Yucaipa City Council
April 17, 2023

7 The study area, while not located adjacent to this village site, could well have been included in the 'larger migratory and resource procurement territory of the Serano inhabitants of Yucaipat.
in 1848, at the conclusion of the Mexican War, California became a U.S. territory and, in_850, a state. This signaled the end of the large land-owning families, Mormon settlers led by Charles Rich and Amasa Lyman, sponsored by Brigham Young, came to the San Bernardino valley in 1851.

Twenty-six Blacks were among the group of 437 Mormons colonists (Skinner 1983). These were the first Black settlers in the county.

The Mormons purchased Rancho San Bernardino from the Lugos on September 22, 1851 and established lumber and agricultural enterprises.

The Yucaipa nortion of the San Bernardino Rancho was purchased from the mormons by James Waters who sold it to John Dunlop, a Texas cattleman in 1869 (Schuiling 1984:106). The Yucaipa Valley was developed into farmlands, for orchard and grain cultivation and as grazing land for cattle. Agriculture remains an important component of the local economy of the Yucaipa area today.

EXISTING D. T-, A
The 190_ Rec;lands, California 15' USGS series quadrangle shows two structures to the immediate north and west of the study area. A possible historical structure is also located in the northeastern portion of the study area as shown on the Yucaipa, California 7.5' USGS series quadrangle. These data suggested the possibility that historic cultural resources may be located within the study area.

8 The possibility of locating prehistoric cultural resources was evaluated as low to moderate. This evaluation was based on environmental considerations, that is the location oc a stall seasonal stream through the area and larger streams to the north and south of the study area. The study area may also have been utilized to procure food and tool resources by the Serrano inhabitants of Yucaipat village.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The objective of the field survey was to locate, identify and assess the significance of past human activities. Indicators of these activities are defined by tiie presence of one or more of the following categories of cultural remains: food waste, tool manufacturing waste, modifications of natural rock or ground surfaces, fragmentary or whole tools, soil discolor- ation and/or its accumulation and human skeletal remains.

Cultural resources were identified on the basis of surface evidence.

Historical remains would be considered only if they had attained an age of fifty years or more.

METHODS EMPLOYED FOR THIS INVESTIGATION
Prior to the on -foot survey a records check was conducted by the Archaeological Information Center located at the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands. A study of the pertinent literature was undertaken by the author, Dr. Victor C. de Munck. On March 11, 1989, the author and one associate conducted a field investigation the s_bect property by means of a series of systematic east -to -west transects spaced ca. 20 meters apart.

Surface visibility was adequate to good.

9 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The San Bernardino National Forest lies immediately north of the study area. The foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains lie north and east of the property. A smal_ seasonal stream, originating in these mountains, cuts through the prooerty from the northeast to the southwest. At the time of the survey there was no water in this stream.

Elevation on the subject property ranges from a high of a� ro::iWatei_,- 3150 feet to a low of 2950 feet above sea level. The property slopes down from north to south. The soil consists predominantly of humic loam intermixed with silty sands and decomposed granite. The soil color ranged from dark brown to light tan. Numerous granitic boulders were dispersed through the study area,; These boulders and smaller granitic rocks could have served as milling tools (metates and/or manos) for prehistoric populations that inhabited the region. No cryptocrysta_1_ne l-thics were observed during the field investigation.

Vegetation on the subject property is characteristic of the Creosote Bush Scrub plant community (Kunz 1974). Vegetation observed during the field survey includes creosote bush (1a_rrea t__c'entata), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), prickly pear (0:)�iritia sp.), white and black sage (Salvia aoiana and Salvia meiliferai, chamise (Adenostoma fasc_'culacum), elderberry (Sambucus mex-.cana), and cottonwood (Populus fremoncll).

Fauna observed were Jackrabbit (lepus californicus), desert cotton- tail (Sylvilagus.audobonii), an assortment of small rodents and lizards.

The climate of the study area is typical of cismontane southern California and is classified as Mediterranean, or "summmer-dr-,

to
subtropical" (bailey syoc). 'ihe characteristics of such a climate are a dry, warm or hot s'•1..imer and a relatively mild, wet winter --a condition that prevails over only abo•.:_ three percent of the earth's surface. Total annual rainfall seldo:a exceeds 25.6 inches, with :Most of the precipitation ocurring from January to April.

RESULTS
No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were located during the field survey of the study area. A three bedroom residence and adjoining trailer are :located in the northeastern portion of the subject property.

This residence was built by Mrs. Mary Jan Krupp in the 1450's and is of no historical significance. It is currently abandoned. A watchman lives in a trailer adjoining this residence.

The above conclusion is based on a surface investigation of the su5ject property and does not preclude the possibility of subsurface cultural deposits.

FINAL RE00*.�Dic9DATIONS
As field survey results were negative, it is recommended that no further archaeological investigation need be conducted on the sub;ect property. Should subsurface cultural deposits be exposed during development a qualified archaeologist is to be consulted and empowered to halt construction until these resources are evaluated and appropriate orotectior./data recovery measures are taken.

li

REFERENCES
Bai�ey, H.P.
_966 heather of Southern California. Berkeley: university of California Press.

Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith
197Gj Serrano. in: The Handbook of North American Indians, Vo1.8, California, R.F. Heizer, ed., pp. 570-74. Washington:

Smithsonian Institute.

Gifford, E.W.
1951 `fiWok Lineages and Political unit in Aboriginal California. in: The California Indians: a Source Book, R.F. Heizer and M.A. 'Whipple, eds., pp. 375-84. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hicks, Frederic
1958 Archaeological Investigations in the Yucaipa Valley. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 5(2).

Martz, Patricia
1977 Archaeological Investigations at CA-kSBr-1-000, Yucaipa California. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside, for the Yucaipa Valley Water District.

Meighan, C.W.
1978 California. n: Chronologies of New World Archaeology, R.F.

Taylor and C.W. %feighan, eds., pp. 223-240. New York: Academic Press.
`funz, P.A.
1974 A Flora of Soutfern California. 3er ke_e.7: University of California Press,
Robinson W. W.
1962 The Story of San Bernardino County. San 3ernarcino: Title Insurance and Trust Co.

Schuiling, Walter C.
1984 San Bernardino County: Land of Contrasts. 'Woodland Hills (California): Windsor Publications, Inc.

Skinner, Byron R.
1983 Black Origins in the Inland Empire. San Bernardino: Book Attic Press.

'//

P R E M I U M
I. A u f) f V li l 0 P \1 P\ I'
July 8, 2022
Ben Matlock, Planning Manager
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, Ca. 92399
RE: Serrano Estates
Mr. Matlock,
As you are aware, there was a previously performed Geotechnical Investigation on the property that we submitted about a month ago. The Geotechnical Engineer is willing to do further work on the property to make sure that there is nothing new to report. It is obvious that the property has been untouched for the past couple of decades and that nothing new has transpired or changed on the property.

I understand there will be new codes to follow, but mainly at the time of Construction. For this reason, we have asked LOR Geotechnical for a bid to re-examine the Site and make sure that nothing has changed and that our Construction falls in line with current codes and standards. Prior to Grading, they have given us a bid to do the following:

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., is pleased to provide this proposal to prepare an update to the previous preliminary geotechnical and subsurface fault investigation prepared by this firm in 2005, and conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the proposed 51 residential lot subdivision located in Yucaipa, California.

The purpose of the updates will be to provide updated geotechnical and geologic data for the proposed development. We propose to conduct this work in phases. The first phase would consist of a review of provided current development plans, existing geotechnical and 108 Orange, Suite S
Redlands, Ca. 92373
909.335.1665

geologic reports previously prepared by this firm, and a review of city records for previous report approvals. Based on this work, recommendations for the second phase would be provided. The second phase, provided our previous work has been approved, is anticipated to include providing additional design parameters in accordance with current codes and standards utilizing our previous data. However, it may be necessary to conduct additional subsurface explorations and laboratory testing should aspects of our previous work not have been previously approved and/or there are significant changes to the proposed development.

Our Phase I ESA will be conducted to develop a complete history of the past and present use of the subject site, including any potential environmental concerns such as contaminated soils, underground tanks, and hazardous materials. This assessment will be conducted in accordance with the Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) E1527-21 and All Appropriate Inquiries set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 312. The purpose of the Phase I ESA will be to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), or significant data gaps that may be associated with the subject site.

Ben, I believe, and hope you believe that there is enough information to move this project forward, The time to add information to this report is about 7 weeks. Since most of this information is important to the Construction of these homes, we will start that work immediately, so it is available prior to construction.

Thank you for all your assistance. Have a wonderful day.

Sincerely,
V-L
Craig Heaps
Representative for General Dev. Group

LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Soil Engineering ♦ Geology ♦ Environmental
June 15, 2022
Premium Land Development Project No. 32137.13
108 Orange Street, #5
Redlands, California 92373
Attention: Mr. Jeff Kreidel
Subject: Geotechnical and Geologic Work to Date, Tentative Tract Map No. 20375, Yucaipa, California.

At your request, we have prepared this letter to summarize our work conducted to date for the subject project. It should be noted that since the time of our work, the tract was identified as Tentative Tract 14297.

The following reports/letters have been prepared by this firm:

1. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tract 14297, Yucaipa, California, Project No. 32137.1, dated November 22, 2005.

2. Response to City of Yucaipa Review Letter by Mr. D. Scott Magorien, CEG, dated December 31, 2005, of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Project No. 32137.12, dated March 7, 2006.

3. Subsurface Fault Investigation, Tentative Tract No. 14297, Yucaipa, California, Project No. 32137.3, dated November 30, 2005.

4. Response to City of Yuciapa Review Letter by Mr. D. Scott Magorien, CEG, dated December31, 2005, of Subsurface Fault Investigation, Project No. 32137.32, dated February 1, 2006, revised March 6, 2006.

Based on the tentative development plan provided, it appears that a new tract no. (20375) has been issued (Premium, 2020). The plan provided indicates that the proposed development will consist of 51 lots for residential development. The plan also appears to generally incorporate the recommendations presented within our previous reports/letters cited above, in particular with respect to the recommended restricted use zone (R.U.Z.). 6121 Quail Valley Court ♦ Riverside, CA 92507 ♦ (951) 653-1760 ♦ (951) 653-1741 (Fax) ♦ www.lorgeo.com

Premium Land Development
June 15, 2022
Project No. 32137.13
At this time it is not known if our previous work has been approved by the jurisdictional agency(ies). At a minimum, updates to our previous work to conform with current codes and regulations relative to the currently proposed development are anticipated to be required. A proposal for such services was provided to you (LOR, 2022).

Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us as your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
th P. Leuer
Wr ,sident
AAT:JPL:ss
Distribution: Addressee via email [email protected] 2 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

REFERENCES
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2022, Proposal to Perform a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Update, Subsurface Fault Investigation Update, and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (formerly Tract No. 14297), Yucaipa, California, Proposal No. 6053.P, dated June 10, 2022.

Premium Land Development, 2020, Tentative Map, Tentative Tract 20375, Yucaipa Ridge Road, APN 0320-161-08, -09, and -28, City of Yucaipa, dated September 28, 2020, Sheet 1 of 1.
3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Soil Engineering ♦ Geology A Environmental

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
TENTATIVE TRACT 14297

YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 32137.1
NOVEMBER 22, 2005
Prepared For:

S.C.R.V. LLC
11718 Barrington Court ,',`804
Los Angeles, California 90049
Attention: Mr. Tom Tenney
6 121 Quail Valley Court ♦ Riverside, CA 92507 • (951) 653-1760 . Fax (951) 653-1741

LGEOTECHNICALOR
GROUP, INC.

Soil Engineering ♦ Geology A Environmental
November 22, 2005
S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
11718 Barrington Court #804
Los Angeles, California 90049
Attention: Mr. Tom Tenney
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tract 14297, Yucaipa, California.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. is pleased this report summarizing our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development tract of 14297 in Yucaipa, California. This report was based upon a scope of services generally outlined in our work authorization agreement dated August 26, 2005 and other written and verbal communications.

In sumrnary, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are incorporated into design and construction. The following executive summary reviews some of the important elements of the project. However, this summary should not be solely relied upon.

The proposed development area of the tract is underlain by various alluvial deposits.

Due to the variable densities of the upper portion of these materials they are not considered suitable in their present condition to provide uniform and/or adequate support for the proposed fills and/or structures. In addition there is a significant amount of loose fills at the site from past geotechnical/geologic studies. Therefore all undocumented fill material and any loose alluvial materials should be removed from structural areas and areas to receive engineered compacted fill. Preliminary data developed during this investigation indicates that removals averaging approximately 3 to 5 feet within the native alluvial materials and up to 20 feet of loose fills will be encountered. Approximately 10 percent or more of these materials are anticipated to consist of oversize rock materials.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
6121 Quail Valley Court e Riverside, CA 92507 • (951) 653-1760 s Fax (951) 653-17,11

Table of Contents
Page No.

INTRODUCTION.............................................1 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS....................................2 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................... 3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ANALYSIS................................3 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM .................................. 4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ................................ 4 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ....................................... 5 Regional Geologic Setting .... . . . . . .. ... . . ..... . .. . . . . . . . .. . 5
Site Geologic Conditions ................................... 6 Artificial Fill (Mai) Symbols At' and Afh) ............. . ........... 6 Young Alluvial Deposits (Map Symbol Dal ................... 6 Recent Alluvial Fan Deposits (Map Symbol Gal,) .. .. . .. . .. . ... 7
Alluvia! Fan Deposits of Moderate Age (Map Symbol Qa1; . .. . . .. . 7
O!der Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal3.4) ....................... 7 COIILIvial Deposits (Map Symbol Qcol) ..................... 7 Groundwater Hydrology ................................... 8 Surface Runoff ............ .......................... ... 8
Mass Movement ........................................
8 Faulting..............................................9 Secondary Seismic Hazards ................................. 9 Liquefaction .......................................
9 Seiches/Tsunamis..................................
10 Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure) ................... 10 Seismically -Induced Landsliding ......................... 10 Rockfalls........................................
10 Seismically -induced Settlement ....... ................ .. 10
SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code) .......... 10 CBC Divisions !V: Earthquake Design Criteria Selection . ... . .. . . . . . . 11 Seismic Zone ......... ............................ '1 1 Near Source Factorr ..... .................... ...... .. 1 1 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Table of Contents
CBC Division V: Soil Profile ............. ... . ............. .. 12 CBC Earthquake Design Summary ......................... .. i 3 CONCLUSIONS............................................13 General.............................................13
Foundation Support ............... I .. I ....... I . I ........ 14 Geologic, Mitigations ..................................... 111.

Seismicity............................................ 14 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................15 General Site Grading .................................... 15 Initial Site Preparation .................................... 16 Preparation of Fill Areas . . . . ... . . ..... . .. . . . ..... . . ... .. . . 16 Preparation of Foundation Areas ............................ 16 Engineered Compacted Fii'................................ 17 Short -Term Excavations .................................. 18 Slope Construction ..... ............................... .. i 8
Slope Protection ....................................... 18 Soil Expansiveness ..... . .............................. .. 19 Foundation Design ...................................... 19 Settlement...........................................20 Slabs -On -Grade ...................................... .. 21 Wall Pressures ........ ................................. 21 Preliminary Pavement Design ............................. .. 22 Sulfate Protection ...................................... 23 Construction Monitoring .................................. 23 TIME LIMITATIONS ........................................ .. 24 LIMITATIONS..............................................24 CLOSURE................................................25 REFERENCES .................................. ...26
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS _ 20"
L.1 V R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Table of Contents

APPENDICES
Appendix A - Index Map and Regional Geologic Map
Appendix B - Field Investigation Program and Trench Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Program and Results
Back Pocket - P;ate 1 - Trench Location Map and Site Geologic Map Page No.

LOR GEOTECNNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 22, 2005

INTRODUCTION
Project No. 32137.1
During the period from July through August of 2005, a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was performed by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. for the proposed Tract Map14297, currently consisting of three parcels of land of approximately 53±acres located northeast of Crystal Street and Yucaipa Ridge Road in the City of Yucaipa, California. The 11 .88 acre "remainder parcel" in the north portion of the tract was not a part of this study and is excluded from the tract. The purpose of this investigation was to provide a technical eva!uation of the geologic setting of the site and to provide geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed development.

The scope of our services included:
• Review of available geotechnical literature, re.ports, maps, and agency information pertinent to the study area;
• Interpretation of stereo aerial photograph pairs of the site and surrounding region dated 1938 through 2005;
• Geologic field reconnaissance mapping to verify the areal distribution of earth units and significance of surficial features as compiled from documents, literature, and reports reviewed;
• A subsurface field investigation to determine the physical soil conditions pertinent to the proposed development;
• Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation;
• Development of geotechnical recommendations for site grading and foundation design; and
• Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, and providing conclusions and recommendations for site development.

The approximate location of the site is shown on the attached Index Map, Enclosure A-1 , within Appendix A.

To orient our investigation at the site, a 100-scale Topographic Map, prepared by Sitetech, Inc., was furnished for our use. This map was used as a base For our Geologic Map and is provided as Enclosure A-2, within Appendix A. 1 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 22, 2005

PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Project No. 32137.1
The subject property consist of three separate parcels listed by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's) of 0320-181-028, and 032-161-08 and 09. These three parcels make a rectangular site that is approximately 1,163 wide and 1950 feet long, for approximately 52.5 acres of land total. The far northern portion of the site, composed of an irregular shaped parcel extending from 490 to 240 feet south of the northern property line and consisting of 11.85 acres, is not a part of this tract development at this time and is refered to on the plans as a Remainder Parcel.

A 100-scale tentative tract rnap was prepared for the site by Sitetech, Inc. and provided for our study. According to this map, a copy of which is presented as Plate I, located in the back pocket of this report, Tract No. 14297 will consist of the grading of 33 level pads for single family homes. Access to these lots will be provided by extending the existing Quartz and Crystal streets from the west and constructing three new interior roads. Due to the general sloping nature of the site, grading will involve "transitions" of cut to fill across most of the lots with from 5 to 10 feet, or more, of fills placed along the southern ends and 5 to 10 feet, or more, of cuts into the native ground to create the level pads. One notable exception is along lot 28 were due to the placing of the pad over an existing gully, approximately 20 feet of fill, not including remedia! removals, is proposed.

At the time of our investigation, the construction development plans for the structures were not avai!able. However, future structures are anticipated to consist of the construction of a single structure with attached garage of one to two stories and of wood frame construction with an exterior plaster veneer on each pad. Light to moderate foundation loads are anticipated with such structures.

The entire subject site is situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone set LID by the State of California Geological Survey due to the location of the San Andreas fault that is generally considered to run along the base of the mountains in this region. This prohibits the location of structures for human occupancy within this zone until a special fault hazard study has been conducted. This study was conducted by this firm under a separate fault hazard study which included the excavation of nearly 2,500 linear feet of trenching at depths up to 25 feet (LOR 2005!. In addition it is our understanding that a similar study was conducted at the site at least two times in the past.
2 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V.LLC
November 22, 2005

SITE DESCRIPTION
Project No. 32137.1
The subject site consists of three parcels of land, given by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers of 320-181-028, and 320-161-009 and 008. Each of these is a rectangular parcel 1,163 feet wide and 660 feet north to south. Therefore together they form a rectangular parcel 1,163 feet in length from east to west, and approximately 1980 feet north to south. This region is situated along the base of Yucaipa Ridge, which rises steeply to the north. Tho topography of the site is generally planning with a fail to the south-southwest, and the region to the north on the 1 1.85 acre "Remainder Parcel" rising up along a steep bluff. The bluff lies several hundred feet north of the northern edge of the proposed tract development area, rising up approximately 50 feet to a flatter plateau above. Vegetation across the site is predorninately light to moderately heavy field brush with numerous patches of very heavy dense, low lying, brush that hamper access.

At the beginning of our study, several. areas were noted with relatively recently disturbed soils and stripped vegetation. The biggest of these areas extended from near the northeastern portion of the site to the southwest corner. These are thought to be the result of the past fault studies conducted at the site by other firms.

The tract is bounded on the north by the "remainder parcel" portion of the property, which in turn is bounded on the north by vacant land. The area to the east and south is composed of similar vacant land while the area across Yucaipa Ridge Road to the west contains residential housing.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ANALYSIS
During the course of this study, an analysis of time -sequential stereoscopic aerial photograph pairs of the site and surrounding region, on file at the San Bernardino County Flood Control and Water Conservation District were reviewed. Stereoscopic aerial photograph pairs of the site and surrounding regions dating from 1938 through 2005 were examined. Geologic information for aiding in the mapping of the various onsite earth units and identification of photodineaments as noted as the aerial photographs was incorporated into our Geologic Map, Plate 1, located within the back pocket of this report. A complete list of the photographs studied is given in the references at the back of this report.
3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LL C
November 22, 2005

FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Project No. 32137. 1
Our subsurface field exploration program was conducted in several phases that began with the excavation of two backhoe trenches on the site on July 15, 2005. Due to the coarse nature of the materials encountered, our study was completed by excavating six more test pits using a 345 CAT excavator. The trenches were excavated to depths of 10 to 22 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of our exploratory trenches are presented on the Geologic Map, Plate 1, located in the back pocket of this report.

Logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory trenches were maintained by a geologist from this firm. In -place density tests were taken at various depths within the trenches using the Nuclear Density Method (ASTM D 2922) and Sand Cone ;Method (ASTM D 1556-901. Bulk samples of the encountered materials were obtained and returned to the laboratory in sealed containers for further testing and evaluation.

Logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory trenches were also maintained by a geologist from this firm. Relatively undisturbed and bull< samples were obtained at an average depth interval of 5 feet and returned to the laboratory in sealed containers for further testing and evaluation.

A detailed description of the field exp!oration program and the trench logs are presented within Appendix B.

As part of the previously mentioned fault study that was prepared by this firm, at the time of this study a very long trench had been excavated by the client along the far western property line, along with a smaller one along the north center portion of the site. The locations of these are shown on the attached Geologic Map, Plate 1, located within the back pocket of this report.

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation were subjected to laboratory testing to evaluate their physical and engineering properties. Laboratory testing included moisture content, dry density, laboratory compaction, sieve analysis, a
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
sand equivalent, R-value, and soluble sulfate uontent. A detailed description of the laboratory testing program and the test results are presented within Appendix C.

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Regional Geologic Setting
The subject site is located in southern California along the southern flanks of the San Bernardino Mountains. These mountains, along with the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the southeast, and the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest, form a large geomorphic province that cuts across nearly the entire south end of California referred to as the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province. The large region that extends from the southern side of this Provence and into Mexico is composed of a sequence of smaller north-west trending mountains and hills and intervening valleys known as the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. Therefore, the site lies on the junction of these two provinces that together cover a large majority of southern California stretching from the Pacific coast inland to the San Andreas fault, south of the San Gabriel -San Bernardino Mountain ranges and extending southward to the Mexican border and 'beyond.

The San Bernardino Mountains of the Transverse ranges are generally composed of a core of older metamorphic rocks which have been severally intruded by relatively younger igneous intrusive rocks. The Peninsular Ranges province is characterized by a series of generally small northwestern trending mountains ranges such as the Santa Ana Mountains and the San Jacinto Mountains, separated by wide flat valleys. In the Yucaipa region, the San Andreas fault acts as the boundary between the Peninsular and Transverse Ranges provinces, with the site straddling this boundary. Subsequent erosion of the mountains has resulted in the deposition of a series of broad alluvial fans of various ages which have coalesced into a larger surface towards the lower portions of the valley.

The site is situated along the base of a long, narrow, ridge line of the San Bernardino Mountains referred to as the Yucaipa Ridge. As noted on the Regional Geologic Map, Enclosure A-2 within Appendix A, the far western end of this ridge was mapped by the U.S.G.S. as an ancient landslide complex covering over 5-square miles of land located just above the site and extruding down onto the norther portion of the "Remainder Parcel" portion of the site. Erosion of the ridge, and the landslide area, 5 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 3237.1
November 22, 2005
has deposited a sequence of alluvial materials across the north-eastern portion of Yucaipa in a fan shape. This fan has been subsequently modified by incision of younger streams as well as tectonically modified by offsetting along the fault and uplifted, or down dropped, along a succession of terrace risers.

Site Geologic Conditions
As noted above, the subject site is situated along the base of the western end of the Yucaipa Ridge, which is a composed of a series of sedimentary rocks which have been named as the Mill Creek formation. The very rapid uplifting of the Yucaipa Ridge may have resulted in a very large landslide which was mapped by the USGS study Matti et al 2003) as existing on the northwestern portion of the "Remainder Parcel" of the subject site. Erosion of these features has resulted in a relatively thick deposition of alluvial fans across the site o vvarious ages. Due to the location of the site, in relation -to the base of the Ridge, these units tend to be coarse grained and poorly sorted, composed of silty sands with varying amounts of sub -angular gravel, cobbles, and boulders of the Mill Creek formation. On the attached geologic map these units were generally cataloged into six different groups, ranging from artificially placed fill materials, materials of a slope wash along the bluff area, and then four different stages of alluvial materials across the bulk of the site. The various differina types of earth materials encountered at the site described below.

Artificial Fill (Map Symbols Af and Afh)
A very small amount of artificial materials were noted along the site within our trenches. However, as previously noted, the site has had three previous fault investigations which has resulted in several areas of deep trench backfill. Tile estimated location of these trenches, based off our analysis of disturbed areas on -site and review of aerial photographs, is given on the attached Geologic Map, Plate 1.

The depth of these is anticipated to be on the order of 10 to -12 feet.

Younq Alluvial Deposits (Mar) Symbol Qal;: Along the bottom of the larger gullies there are re -worked materials that have been eroded from the upper portions of the fan and are generally in active transport during heavy precipitation. These materials were noted to consist of highly variable content from silt to large boulders, and are in a loose, very porous, state.

G
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
Recent Alluvial Fan Deposits (Mai) Symbol Qal,;: The northern portion of the site, along the base of the small bluff, has a sequence of relatively coarse grained alluvial deposits that appear to have emanated out of one of the canyons directly above the site and cut into the older alluvial fan deposits. These materials were noted to range highly in composition from a cobble -gravel silty Sand to a Weil Graded Gravel with cobbles and boulders. While no precise measurements were made of the oversized materials, cobble and boulders, visual estimates ranged from 0 to over 45 percent, with perhaps the overall amounts ranging on the order of 10 to 15 percent. These units tended to be brown, dry to darnp, and loose and porous in the upper portions, becoring moderately dense with depths.

Alluvial Fan Deposits of Moderate Age (Map Symbol Qal,): The majority of the site is underlain at the surface by a relatively recent deposit of a coarse grained alluvial fan that emanate out of the mountains generally to the northeast of tide site, and probably from a coalescing sequence of fans. This unit was also noted to range highly in composition, materials from a silty sand to a well graded gravel with cobbles and boulders. While no precise measurements were made of the oversized materials, cobble and boulders, visual estimates ranged from 0 to over 40 percent, with perhaps the overall amounts ranging on the order of 5 to 10 percent. These units tended to be brown, dry to damp, and loose and porous in the upper portions, becoming moderately dense with depths.

Older Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal3_4): While these units are exposed at the surface in only a few areas on the site, the entire site is though to be underlain by these units that represent a much earlier phase of alluvial fan deposition. T hese units also vary highly in composition, but in our explorations were noted tended to be much finer with some sandy silts noted. Across much of the site, these units have been covered with 15 feet or more of younger, coarser grained materials. The older alluvial units also tend to be much.

Colluvial Deposits (Map Symbol Qcol): While not located on the area of the site with proposed development, the excavations made into the bluff area noted relatively thin units of slope wash materials which tended to be less than 5 feet in thickness. These units varied 'highly in composition, and tended to be fairly massive, and in a loose state.
7 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
A more detailed description of -the subsurface soil conditions, as encountered within our exploratory trenches, is presented on the 'I Logs within Appendix B.

Groundwater Hvdrolo
No groundwater was noted in the excavations excavated on the subject site. A small amount of groundwater seepage was noted in the northern end of the fault trench excavated for the fault hazards report (LOR 2005) on the bluff area.

The Spring 2005 Cooperative Well Measuring Program Report is a database of municipal water wells measuring levels, distributed by the Western Municipal ,hater District, the water master for the area. This source noted that the USGS in cooperation with the San Bernardino Municipal Water District has been monitoring groundwater wells on a periodic basis. The closest of these on the listing was the well number 1 S1 W 19P001, located approximately 1 /3 of a mile to the south- southeast of the site. The depth to groundwater in this well was noted this year at a depth of 301 feet below the ground surface. The next closet well of these was located approximately 3/4 of a mile to the west off Juniper avenue. This well, number 1 S2W24C001, had the depth to groundwater measured this year at a depth of 114 feet below the ground surface.

Surface Runoff
Being situated along tihe base of the Yucaipa Ridge of the San Bernardino Mountains, the site is subject to runoff from this very large ridge and considerable drainage areas to the northeast and east of the site. Most of the run-off is directed across the site into smaller gullies and eventually into a larger canyon that trends a'ong the area just south of the site.

Mass Movement
The proposed development area of the tract lies on a relatively flat surface. The occurrence of mass movement failures such as landslides or rockfalls within such areas are generaly not considered common and no evidence of mass movement was observed on the site.
8 L V R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
However, the bluff area located adjacent the site to the north has been mapped as a large, very ancient, landslide by the USGS. The stability of this feature is currently being eva:uated by a separate study for the "Remainder Parcel".

Faulting
The entire site lies within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Special Studies Zone) designated by the State of California associated with the San Andreas Fault Zone {Hart and Bryant, 1997). The impact of this designation, as well as the potential for active faulting at the site, was addressed in our fault hazard report conducted for the site (LOR 2.005). In general, this report concluded that no active faults are located within the proposed development area of the site. However, the San Andreas fault is known to lie very close to, perhaps adjacent too, the tract.

Therefore, in terms of seismic shaking, the San Andreas fault is the most irnportarit to the site and should be utilized as the causative fault.

Past standards of practice included a discussion of all potential earthquake sources within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius. However, while there are other large earthquake faults within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius of the site, none of these are considered as relevant to the site as the faults described above, due to their greater distance and/or smaller anticipated magnitudes.

Secondary Seismic Hazards
Other secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include liquefaction, seiches and tsunamis, earthquake induced flooding, landsliding and rockfalls, and seismic -induced settlement.

Liquefaction: The potential for liquefaction generally occurs during strong ground shaking within loose, geologic young, granular sediments where the depth to groundwater is usually less than 50 feet. As the majority of the site is underlain by very coarse grained sediments and the depth to groundwater is considered to be at depths greater than 50 feet within these materials, the potential for liquefaction is considered very low to nil.
0 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP. W.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
Seiches;Tsunamis: The potential for the site to be affected by a seiche or tsunami (earthquake generated wave) is considered nil clue to absence of any large open bodies of water near the site.

Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure): At the time of our investigation, there were no water storage facility situated on or above the site that were considered likely to fail during an earthquake and impact the site.

Seismically -Induced Lands!iding: As noted previously, the potential for landslides occurring across the majority of the site is considered nil due to the low gradient.

The stability of the steeper bluff area that lies approximately 150 feet or more north of the proposed development areas of the tract is currently being studied. In addition, the fault hazard report recommended a 150 foot setback from the base of the slope.

This distance should be adequate to mitigate any potential for seismically induced landsliding at the site.

Rockfalls: The was a very small amount of loose boulders noted along the face of the small bluff area. As these units were sub -rounded in nature there does appear to be a potential for some rockfall in the manner of boulder run-off that could occur during a large seismic event. However, the 150 foot setback distance noted above should also be adequate to mitigate any potential for seisrnical!y induced landslicling at the site
Seismically -Induced Settlement: The upper portions of the loose alluvial materials across the site may have a potential for seismically induced settlement, as they were were found to be loose to mechum dense, particularly within the upper portions.

However the very coarse nature of these units tends to reduce this potential, and the mitigation measures recommended for the grading is also anticipated to mitigate this potential.

SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code) Design requirements for structures can be found within Chapter 16 of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) based on building type, use and/or occupancy. The classification of use and occupancy of a!! proposed structures at the site, and thus clesign requirements, shall be the responsibility of the structural engineer and the building official. For structures at the site to be designed in accordance with the 10 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
provisions of Chapter 16, the subject site specific soils and seismic criteria are provided in the following sections.

CBC Divisions IV: Earthquake Design Criteria Selection
Procedure and limitations for the earthquake design of applicable structures can be obtained from Division IV of Chapter 16 of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC).

However, it should be noted that the building code requires the minimum design to allow a structure to remain standing after a seismic event, in order to allow for safe evacuation. As stated in section 1626.1,"The purpose of the earthquake provisions herein is primarily to safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life, not to limit damage or maintain function." Therefore, a structure built to CBC code may still sustain damage which might ultimately result in the demolishing of the structure.

The CBC Division IV requires that all sites, unless exempted, be assigned a soil profile type and a regional seismic zone. The criteria for the selection of a site soil profile can be found in the 2001 CBC Division V, discussed in later sections.

Seismic Zone: As shown on Figure 16-2 within Chapter 16 of the 2001 CBC, the site is located in Seismic Zone 4. Section 1629.4.2 of the 2001 CBC directs that all sites in Seismic Zone 4, unless exempted, shall have a near source factor determined.

Near Source Factor: Near source factors are determined based on the distance to the nearest Type A or B seismic source (earthquake fault). Once these are determined, near source values can be obtained, dependent on structure type, from Tables 16-S or 16-T within the 2001 CBC. Seismic source types are classified as A, B, or C, based on description, maximum anticipated magnitude, and slip rate. Type C sources are not considered as they do not increase the standard near source factor value of 1.0. The following table lists the seismic source type requirements. 11 LOR GEOTECI4NICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. L L C
November 22, 2005
Project No. 32137.1
TABLE 16-U SEISMIC SOURCE TYPE'
Seismic Source Definitions
Seismic
Source Type
Seismic Source Description
Maximum
Slip Rate
Magnitude
(mm/yr)
A
Faults capable of large magnitude events,
M>7.0
SR >_5
and have a high rate of seismic activity.

M>_7.0
SR 2
M>.6.5
SR <2
Faults that are not capable of producing
C
large magnitude earthquakes and that have
M<6.5
SR �2
a relatively lo�vv rate of seismic activity.
'Source 2001 CBC
Specific parameters for earthquake faults within the state of California can be obtained from the State of California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 96-08 (DMG 1 996). As noted in our FaultinC, section of this report, San Andreas fault lies extremely close to the site, perhaps just adjacent to the north. According to the DMG Open File Report 96-08, the San Andreas Fault has a slip rate of 24.0 mm/year, ±6, and an estimated magnitude event of 7.3. According to the CBC table above, the San Andreas fault is, therefore, classified as a Type A fault. The nearest known active Type B fault, according to the table above and the UBC Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones (UBC, 1998), is the San Jacinto fault located approximately

16.7 km (10.4 miles) to the southwest. According to the DMG Open File Report 96- 08, the San Jacinto fault has a slip rate of 12.0 mm/year, ±6, and an estimated magnitude event of 6.8.

CBC Division V: Soil Profile
As noted in our excavations at the site and previously published literature, the majority of the subject site is thought to be underlain by relatively dense alluvial materials with standardized blow counts on the order of 15 to 50 (blows/foot of sampler advancement;. Therefore, the soil profile type of So should tentatively be used for the subject site.
12 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 22, 2005
CBC Earthquake Design Summary
Project No. 32137.1
As determined in the previous sections, the following earthquake design criteria have been formulated for the site. However, these values should be reviewed and the final design should be performed by a qualified structural engineer familiar with the region.

SEISMIC AND SOIL CRITERIA
Seismic Zone 4 = Factor 0.40,
Soil Type = Sp
Nearest
Distance
C�
C�
Source
Faust Name
(km)
N
N
(0.44NJ
(0.64N )
Type
A
San Andreas

0.0 1 1.5

2.0 0.66
1,28
(San Bernardino segment)
I
B
San Jacinto fault
I6.5

1.0 1.0

0.44 0.64
T� - C,./2.5C, = 0.78
To - 0.2T3
= 0.16
Distance rounded to the nearest 0.5 km

CONCLUSIONS
General
This investigation provides a broad overview of the geotechnical and geo'ogic factors which are expected to influence future site planning and development. On the basis of our field investigation and testing program, it is the opinion of LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. that proposed development of the site for residential construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into design and implemented during grading and construction.

The subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory trenches are indicative of the locations explored. The subsurface conditions for the various earth materials presented here are not to be construed as being present the same for the various earth units everywhere on the site. As grading and development plans for the site are 13 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 321,3/. 1
November 22, 2005
developed and further refined, geotechnical evaluation of these plans and additional physical investigations of subsurface conditions should be conducted as needed.

Foundation Support
Based upon the field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that the upper native soils will not, in their present condition, provide uniform and/or adequate support for the proposed structures. Our in -situ density/ test data indicated variable in -situ conditions of the upper native soils, typically ranging from loose to medium dense states. This condition may cause unacceptable differential and/or overall settlements upon application of the anticipated foundation loads at the site.

To provide adequate support for the proposed single-family structures, we recommend a compacted fill mat be constructed beneath footings and slabs. The compacted fill mat will provide a dense, high -strength soil layer to uniformly distribute the anticipated foundation loads over the underlying soils. The construction of this compacted fill mat should include the removal of any existing fill material, as well as the looser, weathered, portions of the underlying natural earth materials.

Conventional foundation systems, either individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings, will provide adequa�e support for the anticipated downward and lateral loads when utilized in conjunction with the recommender! :ill mat.

GeoloClic Mi-6Ciations
The San Andreas fault has been mapped by several authors as lying very close, perhaps just adjacent. This has resulted in building set back zones along the far northern portion of the site, which were given in the separate fault hazards report conducted for the site by this firm (LOR 2005). The recommendations in that report should be incorporated into all future developments at the site.

Seismicity
Due to the site's very close proximity to the San Andreas fault it is reasonable to expect a that a very strong ground motion seismic event could occur very close, even directly under the site during the lifetime of the proposed development. Large earthquakes could occur on other faults in the genera: area, but because of their 14 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LL C Project No. 32137A
November 22, 2005
iesser anticipated magnitude and/or greater distance, they are considered less significant than the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones from► a ground motion standpoint.

The general effects of ground shaking anticipated at the subject site on the proposed structures, should be mitigated at a minimum by using the seismic design requirements and procedures outlined in Chapter 16 of the California Building Code.

However, it should be noted that this code currently requires only the minimum design to allow a structure to remain standing after a seismic event, in order to allow for safe evacuation. A structure built to code may still sustain damage which might ultimately result in the demolishing of the structure (Larson and Slosson 1992).

RECOMMENDATIONS
General Site Grading
It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer. An on -site, pre -job meeting with the developer, the contractor, and soil engineer should occur prior to all grading related operations. Operations undertaken at the site without the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusions of affected areas from the final compaction report for the project.

Grading of the subject site should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations as well as applicable portions of Appendix Chapter 33 of the California Building Code, and/or applicable local ordinances.

All areas to be graded should be stripped of significant vegetation and other deleterious materials.

The fills associated with the previous sub -surface trenching, generally indicated on Plate 1, should be completely removed, along with potential subsequent to removal of deleterious items to the satisfaction of the soi►s engineer, and then these may be replaced as compacted fill.
15 L V R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Protect No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
It is our recommendation that all existing fills under any proposer' flatwork and paved areas also be removed and replaced with engineered compacted fill. If this is not done, premature structural distress (settlement) of the flatwork and pavement may occur.

Cavities created by removal of subsurface obstructions should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soil, organic matter and other deleterious materials, shaped to provide access for construction equipment, and backfilled as recommended in the following Engineered Compacted Fill section of this report.

Initial Site Preaaration
All undocumented fill material and any loose, weathered, alluvial materials should be removed from structural areas and areas to receive engineered compacted fill.

Preliminary data developed during this investigation indicates that removals averaging approximately 3 to 5 feet, excluding removal of artificial fills, will be required within most areas of the site. In general, removals should continue unit competent alluvial materials are exposer.. These are defined as alluvial materials that appear dense, damp, with no significant visible porosity and with a relative in -situ compaction of at least 85 percent and/or an in -situ saturation of at least 85 percent.

Preparation of Fill Areas
After the removals discussed above are completed and prior to placing fill, the surfaces of all areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches.

The scarified soil should be brought to near optimum moisture content and recompacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557).

Preparation of Foundation Areas
All footings should rest upon at least 24 inches of properly compacted fill material. !n areas where the required fill thickness is not accomplished by the recommended removals or by site rough grading, the footing areas should be further subexcavated to a depth of at least 24 inches below the proposed footing base grade, with the subexcavation extending at least 5 feet beyond the footing lines. The bottom of this excavation should then be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative 16 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
compaction (ASTM D 1557) prior to refilling the excavation to grade as properly compacted fill.

Proposed building areas should be graded such that the minimum fill thickness is greater than or equal to one-third of the maximum fill thickness around the building area.

Engineered Compacted Gill
The on -site soils should provide adequate quality fill material, provided they are free from organic matter and other deleterious materials. Unless approved by the geotechnical engineer, rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills. Rocks or other irreducible rnaterial greater than 12 inches in diameter should be disposed of within designated rock disposal areas approved by the soils engineer and/or local governing agency.

Import fill should be inorganic, non -expansive granular soils free from rocks or lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Sources for import fill should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use.

Fill should be spread in rnaximum 8-inch uniform, loose lifts, each lift brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D 1557.

Based upon the relative compaction of the near surface soils determined during this investigation and the relative compaction anticipated for compacted fill soil, we tentatively estimate a compaction shrinkage of approximately 10 to 15 percent.

Therefore, 1.10 cubic yards to 1.15 cubic yards of in -place materials would be necessary to yield one cubic yard of properly compacted fill material. In addition, we would anticipate subsidence of approximately 0.15 feet. These values are for estimating purposes only, and are exclusive of losses due to stripping or the removal Of subsurface obstructions. These values may vary due to differing conditions within the project boundaries and the limitations of this investigation. Anticipated shrinkage and subsidence values should be refined as necessary as based upon the results of additional findings from future subsurface geotechnical investigations. In addition, shrinkage should be monitored during construction. If percentages vary, provisions should be made to revise final grades or adjust quantities of borrow or export. 17 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 22, 2005
Short -Term Excavations
Project No. 32137.11
Following the California Occupational and Safety Health Act ;CAL -OSHA) requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet should be sloped or shored. All excavations and shoring should conform to CAL -OSHA requirements.

Short-term excavation greater than 5 feet deep shall conform to Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Construction Safety Orders, Section 1504 and 1539 through 1547. Eased on our exploratory trenches, it appears that Type C soils are the predominant type of soil on the project and all short-term excavation should be based on this type of soil. Deviation from the standard short-term slopes are permitted using option 4, Design by a Registered Professional Engineer (Section 1541.1).

Slone Construction
Preliminary data indicates that cut and fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. As conceptual development plans are prepared and an additional subsurface investigation conducted, the anticipated stability of existing and/or proposed cut slopes should be further evaluated. Fill slopes should be overfilled curing construction and then cut back to expose fully compacted soil. A suitable alternative would be to compact the slopes during construction, then roll the final slopes to provide dense, erosion -resistant surfaces.

Where fills are to be placed against existing slopes steeper than five horizontal to one vertical, the existing slopes should be properly keyed and benched into competent native materials. The key, constructed across the toe of the slope, should be a minimum of 12 to 15 feet wide, a minimum of 2 feet deep at the toe, and sloped back to 2 percent. Benches should be constructed at approximately 2 to 4 feet vertical intervals. Typical keying and benching operations are presented on Enclosure D-1, within Appendix D.

Slone Protection
Since the native materials are susceptible to erosion by running water, measures Should be provided to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces. Slopes at the project should be planted with a deep rooted ground cover as soon as possible 18 LOR GEOTECHNICA_ GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
after completion. The use of succulent ground covers such as iceplant or sedum is not recommended. If watering is necessary to sustain plant growth on slopes, then the watering operation should be monitored to assure proper operation of the irrigation system and to prevent over watering.

Soii Expansiveness
The upper materials encountered during this investigation were tested and classified are considered to have a very low expansion potential, in accordance with Uniform Building Code, Standard 18-2. Therefore, specialized construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil activity are not anticipated at this time. In order to verify this observation, additional evaluation of on -site soils for their expansion potential should be conducted during the grading operation. Any imported soils should also be evaluated and/or tested for expansion potential prior to importation to the site.

Foundation Design
If the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed single-family residential structures may be safely founded on conventional shallow foundations, either individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings, bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of engineered compacted fill. For one and two story structures, conventional foundations should have a minimum width of 12 inches and should be established a minimurn of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade.

For the minimum width and depth, footings may be designed using a maximum soil bearing pressure of 1,800 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads.

Footings at least 15 inches wide, placed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, may be designed for a maximum soil bearing pressure of 2,100 psf for dead plus live loads.

The above values are net pressures; therefore, the weight of the foundations and the backfill over the foundations may be neglected when computing dead loads. The values apply to the maximum edge pressure for foundations subjected to eccentric loads or overturning. The recommended pressures apply for the total of dead plus frequently applied live loads, and incorporate a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for temporary wind or seismic loading. The resultant of the combined vertical and lateral seismic loads 19 . LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
should act within the middle one-third of the footing width. The maximum calculated edge pressure under the toe of foundations subjected to eccentric loads or overturning should not exceed the increased allowable pressure. Buildings should be setback from slopes as detailed on Enclosure D-2, within Appendix D. Additional building setbacks may be necessary upon the findings of the fault investigation for the project site.

Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction. For footings bearing against compacted fill, passive earth pressure may be considered to be developed at a rate of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth.

Base friction may be computed at 0.35 times the normal load. Base friction and passive earth pressure may be combined without reduction. These values are for dead load plus live load and may be increased by 1 /3 for wind or seismic loading.

The recommendations given above are preliminary. These should be revised upon the completion of an additional geotechnicai study and a fault investigation, which will identify earthduake hazards, such as surface rupture, liquefaction, seismically -induced settlements, etc, at the site.

Settlement
Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the width of the foundation and the actual load supported. Maximum settlement of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations are estimated to be on the order of 0.5 inch. Differential settlements between adjacent footings should be about one-half of the total sett!ernent. Settlement of all foundations is expected to occur rapidly, primarily as a result of elastic compression of supporting soils as the loads are applied, and should be essentially completed shortly after initial application of the loads.

The given settlement estimates are preliminary. More precise settlement analysis should be conducted upon the performance of a further geotechnical investigation. 20 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 22, 2005
Slabs -On -Grade
Project No. 32137.1
To provide adequate support, concrete slabs -on -grade should bear on a nninimum of 12 inches of compacted soil. The final pad surfaces should be rolled to provide smooth, dense surfaces upon which to place the concrete.

Slabs to receive moisture -sensitive coverings should he provided with a moisture vapor barrier. This barrier may consist of an impermeable membrane. Two inches of sand over the membrane will reduce punctures and aid in obtaining a satisfactory concrete cure. The sand should be moistened just prior to placing of concrete.

The slabs should be protected from rapid and excessive moisture loss which could result in slab curling. Careful attention should be given to slab curing procedures, as the site area is subject to large temperature extremes, humidity, and strong winds.

Wall Pressures
The design of footings for retaining wall structures should be performed in accordance with the recommendations described earlier under Preparation of Foundation Areas and Foundation Design. For design of retaining wall footings, the resultant of the applied loads should act in the middle one-third of the footing, and the maximum edge pressure should not exceed the basic allowable value without increase.

For design of retaining wails unrestrained against movement at the top, we recommend an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used.

This assumes level backfill consisting of recompacted, non -expansive, native soils placed against the structures and within the back cut slope extending upward from the base of the stem at 35 degrees from the vertical or flatter.

Retaining walls subject to uniform surcharge loads within a horizontal distance behind the structure equal to the structural height should be designed to resist additional lateral loads equal to 0.3 times the surcharge load. Any isolated or line loads from adjacent foundations or vehicular loading will impose additional wall loads and should be considered individually.
21 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
To avoid over stressing or excessive tilting during placement of backfill behind wails, heavy compaction equipment should not be allowed within the zone delineated by a 45 degree line extending from the base of the wall to the fill surface. The backfill directly behind the walls should be compacted using light equipment such as hand operated vibrating plates and rollers. No material larger than 3 inches in diameter Should be placed in direct contact with the wall.

Wall pressures should be verified prior to construction, when the actual backfill materials and conditions have been determined. Recommended pressures are applicable only to level, properly drained backfill with no additional surcharge loadings. If inclined backfills are proposed, this firm should be contacted to develop appropriate active earth pressure parameters. Toe bearing pressure for non-structura; walls on soils, not prepared as described earlier under Preparation of Foundation Areas, should not exceed California Building Code values, (CBC Table 18-1-A).

Preliminary Pavement Design
Testing and design for preliminary pavements was conducted in accordance with the California Highway Design Manual. Based upon our preliminary sampling and testing, and upon Traffic Indices generally associated with these types of projects, it appears that the structural sections tabulated below should provide satisfactory pavements for the subject improvements:

T.I.

DESIGN R-VALUE

PRELIMINARY SECTION
5 50

0.25'AC/0.35'AB
6 50

0.25'AC/0.35'AB
7 50

0.30'AC/0.45'AB
50 0.40'AC/0.45'AB
AC - Asphalt Concrete
AB - Class 2 Aggregate Base
The above structural sections are predicated upon 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of all utility trench backfills and 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of the upper 12 inches of street subgrade soils and of any aggregate 22 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
Novem;;er 22, 2005
base utilized. In addition, the crushed aggregate base should meet Caltrans specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base.

The above pavement designs were based upon the results of preliminary sampling and testing, and should be verified by additional sampling and testing when the actual subgrade soils are exposed.

Sulfate Protection
The results of the soluble sulfate tests conducted on selected subgrade soils expected to be encountered at foundation levels are presented on Enclosure C.

Based on the test results, it appears that there is a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete elements in contact with the on site soils per the 2001 CBC. Therefore, no specific recommendations are given for concrete elements to be in contact with the on -site soils.

Construction Monitoring
Post investigative services are an important and necessary continuation of this investigation. Project plans and specifications should be reviewed by this firm prior to construction to confirm that the intent of the recommendations presented herein have been incorporated into the design. Testing for on-site/off-site pavement design should be performed after the site is rough graded. In addition, if clayey soils become more common than encountered during our subsurface exploration during site grading, expansion testing should be conducted in order -to verify the impact, if any, to the sites proposed development.

During construction, sufficient and timely geotechnical observation and testing should be provided to correlate the findings of this investigation with the actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. Items requiring observation and testing include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
1 . Site preparation -stripping and removals.

2. Excavations, including approval of the bottom of excavation prior to filling. 23 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LL C Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005

3. Scarifying and recompacting prior to fill placement.

4. Subgrade preparation for pavements and slabs -on -grade.

5. Placement of engineered compacted fill and backfill, including approval of fill materials and the performance of sufficient density tests to evaluate the degree of compaction being achieved.

6. Foundation excavations.

TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of -Practice and/or Governmental Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a significant amount of time vvithout a review by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. 111110ff MA ISILI ?
This report contains geotechnical conclusions and recommendations developed solely for use by SCRV LLC and its designates for the purposes described earlier. It may not contain sufficient information for other uses or the purposes of other parties. The contents should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other facilities without consulting L OR Geotechnical Group, Inc.

The recommendations are based on interpretations of the subsurface conditions concluded from information gained from subsurface explorations, and a surficiai site reconnaissance. The interpretations may differ from actual subsurface conditions, which can vary horizontally and vertically across the site. Due to possible subsurface variations, all aspects of field construction addressed in this report should be observed and tested by the project geotechnical consultant. 24 L®R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.1
November 22, 2005
If parties other than LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. provide construction monitoring services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project being completed by concurring with the recommendations provided in this report or by providing alternative recommendations.

The report was prepared using generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices under the direction of a state licensed geotechnical engineer. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent investigations as deemed necessary to satisfy themselves as to the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on this project.

CLOSURE
It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. We look forward to being of further assistance to you as construction begins. Should conditions be encountered during construction that appear to be different than indicated by this report, please contact this office immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect.

Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us as your convenience.
��'ONAL Goo
Respectfully submitted, �,`'�� �' JOy �O
LOR Geotechnic I oup, Inc. O� �¢ ��'�0%
w No. 1693 O
CER7IFIED
• ENGINEERING °

GEOLOGIST
Jeffrey J. Johnston, CEG 1893
Engineerin_9 Geologist �rF0 CgtlFd�
QikoFESS�O
oh P.Leuer, GE 2030 P.
rst NO.203F0
¢
Lczm
EXPIRATION DATE rn
JJJ:JPL:mmm * 09/30/ 07
S� �TEGttta�G���P
Distribution: Addressee (6) OF CA��F
25 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

W=1

REFERENCES
California Building Standards Commission and International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California Building Code, 2001 Edition.

California Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Level Data, http'//wwvv.water.ca.gov
Di5ble, T.W., 2004, Geologic Vap of the Yucaipa Quadrangie, Riverside County, California, DibNee Geology Center Map, t DF-124.

Hart, E.W. and ',,V.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Dept. of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology Specia Publication 4-2 .

Internationa' Con`erence of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1997 eclition.
;nternaJonal Conference of Building Officials, 1995, Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, February 1998.

Larson, R., and Slosson, J., 1992, The Role of Seismic Hazard Evaluation in Engineering Reports, in Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, AEG Special Publication Number 4, pp 191-194.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2005, Geologic Report, Subsurface Fault Hazard, Tract 14297, Yucaipa, California, Unpublished Consultants Report, Project No. 32137.3, dated November 11, 2005.

Matti, J. C., Morton, D.M., Cox B.F., Carsen, S.E., and Yetter, T.J., 2003, Geologic Map and Digital Database of the Yucaipa 7.5' Quadrangle Map, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties California, V.1 U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin Open File Report 03-301.

Petersen, M.D., W.A. Bryant, C.H. Cramer, T. Cao, M.S., Reichle, A.D. Frankel, J.J.

Lienkaemper, P.A. McCrory, and D.P. Schwartz, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 96-08 and U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 96-706.

L®R GEOTECH\1CAL GHOUE,;NC.

Western Municipal Water District, 2005, Cooperative Well Measuring Program Covering the Upper Santa Ana River latershed, San Jacinto !Watershed, Santa Margarita Watershed, Spring 2005, unpublished water well data.

Ziony, J.l., and Jones, L.M., 1989, Map Showing the Quaternary Faults and 1978- 1984 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF- i 964, Scale 1 :250,000 27 LVR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
(Source: San Bernardino County Public Works Aerial photographic collection) DATE

FLIGHT NUMBER
PHOTO NO(S).

SCALE 1 " =
1938
W-83
P-1-10,11
1,200'
1955
AXL-43K
30-31
1, 667'
1968
AXL-9JJ
58-59
1,667'
1986
450
75-77
2,000'
1996
523
131-132
2,000'
2005
553
11-62,63, 64
2,000'
28 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

APPENDIX A
Index Map and Regional Geologic Map
LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

r-
i
j C �`.r'rt�tyJ, a� I ?�.'�! `(� �:\`- �j• ��JJ r r s :J � ,/M {,Ji % 1,}r (i ' L. � � C •..1�•v..-it .� `t f. [fJf?i1 r- f 7 I Y .....

Z • i. � "mil .
if _.1as , ���._, -_ � ��
...: a Nd`
aY9t'
Jl •a �^ ��i ✓ f :• Ffell
},.: i • l O f .. t
41 73i¢
•24. t �111 1 1 U Y � .: Jt:' ��. � � 9 y T\\h � -n•
well � ' \__ W
_
Park
,: •qany,
- 1 III- .etc
Tra1. # ;...
ils! s / 2
t
7 INDEX MAP
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14927, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 32137.1
CLIENT: S.C.R.V. LLC
ENCLOSURE: A-1
LOR Geo#echnical Group, Inc.

DATE: NOVEMBER 2005
SCALE: 1 " = 2,000'

ea" rt m s� ' °- `. ails i� ,� �*�-� 1•r! t'� ri'�`
� ":,�. � iS �t ► a 1., lki� s a • .�.
rT
g va `a,' ' � a•.ii ► c►ra♦} Tmm fsvaia�i.
' _ .•.r QVyf ..: i,f a :ft ,f.._)W _ ♦ _ r . sr ali22�-- ij.`�� •. --. _- 4 h•lVfi4s11��q# �A°4ii axi a°tt' etlx�4i. k�,; i �,�.tati�xit� L�a�;°+e�4a j•;Q€`,'�1 Eps'.•.s _ •�, •�� ,� Arra e� s�`'�?��i • l�E�m xt �•i � /'_` ' / Y/ �'4-..`TE i iLQ' r4 a za r •, > a a.. tp +s. ,,Z ram:+ ,� `�ijC,3y",,Gu '4 % 7�`r >..i+de�.Y►f Sa at•,itd H`pP' >44 fr'SL�. t. i`;".t�ly, '.1 i4...i DN i'AY, tf_ .�• ova44*
a pTD a s ♦ ata d i' s st /�,,{ 5 8 i•R)' > • b 4..
,f� - �. ?�'-' �✓AT Lp 43A�'i
OtLps
!%QvyfI r{"7( yet"-°• � - Tmm .r
�..s.�{ y C4 ! • Qpf3`�59,
:Qafx� frs..: -�Qyfs ;-
Qyf
;; tt ci+Y; a - f4 ✓ I

4. .- . ,� !!/ram
_
Y U c A i P A ? ::v Qyf3 �'•
Qo
JQ�jQ� • gp It �� � G A A P, E h7 � O A7 P L E X i / f3 .�� :�,;`; ' / • � r - QQf2 Qof i
Glvyv f Cr.

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14927, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 32137.1 CLIENT: S.C.R.V. LLC ENCLOSURE: A-2
Inc.

LOR Geotechnical Group, DATE: NOVEMBER 2005
SCALE: 'I " = 2,000'

APPENDIX B
Field Investigation Program and Trench Logs
11 LOR GEOTECHN!CAL GROUP, INC.

APPENDIX B

FIELD INVESTIGATION
Suc)surface Exploration
The site was investigated via two backhoe trenches on July 15, 2005 and additional six test pits using a tract mounted 345 CAT excavator, for a total of eight test pits to maximum depth of 22 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the trenches are shown on the attached Plate 1 .

The soils encountered were continuously logged by an engineering geologist from this firm who visually observed the site, maintained detailed logs of the trenches, obtained disturbed soil samples for laboratory evaluation and testing, and classified the soils encountered by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

In -place density determinations were conducted at selected levels within the trenches utilizing the Nuclear Gauge Method (ASTM D 2922) and Sand Cone Method (ASTNI D 1556). Disturbed soil samples were obtained at soil changes and other selected levels within the trenches. The samples were placed in sealed containers for transport to the laboratory.

All samples obtained were taken to our laboratory for storage and testing. Detailed logs of the trenches are presented on the enclosed Trench Logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-8. A Sampling Key is presented on Enclosure B.

I —

MAJOR DIVISIONS
LOGY
cs:

TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

CONSISTENCY OF SOILS-

WELL -GRADED GRAVELS,
�'
LAND L
GW
RES.

SANDS

CLEAN GRAVELS
-o-

LITTLE OR NO FINES

GRAVELLY

ILITTLE OR NO
FINEST
SOILS
+
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS.

SPi SLOWS CONSISTENCY
COARSE

GRAINED
GP
GARVEL-SAND MIXTURES.

SOILS
f

LITTLE OR NO FINES
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
'-
SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVELSAND
10 - 30 Medium dense
MORE TIL:N MAN OF

COARSE FRACTION
GRAVELS Y11TH
GM

SILT MIXTURES
30 50 Dense

RETAINEOON
NO ° SEVE
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
Over 50 Very dense

AMOUNT OF FINES)
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS. GRAVEL.

SAND -CLAY MIXTURES

COHESIVE SOILS
I
_
WELL -GRADED SANDS.
-�
SW
GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR

SPT BLOWS CONSISTENCY
SAND
AND

CLEAN SAND
ILInLE OR NO

NO FINES
0 - 2 Very soft
MORE THAN 50%
SANDY
SOILS
FINES)
POORLY -GRADED SANDS.

Soft

OF MATERIAL IS
Sp
GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR
2-4

LARGER THAN

NO FINES
4-8 Medium
200 SIEVE SIZE
8 - 15 Stiff
MORE THAN 50%OF
-
SM

SILTY SAND, SANG -SILT
15 - 30 Very stiff

COARSE FRACTION

SANDS WITH FINES

MIXTURES
30 - 60 Hard
Over 60 Very Hard
Y
PASSING NO. s
SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
j
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND•CLAY
Sc

MIXTURES

MORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
I
I ML
SANDS. ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR
i

CLAYCY FRJE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS PATH SLIGHT PLASIICITY

SAMPLING KEY

FINE I SILTS LIOUID LIMIT /

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
I
GRAINED AND LESS THAN So I CI-
MEDIUM PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY
!
I
SOILS CLAYS ��
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS
LEAN CLAYS —
Symbol DoSCriptiOR

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
OL

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY
'
- INDICATES CALIFORNIA
_--_--------
-

SPLIT SPOON SOIL SAMPLE
INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS
MH

OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND

INDICATES SAND CONE

OR SILTY SOILS

OR NUCLEAR DENSITY TEST
MORE iNAN SO v '

OF MATERIAL IS SILTS LIOUIO LIMIT

INORGANIC CLAYS OF RICK
N„MAILER THAII CLADS GREATER THAN so / CH
PLASTICITY. FAT CLAYS
INDICATES BAG SAN:IPI.F
O 2 sI`rvE
--I
i I�
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MED:UM
Oil TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORCAMC
—
SILTS
- INDICATES STANDARD
---- - -- --`-- -- ----
�l
------ -

PENETRATION TEST (SPT) SOIL
iHIGHLY
PEAT, HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS
SAMPLE

ORGANIC SOILS PT

AND MANURE WITH HIGH
ai

ORGANIC MATERIALS

NOTE DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

PARTICLE

SIZE LIMITS

GRAVEL SAND

BOULDERS COBBLES

SILT OR CLAY

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
3"
3/A' No. 4 NO. 10 No. 40 a 200
(U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE)

SAMPLE KEY
PROJECT: TENT ATIVE
TRACT NO. 14927, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.: 321007.11
CLIENT:

S.C.R.V. LLC
ENCLOSURE: B
LOR Geotechnical
Group, Inc.

I
DATE: NOVEMBE R 2005
CrAI C• n!n Cr AI C

TEST
I i
DATA
to i
x
G
I
.�.`. U
0 r— — --- -- -
- —r—
--
5 15i---- ---
LOG OF TRENCH T-1
O r
DESCRIPTION _
Stif I TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 2% subangular cobbles i of hard sandstone, 8% gravel, 10% coarse grained sand, 15% ?�— Sal ii medium grained sand, 30"o fine grained sand, 35%silty fines, I ivery dark brown (10vr 212) dry, porous.

Q. I foot COLLUViUNI Subangular cobbles to boulders ofMill ! Creek Formation SANDSTONE in a SILTY SAND malrh,
I approximately 20% clayt, 5% medium grained sand, 45% fine iI grained sand, 30% silly fines, light olive brown, (2.5yr 516), dry, i most clayt arc angled about 30 to 40 degrees to south, parallel to slope face.

S11 ;t 6 feet OLDER ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 5% medium grained sand, 50% fine
grained sand, 35% silty fines, strong brown (7.Syr 416), damp, dense, massive, severe discontinuous layers of itluviated clays (Elt horizons ) up to 1/2" ,hick, molded, contact with overlying colluviunt is relatively flat, dipping 10 degrees to the southwest 1i
iEND OF TRENCH
I i
No caving
No groundwater
No bedrock
PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 14297
CEIEN"T: SCRV, LLC
ILORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC.

PROJECT NUMBER: 32137.1
ELEVATION_: 3040
DATE EXCAVATED: July 15, 2005
EQUIPMENT: New Rolland
13UCKEi T W.: 24"- 1 ENCLOSI IRU-: --B-1-

0 5
15 TEST DATA
!
a
❑
w
z
a
r
Ew O
O
Cn
r
0 n
2F
U o
i �k
U
w p
Q
:a
U
O
LOG OF TRENCH T-2
SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 2% coarse grained sand, S,N1 8% medium grained sand, 60% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines tan dry, loose lot roux.___
@10.5 feet COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 10%
cobbles of Mill Creek Formation SANDSTONE,15% gravel,
5% coarse grained sand, 10% medium grained sand, 55% fine j grained sand, 15% silty Oncs, yellowish brown, (10yr 518), dry, I dense.
1 7 feet OLDER ALLUVIUNJ: SILTY SAND, approximately 2%
coarse grained sand, 58% fine grained sand, 40% silty fines, strong brmvu, (7.5yr 518), damp, dense, mottled, some Q'r I horizons.

END OF TRENCH
No rill
No caving
No groundwater
1 No bedrock
PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 14297 PROJECT NUMBER: 32137.1 _CLIENT: _ SCRV, LLC ELEVATION: 3000
DATE EXCAVATED: July 15, 2005
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: New Holland
BUCKET W.: 24" 1 ENCLOSURE: B-2

TEST 1)
<
ATA
91 3.5 117.6
9, 1 I 123.0
to -------- -- —
20 LOG OF TRENCH T-3

DESCRIPTION
SM I TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 20% gravel, 15% coarse Ir grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 15% ri i ic grained is ma 1 -4, - 3-0- %--silly fi i i s�_ (i-A Y it,.damp 12 - L117Y­ Lt)-qss F, Pq TP t I s! _1c I foot ALLUVIUM: WELL GRADVI) GRAVEL,
approximately 5% boulders to 18" diameter, 15% cobbles, 5% -ravel, 10% course grained sand, 10% medium grained
Saint, 15% fine grained sand, 10% silty Fines, yellowish brown, dry, loose.
1,—w 3 feet moderately dense.

J�
S A I 1!a) 16 feet OLDER ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximatch 60"A fine grained sand, 40% silly lines, grayish brown, damp, dense.

ENT) OFTIZENC11
No fill
No caving
No gronn(INIater
No bedrock
PROJECT: 'rentatwe'rrac(No. 14297 PROJECT NUMBER: 32137.1 CLIENT: SCRV,LLC ELEVATION: 2980
DATE EXCAVATED: August 26, 2005
LOR
EQUIPMENT: Cat 345 GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC.

BUCKET w.: 5' I EiNCLOSURE: B-3
UMM:

L TEST DATA
a
z
A z
ztn
°
�~
z
¢°
z �
°
z
Q 4
w,
t,
°
v
�2
o
vi
Q
W0
a�
Q
S!-
10l--- - . I -

1.5 20
i
i
i
LOG OF TRENCH T-4
SOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% cobbles to 10", 20%
ravel, 15% coarse grained sand, 10% medium grained sand, 5% tine grained sand, 15% silty fines, brown, (try, loose, urous.
. - GW « 6 feet ALLUVIUM: 51rELL GR:%DEI) C IIAVEL,
- approximately 10% boulders to 3' diameter, 15% cobbles, 40% gravel, 5% coarse grained sand, 10% medium grained sand, 15% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, yellowish brown, dry, loose.
a s
i
r =_
r S I na, 18 feet OLDER ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately l65% fine grained sand, 35%silty fines, grayish brown, damp, dense.

END OF TRENCH
No rill
No caving
No groundwater
No bedrock
_PROJECT: - _ Tentative Tract No. 14297
PROJECT NUMBER: 32137.1
CLIENT: — SCRV, LLC
ELEVATION:
2970
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC.

DATE EXCAVATED:

August 26, 2005
EQUIPMENT:

Cnt345
BUCKET W.: 5'
ENCLOSURE: B-4

TEST DArI'A
�
I
W�

LOG OF TRENCH
...
..

I

DESCRIPTION

7.1 ' 5.0 95.2 I
5 �- ---- I--- —{ -- I T i
I IS
I 20
SiNt TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 2U% gravel, t5"„ coarse I grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 25% fine ;rained sand, 20% silty fines, brown, dry, loose, porous.

SM @ 3 feet ALLUVIU.M.. SILTY SAND, approximately 5% gravel, 10% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 30% silty lines, yellowish tan, damp to dry, loose.

G-a 12 feet very dense, cobbles weathered, (older alluviuml7

END OF TRENCH
No fill
No caving
No groundwater
No bedrock
PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 14297 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 32137.1 CLIENT: SCRV, LLC I —ELEVATION: _ 2930
DATE EXCAVATED: August 26, 2005
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. (--EQUIPMENT: _ _ Cat345
j BUCKET W.: 5' ENCLOSURE;: B-5

5 15
1 201

TEST DATA
H
o
w
<
a`
m``
w
c�
u
�
i—
w0
Q
a
J
O
Cn
LOG OF TRENCH T-6
SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 15% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained Bond, 30% silty S\f fines bro n, dry, loose, Porous, occasional cobble -boulder` n 1 foot ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 40"/, fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, brown, damp, small percentage of cobbles to 10" diameter, increasing with depth.
j@ 3 feel layer of boulders and cobbles on cast side of Trench.

L
Q 4 feet color change to yellowish brown.
@ 5 feet increasing grave/cobble/boulder content to approximately 5% boulders, 15% cobbles, 50% sand, 30% silly fines,
yellowish brown, damp, moderately dense, no significant caving.

L 6 feel slight caving.
.I
I
i
_t

END OP TRENCII
No fill
Caving 6-10'
No groundwater
iNo bedrock
I
PROJECT: 'Tentative Tract No. 14297 PROJECT NUMBER: 32137.1 CLIENT: SCRV, LLC ELEVATION: 3010
DATE EXCAVATED: August 26, 2005
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: Cat3a5
BUCKET W.: 5' 1 ENCLOSURE B-6

--TEST-DATA
-I
0 u
cri
76 3.2
5 -..- -- - 1—
I 151L-- I
201
LOG OF TRENCH T-7

DESCRIPTION
-T

SNI --TOB(FILSILTY
SNI
SAND, approximately 5%coarse grained San
15% medium grained sand, 45% Fine grained sand, 35% silty fines, brown, dry, loose.

ALLUVIUM:
2 feet ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 20% gravel,
2% coarse sand, 18% medium grained sand, 40% fine

99.3 grained sand, 20% silty lines, brown, damp to dry, Velw porous, Some lenses of cobbles and boulders.
is
G W
oty . _5 feet boulder Inver off east end of trench to 6 feet. @ 5 feet on west end of trench becomes WELL GILWED
f
(;PLkVEL with sand, approximately 5% boulders to 3'
maximum diameter, 20% cobbles, 30% gravel, 40% sand, IM silly fines, yellowish brown, (lamp, moderately dense, slight caving.
-v'
' (rr 8 feet lenw of nearly 30% cobbles, 70% gravel, not continuous.

END OFTRENCII
No fill
No caving
No groundwater
No bedrock
PROJECT: TentativeTract No. 14297 PROJECT NUMBER: 32137.1 —CLIENT: S-CRV, LLC— FLEVATION:-- 3020
DATE EXCAVATED: August 26, 2005
LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: Cat 345
BUCKET W.: 5' ENCLOSURE: B-7

u
w
c:.
x
is.
w
C�
0 TEST
DATA
w
j
LOG OF TRENCH T-8
°
Z
Q O
UU o
2 v
U
�a
��
A
w
O
Ca
n
5 DESCRIPTION
SM ! TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 10%coarse grained sand, 15% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 35% silty fines.

T�
GW a 1.5 feel STREAM ALLUVIUM: WELL GRADED GRAVEI.
with cobbles and boulders, highly variable content, loose, dry, T
porous, brown, up to 40% cobbles in some areas.
79 2.7
103.4
S:M
@ 3.5 feet ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, with cobbles and boulders, approximately 5% cobbles, 40% gravel, 5% coarse grained j
sand, 10% medium grained sand, 20% tine grained sand, 20% silty fines, light yellowish brown, damp, loose.
--
—
n 5 feet dense.
88 5.0
114.8
10!
1 15
2W --
Ca> 8 feet high percentage of cobbles and boulders.
,t 10 feel approximately 5% medium grained sand, 60% fine grained sand, 35% silty fines.
(naj 13 feet increasing gravel -cobble content to approximately 15%

IEND OF TRENCH
No rill
No caving
No groundwater
No bedrock
cobbles, 30%gravel, 35% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines.

PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 14297 PROJECT NUMBER: 32137.1 CLIENT: SCRV, LLC ELEVATION: 3055
DATE EXCAVATED: August 26, 2005
LOR GEOTECHNICAL. GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: Cat 345
BUCKET W.: 5' j ENCLOSURE: B-3

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TESTING
General
Selected soil samples obtained from the trenches were tested in our laboratory to evaluate the physical properties of the soils affecting foundation design and construction procedures. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction with our investigation included moisture content, dry density, laboratory compaction, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R-value, and soluble sulfate content. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented in the following paragraphs.

Moisture -Density Tests
The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected samples at various levels in the existing trench. The results are shown on the trench logs, Enclosures B- i through B-8, for convenient correlation with the soil profile.

Soluble Sulfate Content Tests
The soluble Sulfate content of selected subgrade soils was evaluated. The concentration of soluble sulfates in the soils was determined by measuring the optical density of a barium su;f"ate precipitate. The precipitate results from a reaction of barium chloride %Pjith water extractions from the soil samples. The measured optical density is correlated with readings on precipitates of known sulfate concentrations.

The test results are presented on the following table:

SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TESTS
Trench
Number
Sample Depth
(feet)
Soil Description
SUlfate Content
(percent)
T-6
0 - 1
(SM) Silty Sand
<0.005
T-7
0 - 1
(SM) Silty Sand
<0.005

Laboratory Compaction
Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine compaction characteristics using the ASTM D 1557-00 compaction test method. The results are presented in the following table:

LABORATORY COMPACTION
Optimum
Maximum
Trench
Sample Depth
Moisture
Soil Description
Dry Density
Number
(feet}
IPcf)
Content
(percent)
T-3
3 (GW) Well Graded Sand
129.0

9.5 T-5
3 ISM) Silty Sand
129.0

10.0 T-7
6 (GW) Well Graded Sand
131.0

8.0 R-Value Test
Soil samples were obtained to represent probable pavement subgrade and sieve analysis and sand equipment testing was conducted on each sample. An R-value test was conducted, in accordance with Caltrans Test Method Number on the basis of these indicator tests. The results of our sieve analysis, sand equivalent, and R-value tests are presented on Enclosure C-1.

^Y---r At,
• \ t 1 1� 1.'i%I Ip-
. t t t - + I I t1�1.ar• n.. J, � 1 {�f Ey, ru r I nr�, r r ,
-
1�,��
lit [ �• \ I �� h � 4r
�1
,fit .. .,. ,� �... I �� Ill .`�,.r � ;i' i• ... � .. ... ... I I '.

I

GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Soil Engineering s Geology e Environmental
March 7, 2006
S.C.R.V., LLC Project No. 32137.12
11718 Barrington Court r804
Los Angeles, California 90049
Attention: Mr. Tom Tenney
Subject: Response to City of Yucaipa Review Letter by Mr. D. Scott Magorien, CEG, dated December 31, 2005, of Preliminary Geotechnical investigation.

References: LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2005, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tract 14297, Yucaipa, California, dated November 22, 2005, Project No. 32137.1.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 20055, Subsurface Fault investigation, Tentative Tract No. 14927, Yucaipa, California, dated November 30, 2005, Project No. 32137.3
As requested, we have reviewed the letter prepared by Mr. D. Scott Magorien, CEG, dated December 31, 2005, in which Mr. Magorien provides a review of our report referenced above. In his letter Mr. Magorien has a total of 15 review comments, pertaining to spelling errors, references to grammatical errors, and/or request for additionai data or comments. As requested, we have provided the additional responses, information, and/or changes requested.

Response to Comment 1
The first sentence of the third paragraph on page 2 within our report should be modified as follows: "The far northern portion of the site, composed of an irregular shaped parcel extending from approximately 490 feet to 240 feet south of the northern property line and consisting of 11.85 acres, is not part of this tract development at this time and is referred to on'the plans as a "Remainder Parcel." 6121 Quail Val!ey Court • Riverside, CA 92507 . (951) 653-1760 . Fax (951) 653-1741

S.C.R.V., LLC Project .No. 321 37.1 2
March 7, 2006
We are attaching a map (Enclosure i) prepared by Sitetech .nc., showing the precise location of this parcel. On this map, it shows the dimensions of the "Remaining Parcel" as irregular in shape and extending south Of the northern property line at an exact distance of 238.00 feet on the west side and 491.02 feet on the east side, not 240 and 490 feet respectively as incorrectly stated in our report.

Response to Comment 2
A copy of the rough grading plan, prepared by Sitetech, Inc., is attached as Plate 1 .

Response to Comment 3
Please change the terra "planning" with the terra "planar. 11 Rosoonse to Comment 4
We conducted a review of aerial photographs of the site and immediate surrounding areas. Our analysis of the photographs noted a very faint, but relatively straight line, possibly a lineament. However, analysis of other photographs noted that this feature appears to be a very narrow dirt lane, and/or a fence line and thus not related to any tectonic activity at this location. This interpretation was further strengthened by our subsurface fault trenching that crossed this area with no faulting noted (LOR, 2005b).

The Glossary of Geology, prepared by the American Geological Institute, defines a lineament as a straight topographic feature, or other, interpreted or believed to be tectonic in origin. Therefore, to show this feature, which we interpreted to be man- made in origin, on Our final geologic map as having a potential for tectonic origin when our study indicated it was not, would be inappropriate.

Response to Comment 5
Please modify the sentence on page 4 as follows: " Logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory tronches were niaintained produced by a geologist trom this firm".

K
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP. INC.

S.C.R.V., L._C
March 7, 2006
Response to Comment 6
Project No. 32137.12
Surficial units such as topsoils, thin fills, etc., are generally not shown on geologic maps. If this were the case most geologic maps would only show items such as topsoil, grass, concrete, etc., and, while they would be technically correct, they would be essentially useless. The sidewall of our test pit T-1 revealed approximately 1-foot of topsoil, overlying colluvium, or slope wash down to a depth of approximately 6 feet. At this depth older alluvium was noted. This is about the cut off depth of surficial materials which are left off the map, which is why the geologic map at this location shows Qoal(ls) at this location, or Quaternary older alluvium which may have been associated with a landslide. Our test pit T-2 has similar conditions. Our test pit T-3 revealed 1 foot of topsoil overlying unconsolidated units of Well Graded Gravel, which were given the geologic interpretation of alluvium in accordance with the recommendations made in Table 13 of the ASTM Standard D2488, ASTM, 2000, Designotion: D24-88-00 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual Manual Procedure), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section Four, Volume 04.08. These logs are considered to be a descriptions of the conditions and interpretations noted in the test pits. The Ideologic map prepared as Plate 1, utilizes the data from these logs, along with additional data, primarily from aerial photo review, site mapping, and a compilation of past studies, to further subdivide the alluvial units at the site into relative ages. The map is an interpretation of the site data, while the logs are actual data and should be left unaltered.

Response to Comment 7
The three compaction curves are attached at Enclosures 2 through 4. llesoonse to Comment
As noted on page 8 of our preliminary geotechnical report: "The entire site lies within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Special Studies Zone) designated by the State of California associated with the San Andreas Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). The impact of this designation, as well as the potential for active faulting at the site, was addressed in our fault hazard report conducted for the site (LOR 2005)". The AP map that illustrated this was supplied in our Subsurface Fault Investigation for the site, (LOR, 2005b) referenced in the subject preliminary geotechnical report. It was our intent to direct all future parties, including planners, LOR GcoTGCHNICAL GROU R

S.C.R.V., LLC Project No. 32137.12
March 7, 2006
developers and contractors, as w(ll as inclividtial property owners to read both reports, which we continue to strongly recommend. However, in order to expedite this review, we are attaching a copy of the AP map shown in the Subsurface Fault Investigation as Enclosure 5.

Response to Comment 9
As noted in our report, the Regional Geolocllc Map shown on Enclosure A-2 was taken from the Geologic Map and Digital Database of the Yucaipa 7.5 Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, v. 1 .0, prepared by the USGS as Open File Report 03-301 . As shown on this map, tfre USGS divided the surficial materials generally underlying the subject site into five different surficial units, described by the USGS as:

Qols Old landslide deposit (late to middle Pleistocene) Qyf1 Young alluvial fan deposit unit 1 (early Holocene and latest Pleistocene) Qyf3 Young alluvial fan deposit unit 3 (middle Holocene) Qof3 Old alluvial fan deposit unit 3 Bate to middle Pleistocene) Qvyf Very young alluvial fan deposits (latest Holocene) Qvyvv Very young wash deposits, active (latest Holocene) Response to Comment 10
Please modify the second sentence on the third paragraph of page 5 as follows: " As noted on the Regional Geologic Map, Enclosure A-2 within Appendix A, the far western end of this ridge was mapped by the USGS as an ancient landslide complex covering over 5 square miles of land located just above the site and extrudong extending down onto the northern portion of the "Remainder Parcel" portion of the site".

Response to Comment 11
Please modify the last: sentence all the first paragraph of page 6 as follows: " This fan has been subsequently modified by incision of younger streams.-tcs--wt4i-a5 dropped,
riser -
along s" .
0 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V., LLC Project No. 32137.12
March 7, 2006
Resiponse to Comment 12
A. Please modify the text header in the report on page 6 as follows: Artificial Fill (Map Symbols Af af►d-A4N.

B. While the presence of these units across many of the gullies on the site, our excavations within these areas, such as in T-5 indicated these units to be relatively thin, for example young alluvial deposits interpreted as strealn deposits were noted to a depth of 3.5 feet in T-8. As previously noted, our map does not show these very thin units. If it did the vast majority of the map would simply show the unit "topsoil." However, please modify the text header on page 6 as follows:

Active'r� Alluvial Deposits (Map Symbol Qw 8-al): Along the bottom of the larger gullies there are re -worked materials that have been eroded from the upper portions of the fan and are generally in active transport during heavy precipitation. These materials were noted to consist of highly variable content from silt to large boulders, and are in a loose, very porous, state, and generally less than 3 feet in thickness.

C. We concur with the conclusion by the reviewer that the site lies in an area with a potential for debris flows as well as a potential for high volume run-off from storm water draining out of the two canyons above, and northeast, of the site.

The attached grading plans prepared by the project design engineering firm of Sitetech Inc., indicate that a relatively large "rip -rap" channel has been incorporated into the proposed design for the mitigation of this potential, in addition grading of the site has been planned to raise many of the lots above the general drainage course. It is under purview of the design civil engineer to ensure this feature and the design grading is adequate for the anticipated run- offs. The following paragraph should be inserted into the Conclusions sections of our report as follows:

Flooding and Severe Erosion
We contacted the city of Yucaipa Department of Public Services who informed us that the subject site is located within a zone noted by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by Federal Emergency Management Agency LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

r
S.C.R.V., LLC
March 7, 2006
Project No. 32137.112
(i-EMA) as "Zone D" which is dc=.Iined as an area of undetermined flood hazard.

Our study noted that much of the site is underlain by coarse to very coarse drained alluvial sedimems, main cu+ltaininy a reldl.Weiy high percentage of large boulders. This would indicate that much of the site has experienced periods of high run-off from storm waters emanating out of the Yucaipa Ridge above the si_e. The potential for sire flooding should therefore be evaluated by the project design civil engineer.

D. Please revise the third paragraph on page 7 as follows: "While these units are exposed at The surface in only a few areas on the site, entire site is thotigh to-bt titideriain by these tinits that and may represent a much earlier phase of alluvial fan deposition. No explorations were placed in these units due to the lack of any proposed development in this area. Tl e-.e •inits also • ar-y4t g}p vvfth--same--"it�e--treed
eevtred he older
alitivial timits also tend to be rntleh".

E. We respectfully disagree with this conclusion of the reviewer on this comment.

This feature was throughly discussed in our referenced fault investigation for the site (LOR, 2005b). The recommendations for mitigators are given in both reports and modified under the Response to Comment 14 below.

F. As stated in our report, the entire site is located within an AP zone. How can the limits of an area that lie beyond the map be indicated on the map? The tract limits are shown on the attached grading plans.

G. The tract number 14927 has been changed to 14297 on the attached (glans.

Response to Comment 13
Please revise the first sentence within the third paragraph on page 10 as follows:
"As noted previously, the potential for landslides occurring across the tmajority of-t+re site is considered nil due to the low gradient". The setback zone is indicated on the attached Plate 1 .
6 L V R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.;%.V., LI_C
I\•/lal cil 7, 2005
1-esoonse to Cocnrttent 14-
Project No. 32137.12
Please revise the Geologic Mitigations section on page 14 as follows: "The -Safi Andreas ftitilt has been niapped by several atithors as lying very close, perhaps p-r--t JOL,�­L. This has jestilted in b iig set baek zones along the far northern portion of `"e se ...- el! it! A separate fault hazards report was conducted for the site by this firm (LOR 2005b). The recommendations in that report should be incorporated into all future developments at the site. No features were noted within the proposed development areas of the tract that would fall into the classification of an "active" earthquake hazard as defined by the State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone act. However we did note a relatively large sequence of "sub -horizontal shears" extending along the base of the bluff that lies in an area on the site were no developmentis currently planned. As it has not yet been determined if these features represent active faulting along this location, or an ancient landslide, at this time we are recommending that all structures should be set back a safe distance from the toe of this feature, even though this setback zone may be drastically reduced, or even removed entirely based on future studies.

The proposed grading plan, attached, shows that the northernmost pads on the site consist of lots 26, 28, 30, and 33, from east to west. The proposed building pads on these lots are all approximately 150 feet or more south of the bluff, therefore, a setback zone would appear to serve no useful purposes except to limit future development on the "Remainder Parcel". Therefore, we made the recommendations that any future changes to the current plan or future development of the "Remainder Parcel" should only be considered after future studies have been conducted to demonstrate the suitability of this area."
At the request of the City of Yucaipa's geologist, we have provided the requested information that was previously submitted to the City in the fault hazards study conducted by this firm, into this review letter for the soils engineering study of the site.

We would like to take this opportunity to note that while it may be the opinion of the reviewer that all of the soils and engineering geologic aspects of the project should he encompassed into a single report that contains, "..all appropriate recommendations for future development..", it is not a requirement of the City of Yucaipa. In addition, we can note numerous sources that appear to indicate the industry standard is just 7 L®R GF07ECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.P,.V., LLC Proiect No. 32137.12
March 7, 2006
the opposite. Perhaps the most important of these is the. Cnliforntn building Code.

In Section 3309.5 of the CBC, the requirements are given for a "Soils Engineering Report". However, in Section 3309.6 the requirements are c:iven for a separate report called an "Engineering Geology Report". The aspects of each of these overlap, but neither report is expected to be comprehensive of both.

The State of California Geologica Survey (previously the DMG), Which sets the standards for fault reports in Earthquake Fault Zones, provides a series of "geologic notes" giving their recommendations for the preparation of different types of reports.

For example, Note 41 gives recommendations for the preparation of a geologic report while Note 42 gives the recommendations for the preparation of a fault hazard report.

Again, while these all have overlapping issues, such as a discussion of the regional and site geulugiu uunditiuns, iiowhere is it recommended that one report should ultimately take precedence over the others and contain all of the recommendations for future developments.

The State of California, Board of Geologist and Geophysicist set up a Technical Advisory Committee, which published four separate docriments enti?led:
"Guidelines for Engineering and Geologic Reports"
"General Guidelines for Earthquake and/or Fault Hazard Reports" "Guidelines for Geophysical Reports"
"Guidelines for Groundwater Reports"
These guidelines give instructions on how to prepare the various aspects of four separate reports which address different aspects of a site. The recommended subjects overlap, but none of them are recommended to be a comprehensive report, It should be noted that not all firms, such as LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., provide both aspects of soils engineering and engineering geology. There are many respected engineering geology tirms!consultants and soils engineering firms/consultants that do not provide both disciplines and, therefore, could not provide all appropriate recommendations for future development.
3 .L..OR GEOTECHNiCAL GROUP. INC.

S.C.R.V., LLC
March 7, 2006
Response to Comment 15
Project No. 32137.12
On page 17 of our report the following statement appears to provide the requested information: "Unless approved by the geotechnical engineer, rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills. Rocks or other irreducible material greater than 12 inches in diameter should be disposed of within designated rock disposal areas approved by the soils engineer and/or local governing agency".

CLOSURE
We hope this letter has adequately provided the clarification requested. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. This letter should be made part of and attached to the referenced report.

Respectfully, S�ptAAL 6,
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. �<c,��,'f 3' Jp�0
G1
on -No. 1893 O.P

CERTIFIED Z
• ENGINEERING •
Jeffrey J. Johnston, CEG 1893 sj, GEOLOGIST
Engineering Geologist �TFOfiCAUfOP
�p ePOFESSI,
P. CF�`c Fy
John P. Leuer, GE 2030 w ' NO. 2030 m
President CC E%PIRATION85E M
09/30/ _
JJJ:AAT:JPL/mmm s�gT'%,p
F OF CAI���
Attachments: 12131 /05 Review Letter
Enclosure 1-Tract Map
Enclosures 2 through 4-Curves
Enclosure 5 - Earthquake Fault Zone Map
Plate 1
Distribution: Addressee (1)
M
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

JAdi-O _1 , iA"! _1! 4"a T -Dul P iiO3/00? --u E
��N61NEO_RINCi Gfi' )L0CjTS"I.
iv r. Raymond Casey
City of Yucaipa
3 1272 yuca.ipa Blvd.
�`uclipli. CA 9 7199-99) 0
Snhject: Review ofNovetnber 22, 2005, LOR Geotechnical Group; lrrc. report entitled "Preiirriinaiy Geotechnical Investigation Tentative Tract 14297, Yucaipa, California;" prepared for S.C.R.V., LLC, Project No. 32137.1 Dear i✓lt
As requesbc, 1 have reviewed the subject report prepared by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (LOR) for the proposed residential developnletzt in territs of- onsite geolog c hazards and acutc;chnical constraints. Based oil nry review, I afn requesting LOR respond to the folloWin ; comments, provide additional information where requested, and make the appropriate revisions prior to approval uf'the report.
romments ( /report page (p.) rnumber shown in parenthesis fur reference)

1. (p.2) ne location of tic "Remainder Parccl" is incolrectIy sliltecl in the report.

2. (p.2) The report refers to depths of cuts and fills for pazticular lots. but no grading plan is inclrictod in lire report. Provide a calay of tltc t radut? plv� than vas reviewed for this study.

3. (p.2) Hc�« does topography `plarutiiz�„`� ProtZde a discussion of surface gradients within the property.

1. (p.'3) PhotolirmarneiiLs were apparently identified and are rep.>mdly chovm on Plate I. -All lineaments need to be shown on the neap, which also needs to be labeled "Geologic Map.— hi addition, a source retinvnce is riecded on Plate 1 for LOR fault treneb nos. I J
;. (p. Y} Tlie r :port indicates that the cxpic>ratory trenrlres were "maim wined by a geolog�zst of this firm." NNThat claw this mead?
I0 Superior. Siute 200 INIC%%purt Bcach. CA 9266'• tr,"lephnne (949) 574 7096 • tax (949) 642-1,174

J,AN-03-06 38:IIAM FROM-Geonatrix Consultants W-642-4474 T-001 P 006/007 F-626 Review of FOR Geoteclhnical, lilds., Preliminary Geoteclmical Report Tentative Tract 14297, City of Yucaipa, CA
December 31, 2005
• Page 2

6. With exception of "Colluvium," tlae geologic unit identifiers in the eight trench lobs do not thatch those on Plate 1. Revise aecorduigly.

7. Provide the three compaction curves for the soils that were tested.

S. Provide a snap showing the project site with respect to the A-P Earthquake Fault "Lone.

9. Provide am explanation of symbols for the "Regional Geologic Map," as well as a source reference.

10. (p5) Explain how a landslide "extrudes." This terrhh implies a compressional component.

11. (p:6) Provide a map showing the "succession of risers and terraces" that was used to characterize die project area and vicinity.
1,2. The tollowing comments relate to Plate l .
a. l lie geologic e:otitacts for of i and of are ill-defined Where is the afh unit on the snap'
b. The Qal units) are not shown on the map.
c. The so-called Qall alluvial fan deposits appear to be associated with sigauficant modern debris flows emanating from a narrow offsite(?) canyon. The Qal'2 unit appears to correspond to the Matti et -al. (2003) Qyf3 geologic twit, which also emanates fzom an offsite drainage canyon. VVrlhat impact do future debris flows have on the proposed development?
d. The description provided for the Qal3-4 units needs to be expanded upon. In which -explorations" were these knits observed?
e. Geologic unit Qoal(ls) is not identified in the Explanation, nor is it discussed in [he report. 1f this is a suspected landslide feature, which I assume it is, and it has a potential impact to the proposed development, it needs to be thorouglily discussed in this report, and not left for dhe reader to refer to it in anotlier report_ 1: Show the limits of the A-P zone, as well as the Tract limits. g. The tract ntu:nzber shown in the Explanation is wrong.

13. (p.10) Under the heading "Seismically -Induced Landsliduhg," the report inclicates that the potential for landslides occurring across the majority of the site is considered nil.

W1111t l)Qrtion of tihe project site is susceptible to seisn-,ically induced laucLshding? Shovv the 150-foot wide setback on Plate 1.

14. (p.14) Under the heading "Geologic Mitigations; ' it is uniclear whether the building set bark zone(s) are associated vvith landslide mitigation, as discussed earlier in the report; or i there a fault -related hazard :associated v-vith tli,. wtlhack? In any event, the nature and the ratiomale used to define the setback needs to be hicorporated in this weliminarf U. SCd7T AIAGOWIN, C E.G. 1390
En,yineVina GtlalOgLa

!%IN-c3-06 4 1^1 tts,--EJM-Guc•ra;r,s Co? -!iI ," id i -OJ! . OC7/OO7 -?26 Rr view )f LpR ccotechnic�al. {nc's., Prelinlin) );y Gr nierhni= rl R. port 1 untat,v-- Tract 14297, City of Yur aipn, CA
Uu, Lunlber 31, 2005
O flay,. v
rrcutechrzit:a rLpn=t, and nut tied to any uthe.r report. In otlter ;vor&, all appropuak-, recamLrtendaiio►u ;c)r futurt; cieveluprvert that have be�.n cicT��ec! from t:iz i,i:)R report needs to) be incorpolatexl it) rizis J-Opolt.

5. Provide a cuscussion rcgardin.,r aver -sizes! rock its it relates to pl u.erzzent of cn,-,ineered fill.

I'le<r,,:s call if you have ,zrty cluestiuns concerrzin the cou;unents presented aLove. I Wive faxed a copy Of this review letter to Mr. Jeffery 1oIrttston at LOR GeotecluzicA Inc.

Rcspecthal
.E.G. 129O
City Geologist
F:�gircer:n� Gealnlrt;I

IIHF I It"G111 j frMI11G
TRAC" r NEAP NO. 14297
•S
o REMAINDER PARCEL
M 11.85 ACRES
N- — ---- -- -
Note: Parcel consist of a roughly rectangular
shaped area, 1073.02' along the north
boundary, and extending 238.00" south of the
northern property line along the western
ui boundary and 491.02' along the eastern
boundary.

Lot 33
g
M
` Lot 32
•
I
'N
y
'z
I
Lot 30
z,
i Lot 31
I
I
Lot 29
t t I _.1
I 1
I II
1�:.• I 1,•0y� � � j
Lot 28
Lot 26 i
a 1 1
1l Il� ,7 u..ui� 1. •'t
c t 1 4
z� i1
I
I Lot 27 Lot 25
Enclosure 1

RELAI IVE T1O't� TEST --
C Ce Rle e 1"_ST NO.j--3
Elev
- c J0LuME D.TA I ExC vLT p Sn pCc
T._Ind cSuwu
Co SM�L c
Yi
d ee pr,1�M30
of WGIC—�•�—
1 - o c:te - Cone K 0lse f----
"0! 01 v -^E L Wei 4ti'i i.C/f,
�
-77Of, - _ >
y 'r, . 1. b
Opy
I •.ti' e �, - _ S/ F T
N J
j 57l'E T E 5 5 8 Sp -CI r--
. I w i Lv^5 S i o M 0: 5 I T JC I S^---' ` -`--- —`Y
NJ
Y ,-n p T e s I b 4
C> rr ,'% /ti 1 Y" � /—r ✓^ ram- � 'r'-'_ i" I �' O i1 t o o — n'. Ij 0
co
I
5 t00
C
-` -7 10
20 T Enclosure 3

C :J
V
,;,. 6,
WET
�Yil,) STUJR�:

I
F 0
1; 7U
NA L YS I i i A N L
'\Q
7Z---
C: D R
Enclosure

HOUNDARY

LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Soil Engineering A Geology A Environmental
SUBSURFACE FAULT INVESTiuATION
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14927

YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 32137.3
NOVEMBER 30, 2005
Prepared for:

S.C.R.V. LLC
11718 Barrington Court #804
Los Angeles, California 90049
Attention: Mr. Tom Tenney
6121 Quail Valley Court • Riverside, CA 92507 . (951) 653-1760 . Fax (951) 653-1741

GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
1--,ORSoil Engineering e Geology • Environmental
November 30, 2005
S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.3
11718 Barrington Court #804
Los Angeles, California 9004-9
Attention: Mr. Tom Tenney
Subject: Subsurface Fault Investigation, Tentative Tract No. 14297, Yucaipa, California.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. is pleased to present this report summarizing Out - Subsurface Fault Investigation conducted by this firm for your proposed Tentative Tract 14297 located in the City of Yucaipa, California. This report was based upon a scope of services generally outlined in our Work Authorization Agreement, dated June 16, 2005, and other written and verbal communications with you.

The scope of our study included a review of published and unpublished literature, maps and records concerning geologic units, faults, and other factors, interpretation of aerial photographs, surface mapping of the site, and a subsurface investigation which included the excavation, cleaning, and geologic logging of exploratory fault trenches.

This study documented the presence of several "sub -horizontal shear zones" located along the base of the small bluff north of the proposed development area. While these features do not cross any of the proposed site developments, a Restricted Use Zone has been recommended to ensure that all future structures are placed a safe distance away from this feature.

An additional geotechnical report will be necessary to determine the other geotechnical parameters of the site once preliminary development plans are prepared.

I -his report will require additional field studies including sampling by additional trenching and/or drilling, to determine the site specific conditions for building and grading recommendations.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
6121 Quail Valley COUrt . Riverside. CA 92507 • (951) 653-1760 • Fax (951 i' ^-17A-'

Table of Contents
Page No.

INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS ................................... 2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS REPORTS/DOCUMENTS ...................... 3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ANALYSIS ............................... 4 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ................................... 6 SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................. 7 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ...................................... 8 Regional Geologic Setting ................................. 8 Regional FaUlting...................................... 11 Histmica! Seismicity .................................... 11 Site Geologic Conditions ................................. 13 SUMMARY OF THE ON -SITE TRENCHING ......................... 14 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ................................ 16 CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 17 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 18 CLOSURE ............................................... 18 REFERENCES ............................................. 20 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ..................................... 22 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Tabu of Contents
Pace No.

APPENDICES
Appendix A - index Map, Earthquake Fault Zone Map, and Regional Geologic Map Appendix S - Soil Description and Fault Trench Logs
Sack Pocket- Plate 1 - Trench Location Map
Plate 2 - Restricted Use Zone Map
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP. MC.

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 30, 2005

INTRODUCTIO
Project No. 32137.3
During July through November of 2005, a Subsurface Fault Investigation was conducted by this firm for the proposed Tentative Tract No.14297, currently consisting of three parcels of land comprising approximately 53±acres located northeast of Crystal Street and Yucaipa Ridge Road in the City of Yucaipa, California.

The purpose of this study was to estimate the probability of, or relative potential for, future surface displacement to occur at the site from earthquake activity in order to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of California prior to the sub -division of the land into single family lots for residential development.

The scope of work for our subsurface fault investigation included:
• A review of recently published and un-published literature, maps, and records concerning geologic conditions of the site;
• Stereoscopic interpretation of aerial photographs of the site and immediate surrounding region;
• Surface observations including geologic mapping of the site by an engineering geologist from this firm;
• The excavation of two trenches across the site to allow for direct observations of the underlying geologic conditions;
• Logging of the subsurface soils and geologic units exposed in the trench by an engineering geologist from this firm;
• Age dating techniques for the estimates of the underlying geologic units ages utilizing soil profile development, clast weathering, and landform development, • Meetings onsite with the City Geologist, Mr. Scott Magorian prior to, during, and after the excavation of the trenches to inform the city of our investigation and preliminary findings, and;
• Preparation of this report surnmarizing our findings, and providing conclusions.

The approximate location of the site is shown on the attached Index Map, Enclosure A-1, within Appendix A.
1 LORGEO ECHNICAL GROUP, 14C.

S.C.I V. L►_C.

November 311, 2005

PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Proiect No. 32137.?
The subject property consist of three separate parcels listed by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's) of 0320-181-028, and 032-161-08 and 09. These three parcels make a rectangular site that is approximately 1,163 feet wide and 1,950 feet long, for approximately 52.5 acres of land total.

A 100-scale tentative tract map was prepared for the site by Sitetech and was provided for our study. According to this map, a copy of which is attached to this report as Plate i, Tentative Tract No. 14297 will consist of the grading of 33 level pads for single-family homes. Access to these lots will be provided by extending the existing Quartz and Crystal Streets from the west_ and constructing three new interior roads. Generally minor cuts and fills are planned on the order of 10 feet or less across the site to create the pads and streets.

The far northern portion of the site, composed of an irregular shaped parcel extending from 490 to 240 feet south of the northern property line and consisting of 11.85 acres, is not a part of this tract development at this time and is referred to on tide plans as a Remainder Parcel.

As noted on Enclosure A-2, within Appendix A, the entire site is situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone set up by the State of California Geological Survey. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act prohibits the location of structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and requires the State Geologist to delineate wide zones around known, vvell defined, active earthquake faults. The act defines a fault as sufficiently active if there is evidence of activity within the last 11,000 years. A fault is considered to be well defined if it is clearly detectable at or near the surface by a trained geologist. The fault zone noted in Enclosure A-2 was set up around the approximate position of the San Andreas fault that is generally considered to run along the base of the mountains in this region, Therefore, in order to satisfy the requirements of the State of California guidelines for a geologic investigation within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, we have conducted this fault study which included the excavation of one main trench, which extended across the entire parcel at an orientation approximately at a right angle to LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
the suspected fault traces at a length of approximately 2,000 feet, and one smaller trench approximately 200 feet in length. Our methodology, field studies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are summarized in this report.

VIEV1 OF P :D,SVIOUS REPO RTS!D0ICU PJ1ENTS
As previously noted, the entire site lies within a Alquist Priolo Earthquake fault zone, as indicated on the State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Yucaipa Quadrangle (Hart and Bryant, 1997). A copy of this map is on Enclosure A-2, within Appendix A. As noted on this map, the main break of the San Andreas fault runs along the base of the Yucaipa Ridge just north of the site. However one small splay is shown as entering the far northwest corner of the site and extending approximately 1,000 feet to the southeast. There is another splay, dotted and quered extending approximately towards the south end of the site form the east. However this feature is shown to end nearly '/z mile to the southeast of the site, and if projected along this course would lie south of the site.

A more recent study of the regional geologic conditions was prepared in a study of the Yucaipa 7.5 minute quadrangle by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2003 (Matti et al 2003). The geologic map prepared by the USGS was utilized for our study and a copy of this map has is included as our Regional Geologic Map, Appendix A-3, within Appendix A. On this map the general location of the San Andreas fault is in agreement with the State study, however, they do not include many of the smaller splays. In addition, the USGS interpreted the geomorphology of the hills above the site as resulting from a very large, very old, landslide complex that has been re -cut by movement along the fault. Dr. Morton, a co-author of this study, informed us that they feel this feature is a bedrock slide of Mill Creek formation of rocks most likely fractured by the San Andreas fault, that slid down in the middle Pleistocene (up to 1 million years ago) as of result of the rapid uplift of the Yucaipa Ridge and is most likely stable in this configuration (personal communication, 2005).

Erosion of this feature has deposited a series of coalescing fans across the valley floor of differing ages ranging from current day deposits, to just probably as old as the landslide feature itself. A more complete discussion of these units noted on the subject site is given in the following sections.
3 J
LORGEOTECHMCAL_ GROUP, iNC.

S.C.R.V. LL C Project No. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
A Geologic Hazards Study was conducted for the site by Craig Smith with a report dated January 17, 1989 (Smith 1989). This study reportedly consisted of the excavation of a single trench across the site from about the northeastern portion of the site to the southwest to reported) depths of 10 to 12 feet. Mr. Smith, who sinned the report as a registered geologist number 2966, concluded that no faults were identified within the site boundaries. This study was reviewed and accepted at that time by Mr. John Bowman of the County of San Bernardino tBowman, 1986), however a more recent review of this report by the City of Yucaipa geologist Mr.

Scott Magorian (2001), indicated that the study would not meet current (Jay requirements of the city for geologic hazards study.

The conclusions of the Smith report appear to be in conflict with the findings of an earlier report not conducted for the site but on the parcel of land immediately adjacent to the west (Rasmussen, 1978). This earlier study reported a fault generally running along the base of the small hills to the north. This fault, if extended in this orientation, would cross the subject site approximately 500 feet south of the northern property line.

It is our understanding that in 2004 a fault hazards investigation was begun by the firm of CHJ Inc., which included the re -excavation of the trench originally dug by Smith, along with several other smaller trenches at the site, however this study was stopped and never completed.

It is also our understanding that a similar fault hazard study is currently being conducted by Mr. Bruce Schnell on the parcel of land adjacent the site to the east, as noted by the excavation of a similar fault trench along the portion of land just east of the subject site's eastern property line.

A complete list of all of the documents reviewed during our study are given in the references at the end of this report.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ANALYSIS
A search was conducted for available aerial photographs of the area on file at the San Bernardino County Flood Control and Transportation department aerial photography collection, by a geologist from this firm. The search reviewed aerial photographs taken of the site and surrounding area in 1938, 1953, 1968, 1986, 1996, and 2005. 4 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, !NC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
The aerial photographs reviewed consisted of vertical aerial stereographic photograph pairs of varying scales. These photographs were viewed using stereoscopes with magnifications of 2X and 4X for three dimensional enhancement. Due to the relatively large photograph scales involved, the analysis and subsequent interpretation of detail frorn aerial photographs sometimes requires a degree of subjective judgment.

The degree of certainty on the interpretation of details depends upon such factors as the scale and the quality of the photograph. A brief summary of the site and surrounding conditions during the various times for which 'the aerial photographs were available is given below.

1. 1938 . Flight No.: ;"J88 Photo 'Mos.: 0-'1- 11,11. Seale 1" = 1,200' In these early photographs site detail is difficult due to the poor, faded, quality of the photographs. In addition, only the middle portion of the site has stereo overlap.

However the site is vacant land with no agriculture. Drainage is to the west- southwest. The hillside to the north has no stereo coverage. 2_ February '16, '1953 . Fiicht iVo.: AXL - 421( Photo Nos.: 82-83. Scale 1" = 1 667' Bryant Avenue is now in -place, Yucaipa Ridge Road is a small dirt lane. No lineaments are visible. There is an Edison line (?) or roadway along the northern portion of the site. The hill at the north end either appears to be the dissected end of a very old landslide, and/ or a shutter ridge, however there are no lineaments along the northern side.

The hillside above the site, rising up to the Yucaipa ridge, which has been mapped as a very large landslide complex has some definite landslide features, arcuate scraps, high depressions, however it has been overprinted by a very wide zone of lineaments that run parallel to the San Andreas fault to the southeast and northwest. These cut the landslide in two strong lineaments, and several smaller ones.

3. August 11 1968 Flight Mo • AXL-9J i Photo 40 •53-59; Scale i" = 1667' In these aerial photographs there is a very faint lineament along the northern portion of the site that is trending about North 70 degrees to the west. This feature 5 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP,'NC.

S.C.R.V. Lf C Project No. :_ 2137.2,
Nlovember 30, 2005
intersects the dirt lane of Yucaipa Ridge Road at about 1,400 (+J/- 150') north o Ivy Avenue. This faint feature may be a dirt lane.

4. February 25, 1986 . Flight No.: 450 Photo No.:75 and 77 Scale 1" = 2000' Note: photo number 76, which is the center of the site is missing.

In these photographs the region to the west, across Yucaipa Ridge Road is being developed into a residential dousing neighborhood. Yucaipa Ridge Road has been Paved To Quartz street. The faint lineament noted in the earlier photograph lies just south of Quartz street, about 100 feet south, and extends about 500 feet to the southeast then turns to a new trend of about North 60 West. This straight nature of this feature tends suggest it may be a fence line or other man-made feature.

5. April 20, 1996 . Flight No.: 528 Photo Nos.:129, 131 Scale 1" = 2000' No change.

6. January 18, 2005. Flight No.: 553 Photo Nos.:11-60, 61; . Scale 1" = 1,000' These photographs are in color and have excellent quality. The site now shows evidence of seven trenches excavated by CHJ, however these appear to have been backfilled. Therefore the exact locations of the trenches have been obscured, however, These include a main trench from the northeast to southwest site corners 1 ,700 feet long, then six much smaller trenches with The longest of these about 250 feet.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site consists of three parcels of land, given by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers of 320-181-028, and 320-161-009 and 008. Together these form a rectangular site approximately 1,163 feet in length from east to west, and 1,980 feet north to south. This region is situated along the base of Yuoaipa Ridge, which rises steeply to the north. The topography of the site is generally planning with a fall to the south-southwest, and the region to the north on the "Remainder Parcel" rising up along a steep bluff. The bluff lies several hundred feet north of the northern edge of 0 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.3
November '13"), 2005
the proposed tract development area, rising up approximately 50 feet to a flatter plateau above. Vegetation across the site is predominately light to moderately heavy field brush with numerous patches of very heavy dense, low lying, brush that hamper access.

The site is bounded on the north and east by mountainous terrain with scattered single-family residences , that rises steeply to the northeast. The site is bounded on the west by single-family residences. South of the site is vacant land followed by single-family residences.

SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our investigation consisted of the excavation of two subsurface trenches. The first trench was placed along the western portion of the site and extending from the northern property line south to the southern property line. While this straight line distance is 1,986 feet, due to slight bendings in the trench, the overall linear distance was 2,018 feet. The original location of this trench was placed using the northwestern property corner marker and a 300 foot tape measure and Brunton compass transit. This location was later surveyed in by the project engineering firm of Sitetech Inc., and is illustrated on Plate I within the back pocket of this report.

This first trench was excavated to depths of approximately 18 to 25 feet, with a series of benches at 5 to 6 foot intervals for trench wall stability, using a CAT 345 excavator supplied by the client.

After excavation of the trench, the eastern walls were cleaned of side wall bucket smear to allow for logging at a scale of 1 " = 5' (horizontal and vertical) by an engineering geologist from this firm. The stratigraphic units noted within the trench were described according to standard geologic field methods. This involved assigning a local or geologic -interpretive designation such as artificial fill, topsoil, recent and older alluvium, followed by a physical descriptive characterization. For unconsolidated sediments, the interpretive designation is followed by a soils classification group name, given in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification, textural - plasticity classification scheme outlined in ASTM 2488-00 (ASTM, 2000). The matrix color of the unconsolidated sediments are classified according to the Mansell soil - color charts (Mansell, 1992) at a damp moisture content, along with an estimate of the relative in -place moisture. Other descriptive characteristics, such as structure, 7 I OTR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Page 737

S.C.R.V. I_LC Project Nn. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
bedding thickness, textures, consistency, shape and angularity, are given in general accordance with the standards set forth in ASTM 2488-00, (ASTM, 2000).

Graphical representation of the conditions as encountered within the exploratory trench are presented within Appendix B.

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Regional Geologic Setting
The subject site is located in southern California along the southern flanks of the San Bernardino Mountains. These mountains, along with the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the southeast, and the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest, form a large geornorphic province that cuts across nearly the entire south end of California referred to as the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province. The large region that extends from the south side of this province and into Mexico is composed of a sequence of smaller north-west trending mountains and hills and intervening valleys known as the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. s herefore, the site lies on the junction of these two provinces that together cover a large majority of southern California stretching from the Pacific coast inland to the San Andreas fault, south of the San Gabriel -San Bernardino Mountain ranges and extending southward to the Mexican border and beyond.

The San Bernardino Mountains of the Transverse ranges are generally composed of a core of older metamorphic rocks which have been severally intruded by relatively younger igneous intrusive rocks.

The Peninsular Ranges province is characterized by a series of generally small northwestern trending mountains ranges such as the Santa Ana Mountains and the San .lacinto Mountains, separated by wide flat valleys. These extend from the Los Angeles region southeastward into Baja California. As noted, the far northern end this Province meets the San Bernardino and the San Gabriel mountains which have a predominately east -west trend which is transversely oriented in regards to the predominately northwest structural grain of much of California, hence the name Transverse Ranges.

I
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. L LC Project No. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
In the Yucaipa region, the San Andreas fault acts as the boundary between the Peninsular and Transverse Ranges provinces, with the site straddling this boundary.

Here, the motion on the San Andreas fault has typically resulted in the Peninsular Ranges Block sliding to the northwest in relation to the Transverse Ranges. While this motion is distributed along a very wide shear zone of various other major faults in the region, perhaps as much as one half of the total offset is thought to have occurred along the San Andreas fault.

The San Andreas fault is the major tectonic and structural feature of California running over 600 miles from the California/Mexican border in the south to a triple junction point located offshore near the California/Oregon border. Across most of this area the trend of the San Andreas fault is predominately a relatively straight line trending north-northwest. However, in the area just north of Indio, the San Andreas fault has an approximately 15 km (9 mile) wide step -over zone, stepping to the west and cutting across the San Gorgonio Pass then up to the eastern end of the city of Yucaipa. Beyond this to the northwest, the trend of the fault once again resumes a north -northwesterly course. This twisting motion, referred to as the "Big Bend" has resulted in a complex tectonic setting which is currently poorly understood.

However, in general, the result of this geometry is that along the San Gorgonio Pass the motion changes from right lateral strike slip to thrusting, or from a side to side lateral motion to one where the southern plate is being pushed under the San Bernardino mountains.

A recent study by the USGS indicates the area south of the San Gorgonio Pass is underlain at depths by rocks composed of the Transverse Ranges basement rocks, suggesting transpression has driving a wedge of Peninsular Ranges rock over the San Bernardino Mountains in series of shallow thrust faults that are not continuous (Langenhaim, 2005). To the northeast in the Yucaipa region, this complex motion has resulted in several types of motion including nearly all types of fault motions, from right lateral strike slip, or horizontal, to thrusting and normal, or tensional faulting.

Twisting of the region may be accounting for the opening of the Yucaipa valley itself along the Crafton Hills and Chicken Hills fault. The Banning fault, lying along the base of the San Bernardino Mountains, southeast of the site, appears to be the dominate thrust in the western end of the pass, joining the San Gorgonio Pass fault zone to the east. However, while geophysical studies of the fault indicate a shallow dip to the north, it may have some re -activated strike slip motion. Just to the lr
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Page 739

S.C.R.V. r 'roiect No. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
northwest of the site the San Bernardino segment of the San Andreas fault resumes the strike slip motion running along the southern base of the San Bernardino mountains up through the area of Devore. The fault then cuts between the Sari Bernardino Mountains to the east and the San Gabriel Mountains to the west, across Cajon pass. From this point northwest, the fault lies along the northen flanks of the San Gabriel mountains.

The topography of the land in the Yucaipa region has been drastically altered by differing tectonic forces, which have resulted in the uplifting of the mountains to the north, and the opening of the Yucaipa valley as well as the rapid uplift and "unroofing" of the Yucaipa Ridge to the north of the site. Subsequent erosion of the mountains has resulted in the deposition of a series of broad alluvial fans of various ages which have coalesced into a larger surface towards the lower portions of the valley.

As noted on the Regional Geologic Map, Enclosure A-3 within Appendix A, the USGS, perhaps as a response to the faulting and uplift, a very large portion of the western end of the Yucaipa Ridge was mapped as an ancient landslide complex covering over 5-square miles of land located just above the site and extruding down onto the northern portion of the "Remainder Parcel" portion of the site. This feature most likely covers some of the earlier traces of the San Andreas fault, however newer faulting has cut this feature in several strands. Erosion of the ridge, and the landslide area, has deposited a thick broad fan of alluvial materials across the northeastern portion of Yucaipa. This fan has been subsequently modified by incision of younger streams as well as tectonically modified by offsetting along the fault and uplifted, or down dropped, along a succession of terrace risers.

The basement rocks in this region are varied, with a thin wedge of sedimentary rocks, referred to by the USGS study as members of the Mill Creek formation and by Dibbiee as the Potato Sandstone, located north of the San Andreas fault, and composing the Yucaipa Ridge, while south of the fault a complex of igneous and metamorphic crystalline rocks, none of which are exposed at the subject site, are anticipated at depths.
10 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. i_! C
November 3�0, 2005
Regional Faulting
Project No. 32137.3
As previously noted the San Andreas fault is the closest fault in relation to the site, mapped by the past studies with the main trace lying within the ancient landslide complex just north of the site, and perhaps having some small splays along the far northern end. As noted, the San Andreas fault is considered to be a major active fault which moves in a lateral fashion with the northwest portions offset to the southeast during earthquakes. This type of motion is called right lateral strike slip.

The San Andreas fault is a major tectonic feature of California, separating the Pacific plate and the North American plate. While estimates vary, the San Andreas fault is generally thought to have an average slip range on the order of 24 mm/yr and capable of generating large magnitude events on the order of 7.5 or greater.

In the Yucaipa region, Matti, Morton, and Cox (1992) recognized at least four strands of this fault, frorn east to west and identified them as the Mill Creek, Wilson Creek, Mission Creek, and finally the San Bernardino segment running along the base of the mountains. From a location several miles northwest of the site, the San Bernardino segment extends along the base of the mountains in a North 70 degrees West trend across the entire San Bernardino Valley. However, southeast of Mill Creek, approximately 2 miles northwest of the site, the San Bernardino segment becomes much more complex. Matti et al (2003) suggest that in this area, the San Andreas fault is continuing the left stepping motion with a tendency of en echelon strands.

Historical Seismicity
In order to obtain a general perspective of the historical seismicity of the site and surrounding region, a search was conducted for seismic events at and around the area within various radii. This search was conducted utilizing the historical seismic search program by EPI Software, Inc. This program conducts a search of a user selected cataloged seismic events database, within a specified radius and selected magnitudes, and then plots the events onto an overlay map of known faults. For this investigation the database of seismic events utilized by the EPI program was obtained from the Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) available from the Southern California Earthquake Center. At the time of our search the data base contained data from January 1, 1932 through September of 2005.
11 L®R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
In Our first search, the general seismicity of the region was analyzed by selecting an epicenter map listing all events of magnitude 4.0 and greater, recorded since 1934, within a 100 kilometer (62 mile)radius of the site, in accordance with guidelines of the California Division of Mines and Geology. This map illustrates the regional seismic history of moderate to large events. As noted on Enclosure A-4, within Appendix A, the site lies within a relatively active region of southern California with over 1300 moderate size earthquakes occurring within 100 kilometers of the site in the last 70 years. The closest of these was a 4.1 magnitude event occurring in 1997 approximately 4 kilometers northeast of the site. Many of these close events appear to be associated with the 1992 Big Bear event, however, there is a series of events along the southern portion of the San Jacinto fault south of the site.

In the second search, the micro seismicity of the area lying within a 15 kilometer (9 mile) radius of the site was examined by selecting an epicenter map listing events on the order of 0.0 and greater since 1974. In addition, only the "A" events, or most accurate events were selected. Caltech indicates the accuracy of the "A" events to be approximately 1 km. The results of this search is a map that presents the seismic history around the area of the site with much greater detail, not permitted on the larger map. The reason for limiting the events to the last 30 ± years on the detail map is to enhance the accuracy of the map. Events recorded prior the mid 1970's are generally considered to be less accurate due to advancements in technology. As noted on this map, Enclosure A-5, the subject site lies within an area underlain by very numerous small events in the general area. No specific trend of the events is noted. In contrast, these events are scattered across the entire region with the closest event, perhaps, occurring under the site. This would be the anticipated result Of numerous earthquake faults with dipping fault planes and types of motions. This factor allows the earthquake focus to spread out across a wide area.

In summary, the historical seismicity of the site entails numerous small to medium magnitude earthquake events occurring around and perhaps even under the site at depths, predominately associated with the presence of the San Andreas fault system but with no clear cut patterns discernable unclear.
12 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 30, 2005
Site Geologic Conditions
Project No. 32137.3
As noted above, the subject site is situated along the base of the western end of the Yucaipa Ridge. The Yucaipa Ridge is a composed of a series of sedimentary rocks, which have been named by various authors as belonging to the Potato Sandstone formation, the Mill Creek formation, and perhaps even associated with the Cajon Valley formation sedimentary sequence in Cajon Canyon approximately 30 miles to the northwest. For our investigation, we are using the terminology of the recent USGS study (Matti et al, 2003) which classified these rocks as members of the Mill Creek formation, of Miocene age materials composed primarily of Archaeozoic sandstones that are olive gray to tan in color, hard, and composed of granitic clasts, with some units of conglomerates and some siltstone units. The bedrock outcroppings were limited to the hillside regions northeast of th site with no exposures on the site.

In addition, the San Andreas fault is anticipated to cut these units off, with metamorphic and granitic crystalline rocks composing the underlying bedrock to the southwest. As also discussed earlier, the very rapid uplifting of the Yucaipa Ridge may have resulted in a very large landslide which was mapped by the USGS study as existing on the northwestern portion of the "Remainder Parcel" of the subject site.

Erosion of these features has resulted in a relatively thick deposition of alluvial fans across the site of various ages. Due to the location of the site, in relation to the base of the Ridge, these units tend to be coarse grained and poorly sorted, composed of silty sands with varying amounts of sub -angular gravel, cobbles, and boulders of the Mill Creek formation.

The USGS study indicated the presence of three different types of alluvial fan materials across the site. The far southern portions of the site expose at the surface an alluvial fan that is part of the overall valley complex (Qof3). The USGS indicated that this is an Older Alluvial fan complex that was most likely deposited during the middle Pleistocene time (on the order of 500,000 to 1-million years ago). Along the base of the hills, noted at the site in the far northeastern portion were there is a relatively more recent looking alluvial fan emanating out of the ridge directly north of the site that is elevated slightly above the remainder of the site, and falling rapidly to the southwest (Qyf1). The USGS study labeled these materials as young fan materials of middle to late Holocene age. The majority of the site is underlain at the surface by a relatively recent deposit of a coarse grained alluvial fan that also emanates out of the hills directly to the northeast of the site, however this unit has 13 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S_C.R.V. •_LC Project No. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
either cut into the older fan deposits and/or been deposited over them. This unit (Oyf3) was classified by the USGS as late Holocene in age. The larger gullies of the site contain the most recent deposits, which are typically coarse grained sediments, reworked from the older fans, and in active transport.

SUMMARY OF THE ON -SITE TRENCHING
Two subsurface trenches were excavated across tite site during this investigation.

The first, and main trench, was placed along the entire length of the site from the northern property line to the southern property line. This trench, due to slight bending, extending a total length of 2,018 feet from the top of the bluff, on the "Remainder Parcel" portion south to the south property line and was excavated generally to a depth of 20 to 25 feet in order to excavate through the younger alluvial materials, although the depths were much shallower along the first 175 feet.

The conditions noted in this trench are graphically within Appendix S. These snow tha. along the first section of the trench, that extends down the face of the small bluff, the materials are composed of a poorly sorted mixture that contains sub -angular boulders, cobbles, and gravel sized clasts of the Mill Creek formation sandstone in a silty sand matrix. This unit is very dense, difficult to excavate, and appears to have undergone some degree of burial and cementing. A relatively thick colluvial wedge has built up over this unit composed of similar materials. These materials were noted to have been highly sheared along a zone that extended from 75 to 85 feet south of the northern end of the trench. These shears consisted of 1/4-inch to 1/2-foot thick zones of greenish gray silty clay gouge and fractured materials which were sub - horizontal to dipping north at angles up to 15 degrees. Beyond this the trench encountered similar unfractured materials 138 feet south, were a smaller, but similar, sub -horizontal shear approximately 1 to 2 inches thick was noted with an attitude of north 40 degrees west, 12 degrees northeast. This feature did not cut through the 5 feet of overlying colluvial materials, however, if this feature was projected to the surface it would "daylight" at around 160 feet south of the northern property line.

From the sub -horizontal feature at ) 38 feet, south to the southern property line, our trench encountered older alluvial units, that were horizontally bedded, overlain by up to 20 feet of younger coarse grained alluvial fan deposits. While both of these units ranged widely from very fine grained sandy clay (rare) to lenses of large boulders 14 LOR GEOTECHNiCAL GROUP, INC. Page 744

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32 ; 37.3
November 30, 2005
several feet in diameter, with 4-foot boulders not un-common, it was generally noted that the materials along the bottom of the trench tended to be much finer grained, for example the bottom of the trench from the station (feet south of the north end) of about 420 feet to 1,750 feet exposed a very fine grained silty sand. In addition, there was a relatively sharp change at this depth in the density of the materials. This along with the presence of some highly weathered "rinds" on the cobbles and the presence in many units of "Bt" layering was an indicator of much greater age for the lower sediments. Therefore the upper materials noted in this trench are interpreted to represent the "Qy3" younger alluvial deposits classified by the USGS as of middle Holocene, while the denser alluvial materials noted at the bottom of the trenches are interpreted to represent the "Qof3" or older alluvial fan deposits which were given an age based on soil development as late to middle Pleistocene, or with an absolute date ranging in age form 50,000 to 500,000 years in age. No additional shearing or other evidence of faulting or landsliding was noted in these features, south of the sections at 138 feet.

To extrapolate and further analysis the sub -horizontal shear features noted in the first trench, a second trench was excavated along the face of the same bluff approximately 400 feet southeast of the first trench. The conditions in this trench were notably similar to those noted in the first trench with a very dense, poorly sorted unit of boulders, cobbles, and gravel, clasts of Mill Creek origin in a silty sand matrix, overlying units of older alluvial materials, which were overlapped by colluvium and much coarser grained younger alluvial deposits, however the contact between the poorly sorted materials of the bluff and the older alluvial materials at this location were not as highly sheared, consisting a small, very thin, Y2 inch thick, layer, of a dark gray to black silt layer which again was nearly horizontal.

A second study was started for the northern 11.85 acre parcel, the "Remainder Parcel" by this firm to study the effect of these features on the northern parcel. At the time of this primary investigation this second study was not completed, however, as part of this second study the second trench was extended up the bluff and across the upper plateau of the Remainder Parcel to the north property line of that parcel.

This portion of the trench noted various units of an older alluvial material which were tilted to the north at angles ranging from near horizontal to12 degrees, with no fracturing noted.
15 L OR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, ►NC. Page 745

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 30, 2005

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
Project No. 32137.3
This study noted that the entire lower lying portion of the site is underlain by un- broken, unfractured older alluvial materia•s that are Pleistocene in age, assumed to be on the order of 50,000 years or older. In addition, no geornorphic evidence was noted at the site during our mapping, or in or review of aerial photographs.

The relatively thick zone Of sub -horizontal shears noted in our first trench along the base of the bluff approximately coincide with the location of the ancient landslide complex mapped by the recent USGS study. The eastern portion of this bluff, were our second trench noted older alluvial materials overlying potential landslide materials on a much a much less distinct shear, was mapped by the USGS as being covered by an older alluvial fan that is covering a portion of the landslide. This appears to indicate that the findings our study are in general agreement with the USGS interpretation of this region. However the slight tilting of the older alluvial materials appears to indicate that they have been rotated slightly, perhaps by rolling up along the basal portion of the landslide.

However, on his field review, the city geologist, Mr. Scott Magorian noted that the zone of the shearing in our first trench was unusually well developed for a landslide, and noted that it had an appearance of Transpressive related thrust fault instead. The mechanics of such features have been described by past authors such as by !Saieeby 1981). If a fault system with strike slip motion develops a region of oblique convergent the resultant compression creates a wrench zone which then results in uplift along a very complicated sequence of superimposed faults which dip near vertical at depths, then roll over horizontal at the surface in a wrench zone. This model has been suggested by past authors as the result of the rapid uplifting of the Yucaipa Ridge along the "Sig Bend" of the San Andreas (Spotila, !.A., and Sieh, K., 2000) .

This model would have the advantage of explaining the faults noted in the earlier study by other firms to the west, and why faulting was not noted in the trench excavated on the property adjacent the site to the east, as these types of faults can end and/or turn abruptly and are best mapped by geomorphology. This might also explain why these features die out to the east on the subject site, as the main motion of faulting is turning northward between these t%^vo trenches. However this model 16 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC Project No. 32137.3
November 30, 2005
would not preclude that a secondary result of this uplift resulted in the ancient landslide perhaps taking advantage of a pre-existing shear system as a basal plane.

As previously noted, the aspects of this model, and the impact it would have on the 11 .85 acre "Remainder Parcel" are being studied on a separate study for this parcel that was not completed at the time of this report. If the findings of this secondary study indicate that the horizontal features noted along the base of the bluff are tectonic in origin, and indicate recent activity, then standard minimum setbacks of 50 feet would appear appropriate for structures on both sides. If the findings indicate that the features represent a landslide feature then additional analysis may be warranted to verify the USGS conclusion that this is an ancient feature that is grossly stable in this configuration. However until that time it appears to be prudent to advise that any planned structures should be offset a reasonable distance from the base of this feature.

CONCLUSIONS
Our study has documented that there are no features within the proposed development areas of the tract that would fall into the classification of an "active" earthquake hazard as defined by the State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone act. However we did note a relatively large sequence of "sub -horizontal shears" extending along the base of the bluff that lies in an area on the site were no development is currently planned. As it has not yet been determined if these features represent active faulting along this location, or an ancient pseudo stable landslide, at this time we are recommending that all structures should be set back a safe distance from the toe of this feature, even though this setback zone may be drastically reduced, or even removed entirely based on future studies.

It should also be noted that there is an equal potential for the entire site to experience very strong ground motions from an earthquake at or very near the site along the San Andreas fault. Therefore, we would recommend that the other geotechnical hazards associated with the close proximity to a large seismic source should be investigated in a geotechnical report.
17 ®I� LGEOTECI-IMCA! GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LAC
Novernber 30, 2005

RECOMMENDATIONS
?roiect No. 32137.3
Due to the presence of ,)o-,entia!ly active faulting or lands!iding noted along the base of the bluff on the far northwestern end of the site, a Restricted Use Zone (RUZ) is recommended for any future development of the site. It is our opinion That no structures for human occupancy should be constructed within this zone set up by taking the region south of the surface projection of the sub -horizontal shears and offsetting a distance of 150 feet. The location of this zone is given on Plate 2.

The scope of work for the exploratory trenches, including excavation and backfiiling, was provided for our studies by the client. Therefore, the backfilling of these will be the responsibility of the client. However, it is our recommendations that these should be backfi!led as soon as possible. At a minimum we recommend that trenches should be backfilled by pushing the materials in lifts that do not exceed 5-feet in vertical depth, then compacted by whee! rolling, or "track -walking" with the equipment to return the trenches to as near as practical to the pre -trenched conditions and to minimize sett!ement. However, it should be noted that this manner is not enough to be considered "engineered -fill" and may not be suitable for the support of any future improvements such as structures, roads, and/or utilities. Therefore, the geotechnical report should incorporate the surveyed locations of these trenches along with the final development plans for future recommendations which would most likely include the removal of these materials and re compaction within any structural areas.

The geotechnical hazards associated with the close proximity to a large seismic source should be investigated in an additional geotechnical report which will be necessary once preliminary development plans are prepared. This report will require additional site sampling by additional trenching and/or drilling, to determine the other site specific conditions for building and grading recommendations.

CLOSURE
This report contains geotechnical conclusions and recommendations developed solely for use by S.C.R.V. LLC. for the purposes described earlier. It may not contain sufficient information for other uses or the purposes of other parties. The contents should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other facilities without consulting I.OR Geotechnical Group, lnc.
12 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

S.C.R.V. LLC
November 30, 2005
Project No. 32137.3
The report was prepared using generally accepted geologic engineering practices under the direction of a state licensed engineering geologist. As such, the client is aware that no warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.

Andrew A. Tardie
Staff Geologist
J , *eyJ. G 1893
Engineering Geologist
JJJ:AAT/mmm
Distribution: Addressee (6)
19 NAL Q,FO
J. JOy��O
Cc O �� c1'� G1
LLIo- No. 1893 O

CERTIFIED Z
° ENGINEERING •

GEOLOGIST
STgr�� CAU�OP�\P
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Page 749

REFERENCES
California Division of Mines & Geology +CDMG), 'i 997, Guidelines for Evaluation anti Mitigation Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.

California Division of Mines & Geology (CDMG), 1986, Guidelines to Geologic/Seismic reports, Note No. 42.

Hart, E.W. and Bryant, 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Earthquake Fault Maps, CDMG Special Publication 42.

Lanhenhaim, V., 2005, Personal Communication.

Larson, R. And Slossen, J., 1992, The Role of Seismic Hazard Evaluation in Engineering Reports, and in Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, AEG Special Publication, November 4, pp 191-194.

LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2004, Geologic Report, Surface Fault Hazard, Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 16570, Yucaipa, California, Unpublished Consultants Report, Project No. 318931 .3, dated May 28, 2004.

Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., Cox B.F., 1992, The San Andreas Fault System in the Vicinity of the Central Transverse Ranges
Matti, J. C., Morton, D.M., Cox B.F., Carsen, S.E., and Yetter, T.J., 2003, Geologic Map and Digital Database of the Yucaipa 7.5' Quadrangle Map, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties California, V.1 U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin Open File Report 03-301 .

Munsell Color, 1992, Munsell Soil Color Charts, 1992 Edition: Baltimore Maryland, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation.

Petersen, M.D., W.A. Bryant, C.H. Cramer, T. Cao, M.S., Reichle, A.D. Frankel, J.J.

Lienkaemper, P.A. McCrory, and D.P. Schwartz, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 96-08 and U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 96-706.
20 L.lOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

Shlemon, R.J., 1993, Applications of Soil Stratigraphy to Engineering & Environmental Geology: Publications of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section Short Course Notes, June 5, 1993.

Spotila, J.A., and Sien, K., 2000, Architecture of Transpressional Thrust faulting in the San Bernardino Mountains, Southern California, from Deformation of Deeply Weathered Surface, Tectonics, 19, 589-615.

Spotila, J.A., 2005, San Andreas Fault Transpression,
http://www.geol.vt.edu/profs/JS/JS-Saftranspression.litml .

Tinsley, J.C., Matti, J.C., and McFadden, L.D., 1982, Late Quaternary Pedogenesis and Alluvial Chronologies of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Mountains areas, Southern California and Holocene Faulting and Alluvial Stratigraphy within the Cucamonga Fault Zone, a Preliminary View: Geological Society of America Guidebook and Volume, Field Trip Number 12 for the 78"' Annual Meeting of the Cordilleran Section, April 19-21, 1982.

Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978- 84 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California, Scale: 1:250,000.

LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Page 751

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
(Source: San Bernardino County Puhlic Vlorks Aerial photographic collection) DATE

FLIGHT NUMBER

PHOTO NO(S)-
SCALE 1" =
1933
W-88
P-1-10,1 1
1, 200'
1955
AXL-43K
30-31
1, 667'
1968
AXL-9JJ
58-59
1,667'
1986
450
75-77
2,000'
1996
528
131-132
2,000'
2005
553
11-62,63, 64
2,000'
L V R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.

APPENDIX A
Index Map, Earthquake Fault ZnP:e
and RegienaI Ge—clog
gic Map
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUR !NC.

�i• oL S. <� - t.-r -n ..

I `
' -- — --(--7
� t I ; r•,ya igpr;�t ��. •h .,../ � , Ls. `�4 L �� � `�, .il ~ .' � .. ��' r 2598
li3.4y04 30.'c'— f�•' t � �• 1 .• .n �. � I � • \'
� '/�^`w tt. ��. � 1 ' t �•' i I"Cc�� � _ l�Yr J i . • \, � � �erj, �1 7~ ` ank a j� Y
\Sd,2312 I t `� Rnt
�ju
N --1s ,
fiI n •�= Q'+�+li 1 (tJ I ?91 ,'• - t• -�-
__ ' •i• �. � li • i �I t
Well r I CrE�
i :'- r1.2
f Itr,
S• �' I
t °a 'T rnlkr llar61
,'ark
Mai
I s 1 �\ I 8 `U
' t ' n,lc�� �r 1�
TI ..

I'

INDEX MAP
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14927, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 32137.3 l
CLIENT: S.C.P,.V. LLC ENCLOSURE: A-1
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE_ NOVEMBER 2005
1 SCALE: - 1 " = 2,000'

.,I g.4stqj, id
oil
14UU7

EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE MAP
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14927, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 32137.3 � CLIENT: S.C.R.V. LLC ENCLOSURE: A-2
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.

DATE: NOVEMBER 2005
SCALE: i " = 2,000'

­4jI 4
r.
a
i ma
VNLi UvyvQytj 55
38 -?,t A,
04 741
QY f4
"T
V�
A A
Qyf4
NOr.

A.

Quya
� :- - . t.v
2t
A
4,0
_47
TmrT
V.
00% QYf3
t]vyf
kh sg
Qo�
Qyf
,6vyaK,
4 4�-
"Y'
Y U CA'l P A C)yt3
Q4Df3
v -GRABEN M P LEX r
.70 j Qvvf/,..--
'7
Q0f2
Mfg
Q
vyw

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14927, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 32137.3 CLIENT: S.C.B.V. LLC ENCLOSURE: A-3
DATE: NOVEMBER 2005
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. -
SCALE: I " = 2,000'

�i Lake Arrowhead
i Big Bear Lake* L .,
I
y:

M 2
Cal -State` Arrowhead Springs
/
M3
•
�L San Bernardino
1 M 5
�•';r
, SB Valley College
SITE
' 2 Redlands
Lama Linda
`}• i.' Yucaipa
� a
! �.it%4 . ,,tom. .. -
_ •
Riverside.

Box Springs
Moreno Valley
Vi Banning

1. March Field % Mt Russell 1, Beaumont
N
Seismicity 1974-2004 (Magnitude 0.0+) 15 kilometer radius EPI Software 2000
SITE LOCATION: 34.07753 LAT.-117.03,147 LONG.

MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: A 0 7
15 TOTAL # OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 21476 KILOMETERS'
TOTAL# OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS 6471
MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS:

0.0- .9 : 545

1.0- 1.9: 4695

2.0- 2.9 : 1145

3.0- 3.9 : 77

4.0- 4.9 : 9

5.0- 5.9 : 0

6.0- 6.9 : 0

7.0- 7.9 : 0

8.0- 8.9 : 0
CLOSEST EVENT: 1.6 ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1981 LOCATED APPROX. A KILOMETER OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS:

4.8 ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 06, 1991 LOCATED APPROX. 13 KILOMETERS NORTHWEST OF THE SITE

4.7 ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 01, 199E LOCATED APPROX. 'I 1 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE

4.7 ON SUNDAY, AUGUST 16, 1991 LOCATED APPROX. 10 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE

4.6 ON MONDAY, JUNE 29, '199. LOCATED APPROX. 5 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE

4.4 ON TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 199; LOCATED APPROX. 4 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE Enclosure A-4

"' Palmdale
�i Pasadena
Los Angeles
St J

8.trslow
rn
I.
i
r`. San BSITErdirto i
X Palm Springs
Indio
Oceanside
I
N
EPI SofdWarc 2000 Seismicity 1934-2004 (Magnitude 4.0+) 100 kilometer radius SITE LOCATION: 34.07753 LAT.-117.03447 LONG.

MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C 0 50 100
TOTAL 9 OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 1330 KILOMETERS
TOTAL 9 OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS 557
MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS:

4.0. 4.9 : 506

5.0- 5.9 : 46

6.0- 6.9 : 3

7.0- 7.9 : 2

8.0- 8.9 : 0
CLOSEST EVENT: 4.1 ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 05, 199 1 LOCATED APPROX. 4 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS:

7.3 ON SUNDAY, JUNE 28, 1992 LOCATED APPROX. 56 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE

7.1 ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 199f LOCATED APPROX. 90 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE

6.4 ON SUNDAY, JUNE 28, 199i LOCATED APPROX. 23 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE

6.1 ON THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 199; LOCATED APPROX. 67 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE

6.0 ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 04, 1941 I.00ATED APPROX. 62 KILOMETER, EAST OF THE SITE Enclosure A-5

APPENDIX B
Fault French Logs
LOR GEOTECNNICAL GROUP, INC.

Enrlosuru B- 1
SO`117H 10' WET - — ► i 1(1{ 1l N A I( I I ' 1
.II
••� ��� ' h` � i I - .nl tie Itc wxrc u�^}I.a.. - I- I. __ U I ll]GNT IN N VAh Y(II A I i
\ ,� • •, - - �-tl`NI!II. • • •• /- `� - - tl �tfi l'.V. 'N A. UNY.LUiSL j i

• I ' •IIUIINiM-nllil ,^ , r. I••... / 1
� I � Itt IN �XlH'll I• •' I I:ll{ ILtM 11:'u I /� ' \
I
., �i• I.It IU', t v ilr I:N t:5 IY, IV 1{U lip

®i
i
j Enclosure [3-4
j i I j i
1 �
- nr'
-� ' ; SIHVNe1:M bbltd;l
13 f> v
I I 1
`� ' I '4µ)1 III IIUAY IILf 1 Nlf (N1AM1 Y! '• ,
if w! •awvl.l •wove
„�i �i„� i (V IIINI IIIINi I I
NN'Niwl (V:A✓tl. Nf5 Glrn.• I

i
FlIclosme. V-`.,
1 t
4 l-,' ��
�
� 1
I
}"
... it ;•'
1 �
I
�> „
�f
'..:., 'i ..
(
;
,.•�_
�`._ �
-
�, -
��'

Enclosure 8-6

I I I I
I
- I- IWKK.GNNII MIAI I _- _ -�
I I I I 1
JlN,l k•tN i i ' i i I I
IfM•, I i ,•1 I I 1
1 1 I
cl
" " p Iu \ �l \` n /!%) ' ! f. � I \ I , I �. Jk IK:H� � V `� f'�•�.

Y ° I 1, J .•� \/ � J .nu �jj. I. ( `7°pQS��c�y 4t1 u � S �., _ I. ., ... _ u 'i n.. .. � � n ti ��.�. ,.�. ... { � : •... �.

V 1 c
tM I - .. i - - . n, ,.,.•. � , - . .. . �... _ __... I I I PJII I,1 INNtN:

I I I I I I
I i j I I

ter.

Enclostito B-7

1-itc-losure B-8
I WMW I JW Of
OOAi
10 r1r, y
I�N
fA
1:0

77. - ------
U,
tIF44
hl

11II CIO sl6Q 13 9
� I
.,..
1 tl{! 1•
1, - .. � � ��
.. /I a
'.. __-.
�. .�
rr� .. I j
-
- a t
t�ca�c>o gac
a
1 „s
•
.l

I .I
I ' i Enciosure B-10
I
i j I
IIHIXNi Lt1UURN AN UINYkI LY i j I I i
.:A�Ilty tAAllVll I � I
I I I I �� � - -_ --- - l}Ilfrl NfllC.I1T r<I-N It14NM, YIAI.,HVIIl IH I I � IAIA$.PJk, IIIGI HkNCk i[N � NAY I,IrcN.H, {`
--
�i Tr UNH ktA IM1�F, IVVU�t
H Y - i ICY•.T � � II'<AI'k 1�4V`. I i w
\ 7
v, o
HIIJt;8116�',$. N;.A'�f �Y' g3.� . n \' ( � � . �i �, c I .- r, • I ' ol / u %" r `�T�Nnsy,{ti:"�s9 ,. /-� •• �� �� ,��
i� _. t 1 k I' kj,►yYtrk ACCCkkkYYAR9l,. -. j( \
.� .)l. I I. .. ,. _ � 1, •�i,• rT /i` ��� �'� � � ., / „ � l,.i II' �.. ., .. •.

II
l n \\I
I .: 1 1 I ._ �,• _ 114o I ' _¢. _��` I a .. - - as
,
I _ ,
i � I ul,vavnrr I „lu.riu!„� :I:rn it i � uNN CAI urd ICN.' i I SiNH � t uN .,Y,Ik NI 1 /) IIYUIr 11 �l}C1A1 _ ! I I I;Av161 ' .' " •U II. M! W W VH tl i,IAMfx I I •• , I Yl lltI:YGN1(r
.11 At.,IV 1 1'D.""'
.r11N IAN NtMNI
ANU N]li) I• �I+ �� Ul NI
sIA NUN, d•k.0 lr / j I I I
,.. e r a.•. ru � mA +m na rm us rn ne )an , I . rrn

rev
i
�I
yr,
\ v�f
c�
) r �
�'
> .. :. . .. •�
r
rlXllfr
� ii
r
' •�i} -- i � � i� � �r `\ � - - 1, yf(tv,r � ..� .1..:..a: �u _ `- - I f I f ' �..• n. ' r .un . ��i�.w�; .�.,, , � ...,� � � yr 'r .,,.� nn.. ...,n, u.,u.x rr u,, �. :�n i. . _ ..... .

B-12
C3

1.3 NZ,
ib
C4tAUAIIQ m�.LY UMUts
In

I
I
III
i
tt I
�
7 -,,,..., •..,
i
ter..
�
� t L'"
, %;', ,

c-i 0
Enclosure B-74
I !
�)wo O Urr oO,�:C�rlo t,U / 0
0 t.O -( c �- 615 n"LS'o �" a� OOi%. 0 4 o cr o ? C, ' ° - 1 o )ca uu yir) u n uouuou°.,uou.`.
� \
''-� Qr'n �[� �7 o I c)t"h�> 4)n I: � , {Ifj I u,a�\•Nn o 0
•r) ° a tr ul NL 1) i - I , I I(�." .. {'. �[. I _' .�1 �l f'�C.r�C iid a u �. i, i, ' '. �tl13rd(/� II �•y
111 Cs r o 1,,
,rvu,u
"- Al, / I I,,, `•.hv,u I Jill '.t 11>AMU
ulw:,Wm i I I I ' q
I i unl , :vi I
1 AViu ! n� I
.1 I 1 I. IU UII i I kl f U k tit . I
I 4'1 l,l IYrll I -N I.iWU:11111 I i 1. -'
IVI/J IXIAI ul•y,rr
Ytl1.UW lN(14F :HVi fA, 'nt,t I ,
II i I I,M:aai I I �i

Enclosure B- 15
-Von I I I(Y k
C)r)cl (Io,
- I)o,
P
(T)
W,
o�)
un o o r
on
R "I
Y,

EnclosureI B-16 I
W
I
" " I
f I
Cnogoo ono on
C'�?C)UonO0000no.nloar)nno
( '' 1 � _ q• � f, �y�' zwou0000ciaogoiiob0000c,[i� _ N I ""�'• ,. ,• )ouaofx)ooprianiJt)ogi)uoa[y., uoo
. r7I7t-IOU uxctr�\/ oquU ,00 oaaoDoo o .UooC)oUOC )(.t11 )tJ L)" r 7 .. i r c_) U U U• U 1 _ .v > *--p{]nIY- ) >
\ oao[x)OoaUoo ci •0 U o c, Oo000
to o 0 o c r m c) Gila C) o 0 0,0 '0 aortc�r 11 _
II
000�tgro�o�.o`o.n-ao
h UC)pUnC9 .� n Ucnn Up
O U UCp O O O 0 U.U�200o0000U,COu c)I a c7
�
o0 'oIc:)J rovooonnn0[m'tl •Qn4'-c ?i�o�- OnoVor- ?o.gOnuoc)�I°x[Qx).n, Cvn> o�nOoP\p\0oUuUo 0.1 -OO nO!I . UO[ i nU ,UY 0f:0,0i 0uc> �0n)')r .I
-
n0r,.)> (1 C
Oo Oo'V U C:O cirt> IF
� o
oICU QU-n.o C4' 0i)i)C.)) uop �.0 O_C
o 0oC-)
o0�0.00 0� 0 00_o�o J oor�
1u_ o.. ``)t?g 0i 0youi tro,...ntrtt 0 [i SLy.Q r:>_v '•J:1'�L�' SL0♦�'�oc)<r.1 V .it cn 0 uu o00l.Opci.00C 1 0 b0
U000.oawc Oo00UODa)
Uannuuou n0 O Ot00 _
,
-
0 ,Nora �rJ4u Iv nu I :�,wnnNu, unvu ' 1_•. J�'' _Or) U p I J I ( - UM:1 U
u., Ilw nr� n I uc, ,ro n„ nw nu.. lac n.. �m.� nu., n,n 1• EO

Enclosure B-18
I f NORTH =. - I -
J.,
5�.
�
�-i'
o
aoacso
o•
j
� �
I o
�
v
I o

11. �
v
I o
0 1�
�
`;n
Vt(
U
c
a
__90c, �-
0:

O C) L).
jcl
G
�..
ti u o o S;L
p
o
L7
V
\
U 4
l') U.
o n
uu kl;O

®I
i I
i
� � � Fnclo::un• ft-�19
I
_

DFNSE SANE)
LENSFS
'
i \
I

I
i I i i
i
I
l
C 1Ii,
.0 I '(-)" t)')O000.o6o O- O o
c I.. a� 4rQp`��au u•u/`-'��U `�00+ °�.. ,. °I .}J - �- r � ) t I I � II I Al
uoo o�r o_o��u uouoo ou o(
'` _u. I ,r t• I Id �,
CI t. nrru Lp
� ill l C � _ Zr u� � � -- I,.l )O(1 C)lP•'U -�. 1, 4 I� o °�u 0'O... �l i o '. u°
jI
-
I � I
nr. ,.w ua+ NAJ MI t.Yl r..0 WNI 11bh ,.I1a HIs HWI Ilu.

Enclosure B-20

i i I
i
I j
I
i Enclosure 13-22
I
�\%
u...•
r''
L.
,..
.4
--�U O�(S V -, i r
� r . ,c) c,< , r r -i. '.
_ �i.
._\ _ u•f
_
�� I i
ff .,
_..`. 4
O
o o o'Old boO •'.
� I
r,
`'
rr`
�. •i ��C
C, J C�CJ. � ' � 00 O ��1
�i r.�rr �.
u •r rr rr
t• _
;,l(i I
(]O
t, (J Ol )lY Call V
L— ,[
•
JQ(1
\u A
I
i
�l l
U jJ _
•U
5��C •
r•,r• ,r.� wm mr ,oau

Enclosure 6-24
Cf*l W)WVcL.M
tro.;
'4t
IKKRtIkA
F'Iff",
011op
C> 0r) 0 n f
c
�A

,
j ! ! � ! I Etacicasurr. B-`l_5
BENd IN TRP CH
I I i I I i I
.. I i+li:, ut •.11 INI .I.. �. rllr�.l.� .� .. .� �� � � � - � - i
Y t
i
I ,

Enclosure 13-26 „
I I
I B�ND IP! I lo-do I I
I
{ ) AV ,-xr i
I -` -- ! is ruor eri4p4i,ulnua m
CD
• . _ 1I
.r
t 7 0
y ,,,,,,,yam
OC70(-)OC)�C' C7 V C) iO U C Q r
�000vuvU c% oc� c) o��$) c),,?,cfv
0 �V C,C%, O�D��rliip o0 � C� � . _ I / I � u . o i t � � � •• ,. iD
) a400, "T
•,un ,„.9, ,.w. ,n.�. ,.•:, urn v+o, rna u,.. ,:•.,� „n n„ ,,,. r.n: �n. ,�,.�

LmAosure B-28 I II
'Imull1rt -1.3 CIA01
� ' �• � `\�� : �� IL jma,: slur sArluwlri Maur vc � I
�,• Afl )N I W Uril.• 4(VI.Y 1:: NiJ i
' - � •t '.�`� ' •� / G •\YI�1 I A.I I NY{ Tl l4 �.TVFA 141:M1VN

1.01111.1U11 Iw l L'11[1 NI1' (ArlK
M144S1 )01 Al if fl fY L1k1 GRfIN
.� � `\ w1n LL nvu ur Nwnmluw
1 ', I � � (VJIKI IIVk{ig1f 11! it M(/NVFI � � I
wlV ll
\' It\ II.LOW !{MJ1 ..q
'a t1NtN ' - -
I
(t11N lIV Y « j eA.1-;, tY J.HOw ill Af4%tl +nn l-G5. 10'A ; I 1 1 �. l•V i.UN.tl Lt. k I M �111tY.w ll'+Ylt if:l \\ �) / •: I i . SIVI Sl u:l,i ANII II.VH. I II V (� :`/- (j � 11

i Enclosure B-30
1 I
'
I r i
I
I
• I t I
I I I
' 1
1 I 1 `tN •YJ4. 5�i:lY S1JW VAlII FIa AIi rSL � i i '
i
I o:.nlxau.n:w.r ,Jr�O
,Zo
..
� I
1 IN I.iU1M i
l+`
I:n
{.:• uu, lnl un Iau m., IUU l., xao
I,I

1 ' t Iw •i//I'l)1
� huuy41
� - 1%���" ���=✓i,�Sy�.Tf '% tit,✓/,I f /1,i'�,� �l/`~�� i�r"- ---� r
i
VLAfE 2

r
i
r
r
R
t
I
PRELIMINARY SOILS I?v'VESTIGATION
TENTATIVE TRACT 1-4297
YUCAIPA, CALLOT.

Prepared for:

N.Y. GROUP
1205 West Cedar Avenue
Redlands, California 92373
Prepared by:

RANPAC Soils, Inc.
41710 Enterprise Circle South
Temecula, California 92390
September 8, 1989
Work Order No. 900-62.1

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
Section
Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 1

1.1 Proposed Development. . . . .' . .
1 1.2 Authorization
'

1.3 Scope of Services
2 1.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2
'

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION; . . . . , . . . , ....=,•..•
3 '

4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . •'•e esY•
s. 3

4.1 Field Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 3
'

4.2 Laboratory Testing Program . . . . . . . . . .
. . 3

5.0 GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

7.0 LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 5

8.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 5

8.2 Grading and Earthwork. . . . . . . . . . .
6 '

8.2.1 Alluvial/Colluvial Removals.
. 6

8.2.2 Rippability. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 6

8.2.3 Subdrainage. .
6 '

8.2.4 Grading. . . • . . . • . . . .
. 6

8.2.5 Site Preparation and Fill Placement.
7 8.2.6 Expansive Soil Conditions. . . . . .
. . 7

8.2.7 Shrinkage and Subsidence . . . . .
. 7.
'

8.3 Slope Stability.
. 8

8.3.1 Bedrock/Soil Stability . . . . . . .
. . 8

8.3.2 Fill Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 '

8.3.3 Cut Slopes . . . . . . . . .
. . 8

8.3.4 Fill Over Cut Slopes . . . . . . . .
. . 9

8.4 Foundations . . . . . .
9 '

8.5 Retaining Walls. . . . .
10 8.6 Grading Plan Review. . . . . . . . .
10 9.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 1 - Location Man
Ficure 2 - Geologic Cross Sections
'
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Test Pits
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
'
Appendix D - Geologic Cross Sections and Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix E Grading Specifications

IJ
u
I
ISeptember 8, 1989
RANPAC
11 SOILS, INC.

Mr. J. Lydell Lambeth
N.Y. Grouo
'
1205 W. Cedar Avenue
Redlands, California 92373
'
SUBJECT: PRELIMI:iARY SOILS INVESTIGATION
Tentative Tract i4297
Yucaipa, California
Work Order No. 900-62.1
Dear Mr. Lambeth:
' 1.0 INTRODuC'210
This report presents the results of our Preliminary Soils Investigation for the subject site. The geographic
' relationships of the site are shown on the enclosed Location Map, Figure 1.
' 1.1 Proposed Development
It is our understanding that the planned development
' includes the grading and subsequent grading for 40 single family residences for the tract. It is anticipated that cuts and fills will be on the order of 20 ft and 30 ft, respectively.

The 100-scale Grading Plan prepared by Engineering Design Center, San Bernardino, dated 6/1/89 indicates maximum
cuts on the order of 28 feet are planned in the area of Lots 37 and 38. Maximum fills up to 12 feet are planned on Lots 14 and 35. All slopes are planned at a 2:1
' (horizontal: vertical) or flatter slope ratio and several transition slopes of fill over cut are planned.

1.2 Authorization
The scope of investigation was verbally authorized by Mr.

J. Lydell Lambeth of N.Y. Group.
41710 Enterprise Circle South • Temecula, CA 92-190 o TEL 714 676-8337 • FAX 74 676-81527

I
I
"IN '''All-'

Mr. J. Lydell Lambeth
`i . Groin
September�8, 1989
Pace Two

1.3 Scooe of Serv_ces
' ^he purpose of our investigation was to provide field, ' laboratory and office services to determine the so ds i enalneering parameters of the site, evaluate the
i stability of the existing landslides in the north oorti on of the project for the proposed residential development, and develoo conclusions and recommendations for site
grad;ng, foundation, slab, retaining wall, and pavement design.
i 1.4 References
f for the purpose of this investigation, we were sunnlied kith a 130-scale Tentative Tract .fan prepared by
' Engineering Des.gn Center Inc., revised dated June 1, 1939, and a Report of Geologic Hazards Study of the site prepared by Crag Smith, C;vil Engineering and Geology,
' dated January 17, 1939. Additional references are
presented in Appendix A.

2.0 EXSC_T=VE Si;.r:'ri RY
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the
information, obtained during our investigat ion of the site. ' Our work was limited to the scope requested and is
specifically addressed to the proposed project-, as described herein. 1n summary, our findings are as follows:
to Develonrent of the site will not adversely affect
ad—oining sites.
o The north portion of the site (encompassing Lots 27-29 and 35-38) is the toe of an apparent smaller internal
multiple slide within a larger ancient landslide mass.

Additional subsurface exploration is recommended prior
i to site development to determine landslide depths and pertinent soil parameters if these northern lots are
considered for development.
` o Based on our landslide stability analysis, the smaller I internal landslide toe in the north portion of the site I. is susceptible to possible seismic induced landslidirg. f
i
i

n
Mr.

J. Lydell Lambe'�h
N.Y,
Group
September
8, 1989
Page
Tnree
�.0

SITE DESCRIPTION
The site consists of a rectangularly shaped, 52+ acre parcel of land which is bounded by undeveloped land to the north, east, and south, and by single-family residential properties to the west. Currently, man-made developments in the site include dirt access roads and an abandoned residential
dwelling in the central portion of the site.

Topographically, the central and south portions of the site consist of a generally uniform, 10+ percent south-southwest sloping alluvial basin, whereas the north portion of the site consist of moderate to steep sloping, south trending ridges and drainages.

4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION

4.1 Field Exploration
Our subsurface exploration of the site was performed on June 22, 1989. Eight exploratory trenches were excavated ' to a maximum depth of 18 feet. A Ford 755B rubber -tired backhoe with a 24 inch bucket was used for the trenches.

Soil samples were taken at required intervals and
transported to our laboratory for testing.

Excavation of the exploratory trenches was supervised by our Field Engineer who prepared field logs and obtained ' bulk samples for laboratory testing, and logged the
exploratory trenches. Our exploratory trench and
geologic cross section locations are shown on the
' geotechnical map, Plate i of this report.

4.2 Laboratory Testing Program
Representative samples of materials encountered during
our field investigation were obtained for laboratory
testing. Sieve analyses, expansion testing, maximum dry ' density, optimum moisture determinations and direct shear testing were performed on bulk samples or near surface
soils. Results of the moisture and density
' determinations, together with classifications, are shown on the Logs of Test Pits included in Appendix B. A 11 1 other laboratory test results and descriptions are
included in Appendix C.

I

I
J
1 I
FI
Mr. J. Lydell Lambeth
N.Y. Group
September 8, 1989
Page Four

5.0 GEOLOGY
The site geology and seismicity has been discussed in the referenced Report of Geologic Hazards Study of the project prepared by Craig Smith.

6.0 S7BSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our subsurface investigation of the site and review of the referenced reports, the central and south portions of the project are underlain by medium dense alluvial deposits composed of silty sands, sandy silts, and sands with variable amounts of cobbles and boulders. The north portion of the site consists of apparent landslide debris composed of
fragmented sandstones and metamorphic rock set in a sandy silt to silty sand matrix.

No known subsurface work has been performed in the vicinity of the site to establish the subsurface extent of landsliding under the exposed alluvial materials.
' No ground water was encountered in any of the exploratory trenches. A detailed presentation of the exploratory trenches is presented on the Test Pit Logs, Appendix B.
' 7.0 LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL
Based on our geologic reconnaissance of the site, subsurface 1 exposures and review of the referenced aerieil photographs and geotechnical reports, it is our opinion, ;.hat the northern most portion of the site represents the toe of a smaller ' internal multiple slide within a larger ancient landslide mass. The large ancient slide extends approximately 1 mile into the San Bernardino Mountains to the north (Matti, 1984), and may extend as far as Bryant Street to the south. Younger ' and older alluvial deposits which are believed to be underlain by the larger landslide within and south of the site appear to provide a natural buttress to this slide. Based on review of the referenced aerial photographs and our site
reconnaissance, the larger landslide mass which may underlie the southern portions of the site has been stable for over ' 15,000 years based on subdued geomorphic features. '%o geomorphic features indicating recent or past landsliding were observed within the southern portions of the site and south of the site. Currently, no known geologic subsurface
' investigations other than shallow exploratory trenches have

u
11 1
Mr. J. Lydell
N.Y. Group
Sentember 8,
Page Five
Lambeth
i989
been performed to determine the actual depth, lateral extent, and engineering properties of the landslide. Our slope
stability evaluations are based on soil strength values obtained from near surface samples during our field
evaluation. The actual slide plane configuration, especially for the larger ancient landslide, was extrapolated from geomorphic data north and east of the subject site. Our slope stability analyses of the larger slide indicated a Static Factor of Safety of 2.1 and a Pseudostatic Factor of Safety of 1.2 for landslide depths of 150 to 200 feet. For our analysis, we assumed a rotational slide configuration, a shear plane soil cohesion of 200 psf, and internal friction angle value of 16 degrees.

Based on our landslide stability analysis and aerial
' photograph review of the smaller internal landslide in the north portion of the site, it is our preliminary opinion that this interior slide mass may be susceptible to possible seismic induced landsliding with a Seismic Factor of Safety of only 0.70 where 1.1 is required.

A probable geologic cross section of the larger landslide ' configuration showing possible inner multiple slides is presented as Figure 2. Additional geologic. cross sections and our landslide stability analyses are presented in Appendix D.

The proposed cuts and fills in the north portion of the site should have minimal or no effect on the stability of either the larger ancient or smaller .internal landslides. Geologic cross --sections of the proposed cut and fill areas in the north portion of the site are presented in Appendix D. The slope stability of the proposed cuts and fills of the development are discussed in Section 8.3 of this report.

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' 8.1 General
Based on the results of this Preliminary Soils
Investigation, recommendations for the site gracing and design of retaining devices, pavement sections and slabs are presented in the following sections of this report.

_..�=_r.- z.-s=.... .a.-vaxz-v_mmT- -ea�cr -' — S�iG`.s_"@iti3_S� was^�.csa•�c+avacasz..:._...r..r._.. �-....era....-��-.gym......-sat.-_c<r-_.t�..-e_� Mr. J. Lydell Lambeth
;i . Y . Group
September8, 1989
Page Six

8.2 Grading
and Earthwork

8.2.1 Alluvial/Colluvial Removals
Alluvial removals beneath the building
'
=ocations are estimated to be on the order of
3 to 5 feet below existing grade or one-half
the fill height, whichever is greater. The
actual depths of removal should be estimated
'
in the field during grading by observation and
density testing. Total removal of
alluvium/colluvium is recommended inside
drainages and narrow canyons on the site.

Removal depths are anticipated to be on the
order of 3 to 5 feet in these areas.
'

8.2.2 RippabilitV
Based on the fractured and in -situ nature of
the on -site bedrock fragments encountered
during our field work, we anticipate easy to
moderate rippability in cut areas. No seismic
refraction studies have been performed and
precise data from a rippability evaluation
should include seismic refraction studies in
the future. Large boulders may be encountered
in localized areas, requiring -moderate to
difficult grading efforts in these regions.

8.2.3 Subdrainare
It is anticipated that subdrains will not be
required at the fill to bedrock contact, but
this should be determined during rough grading
of the site.

8.2.4 Grading
Al' grading should be accompished in
'
accordance with the guidelines presented in
Appendix E unless superceded within the text
of this renort.

I
J
I
H
0 Mr. J. Lydell Lambeth
N.Y. Group
September 8, 1989
Paae Seven

8.2.5 S-ite Preparation and Fill Placement
Prior to grading, the site should be cleared
of existing vegetation and debris. Existing
fill and loose alluvial material should be
removed to a depth of four feet below existing
grade in building pad areas and areas to
receive fill. Where the need for extensive
overexcavation is required due to localized
porous or loose material, or where the in -situ
density is below 85%, the use of an approved
geotextile fabric may be required to provide
an adequate base on which place compacted fill.

The limit of overexcavation should extend at
least 5 feet beyond the building limits.

Removals to a depth of 7 feet may be required
in localized areas. Footings should have a
minimum of 2 feet of compacted fill beneath the
bottom of footing. Areas to receive Lill
should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches,
moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture
and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
density (ASTM D 1557). on -site fill should be
brought to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry
density as determined by ASTM D 1557.

Oversized materials, 12 inches or more in
maximum dimension, should not be incorporated
in fills within 10 feet of finish grade or a
slope. Details for rock disposal are presented
in Appendix E.
'

8.2.6 Expansive Soil Conditions
On -site materials exhibit very low to low
'
expansion potential. Further expansion testing
should be performed at the time of grading to
verify these results.
'

8.2.7 Shrinkage and Subsidence
The alluvial soils encountered may shrink 12
'
to 15 percent during grading and compaction of
the subject site. Subsidence due to grading
on -site materials is anticipated to be on the
order or 0.2 foot.

Ei
IMr. J. Lydell Lambeth
N.Y. Group
September 8, 1989
Page Eight

8.3 Slope
Stability
'

8.3.1 Bedrock/Soil Stability_
As discussed in Section 7.0, Landslide
Potential, the central and south portions of
the site are underlain by recent and older
alluvial soils which are believed to be
underlain by older landslide materials. Based
on our review of the referenced aerial
photographs and our site reconnaissance, the
'
southern portions of the site have been stable
for at least 15,000 years.

In the north portion of the site, it is our
preliminary opinion that this area is
susceptible to possible seismic induced
landsliding which may effect the stability of
' Lots 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37 and

33. 8.3.2 Fill -Slopes
Based on the slope stability calculations
presented in Appendix D, slopes up to 30 feet
in he-ght at it 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) , slope
ratio should be grossly stable.

If the natural slopes are steeper than 5:1,
compacted fill should be keyed into firm
material as indicated in Appendix E.
'

8.3.3 Cut Slopes
Based on our slope stability analyses presented
in Appendix D, cut slopes within the central
'
and southern portions of the site are
anticipated to be grossly and surficially
stable at a slope ratio of 2:1
(horizontal: vertical) or flatter, to a maximum
heig'.1t of 30 feet.

Cut slopes within the landslide materials in
the north portion of the site are anticipated
to be relatively shallow and should be locally
stable provided the cut slopes are constructed

I
I
D
fl
L
r
L
Mr. J. Lydell Lambeth
Pi . X . Group
September 8, 1989
Page wine
at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope ratio or
flatter and no adverse jointing, shear zones,
or other structural adverse contacts exist
which might produce instability, However, due
to the possibility that these cut slopes are
within a potential active landslide area we
recommend that additional subsurface
exploration be performed within the northern
portion and north of the site prior to
development of Lots 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, and 38
to determine the overall stability of the
landslide mass in the north portion of the site
and to further evaluate the effects of the
proposed cuts and fills on the stability of the
landslide. This additional investigative work -
could be avoided if no construction is
anticipated for these upper lots.

8.3.4 Fill Over Cut Sloes
Fill over cut slopes above building pads should
be eliminated typically by the construction of
stabilization blanket fills against the cut
portion of the cut slopes. Construction of
blanket fills should begin with the excavation
of equipment with keys (minimum) at the toes
of the slopes. Details are presented in
Appendix E.

8.4 Foundations
For continuous footings supported on properly compacted fill, the total settlement is not anticipated to exceed 3/4 inch, or 1/2 inch for differential settlement. These settlements should occur, primarily during_ the grading phase of the project.

Continuous foundations for one and two story structures should have a minimum width of 12 in and 15 in,
respectively. Minimum reinforcing should consist of one #4 bar placed at the top and bottom. Foundations for
structures on compacted fill may be -designed using an
allowable bearing value of 1500 lb/ft2 for continuous
footings 12 inches wide and 12 inches in depth or 15 in

I
Mr. J. Lydell Lambeth
N.Y. Group
1 September 8, 1989
Page Ten
wide and 18 in in depth, respectively. The all
bearing value may be increased by 200 lb/ft2 for each
' foot of width and/or depth to a maximum of 3000 lb/ft2.

For purnoses of lateral resistance, a value of 0.40 may ' be used for frictional resistance. A value of 300
Ib/ft2/ft may be used for passive resistance footings
placed into properly compacted fill. Frictional and
' passive resistance may be combined, provided the later is reduced by one-third.

8.5 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be designed using the parameters outlined above for foundations. Additionally, retaining ' walls should be designed using the following parameters:
o Active pressure (level backfill) 35 lb/ftv ft.
' o Active pressure 12:1 backfill) 45 lb/ft /ft.

8.6 Gradina Plan Review
As soon as preliminary grading plans are completed, they should be forwarded to us for review for compatibility
with site conditions.

9.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or ' implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly ' between test pits, borings and surface outcrops.

As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the ' changed conditions must be evaluated by the Project
Geotechn=cal Engineer and Geologist and designs adjusted as

1 Mr. J. Lydell Lambeth
N.Y. Group
September 8, 1989
Paye Eleven
required or alternate designs recommended. Unexpected
' conditions are especially likely on this project because of the prior usages of the site.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the ' responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the 1 project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
' The findings of this report are valid as of the present date.

However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the ,passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties.

In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.

Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified.
' This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. if you have any questions, please contact this office.

Very truly your
�N c
A�O'ycy
Steven P. Alfor ;�`RCE 3421 .- aren L. Sh rling, CEG 1182 Associate Engi ASP N3. C 34276 �' Director of Geotechnical Services Registration EjWTes 9/30/92* Registration Expires 6/30/90 WLS/4 e t ,;,�lq CiV11.

OF
' Figure 1 - Location kA(S"''
Figure 2 - Geologic Cross Sections
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Test Pits
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D Geologic Cross Sections and Slope Stability Analysis Appendix E - Grading Specifications

I

APPENDIX A
IReferences
I
I
F

REFERENCES
Generalized Map of Southwestern San Bernardino County, California; Morton, D.M.; USGS; 1974;
Engineering Geology Investigation; Tentative Tract 10204; Pro-.ec-t- No. 1239-2; Gary S. Rasmussen and Assoc. 2/3/78;
' Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California; Fife, D.L. et al; CDMG Special Report 113; 1976,
Geologic Hazards Study, 40 Lot Subdivision, North 52 Acres of Will, NW 1/4, Section 19, T1S, R1W1 SBB&M, Yucaipa, California; Smith, C.R., 1-17-89;
Geologic Hazards Study, Seven Acre Parcel, NE Corner Section 24, T1S, R1W, SBB&M, Yucaipa Area: Smith, C.R. & Seff, P.; 12/14/86; Geologic Map of the Yucaipa Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California; Dibblee, T.W. Jr.; CDMG; 1969;
' Preliminary Landslide Map of the Yucaipa 7.5' Quadrangle, California, Jonathan C. Matti, 1984.

UNPUBLISHED REFERENCES
Preliminary Soils Investigation, Tentative Tract 14297, Yucaipa, ' California, RANPAC Soils, Inc., Work Order No. 900-62, dated July 19, 1989

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Agency Flight No. Date
' San Bernardino County Flood C-289: 8, 9, 16, 17 June 8, 1979

1 1
1 1
i
Fit

APPENDIX B
Test Pits
umm

DATE OBSERVED: 7--10-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: Ford Backhoe w LOGGED BY: SPA GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnica w
j o'
°w w-
1 o
LOG OF TRENCH NO. 1
W
i .,
U. I o
OU.,
NCI 0,�
w, i s
E
m I o f
C
I
'X
Sheet 1 of i
d(
U �� ;
I p 7 O
Z

DESCRIPTYON
1 O I
Im1'
Alluvium
Silty Sand, tan -light brown, dry, loose,
intermixed with cobbles to boulders
to 2-t/2 ft diameter, very porous
cobbles to 40%
11/4 in rootlets @ 2 I /2 ft
continuing porous material with cobble to
boulder intermix
soil slightly cemented
Rootlets to 1/8 in
Boulders to 2 ft
(Refusal due to boulders
End of Trench 6 ft
No Ground Water
No Caving
Trench Backfilled
RANPAC SOILS, INC.

SOIL TEST
1

I
DATE OBSERVED: 7-10--39 METHOD OF DRILLING: Excavated by others i
LOGGED By:RIM/SVROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map w
' z
°
° I W X
m a m�
D a
LOG OF TRENCH NO. 2
U. (N
N
N
a
N E) N tp z
cwi v
¢
Sheet 1 of 1

SOIL TEST
2 U~ I
-1
�=
ul
14 Z in; E Q
a.Z

DESCRIPTION
°
I
m
m U
~O
0 Sandy Silt: IOYR 7/6, dry, loose,
interbedded cobbles/boulders to 1 ft
diameter.
slight moisture, moderately dense
Slide Debris (Ols)
$
porous, voids to 1/4 inch, cobbles to
boulders, 2 inches to 3 ft, cobbles,
boulders angular, sandstone
fra;ments,landslide debris fragmented
to massive to bottom of excavation
continued massive slide debris, silty sand
10 with fragmented isolated sandstone
End of Trench 12.5 Ft
Trench Excavated by Others
No Ground Water
Slight Caving -
Trench not Backfilled
.00_ 2
96 R7TANPAC SOILS, INC.FIGURE:

B-2

DATE OBSERVED: 7-10-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: Ford Bac hoe with 24 inch bucket LOGGED BY: SPA GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnica: Map 0 4 U.

W j J W l EX
LOG OF TRENCH NO. 3
U.
j
r ix
?a. � _ a
Sheet 1' of I
solo TEST
I
m w r-
E~mZ
U
0 Z
OESCRIPTIONa.
] m i U ~® LU
. u
All
j u num o<<
�! GraveIly Silty Sand - tan/ light brown,
dry, loose, intermixed with cobbles/
boulders (2 inches to 3-1/2 feet),
very porous, rootlets to 114 inch
5 @a 1-1 /2 ft, Sandy Silr. tan, dry, loose,
occasional cobble to 6 in
intermixed cobbles/boulders ( 2 in to 3
ft), Angular boulders, ;
+Subrounded pebbles, roothairs, porous +
'Fine Sand: Reddish Brown, moist, -
10 moderately dense, intermixed with
cobbles and boulders to 1.5 ft
i Cobbles/boulders intermixed with fine sand
15 End Of Trench 18 Ft
No Ground Water
No Caving
Trench Backfilled
RANPAC SOILS, INC. `'

k1l
J
91 I
I
I
11 DATE OBSERVED: 7-10-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: Ford Backhoe with 24 inch buc;.et LOGGED BY: SFA GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map u
uz
°o!towlal
W
1 W
( ��!
�}
oa
LOG OF TRENCH N0. 4
U.
aHi H
? a,
N
H z
0)-
Sheet 1 of 1
SOIL_ TEST
I
C
U H
3 ,H
Cc
Y
H--
E
JH
W
-i
?
�
�m
o
Z Z

DESCRIPTION
0 M
o�
HQ
I
j
Silty Sand: light brown, dry, loose,
I
porous, roots to 1/4 in, 5-10% voids,
intermixed with cobbles/boulders to 2
feet diameter, subangular to
1 subrounded
Remolded Shear
sf.'
----------------------- - - - - -.

Silty Sand: red brown, moist, moderately
Sieve Analvsis i
�$
dense, rootlets to 1/8 in, less
Expansion Index
porous
Maximum Density
:ff}
Sand Equivalent
10 15—
End Of Trench 16 Ft
No Ground Water
Slight Caving at 8 ft
i
Trench Backfilled
JOB
o_ 2
RANPAC SOILS, INC.
` B-4

r]
1 DATE OBSERVED: 7-10-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: Ford Backhoe with 24 inch bucket _ LOGGED BY: SPA GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical 114ap _ LLJ
i o
m
o a
LOG OF TRENCH NO. 5
z
I
w
a� j a z
� v-
Sheet I of I
90IL TEST
Y
QV
3 OJ
H Qf X' NFW
�! E z
JH
a
a
CJ) ~
-
?
T

DESCRIPTION
0 113
I m i U
t N(U
Silty Sand, Tan, dry, loose, porous,
intermixed with gravel/cobbles and
boulders to 2 ft _
rd o r e n c - 1/ t ( e usa )
No Ground Water
No Caving
Trench Backfilled
RANPAC SOILS, 11\117, FIGUREB-

DATE OBSERVED: 7-10-39 METHOD OF DRILLING: Ford Bac{hoe with 24 inch bucket LOGGED BY:--a-?A GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnica: Map L I
w
I' o I a
u.o °
;
E
w\ I o 0
a
LOG OF TRENCH NO. 6
iawl
N r CL
I.-Z cwi �
Sheet 1 of 1

SOIL TEST
H
a. w I
QV 30 HN
U~ m ?
Y
m
DY aH
� U Z W Lo
, F, 0

DESCRIPTION
0 Alluvium
Silty Sand: tan, dry, loose to moderately

3.0 107
dense, porous, roots to 1/4 in, voids
10 to 15
Sand Cone Test
Sandy Gravel: medium brown, dry, loose,
5 I
cobbles/boulders to 13 inches
Silty Sand: red brown, dry, moderately
10 dense, porous, rootlets to 1/3 in
End of Trench 12 ft
No Ground Water
No Caving
Hole Baekfilled
Jd
00_ 2
RANPAC SOILS, INC.

FIGURE
` B-6

I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 7-10-89 ;METHOD OF DRILLING: Ford Backhoe With 24 inch bucket_ LOGGED BY: SPA GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map - w
F'
� ' �
W
!
J �
v ( � U
�• Qa.

LOG OF TRENCH NO. 7
W iU-z
IL
O
M W
a
E
N
jf
z Q
Sheet 1 of I
0 m' m,
F�-
N
1 Ill i^

SOIL TEST
O jO�
I J
II!
z
J
]
Oz fly
L O

DESCRIPTION'
QU
m
I
>
m
i z
U' f�W
Silty Sand: medium brown, dry, porous,
loose to moderately dense, roots to
114 inch, 10 - 5% voids, sandstone
fragments present
porous, voids 10-150b
Boulders to 2 feet,
S
Boulders to 3 feet
10 End of Trench 11.5 Ft
No Ground Water
No Caving
i
Trench Backfilled
.:

I RANPAC SULS, INC. 1 .._: 1B-7
_900-62

ri
I
I
LJ
I
I
1 11
L
DATE OBSERVED: 7-10-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: Ford Backhoe with 24 inch bucket LOGGED BY: S?A GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Nfao I�z�
g IWowl
a
�� ! °e
LOG OF TRENCH NO. 8
U.
a H
M
Z i a}
Sheet I of 1

SOIL TEST
d
J0 ~
OJ
C N+
a
i
m
F Z

DESCRIPTION
O
I
D I m i
U M LU
0 Q
�
Silty Sand: tan, dry, moderately dense,
occasional cobbles, boulders to 12
inches
- - _ _ -
Silty Sand, dark brown, moderately moist,
5 moderately dense, cobbles well
rounded, no boulder size fragments
Sieve Analysis
'��•
L
L•ti:;:;
Expansion index
'`"
viaximum density
Alluvium:

Silty Sand: tan to buff brown, dry,
Undisturbed Direct
10 moderately dense, porous
Shear
rootlets present, voids to I/4 in
15 n o renc t
lNo Ground Water
No Caving
JOB • '' RANPAC SOILS, INC' B_8
�a- 2 .

F
I
h
I
11 1

APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results

' LABORATORY TESTING
' A. Classification.

Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classification was supplemented by index tests, such as particle s4ze analysis. Moisture content and dry density determinations were made from undisturbed samples. Results of tests are recorded on the Logs of Test Pits included in Appendix A.

B. Particle Size Analysis
tParticle size analysis, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve) were performed on representative samples of the on - site soils in accordance with AST:: D 422. Test results are ' shown on Figure C-1 through C-2.

C. Sand Eauivalent
A sand equivalent test was performed in a representative sample of the subsurface soils to supplement visual
' classifications and mechanical analysis. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D 2419. The test results are presented on Figure C-3, Table I.
1 D. Maximum Density/Outimum Moisture Content
The maximum density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for typical samples of the on -site soils. The laboratory standard used was ASIM D 1557. The test results are summarized on Figure C-3, Table II.

E . Expansion
An expansion test was performed on a representative sample of the on -site soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 lb/ft2 in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. The test results are summarized on Figure C-3, Table III.

F. Direct Shea --
A direct shear strength test was performed in a representative sample o the on -site soils remolded to 90% relative
compaction. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, i the test specimen was saturated prior to shearing. The test results are presented on Figure C-4 through C-5.

I
I

Q
Z
(�
Cr
O
L
0 a
c
0 m 00i O iB E
�v r�i C\j O 0

PER CENT FINER

BY WEIGHT
'

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ey: Dole:

EXHIHII
N IJ f�18 F F
J.N. 90C-52
C-i
P'''ge82

�QMUM
8 r�
. . . . .
. .
. . . .

PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHT

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

RAN PAC SOILS
U)
W
LLI
J
J
U
W�
Z'
Li
W
Q
0 lLl
V
W
N c
cr
pc
U
J
W
Q
T
a
w
0 NUMBER
Ci2
CO/19U1/1Yy •�/��'R ;, ,,[:��1 GIOIO fj/9IY

?h-lrOiiM�n�.�Lalilatl�WI9�E51®A�b
f
YW!'JI�
_ ____-- -
i
TABS _ I

RESULTS OF SAND EQUIVALENT TESTS
1 (ASTM D 2419)
Test
Sand
Location
Eouivalent
T4 @ 4-8'
30 1
T8 @ 6-8'
17 �1

TABLE II
'
MAXIMLid DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP
(ASTM D 1557)
1 Maximum
Optimum
Test
Dry Density
Moisture
'
Location
(pcf)
(-%)
T4 @ 4-8f
132.7

7.0 T8 @ 6-8'
129.6

8.2 1
'

TABLE III
1 RESULTS OF EXPANSION TESTS
(U.B.C. 29-2)
1 Test
Expansion
Expansion
Location
Index
Potential
T4 @ 4-8'
0 VERY LOW
1 T8 @ 6-81
0 VERY LOW
1 1
1 WORK ORDER
NO: 900-62
FIG, C-2

5 I
7 I
I
DA Pag"2-T~

I
I
I
I
P
0 I
I

APPENDIX D
Geologic Cross Sections
Slope Stability Analyses
I
0

v -- A X -; S
Z
m

i
�
W
� '
0 H
I
U
zLU
z
v
J
11 4-
H
x
a
M

hi
'
** PCSTABL5M **
by
1 Purdue university
'
--Slope Stability Analysis -
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or S_oencer's Method of Slices
Run Date:

Time of Run:

Run By:

Input Data Filename: '_and
Output Filename: landso
Plotted Output Filename: lans.plt
'
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION N.Y. PARTNERS (static, larger slide)

BOUNDARY COORDINATES
25 Top Boundaries
'
34 Total Boundaries
'
Boun(2ary
X-Left
Y-Left
X-Right
Y-Right
Soi_ Type
No.
fft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Belot; Bnd
1 .00
2840.00
1000.00
2843.00
3 2
1000.00
2843.00
1750.00
2920.00
3 3
1750.00
2920.00
2300.00
2960.00
3 4
2300.00
2960.00
3200.00
3040.00
3 5
3200.00
3040.00
3400.00
3080.00
3 6
3400.00
3080.00
3600.00
3081.00
3 7
3600.00
3081.00
3900.00
3120.00
2 8
3900.00
3120.00
4200.00
3160.00
2 9
4200.00
3160.00
4450.00
3200.00
2 10
4450.00
3200.00
4650.00
3240.00
2 11
4650.00
3240.00
4800.00
3280.00
2 12
4800.00
3280.00
5000.00
3360.00
2 13
5000.00
3360.00
5100.00
3400.00
2 14
15 5100.00
5300.00
3400.00
3401.00
5300.00
6150.00
3401.00
3760.00
2 2
16 6150.00
3760.00
6300.00
3840.00
2 17
6300.00
3840.00
6850.00
4000.00
2 18
6850.00
4000.00
7600.00
4010.00
2

I
I
i�
19 7600.00
4010.00
7900.00
4160.00 2
20 7900.00
4160.00
8100.00
4180.00 2
21 8100.00
4180.00
8300.00
4320.00 2
22 8300.00
4320.00
8500.00
4360.00 2
23 8500.00
4360.00
8800.00
4560.00 1
24 8800.00
4560.00
9000.00
4600.00 1
25 9000.00
4600.00
9450.00
4620.00 1
26 .00
2600.00
2400.00
2800.00 1
27 2400.00
2300.00
3000.00
2930.00 1
28 3000.00
2930.00
3600.00
3031.00 2
29 3000.00
2930.00
4000.00
3000.00 1
30 4000.00
3000.00
5000.00
3220.00 1
31 5000.00
3220.00
6000.00
3500.00 1
32 6000.00
3500.00
7000.00
3840.00 1
33 7000.00
3840.00
8000.00
4130.00 1
34 8000.00
4130.00
8500.00
4360.00 1
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARA;:ETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.

Type Unit Wt. Unit Idt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) ;;o.
1 118.2 126.0 100.0 33.0 .00 .0 0
2 114.5 129.9 200.0 16.0 .00 .0 0
3 110.0 115.0 100.0 35.0 .00 .0 0
A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .000 Has Been Assigned
A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .000 Has Been Assigned
Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 150 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 15 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X=1400.00 ft.

Iand X=2700.00 ft.

Each Surface Terminates Between X=4000.00 ft.
and X=9000.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At S-7hich A Surface Extends Is Y =****** ft.
500.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.

Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation.

The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -25.0 And .0 deg.
�1
Following
Are Displayed
The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure
First.

Surfaces Examined.

They Are Ordered - Most Critical
* * Safety
Factors Are
Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
'
Failure
Surface Specified
By 11 Coordinate Points
'
Point
X-Surf
Y-Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1 2235.72
2955.32
2 2735.28
2934.42
3 3235.22
2942.09
4 3733.90
2978.32
'
5 4229.71
3042.99
6 4721.00
3135.88
'
7 8
5206.19
5683.67
3256.69
3405.03
9 6151.91
3580.41
10 6609.35
3782.26
1 "a.
7040.07
4002.53
Circle
Center At X = 2851.1
; Y = ****** and Radius, 8746.6
' FACTOR OF SAFETY: *** 2.057 ***

I
** PCSTABL5MA
by
IPurdue University
1 --Slope
Stability Analysis--
Simpiified
Janbu, Simplified
Bishop
or Spencer's Method
of Slices
Run Date:

Time of
Run:
'
Run By:

Inout Data
Filename:
land
Outnut Filename:
landout
Plotted
Output Filename: land.plt
'
PROBLEM:

DESCRIPTION
N.Y. PARTNERS
(seismic,larger
slide)
'

BOUNDARY
COORDI,,.ATES
25 Top
Boundaries
I
34 Total
Boundaries
Boundary
X-Left
Y-Left
X-Right
Y-Right
Soil Type
No.
.(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Below Bnd
1 .00
2840.00
1000.00
2843.00
3 2
1000.00
2843.00
1750.00
2920.00
3 3
1750.00
2920.00
2300.00
2960.00
3 4
2300.00
2960.00
3200.00
3040.00
3 5
3200.00
3040.00
3400.00
3080.00
3 6
3400.00
3080.00
3600.00
3081.00
3 7
3600.00
3081.00
3900.00
3120.00
2 8
3900.00
3120.00
4200.00
3160.00
2 9
4200.00
3160.00
4450.00
3200.00
2 10
4450.00
3200.00
4650.00
3240.00
2 11
4650.00
3240.00
4800.00
3280.00
2 '
12 4800.00
3280.00
5000.00
3360.00
2 13
5000.00
3360.00
5100.00
3400.00
2 14
5100.00
3400.00
5300.00
3401.00
2 '
15 5300.00
3401.00
6150.00
3760.00
2 16
6150.00
3760.00
6300.00
3840.00
2 17
6300.00
3340.00
6850.00
4000.00
2 18
6850.00
4000.00
7600.00
4010.00
2

19 7600.00
4010.00
7900.00
4160.00 2
20 21
7900.00
8100.00
4160.00
4180.00
8100.00
°300.00
4180.00 2
4320.00 2
22 8300.00
4320.00
8500.00
4360.00 2
23 8500.00
4360.00
8800.00
4560.00 1
1 24
8800.00
4560.00
9000.00
4600.00 1
25 9000.00
4600.00
9450.00
4520.00 1
26 .00
2600.00
2400.00
2800.00 1
27 2400-00
2800,00
3000.00
2930.00 1
28 3000-00
2930.00
3600,00
3081.00 2
29 3000.00
2930.00
4000.00
3000.00 1
30 31
4000.00
5000.00
3000.00
3220.00
5000.00
6000.00
3220.00 1
3500.00 1
32 6000.00
3500.00
7000.00
3840.00 1
33 7000.00
3840.00
8000.00
4130.00 1
34 8000.00 4130.00 8500.00 4360.00 1
1 IISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of
Soil
Soil
Total
Saturated
Cohesion
Friction
Pore
Pressure
Piez.
'
Type
Unit Wt.

Unit Wt.

Intercept
Angle
Pressure
Constant
Surface
No.
(pcf)
(pcf)
(psf)
(deg)
Param.
(psf)
No,
1 118.2
126.0
100.0

33.0 .00
.0
0 2
114.5
129.9
200.0

16.0 .00
.0
0 3
110.0
115.0
100.0

35.0 .00
.0
0 '
' A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .150 Has Been Assigned
1 A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .000 Has Been Assigned
Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf
1 ' A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 1 150 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated,

10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 15 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X=1400.00 ft.
and X=2700.00 ft.
jEach Surface Terminates Between X=4000.00 ft.
and X=9000.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y=****** ft.
500.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. 1 Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. ' The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -25.0 And .0 deg.
n
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure
Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point
X-Surf
Y-Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1 2235.72
2955.32
2 3
2735.28
3235.22
2934.42
2942.09
4 3733.90
2978.32
5 4229.71
3042.99
I
6 4721.00
3135.88
7 5206.19
3256.69
8 5603.67
3405.03
9 6151.91
3580.41
10 6609.35
3782.26
11 7040.07
4002.53
1 Circle Center At X = 2851.1 ; Y = ****** and Radius, 8746.6 FACTOR OF SAFETY *** 1.254 ***

C
** PCSTABL5M **
by
Purdue University
--Slope Stability Analysis --
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencers Method of Slices
Run Date:

Time of Run:

Run By:

Input Data Filename: land
Output Filename: lando
' Plotted Output Filename: lan.pit
' PROBLEM DESCRIPTION N.Y. PARTNERS (seismic,inner slide) ' BOUNDARY COORDINATES
25 Top Boundaries
34 Total Boundaries
Boundary
X-Left
Y-Left
X-Right
Y-Right
Soil Type
'
No.
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Below Bnd
1 .00
2840.00
1000.00
2843.00
3 2
1000.00
2343.00
1750.00
2920.00
3 3
1750.00
2920.00
2300,00
2960.00
3 4
2300.00
2960.00
3200.00
3040.00
3 5
3200.00
3040.00
3400.00
3080.00
3 6
3400.00
3080.00
3600.00
3081.00
3 7
3600.00
3081.00
3900.00
3120.00
2 8
3900.00
3120.00
4200.00
3160.00
2 9
4200.00
3160.00
4450.00
3200.00
2 10
4450.00
3200.00
4650.00
3240.00
2 11
4650.00
3240.00
4300.00
3280,00
2 12
4800.00
3280.00
5000.00
3360.00
2 13
5000.00
3360.00
5100.00
3400.00
2 14
5100.00
3400.00
5300.00
3401.00
2 15
5300.00
3401.00
6150.00
3760.00
2 16
6150.00
3760.00
6300.00
3840.00
2 17
6300.00
3840.00
6850.00
4000.00
2 18
6850.00
4000.00
7600.00
4010.00
2

19 7600.00
4010.00
7900.00
4160.00
2 20
7900.00
4160w00
8100.00
4180.00
2 21
8100.00
4180.00
8300.00
4320.00
2 22
8300.00
4320.00
8500.00
4360.00
2 23
8500.00
4360.00
6800.00
4560.00
1 24
8800.00
4560.00
9000.00
4600.00
1 25
9000.00
4600.00
9450.00
4620.00
1 26
.00
2600.00
2400.00
2300.00
1 27
2400.00
2800.00
3000.00
2930.00
1 28
29 3000.00
3000.00
2930.00
2930.00
3600.00
4000.00
3081.00
3000.00
2 1
30 4000.00
3000.00
5000.00
3220.00
1 31
5000.00
3220.00
6000.00
3500.00
1 1
32 6000.00
3500.00
7000.00
3840.00
1 33
7000.00
3840.00
8000.00
4130.00
1 34
8000.00
4130.00
8500.00
4360.00
1 ISOTROPIC SOIL

PARAMETERS
3 Type(s)
of Soil
Soil Total
Saturated
Cohesion
Fr:.ction
Pore Pressure
Piez.

Type Unit Wt.

Unit Wt.

Intercept
Angle
Pressure Constant
Surface
No. (pcf)
;pcf)
(psf)
(deg)
Param.
(psf)
No.
1 113.2
126.0
100.0

33.0 .00
.0
0 2 114.5
129.9
200.0

16.0 .00
.0
0 3 110.0
115.0
100.0

35.0 .00
.0
0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .000 Has Been Assigned
A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .000 Has Been Assigned
' Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf
1 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random ' Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. ' 150 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 15 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X=2600.00 ft.

I
I
1 and X =3700.00 ft.

Each Surface Terminates Between X=6000.00 ft.
and X =9000.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, Tree Minimum Eleva--ion Az Which A Surface Extends Is Y=****** ft.
500.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.

Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angie Of initiation.

The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -25.0 And .0 deg.

Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X-Surf
Y-Surf
h10,
(ft)
(ft)
1 3307.14
3061.43
2 3807.14
3059.38
3 4305.46
3100.38
4 4793.39
3184.13
5 5282.29
3309.99
6 5753.56
3477.04
7 6208.70
3684.04
8 6644.33
3929.44
9 6671.69
3948.13
Circle
Center At X =
3580.9 ; Y = 8858.2 and Radius, 5803.2
FACTOR OF SAFETY: *** 1.095 ***

'
** PCSTABL5M
UY
1 Purdue
University
--Slope Stability
Analysis--
'
Simalified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's
;lethod of Slices
Run Date:

Time of Run:

Run Bv:

Input Data Filename:
land
Output Filename:
lando
Plotted Output Filename:
lan.plt
PROBLEM DiSCRI TI 1' N.Y.
de)
PARTNERS (se_Tsm_c_1nner slide)

BOUNDARY COORDINATES
25 Top Boundaries
'
34 Total Boundaries
Boundary
X-Left
Y-Left
X-Right
Y-Right
Soil Type
No.
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Below Bnd
!
1 .00
2340.00
1000.00
2843.00
3 '
2 1000.00
2843.00
1750.00
2920.00
3 3
1750.00
2920.00
2300.00
2960.00
3 4
2300.00
2960.00
3200.00
3040.00
3 '
5 3200.00
3040.00
3400.00
3080.00
3 6
3400.00
3030.00
3600.00
3081.00
3 7
3600.00
3081.00
3900.00
3120.00
2 8
3900.00
3120.00
4200.00
3160.00
2 '
9 4200.00

31.60.00 4450.00
3200.00
2 10
4450.00
3200.00
4650.00
3240.00
2 '
11 12
4650.00
4300.00
3240.00
3280.00
4300.00
5000.00
3280.00
3360.00
2 2
13 5000.00
3360.00
5100.00
3400.00
2 14
5100.00
3400.00
5300.00
3401.00
2 L
15 5300.00
3401.00
6150.00
3760.00
2 16
6150.00
3760.00
6300.00
3840.00
2 17
6300.00
3340.00
6850.00
4000.00
2 '
18 6850.00
4000.00
7600.00
4010.00
2 I

7 r]
I
19 7600.00
4010.00
7900.00
4160.00 2
20 7900.00
4160.00
8100.00
4180.00 2
21 8100.00
4180.00
8300.00
4320.00 2
22 8300,00
4320.00
8500.00
4360.00 2
23 8500.00
4360.00
8800.00
4560.00 1
24 8800.00
4560.00
9000.00
4600.00 1
25 9000.00
4600.00
9450.00
4620.00 1
26 .00
2600.00
2400.00
2800.00 1
27 2400.00
2300.00
3000.00
2930.00 1
28 3000.00
2930.00
3600.00
3081.00 2
29 3000.00
2930.00
4000.O0
3000.00 1
30 4000.00
3000.00
5000.00
3220.00 1
31 5000.00
3220.00
6000.00
3500.00 1
32 6000.00
3500.00
7000.00
3840.00 1
33 7000.00
3840.00
8000.00
4130.00 1
34 8000.00
4130.00
8500.00
4360.00 1

ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Dore Pressure Piez.

Type Unit Trot. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 118.2 126.0 100.0 33.0 .00 .0 0
2 114.5 129.9 200.0 16.0 .00 .0 0
3 110.0 115.0 100.0 35.0 .00 .0 0
A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .150 Has Been Assigned
A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of .000 Has Been Assigned
Cavitation Pressure = .0 osf
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 150 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.

7 11
i
I
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 15 Points Equally Spaced Along ,he Ground Surface Between X =2600.00 ft.
and X=3700.00 ft.

Each Surface Terminates Between X=6000.00 ft.
and X=9000.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The idinimum Elevation At 1"7hich A Surface Extends Is Y=****** ft.
500.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.

Restrictions have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation.

The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -25.0 And .0 deg.

Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point
X-Surf
Y-Surf
No.
(ft)
(ft)
1 3307.14
3061.43
2 3807.14
3059.33
3 4305.46
3100.38
4 4798.39
3184.13
5 5282.29
3309.99
6 5753.56
3477.04
7 6208.70
3684.04
8 6644.33
3929.44
9 6671.69
3948.13
Circle
Center At X =
3580.9 ; Y = 8858.2 and Radius, 5803.2
FACTOR OF SAFETY *** .701 ***

H

APPENDIX E
Grading specifications

ISTANDARD G?.ADING AND EART '7ORK SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present RANPAC Soils, Inc., standard ' recommendations for grading and earthwork.

No deviation from these specifications should be ne--mitted unless where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report of the protect or by written communication signed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
' 1.0 GELi7ER.3r,

1.1 The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or Developer's ' representative on the protect. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Geotechnical
Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer,
' Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist, and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultant.
' 1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted and directed by the
Contractor under the supervision of the Geotechnical
Consultant.

1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading. ' During grading, the Contractor should remain access'_ble.

1.4 Prior to the com^encement of grading, the Geotechnical ' Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of providing field; laboratory and office services for conformance
with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications.

It will be necessary that
the
Geotechnical Consultant
provide adequate testing
and
observations so that he
may determine
that the work
was
accomplished as specified. It
responsibility of the contractor
shall be
to assist
the
the
Geotechnical Consultant
and keep him
apprised of
work
schedules and changes
so that he
may schedule
his
'
personnel accordingly.

1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to ' provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable gradingcodes or
agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved ' grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as
questionable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate
compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a
' quality of work less than required in these

Standard
Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Pacre Two
�i
specifications., the GeOtechnical Consultant will be
empowered to reject the worn and reccmmend teat
construction be stopped until the conditions are
l
rectified.
o

1.6 It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide access to the Geotechnica]. Consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes, This may require t: e excavation
of test pits and/or the relocation of grading equipment.

1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Geotechnica'
i
Consultant attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications.

2.0 SITE

PREPARATION

2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off -site. This removal shall be observed by the
Geotechnical Consultant and concluded prior to fill
placement.
'

2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Geotechnical Consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site or used in landscaped areas as determined by the Geotechnical
I
Consultant. Any material incorporated as a cart of a
compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to fill placement.

2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been
cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the '
Contractor until it 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 as
specified. If the scarified zone is greater than twelve i
inches in depth, the excess shall 1 be removed and placed in lifts restricted to six inches.
1 Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive f ill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
2,4 .Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells,
pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Consultant.

i
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Three

2.5 In cut -fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium or unweatherec bedrock
materials, in order to provide uniform bearing
conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a
minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be
L cverexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with
compacted fill. Typical details are given on Plates SG-

1. .0 COM?.kC`i D rIT'S

3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be
aooroved b_v the Geotechnical Consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by Geotechnical Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as
satisfactory fill material, as directed by the
Geotechnical Consultant. +

3.2 Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:

1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.

I 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine grained
material to surround the rocks.

3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
1 3.3 Rocks greater than six inches in diameter shall be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical
detail for Rock Disposal is given in Plate SG-2.)

3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill.
' 3.5 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.

1 '
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Four
1 3.6 Material used in
spread, Wal.erec,
the compacting process shall be evenly
processed, and compacted in thin lifts
not to exceed
six inches in thickness to obtain a
i
uniformly dense
layer. The fill shall be placed and
compacted on a
horizontal plane, unless otherwise
approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant.

3.7 If the moisture
content or relative compacticn varies
'
from that required by the Geotechnical Consultant, the
Contractor shall
rework the fill until it is approved by
the Geotechnical
Consultant.
j 3.8 Each layer small be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing me -hod
' specified by the controlling governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies.

If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific
land use or expansive soil condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be
delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the Geotechnical report.

3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsail, colluvium alluvium, or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds ' a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.

3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless
otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG-3.�

3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
' agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given
in Plate SG-4.)
3212 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.

I This may be achieved by either over building the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct
compaction of 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 which
UMM

1 '
Standard
Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Five
produces the required ccmcaction a oroved by the
'
Geotechnical Consultant.

3.13 Al" fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the Geotechnical
'
report.

3.14 Fill -over -cut slopes shall be preoerly keyed through '
topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm
materials, and the transition s:-:a_1 be stripped of a_1 soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Plate SG-7.) E

4.0 CUT

SLOPE'S

4.1 The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut slopes or vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet.

4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the Geotechnical report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or
confined strata of a potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes
encountered during grading, these conditions shall be
analyzed by the Engineering Geologist, and
recommendaticns shall be made to mitigate these problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut '
slope are given in Plates SG-5 and SG-3.)

4.3 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 tope of the slope.

4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the Geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than ' that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies.

4.5 Orainace terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant ' or Engineering Geologist.

5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS

5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfired under the supervision of the Geotechnical Consultant.

5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe shall be backfiled with clean sand

Standard
Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Six
or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one fooci over the tope of the pipe. The sand rac.ill shall be
fce
unif"or, ly jet;.ed into pubefore the controlled
backfill is placed over the sand.

5.3 The cnsite materials, or other soils approved by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be watered and mixed as
necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand
'
backfill.

5.4 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density as
determined by the ASTI D1557-70 or the controlling
governmental agency.
'

5.5 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill
procedures shall be made by the Geotechnical Consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture content
'
and uniform compaction is being maintained. The
contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the GeotecZniical Consultant to enable
sampling and testing.

6.0 GRADING CONTROL

6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of grading. '

6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 500 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.

6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as required by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
'

6.4 All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals s`iould be
inspected 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 for inspection.

LI
� �1

I
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Seven

7.0 CONST'RUCTT0i1 COnSIDE ATIONS
' 7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to
the completion and construction of permanent drainage
' controls.

7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Geotechnical Consultant, no further filling or
excavating, including that necessary for footings
foundations, large tree wells, retaining wails, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.3 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.

I

ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL

FINISH GRADE
___-____=_-__ �-=_COMPACTED =_
SLOPE - _ — _ -_- _ - _ __- t ______ = - _______ _F I L L FACE�-_ _ __--_- 1---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - �a - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------------------
__---_x==_ __0_:-_ __-y-�
1'-�=__ =�___ =4 MIN. _�,-
__.- _ _ J --_ -
.-____--------_ __---
-__-.---..-1-_---_------- -_
-------------------
- - _
OVERSIZE• =_ = =__�-�
WINDROW _

GRANULAR SOIL'
To fit, voids,
densified by
f looding

PROFILE ALONG WINDROW

BENCHING OETA1 LS
---------------
FILL SLOPL =_ _=CO,ti.P„ CTE.D
-_ =_==---FILL —
-____________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -r
- - - - - - - _ -- - ^ y - - - - _ � f
• _--- - - - - -
�rC----
PROJECTED PLANE - __— - =
--------r----
I to I meximum ;ram toe -- _---
of slope to cpproved ground =-__— �____ -�-- __ _ - �- -- { �,. �___� ",� R_,+:OVE
-- J---Y-_t.

NATURAL --
GROUND -_==-__=�_= I 4' MIN.

BENCH
iA -✓--------- HEIGHT
,� •� 2c. 5•i\i (typiccl) VARIES
2' tV.IN.! 15' im I N.

KEY 11`- 0V,`S T 8ENCH

DEPTH (KEY)

FILL OVER CUT SLOPE
RE:.M0VE.

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL
✓
.r
✓
!; CG-t?ACTED =_
-------- .----- -
--_ _ - —1
_-_�
NATURAL =d' -- - -z \
GROUND W MIN. BENCH
8ENCH-*" HEIGHT
(typical; l VARIES
r ✓ � --- T r `I
,� ✓ 15' M 1 N.----�i
✓ I LOWEST BENCH
t
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill p!ecement
NOTES:

LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change
bcsed cn consultant's inspection.

Sv9ORAIt:AGE:. o, may be re-uired at the
iiscre?Ion o' Ine geotecnnica; comultont.
umm

SIDS HILL
CUT PAD D`` T AIL

NATURAL
GROUND
FINISP;ED CUT PAD
OVERExCAvA,C —
AND RECo' PACT _ __ _=___-z' -
(RE ©LACE4;E,�� i riLL) _ _- / ................ ...
cvC B�RoCv - —i L PcC f c`.,ere,(ccvcticn cnd Ccon-pccticn I� icy -- �t perform, ii CeiermineG ',o
OR UNSUITABLE r�
�e necesscry by the ceorecnnica(

MATERIAL
- '-oE,�:CNitiG consl-J{cant.

IJNI lEATHEnED BEDROCK OR f

MATERIAL APPROVED BY

THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT

SUBORAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS

DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE

CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

TRANSITION LOT DETAILS

CUT -FILL LOT
NATURAL G+=.00ND
C --- - -- ------- -_ - --r--- _ ----
-------------------- — ��� -- r — _ —--
-� __—_
CCfrPACTED _ Fltt—__---- —
------a�_� ------ CVEREXCAVATE AND REC0,1P;-`CT

UNI-NEATIHERED SEOROCK OR
y ,MA T ERIP%L APPROVED BY
E THE GEOTECHIN.ICALCONSULt'ANT
I

CUT LOT

NATURAL GROUND
{
_P
P•
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE—
��. MATERIAL ---------- f
------------- — ---==s------------
__—=___= � —__ �rry7.. � nwT
-COMPACTED_ pVEREXCAVATE AND RECOM1PACT
c
UNINEAT HER_D BEDROCK OR
' �IMATERIAL APPROVED BY

THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
NOTE:

Deeper overexcavation and recomoaction shall be performed ii determined -o be necesscry by the ceotechnicc; consu'tant.

KEY +-
_ 1
S`
OUTLET P PES — �— —'� FILL SLAtiK;
4" i, lonperforated Wipe, _ =- =� 30" M,11NI.
100' J ':ax. O.C. Horizontal!- , _ _=_ = '= — .rr— BACK CUT 30' Max. O.C. Vertically1:! CF. F-1 AT—,,;:::
— — — — —� __ ___ _ _ —
__ -L- - -.
—i
�W-a� - — — — — — — — — — — -
2' Mi—�-- KEY WIDTH _ _'�
Ic-UIP ?JT 5+.= - GENE.RALLY 15 F2—,
ki LJ rl ^ +
SEE ALTCr4NA—Ea A &
FILTER VA'_RIAL ✓�
T-CCAJVECT�C/N// j .(�,��•,u?�.

OujLPERFCRATcO PPE
ta" a MIN.

ALTERNATE A
~�6'�
SIN. O`1`aL.',.�CD
Y
LEVEL
'POSITIVE SEAL
SHCULO 2EPROVIOEO GRAVE! OR
COMPACTE0 FILLAT
,+;
TIIE O r++ „ A?P90V£O
S-ELECT 3EDOING_8AC CFILLOUTLETi-C.:PEaFCRA
5%, MIN,ECL'PlALE!JT
T EO
PIP"'—''_-MIRAFI 140 FILTER
CP_

FAERIC OR APPROVED
g

EOUIVALENT
DETAIL A —A`
ALTERNATE 6
NOTES :

FILTER MATERIAL'
• Fill blanket, back cut, key width and
Filter material shall be
key depth are subject to field change,
Class 2 permeable material
per repert/plcns.
per State of California
• Key heel subdrain, blanket drain, or
Standard Specifications,
vertical drain may be required at the
or approved alternate.

Class 2 grading as follows:
discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
• SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdroin

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING
pipe shall be installer; with perforations
down or, at locations designated by
1" (00
the geotechnical consultant, shall be
3/4" 90-100
nonperforated pipe.
3/8" 40- 100
• SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall
No.g 18 33
be ASTM C508 Asbestos Cement Pipe
No. 3U S-IS
(ACP) or ASTM D2751, SDP. 23.5 or AS'7M,
No. 50 0-7C:527,
Schedule 40 Acrylenitrile Butadiene
No 200 0-3
Styrene (ABS) or ASTM 03034 SDR 23.5
or ASTM D173S, Scnedu'e 40 Po'yviny;
Cti'crld'-� �'c,'1'r ?P!r', otct� or a orove�

CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL.

INATv RAL GROUND
. RENlOVE
_ _ UNSU!TABLE
--
T ER!ALMAti--_=___-=_=—____-_
-___=-CCBACTED =1LL=_ �-_
-_ _
8c��C1�IG 'f �c=�=C — _ _-______—___� _-
Vic— -- _---_-- ---�f—
��-^SUSC'irr?�,;,11 TRENCH
SEE. ALTERNATES A&B
'(�SUBDRAI,N Perforated Pipe Surrounded With
LTERNATE A: Filter Material
FILTER MATERIAL:

FILTER IMATEPIAL Filter material shall be
3/ Class 2 permecbie materiel
9 It. ; per State of California
' Stendcrd Specifications,
CO V En cr cpproved alternate.
'`/-�- Clcss 2 grcdirr, as failows:
• SIEVE SIZE. F—RCCiv I PASSNG
EEDDING :' I" Ico
...., 3/4„ 100-lco
' Alternate A-1 4" iV11N. Afternate A-2 3/3
11 40-1C0
No. 4 25 --40
No. 8 18-33
Na. 30 5-15
' PERFORATED PIPE No.50 0
6" � NUN. No. 2C0 0-3
'SJSDPAIN 1 1/2" Gravel "Wrapped
ALTERNATE B: in Filter Fabric NO 7 E:
6" ivi1N. OVERLAP
t _ ,
Ahernate B-1
MIRAFI 140 FILTER

FABRIC OR --

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT
` I;,t" MIN. GRAVEL OR -

APPROVED EQUIVALENT
9 ft. 3/ft.

Alternate B-2
In odditicn to the wrapped
gravel, outlet portion of the
subdrain shou!d be equipped
with a minimum of 10 feet
long perforated pipe con-
necter to a nenoerforated pipe
havinc a minimum or 5 feet in
lenat") inside the wrccoed
gravel.
s SUSDRA'N INSTALLATION - Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, ' at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforoted pipe. • SUBDRAIN 'YPE - Subdrain type shall be ASTNI C508 Asbestos Cement Pipe (AC?) or AS7N'. 0275`, S:? or ASTi.' 1527, Schezu'.e 40 Acry:onitrile Suto�,-ene Styrene A95' or AS7.ti1 D2R 23." or r,S.:,4 785 Schedu e 40 ?olyviny', Chloride ?iosric =VC) aide or approve' e ;uivclent.

California Environmental Quality Act
Appendix G Checklist for Noise
for
TTM 20375 (SERRANO ESTATES)
prepared by
GANDDINI GROUP INC.
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 795-3100 1 ganddini.com
Contact: Roma Stromberg, INCE
Project No. 19521

NOISE
Would the project result in:

Question
CEQA Determination
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient Less Than Significant Impact
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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise No Impact
levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport No Impact
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? Response to CEQA Checklist Question a):

The proposed project will be consistent with and not exceed standards, plans and policies provided in the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code and the City of Yucaipa General Plan goals and policies. This impact would be less than significant. Applicable ordinances and General Plan goals and policies are presented below.

City of Yucaipa Municipal Code
Section 87.0905(b) of the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code presents numerical noise standards for stationary noise sources. Section 87.0925(e) of the Municipal Code exempts construction noise from these standards as it does not occur between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, on Sundays or on Federal holidays. Project construction will be consistent with the hours that are exempt from the stationary noise sources. Therefore, it will be consistent with applicable City ordinances.

City of Yucaipa General Plan
The City's General Plan Safety Element sets forth the following goals and policies that apply to the proposed project.

Goal S-6 Noise and Vibration Safety. Appropriate community noise and vibration levels that balance the need for peaceful environments for sensitive land uses with the needs of local businesses and regional land uses.

The proposed project is consistent with this goal as discussed below.

Policy S-6.1 Noise Assessment. Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing applications for development projects or land use changes.

The project is a residential project proposed on vacant land with adjacent vacant and residential land uses'.

The project site is not located within a roadway or airport 60 dBA CNEL noise contour' or Noise Hazard Zone2. The project is consistent with this policy.
5-6.2 Acoustical Studies. Require acoustical studies for proposed projects within areas that exceed 60 dBA; discourage siting of new noise -sensitive uses in areas exceeding 65 dBA without appropriate mitigation. ' Review of Google Earth Aerial Photograph June 1, 2022. 2 City of Yucaipa General Plan April 2016.

The proposed project is located in a rural area and is not within the 60 dBA CNL noise contour of a roadway or airport. The project is consistent with this policy.

Policy S-6.3 Noise Insulation and Vibration Standards. Require acoustical studies for proposed projects within areas that exceed 60 dBA; discourage siting of new noise -sensitive uses in areas exceeding 65 dBA without appropriate mitigation.

As stated previously, the proposed project is located in a rural area and is not within the 60 dBA CNL noise contour of a roadway or airport. The project is consistent with this policy.

PolicyS-6.5 Development Patterns. Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the use. Limit development of noise -producing uses adjacent to noise -sensitive receptors and require that noise producing land uses have adequate mitigation.

As stated previously, the proposed project is located in a rural area and is not within the 60 dBA CNL noise contour of a roadway or airport. The project is consistent with this policy.

Policy S-6.6 Land Use -Noise Compatibility. Require mitigation of exterior and interior noise to the levels in Table S-2. Encourage the use of building design, site planning, landscaping, and other features to reduce noise levels.

In order to protect its citizens from unacceptable noise levels they have established an exterior noise criterion of 60 dBA CNEL and an interior noise criterion of 45 dBA CNEL2. As stated previously, the project site is located in a rural area and is not within the 60 dBA CNL noise contour of a roadway or airport. The project is consistent with this policy.

Groundborne Vibration
City of Yucaipa Municipal Code Section 87.0910 regulates vibration. However, Subsection C clearly exempts temporary construction, maintenance, or demolition activities that occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, except Sundays and Federal holidays.

Caltrans identifies a PPV level of 0.3 as the threshold at which there is a risk to "architectural' damage to older residential structurev. The most vibratory equipment likely to be used on the project site include vibratory rollers and large bulldozers, neither of these are likely to exceed a PPB of 0.21 at a distance of 25 feet.

Furthermore, the closest sensitive receptors to the project site that may be affected by construction vibration are single family homes located at least 40 feet to the west of the project site on the western side of Yucaipa Ridge Road. Furthermore, operation of the proposed residential project is not expected to result in noticeable groundborne vibration (approximately 50 VdB to 60 VdB)4. The proposed project would not result in groundborne vibration impacts.

City of Yucaipa General Plan
The City's General Plan Safety Element sets forth the following goals and policies that apply to the proposed project.

Goal S-6 Noise and Vibration Safety. Appropriate community noise and vibration levels that balance the need for peaceful environments for sensitive land uses with the needs of local businesses and regional land uses.

The proposed project is consistent with this goal as discussed above. 3 Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (California Department of Transportation Experiences), Technical Advisory, Vibration TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2020
4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Section 5.2, September 2018.

Policy S-6.7 Vibration Reduction. Minimize vibration impacts from construction sites, roadways, and other sources with a combination of setbacks, structural design features, and operational regulations as appropriate.

As stated previously, the proposed project would not result in damage causing vibration or groundborne vibration that is noticeable at sensitive receptors. No further setbacks, structural design features or operational regulations are necessary.

Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in 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.

Response to CEQA Checklist Question b):

As stated previously, the proposed project would not result in damage causing vibration or groundborne vibration that is noticeable at sensitive receptors. No further setbacks, structural design features or operational regulations are necessary.

Conclusion: No Impact. Project construction will not result in damage causing or noticeable groundborne vibration at sensitive receptors. No Impact.
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? The Redlands Airport is the closest airport to the project site. It is approximately 5.9 miles west of the site'.

The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact. No mitigation is required.

transportation ■ noise ■ air quality I GANDDINI GROUP
May 26, 2022
Mr. Jeff Kreidel

PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
35109 Avenue C
Yucaipa, California 92399
RE: Serrano Estates Project (TTM 20375) Transportation Study Screening Assessment Project No. 19521
Dear Mr. Kreidel:

Ganddini Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this Transportation Study Screening Assessment for the proposed Serrano Estates Project (TTM 20375) in the City of Yucaipa. The purpose of this screening assessment is to determine if preparation of a traffic impact analysis with level of service (LOS) analysis or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is necessary based on the transportation study guidelines and screening criteria established by the City of Yucaipa. We trust the findings of this analysis will aid you and the City of Yucaipa in assessing the project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 52.0-acre project site is located at northeast corner of the Yucaipa Ridge Road and Crystal Street intersection in the City of Yucaipa, California. The project site is currently undeveloped and zoned for rural residential (RL-1) with one dwelling per acre. The proposed project involves entitlement of a residential tract map with 35 single-family and 16 senior detached -dwelling units and five lettered lots. Vehicle access to the proposed project will be provided by three access roadways onto Yucaipa Ridge Road. The proposed site plan is shown in Attachment A.

PROJECT TRIPS
Table 1 shows the proposed project trips based on trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Detached Housing).

As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 399 daily trips, including 29 trips during the AM peak hour and 38 trips during the PM peak hour.

CRITERIA FOR THE PREPARATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES The project has been screened for both level of service (LOS) analysis and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis using the established criteria as specified in the City of Yucaipa Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (August 2020) ["City TIA Guidelines"].
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 795-3100 1 ganddini.com

Mr. Jeff Kreidel

PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
May 25, 2022

LEVEL OF SERVICE SCREENING CRITERIA (NON-CEQA/GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY) As specified in the City TIA Guidelines, the requirement to prepare a transportation impact study with level of service (LOS) analysis should be based on one or more of the following criteria:
■ When the project AM or PM peak hour trip generation is 100 or more trips. ■ Projects that will add 51 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hour to any intersection. ■ When determined by the City Engineer that existing or proposed traffic conditions in the project vicinity have unique characteristics that warrant evaluation.

The proposed project is forecast to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips, or 51 peak hour trips at any one intersection. Assuming the project shall construct all on -site and off -site improvements (if any) in accordance with City design standards, the project would not create any new safety or operational concerns. Therefore, the proposed project does not warrant preparation of a transportation impact study with LOS analysis based on the City -established screening criteria.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED SCREENING CRITERIA (CEQA
The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening assessment has been prepared in accordance with City TIA Guidelines, which were developed based on guidance from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California, December 2018) ["OPR Technical Advisory"]. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region. The OPR Technical Advisory provides technical considerations regarding methodologies and thresholds with a focus on office, residential, and retail developments as these projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.

The City TIA Guidelines identify screening criteria for certain types of projects that typically reduce VMT and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. The project need only satisfy one of the following screening criteria:
■ Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) o Projects located within one-half mile radius of major transit stop' or high -quality transit corridor2 ■ Projects located within a low VMT area
o Site location can be verified with the web -based or map -based VMT Screening Tool' ■ Project Type Screening
o Local serving land use
o Community institutions
o Supportive Housing
o Projects with trip generate less than net new 400 daily vehicle' trips (ADT) S A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail transit station, ferry terminal with bus or rail service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with less than 15-minute headways during the peak commute hours (Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3.). 2 Fixed route bus service with less than 15-minute headways during the peak commute hours (Pub. Resources Code, § 21155). s The SBCTA VMT Screening Tool was developed from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) travel forecasting model to measure VMT performance for individual jurisdictions and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). ° The term vehicle refers to on -road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy-duty trucks should only be included in a traffic impact analysis for modeling convenience and ease of calculation (e.g., where data provided combine auto and heavy freight VMT), but should not contribute to a finding of significant traffic (VMT) impact under any circumstances. ���= = Serrano Estates Project (TTM 20375)
Transportation Study Screening Assessment
2 19521

Mr. Jeff Kreidel

PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
May 25, 2022

TPA SCREENING
Projects located within a TPA, defined as within one-half mile of major transit stop or high -quality transit corridor, may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may not apply, however, if the project:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking)

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the City with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization): or

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high -income residential units.

Based on review the of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the proposed project is not located within a TPA; therefore, the project does not satisfy the TPA screening criteria.

Low VMT AREA SCREENING
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment -related and mixed -use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. Based on the City -established thresholds, a project would satisfy the low VMT screening criteria if it is located in a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) that does not exceed the City average total daily VMT per service population.

To identify if the project is in a low VMT area, the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool was used. The SBCTA VMT Screening Tool was developed from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) travel forecasting model to measure VMT performance for individual jurisdictions and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons similar to census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. Projects located in areas that incorporate similar features of the TAZ will tend to exhibit similar VMT. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips.

The proposed project is consistent with existing residential land uses in the project TAZ and there does not appear to be anything unique about the project that would otherwise be mis-represented utilizing the data from the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool. Based on the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool assessment. In this case, the proposed project consists of residential uses only; therefore, the applicable service population is the residential population and the project TAZ VMT has been calculated for VMT per population. g3l:Hh Serrano Estates Project (TTM 20375)
Transportation Study Screening Assessment
3 19521

Mr. Jeff Kreidel

PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
May 25, 2022
I Yucaipa Ridge Rd E Quartz St. Y X I Q)
L S;,, ,', err. ..:: Yucaipa R,dg . — -- - = . — . —
ri
M
VMT Please consult with the jurisdiction to verify which metric to use for your analysis.*
PA VMT Per Population
11 3. Select the Baseline Year. The years available for analysis are from 2016 to 2040.•
2022
A4. Select the Threshold (% reduction from baseline •=
year). Note each jurisdiction may have adopted a
different metric by which they measure VMT Please d
consult with the jurisdiction to verify which metric to use for your analysis.,
Below County Baseline (0%)
Tier
,Taz,
T.v'VVT
Jur:d:mcr.'d: 1T 'z
Odfe-cote SE
VMT Mt v--
Pco-_.c
Th—ho:d i6
K"'V
Exhibit A - SBCTA VMT Screening Tool Results
Exhibit A shows the SBCTA VMT Screening Tool results for the project site, and the proposed project is located within TAZ 53855103. As shown on Exhibit A, the baseline year (2022) VMT per service population for the project TAZ is equal to 29.3 and the City baseline is equal to 16. Therefore, the proposed project does not satisfy the City -established screening criteria for projects located in a low VMT area.

PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
The City TIA Guidelines identify the following types of projects that may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact as they are local serving and thus can be expected to reduce VMT or they are small enough to have a negligible impact:
■ Local parks
■ Day care centers
■ Local -serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, including:
o Gas stations
o Banks
Cl Restaurants
o Shopping Center
■ Local -serving medical office less than 100,000 square feet ■ Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses ■ Local -serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations) ■ Community institutions (Public libraries, fire stations, local government) g3l:dh Serrano Estates Project (TTM 20375)
Transportation Study Screening Assessment
4 19521

Mr. Jeff Kreidel

PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
May 25, 2022
■ Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS ■ Hotels (non -destination or resort; no banquet or special event space) ■ Affordable or supportive housing'
■ Assisted living facilities
■ Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
■ Projects generating less than 400 daily vehicle trips. This generally corresponds to the following "typical" development potentials:
0 42 single family housing units
0 54 multi -family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units 0 41,000 sq. ft. of office
0 80,000 sq. ft. of light industrial
0 229,000 sq. ft. of warehousing
0 285,000 sq. ft. of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse As previously shown in Table 1, the proposed project consists of 51 detached residential units which is forecast to generate less than 400 net new daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project satisfies the City - established project type screening criteria.

CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 399 daily trips, including 29 trips during the AM peak hour and 38 trips during the PM peak hour.

The project satisfies the City -established level of service (LOS) screening criteria for projects generating fewer than 100 peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed project does not warrant preparation of a level of service transportation impact study based on the City -established LOS screening criteria.

The proposed project satisfies the City -established VMT screening criteria for small projects; therefore, preparation of a transportation impact study with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is not warranted, and the proposed project may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 795-3100.

Sincerely,
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. �OQROFESSli
J. G92 'n"�c
w � TR 2663 m
ofc9 zX
Perrie Ilercil, P.E. (AZ) yk * Giancarlo Ganddini, PE, PTP Senior Engineer Principal
sT TRaFFkc �P
qTF OF CAL�FO��
s The project must provide 100% of residential units as affordable or supportive housing.

Serrano Estates Project (TTM 20375)
g3l:Hh Transportation Study Screening Assessment
5 19521

Table 1
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use
Source'
Land Use
Variable
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
Rate
% In
% Out
Rate
% In
%Out
Rate
Single -Family Detached Housing
Senior Adult Housing - Single -Family
ITE 210
ITE 251
DU
DU
26%
33%
1 74%
67%

0.70 0.24
63%
61 37%
39%

0.94 0.30

9.43 4.31
Trips Generated
Land Use
Source
Quantity
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Dail
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Single -Family Detached Housing
ITE 210
35 DU
6 19
25 21
12 33
330
Senior Adult Housing - Single -Family
ITE 251
16 DU
1 3
4 3
2 5
69 TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED
1 7
22 29
24 14
38 399
Notes:
1 ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021): ### = Land Use Code.

All rates based on General Urban/Suburban setting.
2 DU = Dwelling Unit.
g3ldii
Serrano Estates (TTM20375) Project
Transportation Study Screening Assessment
19521

ATTACHMENT A

SITE PLAN
Apx-1 Page 864

1 �.ra.sa•a __--- �---- »wm.� _ - Pie � I .»
© Slope Section o East Boundary ® Transition - Natural to Developed LdB 7d 111
.C. 216C�111EE " vl
_. 17
L
1; rzsl va�v
RL-1 419
VacantLand
,'. IF I6o 1�G11d
-i.e Wr
1 1)P TILWa w IS o27ce 51J
'6 26.

P 171)t�l � ISC92 v' De E)0
43 p e.NO 4 s161J;1 Po>S°
RL-1
Family
N
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20375
Pow f 11 Lot SubdWWW
ptt�c
RL-1 Entry Monument
Single Family Residential
� I
26 1` \
24 23 A
I C ISJ J3d �i]75dP RL. jl.d �i
_i
6 `-' p EE0 r 1 r I° IS ALftlwrl,altlwffafNMI W 6fTrtlytLffp M rs No,n:

Tl.wr,wltlE.fmNMY W g nrmlyN IrpTx. �M1NIfdIIDL
®tENA
Tsrr,w.tl ut fm.fwwlerrM.tl.1•tlArP.tlo.wfx,y

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
wlQ01La

SITE ADDRESS
GENERAL PLAN DESION117 oN
pE.Rt w.pw»sl. drawwq
44w Id lr M e wMe p f.y lrsl, na1 M1tlr.{ L ap. �. w'.M

PROPOSED PROJECT
� Owq.Na^I.sw/sh4t>)m4tirn u.rr�fs pwrltlr
fN:a.,r �frw.rr..+rrf�rrM..wwrr.s�....�
i�rwLe rl4wp.AL�wp!G
STATUrnCAL SUMMARY EARTHWORK EBTUATE
WrP-4>.ri mvc EMritt a—mw
!wfE��.aEa Llcu
,.r�.tl...w.tl...»r.r
Lwlaatlr....yr� Iwe.w4.
�e �..•.r.wPrErr.y.lr
..E LTf.f.4tlwa..dwwf
Lluf.r.f.:w.a..+adw
forvw ulAlnce
m�.vrvrAraru
etlA.voAl.tleO.offnr
'"
1yy���� mot
1PORITT 1n
mn ra wlo
t90RDS 6
IRu�p� a lvrrvnld
Ttlsticr
1®�riln 1a
P1RAId11T�
a .uve rx•_. va
Residence

SECTION A
b�

SECTION B
Legend
s�.r�.:w•
Ao Project 51te
Tan msa,ry $5. �
BWtrq Ena4y.• iW
Oi.1 GrsYd 4» 5 /
vicinity Map ,