HomeMy WebLinkAboutAsGradedReportRoughGrading(May18,2000)
~
v
-
~III.._. -~
~ ....
~ ~;-
A GTG Clc>nlII*nY
-
e
A."'
."
Leighton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CON8ULTANT9
2-
AS-GRADED REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
CHARDONNAY HILLS
TRACTS 23100-6 (LOTS 1-31),23100-7 (LOTS 1-27)
23100-8 (LOTS 1-21) AND TOT LOT TRACT 2310D-6
TEMECULA
RIVERSIDE COUNlY, CALIfORNIA
May 18,2000
Project No. 11871347-031
Prepared For;
LENNAR HOMES
24800 Chrisanta Drive, Suite 200
Mission Viejo. California 92691
41715 Enterprise Clrele N. Suite 103, Terneoul_, CA 1125QO-5151
(9011' 298-0$30 . FAX (1109' 218.0534 . www,lelghlongeo,cOm
~A\:JW
Clil'd
00:tt 800e-St-Nnt
,
e
,.
-
;::::11
~ --
!3"-~=i:
AGTG~
-~
Leighton and Associates
May 18. 2000
To: Lennar Homes
24800 ChrisaDta Drive, Suite 200
Mission Viejo, Califomia 92691
Auemion: Mr. Greg Dooley
-
Subject:
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No: 11871347-031
As-Graded Repon of RoIIgh Olllding, Cbanfonoay Hills, Tracts 2310()..6 (Lots 1 through
31), 23100-7 (Lots 1 thrwgh 27), 23100-8 (Lots 1 through 21) and Tot Lot Tract
23101-6, TemccuJa, Riverside County, California
In accordance with your request and llIIthorizatioo, Leighloo and Associall:s, Inc. (Leiahton) has provided
gcotcchoica1 services dwiDg rough grading and erosimlqlair cpelllliom at Cbardonoay Hills,.Tract 23 100-6,
23100-7, 23100-8 and Tot l.()t of 23101-6, IOl:atl:d in the City of Temecula, Califbtnia, The accompanyiDg
report SllIlIIllIIriz. our observat.ioos, field and laboratory ~ n:suIfs and the geot~.hni,.,.1 , conditions encowm:red
during the rough amdinll of the subject lots. Portions of the site WCI1l P=iously mass-gradrd Ullder 1hc
obsezwtion and testing services ofLeigbtQn during 1990 3lIll1998 (see AppaJdix A).
If you have any QUestions regarding this report, please de not hesitate to CODtaCt this .office, we appreciate
this opportunity to be of service.
R.:spectfuIly submilled,
LEIOHTON ANI> ASSOCIATES, JNC.
dv.~
Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921
Associare Geologist/Office M
RfRlATG/dhn/t.&.'99018713410H ..
Distribution:
(1) Addmssce
(5) Lennar Homes; Attention: Mr, Bob Tumolo
(1) Chardonnay Hills Jobsitc: Attention: Mr, Larry Dall/I:J.
(1) May Group: Attention: Mr. Phil Bro\\n
.3
41715 Enterprise Cirele N. Suite 103, Tem.eula, CA 1125l!0-&661
(g09) 298-0530 . FAX (909) 211I-0534 . www.1ei9h1ongco,eom
d~8 A\:JW to:tt
m"d
e00e-St -Nflf
"
e
e'"
.
\1\1'm4'1-OJ\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
Swilm
~.
1.0 INTKODUcnON '.H_'I"_"'~_'_'"__"__'_'__""_"__""_'_H""_'~_'_""""........._.................. 1
-
1.0 SUMMAIl.Y OF ROUGUoCRADING OPERAnONS .._...____..__.._....~._..__...._........ 2
2.1 8m PREPAllA.noN AND REI&oVI,LS ....,....................................................,......................................,,, .....,..2
2.2 FILL l'UCEMENT.......,...............,.................................................,_........................... ,............................... 2
2.3 CUTIFIU. TRANsrrION PADS ......... ...... ........................ ......................, .................. ,.... .......... ...,................... J
2,4 FIEUl DENSITY nsTINo., .................... ....................... .................. .... ........................ ....... ..................... ."', 3
2. ~ L,-\IlORATORY nsTINo... .............., ........ ............. ...................... .................. .....................".......... ..... ......... 3
2.6 GRADED SLoPES.................................. ......... ............... .........,... ..................... .................,........... ............... 3
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMAIl.v ......-.-.......---_..__.._._........_.....................4
3.1 AB..oRADED GEOLOGIC COll1)mOIlS .......................................................,.,.............. "..... ....... .,.. ....... ........ 4
3.2 GROLoGIC UNm ,.....................................,..................,..,...................................... ....,.. ,........................... 4
3.2.1 Doamre",ed Fill (Af}..,............................................,......................................... ........... ................... 4
3.2,2 CJocIImen/ed Ellis/I", Fill by leigh/on (AJI)......................................................... ............................4
3.1.3 DoCllmenled ExISllng FiJI (Afe) ........'...m.................................m.................................................... 4
3.J.4 DoCll",.n/.d Exisllng Fill by Others (11/0)....................................................................................... 5
3.1.5 ReCti", AllwIWft lQal) ..........,....,.....................................................................................................5
3.1,6 Poubo FmmQ/ion 12P) ..........................................._................................................ ,.... ........,......... 5
3.3 GEOI.OOIC S'tRtJCruRE AND FAIILTlNG.... .......... .............. ....... ....................... ............. ..... .... ....................... ~
3.4 LANDsunES AND SUIU'IClALFAlWRES.....,... .................................................................. .......... ......."..., ,....'
3.5 GROUIIDW ATER ............ ........ ........, .................,.. .......... ...... ....... .............. .... ..............,............. ...,.............. S
3.6 ExPANSION TEsTINO OF FINISH GRADE son.................... ..........................._............,..... ............ ...... "'''''' .... 6
3.7 SOU.lBLl! SULFATE 'l'l!STlNOOFFlNISH GRADE SOlU ...."...................................m........ ......... ....... .............. 6
4.0 CONCLUSIONS .-.........................."..................._....__......_.._...__..__......_._........................_............ 7
4.1 GENERAL.........,..........,.................,........................................................................................."................ 7
4.2 SUMMAll.Y OF CONCUlSIONS ....................................00...................................00.....00...........00..... .....0000......'.. 7
5.0 RECOMMENDADONS ........................._..__...._......_...._..__..__.............._..................................... 8
5.1 EARnlWORK,....." ..... ......, ,......... 00'............... ...................."....... ..........,.... ....... .... ............... ............ ..... 00"" 8
S.l.l Excavations......n..... ..... ..." .... noon..., "...... ....... ........ ........."......... 00...... ............................................. 8
5.1.:! BackjllI, Fill Placemen/ Q1ldCompactlon .............................................00..........00.............'...00...00..".8
~.2 FOUNDATION ANDSTR1.lCTlJREDSSION CONSlDERAnoNS ..".........00.............................. ......"..nhn.... ........8
5.2.1 Co",,"nrlonolly-RtinfOl'Ced FoundatiON ....mn.......................................,.......... .....,.... ....... ............. 8
5.1.2 Molslrlre C01Idllloning ............................................................"........................ ..."..,.. .......'...nh..... 9
5.2.3 Foundarlon S,rbackfrom Slopes ....n...................'..n.................n......................."..............,. ...00...... 9
5.2..( AntlClpDled .v.."lltrMnr ..", '..'....n.......'................n....................n... .......00.....00...'. ...... .., ............00...... 9
5.1.5 S/I'I/clrlre Design .. ........ 00.. n.........'....... .............. ...."...... nn........ .................. ....... ..."...................... 10
5.2.6 ConcreFlt Type ......'... 00.... ....... ......n.......... .......... ....00 .n.n....... .......... ......... .......... ..n........................ 10
- i .
--.:
;;:: I
~~~
~
V0'd
dfGI!J A\:JW
to:tt eeee-St-Nnf
,
e
e'
1I871347-{131
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cootinued)
5.3 LATI:RALEAA'I1I pReSSVl\tS AND RETAlIIING WALL DESlIJN CON.ID~T10NS "............ ,......."...... ........... 11
5.4 CONCRETE fLATWORK ..........,.........,.............'....m.m.................................................... ............m........... 12
S,S PAVEMENT DESION....'...mm............ .............................. .............................................. ........................,... U
S,6 CONTROL OF SURFACE W^TER. AND DRAlNAOE CONTROL................,...,................. ............m.. ....m........... 12
5.7 GI\t\DED SLOPES.. ............. ....... ......... .....,. ....,.. .....m......... m... .m... ....m ..............m............ m.................... 12
S.8 IRRIGATION, LAND6CAPlNG AND LoT MAn<l'ENANCE...... ".... ......... ..... ..... ,....,.. "..,............. ................ ....... 13
S.9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TES'l'lNG.............'.....m.................................... ..............,....,............. 13
6.0 LIl\t.ITA1l0NS....._....__..._,....................H_,_..................._......u._................................._.................... 14
AlOCOIIItlanvina Fiau1'Cs. Tables. Plates and ADDelldiCes
Fi2llrtS
Figure I . S.ite Location Map
Figure 2 - Relainina Wall Drainage Detail
Rear oft cxt
Rear of Text
Tables
Table I -
Minimum FOIIJtdatiOll and Slab Design RccommeudatiollS
(ConventiOlllllly-Reinforced)
Lot by Lot Summary of As-Graded Oeolcclurical Conditions and
Recommendations for Foundation Type
Presoaking Recommendations Based on Finish Grade Expansion Potential
LaternI Earth PresSUnlS
Rear ofT ext
-
Table Z -
Table 3 .
Table 4 .
Rear ofTexl
Rear ofTcxt
Rear of Text
~
Plates I through S . As..Qraded Geotechnical Maps
In Pocket
ADDendices
-
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - S~. of field Density Tests
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Procedures and T cst Results
Appendix 0 - Lot M~.,lCnanc;e Guidelines for Homeowner
.ii.
-5
;::::.
;;:: -
~-,-.E
S0'd
d~A\:JW
to:tt eeec-St-Nnr
e
e~
1187I347~31
1.0 INTRODUCTION
-
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leiahtm aDd Associates, IDe, (Leighton) hao performed
gcotechnical obseJVation WId testing servic;c:s durioa the rouah-grading operations aDd erosion repair of the
subject site. The Chardonnay Hills project is generally located east of Meadows Parkway, between La
Serellll. Way and Rancho Califumia Road (see Fig= I).
This all-graded repon ~ our ~ca1 obsctvatiOIlS, field and laboratory test l'Ilsults and the
seotedmical conditions CI1l:OWIleRd duriDg the rough gradina and repair of erosion damage in Tract 23100-
6, Tract 23100-7, Tract 23100-8 ilIId Tot Lot play areas (Tract 23101-6). In addition. this report provides
conclusions and recommendations for the proposed residllntial dewiopnDu.
-
The 40-scaIe gradiDi pJ3I\ll for Tract 23100 (May Group, 1998) 'NeIll utilized as a base map to preseut the
approximate locatioDs of the field density tests. The 85-gr.llkd lV'Of.......;oaI map is. pl'e$Cllted as Plates I
through 5. and is located in the podret III the rearoflhis report.
-
.-
-
~
- I -
:;;:;..
iii -;...
~ :::
'30'd
~A\:JW
Clil: n e00e-St-Nf1t
e
e'
It871}47-031
2.0 SUMMARY OF ROUGH-GRADING OPERATIONS
The c:umnt grading operations of TIlICI 23100-6, 23100..7, and 23100-8 began in April 1999, and ale
essentially complete as of the date of this report. Nelson and Be1dina. Inc.. performed the grading
operations Ilnder aeoteclmical observation and testing services by LeighlOn. Our field' technician and
geologist were oosite on a fuU-time and ",-needed basis during grading operatiOllS. Grading operations
included pn:paration of areas 10 n:c:eiw fill, removals oC compressible materials, scarificlllion. moisture-
c:onditioning and placement DC compac:rllll fill soils 10 achieve design pes.
2.1 Site PlCoaration and Removals
Prior to grading, the areas oC proposed dcvdopmeot were stripped of surface vegetation and debris and
these materials were disposed of offi;ite, Removals of unOllirAhle and potentiall). compressible soils,
undocumented a1der fill soils, desiccated existing doc:umented fill soils andweathCfcd formational
materials were made to dense existing documented compacted fill or Pauba formation material.
Removals and lot processing were performed in accordance with the recornmci:lllarions of the projwt
geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and geotechnical recommendations made duriDg the grading
operations,
Removal of sumcial soils included the complClC removal of stockpiled W1documented fill, alluvium nod
highly weathered existing documented fill, older alluvium and Pauba furmation bedrock.
Due 10 the length oftime since the site was pm'iously rough-graded (Leighton, 1 990b), the upper
approximately 24 inches of the existing documented fill surficial soils were found 10 be desiceated and
potentially compressible. As a result. the desiccated surf'ace soils were removed 10 competent existing
fill material, moiSllll'C-CO!1ditioned, reworlced to obtain a relatively homogeneous fill. mix (with nellf-
optimum moisture contents) and IeCOmpacled to a minimwn 90 percent relative compaction based on
ASTM Test Method 01557. .
-
2.2 Fill Placement
~
After rClnoving compn."Ssible materials and processing the areas 10 receive fill, native soil was
gencrally spread in 4-.to 8-inch lifts, moisturc-conditioncd as needed to anain 11 nw-optimum moi$ture
content, and COOIpac;ted 10 at le:ISt 90 pen:ent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM
Test Method D1557. Compaction was achieved by use of heavy -duly construction equipment. Areas
of fill in which field density tests indicared less than 90 percent relative compaction, or' where the soils
e.'<hibitcd non-uniformil)' and/or inadequate moisture content wI:re reworked, n:compacted and retest
until a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and near-optimum moisture content was achieved. Up
10 approximately 50 teet of compacted fill is estimated to have been placed within the limits of the
subje<:tlots within TIlICI23Ioo-6, 23100-7, IIDd 23100-8 IIIId Tot Lot pia)' areas (Trtla 23101-6).
~
- 2 -
-:
ii :-.
~-" --
...::!! """=
1
W'd
drw~ A\:JW
Clil:n e00e-St-Nnf
,
e
e~
2.3 CutJFill T"",.ition Pads
As. depicted on the rough grading plans (May Group, 1998). a lJansitioo was crcall:d between Paub;!
formation bedrock and fill during site rough grading. On 1Qt$ where the cut/fill lIansition crossed
through the building pad, the cut portion of Ibe lot was over<xcavated a minimum of 3 ICet below
finish pad grade. Ovtrexcavatioo was pcrfi:lnncd 10 reduce the fill depth difli:rential and provide more
uniform sub8J'lllie soils beneath the proposed struc:lures. The limits of the overexcavation were at least
5 feet outside the proposed building limits (building footprint).
2.4 Field De\llity Testinl!
Field density testing and observations were performed utilizing the nuclear gauge melbod (ASTM Test
Metbods D2922 and 03017). The approximate test locations are shov.lI on tlte As-Grac1ed
Geotechnical Maps (Plates I through 5). The results of the field density tests are slll1lJl1llrized in
Appendix B. Note that some tests preseDted in Appendix B wac takco beyond the limits of this repon
in the adjacenllracts, which were graded concurrently.
2.5 Laboratorv Tesrin~
laboratory mal<in1um dry density, expansion indcl and soluble sulliuc tests of representative onsite
soils were .perfonned in IlcneralllC(;Ordanc:e wilh ASTM Test Method 015", . ASTM Test Method
D4829 and CTM 417 respectively. The laboratory test re!lults and a description of thelaborarory test
procedures are prescnled in Appendix C.
2.6 Graded Slone.
Graded slopes within the tract are considered grossly and surfici.ally stable' from a geotechnical
standJ!Oint A fill key was constn.CIed at the base of the slope dcstcllding from loIS 19 through 24 of
Tract 23100-7. A second fill key was construCled at the base of the slope desr:ending from loIS 14
through 16 of Tract 23100-8. A third fill key was constructed at the base of tile slope descending from
Lot 8,ofTract23100-8. Each fill key was a minimum of 15 feet wide and was exca'JalCd at least two
fuel int~ rIer1$e, oon-porous Pauba formation bednx::k material, All cut and till slopes were graded at 2
to I indications or flatter.
-
-3-
~iB
OO'd
d~ A\:JW
rn: H 800e-Sl-Nf1f
e
e-,
11871347-031
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY
3,1 As-Grnded GeoJOIlic Conditions
The as-gJaded conditions encolllltered during grading of the subject lots and strCCts were essentially as
anticipated. A sununary of the geolOllic conditions, including geologic units, geologic Sl/lIClUrc and
faulting is presented below.
3.2 OeolOlriC Units
The geologic units encountered during grading of TIlIds 23100-6, -7, and -8 consisted of existing
doc:umented fill soils placed during previous rough-gmding operations (see AppeudixA), Alluvium,
and the Pauba Fonnation. The desiccated upper portions of existillg documented fill or fonnational
soils within the limits oflhe planned amding were removed 10 dense, non-porous' existing fill or Pauba
fonnation material and/or scarified and moisture-amditioned prior 10 fill placement and compaction. In
addition, at completion of grading at the subject area, doeumeoted fill placed Under obscrvation and
testing by Leighlon for an adjac:eat tract 10 1hc west (Tract 28482) was placed over a portion of the fill
documented herein, The geologic units CDCOWIll:red at the site are discussed below.
3,2,1 Docwncntcd Fill (Aft
Documented fill consists of light brown to red brown silty sands 10 slightly clayey silty sand.
The documented fill was compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (based 00 ASTM Test
Method 01557), where tested. During the fill p1acemcllt. some oversize 'rocks were piaced in
general lI':Cordancc with the project gcoIl:dmical reports (Appendix A) and ollr field
recommendations in the offsite mlute Parle: Site ofTl'G(:t Z3 101-5 (L:ighton. 200Gb).
3,2.2 E'Cistil1ll Documented Fill bv Leial\lon (At!)
Documented fill was placed under observation and tClitiDg by Leighlon at an adjacenltract west
of a portion of Meadows Parkway (see Plates I tbrougll S), just af\er completion of the recent
grading operatioDS (not published 10 date).
3.2.3 EKistinlt JJocwnentcd Fill (Afel
Docwnented fill was placed under observation and testing by Leighton durin; previous site
grading in 1990 and 1998 (see Appendix A). Our review ofthc geotechnical repOl'lS of tho site
(Appendix A), and our observatiOllS during recent grading indicat~ that existing fill materials
were derived from oDSite soils and generally consisted of brown to red brown silly to slightly
clayey sands. The fill soils \vcre compllCled to at lenst a 90 percent relati.c compaction (based
0Tl ASTM Test Method 01557),
- ~ .
-.. '\
;;::: I
~ """-
~ ~-
~ ,~
IIIiiii:!.'!
60'd
df'"009 A\:JW
~:tt eeec-St-Nnr
-'
e~
11871347-031
3.2.4 Ex.istin~ Documented Fill bv Others CACol
Documented fill was placed by othct1 (Petra, J 997) duriDg the construction oC a portion of
Promenade ChardoIlllllY Hills and Culbertson Drive sewer maill construction. This grading
work was performed in order to constnK:t a sewer main needed for the alljaccut tracI(s).
3.2.5 Recent Alluvium lOall
-
Recent alluvium (1II:lp symbol QaI) was obscrwd in the low-lying erosional drainages
throughout the site. The alluvium COIISisIs of a brown to dark brown silly to cla)'e)' sand.
R..cent alluvium was completely removed in the area of grading llIId the _cria1s were used as
compacted fill.
3.2,6 Pauba Fonnation COp)
The Quaternary-aged Pauba fonnatioo underlies the existiJla fiU soils and older alluviwn in the
subject tract (Lcilhton, 1990b), The Pauba Formation consists of dense to very dense, silty,
fiDc. to coarse-aminad sandstone,
- 3.3 Geololric Structure and FaultinR
Based on our geologic observations during site grading and our protessional experien(C on adjacent
- sites, the Pauba fonnation is genetally massive with JocaI beddiJla on site that is generally flat to
slightly dipping to the northeast to ~west. Although bedding is generally inclined e.b"tward, local
variations indicate that slight Colding bas occurred in the area, No liwlting or illdications of faulting
wen: obSllrved during this phase of grading opemtions.
3.4 Landslides and Surficial Failures
Based on our review of the project geotedmicaJ reports (Appendix A) and our geologic mapping
during the current grntIing operations. there is no indieatioll of landslides or othI:r si!!Jlificant surficial
failures within the subject tract. However, due 10 the granular I1IIture of'the onsilC soils, unprotected or
unplanted slopes may be: subject to erosion,
3.5 Groundwater
Groundwater or subsuriao:e seepaae was DOl CI1COIIIlten:d during thii phase of gnuiinll- However, after
the completion of grading and establishment of site irrigation and lam/""'IpUla, I shaIJow groundwater
oonditions may occur. If encountertd after grading, steps to mitigaIc aoy ~tillg seepage should be
made by the homeowner, on a case-by-cue basis.
-
- S -
lUlL \0
~-.
et"d
~A\:JW
t>e: n e00e-St-Nnr
.
e~
11871347.()3t
3.6 Exnansion Tcstimz of Finish Grade Soils
EXpaIlSion mx tests (ASTM 04&29) were performed on representative finish grade soils of the
$ubj""tlols. Tcst results indicate the fini5b grade soiJs have a very low 10 low explIIISion potential per
the Unifurm Building Code (UBC) criteria alld are summarized lot by 101 in Tablc 2. 'The Icst results
and procedures are presented in Appendix C.
3.7 Soluble Sulfate Testinl! of finish Grade Soils
Soluble sulfate testing (CAL Test Method 417) of representative near surfacc seils was perfonncd.
The lest results indicate the finish grade soils have a neaJigiblc 10 moderate cancentllltion of soluble
sulfates (0 to 1500 ppm), The wlfate contCl1t leSt results arc pmental in Table 2 and Appendlx C.
-
-6-
-..
;;: :
~ ::i'-.
~S
\\
n'd
d~A\:JW
I>lil:n e00e-st-Nnr
.
e-
11871347-031
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
-
4. I General
The grading ofTraw 23100-6 (Lots 1 through 31),23100-7 (Lots I throush 27). and 23100-8 (Lots
1 through 21) Tot Lot play areas (Tract 23101-6), lUIlI associated roadways and slopes, were
perfonned in seneral accordance with die project geotechniw reports. geotechnical reeommendations
made durina arading, and requil'CrnCRts of the City ofTcmccuIa. h is our opiRiOl'l that the subjea tract
is suilllble Ibr its intended residential use provided the ~ included herein and in the
project geotec:hnical reports lUC inlXllJlOWlld into thB design and constructiOn of die residential
strUctures and associll1Cd improvements, OnQOiDa maintcIlance of slopes and draioaae facilities is one
of die most importaDt factors in reducing the risk of future seil.re1ated distms.
4.2 Summary of Conclusions
. GcolCdmical conditions encountered during rough grading ~ geuerally as anticipated.
e Patentiall)' compressible existing desiccated fiU soils and recent alluvium were removed to dense,
non-porous material durina the aradin& operatiaos.
-
. All cut slopes and flU slopes ""thin the subjca tR<;t _ consuuctcd at slope inclinations of 2: I
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The slopes we.-e iDitiaIIy constn1Cted during the previous rough-
grading operations under ob.wvation and testiDg by LeigblOll (Appendi" A). It is our opinion !bat
slopes within, die subject tracts are IUrficiaUy aDd grossly &table (under nonna!
irrigation/precipitation patterns), provided the I'CCOIlIIIICndatiOllS in the project geotecbnicnl reports
are incorporated. into, the post-pading, coostruetion and post-cIIIIstrudion phases of site
developmeot.
. Fill materials "ere derived ftom ousite soils. Fill soils were tested to have at least 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Tesl MecIIod 01557) and. aear-optimum moisture content
in accordance widi the recammCllClations of the project potcchnical repons' and the requirements
of tile City ofTcmecula.
. The expansion potential of the finish grade soils on the completed lots is in the very low 10 low
range (per UBC 1.8~I-B). . The polCIltial for suImte attack 10 COIlCrete is considered negligible 10
moderate.
. The potential for gtOund-sutlllee rupture on thB site due to a seismic lMId: is considJ:red to ~ low
to nil; however, sll'Ong groWld shakloa should be ~ during 1hc life of the Slructuws. The
standard design of stl'\lclures. to meet the scisntic design requiremeots of SeismicZollC 4 of the
Uniform Buildinll Code (UBC), will be required.
-
-7-
~.k~
--= 1Ir_
~ --.oill;
\'Z--
ct'd
~A\:JW
S0:H e00e-SI-Nnf
.
e-
11871347.{)3J
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that future eanbwork at the site will consist of tlnish grading' of the, building pads,
trench excavation and backfill, preparation of street SlIbarade, and p~ement Of llllllregate base and
asphalt concrete pavcmcut. Wc recommend that earthwork on the site be perfunned in accordance
with the following recommElldatiOl\S and the Cily ofTemecuJa grading requirements.
,. Ll E.'Ccavalions
-
Due to the matively high density characteristics and coarse nature of the onsile soils, temporary
excavations with vertical sides, such as utility trenche!l, should remain stable to depths of 5 feet
or less for thc period required to construct Ute utilily, However. in accordance with OSHA
requirements, c:lCcavations between 5 and J.5 feet in depth should be shored or laid-back to
inclinations of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) ifworkers are to CDti:r such excava:tions.
5.1.2 Backfill. Fill Placement and Compaction
All backfill or IllI soils should be brought to near-optimum moisturc conditions and compacted
in unifonn lifts to alleast 90 percent relative eompactioot based OJI the Iabollltory maximum dry
density (ASTM Test Method 01557-91). The optimum lift thickness' required to produce
unifonn compaction will dcp'-,nd on thc type and size of compactionequipmCDt used. In
general, the OJISite soils shouiu be placed in Iiflll oot exceeding 8 inches in CompaQted thickness.
5,2 Foundation and Structure Desilm ConsidenitioJll!
The proposed foundations and slabs of the single-family residential structures should be designed as
conventional foundations/slab syslCllls in accordance with structural considerations and
recommendations presented hcn:in, Soils with very low 10 low expansion potential and negligible to
moderate potenJ:iaJ for sllltilte anack 10 concrete have heeD placed on the lots withiit the tract.
5.2.1 ConventionalJv-Reinforced FoundatiOJlll
Conventionally-reinforced foundations should be designed and constructed ill accordan~e with
the reconunenilaiions contUned in Table I at the rear of the text, Based on the expansion
testing of the folisb grade soils during grading, tile soils 00 the subject lots have' a very low to
low expansion potential (expansion index between 0 and SO per UBC I S-I-B). A lot by lct
sununary is presented in Table 2.
The recommcnck.>d lilIpor barrier should bc carefully sea.led at all penetrations and laps.
MoiSture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use ofCOJ1l:n:te additives.
Moisture barriers can retard but not e1iminarc moisture vapor movement' from the underlyiQ&
soil. up through the slabs. We recommend that the floor-covering inste.llcr test , the moisture-
vapor flux rale prior to attempting applications of the flocring. 'Breathable" floor coverings
should be considered, if the vapor flux rate. are high. A slipsheer Or equivalent should be
- 8-
..
- ,
"""'" ,
~~ :e
\~
Lrd
~!l A\:JW
S0:H 000G-SI-Nnf
.
--
. . .... ........ ..,~.
...uo_ _...._...... "'"'- .._.~..~ ,.._0. .- "'_..... __....... n___ _____ ._~...,. -- ..-.......... .......... ....."
...... ~ b. plae..c4 41recrly c-. at... --..:u:.l~ ~lIob.
Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs aDd foundations will genellllly
reduce the potential for drying and shrinkaie crackina. However, some clllcking shOllld be
expected as the conc:retc cures, Minor c:rackina is c:onsidered oormal;' however, it is often
aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high COIICRtc temperatlire at: the time of
placement, small nominal aggregate size and rapid llIOisture loss due to hot, dry andlor
windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracldng due 10 temperature and
moisture Iluclllations can also be expected, The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding
4 to S incbes at the time of placement) can reduce the poICIItial for shrinkage cracking.
Conventional footings may be designed for an allowable bearina capacity of 2,000 psf with
a minimum depth of embedment of 12 inches, The bearins capacity may be increased by
600 psf for each additional foot of embedment. The above bearing: capacity values are
based on a total and differential short-term settlement of 3/4 and 1/2 inch, respectively.
Short-tenn settlement is anticipated to occ:ur upon application of the footing load or
shortly thereafter.
Conventional footing/slab systems may be enbanted by &Iructurally tyingl the slabs-on-
grade to the perimeter and interior footings as directed hy the structural engineer, The slab
and footings may be poured monolithically to further unitize the system.
S .2.2 Moisture Conditioniru!
The slab subgrade soils should be presoaked io accordance with the recommendations
presented in Tables I and 2 (presented at the rear of text) prior to placement of thc
moisture barrier and slab concrete.
5.2.3 foundation Setback ttom Slones
. We. recommend a minimum horizootal setback distance from the face of slopes for an
structural footings (retaining walls, pads, buildin; footinas, etc,), This distance is
...measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope face (or to
the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H!2, where' H is the slope height
(in feet). The setback should not be less than 7 feet and need Dot be 'greater than to feet.
.I'll;35e note that the soils within the structural setback area possess' poor lateral stability
and improvements (such lIS pools, retainiDa walls, sidewalks, fences. pavements, etc.)
eOllStructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or diffcrmlial
settlement. Providing a deepened footing or a pier and pe-beam foundation system to
sUPP9rt. the improvement may mitigate potcnti;U distress to such improvements. The
deepened footing sbould meet the setback as described above.
-
S .2.4 Anticioatcd Settlemeot
Settlement is anticipated to OCl:ur at varyina times Owr the life of the projcct. Short-tenn
settlemcnt typically ""curs upon application of the foundation loads and is cssentially
completed within the con&lruction period. The estimated magnitude of this settlement is
provided in Section 3.2.1 and S.2OS.
- 9-
-.
--
;:::: -
~-~ -:;:
~. =-=
\~
I7t'd
df10~ A\:JW
90 : t t eOO2:-St-Nnr
.
.
11871347-031
5.2.5 Structure Dcsil!ll
Conventional fuotillgs may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf for a
comimwus fooling 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep (single-story) or isolated pad footi~ 24
inches squano and 12 inches deep (single-story), The above bearing capacity values are based on
a lOtlli and differential short-tem settlement of l4 and 'h inch, respectively in 30 feet. Sholt-term
settllllllenlls Illllidpated to occur upon appli<:atlon of the footlng load or shortly thereafter, PoSl-
ccustroction total and differential settlement on very low to low expllD$ive' fill soil due 10
compression within the fill is not anticipated to be significant for the Subject lots. We
estimate that differential settlement due to ccmpression within the fill (beyond 30 days) Or
dynamic densification due to strong seismic shaking should be low magnitude and on the
order of 'A -inch Or less in 30 feet.
A latera) be:uing of 250 pounds per square foot at a depth of 12 inthes may be used in the
design. Thl, may be increased hy 250 polulds per square foot for each additional 12 inches
in depth, to a maximum. lateral bearing of 2,000 pounds per square fool. A sliding
coefficient of 0.35 may be used in the design, When combining lateral bearing with sliding,
either latenl bearing or sliding should be reduced by SO perceot, Conventional footing/slab
systems may be enhanced for improved perfonnance by strUcturally tying the slabs-an-grade
to the perimeter and interior footings as directed by the structural consultant for this project.
The sJab-ou-grade and footings may be poured monolithically to further utili2:e the system
under full seismic load Or differential settlement.
Seismic shaking at the subject site can be mitigated by adhering to the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) ;md sI8te-of-the-practice seismic design parameters of the Structural
Engineers Association of California. Seismic design parameters in accordance with UBC,
1997 are provided below:
Seismic Zone'" 4
Seismic Source Type = B
Near Source Factor, Na = 1.3
Near Source FaClor, Nv = \,6
Soil Profile type = Sc
Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0,45
(10% Probabilily in SO years)
5.2.6 Concrete~
laboratory tesl$ indicacc the near surfaee soils have a negligible to moderate concentration of
. soluble sulfutes. Accordingly, due to thc variable sulfate content of onsite soils, conCrete in
contact ",ith earth I'I\lIterials should be designed in accordance with our recommendation in
Table 2 and with Table 19.A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997).
- 10,
-~
~~;.:: .....
~ :-:-';;:
S"d
drGlD A\:JW
ge:tt eeee-St-Nnf
.
.
11871347-(131
5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures lIlId Rctainilll! Wall Desillll Consideraticms
The recommended lateral pn:ssures fur the site soil (cxpallSiOll indel.1ess than 5 I per use 18-I-B) and
level or sloping backfill are presented on Table 4.
Embedded StnlcturaI walls should be designed tor lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of defoan..tion that the wall 'CllIl yield under load.
If the wall can yield enough 10 mobilize thc full shear strcuath of 1hc soil, it can be designed for
"active" pn:ssure, If the wall cannot yield under the aJlP!i1ld load, 1be shear strength of the soil cannot
be mobilized and thl: earth pressure will be higber. Such walIs should be designed for "at rest"
conditiOl1ll. If a structure moves Ioward the soils, the lliSUlting resistance developed by the soil is !he
.passive1t resistance.
For design purposes, the _clcd cquivalCDt fluid prcssUlll fur each c.ut for waUs fuUDded above
the static groundwater and backfilled with soils of very low 10 low expansion po1X:ntial is provided in
Table 4. The equivalent fluid pressure values usume fiee.draining conditiOl1ll~ If conditions other
than those assumed above are anticipated, the geotechnical cmginccr should provide the equivalent fluid
pressure values 01\ an individual<ase basis. The geotechnical and structural mgincer should evaluate
surcharge loading effects front the adjacent structures, All n:tIining wall Slructurcs should be
provided with appropriatc drainage and waterproofing. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain 10 a
suitable outlet, Typical wall drainage design is ilIUSlIated in Figure 2.
For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the conerete and soil illlClfuCl:. In
combining thc IotaI lateral resimnce, the passive pJaSUre or the mclional resistance should be
reducec,l by SO pen:ettt. Wall footings should be designed in =rdance with structural considerations.
The passive resistance value may be increased by OlIO-third when coosidering loads of short dunnion,
including wind or seismic loads, The horizontal distance betwl:cn fouDda1ion elemenlll providing
passive resistance should be a millimum of three times t1Je depth of tbc elements In allow full
dcveJopmcnt of these passive pressure. The tolal depth of retained earth fOf design of canti1Cl'Cf walls
sbould be the vertical distance below the 8fOUIIll surface measured at the wall 11= for stem design or
mcasured at the heel of the footing for overturning and aliding,
Wall backcut ClCCavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For hackcutB [greatef than 5
feet in hcigh~ butle8s than 15 feet in height, the baclccut should be fl._II _ ~ to a gradient of not stccpcr than
I: I (horimntaI to vertical) slope iIlclinatillll. For backcuts in =cas of 15 feet in height, specific
=ommendations should be requested from the ll""""'hniaal consultant. The granular and native: bacldill
soils should be compacIl:d 10 at least 90 peramt rclalivo alItIpIdion (based CD ASTM Test Method D US7).
The granular fill should extend horizontaIly to a minimum distance equal to ooe-balf die wall height behind
the w.ills. The walls should be CClIIStructed and h-H;11Pd 88 100II as possible after' backcut excavation.
Prolonged e>qlOSure ofbackcut slopes may result in sane .......6""'" slope instability,
Foundations foe retaining wa1Is in competent formalional soils or properly compacted fill should be
embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade and in accordance with sectiOll 5.2.4
(foundation Setback from Slopes). At this depth, an allowable bearing capacityjf 2,600 psf may be
assumed.
- II -
~II=-
~ -~
~~=
\~
9t'd
d~D A\:JW
.1.0: n e00e-St-Nnr
.
.
11871347-031
5,4 Concrete Flatwork
~
In order to ~ce the potalliaI for dillen:zttial movement or cradciDg of driveways, sidewalks, patios, or
other COIlcretc tIatwak, wddoxl wire mesh rcinfon:.emett consisting of 6><6-10/10 01' No; 3 rebats at 24
iDd1es en ceoter (Ilal:h way) is suggmed IIong with keeping pad gmde soils at an eleviUed moistu.e coutenl.
-
5.5 Pavemcnt Desip
-
Final pavemCllt designs have been calculated and presented in our reJi:nmced reports (Lcightcn, 1mb
and 2000a). R-valuc tests taJa;n OIl the street subgrade soils upon completion' of the street
improvement opCrnliOlls Wl:re utilized in the calculations. The upper 12 inehes of subgrade soils should
be scarified. moisture-conditioaed and C<lIIIpactcd to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction
based on ASTM Test MetlIod 01557. The lIggI'egate base lIIllIerial should also be compacted to 95
percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method 01557).
5,6 Control of Surface Water and DraiJI.... ClIlItMl
-
To prevent infiltration of water beneath structural fuundatim and prevent satutation of near"lurtace
soils, we have provided the following drainage recommendations. Positive drainage of surfilce water
shonld be provided away from buildings at a gradiCllt ofatleast 2 pe=t fora distance of at least
5 feet, and IiInber maintaiDcd by a swak: on drainage path at a gradient of at least I percent. No water
should be allowed to pond a.cljacent to buildings. Where limited by 5-fuot side yards, drainage should
be directed away from foundations for a minimum of 3 feet and into a coIlectivc swale or pipe system.
Where necessary, drai:n2ge paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes and/or
paved swales. Eave guttef8 also help reducc water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the
downspouts are properly connected to appropriale ouliets.
Planters v.ith open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided, if possible, Planters should not be
designed Adjacent to buildings unless provisions for dramage, such as catch basins and pipe drains, arc
made. No ponding of water from any source (including irrigalion) should be permitted onsite as
moisture infiltration may increase lhe potential for moisture-related di!llress. ElI.perience has shown
that even with these ccntMls for surface drainage, a shallow perched ifOUndwalCr or subsurface-water
condition can and may dcvdop in areas where DO such oondition previously existed. This i!
panicularly true where a substantial increase in surface-water infi1lJation resulting from site irrigatiOh.
occurs, Mitigation of these conditions should be perfonned under thc recommendations of the
gcolcclmical consultant on a case-by-casc basis.
5.7 Graded Slooes
It is recommended that all graded slopes \\;thin the subjCl:t tl'8ds be pIlIIlted with tIrougbt-toIerant,
ground- covcr vegctalillll as soon as practical 10 prolCct against erosion by reducing runoff velocity.
Deep-rooted veaet.ation should also be established to provide resistance to surficial slumping.
Oversteepcning of existing slopes should be avoided during Rough gradinS and construction, Retaining
structUres to suppan graded slopes should be dcsigned with structural considerations and appropriate
soil parameters provided in Section 5.3.
- 12-
~.:::!....
s,"'-"" ~
\~
l.t'd
drmD A\:JW
l.e:tt eeec-St-Nnr
.
.. .....
::=-w
1 I 871347-{13 I
5.8 IrriRation. LandscaDinR and lot Main~
Sire irrigation should be controlled al all times, We reconu..end thar only the minimum amount ofl
irrigation -sary ItJ maiorain plant vigor be utilized, For irrigation of trees and shrubs, a drip!
irrigation sysrcm should be considered. W. =ommend that wl1ere possible, landscaping consist,
primarily of droueht-tolenun vegetation. A I.n~scape consultaal sbouId be conlacred for proper plant i
selection. for large graded slopes acljacenl to open space areas, we nx:ommcnd native plant species be'
utilized and that irrigation be utilized only until plants are weU established. At that time, irrigation.
could be significantly reduced.
Upon sale of homes, maiotenance of IOIS and ~ areas by tile homeowners and homeownez's
association, respectiwly, is recommended. Reconunendations for the maintenance of slopes and
property lire inc:luded in Appendix D fur your review and distribution to future homeowners and/or I
homeownez's associations.
5.9 Construction Ob~iOll and Te.qline
Construction observarion and testing should he perfonned by the geotechnical consultant during future'
excavations, utility trench bacldi1ling, and fouudation or retaining wan construction at the site.
Additiooally, footing excavations should be observed and moisture determination lelrts of subgrade
soils should be performed by the gcotech.nical consultant prior to the pouriug of concrete. Foundation
design plans should aJso be reviewed by the geotc:chnica1 consultant prior to excavation.
- 13-
---.. I
~ :f=;;
~--~--
~ -;0:
\1
8t'd
d~A\:JW
80:tl eeec-St-Nnr
.
-
11871347-031
6,0 LIMITATIONS
-
The presence of our field representatlve at the Site was intended to provide the owner willt professional
advice, Opinions, and recolllJllelldations based on observations of the contractor's worle'. Although the
observations did not reveal obvious deficiencies or deviations from project specifications, we do not
lUaiantee the contractor's worle, DOr do our services relieve the contractor or his subcontractor's worle,
nor do our services relieve the contractor or his subconuaClors of their respoiL~ibility if def81:t.s ate
subsequently discovered in their work. Our responsibilities did not include any supervision or
direction of the lIClUaI work procedures of the COJItractor, his personnel, Or subCOntractors. The
conclusions in this report are based on test results and observations of the grading and earthwork
procedures used and represem our eogineerlng opinion as to the compliance of the results with the
project specifications.
This report was prepared for Lc:nnar ffomes, based on Lennar Homes needs, directions and
requirements at the time, This report is not authorized for use by, and is nor to be relied upon by any
party eJltept, Lennar Homes, with whom Leigbton COntracted for the work, Use of Or reliance on this
report by any other party i$ at that party's risk. Unauthori~ed use of or reliance on this Report
CODSticules an agreement to defelld and indemnify Leightoo and Asscciates from and against any
liability which may arise as a result of such use or leliance, regacdless of any fault, negligence, or
strict liability of Leighton and Associates.
-
-
- 14-
---lit.
;:: ,
;;: =.;;;
~~=
~ --
\~
6t'd
~A\:JW
80: n e00e-st-Nflr
.
-
\
elY
NORTH
..
~
I
~
BASE MAP' ThomasBroo,GecF"Olderfor
WindOWS. RIY...ide County. 1995. Page 959 0 1000 2000 4000
1 1"=2.000' IIIIb L...: Scale In Feet
1 TRACTS 23100-6, SITE Project No. II
23100-7, LOCATION 87134N131
1 AND 23100-8 Date V\
MAP MAY 2000 Figure No, 1
ec'd
d~A\:JW
60:H 000G-St-Nnr
.
--
SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT f'lELATlVE COUPACTIOH~
i
1
1
1
T
WALL WATEAPI'IOCFIHG
..eA A"CItITECT'S
SPEOIFICA TIOHB
I'. 0
I .
I.: .
I: . ~ ~ I~~
~. ~
~~
WALL FOOTING ~ ""
NOT TO s:~~~~ :O{~PEi:~:~N~D"OCK 01'1 MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE ClEOTECMNICAL
CONSULTANT
litalii$.~\~~!jl~~=--
~~~~~~~~~~~:;:~:r'
-I . -;;"h"1 ~~~~:t~:t~-
o ,A. r I :!=~~?~~::-~
S. M N !.P~.I!-'
o I.. --=---.". P'ILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
OVEALAP
. 0 . ---- (MIRAFI 140NCA APPROVED
. -___ EQUIV ALENT) ...
. .
" MIN. ---.
3/4.-1-1/2' CLIAN GRAVEL-
R~TAINING WALL
r
r
t~:=::=i:=i::=?i:=~::::~~=i~::::~~~~~~~~~
-:-_~:;;:=:;;:t::~OI.APACTEll FILLi;::?-;::-::.:
. - ...--....,....."'---------:-:~~~~:t~~~~
FINISH GRACE
. 4' (MIN_) OIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCItECUl.E ,",0 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH ,,!AFOIIATIONS
ORIEHTEO DOWN AS DEPtCTlI!)
MINIMUM 1 "ERCENT'13RAOIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
SFE~:F!C~7:C~S ouR .:AL;RA~S
C~~SS Z P:;~~~cLE ~7~~!AL
T ~.S. Stanoa:",:
SlelJe S; :! . ;J!!5S~no
,
f- I" 100
;/~" 90- ,CO
.. "" ~O.. ,00
.:/....
~:o . J 25.';0
~lo . a 18- !-'
:~o. "0 - ..
:....;;;
~,o . :u 0.;
:iO. 2':)0 0- ,
~.:na ~:u~...~;tn;>;:
*BMIEg ON Al!ITM 0'11117
**IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEAIILE MATERIAL
(SEE CiRAOATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLAC!! Q" ,
3/4'-1-"2' GRAVEL, FILTeR "ABRle MAY BE
DELETEll. C"'LTRANS CLASS 2 peRMEABLE
MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTEr/:TO $0
P!!RCENT RELATIVE COW PACTION ."
NOTE;COMPOSITE O,"AINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MlRADRAIN
OA J-ORAIN MAY SE USED AS AN ALTERNA'TlVETO GRAVEl. OR
CLASS 2.INSTALLAilON SHOULD BE PERFO~e IN AC::;ORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURE-tiS SPECIFICATIONS.
RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE OET AIL
Project No. 11871347-1131
Scale Not to Scale '
El1gr.lGeol. ATGlRI"R
Dralled By _
Dale MAY 2000 '
!flUI
.U;EPPJINT ~OUAC~ ~ SuPPLy
~ ~~2 389
Figure 2;
'Zf5
tC':'d
d~8 A\:JW
60:H 000G-St-Nnr
-
..,
'i'
..
.".
..,
;:::
~
-
:l!
:z:
52
- ~
~ j
~
~
~
s
~
I
~
(Z'd
4 Ii
Ii!
HS
.~ &
'" 3
<.i 'll
oj :;
~
\.
.1 -I ·
8 8 - li
"" E
U it 1:1
H h lb i1
.a" .a" J!~;\ ...
So! io~ ~~fi t!1
Iii ili ~i~ jl
.J ii. !.. ~ 8 v . J!
~j 'lJ h) H
B
;;'
~"
"'",
:tq
~.h
h:
~\l!I"
111
.~ l
hi>
H'i
, . '"
"il-
I _I ~
-"
~il
. ~ ~
HI !!
~ '6!l 'll
jh t
';'.1 ~
.- ~
1\l!I- a
jj! 1l
'tt~1i 1
Ht t
.... .
8ir'!
-lIiir' I
Hil.
"'1@
... j c
.it... .J!
hl ::l
~ I I. c!
,5.5 i) ~ I o~ .
1 I : I] IJ i
.1.1 ~ I i 2 .i'oi ~
~"~ ."Un,;,
i!I]~ I. i ,I ~1 .~
S"! . jEt~;ll ~i i1 '.1
~ ! ~I &1 fi~ i~ ~~ ~1 I
~ n 111 ~i~ -r~ !! ~~ J
:..s ~J r..~.!:! :s-l :f:= I
!~ !~ IIi if I itl lIt!
'"
~
~
!i
j I
l~~
~ !
;:i
Ii. Ii.
i j t ;.
.1.1 ~ i j
8 ~ ~ I i!
J! J! II 11 ~ '0
" " i! '" ~ ·
:1 d ~~
J~ J~ H!~] H
ii .: !~?~! ~1
~ t ulI! ~ ~ li
i-4t~i~::i~;l ;so!
.j ..3 · "-8'~.!l ...~
.5" .5" Ii Ii Jl It. ! -i
J. J. lj) i~~ j~
~ i H /l d! ~~ j h
-5
..
';i
..
lb a. .Jj
.. .5 2
i? i:::- :l;
u: ~ u. ~ I
K=:; ~::;-
..:.! ~e ~
I
"'
~
.
'li~
-..
"..
P
lL~
:':
:;~
I!''''-
-ii ::
;::e
!~
o
J1
I
i~
sl
t.ll
'-I
1.B
i;
L
J
]
,Ii
t1
t.1l
Ili
i
!.s.
Il~
j~
~
it
!.~ I
n ~ l!
0;:.. I U
';ii=: III If'I
.. iJ II
~~I fi It..
'u 2 -I
Hll 11
~
i .ij
(Q' f !J!
... .. II x
~~ ::l~.p
300' ~;; 011 g
q U ~i~
tZ",B. i <:I i i.5
L .1:1 Ui
d~~ A\:JW
-
~ t.J
.~ gJ
{t ~
.~ -
1 -5
'" '!
~ ~
! 'Be ~
OIl 'li:" 6
~ 1I....il
:5 ri" .l!.~ ,)l
l5.J5 il; :S
t~d !1~~
1 :~i.l; ~ !! ~ ':;
~."'''?l~ ~ !9
tl ]:] ;.i 8 i !
i~l~ 1 r~.g!
...g,.! it!! ~li
i1' In'- illS ca..' ..
;: ..~-"" .
IS .t"';::;,,,.e.g~
]iiJi.tii~
1 "I' l\l rt~ l; .. ~
i ~ "" = e a I
I CIf). oN t'""l w-
e ,!Ii.e ; " 'a 11
.8-~,.,Ii;!' w
.elJ'~ -e 'Di ~ ...
gji~~ C.!lc.2
.. -1!"e.~t!
.s ~ B .; ~ .:r~ &.
.ell ~i"8: If
l; e " 0 - .co .... '8
'D~i.I~; 11
~l~~~!iJ!
.j! u~ ll~~'-'S
sa-5~=UI~"8~
.e'cl~.~~~::Et.l
'S....> ..",..
"" III ..:: 1;\)'" Ii tl
1!t ~e Ii' e: 'E ,. -a
gF;3s~tl'lj::>
fi
!
2-\
......._------
_~I""'I...,.If"I~......OO
.--------
et:tt eeee-St-Nnf
e
-
11871347.()31
Table 2
TRACf 23100-6
Lot by Lot Summary of As-graded Gectecltnical Conditions and Recommendalions Concerning Foundation Typo,
As-graded Geotechnical Conditions Presoaking Recommendations
Lot Finish Grade Sulfate Contelit' Foundation Type Moisture DeP1b
Number Expansion Potential' Recommeodatioll&
-
t Very Low Moderate Conv....rinnal Near Outimum 6 inches
2 VtJl'jLow Moderate Conventional Near Ootimum 6 inches
3 Very Low Mod....1e rnnventionaJ Near 6 inches
4 Very Low Modctate Conventional Near Optimum 6 inches
S Very Low Modmle Ccnventional Near 0 . 6 Inches
6 Very Low MocIen1bl Conventional NearOnrimum 6 inches
7 VtJl'jLow Modeme Conventional Near Onlimum 6 Inche.~ '
8 Very Low Modetate Conventional Near n...;",um 6 Inches
- 9 Very Low Moderate Cooventional Near Ondmum 6 inches
, 10 Very Low Moderate Conventional Near flntlmum 6 inchp-<
~ 11 Very Low Moderare Conventional No&[ Ondmum 6 inches
r 12 Very Low Moderate Cooventional Near Onrimum 6 inches
13 Very Low Moderate Conventional Near Ondmum 6 inChes
I 14 Very Low ModeraIe Conventional Near Ontimum 6 inelle.
IS V cry Low Moderate Conventinnal Near Ootimum 6 inohes
r 16 Very Low Moderate Conventional Near 6 inchp_<
. 17 Very Low Moderate Conventional Near OnIlmum 6 ind1e.<
,. t8 Very Low Modeme Conventional N ' urn 6 inches .
I 19 Very Low Modcnlle Conventional Near Onrlmum 6 inches .
..... 20 Very Low Modctate Conventional Near Ontlmum 6 inches
21 Very Low Mode....., CnnventionaI Near Onlimum 6 inches
22 Low Moderate Conventional 1.2 x Onrimum 12 inches
T 23 Low Moderate Cooventional 1.2 x Ontlmum 12 inches .
24 Low Moderate Conventional 1.2 .. Ootilllllm 1211lCbe.<; ,
r 2S Low Moderale Conventional 1,2 x Ontlmum 12 inclles
I 26 Low Modcrabl Conventional I 2 I nnhlllllm 12 Inches
r 27 Very Low Moderale Conventional Near Onrimum 6 inches
r 28 Very Low Modente Conventional Near Ootimum 6 inches
. 29 Very Low Moderate Conventional Near Onthnum 6 inches
I 30 Very Low Moderate Conventional Near Ontimum 6 inch...
31 Very Low Modenll~ Conventional Near Ontimum 6 inches
-
I) 1lued0l\ tlBC IM.I-B
,. Based on UBC Table 19-A4
~'d
zz.
d~8 A\:JW
0t:tt e00C-St-Nnf
e
-
1187 I 347'()31
Tahle 2
TRACT 23100-7
Lot by Lot Summary of As-JI'aded Geotedmical Conditions and
Recommendations Concerning FOUIIdation Type
A.-graded Geotechnical Clmditions Presoaking Recommendations
Lot Finish Grade Sulfate Content' Foundllion Type Moisture Depth!
Number ExpaDSion Recommendations
- Potential'
1 Very Low Moderale Convlllllinnal Near Ootimum 6 incbes
- 2 Very tnw Moderale Conventional Near Ootimum 6 inches
3 Very Low ModeJare Conventional Neill: Ootimum 6incbes
- 4 Very Low Moderale Conventional Near Ootimum 6 inches
S Very Low Moderate Co_1ionaI Near Ootimum 6 inches
6 Very Low Modenre Conventional Near Ontimum 6 inches
7 Very Low Moderate Conveotional Near Ootimum 6 inches
8 Very Low Moden/8 Conventional Near Ontimum 6incbes
9 Very Low Modetate Convenlional Near Ontimum 6 inches
10 Very Low Mod"""" Conveotiona1 Near Ontimum 6 inches
- II Very Low Moderate Conventinnal Near Ootimum 6 inches
12 Very Low ModmIe Convetltional Near_Oi:ltimum 6 inches
, 13 Very Low Modenre Co 'na1 Near Ontimum 6 Inches
I 14 Low Modonle CoDVeDtional 1,2" Ootimum 12 inches
15 Low ModenIe Conventional 1. 2 It Ontimurn 12 inches
16 Low Moderale Conventional 1,2" Ootimum 12 inches
17 Very Low Modetale Conventional Near Ootimllm 6 inches
t8 Very Low Modente Conventional Near Ontimwn 6 inches
- 19 Very Low NePeible Co 'na1 Near OmImum 6 inches
20 Very tnw Neglicible COlMllllional Near Ontimum 6 inches
I 21 Very Low Negligible . Near Ootimum 6 Inches
T 22 Very Low Neglijible Conventional Near Ontimum 6 inches
I 23 Very Low Negligible Conventional Near Ontimum 6 inches ,
24 Very Low Negligible Conventional Nel1r Ootimum 6 inches
I 2S Low Moderate Conventional 1.2 X O<<imum I 12 inches
26 Low Moderate Conventional 1.2 X ODIimum 12 inches
r 27 Low Modonle Conventional 1,2.x Ontimum 12 inches
Based on llBC 18A-I-B
2J Based on UBC Table 19-A-4
~'?
vc'd
d~D A\:JW
tt:tt 000G-St-Nnr
e
_I
I 187 I 347.!(J31
Table 2
TRACT 23100-8
Lot by Lot Summary of As-graied Geotechnical Conditioos aIKI
Recommeooations Concerning Foundation Type
As-gradc:d Geotechnical Ccnditions Presoaking Recommend:uiollS
Lot Finisb Grade Sulfare COntellt' FOIIooation Type Moisture Dtlplh
Number Expll/lSion Recommendations
Potential'
1 Low Moderale Conventional 1.2 x omlllUrn 12 inches :
2 Low ModctalC Conventional 1.211 12 inches i
3 Low ModenIe Conventional 1.211 12iru:hrs ,
4 Low ModenIe I'onventional 1.2 x 12 inches
S Low MocIerlwl Conventional 1.2 It . rn 12lncbes ,
- 6 Very Low MocIerlwl Conventional Near 6 inches
7 Very Low Moderate Ccnventiona1 Near ' . 6 Inches '
S Very Low Moderate Conventional Near 6 inches '
....
9 Very Low Modetale Conventiollill Near m 6 incbe$
10 V..y Low MocIente Ccnveolional Near 6 inches .
- 11 Low Modenre Conventional 1.2 It ODtimum 12 Inches !
12 Low Moderate CotlVentional I 2 It Onrirnum 12 ;illches ,
- 13 Low ModeroIe Conventional l.2lt 12 inches '
t4 Low Moderate Convmtional 1.2 x Onlimum J1]nches'
.... IS Low Moderate Conventional I ~, ""'boom 12,incbe!l ,
16 Low Moderate Conventional 1 2 x Onllmum 12 ;inches ,
17 Low Modtrale Conventional 1.211: 12 ;inches :
tB Low Moderate Conventional 1.2 x nn.1mum 12i""hes I
19 Low Moderate Conventional 1.2 x nntimnm 12 ;lndtes
, 20 Low Moderale Conventional 1. 2 I Ontimum 12 Inches '
I 21 Low Moderate Conventional 1.2 11: Clnrlmurn 12;inches I
') Based on UBC ISA-I-B
) Based on UBC Table 19.A-4
-
zA
-'
SG'd
dfnl8 A\:JW
c.:tt eaec-st-Nnr
,
e
-
'3i:"d "l;:I1Dl
11871347-031
Table J
Presoaking RecommaIdations Based on FiDisb Glade Soil Expansion Potential
Lot Number Expansion Potential Prcsoak.illll
(UBC 18-I-B) kecOlll111Clldations!
Tract 23101-S
lois 1-27; Nc:ai optimum moistuIc tontentitc a depth of
Tract 23101-6 Very Low 6 incbes below slab subgrade
Lots 1-6,17-36
Tracl23101-6 Low 1.2 times optimum moisture conleDt to a
Lots 7-16 depth of 12 incbesbelow slab grade
Table 4
Lateral Earth Pressurc&
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Conditions
Level Bacldill 2: 1 Slope ~-II
Active 35 55
At-~ 55 65
Passive 350 --
p
'3<:Od
d~A\:JW
i:t:tt 00ee-SI-Nnr