The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParcel Map 34431 Parcel 1-3 Supplemental Geotechnical~~31 SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RANCHO HIGHLANDS II TRACT 23992 LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Pulte Home Corporation 2 Technology Drive Irvine, California 92618 Project No. 111442-003 May 16, 2005 • Leighton and Associate~, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPAPJY ~ ~ ~ 0 U ~ u ~ U ~ LJ U LIJ u a u a ~J ~ ~ Leighfion and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANV To: Pulte Home Corporation 2 Technology Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Attention: Mr. Ron Roberts May 16, 2005 Project No. 111442-003 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Highlands II, Tract 23992, Lots 1, 2 and 3, City of Temecula, California. In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton & Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has completed a Supplemental Geotechnica] lnvestigation of the Rancho Highlands II Tract 23992 project site located south of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, Temecula. This report summarizes our evaluation of the condition of the existing fill soils and geotechnical constraints relative to the proposed development, geotechnical recommendations related to remedial earthwork and erosion repair, future site grading, foundation design parameters and pavement sections. The subject site was previously rough-graded under the geotechnical observation and testing of Petra Geotechnical, ~~. If you have any questions regazding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ,. l j ~ -- - y~E Scot Mathis, CEG 2307 (Exp. 11/ ~ Senior Project Geologist `~ .S~ZE~R~ri1R1 Distribution: (6) Addressee . 6j No.2307 i CERTIFIE~ ENGINEEAING GEOLOGIST ~ Zafaz Ahmed, RCE 64785 Senior Project Engineer ~ %~I No.64785 \Exp.06130107 Z 41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103 ^ Temecula, CA 92590-5661 951.296.0530 e Fax 951.296.0534 e www.leightongeo.com ~ 11144Z-003 May 16, 2005 ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ Section paae 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................2 ~ 1.1 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................................2 1.2 Site Location and Description ....................................................................................2 ~ 1.3 Proposed Development ...........................................................................................3 2.0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................4 ~ 2.1 Field Investigation ..................................................................................................4 2.2 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................4 ~ 2.3 Previous Site Grading Operations .............................................................................4 ~ 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................7 4.1 Earthwork ..............................................................................................................7 ~ 4.1.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Removals .......................................................... 7 4.1.2 Cut/Fill Transition Pads ................................................................................... 7 4.1.3 Strudural Fills ............................................................... 8 ~j 4.1.4 ................................. Slope Repair ........................................................................ 8 ~ 4.1.5 .......................... Temporary F~ccavations ................................................................................... 8 ' 4.2 Preliminary Foundation and Slab Design Parameters .............................. 9 4.3 Foundation Setback from Slopes ................................................... ................. ........................9 4.4 Fault Setback ........................................................................... 10 , .... 4.5 Structure Seismic Design Parameters ............................................. ...................... ........... 10 4.6 Pavement Section Recommendations ............................................. .......... ........ 10 .............. , 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ....................................................................... ......................12 5.1 Plans and Specifications ........................................................................................12 , 5.2 Construction Review ........................................................................ .....................12 6.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................... . 13 , .. ................ A ..................... ccomoanying Fiaures. Tables and Appendices ~ F~- Figure 1- Site Location Map End of Te~ Figure 2- Test Pit Location Map End of Text ' ~ 3 ~ ~ Leighton ~ 3.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................6 ~ 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ~ ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Tables Table 1- Minimum Foundation Design Recommendations for a Very Low Expansive Soils End of Text Table 2- Minimum Foundation Design Recommendations for Low. F~cpansive Soils End of Text ~ Table 3- Minimum Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations For Very Low and Low Expansive Soils End of Text Table 4- AC Pavement Section Thickness End of Text U U ~pendices U Appendix A - References Appendix B- Test Pit Logs Q Appendix C- Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results 9 Appendix D- General Earthwork and Grading Specifications a D U a u ~ a a _ v ~ ~ _~~_ ~ Leighton , 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ' 1.0 INTRODUCiION ~ 1.1 Purpose and Scooe ~ The purpose of this supplemental geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the condition of the existing fill soils, evaluate existing geotechnical constraints related to the proposed residential development, and provide geotechnical recommendations for remedial ~ earthwork, erosion repair, future site grading, foundation design parameters and pavement sections. The site was previously rough-graded in 2001 and 2002. Geotechnical services during rough grading were provided by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra, 2001 and ~ 2002). The scope of services performed by Leighton for this supplemental investigation included the ~{ following items: il • Review of previous geotechnical reports for the subject tract, preliminary site plan, ~ maps, aerial photographs, and other pertinent documents (Appendix A). • General field reconnaissance to observe the existing onsite geotechnical conditions. ~ • Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of ten exploratory backhoe test pits across the previously compacted fill area (see Figure 2). • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface ~ exploration program. • Prepazation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and preliminary ~ geotechnical recommendations with respect to development of the site and general construction considerations. It should be noted that additional subsurface investigation and evaluation may be recommended based on future site development ~ plans. ' ~ 1.2 Site Location and Descrintion The project site is an irregulaz shaped tract located generally southeast of the intersection ~ of Rancho Califomia Road and Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The project site is bounded by Ynez Road to the north, Embassy Suites Hotel and a plaza to the west, Interstate Highway 15 to the south, and residential development ~ to the east. The approximate limits of the site are shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1). ~ The subject property was previously sheet graded into three (3) super-pads under the geotechnical observation and testing services of Petra Geotechnical Ina (2002). Based on our review of the Geotechnical Report of the Rough Grading (Petra, 2002), gading ~ consisted of cuts and fills with a malcimum fill thickness of approximately 45 feet. ~ ~ -2- ~ Leighton , 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ~ The project site is currently vacant with the exception of an isolated stockpile of ~ boulders. Desilring basins aze located throughout the site and continue to retain water. The surface soils of the super-pads and slopes appeared to be dry with medium to heavy growth of weeds and vegetarion scattered across the site. Loose sediment deposits and ~ erosion rills up to 4 feet in depth were encountered along the alignment of Rancho Highland Drive and Tierra Vista Road. ~ 1.3 Prouosed Develoument Based on our review of the preliminary site plan (RBF, 2005), we understand that the ~ proposed development will consist of approximately 66 two-story triplex residenrial buildings, pavements, detention basins, a pazk, and other associated improvements. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ 0 u 0 ~ -3- U Leighton ~ fj 111442-003 ~~ May 16, 2005 ~ 2:O INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORYTESTING ~ 2.1 Field Investigation ~ On April 19, 2005, Leighton conducted a field exploration, which consisted of the excavation, sampling, in-situ density testing, and logging of 10 exploratory test pits at selected locations throughout the subject tract. The exploratory test pits were excavated ~ to depths ranging from approximately 8 to 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface using a rubber-tired backhoe. Approximate locations of the test pits aze depicted on the Test Pit Location Map (Figure 2). A staff engineer from Leighton conducted sampling n and logging of the test pits. Soil materials were visually classified according to the u Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488) and further classified in the laboratory. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A. In-situ density tests of the U previously compacted fill were performed at various depths in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2992 (nuclear gauge method). After logging, sampling, and testing, the excavations were loosely backfilled with spoils generated during excavation. Selected U representative samples were delivered to ow laboratory for testing. 2.2 Laboratorv Testinq U Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk samples, obtained from previously compacted fill azea, to provide a basis for development of design pazameters. U Selecfed samples were tested for maximum dry density and optimum moisture, expansion index, and corrosion potential (soluble sulfate). Test results are presented in Appendix C. n 2.3 previous Site Gradina Operations ~1 U The subject site was initially rough graded during August through December of 2000, and completed on September through October of 2001, under the geotechnical observation and testing of Petra Geotechnical, Inc. A report documenting the U geotechnical observations and field density testing of compacted fill placed at the site was provided (Petra, 2002). Based on our review of that report, low-density natural soils were removed to expose competent bedrock as part of the site prepazation. Fill U soils were compacted to 90 percent of the ma~cimum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. The approximate depths of removal ranged from 2 to 20 below original grades. A summary of the as-graded condition is as follows: ~ • The onsite soils have a very low to medium expansion potential with soils very low to ~ low potential to expansion more prevalent on site; • Based on the ASTM Test Method D1557, ma~cimum dry densities of the representative soil samples were in the range of 102 to 134 pounds per cubic feet U (pc~ with optimum moistures of 8 to 15.0 percent; 0 ~ -4- D Leighton ~ , 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ~ • The relative compaction of the fill placed were at least 90 percent of the maximum ~ dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557; • The sulfate content of the onsite soils aze non-detectable; ~ • Cut and fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 with maximum height of 40 and 60 feet, respectively, were grossly stable. Buttress fill was not required. ~ Due to the length of time since the completion of original rough grading and weathering of soils, Petra Geotechnical Inc. performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation ~ (Petra, 2003) to evaluate the soil conditions for continued development of the project site. Eleven exploratory test pits to maz~imum depth of 4 feet were excavated and in- situ density testing of the previously compacted fill were performed at various depths. The geotechnical consultant concluded that the project site was still suitable far ~~ development with remedial grading to repair surficial weathering and erosion damage of the pads and slopes. ~ ~ LJ ~ ~ C' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -5- ~ Leighton 7 t ~ ~ ~ 111442-003 May 16, 2005 3.0 Based on our preliminary geotechnical evalua6on, it is our professional opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following is a summary of the geotechnical findings and factors that may affect development of the site. ~ • The previously compacted fills consist of dry to very moist mixture of silty sands and sandy silts. The in-situ moisture content of the fill soils within upper 8.5 feet varied in the range of 33 to 21.0 percent. ~ • Laboratory test results show that the maximum dry densities of the bulk samples of the on- site fill soils ranged from 121.5 to 133 pcf with optimum moisture contents ranging &om 8.5 to 12.0 percent. ~ • The shallow fill soils are currently at less than 90 percent relative compaction. The depth of the undercompacted material is approximately 1 to 3 feet throughout most of the site. ~ • Based on limited laboratory testing (Appendix C) and visual classification, the majority of onsite earth materials generally have a very low expansion potential. Very low to medium expansive soils are anticipated to be encountered during rough grading. Soils with medium ~ expansion potential (Expansion Index > 50) may be present in the cut azeas (Petra, 2002). • Limited laboratory testing (Appendix C) indicates that the on-site soils present a negligible ~ sulfate exposure to concrete. • Localized, shallow surficial erosion were observed at different sections of the previously graded slopes within the subject tract. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U u ~ ~ -6- ~ Leighton $ ' 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ~ 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ~ 4.1 Earthwork ~ Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix D and the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix D aze general grading specifications provided for typical grading ~ projects. Some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix D. ~l 4.1.1 Site Preoaration and Remedial Removals ~ We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site prepazation, remedial rough-grading, precise grading, foundation installation, trench excavation and backfill, permanent slope construction, and construction of street sections. L Previously compacted fill or cut surfaces should be cleazed of vegetation, deleterious materials, desiccated fill soils, wet soils and undocumented fill soils U including all stockpiles of dirt. Based on our field moisture and density testing, it is our opinion that approximately 1 to 3 feet of previously compacted fill azea should ~ be overexcavated to expose fill meeting 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557. Deeper removals may be required locally as determined by the geotechnical engineer during grading. ~ Public roadways (Rancho Highlands and Tiena Vista) and private roadways within the subject site should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and 1 foot, ~ respectively. The overexcavation depth should be measured from the deeper of existing grade or planned pavement subgrade. The lateral limits of the overexcavation should extend at least equal to the depth of removal from the face ~ of the curb. Prior to placement of additional fill, remedial removal azeas should be scarified a U minimum of 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557. ~ 4.1.2 Cut/Fill Transition Pads In order to mitigate the impact of underlying cuUfill transition conditions, we ~ recommend overexcavation of the cut portion of transition pads. Overexcavation should extend to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings or one-half of the maximum fill thickness on the pad, whichever is deeper. ~ ~ ~ -7- ~ Leighton ~ a 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ~ The limits of overexcavation should extend laterally a mnumum of five feet U outside the building footprint. 4.1.3 Structural Fills a The onsite soils aze generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided they are free of debris and organic matter. Fills placed within 10 feet of finish pad grades U should contain no rocks over 12 inches in maximum dimension. Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based ~ on ASTM D1557) and at neaz or above optimum moisture content. Placement and compac[ion of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. The ~ optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in O uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness 4.1.4 Slooe Repair ~1 Previously graded slopes (cut and f Il) within the subject tract showed localized, shallow surficial erosion. Slope face repair may be done by simple moisture ~ conditioning in-place and surficial recompaction without resorting to remedial stabilization fill. Such surficial recompaction of the slope face may be attained by track-walking with a small dozer (e.g., Caterpillaz D-4 or equivalent). The use of ~ large equipment for surficial recompaction is not recommended for this process. ~ All slopes, fill and cut, should be landscaped with deep-rooted, drought-tolerant vegetation. The minimum irrigation necessary to sustain plant vigor should be utilized. Cut slopes which expose weathered, cohesionless sandstone (i.e., clean ~ sand) should be covered with jute matting or protected with approved other erosion-control measures. ~ 4.1.5 Temoorarv Excavations Temporary excavations with vertical sides, such as utility trenches, should remain ~ stable'to depths of 4 feet or less for the period required to construct the utility. In accardance with OSHA requirements, excavations greater than 4 feet in depth should be shored, or laid-back to inclinations of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or ~ flatter, if workers aze to enter such excavations. Leighton does not consult in the azea of safety engineering. The contractor is responsible for the safety of all excavations. ~ I \O ~ -8- ' Leighton ~ 111942-003 May 16, 2005 ~ 4.2 Preliminarv Foundation and Siab Design Parameters U It is our understanding that the detached two-story triplex residential structures may be founded on conventional or post-tensioned foundation systems. The proposed ~ foundarions and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural consultants' design, the minimum geotechnical recommendations presented in this report, the City of Temecula requirements and the 1997 UBC. U Residential foundation footings may be designed with the following parameters: ~ Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2,000 psf at a minimum depth of embedment of 18 inches, plus an addirional 250 psf per 6 inches of U additional embedment to a maximum of 3,000 psf. (per 1997 UBC, capacities may be increased by'/3 for short-term loading conditions, i.e., wind, seismic) U Sliding Coefficient: 0.38 ~ Settlement Potenrial: Total: 1 inch Dift'erential: %z inch in 40 feet ~ For budgetary and pianning purposes, prelimiuary recommendations on the footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab-on-grade thickness aze provided in O Tables 1 Uuough 3(reaz of the text) for very low to low expansive soil subgrade (Expansion Index 5 50). ~ We recommend that as grading progresses, building pads be evaluated for expansion potential. The final footing and slab design for each proposed struchue should be designed based on the results of the lot by lot evaluation upon completion of grading and ~ strvchual evaluation. If footings are to be founded on medium expansive soil subgrade (Expansion Index > 50), specific recommendations for foundation design should be provided by Leighton. ~ 4.3 Foundation Setback from Slooes ~ We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, slabs, patios, pools, ~ etc.). This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the fooring horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/3, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 10 feet. If design constraints ~ , ~ -9- ' Leighton \\ ~ 111442-003 May 16, 2005 a require smaller setbacks in certain areas, Leighton should evaluate those azeas on a case-by- U case basis. The soils within the shuctural setback azea possess poor lateral stability and improvements U (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pauements, etc.) constructed within this setback azea may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. The potenrial for distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier U and grade-beam foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above. Modifica6ons of slope inclinations neaz foundarions may reduce the setback and should be reviewed by the design team prior to ~ completion of design or implementarion. 4.4 Fault Setback U Active faulting was previously mapped within the Lot 3(Leighton, 1987). In accordance U with State of California and Riverside County requirements, we recommend a shuchual setback of 50 feet from the mapped fault trace as shown in the referenced report (Leighton, 1987). We recommend that the setback zone be extended up and away from the fault, Q through the compacted fill, at a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope to the finish grade Structures for human occupancy should not be constructed within the fault setback zone. ~ Other uses may be considered. 4.5 Structure Seismic Desian Parameters ~ Structures should be designed as required by pmvisions of the Uniform Building Code (CTBC) for 5eismic Zone 4 and state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Shuctural ~ Engineers Association of California This site is located with UBC Seismic Zone 4. Seismic design pazameters in accordance with the 1997 UBC aze presented below. ~ Seismic Source Type = B Soil Profile Type = Sn Neaz Source Factor, N8 = 13 ~ Near Source Factor, N~ = 1.6 Seismic Coefficient, Ce = 0.57 ~ Seismic CoefTcient, C~ = 1.02 ~ 4.6 Pavement Section Reoommendations Limited laboratory test results on representative samples show that on-site subgrade soil ~ have R-values in the range of 14 to 46. We assumed a R-value of 30 for preliminary , ~ -io- ' Leighton ~2 Q 111442-003 May 16, 2005 a pavement section recommendations in this report. For planning and esrimating purposes ~ a range of Traffic Indexes (TI's) have been provided for preliminary pavement recommendations. The final pavement design should be based on R-value tests of representative samples of the actual subgrade materials and appropriate traffic indices U selected by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant, should be in general accordance with City o£ Temecula Standazds. The pavement sections should meet or exceed County of Riverside standards. Minimum pavement sections based on the U Caltrans Highway Design Manual Method are presented on Table 4, (reaz of text). The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative ~ compaction (ASTM D1557). The subgrade soils should be condirioned to near optimum moisture content and kept in this condirion until the pavement section is constructed. The subgrade should be proof-rolled prior to placement of aggregate base and under the U observation of the geotechnical consultant in order to identify any yielding areas. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM U D1557). Base rock should conform to the current edition of the "Standazd Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base standards (minimum R-value of 78). Asphaltic concrete should be placed on compacted ~ aggregate base and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction based on the ASTM D 1561 and D27261aboratory standards. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ' ' ~ -11- ' Leighton ~~ ~ 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ~ 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW u Geotechnical review is of pazamount importance in engineering practice. The poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate ~ conshuc6on review. We recommend that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity to review the following items. U 5.1 Plans and Snecifications I,eighton and Associates, Inc. should review the rough grading plans, foundarion plans and ~ proj ect specifications when they are completed. Such review is necessary to evaluate whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively incorporated in plans and other consirucrion documents. Review Sndings should be reported in writing. If the pmject design U is revised, additional subsurface invesdgation may be required. 5.2 Construction Review U Observation and testing should be performed by I,eighton and Associates representatives during grading and construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed a during construction may vary from those encountered in the test pits. Reasonably continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide ~ appropriate revisions during construction, if required. 0 Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement, foundation installation and other geotechnically-related site operations should be observed and tested by representatives of Leighton and Associates. ~ Additional laboratory testing of subsurface materials should be performed during grading to confinn compacted density and moisture content, corrosion potential and expansion ~ potential. A state-licensed corrosion engineer should be consulted to review the results of laboratory tests and provide specific recommendations if corrosion sensitive materials are to be used. ~ ~ ~ ~ • 1 ~ ~~ _lZ_ ' Leighton 0 U 6.0 111442-003 May 16, 2005 U This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, and analyses. Such information is necessarily U incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. U This report was prepared for Pulte Home Corporation, based on their needs, directions, and requirements. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party ~ except Pulte Home Corporation, and their successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom I.eighton has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to U defend and indemnify Leighton and Associates from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates. U U U U U 1-1 U U u u u ~ -13- ~ Leighton N ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ m ~ ~ O G __.\-- _' ' _ /\\ ..~ . ~, ~ r x ~ ~ rc 0 ~ z ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ a~ J °~ I ~ I Z ~ ~ d ~ ~s ~ ~ a m w N C ~ a s 'z N ~ ~ C1 w = a+ ~To ON~ ~H°J ~ a~i ~ f' ~ ~ 7 a 111442-003 May 16, 2005 TABLE 1 Minimum Foundation Design Recommendations for Verv Low F~coansive Soils ~Exnansion Index 0 - 20) 1-Story Footings Minimum 12" depth of embedment. Reinforcement for continuous See Note 1 footin s: one No. 4 baz to and bottom. 2-Story Foofings Minimum 12" depth o£embedment. Reinforcement for continuous See Note 1 footin s: one No. 4 baz t and bottom Continuous: 12" for 1-story Minimum Footing Width Continuous: 15" for 2-story Isolated colwnn: 24" 18" de minimum Garage Door Grade Beam Minimum 12" wide by 12" deep (See Note 3) ~~~mum 18" deep for 2-story) should be provided across the garage entrance. Living Area Floor Slabs Minimum 4" thick slab. No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center each way (at See Notes 4, 5 and 6 midhei ht . Garage Floor Slabs Minimum 4" thick slab. No. 3 bazs at 18 inches on center each way (at See Notes 5, 6 and 7 midhei t. Slab should be uarter-sawn. Presoaldng At or above o Nmum moisture to a d th of 6 inches. Table 1 Notes: (1) Depth of interior or exterior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade or drainage swale flowline elevation if less than 5 feet laterally from the building foundarion. (2) Exterior column footings should be structurally tied in two directions using grade beams and founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade. (3) The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevarion as that of the adjoining footings. (4) Living azea slabs should be tied to the footings as directed by the structura] engineer. (5) The under-slab moisture retarder should consist of 2-inches of sand (Sand Equivalent > 30) over minimuxn 10-mil thick visqueen (or equivalent) over an additional 2-inches of sand in accordance with ASTM E1643 and ACI guidelines. All laps and penetrations in the vapor inhibitor should be sealed. (6) Guage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a minimum 3/8" felt expansion joint. (7) The recommendafions presented above assume that proper maintenance irrigation and drainage aze maintained around the shucture. \1 ~ Leighton ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 111442-003 May 16, 2005 TABLE 2 Minimum Foundation Design Recommendations for Low Expansive Soils (Exoansion Index 21-50) 1-Story Fooring, Depth of 12„ Embedment 2-Story Footing, Depth of 1 g„ Embedment 1- or 2-Story Isolated Exterior Column Footings 24" width (18" deep, minimum) Presoaldng 1.2 x op6mum moisture for upper 12 inches of subgade Table 2 Notes: ~ (1) Concrete floor slabs designed in accordance with UBC Sec6on 1815 should be of sufficient thiclmess to resist design expansive soil pressures and in accordance with the structural engineers recommendarions and the UBC. (2) Exterior column footings should be structurally tied in two directions using grade beams and founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade. (3) The under-slab moisture retazder should consist of 2-inches of sand (Sand Equivalent > 30) over minimum 10-mil thick visqueen (or equivalent) over an additional 2-inches of sand in accordance with ASTM E1643 and ACI guidelines. All laps and penetretions in the vapor inhibitor should be sealed. (4) If the concrete slab/floor for the foundation aze designed in accordance with Secrion 1815 of the UBC, a continuous perimeter footing will likely be used including the garage opening. (5) Low expansive soil slabs/foundarions designed in accordance with UBC Section 1815 should be placed monolithically. (6) Depth of exterior foo6ng to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade or drainage swale flowline elevation if less than 5 feet laterally from the adjacent exterior footing. (7) Floor slab detailing including crack control joints (if necessary) per the structural engineer's recommendations. (8) The recommendations presented above assume that proper maintenance irrigation and drainage aze maintained around the structure. ~ \a Leighton ~ ~ ~ ~ U a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 111442-003 May 16, 2005 TABLE 3 Minimum Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations For Verv Low to Low Exoansive Soils (Exuansion Index 0- 50) Edge Moisture Center Lift: 5.5 feet Variation, em Edge Lift: 3.0 feet Differential Center Lift: 1.5 inches Swell, ym Edge Lift: 0.4 inches Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 150 psi/in Minimum Perimeter Footing 1-Story 12 inches Embedment Depth 2-Story 18 inches Presoaldng 1.2 x optimum moisture for upper 12 inches of subgrade Table 3 Notes: (1) Concrete floor slabs designed in accordance with UBC Section 1816 should be of sufficient Uilclmess to resist design expansive soi] pressures and in accordance with the structural engineers recommendations and the UBC. (2) The under-slab moisture retarder should consist of 2-inches of sand (Sand Equivalent > 30) over minimum 10-mil thick visqueen (or equivalent) over an additional 2-inches of sand in accordance with ASTM E1643 and ACI guidelines. All ]aps and penehations in the vapor inhibitor should be sealed. (3) Depth of exterior footing to be measwed from lowest adjacent finish grade or drainage swale flowline elevation if it is less than 5 feet laterally from the adjacent exterior footing. (4) Exterior column footings should be structurally ried in two direcrions and to the main foundation. (5) F'loor slab detailing including crack control joints (if necessary) per the slructural engineer's recommendations. (6) Potenrial total and differenfial settlement should be included cumularively with differenrial swell parameters. (7) The recommendarions presented above assume that proper maintenance irrigation and drainage are maintained azound the structure. ~ Leighton ~a ~ a U a U U U U U Q 0 U U U U U 111942-003 May 16, 2005 Table 4 AC Pavement Section Thickness TI Asphaltio-Concrete (AC)Thickness (inches) Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) Thickness (inches) 5.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 3.5 6.5 7.0 4.0 9.5 8.0 5.0 10.5 U p ~ ~ Leighton A • z~ ~ 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ~ APPENDIX A ~ References O Leighton & Associates, Inc., 1987, En~neering Geologic Investigarion of Faulting, Rancho Highlands, Tentative Tract No. 2176Q Rancho California, County of Riverside, Califomia, Project No. 6862000-O1, dated Mazch 31, 1987. ~ Leighton & Associates, Inc., 2005, Summary of Geotechnical Condirions, Rancho Highlands II, Tentative Tract 23992, Lots 1, 2, and 3, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 111442-001, dated January 25, 2005. ~ Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2001, Interun Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, California U Highlands II, Pazcel Map 23992, Southwest of Rancho Califomia Road and Ynez Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 510-99, dated Mazch 12, 2001. ~ Petra Geotechnical, Tnc., 2002, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Rancho California Highlands II, Pazcel Map 23992, Southwest of Rancho Califomia Road and Ynez U Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, Califomia, J.N. 510-99, dated Mazch 15, 2002. U Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2003, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation to Provide Remedial Grading Recommendations, Tract 23992 (Rancho Highlands In, Southwest of U Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, J.N. 333-03, dated September 29, 2003. ~ RBF Consulting, Inc., 2005, Rancho Highlands Conceptual Layout, dated April 14, 2005. U U u u u ~ O A-1 ~ ~ Q Leighton B • ~ I~ u'1 U O ~ ~ ~ 11 m G ~ ~7 ui O~ O ~ U ~ d ~ ~F N ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O ~ ~ U ~ a i 0 c+~ V ~ o v o ~ N p ~ _ .~-~ N ~ ~..~ ±.~ ti 7 d Z ~ L J a c~ ~ ~ V O O ~ ~ ~ Y i" v N ~ ~ J ~ N '6 ~ J"~ t 0 N i- + a~ 7 3 z - t a ~ s ~ ~ ~ vQi u~°i ~ 3 ~ u 3 `° m ¢ ~' ~ m p v(°i m p @l ~ ~ •~ o ~ ¢ ~ aTi ¢ H °N' ~ o v~i cn `° o in ,.J~ o° ~ v z °o ~ ~ Q ~ (n J ~ 7 Q -~ N Z J N ? ~ ~.+ x (n 0 ~ Ol C E E ~ C ~ ,1'_n ~. F ~ v1Oi ~ ~ 'N m E U E ~ rn o ~ ~ ,~ o o >- Z O z 'N E ~o o z p ~ z +_~ ~ o E W 07 ~ 7 ~ 01 ~ UJ ~ (A a~-i ~ 3 Y~ 1' ~ ~' Y ~ ~n ~ ~ a ~ fo , i~ a~ m c E 3 c E ' ~ ~ ~~ o c a ~ ~ o o ~ o o ~ ~~ N a m O p m Z O Z i , J L Vl ~O ~- ~ I ~ ` I a ~ a . ~ tv i E ( ry ( /l ( fI p I N m . O ~ C O G~. ~` C ~`, Z (~: ~ y~ C Z v z ~ O ~ O vf v~ ~f1 ?~/j O tA ~ ~ CO ~ a+ ~ a+ 00 ~ O J .p 00 . ~ i aL+ ~ y ~O ~ N ~O at.+ V' ~ 3 VI ~ aL+ !0 ~ ~ !o E v E ani m° o ~ ~ a~ O ~ O O J O ~ ~ ~ O~ Q ~ ~1 " ~ ¢ m ~ a m m~ m ~ a > ~~ m ~ fA J J J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (n N lA y ~ M ~ 0 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 0 J ~ W O f+1 t0 O ~ F ~ @J @J U CdJ @J Q ~ atJ m m m m m ~ ~ .--, 00 M ~O W ~ ~ ~y V O ti O M ~O O ~ ~ ~ # ~ N M ' a d d d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ghton 2~t m a L!'1 n O .~-~ U ~ ~ ~ am ~W U Oo ~ Y u ~ a U ~ H U~ ~ ~ a° v ~ ~ u~ 0 m U ~ O y O ~ ~ O S ti ~ ~ ,..~ }+ .--~ 7 d O Z „ Z ..~ W O ~ a`v D T ' yL,~ C ~ 0 ~ N ~ Z ~ ~~ ~ C z (n ~ ''"' N a-' ~ c p N Vl ~ N L a-+ ~ ~ N . C ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ fO ~ N v ~ z ~ o rn v ~ u n t' ~ m o c~ m ~ ~ t~ m E ~ ~ ~ , i~ o ~m E ~' ' ~ ~ ~ L N w O ~ 0 N N 'O V~1 ~ N O T +~ i O 1''if O ~n' v O ~ 'p J t ° ' > ~ J , p J ~ a °' J E a E - N E o E ~ ~ (n C C ~ C .~ Z Q C ~„ ~ C y, L ~ O > U C 3 N > U y ~ > ~ ++ ~ > U y O1 ~ ~ ~ O~ C J rn ~ N ~ ` N O Z ~ ~ O Z N .N Z N Q Z w > V1 ~~ ~ ~ 3 Z' `- 3 ~ ~ 3 cn ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ O j ,.~+ O 'O +~.' O ~,,,~ J .N ~ z ~ ~ 3 ~ $ 3 ° ~ 3 ~ 'N ~"n 3 3 ~ a~ > r. Yl -o ~ .~ ~ L O +-+ ~ C ,~ t ~ ~ C ,~ L a-~ c >. a C p m` ~. ° C' a ' m ~ 'o ' o J' z > ' o °' ~ '!~ 'o c ' ~ ~' v o ,., ~ ~ a ~ ~ ,~ o ~ +' ~ il O L7 ~ p~ N .f] C ~ C7 O ~ (n a. + +' C7 ~ ~ N +~ C7 a ° ~ ~ Z a a o~ z a '~ o Z a o o z _ E ~ ~ oo i = ~ ~- a m ~ ~ co .. . ~ ~ .n = .. = ~ ao LL > (CO ~_-' ~ L Y v V y LL C 0 C aL.~ {~ C ~ C aL+ 1p ~ O O {L N ~p =' 3 U m ± N 10 O ' E O N 10 O ' '~O O ` N V c c ta ~ i~ ~ ~ t~ m ~ ~ ~ V o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ Z O J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ` O ` .' + ° a .' + 01 O + -' ~f O + ' a m m a ~ - a c i~ m` n H Q> m` o F a> m` @i H ~ J J J y (~ N f~ ~ (~ E l~ N (~ (~ N ~ ~ ,. , o ~ . ~ ~ o ~ 0 W i0 W M ~O i'~1 i0 ~ i0 d n ~ 1~ ti M .~I M M a ~ ~u ~u ~u ~u u~ ~ u m m N ~ m m m a 0 m ~ .-i ~ a ~ ^ .-i CO ~ .--I M ti ~D .-a CO {y O . O . O M O .~ ~ O ~ # v ~n ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ F- _ L~,;..h+~,., N m !~' LI I o- ~ ~ U ~ ~~ am ~ W „ ~ Q ~ U U U ~ ~ ~ U~ O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J 0. O m U o y o ~ ~ o x ~ ~, ., y ~ ~ a O 2 „ ~'i ~ z d W ~~ M a` c~.~ ° ~ v z ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ L ~ ~N ~ ~ ~ -° . v 3 ~o ~ ..~ + 3 m '`' ~ a i ° a i ° z a~ i ~ ° "' ~ v ~ ~ p N w ~ Z a ~ Y Z ,.y "O ~p , Z .o cp ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ m ~ Q m ~ N ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z N 'tn p N 'in H £ I A O 'vN a O >- O N O N ~ O ~/1 T = J ~ ~ J Z O ~ J O 'O O~ O •N Ol ~ ~C ~ ~ C N C C ~ ~' ~ C m ~. ~1 N > ,~Q >' 0 ~ N U L a? L ~ > v L ~ ,01 .~ U ,Oi tp O Z 'Nl '~' Z U O 0 C w 3 ~' z ~ 3 N o °~ 3 ~ °i 0 0 ~' °' o m 3 0 3 ~ 0 ~ ~ - a 3 ~ o E c L ~ +~+ ~ L w y 3 L 7 ~ J ~ O 7 m ~ O C. C O ` ~ ~ C o O 7 ~ O ~ = U ( ~` ~ o ~` '$' c p z ~.` °° Z v O z v , ~ iA v Y ~ iA ~ y ~ ~~ W ~ Y CO ~ ~~ CO W C `~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ LL 3 Q ~ O ~ ~ E LL ~ Ip O~ v ~{,! ~ ' 0 V C f6 ~ ~V fa O ~ ~ C ~ y ~ L V iy °~ o ~ap1i ° m o t' rnm p Q> m cn H a> m a H ¢ ~ i, ~- (A J J J C7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ Vf N ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ i. ~ 0 ~ f v ~ C d C W i0 W i0 ~ ir l a a ~ M~ O M ~ ^ O a ~ ~ @J CdJ @J ~ CaJ ~ E~S m m m m m ~~ ~ ~ Q " o ~ o °~° o °~° ~ ~ ~ f' a d { , ,~ F d ~ ~ ~ ~ Leighton m m ~ C • ~1 ~ 111442-003 May 16, 2005 ~ APPENDDCC ~ Laboratorv Testina Procedures and Test Results Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated in accordance ~ with ASTM Test Method D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compac6ve energy to approximately the optimum moishue content and approximately 50 percent saturadon or approximately 90 percent relative compacrion. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter I, specimens aze loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surchazge and aze inundated with tap water until u volumetric equilibrium is reached. The test results are presented in the test data. ~ u u ~ U U U U u ~ u u Maximum Densitv Tests: The ma7cimum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were detern~nied in accordance with AST'M Test Method D1557. The results of these tests aze presented in the test data. "R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301 for subgrade soils. Three samples were prepazed and exudation pressure and "R"-value determined on each one. The graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is smmnarized in the test data. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standazd geochemical methods in accordance with DOT California Test 417. The test results aze presented in the test data. ~ ~_1 ~ ~ Leighton ~ 2`~ 0 +. ~ Leighton and Associates, ~fIC. EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ~ ASTM D 4829 U Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By: JMD Date: 4/25/OS Project No. : 111442-003 Checked By: PRC Date: 4/29/O5 ~ Boring No.: TP-2 Sample No. : B-2 Depth (ft.) 3-6 Location: Sample Description: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND u u u U U u , U U MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test S ecimen Diameter in. 4.01 4.01 S ecimen Hei ht in. 1.0000 1.0009 Wt. Com . Soil + Mold m. 6372 887_5 Wt. of Mold m. 209.8 209.8 S ecific Gravi Assumed 2.70 2.70 Container No. , . ~_~3 E„Tg Wet Wf. of Soil + Cont. m. 311.9 667.5 D Wt. of Soil + Cont. m. 287.6 392.8 Wt. of Container m. 11.9 209.8 Moisture Content % 8.8 16.5 Wet Densi 128.9 137.9 D Densi 118.5 118.3 Void Ratio 0.423 0.424 Totai Porosi 0.297 0.298 Pore Volume cc 61.5 61.7 De ree of Saturation % S meas 56.2 100.0 U SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. U U ~ Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 4/25105 T3:48 1.0 0 1.0000 4/25/05 13:58 1.0 10 0.4998 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 4/26/O5 7:34 1.0 1052 0.5U09 4/26/OS 830 1.0 1112 0.5009 U Expansion Index (EI meas) _((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 ~,'~ Expansion Index ( EI )~ = EI meas -(50 -S meas)x((65+E1 meas) /(220-5 meas)) 4 ~ Rev.O!-01 ~ ~ U U u u u U U U U U ~ ~ ~ , ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Leighton and Associates, Inc. EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO H~GHLANDS II Tested By: JMD Project Na. : 111442-003 Checked By: PRC Boring No.: TP3 Depth (ft.) 03 Sample No. : B-1 Location: Sample Description: SM,BROWN SILTY SAND Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 2p72.0' Wt. of Container No. (gm.) 0.0 Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) 2072.0 Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve 86;Q - Percent Passing # 4 95.8 MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test S ecimen Diameter in. 4.01 4.01 S ecimen Hei ht in. 1.0000 1.0025 Wt. Com . Soil + Mold m. 617.6 643:5 Wt. of Mold m. 1902 1902 S ecific Gravi Assumed 2.70 2.70 Container No. ~:1~ g_~~ Wet Wl. of Soil + Cont. m. 311.9 643.5 D Wt. of Soil + Cont. m. 288.4 393.9 Wt.ofContainer m. tt,g 1gp2 Moisture Content % 8.5 15.1 Wet Densi 128.9 136.6 D Densi ~~g.g ~~g,7 Void Ratio 0.419 0.422 Total Porosi 0.285 0.297 Pore Volume cc 61.1 67.6 De ree of Saturation % S meas 54.8 96.4 SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 4/25/OS = 14:00, 1.0 0 1.0000 4/25/05 14:10 1.0 10 0.4991 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 4/26l05 7:3U 1.0 1040 0.5025 ° 4/26/OS 8:30 1.0 1100 0.5025 Expansion Index (EI meas) _ ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 3.4 Expansion Index ( EI )~ = EI meas -(50 -S meas)x((65+EI meas) /(220-S meas)) 5 ftev.08-00 ~ Date: 4/25/OS Date: 4/29/O5 0 U ~ U U U U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ o Leighton and Associates, Inc. Project Name: Project No. : Baring No.: Sample No. : Sample Description: EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By: JMD 111442-003 Checked By: PRC 7P-9 Depth (ft.) 3~ B-1 Location: SM, BROWN SILTY SAND Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 2000.¢; Wt. of Container No. (gm.) 0.0 Dry Wt, of Soii (gm.) 2000.0 Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve O.D Percent Passing # 4 100.0 MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test S ecimen Diameter in. 4.01 4.01 S ecimen Hei ht in. 1.0000 1.0022 Wt. Com . Soil + Mold m. 603.1 839:Z Wt. of Mold m. 203.0 203.0 S ecific Gravi Assumed 2.70 2.70 Container No. ' E-15 ' E-15 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. m. 312.8 639.2 D 1Nt. of Soil + Cont. m. 2792 355.3 Wt. of Container m. 12.8 203.0 Moisture Content % 12.6 22.8 Wet Densi 120.7 131.4 D Densi 1072 107.0 Void Ratio 0.573 0.576 Total Porosi 0.364 0.366 Pore Volume cc 75.4 75.8 De ree of Saturation % S meas 59.4 100.0 SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate ~ 0.0002 in./h. Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time (min.) Diat Readings (in.) 4/25/05 ~4:p5 1.0 0 1.0000 4/25/05 14:15 1.0 10 0.4990 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 4/26/05 .7:30 7.0 7035 0.5022 4/26/OS 8:30 1.0 1095 0.5022 Expansion Index (EI meas) _ ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 3,2 Expansion Index ( EI )~ = EI meas -(50 -S meas)x((65+E1 meas) /(220-S meas)) ~ Rev, p8 04 32 Date: 4/25/05 Date: 4/29/OS D U ~ Y U U U U U U U O ~ U U ~ U ~ ~ MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ~ Leighlon a~d Assoeiafes, I~c. ~~+ p lss~ Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By : AJP Date: 4/25/OS Project No.: 111442-003 Input By : PRC Date: 4/29/OS Boring No.: TP-2 Depth (ft.) 0-3 Sample No. : B-1 Soil Identification: SM, OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND Preparation Method 8 Mo~st Dry Mold Volume (ft3) 8X Mechanical Ram Manual Ram Ram Weight = 10 /b.; Drop = 18 in. M~~rn~~o ennon a.,n n'-;. ~rn ~'':,_ann r~ TEST NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wt. Com acted Soil + Mold 578Q: ' S754 ~~62 5726 ' Wei ht of Mold 3'639 3639 3639 3639 Net Weight of Soil 2150 2115 2023 2087 Wet Wei ht of Soil + Cont. 12~5 , .. 1~3 S_ ~r32;$- ' i26;~ ' D Wei ht of Soil + Cont. 1k'f;~~, ~' ix'g l °~z9:7 „~ ~~] 12~:9 '~ Wei ht of Container L1:~,~ ~'` 11.9 11.9 119 Moisture Content % 11.2 9.2 7.2 133 Wet Densi 141.7 139.4 133.4 137.6 D Densi 127.5 127.7 124.4 121.5 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) PROCEDURE USED ~30.0 ~ Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4(4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (hventy-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less 125.0 ~ Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve ~ Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter a Layers : 5 (flve) Blows per layer ; 25 (twenty-five) ~ Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is ~~20.0 20°/a or less p ~ Procedure C o Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Pive) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) 115.0 Use If +3/8 in. is >20% and +~/a in. is <30% Particle-Size Distribution: ~ Atte~ >>o.o o.o Optimum Moisture Content (% 14:U 5.0 ~0.0 15.0 20.0 Moisture Content (%) ~ a 0 U LU U ~ U U U U ~ U U ~li U `I~ ~ ~ ~ MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST e~ Leighfo~aodAssociales, IOC. ASTM D 1557 Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By : A7P Date: 4/26/OS Project No.: 111442-003 Input By : PRC Date: 4/29/OS Boring No.: TP-3 Depth (ft.) 4-7 Sample No. : e-2 Soil Identification: SM, OLIVE BROWN SIL7Y SAND Preparation Method: 8X Moist BX Mechanical Ram ~~Y Manual Ram Mold Voiume (ft3) 0.03344' < Ram Weighf = 10 /b.; Orop = 18 in. m,a~~.o~dAu1/ml\ n.~. cn irn TEST NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wt. Com acted Soil + Mold 5712 5809 5593 ~820 - Wei ht of Mold 3639~ 3639 3639 3639 Net Wei ht of Soil ) 2073 2170 2054 2181 Wet Wei ht of Soil + Cont. 1~n :Q 12~°7 126r1 129 8'.' D Wei ht of Soil + Cont. 12~:7 1=P~~# ~ 1~4:~` `119.0 ~' Weight of Container g) 1~-~3 =: 12.8 12.8 11.9 Moisture Content % 6.0 8.2 12.0 10.1 Wet Densi 136.7 143.1 135.4 143.8 D Densi 128.9 132.3 121.0 130.6 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 1~3~~. < Optimum Moisture Content (% : 9.0 PROCEDURE USED ~ao.a ~ Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4(q.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (301.6 mm) diameter Wyers : 5 (Five) ~35.0 Blows per layer : 25 (hventy-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less ~ Procedure B 130.0 Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve ~ Mold : 4 In. (101.6 mm) diameter a Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) ~ Use If +d4 is >20% and +3/B In. is ~~ 25.0 20Wo or less d ~ ~ Procedure C p Soll Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter ~zo.0 layers : 5 (Five) Biows per layer : 56 (fiRy-six) Use if+3/8 in. is >20% and +~/s In. I5 <30% ~ ~ 5_0 Particle- bution: ~ Atterbe Limits: >>o.o SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 o.o s.o ~o.a Moisture Content (%} ~ , ~s.o zo.o Compecb'on rPa,9-z " a MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST U ~ Leighto~ a~dAssociates, IIIC. A5TM D 1557 Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By : p7P Date: 4/26/OS U Project No.: 111442-003 Input By : PRC Date: 4/29/OS Boring No.: TP-5 Depth (ft.) 1-3 Sample No. : B-1 U Soil Identifiption: SM, OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND Preparation Method: BX Moist BX Mechanical Ram u ~rY Manual Ram Mold Volume (ft3) D.03344 Ram Weight = 10 /b.; Orop = 18 in. U U ~ ~ ~ ~ Mniel.~.n nAAM /...I\ n ~~.. rn TEST NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wt. Com cted Soil + Mold 5772:., : 5784 SbZ~ 5680 Wei ht of Mold 3539` 3639 3639 3639 Net Wei ht of Soil 2133 2145 2038 2041 Wet Wei ht of Soil + Cont. Dry Wei ht of Soil + Cont. ) 123;3 1~~,~,2~ J29 i „7;1~,3 ~~1,0 ~'~ 1~12:8 ~~ _ ' 129 8''. ~ S15`:2 i ___ _ Wei ht of Container g Y1;9. V.,', • 11.9 11.4 12.8 Moisture Content % 12.2 10.2 8.1 14.3 Wet Densi ( 140.6 141.4 134.4 134.6 D Densi 125.3 128.4 124.3 117.8 Maximum Dry Density (pc~ 12J:n ' Optimum Moisture Content (% '. 11;0 '- PROCEDURE USED t4o.o ~ Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4(4.75 mm) Sieve ~ Mold : 4 in. (301.6 mm) diameter Wyers : 5 (Flve) ~35.0 Blows per layer : 25 (hvenly-flve) ~ May be used if +#4 Is 20% or less ~ Vrocedure B 130.0 Soii Gassing 3/8 In. (9.5 mm) Sieve ~ Mold : 41n. (101.6 mm) diameter y Layers : 5 (Five) ~ Blows per layer : 25 (hventy-five) ~ Use if+#4 is>20%and +3/81n. is ~ 125.0 20% or lew 0 ~ ~ Procedure C 0 Soil Passing 3/41n, (19.0 mm) Sleve Mold : 61n. (152.4 mm) diameter 120.0 Layers : 5 (Frve) ~ Blows per layer : 56 (fiRysix) Use if+3/8 in. is >20% and +3/e in. I5 <30% 115.0 ~ Particle-~ibution: ~ Atterbe Limits: i i ~ GR. = 2.65 GR. = 2.70 GR. ~ 2.75 ~io.o+- o.o S.D 10.0 Moisture Content (%) 15.0 20.0 comaearon 1PS,9-, ~ a MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST U ~ Leighfoo aodAssodales, IIIC, A5TM D 1557 Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By : A7P Date: 4/26/OS U Project No.: 111442-003 Input By : PRC Date: 4/29/OS Boring No.: TP-6 Depth (ft.) 1-3 Sample No. : B-1 U Soil Identifiption: SM, OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAND Preparation Method: BX Moist BX Mechanical Ram ~ ~rY Manual Ram Mold Volume (R3) 0.033+#~} ' Ram Weight= 10/b.; Drop = 18in. U U u ~ U m~~d,~roennenimn n~~ _cn ~~~.cn .. ,~~ TEST NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wt. Com cted Soil + Mold _ ___ 5815 __ . __ 5730 5199 5578 Wei ht of Moid 3439 ' 3639 3639 3639 Net Wei ht of Soil 2176 2091 2160 1939 Wet Wei ht of Soil + Cont. 13~:7 i23 J :1~0,5 y.~,34:3 : D Wei ht of Soil + Cont. 120:9 116c5 S18;b ' .;333.0 Wei ht of Container 411,9 s 11.9 12.8 119 Moisture Content % 9.1 7.1 11.2 5.2 Wet Density ( 143.5 137.9 142.4 127.8 D Densi 131.5 128.7 128.0 121.5 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 1~2.~ ' Optimum Moisture Content (% i~.5 U PROCEDURE USED iao.a ~ Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4(4.75 mm) Sleve U Mold : 4 In. (301.6 mm) diameter layers : 5 (Five) ~35.0 Blows per layer : 25 (hventy-frve) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less ~ ~ Procedure B 730.0 Soll Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve ~ Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) dlameter a Layers : 5 (Five) U Blows per layer : 25 (hventy-fve) ~ Use If +~k4 is >20% and +3/B in. Ls ~ 725.0 20% or less p ~ ~ Procedure C ~ Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve ~20 0 Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter . layers : 5 (Fve) ~ Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) Use if +3/8 In. is >20% and +3k In. I5 <30% 115.0 ~ Particle-Size Distribution: ~ ~ Atterbe Limits: i i ~ SP. GR. = 2.70 710.0 i- o.o 5.0 10.0 Moisture Content (%) 15.0 20.0 co,~ncno~ n.a,e-, ~ ~ ~ Leighlo~ aodAssociates, loc, ~ ' ~ [J MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Tested By : AJP Date: 4/26/OS Project Nb.: 111442-003 Input By : PRC Date: 4/29/OS Boring No.: TP-8 Depth (ft.) 6-8 Sample No. : B-2 ~ Soil Identifiption: (ML)s. YELLOW BROWN LEAN SILT WITH SAND Prepa\ration Method: BX Moist BX Mechaniral Ram Dry Manual Ram ~ U ~. Mold Volume (ft;) O.d3344 'r Ram Weight= 10/b.; Orop = IBin. a U U 0 U a U U U U 0 U a \~~N.~.o en.~~n r~,n n s _ch ._inn TEST NO. 1 2 3 5 6 Wt. Com cted Soil + Mald _. _____ 57g~; ., 571i 5570 Wei ht of Mold 3639 ' 3639 3639 Net Weight of Soil g 2066 2072 2031 Wet Wei ht of Soil + Cont. i3~~:6 139:5 ],23 A. ' D Wei ht of Soil + Cont. 116;6 124.7 il'1.9 Wei ht of Container 11:9 11.9 11.9 Moisture Content % 153 13.1 11.1 Wet Densi 136.2 136.6 133.9 D Densi 118.1 120.8 120.5 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) i21.5 r Optimum Moisture Content (aPo ' 12.ti PROCEDURE USED t3o.o ~ Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4(4.75 mm) Sleve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Wyers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (hventy-flve) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less 125.0 ~ Procedure B Soil Passing 3/B ln. (9.5 mm) Sieve ~ Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Q Layers : 5 (Fve) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) ~ Use if +#4 is >20°/a and +3/8 1n. is ~ 120.0 20%orless ~ ~ Procedure C o Soil Passing 3J4 In. (19.0 mm) Sleve Mold : 6 In. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Frve) Blows per layer : 56 (flfty-six) 115.0 Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +3/s in. I5 ~30% Particle-Size Distribution: Atterb~ ~~o.o o.o , , a ~ ca~~~ao~ rae,e-z ~`1 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Moisture Content (%} 0 0 U a u a u U u D U U U U U 0 U O 0 Leighton and Associates, ~nc. R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project Name: PULTE I RANCHO HIGHLANDS tl Date: 4/29/05 Project Number: 111442-003 Technician: RGO Boring Number: TP-2 Depth: 0-3 Sample Number: B-1 Sample Location: ~ Sample Description: SM. BROWN SILTY SAND TEST SPECIMEN A B C MOISTURE AT COMPACTION °h 10.9 12.0 13.1 HEIGHTOFSAMPLE,Inches 2.50 2.52 2.58 DRY DENSITY, cf 124.4 123.5 121.4 COMPACTORAIRPRESSURE, sf 250 160 120 EXUDATION PRESSURE, sf 358 248 153 EXPANSION, Inches x 10e -4 15 8 0 STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs 160 si 41 79 135 TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.89 5.02 5.14 R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 60 34 8 R-VALUE CORRECTED 60 34 9 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0~ TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0 STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.64 1.06 1.46 EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.50 027 0.00 a.oo eo ~ Z 3.5a ~ ~ N Q 3.00 a x ~o w z.so > m y 2 00 60 ~ N . ~ W w y 1.W ~ 50 U > ~ ~ +.~ ao K > o.w • ~ • v . 30 o~ . 0.00 0.50 7.00 7.50 2.00 2.50 3.OD 350 4.00 20 COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in fcet m ~ 0 BW ]00 800 500 400 90p 200 10U 0 R-VALUEBYEXPANSION: N/A EXUDATIONPRESSURE(pG) R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 46 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 46 Rev.OBM 3~ L_' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ IJ +~ ~eighton andAssociates, Inc. R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project Name: PLUTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Date: 4/29/OS Project Number: 111442-003 Technician: RGO Boring Number: TP-5 Depth: 13 Sample Number: B-1 Sample LocaUon: Sample Description; s(MLl SANDY LEAN SILT TESTSPECIMEN A B C MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 12.1 13.2 14.3 HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.53 2.58 2.60 DRY DENSITY, d 123.7 120.7 717.8 COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, sf 220 90 60 EXUDATION PRESSURE, sf- 385 296 186 EXPANSION, Inches x 10e -4 35 14 6 STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs 160 si 99 126 733 TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.80 5.02 5.71 R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 24 12 8 R-VALUE CORRECTED ~ 24 13 9 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0 STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 1.21 1.39 1.46 EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 1.17 0.47 0.20 4.W BO C Z 3.50 Q 80 N Z J.00 X 70 W z.w m „ eo N m Y.00 ~ W U 1.5D w Q 50 > _ ~ rc F 1.00 40 K W U o.w • ao . o.oo • 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 20 COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER In feet • io ~ 0 B00 700 800 500 400 300 200 100 0 R-VALUEBYEXPANSION: N!A E%U~ATIONPRESSURE(psl) R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 14 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 14 Rev. 0&06 ~ a ~ U O U ~ U U ~ U U U U U ~ U U LJ ~ Leighton andAssociates, Inc. R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II Date: 4/29lOS ~ Project Number: 111442-003 Technician: RGO Boring Number. TP-10 Depth: 03 Sample Number: B-1 Sample Location: Sampie Description: SM. BROWN SILTY SAND TEST SPECIMEN A B C MOISTURE AT COMPACTION °k 11.7 12.8 13.9 HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.56 2.47 2.46 DRY DENSITY, cf 125.3 122.5 120.5 COMPACTORAIRPRESSURE, sf 260 190 170 EXUDATION PRESSURE, sf 434 263 202 EXPANSION, Inches x 10e 45 25 72 STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs 160 si 47 84 109 TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.75 4.83 4.95 R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 56 32 19 R-VALUE CORRECTED 57 32 19 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c GRAVEL EQUNAIENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 TR,4FFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0 STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.69 1.09 1.29 EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 1.50 0.83 0.40 a.oo yo c Z 3.W O eo N Q 3.00 a ~o ~ u z.so > m rn m z oo ao . W- . w _ ,~ . ~ U ~ > S ~ 1- 1.00 40 W ~ U o.50 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 R.50 3.W 3.50 4.00 20 ~ COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet ,o 0 eoo 70o eao soo aoo aoo zeo ~oo 0 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 38 E%UDATION PRESSURE (pal) R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 38 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 38 Rev. oe-0~ ~ ~ ~ L i ht d A i t ~ e g on an ssoc a es, Inc. Project Name: PULTE / RANCHO HIGHLANDS II •------------------------------- ------ Project Number: -- ------------- 111442-003 °------------------------• Date: 4/25/05 Technician: •-----------° RGO Sample Identification Boring No.: TP-2 Sample No: ~B-1 ~ Depth (ft.): ~0-3 ~ Boring No.: TP-3 ~ ~ Sample No: 6-2 Depth (ft.): 4-7 ~ Baring No.: TP-6 Sample No: B-1 Depth (ft.): ~7-3 ~ Boring No.: TP-7 •--------°-° Sample No: B _1 ________ Depth (ft.): 3-6 Soluble Sulfates (Hach Sulfate Test Kit) Dilution Reading (PPM) % Suifates Water Fraction Tube Reading 3:1 3 X 70 '! 0.0210 = 210 3:1 3 X 80 ': 0.0240 = 240 __ ._ _ 3:1 3 X 20A 0.0600 = 600 3 :1 3 X z3p ! <0.0150 _ <150 _..,: _. Rev.0606 \` ~ ~ 1.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a O U a ~ ~ U U ~ U U [i~ 3030.1094 ~ LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC GENERAL EART'HWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING Genera] 1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specificarions are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendarions contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendarions in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical. report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendarions prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepazed by the Earthwork Contractor (Coniractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observarion, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumprions. If the observed condi6ons are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumpfions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed condirions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped,elevationsrecorded, and/ortested include natural ground after it has been cleazed for receiving fill but before fili is placed, bottoms of all "remedial remova]" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moistute-condirioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relarive compacrion testing of fill to detemune the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 13 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and ]mowledgeable in earthwork logistics, prepararion and processing of ground to receive fill, moisturecondirioning and processing of fill, and compacring fill. The Conhactor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for perfoiu~iug the grad'mg in accordance with the plans and specificarions. ~ Leighton ~~ ~ Leighton and Associates, Inc. ~ GENERAL EARTHWORK pND GRADING SPECIFICAI'[ONS Page 2 of 6 ~ 0 The Contractor shall prepaze and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of U work and the esrimated quanrities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the wark plan at least 24 hours in ~ advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is awaze of all grading operarions. ~ The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earkhwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes. and U agency ardinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsarisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moishue condition, ~ inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc, aze resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specificarions, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construcrion be stopped until the conditions are recrified. a 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled U 2.1 Clearine and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to a the owner, goveming agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on ~ specific site condifions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. ~ If potenrialiy hazardous materials aze encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected azea, and a l~a7ardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper ~ evaluarion and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that uea. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, ^' diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that aze considered :~ to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment ~ and shall not be allowed. ' 22 Processine: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the ~ Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following secrion. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of lazge clay lu~ps or ~ 3030.1094 ~ ~ Leighton ~~ ~ Leighton and Associates,Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 3 of 6 U ~ clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 23 Overexcavation: In addirion to removals and overexcavations recommended in the U approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly frachtted or otherwise unsuitable gound shall be overexcavated to ~ competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benchine: Where fills aze to be laced on ound with slo es ste er than 5:1 P ~ P ep (horizonta] to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details ~ for a graphic illustrerion. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as ~ othenvise recommended by the Creotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade a for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All azeas to receive fill, including removal and processed azeas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded ~ , and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotectinical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for 0 determining elevarions of processed areas, keys, and benches. 2.6 ~ 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill sttall be essentially free of organic matter and other a deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potenqal, or low shength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical ~ Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve sarisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a ma7cimum U dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless locaNon, materials, and placement methods aze specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material dces not occur and ~ such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of fmish grade or within 2 feet of future utiliries or underground construcNon. ~ 3.3 Itnport: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potenrial import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 worldng days) before importing begins so that ~ its suitability can be detern~ined and appropriate tests performed. Import fill should be &ee of all deleterious material and hazardous waste. Testing for hazardous waste typicall~+ takes ~ 3030.1094 ~ ~ Leighton \ , ~ Leighton and Associates,Inc. - GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATTONS Page 4 of 6 a between 7 and 14 worldng days. O Q 4.0 ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in azeas prepazed to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in neaz-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thiclmess. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative unifomrity of material and moisture throughout. ' 4.2 Fill Moishse Conditionine: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximwn density and optimum soil moisture content tests st~all be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test. Method D1557-91). 43 Comoaction of Fill: After each layer has been moistise-conditioned, mixed, and evenly • spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). CompacHon equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of.compac6on with unifornuty. 4.4 Comnacfion of Fill Sl~es: 1n addirion to nocmal compaction procedures specified above, compacrion of slopes shall be accomplished by baclaolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevarion, or by other methods producing safisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon comple6on of grading, relarive compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per AST'M Test Method D1557-91. 4.5 Compacfion Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compacrion of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. I,oca6on and frequency of tests shall be at the ConsultanYs discrerion based on field condirions encountered. Compac6on test locafions will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compacrion levels in azeas that aze judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the filUbedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Comoaction Tesrine: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yazds of compacted fill soils embanlm~ent. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill conskucrion is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the eaRhwork conshvction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Comnacrion Test Locarions: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the appr~a~imate 3030.I094 ~ ~ Leighton / ~ / D Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 5 of 6 a 0 elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test locafion. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes aze established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a U minimum, hvo grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locarions shall be provided. ~ 5.0 Subdrain Installadon ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Subdrain systems stiall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend addirional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions ' encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient fime should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Faccavarion Excavarions, as well as overcxcavarion for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant dui-ing grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans aze esrimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and CaUOSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construcrion. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent geater than 30 (SF>30). The bedding shall be placed to I foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 73 The jetting of the bedding azound the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the irench bacldill for relarive compacrion. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. ~ 3030.1094 ~ Leighton - w 0 ~ ~ Y ~ U 0 U U U U U u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' Leigh[on and Associates,Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 6 of 6 7.5 Lift thiclmess of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relafive cornpaction by his alternative equipment and method. 3030.1094 ~ Leighton \ " PpOJEL~m PUWE 1 TO 1 MA70MUM fACM TOE cf s~.o~ to u~ovo, cflouN~ ruTUw~ \ GAOUN~ \ ~_„ r ~nH. -~ iowesr e~c~ ~ra~ ~ FiLL Si.OPE 4' TYPR'.Al. ~8F3/CN HEiGHT nEUOVe INSURA81 WTEHIAL FiLL-0VEA-Cil'i' SLOPE Ha-ruRai. I / `' ' / . ~ ~ ~z -2X6 ~16'I LlWES7 - 2' AIN. KEY OF~TH ' dIT F31Cc SFW.L BE COtJ67FAJC7~ PFlIOR ~ TO FI.L PLACc~A@RTO I.SSIJAE ACEC.'U117'E C-EDLC`C,7C CLYiOfTiCN3 1 ' ' PfiO.IECTEO PLANE ' i TO 7 MAbMUM FrxMA R7E OF. SLCPE TO /1PPRGVE~ aF30UND~ 1 ~~ ' i ov~euar arin ra~H encx\ OESiGN SLOPE . 2'MIN.-~ LOWE5761 ` . _.. I~Y DEPiH ~y) REIAOVE INS31RAHl] MATEAIAL CLIT-OVE~i-F3LL SLOPE For Subdrains See Standard Detaii C HE6iiT ~ BEiiC}IWl3 9-11WL BE OCNE WHE'J SLOPES MK9LE 13 E~UAL TO CR GAEiSEi T}U1N 5:1 MIMMUM BE~iCN HE'GHP SFULLl 8E 4~ MINIMUM FlLL WIpTH Sri4LL gE 9 Fc~T ^ - . GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING '. ~EYING AND BENCHING SPECIFICATIONS ~~ , STANDARD DEi'AILS A ; ~~ 4'TYP~'e1 „ ~ BENC}i HElGHT REiIOVE INSURABL£ FAATEAIAL CLT F71CE TO 8E CCNSlFiIJCtm pfilOq / TO FB.L PL.I,C~A£~!T / / NATUF3Al. ~ GAOUND / ~ ~/ i. 4' TYPlC.a1 NATUR4L ` / ----------------------- - \T~ _ - -COMPACTm FILL - --- ~ - -~.~~ -~ - -- --------- - ~ A~ - - -~~ - _- --'~ - - ~~~ TYPICAL BENCHING ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - REMOVE , \~~~ ~~ - =.-C, \~` UNSUITABLE MAIERIAL ~.~~ SUBDRAIN (See Alternates A and B) SUBDRAINALlERNA1EA P~~~~~q~~~~Dm ~ WITH F[LTBt MATHt1AL FILIER MATERIAL (9FT 3F'f) ' . -:~ L~.~,~ `~~• n. . ' 4'hllN~ ~ :~ SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1 PERFORATID P! 6" 0 MIN. SUBDRAIN ALTERNAiE B SUBDRAIN ALiERNATE A-2 , DEfAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN 1FRMINAL GRAVELWRAPPEDINFILTERFABRIC 12" MIN. OVQttAP ~ ~ FILTER FABRIC ~ ~ awa° m~ , .. Farear~eas ~ . (n~w,niu~on ~v n~x. awusi ~wro~c cQ~nvaiert7 (hIIRAFI 140NC OR ~~ APPROVED EQUNALH~In , /'~~_ . L: Q' ~. , ~- .~ ALTERNATE &1 3/4^ M~: ~'~-~ ALTQ2NAlE B-2 APPROVED EQUNNINI' (9FT~/Fl) O PFRFORATED PIPE IS OPTIIXJAI PER GOVERNING AGENCYS RK~U6lFMBJ'f5 ~ irnm+. _ ~a,.~,~ 6'0lVl. - CANYON GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SUBDRAIN 5PECIFICATIONS 5TANDARD DEfAILS C ~onw. ~ LGOMIED N<'W@lGWOEDGMVfl {~p~.p, O0.MROV~EQUNNEIR ~ F]LiER MATERW. FILTER MATERIHL SHALL 8E C1A552 PBtMFi1BlEMAT6tiALPEASTq'IEOF CALff01tMA SfANDAR~ SPEQftGI'IION, qt APPROVED ALiHtfVATE CIA42GRADINGASPoLLOWS: ~ Sieve ~ Pa~rd Passhn 1• 100 ~ 3/4" 90d00 . 3/B' 40•100 Na.4 U`~ No. 8 1&33 No.30 5-~ No.50 ~'~ No.200 0'3 , r • ~ i ' 1 , : II ' i' . ' ..~ CUT-FILL TRANSITlON LOT'OVEREXCAVA7ION REMWE UNAIITA&.E ~ Gf+AUND j / / i i _ __-~___ __-_ _%____- - - {OMPAREDFIl1 - - -/c~ -.-:- ~ - -------- '---.~-.--r \ - -~'~~- - ~r- - - ~ ~ - -------- ~~- ~' - - - ' ~~ _ l OVERIXCAVAIE' _ c ~ AND0.KCMPACf _ _ _ ~ _ _ TYPiCe1 - ~ ~ BENOUNG - ~ UNWFATHEREDBmPDIXORMNiElIIP1APPPOVED ~ `~ ~ ~ BY7HE GEOfECHNICN. CCNSULTPflf ~~ SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD I' ~ , . 'e RES7RICIEDUSEARfA~ , I OVEPBUROFN .. OR UNMTpBLE MATERid1 , RKOMPACf :EMENTFIW ~ i ~ ~ / / / 5' i , 4' MM. ~ NA7URP1 GROUND ~ / / / / / / ~ ~ / / / / / / ~ / FINISHEDCUfPPD / ~ ~ _ _ _ -,Z \ \ \ . • _ 1 -- ~- ...~ .. . .................. _ ~_ -'_~__' , ~`a_-' -_ ~~-_ _~ _ _ _ ~ _ -~ POD WEREXCAVATION ANU RECOh1PACRON .__ .Z_ _ SH4LL BE PERFCftMED ff SPEQFIFD - - - - ~- ~/ ~I~ BY 7HE GEOTECHNICPL CCNSULTPM 1 _~ BENCF9NG ~ - - ~.- _ _- ' ~'l~ ,//// /~ -~~ SEE SfANDPRD ~EfAII FOR SUBDRAINS . /~T 9' MIN. ~N REQUIRED BY GEOfKHNIGI CCNSIATPNT ' 2' MM. ~1' D~ UNWEA7HfRm Bm187IX OR MA7EIIIAL APPRAVED - ~ BYIHEGEOfECFPlIC41CCNSULTPNf ~ ~ ' ' _ TRANSITION LOT FILLS GENFRAIEARTHWORKAND61tADING SPECffICATIONS JZ AND SIDE HILL FILLS sr~woaa~ o~rn~~s E 1. ~;,.~; o , SUBDR AIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATlVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF S$0 OPI70N 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WIiH CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MA7ERIAL OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED ' IN fILTER FABRIC WITH PROPER SURFA~ DRAINA6E H'~ ~aPER S ' S~~ I OR LEVEL 1~~I. . URFACE DRAWAGE j ~ S~~ I r-, . Y 70R LEVEL ~ ~ 12" ...___ . ~Z. NATIVE WATERPROpqNG . NATIVE (SEE GENERAL NQTES) ~ WA7EFpftOpqNG ,•r I ~ ° ~ (SEE 6ENERAL NOTES) FILTER FABftIC 12" MINIMUM - (SEE NOTE 4) ~ CLASS 2 PERMEABLE ~ ~'y 12" MINiMUM WEEP HOLE FILTER MATERIAL ~ ~ WEEP HOIE ~'~• (SEE NOTE ,7 (SEE GRADATION) (SEE NO7E 5) ~ GnAVEL wRpPpED W F¢7ER - 4INCH D1AhIt7ER • FABRIC LEVELOR PERFORAIEDpIpE LEyELOR SIAPE (SEE NOTE ~ SIDPE C~as 2 Filter Perm~ble Ma~rtal Gadaticn Per Caltrans Specificatlone , Sieve SFre PerceM Pa~na 1" S00 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 Na 4 25-40 No.8 ~ 18-33 Na 30 5-15 No.50 0-7 Na 200 . 0-3 GENERAL N07E5: Y Waterproofing should be provided where mo(sture nulsance pfoblem through the wall Is undesirable. * Wat~ prooflng of the walls Is not under purvlew of the geotechnfwl eng(neer ' All drains shoutd have a gradient of 1 percent minimum *Oudet portlon of ihe subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposai area designed by the project engineer. The subdrain pipe should be aaessible for maintenance (rodding) *Other subdrain bacl6fll options are subjecY to the review by the geotechnlcal engineer and modification of design pa2meters. Notes: I"1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting. ~)1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-fnch s(ze gravel wrapped In filter fabric ) Pipe type ~ould be ASl'M D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or AS?M D1785 Polyv(nyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule 40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforatlons down. Pertoratlons should be 3/8 inch.in iameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered) ) Rlt~ fabdc should 6e MiraFl 140NC ar approved equivalent ) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum tliameter and provided at 10-foot ma~dmum intervals. If exposure is pemi(tted, weepholes should be laated_ 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not pertnftted sudi as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a p(pe under the idewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wail, a propersubdrain outlet em should be provfded. 6) RetaiNng wall plans should be reviewed and appro~d by the geotechnipl engineer. ~) Walis over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geolechnical engineer and modificatlons ro the above requiremeMs. RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL ' FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HElGHT ~~ WHEN NATlVE MATERIAL HAS IXPANSION INDIX OF <50 ^ - Figure No. TRANSMITTAL To: Attenrion: Transmitted: Pulte Home Corporation 2 Technology Drive Irvine, California 92618 Mr. Ron Roberts X Herewith Via Courier Client Pick Up The Following: For: Draft Report _ X Final Report _ Extra Report Date: May 16, 20Q5 Project No. 111442-003 Your Use As Requested Other Subject: S_upplemental Geotechnical Investieation, Rancho Hiehlands II Tract 23992 Lots 1 2 and 3. Citv of Temecula. California. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Scot Mathis/Zafar Ahmed Distribution: (6) Addressee ~~ PROJECTED PWiE __ -- 1 TO 7 MA7~MUM Fi'~C.MI TOE -- __~ _-_ , OF Si.OP£ TO APPFiOV~ GROUND __~_ - ~ ==.7 =_ - -- w-n,AU =~'=_- _- ~r~~cu caouNn ___ - _ ~ -_~ _= e~ca ~aet+cr~ - -j--- ~ ----- HEiGHT 2' YIlL-~ ~~~ BEHCH l~Y~LEPTH ~~ , ' NaTUFla~ FlA GFIOUND _~ ~' ' -_ ~ / ~ / ~ / OVEABUILT ANO TAIM BACX\ OESlGN SLOPE _ ' CU! F31CE ~ £~111LL BE CON87F0.1C7'ID PFlIOR ' T'OFi1.LPlJ1CEiA@liY~O/1SSUFlE ACEf:UATE GEflIOC',iC C~ , ' , PtiWECiE~ PLJINE ' 1 TO 1 MA~MUM F']OM TOE OF SLCPE TO APf~i~EJ aF40UND~ 1 ~ ~ I 2' MIN.~ 1S MI! ~0~, - LOWESTBI ~__ .... _ -- ---- CKEY) ~YING AND BENCHING _ 2' NItL KEY CF~~T'H REi~OVE INSiJ(TA6L' h1A7F}iIAL pE3tOVE iNSURABI' w-~~ai. ~- 4 TYPICAL „ ~ BEHCtt HE3GHT FiF~10VE 1NSUITABLE ~~AA7'E3iW1. Ci7T FACE TO BE COHBTF3UCTEfl pFdCq / TO F8L PL.l1CE3AE'!f / / NANAAL / GAOUNO ~ ~ ~/ i. 4' TYP~x1 FiLL SLOPE FiLL-OVEr'3-CLIT SLOPE CilT-OVE~-FiLL SLOPE For Subd~ains 9ee Standard Detaii C HEaHT ~ BQ~IGiINC3 9FYU.1 BE DCNE WHE''! SLOPE3 Ni6lE IS Et7UA1. TO CR GAEA7Ei 7FUIN 5:1 MIMMUM BF3il;N H~OHT.,iiALL BE 1 F~f MIMMUM FlLL YVI[T171 SFU~LL 8E 9 F s~i GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DEfAILS A 5~ NAlUR4L ~ / \.~ - - -COMPACTED F!LL = _ _- - - - - -. - _~- _----- - ---_~ - ~r1 ~r~~ - --~---- --'J~ -- ` ---- ~l~ TYPICAL BENCHING ~ - - - - - -- ~ \r?~ ~•_ - c~C. RFMOVE , _ _ _ \~` UNSUITABLE MA7ERIAL ~~~~ SUBDRAIN (See Alternates A and B) SUBDRAIN ALTERNA7E A FATER MAlERIA1(A SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1 PHtFORA1ED P17E SLRROUVD~ - WITH FILTBt MAT6i1P1 ~~ ' 4' _~~T~ ~~ SUBDRAIN AL7ERNqTE A-2 6" 0 MIN. SUBDRAIN ALlERNA'fE B , GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FRTHi FABRIC ~ 12" MIN. OV62lAP FIL7ER FABRIC (h4RAR 140NC OR APPROVED EQUNNB~ff) •w: -;~Q`'. ALTERNATE &1 3~q~~ ~• ~'~~ ALTQtNAlE &2 APPROVED EQUNAt.H~fi' ~ (~'/~ ~ PERFOR4TED PIPE IS OPRIXJAI_ PER GOVERNING AGENCYS R~UIREMBQTS ~ o~x rwsxm aaoE DEfAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL ~ ~r ~. - I ~ r~ox-~wa,~ '~srera.- ' GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING CANYON SPECIFICATION5 ~ ~ SUBDRAIN ~qNpqRp DEiAILS C FD.7ER MA7ERLIL FILTER MATERIAlSHALL BE CUV55.2 P9IMFABIEh1ATHtIALPEHSTpIEOF CALiFORN[A SfANDAR~ SPEQftCATION. OR APPMVED AI.T9WATE QA$2GPADINGASPotLOWS: ~ Sieox Ste Per~rR Pazsirp . 1" 300 ~ 3/4" 90•100 . 3/8' ~•~ No.4 7~4~ No. 8 1&33 No.30 5-15 No.50 ~'~ No.200 0-3 ~ ~ Fb1ERfnaUC (lIIMF! IQltll tv nm. w~sal ~wro~fo cQUVnum1 RqpqlEp 3/9'WQiGPADEDGMYB 5~p~.@~, ORMFIO/~EWNNEHf .~1 CUT-FILL TRANSI7ION LOT OVEREXGqVATION REMU/E UNAIITABfE ~ GPDUND ~: / I i / _ _ _ _.~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ - - - ~OMPACfED FiLL - - -~ c~ - ~'- - - ~-~--r ~ ' --- - - ---= r _ ~--- - -~'--------- - - ~ ~-- -------- ~--------- _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ \ `l OVEFFJ(GIVATE~ - ~.~ - - _ \ AND RECOMPACT _ _ _ _ T'Pifl~L - ,~~~( BENCF4NG _ ~_ ~ / ~ i~ / / / 5' i , 4' MIN. i UNWEAIHEREp BEDf~( OR MAiERiP1 APPPDVED ~~ ~ BY7HEGEOfECKJIfP1CCN51ATPM `l~ SIbE HILL FILL WR CUTPAD RES7RICIED USEPAEA OVEREXCAVAIE AND RKQ~IPACT l NATURAL GROUND `. Y / / / / / / / / / ~ / / ~ / / FINISHEDCIf~PPD / ~ '. ~ OVER9URDEM ORUNSLIITA&E -- MATFRIPL . - ~ - - - - _,Z \ \ \ \ ~ ~ . _ - -.~ ~- •~•••~~•• ••••• _ _ ~ ~_ ~ •••••••••••••• IIL~I~- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ -~ PAD OYEPEXCqVATfON AND PEQ7hPACriqJ --- .Z_ _ SH4LL BE PEPFCRMED If SPEQh7m ~ _ _ -~ ~ ~I~ BYTHEGEOfECHNICAi[CNSULTPM __ % ~ _ BE~KF9NG ! G \ ~ ~ _ _ ' ,\ ~ SEE STANDMD DETAIL Fq25UeDPAINS WtiEN REQUIRED BY GEOfECHNIGI CONSUL7PM 9' MIN. Z~~ ~ 2' MIN. I~1' DFFfH UNWF/~THQt~ BmId~OC OR MAlEWP1 APPRAVED BYiHEGEOfK1MICpLCCNSIA.TPM - ~ , ~ . TRANSITION LOT FILLS AND SIDE HILL FILLS I _.' ~_ GENERAL EARTHWQRK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 57ANDARD DEfA1LS E . ~ SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS IXPANSION INDEX OF 4,50 OPI70N 1: PIDE SURROUNDED WLfH CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MAIEfUAL OP'TfON 2: GRAYEL WRAPPED IN fILTER FNBRIC WITH PROPER . WITH PItOPER SURFACE DRAIIJAGE SURFACE DRAiNAGE SIAPE SIAPE , OR LEVEL OR LEVEL ir~ lZ NATIVE NA7NE WATERP{tOpFING ~ (SEE GENERAL NOTES) WATEIiPROpF[NG ~'r ~ ~ (SEE GENERAL NQfES) FllTER FABRIC ~ 12" MINiMUM ~ _ (SEE NOTE 4) , ClASS 2 PERMEABIE ~ ~~ y 12" MINIMUM WEEP HOLE FILTER MATERLqL ~ WEEP HOLE ~ '~' (SEE NOTE ~ (SEE GRADATION) (SEE NOTE ~ w ro 115 R~ai 5¢E GRA~EL WRMPED 1N FRTER ~ 4INCH DIAMETER ~..' FaBatC LEVELOR pERFORATEDPIPE LEVELOR SIAPE (SEE N07E 3) SLDPE Clas 2 Fllter Permwble Maeerial Gradation Per Caitrans SpectFlcatia~s . Sieve Sire Percent Pa~ino 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No.4 25-40 No. 6 18-33 Na 30 5-15 No.50 ~-7 No. 200 . 0-3 NOTES: * Waterproofing should be provided where mo(sture nuisance pfoblem through the wall is undesirdble. `* Water pro~ng oF the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer I* All dralns shwld have a gradlent of 1 per~ent minimurri ~Oudet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged Into a suitabfe disposal area designed by the proJect engineec The subdrain pipe should be attessible tor maintenance (rodding) ~!Other subdrain backf111 options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters. I ~j Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jettlng. ) 1 Cu• R. per R. of 1/4- fn 1 1/2-fr~h sfze gra+rel wrapped In filter fabdc ) Pipe type should be ASIM D1527 AcryloniMle Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTh1 D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plasstic (PVC), Schedule 40, Atmoo A2000 PVC, or approved equlvalent. Pipe should be installed with perforatlons down. Perforations should be 3/8 (nch.ln iameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in hvo rvws at 3-inch on center (staggered) ) fllt~ fabrlc should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent. ) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum dlameter and provided at SO-faot ma~dmum interrals. If e~osure Is pertnttted, weepfroles should be laated 12 inches abwe flnished grade. If exposure is not pertnftted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pfpe under the Idewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provlded. For a basementtype wall, a proper subdrain outiet em should be provided. 6) Reqlning wall plans should be revlewed and approved by the geotechnipl engineer. ') Wr alls wer six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modificatlons to the above requiremer~tr. RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DEI"AIL ' FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HQGHT ~ WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS IXPANSION INDEX OF <50 Figure No. TRANSMITTAL To: Attention: Transmitted: Pulte Home Corporation 2 Technology Drive Irvine, California 92618 Mr. Ron Roberts X Herewith Via Courier Client Pick Up The Following: For: Draft Report _ X Final Report _ Extra Report Date: May 16, 20Q5 Project No. 111442-003 Your Use As Requested _ Other Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Hiehlands II, Tract 23992. I,ots 1, 2 and 3, Citv of Temecula, California. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Scot Mathis/Zafaz Ahmed Distribution: (6) Addressee ~`