Hydrologic Soil Group —Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
• r A
A/D
• B/D
✓ r C
r C/D
# D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
▪ A
O
■
•
A/D
B
B/D
O C
® C/D
S D
▪ Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
4--1-+ Rails
ti Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Aug 30, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 15, 2022 —May 28, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
We •"'-ey
National C p- i' .oil Survey
3/29/2024
Hydrologic Soil Group —Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
MaB
Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5
percent slopes
A
32.2 38.2%
MaD
Myoma fine sand, 5 to
15 percent slopes
A
52.2 61.8%
Totals for Area of Interest
84.4 100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/29/2024
709
Hydrologic Soil Group —Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Higher
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/29/2024
710
where:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH
METHOD HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
A. Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Development
1. On a USGS topographic quandrangle sheet or other map of suit- able scale, outline the proposed drainage system and outline the area or subareas tributary to it.
2. From the map of the drainage system, determine the following basin physical factors and enter them on Sheet 1 of Plate E-2.1.
A = Drainage area - square miles
L = Length of longest watercourse - miles
Lca = Length along the longest watercourse, measured
upstream to a point opposite the centroid of
the area - miles
H = Difference in elevation between the concentration
point and the most remote point of the basin -feet
S = Overall slope of longest watercourse between
headwaters and concentration point - feet per
mile (S = H/L)
3. Determine lag time using Plate E-3 or the following expression (See Sheet 1 of Plate E-2.1):
Lag (hours) = 24n L.Lcal (.38)
s1/2 �[
= The visually estimated mean of the n (Mannings
formula) values of all collection streams and
channels within the watershed.
4. Select a unit time period. To adequately define the unit hydro - graph the unit time period should be about 25 -percent of lag time, and never more than 40 -percent of lag time. For ease of calculation, the unit time should match the times for which pre- cipitation patterns are available (Plate E-5.9). Also see Sheet 1 of Plate E-2.1.
5. Utilizing the S -graph applicable to the drainage basin (Plates E-4.1 through E-4.4), determine the average percentage of the ultimate discharge for each unit period. In reading the percentage of discharge from the S -graph, the average ordinate over the time RCFC e► WCD
HYDROLOGY MANUAL
SYNTHETIC UNIT
HYDROGRAPH METHOD
INSTRUCTIONS
711
PLATE E-I.I (I of 6)
5. (continued)
increment should be determined rather than the mean of the ordinates at the beginning and end of the time increment. See Columns 16 and 17 of Plate E-2.2.
6. Compute the unit distribution graph by subtracting from the per- centage of ultimate discharge for each unit time period, the percentage of ultimate discharge for the previous time period.
See Column 18 of Plate E-2.2.
7. Compute the ordinates of the synthetic unit hydrograph (unit graph) by multiplying the distribution graph values by the ultimate discharge K, using:
K (cfs-hours/inch) = 645A
where:
A = Drainage area - square miles
See Column 19 of Plate E-2.2.
. Flood.Hydrograph Development
1. Determine the average point rainfall over the area for the storm duration and frequency desired using Plates E-5.1 through E-5.7.
Adjust the average point rainfall for areal effect using Plate E-5.8. See Sheet 1 of Plate E-2.1.
2. Determine the unit period rainfall amounts using the pattern percentages from Plate E-5.9 times the adjusted average point rainfall, and convert them to rainfall rates in inches per hour.
See Columns 20 and 21 of Plate E-2.2.
3. Find the pervious area loss rates for subareas within the drain- age area using Plates E-6.1 and E-6.2. Adjust these rates to account for impervious area using the relationship below, and then compute a weighted average loss rate for the watershed. See Sheet 2 of Plate E-2.1.
F = Fp (1.00 - 0.9Ai)
where:
F = Adjusted loss rate - inches/hour
F = Loss rate for pervious areas - inches/hour
(Plate E-6.2)
A, = Impervious area (actual) - decimal percent
(Plate E-6.3)
RCFC a WCD
HYDROLOGY MA NUAL
SYNTHETIC UNIT
HYDROGRAPH METHOD
INSTRUCTIONS
712
PLATE E-I.I (2 of 6)
4. For 3 and 6 -hour duration storms assume the weighted average loss rate is a constant defining the maximum loss rate for each unit time period. For 24 -hour storms use the variable loss rate function below to compute the maximum loss rate for each unit time period:
1.55 FT (inches/hour) = C (24-(T/60)) + Fm
where:
C = (F - Fm)/54
F = Adjusted loss rate - inches/hour (as previously
defined)
T = Time from beginning of storm - minutes
Fm = Minimum value on loss rate curve - inches/hour
(typically 50 to 75 -percent of F)
The time "T" used should be from the start of the storm to the middle of each unit time period, i.e., for a unit time of 30 - minutes the maximum loss rate would be computed for T=i 5 -min- utes for period one, T=45 -minutes for period two, etc. Enter the maximum loss rates (constant or variable) on Column 22 of Plate E-2.2.
5. Compute the low loss rate for each unit time period where the maximum loss rate exceeds the rainfall rate for that period.
The low loss rate should normally be 80 to 90 -percent times the rainfall rate. See Column 22 of Plate E-2.2.
6. Compute the effective rainfall rate for each unit time period by subtracting the loss rate from the rainfall rate. See Column 23 of Plate E-2.2. Be sure to use the low loss rate where the maximum loss rate exceeds unit period intensity.
7. Compute the flood hydrograph using one of the following two methods. Do not use the simplified method until the long form method is thoroughly understood:
(a) Long form method (use Plate E-2.3):
(1) Multiply the effective rainfall rate for the first
unit time period times each synthetic unit hydrograph
value to determine the flood hydrograph which would
result from that rainfall increment.
(2) Repeat the above process for each suceeding effective rainfall value, advancing the resultant flood hydrographs one unit time period for each cycle.
RCFC 8 WCD
HYDROLOGY MANUAL
SYNTHETIC UNIT
HYDROGRAPH METHOD
INSTRUCTIONS
713
PLATE E-I.I (3of 6)
7. (continued)
(3) Sum the flow ordinates found in the steps above to
determine the average flow ordinate per unit time
period for the design storm flood hydrograph.
(b) Simplified Method:
(1) List the unit graph values (Column 19, Plate E-2.2) in reverse order on the right hand side of a separate
sheet of paper.
(2) Align the separate sheet with the effective rain
column (Column 23 of Plate E-2.2) so that the bottom
unit graph value is adjacent to the top effective
rain value. The product of these values is the flood
hydrograph value in cfs for the first unit period
(Column 24 of Plate E-2.2).
(3) Move the separate sheet down one unit time period.
The sum of the products of the first two effective
rain values, times the adjacent unit graph values,
is the flood hydrograph value for the second unit
time period.
(4) Move the separate sheet down one unit time period
to compute each successive flood hydrograph value.
The flood hydrograph value in each case is the sum
of the products of each effective rain value times
the adjacent unit graph value. The procedure is
illustrated by the example on the next page. Con-
tinue this process until the hydrograph is completely
defined (the top unit graph value will be opposite
the bottom effective rain value).
The flood hydrograph value computed for any positioning of the separate sheet is always entered opposite the unit graph value at the bottom of the separate sheet.
It is possible to determine the peak discharge without defining the entire hydrograph by aligning the maximum unit graph values just above the maximum effective rain values, and then comput- ing enough flood hydrograph values to identify the peak discharge.
8. If desired add base flow to the flood hydrograph ordinates deter- mined in Step 7.
RCFC a WCD
HYDROLOGY MANUAL
SYNTHETIC UNIT
HYDROGRAPH METHOD
INSTRUCTIONS
714
PLATE E-I.I (4 of 6)
EXAMPLE OF SIMPLIFIED METHOD
OF FLOOD HYDROGRAPH COMPUTATION
Separate Sheet
Unit Graph Values
Listed in Reverse
Order
9 7
9 7
7 7
17 14
17 21
24 26
31 38
45 50
64 85
109
158
257
479
515
288
78 Flood
Hydrograph
[2 3] [2 4]
Effective Flow
Rain cfs
In/Hr
[2].]—[22]
.13
.21
.23
.22
.35
.40
.48
.53
. 77
1.17 1.06
. 17
10 54
145
254
343
430
545
680
827
1037
1344
1615
1579
1188
758
513
382
300
241
202
172
145
124
107
94 80
67 58
48 36
32 30
27 20
11 2
RCFC a WCD
HYDROLOGY MANUAL
Plate E-2.2
The position of the unit
graph values on the sep-
arate sheet in this exam-
ple gives the value of
1188 cfs in column [24] .
To get all of the values
for the flood hydrograph
the separate sheet must
moved from the top to the
bottom of column [j.].
Start with 78 adjacent
to .13 and finish with 9
adjacent to .17. The
flood hydrograph ordin-
ate for any position of
the separate sheet is
the sum of the products
of all adjacent unit
graph and effective rain
values. The computed
flow value is entered
opposite the bottom unit
graph value (78 in this
case) for any position
of the separate sheet.
SYNTHETIC UNIT
HYDROGRAPH METHOD
INSTRUCTIONS
715
PLATE E-I.I (5of 6)
•
9. The hydrograph may be plotted by drawing a smooth curve through flow ordinates (at the center of each unit time period) so that the average flow value under the curve matches the average ordinate for each unit time period (see example calculations).
10. Additional steps may be necessary for complicated drainage systems as conditions dictate, including combining subarea hydrographs, and channel and reservoir routing.
RCFC a WCD
HYDROLOGY MA NUAL
SYNTHETIC UNIT
HYDROGRAPH METHOD
INSTRUCTIONS
716
PLATE E-I.I (6 of 6)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SHORT CUT SYNTHETIC
HYDROGRAPH HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
1. Determine drainage area and lag time. Use Steps A-1 through A-3 on Plate E-1.1.
2. Determine that the area is suitable for development of a Short Cut hydrograph, i.e., the area is no more than 100 to 200 -acres in size, and lag time is less than 7 to 8 -minutes.
3. Select a suitable unit time equal to from 100 to 200 -percent of lag. Normally, 5 to 10 -minutes for 3 and 6 -hour storms, and 15 - minutes for 24 -hour storms will be adequate.
4. Compute effective rainfall rates using steps B-1 through B-6 on Plate E-1.1.
5. Compute flood hydrograph ordinates for each unit time period by multiplying the effective rainfall rate (inches per hour) times the drainage area in acres. The resultant values are discharge in cfs.
6. The three hour storm peak discharge should normally compare well with rational peaks. If adjustments are necessary, use a shorter unit time period to raise the peak, and a longer unit time period to lower them.
RCFC a WCD
HYDROLOGY MANUAL
SHORTCUT SYNTHETIC
HYDROGRAPH METHOD
INSTRUCTIONS
717
PLATE E -I.2
el:+•: 0 nITT.-,a'if1#.-..
glilt114-13 0,1
Irt
gm Ow
✓.1llWrir.i �:��l�i�!i!� � � i�nC�-Anc Ullalpf+!,,,var w% J^.,. !.�.. �- .•7' "awf�ylll �i�lirit ,3i ,�ate.��i...1=_rt :.r.
11�{�EYI/��4 .i 1♦� _ �.`. ���II�I►elf Mil ��il�r �� :� Y •�� : .r _ ' �1.
�•�..�:.r..cs�c wi•r..� -a�na��r�xi ara;r+r .wr�r va ��Ca��.c �i�isie�rr ..r .�o•t...-. isiais rrimazaiFIIiL—TM�7F3�Yt i rri
tip
Tit!.
':..:...+•rT^r` •, „ '"'^'i, l�l(][2'"'.'e1�{iTl if�' en.. ,.. _
O M7ro
Lana
't r r n-Cft j :1 1. wwn 2"-
J 11�
I " A. wz ve.r► T'^' al `ice
�)r t 4rr1�'% • ••••,,-
~ , n �• i��i' ` • 'il.�_�:ti.�'�..'� .y .. �' �wijiL �fi"� - •�� I �1, ,.:. ` mss... �`'' � . •.o �T�iL \. A1..r * .. `•.-'11. ti ,...!4 .•,...�y ?J�t -.+r+.,.,. - ztia.•-: r ,. ;4 r+A 're., R5N� ~'~:.T,'4;l \ ''as•:�• +� c F i1.
r. Ir.
;4,. G 'ex�l`M1_, / f Lrow�r'j�t� - r ��- � it ..
,,3,-..z_
D.
ire r.7 Tr"t1IWei+Lfiiar.ery.-r}Til ____I .=Is srfirisep 1a• p ..., =___ vI IiOWai ii ,Ti��tew _��s.rra"-:— -,-44-� f 6'
irio 14:,01 ,A aia �I,��yrM—yam. ea '71 JP p f I \/il
,,�_"cr`r1,a: !,—,_:4:414. 'i•- - I. ��_ It I �(!+ , 'swell b.: T ,welt `....:tl ito-r: icy '� b ,late
�^
i ,., -�sE. F is i .j��.t � .m a ' `I�►� �' ..�u� ii i ���Litiiy'%l� ib J4* 1 ® etr a IN �j ra; �7;I k. ('6:te •
sirs yn*
wi a� pr. -ft _ s -7►��:
� �'rUEL
iiisli i r A Ui i�ON
twr• •r M.n OM a
Lo
11 `L+ lfj IAW
�'C-. Y✓� �y'.il �,�4 �'vv��'++4'Y• /, 6
iYi�vaS'Rl. ��'1�1'3L•3ti�`�G•�u�'�:12' ,����N!Lan. Nit ommomr. ��;`i•} . I
EMI
OMR
1�%1 F TORR S M
.�' _ IN IAN
rO sc ■as —►w
roal
r'
� JJld a*72 ���� � WING
6'S-3 31Vkd
RAINFALL PATTERNS IN PERCENT
3- HOUR STORM
6 -HOUR STORM
24 -HOUR STORM
TIME 5 -MIN 10 -MIN 15 -MIN 30 -MIN
PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD
1 .3 2.6 3.7 8 .5
2 .3 2. 6 4 .8 10.0
3 .1 3.3 5.1 13.9
4 .5 3.3 4.9 17 .4
5 .5 3. 3 6.6 29.9
6 .8 3. 4 7.3 20 .3
7 .5 4. 4 8.4
8 .8 4. 2 9.0
9 .8 5.3 12.3
10 .5 5.1 17.6
11 .6 6.4 16. 1
12 .8 5.9 4. 2
13 2. 2 7.3
14 2.2 8. 5
15 2.2 14. 1
16 2.0 14. 1
17 2.6 3. 8
18 2.7 2. 4
19 2.4
20 2.7
21 3.3
22 3.1
23 2.9
24 3.0
25 3. 1
26 4. 2
27 5.0
28 3. 5
29 6.8
30 7.3
31 8. 2
32 5.9
33 2.0
34 1.8
35 1.8
36 .6
TIME 5 -MIN 10 -MIN 15 -MIN 30 -MIN
PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 1?
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 .5 1.1 1.7 3.6
.6 1.2 1.9 4 .3
.6 1.3 2 .1 4 .8
.6 1.4 2.2 4.9
.6 1.4 2.4 5.3
.7 1 .5 2.4 5.8
.7 1.6 2.4 6.8
.7 1.6 2.5 9.0
.7 1.6 2.6 11.6
.7 1.6 2.7 14.4
.7 1 .6 2.8 25.1
.8 1 .7 3 .0 4 .4
.8 1 .7 3 .2
.8 1.8 3.6
.8 1 .8 4.3
.8 1 .8 4.7
.8 2 .0 5.4
.8 2 .0 6.2
.8 2 .1 6.9
.8 2 .2 7.5
.8 2 .S 10.6
.8 2.8 14.5
.8 3.0 3.4
.9 3.2 1 .0
.8 3.5
.9 3 .9
.9 4.2
.9 4.5
.9 4.8
.9 5.1
.9 6.7
.9 8.1
.0 10. 3
.0 2. 8
.0 1.1
.0 .5
.0
.1
.1
.l
.2
.3
.4
.4
.5
.5
.6
.6
TIME 5 -MIN
PERIOD PERIOD
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 2 .5
60 2.6
61 3.1
62 3.6
63 3.9
64 4.2
65 4 .7
66 5.6
67 1.9
68 .9
69 .6
70 .5
71 .3
72 .2
1 .7
1.8 1.9
2.0 2.1
2.1 2.2
2.3 2.4
2.4 TIME 15 -MIN 30-M1N 60 -MIN
PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERI00
NOTES:
I. 3 and 6 -hour patterns bosed on the Indio area thunderstorm of September 24,1939.
2. 24 -hour patterns based on the general storm of March 2 a 3,1938. 1 .2 .5 1.2
2 .3 .7 1 .3
3 .3 .6 1 .8
4 .4 .7 2.1
5 .3 .8 2.8
6 .3 1.0 2.9
7 .3 1.0 3.8
8 .4 1.1 4.6
9 .4 1 .3 6.3
10 .4 1 .5 8.2
11 .5 1.3 7.0
12 .5 1 .6 7.3
13 .5 1 .8 10.8
14 .5 2 .0 11.4
15 .5 2.1 10 .4
16 .6 2.5 8 .5
17 .6 3 .0 1.4
18 .7 3 .3 1.9
19 .7 3.9 1.3
20 .8 4.3 1.2
21 .6 3.0 1 .1
22 .7 4 .0 1.0
23 .8 3 .8 .9
24 .8 3.5 .8
25 .9 5 .1
26 .9 5 .7
27 .0 6 .8
28 .0 4 .6
29 .0 5 .3
30 .1 5 .1
31 .2 4 .7
32 .3 3.8
33 .5 .8
34 .5 .6
35 .6 1.0
36 .7 .9
37 .9 .8
38 2 .0 .5
39 2 .1 .7
40 2 .2 .5
41 1.5 .6
42 1.5 .5
43 2 .0 .5
44 2 .0 .5
45 1 .9 .5
46 1 .9 .4
47 1.7 .4
48 1.8 .4
TIME 15 -MIN
PERIOD PERIOD
49 2.5
50 2.6
51 2.8
52 2.9
53 3.4
54 3.4
55 2.3
56 2 .3
57 2.7
58 2.6
59 2.6
60 2.5
61 2. 4
62 2.3
63 1.9
64 1 .9
65 .4
66 .4
67 .3
68 .3
69 .5
70 .5
71 .5
72 .4
73 .4
74 .4
75 .3
76 .2
77 .3
78 .4
79 .3
80 .2
81 .3
82 .3
83 .3
84 .2
85 .3
86 .2
87 .3
88 .2
89 .3
90 .2
91 .2
92 .2
93 .2
94 .2
95 .2
96 .2
RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS OF HYDROLOGIC SOIL -COVER COMPLEXES FOR PERVIOUS AREAS -AMC II Cover Type (3)
Quality of
Cover (2)
Soil Group
A
B
C
D
NATURAL COVERS -
Poor
78 53
86 70
91 80
93 85
Barren
(Rockland, eroded and graded land)
Chaparrel, Broadleaf
(Manzonita, ceanothus and scrub oak)
Fair
40 63
75 81
Good
31 57
71 78
Chaparrel, Narrowleaf
Poor
71 82
88 91
(Chamise and redshank)
Fair
55 72
81 86
Grass, Annual or Perennial
Poor
67 78
86 89
Fair
50 69
79 84
Good
38 61
74 80
Meadows or Cienegas
Poor
63 77
85 88
(Areas with seasonally high water table,
Fair
51 70
80 84
principal vegetation is sod forming grass)
Good
30 58
72 78
Open Brush
Poor
62 76
84 88
(Soft wood shrubs - buckwheat, sage, etc.)
Fair
46 66
77 83
Good
41 63
75 81
Woodland
Poor
45 66
77 83
(Coniferous or broadleaf trees predominate.
Fair
36 60
73 79
Canopy density is at least 50 percent)
Good
28 55
70 77
Woodland, Grass
Poor
57 73
82 86
(Coniferous or broadleaf trees with canopy
Fair
44 65
77 82
density from 20 to 50 percent)
Good
33 58
72 79
URBAN COVERS -
Good
Poor
32 58
56 74
69 83
75 87
Residential or Commercial Landscaping
(Lawn, shrubs, etc.)
Turf
(Irrigated and mowed grass)
Fair
44 65
77 82
Good
33 58
72 79
AGRICULTURAL COVERS -
76 85
90 92
Fallow
(Land plowed but not tilled or seeded)
R C F C a W C D
'HYDROLOGY MANUAL
RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS
FOR
PERVIOUS AREAS
723
PLATE E -6.I (I of 2)
-o
r
m
m
m
N
75 20
XI u 1.0
0 0 n z
4C ?1
lE
n .8
C D z
-13
C �Z
Z 0 g5 l
-n C
rrti
cn
x
m
.7
m .6
-n
Jnoy/ssy3u (dd) SV32JV Sf OIA 3d
.5
.4
.3
NOTES:
I. R.I. Number -Infiltration relationships are derived from rainfall - runoff relationships in Bibliography item No .36.
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 ■■i■■..■..■.■ ■.■■. .■■..■ ■■...■.■ ■...■■ .■ ..■ ■. ■■.■■. ■.■.■ .■.■■.■■.■ ■.... .. ..■. ■ ■■■■■.■■■■■■■■■..■ .■.■ .■■■■ ■.■■■.■■■ ..■ ■■ . ■.■■ ■.■..■.■■■... ....... ■■.■■■ .■.■ ..■.■..■■ .■ ■.■■■■■■■■ .■.■■■..■■■■■■■■ .
Example •
UM ••■
•■•■ ■■ ■■.■ ■.■...■■■
■■
MO
■■■
IM
.::!m�...■■.■■■ ■■.
■■■■.■\:!■M..■■ .■■E.. ■....■■..■..■ ....■■. ■■ ..■
■■■■..■■■.:M■ ■■.■■ ■■ ..■■■.■■...■■■■■■.■■ ■■ . ■.
. ■.■■■■■..■■.\CAM ■■ ■..■..■■■ ■.■■ .■ .■■ .■ ■....■
. .■ ..■.....■....\w ,.■.■■■..... .■....■■. ■.■ ■■.
For RI =681 Fp
for AMC Conditions
=.20,
.38 and .58
11 II on .
In./hr. .■■■�
I respective y.
•
i14■ ■■■■■■■■.■..■ ■.■\rA■■■■■■■.■■■■ .■..■E■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■ .■ .I:N......■■. ■■■.■..\' . N..■■.■■ ■■.... .■......■.■..■■. ■....■. ■..... ■.... .■■.■■ .. .. ■. .\��■■.■■■■■....■..■ ■..■■■.■. .. .. .■ ...■■■■.■■■■. ■..■. ■.■ ■.... ■..■...■....■ ■..■ .■■. .,..■...■■. ■■..■..■■ .■ ..■■. ..■■. ....s ..■. ■■ .._.■. .... ...■.■■ ...NO.■■.■..■.■ ■■■■_ ■■\ ZM .■.■■ ..■.■ ■■■■ .■■■■ ■■ .■■U. ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■.. ■■. ..■■■■.■■.■.\.t■. ■■■■■ ■.■ ■ ■.■..WA'
..■■ .■. ■.■■■■■■:�..■■.■■. ■...■■■.��
.... ■■.■■.■...■■■'•■■. .■.C. ..■.■■ ..■ \.
i\.O.■ ..■■. ■..■.....•.. ■■.■■ .■■■.. ■■■\..■.■■. ..■■■ ..■. .■■.■......■■■■■.■....■■. ■ ■OI■.... .■ .■■■U...■■WN.■_.■..■N. ■■■ .■.\:\■■ ...■■■ ■■..■ ■■■■►. ■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■.■W I...■ ■■.....■■.■■■\O�■ .■ ■. ■ ...■\ ►. ■■■■.■■■.■■■■■.■.wI.. .■■. .■..■.■■■■.I•.s.■ ■= ...■■■.■. .■ ..■■■■■■■.■■■.■■■■ /..■...►.■■........... .■.i\n..■.......■..■.■.\:m■. ..■■■.■. ■■■.■■■■■■■■.■■ ■■■.. . ■... ■■.■ .►\ .■...■ ■.■■...■.■.\i... ■ ..■■.■■■...R
■(♦\.■.■ .■■..■■■ ■■.. .Ili}.■..■■■.■.. .■WN■■
..■■■ ■■■M .
..■.■ ■ ..■.■..■■.■■.■■■ ..■ ..■���.114 ��.■.■.... .■ ■. C'. .■.■■ ..■■ ... .■..■.. .■ .■.. ..
■.■.■■....■■ ■■\►IO■■.■■■■■■. ■■.....■\
■■...■. ..■ MU ■■■ .■\■ ..■... ■■■■ ....►P
■■■.M■■.■■■.■■■■■■\NU.■■■■.U..■■ .■■■ .■W!■ ..■■■■.■■.■.U.■'■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■..■■.■.. .■..■■■.■.. .■ mmo om■ommu ■■■■■... ..■■ ...a \.■ .■.■■...■ ■■.■.■■■.■■..■..■ U■■■.g\.....■■■■■■■■ ■■■■..c \.■■.■.■Z■...■..►.■ .■.■■■■ ■■■. ■■■ ■■■ ..■■ ■■ ■■ .■ ■..■■■.■■■ ■■.gi■■..■.■ .■■■■. ■■.■.\` \..■.■ ■..■ ■.. ..■ ■■.■ ■...........-a.......■■.. ■.... ■■\.U.■■■.■.■■ ....■ .. .■■..■■■■... ■. ■.■....gm..... .■■■■.■..■■
iii■..0OOiiiuum m iiiiiiiiiiiii;_"_. ■■•UUUUU•U•aiii
■■■ m. ..■■..■. ■■■■.. ■■ .■.■ ■.■ ■■■■■.._ �
■ ■_■_.■■■.■.■■.■■ ■■ ■■ .■■■■■. ■■. ■■■■■\..
.. ■■■■■■■..■■■ ■■ ■■ .■■■.■■■■ .■ ■..■■.■.g nm■■..■■. . ■...■ ■■ ■..■.. ■ ■■. ■■ .■. ■■■■....■■.■■ ■■\r.■■ ..■■■ ■■■ .■■■.C■■=.■.■..■ _■■■.■ ■_. ■■..■■.■_■■■■mumm
. ..... ....■■■..■■... .. . ■... ... ■■. ■...■ ■...■■,...■■. \........ ...■. .........■.......■ .......■... ......• ... ■..■■ ■. ■..■■■■■■■... ..■... .■■.■■■. ...■.■.■....:■.. ._ . ..■.■ ■.■..■.. .■. ■. .■■. ■■ ■.■■■..■ ...■■■.■
■■_■■....■ ..■■ .._
■..■■ ._ ..■■■ .■. .■■_ .OMO MM...■.■■■■.■■.■
■ ..■■M■■. ■■■■ .■■■■■■■■■ .■■■■.
VO.. .■ .■.. ■■■■■
..■ .■ ■.■■■■
■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■.\► .■■■■..■■ ■■■ ■■■.■■■■■ ■■■.
...■ .■ .. .■. ... ■►7■■.■
■mumm■ ■....■■.■..■ .■■■■■
.■ ■■.■.■ ►\.■■ ... ■■....■ .■■■
/\r....■■■■•. ■.. \\.. ■■. ■■
mi�
•U•Uiiia i.UU.iii
m Us ■■■■
U■
• .. ■.. .._��i_$_...
■
...•U�� ■.
■■■.■■■ ■■.■■■.■■ .■... ■■
R•IUUUiii:Uiii ■.=Uiiiiii
=�
!•
■■
■■.■■■■■
.■ .■■■■■
■. ■■■. .■■.■■■ ...■■■ ■.
.■■■..... ..■ ■■■
■....■...■■..■
. ■.. .■.■.■ ■. .■ ■.. .■
■. .\a■■■■. .■. .■..■. ..
�■ ■ .. ■ .�■. .._■■.■■■
m■.■U._...■..■_.■■.
ammo' ■
g9�■.■■ ■■ ■►\•
■.■�■....C.ia=�■
■ .\O.■..■..,. .
.. ■. ..
■.i■.._.■.
■■
■■ .■■■..■■.N
..■ ..■■
.
.
..■■. ■■
■►m■ .■ ■■ .
■■� ■
■ .
■■■... .■ ..
■:,..m.
.•.._.... .�
aa_■.. ...■......_. ■. .._.�.■......_■....■■....�. .■
ia■.■.■ la■■=. ..■. ■ ■. .. ■ ■.■...■. ..■■■._.■■.■...!■_ . - ■._ ■■
_
■. ..= ...IC
.■ .■■ ■.■■. ■■ ■ mumu ■■■■■■■. .■. ■ .■.■ .. .. ■. ■ ■ -_. ■■
- mow
■
■.\\ .■
�►\
■ ■■■■ ■.■■.� ■■ ■■■. .■ ■ mamm m■ .■■■■■�■■ .■■■■
_ ■ M■ ng
=.m.=i
m■
. m.. ..s.. ....
iii
■■ U■U.. $■ I■ ■U.■■■■.UU■ ■UUU..■ ■.■■ U•UU■■.IU■.■.U.U■■S•� ••
ii■ ii
s.. =s..■. ■■ i.■...
aiii■■ii
■ i■ iiiii
�.._.■..■■■.i=.
■ i■i■�iiii
■ ■z
i i�■ ■■
■
= ■_.. _
■� ii i
UI■.UUUU ■. ■U■■■.a. .�
a=
■.
bAim
100
.0
9 8
7 6
5 4
.3
.2 .2
I .1
0 20
30 40
50 60
70 RUNOFF INDEX NUMBER (RI)
80 90
0 100
muyamammanamilalmoll oaseminolai iiiim ill aimaiimmagak E 9,C•n
E F 5,5n
E
,p k. '_.___L-----.......; ".....>..,‘,.;„_.„.PE, -.-2-_,.„.. `" ::=-,..„'". .-s----`-•-:.,, ___.`=.; ---__::'-' "". '"--- 7".,:--- --7-"" --.2--•:.7 7----.---- -1"- --7;--.'":"--- : :1"- I --- -----'7------:'-'-' - -.. - --- --.,.:-. ; \Z9 -- -(4.!.„- - )>"------'-.-7e 3. ..' c ' A` ;;"i.;' ).-; l--:.--. --":, ji- x-28,1 11,S__._,,PR. " 3' 30:):r :,...„:„ ::„.,...:,.....i„.... :1_11'
•,...—___ _,....., - - .....--,--. •...„,-_,
I I
.2....,-,..:„7„., P t', .L.,.. -) .--"..-.;..i..--- ,:-.C.";:>''------;.--" Cr" .--'.. .:::----' _....„ .... ........,77.7:4,,,s,____ .,.. L„,- ........-> ......---_--. ....- ""'-`4:5....."-`---..- ----- ---7-". """:-''"%r-- ---::-":)- '. " '''':4"'=.'"1"- """-' '' ' '"" -----'""' ('------"" - '-..----'-'-..- '...4.47:'..-... ..„.,-T% ,----T--'" % „.....'\ '", ./1'1C-A,F1,..i.CT-"T..../• >,,,T;[..: .433:". -C1:::"%:7-:'17/ ..,,,, ,..,.........,....e‹_,,L.,..,/ adixp f117:17,-7:::::-_---,-;:;II.!--7:1„ -"--7:- 1..- ‘LE:---,:. 7;7.L.: , :-*---S-C-S-,-L - Ii:--":'r.7lj .-3":'=::':51--'7-'V:6'' 117 ..... ----::--- : -;9--- - _...,,., r,..,....7..,, ,......:_...... .,...,....„...,_—_,,,,...... .531,..g,,_... -.......a. „..___,--, • , ...-, ...' ,... \[. • , • , '
i ..:1 :/' .T27 -"'"-- - ' -, -- ?/ftv.(1_. '• .`''''' ( k \ ( ,`` \ \\\\ \311.8
, ci \\\:.. \..!..„...\
`• I '`, \
'" "\‘' .1 \\ \ \\ \\kre.,, ,,, '''' \\ . \\C"\'' \,' ' ll'Ai *I / \ s„„„ „, \ \, ,,, , ,, ,I•
\\,`,..._. -,,,A \ \ ..\\ t ,/ c.") 1 11/,--..1 ) \\c.:-.„ \\rgo % , ............. ,,,,,, \--- / ,,
..,--_-....----3-eui .--\ c,) C I 7
316. _c,i \ \) \ 1 f ej („,;;;)
x k ) , i. ,
—___
---',T\\.,\,\ • c • / I ./ ,11g5.
,,,,
11 •, •\---,.. . \\
7.71.-..
,.,' --,, ',..., '''.%.\ . •_7
'Nr.tirr - -3- 19 -6 ;•,\", " 1,--,A--) „ II, 4.
\ ll 1
• - ''':-I . ,... ::,,,,k...:L,, i I-314,
195 C • . 11 • ' •
5 \ \l".
\ \ \ 53
,, . ..
31a
- ,, -,, .
r
s.-..„--•" 31 6
x \7
•
309.5
3131
1 ' -:a:::ll
-- ' -). ,„
316J 'i
r \Q) ; \`'; \\V r ,•,-.-- - '-;.
! \_, ( \ 3\\\\\\\,\\s\s.r.;o,s..\.\J\\::\ ;82
31,11.1r . \\ ",....."
, "\-..
1 \
...„) \_____......„.......„,:::\..., ).1\\'' 1,,,...1 3:x2 '-'11iiH'::: ,.. /
I ' \
'S\4 ji \
s.,,s...., ' 1: 31.3.6 fri
,
7. 4_
• "--, \ \ \„.
\\ •\\
`, \:\ .\\ \ (
\ '\\\\\ \ oS 8 \
\ \ `
\\\\*
( '\ \-.--
...•., ".6.‘,..„.„,.
— \-1,, \
\
-,,,, ,\_ \\\,/,\\\„\\ -,,
. ...:,,,, „,,:,,,, ...„..,,,,,:\ot.8 .
I ii \ ,,,
\ \ \ --*,-- \ \
'''•Nc. -• --`\/
'` .) \\ ; \ \ N \_ \ \ \ „...) ( \ \ 3 \\\:;\`‘.,‘,..?8,5, i.—'•-.„, ".„‘.."- ‘;',.,,, \ \\ \\,, \ Iv \ '''‘,.. `--,../ \\•-„L. 6'0 \ \\\\ \ \\\..\\\
3.u.5-N\\ \\,r i...../\;••''' C:\ \ :13°!:3_../
I ‘ !,!..„ Jay \ \ .‘‹ '.\\s \ \ \ t
C ,..„Lit',3 ( ..---,6 " ` .. -. l x308,3 \ ,, \
..../ ----' i I rf i )6.5\•.,. 'CL:-. i ' \
„... 315,, \ ,. . N.., \ ...\\1" \L:\ -..:1,11,.....„... \ \ \ \\ \ ,,,,-.3\ 309..9 :'\ \'',')•X'.\:,:>---\\, 31 :.x3
306.2 \ \
x ,0 + /1 (4%4133 N IN, - "' ''',
; 1
i.\\:\ \\•,..\ c \\\: \\ \\\ k ,. \ , \ \ \ 3
.\\,),\ 308..4 \
\
\
i \ -, '
' '. \ `v ' (---'''' r \ , -...„. . \ \ \ j.
\ \ \ \ \ \ I
\,.., -,.„
, .
1.ti,\- %I:7 , .._,..1 /./. ol ....._„,-/- \ ,914.2 '
(----'`...„\\•. 41 \ \ ' \ -• '..„; \\\ , - \\ '-'-. \..\. k \ \ 114913 / 1..- s..,' •IN s \ III -.....' \ „____...._c. \ . -.....„ 1 i \ ; \ \ \:\ ,,, \\ •--..„. .„. —
---.
\ \ ,
,_..„.„ \ • \\\.\\:\r\\.\\)\\:\\\...:./306 \_\. ...- .\\1\3ge.3 \•iii'' \.,, :(\\"\/• ''.\.:.,, .\ \ i \ ' x \
k 7 I \ ----\--•;,.,
....., , x ....) \ \ , \
I ; ,,) 1. 30.92 \ `,.. r.„\\--.. 305.
. \ ' .
".....„ \ \
. N., \ \ \ '?s,\\. ‘,
ii'.\\.\\3\''3.16.3\) ) '''''\\31., -\Q.. -......\-,...„----'n, \\ \ '1 \`..,'':',"-Is/, 308r2 \'::.\\\:"\\ \ .,, ..111..;C:1\\130.\.J69 (\11 . ,
. \\ \ \ V3131
: A
\\ 'I:2: 317.'5
r'cj 917.9
•
\ 31641
• "I'.• FS05,5
"N r
"NN '414:a.e i\ \ \\\ —71-:\1\3 3317.6
J
}
--
1) 1 I
. ,
'• 1 1\ \
12.6 310
‘‘.
-
,
4 • ." / •
N 317x.4 \\
N 3148 f-
/ N
/ 1
I
/,
2x
3159-- "\\3"\""
/ x312
//) '—'")
'¼\ 3123 3122
7- •
,
323 I)
7 -N.--
1 (
1• \.\\ N's,\1NN'\\ \
r ( 1
,
\ \ 3233
''\\\\ \
\\ \
\ ", ••••
, \ )
t
311,3
,
3133
\ "313,7
•
- _13_136
r\ ;
, - 3163 ;
,
X k
r \
313
;
/309
•
\'?"`•
13,43.21
\ , -.\ .\\
) 30x8.3 4-4\ ^-\\\ \
"
1 \
/
'•.-....
x312.3,-----
...-_..
x 313.3 _. J->"'-‘'.: - -----4-3-42"--- — ---- -------f..::;5P.j, ..,..;„„ ::3, 316;56 9'Prs:-.A.::::r;.:1/''' .31/1; V4 -X-11.4:-Z-I-----.... / (. 3116.01 : .4,' 1_, ,.\ t,.' .,..,4„,../' I 'ip,,•:;3,..!\:,7 44 11. 3154 .11( I
x I\ (---.'
. '214.3314.6 i
„
' \\\ e ''..--k.--- 3133_,..-- : P i-i -'.."' 1314: .^)'31. ""-'---i '',, ...... 1 . ..„3.13..?, -..,
\ .31-k9
r...1
E •?.M0
E S.5n
FOmOTOR ENGINEERiNC.N
• ,•1,
ce(/
SCALE 1'1=200'
FOMOTOR
ENGINEERING
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
225 S. CIVIC DRIVE, SUITE 1-5
PALM SPRINGS , CA. 92262
(760) 323-1842 FAX (760) 323-1742
INTERIOR STREET PRELIMINARY
CENTERLINE STUDY
OR
SECTFI6N 30
ALTERNATIVE B
SHEET
I
OF I SHEET.
FILE NO.
PLOT DATE: 12/18/2000
(.7
41141/9.4141341444
41 14- 4144 414141-S414141 44141?I44 4-41/411)411 41:411-. _- :x4
• - • ."„.. • "
APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Report
726
Boring/Test Number: P-1
Total Depth of Boring, D 1 (ft):
10 Test Date:
6/7/2024
D
d
existing
wound
surface
f
Diameter of Hole, D (in):
8 Tested By:
KTM
Diameter of Casing, d (in):
2 USCS Soil Type:
SP
�:
' r
;r
�+
C"
�1
�;+
;+
Depth of Slotted Casing (ft):
5 to 10
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
?
Porosity of Annulus Material, n :
0.42 Ground Elevation (msl ft):
312
Depth from Existing Ground Surface to
Bottom of Prop.
Inflitration System (ft):
?
SANDY
SOIL CRITERIA
TEST
Trial
Time
Interval
Depth to Water,
D w
Change in
Water Level
Change in Height of Water
Greater Than Equal
No.
At (min.)
Initial, Do (ft.)
Final, Df (ft.)
AD (in.)
or to
6"? (Yes/No)*
:; *;
•'
1 r
.
04 *'
r*r
��
;::
: r
'*•y
�;
` r
*r
*'
r+r
•r
*:+
.
rr
�r
:
+r
: ::
r•r
r
it
it
rr
�r
'•'
r
;.;
•
%
r• DI
P.,
•
r',
r.
r
r•
•'•'
r0!
:i
;*•
r�r
!i+
ear
a`.r
r
rr
it
rr
:r
1 25
9.1 10
10.8 yes
2 25
9.10 10
10.8 yes
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings (min.), [* if yes = 10, if no = 30]: 30
PERCOLATION TEST
Trial
Time
Depth to Water, Dw
Change in
Percolation Rate
No.
Interval
at min.)
(
Initial, Do (ft.)
Final, Df (ft.)
Water Level
(•
All in.)
(min/in.)
(gal/day/ft^2)
::
1 10
8.60 10.00
16.80 0.60
132.32
2 10
8.60 10.00
16.80 0.60
132.32
3 10
8.55 10.00
17.40 0.57
133.20
4 10
8.60 10.00
16.80 0.60
132.32
5 10
8.55 10.00
17.40 0.57
133.20
6 10
8.55 10.00
17.40 0.57
133.20
TEST RESULTS**
**Raw Results. Does Not
Include a Factor of Safety
Inflitration Rate [Porchet Method]#
Percolation Rate
(inches/hour)
(min/in.)
(gal/day/ft^2)
12.00 0.57
133.20
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 " Where Infiltration Rate, It = Ali (60r) /At(r + av
( ) 2H g)
r = D / 2
Ho = DT - Do
Hf=DT-Df
AH=AD=Ho-Hf
Reference: Ho„ = (Ho+ Hf) / 2
RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LID, dated September, 2011 PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
CosAirway Avenue, Suite
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
* PETRA 'DATE:
June , 2024
I Appendix
'- OEOSCIENCES
J.N.: 24-112
B
727
t PETGEOSCIERA
SOLID AS A ROCK
�sai �v �Ni��
DESIGN -PHASE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED RANCHO MIRAGE APARTMENTS
APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES SOUTH OF THE RANCHO MIRAGE DOG PARK A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 685-090-011
RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL CORE
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
SISIJO1O3J
m
z
< •
0 •
•
CD
O
m
z
g
728
PETRA
SOLID AS A ROCK
ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
NATIONAL CORE
430 E. State Street, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Attention: Ms. Taylor Libolt Varner
Subject: Design -Phase Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Rancho Mirage Apartments, Approximately 5 Acres South of the Rancho Mirage Dog Park, a Portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 685-090-011, Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California Dear Ms. Libolt Varner:
Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is submitting herewith our geotechnical investigation report for the proposed construction of approximately 150 apartments at the subject location in the city of Rancho Mirage.
The proposed improvements will also include utilities, 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. 24-112P, dated January 17, 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.
.711
Alan Pace
Senior Associate Geologist
Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California
DESERT REGION OFFICE
42-240 Green Way, Suite E, Palm Desert, CA 92211 72 9
T: 760.340.5303 F: 760.340.5096
For more information visit us online at www.oetra-inc.com
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments / Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 3
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 6
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
Fi11 Placement 11
Imported Soils 11
Volumetric Changes - Bulking, Shrinkage and Subsidence 12 Temporary Excavations 12
Expansive Soil Conditions 12
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 13
Seismic Design Parameters 13
Discussion 15
Foundation System 16
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, Anticipated Settlement and Lateral Resistance 16 Estimated Static Settlement 16
Seismically Induced Settlement 17
Lateral Resistance 17
Guidelines for Footings and Slabs on -Grade Design and Construction 17 Conventional Slabs on -Grade System 18
Post -Tensioned Slabs on -Grade System 20
Foundation Excavation Observations 23
General Corrosivity Screening 23
Post -Grading Considerations 24
Utility Trenches 24
Site Drainage 25
Bottomless Trench Drains 26
Retaining Walls 26
Active and At -Rest Earth Pressures 26
Earthquake Loads Retaining Walls 27
t PETRA
730
SO110 AS A POCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments / Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Subdrainage 27
Waterproofing 28
Wa11 Backfill 28
Geotechnical Observation and Testing 28
Masonry Block Walls 28
Exterior Concrete Flatwork 29
General 29
Thickness and Joint Spacing 29
Reinforcement 30
Edge Beams (Optional) 30
Subgrade Preparation 30
Drainage 31
Tree Wells 31
Swimming Pool and Spa 31
Allowable Bearing and Settlement 31
Lateral Earth Pressures 32
Stability of Temporary Excavation 32
Temporary Access Ramps 32
Pool Bottom 32
Pool Decking 32
Plumbing Fixtures 33
ACCESS ROADS 33
Asphalt Pavement 33
PLAN REVIEW 34
REPORT LIMITATIONS 34
REFERENCES 36
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES RW-1 through RW-3 — RETAINING WALL DETAILS
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 - BORING LOCATION MAP
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
731
SC1!OASA,f?PC'
DESIGN -PHASE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
PROPOSED RANCHO MIRAGE APARTMENTS
APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES SOUTH OF THE RANCHO MIRAGE DOG PARK A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 685-090-011
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 apartment buildings and associated utilities, paved parking, landscaping, 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 20 to 66 feet using a hollow -stem drilling rig. Additionally, drilling 1 exploratory boring to 10 feet below ground surface using the hollow - stem auger drilling method and performing a falling -head percolation test in the 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).
0 GEOSCIENCES"'.
PETRA
732
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 5 acres located to the southeast 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 vacant land and existing shopping center along Dinah Shore Drive, on the east by vacant land and Monterey Avenue, on the west by vacant land and Key Largo Avenue, 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 approximately 150 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. Based on the nearby 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.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES''
733
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING
Subsurface Exploration
Our subsurface exploration was performed on June 7, 2024, and involved the following:
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
• Drilling and sampling of two relatively shallow borings (B-2 and B-3) to depths of 20 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 one boring to a depth of 10 feet (Boring P-1) and performing a percolation test to observe infiltration characteristics of subsurface materials for stormwater retention design.
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 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.
Laboratory Testing
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 eGEOSCIENCES"`
PETRA
734
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 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 was converted to a percolation test hole following drilling by placing a two-inch (I.D.) perforated PVC pipe in the test hole. The annular space around the pipe was filled with 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 test was conducted in eolian sand that exists from the near surface to below the base of the percolation tests. Boring P-1 was drilled to a total depth 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 eolian sand deposits was 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.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"°
735
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
TABLE 1
Unfactored Percolation Test Results
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
Test No.
Soil Type'
(USCS)
Depth of
Hole
(Feet)
Measured 2
Percolation Rate
(Minutes/Inch)
7 Infiltration Rate (It) s
per Porchet Method
(Inches/Hour) (F.S — 1)
P-1
SP
10 0.57
12.0 1 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 eolian 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 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 eolian sand yielded in -place dry densities ranging from 98 to 109 pounds per cubic foot.
eGEOSCIENCES".
PETRA
736
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Groundwater
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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.
Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
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 0 GEOSCIENCES"'.
PETRA
737
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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.
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) leGEOSCIENCES"'
PETRA
738
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 2.3.2.11). 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 0.868g, and a predominant earthquake magnitude of 7.49 Mw.
The results of our analysis indicate that the loose and medium dense poorly graded eolian 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 an engineered fill soil not susceptible to dynamic settlement, we estimate that total dynamic settlement up to about 1'/z to 2 -inches is possible at the ground surface due to dry sand settlement from the MCE level earthquake. In our opinion, differential dry sand settlement of up to about 1'/2 -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 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 leGEOSCIENCES"`
PETRA
739
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 geotec finical consultant. A 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.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'".
740
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Demolition, Clearing and Grubbing
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 geoteclmical 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 geoteclmical 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), including swimming pools if proposed, 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.
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 0 GEOSCIENCES"'.
PETRA
741
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 wit Tin 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) are 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 soil types in our borings, shallow excavation of soils within the site are expected to be readily excavatable with conventional earthmoving equipment.
Fill Placement
A11 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.
Imported Soils
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 PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"`
742
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 10 to 15 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.
Expansive Soil Conditions
Based on available data, including the non -plastic, granular nature of the soils encountered in the subsurface exploration and the Expansion Index equal to zero in the tested representative sample, 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.
eGEOSCIENCES".
PETRA
743
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Seismic Design Parameters
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 are 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.
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 are also provided in Appendix C.
eGEOSCIENCES"4
PETRA
744
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
TABLE 2
Seismic Design Parameters
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
Ground Motion Parameters
Specific Reference
Parameter
Value
Unit
Site Latitude (North)
-
33.796486
°
Site Longitude (West)
-
-116.394338
°
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)
6.61 (3)
km
Ss - Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration
Short Period (0.2 second)
Figure 1613.2.1(1) (1)
1.819 (4)
g
Si - Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration
Long Period (1.0 second)
Figure 1613.2.1(2) 0)
0.757 (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)
1.819 (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)
1.213 (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)
0.789 (4)
g
FPGA - Site Coefficient Adjusted for Site Class Effect (2) Table 11.8-1 (2)
1.1 (4)
-
PGAM —Peak Ground Acceleration (2)
Adusted for Site Class Effect
Equation 11.8-1 (2)
0.868 (4)
g
Design PGA (2/3 PGAM) - Slope Stability (t)
Similar to Eqs. 16-38 & 16-39 (2)
0.58 g
Design PGA z (0.4 SDs) — Short Retaining Walls (I)
Equation 11.4-5 (2)
0.49 g
CRs - Short Period Risk Coefficient
Figure 22-18A (2)
0.893 (4)
-
CRI - Long Period Risk Coefficient
Figure 22-19A (2)
0.879 (4)
-
SDC - Seismic Design Category (§)
Section 1613.2.5 (1)
Null (4)
-
References:
(I) California Building Code (CBC), 2022, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume I and II. (2) American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI), 2016, Minimum Design Loads and Associated 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:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2015, NEHERP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Seismic Provision for New Building and Other Structures (FEMA P-1050).
Notes:
* PGA Calculated at the MCE return period of 2475 years (2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years). t PGA Calculated at the Design Level of 2/3 of MCE; approximately equivalent to a return period of 475 years (10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years).
$ PGA Calculated for short, stubby retaining walls with an infinitesimal (zero) fundamental period. § The designation provided herein may be superseded by the structural engineer in accordance with Section 1613.2.5.1, if an 3licable. • GEOSCIENCES«s
PETRA
745
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Discussion
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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. eGEOSCIENCES"F
PETRA
746
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Foundation System
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 26.4 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 3,000 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 3,000 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.
eGEOSCIENCES".
PETRA
747
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Seismically Induced Settlement
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 '/2 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. l GEOSCIENCES""
PETRA
748
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 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 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.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"°
749
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Building Floor Slabs
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
1. Concrete floor slabs should be a minimum of 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). A11 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.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"°
750
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 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.
eGEOSCIENCES"'
PETRA
751
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 2022 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 2022 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.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"
752
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 2022 CBC) by the structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on calculations, engineering experience and judgment.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'"
753
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Foundation Excavation Observations
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 eGEOSCIENCES"`
PETRA
754
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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, 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
Classification
General Recommendations
Test
Test Results
Soluble Sulfates
(Cal
0.0018 percent
S0W No
Not Applicable
cement type restrictions; no water/cement ratio
restrictions;
min. f'c = 2,500 psi
pH
(Ca1 643)
7.5 Slightly Alkaline
No special recommendations
Soluble Chloride
(Ca1 422)
330 ppm
C1(2)
Moderate
C2(4)
Severe
Residence: No special recommendations, f'c
should not be less than 2,500 psi.
Pools & Decking: Water/cement ratio should not
exceed 0.40; min. f'e= 5,000 psi
Resistivity
(Cal 643)
20,000 ohm -cm
Mildly
Corrosive�3l
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"
4. Exposure classification C2 applies specifically to swimming pools and appurtenant concrete elements 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 PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"'
755
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
(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.
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 soil adjacent to the structures.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"°.
756
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Bottomless Trench Drains
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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.
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.
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"°.
757
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 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 3/4 -inch to 1 %Z -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 PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"°
758
SCUD AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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.
Waterproofing
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 PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"°.
759
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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.
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 PETRA
GEOSCIENCES"°
760
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 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 finish 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, 0 GEOSCIENCES"'
PETRA
761
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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.
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
Plans for the proposed project were not made available to Petra at the time this report was prepared, but it is common to include one (or more) pools in a multi -unit apartment complex. If a pool is proposed for the project, the pool may be designed as a conventional pool shell founded on natural, medium dense eolian 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 eGEOSCIENCES"'c
PETRA
762
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
potential for seismic differential settlement on the order of one inch to occur across the pool/spa shells should be considered in the design. Petra should review final plans when available to verify there are no additional geotechnical concerns related to the construction of a pool.
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 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 eolian 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 on medium dense to dense eolian 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.
l GEOSCIENCES"'
PETRA
763
SCUD AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
Plumbing Fixtures
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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.
ACCESS ROADS
Asphalt Pavement
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 collected 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 PETRA
GEOSCIENCES«'
764
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 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 on 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 eGEOSCIENCES".
PETRA
765
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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.
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
NO. EG1952
CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
W.\2020-2025\2024\100\24-112\Reports\24-112 110 Design -Phase Geotechnical Repott.docx Siamak Jafroudi, PhD
Senior Principal Engineer
GE 2024
0 GEOSCIENCES''
PETRA
766
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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 July, 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. eGEOSCIENCES".
PETRA
767
SOLID AS A ROCK
NATIONAL CORE
Rancho Mirage Apartments /Rancho Mirage
REFERENCES
July 25, 2024
J.N. 24-112
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/ eGEOSCIENCES".
PETRA
768
SOLID AS A ROCK
FIGURES
0 GEOSCIENCES^'
PETRA
769
NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL
H
h*
H/3
Sloped or level ground surface
Compacted on -site soil
Recommended backcut*
Waterproofing compound
Install subdrain system
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
IMPORTED SAND BACKFILL
H
1/2 H _
Sloped or level ground surface
On -site native soil cap
(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).
4 inch perforated pipe. Perforated pipe should
•j 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
l7 _
IMPORTED GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK BACKFILL
H
2` min.*
Sloped or level ground surface
,�1 On -site native soil cap
/2 H.•`. ::•''.:•'.• ,:•''. •'.:•.,. -:!t (12" thick)
Z -Non -expansive imported
gravel or crushed rock
Install filter fabric (Mirafi 140N
or equal) to prevent migration
of fines into backfill.
Waterproofing compound
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. 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 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-3
FRANK SINATRA DR
RAMON RD
p LA COSTA ,D/r
HILTON HEAD DR
■
SHERWOOD RD
GERALD FORD DR_
O
WATE5
Baie Map: Portions of USGS Palm S rings,Tatnearal City, Myoma, Rancho Mtrxage, and La Quinta Quadrangles 5-1/1inute Topogra ic Ser'es, 2015 (73
CYPRESS.
zit i2 q00'
ORPORA7E,
VIA VAI
DINAH. SHORE DR
I I z
VICTORY DR w
GINGER ROGERS RD
,VIA FLOAENCIA
-
PROVENCE DR
w
v
;Thousand
Palms
DATA RD
HASKELL RD
RAMON RD
BROAD
CA CHI CA
H AVE t "DER OR
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
PETRA
390801911096"
DATE: July, 2024
J.N.: 24-112
Figure 1
•
Base Map: Google Earth, 2024.
a
t
B-1
TD=66'
•
•
•
4 F
•
TD=26' TD=26' TD=10'
0 j/1
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
Ci EGSCIfNCES"9I J.N.: 24-112
PIETRA DATE: July, 2024
Figure 2
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
PETRAS 775
GEOSCIENCE^
SOt ID AS A ROCK
Key to Soil and Bedrock Symbols and Terms
Unified Soil Classification System
Fine-grained Soils Coarse -grained
> 1t2 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 article visible to the naked e e
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 CF
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 a 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
410 - #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
EX?
Expansion Potential
AT
Atterberg Limits
SO4
Soluble Sulfate Content
#200
#200 Screen Wash
RES
Resistivity
DSU
Direct Shear (Undisturbed Sample)
pH
Acidity
DSP.
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
< 1%
Few
1 - 5%
Some
5 - 12'/e
Numerous
12-20%
Bedrock Hardness
Can be crushed and granulated by
Soft
hand; 'sail like' and sYn.r,.;lureless
Can be grooved with fingernails;
Moderately
gouged easily with butler knife;
hlard
raurnbles under tight hammer blows
Cannot break by hand; can be
Hard
grooved with a sharp knife; breaks
with a moderate hummer blow
Very Hard
Sharp knife leaves scratch; chips
with repeated hammer blows
Sampler and Symbol Descriptions
7 Approximate Depth of Groundwater Encountered
Approximate Depth of Standing Groundwater
1 D
L
Modified California Split Spoon Sample El
Standard Penetration Test
No Recovery in SPT Sampler
D
No Recovery in Mod. Calif. Split Spoon Sample
Shelby Tube Sample
No Recovery in Shelby Tube
Bulk Sample
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 bole with a standard (140 lb.) hammer dropping a inches unless noted otherwise in Log Notes. Drive samples collected in bucket auger borings maybe obtained by dropping non-standard weight from7_7,d ari 1 ghts. When a SPT sampler is used the blow count conforms to ASTM D-1516 6
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: A-2 Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: B-1
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±307'
Job No.: 24-112
Client: National Core
Date: 6/7/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight:
Logged
By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description T o u
w
A
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
r
e
B
I
k
Moisture
Content
(0/0)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
0 —
— °1.1:1;
—I
' ':
a•1.
I i:r r P.1.:
Ial :r• r. + ::
rt:
r. r
. . r,a..:
:
I :i:c r r: 1 :
:1 : : 1: 1 :
I.1 : is 1; 1-1:
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
fine-grained sand.
MAX, EI, pH,
-dense, fine- to
dry, medium -dense,
6 8
13 6
0 11
4 5
8 10
15 12
22 13
25 41
8 14
20 9
16 21
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.6
0.6 0.6
0.8 102.8
98.7 RES, CL,
SO4, DSR
COL
Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Gray, dry, loose,
: Becomes medium -dense.
@2'ir.
—
Sand (SP): Off-white to gray, dry, medium
medium -grained sand.
I—
—'-.::.,,:',
—I.I,I:f .t:
—
—1
15—I°:1:IH:
—.I:i,
—
_
20—
—
-°I.1:I.I:
25-1.1.:1.•
—I'
—I.1:I:
—
—Ivi°I:p:i-i:
—
—
.;- : r r 1, °
, :1 :1: ' '::
°d :1: ( i.j :
:I. °::r 1.1.:
it:: °t:
:ra.::
I •I I: I: f i
i1:cri ':
I .r r r: i' t
:I ':ia ::
a°I°. . l°. ° 11°
I. ::
::i•'o-t°•
a°.r.r:i°t.
:.i:f i .1.. •
;I:I: 1 C1:
:I :1: I. i {:
6'1:
° °.I: r. a° t:
° : : 1, t1:
1 4°
1. :I I: t r.
•
:k is i i. :
.1:I: r P.1 :
1 ' 1 :ra.t:
I: r!:
°1 '1: 1' 1 t;
I °. :1: 6, 1.i :
i:
H C[if:
: :I: i: : ::
I.L'a:ra..:
I °II: 1;p{:
1 : 1 :1: I: i't:
I°I:I: i.'I:V:.
1,i:rr: i°is
LL.°rr1.c•
Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Gray to off-white• ,
fine -to medium -grained sand.
@20': Becomes dense.
rr
r
PLATE A-1
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
777
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: A-2 Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: B-1
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±307'
Job No.: 24-112
Client: National Core
Date: 6/7/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight:
Logged
By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description
w
A
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
1.I
-1
40-'E1:i
—:I
i:i.-.l:r7.r.:
45 —.5:
111:I;!;
_:I°{'
50 _.........
---.1:•1
—:
55 J•i3:
—7:1.7:66°J,P.:
—'1I;I:I:i°7
-:I
�d'i:1:1.1:it
—5:1:1:1:7 1:
11 65—a:,
—
—
:.7 .'i :
; ;1 .1. I. 1 4;
I.I. i. 1-1,
:1,v.r: i a t :
°J::J• I.
• "I' Ij 1.i.!
El: E f t;
:rJ3:L'I:r:
:1:L7.t°7°c:
.1:I: I; i 8:
j : 1 :1: i• i 1 :
.I °.1. I. J.
1 .1 :1: I.
fi c i; i E:
•
d , .1. I. I.
J' I,,;
5 :1 :1: 1: 1 [:
e1: I. °I: y'.
:I.Y:I: t. J'l:
•1 :I :I: I; t• i
'I :I :1: 1: 1 I:
� ,:I;1, !•r:
aa:f. r.rl:
d•pi;f••1:•
:I ...irir r r,i:
.•1.1• 11. V•°
Y .1 1: 1r t' ! ,•
II: r. a 1:
°J :1: I r. J :
1 . 1 -1' 1 1 fp
..•,i:i: Jr
f. 1.1
r.°I:r•.
:I °J :I: i: L J :
:I .1:1: 1; i 8 :
}i
°J°i 3:L°1:f•.
°t4:1: I: J, 1 :
1;1.7: ii.r.:
q:i _I: ; J e:
.1 .1°1: I° t.. { :
:L{.1: I••I. V°•
.7:C t, J'l:
a:ia•G:
1 is
I:I: 0.5
,I.9J:671:
@50': Becomes dense.
@60': Becomes medium -dense.
@65': Becomes dense.
9 20
27 10
16 17
5 13
10 17
26 10
2417
4 7
9 18
34 r35
0.4 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.5 0
Total Depth= 66.5'
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
PLATE A-1
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
778
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: A-2 Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: B-2
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±313'
Job No.: 24-112
Client: National Core
Date: 6/7/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight:
Logged By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description T o u
W
A
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
r
e
B
I
k
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
0 ' i;' is
r°i:t. c.
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
2.0 1.9
1.6 0.3
0.3 105.1
107.3
Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Gray, dry, loose, fine-grained sand. 6 9
14 Sand (SP): Gray, dry, merdium-dense, fine- to medium -grained 5 10
15 20
25 30
• ::
sand.
@7.5': Becomes dry.
@15': Becomes gray to off-white.
@20': No recovery.
3 6
LLLJJJJ
Tr
9 13 _
2 4
6 I—
Tr
11 17
30 U
7 10 _
14 Total Depth= 21.5'
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
PLATE A-2
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
779
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: A-2 Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: B-3
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±308'
Job No.: 24-112
Client: National Core
Date: 6/7/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight:
Logged By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description T o u
W
A
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
r
e
B
I
k
Moisture
Content
(°/a)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
0 —
•'''!`'F.i i"'
ri•a • I
I ;i; : o- r i -I
•
°r r. r: ,° 1:
:L.�:,:• ••
I .1 : f:.i- is
°:°r r ;, °
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
1.2 1.0
0.7 0.5
0.3 0.4
105.0
Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Gray, dry, loose, fine-grained sand. 4 5
Tr
@2':Becomes medium -dense.
Sand (SP): Gray to off-white, dry, medium -dense, fine-grained 6 11
11U
5 —
—
15—'. i
-
20- @20':
—
—
25 —
30 -
:
is
sand.
@7.5': Becomes gray with fine- to medium -grained sand.
Becomes very dense.
2 5
5 9
16 U
6 9
13 Tr
22 43
50/4"
U
Total Depth= 21.5'
No groundwater encountered
Boring backfilled with cuttings.
PLATE A-3
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
780
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: A-2 Rancho Mirage Apartments
Boring No.: P-1
Location: Rancho Mirage
Elevation: ±308'
Job No.: 24-112
Client: National Core
Date: 6/7/2024
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
Driving Weight:
Logged
By: KTM
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
Material Description T o u
w
A
E
R
Samples
Laboratory Tests
Blows
per
6 in.
C
r
e
B
I
k
Moisture
Content
(0/0)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab
Tests
0 —I:j:.
—I
—
,;',),1!`:,1:;:',
is r; j:i
°'`"1° °'i:
: ..�: °.
I I; : t r. ] ::
°1 :r b i {:
I.;i:i: rr..
EOLIAN DEPOSITS (Qe)
fine-grained sand.
-dense, fine-grained
-grained sand.
7 1 97
MA
Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Gray, dry, loose,
@2': Becomes medium -dense.
—
'
Sand (SP): Gray to off-white, dry, medium
sand.
@7.5': Becomes gray with fine- to medium
V
10 —
—
15 —
20 -
25 -
30 -
Total Depth= 10'
No groundwater encountered
Perc test installed within boring utilizing a 2" perforated pipe and gravel.
PLATE A-4
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
781
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY
PETRAS 782
GEOSCIENCE^
Sot ID AS A ROCK
� 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 7
T: 714.549.8921 F: 951.737.3199
For more information visit us online at www.oetra-inc.com
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). The results of this test are graphically presented on Plate B-4.
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Laboratory ?841251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 103, Corona, CA, 92882 J.N. 24-112 v
LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY
Boring/
Test Pit/
Sample/
Number
Sample
Depth
ft.
( )
Soil/
Bedrock
Description'
p
Compaction'
Corrosivity Screening
Expansion°
Maximum
D ry
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
(%)
Soluble
Sulfate
Content3
(%)
Chloride
Content4
(ppm)
p HS
(Acidity)
Minimum
Resistivity'
(Ohm -cm)
Index
Potential
B-1
0-5
SP
115.5
11.5 0.0018
330
7.5 20,000
-0
Very Low
,
,
Test Procedures: ' 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 7
J.N. 24-112
5251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 103, Corona, CA, 92882
Plate B-1
Phone #. 714.549.8921
N
CO
00 N
0)
CO
U
ns
0 0
U
M
4 ca
0 co
0 E
0 d
L
-9 a)
o
c0 N
J
Fail.
Ult.
'
C, ksf
0.000
0.102
'.-
f, deg
30.09 26.39
Tan(f)
0.58 0.50
Ult. Stress, ksf -
Fail. Stress, ksf -
O �
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Normal Stress, ksf
Shear Stress, ksf
O N
O Cn (P N (T W
Sample No. 1 2 3
Water Content, % 11.5 11.5 11.5
Dry Density, pcf 103.4 103.5 103.5
m
Saturation, % 50.8 50.8 50.9
3 Void Ratio 0.5994 0.5990 0.5979
Diameter, in. 2.416 2.416 2.416
Height, in. 1.001 1.000 1.000
At Test
Water Content, % 20.5 20.3 19.8
Dry Density, pcf 104.6 105.9 107.3
/y--
2 Saturation, % 93.3 95.9 96.9
Void Ratio 0.5820 0.5617 0.5424
Diameter, in. 2.416 2.416 2.416
,,
9 Height, in. 0.990 0.977 0.965
Normal Stress, ksf 1.000 2.000 4.000
Fail. Stress, ksf 0.600 1.128 2.328
0 5 10 15 20
Strain, %
Strain, % 4.2 5.6 5.6
Ult. Stress, ksf 0.600 1.092 2.088
Strain, % 8.7 10.4 10.4
Strain rate, in./min. 0.040 0.040 0.040
Sample Type: Remolded
Description: Gray Fine to Medium Sand
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:
Figure B-2
Client:
Project:
Source of Sample: 24L130 Depth: 0-5
Sample Number: B-1
Proj. No.: 24-112 Date Sampled:
0 PETRA
ososCIENCEs'''
Tested By: DI
786
rn
CO
O)
0 o
CL
N
00 CO
N
O)
as
U
c>3
o
o
U
D
ctS
o
m
o
E
o
o_
0 0
m �
o
0u�
m
J
Particle Size Distribution Report
c. 0 S
F c
0 0 0 0 0 a
100
90 •
80 r
i
i
70 W
f
11 11
II
II
II
1 1
II
I
1 1
1 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 1 1 1
I I I
1 1
1 1
1 1
60 z
i
I'
i
I
I
Z 50
W
U
iY
W 40
�.
I
I
II
i
l
i I
I
i
I
I
1 i
•
i
I
i
I
i
i
I.
i
30 i
i
i
r
20 I
I 1
I
i
I
1 10
o
i
r
•
100 10 1
o.1
o.01 o.00l
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
+3"
% Coarse
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Silt Clay
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
50.4 44.1
5.5 SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
Soil 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
89.8 49.6
D90= 0.8599 D85= 0.7714 D60= 0.5156
D50= 0.4286 D30= 0.1956 D15= 0.1132
D10= 0.0922 Cu- 5.59 Cc= 0.81
Classification
#60
#100
#140
35.8 22.8
13.3 USCS= AASHTO=
Remarks
#200
5.5 (no specification provided)
Source of Sample: 24L130 Depth: 9
Sample Number: P-1 Date: 7/19/2024
--i--
PETRA
GEOSCIENCES'c
Client:
Project:
Project No: 24-112 Figure B-3
Tested By: DI
787
N
O7
co
O7
N-
4)
C
O
L
CO
N
CO
N
C)
f0
U
C
O
`O
0 O
C
0 O
tY
0 C
O
E
O
0 o
ox-
-0 1.O
J 1-
COLLAPSE TEST REPORT
-0.5
-0.2
0.1 0.4
0.7 .Fa
Water
Added
Percent Stn
N N
(T1 N CO O) W O
0.1 1
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural
Dry Dens.
(pcf)
LL
PI
Sp.
Gr.
Overburden
(ksf)
P c
(ksf)
C c
C r
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Clpse.
%
e o
Sat.
Moist.
2.5 °/0
0.7 %
129.8
2.65 0.3
0.737
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
AASHTO
Gray Fine to Medium Sand
Project No. 24-112 Client:
Project:
Source of Sample: 24L130 Depth: 7.5 Sample Number: B-1
Remarks:
Figure B-4
c�
Tested By: DI
788
APPENDIX C
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
PETRAS 789
GEOSCIENCE^
SOt ID AS A ROCK
ke PETRA
GEOSCIENCE
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: 24-112
Boring: B-1
Project:
National Core Apartments
Total Depth of Boring: 65 feet
Layer
No.
(i)
Depth to Soil/Rock Layer
Layer
Thickness
(d,)
n
1 di
i=i
Mod. Cal.
Sampler Blow
Counts'
Equivalent N-
SPT2
(N;)
s
N-SPT
(N)
n
di
i=1 Ni
Top
Bottom
ft
ft
ft
ft
blows/ft
blows/ft
blows/ft
1 0
2.5 2.5
2.5 21
14 0.18
2 2.5
5 2.5
5.0 21
14 0.36
3 5
7.5 2.5
7.5 13
8 0.67
4 7.5
10 2.5
10.0 23
15 0.84
5 10
15 5
15.0 53
35 0.98
6 15
20 5
20.0 66
43 1.10
7 20
25 5
25.0 0
34 1.24
8 25
30 5
30.0 0
37 1.38
9 30
35 5
35.0 0
47 1.48
10 35
40 5
40.0 0
33 1.64
11 40
45 5
45.0 0
23 1.85
12 45
50 5
50.0 0
43 1.97
13 50
55 5
55.0 0
41 2.09
14 55
60 5
60.0 0
16 2.40
15 60
65 5
65.0 0
62 2.48
Date: 7/20/2024
SPT Test Interval: every
5 feet
Average Field Standard
Site Classification
Penetration Resistance
(blows/ft)
Per Table 20.3-1
— n
N = i=1 d` -
26 D
Ni
Li=1 Ni
1 Modified 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 rock layer, this value shall be taken as 100 blows /ft (305 blows /m). 790
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. 24-112 National Core Apartments
Latitude, Longitude: 33.796486, -116.394338
Victory Ln
Key Largo Ave
Nova Ln
Goggle
•
OSHPD
alAV Aa1011.10[Al
Map data O2024
Date
Design Code Reference Document
Risk Category
Site Class
7/21/2024, 11:06:57 PM
ASCE7-16
II
D - Stiff Soil
Type Value Description
Ss 1.819 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
S1 0.757 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
SMs 1.819 Site -modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site -modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.213 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 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 0.789 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 0.868 Site modified peak ground acceleration
T� 8 Long -period transition period in seconds
SsRT 2.146 Probabilistic risk -targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 2.404 Factored uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.819 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1 RT 0.846 Probabilistic risk -targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1 UH 0.963 Factored uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration. 791
1 of 3 7/21/2024, 23:07
U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org/
Type Value Description
S1 D 0.757 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.789 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) PGAuH 0.941 Uniform -hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration CRS 0.893 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.879 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s Cv 1.464 Vertical coefficient
792
2 of 3 7/21/2024, 23:07
U.S. Seismic Design Maps https://www.seismicmaps.org/
DISCLAIMER
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD 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. 793
3 of 3 7/21/2024, 23:07
Unified Hazard Tool
U.S. Geological Survey- Earthquake Hazards Program
Unified Hazard Tool
https://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.
^ Input
Edition
Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (...
Latitude
Decimal degrees
33.796486
Spectral Period
Peak Ground Acceleration
Time Horizon
Return period in years
2475
Longitude
Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes -116.394338
Site Class
259 m,/s (Site class D)
794
l of 5 7/21/2024, 23:05
Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
^ Hazard Curve
Annual Frequency of Exceedence
Annual Frequency of Exceedence
le+0
le -1
1e-2
le -3
le -4
le -5
le -6
le -7
le -8
le -9
1e+0
le -1
le -2
le -3
le -4
le -5
le -6
le -7
le -8
Hazard Curves
- Time Horizon 2475 years
- Peak Ground Acceleration
- e- 0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration
- 0- - 0.20 Second Spectral Acceleration
-►- 0.30 Second Spectral Acceleration
- 0- 0.50 Second Spectral Acceleration
-y- 0.75 Second Spectral Acceleration
- 6- 1.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
- 2.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
z- 3.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
0- 4.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
- 8- 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
rt- Grid
— 0— Interface
— 8— Fault
le -2 le -1 1e+0
Ground Motion (g)
View Raw Data
Ground Motion (g)
3.5 3.0
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 0.0
Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum
Spectral Period (s): PGA
Ground Motion (g): 0.9444
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Spectral Period (s)
795
2 of 5 7/21/2024, 23:05
Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
Deaggregation
Component
Total
N
12 fo
N
z
0 -o
0 U
A•
S
1S
..•
C(..ses `o�
d t)ce 4S
rR0,0('�J SS
S
;/-5'
S.
••♦
•
•
6S
?S
CIOse SS
3S 4/7
4S rR4p (z.
SS
4. ••.
•
55 •
6S
65 ▪ 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..+co)
3 of 5
796
7/21/2024, 23:05
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: 0.94442438 g
Return period: 3248.499 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030783448 yr
1 Totals Mean (over all sources)
Binned: 100 0/0
Residual: 0 0/0
Trace: 0.06 %
m: 7.21
r: 7.52 km
Eo: 1.58 o
Mode (largest m -r bin) Mode (largest m-r-Eo bin)
m: 7.49
r: 6.65 km
Eo: 1.5
Contribution: 16.34 0/0
Discretization
r: min = 0.0, max =1000.O,A=20.Okm
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
E: min= -3.0, max = 3.0, A= 0.5
m: 7.49
r: 6.61 km
Eo: 1.39 a
Contribution: 11.82 0/0
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)
Ell: [2.5 .. +.0]
797
4 of 5 7/21/2024, 23:05
Unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Deaggregation Contributors
Source Set L, Source
UC33brAvg_FM31
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hlll) [1]
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]
UC33brAvg_FM32
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HIII) [1]
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt)
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt)
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801
Type r m £o ton lat az
System 38.53
6.54 7.61 1.48 116.358°W 33.846°N 31.71 31.12
8.28 7.88 1.31 116.344°W 33.853°N 36.36 3.95
System
Grid
Grid
38.48 6.54 7.60 1.48 116.358°W 33.846°N 31.71 30.96
8.28 7.85 1.32 116.344°W 33.853°N 36.36 4.16
11.50 4.92 5.66 1.60 116.394°W 33.801°N 0.00 3.82
4.92 5.66 1.60 116.394°W 33.801°N 0.00 3.82
11.49 4.92 5.66 1.60 116.394°W 33.801°N 0.00 3.82
4.92 5.66 1.60 116.394°W 33.801°N 0.00 3.82
798
5 of 5 7/21/2024, 23:05
*** 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: 116.394°W
latitude: 33.796°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, E=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr-1
PGA ground motion: 0.94442438 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3248.499 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030783448 yr-1
Totals:
Binned: 100 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.06 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.21
r: 7.52 km
co: 1.58 a
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.65 km
Ea: 1.5 a
Contribution: 16.34 %
Mode (largest m -r -E0 bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.61 km
Eo: 1.39 a
Contribution: 11.82 %
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 a
Epsilon keys:
EO: [-° .. -2.5)
E1: [-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) ALLE E=(-oo,-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) €=[1,1.5) E=[1.5,2) E=[2,2.5) E=[2.5,-)
70 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 70 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 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 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 50 8.1 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 50 8.3 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005 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 0.005 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 6.5 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 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.009 30 6.9 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.014 30 7.1 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.049 799
30 7.3 0.058 0.000 0.000
30 7.5 0.111 0.000 0.000
30 7.7 0.143 0.000 0.000
30 7.9 0.418 0.000 0.000
30 8.1 0.749 0.000 0.000
30 8.3 0.466 0.000 0.000
10 5.1 2.816 0.000 0.000
10 5.3 3.142 0.000 0.000
10 5.5 3.553 0.000 0.000
10 5.7 3.036 0.000 0.000
10 5.9 2.387 0.000 0.000
10 6.1 2.727 0.000 0.000
10 6.3 2.847 0.000 0.000
10 6.5 3.811 0.000 0.000
10 6.7 1.333 0.000 0.000
10 6.9 1.699 0.000 0.000
10 7.1 1.569 0.000 0.000
10 7.3 15.066 0.000 0.000
10 7.5 16.336 0.000 0.000
10 7.7 13.058 0.000 0.000
10 7.9 7.180 0.000 0.000
10 8.1 13.116 0.000 0.000
10 8.3 4.263 0.000 0.000
Principal Sources (faults,
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 38.53
Distance (km): 7.7522696
Magnitude: 7.6290489
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5183046
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 31.12
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.6050927
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4767216
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 3.95
Distance (km): 8.2781536
Magnitude: 7.8816596
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3120476
Azimuth: 36.358309
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 38.48
Distance (km): 7.7441979
Magnitude: 7.6245993
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5185216
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HI11) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 30.96
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.6018745
Epsilon (mean values): 1.478169
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 4.16
Distance (km): 8.2781536
Magnitude: 7.8512625
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3196983
Azimuth: 36.358309
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 11.5
Distance (km): 6.7410744
Magnitude: 5.807404
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.104
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.397
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.763 1.059
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.399 0.866
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.993 0.677
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.662 1.011
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.429 1.544
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.403 2.063
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.237 0.805
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.136 1.204
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.310 0.618
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 9.549 3.804
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 11.818 3.664
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 9.799 2.633
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 5.286 1.523
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 9.984 2.531
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.495 2.796 0.795
subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution
0.004
0.013
0.018
0.166
0.493
0.375
1.403
0.289
0.256
0.398
0.475
0.877
0.744
0.749
0.176
0.264
0.518
1.666
0.848
0.625
0.368
0.589
0.177
0.054
0.099
0.125
0.252
0.253
0.089
0.309
0.456
0.474
0.372
0.242
0.177
0.130
0.562
0.051
0.039
0.080
0.025
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.000
800
Epsilon (mean values): 1.8045724
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 3.82
Distance (km): 4.9165462
Magnitude: 5.6568818
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5987339
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 3.82
Distance (km): 4.9165462
Magnitude: 5.6568818
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5987339
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 11.49
Distance (km): 6.740285
Magnitude: 5.806952
Epsilon (mean values): 1.8046318
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 3.82
Distance (km): 4.9166413
Magnitude: 5.6565838
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5988436
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 3.82
Distance (km): 4.9166413
Magnitude: 5.6565838
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5988.436
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.394°W
latitude: 33.796°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, s=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr-1
PGA ground motion: 0.94442438 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3248.499 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030783448 yr-1
Totals:
Binned: 22.08
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.05 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.11
r: 7.89 km
co: 1.82 a
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.64 km
€o: 1.67 o
Contribution: 3.51 0
Mode (largest m -r -co bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.61 km
801
co: 1.67 a
Contribution: 3.49 %
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)
E1: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
E2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
E3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
E4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
c5: [-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 €=(-oo,-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=[2.5,00)
70 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 70 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 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 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 50 8.1 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 50 8.3 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 30 6.3 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 30 6.5 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 30 6.7 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 30 6.9 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 30 7.1 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 30 7.3 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 30 7.5 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 30 7.7 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.047 30 7.9 0.133 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.100 30 8.1 0.241 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.110 0.130 30 8.3 0.148 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.148 0.000 10 5.1 1.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.568 0.338 0.261 10 5.3 0.920 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.681 0.000 0.239 10 5.5 0.731 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.516 0.038 0.178 10 5.7 0.608 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.412 0.067 0.130 10 5.9 0.491 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.318 0.084 0.089 10 6.1 0.604 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.255 0.290 0.059 10 6.3 0.667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.305 0.329 0.033 10 6.5 1.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.507 0.121 0.293 10 6.7 0.318 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.178 0.053 0.018 10 6.9 0.398 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.287 0.053 0.019 10 7.1 0.380 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.205 0.143 0.014 10 7.3 3.373 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 3.058 0.308 0.000 10 7.5 3.506 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 3.493 0.011 0.000 10 7.7 2.621 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.618 0.003 0.000 10 7.9 1.386 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.356 0.030 0.000 10 8.1 2.466 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.453 0.013 0.000 10 8.3 0.783 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.783 0.000 0.000 Principal Sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 8.17
Distance (km): 8.1838797
Magnitude: 7.5998188
Epsilon (mean values): 1.7365455
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HI11) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 6.58
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.5831569
Epsilon (mean values): 1.661708
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
802
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 8.14
Distance (km): 8.1708632
Magnitude: 7.5947826
Epsilon (mean values): 1.7381942
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 6.54
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.5792035
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6632409
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
UC33brAvg FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 2.89
Distance (km): 7.0774363
Magnitude: 5.730687
Epsilon (mean values): 2.051394
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 2.89
Distance (km): 7.076764
Magnitude: 5.7302345
Epsilon (mean values): 2.0514829
PSHA Deaggregation. °contributions
site: Test
longitude: 116.394°W
latitude: 33.796°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, €=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr-'
PGA ground motion: 0.94442438 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3248.499 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030783448 yr-'
Totals:
Binned: 43.34 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.09 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.14
r: 7.7 km
co: 1.45 a
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.69 km
€o: 1.37 a
Contribution: 6.38
Mode (largest m -r -£o bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.65 km
co: 1.36
Contribution: 6.35 %
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)
€2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
€3: [-1.5 .. —1.0)
e4: [-1.0 .. —0.5)
€5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
€6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
803
€7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
e8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
e9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
e10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
€11: [2.5 .. +-]
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
Magnitude (Mw) ALL e
€=[-1.5,-1) e=[-1,-0.5) €=[-0.5,0) e=[0,0.5)
e=[2,2.5) e=[2.5,00)
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 0.010 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 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.5 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.7 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.9 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.1 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.3 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.5 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.7 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.9 0.219 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.1 0.378 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.3 0.226 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.1 0.991 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.3 1.514 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.5 2.134 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.7 1.804 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.9 1.361 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.1 1.421 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.3 1.378 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.5 1.789 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.7 0.546 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.9 0.701 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.1 0.656 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.3 5.880 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.5 6.383 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.7 5.390 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.9 2.976 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.1 5.508 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.3 1.822 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
e=( -m,-2.5)
€=[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
0.006
0.008
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.495
e=[-2.5,-2) e=[-2,-1.5)
e=[1,1.5) €=[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
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.763
1.399
0.993
0.662
0.409
0.228
0.112
0.078
0.279
5.354
6.348
5.382
2.917
5.462
1.319
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.010
0.000 0.000 0.003
0.000 0.001 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.004
0.000 0.000 0.004
0.000 0.002 0.006
0.000 0.002 0.009
0.000 0.003 0.030
0.000 0.003 0.032
0.000 0.012 0.058
0.000 0.012 0.073
0.000 0.112 0.106
0.003 0.372 0.004
0.002 0.224 0.000
0.536 0.446 0.010
1.392 0.000 0.122
0.001 0.218 0.152
0.000 0.290 0.114
0.000 0.309 0.058
0.439 0.276 0.044
0.788 0.129 0.053
0.999 0.371 0.191
0.382 0.040 0.012
0.526 0.095 0.002
0.118 0.254 0.000
0.212 0.306 0.000
0.018 0.015 0.000
0.008 0.000 0.000
0.059 0.000 0.000
0.034 0.000 0.000
0.007 0.000 0.000
Principal Sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 15 91
Distance (km): 8.056292
Magnitude: 7.623832
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3878356
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HI11) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 12.14
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.6010797
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3457294
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 2.13
Distance (km): 8.2781536
Magnitude: 7.8467268
Epsilon (mean values): 1.0820297
Azimuth: 36.358309
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 15.88
Distance (km): 8.0622881
Magnitude: 7.6287094
804
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3887459
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HI11) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 12.19
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.6037953
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3448949
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 2.02
Distance (km): 8.2781536
Magnitude: 7.8788431
Epsilon (mean values): 1.0744497
Azimuth: 36.358309
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 5.78
Distance (km): 6.709053
Magnitude: 5.8000703
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6039007
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 2.01
Distance (km): 4.9908756
Magnitude: 5.6523822
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3913807
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 2.01
Distance (km): 4.9908756
Magnitude: 5.6523822
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3913807
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 5.78
Distance (km): 6.7081391
Magnitude: 5.7996854
Epsilon (mean values): 1.6039164
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 2.01
Distance (km): 4.9908925
Magnitude: 5.6521468
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3914648
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 2.01
Distance (km): 4.9908925
Magnitude: 5.6521468
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3914648
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.394°W
latitude: 33.796°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, e=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
805
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr-'
PGA ground motion: 0.94442438 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3248.499 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030783448 yr-'
Totals:
Binned: 4.02 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.02 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.46
r: 6.7 km
co: 2.26 a
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.61 km
co: 2.25 o
Contribution: 0.81
Mode (largest m -r -co bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.61 km
co: 2.25 a
Contribution: 0.81 %
Discretization:
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, A = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, A = 0.2
€: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, A = 0.5 a
Epsilon keys:
eO: [-OO .. —2.5)
el: [-2.5 .. —2.0)
€2: [-2.0 .. —1.5)
e3: [-1.5 .. —1.0)
e4: [-1.0 .. —0.5)
e5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
c6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
€7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
e8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
€9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
€10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
ell: [2.5 .. +°]
Closest Distance, rRup (km) Magnitude (Mw) ALL € e=( —c°,-2.5) €=[-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) e=[2,2.5) e=[2.5,-)
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 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 10 5.5 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 10 5.7 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 10 5.9 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.029 10 6.1 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.022 10 6.3 0.135 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.108 0.027 10 6.5 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.151 0.025 10 6.7 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.053 0.009 10 6.9 0.101 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.080 0.006 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 0.748 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.723 0.022 10 7.5 0.812 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.811 0.001 10 7.7 0.619 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.619 0.000 10 7.9 0.332 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 0.578 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 0.177 0.000 Principal Sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 1.79
Distance (km): 6.7784225
806
Magnitude: 7.5903583
Epsilon (mean values): 2.2502599
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HI11) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 1.57
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.5636338
Epsilon (mean values): 2.2415974
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 1.79
Distance (km): 6.7745372
Magnitude: 7.5940581
Epsilon (mean values): 2.2503848
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HI11) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 1.58
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.567265
Epsilon (mean values): 2.2411248
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.394°W
latitude: 33.796°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
PGA ground motion: 0.94442438
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3248.499 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030783448 yr-'
Totals:
Binned: 30.56 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.05 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.35
r: 7.1 km
co: 1.52 a
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.63 km
co: 1.43 a
Contribution: 5.64
yr-'
g
Mode (largest m -r -E0 bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.56 km
co: 1.43
Contribution: 5.47 %
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:
El:
E2:
E3:
E4:
E5:
E6:
[-m .. -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)
807
€7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
e8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
e9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
E10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
€11: [2.5 .. +-]
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
Magnitude (Mw) ALL e
€=[-1.5,-1) e=[-1,—0.5) €=[-0.5,0) e=[0,0.5)
e=[2,2.5) s=[2.5,00)
50 7.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.3 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.7 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.9 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.1 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.3 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.5 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.7 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.9 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.1 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.3 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.1 0.658 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.3 0.704 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.5 0.672 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.7 0.598 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 5.9 0.501 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.1 0.634 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.3 0.667 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.5 0.805 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.7 0.379 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.9 0.499 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.1 0.467 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.3 5.065 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.5 5.635 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.7 4.429 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.9 2.485 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.1 4.565 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.3 1.481 0.000 0.000 0.000
Principal Sources (faults, subduction,
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 12.69
Distance (km): 7.2244671
Magnitude: 7.6532072
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4368664
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 10.77
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.6254958
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4010122
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 1.14
Distance (km): 8.2781536
Magnitude: 7.8911321
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3969631
Azimuth: 36.358309
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 12.65
Distance (km): 7.2138514
Magnitude: 7.6495929
Epsilon (mean values): 1.438004
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 10.7
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.6222483
Epsilon (mean values): 1.403131
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
o.000 o.000 o.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
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 seismicity ha
e=(--,-2.5) e=[-2.5,-2) e=[-2,-1.5)
€=[0.5,1) e=[1,1.5) €=[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 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.324
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.543
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.454
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.359
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.317
0.000 0.000 0.020 0.452
0.000 0.034 0.093 0.518
0.000 0.065 0.055 0.218
0.000 0.057 0.019 0.376
0.000 0.036 0.013 0.289
0.000 0.015 4.187 0.531
0.000 0.004 5.468 0.153
0.000 0.000 4.417 0.008
0.000 0.000 2.369 0.107
0.000 0.000 4.521 0.044
0.000 0.000 1.477 0.005
ving > 3% contribution
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.020
0.011
0.003
0.620
0.289
0.000
0.042
0.076
0.264
0.177
0.107
0.030
0.036
0.069
0.328
0.011
0.003
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.046
0.119
0.089
0.038
0.091
0.129
0.103
0.066
0.053
0.018
0.053
0.012
0.012
0.061
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
808
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 1.2
Distance (km): 8.2781536
Magnitude: 7.8644919
Epsilon (mean values): 1.405447
Azimuth: 36.358309
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 2.61
Distance (km): 6.4949545
Magnitude: 5.8623336
Epsilon (mean values): 1.9321758
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 2.61
Distance (km): 6.4941944
Magnitude: 5.8617784
Epsilon (mean values): 1.9323608
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.394°W
latitude: 33.796°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 yr-1
PGA ground motion: 0.94442438 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3248.499 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0003.0783448 yr-1
Totals:
Binned: 77.01 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.04 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 7.63
r: 7.75 km
Eo: 1.52 a
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.65 km
co: 1.5 a
Contribution: 16.3 %
Mode (largest m -r -E0 bin):
m: 7.49
r: 6.61 km
co: 1.39 a
Contribution: 11.81 %
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)
c5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
E6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
E7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
E8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
809
E9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
E10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
E11: [2.5 .. +00]
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 0.000
70 8.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 7.9 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.1 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
50 8.3 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 6.5 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 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.1 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.3 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.5 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.7 0.142 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 7.9 0.418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.1 0.749 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30 8.3 0.466 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.1 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.3 0.834 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.5 2.382 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.7 0.501 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 6.9 1.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.1 1.266 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.3 14.930 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.5 16.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.7 13.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 7.9 7.178 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.1 13.116 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 8.3 4.263 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Principal Sources (faults, subduction, random
UC33brAvg_FM31:
Percent Contributed: 38.53
Distance (km): 7.7522696
Magnitude: 7.6290489
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5183046
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet Hill) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 31.12
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.6050927
Epsilon (mean values): 1.4767216
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 3.95
Distance (km): 8.2781536
Magnitude: 7.8816596
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3120476
Azimuth: 36.358309
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
UC33brAvg_FM32:
Percent Contributed: 38.48
Distance (km): 7.7441979
Magnitude: 7.6245993
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5185216
San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass -Garnet HI11) [1] :
Percent Contributed: 30.96
Distance (km): 6.5353046
Magnitude: 7.6018745
Epsilon (mean values): 1.478169
Azimuth: 31.71136
Latitude: 33.845511
Longitude: -116.35786
E=(--,-2.5) €=[-2.5,-2) E=[-2,-1.5)
E=[0.5,1) E=[1,1.5) E=[1.5,2)
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
o.000 o.000 o.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
seismicity having
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
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 0.002
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.519
0.000 0.004 1.387
0.000 0.004 0.438
0.000 0.008 0.970
0.000 0.231 0.506
0.000 9.507 3.762
0.000 11.806 3.651
0.000 9.798 2.632
0.000 5.286 1.522
0.012 9.984 2.531
0.495 2.796 0.795
> 3% contribution
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.015
0.000 0.005
0.001 0.005
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.001
0.000 0.005
0.000 0.042
0.001 0.049
0.011 0.097
0.017 0.125
0.166 0.252
0.493 0.253
0.375 0.089
0.000 0.016
0.277 0.038
0.497 0.495
0.042 0.017
0.159 0.023
0.455 0.075
1.637 0.024
0.842 0.000
0.624 0.000
0.368 0.002
0.589 0.001
0.177 0.000
810
San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [10]:
Percent Contributed: 4.16
Distance (km): 8.2781536
Magnitude: 7.8512625
Epsilon (mean values): 1.3196983
Azimuth: 36.358309
Latitude: 33.853076
Longitude: -116.34417
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: Test
longitude: 116.394°W
latitude: 33.796°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, E=epsilon:
Deaggregation targets:
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr-1
PGA ground motion: 0.94442438 g
Recovered targets:
Return period: 3248.499 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.00030783448 yr-'
Totals:
Binned: 22.99 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.06 %
Mean (over all sources):
m: 5.81
r: 6.74 km
Eo: 1.8 O
Mode (largest m -r bin):
m: 5.5
r: 6.19 km
1.75 o
Ep:
Contribution: 3.55
Mode (largest m -r -E0
m: 5.3
r: 4.87 km
Eo: 1.76 o
Contribution: 2.4 %
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:
EO: [-°° .. -2.5)
E1: [-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 .. +co]
Closest
Distance,
E=[-1.5,-1)
E=[2,2.5)
50 7.5 0.000
50 7.7 0.000
50 7.9 0.000
30 6.1 0.000
30 6.3 0.005
30 6.5 0.005
30 6.7 0.010
bin)
rRup (km) Magnitude (Mw) ALLE E=[-2.5,-2) E=[-2,-1.5)
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=[2.5,x)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000 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 0.005
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.008 811
30 6.9 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.009 30 7.1 0.010 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 2.816 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.104 1.403 0.309 10 5.3 3.142 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.397 0.289 0.456 10 5.5 3.553 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.763 1.059 0.256 0.474 10 5.7 3.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.399 0.866 0.398 0.372 10 5.9 2.387 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.993 0.677 0.475 0.242 10 6.1 2.712 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.662 1.011 0.877 0.162 10 6.3 2.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.429 1.025 0.466 0.092 10 6.5 1.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.399 0.675 0.253 0.068 10 6.7 0.832 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.233 0.367 0.134 0.033 10 6.9 0.539 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.128 0.234 0.105 0.017 10 7.1 0.303 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.080 0.112 0.064 0.005 10 7.3 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.042 0.042 0.029 0.002 10 7.5 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.012 0.013 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: 11.5
Distance (km): 6.7410744
Magnitude: 5.807404
Epsilon (mean values): 1.8045724
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 3.82
Distance (km): 4.9165462
Magnitude: 5.6568818
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5987339
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 3.82
Distance (km): 4.9165462
Magnitude: 5.6568818
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5987339
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt):
Percent Contributed: 11.49
Distance (km): 6.740285
Magnitude: 5.806952
Epsilon (mean values): 1.8046318
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 3.82
Distance (km): 4.9166413
Magnitude: 5.6565838
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5988436
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
PointSourceFinite: -116.394, 33.801:
Percent Contributed: 3.82
Distance (km): 4.9166413
Magnitude: 5.6565838
Epsilon (mean values): 1.5988436
Azimuth: 0
Latitude: 33.800983
Longitude: -116.39434
812
APPENDIX D
DRY SAND SETTLEMENT
PETRAS 813
GEOSCIENCE^
Si(; in AS a TnrA
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
I GEOLOGISIMIK Orange County Office
Vr WI DO 7Fi NUM106. VOLY O© TMf 160 3190 Airport Loop Drive, Suite J1, Costa Mesa, California 92626 www.petra-inc.com
SUMMARY CALCULATION REPORT
Project title : 24-112 National Core Apartments
Location : Rancho Mirage
Vertical Settlements
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.5-
1.4-
-"E"' 1.2-
Settlements
0.9 -
0.8 -
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
1.39 1.95
B-1 I&B 2014 B-1 NCEER
Test Name
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
814
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
Orange County Office
CEO.8#ISM:KI
Goatee lhrl4ca4 S.1 w,wre
3190 Airport Loop Drive, Suite 31, Costa Mesa, California 92626 ■ ■ rl • www.petra-inc.com
SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Project title : 24-112 National Core Apartments
Location : Rancho Mirage
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Sampling method:
Borehole diameter:
Rod length:
Hammer energy ratio:
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Boulanger & Idriss, 2014
Sampler wo liners
200mm
3.30 ft
1.20 G.W.T. (in -situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Eq. external load:
160.00 ft
160.00 ft
7.49 0.87 g
0.00 tsf
SPT Name: B-1 I&B 2014
Raw SPT Data CSR - CRR Plot
10-
15-
20-
25-
i� 30 -
a 35-
v
40-
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
I
0 10 20 30 40 50
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0.8 _
0.7-
0.6-
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
+_ 30-
L
35-
-
40-
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CSR - CRR
CRR 7.50 clean sand curve
10 15
20 25
w 30
L
Q 35
a)
o
40 45
50 55
60 65
Factor of Safety
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
FS Plot
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
30-
L
a 35-
I)
O
40-
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
LPI
0 Liquefaction potential
F.S. color scheme
▪ Almost certain it will liquefy
▪ Very likely to liquefy
❑ Liquefaction and no liqk are equally likely
• Unlike to liquefy
▪ Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
▪ Very high risk
• High risk
❑ Low risk
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
815
Page: 1
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::
Raw SPT Data CSR - CRR Plot FS Plot Vertical Liq. Settlements Lateral Liq. Displacements 2-
4 4-
4 4-
4_
6-
6-
8-
6 8
F--
6-
8-
f f
6-
8-
8 10-
10-
12-
10 12
-
-
--
---
10-
12-
10-
12-
12-
-
14 -
14 F--
-
14-
t-- ---}
-
14-
14-
16-
16-
-
16 ----
16-
-
•- - -
-
16-
-
18-
18 -
--
18 18-
i---
18-
20-
-
_
20 _
22-
----
;
20 22
F--
-
- ---:-
_
20 _
22-
f
_
20-
22-
22-
24-
26-
24-
26-
--
---i -
24 26
;--
--
24-
26-
24-
26-
28-
28-
----=------
-- -I
28 -----j-
28-
28-
30-
30-
----f
;
30 F
30-
}
; -
30-
32-
32-
v 32
v 32-
v 32-
.5 34-
a
a) 36-
t 34-
a-
36-
---:
--
-c 34
a
36 .
:--
-
+
-C 34-
a
cu 36-
1 1
1 -C 34-
-45
-
a) 36-
O
38-
38-
---;
f
i
38 f--
----J-
38-
f---- -----
38-
40-
42-
42-
!
42 42-
42-
44-
46-�
44-
46-
;
44 46
F
44-
46-
44-
46-
48-
50-1.
ill
48-
50-
48 50
T
48-
-
50-
48-
50-
52-
52_
1 52
--'
S2-
52-
54-
56-
�
54-
{
54 F--
54-
-
54-
58-
56-
-
T- - -
56 -
--T
56-
-
56_
-
60-1
III
-
58-
60-
58 60
-
----r
58-
60-
58_
60-
62-
_
F
_
_
64 66-
-
64-
-
r
----,
62 64
-
----,-
62-
64-
+
6Z--
64-
-
-. .
i i i i i i i i i
,
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 0 SPT Count (blows/ft) CSR - CRR Factor of Safety Cuml. Settlement (in) Cuml. Displacement (ft) LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
816
Page: 2
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Field input data ::
Test SPT Field
Depth Value
(ft) (blows)
Fines
Content
(0/0)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl. Can
Thickness Liquefy
(ft)
2.50 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 14
14 8
15 35
43 34
37 47
33 23
43 41
16 62
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
0.00 115.00
115.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
3.75 3.00
2.00 3.75
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:
SPT Field Value:
Fines Content:
Unit Weight:
Infl. Thickness:
Can Liquefy:
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 cry up a'„, m CN CE CB CR Cs (N1)60 FC A(N1)6o (Nikocs CRR7.5 (ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (%)
Value (pcf)
2.50 14 115.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.37 1.70 1.20 1.15 0.75 1.30 32 0.00 0.00 32 4.000
5.00 14 115.00 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.36 1.60 1.20 1.15 0.75 1.30 30 0.00 0.00 30 4.000
7.50 8 110.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.46 1.53 1.20 1.15 0.80 1.18 16 0.00 0.00 16 4.000
10.00 15 110.00 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.39 1.28 1.20 1.15 0.85 1.26 28 0.00 0.00 28 4.000
15.00 35 110.00 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.26 1.06 1.20 1.15 0.85 1.30 57 0.00 0.00 57 4.000
20.00 43 110.00 1.11 0.00 1.11 0.26 0.99 1.20 1.15 0.95 1.30 72 0.00 0.00 72 4.000
25.00 34 110.00 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.26 0.93 1.20 1.15 0.95 1.30 54 0.00 0.00 54 4.000
30.00 37 110.00 1.66 0.00 1.66 0.26 0.89 1.20 1.15 1.00 1.30 59 0.00 0.00 59 4.000
35.00 47 110.00 1.94 0.00 1.94 0.26 0.85 1.20 1.15 1.00 1.30 72 0.00 0.00 72 4.000
40.00 33 110.00 2.21 0.00 2.21 0.26 0.82 1.20 1.15 1.00 1.30 49 0.00 0.00 49 4.000
45.00 23 110.00 2.49 0.00 2.49 0.36 0.73 1.20 1.15 1.00 1.30 30 0.00 0.00 30 4.000
50.00 43 110.00 2.76 0.00 2.76 0.26 0.78 1.20 1.15 1.00 1.30 60 0.00 0.00 60 4.000
55.00 41 110.00 3.04 0.00 3.04 0.26 0.76 1.20 1.15 1.00 1.30 56 0.00 0.00 56 4.000
60.00 16 110.00 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.47 0.59 1.20 1.15 1.00 1.17 15 0.00 0.00 15 4.000
65.00 62 110.00 3.59 0.00 3.59 0.26 0.73 1.20 1.15 1.00 1.30 81 0.00 0.00 81 4.000 LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
817
Page: 3
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
Depth SPT Unit a, uo dvo m
(ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf)
Value (pcf)
Cry CE CB CR
Cs (N1)60 FC A(N1)6o (N1)6oas CRR7.5
(0/0)
Abbreviations
av:
uo:
a'vo :
m:
CN:
CE:
CB:
CR:
CB:
N1(60):
O(N1)6o
N1(60)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 N5- 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
(ft) Weight
(pcf)
a,eq uo,eq dvo,eq
(tsf) (tsf) (tsf)
rd a CSR MSF. (N1)60. MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR* FS
2.50 115.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.566 2.12 32 1.00 0.564 1.10 0.513 2.000 •
5.00 115.00 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.99 1.00 0.563 2.00 30 1.00 0.561 1.10 0.510 2.000 •
7.50 110.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.99 1.00 0.559 1.35 16 1.00 0.558 1.10 0.508 2.000 •
10.00 110.00 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.98 1.00 0.555 1.88 28 1.00 0.553 1.10 0.503 2.000 •
15.00 110.00 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.97 1.00 0.546 2.20 57 1.00 0.544 1.07 0.509 2.000 •
20.00 110.00 1.11 0.00 1.11 0.95 1.00 0.536 2.20 72 1.00 0.534 0.99 0.542 2.000 •
25.00 110.00 1.39 0.00 1.39 0.93 1.00 0.525 2.20 54 1.00 0.523 0.92 0.568 2.000 0
30.00 110.00 1.66 0.00 1.66 0.91 1.00 0.513 2.20 59 1.00 0.511 0.87 0.590 2.000
35.00 110.00 1.94 0.00 1.94 0.89 1.00 0.501 2.20 72 1.00 0.499 0.82 0.607 2.000 0
40.00 110.00 2.21 0.00 2.21 0.86 1.00 0.488 2.20 49 1.00 0.486 0.78 0.622 2.000 •
45.00 110.00 2.49 0.00 2.49 0.84 1.00 0.475 2.00 30 1.00 0.474 0.83 0.573 2.000
50.00 110.00 2.76 0.00 2.76 0.82 1.00 0.462 2.20 60 1.00 0.461 0.72 0.643 2.000 •
55.00 110.00 3.04 0.00 3.04 0.80 1.00 0.450 2.20 56 1.00 0.448 0.69 0.650 2.000 •
60.00 110.00 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.77 1.00 0.437 1.32 15 1.00 0.437 0.87 0.500 2.000 0
65.00 110.00 3.59 0.00 3.59 0.75 1.00 0.425 2.20 81 1.00 0.423 0.64 0.662 2.000 • Abbreviations
av,eg:
lb,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
(ft) (ft)
IL
2.50 2.000 0.00 9.62 2.50 0.00
5.00 2.000 0.00 9.24 2.50 0.00
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
818
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
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 Tait
(ft)
P Gmax a
(tsf)
b
Y
E15
Nc ENc ENc Ah AS
weight (%) (ft) (in)
factor
2.50 32 0.08 0.10 440.42
5.00 30 0.16 0.19 609.59
7.50 16 0.24 0.28 601.05
10.00 28 0.31 0.38 833.28
15.00 57 0.46 0.56 1Ltfti.b
20.00 72 0.60 0.75 105.4
25.00 54 0.73 0.93 1bZy.0
30.00 59 0.85 1.11 1,3RR'S
35.00 72 0.97 1.30 21Ri./
40.00 49 1.08 1.48 191.5
45.00 30 1.18 1.67 1 / i.0
50.00 60 1.28 1.85 LiSU./
55.00 56 1.37 2.04 L4iy.b
60.00 15 1.45 2.22 164L. j
65.00 81 1.52 2.40 Ly�Jtf.4
9 0.13
0.13 0.14
0.14 0.15
0.15 0.16
0.17 0.17
0.18 0.19
0.20 0.20
0.21 0.22
26059.76
17193.03
13598.84
11493.75
9051.99
7634.05
6686.45
5998.99
5472.55
5053.65
4710.61
4423.37
4178.55
3966.81
3781.46
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
15.06 15.06
15.06 15.06
15.06 15.06
15.06 15.06
15.06 15.06
15.06 15.06
15.06 15.06
15.06 0.95
0.90 0.85
0.80 0.70
0.60 0.50
0.40 0.30
0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.16 0.20
1.38 0.25
0.04 0.03
0.05 0.04
0.03 0.06
0.18 0.04
0.04 0.82
0.02 3.75
3.00 2.00
3.75 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
0.070
0.071
0.330
0.112
0.024
0.015
0.029
0.024
0.016
0.036
0.107
0.022
0.025
0.491
0.012
Cumulative settlemetns: 1.385
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
£Nc: Volumetric strain for number of cycles N, (%)
ah: Thickness of soil layer (in)
AS: Settlement of soil layer (in)
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
819
Page: 5
Petra Geosciences, Inc.
Orange County Office
CEO.8#ISM:KI
Goatee lhrl4ca4 S.1 w,wre
3190 Airport Loop Drive, Suite 31, Costa Mesa, California 92626 ■ ■ rl • www.petra-inc.com
SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Project title : 24-112 National Core Apartments
Location : Rancho Mirage
:: Input parameters and analysis properties ::
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Sampling method:
Borehole diameter:
Rod length:
Hammer energy ratio:
NCEER 1998
NCEER 1998
Sampler wo liners
200mm
3.30 ft
1.20 G.W.T. (in -situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Earthquake magnitude Mw:
Peak ground acceleration:
Eq. external load:
160.00 ft
160.00 ft
7.49 0.87 g
0.00 tsf
SPT Name: B-1 NCEER
Raw SPT Data CSR - CRR Plot
10-
15-
20-
25-
i� 30
a 35-
v
40-
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
I
0 10 20 30 40 50
SPT Count (blows/ft)
0.8 0.7 -
G) 0.4 —
0.2 -
0.1-
0.0 _
0 5
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
+_ 30-
L
35—
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
10 15
20 25
w 30
L
Q 35
a)
o
40 45
50 55
60 65
FS Plot
Factor of Safety
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Corrected Blow Count N1(60),cs
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
30-
L
a 35-
I)
O
40-
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
LPI
0 Liquefaction potential
F.S. color scheme
▪ Almost certain it will liquefy
▪ Very likely to liquefy
❑ Liquefaction and no liqk are equally likely
• Unlike to liquefy
▪ Almost certain it will not liquefy
LPI color scheme
▪ Very high risk
• High risk
❑ Low risk
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
820
Page: 6
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Overall Liquefaction Assessment Analysis Plots ::
Raw SPT Data CSR - CRR Plot FS Plot Vertical Liq. Settlements Lateral Liq. Displacements 2 4-
4-
_
:. .. _
4 J
4-
4-
6-
6-
8-
------ ---i-----
-
6 8-
1 --i
6-
8-
6-
8-
8 10-
10-
12-
-
10 12
10-
12-
-
10-
12-
12-
14 14
14-
14-
14-
16-
I
--
16 16-
16-
16-
-
--
----'-
-
-
18-
18-
-I--
18-
-
I
18-
1 ;-
18-
-
20-
20 .--
-
20-
20-
20-
22-
;
22 --
---'
-
-
22-
--
22-
22-
24-
26-
24-
26-
24 26-
-
-
'
24-
26-
_i-
24-
26-
28-
28-
q____
28 f
28-
r
28-
30-
w
-.
30-
w
30 T
30-
S
30-
..
32-
32-
V 32
_
V 32-
_
-S -;
v32 -
34-
-
0 36-
34-
0 36-
1 --- -,------'-
--'-
34 0 36-
I
-
'
'-
34-
0 36-
t i
4 34 _
0 36-
38-
38-
;
;---
38 38-
38-
4 0-
40-
-
------ -
40 F
40-
+ -
1 ----- 4--- --4---------F---
4 0-
42-
42-
;
42 L
42-
--r-- --; i-
4 2-
44-
46-_
44-
46-
---
44-
46 -
-
44-
46-
44-
46-
48 _
50-
48-
-
5O- --------4
}
---------
----',---
; .-.
4 8
50-
�
48:
-
50-
1 1
48-
52-
_
52-
I
__-: .r__
1 i --_.
_
52-
I
--
____T
_
52-
, I
;
_
52-
54-
56-
-
54-
-
54-
;--
----
-
54-
-
--
-
54_
..
58-
56-
56 56-
iL
56-
60 _-
58 - -
60-
---F ------ ;---
58 60
S8 _4
60-
F
58 60-
62-
_
_
l
64-
66-
62-
64-
---; ;---
--L --
62-
64-
;--
;--
-
---- -
62-
64-
r
L
62-
64_
_
1 i , i 1 i , i 1
1 i , i 1 i , i 1
I I 1 I I I 1 i
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 SPT Count (blows/ft) CSR - CRR Factor of Safety Cuml. Settlement (in) Cuml. Displacement (ft) LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
821
Page: 7
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Field input data ::
Test SPT Field
Depth Value
(ft) (blows)
Fines
Content
(0/0)
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Infl. Can
Thickness Liquefy
(ft)
2.50 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 14
14 8
15 35
43 34
37 47
33 23
43 41
16 62
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
0.00 120.00
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
3.75 3.00
2.00 3.75
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abbreviations
Depth:
SPT Field Value:
Fines Content:
Unit Weight:
Infl. Thickness:
Can Liquefy:
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 a up
(ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf)
Value (pcf)
2.50 14 120.00 0.15 0.00
5.00 14 120.00 0.30 0.00
7.50 8 120.00 0.45 0.00
10.00 15 120.00 0.60 0.00
15.00 35 120.00 0.90 0.00
20.00 43 120.00 1.20 0.00
25.00 34 120.00 1.50 0.00
30.00 37 120.00 1.80 0.00
35.00 47 120.00 2.10 0.00
40.00 33 120.00 2.40 0.00
45.00 23 120.00 2.70 0.00
50.00 43 120.00 3.00 0.00
55.00 41 120.00 3.30 0.00
60.00 16 120.00 3.60 0.00
65.00 62 120.00 3.90 0.00
aevo CN
(tsf)
0.15 1.64
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
CE
CB
CR Cs (N1)60 Fines a (3 (Ni)6o. CRR7.5
Content
(0/0)
1.20 1.15 0.75 1.20 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 29 4.000
1.20 1.15 0.75 1.20 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 26 4.000
1.20 1.15 0.75 1.20 13 0.00 0.00 1.00 13 4.000
1.20 1.15 0.85 1.20 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 26 4.000
1.20 1.15 0.85 1.20 53 0.00 0.00 1.00 53 4.000
1.20 1.15 0.95 1.20 64 0.00 0.00 1.00 64 4.000
1.20 1.15 0.95 1.20 45 0.00 0.00 1.00 45 4.000
1.20 1.15 1.00 1.20 46 0.00 0.00 1.00 46 4.000
1.20 1.15 1.00 1.20 54 0.00 0.00 1.00 54 4.000
1.20 1.15 1.00 1.20 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 35 4.000
1.20 1.15 1.00 1.20 22 0.00 0.00 1.00 22 4.000
1.20 1.15 1.00 1.20 39 0.00 0.00 1.00 39 4.000
1.20 1.15 1.00 1.20 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 35 4.000
1.20 1.15 1.00 1.20 13 0.00 0.00 1.00 13 4.000
1.20 1.15 1.00 1.20 46 0.00 0.00 1.00 46 4.000
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
822
Page: 8
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) calculation data ::
Depth SPT Unit as, uo a' o CN
(ft) Field Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf)
Value (pcf)
CE
CB CR Cs (N1)60 Fines a (3 (N1)6ocs CRR7.5
Content
(%)
Abbreviations
Cry:
uo:
dvo:
CN:
C1:
CB:
CR:
Cs:
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 NSBr to a 60% energy ratio
Clean sand equivalent clean sand formula coefficients
Corected N1(6o) value for fines content
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::
Depth Unit av,eq uo,eq a'vo,eq rd a CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.s Ksigma CSR* FS (ft) Weight (tsf) (tsf) (tsf)
(pcf)
2.50 120.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.563 1.00 0.562 1.00 0.562 2.000 •
5.00 120.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.99 1.00 0.560 1.00 0.558 1.00 0.558 2.000 0
7.50 120.00 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.98 1.00 0.557 1.00 0.555 1.00 0.555 2.000
10.00 120.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.98 1.00 0.554 1.00 0.552 1.00 0.552 2.000 0
15.00 120.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.548 1.00 0.546 1.00 0.546 2.000 •
20.00 120.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 0.96 1.00 0.541 1.00 0.539 0.98 0.553 2.000
25.00 120.00 1.50 0.00 1.50 0.94 1.00 0.533 1.00 0.531 0.93 0.569 2.000
30.00 120.00 1.80 0.00 1.80 0.92 1.00 0.521 1.00 0.519 0.90 0.577 2.000 0
35.00 120.00 2.10 0.00 2.10 0.89 1.00 0.504 1.00 0.502 0.87 0.576 2.000
40.00 120.00 2.40 0.00 2.40 0.85 1.00 0.481 1.00 0.480 0.85 0.565 2.000 0
45.00 120.00 2.70 0.00 2.70 0.80 1.00 0.454 1.00 0.453 0.83 0.546 2.000 •
50.00 120.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.75 1.00 0.426 1.00 0.424 0.81 0.523 2.000 •
55.00 120.00 3.30 0.00 3.30 0.70 1.00 0.398 1.00 0.397 0.80 0.498 2.000 •
60.00 120.00 3.60 0.00 3.60 0.66 1.00 0.373 1.00 0.372 0.78 0.475 2.000 0
65.00 120.00 3.90 0.00 3.90 0.62 1.00 0.352 1.00 0.351 0.77 0.455 2.000 Abbreviations
Qv,eq:
Lb,eq:
a'vo,eq:
Co] :
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 (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)
2.50 5.00
7.50 2.000
2.000
2.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 9.62
9.24 8.86
2.50 2.50
2.50 0.00
0.00 0.00
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
823
Page: 9
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::
Depth FS F wz Thickness IL
(ft) (ft)
10.00 15.00
20.00 25.00
30.00 35.00
40.00 45.00
50.00 55.00
60.00 65.00
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
8.48 7.71
6.95 6.19
5.43 4.67
3.90 3.14
2.38 1.62
0.86 0.09
2.50 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
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
(ft)
p Gmax a
(tsf)
b Y £ls Plc £Nc Ah AS
(0/0) (°/O) (ft) (in)
2.50 29 0.08 0.10 435.37 0.13 25402.73 0.32 0.00 15.06 0.21 3.75 0.093
5.00 26 0.17 0.20 593.69 0.13 16759.55 0.40 0.00 15.06 0.29 3.00 0.106
7.50 13 0.25 0.30 577.12 0.14 13140.37 1.60 0.03 15.06 2.68 2.00 0.644
10.00 26 0.33 0.40 839.61 0.14 11057.18 0.42 0.00 15.06 0.31 3.75 0.138
15.00 53 0.49 0.60 1303.84 0.15 8669.41 0.16 0.00 15.06 0.05 5.00 0.030
20.00 64 0.65 0.80 1603.23 0.16 7295.02 0.14 0.00 15.06 0.03 5.00 0.021
25.00 45 0.80 1.00 1593.90 0.16 6380.88 0.22 0.00 15.06 0.08 5.00 0.049
30.00 46 0.94 1.21 1758.87 0.17 5719.68 0.21 0.00 15.06 0.08 5.00 0.046
35.00 54 1.06 1.41 2004.10 0.18 5214.39 0.17 0.00 15.06 0.05 5.00 0.031
40.00 35 1.16 1.61 1854.13 0.19 4812.92 0.25 0.00 15.06 0.13 5.00 0.076
45.00 22 1.23 1.81 1684.62 0.19 4484.53 0.37 0.00 15.06 0.33 5.00 0.199
50.00 39 1.28 2.01 2149.12 0.20 4209.81 0.17 0.00 15.06 0.08 5.00 0.046
55.00 35 1.31 2.21 2174.16 0.21 3975.82 0.17 0.00 15.06 0.08 5.00 0.051
60.00 13 1.34 2.41 1632.34 0.22 3773.58 0.39 0.01 15.06 0.66 5.00 0.398
65.00 46 1.37 2.61 2588.99 0.23 3596.63 0.11 0.00 15.06 0.04 5.00 0.024 Cumulative settlemetns: 1.953
Abbreviations
r„: 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
£Nc: Volumetric strain for number of cycles Nc (%)
Ah: Thickness of soil layer (in)
AS: Settlement of soil layer (in)
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
824
Page: 10
This software is registered to: Kenton Buzbee
:: Lateral displacements estimation for saturated sands ::
Depth (N1)60 Dr Ymax dz LDI LD
(ft) (%) (%) (ft) (ft)
2.50 29 75.39 0.00 3.75 0.000 0.00
5.00 26 71.39 0.00 3.00 0.000 0.00
7.50 13 50.48 0.00 2.00 0.000 0.00
10.00 26 71.39 0.00 3.75 0.000 0.00
15.00 53 100.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
20.00 64 100.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
25.00 45 100.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
30.00 46 100.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
35.00 54 100.00 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
40.00 35 82.83 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
45.00 22 65.67 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
50.00 39 87.43 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
55.00 35 82.83 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
60.00 13 50.48 0.00 5.00 0.000 0.00
65.00 46 100.00 0.00 5.00 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)
LiqSVs 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software Project File: Z:\24-112 Liq & Settle.lsys
825
Page: 11
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 2.3.2.11 - SPT & Vs Liquefaction Assessment Software
APPENDIX E
PER COLA TION /INFILTRATION
PETRAS 827
GEOSCIENCE^
SOt ID AS A ROCK
Boring/Test Number: P-1
Total Depth of Boring, D 1 (ft):
10 Test Date:
6/7/2024
D
d
existing
Found
surface
f
Diameter of Hole, D (in):
8 Tested By:
KTM
Diameter of Casing, d (in):
2 USCS Soil Type:
SP
�:
' r
;r
�+
C"
�1
�;+
;+
Depth of Slotted Casing (ft):
5 to 10
Depth to Groundwater (ft):
?
Porosity of Annulus Material, n :
0.42 Ground Elevation (msl ft):
312
Depth from Existing Ground Surface to
Bottom of Prop.
Inflitration System (ft):
?
SANDY
SOIL CRITERIA
TEST
Trial
Time
Interval
Depth to Water,
D w
Change in
Water Level
Change in Height of Water
Greater Than Equal
No.
At (min.)
Initial, Do (ft.)
Final, Df (ft.)
AD (in.)
or to
6"? (Yes/No)*
:; *1
*'
1 r
+"
04 *'
r*r
��
;::
: r
'*•y
�;
` r
*r
*'
r+r
•r
•:
+r
�r
:
+r
: ::
r•r
r
it
.
it
rr
�r
'•'
r
;•
•
%
r• DI
P.1
•
r',
,•
r
r•
•'•'
r0!
:i
;*,
•
r�r
!i+
ear
a`r
r
rr
..
it
rr
:r
1 25
9.1 10
10.8 yes
2 25
9.10 10
10.8 yes
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings (min.), [* if yes = 10, if no = 30]: 30
PERCOLATION TEST
Trial
Time
Depth to Water, Dw
Change in
Percolation Rate
No.
Interval
at min.)
(
Initial, Do (ft.)
Final, Df (ft.)
Water Level
(•
All in.)
(min/in.)
(gal/day/ft^2)
::
1 10
8.60 10.00
16.80 0.60
132.32
2 10
8.60 10.00
16.80 0.60
132.32
3 10
8.55 10.00
17.40 0.57
133.20
4 10
8.60 10.00
16.80 0.60
132.32
5 10
8.55 10.00
17.40 0.57
133.20
6 10
8.55 10.00
17.40 0.57
133.20
TEST RESULTS**
**Raw Results. Does Not
Include a Factor of Safety
Inflitration Rate [Porchet Method]#
Percolation Rate
(inches/hour)
(min/in.)
(gal/day/ft^2)
12.00 0.57
133.20
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 " Where Infiltration Rate, It = Ali (60r) /At(r + av
( ) 2H g)
r= D / 2
Ho = DT - Do
Hf=DT-Df
AH=AD=Ho-Hf
Reference: Have = (H0+ Hf) / 2
RCFCWCD, Design Handbook for LID, dated September, 2011 PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
3186 Airway Avenue, Suite
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
* PETRA 'DATE:
June , 2024
I Appendix
'- OEO9CIENCE9-
J.N.: 24-112
E
828
APPENDIX F
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
PETRAS 829
GEOSCIENCE^
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.
830
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.)
831
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.
832
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).
833
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.
834
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 835
TYPICAL BENCHING
DEPTH AND BEDDING MAY
VARY WITH P PE AND LOAD
CHARACTERISTICS.
(3' TYPICAL)
NATURAL GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
.1/
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
UVIUM, COLLUVIUM
COMPETENT NATIVE SOIL
OR BEDROCK MATERIALS,
AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL''
CONSULTANT
h 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.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL CONSIST
OF MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED -
EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC
`SHOULD BE LAPPED A MINIMUM
:OF 12 INCHES.
ALTERNATE SUB0RAIN 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
MATERIAL DOES NOT NEED TO BE
`ENCASED INFIL 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.
T
CANYONS " j IN DETAIL
•
PLATE SG -1
OVEREXCAVATE PAD
AS RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
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
PROPOSED GRADE
15' MINIMUM
TO TOP OF BACKCUT
.-4" NON -PERFORATED SUBDRAIN'
COMPETENT
NATIVE MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
4" NON -PERFORATED SUBDRAIN ' 4'TYPICAL
15' MINIMUM
KEY WIDTH
2' MIN. KEY DEPTH INTO COMPETENT
BEDROCK OR COMPETENT SOIL
MATERIALS AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
OUTLET PIPE (TYPICAL)
VARIABLE
(10' TYPICAL).::
NOTES:
1. 30' MAXIMUM VERTICAL SPACING BETWEEN SUBDRAIN SYSTEMS.
2. T00' 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.
50' _
PERFORATED PIPE (TYPICAL)
>I4- 50'
OUTLET PIPE (TYPICAL)
T
BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION
307TAIL
PLATE SG -2
SLOPE FACE
12" min.
14-12" min. -3"
;4 -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 MAI ERIAL PER SOILS ENGINEER
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)
OPEN -GRADED GRAVEL
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT 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
BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION
F18.3i5I DRAIN
PLATE SG -3
FINISHED GRADE
SLOPE FACE
10' CLEAR AREA FOR FOUNDATIONS,
UTILITIES AND SWIMMING POOLS
WINDROW COMPACTED FILL
15'
�:•:'.•:;::; ;•:.•,i {'•.{':::':.:,'::'•;'•;: c;{.'•;:';.:::•.:'•:';`r;'�:'•'::•:••:'•;;:� ` MIN �
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (END VIEW)
GRANULAR SOIL JE I I ED OR FLOODED
TO FILL VOIDS
COMPACTED FILL
PLACED IN
.6 TO8-INCH-THICK...:.::
HORIZONTAL LIFTS
15' MIN.
STREET
5' OR MIN. OF 2' BELOW DEPTH
OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (PROFILE VIEW)
NOM: OVERSIZE ROCK IS DEFINED AS CLASTS HAVING A MAXIMUM DIMENSION OF 12" OR LARGER Jt I I ED OR FLOODED GRANULAR SOIL
T
TYPICAL RQ J gSPOSAL DETAIL
PLATE SG -4
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
PLACE COMPACTED
FILL TO NATURAL
SLOPE GRADE
EXISTING
GROUND
SURFACE
♦
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
,1110,0010.1.1. MOO= 1001.01110. faillWROVAIS
00/
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 834ty NATURAL SLOPE
PLATE SG -5
CUT / F LL CONTACT
SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
SHOWN ON AS -BUILT
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NATURAL GROUND
SURFACE
CUT
ALLUVIUM.
L
PROPOSED GRADE
4' TYP.
•
Bin
VARIABLE
10' TYPICAL
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS.
AS De! LRMINED 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.
IF 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 SLO LOVE CUT SLOPE
PLATE SG -6
CUT LOT
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT PAD
ORIGINAL GROUND
SURFACE
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
— 1
(D) or
145 MIN.,
OPgpiL:;:
NSI
;.TYPICAL BENCHING.
r ^ i
r i
r- , �
- PROPOSED GRADE
ALLUV{UM.
COLLUVIUM,
WFAmERFD
OCK
(D) or
I�5' MIN.> •
t(D)
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT,
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS
AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
r ORIGINAL GROUND
SURFACE
PROPOSED GRADE
51 TYPICAL BENCHING:-
i
(D) or
5'
MIN. `J
VEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT.
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SOIL MATERIALS
AS DETERMINED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
MAXIMUM FILL THICKN SS (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 OTS ND CUT -FILL
ION LOTS
PLATE SG -7
D = RECOMMENDED DEPTH OF REMOVAL
PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
:REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
:MATERIAL
PROPOSED 2:1 FILL SLOPE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
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
PLACE COMPACTED
FILL TO NATURAL
SLOPE GRADE
T
TYPICAL REM V� NO
BEYOND TOE
OF PRCB N' FILL SLOPE
PLATE SG -8
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
PROPOSED CUT LOT i PROPOSED DAYLIGHT CUT
NOTE:
1. "D" SHALL BE 10 FEET MINIMUM OR AS DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER.
RECONSTRUCT AT 2:1
OR FLATTER
,,INSTALL 4 -INCH SUBDRAIN.�
.SEE PLATES SG -2 AND SG -3
FOR TYPICAL SUBDRAIN
SHEAR KEY ON DAYLIGHT CUT LOTS
A A
PLATE SG -9
Project -Specific WQMP Summary Data Form
Applicant Information
Name and Title
Don Slattery, Executive
Company
The Pacific Companies
Phone
(208) 461-0022
Email
[email protected]
Project Information
Project Name
(as shown on project application/project-specific WQMP) Rancho Mirage Affordable Apartments
Street Address
Rancho Mirage, CA
Nearest Cross Streets
Via Vail and Key Largo Avenue
Municipality
(City or Unincorporated County)
City of Rancho Mirage
Zip Code
92270
Tract Number(s) and/or Assessor Parcel Number(s)
685-090-011 (Portion)
Other
(other information to help identify location of project) Indicate type of project.
Priority Development Projects (Use an "X" in cell preceding project type):
SF hillside residence; impervious area > 10,000 sq. ft.; Slope ≥ 25% SF hillside residence; impervious area > 10,000 sq. ft.; Slope > 10% & erosive soils Commercial or Industrial > 100,000 sq. ft.
Automotive repair shop
Retail Gasoline Outlet disturbing > 5,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant disturbing > 5,000 sq. ft.
Home subdivision > 10 housing units
X
Parking lot > 5,000 sq. ft. or > 25 parking spaces
Date Project -Specific WQMP Submitted
October 2024
Size of Project Area (nearest 0.1 acre)
5.23 AC
Will the project replace more than 50% of the impervious surfaces on an existing developed site?
N/A — No impervious area exists onsite.
Project Area managed with LID/Site Design BMPs
(nearest 0.1 acre)
N/A - City of Rancho Mirage retention requirements govern.
Are Treatment Control BMPs required?
N/A - City of Rancho Mirage retention requirements govern.
Is the project subject to onsite retention by ordinance or policy?
Yes
Did the project meet the 100% LID/Site Design
Measurable Goal?
Yes with City of Rancho Mirage retention requirement.
Name of the entity that will implement, operate, and
maintain the post -construction BMPs
TBD
Contact Name
Street or Mailing Address
City
Zip Code
Phone
Space Below for Use by City/County Staff Only
Preceding Information Verified by
(consistent with information in project -specific WQMP) Name:
Date:
Date Project -Specific WQMP Approved:
Data Entered by
Name:
Date:
Other Comments
5 Rancho Mirage Affordable Housing Family Apartments
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2025
Appendix H
Noise and Vibration Analysis
City of Rancho Mirage H
846
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage
NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
PREPARED BY:
William Maddux, INCE
[email protected]
(619) 788-1971
Noah Johnson
[email protected]
January 10, 2025
15915-02 NA.docx
848
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
APPENDICES II
LIST OF EXHIBITS II
LIST OF TABLES III
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Site Location 3
1.2 Project Description 3
2 FUNDAMENTALS 7
2.1 Range of Noise 7
2.2 Noise Descriptors 8
2.3 Sound Propagation 8
2.4 Noise Control 9
2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation 9
2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise 10
2.7 Community Response to Noise 10
2.8 Vibration 11
3 REGULATORY SETTING 13
3.1 State of California Noise Requirements 13
3.2 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element 13
3.3 Operational Noise Standards 14
3.4 Construction Noise Standards 16
3.5 Vibration Standards 17
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 19
4.1 Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) 19
4.2 Vibration (Threshold B) 21
4.3 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed (Threshold C) 21
4.4 Significance Criteria Summary 22
5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 23
5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria 23
5.2 Noise Measurement Locations 23
5.3 Noise Measurement Results 24
6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES 27
6.1 FHWATraffic Noise Prediction Model 27
7 OFF -SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS 31
7.1 Traffic Noise level contours 31
7.2 Existing Condition Project Traffic Noise Levels 38
7.3 EA 2026 Traffic Noise Level Increases 38
7.4 EAC 2026 Traffic Noise Level Increases 38
8 ON -SITE NOISE ANALYSIS 43
. ^'WRD2555
849
0URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
8.1 On -site Traffic Noise Analysis 43
8.2 On -Site Noise Analysis 43
8.3 Exterior Noise Level Compatibility 43
8.4 Interior Noise Analysis 43
9 RECEIVER LOCATIONS 47
10 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS 49
10.1 Operational Noise Sources 49
10.2 Reference Noise Levels 49
10.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model 52
10.4 Project Operational Noise Levels 52
10.5 Project Operational Noise Level Increases 54
11 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 57
11.1 Construction Noise Levels 57
11.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels 57
11.3 Construction Noise Analysis 59
11.4 Construction Noise Level Compliance 60
11.5 Temporary Construction Noise Level Increases 61
11.5 Construction Vibration Analysis 61
12 REFERENCES 65
13 CERTIFICATION 67
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: OFF -SITE NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS
APPENDIX 8.1: ON -SITE NOISE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX 10.1: HVAC
APPENDIX 10.2: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX 11.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE CALCULATIONS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP 4
EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN 5
EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS 7
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION 10
EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION 12 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 16
EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 25
EXHIBIT 9-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS 48
EXHIBIT 10-A: STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LOCATIONS 50
EXHIBIT 11-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS 58 . ^'WRD2555
850
(? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES -1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS 1
TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS 15
TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY 22
TABLE 5-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 24
TABLE 6-1: OFF -SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS 28
TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 29
TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS 30
TABLE 6-4: TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) 30 TABLE 6-5: ON -SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS 30
TABLE 7-1: EXISTING 2024 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS 32 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING 2024 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS 33 TABLE 7-3: EA 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS 34 TABLE 7-4: EA 2026 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS 35 TABLE 7-5: EAC 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS 36 TABLE 7-6: EAC 2026 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS 37 TABLE 7-7: EXISTING OFF -SITE PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS 39 TABLE 7-8: EXISTING AND AMBIENT OFF -SITE PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS 40 TABLE 7-9: EXISTING, AMBIENT AND CUMULATIVE OFF -SITE PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE I M PACTS 41
TABLE 8-1: EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS 43
TABLE 8-2: FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) 44
TABLE 8-3: SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) 45 TABLE 8-4: THIRD FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) 45
TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 51
TABLE 10-2: DAYTIME PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVELS (dBA LEQ) 53 TABLE 10-3: EVENING PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVEL (dBA LEQ) 53 TABLE 10-4: NIGHTTIME PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVEL (dBA LEQ) 53 TABLE 10-5: PROJECT OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE 54
TABLE 10-6: DAYTIME PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES 55 TABLE 10-7: EVENING PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES 55 TABLE 10-8: NIGHTTIME PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES 56 TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS 59
TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY 60 TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE 60
TABLE 11-4: DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES 61 TABLE 11-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 62 TABLE 11-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS 63
.' WRD2555
851
el URBAN
C 12CJSSI2C)AIJS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1)
ANSI
Calveno
CEQA
CNEL
dBA
EPA
FHWA
FTA
INCE
Leq
max
mph
PPV
Project
REMEL
RMS
VdB
Reference
American National Standards Institute
California Vehicle Noise
California Environmental Quality Act
Community Noise Equivalent Level
A -weighted decibels
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Maximum level measured over the time interval
Miles per hour
Peak Particle Velocity
Core Rancho Mirage
Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
Root -mean -square
Vibration Decibels
. ^'WRD2555
852
el URBAN
C 12CJSSI2C)AIJS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the Core Rancho Mirage development ("Project"). The Project site is located southwest of the intersection of Dianah Shore Drive and Monterey Avenue and east of the Rancho Mirage Dog Park in the City of Rancho Mirage. The Project will develop a 150 -unit apartment complex. This noise study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of Rancho Mirage noise standards and significance criteria based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (1).
The results of this Noise and Vibration Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report, consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) Table ES -1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures.
TABLE ES -1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis
Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Off -Site Traffic Noise
7 Less Than Significant
-
On -Site Traffic Noise
8 -
-
Operational Noise
10 Less Than Significant
-
Construction Noise
11 Less Than Significant
-
Construction Vibration
Less Than Significant
-
. ^'WRD2555
853
eD URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
854
eD URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the Core Rancho Mirage ("Project"). This noise study briefly describes the Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential Project -related long- term stationary -source operational noise short-term construction noise, and vibration impacts.
1.1 SITE LOCATION
The Project is located southwest of the intersection of Dianah Shore Drive and Monterey Avenue and east of the Rancho Mirage Dog Park in the City of Rancho Mirage, as shown in Exhibit 1-A.
The Palm Springs Airport is the nearest airport, located approximately 5.8 miles northwest of the Project site.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project will develop a 150 -unit apartment complex on a 5 -acre site. A preliminary site plan for the Project is shown in Exhibit 1-B.
. ^'WRD2555
855
(Lee► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
cr
\ ti
\
\l
til
P
(Argot 'Rite
P
-• ~ �UtnaP Shore.Onv D.i.h Si.ee DnOV �-. Dmd9mtcarra. ` �Zy
ask,
P
7 a
Sens nxenai Ptact
thuwaur way
Via Wall
Va NOVM
Yu Muncaila
•
•
3 a
N
•
Nlct M Loci.
Via Nets, la
S
I
op.,. way(
V4 M.rt. Via Maas •,.•
T
Casa i
.dirAm.wd ,teat
[ 113J�
P
1 El yi.r Rare a...
Site
S
Whiner Nord
Gonad ford l5iw a-
Pk.VTM, a yaay
Vida
G..an ,-at. nv.
s
2 9 OpenSaeo Mop (otd)camtolMnWs, Q-BYSA
l in ,1
tt •.
i1
tiX
A4A.,
a-Getaia tad tlrrve
. ^'WRD2555
856
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
.24
11 I ►: •�:t.;r ,_
•
ii-MINIM rYl ri��i�f���. do,
. ^'WRD2555
857
URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
858
eD URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.
Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A - weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.
EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
COMMON OUTDOOR
ACTIVITIES
COMMON INDOOR
ACTIVITIES
A • WEIGHTED
SOUND LEVEL dBA
SUBJECTIVE
LOUDNESS
EFFECTS OF
NOISE
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
140
i—
HEARING LOSS
NEAR JET ENGINE
130
LERABLE • .
120
EAFENING
JET FLY -OVER AT 300m (1000 ft)
ROCK BAND
110
LOUD AUTO HORN
100
GAS LAWN MOWER AT 1m (3 ft)
90 DIESEL TRUCK AT 15m (SO it),
at B0 km/hr (50 mph)
FOOD BLENDER AT 1m (3 ft)
BO
S►UCH
INTERFERENCE
NOISY URBAN AREA, DAYTIME
VACUUM CLEANER AT 3m (10 ft)
70 LOUD
HEAVY TRAFFIC AT 90m (300 ft)
NORMAL SPEECH AT 1m (3 ft)
60 QUIET URBAN DAYTIME
LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE
50 MODERATE
SLEEP
DISTURBANCE
QUIET URBAN NIGHTTIME
THEATER, LARGE CONFERENCE
ROOM (BACKGROUND)
40 QUIET SUBURBAN NIGHTTIME
UBRARY
30 FAINT
NO EFFECT
QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME
BEDROOM AT NIGHT, CONCERT
HALL (BACKGROUND)
20 BROADCAST/RECORDING
STUDIO
10 VERY FAINT
LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN
HEARING
LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN
HEARING
0 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.
2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA .' WRD2555
859
('�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.
2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used metric is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A - weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the "average" noise levels within the environment.
Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24 -hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time -of -day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when noise can become more intrusive. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Rancho Mirage relies on the 24 -hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.
2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.
2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (2)
2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground.
Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually . ^'WRD2555
860
eD URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (4)
2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (2)
2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an "out of sight, out of mind" effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line -of -sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line -of -sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (5)
2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source -path -receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements.
2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver.
Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must block the line - of -sight path of sound from the noise source.
. ^'WRD2555
861
e,, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area's desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise -sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (6)
2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Approximately sixteen percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints may occur. Twenty to thirty percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. (7 pp. 8-6) Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment.
Surveys have shown that community response to noise varies from no reaction to vigorous action for newly introduced noises averaging from 10 dB below existing to 25 dB above existing. (8) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (7), the percentage of high annoyance ranges from approximately 0 percent at 45 dB or less, 10 percent are highly annoyed around 60 dB, and increases rapidly to approximately 70 percent being highly annoyed at approximately 85 dB or greater. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION
Twice as Loud
Readily Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Just Perceptible
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
. ^'WRD2555
882
Cie, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure -borne noise. Sources of ground -borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human -made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground -borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.
Additionally, in contrast to airborne noise, ground -borne vibration outdoors is not a common environmental problem and annoyance from ground -borne vibration is almost exclusively an indoor phenomenon. (8) Therefore, the effects of vibrations should only be evaluated at a structure and the effects of the building structure on the vibration should be considered. Wood - frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by ground vibration than heavier buildings. In contrast, large masonry buildings with spread footings have a low response to ground vibration (8). In general, the heavier a building is, the lower the response will be to the incident vibration energy. However, all structurers reduce vibration levels due to the coupling of the building to the soil.
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. (8) The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. (8) However, the RMS amplitude and PPV are related mathematically, and the RMS amplitude of equipment is typically calculated from the PPV reference level. The RMS amplitude is approximately 70% of the PPV (10). Thus, either can be used on the description of vibration impacts.
While not universally accepted, vibration decibel notation (VdB) is another vibration notation developed and used by the FTA in their guidance manual to describe vibration levels and provide a background of common vibration levels and set vibration limits (11). Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe vibration levels and is used in this report to describe vibration levels.
As stated in the FTA guidance manual, the background vibration -velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground -borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration -velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground -borne vibration are construction equipment, steel -wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground -borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration -velocity . ^'WRD2555
863
e, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground -borne vibration.
EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION
Human/Structural Response
Threshold, minor cosmetic damage
fragile buildings
Difficulty with tasks such as
reading a VDT screen
Residential annoyance, infrequent
events (e.g. commuter rail)
Residential annoyance, frequent
events (e.g. rapid transit)
Limit for vibration sensitive
equipment. Approx. threshold for
human perception of vibration
Velocity Typical Sources
Level* (50 ft from source)
00 90
80 70
60 .4— Blasting from construction projects
-if-- Bulldozers and other heavy tracked
construction equipment
Commuter rail, upper range
Rapid transit. upper range
f— Commuter rail. typical
Bus or truck over bump
•• Rapid transit, typical
4— Bus or truck, typical
Typical background vibration
50 U
' RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to 10-6 inches/second Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. . ^'WRD2555
864
Cie, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas.
Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.
3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (12) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.
3.1.1 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The State of California's noise insulation standards for all residential units are codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Section 1206 to 1207.11.2. These noise standards are applied to new construction that contains dwelling units or sleeping units, such as residential and hotel or motel uses, in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. For new buildings, the acceptable interior noise limit is 45 dBA CNEL in habitable rooms (13).
3.2 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Rancho Mirage has adopted a Noise Element of the General Plan (2017) to control and abate environmental noise, and to protect the citizens of and visitors to the City of Rancho Mirage from excessive exposure to noise. The Noise Element is intended to help align the community's various land uses with the existing and future noise environment and thus ensure that any negative effects of noise are minimized or completely avoided.
The noise criteria identified in the City of Rancho Mirage Noise Element are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation related noise. To assist the city in the planning compatible uses, a range of exterior noise thresholds for various land uses have been developed.
Particularly sensitive land uses include residences, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals and nursing homes, and destination resort areas. In addition, parks, golf courses, and other outdoor activity areas can be sensitive to noise disturbances. Less sensitive land uses include commercial . ^'WRD2555
865
Cie, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
uses, conventional hotels and motels, and playgrounds. Least sensitive to noise are heavy commercial uses, transportation, communication, and utility land uses.
To protect noise sensitive land uses, and minimize the effects of excessive and nuisance noise, the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element has outlined the following noise policies with the goal (Goal N 1) of a noise environment providing peace and quiet that complements and is consistent with Rancho Mirage's resort residential character:
Policy N 1.1: Land use patterns, associated traffic and its distribution, and individual developments shall be assessed for their potential to generate adverse and incompatible noise impacts.
Noise exceeding normally acceptable levels shall be appropriately mitigated.
Policy N 1.2
Policy N 1.3
Policy N 1.4
Policy N 1.5
Noise sensitive land uses, including residences, resorts, community open space, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and convalescent homes, shall be protected from high noise levels emitted by both existing and future noise sources.
Project designs shall be required to include measures that assure that interior noise levels for residential development do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
Land uses allowed adjacent to Rancho Mirage's major arterial roads and highways, or the Southern Pacific Railroad/I-10 corridor, should generally be limited to those that are compatible with higher noise levels to maximize noise -related land use compatibility.
Develop and maintain a circulation plan that is consistent with the resort residential character of Rancho Mirage, avoids impacts to existing and planned sensitive receptors/uses, and provides fixed routes for existing and future truck traffic.
The Noise Level and Land Use Compatibility matrix in the Noise Element shown on Exhibit 3-A provides guidelines to evaluate the acceptability of the transportation related noise level impacts. Single-family residential land uses are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels below 70 dBA CNEL. Multi -family residential land uses are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels below 70 dBA CNEL. For conditionally acceptable land use, new construction or development undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and necessary noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy.
3.3 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Core Rancho Mirage Project, stationary -source (operational) noise such as the expected roof- top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot vehicle movements are typically evaluated against standards established under a jurisdiction's Municipal Code. The City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code noise standards are provided in Appendix 3.1. The City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code (RMMC), Chapter 8.45 establishes the noise level standards for stationary noise sources. The Project's land use will potentially impact nearby noise -sensitive . ^'WRD2555
866
t?,,, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
uses in the Project study area. For nearby noise -sensitive residential land uses in the Project study area, Section 8.45.030 identifies the base exterior noise level standard of 55 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), 50 dBA Leq during the evening hours (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). (14) Table 3-1 provides a summary of the City of Rancho Mirage operational exterior noise level standards for all land use types.
TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
Land
Use'
Zone'
PeTI irmod
Exterior Noise
Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Residential
(Low Density)
R E, H R,
R -L-2, R -L-3
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
55 Evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
50 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
45 Residential
(Medium and High Density,
Hospital, Open Space)
OS, R M,
R H, MHP
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
60 Evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
55 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
50 Commercial Office, Resort
Commercial, Mixed Use,
Institutional
O, P, Rs H,
M -U
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
65 Evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
60 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
55 Commercial Neighborhood,
General Commercial, Commercial
Recreation, Light Industrial
C -N, C -G, (-
L
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
70 Evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
65 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
60 1 City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, Section 8.45.030 Exterior noise level limits (Appendix 3.1). 2 City of Rancho Mirage Land Use and Zoning Map
Le, represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. . ^'WRD2555
867
(.�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
LANG UK CATSOORMS
Residenool, low density [single-family dwellings,
duplex, + mobile homes)
Residential mule -family
Trorsiem lodging [motels and hotels)
Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes
Auditoriums, concert halls, amphithuutets
Sports arena, outdoor spectator sports
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks
Gold courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries Office buildings, business, commercial, professional
Industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture
Conditionally
Acceptable
Specified kind use satisfactory based upon the
assumption that ony buildings ore
conventionally constructed with no special
noise installation requirements.
New construction or development
uncle -taken only after detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements is made and
necessocry noise invitation featured ore
included in design Conventional
construction, but with closed windows and
fresh air supply system or air conditioning
with normally suffice. ourdoor environment
will seem noisy.
COMMUNITY Notst EAPOSu*I Ltvit (Lot. olr CNEL. oBA)
60 65 I;
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
New construction or deve opment generally
discouraged, but if it does proceed, a
detailed analysis of roise reduction
requirements must be mode with needed
noise insulation features included in design
and outdoor areas must be shielded
New construction or development generally
not undertaken Construction cost to make
indoor environment occeplcble would be
prohibitive and outdoor environment would
not be usable
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element (2017) Exhibit 20
3.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of Core Rancho Mirage, noise from construction activities is typically evaluated against standards established under a City's Municipal Code. To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the Project, the City has established limits to the hours of operation. The Rancho Mirage Municipal Code (RMMC) Section 15.04.030[A][11] indicates that construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. with no activity on Sundays and holidays (15). The city recognizes that construction noise is difficult to control and restricts allowable hours for this intrusion. Still, construction, even when restricted to within these hours, presents a nuisance value when conducted in proximity to sensitive receptors (16). However, neither the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan nor .' WRD2555
868
e, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.
According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leg as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use .
3.5 VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground -borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. (8) Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment, such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (8)
To analyze vibration impacts associated with the Core Rancho Mirage, vibration -generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City's Municipal Code if such standards exist. While Section 17.18.080 of the RMMC requires that no vibration associated with any use shall be allowed which is discernable beyond the boundary line of the subject property, the City of Rancho Mirage does not identify specific construction vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (10 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction -related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as "older residential structures" with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec). . ^'WRD2555
869
CD URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
870
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. (18) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:
A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
4.1 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (19) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. In general, the more a new noise level exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise level will typically be judged. Thus, an important way of determining a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted —the so-called ambient environment.
The ambient noise level is the composite of noise from all sources, excluding the alleged offensive noise. In this context, it represents the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location for a specified time of day or night.
4.1.1 TRANSPORTATION NOISE (SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT NOISE LEVEL INCREASE) The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (20) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project -generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level.
The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average -daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq).
As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders a noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (19) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater . ^'WRD2555
871
e, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
project -related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the without project noise levels are below 60 dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.
The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial permanent increase in baseline ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project (baseline) noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land -use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise -sensitive uses. These levels of increases and their perceived acceptance at noise sensitive receiver locations are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (4 p. 9) and Caltrans (21 p. 2_48).
The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element, Noise Compatibility by Land Use Type was used to establish the satisfactory noise levels of significance for non -noise -sensitive land uses in the Project study area. As previously shown on Exhibit 3-A, the completely compatible exterior noise level for non -noise -sensitive land uses is 70 dBA CNEL. To determine if Project -related traffic noise level increases are significant at off -site non -noise -sensitive land uses, a barely perceptible 3 dBA criteria is used. When the without Project noise levels are greater than the completely compatible 70 dBA CNEL land use compatibility criteria, a barely perceptible 3 dBA or greater noise level increase is considered a significant impact since the noise level criteria is already exceeded. The noise level increases used to determine significant impacts for non -noise - sensitive land uses is generally consistent with the FICON noise level increase thresholds for noise -sensitive land uses but instead rely on the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element, Noise Compatibility by Land Use Type completely compatible 70 dBA CNEL exterior noise level criteria.
4.1.2 NON -TRANSPORTATION NOISE (SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT NOISE LEVEL INCREASE) The FICON criteria are also used to determine if Project -related stationary source (operational) noise level increases are significant at off -site receiver locations. For non -transportation noise source activities, a substantial permanent noise level increase consists of increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying ambient noise levels.
. ^'WRD2555
872
(,► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
4.1.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE (SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY NOISE LEVEL INCREASE) In addition to absolute noise limits, the temporary noise level increases over the existing ambient conditions must be considered under CEQA Significance Threshold A. Recent court cases have also placed an emphasis on the increase as opposed to the noise level limit. However, limits and acceptable increases are not unrelated since, often, the noise level limits can subtly include the increase limit.
While specific noise ordinances can vary widely, many jurisdictions across California set construction noise level limits around 75 to 80 dBA Leq and only allow construction during daytime hours (e.g., City and County of Los Angeles, City and County of San Diego, City and County of San Francisco, etc.) In contrast, everyday noise limits are stricter because they apply to continuous, long-term activities where excessive noise can greatly affect the quality of life over time. Thus, for everyday noise limits, many jurisdictions across California set residential daytime noise level limits around 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours. This implies that during daytime hours, many California communities consider an increase of 20 dBA over the daytime limit an acceptable temporary increase for construction activities. This is also illustrated in the adoption of many CEQA documents statewide that use an 80 dBA Leq limit for assessing construction impacts while using everyday noise level limits of local noise ordinances in assessing on -site operational impacts.
However, since an increase of 20 dBA could result in noise levels over 85 dBA Leq, which the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CaIOSHA) identifies as a potentially hazardous noise level, the increase should not be allowed to result in an absolute noise level greater than 80 dBA Leq at any residence, which is consistent with the FTA recommendations.
Therefore, if the Project -related construction noise levels generate a temporary noise level increase over the existing daytime ambient noise levels in excess of 20 dBA Leq, and exceed 80 dBA Leq, then the Project construction noise level increases will be considered a significant impact.
4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.6, the vibration impacts are appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary construction -related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as "older residential structures" with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).
4.3 CEQA GUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED (THRESHOLD C)
CEQA Noise Threshold C applies when there are nearby public and private airports and/or airstrips and focuses on land use compatibility of the Project to nearby airports and airstrips. The Project site is not located within two miles of an airport or airstrip. The closest airport is the Palm Springs Airport, located roughly 5.8 miles northwest of the Project site. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts . ^'WRD2555
873
('�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is conducted in relation to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, Noise Threshold C.
4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the development. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix that includes the allowable criteria used to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases.
TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis
Receiving
Land Use
Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Off -Site
Traffic
Noise -
Sensitive
If ambient is 65 dBA CNEL
≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase
Non -Noise-
Sensitive)a
If ambient is 70 dBA CNEL
≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase
On -Site
Noise
Mixed'
Interior Noise Level Standards
45 dBA CNEL
Exterior Noise Level Standards
70 dBA CNEL
Operational
AI13
Exterior Noise Level Standards
See Table 3-1
Construction
Noise-
Sensitive
Shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. with no activity on Sundays and holidays4
Noise Level Thresholds
80 dBA Leg
All
Vibration Level Threshold'
0.3 PPV (in/sec)
1 FICON, 1992.
2 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element.
'City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Municipal Code, Section 8.45.030 4City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Municipal Code, Section15.04.030[A][10].
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. a Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. . ^'WRD2555
874
(.�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24 -hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Thursday, May 23, 2024. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.
5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24 -hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the equivalent daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson -Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (22)
5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise -sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (8)
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (8) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels . ^'WRD2555
875
Cie, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project's contribution to the ambient noise levels.
5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the equivalent or the hourly energy average sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location.
TABLE 5-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location'
Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)2
Daytime
Evening
Nighttime
L1
Located northwest of the Project site near a
residence at 102 Clear Water Way
55.5 56.8
54.4 L2
Located west of the Project site near the Unitarian
Universalist Church at 72425 Via Vail
51.9 54.4
51.5 L3
Located west of the Project site near a he Rancho
Mirage Dog Park at 34100 Key Largo Ave
55.5 56.8
54.4 L4
Located northwest of the Project site near a
residence at 34620 Via Josefina
53.1 58.0
54.1 L5
Located northwest of the Project site near a
residence at 72740 Via Florencia
52.9 59.0
51.5 'See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24 -hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Table 5-1 provides the equivalent noise levels used to describe the daytime, evening, and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each of the daytime and nighttime hours.
. ^'WRD2555
876
eD URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
;
•1•
•
•
•
,• •
**4''
4 •
•
•
•
• •
. ..
'�.•
•
••
•
•
•
•
r •
•
't • ,• t• . • • , _ w_. �
',.� + G' .fir'^""�-'•,.d
{ •
Vw *• • iii • r `L > -♦ a
4 � �� t R
AL it.
>: '4 : u
i3
�
I
i Site i
i
I 1
•
• • I
P
f
1•
1 •
et
•
• xt 1
f
•
• I
LEGEND:
[1 Site Boundary ® Measurement Locations
. ^'WRD2555
877
CD URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
878
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to estimate and analyze the future traffic noise environment. Consistent with the City of Rancho Mirage Land Use Compatibility guidelines, all transportation related noise levels are presented in terms of the 24 - hour CNEL.
6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (23) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California, the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (24) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for:
the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24 -hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (25)
6.1.1 OFF -SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
Table 6-1 presents the roadway parameters used to assess the Project's off -site transportation noise impacts. Table 6-1 identifies the fourteen off -site study area roadway segments, the distance from the centerline to adjacent receiving land use based on the functional roadway classifications per the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element, and the posted vehicle speeds. The ADT volumes used in this study are presented on Table 6-2 are based on the Core Rancho Mirage Traffic Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (26) for the following traffic conditions:
• Existing 2024 Without Project Conditions
• Existing 2024 With Project Conditions
• Existing Plus Ambient Growth (EA) 2026 Without Project Conditions • EA 2026 With Project Conditions
• Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative (EAC) 2026 Without Project Conditions • EAC 2026 With Project Conditions
. ^'WRD2555
879
(,► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 6-1: OFF -SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID
Roadway
Segment
Classification 1
Distance from Centerline to
Receiving Land Use (Feet)3
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
Major Arterial
60'
45 2
Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
Major Arterial
60'
45 3
Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
Major Arterial
60'
45 4
Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
Major Arterial
60'
45 5
Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
Major Arterial
60'
45 6
Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
Local
30'
25 7
Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Local
30'
25 8
Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
Local
30'
25 9
Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Local
30'
25 10
George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Local
30'
15 11
Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Local
30'
15 12
Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Local
30'
15 13
Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Major Arterial
60'
55 14
Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Major Arterial
60'
55 'City of Rancho Mirage and City General Plan Circulation Element 2 Distance to receiving land use is based upon the right-of-way distances. . ^'WRD2555
880
LA?, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID
Roadway
Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes'
Existing
Existing Plus Ambient
Growth
Existing Plus Ambient
Growth Plus Cumulative
Without
Project
With Project
Without
Project
With Project
Without
Project
With Project
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
8,750
8,840
9,100
9,190
10,690
10,780
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
9,590
9,890
9,970
10,270
12,720
13,020
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
8,150
8,440
8,480
8,770
11,110
11,400
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
8,850
9,120
9,220
9,490
11,780
12,050
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
10,640
10,660
11,070
11,090
11,670
11,690
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
820
840
850
870
1,140
1,160
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
780
1,050
820
1,090
1,940
2,210
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
220
220
240
240
240
240
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
1,580
1,580
1,640
1,640
1,690
1,690
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
1,350
1,360
1,400
1,410
1,470
1,480
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
6,520
6,530
6,780
6,790
6,950
6,960
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
2,130
2,140
2,210
2,220
2,300
2,310
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
16,070
16,230
16,720
16,880
23,460
23,620
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
14,200
14,280
14,770
14,850
20,980
21,060
1 Core Rancho Mirage Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads.
The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on the existing traffic volumes and the combination of project traffic distributions. Table 6-3 provides the time of day (daytime, evening, and nighttime) vehicle splits and Table 6-4 presents the traffic flow distributions (vehicle mix) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks, and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA noise prediction model. . ^'WRD2555
881
Cie, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Vehicle Type
Time of Day Splits'
Total of Time of
Day Splits
Daytime
Evening
Nighttime
Autos
77.50%
12.90%
9.60%
100.00%
Medium Trucks
84.80%
4.90%
10.30%
100.00%
Heavy Trucks
86.50%
2.70%
10.80%
100.00%
'Typical Southern California vehicle mix.
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
TABLE 6-4: TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX)
Classification
Total % Traffic Flow
Total
Autos
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
All Roadways'
97.42%
1.84%
0.74%
100.00%
'Typical Southern California vehicle mix.
6.1.2 ON -SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
The on -site roadway parameters including the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes used for this study are presented in Table 6-5. To describe the future traffic conditions Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was taken from the Core Rancho Mirage Traffic Analysis. The traffic volumes shown in Table 6-5 reflect future long-range traffic conditions needed to assess the future on -site traffic noise environment and to identify the appropriate noise mitigation measures, if any, that address the worst -case future conditions.
TABLE 6-5: ON -SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
Roadway
Segment
Lanes
Classification'
Daily
Capacity
Volume2
Speed
Limit
(mph)3
Site
Conditions
Via Vail
2 Local
1,760
25 Soft
Road classifications based upon the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element 2017. 2 Source: Via Vail Village Traffic Analysis 2024.
3 Posted speed limits on each roadway.
. ^'WRD2555
882
('�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
7 OFF -SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS
To assess the off -site traffic CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the Project, noise level contours were developed based on Core Rancho Mirage Traffic Impact Analysis. (26) Noise level contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Noise level contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios:
• Existing 2024 Without Project Conditions
• Existing 2024 With Project Conditions
• Existing Plus Ambient Growth (EA) 2026 Without Project Conditions • EA 2026 With Project Conditions
• Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative (EAC) 2026 Without Project Conditions • EAC 2026 With Project Conditions
7.1 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS
Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental 24 -hour dBA CNEL traffic -related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels.
In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area.
Tables 7-1 through 7-6 present a summary of the exterior dBA CNEL traffic noise levels. Roadway segments are analyzed in each of the following timeframes: Existing with and without Project conditions, Existing Plus Ambient Growth with and without Project conditions, Existing Plus Ambient Plus Cumulative with and without Project conditions. Appendix 7.1 includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traffic noise level contours for each of the traffic scenarios. .-WRD2555
883
(.'y► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-1: EXISTING 2024 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
66.3 34
74 159
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
66.7 36
78 169
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
66.0 33
70 152
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
66.4 34
74 160
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.2 39
84 181
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
52.8 2
5 10
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.6 2
4 10
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.1 1
2 4
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
55.7 3
7 15
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.1 1
3 7
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
56.9 4
9 19
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.1 2
4 9
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
71.2 72
155
334
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
70.6 66
143
308
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. . ^'WRD2555
884
(�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-2: EXISTING 2024 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
66.4 34
74 160
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
66.9 37
80 172
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
66.2 33
72 155
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
66.5 35
76 163
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.2 39
84 181
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
52.9 2
5 10
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
53.9 3
5 12
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.1 1
2 4
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
55.7 3
7 15
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.1 1
3 7
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
56.9 4
9 19
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.1 2
4 9
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
71.2 72
156
336
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
70.7 67
143
309
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. . ^'WRD2555
885
e, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-3: EA 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
66.5 35
76 163
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
66.9 37
80 173
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
66.2 34
72 156
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
66.6 35
76 164
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.4 40
86 186
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
53.0 2
5 10
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.8 2
5 10
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.5 1
2 4
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
55.9 3
7 16
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.3 1
3 7
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
57.1 4
9 19
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.2 2
4 9
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
71.4 74
159
343
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
70.8 68
147
316
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. . ^'WRD2555
886
Ce, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-4: EA 2026 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
66.6 35
76 164
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
67.0 38
82 177
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
66.4 34
74 159
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
66.7 36
78 168
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.4 40
86 186
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
53.1 2
5 10
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
54.1 3
6 12
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.5 1
2 4
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
55.9 3
7 16
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.3 1
3 7
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
57.1 4
9 19
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.3 2
4 9
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
71.4 74
160
345
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
70.8 68
147
317
'The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiv ng adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. . ^'WRD2555
887
(.�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-5: EAC 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
67.2 39
84 182
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
68.0 44
95 204
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
67.4 40
86 186
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
67.6 42
90 194
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.6 41
89 192
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
54.3 3
6 12
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
56.6 4
8 18
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.5 1
2 4
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
56.0 3
8 16
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.5 1
3 7
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
57.2 4
9 20
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.4 2
4 9
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
72.8 93
199
430
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
72.3 86
185
399
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. . ^'WRD2555
888
eD URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-6: EAC 2026 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
67.2 39
85 183
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
68.1 45
96 207
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
67.5 41
88 189
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
67.7 42
91 197
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.6 42
89 193
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
54.4 3
6 13
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
57.2 4
9 19
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.5 1
2 4
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
56.0 3
8 16
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.5 2
3 7
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
57.2 4
9 20
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.4 2
4 9
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
72.9 93
200
432
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
72.4 86
186
400
'The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiv ng adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. . ^'WRD2555
889
e, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
7.2 EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Table 7-1 presents the Existing 2024 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels, which are expected to range from 47.1 to 71.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 shows the Existing 2024 with Project conditions will range from 47.1 to 71.2 dBA CNEL. As shown on Table 7-7 the Existing with 2024 Project will generate a noise level increase of up to 1.3 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria in Section 4.2 for off -site traffic noise impacts, the Project -related noise level increases are considered less than significant under Existing conditions at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic.
7.3 EA 2026 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-3 presents the EA 2026 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels, which are expected to range from 47.5 to 71.4 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 shows the EA (2026) with Project conditions will range from 47.5 to 71.4 dBA CNEL. Table 7-8 shows that the EA 2026 Project off -site traffic noise level increases of up to 1.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off -site traffic noise presented in Section 4.2 for off -site traffic noise impacts, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated EA 2026 Project -related traffic noise levels.
7.4 EAC 2026 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-5 presents the EAC 2026 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels, which are expected to range from 47.5 to 72.8 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-6 shows the EAC 2026 with Project conditions will range from 47.5 to 72.9 dBA CNEL. Table 7-9 shows that the EAC 2026 off -site traffic noise level increases up to 0.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off -site traffic noise presented in Section 4.2 for off -site traffic noise impacts, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated EAC 2026 Project -related traffic noise levels. . ^'WRD2555
890
Cie, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-7: EXISTING OFF -SITE PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition
Limit
Exceeded?
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
66.3 66.4
0.1 1.5
No
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
66.7 66.9
0.2 1.5
No
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
66.0 66.2
0.2 1.5
No
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
66.4 66.5
0.1 1.5
No
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.2 67.2
0.0 1.5
No
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
52.8 52.9
0.1 5.0
No
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.6 53.9
1.3 5.0
No
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.1 47.1
0.0 5.0
No
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
55.7 55.7
0.0 5.0
No
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.1 50.1
0.0 5.0
No
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
56.9 56.9
0.0 5.0
No
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.1 52.1
0.0 5.0
No
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
71.2 71.2
0.0 1.5
No
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
70.6 70.7
0.1 1.5
No
'The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? . ^'WRD2555
891
(�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-8: EXISTING AND AMBIENT OFF -SITE PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition
Limit
Exceeded?
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
66.5 66.6
0.1 1.5
No
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
66.9 67.0
0.1 1.5
No
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
66.2 66.4
0.2 1.5
No
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
66.6 66.7
0.1 1.5
No
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.4 67.4
0.0 1.5
No
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
53.0 53.1
0.1 5.0
No
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.8 54.1
1.3 5.0
No
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.5 47.5
0.0 5.0
No
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
55.9 55.9
0.0 5.0
No
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.3 50.3
0.0 5.0
No
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
57.1 57.1
0.0 5.0
No
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.2 52.3
0.1 5.0
No
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
71.4 71.4
0.0 1.5
No
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
70.8 70.8
0.0 1.5
No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 'Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? . ^'WRD2555
892
(�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 7-9: EXISTING, AMBIENT AND CUMULATIVE OFF -SITE PROJECT -RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ID
Road
Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold'
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition
Limit
Exceeded?
1 Dinah Shore Dr.
w/o Key Largo Ave.
67.2 67.2
0.0 1.5
No
2 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Key Largo Ave.
68.0 68.1
0.1 1.5
No
3 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o George Montgomery
67.4 67.5
0.1 1.5
No
4 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Shoppers Ln.
67.6 67.7
0.1 1.5
No
5 Dinah Shore Dr.
e/o Monterey Ave.
67.6 67.6
0.0 1.5
No
6 Via Vail
w/o Key Largo Ave.
54.3 54.4
0.1 5.0
No
7 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
56.6 57.2
0.6 5.0
No
8 Key Largo Ave.
s/o Via Vail
47.5 47.5
0.0 5.0
No
9 Mirriam Wy.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
56.0 56.0
0.0 5.0
No
10 George Montgomery
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
50.5 50.5
0.0 5.0
No
11 Shoppers Ln.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
57.2 57.2
0.0 5.0
No
12 Shoppers Ln.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
52.4 52.4
0.0 5.0
No
13 Monterey Ave.
n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
72.8 72.9
0.1 1.5
No
14 Monterey Ave.
s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
72.3 72.4
0.1 1.5
No
'The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 'Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? . ^'WRD2555
893
(�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
894
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
8 ON -SITE NOISE ANALYSIS
An on -site exterior noise impact analysis has been completed to determine the noise exposure levels that would result from adjacent transportation noise sources in the Project study area and to identify potential noise attenuation measures that would achieve acceptable Project exterior and interior noise levels. The primary source of transportation noise affecting the Project site is anticipated to be from Via Vail.
8.1 ON -SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model and the parameters outlined in Tables 6-3 to 6-5, the expected future exterior noise levels for the on -site Project land uses were estimated. Table 8-1 presents a summary of future on -site exterior traffic noise levels at future building facades.
The on -site traffic noise analysis calculations are provided in Appendix 8.1.
TABLE 8-1: EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Receiver
Location
Roadway
Unmitigated
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Land Use
Compatibility1
Exterior
Noise Level
Threshold'
Threshold
Exceeded?
BLDG 1
Via Vail
55.6 Normally Acceptable
70 No
BLDG 7
Via Vail
55.4 Normally Acceptable
70 No
'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element, (2017) Exhibit 20. "n/a" = The City of Alhambra does not identify a specific noise level standard for the given land use.
8.2 ON -SITE NOISE ANALYSIS
The on -site exterior traffic noise analysis indicates that on -site locations will experience exterior noise levels ranging from 55.4 to 55.6 dBA CNEL from all transportation sources.
8.3 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL COMPATIBILITY
Based on City of Rancho Mirage Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure shown on Exhibit 3-A, the commercial and lodging land uses are considered as clearly acceptable to normally acceptable with unmitigated exterior noise levels of less than 70 dBA CNEL. This noise analysis shows that the Project will satisfy the City of Rancho Mirage 70 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for lodging land uses without additional noise abatement measures.
8.4 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the interior noise level standards, future exterior noise levels were calculated at the estimated at the first and second floor building fagade locations.
.-WRD2555
895
L�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
8.4.1 NOISE REDUCTION METHODOLOGY
The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building facade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of approximately 12 dBA with "windows -open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows -closed." (4) (27) However, sound leaks, cracks and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise. Several methods are used to improve interior noise reduction, including: [1] weather-stripped solid core exterior doors; [2] upgraded dual glazed windows; [3] mechanical ventilation/air conditioning; and [4] exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings.
8.4.2 INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL ASSESSMENT
To provide the necessary interior noise level reduction, Tables 8-3 and 8-4 indicate that Project land uses will satisfy Rancho Mirage interior noise standards with a windows -open condition.
Tables 8-2 through 8-4 show that the future unmitigated traffic noise levels at the first and second -floor building facades are expected to range from 54.4 to 55.6 dBA CNEL. The interior noise assessment shows that the City of Rancho Mirage interior noise level standards can be satisfied using standard construction techniques.
8.4.3 INTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Tables 8-2 through 8-4 show that on -site interior traffic noise levels will not exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard for residential land uses and additional noise abatement measures are not needed.
TABLE 8-2: FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL)
Receiver
Location
Noise Level
at Facades
Required
Interior Noise
Reduction
Estimated
Interior Noise
Reduction
Upgraded
Windows'
Recommended
STC
Interior
Noise Levels
BLDG 1
55.6 10.6
12.0 No
27 43.6
BLDG 7
55.4 10.4
12.0 No
27 43.4
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). z Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 'A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction; 12 dBA assumes open windows. ° Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. . ^'WRD2555
896
( URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 8-3: SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL)
Receiver
Location
Noise Level
at Facade'
Required
Interior Noise
Reduction
Estimated
Interior Noise
Reduction 3
Upgraded
Windows4
Recommended
STC
Interior
Noise Levels
BLDG 1
55.2 10.2
12.0 No
27 43.2
BLDG 7
55.0 10.0
12.0 No
27 43.0
Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air condit oning).
Z Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 3A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction; 12 dBA assumes open windows. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 6 Receiver location represents a less than two-story building.
TABLE 8-4: THIRD FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL)
Receiver
Location
Noise Level
at Facades
Required
Interior Noise
Reduction
Estimated
Interior Noise
Reduction 3
Upgraded
Windows4
Recommended
STC
Interior
Noise Levels
BLDG 1
54.6 9.6
12.0 No
27 42.6
BLDG 7
54.4 9.4
12.0 No
27 42.4
Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 'A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction; 12 dBA assumes open windows. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 6 Receiver location represents a less than two-story building. . ^'WRD2555
897
L�► URBAN
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
898
1!) URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
9 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 6-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.
Noise -sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noise - sensitive land uses typically include multi -family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, out- patient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include:
industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.
To describe the potential off -site Project noise levels, five receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.
R1: Location R1 represents the private residence at 102 Clearwater Way, approximately 1,275 feet northwest of the Project site. R1 is placed in the residence's outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive Unitarian Universalist Church at 7425 Via Vail, approximately 1,353 feet west of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the fagade facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive Rancho Mirage Dog Park at 34100 Key Largo Avenue, approximately 648 feet west of the Project site. Receiver R3 is placed in the outdoor areas facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 34620 Via Josefina, approximately 1,181 feet southwest of the Project site. Receiver R4 is placed in the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 72740 Via Florencia, approximately 1,025 feet south of the Project site. Receiver R5 is placed in the outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. . ^'WRD2555
899
Lam► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
EXHIBIT 9-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
LEGEND:
L-1 Site Boundary (? Receiver Locations
e Distance from receiver to Project site boundary (in feet; .' WRD2555
900
(�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
10 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential stationary -source operational noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations, identified in Section 9, resulting from the operation of uses allowed by the Core Rancho Mirage. The Core Rancho Mirage is considered a noise -sensitive receiving land use and is not expected to include any meaningful sources of noise activity. Additionally, according to the recently adopted Section 21085 of the CEQA Guidelines, "noise effects" on humans that are associated with "project occupants and guests" within residential Projects are not an impact on the environment. Consequently, the swimming pool/spa and outdoor common area are not considered as part of this operational noise analysis. It is expected that operational noise level impacts will be limited to the roof -top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot vehicle movements. Exhibit 10-A identifies the representative noise source locations used to assess stationary noise sources.
10.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. The on -site Project -related noise sources are expected to include: roof -top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot vehicle movements.
10.2 REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities, or taken from manufactures specification sheets, to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the Project. This section provides a detailed description of the reference noise levels shown on Table 10-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst -case noise environment with the roof -top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot vehicle movements all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.
10.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
Unless noted in the following descriptions, the reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using a Larson Davis LxT Type 1 precisions sound level meter (serial number 01146). The LxT sound level meter was calibrated using a Larson -Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (22) . ^'WRD2555
901
( URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
EXHIBIT 10-A: STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LOCATIONS
LEGEND:
El Site Boundary • Roof -Top Air Conditioning Unit • Trash Enclosure Activity Parking Lot Vehicle Movements .' WRD2555
902
0 CROSSROADS
URBAN
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source
Noise Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./Hour'
Reference
Noise
Level
@50 feet
(dBA Leq)
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA)2
Day
Eve.
Night
Roof -Top Air Conditioning Units
8'
45'
45'
30'
44.4 76.0
Trash Enclosure Activities
3'
10'
10'
10'
57.4 89.0
Parking Lot Activities
0'
60'
60'
30'
31.4 63.0
'Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. z Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
10.2.2 ROOF -TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
To assess the noise levels created by the roof -top and ground -mounted air conditioning units, reference noise levels were taken from equipment specifications for a 3- to 5 -ton residential packaged air conditioning unit (Carrier 50VR-A). The manufacturer's specifications are included in Appendix 10.1. At a uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the units would generate a reference noise level of 44.4 dBA Leq. The air conditioning units were modeled 3 feet above the roof level, operating 45 minutes per hour during the daytime and 30 minutes at nighttime, which represents the typical maximum operating time for properly sized AC systems.
10.2.3 TRASH ENCLOSURE ACTIVITY
To describe the noise levels associated with a trash enclosure activity, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at an existing trash enclosure containing two dumpster bins. The trash enclosure noise levels describe metal gates opening and closing, metal scraping against concrete floor sounds, dumpster movement on metal wheels, and trash dropping into the metal dumpster. The reference noise levels describe trash enclosure noise activities when trash is dropped into an empty metal dumpster, as would occur at the Project Site. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50 -foot reference distance is 57.4 dBA Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The reference noise level describes the expected noise source activities associated with the trash enclosures for the Project's proposed building.
10.2.4 PARKING LOT ACTIVITIES
Parking activities are based on the area of the parking spaces. The Project includes approximately 171 new spaces, which are assumed to have up to 2 movements per hour for a total of 342 events in an hour. Based on studies conducted in Europe and Australia, the average parking procedure, which included movement associated with either entering or exiting the parking area, parking the vehicles, and opening and closing doors resulted in a sound power level of approximately 63 dBA Lw/square meter per event Invalid source specified. Invalid source specified.. . ^'WRD2555
903
L�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
10.3 CADNAA NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.
Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613-2 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (LW) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (LW) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment. The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (Le., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces.
10.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Based on the reference noise levels, it is possible to estimate the Project's operational stationary/area-source noise levels at each of the sensitive receiver locations. The daytime project stationary/area-source noise level calculations shown in Table 10-2 through Table 10-4 account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. With geometric spreading, sound levels attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source (roof -top air conditioning units) and 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance from an area source (parking lot vehicle movements). Table 10-2 indicates that the hourly noise levels associated with the roof -top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, and parking lot vehicle movements are expected to range from 26.3 to 31.8 dBA Leq at the nearby sensitive receiver locations for the daytime. Table 10-3 indicates a range of 26.3 to 31.8 dBA Leq for the evening, and Table 10-4 indicates a range of 24.8 to 30.3 dBA Leq for the nighttime. The stationary/area-source noise level calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 10.2.
. ^'WRD2555
904
Lam► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 10-2: DAYTIME PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVELS (DBA LEQ) Noise Source'
Daytime Noise Level (dBA Leq)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Roof -Top Air Conditioning Units
26.0 25.2
30.6 26.4
28.4 Trash Enclosure Activity
18.8 18.1
24.0 14.8
22.0 Parking Lot Activities
15.3 14.6
20.9 15.8
18.0 Total (AII Noise Sources)
27.1 26.3
31.8 27.0
29.6 ' See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix
10.1. TABLE 10-3: EVENING PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVEL (DBA LEQ) Noise Source'
Daytime Noise Level (dBA Leq)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Roof -Top Air Conditioning Units
26.0 25.2
30.6 26.4
28.4 Trash Enclosure Activity
18.8 18.1
24.0 14.8
22.0 Parking Lot Activities
15.3 14.6
20.9 15.8
18.0 Total (AII Noise Sources)
27.1 26.3
31.8 27.0
29.6 'See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix
10.1. TABLE 10-4: NIGHTTIME PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVEL (DBA LEQ) Noise Source'
Daytime Noise Level (dBA Leq)
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Trash Enclosure Activities
24.2 23.5
28.8 24.6
26.6 Roof -Top Air Conditioning Units
18.8 18.1
24.0 14.8
22.0 Parking Lot Activities
11.6 10.9
17.1 12.1
14.3 Total (AII Noise Sources)
25.5 24.8
30.3 25.2
28.1 ' See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix
10.1. Table 10-5 shows the calculated Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., evening hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Table 10-5 shows that the Project operational noise levels will range from 24.8 to
31.8 dBA Leq. To demonstrate compliance with local noise standards, the Project -only operational noise levels are evaluated against the City of Rancho Mirage exterior noise level standards, previously shown in Table 3-1. Table 10-5 shows the stationary/area-source noise levels associated with the Core Rancho Mirage land uses will satisfy the City of Rancho Mirage daytime, evening, and nighttime noise level standards at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. . ^'WRD2555
905
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 10-5: PROJECT OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Threshold Exceeded?4
Day
Eve.
Night
Day
Eve.
Night
Day
Eve.
Night
R1
27.1 27.1
25.5 55
50 45
No
No
No
R2
26.3 26.3
24.8 55
50 45
No
No
No
R3
31.8 31.8
30.3 55
50 45
No
No
No
R4
27.0 27.0
25.2 55
50 45
No
No
No
R5
29.6 29.6
28.1 55
50 45
No
No
No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise level calculations inc uded in Appendix 10.1.
City of Rancho Mirage exterior noise level standards by land use, as shown on Table 3-1. ° Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
10.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project -stationary source and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:
SPLTotaI = 101ogio[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + 10SPLn/10]
Where "SPL1," "SPL2," etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project -source noise is added to the daytime, evening, and nighttime ambient conditions are presented in Tables 10-6, 10-7, and 10-8, respectively. As indicated in Tables 10-6, 10-7, and 10-8, the Project will generate an unmitigated operational noise level increase of less than
0.1 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.
Tables 10-6, 10-7 and 10-8 show that the Project operational noise level contributions satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table 4-1. Therefore, the Project related operational noise level increases at all sensitive receiver locations will be less than significant.
. ^'WRD2555
906
(? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 10-6: DAYTIME PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location'
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Lever
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels'
Combined
Project
and
Ambient'
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria'
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?'
R1
27.1 L1
55.5 55.5
0.0 5.0
No
R2
26.3 L2
51.9 51.9
0.0 5.0
No
R3
31.8 L3
55.5 55.5
0.0 5.0
No
R4
27.0 L4
53.1 53.1
0.0 5.0
No
R5
29.6 L5
52.9 52.9
0.0 5.0
No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
'Total Project operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-5. 'Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 'Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. ' Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4.
TABLE 10-7: EVENING PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location'
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient'
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria'
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?'
R1
27.1 L1
56.8 56.8
0.0 5.0
No
R2
26.3 L2
54.4 54.4
0.0 5.0
No
R3
31.8 L3
56.8 56.8
0.0 5.0
No
R4
27.0 L4
58.0 58.0
0.0 5.0
No
R5
29.6 L5
59.0 59.0
0.0 5.0
No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-5. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed evening ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 'Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. ' Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4.
.' WRD2555
907
L�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 10-8: NIGHTTIME PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location'
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location'
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient'
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria'
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?'
R1
25.5 L1
54.4 54.4
0.0 5.0
No
R2
24.8 L2
51.5 51.5
0.0 5.0
No
R3
30.3 L3
54.4 54.4
0.0 5.0
No
R4
25.2 L4
54.1 54.1
0.0 5.0
No
R5
28.1 L5
51.5 51.5
0.0 5.0
No
'See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-5.
Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. s Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. e The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.
Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4.
. ^'WRD2555
908
L�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
11 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 8-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 8.
To prevent high levels of construction noise from impacting noise -sensitive land uses, RMMC Section 15.04.030[A][11] indicates that construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. with no activity on Sundays and holidays (15).
11.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recognizes that construction projects are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing noise impacts during construction. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others. The Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
11.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (28) The RCNM equipment database provides a comprehensive list of the noise -generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. According to the EPA, FTA, and FHWA, the overall construction noise level is governed primarily by the noisiest pieces of equipment.
The quieter pieces do not affect the overall level, but they do reduce the magnitude of the fluctuations in the noise level. Therefore, a rough estimate of the noise level need only include the noisiest pieces of equipment expected at the site. (29) (8) (30) Consistent with FHWA and FTA guidance for detailed construction noise assessment, Table 8-1 presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction activities expected for each stage, assuming all equipment operates simultaneously.
. ^'WRD2555
909
L?► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
EXHIBIT 11-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS !
{
•
!on
�Ys.�s•r
f.s
•
•
•
•
•
• `.
•
4. •
1•74.
•
w
•• • e _
Mp • • M*
jit
4 .4 4* :u •
*")
toe
• iNr • w
.
• . .
• • • •
•
LEGEND:
0 Construction Activity t Receiver Locations —• Distance from receiver to construction activity (in feet) .' WRD2555
970
I? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
1 (dBA Ley)
Combined
Noise Level
z
(dBA Ley)
Combined Sound
Power Level
3 (PWL)3
Site
Preparation
Tractors
78.0 80.0
111.6
Hauling Trucks
72.0 Rubber Tired Dozers
75.0 Grading
Graders
81.0 83.0
114.6
Excavators
77.0 Compactors
76.0 Building
Construction
Cranes
73.0 81.0
112.6
Tractors
80.0 Welders
70.0 Paving
Pavers
74.0 83.0
114.6
Paving Equipment
82.0 Rollers
73.0 Architectural
Coating
Cranes
73.0 77.0
108.6
Air Compressors
74.0 Generator Sets
70.0 ' FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
2 Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance.
Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings.
11.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Construction projects involve various stages, and activities frequently shift from one location to another. For example, during site clearing and grading, noise -generating activities may concentrate in an area for a short period to remove an obstruction, while the majority of the grading involves the equipment moving back and forth in a predictable pattern throughout the site; building construction and foundation work generally concentrate near the building footprint, while paving generally involves a predictable pattern of movement throughout the site.
Therefore, construction activities are best evaluated as multiple moving point sources within the construction area since the speed and power of the equipment vary, and the equipment constantly changes position in terms of its distance and direction relative to the receivers. (11) (3
1)
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Consistent with FTA guidance for general construction noise assessment, Table 8-1 presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate simultaneously. As shown in Table 11-2, the construction . ^'WRD2555
911
L�► URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
noise levels are expected to range from 46.0 to 57.4 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.
Appendix 11.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.
TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
Receiver
Location'
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Grading
Building
Construction
Paving
Architectural
Coating
Highest
Levels'
R1
49.6 52.6
50.6 52.6
46.6 52.6
R2
49.0 52.0
50.0 52.0
46.0 52.0
R3
54.4 57.4
55.4 57.4
51.4 57.4
R4
50.4 53.4
51.4 53.4
47.4 53.4
R5
52.0 55.0
53.0 55.0
49.0 55.0
1 Noise receiver locations are shown in Exhibit 11-A.
2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.1.
11.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at the nearest receiver locations, a construction -related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities, as shown in Table 11-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels'
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1
52.6 80
No
R2
52.0 80
No
R3
57.4 80
No
R4
53.4 80
No
R5
55.0 80
No
'Noise receiver locations are shown in Exhibit 11-A.
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations, as shown in Table 10-2.
Construction noise level thresholds as shown in Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? . ^'WRD2555
972
(? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
11.5 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the temporary Project construction noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements at the nearest off -site receiver locations. The difference between the combined Project -construction and ambient noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level contributions. Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when Project construction -source noise is added to the ambient daytime conditions are presented in Table 11-4. A temporary noise level increase of 20 dBA is considered a potentially significant impact.
TABLE 11-4: DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Receiver
Locations
Total Project
Construction
Noise Level'
Measurement
Location'
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels'
Combined
Project
and
Ambient'
Project
Increase'
Increase
Criteria
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1
52.6 L1
55.5 57.3
1.8 20
No
R2
52.0 L2
51.9 55.0
3.1 20
No
R3
57.4 L3
55.5 59.6
4.1 20
No
R4
53.4 L4
53.1 56.3
3.2 20
No
R5
55.0 L5
52.9 57.1
4.2 20
No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown in Exhibit 11-A. 2 Total Project daytime construction noise levels as shown in Table 11-2.
Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-A. 'Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1.
Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project construction activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project construction activities.
As indicated in Table 11-4, the Project construction will contribute to noise level increases ranging from 1.8 to 4.2 dBA Leq during the daytime hours at the nearest receiver locations. The unmitigated construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will not exceed the substantial 20 dBA Leq noise level increase significance threshold during Project construction activities. The temporary construction noise level increase analysis shows that the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant.
11.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 11-5. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by Caltrans. To . ^'WRD2555
913
(? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
calculate vibration levels at distance, Caltrans provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
TABLE 11-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer
0.003
Jackhammer
0.035
Loaded Trucks
0.076
Large bulldozer
0.089
Vibratory Roller
0.210
Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020.
Table 11-6 presents the expected Project -related vibration levels at the nearby receiver building facade locations. At distances ranging from 648 to 1,353 feet from the building facade to the Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range up to less than 0.01 PPV (in/sec). Based on the maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all the noise -sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project -related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. . ^'WRD2555
914
( URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
TABLE 11-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Locations
Distance
to
Const.
Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3
Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec),
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer
Jackhammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Vibratory
Roller
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1
1,275'
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.30 No
R2
1,353'
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.30 No
R3
648'
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.30 No
R4
1,181'
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.30 No
R5
1,025'
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.30 No
'Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A.
'Distance from receiver building facade to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary).
Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 11-4). 4Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38.
Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
. ^'WRD2555
915
( URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
9i6
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
12 REFERENCES
1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018.
2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.
3. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.
4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.
5. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. 2001.
6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook -A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).
EPA 550/9/82/106.
8. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123. September 2018.
9. —. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123. September 2018.
10. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020.
11. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006.
12. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October 2017.
13. State of California. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Level. /CC Digital Coes. [Online] 2019. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CABCV12019/chapter-12-interior-environment .
14. City of Rancho Mirage. Municipal Code, Chapter 8.45 Noise.
15. —. Municipal Code, Sections 15.04.030.
16. —. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2005.
17. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
18. California Natural Resources Agency. 2024 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statue and Guidelines. s.l. : Association of Environmental Professionals.
19. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.
20. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.
21. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009. . ^'WRD2555
917
( URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
22. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.
23. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.
24. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03.
25. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.
26. Urban Crossroads. Core Rancho Mirage Traffic Analysis. 2024.
27. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. May 2011.
28. FHWA. Roadway Construction Noise Model. January 2006.
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. 1971. NTI D300.1.
30. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Special Report - Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation. Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty - Environment - Noise. [Online] 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn00.cfm .
31. —. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Final Report August 2006. . ^'WRD2555
978
(? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
13 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the Core Rancho Mirage Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 788-1971.
William Maddux, INCE
Senior Associate
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
(619) 788-1971
[email protected]
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Urban and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, Pomona • June 2000
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA — Acoustical Society of America
AEP — Association of Environmental Planners
AWMA — Air and Waste Management Association
INCE — Institute of Noise Control Engineers - Member
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Approved Acoustical Consultant • County of San Diego
FHWA Traffic Noise Model of Training • November 2004
CadnaA Basic and Advanced Training Certificate • October 2008 .' WRD2555
919
L�► URBAN
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
920
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
APPENDIX 3.1:
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE MUNICIPAL CODE
. ^'WRD2555
921
��► URBAN
C ROS SRCJAE)S
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
922
Ii!, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
APPENDIX 5.1:
STUDY AREA PHOTOS
. ^'WRD2555
923
Ii!, URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
924
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
APPENDIX 5.2:
NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
. ^'WRD2555
925
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
926
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
APPENDIX 7.1:
OFF -SITE NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS
.-WRD2555
927
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
928
0 URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
APPENDIX 8.1:
ON -SITE NOISE CALCULATIONS
.-WRD2555
929
I? URBAN
C ROSSROAOS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
930
I? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
APPENDIX 10.1:
HVAC
. ^'WRD2555
931
I? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
932
I? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
APPENDIX 10.2:
CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE CALCULATIONS
. ^'WRD2555
933
��► URBAN
C ROS SRCJAE)S
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
934
I? URBAN
CROSSROADS
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
APPENDIX 11.1:
CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE CALCULATIONS
. ^'WRD2555
935
��► URBAN
C ROS SRCJAE)S
Core Rancho Mirage Noise and Vibration Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
. ^'WRD2555
936
I? URBAN
CROSSROADS
URBAN C
OSSOA
DATE: November 12, 2024
TO: Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
FROM: John Kain and Marlie Whiteman, Urban Crossroads, Inc.
JOB NO: 15915-03 VMT Screening.docx
CORE RANCHO MIRAGE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
SCREENING ANALYSIS
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis for the CORE Rancho Mirage (Project), which is generally located south of Via Vail in Rancho Mirage.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project includes the development of consists of 150 affordable apartment dwelling units. The preliminary Project site plan is shown on Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects.
City of Rancho Mirage Resolution 2021-06 (City Guidelines) aligns the City's VMT analysis policy with SB 743 and the City's goals as set forth in the General Plan Update (2017). The purpose of the policy is to comply with State laws while maintaining the resort residential character of the community.
The City's VMT policy establishes VMT as the metric to measure transportation impacts in conformance with CEQA.
VMT SCREENING
Exhibit A of Resolution 2021-06 sets forth screening criteria under which Projects are not required to submit detailed VMT analysis. This guidance for determination of non -significant VMT impact is primarily intended to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings that would be inconsistent with the intent of SB 743. VMT screening criteria for development projects include the following:
DS
URBAN CROSSROADS
CORE Rancho Mirage Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT A: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
PPM. IPA,
—1 L
UNIT BUILD NG
rs,oRE=�aA.;
0 MIMEO
N. PROJECT ACCESS
RIBEn
GAIrIE COURT
0) lam Rem
(INBOUND ONLY)
697®
�,BroN,Es, s
rt
S. PROJECT ACCESS ii
W ry (OUTBOUND ONLY)
°:1 _
SI, LEGEND
PARCEL A-2
APN
LOT SIZE. ., MOO. ACIREs)
FsaTrig; g IVNGEW 11 ON
cOnICI,E Rem,.
15915 - Scope.dwg
938
Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
November 12, 2024