Washington Street Apartments TR 12323 BCPR2017-0002 Phase 2Project Details PROJECT NUMBER
owsw 'it of La Qu i nta
BCPR2017-0002
O F Tt�"
Description: WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS / PHASE 2
Status: ARCHIVED
Type: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW (WEB)
Status Date: 12/6/2017
Subtype: OTHER CONSTRUCTION
Applied: 6/22/2017
Address: WSA PH 2
Approved: 2/10/2018
City, State, Zip: LA QUINTA,CA92253
Closed:
Project Manager: AJ ORTEGA
Expired:
Details: WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS PHASE 2 OF CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW -
INCLUDES NEW UNITS, COMMONS AND LAUNDRY STRUCTURES
DAYS
REVIEWS 10
ACTIONS 2
INSPECTIONS
CONDITIONS
CASE OPEN
OPEN
COMPLETED
A19
•
MEMO]•
•
CHRONOLOGY TYPE
STAFF NAME
ACTION DATE
COMPLETION DATE
NOTES
EMAIL RECEIVED FROM VINCE ROSATO
(VROSATO@STUDIOEARCHITECTS.COM) STATING THE
1ST PC SUBMITTAL
AJ ORTEGA
6/22/2017
7/13/2017
ENERGY DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN UPLOADED, PROJECT HAS
RECEIVED
BEEN DETERMINED COMPLETE AND REVIEW HAVE BEEN
CREATED
NOTIFIED APPLICANT THAT OUTSTANDING CORRECTIONS
EMAIL
BURT HANADA
12/27/2017
12/27/2017
REMAIN AFTER SECOND REVIEW.
•
NAME TYPE
NAME
ADDRESSI
CITY STATE
ZIP
PHONE
FAX
EMAIL
APPLICANT
STUDIO E ARCHITECTS
2258 FIRST AVENUE
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
vrosato@studioearchit
ects.com
Printed: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:55:33 AM 1 of 4 CENTRALSQUARE
°5 Project Details PROJECT NUMBER
ows� City of La Quinta BCPR2017-0002
NAME TYPE
NAME
ADDRESSI
CITY
STATE
ZIP
PHONE
FAX
EMAIL
ARCHITECT
STUDIO E ARCHITECTS
2258 FIRST AVENUE
SAN DIEGO
CA
92101
vrosato@studioearchit
ects.com
CITY STAFF
AJ ORTEGA
78495 CALLE TAMPICO
LA QUINTA
CA
92253
aortega@la-quinta.org
OWNER
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF
P O BOX 1504
LA QUINTA
CA
0
INSPECTION TYPE
INSPECTOR
SCHEDULED
DATE
COMPLETED
DATE
RESULT REMARKS
NOTES
REVIEW TYPE
REVIEWER
SENT DATE
DUE DATE
RETURNED
STATUS
REMARKS
NOTES
DATE
1ST BLDG NS (3WK)
BURT
7/13/2017
8/3/2017
8/2/2017
REVISIONS REQUIRED
COORDINATION
HANADA
REVIEW
1ST BLDG STR (2WK)
KURT CULVER
7/13/2017
7/27/2017
7/24/2017
REVISIONS REQUIRED
COMPLETE REVIEW
Prior to construction, applicant/developer shall
furnish two copies of the water system fire
hydrant plans to Fire Department for review and
approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered
civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type,
location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once
1ST FIRE (2WK)
RONALD
7/13/2017
7/27/2017
7/25/2017
READY FOR APPROVAL
SEE Conditions
plans are signed and approved by the local water
GRIESINGER
authority, the originals shall be presented to the
Fire Department for review and approval.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the water
system for fire protection must be provided as
approved by the Fire Department and the local
water authority.
Printed: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:55:33 AM 2 of 4 CENTRALSQUARE
Project Details PROJECT NUMBER
City of La Quinta
BCPR2017-0002
1ST PLANNING
CARLOS
7/13/2017
7/27/2017
7/26/2017
READY FOR APPROVAL
(2WK)
FLORES
APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT SEPARATE PLAN
1ST PUBLIC WORKS
AMY YU
7/13/2017
7/27/2017
7/27/2017
NOT REQUIRED
CHECK APPLICATION AND PRECISE GRADING
(2WK)
PLAN FOR REVIEW.
2ND BLDG NS (2WK)
BURT
12/6/2017
12/27/2017
12/27/2017
REVISIONS REQUIRED
COORDINATION
HANADA
REVIEW
2ND BLDG STR
KURT CULVER
12/6/2017
12/20/2017
2/2/2018
READY FOR APPROVAL
COMPLETE REVIEW
Remaining issues added to Response Letter (not
(2WK)
on plans).
2ND FIRE (3WK)
RONALD
12/6/2017
12/18/2017
12/12/2017
READY FOR APPROVAL
2 WEEK REVIEW
See conditions from 1st review
GRIESINGER
2ND PLANNING
CARLOS
12/6/2017
12/18/2017
12/14/2017
NOT REQUIRED
(2WK)
FLORES
3RD BLDG NS (2WK)
AJ ORTEGA
1/29/2018
2/12/2018
2/10/2018
APPROVED
INDIVIDUAL PERMITS CREATED
Attachment Type
CREATED
OWNER
DESCRIPTION
PATHNAME
SUBDIR
ETRAKIT ENABLED
2ND SUBMITTAL PLAN
2ND SUBMITTAL PLAN
DOC
12/6/2017
ARMANDO MAGALLON
CHECK RESPONSE
CHECK RESPONSE
0
(PHASE 2)
(PHASE 2).pdf
DOC
12/6/2017
ARMANDO MAGALLON
2ND SUBMITTAL PLAN
2ND SUBMITTAL PLAN
1
SET (PHASE 2)
SET (PHASE 2).pdf
DOC
12/6/2017
ARMANDO MAGALLON
PLANNING COMM.
PLANNING COMM.
0
PARKING (PHASE 2)
PARKING (PHASE 2).pdf
SOILS REPORT (BOTH
SOILS REPORT (BOTH
DOC
12/6/2017
ARMANDO MAGALLON
0
PHASES)
PHASES).pdf
BCPR2017-0002 - 1ST
1ST SUBMITTAL -
DOC
7/13/2017
AJ ORTEGA
ENERGY CALCULATIONS
SUBMITTAL ENERGY
1
(AMENITIES)
CALCULATIONS
(AMENITIES).pdf
Printed: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:55:33 AM 3 of 4 CENTRALSQUARE
Project Details PROJECT NUMBER
-ows� City of La Quinta BCPR2017-0002
Attachment Type
CREATED
OWNER
DESCRIPTION
PATHNAME
SUBDIR
ETRAKIT ENABLED
BCPR2017-0002 - 1ST
DOC
7/13/2017
AJ ORTEGA
1ST SUBMITTAL - PLAN
SUBMITTAL PLAN
1
SET
SET.pdf
BCPR2017-0002 - 1ST
1ST SUBMITTAL -
DOC
7/13/2017
AJ ORTEGA
STRUCTURAL
SUBMITTAL
1
STRUCTURAL
CALCULATIONS
CALCULATIONS.pdf
BCPR2017-002 1ST
DOC
8/9/2017
BURT HANADA
1ST REVIEW MARKUP
REVIEW MARKUP
1
SUMMARY.pdf
SUMMARY.pdf
BCPR2017-0002 - 2ND
2ND REVIEW
REVIEW REDLINED
DOC
12/27/2017
BURT HANADA
OUTSTANDING
RESPONSE LETTER -
1
CORRECTIONS LIST
WSA Phase 1-
CoLQ.pdf
18-0126 WSA—Planning
3RD SUBMITTAL -
DOC
1/29/2018
EtrakitContractor
RESPONSE LETTER
Plan Check
1
Responses_ Phase 2 -
(PHASE 2)
CoLQ (Arch).pdf
18-0129 WSA—Permit
DOC
1/29/2018
EtrakitContractor
3RD SUBMITTAL PLAN
Submittal 3—Phase 2
1
SET (PHASE 2)
(Complete).pdf
PLAN CHANGE -
19-0823 WSA (Phase 2) -
DOC
8/22/2019
EtrakitContractor
REVISED MOBILITY
Plan Change Submittal
1
UNITS
(Revised Mobility).pdf
BCPR2017-0002 - 1ST
DOC
7/31/2017
KURT CULVER
1ST REVIEW PLAN SET
SUBMITTAL PLAN
1
(REDLINED)
SET_1.pdf
Printed: Monday, March 20, 2023 10:55:33 AM 4 of 4 CENTRALSQUARE
ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
THE ALTUM GROUP
73-255 El Paseo Drive, Suite 15
Palm Desert, California 92260
Attention: Mr. James Bazua
Subject: Updated Geotechnical Foundation Design Recommendations; Washington Street
Apartment Expansion Project, Southeast Corner of Washington Street and Hidden River
Road, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California
References: See Attached List
Dear Mr. Bazua:
In accordance with your request, Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is providing updated geotechnical
foundation design recommendations for expansion of the subject Washington Street Apartment Project in
the City of La Quinta. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on the existing geotechnical reports
of record, and as -graded conditions, the requirements of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), and our
engineering judgment and professional opinion.
General Site Overview
The existing apartment complex is located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Hidden River
Road, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The western portion of the 11.5 acre,
L-shaped site is currently improved with a one-story apartment complex, parking lot and driveway areas, a
clubhouse, concrete flatwork and landscaped areas. The eastern portion of the site is currently vacant.
As we understand, he proposed development will include constructing several new one-story apartment
buildings and associated improvements (asphalt parking lots, concrete walkways, underground utilities,
landscaped planter areas, and retention basins, etc.) within the vacant portion of the site. Following this
first phase of construction, the existing tenants will be relocated to the new apartments and the existing
apartment complex will be demolished and redeveloped with new one-story apartment buildings. It is
presumed that the apartment building structures will be of wood -frame construction with first -floor slabs
on -grade. No retaining walls are currently planned. Relatively minor site grading assumed to achieve the
planned grades. Therefore, site grading will essentially consist of over -excavation and recompaction of the
existing upper soils within the site to attain the finish grades.
Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California
RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE
40880 County Center Drive, Suite R, Temecula, CA 92591
T:951.600.9271 F:951.719.1499
For more information visit us online at www.petra-inc.com
THE ALTUM GROUP February 9, 2017
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta J.N. 11-290
Page 2
Site Reconnaissance and Literature Review
A representative of Petra conducted a recent site reconnaissance on January 16, 2017 to observe the existing
site conditions. Petra reviewed the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report (Petra, 2011 a) for the
subject property, as well as the Geotechnical Report Update and Review of Preliminary Precise Grading
Plan (Petra, 2016).
The existing apartment complex within the northwestern portion of the property remains occupied by
tenants. The vacant portion of the subject property remains undeveloped. Chain -link fencing exists along
the northern edge of undeveloped area. A concrete block wall exists along the southern property boundary.
Native, thin vegetation covers a majority of this portion of the site, with scattered small native bushes.
Larger, denser native vegetation was noted locally along the northern edge of the site. The west portion of
the property fronting Washington Street is at a similar elevation that the adjacent apartments to the north;
however, offsite development along the southern property is higher in elevation with differences on the
order of 2 to 6 feet. Overall the property slopes gently to the east. Generally, site conditions are similar to
those observed during our previous field assessment (Petra, 2011 a).
Site Surface and Subsurface Conditions
Based on our subsurface observations and laboratory testing during our preliminary evaluation of the
property (Petra, 2011 a), soils were found to consisted of thin veneer of surficial undocumented fills
underlain by natural alluvial deposits that extended to the maximum explored depth of 51.5 feet. Earth
materials onsite are estimated to be very low in expansion potential. Our testing also encountered a
negligible exposure to sulfates, a low exposure to chlorides and also found site soils to be corrosive to
buried metallic elements.
Updated Foundation Design Considerations
Seismic Design Parameters
Earthquake loads on earthen structures and buildings are a function of ground acceleration which may be
determined from the site -specific ground motion analysis. Alternatively, a design response spectrum can
be developed for the site based on the code guidelines. To provide the design team with the parameters
necessary to construct the design acceleration response spectrum for this project, we used the computer
applications that are available on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website,
http://geohazards.us sg gov/. Specifically, the Design Maps website
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 3
hqp://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/gpplicatigg.php was used to calculate the ground motion
parameters.
To run the above computer applications, site latitude, longitude, risk category and knowledge of "Site
Class" are required. The site class definition depends on the average shear wave velocity, Vs30, within the
upper 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of site soils. A shear wave velocity of 900 feet per second (i.e.,
275 meters per second) for the upper 100 feet was used for the site based on engineering experience and
judgment. The following table, Table 1, provides parameters required to construct the site -specific
acceleration response spectrum based 2016 CBC guidelines.
10p
PTRA SOLID AS A HOCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
TABLE 1
Seismic Design Parameters
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 4
Ground Motion Parameters
Specific Reference 7
Parameter
Value
Unit
Site Latitude (North)
-
33.7373
°
Site Longitude (West)
-
-116.3026
°
Site Class Definition (1,2)
Section 1613.3.2
D
-
Assumed Risk Category (I)
Table 1604.5
I/II/III
-
Mw - Earthquake Magnitude (3)
USGS 2008 Interactive Deaggregation Tool
8.18
-
S, - Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration (1,2)
Figure 1613.3.1(1)
1.689
g
SI -Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration (1,2)
Figure 1613.3.1(2)
0.802
g
Fa - Site Coefficient (1,2)
Table 1613.3.3(1)
1.0
-
F,, - Site Coefficient (1,2)
Table 1613.3.3(2)
1.5
-
Smms - Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake
Spectral Response Acceleration (1,2)
Equation 16-37
1.689
g
Sm, - Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake
Spectral Response Acceleration (1,2)
Equation 16-38
1.203
g
I
SDS - Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1,2)
Equation 16-39
1.126
g F
SDI - Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1,2)
Equation 16-40
0.802
g F
L = 0.2 SDI/ SDs (4)
Section 11.3
0.142
S
Ts = SDI/ SDs (4)
Section 11.3
0.712
S
TL - Long Period Transition Period (4)
Figure 22-12
8
S
FPGA - Site Coefficient (4)
Figure 22-7
1.000
-
PGAm - Peak Ground Acceleration at MCE 14, ">
Equation 11.8-1
0.677
g
Design PGA z (% PGAM) - Slope Stability (2, t)
Similar to Equations 16-39 & 16-40
0.451
g
Design PGA ;z� (0.4 SDs) — Short Retaining Walls (4,1)
Equation 11.4-5
0.450
g
CRs - Short Period Risk Coefficient (4)
Figure 22-17
1.015
-
CRI - Long Period Risk Coefficient (4)
Figure 22-18
0.979
-
Seismic Design Category
Section 1613.3.5
E
-
References:
(I) California Building Code (CBC), 2016, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume I and II.
(2) USGS Seismic Design Web Application — http://geohazards.usgs. ovg /designmaps/us/application.phhp
0) USGS 2008 Interactive Deaggregation Tool - htt2s://geohazards.us,as.gov/dea,ggint/2008/
(4) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE/SEI), 2010, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures, Standards 7-10.
Related References:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009, NEHERP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended
Seismic Provision for New Building and Other Structures (FEMA P-750).
Notes:
* PGA Calculated at the MCE return period of 2475 years (2 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years).
t PGA Calculated at the Design Level of % of MCE; approximately equivalent to a return period of 475 years (10 percent
chance of exceedance in 50 years).
t PGA Calculated for short, stubby retaining walls with an infinitesimal (zero) fundamental period.
§ The designation provided herein may be superseded by the structural engineer in accordance with Section 1613.3.5.1, if
applicable.
1 PETRA SOLID ASAROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP February 9, 2017
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta J.N. 11-290
Page 5
Data provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2008) listed a mean magnitude of 7.7 for
the subject property pertaining to an event effecting multiple segments the San Andreas and South San
Andreas Fault zones. It should be noted that review comments by the local agency consultants indicated
that the typically stated magnitude for a multi -segment event along the San Andreas Fault is about 8.18.
As a result, more conservative values are utilized herein.
FOUNDATION DESIGN GUIDELINES
Allowable Bearing Capacity, Estimated Settlement and Lateral Resistance
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacities
Pad Footings
A basic allowable soil bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot, including dead and live loads, may
be utilized for design of 24-inch square pad footing and 12-inch-wide continuous footings founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20
percent for each additional foot of depth and by 10 percent for each additional foot of width to a maximum
value of 2,500 pounds per square foot. Recommended allowable bearing values include both dead and live
loads, and may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic forces.
Continuous Footings
An allowable soil bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be utilized for design of continuous
footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may
be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and by 10 percent for each additional foot of
width, to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot. The recommended allowable bearing value
includes both dead and live loads, and may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic
forces.
Estimated Footing Settlement
Based on the allowable bearing values provided above, total settlement of the footings under the anticipated
loads is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inch in areas where the depth of fill does not exceed approximately
10 feet. Differential settlement is expected to be less than 0.25 inch over a horizontal span of 20 feet for
this condition. The majority of settlement is likely to take place as footing loads are applied or shortly
thereafter.
Dynamic and total settlement values are provided in Petra's response letter to the City of La Quinta Public
Works Department review dated October 20, 2011.
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP February 9, 2017
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta J.N. 11-290
Page 6
Lateral Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, to a maximum value of
2,500 pounds per square foot, may be used to determine lateral bearing resistance for footings. In addition,
a coefficient of friction of 0.30 times the dead load forces may be used between concrete and the supporting
soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. The above values may be increased by one-third when
designing for transient wind or seismic forces. It should be noted that the above values are based on the
condition where footings are cast in direct contact with compacted fill. In cases where the footing sides are
formed, all backfill placed against the footings upon removal of forms should be compacted to at least
90 percent of the applicable maximum dry density.
Guidelines for Footings and Slabs on -Grade Design and Construction
The results of our laboratory tests performed on representative samples of near -surface soils within the site
at the completion of grading indicate that these materials predominantly exhibit expansion indices that are
less than 20. As indicated in Section 1803.5.3 of 2016 California Building Code (2016 CBC), these soils
are considered non -expansive and, as such, the design of slabs on -grade is considered to be exempt from
the procedures outlined in Sections 1808.6.2 of the 2016 CBC and may be performed using any method
deemed rational and appropriate by the project structural engineer. However, the following minimum
recommendations are presented herein for conditions where the project design team may require
geotechnical engineering guidelines for design and construction of footings and slabs on -grade the project
site.
The design and construction guidelines that follow are based on the above soil conditions and may
be considered for reducing the effects of variability in fabric, composition and, therefore, the
detrimental behavior of the site soils such as excessive short- and long-term total and differential
heave or settlement. These guidelines have been developed on the basis of the previous experience
of this firm on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed in
accordance with these guidelines has been found to reduce post -construction movement and/or
distress, they generally do not positively eliminate all potential effects of variability in soils
characteristics and future heave or settlement.
It should also be noted that the suggestions for dimension and reinforcement provided herein are
performance -based and intended only as preliminary guidelines to achieve adequate performance
under the anticipated soil conditions. However, they should not be construed as replacement for
structural engineering analyses, experience and judgment. The project structural engineer,
architect and/or civil engineer should make appropriate adjustments to slab and footing
dimensions, and reinforcement type, size and spacing to account for internal concrete forces (e.g.,
thermal, shrinkage and expansion) as well as external forces (e.g., applied loads) as deemed
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 7
necessary. Consideration should also be given to minimum design criteria as dictated by local
building code requirements.
Conventional Slab on -Grade System
Given the expansion index of less than 20, as generally exhibited by onsite soils, we recommend that
footings and floor slabs be designed and constructed in accordance with the following minimum criteria.
Footinjzs
1. Exterior continuous footings supporting one- and two-story structures should be founded at a minimum
depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, respectively. Interior continuous footings
may be founded at a minimum depth of 10 inches below the top of the adjacent finish floor slabs.
2. In accordance with Table 1809.7 of 2016 CBC for light -frame construction, all continuous footings
should have minimum widths of 12 inches for one- and two-story construction. We recommend all
continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
A minimum 12-inch-wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be
provided across garage entrances or similar openings (such as large doors or bay windows). The grade
beam should be reinforced with a similar manner as provided above.
4. Interior isolated pad footings, if required, should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the adjacent floor slabs for one- and two-story
buildings. Pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers,
both ways, placed near the bottoms of the footings.
Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs such as second -story decks, patio
covers and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum
depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with
No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near the bottoms of the
footings. Exterior isolated pad footings may need to be connected to adjacent pad and/or continuous
footings via tie beams at the discretion of the project structural engineer.
6. The minimum footing dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein may be modified (increased
or decreased subject to the constraints of Chapter 18 of the 2016 CBC) by the structural engineer
responsible for foundation design based on his/her calculations, engineering experience and judgment.
Building Floor Slabs
Concrete floor slabs should be a minimum 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced a
maximum of 24 inches on centers, both ways. Alternatively, the structural engineer may recommend
the use of prefabricated welded wire mesh for slab reinforcement. For this condition, the welded wire
mesh should be of sheet type (not rolled) and should consist of 6x6/W2.9xW2.9 WWF (per the Wire
Reinforcement Institute, WRI, designation) or stronger. All slab reinforcement should be supported on
concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid -depth. Care should be exercised to
prevent warping of the welded wire mesh between the chairs in order to ensure its placement at the
desired mid -slab position.
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 8
Slab dimension, reinforcement type, size and spacing need to account for internal concrete forces (e.g.,
thermal, shrinkage and expansion) as well as external forces (e.g., applied loads), as deemed necessary.
2. Living area concrete floor slabs and areas to receive moisture sensitive floor covering should be
underlain with a moisture vapor retarder consisting of a minimum 10-mil-thick polyethylene or
polyolefin membrane that meets the minimum requirements of ASTM E96 and ASTM E 1745 for vapor
retarders (such as Husky Yellow Guard®, Stego® Wrap, or equivalent). All laps within the membrane
should be sealed, and at least 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote
uniform curing of the concrete. To reduce the potential for punctures, the membrane should be placed
on a pad surface that has been graded smooth without any sharp protrusions. If a smooth surface cannot
be achieved by grading, consideration should be given to lowering the pad finished grade an additional
inch and then placing a 1-inch-thick leveling course of sand across the pad surface prior to the
placement of the membrane.
At the present time, some slab designers, geotechnical professionals and concrete experts view
the sand layer below the slab (blotting sand) as a place for entrapment of excess moisture that
could adversely impact moisture -sensitive floor coverings. As a preventive measure, the
potential for moisture intrusion into the concrete slab could be reduced if the concrete is placed
directly on the vapor retarder. However, if this sand layer is omitted, appropriate curing
methods must be implemented to ensure that the concrete slab cures uniformly. A qualified
materials engineer with experience in slab design and construction should provide
recommendations for alternative methods of curing and supervise the construction process to
ensure uniform slab curing. Additional steps would also need to be taken to prevent puncturing
of the vapor retarder during concrete placement.
Garage floor slabs should be a minimum 4 inches thick and reinforced in a similar manner as living
area floor slabs. Garage slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall footings with a
positive separation maintained using 3/4-inch-minimum felt expansion joint material. To control the
propagation of shrinkage cracks, garage floor slabs should be quartered with weakened plane joints.
Consideration should be given to placement of a moisture vapor retarder below the garage slab, similar
to that provided in Item 2 above, should the garage slab be overlain with moisture sensitive floor
covering.
4. Presaturation of the subgrade below floor slabs will not be required; however, prior to placing concrete,
the subgrade below all dwelling and garage floor slab areas should be thoroughly moistened to achieve
a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This
moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs.
5. The minimum dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein for building floor slabs may be
modified (increased or decreased subject to the constraints of Chapter 18 of the 2016 CBC) by the
structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on his/her calculations, engineering
experience and judgment.
Post -Tensioned Slab on -Grade System (Optional)
In consideration of the expansion index of less than 20, as predominantly exhibited by onsite soils, any
rational and appropriate procedure may be chosen by the project structural engineer for the design of post -
tensioned slabs on -grade. Should the design engineer choose to follow the most current procedure
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 9
published by the Post -Tensioning Institute (PTI DC10.5-12), the following minimum design criteria are
provided Table 2, below.
TABLE 2
Post -Tensioned Slab on -Grade Design Parameters for PTI Procedure
Soil Information
Approximate Depth of Constant Suction, feet
9
Approximate Soil Suction, pF
3.9
Inferred Thornthwaite Index:
-20
Average Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em in feet:
Center Lift
9.0
Edge Lift
5.5
Anticipated Swell, ym in inches:
Center Lift
0.25
Edge Lift
0.45
Modulus of Subprade Reaction
The modulus of subgrade reaction for design of load bearing elements depends on the size of the element
and soil -structure interaction. However as a fist level of approximation, this value may be assumed to be
125 pounds per cubic inch.
Minimum Design Recommendations
The soil values provided above may be utilized by the project structural engineer to design post -tensioned
slabs on -ground in accordance with Section 1808.6.2 of the 2016 CBC and the PTI publication. Thicker
floor slabs and larger footing sizes may be required for structural reasons and should govern the design if
more restrictive than the minimum recommendations provided below:
1. Exterior continuous footings for one- and two-story structures should be founded at a minimum depth
of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface. Interior footings may be founded at a
minimum depth of 10 inches below the tops of the adjacent finish floor slabs.
2. In accordance with Table 1809.7 of 2016 CBC for light -frame construction, all continuous footings
should have minimum widths of 12 inches for one- and two-story construction. We recommend all
continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Alternatively, post -tensioned tendons may be utilized in the perimeter continuous footings in lieu of
the reinforcement bars.
A minimum 12-inch-wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be
provided across the garage entrances or similar openings (such as large doors or bay windows). The
grade beam should be reinforced in a similar manner as provided above.
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 10
4. Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs such as second -story decks, patio
covers and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum
depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with
No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near the bottoms of the
footings. Exterior isolated pad footings may need to be connected to adjacent pad and/or continuous
footings via tie beams at the discretion of the project structural engineer.
The thickness of the floor slabs should be determined by the project structural engineer with
consideration given to the expansion index of the onsite soils; however; we recommend that a minimum
slab thickness of 4 inches be considered.
6. As an alternative to designing 4-inch-thick post -tensioned slabs with perimeter footings as described in
Items 1 and 2 above, the structural engineer may design the foundation system using a thickened slab
design. The minimum thickness of this uniformly thick slab should be 8 inches. The engineer in charge
of post -tensioned slab design may also opt to use any combination of slab thickness and footing
embedment depth as deemed appropriate based on their engineering experience and judgment.
7. Living area concrete floor slabs and areas to receive moisture sensitive floor covering should be
underlain with a moisture vapor retarder consisting of a minimum 10-mil-thick polyethylene or
polyolefin membrane that meets the minimum requirements of ASTM E96 and ASTM E 1745 for vapor
retarders (such as Husky Yellow Guard®, Stego® Wrap, or equivalent). All laps within the membrane
should be sealed, and at least 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote
uniform curing of the concrete. To reduce the potential for punctures, the membrane should be placed
on a pad surface that has been graded smooth without any sharp protrusions. If a smooth surface cannot
be achieved by grading, consideration should be given to lowering the pad finished grade an additional
inch and then placing a 1-inch-thick leveling course of sand across the pad surface prior to the
placement of the membrane.
At the present time, some slab designers, geotechnical professionals and concrete experts view
the sand layer below the slab (blotting sand) as a place for entrapment of excess moisture that
could adversely impact moisture -sensitive floor coverings. As a preventive measure, the
potential for moisture intrusion into the concrete slab could be reduced if the concrete is placed
directly on the vapor retarder. However, if this sand layer is omitted, appropriate curing
methods must be implemented to ensure that the concrete slab cures uniformly. A qualified
materials engineer with experience in slab design and construction should provide
recommendations for alternative methods of curing and supervise the construction process to
ensure uniform slab curing. Additional steps would also need to be taken to prevent puncturing
of the vapor retarder during concrete placement.
8. Garage floor slabs should be designed in a similar manner as living area floor slabs. Consideration
should be given to placement of a moisture vapor retarder below the garage slab, similar to that provided
in Item 6 above, should the garage slab be overlain with moisture sensitive floor covering.
9. Pre -saturation of the subgrade below floor slabs will not be required; however, prior to placing concrete,
the subgrade below all dwelling and garage floor slab areas should be thoroughly moistened to achieve
a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This
moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs.
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 11
10. The minimum footing dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein may be modified (increased
or decreased subject to the constraints of Chapter 18 of the 2016 CBC) by the structural engineer
responsible for foundation design based on his/her calculations, engineering experience and judgment.
Foundation Excavation Observations
Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm to document that they have been
excavated into competent bearing soils prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The
excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture -softened soils and/or
any construction debris should be removed prior to placing of concrete. Excavated soils derived from
footing and/or utility trenches should not be placed in building slab -on -grade areas or exterior concrete
flatwork areas unless the soils are compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density.
General Corrosivity Screening
As a screening level study, limited chemical and electrical tests were performed on representative samples
of onsite soils to identify potential corrosive characteristics of these soils. The following sections present
the test results and an interpretation of current codes and guidelines that are commonly used in our industry
as they relate to the adverse impact of chemical contents and electrical resistance of the site soils on various
components of the proposed structures in contact with site soils.
A variety of test methods are available to quantify corrosive potential of soils for various elements of
construction materials. Depending on the test procedures adopted, characteristics of the leachate that is
used to extract the target chemicals from the soils and the test equipment; the results can vary appreciably
for different test methods in addition to those caused by variability in soil composition. The testing
procedures referred to herein are considered to be typical for our industry and have been adopted and/or
approved by many public or private agencies. In drawing conclusions from the results of our chemical and
electrical laboratory testing and providing mitigation guidelines to reduce the detrimental impact of
corrosive site soils on various components of the structure in contact with site soils, heavy references were
made to 2016 California Building Code (2016 CBC) and American Concrete Institute publication (2014
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-14). Where relevant information was not
available in these codes, references were made to guidelines developed by California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), Post -Tensioning Institute (PTI DC10.5-12) and other reputable institutions
and/or publications. Specifically, the reference to Caltrans approach were made because their risk
management protocol for highway bridges are considered comparable to those for residential or commercial
ltp
PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 12
structures and that Post Tensioning Institute (PTI), in part, accepts and uses Caltrans' relevant corrosivity
criteria for post -tensioned slabs on -grade.
It should be noted that Petra does not practice corrosion engineering; therefore, the test results, opinion
and engineering judgment provided herein should be considered as general guidelines only. Additional
analyses would be warranted, especially, for cases where buried metallic building materials (such as copper
and cast or ductile iron pipes) in contact with site soils are planned for the project. In many cases, the
project geotechnical engineer may not be informed of these choices. Therefore, for conditions where such
elements are considered, we recommend that other, relevant project design professionals (e.g., the architect,
landscape architect, civil and/or structural engineer) also consider recommending a qualified corrosion
engineer to conduct additional sampling and testing of near -surface soils during the final stages of site
grading to provide a complete assessment of soil corrosivity. Recommendations to mitigate the detrimental
effects of corrosive soils on buried metallic and other building materials that may be exposed to corrosive
soils should be provided by the corrosion engineer as deemed appropriate.
Concrete in Contact with Site Soils
Soils containing soluble sulfates beyond certain threshold levels as well as acidic soils are considered to be
detrimental to long-term integrity of concrete placed in contact with such soils. For the purpose of this
study, soluble sulfates (S042-) concentration in soils determined in accordance with California Test Method
No. 417. Soil acidity, as indicated by hydrogen -ion concentration (pH), was determined in accordance with
California Test Method No. 643. The soil acid severity rating is adopted from The United States
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service classification.
Article 1904.1 of Section 1904 of the 2016 CBC indicates that structural concrete shall conform to the
durability requirements of ACI 318. Concrete durability is impacted by exposure to water soluble
chemicals and its resistance to fluid penetration. Section 19.3 of Chapter 19 of ACI 318-14 provides
guidelines for assigning exposure categories and classes for various conditions. Exposure Category S,
which is subdivided to four Exposure Classes of SO, S1, S2 and S3, applies to concrete in contact with soil
or water containing deleterious amounts of water soluble ions.
The results of our limited in-house laboratory tests indicate that on -site soils contain a water-soluble sulfate
content of 0.004 percent by weight. Based on Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14, the Exposure Class SO is
appropriate for onsite soils. For this exposure class, Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI 318-14 provides that no
restriction for cement type or maximum water -cement ratio for the fresh concrete would be required.
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP February 9, 2017
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta J.N. 11-290
Page 13
Further, this table indicates that the concrete minimum unconfined strength should not be less than
2,500 psi.
The results of limited in-house testing of representative samples indicate that soils within the subject site
are slightly alkaline with respect to pH (a pH of 7.4). Based on this finding and according to Table 8.22.2
of Caltrans' 2003 Bridge Design Specifications (2003 BDS) requirements (which consider the combined
effects of soluble sulfates and soil pH), a commercially available Type II Modified cement may be used.
The guidelines provided herein should be evaluated and confirmed, or modified, in its entirety by the project
structural engineer and the contractor responsible for concrete placement for structural concrete used in
exterior and interior footings, interior slabs on -ground, garage slabs, walls foundation and concrete exposed
to weather such as driveways, patios, porches, walkways, ramps, steps, curbs, etc.
Metals Encased in Concrete
Soils containing a soluble chloride concentration beyond a certain threshold level are considered corrosive
to metallic elements such as reinforcement bars, tendons, cables, bolts, anchors, etc. that are encased in
concrete that, in turn, is in contact with such soils. For the purpose of this study, soluble chlorides (Cl) in
soils were determined in accordance with California Test Method No. 422.
As stated earlier, Article 1904.1 of Section 1904 of the 2016 CBC indicates that structural concrete shall
conform to the durability requirements of ACI 318. Concrete durability is impacted by exposure to water
soluble chemicals and its resistance to fluid penetration. Section 19.3 of Chapter 19 of ACI 318-14 provides
guidelines for assigning exposure categories and classes for various conditions. Exposure Category C,
which is subdivided to three Exposure Classes of CO, C 1, and C2, applies to nonprestressed and prestressed
concrete exposed to conditions that require additional protection against corrosion of reinforcement.
According to Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14, the Exposure Class CO is appropriate for reinforced concrete
that remains dry or protected from moisture. Similarly, the Exposure Class Cl is appropriate for reinforced
concrete that is exposed to moisture but not to external sources of chlorides. And, lastly, the Exposure
Class C2 is appropriate for reinforced concrete that is exposed to moisture and external sources of chlorides
as "deicing chemicals, salt, brackish water, seawater, or spray from these sources".
Based on our understanding of the project, it is our professional opinion that the Exposure Class Cl is
appropriate for a majority of reinforced concrete, to be placed at the site that are in contact with site soils.
It should be noted, however, that the Exposure Class C2 is more appropriate for reinforced concrete that
is planned for pool walls and decking, should such features be considered for the project.
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 14
The results of our limited laboratory tests performed indicate that onsite soils contain a water-soluble
chloride concentration of 125 parts per million (ppm). No maximum water/cement ratio for the fresh
concrete is prescribed by ACI 318 for Exposure Class C1 condition. Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI 318-14
indicates that concrete minimum unconfined compressive strength, f should not be less than 2,500 psi.
For Exposure Class C2 condition, Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI 318-14 requires that the maximum water/cement
ratio of the fresh concrete should not exceed 0.40 and concrete minimum unconfined compressive strength,
f c, should not be less than 5,000 psi.
The guidelines provided herein should be evaluated and confirmed, or modified, in its entirety by the project
structural engineer for reinforced concrete placement for structural concrete used in exterior and interior
footings, interior slabs on -ground, garage slabs, walls foundation and concrete exposed to weather such as
driveways, patios, porches, walkways, ramps, steps, curbs, etc.
It should be noted that another source of elevated chloride -ion concentration can be the chloride content of
water that is used to prepare the fresh concrete at the plant. The protection against high chloride
concentration in fresh concrete should, therefore, be provided by concrete suppliers for the project.
Metallic Elements in Contact with Site Soils
Elevated concentrations of soluble salts in soils tend to induce low level electrical currents in metallic
objects in contact with such soils. This process promotes metal corrosion and can lead to distress to building
metallic components that are in contact with site soils. The minimum electrical resistivity measurement
provides a simple indication of relative concentration of soluble salts in the soil and, therefore, is widely
used to estimate soil corrosivity with regard to metals. For the purpose of this investigation, the minimum
resistivity in soils is measured in accordance with California Test Method No. 643. The soil corrosion
severity rating is adopted from the Handbook of Corrosion Engineering by Pierre R. Roberge.
The minimum electrical resistivity for onsite soils was found to be 4,000 ohm -cm based on limited
testing. The result indicates that on -site soils are Corrosive to ferrous metals and copper. As such, any
ferrous metal or copper components of the subject buildings (such as cast iron or ductile iron piping, copper
tubing, etc.) that are expected to be placed in direct contact with site soils should be protected against
detrimental effects of corrosive soils. Such protection could include the use of galvanized tubing, coated
pipes, wrapping or encasing these metallic objects in special protection wrappings or conduits or devising
a cathodic protection system. It should be noted that at this time Petra is not aware of any plans to
incorporate such items for the proposed buildings. Should such elements be considered for these building,
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP February 9, 2017
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta J.N. 11-290
Page 15
we recommend that a corrosion engineer to be consulted to provide appropriate recommendations for long
term protection of metallic elements in contact with site soils.
Plan Reviews, Future Improvements and/or Grading
Petra should review the precise grading plans when they become available and provide further geotechnical
recommendations. If additional site improvements are considered in the future, our firm should be notified
so that we may provide design recommendations to mitigate movement, settlement and/or tilting of the
structures. Potential problems can develop when drainage on the pads and slopes is altered in any way such
as placement of fill and construction of new walkways, patios, landscape walls, swimming pools, spas
and/or planters. Therefore, it is recommended that we be engaged to review the final design drawings or
specifications prior to any new construction. If we are not provided the opportunity to review these
documents with respect to the geotechnical aspects of new construction, it should not be assumed that the
recommendations provided herein are wholly or impart applicable to the proposed improvements.
REPORT LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the proposed residential tract and the geotechnical observations made during our
literature review of the prior consultant's grading report and our recent assessment within the site. No
representatives of Petra were present during the previous grading activities that have been completed at this
site. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals
providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period. The contents of this report are
professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty.
Based on our findings, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein and within the referenced
report by our firm were prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering
practices.
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta
February 9, 2017
J.N. 11-290
Page 16
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any additional questions or concerns,
please feel free contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
l
Edward Lump
Associate Geologist
CEG 1924
z.5%7
Grayson R. Walker, GE
Principal Engineer �oe�
GE 871
GE 871
EL/GRW/lmv
OF CAUF��/
Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy)
(3) Addressee
Attachments: References
Figure 1 — Site Location Map
Appendix A — Seismic Design Parameters Summary Report
lto PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
THE ALTUM GROUP February 9, 2017
Washington Street Apartment Expansion Project/La Quinta J.N. 11-290
Page 17
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute publication, 2014 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete,
ACI 318-14.
International Building Code, 2015, 2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Par 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2015 International Building Code, California Building
Standards Commission.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2011 a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Washington Street
Apartment Expansion, Southeast Corner of Washington Street and Hidden River Road, City of La
Quinta, Riverside County, California, J.N. 290-11, dated August 31.
201 lb, Response to City of La Quinta Public Works Department Review Comments, Proposed
Washington Street Apartment Expansion, Southeast Corner of Washington Street and Hidden River
Road, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, prepared for The Altum Group, J.N. 290-
11, dated October 20.
2013, Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Washington Street Apartment Expansion, Southeast
Corner of Washington Street and Hidden River Road, City of La Quinta, Riverside County,
California, prepared for The Altum Group, J.N. 11-290, dated April 9.
Petra Geosciences, Inc., 2016, Geotechnical Report Update and Review of Preliminary Precise Grading
Plan, Proposed Washington Street Apartment Expansion, Southeast Corner of Washington Street
and Hidden River Road, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, J.N. 11-290, dated May
25.
Post -Tensioning Institute, DC10.5-12 "Standard Requirements for Design of Shallow Post -Tensioned
Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils.
Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI), 1996, Design of Slabs on Ground.
1 PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK
FIGURES
PETFMSOUR AS A ROCK
GEOSCIENCES"
IL
i
j I
�µ�"T-
1�v
frfRwtD 0�'
r ru 4WLA
42
r�
nM o�
I �.
0 � M I �-f '3
—now,
'►CDrSW
OPY : • • ? \j
�\ �-Vm
SITE
h)iT AOU1. •►'f
All
Bermuda
Uuncg tN -
D*
C a
An 0
4
O
t
o11t If $1
1� �1
a
a
�] o
LEGEND PETRoA 880 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, SUITE R
EGEOSCIENMECULA, CALIFORNIA 9CES, INC.
2591
PHONE: (951) 600-9271
COSTAMESA MURRIETA PALM DESERT SANTACLARITA
- Approximate Site Location
Site Location Map
Washington Street Apartments Expansion
La Quinta, Riverside County, California
DATE: February2017 J.N.: 11-290 Figure 1
DWG BY: epl SCALE: NTS
APPENDIX A
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS SUMMARY REPORT
PETRA;nl In AS A ROCK f
� GEOSCIENCES-,
Design Maps Summary Report Page 1 of 2
USGS Design Maps Summary Report
User -Specified Input
Report Title 11-290
Fri January 13, 2017 18:18:59 urc
Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard
(which utilizes USES hazard data available in 2008)
Site Coordinates 33.73730N, 116.3026°W
Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil"
Risk Category I/II/III
n
9S*
��• ��• �• i Thouaancl{'almt
Cat}redralC{ty '• e�•n.a..
---
• �mort
Rancho
Mirage
= Palm Desert Indla
n
-'Af�ilGl tiF ` -
.Coachella
r la Quinn i ,
'L
USGS-Provided Output
Ss = 1.689 g SNs = 1.689 g S.s = 1.126 g
S1= 0.802g S„1= 1.203g S.l= 0.802g
For information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk -targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and
select the "2009 NEHRV building code reference document.
MCER Response Spectrum
1.9-
1.70
1.53
1.3G
1.19
Or 1.0�
to 0.95
0.69
0.51
0.34
0.1?
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.G0 0.20 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1,90 2.00
Period, T (sec)
Design Response Spectrum
1 20
1.02
0.96
0.24
O� 0.72
0.60
0.49
0.36
0.24
0.12
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 O. GO 0.00 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.20 2.00
Period, T (sec)
For PGA., T,, C, and Ca, values, please view the detailed report.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/sutnm,try.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7... 1 /13/2017
Design Maps Summary Report
Page 2 of 2
Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the
accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject -matter knowledge.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/desigmnaps/us/summary.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7... 1 /13/2017
Design Maps Detailed Report
Page 1 of 6
USGS Design Maps Detailed Report
ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.73730N, 116.30261W)
Site Class D — "Stiff Soil", Risk Category I/II/III
Section 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters
Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal
spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric
mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain SS) and
1.3 (to obtain S,). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B.
Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3.
From Figure 22-1 f1' SS = 1.689 g
From Figure 22-2 E_] S, = 0.802 g
Section 11.4.2 — Site Class
The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site -specific geotechnical data, and/or
the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in
accordance with Chapter 20.
Table 20.3-1 Site Classification
Site Class
A. Hard Rock
B. Rock
C. Very dense soil and soft rock
b. Stiff Soil
E. Soft clay soil
F. Soils requiring site response
analysis in accordance with Section
21.1
VS R or N,.,, Sy
>5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf
600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf
<600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf
Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics:
• Plasticity index PI > 20,
• Moisture content w >_ 40%, and
• Undrained shear strength s. < 500 psf
See Section 20.3.1
For SI: 1ft/s = 0.3048 m/s llb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2
littp://eartliquake.usgs.gov/designniaps/us/repoi-t.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7373... 1 /13/2017
Design Maps Detailed Report
Page 2 of 6
Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE,) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F.
Site Class Mapped MCE , Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period
Ss -< 0.25 Sy = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS >_ 1.25
A
0.8
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.8
B
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0
C
1.2
1.2 1.1 1.0
1.0
D
1.6
1.4 1.2 1.1
1.0
E
2.5
1.7 1.2 0.9
0.9
F
See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line
interpolation for intermediate values of S.,
For Site Class = D and S. = 1.689 9, F. = 1.000
Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F,
Site Class Mapped MCE , Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period
S,50.10 S,=0.20 S,=0.30 S,=0.40 S,>!0.50
A
0.8
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.8
B
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0
C
1.7
1.6 1.5 1.4
1.3
D
2.4
2.0 1.8 1.6
1.5
E
3.5
3.2 2.8 2.4
2.4
F
See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line
interpolation for intermediate values of S,
For Site Class = D and S, = 0.802 9, F, = 1.500
littp://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php'?template=minimal&latitude=33.7373... 1 /13/2017
Design Maps Detailed Report
Page 3 of 6
Equation (11.4-1):
Equation (11.4-2):
SMs = F.Ss = 1.000 x 1.689 = 1.689 g
SM, = F,,S, = 1.500 x 0.802 = 1.203 g
Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters
Equation (11.4-3):
Equation (11.4-4):
Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum
From Figure 22-12 E31
SDS = % SMS = % x 1.689 = 1.126 g
SD►=%SM,=%x1.203=0.802g
T, = 8 seconds
Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum
T<T,:S,=Sa(0.4+0.6TIT,)
S,,=1.125 -- ToSTST8:S.=SDS
a
Ts<TsT,:S�=S�,IT
T>TL:S.=SMTL/T'
S„-0.802=------------- '
t '
r '
r
r
r
r i
T. 0.142 T, 0.7121.000
Parbd T (sac)
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7373... 1 / 13/2017
Design Maps Detailed Report
Page 4 of 6
Section 11.4.6 — Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response
Spectrum
The MCEN Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by
1.5.
c
0
� S••, � 1.2�)3
a
v
u
v
Q
0
VI
C
0
a
4)
d
cc
t
d
n
W
T = 0.1-4 T = q 71 1 ,y
Period, T (sec)
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designinaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7373... 1 / 13/2017
Design Maps Detailed Report
Page 5 ol' 6
Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic
Design Categories D through F
From Figure 22-71"1 PGA = 0.677
Equation (11.8-1): PGA, = F,,,,PGA = 1.000 x 0.677 = 0.677 g
Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient Fes,,
Site
Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA
Class
PGA 5
PGA = PGA = PGA =
PGA >_
0.10
0.20 0.30 0.40
0.50
A
0.8
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.8
B
1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0
C
1.2
1.2 1.1 1.0
1.0
D
1.6
1.4 1.2 1.1
1.0
E
2.5
1.7 1.2 0.9
0.9
F
See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line
interpolation for intermediate values of PGA
For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.677 g, F,.„ = 1.000
Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site -Specific Ground Motion Procedures
for Seismic Design)
From Figure 22-17")
From Figure 22-18 "1
Ca,, = 1.015
C,, = 0.979
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designniaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7373... 1 /13/2017
Design Maps Detailed Report
Page 6 of 6
Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category
'Fable 11.6-1 Seismic Desion Cateaory Based on Short Period Resnnnce ArrPlaratinn Param,- cpr
VALUF. OF SO,
RISK CATEGORY
I or II
III
IV
SOS < 0.1679
A
A
A
0.167g 5 SOS < 0.33g
B
B
C
0.33g 5 SOS < 0.50g
C
C
D
0.50g 5 SOS
D
D
D
For Risk Category = I and So: = 1.126 g, Seismic Design Category = D
Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Cateaory Based on 1-S Period Resnnnce ArrelPration ParamatPr
VALUE OF S„
RISK CATEGORY
I or II
III
IV
So, < 0.067g
A
A
A
0.0679 5 So, < 0.133g
B
B
C
0.133g 5 So, < 0.20g
C
C
D
0.20g 5 So,
D
D
D
For Risk Category = I and So, = 0.802 g, Seismic Design Category = D
Note: When S, is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for
buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective
of the above.
Seismic Design Category - "the more severe design category in accordance with
Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = E
Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category.
References
1. Figure 22-1:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-1.pdf
2. Figure 22-2:
http://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf
3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010 ASCE-7_Figure_22-
12.pdf
4. Figure 22-7:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010 ASCE-7_Figure_22-7.pdf
5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-
17.pdf
6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-
18.pdf
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/repoi-t.l)lip?template- minimal&latitude=33.7373... 1/13/2017
^
A
� w
as �+
>' ^ Cie
N � a
o E
o
a" cd
..� 0
00
�j bA� `DNA
U
�� o
= 000
II II •."
b w
cCi,.._, N UQ
xu
cV c�s�•5
96 e6 9 p
pjezey o/ uognquluoo %
E
0
0
r
l
N
s9 R
s
01� H
9y
1y
O�1g.
l
h0
�o
SS
W
0
D
o
N
91 O
V
N
M
V
v
v
G
w
V
w
w
V
v
O
O
N
m
E
■
a
_
o
v
v
�0 a
v
v
a
N
w
wv�
p V)
SS
as
V
w
V
N
V
v�
O
a
E
■
■
I!I
'0 0
Page 1 of 5
*** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard at One Period of Spectral Accel. ***
** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2008 version *`
PSHA Deaggregation. `kcontributions. site: 11-290 long: 116.303 W., lat: 33.737 N.
Vs30(m/s)= 275.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period: 2475 yrs.
Exceedance PGA=0.8691
g.
Weight
#Pr(at least one
eq with
median motion>=PGA
in 50 yrsj=0.00000
#This deaggregation corresponds to
Mean Hazard w/all
GMPEs
DIST(KM)
MAG(MW)
ALL EPS
EPSILON>2
1<EPS<2
0<EPS<l-1<EPS<0
-
7.5
5.05
0.646
0.639
0.007
0.000
0.000
7.6
5.20
1.410
1.262
0.148
0.000
0.000
12.1
5.21
0.084
0.084
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
5.40
1.532
1.207
0.325
0.000
0.000
12.2
5.40
0.131
0.131
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.7
5.60
1.550
1.099
0.451
0.000
0.000
12.3
5.60
0.174
0.174
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.7
5.80
1.469
0.973
0.496
0.000
0.000
12.6
5.80
0.210
0.210
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.3
6.02
2.017
1.221
0.796
0.000
0.000
13.9
5.99
0.210
0.210
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.0
6.20
2.671
1.427
1.243
0.000
0.000
14.7
6.20
0.320
0.320
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.0
6.40
2.649
1.150
1.490
0.010
0.000
14.1
6.40
0.523
0.509
0.014
0.000
0.000
7.0
6.65
3.252
2.205
1.015
0.032
0.000
13.5
6.60
0.284
0.277
0.007
0.000
0.000
23.4
6.60
0.051
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
6.84
13.413
8.214
5.171
0.029
0.000
13.5
6.80
0.411
0.389
0.021
0.000
0.000
24.6
6.78
0.053
0.053
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
6.99
13.818
6.866
6.936
0.016
0.000
12.6
6.99
0.411
0.336
0.075
0.000
0.000
24.0
7.00
0.062
0.062
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
7.17
14.076
5.250
8.534
0.292
0.000
15.4
7.21
0.223
0.174
0.049
0.000
0.000
35.9
7.23
0.153
0.153
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
7.41
12.935
4.091
7.785
1.059
0.000
14.4
7.41
0.330
0.222
0.109
0.000
0.000
23.7
7.40
0.065
0.064
0.000
0.000
0.000
34.5
7.39
0.330
0.330
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
7.63
7.403
2.077
4.421
0.905
0.000
13.3
7.55
0.260
0.161
0.099
0.000
0.000
33.8
7.58
0.879
0.879
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.5
7.78
6.207
1.568
3.709
0.930
0.000
33.8
7.79
0.486
0.473
0.012
0.000
0.000
7.5
7.97
7.239
1.647
4.308
1.284
0.000
14.1
7.95
0.060
0.031
0.030
0.000
0.000
7.4
8.19
1.448
0.309
0.850
0.289
0.000
7.4
8.39
0.060
0.012
0.036
0.013
0.000
Summary statistics for
Contribution from this
Mean src-site R= 8
Modal src-site R= 7
MODE R*= 7.6km; M*=
Computed -Rate -Ex 0.405E-03
2<EPS<-1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
EPS<-2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
GMPE M : 100.0
4 km; M= 7.06; eps0= 1.48. Mean calculated for all sources.
6 km; M= 7.17; eps0= 1.36 from peak (R,M) bin
7.17; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma I CONTRIB.- 8.534
Principal sources (faults, subduction, .random seismicity having > 3`d contribution)
Source Category:
% contr.
R(km)
M
epsilon0 (mean values).
California A -faults
76.80
8.3
7.31
1.42
CA Compr. crustal gridded
17.25
7.9
5.96
1.71
San Gorgonio Zone gridded
5.38
9.3
7.11
1.59
Individual fault hazard details
if its contribution
to mean hazard > 2%:
Fault ID
contr.
Rcd(km)
M
epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)
S. S.Andr..;CO aPriori
7.78
7.7
6.98
1.57 44.4
littps://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/out/11-290_2017.01.13_19.28.32.txt 1 /l 3/2017
Page 2 of' 5
S. S.Andr.;SSB+BG aPriori
4.28
7.4
7.32
1.32
28.0
S. S.Andr.;BG+CO aPriori
3.53
7.5
7.36
1.29
28.0
S. S.Andr.;NSB+SSB+BG aPriori
2.11
7.4
7.45
1.27
28.0
S. S.Andr.;SSB+BG+CO aPriori
2.24
7.4
7.52
1.24
28.0
SSAndr.;NSB+SSB+BG+CO aPriori
2.39
7.4
7.62
1.20
28.0
SSAnd;SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO aPriori
2.71
7.4
7.82
1.14
28.0
S. San Andreas;CO MoBal
26.88
7.7
6.95
1.60
44.4
S. San Andreas;BG+CO MoBal
2.20
7.5
7.36
1.29
28.0
S. San Andreas;SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO
2.17
7.4
7.82
1.14
28.0
S. San Andreas Unsegmented A-flt
5.30
7.8
7.74
1.21
24.6
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding
to Mean Hazard w/all GMPEs
*********#
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions.
site: 11-290
long: 116.303 W.,
lat: 33.737 N.
Vs30(m/s)= 275.0 (some WUS atten.
models use
Site Class
not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period: 2475 yrs.
Exceedance PGA-0.8691
g. Weight
#Pr[at least one
eq with
median motion>=PGA
in 50 yrsj=0.00000
*This deaggregation corresponds
to
Boore-Atkinson 2008
DIS'r(KM)
MAG(MW)
ALL EPS
EPSILON>2
1<EPS<2
0<EPS<1
-1<EPS<0 -
7.0
5.05
0_028
0.028
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.2.
5.21
0.083
0.083
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.3
5.40
0.131
0.131
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.5
5.60
0.177
0.177
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
5.80
0.216
0.216
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.0
6.02
0.403
0.393
0.011
0.000
0.000
14.2.
6.00
0.029
0.029
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.7
6.20
0.603
0.566
0.038
0.000
0.000
14.9
6.21
0.072
0.072
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.8
6.40
0.615
0.559
0.056
0.000
0.000
14.4
6.40
0.141
0.141
0.000
0.000
0.000
23.9
6.43
0.038
0.038
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.3
6.67
1.479
1.165
0.314
0.000
0.000
14.0
6.60
0.157
0.157
0.000
0.000
0.000
23.5
6.59
0.050
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
6.85
6.389
4.151
2.237
0.000
0.000
14.0
6.80
0.240
0.240
0.000
0.000
0.000
24.6
6.78
0.052
0.052
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.7
6.99
6.665
3.495
3.170
0.000
0.000
12.9
6.99
0.224
0.221
0.003
0.000
0.000
24.1
7.00
0.057
0.057
0.000
0.000
0.000
35.9
7.00
0.028
0.028
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
7.17
7.023
2.729
4.294
0.000
0.000
15.7
7.21
0.135
0.133
0.002
0.000
0.000
25.0
7.19
0.037
0.037
0.000
0.000
0.000
35.9
7.23
0.153
0.153
0.000
0.000
0.000
44.8
7.16
0.022
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
53.7
7.23
0.022
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
7.42
5.444
2.053
3.295
0.096
0.000
14.5
7.41
0.182
0.170
0.013
0.000
0.000
24.0
7.40
0.050
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
34.5
7.39
0.324
0.324
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
7.63
3.316
1.034
2.078
0.204
0.000
13.5
7.56
0.133
0.112
0.021
0.000
0.000
24.3
7.56
0.024
0.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
33.8
7.58
0.827
0.827
0.000
0.000
0.000
53.4
7.58
0.037
0.037
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.5
7.78
2.809
0.771
1.781
0.258
0.000
14.2
7.81
0.030
0.016
0.014
0.000
0.000
33.8
-1.79
0.436
0.424
0.012
0.000
0.000
7.5
7.97
3.261
0.810
2.050
0.401
0.000
14.6
7.95
0.039
0.018
0.021
0.000
0.000
33.7
7.98
0.041
0.036
0.005
0.000
0.000
53.8
7.98
0.028
0.028
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
8.19
0.654
0.154
0.402
0.098
0.000
Computed -Rate -Ex 0.174E-03
2<EPS<-1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
EPS<-2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
https:Hgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/out/i 1-290_2017.01.13_ 19.28.32.txt 1 / 13/2017
Page 3 of 5
7.4 8.39 0.027 0.006 0.017 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000
Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Contribution from this GMPE(E): 43.1
Mean src-site R= 9.2 km; M= 7.21; eps0= 1.54. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 7.6 km; Mn 7.17; eps0= 1.39 from peak (R,M) bin
MODE R*= 7.6km; M*= 7.18; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma % CONTRIB.= 4.294
Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)
Source Category:
contr.
R(km)
M
epsilon0
(mean values).
California A -faults
37.26
9.0
7.30
1.50
Individual fault hazard details if
its contribution
to
mean hazard
> 2%:
Fault ID %
contr.
Rcd(km)
M
epsilon0
Site-to-src azimuth(d)
S. S.Andr.;CO aPriori
3.77
7.7
6.98
1.61
44.4
S. S.Andr.;SSB+BG aPriori
2.02
7.4
7.31
1.37
28.0
S. S.Andr.;BG+CO aPriori
1.62
7.5
-1.36
1.36
28.0
S. S.Andr.;NSB+SSB+BG aPriori
0.98
7.4
7.45
1.33
28.0
S. S.Andr.;SSBtBG+CO aPriori
1.02
7.4
7.52
1.31
28.0
SSAndr.;NSB+SSB+SG+CO aPriori
1.08
7.4
7.61
1.28
28.0
SSAnd;SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO aPriori
1.22
7.4
7.82
1.22
28.0
S. San Andreas;CO MoBal
13.09
7.7
6.95
1.63
44.4
S. San Andreas;BG+CO Modal
1.01
7.5
7.35
1.36
28.0
S. San Andreas;SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO
0.98
7.4
7.82
1.22
28.0
S. San Andreas Unsegmented A-flt
2.50
8.0
7.73
1.30
24.6
#*********End of deagqregation corresponding
to Boor.e-Atkinson
2008
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: 11-290 long: 116.303 W., lat: 33.737 N.
Vs30(m/s)= 275.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period: 2475 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.8691 g. Weight * Computed Rate Ex 0.151E-04
#Pr[at least one
eq with
median motion>=PGA
in 50 yrs]=0.00000
#This deagqregation corresponds to
Campbell-Bozorgnia 2006
DIST(KM)
MAG(MW)
ALL_EPS
EPSILON>2
1<EPS<2
0<EPS<1
-1<EPS<0-2<EPS<-1
EPS<-2
7.2
5.05
0.043
0.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
5.21
0.135
0.135
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.5
5.41
0.225
0.225
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
11.9
5.45
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
5.60
0.264
0.264
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.1
5.61
0.009
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.7
5.80
0.243
0.243
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.1
5.80
0.012
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.3
6.01
0.288
0.288
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
13.1
5.99
0.012
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.9
6.20
0.397
0.394
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
14.3
6.20
0.022
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.9
6.40
0.456
0.426
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
13.6
6.40
0.050
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.5
6.60
0.261
0.226
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.6
6.60
0.032
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.8
6.80
0.207
0.181
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.4
6.80
0.038
0.038
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.9
7.00
0.211
0.192
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.1
6.99
0.041
0.041
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
7.18
0.270
0.251
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
14.8
7.20
0.016
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.1
7.40
0.245
0.218
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
14.2
7.41
0.023
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.1
7.60
0.108
0.098
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.8
7.55
0.019
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
7.78
0.046
0.046
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
7.97
0.047
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
8.22
0.007
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deagqregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
littps://geoha7ards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/ouUI 1-290_2017.01.13_ 19.28.32.txt 1 / 13/2017
Page 4 or 5
Contribution from this GMPE(%): 3.7
Mean src-site R= 7.5 km; M= 6.42; eps0- 1.97. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 6.9 km; M= 6.40; eps0- 1.75 from peak (R,M) bin
MODE R*= 6.9km; M*= 6.40; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma % CONTRIB.= 0.426
Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)
Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).
Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:
Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src
S. S.Andr.;CO aPriori
S. S.Andr.;SSB+BG aPriori
S. S.Andr.;BG+CO aPriori
S. S.Andr.;NSB+SSB+BG aPriori
S. S.Andr.;SSB+BG+CO aPriori
SSAndr.;NSB+SSB+BG+CO aPriori
SSAnd;SM+NSB+SSB+BG4CO aPriori
S. San Andreas;CO MoBal
S. San Andreas;BG+CO MoBal
S. San Andreas;SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO
S. San Andreas Unsegmented A-flt
0.04
7.7
7.08
2.53
44.4
0.04
7.4
7.31
2.42
28.0
0.03
7.5
7.36
2.41
28.0
0.02
7.4
7.45
2.40
28.0
0.02
7.4
7.51
2.39
28.0
0.02
7.4
7.61
2.38
28.0
0.02
7.4
7.82
2.35
28.0
0.12
7.7
7.06
2.54
44.4
0.02
7.5
7.35
2.41
28.0
0.02
7.4
7.82
2.35
28.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00
24.6
azimuth(d)
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Campbell-Bozorgnia 2008 *********#
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: 11-290 long: 116.303 W., lat: 33.737 N.
Vs30(m/s)= 275.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period:
2475 yrs.
Exceedance PGA=0.8691 g.
Weight
#Pr[at least
one
eq with
median motion>=PGA
in 50 yrs]-0.00000
#This deaggregation
corresponds to
Chiou-Youngs 2008
DIST(KM)
MAG(MW)
ALL_EPS
EPSILON>2
1<EPS<2
0<EPS<l-1<EPS<0 -
7.6
5.05
0.575
0.575
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
5.20
1.192
1.172
0.020
0.000
0.000
12.1
5.21
0.084
0.084
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.7
5.40
1.177
1.082
0.095
0.000
0.000
12.2
5.40
0.129
0.129
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.7
5.60
1.109
0.948
0.161
0.000
0.000
12.4
5.60
0.160
0.160
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.8
5.80
1.011
0.806
0.205
0.000
0.000
12.6
5.80
0.184
0.184
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.4
6.01
1.326
1.062
0.264
0.000
0.000
13.9
5.99
0.169
0.169
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.1
6.20
1.670
1.241
0.428
0.000
0.000
14.7
6.20
0.226
0.226
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.1
6.40
1.578
1.030
0.548
0.000
0.000
14.0
6.40
0.331
0.331
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.9
6.65
1.511
1.174
0.337
0.000
0.000
13.0
6.60
0.095
0.095
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
6.84
6.818
4.209
2.609
0.000
0.000
12.8
6.80
0.132
0.131
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.6
6.99
6.943
3.429
3.510
0.003
0.000
12.3
6.99
0.146
0.145
0.001
0.000
0.000
7.6
7.16
7.124
2.594
4.191
0.339
0.000
14.9
7.21
0.072
0.071
0.001
0.000
0.000
7.4
7.41
6.930
2.088
4.007
0.835
0.000
14.3
7.41
0.125
0.118
0.007
0.000
0.000
7.4
7.63
3.954
1.040
2.247
0.667
0.000
13.1
7.55
0.108
0.089
0.019
0.000
0.000
33.8
7.60
0.052
0.052
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.5
7.78
3.352
0.752
1.928
0.672
0.000
33.8
7.80
0.049
0.049
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.5
7.97
3.932
0.791
2.258
0.883
0.000
7.4
8.19
0.787
0.149
0.448
0.191
0.000
7.4
8.39
0.033
0.006
0.019
0.008
0.000
Computed_Rate_Ex 0.2.15E-03
2<EPS<-1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
EPS<-2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
https:Hgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/out/11-290_2017.01.13_19.28.32.txt 1/13/2017
Page 5 of 5
Contribution from this GMPE(%): 53.2
Mean src-site R- 7.8 km; M= 6.99; eps0= 1.40. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R- 7.6 km; M= 7.16; eps0- 1.29 from peak (R,M) bin
MODE R*= 7.6km; M*- 6.84; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma % CONTRIB.= 4.209
Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)
Source Category: %
contr.
R(km)
M
epsilon0
(mean values).
California A -faults
39.05
7.7
7.32
1.33
CA Compr. crustal gridded
11.75
8.0
5.88
1.61
Individual fault hazard details if
its contribution
to mean hazard > 2%:
Fault ID B
contr.
Rcd(km)
M
epsilon0
Site-to-src azimuth(d)
S. S.Andr.;CO aPriori
3.97
7.7
6.98
1.53
44.4
S. S.Andr.;SSB+BG aPriori
2.21
7.4
7.32
1.25
28.0
S. S.Andr.;BG+CO aPriori
1.87
7.5
7.36
1.21
28.0
S. S.Andr.;NSB+SSB+BG aPriori
1.11
7.4
7.46
1.19
28.0
S. S.Andr.;SSB+BG+CO aPriori
1.20
7.4
7.52
1.16
28.0
SSAndr.;NSB+SSB+BG+CO aPriori
1.29
7.4
7.62
1.12
28.0
SSAnd;SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO aPriori
1.46
7.4
7.82
1.06
28.0
S. San Andreas;CO Modal
13.67
7.7
6.96
1.56
44.4
S. San Andreas;BG+CO Modal
1.16
7.5
7.36
1.21
28.0
S. San Andreas;SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO
1.17
7.4
7.82
1.05
28.0
S. San Andreas Unsegmented A-flt
2.80
7.6
7.75
1.12
24.6
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding
to Chiou-Youngs
2008
*********#
******************** Southern California ****************************************
https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/out/11-290_2017.01.13_ 19.28.32.txt 1 /13/2017