HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 30667-3 As Graded Rough GradingAS-GRADED REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
FOR HARVESTON TRACT 30667-3
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
Lennar Communities
391 N. Main Street, Suite 301
Corona, California 92880
November 10, 2003
Project No. 110231-024
•
Leighton and Associates, Inc. ~
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
•
~
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANV
November 10, 2003
Project No. l 10231-024
To: Lennaz Communities
391 N. Main Street, Suite 301
Comna, California 92880
Attention: Mr. Bill Storm
Subject: As-Graded Report of Rough Grading far Harveston, Tract 30667-3, City of
Temecula, Califomia.
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Ina (Leighton) has been
providing geotechnical observation and testing services during rough gading operations of Tract
30667-3, located in the City of Temecula, Califomia (See Figure 1). The accompanying as-gaded
report siunmarizes our observations, field and laboratory test results and the geotechnical conditions
encountered dwing the rough giading of lots 1 through 57 of Tract 30667-3 within the Harveston
Community.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office, we
appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. .~~PEV pFQ
~~ O~~fiT F, 9
~/ i
//// / Q C~ No. lo2t +
CO ' ~ ~ ,~ CEHTIF:ED
* aEaaaisT~
Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 (Exp. 02/29/
Vice PresidenUPrincipal Geologist ~OF~p~„1f~~~
RFR/ATG/mm/dlm
110231-024/finaVas-gd ryt tract 30667-3
Distribution: (8) Addressee, (1 Unbound)
(2) Harveston Jobsite; Attention: Mr. Bob Hall
No. OE2320
Exp. 12-37-05
2
J' r`-'C~"_"" _"_
Guatelli, GE 2320'
Associate Engineer
41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103 ^ Temecula, CA 92590-5661
909.296.0530 ^ Fax 909.296.0534. www.leightongeo.com~.,_
' 110231-024
November 10, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Paae
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0 SUMMARY OF ROUGH-GRADING OPERATIONS ...................................................................2
2.1 Site Preparation and Removals ............................................................................... .....2
2.2 Field Densiry Testin9 ........................ 2
2.3 ......................................................................
Laboratory Testin9 .................................................................................................. .....
....2
2.4 Fill Placement ......................................................................................................... ....3
2.5 Canyon Subdrains ................................................................................................... ....3
3.0 GEOTECHNICALSUMMARY .........................................................................................:.....4
3.1 As-Graded Geologic Conditions ....................................................................................4
3.2 Geologic Units ............................................................................................................4
3.2.1 Artifidal FII ~A~ ......................................................................................................4
3Z.2 Artificial FII Leighton (Afl) ........................................................................................4
3.3 Geologic Structure and Faulting ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
...................................... 4
....
3.4
Landslides and Surficial Failures 5
3.5 ...............................................................................
Groundwater
.
. ....
5
3
6 .........
..
..............................................................................................
E
i
T
ti
f F
i
h G
d
S
il ...
. xpans
on
es
ng o
n
s
ra
o
e
s ..................................................................... 5
.
3.7 Lot Setback ............................................................................................................. ..
...s
4.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................6
4.1 General ......................................................................................................................6
4.2 Summary of Conclusions .............................................................................................6
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................$
5.1 Earthwork ..................................................................................................................$
5.1.1 Excavations ..:........................................................................................................ $
5.1.2 Utility Bacid'ill, FII Placement and Compaction ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, g
5.2 Foundation and Structure Design Considerations ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g
5.3 Foundation Setback from Slopes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 10
.......................................................
5.3.1 Structural Setback, Lots 9 and 10 .........................................................................10
5.4 Structure Seismic Design Parameters ....................................................................---11
5.5 Corrosion .................................................................................................................11
5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11
5.7 Concrete Flatwork .....................................................................................................13
3
~
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
Table of Contents (cont.)
5.8 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13
5.9 Graded Slopes ..........................................................................................................14
5.10Irrigatlon, Landscaping and Lot Maintenance,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14
5.11 Post-Grading Geotechnical Review ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14
5.11.1 Construction Review ..........................................................................................14
5.11.2 Plans and Specifications .....................................................................................14
6.0 LIMIfATIONS .................................................................................................................15
Accompanying Fgures, Tables. Plates and Apoendices
Fi~C ures
Figure 1- Site Location Map Rear of Text
Fgure 2- Setback Diagram Rear of Text
Figure 3- Retaining Wall Drainage Detail for 6cpansive Soils Rear of Text
Flgure 4- Retaining Wall Drainage Detail for Low Expansive Soils Rear of Text
Tables
Table 1- Lot by Lot Summary of As-graded Geotechnical
Conditions and Recommendations Rear of Text
Table 2- Minimum Conventional Foundation Design Recommendations Rear of Text
Table 3- Minimum Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations Rear of Text
Table 4- Lateral Earth Pressures Rear of Teact
Plates
Plates 1& 2- As-Graded Geotechnical Map In Pocket
Aaoendices
Appendix A - References
Appendix B- Summary of Field Density Tests
Appendix C- Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Appendix D- Lot Maintenance Guidelines for Owners
~
- ~~ Leighton
~
110231-024
November 10, 2003
1.0
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Ina (Leighton) has
performed geotechnical observation and testing services during the most recent phase of rough-
grading operations of I.ots 1 through 57 of Tract 30667-3 within the Harveston Community. The
subject tract had been previously "sheet" mass graded under the observation and testing of I.eighton
(Leighton, 2003a).
This as-graded report sununarizes our geotechnical observations, field and laboratory test results
and the geotechnical conditions encountered during the recent rough grading of We subject lots.
In addition, this report provides conclusions and recommendations for the proposed development
of the subject lots.
The reference 40-scale grading plans for Tract 30667-3 (RBF, 2003) were annotated and utitized as
a base map (Plates 1& 2) to plot geotechnical conditions and the approximate locations of the field
density tests taken during rough-grading operations.
j
~
-i-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
2.0 SUMMARY OF ROUGH-GRADING OPERATIONS
Tract 30667-3 was inirially sheet graded as Lots 15 & 16 wi[hin Tract 29639-1 under the observation
and testing of Leighton (I.eighton, 2003a). Rough gading to the appmved design configuration
(RBF, 2003) was conducted by ACI, Ina in July through September of 2003, under the geotechnical
observadon and testing services of Leighton. Leighton field technician(s) and geologist were onsite
on a full-time and as-needed basis, respectively, during grading operations. Grading involved the
complete removal of desiccated fill, erosion rills and surface emsion sediments to wmpetent
previously-placed compacted fill (Leighton, 2003a) and the placement of compacted artificial fill to
depths of approlcimately six feet to create the design residenrial lots and associated madways.
2.1$ite Preparation and Removals
Prior to grading, deleterious materials were removed from the azeas of proposed developmerit
and disposed of offsite. Grading of the subject site was accomplished by removal of unsuitable
surficial material. The removals were completed until competent previously-placed
compacted fill (Leighton, 2003a) was encountered in accordance with the recommendations of
the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and the geotechnical recommendations made
during gading operations.
2.2 Field Densitv Testina
Field density testing was perfomied using the nucleaz gauge method (ASTM Test Methods
D2922 and D301'n. Tested azeas appear to meet the minimum required 90 percent rela6ve
compaction with optimum moisture content or above. Areas that tested less than the required 90
percent relative compaction, were reworked, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted
until the miuimum 90 percent was obtained. The results and appmximate locarions of the field
density tests are summarized in Appendix B. The approximate locarions of the field density tests
are depicted on the enclosed As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1& 2).
2.3 Laboretorv Testing
Laboratory compaction chazacteristics (maximum dry density and optimum moisttue),
expansion index, Atterberg lunits, and soluble sulfate tests of representative onsite soils were
performed during the wurse of rough-grading and aze presented in Appendix C. A description
of the laboratory test procedures aze also presented in Appendix C. The interpretation of the
laboratory data for each lot is presented in Table 1 at the reaz of text.
~
~
- Z Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
2.4 Fill Placement
Fill consisting of the soil types listed in Appendix C was placed in thin lifts of
approximately eight inches, processed and moisture conditioned to optimum moisture
content or above, and compacted in place to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory
derived maximum density. During the previous site mass grading (Leighton, 2003a) areas of
fill that were deeper then 50 feet were compacted and tested to 95 percent relative
compaction below the 50-foot depth. A 95 percent relative compaction zone (buttress) was
constructed in accordance to the recommendations of the reference report (Leighton, 2002)
along lots 14 through 16 in order to increase the seismic stability of the fill slope superjacent
to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. The buttress was constructed as depicted in Figure 2.
A structural setback is recommended as shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates
1& 2). Fill placement and compaction was accomplished with the use of heavy earthwork
equipment. For a description of the removal criteria refer to the previous rough-grading
report (Leighton, 2003a).
2.5 Canyon Subdrains
The existing canyon subdrain constructed during rough-grading of Tract 29639-1 (L,eighton,
2003a) should be outletted to the planned permanent storm drain system that outlets into:the
Santa Gemudis Creek during the storm drain construction of Tract 30667. The approximate
location of the subdrain is presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1& 2).
Canyon subdrains, as constructed, were surveyed by RBF.
~
~
-3-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL SUMMARY
3.1 As-Graded Geologic Conditions
The as-graded conditions encountered during grading of the subject lots was essentially as
anticipated. A summary of the geologic conditions, including geologic units, geologic structure
and faulting is presented below.
3.2 Geologic Units
The geologic units observed during grading of the subject lots consisted of Artificial Fill (A~,
and previously-placed compacted fill (Afl) which aze discussed below:
3:2.1 Artificial Fill (Afl - Locally derived artificial fill soils generally consisted of olive gray to
olive bmwn silty sand to locally slightly clayey silty sand. Artificial fill soils were placed
under the observation and field density testing by Leighton representatives during this
phase of gading. After moisture conditioning and thomugh mixing, the artificial Sll soils
were placed in rela6vely thin (8-10 inches) lifts and compacted utilizing heavy duty
conshuc6on equipment.
3.2.2 Artificial Fill Leighton fll - The artificial fill encountered from our previous phase of
grading 2002/2003 generally consisted of brown to dazk brown, moist, medium dense to
dense silty sand. As encountered during gading, the artificial fill was generally moderately
dense neaz the surface, becoming dense with depth. The weathered artificial fill materials
were scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moishue conditioned and thoroughly mixed and re-
used as compacted fill.
3.3 Geologic Structure and Faulting
Based on our geologic observations during site grading, the Pauba Formation is massive with
localized bedding, which is generally flat lying. No faulting or indicarions of faulting were
anticipated or observed within or immediately adjacent to the subject tract. No faulting or
indications of active faulting was anticipated nor observed within the subject lots during mugh-
grading operations. The neazest "zoned" active fault is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore
Fault Zone located approxnnately 0.8 miles (13 km) to the southwest.
~
-4 Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
3.4 Landslides and Surficial Failures
Based on our review of the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and our geologic
observations during the course of grading operations, there were no indications of landslides or
other significant surficial failures within the subject tract. B should be noted that unplanted or
unpmtected slopes aze subject to erosion and subsequent surficial instability.
3.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during recent or previous (Leighfon, 2003a) rough
grading. Canyon subdrains were constructed in general accordance with the project
geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and our field recommendations during the previous
grading (Leighton, 2003a). However, unforeseen conditions may occur after the completion of
grading and establishment of site irrigation and landscaping. Perched groundwater may
accumulate at layers of dif~'ering permeability or at bedrock/fill contacts. If these conditions
should occur, methods should be taken to mirigate any resul6ng seepage. Presently the majority
of the subject site drains towazds the south and any surface runoff will tend to collect at low
points until such time that the proposed design drainage facilities aze constructed. If water is
allowed to pond in these azeas for any length of time the subgade in these areas may become
saturated and additional grading recommendations may be required to mitigate trus condition.
We recommend that the project etosion control pmgram be designed and implemented as soon
as possible to limit the potential of erosion damage or adverse effects to compacted fill.
3.6 Exuansion Testing of Finish Grade Soils
Expansion index testing was performed on representarive neaz finish grade soils. of the subject
lots. The test results indicate the on lot neaz-finish grade soils have a very low to medium
expansion potential in accordance with Table 18-I-B of the 1997 UBC. Test results of samples
talcen during the course of grading indicate that very low to very high expansive soils exist on site
at various depths and locations on the Harveston project site. Test procedures and results aze
presented in AppendiJC C. A lot by lot summary of the as-gaded conditions for the subject lots is
presented in Table 1.
3J Lot Setback
In addition to the recommended Uniform Building Code (IJBC) building setbacks for slopes,
Leighton evaluated the need for an additional setback on I,ots 8, 19, 33 through 41 and 45 of
this tract. This was primarily due to the subsurface soil conditions on the adjoining canal right-
of-way. A report providing our analysis and recommendation were provided in the referenced
report dated July 9, 2002 (Leighton, 2002). See Section 5.3.1 for fiuther discussion.
~
~
-5-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 General
The grading of the subject lots was performed in general accordance with the project geotechnical
reports and geotechnical recommendations made during the course of mugh grading. It is our
pmfessional opinion that the subject lots are suitable for their intended residential use provided
the recommendations included herein and in the project geotechnical reports are incorporated into
the design and construcrion of the residential structures and associated improvements.
4.2 Summary of Conclusions
. Geotechnical conditions encountered during rough grading of the subject site were generally
as anticipated.
. Excava6ons were made to dense previously-placed compacted fill (Afl) material during the
gadirig for the subject lots.
.. Fill slopes within the subject tract range up to approximately 16 feet in height. It is our
opinion that the compacted fill slopes on the subject lot aze surficially and grossly stable
(under normal irrigation/precipitation patterns) provided the recommendations in the project
geotechnical reports and memorandums aze incorporated into the post-grading construction
and post-construction phases of site development. Slopes aze inherently subject to erosion.
As such, measures should be taken as soon as possible to reduce erosion for both short term
and long term slope integity.
. Laboratory testing of soils encountered during the course of grading indicates site soils to
possess a very low to very high expansion potential. Some expansive soil related distress to
flatwork should be anticipated. It is our opinion that the neaz surface soils influencing the
design of foundation and slabs of the subject tract should be considered to be very low to
medium expansive (per UBC).
. Laboratory testing of near finish grade soils within building footprints indicates materials
which posses a very low to medium expansion potential and have a negligible concentration
of soluble sulfate. Laboratory test results aze contained herein Table 1 and Appendix C.
• Testing for minimum resistivity, chloride concentrates, and pH was not conducted during
the course of rough grading. A licensed corrosion engineer should be contacted in regard to
detemuning the potential for corrosion if corrosion sensitive buried improvements aze to be
installed.
• The potential for ground-surface rupture on the site due to a seismic event is considered to
be low; however, as in most of southem Califomia, strong ground shaking should be
anticipated during the li£e of the shuctures. The standazd design of structures to meet the
seismic design requirements of the Uniform Buiiding Code (iJBC), Seismic Zone 4 will be
required.
~
-6-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
. Where tested, fill material placed during grading of the subject tract was placed at a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (95 percent where recommended) at or above
the oprimum moisture conten[. Field testing of compaction was performed by the nucleaz
gauge method (ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017).
. Founda6ons should be designed and constructed in accardance with Leighton's minimum
recommendations herein, the requirements of the City of Temecula and the applicable
sections of the 1997 UBC.
. Due to the relatively dense nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the subject site, the
competency of compacted fills, as well as the lack of permanent shallow groundwater, the
potential for liquefaction on the site is considered very low.
. The front yazd and driveway azeas were intentionally left below design elevations
(approximately 2 to 3.5 feet below pad grade) to accommodate future foundation excavation
spoils. Filling of these azeas should be performed in accordance with the recommenda6ons
herein for earthwork (section 5.1.2).
\
~
-7-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
5A
5.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of precise grading of the building
pads, foundation installarion, trench excavation and backfill, retaining wall backfill,
preparation of street subgrade, and placement of aggregate base and asphalt concrete
pa~ement. We recommend that any additional earthwork on the site be performed in
accordance with the following recommendations and the City of Temecula grading
requirements.
5.1.1 Excavations - Temporary excavations with vertical sides, such as utility trenches,
should remain stable to depths of 4 feet or less for the period required to consiruct the
utility. However, in accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations greater than 4
feet in depth should be shored, or laid-back to inclinations of 1:1 (horizontal to
vertical), if workers aze to enter such excavations. I.eighton does not consult in the
azea of safety engineering. The contractor is responsible for the safety of all
excavations.
5.1.2 Utili Backfil~, Fill Placement and Compa ion -- All backfill or fill soils
should be brought to optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to
at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thiclmess required to produce
uniform compaction will depend on the type, size and condition of compaction
equipment used. In general, the onsite soils should be placed 'm lifts not exceeding 8
inches in compacted thiclrness and placed on dense existing compacted fill or other
earth material appmved by the geotechnical consultant. The backfill that coincides
with pauement subgrade will be reworked and compacted in accordance with
pavement design requirements.
5.2 Foundation and Structure Design Considerations
It is Leighton's understanding that single-family struchues founded on post-tensioned or
conventional foundation systems aze proposed. The proposed foundations and slabs should
be designed in accordance with the shuchual consultants' design, the minimum geotechnical
recommendations presented herein (text, Table 1 lluough 3), the City of Temecula
requirements and the 1997 UBC. In utilizing the minimum geotechnical foundation
recommendations, the shuctural consultant should design the foundation system to acceptable
deflection criteria as determined by the structural engineer and architect.
~O
~
-$ Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
Foundation footings may be designed with the following pazameters:
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2000 psf at a minimum depth of embedment of 12
inches, plus an additional 250 psf per 6 inches of
addiriona] embedment to a maximum of 2500 psf.
(per 1997 UBC, capacities may be increased by 1/3 for
short-term loading conditions, i.e., wind, seismic)
Sliding Coefficient: 0.35
Static Settlement Potential
Lots 1- 57
Total: 1 inch
Differential: i Inch in 40 Feet
The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab-on-grade thickness
should be designed by the shuctural consultant based on recommendations and soil
chazacterisfics indicated herein (Tables 1 through 3), and the most recently adopted edition of
the UBC. The effects of seismic shaking on foundation soils may increase the static
differential settlement noted above to approximately 1 inch in 40 feet.
The under-slab moisture barrier should consist of 2 inches of sand (S.E. > 30) over 10 mil
visqueen over an additional2 inches of sand (a total of 4 inches of sand). The recommended
vapor barrier should be sealed at all penetrations and laps. Moishue vapor transmission may
be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Moisture vapor barriers may retazd but
not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. A
slipsheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor
coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.) are to be placed direcUy on the concrete slab.
Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally
reduce the potential for drying and shri~ilcage cracking. However, some cracking should be
expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often
aggavated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperatures at the time of placement,
small nominal aggregate size and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry and/or windy weather
conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture
fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 to 5 inches
at the rime of placement) can reduce the potential for slu•inkage cracking.
~~
~
-9-
Leighton
110231-024
November 30, 2003
Future homeowners and homeowners' association should be made awaze of the importance of
maintaining a constant level of soil moisture. Homeowners should be made aware of the
potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing soils to
become too dry. Improperly designed, constructed, or maintained planters often pond water
and cause deep moisture penetration and soil moisture change. Since deep and repeated soil
moisture change can damage the adjacent skucture, placement of planters adjacent to
foundations or other sensi6ve hazdscape, such as pools and spas, should be discouraged if
adequate and proper maintenance can not be assured. Our recommendations assume a
reasonable degree of homeowner responsibility, if the homeowners do not adequately
maintain correct imgation and drainage, some degree of foundation movement should be
expected. However, this movement typically does not cause shuctural damage, but will cause
such things as stucco cracking and dry wall separation.
The slab subgrade soils should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations
presented in Table 1 prior to placement of the moisture barrier and foundation concrete. .
5.3 Foundation Setback from Slopes
We recommend a m;nimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all
structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, pools, etc.). This
distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope
faoe (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 5 feet and need not be greater than 10
feet. Please note that the soils within the structural setback azea possess poor lateral stability
and impmvements (such as retainiug walls, sidewalks, fences, pools, patios, etc.) constructed
within this setback azea may be subject to lateral movement and/or dif~'erential settlement.
The potential for distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened
footing or a pier and grade-beam foundation system to support the improvement. The
deepened footing should meet the setback as described above. Modificarions of slope
inclinations near foundations may reduce the setback and should be reviewed by the design
team prior to completion of design or implementation.
5.3.1 Structural Setback. Lots 9 and 10 -- Based on our supplemental analysis of
liquefaction and slope stability, it was determined that in the event of liquefaction
along the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel, some distress to the
manufactured fill slope is possible adjacent to lots 18, 19, 33 through 41, and 45 of
Tract 30667-3.
Six settlement monuments were placed along the top and toe of slope area adjacent
to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. These monuments were surveyed by the
project surveyor (RBF Consulting Inc.) from November 2002 through April 2003.
Based on our analysis of the settlement data, it is Leighton's opinion that the subject
area is suitable for its intended residential use (Leighton, 2003b).
~~
~
-10-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
A structural setback has been established along the top of slope that runs through
lots 18, 19, 33 through 41, and 45 of Tract 30667-3 and continues through Tract
30667 pazallel to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. Habitable or critical
structures should not be constructed beyond the setback zone presented on the As-
Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1& 2).
5.4 Structure Seismic Design Parameters
Structures should be designed as required by provisions of the Uniform Building Code (IJBC)
forSeismic Zone 4 and state-of-the-art seismic design pazameters of the Structural Engineers
Associarion of California. This site is located with UBC Seismic Zone 4. Seismic design
parameters in accordance with the 1997 UBC aze presented below. Please refer to the
Supplemental Geotechnical Invesfigation (Leighton, 2001) for additional information.
Seismic Source Type = B
Neaz Source Factor, N, =13
Neaz Source Factor, N~ =1.6
Soil Profile Type = Sn
Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.68g
(10°/a probability of exceedance in 50 years)
5.5 Corrosion
For sulfate exposure and cement type 7efer to Table 1 and the corresponding sections of the
UBC. Other than buried concrete improvements, a licensed corrosion engineer should be
contacted in order to determine the potential for corrosion if corrosion sensitive buried
improvements aze planned.
5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations
The recommended lateral pressures for very low to low expansive soil (expansion index less
than 51) and level or sloping backfill aze presented on Table 4(reaz of text). The onsite wall
excavation materials should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to use as wall
backfill.
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield
under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full sheaz strength of the soil, it can be
designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear
strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls
should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves towazd the soils, the resulring
resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance.
~
l3
-~~-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
The equivalent fluid weights of Table 4 assume very low to low expansive, free-draining
conditions. If condirions other than those assumed above are anticipated, equivalent fluid
weights should be provided on a case by case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surchazge
loading ef~'ects from adjacent structures should be evaluated by the structural engineer. All
retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. The
outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is
illustrated in Figure 2.
Lateral passive pressures may be deternuned using the values provided in Table 4. In
combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure ar the fi-ictional resistance should
be reduced by 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural
considerarions. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering
loads of short duration, including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal distance between •
foundation elements providing passive resistance should be a minimum of three times the
depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures. The total depth of
retained earth for design of canrilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground
surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for
overturning and sliding.
Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soils or properly compacted fill
should be embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade. At this depth,
an allowable bearing capacity of 2,250 psf may be utilized. The bearing capacity may be
increased by 250 psf for each addirional six inches of embedment to a maximum of 4000 psf.
Wall backcut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made neaz vertical. For backcuts
greater than 5 feet in height, the backcut should be flattened to a gradient not steeper than 1:1
(horizontal to vertical). Backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). Backfill should extend horizontally to a
minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the wa11s. The walls should be
constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavation. Prolonged exposure
of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability.
For unrestrained retaining walls within this tract that are greater than 5 feet (exposed; retained
earth) or that may present a life/safety hazard during strong ground shaking, the lateral earth
pressures should be increased by a seismic surcharge (seismic increment) in general
accordance with chapter 16 of the 1997 UBC. The location, distribution and magnitude of tlus
surchazge will be provided if such walls are proposed. Walls designed with such seismic
increment should achieve a factor of safety between 1.1 and 1.2 when evaluating stability
(sliding and overturning) of the wall (NAVFAC DM7.02).
~
~
-12-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
5.7 Concrete Ffatwork
Expansive soils aze Imown to exist onsite and therefore concrete flatwork should be designed
and conshucted with the anticipation of expansive soil related distress. Closer spacing of
control joints, reinforcement and keeping the flatwork subgrade at or above optimum
moisture prior to the placement of concrete may minunize cracking and differential
movement.
City of Temecula Standazd No. 401 "Sidewalk and Curb" specifies aggregate base or
approved select material under sidewalks and curbs when expansive soil is present: In lieu of
the agg~egate base or select material under sidewallcs and curbs, and with the approval of the
City of Temecula, the sidewalk and curb subgrade may be presoaked. such that 120% of
optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 8 inches is achieved prior to the placement
of concrete. Moisture testing must be performed by the geotechnical consultant prior to
concrete placement.
5.8 Control of SurFace Water and Drainage Control
Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be
allowed to pond adjacent to buildings. Posirive drainage may be accomplished by providing
drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet,
and further maintained by a swale on drainage path at a gadient of at least 1 percent. Where
limited by 5-foot side yards, drainage should be directed away from foundations for a
minimum of 3 feet and into a collector swale or pipe system. Where necessary, drainage paths
may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes and/or paved swales. Eave gutters
also help reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts aze properly
connected to appropriate outlets.
Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided, if possible. Planters
should not be designed adjacentto buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch
basins and pipe drains, aze made. No ponding of water from any source (including
irrigation) should be pertnitted onsite as moisture infiltration may increase the potential for
moisture-related distress. Experience has shown that even with these controls for surface
drainage, a shallow perched ground water or subsurface water condition can and may
develop in azeas where no such condition previously existed. This is particulazly true where
a substantial increase in surface water infiltration resulting from site irrigation occurs.
Mitigation of these conditions should be performed under the recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis.
`~~
~
-13-
Leighton
110231-024
November S0, 2003
5.9 Graded Sloces
It is recommended that all slopes be planted with drought-tolerant, ground cover vegetation
as soon as practical to protect against erosion by reducing runoff velocity. Deep-rooted
vegetation should also be established to provide resistance to surficial slumping.
Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during fine grading and conshuction.
Retaining structures to support graded slopes should be designed with structural
considerations and appropriate soil parameters provided in Section 5.6.
5.10 Irriaation. Landscaping and Lot Maintenance
Site irrigation should be controlled at all times. We recommend that only the minimum
amount of imgation necessary to maintain plant vigor be utilized. For irrigation of trees and
shrubs, a drip irrigation system should be considered. We recommend that where possible,
landscaping consist primarily of drought-tolerant vegetation. A landscape consultant should
be contacted for proper plant selection. For lazge graded slopes adjacent to open .space
areas, we recommend native plant species be utilized and that irrigation be utilized only
until plants aze well established. At that time, irrigation could be significantly reduced.
Upon sale of homesites, maintenance of lots and common azeas by the homeowners and
homeowner's association, respectively, is recommended. Recommendations for the
maintenance of slopes and property are included in Appendix D for your review and
distribution to future homeowners and/or homeowner's assooiations.
5.11 Post-Grading Geotechnical Review
5.11.1 Concrn!c±ion Review -- Construction observation and testing should be performed
by the geotechnica] consultant during future excavations, utility trench backfilling
and foundation or retanung wall construction at the site. Additionally, footing
excavarions should be observed and moisture determination tests of subgrade soils
should be performed by the geotechnical consultant prior to the pouring of concrete.
5.11.2 Plans and Snecific?tions -- The geotechnical engineer should review foundafion
plans to evaluate if the recommendations herein have been incorporated. Foundation
design plans and specifications should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant
prior to excavation or installarion of residential development.
~~
~
-14-
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The presence of our field representarive at the site was intended to provide the owner with
professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based on observations of the contractor's
work. Although the observations did not reveal obvious deficiencies or deviations from project
specifications, we do not guarantee the contractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor
or his subcontractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor or his subcontractors of their
responsibility if defects aze subsequently discovered in their work. Our responsibilities did not
include any supervision or direction of the actual work procedures of the contractor, his personnel,
or subcontractors. The conclusions in this report aze based on test results and observations of the
grad'uig and earthwork procedures used and represent our engineering opinion as to the compliance
of the results with the project specifications.
This report was prepared for Lennaz Communities, based on their needs, d'uections, and requirements
at the time. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party
except, Leimaz Communifies, with whom Leighton contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on
this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this
Report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton and Associates from and
against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault,
negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates.
~
~1
-15-
Leighton
~p•`~V ~ ~'.~F, v, Rp-' ~ ~cr~
`-. lo
~
- -- - - '~O'y~, _ ~'
Ro w
~~
4
v
j~,(E }I~~~ ti~ ~
_~~~
Site Location
f
~~F'R ` ~ ;~~i
DR
~~% ~ LIB
~. CTt1
COU,1/TY ~
\ atn~:
L
~s:.;x ~ /~~,
t
n'il'_ ~ ~~
.1~
A~
~ ~
e'~!L' 11{
p
~~~/7
~ ~ CE,;~TEi7
Afi~RkET '
PL~L'f
~ i
~
!
i
~ , ~.
. i aP~'
~ - \`~ -~<
~ p~~ ~~„ ~~
CO,+b~DNS 9 ~'~ ~,~~
AT h
7F,Y=CULA Q,~~'~
' ~-'~a' i~
~\ ~4
C~°~O ~~ ~ ~ I
\ :u o
'Pi ~ a~~n
~ t r' ~
IL! Lt/VL/l ~ r~_
j ~ ~ tv^ `
4/~~ C
~ ~ f..:
m NORTH
\ ~ ~
Base Map: The Thomas Guide DigRal Edition Inland Empire 2004, Not To Scale
Harveston Project No. ~
Tract 30667-3, $ITE LOCATION 770231-024
Temecula, California MAP Date
Riverside County, California Novemberzooa FgureNo.1
WY Q'~ . ~
C~
r
~~ `~ ~
~ ~~
DR `;9G~, i
- ?` ,
~ ~ ,~ 'PO \ti ~
~ ~~~ t!%,h~HESif.; ~ ~~
~ a ~!'E~i 1JS ti ~~i~
~~~ ~ a~ Sq~ ~ i ~
IP~
Suggested 5'
lateral setback
to face of backcut
from existing utilities
EXISTING ~
UTILITIES
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
SETBACK*
Anticipated to
- range from ~
5' to 25'
RCFC
CHANNEL
EMBANKMENT
Qal
Afu
7
i
i
i
i
LIMITS
• OF 1 i
~ Pro ection from
~~ ~ REMOVAL ~I% ~
i bedrock/alluvium
~~ ~ ~~ removal contact
,7 ~ /
. ~ •
• ~
Qal ~ ~
Qp
Qp
'Structural setback with remediation performed as presented in Section 2.4
\°~
Project No. 110231-024 -
SETBACK DIAGRAM Scale NTS ~
Harveston Engr./Geol. ATG/RFR
Drafted By DLM
Temecula, California Date November2003
Figure No. 2
SUBDRAIN OPIIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF ~50
OPTION 1: PIPE SURRWNDED WITH
CLASS 2 PERMEA&.E MATERIAL
WITH PROPER
SURFACE DRAINAGE
SLAPE
OR LEVEL
12"
NATIVE
WATERPROOFING
(SEE GENERAL NQiES) WATERPROOFlNG
~< ~ (SEE GENERAL NOTES)
12" MINQ~IUM
W EEP HOLE
(SEE NOTE 5)
LEVELOR
SLDPE
GENERAI NOTES:
CLA55 2 PERMEABIE
FILTER MA7ERWL
(SEE GRADATION)
41NCH DIAMEfER
PERFORATED PIPE
(SEE NOTE 3)
OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED
IN FRTER FABRIC
WITH PROPER
SURFA~ DRAINAGE
SIAPE
OR LEVEL
12"
NATIVE
`-
F[L'fER FABRIC
, . (SEE NOiE 4)
W EEP HOLE
(SEE NO1E ~ ,~
LEVELOR
SLOPE
Class 2 filter Permeable Material Gradation
Per Caltrans Specifications
Sieve Sire Percent Pa~nq
1^ 100
3/4" 90-100
3/g° 40-100
No.4 25-40 .
No. 8 18-33
No.30 5-15
N0. 50 a'~
No.200 0-3
12" MINIMUM
Ye ro Ph RICH 5aE
GRAI£L WRhPPED W FILIER
FABRIC
* Waterproofing should be pmvided where moisture nuisance probiem through the wall is undesirable.
* Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechniol engineer
* All drains should have a g2dient of 1 percent minimum
*Outlet pation of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project
engineer. The subdrain pipe should be aaessible for maintenance (rodding)
*Other wbd2in baclffill options are subject M the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.
Notes:
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting.
2) 1 Cu. R. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric
3) Pipe type should be ASTht D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (A8S) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride piaztlc (PVC), Schedule
40, Artnco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforatlons down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in
diameter piaced at the ends of a 120-degree arc In two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered)
4) FRer fabric should be Mi2fi 140NC or apprwed equivalent.
5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at SO-foot ma~dmum interuals. If e~osure is pertnitted, weepholes should
be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the
sidewalk to be discharged thraugh the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrein outlet
system should be provided.
6) Retaining wall,pians should be reviewed and approved by the geotxhniwl engineer.
7) Walls over six feet in height are subjxt to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the abare requirementr. ~
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS IXPANSION INDEX OF <50
Figure No. 3
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS IXPANSION INDIX OF >50
WALL HQGHi
OR HEEL W[DTH
WHICHEVB2
IS GREATHi
WATERPfYJCf
PER DE46N
EN~IN~i
QEAN SW D &1IXRLL
WiTH SE>30
APPROVED BY SOIlS BJGIN~t
AY BE DHJ4Fl~ BY OJhWACiION
OR WA"fER ]EITING)
FIITER FABRIC
WEEP HOIE (SEE NOIE 4)
~ ..; 4' -- ..
(SEE NGIE~
~ ~• ~ 4'PERFORATEDPIPEPNDGRAVH.
6' P4N. ~~-3 •" . (SEE NOTES 2 AND 3)
NQrE: AS PN ALTH2NATE TO QEAN S4ND BACIffAl,
IXFPN GRAVEL MAY BE URIS7ED WIiH APPROVED ftLTF72 FABRIG A
SECOND ALTERNATE I$ TO UTILIZE AN AGGREGA'fE B!~ M4T6tIAL
COMPACTED 1090 % REIATIVE COMpACT10N. A S4FPLE Cf THE
PROPOSED BASE MUSi BE APPROV~ 6Y THE GEQfEOiNICAL
CONSULTPNT PRIOR TO BFUClffll1 FOR SUIfABILIiY. COMPACRON
SHOUID BE AQi1EVED W[fryqJT Q4M4QNG THE W/LLL
GENERALNOTES:
* Waterproofing should be provided where mofsture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable.
* Watg pro~ng of the walis is not under purview of the geotediniql engineer
* All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum
*Outlet patian of the subdrain should have a 4-inch dameter sdid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal atea designed try the project
engineer. The subdrafn ppe should be aaessfWe for maintenance (rodding)
'Other subdrain bac~ll optlons are subject to the review b~ the geotechnipl engineer and modfication of design parameters.
Nates:
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting.
2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric
3) Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrlle Butadiene Styrene (ABS)SDR35 or AS7M D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (WG), Schedule
40; Armco AZ000 PVC, or approved equiYalent. Pipe should be installed with pertoradons down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in
diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered)
4) Filter fabrfc should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent.
5) Weephole should be 3ynch minfmum dlameter and provided at lo-foot maximum intenals. If ocposure is permftted, weepholes should
be located 12 inchesabovefinished grade. If exposure is not pertnitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe underthe
sidewalk M be~scharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. Fw a basement-type wall, a proper subdraln outlet
system should be provfded.
6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved lry the geobechNol engineer.
7) Walls over six feet in height are subJect to a special review by the gearechnical engineer and modifications to the abaie requirements. ~"`
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
WHEN_ NATIVE MATERIAL HAS DCPANSION INDEX OF >50
C
~m
N O
O O
~y N
N ~
O '~
.-I ~
rl
N
O
Z
~. Vi
N VI
N N
N VJ
~ VJ
N VJ
N Vl
N lA
N
' VJ
N Vi
~ N
N Vl
~
"' VJ
N VJ
N V)
N
' .~
U .f;
U F.
V ,~
U .C
U .C
U .~
U ..
U .~
J .r_i
U .s;
U y~
U ,~
U .~
U .~
U
rn ~j C F~' C C ~ C C G' ~ C~. C C~. ~.~. .~~. f~~"
~ A N N N N N N N o0 00 0o Go 00 00 00 00
~Y
~ ~"~1 ~H r-I rl rl ~I p'M N rl rl r1 rl rl rl H
b
~
~
+
y ~
^ H
~ H
~ LI
~ NIy ~
Y ~
~ dIy NIy Q)
~ Q)
~ Q~
~ N
~ N
~ ~ d
~
O U
OJ
~ VJ lA VJ Y
VJ VJ N V
Vl Y
fA VJ Vi VJ fA Vi Y
VJ N
~ 5~
~ ~
~ ~0I
/ ~~-1
/ ~~1
/ ~~I
/ ~~I
/ ~~1
/ ~~1
( ~~'-I
/ '~~I
~ 5~ ~~I
/ '~0I
/ ~~1
/
= ~
~ I
--I
~
~ -
-i
~ -Y
~ -
4
~ -
1
~ --I --I --I
I --i
~ -i
~ ~-1
~ --i -4
~ -
~1
~
~
~ O
y Q ~ ~CI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ r~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ^~ ~ ~1~ .y
Y .
V .
V .
V .
V .
V ~ Y N ~V ~y ~{~ ~V ~Y V
Q ~
^ O O O
~
o ~
0 ~
0 ~
o ~
e ~
e ~
e ~
e ~
e ~
e ~
e ~
o ~
0 o
0 0
0
~
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N
- 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N
~
C .-~ .-. .-~ ~-. ~--~ ~--i ~-. ~-. ~-. .-. ~-. ~--i ~--i .--~ .r
~0
N
0 N
y ^, O
~, ~a ~' ~ ^
:o ~ ~o d ~
0 0~~~ •~
.-~ ,~
'. ~ ~o a~ ~o V eo ~n v v v v v v
M U G' y~ ro
~ ~ ~
' ~A~a
e
J
m
O
f0 ~'1
p
Q {J ~
~ ~ ~ ~V
:b Q~ Y y /\
y
y c
~ ~
F
C
~
s4 w
~ ~ U ,
O~" .V. v ~O R ~ M d' 00 ~O ~O O~ O O~ M Q~ O O~
~ ~
F.
~~ ~--~ ~--~ .-~ N N N N N M N M N M N
9
~° V
~ 0..
a
~~w o
~
H U
~
Q
O O
~
C7
~'
abi N~
«: ~' a~
.~ a~
p a~
a a>
;n a>
:a a~
.n a~
p a~
a a~
.n a~
~ a~
p a~
~ a~
p a>
a a>
a
~o ~ w, m 5o a~ 'Sn on on ~on oo 'co 'on on o0 on on 50 5n
~
~
~n k
~ .~
~ ..,
~ ...
~ ..,
~ ...
~ ..,
~ ...
~ ...
~ ...
~ ..,
~ ..,
~ ..,
~ ...
~ .~
~
~ ~ W z Z z Z z z z z z z z z z z z
~
«
0
~J y
~ ~ ~^~
N ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' ~
" ~
'
"
Y
C e;,
~
Q ' ' " ' ' ~
' ' ~
' ~
' ~
' ~
' ~
' ~
' ~ ~
J
y~.~, b
N b
N C)
~ L7
N O
~ d
a) d
N d
N L7
N d
N C
N O
N O
~ 'O
~ 'Cl
N
'G W a,
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
~
~
O
'•
N
M
V
vl
z ~--~ N M V Vl ~D l~ 00 O~ .-. ~--~ ~--i ~--~ .--i
rQ
r-1
ZZ
vm
N O
4N
~
N ~
O ~
'-I ~
rl Q~
c
>
O
Z
y
N ti
W y
~ y
N
'" N
~ y
N y
N
'" N
N
' N
N
" N
d N
N y
~ y
N N
N h
N
~
p, .~
U .~
U .3=
U J.
U .C
U .~
U Jr
U , .
U .L
U .s:
U .~
U .~
U , .'
U .i:
U .L"
V
v~
~ ~
N G"~.
. ~
. C
. C
. .~'.
. C
. . G~' . Q S'.~'.
. i~7
. '~^'
. 'i.~'
.
.
C
.
Q '.,~'
.
~
' A 00
-. 00 00
-. 00
-. 00
. ~0
. 00 0o N N N N N N N
.,,
~
b . . ~ r .- '. '. '. '. r. '. '. '.
C
~
H
~ d
~ N
~ Nt~
a N
~ ~
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ GJ
~ N
~ N
~ d
~ N
~ N
O
y
~
VJ
Vi
!n
t/1
Vi
fA
fA
N
VJ
VJ
lA
N
VJ
ln ~
VJ
~
~ ~ / / / ~ / / / / / ~ ~ ~
C '~ t-~
~ ~ -y
7 --~
7 --I
7 O -y
~ -
4
~ --i
~ -
-'
7 --I
~ ~ -r
~ /-r
~ -/4
~
°'
m
~O
F
~
F.
.
E
'C"
~
~
F..
~
~
.F
.
~
~
~ 7
'C
'
~ ^~ ~ ~JJ ~}J ~
~Y ~V ~H ~y ~~ ~~..1 ~V ~V ~
~V . ~Y Y ~i-~ ..
~Y
~ ~
^ O
V
GI
O \
O \
O \
O \
O \
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
p; o
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
~ N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N
9 .--~ .--i .--i .ti .-. ~-. ~--~ .--~ .-. .-r .-i ~-. ~ ~--i
C
~
N
L~
~ ~ y
a7 ~--~ O
~ w L"
'jj r-.
U
~ ~ Q ~
~
O ~~' VJ W
O N N~ M
V O
~
00 M
V
O~
01
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V
m v °. ~
~ ~
I~ R ,
¢' W U a
~
p.~ V
~ •L A ~:
~
W
o
.
.i
~
In M
F ~ 0 o
'~
~ o ~ ~
~ G~ q cd E~ a°~i
~
~
~ w
~ ,
~
V v
~ ( iC ~
O ~
~ o0
N v~
N v1
M 'V
M V'~
M ~O
N ..
t~1 N
M N
t~l 'r
M O~
N 00
N O~
N O
M .--~
M
9
i
~ V
~ L1..
Pr
~ ~ w p
U
N y
Q ~
O C7 N~ a~ a~ a~ a~ v a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ °:
" °?
R 'b
~o ~ ~
~ a
on .o
~bb .o
~ai .o
ao a
~oq a
~a a
ao a
a~ a
5n a
~5u .c
~5n .n
~60 .a
'6b a
~Eu a
'S
, m
.~
.~
.~
..
.. ~
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.~ o
.,
£
£ ~
~ ~
a
~ co on on on on ao eo eu on an ao an en en on
7
~ W z Z Z Z z z z z z z z z z z Z
H
a.+
O
J y
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"J' ~
"J' ~ ~
i
G
J N
~„~
~
L1
N
°'
'C
'O
'C
'd
'O
'O
'O
'O
'O
'O
'O
'~
'O
'O ~
'O
p, •
,
W
; v
~ a~
~ a>
~ a~
~ a~
~ a~
~ a~
~ v
~ a~
~ a~
~ a~
~ a~
~ v
~ a~
~ a~
~
w
a
~
~
~D
h
oo
O~
O
-~
N
M
V
v1
~D
l~
oo
O~
O
z ~ ~--~ ~--~ ~--~ N .
N N N N N N N N N M
V
~l
I~
(/
7 M
N O
O O
.y N
N ~
O ~
.-1 ~
r1 C
w
O
Z
VJ
N y
N VJ
N fA
N VJ
~ fn
d lA
CJ N
~ lA
~ N
~ VJ
N V1
N N
d tA
N Vi
N
~ .~ .Sy .i: ..C .~ .r_; .q ~: .f' .r_; .~ .r_; .~ .~ S:
m
y c~
C o
C 0
C 0
C
.' 0
!
." o
C
.' c~
I~ n
'~~' o
'~~' 0
~ 0
~ 0
.Y
. o
Q c~
C
.' ~
~
O A N N 00 ~
00 ~
00 ~
00 00 .
00 .
00 .
00 00 ~
00 00 ~
00 00
'.=~
~ .r .-+ '. '. .-. 'r 'r .r '. '. '. '. '. ~-+ ..
b
Q
N
N
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
CO y VJ Vi Vl V1 Vi VJ (A VJ V) VJ V1 Vi V1 N Vl
~
~ R-I /-r F4 /--i F I~1 I~' ~1 -~-I ~ ~ ~ -/r -/-~ /--~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ N 'O ~ ~ ~ ((':'!~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~N .
Y .
V .^I
V ' .
V .
V ~i~ ~N ~~ ~y ~ ~~ ~y ~Y i~ ~V
$ ~'' O
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
e 0
e o
e e
e o
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
9
C .-. .-r ~--i ~--i .-. ~-. ~-. .-. .--~ .-i .--~ .--r .-. .-. ~
~0
N
~ y
+
'
-
c
3 ~'t' U ~
~ c0 Q ~
~
C k~' N~"^
~'
N M
V
~ M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V
~ M
V M
V M
V
O
V a
i b
O
~ ~ ~ ~
M
^
~ ~w ~ a
~q
,i ~
p
'e ~
J °'
O
V
m M
Q ~ ~ p
'H
V ~ N V
H i ~ ~ ~ F y w
'i
~ ~
~ () X~~U v Q1 M ~D ~O Vl ~D Vl ~n M N O~ ~--~ I~ ~O I~
O ,r' ~
~ F P N M M M M M M M M M N M N N N
9
L V
~ (Sr.
+
~~w o
~ U
N d
Q O
O N
C7
N~
a~
ai
a~
a~
a~
a~
a~
~
a>
a~
a~
a~
a~
a>
a~
a
~ a
~ a a a p a
' ;n p a p ;a ;c ~ p p
~
b w, o
n bn 5n 5n 5n nn 6b 5u a~ 5n on on ~o ~o o
n
~
£ ~ ~ o
a
~ W ~
.
co .
en .~
an .^
ou .~
on ...
w .^
on ..,
on ...
on ...
on ...
on ..»
on .
en .
on .
'"
on
7 ¢
Z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
r~
~
~
O
J y
+ 7 ~ in •
% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+
C
J C
,,
„
C
y 7
'C7 'd a
'C7 'd 'C 'O 'd 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'C
~y w
w W a°, ~
~ d
~ ~
~ N
~ ~
~ ~
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ ~
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ N
~
~
~
~
N
M
d'
~n
~O
l~
00
Q
O
~--~
N
M
7
v'1
'z M M M M M M M M ~
M V V V V V V
a
Z°~
V' M
N O
O O
.~-i fV
~ O
O ~
rl C
•.-I ~
>
O
Z
~ rA
N
' Vi
N ~A
N h
N
" vJ
~ vJ
~ Vi
N Vl
N Vi
N Vi
CJ
~ V~
N
' N
CJ
e. .S
i
O .~
D .C:
U . ti
U .r:
V .C.
V ~1i
U .~
U .~
U Sr
U .C
U .~
U
N ~ .Ci .qi A L~7 Q q ~ ~ C^. C~. ~ f.~.'
~ Q N N N o0 00 00 00 00 N N N N
~ .-. 'r ~-. ~ .--i .--i .--~ .~r ti .-.~ ti ~-.
'b
F'.
~
~.
O N N N
t~- N
~j- N
~j- N
~ N
t~- ~
t-~ ~
~ N
i" N
s-~ ~ N
w"
C
~ N
y m m
O y
O N N ~ y ~ N ~~
(
i
q ~Or
/ ~
+
/ ~
+
/ ~O+
/ O
~ O
~ ~Or
/ O
~ ~O+
! ~Or
! O
~ ~Or
!
9
C
~ y
~ -.
~ .
. -.
~ -
,
~
~
~ -
.
~
~ -
. -.
~
~ -~
~
£ v~i ~O ,~ 7
~
~ ~7
~ .~~.'
~ .~ .~ti." .~ .~'ti' 7
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~~"
~ ~"'
~
~ ~ ~ V Ij i~ Y ~+ ~+ V V ~L+ Y i+ V
~ a
V
~
o ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
e 0
o
O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N O
N
~
r. ~-. .--i .--I .r ~--i ~--i ~--~ ~--i .--i ~--~ ~-r .--i
a
y
o ~ y
'. w o
:
v .
~
~" ~ ~
O .
w' vi W
O N ai `~ M
V
'r' M
V
~
~ M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V M
V
M U C' a~i
~ `a
~ (7
N .
Q Q 'C a
W 10 C
~ ~
~ o
[O M
a ~
p
~
'~
.~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
y ..
~~~
~
~
F
C7 O ,
y
V.~""i
.%
~ 9
~
U ~
O ~
a
~~ vl
N M
N O~
~--~ .-.
N l~
N O~
N 00
N (~
N O~
N ~--i
M ~--i
M Q~
N
~ ~
~ a
.
~ ~ w o
rn ~
~
O o
m
C7
N~
a>
a>
a~
a~
a>
a~
a~
a~
a~
a~
a>
a~
~
ip
v
b
n, ,.
w y p
bb a
50 p
'6b a
bb ~
w~ a
w~ a
'on a
on p
on .n
on .o
on :o
on
~
~ ~
~ ~ o
C/~ k
W ~
a~i
z ~
a~i
z ..
a~i
Z .,
a~i
Z ..
a~i
Z ..
a~i
Z r:
a~i
z ~
a~i
Z r:
a~i
Z ~
a~i
z ;~
a~i
z ;~
a°Ai
Z
~ ~
y
a+
O
J
i+ ~
C7 ~m^'
~~
~
~
~
~
~
7
a
~
7
~
7
C
~ +
a
^
y 'O y
'O 'C 'O 'O T7 'C 'Cy 'O 'd 'O 'd
~ y
w~ja°, ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
E
~
z ~D
~ l~
~ 00
~ O~
~ O
~ .-.
~ N
~, M
~ V
~ vl
~, ~O
~, h
~,
~
~ ~
H
~ ~
.-. '.
~ ~
r ~
UU
~ ~
0 0
b b
~~
w~ a, -
?.~
~--i N
110231-024
November 30, 2003
TABLE 2
Minimum Conventional Foundation Design Recommendations
UBC Expansion Potential
Very Low to Low Medium
1-Story Fooring Depth of Embedment 1 g
~xterior and (Exterior and Interior)
Interior
2-Story Footing Depth of Embedment 18" Exterior 18"
12" Interior Exterior and Interior
Lsolated Column Footings Exterior of " "
Minimutn Foundation 18 24
Presoaking See Table 1
No. 3 rebar placed at No. 3 rebar placed at
mid-slab height mid-slab height spaced
Minimum Slab Reinforcement spaced 18 inches on 15 inches on center,
Thickness center, each way;
each way; minimum
minimum slab slab thickness 5 inches
thiclrness 4 inches
Two inches of sand over a 10-mil polyvinyl
Underslab Treatment membrane (Visqueen or equivalent) over an
additional two inches of sand.
Notes:
(1) Depth of interior or exterior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade. If
drainage swale flowline elevation is less than S feet laterally from footing, footing bottom
to be minimum 6 inches below swale flowline
(2) Living azea slabs should be tied to the foorings as directed by the structural engineer.
(3) Gazage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a minimum 3/8" felt expansion
joint.
(4) Underslab treatment sand should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater (e.g. washed
concrete sand).
(5) The lower two inches of underslab treatrnent sand may be omitted on lots which possess a
very low potential (see Table 1).
~
110231-024
November 10, 2003
TABLE 3
Minimum Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations
Expansion Potential (UBC 18-2)
Design Criteria Very Low Low Medium High
EI= 0-20 EI= 21-50 EI= 51-90 EI = 91-130
Edge Moishue Center Lift: 5.5 feet
Variation, em Edge Lift: 3.0 feet
Center Lift: 1.25 inches 2.0 inches 2.4 inches 4.5 inches
Differential
Swell, ym Edge Lift: 0.4 inches 0.4 inches 0.8 inches 1.3 inches
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 150 psi/in 125 psi/in 125 psi/in 100_ psi/in
Plasticity Index Non Plastic * * *
Minimum Perimeter Footing 12 inches 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches
Embedment Depth
Two inches of sand over a 10-mil polyvinyl membrane
Underslab Treatment . (Visqueen or equivalent) over an additional two inches of
sand.
Presoaking See Table 1
(1) Depth of exterior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade or drainage swale
flowline elevation (less than 5 feet laterally from footing, per code).
(2) Living azea slabs should be tied to the footings as directed by the structural engineer.
(3) Detailing of expansion crack control joints for PT slabs per structural engineer.
(4) Underslab treatment sand should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater (e.g. washed concrete
sand).
(5) The lower two inches of underslab treatment sand may be omitted on ]ots which possess a very
low expansion potential (see Table 1).
(6) Potentia] total and differenfial settlement should be included cumulatively with differenrial swell
parameters.
* Plasticity index to be provided upon request if a ribbed UBC type (Section 1815) slab is preferred.
21
110231-024
November 10, 2003
TABLE 4
Lateral Earth Pressures~' 4
For Ve Low to Low Ex ansive Soil Backfill
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcfj
' Conditions
Level BacktillZ 2:1 Slope Backfill
Acrive 45 67
At-Rest 65 95
' Passive3 300 125 (Sloping Down)
~Assumes drained condition (See Figure 1)
ZAssumes a level condition behind and in front of wall foundation of project.
3Ma~cimum passive pressure = 4000 psf, level conditions.
°Assumes use of very low to low expansive soil (EI= 0-50).
!J"
110231-024
November 10, 2003
APPENDDCA
QPfnrqnrs~C
Leighton and Associates, 1986, Final Compaction Report of Rough Grading, Tract 19677,
Industrial Park V, Rancho California, Riverside County, California, Project
No. 6851870-01, dated May 27, 1986.
Leighton and Associates, 2001, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical
Review of 100-Scale Mass Grading Plan, Tentative Tract No. 29639,
Harveston, Temecula, California, LDOI-058GR, Project No. 110231-003,
dated August 15, 2001.
Leighton and Associates, 2002, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tract No..29639, Lots
14, 15, and 16, Harveston, Temecula, California, Project No. 1 1 023 1-007,
dated July 9, 2002
Leighton and Associates, 2003a, As-Graded Report of Mass Grading Harveston, Tract 29639-1,
City of Temecula, California, Project No. 1 1 023 1-006, dated February 5,
2003.
Leighton and Associates, 2003b, Release for Construction, Lots 14 through 16 (Neighborhoods 13
through 15), Tract 29639-1, City of Temecula, Califomia, Project No. 1 1 023 1-024,
dated September 12, 2003.
Naval Faciliries Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil mechanics design manual 7.01, Change 1:
U.S. Navy, September.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986b, Foundations and earth structures, design manual
7.02, Changes 1: U.S. Navy, September.
RBF Consulting, 2003, Harveston Tract 30667, -1, -2, and -3 Rough Grading, August 2003,
LD03-023GR, Sheets 4 and 5 of 6.
~
a-i Z.~
Leighton
110231-024
November 10, 2003
APPENDIX B
Explanation of Summarv of Field Densiri Tests
A: Retest of previously failing compaction test.
B: Second retest of previously failing compaction test.
Compaction tests taken during mass grading of site unless indicated by:
FG: Compaction tests taken on rough finish grade.
SF: Compaction tests taken on slope face.
Test Location: Indicated by lot number.
Test Method: Compaction test by Nucleaz Gage (ASTM 2922) unless indicated by
S: Sand Cone Method (ASTM 1556).
Test Elevation: Approximate elevation above mean sea level.
B-1 1~
~~
~
~
VI
WL
r
,rA
V!
Z
W
~
W
LL
LL
0
}
~
Q
~
~
_
~
~
~
v
a
e~
vo _
;•~ ~^~ M O T O~+t N~n N 7 7 O O'+ M 7 Vt O O M N
O~ O~ ~ O~ O~ O~ Q~ O~ O~ O~ W O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O1 O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~
~ ~
m O
au
; oooo~noov,oooo~nooooooo~nv,~nooooo0000
` Q, oooooo-:o.-:.-:ooo.-~~.:ooooo0000000000000000
~ ~ .. .. ., .. ., ^, .,
4
7
~+
y ~ 7~D co O oo O l~ v~ O~ N O N ~O v~ O~ V-+ O vt ~O O~ O O M O v~ ~D M~O '. r~t N
O a1 C O~ O~ vi ~ O~ .. ao O~ ~ oo ~O O~. h o0 0o T o0 00 0o T C. h oo t~ 00 ao h o0 0o ao
~ 'w' .. .. .. ... ...
~ ooo~no~n~noo~no~nooooo000000000000000
r~ N N N 00 ~D a0 00 ~O N 00 ~ 00 ~O N O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ vl vl vi O+ Oi O~ O~ O~ 01 O~ O~ O~'
.-Mi .-Mi .-Mi ~ ..(Vi .~-~ ..fVr .-~i .-Mi ..fVi ~ .N-i .-~i .-N+ .Nr .-~i .-N-' .-N+ .N.+ ~-Ni .~-i .-N-i .-N+ .N.+ ~ .-Ni .-Ni .-~+ .~fVi .-Ni .-~i
C
d~p 1~ ~O I~ ~ N v'1 N.r v~ .. t~ rl O~ .. c~l 7 O~ N t~ .-. t~ 7[~ O ~O l~ .. 7.-. ~O r1 ~O
Q y O 7 O~D ~ 1~ [~ ~ fV ~ N~G ~ M~ N oo .+ l~ ~~~ O 1~ .~+ M~O ~ O~ 00
Q W ~ ~.N...,.-..-....».N-... °.-... ~.-, ~.~. ~ ~ ~.-..-.... ~.': ~ ~...-. ~.-,..
L I
~ ~~~~ 7 ~ W 7 00 00 v1 00 C W M M N1 t~t M M f~ l~ 1~ M M M M t+1 M M M t~1
~~y ^~-+ O 7 O O V.-~ O O O 7.+ V 7 V ef ~~ O O O V et C 7 V O e{ ~~
1~ ~O ~O ~ l~ ~O a0 ~D N.. [~ h M v~ O O O~ O~ O~ O~ ~O T a0 00 ~D V O~ r1 N ~--~ O
~ W 00 W W 00 W W o0 W W W OO o0 W O~ O~ W W W W 00 00 W W W 00 W W 00 W W W
` O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
F ~ '•
W
~
~ O .r 7 N .-. ... ~ ~ ~ .Ni ~ ~ .N. .`O-~ .l~-r o0 O
ra Vt 1~ .-i 7 Vt h~D N N.-~ .-. .-r N M 7 V~ ~O h oo O~ Vt ~O ~
~
~+1 '
O '~
Q
~ m
a F
0
~
a
e
e
F
u
0
.a
Z
o g
~,
° W U
' ° Q W
~ = H
: u'
""
vU
v
vwvUUww
wwwwwww
ww
u'
E
O .~
C
i
c_
c
i
~
wwwwwwwww
M fh M c~l N1 M
~ ~
~ ~
~
r
l M M M M M M~+1 O rl ~+1 M M M M~+1 M M M M c~l r~t t~l M M M M f+l '+1 M M M
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O
~ ~ d
~ W O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O~ O.-
•
V~
m 00 00 01 01 01 Q~ O~ .~. .-. .-. .-. h V
V
V
Y
V
V
V ~
l
l
l
l
l Y1
1 V) H
l Vl Vl h Vl Vl
l V1
~"~ Ca 1~ l~ t~ 1~ l~ t~ h[~ t~ [~ 1~ 1~ (~ h O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ U O~ O~ T Q~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ 01 O~ O~ O 10 0
Z Z J
v1 l~ O^"
vt
tV
rt
V
Q~ O ¢ N M 7 v1 ~O [~ 00 O~ ~~ v~ ~O 1~ 00 O~ O N M 7 V V f•1 ~i+
.-
- .-
- .-
. .-
.
O O N N N
~~ O O O O O O ~~--~ N N N N N d d d
~
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 V V 7 R V 7 7 7 7 V 7
+
+
~
~
--~
--~
-•
+
+ •--'
•.-• •+ •--~ •--' •--f •--~ •--' •--'
•O
•O ~
•O
M M M t
l N1 c
l c
1 t
1 th M M M ~+1 N1 N1 M M M
•
•
•
•
•
`
` .~
`
F Zi a a a
t~
3'
~
~
~
~ 0
a
~
~
W
e
a
e~
v
o
; W O N N 7 M O O t~1 N O M O rl N M O~ O fV R v1 7 M O N v~
O~ O~ O~ O~ T O~ O~ T T Q~ Q~ O~ T T Q~ T O~ T O~ O~ O~ T T O~ O~ O~ T O~ O~ O~ T O~
~ ~'
W O
av
.-
e
, o~,ooooo00000000000000000~~,~~o~,oo
;
4 0~
_ o0000000., o~~~~~..~~~
,. o .. .. .. ., ~ .. ., .. ., ~ ~ _ .. ..
~
~
.y. 9
~ d ~O N V~-+ N N 1~ M 00 O~ vt o0 v~ ~ N t~ M v~ t~ O O~ 00 M~O N~-+ ~ O N O~ O v~
o
~ 'w h o
O O O~ O Q~ O O o0 O~ O O O Q~ 00 O~ O~ 00 O O~ O1 0o O o0 Q~ O~ 00 00 I~ ~~
^ --
N ~ ooviv,~n~nv,v,v~~n~n~nv,v,v,v,v,v,~n~nvi~nv,v,oooo~nooo
O~
M M M
M
t .
7 M
M M M
N
M~O ~O ~D ~D \D ~D \p ~D M M~G r1 ~~-+ ~-+ ~--~ ap .~ ~p ~p
~ T~
" -fVi fV (V
.-~
-fVi
N
ti .-~i N ~ ~ .-Ni .-Ni
.-.
-N+ N
-.
N-i
(V
IV
fV
N
N
N
~
~
~
N
N
N
N
~
N
~
N L .
.
.
.
.
.
-i .-
-I
-~ ..
i ..
i ..
.+ .~ ..
.
i .-
i .
-~ ..
+ .
-r .-
-i .-
-~ .
-~ .
. .
-~
~ ^
C
W Q~ M 7 v~ Vl ~+1 t+1 vt N fV 00 O l~ l0 l~ N O~ ~D 7 tV .-. .-. vt M~O ~O r+t .r [~ O h M N
L
~ y \D M ~ Vi vl ..i ~ .-. ~ ~ N ..~ vi ~ ~ t+1 ~ ~O o0 ~ .-. ~n Vi .-. .-.
~
y~
M
O o0 ~O O
~w ..
. .-
. .
.
^ ~ ^ O O
~ Q .-. ... ... .-. .-. .-. .~ ~ ..+ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..+ .-. .-. '. .-. .-. .-r ... .-. .-. .-.
//~
d ~
V/ .~ n M ~O 01 O~ O~ O~ O~ Q~ 01 O~ O~ O~ M~+1 tn M M nl tn M Qi O~ M 01 7 7'7 7 00 V~/1 Vl
Z
~~„~
7 l~ M M M M r~l rl M M M cn l~ 1~ h[~ t~ t~ l~ t~ M M l~ t~1 O O O O O O O O y
W y
A
~
7^+ N N M R vt ~p ~D V~ a} ~ M M N N M N ~ O O O N~+1 nt M v~ rl
00 a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 M u
Q ^
` a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4a
O O
'^
Q fV Q
J HW ~ ~
W a ~
#
~
~
~D O
'
O
--~
~
~ ~
a ~
N rl V v
~
1
O [
00 O~ O~ N M 7 vl ~D h 00 O~ O N M 7 v1 \D t~ 00 O~
~ N N N N N N N N N N
~
LL t
t M M M n1 t^ M M t+l ~ 7 V et 7 7 V 7 er ~~ y~
O o--1
~
N
t.f.
Q
C
G
e
~
~ °
,
~
Z
M ° g
W U
~
~ Q W
« ~ 2 h
uF W C7C.~C7C7C7C7UC7C7C7UC7C~C7C.7UC7C~C7C.7C.7C7UC7C7C7C.7C.7CJC~C7
FO ~wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
M M M M t+l Nl Nl M M M M M t+l M M M Nl rl Nt c7 M M M [~1 rl t~1 t~1 M M M N1
M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ Q
y. ~
p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N
N~
N
N
N
N
~
~O ~O ~O ~D ~D ~O ~O ~O m~D ~O ~O ~D ~O ~D 00 00 00 W W W W W
~
C ~
C
~
a ~a
Ffa r
.-
+ .-
- .-
- .-
i
..
vi
rnooooo000
rno
aarnrnrnrnrnrnrno
o
rnrna
arnrnrno
rno ~ ~
~
.
~
,
~
,
+ ~ ~
Z Z J
O o0 O~ O N M 7 vl ~O 1~ 00 O~ O~--~ N M 7 v~ ~D h a0 01 O t~ 00 O~ O~--~ w
~"~ Y
V Y
V~+
~~^
t~l M M d' 7 7 7 7 V V V V 7 Vl ~n v~ v1 vi in ~n V1 vt vl ~O O O O.. .-i GI 01 G) C
y ~ ~ ~ V" v' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~}' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W W ~ ~O ~
~
t+l t+l c~1 t~l M M M M t+l ~+1 c~1 c~) M M M~+1 t+l M M M M ~+1 ~'~1 t~1 V' V y V ~ 7 a~ O
` L O
L~
F z a a a t>
N
N
W
~
~
Z
W
~
0
W
LL
~
0
~
~
Q
~C
C
~
~
~
~
~
~
0
a
~ ~
~
E
a
e~
vo
r
d~
> ~
~ ~~,~,aaaaa~,~
~ e
do
a~
~~,oooo~ooo
e ~, o0 od ~.~ .. oo ~.r
.. O .. .. ... .~ .. .
~
Y
y ~
• ~ ~ ~ ~ b 0 ~ ~ ~ h
~
i
~ ~1 00 00 ~ T ~1 O~ ~ 0 O~ 00
0 Q Q Vl h h ~ 0 h h
N ~~~
~~
~ ~~
~~
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
0
Q.p M 7~O ... ~O V cn t~l O v1 .
y ~m~n^~o~a~oo~~ .
~w
a ~O°...,.,°°....
~
, ~
; ~~~,~~~~~,~~
H o000000000 ~
~
~
tn N .r M M 7 7 00 ~O . c~1 ~U
W W 00 W W W 00 W OO a0
~
` O O O O O O O O O O . p v
i
m d ~ ~p
E" W ~ ~
W q
3k O
0
O'+ N M ~t v} ~D [~ 00 00 ~
a ~,~~,~~,~~,~,aa ~
a
0
.
~
0
.a
Z
o
~,
~ g
W U
°
<`7 ~ W
~ Q W
~ 2 f-
„
wwwwwwww
""
E:O c
i~~
~'~l ~'~1 M N1 !~1 M[+1 M M M ~'
d Q
y~ O O O O O O O O O O
~~~~~~~~~~ a d '~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £ ~
F A
~
~ v
O
Z 2 J
~~
~
~~
.-
-~
N N N d' '7 G) G/ N~ ~,.
• • •
V V 7 V' 7 7 7 7 7 V ~ 0 ~ d
F z a a a c~
110231-024
November 10, 2003
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the
Expansion lndex Test, ASTM test method D4829 or U.B.C. Standazd No. 18-2. Specimens aze
molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and
approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The
prepazed 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens aze loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surchazge
and aze inundated with tap water until volumehic equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests
aze presented in the table below and in the soil characteristics table herewith Appendix C:
Sample Location Sample Description Expansion
Index Expansion
Potential
Lots 1-4 Brown silty SAND 16 Very I,ow
L.ots 5-7 Pale brown lean SILT w/sand 47 Low
Lots 8-12 Pale brown lean silty CLAY 90 Medium
I.ots 13-18 Pale brown silty lean CLAY w/sand 52 Medium
Lots 19-23 Pale brown clayey SAND 61 Medium
Lots 24-26 Brown silty SAND 8 Very Low
Lots 27-32 Brown silty SAND 22 I,ow
L,ots 33-37 Pale brown silry lean CLAY w/sand 66 Medium
I.ots 38-41 Pale brown silty lean CLAY w/sand 63 Medium
Lots 42-45 Pale brown silty lean CLAY w/sand 80 Medium
I.ots 46-48 Pale brown silty clayey SAND 33 Low
Lots 49-53 Pale brown silty lean CLAY w/sand 81 Medium
Lots 54-57 Pale brown lean SILT w/sand 43 I.ow
G1 ~
q°o
~„~ N
N ~
O '~
.-~ ~
..~
>
Z
H 3
/. N
Qi ~
~ U
.~ ,~
N
~ a
b~
O M
~ .a
.ti ~
b u
~z
~ ~
.~+ F~
~
b .~
v
3 ~
N ~
~ U
ro~
~ ~
' U ...
. ~
~'~ o
~ V ~
~ o ~
~~
a ;g
U b ~
y b :~
~
~~b
•~ V
~.~ ~
~ ~ FI
~ ~ a
~
•y ~
O ~ rn
C 'O N
id ~'
N
.~''3~
~ Y
b H O
y
.~ U y
~ ~ ~;
w ~
~ ~ ~
'x "
r.
~ ?" ~
~~v
y Cr]
. . ~ Fi
U ~
•y ~
h d
~ ~ ~
~p
~ Q ~
U o ~
-- ~ ~
~ ~ b
~, ~ U
r+ ti ^
~ x
~~ '~O c~a
F. i
W ~
Pr
~
N ~
^~
N
~ ~ O O O
`~ O
z z z z
~ O "" O :^~ ;~ ~l r-1 O r-~ O
d)
0
a
x
a
~
~
~
~
a
~
a
Wa ~ ~ > > >
O
x
C
~
M
~
~
O
~
l~
00
t
0
k '~ M O~ l1
~ N
w
.
m a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~
w~ a
6n a
Fu p
5u a
~u p
o
n a
o
u .o
~n a
'w a
oo P
~n
~ a
~ en en en en ,
en ~
on on on m ao
w z z z z z z z z z z
~ 'o
~
~ .5 m
o ^< ~ ~n ~n ~n ~ ~ ~ v v ~ ~
~n o 3
~ 0 0 0 ° o °• o 0 0 0
~
p
v o 0 0 ° o ° o o V V
~ w o
~
~
~ ~
~ ~~
y~
O
~n
O
~
O
O
~n
O
~
~~ O o
F U op N O ~ O O O ~
~ w
3
F o 0 0 ~n o v~ o o v, o
9~
N ~C Vi
N o0
N fV
M ~'1
N O~
N \D
N ~O
N V
M
p y
~ Q ~
d
4
~
~ `
~.r
U
~
Y
ti
~~ v Q
a 3
o p
3 ~
ti ~
~ ~O
~
'C `' ? Q
~
A •
n
^
° ,
o
~ ~,
v
~ z
d
~ b
°'
b
~ ~
~
p
~
a'
~
0 ~
~ ~
o
" ~ ~
; ~
`~
cn
~y ~ a
~ (/~ ~ ~
V 3 Vl ~
V ?,
~~"'~ N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A •' ' V
l ..'7i ~ ~ V
l V
l ^ U
~
T p
3
~
~4
°~ p
3 p
3
~ p
3
a~ o .
C
~ .
~ .~ o o °' o
~ c7 c~ A A O W oa a: Pa
O~
~ 7 v1 f~ oo °O M 7 7 1~ ~
O
~
:
~
~
~
G
b
.~
~
w
O
N
C
~
c
0
U
~
0
.~
N
~
Q
v
~
a
7
~
~
z
~
~
F
b
U
L'.
'd
~
~
~
~
w
0
.y
~
~
~
~
~
0
~
W
N
v
3~
110231-024
November 10, 2003
APPENDDCD
Development azeas, in general, and hillside lots, in particulaz, need maintenance to continue to
function and retain their value. Many owners are unaware of this and allow deterioration of the
property. It is important to familiarize owners with some guidelines for maintenance of their
properties and make them awaze of the importance of maintenance.
Some governing agencies require hillside property developers to utilize specific methods of
engineering and conshuction to protect those investing in improved lots or constructed homes. For
example, the developer may be required to gade the property in such a manner that rainwater will
be drained away from the lot and to plant slopes so that erosion will be minimized. They may also
be required to install permanent drains.
However, once the lot is purchased, it is the buyer's responsibility to maintain these safety features
by observing a prudent program of lot care and maintenance. Failure to make regulaz inspection
and maintenance of drainage devices and sloping azeas may cause severe financial loss. In addition
to their own property damage, they may be subject to civil liability for damage occurring to
neighboring properties as a result of his negligence.
The following maintenance guidelines aze provided for the protection of the owner's investment.
a) Caze should be taken that slopes, terraces, berms (ridges at crown of slopes) and proper lot
drainage aze not disturbed. Surface drainage should be conducted from the reaz yazd to the
street through the side yard, or alternative approved devices.
b) In general, roof and yard runoff should be conducted to either the street or storm drain by
nonerosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters, and driveways. Drainage
systems should not be altered without expert consultation.
c) All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace
drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy
rain periods, performance of the drainage system should be inspected. Problems, such as
gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible.
d) Any leakage from pools, water lines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as
practical.
e) Animal burrows should be eliminated since they may cause diversion of surface runoff,
promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil flowage.
~ Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a significant topographic
modification of the lot or slope, is desired a qualified geotechnical consultant should be
contacted.
D-1 ~
110231-024
November 30, 2003
g) If the owner plans to modify cut or natural slopes aze proposed, an engineering geologist
should be consulted. Any oversteepening may result in a need for expensive retaining devices.
Undercutting of a toe-of-slope would reduce the safety factor of the slope and should not be
undertaken without expert consultation.
h) If unusual cracking, settling or earth slippage occurs on the property, the owner should consult
a qualified soil enaneer or an engineering geologist immediately.
i) The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures aze as follows:
• Gross neglect of the caze and maintenance of the slopes and drainage devices.
• Tnadequate and/or improper planting. (Barren azeas should be replanted as soon as
possible.)
• Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope.
j) Hillside lot owners should not let conditions on their property create a problem for their
neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems, promote slope stability,
adequate drainage, proper maintenance, and also increase the aesthetic amactiveness of the
community.
k) Owner's should be awaze of the chemical composition of imported soils, soil amendments, and
fertilizers to be urilized for landscaping purposes. Some soils, soil amendments and fertilizer
can leach soluble sulfates, increasing soluble sulfate concentrations to moderate or severe
concentrations, negatively affecting the performance of concrete improvements, including
foundations and flatwork.
3~
D-2