HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3752 Lot 25 Geotechnical Study
':~EN
..
,1
j
'iR 31Sz..
LoT 2:S"
CorRoration
.. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . EngiooeringGeology. CompadionTestiog
elnspajions.. Conslruclion Malefials Testing . Laboralol}'Tesling.. PercolalionTesllng
. Geology..WalerResourceSludies . Phase I &11 EnviroflTlefllal SiteAssessmenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
,
i
1
I
I
I
J
lie
I
1
I
J
GEOTECHNICAUGEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Redhawk Pavillion
Assessor's Parcel Number. 959-050-006
Tract 25 of Lot 3752
De Portola Road and Margarita Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 5, 2005
1
j
Prepared for:
al Pacific & Associates, Inc.
41720 Winchester, Suite F
e . I Califomia 92590
.
.
>
.
,
,
:-
,
!
l
.
I
i
j
.
;
j
"
Kal Paclflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
TARL F OF r.ONTFNT!':
:SAction NllmhA-r:~nti TitlA
2age
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................1
2.0
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................2
2.1 Authorization ........ ........... ..... .............. ....... ...... .... ..... .... ... ....... ................ ..... ....... ............. ..2
2.2 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................2
2.3 Previous Site Studies .......................................................................................................2
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................2
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................................3
5.0 FIELD STUDY .......~..................................................................................................................3
6.0
LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................4
6.1 General.......... ....................... ...... .................... ... .................... ................................ .........4
6.2 Classification. ............. ...... ........ .... ........... .......... ..... ......... ............. ........ ....... ......................4
6.3 In~Situ Moisture Content and Density Tesl......................................................................4
6.4 Maximum Dry Density I Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test.........................4
6.5 Direct Shear Test (Remolded) .........................................................................................5
6.6 Expansion Test .................................................................................................................5
6.7 Consolidation T est............................................................................................................5
6.8 Grain Size Distribution Test .............................................................................................6
6.9 Soluble Sulfate Test .........................................................................................................6
6.10 R-Value Test........................................................................................... ..........................6
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................6
7.1 Geologic Setting ...............................................................................................................6
7 .2 Faulting...........................................................................................................................6
7.2.1 Elsinore Fault Zone ...........................................................................................7
7.2.2 San Jacinto Fault Zone .....................................................................................7
7.3 Seismicity .......................................................................................................................... 7
7.4 Earth Materials..................................................................................................................8
7.4.1 Alluvium (Qal) ....................................................................................................8
7.4.2 Pauba Formation Sandstone (Qps)..................................................................9
7.5 Groundwater .....................................................................................................................9
?Ai Liquefaction Evaluation.................................. .......... ........... ........ .............. .................... ...9
7.7 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity .......................................................................... 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 10
8.1 General ........................................................................................................................10
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations.................................................. ....... ......................... ..... 10
8.2.1 General........................................................................................................... 11
8.2.2 Clearing........................................................................................................... 11
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics............................................................................. 11
8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill............................................................ 11
8.2;5 Removal and Recompaction ......................................................................... 12
8.2;6 Fill Placement Requirements......................................................................... 13
8.2.7 Oversize Material............................................................................................ 13
7.0
8.0
C'
EnGEN Corporation
.
!
~
I.
.
~
,
J
I
!
.
I
I
I i.
I
i
J
J
J
.
..
Kal Paclflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
TARI F OF r.ONTENT!': (CnntinIlAcI)
:~,:u'~tinn NllmhAr ~nrt TitlA
2age
8.2.8 Compaction Equipment ................................................................................. 13
8.2.9 Shrinkage and Bulking ................................................................................... 14
8.2.10 Fill Slopes ........................................................................................................ 14
8.2.11 Cut Slopes....................................................................................................... 14
8.2.12 Keyways .......................................................................................................... 15
8.2.13 Subdrains ........................................................................................................ 15
8.2.14 Observation and Testing ................................................................................ 15
8.2.15 Soil Expansion PotentiaJ................................................................................. 15
8.2.16 Soluble Sulfate................................................................................................ 16
8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations........................................................................16
8.3.1 General........................................................................................................... 16
8.3.2 Foundation Size ............................................................................................. 16
8.3.3 Depth of Embedment..................................................................................... 16
8.3.4 Bearing Capacity ............................................................................................ 17
8.3.5 Settiement....................................................................................................... 17
8.3.5.1 Static Settiement............................................................................. 17
8.3.5.2 Dynamic Settiement .......................................................................17
8.3.6 Lateral Capacity.............................................................................................. 17
8.3.7 Seismic Design Parameters .......................................................................... 18
8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations............................................................................... 18
8.4.1 Interior Slabs................................................................................................... 18
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs .................................................................................................19
8.5 Pavement Design Recommendations.......................................................................... 19
8.6 Utility Trench Recommendations.................................................................................. 20
8.7 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations....................................................................... 20
8.8 Planter Recommendations............................................................................................ 21
8.9 Temporary Constnuction Excavation Recommendations ............................................ 21
8.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations ............................................................................... 22
8.10.1 Earth Pressures.............................................................................................. 22
8.10.2 Foundation Design ......................................................................................... 22
8.10.3 Subdrain ......................................................................................................... 23
8.1 0.4. Backfill.............................................................................................................23
9.0 PLAN REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 24
to.O PRE-BID CONFERENCE .......................................................................................................... 24
11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE...............................................................................................24
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING............................................................. 24
13.0 CLOSURE ........ ........................................................................................................................ 25
APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES
TABLE A - DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
QUANTITATIVE LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
\-:: ~; ,'3''''~~1'GEN
!~;~~J'~"~.ll.l!..
. -
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services-EflgineeringGeology_Compacti on Testing
Cornoratl'On -lnspe<:lions.Cons!rllCtionMaterialsTesting_taboratoryTesting.PcroolationTesling
.l-: . Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessnx:nls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
.
December 5, 2005
>
Mr. Don Veasey
Kal'Pacific & Associates, Inc.
41720 Winchester, Suite F
Temecula, Califomia 92590
(951) 506-4400 I FAX (951) 506-2927
-,
"
Attention:
Mr. Don Veasey
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL I GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Redhawk Pavilion
Assessor's Parcel Number: 959-050-006
Lot 25 of Tract 3752
De Portola Road and Margarita Road
City .of T emecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T3459-GS
1
Dear Mr. Veasey:
According to your request and signed authorization, we have performed a Geotechnical/ Geological
Engineering 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 for
rO\lgh grading of the site and design recommendations for foundations, slabs-on-grade, etc., for the
prQposed development. Submitted, herewith, are the results of this firm's findings and
recommendations, along with the supporting data.
[e
.
1.0
EXFr.IITIVF SI IMMARY
i
1
A geotechnical/geological study of the subsurface conditions of the subject site has been
performed for the proposed development. Exploratory excavations have been completed and
earth material samples subjected to laboratory testing. The data has been analyzed with
respect to the project information fumished to us for the proposed development. It is the opinion
of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical/geological standpoint,
provided that the recommendations presented in this report are, implemented in the design and
construction of the project.
,
..
~
1-,
'Ie
.
.
,
t
.
~
;
2.0
, 2.1
!
I 2.2
! Ie
f
;
I
j
,
>
,
J
! Ie
J
2.3
"
Kal Paciflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number:T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 2
The site consists of alluvium overlying Pauba Formation Sandstone. The upper portions of the
alluvium were found to be loose, and should be removed and recompacted. Deeper portions of
the alluvium are subject to settlement due to liquefaction. A unifomn mat of fill should be placed
below the structures in order to mitigate for the effects of settlement due to liquefaction. All
existing structures and debris should be removed from the site.
Grading and foundation plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. When
these plans become available, they should be provided to this office for subsequent review so
that additional recommendations may be prepared, if necessary.
INTROnl ICTION
Authnri7,dinn' This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering and
engineering geology study performed on the subject site for the proposed development.
Authorization to perfomn this study was in the form of a signed proposal.
Sr.t'\pe nf Wnrk' The scope of work performed for this study was designed to detemnine and
evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions within the subject site with respect to its
geotechnical characteristics, and to provide recommendations and criteria for use by the
design engineer 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, 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.
Previn...: Sit!! Studi!!",' No previous geotechnical/geological studies are known by this fimn
to have been perfomned for this site.
3.0 PROPOSFrl nFVFI OPMFNT I PRO.lFr.T nFSCRIPTION
Grading plans were not available for review at the time of this study. The grading plans
should be made available to this office for subsequent review so that additional
recommendations may be prepared, if necessary. It is our understanding that the proposed
development will consist of two single story, and one two story, wood-framed commercial
buildings with slab-on-grade foundations, with associated landscape and hardscape
improvements. The two-story building will have three towers, each three stories in height. It
is assumed that relatively light loads will be imposed on the foundation soils. The foundation
2-
~
EnGEN Corporation
.
<;
~
.
.
.
,
.
.,
J
:.
1
!
!
~
J
.
1
Kal Paciflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 3
loads are not anticipated to exceed 2,000 pounds per lineal foot (plf) 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 perfomned, supplemental evaluation
prepared, and revised recommendations submitted, if required.
4.0
SITF nF!':r.RIPTION
The site consists of approximately 2.5 acre~ located on the east side of Margarita Road and
the south side of De Portola Road, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia.
The site is relatively flat with drainage by sheet flow to the south toward the Temecula Creek,
which lies approximately 1000 ft south of the site. The southem portion of the site is
occupied by a one story single-family residence that had been converted into a retail shop.
The front yard of the house is a concrete parking area, while the backyard has a gazebo and
various concrete slabs and walkways. A small metal garden shed is located on the east side
of the site. The site is surrounded and also bisected by a chain link fence. A low block wall
lies on the west side of the house, along Margarita Road. Mature trees and bushes lie
around the perimeter of the site, and along the fence line which bisects the site. Several
mature trees are located in the front and backyard of the existing house, in addition to the
landscaping around the house.
5.0
FIFI n !':TIJnV
Field reconnaissance and geologic mapping was conducted on November 9, 2005, by our
Field Geologist. A study of the property's subsurface condition was perfomned to evaluate
underlying earth strata and the presence of groundwater. Two (2) exploratory soil borings
were excavated on the study site by Martini Drilling Company utilizing aCME 75 truck-
mounted drill rig, equipped with 7.0-inch outside diameter continuous flight hollow-stem
augers. The maximum depth explored on site was approximately 51.5-feet below the existing
ground surface. Relatively undisturbed ring samples of the earth materials encountered were
obtained at various depths in the exploratory borings. Bulk samples were collected from the
soil borings. All soil samples were subsequently returned to our soils laboratory for
verification of field classifications and testing. Bulk samples were obtained from cuttings
?J
EnGEN Corporation
,
Ie
.,
'Ie
6:2
6.3
6.4
.
j
i
Kal Paclflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 4
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 in
the soil borings were obtained by driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with 1.o-inch high,
2.416-inch inside diameter brass rings. 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 returned to our laboratory for testing. The approximate
locations of the soil borings are denoted on the Geotechnical Site Plan (Plate 1). The
exploratory soil borings were backfilled with soil cuttings.
6.0 I ARORATORY TFSTING
6.1
Gp.np.ral" The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the field investigation are presented in the Geotechnical Boring Logs in the Appendix.
Following is a listing and brief explanation of the laboratory tests 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.
Cla""ifi"atinno The field classification of soil materials encountered in the geotechnical
borings was verified in the laboratory, in general accordance with the Unified Soils
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-00, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures).
In~c;itIlMni"hlrp.r.nntp.nt and np.n,,'ty Tp'"t. The in-situ moisture content and dry density
were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-98 and ASTM D 2937-00
procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The 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.
Ma"imllm nr:y np.n"ity I Optimllm Mni"tllrp. Cnntp.nt Rp.latinn"hip Tp'"t" Maximum dry
density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on samples of
near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-02 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
:
A
EnGEN Corporation
.,
.
.
-.
6,6
"
.
6:7
!
j
,
->
j
.
j
~
Kal Paclflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 5
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
Di..."t Sh..". T..c:t (R..mnld..d)" Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of
near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-03 procedures. The
shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a
1.0-inch high, 2.416-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).
Fxp"nc:inn Tp"t. Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-surface
earth material in general accordance with the Califomia Building Code Standard (CBC 18-2).
In this testing procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch
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 a
saturation of 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.
Cnnc:nlid"tinn T..c:t. 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 2435-03 procedures. The consolidation apparatus is designed to
receive a 1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Porous stones are placed in
contact with the top 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. Water
was added to the test apparatus at various loads to create a submerged condition and to
measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the sample. The resulting change in
sample thickness was recorded.
-5
EnGEN Corporation
.,
, .Ie
'"1
1
I ~
c
r
i
.Ie
,
1
"
j
Ie
;-
6.9
6.10
.
Kat Paciflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 6
6.8
Gr"in !':i7A ni"trihlltinn TA"t. An evaluation was performed on selected representative soil
samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422-63 (2002). This "grain-size" or "sieve
analysis" test method determines the distribution of particle sizes in soils, which allows for the
proper classification according to the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS). In this test
procedure, a weighed sample is processed through multiple sieves designated by their size
generally ranging from a No.4 (0.25-inch) sieve to a No. 100 (0.0059-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 mechanical shaker. The percentage of material passing each sieve is weighed and
recorded with the results plotted in graph form.
SnlllhlA SlIlf"tA. TA"t. Samples of near-surface earth material were obiained for soluble
sulfate testing for the site. The concentration of soluble sulfates was determined in general
conformance with California Test Method 417 procedures.
R-V"IIIA TA"t. An evaluation was performed on a selected representative soil sample in
general accordance with Califomia Test Method 301. 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.
7;0 FNGINFFRING GFOI OGY
7:1
7.2
GAnlngi", !':Atting' The site is located in the Northem 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 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. 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 Section 7.4, Earth Materials, of this report.
F""lting' 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:
~
EnGEN Corporation
:.;jI
~
...
".
I
,
I
I
I
.
I
"
.
J
"
Kal Paclflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 7
.
72.1 FI..innrA F,mlt 7nnA. The Elsinore Fault Zone - Temecula Segment is located
approximately 1.4 kilometers (0.9 miles) south of the site. The Elsinore Fault Zone - Julian
Segment is located approximately 14.5 kilometers (9.0 miles) southeast of the site. The.
Elsinore Fault Zone - Glen Ivy Segment is located approximately 28.8 kilometers (17.9 miles)
northwest of the site. The Elsinore Fault Zone is a prominent and youthful structural
boundary located 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.
g"n .I""intn F,,"lt 7nnA' The San Jacinto Fault - Anza Segment is located approximately
32.9 kilometers (20.4 miles) northwest of the site. The San Jacinto Fault - San Jacinto Valley
Segment is located approximately 33.3 kilometers (20.7 miles) north of the site. The San
Jacinto Fault Zone trends northwest-southeast and is a major right lateral strike-slip fault, that
has displayed surface rupture and associated seismic ground shaking in 1899, 1918, 1923,
1934,1937, 1942, and 1954.
gAi..mir.ity' The project lies within an active area of faulting and seismicity in the Southern
California 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 is shown on Table A in the
Appendix. Based on computer software by Thomas F. Blake (EQSEARCH, Blake 2000b),
the maximum peak ground acceleration experienced at the site since 1800 was
approximately 0.24g from a magnitude 6.8 earthquake located approximately 31.0
kilometers from the site in 1918.
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
1
,
EnGEN Corporation
I
! -
.Ie
,
..
,
Ie
,
t
"
,
J
.Ie
1
J
.:;
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 8
~
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 m1s) was utilized. For a complete discussion of the software and
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 0.7og. The maximum credible peak horizontal acceleration is
the maximum acceleration that appears capable of occurring under the presently
known tectonic framework, and has a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 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.
7.4 F"rth M"t"ri"I<:' A brief description of the earth materials encountered in the exploratory
excavations is presented in the following sections. A more detailed des~ription of th~ earth
materials encountered is presented on the Geotechnical Boring Logs in the Appendix. The
earth material strata as shown on the logs represent the conditions in the actual exploratory
locations and 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; however, the transition may be gradual.
7.4.1 Alluvium (0"1)' Alluvium was exposed across the site. It was encountered to depths of
approximately 29 ft below ground surface (bgs) in boring B2, and 38 ft bgs in B 1. It was
found to consist predominantly of clayey fine-grained sand, with discontinuous interbeds of
poorly graded fine- to medium-grained sand. The poorly graded sand is susceptible to
~
EnGEN Corporation
I .
~
.
.
.
"
.
7.4.2
~
i
.
!
.
"
1
,
i
i
1_
i'
"
.
J
Kal Paclflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 9
liquefaction. Additionally, silty fine-grained sand was encountered at the surface in 81, and
some gravel was encountered at the base of the alluvium in 82. The alluvium was moist to
wet, and loose to dense in-place.
P'lIIha Fnrmatinn San,l<:tnnA (Op!;), Pauba Formation Sandstone constitutes bedrock at
the subject site. It was encountered below the alluvium, to the maximum depth explored,
51.5 ft bgs. It was found to consist of silty fine-grained sand, with scattered interbeds of
poorly graded medium-grained sand. It was found to be moist and dense to very dense in-
place.
7:.5 GrnllndwatAr' Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 25 to 27.5 ft
bgs. Alluvial soils in 81 exhibited indications of past high groundwater at a depth of
approximately 15 to 16 ft bgs. For the purposes of liquefaction evaluation it was assumed
that groundwater could encroach to a depth of 14 ft bgs.
7.6 LiqllAfactinn Fvalllatinn' 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 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-grained 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 laboratory test data indicate that coarse-grained 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 liquefaction 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 greater than 40 to 50-feet below ground surface due to the confining pressure at
:
<\
EnGEN Corporation
~
Ie
"'
,
,Ie
,
~
.
J
ie
j
.
8.0
8.1
.
Kal Paclflc & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 10
that depth. To perform the liquefaction analysis, the computer software L1QUEFY2 (Blake,
1998) was utilized. Some settlement due to liquefaction may occur due to the following
conditions:
· Groundwater was assumed to encroach to a depth of approximately 14 ft bgs.
· Loose, discontinuous beds of poorly graded sand, which will become saturated at the
assumed depth to groundwater, were encountered on site in thicknesses of
approximately 5 to 10ft.
· However, high relative densities and sufficient clay content to guard against liquefaction
(CDMG 1997) were encountered in the majority of the soils below the assumed depth to
groundwater.
Therefore, total settlement due to liquefaction is calculated at 1.4 inches. The differential
settlement is estimated to be half of the total settlement, 0.7 -inches, across 40-feet.
7.7
!':..r.nndal:)! Eff..d.. nf S..i..mir. Adivity. 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. The site is not located near any large confined
bodies of water. Therefore, seismically-induced flooding and earthquake-induced surface
flooding due to seiches is considered low. Due to the distance from the Pacific Ocean, the
probability of a tsunami impacting the site is considered nil. The probability of occurrence
of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, the 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 low topographic relief on site, it
is considered that the potential for earthquake-induced landslides is low.
r.ONr.UISION!': AND RFCOMMFNDATION!':
G..n..ral' 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, and the project description and assumptions presented in Section 3.0,
Proposed DevelopmenUProjecl Description, of this report. Based on the field and
laboratory data and the engineering analysis performed, it is considered that the proposed
EnGEN Corporation
\0
.
-;
-
1
.
,
1_
!
j
J
,
I'
"
.
I
.
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 11
development is feasible from a geotechnical/geological 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 grading, this office should be notified so that EnGEN Corporation can evaluate the
characteristics of the material and, if needed, prepare 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 Farthwnrk R.."nmm..nrlatinn,,'
8.2! 1 G"nAral' 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 an engineered building pad 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 building site and the areas
are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing of the subgrade soil will have
to be perfomned before placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete 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 require.
8.2.2 CI..aring' All debris, refuse, roots, grasses, weeds, brush and other deleterious materials
should be removed from the proposed structure, exterior hardscape and pavement areas, as
well as any areas to receive structural fill before grading is perfomned. No discing or mixing
of organic material into the soils should be perfomned. Man-made objects encountered
should be overexcavated and exported from the site.
8:2.3
E;x"avatinn Charar.tp.ri"ti"". Excavation and trenching within the alluvium is anticipated to
be relatively easy.
8.2.4 !':lIitahilitynf On_emP. Mat..r'a'" a" Fill. In general, the on-site earth materials present are
considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be free of significant amounts of
organic materials and/or debris, Fill materials should not contain rocks greater 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
EnGEN Corporation
\\
.,
I ~
Ie
.
.
1
,
,
.!
lie
;
1
J
J
I
J
lie
I
,
J
,
8.2.5
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 12
grade. Fills deeper than 10-feet may be used for oversize disposal. Oversize disposal of
rocks greater than 12-inches maximum diameter may be conducted in accordance with
Section 8.2.7, Oversize Material, of this report.
RAmnva' and RAr.nmpar:tinno All existing undocumented fills and/or unsuitable, loose, or
disturbed near-surface soil in areas that will support stnuctural fills, stnuctures, exterior
hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.), and pavement should be removed. The grading plans
should be made available for review by this office in order to prepare additional
recommendations, if necessary. The following recommendations are based on field and
laboratory results:
1. Any undocumented fill material to be encountered at the time of grading will require
removal to competent alluvium. Minor undocumented fill may be associated with the
existing house.
2. Removals in the area of the proposed stnuctures should extend to a minimum of 5 ft
below existing grades in fill areas and a minimum of 5 feet below proposed grade in cut
areas. A minimum of 5 ft of fill should exist below all stnuctures in order to mitigate the
minor amount of settlement anticipated due to liquefaction. Removals should extend
beyond the perimeter of the stnuctures a distance equal to the total fill thickness, with a
minimum of 5 ft.
3. Removal bottoms should be tested for competency. A competent removal bottom
should be defined as an undisturbed bottom which is a minimum of 85 percent
compact, and relatively free of pores. Bottoms which are not a minimum of 85
percent compact should be deepened.
Removals in parking, driveway, landscape and hardscape areas should extend to a
minimum of 2.5 feet below existing grades in fill areas and a minimum of 2.5 ft below
proposed grade in cut areas.
All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the Project
Geologist, and/or his representative prior to placement of any fill.
The approved exposed bottoms of all removal 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. Maximum dry density and optimum
4.
5.
6.
~
\Z-
EnGEN Corporation
.
,
Ie
.
1
i
4
i
1
.
I
j
I'.
, I
I
,
J
I
,
i
,
~
.
.J
,
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 13
moisture content for compacted materials should be detemnined in accordance with
ASTM D 1557-02 procedures.
7. Geologic contacts as shown on the attached site plan are approximate. Final
determination of removal and overexcavation depths should be made during grading.
8. If import material is planned to be used, this fimn should be notified immediately to
perform additional testing and provide further recommendations, as necessary.
8.2.6 Fill Pla"AmAnt RAqlli'AmAnt<:. 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, of this report. Import fill
should be no more expansive than the existing on-site material. Approved fill material should
be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-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 thoroughly mixed to ensure unifomnity 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 detemnined in
accordance with ASTM D 1557-02 procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not
vary more than 2.0 percent from optimum, unless approved the Project Geotechnical
Engineer.
8.2.7
OVA.<:i7A MatA.i,," Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a
dimension 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
Geotechnical 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). A1temative 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 Cnmpadinn FqllipmAnt. 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 itself, may not be sufficient.
;
\2>
EnGEN Corporation
Ie
~
:.
"
.
.
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 14
Adequate water trucks, water pulls. and/or other suitable equipment should be available to
provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The actual selection of equipment 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 Shrink"'g~' ",nd Rulking' There will be a material loss due to the clearing and grubbing
operations. Shrinkage of alluvium (Qal) that is excavated and replaced as compacted fill
should be anticipated. It is estimated that the average shrinkage of these materials will be on
the order of 10 to 15 percent, based on fill volumes when compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction. A higher relative compaction would mean a larger shrinkage
value.
8.2.10 Fill Slnp""" 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 1557-02 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 backrolled with suitable 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, over-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
exposed the dense inner core of the slope surface.
8.2.11 Cut Slnp""" All cut slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical).
Steeper cut slopes will require slope stability analysis to verify stability. 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.
'A
EnGEN Corporation
I.
,
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 15
8.2.12 Kp,yw'lY'" A keyway excavated into competent native earth materials should be constructed
at the toe of all fill slopes that are proposed on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper. Keyways should be a minimum of 15-feet wide (equipment width) and tilted a
minimum of 2 percent into the hillside. A series of level benches should be constructed into
competent native earth materials on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper
prior to placing fill.
. 8.2:13 Suhdrain,,' Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, final
recommendations should be made during grading by the Project Engineering Geologist.
j
:.
.
.
j
8.2: 14 Oh"ervatinn and Te"ting' During grading, observation and testing should be conducted by
the Project Geotechnical 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 fill 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
results of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal Finish Grading
Report 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 F>:pan"lnn Pntentia" Upon completion of fine grading of the building pad, near-
surface samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to identify the
expansion potential for each lot and assign appropriate foundation and slab-on-grade
recommendations for construction. Our Expansion Index (EI) testing on-site indicates a
soil expansivity of EI=O, which is classified as having a very low expansion potential.
However, the alluvium is comprised predominantly of clayey sand. There may be a
\-)
c
EnGEN Corporation
-"
Ie
,
.
,
!
".
. 1
J
.
,
"
.
j
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 16
sufficient amount of expansive clay present that mixing of these soils during grading could
affect the overall EI of the fill. If selective grading is desired in order to ensure that
expansive soils are not used near pad grade, this option should be discussed with this firm
and the grading contractor prior to grading the site. Final foundation design parameters
should be based on EI testing of near-surface soils and be performed at the
conclusion of rough grading.
8.2.16 Snlllhlp. !':lIlfatp.' The test results indicate a negligible percentage of water-soluble sulfates
(less than 0.001% by weight). As a result, Type II cement may be used in contact with the
on-site soils.
8.3 Fnllnrl;:ltinn np-~ign Rp-~nmmp.nti:!ltinn!l;'
8.3.1 Gp.nP.ral' Foundations for the proposed structures may consist of conventional column
footings and continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill, as recommended
in Section 8.2, the Earthwork Recommendations, of this report. 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 actual footing width and depth to resist design
vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces.
8~3;2 Fnllndatinn Si7P.' Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-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 minimum
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 the garage, doorways, or any other types of perimeter
openings.
8.3.3 Dp.pth nf Fmhp.dmp.nt. Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill
should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for one
EnGEN Corporation
Vi>
"
I.
,
,
:i.
j
i
J
Ie
J
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 17
story structures, two story structures, and the three story tower structures. Deeper footings
may be necessary for expansive soils purposes, depending on the final determination of pad
specific expansive potential.
8.3.4
Bearing Capacity. Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project 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.
8.3.5.1 Stati" Settlement. Footings 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 0.50-inch in properly compacted fill
under static load conditions.
8.3;5.2 nynami" Settlement
Total settlement due to liquefaction is calculated at 1.4 inches. The differential settlement is
estimated to be half of the total settlement, 0.7 inches, across 40-feet.
8'.3;6 I aterai C'Ipa"ity. Additional foundation design parameters for resistance to static lateral
forces are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive
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. 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
\I
EnGEN Corporation
.
,
.
~
j
.
I
:.
I
,
.
J
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 18
resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete
slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the
recommended design value.
8.3.7
S..;..mir: n"";gn Param..tI>r..' The following seismic design factors apply:
Design Fault: Elsinore Fault - Temecula Segment
Fault Type: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Fault: less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: So
8.4
Slab-nn-Gra".. R.."nmm..n"atinn..' The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior
and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the expansion potential for 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 is
recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in
accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures.
8.4! 1 Int..rinr !':Iab... Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal
in thickness 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
determined by the Project Structural Engineer. Final pad identification and slab construction
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.
\€,
;
EnGEN Corporation
I ~
I ,
.:.
?
'.
i
j
.
J
.
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 19
8.4.2
FrlArinr Slab". 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 should 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 according to the current local standards.
8.5 PaVAmAnt nA"ign RAr.nmmAnrlatinn,,' 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 detemnined in general
accordance with Green Book design procedures and is based on an assumed Traffic Index
(TI) and an assumed R-Value of 68, which corresponds to the test results from B-2 at 0 to 5-
feet: The R-Value of any imported fill material may vary from the assumed value thereby
changing the proposed pavement section design.
The sections listed below are provided for reference purposes and are calculated as a
minimum based on varying Traffic Indexes:
Traffic Calculated Section
Index
3-inches Asphaltic Concrete over 4-inches Aggregate Base, placed
5.0- on 90-percent compacted subgrade or an equivalent minimum of 6-
6.0 inches of Portland Cement Concrete with a compressive strength of
3,500 psi at 28 days.
Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Sections 203-6 of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or an approved
equivalent. Aggregate base should confomn to 3/4-inch crushed aggregate base as
specified in Section 200-2.2 of Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(Green Book) or an approved equivalent. The subgrade soil, including utility trench backfill,
should be .compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. 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
detemnined according to ASTM D 1557-02 procedures. If pavement subgrade soils are
prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved
c
\'\,
EnGEN Corporation
I.
;
8.6
I.
8.7
J
I.
J
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 20
immediately, additional observations and testing will have to be performed before placing
aggregate base material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC pavement to locate areas that may have
been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and
drying. In the proposed pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at the time the
subgrade is graded for R-Value testing according to California Test Method 301 procedures
to verify the pavement design recommendations.
IItility TrAnr.h Rp.r.nmmp.nd,dinn,,' Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, exterior hardscape, and/or pavement areas should
be backfilled 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
designed 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 be 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 Project Geotechnical Engineer.
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill material should be
determined according to ASTM D 1557-02 procedures.
Fini"h I nt nrainllgp. Rp.r.nmmp.ndatinn,,' 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
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 4.0
percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum distance of 3.0-feet and a
'2P
EnGEN Corporation
...,
.~I.
.
I.
J
~
r
t
,
.
!
J
:.
I
1
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 21
minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-erosive 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 there is positive drainage away from the structure
at a minimum gradient of 2.0 percent, directed onto a pemnanent all-weather surface or
subdrain system.
8.8
PI"nt", R"cnmm"nd"tinn,,' 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.
8.9
T"mpn'''1:Y r.nn"trudinn Fyc"v"tinn R"cnmm"nd"tinn,,' Temporary construction
excavations for rough 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
Compacted Fill and Alluvium
Inclination
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
that our recommendations 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,
and/or their representative. Deep utility trenches may experience caving which will require
special considerations to stabilize the walls and 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
'2-\
EnGEN Corporation
.,
"!
.
~
~
.
,
.
i
~
f
~
1
,.
,
i
i
:.
I
. ,
j
,
-'
,
J
,.
J
,
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 22
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 Construction 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 Califomia, engaged by the contractor at
his expense, should be submitted 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 Structur<;ll Engineer in the State of Califomia. The contractor should not
proceed with any excavations until the project owner or his designated representative has
received and acknowledged the properly prepared excavation safety drawings.
8.10 RAtaining'W,'" RAr.nmmAndatinn,,'
8.10.1 Farth PrA",,"rA'" 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:
Cnnrfitinn
LAVAl Bar.kfi II
2'1 SlnpA
45 pcf
Active
At Rest
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 assumed 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,
acting on the backfill behind the wall or directly on the wall should also be considered in the
design.
8.10.2 Fnllndatinn nA"'gn' Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into
properly compacted fill 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
<'
1.-7.-
EnGEN Corporation
i~
.
~
~
1
l.
j
1
I
1
.
J
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 23
lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used. If
ultimate values are used for design, an approximate factor of safety of 1.5 should be
achieved.
8.10.3 SlIhrlr"in" A subdrain 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.
8110.4 R""kfill' 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 such 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 directiy 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 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 in accordance with ASTM D 1557-02 procedures.
c
Z2>
EnGEN Corporation
,
1-,
Ie
"'
.
,
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 24
.
9.0
PI AN RFVIFW
Final grading plans for the proposed development should 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 PRF-RID CONFFRFNCF
~
!
1
,
,
1
II.
1
,
;
J
Ie
J
It may be desirable to hold a pre-bid conference with the owner or an authorized
representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical
Engineer, and the proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in
the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the grading and construction
requirements of the project.
11.0 PRF-GRADlNG r.ONFFRFNr.F
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
r.ON!':TRllr.TION OR!':FRV A TION!': AND TF!':T1Nr.
Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and
testing perfonmed by EnGEN Corporation. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to,
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill
slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations.
Observations should be made before installation of concrete fonms 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 perfonmed by EnGEN Corporation. If the
,
2--"
EnGEN Corporation
,
:.
,
13.0
I.
.1
j
i
-'
:.
j
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 25
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 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 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. The Project
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.
CIOSIJRF
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document. It mayor 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
recommendations 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 ~~tain
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
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
c
,-
Z::>
EnGEN Corporation
,.
I ~ -
I
:.
..,
-;
I.
j
J
.J
-;
II.
j
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
December 2005
Page 26
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 performance 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 this 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.
CM/OB:sa
~~
Presid t .
Expir s 09-30-07
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\GS\T3459-GS Kal Pacific & Associates, Redhawk Pavilion
zJ,
EnGEN Corporation
,.
;-~
'I.
.,
,
1
APPENDIX
"
"1
t
-
I
>
!
i
,
1
..
j
II.
,
1
1
J
!
j
I
J
I.
J
,.
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 1
2-1
< .
EnGEN Corporation
Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L., 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral
Spread, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April 1995.
Blake, T.F., 1998, UQUEFY2, Version 1.50, A Computer Program for the Empirical
Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.
Blake, T. F., 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.
Blake, T. F., 2000b, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Califomia Historical Earthquake Catalogs.
Blake, TiF., 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the
Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Unifomn Hazard Spectra Using 3-D
Faults as Earthquake Sources.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Westem North American Earthquakes: A
Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1, pp. 128-153.
Califomia Building Code (CBC), 2001 Edition, 3 Volumes.
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1990, Special Studies Zones,
Pechanga Quadrangle, Revised Official Map, Effective January 1, 1990.
9. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
.
,4.
!5.
,
'6.
f
~
.7.
:8.
>.
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 2
TFCHNIr.AI RFFFRFNr.FS
1.
2.
3.
'10. 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.
! 11. County of Riverside, 2003a, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Mapped Faulting in Riverside County: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
generalylan/gen ylan.
County of Riverside, 2003b, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Earthquake Fault Zones: http://www.rcip.org/documents/generalylan/
genylan.
County of Riverside, 2003c, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Generalized Liquefaction: http://www.rcip.org/documents/generalylan/
genylan.
14. County of Riverside, 2003d, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element- Earthquake-Induced Slope Stability Map: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
generalylan/genylan.
,12.
;
13.
1
.
J
1/i>
:
EnGEN Corporation
I.,
1.1.
15.
16.
~
17.
,
118.
..
119.
:1.
20.
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 3
TFr.HNIr.AI RFFFRFNr.FS (Cnntin",.d)
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 California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
pages.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in
Southern Riverside County, Califomia: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology Special
Report 131,12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1998, Maps of Known
Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portion of Nevada - To be
Used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code: Prepared by the California Division of Mines
and Geology.
Morton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southem California, Version 1.0, United States Geological Survey, Open File
Report 99-172.
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, WA, 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 for the State of Califomia, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open
File Report 96-706.
Pradel, D.E. 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy
Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No.4, April
1998.
21. Seed, HB. 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, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records.
22. State of Califomia Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
23. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of
Settlements in Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
24. Unifomn Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by Intemational Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
25. Vaughan, Patrick R., Thorup, Kimberly M. and Rockwell, Thomas K., 1999,
Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua Tibia Mountain, Southem Califomia,
Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America, Volume 89, No.6, pg. 1447-1457,
December 1999.
I.
I
i
,
z.<\
EnGEN Cnrporation
.
.
.
,
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 4
TARLE A
IlISTANCF TO !':TATF nFSIGNATFn Ar.TIVF FAIII TS
ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM
DISTANCE EARTHQUAKE
FAULT NAME Mi IKm\ MAG IMw\
, Elsinore - Temecula 0.9 1.4 6.8
: Elsinore - Julian 9.0 14.5 7.1
. Elsinore - Glen Ivy 17.9 28.8 6.8
San Jacinto - Anza 20.4 32.9 7.2
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley 20.7 33.3 6.9
Newport - In(Jlewood (Offshore) 28.8 46.4 6.9
. Rose Canyon 30.7 49.4 6.9
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 34.3 55.2 6.8
Chino - Central Ave. (Eisinore) 35.8 57.6 6.7
Earthquake Valley 36.6 58.9 6.5
San Jacinto - San Bernardino 37.7 60.6 6.7
San Andreas - Southem 38.5 61.9 7.4
San Andreas - San Bemardino 38.5 61.9 7.3
Whittier 40.0 64.4 6.8
Pinto Mountain 45.3 72.9 7.0
Coronado Bank 46.0 74.1 7.4
San Andreas - Coachella 47.4 76.3 7.1
Newport - In(Jlewood (L.A. Basin) 48.1 77.4 6.9
Palos Verdes 50.1 80.7 7.1
Cucamon(Ja 52.0 83.7 7.0
North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 52.2 84.0 7.0
Humt Mountain 52.6 84.6 6.4
Elysian Park Thrust 53.0 85.3 6.7
North Frontal Faull Zone (East) 53.7 86.5 6.7
Compton Thrust 54.7 88.0 6.8
San Jose 55.1 88.6 6.5
Cle(Jhorn 55.4 89.1 6.5
Eureka Peak 55.4 89.2 6.4
Elsinore - Coyote Mountain 55.7 89.7 6.8
San Jacinto - BorreQo 55.9 90.0 6.6
Sierra Madre 57.4 92.4 7.0
Landers 61.3 98.7 7.3
']>0
EnGEN Corporation
.,
i
;
~ ;
I.
~
I
j
"
,
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
(8-1 through B-2)
1
1
1
1
J
1-
]
1
j
j
]
J
]
J
..
j
]
}*~~~.' -
.'~~:~..;:.
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 5
EnGEN Corporation
2:>\
.
GEOTECHNICAL BORiNG LOG
. Project Number: T3459-GS Project: Kal Pacific
Boring Number: B-1 Surface Elevation:
1
Date: 11/9/05 Logged By: eM
. ~ In-Situ Optimum
Soil Description c. Sample USeS Blow Count Dry Moisture Maximum Moisture
Graphic E Depth Density Density
. Content Content
'"
"1 : ALLUVIUM IOall 0 SM
! .
Silty fine-grained sand with a few clay. light yellowish SM 5-7-7 125.6 g.g
brown (1 OYR 6/4). moist. medium dense.
Clayey fin"ilrained sand with a few silt, light 9ray 5 SC 5-5-5 3.1 125.6 9.9
::. ::. :: . :: (1 OYR 7/2), moist. medium dense.
SC 4-5-6
. ..... Medium-grained sand with a trace clay, light gray 10 SP 3-4-5 3.1
'.:::: '.:: (10YR 7/2), moist,locse.
........
........
;; :: : Medium-grained sand with a trace clay, light brownish ~ 15 SP 3-4-4 5.7
'.::;: ';': gray (10YR 6/2). moist, loose, mottled.
.
........
.. .... .. ." Clayey fin"ilrained sand with a few silt, light yellowish ~ 20 SC 3-4-5 15.5
:: -:: -:: -:: brown (1 OYR 6/4) moist, loose.
.
1
:: . ::. ::. :: Pale brown (1 OYR 6/3). wet. medium dense, mottled.
25
SC
2-4-6
20.1
>
I
::.::.::.:: Clayey fine- to medium-grained sand with some silt.
::-::-::-:: Iight.yellowlsh brown (10YR 6/4). wet, medium dense.
30
SC
7-9-12
17.9
1
I
J
. . ". ". .. Clayey fine-grained sand with some silt, light yellowish
.. . .. ." brown (1 OYR 6/4). moist. medium dense.
35
sC
5-5-6
21.0
Notes:
J
EnGEN Corporation
, .
?;t.--
-.,
i
I,
I '.
"
.
,
. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T3459-GS Project: Kal Pacific
Bo ring Number: B-1 Surface Elevation:
Da te: 11/9/05 Logged By: eM
~ In-Sltu Optimum
Soil 15. Sample Dry Maximum
Description E uses Blow Count Moisture Moisture
Gra phic m Depth Density Content Density Content
UJ
t\
.9' 'l".,t.
BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Oos) SM
Silty fine- to mediulTI-9rained sand, very pale brown 40 8M 14-29-29
(10YR 8/3). wet. very dense. 1'-
Dense. 45 SM 10-16-20
I~
Gray (1 OYR 6/1). wet, dense. 50 8M 5-10-22
I Total depth 51.5-feet bgs. '-
Groundwater enccuntered at 25-feet bgs.
-55
-60
.. -_._----- .. . - --
65
70
I
Notes: ~~
EnGEN Co oration -;"
rp
~
1
~
1
J
I
i
.
I
I
1
I
1
)
1
J
J
j
"
".JI,
~
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T3459-GS
Boring Number: B-2
Date: 11-9-05
Project: Kal Pacific
Surface Elevation:
Logged By: eM
~
Soil
Graphic
Description
~
a. Sample
~ Depth
U1
uses
Blow Count
Dry
Density
In-Situ
Moisture
Content
Maximum
Density
Optlmum
Moisture
Content
-, ALLUVIUM (Oal) 0 SP
. .....
......
. . '. .. Medium-grained sand. very pale brown (10YR 7/4), 1 SP B-7-7 109.3 5.2
........ moist. loose.
.....:....... Clayeyfine-grained sand with a few silt. brown (10YR41 5 SC 3-7-8 115.0 11.3
........... 3). moist. medium dense.
Pale brown (10YR 6/5), moist. .medium dense. slightly SC B-8-13 118.1 10.4
::-::.::-:: porous.
1 10 SC 5-7-12 114.5 16.4
. :; :': .; Fine- to medium-grained sand. very pale brown (10YR
'.:,:: '.:, 7/3). moist. medium dense.
115
SP
9-12-17
113.4
3.5
Clayey fine-grained sand wit a few silt,
3). moist. medium dense.
brown (1 OYR 5/1 20
SC
4-5-10
99.2
20.0
. .. .... Clayey fine-grained sand with a few silt, light yellowish 25 SC 5-16-48 116.4 13.9
j -::.::-::-: brown (10YR 6/4), moist. very dense. 2-inch diameter
1 '.:'.:'.:.. rock fragment in shoe.
.1
: : : : : : BEDROCK - PAUBA FORMATION (Oos) SM
~
Silty fine-grained sandstone, light yellowish brown (2.5 1 30 SM 9-19-33 109.8 18.9
I 6/3), moist. dense. mottled.
,
I
J : : : : : : Pale brown (1 OYR 6/3). moist. dense. mottled. I 35 sM 11-26-43 117.0 13.6
Notes: ;A
EnGEN Corporation /
J
'"
,
i
. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
I Project' Number: T3459-GS Project: Kal Pacific
Bo ring Number: B-2 Surface Elevation:
Da te: 11-9-05 Logged By: eM
"
Soil ~ Sample In-Situ Maximum Optimum
0. Dry
Description E uses Blow Count Moisture Moisture
Gra phic ~ Depth Density Content Density Content
<J)
.. . ...
. .. ... Medium-grained sandstone. pale brown (10YR 7/3), I 40 15-38-50 for 4"
. .. .. . SP 12.4 12.4
..' ~ .:".': wet, very dense, heaving sands.
. ..
"'r Total depth 41.5-feet bgs.
Groundwater encountered at 27.5-feet bgs.
1-45
I
f-50
I
~55
'-60
..- -- -- ---- --
f-65
>-70
I
Notes: ?>?
EnGEN Corporation < .
"=l
i
l
'i
j
"
1
J
1
I
I
I
,
!
I
j
I
1
J
J
J
..
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Symbo:J.
Description
~ Strata symbols
,
~I.~
1 1llilliillW
J
.~
I ....
~Lill
j Misc.
; T
J -A--
;1.1
j ~
'>
,
,
Silty sand
'Clayey sand
: Poorly graded sand
: Symbol s
!Bottom of excavation
!Boring continues
'Water table during
. drilling
Soil Samplers
~Standard penetration test
I'california sampler
.
.
1
1
-
Notes:
1. Bori~gs were excavated on 11/9/05 utilizing a CME-75 truck mounted drill rig
equipped with 7.0-inch diameter continuous flight augers.
ieGrounwater
3. Excavation
was encountered at the t~e of excavation at the depths shown.
locations were based on existing features.
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
-rio, recollllllei:Ldations :in this report.
?P
-~.;~1i~~#i:-:~^~.;:~f <
,. ....,.:.',..~
"
~
I \
~,
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 6
~i.
j
QUANTITATIVE LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
,
.
'1
j
1
.:t
.
!
I
1
]
Ii.
...
l
i
J
1
,
j
)
J
j
1
J
,i.
J
J
:Ci:._'..C_
~":.",,.
EnGEN Corporation
2>'\
,
'.1.
I i
.
-.
.
~
.
.
.
,
,
.
J
,
~
I
J
.
j
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 7
POTFNTIAt SFTTLFMFNT DUE TO tlOIlFFACTiON CAt em ATIONS
BORING NO 1
Layer Depth SPT (N1)6o FS Ev% Layer .dH
No. Range (ft) (field) Thickness (ft) (inches)
Greater Non-
1 0-9 11 27 than 1.5 liquefiable 9 0
(H2<l)
Greater Non-
,2 9-14 9 15 than 1.5 liquefiable 5 0
(H2O)
.3 14-18 8 13 0.4 2.9 4 1.4
Greater Non-
:4 18-23 9 22 than 1.5 liquefiable 5 0
(clay)
Greater Non-
5 23-28 10 22 than 1.5 liquefiable 5 0
(clay)
Greater Non-
6 28-33 21 35 than 1.5 liquefiable 5 0
(density)
Greater Non-
7 33-38 11 23 liquefiable 5 0
- - - than 1.5 (clay) - -
Total AH = 1.4-inches
Differential AH = 0.7 -Inches
. Non-Liquefiable (H20) = Non-Liquefiable due to lack of groundwater
. Non-Liquefiable (clay) = Non-Liquefiable due to clay content in excess of 15 percent
. Non-Liquefiable (density) = Non-Liquefiable due to high relative densities, (N,loo greater than 30.
. Groundwater set at 14-feet bgs
. Earthquake Magnitude (M)w= 6.8
. Horizontal Ground Acceleration (probabilistic method)= o.7og
c
EnGEN Corporation
~
'.
I '
J.
~
;;
~,
"i
.~
j
~
!
.,
;
1
J
'.
j I
1
,
,
.
I
I
J
,
j
j
]
.
,
j
J
. .1, _~.-''-o:;,.~",t.::;.~.;,
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
. ~.
,.
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 8
~
EnGEN Corporation
..,
I.
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
\
,
\
\
\
... I"'--. 1\
I '\
I , \
I \ \
, I 1\
1
J \ \
I 1\
~ \ \
,
\ \
'\
I. \
\
1\
\
129
127
1125
t;
a.
;i-
'0;
c
(I)
"0
~
o
, 123
.
~
!
'I.
,
I
j
I
I
.
i
,
.
J
121
119
5
ZAVfor
Sp.G. =
2.57
17
7
9
11
Water content, %
13
15
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-02 Method A Modified
Elev/
D!lpth
Classification
USCS AASHTO
Nal
Moist
%>
No.4
%<
No.200
Sp.G.
LL
PI
SM
2.9
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 125.6 pef
Optimum moisture = 9.9 %
Project No. T3459-GS Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHAWKPAVlLLION
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY FINE SAND, BROWN
Remarks:
BI @ 0-5
COLLECIED BY CM
COLLECIED ON (11/9/05)
. Location: MARGARITAlDE PORTOLA
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Figure
'W
.
-,.
1
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number: T3459-GS
Job Name: KAL PACIFIC
Location: MARGARITNDE PORTOLA
Sample Source: B1 @ 0-5
Sampled by: CM (11/9/05)
Lab Technician: AJ
Sample Descr: SILTY FINE SAND, BROWN
.:':;'.:'!.'.;'fJff,lr
'i.
-
.
~
, Wet Compacted WI.: 588.7
>
Ring WI.: 193.0
Net Wet WI.: 395.7
Wet IDensity: 119.5
Wet Soil: 221.3
Dry Soil: 202.8
Initial Moisture (%): 9.1%
Initial Dry Density: 109.5
I % Saturation: 45.7%
Final WI. & Ring WI.: 610.2
! . Net Final WI.: 417.2
l
, Dry WI.: 362.6
.
Loss: 54.6
Net Dry WI.: 359.6
Final IDensity: 108.6
Saturated Moisture: 15.2%
Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 2:05
Reading 2: 0.098 -0.002 2:20
Reading 3: 0.097 -0.003 2:35
Reading 4: 0.096 -0.004 14-Nov
Dial
Change
Time
Expansion index: 0
Adjusted Index: 0.0
(UBe 18-2)
,
.
,
j
.
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(951) 296-2230
Fax: (951) 296-2237
I
1
'.'
A.,\
J
>
6000
. tt
4000
-
"'-
a.",
. via.
'" .
",'"
,:, '"
U)~
,,(I)
;: 1Uta 2000
.S '"
I "'0-
:J
Peak Ultimate
; 225 0
42 40
0 0.91 0.83
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
.
, Normal Stress, pst
; 6000 Sample No. 1 .2 3
. Water Content, % 10.8 10.8 10.8
5000 Dry Density, pet 112.9 112.9 112.9
f .. Saturation, % 65.7 65.7 65.7
E
4000 5 Void Ratio 0.4209 0.4209 0.4209
-
'"
. a. Diameter, in. 2.42 2.42 2.42
~ . <Ii
'" Hei ht in. 1.00 1.00 1.00
e
1i5 3000 Water Content. % N/A N/A N/A
~
'" Dry Density, pct
'" 3 U)
.c
(I) 2000 "'. Saturation, %
I-
2 ~ Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
1000 1 Hei ht in.
Normal Stress, psf 1000 2000 3000
0 Peak Stress. psf 1144 2044 2974
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Displacement, in. 0.Q7 0.Q7 0.10
Hofiz. Displ.. in. Ultimate Stress. psf 978 1780 2357
I Displacement, in. 0.20 020 0.23
Strain rate, in.lmin. 0.20 0.20 0.20
Sample Type: REMOLDED Client KAL PACIFIC
! Description: SILTY FINE SAND, BROWN
j Project: REDHA WK P A VlLLION
Specific Gravity= 2.57 Source of Sample: SHEAR
Remarks: COLLECTED BY CM Sample Number: B1 @0-5
! COLLECTED ON (11/9/05) Proj. No.: T3459-GS Date: 11/16/05
j DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Az...
Figure ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Tested By: AJ Checked By: JH :
J
R-V ALUE TEST REPORT
lOll
80
I"- .......... r--...
~ "-
~
~ '"
'\.
..
~
~
~
tLLL, L1.'[ " I" " [ [ LI [ LL ' , " , "" [ [ II 1[[[ "" , [ " [[ I [ " [
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
.
60
'"
OJ
Iii
>
~
40
20
o
800
.
Exudation Pressure - psi
, Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure- Cal Test 301
Compact Density Moist Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R R
No. Pressure Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value
pet % . Value
si psi 160 psi in. si Corr.
300 124.7 10.6 .0.00 64 2.57 167 47 49
2' 320 125.1 9.6 0.61 39 2.54 282 66 66
,
31 350 127.0 8.7 1.82 31 2.46 388 74 74
Test Results
Material Description
; R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 68
SILTY SAND, BROWN
-
:Project No.: 1'3459.oS
:Project:REDHA WK P A VlLLlON
:Source of Sample: R- VALUE
Sample Number: B2 @ 0-5
Date: 11/16/2005
Tested by: SW
Checked by: ill
Remarks:
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (11/9/05)
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
4.'?::>
Figure 1
I
J
"'!
~
;.
"
j
,~
i
]
I
t
I
1
]
1.
""'
!
.,
~,
J
J
1
..
i
'J
.
i
J
j
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
:Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Report Date: 21-Nov-2005
Lab Sample # Client Sample ID
A5K1403-01
Project# T3459-GS
/ B2@0-5 Kal
Pacific
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 653-1662
www.babcocldab.s.com
Analytical Report: Page 1 of 3
Project Name: Engen - Sulfate
Project Number: Purchase Order #2876
Work Order Number. A5K1403
Received on Ice (YIN): No
Temp:
OC
Sample Identification
Matrix Date Sampled fu
Soil
11/11/0500:00
,II ACCO~
",'" /)-1
," +0
~~. (t">
'" ~
"
"
-<
,
Date Submitted fu
11/15/05 09:55 Courier
~
...
%
'.
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside. CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 653-1662
www.babcocklabs.com
'"
~
_1906
~
I
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Report Date: 21-Nov-2005
Analytical Report: Page 2 of 3
Project Name: Engen - Sulfate
Project Number: Purchase Order #2876
Work Order Number: A5K1403
"
1
,
"
Received on Ice (Y /N): No
Temp:
oc
Laboratory Reference Number
A5K1403-01
,
Sample Description
Project# T3459-GS / B2@0-5 .
Kal Pacific
Matrix
Soil
Sampled DatefTime
11/11/0500:00
Received DatefTime
11/15/05 9:55
,
Analyte(s)
Result RDL
Units
Method Analysis Date Analyst Flag
1.
.!
Water Extract
Sulfate
ND
10
ppm
Ion Chroma!.
11/17/0521:34 CTHN-SAG.
N_WEX
1.
J
J
1
J
J
.
j
\~ ^CCo~
'<~ ()-t
," +"
.:;> '"
... "
"
"
.<
A,-)
j
~ .
...
~
'"
NELAP #02101CAELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court, Riverside, CA 92507..Q704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-D432
PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 653-1662
www.babcocklabS.com
I q
'1.
, ....
..........'906
~:.;.
""
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
1 Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Report Date: 21-Nov-2005
Analytical Report: Page 3 of 3
Project Name: Engen - Sulfate
Project Number: Purchase Order #2876
Work Order Number: A5K1403
,
1
i
Received on Ice (Y IN): No
Temp:
oc
-
i Notes and Definitions
.l
N_WEX Analytedetermined on a 1:10 water extract from the sample.
.,
N-SAG
ND
NR
Results reported in ppm are expressed on an air dried soil basis.
Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit (RDL)
Not Reported
~
.
j
]
J I. RDL;" Reportable Detection Limit
MOL = Method Detection Limit
j;
1
;
]
ApRrolo'~L____u .
Enclosed 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.
Babcock Laboratories and its officers and employees assume no responsibility and make no warranty, express or implied,
for uses or interpretations made by any recipients, intended or unintended, of this report.
1
J
,0 James K. Babcock
President
o Allison Mackenzie
General Manager
J~ c/yi}'
9:1 La2ce J. chrystal'
Laboratory Director
.,
..;0.; .~..c
\~ Accol/
-.<> 0-1
,'" +(;l
~ '"
'" ~
"
U
.". -"
Short ESB Report A,Co
I
..
cc:
C'
j
.
.
-"
, c:
'[i!
Ci5
"C'
'"
e
'"
c..
1
;.
,
I
j
f
.J
1
j
J
.
j
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
- ... r--
1
2
........
" 1::1.
I"
3
"'
~ 1\
4
'\
f\
5 fb
6
7
8
9
i
,
,
I
I
0
1 .1
.2
.5
1.
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
Overburden Pc
(ksf) (ksf)
0.95
5
10 20
, Natural
Sat. . Moist.
26.7 % 5.2 %
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAND W/SILT, BROWN
Project No. 1'3459.oS Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHA WI( P A VlLLION
Dry Dens.
(pet)
. 109.3
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Swell Press. Clpse.
(ksf) %
1.2
LL
PI
Cc
Cr
eo
0.06
0.514
USCS
AASHTO
SP
Remarks:
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLEcrnD ON (I 1/9105)
Source: CONSOL Sample No.: B2 2.5
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
A"
Figure
:.
1
,
.
,
l'
.
I
i.' I.
' I
,
.
I
I
I
I
J
; !
I
I
j
.
j
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
c:
'w
~
00
c'
~
'"
0..
T"'r>- 1'-",
r--
l
r.
2
" i'\.
~
3
4
,
~
5 \
6 '\
\
b
.
'7
8
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
5
10 20
. Natural
Sat. Moist.
68.3 % 11.3 %
Dry Dens. LL
(pet)
115.0
Sp. Overburden
Gr. (ksf)
2.65
Pc
(ksf)
3.69
Swell Press.
(ksf)
Clpse.
%
0.7
PI
Cc
Cr
eo
0.10
0.439
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
USCS
SM
AASHTO
SILTY SAND, DARK BROWN
Project No, T3459-GS Client: KAL P AClFIC
Project: REDHA WK PA VILLION
Remarks:
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (11/9/05)
Source: CONSOL Sample No.: B2 5
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
P&
Figure
.
"
:.
. '
I
"
J
.
J
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
c
.~
~
fJ)
..... .........
1
"-
2
."
"
3 I:l,
I"
\
4
~
"\
.
5 \
1)
6
7
1
8 I
1
9
0
~ ,
c.
~
'"
a..
1 .1
.2 .5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
Overburden Pc
(ksf) (ksf)
0.99
5
10 20
, Natural
Sat. Moist.
68.8 % 10.4 %
Dry Dens. LL PI
(pet)
118.2
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Swell Press. Clpse.
(ksf) %
0.8
Cc
Cr
eo
0.06
0.399
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND, BROWN
Project No. T3459-GS Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHA WK PA VILLION
USCS
SM
AASHTO
Remarks:
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (11/9/05)
Source: CONSOL Sample No.: B2 7.5
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNiCAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
M
Figure
. Source: CONSOL Sample No.: B2 10
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
>
-,
i.
~
>
"
.~
-
fJ)
c
. ~
(I)
0..
i
.i
:,.
, I
,
i
!
1
J
J
:.
j
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
--
....
..... .....
""r'-
1
.... r-.
2
r--- "
~
3
4 "
,
\
5 1\
6 "
b
7
8
9
10.1
.2 .5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
Oveiburden Pc
(ksf) (ksf)
3.97
5
10
20
Natural
Sat. . Moist.
97.8 % 16.4 %
Dry Dens. LL PI
(pel)
114.5
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Cc Cr Swell Press. Clpse. eo
(ksf) %
0.10 0.6 0.445
USCS AASHTO
SM
Remarks:
COLLEClED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (1119/05)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND W/CLA Y, BROWN
Project No. T3459-GS Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHAWKPAVILUON
~o
Figure
.
.
~.
- ,
c.
, 8
~
(J)
a.
:-
i
~
.i
;
I
J
.
j
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
c
.~
-
(f)
1
........ ,
1'=1.
,
2 ,
'\
3 ~
1\
I'
4 1\.
,
~
5
6
7
6
.
9
10 .1
.2 .5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
Overburden Pc
(ksf) (ksf)
3.93
5
10 20
1 Natural
Sat. Moist.
20.3 % 3.5 %
Dry Dens. LL PI
(pel) .
113.4
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Swell Press. Clpse.
(ksf) %
0.6
Cc
Cr
eo
0.07
0.459
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAND W/SILT, LIGHT BROWN
Project No. 'I'3459-OS Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHA WK PA VlLLION
USCS
AASHTO
SP
Remarks:
COLLECfED BY CM
COLLECfED ON (I I/9/05)
Source: CONSOL Sample No.: B2 15
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
~\
Figure
, ~
-.
f
:-
,
1
J
,
j
.
1
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
<::
.~
-
en
- ...""
...... !'
1 "
1'1' I'
"
2
~
3 f\
1'\
"
4 1\
1\1
5 1\
[,
6
~
7
\
8 "
9
I
- ,
<::
CIl
e
CIl
c..
10 .1
.2 .5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
Overburden Pc
(ksf) (ksf)
3.48
5
10
20
I Natural
Sat. Moist.
79.3 % 20.0 %
Dry Dens. LL PI
(pel)
99.2
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell eo
(ksf) %
0.14 1.61 0.668
USCS AASHTO
SM
Remarks:
COLLECfED BY CM
COLLECfED ON (11/9/05)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SlL TY FINE SAND, BROWN
Project No. T3459-GS Client: KAL P ACIF1C
Project: REDHA WK PA V1LLlON
Source: CONSOL Sample No.: H2 20
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
~z--
Figure
I.
.
?
.
.
E
~
c
i -
.
!
J
:.
j
J
j
..!
.
J
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
c
.~
Ci5
-
c'
C])
~
C])
a.
:..... I
I"-- 1-0.
....,.. .....
1 ....
...... r-..""
2
"- r-...
M,
3
I'
'\
4 t<
\
'\
5 '-
'b
I
I 1
,
.6
7
8
9
10.1
.2
.5
2
Applied Pressure - ksf
5
10 20
I Natural
Sat. Moist.
87.4 % 13.9 %
Dry Dens. LL
(pet)
116.3
Sp. Overburden
Gr. (ksf)
2.65
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Pc
(ksf)
3.55
Swell Press. Clpse.
(ksf) %
0.3
Cc
Cr
PI
eo
0.06
0.422
USCS AASHTO
SM
SILTY SAND, BROWN
Project No. T3459-GS Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHA WK PA VILLION
Remarks:
COLLECfED BY CM
COLLECfED ON (11/9/05)
Source: CONSOL Sample No.: B2 25
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
'5?/
Figure
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY FINE SAND, LIGHT BROWN
. Project No. T3459-GS Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHAWKPAVILLION
Ie
.
;
.
]
11.
J
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
c:
'ii!
ti5
c!
Q)
!:!
Q)
a.
- ....r-.
"-
1 1'-...
"',,-
.......
~
2
1\
3 I\.
~
~
4
1\
1\
5 10
6
7
8
9
10 .1
.2
.5
2 5
Applied Pressure - ksf
10
20
Natural
Sat. Moist.
98.9 % 18.9 %
01)' Dens. LL
(pet)
109.8
Sp.
Gr.
2.65
Overburden
(kst)
Pc
(kst)
2.72
Swell Press.
(kst)
1.65
USCS
SM
Swell
%
Cc
Cr
PI
eo
0.09
0.507
AASHTO
Remarks:
COLLECfED BY CM
COLLECfED ON (11/9/05)
Source: CONSOL Sample No.: B2 30
. CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Figure
'9\
:.
1
I .
'1.
. I
I
j
l
,
.
.,
.
J
.
. Particle Size Distribution Report
c
C
..: . l; ..s: .5.5
.... s: - c:... t:! E:
i
g :i g
o ~ 0
.
0; ~ "- ; ~ - ~ ; ~ ; ; ; ~
~ I I
I I
III/I I I I tr1iI
I I, I
I i I
I
,
I .
I I
I I I J
I
I
I I
\
I ,
1\1
I , I I
UlIl I
I ~
~
I
.100
90
80
70
0::
UU 60
Z
u:
I-
Z.50
UU
()
0::
UU.40
a..
: 30
20
'10
o
500 100
10
1 O~
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRS. MEDIUM FINE
1.3 21.4 54.7
0.01
0.001
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRs. FINE
% FINES
SILT
10.7
CLAY
11.9
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC:
SIZE FINER PERCENT
#4 99.9
#10 98.6
#16 95.9
#40 77.2
#50 64.9
#100 37.7
#200 22.5
PASS?
(X=NO)
Material Description
CLAYEY FINE SAND WfFEW SILT, BROWN
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
060= 0.265 050= 0.208
D15= 0.0103 D10= 0.0020
Cc= 25.83
Classification
AASHTO=
085= 0.568
D30= 0.116
Cu= 135.06
uscs= SC
Remarks
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (11/9/05)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: BI @ 5
I.ocation:
Source of Sample: SIEVE
Date: 11I14/05
ElevJDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHA WK P A VILLlON
'505
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: T3459-GS
FI ure
:.
I.
j
i
,
!
.
1
:.
1
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
.
~
m
d
. . (;! ..!i .& Ji
~ ;;:;: ;: ~ S ~
;
o
;;
Ii
g !i: 8
;; ;; ~
l! l! it
r"" ..... I IIJlf
"
~
I I '1111
I I
~if 111\
I 'It
I [ill[ -u
100
, 90
180
; 70
a::
LU '60
Z
IT:
~ '50
LU
()
a::
Wi40
c..
'30
'20
10
o
500 100
10
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
0.01
0.001
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
CLAY
6.4
% FINES
SILT
1.6
CRs. FINE
3.6 33.3
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC:
SIZE FINER PERCENT
#4 99.2
#]0 95.6
#16 88.5
#40 41.3
#50 26.]
#100 ]1.5
#200 8.0
PASS?
(X=NO)
Material Description
SAND WffRACE CLAY, LIGHT BROWN
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
060= 0.608 050= 0.503
015= 0.]95 010= 0.]26
Cc= 1.44
Classification
AASHTO=
085= 1.05
030= 0.332
Cu= 4.83
USCS= SP
Remarks
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (] ]/9/05)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B] @ ]0
Location:
Source of Sample: SIEVE
Date: 11I]4/05
ElevJDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: KALPACIFIC
Project: REDliA WK P A VILLlON
-$P
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: D459-GS
FI ure
Ie
Particle Size Distribution Report
.
.Ii
o
,
. . t! . E S.5
;; ~:z ~ ~ g ~
:
o
;
CICCI o8!i8
~~; Ii: .;~
I
I \ I
I I r\
I ,
\ ! I I
i I ,
I
I \
i I -\fitt
I ,
I1II1 I
lIiI
I \
I
I ~ I
I "..I
I I I 1 'OJ
, I
100
90
80
70
, 0::
W'60
Z
u::
~ 50
W
Q
0::
WI4Q
a.
,
f
'I.
!
l
I.
J
'30
'20
10
o
500 100
10
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRS. MEDIUM FINE
18.4 48.0 22.7
0.01
0.001
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
% FINES
SILT
1.8
CLAY
7.1
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC:
SIZE FINER PERCENT
#4 98.0
#10 79.6
#16 62.8
#40 31.6
#50 23.7
#100 13.7
#200 8.9
PASS? Material DescriDtlon
(X=NO) SAND WffRACE CLAY, LIGHT BROWN
Pl=
AtterbefQ limits
ll= PI=
Coefficients
Oeo= 1.09 050= 0.800
D1S= 0.169 D10= 0.0950
Cc= 1.54
Classification
AASHTO=
085= 2.47
030= 0.399
Cu= 11.42
USCS= SP
Remarks
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (11/9/05)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: BI @ 15
location:
Source of Sample: SIEVE
Date: 11/14/05
Elev.lDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHA WI( P A V1LLION
~'\
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: T3459-GS
FI ure
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
.
90
I
W[ I I
I ~
I m
, Ii \
I I
I \1
I \
I
11111 I ,
I I
I I r:
I I 11111 1: "-
i I I I """-'
I II m
I , I I I I
I WLL
s
.
.li '"
,.5 . C'! . oS .s.5
... ;:;:f ~ ~ ~ ~
;
o
;;;
~ ~ ;{
I
g ~ 8
.: .. ~
~
1100
80
70
0:::
UU, 60
~
u..
I-
Z~50
UU
o
0:::
UU'40
ll.
30
:20
10
'0
.500
100
10
1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRs. MEDIUM FINE
5.0 13.2 36.9
0.1
0.01
0.001
.
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRs. FINE
% FINES
SILT
16.7
CLAY
21.4
SIEVE
SIZE
'#4
#10
#16
#40
#50
, #100
1#200
PERCENT
FINER
93.2
88.2
84.5
. 75.0
70.1
55.2
38.1
SPEC: PASS?
PERCENT (X=NO)
Material DescrlDtion
CLAYEY FINE SAND W/SIL T, BROWN
PL=
Atterbera LImits
LL= PI=
Coefficients
060= 0.181 050= 0.124
015= D1O=
cc=
Classification
AASHTO=
085= 1.26
030= 0.0249
cu=
USCS= SC
Remarks
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (11/9/05)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: BI @ 20
i Location:
Source of Sample: SIEVE
Date: 11I14/05
ElevJDepth:
,
.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHAWKPAVILLlON
-5b
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: 13459-0S
FI ure
I!
I
,
I.
>
~
;'
1
I
~Ie
t
1
2
Ie
j
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
.
~
o
c
.5 .: c; s.:5 B.:5
... ;:;;: .... ~ g:g
;
o
;
~ S! ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
'II< ~ 'II< i ..... 'II<
I .....~ I
I ""'"
, I \-l,
-rtth
I I i ,
I ;
i , i
rm I
II I~ III1I
,
I \1
I I I
I
I '-I: ~
I
i ""0
,
I I
UJ!l I
, 100
90
80
70
,
i
OC'
UJ 60
Z
u::
I-
Z 50
W
()
OC
UJ,40
D..
30
,20
'10
o
, 500 100
10
1 Q1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRs. MEDIUM FINE
5.3 19.0 44.1
0.01
0.001
, % COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRs. FINE
% FINES
SILT
8.6
CLAY
21.7
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC:
SIZE FINER PERCENT
#4 98.7
#10 93.4
#16 88.3
#40 74.4
#50 66.4
#100 46.4
#200 30.3
PASS?
(X=NO)
Material DescrlDtion
CLAYEY FINE SAND WfFEW SILT, BROWN
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients '
060= 0.237 050= 0.169
D1S= 010=
Cc=
Classification
AASHTO=
085= 0.867
030= 0.0338
Cu=
uscs= SC
Remarks
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (11/9/05)
* (no specification provided)
Sample No.: BI @ 25
"ocatlon:
Source of Sample: SIEVE
Date: 11I14/05
ElevJDepth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHA WI< PA VILLlON
1>\
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: T3459-GS
FI ure
.
, Particle Size Distribution Report
,
,
90
,
,
i fill '~
1\
I i .~ !
I I I
I I I I I ~
I I I
I
I 'I'i'
I I 11\1
, I
I
I I
"\
"'
I
.
.
..5 ...
..5 . l:! . S .s:.s
~ ~:;: ~ ~ S,;
;
o
"
~ ~ :;
Ii
g ~ 8
; ; ~
.
..
100
80
.
70
J n:
w' 60
Z
u:
~50
W
o
a::
W 40
a.
,30
'20
10
o
500 100
10
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRs. MEDIUM FINE
8.2 41.4 32.8
0.01
0.001
:.
, % COBBLES
% GRAVEL
CRs. FINE
% FINES
SILT
1.7
CLAY
13.3
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#10
#16
#40
#50
#100
#200
PERCENT
FINER
97.4
89.2
79.2
47.8
37.5
22.1
15.0
SPEC:
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
Material Description
CLAYEY SAND WfIRACE SILT, BROWN
PL=
Atterbera Limits
LL= PI=
Coefficients
060= 0.619 050= 0.455
D15= 0.0750 D10=
cc=
Classification
AASHTO=
085= 1.55
D30= 0.223
Cu=
USCS= SC
Remarks
COLLEClED BY CM
COLLECfED ON (11/9/05)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: Bl @30
Location:
Source of Sample: SIEVE
Date: 11/14/05
ElevJDepth:
:.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: KAL PACIFIC
Project: REDHA WK P A VILLION
(p
ENGINEERING NElWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: 13459-GS
FI ure
j
.
. Particle Size Distribution Report
.
~
o
.si .: ~ 5 i ~ i
o ~ 0
o
8 ~ 8
i
~
,
G - . - - N ; i ;; ;; N
<'> ... ~ - . .
I -=-1
I"
"
\
1 lli
'\
I ,I \.
J't,
I I~
I I I
10
1 O~
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
CRs. MEDIUM FINE
0.6 10.6 31.9
0.01
0.001
i.
100
80
70
n::
LU I 80
Z
u:
~ :50
LU
()
n::
LU :40
(L
!30
'20
10
o
500 100
I.
0.0
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
0.0 0.0
% FINES
SILT
28.4'
CLAY
28.5
% COBBLES
SIEVE
SIZE
.#4
#10
#16
#40
#50
#100
#200
PERCENT
FINER
100.0
99.4 .
97.7
88.8
83.5
70.2
56.9
SPEC: PASS?
PERCENT (X=NO)
Material DescrlDtion
CLAYEY FINE SAND W/SOME SlL T, BROWN
PL=
Atterbe/'Q limits
LL= PI=
085= 0.329
030= 0.0058
Cu=
Coefficients
060= 0.0937 050= 0.0208
D15= D10=
Cc=
Classification
AASHTO=
uscs=
Remarks
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLEClED ON (11/9/05)
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B1 @35
Location:
Source of Sample: SIEVE
Date: 11/14/05
ElevJDepth:
I.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client KAL PAC1F1C
Project: REDHA WK P A VlLLlON
~\
, ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: T3459-GS
Ff ure
1
1_.
I
I
I
I
II
,
.
.
.
DRAWINGS
. ">":i-;,..:."zS-
Kal Pacific & Associates, Inc.
Project Number: T3459-GS
Appendix Page 9
&1/
< .
EnGEN Corporation
:.
:e
i
N
EnGEN Co
oration Gee'''''';''' Eng'ne'"ng SP"'~' ........,
Engineering Geology Inspection Testing
VICINITY MAP
Environmental
Assessments
DATE:
Lot 25 TR 3752
APN 959-050-006
PROJECT NUMBER:
SCALE: 1"=2400'
CLIENT NAME: KAL PACIFIC and ASSOCIATES
BASE MAP: Thomas Guide. 2005, Riverside County, pg 979
FIGURE:
1
(/7