REPORT OF
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED RIO HONDO SATELLITE CAMPUS
EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL
9515 HANEY STREET
PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
RIO HONDO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM
Whittier, California
January 20, 2016
Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Mr Luis Rojas
Rio Hondo Program Management Team
c/o Rio Hondo College
3600 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, California 90601-1699
Subject:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Improvements
Proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus
El Rancho Adult School
9515 Haney Street
Pico Rivera, California, 90660
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
Dear Mr. Rojas:
We are pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed
improvements as part of the proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus at the El Rancho
Adult School in Pico Rivera, California. This investigation was performed in general
accordance with our proposal dated November 24, 2015, which was authorized by e-mail
on December 15, 2015.
The scope of our services was planned with Mr. Manuel Jaramillo of DelTerra. We have
been furnished with a site plan and a general description of the proposed improvements.
The results of our investigation and design recommendations are presented in this report.
Please note that you or your representative should submit copies of this report to the
appropriate governmental agencies for their review and approval prior to obtaining a
permit.
Correspondence:
Amec Foster Wheeler
6001 Rickenbacker Road
Los Angeles, California 90040
USA
Tel +1 (322) 889 5300
Fax +1 (323) 721-6700
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED RIO HONDO SATELLITE CAMPUS
EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL
9515 HANEY STREET
PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
RIO HONDO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TEAM
Whittier, California
Amec Foster Wheeler
Los Angeles, California
January 20, 2016
Project 4953-15-0302
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ..................................................................................... iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. iv
1.0
SCOPE .................................................................................................................. 1
2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITIONS ............................................ 3
3.0
EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS ...................................................... 4
4.0
SOIL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 5
5.0
GEOLOGY............................................................................................................. 6
5.1
GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................... 6
5.2
GEOLOGIC MATERIALS ........................................................................... 6
5.3
GROUNDWATER....................................................................................... 7
5.4
FAULTS ...................................................................................................... 7
5.5
GEOLOGIC-SEISMIC HAZARDS ............................................................ 16
5.6
CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 21
6.0
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 23
6.1
GENERAL ................................................................................................ 23
6.2
FOUNDATIONS ....................................................................................... 23
6.3
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................... 24
6.4
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT......................................................................... 26
6.5
PAVING .................................................................................................... 27
6.6
GRADING ................................................................................................ 29
6.7
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION ........................................................... 32
7.0
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 33
8.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 34
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDIX:
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
ii
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
1
Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California
2
Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active in Southern California
3
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within 100 Km of the
Site
4
Horizontal Response Spectra Pseudospectral Acceleration in g
FIGURES
1
Vicinity Map
2
Plot Plan
3
Local Geologic Map
4
Regional Geologic Map
5
Regional Faults and Seismicity Map
6
Horizontal Response Spectra, Components of the Risk-Targeted Maximum
Considered Earthquake Response Spectrum
7
Horizontal Response Spectra, Components of the Design Response Spectrum
iii
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We have completed our geotechnical investigation of the site of the proposed
improvements as part of the proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus at the El Rancho
Adult School campus in Pico Rivera, California. Our subsurface explorations, engineering
analyses, and foundation design recommendations are summarized below.
The proposed improvements include the replacement of the existing restroom building near
the eastern corner of the adult school campus and new pavement, including a fire lane, in
the central portion of the campus. The proposed new restroom building will be one story in
height and will be of pre-fabricated modular-type construction.
We explored the soil conditions by drilling three borings to depths of 10 to 50 feet below
the existing grade. Fill soils, 1½ to 3½ feet thick, were encountered in our borings. The fill
is underlain by Holocene to late Pleistocene age alluvial fan deposits (Saucedo, 1999;
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998) consisting of sandy silt, silty sand, and
sand. The upper 8 feet is generally medium stiff to stiff sandy silt or loose silty sand.
Below 8 feet, the deposits generally consist of poorly to well graded medium dense to
very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel. Groundwater was not encountered within
the 50-foot maximum depth explored by our borings. The historic-high groundwater level at
the site has been mapped at a depth of about 15 feet below the existing grade by the
California Geological Survey (CDMG, 1998).
Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential
for surface fault rupture are not known to be located beneath or projecting toward the site.
Therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the site due to fault plane displacement
propagating to the ground surface during the design life of the project is considered low.
Although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground
shaking can be mitigated by proper engineering design and construction in conformance
with current building codes and engineering practices. According to the City of Pico Rivera
and County of Los Angeles, the site is within potential dam inundation area. Dams are
routinely inspected by state and federal agencies; therefore, the potential for inundation is
low. The relatively flat-lying topography at the site precludes stability problems. The
potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, tsunamis, inundation, seiches,
flooding, subsidence, methane gas, radon gas, asbestos, and volcanism affecting the site
is considered to be low. However, there is a potential for seismically-induced settlement of
the unsaturated loose and medium dense sandy soils beneath the site.
The existing fill soils are not uniformly well compacted and records documenting their
placement and compaction are not available; therefore, these fill soils are not considered
suitable for support of the proposed building, pavement, or other exterior concrete walks
and slabs on grade. In addition, the upper natural soils are generally only loose to medium
stiff. Accordingly, in order to support the proposed building on conventional
spread/continuous footings, all existing fill soils and the upper natural soils should be
excavated to allow for the placement of at least two feet of properly compacted fill beneath
foundations. The existing fill soils and upper natural soils should also be excavated to allow
for the placement of at least two feet of properly compacted fill beneath pavement and
exterior concrete walks and slabs on grade and any floor slabs on grade. However, beneath
pavement and exterior concrete walks and slabs, particularly in areas that are currently
iv
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
paved, the existing fill and upper natural soils may be left in place if the risk of settlement,
cracking, and greater than normal maintenance is considered acceptable.
v
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
1.0 SCOPE
This report provides geotechnical recommendations in support of the proposed
improvements as part of the proposed Rio Hondo Satellite Campus at the El Rancho Adult
School in Pico Rivera, California. The general location of the site is shown on Figure 1,
Vicinity Map. The location of the existing buildings, and our exploration borings are shown
on Figure 2, Plot Plan.
This investigation was authorized to determine the static physical characteristics of the soils
underlying the site and to provide recommendations for design of foundations, for floor slab
and paving support, and for grading for the project. More specifically, the scope of this
investigation included the following:
•
Evaluate the subsurface conditions underlying the school campus.
•
Perform a geologic-seismic hazards evaluation in general conformance
with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and with the California
Geological Survey Checklist for Review of Geologic-Seismic Reports for
California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings
(CGS Note 48) to address geologic and seismic hazard considerations.
•
Provide recommendations for an appropriate foundation system, including
allowable increases for wind or seismic loads.
•
Provide the results of a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis in
accordance with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code
(CBC) and ASCE 7-10.
•
Provide a determination of the applicable seismic parameters based on the
current CBC.
•
Provide recommendations for floor slab support.
•
Provide recommendations for design of asphalt and portland cement
concrete paving.
•
Provide recommendations for earthwork, including site preparation,
excavation, the placement of required compacted fill, and quality control
measures relating to earthwork.
The assessment of general site environmental conditions to determine the presence of
contaminants in the soils and groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this
investigation.
1
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Our recommendations are based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory tests,
and appropriate engineering analyses. The results of our field exploration and laboratory
tests, which form the basis of our recommendations, are presented in the Appendix.
Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in
this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the
professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for Rio Hondo
Program Management Team and their design consultants to be used solely in the design of
the proposed improvements. This report has not been prepared for use by other parties,
and may not contain sufficient information for purpose of other parties or other uses.
2
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed improvements include the replacement of the existing restroom building near
the eastern corner of the adult school campus and new pavement, including a fire lane, in
the central portion of the campus. The proposed new restroom building will be one story in
height and will be of pre-fabricated modular-type construction. No subterranean construction
is planned.
Structural details are not available at this time, however, the proposed restroom building is
anticipated to be relatively light, with maximum dead-plus-live column loads well under 100
kips.
The site is currently occupied by surface paving and school buildings. The ground surface
at the site is generally flat, with a difference in elevation of less than two feet across the
site. Various underground utilities cross the site.
3
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
3.0 EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS
The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling three borings to depths of 10
to 50 feet below the existing grade at the locations shown on Figure 2. Details of the
explorations and logs of the borings are presented in the Appendix.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in
the classification of the soils and to determine the pertinent engineering properties of the
soils. The following tests were performed:
•
•
•
•
•
Moisture content and dry density determinations.
Fines content.
Direct shear.
Consolidation.
R-Value
All testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications.
Details of the laboratory testing program and test results are presented in the Appendix.
In addition, corrosion tests on selected soil samples were performed for us by HDR. The
results of the corrosion tests are presented at the end of the Appendix.
4
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
4.0 SOIL CONDITIONS
Fill soils, 1½ to 3½ feet thick, were encountered in our borings. The fill soils consisted
primarily of silty sand with siltier layers, root fragments, and varying amount of gravel and
are not uniformly well compacted. Deeper fill could occur between our borings and in other
unexplored areas, particularly in areas where existing buildings and utilities are present.
The fill is underlain by Holocene to late Pleistocene age alluvial fan deposits (Saucedo,
1999; California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998) consisting of sandy silt, silty sand,
and sand. The upper 8 feet is generally medium stiff to stiff sandy silt or loose silty sand.
Below 8 feet, the deposits generally consist of poorly to well graded medium dense to
very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel.
Groundwater was not encountered within the 50-foot maximum depth explored by our
borings. The historic-high groundwater level at the site has been mapped at a depth of
about 15 feet below the existing grade by the California Geological Survey (CDMG, 1998).
The corrosion studies indicate that the on-site materials are severely corrosive to ferrous
metals, aggressive to copper, and that the potential for sulfate attack on portland cement
concrete is considered negligible.
5
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
5.0 GEOLOGY
5.1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located in the Los Angeles Basin, near the southern flank of the Puente Hills.
The Puente and San Jose Hills form the northeastern structural margin of the Los
Angeles basin. The Los Angeles Basin is located in the northern portion of the Peninsular
Ranges geomorphic province and is a northwest-trending alluviated lowland plain,
sometimes called the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic
province is bounded by the Santa Monica, Hollywood, Raymond, Sierra Madre, and
Cucamonga fault zones to the north, the San Andreas fault zone on the east, the Pacific
Ocean coastline on the west, and the Mexican border on the south. The province is
characterized by elongate northwest-trending mountain ridges separated by straight-sided
sediment-filled valleys. The northwest trend is further reflected in the direction of the
dominant geologic structural features of the province that are northwest to west-northwest
trending folds and faults, such as the nearby Whittier fault located 2.1 miles eastnortheast of the site.
Locally the site is located in the northern portion of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain at an
elevation of 166 feet above mean sea level (MSL) (NGVD 29).
The site in relation to topographic features is depicted in Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The site
geology is shown on Figure 2, Site Geologic Map. The relationship of the site to the local
geologic conditions is depicted in Figure 3, Local Geology. Figure 4, Regional Geologic
Map, shows the geology of the general region. The location of major faults and
earthquake epicenters in Southern California are shown on the Regional Faults and
Seismicity Map, Figure 5.
5.2
GEOLOGIC MATERIALS
The site is underlain by Holocene to late Pleistocene age alluvial fan deposits (Saucedo,
1999; California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998). Based on the materials
encountered in our borings, the site is mantled with artificial fill to a depth between 1½
and 3 feet. The fill generally consists of silty sand with siltier layers, roots fragments, and
varying amounts of gravel. The fill is underlain by Holocene to late Pleistocene age
6
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
alluvial fan deposits (Saucedo, 1999; California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998)
consisting of sandy silt, silty sand, and sand. The upper 8 feet is generally medium stiff to
stiff sandy silt or loose silty sand. Below 8 feet, the deposits generally consist of poorly to
well graded medium dense to very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel.
5.3
GROUNDWATER
The site is located in the Central Subbasin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles
Groundwater Basin according to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR,
2003). According to the California Geological Survey, the historic-high water level in the
area is approximately 10 feet below the ground surface (bgs) (CDMG, 1998). Water level
measurements for Los Angeles County Well No. 1601T, located 0.9 mile west of the site,
indicate the depth to groundwater was 105.6 feet on October 30, 2015. This depth
corresponds to a water surface elevation of 54.1 feet MSL. The shallowest water recorded
in this well was measured on April 16, 1998 with a depth of 29.7 and corresponding water
surface elevation of 130 MSL. Groundwater levels have been recorded for this well from
1964 to 2015.
Groundwater was not encountered within the 50-foot maximum depth explored by our
borings at the site.
5.4
FAULTS
The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive
faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the
California Geological Survey (previously the California Division of Mines and Geology) for
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program (Bryant and Hart, 2007). By
definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time
(about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated
surface displacement of Quaternary age deposits (last 1.6 million years). Inactive faults
have not moved in the last 1.6 million years. A list of nearby active faults and the distance
in miles between the site and the nearest point on the fault, the maximum magnitude, and
the slip rate for the fault is given in Table 1. A similar list for potentially active faults is
presented in Table 2. The faults in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 5.
7
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Active Faults
Whittier Fault
The active Whittier fault is located approximately 2.1 miles east-northeast of the site. The
northwest-trending Whittier fault extends along the south flank of the Puente Hills from
the Santa Ana River on the southeast to Whittier Narrows on the northwest. According to
Yeats, 2004 and Treiman, 1991, the Whittier fault extends northwesterly becoming the
East Montebello fault beneath the Whittier Narrows towards the Alhambra Wash. The
East Montebello fault is approximately 3.8 miles north-northeast of the site. The main
Whittier fault trace is a high-angle reverse fault, with the north side uplifted over the south
side at an angle of approximately 70 degrees, although late Quaternary movement has
been nearly pure strike slip and total right separation may be around 5 to 5.5 miles
(Yeats, 2004). In the Brea-Olinda Oil Field, the Whittier fault displaces Pleistocene age
alluvium, and Carbon Canyon Creek is offset in a right lateral sense by the Whittier fault.
The CGS considers the Whittier fault to be capable of a Magnitude 6.8 earthquake and
estimates an annual slip rate of 2.5 millimeters per year (Cao et al. 2003; Field et al.
2013).
Raymond Fault
The Raymond fault is located approximately 9.6 miles north of the site. The fault is primarily
a left-lateral strike-slip fault with a minor component of high-angle reverse offset, placing
basement rocks north of the fault over alluvial sediments south of the fault. The Raymond
fault has long been recognized as a groundwater barrier in the vicinity of the cities of
Pasadena and San Marino and numerous geomorphic features along its entire length (such
as fault scarps, sag ponds, springs, and pressure ridges) attest to the fault's activity during
the Holocene epoch (last 11,000 years). Within the last 36,000 to 41,000 years, five to eight
separate earthquake events have been recognized along the Raymond fault (Crook et al.,
1987, Weaver and Dolan, 2000). The most recent fault movement, based on radiocarbon
ages from materials collected in an excavation exposing the fault, occurred sometime
between 2,160 ± 105 and 1,630 ± 100 years before present (LeRoy Crandall and
Associates, 1978; Crook et al., 1987; Weaver and Dolan, 2000). An Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone has been established for this fault, and it is considered active by the
State and the City of Los Angeles. An average slip rate of 1.5 mm/yr and a maximum
8
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
moment magnitude of 6.5 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (Cao et al.,
2003; Field et al., 2013) for the Raymond fault.
Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone
The Newport-Inglewood fault zone is located approximately 12 miles to the westsouthwest of the site. This fault zone is composed of a series of discontinuous northwesttrending en echelon faults extending from Ballona Gap southeastward past the Santa Ana
River in Newport Beach, where it trends off-shore. This zone is reflected at the surface by
a line of geomorphically young anticlinal hills and mesas formed by the folding and
faulting of a thick sequence of Pleistocene age sediments and Tertiary age sedimentary
rocks (Barrows, 1974). Fault-plane solutions for 39 small earthquakes (between 1977 and
1985) show mostly strike-slip faulting with some reverse faulting along the north segment
(north of Dominguez Hills) and some normal faulting along the south segment (south of
Dominguez Hills to Newport Beach) (Hauksson, 1987). Prior fault investigations by
Law/Crandall (1993) in the Huntington Beach area indicate that the on-shore North
Branch segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone offsets Holocene age alluvial
deposits in the vicinity of the Santa Ana River.
Sierra Madre Fault Zone
The active Sierra Madre fault is located 13 miles north-northeast of the site. This fault
zone borders the southern front of the San Gabriel Mountains and consists of a series of
discontinuous reverse faults that separate pre-Tertiary crystalline rocks on the north from
Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary deposits on the south. The various faults exhibit
northerly dips from 15 degrees to vertical, with the crystalline rocks thrust upward toward
the south over sediments as young as mid-Pleistocene age. The Sierra Madre fault zone
extends approximately 50 miles along the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains
from Big Tujunga Canyon on the west to Cajon Pass on the east. The fault zone, which
includes the active Cucamonga fault, consists of a series of reverse fault segments that
are believed to have been active at different times in the geologic past (Crook et al.,
1987). The moderate M5.8 1991 Sierra Madre earthquake is believed to be a result of
movement on a small portion of the Sierra Madre fault zone. Recent paleoseismic
investigations by Rubin et al (1998) in Altadena have shown that the Sierra Madre fault
fails in large, infrequent earthquakes. The past two ruptures in Altadena produced about
9
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
4.5 to 5 m of slip at the ground surface and occurred within the past ~18,000 years.
Farther east in San Dimas, Tucker and Dolan (2001) documented the occurrence of two
large-slip earthquakes during the period between ~8,000 and ~24,000 years ago. The
most recent event on the eastern portion of the Sierra Madre fault zone occurred prior to
~8,000 years ago. The CGS considers the Sierra Madre fault to be capable of a
Magnitude 7.2 earthquake and estimates an annual slip rate of 2 millimeters per year
(Cao et al. 2003; Field et al. 2013).
Clamshell-Sawpit Fault Zone
The Clamshell-Sawpit fault is located about 13 miles north-northeast of the site. The fault
system consists of parallel and anastomosing, northward-dipping, reverse faults, that
thrusts gneiss over unconsolidated gravels. The fault dip is variable, ranging from about
35 to 70 degrees to the north. The fault trends northeast from near the mouth of Santa
Anita Canyon to Camp Rincon on the West Fork of San Gabriel River (Crook et al.,
1987). It is postulated that the 1991 Sierra Madre earthquake originated deep on the
Clamshell-Sawpit fault, but the rupture did not reach the surface (Southern California
Earthquake Center, 2015). The CGS estimates a slip rate of 0.4 mm/yr (Field et al., 2013)
and a maximum magnitude of 6.5 (CGS, 2003).
Verdugo Fault
The active Verdugo fault zone is composed of several faults including the Verdugo fault, the
San Rafael fault, and the Eagle Rock fault. The Verdugo fault, a reverse fault, is located
approximately 14 miles north-northwest of the site. The most recent documented activity
along this fault occurs in the Holocene age alluvial deposits along the western flank of the
Verdugo Mountains in the Burbank area (Los Angeles County Seismic Safety Element,
1990). A State of California Special Studies Earthquake Fault Zone has not been
established for the Verdugo fault by the State. However, this portion of the fault is
considered active by the State (Jennings and Bryant, 2010; USGS/CGS, 2006). An average
slip rate of 0.4 mm/yr and a maximum moment magnitude of 6.9 are estimated by the
California Geological Survey (Cao et al., 2003; Field et al., 2013) for the Verdugo fault.
10
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Hollywood Fault
The active Hollywood fault is approximately 14 miles northwest of the site. The active
Hollywood fault trends approximately east-northeast near the base of the Santa Monica
Mountains from the West Beverly Hills Lineament in the West Hollywood-Beverly Hills
area (Dolan et al., 2000b) to the Los Feliz area of Los Angeles. The fault is a groundwater
barrier within Holocene sediments (Converse et al., 1981). Studies by several
investigators (Dolan et al., 2000b; Law/Crandall, 2000, Dolan et al., 1997; and Crook and
Proctor, 1992) have indicated that the fault is active, based on geomorphic evidence,
stratigraphic correlation between exploratory borings, and fault studies. As of January 8,
2014, the Hollywood fault zone within the Hollywood 7.5 minute quadrangle has been
included in an Earthquake Fault Zone by the CGS in an Earthquake Fault Zone map
(CGS, 2014).
Until recently, the approximately 15 kilometer-long Hollywood fault zone was considered
to be expressed as a series of linear scarps and faceted south-facing ridges along the
south margin of the eastern Santa Monica Mountains and the Hollywood Hills. Multiple
recent fault rupture hazard investigations have shown that the Hollywood fault zone is
located south of the faceted ridges and bedrock outcrops along Sunset Boulevard (Harza,
1998, William Lettis & Associates, 1998, Law/Crandall, 2000). Active deposition of
numerous small alluvial fans at the mountain front and a lack of fan incision suggest late
Quaternary uplift of the Santa Monica Mountains along the Hollywood fault zone (Dolan et
al., 2000b, Dolan et al., 1997, Dolan and Seih, 1992, Crook et al., 1983). The fault dips
steeply to the north and has juxtaposed Tertiary and Cretaceous age rocks over young
sedimentary deposits of the northern Los Angeles basin. The Hollywood fault zone has
not produced any damaging earthquakes during the historical period and has had
relatively minor micro-seismic activity. An average slip rate of 0.9 mm/yr and a maximum
magnitude of 6.4 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (Cao et al., 2003;
Field et al., 2013) for the Hollywood fault.
San Andreas Fault Zone
The Mojave section of the active San Andreas fault zone is located about 34 miles north
of the site. This fault zone is California's most prominent structural feature, trending in a
general northwest direction for almost the entire length of the state. The southern section
11
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
of the fault is approximately 450 kilometers long and extends from the Transverse Ranges
west of Tejon Pass on the north to the Mexican border and beyond on the south. The last
major earthquake along the San Andreas fault zone in Southern California was the 1857
Magnitude 8.3 Fort Tejon earthquake. An average slip rate of 34 mm/yr and a maximum
magnitude of 7.4 are estimated by the California Geological Survey (Cao et al., 2003;
Field et al., 2013) for the Mojave section of the San Andreas fault zone.
Blind Thrust Fault Zones
Several buried thrust faults, commonly referred to as blind thrusts, underlie the Los
Angeles Basin at depth. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and are
typically identified at depths greater than 3 kilometers. These faults do not present a
potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the following described blind thrust faults
are considered active and potential sources for future earthquakes.
Puente Hills Blind Thrust
The PHBT is defined based on seismic reflection profiles, petroleum well data, and
precisely located seismicity (Shaw et al., 2002). This blind thrust fault system extends
eastward from downtown Los Angeles to Brea (in northern Orange County). The site is
located within the surface projection of the fault. The PHBT includes three north-dipping
segments, named from east to west as the Coyote Hills segment, the Santa Fe Springs
segment, and the Los Angeles segment. These segments are overlain by folds expressed
at the surface as the Coyote Hills, Santa Fe Springs Anticline, and the Montebello Hills.
The Santa Fe Springs segment of the PHBT is believed to be the causative fault of the
October 1, 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake (Shaw et al., 2002). Postulated earthquake
scenarios for the PHBT include single segment fault ruptures capable of producing an
earthquake of magnitude 6.5 to 6.6 (Mw) and a multiple segment fault rupture capable of
producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.1 (Mw). The PHBT is not exposed at the ground
surface and does not present a potential for surface fault rupture. However, based on
deformation of late Quaternary age sediments above this fault system and the occurrence
of the Whittier Narrows earthquake, the PHBT is considered an active fault capable of
generating future earthquakes beneath the Los Angeles Basin. An average slip rate of 0.9
mm/yr and a maximum moment magnitude of 7.1 are estimated by Cao et al. (2003) and
Field et al. (2013) for the Puente Hills Blind Thrust.
12
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Compton Thrust
The Compton blind thrust has been defined from seismic reflection profiles and borehole
data (Leon et al., 2009) as a northeast-dipping structure. This blind thrust fault system
extends approximately 28 miles from southwest Los Angeles County to northern Orange
County in a southeastern direction. Leon et al. (2009) has correlated blind faulting at
depth to near-surface folding. Several uplift events have been observed by investigating
deformed Holocene layers along buried fold scarps. The cumulative uplift from the
observed events ranged from 2 to 6 feet or approximately 4 to 14 feet of thrust
displacement with magnitudes (Mw) of 7.0 to 7.4 (Leon et al., 2009). Slip rate is estimated
to be 0.9 mm/yr (Field et al., 2013). The site is located within the surface projection of the
fault.
Upper Elysian Park Thrust
The vertical surface projection of the Upper Elysian Park fault is approximately 5.9 miles
north of the site at its closest point. The Upper Elysian Park fault is a blind thrust fault that
overlies the Los Angeles and Santa Fe Springs segments of the Puente Hills Thrust
(Oskin et al., 2000 and Shaw et al., 2002). The eastern edge of the Upper Elysian Park
fault is defined by the northwest-trending Whittier fault zone. Like other blind thrust faults
in the Los Angeles area, the Upper Elysian Park fault is not exposed at the surface and
does not present a potential surface rupture hazard; however, the Upper Elysian Park
fault should be considered an active feature capable of generating future earthquakes. An
average slip rate of 1.9 mm/yr and a maximum moment magnitude of 6.4 are estimated
by Cao et al. (2003) and Field et al. (2013) for the Upper Elysian Park fault.
San Joaquin Hills Thrust
Until recently, the southern Los Angeles Basin has been estimated to have a low seismic
hazard relative to the greater Los Angeles region. This estimation is generally based on
the fewer number of known active faults and the lower rates of historic seismicity for this
area. However, several recent studies by Grant et al. (1999, 2002) suggest that an active
blind thrust fault system underlies the San Joaquin Hills. This postulated blind thrust fault
is believed to be a faulted anticlinal fold, parallel to the Newport-Inglewood fault zone
(NIFZ) but considered a distinctly separate seismic source (Grant et al., 2002). The
13
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
vertical surface projection of the San Joaquin Hills Thrust is approximately 25 miles south
of the site at the closest point. This thrust fault is not exposed at the surface and does not
present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. However, the San Joaquin Hills Thrust
may be an active feature that can generate future earthquakes. The California Geological
Survey estimates an average slip rate of 0.6 millimeters per year and a maximum
Magnitude of 6.6 for the San Joaquin Hills Thrust (Cao et al., 2003; Field et al., 2013).
The vertical surface projection of the postulated San Joaquin Hills Thrust is about 22
miles south-southeast of the site at the closest point. This thrust fault is not exposed at
the surface and does not present a potential surface fault rupture hazard. The California
Geological Survey (2003) considers this postulated fault to be active and estimates an
average slip rate of 0.5 mm/yr and a maximum moment magnitude of 6.6 for the San
Joaquin Hills Thrust.
Potentially Active Faults
Walnut Creek Fault
The Walnut Creek fault is a potentially active fault in the northeastern portion of the San
Gabriel Valley located approximately 7.4 miles northeast of the site. The fault has been
interpreted to be a structural flexure that separates the folded San Jose Hills and the flat
deposits of the San Gabriel Valley (Yeats, 2000). Digital elevation models have
demonstrated northeastern striking lineations in areas where the fault is expected to exist
(Yeats, 2000).
Los Alamitos Fault
The potentially active Los Alamitos fault is located approximately 10 miles southsouthwest of the site. This fault trends northwest-southeast from the northern boundary of
the City of Lakewood, southeastward to the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center.
The fault, considered a southeasterly extension of the Paramount Syncline, appears to be
a vertical fault with the early Pleistocene age materials on the west side of the fault
displaced up relative to the east side. There is no evidence that this fault has offset
Holocene age alluvial deposits (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Additionally, the “Fault Activity
14
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Map of California” published by the California Geological Survey (Jennings and Bryant,
2010) considers this fault to be potentially active.
San Jose Fault
The potentially active San Jose fault is located approximately 12 miles east-northeast of
the site. The San Jose fault trends in a general east-northeast direction through the San
Gabriel Valley from the San Jose Hills on the south to the City of Claremont on the north.
The fault juxtaposes middle Miocene (12 to 19 million years ago) age rocks of the
Topanga Formation, on the north side of the fault, against late Miocene (5 to 12 million
years ago) age Puente Formation rocks on the south side of the fault. South and east of
the San Jose Hills, the fault is concealed by Holocene age alluvial deposits and is a
recognized groundwater barrier. In this area, the California Department of Water
Resources (1970) has documented a 100-kilometer vertical offset in the buried
Pleistocene (greater than 11,700 years old) age sediments. The CGS considers the San
Jose fault to be capable of a Magnitude 6.4 earthquake and estimates an annual slip rate
of 0.4 millimeters per year (Cao et al. 2003; Field et al. 2013).
Indian Hill Fault
The potentially active Indian Hill fault is located about 13 miles northeast of the site. The
Indian Hill fault is approximately nine kilometers long, extending from the Covina-San Dimas
area on the west to the Claremont area on the east. According to the California Department
of Water Resources (1966), the fault forms a groundwater barrier in late Pleistocene age
sediments.
El Modeno Fault
The potentially active El Modeno fault is located about 16 miles southwest of the site. The
fault is a steeply-dipping normal fault about 9 miles long and has about 2,000 feet of uplift
on its eastern side. Movement on the fault has been inferred during Holocene time,
suggesting the fault is active (Ryan et al., 1982). However, Jennings and Bryant, 2010
shows this fault to be potentially active and the CGS does not include it in its database.
15
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Peralta Hills Fault
The closest potentially active fault to the site is the Peralta Hills fault, located
approximately 17 miles southwest of the site. This reverse fault is about 8 kilometers long
and generally trends east-west and dips to the north. Pleistocene age offsets are known
along this fault; however, there is no evidence that this fault has offset Holocene age
alluvial deposits (Ziony and Jones, 1989). Additionally, Jennings and Bryant, 2010 shows
this fault to be potentially active.
Central Avenue Fault
The Central Avenue fault is located approximately 20 miles east-northeast of the site. The
Central Avenue fault is located east of and trending parallel to the Chino fault where it
was first identified as a groundwater barrier (Woodford et al., 1944). Later studies further
identified the structure as a zone of weakness (Madden and Yeats, 2008) marking the
hingeline between the Chino Basin and the Perris Block (Yeats, 2002). Yeats (2002)
indicates that the fault does not demonstrate signs of late Quaternary movement in
relation to the active Chino fault to the south. Additionally, Jennings and Bryant (2010)
classifies the Central Avenue fault as late Pleistocene in age.
San Antonio Fault
The San Antonio fault is located in the southeastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains
approximately 23 miles east-northeast of the site. At the northern end, the San Antonio
fault starts at the San Jacinto fault zone near Lytle Creek where it trends southerly
towards Mount Baldy and diverging into southern and western segments. The fault has
left lateral geometry that offsets granitic rocks that probably started contemporaneously
during San Andreas fault development (middle Miocene) (Heaton and Nourse, 2010). The
CGS and USGS (2006) classify the fault as late Quaternary.
5.5
GEOLOGIC-SEISMIC HAZARDS
Fault Rupture
The site is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A-P
Zone) for surface fault rupture hazards. The closest A-P Zone, established for the East
16
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Montebello fault the California Geological Survey (CDMG, 2002; USGS/CGS, 2006), is
located approximately 3.8 miles north of the site. The closest active fault with the potential
for surface rupture is the Whittier fault, located approximately 2.1 miles east-northeast of
the site.
Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential
for surface fault rupture are not known to be located directly beneath or projecting toward
the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to fault plane displacement
propagating to the surface at the site during the design life of the proposed development
is considered low.
Seismicity
Earthquake Catalog Data
The seismicity of the region surrounding the proposed site was determined from research
of an electronic database of seismic data (Southern California Earthquake Center, 2016).
This database includes earthquake data compiled by the California Institute of
Technology from 1932 through 2015 and data for 1812 to 1931 compiled by Richter and
the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The search for
earthquakes that occurred within 100 kilometers of the proposed site indicates that 434
earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 and greater occurred from 1932 through 2015; 3
earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater occurred between 1906 and 1931; and 1
earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater occurred between 1812 and 1905. A list of these
earthquakes is presented as Table 3. Epicenters of some of the moderate and major
earthquakes (greater than magnitude 5.0) are shown in Figure 5.
In Table 3, the information for each earthquake includes date and time in Greenwich Civil
Time (GCT), location of the epicenter in latitude and longitude, quality of epicentral
determination (Q), depth in kilometers, distance from the site in kilometers, and
magnitude. Where a depth of 0.0 is given, the solution was based on an assumed 16kilometer focal depth. The explanation of the letter code for the quality factor of the data
is presented on the first page of the table.
17
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Historic Earthquakes
A number of earthquakes of moderate to major magnitude have occurred in the Southern
California area within the last 80 years. A partial list of these earthquakes is included in
the following table.
List of Historic Earthquakes
Earthquake
(Oldest to Youngest)
Long Beach
Tehachapi
San Fernando
Whittier Narrows
Sierra Madre
Landers
Big Bear
Northridge
Hector Mine
Sierra El Mayor
La Habra
Date of Earthquake
11-Mar-33
21-Jul-52
9-Feb-71
1-Oct-87
28-Jun-91
28-Jun-92
28-Jun-92
17-Jan-94
16-Oct-99
4-Apr-10
28-Mar-14
Magnitude
6.4
7.5
6.6
5.9
5.8
7.3
6.3
6.7
7.1
7.2
5.1
Distance to
Epicenter
(mi)
26
88
35
6
21
96
74
30
112
215
11
Direction
to
Epicenter
S
NW
NW
N
N
ENE
NE
NW
NE
SE
SE
The site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake.
However, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking
can be mitigated by proper engineering design and construction in conformance with
current building codes and engineering practices.
Slope Stability
The relatively flat-lying topography at the site precludes both stability problems and the
potential for lurching (earth movement at right angles to a cliff or steep slope during
ground shaking). According to the County of Los Angeles Seismic Safety Element (2008
and 1990), the site is not within an area identified as having a potential for slope
instability. Additionally, the site is not located within an area identified as having a
potential for seismic slope instability (CDMG, 1999). There are no known landslides near
the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides.
18
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Liquefaction and Seismically-Induced Settlement
Liquefaction potential is greatest where the groundwater level is shallow, and submerged
loose, fine sands occur within a depth of about 50 feet or less. Liquefaction potential
decreases as grain size and clay and gravel content increase. As ground acceleration
and shaking duration increase during an earthquake, liquefaction potential increases.
According to the County of Los Angeles Seismic Safety Element (2008 and 1990), and
the California Geological Survey (CDMG, 1999), the site is within an area identified as
having a potential for liquefaction. The historic high groundwater level is approximately 10
feet bgs (CDMG, 1998). Based on the densities encountered in our borings below the
historic-high groundwater level, the alluvial deposits are not considered subject to
liquefaction. Additionally, groundwater was not encountered within the upper 50 feet and
based on groundwater level measurements in nearby wells, the current groundwater level
is at a depth greater than 50 feet. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction and the
associated ground deformation beneath the site is considered to be low.
Seismically-induced settlement often occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils
densify during ground shaking. If such settlement were uniform beneath a given structure,
damage would be minimal. However, due to variations in distribution, density, and
confining conditions of the soils, such settlement is generally non-uniform and can cause
serious structural damage. Such seismically-induced settlement can occur in both dry,
partially, and fully saturated granular soils.
To evaluate the site-specific potential for seismically-induced settlement above the
groundwater level, we have computed the geometric mean peak ground acceleration
(PGA) for the maximum considered earthquake, which is consistent with the requirements
of the 2013 CBC and ASCE 7-10 for liquefaction evaluations. This ground motion was
corrected to be compatible with a Magnitude 7.5 earthquake. The Magnitude-7.5
compatible PGA computed in this manner for the subject site is 0.66g.
We have computed the potential for seismically-induced settlement above the
groundwater level in accordance with the methodology of Tokimatsu and Seed (1987).
19
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Based on the results of our analyses, we estimate that the seismically-induced settlement
beneath the site will be on the order of ¾ inch.
Tsunamis, Inundation, Seiches, and Flooding
The site is not in a coastal area and at an approximate elevation of 166 feet MSL.
Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the
site.
According to the City of Pico Rivera (2014) and the County of Los Angeles Seismic Safety
Element (1990), the site located within a potential inundation area for an earthquakeinduced dam failure from the Whittier Narrows Dam. However, this dam, as well as others
in California, are continually monitored by various governmental agencies (such as the
State of California Division of Safety of Dams and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to
guard against the threat of dam failure. Therefore, the potential for inundation at the site
as a result of an earthquake-induced dam failure is considered low.
The site is not located downslope of any large bodies of water that could adversely affect
the site in the event of earthquake-induced seiches (wave oscillations in an enclosed or
semi-enclosed body of water).
The site is located in an area of 0.2% annual chance flood (Zone X) as designated by the
Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA, 2008). Therefore, the potential for
flooding to affect the site is considered low.
Subsidence
The site is not within an area of known subsidence associated with fluid withdrawal
(groundwater or petroleum), peat oxidation, or hydrocompaction.
Oil Wells
The site is not located within the limits of an oil field, according to the well finder system of
the California Division of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR, 2016). The closest
oil field, the Whittier Oil Field, is located 1.5 miles northeast of the site. Plugged and
20
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
abandoned oil exploration holes are not known to be located near the site; however, there
is a remote possibility that undocumented wells could be encountered during construction.
Any well encountered would need to be properly abandoned in accordance with the
current requirements of DOGGR.
Methane Gas
The site is not located in an oil field and according to California Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources’ Well Finder System (DOGGR, 2016). There are no known oil
wells on the site. Therefore, the potential for methane and other volatile gases to occur
beneath the site is to be low.
Volcanic Eruption
The site is not located in an area of recent volcanism. Therefore, the potential for volcanic
activity is considered to be low.
Radon Gas
According to the CGS, the site is not located in an area of radon gas potential for indoor
levels above 4.0 picocuries per liter (CGS, 2005). Therefore, the potential for moderate to
high levels of radon gas intrusion is considered to be low.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The site is not located in an area of naturally occurring asbestos (CGS, 2011).
5.6
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential
for surface fault rupture are not known to be located beneath or projecting toward the site.
Therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the site due to fault plane displacement
propagating to the ground surface during the design life of the project is considered low.
Although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground
21
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
shaking can be mitigated by proper engineering design and construction in conformance
with current building codes and engineering practices.
According to the City of Pico Rivera and County of Los Angeles, the site is within potential
dam inundation area. Dams are routinely inspected by state and federal agencies;
therefore, the potential for inundation is low. The relatively flat-lying topography at the site
precludes stability problems. The potential for other geologic hazards such as
liquefaction, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, subsidence, methane gas, radon
gas, asbestos, and volcanism affecting the site is considered to be low. However, there is
a potential for seismically-induced settlement of the unsaturated loose and medium dense
sandy soils beneath the site.
22
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
GENERAL
The existing fill soils are not uniformly well compacted and records documenting their
placement and compaction are not available; therefore, these fill soils are not considered
suitable for support of the proposed building, pavement, or other exterior concrete walks
and slabs on grade. In addition, the upper natural soils are generally only loose to medium
stiff.
Accordingly,
in
order
to
support
the
proposed
building
on
conventional
spread/continuous footings, all existing fill soils and the upper natural soils should be
excavated to allow for the placement of at least two feet of properly compacted fill beneath
foundations. The existing fill soils and upper natural soils should also be excavated to allow
for the placement of at least two feet of properly compacted fill beneath pavement and
exterior concrete walks and slabs on grade and any floor slabs on grade (although none are
anticipated for the proposed modular building). However, beneath pavement and exterior
concrete walks and slabs, particularly in areas that are currently paved, the existing fill and
upper natural soils may be left in place if the risk of settlement, cracking, and greater than
normal maintenance is considered acceptable. For areas that are currently paved, this risk
may be evaluated based on the past performance of the pavement.
6.2
FOUNDATIONS
Bearing Value
Spread/continuous footings carried at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade or floor
level may be designed to impose a net dead-plus-live load pressure of 2,500 pounds per
square foot if underlain by at least two feet of properly compacted fill soils.The
overexcavation should be deepened as necessary to extend into satisfactory soils.
A one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The recommended bearing
value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the footings may be taken as 50
pounds per cubic foot; the weight of soil backfill may be neglected when determining the
downward loads.
23
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Settlement
We estimate the settlement of the proposed restroom building, supported on spread
footings in the manner recommended, will be less than ½ inch for the anticipated loading.
Differential settlement between adjacent supports expected to be ¼ inch or less.
Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the
compacted fill soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used between the footings and
the floor slab (where applicable) and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of
natural soils or properly compacted fill soils may be assumed to be equal to the pressure
developed by a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot. A one-third increase in
the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional resistance and the
passive resistance of the soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total
lateral resistance.
6.3
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Mapped Seismic Design Parameters
We have determined the seismic parameters in accordance with the Section 1613A of the
2013 edition of the CBC and Section 11.4 of ASCE 7-10 Standard (ASCE, 2010) using
the United States Geological Survey program, U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web
Application (USGS, 2013). The CBC Site Class was determined to be Site Class “D”
based on the results of the explorations and a review of the local soil and geologic
conditions. The mapped seismic parameters may be taken as presented in the following
table:
24
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Parameter
Mapped Value
SS (0.2 second period, Site Class B)
S1 (1.0 second period, Site Class B)
Site Class
Fa
Fv
SMS = FaSS (0.2 second period)
SM1 = FvS1 (1.0 second period)
SDS = 2/3 x SMS (0.2 second period)
SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 (1.0 second period)
2.234g
0.787g
D
1.0
1.5
2.234g
1.181g
1.489g
0.787g
By: WL 1/11/16
Chkd By: LT 1/18/2016
Site-Specific Response Spectra
We have performed a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses (PSHA) and a Deterministic
Seismic Hazard Analyses (DSHA) using the computer program EZ-FRISK (Risk
Engineering, 2014) in order to develop site-specific response spectra in accordance with
the 2013 CBC and Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10. For the DSHA, a composite deterministic
response spectrum was compiled from the maximum of the 84th percentile spectral
ordinates computed for known nearby faults. In addition to known fault sources,
background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. The computed PSHA and DSHA
ground motions were converted to maximum direction ground motions using the
multiplication factors recommended in Shahi and Baker (2013).
The site-specific probabilistic and deterministic response spectra were developed using
the average ground motions obtained from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) West
2 relationships of Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Campbell and Bozorgnia
(2014), Chiou and Youngs (2014). For all four NGA relationships, we have used an
average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters equal to 270 meters per second
based on a review of the local soil and geologic conditions. We have used a depth to a
shear wave velocity of 1,000 meters per second beneath the site (Z1.0) and a depth to a
shear wave velocity of 2,500 meters per second (Z2.5) based on the equations provided by
the NGA West2 authors.
In accordance with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10, the probabilistic Risk-Targeted Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCER) response spectrum was taken as the maximum direction
25
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
response spectrum with a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years multiplied by the
risk coefficients CRS and CR1. The risk-targeted coefficients, CRS and CR1 were taken from
Figures 22-17 and 22-18 in ASCE 7-10. The value of CRS was applied for periods less
than or equal to 0.2 second, the value of CR1 was applied for periods greater than or
equal to 1.0 second, and linear interpolation was used to determine the risk coefficient
between 0.2 second and 1.0 second. The CRS and CR1 values for this project were
determined to be 0.935 and 0.958, respectively.
ASCE 7-10 defines the deterministic MCER response spectrum as the maximum of the
composite deterministic response spectrum and the deterministic lower limit, as defined
on Figure 21.2-1 of ASCE 7-10. The site-specific MCER response spectrum was then
taken as a composite of the probabilistic and deterministic MCER response spectra,
determined as described above, which consisted of the lesser of the spectral ordinates
between the two spectra. The 5% damped site-specific MCER response spectrum and its
components are shown on Figure 6. The site-specific design response spectrum was
computed by multiplying the ordinates of the site-specific MCER response spectrum by
two-thirds, with a lower limit at all periods of 80% of the spectral ordinates of the general
design response spectrum determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5 of ASCE 7-10.
The 5% damped site-specific design response spectrum and its components are shown
on Figure 7. The site-specific MCER and design response spectra are presented in
digitized form for 5% of critical structural damping in Table 4.
Based on the results of our analyses, the site-specific design acceleration parameters, as
defined in Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-10, SDS and SD1, may be taken as 1.44g and 1.09g,
respectively, and the site-specific MCER acceleration parameters, SMS and SM1, may be
taken as 2.16g and 1.64g, respectively.
6.4
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT
Although not anticipated, if the proposed building will have a floor slab on grade, the
recommendations in this section should be followed and the subgrade should be
prepared as recommended in the following section on grading.
26
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Construction activities and exposure to the environment can cause deterioration of the
prepared subgrade. Therefore, we recommend our that our field representative observe
the condition of the final subgrade soils immediately prior to slab on grade construction,
and, if necessary, perform further density and moisture content tests to determine the
suitability of the final prepared subgrade.
If vinyl or other moisture-sensitive floor covering is planned, we recommend that the floor
slab in those areas be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a vapor-retarding
membrane over a 4 inch-thick layer of gravel. A 2-inch-thick layer of sand should be
placed between the gravel and the membrane to decrease the possibility of damage to
the membrane. We suggest the following gradation for the gravel:
Sieve Size
¾”
No. 4
No. 100
Percent Passing
90 - 100
0 - 10
0-3
A low-slump concrete should be used to minimize possible curling of the slab. A 2-inchthick layer of coarse sand can be placed over the vapor retarding membrane to reduce
slab curling. If this sand bedding is used, care should be taken during the placement of
the concrete to prevent displacement of the sand. The concrete slab should be allowed
to cure properly before placing vinyl or other moisture-sensitive floor covering. The sand
and gravel layers may be considered part of the required two-foot thick layer of properly
compacted fill beneath floor slabs.
6.5
PAVING
To provide support for paving, the subgrade soils should be prepared as recommended in
the following section on grading. Compaction of the subgrade, including trench backfills,
to at least 95%, and achieving a firm, hard, and unyielding surface will be important for
paving support. The preparation of the paving area subgrade should be performed
immediately prior to placement of the base course. Proper drainage of the paved areas
should be provided since this will reduce moisture infiltration into the subgrade and
increase the life of the paving.
27
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
To provide data for design of paving sections, the R-value of a sample of the upper soils
was tested. The test results, which indicate an R-value of 44, are presented in the
Appendix.
Asphalt Concrete Paving
The required paving and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel loads and
volume of traffic (Traffic Index or TI). Assuming that the paving subgrade will consist of
the on-site or comparable soils compacted to at least 90% as recommended, the
minimum recommended paving thicknesses are presented in the following table.
Assumed
Traffic Index
4 (Automobile Parking)
5 (Driveways with Light Truck Traffic)
6 (Driveways with Heavy Truck Traffic and Fire Trucks)
Asphalt
Concrete
(Inches)
3
3
4
Base
Course
(Inches)
4
5½
6½
The asphalt paving sections were determined using the Caltrans design method. We can
determine the recommended paving and base course thicknesses for other Traffic Indices
if required. Careful inspection is recommended to verify that the recommended
thicknesses or greater are achieved, and that proper construction procedures are
followed. The above sections are also applicable where a polyurethane or vulcanized
rubber coating is applied to the surface of the asphalt.
Portland Cement Concrete Paving
Portland cement concrete paving sections were determined in accordance with
procedures developed by the Portland Cement Association. Concrete paving sections for
a range of Traffic Indices are presented in the following table. We have assumed that the
portland cement concrete will have a compressive strength of at least 3,000 pounds per
square inch.
28
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
Assumed
Traffic Index
4 (Automobile Parking)
5 (Driveways with Light Truck Traffic)
6 (Driveways with Heavy Truck Traffic and Fire Trucks)
January 20, 2016
Concrete
Paving
(Inches)
7
7
7½
Base Course
(Inches)
4
4
4
The paving should be provided with expansion joints at regular intervals no more than 15
feet in each direction. Load transfer devices, such as dowels or keys, are recommended
at joints in the paving to reduce possible offsets. The paving sections in the above table
have been developed based on the strength of unreinforced concrete. Steel reinforcing
may be added to the paving to reduce cracking and to prolong the life of the paving.
Base Course
The base course for both asphaltic and concrete paving should meet the specifications
for Class 2 Aggregate Base as defined in Section 26 of the latest edition of the State of
California, Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications. Alternatively, the base
course could meet the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2 of the
latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. The base
course should be compacted to at least 95%.
6.6
GRADING
General
Since records documenting the placement and compaction of the existing fill soils are not
available, the existing fill soils are not considered suitable for support of the proposed
building, pavement, or other exterior concrete walks and slabs on grade. In addition, the
upper natural soils are generally only loose to medium stiff. Accordingly, in order to support
the proposed building on conventional spread/continuous footings, all existing fill soils and
the upper natural soils should be excavated to allow for the placement of at least two feet of
properly compacted fill beneath foundations. The excavations should extend laterally
beyond the outer edge of the building footings a distance equal to the depth of excavation
beneath the footings.
29
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
The existing fill soils and upper natural soils should also be excavated to allow for the
placement of at least two feet of properly compacted fill beneath pavement and exterior
concrete walks and slabs on grade and any floor slabs on grade (although none are
anticipated for the proposed modular building). However, beneath pavement and exterior
concrete walks and slabs, particularly in areas that are currently paved, the existing fill and
upper natural soils may be left in place if the risk of settlement, cracking, and greater than
normal maintenance is considered acceptable. For areas that are currently paved, this risk
may be evaluated based on the past performance of the pavement. Where this option is
exercised, the exposed subgrade should be carefully inspected by a representative of our
firm to identify any soft or disturbed areas that may required additional excavation and/or
compaction.
All required fill should be uniformly well compacted and observed and tested during
placement. The on-site soils may be used in any required fill.
Site Preparation
After the site is cleared and any existing fill soils and upper natural soils are excavated as
recommended, the exposed soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all
unsuitable deposits. Next, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches,
brought to near-optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment.
At least the upper 6 inches of the exposed soils should be compacted to at least 90% of
the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of
compaction.
Good drainage of surface water should be provided by adequately sloping all surfaces.
Such drainage will be important to reduce infiltration of water beneath floor slabs,
pavement, and hardscape.
Excavation and Temporary Slopes
Where excavations are deeper than about 4 feet, the sides of the excavations should be
sloped back at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or shored for safety. Unshored excavations
should not extend below a plane drawn at 1½:1 (horizontal to vertical) extending
30
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
downward from adjacent existing footings. We would be pleased to present data for
design of shoring, if required.
Excavations should be observed by personnel of our firm so that any necessary
modifications based on variations in the soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety
requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met.
Compaction
Any required fill should be placed in loose lifts not more than 8-inches-thick and
compacted. The fill should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum density
obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction. The moisture content
of the on-site soils at the time of compaction should vary no more than 2% below or
above optimum moisture content.
Backfill
All required backfill should be mechanically compacted in layers; flooding should not be
permitted. Proper compaction of backfill will be necessary to reduce settlement of the
backfill and to reduce settlement of overlying slabs and paving. Backfill should be
compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM
Designation D1557 method of compaction.
The on-site soils may be used in the compacted backfill. The exterior grades should be
sloped to drain away from the foundations to prevent ponding of water.
Some settlement of the backfill should be expected, and any utilities supported therein
should be designed to accept differential settlement, particularly at the points of entry to
the buildings. Also, provisions should be made for some settlement of pavement and
concrete walks supported on backfill.
Material for Fill
The on-site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in required fills. Cobbles
larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be used in the fill. Any required import
31
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
material should consist of relatively non-expansive soils with an expansion index of less
than 35. The imported materials should contain sufficient fines (at least 15% passing the
No. 200 sieve) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when
compacted. All proposed import materials should be approved by our personnel prior to
being placed at the site.
6.7
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION
The reworking of the upper soils and the compaction of all required fill should be
observed and tested during placement by a representative of our firm. This representative
should perform at least the following duties:
•
Observe the clearing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable
materials.
•
Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas
where excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade.
The representative should also observe proofrolling and delineation
of areas requiring overexcavation.
•
Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import soils for fill placement;
collect and submit soil samples for required or recommended
laboratory testing where necessary.
•
Observe the fill and backfill for uniformity during placement.
•
Test backfill for field density and compaction to determine the
percentage of compaction achieved during backfill placement.
•
Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm that suitable
bearing materials are present at the design foundation depths.
The governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project should be notified prior to
commencement of grading so that the necessary grading permits can be obtained and
arrangements can be made for required inspection(s). The contractor should be familiar
with the inspection requirements of the reviewing agencies.
32
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
7.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our understanding of the
described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during our
subsurface explorations. We have made our recommendations based upon experience
with similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. The recommendations
apply to the specific project discussed in this report; therefore, any change in the
structure configuration, loads, location, or the site grades should be provided to us so that
we can review our conclusions and recommendations and make any necessary
modifications.
The recommendations provided in this report are also based upon the assumption that
the necessary geotechnical observations and testing during construction will be
performed by representatives of our firm. The field observation services are considered a
continuation of the geotechnical investigation and essential to verify that the actual soil
conditions are as expected. This also provides for the procedure whereby the client can
be advised of unexpected or changed conditions that would require modifications of our
original recommendations. In addition, the presence of our representative at the site
provides the client with an independent professional opinion regarding the geotechnically
related construction procedures. If another firm is retained for the geotechnical
observation services, our professional responsibility and liability would be limited to the
extent that we would not be the geotechnical engineer of record.
33
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrows, A. G., 1974, "A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the NewportInglewood Structural Zone, Southern California," California Division of Mines and
Geology Special Report 114.
Bryant, W. A., Hart, E.W., 2007, “Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps,” Interim
Revision 2007.
California Department of Water Resources. 1970. "Meeting Water Demands m the ChinoRiverside Area," Appendix A-Water Supply Bulletin 104-3.
California Department of Water Resources, 1966, "California Department of Water
Resources, 1966, "Planned Utilization of Groundwater Basin, San Gabriel Valley,"
Bulletin 104-2, Appendix A.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003, “California’s Groundwater,”
Bulletin 118, Update 2003.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, “Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Whittier
Quadrangle”, Official Map, released March 25, 1999.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the
Whittier 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California,”
Seismic Hazard Zone Report 037.
California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), 2016, “DOGGR Well
Finder System,” <http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/Wellfinder.aspx>
California Geological Survey, 2014, “Earthquake Fault Zones Official, Hollywood
Quadrangle, Official Map,” released November 6, 2014.
California Geological Survey and USGS, 2011, “Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic
Asbestos Prospects, and other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California,"
USGS Open File Report 2011-1188.
California Geological Survey, 2005, “Radon Potential Zone Map for Southern Los Angeles
County, California,” January, 2005.
California Geological Survey, 2002, GIS Files of Official Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zones, Southern Region, May 31, 2002.
Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003, The Revised
2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps June 2003: California Geological
Survey,
<http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/2002_CA_Hazard_
Maps.pdf>
34
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Converse Consultants, Earth Science Associates, Geo-Resource Consultants, 1981,
“Geotechnical Investigation Report, Volume I; Volume II – Appendicies 1 and 2,” for
Southern California Rapid Transit Metro Rail Project.
Crook, R., Jr., Allen, C. R., Kamb, B., Payne, C. M., and Proctor, R. J., 1987, “Quaternary
Geology and Seismic Hazard of the Sierra Madre and Associated Faults Western
San Gabriel Mountains,” in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1339, Ch. 2,
pp. 27–63.
Crook, R., Jr., and Proctor, R. J., 1992 “The Santa Monica and Hollywood Faults and the
Southern Boundary of the Transverse Ranges Province” in Engineering Geology
Practice in Southern California.
Dolan, J. F., Sieh, K. E., Rockwell, T. K., Guptill, P., and Miller, G., 1997, “Active Tectonics,
Paleoseismology, and Seismic Hazards of the Hollywood Fault, Northern Los
Angeles Basin, California,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 109, No. 12.
Dolan, J. F., Sieh, K., and Rockwell, T. K., 2000a, “Late Quaternary Activity and Seismic
Potential of the Santa Monica Fault System, Los Angeles, California,” Geological
Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 10.
Dolan, J. F., Stevens, D., and Rockwell, T. K., 2000b, "Paleoseismologic Evidence for an
Early to Mid-Holocene Age of the Most Recent Surface Fault Rupture on the
Hollywood Fault, Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 90, p.p. 334-344.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Number
FM06037C1830F, <http://msc.fema.gov>.
Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M.,
Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R., Page, M.T., Parsons, T.,
Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y., 2013,
Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The timeindependent model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1165, 97 p.,
California Geological Survey Special Report 228, and Southern California
Earthquake Center Publication 1792, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/
Grant, L. B., Ballenger, L. J., and Runnerstrom, E. E., 2002, “Coastal Uplift of the San
Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California, by a Large Earthquake Since
A. D. 1635,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp.
590-599.
Grant, L. B., Mueller, K. J., Gath, E. M., and Munro, R., 2000, “Late Quaternary Uplift and
Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin,
California,” Geology, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 384.
Grant, L. B., Mueller, K. J., Gath, E. M., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.E., and Munro, R., 1999,
“Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern
Los Angeles Basin, California” Geology, Vol. 27, p. 1031-1034.
35
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Harza, 1998, “Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation, Proposed after Sunset Project,
Southeast Corner of Sunset and La Cienaga Boulevards, West Hollywood,”
consultant report prepared for Griffin Reality LLC, January 28, 1998, 30 pages.
Hauksson, E., 1987, “Seismotectonics of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone in the Los
Angeles Basin, Southern California,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 77, pp. 539–561.
Heaton, Daniel and Nourse, Jonathan, 2010, Comparison of Late Cretaceous Plutonic
Rocks across the left-Lateral San Antonio Canyon fault, San Gabriel Mountains,
California, in Saint, P., Herzberg, M. and Zaprianoff, B., (eds.) , Geology and
Hydrology in the Eastern San Gabriel Mountains Through the River of Time, Field
Trip Guidebook for South Coast Geological Society, June 18-19, pp. 117-124.
Jennings, C. W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations
and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions," California Division of Mines and Geology
Map No. 6.
Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, “Fault Activity Map of California,” California
Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map Series No. 6, map scale 1:750,000.
Law/Crandall, 2000, "Report of Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation, 1840 North Highland
Avenue, Hollywood District, Los Angeles, California," Project No. 70131-90337.0001.
Law/Crandall, 1993, “Report of Potential Fault Displacements, Wastewater Treatment Plant
Number 2, Huntington Beach, California, for County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County,” Project No. 2661.30140.0001.
LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1978, “Report of Geologic Studies Related to Raymond
Fault Identification, San Marino High School, San Marino, California,” Project No. E77186.
Leon, L.A., Dolan, J.F., Shaw, J.H. and Pratt, T.L., 2009. “Evidence for large Holocene
earthquakes on the Compton thrust fault, Los Angeles, California,” Journal of
Geophysical Research 114: doi: 10.1029/2008JB006129. issn: 0148-0227.
Los Angeles, County of, 2008, "Seismic Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General
Plan."
Los Angeles, County of, 1990, "Technical Appendix to the Safety Element of the Los
Angeles County General Plan," Draft Report by Leighton and Associates with
Sedway Cooke Associates.
Los Angeles, County of, 1974, “Seismic Safety Element.”
Mark, R. K., 1977, "Application of Linear Statistical Models of Earthquake Magnitude Versus
Fault Length in Estimating Maximum Expectable Earthquakes," Geology, Vol. 5, pp.
464-466.
36
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Oskin, M., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T., Miller, G., Guptill, P., Curtis, M., McArdle, S., and Elliott,
P., 2000, “Active Parasitic Folds on the Elysian Park Anticline, Implications for
Seismic Hazard in Central Los Angeles, California,” Geological Society of America
Bulletin, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp.693-707.
Pico Rivera, The City of, “General Plan,” 2014.
Rubin, C. M., Lindvall, S. C., and Rockwell, T. K., 1998, “Evidence for Large Earthquakes in
Metropolitan Los Angeles,” Science, p. 398-402.
Ryan, J.A., Burke, J.N., Walden, A.F., and Wieder, D.P., 1982, "Seismic Refraction Study of
the El Modeno Fault, Orange County, California," California Geology, Vol.35, No. 2.
Shaw, J. H., Plesch, A., Dolan, J. F., Pratt, T. L. and Fiore, P., 2002, “Puente Hills Blind –
Thrust System, Los Angeles, California,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 92, No. 8, pp 2946-2960.
Slemmons, D. B., 1979, “Evaluation of Geomorphic Features of Active Faults For
Engineering Design and Siting Studies,” Association of Engineering Geologists
Short Course.
Saucedo, G.J., 1999, Geological map of the Whittier 7.5-minute quadrangle Los Angeles
and Orange counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, OpenFile Report 99-04, scale 1:24,000.
Southern California Earthquake Center, 2016, Significant Earthquakes and Faults,
http://www.data.scec.org/significant/index.html
Triemen, J.A., 1991, “Whittier Fault Zone, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California,”
California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-222.
Tucker, A. Z. and Dolan J. F., 2001, “Paleoseismic evidence for a > 8 ka age of the most
recent surface rupture on the eastern Sierra Madre fault, northern Los Angeles
metropolitan region, California” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v.
91, p. 232-249.
U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, 2006, Quaternary Fault and Fold
Database for the United States, accessed 4-30-14, from USGS web site:
http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/.
Weaver, K. D. and Dolan, J. F., 2000, “Paleoseismology and Geomorphology of the
Raymond Fault, Los Angeles County, California,” Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 90, pp. 1409-1429.
Wesnousky, S. G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults and Seismic Hazard in
California," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 12,587-12,631.
William Lettis & Associates, 1998, “Supplemental Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation, After
Sunset Project, SE Corner of Sunset and La Cienega Blvds., West Hollywood,
37
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
California,” consultant report prepared for Griffin Realty II, LLC, March 2, 1998, 4
pages.
Yeats, R.S., 2004, “Tectonics of the San Gabriel Basin and Surroundings, Southern
California,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 116, No. 9/10, pp. 11581182.
Yeats, R.S., 2002, “The Chino Fault and its Relation to Slip on the Elsinore and Whittier
Faults and Blind Thrusts in the Puente Hills,” Final Technical Report, Grant
02HQGR0046, USGS.
Yeats, R.S., 2000, “Earthquake Hazards of the San Gabriel Valley, Southern California,”
USGS.
Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, “Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978–1984
Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California,” U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1964.
38
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
TABLES
January 20, 2016
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 1
Major Named Faults Considered to be Active
in Southern California
Fault
(in increasing distance)
Puente Hills Blind Thrust
Compton Thrust
Whittier
Upper Elysian Park
Raymond
Newport-Inglewood Zone
Sierra Madre
Clamshell-Sawpit
Verdugo
Hollywood
Palos Verdes
Santa Monica
Chino
San Gabriel
San Joaquin Hills
San Fernando
Elsinore (Glen Ivy Section)
Northridge Thrust
Cucamonga
Santa Susana
Malibu Coast
San Andreas (Mojave Section)
San Jacinto (San Bernardino
Segment)
Maximum
Magnitude
7.1
6.8
6.8
6.4
6.5
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.9
6.4
7.3
6.6
6.7
7.2
6.6
6.7
6.8
7
6.9
6.7
6.7
7.4
6.7
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
BT
BT
SS
BT
RO
SS
RO
RO
RO
RO
SS
RO
NO
SS
BT
RO
SS
BT
RO
RO
RO
SS
SS
Slip Rate
(mm/yr.)
Distance From
Site
(miles)
0.9
0.9
2.5
1.9
2
1
2
0.4
0.4
0.9
3
1
1
0.4
0.6
2
5
1.5
1.5
6
0.3
34
6
0*
0*
2.1
5.9**
9.6
12
13
13
14
14
18
20
22
22
22**
24
25
25**
26
31
33
34
38
Direction
From
Site
----ENE
N
N
WSW
NNE
NNE
NNW
NW
SW
WNW
E
NNW
SSE
NNW
ESE
NW
ENE
NW
WNW
NE
ENE
Prepared by: PER 01/18/16
Checked by: 01/19/16
(a)
SS
NO
RO
BT
(*)
(**)
Cao et al., 2003; Field et al., 2013 (magnitudes, slip rates)
Strike Slip
Normal Oblique
Reverse Oblique
Blind Thrust
Site is located within surface projection of thrust fault
Distance is closest point to surface projection of thrust fault
T-1
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 2
Major Named Faults Considered to be Potentially Active
in Southern California
Fault
(in increasing distance)
Walnut Creek
Los Alamitos
San Jose
Indian Hill
El Modeno
Peralta Hills
Central Avenue
San Antonio
Maximum
Magnitude
N
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.5
6.5
N
N
(b)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
SS
SS
RO
RO
NO
RO
NO
SS
Slip Rate
(mm/yr.)
Distance From
Site
(miles)
N
0.1
7.4
10
12
13
16
17
20
23
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
N
N
Direction
From Site
NE
SSW
ENE
NE
SW
SW
ENE
ENE
Prepared by: PER 01/18/16
Checked by: PJE 01/19/16
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
SS
NO
RO
N
Cao et al., 2003; Field et al., 2013 (magnitudes, slip rates)
Mark, 1977
Slemmons, 1979
Wesnousky, 1986
Yeats, 2004
Strike Slip
Normal Oblique
Reverse Oblique
No Estimate
T-2
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
11-01-1932
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
04:45:00
01:54:07
02:04:00
02:05:00
02:09:00
02:10:00
02:11:00
02:16:00
02:17:00
02:22:00
02:27:00
02:30:00
02:31:00
02:52:00
02:57:00
02:58:00
02:59:00
03:05:00
03:09:00
03:11:00
03:23:00
03:36:00
03:39:00
03:47:00
04:36:00
04:39:00
04:40:00
05:10:22
05:13:00
05:15:00
05:18:04
05:21:00
05:24:00
05:53:00
05:55:00
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
34.00
33.62
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.60
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.60
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.70
33.75
33.75
33.58
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
DEPTH
MAGNITUDE
117.25
117.97
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.00
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.00
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.07
118.08
118.08
117.98
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
E
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
E
C
C
C
E
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
77
42
26
26
26
26
26
26
43
26
26
26
43
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
31
26
26
46
26
26
26
26
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
4.0
6.4
4.9
4.3
5.0
4.6
4.4
4.8
4.5
4.0
4.6
5.1
4.4
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.6
4.2
4.4
4.2
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.6
4.9
4.7
5.1
4.7
4.0
5.2
4.4
4.2
4.0
4.0
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-3
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
06:11:00
06:18:00
06:29:00
06:35:00
06:58:03
07:51:00
07:59:00
08:08:00
08:32:00
08:37:00
08:54:57
09:10:00
09:11:00
09:26:00
10:25:00
10:45:00
11:00:00
11:04:00
11:29:00
11:38:00
11:41:00
11:47:00
12:50:00
13:50:00
13:57:00
14:25:00
14:47:00
14:57:00
15:09:00
15:47:00
16:53:00
19:44:00
19:56:00
22:00:00
22:31:00
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
33.75
33.75
33.85
33.75
33.68
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.70
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.68
33.73
33.75
33.85
33.73
33.88
33.73
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
DEPTH
MAGNITUDE
118.08
118.08
118.27
118.08
118.05
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.07
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.13
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.05
118.10
118.08
118.27
118.10
118.32
118.10
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
26
26
22
26
33
26
26
26
26
26
31
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
33
28
26
22
28
24
28
26
26
26
26
26
26
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.2
5.5
4.2
4.1
4.5
4.2
4.0
5.1
5.1
4.4
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.0
5.0
4.4
4.9
4.4
4.0
4.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.4
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-4
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-11-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-12-1933
03-13-1933
03-13-1933
03-13-1933
03-13-1933
03-13-1933
03-13-1933
03-14-1933
03-14-1933
03-14-1933
03-14-1933
03-15-1933
03-15-1933
03-15-1933
03-15-1933
03-16-1933
03-16-1933
03-16-1933
03-17-1933
22:32:00
22:40:00
23:05:00
00:27:00
00:34:00
04:48:00
05:46:00
06:01:00
06:16:00
07:40:00
08:35:00
15:02:00
16:51:00
17:38:00
18:25:00
21:28:00
23:54:00
03:43:00
04:32:00
06:17:00
13:18:28
15:32:00
19:29:00
00:36:00
12:19:00
19:01:50
22:42:00
02:08:00
04:32:00
05:40:00
11:13:32
14:56:00
15:29:00
15:30:00
16:51:00
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.62
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.62
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
DEPTH
MAGNITUDE
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.02
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.02
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
41
26
26
26
26
41
26
26
26
26
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
4.1
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.0
4.0
4.4
4.2
4.6
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.5
4.1
4.7
4.0
5.3
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.5
5.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.9
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.1
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-5
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
LATITUDE
03-18-1933
03-19-1933
03-20-1933
03-21-1933
03-23-1933
03-23-1933
03-25-1933
03-30-1933
03-31-1933
04-01-1933
04-02-1933
04-02-1933
05-16-1933
08-04-1933
10-02-1933
10-02-1933
10-25-1933
11-13-1933
11-20-1933
01-09-1934
01-18-1934
01-20-1934
04-17-1934
10-17-1934
11-16-1934
06-19-1935
07-13-1935
09-03-1935
12-25-1935
02-23-1936
02-26-1936
08-22-1936
10-29-1936
01-15-1937
03-19-1937
20:52:00
21:23:00
13:58:00
03:26:00
08:40:00
18:31:00
13:46:00
12:25:00
10:49:00
06:42:00
08:00:00
15:36:00
20:58:55
04:17:48
09:10:17
13:26:01
07:00:46
21:28:00
10:32:00
14:10:00
02:14:00
21:17:00
18:33:00
09:38:00
21:26:00
11:17:00
10:54:16
06:47:00
17:15:00
22:20:42
09:33:27
05:21:00
22:35:36
18:35:47
01:23:38
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.75
33.78
33.62
33.95
33.87
33.78
34.10
34.10
33.62
33.57
33.63
33.75
33.72
34.20
34.03
33.60
34.13
34.14
33.77
34.38
33.56
34.11
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
DEPTH
MAGNITUDE
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.08
118.17
118.18
118.13
118.02
118.13
118.20
118.13
117.68
117.68
118.12
117.98
118.40
118.00
117.52
117.90
117.32
118.02
117.34
117.34
117.82
118.62
118.06
117.43
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
C
C
B
A
A
B
C
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
C
B
A
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
23
41
6
17
23
39
39
41
47
48
27
60
30
71
43
71
71
35
66
47
63
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
10.0
10.0
.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.4
4.0
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-6
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
07-07-1937
09-01-1937
09-01-1937
05-21-1938
05-31-1938
07-05-1938
08-06-1938
08-31-1938
11-29-1938
12-07-1938
12-27-1938
04-03-1939
11-04-1939
11-07-1939
12-27-1939
01-13-1940
02-08-1940
02-11-1940
02-19-1940
04-18-1940
06-05-1940
07-20-1940
10-11-1940
10-12-1940
10-14-1940
11-01-1940
11-01-1940
11-02-1940
01-30-1941
03-22-1941
03-25-1941
04-11-1941
10-22-1941
11-14-1941
04-16-1942
11:12:00
13:48:08
16:35:33
09:44:00
08:34:55
18:06:55
22:00:55
03:18:14
19:21:15
03:38:00
10:09:28
02:50:44
21:41:00
18:52:08
19:28:49
07:49:07
16:56:17
19:24:10
12:06:55
18:43:43
08:27:27
04:01:13
05:57:12
00:24:00
20:51:11
07:25:03
20:00:46
02:58:26
01:34:46
08:22:40
23:43:41
01:20:24
06:57:18
08:41:36
07:28:33
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
33.57
34.21
34.18
33.62
33.70
33.68
33.72
33.76
33.90
34.00
34.13
34.04
33.77
34.00
33.78
33.78
33.70
33.98
34.02
34.03
33.83
33.70
33.77
33.78
33.78
33.78
33.63
33.78
33.97
33.52
34.22
33.95
33.82
33.78
33.37
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
117.98
117.53
117.55
118.03
117.51
117.55
117.51
118.25
118.43
118.42
117.52
117.23
118.12
117.28
118.20
118.13
118.07
118.30
117.05
117.35
117.40
118.07
118.45
118.42
118.42
118.42
118.20
118.42
118.05
118.10
117.47
117.58
118.22
118.25
118.15
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
C
47
57
54
41
62
59
61
29
33
31
55
79
24
74
25
23
31
20
96
68
66
31
41
38
38
38
40
38
4
52
63
47
22
27
69
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
DEPTH
.0
10.0
10.0
.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
.0
10.0
10.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
MAGNITUDE
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
5.2
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.7
4.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.4
4.0
4.0
4.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.8
4.8
4.0
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-7
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
LATITUDE
09-03-1942
09-04-1942
10-24-1943
06-19-1944
06-19-1944
02-24-1946
06-01-1946
03-01-1948
04-16-1948
10-03-1948
01-11-1950
09-22-1951
02-17-1952
08-23-1952
10-26-1954
05-15-1955
05-29-1955
01-03-1956
02-07-1956
02-07-1956
06-28-1960
10-04-1961
10-20-1961
10-20-1961
10-20-1961
10-20-1961
11-20-1961
04-27-1962
09-14-1963
08-30-1964
01-01-1965
04-15-1965
07-16-1965
01-08-1967
01-08-1967
14:06:01
06:34:33
00:29:21
00:03:33
03:06:07
06:07:52
11:06:31
08:12:13
22:26:24
02:46:28
21:41:35
08:22:39
12:36:58
10:09:07
16:22:26
17:03:25
16:43:35
00:25:48
02:16:56
03:16:38
20:00:48
02:21:31
19:49:50
20:07:14
21:42:40
22:35:34
08:53:34
09:12:32
03:51:16
22:57:37
08:04:18
20:08:33
07:46:22
07:37:30
07:38:05
34.48
34.48
33.93
33.87
33.87
34.40
34.42
34.17
34.02
34.18
33.94
34.12
34.00
34.52
33.73
34.12
33.99
33.72
34.53
34.59
34.12
33.85
33.65
33.66
33.67
33.67
33.68
33.74
33.54
34.27
34.14
34.13
34.49
33.63
33.66
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
DEPTH
118.98
118.98
117.37
118.22
118.22
117.80
118.83
117.53
118.97
117.58
118.20
117.34
117.27
118.20
117.47
117.48
119.06
117.50
118.64
118.61
117.47
117.75
117.99
117.98
117.98
118.01
117.99
117.19
118.34
118.44
117.52
117.43
118.52
118.47
118.41
C
C
C
B
C
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
100
100
67
18
18
53
84
55
81
51
12
70
75
60
64
58
90
61
80
83
58
34
37
37
37
35
35
87
54
46
56
63
69
53
47
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.4
11.9
16.0
13.1
.0
7.6
17.4
13.7
16.0
2.6
12.0
4.3
4.6
6.1
7.2
5.6
4.4
5.7
2.2
15.4
5.9
5.5
15.1
11.4
17.7
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
MAGNITUDE
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.7
4.7
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.5
5.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.7
4.2
4.6
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.4
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-8
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
06-15-1967
02-28-1969
05-05-1969
10-27-1969
09-12-1970
09-12-1970
09-13-1970
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
04:58:05
04:56:12
16:02:09
13:16:02
14:10:11
14:30:52
04:47:48
14:00:41
14:01:08
14:01:33
14:01:40
14:01:50
14:01:54
14:01:59
14:02:03
14:02:30
14:02:31
14:02:44
14:03:25
14:03:46
14:04:07
14:04:34
14:04:39
14:04:44
14:04:46
14:05:41
14:05:50
14:07:10
14:07:30
14:07:45
14:08:04
14:08:07
14:08:38
14:08:53
14:10:21
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
34.00
34.57
34.30
33.55
34.27
34.27
34.28
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.41
34.36
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
117.97
118.11
117.57
117.81
117.52
117.54
117.55
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.40
118.31
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
10
65
59
55
61
60
59
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
47
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
DEPTH
10.0
5.3
8.8
6.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.4
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
5.0
MAGNITUDE
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.1
5.2
4.4
6.6
5.8
4.2
4.1
4.5
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.7
5.8
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.2
4.5
4.6
4.7
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-9
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-09-1971
02-10-1971
02-10-1971
02-10-1971
02-10-1971
02-10-1971
02-10-1971
02-10-1971
02-10-1971
02-21-1971
02-21-1971
03-07-1971
03-25-1971
03-30-1971
03-31-1971
04-01-1971
04-02-1971
04-15-1971
04-25-1971
06-21-1971
06-22-1971
02-21-1973
03-09-1974
08-14-1974
01-01-1976
04-08-1976
08-12-1977
14:10:28
14:16:12
14:19:50
14:34:36
14:39:17
14:40:17
14:43:46
15:58:20
16:19:26
03:12:12
05:06:36
05:18:07
11:31:34
13:49:53
14:35:26
17:38:55
18:54:41
05:50:52
07:15:11
01:33:40
22:54:09
08:54:43
14:52:22
15:03:03
05:40:25
11:14:32
14:48:06
16:01:08
10:41:19
14:45:57
00:54:31
14:45:55
17:20:12
15:21:38
02:19:26
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
34.41
34.34
34.36
34.34
34.39
34.43
34.31
34.33
34.46
34.37
34.41
34.43
34.38
34.40
34.36
34.40
34.45
34.40
34.39
34.35
34.36
34.30
34.29
34.43
34.28
34.26
34.37
34.27
33.75
34.06
34.40
34.43
33.97
34.35
34.38
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
118.40
118.33
118.41
118.64
118.36
118.40
118.45
118.33
118.43
118.30
118.33
118.41
118.46
118.42
118.49
118.37
118.44
118.44
118.43
118.46
118.47
118.46
118.51
118.41
118.53
118.58
118.31
118.53
117.48
119.04
118.47
118.37
117.89
118.66
118.46
D
C
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
B
56
46
51
65
52
58
50
45
61
47
53
58
56
55
56
53
61
56
55
53
55
49
52
58
53
55
48
52
62
88
58
56
19
66
56
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
DEPTH
8.0
11.1
11.8
-2.0
-1.6
-2.0
6.2
14.2
-1.0
.8
4.7
5.8
6.0
9.7
4.4
6.2
8.1
6.9
7.2
3.3
4.6
2.6
2.1
8.0
3.0
4.2
-2.0
4.1
8.0
8.0
24.4
8.2
6.2
14.5
9.5
MAGNITUDE
5.3
4.1
4.0
4.9
4.0
4.1
5.2
4.8
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.2
4.1
4.6
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.2
5.3
4.7
4.2
4.2
4.6
4.5
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-10
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
LATITUDE
09-24-1977
01-01-1979
10-17-1979
10-19-1979
10-23-1981
10-23-1981
04-13-1982
05-25-1982
01-08-1983
02-27-1984
10-26-1984
04-03-1985
10-02-1985
02-21-1987
10-01-1987
10-01-1987
10-01-1987
10-01-1987
10-01-1987
10-01-1987
10-04-1987
10-24-1987
02-11-1988
06-26-1988
11-20-1988
12-03-1988
01-19-1989
02-18-1989
04-07-1989
06-12-1989
06-12-1989
12-28-1989
02-28-1990
03-01-1990
03-01-1990
21:28:24
23:14:38
20:52:37
12:22:37
17:28:17
19:15:52
11:02:12
13:44:30
07:19:30
10:18:15
17:20:43
04:04:50
23:44:12
23:15:29
14:42:20
14:45:41
14:48:03
14:49:05
15:12:31
15:59:53
10:59:38
23:58:33
15:25:55
15:04:58
05:39:28
11:38:26
06:53:28
07:17:04
20:07:30
16:57:18
17:22:25
09:41:08
23:43:36
00:34:57
03:23:03
34.46
33.94
33.93
34.21
33.64
33.62
34.06
33.55
34.13
33.47
34.02
34.38
34.02
34.13
34.06
34.05
34.08
34.06
34.05
34.05
34.07
33.68
34.08
34.14
33.51
34.15
33.92
34.01
33.62
34.03
34.02
34.19
34.14
34.13
34.15
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
118.41
118.68
118.67
117.53
119.01
119.02
118.97
118.21
117.45
118.06
118.99
119.04
117.25
117.45
118.08
118.10
118.09
118.10
118.09
118.09
118.10
119.06
118.05
117.71
118.07
118.13
118.63
117.74
117.90
118.18
118.18
117.39
117.70
117.70
117.72
C
B
C
B
C
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
61
55
54
57
93
95
82
50
61
57
83
98
78
61
9
7
10
9
8
7
10
96
11
39
53
19
51
32
44
10
10
69
40
39
39
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
DEPTH
5.0
11.3
5.5
4.9
6.0
14.8
12.1
12.6
7.8
6.0
13.3
24.9
15.2
8.5
9.5
13.6
11.7
11.7
10.8
10.4
8.3
12.2
12.5
7.9
6.0
14.3
11.9
3.3
12.9
15.6
15.5
14.6
4.5
4.4
11.4
MAGNITUDE
4.2
5.2
4.2
4.1
4.6
4.6
4.0
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.6
4.0
4.8
4.0
5.9
4.7
4.1
4.7
4.7
4.0
5.3
4.1
4.7
4.7
4.9
5.0
5.0
4.1
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.3
5.4
4.0
4.7
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-11
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
LATITUDE
03-02-1990
04-17-1990
06-28-1991
06-28-1991
07-05-1991
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-17-1994
01-18-1994
01-18-1994
01-18-1994
01-18-1994
01-18-1994
01-18-1994
17:26:25
22:32:27
14:43:54
17:00:55
17:41:57
12:30:55
12:30:55
12:31:58
12:34:18
12:39:39
12:40:09
12:40:36
12:54:33
12:55:46
13:06:28
13:26:45
13:28:13
13:56:02
14:14:30
15:07:03
15:07:35
15:54:10
17:56:08
19:35:34
19:43:53
20:46:02
22:31:53
23:33:30
23:49:25
00:39:35
00:40:04
00:43:08
04:01:26
07:23:56
11:35:09
34.15
34.11
34.27
34.25
34.50
34.21
34.22
34.27
34.31
34.26
34.32
34.34
34.31
34.28
34.25
34.32
34.27
34.29
34.33
34.30
34.31
34.38
34.23
34.31
34.37
34.30
34.34
34.33
34.34
34.38
34.39
34.38
34.36
34.33
34.22
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
117.69
117.72
117.99
117.99
118.56
118.54
118.54
118.49
118.47
118.54
118.51
118.61
118.46
118.58
118.55
118.46
118.58
118.62
118.44
118.47
118.47
118.63
118.57
118.46
118.64
118.57
118.44
118.70
118.67
118.56
118.54
118.70
118.62
118.62
118.61
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
40
36
33
31
72
49
49
50
51
52
54
63
50
56
52
51
55
60
51
51
50
66
53
50
66
57
51
68
67
62
62
71
65
63
55
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
DEPTH
5.6
3.6
9.1
9.5
10.9
18.4
17.4
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
2.6
1.6
13.0
19.2
2.3
13.9
6.0
6.0
9.8
8.4
7.2
.0
11.3
.9
14.8
12.1
MAGNITUDE
4.7
4.8
5.8
4.3
4.1
6.7
6.6
5.9
4.4
4.9
4.8
5.2
4.0
4.1
4.6
4.7
4.0
4.4
4.5
4.2
4.1
4.8
4.6
4.0
4.1
4.9
4.1
5.6
4.0
4.4
4.2
5.2
4.3
4.0
4.2
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-12
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
01-18-1994
01-18-1994
01-19-1994
01-19-1994
01-19-1994
01-19-1994
01-19-1994
01-19-1994
01-21-1994
01-21-1994
01-21-1994
01-21-1994
01-21-1994
01-23-1994
01-24-1994
01-24-1994
01-24-1994
01-27-1994
01-28-1994
01-29-1994
01-29-1994
02-03-1994
02-05-1994
02-06-1994
02-25-1994
03-20-1994
04-06-1994
05-25-1994
06-15-1994
12-06-1994
02-19-1995
06-26-1995
03-20-1996
05-01-1996
04-26-1997
13:24:44
15:23:46
04:40:48
04:43:14
09:13:10
14:09:14
21:09:28
21:11:44
18:39:15
18:39:47
18:42:28
18:52:44
18:53:44
08:55:08
04:15:18
05:50:24
05:54:21
17:19:58
20:09:53
11:20:35
12:16:56
16:23:35
08:51:29
13:19:27
12:59:12
21:20:12
19:01:04
12:56:57
05:59:48
03:48:34
21:24:18
08:40:28
07:37:59
19:49:56
10:37:30
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
34.32
34.38
34.36
34.37
34.30
34.22
34.38
34.38
34.30
34.30
34.31
34.30
34.30
34.30
34.35
34.36
34.36
34.27
34.38
34.31
34.28
34.30
34.37
34.29
34.36
34.23
34.19
34.31
34.31
34.29
34.05
34.39
34.36
34.35
34.37
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
118.56
118.56
118.57
118.71
118.74
118.51
118.71
118.62
118.47
118.48
118.47
118.45
118.46
118.43
118.55
118.63
118.63
118.56
118.49
118.58
118.61
118.44
118.65
118.48
118.48
118.47
117.10
118.39
118.40
118.39
118.92
118.67
118.61
118.70
118.67
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
57
62
61
72
70
47
73
66
50
50
51
49
49
47
59
65
65
55
58
58
59
48
67
50
55
45
94
46
46
44
77
71
65
70
69
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
DEPTH
1.7
7.7
2.6
6.0
13.0
17.5
14.4
11.4
10.6
11.9
7.9
7.6
7.7
6.0
6.5
12.1
10.9
14.9
.7
1.1
2.7
9.0
15.4
9.3
1.2
13.1
7.3
7.0
7.4
9.0
15.6
13.3
13.0
14.4
16.5
MAGNITUDE
4.3
4.8
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.5
5.1
5.1
4.5
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.6
4.2
5.1
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.1
4.5
4.3
5.0
4.1
4.1
5.1
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-13
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
04-26-1997
04-27-1997
06-28-1997
01-05-1998
03-11-1998
08-20-1998
07-22-1999
02-21-2000
03-07-2000
01-14-2001
01-14-2001
09-09-2001
10-28-2001
12-14-2001
01-29-2002
09-03-2002
01-06-2005
06-16-2005
06-27-2005
08-09-2007
09-02-2007
10-16-2007
03-09-2008
06-23-2008
07-29-2008
01-09-2009
04-24-2009
05-02-2009
05-18-2009
05-19-2009
01-16-2010
02-13-2010
03-16-2010
09-01-2011
09-14-2011
10:40:29
11:09:28
21:45:25
18:14:06
12:18:51
23:49:58
09:57:24
13:49:43
00:20:28
02:26:14
02:50:53
23:59:18
16:27:45
12:01:35
05:53:28
07:08:51
14:35:27
20:53:26
22:17:33
07:58:49
17:29:14
08:53:44
09:22:32
14:14:57
18:42:15
03:49:46
03:27:50
01:11:13
03:39:36
22:49:11
12:03:26
21:39:00
11:04:00
20:47:08
14:44:51
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
34.37
34.38
34.17
33.95
34.02
34.37
34.40
34.05
33.81
34.28
34.29
34.06
33.92
33.95
34.36
33.92
34.13
34.06
34.05
34.30
33.73
34.38
34.14
34.05
33.95
34.11
33.89
34.07
33.94
33.93
33.93
34.01
33.99
34.34
33.95
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
DEPTH
118.67
118.65
117.34
117.71
117.23
117.65
118.61
117.26
117.72
118.40
118.40
118.39
118.27
117.75
118.66
117.78
117.44
117.01
117.03
118.06
117.48
117.64
117.46
117.25
117.76
117.30
117.79
118.88
118.34
118.33
117.02
117.02
118.08
118.47
117.08
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
69
68
72
35
79
59
67
77
39
44
45
29
18
32
67
30
62
100
98
35
63
61
60
78
30
74
29
74
24
23
98
99
1
53
93
14.6
15.2
10.0
11.5
14.9
9.0
11.6
15.0
11.3
8.8
8.4
7.9
21.1
13.8
14.1
12.9
4.2
11.6
12.1
7.6
12.6
8.1
3.7
14.4
14.7
14.2
4.2
14.2
13.9
12.8
13.9
8.5
18.9
7.3
16.9
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
MAGNITUDE
4.0
4.8
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.8
4.4
4.9
4.0
4.7
4.7
4.2
4.0
4.0
5.4
4.5
4.0
4.4
4.7
4.0
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.2
4.1
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-14
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
DATE
TIME
05-30-2012
06-14-2012
08-08-2012
08-08-2012
08-29-2012
05-15-2013
01-15-2014
03-17-2014
03-29-2014
03-29-2014
06-02-2014
01-04-2015
07-25-2015
12-30-2015
05:14:00
03:17:15
06:23:34
16:33:22
20:31:00
20:00:06
09:35:18
13:25:36
04:09:42
21:32:45
02:36:43
03:18:09
12:54:06
01:48:57
NOTE:
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
LATITUDE
33.69
33.91
33.90
33.90
33.91
33.66
34.14
34.13
33.93
33.96
34.10
34.62
34.09
34.19
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
119.06
117.79
117.79
117.79
117.79
118.37
117.44
118.49
117.92
117.89
118.49
118.63
117.44
117.41
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
95
28
29
29
29
45
62
41
17
18
39
86
60
66
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
DEPTH
16.4
9.8
10.1
10.4
9.2
1.2
3.6
9.5
4.8
9.4
4.4
7.8
5.1
7.0
MAGNITUDE
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.4
4.4
5.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.4
Q IS A FACTOR RELATING THE QUALITY OF EPICENTRAL DETERMINATION
+- 1 km horizontal distance; +- 2 km depth
+- 2 km horizontal distance; +- 5 km depth
+- 5 km horizontal distance; no depth restriction
>+- 5 km horizontal distance
Event qualities are highly suspect prior to 1990. Many of these event
qualities are based on incomplete information according to Caltech.
T-15
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(CAL TECH DATA 1932-2015)
S E A R C H
SITE:
O F
E A R T H Q U A K E
D A T A
F I L E
El Rancho Adult School
COORDINATES OF SITE
......
33.9831 N
118.0858 W
DISTANCE PER DEGREE
.....
110.9 KM-N
92.4 KM-W
MAGNITUDE LIMITS
TEMPORAL LIMITS
.....................
....................
SEARCH RADIUS (KM)
4.0 - 8.5
1932 - 2015
.......................
NUMBER OF YEARS OF DATA
..................
100
84.00
NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN FILE
............
4616
NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA
............
434
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
T-16
1
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(RICHTER DATA 1906-1931)
DATE
TIME
LATITUDE
09-20-1907
05-15-1910
07-23-1923
01:54:00
15:47:00
07:30:26
34.20 N
33.70 N
34.00 N
S E A R C H
SITE:
O F
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
DEPTH
MAGNITUDE
117.10
117.40
117.25
D
D
D
94
71
77
.0
.0
.0
6.0
6.0
6.3
W
W
W
E A R T H Q U A K E
D A T A
F I L E
El Rancho Adult School
COORDINATES OF SITE
......
33.9831 N
118.0858 W
DISTANCE PER DEGREE
.....
110.9 KM-N
92.4 KM-W
MAGNITUDE LIMITS
TEMPORAL LIMITS
.....................
....................
SEARCH RADIUS (KM)
6.0 - 8.5
1906 - 1931
.......................
NUMBER OF YEARS OF DATA
..................
100
26.00
NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN FILE
............
35
NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA
............
3
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
T-17
2
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
(NOAA/CDMG DATA 1812-1905)
DATE
TIME
LATITUDE
02-09-1890
04:06:00
34.00 N
S E A R C H
SITE:
O F
LONGITUDE
Q
DIST
DEPTH
MAGNITUDE
117.50
D
54
.0
7.0
W
E A R T H Q U A K E
D A T A
F I L E
El Rancho Adult School
COORDINATES OF SITE
......
33.9831 N
118.0858 W
DISTANCE PER DEGREE
.....
110.9 KM-N
92.4 KM-W
MAGNITUDE LIMITS
TEMPORAL LIMITS
.....................
....................
SEARCH RADIUS (KM)
7.0 - 8.5
1812 - 1905
.......................
NUMBER OF YEARS OF DATA
..................
100
94.00
NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN FILE
............
9
NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES IN AREA
............
1
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
T-18
3
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 3 - continued
List of Historic Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 or
Greater Within 100 Km of the Site
S U M M A R Y
O F
E A R T H Q U A K E
S E A R C H
* * *
NUMBER OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 100 KM RADIUS OF SITE
MAGNITUDE RANGE
NUMBER
4.0 - 4.5
288
4.5 - 5.0
103
5.0 - 5.5
32
5.5 - 6.0
7
6.0 - 6.5
4
6.5 - 7.0
3
7.0 - 7.5
1
7.5 - 8.0
0
8.0 - 8.5
0
* * *
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
T-19
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
Table 4. Horizontal Response
Spectra Pseudospectral
Acceleration in g
5% Damping
Period in
Seconds
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.106
0.141
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.500
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
7.500
10.000
Maximum
Considered Design
Earthquake
0.95
0.95
0.96
1.09
1.31
1.52
1.84
2.08
2.25
2.35
2.40
2.32
1.89
1.57
1.10
0.82
0.50
0.33
0.24
0.13
0.08
T-20
0.63
0.63
0.68
0.81
0.98
1.15
1.19
1.19
1.23
1.39
1.50
1.57
1.60
1.55
1.26
1.04
0.74
0.55
0.33
0.22
0.16
0.09
0.06
Bassett High School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-1371
FIGURES
January 20, 2016
118°5'0"W
118°4'0"W
34°0'0"N
34°0'0"N
118°6'0"W
33°59'0"N
33°58'0"N
33°58'0"N
G:\4953_Geotech\2015\150302 El Rancho Adult School Improvements\GIS\150302_Figure_1_Site_Vicinity_Map.mxd
33°59'0"N
SITE
Base: USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps of the Whittier and El Monte quadrangles
0
500 1,000
2,000
3,000
Feet
LAT:
LON:
AMEC
Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
6001 Rickenbacker Road
Los Angeles, California 90040
Tel: 323.889.5300
Fax: 323.721.6700
33.9830
-118.08579
SCALE:
1:24,000
DRAWN:
CHECK:
DATE:
PER
PJE
01-15-16
Proposed School Improvements
El Rancho Adult School
Pico Rivera, California
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE:
1
PROJECT:
4953-15-0302
Path: G:\4953_Geotech\2015\150302 El Rancho Adult School Improvements\CAD\DWG\4953-15-0302_Fig-2_Plot-Plan.dwg [B-17x11]
Date: January 20, 2016 - 11:53am By: vo.nguyen
LEGEND
3
BORING LOCATIONS
EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL
9515 HANEY STREET
PICO RIVER, CALIFORNIA
Reference:
Topographic Survey prepared by Guida Surveying, Inc.,
dated December 10, 2015
FIGURE NO.
LT,LNG:
0
15'
30'
PREPARED BY:
60'
SCALE:
Amec Foster Wheeler
SCALE: 1" = 30'
Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
6001 Rickenbacker Road
Los Angeles, CA 90040
Phone (323) 889-5300
Fax (323) 721-6700
DRAWN:
CHKD:
DATE:
VMN
1" = 30'
WL
LT
1/19/2016
PLOT PLAN
PROJECT NO.
4953-15-0302
118°5'0"W
33°58'0"N
33°59'0"N
SITE
33°59'0"N
33°58'0"N
Path: G:\4953_Geotech\2015\150302 El Rancho Adult School Improvements\GIS\150302_Figure_3_Local_Geologic_Map.mxd
118°4'0"W
34°0'0"N
118°6'0"W
Base: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map of the El Monte and Whittier quadrangles
Geologic Units
Unit - Description (Age)
Qw - Active channel and wash deposits (Holocene)
Qyfa - Younger undivided alluvial fan and valley deposits.
Sandy. (Holocene)
Qyfs - Younger undivided alluvial fan and valley deposits.
Silty. (Holocene)
0
1,000 2,000
Qofs - Older undivided alluvial fan and valley deposts. Silty
(Pleistocene)
4,000
Feet
Contacts:
contact, location accurate
contact, location approximate
Reference: Saucedo, G.J., 1999, Geological map of the Whittier 7.5-minute quadrangle Los Angeles and Orange counties,
California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 99-04, scale 1:24,000.
contact, location concealed
contact, location inferred
fault, location accurate
fault, location approximate
fault, location concealed
fault, location inferred
LAT:
LON:
AMEC Foster Wheeler
Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
6001 Rickenbacker Road
Los Angeles, California 90040
Tel: 323.889.5300
Fax: 323.889.5398
SCALE:
DRAWN:
CHECK:
DATE:
33.9830
-118.08579
1:24,000
PER
PJE
01-18-16
Proposed School Improvements
El Rancho Adult School
Pico Rivera, California
LOCAL GEOLOGIC MAP
FIGURE:
3
PROJECT:
4953-15-0302
Qya1
Path:G:
\4953_Geotech\2015\150302El RanchoAdultS chool I
mpr
ovements\GI
S \150302_Figur
e_4_Regional_Geologic_Map.
mxd
Geologic Units
Qaf-Ar
tificial fill (
late Holocene)
Qw -Ver
yyoung wash deposits (
late Holocene)
Qls -Ver
yyoung landslide deposits (
late Holocene)
Qya -Y oung alluvium,undivided (
Holocene tolate Pleistocene)
Qyf-Y oung alluvialfandeposits (
Holocene and late Pleistocene)
Qyfa -Y oung alluvial fanand valleydeposits,sand (
Holocene and late Pleistocene)
Qyfc -Y oung alluvial fanand valleydeposits,clay(
Holocene and late Pleistocene)
Qyfs -Y oung alluvial fanand valleydeposits,silt(
Holocene and late Pleistocene)
Qyls -Y oung landslide deposits (
Holocene and late Pleistocene)
Qyw -Y oung wash deposits (
Holocene and late Pleistocene)
Qoa -Old alluvial floodplaindeposits,undivided (
late tomiddle Pleistocene)
Qof-Old alluvialfandeposits (
late tomiddle Pleistocene)
Qofc -Old alluvial fanand valleydeposits,clay(
late tomiddle Pleistocene)
Qofs -Old alluvial fanand valleydeposits,silt(
late tomiddle Pleistocene)
Qsp-S anPedr
oFor
mation,mar
ine sandstone (
Pleistocene)
Qlh -L a Habr
a For
mation,mudstone,sandstone,and conglomer
ate (
Pleistocene)
Qvof-Ver
yold alluvialfandeposits (
middle toear
lyPleistocene)
T fl -Fer
nandoFor
mation,siltysandstone and siltstone,conglomer
ate (
Pliocene)
T flc -Fer
nandoFor
mation,conglomer
ate (
Pliocene)
T fu -Fer
nandoFor
mation,uppermember
,sandstone and conglomer
ate (
Pliocene)
T fuc -Fer
nandoFor
mation,sandstone,conglomer
ate (
Pliocene)
T fuf-Fer
nandoFor
mation,fossilifer
ous sandstone (
Pliocene)
T psc -Puente For
mation,S ycamor
e CanyonMember
,(
ear
lyPliocene and Miocene)
T pscc -Puente For
mation,S ycamor
e CanyonMember
,(
ear
lyPliocene and Miocene)
T iemd -Volcanic intr
usive r
ocks associated with El ModenoVolcanics,(
middle Miocene)
T pds -Puente For
mation,diatomaceous shale (
late Miocene)
T pls -Puente For
mation,S oquel and L a Vida Member
s,sandstone and siltstone (
Miocene)
T plv -Puente,For
mation,L a Vida Member
,siltstone (
Miocene)
T ps -Puente For
mation,S oquel Member
,sandstone and siltstone,(
late Miocene)
T psl -Puente For
mation,siltstone and ver
yfine sandstone (
late Miocene)
T psq -Puente For
mation,S oquel Member
,sandstone and siltstone (
Miocene)
T psqc -Puente For
mation,S oquel Member
,conglomer
ate (
Miocene)
T pss -Puente For
mation,sandstone (
late Miocene)
T py-Puente For
mation,Y or
ba Member
,siltstone (
Miocene)
T pyc -Puente For
mation,Y or
ba Member
,conglomer
ate (
Miocene)
T pss
Qyf
Qaf
Qw
T fl?
Qof4
Qyf3
10
Qof
T psl
T fl
710
T fuf
Qyf5
Qw
Qya
Qyf
Qw
Qyf3
Qw1
T fuc
Qof3
60
water
Qof3
Qof1
Qof2
T fu
water Qyf5
T fuc
Qof4
Qof4
Qyf3
Qyf5
Qyf
Qyfs
SITE
T psc
Qof2
T plv
Qw T flc
T psc
Qyf
T fl
Qofs
Qyls
T fu T fuc
Qofc
contact,identityand existence cer
tain,locationappr
oximate
contact,identityand existence cer
tain,locationconcealed
contact,identityand existence cer
tain,locationinfer
r
ed
T flc
T py
Qsp T fu
fault,identityorexistence questionable,locationconcealed
(
Quer
ied wher
e contacts ar
e questionable)
1:
2,
000,
000
3
4
Miles
T iemd
T fl
Qvof
Refer
ences:
Bedr
ossian,T .
L.
,Roffer
s,P.
,Hayhur
st,C.
A.
,2010,“Geologic CompilationofQuater
nar
yS ur
ficial Deposits inS outher
nCalifor
nia”,
Califor
nia Geological S ur
vey-S pecial Repor
t217,spatial data J
uly,2010
Mor
ton,D.
M.
,Miller
,F
.
K.
,Cossette,P.
M.
,and Bovar
d,K.
R.
,2003,Pr
eliminar
ygeologic mapofthe S anBer
nar
dino30'
X 60'
quadr
angle,Califor
nia:U .
S .Geological S ur
vey,OpenFile Repor
tOF2003293,scale 1:
100,
000.
Mor
ton,D.
M.
,Hauser
,R.
M.
,and Rupper
t,K.
R.
,1999,Pr
eliminar
ydigital geologic mapofthe S anta Ana 30'
X 60'
quadr
angle,
souther
nCalifor
nia:U .
S .Geological S ur
vey,OpenFile Repor
tOF99172,scale 1:
100,
000.
S aucedo,G.
J.
,Gr
eene,H.
G.
,Kennedy,M.
P.
,and Bezor
e,S .
P.
,2003,Geologic mapofthe L ong Beach 30'
x 60'
quadr
angle,
Califor
nia:
Adigital database.
:Califor
nia Geological S ur
vey,Pr
eliminar
yGeologic Maps ,scale 1:
100,
000.
Y er
kes,R.
F
.
,Campbell,R.
H.
,
Alvar
ez,Rachel,and Bovar
d,Kelly,2005,Pr
eliminar
ygeologic mapofthe L os Angeles 30'
X 60'
quadr
angle,souther
nCalifor
nia:U .
S .Geological S ur
vey,OpenFile Repor
tOF20051019,scale 1:
100,
000.
L AT :
L ON:
2
Qyls
Qyf
Qlh
Qvof
fault,identityand existence cer
tain,locationappr
oximate
0 0.
5 1
Qyf3
T fuc
fault,identityand existence cer
tain,locationaccur
ate
fault,identityand existence cer
tain,locationconcealed
T psc
T psq
Qlh
Regional Map
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Qyw
T plv
Qyfc
Qyfa
fault,identityorexistence questionable,locationaccur
ate
Qyf3
T py Qof1
Qvof
T pscc
Qyls?
Qyfs
fault,identityand existence cer
tain,locationinfer
r
ed
T pls
T fl
60
T py
Qyfs
Qw
T flc
T fl
Qls
Qls? T pscc
T ps
605
5
T fu
T plv
Qof1
Qyf
Qofs
Qyfa
Qoa
Qw Qyf3 T fu
Qof3
T psq
Qof
T fuc
Qyfs
contact,identityand existence cer
tain,locationaccur
ate
Qls
T psc
Note:Geologic units ar
e notdivided intosubunits.Cor
e map
units ar
e pr
esented.
Geologic Contacts
T pscc
33.
9830
1
18.
08579
S CAL E: 1:
100,
000
AMEC
Envir
onment&I
nfr
astr
uctur
e,I
nc.
DRAWN:
6001RickenbackerRoad
L os Angeles,Califor
nia 90040
CHECK:
T el:323.
889.
5300
Fax:323.
721.
6700
DAT E:
PER
PJE
011816
Pr
oposed S chool I
mpr
ovements
El RanchoAdultS chool
PicoRiver
a,Califor
nia
REGI
ONAL GEOL OGI
CMAP
FI
GU RE:
4
PROJ
ECT :
4953150302
M:
5.
5
10/
23/
1916
M:
5.
1
9/
21/
1941
M:
5.
6
1/
10/
1857
BlindTh rusts
1North ridgeTh rust
2Com pton Th rust
M:
5.
9
4/
12/
1880
3S an Joaquin Hills Th rust
4Upper Ely sian Park Th rust
M:
6.
3
1/
1/
1821
M:
5.
0 M:
5.
5
5/
1930 6/
29/
1926
M:
6.
0 8/
5/
31/
1854
M:
6.
8
6/
29/
1925
Ex planation
M:
6.
6
2/
9/
1971
M:
5.
0
6/
26/
1995
M:
5.
5
M:
5.
5
3/
25/
1806 7/
1/
1941
M:
5.
1
8/
13/
1978
M:
5.
1
4/
26/
1997
M:
5.
5
2/
18/
1926
Path :G:
\
4953_Geotech \
2015\
150302El Ranch o Adult S ch ool I
m provem ents\
GI
S \
150302_Figure_5_Faults_S eism icity _Map_th rusts.
m xd
M:
5.
8
5/
19/
1893
M:
5.
2
3/
20/
1994
M:
6.
0
9/
24/
1827
8/
6/
1973
Ev
e nt
s6.
0-6.
9
Faults
M:
5.
0
12/
3/
1988
M:
5.
3
2/
21/
1973
4
M:
5.
0
8/
4/
1927
M:
5.
9
10/
1/
1987
M:
5.
2
M:
5.
2
1/
1/
1979
8/
31/
1930
2
Ev
e nt
s5.
0-5.
9
M:
5.
5
4/
0/
1803
M:
5.
6
8/
28/
1889
M:
6.
0
7/
11/
1855
5
SI
TE
Holoc e ne FaultDis
plac e m e nt
M:
5.
3
8/
29/
1943
M:
6.
4
7/
22/
1899
M:
5.
29/
12/
1970
M:
5.
5
2/
28/
1990
M:
5.
5
6/
14/
1892
M:
5.
8
9/
20/
1907
M:
6.
0
12/
16/
1858
M:
5.
97/
22/
1899
M:7.
0
2/
09/
1890
M:
5.
311/
27/
1992
M:
6.
3
6/
28/
1992
M:
5.
2
8/
17/
1992
M:
5.
5
5.
11/
16/
1930
1/
16/
1930 M:
M:
6.
2
7/
23/
1923
M:
5.
4
7/
29/
2008
M:
5.
6
2/
7/
1889
M:
5.
5
6/
28/
1992
M:
5.
9 M:
5.
5
12/
19/
1880 1
1/
22/
1880
M:
5.
7
7/
8/
1986
M:
5.
26/
12/
1944
M:
5.
0
12/
16/
1988
M:
6.
7
12/
25/
1899
M:
5.
1
1
1/
14/
1941
Blind Thr
ustFault
s
(
sur
f
ac e pr
oje c t
ion)
His
t
or
ic FaultDis
plac e m e nt
M:
6.
0
7/
28/
1769
M:5.
1
3/
28/
2014
M:
5.
3
12/
4/
1992
M:
6.
27/
30/
1894
M:
5.
8
6/
28/
1991
M:
6.
7
1/
17/
1994
M:
5
.
1
Ev
e nt
s≥ 7
.
0
M:
7.
5
12/
8/
1812
5.
8
1 M:
4/
4/
1893
7.
1
Earth quakM:
e
s1
12
/
2
/
1812
Appr
oxim at
e E
pi
e7
nt
r
a
l68
M:
5c.
0
/
5
/
19
Ar
e aofEar
t
hq uake
5PuenteHills Th rust
M:
6.
3
1/
16/
1857
M:
5.
2
5/
31/
1938
M:
6.
4
3/
11/
1933
M:
5.
5
9/
4/
1981
M:
6.
0
5/
15/
1910
M:
5.
05/
13/
1910
M:
6.
8
4/
21/
1918
M:
5.
3
9/
23/
1963
M:
5.
5 M:
5.
5
10/
2/
1928 6/
6/
1918
3
Ev
id e nc e ofLat
e Quat
er
nar
y
FaultDis
plac e m e nt
Und iv
id e d Quat
er
nar
y Fault
s
Ba
ra
nd b
a
llon d ownt
hr
own s
id e (
r
e la
t
iv
e ora
ppa
r
e nt
)
Ar
r
owsa
long f
a
u
lt
ind ic a
t
e r
e la
t
iv
e ora
ppa
r
e nt
d ir
ect
ion
of
la
t
er
a
lm ov
e m e nt
Ar
r
owson f
a
u
lt
ind ic a
t
e sd ir
ect
ion of
d ip
L
owa
ngle f
a
u
lt
id e nt
if
ie d wit
hb
a
r
b
son u
ppe rpla
t
e.
Fa
u
lt
s
u
r
f
a
c e ge ne r
a
lly d ipsle s
st
ha
n4
5
°b
u
t
loc a
lly m a
y ha
v
e
b
eens
u
b
s
equ
e nt
ly s
t
e e pe ne d .
REFERENCES :
Jennings,C.
W.andBry ant,W.
A.
,2010,
“FaultActivity Map of
Calif
ornia,
”Calif
orniaGeological S urvey ,GDM006,May 2010
Earth quak eCatalogs:Calif
orniaGeological S urvey ,17691932;
S outh ern Calif
orniaEarth quak eCenter,19322014.
33.
98300
1
18.
08579
SCALE: 1:
750,
000
LAT:
LON :
0
10
20
40
Mile s
AMECFos
t
e rW he e le r
Env
ir
onm e nt&I
nf
r
ast
r
uc t
ur
e ,I
nc .
DRAW N :
6001Ric ke nbac ke rRoad
LosAnge le s,Calif
or
nia90040
CHECK:
Te l:323.
889.
5300
Fax:323.
721.
6700
DATE:
PER
PJE
011816
Pr
opose d Sc hoolI
m pr
ove m e nt
s
ElRanc ho Ad ultSc hool
Pic o Rive r
a,Calif
or
nia
REGI
ON ALFAUL
TSAN D
SEI
SMI
CI
TY MAP
FI
GURE:
5
M:
5.
0
1
/
1
/
1
9
20
PROJ
ECT:
4953150302
3.5
3.0
Spectral Acceleration (g)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
Period (seconds)
NOTES: Probabilistic MCER spectrum was computed for a ground motion level expected to achieve
a 1% probability of collapse within a 50 year period.
Deterministic MCER spectrum is governed by:
- Magnitude-7.1 earthquake on the Puente Hills Fault at the PGA and between 0.25 and 1 second.
- Magnitude 6.7 earthquake on the Santa Fe Springs Segment of the Puente Hills Fault
between the PGA and 0.25 second.
- Magnitude-7.85 earthquake on the Elsinor Fault beyond 1 second.
Prepared/Date: WL 1/19/2016
Checked/Date: MM 1/20/2016
Horizontal Response Spectra
Components of the Risk-Targeted
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)
Project No. 4953-15-0302
Figure 6
2.5
Spectral Acceleration (g)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
Period (seconds)
Prepared/Date: WL 1/19/2016
Checked/Date: MM 1/20/2016
Horizontal Response Spectra
Components of the Design Response
Spectrum
Project No. 4953-15-0302 Figure 7
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
APPENDIX
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
January 20, 2016
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
APPENDIX
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
The soil conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling three borings to depths of 10
to 50 feet below the existing grade at the locations shown on Figure 2. Borings 1 and 2
were drilled using 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. Boring 3 was
drilled using hand auger equipment.
The soils encountered were logged by our engineer and undisturbed and bulk samples
were obtained for laboratory inspection and testing. The logs of the borings are presented
on Figures A-1.1 through A-1.3; the depths at which undisturbed samples were obtained
are indicated to the left of the boring logs. The number of blows required to drive the
Crandall sampler is indicated on the log. In addition to obtaining undisturbed samples,
standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in one of the borings; the results of the
tests are indicated on the logs. The soils are classified in the accordance with the Unified
Soil Classification System described on Figure A-2.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the current borings
to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine their engineering properties.
The field moisture content and dry density of the soils encountered were determined by
performing tests on the undisturbed samples. The results of the tests are shown to the
left on the boring logs.
Tests to determine the percentage of fines (material passing through a -200 sieve) in
selected samples were performed. The results of these tests are presented on the boring
logs.
Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples to determine the
strength of the soils. The tests were performed at field moisture content and after soaking
El Rancho Adult School – Report of Geotechnical Investigation
Amec Foster Wheeler Project 4953-15-0302
January 20, 2016
to near-saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The yield-point
values determined from the direct shear tests are presented on Figure A-3, Direct Shear
Test Data.
Confined consolidation tests were performed on one undisturbed sample to determine the
compressibility of the soils. Water was added to the sample during the test to illustrate the
effect of moisture on the compressibility. The results of the tests are presented on
Figures A-4, Consolidation Test Data.
To provide information for paving design, a Stabilometer test (“R” value test) was
performed on a sample of the upper soils. The test was performed for us by LaBelle
Marvin Professional Pavement Engineering. The results of the test are presented on
Figures A-5.1 and A-5.2.
Soil corrosivity tests were performed on samples of the on-site soils. The results of the
tests are presented on Figure A-6.
SAMPLE LOC.
BLOW COUNT*
(blows/ft)
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
MOISTURE
(% of dry wt.)
DEPTH (ft)
ELEVATION (ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF BORING
LOCATION SHOWN ON LOGS ARE APPROXIMATE; REFER TO PLOT PLAN FOR MORE ACCURATE LOCATION INFORMATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
B11SOIL_CRANDALL(ELEVATION) L:\70131 GEOTECH\GINTW\LIBRARY AMEC JUNE2012.GLB
P:\4953 GEOTECH\2015-PROJ\150302 EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS\3.2 ALL FIELD NOTES\4953-15-0302.GPJ 1/20/16
BORING 1
DATE DRILLED:
December 18, 2015
EQUIPMENT USED:
Hollow Stem Auger
HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 8
ELEVATION (ft.): 165**
3-inch thick Asphalt Concrete over 4½-inch thick Base Course
FILL - SILTY SAND - moist, brownish gray, some siltier layers
14.9
160
6
SM
SILTY SAND - loose, moist to very moist, brown, some siltier layers
SP
POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, moist, light gray, fine to medium
grained
END OF BORING AT 10 FEET
5
30.9
155
96
10
7.2
87
103
7
32
NOTES:
Hand augered upper 2 feet to avoid damage to utilities. Groundwater was not
encountered. Boring backfilled with cuttings, tamped, and patched with asphalt.
150
15
* Number of blows required to drive the Crandall Sampler 12 inches using 140 pound
hammer falling 30 inches.
** Elevations based on Topographic Survey Map prepared by Guida Surveying Inc.,
dated 12/10/2015.
145
20
140
25
135
30
130
35
40
Field Tech: AR
Prepared By: WL
Checked By: LT
Proposed Improvements
El Rancho Adult School
Pico Rivera, California
LOG OF BORING
Project: 4953-15-0302
Figure: A-1.1
SAMPLE LOC.
BLOW COUNT*
(blows/ft)
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
MOISTURE
(% of dry wt.)
"N" VALUE
STD.PEN.TEST
DEPTH (ft)
ELEVATION (ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF BORING
LOCATION SHOWN ON LOGS ARE APPROXIMATE; REFER TO PLOT PLAN FOR MORE ACCURATE LOCATION INFORMATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
B12SOIL_CRANDALL(DECIMAL_ELE) L:\70131 GEOTECH\GINTW\LIBRARY AMEC JUNE2012.GLB
P:\4953 GEOTECH\2015-PROJ\150302 EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS\3.2 ALL FIELD NOTES\4953-15-0302.GPJ 1/20/16
BORING 2
DATE DRILLED:
December 18, 2015
EQUIPMENT USED:
Hollow Stem Auger
HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 8
ELEVATION (feet): 164**
3-inch thick Asphalt Concrete over 4-inch thick Base Coarse
FILL - SILTY SAND - moist, light brown
ML
160
22.3
90
8
24.0
87
10
29.9
81
8
SANDY SILT - medium stiff, moist, brown
5
(87% Passing No. 200 Sieve)
SP
155
POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, moist, light brown, fine to
medium grained
10
17
2.9
150
94
25
Some occasional gravel (¼-inch in size)
15
23
(3% Passing No. 200 Sieve)
145
2.6
20
98
38
140
25
36
Becomes dense
135
3.6
30
96
41
130
35
32
Thin layers of Silty Sand, becomes more moist
125
40
57
SW
WELL-GRADED SAND - very dense, moist, light gray, some gravel
(CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING FIGURE)
Proposed Improvements
El Rancho Adult School
Pico Rivera, California
Field Tech: AR
Prepared By: WL
Checked By: LT
LOG OF BORING
Project: 4953-15-0302
Figure: A-1.2a
50
3.2
110
Proposed Improvements
El Rancho Adult School
Pico Rivera, California
127
115
82
SAMPLE LOC.
BLOW COUNT*
(blows/ft)
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
MOISTURE
(% of dry wt.)
"N" VALUE
STD.PEN.TEST
DEPTH (ft)
ELEVATION (ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF BORING
LOCATION SHOWN ON LOGS ARE APPROXIMATE; REFER TO PLOT PLAN FOR MORE ACCURATE LOCATION INFORMATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
B12SOIL_CRANDALL(DECIMAL_ELE) L:\70131 GEOTECH\GINTW\LIBRARY AMEC JUNE2012.GLB
P:\4953 GEOTECH\2015-PROJ\150302 EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS\3.2 ALL FIELD NOTES\4953-15-0302.GPJ 1/20/16
45
BORING 2 (Continued)
DATE DRILLED:
December 18, 2015
EQUIPMENT USED:
Hollow Stem Auger
HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 8
ELEVATION (feet): 164**
(No recovery)
120
More gravel
52
Abundant gravel
END OF BORING AT 50 FEET
NOTES:
Hand augered upper 3 feet to avoid damage to utilities. Groundwater was
not encountered. Boring backfilled with cuttings, tamped, and patched
with asphalt.
55
105
60
100
65
95
70
90
75
85
80
Field Tech: AR
Prepared By: WL
Checked By: LT
Project: 4953-15-0302
LOG OF BORING
Figure: A-1.2b
SAMPLE LOC.
BLOW COUNT*
(blows/ft)
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
MOISTURE
(% of dry wt.)
DEPTH (ft)
ELEVATION (ft)
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF BORING
LOCATION SHOWN ON LOGS ARE APPROXIMATE; REFER TO PLOT PLAN FOR MORE ACCURATE LOCATION INFORMATION. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAY DIFFER. INTERFACES BETWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
B11SOIL_CRANDALL(ELEVATION) L:\70131 GEOTECH\GINTW\LIBRARY AMEC JUNE2012.GLB
P:\4953 GEOTECH\2015-PROJ\150302 EL RANCHO ADULT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS\3.2 ALL FIELD NOTES\4953-15-0302.GPJ 1/20/16
BORING 3
DATE DRILLED:
December 18, 2015
EQUIPMENT USED:
Hand Auger
HOLE DIAMETER (in.): 4
ELEVATION (ft.): 165**
ML
160
More finer sand
12.6
77
7
27.4
77
25
Becomes stiff (63% Passing No. 200 Sieve)
12.5
82
20
Layer of Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, moist, olive brown and orangish brown
mottled, fine
POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, moist, gray, fine, some medium.
7.4
73
30
5
SP
155
3-inch thick Asphalt Concrete, No Base Course
FILL - SILTY SAND with GRAVEL - moist, brown, trace some rootlets
SANDY SILT - moist, brown
10
END OF BORING AT 10 FEET
NOTES:
Groundwater was not encountered. Boring backfilled with cuttings, tamped, and
patched with asphalt.
150
15
145
20
140
25
135
30
130
35
* Number of blows required to drive a Crandall sampler 12 inches using a 50-pound
slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inches.
40
Field Tech: IC/WL
Prepared By: WL
Checked By: LT
Proposed Improvements
El Rancho Adult School
Pico Rivera, California
LOG OF BORING
Project: 4953-15-0302
Figure: A-1.3
GROUP
SYMBOLS
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAVELS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
(More than 50% of
material is
LARGER than No.
200 sieve size)
(More than 50% of
coarse fraction is
LARGER than the
No. 4 sieve size)
Auger Cuttings
GW
Well graded gravels, gravel - sand
mixtures, little or no fines.
Standard Penetration Test
Bulk Sample
(Little or no fines)
GP
Poorly graded gravels or grave - sand
mixtures, little or no fines.
Rock Core
Crandall Sampler
GRAVELS
WITH FINES
GM
Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures.
Dilatometer
Pressure Meter
(Appreciable
amount of fines)
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel - sand - clay
mixtures.
Packer
No Recovery
SW
Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or
no fines.
Water Table at time of drilling
Water Table after drilling
SP
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands,
little or no fines.
SM
Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures
SC
Clayey sands, sand - clay mixtures.
CLEAN
SANDS
SANDS
(More than 50% of (Little or no fines)
coarse fraction is
SMALLER than
the No. 4 Sieve SANDS WITH
Size)
FINES
(Appreciable
amount of fines)
SILTS AND CLAYS
(More than 50% of
material is
SMALLER than
No. 200 sieve size)
Undisturbed Sample
CLEAN
GRAVELS
ML
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
TYPICAL NAMES
CL
(Liquid limit LESS than 50)
OL
MH
SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid limit GREATER than 50)
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock
flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey
silts and with slight plasticity.
Inorganic lays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays,
lean clays.
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low
plasticity.
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
elastic silts.
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
OH
Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silts.
PT
Peat and other highly organic soils.
Correlation of Penetration Resistance
with Relative Density and Consistency
SAND & GRAVEL
SILT & CLAY
Consistency
No. of Blows Relative Density No. of Blows
Very Loose
0-1
Very Soft
0-4
2-4
Loose
Soft
5 - 10
11 - 30
5-8
Medium Stiff
Medium Dense
31 - 50
Dense
9 - 15
Stiff
Very Dense
16 - 30
Over 50
Very Stiff
Over 30
Hard
BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS:Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by
combinations of group symbols.
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
Fine
No.200
GRAVEL
Medium Coarse
No.40
Fine
No.10 No.4
Cobbles Boulders
Coarse
3/4"
3"
12"
KEY TO SYMBOLS AND
DESCRIPTIONS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
Reference: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical
Memorandum No. 3-357, Vol. 1, March, 1953 (Revised April, 1960)
Figure A-2
SHEAR PEAK STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot
1000
0
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
2@3.5
SURCHARGE PRESSURE in Pounds per Square Foot
3@5.5
1@6.5
1000
2@7.5
2@13.5
Boring Number and
Sample Depth (ft.)
2000
3000
4000
2@3.5
1@6.5
3@5.5
5000
2@7.5
2@13.5
6000
Samples soaked to a moisture content near saturation
Samples tested at field moisture content
Prepared/Date: PC 1/11/16
Checked/Date: LT 1/15/16
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
Project No. 4953-15-0302
Figure A-3
LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0.00
CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH
0.02
Boring 2 @ 3½'
SANDY SILT
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Note: Water added to sample after consolidation under a load of 1.8 kips per square foot.
Prepared/Date: PC 1/11/16
Checked/Date: LT 1/15/16
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA
Project 4953-15-0302
Figure A-4
Figure A-5.1
Figure A-5.2
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
AMEC Foster Wheeler
El Rancho Adult School
Your #4953-15-0302, HDR Lab #16-0007LAB
5-Jan-16
Sample ID
B-3 @ 1'-5'
B-1 @ 2.5'
B-2 @ 3.5'
1,720
480
2,400
960
6,400
2,920
6.8
7.3
7.3
mS/cm
0.60
0.30
0.08
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
382
45
88
ND
240
14
38
ND
61
3.1
14
ND
mg/kg
mg/kg
ND
110
ND
247
ND
177
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.8
115
268
ND
1.2
13
113
ND
0.8
3.0
20
ND
NH41+ mg/kg
NO31- mg/kg
ND
1,720
ND
663
ND
55
na
na
na
na
na
na
Resistivity
as-received
saturated
Units
ohm-cm
ohm-cm
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
Chemical Analyses
Cations
Ca2+
calcium
magnesium Mg2+
sodium
Na1+
potassium
K1+
Anions
CO32carbonate
bicarbonate HCO31fluoride
chloride
sulfate
phosphate
Other Tests
ammonium
nitrate
sulfide
Redox
F1Cl1SO42PO43-
S2-
qual
mV
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316
Figure A-6
Page 2 of 2