Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject Grading Report (Apr.23,2004)c~ ~T~ ~• ~~ I• • • ~ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 710 E. PAFKRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE 105, CORONA, CA 92879 TELEPHONE: (909) 582-0170, FAX: (909) 582-0176 STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES 255 East Rincon Street, Suite 200 Corona, California 92879-1330 Attention: Mr. Adam Smith Apri123, 2004 Work Order 700007-G Subject: PROJECT GRADING REPORT, Lots 41 through 45, Tract No. 29798-6, Model Lots Wolf Creek Project, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Reference: See Appendix A Gentlemen: • • • • Presented herein is a summary of Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s (PSE) observations and test results pertaining to the completion of rough grading of Lots 4] through 45 of Tract 29798-6, model lots, Wolf Creek Project, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. Rough grading for the subject lots began in December 2003 and was completed in January 2004. The enclosed 40-scale grading plan (Sheet 13 of 23) prepared by Lohr and Associates has been used as a base for this report, and has been designated as Plate i for the purposes of this report. Plate 1 depicts the approximate locations of the compaction tests conducted during rough grading operations, the geologic information, and the removal bottom elevations. Also presented herein are geotechnical recommendations for your use during the design and construction of the foundations and infrastructure based on field and laboratory testing of as-graded soil conditions. Based on the testing and observations conducted by PSE, the work as described in this document is considered to be in general conformance with the City of Temecula Grading Code, the 40- scale Rough Grading Plans, and the referenced geotechnical reports. Rough grading conducted to date immediately adjacent to the azea reported herein is considered to be sufficient to provide lateral support to the subject lots. CORPORATEHEADQUARTERS LOSANGELESCOUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL (]i4) 220-0770 TEL (310) 325-]2l2 ar (323) 775-6771 TEL: (714) 730-2722 FA%:(~14)220-9589 FAX:~710)220-9589 FA%:(714)730-5191 SAN OIEGO COUNTY TEL:(858j560-1713 FAX: (858) 560-0380 • Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 • 1.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Page 2 1.1 Geologic Units The geologic units encountered during the grading of the subject lots were undocumented artificial fill and alluvium. The as-graded distribution of these units is presented on Plate 1. 1.1.1 ArtiTicial Fill-Undocumented • Undocumented artificial fill associated with unimproved dirt roads existed onsite. All undocumented artificial fill was removed prior to fill placement. • 1.IZ Alluvium (Mau Svmbol Oal) Holocene-age alluvium encountered during grading of the subject lots consisted of silty sands and sandy silts. The upper five (5) feet of the ~ alluvial materials was removed prior to placement of compacted fill. Spot elevations of approved removal bottoms are shown on the enclosed plans. 1.2 Groundwater I• Groundwater was not encountered during this phase of grading. 1.3 Structure The alluvium was observed to be essentially flat lying. No faults or joints were observed during this phase of grading. I• 1.4 Conclusions From an engineering geologic viewpoint, Lots 41 through 45 of Tract 29798-6 in the City of Temecula, Califomia are suitable for their intended residential use. ~ 2.0 SOIL ENGINEERING Prior to fill placement reported herein, PSE representatives observed removals, excavations, cleanouts and processing in preparing fill areas. Fill materials were placed ~~ and tested under the observation and testing of PSE personnel. The following is a summary of our observations. ~ 2 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, ING. • Work Order 700007-G Apri123,2004 I• Page 3 2.1 Removals By design, shallow (1-2 feet) fills were proposed for the subject lots. All existing fill and a minimtun of the upper five (5) feet of natural soils were removed and ~ replaced as compacted fill prior to fill placement. The approximate removal bottom elevations shown on the enclosed plans (Plates 1 and 2) were obtained by the grading contractor personnel utilizing a laser and survey control points provided by the Civil Engineer. 2.2 Treatment of Removai Bottoms Prior to compacted fill placement, the exposed surfaces at the bottom of removals ~ were scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted in-place to a minimum 90 percent of the laboratory maximuxn density (ASTM D 1557-91). • 2.3 Compacted Fill Placement Fill consisting of the soil types indicated in Table I(Appendix B) was placed in thin lifts (approximately six- (6) to eight- (8) inches), moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content or slightly above, and compacted to a minimum 90 • percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557-91). Compaction was accomplished utilizing self-propelled, rubber-tired and sheepsfoot compactors, along with heavy earth moving equipment. Each succeeding fill lift ~• was treated in a similaz manner. 2.4 Comaaction Test Results A summary of the compaction test results is presented in Table I(Appendix B), • and the approximate locations of these tests are shown on the enclosed 40-scale grading plan (Plate 1). Compaction testing was conducted utilizing the sand cone method (ASTM D 1556) and Campbell Pacific nuclear test gauges (ASTM D I• 2922 and D 3017). • ~ PAGIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. i• I• Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 2.5 Denth of Fill Page 4 Compaction testing was performed approximately for each one (1) to two (2) feet I of fill placed. The approximate maximum vertical depth of fill placed during • grading, within the limits of this report, is on the order of ten (10) feet in the vicinity of Lot 45. The approximate maximum vertical depth of fill placed on individual lots is summarized in Table II (Appendix B). I• 2.6 Fill Slopes Fill slopes were overfilled approximately 5 feet, measured horizontally. 1'tte slope was then trimmed back to the compacted core upon completion of grading. ~• Finish slope surfaces have been probed and/or tested and are considered to satisfy the project requirements and the grading codes of the City of Temecula. Based on the results of tests and observations collected during the rough grading ~• operations, it is PSE's opinion that all slopes constructed under the purview of this report are considered to be grossly and surficially stable at this time, and should remain so under normal conditions. As is the case with any graded slope, proper I drainage, maintenance, and landscaping are essential to long-term performance • and should be implemented as soon as possible. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (~ The subject site is scheduled for single-family residential use. One- and two-story, single family dwellings wiil be constructed utilizing wood frame structures with slab-on-grade foundation systems. ~ 4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Materials utilized for compacted fill ranged from "very low" to '7ow" in expansion potential. Sampling of the post-grading soil conditions was conducted to determine the expansion index per UBC Standard No. 18-2. That evaluation revealed "very low" I~ expansive materials on the subject building pads. A summary of the laboratory test data is presented in Table 4.1, below. ~• ~ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. i• I• ~~ ~• I• Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 Page 5 . TABLEA-1 ' , Summary,of Hydrometer, Expansion Index Sulfate Content Testing Sample Expansion Expansion Hydrameter Analyses (%) Chemical Lot Numbers lndex Potential Sand Silt Clay Sulfate Content (% weight) 41-42 15 Very Low 50.1 35.6 143 0.002 43-05 I Very Low 69.1 18.9 12.0 0.002 4.1 Foundation Desien Criteria The subject site is scheduled for single-family residential use. One- and two- story, single family dwellings will be constructed utilizing wood frame structures with siab-on-grade foundation systems. Based on the data presented in Table 4.1, the following foundation design criteria are presented. Foundations for structures may be designed based on the following values. ', • Allowable Bearing: Sliding Coefficienh Lateral Bearing: • • • • • Settlement: 20001bs./sq.ft. 035 250 lbs./sq.ft per foot of depth to a maximum of 20001bs./sq. ft., based on level conditions at the toe Static Settlement -'h inch in 50 feet Seismic Settlement - 2 inches in 50 feet. Combined Settlement - 2 inches in 40 feet The above values may be increased as allowed by Code to resist transient loading conditions, such as wind or seismic. ~ PACIFIG SOILS ENGINEEFIING. INC. ~ [ ~ b~0 'b • ~ N p 'b W ~ ~ ~ ~]y y- + ~ .~-~ ~ • N O . ~ ~ W ~ ~ 0 .~ Y y N a ~ ~ • '' ~ ~ U F" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v a a ~ ~ `~~ . o n ~ '~ ~ N ~ C O „0 ~ • ~ y U O ~ .~. ~ h ~ 'v ~ a+ y ~ i'., ~ O ~ ~ o o ~c C ~ ~ U ,~ ~ '~ ~ N N N ~y Y ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ Y ~ o ~m a i '~ 3 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ + . ~ V ~ ~ Y ~ y b ~ o y cNd ~ ~ ~ ~,; O a m ~a N x- O Q ~ d N ~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~Q ~ H ~ E ~ °' a°i J~- '~. o E 3 N ~ '9 o a~ ~ c ~ E ~ w o E E~ N s ~ ° nCt7 W.. M C .c ,3 i a i a ~w ~ 9 ~ d ~ r ~ M : 'J C ~ v ~" :~ o 0.. ~ a~ O ~ ~ V ~ ~' ~ u" E E~ ~' N ~° '° o° w W N W W~ ri o L >` s~ (.J a N . . C W O Q ~ C ~ m ~ 'V N aci ~ :. o E = ~ ~ a'~i 3 U b °' ~~ N a ~ E ~p ~ ~ E E ~ '~ N ~ ~ ,a 'O U] ~] .. m ~ F ~ >. « ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~_ ~ o ~ s o ~~~ Q m>- :. o ; f0 o v o ` ~ ' ~ ~ a ~` ~ _ W S D y ~N ~ N'O ~ N E E~ Vl N t 0 L y a Gq~> .~q U ~ W LL~ ~..+ M ~ N 0 .S y ~ ~ o w= z F ~ ~ ~~ c ~ " L ~ Ya = W a v~ :a a i ~ 9 ~"' `i ` ~. ~ N E m y a , C Z ~" z 1.. V ae " ~ " ~ ~~ '0 N > ~ ~ o F U - v E~ o y ~~ o ~ ~ ~~, a ¢mm.. ~ ~ - ; ~ o~ '~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .a ~3._ " `° ~ 'o c ° d ~ b" ~ E s ~ ~o t ~ a ?~ ~ s y ~ ~ ~ M ~ N m .~ o ~ O ~ a~ ~ w a d ti 3 o w~ Z ~ L A ~° .~ `~' v v O k7 ~ o s .= ~ m E c °~ F ~ y " ia ~ 3 a i ~ ~ O °' '~ ~~ v i 0 va ~ a ° ~ ~~ 50 "o Y o c= 3s y y '~ V ttl O y 'vi p ~ w a m .o ^ ~ a~ `° ~ a ~ `° E o 0 ^~ o x ~ y Q ~ N C C ~ rO ~l + ~ ~ p ~ ~ '~ v. C N N I m O N fA ~ N ~ fO V ~ a .% c~ ~ 3 t N ¢ ¢ r~~ N ~U ~` E ~ ~ N Fz 2~ Es ~ F ~y a~ E ~ ~ o v ° p F' e c~ ^ o w (n p 3 v y R U y T C ~ N~ Q W ~] > o o o ° a v ~'n O , . , ~ c ~ a i 7 ` ° X m ~ m a °' ~ ~ ~,.., 0 = o c y ' a m ~ E 5 E ~ ?~ p 3 ~ ~ '~ V ~ E 9 ~v ~.'~ °o E ~.. cC o ~a v~ oo e ,~ . ~ m . .. _ o cuE „cv o ..~ ° v p o a w J ` c . o ~ ~.. ~ ~ o ° v~ U.S .~m. m F ¢ o 5 d L ~o 3 .a ~y - . o x- ~ ro ~c ~ w° t- - °~' ~ ¢ o v~ v°~w° ."-. 3 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING~ INC. ~O ~ • Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 I• Page 7 4.3 Seismic Desien No known active faults exist within the project. The nearest known active fault is • the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, a seismic source type B fault, located approximately 0.6 km west of the project. Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code requirements and the parameters presented below in Table 43. Lot specific seismic soil profile types aze listed on • Table II. I~ ~ TnsLE a.3 Seismic Desigu Parsmeters. r S i i P t 1997 UBC e sm c arame e SD Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4 Near Source Factor No 1.3 Near Source Factor N„ 1.6 Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.44Na Seismic Coefficient C~ 0.64N„ Seismic Source Type B 4.3.1 Seismicallv Induced Dvnamic Settlement ~ There is the potential for dynamic settlement in the underlying soils. The effects of the potential settlement can be mitigated by the use of post- tensioned foundation systems designed in accordance with pazagraph 4.1 and Tab]e 4.2. • 4.4 Moisture Retarder Postensioned slab foundation systems should be underlain with a moisture retarder to minimize the potential for moisture migration from the subgrade soils ~ through the slab. It is also recommended that the moisture and vapor retarder be • ~ ~PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, ING. i~ Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 I• Page 8 placed below the garage slab. Minimally, it is recommended that the moisture retarder consist of a 10-mil Visqueen or equivalent. Care should be taken during construction so that the membrane is not punctured or violated. Further, it is ~ recommended that the Visqueen be overlapped or glued at the joints to further reduce the potential of moisture vapor migration. 4.5 Minimum Death of Embedment • For the subject site, where foundations for residential structures are to exist in proximity to slopes, the footings should be embedded to satisfy the requirements presented in Figure 1. ~• FIGURE 1 I• FACE OF ~ ~ EXCEED 15 FC MAX ~ 4.6 Backvard Improvements Future improvements such as patios, slabs, pools, and perimeter screen walls can be constructed within the setback zones shown in Figure 1; however, the design ~ and siting of all such improvements should be reviewed by a soil engineer who is familiaz with hillside grading techniques, in general, and the site-specific • ~ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. i• • Work Order700007-G Apri123, 2004 Page 9 conditions reported in the final grading report, in particular. All walls should be structurally separated at twenty (20) foot, or less, increments and at perpendicular I• corners. 4.7 Retaining Wall DesiQn I• I• • ^ Retaining walls should be founded on compacted fill. Foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 4.1. In general, conventional walls can be designed to either retain native materials or select granular backfill, although the design for non- "free-draining" and expansive native material will produce a relatively costly wall system. Due to the fact that some of the native onsite soils contain fine-grained fractions, specifications for the quality of backfill soils should be defined. It should be anticipated that suitable backfill material will have to be imported or selectively produced from onsite sources and should consist of granulaz, very low to low expansive materials. The following lateral earth pressures are presented for "select" onsite soils for both level and 2: 1 sloping ground. Lateral Earth Pressure - Select Backfill Level Backfill 2:1 Slopiu¢ Backfll J • ^ ~ ~. Active = 36 pcf Active = 55 pcf Passive = 300 pcf Passive = 150 pcf(Descending Slope) At Rest = SSpcf At Rest = 84 pcf Restrained retaining walls should be designed for "at-rest" conditions. Walls should be watetproofed where staining would be considered unacceptable. The walls should be backfilled with free draining material (SE>20) to within twelve (12) inches of grade extending horizontally the height of the wall and should be compacted to project specifications. Native soils should be utilized in the upper twelve (12) inches. Drainage systems including, as a minimum, a four- (4) inch diameter perforated drain line surrounded by one (]) cubic Feet per lineal foot of ~1 PACIFIC SOILS ENOINEEFING~ INC. i• I• I• ~* is ~~ ~~ ~~ I~ RETAINING WALL BACKFILL N.T.S. -iii-i i_uru 'r ~~% ~ F~qT O ~iii~ T ?~, S~ NA71VE ~~/~ ~~'F BACKFILL ~//y~~/~~,,. Hl2 MIN 12 IN. MIN. PROVIDE DRAINAGE i SWALE ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . NATIVE OR SELECT ~"• ~ . . . ... .:: :~ ' ` ' ` BACKFILL ~' ~ :: SELEC7 ` / i. : '. BACKFILL • ~ DRAIN LATERALLY, ~~~.'• .•''• •.: •:.~ . , . OR PROVIDE WEEP I: :' ~';'~~'~~' ' ' '~•='~: : . HOLES ~...•. .: . : .~ ..: : :.: ;°. ~ ~•: E.I.<_20 .: AS REOUIRED ~~~'. % qND TO DRAIN I:.;' ,~ SE? 20 ~• 1' ~i I' . :: ~ ~ \ _. ~: ~ • . ; ~ :'. . : ~ ~ ~ . .~u~~ ~•..• ~ , .':~: ~ '•`=~~::.: :~. ' ' ~••'• i ~~\/~~ I:: ' .-. • :..~ ~ i ;..'': i~/ I.: 1 ~:.~ ~ I.. : I.. ~ I "':i~: ~ ' .•: -..': ,. ...:?:ii; :..;:'.. j' :: . • ":~~?'. ------- .., ~. - - - ~. . . * OR AS MODIFIED ~~:; ~ `' ~ <~ ''~'`• ~ • .,,' ,~:o:,y .~.. .. ~. :.~::e,~~. BYA SPECIFIC REPORT ~'"`iii=iii=m=m=m=w=i-fi=iu= H O 4 INCH PERFORA7ED PVC, SCHEDULE 40, SDR 35 OR APPROVED ALTfRNATE, PLACE PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUND WI7H ~ CU. F7. PER FT. Of 3l4 INCH ROGK OR APPROVED ALTERNATE AND MIRAFI 140 FRTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EOUIVALEN7 O pPlIONAI - PLACE DRAIN AS SHOWN WHERE IsOIS1URE Iv11GRA'fION IS UNDESIRABLE ~• FIGURE 2 • VEF.CNU i• Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 I• Page 10 three-quarters (3/4) inch to one (1) inch crushed rock wrapped with a suitable filter fabric, should be provided to cantilever and restrained retaining walls to ~ retieve hydrostatic pressure (see Figure 2). Additional allowances should be made in the retaining wall design to account for the influence of construction loads, temporary loads, and possible nearby structural footing loads. No backfill should be placed against concrete until • minimum design strengths are achieved. 4.8 Exterior S1abs and Walkways ~ 4.8.1 Sub¢rade Moisture The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 110 percent of optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement. • 4.8.2 Slab Thickness Concrete flatwork and driveways should be designed utilizing four- (4) inch minimum thiclrness. • 4.83 Control Joints Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of approximately ten (] 0) feet or less. Exterior slabs should be designed to ~ withstand shrinkage of the concrete. 4.8.4 Flarivork Reinforcement Consideration should be given to reinforcing exterior flatwork. I[ 7 • Expansion Potential Reinforcement (minimum) Low 6 inches by 6 inches, No. 10 by No. ] 0 W WM Reinforcement should be placed near mid-height in the slab. \~ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • Work Order700007-G Apri123, 2004 I• 4.9 Chemical Testina Page 11 Soluble sulfate testing has been conducted on the selected soil samples as reported in Table 4.1. Laboratory tests indicate the site soils possess negligible sulfate • concentrations as defined by Table 19-A-4 (UBC 1997), indicating sulfate resistant concrete is not required by that standard. • 4.10 Preliminarv Pavement Desi¢n This firm has calculated preliminary sections based upon an assumed R-value of 30 and an assumed Traffic Index of 5.0. It is estimated that the majority of subgrade soils will possess an R-Value in the range of 20-50. Final pavement ~• design should be based upon specific testing of the subgrade soils. Preliminary pavement sections are presented below in Table 3.4. I• ~~ Table 3.4 ` ~ Estiroated R Value = 30' T- .' Assumed Pavement Section Street Trsftic lndex ~oches of AC Inc6es of AB All Interior Streets 5.0 3 6 AC = Asphaltic Concrete; AB = Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base, or Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) ~ Pavement subgrade soils should be at or near optimum moisture content and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method: D 1557-91. Aggregate base should consist of Class 2(Caltrans) aggregate base, or Crushed I~ Miscellaneous Base (CMB) and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method: D 1557-91. I~ The asphalt pavement sections presented in Table 3.4 are presented for estimating purposes only. Sampling of the as-graded near surface subgrade soils will be • ~Z PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING~ INC. • Work Order 700007-G Page 12 Apri123, 2004 • conducted after the installation of underground utilities. Fina] asphalt pavement sections will be provided by PSE at that time. 5.0 OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Site Drainaee Positive drainage away from structures should be provided and maintained. Roof, • pad and slope drainage should be collected and directed away from the proposed structures to approved disposal areas. It is important that drainage be directed away from foundations. The recommended drainage patterns should be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the ~ structure. 5.2 Service Utilitv Trench Backfill Service utility trench backfill should be accomplished in accordance with the I~ prevailing criteria of the City of Temecula. 6A HOMEOWNER CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES During and upon completion of mass grading of the subject site, representative soil ~ samples were tested for expansive soil characteristics and soluble sulfate concentrations. In addition, certain lots contain manufactured slopes within or adjacent to the building pad area. All of these conditions should be considered in design, construction, and • maintenance of homeowner improvements. The homeowners should be advised of certain responsibilities they must accept in consideration of these factors. Suggested information to educate the homeowners regarding these responsibilities is presented in Appendix C. We suggest that this information be provided to all homeowners as part of ~~ an information packet during the sales process. I` ~ ~3 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEEFING, INC. • • Work Order700007-G Apri123, 2004 Page 13 This report presents information and data relative to the mass grading and/or placement of compacted fill at the subject site. A representative(s) of this firm conducted periodic tests ~ and observations during the progress of the construction in an eftort to determine whether compliance with the project drawings, specifications and Building Code were being obtained. The presence of our personnel during the work process did not involve the direction or supervision of the contractor. Technical advice and suggestions were provided to the owner and/or his representative based upon the results of the tests and observations. ~ Completed work under the purview of this report is considered suitable for the intended use. Conditions of the reference reports remain applicable unless speci6cally superseded herein. ~ PSE appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical consulting services. If you have any questions or should you require any additional information, please contact the undersigned at (909) 582-0170. Respectfully submitted, ~ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING INC. Reviewed by: By: ~ SCOTT A. GRAY MES B. LE /RGE 192 ~Q~~ Civil Engineering Associate CE 30280/Reg. Exp.: 3-31-06 y~ • Chief Operations Officer w I~ I~ ~ ~ ~G..._ ~ DEAN C. ARMSTRONG/CEG 11 Reg. Exp.: 9-30-04 Vice President DisC (4) Addressee SAG:JBC:DCAsm:700007-G April 23, 2004 (Troct 6 Models) PAGIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, ING. No.192 E~.3f81l~ %GWEERiryG F,N~~ j No.CEG N87 Eap• `~-''o-d4 * * \~ • I• I• I• APPENDIX A References I• I• I• • r, .. • PACIFIC 501L5 ENGINEERING, INC. ~~ • Work Order 700007-G Page A-1 Apri123, 2004 n .~ APPENDIX A Reference List • 1. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2004, Review of Foundation Plans, Tract No. 29798, Wolf Creek Specific Plan, City of Temecula, California, dated March 17, 2004 (Work Order 700007-G). 2. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2003a, Seismic Design Parameters, Tract No. 29798, Wolf • Creek Specific Plan, City of Temecula, Califomia, dated December 1, 2003 (Work Order 700007-G). 3. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2003b, Retaining Wall Foundation Design Recommendations, Tentative Tract 29798, Wolf Creek Project, City of Temecula, California, ~ dated July 1, 2003 (Work Order 700007-G). 4. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2001, Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Tentative Tract 29798, Wolf Creek Specific Plan, City of Temecula, California, dated Mazch 21, 2003 (Work Order 400622). • r, ~. r, ~ • ^ • ~~P PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • • APPENDIX B Tables I and II I• • I• I• C \~ I• PACIFIG SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. n u Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 • TABLE I Page B-1 i ~ Optimum Maximum Laboratory Moisture Content Dry Density Soil TvPe & Description (%) (pc11 S Dark Brown Silty Sand 10.0 12g•~ W Dark Brown Silty Sand 10.0 128.0 • Leaend Non-designated test indicates test in compacted fill -FG indicates finish grade test J Test Tvpe N- Indicates in-situ density and moisture content tests were conducted using a Campbeil Pacific Nuclear Testing Gauge. I~ '• I• I~ I• I• ~$ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. C] N 0.l ~ d •[~~ N IA (A N Vl N f/ N N VI N N Vl Vf VI V1 Vl N N Vi CU `"~ N N N N N N N N Vl Vi V1 N f% f% N N ~m y~v `~ m n~ m~a `~ m~a ~a a~a ro a m ro~ ro R h a a a. a w a a a a. a a a a a a a a a a a , m ! • a~ .°. arnarnrnrn°rnrnao°,rnrnrn°rnrno°,°rnrnrnrn 6. Vi ~ EFZ22',z'z2z,zzz'zzzz~zzzzzz ~i~ ' ~~~~~~~~~NN~~~~3333333 ao ~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ II • .~p -~ vl .--~ O^~D O~ M N~O oo .-• i~ v1 N M o0 .-• V N 3= w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ' ~ 0 . ~ x ~ o q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o q o o q o 0 0 0 0 0 G ca i.~7. e~ G o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o w o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 N~^ N N~ N N~ N N~~ N N~~~^ t`1 •--~ '. .~ ~. .-. .~ .-. • ' 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 O O O O C O O O O ~ ... .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .--. .. .~-. ` 7 'O y ' p V o~o ~" ?~ ._oov~t~o;r~oooo~noe-~o,-•mry~-m~n ^ G O O O O ~ O O N ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ^ w .. .-. .--~ ~ . . . .- ~^ ,-. ^. ~^ .- a i -v oo_ v, N N 7 7 7~D ~D ~O ~D o0 00 00 c0 T O O~ Q~ O~ O O Rl a w V V V V 7 V V V V C V V R~ v1 ooooo00000ooooovvv~n~n 0 0 F W ^, ,.. ,_, ~ ,.. _. ..., ._ ,.., o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ e ~ ~ e ~ ~ e e e ~ u o0 00 00 00 00 00 0o ao 00 0o ao 00 00 0o ao 00 00 0o ao 00 '~ • ~3 i rn rn O~ rn rn rn O~ rn rn O~ rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O~ rn ~ t~ r t~ t~ ~ r t~ t~ r r t~ t~ r t~ t~ t~ r r r ~ ~ N N N N N N N f~V N N N N N N N N N N N N C • O ~R vl M N V M N V v~ .-. v~ rn N•--~ cn .-• ~n K t+~ N^ N V O V V 7 7 7~ V 7 7 O V 7 a V V V V V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ a a.~.a a a.~.~ a..a.~.a a~ a.a.~ a a..~ N N [.'y I • ~ w ~ w w v a ~ ~ n E o0 T O ~O 1~ ^ N tn O M V h~O N cn N M 7 O~ O~ O~^~ M M M Vl V'1 Vl ~A V1 ~O ~O 00 00 00 00 00 yv l . N N N N v1 v1 ~ vt vl (V N N (V N N N N~ O . . - .- .. . .- . ~ ~ ~ .~ .- ^-. .~ .-. ~ F Z.--~ .-. O • O r p d O O O O O O O O ~ d' ~~ d' O O O O O O O O 7 V V V a~~ ~ O O O O '~ N M N N N N N~V ~`I N O O O O O O O O O O O O N M i+1 V Q V O O O O O O O N N N N N N ` ~ N t l d N N N N N N N N N N(`I N N N N~~~~~ i ~ N N^ N N~ N N~~~~~ C~ N N N N N ~~ ___ q ~~__~__ 3¢ ~~ ~ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • • ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 TABLE II -, Maximum Depth of Fill and Seismic Soil Profile Type ~~ Approximate Seisroic Soil Tract Number Number Maximum profile Type Depth of Fill 29798-6 41 6.5 Sp 29798-6 42 8.5 Sp 29798-6 43 9.0 So 29798-6 44 9.5 Sp 29798-6 45 ]0.0 So Page B-3 • ~ PACIFIG SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • • APPENDIX C • • I• I• I• Homeowner Maintenance & Improvement Considerations • 2~ PACIFIC SOILS EN6INEERING, INC. • Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 • Page G1 HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS General ~ Homeowners purchasing property must assume a certain degree of responsibility for homeowner improvements and for maintaining conditions around their home. Of primary importance are maintaining drainage patterns and minimizing the soil moisture variation below all lot improvements. Such design, construction and homeowner maintenance provisions may include: - Employing contractors for homeowner improvements who design and build in recognition of local building codes and specific site soils conditions. - Establishing and maintaining positive drainage away from all foundations, walkways, '~ driveways, patios, and other hardscape improvements. - Avoiding the construction of planters adjacent to structural improvements. Alternatively, planter sides/bottoms can be sealed with an impermeable membrane and drained away from the improvements via subdrains into approved disposal azeas. ~ - Sealing and maintaining construction/control joints within concrete slabs and walkways to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. - Utilizing landscaping schemes with vegetation that requires minimal watering. Watering should be done in a uniform manner, as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, i~ ~ keeping the soil "moist" but not allowing the soil to become saturated. - Maintaining positive drainage away from structures and providing roof gutters on all structures with downspouts that are designed to carry roof runoff directly into area drains or discharged well away from the foundation areas. '~ - Avoiding the placement of trees closer to the proposed structures than a distance of one-half the mature height of the tree. - Observation of the soil conditions around the perimeter of the structure during extremely hot/dry or unusually wet weather conditions so that modifications can be made in irrigation programs to maintain relatively uniform moisture conditions. • Sulfates Homeowners should be cautioned against the import and use of certain inorganic fertilizers, soil ~ amendments, and/or other soils from offsite sources in the absence of specific information relating to their chemical composition. Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfate v I~ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 :7 Page G2 compounds into soils otherwise containing "negligible" sulfate concentrations and increase the sulfate concentrations to potentially detrimental levels. In some cases, concrete improvements ~ constructed in soils containing high levels of soluble sulfates may be affected by crystalline grow[h or mineral accumulation, which may, in the long term, result in deterioration and loss of strength. Site Drainaee - The homeowners should be made aware of the potential problems that may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, swimming pools, paved walkways, patios or other hardscape improvements. Ponded water, drainage over the slope face, ]eaking irrigation systems, overwatering or other conditions which could lead to ground ~I • saturation must be avoided. - No water should be allowed to flow over the slopes. No alteration of pad gradients should be allowed that would prevent pad and roof runoff from being directed to approved disposal areas. • - As part of site maintenance by the resident, all roof and pad drainage should be directed away from slopes and around structures to approved disposal areas. All berms were constructed and compacted as part of fine grading and should be maintained by the resident. Drainage patterns have been established at the time of the fine grading should be maintained t}uoughout the life of the structure. No alterations to these drainage pattems should be made ~ unless designed by qualified professionals in compliance with local code requirements and site-specific soils conditions. Slope Drainaee r - Residents should be made aware of the importance of maintaining and cleaning all interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, downdrains, and any other drainage devices, which have been installed to promote slope stability. - Subsurface drainage pipe outlets may protrude through slope surfaces and/or wall faces. These pipes, in conjunction with the graded features, are essential to slope and wall stability • and must be protected in-place. They should not be altered or damaged in any way. Plantina and Irri~ation of Slopes - Seeding and planting of the slopes should be planned to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a ~ well-established and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. v~ • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEEii1NG, INC. • Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 Page C-3 - It is the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of the residents to maintain such planting. Alteration of such a planting scheme is at the residenYs risk. ~ - The resident is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of properly installed irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately. - Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Overwatering with consequent wasteful runoff and serious ground satwation must be avoided. • - If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for , seasonal and natural rainfall conditions. Burrowine Animals • - Residents must undertake a program to eliminate burrowing animals. This must be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability. Homeowner Imnrovement ~ Homeowner im rovements oois s as atio slabs retainin walls lanters, etc. should be , P ~P , P >P , g ,P ) designed to account for the terrain of the project, as well as expansive soil conditions and chemica] characteristics. Design considerations on any given lot may need to include provisions I~ for differential bearing materials, ascending/descending slope conditions, bedrock sUucture, perched (inigation) water, special geologic surcharge ]oading conditions, expansive soil sVesses, and long-term creep/settlement. ~ All homeowner improvements should be designed and constructed by qualified professionals utilizing appropriate design methodologies, which account for the on-site soils and geologic , conditions. Each lot and proposed improvement should be evaluated on an individual basis. I ~ Setback Zones Fill slopes have been manufactured on site to maximum heights of approximately five (5) feet. Manufactured slopes maybe subject to long-term settlement and creep that can manifest itself in the form of both horizontal and vertical movement. These movements typically are produced as • a result of weathering, erosion, gravity forces, and other natural phenomenon. A setback ~ adjacent to slopes is required by most building codes, including the Uniform Building Code. ~ 2°~ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING~ INC. ^ r~ .. Work Order 700007-G Apri123, 2004 Page C-4 This zone is intended to locate and support the residential structures away from these slopes and onto soils that are not subject to the potential adverse effects of these natural phenomena. ~ The homeowner may wish to construct patios, walls, walkways, planters, swimming pools, spas, etc. within this zone. Such facilities may be sensitive to settlement and creep and should not be constructed within the setback zone unless properly engineered. It is suggested that plans for such improvements be designed by a professional engineer who is familiar with hillside grading • ordinances and design and construction requirements associated with hillside conditions. In addition, we recommend that the designer and contractor familiarize themselves with the site specific geologic and geotechnical conditions on the specific lot. • Excavation Characteristics Excavation of on site materials did not require heavy ripping or blasting for efficient excavation and fill placement. Fill placed during grading of the subject lots consisted of soil comprised I~ ~ predominantly of silty sand with some clay and gravel. Minor amounts of cobbles up to 4-inches in diameter were also encountered. • • • • / • 27 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, ING.