lines where concealed by younger rocks. Job No. 56.76 - GI I Dn. No. AAKO`,NLGINE OT(CHN$CA` ING CONSIJLTANTS. INC. \`s•,yp9F O ESCONDIDO SAN DIEGO • 4%' • • •yam • \ \ • ♦ %• . (r •9dp ..• `� rOy� h/O by • ,� �r u.s.A. _ _ MEXICO LOCATION OF MAJOR FAULTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND EPICENTERS OF EARTHQUAKES OF MAGNITUDE 6.0 OR GREATER Maximum Credible Fault Name Magnitude Raymond 6.5 Sierra Madre 6.6 Yerdugo 6.5 Workman Hill 6.2 Malibu -Santa Monica 7.8 Whittier -Elsinore 7.6 San Fernando 6.6 Newport -Inglewood 7.1 Simi -Northridge 6.5 San Jacinto (Punch Bowl) 7.5 San Andreas (Central) 8.5 (Table S-1) SELECTION OF MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES AND SITE SPECIFIC PEAK AND REPEATABLE BEDROCK ACCELERATIONS Geologic and (1) Seismologic Evidence Estimated Maximum Recurrence Interval(2) Magnitude Historic Design Magnitude Range Magnitude 58 Year 188 Year Distance Peak(3+5) Repeatable(3+6) From Bedrock Bedrock Site Acceleration Acceleration 3.4 - 6.8 3.8 5.5 6.8 29 Miles -NE 8.87g 6.8 - 6.5(4) None 6.8 6.5 34 Miles -NE 8.88g 4.5 - 6.8 3.8 5.5 6.8 29 Miles-N 8.87g 3.5 - 5.5 3.8 5.8 6.8 26 Miles -NE 1.889 4.6 - 6.8 3.8 5.5 6.8 21 Miles -SW 8.18g 5.5 - 6.5 5.8 6.8 6.5 25 Miles -NE 8.13g 6.8 - 6.5 6.4 6.8 6.5 41 Miles-N 8.83g 6.8 - 6.7 6.3 6.8 6.5 11 Miles -NE 8.32g 4.5 - 6.8 4.3 5.5 6.8 36 Miles -NW 8.84g 6.8 - 7.5 7.8 6.5 7.8 53 Miles -NE 8.87g 7.5 - 8.5 8.8+ 7.5 8.8 55 Miles -NE 8.12g (1) From historic data and judgmental determination based on geologic relationships of fault type, trace, length, and recurrence interval data. (2) Based an data presented combined with judgment. (3) Acceleration based on 58 year interval design magnitude. (4) Larger magnitude event associated with reverse fault. (5) Fro. Schnable and Seed, 1978. (6) Fro. Ploessel and Slosson, 1974. 0.859 8.85g 8.85g 8.85g 8.17g 8.88g 8.82g 8.21g 8.83g 8.85g 8.88g TABLE S-1 AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 'ONSULTANTS. INC. APPENDIX D PLOT PLAN AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC.