HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 22513 Parcel 1 Geotechnical & Geological Study
I
,,(-,~, :GEN
I. ..:1.. _,::,,_,.,,'[ ___ - -~.7
I d;:~'-."'"'~"r",,-. '.
..o"-~~ _ -'-"~l~"--""""'~"" __-_~-_<:. '~_ ~
corr~oration
-Soil Engineering and Consulting Services. EngineeringGeology. Compaction Tesling
-Inspections. ConslructionMaterialsTesting. LaboratoryTesling-PercolationTesling
. Geology. Waler Resoulce Sludies . Phasel&IIEnvironmentalSiteAssessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Meadows Village
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 22513
I Meadows Parkway and Rancho Califomia Road
I City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T1916-GS
I
I
I
June 4, 2004
I
I
I
D
D
.
Prepared for:
RECE1VED
NOV 0 4 2004
CITY OF Tl:'MeClJLA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
3419 Via Lido, Suite 640
Ne,wport Beach, Califomia 92663
. ~ ,
" , "
" ,
, '
, .
-
\ -,"
, '
., -
, -
. - -
, -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
Paoe
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARy....................................................................................................2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................2
2.1 Authorization .....................................................................................................................2
2.2 Scope of, Work ..................................................................................................................2
2.3 Previous, Site Studies.......................................................................................................2
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................3
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................3
5.0 FIELD STUDY ................. .............................. ........................................ .......... .................3
6.0 LABORATORY ITESTING ..................................................................................................4
6.1 General ...........................................................................................................................4
6.2 Classification .....................................................................................................................4
6.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test......................................................................4
6.4 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test...........................5
6.5 Consolidation T est............................................................................................................5
6.6 Direct Shear Test.............................................................................................................. 5
6.7 Expansion Test ............................. ....................................................................................5
6.8 Grain Siz13 Distribution Test .............................................................................................6
6.9 R-Value Test .....................................................................................................................6
6.10 Soluble Sulfate Test .........................................................................................................6
7.0 ENGINEERING ~EOLOGY ........................................................,......................................6
7.1 Geologic !3etting ....................... ........................................................................................ 6
7.2 Faulting ........................................................................................................................... 7
7.2.1 !Olsinore Fault Zone ........................................................................................... 7
7.2.2 San Jacinto Fault Zone .....................................................................................7
7.3 Seismicity ................................................................................... ....................................... 7
7.4 Earth Materials ..................................................................................................................8
7.4.1 Engineered Fill (Afe) .........................................................................................9
7.4.2 Alluvium (Oal) ........................... .........................................................................9
7.4.3 pauba Fonnation (Qps) ....................................................................................9
7.5 Groundwater .....................................................................................................................9
7.6 Liquefaction Evaluation.................................................................................................... 9
7.7 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity .......................................................................... 10
8.0 CONCLUSIONSIAND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................,..........11
8.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 11
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations....................................................................................... 11
8.2.1 General........................................................................................................... 11
8.2:2 c,;learing........................................................................................................... 12
8.2.3 !;,xcavation Characteristics............................................................................. 12
8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill............................................................ 12
8.25 ~emoval and Recompaction ......................................................................... 12
8.2,6 fiCill Placement Requirements......................................................................... 14
8.2.7 Oversize Material............................................................................................ 14
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
D
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
!Section Number and Title
Paoe
8.2.8 ,Compaction Equipment ................................................................................. 14
8.2.9 ,Shrinkage and Subsidence ..............................,............................................. 15
8.2.10 ,Fill Slopes ........................................................................................................ 15
8.2.11 ,Cut Slopes....................................................................................................... 15
8.2.12 ,Keyways .......................................................................................................... 15
8.2.13 ,Subdrains ........................................................................................................ 16
8.2.14 ,Observation and Testing ................................................................................ 16
8.2.15 .Soil Expansion Potential................................................................................. 16
8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations ..............."'...................................................... 17
8.3.1 ,General........................................................................................................... 17
8.3.2 ,Foundation Size ............"'.............................................................................. 17
8.3.3 IDepth of Embedment..................................................................................... 17
8.3.4 IBearing Capacity ........................"'................................................................. 17
8.3.5 ISettlement....................................................................................................... 18
8.3.6 ,Lateral Capacity................................................................................. ............. 18
8.3.7 ,Seismic Design Parameters .......................................................................... 18
8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations ............................................................................... 18
8.4.1 Interior Slabs................................................................................................... 19
8.4.2 ,Exterior Slabs ................................................................................................. 19
8.5 Pavemer]t Design Recommendations.......................................................................... 20
8.6 Utility Tr€!nch Recommendations ................ .............................. .................................... 21
8.7 Finish Lo~ Drainage Recommendations ....................................................................... 21
8.8 Planter R.ecommendations..................................................... .............................. ......... 22
8.9 Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations ............................................22
8.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations .....................................................,.........,........"'.... 23
8.10.1 Earth Pressures ................................."'.......................................................... 23
8.10.2 Foundation Design.......................................................................................... 24
8.10.3 $ubdrain ..............."'........................................................................................ 24
8.1 0.4 I;lackfill............................................................................................................. 24
9.0 PLAN REVIEW ......................................................."'......................................................25
1 0.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE.. ............................................................. ............................... ..25
11:0 PRE-GRADING ~ONFERENCE......................................................,...............................25
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING......................................................25
13.0 CLOSURE........... ....................... ................................. "'''''' ......................................... ..26
APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES
TABLE A - DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
'2-
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..,....,..-.j.--IiJI- . .'G EN
'._.'-~-. ,.
r';'_ 'I
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . Engineering Geology . Compaction Testing
Cornoratl'On -lnspections-ConstructionMaterialsTesting e laboratory Teslin gePeroolalionTesting
.t-.: -Geology. Waler Resource Studies . Pnase 1&11 Environmental Sile,Assessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
.'June 4, 2004
Venture Point Real Es~ate Group
3419 Via Lido, Suite 640
Newport Beach, California 92663
(949) 673-4660 / FAX (949) 673-4540
Attention:
Mr. John, Clement
Regarding:
GEOTEGHNICALlGEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Meadows Village
Parcel1.of Parcel Map 22513
Meadows Parkway and Rancho Califomia Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T1916-GS
/References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10 Acre
Commercial Site, Rancho California Road and Meadow Parkway, City of
TerT)ecula, County of Riverside, Califomia, Project Number: T1916-EA1, report
dated December 3,1999.
2. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Grading Report, Proposed Commercial Site,
P.M! No. 22513 located at the Southeastern Corner of Rancho California Road
and I Kaiser Parkway, Rancho California, in the County of Riverside, Califomia,
Work Order: 400-156G, report dated November 6,1989.
3. A.J.I Terich Engineering, Inc., Preliminary Grading Plan, PR02-0271-02741
Mea,dows Village, PCL 1, PM 22513, P.M. BK. 145170-71, Scale 1" = 40', plan
. dated March 5, 2004.
~ear 'Mr. Clement:
According to your request and signed authorization, we have perfonmed a geotechnical
engineeringlengineering geology study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to
evaluate the existing geologic and geotechnical conditions within the subject property with respect
to recommendations foq rough grading of the site and design recommendations for foundations,
slabs~on-grade, etc., fori the proposed development. Submitted, herewith, are the results of this
firm's findings and recommendations in general accordance with current standard specifications,
along with the supporting data.
, '
, '
, ,
- "
- - \ ~ ' ,
, '
\ -'"' -, , \
. ,
, '
.' -
, '
, - - I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.1
2.2
2:3
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 2
1.0
EXECUTIVE SI!JMMARY
A geotechnical and engineering geology study of the subsurface conditions of the subject
site has been performed for the proposed development. Exploratory borings have been
completed and ~arth material samples subjected to laboratory testing. The data has been
analyzed with ,respect to the project information furnished to us for the proposed
development. It is the opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from
a geotechnical/geologic standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this
report are followed in the design and construction of the project. The subject site was
relatively flat and generally consisted of engineered fill (Afe) overlying alluvium. The
alluvium is underlain by bedrock of the Pauba Formation. Based on similar studies in the
immediate vicinity, the alluvium encountered may have low densities and may be subject
to hydroconsolidation. These materials need to be removed and recompacted in order to
maintain tolerable settlement predictions. Removals to depths on the order of 20-feet bgs
will be necessary to remediate these conditions on-site. Based on the soil types
encountered during drilling, on-site soils appear to be easily rippable with heavy
construction equipment.
2.0
INTRODUCTION
Authorization: i This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering and
engineering geology study performed on the subject site for the proposed development.
Authorization to perform this study was in the form of a signed proposal.
Scooe of Work: The scope of work performed for this study was designed to determine
and evaluate the. surface and subsurface conditions within the subject site with respect to
geotechnical chqracteristics, and to provide recommendations and criteria for use by the
design engineers and architect for the development of the site and for design and
construction of the proposed development. The scope of work included the following: site
reconnaissance and surface geologic mapping; subsurface exploration; sampling of on-
site earth materials; laboratory testing; engineering analysis of field and laboratory data;
and the preparation of this report.
Previous Site Studies: Previous site studies include the Referenced No. 1 and NO.2
environmental site assessment and compaction report, respectively. The findings of the
Referenced No. 1 environmental site assessment suggests the subject site has no known
4.,
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0
5.0
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 3
or observed negative environmental impacts. The Referenced NO.2 rough grading report, .
prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, was reviewed by this firm. The grading on-site was
conducted in 1988 and 1989. According to the report, up to approximately 16-feet of fill
exists in areas on-site and localized 4 to 5-feet deep removals from original grade were
conducted. No, site plan was attached to the Referenced No. 2 report depicting original
elevations and ,surface units, removal bottom elevations, compaction test locations fill
thickness, etc.
3.0
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EnGEN Corpor~tion reviewed a preliminary grading plan, dated March 5, 2004. It is our
understanding that nine (9) block wall and wood frame, slab-on-grade type structures with
associated landscape, hardscape and parking improvements are proposed to be built at
the site. Therefore, it is assumed that relatively light loads will be imposed on the
foundation soils. The foundation loads are not expected to exceed 2,000 pounds per
lineal foot (pit) for continuous footings. The above project description and assumptions
were used as the basis for the field and laboratory exploration and testing programs and
the engineering, analysis for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this
report. This office should be notified if structures, foundation loads, grading, and/or details
other than those represented herein are proposed for final development of the site so a
review can be performed, supplemental evaluation made, and revised recommendations
submitted, if required.
SITE DESCRIPlilON
The subject site ,consists of approximately 10-acres, located southeast of the intersection
of Meadows Parkway and Rancho Califomia Road in the City of Temecula, County of
Riverside, California (Figure 1). At the time of this study, the topography of the site was
relatively flat. V~getation across the site was light and consisted of native grasses and
weeds.
FIELD STUDY
Field reconnaissance and geologic mapping were conducted on April 7, 2004, by a field
representative of, this finm. A study of the property's subsurface condition was performed
to evaluate underlying earth strata and the presence of groundwater. Five (5) exploratory
"5
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 4
borings were excavated on the study site. The borings were performed by Martini
Drilling using aCME 75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 7.0-inch outside diameter
hollow-stem augers. The maximum depth explored was approximately 51.5-feet below the
existing ground, surface at the boring locations. Bulk and relatively undisturbed ring
samples of the earth materials encountered were obtained at various depths in the
exploratory bo~ngs and retumed to our soils laboratory for verification of field
classifications and testing. Bulk samples were obtained from cuttings developed during
the excavation process and represent a mixture of the soils within the depth indicated on
the logs. Relatively undisturbed samples of the earth materials encountered were
obtained by driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with 1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch inside
diameter brass Irings. The sampler was driven with successive drops of a 140-pound
weight having a ,free fall of approximately 30-inches. The blow counts for each successive
6.0-inches of penetration, or fraction thereof, are shown in the Geotechnical Boring Logs
presented in the Appendix. The ring samples were retained in close-fitting moisture-proof
containers and retumed to our laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the
exploratory soil I borings are denoted on the Geotechnical Site Plan (Plate 1). The
exploratory borings were backfilled with native soil cuttings.
LABORATORYITESTING
General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the field investigation are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests that were performed. The samples obtained during the
field investigation will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report This office should
be notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days.
Classification: ; The field classification of soil materials encountered in the exploratory
borings were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The final classification is shown in the
Geotechnical Boring Logs presented in the Appendix.
In-Situ Moistur~ Content and Density Test: The in-situ moisture content and dry
density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-98 and ASTM D
2937-94 procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The
l;..
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.6
6.7
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 5
dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined
as a percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Test results are shown in the
Geotechnical Boring Logs presented in the Appendix.
'6.4
Maximum Drv ~Densitv/ODtimum Moisture Content Relationshio Test: Maximum dry
density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on samples
of near-surfaceiearth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures
using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and
compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25
blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the
specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
determined from the plot.
6.5
Consolidation Test: Settlement predictions of the on-site soil and compacted fill behavior
under load were made, based on consolidation tests that were performed in general
accordance with ASTM D 2435-96 procedures. The consolidation apparatus is designed
to receive a 1.0,inch high, 2.42-inch diameter ring sample. Porous stones are placed in
contact with theltop and bottom of each specimen to permit addition and release of pore
water and. pore pressure. Loads normal to the face of the specimen are applied in several
increments in a geometric progression under both field moisture and submerged
conditions. The resulting changes in sample thickness are recorded at selected time
intervals. Wate~ was added to the test apparatus at various loads to create a submerged
condition and tOI measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the sample. The
resulting change in sample thickness was recorded.
Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of near-
surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 procedures. The
shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a
1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were sheared
at various pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were tested in
a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the normal
confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of intemal friction).
EXDansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-surface
earth material in ,general accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard. In
this testing procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch
EnGEN Corporation
1
I
I
il
II
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916,GS
June 2004
Page 6
diameter mold ,to a total compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch by using a 5.5-
pound weight dropping 12-inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample is compacted
at saturation between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under a
pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (psf) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The
resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is
recorded'and the Expansion Index (EI) calculated.
:6.8 Grain Size Di~tribution Test: An evaluation was performed on selected representative
soil samples in, general accordance with ASTM D 422-98. This grain-size test method
determines the distribution of particle sizes in soils, which allows for the proper
classification aycording to the Unified Soils Classification System (USC). In this test
procedure, a Vo(eighed sample is processed through multiple sieves designated by their
size generally r('lnging from a No.4 (O.25-inch) sieve to a No. 100 (O.0059-inch) sieve and
retained on a No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve by means of a lateral and vertical motion of the
sieve on a mectlanical shaker. The percentage of material passing each sieve is weighed
and recorded with the results plotted in graph form.
6.9 R-Value Test: An evaluation was performed on a selected representative soil sample in
general accordance with ASTM D 2844-94. The resistance (R-value) test method is used
to measure the, potential strength of subgrade, subbase, and base course materials for
use in road pavements.
6.10 Soluble Sulfate Test: Samples of near-surface earth material were obtained for soluble
sulfate testing for the site. The concentration of soluble sulfates was determined in
general conforlTlance with Califomia Test Method 417 procedures. The test results
indicate a moderate percentage of water-soluble sulfates (0.0069% by weight). As a
result, normal Type II cement may be used in contact with the soils on-site.
7.0 ENGINEERING,GEOLOGY
7.1 Geoloaic Settina: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southem
sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is bounded on the
northeast by the, San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and
on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is
not as distinct,: but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending
southeast from the Murrieta, Califomia area. The Peninsular Range is characterized by
EnGEN Corporation
€b
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 7
large Mesozoic ,age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and
sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of alluvial sediments derived from the erosion of
the elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying areas. Engineered fill, alluvium and
Pauba Formation Sandstone underlie the subject property and surrounding area. The
earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent
sections of this r~port.
7.2 Faultina: The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and
Bryant, updated: 1999). No known active faults traverse the property. The nearest active
faults to the site are described below:
7.2.1 Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone-Temecula Segment is located
approximately 3.8 kilometers west-southwest of the site. The Elsinore Fault Zone-Julian
Segment is locqted approximately 17.4 kilometers southeast of the site. The Elsinore
Fault Zone is a prominent and youthful structural boundary between the Perris Block to the
northeast and the Santa Ana mountains block to the southwest. The Elsinore Fault
system is a major right lateral strike-slip fault system that has experienced strong
earthquakes in, historical times (1856, 1894, and 1910), and exhibits Holocene
displacement.
7.2.2 San Jacinto Fault Zone: The San Jacinto Fault-Anza Segment is located approximately
30.6 kilometers Inortheast of the site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone trends northwest-
southeast and is. a major right lateral strike-slip fault, which has displayed surface rupture
and associated seismic ground shaking in 1899, 1918, 1923, 1934, 1937, 1942, and 1954.
7.3 Seismicity: The project lies within an active area of faulting and seismicity in the
Southern Califo~nia region. This predominance of seismic activity has been associated
with the San Jacinto Fault Zone along its southeast section in the vicinity of the Salton
Sea, and within the northwest portion near its junction with the San Andreas Fault Zone.
The predominance of the remaining recorded activity has been associated with the San
Andreas Fault Zone. A list of faults within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the site are
shown on Tablei A in the Appendix. Based on computer software by Thomas F. Blake
(EQSEARCH, Blake 2000b), the calculated maximum peak ground acceleration
experienced at the site since 1800 was approximately 0.26g in 1918.
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.4
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 8
Although no known active faults exist within the project limits, the site will experience
ground motion and effects from earthquakes generated along active faults located off-site.
To estimate the, potential ground shaking, EnGEN Corporation has analyzed the seismic
parameters using the probabilistic ground motion analysis. The probabilistic ground
motion analysis requires information regarding fault geometry, the magnitude of the
maximum credible earthquake on each fault, and the regional attenuation equation, which
relates the considered seismic parameters to the magnitude and the source-site distance.
To perform this. analysis EnGEN Corporation utilized the computer software FRISKSP
developed by Thomas F. Blake (Blake, 2000c).
The attenuation relationships by Boore et al. (1997) for soil type So (stiff soil -
shear wave velocity 250 m/s) was utilized. For a complete discussion of the
software land probabilistic methods the reader is referred to Blake (2000a, b, c).
The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the
earthquake magnitude, distance from the source (epicenter), and the site response
characteristics. The Elsinore Fault- Temecula Segment is potentially capable of
producing the ,most intense horizontal ground acceleration at the site, due to its
proximity ,and associated maximum credible earthquake magnitude of 6.8. Such an
earthquake near the site could produce seismic shaking with an estimated maximum
credible peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.52g. The maximum credible peak
horizontal ground acceleration is the maximum acceleration that appears capable of
occurring undefi the presently known tectonic framework, and has a 10 percent chance
of exceedance '({ithin 50 years.
In sum, these, results are based on many unavoidable geological and statistical
uncertainties, but are consistent with current standard-of-practice. As engineering
seismology evolves, and as more fault-specific geological data are gathered, more
certainty and different methodologies may also evolve.
Earth Materials: A brief description of the earth materials encountered in the
exploratory excavations is presented in the following sections. However, a more
detailed description of the earth materials encountered is provided on the Exploratory
Boring Logs presented in the Appendix. The earth material strata as shown on the logs
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 9
represent the conditions in the actual exploratory locations; however other variations
may occur between the excavations. Lines of demarcation between the earth materials
on the logs represented the approximate boundary between the material types;
nevertheless, the transition may be gradual.
7.4.1 Enaineered Fill IAfe}: Engineered fill was encountered to depths of approximately 10
to 16-feet bgs. : The material consists of poorly graded medium-grained sand and silty
fine- to mediulT)-grained sand. The fill was predominantly moist and medium dense,
with one dense,layer encountered in soil boring B-1. In addition, the fill encountered in
soil boring B-2 ,presented pores to a depth of 5-feet bgs and loose fill at a depth of
10-feet bgs.
7.4.2 AlluviumlQall: Alluvial materials were encountered from the base of the engineered fill
to variable depths of 10 to more than 26.5-feet bgs. Alluvial materials were not logged
on soil boring B-2. Alluvial materials consist of silty fine- to medium grained sands and
poorly graded ,fine- to medium-grained sands that were found to be moist and
predominantly medium dense in-place. However, the upper 5 to 10-feet of alluvial
materials were, encountered to be loose at soil boring locations 8-4 and 8-5,
respectively.
7.4.3 Pauba Formation IQDS}: Pauba Formation sandstone underlies the alluvium and was
encountered to,the maximum depth explored (51.5-feet bgs). However, engineered fill
directly overlies Pauba Formation at soil boring location 8-2. On-site the Pauba
Formation consists of silty fine- to medium-grained sandstone, poorly graded fine- to
medium-grainec;l sands and sandy siltstone. The Pauba Formation on-site constitutes
bedrock and was found to be moist to wet and medium dense to very dense and very
stiff to hard in-place.
7.5 Groundwater:, Perched groundwater was encountered at soil boring locations B-1 and
B-4 at 38 to 42-feet (bgs) and it was observed to be discontinuous and up to 10-feet
thick. No groul']dwater was encountered at soil boring locations B-2, B-3 and 8-5.
7.6 Liauefaction Evaluation: Liquefaction is a phenomenon where a sudden large decrease
of shearing resistance takes place in fine-grained cohesion less and/or low plasticity
cohesive soils due to the cyclic stresses produced by earthquakes causing a sudden, but
temporary, increase of porewater pressure. The increased porewater pressure occurs
\\
EnGEN Corporation
-,---- ru
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 7.7
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 10
below the water, table, but can cause propagation of groundwater upward into overlying
soil and possibly to the ground surface and cause sand boils as excess porewater
escapes.
Potential hazards due to liquefaction include significant total and/or differential settlements
of the ground surface and structures as well as possible collapse of structures due to loss
of support of foundations. It has been shown by laboratory testing and from the analysis
of soil conditions at sites where liquefaction has occurred that the soil types most
susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, fine sand to sandy silt with a mean grain size
ranging from approximately 0.075 mm to 0.5 mm. These soils derive their shear strength
from intergranular friction and do not drain quickly during earthquakes. Published studies
and field and laIJoratory test data indicate that coarse sands and silty or clayey sands
beyond the above-mentioned grain size range are considerably less vulnerable to
liquefaction. To a large extent, the relative density of the soil also controls the
susceptibility to Ijquefaction for a given number of cycles and acceleration levels during a
seismic event. Other characteristics such as confining pressure and the stresses created
within the soil during a seismic event also affect the liquefaction potential of a site.
Liquefaction of soil does not generally occur at depths of 40 to 50-feet below ground
surface due to the confining pressure at that depth. The potential for liquefaction of the
site is considered to be negligible due to the following conditions:
. No groundwater, or indication of groundwater, is present above bedrock materials.
Groundwaterl is present on-site in thin (up to 10-feet thick) perched zones within the
bedrock materials.
. Perched 9rolindwater is discontinuous on-site.
Based on the I above site conditions, no significant settlement due to potential
liquefaction is af1ticipated.
Secondary Effects of Seismic Activitv: The secondary effects of seismic activity
normally considered as pOSSible hazards to a site include various types of ground failure
and induced flooding from dam failure. Since there are no nearby confined bodies of
water, the possibility of seismically induced flooding and earthquake-induced surface
flooding due to seiches is not considered to be a concern. Due to the distance from the
Pacific Ocean to the site, the probability of a tsunami impacting the site is nil. The
EnGEN Corporation
\'2.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 11
probability of oc~urrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the
earthquake, thel distance of the site from the zone of maximum energy release of the
quake, the topography of the site, the subsurface materials at the site, and groundwater
conditions beneath the site, besides other factors. Since there are no active faults on the
site, the probability of hazards due to fault ground surface rupture is considered low. Due
to the overall low topographic relief of the site, the potential for earthquake-induced
landslides is considered low.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General: The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on
the results of field and laboratory data obtained from the exploratory excavations located
across the property, experience gained from work conducted by this firm on projects
within the general vicinity, and the project description and assumptions presented in
Section 3.0, Pr9Posed Development/Project Description, of this report. Based on a
review of the field and laboratory data and the engineering analysis, the proposed
development is feasible from a geotechnical/geologic standpoint. The actual conditions
of the near-surface supporting material across the site may vary. The nature and extent
of variations of the surface and subsurface conditions between the exploratory
excavations may not become evident until construction. If variations of the material
become evident during construction of the proposed development, this office should be
notified so that EnGEN Corporation can evaluate the characteristics of the material and,
if needed, n;1ake revisions to the recommendations presented herein.
Recommendations for general site grading, foundations, slab support, pavement design,
slope maintenance, etc., are presented in the subsequent paragraphs.
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations
8.2.1 General:' The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for: 1) the
use of a conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slabs cast on-grade; and
2) the rework of unsuitable near-surface earth materials to create engineered building
pads and suitable support for exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement.
If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the project and
the areas 'are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing of the subgrade
soil will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete
EnGEN Corporation
\'0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 12
or PCC pavement to locate areas which may have been damaged by construction traffic,
construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. The following
recommendations may need to be modified and/or supplemented during rough grading, as
field conditions ~equire.
8.2.2 Clearina: All debris, roots, grasses, weeds, brush and other deleterious materials should
be removed from the proposed structure, exterior hardscape and pavement areas and
areas to receive, structural fill before grading is performed. No discing or mixing of organic
material into th~ soils should be performed. Man-made objects encountered should be
overexcavated and exported from the site.
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the alluvium and
engineered fill is anticipated to be relatively easy.
8.2.4 Suitabilitv of On-Site Materials as Fill: From an engineering standpoint, the on-site
earth materials present are considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be
free of significaflt amounts of organic materials and/or debris. Fill materials should not
contain rocks g~eater than 6-inches in maximum diameter in the upper 5.0-feet of fill. Fill
materials should not contain rocks greater than 12-inches in maximum diameter between
5 and 10"feet below proposed pad grade. Fills deeper than 10-feet may be used for
oversize material disposal. Oversize disposal of rocks greater than 12-inches maximum
diameter may ,be conducted in accordance with Section 8.2.7, Oversize Material
Recommendations, of this report.
8.2.5 Removal land Recomoaction: Any existing undocumented fills and/or unsuitable, loose,
or disturbed neqr-surface soil in areas which will support structural fills, structures, exterior
hardscape (side,walks, patios, etc.), and pavement should be removed. As stated above,
final grading plans were not available at the time of this report. When these plans become
available, they I should be reviewed by this office in order to make additional
recommendations, if necessary. The following recommendations are based on field and
laboratory results:
1. Any undocumented fills should be removed, cleared of debris, and may then be
reused as fill. Special care should be taken to identify undocumented fill on-site
during grading operations.
EnGEN Corporation
\~
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 13
2. Removal and recompaction in the area of the proposed structures identified as
Buildings Band C shall extend to competent soil, estimated to be present at an
approximate depth of 20-feet below existing ground surface. The minimum fill
thickness in anyone building pad shall be at least half of the thickest layer of fill within
that :building pad in order to compensate for differential settlement. The
overexcavation should extend beyond the structure a distance equal to the depth of
overexcavation, with a minimum of 5-feet.
3. Removal and recompaction in the area of the proposed structure identified as
Building D ,shall be overexcavated 5-feet below existing grade to compensate for
differential settlement due to a potential channel c1eanout straddling bedrock. The
overexcavation should extend beyond the structure a distance equal to the depth of
overexcavation, with a minimum of 5-feet.
4. Removal and recompaction in the area of the proposed structure identified as
Building F s/1all be overexcavated 3-feet bgs to compensate for differential settlement
due to a potential transition at footing depth on the east corner of the building pad.
The overexcavation should extend beyond the structure a distance equal to the depth
of overexcavation, with a minimum of 5-feet.
5. Removal and recompaction in the fill areas for the proposed structures identified as
Buildings A, E, G, H and I, where engineered fill was encountered, should consist of
scarifying the exposed 12-inches, adjusting moisture to near optimum, and
recompacting to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction prior to placing any fill.
In cut areas, removals should extend to the proposed pad grade and the exposed
surface shall be scarified and recompacted as previously described. Scarification and
recompaction for the proposed pads should extend a minimum of 5-feet horizontally
outside the proposed structural footprint.
6. All hardscape areas should be scarified and recompacted to a depth of 12-inches
prior to the placement of any fills. Previous fill should be 90 percent compact.
7. All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer, Project Engineering Geologist, and/or their representative
prior to placement of any fill. An approved bottom should be relatively free of porous
material that could potentially hydrocollapse, and should either expose bedrock or
EnGEN Corporation
\.t;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 14
meet a minimum of 85 percent relative compaction in all alluvial areas. Final
determination of removal and overexcavation depths should be made during grading,
8. All approved exposed bottoms of all removal or overexcavated areas should be
scarified 12-inches, brought to near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction before placement of fill.
8.2.6 Fill Placement ~eauirements: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should
be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before
placement. All fill should be free of vegetation, organic material, and debris. Oversized
material should, be disposed of in accordance with Section 8.2.7, Oversize Material
Recommendations, of this report. Import fill should be no more expansive than the
existing on-site Imaterial. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not
exceeding 10-inches in compacted thickness and watered or aerated to obtain near
optimum moisture content (:t2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly
and should be tl;loroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should
meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Maximum dry density and optimum
moisture .content for compacted materials should be determined in accordance with
ASTM D 1557-00 procedures. Moisture content offill materials should not vary more than
2.0 percent from optimum, unless approved the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
8.2.7 Oversize iMaterial: Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible material with
a maximum dirT)ension greater than 12-inches. Oversize material shall not be buried or
placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted
by the Project ~eotechnical Engineer. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of
oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted fill (windrow). Alternative methods, such as water jetting or
wheel rolling with a backhoe may be required to achieve compaction in the fill materials
immediately adjacent to the windrow. Oversize material shall not be placed within ten (10)
vertical feet of finish grade, within fifteen (15) lateral feet of a finished slope face, or within
two (2) feet of future utilities.
8.2.8 ComDaction E\.luiDment: It is anticipated that fill compaction for the project will be
achieved by the use of a combination of rubber-tired and track-mounted heavy
construction equipment. Compaction by rubber-tired or track-mounted equipment, by
EnGEN Corporation
\f,
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 15
itself, may not be sufficient. Adequate water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable
equipment should be available to provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The actual
selection .of eql:Jipment is the responsibility of the contractor performing the work and
should be such that uniform and proper compaction of the fill is achieved.
8.2.9 Shrinkaae and Subsidence: There will be a material loss due to the clearing and
grubbing operations. Shrinkage of alluvium that is excavated and replaced as compacted
fill should :be an,ticipated. It is estimated that the average shrinkage of these soils will be
on the order of ~O to 15 percent, based on fill volumes when compacted to a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction. Assuming that the in-place fill is compacted to 90 percent
relative compaction there will be no estimated shrinkage of these soils. A higher relative
compaction would mean a larger shrinkage value.
8.2.10 Fill SloDes: finish fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Fill slope surfaces should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction
based on a maximum dry density for the soil as determined by ASTM D 1557-00
procedures to the face of the finished slope. Fill slopes should be constructed in a skillful
manner so that they are positioned at the design orientations and slope ratio. Achieving a
uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling should be avoided. Any add-on
correction to a fill slope should be conducted under the observation and recommendations
of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. The proposed add-on correction procedures should
be submitted in ,writing by the contractor prior to commencement of corrective grading and
reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Compacted fill slopes should be
backrollecl with ~uitable equipment for the type of soil being used during fill placement at
intervals not exceeding 4.0-feet in vertical height. As an altemative to the backrolling of
the fill slopes, o.ver-filling of the slopes will be considered acceptable and preferred. The
fill slope should. be constructed by over-filling with compacted fill a minimum of 3.0-feet
horizontally, and then trimmed back to expose the dense inner core of the slope surface.
8.2.11 Cut SloDes: All cut slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical).
All cut slopes should be inspected by the Project Engineering Geologist to check for any
adverse geologic conditions. Cut slopes with adverse geologic conditions may require
flattening or buttressing to maintain stability.
8.2.12 Kevwavs: A keyway excavated into competent soil should be constructed at the toe of all
fill slopes that are proposed on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper.
EnGEN Corporation
\"\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 16
Keyways should be a minimum of 15-feet wide (equipment width) and tilted a minimum of
two percent into the hillside. A series of level benches should be constructed into
competent soil on natural grades of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper prior to placing
fill.
8.2.13 Subdrains: Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, final
recommendations should be made during grading by the Project Engineering Geologist.
8.2.14 Observation a~d Testina: During grading, observation and testing should be conducted
by the Project G,eotechnical Engineer and/or his representative to verify that the grading is
being performed according to the recommendations presented in this report. The Project
Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative should observe the scarification and the
placement of filii and should take tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity
and degree of compaction obtained. Where testing demonstrates insufficient density,
additional compaction effort, with the adjustment of the moisture content where necessary,
should be applied until retesting shows that satisfactory relative compaction has been
obtained. The rl;lsults of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal
Finish Grading ~eport following completion of the grading operations. Grading operations
undertaken at the site without the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative
present may result in exclusions of the affected areas from the finish grading report for the
project. The presence of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative will
be for the purpose of providing observations and field testing and will not include any
supervision or directing of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's employees
or agents. Neither the presence and/or the non-presence of the Project Geotechnical
Engineer and/or ,his field representative nor the field observations and testing shall excuse
the contractor in any way for defects discovered in the contractor's work.
8.2.15 Soil Exoansion Potential: Upon completion of fine grading of the building pads, near-
surface samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to identify the
expansion poter;ltial for each lot/pad and assign appropriate foundation and slab-on-
grade recommendations for construction. The Referenced No. 2 document suggests
finished grade soils tested at the conclusion of the previous grading exhibited a low
expansion poter;ltial. Our Expansion Index (EI) testing on the eastern and western
portions of the site indicate a preliminary soil expansivity of EI=2 and EI=6, respectively,
which is classified as very low expansion potential. Based on our experience in the
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 17
general vicinity, I mixing within the engineered fill or with the engineered fill and alluvium
underlyin~l it during grading could affect the overall EI of the fill. Final foundation
design param(!ters should be based on Expansion Index testing of near-surface
soils and be performed at the conclusion of rough grading.
8.3 Foundation Desian Recommendations:
8.3.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column
footings and continuous wall footings founded upon a minimum of 18-inches of properly
compacted fill. i The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for
foundation design and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a very
low expansion potential for the supporting soils and are not intended to preclude more
restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should
determine the a,ctual footing width and depth to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift
forces.
!8.3.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4
steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) No.4 steel reinforcing bar located
near the :bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal
moisture change in the supporting soils. Final foundation size and reinforcing should be
determined based on the expansive potential of the supporting soils. Column footings
should have a li11inimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based
on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced
the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided across doorways, garage or any
other types of perimeter openings.
:8,3.3 DeDth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill
should extend ,to a minimum depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for
single story structures and 18-inches for two story structures. Deeper footings may be
necessary for I expansive soils purposes, depending on the final determination of lot
specific expansive potential.
! 8.3.4 Bearino'CaDacitv: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
EnGEN Corporation
,0..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 18
design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column
footings for the, total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous
footings and 2,000 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill. The allowable
bearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent
for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
8.3.5 Settlement: F<;>otings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the
maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum
settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.25-inch in properly compacted fill
under static load conditions. No settlement due to liquefaction is anticipated.
8.3.6 Lateral CaDacitv: Additional foundation design parameters for resistance to static lateral
forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 250 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: Compacted Fill - 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the
base of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with properly compacted fill or
competent native earth materials. The above values are allowable design values and
have safety factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into them and may be used in
combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads, The
allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or
dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth
resistance, the \Jpper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a
concrete slab or Ipavement. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is
5.0 times the recommended design value.
8.3:7 Seismic Desion: Parameters: The following seismic design factors apply:
Design Fault: Elsinore Fault - Temecula Segment
Fault Type: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Fault: Approximately 3.8 Km
Soil Profile Type: So
8:4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the expansion potential for
EnGEN Corporation
'zP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 19
the supporting material. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a
result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in
accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions
should be taken. during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high
water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either
hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in
the slabs. It islrecommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be
performed in aq:ordance with ACI recommendations and procedures,
8.4.1 Interior Slabs:1 Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches
nominal in thickliless and be underlain by a 1.0 to 2.0-inches of clean coarse sand or other
approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade per Section 8.2,
Earthwork Recommendations, of this report. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist
of No. 3 reinforcing bars, placed 24-inches on center in both directions, or a suitable
equivalent, as d,etermined by the Project Structural Engineer. Final lot/pad identification
and slab 'constr;uction requirements will be presented in the compaction report upon
completion of grading. It is essential that the reinforcing be placed at mid-depth in the
slab. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for
anticipated excessive or concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor
coverings .are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor
barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture
barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered top and bottom by a 1.0 to
2.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and
to minimize potential punctures.
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs:, All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal in
thickness and sl;1ould be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been
prepared in accordance with Section 8.2, Earthwork Recommendations, of this report.
Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the
slabs should be I according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be
moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 12.0-inches and
proof compacted, to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D
1557-00 procedures immediately before placing the concrete.
EnGEN Corporation
'Z\
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 20
'8.4.3 Pavement Des,ian Recommendation: The following recommendations for the structural
pavement section for the proposed parking and driveway areas for the subject
development are presented for preliminary design purposes only, The final design
should be based on the soils located near subgrade. The pavement section has been
determined in general accordance with current Caltrans Standard Specifications and is
based on an assumed Traffic Index (TI) and an assumed R-Value of 30, which
corresponds to the test results from soil boring location B-5 and soil samples from 0 to
S-feet. The RNalue of any imported fill material may vary from the assumed value
thereby changing the proposed pavement section design. The sections listed below for
referencepurpqses are calculated minimums based on varying Traffic Indexes:
Area ITraffic Index Preliminary Calculated Section
Automobile 5.0 3-inches Asphaltic Concrete over 5.5-inches Aggregate
Traffic Base, placed on properly prepared subgrade.
OR
An equivalent of a minimum of 6-inches Portland
Cement Concrete with a 4,000 psi design compressive
strength at 28 days placed on 95 percent subgrade
Heavy Truck 6.0 3-inches Asphaltic Concrete over 8.5-inches Aggregate
Traffic Base, placed on properly prepared subgrade.
OR
An equivalent of a minimum of 7-inches Portland
Cement Concrete with a 4,000 psi design compressive
strength at 28 days placed on 95 percent subgrade
Asphalt concretl? pavement materials should be as specified in Sections 203-6 of the
Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or an approved
equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to 3/4-inch crushed aggregate base as
specified in Section 200-2.2 of the Standard Specification for Public Works Construction
(Green Book) o~ an approved equivalent. To properly prepare the subgrade, the soil
should be recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, to a minimum
depth of 12-inches below finished subgrade elevation. If Portland Cement Concrete is
to be placed directly on subgrade, the subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum
of 95 percent rl;llative compaction to a minimum depth of 12-inches below finished
subgrade elevation. The aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for
subgrade and aggregate base materials should be determined according to ASTM D
EnGEN Corporation
].,:",..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture PoInt Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 21
1557-00 procedures. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared and aggregate base
material is not placed immediately, or the aggregate base materials is placed and the area
is not paved immediately, additional observations and testing will have to be performed
before placing 'Iggregate base material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC pavement to locate
areas that may /lave been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or
seasonal wetting and drying. The pavement sections presented above are calculated
minimum sections and are subject to review and approval by the City of Temecula. In the
proposed . pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at the time the
subgrade is graded to verify the preliminary pavement design recommendations.
8.6 Utility Trench .Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, exterior hardscape, and/or pavement areas
should be backfJlled with properly compacted soil. All utility trenches within the building
pad and extending to a distance of 5.0-feet beyond the building exterior footings should be
backfilled ,with on-site or similar soil. Where interior or exterior utility trenches are
proposed to pass beneath or parallel to building, retaining wall, and/or decorative concrete
block perimeter wall footings, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1:1
plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the
utility lines are d~signed for the footing surcharge loads. It is recommended that all utility
trenches excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back according to Section 8.9,
Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations, of this report or be properly
shored during construction. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness
appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill
material should Ibe compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by
mechanical means. Jetting or flooding of the backfill material will not be considered a
satisfactory method for compaction unless the procedures are reviewed and approved in
writing by the I?roject Geotechnical Engineer. Maximum dry density and optimum
moisture contentlfor backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-00
procedures.
8'.7 Finish Lot Drainaae Recommendations: Positive drainage should be established away
,
from the tops of slopes, the exterior walls of structures, the back of retaining walls, and the
decorative concrete block perimeter walls. Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to guide surface water away from
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
B
I
I
I
.
I
I
8.9
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 22
foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should
be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be
allowed next to, structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
gradient of 4.01 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of 3.0jfeet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a
nonerosive manner should be provided. Landscape trees and plants with high water
needs should be planted at least 5.0-feet away from the walls of the structures.
Downspouts from roof drains should discharge to a surface, which slopes away from the
structure a minimum of 5.0-feet from the exterior building walls. In no case should
downspouts from roof drains discharge into planter areas immediately adjacent to the
building unless ttlere is positive drainage away from the structure at a minimum gradient of
2.0 percent, dire~ted onto a permanent all-weather surface or subdrain system.
8.8
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to:percolate into the soils underlying the buildings.
Temcorarv Construction Excavation Recommendations: Temporary construction
excavations for rpugh grading, foundations, retaining walls, utility trenches, etc., more than
5.0-feet in depth and to a maximum depth of 15-feet should be properly shored or cut
back to the following inclinations:
,Earth Material Inclination
Alluvium 1.5:1
,Compacted Fill 1:1
No surcharge loads (spOil piles, earthmoving equipment, trucks, etc.) should be allowed
within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope equal to 1.5
times the depth of the excavation, Excavations should be initially observed by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer, Project Engineering Geologist and/or their representative to verify
the recommendations presented or to make additional recommendations to maintain
stability and safety. Moisture variations, differences in the cohesive or cementation
characteristics, or changes in the coarseness of the deposits may require slope flattening
or, conversely, permit steepening upon review by the Project Geotechnical Engineer,
Project Engineering Geologist, or their representative. Deep utility trenches may
experience caving which will require special considerations to stabilize the walls and
EnGEN Corporation
"]..1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
8.10
8.10.1
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 23
expedite trenching operations. Surface drainage should be controlled along the top of the
slope to preclude erosion of the slope face. If excavations are to be left open for long
periods, the slopes should be sprayed with a protective compound and/or covered to
minimize drying out, raveling, and/or erosion of the slopes. For excavations more than
5.0-feet in depth which will not be cut back to the recommended slope inclination, the
contractor should submit to the owner and/or the owner's designated representative
detailed drawings showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to
be made for worker protection. If the drawings do not vary from the requirements of the
OSHA Construqtion Safety Orders (CAL OSHA or FED OSHA, whichever is applicable for
the project at the time of construction), a statement signed by a registered Civil or
StructuraL Engineer in the State of California, engaged by the contractor at his expense,
should be:subm!tted certifying that the contractor's excavation safety drawings comply with
OSHA Construction Orders. If the drawings vary from the applicable OSHA Construction
Safety Orders, the drawings should be prepared, signed, and sealed by a Registered Civil
or Structural Engineer in the State of California. The contractor should not proceed with
any excavations I until the project owner or his designated representative has received and
acknowleqged the properly prepared excavation safety drawings.
Retainina Wall Recommendations:
Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone
extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5: 1 (horizontal to
vertical) or flatter, can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition
Active
At Rest
Level Backfill
2:1 SlaDe
45 pcf
30 pcf
60 pcf
Walls that are free to deflect 0.01 radian at the top may be designed for the above-
recommended active condition. Walls that need to be restricted from such movement
should be assuf11ed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition. The above values
assume well-drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads,
dead and/or live, I acting on the backfill within a horizontal distance behind the wall should
also be considered in the design.
EnGEN Corporation
2P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 24
8.10.2 Foundation Desion: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into
,
properly compllcted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard
foundations and may be designed for the same average allowable bearing value across
the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing),
and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable sliding
resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral pressure and
allowable sliding resistance, a Factor of Safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
8.10.3 Subdrain: A ~ubdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all
retaining walls to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic
pressures. Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery,
perforated pipe, surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved system. Gravel
galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on-site and/or import
materials, .should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a
suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The
perforated pipes, should be at least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be
placed downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal
foot of pipe. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain
in a non-erosive manner. In the case of subdrains for basement walls, they need to empty
into a sump provided with a submersible pump activated by a change in the water level.
8.10.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3-feet) may
consist of 0.5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
geotextile fabric ~uch as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand
(Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if water
jetting is used, ,the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods
will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent
of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted
by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is
designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used
behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of
EnGEN Corporation
2ft>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 25
typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order
to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain
system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should
be determined ill accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
9.0 PLAN REVIEW
Any modifications to the Referenced No. 3 preliminary grading plan for the proposed
development sh.ould be provided for review by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility
with site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the recommendations contained
in this report. . If EnGEN Corporation is not accorded the opportunity to make the
recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the
recommendations presented in this report.
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE
It may be desirable to hold a pre-bid conference with the owner or an authorized
representative, t~e Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical
Engineer, and the proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in
the bidditlg process and clarify questions relative to the grading and construction
requirements of the project.
11.0 PRE-GRADING .CONFERENCE
Before the start of grading, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized
representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the
Project Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify
questions relating to the intent of the grading recommendations and to verify that the
project specifications comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering
report. Any special grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can
also be discussed at that time.
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and
testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to,
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and
EnGEN Corporation
%.-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
June 2004
Page 26
fill slopes. In <,!ddition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations.
Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel
to verify and/or modify the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations
of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill,
pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other
earthwork completed for the subject development should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not
performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the development is
limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
If parties other i than EnGEN Corporation are engaged to perform soils and materials
observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be required to assume
complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by concurring with the
recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations. Neither the
presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field representative, nor the field
observations and testing, shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in
the contractor's Iwork. The Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative shall not be
responsible for job or project safety, Job or project safety shall be the sole responsibility of
the contractor.
13.0 CLOSURE
This report has peen prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document. It milY or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes.
In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed
development as described in this report are planned, the conclusions and
recornmendatior;ls contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified
in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable standards
of our profession and the accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices at
the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the
representations .of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made to obtain
information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site, limitations
exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site conditions,
which may have, an impact at the site. The recommendations presented in this report are
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Proiect Number: T1916-GS
May 2004
Page 27
valid as of the date of the report However, changes in the conditions of a property can
occur with the. passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works
of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or information
becomes available during the design and construction process which are not reflected in
this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can
be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be
modified or verified in writing. This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any
person or company using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform
such independent studies and explorations as he deems necessary to satisfy himself as to
the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used
in the perfon:nance of the work on this project. Changes in applicable or appropriate
standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in Ithis report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside the
control.of EnGEN Corporation, which occur in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. If we can be of further service or you
should have questions regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
:~~~~--
. Eric Davisson
. Field Geolo is.'
. FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\GS\T1916-GS Venture Point Real Estate. Geotechnical Study
EnGEN Corporation z,o...
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
EnGEN Corporation
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1. Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April 1995.
2. Blake, T. F., 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.
3. Blake, T. F., 2000b, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs.
4. Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the
Probabilistic Es.timation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D
Faults as Earthquake Sources.
5. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A
Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1, pp. 128-153.
6. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
7. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), 1999, Former BW/lP
Facility, 27941 Firont Street, Temecula, California, dated August 13,1999.
8. County of Riverside Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983),
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood
Plains - Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
9. County of Riverside, 2003a, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - M,!pped Faulting in Riverside County: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
generalylan/genylan.
10. County of Riverside, 2003b, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Earthquake Fault Zones: http://www.rcip.org/documents/generalylan/
genylan.
11. County of Riverside, 2003c, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Generalized Liquefaction: http://www.rcip.org/documents/generalylan/
genylan.
~2. County of Riverside, 2003d, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Earthquake-Induced Slope Stability Map: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
generalylan/ge,nylan.
13. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., 1997, Revised 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone
Maps: State of ~alifornia, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
pages.
14. Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern Califomia
region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology.
EnGEN Corporation
~\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
H
R
D
D
I
.
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
15. Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and .Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, pg. 173-188.
16. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1988, Maps of Known
Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portion of Nevada - To be
Used with the 1[997 Uniform Building Code: Prepared by the California Division of Mines
and Geology.
17. Kennedy,'M.P.,11977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in
Southem :Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 131,12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
~8. Mann, J.F., Jr., iOctober 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California:
State of Califqrnia, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special
Report 43.
19. Morton, D. M., i 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, United States Geological Survey, Open File
Report 99-172.
20. Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County,
California, Version 1.0: United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-188.
21. Petersen, M.D.; Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A. and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment forlthe State of Califomia, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open
File Report 96-706.
22. Pradel, 1998, Pr,ocedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No.4, April 1998.
23. Schnabel,P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the westem
United States: College of Engineering, University of Califomia, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Res,earch Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
24. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a Series Titled
Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Stnuctural Design, and Strong Motion
Records.
25. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
26. Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
27. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
28. Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, ,Southem California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No. €), pg. 1447-1457, December 1999.
EnGEN Corporation
~2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
a
n
n
D
I
D
D
.
.
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
Appendix Page 4
TABLE A - DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM
FAULT NAME DISTANCE EARTHQUAKE
Mi (Km) MAG (Mw)
Elsinore - Temecula 2.3 3.8 6.8
Elsinore - Julian 10.8 17.4 7.1
Elsinore - Glen Ivy 16.7 26.8 6.8
San Jacinto - Anza 18.9 30.4 7.2
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Vallev 19.0 30.6 6.9
Newport -Inolewood (Offshore) 30.1 48.5 6.9
Rose Canyon 32.3 52.0 6.9
Chino - Central Ave. (Eisinore) 34.4 55.4 6.7
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 34.6 55.7 6.8
San Jacinto - San Bernardino 35.6 57.3 6.7
San Andreas - San Bernardino 36.7 59.0 7.3
San Andreas - Southem 36.7 59.0 7.4
Earthquake Valley 37.8 60.9 6.5
Whittier 38.6 62.2 6.8
Pinto Mountain 43.6 70.1 7.0
San Andreas - Coachella 46.2 74.3 7.1
Coronado Bank 47.3 76.1 7.4
Newport-Inolewood (L:A. Basin) 47.7 76.7 6.9
Cucamonqa 50.1 80.6 7.0
North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 50.1 80.7 7.0
f;>alos Verdes 50.6 81.5 7.1
Burnt Mountain 51.4 82.8 6.4
Elysian Park Thrust 51.8 83.4 6.7
l\Jorth Frontal Fault Zone (East) 51.8 83.4 6.7
81eohorn 53.3 85.8 6.5
San Jose 53.4 86.0 6.5
<i:ompton Thrust 53.7 86.5 6.8
Eureka Peak 54.2 87.3 6.4
Sierra Madre 55.8 89,8 7.0
San Jacinto - Borrego 56.7 91.3 6.6
Elsinore - Coyote Mountain 57.2 92.0 6.8
llanders 59.8 96.3 7.3
San Andreas - 1857 Rupture 60.3 97.0 7.8
San Andreas - Mojave 60.3 97.0 7.1
Helendale - S. Lockhardt 60.7 97.7 7.1
EnGEN Corporation
~~
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
(B-1 through 8-5)
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
Appendix Page 5
EnGEN Corporation
?A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
I
D
.
.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
Appendix Page 6
EnGEN Corporation
?:>~
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
B
B
I
I
I
I
I
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
'0
c.
.i'-
'w
c:
Q)
-0
~
o
1\
\
\
\ ,
-
..... \
/ '\ \
j \
II \
j 1\ ,
I ~
\ \
I \
II \
\
I \ \
II
1\
. \
\
\
\
1\
,
135
133
131
129
127
125
3
ZA V for
Sp.G. =
2.65
15
5
7
9
Water content, %
11
13
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
Elevl
Depth
Classification
USCS AASHTO
Nat.
Moist.
%>
No.4
%<
Sp.G.
II
PI
No.2DD
SM
5.8
TEST RESULTS
. Maximum dry densil'J = 131.9 pcf
I Optimum moisture = '8.1 %
Project No. Tl916-GS Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE B3@0-5
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
. location: MEADOWS PARKWAY
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
.
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
\
\
1\
\
V- ,
11 1\ \
j , \
f \
j , \
/
j \
V ,\
. \'
,
.\
\
\
\
,
1\
,
135
133
131
-
0
a.
.?:-
'w
c
Q)
u
?:'
Cl
129
127
125
3
ZA V for
Sp.G. =
2.62
5
7
9
Water content, %
11
13
15
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
Elevl
I Depth
Cla.ssification
USCS AASHTO
Nal
Moist.
%>
No.4
%<
No.200
Sp.G.
LL
PI
6.1
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 1325 pcf
Optimum moisture = 8.2 %
Project No. Tl916-GS Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE B2 @ 0-5
COLLBYMR
COLL ON 4-7-04
. Location: MEADOWS PARKWAY
I MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
'I ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTEC. HNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
,?\
I
3000
I
I it 2000
- y
"'-
I a.",
<Ii a.
'" '
",'"
~ '"
-'"
en~
I ",en
-"" 1000
"'",
E",
:Ea...
:>
Failure Ultimate
I C, pst 362 280
+.deg 38 38
0 Tan 0.77 0.77
I 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Normal Stress. pst
I 3000 Sample No. 1 2 3
3 Water Content. % 9.3 9.3 9.3
I 2500 Dry Density, pc1 119.2 119.2 119.2
lii Saturation, % 65.2 65.2 65.2
.,
2000 :5 Void Ratio 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725
I 1;;
a. 2 Diameter, in. 2.42 2.42 2.42
<Ii
'" Hei ht in. 1.00 1.00 1.00
l!?
U5 1500 Water Content, % N/A N/A N/A
I ~
'" Dry Density, pc1
'" u;
.<::
en 1000 1 '" Saturation, %
f-
I :;: Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
500 Hei ht in.
n Normal Stress, pst 1000 2000 3000
0 Peak Stress. pst 1135 1888 2670
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacement, in. 0.14 0.14 0.14
R Horiz. DispL, in. Ultimate Stress, pst 1056 1800 2592
Displacement, in. 0.22 0.23 0.22
Strain rate. in.lmin. 0.20 0.20 0.20
R Sample Type: REMOLDED Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Description: SILTY SAND,BROWN
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
R LL= PL= PI=
Assumed Specific:Gravity= 2.62 Location: MEADOWS PARKWAY
Remarks: COLL BT MR Sample Number: B2 @ 0-5
B COLL ON 4-7-04 Proj. No.: Tl916-GS Date: 4-9-04
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
I ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ?Jb
Plate ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
. Tested By: DB Checked By: RW
--1--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R-VAlUE TEST REPORT
100
1--.
-....... ----
.......... --..,
l- I
h " ". " , IIII IIII I " " I , I II I .. .. " ,. "., "" , , ""
80
60
<I>
"
~
0=
40
20
o
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Exudation Pressure - psi
Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301
Compact. Del)sity Moist. Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R
,No. Pressure Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure R Value
psi pcf % psi 160 psi in. si Value Corr.
1 100 124.4 11.9 7.58 106 2.54 202 25 25
2 150 128.7 10.8 14.25 94 2.50 380 35 35
3 300 131.4 10.0 31.22 88 2.46 586 41 41
Test Results
Material Description
R-value at 300 psi eXl!dation pressure = 30
SIL TYSAND,BROWN
Project No.: T1916-GS
Project:MEADOWS VILLAGE
Location: MEAHOWS APRKW A Y
Sample Number: B5 @ 0-5
Date: 4/12/2004
Tested by: DB
Checked by: RW
Remarks:
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
i R-VALUE TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
~l\
Plate 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
4/9/2004
JoblNumber:
Job Name:
Location:
Sample Source:
Sampled by:
Lab Technician:
Sample Oescr:
T1916-GS
VENTURE POINT.
MEADOWS PAffi~~M
B2@0-5 ~
MR (4-7-04)
DB
SILTY SAND,BROWN
I
Wet Compacted WI.:
Rihg WI.:
I
Nrt Wet WI.:
Wet Density:
I
Wet Soil:
D~SOil:
I
Initial Moisture (%):
Initial Dry Density:
~Isaturation:.
Froal WI. & Ring WI.:
NJt Final'Wl.:
I
Dry WI.:
I
Loss:
I
Net Dry WI.:
Fital Density:
Saturated Moisture:
620.9
200.7
420.2
126.9
228.3
213.1
7.1%
118.5
45.6%
647.8
447.1
392.2
54.9
390.2
117.8
14.1%
Dial Chan e Time
Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 10:50
Reading 2: 0.102 0.002 11:05
Reading 3: 0.102 0.002 11:20
Readin 4: 0.102 0.002 9-A r
Expansion Index:
2
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM D 4832-95)
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
0.3
AP
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
n
I
I
D
.
I
.
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
4/9/2004
Job Number:
Job Name:
location:
Sample Source:
Sampled by:
Lab Technician:
Sample Oeser:
T1916-GS
VENTURE POINT
MEADOWS PARIWVAY
B3 @ 0-5
MR (4-7-04)
DB
SILTY SAND,BROWN
~et Compacted WI.:
Ring WI.:
I
Net Wet WI.:
I
Wet Density:
I
Wet Soil:
D~SOil:
I
Initial Moisture (%):
I
Initial Dry Density:
% Isaturation:.
F1ial WI. ,& Rmg WI.:
Net Final WI.:
I
Dry WI.:
I
Loss:
I
NetDry WI.:
Firlal Density:
I
Saturated Moisture:
606.7
185.7
421.0
127.1
220.9
205.8
7.3%
118.5
46.9%
632.5
446.8
392.2
54.6
390.1
117.8
14.0%
Dial Chan e Time
Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 10:50
Reading 2: 0.104 0.004 11:05
Reading 3: 0.106 0.006 11:20
Readin 4: 0.106 0.006 9-A r
Expansion Index:
6
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM D 4832-95)
4.7
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
1\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F?article Size Distribution Report
.!i
G
.5
.; . t:! ..5 .5.5
-= .!: ";- ..5... (::!...
<') ~ ;:;; M
;
o
;;;
o 0 0
~ ;: ;;
il
:5 ~ g
,. ;; ~
- - -
I , I'-. I ! I I
I ~ I !
, I
I
I II II I i\ I I ,
I I
I I I ; !
I I
I I I I II I " ! I ! I
, ! , !
i i I , ,
,
, , I
I I I I I ' I IIN I I
, I
i I , ,
, I
,I I i
I I ! I I i
I ,
I I ; I
I
i I I I
I 1\ !
: II II I 1 I I
I I !
I I , I i
! , ,
I I II ! I I I I I
I \ I
I I
i i , I
I I I I I I ' I i I ,
II! I
i , I i I I I
I I
I II Ii I I I I
I I I I i I
Ii I
I I 1
100
90
80
70
oc
UJ 60
Z
u:
f- 50
Z
UJ
()
oc
UJ 40
a.
30
20
10
:0
500
100 10 1 0.1 0.Q1 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm
0/0 GRAVEL % SAND % FINES
CRS~ FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
8.6 42.0 33.1 15.6
% COBBLES
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
PERCENT
FINER.
99.3
93.1
80.3
61.0
36.9
21.9
15.6
I SPEC.'
Ii'ERCENT
Soli DescriDtion
SILTY SAND,BROWN
PASS?
(X=NO)
USGS= SM
Atterbera Limits
LL=
Coefficients
060= 0.583
D1S=
Gc=
Classification
AASHTO=
050= 0.441
D10=
PL=
PI=
085= 1.46
D30= 0.232
Gu=
Remarks
SAMPLE 85 @ 25
CaLL BY MR
CaLL ON 4-7-04
(no specification provided) .
Sample No.: B5 @ 25 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Location: MEADOWS PARKWAY
Date: 4-15-04
Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL ANO GEOTECHNICAL
Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: Tl916-GS
Plate
ltt1/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
n
D
.
.
.
.
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
"
.
.
. . t! ..5 .s.s
~ ~~' ~ ~ s ~
;
o
;
i
000
o . 0
;: . ;
~ ~ ;
I ! I I III .~ I I ! I i
i
I 1 I I I
I , i ! \.. I I
I I I 'i i I I 1
I I , 1 I
I i I ! , \ i
1 , I
1 I I \11 i I I I
I ; i 1
I 1 , I
! i i 1 i : I
i I Ii 1 I I !
I I i i I ! i
I i I I I I
I I I ! III I I I
I I I I
I I i !
I i II I I I , I
! i i
, I
I I 1 ,
I I I ! ! " i i
I I I
I I . i I
I I II i I INJ I
, i II i
I ! ,
1 i , I : I I i !
I , I I
i I 1 I
i I ' : I !
I I i I I i , i ,
1 I
i ! ill I I j
I ! :
i ! i I ! i i ,
100
.90
80
'70
c::
W 60
Z
u::
'1-
I Z 50
.w
()
c::
W 40
Cl.
30
20
10
10
500 100
10
1 O~
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRS. MEDIUM FINE
13.3 42.4 24.7
0.01
0.001
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
CLAY
% FINES
SILT
18.5
I SIEVE PERCENT 'SPEC:
SIZE FINER P.ERCENT
#4 98.9
#8 89.5
#16 70.4
#30 52.1
#50 35.0
1#100 23.2
,#200 18.5
PASS?
(X=NO)
Soli DescriDtion
SILTY SAND,BROWN
PL=
Atterbera Limits
LL= PI=
Coefficients
060= 0.811 050= 0.553
015= 010=
Cc=
Classification
MSHTO=
085= J .95
030= 0.235
Cu=
USCS= SM
Remarks
SAMPLE B5 @ 20
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
(no specification provided)
Sample No,: B5 @ 20 Source of Sample: SIEVE
,Location: MEADOWS P.:\RKW A Y
Date: 4-15-04
Elev.lDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: VENTURE POINT REAL EST ATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro'ect No: TI916-GS
Plate
~
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
D
.
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
.5
~
<
. . ~ ..E .6.5
..E .e ';' ..5:t l::! e
.... N _ _.... ......,
I
o
;;
~ II i
o g ~ 8
i i;i; * ~
I i II I ~ I , I I i I
I i li"~ ! I I I I
I I i I I ,
I I i , , I , !
I ! I I ! 1 I 1 1\ I I I i
i I II
i i I
I I 1 ' ! , I 'i i I I I
I I I I I i
I ! I ! ,
I ! i 1 !
I i I I ! I I
wk I I i I I i 1
I I ! I i I
I I ! ! I I
I :
I ! 1 i i
i i !
I I I I I I I
, I
I I I , I
i I 1\ I ,
i , , , I II I
I I I Iii , 1 I
i I I
i I I I I
i
I I 1 ~ I I
, ! 1 I
, . !
! I I I I , i I
! i ! ! Ii I ,'!~il
,
I I I i ! I Ii I i
I i I I
I i I ,
I
100
90
80
70
0::
W 60
Z
u::
!z 50
W
()
0::
W 40
a.
30
20
10
'0
500 100
10
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRS. MEDIUM FINE
9.6 40.3 41.4
0.Q1
0.001
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRS: FINE
CLAY
% FINES
SILT
7.3
I SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
1#100
'#200
ISPEC:
p'ERCENT
PERCENT
FINER
98.6
91.7
78.3
61.7
34.4
13.3
7.3
PASS?
(X=NO)
Soil Descrlotion
SAND,BROWN
Atterbera Limits
LL=
PL=
PI=
Coefficients
060= 0.570
015= 0.163
Cc= 1.06
050= 0.439
DlO= 0.119 .
085= 1.62
D30= 0.268
Cu= 4.81
uses= SP
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE B5 @ 15
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B5 @ 15 Source of Sample: SIEVE
1 Location: MEADOWS PARKWAY
Date: 4,15-04
ElevJDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: VENTIJRE POINT REAL EST ATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: Tl916-GS
Plate
M
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
R
B
B
n
D
B
I
.
o
: CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
, i"or--,
r...
WATER AIDDED ....,....
......
..
"
'\
'tl
t\~
"I\.
~
,
\
b
2
3
I
1
c
.~
Ci5 ,
c ?
Ql ,
f: ,
Ql
0-
6
7
8
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ks!
10
20
Natural
I Sat. Moist.
129.0 % 5.6 %
Dry Dens.
(pet)
109.2
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Overburden
(ks!)
Pc
(ks!)
0.57
Swell Press.
(ks!)
Swell
%
LL
Cc
PI
Cr
eo
0.Q7
0.515
AASHTO
USCS
SILTY SAND,BROWN
ProJ'ect No, Tl916-GS Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
I .
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
I
I-ocation: MEADOWS PARKWAY
C0NSOLlDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
SM
Remarks:
SAMPLE Bl @ 15
CaLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
Plate
A$
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
:CONSOLlDATION TEST REPORT
:>......
-....~.. t--r--.
- WATER ADDED ...""
-- ...... ~
...
"
.......
" ~
1\1\
1\
~
\.
\.
~
2
3
4
c
'c;;
.~
1i5
iC 5
,Q)
,e
'Q)
,a.
6
7
B
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
Natural
Sat. Moist.
171.4 % 14.5 %
Dry Dens.
(pef)
107.5
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Overburden
(ksf)
Pe
(ksf)
4.43
Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
(ksf) %
0.09 0.538
USCS AASHTO
SM
Remarks:
SAMPLE B 1 @ 20
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
Plate ~Co
LL
PI
SILTY SAND,BROWN
:Project No. TI 916-GS ~lient: VENTIJRE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
:Projeet: MEADOWS VILLAGE
I
,Location: MEADOWS P ARKW A Y
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRQNMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
: CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
I "
.... "'"
WATER ADDED ......
-~
...
i'. ......
I:l..
I'. '"
"
t.,
"
"- "-
'\
2
3
~
c
'm
~
1i5
c 5
.,
<)
~
.,
a.
6
7
8
9
10 ,1
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
.2
.5
I Natural
Sat. Moist.
48.3 % 10.5 %
Pc
(ksf)
0.82
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Swell
%
Dry Dens. LL
(pcf)
103.7
Sp.
Gr.
2.6
Overburden
(ksf)
Cc
Cr
PI
eo
0.06
0565
AASHTO
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
SILlY FINE SAND,BROWN
Project No. T1916-GS : Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
SM
Remarks:
SAMPLE B2 @ 25
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
Location: MEADOWS PARKWAY
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIR0NMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
~'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
: CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
'>---
"'"
, ......
....
WATER ADDED "';>..
..... .....
" "
I~
"
1\
'"
\
r\
,
r-..
1\
Ib
2
3
4
c:
.~
Cii
C 5
(I)
"
~
(I)
a.
6
7
8
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
, Natural
Sat. Moist.
68.6% 11.9%
Dry Dens. LL
(pcf)
113.3
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Overburden
(ksf)
Pc
(ksf)
6.63
Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
(ksf) %
0.09 0.460
USCS AASHTO
SM
Remarks:
SAMPLE B3 @ 10
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
Plate A~
PI
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Project No. TI916,GS ; Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
Location: MEADOWS P ARKW A Y
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
9
,
I
I
~
I
I
2
I
!
,
I
I
3
I
I
f
c I
.~
Ui I
'E 5
Ql
"
~
Ql
Cl.
6
I
I
7
- ....
.... ... i'-
WATER ADDED i'oo",
r-""
\
\
~
\
r\
\
\
1\
\
r\
1\
Ib
I
8
,
,
9
i
10 .1
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
.2
.5
, Natural Dry Dens. ,LL
Sat Moist. (pet)
53.4 % 11.8 % 104.3
Sp. Overburden
Gr. (kst)
2.65
Pc
(kst)
0.55
Swell Press. Swell
(kst) %
Cc
Cr
PI
eo
0.09
0.587
AASHTO
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
SILTY SAND,BROWN
SM
Project No. TI 91 6-GS I Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
Remarks:
SAMPLE B4 @ 15
COLL BY MR
COLLON4-7-04
Location: MEADOWS,PARKWAY
OONSOLlDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIR<i>NMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
~o...
.
I
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
;CONSOLlDA TION TEST REPORT
"-
, .....
r-. ...."..
WATER ADDED ....... .....
"
['\
~
, l\
\
'"
\
\
'\
jb
2
3
4
c
iii
~
Iii
I 5
a.
6
7
8
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
1 Natural
1 Sat. Moist.
120.8 % 4.6 %
Dry Dens. LL
(pcf)
104.7
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Overburden
(ksf)
Pc
(ksf)
6.55
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Swell
%
Cc
Cr
PI
eo
0.08
0.58\
AASHTO
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAND,BROWN
rroject No. T1916-GS ~lient: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
I
!-ocation: MEADOWS P ARKW A Y
C0NSOLlDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
USCS
SP
Remarks:
SAMPLE B4 @ 20
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 4-7-04
Plate
50
.
D
.
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:CONSOLlDATION TEST REPORT
........ .....
r--.....
....... "
...
WATER ADDED I " .....
-.
"....
.........
..
t:l,
,
'\
'\
\
\
\
b
o
2
3
4
c:
'n;
~
ii5
'E 5
<lJ
o
~
<lJ
CL
1
I
8
9
10 .1
2 5
Applied Pressure - kst
10
20
.2
.5
. Natural Dry Dens.
Sat Moist (pet)
65.3 % 10.5 % 115.8
Swell Press. Swell
(ks!) %
Pc
(ks!)
4.27
Sp. Overburden
Gr. (ks!)
2.65
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Cc
Cr
eo
LL
PI
0.08
0,428
AASHTO
USCS
SILTY FINE SAND,BROWN
Project No. T1916-GS i Client: VENTURE POINT REAL ESTATE GROUP
Project: MEADOWS VILLAGE
SM
Remarks:
SAMPLE B4 @ 25
COLL BY MR
COLLON4-7-04
Location: MEADOWS PARKWAY
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
?,\
I
D
D
H
I
H
H
I
n
I
H
H
n
I
I
I
H
R
D
Established 1906
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
Mdress: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA ~2590-5614
Report Date: 22-Apr-2004
Lab Sample #
~4D0789-01
Client Sample ID
BI@0-5
Tl916-GS Venture
Point
Matrix
Soil
Sample Identification
Date Sampled fut
04/09/04 00:00
\" ACCol/
,,<:> 0-1
,'" .pC'
:: <"
'" z
u _
u ~
<< '"
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507'0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (909) 653'3351 FAX (909) 653-1662
www.babcocklabs.com
Analytical Report: Page 1 of 3
Project Name: Engen-Sulfate
Project Number: Purchase Order #2161
Work Order Number: A4D0789
Received on Ice (Y/N): No
Temp:
oc
Date Submitted fut
04/12/04 07:52 Courier
6'V"
U
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Established 1906
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
,Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Report Date: 22-Apr-2004
Sample Description
B1 @ 0-5 T1916-GS Venture P,oint
I
~alvtR(s\
Water Extract
I
Sulfate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside. CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside. CA 92502-0432
PH (909) 653-3351 FAX (909) 653-1662
www.babcocklabs.com
Analytical Report: Page 2 of 3
Project Name: Engen-Sulfate
Project Number: Purchase Order #2161
Work Order Number: A4D0789
Received on Ice (Y IN): No
Temp:
Laboratory Reference Number
A4D0789-01
RAsult
69
Matrix
Soil
RDL Units
10 ppm
\'" ACCOR
,<-'" b..
,-\ -Pc>
",'" '"
'" ~
"
"
..
Sampled Date/Time
04/09/04 00:00
oc
Received Date/Time
04/12/04 7:52
Method Analvsis Date Analvst
Ion Chromat 04/16/04 00:20 KOS
~
I
Flaa
N-SAG,
N-WEX
oS'?
D
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside. CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside. CA 92502-0432
PH (909) 653,3351 FAX (909) 653-1662
www.babcQcklabs.com
Establishad 1906
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Report Date: 22-Apr-2004
Analytical Report: Page 3 of 3
Project Name: Engen-Sulfate
Project Number: Purchase Order #2161
Work Order Number: A4D0789
Received on Ice (Y IN): No
Temp:
oc
Notes and Definitions
i
NiSAG Results reported in ppm are expressed on an air dried soil basis.
N-WEX
I
ND
,
NR
Analyte determined o~ a 1: 1 0 water extract from the sample.
Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit (RDL)
Not Reported
RDL '" Reportable Detection Limit
MDL ~ Method Detection Limit
APproval
E~closed are the analytical results for the submitted sample(s). Babcock Laboratories certify the data presented as part of
this report meet the minimum quality standards in the referenced analytical methods. Any exceptions have been noted.
B~bcock Laboratories and its officers and employees assume no responsibility and make no warranty, express or implied,
felt uses or interpretations made by any recipients, intended or unintended, of this report.
I
:0 .James K. Babcock
President
o Allison Mackenzie
General Manager
U L wrence J. Chrystal
T Laboratory Director
:cc:
,l\ ACCol1
<<.-'V /)..,
<, '"
:: C'<'"'
'" ~
"
" ~
"" ~
Short ESB Report
-SA
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Venture Point Real Estate Group
Project Number: T1916-GS
Appendix Page 7
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
t"
.~':>