HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 31023 Supplemental Geotech Investigation~,~ ~~~~~3
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
TEMECULA VILLAGE
30101 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPAREDFOR
TEMECULA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, L. P.
CANOGA PARK, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 3, 2004
~
t GEOCON
INLAND EMPIRE, INC. ~
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ~_
~~
~
Project No. T2246-12-01
September 3, 2004
Temecula Village Development, L. P.
7131 Ownensmouth Avenue
Canoga Park, California 91309
;~ Attention: Mr. Barton Buchalter
Subject: TEMECULA VILLAGE
30101 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
' ' SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
~ Gentlemen:
ln accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 23, 2004 (Proposal No. IE-094), we
~ have performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The accompanying
report presents the findings of our study and our recommendations relative to the geotechnical
aspects of developing the site as presently proposed.
It is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations
of this report are followed. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of
further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INLAND EMPIRE, INC.
ssell
G 2042
RRR:ER:DH:tg ~Q~OC~tp.~C
~~ 0~P G
(6) Addressee ¢ ~
No. 2042
1 EXP.12/31/04
~i~/D ~i' '~//
rnie Roumelis
RG 7560 ~---~
~ EFINEST W. N
* ~ -I
N. ~0! *'
Dale Hamelehle
CEG 1760 `g~~Ep GFOI
- ~' ~M c
# E~ HEt~ip ~F
I ¢ ~~~ ~
~ - GEOWOIST _p /
47571 Coming Ploce, Suiie 101 9 Murriela, Caliiornio 92562-7605 a Telephone ~909) 304-2300 B fax ~909~ 304-2392
Z
TABLE OF CONTENTS
] . PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. I
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................I
4. GROUNDWATER ...........................................................................................................................4
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARD ............................................................................... .....................................5
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity ..................................................................... .....................................~
5.2 Seismic Design Criteria .................................................................... .....................................5
~.3 Liquefaction ...................................................................................... .....................................6
6. CON CLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... .....................................8
6.1 General .............................................................................................. .....................................8
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ................................................. .....................................8
63 Grading ............................................................................................. .....................................9
6.4 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors ..................................................... ...................................1 l
6.5 Slopes ............................................................................................... ...................................ll
6.6 Foundations ..................................................................................... ...................................12
6.7 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ............................................... ...................................15
6.8 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations .................................. ...................................16
6.9 Drainage ........................................................................................... ...................................18
6.10 Slope Maintenance ......................................................................... ...................................18
6.11 Plan Review .................................................................................... ...................................19
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
REFERENCES
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
FiQure 1, Viciniry Map
Fieure 2, Geologic Map
Fi~ure 3, Slope Stability Analysis
Figure 4, Surficial Slope Stabiliry Ana]ysis
Figure 5, Typical Stability Fill Detail
3
1~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
~
APPENDIX A
~ FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 - A-8, Logs of Borings
, APPENDIX B
Table B-I, Summary of I,aboratory Marimum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
_ Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
, Taoie B-III, Summary of Laooratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory R~ater Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-V, Summary of Single-Point Consolidation (Collapse) Tests
~
~ APPENDIX C
EXPLORATORY LOGS FROM REPORT BY CHJ (1999)
~ APPENDIX D
~ ; RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
I
i
k
~
~~:
~
,
~
k
~
t
L
~:..
~
i
;
~~
~
~
t
ti
~
~ SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
~ 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presenu the findings of a supplemental geotechnical investigation for the proposed retai]
~ and residential development located along the south side of Rancho California Road and west of
Cosmic Drive in Temecula, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure ]). The purpose of the investigation
~ was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions and, based on conditions encountered,
provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing the property as
presently proposed.
~ The scope of the investigation included a site reconnaissance, review of pertinent geologic literamre,
~ and the excavation of 8 small-diameter exploratory borings. A previous geotechnical study by CHJ
Incorporated (dated June 8, 1999) included 16 exploratory borings and was reviewed as a part of this
study. At the time of CHTs investigation, the site area consisted of approximately 40 acres, 18 acres
~ of which have already been developed. The remaining 22 acres is the focus of this swdy. As a result,
only 9 of the original 16 CHJ borings are applicable to our study~.
~ A detailed discussion of the field investigation, and the Geocon exploratory excavation logs are
~ presented in Appendix A. The 9 applicable exploratory boring logs from the CHJ report are provided
in Appendix C. The locations of the Geocon and applicable CHJ borings are indicated on the
~ Geologic Map (Figure 2).
" Laboratory testing was performed on samples of materials obtained from the esploratory excavations
; to aid in evaluating the in-situ moisture and density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content, shear strena h; collapse potential, expansion potential and w~ater-soluble sulfate content, for
use in ensineerine analyses. Details of the laboratory testing, including data from the CHJ report, are
~. presented in .4ppendix B.
~ The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained from our
exploratory excavations, laboratory tests, and our experience with similar soil and geologic
~ conditions.
~ 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is a nearly rectangular-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 22 acres, located in
~ the city of Temecula, California. The site is located along the south side of Rancho Califomia Road
west of Cosmic Drive. Topographically, the property is moderately to steeply sloping with
approximately 110 feet of elevation differential between approximately 1093 and 1202 feet Mean
~
Project No. T2246• 12-01 • 1- September 3, 2004
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
,
~
~
4J
~
~
~
~
Sea Level (.1vISL). The vegetation is spazsely located along the southern and westem margins with
some grasses and ra~dom pockets of brush. At the time of the field exploration, the northern and
central portions of the property were being mined for sand. Topography in the azea of the sand
mining operation is continuously changing as the operation proceeds, and vazies from near vertical to
moderately sloping. Topography across the remainder of the site is generally flatter and slopes from
south to north. Based on our review of aerial photos, the site was previously used as a horse ranch.
Based on review of the site plan prepared by Mazkham Development Management Group (MDMG),
we understand that the proposed development will consist of grading the site to construct nine (9)
single-story commercial/retail buildings, ranging from approximately 2,400 square feet to 2Q000
square feet, eight (8) multi-family residential buildings, a clubhouse, and associated driveways and
parking areas. It is anticipated that the buildings will be wood framed or masonry and will be
suppoRed on conventional concrete foundations and slabs-on-grade or post-tension foundation
systems. Although the topographic map provided does not accurately indicate the existing
topography, we have provided a very rough estimate of the proposed cuts and filis for each bui]ding
location in the followi~g table.
TABLE 2.0
ESTIMATED BUILDING PAD CUT/FILL AND REMEDIAL GRADING
Building Design Minimum Maximum Estimated Estimated Remedial
No. Pad E~sting E~eisting Cut or Fitl Measures for Proposed
Desi nation Elevation Elevation* Elevation* in Feet Structure
1 I 109.6 I 123 1131 -21 to -13 Cut to finish grade
2 ] 110.4 1130 1152 -42 to -20 Cut to finish grade
Alluvial removals to
3 1106.4 ] 094 1098 8 to 12 Pauba formation prior to
fill placement (estimated 5
feet below existin )
Eight foot remedia]
4 1107.5 1098 1104 4 to 10 removals in Ailuvium
rior to fill lacement
5 I] 09.8 11 ] 3 1124 -14 to -3 Cut to grade
Eight foot remedial
9 1113.8 1094 1110 4 to 20 removals in Alluvium
rior to fil] lacement
Alluvial removals to
Pauba formation prior to
fill placement (estimated 5
8 1 I 14.3 1098 I 117 -3 to 16 feet below existing).
Overexcavate cut and
shallow fill portions to
H/3 (6 feet below finish
ade)
Yro~ect No. 7~2246-12-DI - 2• September 3, 2004
~
~
TABLE 2.0 (Continued)
ESTIMATED BUILDING PAD CUT/FILL AND REMEDIAL GRADING
Building Design Minimum Maximum Estimated Estimated Remedial
No. Pad Elcisting Existing Cut or Fill Measures for Proposed
Desi nation Elevation Elevation* Elevation* in Feet Structure
Two foot remedial
7 1114.0 ] 093 1105 9 to 21 removals prior to fill
]acement
Eight foot remedial
6 11133 ]099 1]]0 3 to 14 removals in Alluvium
rior to fill lacement
Overexcavate cut and
10 ] 146.6 1 136 I 160 -13 to 11 shallow fill portions to
H/3 (4 feet below finish
ade)
11 1147.8 11 ~0 ll 84 -36 to -2 Cut to grade
Overexcavate pad below
12 1148.1 1144 1186 -38 to 4 finish grade (3 feet
minimum OX
13 1147.9 1165 1184 -36 to -17 Cut to grade
Overexcavate cut and
14 I 148.8 1141 1185 -36 to 8 shallow fill portions to
H/3 (3 feet below finish
rade)
] 5 I 148.0 1165 1182 -34 to -17 Cut to grade
16 1 148.4 I 154 1179 -31 to -6 Cut to grade
Overexcavate cut and
17 1149.0 1113 1173 -24 to 36 shallow fill portions to
H/3 (12 feet below finish
ade)
Overexcavate cut and
Clubhouse 1148.6 1140 1167 -18 to 9 shallow fill portions to
H/3 (3 feet below finish
rade)
`Estimate based on a review of topographic map and site conditions at the time of our investigation. Negative value indicates
proposed cut The ongoing sand mining operations wuld significantty change the estimated cuts and fills.
The above locations and descriptions are based on a site reconnaissance and review of the referenced
site plan. If final development plans differ significanUy from those described herein, Geocon should
be contacted for review and possible revisions to this report.
Project No. T2246-12-01 - 3- September 3, 2004
,
1
~
, 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
~ 3.1 General
In ~eneral, the site is undertain by undocumented fill, alluvium and Pauba Formation bedrock as
~ described below. A brief discussion of the materials encountered is discussed below.
~ 3.2 Undocumented Fill (Qud~
Undocumented fill was observed by CHJ during their investigation. This fill was reportedly
associated with the previous horse ranch operation. Based on our review of the proposed site plan,
_ and the ongoing sand mining operations, the undocumented fill shown in the CHJ report ei[her has
~ been or will be wilt be removed during the course of normal grading operations. In addition, the
continuing sand mining operation has generated stockpiles and minor areas of undocumented fill
during the continuous construction of haul roads and work areas. All undocumented fill will need to
r be removed prior to fill placement or site improvements.
~ 3.3 Aliuvium (Qal)
Quaternary-age alluvial soils were encountered within four (4) of the borings (B-1, B-3, B-6 and B-7)
~ and are generally composed of loose to medium dense silq~ sand to a relative]y "clean" fine to coazse
sand. The maximum depth of alluvium observed within the borines was approximately 23 feet
~ (Boring B-3). The upper portion of the alluvium will require remedial grading. Based on our review
of the site plan, the condition of shallow alluviai areas shown in CHJ's report that would be removed
by proposed cut investigations were not investigated.
,
_ 3.4 Pauba Formation (Qpb)
~ Quaternary-age Pauba Formation bedrock is present below the a]luvium (where encountered) or
exposed at existing grade. The Pauba Formation generally consists of a medium dense to very dense
, silty sand to fine to coarse sand. The upper one to two feet of the Pauba Formation material, where
exposed at existing a ade, is weathered/disturbed and ~i~ill require remedial grading. During our field
~ reconnaissance a clay layer or seam was observed in a temporary cut slope excavated by the mining
operation. This clay seam will be mapped and evaluated during the mas, grading to determine it's
~ exactlocation with respectto proposed cutslopes.
~ 4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered within any of the Geocon and CHJ exploratory borings. The
~ referenced CHJ investigation has estimated that groundwater is in excess of 100 feet deep. However,
Pro~ect No. T2246• 12-O1 - 4- September 3, 2004
,
8
~
~ perched groundwater was observed in the sand mining operation in the southerly portion of the site.
The groundwater was perched atop a clay layer and seeping out of the Pauba Fortnation. It is
~ estimated that this clay layer will be exposed near the toe of the proposed 55-foot high cut slope
located south of Buildings 16 and 17. It is our opinion that regional groundwater will not be a factor
~ during grading operations for the proposed development. However, depending on the ~veather
conditions at the time of grading/construction, localized perched water conditions could be exposed.
If perched water is encountered, it is expected that it can be effectively managed with the use of
~ sump pumps placed in the bottom of excavations, drained stabiliri fills, or the use of cut-off trenches.
~ 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
~ 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The site, like the rest of southern California, is located within a seismically active region near the
~ active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of
seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas,
San Jacinto and Elsinore fauh zones. These fault systems are estimated to produce up to
, approximately 55 millimeters of slip per year between the plates.
,~ By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one, which has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is
one, which has been active during the Quaternary Period (last 1,600,000 years). Earthquake Fault
~ Zones have been delineated along active faults as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards
Zones Act of 1972 and as revised in 1994, 1997 and 2003 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
' Zonin~ Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on
sites located within Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones to preclude new construction of certain habitable
~ structures across the traces of active faults.
Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not ]ocated within an Earthquake Fault
~ Hazard Zone. The site could, however, be subjected to significant shakine in the event of a major
' earthquake on the Elsinore Fault or other nearby re~ional faults. Structures for the site should be
~ constructed in accordance with wrrent UBC seismic codes and local ordinances
~ 5.2 Seismic Design Criteria
Our evaluation of the rea onal seismiciry included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQFAULT and
~ EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000) and UBCSEIS. The nearest known active fault and source of the design
earthquake is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula Segment) located approximately 1 kilometer to the
west of the site. The maximum credible earthquake was estimated to be magnitude 6.8 Mw.
~
Pro~ect No. T2246-12-01 - 5- Septem6er 3, 2004
~
~
,
,
,
~
~
~
i
~
,
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (ofren accepted as minimum
standards) based on maps showing ground motion with a 475-year return period or a 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a horizontal peak ground
acceleration of 0.59g (probabilistic mean) would be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake is
considered a magni2ude 6.8 Mw event that would generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration
(PHGA) of 0.59g (FRISKSP, Blake 2000). The effect of seismic shaking may be reduced b~~ adherine
to the 1997 UBC and seismic design parameters suggested by the Structural Enoineers Association of
California. Tl~e UBC seismic design parameters for this site are presented on Table 5?:
TABLE 5.2
SITE DESIGN CRITERIA
Parameter Value UBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-I
Soil Profile So Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, Ce 0.57 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, C„ 1.02 Table 16-R
Near-Source Factor, Na 13 ~ Table 16-5
Near-Source Factor, N,. 1.6 Table 16-T
Seismic Source B Table ] 6-U
~ The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southem California are surface rupturing
of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground settlement. The
~ possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since active faults are not known to
cross the site. Lurchin~ due to ground shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a
sionificant hazard, although it is a possibility throughout southern Califomia.
~
5.3 Liquefaction
~ Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesion]ess soil deposits lose
shear streneth durin~ strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefac[ion include in-situ
~ stress conditions, intensity and duration of ground motion, the depth to groundwater, and the
gradation characteristics of the underlying soils. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in
1 the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake
accelerations.
~l
!
Pro~ect No. T2246-12-O1 - 6- September 3, 2004
r
~o
Due to the estimated deep regional groundwater, remediation of undocumented fill and loose alluvial
soils and the presence of generally dense to very dense Pauba Formation bedrock, it is our opinion
that the potential for liquefaction at this site is very low.
Pro~ect No. T2246-12-O1 - 7- September 3, 2004 \~
~
, 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
~ 6.1 General
6.1.] No soil or geologic conditions exist at the site that would preclude the development of the
~ propem~ as presently planned provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
6.1.2 The site is underlain by undocumented fill, alluvium and Pauba Formation bedrock. All of
~ the undocumented fill and portions of the alluvium and the disturbed/weathered portion of
the Pauba Formation (where exposed) will require remedial grading.
'~ 6.1.3 The site ]ies approximately one ki]ometer from the Temecula segment of the Elsinore fault
' zone. This fault is classified as active and is significant in that it is capable of generating
large magnitude earthquakes. Due to the site's proximity to a major active fault system, the
site could be subjected to severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other
~ ^earby active faults.
~ 6.1.4 Conventional strip footings and slab-on-grade with steel reinforcement or a post-tensioned
foundation system may be used at this site.
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
~ 6.2.1 Excavations within the on-site soils are expected to be feasible with conventional heavy
duty ~rading equipment. Some difficult excavations could be experienced within deeper
~ cuts into the Pauba Formation bedrock.
6?.2 Excavations should be performed in conformance with ~SHA requirements. Temporary
~ excavations for grading and during construction of improvements will be made within
relatively cohesionless sands. To prevent sloughing as a result of the cohesionless sands,
~ the excavations may require being sloped back at a gradient of l:1 (horizontal to vertical).
If slouehing occurs, slopes may have to be excavated at flatter gradients.
, 6.2.3 The majority of the on-site materials consist of silty sands, which generally possess a very
low to low espansion potential, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
1 Section 18-I-B, and exhibit relatively eood shear strength characteristics. The on-site soils
are considered suitable for use as fill, capping of lots and construction of fill slopes.
~ Materials with an expansion potential greater than low (if encountered) should be kept at
least 3 feet below proposed finish grade elevations (if possible). Results of expansion
index tests are presented in Table B-III. Laboratory Expansion Index testing should be
,
Project No. T2246-(2-01 - 8- September 3, 2004
,
~~
~
~
,
~
6.2.4
~
~
~
performed on soils present within 3 feet of finish grade subsequent to the completion of
grading to verify the at-grade expansion characteristics. If import soils aze required to
achieve design gades, Geocon should be retained to perform laboratory testing prior to
importing the material to verify the that the soils have an Expansion Indea of 50 or ]ess and
that other characteristics meet project requirements such as corrosivity properties.
Laboratory testing w~as performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratorv
excavations to determine the water-soluble sulfate content. Results of these tests are
presented in Table B-N. The results indicated that the samples tested yielded water-
soluble sulfate contents with a negligible sulfate rating as defined b}~the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4. T6ese tests are general indications only and
additiona] testing should be performed at finish grade (materials within 3 feet of rough pad
grade elevations) afrer the completion of rough grading.
~ 6.2.5 Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if improvements
that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that further
~ evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. lt is also recommended that these results,
d the
e
d
ti
f
h
i
i
b
f
d
d
h
an
r
commen
a
ons
rom t
e corros
on eng
neer
e
orwar
e
to t
e appropriate
design team members (i.e. project architect and engineer) for incorporation into the plans
~ and implementation during construction.
I 6.3 Grading
63.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
~ Specifications contained in Appendix D, and the City of Temecula Grading Ordinance.
Where the recommendations of this section conflict with those of Appendix D, the
~ recommendations of this section take precedence.
6.3.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference with the owner or developer,
~ grading contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance, should be held
at the site. Specia] soil handling can be discussed at that time.
,
6.33 Site preparation sl~ould begin with the remova] of any remaining deleterious material,
trees, stumps/roots, debris, and vegetation. Any existing undocumented fill (where
, encountered) should also be removed from within planned development areas of the site.
The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soils to be used
~ as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site
demolition should be exported from the site.
,
Project N o. T2246-12-O1 - 9- September 3, 2004
~
`3
~
' 6.3.4 Al] undocumented fill or unsuitable alluvium not removed by planned ~radine shou]d be
completely removed to a depth where competent soils are observed by the project
, geologist. The estimated depth of remedial grading is discussed in Table 2.0 of this report.
Subsequent to removal of the unsuitable surficia] soils and prior to the placement of
compacted fill soils, the exposed surface should be scarified and compacted in-place to a
~ minimum dry densiTy of 90 percent of the maximum dry density, and near optimum
moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-00. If loose, soft or wet areas are
' exposed at the bottom of the excavation, the overexcavation should be deepened until firm
material is encountered. The total depth of removal should be determined in the fieid by
~ the project geologist during grading operations.
6.3.5 The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted
~ in layers. In general, existing on-site soils are suitable for use as fil] if free from vegetation,
debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for
~ adequate bonding and compaction. Fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of
maximum dry densin~ and near optimum moisture content. Fill materials placed below
optimum moisture content or excessively above optimum may require additional moisture
~ conditioning or drying prior to placing additional fill.
' 6.3.6 Trench and retaining wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory maximum dry densit}• at or s(ightly above optimum moisture content. The upper
~ 12 inches of fill within pavement areas should be compacted ro at least 95 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content.
' 63J During remedial grading temporary slopes should be planned for an inclination no steeper
than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). Grading should be scheduled to backfill against these slopes
~ as soon as practical. Removals along the limits of grading should include excavation of
unsuitable soils that would adversely affect the perfottnance of the planned fill, i.e., extend
removals within a zone defined by a line projected down and out at a slope of 1:1 from [he
~ limit of grading to intersect with approved lefr-io-place soils.
' 6.3.8 Lots graded with a cudfill transitio~ will require undercutting to reduce the potential for
differential settlement. The cut portion of the cubfill transition should be undercut to a
~ depth of at least 3 feet and replaced with proper]y compacted low expansive fill. The
bottom of the undercut should be sloped at a minimum of 1 percent towards the adjacent
street. In areas where a steep transition exists, additional removal will be required such that
~ tUe maximum fill differential across any one building pad will be less than H/4, where H is
the maximum fill thickness.
,
Project No. T2246-12-01 -]0 - September 3, 2004
,
~~
I.~
, 6.4 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors
,
~
'
~
~
'
6.4.1 Estimates of embankment bulking and shrinkaee factors are based on comparing laborator~~
compaction tests with the density of the material in its natural state as encountered in the
exploratory excavations. It should be emphasized that variations in natural soil density, as
well as in compacted fill density, render shrinkage value estimates very approaimate. As
an example, the contractor can compact the fill soils to am relative compaction of 90
percent or hisher of the maximum laboratory density. Thus, the contractor has
approximately a 10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Based on the limited
work performed to date, it is our opinion that the following shrinkage and bulking factors
can be used as a basis for estimating how much the on-site soils may shrink or swel] (bulk)
when excavated from their natural state and placed as compacted fills.
TABLE 6.4
SHRINK/BULK FACTORS
Soil Uni[ Shrink/Bulk Factor
Undocumented Fill 10 - I S percent shrink
Alluvium 5-] 0 percen[ sf~rink
Pauba Formation 5 percent shrink to 5 percent bulk
I 6.5 Slopes
65.1 In general, cut slopes and fill slopes constructed at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) with the on-site
' soils are considered to be stable with respect to deep seated instabiliTy to heights of at least
55 feet (Figure 3). A surficial stabiliry analysis was also performed based on an assumed 4-
' foot zone of samration. The results of the surficial analysis indicated a factor of safety of
] S (Figure 4).
, 6.5.2 All fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 3 feet horizontally and then cut to the design
finish grade. As an alternative, fill slopes may be compacted by backrolling with a
, sheepsfoot compactor at vertica] interva;s not to exceed 4 feet and then track-walked with
a D-8 bulldozer, or equivalent, such that the soils are uniformly compacted to at least
_ 90 peroent to the face of the finished slope.
6.53 All slopes should be planted, drained and maintained to reduce erosion. Due to the very
' granular nature of the majority of the site soils, considerztion should be given to
landscaping the slopes relatively soon afrer completion to reduce the potential for surficial
~ erosion.
Pro~ect No. T2246-12-O1 - ll- September 3, 2004
~
~S~
,
~
'
~
1
,
i
lvl
,
~
~
,
'
~
'
'
i
6.5.4 Based on our observations during the field exploration, there is a potential that some out of
slope seepage and/or adverse bedding (clay seam) will be exposed within the 5~ foot hieh
cut slope located south of buildings 16 and 17. If seepage and or the clay seam is exposed
within that cut slope or any other cut slope, a stability fill ma}~ be needed. A detai] for a
typical stability fill and back drain system are provided on Fieure 5. The need for the
stabiliry fill, as well as the specific dimensions should be determined b}~ the Geocon
engineering geologist at the time of grading.
6.6 Foundations
6.6.1 Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations, the
seismic parameters provided in this report and the recommendations presented in
Table 6.6.1. Foundations for either Category I, II, or III, as described in Table 6.6. ], ma}~
be designed for an allowable soil beazing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (ps~
(dead plus live load). This beazing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient
loads such as wind or seismic forces. Based on the results of our pre]iminary testing, we
anticipate that the buildings at this site may be desi~ned for Very Low to Low soils
(EI<50). However, some Medium Expansive (EI>50) soi]s may be encountered at
completion of grading. We recommend that as grading progresses, each building pad be
evaluated for its expansive potential. The final footing and slab for each buildina should be
designed based orr the results of that evaluation. These recommendations are provided as a
minimum and do not supersede local ordinance codes or requirements of the project
structural engineer.
TABLE 6.6.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum
Footing Depth
Continuous Footing
Interior Slab
Category
(inches) Reinforcement Reinforcement
I 12 Two No. 4 bars 6 x 6-] 0/10 welded w've
One top and bottom mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Four No. 4 bars No. 3 bazs at 24 inches on
Two top and bottom center, both d'uections
III Zq Four No. 5 bazs No. 3 bars at I S inches on
Two top and bottom center, both d'vections
Project No. T2246-12-O1
'
1'- -
September 3, 2004 ,~
'
, CATEGORY CRITERIA
~ Category I: Maximum fill Ihic}a~ess is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index less than 51.
Category II: Maximum fill thiclmess is less than ~0 feet, variation in fill thiclaiess is between ]0 feet
and 20 feet across any one buildine and Expansion Index less than 91.
~ Category III: Fill thiclmess exceeds 50 feet, variation in fill thickriess exceeds 20 feet, or Expansion
Index is greater than 90.
Notes:
, I. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
2. Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent sub~ade. 'Chese depths apply to both exterior and
interior footings.
# 3. All interior concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick for Cate=ories I and II and 5 inches
thick for Category III. This applies to both building and garage slabs-on-~rade.
, 4. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for a 5-inch slab) of
clean sand (SE>30) or crushed rock.
~ 5. All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverin~s or used to store moisture
sensitive materials should be underlain by a] 0-mil vapor bazrier covered with at least 2 inches
of the clean sand recommended in No. 4 above.
, 6.6.2 The minimum reinforcement recommended above is based on soil characteristics only and
is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations.
' 6.6.3 As an altemate to a conventional foundation system, the proposed buildings may also be
' designed as post-tensioned systems. The post-tensioned system may be designed for an
allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 ps£ The allowable bearing pressure value is for
dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads
, due to wind or seismic forces. The recommended design parameters for the post-tensioned
systems are presented on Table 6.6.2.
,
'
~
'
'
~
Project No. T2246-] 2-01 - 13 - September 3, 2004
,
~~
~
~
'
'
,
,
,
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
~
'
i
'
TABLE 6.6.2
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTn Foundation Category
Design Parameters I(EI<51) II (EI<90) III (EI>_90)
I. Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
2. Clav Type - Montmoritlonite Yes Yes Yes
3. Clav Portion (Maximum) 30% 50°/a 70%
4. Depth to Cons[ant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 fr. 7.0 ft.
5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in.
9. Center Lifr Moisture Variation Distance 53 ft. 53 ft. 53 ft.
10. Center Lift 2.12 in, 3.21 in. 4.74 in.
6.6.4 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to edge lifr, regardless of the
underlying soil conditions, unless reinforcing stee] is placed at the bottom of the perimeter
footings and the interior stiffener beams. Current PTI design procedures primarily address
the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the placement of the reinforcing tendons in
the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity afrer tensioning reduces the abiliTy of the
system to mitigate edge lifr. The foundation system should be designed to reduce the
potential for edge lifr to occur.
6.6.5 Post-tensioned foundation system footings should have a minimum ~i~idth of 12-inches and
a minimum embedment depth of 12-inches measured from lowest adjacent grade. This
depth applies to both exterior and interior footings. The concrete slabs should be at least 5-
inches thick and underlain with at least 4-inches of clean sand or crushed rock. Those slabs
expected to receive moislure sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should be underlain by a] 0-mil vapor barrier covered by at least 2 inches of the
bedding sand.
6.6.6 No special subgrade preparation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as ^ecessary, to
maintain a moist soil condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
However, where drying of subgrade soils has occurred, reconditioning of su~cial soils
will be required. This recommendation applies to foundations as well as exterior concrete
flatwork.
, Project No. T2246-12-O1 - 14 - September 3, 2004
~~
'
~
,
,
~
'
'
,
'
'
'
~
~
'
'
,
'
,
6.6J Foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative
of Geocon) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to check that the
exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated and have been extended to
appropriate bearing strata. If unanticipated soi] conditions are encountered, foundation
modifications may be required.
6.6.8 Exterior slabs (not subject to traffic loads) should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced
with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh. If the finished grade soils possess an Expansion Index
greater than 50, we recommend that the steel reinforcement be upgraded to consist of No. 3
bars at 24 inches on centers, each way. The mesh/steel should be positioned within the
upper one-third of the slab. Proper reinforcing steel positioning is critical to future
performance of the slabs. It has been our experience that the mesh must be physically
pulled up into the slab after concrete placement. The contractor shou]d take extra measures
to provide for proper mesh placement.
6.6.9 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
joints to control unsightly shrinkage cracking. The spacing should be determined by the
project structural engineer based upon the intended slab usage, thickness and
reinforcement. The structura] engineer should take into consideration criteria of the
American Concrete Institute when establishing crack control spacing patterns.
6.6.10 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to differential settlement of alluvium and fills of varying thickness. However,
even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco
~~~alls and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may stil] e~ibit some cracking. The
occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil
characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced/controlled by limiting the slump of the
concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control
joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
6.7 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6J.1 Active earth pressures against walls wi(I depend upon the slope of backfill and the degree
of wall restraint. Unrestrained walls with a level backfill should be desiened to resist an
active pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid wei~hing 30 pounds per cubic foot
(pc~. Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2:1 (horizontaL•vertical), an
active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These values assume a drained backfill
condition with no hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.
Project No. T2246-12-O1 - IS - September 3, 2004
~
~q'
~
~ 6J.2 Unrestrained walis are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOIH (where H equals
the wall height in feet) at the top of the wall. For restrained walls, an additional uniform
, pressure of 7H psf for walls with a height of less than 12 feet should be added to the above
active soil pressure.
, 6J.3 The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular backfill material with
no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If the retaining «~alls are subject to
, swcha~ge loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the heieht of the wall,
or if conditions different than those described are anticipated, Geocon should be contacted
, for additional recommendations.
6.7.4 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
' densiry of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granulaz fill soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface
, extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or three times ffie heieht of the
surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of
, material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for
lateral resistance. A friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used for resistance to sliding
between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowabie
' passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
' 6.7.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainase system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The
soil adjacent to the backfilled retaining wall should be composed of free draining material
, for a lateral distance of one foot for the bottom two-thirds of the heioht of the retaining
wall. The upper one-third should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to
~ reduce water infiltration. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep
holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or othenvise adversely
~ affect the property adjacent to the base of the walL The above recommendations assume a
properly compacted eranular (EI less than 50) free-draining backfill material with no
hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load.
,
6.8 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
t 6.8.1 The following preliminary pavement sections are provided for preliminary budget
purposes. Actual pavement sections should be determined once subgrade elevations have
' been attained and R-Value laboratory testing on subgrade samples is performed. Pavement
thicknesses were determined following procedures outlined in the California Highway
i
Project No. T2246-12-O1 - 16 - September 3, 2004
'
~
,
' Design Manual (Caltrans). The preliminary pavement sections provided below were based
on an estimated R-Value of 30, based on a visual examination of the encountered soils. It
, is anticipated that the majority of traffic will consist of li~ht trucks and maintenance
vehicles. Summarized on Table 6.8.1 aze the recommended preliminary pavement sections.
, TABLE 6.8.1
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
,
I~
L~
,
,
'
Location Estimated Traffic
Index (Tn Asphalt Concrete
Thickness (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base
Thickness (inches)
Pazking Areas 4.5 3 6
Main Drivewavs 6 3.5 8
~reacer m~canesses may oe requ¢ea oy tne regutatory agency.
6.8.2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Publrc Works Construction (Green Bo~k). Gass 2 aggregate base materials should
conform to Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications ojthe State of California,
Deparm:ent of Transportation (Caltrans).
6.8.3 Prior to placing base material, the subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and
' recompacted to a minimum of 9~ percent of the taboratory ma~cimum dry density at or
sliehtly above optimum moisture content. The depth of compaction should be at least
~ 12 inches. The base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Hveem density.
~ 6.8.4 Loading aprons such as trash bin enclosures should utilize Portland Cement concrete. The
, pavement should consist of a minimum 7-inch concrete section reinforced with No. 3 steel
reinforcins bars spaced 24 inches on center in both directions placed at the slab midpoint.
The concrete should extend beyond the trash bin such that both the front and rear wheels
' of the trash truck will be located on reinforced concrete pavement when loading.
, 6.85 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface
drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent m the
~ pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent
pavement distress. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend at least
6 inches beloN the bottom of the Class 2 aggregate base.
'
~
Project No. T2246-12-0] - 17 - September 3, 2004
'
~~
~
, 6.9 Drainage
6.9.1 Adequate drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion
, and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent
to footings or behind retaining wa]ls. The site should be graded and maintained such that
, surface drainage is directed away from structures and the top of slopes into swales or other
controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainaee should be directed into conduits,
' which carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
6.9.2 Underground utilities should be absolutely leak free. Utility and irrieation lines should be
' periodically checked for ]eaks for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks
should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to
, infiftrate the soil.
, 6.93 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irri~ation water to infilvate the pavemenYs subgrade and base course. We
recommend that drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage
' structures, or impervious above-~rade planter boxes be used. In addition, where
landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommended construction of a cutoff
' wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the
ageregate base material.
' 6.10 Slope Maintenance
, 6.10.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) may, under conditions which are
both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope
instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the
, slope and usually does not direcdy impact the improvements on the pad areas above or
below the slope. The occurrence of su~cial instabiliry is more prevalent on fill slopes and
' is generally preceded by a period of heav~~ rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of
subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosenin~ of the surficial soils, as might result
from root gro~~nh; soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may
, also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recom-
mended that, to the maximum extent practicaL (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be
, either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrieation systems be periodically inspected
and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and
, adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the
incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope
,
Project Na. T2246-12-01 - 18 - September 3, 2004
'
Zv
'
'
,
'
,
'
,
,
,
'
~
'
'
,
,
~
,
'
,
instabiliry, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessaq~ to
rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future.
6.11 Pian Review
Geocon should review the grading plans prior to being finalized. Additionally, the
foundation plans for the buildin~s should also be reviewed to verify conformance with the
recommendations of this report or to determine if additional geotechnical
recommendations are needed.
23
PmjecWo. T2246-12-O1
-19-
September 3, 2004
,
'
,
'
'
'I ,
,
~
,
~
'
i
1
C~
1
1
1
1
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soi] conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions aze encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or
identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of
the scope of services provided by Geocon.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein aze
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur ~vith the passage of time, whether they are due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be retied upon afrer a period of three years.
' Project No. T2246-12-02 September 3, 2004
~~
,
'
'
'
,
'
'
1
'
~
'
~
'
,
'
'
'
~ ~ x ., - ~ a~
~ ~.
~ , ~ _
4
~
._
YI?XA ~ ~~. t
P{,IC[ ~.~ y ~ aj,Po'S < '.` `p
1 ilY ~~ ~ty ~L !: ~ I ;. Et
`
~
~ U
fD
..~ 10. _ 04
' .
:
I \
I RE~ C ~ •
IA
t ~, 'F~ I
~
1~WH~I Ll ~ . . ~ F ~/~ E
RM Q` v~
: ~ .c n10^ ~ V~ 9 ,
~
~
~ ~
~e~~o- ~~ ~~~
~
~
~
~~ ~
~ ^
~ I
Ve
~ ~
~
~ 3` °pt~ '4
-
ER
f
~
~ ~~
.
E
~y
~J
mM~ ~1~'
L
~'
'
~
~
W
I~'
1
~ ~ n01R
~o ~E
.
p ~
-
xf
c Yi e~n. .3.
Sy.
=
\ 9" '~~
'
~ ~ /
\
I
~
1'~
I ~ i _
I
. \
4 t
~q
"''~'~°
~
~
~
\
c
~
~
I
~g ! i Ya~¢R2n~' \
I x
u° ~ 8 ~b ~
4
~~ `~ ~
~
' i 3~y.~ba Wi FG
~
~ ~
f , I
_
,~w: ~~ i
~
~ \t:_
°L~i E4 W
-
-. ~..
__ 4 j
, l
,~
t:
~
pE, q~ ~
\
`'-~.s
~y
.
4A:H ~ 1`.. F,&W,=HAO ~Y 'i ~~~ E~. .
PUU Ai ~[A'_,~TI ,.~ y .. Ih F~ov 4~
l
iF
0
~ O~
i O
~ ~ ~e b~ ~ " :
` I' j~~
n.~u ~. .Y ^Y a
p V. ! I [CVb.
CflITFn i
t r~~~ pFy 0.
~~
~ Ca56 ~I
i+'w
Y\
f
m
a
~
~'~~
1
•
~
V
~
P ll 1
N'l ~°~~i°~
.
y.
~
i 4` r `~\,
A
TEMfW 9 & ~
`s,
, ,
.
~
LO~
4
t d i ~I 6 °
~ s~~ 1 0 ~ . P^~ c4 g'~~r ~ 9 Zr ^'a~
d
m
~
~~
I
~ ~ _
- i s
9
! C
` O (
[ ~[ES. .~iE ~. ~ HI[LS ~ a
~~F
~g+ ~~,
5r.a
4
& i
- 8
~b ouu
a 4
~~~: SpI Z . ~F
°'
ol
~
Jf 1,~
~i
~~ YFR
I P/NR 0.1F5 ~~~`3\H
r~ f S rtY ~mIF'
~ d
'
~
,p [.~
~ '1~ ~~
u+ d
i d
ui., o-
~C~0. ~ ~.1~': ~/Y i £P~ `PC ~P ~ 'Y'i..~~~ :4N i ~ , 4 .4'.I
~~
!`
I
I 1 \ ~
~ LYIRS.pt
C
/~f
L
i
.
(~' I M . I
LM.~S'ev ~ K'. °- 'vvi F I @ ~~ ~~/ ` ~y,3 ~µ Y4 ,v il ~. ~~
d'F~°
W CF
w'~
M 3
iu,F: fk 'G
`
y
-
i~ ~
~
~....NEAIrM[
~
~ .
:Y
lP
<' i.~ $. .
~. . ~ f~ r
~
Y
~~~~i\ v
~
~ ~
~ ,
$.
~
. ~
~~
~,0.GA.G!7A ^ A• J
#F
i EW ~
v
^
~ ~~
S, ~ -^ 4,
Y
~~
V
~
S
~x ~ e~
G
'
P6,
a ~~N' `~~- WM'
T
'C
I ¢O
~F
~
9 I S~
~ q .
C
~ ~
i
:'ey~ ~p+ w
yy
: I
~0.EK~kR
MM"d~
,' ~
&
S
~'
p
d
I ~0 O0.~' *4.
' ~ ~I•Cp t.,:
` g
~.~'y vC at
4 ~ A:SI ~ ~
if..L`~\ S~S[~' r~• Pr.f~ F 1
~ ~ yP~
~
- fy F srz~w .. dLw aS ~ 3.p y o`A ~F 1'! 2 .~ I~ i
~,~• ,.~ e ' I
~ ~
; x ~- c~ :`~
~
, ~
'
`
~
~
~ ~
~ ~:
i J.,.!i
~ ;~y'
N n bR 3,\
fj:~G ~P
%
o~`'
.
_
,
[~
. ~e
a
~ ~
~ .. ~
~ ~ i i€ >
a e ,~ •~~. ~. ~ i j~ w„ ,w„~
° Cxa~ q
ff~~ ~ ~d8 ~RG9RIiA p i0.0 ~s a ~~ ~~o4ep ~s~~ A~
8 ~
'
~
~~
• ~
a
I ~ _,~„~ ,~
°~ ~ ~. h_s ~
,
F
~ •
~ c ~ ~
ia~.~~~~~
<
~ ~ T, L a~? 8
~
~i e. R'~1 m.m ° o.iw.
'.
17~
- ~~~ J~~n~ -
'
`
~ ~~ w
C ~~ .~~
5
m~
-
I
~
..
. ~. ~ :. -. , ... (F ['. ( ~M~+~'u1M
~~
W~
~ yc~
~ 4~
~M1x _
'~`t
I}'~/~/~ T
G
W~ ... ¢'=h` ~rp~vr ~ 1Vl.i/YIIO urzw.il~~~Nf10_~
__~
]ltt
~
~
~ _ . ~'
2'prySir,Mt~S~ 9~da
~ ~ ~~~~o~~1eN'~m
' yb
\ ~
0
V'l. i~ I ~ W~~~ Q`Q ~ 99Y+ .
' \ 4`, V, ~t .~ ~
P ~
~,
~ "
~ '
p
~~$ ~
~ ~[ ~ .~ ~4 8 lC
I ~~ w9P~
S~ ~ _~
~ ~ ~nu~he
~l~
~ l
~
~/ ~~
~ I ~~~u F~P~ P.~A _ ~
~"'S
`
I
1 ~
~ I~~ .. ~I
~/
~' ~Po
B
~n t~i4 i1 ,
61.1 -lSa
d
co`
~, .
.
L I[ M:e P~'
lnuof $~t°\< ..
~~¢ ~ i~fo- TWER [
i ~
LFO ;
,
(
~
~' 1
\Oa
ss .5.9
ii
k'r~~ exs
~ ~ y, 'mc° ~ q4~
"/v'n~~ I~ I:
{
~
`
~
.
r
''~~~p
~~
~
"t
V`'
6
~
C
I
~~
3 ~~ }s
~
x' '
~ ,
y
FjJ~
~,
Yfos €° ~M
~ RPN
t~
Cf ER
I`~
~~°
_,~
yp.
1
~l.
~ l ~ S'.i \ 3It QY. . TCECL~i,e
J A~ • ~,
j ~.:
.o, yWiEt
M1 IM' y 9 Ic
m
2 pLIpN
5q~
.
p
G ~ " ct = ° AF L ° ~ p~1IX"~ '''j[ ~ ~\ ~
GNG ~ ~fno P ~za
,
~ ic L~ r n ~ ~ °sFt' . i~~ ~ ~ ~ iE4 ~~ ~
~ HS
N
~ P'R
- E `+rd .
~~ K £
~
~\ eRk ~ I g ae ~,F ..~ r'rl
~
S ~ilo [t
~. ~
~ ( Pin IPIE'6'U !
0' uLm ~ ~
I
0
4. 4 a I~ ~T
~ i
~P ~~ I
~~ PEC
I
:~
• I ~
" I
fti,
:
a
~
~qa 'E
~54e~~'a '' ~4
4 k~ eT'
~
"0~ ~
Y
` ~,F
~p
=!q
Gu
F~
c,
~
~ p„~
4~~
~
.
„
-
cs
~.. o
`'St5]L'^ ~C~ o FJ I"irf U' (~f J~b~ J~y ~~ 4 ~
~~ t
I m I
. I o
f
~~~~ _
~K ~P~yj i
y
/
n
~rc'v 4l
~~
'
~ ~~4'~c- ~~
~
aAlIBA ~s~
RD '~h ~~
Vw` ' ~~S
-
y
r
3s O. O ~ I
~+rt
.
1LIF00.NIA
F ) Y ~T s F a~ ~R' ~u °
T ~
~ x
f' '
'
~ y
y~~
~
~
IG] /L ~ P .x-tn W" ~/ ~
. H~. ~
g9. \
~ .~t~C Z J'N6~J Q'~I ~4 ~tl MLLM~~
. t `(~ S (.
t
W S 4 G
~
b `~ ~ I ~ S Jllpp
~ '.
~~ ESi PO 5
_
^~~,.'. ' a
~ 1 ~ 'S .
~i
G~ ~~H
f
p
~
~
r^
: q x v ~
a0' rs d' rb - e
'N fl q
i s1g'
~ ~ ~R
~~ 5f p~ L%EA ~
1 ~~ F¢T ~
~ Y
~~
~
s
r.~~
, Ea ~: =,r„ r r •
' 5e ~ 5a w'y~ "`nr,
i y Y ~;x "~ ,
~51 ~4,ry ~ 4v
<)_I ~~ qP1L ~/
"
I~ h`
{~
~ ~
1 I
_M
i
~ 1 3'S~ ~ /
e~
1/^ ~~~ I ~&
~P ks 1' ~S
t~
5~ .
~
'
~ ¢
~
k
r~ cP \v
i J
_
~,
~ cJ I
~ ~ Gw
t
C
~~
,
TE~~c~~
:.
~'4
~
roa
s,~oCC ~~~ ,
MR J
#~
'z ~e m
b .
'A
t
M
siMtro /
~
R ~.°'~5 I ~,
~ ~r 4'aP~ ~~~ 4,•
~~~~
~
j 'M~ ~C g ~~c SNR~~Xg ~
\ (3~
m
°
~ pi~
`°l ~! n.~[ g ~~llq -
e° -:'~~ ~
~~ +I
%olrm q
..i` L~ ,
p-~~ S
iiSC' I
~ ~ ° 9:~+ C. Aa ,
~ 4 O' i~
~ . I
/ ~ l
~ /G,
(
p
(!~ P q
O.p CAJ
~ ~^ b
~~0~
~`:
' ` n`4. ~ ~
C iI~
~ C
"-,
~.p
'.~'
4,~'(J.
'
Y
3
~~
~ ~ .. . _ c ~ i : p~
\ ~ ~ 9 C~ E10
~ `~'~ i ~~r
~ o° ~
A
!
4 ' P` ~
~ ~ ~~ '~~
~
..
Hn I
~
~ ~ S
/ ~ yrke'~
v~
~'
E(
~ /
A<
~~ ~ a ~
~
rI
5 ~
~~ y 4s
~4y ~
~" 4~.' ~
• °~~~o
~ : \ ~" A ~ f~,
.- L
0 1 / y
. , ~
f2 fj !A'
~( '~
(p ~e ~[`
. 4fr ,'
i I
I
~
~
;
~
ycrn \
~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ! ~z;
. n ~ J w. R
SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND ~
RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, 2004 EDITION, PAGES
958, 959, 978, AND 979.
\I
REPRO~UCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BV THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. SCALE
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTCD BY THOMAS 9R05. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY 0 2
400 Feet
,
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEftEOF, WHETHER FOR PER50NA! USE OR
~
RESALE. WITHOUT PERMISSION.
GEOCON ~~
INLAND EMPIRE, INC.
GEOTECMNICALCONSULTANTS
41571 CORNING PLACE, SUITE 101 - MURRIETA, CA. 92562-70fi5
PHONE 909 304-2300 - FAX 909 304-2392
VICINITY MAP
TEMECULA VILLAGE
30101 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ~
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ~
DATE: 09-03-2004 PROJECT NO.: T2246-12-Ot FIG. 1
'
'
'
~
,
'
,
1
'
'
'
'
,
'
,
'
'
'
t
Iv V. 1 GL40-11-U 1
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height
Slope Inclination
Total Uni[ R~eight of Soil
An~le of Internal Friction
Apparent Cohesion
No Seepaee Forces
ANALYSIS:
H = 55 feet
2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical)
y, = 130 pounds per cubic foot
~ = 40 de~ ees
C = 140 pounds persquarefoot
yc¢ = H tan Equation (3-3), Reference I
C
FS = N~fC Equation (3-2), Reference 1
yH
yc~ = 42 Calculated Using Eq. (3-3)
N~f = 90 Determined Using Fieure 1Q Reference 2
fS = 1.8 Factor of Safery Calculated Using Eq. (3-2)
REFERENCES:
(1) Janbu, N., Stabilit~~ Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics,
Series No. 46, 1954.
(2) Janbu, iv'., Discussion of 1. M. Bell, Dimensionless Parameters for Homoeeneous Eanh Slopes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Desi~n, No. SM6, November 1967.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
TEMECULA VILLAGE
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3
~~
i 1
i ,
'
'
,
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
, 1
'
~
'
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Hei~ht H = Infinite
Depth of Saturation Z = 4 feet
Slope Inciination 2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical)
Slope An~le i = 26.6 deorees
Unit Wei~ht of Water y,, = 62.4 pounds per cubic foot
Total linit R%eisht of Soil y, = 130 pounds per cubic foot
4ngle of Intemal Friction ~ = 40 degrees
Apparent Cohesion C = 140 pounds persquarefoot
Slope samrated to venical depth Z below slope face.
Seepa,e forces parallel to slope face
ANALYSIS:
FS= C+(Y,-Yw)Zcos~r~~ = I.5
}~, Z sin i cos i
REFERENCES
(1) Haefeli, R. The Stabiliry ofSlooes Acted Upon bv Parollel Seepage, Proc. Second [ntemational
Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam; 1948, I, 57-62.
(2) Shempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stabilih~ ojNatural Slopes in London Clap, Proc. Fourth
Intemational Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2, 378-81.
SURFICIAL SLOPE ST'ABILITY ANALYSIS
TEMECULA VILLAGE
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 4
~~
'
'
'
,
'
'
1
,
'
'
,
1
1
,
~
'
1
,
'
5'
SEE NOTE 7
FINISHED SLOPE
NOTE 1-~/ ,5~,/ I+
, i` /~NO~'~-
.( TF3/~'i~~ rNOTE 2
N NOTE 4 , NOTE 4 ~ f
/ I FINISHED GRADE
~` f~ o UNDISTURBED
~L ~` NOTE 6 SEE DETAIL FORMATIONAL
~ ~~ Zot-~I ~ SOIL
~ ....o.e,o. ,. NOTE 5 Min.
O~ep~
1.5' I 6a °a t_5% MIN.
Min.
I 7.5'
Z~~ - Min.
\ Min.
D E T A I L NO SCALE
NOTES:
1......F~CCAVATE BACKCUT AT 1:1 INCLINATION.
2...._BASE OF STABILIN FlLL TO BE 3 FEET INTO DENSE, FORMATIONAL SOILS SLOPING
A MINIMUM 5% INTO SLOPE.
3.....STABILITY FILL TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPERLV COMPACTED GRANULAR SOIL WITH MINIMUM
SHEAR STRENGTH OF ~= 25°, C' = 250 psf.
4......WHERE SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED IN BACKCUT, CHIMNEV DRAINS TO BE APPROVED PREFABRICATED
CHIMNEV DRAIN PANELS (MIRA~R41N, TENSAR, OR EQUIVALENT) SPACED APPROXIMATELV 20 FEET CENTER
TO CENTER. ADDITIONAL DRAINS WILL BE REQUIRED WHERE AREAS OP GREATER SEEPAGE
ARE ENCOUNTERED.
5.....FILTER MATERIAL TO BE'/.TO 1-INCH OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FILTER PABRIC.
6..._COLLECTOR PIPE TO BE 4WCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PERFOR4TED, THICK-WALLED PVC SDR 21 OR
EQl11VALENT, AND SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM TO APPROVED OUTLET. CHIMNEY DRAINS
MAY BE REQUIRED IF AREAS OF ACTIVE SEEPAGE ARE ENCOUNTERED.
~......IF HORIZONTAL EXTENT OF GRADING CONSTRAINED (e.g. THE PRESENCE OF PROPERiY LINE).
THE SLOPE SHOULD BE OVERBUILT, AT LEAST 4 FEET, AND TRIMMED BACK
TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
GEOCON C~~~
INLANO EMPIRE.INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGI5T5
41571 CORNINGPLACE,STE102 ~ MURRIETA,CALIFORNIA 92562~7065
PHONE 951 30<~2300 ~ FA% 951 30e-2392
ER / RSS DSK / G0000
a ~ncn~nn i naa nz-uo
TEMECULA VILLAGE
30101 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TEMKULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE 09-03-2064 PROJECT NO.T2246-'12-01 FIG 5
~
'
~ REFERENCES
~ Anderson, J. G., Synthesis of Seismiciry and Geologic Data in California, U. S. Geoloeic Survey
OpemFile Report 84-424, 1984, pp. 1-186.
~ Bartlett, Steven F., and T. Leslie Youd, Empirical Prediction of Liguefaction-Induced Lateral
Spread, Joumal of Geotechnical Eneineering, Volume 121, No. 4, November 199~.
' Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, Version 3.0, A Computer Program for the Estin:ation of Peak Horraontal
Acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources, liser`s Manual, 2000.
~ -----, FRISKSP, Version 4.0, A Computer Proeram for the Probabiiistic Estimation of Peak
Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources, lisers
Manual, 2000.
~ ------, UBCSEIS, A Cornputer Program jor the Esrimation of Uniform Building Code Coe~cients
Using 3-D Fault Sources, User's Manual 1998.
~ California Department of Conservation, California Geoloeical Survey, formally the California
Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismrc Hazard Assessrnent for the State of
Calijornia, Open File Report 96-08, 1996.
' ------, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Flazards in California, formally the
California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117, adopted March 13, 1997.
~ CHJ, Incorporated, Geotechnica! Investigation, Proposed Residential/Commercial Development,
Ciry of Temecula, dated June 8, 1999.
~ Ishihara, K., Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proceedings of the Eleventh
Intemationa] Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineerin~, A. A. Balkema
Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1985, vol. 1, pp. 321-376.
' Jennings, C. W., Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Califomia Geolo¢ical Survey,
formally California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994.
, Kenned~, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern .
Riverside County, California: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report
~ 131, 12 p., 1 plate, scale 124,000.
NCEER, 1997, Proceedings oJ'the NCEER Workshop on Enaluatia~7 of Lrguefaction Resrstance of
~ Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, December 31, 1997.
' Seed, H. B. and 1. M. Idriss, Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, p. 1249 ff.,
1971.
' Tokimatsu, K., Evaluation oj Se[tlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of the
Geotechnical Enoineerine Division, ASCE, Volume 1]3, No. 8, p. 861 ff., August, 1987.
'
' Project No. T2246-12-02 September 3, 2004
2`~
'
~ Wesnousky, S. G., Earthguakes, Quaternary Foults, and Seismic Hazard in California, Journal of
Geophvsical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, 1986, pp. 12, 587, 631.
~ Youd, T. Leslie and Christopher T. Garris, Liguefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Drsruptiora,
Journal of Geotechnical Eneineerin~, Volume 121, No. I 1, p. 805 f£, November 1995.
~ Youd, T. L, et al., 2001, Liguefaction Resistance of Soils: Sun:mary Report farm the 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
American Sociery of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineerino, VoL 127,
~ No. 10, pp. 817-833.
J
'
,
~
~
'
'
~
'
J
~
~
~
, Project No. T2246-12-02 September 3, 2004
i'
_.
: - _ ~_ __-::. _
: - ~ t ; ° ~ ~v
~ APPENDIX ~
~~y
r
~ ~
r ;~-
-..:
±~ . .. ~ . - _ ~ - S :~.
_
~ ..:'. , ~~. . '. _ : . ...: . ' t . . . ~ . . ~ . ..r:..<.:
~~ ~ '
~
l~ ~
~~.. .. . . . . . . . , l ~ ~. " ~ _ . ~- ~ ~ ~.
,~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . .-. . . .. . . . . . . ~ ,.
~~ ~ . . . ~ . . . • . ..
!~ ;
~
~
l I
~
3~
~ _ ~
_ . _ . _: __,:~ _ ~~=: --
~
'
~
~
~
'
'
1
'
~
~
~
II
~
~
i
1
1
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field supplemental investigation was performed on July I, 2004, and consisted of a site
reconnaissance and drilling eight small-diameter borings. The exploratoq~ borings were drilled to a
maximum depth of approximately 37 feet using a CME 75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter
hotlow-stem auger. During driiling, relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by drivino a 3-inch
O.D., split-tube sampler 12 inches into the undisturbed soil mass with blows from a 140-pound
automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The sampler was equipped with 1-inch-high by
2'/s-inch-diameter brass rings to facititate laboratory testing. Standard Penetration testing ~vas also
performed.
The soil conditions encountered in the investigation were visually examined, classified, and logged
in general accordance with American Sociery for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). Logs of the borings for
the subject suppiemental investigation are presented on Figures A-1 through A-8. Logs for the
referenced CHJ investigation aze presented in Appendix C. The logs depict the general soil and
geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate
locations of the borings from this investigation and the previous site study (CHJ, 1999) are shown on
the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
Project No. T2246-12•Ol September 3, 2004 ~
,
~
~
'
~
'
,
'
~
'
'
~
~
,
~
,
I ~
~
~
PROJECT NO. T224Et2-0~
w BORING B 1
DEPTH
S4
P y
~
O
<
3
SOIL Z w_
~ U
1- 2~ >
"
uJ ^
W =
C F
IN
FEE' M
LE
N0~
?
scs
ELEV. (MSL.) 1103' DATE COMPLETED 07-01-2004 ~Qy
o Zu
° a ~Z
o Z
o u Z W
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER a~ m o ~ o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
p
: I~ ~ ~ I~ ALLUVIUM
- 1-i
r
~ I,oose, slightly moist, brown Silry, fine m warse SAND
2
B]-1 ~.
:~ ~~~~
SM
I?
117.8
4.8
4 ~{.
~
1~ ~ I ~
PAUBA FORMATIO\
~
~
~ Dense, moist, gay brown, Silq~, fine to coazse SAND with trace ciay
Bl-2 .
.
. SM 54 131.9 4.S
6 I .I
B1-3 ~
i~-~ --
.
~I. ~ I~ --------- ----- - ------
Very dense, moist, oranee brown, Silq~, fine m coarse SAND with trace day -
91
129.6 ---
4.4
8 ~-i~
~1~
i SM
10 Bl-4 ~~~
"~-
I~~
~
76
12 ~
I
I- . ~.
ta I. i .I
-
-
~ ~. ~ I~
1 -------------------------------
Dense, moist, yellow browv, Silry, fine to coarse SAIdD -- --- ---
BI-5 ~~.
~~
~
~ SM 5
16 _.I.
_
I
{
ie ~.
I
~.~ ~
1
'
-
- -------------------------------
Medium dense, moist, yellow browm, fine to coazse SAND with trace silt --- --- ---
20
BL6
SP/SM
33
22
BORING TERMINATED AT 22 FEET
No groundwater encountered
rigure H-~, Tu4612-0tGPJ
Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~-'SAMP4NGUNSUCCESSFUL ~i...STANDAR~PENEfRATIONTEST ....DRIVESAMP~E(UNDISTl1RBED)
~... DISTURBEO OR BAG SAMPLE ^_. CHUNK SAMPLE i,_ WqTERTNBLE OR SEEPnGE
nc ~n~WGU~JlItlSURFACECONORION55HONMHEREONAPPUE50NLYATTHESPECIPICBORINGORTRENCHLOCATIONANOATTHEDATEIN~IGATED.
IT IS NOT WFRFANTED TO BE HEPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE COND~TIONS AT OTHCR LOGTIONS AND TIMES.
3~
,
'
~
~
'
~
'
~
~
~
, '
'
~
~
~
'
'
,
'
PROJECT N0. T2246-12-01
w BORING B 2
DEPTH Y
~
Q
SOIL Z
~ U 1-
~
W e
IN 54MPLE O
p ~
O
CLASS F 2 LL
QQjA t~ ^
ZLL. ¢ F
~Z
FEE, No. = z
(uSC5 ELEV. (MSL.) 1112' DATE COMPLETED 07-01-2004 ~ N 3 c° N W
~
J ~
O
~ 1 w w m ¢ a ~ O
c~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER a~" ^ ~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
~~ ~' PAUBAFORMATTON
~ i~ ~~I Medium dence, moist, yellow brown, Silry, fine to coacse SAhD with nace
` ~ clay
2
B2-I
-~- ~-
SM
34
1229
6.3
4 i. {
~~.~
Ii
I
BZ_z _
.~. {. j. 22 I 14.5 5.9
6 ,
_
~I~ - i. ________________________________
Dense, moist, dark yellow bmwq Silty
fine ro coazse SATD with trace cla ___ ___ ___
.
~ ,
y
g B2-3 ~~-~.'
'~,I SM 56
10 . i
-~. -' ________-_ ~ _ Y______ Ty ______-__-_
Medium dense, mois dark ellow brown, Sil fine to coarse SAND with
Bz~ ~~~-
~-. ~ S~ vace clay and grave] 32
12 I ? I
.:~_
~~.
~ ~~ _________________________________
Medium dense: moist, dark yellow brown, Siiry, fine to coarse SAND with ___ ___ ___
{
I_
I pace day
14 I.
~ :..'
B2 ~ 1
.~_ { f
SM
37
16 ~ ~. ~
18 ._~-~~.~~
~.~. ; _
20 I . ~
~~
~~
B2 6 .
.
.
~
~; 4]
22 .
I
BORING'I'EIL~IINATED AT 22 FEET
No groundwa[er encountered
r~yure r{'L, Tzzas~z-0~.,aa
Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLESYMBOLS 'R-R~"SNMPLINGUNSUCCESSFUL O...STANOARpPENETRAT10NTE5T ~...~RNESAMPLE(UNOISTURBED)
¢Se-..DISTURBFDORBAGSAMPLE ^._CHUNKSAMPLE i._WATERTAeLEORSEEPAGE
~ na an~wn ncnturv 4vPlicS ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BOW NG OR TRENCH LOCFTION AND AT THE DATE INDICATEO.
R IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATNE OF SUBSURFACE CONOITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS HND TIMES.
~
,
'
,
~
~
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
I '
'
~
~
,
'
PROJECT NO. T2246-12-01
w BORING B 3
oevrH
~
~
>
~
~
¢
soi~ Z
ow-
r i LL
~
h--
a
~=
F~T NO p
F Z cuss
u5C5 ELEV. (MSL.) 1109' DATE COMPLETED 07-Ot-2004 ~ N 3 0° N w
J ~ (
) w y O
m ~ a C Z
~
c~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER ~~ o ~ o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
I '.~. ALLL'VIUM
~p ~~I Medium dense, mois[, yeliow gray, Silry, fine to medium SAND, scattered
2 roodeCs
B3~~ -.i {. i. SM 41 126.6 SJ
4 J
~
•~
---
~~. i'• ~ ---------------------------------
Medium dense, mois[, yellow brown, Silry, fine to coaTSe S.4.VD --- --- ---
B3-2 ~. i SM 16 I 11.6 5]
6 I {.i.
1 ___
_
'. ;- ~- Medium dense, moist, yellow 6rown, Silty, fine to medium SP.IJD
8 83-3 -'. ~.4
~ SM . IS I12.7 7.0
10 _;.
I
~ ~-
B3-4 .I~ -I Medium dense, mois[
yellow brown
Silty
fine ro coarse SAND witki t 34
,
~ r{-I
~
SM ,
,
,
mce
gravel and day, observed chazcoal fragment 125.0 ] L6
72 -~ ~~
.I-
~~1 .
~ _________________'______
_________
Medium dense, mois[, yellow brown, fwe to coarse SAND with trare silt
___
___
___
74
SP/SM
B3-5
3S
76
ie --
,
-I. ,~ ~~
I' ~ f --------------------------------
Medium dense, moist to very mois[, yellow brou~n, Silt}~, fine [o coarse SAN ---
20 ~
~
~
B3 6 ~
i
-.i SN' 33
22 ~ II i
~ { '
~ PAOBA FORMqTIOV
24 Dense, mois[, ligh[ yellow brown, fine to coarse SAND with trace silt
B3J SP/SM 69
26
28
~ ~a,. u1 C F1~J~ T22a612-0tGPJ
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 2
^... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~._ STAN~A0.D PENEfRATION TEST
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ~.~ DRNE54MPLE(UN~ISTURBED)
~_.DISTURBEDORBqGS4MPLE ~._GHUNKSAMPLE Z...WqTERTABLEORSEEPAGE
ITISNOTWNRRqNTEpTOBEFEPRESENTATNE0F5U85URFACEGONDITIONSATOTHPRLOCAT10ON5ANDTCM SOCATIONANDATTHEDATE~NDICATED.
~~/
,
~ ~
~
~
~
~
'
~
'
'
r
~
~
~
~~
t
~
'
~
PROJECT NO. T2246-12-01
W BORING B 3
DEPTH ~
p
Q Z w
F ~
~-
~
IN 54MPLE ~ ~ SOIL
Q 2 LL
Q Q v~ y
j -
2 LL K
~~
FE~ p
No. s O
Z
~ A55
(USC57
ELEV. (MSL.) 1109' DATE COMPLETED 07-01-2004
~= 3 Q U (? ^
Z
~-.
J w y O
m T a ~ z
~
~
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER a~ o o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30
B3-8 . SP/SM Very dense, moist, yellow gray, fine to medium SAND with trace si1t, gg
- cohesioWess
32
~_
34
.~~. ~i " ~~ _________________________________
Dense, moist, dark yellow gray, Siln~, fine to medium SAND with trace cla~~
B3-9 ~) ~~ ~. SM 70
36 ..I. ~.I_
BORING TERMP,VATED A7" 37 FEET
No growdwater encounrered
~:_.___
. ~yu~cr~-~~ T224612-01.GPJ
Log of Boring B 3, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~~y'-SAMPLINGUNSIICCESSFUL ^._STANDARDPENEfR4TI0NTEST ~_.DRNES4MPLE(UNOISTURBE~)
PY3_.DISTURBEDORBAGSAMPLE O._CHUNKSAMPLE 1_.WATERTABLEORSEEPAGE
nrruta orvLr qi THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE OATE INpICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRAMFD TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFAC'c CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMcS.
3~
,
~
'
~
~
'
~
,
'
,
~
,
,
'
'
,
~
, ~
~
PROJECT NO_ T2248-11-0~
w BORING B 4
~EPTN
>
~
r z
O w -
Z LL
~
~MPLE 3 SOIL Q N^ K F
FtEr No. = Z cuss ELEV. (MSL.) 1093' DATE COMPLEfED 07A1-2004 ~ N 3 0°
d N~
~
~ ~
O fUSCS) w y O
w m ~ ~ z
~ O
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER a
~" c
~
~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
.i'.-I. PAUBAFORMATIOn
i~ Dense, moist, yellow browu, Silry~, coarse [0 5ne SA.VD
z ~
B4-1 {. I
: SM 7? 1.7.0 9.5
q ~I_{J.
.
~ _________________________________
Dense, moist, yellow gray, fine w medium SAND with trace silt ___ ___ ___
B4-2 - SP/SM 76
6
--
g
B4-3 _________________________________
Very dense, mois[, yellow ¢ray, fine to coarse SAND with trace silt ___
85/I 1" ___
I21 ] ___
i
5
_ SP/SM .
~ p .-
. _________________________________
Dense, moist, yellow gray, fine to coarse 5.4:\"D with tmce silt _
__ _-_ -__
B4-4 SP/SM 6
12
-
_ __-___'_____________'____________
b'ery dense, moist, olive gray, fine ro medium SAND wi[h vace silt and clav '__ ___ __-
14
SP/SM
B4-5
8Ul ("
tfi
BORING TERA-IINATED AT 17 FEET
No groundwater encountered
r19U~@ H-4, rz~as-iz-oi.cP~
Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~J"~'~~NGUNSUCCESSFUL lJ~~~STAN~AftDPENETRATI0NTE5T ~...DRNESAMPLE~UNDISTURBED)
~_. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~' _. CHUNK SAMPLE 1... WATER TABLE OR SEEPA6E
n e: i nc ~w ur sueSURFnCe COrvpRIONS SNOWN HEREON FPPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIG BORING ORTRENGH LOCATON RNO AT THE DATE ~NDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRI NTED TO BE REPRESEMATNE OF SUBSURFACE GONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES.
3~
'
'
~
'
'
,
'
,
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
PROJECT NO. T2246-12-0'I
~ BORING B 5
DEPiH
V'
Q
SOIL Z
~ U H
F Z ~
~
tn LL-
w=
C F
IN
E~ S4MPLE
No
o
Z
cuss
ELEV. (MSL.) 1092' DATE COMPLETED 07A1-2004 Q y
~= o 2
o a ~ Z
~ w
~
J O ~USCS) w y _, ~ Z
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER W
m
a C" ~
° ~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
I. .I. PAUBA FORD~IATION
~~-,
I Medium dense, moist, dark onnge browu, SitTy, 5ne to coarse SAND ui[h
.
~~- ' trare day
Z B~-1 : ~~~- ~.
~ .I. SM 4y
4 ' ~
- __________
Dease, moist lieht gcav brown, fine ro coazse SAND with trace silt ___ ___ ___
BS-2 - SP/SM 5~
6
g BS-3
~--
68
~~ ---------------------------------
Dense, moist, yellow gay, fine ro coarse SA1VD with trace silt --- --- ---
BS-4 SP/S~A 70
12
BORING TERMINATED AT 12 FEET
~ ho groundwater encoun[ered
r~yu~C A-.7r rzzas-~aotGa.l
Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~5~- SAMPLING UNSUCCESSPUL C' ... STANpARD PENETRATION TEST .... ORIVE S4MPLE (UN~ISTURBED)
ey ... OISTURBED OR BFG SAMPLE ~' ... CHONK SAMPLE
1_. WAT'cR TAHLE OR SEEPAGE
+i ~ a~w~nrqct GUNUII IVNS SHONTI HcRcON APOLIE$ ONLY Ai THE SPGCIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT TME DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WqftRAM'cD TO BE REPRESENTATNE OF S1195URPACE CONpITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
/~
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
,
~
'
,
~
,
'
'
'
,
~
PROJECTNO. T2246-i2-0~
w BORING B 6
DEPTH ~
~
Q
SOIL o w_
F- = LL ~
y^
r~
FEEr NOLE = Z cuss
S ELEV. (MSL.) 1116' DATE COMPLETED 07-01-2004 ~ y 3 0 ~ N w
J O )
~USC z w~ ~`. O Z
~
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER a~ m o ~ o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~
'~-I.~ ALLUVIUM
~ I- ~;
~.r Medium dense, moist. dazk yelbw 6rovm, Silry, fine to coarse S.AND
z B6-1 . i~~ ~~
~ SM 38 3;8
4 ~.{, I
I '.I.
PAUBA FORMATIOti
86-2 -I, ~.~ SM Medium dense, moist, yellow brown, , Silry, fine ro warse SAND 31 I 16.8 63
6 ~
;.i
!_1
g
B6-3
-j. '.-I. __
Medium dense, moist, yellow brown, Silry, fine ro coarse SAND with trace
42
I 19.0
15.4
~I. ~~ ~! g,y clay
10 ~I_ ~
B6-4
~-; '.~I. ____ ______ _ __ _ _____
Verv dense, moist, yellow brown. Silty, fine m coarse SAND w~ith trace clar
9~
- ~ ~ and trace gravel
12 -I ~..I-
t ~ SM
14 I.
-1
---------------------------------
Dense, moist, yellow brown, fine [o coane SAND wi[h some sil[ --- --- ---
B6-5 SP/SM ~~
i6
__
18
~'
~ ~- ~ ________________
__-'_____________
Dense, moist, ellow
y gtay, frne to medium SAND vrith trace silt
-
SP/SM
20
BG-6
74
22
BORING TERM[NATED A'I' ?2 FEET
No groundwater encountered
riyure H-o, T224612-0LGPJ
Log of Boring B 6, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~µ~~-~SAMPLINGUNSUGCESSFt1L ~...STANOAR~PENETRATiONTEST ~...~RIVES4MPLE(L1N~ISTURBED)
g~ ... DISTURBEO OR BAG SAMPLE ~... CMUNH SAMPLE ,i ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
rv nentorv nrruts OrvLV qi THE SPECiFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION PIJO AT THE DATE INDIGATED.
IT IS NOT WARRPNT~O TO BE REPRESEMATNE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
3~
,
~
,
'
,
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
,
I ~
'
'
,
PROJECT NO. T2246•12-0'I
~ BORING B 7 Z
Y ~
DEPTH `~MPLE p
~ 3 501~ Q ZQ LL Z LL ~
IN
FEET N0- ? ~ ELEV. (MSL.) 1169' DATE COMPLETED 07-07-2004 w y o °
J uscs
m
w a o z
~ o
~
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER ~
a o
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ , .'~ ALLUVIUYI
~ Medium dense, sli~hhtl}• moist, gray brown, Silry, fine to medium SAND
B7-1 ~
. ,
scattered rootlets
Z B7-2 :'~ {.-I~
I SM
34
{
' ~
4
~I~ -~' ---------------------------------
Medium dense, slighdy mois[, light brouv, Silty, fine [o medium SAND, --- --- ---
~ scatteredrootlets
B7-3 ~
~~. i SM 27
6 I ~
~
.I.
,.~I. PAUBAFORMATION
8 B~-4 ~ i. 1~I
! ~-I
:- SM Dense, moist, gray brown, Silry, fine ro coazse SAND with trace day 58
~ ~
:'.1.
' ______'__________________________
Medium dense, moist dazk gray brov.v, Silry, fine w medium SAND with ___ ___ ___
B7-5 . { .
~.
~
` trace clay 29
i.
i.
I SM
12 ~
~. ', ~.
14 jI
' ..
~; {~_I ~ _____
Medium dense, moisL olive broav, Silry, fine ro medium SAND with tcace ___ ___ ___
~ clay
B7-6 ~
~
~~
- SM 27
16 . ~.
.
i
I ~
i
78 .
.
~.{. ;
'~:
_ __________________________________
Medium dense, mois[, brown, fine to medium SAND ___ ___ ___
20
B7-7 ~_ SP/SM 31 125.0 5.3
22 ---
- ---------------------------------
Very dense, moist, light browo, fiue to coarse SAND wifh trace siit
___
_-_
___
24
SP,'SM
B7-S 89 116.4 6.0
26
BOAING TERMINATED AT 27 FEET
No groundwarer encountered
Figure A-7~ T714612-01.GPJ
Log of Boring B 7, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~ry~~"'SAMPLINGUNSUCCESSPUI G-STANDARDGENEt1UTIONTEST ~...~RNE54MPLE(UNOISTURBED)
PS3 _. ~ISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~._ CHUNK SAMPLE 1_. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
iOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CON~ITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BOPoNG OR TRENCH LOC.4TiON ANO AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTEO TO BE REPREScNTATIVE OF SU°Sl1RPACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOC.4TION5 AND TIMES.
1~
'
,
,
,
,
'
,
,
'
, '
I '
,
'
'
'
.
'
,
,
'
PROJECT NO. T2246-12-01
~ BORING B 8
oePrH Y
~^
~
~
3
soa Z
ow-
a a~
~
z LL
~~
FEET S4MPlE
No. = Z cuss ELEV. (MSL.) 7181' DATE COMPLETED 07-Ot-2004 ~ N 3 0° ~ w
~ ~
O (uscs~
w w m
C a
~ o
~ ~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER a~` ^ v
~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ PACBA FOR.17:1TI0'.~
~ Medium dense ro dense, mois[, velloH~ broHV, Cme to coazse SA\D ~rith tra
~ silt. Exposures were observed in and l8 foot high vertical cut next to the drill
2 rig
4
SP/SM
6
8
10
12
~__
. _________________________________
Moist, olive rbown, fine SAYD with aace silt ___ ___ ___
14 . -Collecred a bulk sample Gom venical cut approzimatelp 25 feet away from
ri~.
BS-1 . SPrSM
16
78
_
_
~ .I.
~' _________________________________
Medium dense, moist, yellow bro~in, fine ro coarse SArD with trace silt and ___ ___ ___
20 olivebroH~n.SiltySAA'D
B8-2 _~.~. ~
I
I SM 45
22 J
~. ; -
~
24 ' ~
.:,_
_ ~.
~ ~- _________________________________
Medium dense, moist, olive pay, Silry, fine to medium SA.\'D
contains ___ ___ ___
B8-3 ~
~~
~ ~ SM ,
filamena of red brown staining
. 46
26 I
i
28 ~:
i~.i
~~-~
I ' .'~.
r~gure N-a, T226642-01.GPJ
Log of Boring B 8, Page 1 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~RsG"' SAMP~ING 11N5UCGE55FUL ~... STlWDFRD PENETRATION TEST ~... ORNE SAMPLE (IINDISiURBED)
gp ... ~ISTURBED OR BAG S4MPLE `... CNUNK SAMPLE Z... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
~ic inc~u~Ur5UE5URFAGEGONpITION55HONMHEREONAPPLIE50NLYATTHESPECIFICBORINGORTRENCHLOCATIONANDATiHE~PTEIN0IG+TEO.
IT IS NOT WARRAME~ TO BE REPRESENTAiIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~\
'
'
'
'
,
'
t
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
,
,
I
,
~
PROJECT NO. T2246-'12-0'I
~
BORING B 8
~
~ Z
ow-
~
~
:
D
H
~
E p SOIL H Z
i ~n ^ K F
EE NOL ~ ~ ELEV. (MSL.) 1181' DATE COMPLETED 07-07-2D04 ~ N o °° ~ r
7 O uscs y~j W m
~~" Kv ~O
~ EQUIPMENT CME 75 HOLLOW STEM AUGER a ° ~
30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
B8-4 ~~. '_-
I SM Dense, moist, omnge brown to yeltow brown. Sil[y, fine to medium S.4ND i i
32 ~
i'.~
~- { ~
_
34 _
: ~_ {~.~~ _________________________________
Dense, mois[, yellow brown, fine ro coarse SAND wi[h some silt ___ ___ ___
BS-5 -~ ~. . SM i2
36 I~_i
BORIIJG TERMINATED AT 37 FEET
No groundwater encountered
r i g u re A-ts, rzza~,z oi ea~
Log of Boring B 8, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLESYMBOLS ~J- ~SAMPLINGUNSUCCESSFUL ~.,.STANOARDPENETR4TIONTEST .. ..DRIVESAMPLE(UNDISTURBE~)
~. .. ~ISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~... CHUNK SqMPLE _. _ WATERTABLE OR SEEPAGE
uit'. inELOGOF5IJB5URFACECON01T10N55HONMHEREONAPPLIE50NLVAiTHESPECIFICHORINGORTRENCHLOCATIONANDATTHEDAiEIN~ICATEO.
IT IS NOT VJAqRANiED T00E REFRESENTATNE OF 5'JBSL'RFAC~ CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS FND TIMES.
~v
. ~
~,~ . ..
'
- ~
~ ~
~
.
- -
~
. {
.
. ~ ~
. . -_.. ~ . ,: ,_. .....b' .. ' . -- .- . ~ :, ..... ~
~
, . . . _'.
.. _ _
'' - ~ . - . ~ - . - ~ . ~ .
' ~ _ _i '~' _
' . . _
_
APP~~I -
DIX ~' ~ s ~
~ ~~
, _
= _
~ _ --
_
~ ~ _
~~~ ; ~ ,
_
_ _ _
t~ . , . _
~ -
~
;
;~ ~ _ -
~ - _
_ .
3' _ _
~, -.
~,
;t
;
'
1'
;, ~
'
, APPENDIX B
' LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
' Sociery for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were
analyzed for in-situ moisture content and density, maximum dry densih~ and optimum moisture
, content, shear strength characteristics, expansion potential, R-value, gradation characteristics,
consolidation potential, and water-soluble sulfate content The results of the laboratory tests,
' including data from the previous CHI report (1999), are presented in Tables B-I through B-V and
Figures B-1 and B-2. In-situ moisture and densiry results are presented on the boring logs, Figures A-
1 through A-8.
,
~
,
~_~
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D1557-01
Sample
No. Description Maximum Dry
Density (pc~ Optimum Moisture
Content (% dry, wt.)
B7-1 Gray Brown, Silt~~ fine to medium S.AND 133.8 7.2
BI @ 0* Light Brown Silty fine SAND 128.0 8.0
`Intormatfon obtaSned from report by CHJ (1999).
~
TABLE B-II
, SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D3080-98
'
'
,
'
'
1
Sample No. Dry Density
(pc~ Moisture Conteot
(%) Unit Cohesion
(ps~ Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
B4-I 113.4 16.0 140 42
B7-1 * 120.5 11.3 350 41
B8-1 110.9 20.5 300 36
~~ou sampie remoiaeo to yu percent relatrve compaction at near optimum moisture concent.
~
' Project Na. T2246-12-0! - B-1 - September 3, 2004
'
'
,
'
1
'
,
'
'
~
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D4829-95
Sample Moisture Content Drv Density Expansion
No. gefore Test (%) After Test (o~o~ (pc~ Index
Classification
B7-1 8.3 14.0 119.0 0 Verv Low
B1 @ 0" 2.0 153 N/P 0 Verv Low
B2 @0 93 173 N/P 32 Low
B16 @ 0* 9.2 13.8 N/P 67 Medium
'iniormation obtained from report by CH7 Q 999). N/P: Data not provided.
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Sulfate Content (% SO~) Sulfate Rating*
B5-1 . 0.0;4 Negligible
B7-1 0.001 Neeligible
B2 @ 0** N. D. Negligible
B6 @ 0** N.D. Negligible
..~, ~ , . ~ ~uuv~u~ouuumgi,uuc iame iy-r~-4.
"* Information obtained from report bv CHJ (1999). N.D.: Not detected.
TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF SINGLE-POINT CONSOLIDATION (COLLAPSE) TESTS
ASTM D2435-96
Sample
Number In-situ Dry
Density (pc~ Moisture Content
Before Test Axial Load with
Water Added (ps~ Percent
Collapse
B]-1 117.8 4.8 2,000 2.1
B2-I 122.7 63 2,000 0.4
B2-2 114.8 5.9 2,000 1.2
B3-2 111.8 5.7 2,000 0.6
B3-3 112.7 7.0 2,000 0.4
Project No. T2246-12-01
-8-2-
September 3, 2004
^~/
.~`
_1
, -
.~
',
'
,
'
.~
'
APPENDIX
,;
., _
~ :
~
~ :
" -
~ - _
_
., .
I
~~
- .
~ -
~
~ :
~
_ ._
~~
_ . : :
. . . 7 . . . . . .
.
..~ ~ . .. - . - . . .
-~
`,`` - ~ : .
. . - . : ~ . .
~
~ . ~
~
~ ~ ~-
. ,. . .
. .
.
.
.
_~ .._. ' . .
.:.
.._
_ .
. _
.
, .
. _ . . . . .. .
. . .
.
. .
, .
.
. _
. .
_- .
:
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
f . : ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~
L' :.... ._ .. __ .. . _.
~ ,_ `
.
. ,
.
.
.
.
:.
- . . _ .. . . .
. . .
' . . . _ .. - . ~ -..
. -.~.
~ ~
~
` ~: ..
. . .-.-~ : ., ~ `:
i ~ , " .:-. ` ~-
_
-_~
_;
j
~
=:
~
,~
~
~ ~ .
._
7
~
~~ ~~
~
~ ~~~~ ~~
~~
~ ~ ~~
.
~ ~
~
'
-
~ .,. -._ . ..
` .
-
:~..
-~~
~ ~.-
_
... _~ .
., -
__. ' _ . ,~.[-.ov_.~-_.,.,~....._ '^'-.-_~
_:.'._
~~
'=zacc.:,. ..__.~~~"~`r--`~.~-t.C:~ . -~,. . ~~.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Proj ect No. T2246• ] 2-01
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS FROM REPORT
BY CHJ (1999)
FOR
TEMECULA VILLAGE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. T2246-12-01
September 3, 2004
~1
~
~
~.
'.
'
,
:~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
f
~ '
i
~
, L
3
i
~-
a
,m
'
LOG OF BORING 2
Date Drilled: 5/18/99 Client: AGK Gcwp, LLC ,
EquiPmen~ CME 55 Dn71 Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 1401b/30 in
Stiuface Elevation(ft): 1190f Logged by. T.D. Measiaed Depth to Water(R): N/A
SM ~lE S F„ ' ~
~ ~ ~ a
~
~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
~ (~ ~
~ ~ (
s~
p
j
~ . '
'~ 9
~ O•~ Q ~„~ \F
A „
C7 w~ A a"'~0~ ~
~ A~ ~~
'(S S' ty an e with clay, 'ght browv w
5 S,
Exp.
5
'
: (SP- San e mednmm, coffise ~d silt,
bmwn 32
"
_ `:' (51v~ S ty Sand, fine ' clay, 'ght brown ~/6 11.5 119 Ring
13.5
10
. ~-
Nn S fine with m~imm to coazse and 91i
hght 39 9.6 120
D~
'
~
, 6.6 S
15 ~
(MI. Silt wi c1aY> brown ~ ~ - ~B
20
44 24.7 102 Ring
25
~ 16 3.4 104' Ring
?
3
`
~ 67 4.9 111 Ring
~ 30
~
,_
; (SP-Stv~ San fine ' and s~lt, t 33 20.7 97 Ring
22.7
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - n ~RESIDENT7?.I1COMIvIERCL4L DEVEI.OPMEN'T Job No.
L~l1J ~-~/J ~~~~ C~p~A 99378-3
Enclosiue /~
8-23 \~
~
~ Date Dsilled: 5/18199
. Equipment CME 55 Drill Rig
~~ Surface Elevation(ft): 1190t
.~
'
.~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i ~
~
; a
c
c
@
' c
~
~ €
k
1~
'
LOG OF BORING 2
C7ient AGK Group, LLC
Driving Weight / Dtop: 14U 1~/30 in
Logged by: T.D. Measured Depth'w Water(ft): N/A
~~ ~, ~ ~
~
~
~
x
VISUAL CLASSIr7CATION ~a
~
~~ ~ ~
~
~
Qy
~ ~ ~ 1 O - Q ~ C cq v~i
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ a~
q A oa ~ ~
~ (SP-SIv~ San e wi medium and t, t bmwn
11' 12.3 122 Ring
:• (S Silry San Sne, gay wn 11.8
40
' (SP) Sand, fine wrth m tmi and coatse, ~ght brown 4.4
58 42 110 Ring
45
62 114 Rmg
-' (3 ~lt}' Sand, fine, 8~Y 4 9
50 - ~
40/4" 5.4 128 Ring
EDID OF.BORING
55
60
I
i
NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
~ 65 NO FIL.L
SI.IGHT CAVING
, NO FREE GROUNDWATER
•~ ~ ~RESIDENTIAI/CONIMERCIAL DEVELAPMENT Job No. Encloswe
~~ ~/ v~ TEN:ECtJLA, CALIFORNIA 9937&3 B-Zb ~'
~~
~ Uate Drilled: 5/18/99
Equipment CME 55 Dn71 Rig
`~ 5tnface Elevation(ft): 1200f
~
1
~
~`
~
#
I
~
~
~
~
e
~e
c
c
~ c
>°
§
c
' -
i
a
~S
I,OG OF BORING 3
Client: AGK Group, LI.C
Driving Weight / Drop: 140 Ibl30 m
Logged by: T.D. Measuced Depth to Water(ft): N/A
~~ ~
~
p v
^
a
~
VISUAL CLASSIFICATTON
~ ~
'~` vi
~z
~ A
~
~ ~ ~ O o Q -'c
~ ~w
w
~ ~ ,
~ D
~ A~ ~~
A ~ A~ ~ ~
S S San e w~th grave to 1", hght brown
11 3.1 127 Rmg
5 :
(SP Sand, fine with m' an coatse, ght bmwn
50 2.0 115 Iimg
,
,o .
40 4.1 107 Ring
-"4 (SP) San e wi medium and c~arse, Sht brown 2.9
15
37 9.1 107 ' Rmg
SP-S San 5ne with t, light brown 6.8
20
62 11
0 115 Rin
. g
: (SP-Slvn Sand, e with t and c1aY, glu wn 16.7
(MI. Sandy Sil; 5ne wi fiae sand, h wn 21.0
25
44 21.6 97 Riag
30
66 14.1 116 Ring
(IvII:) Sandy Silt, fine wrth fine sand and clay, light brown .
~ (SP) Sand, fine wrth medium and coarse, light browa
8.9
~~~ v'1 ~ n~RESIDENTIAIJCOM2vIERCLAI. DEVE[.OPMENT 993 8 3 EB13a ~
Lr~.J ~J 'I'EMEC(TI,A, CAT~ORNIA
~'
~
1~
~.
l
,
~,
1
~
:~
~
~
~ .~
~ ~~
~
a
.
le
C
~
' ~
~
,a
m
~a
s
~m
LOG OF BORING 3
Date Thilled: 5/] 8/99 Client AGK Cnvup, LI.C
Equipme~: CME 55 Drill Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 ]b/30 m
54~rface IIevation(ft): 1200t Logged by: T.D. Measuned Depth to Water(ft): N/A
s~"~s F~ ~
~
O `''
^
~'
~
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
~ ~
~ ai
~ Ca
a
~ ~~ ~ u a ~ ~~ ~ ~y
O~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
a r
a m w Ca a
SP) San e wi and coatse; light brown . 62 9.7 115 Ring
~
48 9.4 119 Rmg
45 ~.` - .
52 12
4 119
':' (S S ty Sand, fine, ght brown .
15.2 Ring
:~ (SP) Sand, 5ne with medi~ and coarse, ght brown
50 ~.
70 6.7 118 Rmg
END OF BORING
55
60
NO BEDROCK .
NO REFIJSAL
65 NO ~.T.
SLIGHT CAVING
~ NO FREE GROUNDWATIIt
RESIDENTTALCAA~vIII2G7Al. DEVEL.OPMENT Job No. Enclosure ~
Iu~ vII
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~n.a,, c.~.~oxr~. 9937&3 B-3b
~
#
~
,~
~
~
I
~
~'
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
~'
~
~~ ~~ ,~n RESIDENTIAIJCONA~RQAL DEVII.OPMENT Job No. Enclosure
~ ~ •-, ,-~ ~ `~ ~ TEME,CULA, CALIFORTIIA 9937&3 B-6 ~v
' ~
LOG OF BORING 6
Date Drilled: 5/18/99 G7ient AGK Group, LI.C
Equipme~ CME 55 DrHI Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 1401b/30 in
Stiaface Elevation(ft): 1112t Logged by: TD. Measured Depth to Watez(ft): N/A
s""Q's F ~ E"
O
` 3
..
~
~
VISUAL CLASS'gTCATION ~
~, v~i ~ F
.,
~ q
~
~ ~~ W ~a ~ ~ Q'
a AO ~" F
~
A O~ rx A GG G
O~ ~~ A~ ~
:':• (~ 5~Y ~ , t 2. SS
45 5.0 126 Ring
5
: (~S~ Sne with medium, coarse, c y and silt, 17 8.9
7
9 123
C~L
.
10 =. ~
18 16.6 116 Ring
15.
26 5.8 113 Ring
~
• (SP) Sand, 5ne with medmm to coarse, light brown 4.6
11 r.e 118 Ring
OF BORING
25
~
I
NO BIDROCR
30 NO REF[JSAL
NO FILL
_ SI.IC~i~'_CAY-IIdG .
NO FREE GROUNDWATIIt
~
~ Date Dr~71ed: 5/18/99
F,quipment: CME 55 Dn71 Rig
~ Surface Elevation(ft): 1104t
~
~
i
~
~
.~
~.
~
~'
~
,~
'
~
~
LOG OF BORING 7
Client AGK C~oup, LLC
Drivi¢g Weight / Drop: 1401b/30 in
Logged by: T.D. Meastaed Depth to Water(ft): N/A
s""~ ~
~
^
~
~
VISUAL CLASSIFTCATION ' Vl
~
~t ~ ~+
~` ~
~ Q.
L~
~ Z
ae
3.
~
Q~
~
F
A o
~
r a ,.~
a ~
o
m~
~ ~~
A
~ ~
p~
¢
a x A a
i w~ . ~.
7F
- _• (SIv~ S ty San e coarse, t brown 2.9
43 43. 127 Ring
5
19 3
8 123 Ri
;
(SP-Slvn Sand, fine w~ medmm, coarse and silt, Sht .
5 g ng
brown
lQ ..
29 6.4 113 Ring
15
33 11.1 120 Ring
20 =;
T3 8.6 122 Ring
25
60 72 111 Ri
~
'
(SP) Sand, fine with medium and coarse, l~ brown
7.6 ng
0
~
~ :
~ 30 :
~ 62 6.0 109 Ring
<
S
~ ~~ V7 ~ f~I ~RESIDENTWJCOMIvIERCIAI, DEVELOPMENT Job No: Enclosure
L1 ~ l~'~ ~ c,~,¢o~, 99378-3 B-7a 5"~
~ . ~
' LOG OF BORING 7
li ' Date Dtilled: 5/18199 Ciient AGK Cxoup, LLC
Equipment CME 55 Dn71 Rig Driving Weight / Dmp: 140 ib/30 in
;~~ Surface Elevation(ft): 1104t Logged by: T.D. Measiued Depth to Water(R): N/A
s,ua~s O ~ ~
` ~ ~ ~
~ U VISUAL CLASSIFIICATtON
S v~
~ ~i
~+
f~ Z
a y
~
~ S ~ A ~ a
~ ~ A~ aF
a a
i i
a w~ .
SP) Sand, e m ~ coaTSe t
'
40/6"
4
7
109
Rin
.
. g
END O BO G -
40
45
50 NO BIDROCK
NO REFUSAL
NO FII.I.
SLIGHT CAVIIdG
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
55
60
65
~
~ ~ RESIDENf1AIJCOMMERGTAL DEVELOPMENT Job No. Enclosiue
~ ~ ~ ~~. u ~ .~ ~ TEMECULA, CALIFORNiA 9937&3 B-'~ ~~
~ ._-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~
r
,~
'
I
~
~
~
~"
0
~,.
~
m
LOG 4F BORING 8
Date Drilled: 5/18/99 G7ient AGK Group, LI.C
Eqnipme~ CME 55 Dn7l Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 Ib/30 in
Surface Elevation(ft): 1102t Logged by: T.D. Measiaed Depth to Water(ft): N/A
~ \ ~
~
v
~
~
V7SIJAL CLASSIFICATION y ~
~ v~''i
~
~
A
~ ~
~ ay >
3'
A~ ~m
y
L1 O ~ L1 5
R1 aa1 ~ ~~ A 3 ~ ~
a
S S Sand, e wtth gia W 1, own 2.
40 2:8 124 Ring
5
: (SP-SI~ Sand, fine mednmm ght brown
31 5.6 123 Ring
10 :
26 4.2 113 Ring
15 .
=:' (SP S light wn 6.1
70 SS 110 Ring
20
• (SP Sand, fine with mediimm to coarse gavel to 1", 4.8
light brown
67 5:5 115 Ring
25 ~
OF BO G
~
.
NO BEUROCK
30 NO REFUSAL
xo ~a.
SLIGHT CA1'ING .._.. ..
O FREE Q20UNDWATIIt m
~
a
~
~
~
g
I ~(~~ ~~~gg~IDgN1TAL~COMMERC~AL DEVELAPMENT Job No. Enclosure
~ 11LI TEMEC[)L,F,, CALIFORHIA 9937&3 B-g ~j
~ • _..'_
~
~
~
':
~
'
~
~
~
~
~.
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - n ~RESIDENITAUCAMMEILCIAI, DEVEI.OPMENT Job No.
~~~ 99378-3
'r~~c~n.n, cat,~oxtlta
~
LOG OF BORING 9
Date Drilled: 5/18/99 ClienC AGK Cnoup> I.LC
Equipment cME ss nnu Rig nr;ving weignc ~ nrop: lao lb/3o in
Stisface Elevation(ft): 1127t Logged by. T.D. Measured Depth to Water(g): N/A
s ~~ s ~ ~
~ ~
`~
~"
y
VISUAL CLASSII~TCATION ~ ~
vS ~ ~ A
~ i
~ ¢
r~ O ~ ~ y-1 p ~ Q ~ ~• ~
• p~ ~
A ~ a ~ A ~
aa m~ ,
~~ ,,
q~ a~
:: (S -hy Send, e~vt coarse, brown 2S
55 2.9 132 Rmg
,- 5 ~ ~ : (SP-Sb~ San 5ne v+i m coa~se, sik an gravel
s
" 4
1
: to 1
, ligirt brown .
; 27 4S 120 Rmg
- 10 :
26 6.2 120 Ring
• 15 ;
29 89 121 Ring
:~
~ (SP) Sand, fine with medium to coazse Sn8 gavel to 1", 8
1
light brown .
20
38 lOS 121 Ring
25
69 7.6 120 Ring
END OF BORING
NO BEDROCK
30 NO REFUS.AI,
NO FILL
. . SLIQiT CAY.IIdG.
NO FREE QtOiJAIDWATER
Enclosure
B-9 ~
~ LOG OF BORING 11
Date Drilled: 5/18/99 Client AGK G~oup, LLC
, EquipmenC CME 55 Dn71 Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 Ih/30 in
, S~aface Elevation(ft): 1173t Logged by. T.D. Measured Depth tp Water(R): N/A
FO
~ o
°
v ~
~
~ ~
O'~ a~ ~
~
a O
w ~
A
U
1 W,
0. ~ .
°,
28 ~ 3.9 I 116 ~ Rmg ''I
47 I 73 I 125 I~g I
~S ~
~ ~
~8~
~8~
~B I
16.4
, ~ ~ ~ Iv1 ~ (~7 ~RESIDENTTAI/COMMERCIAI. DEVII.OPMENT Job No.
Lrltl C-J ~,p, CAI,IFOgI~IA 99378-3
~
Enclosure
B-lla ~j~
~
~
.~
~
~
~
~
'
'
~
~
i
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~~
~
~
c
~ j
~
'
~
LOG OF BORING 11
Date Drilied: 5/18/99 C1ieaC AGK Group, LLC
Eqtripment CME 55 Drill Rig Dtiving Weight / Drop: 1401b/30 in
Sluface Elevation(ft): 1173t I.ogged by: T.D. Meastiued Depth to Water(ft): N/A
.
~
F- ~.
e ~
^
~
x
VISUAL CLASS7FTCATION y Q ~
n
~ (7a
°r A
~ ~
~ ~
N
~ ~O ~ ~ a a A ~-~ -
~[
A C~a ~ A ao ta~ ~w~ A:~ a~
an t, fine wi c ay, hght brown
43 18.7 109 Ring
40
2111 30
7 118 Ri
: (SIv~ ty Sand, fine, hght brown . ng
45
' (SP) Sand, fine vcnth m um and coazse, light bmwn 5/11' 12 j 117 Rmg
50
END OF BORING 41/6" g~ 110 Rmg
55
NO BIDROCR
~ I>IO REFUSAL
; NO FILL
SLIGHT CAVING
I
;
~ NO FREE GROUNDWATIIt
i
65
`
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~RESIDENTTAUCOMIv1EItCIAL DEVELOPMENT ~3 8 3
~~~ ~~c[n.~., c~oxr~.
Enclosure
B-llb ~o
I LOG OF BORING 12
~ Dau Dnlled: 5/18/99 Client: AGK Crsoup, LI.C
_ Fy~i~~ ccv~ ss nriu x~g n~;~ w~;~nc i r~: iaoanr3o ~n
I~ Surface Elevation(ft): 1159t I,ogged by: TD. Measiued Depth to Water(ft): N/A
, ~~ RESIDENTTAUCOM~RCIAL DEVELOPMENr Job No. Enclosure ~i
~ ~ ~ .-. ,-. ~ ~ ~ 'I'F1v1EC[nA, CtiLIFORNIA 9937&3 B-12 ~- \
~ ~
'
,
~
~
~
~
,~
~
~
'
~
8
, a
C
i
e
~
°w
~ c
s
~ ~
~
~
~ ~
~
LOG OF BORING 14
Date Drilled: 5/18/99 C7ient: AGK C~oup, LLC
Equipmeut CME 55 Dn71 Rig Driving Weight / Drop: 140 ]b/30 m
Surface Elevation(ft): 1151t I.ogged by: T.D. Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
^ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
~
~ '~` rn
O
~
~
~
~ O
~ ~
~~
~' A
~ ~ v~
~
s ~ ~ ~ A~ ~
:;. (S ilty Sand, fine wrth gravel to 1", light wn 2,7
9 2.5 111 Ring,
ConsoL
5
18 82 125 Ring
~ (SP-Stvn Sand, fine with medium, coarse and silt, light 8.6
10 : ~~ brown
46 12
8 122 Ri
(Sivn Silty Sand, Sne vnth to coazse, l~ght brown .
13.8 ng
15
4~ 8
6 113 Rm
:• (SP) Sand, fine w~th medmm and coazse, light brown •
8.1 g
20 ~;
58 9.6 113 Ring
OF BO
2_5
;
i
~
NO BEDROCK
~ NO REFUSAL
NO FiLL
SLIGHT CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATEK
~ur~ RESIDENTTAIJCOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENI' Job No. F~closure ~
~ ~ ~ ~-^ ~ ~ ~ ~c~, c~oxxla. 99378-3 8-14 ~
,.,._._
'
,
~
_
~
~
~
~
_
,
~
.
' _
-, ,
,
- .
- . ,.
-
; . _~.
~ ~°
~ ' _ APPENDI~ =
~ :. _ . ~- _
-~ ~ _ _ =
; :
~ :
,
~
; =-
1 -
,
`I ~
: _
_ _
, _.
_
,
~~ -~
_
~
-
a1 - _ - .
~.
1 :
; --
,
~~1
: _
~ _
~
~1 -
, . .
_: = _. ~~
~.~~,~ ~:~,.~~~-.~_-~ ~ ~:~~ _~. >>~~ - _._,~~~__.~ :~ Y_~
~
I '
~
'
'
,
~~ ~
I APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
, FOR
i TEMECULA VILLAGE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
I ,
PROJECT NO. T2246-12-01
~
,
~
'
~
~
~
~v
~
~ RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
~ 1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Inland Empire, Inc. The recom-
, mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
gradin~ specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafrer in the case
' of conflict.
, 1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
' specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
' in substantial conformance with these specifications. It sha(1 be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
~ 13. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
, methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
, condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant wi11 be empowered to reject
~ the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
I 2. DEFINITIONS
~ 2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have a ading
performed.
'
2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
~ 2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
~ or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
I
' GI rev. 07/02
~~
~
2.4. ConsuUant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
' retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
~ 2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a Califomia licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
~ responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
I 2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a Califomia licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
~ grading.
2J. Geotechnical Report shal] refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
' a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
~ intended to apply.
1 3. MATERIALS
3.1. Materials for compacted fil] shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
, imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soi/ fills, soi!-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
'
~ 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
' 3.1.2. Soil-rock 51Is aze defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
~ feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
, inches.
' 3.13. Rock 511s are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
~ be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantiry.
,
GI rev. 07/02
'
~
'
' 3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
~ 33. Materials used for fil(, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
' not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to
, suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the O~~~ner
the termination of grading operations within the affected azea. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
~ suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
' 3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
, the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the goveming agency, Owner
~ and Consultant.
' 3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum densiTy, optimum moisture content, and,
where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics ofthe soil.
, 3.6. During gradin„ soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
~ Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
' 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
, 4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps. brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of smmps, roots, buried
' logs and other unsuitable material and shall be perFormed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding ]-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
' below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be erubbed to the e~ctent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
~
~
,
Glrev.07/02
~
,
4.2. Any asphalt pavement materiai removed during cleazing operations should be properly
, disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which aze free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
, of this document.
~ 43. Afrer cleazing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical RepoR. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
' Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
~ uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
' where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
, '
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
'
Finish Grede Original Ground
, 2
~~
~Finish Slope Surface
~
~ Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer Slope To Be Such That ~
Sloughing Or Sliding
~ ~ Does Not Ocar I Varies
.B.
' See Note ~ See Note 2
~ No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of ]0 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to
' permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizonial, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
' material and at least 2 feet into dense formationa] material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
,
6~
' GI rev. 07/02
,
,
~
,
'
~
,
'
,
'
~
'
'
'
,
,
i
'
,
4.5. After azeas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1. Compaction of soil or soi!-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other rypes of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a desien that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
52. Compactio~ of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 31.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1. Sor! fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed durine spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifrs.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 63 of these specifications.
6.12. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1~57-00.
6.13. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
61.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
GI rev. 07/02
~O~
,
, 6.1.5. Afrer each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thorouahly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at ]east 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
, dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry densirv as
determined in accordance with ASTM DI»7-00. Compaction shall be continuous
' over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum re]ative compaction has been achieved throuehout the
entire fill.
, 6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in filfs if placed at
, least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
, 6.1J. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the desien surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
' least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
, 6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
' intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
' twice.
6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
, with the following recommendations:
, 6.2.1. Rocks lar~er than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
I S feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
, 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
' 6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in ma~cimum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
' fraements up to ]0 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
~
, GI rev. 07/02
68
,
'
'
~
,
'
,
'
,
~
63.
,
'
'
,
'
,
'
,
'
6.23. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches escavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soif having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in Iieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow~ courses sha11
be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
62.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.13., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface sha(1 slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
subdrains shal( be permanently connected to control]ed drainage facilities to
control post-construction infltration of water.
63.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifrs and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lifr. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavi]y during placement. Watering shall
consist of water Vucks traversing in front of the current rock lifr face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
GI rev. 07/02
~~
,
,
,
,
l'
~
,
'
,
,
'
,
'
'
,
,
,
~
'
~
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Pazagraph 633 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Pazagraph 633. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifrs will be permitted over the soil fill.
633. Plate beazing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1196-93, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
fill shall be determined by comparin~ the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be
performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than
that determined for the properly compacted soi! filL In no case will the required
number of passes be less than rivo.
63.4. A representative of the Consultant shail be present during rock fill operations to
verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximatety
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
63.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between laree rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock materiaL In-place densiry testing will not be
required in the rock fills. .
63.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying sorl
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lifr of rock fill. The need to place graded fiher material below the rock
should be deteunined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typica] of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
GI rev. 07/02
V~
'
63.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
' representatives of the Consultant.
' 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests durino
' cleazing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field densit}~
, test being performed within that intervaL In addition, a minimum of one field densiry test
shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
'
7.2. The Consultant shall perForm random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
' fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fiI] or portio~
, thereof is below that specified, the particular ]ayer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified densiry has been achieved.
, 73. During ptacement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
' passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 633. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
' an opinion asxo whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been
applied to the materiaL If performed, plate beazing tests will be performed randomly on
' the surface of the most-recently placed lifr. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 633 shal] be ]ess than the
, maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fi[1 or any poRion thereof is below that specified, the affected
~ layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
, 7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
, recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
'
'
' GI rev. 07/02
1~
'
'
'
,
i
~
'
~
,
'
~
,
,
,
,
'
~
'
'
7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Filis:
7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1~56-00, Densiry of Soi! In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method
7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-96, Densiry of Sorl and
Sorl-Aggregate In-Place by A~uclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-00, Moisture-Densiry
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer
and IS-Inch Drop.
7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, AS7'M D4829-95, Expansron Index Test.
7.6.2. Rock Fills
7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard
Method far Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible
Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design ofAirport and
Highrvay Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2. Afrer completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
GI rev. 07/02
12
,
'
,
,
'
'
,
J
,
'
~
'
'
,
t
IJ
~
'
'
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall fumish Owner a certification bv the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot verticallv of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. Afrer installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-burlt plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2. The Owner is responsible for fumishing a final as-eraded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate goveming or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil En~ineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a Califomia Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev. 07/02
`~
,
RECEIVED I
MAR 2 2 2005 '
CI7Y OF TEMECULA
J
r-
~~
~,
~u
'
,
'
~'
J
'
,
'
'
t
'
'
'