HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 30682 Geotechnical Study~O~D~ 30~~/~~a~~.~-
~~'; ,
•$oil EnAiireering uM Cansulling Senices • EnAir.eerinq GeoloAY • CwnpaGion ialinp
~-~ ~~-~~ }~GEN Corporation ~Inspstions•COnslrudiwMaierialsTestinq•la0ora~oryiestinp•Percolalion7eslinp
.~~~ ~~ _ • GeoloQy • Water Pzsourw Stueies • Phase I 8 II Envimnmen2l Sile Assasmenis
ENVIRONMENTAL St GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Residential Structures
Vicinity of Pujol Street and Sixth Street
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2507-GS
March.l, 2002
.
i { •~~.~:.1. t ~, ~ `
m 1 ~~
. . . . ..~t~~~n
/ ~.- /
I `~I ~ i ~_'_ ~ ` i ~.._.
~~ i - 'ORANGE;(.:.~~ac`-~
{:~F ^'~~ ~i ~
' r,•
_
Prepared for:
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
200 East Washington Avenue, Suite 208
Escondido, California 92025
-'.,
i . . . . - . i ~ .. , ~ _
- . _ - ~ - ~ ~ ' ' .. _.~~6R11ErR~6@~
i ~
~ . .._._ : . . ~. ~ ~_,_.wr~rr«~~~~r~..~~~~~~.
~ , _.... i : ...'_~ ~~~~~..e~e~~vv~~ass~~.~s~.w.
'_~~.~~~~ ~~..~. . ~ , ___~ !i/.~~~C1~~~{~~~~.iEe~~~~~~i~i~~Et~~.~x~~~~
,T- ~--. ~ - , - ~-
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No: T2507-GS
~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Paae
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................... ....................................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ ...................................2
' ~ 2.1 Authorization ....................................................................... ....................................2
_ 2.2 Scope of Study ................................................................... ....................................2
2.3 Previous Site Studies ......................................................... ...................................2
F
~ 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........... ....................................2
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTfON ...................................................................... ....................................3
5.0 FIELD STUDY .............................................................................. ....................................3
~ 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................. ....................................4
6.1 General .............................................................................. ....................................4
6.2 Classifcation ...................................................................... ....................................4
~
~
6.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test .........................
....................................4'
6.4 Consolidation Test .............................................................. ....................................4
6.5 Maximum Dry Density ! Optimum Moisture Content Relati onship Test ..................4
~ 6.6 Direct Shear Test ................................................................ ....................................5
6.7 Expansion Test ................................................................... ....................................5
6.8 Soluble Sulfate Test ........................................................... ....................................5
~
7.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................ ....................................6
7.1 Geologic Setting ................................................................. ....................................6
7.2 Faulting :............................................................................. ....................................6 ..
~ 7.3 Seismicity ........................................................................... ....................................6
7.4 Earth Materials ................................................................... ....................................7
7.4.1 Alluvium ................................................................ ....................................7
~ 7.5 Groundwater ....................................................................... ....................................7
7.6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity ................................ ....................................7
~ 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ .....................................8
8.1 General ............................................................................. .....................................8
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations ........................................... .....................................8
~ 8.2.1 General ................................................................ .....................................8
" 8.2.2 Clearing ............................................................... .....................................8
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics .................................. .....................................9
~ 8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill .................. .....................................9
• 8.2.5 Removal and Recompaction ............................... .....................................9
8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements ............................... .....................................9
8.2.7 Compaction Equipment ....................................... ...................................10
_ 8.2.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence .................................. ...................................10
8.2.9 Fill Slopes ............................................................. ...................................10
8.2.10 Subdrains ............................................................. ...................................11
~
r 8.2.11 Observation and Testing ...................................... ...................................11
~ 8.2.12 Soil Expansion Potential ...................................... ...................................11
~
. I _
EnGEN Corporation
:J
2
, ~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No: T2507-GS
~ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Secti on Number and Title paae
8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations .................................... ............................12
8.3.1 General ....................................................................... ............................12
. 8.3.2 Foundation Size .......................................................... ............................12
~ 8.3.3 Depth of Embedment ................................................. ............................12
' 8.3.4 Bearing Capacity ........................................................ ............................12
~ 8.3:5 Settlement ..................................................................
8.3.6 Lateral Capacity ........................................................... ............................13
...........................13
8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations ............................................ ...........................13
8.4.1 Interior Slabs ............................................................... ...........................14
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs .........................:..................................... ...........................14
- ~ 8.5 Pavement Design Recommendations ....................................... ...........................14
8.6 Utility Trench Recommendations .........:..................................... ...........................15
~ 8.7 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .................................... ...........................16
` 8.8 PlanterRecommendations ........................................................ ...........................97
8.9 Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations .......... ...........................17
~ 8.10 ReEaining Wall Recommendations ......:..................................... ...........................18
' 8.10.1 Earth Pressures .....................'..................................... ...........................18
8.10.2 Foundation Design ...................................................... ...........................18
~ 8.10.3 Subdrain ...................................................................... ...........................19
8.10.4 Backfill ......................................................................... ...:.......................19
~ 9.0 PLAN REVIEW ..................................................................................... ...........................20
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE ..................................................................... ...........................20
~ 11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE ........................................................... ...........................20
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING ........................
. 20
> . ..........................
~- 13.0 CLOSURE ..................................................... `..................................... ...........................21
APPE NDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
SETTLEMENT DUE TO LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS
~ LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
:_~ DRAWINGS
~
~ .
:l -
~ EnGEN Corpon[i~~~ ,3
~
.~!~••~: ~~ ~
~ ~~ . .,,'~!~ „°~ °~YiGEN Corporation
ENVIRONMENTAL Sl GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
, ~ March 1, 2002
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
i 200 East Washington Avenue, Suite 208
~ Escondido, California 92025
(760) 738-8401 ! FAX (760) 738-8405
Attention: Ms. Laura Barlow
c•i Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
~ Proposed Residential Structures
Vicinity of Pujol Street and Sixth Street
~ City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T2507-GS
~ Reference: 1. Davis Group, Preliminary Site Plan, Affordable Homeownership, Temecula,
California, plans dated April 30, 2001, revised June 18, 2001.
Dear Ms. Barlow:
~ According to your request and signed authorization, we have performed a
Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was
~ to evaluate the existing geologic and geotechnical conditions within the subject property with
respect to recommendations for fine grading of the site and design recommendations for
foundations, slabs on-grade, etc., for the proposed development. Submitted, herewith, are the
~ results of this firm's findings and recommendations, along with the supporting data.
~' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A geotechnical/geological engineering study of the subsurface conditions of the subject
site has been performed for the proposed development. Exploratory excavations have
j been performed and earth material samples subjected to laboratory testing. The data
~ has been analyzed with respect to the project information furnished to us for the
"t proposed development. It is the opinion of this firm that the proposed development is
• f feasible from a geotechnical/geologic standpoint, provided that the ~ecommendations
presented in this report ar,e followed in the design and construction of the project.
<\
~-_-, _
~ ~~l ~
•~\ i ~ , , ,~~ ; ; ~~ , . ~i .~~ ----- -~~-.: __~.ceasc
• Soil Enpineerinp ant CansullinA ~r~ces • Enpiirtwiip Geolopy • Compaclion Teslinp
• Inspa~iors • Constrution Materia~s iestinA •~~~atory 7estinA • Percolation iestinp
• Geoltqy • Water Pewur~ Slutlies • Pl~ase I 8 II EmironmeiAal Site 0.ssessmenl5
_.
1 Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
Page 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION
, 2.1 Authorization: This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study
,~ performed on the subject site for the proposed development. Authorization to perform this
study was in the form of a signed proposal.
~ 2.2 Scope of Stud~ The scope of work performed for this study was designed to determine
and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions within the subject site with respect to
geotechnical characteristics, and to provide recommendations and criteria for use by the
.- design engineers and architect for the development of the site and for design_ and
~ construction of the proposed development. The scope of work included the following: 1)
site reconnaissance and surface geologic mapping; 2) subsurface exploration; 3)
~ sampling of on-site earth materials; 4) laboratory testing; 5) engineering analysis of fieid
and laboratory data; and 6) the preparation of this report.
~ 2.3 Previous Site Studies: No previous studies are known by this firm to have been
performed for this site.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / PROJECT DESCRIPTION
~ Specific grading plans were not available at the time of this report. When these specific
plans become available they should be reviewed by this office so additional
recommendations can be made (if necessary). Based on a conversation with you and the
;~ Referenced No. 1 Site Plan, the proposed development will include construction of
fourteen new single family residences and renovation of three existing single family
residences. This report is intended for the new construction. Any geotechnical input
required for renovation of existing structures will need to be addressed on a case by case
~ basis once.the details of the renovations are known. We assume the new construction will
~
consist of one and/or two story, slab-on-grade type structures with associated landscape
~ and hardscape improvements (parking, driveway, etc.). It is assumed that relatively light
loads will be imposed on the foundation soils. The foundation loads are not anticipated to
exceed 2,500 pounds per lineal foot (pl~ for continuous footings. It is assumed that the
proposed grading for the site will encompass minor cuts and flls. The above project
~ description and assumptions were used as the basis for the field and laboratory
exploration and testing programs and the engineering analysis for the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report. This offce should be notified if structures,
~~
J EnGEN Corporation j
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
1 March 2002
Page 3
foundation loads, grading, and/or details other than those represented herein are
proposed for final development of the site so a review can be performed, supplemental
evaluation made, and revised recommendations submitted, if required.
6~ 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
~ The site is located near the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street, in the City of
Temecula, California (Figure 1). Twelve of the fourteen proposed new residences, and all
three proposed residential renovations are planned for the area west of Felix Valdez Road
~' , and north of Sixth Street. The remaining two proposed new residences are planned for
~ the area south of Sixth Street and East of Pujol Street. The proposed layout is illustrated
on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). The site is relatively fiat, with overall topographic
~ relief of less than fifteen feet, sloping gently to the east. At the time of the field study, the
area of the proposed new improvements contained several existing structures with
~ associated improvements. It is assumed that all structures not scheduled for rehabilitation
on the site will be demolished.
5.0 FIELD STUDY
Site observations and geologic mapping were conducted on January 21
2002 by our Staff
,
~ Geologist. A study of the property's subsurface condition was performed to evaluate
underlying earth strata and the presence of groundwater. Five (5) exploratory borings
_~ were excavated on the study site on January 21, 2001. The borings were performed by
Cal-Pac Drilling, using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8.0-inch outside diameter
hollow-stem augers. The maximum depth explored was approximately 51.5-feet below
the existing land surface at the excavation locations. Bulk and relatively undisturbed
~ samples of the earth materials encoun4ered were obtained at various depths in the
exploratory borings and returned to our laboratory for verification of field classifications and
~ testing. Bulk samples were obtained from cuttings .developed during the excavation
process and represent a mixture of the soils within the depth range indicated on the logs.
Relatively undisturbed samples of the earth materials encountered were obtained by
- driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with 1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch inside diameter brass
~ rings. The sampler was driven with successive drops of a 140-pound weight having a free
fall of approximately 30-inches. The blow counts for each successive 6.0-inches of
-~ penetration, or fraction thereof, are shown in the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries
' i
:..~
:.j EnGEN Corpontion
p
~
I Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
Page 4
presented in the Appendix. The ring samples were retained in close-fitting moisture-proof
containers and returned to our laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the
exploratory excavations are denoted on the Boring Location Map (Figure 2). The
~ I exploratory boring excavations were backfilled with excavated soil.
1
~ 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
6.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the field study are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests which were performed. The samples obtained during
~ the field study will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be
notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days.
~ 6.2 Ciassification: The field classification of soil materials encountered in the exploratory
borings was verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
~ Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The final classification is shown in the
~ Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix.
6.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test• The in-situ moisture content and dry
`~ density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-98 and ASTM D 2937-
94 procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The dry
c~ density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined as a
percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Test results are shown in the Exploratory
Boring Log:Summaries presented in the Appendix.
6.4 Consolidation Test: Settlement predictions of the on-site soil and compacted fill behavior
~
~ under load were made, based on consolidation tests that were performed in general
accordance with ASTM D 2435-96 procedures. The consolidation apparatus is designed
~ to receive a 1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Porous stones are placed in
contact with the top and bottom of each specimen to permit addition and release of pore
water and pore pressure. Loads normal to the face of the specimen are applied in several
' increments in a geometric progression under both field moisture and submerged
conditions. The resulting changes in sample thickness are recorded at selected time
'~ intervals. Water was added to the test apparatus at various loads to create a submerged
condition and to measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the sample. The
~~
EnGEN Corpura[ion 1
~
J
~
~
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
March 2002
Page 5
resulting change in sample thickness was recorded. However, due to numerous rocks
encountered in the soil samples, results of consolidation testing were not considered
reliable.
6.5 Maximum Dry Density / Oatimum Moisture Content Relationship Test• Maximum dry
density / optimum moisture content relationship determination were performed on samples
of near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
procedures using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture
contents and compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches
' and with 25 blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture
content of the specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content determined from the plot.
Dir`ect Shear Test: Direct shear tests were pertormed on selected samples of near-
surFace earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 procedures. The
shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a
1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were
sheared at various pressu~es normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were
tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the
normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal
~~ 6.6
~
~
~
~
~
~~
friction).
6.7 Expansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-surFace
earth material in general accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard. In
this testing procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch
diameter mold to a total compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch by using a 5.5-
pound weight dropping 12-inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample should be
compacted at a saturation between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is
confined under a pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (ps~ and allowed to soak for 24
hours. The resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the
sample is recorded and the Expansion Index (EI) calculated. The expansion test result is
presented on the UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results sheet.
6.8 Soluble Sulfate Test: Soil samples were obtained for soluble sulfate testing from the
building pad areas upon completion of grading of the subject site. The concentration of
soluble sulfate was determined in general accordance with California Test Method 417
EnGEN Corpora[ion ~
I Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
: 7 March 2002
I Page 6
procedures. The test results indicate a low percentage of water-soluble sulfates (0.0110%
by weight), as a result no sulfate resistant concretes are necessary. The results are
presented in the Appendix.
~ 7.0 SITE CONDITIONS
~ 7.1 Geologic Settinc,~ The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern
sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is bounded on the
northeast by the San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and
, on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is
~ not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending southeast
from the Murrieta, California area. The Peninsular Range is characterized by large
~ Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and
sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial/alluvial sediments derived from the
~ erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying areas. Alluvium underlies
the site and surrounding area. The earth materials encountered on the subject site are
~ described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.
72 Faultina: The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone:
~ Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone (Wildomar Fault) is located approximately
4,000 feet east of the subject property. The Elsinore Fault is a major right lateral strike-slip
~j fault system, which has experienced strong earthquakes in historical times (1856, 1894,
3
and 1910) and exhibits late Quaternary movement.
San Jacinto Fault Zone: The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately 18 miles
northeast of the subject site and trends northwest-southeast. The San Jacinto Fault is a
~ major right lateral strike-slip fault, which has displayed surface rupture and associated
seismic ground shaking in 1899, 1918, 1923, 1934, 1937, 1942, and 1954.
~~ San Andreas Fault Zone: The southern segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone is
located approximately 28 miles northeast of the site, and trends northwest-southeast
across the southwestern front of the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas Fault
is a major right lateral strike-slip fault, which exhibited major surface rupture in 1857 during
., the Fort Tejon earthquake and again in 1868 during the Dos Palmas Earthquake.
t~
EnGEN Corpora[ion ~
• ~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
'~ Page 7
7.3 Seismicitv: Based on computer software by Thomas F. Blake (EQSEARCH), the
maximum peak ground acceleration experienced at the site since 1800 was
~ approximately 0.26g from a magnitude 6.8 earthquake 1918. The estimated peak
~ ground acceleration for the site is 0.65g. The following factors apply:
~ Fault Type: Type B Fault
Closes Distance to Known Fault: Less than 2 KM
_. Soil Profile Type: SD
~ 7.4 Earth Materials: A brief description of the earth materials encountered in the
~ exploratory excavations is presented in the following sections. A more detailed
description of the earth materials encountered is presented on the Exploratory Boring
~ Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. The earth material strata as shown on the
logs represents the conditions ei~countered in the exploratory locations. Other
variations may occur between the excavations. Lines of demarcation between the earth
~ materials on the logs represent the approximate boundary between the material types;
however, the transition may be gradual.
~ 7.4.1 Alluvium: Alluvium was encountered to the maximum depth explored (51.5-feet).
,~ Alluvial materials consisted of sand, silty sand, and sandy silt and were found to be
slightly moist to wet, and loose to dense in place.
~ 7.5 Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered ranging in depths between 18 to 28 feet
~'+ below existing ground surface.
~
~
~
6~
, .'
7.6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activit.k The secondary effects of seismic activity
normalty considered as possible hazards to a site include various types of ground failure
and induced flooding. The probafiility of occurrence of each type of ground failure
depends on the severity of the earthquake, the distance of the site from the zone of
maximum energy release of the quake, the topography of the site, the subsurface
materials at the site, and groundwater conditions beneath the site, besides other factors.
Due to the lack of active faulting, the potential for hazards associated with fault rupture
is considered low. Due to the overall favorable geologic structure and topography of the
a~ea, the potential for earthquake-induced landslides or rockfalls is considered remote.
Earthquake-induced surface flooding due to seiches or tsunamis is considered remote
since there are no nearby large bodies of water up gradient from the site.
EnGEN Corpora[io~~ ~Q
. ~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
Page 8
The site lies within the "Liquefaction Hazard Area" as designated in the City of Temecula
General Plan, as well as the County of Riverside's General Plan. The potential for
hazards associated with liquefaction exists. However, the potential for hazards
associated with liquefaction should be mitigated if the earthwork and foundation
recommendations made in this report are adhered to.
~ 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General: The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on
~ . the results of field and laboratory data obtained from the exploratory excavations located
across the property, experience gained from work conducted by this firm on projects within
the property and general vicinity, and the project description and assumptions presented in
~ the Proposed Development/Project Description section of this report. Bas~d on a review
of the field and laboratory data and the engineering analysis, the proposed development is
~ feasible from a geotechnical/geologic standpoint. The actual conditions of the near-
surface supporting material across the site may vary. The nature and extent of variations
~ of the surface and subsurface conditions between the exploratory excavations may not
become evident until construction. If variations of the material become evident during
~ construction of the proposed development, this office should be notified so that EnGEN
Corporation can evaluate the characteristics of the material and, if needed, make
revisions to the recommendations presented herein. Recommendations for general site
~ grading, foundations, slab support, pavement design, slope maintenance, etc., are
presented in the subsequent paragraphs.
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations:
~ 8.2.1 General: The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for: 1) the
use of a conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slabs cast on-grade; and 2)
~ the rework of unsuitable near-surface earth materials to create an engineered building pad
" and suitable support for exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement. If
~ pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and
-' the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing of the subgrade
~ soil will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete
° or PCC pavement to locate areas which may have been damaged by construction traffic,
~ construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. The following
r
~
~ EnGEN Corpontio~~
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No, T2507-GS
1 March 2002
Page 9
recommendations may need to be modified and/or supplemented during rough grading as
; field conditions require.
~ 82.2 Clearina: All structures, debris, grasses, weeds, brush and other deleterious materials
should be removed from the proposed new building, exterior hardscape and pavement
_ areas and areas to receive structural fill before grading is performed. No disking or mixing
of organic material into the soils should be performed. Man-made objects encountered
! should be overexcavated and exported from the site. Abandoned septic systems may be
removed or backfilled with lean slurry or pea gravel.
..~ 8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics: `Excavation and trenching within the subject property is
anticipated to be relatively easy in the near-surFace earth materials.
~ 8.2.A Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill: In general, the on-site earth materials present
are considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be free of significant amounts
~ of organic materials and/or debris and should not contain rocks or clumps greater than 6-
inches in maximum dimension.
~ 82.5 Removal and Recompaction: All existing undocumented filis, incompetent alluvium,
and/or unsuitable, loose, or disturbed near-surface soil in areas which will support
~ - structural filis, structures, exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.), and pavement
should be removed. The foliowing recommendations are based on field and laboratory
~ results:
• To mitigate for potentially hydro-collapsible alluvium and the potential hazards
associated with liquefaction, removals below the proposed structure area should
~ extend to a depth of six (6) feet below proposed pad grade or six (6) feet below
~ existing grades, whichever results in the deeper removal.
• Horizontal extent of removals should be a minimum of ten (10) feet beyond the
~ perimeter footing where possible. Any areas where the 10-foot perimeter removals
are not possible should be discussed with and accepted by the Project Geotechnical
~ Engineer. Care should be taken to avoid jeopardizing the stability of existing
structures during removals for new construction. Individual cases where removal
~ recommendations are to be modified can be better constrained once grading plans are
~ available.
~ ErtGEN Corporaiion 1z
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
March 2002
Page 10
• All hardscape areas such as driveways should be removed to a depth of two (2) feet
below proposed grades or two (2) feet below existing grades, whichever results in the
deeper removals.
• All exposed removal bottoms should be inspected by the Project Structural Engineer's
representative prior to placement of any fill.
• The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas shouid be scarified 12-inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction before placement of fill. Maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined according to
ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should
be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before
piacement. All fill should be free of vegetation, organic material, debris, and oversize
material. Import fill should be no more expansive than the existing on-site material.
~ Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10-inches in
~ compacted thickness and watered or aerated to obtain near optimum moisture content
~ (±2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly
mixed to ensure uniformity of soii moisture. Structural fill should meet a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for
compacted materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent from
optimum, unless approved the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
~
~
~
.~
8.2.7 Compaction Equipment: It is anticipated that the compaction equipment to be used for
the project will include a combination of rubber-tired and sheepsfoot rollers to achieve
proper compaction. Compaction by rubber-tired or track-mounted equipment, by itself,
may not be sufficient. Adequate water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable equipment
should be available to provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The actual selection of
equipment is the responsibility of the contractor performing the work and should be such
that uniform and proper compaction of the fill is achieved.
8.2.8 Shrinkage and. Subsidence: There will be a material loss due to the clearing and
grubbing operations. Shrinkage of existing alluvium that is excavated and replaced as
EnGEN Corpuratiun I~
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
~ ~~ March 2002
Page 11
compacted fili should be anticipated. It is estimated that the average shrinkage of the
alluvial soils will be on the order of 15 percent, based on fil vol~mes when compacted to a
i
~ minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. A higher relative compaction would mean a
larger shrlnkage value.
( 82.9 Fill Slopes: Finish fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to
I
vertical). Fill slope surfaces should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction
based on a maximum dry density for the soil as determined by ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
procedures to the face of.the finished slope. Fill slopes should be constructed in a skillful
~ ~ manner so that they are positioned at the design orientations and slope ratio. Achieving a
uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling should be avoided. Any add-on
~ correction to a fill slope should be conducted under the observation and recommendations
of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. The proposed add-on correction procedures should
be submitted in writing by the contractor prior to commencement of corrective grading and
~ reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Compacted fill slopes should be
backrolled with suitable equipment for the type of soil being used during fill placement at
~ intervals not exceeding 4.0-feet in vertical height. As an alternative to the backrolling of
the fill slopes, over-filling of the slopes will be considered acceptable and preferred. The
~ fill slope should be constructed by over-filling with compacted fiil a minimum of 3.0-feet
horizontally, and then trimmed back to exposed the dense inner core of the slope surface.
~ 8.2.10 Subdreins: Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, fnal
recommendations should be made during grading by the Project Geologist.
.,
i 8.2.11 Observation and Testina: During grading, observation and testing should be conducted
by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative to verify that the grading is being
~ performed according to the recommendations presented in this report. The Project
Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative should observe the scarification and the
~ placement of fill and should take tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity
and degree of compaction obtained. Where testing demonstrates insufficient density,
' additional compaction effort, with the adjustment of the moisture content where necessary,
should be applied until retesting shows that satisfactory relative compaction has been
~ obtained. The results of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal
Finish Grading Report following completion of the grading operations. Grading operations
~ undertaken at the site without the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative present
-~ ~ EnGEN Corpora[ion ,q
_
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Projecl No. T2507-GS
~~ March 2002
Page 12
' may result in exclusions of the affected areas from the finish grading report for the project.
~ The presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative will be for the
purpose of providing observations and field testing and will not include any supervision or
directing of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's employees or agents.
Neither the presence and/or the non-presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his
field representative nor the field observations and testing shall excuse the contractor in
any way for defects discovered in the contrector's work.
f 8.2.12 Soil Expansion Potential: Upon completion of fine grading of the building pad, near-
~ surface samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to verify the
preliminary expansion test results and the foundation and slab-on-grade recommendations
~ presented in this report. The results of recent testing indicate an Expansion Index of 2,
which is classified as a very low expansion potential.
~
,~ 8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations•
'~ 8.3.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structures may consist of conventional column
~ footings and continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
~ construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential for
the supporting soiis and are not intended to preclude more restrictive structural
.~ requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing
~ width and depth to resist vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces.
~ S 8.3.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inehes.
J
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) No. 4
~ steel reinforcing bars located near the top and two (2) No. 4 steel reinforcing bars located
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
~ which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal
moisture change in the suppoRing soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of
18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A
~ grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent
footings, should be provided across doorways, garage or any other types of perimeter
~ openings.
:
J EnGEN Corpora[ion ,~
I Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
~ Projecl No. T2507-GS
'-~ March 2002
Page 13
8.3.3 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill
should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade.
8.3.4 Bearing Capacitk Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column
footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous
footings and 2,000 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill material. The
allowable bearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3
percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
8.3.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for
continuous and column' footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and
' column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a
differential settlement of 0.4-inch due to static loads in properly compacted fill.
~ An evaluation of settlement due to possible liquefaction has been made based on SPT
~ values, ground water elevation, fines content and potential earthquake magnitude.
Assuming that the earthwork recommendations of Section 82.5 are performed, the results
~ indicate a possibility of potential seismically induced settlement on the order of 0.9-inch
due to an earthquake event of magnitude 6.8 on the Elsinore Fault. As a result, potential
~ differential settlement on the order of half of the total may be experienced across the
~ building length. These magnitudes fall within normally tolerable limits and are not
expected to require any special design recommendations beyond the footing reinforcing
~ and earthwork recompaction recommendations made in this report. In addition, the
probability of such an occurrence is considered remote. However, the Project Structural
~ Engineer should always consider the concept of "life safety" design and minimize the
potential of roof collapse in the event of liquefaction. Such design should meet the
~ "Acceptable Level of Risk" as defined in CDMG Special Publication 117.
e
8.3.6 Laterel Caoacit~ Additional foundation design parameters for resistance to static lateral
°~
forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
~ Compacted Fill - 200 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill 0.35
J E~~GEN Corpontion '~
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Projecl No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
Page ~4
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base
~ of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walis below grade when in contact with properly compacted fill material.
The above values are aliowable design values and have safety factors of at least 2.0
incorporated into them and may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the
resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for
~ short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the
calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected
i ' unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable
~ passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design value.
~ 8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upc3n a very low expansion
potential for the supporting material. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize
~ cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be
placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special
~ precautions should be taken during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive
i
slump (high water / cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used
~ during either hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking,
or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and
~ curing be performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures.
8.4.1 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches in
~ thickness and be underlain by 1.0 to 2.0-inches of clean coarse sand or other approved
granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade per the Earthwork
~ Recommendations Section of this report. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of
No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center in both directions, or a suitable
~ equivalent, as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. The reinforcing should be
placed at mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be
increased appropriately for anticipated excessive or concentrated floor loads. In areas
where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the
~ use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed
beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and
.J _
EnGEN Curpura[ion 1,
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
March 2002
Page 15
~
~
~ .
~i
~
_~
i
Yg
~
covered by a 1.0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in
concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures.
8.4.2 Exterior Siabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0-inches in thickness
and be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been prepared in
accordance with the Earthwork Recommendation section of this report. Reinforcing in the
slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the siabs shouid be
8.5
according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned
to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 6.0-inches and proof compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
procedures immediately before placing aggregate base material or placing the concrete.
Pavement Design Recommendations- Preliminary pavemerit recommendations are
presented based on R-Value testing of soils obtained from the site, and an assumed traffic
loading expressed in terms of a Traffc Index (TI). Pavement sections have been based
on a TI of 5.0 for automobile areas, a TI of 6.0 for truck trafFc areas, and an R-Value of 56.
As a result, the project designer should specify the appropriate pavement section for the
various traffic areas as follows.
Type of Traffic Traffic Index Pavement Section
Automobile 5.0 3-inches AC / 4-inches Aggregate Base
Truck 6.0 3-inches AC / 4-inches Aggregate Base
Automobile 5.0 Portland Cement Pavement Alternative:
6-inches PCC / 95 percent subgrade
Truck 6.0 Portland Cement Pavement Alternative:
7-inches PCC / 95 percent subgrade
Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Section 203-6 of the
Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or an approved
equivalent. Aggregafe base should conform to 3/4-inch crushed aggregate base as
specified in Sectior~ 200-22 of Standard Specification for Public Works Construction
(Green Book) or an approved equivalent. To properly prepare the subgrade, the soil
~ EnGEN Corporatio~~ IS
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
~ Project No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
Page ~6
~ should be recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, to a minimum depth
of 12-inches below finish subgrade elevation. If Portland Cement Concrete is to be placed
directly on subgrade, the subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
relative compaction to a minimum depth of 12-inches below finished subgrade elevation.
The aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for subgrade and
aggregate base materials should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
-~ procedures. If pavement subgrade soiis are prepared and aggregate base material is not
~ placed immediately, or the aggregate base material is placed and the area is not paved
immediately, additional observations and testing will be required prior to placing aggregate
base material or asphaltic concrete to locate areas that may have been damaged by
i
~ construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying.
The pavement sections presented above are calculated minimum sections and are subject
~ to review and approval by the City of Temecula.
8.6 Utility Trench Recommendations• Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
~ foundations or under building floor slabs, exterior hardscape, and/or pavement areas
should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. All utility trenches within the building
,~ pad and extending to a distance of 5.0-feet beyond the building exterior footings should be
backfilled with on-site or similar soil. Where interior or exterior utility trenches are
~ proposed to pass beneath or parallel to building, retaining wall, and/or decorative concrete
block perimeter wall footings, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1:1
~ plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the
utility lines are designed for the footing surcharge loads. It is recommended that all utility
~ trenches excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back according to the
Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations section of this report or be
~ properly shored during construction. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness
` appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill
I material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by
~ mechanical means. Jetting or flooding of the backfill material will not be considered a
~ satisfactory method for compaction unless the procedures are reviewed and approved in
writing by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Maximum dry density and optimum
rJ _
:~;J EnGEN Corporation ~"1
J
1 Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
Page 17
moisture content for backfiil material should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-91
i (1998)procedures.
.~ 8.7 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations: Positive drainage should be established away
from the tops of slopes, the exterior walis of structures, the back of retaining walls, and the
,~ decorative concrete block perimeter walls. Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to guide surface water away from
foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should
:] be directed toward suitabie drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be
~
~
~
~
~
.l
_._7
~
~
~
~1
.~
~
allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-
erosive manner should.be provided. Landscape trees and plants with high water needs
should be planted at least 5.0-feet away from the walls of the structures. Downspouts
from roof drains should preferably discharge to a permanent all-weather surface which
slopes away from the structure a minimum of 5.0-feet from the exterior building walls. In
no case should downspouts from roof drains discharge into planter areas immediately
adjacent to the building unless there is positive drainage away from the structure at a
minimum gradient of -2.0 percent, directed onto a permanent all-weather surface or
subdrain system.
8.8 Pianter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the buildings. The planters should drain
directly onto surrounding paved areas or into a properly designed subdrain system.
8.9 Temoorary Construction Excavation Recommendations~ Temporary construction
excavations for rough.grading, foundations, retaining walis, utility trenches, etc., more than
5.0-feet in depth and to a maximum depth of 15-feet should be properly shored or cut back
to the following inclinations:
Earth Material Inclination
Alluvium or Compacted Fill ~ 1.5:1
No surcharge loads (spoil piles, earthmoving equipment, trucks, etc.) should be allowed
within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope equal to 1.5
EnGEN Corporation ~
.i
i
~
~
!
~
~!
~
~
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No, T2507-GS
March 2002
Page 18
times the depth of the excavation. Excavations should be initially observed by the project
Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist and/or their representative to verify the
recommendations presented or to make additional recommendations to maintain stability
and safety. Moisture variations, differences in the cohesive or cementation characteristics,
or changes in the coarseness of the deposits may require slope fiattening or, conversely,
permit steepening upon review by the project Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, or their
representative. Deep utility trenches may experience caving which will require special
considerations to stabilize the walls and expedite trenching operations. Surface drainage
should be controlled along the top of the slope to preclude erosion of the slope face. If
excavations are to be left open for long periods, the slopes should be sprayed with a
protective compound and/or covered to minimize drying out, raveling, and/or erosion of the
slopes. For excavations more than 5.0-feet in depth which wiil not be cut back to the
recommended slope inclination, the contractor should submit to the owner and/or the
owner's designated representative detailed drawings showing the design of shoring,
bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection. If the drawings do
not vary from the requirements of the OSHA Construction Safety Orders (CAL OSHA or
FED OSHA, whichever is applicable for the project at the time of construction), a
statement signed by a registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State of California,
engaged by the contractor at his expense, should be submitted certifying that the
contractor's excavation safety drawings comply with OSHA Construction Orders. If the
drawings vary from the applicable OSHA Construction Safety Orders, the drawings should
be prepared, signed, and sealed by a Registered or Structural Engineer in the State of
California. The contractor should not proceed with any excavations until the project owner
or his designated representative has received and acknowledged the properly prepared
excavation safety drawings.
8.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations•
'" 8.10.1 Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
; very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone
extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to
~ vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
.-~
,
~ 7 EnGEN Corporation 2~
J
~
~
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
March 2002
Page 19
Condition Level Backfill 2:1 Slope
Active 30 pcf 45 pcf
At Rest 60 pcf __
The on-site materials may be used as backfill within the active / at-rest pressure zone as
l defined above. Walis that are free to deflect 0.001 radian at the top should be designed
for the above-recommended active condition. Walis that are not capable of this movement
~ should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition. The above values
' assume well drained backfili and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads,
~ dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a horizontal distance behind the wall shouid
also be should considered in the design. Uniform surcharge pressures should be applied
' as an additional uniform (rectangular) pressure distritiution. The lateral earth pressure
coefficient for a uniform vertical surcharge load behind the wall is 0.50.
~ 8.10.2 Foundation Desipn• Retaining wall footings shouid be founded to the same depths into
properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard
~ foundations and may be designed for the ~ame average allowable bearing value across
the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the
~ footing),and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable sliding
resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral pressure and
~ allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used. If ultimate values are
used for design, an approximate factor of safety (1.5) should be achieved. An approximate
1 factor of safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
~ '
8.10.3 Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all
~ retaining walls to allow drainage and to prevent the' buildup of excessive hydrostatic
pressures. Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery,
~ perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved system. Gravel
galleries and/or filter rock, or another approved system: Gravel galleries and/or filter rock,
~ if not properly designed and graded for the on-site and/or import materials, should be
enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute in
~ order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The perforated pipes
should be at least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed downward.
:~ Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe.
J EnGEN Corpora[imi `LZ
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
March 2002
Page 20
Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain in a non-
j erosive manner. In the case of subdrains for basement walls, they need to empty into a
sump provided with a submersible pump activated by a change in the water level.
~ 8.10.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3-feet) may
-~ consist of 0.5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
~ geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand
(Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
_~ compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if
water jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
~ compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods
will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
~ compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percenf
of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walis should not be compacted
~ by wheel, track or other roliing by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is
designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used
~ behind retaining walis, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of
typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in
~ order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain
system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should
~ be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 (1998) procedures.
. ~ 9.0 PLAN REVIEW
-~ Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project, but before bids
~. for construction are requested, grading and foundation plans for the proposecl
development should be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility with site
-~ geotechnical conditions and conformance with the recommendations contained in this
. t report. If EnGEN Corporation is not accorded the opportunity to make the recommended
review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the recommendations
presented in this report.
~ 10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE
It may be desirable to hold a pre-bid conference with the owner or an authorized
~ representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical
~ EnGEN Corpora[ion Z3
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
Page 21
Engineer, and the proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in
I
! the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the grading and construction
requirements of the project. -
11.0 PRE-GRADINGCONFERENCE
...1 Before the start of grading, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized
I
representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the
~ Project Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify
• questions relating to the intent of the grading recommendations and to verify that the
~ project specifications compiy with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering
report. Any special grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can
~ also be discussed_ at that time
~ 12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and
~ testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to,
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and
~ fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations.
Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel
~ to verify and/or modify the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations
of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill,
.i
pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other
J earthwork completed for the subject development should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not
~ performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the~ performance of the development is
limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN
.~ Corporacion. If parties other than EnGEN Corporacion are engaged to perform soils and
materials observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be required to
I assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by concurring
J
with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations.
~ Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his fieid representative, nor the
,
field observations and testing, shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects
~ discovered in the contractor's work. The Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative
"~3 EnGEN Corporation Z~
J
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
~ March 2002
Page 22
shall not be responsible for job or project safety. Job or project safety shall be the sole
`! responsibility of the contractor.
`~ 13.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
~ document. It may or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes.
In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed
~ development as described in this report are planned, the conclusions and
. recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes
~ are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified
in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the appiicable standards
' of our profession and the accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices;at
the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the
~ representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made to obtain
information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site. limitations
~ exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regionai or localized off-site conditions
which may have an impact at the site. The recommendations presented in this report are
~ valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can
occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works
,A of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or information
~ becomes available during the design and construction process which are not reflected in
this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can
~ be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be
modified or verified in writing. This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any
~ person or company using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform
such independent studies and explorations as he deems necessary to satisfy himself as to
~ the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used
r
in the performance of the work on this project. Changes in applicatile or appropriate
~ standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
!
of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
~ presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside the
control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future.
.~ .
~
-~ EnGEN Corpora[ion ~
.~
I
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.-.l
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No. T2507-GS
March 2002
Page 23
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. If we can be of further service or you
should have questions regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
~
Ernest W. Roumelis Osbjorn ratene, GE 162
Staff Geologist Pres d t
Expires 09-30-05
EWR/OB:hh
Distribution: (5) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/GS/T2507-GS AKrmed Housing Gro~, Geotechnical Study
EnGEN Curporation
2~
~
i~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
t
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~I
~
ei
~
APPENDIX
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No: T2507-GS
Appendix Page 1
EnGEN Corpora[ion 21-~
.
~ Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No: T2507-GS
~ Appendix Page 2
TECHNICALREFERENCES
l 1. Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in
~ the southern California region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55,
No. 4, pg. 753-797.
~ 2. BaRlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, April 1995.
~ 3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
4. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southern California
Bulletin
~ ,
170.
~ 5. Department of Conservation, Geology map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000 Quadrangle,
~ California, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17.
6. Hart, E. W., 1992, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines
and Geology, Department of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 9 p.
~ 7. Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern Califcirnia
region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology.
~ 8. Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
~ Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, pg. 173-188.
9. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal springs
and thermal welis, 1:750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data
~ Map No. 1.
~ 10. Jennings, C.W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and
geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197p.,
~ 2 plates.
11. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in
.~ southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
k Report 131, 12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
_~
12. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California:
~ State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report
43.
13. Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
~ Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, April 1998.
14. Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains -
Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
15. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
~ General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
~ EnGEN Corporetion Z~j
' Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No: T2507-GS
1 Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES IContinuedl
16. Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps,
Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 146, Sheet 147 (Revised 11-87), Sheet 854B
(Revised 11-87), and Sheet 854A (revised 11-87), Scale 1" = 800'.
_ 1 17. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet,
CDMG.
~ 18. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western
United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
,1 19. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
~ , earthquakes:. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a Series Titled
Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
~ Records.
20. South Coast Geological Society, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse
' Ranges, 1982. ;
21. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
~ 22. Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984:
~ 23. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition.
24. Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
~ Volume 89, No. 6, pg. 1447-1457, December 1999.
.,s
i
~~
~
~3
~ HnGEN Corporation ~j~
I Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No: T2507-GS
j Appendix Page 4
I
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
~ (B-1 through B-5)
~
~ .
~
I
~
~
J
~ CnGGN Corpontion ~
KtY TD 5YM
1 Symbol Description
°~ Strata symbols
II ~ Silty sand
) a Poorly graded sand
~ Silt
Misc. Symbols
~ ~? Water table during
drilling
~ ~, Drill rejection
~_ Boring continues
Soil Samplers
, California sampler
^ Standard penetration test
i i
1~}
Notes:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 1-21-02 using an
8-inch diameter continuous' flight power auger.
II2' Free water was encountered at the time of drilling and is
noted in the boring logs.
~3. Boring locations.were taped from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the plans provided by the client.
4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and
recommendations in this report.
I5. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported 3~
~~ on the loqs.
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~
~
~
.~
_l
~
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project NumbeC T2507-GS Project: Affirmetl Housing Pariners-Temecula, LLC
Boring Number: B-~ Surface Elev.:
Date: i-2i-o2 Logged By: T.D.
Soil
Graphic
Description °-'
E
Sample
De ih
P
USCS
Blow
C
t
Dry In-Situ
MoisWre
Maximum
Optimum
MoisWre
m
N oun Density
Conlent Densil
Y
Content
: ALLUVIUM ~ SM
Silty sand, dark brown, moist, loose, scattered SM 5-5-6 118.8 8.6
gravel. '
Silty sand with clay to clayey sand, medium S SM 13-12-12 1 ~g,3 g 7
dense, gray brown, slightly moist, loose, small ' '
rock tragments.
Silry sand, red brown, scatlered rounded rock SM 10-10-12 115.1 7.8
fragments, medium dense. '
: Silty sand with clay, yellow brown, slightly ~~ SM 8-10-17 117.6 7.0
moist, medium dense. ,
Coarse to fine sand, brown, moist, medium 15 SP 17-15-14 113.3 7.7
dense. '
~
Coarse to medium sand, light brown to orange Z~ Sp ~q_~ g_ZZ ~ ~ ~ z 6 9
brown, moist, dense. '
~
GROUNDWATER at 23 feet. ~
Coarse sand with gravel, moist, very dense. ' 25 SP 50+ 124.2 10.7
No Recovery. ' 30 9-10-18
Total Depth 31.5 feet.
Groundwater at 23 feet.
Notes:
_ ~
EnGEN Corporation ~
1
~
~
~
~
t
f~
u
~
~
~
J
.~
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Pfoject NumbeC T2507-GS Project Affirmed Housing Par~ners-Temecula, LLC
Boring Number: e-2 Surface Elev.:
Date: ~-21-02 Logged By: T.D.
Soil
Grephic
Description °-'
E
A
~
Sample
Oepth
USCS
B~OW
Coum
~~Y
Densiry In-Situ
MoisWre
Content
Maximum
Density
Optimum
Moisture
Content
ALLUVIUM ~ ML
Sandy sitt, grayish brown, moist, stiff. ~ 5 ML 5-7-g Zp ~
: Silty sand, light gray, moist, medium dense. ~ ~ ~ SM 4-5-8 52
Sand, light brown, moist, medium dense. ~ 75 SP 8-10-14 3.5
. GROUNDWATER at 18 feet. ~
' Coarse to fine sand with gravel, light gray,
dense, very moist. , /i
Ij 20 Sp 5-10-16
- 127
Coarse to fine sand, tan, dense, very moist. ~ ZS SP 7-14-20 ~q.g
Coarse to fine sand, light gray to tan, very
moist, dense. ~ ~ 30 SP 14-19-22 14.7
Notes:
- 33
EnGEN Corporation ~
~
'S
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~
~
•i
~
i
~
~
~
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Proj2Ct Number T2507-GS ProjECt: Affirmetl Housing Parhiers-Teinecula LLC
Boring Number: B-2 Surface Elev.: ~
Date: i-2t-02 Logged By. T.D.
Soil
Graphic
Description
E
~
Sample
Depih
USCS
B~OW
Count
~'Y
Density In-SiW
MoisWre
Maximum
D
i
Optimum
Moisture
~ Contem ens
ry Content
Sand, medium to fine, lan, very moist, dense. ~ 35 SP 17-20-25 14.5
Coarse to fine sand, light gray brown, very 40 gp ~g_Z~_22 13 8
moist, dense. ~
Coarse to fine sand, tan to orange brown, very 45 SP 33-44-46 13.4
moist, very dense. ~
Medium to very fine sand, tan, very moist, very 50 SP 19-29-34 16.3
~ dense. ~
Total Depth 51.5 feet. ~~
Groundwater at 18 feet. ~
55
6~
65
Notes:
_ ~
EnGEN Corporation
1
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Projecl Numbec T2507-GS ProjeCt: Aflirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Boring Number: e-3 Surface Eiev.:
Date: 1-21-02 Logged By: T.D.
Soil
Graphic
Description n
E Sample
Depth
USCS Blow
C
m Dr
Y In-SiW
Moisture
Maximum Opfimum
MoisWre
~
~ ou Densiry Conrent Densit
Y Content
: ALLUVIUM ~ SM
Silty sand with clay, gray, slightty moist, dense, SM 31-31-24 121.0 5.1
scattered gravel. '
~ ~
Sandy silt with clay, gray, moist, stiff. ' S ML 12-13-16 1062 12.7
Sandy silt, gray with white mottling, stiff: moist. ' ~ ML 10-11-15 114.6 11.8
: Silty sand with gravel, dark gray, dense, moist ' ~~ SM 15-20-21 125.6 9]
: Clayey sand, light brown to gray, mofst, 15 SM 12-12-14 1067 2.6
medium dense. '
: GROUNDWATER at 18 feet. ~
. Coarse to medium sand, gray, very moist, 20 ~ SP 10-18-25 117.1 15.6
dense. '
,
Medium to coarse sand with gravel, dark gray, 25 - SP ~ 15-4b50+ 120.3 10.1
moist, very dense. '
Siity clayey sand to sand, yellow gray, very 30 SP 27-2g-32 724.1 12.4
~ moist, very dense. '
Total Depth 31.5 feet.
Groundwater at 18 feet.
Notes:
~
EnGEN Corporation ' _ . . _ __
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
J
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project NumbeC T2507-GS ProjeCt Affirmed Housing Pariners-Temecula, LLC
Boring Number: B-a Surface Elev.:
Date: t-2i-o2 Logged By: r.D.
Soil
Gra hic
P
Description
E
~
Sample
Depth
USCS
Blow
Coum
Dry
Density In-Situ
MoisWre
Content
Maximum
Densiry
Optimum
Moislure
Content
: ALLUVIUM ~ SM
Silty sand, gray brown, moist, medium dense, SM 8-10-11 7 75.5 5.8
i scattered gravei. ,
~
~ Silty sand, gray brown, moist, medium dense. ' S SM 12-15-13 1122 6.0
~ Silty sand, dark gray brown, slightiy moist, SM 8-10-11 113.1 4.3
slightly porous, medium dense. '
: Silty sand, yellow grey to gray brown, medium ~~ SM 8-9-12 111.g 6.7
dense, slightly moist, slightly porous. '
: Silty sand, yellow gray to grey brown, moist, ~ 5 SM 9-11-20 111.8 ~ L2
dense. '
Medium to fine sand, red brown to yeliow 20 SP 13-20-23 977 - g.8
brown, moist, dense. '
Coarse to fine sand, yeilow brown, very dense, 25 SP 15-23-40 11g.1 - 9.8
moist. '
. GROUNDWATER at 28 feet. s
Coarse to fine sand, gray brown, very dense, 30 SP 16-28-27 107.5 16.8
:
~ very moist. '
Total Depth 31.5 feet.
Groundwater at 28 feet.
Notes:
_ ~
EnGEN Corporation
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number T2507-GS P~OjECt: Affi~med Housing Partners-Temecula. LlC
Boring Number: e-5 Surface Elev.:
Date: i-2t-o2 Logged By: T.~.
Soil
Gra hic
p
Description
E
~
Sampl_
Dep(h
USCS
B1ow
Coun~
Dry
Density ImSi~u
Moisture
Content
Maximum
Densiry
Optimum
MoisWre
Conlent
: ALLUVIUM ~ SM
Silty sand, brown, moist, loose. ' SM 5-6-9 108.6 7.5
: Silty clayey sand, dark gray to brown, loose, S SM 5-6-6 115.6 92
moist. '
~ Silty sand, gray brown, moist, loose. , SM 4-6-7 114.q g.q
Silty sand, gray brown to yellow brown, ~~ SM 7-8-9 114.3 8.4
medium, dense, moist. '
:
~ Silty fine sand, yllow gray, dense, moist. ' 15 SM 9-10-18 ll2.0 6.6
Total Depth 76.5 feet.
No Groundwater.
20
25
30
Notes:
_ ~1
EnGEN Corporetion
J
~ . Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
~ Project No: T2507-GS
1 Appendiz Page 5
SETTLEMENT DUE TO LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS
~
~
~
._1
J
EnGEN Corporation
~
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No: T2507-GS
Appendix Page 6
i
~
~
~
~
:~
'
'
~
~
~
i
i
~
~
.~
J
~
~
~
BORING NO. 2 (B-2)
Layer
No. Depth
Range (ft)
SPT
(N~)60
FS
Ev % Layer
Thickness (ft)
~H
1 0-8 15 35 - - g _
2 8-13 13 17 - - 5 -
3 13-18 24 26 0.9 0.8 5 0.48
4 18-23 26 28 0.9 0.7 5 0.42
5 23-28 34 37 >1.3 - 5 -
6 28-33 41 40 >1.3 - 5 _
7 33-38 45 40 >1.3 - 5 _
8 38-43 43 39 >1.3 - 5 _
9 43-48 90 85 >1.3 - 5 _
10 48-53 63 52 >1.3 - 5 -
~H = 0.90-inches
f.nGEN Corpontion
~
.
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Project No: T2507-GS
Appendix Page 7
`~
~
~
~
~
~
~
:~
~
.~
~
J
:1
_J
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
LnGEN Corporation ~~
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, LLC
Projeci Numbec T2507-GS
~
~ ~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
tS
_~
~
:~
_:l
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
UBC 18-2
Soil
Depth (FT) Dr Densit
Y
y Moisture
Condition Before Moisture
Condition -
Expansion
Type ~p~f) Test (%) After Test (%) Index
E-1 -1 119.3 8.0% 13.5% 2
SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
Soil Type Location % By Weight
E-1 Representative of Surficial
Alluvium
0.0110%
~~
EnGEN Curpontion
:
1
~
~
~
~
~I
~
~
.~
Y
~
~
~
J
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
134
132
130
U
a
T
N
C
N
~
T
~
~28
126
_ _
- -
_
V or
_ - - - _._ . . Sp.G. _
124 2.66
3 5 7; 9 11 13 15 -
Water content, %
Test specifi cation: ASTM D 1557-98 Procedure A Modified ~
Elevl Classification Nat. ~~a > % c
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. Sp.G. LL PI
0.4
No.200
SM G.8
/
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 130.5 pcf SiLTY SAND,DARK BROWN
Optimum mois[ure = 8.9 %
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING Remarks:
Project: SAMPLE BI ~y 0-5
COLL BY TD
• Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON ~-? I-02
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate ~2
~
~
~
~~
~
1
i
~
~
~
~
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
,oo
ao _
60 -
v
~
o _
~
i
~
40 __. ._ . . .. ._
20 ;._ .. : ° ' ;
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
~ Exudation Pressure - psi
Resistonce R-Value ond Expansion Pressure - ASTM D 2844
Compact. Exponsion Horizontol Sample Exud. R
Density Moist. . R .
No. Pressure P~essure Press~.y~si Height Pressure - Va;lue
pcf % Vokue
psi psi ~ 160 psi ~ in. psi Corr.
~1 250 125.0 11.1 0.00 116 2.57 145 17 17
2 300 127.0 10.1 2.73 64 2.55 251 45 46
3 350 129.2 9.1 9.09 35 2.53 611 69 69
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTSON
R-Value ~ 300 psi exudation pressure = 56 SILTY SAND,DARK BROWN
.
Project No.: T2507-GS Tested by: RW
Project: AFFSRMED HOUSING Checked by: RW
Location: PUJOL STREET Remarks: '
SAMPLE B7 ~ 0-5
COLL BY TD
Date: 1-23-02
COL
ON
2
0
L
1-
1-
2
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
Environmentol and Geotechnicol ~
Engineering Nat~rork Corporation F~g. No.
1
1
_1
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
_~
~
~
~
~
~
.~
~
3000
0
~
a 2000
~;
~
w
~
~
~
w
~ ,ooo
J
H
Q
~
0
3000
2500
a 2000
m
N
~
L 1500
~
~
n°~ 7000
~
~
S00
!
~
' O
0
1000
2000 3000 a000 5000 6000
Normal Stress, psf
SAMPLE NO.: 1 2 3
WATER~CONTENT, % 10.1 10.7 10.1
Q DRY DENS=TY, pcf 709.6 109.6 109.6
F SATURATSON, 7 52.1 52.1 52.1
- Z VOID RATIO 0.515 0.515 0.515
H DIAMETER, in 2.50 2.50 2.50
HESGHT, in 1.00 t.00 7.00
WATER CONTENT. % 0.0 0.0 0.0
t- DRY DENSITY, pcf 109.6 109.6 109.6
~
w SATUR,4TION, % 0.0 0.0 0.0
~
~ VOID RATIO ; 0.515 0.515 0.515
Q DSAMETER,.in 2.50 2.50 2.50
HEIGHT, in 1.00 1.00 1.0~0
NORMAL STRESS, psf 1000 2000 3000
FASLURE STRE55, psf 786 1717 2293
'. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 DISPLACEMENT, in 0.06 0.15 0.16
Horiz. Displ., in ULTIMATE STRESS, psf
~ DISPLACEMENT, in
St ra i n ra te , i n/m i n o.2000 0.2000 0.2000
SAMPLE TYPE: CLIENT: AFFIRMED HOUSING
DESCRSPTION: SSLTY SAND,
DARK BROWN
SPECIFIC GRAVSTY= 2.66
REMARKS: SAMPLE B1 ~ 0-5
COLL BY TD
COLL ON 1-27-02
Fig. No.:
ROJECT:
AMPLE LOCAT20N: PUJOL STREET
ROJ. NO.: T2507-GS DATE: 1-23-02
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation ~`
1
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.~
~
~
.J
J
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
-! ~
,
2 I
WATER ADD ED
3
4
C
~
~
~ 5
N
`
.
N
a
6
7
8
9
~~
'~ 'Z .5 ~ Z~ 5 10 20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P ll P
S Swell
Sat.
Moist.
(P~fl LL pl
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ksfl C
~ C
~ we
ress.
(ks~
% e
°
46.5 % 8.6 % 1 l09 2.65 6.67 0.08 0.492
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,DARK BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING Remarks: _
Project:
SAMPLE BI ~ 2.5
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON i-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~~
Plate
~
:~
~
J
~
~
~
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
~
,
z
WATER ADD ED
3
4
C
m
~
c 5
N
U
~
a
s
~
a
s
10
~ . .2 .5 1 2
5 10 20 50
- Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp Overburden P S
ll P ll
S
Sat.
Moist.
~P~~ LL pl .
Gr.
(ks~ c
(ks~ C
c ~
r we
ress.
~ks~ we
~~o e
0
47.6 % 8.7 % I I 1.5 2.G5 1.26 0.07 0.484
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,DARK BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLEBI a 5
COI.L BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON I-31-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~
Plate
~
~
~
~
L'
~
~
~
~
~
J
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
, ~
z
s WATER ADD ED
4
C
~
~
~ 5
~
~ -
a~
a
s
~
8
9
~~ '
.~ 2 s i z s io
zo so
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P Swell Press Swell
LL p~ ~ C
~ ~
~ . e
°
Sat. Moist. (P~~ Gr. (ks~ (ks~ (ks~ %
38.5 % 7.9 °/a 107.4 2.65 111 0.09 0.540
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AfFIRMED HOUSING Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLEBI a 7.5
COLL 6Y TD
Location: PU10L STREET COLL ON I-2I-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ~1
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
~
~
~
~'
~
~
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
~
-~
~
,
2
WATER ADD ED
3
a
c
~
~
~ 5
~
~
N
a
s
~
e
s
~~
.~ 2 .5 ~ Z 5 10 20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P Swell Press Swell
Sat.
Moist.
~P~~ ~~ P~
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C
~ C
~ .
~ks~
% e
~
36.8 % 7.0 % 109.9 2.65 GJO 0.10 0.506
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSIIJG Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLEBI u 10
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLLON 1-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~~
Plate
~
_J
~
~
~
.i
f
~
~
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
~`
,
WATER ADDED
z
3
4
C
~
~
c 5
N
p
..
~
a
6
7
8
9
~~
.1 2 .5 ' 1 2 5 10 20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P Swell Press Swell
Sat.
MoisL
~P~~ LL . p~
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C
~ C
~ .
(ks~.
% e
~
50.5 °/a 12.7 % 99.1 2.65 4.38 0.14 0.669
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
CLAYEY SAND,GRAY SC
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AfFIRMED HOUSING , Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLE 63 a 5
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON I-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~o`
Plate
~
~
~
~
~
J
~
~
i
~
.J
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
a
~.
,
Z ~
WATER ADD ED
3
4
C
~
~
C 5
N
~
'
N
a
s
,
6
9
~~
.~ 2 .5 1 Z 5 10 20 ~ 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P Swell Press Swell
Sat.
Moist.
~P~~ LL pl
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C
~ C
~ .
(ks~
% e
°
57.2 % I I.S % 107.1 2.65 3.71 0.10 0.545
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
CLAYEY SAND,GRAY SC
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING Remarks: ~
Project:
SAMPLE B3 rGil 7.5
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOLSTREET COLLON I-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~p
Plate
~
~
~
~
~
Ri
~
J
~
~
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
~
~~
~
,
WATER A DDED `
z
3
4
C
~
~
~ 5
N
U
N
a
6
7
8
g .
10
.1 2~, .5 1 ~ 2
5 10 20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp Overburden P S
ll P ll
S
Sat.
Moist.
` ~P~~ LL p~ .
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C
° ~
~ we
ress.
~ks~ we
% e
°
62J % 9J % I 173 2.65 I J8 0.04 0.411
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
~ Remarks:
Project: SAMPLE B3 a 10
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON I-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL 5~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
~
~~
~
,
z
3
4
~
~
~ 5
~
°
.
~
a
s
WATER ADDED
~
8
9
10
.1 .2 .5 1 2 ~ 10 20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp Overburden P S
ll P ll
S
Sat.
MoisL
~P~~ ~~ P~ .
Gc
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C C
~ we
ress.
~ks{~ we
~/o e
0
29.0 % 5.9 % 107.8 2.65 0.24 0.1 Z 0.535
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No. T250"7-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSfNG emarks:
Project:
S MPLE B4 a ?.5
CO L BY TD
Loca[ion: PU10L STREET COLL ON I-21-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION 52
Plate
~
1
~
:1
~
~
'
-J
C
~J
~
~
.~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
,
_
o
~
~
,
2
3
WATER ADD ED
~
~
~
~ 4
:~,
:` -
a~
d
s
6
7
8
9
.1 2 .5 ~ 1 2 5 10 20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf ,
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P Swell Press Swell
Sat.
Moist
(P~~ LL p~
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C
c C
r .
(ks~
°/a e
°
27.7 % 6.0 % 104.8 2.G5 I.08 0.1 I 0.578
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
.Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLE 84 a 5
COLL BY TD
Location: PUIOLSTREET COLLON I-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL _ ~?j
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
~
~
~
~I
~J
~
~`,
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
a
O
,
z
3
4
C
~n WATER ADDED
5
C
N
U
.
N
a
s
~
a
s
~~
~ Z s t z s io zo so
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P ll P Swell
Sat.
Moist
~P~~ LL pl
Gr.
(ks~ c
(ks~ C
c ~
r we
ress.
~ks~
~~a e
o
.i I.4 % 7.5 % 101.5 2.65 0.50 0. I i 0.630
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,DARK BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING . Remarks:
~
Project: ~
SAMPLH BS a ...5
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON I-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~
Plate
~
~
~
~
l
~
~
~
.~
~
~
rr
~
~
,1
J
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT '
0
~
,
2 I
WATER ADD ED
3
4
C
~
~
c 5
N
~
N
a
s
~
a
s
~~
'~ 2 , .5 ~ 2 5 t0 20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P S
ll P Swell
Sat.
Moist.
~P~~ LL p~
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C
~ C
~ we
ress.
~ks~
~/a e
~
45.8 % 9? % 108.0 2.65 2.27 0.12 0.532
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,DARK BROWN SM
Project No. T2S07-GS, Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLE BS a 5
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON I-? I-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL - "~j~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
.
~
~
~
J
L~
~
~
~
~
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
~
,
z
3
WATER ADD ED
a
c
~
~
C 5
N
~
N
a
s
~
8
9
10 ~
~ Z 5 ~ ~ Z 5 ~ 0
20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P Swell Press Swell
Sat.
Moist.
~P~~ ~~ P~
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C
~ C
~ .
(ks~
% e
~
40.4 % $.4 % 106.9 2.65 I 28 0.1 I 0.548
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,DARK BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLE BS ~ 7.5
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON I-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL _ ,~(
~1~'
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
~
~
~
~
'~
!
~
~
~
~
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
a
~
,
z
3 WATER ADD ED
4
~
C
5
.
N:
~'
a
s
~
a
' s
~~
'
.i z 5 i Z s io zo sa
_ Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P Swell Press Swell
Sat.
Moist.
~P~~ ~~ P~
Gf.
(kS~ c
(ks~ C
~ C
~ .
(ks~
% e
°
42.5 % 8.8 % 106J 2.65 1.20 0.10 0.551
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING Remarks:
Project•
SAMPLE BS a 10
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON I-21-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ~1
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
~
1
~
~
FJ
~
~~
'
~
~
~
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
~
,
z
WATER ADD ED
3
4
~
~
c 5
a~
~
'
m
a
s
~
a
s
~~
.~ '.z _5 1 Z 5 10 20 50
Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden P Swell Press Swell
Sat.
Moist.
~P~~ ~~ P~
Gr.
(ks~ ~
(ks~ C
~ C
~ .
(ks~
% e
°
30.2 % 6.6 % 104.6 Z.65 I J 9 0.07 0.582
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No. T2507-GS Client: AFfIRMED HOUSING Remarks:
Project:
SAMPLE BS a IS
COLL BY TD
Location: PUJOL STREET COLL ON I-ZI-02
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT S~
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
Particle Size Distribution Report
~ _ __ $
- - -- -~ ~_ -
~oo - - ; :
90 ~ ~
~
8~ ` `
70
60
50
ao
30
20
10 . . ... . . .. .
0
500 100 10 7 0.1 n ni n nm
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC.`
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 100.0
#8 92.9
t! I 6 903
#;0 88.3
#50 85.1
#100 79.6
#200 7;.1
(no spcci~icalion providcd)
Sample No.: 62 @ 5 Source of Sample: SIEVE Date: I-24-02
Location: PUJOL STREET Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
Project: ~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION -
Pro'ect No: T25U7-GS Plate
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLA1
0.0 0.0 26.9 ~7; ~
Soil Description
SANDY SILT,BR OWN
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
D85= 0.295 Dgp= ~ ~50-
Dgp= p~5= p~p=
~u= ~~_
Classification
USCS= ML AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE 62 a 5 ~
COLL BY TD
COLL ON I-21-02
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
cd
.~
-~
~
~
~
~
.l
i
J
~o
~
W 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
K
l1-~ 40
a
30
oL
51
CiKAIN SILt - rl'1lil
% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
883 10.6
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC.`
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 98.9
#8 94.0
#I6 71.0
#30 4GJ
#50 24.3
#100 14.2
a?oo io.~
Soil Description
SAND,BROWN
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= p~=
Coefficients
(nu spcci~icatfon providc<q ~
Sample No.: 62 cil 10 Source of Sample: SIEVE Date: I-34-02
Location: PUJOL STREET Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
Project: / n
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~pv
Pro'ect No: T2507-GS Plate
DgS= 1.72 Dgp= 0.873 D50= 0.658
Dgp= 0369 D15= 0.165 D~p=
Cu= C~=
Classification
USCS= SP AASHTO=
Rema rks
SAMPLE B2 « 10 '
COLL BY TD
COLL ON I-21-0?
i
1
~
~
,~
'1
~
'
'
i
~
~
~
1
~
~
~
e~
~
LL
~
Z
W
U
. ~
w
a
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC.'
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 90.4
#S 74.8
#I6 52.2
~30 28.2
#50 13.3
# I 00 6.4
a2oo ~.s
U~n spccification provided)
Sample No.: 62 ~ I S
Location: PUJOL STREET
~nHirv si~t - mm
% SAND % SILT % CLAY
s~.~ ; s
~ Soil Description
SAND,QRO WN
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D85= ;.G4 Dgp= 1.47 DSp= I.I I
~30= 0.636 D15= 0.;3> ~10= 0?31
C~= 6.34 C~= I J 9
~Classification
USCS= Sw AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLEB2 a IS -
COLL BY TD
COLL ON I-21-02
Source of Sample: SIEVE
I ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: APFIRMED HOUSING
Project:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
No:
~`
Date: I-?5-02
Elev./Depth:
~
Particle Size Distribution Report
i
1
;
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
_~
~
~
~
I .~
_~
Particle Size Distribution Report
H
Z
W
U
~
W
4.
~o `
8~
70
60
50
a0
30
20 ~ . . ._.....
10 `
~
0
500 700 10 1 n i
CiKAIN SILt - f11f11
o/ C A Alll
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC.'
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 92.5
~t3 78.2
#IG 56.1
k;0 3I.3
iti0 14.6
#100 7.9
#200 4.9
Soil Description
SAND,BROWN
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
D85= .;.18 Dgp= 1.31 D50= I.00
~30= 0.576 D15= U.308 D~p= 0?03
CU= 6.46 C~= I?4
Classification
USCS= SW AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE 62 ~J 20 ~
COLL BY TD
COLL ON I-21-02
(nu spccitica~ion pravi~cdl
Sample No.: D2 c~i 20 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Location: PU10L STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
Project:
~ ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
No: T2507-GS
W~
Date: I-25-02
Elev./Depth:
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1
i
;
~
~
~
,oo
90
8~
70
W 60
Z
~
Z 50
W
U
~
W qp
a
ioi
oL
5
i
~.
`
~
/
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC~
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 97.7
N8 893
#I6 T.4
#;0 48.9
#i0 25?
#100 13J
#1300 8.G
(nnspucilication providcd)
Sample No.: B2 ~ 25
Location: PUJOL STREET
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
89.1 -
8
% CLAY
Soil Description
SAND,LIGHT BROWN
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= .- P1=
Coefficients
D85=: 1.8C Dgp= 0.801 D50= 0.G17
~30= 0.,55 D15= O.169 D10= q.0940
C~= 8S? C~= LG7
Classification
USCS= SW AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE B2 ~?5 ~ ~
COLL BY TD
COLL ON 1-21-02
Source of Sample: SIEVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
~ ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
Project:
Plate
~J
Date: I-25-02
Elev./Depth:
Particle Size Distribution Report
~
~~
;_~
,
~
W
Z
~
/
/
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC.`
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 9S3
#$ 83.8
#I6 65.5
#30 50.2
#50 33.2
tt100 18.2
#?00 11.6
(nn spccification providcd)
Sample No.: 62 @ 30
Location: PUJOL STREET
GRAIN SIZE - mm
SILT ~ %
IL6
Soil Description
SAND,LIGHT BROWN
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D85= 2.49 Dgp= 0.9>7 D50= 0.595
D30= 0.264 D15= 0.1I6 D~~=
CU= Cc
Classification
USCS= SP AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE 62 cJ 30 ~
COLL BY TD
COLLON I-21-02
Source of Sample: SIEVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
Project:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
No:
~`
Date: I-25-02
Elev./Depth:
Particle Size Distribution Report
- - -_ -~ __ ~ _
,oo -
90 `
ao
~a
~
w so
z
~
z So
w
v
~
w ao
a
30
20 `
10 ... . . . .. `
oL
50
GRAVEI
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC.'
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 99.0
~8 8G.4
~IG 62.I
f130 42.9
#50 25.2
#I00 13J
#200 7.8
CiKHIN JILt - fT1R1
_ % SAND % SILT % CLAY
~i.2 ~ s
.. fi~~~ spcci~icution providcd)
Sample No.: B2 c~,J 35 Source of Sample: SIEVE ~ Date: I-24-02
Location: PUJOL STREET Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
Project• ~~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro'ect No: T2507-GS ~ Plate
Soil Description
SAND,BROWN
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
~85= ?.?5 D60= I.I I DSp= Q785
Dgp= 0.;68 D~S= 0.1G7 D~p= 0.101
C~= 10.91 C~= I?0
qassification
USCS= SW AASHTO=
Rema rks
SAMPLE B2 ce 35 ~ '
COLL BY TD
COLL ON I-21-OZ
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
!
~
.~
i
i
'i
~
W
Z
~
~
Z
w
U
~
W
a
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC ~
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 93.4
#8 77.0
#I6 57.5
#;0 403
f-.'S0 2;.6 ~
#100 I2.7
#200 7.3
pin sprci~ication pmvided)
Sample No.: 62 a 40
Location: PUJOL STREET
GRAIN SIZE - mm
Soil Description
SAND,BROWN
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
~85= 3.26 D60= 1.29 D50= 0.88G
~30= 0398 D15= 0.181 D10= 0.112
C~= IL55 C~= I.10
Classification
USCS= Sw AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE 62 ~J 40 '
COLL BY TD
COLLON I-21-02
Source of Sample: SIEVE
Date: I-25-o2
EIev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: AFPIRMED HOUSING
Project: ~~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION _
Pro'ect No: T2507-GS Plate
.
Particle Size Distribution Report
= o
- - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ a - -
,oo -
90
8~ .. . . . . . `.
70 . . . . ` . . .
K `
W 60
Z
u_
Z Sp
W `
U
~
W qp
a
30 ._ .. _ ` _.
i
~
20 . . ... . . _ . . . . . . _. . . .. . . . `
10~
0
500 100
~
~
c.
~
- GhtAIN SILt - fi1R1
% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SIIT % CLAY
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC.'
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 87.1 .
#8 75.4
#I6 62.5
#30 50.4
#50 ;7.2
#100 24.5
#200 I6.6
Soil Description
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
Dgg= 4.17 Dgp= 1.03 D50= 0.587
D3p= 0.207 D15= ~10=
~u= ~~_
Classification
USCS= SM AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE B2 n 45 '
COLL BY TD
COLLON I-21-02
(nn spccification providcd)
Sample No.: B2 cI 45 Source of Sample: SIEVE Date: I-25-OZ
Location: PU10L STREET Eiev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
Project:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~~
Pro'ect No: T2507-GS Plate
i
~
P!
~
~
~
.~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
~
,
t~
3
~
~
.~
i
~
~
~~ ~
Z
~
~
z
~~~
U
K
W
a
COBBLES I %
SIEVE
SIZE PERCENT
FINER SPEC.`
PERCENT PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 99.4
#8 95.6
#I6 81.3
#30 52.7
#50 243
#~ao ~,.~
~~oo ~.~
(no speciGcation provided)
Sample No.: B2 c~,J 50
Location: PUJOL STREET
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
92.3
% SILT ~ %
7.I
Soil Descriotion
SAND,BROWN
Atterberq Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
D85= 1.33 Dgp= 0.702 D50= 0.56G
~30= 0355 D15= 0201 D10= 0.1 ; I
Cu= 5.3G C~= 1.37
Classification -.
USCS= SP AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE B2 @ 50 ~
COLL BY TD
COLLON I-21-02
SourceofSample: SIEVE
Date: I-25-03
Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: AFFIRMED HOUSING
Project:
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION ~v
Pro'ect No: T2507-GS - Plate
Particle Size Distribution Report
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
_~
I
~
~
_~
~
~
~
J
DRAWINGS
Affirmed Housing Partners-Temecula, ~LC
Project No: T2507-GS
~ Appendix Page 8
EnGEN Corporation
~O~
1
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.-~
J
~ ~ . ~ ~TL-(rv, b ~ ~ ~T~~
t0.~ :.
' 5 $~~S
~
; ~ - -.i-T:~~w'~_
~
I
~I'
` ~
•
` l
.
~5[~~s
~
.
~
'
o '
~`'
( ~ _
P
~.,
1 *
I c
I ~ ebr
~i 61IRn'
' L y1 _
' ~
~
e
~ Y'.Qu .
,
,`
te, ~
~e '
~ ,fi
fnCfYA
c~° ...ti. ~
.O~<x` 0.. I' i
a'S
I tiS
~ `,a
,~
k
c<<`~,'
o'"s
I
. o~ i•
.
~~ . F
' ~. ;:
P N
~
i ~acaeirA T~ao
Wd~. %:
~i <' . r ,J
z'~ ~,~ ~u.c.eru-'
. .
~
f .
~ - ~..
~
~ P
,
.. .
~
`
;
'2.
i~
Y
, I V~R '
~
_ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~r1-i
--- J
_
c
--- •
~
` `
I
~
"4yiv
q
3
g
n
. _ __..._ ~.
.v. -
~
!'
•
t -- -- I __-
~~~ Pa ~.
, CP~
~~ ~
E'
m _
b
y y
p
~~
.
-I -
d rtrv
•
e j ;
-n
P - r
£ aurra ~P
~~s ,
uromu 4 ~~~. „ , ~
arnrw
),l ~_.~~~ ••
i
L~ I~ R,~ ~ i ('l
' a`Sa~ ° ~ U `Q
I
I ~P
~rs
/ ra[a •
vuu ~,O .L,~.
~. - ~
~
.
~ ~ ". (` S
`ss d" c I
~ ~ Ia.ttUU '
'
y GKA
~ •!G~ - I _ c .D .
~~
_
~ .
~_- ~ _ ~"_' _ •
i _
~ ~ o
wirsx
~~ <
~
F
L~ -'
e~j
C'
~ aa~~'
4
\
_
I t 5~i~,.. a+
a a
:.
~~
e
~q
~ i
P-~
I
~RANCHOr~ ,
i
~~,CALiFORN1A /
~ o
^
G~ •s~ .
~4°~~ '+-~~. . I
~
~~ ~ ~
~
.
~~~~2,
I
~ ^
~q,,~~ ,b~, z
s Ro ~a
~
P`~l.~ y
II
~ s
~ i t~
.
/ I .,
~.. ~ F:.~.f~e
i . , t v O
-:l~ m : ~ . .
~yka ~- I CI'ICI.I
; ~,..o _o- , ,
'~, ~ ~ sITE T g
, ~._.
-~ e ~ ,
~~ ~
. ..
, ~ ~,
; .
_ _~-- -~ ~
~ --- -- - -
-; --G,- ,
..o
~.r. ~
~
~;
,o,
,~ .
„
,~
,~
,.
,o
,.
~ I ~, ~oa~.
~
_ ,
.
g 1 ,:
~ k
SITE LOCATION MAP
PROJECT NAME: AFFIRMED HOUSING
DATE: FEBRUARY 2002 SCALE: 1" = 2400'
PROJECT NUMBER: T2507-GS FIGURE 1
IBASE MAP. Thomas Bros., Riverside and ' I~
San Bemardino Counties, 2002, page 956 and 978
EnGEN Corporation GeotecMical Engineering Special Material Environmental -Q,
Engineering Geology Inspectian Testing Assessmenis '
1~ ~
~~
_ _ ~'
g
y O
: N
> °~
a~
~ ~
LL
ma
O rv
m m
n n
N N .
m N
~
~~
0
~r
.,..,.. i
o ~
n
___'___'-_" "__'
_ -__' _~ . ._-_ 'Q2173Q"]Yi1 X/73d --_ ._ _ _ --- ..
.....:. o
~ ~~
~ ~
~ -
~ N T~ . \~ .
II ~ u
/ ~Y I
- U
% s
~ ~ ~ N "nu
~~ ~ i - ~ i
\ `. .
H .
b m
,~~ ~
~' I
/ \`\ ~~ M
l_~.__ \ i m ~~ I ;
i
~
0
m
.taaals ~ornd
0
~
m• u
~
? ~
0o i~
~ ~ i
"
, .! z
YE ~i z
o°~
p ~
~ Y~ Y4
o ~
Q ~s
~ o
m
~ .r ,s~
~~ z
:; ~ I ~ a
B
a ~'
u
= W
E,,,~
O
p ~ Vi
OV ~N ~H/y~
VJ
m ao ~~ q
O
~ p~b 4~U
ON~i
~m W
Cn
4 ~ Y
~j
k44 ¢~K~ O
w uC0 ybp I~ .
~•~ A
W
J
~
~'; ~ ~
~i
~`7
Om
~^~ O,
~i ~
~yy 5
O ~ p
N N ~41 g ~
mm gaSe pq , // rn
c ~k ~~ +^~ `u \ ~//
~ a
# $t!
~'~ ~ "~ g
a
z ~ ~ j~~~~(~~i~~;i ~
a
a ~ i i~~.~Eit=s #~ r >
~~ ~i~=$~~~,~ w ~ W
~ ~ ~ ~' ~;F;~~t~~~~o.[~~ c ~ ~
5 fi ~° it~~41~F~1E o ~ w
n p_ y
_y N
€~ a w
`a a C7
W ~ a
~ ~
:g W
;a F
~
a=y 3
~d a ~ Q
__' 0' ~ ~ _ _._ ___-O
€s z ~ x
FF~ ~ ~ ~ O
=g UW ~ O
O r,n
~g ~ a H U
i O ~ ¢ o p
~ .~ a N w
0 o F
~ _ +~ ~' a d ~
~ o
_~ p. w ~ w~ oz
s ~ ~ ~ a ~
>s V zwz Q~w
z W w . A
W o H o W un
~ a Aa W~~
W ol a
f
~ ~-~- i--- "'"..~`i I,~""°'" f~w ' l4~+rl~1 ~11~ I~IIr