September 12, 2012 Project No. 12-3572

Mr. Joseph Haikal, President

Kiddie Academy

16655 Noyes Ave.

Irvine, CA 92606

Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Kiddie Academy, 14501 Newport

Avenue, Tustin, California

Dear Mr. Haikal,

In accordance with your request, TGR Geotechnical, Inc. (TGR) has completed a limited

geotechnical study including liquefaction analysis/seismic analysis for the existing site located at

14501 Newport Avenue in Tustin, California. The subject site is currently occupied by a single

story building surrounded by a paved parking lot on the south and east and tennis courts on the

north and west. It is our understanding that the proposed development will be a one story

Kiddie Academy consisting of a proposed 6,300 square foot building with associated parking

and a 7,300 square foot outdoor play area.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions, liquefaction potential,

seismic settlement and provide pertinent geotechnical/geologic information necessary for the

proposed development.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Presented below are significant elements of our findings from a geotechnical viewpoint. These

findings are based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering

analyses.

The site is underlain by alluvial deposits comprised of layers of sandy silts and sandy

clays.

The existing pavement, where explored, is underlain by approximately 2 feet of

previously placed fill. This fill is not considered suitable for supporting the future building

12-3572

- 2 –

foundation. The fill should be removed and replaced as engineered fill for support of

shallow footings. The future building may be supported on shallow pad and continuous

footings.

At the time of our drilling, groundwater was observed at a depth of 41 feet below existing

ground surface. The depth to historic high groundwater is 30 feet below existing ground

surface.

The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The

closest faults to the subject site are San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust and Newport-

Inglewood fault, approximately 3 and 9.8 miles away, respectively.

Laboratory test results indicate that the potential for sulfate attack on concrete in contact

with onsite soils is moderate.

The subject site is located in an area having a potential for liquefaction. However, the

potential for liquefaction at the subject site is considered low. The total seismic

settlement associated with liquefaction is estimated to be 0.21 inches with a differential

seismic settlement of 0.2 inches across the site. The impact of potential for liquefaction

for future development of the site is considered to be low.

Percolation testing performed at the site indicates that the near surface soils (upper 5

feet) have an infiltration rate of 0.21 inches per hour.

SCOPE

The following services were performed for the subject site.

Site reconnaissance.

Sampling and logging two (2) hollow stem auger borings utilizing a hollow stem drill rig to

an approximate depth of 26.5 to 51.5 feet at the subject site to evaluate subsurface soil

conditions. The borings were backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete.

Percolation testing of the near surface soils.

Laboratory testing of selected samples for in-situ moisture and density, maximum density,

shear, consolidation, gradation, Atterberg limits and sulfate.

Engineering analysis including site seismicity, liquefaction analysis, and seismic

settlement.

12-3572

- 3 –

Preparation of this report summarizing subsurface soil conditions, site seismicity, results

of liquefaction study, seismic settlement and providing pertinent geotechnical/geologic

information that may influence the future development of the site.

GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION

Field exploration was performed on August 24, 2012 by a staff from our firm who logged the

soils borings and obtained representative samples, which were subsequently transported to the

laboratory for further review and testing. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated

on the enclosed Boring Location Map (Plate 1).

The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling, sampling, and logging two (2) borings

using truck mounted hollow stem auger. The borings were advanced to a depth ranging from

26.5 feet to 51.5 feet below existing ground surface. Subsequent to drilling all borings were

backfilled with excavated soils and patched with asphalt concrete. The logs of borings together

with an explanation of symbols used are presented in Appendix B.

The sampling apparatus consisted of driven modified California Ring Sampler (CRS), 3-inch

outside diameter, and 2.42-inch inside diameter. Driven samples and bulk samples of the earth

materials encountered at selected intervals were recovered from the borings.

The samples were driven using a 140 pound hammer. Soil descriptions were entered on the

logs in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The locations

and depths of the soil samples recovered are indicated on the logs of Borings in Appendix B.

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples to verify the field classification of

the recovered samples and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the subsurface soils. The

following tests were performed:

In-situ moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density;

Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D1557);

Consolidation potential (ASTM D2435);

Percent passing No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140);

Sieve analysis without hydrometer (ASTM D422);

12-3572

- 4 –

Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318); and

Direct shear strength (ASTM D3080);

Sulfate (CAL.417A)

Laboratory tests for geotechnical characteristics were performed in general accordance with the

ASTM and Caltrans procedures. The results of the in-situ moisture content and density tests

are shown on the borings logs (Appendix B). The results of the laboratory tests are presented

in Appendix C.

GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS

Regional Geologic Setting

The subject site is located within the northern portion of the Tustin 7.5-Minute Quadrangle,

Orange County, California. According to Geologic Map of Orange County, California, the subject

site is underlain by Quaternary alluvial deposits comprised of layers of silty sands and clays.

Figure 2 presents the Regional Geologic Map.

Earth Units

Based on our subsurface investigation, the subject site is predominantly underlain by alluvial

deposits. The subject site is covered by asphalt pavement comprised of 3.5 to 6 inches of

asphalt concrete over 3.5 inches of base. The pavement is underlain by approximately 2 feet of

previously placed fill. This fill is not considered suitable for support of any future building

foundation. The fill is underlain by layers of sandy silts and sandy clays to the depth explored of

approximately 51.5 feet. Detailed descriptions of the earth units encountered in our borings are

presented in the log of the borings.

Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of 41 feet below existing ground

surface. Seasonal and long-term fluctuations in the groundwater may occur as a result of

variations in subsurface conditions, rainfall, run-off conditions, and other factors. Therefore,

variations from our observations may occur.

12-3572

- 5 –

A review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report, Tustin Quadrangle (CDMG) indicates that the

historic high groundwater is approximately 30 feet below existing ground surface (See Figure 3).

Percolation Testing

The following is the tested infiltration rate for the percolation testing we performed at the subject site:

0.21 inches per hour The rate was determined following the test procedures outlined in the City of Tustin Technical

Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality

Management Plans dated May 19, 2011.

Geologic Hazards

The most significant geologic hazard to the project is the potential for moderate ground shaking

resulting from earthquakes generated on the faults within the vicinity of the site. The site is not

located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone for earthquake rupture hazard. The potential

for direct surface fault rupture in the project area is considered very unlikely.

No landslides or indications of deep-seated land sliding were noted on the site during our field

exploration or during our review of available geologic maps. The potential for landslides on this

site is considered negligible.

Faulting and Regional Seismicity

We consider the most significant geologic hazard to be the potential for moderate to strong

seismic shaking that is likely to occur at the subject site. The subject site is located in the highly

seismic Southern California region within the influence of several faults that are considered to

be active or potentially active. An active fault is defined by the State of California as a

“sufficiently active and well defined fault” that has exhibited surface displacement within the

Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined by the State as

a fault with a history of movement within Pleistocene time (between 11,000 and 1.6 million years

ago).

12-3572

- 6 –

These active and potentially active faults are capable of producing potentially damaging seismic

shaking at the site. It is anticipated that the subject site will periodically experience ground

acceleration as the result of small to moderate magnitude earthquakes. Other active faults

without surface expression (blind faults) or other potentially active seismic sources that are not

currently zoned and may be capable of generating an earthquake are known to be present

under in region.

Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps, as well as our field reconnaissance, the

subject site is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit

evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively).

The Newport-Inglewood (LA Basin) fault is the nearest known active fault which is mapped

approximately 9.8 miles from the subject site. This fault is capable of generating an earthquake

with a moment magnitude of 7.1.

Other faults close to the site are the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault (3.0 miles away) and the

Newport Inglewood (offshore) Fault (10.9 miles away).

All known active faults located within a 100-mile radius of the site are summarized in Appendix

D (EQFAULT, Version 3.00) showing distances and maximum moment magnitudes. Regional

Fault Map (Figure 4) presents the location of the site with respect to the regional faults.

Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils

behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs

when these ground conditions exist: 1) Shallow groundwater; 2) Low density, fine, clean sandy

soils; and 3) High-intensity ground motion. Effects of liquefaction can include sand boils,

settlement, and bearing capacity failures below foundations.

A review of the seismic hazard zone map of the Tustin Quadrangle indicates that the subject

site is located within an area having a potential for earthquake induced liquefaction (Figure 5).

Liquefaction analysis was performed for the subject site utilizing the data presented in B-1, a

peak ground acceleration of 0.38g (SDs/2.5), earthquake moment magnitude of 7.1 and a

12-3572

- 7 –

historic depth to groundwater of 30 feet. The potential for liquefaction at the subject site is

considered to be low. Results of Liquefaction analysis are presented in Appendix E.

Seismic Settlement

Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event can produce settlements in sands or in

granular earth materials both above and below the groundwater table. This phenomenon is

often referred to as seismic settlement and is most common in relatively clean sands, although it

can also occur in other soil materials. The total seismic settlement associated with liquefaction

is estimated to be 0.21 inches with a differential seismic settlement of 0.2 inch across the site.

Lateral Spreading

Seismically induced lateral spreading primarily involves movement of earth materials due to

earth shaking. Lateral spreading is demonstrated by near-vertical cracks with predominantly

horizontal movement of the soil mass involved as a result of liquefaction in a subsurface layer.

Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluidized mass, gravity plus inertial

forces that result from the earthquake may cause the mass to move down slope toward a cut or

free face.

The subject site is relatively level, thus the potential for lateral spreading at the subject site is

considered negligible.

Slope Stability

There are no slopes onsite or offsite adjacent to the subject property. Therefore, slope stability

is not considered a concern at the subject site.

Seismic Parameters

When reviewing the 2010 California Building Code and ASCE 7-5 the following seismic data

pertain to the subject site.

12-3572

- 8 –

Latitude (degree) 33.7325

Longitude (degree) -117.8282

Site Class D

Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0

Site Coefficient, Fv 1.5

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-sec Period, Ss 1.421g

Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-sec Period, S1 0.505g

Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-sec Period Adjusted for Site Class, SMS 1.421g

Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-sec Period Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 0.757g

Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-sec Period, SDS 0.948g

Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-sec Period, SD1 0.505g

The structural consultant should review the above parameters and the 2010 California Building

Code to evaluate the seismic design.

Conformance to the criteria presented in the above table for seismic design does not constitute

any type of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not

occur during a large earthquake event. The intent of the code is “life safety” and not to

completely prevent damage of the structure, since such design may be economically prohibitive.

Foundation Bearing Capacity

It is our understanding that the proposed development will be a one story 6,300 square foot

building. The building may be supported on conventional foundation. An allowable bearing

pressure of 1700 pounds per square foot may be utilized in foundation design for footings when

supported on a minimum 2 feet of engineered fill compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative

compaction. The lateral extent of the engineered fill shall be a minimum of 5 feet outside the

footprint of the footings. Pad footings shall be a minimum of 24-inches wide and 24-inches

deep and continuous footings shall be a minimum of 15-inches wide and 24-inches deep. This

allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one third for short term seismic and wind

12-3572

- 9 –

loading. The estimated total settlement and differential settlement over 40 feet is estimated as

1-inch and 0.5-inch, respectively. A minimum reinforcement of two (2) No. 4 steel bar top and

bottom is required for continuous footings from a geotechnical viewpoint.

Resistance to lateral loads including wind and seismic forces may be provided by frictional

resistance between the bottom of concrete and the underlying fill soils and by passive pressure

against the sides of the foundations. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.34 may be used

between concrete foundation and underlying soil. The recommended allowable passive

pressure of the site soils may be taken as an equivalent fluid pressure of 220 pounds per cubic

foot (maximum 2200 psf).

Cement Type and Corrosion

Testing of near surface site soils indicate moderate sulfate exposure to concrete in contact with

site soils (ACI 318, Section 4.3). Concrete in contact with soil should be designed in accordance

with the provisions of ACI 318, Section 4.3 and Section 4.4 (Section 1904A.3 and Section

1904A.5 of the 2010 California Building Code) for reinforced concrete exposed to soils containing

moderate sulfate exposure.

TGR does not practice corrosion engineering. If needed, a qualified specialist should review the

site conditions and evaluate the corrosion potential of the site soil to the proposed improvements

and to provide the appropriate corrosion mitigations for the project.

Slab-on-Grade Recommendations

Slab-on-Grade which will receive relatively light loads on low to medium expansive soils should

be a minimum of 5-inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of No. 4 reinforcing bar on 18-

inch centers in two horizontally perpendicular directions. Reinforcing should be properly

supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab. "Hooking" of the

reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the steel. The slab-on-

grade shall be supported on a minimum 3 feet of engineered fill moisture conditioned to 120

percent of optimum and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry

density (ASTM 1557). For moisture sensitive flooring, the floor slab should be underlain by an

impermeable polyethylene membrane (Stego Wrap, Moistop Plus, or any equivalent meeting

the requirements of ASTM D1745) as a capillary break. The membrane shall be a minimum 10-

12-3572

- 10 –

mil thick and overlain and underlain by a minimum of 2-inch thick layer of moistened (not

saturated) sand to both protect the membrane and provide proper concrete curing. The

polyethylene membrane joints should be lapped not less than 6 inches.

Flatwork Design

Flatwork should be a minimum of 4-inches thick should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3

reinforcing bar on 18-inch centers in two horizontally perpendicular directions. Reinforcing

should be properly supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab.

"Hooking" of the reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the steel.

The slab should not be structurally connected to the building. The subgrade material should be

moisture conditioned to 120 percent of optimum and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of

the maximum laboratory dry density (ASTM 1557) to a minimum depth of one (1) feet. Prior to

placement of concrete, the subgrade soils should be well moistened to 120 percent of optimum

moisture content and verified by our field representative. The actual thickness and

reinforcement of the slab shall be designed by the structural engineer and should include the

anticipated loading condition. Flatwork, when supported on topsoil may be subject to movement

from change in moisture content. This can be limited by providing a 12-inch deep 6-inch wide

cutoff wall/thickened edge.

Pavement Section

The Caltrans method of design was utilized to develop the following asphalt pavement section.

The section was developed based on an assumed R-value of 5 for the site subgrade soils and

an assumed traffic index of 4.5 for parking stalls and 5.0 for driveways.

Pavement Utilization

Assumed Traffic Index

Asphalt (Inches)

Aggregate Base

(Inches)

Parking Stalls 4.5 3.0 6.5

Driveways 5.0 4.0 7.5

Aggregate base material should consist of Crushed Aggregate Base complying with the

specifications in Section 200.2.2 of the current “Standard Specifications for Public Works

Construction” and should be compacted to at least ninety-five (95) percent of the maximum dry

density (ASTM D1557). The surface of the aggregate base should exhibit a firm and unyielding

12-3572

- 11 –

condition just prior to the placement of asphalt concrete paving. Preparation of the pavement

subgrade shall be in accordance with grading requirements for flatwork.

Site Development Recommendations

General

During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general procedures of the contractor

should be observed, and the fill selectively tested by a representative of TGR. If unusual or

unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if

warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered.

Grading

All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the California Building Code (2010

edition), except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, TGR’s

representative should be present at the pre-construction meeting to provide grading guidelines,

if needed, and review any earthwork.

The existing fill (approximately two (2) feet thick) shall be removed and replaced as compacted

fill. Deeper removals may be required based on exposed conditions. The depth of removal

shall be two (2) feet below bottom of the footing or three (3) feet from existing grade, whichever

is deeper.

Fill Placement

Prior to any fill placement TGR should observe the exposed surface soils. The site soils may be

re-used as engineered fill provided they are free of organic content and particle size greater

than 4-inches. Fill shall be moisture-conditioned to 120 percent of optimum and compacted to a

minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. Any import soils

shall be non expansive and approved by TGR Geotechnical Inc.

Compaction

Prior to fill placement, the exposed surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6)

inches, fill placed in eight (8) inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned to 120 percent of optimum,

and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of ninety (90) percent in accordance with

ASTM D 1557.

12-3572

- 12 –

Trenching

All excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.

Drainage

Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled

down any descending slope or retaining wall. Water should be directed away from foundations

and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward

the street/parking or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts should be utilized to

control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from the proposed

structure or into an approved subsurface drainage system. We would recommend that any

proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum

distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet

placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or

any exterior concrete flatwork.

Utility Trench Backfill

All utility trench backfill in structural areas and beneath hardscape features should be brought to

near-optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent

of the laboratory standard. Flooding/jetting is not recommended.

Sand backfill, (unless trench excavation material), should not be allowed in parallel exterior

trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside

bottom edge of the footing. All trench excavations should minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and

local safety codes. Soils generated from utility trench excavations may be used provided it is

moisture conditioned and compacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction.

Geotechnical Review of Plans

All grading and foundation plans should be reviewed and accepted by the geotechnical

consultant prior to construction. If significant time elapses since preparation of this report, the

geotechnical consultant should verify the current site conditions, and provide any additional

recommendations (if necessary) prior to construction.

12-3572

- 13 –

Geotechnical Observation/Testing During Construction

The geotechnical consultant should perform observation and/or testing at the following stages:

During any grading and fill placement;

After foundation excavation and prior to placing concrete;

Prior to placing flatwork concrete;

During placement of aggregate base and pavement concrete;

When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction

operation subsequent to issuance of this report.

Closure

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kiddie Academy their design consultants

relative to the purchase of the subject site. No portion of this report may be used by other

parties or for other purposes.

The exploratory work was performed within the existing parking lot. The design

recommendations presented in this report are preliminary and shall be further evaluated and the

recommendations amended when development plans are available.

TGR considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of

services for this report. This report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not

contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties.

Our findings were obtained in accordance with generally accepted current professional

principles and local practice in geotechnical engineering and reflect our best professional

judgment. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

The findings contained in this report are based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the

information obtained from the limited number of test borings and the results of laboratory testing

and engineering analysis. As part of the engineering analysis it has been assumed, and is

12-3572

- 14 –

expected, that the geotechnical conditions that exist across the area of study are similar to

those encountered in the borings. However, no warranty is expressed or implied as to the

conditions at locations or depths other than those explored.

We thank you for the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project.

Respectfully submitted,

TGR GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Sanjay Govil, PhD, PE, GE 2382 Edward L. Burrows, M.S, PG, CEG 1750

Principal Geotechnical Engineer Principal Engineering Geologist

Attachments: Figure 1 – Site Location Map

Figure 2 – Regional Geology Map

Figure 3 – Historic High Groundwater Map

Figure 4 – Regional Fault Map

Figure 5 – Seismic Hazard Zone Map

Plate 1 – Boring Location Map

Appendix A – References

Appendix B – Log of Borings

Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results

Appendix D – EQFAULT Results

Appendix E – Liquefaction Analysis

Distribution: (4) Addressee

12-3572

APPENDIX A REFERENCES

12-3572

APPENDIX A REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Parts 1 Through 5

ASCE/SEI 7-5 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

Blake, Thomas F., 2000 EQFault, Computer programs for calculating the site to fault distances,

Deterministic peak horizontal ground accelerations for a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake, and

historic seismicity for an area from selected known faults in the southern California region

California Building Code 2010 Edition

California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997,

Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, CDMG Special

Publication 117

California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999,

Recommendation Procedures for Implementation of Special Publication 117

California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of

Known Active Fault Near – Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada

California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2001, Seismic

Hazard Zones Tustin Quadrangle Official Revised Map, dated January 17, 2001

California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic

Hazard Zone Report 012 for the Tustin 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California

California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1966 (Sixth

Printing, 1992), Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, Scale 1:250,000

12-3572

Hart, E. W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault

Zoning with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines

and Geology, Special Publication 42

Ishihara, K., 1985, “Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquake”, Proceedings of the

Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A. A.

Belkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M. 1992 “Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following

Liquefaction During Earthquakes”, Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics

and Foundation Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1, Pages 173 to 188, March 1992

Jennings, C. W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division

of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6, Scale 1:750,000

Kramer, Steve L., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

Krinitzsky, E.L., Gould, J.P., Edinger, P.H., Fundamentals of Earthquake Resistant Construction

Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (Revised), by Carl W. Stover and Jerry L. Coffman,

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, United States Government Printing Office,

Washington: 1993

Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1997 “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake

Shaking”, J. Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No.8, Pages 861-878

Tustin, City of, 2011, Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of

Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), dated May

19, 2011

USGS, Earthquakes Hazard Program Website http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/ for historic

earthquakes

12-3572

Youd, Leslie and Garris, Christopher, T., Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption,

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, November 1995

Youd, T. TI., et. al., 2001. “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996

NCEER and 1998 NCEER, NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, pages

817 to 833

12-3572

APPENDIX B LOG OF BORINGS

12-3572

APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

12-3572

APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results

Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples. Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the test data and in the table below:

Sample Location Sample Description Maximum Dry Density (Pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content (%)

B-1 @ 0-5 feet Brown Sandy Silt 122.0 12.5

Wash Sieve Test: Typical materials were washed over No. 200 sieve (ASTM Test Method D1140). The test results are presented below:

Sample Location % Passing No. 200 Sieve

B-1 @ 10 feet 78.6

B-1 @ 35 feet 64.2

B-2@ 2.5 feet 59.8

Grain Size Distribution Test: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM Test Method D422). Hydrometer analyses were not performed. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data. Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on a selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original 1-inch height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented in the test data.

12-3572

Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1-hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5 inches per minute (depending upon the soil type). The test results are presented in the test data. Atterberg Limits: The Atterberg Limits were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D423 for engineering classification of the fine-grained materials and presented in the table below:

Sample Location Liquid Limit

(%) Plastic Limit

(%) Plasticity Index

(%) USCS Soil

Classification

B-1 @ 35 feet 24 12 12 CL

Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below:

Sample Location

Sample Description

Water Soluble

Sulfate in Soil, (% by

Weight)

Sulfate Content (ppm)

Potential Degree of

Sulfate Attack*

B-1@ 0 - 5 ft Brown Sandy Silt 0.1329 1329 Moderate

* Based on the current version of ACI 318 Building Code, Table No. 4.3.1 requirement for Concrete Exposed to Sulfate-Containing Solutions.

12-3572

APPENDIX D EQFAULT RESULTS

12-3572

APPENDIX E LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS