Loading...
06-2610 (BLCK) Geotechnical InvestigationJUL-12-06 03:42PM FROM- T-226 P.02 F-468 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MADISON CLUB GOLF CLUB AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEC AVFNUB 54 AND MADISON STREET LA QUNTA, CALVORNIA j 1 ' Prepared By Sladden Engineering 39.725 Garand Laine, Suite G Palm Desert, California 92211 (760) 7724893 j JUL-12-06 03:42PM FROM - T -226 P.03/13 F-468 ladden n9ineerin j 'S 6782 Stanton Ave„ Suite A. Buena Park, CA 90621 (714)523.0962 Fax(714)523 38.125 Garand Ln„ Suite G. Palm Desert, CA 82211 (760) 772 843 Fac (760) 772895 ja,ua-ry 28, 2005 East of Madiaorz LLC 81-100 Avenue 53 -La Qulnta, California 92253 Mention: Mr. John Garnlin Project: Madison Club Tentative fact dap 33076 NEC Avenue 54 and Madison Street La Quinta, California Subject: Geotechnic Investigation Project No. 544-4810 05.01-101 r ptesemed herewith is the report of our Geotechnical. Investigation conducted for the construction of the proposed golf club and residential development to be located ong was performed in owrtheast comer of rder to rov�.de Madison Street in the City of La Quinti, California. venue 54 and The investiga P P r atesidagons for site preparation and to assist in foundation design for the proposed residential structures and the related site Improvements. Th6 report* presents the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing along with conclusions eP preparation. This report completes our original and recommendations for foundation design and site prep P. scope of services as outlined within out proposal dated December 13, 2004. to you on this project. if you have any questions We appreciate the opportunity to provide service regarding this report+ please contact the undersigned Respectfully submitted, 1<NEERT S, ADDS ENGNG fVo. C 45388 Z z ' �amps • BrettL Andersor< principal neer S"'c Copies: 6/F-ast of Madison, LLC JUL-12-06 03:42PM FROM- GEOT ECHNICAL MV9S'Y IGA'T'ION VROPS7S1?D MADISON CLUB NBC AVENUE 54 & MADISON STREET Y,A QT7IN'TA, CALIFORNIA January 28, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS T-226 P.04/13 F-468 APPENDIX A - Site plan and Boring Logs Field Exploration APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C - 2001 Califart►ia BuildingCode with 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria RM017C.1CTION...... ................................... ..................... . ,.....».....:......1 SCOPEOT WORK .: ............................................... ....... ................... SCOPE _........... . .................. 1 PROJECT D6SCF-IPTION........................................ ........... ........... .........•..p ............... 2 GEOT,OGY AND SEISMICITY .............................................................r ........... 3 ..... SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................. ........................ ................... LlQUEFACTION .......... ....................».................................................. 3 T'TONS ..........».. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMTNDA ........................ Y --- ...' FoundationDesign................................. ........................... ......................... .................. . Settlements .........................................-.................................... ...................__........,...,. 5 Lateral Design ......................... _ ...... ............................. . . .... ... 'Rewining Walls .................... ...................._.......................... "I ................................ .........._..._._..... 5 Expansive Soil...............................................................-......................... ....... 5. Slabs-an-Grade................»...............I............................. `. .......... �__...... Concrete . ..._ 6 SolubleSulfates............................................................... ............................................ -. 'rentative Pavement Design ......... ...................................................................e ..... ... b Shrinkage and Subsidence .............................. ..........._............ ............... ., ............... .... 6 General Site Grading ....................... . . _... ....., .....................». _ _ .............6 .......... 1. Site Clearing....:...................................-.........................................a_.........t.... ' 2. Prepaxation of Building and Foundation Areas .................................... ...... .................. 7 3. Placement of Compacted Fill ........................................ ............... 4. Prepantion of Slab and Pavement Areas ................................. . .......:........,.... 7 S. Tespng acid Inspection ................. .................».......................................... _... 8 GFER'►L W......................._...........................................: ......... . .................... 9 RBFRENCES.....................:...................................................._........... .........A.............. APPENDIX A - Site plan and Boring Logs Field Exploration APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C - 2001 Califart►ia BuildingCode with 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria JUL-12-06 03:42PM FROM- T-226 P.05/13 F-468 Project No. 5444810 January 28, 2005 05-01-101 D'RODUCTION This report presents the "results of our Geotechnical Inveatigatior, performed in order to provide recommendations for site preparation and to assist in rho design and construction of the foundations for the ainglerfamily residences proposed for the Madigan Club golf course and residential development. The project site is located on the northeast coater of .Avenue 54 and Madison Street in the City Of - ]:a Quinta, California. The prelisstinary Plans indicate that the proposed project will include a 18 -hole golf farrtil Tesidence* along with.warious ass sociatedd site course, clubhouse, and approximately 200 eY are. expected do include paved roadways, concrete improvements. The associated site improvements driveways and patios, underground utilities, and landscape areas. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our investigation was to determine certain e ineering characteri@tics of the near surface soli on the site in order to develop xecotnmendations for fowldation design and site preparation- Our n, laboratory besting, literature review, engineerit�g analysis and investigation included field exploratio the preparation of this report. 13vatuation of hazardous materials or other environmental concerns was not within the scope of services provided. Our Investigation was performed in accordance with contemporary geotechnical engineering principles and practice. We do not make other warranty, either express o T implied. PROISCT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the northeast corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Stmt in the City of tat Qwnta, California. it is our understanding that the project will WrWist of an i8 -hole golf course, clubhouse, and approximately 200 41ngle4amily residences along with •various associated site improvements. It is our understanding that the proposed residences and clubhouse will be of relatively lightweight wood -frame construction and will be supported by conventional shallow spread footings and concrete slabs on 'gzade. The associated improvements will include paved roadways, conn-ete walkways, patios; driveways, landscape areas and various underground utilities. The majority of the subject site is presently vacant. The site includes several cigrieuliural parcels as weJ1 as undeveloped desert land, Large taumisk trees exist along the majority of the property lines wid in the southeastern portion of the site. The majority of the eastern portions of the property have been previously used for agriasltural purposes. The property is level throughout and is near the elevation of the adjacent properties-4nd roadways. A horse ranch occuples the southeast comer of the site The ranch contains several residential structures and various. outbuildings, Fenced pastures occupy mast of the ranch. Several other residences and structures exist at locations .throughout tho site. Avenue 54 forms the southern site boundary, Monroe Street forms the eastern site boundary, and Madison Street forms the western site boundary- The Hideaway developnunt is located Just west of the site. JUL-12-06 O3:43PM FROM - T -226 P-06/13 F-468 January 28, 2005 -z- Project No. 5444810.0 05-01-1.01 Bascd upon our previous experience with lightweight residential structures, we expect that isolated column loads will be less than 30 kips and wall loading will be less t1w to 2.0 Idps per linear foot. Grading is expected to include minor cuts and fills to match the nearby elevations and to construct slightly elevated building pads to accommodate site drainage. Extensive cutu are proposed for several of the golf holes with the preliminary plans, indicating cuts vt excess of 40 feet within some of the golf holes. This does not include removal and recoMpaction of the bearing soil within the building areas. If -the anticipated foundation loading or site grading varies substantially from that assumed the recommendations included in this report should be reevaluated.. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY The project site is located within the central Coachella Valley that is part of the broader Salton Trough geomorphic province. The Salton Trough is a northwest trending depression that extends from the Gulf of California to the Banning Pass. Structurally the Salton Trough is dominated by several northwest trending faults, most notable of that is the San Andreas system. A relatively thick sequence of sedimentary rocks have been deposited in the Coachella Valley poroon of the Salton Trough from NIiocene to preoent times. These sediments are predominately terrestrial in nature with some lacustrian and minor marine deposits. The mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley are composed primarily of Premnftari mctamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rock. The Coachella Valley is situated in one of the more seismically active areas of Califarrda, The San Andreas fault zone is considered capable of generating a ma)dmum credible earthquake of magnitude 8.0 and because of its proximfSy to the project site the distance of approximately 9.2 kilometers should be considered in design fault for the project. Seismic activity along the nearby faults continues to affect the area and the Coachella Valley is considered one of the more seismically active regions in California. A computer program and pertinent geologic literature were utilized to compile data related to earthquake fault zones in the region and previous seismic activity that may have affected the site. E.Q. Fault Version 3.00 (Blake) provides a eomptlation of data xelatedto earthquake faults in the region. The program searches available databases and provides both distances to causitive faults and the cormponding accelaratlons that may be experienced on the site because of earthquake activity along these faults. The attenuation relationship ut0.ized for this project was based upon Joyner & Doore (2001) attenuation curves. The information generated was utilized in our liquefaction evaluation The site is not located in any Earthquake Fault zones as designated by the State but is mapped in the County's liquefaction and Ground Shaking Lazard lone V. Several significant seismic events have occurred within the Coachella Valley during the past 50 years. The events include Desert Hot.Springs 1948 (65 Magnitude), Palm Springs - 1986 (5.9 Magnitude), Desert Hot Springs -1992 (6.1 Magnitude), Landers -1992 (7.5 Magnitude) and Big Bear- 1992 (6.6 Magnitude)_ JUL-12-06 03:43PM FROM - January 28, 2005 -3- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS T-226 P.07/13 F-468 Project No. 5444810 05-01-101 The soil underlying the site consists primarily of 6ne-grained silty sands with scattered prominent sandy clay and sandy silt layers. As is typical for the area, the silty sand and sandy silt layers are inconsistently interbedded and vary in thickness. Silty sands ware the most prominent soil within our, exploratory borings but several prominent sandy silt and clayey silt layers were also encountered. The silty sands encountered near the existing ground,surface appeared somewhat loose but the deeper silty sand and sandy silt layers appeared relatively firm- Relatively undisturbed samples indicated dry density varying from 84 to 121 pcf. Sampler penetration resistance (as measured by field blowcounts) indicates that density generally increases with depth. The site soil was dry on the surface and moist below a depth of approximately b feet but some silty layers were typically wet_ Laboratory testing indicated moisture content varying from 1 to 33 percent. Laboratory testing indicates that the surface soil within the upper 5 feet consist primarily of silty sands. Expansion testing indicates that the surface silty sands are generally conn -expansive and are classified as ,,very low" expansion category soil in accordance with Table 18-I B of the 199'7 Uniform Building Code. tr,roundwater was encountered within our borings at depths of approximately 51 to 79 feet below the existing, ground surface. Groundwater should be considered In design and construction.. LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction occurs with sudden loss of soil strength because of rapid increases in pore pressures within cohesionless soil as a result of repeated cyclic loading during seismic events. Several conditions must be present for liquefaction to occur including; the presence of relatively shallow groundwater, generally loose soil conditions, the susceptibility of soil to liquefaction based upop grain -size characteristics and the generation of significant and repeated seismically induced ground accelerations. liquefaction affects primarily loose, uniform grained cohesionlals sands with low relative densities. In the case of this project site, several of the factors -required for liquefaction to occur are not presem. As previpusly indicated, groundwater was encountered within our borings at depths of approximately 51 to 79 feet below the exi:siing ground surface on the site. Because of the depth to groundwater, the potential for liquefaetiotr affecting the site is considered negligible. CONCLUSIONS AND R18COMMENDATIONS eased upon our field investigation and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the proposed golf course, clubhouse, and residential dcveiopment is feasible from a soil mechanVs standpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are wnsidered in bwlding Foundation design. and site preparation. Because of the somewhat loose condition of the near surface soil, remedial grading is recomunertded for the .building areas- We recommend that remedial grading within the proposed building areas include the overexcavation and reconTaction of the primary'foupdation bearing soil. Specific recommendations for site preparation are presented in the Site Grading section of this report. JUL-12-06 03:44PM FROM - T -226 P.08/13 F-468 January 28, 2005 -4- Project No. 544-4810 05-01-101 Based upon the depth ra groundwater and the generally firm condition of the deeper sand layers, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction affecting the site is negligible_ The remedial grading recommended for building areas will result in the construction of a uniform compacted soil mat beneath all footings. In out opinion, liquefaction related mitigation measures in addition to the site grading and foundation design recommendations included in this report should not be necessary. The site is located in one of the more seismically actide areas in Califontta. Desmon professionals should be aware of the site setting and the potence for earthquake activity during the anticipated life of the structure should be aclawwledged. The accelerations that may be experienced on the site (as previously discussed) should be considered in design. The seismic provisions included in the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 should be considewd the minimum design criteria. Pertinent 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria is summarized in Appendix C. Caving did occux within our borings and the potential for caving should be expected within deeper excavations. AR excavations should be constructed in accordance %dth the normal CaIOSHA excavation criteria. Cn.the basis of our observations of the materials encountered, we anticipate that the near surface silty sands will be classified by Ca105HA as Type C. Soil conditions should be verified in the field by a "Competent person" employed by the Contractor. The near surface soil en=ntered during our investigation was found to be non -expansive; Laboratory. testing indicated an Expansion f ndex of 0 for the surface silty sands that corresponds with the "very low" expansion category in accordance with UBC Table 18-1-B. The following recommendations present more detailed design criteria which have bean developed on the basis of our field and laboratory investigation. The recommendations are based upon non -expansive soil criteria. Foundation Design: The results of our investigation indicate that either conventional shallow continuous footings or isolated pad footings that are supported upon properly compacted soil, may be expected to provide adequate support for the proposed structure foundations. MIding pad grading should be performed as described in the Site Grading Section of this report to provide for uniform and firm bearing conditions -for the structure foundations. Footings should extend at least 12 inches beneath lowest adjacent grade. Isolated. square or rectangular footings should be at least two feet upare and continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide. Continuous footings may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot (psf) and isolated pad footings may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 1800 psf. Allowable increases of 250 psf for each additional l foot of width and 250 psf for each additional 6 inches of deptb may be utilized if desired. The maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 2500 psf. The allowable bearing pressures are applicable to dead and frequently applied live loads. The allowable bearing pressures inay be increased by 1/3 to resist wind and seismic loading. Care should be taken to see that bearing or subgrade soil is not allowed to become saturated from the ponding of rainwater or irrigation. Enaihage from the building area should be rapid and complete. JUL-12-O6 O3:44PM FROM - V M I i ... _ _ ..... January 28,200 -5- T-226 P-09/13 F-468 Project No. 5491810 05-01-101 The recommerdations provided in the preceding paragraph are based on the assumption that all footings will be supported upon properly'compacted engineered fill soil. All gtading'should be performed under_ the testing and inspection of the Soil Engineer or his representative. Prior to the placement of concxete, we recommend that the footing excavations be inspected in order to verify that they extend into compacted soil and are fret of loose and disturbed =Wials- settlements: Settlements. resulting from the anticipated foundation loads should be minimal provided that the recommendations included in this report are considered in foundation design and construction. he estimated ultimate settlements are calculated to be approximately. one inch when using the recommended bearing values. As a practical matter, differential settlements between footings can be assumed as one-half of the total settlement. Lateral Design_ Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by a combination of friction acting at the base of the slabs or foundations and passive earth pressure along the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of D.40 between soil and concrete may be used with consideration to dead load forces only.- A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, may be used, for the sides of footings that are poured against properly .compacted native or approved non -expansive import soil. Passive earth -pressure should be ignored within the upper 1 foot except where confined (such as beneath a flocs slab). xerdning Walls: Retail ing walls may be necessary to accomplish the proposed construction. Lateral pressures for use in retaining wall design can be estiotated using an equivalent fluid weight of .35 pcf for levdI frse-drainmg native backfill conditions. For walls . that are bo be restrained at the top, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to 55 pd for level free - draining native backfill conditions. Backdrdin$ should be provided for the full height of the walls- gxpax►sfve Soil: Because dE the prominence of "'vEry low, expansion categm soil near the surface, the expansion potential of the foundation bearing sail should not be.a controlling factox in foundation or floor slab design_ Expansion potential' should be reevaluated. subsequent to grading. Concrete Slabs -on -Grade;. All surfaces to receive aonrrete slab-��e should esobe underla in in the Site a minimum compacted noit-expansive fill thickness of 24 inches, p Grading Section of this report. Where slabs are to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or wheie dampness of the floor slab is not desired, we recommend the use of an appropriate vapor barrier or an adequate capillary.bireak. Vapor barriers should be protested by Sand an order to reduce the possibility of puncture and to aid in obtaining uniform concrete curing - Reinforcement of slabs -on -grade in order to resist expansive soil pressures should not be necessary. However, reinforcement will have a beneficlal effect in containing cracking because of concrete shrinkage. Temperature and shrinkage related cracking should control anticipated ticip to lel be irt all concrete slab"n-grade- Slab reinforcement and the spacing joints determined by the Structural Fngineer. JUL-12-06 03:44PM FROM- T-226 P.10/13 F-468 japuary 28, 20Q5 -6- Project No. 5444810 05-01-101 Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfat" concentrations of• the surface soil. have not yet been. deter mined but native soil in the area has been known to be potentially corrosive with respect to concrete. The use of Type V cement and specialized sulfate resistant concrete mix designs may be necessary for concrete in contact with the nati ve soil. Tentative Pavement Design: All paving should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill tludm .as of 12 inches (excluding aggregate base). This may be performed as dee bed in the Site Grading Section of this report. R -Value besting was not conducted during our investigation but based upon the sandy nature of the surface soil, an R Value of approximately 50 appears appropriate for preliminary pavement design. The following, preliminary onsite pavement section is'based-upon a design R Value of 50. Onsite Pavement (Mfflc index ® 5-0). Use 3.0 inches of asphalt on 4.5 inches of Glass 2 base material ,Aggregaj base should conform to the requirements for Claw 2 Aggregate base 1nj Secdm 2+6 of C,atTrans Standard Specifications, January X992. Asphaltic concrete should conform to'Section 39 of the CaMans Standard Specifications. The r=xnmended sections should be provided with a uniformly compacted subgrade and precise control of thickness and elevations during placement. Pavement and slab designs are tentative and should be confirmed at the completion of site grading when the subgrade soil is in-place, This will include sampling and testing of the actual subgrade soil and an analysis based upon the specific traffic information Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill should be anticipated. We estimate that this shrinkage could vary from 20 to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted should be between X and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained_ These values for shrinkage and subsidence are exclusive of losses that will occur because of the stripping of the organic material from the Site and the removal of oversize material, The shrinkage losses are suspected to be somewhat less within areas where deeper cuts (more than 20 feet in depth) are planned. General Site Grading: All grading should be performed in accordance with the grading ordinance of the City of La Quints, California_ The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of our field and laboratory testing and are intended to provide a uniform compacted mat of soil beneath the building slabs and foundations. 1. Site Clearing: proper Bice clearing will be very important. Any, existing vegetation, slabs, foundations, abandoned underground utilities or irrigation lirves should be removed from the proposed building areas and the resulting excavations should be properly backfilled. Soil that is disturbed during site clearing should be removed and replaced as controlled compacted fill under the direction of the Soil Engineer. Madden 14tvineevinoy JUL-12-06 03:45PM ',FROM - T -226 P.11/13 F-468 -7- Project No. 544-4810 January 28, x005 05 -m -1a1 2 preparation of BuUding and Foundation Areas: In order to provide adequate and uniform being conditions, we recomanend overexcavation throughout the proposed residential building areas. The building areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper; The exposed $oil should then be scarified to a depth of 1 -foot moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative rompaction: The excavated material may then be replaced as engineered fill material as recommended below. 3. Placement of Compacted Piu- Within the building pad areas, fill materials should be spread in thin lifts, and compacted at neat optimum moisture contentlo a minimum of go percent relative compactiom imported fill material shall have an Expansion Index not. exceeding 20. The contractor shall notify the Soil Engineer at least 48 hours in advance of importing, sail in order to provide sufficient time for the evaluation of proposed import materials. The contracWr shall be rwponsUe for delivering material to the site that complies with the ect specifications. Approval by the Soil Engineer will be based .upon material pro) delivered to the site and not the preliminary evaluation of import sources. Our observations of the materials encountered during our investigation indicate that compaction within the native soil will be most readily obtained by means of heavy rubber tired.wpaipment and/or sheepsfoot compactors_ The moisture content of the near surface soils was somewhat inconsistent within our borings. In general, the sandy soils are dry and. well below optimum moisture content but some of the deeper silt layers were wet. It is likely that wet silt/day layers will be encountered during grading particularly in irrigated areas where- deep cuts are planned. A uniform and near optimum moisture content should be maintained during fill placement and oampaction. 4. preparation of slab and Paving Areas: Ali surfaces to receive asphalt concrete paving or exterior concrete slabs -on -grade, should be underlain by a minimum compacted fill thickness of 12 inches. This may be accomplished by a combination of overexcavation, scarification and recompaction of the surface, and replacement of the excavated rnaterial as controlled compacted fill. Compaction of the slab and pavement areas should be to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. S. Testing and Inspection: During grading tests and observatiow Atould be performed by the Soil Engineer or his representative in order to, verify that the gradb* is' being performed in accordance with the project specifications. Field density -testing shall be performed in accordance with applicable ASTM test standards, The minimum acceptable degree of compaction shali be 90 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained by the ASTM D1557-91 test method. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied until retesting indicates satisfactory c impaction. Sladden Enrkoerinr JUL-12-06 O3:45PM FROM- T-226 P.12/13 F-468 Project No. 544.7 0 January 26, 2005 05-01-101 GENES The {itutings,and recomrnendations presented in this report are based upon an interpoLgtiAn of the soil conditions between baring locations and extrapolation of these conditions throughout the proposed building area., Should conditions encountered during grading appear gent tit those indicated in this report; this office should be notified. 'Phis repack is considered to be applicable for use by East of Madison, LLC, for the specifie site and project described herein_ The use of.•this report by other parties or.for other project is not authorized. The recommendations of this report are contingent upon monitoring of the grading operations by a • atione are considered to be tentative pending oux representative of Sladden Engineering. All recomatend to perfom review of the grading operations and additional testing, if indi<cate� rdeor too ers are rnordinat emplaityrequi ed site a. Y soil testing, this office should be notified Pike to such testing in visits 12Y our representative and to assure indemnification of S7adden Engineering, ' We recommend that a pre -job conference be hdti held on the site prior to the iration of site grading. The purpose of dils meeting wiU be to assure a complete understanding of the recomn'endatianspresented in this report as they apply to the actual grading performed. U Q/nd�id.. AriainmarJo�a 0 JUL-12-06 03:46PM FROM - V U 1 1 1 t v v January 28, 2005 T-226 P.13/13 F-468 .g_ Project No. 5444810 05-01-101 "FERENCFS ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, April 197. Boore, Joyner and Fuma( (1994) Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak Aaceleranons from North American Earthquakes, U. S. Geological Survey, Open File Reports. 94-127 and 93-809. Finn,. W. F. Liam, (1996) Evaluation of f iip44ction Potential for Dtf firent Earthquake Magnaudcs and Site Conditions, National Centex for 2arthquake Enginneering Research Commies. Joyner. and Boore, (1988) Measurements, CWacterization and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion, ASCF- journal of Geotechnical FrLijnee6ng, Special Publication No. 20. Lee Sr Albaisura a (1974) "Earthquake Induced Settlements in Satted Sande . . Seed and Idriss (1962) Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthgaake Engineering Research ,institute Monograph. Seed, Tolrimatsu,11arder and Chung, (1985), htfluence of SP1'' Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineedng, Volume 111' No -1Z December. Rogers, Thomas H., Geologic Map of Califanva, Santa Ana Map Sheet, Riverside County, 19K Seismic Safety Element of the Riverside County Goneral Plan