23 12-228
Native American Heritage Commissi on
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
2/27/2024
Tribe Name
Fed (F) Contact Person
Non -Fed (N)
Contact Address
Phone #
Fax # Email Address
Cultural
Affiliation
Counties
Agua Caliente Band of F
Cahuilla Indians
Augustine Band of Cahuilla F
Cabazon Band of M ission F
Cahuilla Band of Indians F
Cahuilla Band of Indians F
Cahuilla Band of Indians F
F
Morongo Band of Mission F
Mo ro ngo Band of Mission F
Quechan Tribe of the Fort F
Yuma Reservation
Quechan Tribe of the Fort F
Yuma Reservation
Quechan Tribe of the Fort F
F
F
F
Indians
Indians
Los Coyotes Band of
Cahuilla and Cupeno
Indians
Indians
Indians
Yuma Reservation
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Santa Rosa Band of
Cahuilla Indians
Lacy Padilla, THPO
Operations Manager
Tribal Operations,
Doug Welmas,
Chairperson
BobbyRay Esaprza,
Cultural Director
Erica Schenk,
Chairperson
Anthony Madrigal,
Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
Ray Chapparosa,
Chairperson
Robert Martin,
Chairperson
Ann Brierty, THPO
Jill M cCormick,
Historic Preservation
Officer
Jordan Joaquin,
President, Quechan
Tribal Council
M anfred Scott, Acting
Chairman - Kw'ts'an
Cultural Committee
John Gomez,
Environmental
Coo rdinator
Joseph Hamilton,
Chairperson
Lovina Redner, Tribal
Chair
5401 Dinah Shore
Drive
Palm Springs, CA,
92264
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
84-245 Indio Springs
Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
52701 CA Highway
371
Anza, CA, 92539
52701 CA Highway
371
Anza, CA, 92539
52701 CA Highway
371
Anza, CA, 92539
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA,
92086-0189
(760) 333- (760) 699- [email protected]
5222 6919
(760) 398-
4722
(760) 342- (760) 347-
2593 7880
(951) 763-
5549
(951) 590-
0942
(951) 763-
5549
(760) 782-
0711
12700 Pumarra Road (951) 755 -
Banning, CA, 92220 5110
12700 Pumarra Road (951) 755 -
Banning, CA, 92220 5259
P. O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
P. O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
(928) 261-
0254
(760) 919-
3600
(928) 210-
8739
(951) 763-
4105
(951) 763-
4105
(951) 659-
2700
(951) 763-
2808
(760) 782-
0712
(951) 755-
5177
(951) 572-
6004
(951) 763-
4325
(951) 763-
4325
(951) 659-
2228
jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn .gov
besparza@cahuilla-nsn .gov
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
abrierty @morong o-nsn.gov
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Serrano
Cahuilla
Serrano
historicpreservation @quechantribe.com Quechan
executivesecretary@quechantribe .com Quechan
[email protected] Qu echan
jgomez@ramona-nsn .gov Cahuilla
admin@ramona-nsn .gov Cahuilla
[email protected] Cahuilla
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardin o,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardin o,San Dieg o
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,Los
Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardin o,San Dieg o
Imperial,Kern,Los
Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Kern,L os
Angeles,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardin o,San Diego
Imperial,Los
Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
24 Soboba Banc of Luiseno10 F
Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
Torres -Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Isaiah Vivanco,
Chairperson
Jessica Valdez,
Cultural Resource
Specialist
Joseph Ontiveros,
Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
Thomas Tortez,
Chairperson
M ary Belardo,
Cultural Committee
Vice Chair
Abraham Becerra,
Cultural Coordinator
Gary Resvaloso, TM
M LD
Alesia Reed, Cultural
Committee
Chairwoman
P.O. Box 487 (951) 654 -
San Jacinto, CA, 5544
92581
P. O. Box 487 (951) 663 -
San Jacinto, CA, 6261
92581
P. O. Box 487 (951) 663 -
San Jacinto, CA, 5279
92581
P.O. Box 1160 (760) 397 -
Thermal, CA, 92274 0300
P. O. Box 1160 (760) 397 -
Thermal, CA, 92274 0300
P. O. Box 1160 (760) 397 -
Thermal, CA, 92274 0300
P.O. Box 1160 (760) 777 -
Thermal, CA, 92274 0365
P. O. Box 1160 (760) 397 -
Thermal, CA, 92274 0300
(951) 654-
4198
(951) 654-
4198
(951) 654-
4198
(760) 397-
8146
ivivanco@soboba-nsn .com
jvaldez@soboba-nsn .gov
jontiver os @soboba-nsn.gov
thomas.tortez@tmdci .org
[email protected]
abecerra@tmdci .org
grestmtm @gmail .com
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Cahuilla
Imperial,Los
Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los
Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Los
Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
Imperial,Riverside,San
Bernardino,San Diego
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097. 98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Apartment Construction Project, Riverside County .
Record:
PROJ-2024-
001072
Rep ort Type:
List of Tribes
Counties:
Riverside
NAHC Group:
All
Appendix D
Design -Phase Geotechnical Investigation Report
City of Rancho Mirage 104
12-231
� PETGEOSCIERA
SOLID AS A ROCK
DESIGN -PHASE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED RANCHO MIRAGE APARTMENTS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 685-090-011, EAST OF RANCHO MIRAGE DOG PARK
RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
S}E]NION]
SISIOO-10]0
+
12-232
PETRA
SOLID AS A ROCK
ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
430 E. State Street, Ste. 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Attention: Mr. Darren Berbarian
Subject: Design -Phase Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Mirage Apartments, Approximately 10 Acres East of the Rancho Mirage Dog Park, a Portion of Assessor Parcel Number 685-090-011, Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Berbarian:
Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is submitting herewith our geotechnical investigation report for the proposed construction of 242 apartments at the subject location in the city of Rancho Mirage. The proposed improvements will also include utilities, recreational areas, paved parking, landscaping, and on -site stormwater retention. This work was performed in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in our Proposal No. 24-104P, dated January 10, 2024. This report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing, and our engineering and geologic analysis judgment, opinions, conclusions and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical design aspects of the proposed improvements.
It is a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
11/
Alan Pace
Senior Associate Geologist
Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California
DESERT REGION OFFICE
42-240 Green Way, Suite E, Palm Desert, CA 92211
T: 760.340.5303 F: 760.340.5096
For more information visit us online at www.oetra-inc.com 12-233
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 2
FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING 3
Subsurface Exploration 3
Laboratory Testing 4
Percolation Testing 4
FINDINGS 5
Regional Geologic Setting 5
Local Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions 5
Groundwater 6
Faulting 6
Secondary Seismic Hazards 6
Seismically Induced Landsliding 6
Seismically Induced Flooding 6
Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9
General Feasibility 9
Earthwork and Grading 9
General Specifications 9
Geotechnical Observations and Testing 9
Demolition, Clearing and Grubbing 10
Unsuitable Soil Removals and Bottom Processing 10
Grading at Site Boundaries 11
Excavation Characteristics 11
Fill Placement 11
Imported Soils 12
Volumetric Changes - Bulking, Shrinkage and Subsidence 12 Temporary Excavations 12
Expansive Soil Conditions 13
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 13
Seismic Design Parameters 13
Discussion 16
Foundation System 17
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, Anticipated Settlement and Lateral Resistance 17 Estimated Static Settlement 17
Seismically Induced Settlement 18
Lateral Resistance 18
Guidelines for Footings and Slabs on -Grade Design and Construction 18 Conventional Slabs on -Grade System 19
Post -Tensioned Slabs on -Grade System 21
Foundation Excavation Observations 24
General Corrosivity Screening 24
Post -Grading Considerations 25
Utility Trenches 25
Site Drainage 26
Bottomless Trench Drains 26
Retaining Walls 27
PETRA
1 2'-x34
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Active and At -Rest Earth Pressures 27
Earthquake Loads Retaining Walls 28
Subdrainage 28
Waterproofing 29
Wall Backfill 29
Geotechnical Observation and Testing 29
Masonry Block Walls 29
Exterior Concrete Flatwork 30
General 30
Thickness and Joint Spacing 30
Reinforcement 31
Edge Beams (Optional) 31
Subgrade Preparation 31
Drainage 32
Tree Wells 32
Swimming Pool and Spa 32
Allowable Bearing and Settlement 32
Lateral Earth Pressures 32
Stability of Temporary Excavation 33
Temporary Access Ramps 33
Pool Bottom 33
Pool Decking 33
Plumbing Fixtures 33
ACCESS ROADS 34
Asphalt Pavement 34
PLAN REVIEW 35
REPORT LIMITATIONS 35
REFERENCES 37
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
APPENDIX A — BORING LOGS
APPENDIX B — LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES / LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY APPENDIX C — SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D — DRY SAND SETTLEMENT
APPENDIX E — PERCOLATION / INFILTRATION
APPENDIX F — STANDARD GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS/RETAINING WALLS PETRA
1 2'-x35
DESIGN -PHASE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED RANCHO MIRAGE APARTMENTS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 685-090-011, EAST OF RANCHO MIRAGE DOG PARK
RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is presenting herein our design -phase geotechnical investigation report for an apartment buildings complex and various improvements that are currently proposed at the vacant site located in the city of Rancho Mirage, California. The improvements include the construction of a series of two-story apartment buildings and associated utilities, paved parking, landscaping, recreational areas, and on -site stormwater retention. The purposes of this investigation were to 1) obtain information regarding surface and subsurface geologic conditions within the area of the proposed construction, 2) evaluate the engineering properties of the onsite soil materials, and 3) provide conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed improvements. To accomplish these objectives, our scope of services included the following:
1. Reviewing of published and unpublished literature and maps pertaining to regional faulting, seismic hazards and soil and geologic conditions within and adjacent to the site that could influence the design of the proposed structural elements.
2. Reviewing of historical aerial photographs of the area of proposed construction.
3. Performing a subsurface investigation within the area of proposed construction. The investigation consisted of drilling 3 exploratory borings to depths of 26 to 66 feet using a hollow -stem drilling rig. Additionally, drilling 2 exploratory borings to 10 feet below ground surface using the hollow - stem auger drilling method and performing falling -head percolation test in each borehole. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A and the percolation tests results and infiltration rate calculations are presented in Appendix E.
4. Logging and field -classifying soil materials encountered in each boring in accordance with the visual -manual procedures outlined in the Unified Soil Classification System and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Procedure D 2488-90. All field activities were performed by or under the direct observation of a State of California Certified Engineering Geologist.
5. Collecting representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples for laboratory analysis.
Undisturbed samples will be retrieved at 3- to 10 -foot depth intervals utilizing a 2.4 -inch inside diameter, modified -California split -spoon sampler. In addition, where granular soils were encountered within the saturated zone, these materials were selectively sampled using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method in accordance with ASTM Procedure D 1586-92.
6. Performing appropriate laboratory analysis on soil samples which included the following: in -situ and maximum dry density; in -situ and optimum moisture content; sieve analysis, remolded direct shear; collapse analysis; soluble sulfate and chloride content; general soil corrosivity (Sulfate, Chloride, pH and minimum resistivity).
• GEOSCIENCES'"°
PETRA
1 211=236
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
7. Engineering and geologic analyses of the field and laboratory data as they pertain to the proposed construction.
8. An evaluation of faulting and seismicity of the region, and the possible impact of regional seismicity on the proposed construction.
9. Preparation of this geotechnical report presenting the results of our evaluation and recommendations for the proposed development in general conformance with the 2022 California Building Code (2022 CBC) and in accordance with applicable state and local jurisdictional requirements.
LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The area of study considered under the scope of this investigation consists of 10 acres located to the east of the Rancho Mirage Dog Park. The location of the site with respect to nearby roadways and other landmarks is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The subject site is vacant and is bordered on the north by an existing shopping center, on the east by vacant land and Monterey Avenue, on the west by vacant land and the Rancho Mirage Dog Park, and on the south by undeveloped vacant land. The topography is approximately flat and level, with approximately 10 feet of relief from the south end of the site to the north end. The subject site's natural landscaping consists of few grasses and light desert scrub with no trees.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Petra understands that the site is to be developed into 242 apartments. Additionally, the improvements will consist of utilities, paved parking, landscaping, and on -site storm water retention. Neither grading plans nor specific details related to the proposed improvements were provided to Petra at the time this report was prepared. Petra has received a Draft Site Plan (A. O. Architects, 2024) for "Via Vail Village" to use in the preparation of this report, but Petra has been advised this is subject to change. Based on the existing development and the relatively flat topography of the site, Petra assumes that earthwork is generally limited to minor cuts and fills to establish finished grade elevations. It should be noted, however, that remedial grading (i.e., excavation and re -compaction of any existing undocumented fill soils that are present on the site and loose native soils) will entail deeper cuts from exiting grades as recommended in subsequent sections of this report. No extensive subterranean construction is anticipated. eGEOSCIENCES'"°.
PETRA
122 7
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING
Subsurface Exploration
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Our subsurface exploration was performed on February 16, 2024, and involved the following:
• Drilling and sampling of two relatively shallow borings (B-2 and B-3) to depths of 26 feet below the existing ground surface and one deep boring (B-1) to a depth of 66 feet below the existing ground surface. All of the borings were drilled utilizing a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill rig.
• Drilling two borings to a depth of 10 feet (Borings P-1 and P-2) and performing pilot percolation tests to observe infiltration characteristics of subsurface materials that will be utilized in design of the infiltration system.
Earth materials encountered in each of the exploratory borings were field classified and logged in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System, USCS, procedures. In addition, our subsurface exploration included the collection of bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils for laboratory testing purposes. Bulk samples consisted of selected earth materials obtained at various depth intervals from selected borings. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected using a 3 -inch, outside - diameter, modified California split -spoon soil sampler lined with 1 -inch -high brass and/or stainless steel rings. The modified sampler was driven with successive 30 -inch drops of a hydraulically operated 140 - pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts for each 6 -inch driving increment were recorded on the field logs. The central portions of the driven core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the attached Boring Location Map, Figure 2, and descriptive exploration logs are presented in Appendix A.
In addition to the above sampling method, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT's) were also performed at selected depth intervals in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Procedure D 1586. This method consists of mechanically driving an unlined standard split -barrel sampler 18 inches into the soil with successive 30 -inch drops of the 140 -pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts for each 6 -inch driving increment were recorded on the exploration logs. The number of blows required to drive the standard split -spoon sampler for the last 12 of the 18 inches was identified as the uncorrected standard penetration resistance (N). Disturbed soil samples from the unlined standard split -spoon samplers were placed in plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for testing.
GEOSCIENCES''
122 8
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Laboratory Testing
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
In order to evaluate the engineering properties of onsite soils, a number of laboratory tests were performed on selected samples considered representative of the materials encountered within the study area. These laboratory tests were performed shortly after completion of our field investigation and included determination of in -place dry density and moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, sieve analysis, collapse potential, remolded shear strength, as well as chemical and electrical corrosivity potential (soluble sulfate and chloride content, pH, and minimum resistivity). A description of laboratory test methods is provided in the Laboratory Test Procedures section of this report (Appendix B).
Summaries of the test data are presented on the exploration logs (Appendix A) and in Appendix B of this report.
Percolation Testing
Percolation testing was conducted in Exploratory Boring P-1 and P-2 in accordance with County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) test procedures and the guidelines presented in Appendix VII of the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs. The Orange County Manual references the RCDEH percolation test methods as an acceptable method of obtaining site infiltration data. The "percolation rates" determined in accordance with the RCDEH test procedures are based on both horizontal (lateral) and vertical percolation. Therefore, to consider vertical percolation only, the "percolation rates" were converted to a reasonable estimate of the "infiltration rate" using the Porchet Method presented in Appendix VII of the referenced County of Orange Technical Guidance Document.
Boring P-1 and P-2 were converted to percolation test holes following the drilling of these borings by placing a three-inch (I.D.) perforated PVC pipe in the test hole. We note that in this stage and while we were taking the hollow stem auger out of the hole, it collapsed due to presence of dune sand. Consequently, the annular space around the pipe was filled with existing dune sand to the depth of approximately 5 feet below the ground and we were not able to place open -graded gravel, approximately 3/4 -inch, within the annular space between the pipe and boring walls and a 3 -inch -thick layer of gravel below the pipe. The remainder of the annular space was backfilled with boring cuttings. Clean water was then added to the boring to pre-soak the adjacent soils prior to performing the percolation test.
The percolation tests were conducted in dune sand that exists from the near surface to below the base of the percolation tests. Borings P-1 and P-2 were drilled to total depths of approximately 10 feet. The test hole was filled with clean water to approximately 5 feet from the ground surface. The drop in water level was measured at 10 -minute intervals. From these readings, the percolation characteristics of the underlying dune • GEOSCIENCES'"°
PETRA
122 9
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
sand deposits were estimated. Percolation test results are presented in Appendix E and are summarized in Table 1. We note that the calculated infiltration rate presented in this table has a factor of safety of 1 and the project engineer should use an appropriate factor of safety per project Specifications.
TABLE 1
Percolation Test Results
Test No.
Soil Type'
(USCS)
Depth of
Hole
(Feet)
Measured 2
Percolation Rate
(Minutes/Inch)
Infiltration Rate (It) 3
per Porchet Method
(Inches/Hour) (F.S — 1)
P-1
SP
10 0.38
13.4 P-2
SP
10 0.35
13.0 Interbedded Strata — see Boring Logs, Appendix A
2 RCDEH Test Procedure
3 Minutes/inch converted to inches/hour per Porchet Method
FINDINGS
Regional Geologic Setting
The proposed development is located in the Coachella Valley, which is part of the Salton Trough geomorphic province of California. The Salton Trough geomorphic province encompasses the Coachella, Imperial and Mexicali Valleys, which extend from northeast of Palm Springs near San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California. The geologic structure of the trough is a result of extensional forces within the earth's crust. The Coachella Valley is generally bounded by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the west, the San Bernardino and the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the north, the Cottonwood Mountains and the Mecca Hills on the east, and the Salton Sea to the south. Alluvial (Streams), aeolian (wind-blown), and lacustrine (lake) sediments are the dominant geologic units of the Coachella Valley.
The watershed of the Coachella Valley empties into the Salton Sea at the lowest part of the basin. This basin was periodically filled with water to form the ancient Lake Cahuilla, depending on which side of its delta the Colorado River would drain. The sediments of the delta form a topographic high that separates the Salton basin, which is below sea level, from the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez).
Local Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions
In general, the soil materials underlying the site as encountered in our borings were noted to consist of very loose to very dense, poorly graded dune sand to the maximum depth explored of 66 feet. The upper 3 to 4 feet of the soil was found to be dry and very loose to loose. Soils become medium dense to dense and finer v PETRA
GEOSCIENCES''
12 24O
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
grained with depth. The moisture content of these native soils is very low and on the order of less than 0.5 percent. Laboratory testing of relatively undisturbed samples of dune sand yielded in -place dry densities ranging from 90 to 110 pounds per cubic foot.
Groundwater
Free groundwater was not encountered within any of the exploratory borings advanced onsite to the maximum depth explored of 66 feet below grades. According to a monitoring well located approximately
0.5 miles to the north, groundwater is located approximately 160 feet below the ground surface as of July 18, 2023 (CDWR Station 338086N1163878W001).
Faulting
The Coachella Valley is a seismically active area and numerous northwest -trending active faults have been documented within the area. The San Andreas fault zone is the most prominent fault within the Coachella Valley and is considered to be "active". An "active" fault is defined as a fault that has had displacement within the Holocene epoch, or last ±11,000 years. Based on our review, the site is not located within a Fault Hazard Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007), as defined by the state of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and no evidence for faulting was observed within the site during our study.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Seismically Induced Landsliding
The site exhibits a generally flat topography, and no landslides exist within or near the site. Based on the topography across the site, the potential for landsliding is considered negligible.
Seismically Induced Flooding
The types of seismically induced flooding that are generally considered as potential hazards to a particular site normally include flooding due to a tsunami (seismic sea wave), a seiche, or failure of a major reservoir or other water retention structure upstream of the site. The Salton Sea is situated approximately 25 miles southeast of the site with an elevation approximately 500 feet lower than the subject site. In addition, no major reservoir is located near or upstream of the site. Therefore, the potential for seiche or inundation is considered negligible. Because of the inland location of the site, flooding due to a tsunami is also considered negligible at the site.
. GEOSCIENCES'"°
PETRA
12 241
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a soil softening dynamic response, by which an increase in the excess pore water pressure results in partial to full loss of soil shear strength and post -liquefaction dissipation of this pore water pressure results in ground settlement shortly after the earthquake. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following four factors are required: 1) saturated soil or soil situated below the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading (strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) contractive soil response during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly graded sands, non -plastic silts, or gravels. SP117A (CGS, 2008) discusses preliminary screening methods sufficient to evaluate liquefaction potential without requiring a comprehensive liquefaction analysis; one of the considerations is the depth to groundwater.
Sites with groundwater depth of around 50 feet below ground surface and deeper (including historic high ground water, current conditions, and future expectations), are considered unlikely to experience liquefaction within the upper 50 feet of the soil profile. Due to a very deep ground water table at the subject property (+160 feet) the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered negligible.
Dry Sand
Dry sand settlement can occur during moderate and large earthquakes when loose, natural or fill sandy soils are densified and settle, often unevenly across a site. In order for dry sand settlement to occur, the following four factors are required: 1) Relatively dry soil or soil situated above the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading (strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) contractive soil response during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly graded sands. Structures situated above seismically densifying dry sandy soils may experience settlement or tilting of superstructures, or both.
Seismically Induced Settlement Parameters
Assessment of liquefaction or dry sand settlement potential for a particular site requires knowledge of a number of regional as well as site -specific parameters, including the estimated design earthquake magnitude, and the associated probable peak horizontal ground acceleration at the site, subsurface stratigraphy and soil characteristics. Parameters such as estimated probable peak horizontal ground acceleration can readily be determined using published references, or by utilizing a commercially available computer program specifically designed to perform a probabilistic analysis. In contrast, stratigraphy and soil characteristics can only be accurately determined by means of a site -specific subsurface investigation combined with appropriate laboratory analysis of representative samples of onsite soils.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"
1211=242
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Seismically Induced 'Dry Sand' Settlement
Propagating earthquake waves induces shearing stresses and strains in soil materials during strong ground shaking. This process rearranges the structure of granular soils such that there is an increase in density, with a corresponding decrease in volume, which results in vertical settlement. Seismically induced settlement has been well documented in wet, sandy deposits undergoing liquefaction (see Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) and in relatively dry sediments as well (Stewart et al, 1996). Specific methods to analyze potential wet and dry dynamic settlement are reported in Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), Pradel (1998), and Stewart et al. (2001; 2002). Most of the referenced papers focus on the seismic effects on dry, clean sands of a uniform grain size, though several reports extend the literature to fine-grained soils (Stewart et al., 2001 & 2002). State guidelines for evaluating dynamic settlement are provided in the California Geological Survey Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008).
To evaluate the potential for earthquake -induced dry sand settlement at the site and its impact on the proposed improvements, we performed a settlement analysis of the data from our 66 feet deep boring B-1 using LiqSVs program (Geologismiki, Version 2.3.2.9). LiqSVs is a software that evaluates liquefaction potential and calculates the settlement of soil deposits due to seismic loads. For the purpose of dry sand settlement analyses, we considered a design groundwater level at a depth of 160 feet below the existing ground surface, peak ground acceleration for maximum considered earthquake (PGAM) in the site vicinity to be approximately 0.879g, and a predominant earthquake magnitude of 7.49 Mw.
The results of our analysis indicate that the loose and medium dense poorly graded dune sand encountered below the ground surface to the depth of approximately 10 feet in our borings appear to be prone to dry sand settlement during seismic shaking. Assuming that the upper 4 feet of soil will be replaced with a non - susceptible soil to dynamic settlement, we estimate that total dynamic settlement up to about 1'h to 2 -inches is possible at the ground surface within our borings due to dry sand settlement from the MCE level earthquake. In our opinion, differential dry sand settlement of up to about 1'/ -inch over a horizontal distance of approximately 100 feet may occur across the proposed improvements at the ground surface. A summary of our dry sand settlement analysis is presented in Appendix D. The estimated dry sand settlement should be considered during the structural design of the foundation system of the proposed improvements.
It should be noted that in the literature, prediction of the seismic settlement for unsaturated sandy soils, referred to as 'dry sand' settlement, is based on observation of performance of 5 sites that were comprised of clean sands, i.e. sands with 5 percent fines or less. However, the shallow site soils, above the assumed historic high groundwater level, are comprised of sands with substantial amounts of fines. The presence of fines influences (reduces) the settlement potential under a seismic event. To overcome this, the measured GEOSCIENCES'"°
12 243
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
resistance parameters of soils with fines are first converted to that of clean sand values and then are used in the predictive routines. This is an indirect approach and, therefore, lacks the performance -based verification requirements. In addition, sandy deposits, especially within vadose zones, contain certain amount of pore water that, because of surface tension properties of water molecules, create tensile intra-particle forces, albeit, very weak, that are expected to reduce the particle rearrangement tendencies of sandy deposits during ground shaking Further, sometimes the 'dry sand' seismic settlement calculation results are multiplied by factor of 2 to account for bidirectional nature of seismic waves propagations. That is, the investigators are provided with an optional factor of 2 to multiply the results of their seismic 'dry sand' calculations. It is our professional opinion that for the reasons cited herein dry sand settlement calculations are less reliable compared to that of the liquefaction settlement. It is perhaps for these and potentially other reasons that some review agencies do not require 'dry sand' settlement calculations as a part of their approval process.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Feasibility,
Although the detailed development plans are not fully available, from a soils engineering and engineering geologic point of view and based on our current knowledge of the project, the subject property is considered suitable for the proposed development. It is our opinion that the proposed construction will not adversely affect the geologic stability of adjoining properties in an adverse manner provided grading and construction are performed in accordance with current standards of practice, all applicable grading ordinances and the recommendations presented in this report.
Earthwork and Grading
General Specifications
All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable requirements of the grading and excavation codes of the County of Riverside, and in compliance with all applicable provisions of the 2022 California Building Code (2022 CBC). Grading should also be performed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report.
Geotechnical Observations and Testing
Prior to the start of earthwork, a meeting should be held at the site with the owner's representative, contractor and geotechnical consultant to discuss the work schedule and geotechnical aspects of the grading.
Earthwork, which in this instance will generally entail removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils, should be accomplished under full-time observation and testing by the geotechnical consultant. A GEOSCIENCES'"°
12 244
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
representative of the project geotechnical consultant should be present onsite during all earthwork operations to document placement and compaction of fills, as well as to document compliance with the other recommendations presented herein.
Demolition, Clearing and Grubbing
Following any demolition, clearing operations should also include the removal of any remaining trash, debris, vegetation and similar deleterious materials including the root balls from any trees. Any cavities or excavations created upon removal of any unknown subsurface structures or inclusions should be cleared of loose soil, shaped to provide access for backfilling and compaction equipment and then backfilled with engineered fill. Note that buried deleterious materials may be encountered within the site (i.e., buried organics or debris) due to the past site usage and may need to be removed by hand (i.e., root pickers), during grading operations.
The project geotechnical consultant should provide periodic observation and testing services during final clearing and grubbing operations to document compliance with the above recommendations. In addition, should unusual or adverse soil conditions or buried structures be encountered during grading that are not described herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recommendations.
Unsuitable Soil Removals and Bottom Processing
Any existing undocumented fill and near surface native soils are considered unsuitable for support of proposed structures and should be removed to underlying competent alluvial materials as approved by the project geotechnical consultant. As such, the estimated depth of removal is recommended to be approximately 4 feet below the existing ground surface, or 3 feet below the bottom of the deepest footing, whichever is deeper. Consideration should be given to locally deepening the excavation at the location of tree roots, any underground structures, or proposed subterranean features (if any) in order to provide a uniform depth of compacted fill in all areas. Soil removals could be locally deeper depending upon the actual exposed conditions encountered during grading. At a minimum, the over -excavation should extend a distance beyond the perimeter of the supported structure equal to the depth of the over -excavation. The actual depths and horizontal limits of removals and over -excavations should be evaluated upon availability of the site grading plan and during grading on the basis of observations and testing performed by the project geotechnical consultant. Excavated soils, if found free of deleterious materials, are considered acceptable for use as compacted fill.
• GEOSCIENCES'"°
PETRA
12 245
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Prior to placing engineered fill, the exposed bottom surfaces in the removal areas should be approved by a representative of project geotechnical consultant. The exposed bottom(s) should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture -conditioned or air-dried to achieve approximately two percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted with a heavy construction equipment prior to placement of fill. The minimum compaction of the upper 12 inches of the removal bottom should meet or exceed 90 percent relative compaction. The laboratory maximum dry density, the standard for determining relative compaction, and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 1557.
Grading at Site Boundaries
Average remedial removals within the building pad areas, extending horizontally beyond the limits of the proposed structures a distance equal to the depth of the overexcavation, are anticipated to be on the order of 4 feet below the existing ground surface, although locally deeper over -excavation is possible. A vertical cut at the perimeter of any overexcavation area along the property lines is not expected to remain stable. As such, vertical cuts immediately adjacent to existing structures (if any) is not acceptable from geotechnical standpoint. Specific recommendations for protection of any existing structures or improvements adjacent to the recommended overexcavation, either interior or at the perimeter of the site can be provided following review of site development plans. Recommendations may include shoring and slot -cutting for areas adjacent to property boundaries and underpinning, or other methods intended to prevent settlement or distress to existing improvements.
Excavation Characteristics
Based on the observed soils types in our borings, shallow excavation of soils within the site are expected to be readily excavatable with conventional earthmoving equipment.
Fill Placement
All fill materials should be placed in approximately 6- to 8 -inch -thick loose lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a minimum moisture content at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture condition, and then compacted in -place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557.
v. PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"°
12 246
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Imported Soils
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
If imported soils are required to complete the planned grading, these soils should consist of clean materials devoid of rock exceeding a maximum dimension of 4 inches, organics, trash and other deleterious materials.
To avoid making revisions to the foundation design, imported soils should also be granular and exhibit a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index 0-20). Prospective import soils should be observed at the source, tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to importing the soils to the site. It is recommended that the project environmental consultant should also be notified so that they can confirm the suitability of the proposed import material from an environmental standpoint.
Volumetric Changes - Bulking, Shrinkage and Subsidence
An average shrinkage factor estimated at 15 to 20 percent is anticipated when excavated on -site soils are replaced as properly compacted fill. A subsidence, estimated at 0.15 to 0.25 feet may also occur when exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas are scarified and re -compacted as recommended herein. These estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended for use by project planners in estimating earthwork quantities and should not be considered absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and subsidence that will occur during grading.
Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations up to a depth of up to roughly four feet below existing grades may be required to accomplish the recommended over -excavation of existing soils. Based on the physical properties of the onsite soils, any temporary excavations exceeding 4 feet in height should be cut back to an inclination of
1.5:1 (h:v) or flatter for the duration of the over -excavation of unsuitable soil material and replacement as compacted fill, as well as placement of underground utilities. During remedial grading the estimated 1.5:1 (h:v) recommendation may possibly be flattened or steepened, depending on conditions observed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant. Other factors which should be considered with respect to the stability of the temporary slopes include construction traffic and/or storage of materials on or near the tops of the slopes, construction scheduling, presence of nearby walls or structures adjacent to the excavation and weather conditions at the time of construction. Applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA, of 1970 and the Construction Safety Act should also be followed. • GEOSCIENCES'"°.
PETRA
12 247
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Expansive Soil Conditions
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Based on available data, including the non -plastic, granular nature of the soils encountered in the subsurface exploration, near -surface soils are considered Very Low in expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 20). Additional sampling and testing should be performed during site grading for determining actual expansion potential of the supporting building pad soils.
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Seismic Design Parameters
Earthquake loads on earthen structures and buildings are a function of ground acceleration which may be determined from the site -specific ground motion analysis. Alternatively, a design response spectrum can be developed for certain sites based on the code guidelines. To provide the design team with the parameters necessary to construct the design acceleration response spectrum for this project, we used two computer applications. Specifically, the first computer application, which was jointly developed by Structural Engineering Association of California (SEAOC) and California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), the SEA/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool website, https://seismicmaps.org , is used to calculate the ground motion parameters. The second computer application, the United Stated Geological Survey (USGS) Unified Hazard Tool website, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ , is used to estimate the earthquake magnitude and the distance to surface projection of the fault. The results obtained from these websites is presented in Appendix C.
To run the above computer applications, site latitude and longitude, seismic risk category and knowledge of site class are required. The site class definition depends on the direct measurement of certain soil properties and the ASCE 7-16 recommended procedure for calculating the average shear wave velocity within the upper 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of site soils. Several methods exist to determine the shear wave velocity, including correlation with SPT blow counts. Based on the blow counts obtained in boring B-1 (including converting California Modified Sampler blow counts to SPT after Burmister (1948)) and Petra's knowledge of site geologic conditions, Site Class D (D — Stiff Soil as per the SEA/OSHPD software) has been assigned to the subject site.
Petra has assumed that the proposed structures should be categorized as Risk Category II pursuant to 2022 CBC Table 1604.5. If the specifics of the proposed project warrant a different Risk Category, the members of the design team responsible for this determination may assign the appropriate Risk Category. Seismic design parameters provided below are not impacted by the assumed Risk Category. • PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"
12 248
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
The following table, Table 2, provides parameters required to construct the seismic response coefficient, Cs, curve based on ASCE 7-16, Article 12.8 guidelines. A printout of the computer output is attached in Appendix C. The results of conversion of blow count data to small -strain shear wave velocity is also provided in Appendix C.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank—
GEOSCIENCES'"
12 249
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
TABLE 2
Seismic Design Parameters
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Ground Motion Parameters
Specific Reference
Parameter
Value
Unit
Site Latitude (North)
-
33.798390
°
Site Longitude (West)
-
-116.393251
°
Site Class Definition
Section 1613.2.2 (1), Chapter 20 (2)
D -Stiff (4)
-
Assumed Risk Category
Table 1604A.5 (1)
II
-
Ma, - Earthquake Magnitude
USGS Unified Hazard Tool (3)
7.49 (3)
-
R — Distance to Surface Projection of Fault
USGS Unified Hazard Tool (3)
6.38 (3)
km
Ss - Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration
Short Period (0.2 second)
Figure 1613.2.1(1) (1)
1.842 (4)
g
Si - Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration
Long Period (1.0 second)
Figure 1613.2.1(2) 0I>
0.77 (4)
g
Fa — Short Period (0.2 second) Site Coefficient
Table 1613A.2.3(1)(1)
1.0 (4)
-
Fa — Long Period (1.0 second) Site Coefficient
Table 1613A.2.3(2) (1)
Null (4)
-
SMS — MCER Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter
Adjusted for Site Class Effect (0.2 second)
Equation 16-36 (1)
1.842 (4)
g
SMI - MCER Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter
Adjusted for Site Class Effect (1.0 second)
Equation 16-37 (l)
Null (4)
g
SDs - Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-s
Equation 16-38 (1)
1.228 (4)
g
SDI - Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-s
Equation 16-39 (1)
Null (4)
g
To = 0.2 SDI/ SDS
Section 11.4.6 (2)
Null
s
Ts= SDI/ SDS
Section 11.4.6 (2)
Null
s
TL - Long Period Transition Period
Figure 22-14 (2)
8 (4)
s
PGA - Peak Ground Acceleration at MCE0 (`)
Figure 22-9 (2)
0.799 (4)
g
FPGA - Site Coefficient Adjusted for Site Class Effect (2) Table 11.8-1 (2)
1.1 (4)
-
PGAM —Peak Ground Acceleration (2)
Adjusted for Site Class Effect
Equation 11.8-1 (2)
0.879 (4)
g
Design PGA (2/3 PGAM) - Slope Stability (t)
Similar to Eqs. 16-38 & 16-39 (2)
0.59 g
Design PGA z (0.4 SDs) — Short Retaining Walls (I)
Equation 11.4-5 (2)
Null
g
CRs - Short Period Risk Coefficient
Figure 22-18A (2)
0.892 (4)
-
CRI - Long Period Risk Coefficient
Figure 22-19A (2)
0.878 (4)
-
SDC - Seismic Design Category (§)
Section 1613.2.5 (1)
Null (4)
-
References:
Title 24, Part 2, Volume I and II.
(ASCE/SEI), 2016, Minimum Design
Loads and Associated
Program)
(I) California Building Code (CBC), 2022, California Code of Regulations, (2) American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Standards 7-16. (3) USGS Unified Hazard Tool - https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ (4) SEUOSHPD Seismic Design Map Application — https://seismicmaps.org Related References:
(National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
(FEMA P-1050).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2015, NEHERP Recommended Seismic Provision for New Building and Other Structures Notes:
chance of exceedance in 50 years).
equivalent to a return period of 475 years (10 percent chance of (zero) fundamental period.
engineer in accordance with Section 1613.2.5.1, if applicable. * PGA Calculated at the MCE return period of 2475 years (2 percent t PGA Calculated at the Design Level of 2/3 of MCE; approximately exceedance in 50 years).
$ PGA Calculated for short, stubby retaining walls with an infinitesimal § The designation provided herein may be superseded by the structural 1 GEOSCIENCES'"
1 211=250
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Discussion
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
General
Owing to the characteristics of the subsurface soils, as defined by Site Class D -Stiff Soil designation, and proximity of the site to the sources of major ground shaking, the site is expected to experience strong ground shaking during its anticipated life span. Under these circumstances, where the code -specified design response spectrum may not adequately characterize site response, the 2022 CBC typically requires a site - specific seismic response analysis to be performed. This requirement is signified/identified by the "null" values that are output using SEA/OSHPD software in determination of short period, but mostly, in determination of long period seismic parameters, see Table 2.
For conditions where a "null" value is reported for the site, a variety of design approaches are permitted by 2022 CBC and ASCE 7-16 in lieu of a site -specific seismic hazard analysis. For any specific site, these alternative design approaches, which include Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) procedure, Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) procedure, Linear Response History Analysis (LRHA) procedure and Simplified Design procedure, among other methods, are expected to provide results that may or may not be more economical than those that are obtained if a site -specific seismic hazards analysis is performed. These design approaches and their limitations should be evaluated by the project structural engineer.
Seismic Design Category
Please note that the Seismic Design Category, SDC, is also designated as "null" in Table 2. For Risk Category is I, II, or III structures, where the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter at 1— second period, Si, is greater than or equal to 0.75, the 2022 CBC, Section 1613.2.5 requires the assignment to Seismic Design Category E.
Equivalent Lateral Force Method
Should the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) method be used for seismic design of structural elements, the value of Constant Velocity Domain Transition Period, TS, is estimated to be 0.71 seconds and the value of Long Period Transition Period, TL, is provided in Table 2 for construction of Seismic Response Coefficient — Period (Cs -T) curve that is used in the ELF procedure.
As stated herein, the subject site is considered to be within a Site Class D -Stiff Soil. A site -specific ground motion hazard analysis is not required for structures on Site Class D -Stiff Soil with S1 > 0.2 provided that the Seismic Response Coefficient, Cs, is determined in accordance with ASCE 7-16, Article 12.8 and structural design is performed in accordance with Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) procedure.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"
1 211=251
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Foundation System
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
In consideration of the existing surficial soils and the recommended remedial grading herein, conventional shallow foundations, consisting of isolated column footings interconnected with tie beams and continuous footings, may be used for support of the proposed structures. Structural foundation loads are currently unknown but are assumed to be typical for two-story light -framed construction.
Eccentrically loaded footings should be avoided if possible. In the event that the design requires eccentric loading, the design should consider the effective footing dimensions rather than actual dimensions. Pad footings located closer than 2 x B (where B is the footing width) to an adjacent footing should be designed as a single footing. Allowable bearing capacity for square footings apply as long as L/B is less than 5 (where L is the footing length).
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, Anticipated Settlement and Lateral Resistance Pad Footings
Based on the test results (ultimate friction angle of 28.5 degrees and negligible cohesion), an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot, including dead and live loads, may be utilized for design of 24 -inch -square pad footings that are a part of the slab system and embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent compacted final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each foot of embedment and by 10 percent for each additional foot of width, to a maximum value of 3,500 pounds per square foot. The recommended allowable bearing value includes both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic forces.
Continuous Footings
An allowable soil bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be utilized for design of continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent fmal grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and by 10 percent for each additional foot of width, to a maximum value of 3,500 pounds per square foot. The recommended allowable bearing value includes both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic forces.
Estimated Static Settlement
Based on the allowable bearing values provided above, total static settlement of the footings under the anticipated loads is expected to be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement is expected to be less than 3/4 inch over a horizontal span of 30 feet. The majority of settlement is likely to take place as footing loads are applied or shortly thereafter.
• PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"°
1 211=252
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Seismically Induced Settlement
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
As previously noted, if remedial grading removes and replaces the upper 4 feet of existing soils as compacted fill, the total seismic settlement is estimated at approximately 2 inches. Differential seismic settlement is estimated to be around 1 ''A inches over a span of 100 feet.
Lateral Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot, may be used to determine lateral bearing resistance for footings. In addition, a coefficient of friction of 0.30 times the dead load forces may be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. The above values may be increased by one-third when designing for transient wind or seismic forces. It should be noted that the above values are based on the condition where footings are cast in direct contact with compacted fill or competent native soils. In cases where the footing sides are formed, all backfill placed against the footings upon removal of forms should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the applicable maximum dry density.
Guidelines for Footings and Slabs on -Grade Design and Construction Based on the sandy nature of the material encountered in the borings and Petra's experience in the area, the site soils have expansive indices less than 20. As indicated in Section 1803.5.3 of 2022 California Building Code (2022 CBC), these soils are considered non -expansive and, as such, the design of slabs on -grade is considered to be exempt from the procedures outlined in Sections 1808.6.2 of the 2022 CBC and may be performed using any method deemed rational and appropriate by the project structural engineer. However, the following minimum recommendations are presented herein for conditions where the project design team may require geotechnical engineering guidelines for design and construction of footings and slabs on -grade the project site.
The design and construction guidelines that follow are based on the above soil conditions and may be considered for reducing the effects of variability in fabric, composition and, therefore, the detrimental behavior of the site soils such as excessive short- and long-term total and differential heave or settlement. These guidelines have been developed on the basis of the previous experience of this firm on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed in accordance with these guidelines has been found to reduce post -construction movement and/or distress, they generally do not positively eliminate all potential effects of variability in soils characteristics and future heave or settlement.
GEOSCIENCES'"°
1 211=253
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
It should also be noted that the suggestions for dimension and reinforcement provided herein are performance -based and intended only as preliminary guidelines to achieve adequate performance under the anticipated soil conditions. However, they should not be construed as replacement for structural engineering analyses, experience and judgment. The project structural engineer, architect and/or civil engineer should make appropriate adjustments to slab and footing dimensions, and reinforcement type, size and spacing to account for internal concrete forces (e.g., thermal, shrinkage and expansion), as well as external forces (e.g., applied loads) as deemed necessary. Consideration should also be given to minimum design criteria as dictated by local building code requirements.
Conventional Slabs on -Grade System
Considering an expansion index of less than 20, we recommend that footings and floor slabs be designed and constructed in accordance with the following minimum criteria.
Footings
1. Exterior continuous footings supporting one- and two-story structures should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, respectively. Interior continuous footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of the adjacent finish floor slabs.
2. In accordance with Table 1809.7 of 2022 CBC for light -frame construction, all continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches for one- and two-story structures. We recommend all continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
3. A minimum 12 -inch -wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances or similar openings (such as large doors or bay windows). The grade beam should be reinforced with a similar manner as provided above.
4. Interior isolated pad footings, if required, should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the adjacent floor slabs for one- and two-story structures. Pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near the bottoms of the footings.
5. Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs such as second -story decks, patio covers and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near the bottoms of the footings. Exterior isolated pad footings may need to be connected to adjacent pad and/or continuous footings via tie beams at the discretion of the project structural engineer.
6. The minimum footing dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein may be modified (increased or decreased subject to the constraints of Chapter 18 of the 2022 CBC) by the structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on calculations, engineering experience and judgment.
V. GPETRA
1 211=254
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Building Floor Slabs
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
1. Concrete floor slabs should be a minimum 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 24 inches on centers, both ways. Alternatively, the structural engineer may recommend the use of prefabricated welded wire mesh for slab reinforcement. For this condition, the welded wire mesh should be of sheet type (not rolled) and should consist of 6x6/W2.9xW2.9 (per the Wire Reinforcement Institute, WRI, designation) or stronger. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid -depth. Care should be exercised to prevent warping of the welded wire mesh between the chairs in order to ensure its placement at the desired mid -slab position.
Slab dimension, reinforcement type, size and spacing need to account for internal concrete forces (e.g., thermal, shrinkage and expansion) as well as external forces (e.g., applied loads), as deemed necessary.
Consideration should also be given to using a control joint spacing on the order of 2 feet in each direction for each inch of slab thickness.
It should be noted that some of the non -climatic site parameters, which may impact slabs on - grade performance, are not known at this time, as it is the case for many projects at the design stage. Some of these site parameters include unsaturated soils diffusion conditions pre- and post -construction (e.g., casting the slabs at the end of long, dry or wet periods, maintenance during long, dry and wet periods, etc.), landscaping, alterations in site surface gradient, irrigation, trees, etc. While the effects of any or a combination of these parameters on slab performance cannot be accurately predicted, maintaining moisture content equilibrium within the soils mass and planting trees at a distance greater than half of their mature height away from the edge of foundation may reduce the potential for the adverse impact of these site parameters on slabs on -grade performance.
2. Living area concrete floor slabs and areas to receive moisture sensitive floor covering should be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder consisting of a minimum 10 -mil -thick polyethylene or polyolefin membrane that meets the minimum requirements of ASTM E96 and ASTM E1745 for vapor retarders (such as Husky Yellow Guard®, Stego® Wrap, or equivalent). All laps within the membrane should be sealed, and at least 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete.
In general, to reduce the potential for punctures, the membrane should be placed on a pad surface that has been graded smooth without any sharp protrusions. If a smooth surface cannot be achieved by grading, consideration should be given to lowering the pad finished grade an additional inch and then placing a 1 -inch -thick leveling course of sand across the pad surface prior to the placement of the membrane. . Foot traffic on the membrane should be reduced to a minimum. Additional steps would also need to be taken to prevent puncturing of the vapor retarder during concrete placement.
To comply with Section 1907.1.1 of the 2022 CBC, the living area concrete floor slab should also be underlain with capillary break consisting of a minimum of 4 inches of gravel or crushed stone containing not more than 10 percent of material that passes through a No. 4 sieve. The capillary break should be placed below the 10 -mil moisture vapor retarder and may be considered as the structural fill recommended above.
At the present time, some slab designers, geotechnical professionals and concrete experts view the sand layer below the slab (blotting sand) as a place for entrapment of excess moisture that could adversely impact moisture -sensitive floor coverings. As a preventive measure, the GEOSCIENCES'e
1 211=255
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
potential for moisture intrusion into the concrete slab could be reduced if the concrete is placed directly on the vapor retarder. However, if this sand layer is omitted, appropriate curing methods must be implemented to ensure that the concrete slab cures uniformly. A qualified materials engineer or contractor with experience in slab design, construction, and curing should provide recommendations for alternative methods of curing and supervise the construction process to ensure uniform slab curing. Additional steps would also need to be taken to prevent puncturing of the vapor retarder during concrete placement.
3. Garage floor slabs should be a minimum 4 inches thick and reinforced in a similar manner as living area floor slabs. Garage slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained using 3/4 -inch -minimum felt expansion joint material. To control the propagation of shrinkage cracks, garage floor slabs should be quartered with weakened plane joints.
Consideration should be given to placement of a moisture vapor retarder below the garage slab, similar to that provided in Item 2 above, should the garage slab be overlain with moisture sensitive floor covering.
4. Presaturation of the subgrade below floor slabs will not be required; however, prior to placing concrete, the subgrade below all dwelling and garage floor slab areas should be thoroughly moistened to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs.
5. The minimum dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein for building floor slabs may be modified (increased or decreased subject to the constraints of Chapter 18 of the 2022 CBC) by the structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on calculations, engineering experience and judgment.
Post -Tensioned Slabs on -Grade System
In consideration of the expansion index of less than 20, as predominantly exhibited by onsite soils, any rational and appropriate procedure may be chosen by the project structural engineer for the design of post - tensioned slabs on -grade. Should the design engineer choose to follow the latest Code -adopted edition of the procedure published by the Post -Tensioning Institute (PTI DC 10.5), the following minimum design criteria are provided Table 3, below.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES''
1 211=256
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
TABLE 3
Presumptive Post -Tensioned Slab on -Grade Design Parameters for PTI Procedure , Soil Information
Approximate Depth of Constant Suction, feet
9 Approximate Soil Suction, pF
3.9 Inferred Thornthwaite Index:
-20
Average Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em in feet:
Center Lift
Edge Lift
9.0 4.7
Anticipated Swell, yin in inches:
Center Lift
Edge Lift
0.25 0.45
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
The modulus of subgrade reaction for design of load bearing elements depends on the size of the element and soil -structure interaction. However, as a first level of approximation, this value may be assumed to be 125 pounds per cubic inch.
Minimum Design Recommendations
The soil values provided above may be utilized by the project structural engineer to design post -tensioned slabs on -ground in accordance with Section 1808.6.2 of the 2019 CBC and the PTI publication. Thicker floor slabs and larger footing sizes may be required for structural reasons and should govern the design if more restrictive than the minimum recommendations provided below:
1. Exterior continuous footings for one- and two-story structures should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface. Interior footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 10 inches below the tops of the adjacent finish floor slabs.
2. In accordance with Table 1809.7 of 2019 CBC for light -frame construction, all continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches for one- and two-story construction. We recommend all continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Alternatively, post -tensioned tendons may be utilized in the perimeter continuous footings in lieu of the reinforcement bars.
3. A minimum 12 -inch -wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across the large entrances or similar openings (such as warehouse doors or bay windows).
The grade beam should be reinforced in a similar manner as provided above.
4. Interior isolated pad footings, if required, should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the adjacent floor slabs for one- and two-story buildings. Pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near the bottoms of the footings.
GEOSCIENCES'"
1 211=257
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
5. Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs such as second -story decks, patio covers, and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near the bottoms of the footings. Exterior isolated pad footings may need to be connected to adjacent pad and/or continuous footings via tie beams at the discretion of the project structural engineer.
6. The thickness of the floor slabs should be determined by the project structural engineer with consideration given to the expansion index of the onsite soils; however; we recommend that a minimum slab thickness of 4 inches be considered.
7. As an alternative to designing 4 -inch -thick post -tensioned slabs with perimeter footings as described in Items 1 and 2 above, the structural engineer may design the foundation system using a thickened slab design. The minimum thickness of this uniformly thick slab should be 7.5 inches. The engineer in charge of post -tensioned slab design may also opt to use any combination of slab thickness and footing embedment depth as deemed appropriate based on their engineering experience and judgment.
8. Concrete floor slabs and areas to receive moisture sensitive floor covering should be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder consisting of a minimum 10 -mil -thick polyethylene or polyolefin membrane that meets the minimum requirements of ASTM E96 and ASTM E1745 for vapor retarders (such as Husky Yellow Guard®, Stego® Wrap, or equivalent). All laps within the membrane should be sealed, and at least 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. To reduce the potential for punctures, the membrane should be placed on a pad surface that has been graded smooth without any sharp protrusions. If a smooth surface cannot be achieved by grading, consideration should be given to lowering the pad finished grade an additional inch and then placing a 1 -inch -thick leveling course of sand across the pad surface prior to the placement of the membrane.
At the present time, some slab designers, geotechnical professionals and concrete experts view the sand layer below the slab (blotting sand) as a place for entrapment of excess moisture that could adversely impact moisture -sensitive floor coverings. As a preventive measure, the potential for moisture intrusion into the concrete slab could be reduced if the concrete is placed directly on the vapor retarder. However, if this sand layer is omitted, appropriate curing methods must be implemented to ensure that the concrete slab cures uniformly. A qualified materials engineer with experience in slab design and construction should provide recommendations for alternative methods of curing and supervise the construction process to ensure uniform slab curing. Additional steps would also need to be taken to prevent puncturing of the vapor retarder during concrete placement.
9. Presaturation of the subgrade below floor slabs will not be required; however, prior to placing concrete, the subgrade below all dwelling and garage floor slab areas should be thoroughly moistened to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs.
10. The minimum footing dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein may be modified (increased or decreased subject to the constraints of Chapter 18 of the 2019 CBC) by the structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on calculations, engineering experience and judgment. • PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"
1 211=258
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Foundation Excavation Observations
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
All footing trenches should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant to document that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture -softened soils and/or any construction debris should be removed prior to the placing of concrete. Excavated soils derived from footing and/or utility trenches should not be placed in building slab - on -grade areas or exterior concrete flatwork areas unless the soils are compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density.
General Corrosivitv Screening
As a screening level study, very limited chemical and electrical tests were performed on samples considered representative of the onsite soils to identify potential corrosive characteristics of these soils. The common indicators associated with soil corrosivity include water-soluble sulfate and chloride levels, pH (a measure of acidity), and minimum electrical resistivity. Test results are presented in Table 4 below.
It should be noted that Petra does not practice corrosion engineering; therefore, the test results, opinion and engineering judgment provided herein should be considered as general guidelines only. Additional analyses would be warranted, especially, for cases where buried metallic building materials (such as copper and cast or ductile iron pipes) in contact with site soils are planned for the project. In many cases, the project geotechnical engineer may not be informed of these choices.
Therefore, for conditions where such elements are considered, we recommend that other, relevant project design professionals (e.g., the architect, landscape architect, civil and/or structural engineer) also consider recommending a qualified corrosion engineer to conduct additional sampling and testing of near -surface soils during the final stages of site grading to provide a complete assessment of soil corrosivity. Recommendations to mitigate the detrimental effects of corrosive soils on buried metallic and other building materials that may be exposed to corrosive soils should be provided by the corrosion engineer as deemed appropriate.
In general, a soil's water-soluble sulfate levels and pH relate to the potential for concrete degradation; water-soluble chlorides in soils impact ferrous metals embedded or encased in concrete, e.g., reinforcing steel; and electrical resistivity is a measure of a soil's corrosion potential to a variety of buried metals used in the building industry, such as copper tubing and cast or ductile iron pipes. Table 4, below, presents test results. with an interpretation of current code indicators and guidelines that are commonly used in this industry. The table includes the classifications of the soils as they relate to the various tests, as well as a general recommendation for possible mitigation measures in view of the potential adverse impact on various components of the proposed structures in direct contact with site soils. The guidelines provided herein should be evaluated and confirmed, or modified, in their entirety by the project structural engineer, GEOSCIENCES'"°
1 211=259
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
corrosion engineer and/or the contractor responsible for concrete placement for structural concrete used in exterior and interior footings, interior slabs on -ground, garage slabs, wall foundations and concrete exposed to weather such as driveways, patios, porches, walkways, ramps, steps, curbs, etc.
TABLE 4
Soil Corrosivity Screening Results
Test:
Test Results
Classification
General Recommendations
Soluble Sulfates
(Ca1 417)
0.0003 percent
S0�'>
Type II cement; min. f', = 2,500 psi; no
water/cement ratio restrictions
pH
(Ca1 643)
9.7 Very Strongly
Alkaline
A corrosion engineer should be consulted
for mitigation recommendations
Soluble Chloride
(Cal 422)
277 5 m
pp
C1(z)
Residence: No special recommendations,
f'c (2) should not be less than 2,500 psi.
Resistivity
(Cal 643)
15,000 ohm -cm
Mildly Corrosive c3)
A corrosion engineer should be consulted
for long term protection of metallic
elements in contact with site soils
Notes:
1. ACI 318-14, Section 19.3
2. ACI 318-14, Section 19.3
3. Pierre R. Roberge, "Handbook of Corrosion Engineering" Post -Grading Considerations
Utility Trenches
All utility trenches backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Due to the nature of the upper onsite earth materials, flooding and jetting techniques should be avoided. Therefore, trench backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than approximately 12 inches in thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then mechanically compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should probe and test the backfills to verify adequate compaction.
As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe or utility lines may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment, such as under building floor slabs, imported clean sand having a sand equivalent (SE) value of 30 or greater may be utilized. The sand backfill materials should be watered to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then tamped into place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant to verify an adequate degree of compaction.
V, GPTRA
12x`60
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
If clean, imported sand is to be used for backfill of exterior utility trenches, it is recommended that the upper 12 inches of trench backfill materials consist of properly compacted onsite soil materials. This is to mitigate infiltration of irrigation and rainwater into granular trench backfill materials.
Where an exterior and/or interior utility trench is proposed in a direction parallel to a building footing, the bottom of the trench should not extend below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from the bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Where this condition occurs, the adjacent footing should be deepened or the utility constructed and the trench backfilled and compacted prior to footing construction.
Where utility trenches cross under a building footing, these trenches should be backfilled with on -site soils at the point where the trench crosses under the footing to reduce the potential for water to migrate under the floor slabs.
Site Drainage
Positive surface drainage systems consisting of a combination of sloped concrete flatwork/asphalt pavement, sheet flow gradients, swales and surface area drains (where needed) should be provided around the building and within any planter areas to collect and direct all surface waters to an appropriate drainage facility as determined by the project civil engineer. The ground surfaces of planter and landscape areas that are located within 10 feet of building foundations should be sloped at a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains. The ground surface of planter and landscape areas that are located more than 10 feet away from building foundations may be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains.
Concrete flatwork surfaces that are located within 10 feet of building foundations should be inclined at a minimum gradient of one percent away from the building foundations and towards the nearest area drains.
Concrete flatwork surfaces that are located more than 10 feet away from building foundations may be sloped at a minimum gradient of 1 percent towards the nearest area drains. Surface waters should not be allowed to collect or pond against building foundations and within the level areas of the site. All drainage devices should be properly maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Future changes to site improvements, or planting and watering practices, should not be allowed to cause over -saturation of site soils adjacent to the structures.
Bottomless Trench Drains
When gravel filled bottomless infiltration systems are constructed near foundations, a potential exists for oversaturation of the foundation soils which conflicts with the intended purpose of onsite drainage facilities. • PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"°
12261
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
In addition, it has been our experience that a leading cause of distress to buildings and foundations is due to poor management of water next to building foundations. Petra recommends a setback of at least 15 feet between any infiltration system and building foundations. If this setback distance cannot be maintained, then a modified foundation system may be required to alleviate any distress that could be caused by infiltration of water near the footing. A modified foundation system could consist of constructing deepened footings within 15 feet of the infiltration system and installing extra reinforcement. Design of a modified foundation system is referred to the project structural engineer.
Retaining Walls
Due to the relatively flat and level site, it is anticipated that tall retaining walls will not be necessary for this project. Shorter retaining walls may be utilized for grading and landscaping purposes. Petra should be afforded the opportunity to review all proposed retaining wall design. Retaining walls retaining less than 6 feet of soil and without additional surcharge may be designed according to the following recommendations.
Allowable Bearing Values
Proposed retaining walls should be supported on spread footings using the design criteria recommended previously for building footings; however, when calculating passive resistance, the passive earth pressure for retaining walls supported by descending slopes should be reduced to 150 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot.
Active and At -Rest Earth Pressures
1. On -Site Soils Used for Backfill
On -site soil and bedrock materials have predominant very low expansion potentials. Therefore, for this condition, active earth pressures equivalent to fluids having densities of 35 and 51 pounds per cubic foot should be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a level backfill and ascending 2:1 backfill, respectively. For walls that are restrained at the top, at -rest earth pressures of 53 and 78 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressures) should be used. The above values are for retaining walls that have been supplied with a proper subdrain system (see Figure RW-1). All walls should be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings in addition to the above -recommended active and at -rest earth pressures.
2. Imported Sand, Pea Gravel, or Rock Used for Wall Backfill Imported clean sand exhibiting a sand equivalent value (SE) of 30 or greater, pea gravel, or crushed rock may be used for wall backfill to reduce the lateral earth pressures provided these granular backfill materials extend behind the walls to a minimum horizontal distance equal to one-half the wall height.
In addition, the sand, pea gravel, or rock backfill materials should extend behind the walls to a minimum horizontal distance of 2 feet at the base of the wall or to a horizontal distance equal to the heel width of the footing, whichever is greater (see Figures RW-2 and RW-3). For the above conditions, cantilevered walls retaining a level backfill and ascending 2:1 backfill may be designed to resist active earth pressures equivalent to fluids having densities of 30 and 41 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. For GEOSCIENCES'"
1 2=262
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
walls that are restrained at the top, at -rest earth pressures equivalent to fluids having densities of 45 and 62 pounds per cubic foot are recommended for design of restrained walls supporting a level backfill and ascending 2:1 backfill, respectively. These values are also for retaining walls supplied with a proper subdrain system.
Furthermore, as with existing soil backfill, the walls should be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings in addition to the recommended active and at - rest earth pressures. All structural calculations and details should be provided to this firm for verification purposes prior to grading and construction phases.
Earthquake Loads Retaining Walls
Note 1 of Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC indicates that the dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet of backfill height due to design earthquake ground motions be determined. It is unlikely that any wall retaining 6 or more feet of backfill will be constructed onsite. Accordingly, dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures are not considered necessary for this project.
Subdrainage
Perforated pipe and gravel subdrains should be installed behind all retaining walls to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill (see Figures RW-1 through RW-3). Perforated pipe should consist of 4 -inch -minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40, or SDR-35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be encased in a 1 -foot -wide column of %-inch to 11A -inch open -graded gravel. If on -site soils are used as backfill, the open - graded gravel should extend above the wall footings to a minimum height equal to one-third the wall height or to a minimum height of 1.5 feet above the footing, whichever is greater. If imported sand, pea gravel, or crushed rock is used as backfill, subdrain details shown on Figures RW-2 and RW-3 should be utilized.
The open -graded gravel should be completely wrapped in filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Solid outlet pipes should be connected to the subdrains and then routed to a suitable area for discharge of accumulated water.
If a limited area exists behind the walls for installation of a pipe and gravel subdrain, a geotextile drain mat such as Mirafi Miradrain, or equivalent, can be used in lieu of drainage gravel. The drain mat should extend the full height and lengths of the walls and the filter fabric side of the drain mat should be placed up against the backcut. The perforated pipe drain line placed at the bottom of the drain mat should consist of 4 -inch minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or SDR-35. The filter fabric on the drain mat should be peeled back and then wrapped around the drain line.
GEOSCIENCES'"°
1 211=263
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Waterproofing
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
The portions of retaining walls supporting backfill should be coated with an approved waterproofing compound or covered with a similar material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls.
Wall Backfill
Where imported sand (with a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater) or the onsite soils materials are used as backfill behind the proposed retaining walls, the backfill materials should be placed in approximately 6- to 8 -inch -thick maximum lifts, watered as necessary to achieve above optimum moisture conditions, and then mechanically compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Flooding or jetting of the backfill materials should be avoided. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe the backfill procedures and test the wall backfill to verify adequate compaction.
If imported pea gravel or rock is used for backfill, the gravel should be placed in approximately 2- to 3 - foot -thick lifts, thoroughly wetted but not flooded, and then mechanically tamped or vibrated into place. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe the backfill procedures and probe the backfill to determine that an adequate degree of compaction is achieved.
To reduce the potential for the direct infiltration of surface water into the backfill, imported sand, gravel, or rock backfill should be capped with at least 12 inches of on -site soil. Filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent, should be placed between the soil and the imported gravel or rock to prevent fines from penetrating into the backfill.
Geotechnical Observation and Testing
All grading and construction phases associated with retaining wall construction, including backcut excavations, footing trenches, installation of the subdrainage systems, and placement of backfill should be observed and tested by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant.
Masonry Block Walls
Footings for free-standing masonry block walls and other rigid structures should be designed and reinforced utilizing the criteria recommended for conventional building foundations. Where existing surface soils are not removed and re -compacted as recommended herein, the footings should be extended through these loose surface soils and founded in underlying competent materials. Positive separations in walls should also be provided at corners and at horizontal spacing of approximately 25 feet to permit relative movement. The separations should be provided in the blocks and not extend through the footings. The footings should be poured monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as effective "grade beams" below the walls.
GEOSCIENCES'"
1 211=264
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Where remedial grading cannot be performed due to site constraints, a reduced bearing value of 1,200 pounds per square foot should be used for 12 -inch -wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. No increase in bearing value may be used for wider or deeper footings for this condition. The recommended allowable bearing value includes both dead and live loads, and may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic forces. In addition, a reduced passive earth pressure of 175 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 1,750 pounds per square foot, should be used to resist lateral loads. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 times the dead load forces may still be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance.
An increase of one-third of the above values may also be used when designing for short duration wind or seismic forces.
Exterior Concrete Flatwork
General
Near -surface compacted fill soils within the site are expected to exhibit an expansion index of 0 to 20, i.e. non -expansive. Subgrade preparation for areas not supported by the compacted fill supporting building structures should follow the guidelines presented below for pavement design and construction. We recommend that all exterior concrete flatwork such as sidewalks, patio slabs, large decorative slabs, concrete subslabs that will be covered with decorative pavers, vehicular driveways and/or access roads within and adjacent to the site be designed by the project architect and/or structural engineer with consideration given to mitigating the potential cracking and uplift that can develop in soils exhibiting expansion index values that fall in the very low category. The guidelines that follow should be considered as minimums and are subject to review and revision by the project architect, structural engineer and/or landscape consultant as deemed appropriate.
Thickness and Joint Spacing
To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete walkways, patio -type slabs, large decorative slabs and concrete subslabs to be covered with decorative pavers should be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Private driveways that will be designed for the use of passenger cars for access to private garages should also be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every 10 feet or less. Concrete pavement that will be designed based on an unlimited number of applications of an 18 -kip single -axle load in public access areas, segments of road that will be paved with concrete (such as bus stops and cross -walks) or access roads that will be subject to heavy truck loadings should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and be provided with control GEOSCIENCES'"°
1 211=265
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
joints spaced at maximum 10 -foot intervals. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pounds per cubic foot may be used for design of the public and access roads.
Reinforcement
All concrete flatwork having their largest plan -view panel dimension exceeding 10 feet should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches on centers, both ways. Alternatively, the slab reinforcement may consist of welded wire mesh of the sheet type (not rolled) with 6x6/W 1.4xW 1.4 designation in accordance with the Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI). The reinforcement should be properly positioned near the middle of the slabs.
The reinforcement recommendations provided herein are intended as guidelines to achieve adequate performance for anticipated soil conditions. The project architect, civil and/or structural engineer should make appropriate adjustments in reinforcement type, size and spacing to account for concrete internal (e.g., shrinkage and thermal) and external (e.g., applied loads) forces as deemed necessary.
Edge Beams (Optional)
Where the outer edges of concrete flatwork are to be bordered by landscaping, it is recommended that consideration be given to the use of edge beams (thickened edges) to prevent excessive infiltration and accumulation of water under the slabs. Edge beams, if used, should be 6 to 8 inches wide, extend 8 inches below the tops of the fmish slab surfaces. Edge beams are not mandatory; however, their inclusion in flatwork construction adjacent to landscaped areas is intended to reduce the potential for vertical and horizontal movement and subsequent cracking of the flatwork related to uplift forces that can develop in expansive soils.
Subgrade Preparation
Compaction
To reduce the potential for distress to concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete flatwork areas to a minimum depth of 12 inches (or deeper, as either prescribed elsewhere in this report or determined in the field) should be moisture conditioned to at least equal to, or slightly greater than, the optimum moisture content and then compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Where concrete public roads, concrete segments of roads and/or concrete access driveways are proposed, the upper 6 inches of subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. v PETRA
GEOSCIENCES''
1 211=266
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Pre -Moistening
As a further measure to reduce the potential for concrete flatwork cracking, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete. The moisture content of the soils should be at least the optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade. Flooding or ponding of the subgrade is not considered feasible to achieve the above moisture conditions since this method would likely require construction of numerous earth berms to contain the water. Therefore, moisture conditioning should be achieved with sprinklers or a light spray applied to the subgrade over a period of few to several days just prior to pouring concrete. Pre -watering of the soils is intended to promote uniform curing of the concrete, reduce the development of shrinkage cracks and reduce the potential for differential expansion pressure on freshly poured flatwork. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils, and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete.
Drainage
Drainage from patios and other flatwork areas should be directed to local area drains and/or graded earth swales designed to carry runoff water to the adjacent streets or other approved drainage structures. The concrete flatwork should be sloped at a minimum gradient of one percent, or as prescribed by project civil engineer or local codes, away from building foundations, retaining walls, masonry garden walls and slope areas.
Tree Wells
Tree wells are not recommended in concrete flatwork areas since they introduce excessive water into the subgrade soils and allow root invasion, both of which can cause heaving and cracking of the flatwork.
Swimming Pool and Spa
Allowable Bearing and Settlement
Based on the currently proposed pool location, the pool may be designed as a conventional pool shell founded on natural, medium dense dune sand. Any loose sand below the pool shell should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. Therefore, the pool shell may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. A potential for seismic differential settlement on the order of one inch to occur across the pool/spa shells should be considered in the design.
Lateral Earth Pressures
The pool walls should be designed assuming that an earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 90 pounds per cubic foot is acting on the outer surface of the pool walls. For this long-term condition, the GEOSCIENCES'"°
122 7
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
walls should be designed using a lateral earth pressure of 62.4H pounds per square foot (where "H" equals the vertical depth in feet below the ground surface) that is acting on the inner surface of the pool walls. Pool walls should also be designed to resist lateral surcharge pressures imposed by any adjacent footings or structures in addition to the above lateral earth pressures.
Stability of Temporary Excavation
The pool excavation is expected to expose loose to medium dense dune sand soil. Based on the anticipated physical characteristics of these materials, the pool excavation sidewalls will not remain stable at a vertical gradient during construction of the pool. Therefore, the temporary excavation sidewalls should be sloped at a slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter before forming of the pool walls.
Temporary Access Ramps
It is essential that all backfill placed within temporary access ramps extending into the pool excavation be properly compacted and tested. This will reduce the potential for excessive settlement of the backfill and subsequent damage to pool decking or other structures placed on the backfill.
Pool Bottom
It is expected that the swimming pool bottom will rest entirely 011 medium dense to dense dune sand deposits. Therefore, care should be taken while excavating these structures to prevent disturbance of subgrade soils exposed at grade in the pool bottom.
Pool Decking
Pool decking should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Exterior Concrete Flatwork" section of this report.
Plumbing Fixtures
Leakage from the swimming pool or from any of the appurtenant plumbing could create adverse saturated conditions of the surrounding subgrade soils. Localized areas of oversaturation can lead to differential expansion (heave) of the subgrade soils and subsequent raising and shifting of concrete flatwork. Therefore, it is essential that all plumbing and pool fixtures be absolutely leak -free. For similar reasons, drainage from pool deck areas should be directed to local area drains and/or graded earth swales designed to carry runoff water to a suitable discharge point.
v PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"
1 211=268
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
ACCESS ROADS
Asphalt Pavement
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
The proposed site improvements may include construction of new asphalt -paved roads, as well as improvements to the existing nearby access roads. We have developed the following preliminary recommendations for flexible pavement design based on an assumed R -value of 40 and using Traffic Index (TI) values of 5.0 and 6.0. The pavement design presented herein is based on the assumption that the pavement will be placed directly over engineered, compacted fill placed as specified above in the section for Subgrade Preparation of Exterior Concrete Flatwork.
R -value and traffic index parameters presented herein have been assumed. We recommend that bulk samples of the actual subgrade materials be retrieved and R -Value tested after rough grading is completed.
Additionally, the project civil engineer should be consulted to determine appropriate or required TI values.
Once actual as -graded testing is complete and traffic loads are confirmed, additional or modified design recommendations may be presented.
The pavement section thicknesses presented in Table 5 are considered as minimums for the subject site under the assumed conditions and may be superseded by the project requirements or jurisdictional agency specifications if more stringent.
TABLE 5
Suggested Minimum Flexible Pavement Thickness
Traffic Index
R -Value
Hot Mix Asphalt (alternative)
(inches)
Aggregate Base
(inches)
5.0 (Light Traffic)
40 3
4 6.0 (Truck Traffic)
40 3
6.5 Subgrade soils should be properly compacted, smooth, and non -yielding prior to pavement construction.
The subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D 1557-07. Subgrade preparation recommendations are provided below.
Aggregate base materials may consist of Crushed Aggregate Base, Crushed Miscellaneous Base, or Processed Miscellaneous Base conforming to Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). It should be noted that base thicknesses recommended above are based on the use of Crushed Aggregate base material. For conditions where either Crushed Miscellaneous Base GEOSCIENCESmc.
1 211=269
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
or Processed Miscellaneous Base Materials are used, a 10 percent increase in base section thickness should be incorporated in the design and construction of the structural pavement section.
The base materials should be brought to a uniform moisture near optimum moisture then compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D 1557. Asphaltic concrete materials and construction should conform to Section 203 of the Greenbook.
Subgrade drainage is an important factor that enhances pavement performance. Subgrade surfaces below the flexible pavement structural section should be sloped to direct run-off to suitable collection points and to prevent ponding. The roadways should be raised above the surrounding ground surface to facilitate drainage from the roadway.
PLAN REVIEW
This report is based certain assumptions related to the proposed development, since no plans were available for Petra's review at the time this report was prepared. We recommend that our firm be engaged to review the final design drawings, specifications and grading plan prior to any new construction. If we are not provided the opportunity to review these documents with respect to the geotechnical aspects of new construction and grading, it should not be assumed that the recommendations provided herein are wholly or in part applicable to the proposed construction.
REPORT LIMITATIONS
This report is based on Petra's understanding of the proposed project and geotechnical data as described herein. The materials encountered on the project site, described in other literature, and utilized in our laboratory investigation are believed representative of the project area, and the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observation and testing by a geotechnical consultant during the grading and construction phases of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report. To provide the greatest degree of continuity between the design and construction phases, consideration should be given to retaining Petra Geosciences, Inc., as geotechnical engineer of record for construction services.
This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guarantee or warranty. 9 GEOSCIENCES'"°
PETRA
12 27O
TAE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the project concept changes from that described herein.
The information contained herein has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes.
This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
Alan Pace
Senior Associate Geologist
CEG 1952
KTM/KB/AP/SJ/lv
i NO. EG1552
CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
ueN GEOLOGIST
4 OF CAS-\F°�
W:\2020 -20252024V 00 24-104\Reports\24-104-110 Design -Phase Geotechnical Report.docx Siamak Jafroudi, PhD
Senior Principal Engineer
GE 2024
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"'
12271
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete ACI 318-14.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) — Standard — Section Four — Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), 2017, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-16).
A. O. Architects, 2024, Draft Site Plan, Via Vail Village, Rancho Mirage, California, The Pacific Companies, Job Number 2023-0361, dated March 8.
Bryant and Hart, E.W., W.A., 2007, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps; California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, interim revision.
California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, dated June.
California Building Standards Commission, 2022, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, dated June.
California Department of Water Resources, "Water Data Library (WDL) Station Map", Groundwater Monitor Wells, accessed 1/24/2023, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/Map.aspx
California Geologic Survey, 2008, Special Publication 117A. , 2020, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Rancho Mirage Quadrangle, accessed October, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
Cetin,K. et al, 2009, Probabilistic Model for the Assessment of Cyclically Induced Reconsolidation (Volumetric) Settlements, in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering: Vol. 135, No. 3.
County of Riverside Safety Element, 2003, Chapter 6 of the General Plan (adopted October 7, 2003).
Dibblee, T.W., 1953, "Generalized geologic map of Imperial Valley region, California": in Jahns, R.A., (ed.), 1954, Geology of southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 170 (scale 1" = 6 miles).
Dillon, J.T., and Ehlig, P.L., 1993, Displacement on the Southern San Andreas Fault: in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J.II, and Matti, J.C., eds, The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178.
Frost, E.G., Suitt, S.C., and Fattahipour, M., 1997, Emerging Perspectives of the Salton Trough Region with an Emphasis on Extensional Faulting and its Implications for Later San Andreas Deformation: South Coast Geological Society Annual Field Trip Guide Book no. 25, p. 57-97.
Fumal, T.E., Rymer, M.J., and Seitz, G.G., 2002, Timing of Large Earthquakes since A.D., 800 on the Mission Creek Strand of the San Andreas Fault Zone at Thousand Palms Oasis Near Palm Springs, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 92, p. 2841- 2860.
Google EarthTM 2020, by Google Earth, Inc., http://www.google.com/earth/index.html/ , accessed March.
Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Proceedings, San Francisco, Vol. 1., pp. 321-376. 9 GEOSCIENCES'"°
PETRA
12"272
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
REFERENCES
March 25, 2024
J.N. 24-104
Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with location of volcanoes, Thermal Springs, and Thermal Wells:
California Division of Mines and Geology, Geological Data Map Series, Map No. 2.
Jones, L.M., 1988, Focal Mechanisms and the State of Stress on the San Andreas Fault in Southern California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, p. 8869-8891.
Macedo, J. and Bray, D., 2018, Key Trends in Liquefaction -Induced Building Settlement, in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering: Vol. 144, No. 11.
Philibosian, B., Fumal, T.E. & Weldon, R., 2011, San Andreas Fault earthquake chronology and Lake Cahuilla history at Coachella, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 101, No. 1, p13-38.
Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake -Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils: in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering: Vol. 124, No. 4.
Sieh, K.E., and Williams, P.L., 1990, Behavior of the Southernmost San Andreas Fault during the Past 300 Years:
Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 95, p. 6629-6645.
Smith, Merrit, 1964, Map Showing Distribution and Configuration of Basement Rocks in California (South Half), United States Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Investigations, Map OM -215 (Sheet 2 of 2).
Sneed 2001; Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global Positioning System and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1996-1998, U.S. Geological Survey, Water - Resources Investigations Report 01-4193.
Sneed 2007; Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global Positioning System Surveying and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1996-2005, Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5251, United States Geological Survey.
Sneed, M., Brandt, J.T., Solt, M., 2014, Land Subsidence, Groundwater Levels, and Geology in the Coachella Valley, California, 1993-2010, USGS, Scientific Investigation Report 2014-5075.
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California:
organized through the Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California.
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction The "Greenbook", 2018 edition, BNi Publications, Inc.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2018, U. S. Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/ .
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987; Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking: in Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, p. 861-879.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, Unified Hazard Tool, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M., Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R., Page, M.T., Parsons, T., Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y., 2013, Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3) — The time -independent model: U.S.
Geological Survey Open -File Report 2013-1165, 97 p., California Geological Survey Special Report 228, and Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/ GEOSCIENCES'"
12w273
FIGURES
9 PETRA
12—S2o74
RAMON RD
SHERWOOD RD
iP
jQt
LD FORD DR
Edon
DINAH SHORE DR
`VIA VAIL J J
VICTORY DR
ATIL RD
II HASKELL RD
LVIA FLORENCIA
'r \
Scale: 1" = 2,000' FRANK SINATRA DR
Base Map: Portions of USGS almr:Sp�c ,,4Cathedral City, Myoma, Ran Mirage, and La Quinta Quadra gres 7.5 -Minute Topographic Series, 2015 DIN4
-v 0R
8ftOADMOaR [
35TH AVE
A CHICA TR
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K
Costa Mesa, California 92626
PHONE: (714) 549-8921
COSTA MESA TEMECULA LOS ANGELES PALM DESERT CORONA ESCONDIDO
SITE LOCATION MAP
SW of Monterey Ave. & Dinah Shore Dr.
Rancho Mirage, California
DATE: March, 2024
✓i PST LFigure I
GOSCIENCE '"- J.N.: 24-104
4 4
'
Base Map: AO Architecture Design Relationships "Via Vail Village, Rancho Mirage, California, Site Plan" JN 2023-0381, dated 3/8/2024, overlaying Google Earth, 2024.
• 6.
f
B-1
4i P-1
TD=66'-
TD=10'
a
4 6
TI
hi.
I
P-2
PROJECT
ENTRY
0 II
4 I
200 400
Scale: 1" = 200'
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K
Costa Mesa, California 92626
PHONE: (714) 549-8921
COSTA MESA TEMECULA LOS ANGELES PALM DESERT CORONA ESCONDIDO
BORING LOCATION MAP
SW of Monterey Ave. & Dinah Shores Dr.
Rancho Mirage, California
e,PETCCEb
-.
DATE: March, 2024
J.N.: 24-104
12-27
Figure 2
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
1 PETRA 1 2 _27A /JOCK
Key to Soil and Bedrock Symbols and Terms
PETRA
Unified Soil Classification System
Fine-grained Soils Coarse -grained
> 1/2 of materials is Soils
smaller than #200 > 1/2 of materials is
sieve larger than #200
sieve
The No. 200 U.S. Standard Sieve is about the
smallest particle visible to the naked eye
GRAVELS
more than half of coarse
fraction is larger than #4
sieve
Clean Gravels
(less than 5% fines)
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines GP
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines Gravels
with fines
GM
Silty Gravels, poorly -graded gravel -sand -silt mixtures GC
Clayey Gravels, poorly -graded gravel -sand -clay mixtures SANDS
more than half of coarse
fraction is smaller than #4
sieve
Clean Sands
(less than 5% fines)
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SP
Poorly -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Sands
with fines
SM
Silty Sands, poorly -graded sand -gravel -silt mixtures SC
Clayey Sands, poorly -graded sand -gravel -clay mixtures
SILTS & CLAYS
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
ML
Inorganic silts & very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands, clayey silts with slight plasticity
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
OL
Organic silts & clays of low plasticity
SILTS & CLAYS
Liquid Limit
Greater Than 50
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand or silt CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
OH
Organic silts and clays of medium -to -high plasticity
Highly Organic Soils
PT
Peat, humus swamp soils with high organic content
Grain Size
Description
Sieve Size
Grain Size
Approximate Size
Boulders
>12"
>12"
Larger than basketball -sized
Cobbles
3 - 12"
3 - 12"
Fist -sized to basketball -sized
Gravel
coarse
3/4 - 3"
3/4 - 3"
Thumb -sized to fist -sized
fine
#4 - 3/4"
0.19 - 0.75"
Pea -sized to thumb -sized
Sand
coarse
#10 - #4
0.079 - 0.19"
Rock salt -sized to pea -sized
medium
#40 - #10
0.017 - 0.079"
Sugar -sized to rock salt -sized
fine
#200 - #40
0.0029 - 0.017"
Flour -sized to sugar -sized to
Fines
Passing #200
<0.0029"
Flour -sized and smaller
Laboratory Test Abbreviations
MAX
Maximum Dry Density
MA
Mechanical (Particle Size) Analysis
EXP
Expansion Potential
AT
Atterberg Limits
SO4
Soluble Sulfate Content
#200
#200 Screen Wash
RES
Resistivity
DSU
Direct Shear (Undisturbed Sample)
pH
Acidity
DSR
Direct Shear (Remolded Sample)
CON
Consolidation
HYD
Hydrometer Analysis
SW
Swell
SE
Sand Equivalent
CL
Chloride Content
OC
Organic Content
RV
R -Value
COMP
Mortar Cylinder Compression
Modifiers
Trace
Few
Some
Numerous
<1%
1-5%
5 - 12%
12-20%
Bedrock Hardness
Can be cashed and granulated by
Soft
hand; 'soil like' and structureless
Can be grooved with fingernails;
Moderately
gouged easily with butter knife;
Hard
crumbles under light hammer blows
Cannot break by hand; can be
Hard
grooved with a sharp knife; breaks
with a moderate hammer blow
Very Hard
Sharp knife leaves scratch; chips
with repeated hammer bows
Sampler and Symbol Descriptions
SZ Approximate Depth of Groundwater Encountered
Y Approximate Depth of Standing Groundwater
1 8
Modified California Split Spoon Sample El
No Recovery in Mod. Calif. Split Spoon Sample
Standard Penetration Test Shelby Tube Sample I
Bulk Sample
No Recovery in SPT Sampler LI No Recovery in Shelby Tube Notes:
Blows Per Foot: Number of blows required to advance sampler 1 foot (unless a lesser distance is specified). Samplers in general were driven into the soil or bedrock at the bottom of the hole with a standard (140 lb.) hammer dropping a standard 30 inches unless noted otherwise in Log No s. ve ected in bucket auger borings may be obtained by dropping non-standard weight from variable heights. When a SPT sampler is used the blow c STM D-1586
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: B-1
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±281'
Job No.: 24-104
Client: The Pacific Companies
Date: 2/16/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight: 1401bs/30"
Logged
By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description
W
A
T
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
o
r
e
B
u
I
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
0 —
—
5—:::;:'::
—
10 —
—
15—°.:::.:.:
—
20— •
25 30-
::
• .. :
•
•
.' .:'. . :...'.
•
•
`{ ° i
•
r°' r°"
•
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
fine- to medium -grained
612
15 7
10 12
4 15
15 9
24 27
27 30
36 8
14 20
34 50/4"
17 33
33 2.3
1.0 0.7
0.5 0.7
109.1
MAX, RES,
pH, CL, SO4,
DSR
Sand (SP): Gray, slightly moist, loose,
sand.
@1': Becomes moist.
@2.5': Becomes medium -dense.
@7.5': No recovery.
@10': Disturbed sample.
@25': Becomes very dense.
U
U
Tr
PLATE A-1
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
12-279
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: B-1
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±281'
Job No.: 24-104
Client: The Pacific Companies
Date: 2/16/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight: 140Ibs/30"
Logged
By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description
W
T
T
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
o
r
e
B
u
I
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
35 40 —°•
..;. .
:"v:
@40': Same as above with trace silt.
dense, fine-grained sand.
dense, fine-grained sand.
32 50/3"
15 34
39 50/3,.
13 33
41 50/5"
22 32
50/3"
47 50/3"
.
1.0 1.2
1.2 1.7
97.8 101.0
94.6 88.9
Tr
45 —.:1:j
-y.;
-II.
_ .,:
•., ;
°J.7.r,r:ri:
:II ••j.,:
:,. L ;,
:1 a
°.I .1 °.,:
I• :
:I °J.,: r r.1 :I
1 ° I.i
r; i is
I: i• P i' •I
i° r.1
.:
•,: I• i i :
°': r .r r ..
P. f l :I
t:1. i.:
I: 1 i.:1 ;I
1; I; r 1.
Sand with Silt SP-SM : Gray, dry, very
Tr
60 —:
65 —
1. :
: ::
`
Sand (SP): Gray, slightly moist, very
1—
@65': Same as above.
—
Total Depth= 66'
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
PLATE A-2
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
12-280
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: B-2
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±287'
Job No.: 24-104
Client: The Pacific Companies
Date: 2/16/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight: 140Ibs/30"
Logged
By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description
w
A
T
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
o
r
e
B
u
I
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
0 —
—
—
5—:a.: :;.:
—
10—°::'1::f'..
_
15 —:
—
20—,::..°.
—
25—Y:':::.:.
•
•' :: '• •
• •`:
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
medium -grained sand.
8 10
9 4
8 9
7 13
15 11
23 29
13 26
30 30
50/5"
43 50/4"
2.3 3.5
0.6 0.6
0.7 0.6
90.7 96.2
COL
Sand (SP): Gray, dry, loose, fine- to
@0.5': Becomes mois and dark gray.
@2.5': Becomes medium -dense.
@7.5': Becomes gray and dry.
@20': No recovery, very dense.
U
L�
—
—
30 —
Total Depth= 26'
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
PLATE A-3
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
12-281
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: B-3
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±282'
Job No.: 24-104
Client: The Pacific Companies
Date: 2/16/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight: 140Ibs/30"
Logged
By: KTM
WI
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Depth
Lith-
A
Blows
C
B
Moisture
Dry
Other
(Feet)
ology
Material Description
T
E
per
o
r
u
I
Content
Density
Lab
R
6 in.
e
k
(%)
(pcf)
Tests
0 —
:;
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
medium -grained sand.
Sand (SP): Gray, dry, loose, fine- to
@0.5': Becomes mois and dark gray.
—
::
@2.5': Becomes medium -dense.
9 13
2.7 98.9
14 5—:::
:•
8 9
2.8 96.8
COL
11 —
@7.5': Becomes gray and dry.
10 15
0.6 —
20 10 —
' •°
•;
@10': Disturbed sample.
5 —
16 0.5
25 15—
•:.:
:..
16 —
30 U
0.5 34
20 —
::
:' .•
@20': No recovery, very dense.
21 (\
—
42 LJ
50/4"
25 • • ;
' e
@25': No recovery.
23 50/5"
—
Total Depth= 26'
No groundwater encountered
—
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
30 —
PLATE A-4
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
12-282
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: P-1
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±281'
Job No.: 24-104
Client: The Pacific Companies
Date: 2/16/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight: 1401bs/30"
Logged By: KTM
Depth
(Feet) )
Lith-
ology
Material Description
w
A
T
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
o
r
e
B
u
I
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
0 —
5 —•::.:. .,
—
—
—
15 —
20 —
25 —
30 —
:
.•
•
•.:.
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
fine- to medium -grained
9 13
13 27
30 36
Sand (SP): Gray, slightly moist, loose,
sand.
@1': Becomes moist.
@2.5': Becomes medium -dense.
r
Total Depth= 10'
No groundwater encountered
Infiltration test installed within boring
Presoaked @ 9:01AM.
PLATE A-5
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
12-283
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: P-2
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±282'
Job No.: 24-104
Client: The Pacific Companies
Date: 2/16/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight: 1401bs/30"
Logged By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description
w
A
T
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
o
r
e
B
u
I
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
0 —•.•:
5 —..:. .,
10— . .
—
—
—
15 —
20 —
25 —
30 —
• @2.5':
• :.:,
•
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
fine- to medium -grained
5 5
6 8
12 14
27 30
36 HYD
Sand (SP): Gray, slightly moist, loose,
sand.
@1': Becomes moist and dark gray.
Becomes medium -dense.
@10': Becomes gray and dry.
Total Depth= 10'
No groundwater encountered
Infiltration test installed within boring
Presoaked @ 11:13AM.
PLATE A-6
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
12-284
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY
1 PETRA 12 _s2°85
PETRA
SOLID AS A ROCK
ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
LABORATORY TESTING
Associated with the subsurface exploration was the collection of bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of soil materials for laboratory testing. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 2.4 -inch, outside -diameter, modified California split -spoon soil sampler lined with 1 -inch -high stainless -steel rings.
The driven ring samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory located at 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, CA 92882, for testing.
Our laboratory testing capabilities include Soil Classifications, Moisture Content and In -Situ Moisture Content and Dry Unit Weight, Grain Size Distribution, Remolded Direct Shear, Consolidation; all in accordance with the latest procedures of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
To evaluate the engineering properties of site soils, laboratory testing was performed on selected samples of soil considered representative of those encountered. Appropriate tests were assigned by the project engineer and geologist based on project plans and specifications including the level of anticipated loads, when available, and subsurface stratigraphy. Test results were reviewed by the laboratory manager and engineer -in -charge of the laboratory or his qualified designee for completeness and accuracy. A description of laboratory test procedures and summaries of the test data are presented in the following pages.
Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California
LABORATORY
1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit #103, Corona, CA 92882
T: 714.549.8921 F: 951.737.3199
For more information visit us online at www.oetra-inc.com 12-286
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
Soil Classification
Soil materials encountered within the property were classified and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and in general accordance with the current version of Test Method ASTM D 2488. The assigned group symbols are presented in the exploration logs, Appendix A.
Moisture Content and In Situ Moisture Content and Dry Unit Weight Moisture content of selected bulk samples and in- place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected, relatively undisturbed soil samples were determined in accordance with the current version of Test Method ASTM D 2435 and Test Method ASTM D 2216, respectively. Test data are presented in the exploration logs, Appendix A.
Laboratory Maximum Dry Unit Weight and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content of the on -site soils were determined for selected bulk samples in accordance with current version of Method A of ASTM D 1557. The result of this test is presented on Plate B-1.
Corrosivity Screening
Chemical and electrical analyses were performed on selected bulk samples of onsite soils to determine their soluble sulfate content, chloride content, pH (acidity) and minimum electrical resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with the current versions of California Test Method Nos. CTM 417 (sulfate), CTM 422 (chloride), and CTM 643 (pH and resistivity) respectively. The results of these tests are included on Plate B-1.
Direct Shear
The Coulomb shear strength parameters, i.e., angle of internal friction and cohesion, were determined for selected, relatively undisturbed and/or reconstituted -bulk samples of onsite soil. This test was performed in general accordance with the current version of Test Method ASTM D 3080. Three specimens were prepared for each test. The test specimens were inundated and then sheared under various normal loads at a constant strain rate of 0.005 inch per minute. The results of the direct shear test are graphically presented on Plate B-2.
Grain Size Distribution
Grain size analysis was performed on selected bulk samples of onsite soils in accordance with the latest versions of Test Method ASTM D 136 and/or ASTM C 117, or Test Method ASTM D 422 and/or ASTM D 6913. The test result is graphically presented on Plate B-3.
Single -Point Collapse
Volume change (collapse) characteristics of selected undisturbed soil samples were determined by one- dimensional single -point collapse test. This test was performed in general accordance with the latest version of the Test Method ASTM D 5333. Axial loads were applied to laterally restrained 1 -inch -high samples.
The resulting deformation was recorded at selected time intervals. At a load approximately corresponding to the existing overburden pressure or the anticipated future load, the test samples were inundated in order to evaluate the effect of an increase in moisture content, e.g., hydro -consolidation potential (or heave).
Results of this test are graphically presented on Plate B-4 through B-5 PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
J.N. 24-104
Laboratory Address: 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 1031Go}�ad12 ,�.'782
LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY
Boring/
Test Pit/
Sample/
Number
Sample
Depth
(ft.)
Soil/
Bedrock
Description'
Compaction'
Maximum
Dry
Unit Weight
(sc
Optimum
Moisture
(%)
Corrosivity Screening
Soluble
Sulfate
Content'
Chloride
Content4
(PPm)
pg5
(Acidity)
Minimum
Resistivity5
(Ohm -cm)
Expansion4
Index
Potential
B-1 I 0-5 I SP I 117.5 10.0 10.0003 I 2775 I 9.7 I 15000 I Test Procedures: 1 Per Test Method ASTM D 2488
2 Per Test Method ASTM D 1557
3 Per California Test Method CTM 417
4 Per California Test Method CTM 422
5 Per California Test Method CTM 643
6 Per Test Method ASTM C 117
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Laboratory Address: 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 101 J.N. 24-104 1
2 Vertical Deformation, in.
Shear Stress, ksf
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
Dilation
0 Consol.
0.01 0.02
0 03
3 2.5
2 1.5
0.5 0
0 3 6 9
12 Strain, %
0 5 10 15
20 Strain, %
1 3
2 6
4 2
0 Fail.
Ult.
C, ksf
0 0.006
f, deg
Tan(f)
30.0 28.5
0.58 0.54
2 4
0 Normal Stress, ksf
6 Sample No.
1 2 3
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
3 Ti Saturation,
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Water Content,
Dry Density, pcf
2 17;
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Normal Stress, ksf
Fail. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min.
10.0 10.0 10.0
105.6 105.7 105.7
46.9 46.9 47.0
0.5659 0.5653 0.5648
2.416 2.416 2.416
1.001 1.002 1.001
20.1 19.4 19.4
107.1 107.4 107.6
97.9 95.4 95.4
0.5448 0.5396 0.5375
2.416 2.416 2.416
0.987 0.986 0.983
1.000 2.000 4.000
0.588 1.116 2.328
8.7 5.8 7.1
0.564 1.068 2.184
10.4 10.4 10.4
0.040 0.040 0.040
Sample Type: Remoled
Description: Gray Fine to Medium Sand
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:
Figure
B-2
Client: The Pacific Companies
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Source of Sample: 24L032
Sample Number: B-1
Proj. No.: 24-104
Depth: 0-5
Date Sampled:
PETRA
Tested By: DI
12-289
Particle Size Distribution Report
C C - C C - O V
c0
\' \-
O O O O (Op NO
7t 47 a w IT ik
100
I
1 II
11 II
11 II
1 1
I
1 I
I 1
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
1 j.
I
I
I
I
90 1
1 I
I
I
80 1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
I
I
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
I1
I
I
I
1 I
1 I
I
I
I
1 1
1 1
I
I
I
I
70 W 60
Z
ii
I
Z 50
W
o
I
1 I
1 I I
I I
1 1
I
I
1 I
I
1 I I
I I
1 I
I
I
I
1 1
I
I
I
1 I
I
1 I
I
I
I
I
1 Ii2 1
I
I
I
I
W 40
0-
I
30 20
I
I
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
I I
I
I
1 1
I 1
1 1
I 1
I I
1 1
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
1 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I 1
I I
I
I
I
10 0
100 10 0 1
0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
+3„
% Coarse
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt Clay
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
43.0 50.3
6.7 SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
Material Description
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
Gray Fine to Medium Sand
3 2
1.5 1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Atterberg Limits
.75
.375
100.0
100.0
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
#4
#10
#20
#40
100.0
100.0
85.1 57.0
D90= 0.9994 D85= 0.8469 D60= 0.4590
D50= 0.3448 D30= 0.1777 D15= 0.1065
D10= 0.0868 Cu= 5.29 • Cc= 0.79
Classification
#60
#100
#140
40.5 24.8
14.9 USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
#200
6.7 (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 24L032 Depth: 10
Sample Number: P-2 Date: 2/29/2024
%.,,,/`•., /. PETRA
GBOSCIENCES"c
Client: The Pacific Companies
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Tested By: DI
12-290
COLLAPSE TEST REPORT
-0.25
0.0 0.25
0.50 0.75
c
65 1.00
a)
U
a)
o_
1.25 1.50
1.75 Water
Added
•
2.00 2 25
0.1 1
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural
Dry Dens.
pcf)
LL
PI
Sp.
Gr.
Overburden
(ksf)
P
(ksf)
Cc
Cr
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Clpse.
%
0.3 eo
0.272
Sat.
Moist.
34.1 %
3.5 %
130.1
2.65 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
AASHTO
Light Gray Fine to Medium Sand
Project No. 24-104 Client: The Pacific Companies
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Source of Sample: 24L032 Depth: 5 Sample Number: B-2
Remarks:
Figure
�` PETRA •
Tested By: DI
12-291
COLLAPSE TEST REPORT
-0.25
0.0 0.25
0.50 0.75
c
.05
c 1.00
d
U
d
d
1.25 1.50
1.75 Water
Added
2.00 2 25
0.1 1
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural
DryDens.
(pcf)
LL
PI
Sp.
Gr.
Overburden
(ksf)
P
(ksf)
Cc
Cr
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Clpse.
°/o
eo
Sat.
Moist.
28.8 %
2.8 %
131.9
2.65 0.2
0.254
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
AASHTO
Light Gray Fine to Medium Sand
Project No. 24-104 Client: The Pacific Companies
Project: Rancho Mirage Apartments
Source of Sample: 24L032 Depth: 5 Sample Number: B-3
Remarks:
Figure B-5
♦ PETRA
Tested By: DI
12-292
APPENDIX C
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
1 PETRA 1 2 -29AaK
PETRA
CE OSC]ENCES"•
SITE CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION BASED ON BLOW COUNT, N-SPT, FOR SEISMIC DESIGN Per Table 20.3-1 and Section 20.4.2 of ASCE 7-16
J. N: 24-104
Boring: B-1
Project:
Rancho Mirage apartments
Total Depth of B oring: 66 feet
Layer
No.
(i)
Depth to Soil/Rock Layer
Layer
Thickness
(do
n
1 d.
i=i
Mod. Cal.
Sampler Blow
Counts'
Equivalent N-
SPT2
(N;)
s
N-SPT
(N,)
n
di
1 Ni
Top
Bottom
ft
ft
ft
ft
blows/ft
blows/ft
blows/ft
1 0
5 5
5.0 22
14 0 .36
2 5
10 5
10.0 25
16 0.67
3 10
15 5
15.0 51
33 0.82
4 15
20 5
20. 0
66 43
0 .94
5 20
25 5
25. 0
0 34
1 .08
6 25
30 5
30. 0
50 33
1 .24
7 30
35 5
35. 0
0 66
1 .31
8 35
40 5
40.0 50
33 1.46
9 40
45 5
45.0 0
73 1.53
10 45
50 5
50. 0
50 33
1 .68
11 50
55 5
55. 0
0 74
1 .75
12 55
60 5
60. 0
50 33
1 .90
13 60
65 5
65.0 0
80 1.96
14 65
66 1
66.0 50
33 2.00
15 0
0 0
0. 0
0 0 .00
Date: 3/16/2024
SPT Test Interval: every
5 feet
Average Field Standard
Penetration Resistance
(blows/ft)
Site Classification
Per Table 20.3-1
n
N = i=1 d` -
33 D
En i
Nii
1 M odified California sampler blow counts as directly measured in the field without corrections. 2 Equivalent SPT blow counts are calculated from field measured Modified California sampler blow counts using the standard Burmister formula (Burmister, 1948).
Eq. N-SPT = 0. 651 x (Mod. Cal. Sampler Blow Counts)
3 Standard penetration resistance (ASTM D1586) not to exceed 100 blows /ft (305 blows /m) as directly measured in the field without corrections. When Refusal is met for a r ock layer, this value shall be taken as 100 blows /ft (305 blows /m).
U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org/
USGS web services were down for some period of time and as a result this tool wasn't operational, resulting in timeout error.
USGS web services are now operational so this tool should work as expected. 24-104 Rancho Mirage Apts Pacific Companies
Latitude, Longitude: 33.79839, -116.393251
unitarian
Universalist Church
Rancho Mirage Dog Park9
G
re
Go gle
any o6iei da}1
•
The Home Depot9
OSHPD
0 m
(D
D
El Ranchito Taco Shop,
Date 3/21/2024, 11:22:57 PM
Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16
Risk Category II
Site Class D - Stiff Soil
Type Value Description
Ss 1.842 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
S1 0.767 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
SMs 1.842 Site -modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site -modified spectral acceleration value SOS 1.228 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA S iO null -See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description
SDC null -See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category
Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.799 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 0.879 Site modified peak ground acceleration
T� 8 Long -period transition period in seconds
SsRT 2.168 Probabilistic risk -targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 2.431 Factored uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.842 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1 RT 0.856 Probabilistic risk -targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1 UH 0.975 Factored uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.
Map data ©2024
12-295
1 of 3 3/21/2024, 23:23
U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org/
Type Value Description
S1 D 0.767 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.799 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) PGAJJH 0.952 Uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration CRS 0.892 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.878 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s Cv 1.468 Vertical coefficient
12-296
2 of 3 3/21/2024, 23:23
U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org/
DISCLAIMER
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /0SHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. 12-297
3 of 3 3/21/2024, 23:23
Unified Hazard Tool
U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program
Unified Hazard Tool
hnps://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical.
Please also see the new USGS Earthquake Hazard Toolbox for access to the most recent NSHMs for the conterminous U.S. and Hawaii.
A Input
Edition
Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (...
Latitude
Decimal degrees
33.79839
Longitude
Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes -116.393251
Site Class
259 m/s (Site class D)
Spectral Period
1 Peak Ground Acceleration
Time Horizon
Return period in years
2475
12-298
1 of 5 3/21/2024, 23:18
Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
^ Hazard Curve
Annual Frequency of Exceedence
Annual Frequency of Exceedence
led°
le -1
1e-2
le -3
le -4
le -5
le -6
le -7
le -8
le -9
le+0
le -1
le -2
le -3
le -4
le -5
le -6
le -7
le -8
le -9
Hazard Curves Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum
— Time Horizon 2475 years
t Peek Ground Acceleration
— 6— 0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration
--�-- 0.20 Second Spectral Acceleration
--- 0.30 Second Spectral Acceleration
— 8— 0.50 Second Spectral Acceleration
— e— 0.75 Second Spectral Acceleration
—ti 1.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
2.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
3.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
4.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
+ 5.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
le -2 le -1 1e+0
Ground Motion (g)
Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration
— Time Horizon 2475 years
- System
+ Gdd
- Interface
— 6— Fault
le -2 le -1 le+0
Ground Motion (g)
View Raw Data
Ground Motion (g)
3.5 3.0
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.s
0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Spectral Period (s): PGA
Ground Motion (g): 0.9516
Spectral Period (s)
12-299
2 of 5 3/21/2024, 23:18
Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
Deaggregation
Component
Total
N
12 fo
N
z
0 LC)
o
0 U
A•
S
1S
C/Oses'
d/2ce 4S
rR4b/k''�J SS
S
!s
• ,•
••
•
•
•
6S
?S
■ E = (-°° .. -2.5)
■ r=[-2.5..-2)
■ E = [-2 .. -1.5)
• E= [-1.5.. -1)
❑ E= [4.. -0.5)
❑ E= [-0.5 .. 0)
❑ E= [0 .. 0.5)
❑ E = [0.5 .. 1)
■ E _ [1.. 1.5)
C/os ■ E _ [1.5 .. 2)
es/ p/S ■ E _ [2 .. 2.5)
?'S /dnce ■ E= [2.5 .. +CC')
4S rR4p (I.
9112)
SS
•
.•
•
55 •
6S
65 3 of 5
12-300
3/21/2024, 23:18
Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total
Deaggregation targets Recovered targets
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr'
PGA ground motion: 0.95159862 g
Return period: 3256.1118 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030711477 yr
1 Totals Mean (over all sources)
Binned: 100 0/0
Residual: 0 0/0
Trace: 0.05
m: 7.22
r: 7.3 km
Eo: 1.58 a
Mode (largest m -r bin) Mode (largest m-r-Eo bin)
m: 7.49
r: 6.42 km
Eo: 1.49 a
Contribution: 16.560/0
Discretization
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
E: min= -3.0, max = 3.0, A=0.5a
m: 7.49
r: 6.38 km
Eo: 1.39 a
Contribution: 12.01 %
Epsilon keys
E0: [ oo .. -2.5)
El: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
E2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
E3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
E4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
E5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
E6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
E7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
E8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
E9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
E10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
Ell: [2.5 .. +00]
12-301
4 of 5 3/21/2024, 23:18
Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Deaggregation Contributors
Source Set y Source
Type r m eo ton lat az
UC33brAvg_FM31 System 38.86
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] 6.31 7.60 1.47 116.358°W 33.846°N 31.95 31.51 San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10] 8.06 7.88 1.31 116.344°W 33.853°N 36.70 3.98 UC33brAvg_FM32 System 38.82
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hlll) [1] 6.31 7.60 1.47 116.358°W 33.846°N 31.95 31.35 San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10] 8.06 7.85 1.32 116.344°W 33.853°N 36.70 4.19 UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt) Grid 11.16
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803 4.92 5.66 1.61 116.393°W 33.803°N 0.00 3.73 PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803 4.92 5.66 1.61 116.393°W 33.803°N 0.00 3.73 UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt) Grid 11.16
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803 4.92 5.66 1.61 116.393°W 33.803°N 0.00 3.73 PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803 4.92 5.66 1.61 116.393°W 33.803°N 0.00 3.72 12-302
5 of 5 3/21/2024, 23:18
*** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard at One Period of Spectral Acceleration *** Data from Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update) (unknown) **** PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.393°W
latitude: 33.798°E
imt: Peak Ground Acceleration
vs30 = 259 m/s (Site class D)
return period: 2475 yrs.
#This deaggregation corresponds to: Total
Summary statistics for PSHA PGA deaggregation, r=distance, €=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404
PGA ground motion: 0.95159862
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3256.1118 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030711477
Totals:
Binned: 100 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.05 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.22
r: 7.3 km
co: 1.58 o
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.42 km
co: 1.49 o
Contribution: 16.56 %
Mode (largest m -r -co bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.38 km
co: 1.39 o
Contribution: 12.01 %
Discretization:
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
e: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, A = 0.5 o
Epsilon keys:
e0: [-° .. -2.5)
cl: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
e2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
e3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
e4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
e5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
E6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
e7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
e8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
e9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
e10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
e11: [2.5 .. +=]
Closest Distance, rRup (km) Magnitude (Mw) ALL € €=[-2.5,-2) e=[-2,-1.5) e=[-1.5,-1) e=[-1,-0.5) e=[-0.5,0) e=[0,0.5) e=[0.5,1) e=[1,1.5) €=[1.5,2) 70 70
50 50
50 50
50 30
30 30
30 30
30 e=[2,2.5)
8.1 8.3
7.5 7.7
7.9 8.1
8.3 6.1
6.3 6.5
6.7 6.9
7.1 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.005
0.005
0.000
0.003
0.005
0.011
0.017
0.049
e=[2.5,-)
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
yr'
g
* * *
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.009
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.014
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.046 12-303
30 7.3 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.5 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.7 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.9 0.390 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.1 0.701 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.3 0.438 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.1 2.728 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.3 3.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.5 3.449 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.7 2.954 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.9 2.324 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.1 2.665 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.3 2.820 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.5 3.816 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.7 1.315 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.9 1.699 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.1 1.568 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.3 15.2610.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.5 16.558 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.7 13.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.9 7.227 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.1 13.180 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.3 4.274 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Principal Sources (faults, subduction,
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 38.86
Distance (km): 7.4794689
Magnitude: 7.6264235
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5118026
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HIll) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 31.51
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.6027865
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4716375
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 3.98
Distance (km): 8.061458
Magnitude: 7.8808645
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3083447
Azimuth: 36.695988
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 38.82
Distance (km): 7.471736
Magnitude: 7.6219514
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5119868
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HIll) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 31.35
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.5995381
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4730648
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 4.19
Distance (km): 8.061458
Magnitude: 7.8501957
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3158499
Azimuth: 36.695988
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 11.16
Distance (km): 6.7098436
Magnitude: 5.8069283
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.038
0.056
0.035
0.000 0.020
0.000 0.006
0.000 0.001
0.000 0.001
0.000 0.046
0.000 0.498
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.726
1.370
0.973
0.649
0.420
0.394
0.256
0.134
0.331
9.921
12.007
9.922
5.335
10.015
2.809
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.788
2.337
1.031
0.842
0.658
0.983
1.468
2.051
0.808
1.222
0.614
3.544
3.690
2.645
1.520
2.527
0.791
random seismicity having > 3% contribution
0.004 0.050
0.012 0.088
0.017 0.112
0.139 0.251
0.442 0.257
0.354 0.083
1.653 0.288
0.282 0.426
0.246 0.446
0.383 0.357
0.404 0.290
0.882 0.151
0.817 0.116
0.787 0.551
0.159 0.054
0.252 0.037
0.507 0.081
1.749 0.027
0.855 0.001
0.628 0.000
0.369 0.002
0.590 0.001
0.176 0.000
12-304
Epsilon (mean values): 1.8125077
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 3.73
Distance (km): 4.9161769
Magnitude: 5.6573306
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6100538
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 3.73
Distance (km): 4.9161769
Magnitude: 5.6573306
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6100538
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 11.16
Distance (km): 6.7090904
Magnitude: 5.8064798
Epsilon (mean values): 1.812569
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 3.73
Distance (km): 4.9162728
Magnitude: 5.6570323
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6101632
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 3.72
Distance (km): 4.9162728
Magnitude: 5.6570323
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6101632
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.393°W
latitude: 33.798°E
imt: Peak Ground Acceleration
vs30 = 259 m/s (Site class D)
return period: 2475 yrs.
#This deaggregation corresponds to: GMM: Abrahamson, Silva & Kamai (2014) Summary statistics for PSHA PGA deaggregation, r=distance, €=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr-1
PGA ground motion: 0.95159862 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3256.1118 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030711477 yr-1
Totals:
Binned: 21.91 %
Residual: 0
Trace: 0.05 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.12
r: 7.67 km
co: 1.82 o
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.41 km
€o: 1.67 o
Contribution: 3.53 %
Mode (largest m -r -co bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.38 km
12-305
70 8.1 0.000
70 8.3 0.000
50 7.7 0.000
50 7.9 0.005
50 8.1 0.002
50 8.3 0.002
30 6.3 0.001
30 6.5 0.000
30 6.7 0.002
30 6.9 0.004
30 7.1 0.014
30 7.3 0.017
30 7.5 0.031
30 7.7 0.045
30 7.9 0.124
30 8.1 0.226
30 8.3 0.140
10 5.1 1.128
10 5.3 0.889
10 5.5 0.706
10 5.7 0.588
10 5.9 0.476
10 6.1 0.588
10 6.3 0.657
10 6.5 0.997
10 6.7 0.313
10 6.9 0.396
10 7.1 0.378
10 7.3 3.397
10 7.5 3.532
10 7.7 2.631
10 7.9 1.386
10 8.1 2.460
10 8.3 0.779
Principal Sources (faults,
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 8.18
Distance (km): 7.8932418
Magnitude: 7.5967749
Epsilon (mean values): 1.7334304
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 6.62
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.580625
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6602776
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
E_(-=‘,,-2.5)
E=[0.5,1)
Eo: 1 67 o
Contribution: 3.52 %
Discretization:
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
E: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, A = 0.5 o
Epsilon keys:
E0: [-- .. -2.5)
El: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
E2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
E3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
E4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
E5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
E6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
E7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
E8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
E9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
E10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
E11: [2.5 .. +co]
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
Magnitude (Mw) ALL e
=[-1.5,-1) E=[-1,-0.5) E=[-0.5,0) E=[0,0.5)
E=[2,2.5) E=[2.5,-)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.266
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.662
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.501
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.400
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.309
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.248
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.245
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.079 0.505
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.179
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.290
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.207
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 3.089
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 3.520
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.628
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.356
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.446
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.779 subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution
E=[-2.5,-2)
E=[1,1.5)
E_ [-2,-1.5)
=[1.5,2)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.028
0.083
0.140
0.617
0.000
0.036
0.064
0.081
0.289
0.383
0.127
0.047
0.050
0.139
0.300
0.011
0.003
0.029
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.014
0.017
0.031
0.042
0.096
0.143
0.000
0.246
0.226
0.168
0.124
0.086
0.052
0.029
0.287
0.019
0.018
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12-306
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 8.15
Distance (km): 7.880263
Magnitude: 7.5917196
Epsilon (mean values): 1.7350304
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 6.59
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.5766431
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6617753
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 2.79
Distance (km): 7.0345454
Magnitude: 5.7300993
Epsilon (mean values): 2.0599055
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 2.79
Distance (km): 7.0339141
Magnitude: 5.7296505
Epsilon (mean values): 2.059996
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.393°W
latitude: 33.798°E
imt: Peak Ground Acceleration
vs30 = 259 m/s (Site class D)
return period: 2475 yrs.
#This deaggregation corresponds to: GMM: Boore, Stewart, Seyhan & Atkinson (2014) Summary statistics for PSHA PGA deaggregation, r=distance, E=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr 1
PGA ground motion: 0.95159862 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3256.1118 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030711477 yr-'
Totals:
Binned: 43.39 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.07 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.15
r: 7.5 km
Ea: 1.44 c
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.46 km
co: 1.36 a
Contribution: 6.48
Mode (largest m -r -e0 bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.43 km
E0: 1.36 o
Contribution: 6.45 %
Discretization:
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
E: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, A = 0.5 a
Epsilon keys:
E0: [-co .. -2.5)
El: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
E2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
E3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
E4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
E5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
E6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
12-307
E7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
E8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
E9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
E10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
E11: [2.5 .. +°°]
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
Magnitude (Mw) ALL E
E=[-1.5,-1) E=[-1,-0.5) E=[-0.5,0) E=[0,0.5)
E=[2,2.5) E=[2.5,-)
70 8.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
70 8.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.9 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.1 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.3 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.3 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.5 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.7 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.9 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.1 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.3 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.5 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.7 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.9 0.207 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.1 0.357 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.3 0.214 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.1 0.964 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.3 1.473 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.5 2.080 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.7 1.763 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.9 1.332 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.1 1.394 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.3 1.368 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.5 1.796 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.7 0.539 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.9 0.702 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.1 0.657 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.3 5.966 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.5 6.483 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.7 5.460 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.9 3.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.1 5.550 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.3 1.832 0.000 0.000 0.000
Principal Sources (faults, subduction,
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 16.07
Distance (km): 7.7781333
Magnitude: 7.6213588
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3802436
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 12.32
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.5988928
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3398313
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek)
Percent Contributed: 2.15
Distance (km): 8.061458
Magnitude: 7.8457289
Epsilon (mean values): 1.077244
Azimuth: 36.695988
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 16.04
Distance (km): 7.7836471
Magnitude: 7.6262543
[10] :
E_(--,-2.5)
E=[0.5,1)
E=[-2.5,-2)
E=[1,1.5)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.522
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.359
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.726 0.001
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.370 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.973 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.649 0.427
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.401 0.762
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.224 0.991
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.109 0.385
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.535
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.301 0.106
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 5.450 0.111
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 6.448 0.016
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.450 0.009
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.945 0.058
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 5.470 0.033
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.498 1.326 0.007
random seismicity having > 3% contribution
E=[-2,-1.5)
E=[1.5,2)
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.009
0.000 0.003
0.000 0.002
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.002
0.000 0.004
0.002 0.007
0.003 0.008
0.002 0.028
0.003 0.030
0.011 0.053
0.011 0.066
0.093 0.113
0.349 0.006
0.212 0.000
0.434 0.008
0.000 0.114
0.210 0.143
0.280 0.112
0.264 0.095
0.294 0.023
0.157 0.048
0.393 0.187
0.029 0.017
0.089 0.002
0.250 0.000
0.400 0.000
0.016 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
12-308
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3811849
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1]:
Percent Contributed: 12.37
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.6016337
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3390073
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 2.04
Distance (km): 8.061458
Magnitude: 7.8780925
Epsilon (mean values): 1.0698215
Azimuth: 36.695988
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 5.64
Distance (km): 6.6837734
Magnitude: 5.7996289
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6132066
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 1.97
Distance (km): 4.9909238
Magnitude: 5.6531474
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4035986
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 1.96
Distance (km): 4.9909238
Magnitude: 5.6531474
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4035986
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 5.63
Distance (km): 6.6829009
Magnitude: 5.7992472
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6132258
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 1.96
Distance (km): 4.990941
Magnitude: 5.6529116
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4036826
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 1.96
Distance (km): 4.990941
Magnitude: 5.6529116
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4036826
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.393°W
latitude: 33.798°E
imt: Peak Ground Acceleration
vs30 = 259 m/s (Site class D)
return period: 2475 yrs.
#This deaggregation corresponds to: GMM: Campbell & Bozorgnia (2014) Summary statistics for PSHA PGA deaggregation, r=distance, €=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
12-309
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr_1
PGA ground motion: 0.95159862 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3256.1118 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030711477 yr-1
Totals:
Binned: 4.01
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.01 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.46
r: 6.5 km
Eo: 2.26 o
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.38 km
co: 2.25 o
Contribution: 0.82 %
Mode (largest m -r -E0 bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.38 km
Eo: 2.25 o
Contribution: 0.82 %
Discretization:
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
E: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, A = 0.5 o
Epsilon keys:
E0: [-- .. -2.5)
El: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
E2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
E3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
E4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
E5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
E6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
E7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
E8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
E9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
E10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
E11: [2.5 .. +co]
Closest Distance, rRup (km) Magnitude (Mw) ALLE E=(-',-2.5) E=[-2.5,-2) E=[-2,-1.5) =[-1.5,-1) E=[-1,-0.5) €=[-0.5,0) E=[0,0.5) €=[0.5,1) E=[1,1.5) €=[1.5,2) E=[2,2.5) E=[2.5,00)
30 7.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 7.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 7.7 0.000 '0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 7.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 8.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 8.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 5.3 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 10 5.5 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 10 5.7 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 10 5.9 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 10 6.1 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.020 10 6.3 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.027 10 6.5 0.213 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.162 0.024 10 6.7 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.053 0.008 10 6.9 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.080 0.005 10 7.1 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.053 0.005 10 7.3 0.754 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.731 0.020 10 7.5 0.819 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.817 0.001 10 7.7 0.622 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.622 0.000 10 7.9 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.330 0.002 10 8.1 0.577 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.576 0.001 10 8.3 0.177 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.176 0.000 Principal Sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 1.8
Distance (km): 6.5474702
12-310
Magnitude: 7.5880414
Epsilon (mean values): 2.2486496
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 1.58
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.5611445
Epsilon (mean values): 2.2401251
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 1.8
Distance (km): 6.543238
Magnitude: 7.5917454
Epsilon (mean values): 2.2487949
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 1.59
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.5647963
Epsilon (mean values): 2.2396717
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.393°W
latitude: 33.798°E
imt: Peak Ground Acceleration
vs30 = 259 m/s (Site class D)
return period: 2475 yrs.
#This deaggregation corresponds to: GMM: Chiou & Youngs (2014) Summary statistics for PSHA PGA deaggregation, r=distance, E=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr 1
PGA ground motion: 0.95159862 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3256.1118 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030711477 yr-1
Totals:
Binned: 30.69 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.05 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.35
r: 6.88 km
EQ: 1.52 c
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.4 km
co: 1.43 0
Contribution: 5.72 %
Mode (largest m -r -e0 bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.33 km
E0: 1.42 o.
Contribution: 5.56 %
Discretization:
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
E: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, A = 0.5 a
Epsilon keys:
E0: [-- .. -2.5)
El: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
E2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
E3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
E4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
E5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
E6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
12-311
€7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
€8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
€9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
€10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
€11: [2.5 .. +°°]
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
E=[-1.5,-1) €=[-1,-0.5)
€=[2,2.5) €=[2.5,-)
50 7.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.7 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.9 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.1 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.3 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.5 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.7 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.9 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.1 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.3 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.1 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.3 0.682 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.5 0.649 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.7 0.578 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.9 0.484 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.1 0.619 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.3 0.664 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.5 0.810 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.7 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.9 0.501 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.1 0.468 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.3 5.144 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.5 5.724 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.7 4.482 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.9 2.505 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.1 4.593 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.3 1.487 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Principal Sources (faults, subduction, random
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 12.84
Distance (km): 6.9669154
Magnitude: 7.6503809
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4305924
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 10.93
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.6230471
Epsilon (mean values): 1.395753
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 1.15
Distance (km): 8.061458
Magnitude: 7.8903344
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3948841
Azimuth: 36.695988
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 12.79
Distance (km): 6.9566531
Magnitude: 7.646728
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4317154
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 10.86
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.6197572
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3978484
Magnitude (Mw) ALL
e=[-0.5,0) €=[0,0.5)
E=[0.5,1)
=[-2.5,-2)
€=[1,1.5)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.316
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.529
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.442
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.349
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.308
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.460
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.091 0.527
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.079 0.219
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.019 0.383
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.012 0.294
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 4.464 0.341
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 5.557 0.153
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.471 0.008
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.389 0.105
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.544 0.048
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.482 0.005
seismicity having > 3% contribution
E=[1.5,2)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.018
0.010
0.002
0.602
0.281
0.000
0.040
0.059
0.255
0.172
0.106
0.030
0.033
0.066
0.319
0.011
0.003
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.042
0.108
0.082
0.034
0.085
0.120
0.096
0.076
0.056
0.012
0.053
0.009
0.011
0.061
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12-312
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 1.21
Distance (km): 8.061458
Magnitude: 7.8634083
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4032102
Azimuth: 36.695988
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 2.53
Distance (km): 6.4627031
Magnitude: 5.8624827
Epsilon (mean values): 1.9411404
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 2.53
Distance (km): 6.461964
Magnitude: 5.8619303
Epsilon (mean values): 1.9413251
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.393°W
latitude: 33.798°E
imt: Peak Ground Acceleration
vs30 = 259 m/s (Site class D)
return period: 2475 yrs.
#This deaggregation corresponds to: Source Type: System Summary statistics for PSHA PGA deaggregation, r=distance, E=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404
PGA ground motion: 0.95159862
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3256.1118 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030711477 yr-'
Totals:
Binned: 77.68 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.04 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.62
r: 7.48 km
Eo: 1.51 c
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.42 km
1.49 c
Eo:
yr- 1
g
Contribution: 16.52
Mode (largest m -r -E0 bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.38 km
E0: 1.39 o
Contribution: 12 %
Discretization:
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
E: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, A = 0.5 o
Epsilon keys:
E0.
El:
E2.
e3:
E4:
E5.
E6:
e7.
E8:
[ .. -2.5)
[-2.5 .. -2.0)
[-2.0 .. -1.5)
[-1.5 .. -1.0)
[-1.0 .. -0.5)
[-0.5 .. 0.0)
[0.0 .. 0.5)
[0.5 .. 1.0)
[1.0 .. 1.5)
12-313
E9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
E10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
E11: [2.5 .. +°°]
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
Magnitude (Mw) ALL_8
E=[-1.5,-1) E=[-1,-0.5) E=[-0.5,0) E=[0,0.5)
E=[2,2.5) E=[2.5,°°)
70 8.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
70 8.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.9 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.1 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.3 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.7 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.9 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.1 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.3 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.5 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.7 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.9 0.390 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.1 0.701 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.3 0.438 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.1 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.3 0.862 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.5 2.433 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.7 0.515 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.9 1.183 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.1 1.277 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.3 15.129 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.5 16.523 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.7 13.192 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.9 7.226 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.1 13.180 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.3 4.274 0.000 0.000 0.000
Principal Sources (faults, subduction,
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 38.86
Distance (km): 7.4794689
Magnitude: 7.6264235
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5118026
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 31.51
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.6027865
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4716375
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 3.98
Distance (km): 8.061458
Magnitude: 7.8808645
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3083447
Azimuth: 36.695988
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 38.82
Distance (km): 7.471736
Magnitude: 7.6219514
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5119868
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 31.35
Distance (km): 6.3071287
Magnitude: 7.5995381
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4730648
Azimuth: 31.951688
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
random
E=(-00,-2.5)
E=[0.5,1)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.498
seismicity having > 3%
E=[-2.5,-2)
E=[1,1.5)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.254
9.882
11.995
9.920
5.335
10.015
2.809
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.567
1.431
0.450
0.994
0.498
3.501
3.678
2.644
1.520
2.527
0.791
contribution
E=[-2,-1.5)
E=[1.5,2)
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.014
0.000 0.005
0.000 0.005
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.001
0.000 0.004
0.000 0.040
0.001 0.046
0.010 0.086
0.017 0.112
0.139 0.251
0.442 0.257
0.354 0.083
0.000 0.015
0.257 0.038
0.501 0.497
0.043 0.017
0.158 0.022
0.451 0.074
1.721 0.025
0.849 0.000
0.627 0.000
0.369 0.002
0.590 0.001
0.176 0.000
12-314
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 4.19
Distance (km): 8.061458
Magnitude: 7.8501957
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3158499
Azimuth: 36.695988
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.393°W
latitude: 33.798°E
imt: Peak Ground Acceleration
vs30 = 259 m/s (Site class D)
return period: 2475 yrs.
#This deaggregation corresponds to: Source Type: Grid
Summary statistics for PSHA PGA deaggregation, r=distance, €=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr-1
PGA ground motion: 0.95159862 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3256.1118 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030711477 yr-'
Totals:
Binned: 22.32 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.06 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 5.81
r: 6.71 km
co: 1.81 a
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 5.5
r: 6.16 km
co: 1.75 o
Contribution: 3.45 %
Mode (largest m -r -E0 bin):
m: 5.3
r: 4.87 km
co: 1.77 o
Contribution: 2.34 %
Discretization:
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
E: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, A = 0.5 o
Epsilon keys:
E0: [-m .. -2.5)
E1: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
e2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
€3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
E4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
E5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
E6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
E7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
E8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
E9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
E10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
E11: [2.5 .. +°]
Closest Distance, rRup (km) Magnitude (Mw) ALLe E=(-°,-2.5) E=[-2.5,-2) E=[-2,-1.5) E=[-1.5,-1) E=[-1,-0.5) E=[-0.5,0) E=[0,0.5) E=[0.5,1) E=[1,1.5) e=[1.5,2) E=[2,2.5) E=[2.5,-)
50 7.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 7.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50 7.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 6.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 6.3 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 30 6.5 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 30 6.7 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.008 12-315
30 6.9 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.009 30 7.1 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.006 30 7.3 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.004 30 7.5 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 30 7.7 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30 7.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 5.1 2.728 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.788 1.653 0.288 10 5.3 3.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.337 0.282 0.426 10 5.5 3.449 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.726 1.031 0.246 0.446 10 5.7 2.954 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.370 0.842 0.383 0.357 10 5.9 2.324 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.973 0.658 0.404 0.290 10 6.1 2.650 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.649 0.983 0.882 0.136 10 6.3 1.958 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.420 0.900 0.560 0.077 10 6.5 1.384 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.390 0.620 0.286 0.054 10 6.7 0.801 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.253 0.358 0.116 0.036 10 6.9 0.516 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.125 0.227 0.093 0.015 10 7.1 0.291 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.078 0.116 0.056 0.006 10 7.3 0.131 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.039 0.042 0.028 0.002 10 7.5 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.011 0.011 0.006 0.000 10 7.7 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 10 7.9 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Principal Sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 11.16
Distance (km): 6.7098436
Magnitude: 5.8069283
Epsilon (mean values): 1.8125077
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 3.73
Distance (km): 4.9161769
Magnitude: 5.6573306
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6100538
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 3.73
Distance (km): 4.9161769
Magnitude: 5.6573306
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6100538
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 11.16
Distance (km): 6.7090904
Magnitude: 5.8064798
Epsilon (mean values): 1.812569
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 3.73
Distance (km): 4.9162728
Magnitude: 5.6570323
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6101632
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
PointSourceFinite: -116.393, 33.803:
Percent Contributed: 3.72
Distance (km): 4.9162728
Magnitude: 5.6570323
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6101632
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.802887
Longitude: -116.39325
12-316
APPENDIX D
DRY SAND SETTLEMENT
1 PETRA 1 2-317-
Petra Geoscienc es, Inc .
'r.
;N0./::
3ID#
GEO LOG I S M I K Orange County Office
wE DO THE hur,6ER: . rou DO THE , ou. 3190 Airport Loop Drive, Suite J1, Costa Mesa, California 92626 www.petra-inc .com
Pro ject title : 24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments Th e Pacific C ompanies Lo cation : Rancho Mirage, Ca
c
c
G)
00 1.5-
1. 25-
0. 75-
0. 5 -
0.25-
0 SUM MARY CALCULATION REPORT
Vertical Settlem ents
1.53 i
B-1 NCEER
Te st Name
1.05 B-1-B&I 2014
LiqSVs 2.3. 2. 9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments. lsys
GEO
Geotechnical Software
• n 1
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
Orange County Office
3190 Airport Loop Drive, Suite 31, Costa Mesa, California 92626 www.petra-inc.com
SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Project title : 24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments The Pacific Companies Location : Rancho Mirage, Ca
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::
Analysis method: NCEER 1998
Fines correction method: NCEER 1998
Sampling method: Sampler wo liners
Borehole diameter: 200mm
Rod length: 3.30 ft
Hammer energy ratio: 1.00
G.W.T. (in -situ): 160.00 ft
G.W.T. (earthq.): 160.00 ft
Earthquake magnitude Mw: 7.50
Peak ground acceleration: 0.88 g
Eq. external load: 0.00 tsf
SPT Name: B-1 NCEER
5-
10-
15-
20 -
25-
Raw SPT Data
30-
3 y 35-
0-
v -
40-
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
I 10 20 30 40 50
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0.8 CSR - CRR Plot
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CSR - CRR
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
FS Plot
LPI
5- _- 5-
10-
15-
10-
15-
20- - ----+ 20-
25 25 =
30- 30 =
35- •--"- 35-
0- 0-
a) a) -
CI 0
40 1 1 40 -
45- .-- 45 =
50 - 5 0 -
5 5- 5 5-
60-
65-
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Factor of Safety
0.7 -
0.6 -
*
0 0.5-
ro
ce
a)0.4-
0.2-
0.1-
0.0 Liquefaction
0 Q
0 O
O O
0 No Liquefaction
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
60-
65-
0 Liquefaction potential
F.S. color scheme
▪ Almost certain it will liquefy
▪ Very likely to liquefy
❑ Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
▪ Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
▪ Very high risk
❑ High risk
▪ Low risk
LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-319
Page: 1
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Overall Liq uefaction Assessm ent Analysis Plots ::
4-
6-
Raw SPT Data CSR - CRR Plot
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-.
28-
30 -r-
32-
34-
. 36-
a)
38-
40-
42-
44-
46-
48-
50:
52-
54-
56 58
60 N 62
64 66
N 68
O 0
a
•
f
r
10 20 30 40
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50 4-
6-
8-
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
30-
+, 32-
w _
34-
. 36-
0 38-
40 -
42-
44-
46-
48:
50-
52=
54-
56=
58-
60 -
62-
64:
66-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
CSR - CRR
0. 8
4-
6-
8-
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20 -
22-
24-
26-
28-
30-
+, 32-
w _
s 34-
c. 36-
a� .
0 38-
40-
42-
44-
46-
48=
50-
52:
54-
56:
58-
60 -
62-
64 -
66-
0 FS Pl ot
0.5 1 1.5 2
Factor of Safety
Verti cal Liq . Settl ements
Lat eral Liq. Displ acements
4- 4-
6- 6-
8- 8-
10- 10-
12- 12-
14- 14-
16- 16-
18- 18-
20- 20-
22- 22-
24- 24-
26- 26-
28- 28-
30- 30-
32- +, 32-
w _
34- 34-
a 36- i 36-
a) _ a) _
38- 0 38-
40- 40-
42- 42-
44- 44-
46- 46-
48 - 48:
50- 50-
52- 52-
54- 54-
56- 56-
58- 58-
60- 60-
62- 62-
64- 64-
66- 66-
0.5 1 1.5
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0 Cuml. Displacement (ft)
LiqSVs 2.3. 2. 9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
Page: 2
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Field input data ::
Test SPT Field
Depth Value
(ft) (blows)
3.00 5.00
7.50 10.00
15.00 20.00
25.00 30.00
35.00 40.00
45.00 50.00
55.00 60.00
65.00 66.50
Abbreviations
Depth:
SPT Field Value:
Fines Content:
Unit Weight:
Infl. Thickness:
Can Liquefy:
16 14
15 16
33 43
34 33
50 33
50 33
50 33
50 33
Fines
Content
(%)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Unit
Weight
(Pd.)
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
Infl. Can
Thickness Liquefy
(ft)
4.00 2.00
2.00 4.50
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
2.00 1.50
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft) User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
Depth SPT Unit Q, ub
(ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf)
Value (pcf)
3.00 16 120.00 0.18 0.00
5.00 14 120.00 0.30 0.00
7.50 15 120.00 0.45 0.00
10.00 16 120.00 0.60 0.00
15.00 33 120.00 0.90 0.00
20.00 43 120.00 1.20 0.00
25.00 34 120.00 1.50 0.00
30.00 33 120.00 1.80 0.00
35.00 50 120.00 2.10 0.00
40.00 33 120.00 2.40 0.00
45.00 50 120.00 2.70 0.00
50.00 33 120.00 3.00 0.00
55.00 50 120.00 3.30 0.00
60.00 33 120.00 3.60 0.00
65.00 50 120.00 3.90 0.00
66.50 33 120.00 3.99 0.00
aevo CN
(tsf)
0.18 1.61
0.30 1.48
0.45 1.35
0.60 1.25
0.90 1.07
1.20 0.94
1.50 0.84
1.80 0.76
2.10 0.69
2.40 0.63
2.70 0.59
3.00 0.55
3.30 0.51
3.60 0.48
3.90 0.45
3.99 0.44
CE
CB
CR Cs (N1)60 Fines a (3 (N1)6ocs CRR7.5
Content
(%)
1.00 1.15 0.75 1.20 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 27 4.000
1.00 1.15 0.75 1.20 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 21 4.000
1.00 1.15 0.75 1.20 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 21 4.000
1.00 1.15 0.85 1.20 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 23 4.000
1.00 1.15 0.85 1.20 42 0.00 0.00 1.00 42 4.000
1.00 1.15 0.95 1.20 53 0.00 0.00 1.00 53 4.000
1.00 1.15 0.95 1.20 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 37 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 35 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 48 0.00 0.00 1.00 48 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 29 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 40 0.00 0.00 1.00 40 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 25 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 35 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 22 0.00 0.00 1.00 22 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 31 4.000
1.00 1.15 1.00 1.20 20 0.00 0.00 1.00 20 4.000
LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-321
Page: 3
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
Depth SPT Unit a, uo a'vo CN
(ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf)
Value (pcf)
Abbreviations
Cry:
u0:
(Go:
CN:
C5:
CB:
CR:
C5:
NI(6o):
a, 3:
NI(6o)os:
CRR7.5:
Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NsPr to a 60% energy ratio
Clean sand equivalent clean sand formula coefficients
Corected Ni(so) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
CE
CB CR C5 (N1)60 Fines a 13 (N1)6ocs CRR7.5
Content
(%)
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::
Depth Unit Ov,eq uo,eq a'vo,eq rd a CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR* FS (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf)
(pcf)
3.00 120.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.99 1.00 0.569 1.00 0.569 1.00 0.569 2.000 •
5.00 120.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.99 1.00 0.566 1.00 0.567 1.00 0.567 2.000 •
7.50 120.00 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.98 1.00 0.563 1.00 0.563 1.00 0.563 2.000 0
10.00 120.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.98 1.00 0.560 1.00 0.560 1.00 0.560 2.000 •
15.00 120.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.554 1.00 0.554 1.00 0.554 2.000 0
20.00 120.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 0.96 1.00 0.547 1.00 0.548 0.98 0.561 2.000 0
25.00 120.00 1.50 0.00 1.50 0.94 1.00 0.539 1.00 0.539 0.93 0.578 2.000 0
30.00 120.00 1.80 0.00 1.80 0.92 1.00 0.527 1.00 0.527 0.90 0.586 2.000
35.00 120.00 2.10 0.00 2.10 0.89 1.00 0.509 1.00 0.510 0.87 0.584 2.000
40.00 120.00 2.40 0.00 2.40 0.85 1.00 0.487 1.00 0.487 0.85 0.574 2.000 •
45.00 120.00 2.70 0.00 2.70 0.80 1.00 0.460 1.00 0.460 0.83 0.555 2.000 •
50.00 120.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.75 1.00 0.431 1.00 0.431 0.81 0.531 2.000 •
55.00 120.00 3.30 0.00 3.30 0.70 1.00 0.402 1.00 0.402 0.80 0.505 2.000 •
60.00 120.00 3.60 0.00 3.60 0.66 1.00 0.377 1.00 0.377 0.78 0.482 2.000 0
65.00 120.00 3.90 0.00 3.90 0.62 1.00 0.356 1.00 0.356 0.77 0.462 2.000
66.50 120.00 3.99 0.00 3.99 0.61 1.00 0.350 1.00 0.350 0.77 0.457 2.000 0 Abbreviations
Qv,eq:
a'vo,eq:
rd :
a:
CSR :
MSF :
CSReq,M=7.5:
[(sigma:
CSR*:
FS:
*" User FS:
Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio (adjusted for improvement)
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied)"*
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
1.00 :: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth FS F wz Thickness IL
(ft) (ft)
3.00 2.000 0.00 9.54 2.00 0.00
5.00 2.000 0.00 9.24 2.00 0.00
LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-322
Page: 4
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth FS F wz Thickness IL
(ft) (ft)
7.50 2.000 0.00 8.86 2.50 0.00
10.00 2.000 0.00 8.48 2.50 0.00
15.00 2.000 0.00 7.71 5.00 0.00
20.00 2.000 0.00 6.95 5.00 0.00
25.00 2.000 0.00 6.19 5.00 0.00
30.00 2.000 0.00 5.43 5.00 0.00
35.00 2.000 0.00 4.67 5.00 0.00
40.00 2.000 0.00 3.90 5.00 0.00
45.00 2.000 0.00 3.14 5.00 0.00
50.00 2.000 0.00 2.38 5.00 0.00
55.00 2.000 0.00 1.62 5.00 0.00
60.00 2.000 0.00 0.86 5.00 0.00
65.00 2.000 0.00 0.09 5.00 0.00
66.50 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Overall potential IL : 0.00
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::
Depth (N1)60 Tav P Gina: a b y E15 Nc ENc Ah AS
(ft) (tsf) (%) (%) (ft) (in)
3.00 27 0.10 0.12 465.70 0.13 22770.45 0.40 0.00 15.16 0.28 4.00 0.133
5.00 21 0.17 0.20 552.90 0.13 16759.55 0.64 0.01 15.16 0.61 2.00 0.147
7.50 21 0.25 0.30 677.16 0.14 13140.37 0.64 0.01 15.16 0.61 2.00 0.147
10.00 23 0.34 0.40 805.99 0.14 11057.18 0.55 0.00 15.16 0.47 4.50 0.252
15.00 42 0.50 0.60 1206.56 0.15 8669.41 0.23 0.00 15.16 0.09 5.00 0.056
20.00 53 0.66 0.80 1505.55 0.16 7295.02 0.18 0.00 15.16 0.06 5.00 0.034
25.00 37 0.81 1.00 1493.22 0.16 6380.88 0.29 0.00 15.16 0.14 5.00 0.083
30.00 35 0.95 1.21 1605.72 0.17 5719.68 0.30 0.00 15.16 0.16 5.00 0.093
35.00 48 1.07 1.41 1926.94 0.18 5214.39 0.20 0.00 15.16 0.07 5.00 0.042
40.00 29 1.17 1.61 1741.47 0.19 4812.92 0.32 0.00 15.16 0.21 5.00 0.125
45.00 40 1.24 1.81 2056.11 0.19 4484.53 0.20 0.00 15.16 0.09 5.00 0.052
50.00 25 1.29 2.01 1853.04 0.20 4209.81 0.28 0.00 15.16 0.21 5.00 0.128
55.00 35 1.33 2.21 2174.16 0.21 3975.82 0.17 0.00 15.16 0.09 5.00 0.053
60.00 22 1.36 2.41 1945.23 0.22 3773.58 0.23 0.00 15.16 0.21 5.00 0.124
65.00 31 1.39 2.61 2269.85 0.23 3596.63 0.15 0.00 15.16 0.09 2.00 0.022
66.50 20 1.40 2.67 1983.85 0.23 3547.74 0.22 0.00 15.16 0.22 1.50 0.039 LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-323
Page: 5
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::
Depth (N1)60 Tav
(ft)
P Gmax o
(tsf)
Abbreviations
rav: Average cyclic shear stress
p: Average stress
Gmax: Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
a, b: Shear strain formula variables
y: Average shear strain (%)
£15: Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Nr: Number of cycles
ENr: Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nr (%)
Ah: Thickness of soil layer (in)
AS: Settlement of soil layer (in)
b Y Els
(%)
:: Lateral displacements estimation for saturated sands ::
Depth (N1)60 Dr Y. dz LDI LD
(ft) (%) (oh) (ft) (ft)
3.00 27 72.75 0.00 4.00 0.000 0.00
5.00 21 64.16 0.00 2.00 0.000 0.00
7.50 21 64.16 0.00 2.00 0.000 0.00
10.00 23 67.14 0.00 4.50 0.000 0.00
15.00 42 90.73 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
20.00 53 100.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
25.00 37 85.16 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
30.00 35 82.83 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
35.00 48 100.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
40.00 29 75.39 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
45.00 40 88.54 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
50.00 25 70.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
55.00 35 82.83 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
60.00 22 65.67 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
65.00 31 77.95 0.00 2.00 0.000 0.00
66.50 20 62.61 0.00 1.50 0.000 0.00
Cumulative lateral displacements: 0.00
Abbreviations
Dr: Relative density (%)
Ymax: Maximum amplitude of cyclic shear strain (%)
dz: Soil layer thickness (ft)
LDI: Lateral displacement index (ft)
LD: Actual estimated displacement (ft)
N, Epic Ah AS
(%) (ft) (in)
Cumulative settlemetns: 1.528
LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-324
Page: 6
GEO
Geotechnical Software
• n 1
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
Orange County Office
3190 Airport Loop Drive, Suite 31, Costa Mesa, California 92626 www.petra-inc.com
SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Project title : 24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments The Pacific Companies Location : Rancho Mirage, Ca
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::
Analysis method: Boulanger & Idriss, 2014 G.W.T. (in -situ): 160.00 ft Fines correction method: Boulanger & Idriss, 2014 G.W.T. (earthq.): 160.00 ft Sampling method: Sampler wo liners Earthquake magnitude Mw: 7.50 Borehole diameter: 200mm Peak ground acceleration: 0.88 g Rod length: 3.30 ft Eq. external load: 0.00 tsf
Hammer energy ratio: 1.00
SPT Name: B-1-B&I 2014
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
Raw SPT Data
30-
3 y 35-
a_
-
40-
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
I 10 20 30 40 50
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0 co
De
a)
v
L
1 0
LT)
U
0.8 0.7-
0.6-•
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0.0 5
0 CSR - CRR Plot
5-
10-
15-
20-
25 =
,..., 30
- -
35-
0-
a) -
40-
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CSR - CRR
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
FS Plot
LPI
5- _- 5-
10-
15-
10-
15-
20- - ----+ 20-
25 25 =
30- 30 =
35- •--'- 35-
0- 0-
a) a) -
CI 0
40 1 1 40 -
45- .-- 45 =
50 - 50 -
5 5 - 5 5 -
60-
65-
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Factor of Safety
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
60-
65-
0 Liquefaction potential
F.S. color scheme
▪ Almost certain it will liquefy
▪ Very likely to liquefy
❑ Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
▪ Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
▪ Very high risk
❑ High risk
▪ Low risk
LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-325
Page: 7
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Overall Liq uefaction Assessm ent Analysis Plots ::
r
o. 36
CD
0 2-
4-
6-
8-
10-
12-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28-
30-
32-
34-
N
TN
V
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
Raw SPT Data
MP -
r
0 10 20 30 40
SPT Count (blows/ft)
50 4-
14-
16-
18-
20-
22-
24-
26-
28 -
30 _
32-
L 34-
o. 36-
v _
0 38-
40-
42-
44-
46-
48 -
50-
52-
54-
56-
58-
60-
62-
64-
66-
0 CSR - CRR Plot
0.2 0.4 0.6 0. 8
CSR - CRR
1 FS Plot
Vertical Liq . Settleme nts
Lateral Liq . Displaceme nts
4- ---- 4-
_ 4:
6- - - 6- 6-
8- F 8- 8-
10- 10- 10-
12- -- 12- / 12
14- •- 14- 14-
16- - •- 16- 16-
18 - }-- -- 18- 18-
_
20- }-- •- 20- 1 20
22- 22- 22-
24- - •- 24- 24-
26- - 26- 26-
28- •- 28- 28-
30- j-- --- 30- 30-
Z 32 �; 32- 32-
r 34- r 34- r 34-
a 36- a 36- o 36-
v v _ C _
0 38- -- 1 0 38- 0 38-
40- j-- -- 40- 40-
42- -- 42- 42-
44 - •- 44- / 44
46- i
48- 50- 52- 54- 56- 58- y 60- 62- j-- 62
64- 64-/ 64-
66- --- 66-1 66-
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Factor of Safety
0 .5 1
Cuml. Settlement (in)
0 Cuml . Displacement (ft)
LiqSVs 2.3. 2. 9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
Page: 8
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Field input data ::
Test SPT Field
Depth Value
(ft) (blows)
3.00 5.00
7.50 10.00
15.00 20.00
25.00 30.00
35.00 40.00
45.00 50.00
55.00 60.00
65.00 66.50
Abbreviations
Depth:
SPT Field Value:
Fines Content:
Unit Weight:
Infl. Thickness:
Can Liquefy:
16 14
15 16
33 43
34 33
50 33
50 33
50 33
50 33
Fines
Content
(%)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Unit
Weight
(Pd.)
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
120.00
Infl. Can
Thickness Liquefy
(ft)
4.00 2.00
2.00 4.50
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
2.00 1.50
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Depth at which test was performed (ft)
Number of blows per foot
Fines content at test depth (%)
Unit weight at test depth (pcf)
Thickness of the soil layer to be considered in settlements analysis (ft) User defined switch for excluding/including test depth from the analysis procedure :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
Depth SPT Unit Q, ub
(ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf)
Value (pcf)
3.00 16 120.00 0.18 0.00
5.00 14 120.00 0.30 0.00
7.50 15 120.00 0.45 0.00
10.00 16 120.00 0.60 0.00
15.00 33 120.00 0.90 0.00
20.00 43 120.00 1.20 0.00
25.00 34 120.00 1.50 0.00
30.00 33 120.00 1.80 0.00
35.00 50 120.00 2.10 0.00
40.00 33 120.00 2.40 0.00
45.00 50 120.00 2.70 0.00
50.00 33 120.00 3.00 0.00
55.00 50 120.00 3.30 0.00
60.00 33 120.00 3.60 0.00
65.00 50 120.00 3.90 0.00
66.50 33 120.00 3.99 0.00
a'V0 m
(tsf)
0.18 0.38
0.30 0.40
0.45 0.40
0.60 0.40
0.90 0.29
1.20 0.26
1.50 0.28
1.80 0.28
2.10 0.26
2.40 0.31
2.70 0.26
3.00 0.33
3.30 0.26
3.60 0.35
3.90 0.26
3.99 0.36
CN CE
Co CR C5 (N1)60 FC A(N1)eo (Ni)6o. CRR7.5
(%)
1.70 1.00 1.15 0.75 1.28 30 0.00 0.00 30 4.000
1.65 1.00 1.15 0.75 1.26 25 0.00 0.00 25 4.000
1.41 1.00 1.15 0.80 1.24 24 0.00 0.00 24 4.000
1.26 1.00 1.15 0.85 1.24 24 0.00 0.00 24 4.000
1.05 1.00 1.15 0.85 1.30 44 0.00 0.00 44 4.000
0.97 1.00 1.15 0.95 1.30 59 0.00 0.00 59 4.000
0.91 1.00 1.15 0.95 1.30 44 0.00 0.00 44 4.000
0.86 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 42 0.00 0.00 42 4.000
0.83 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 62 0.00 0.00 62 4.000
0.78 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 38 0.00 0.00 38 4.000
0.78 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 58 0.00 0.00 58 4.000
0.71 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 35 0.00 0.00 35 4.000
0.74 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 55 0.00 0.00 55 4.000
0.65 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 32 0.00 0.00 32 4.000
0.71 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 53 0.00 0.00 53 4.000
0.62 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.30 31 0.00 0.00 31 4.000
LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-327
Page: 9
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
Depth SPT Unit a, uo a'vo m CN CE CB CR Cs (N1)60 FC A(N1)6o (N1)60c. CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%)
Value (pcf)
Abbreviations
ay:
u0:
dvo :
m:
CN:
CE:
CB:
Ca:
C5:
N1(60):
O(N1)60
N1(5Q)CS:
CRR7.5:
Total stress during SPT test (tsf)
Water pore pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure during SPT test (tsf)
Stress exponent normalization factor
Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSar to a 60% energy ratio
Equivalent clean sand adjustment
Corected Ni(60) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::
Depth Unit %,eq uo,eq Qrvo,eq
(ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf)
(pcf)
rd a CSR MSFinax (N1)60,5 MSF CSReq,M=7.s Ksigma CSR* FS
3.00 120.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.572 2.00 30 1.00 0.572 1.10 0.520 2.000 •
5.00 120.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.569 1.72 25 1.00 0.569 1.10 0.517 2.000 •
7.50 120.00 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.99 1.00 0.565 1.67 24 1.00 0.565 1.10 0.514 2.000 •
10.00 120.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.98 1.00 0.561 1.67 24 1.00 0.561 1.09 0.516 2.000 •
15.00 120.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.552 2.20 44 1.00 0.552 1.05 0.527 2.000 •
20.00 120.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 0.95 1.00 0.542 2.20 59 1.00 0.542 0.96 0.563 2.000 0
25.00 120.00 1.50 0.00 1.50 0.93 1.00 0.531 2.20 44 1.00 0.531 0.90 0.592 2.000 0
30.00 120.00 1.80 0.00 1.80 0.91 1.00 0.519 2.20 42 1.00 0.519 0.84 0.616 2.000 0
35.00 120.00 2.10 0.00 2.10 0.89 1.00 0.507 2.20 62 1.00 0.507 0.80 0.636 2.000 0
40.00 120.00 2.40 0.00 2.40 0.86 1.00 0.494 2.20 38 1.00 0.494 0.76 0.652 2.000 •
45.00 120.00 2.70 0.00 2.70 0.84 1.00 0.481 2.20 58 1.00 0.481 0.72 0.665 2.000 0
50.00 120.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.82 1.00 0.468 2.20 35 1.00 0.468 0.73 0.645 2.000 •
55.00 120.00 3.30 0.00 3.30 0.80 1.00 0.455 2.20 55 1.00 0.455 0.66 0.686 2.000 0
60.00 120.00 3.60 0.00 3.60 0.77 1.00 0.443 2.12 32 1.00 0.443 0.73 0.610 2.000 0
65.00 120.00 3.90 0.00 3.90 0.75 1.00 0.431 2.20 53 1.00 0.431 0.62 0.700 2.000 •
66.50 120.00 3.99 0.00 3.99 0.75 1.00 0.427 2.06 31 1.00 0.427 0.72 0.595 2.000 0 Abbreviations
av,eq:
dvo,eq:
rd:
a:
CSR:
MSF:
CSReq,M=7.5:
Ksigma:
CSR*:
FS:
*** User FS:
Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Improvement factor due to stone columns
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted (user FS applied)***
Calculated factor of safety against soil liquefaction
1.00 :: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth FS F wz Thickness IL
(ft) (ft)
3.00 2.000 0.00 9.54 2.00 0.00
LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-328
Page: 10
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth FS F wz Thickness IL
(ft) (ft)
5.00 2.000 0.00 9.24 2.00 0.00
7.50 2.000 0.00 8.86 2.50 0.00
10.00 2.000 0.00 8.48 2.50 0.00
15.00 2.000 0.00 7.71 5.00 0.00
20.00 2.000 0.00 6.95 5.00 0.00
25.00 2.000 0.00 6.19 5.00 0.00
30.00 2.000 0.00 5.43 5.00 0.00
35.00 2.000 0.00 4.67 5.00 0.00
40.00 2.000 0.00 3.90 5.00 0.00
45.00 2.000 0.00 3.14 5.00 0.00
50.00 2.000 0.00 2.38 5.00 0.00
55.00 2.000 0.00 1.62 5.00 0.00
60.00 2.000 0.00 0.86 5.00 0.00
65.00 2.000 0.00 0.09 5.00 0.00
66.50 2.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Overall potential IL : 0.00
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::
Depth (N1)60 Tav P Gmax a b Y EIS Nc £Nc Epic Ah AS
(ft) (tsf) weight (%) (ft) (in)
factor
3.00 30 0.10 0.12 0.48 0.13 22770.45 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.95 0.21 4.00 0.099
5.00 25 0.17 0.20 0.59 0.13 16759.55 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.92 0.36 2.00 0.087
7.50 24 0.25 0.30 0.71 0.14 13140.37 0.01 0.00 15.16 0.88 0.42 2.00 0.100
10.00 24 0.34 0.40 0.82 0.14 11057.18 0.01 0.00 15.16 0.83 0.42 4.50 0.225
15.00 44 0.50 0.60 1.23 0.15 8669.41 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.75 0.08 5.00 0.049
20.00 59 0.65 0.80 1.56 0.16 7295.02 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.67 0.04 5.00 0.025
25.00 44 0.80 1.00 1.58 0.16 6380.88 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.58 0.09 5.00 0.051
30.00 42 0.93 1.21 1.71 0.17 5719.68 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.50 0.10 5.00 0.057
35.00 62 1.06 1.41 2.10 0.18 5214.39 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.42 0.04 5.00 0.023
40.00 38 1.19 1.61 1.91 0.19 4812.92 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.33 0.12 5.00 0.069
45.00 58 1.30 1.81 2.33 0.19 4484.53 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.25 0.04 5.00 0.027
50.00 35 1.41 2.01 2.07 0.20 4209.81 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.17 0.13 5.00 0.078
55.00 55 1.50 2.21 2.53 0.21 3975.82 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.08 0.05 5.00 0.028
60.00 32 1.59 2.41 2.20 0.22 3773.58 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.00 0.15 5.00 0.088
65.00 53 1.68 2.61 2.71 0.23 3596.63 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.00 0.05 2.00 0.012
66.50 31 1.70 2.67 2.30 0.23 3547.74 0.00 0.00 15.16 0.00 0.15 1.50 0.027 LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-329
Page: 11
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Vertical settlements estimation for dry sands ::
Depth (N1)60 Tav
(ft)
P Gmax u
(tsf)
Abbreviations
Tav: Average cyclic shear stress
p: Average stress
Gmax: Maximum shear modulus (tsf)
a, b: Shear strain formula variables
y: Average shear strain
£15: Volumetric strain after 15 cycles
Nc: Number of cycles
ENc: Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Ah: Thickness of soil layer (in)
AS: Settlement of soil layer (in)
b Y £l5 Nc
£Nc £Nc Ah
weight (%) (ft)
factor
Cumulative settlemetns: 1.047
AS
(in)
LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-104 Rancho Mirage Apartments.lsys
12-330
Page: 12
References
• Ronald D. Andrus, Hossein Hayati, Nisha P. Mohanan, 2009. Correcting Liquefaction Resistance for Aged Sands Using Measured to Estimated Velocity Ratio, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6, June 1 • Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF
CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS • Dipl.-Ing. Heinz J. Priebe, Vibro Replacement to Prevent Earthquake Induced Liquefaction, Proceedings of the Geotechnique- Colloquium at Darmstadt, Germany, on March 19th, 1998 (also published in Ground Engineering, September 1998), Technical paper 12-57E
• Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at http://www.geologismiki.gr/
• Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833
• Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
• Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871 • Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake -Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368
• R. Kayen, R. E. S. Moss, E. M. Thompson, R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, A. Der Kiureghian, Y. Tanaka, K. Tokimatsu, 2013. Shear - Wave Velocity —Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 3, March 1 LiqSVs 2.3.2.9 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software MI
APPENDIX E
PER COLA TION /INFILTRATION
1 PETRA 12_5332-
Boring/Test Number: P-1
Total Depth of Boring, DT (ft):
10 Test Date:
2/16/2024
Diameter of Hole, D (in):
8 Tested By:
KTM
Diameter of Casing, d (in):
3 USCS Soil Type:
SP
Depth of Slotted Casing (ft):
5 to 10
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
9 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.42 Ground Elevation (msl ft):
282
Depth from Existing Ground Surface to Bottom of Prop. Inflitration System (ft):
10 SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST
Trial Time
Interval
No. At (min.) Initial, Do (ft.) Final, DI • (ft.)
Depth to Water, D,
Change in
Water Level
AD (in.)
Change in Height of Water
Greater Than or Equal to
6"? (Yes/No)*
1 25 8.75 10 15
2 25 8.85 10 13.8
Standard Time Interval Between Readings (min.), [* if yes = 10, if no = 30]:
yes
yes
30 PERCOLATION TEST
Trial Time
Interval
No. At (min.) Initial, Do (ft.) Final, Df (ft.)
Depth to Water, D.
Change in
Water Level
AH (in.)
Percolation Rate
(min/in.) (gal/day/ftA2)
10 8.10
10.00 22.80
0.44 153.21
2 3
4 5
6 10
10 10
10 10
8.00 8.05
8.00 7.80
7.75 10.00
10.00 10.00
10.00 9.95
24.00 23.40
24.00 26.40
26.40 0.42
0.43 0.42
0.38 0.38
154.37
153.80
154.37
156.40
150.46
i
TEST RESULTS**
Inflitration Rate [Porchet Method]#
(inches/hour)
Percolation Rate
(min/in.) 1 (gal/day/ft^2)
13.40 1 0.38 I 150.46
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
existing
ground
surface
1 1
D.N
Dt.
**Raw Results. Does Not
Include a Factor of Safety
FACTOR OF SAFETY
Testing Option
Testing Requirements
Factor of Safety
per Reference
Option 2 4 tests minimum with at least two borings per basin 3 4 Where Infiltration Rate, It = AH (60r) / At (r + 2Havg) r=D/2
Ho=DT - Do
}if DT - Df.
AH=AD=He - Hr
Reference: Hayg = (Ho+ Hf) / 2
RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LID, dated September, 2011 PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K
Costa Mesa, California 92626
PHONE: (714) 549-8921
COSTA MESA TEMECULA LOS ANGELES PALM DESERT CORONA ESCONDIDO
PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY
Key Largo Avenue
Rancho Mira e, Riverside County, CA
44 PETRA DATE: Feb. , 2024 Appendix
GEOSCIENCES,,, J.N.: 24-104 1 E
12-333
Boring/Test Number: P-2
Total Depth of Boring, DT (ft):
9.9 Test Date:
2/16/2024
Diameter of Hole, D (in):
8 Tested By:
KTM
Diameter of Casing, d (in):
3 USCS Soil Type:
SP
Depth of Slotted Casing (ft):
5 to 10
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
9 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.42 Ground Elevation (msl ft):
282
Depth from Existing Ground Surface to Bottom of Prop. Inflitration System (ft):
10 SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST
Trial Time
Interval
No. At (min.) Initial, Do (ft.) Final, Df (ft.)
Depth to Water, D,
Change in
Water Level
AD (in.)
Change in Height of Water
Greater Than or Equal to
6"? (Yes/No)*
1 25 8.35 9.9 18.6
2 25 8.00 9.9 22.8
Standard Time Interval Between Readings (min.), [* if yes = 10, if no = 30]:
yes
yes
30 PERCOLATION TEST
Trial Time
Interval
No. At (min.) Initial, Do (ft.) Final, Df (ft.)
Depth to Water, D.
Change in
Water Level
AH (in.)
Percolation Rate
(min/in.) (gal/day/ftA2)
10 8.25
9.90 19.80
0.51 149.83
2 3
4 5
6 10
10 10
10 10
7.90 7.75
7.50 7.40
7.40 9.90
9.90 9.90
9.80 9.80
24.00 25.80
28.80 28.80
28.80 0.42
0.39 0.35
0.35 0.35
154.37
155.92
158.13
147.35
147.35
TEST RESULTS**
Inflitration Rate [Porchet Method]#
(inches/hour)
Percolation Rate
(min/in.) 1 (gal/day/ft^2)
13.06 1 0.35 I 147.35
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
existing
ground
surface
1 1
D.N
Dt.
**Raw Results. Does Not
Include a Factor of Safety
FACTOR OF SAFETY
Testing Option
Testing Requirements
Factor of Safety
per Reference
Option 2 4 tests minimum with at least two borings per basin 3 4 Where Infiltration Rate, It = AH (60r) / At (r + 2Havg) r=D/2
Ho=DT - Do
HT- DT - Df.
AH=AD=He - Hr
Reference: Hayg = (Ho+ Hf) / 2
RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LID, dated September, 2011 PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
3186 Airway Avenue, Suite K
Costa Mesa, California 92626
PHONE: (714) 549-8921
COSTA MESA TEMECULA LOS ANGELES PALM DESERT CORONA ESCONDIDO
PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY
Key Largo Avenue
Rancho Mira e, Riverside County, CA
44 PETRA DATE: Feb. , 2024 Appendix
GEOSCIENCES,,, J.N.: 24-104 1 E
12-334
APPENDIX F
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1 PETRA 1 2 _3o35
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist of record (Geotechnical Consultant).
I. GENERAL
A. The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or Builder's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Geotechnical Consultant includes that observation performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist signing the soils report.
B. The contractor should prepare and submit to the Owner and Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork to be performed prior to the commencement of grading.
This work plan should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to schedule personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing as necessary.
C. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor in accordance with the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report and under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant.
D. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Geotechnical Consultant.
E. It is the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction to project specifications. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year.
F. After completion of grading a report will be submitted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
II. SITE PREPARATION
A. Clearing and Grubbing
1. All vegetation such as trees, brush, grass, roots, and deleterious material shall be disposed of offsite. This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill.
2. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, etc., are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
12-336
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
III. FILL AREA PREPARATION
A. Remedial Removals/Overexcavations
1. Remedial removals, as well as overexcavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Remedial removal depths presented in the geotechnical report and shown on the geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal should be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the conditions exposed during grading. All soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic -rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant.
2. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3. Should potentially hazardous materials be encountered, the Contractor should stop work in the affected area. An environmental consultant specializing in hazardous materials should be notified immediately for evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing work in the affected area.
B. Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide sufficient survey control for determining locations and elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
C. Processing
After the ground surface to receive fill has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant, it shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the ground surface is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
D. Subdrains
Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, and/or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given on Plate SG -1).
E. Cut/Fill & Deep Fill/Shallow Fill Transitions
In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut/fill and deep fill/shallow fill transition lots, the cut and shallow fill portions of the lot should be overexcavated to the depths and the horizontal limits discussed in the approved geotechnical report and replaced with compacted fill. (Typical details are given on Plate SG -7.)
12-337
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
IV. COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL
A. General
Materials excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material to be used for fill shall be essentially free of organic material and other deleterious substances. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill.
Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
B. Oversize Materials
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches in diameter, shall be taken offsite or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal (Typical details for Rock Disposal are given on Plate SG -4).
Rock fragments less than 12 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill provided, they are not nested or placed in concentrated pockets; they are surrounded by compacted fine grained soil material and the distribution of rocks is approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
C. Laboratory Testing
Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant as soon as possible.
D. Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material should meet the requirements of the previous section. The import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 2 working days prior to importing so that appropriate tests can be performed and its suitability determined.
V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
A. Fill Layers
Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer.
The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
12-338
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
B. Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture content.
C. Compaction
Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D 1557- 02, will be used.)
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to received fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report.
D. Failing Areas
If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
E. Benching
All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.
VI. SLOPES
A. Fill Slopes
The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure that produces the required compaction.
B. Side Hill Fills
The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG -5.) C. Fill -Over -Cut Slopes
Fill -over -cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soils prior to placing fill. (see detail on Plate SG -6).
12-339
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
D. Landscaping
All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the soils report.
E. Cut Slopes
1. The Geotechnical Consultant should observe all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet.
2. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Plates SG -2 and SG -3.).
3. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non -erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
4. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies.
5. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.
VII. GRADING OBSERVATION
A. General
All cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Consultant when such areas are ready.
B. Compaction Testing
Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of grading. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultants discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations may be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be susceptible to inadequate compaction.
C. Frequency of Compaction Testing
In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved.
12-340
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
VIII. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
A. Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls.
B. Upon completion of grading and termination of observations by the Geotechnical Consultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Consultant.
C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.
S:\!BOILERS-WORK\REPORT INSERTS \ STANDARD GRADING SPECS
12-341
COMPETENT NATIVE SOIL
OR BEDROCK MATERIALS
AS DETERMINED BY THE
SUBDRAIN SYSTEM -
. 9 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAL FOOT
y. OF OPEN -GRADED GRAVEL
:' ✓ . ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC.
SEE PLATE SG -3 FOR OPEN-
GRADED GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS.
>� a FILTER FABRIC SHALL CONSIST
OF MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC
SHOULD BE LAPPED A MINIMUM
OF 12 INCHES.
c, t ALTERNATE SUBDRAIN SYSTEM -
MINIMUM OF 9 CUBIC FEET PER
LINEAL FOOT OF CLASS 2 FILTER
MATERIAL. SEE PLATE SG -3 FOR
CLASS 2 FILTER MATERIAL
SPECIFICATIONS. CLASS 2
MA I EHIAL DOES NOT NEED TO BE
ENCASED IN FIL I ER FABRIC.
MINIMUM 6 -INCH DIAMETER PVC SCHEDULE 40, OR ABS SDR-35 WITH A MINIMUM OF EIGHT 1/4 -INCH DIAMETER PERFORATIONS PER LINEAL FOOT IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. PIPE TO BE LAID WITH PERFORATIONS FACING DOWN.
NOTES:
1. FOR CONTINUOUS RUNS IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET USE 8 -INCH DIAMETER PIPE.
2. FINAL 20 FEET OF PIPE AT OUTLET SHALL BE NON -PERFORATED AND BACKFILLED WITH FINE-GRAINED MATERIAL.
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAX. INTERVALS.
EXTEND 12" BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF
ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE
GRATES TO PREVENT RODENT NESTING.
FINISHED
GRADE
2' MIN. KEY DEPTH INTO COMPETENT
BEDROCK OR COMPETENT SOIL
MATERIALS AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
15' MINIMUM
KEY WIDTH
PROPOSED GRADE
OVEREXCAVATE PAD
AS RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ic 15' MINIMUM ��
TO TOP OF BACKCUT
4' NON -PERFORATED SUBDRAIN
NOTES:
1. 30' MAXIMUM VERTICAL SPACING BETWEEN SUBDRAIN SYSTEMS.
2. IOU MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN NON -PERFORATED OUTLET PIPES. (See Below)
3. MINIMUM GRADIENT OF 2% FOR ALL PERFORATED AND NON -PERFORATED PIPE.
SECTION A -A (PERFORATED PIPE PROFILE)
100' max.
OUTLET PIPE (TYPICAL)
-50'
50'
PERFORATED PIPE (TYPICAL)
OUTLET PIPE (TYPICAL)
BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION
FILL DETAIL
2-T4
S=2
SLOPE FACE
12" min.
14-12" min.-
-INCH NON -PERFORATED PIPE.
MINIMUM 2% GRADE TO OUTLET.
APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL (OPEN -
GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC OR CLASS 2 FILTER MATERIAL).
5 CUBIC FEET OF CLASS 2 FILTER
MATERIAL, WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC.
-OR-
3 CUBIC FEET OF OPEN -GRADED GRAVEL
PER LINEAR FOOT WITH FILTER FABRIC.
FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONSIST OF
MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT, AND
SHOULD BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF
12 INCHES
4 -INCH PERFORATED PIPE WITH
PERFORATIONS DOWN. MINIMUM
2% GRADE TO OUTLET PIPE.
APPROVED ON -SITE MATERIAL PER SOILS ENGINEER
I COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90% MAXIMUM DENSITY.
4 -INCH NON -PERFORATED PIPE
SECTION B -B (OUTLET PIPE)
PIPE SPECIFICATIONS:
1. 4 -INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR ABS SDR-35.
2. FOR PERFORATED PIPE, MINIMUM 8 PERFORATIONS PER FOOT ON BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE.
OPEN -GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC.
(MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT)
SEEN -GRADED GRAVEL
SIEVE SIZE PERG NT PASSING
1 1/2 -INCH 88 - 100
1 -INCH 5 - 40
3/4 -INCH 0 - 17
3/8 -INCH 0 - 7
No.200 0-3
ALTERNATE:
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL PER CALTRANS
STANDARD SPECIFICATION 68-1.025.
CLASS 2 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
T
BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION
FILL SUBDRAIN
1 _P T4SG-3
FINISHED GRADE
WINDROW COMPACTED FILL
SLOPE FACE
10' CLEAR AREA FOR FOUNDATIONS,
UTILITIES AND SWIMMING POOLS
NOTE: OVERSIZE ROCK IS DEFINED AS CLASTS HAVING A MAXIMUM DIMENSION OF 12" OR LARGER 15'
•
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (END VIEW)
GRANULAR SOIL JE I I ED OR FLOODED
TO FILL VOIDS
STREET
5' OR MIN. OF 2' BELOW DEPTH
OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (PROFILE VIEW)
Jt I I ED OR FLOODED GRANULAR SOIL
T
TYPICAL ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
1 2-
stTSG-4
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
PLACE COMPACTED
FILL TO NATURAL
SLOPE GRADE
EXISTING
GROUND
SURFACE
w�.
PROPOSED GRADE
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
• 15' MINIMUM
KEY WIDTH
•
2' MIN. KEY DEPTH INTO COMPETENT
BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS AS
DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
COMPACTED FILL .
TYPICAL BENCHING
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS
AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
MAINTAIN 15' MIN. HORIZONTAL WIDTH
FROM SLOPE FACE TO BENCH I BACKCUT
NOTES:
1. WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY; HOWEVER, FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL.
2. SOILS ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF SUBDRAIN IS REQUIRED.
T
FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE
1 2 -a SG -5
CUT / FILL CONTACT
SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
SHOWN ON AS -BUILT
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NATURAL GROUND
SURFACE
PROPOSED GRADE
15' MINIMUM
KEY WIDTH
of -
4' TYP.
VARIABLE
'1O' TYPICAL',';:
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS.',
AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
MAINTAIN 15' MIN. HORIZONTAL WIDTH
FROM SLOPE FACE TO BENCH I BACKCUT
INSTALLATION OF SUBDRAIN TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT.
1F REQUIRED, SEE PLATES SG -2 AND SG -3
FOR TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DETAILS.
THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED ,
AND EVALUATED BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PRIOR ,.
TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION OF THE SLOPE.
FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE
1 2-47 SG -6
CUT LOT
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT PAD
ORIGINAL GROUND
SURFACE
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
(D) or
, MIN.
t
1 .,-
�' PROPOSED GRADE
GOLLUV1'
ALLUVIUM
W�A.�ERF
(D) or
5' MIN.
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS
AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
CUT -FILL TRANSITION LOT
ORIGINAL GROUND
SURFACE
PROPOSED GRADE
111111111 1111•111•1•0111.1
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS •:',
AS DETERMINED BY THE
: GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
,TYPICAL BENCHING
5'
MIN. `J
MAXIMUM FILL THICKNESS (F) DEPTH OF OVEREXCAVATION (D)
FOOTING DEPTH TO 3 FEET EQUAL DEPTH
3 TO 6 FEET 3 FEET
GREATER THAN 6 FEET 1/2 THE THICKNESS OF DEEPEST FILL PLACED WITHIN THE "FILL" PORTION (F) TO 15 FEET MAXIMUM
CUT LOTS AND CUT -FILL
TRANSITION LOTS
_14-1A SG -7
D = RECOMMENDED DEPTH OF REMOVAL
PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
PROPOSED 2:1 FILL SLOPE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING INTO
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
SOIL MATERIALS AS
DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT •
DESIRED REMOVAL
LIMITS BEYOND TOE
15' MINIMUM KEY WIDTH
EMBEDDED A MINIMUM OF 2' .'
INTO COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR SOIL MATERIALS AS
-; DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
2D
T
TYPICAL REMOVALS BEYOND TOE
OF PROPOSED FILL SLOPE
,b_3aT1sG-a
PROPOSED CUT LOT
NOTE:
1. "D" SHALL BE 10 FEET MINIMUM OR AS DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER. .:„INSTALL 4 -INCH SUBDRAIN.�
. `.SEE PLATES SG -2 AND SG -3
FOR TYPICAL SUBDRAIN
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
PROPOSED DAYLIGHT CUT
RECONSTRUCT AT 2:1
OR FLATTER
NW PET
SHEAR KEY ON DAYLIGHT CUT LOTS
PLATE SG -9
NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL
H
Sloped or level ground surface
Compacted on -site soil
Recommended backcut*
Waterproofing compound
Install subdrain system
h*
H/3 Minimum 12 -inch -wide column of 3/4" - 1 1/2"
open graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric.
Filter fabric (should consist of
Mirafi 140N or equivalent)
-.4 inch perforated pipe. Perforated pipe should
consist of 4" diameter ABS SDR-35 or PVC
Schedule 40 or approved equivalent with the
perforations laid down. Pipe should be laid on
at least 2 inches of open -graded gravel.
* Vertical height (h) and slope angle
of backcut per soils report. Based
on geologic conditions, configuration
of backcut may require revisions
(i.e. reduced vertical height,
revised slope angle, etc.)
PETRA
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
AND SUBDRAIN DETAILS
FIGURE RW-1
12-351
IMPORTED SAND BACKFILL
Sloped or level ground surface
On -site native soil cap
`.: '. . uc n ;'.1 •: .:: . (12" thick)
Non -expansive imported
sand, SE>30.
Waterproofing compound
Install subdrain system
1 cubic foot per foot min. of 3/4" - 1 1/2"
open graded gravel wrapped in filter
fabric.
Filter fabric (should consist of
Mirafi 140N or equivalent).
1). c r
4 inch perforated pipe. Perforated pipe should
} consist of 4" diameter ABS SDR-35 or PVC
� Schedule 40 or approved equivalent with the
perforations laid down. Pipe should be laid on
at least 2 inches of open -graded gravel.
* At base of wall, the non -expansive
backfill materials should extend to a
min. distance of 2' or to a horizontal
distance equal to the heel width of
the footing, whichever is greater.
PETRA
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
AND SUBDRAIN DETAILS
FIGURE RW-2
5 IMPORTED GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK BACKFILL
Sloped or level ground surface
On -site native soil cap
(12" thick)
Non -expansive imported
/ gravel or crushed rock
1� Install filter fabric (Mirafi 140N
or equal) to prevent migration
of fines into backfill.
_ _ 4 inch perforated pipe. Perforated pipe should
if consist of 4" diameter ABS SDR-3b or PVC
Schedule 40 or approved equivalent with the
perforations laid down. If pea gravel used,
pipe should be encased in 1 cubic foot per
foot min. of 3/4" - 1 1/2" open -graded gravel
wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equal)
Pipe should be laid on at least 2 inches of
gravel.
* At base of wail, the non -expansive
backfill materials should extend to a
min. distance of 2' or to a horizontal
distance equal to the heel width of
the footing, whichever is greater.
i PETRA
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
AND SUBDRAIN DETAILS
FIGURE RW-3
Appendix E
Traffic Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis City of Rancho Mirage 105
12-354
URBAN C
BOSS
ROA3S
VIA VAIL VILLAGE
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY:
Janette Cachola
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
John Kain, AICP
1 [email protected]
1 [email protected]
1 [email protected]
Reference Number
Agency
Date
15868-04 TA Report.docx
City of Rancho Mirage
May 2'! , 202
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Appendices
List of Exhibits iv
List of Tables v
List of Abbreviated Terms vi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Summary of Findings 1
1.2 Analysis Scenarios 3
1.3 Study Area 3
1.4 Circulation Improvements 5
2 Methodologies 7
2.1 Level of Service 7
2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis 7
2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology 9
2.4 Minimum Level of Service (LOS) 10
2.5 Deficiency Criteria 10
3 Existing Conditions 11
3.1 Existing Circulation Network 11
3.2 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element 11
3.3 Transit Service 11
3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 11
3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes 16
3.6 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis 16
3.7 Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis 18 4 Projected Future Traffic 21
4.1 Project Trip Generation 21
4.2 Project Trip Distribution 21
4.3 Modal Split 21
4.4 Project Trip Assignment 21
4.5 Cumulative Growth Traffic 25
5 EAP (2026) Traffic Conditions 29
5.1 Access Improvements 29
15868-04 TA Report.docx
12-356
5.2 EAP (2026) Traffic Volume Forecasts 29
5.3 EAP (2026) Intersection Operations Analysis 29
5.4 EAP (2026) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis 29 6 EAPC (2026) Traffic Conditions 33
6.1 EAPC (2026) Traffic Volume Forecasts 33
6.2 EAPC (2026) Intersection Operations Analysis 33
6.3 EAPC (2026) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis 33
6.4 Queueing Analysis 33
6.5 Contribution to Off -Site Improvements 36
7 Summary and Recommendations 39
7.1 Project Traffic 39
7.2 Traffic Analysis Results 39
7.3 Recommendations 39
8 References 43
15868-04 TA Report.docx
ii
12-357
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 3.1: Traffic Counts - April 2024
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.1: EAP (2026) Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.1: EAPC (2026) Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.2: EAPC (2026) Queueing Analysis Worksheets
15868-04 TA Report.docx
;Ii
12-358
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Preliminary Site Plan 2
Exhibit 1-2: Traffic Analysis Study Area 4
Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls 12 Exhibit 3-2: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element 13 Exhibit 3-3: City of Rancho Mirage City General Plan Cross -Sections 14 Exhibit 3-4: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 15 Exhibit 3-5: Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes 17
Exhibit 4-1: Project Trip Distribution 23
Exhibit 4-2: Project Only Traffic Volumes 24
Exhibit 4-3: Cumulative Development Location Map 26
Exhibit 5-1: EAP (2026) Traffic Volumes 30
Exhibit 6-1: EAPC (2026) Traffic Volumes 34
Exhibit 7-1: Project Access Roadway Concept Striping Plan 40 15868-04 TA Report.docx
iv
12-359
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations 3
Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection Description of LOS 8 Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection Description of LOS 9 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2024) Conditions 19 Table 4-1: Project Trip Generation Summary 22
Table 4-2: Cumulative Development Land Use Summary 27
Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for EAP (2026) Conditions 31 Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2026) Conditions 35 Table 6-2: Project Access Queueing Analysis for EAPC (2026) 37 15868-04 TA Report.docx
v
12-360
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CAMUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
DIF Development Impact Fee
DU Dwelling Unit
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
Project Via Vail Village
TA Traffic Analysis
TSF Thousand Square Feet
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
15868-04 TA Report.docx
vi
12-361
This page intentionally left blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
VII
12-362
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Via Vail Village ("Project"), which is located south of the future extension of Via Vail, east of Key Largo Avenue in the City of Rancho Mirage. The Project consists of 236 affordable apartment dwelling units. It is anticipated that the Project would be developed by year 2026. A preliminary site plan of the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 1-1.
The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project and recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This TA has been prepared based in accordance with the City of Rancho Mirage Transportation Analysis Policy (Revised February 18, 2021) and County of Riverside's Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020). (1) (2)
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Rancho Mirage's traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff. The scope provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1. Exhibit 1-2 shows the intersection analysis locations included in this study.
1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Project is proposed to have one full access and one emergency access along Via Vail. The Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,135 trip -ends per day with 85 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips.
For Existing (2024) conditions, the study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better).
For EAP (2026) and EAPC (2026), the study area intersections are estimated to continue operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better). Study area intersections without existing traffic signals are not anticipated to satisfy traffic signal warrants.
At the Project access location, improvements to Vial Vail as a local collector (60 feet of right-of-way width and 40 feet of curb -to -curb pavement width) are recommended for near term 2026 conditions as described in Chapter 7 of this report.
A queuing analysis was performed for EAPC (2026) conditions to assess the lane geometry at the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection (#2) and Via Vail / Project Entry intersection (#6). As shown in Table 6-2 of this report, the evaluated intersection lanes provide adequate storage to accommodate the anticipated 95th percentile peak hour traffic queues for cumulative conditions. 15868-04 TA Report.docx
1 12-363
URBAN I CROSSROADS
VIA VAIL
KEY LARGO AVENUE
LEGEND :
ff
= FUTURE ROADWAY
EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS PURPOSES, VIA VAIL IS ASSUMED TO BE EXTENDED SOUTHERLY BY OTHERS TO SERVE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
2 URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been evaluated for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2024) Conditions
• Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2026) • Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2026) All study area intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology.
1.2.1 EXISTING (2024) AND EAP (2026) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2024) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. For a detailed discussion on the existing traffic counts, see Section 3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes.
The EAP (2026) traffic conditions analyses determine potential traffic impacts based on a comparison of the EAP traffic conditions to Existing conditions. To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) is used. The EAP analysis is intended to identify "Opening Year" deficiencies associated with the development of the proposed Project based only on the ambient background growth.
1.2.2 EAPC (2026) CONDITIONS
The EAPC (2026) traffic scenario adds known cumulative developments as an overlay to ambient growth with the proposed Project. This scenario combines the traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects to an ambient growth factor from existing conditions to determine EAPC (2026) traffic conditions. The list of other projects in the area was included in the scope and reviewed by the City of Rancho Mirage.
1.3 STUDY AREA
Exhibit 1-2 presents the study area and intersection analysis locations. The Project study area was defined in coordination with the City of Rancho Mirage, and it includes any intersection of "Collector" or higher classification street, with "Collector" or higher classification streets at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. The study area intersections are listed in Table 1-1.
TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
# Intersection # Intersection
1 Key Largo Av. / Dinah Shore Dr.
4 Shoppers Ln. / Dinah Shore Dr.
2 Key Largo Av. / Via Vail 5 Monterey Av. / Dinah Shore Dr. 3 Miriam Wy. - George Montgomery / Dinah Shore Dr. 6 Via Vail / Project Entry 15868-04 TA Report.docx
3 12-365
URBAN CROSSROADS Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 1-2: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY AREA
VIA VAIL
O
KEY LARGO AV.
DINAH SHORE DR.
MIRIAM WY.
4 SITE
PROJECT
ENTRY --1©
FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS PURPOSES, VIA VAIL IS
ASSUMED TO BE EXTENDED SOUTHERLY BY OTHERS TO
SERVE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
SHOPPERS LN.
d
r
A "r?, e
wi
r
j
Ft
MONTEREY AV.
4 LEGEND:
Q = EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION
10 = FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION
= FUTURE ROADWAY/PROJECT ACCESS
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
4 12-366
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
1.4 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
The following recommendations achieve acceptable peak hour operations with full occupancy of the Project:
• Project shall construct Via Vail east of Key Largo Avenue to the Project southerly boundary as a 2 -lane local collector (60 feet of right-of-way width and 40 feet of curb -to -curb pavement width), with one travel lane westbound and one lane eastbound, as shown on Exhibit 7-1. • East of Key Largo Avenue, on -street bike lanes shall be provided to accommodate bicyclists and restrict on - street parking along Via Vail as it curves from an east -west alignment to a north -south alignment around the northeast edge of the Project site.
• A sidewalk should be provided along the south side of Via Vail east of Key Largo Avenue to the Project southerly boundary.
• At the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection (#2), east -west cross street stop sign controls are recommended. Crosswalks should be provided for north -south crossings on the west leg and east leg of the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection.
• At the Via Vail / Project Entry intersection (#6), cross street stop sign control is recommended with one outbound shared left -right lane. A crosswalk should be provided for north -south crossings on the west leg of the Via Vail / Project Entry intersection. Via Vail is estimated to operate effectively with one northbound shared left -through lane and one southbound shared through -right lane at the project entry. 15868-04 TA Report.docx
5 12-367
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
6 12-368
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
2 METHODOLOGIES
This section documents the methodologies and assumptions used to perform this traffic assessment.
2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free -flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop -and -go conditions.
LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.
2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (3) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.
2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rancho Mirage requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM (3). Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection's average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described in Table 2-1.
Study area intersections have been evaluated using the Synchro (Version 12) analysis software package.
Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections.
Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness in addressing such parameters as delay and queue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network. 15868-04 TA Report.docx
7 12-369
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
Description
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Average Control Delay Level of Service,
(Seconds), V/C <_ 1.0 V/C <_ 1.01
0 to 10.00 A
10.01 to 20.00 B
20.01 to 35.00 C
35.01 to 55.00 D
55.01 to 80.00 E
80.01 and up F
The City of Rancho Mirage requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. (3) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). At two-way or side -street stop -controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is reported for the worst individual movement at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. For all -way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole (average delay). 15868-04 TA Report.docx
8 12-370
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
Description
TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS Average Control Delay Level of Service,
(Seconds), V/C 50.00 F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
At two-way or side -street stop -controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all -way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole.
2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This focused TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), for all study area intersections. (5)
The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CAMUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (5) Specifically, this focused TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume -based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing study area intersections for all analysis scenarios. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection.
Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets.
15868-04 TA Report.docx
9 12-371
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed at the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection (#2) and the Via Vail / Project Entry intersection (#6).
The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Existing Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analysis for future conditions is presented Section 5 EAP (2026) Traffic Analysis, and Section 6 EAPC (2026) of this report.
It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.
2.4 MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Minimum Acceptable LOS and associated definitions of intersection deficiencies has been obtained from each of the applicable surrounding jurisdictions.
The City of Rancho Mirage's General Plan recommends a LOS standard of LOS D. If during the LOS evaluations an intersection or roadway segment is found to not meet the requisite LOS standard as established by the City's General Plan, improvement modifications will be evaluated to bring the forecasted deficiency to within acceptable LOS thresholds. It is assumed that for purposes of this Project that most facilities are built to ultimate and only in limited instances would additional improvements be needed. Improvements could include signal timing changes or other that could be achieved within the existing curb to curb distance of the intersection or roadway segment.
2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies. To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study intersection or roadway segment results in a traffic deficiency, the following thresholds will be utilized:
• A traffic deficiency occurs at a signalized study area intersection if the addition of project traffic results in the intersection operations to go from LOS "D" or better (i.e., acceptable) to LOS "E" or "F." • A traffic deficiency occurs at an unsignalized study area intersection if the addition of project traffic results in the intersection operations to go from LOS "D" or better (i.e., acceptable) to LOS "E" or "F." 15868-04 TA Report.docx
10 12-372
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations as well as traffic signal warrants.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Rancho Mirage staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 5 existing intersections as shown on Exhibit 1-2. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.
3.2 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Exhibit 3-2 shows the adopted City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element. Exhibit 3-3 shows the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan roadway cross -sections.
3.3 TRANSIT SERVICE
The City of Rancho Mirage is currently served by the SunLine Transit Agency (STA), a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions throughout Coachella Valley. Transit service is reviewed and updated by STA periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. It should also be noted that SunDial service provides special services for the disabled and seniors (60+).
STA Route 4 runs along Monterey Avenue north of Dinah Shore Drive and Dinah Shore Drive west of Monterey Avenue within the study area.
3.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
The existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-4. Sidewalks currently exist along the west side of Key Largo Avenue, along the south side of Via Vail west of Key Largo Avenue. On the south side of Dinah Shore Drive, sidewalks currently exist west of Key Largo Avenue and from west of Miriam Way to east of Monterey Avenue. On the north side of Dinah Shore Drive, sidewalks are currently provided from Miriam Way to east of Monterey Avenue.
Sidewalks are currently provided on Monterey Avenue, along Miriam Way, and along the west side of Shoppers Lane. Crosswalks currently exist at study area intersections with traffic signal controls.
On -street bike lanes exist on Dinah Shore Drive east of Monterey Avenue and on the west side of Monterey Avenue south of the shopping center entrance.
15868-04 TA Report.docx
11 12-373
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS 6D
KEY LARGO AV.
VIA VAIL
2U
DINAH SHORE DR.
6D
r
MIRIAM WY.
0 A lt-
J
Lu
W
r
0_
W
iZ 00
0 0 Ott
W
U 0
0 5
N\
U Z
\\\
� U
W 4
SITE
PROJECT
ENTRY ---
6D
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
4-YIELO
II fl t f t -
LEGEND:
6D
Q = INTERSECTION ID
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
-- = STOP SIGN
4 = NUMBER OF LANES
D = DIVIDED
U = UNDIVIDED
= FREE RIGHT TURN
DEF = DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE
YIELD = CHANNELIZED YIELD RIGHT TURN LANE
= FUTURE ROADWAY
MONTEREY AV.
50 15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
12 12-374
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT 0 Critical Intersections
City Roadways
Major Arterial (6D)
Minor Arterial (4D)
Minor Arterial (4D)
(Conceptual Alignment)
Major Collector (4D)
6D - Six -lane Divided Roadway
4D - Four -land divided Roadway
City Limits
— — Sphere of Influence
Sources: Riverside County, 2016; Esri World
magery, 2017.
0.5 1
Miles
Conceptual
Alignment
30th Ave
cc
m M
M
Ramon Rd
Frank Sinatra Dr
Conceptual
Alignment
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
13 12-375
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS -SECTIONS Major Arterial*
120'
7'
20'
12'
13' 16'
13'
12'
20'
7'
4'
12'
(Six Lanes divided, no parking)
*Highway 111 has special design geometries, See Rancho Mirage Highway 111 Alignment Study, 1996.
Minor Arterial
110'
17 6'
16'
13'
16'
13'
16'
6'
12'
12'
(Four Lanes divided, wlbike lane/no parking)
Major Collector
110'
12'
2'
12'
16'
12'
12'
12'
1 l inimmommommmr
(Four Lanes divided, w/bike lane/no parking)
Minor Collector
88'
(Four Lanes undivided, wlparking)
Local
60'
10'
8 12'
12'
(Two Lanes, wlparking)
8 10'
SOURCE: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
14 12-376
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 3-4: EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES DINAH SHORE DR.
MIRIAM WY.
:I
N
s.
zz
0 wa \ 1
SITE
I
PROJECT
ENTRY --14
SHOPPERS LN.
MONTEREY AV.
LEGEND:
= EXISTING SIDEWALK/PATH
■•••••■ = EXISTING CROSSWALK
= EXISTING ON -STREET BIKE LANES
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
15 12-377
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in April 2024.
The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.
The City of Rancho Mirage experiences seasonal population variations over the course of the year, with relatively higher populations during the winter months from January to the end of March. To compensate for the discrepancy, counts not taken during this peak winter period (January 2 to March 31) are subject to seasonal adjustments. A 5% increase is applied to counts taken in April to estimate peak season. This factor is consistent with other nearby jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley area.
The weekday AM and PM peak hour count data are representative of typical peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity that would prevent or limit roadway access and detour routes. These raw turning volumes have been flow conserved between intersections with limited access, no access and where there are currently no uses generating traffic.
Existing weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-5. Existing ADT volumes are based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg where daily counts are unavailable:
Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12.346 = Leg Volume For those roadway segments which have 24 -hour tube count data available in close proximity to the study area, a comparison between the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes indicated that the peak - to -daily relationship of approximately 8.10 percent would sufficiently estimate ADT volumes for planning -level analyses. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 12.346 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak -to -daily relationship of approximately
8.10 percent (i.e., 1/0.0820 = 12.346).
Existing weekday peak hour intersection volumes are also shown on Exhibit 3-5.
3.6 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. 15868-04 TA Report.docx
16 12-378
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
22.4 KEY LARGO AV.
VIA VAIL
1.3 1(n
700(848)-0-
32(26)—*
20(74)-4
0(0)-0-
4(8)—*
0 EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
(492(922)
85(37)
68(142)-4
509(659)-0.-
54(63)—s
DINAH SHORE DR.
22.2 4-0(0)
f0(0)
f-0(0)
r
LU
W
00 0th
W H
Z
0 SITE
II
PROJECT
ENTRY --1
4-117(188)
~525(604)
47(93)
268(574)-4
64(400)-0-
64(306)—t
20.7 26.3
LEGEND:
0 = INTERSECTION ID
4-10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
-- = FUTURE ROADWAY/PROJECT ACCESS
4-284(63[1
(239(372)
64(60)
>-
I-
0 2
w
n
N
M
23.4 15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
17 12-379
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3-1 which indicates that study area intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.
3.7 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. For Existing (2024) traffic conditions, the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection (#2) does not warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour traffic flows (see Appendix 3.3). 15868-04 TA Report.docx
18 12-380
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanese Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Key Largo Av. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 14.7 8.1 B A 2 Key Largo Av. / Via Vail CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.0 9.5 A A 3 Miriam Wy. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 4.1 18.8 A B 4 Shoppers Ln. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 24.9 45.4 C D 5 Monterey Av. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 2 3 0 2 3 1» 2 2 1 2 2 1 34.1 41.7 C D 6 Via Vail / Project Entry Future Intersection
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right lane; » = Free -Right Turn 3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 12 analysis software.
FI UXRjobsl_ 15600_ 160001_ 15800115868102_LOSIExcell(15868 - Reporcxlsx]3-1 19 12-381
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
20 12-382
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project's trip assignment onto the study area roadway network.
The Project consists of 236 affordable apartment dwelling units. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will be constructed in its entirety with a projected Opening Year of 2026.
The Project is proposed to have one full access and one emergency access along Via Vail.
4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.
Trip generation rates used to estimate Project traffic and a summary of the Project's trip generation are shown in Table 4-1. The trip generation rates are based upon trip -generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation , 11 th Edition, 2021 (3) for Affordable Housing (ITE Land Use Code 223). As shown on Table 4-1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,135 trip -ends per day with 85 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips.
4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The Project trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project are depicted on Exhibit 4-1.
4.3 MODAL SPLIT
Although the use of public transit, walking, and/or bicycling have the potential to reduce Project - related traffic, such reductions have not been taken into considerations in this traffic study to provide a conservative analysis of the Project's potential to contribute to circulation system deficiencies.
4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project.
Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project AM peak hour, and PM peak hour peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-2. 15868-04 TA Report.docx
21 12-383
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
Land Use
Affordable Housing
TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily
223 236 DU 0.10 0.26 0.36 0.27 0.19 0.46 4.81
Trip Generation Results
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Affordable Housing 223 236 DU 24 61 85 64 45 109 1,135
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). 2 DU = Dwelling Unit
F.iUXRjobsl_ 15600_ 160001_ 15800115868102_LO51Excell[15868 - ReportxlsxJ4-1 - TG 22 12-384
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
22 ZATA
r
5 KEY LARGO AV.
DINAH SHORE DR.
VIA VAC --
k.
N\
\
\\
wa \\,
SITE
PROJECT
ENTRY -
100 I
II
I�
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
= FUTURE ROADWAY/PROJECT ACCESS
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
23 12-385
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
0.3 KEY LARGO AV.
VIA VAIL
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
18(47)
DINAH SHORE DR.
0.8 0 0 `O 58(43)
X3(2)
f—o(o)
0(0)—
1(3)—"" 0 0 0
0(0)—
1.1 ce
L0
0 0 0 0
O 0 Z
Z
0 U Z
WQ \\
SITE \‘
PROJECT
ENTRY---
1.1 0.8
0 0
Z
LEGEND:
25(18)-4
3(2)—..-
12(9)—s
0.7 0(0)
~1(3)
-0(0)
O = INTERSECTION ID
—I0(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
NOM = NOMINAL. LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY
= FUTURE ROADWAY/PROJECT ACCESS
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
24 12-386
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
4.5 CUMULATIVE GROWTH TRAFFIC
4.5.1 AMBIENT GROWTH RATE
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 4.04 percent (2 percent per year over 2 years) for EAP and EAPC traffic conditions. The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area -wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects.
Ambient growth is added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications are actively underway.
4.5.2 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Rancho Mirage. Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the cumulative development locations.
A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-
2. If applicable, the traffic volumes generated by individual cumulative projects were manually added to the Opening Year Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects in Table 4-2 are reflected as part of the background traffic. 15868-04 TA Report.docx
25 12-387
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
LEGEND:
O = CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT ID
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
26 12-388
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
ID Project
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
Parcel 3 Residential
(south of Project along Via Vail)
Parcel 2 Residential
(south of Parcel 3 along Via Vail)
Rancho Monterey SP
Miragedunes Properties
Estilo
Rancho Mirage LLC
38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether
Companies
Land Use Quantity Units'
Affordable Apartments
Affordable Apartments
Multifamily Residential
Shopping Center
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
160
250
DU
DU
400 DU
150 TSF
9 DU
39 DU
4 DU
10 DU
8 9 DU
9 82 DU
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 RM 38 JV LLC
38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether
Companies
Monterey Medical Center
Falling Waters
Urban Crossings (UHC)
Ponderosa (75% built)
Santa Barbara Apartment
Vitalia/Refuge Residential
Portola Av./Frank Sinatra Dr. Residential
ED Rancho Mirage
Section 31 Specific Plan Project
TPM 34741
TTM 32308 (Los Ranchos)
TPM 36849
Residential
Residential
Medical Office
Single Family Detached Residential
Multifamily Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
Shopping Center
Multifamily Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
Multifamily Residential
Single Family Attached Residential
Multifamily Residential
Residential
Hotel
Commercial
Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
97 DU
75.164 TSF
159 DU
111 DU
114 DU
150 TSF
48 DU
248 DU
571 DU
150 DU
402 DU
354 DU
400 Rooms
175.0 TSF
1,932 DU
4 DU
7 DU
3 DU
15868-04 TA Report.docx
27 12-389
GRV Mirage, LLC (ECHO)
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
28 12-390
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
5 EAP (2026) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2026) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.
5.1 ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAP conditions are consistent with existing conditions shown previously on Exhibit 3-1. In addition, the Project driveway and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project's frontage and driveways) are also assumed to be in place.
5.2 EAP (2026) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
An ambient growth from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) is included for EAP traffic conditions. Cumulative development projects are not included as part of the EAP analysis. EAP traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 5-1.
5.3 EAP (2026) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5-1, which indicates that the study area intersections operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions are included in Appendix
5.1 of this TA.
5.4 EAP (2026) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for EAP (2026) traffic conditions are based on EAP peak hour intersection turning volumes and ADT volumes. For EAP (2026) traffic conditions, the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection (#2) and the Via Vail / Project Entry intersection (#6) are not anticipated to warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour traffic flows (see Appendix 3.3). 15868-04 TA Report.docx
29 12-391
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
23.5 KEY LARGO AV.
VIA VAIL
1.1 ---
-.-512(959)
106(85)
N T
N N
DINAH SHORE DR.
23.9 EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP (2026) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SITE
PROJECT I
ENTRY—=
1.1 11 I
II
—295(65ts)
(250(390)
67(62)
73(150)-4
570(715)
57(67)
304(615)-4
278(418)—.-
83(327)—t
22.4 28.1
LEGEND:
O = INTERSECTION ID
4--10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
—�-- = FUTURE ROADWAY/PROJECT ACCESS
a
I-
0 2
H
Vf
M
M
24.4 15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
30 12-392
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
1 2
3 4
5 6
TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2026) CONDITIONS Intersection
Key Largo Av. / Dinah Shore Dr.
Key Largo Av. / Via Vail
Miriam Wy. / Dinah Shore Dr.
Shoppers Ln. / Dinah Shore Dr.
Monterey Av. / Dinah Shore Dr.
Via Vail / Project Entry
TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right lane; » = Free -Right Turn; 1 = Improvement
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 12 analysis software.
FIUXRjobsl_ 15600_ 160001_ 75800115868102_LOSI Excell[15868 - Report.xlsxj5-1 Traffic Northbound
Control' L T R
TS 1 0 1
CSS 0.5 0.5 d
TS 1 1 0
TS 1 1 0
TS 2 3 0
CSS 0.5 0.5 0
Intersection Approach Lanese Delay3 Level of
Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service
L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 15.2 10.7 B B
0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 9.7 11.8 A B
1 1 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 4.4 21.6 A C
2 1 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 26.0 46.2 C D
2 3 1» 2 2 1 2 2 1 37.4 46.6 D D
0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 9.0 9.0 A A
31 12-393
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
32 12-394
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
6 EAPC (2026) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to evaluate Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2026) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.
6.1 EAPC (2026) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions are consistent with existing conditions shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, except for the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project's frontage and driveways).
• Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the cumulative development's frontages and driveways).
EAPC traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 6-1. Other known cumulative development projects in the study area are included in addition to 4.04% of ambient growth for EAPC traffic conditions plus traffic associated with the proposed Project.
6.2 EAPC (2026) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAPC peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1, which indicates that there are no intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project and cumulative traffic under EAPC conditions.
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC traffic conditions are included in Appendix
6.1 of this TA.
6.3 EAPC (2026) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions are based on EAPC peak hour intersection turning volumes and ADT volumes. For EAPC (2026) traffic conditions, there are no additional unsignalized study area intersections that are projected to warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour traffic flows and ADT volumes, in comparison to EAP conditions.
6.4 QUEUEING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was conducted at the Project Driveway and at the intersection of Key Largo Avenue at Via Vail for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions to evaluate the intersection lane geometrics which are recommended to accommodate cumulative 95th percentile peak hour traffic queues. 15868-04 TA Report.docx
33 12-395
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
27.2 KEY LARGO
VIA VAIL
M
N
DINAH SHORE DR.
29.2 o 0
1-160(117)
N m
3.1 53(99)
3(9)-
4(8)
x+08
�V_
n
EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2026) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
e
ai
SITE
PROJECT -
ENTRY�—=
1.1 II
4-130(201
--660(905)
53(99)
80(155)-4
740(909)-
62(70)
27.5 LEGEND:
386(673)-4
294(451)-.-
59(4431-*
33.1 0 = INTERSECTION ID
4--10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
-�-- = FUTURE ROADWAY/PROJECT ACCESS
4-309(68
--266(421)
f-68(63)
0 D
0 25.9
15868 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
34 12-396
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2026) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanese Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Key Largo Av. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 18.2 15.8 B B 2 Key Largo Av. / Via Vail CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 11.8 22.6 B C 3 Miriam Wy. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 6.6 25.0 A C 4 Shoppers Ln. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 3 0 1 3 1 27.1 46.6 C D 5 Monterey Av. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 2 3 0 2 3 1» 2 2 1 2 2 1 42.1 53.7 D D 6 Via Vail / Project Entry CSS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 9.9 10.3 A B 1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -street Stop
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right lane; » = Free -Right Turn; 1 = Improvement
3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 12 analysis software.
FI UXRjobsl_ 15600_ 160001_ 15800115868102_L051Excell[15868 - Report.xlsx]6-1 35 12-397
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
The analysis was conducted for the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours using the SimTraffic modeling software. Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 6-2 for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 6.2.
6.5 CONTRIBUTION TO OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The extension of Via Vail from the Project northwest boundary to Key Largo Avenue is recommended for access purposes, as discussed in Chapter 7 of this report. East of Key Largo Avenue, on -street bike lanes shall be provided to accommodate bicyclists and restrict on -street parking along Via Vail as it curves from an east -west alignment to a north -south alignment around the northeast edge of the Project site.
Project participation in other circulation system improvements will include fee payments to established programs (e.g., TUMF and City DIF).
15868-04 TA Report.docx
36 12-398
URBAN CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
TABLE 6-2: PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2026) CONDITIONS Storage 95th Percentile
# of Peak Hour Traffic Volume3 Length2 Queue Length (ft.)13 ID Intersection Movement Lanes AM PM Peak Volume (ft.) AM PM 2 Key Largo Av. / Via Vail
6 Via Vail / Project Entry
NB L/T 1 23 23 AM 23 >100 13 NOM
SB L/T 1 89 182 PM 182 >100 NOM 35
EB L/T/R 1 60 116 PM 116 >100 52 77
WB L/T/R 1 169 124 AM 169 >100 52 58
EB L/T/R
1 62 46 AM 62
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 100 = Existing length of storage; 100 = Proposed/Planned length of storage 3 NOM = Nominal, less than 5 feet.
F.1 UXRjobsl_ 15600_ 160001_ 15800115868102_LOSIExcell1-15868 - Report.xlsxj6-2 250
47 50
37 12-399
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
38 12-400
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,135 trip -ends per day with 85 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips. The Project is proposed to have one full access and one emergency access along Via Vail.
7.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
Traffic count data were collected in April 2024 during the AM peak period of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and PM peak period of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
For Existing (2024) conditions, the study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better).
For EAP (2026) and EAPC (2026), the study area intersections are estimated to continue operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better). Study area intersections without existing traffic signals are not anticipated to satisfy traffic signal warrants.
A queuing analysis was performed for EAPC (2026) conditions to assess the lane geometry at the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection (#2) and Via Vail / Project Entry intersection (#6). As shown in Table 6-2 of this report, the evaluated intersection lanes provide adequate storage to accommodate the anticipated 95th percentile peak hour traffic queues for cumulative conditions.
An assessment of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) associated with the Project has been prepared in a separate letter "Via Vail Village Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis" dated April 2, 2024.
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations achieve acceptable peak hour operations with full occupancy of the Project:
• Project shall construct Via Vail east of Key Largo Avenue to the Project southerly boundary as a 2 -lane local collector (60 feet of right-of-way width and 40 feet of curb -to -curb pavement width), with one travel lane westbound and one lane eastbound, as shown on Exhibit 7-1. • East of Key Largo Avenue, on -street bike lanes shall be provided to accommodate bicyclists and restrict on - street parking along Via Vail as it curves from an east -west alignment to a north -south alignment around the northeast edge of the Project site.
• A sidewalk should be provided along the south side of Via Vail east of Key Largo Avenue to the Project southerly boundary.
15868-04 TA Report.docx
39 12-401
URBAN CR OSSR OADS
15868 - 01 - Study A rea. dwg
EXHIBIT 7-1: PROJECT ACCESS ROADWAY CONCEPT STRIPING PLAN 40 Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
• At the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection (#2), east -west cross street stop sign controls are recommended. Crosswalks should be provided for north -south crossings on the west leg and east leg of the Key Largo Avenue / Via Vail intersection.
• At the Via Vail / Project Entry intersection (#6), cross street stop sign control is recommended with one outbound shared left -right lane. A crosswalk should be provided for north -south crossings on the west leg of the Via Vail / Project Entry intersection. Via Vail is estimated to operate effectively with one northbound shared left -through lane and one southbound shared through -right lane at the project entry.
On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at the project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Rancho Mirage sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
Project participation in other circulation system improvements will include fee payments to established programs (e.g., TUMF and City DIF).
15868-04 TA Report.docx
41 12-403
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
42 12-404
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
8 REFERENCES
1. Riverside County Transportation Department. Transportation Analysis Guideines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled. County of Riverside : s.n., December 2020.
2. City of Rancho Mirage. Transportation Analysis Policy. (Revised February 18, 2021).
3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition, 2021.
4. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2022.
5. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). 2014, Updated March 30, 2021 (Revision 6). 15868-04 TA Report.docx
43 12-405
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
44 12-406
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
APPENDIX 1.1: TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
15868-04 TA Report.docx
12-407
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
15868-04 TA Report.docx
12-408
URBAN CROSSROADS
April 2, 2024
Mr. Ryan Stendell
City of Rancho Mirage, Director of Public Works
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
15868-02 - Scope.docx
VIA VAIL VILLAGE TRAFFIC SCOPING LETTER AND VMT SCREENING SCOPE Dear Mr. Ryan Stendell:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this traffic analysis scope regarding the proposed Via Vail Village development ("Project"), which is located south of the future extension of Via Vail, east of Key Largo Avenue in the City of Rancho Mirage. It is our understanding that the project is to consist of 236 affordable apartment dwelling units.
The remainder of this letter describes the proposed analysis methodology, Project trip generation, trip distribution, and Project traffic assignment/project trips on the surrounding roadway network. The following scoping assumptions have been prepared in accordance with the City of Rancho Mirage Transportation Analysis Policy (Revised February 18, 2021) and County of Riverside's Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020).
A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1. For analysis purposes, occupancy of the Project is anticipated to occur in year 2026. The Project is proposed to have one full access and one emergency access along Via Vail.
TRIP GENERATION
In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip -generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) manual for the proposed land uses (223 - Affordable Housing) are utilized. Table 1 presents the trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project.
As shown in Table 1, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,135 trip -ends per day with 85 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips.
20341 SW Birch Street I Suite 230 V Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 660-1994 urbanxroads.com 12-409
URB AN CROSSROADS
VIA VAIL
KEY LARGO AVENUE
LEGEND :
= FUTURE ROADWAY
PROPERTY LINE
EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis
FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS PURPOSES, VIA VAIL IS ASSUMED TO BE EXTENDED SOUTHERLY BY OTHERS TO SERVE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. 15868 - Scope. dwg
1. 1-2
City of Rancho Mirage
April 2, 2024