The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExisting & Proposed Hydrology Study `,,,��, r., r EXISTING AND PROPOSED HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR ADJOINING PERIMETER PARCELS FOR TRACT 29661 LOCATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CA PREPARED FOR: ASHBY DEVELOPMENT ' PREPARED BY: ��FESSIONq�F adKa�1 ENG/NEERS �o �SP � •A• ��c �'C� � 6820 Airport Drive W Q ��' Riverside, CA 92504 � � No 5 3390 �'' Tel. (909) 688-0241 �' -Ol � � Fax: (909) 688-0599 d �p, 6-3 �, � �� , CIV��- Q sT qTE OF CP�� adKan JOB NO. 5516 September 11, 2003 q� �l •03 CHARISSA LEACH, R.C.E. 53390 D�F�f83� EXP. 06/30/07 HYDROLOGY STUDY EXISTING AND PROPOSED HYDROLOGY TRACT 29661 FOR ADJOINING PERIMETER PARCELS As requested by the City of Temecula we have prepared a hydrology study comparing the existing conditions to the post development conditions along the adjoining properties to Tract 29661. The attached hydrology exhibit maps show the drainage areas tributary to the adjoining properties both in the existing and post developed condition. Because of the small areas involved we have used Riverside County Flood Control Rational criteria with a time of concentration of 5 minutes. After developing the appropriate intensity and runoff coefficients we have prepared a table showing the existing and post construction drainage areas with the calculated Q100 runoff rates. The drainage areas for both existing and post developed conditions are clearly shown on the attached color exhibits with alternating color hatching delineating each local drainage area. The 22 various drainage areas vary in size from 0.25 acres to 9.17 acres with the exception of three areas of 108.67 acres, 72.93 acres and 51.12 acres. The 108.67 acre drainage area has been reduced to 1.66 acres by construction of facilities upstream of Tract 29661. The 72.93 acre and 51.12 acre drainage areas are directed through detention basins to mitigate developed storm flows. The summary table provides a direct comparison between the existing and post development conditions. All developed Q100 rates are equal to or less than existing conditions. Please note that Detention basins A and B have increased drainage areas but Q 100 flows have been mitigated by use of inetered outlets. � �� 1,��:� �� . �.� ,� �o � i e � �� t^ �� i, 1�9�^.�� fr'�+�I""��f'i.��l:e�C>��'�': .� ' � ��;�''�I��r �.�� °� ° ��-'CY�� T��`�.�"s�I�' ��T�-�� E �-,�.�� . , � ,Y 4 � 1 108.67 ACRES 460.0 CFS 1 1.66 ACRES 7.0 CFS 2 72.93 ACRES 308.7 CFS 2 1.66 ACRES 7.0 CFS � C' „ Q�� , + 52.3 ` MITIGATED BASIN "A" (101.5 CFS) ___� 3 0.28 ACRES 1.2 CFS 3 0.28 ACRES 1.2 CFS 4 .84 ACRES 3.5 CFS 4 .56 ACRES 2.4 CFS 5 1.55 ACRES 6.6 CFS 5 1.12 ACRES 4.7 CFS 6 4.29 ACRES 18.2 CFS 6 1.03 ACRES 4.4 CFS 7,8 1.52 ACRES 6.4 CFS 7,8 .81 ACRES 3.4 CFS 9 2.0 ACRES 8.5 CFS 9 .85 ACRES 3.6 CFS 10 9.17 ACRES 38.8 CFS 10 1.53 ACRES 6.5 CFS 11 .25 ACRES 1.0 CFS 11 .25 ACRES 1.0 CFS 12,13,14 51.12 ACRES 216.4 CFS 12,13,14 3.01 ACRES 12.7 CFS + 67.8 * MITIGATED BASIN "B" (140.2 CFS) 15 1.89 ACRES 8.0 CFS 15 .96 ACRES 4.1 CFS 16 1.23 ACRES 5.2 CFS 16 .56 ACRES 2.4 CFS 17,18 5.41 ACRES 22.9 CFS 17,18 1.70 ACRES 7.2 CFS 19 .57 ACRES 2.4 CFS 19 .42 ACRES 1.8 CFS 20 3.16 ACRES 13.4 CFS 20 .76 ACRES 32 CFS 21 5.41 ACRES 22.9 CFS 21 .63 ACRES 2.7 CFS 22 1.16 ACRES 4.9 CFS 22 1.16 ACRES 4.9 CFS � Q �o � �j5'p� , k ,6�� , �� '�� f ., , ��1��`� �� , � �o� �Z � �"i�� i� '�� ►�If��(�P��1� �i��9t � � � � ! �� ., .. ., � �- . . � � �: �� . , . � ,�;�I � �: �1`� �. . _ ,�,' ; � . - - ..; , � � �. : � �;� s P� ° . " ��'t��` �I�. - ' " ` � =� I.� `�'` - � a� � , � � � . � � rt �� _t . �� . _ �_-� - �. , ., . � � . _ _ .. N _,... 1 108.67 ACRES 460.0 CFS 1 1.66 ACRES 7.0 CFS � 2 72.93 ACRES 308.7 CFS 2 1.66 ACRES 7.0 CFS �� + 52.3 * MITIGATED BASIN "A" (101.5 CFS) � 3 0.28 ACRES 1.2 CFS 3 0.28 ACRES 1.2 CFS // 4 .84 ACRES 3.5 CFS 4 .56 ACRES 2.4 CFS 5 1.55 ACRES 6.6 CFS 5 1.12 ACRES 4.7 CFS 6 4.29 ACRES 18.2 CFS 6 1.03 ACRES 4.4 CFS 7,8 1.52 ACRES 6.4 CFS 7,8 .81 ACRES 3.4 CFS 9 2.0 ACRES 8.5 CFS 9 .85 ACRES 3.6 CFS 10 9.17 ACRES 38.8 CFS 10 1.53 ACRES 6.5 CFS 11 .25 ACRES 1.0 CFS 11 .25 ACRES 1.0 CFS 12,13,14 51.12 ACRES 216.4 CFS 12,13,14 3.01 ACRES 12.7 CFS + 67.8 * MITIGATED BASIN "B" 140.2 CFS) 15 1.89 ACRES 8.0 CFS 15 .96 ACRES 4.1 CFS 16 1.23 ACRES 5.2 CFS 16 .56 ACRES 2.4 CFS 17,18 5.41 ACRES 22.9 CFS 17,18 1.70 ACRES 7.2 CFS 19 .57 ACRES 2.4 CFS 19 .42 ACRES 1.8 CFS 20 3.16 ACRES 13.4 CFS 20 .76 ACRES 3.2 CFS 21 5.41 ACRES 22.9 CFS 21 .63 ACRES 2.7 CFS 22 1.16 ACRES 4.9 CFS 22 1.16 ACRES 4.9 CFS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE HYDROLOGY CRITERIA 1. 100 YEAR STORM FREQUINCY 2. AMC 2 3. SOIL GROUP ��D" 4. UNDEVELOPED AREA 5. ZONE: TEMECULA / MURRIETA Time of concentration (Tc) = 5.00 Minutes 1= 5.10 inches/hour ( see attached table) C= 0.83 undeveloped area (see atta�hed graph) Q100= CIA Q100= 0.83 x 5.10 = 4.23 cfc / acre ,�_ � RAINFALL INTENSITY-INCHES PER H�UR � � MJRA LOMA MURRIETA ��EMECULA NORCO PA�M SPRINOS PERH15 VAllE1' L R�NCHO CALIFORNi� � � pURATION FREGUENCY pURATION FqEOUENCI' OURAiIOH fREOUENCT OURAiION FREGUENCY OURAIION fREDUENCI' � � MINUTES MINUTES MINUIES MINUIES MINUIES � !0 100 10 100 10 I00 10 100 10 �00 � � YEAR YEAR YEAq YE�A YEAR YEAp �EAN �EAR YEAR YEAR S 2.84 ♦.46 �� 5 3.�5 5.10 5 2.77 ♦.16 5 ♦.23 6.76 5 p.6� 3.79 ,,,_ � 6 2.SB �.07 6 3.12 ♦.61 6 2.53 3•79 6 3.80 6.08 6 2.�1 3.�6 �� 7 2.37 3.75 7 2.87 �.2♦ 7 2.3♦ 3.51 7 3.�8 5.56 7 2.2♦ 3.21 8 2.21 3.49 8 2.67 3.9� 8 2.19 3.29 B 3.22 5.15 8 2.09 3.01 D � 9 2.09 3.29 9 2.50 3.69 9 2.0T 3.10 9 3.0� ♦.81 9 �.98 2.B♦ � � 10 1.96 3.10 10 2.36 3.�8 10 1.96 z. 10 2.93 4.52 10 1,88 2.b9 b I1 I.B7 2.95 I1 2.24 3.30 11 1.87 2.80 11 2.67 �.28 11 1.79 2.57 12 1.78 2.82 12 2.13 3.15 12 1.79 2.68 12 2.5� �.07 12 l.lt 2.�6 r 13 1.71 2.70 13 2.0• 3.01 13 l.72 2.SB 13 2.�3 3.88 13 I.65 2.37 1♦ 1.6♦ 2.6D lt 1.96 2.89 14 1.66 2•�e 1♦ 2.33 3.72 1� 1.59 2.29 15 1.SB 2.50 15 �1.89 2.79 15 1.60 2.�0 15 2.23 3.58 15 1.5� 2.21 16 1.53 2.�2 16 1.A2 2.69 16 1.55 2.32 16 2•15 3.�� 16 1.�9 2.I� I7 1.�8 2.3� 17 1.76 2.60 17 1.50 2.25 11 2.OB 3.32 11 1.15 2.09 1B 1.�• 2.27 1B 1.11 2.52 1B 1.46 2•19 19 2.01 3.22 19 1.�1 2.02 19 1.40 2.21 19 1.66 2.�5 19 1.42 2.13 19 1.95 3.12 19 1.37 1.97 20 1.36 2.15 20 1.E1 2.38 20 1.39 2.08 20 1.89 3.03 20 1.3� 1,92 22 1.29 2.04 22 1.53 2.26 22 1.32 1.98 22 1.T9 2.86 22 1,2• 1.03 2� 1.2� 1.95 2♦ 1.46 2.15 2♦ 1.26 1.90 2♦ 1.T0 2.72 2� 1.22 1.15 26 1.18 1.87 26 1.39 2.06 26 1.22 1.s2 26 1'.62 2.60 26 l.ls 1.69 28 I.1♦ 1.80 28 1.3� 1.98 2B 1.11 �.76 2B 1.56 2.�9 29 1.13 �.63 30 1.10 1.73 30 1.29 1.90 30 1.13 1•10 30 1.�9 2.39 30 1.10 1.57 32 1.06 1.67 32 1.2� I.B♦ 32 1.10 1•6♦ 32 1.�� 2.30 32 1.06 1.52 z 34 1.03 1.62 3♦ 1.20 1.78 3♦ 1.06 1.59 3♦ 1.39 2.22 34 1.03 1.�E ,� 36 1.00 1.57 36 1.17 1.72 36 1.03 1.55 36 1•3♦ 2.15 36 1.00 1.�� m 38 .91 1.53 3B 1.13 1.67 3B 1.01 1.51 38 1.30 2.09 38 .98 1.�0 n � Z ♦0 .9♦ 1.�9 �0 1.10 1.62 �0 .98 1•�7 ♦0 !•27 2.02 40 .95 1.77 � (n (n ♦5 .B9 1.�0 �S 1.03 1.52 ♦5 .92 1.39 ♦5 1.18 1.09 ♦5 .90 1.29 < �,..,� SD .8� 1.32 SO .97 1.�� 50 .9B �.31 50 1.11 1.78 50 .!S 1.22 55 .80 1.26 55 .92 1.36 55 .B� 1.25 55 1.05 1.6A SS .sl 1.17 rn� z 60 .76 1.20 60 .BB 1.30 60 .BO 1.20 60 1.00 1.60 60 .18 1.12 � � � -D 65 .73 1.15 65 .S� 1.2� 65 .7T 1.15 65 .95 1.53 65 .15 1.0a � A 7D .70 1.11 70 .91 1.19 70 .7♦ 1.11 70 .91 1.�6 70 .72 1.0� D � C� 75 .68 1.07 75 .7B I.1S 75 .72 1•07 75 .88 1.�1 75 .70 1.00 � I? � � BO .65 1.03 80 .75 1.11 BO .69 �.0♦ BO .B5 1.35 SO .6B .97 m D D BS .63 1.00 85 .73 1.07 95 .61 �.Ol 85 .82 1.31 85 .a6 .9� o � � � � SLOPE • .530 SLOPE ■ .550 SLOPE ■ .500 SLOPE � .580 SLOPE : .�90 � Z �A 0 � m • . � � s �ONVnN��A��n�nM��■■��■��N■��nN n��v��v��On�■��■■��N��H��■��0��■B ��■��n��BV�■��■��■��v��n��■��■��■n��v�■��■��vH NN��■n��B��N��v��OV�v��■��n��W��■ ��■N��■�N�O�N�N��■■■��n�■��H��O �■��■ Wn��N��N�■�■■��■■��N��O��NHn �n��N/��N�t�nH��N��n�N��N��■■N� ��a■�N��a�nn��N�■��/�■■��■��■NN��v - ��ONYUW�■��■��N��■��u��WN��NN�� M_�--- N�RG�:!_� --�---_- � --------- N��l::'.�rly±�" �=.va�n�N��i��=== ��w��_i�qp�� _..��u��a��■�H�nN vfTi` � n.��s��n�•��d� �_--=�n� _:�.■�•-_�..��■.�----- -- �i��,i��' :;�"�/N/�in■�!��/!�� i�� /.n�►'��A�SiAN�iN�l�■��a/N!�N■��!��i�Er i�� I��iI.!l�:�Aa"A�n;•l�s�WWa�■�■��!�:��u�!�:�0��■�� ■■�■��v�� :/.r J d"/iNR�'i��P :i��/=i��t��■��■�n�N■�� " ■NC�Il�IIN�Yi!iN_i��!i/�vn�i��■0��■�■��nN�� O%i1�ilh,iA�17�/l'�''�■�N �in��i��■��■��v�H��N ■I�(�Vi�!:',/.N/O �R�'.N■NiA�u��i��■■��■�■■��n��O�N�■�� •II�C•r��lVi�Yv��N��HP�N��■��■■ ��■��■�■��!�N��■��n��■� /,��I�C�/�!�` ��1:��I/N�N.I��a��/��■��■�■�■��■■��N�■��N �/I.�i��K �I��7'/�N/.�■�■/��■��n�■��■■��■��■■■��U��■��■��H��■�� I/N/1�I�CVi/V I��i��■/.N�■a��■�■��■��■��■��A��1 ■I�7��l�l�Nl �!�/i�■■�/.��■�V��■��■■7��N��h�■��■�� / ��V / H��I�'�K 7 .�■O�i��N��N��i�■��N��N��■�� I IN� : J.l�:�a�:��v��dNnNH�■■��■��■��■��H�H��■��■i a/��►i.'i'IN�°J'NO�iNN�N��NHW ��n��l��■�NNU�■�H■ �I�NI�.q��IN■I.� vWV��■WU�/��f ��■■vN� N/rWM �7�I.��N��N��Nh��■��N��\■�:rn�■■�Nn p�t; NI�I �►AI.JN��M.NWN■ H��A�■■�■�H��N�� W ■/� • / N' �'/L`://�■►/��ON■N■■�WNU■��■��N�■�■�■��■ NnN��■��■� IIBI/nf:�N/ ■��MN�H��■��■n�� Nn��a� 11�1//��i/ W�NN��NB��Nhu�v��■�■��u�■��!��W��■W ' /�/ � A �'�R /7��■■�� NiI�L�Nf ■ �II/i/�' ■ �1�11�f/ /�://N��Nh�■��N�vv��■�■■��h��k ��■�/��■ �'/ � ■ ■�/;� ■ ■ /�■'��Ih�\��\��p�p�� ■p�� . ��■l ��■��■��le■ /��IL'9��■��\��i �_l:l�i�E.y �1:■ �l �9 �I��1��: ��N�I ��■��■��/ 11�1�/,lt:/i��■��■�� ■�■ ��tl��■�H��N� ■ iu��t��+��■■■■��■��■��■�■�■■�■��■■�■■��■�� ■ ' ��/�►��H��■��■��v��■��■��■■�■i ��■��■�N / �� I ��■■��\■��/��■�u��u■N��■��■�■��i ■��■■��■�� ■ ■�/ii'�■��■��■s■�■��■��■��■N■�■�■��■��n ■ ■��iW.�N■��HO��u��■��■�N��■��■��■��■M��fin��■vN � I�/I� 1�■�NN�H�MNN■��NNN��Mh�N�■��J��N�N�■HN ��%� ��0�� YI1i�■��% ��n�� ■ r �■■■�■isi��■��■�■� • ■ . ��r��■■��■��■��o��■��■��■��;��■��■� ■ ■�,■ A��■��■■�■��■��■■��■n■�N■��N��fH■�� ■ �� i��■��H��■��e�■��■': ■H■�N�■N��N �11/ ��■��■n�■■��■��■��■��■■��■��■��■�� aq��■��■N■�N� /1 �/I��■��v��■�■■��■��■��■■��/■��li��■��n■�■�� I �//��nn�Nn��■■�■��V�■��Hn■�■��■d��'��■■��■��■��N�N ■ �I��■■■�■■■q��■N■■��■��us��N��■N�■■�■H��■■■�v■� ■ �' h�■��n�■��■��■■/h��■��■��■��U� ��■��■��0■M ■��■�n■��/N■■�■��■��■■��■■�■�■�■�N■�■��nN�N ■ ��■nn■N�■n�n��n��■�■��■■��■�� ■�H■�■��■■NN■� ■ � �N��■��N��■�N��n��■��■��■N■�■N��■�� ONB��/■��NN�O i�� ■■��N��B■��■n■��n■��■��■■�/�n■��■�n��O 11/IH�■��■■��■■��■■■�■��q/■N�v��h ��■��N■ 1 I� 1�■■N��l�■��N�■N�■■■��■��n� 1 111��■p��■��■��8■��■■�■�� 1 �� I 11 ��■��N�■nN■��■■■�� i 11 ��■��■■��H�■��■��N��■�� / /��W�■��0�■��■��n��■ � - � � nB �/■M��n��■��■�■��u��/��■■��■ . . O ��N��■��8■N��nv��■�■■ ��n ! ��■■��N��■�■■■n��uu��■��■��u�i�■��N f ��■��d��■��■nn�n■�■n■ � u■■�NNn■��n��H�■��H�� - • • - � M�■��■�■�■��\��■��n�n�� d■�■�v�N��■�■H�■■u��N�u�■ • ' • - � 1 Ia�n�O■��A��N�■��h�� IINN■■��■NNNNNN��■ • ' - • � - IINN�N��nNN�N��■� . • � I In��WN��H��pW�N�N II ��N�■��8� • � - - � ��uua�u��■wwu��■�� ' � uo��a��■�■a■�uu�n�i ■ o� -. . - ! - •` . • , ' s ; �, , . G¢l�brattng Yo p �- t �^' 4 � , , ��\ '�' � �� Leighton and �lssociates i� G i - a c► o i. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS , � I _ i PRELiMINARY GEOTECI INVESTIGATION ' PORTION OP RORIPAUGH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29661 � CITY OF TEMECULA , RNERSIDE COLJNTY, CA.LIFORNIA , � � �, � ,� Febn�ary 28, 2001 J Project No. 11990013-001 ' � ; i... ,' � � � �� Prepared Por: � WESLEY f-IYLEN — PMI3 t� 116 ; ' 31566 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, California 92587 � � � 41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, TemecGla, CA 92590-5661 (909) 296-0530 • FAX (909) 296-0534 • www.lelghtongeo.com , � • , ! Ge �e�ra[��i s , go , � � __ � Q � , � � ' � �� Leighton and As�ociates � � i y 6 i - z o o i GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS FeUruary 28, 2001 ' Project No. 11990013-001 � To: Wesley Hylen — PMB #116 � 31566 Railroad Canyon Road ' Canyon Lake, California 92587 �, � At[ention: Mr. Wesley Hylen Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of.Roripaugh Ranch, Tantative.Tract No. .. ', 29661, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has completed a preliminary ! geotechnical investigation and review of the 100-scale tentative tract map for the subject site located in d�e ' City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (See Site Location Map, Figure 1). Our investigation and plan review consisted of a subsurface investigation and geotechnical evaluation of the subject property and boundary area. This report summarizes our. findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the , , , known geotechnical conditions encoimtered within the property of Tentative Tract No. 29661. , The geotechnical constraints identified include the removal ancl recompaction of compressiUle alluvial� soil and the secondary effects of the estimated design seismic event. Both of these conditions may be mitigated by following the pertinent sections of tl�e current and adopted Unifonn }3uilding Code and the , recommendations presented in this report. � If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. , , ,. „ Respectf�illy submitted, � �•- LEIGH'I'ON AND ASSOCIATCS, INC.��ptED F pFESS� '� ��g��LRT F q �� T G � q .� l � � t ,.. N0.1921 `� ,,,� ,,, �p 2 � � CERTFIED � � ' � ENGINEERING �c /� W ' NO.GE2320 m , . � . � GEOLOGIST � �'�"` - FXP.12a1�o3 � , � , Robert F. R�ha, CEG 1921 (Exp. 02/ $l0_) � Andrew T. Guatelli, PE, 0 � Principal Geologist/OEfice Manager. �= pQ' Senior Project Engineer ��1`��' �Q- ``;`:. d+,, ,GF Cp1��F 9��F CA�1F�� , ATG/RFIZIdI17UL&A1 999/9900 1 3-WlPrelgeoinvsl.doc ' � Distribution: (2)' Addressee. (10) Ashby Development, Attn: Mr. Richard Ashby (1 copy unbound) � ' 41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661 ' (909) 296-0530 • FAX (909) 296-0534 • www.lelghtongeo.com � � � � 1.1990013-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paee ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOS� .............................................................................................................. 1 ' 1.1 Scope of Work .....................................................................................................................................1 ' , 2.0 SUMMARY OF G�OTECHNICAL FINllINGS .................................................................................. 3 � - 2.1 Proposed Site Development and Site Description ..............................................................................3 2.2 Regional Geology .............................................................................:..................................:...............3 � 2.3 Site Geologic Units ............:................................................................................................................4 � , , � 2.3.1 Artifcial Fill-Undocumented (Map Symbol t�fii) ................................................:..................4 2.3.2 Topsoil (not a mapped unit) .....................................................................................................4� � 2.3.3 Alluviuin (Map Symbol – Qal) .........................................................:......................................4 2.3.4 Quaternary Terrace Material and Older Alluvium, UndiFferentiated (Map Symbol - Qt) ....4 , 23.5 uaterna Pauba Formation Ma S mbol s .. ..'S ' � Q rY � P Y – .QP ) ..................................... ....................... 2.3.6 Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock (Map Symbol- Kgr) .............................:..............................:.....5 2 .3.7 Geologic St.nic[i�re .........................................................•--........................................................5 ' 2.4 RippaUility .......................................................................................................... .....5 2 .5 Faulting and Seismicity .......................................................................................................................5 2.6 Secondary Seisinic Flazards ................................................................................................................6 2.6.1 Ground Rupture ....................................................................................................................:...6 : ', 2.62 Liquefaction........--• .............. ' ...................................................:................•------...---.................... 6 2 .63 Seiches / Tsunamis ...................................................................................................................7 ' , 2 .6.�1 Flooding ................•--...................................------...................................---•-•--.............................7 2.6.5 Seismically-Induced Landsliding .............................................................................................7 ' 2.6.6 Seismically-Induced Settlement ....................................................................................:..........8 2.7 Seis�nic Design 1'arameters .......:.........................................................................................................8 , ' ' . 2.8 Groiindwater ........................................................................................................................................8 ' , 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 9 ' 3.1 General .........................................................................................................................:...........:.......:...9 32 . Eartt�work ...............................................................................��--�--•--..,................................................9 ;.... 3.2.1 Re�noval and Site Preparation ..................................................................................................9 32.2 Stnictural Fills and Oversize Materials .....................................................................:............10 ' ; 32.3 Utility Trencl�es ...........................................:....................................................................:....:10 , : i..,. 3.2.4 Sl�rinkage and I3ulking .:.........................................................................................................11 ' 3 .3 Settlement ............................................................................................................:. ..............:..... i 1 ; ............. �' � �" 33.1 Settlement fro►n Building Loacls .......................................................... ........11 � 3.3.1 Settlement or Fill Soils - Static and Dynamic ................:....................................................... l l I 3.4 Slape St�bility - Cul and I�ill Slopes ...............................................................................................:.12 i' 3 .5 Drainage..........`...----�--� ........................................................................�--............................................13 � 3 .5.1 Subdrainage .................................................................•-�--......................................................13 ; 3.6 'I'entative Fo�indation Design ............................................................................................................13 3.6.1 Lateral Carlh Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Consiclerations .................. .:....� , ��_ — � -i- � �. ' � , • 1 i I � 11990013-001 Table of Contents (continueci) � ' 3.6.1 Lateral Eartli Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations .................................13 '� 3.7 Footing Setback ......................................................................................................................15 � 3.8 Concrete and Corrosion ...........................................................................................................15 ' 3.9 . Grading of Expansive Soils .....................................................................................................15 � 3.10 Transition Lots and Lot Capping ..............................................................................................15 - 3.11 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters ...:............................................................................16 � 4.0 GEOTECHI�IICAL REVIEW ...:................................................................................. 17 . - 4.1 Plans and Specifications ...........................................................:...............................................17 � � 42 Constn�ction Review .......................................................:........................................................ 17 ' 5.0 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 18 � Accompan��Fi�ures, Tables, Plates and A�pendices ' , Fi ures ' Figure 1- Site Location and Geologic Index Map Page 2 ' TaUles � '� Table 1- Minimu�n Foundation and Slab Design Recommendations End ofTe:ct ' ,� Plate �' Plate 1- Geotechnical Map In Pocket , ; Plates 2 and 3- Fault Tre�ich Logs In Pocket A� ep ndices � 7.�. ' Appendix A- References � Appendix B- Geotechnical Logs of Exploratory Trenclles and Borings, Current Investigation � w Appendix C- Geotechnical Logs of Exploratory Trencl�es and Borings, Previous Investigation Appendix D- Laboratory Test Resi�its Appendix E- Slope Stability Analyses �, Appendix F- General Earthwork and Grading Specifcations ' �� f �IiR== � � . _�;_ : � _ � • 1 ' � 11990013-001 ' � 1. 0 INTRO D U CT I O N/P iIR l' O S� — � The subject site is a portion of the approximately S00-acre Roripaugh Itanch Property located east o� ' Temecula, Riverside County, California. The Site Location and Geologic Index Map, Figure 1, shows the approximate location of the subject site. The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical investigation and plan review is to summarize pertinent � geologic/geotechnical data obtained to date, and evaluate this data with respect to d�e current plan for the � � subject site. Previous work done at the property includes a geologic feasibility study and fault evaluation by Geocon, Ina (199U), and a geologic review by Leighton (1990) of a portion of the subject area that was , intended as a school site. Our current work included a geologic field investigation of the entire Roripaugh . , Ranch property that included borings, trenches and an extensive fault evaluation (ECI, 1999). The tentative � tract plan utilized for this review was prepared by Adkan Engineers (Adkan, 2000). During our plan review, the general grading concept and preliminary depth of removals were evaluated. In addition, rippability characteristics, slope stability and preliminary foundation design considerations were developed. The entire scope of services conducted during our study is provided below: ' 1.1 Sco�e of Work ; Our scope oF work performed specifically witl�in the subject property iricluded the following items: � • Review of available infonnation, including review of the 100-scale Tentative Tract Plan (Plate 1) for the Tentative Tract No. 29661, prepared by Adkan Engineers (2000), and review of reports presented in Appendix A. ' , • Geologic site reconnaissance and review of sequential pairs of aerial photograpl�s. • • Excavation, sampling and logging of 18 exploratory backhoe trenches, four hollow stem auger � borings and three bucket au�er borings (Appendix B) � e Excavation, preparation, logging and analysis of four fault trenches (Plates 2 and 3). �. .. ' � ' • Laboratory testing of selected samples to determine optimum moisture, maximum dry density, ,� i expansion potential, sulfate content, grain size distribution, collapse potentiat, and shear strength. �_„ The results of our laboratory testing along with siimmaries of our testing procedures are presented � in Appendix D. ; � • Analysis and geotechnical review of geologic constraints including the evaliiation of slope staUility, , removal of compeessible soils, and bedrock nppabiLty. �' • Review, technical analysis, aiid preseotatiou of geotechnical data onto tlie Tentative Tract Map � '� (Plate 1). � I • Preparation of tl�is report, presenting aur conclusions and preliminary recommendations regardin� the proposed grading and residential development of the site. ' , , � & — � R_- �_ _�_ . �., � 1 � � i i ,, I . . i ' �$ r� �� '� "" f ,�, �'a �,� A ��- .�iT �,�'�' '.� � ..�'' �--1 � 15 . �,? , � �+� � �.' � � ri k Q �� *" K9dr ,,•'�j� �`�(� � ` J _ i._:�_..�u� :t �, k � 1 4' � �� ;1} c �� ` ��.`.�3 i � �-[..�, ,�` • �. _. . i' _' � . � � . v r � ` � � ,,--•, • ,3s e ..ti.�pp�y. -„� ..< , + ! ;� � � F � , 1 . ` 1,•.r - U ,�,> ..._-�. ,� ;` ��'"'".. W`,,,, „'" � � � '',Cd,�; � "� `' � 4-' v 4 ..i ; ^�, ' � � o 7 �� "� " `��'°�'`�� ,�<� j 1* ' l. �Xld S t7 � '+,� -�' ; (�p� C'--..j ... . ' � � ! r� _\� � �� , ...�_ l L� 1 .'..,' .;�..� , �0 1 r..sr..% .,.. �_� h �r,;,��'_^�?.�� `�.,�,^�S�ii_.��, �, � . ,_ . . h � ,, . .) � � � 1,`�'"' � ? p ,� � �. �-^ � + ��] �� ' 4-t'�?�,' � e`��` � , "`�. �" �' .t'�'t�r h ! �^�"' n,�� I", QQ� r ,� � � � �" ��~ 'Fr� r �� 1-. � � , Q n� � ` � � � A � J ;' . ,`,,.,:-y- �►�as dr '' � � y.` .� 4 ,� Y `�� ./ u.� �1 Ib �. . f ��z x�-4?''r�� e� 3, � � ;. � :�t �� (�� '85 '��"``; � p ""�... � Qt •� � r � �,l. 1� � � � r � � � ; � ��J�� o� ' _i`�—� , ��r �'�se- ., `� `,_.,`-� �+�t��p4s_ t� ,s�.. �":'''�*�� i � o � �'' -i�"�� / � V � � � I u/ ✓ --~� �� Gar' �' ' !� ��"'� ' C :, .- �� t. a�.��°'-�';�.t . . . . ' . ° ;,'. `- � T . � ROJEC � q� U a � H� r �� f �•... � �. .. � 1 �`�y� ... � a' •_.. ^^c.n.Y�u.'C� : � S I T E � ;<✓� Jt � , �-^ � � � '. r ;, p.'s-��"' �:\,-r��-..^r..�� `�r �� + � � �' l` r ' \�� ..:: 1 } I ' ' r i � � r * c �.. � 1 " `+� ^,..... (� `� ? u , � � `` �; ` �{ I C�-�' �J :✓-'`', . . _ _ .. , � �J .r^ . ... \ ��/''� �-.- �,,j�y� � e J \ �� " ,K_ '--•_-..� � . . �..�-• ...(� .' . . „ �F.: ,q., � , ._ �.a1.�,.,, } A._ � ��.) � S ,y ! �----� � u � �..... �-.. ' t r � N^ ' � �` . `� \r�_�I�.�Q � � . ' . � � ' 1 � - ��. (_�; � QIIS '� �-ti�` l � . �� , �t � � �� . �QA� �..L.s. ,.� �; � .�1�' , ,I - ' � .� �. '� G.�,'� � y � ' F . .� :- ^-rt' �.1� N o �� ] o `^,,; --, f� } a � �� .�' .'� j :.�. #!' y _. - ._ � � � l _ G� _��"'� �: i '..-�_• `�`' � ` f � ��"`' � " � ! i (•' i � �; �` 29 -. �`�" " j ,, r � '`• ,:;,;; � _...= 3 �„��"``-'`. - . () � • `�i. .-- µ,'�,�" ry Z �_- � S '� ":.i. �S-`'( � f � �..`��-�^ ` r 1 Ll� � � o - - -- � ^ _ � � � �., - � w . ' _.. ;, . � � > : �., �.�� '+�d ,' ;':,p .,�� i p,y �'� 4. ; `-"\, ` �� - 'C� i :.,..,."� tiy 7: , " '�� / Z �...�� . t :4? � ~ . �`•J � � . , ` -ry �� - z - �' - a c s r t ,' ,� �'- 8 �:.r -�' � -;� ' �'S` ` � �; `� '. p p sf . o - (� ~ 5�C ! 'y" ,....��„ C' .. � �..,-� � � -.�-,-, �-.� � `� `:^' 1 W . , ,� �- - .J _ .. / _ �� ..� s a -,.. . , � � C � ...... ' .. . ` ,�. . �� .., �..� i� � .f-, � : � ,c• - -.. '"' --'' � _ .� � � w � r '.� . . ��' %' . r. . ! ",�: . � `� �,L�-t � � � "' ( ! � , ' . . ,.., ": :..4'� � a :l r �� r ,r� .� S _ �`#.s :.... . .: �^��'�, �^- � p�' A Y a�J,� Y _� /� 1� � . ..: . .� .. i `� � �� .. t n�a: , ' , 80 f• '^� �s C� Fi :s"� L �� : �"��, �,-�'" r ..ar,�;�\�'�O. - Pf '�. ';(�'� _.. . C: ' ^ �G�(1Q '- _: w - „ ...�-� ' `�' �I t . 0 � 1 . �4.�. �' ^- _� -. . �( �.�—/` � � ' � � � � . ,.. , y ' � �.cs � r.. � -. �. - ., 4 � v x 9� �� .._. , r �--'�, .. .... � �, ''(�`--- - ti-� �� ` ."1^'rv ��." t �,. -� ` r�+.. � ✓ �.a�a f ` � � � f � v '� ; J � � ' � _ � S � � t�'d � �i+� f - �' `�..�--' ,^ h r . !" ` ~ _- `" J �i. '-' ._. � . ! � _ �� •` w�''�? _ ' -..=� ,�c,�' , , � . , 1 `�'" :, ^' , ,� ;,'� ,:., ..._ l � - �- . . .� ._. � '/ _ , � a . � y _,-� � :: � ? ; ,._"� l �. � , _ _ _ � ':Cl . . �'^ . ' '�� . � � :`, . �_,1 - iJ� .: ,..,1 .. � ...✓ ..Y�4--J� ,' I ., _�..`. ..;. '�' . t`., j � �, 1 , ��s•� � ..�_.i ✓ -... �'{+ F � ' :} ` _. ... 7 -.- .' ._ . � � � I L , � ^� _- . � , _ �. .. _ - , -r, _. ,NORTH " ��= _- _ _ (See text for geologicslegend.) ; `� � BASE MAP: Kennedy 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along � the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside Counry, Califomia, I CDMG Special Report No. 131 0 2500 ' 5000 ' � Existing Road 1"=2 — Scale in Feet ��-��a Proposed Road ' SITE LOC�4TIOIV Pro�ect No. � ; Rorip�ugh Ranch 11990013-001 � Tentative Tract 29661 � GEOfl_OGIC II�IDEX Date , � - Temecula, CaliPomia �/�� February 2001 Figure No. 1 I ; � _ ' � ll 990013-001 2.0 SUIVIMARY OF G�OTCC�-1NICAL F[NDINGS � �'. 2.1 Proposed Development and Site Descri lp ion The subject site is � generally located soud� of the recently graded eastern extension of Murrieta Hot � ' - Springs Road, Temecula, California (See Figure 1). �3ased on our review of the referenced Tentative � Tract map (Adkan, 2000) the proposed grading will consist oF conventional cut and fill hillside grading � to create approximately 459 graded lot areas, a 12-acre school site, a 3-acre park site, and associated „ - roadways. Proposed maximum excavation and fill depths are on the order of 30 feet and 55 feet respectively (DEA, 1999). Removal of unsuitaUle surface soils will increase the fill thickness to � � approximately 67. � Cut and fill slopes are proposed at inclinations oF 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) with maximum heigh[s of approximately 12 and 75 feet respeclively. �� Topographically the site varies in elevation from a high of 1,370 feet above sea level (msl) in the northeastern portion to a low of approximately 1,260 along the southern, central .property boundary. The �', parcel is cl�aracterized as a gently southwest sloping elevated plain with southwest trending intervening �� drainages. The flaf lying portions have been utilized for dry farn�ing. Vegetation on site consists of a ' , mocierate growth of grasses and weeds, which cover the majority of the site to a relatively thick growth ' of bn�sh present along the drainage slopes. '� Previous grading and improvements on site include several access roads. ' 2.2 Re�ional Geologx _ ' , ' The siibject property is loc;ated within a prominent na[ural geo�norphic province in southwestern California known as die Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valley's that generally trend northwestward. The most common rock types found in the Peninsular I2anges consist of 140 to 105 million-year-ol�l forrr�►tions (Silver and Chappel, 1988), including the metasedimentary Bedford Canyon Formation, and Santiago Peak Volca�iics. These formations were intruded by granodiorite (�117CIZ monzonite, and otlier granitics of the Southern California Batholith during the Getaceous Perioci (Kennedy, 1977). Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in [he � region created [he geomorphology present toclay. � ' �" Specifically, the suUject site is situated in lhe southern portion of the stable Perris Block, an eroded mass � of Cretaceous and older crystalline and metamorphic rock. The Perris Block is boi�nded by the San Jacinto fault zone to the northeast, the Elsinore fault zone to the souchwest, and the Cucamonga fault ' •~ zone to the northwest The southeast bound�ry, along the fringes of the Temecula Uasin, is poorly ' defined. ' � Tl�e Perris Block in the Temecula Valley region has had a com lex eolo ic histor . The Perris block P � � Y has undergone relative changes in elevation of several thousand feet in response to movement within the ; I Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones. Tecfonic movement of the past, in conjunction with the semi-arid � climate and lhe weachering resistance of the rock, are responsible fqr the forn�alion and preservation of ancient, generally flat'lying erosional surfaces now present at various elevations. 1'l��e sedimentary units „ of the subject site were deposited on these erosional surfaces. Alluvial deposits fill in the lower valley ' and drainage areas. The Site Location and Geologic Index Map, Figure l, depicts the location of the subject site in relation to the regional geology as mapped by Kennedy (1�77) for the area. � �& �I�R=- -3- � � , • � i , - 11990013-001. � � 2.3 Site Geologic Units , The earth materials encountered on site consist of i�ndocumented artificial fill, topsoil, terrace �' material, two generations of alluviu►n, a sedimentary unit, and a crystalline granitic bedrock unit. These units are discussed in the following sections in order of increasing age. Anticipated removal deptl�s within each of these units (when known) have also been provided in this section for ease of , , , reference. General removals are discussed in Section 32 of tliis report. 2.3.1 Artificial Fill-Undocumented (Map Symbol Afii) � Undocumented fill was observed at several locations at the site and it is associated .with past access road constniction and agricultural use. Undocumented fill is also associated wid� all exploratory excavations. Tlie undocumented fil( is considered unsuitable for support of � additional fill andlor structural improvements in its present density and moisture content. Tlie , clean undocumented fill soils may be used as compacted fill. Artificial fill may be on the order � of 3 to 10 feet thick and locally deeper. , 2.3.2 Topsoil (not a ma� ed unit Topsoil mantles the majority of tlie site and may also underlie undocumented fill soils and ' alluvium. Topsoil composition and depth will vary depending upon which near-surface bedrock material it overlies. Topsoil generally consists of dark brown, silty sand widi rare lenses of clay and minor to abundant roots depending on agricultural use. A hardened layer of clay-rich, � carbonate-cemented sand was observed by Geocon (1990) at approximately 2 feet in depth, in ; several trenclies at the site. A surficial debris flow consisting of topsoil and colluvium has , occurred along t}ie steep southerly facing slopes (see plate 1). Generally, the topsoil unit will � range from 1 to 3 feet thick, but thicker accumulations may be encountered. All topsoil and , debris flow materials should be removed from any areas that will receive stn�ctural fill soils ° and/or stnictural improvements. Topsoil materials cleared of debris and organic material are ' suitable for use as compacted fills. 2.3.3 Alluvium �Map Svmbol — Qa� Alluvial soils will Ue encountered in drainage areas tluoughout the site. Tlie alluvial soils generally consist of light to dark Urown, loose to medium dense, porous, sand and silty sand. All alluvium should be removed fi any areas that will receive struch�ral fill and/or stnictural �: improvements. Removal depths within the alluvium �vill range from appro�cimately 3 to 10 and �, ,' locally deeper depeuding upon location. T1�e alluvial soils may be iised as compacted fill material. � , �' 2.3.4 Qi�ater►�ary Terrace Material and Older Alluvium. Undiff.erentiated (IV1ap Svmbol _ Ot� ,' ' i Terrace materials and Older Alluvial soils, undifferentiated, were observed mantling Uedrock , � within the west portion of tlie subject site (Leighton, 1990). Terrace materials consist of yellow � to red brown dense clayey sand to coarse sand wit�i moderate porosity where close to the surface. � ` The older alluvium generally consists of light to dark brown, medium dense to dense, silty sand. , � � The dense non-porous older alluvium is typically considered suitaUle to support fill and/or � structures. The older alluvium observed within our exploratory trencl►es was moderately porous. � The porous, compressiUle portions of the older alluvium and terrace materials should be removed in areas to receive stn�ctural fill and/or stnictural improvements. Removal depths will , ' range from approximately 3 to 5 feet and locally deeper. The materials are suitable for use as ; � compacted fill. • � & � R=- . �` .. _�_ _ . , � 11990013-001 2.3.5 Quaternary Fonnation (Map Syinbol — Q�s � The Pauba Fonnation is present over tlie majority of the subject site. The Pauba formation consists of light brown to red-brown to olive, dense; massive sandy silts and silty sands. The , material is generally considered suitable for support of fill and/or struclural improvements. However, wead�ered porous or friable materials exposed durin� grading may require removal or overexcavation. Removal depths in areas of proposed stn�ctural fi(1 will be on the order of 3 feet. � � � 2.3.6 Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock (Map Svmbol- Kgr� ' Granitic bedrock is locally exposed at the west portion of die site, however, it underlies ttie entire site at varying depths. T7�e granite consists of dense to very dense, white to light brown to gray- , , green, coarse-grained granodiorite. Removal of the upper, wead�ered portions of the grantic rock , to the proposed grades should be possible with conventional heavy-duty earth moving equipment. 2.3.7 Geologic Stn�ch�re Geologic struchire of the suUject area is largely controlled by sequences of eros�on and deposition: ' Tlie site is underlain by granite at varying depths, due to the undulatory erosional surface of the grar�ite bedrock. Granite is exposed however at diesurface at d�e west portion ofthe site. � Tlie massive Pauba Formation bedrock unit was deposited on the unconformable surface of the '' ' granite. Pauba Pormation diicknesses at the site ex.ceeds 65 feet as observed in the Leighton ' Boring LB-1 (Appendix B). Terrace materials and older alluvium form a relatively thin veneer of younger materials over the Pauba Formation that were eventually eroded away within ; ' current drainage areas. As a result, Pauba Formation is exposed on erosion surface drainage � areas, and recently deposited younger alluvium derived from the Pauba formation fills the ' Uottom of the drainages. ' ,. 2.4 Rip�ability ' , i Rippability of on-site eartli materials is variable depending on the type of material and depth. The majority of die site is underlain by the Pauba Formation, terrace deposits, topsoil, and alluvium. Tl�ese � ; . materials stiould be rippable with typical conventional grading equipment sucli as d�e Caterpillar D9. � � Isolated lenses of well-cemented soils can be expected witliin the topsoil that are expected to be i�•� rippaUle using conventional equipment. Generally lhe near surface granite Uedrock should be rippable (with a good condition, well-operated D9L single shank dozer or equivalent) to proposed grades. ' � I localized areas of oversized material and non-rippable granite core-stones may be locally � o, encountered. Some of this material will be weathered enough to be crushecUripped in-place by,large, , well-maintained excavating dozers or by ramming/blasting in-place. � YY/ I 2.S Faultingand Seismicity I ! Tl�e subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located witl�in a seis�nically active region as a result oFbeing located near tl�e, active margin between the Nortli American and Pacific tectonic plates. � The principal source of seismic activity is movement along d�e northwest-trending regional faults such � as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems accommodate ,� approximately 55 millimeters per year of slip between tlie plates. The Elsi��ore fault zone is estimated � to accominodate a slip rate of �!-5 milliinelers per year (min/yr.) (WGCEP, 1995). � & � R=- � ,.� -5- , �� • i , .. 11990013-001 I3y definition of tl�e State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one which has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly t}�e last 11,000 years). T1ie State Mining and " � Geology Board has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been actiye during tlie ' Quaternary Period (approximately the last 1,600,000 years). Tliese definitions are used in delineating Eartl�quake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972.and �' as subsec�uently revised in 1994 and 1997 (I-�art, 1997), as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ' Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of tlie act is to require fault investigations on ' , sites located within Special Shidies Zones in order to preclude new construction of certain inliabited � - stn�ctures across the trace of active faults. � Tl�e suUject site is not included within any eartl�quake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo ' Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Hart, 1997). The nearest zoned active fault is die Temecula segment �... of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 4.9 miles southwest of the site. No feahires indicative of active faulting were observed within the project boundaries during our supplemental ' , • � investigation of the subject site. A lineament identified by Kennedy (Kennedy, 1977) enters tl�e west ' central portion of the tract area (See Figure 1). Based on our recent trenching of this lineament, this lineament is not fault related. ' There are severai signiCcant active faults within southern California that could affect the site in ' terms of ground sti�ilcing. Of these, the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Elsinore-Temecula Fault Zones are the most prominent due to their proximity and relative high seismic potential. Evidence supporting proUable Holocene-aged faulting was observed and documented along the main trace of tl�e Murrieta Hot Springs Fault in an earlier investigation for the tract located immediately to the ,, ,' northwest (Leighton, 1999). Along this fault, located approximately 0.3 miles north of the subject � , tract, probable offset � soils and fissure in-filling was observed. Details of the site ' specific, suUsurface fault investigation, sequential stereoscopic aerial plioto review and lineament � analysis is contained in the report for tliat tract prepared by Leighton dated March 23, 1999 ' (Appendix A). The Murrieta I Springs Fault is believed to be a previous alignment of what is no�v , known as d�e Elsinore Temecula Fault Zone. It is postulated that the current tectonic framework is , ' such that the recent fault activity has been transferred to the Elsinore-7'emecula Fault Zone and � subsequent seismic activity on the Murrieta Hot.Springs rault is likely diminishing (unpublished research Uy Dr. Thomas Rockwell of.SDSU, personal communicafion). ; ' 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards �. ��`° Secondary hazards generally associated with severe round shakin durin an earth uake are round � g g g 9 g � niphire, liquefaction, seiches or tsunamis, flooding (dam or levee failure), landsliding, rock falls, and � seismically-induced settlement: � 2.6.1 Ground Rupture � � Ground ruphue is generally considered to most, likely occur along pre-existing active faults. � I As no evidence of active fatilting was observed widiin the subject site, the potential for sife � ground n�phue is considered unlikely. '� � 2.6.2 L�uefaction , , � Liquefaction oP cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to � earthquakes. Research and hislorical data indicate that loose granular soils Uelow a near ' , � & 1 � � �_ — �-_ �- � -6- : ��.�: ' ,' � . . 11990013-001 surface gro�md water table are �nost susceptible to liquefaction, wl�ile tlie s[ability of most clayey silts, silty clays and clays deposiCed in fresh water environments are not adversely, affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is cl�aracterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing tl�e soil to flow as a liquid. This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement a��d/or sand boils. In order for the potential effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the ground surface, tl�e soils generally have to be granular, , loose to medium dense, saturated relatively near die ground surface and must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration oPground shaking. ' — Based on our observations and the findings of referenced geotechnical reports, tl�e near surface ,' ' soft alluvial deposits (soils susceptible to liquefaction) on the site will be completely removed and recompacted during remedial grading. In addition, a review of historical well data ' indicated that a permanent shallow (30- foot) groundwater condition is not present. Therefore, � it is our opinion that the potential for adverse liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement ' , to surface stnictures due to the.design eaiihquake event is considered very low for this site. This does not preclude the densification of dry granular soils onsite above groundwater during � strong ground shaking. , , � Ground accelerations generated from the design seismic event (10% probabtlity of exceedance in 50 years) may produce settlement in relatively dry sands or granular earth materials located above the water table (ASCE, 199�t; Kramer 1996). Based on visual inspection of the � �� retrieved samples, blow counts recorded during drilling, and laboratory test results, we ' conclude that tl�ere is a low potential for the onsite materials above die water table to densify during strong ground shaking. Refer to tlie settlement section of this document for estimated magnitudes of seltlement. Tl�e potential for damage to surface improvements due to liquefaction during the design life � (50 years) of ilie project is considered negligible across tlte site. ' � • 2.6.3 Seiches / Tsunamis Due to the inland location of the site, the possibility of Tsunamis is considered nil. Based on tl�e elevation and proxiinity of the suUject site to Lake Skinner, a seiche hazard is considered , very low. ; , ' , 2.6.4 Floodin i � C " � The Metropolitan Water District Aqiieduct system traverses near tlie eastern boundary. � Rupture of this pipeline could pose some local temporary-flooding risk. ; i � ,' � �°•� 2.6.5 Seismicallv-Induced Landslicling , Based on our review aud subsurface investigation, no significant landslides t�ave been mapped , ' ' `� by otliers nor were identified durin tl�is investi ation. A surficial slum was identified alon � g � g. d�e steep sided natural slope along tl�e southern boundary area. The. major earth materials ' observed, both granitics and ihe Pauba Formalion, are generally not prone to landsliding, , liowever surficial failures are kno�vn to occur. Due to the relatively flat-lying nah�re of the I'auba formation and tl�e massive granitic bedrock, landsliding due to seismic activity is not � anticipated. T1ie identifed slump fcahire will be removed during �rading and will not 'pose a ', risk to the subject development. ' � � � & , ��R= - � � _�_ �--_ �. • � � . 11990013-001 2.6.6 Seismicallv-Induced Settlement Seismically Induced Settiement (dynamic densification) generally occurs within areas of loose granular soils �vith relative lo�v moisture and density. Provided the recommended eart��woik removals oudined in Section 3.2 are performed, the potential for dynamic densification is considered low. We estimate the post-construction (gradiiig) dynatnic densification potential to � be in accordance with Section 33. Additional evaluation of estimated dynamic densi6cation . may Ue performed at or after the time of rough grading. 2.7 Seismic Design Parameters ' Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQFAiJI,T and ' EQSEARCH, (Blake, 2000). T1�e nearest known zoned active fault and source of the design earthquake � is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 4.4 miles southwest of the � site. The maxi�num credible earthquake is estimated to be magnitude 6.8. Tlie Uniform Building Code (UI3C) established Seismic Zones (often accepted. as minimum standards) based on maps showing ground motion witli a 475-year rehirn period or a 10% probaUility of exceedance �' in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a peak ground acceleration of O.SSg may be exceeded in 50 years. "I1�e design earthquake therefore, is considered a magnitude 6:8 event on either d�e Temecula segment of tlie Elsinore Fault Zone or the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault that would genera#e a „ � probabilistic peak ground acceleration of O.SSg (FRISKSP, Blake 2000). T1�e effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and seisnuc design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers Association of California. Seismic design parameters are presented below: Seismic Zone = 4 Seismic Source Type = B � Near Source Factor, N = 13 , Near Source Factor, N� = 1.6 Soil Profile Type = SD , I Peak Ground Acceleration = O.SSg �! _ (10"/o probability in 50 years) �.�. 2.8 Groundwater , Grow�dwater water was not encountered during recent or previous field investigations at d�e subject I �� site. It is our opinion that perched groundwater may exist wiEhin the deeper portions of the Pauba � Formation, and above un&actYired portions of the Cretaceous granite. Fractures and joints within ... �' the granite would allow transmission of water, however. The regional groundwater table is assumed' � to be more than 50 feet below tl�e lowest elevation of the subject site (Leighton, 1990). � ; tt should be noted that fi�ture irrigation water might impact proposed cut slopes or fill over cut slopes, I Cut slopes that expose the Pauba/granite bedrock contact may present some seepage problems. This should be evaluated during grading. , ' _ & I ! � �_ _ , '� _�� - , -8- � �_� j ' ' , � 11990013-001 , 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS � , 3.1 General , Based on our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and may Ue constructed provided the following recominendations are ' implemented cluring grading and incorporated into clesign and construclion. The following sections , discuss the principal geotechnical concerns afFecting site development and grading, and provide ' preliminary foundation design recommendations for planning purposes. 3.2 Earthwork ' Earthwork should be performed . in accordance with both the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix E, and the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix E are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects. Soine of the � ' recorrvnendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations � � contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix E. The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is [l2e responsibility of . ; the contractor . to place fill properly, in accordance wilh the recommendations of this report, ' notwithstanding testing and observation by the geotechnical consultant. Care should be taken by Ihe ,� contractor when grading along project boundaries to protect.existing offsite stnictures and properties. The developer may wisli to include pre-construction photographic documentation and/or monitoring of � adjacent improvements and properties prior to and during construction of this project. ; 3.2.1 Removal and Site Preparation Prior to grading of the subject site, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all � structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) should be cleared of surface and ' subsurface obstructions, heavy vegetation, roots and deUris. These materials should be disposed of offsite. Re�noval of unsuitable, compressible materials should be anticipate�l ' within areas to receive ftll, and within some areas of cut where unsuitable materials extend below proposed cut grades.. Minor ofPsite grading may be necessary to achieve the desired , ' , removals. UnsuitaUle materials consist of undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, and highly weathered bedrock, and they should be lotally removed prior to fill placement. The removal deplhs of tliese materials will vary wi[I� location. Non-weathered to moderately weathered, • � non-porous, Granite, Pauba formation bedrock, Terrace materials and Older Alluvium are , ; ' considered competent material. ,' , � , � . Keyways will be necessary at toe areas of proposecl fill slopes throughout the site. Keyways , `�• are also required for tlie fill portions of fill over cut slopes. Schematics of tl�ese keyways are �, �� provided in tl�e General Earthworks and Grading Specifications, Appendix E. Keyways , g should be excavated into dense, non-porous competent material, and geologically mapped � ' �� prior to fill placement. For fill over cut slopes, a keyway should be excavated at the in[erface , ` of the cut to fill transi[ion (after removal of unsuitable surficial soils). Keyways for fill over . I cut stopes slioi�ld be a minimuin of 18 feet wide and inclined into slope a ininimum of 2 � percent. Keyways for the larger, (>40 Ceet high) southerly perimeter fill slopes will require ' � key excavations on the order of 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide into approved bedrock. Iii addition, benching should be performed into dense, competent material as fill placement , proceeds adjacent to all slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical). A minimum bench , height of 2 feet into approved, competent material should be maintained at all times. � � � �_ — � � — -9- �� , ; ' � � ll 990013-001 Overexcavation of cut to fill transition pads should be performed to a minimum of 3 fee[ below _, � pad grade. Overexcavation limits may encompass entire lots or extend to appro�cimate(y 10 feet outside building footprint(s). Overexcavation to depths greater than 3 feet maybe recommended � in order to minimize the differential 611 ttiickness to less than 20 feet within any structural lot. Actual limits can Ue detennined cluring rough grading procedures. It is expected that most ' transition lots will not be overexcavated until.rougli-grading procedures occur on each of the individual pads. -„ After completion of recommended removals of unsuitable soils and overexcavation of transition lots, approved removal Uottoms should be scarified a minimum of 6-inches, moisture conditioned as necessary to near optimum and compacted. � 3.2.2 Stiuctural Fi(Is and Oversize Materials , � The onsite soils are �suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of organic materials and debris. If boulders larger than four feet are encountered, they should be cnished/broken in place to a size less than four feet or removed from the fill area., Fills containing appreciable percent of rocks (greater than 20 percent) with diameters greater than 12 . " � inches should be placed in accordance with the alternatives presented in Appendix E. ' Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be prepared in ' accordance with Section 3.2 and scari�ed to minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near � optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, ' , (based on ASTM Test Method D 1557-91). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on tl�e type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, ' fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils should be placed at or aUove the minimum optimum moisture content and compacted to minimum 90 ', percent (95 percent for fills greater that 40 feet in deptt�) based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Fills placed on slopes, steeper than 5 to 1(horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into approved formational soils (see Appendix E for benching detail): Placement � „ , and compaction ot fill should be performed in accordance with the City of Temecula Grading Ordinance under lhe full-time observation and testing of tlie geotechnical consultant. � 3.2.3 Utility Trenches '� The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill providecl they are screened of rocks � ;. over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backf'ill should be compacted in tiniform � lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) Uy mechanical means to at least 90 ' � percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). � � � � �., ' Excavation of utility trenches should Ue performed in accordance with the project plans, � specifications and all applicable OS�IA requirements. The co��tractor shoul�l be responsible 1 for providing tl�e "competei�t person" required by OSHA standards. Temporary utility trench ' � � �_ walls should be constructed at l:l (horizontal to vertical) slope inclinations or flatter. � . � Alternaking sl�oring, clesigned in accorclance with a structurat engineer's recommendations I should be used. Contractors should be advised [hat sandy soils (such as fills generated from [he onsite alluvium) can make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not ' taken. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on tlie trench wall. Spoil piles due ','� to the exclvation and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the ' trenches. � = &R= . - io - . ' �_ . ' / , � � � 11990013-001 3.2.4 Shrinka�e and Bulkin� � The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with ' materials, density, insitu moisture content, location an�l compaction effort. The in-place and � compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determivation of shrinkage ai�d ' bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some variation. Based on our � experience with similar materials, the following values are provided as guidelines: . � - - Topsoil, Alluvium, Colluvium 10 to 15 percent slu ' and Undocumented-reusable Fill � � Pauba Fonnation I3edrock 10 percent shrink to 5 percent bulking ' (Weathered upper 5 feet) � - I-Ieavy Ripping, deeper than 5 fee[ 0 to 10 percent bulking 3.3 Settlement - Settlement of onsite fill materials is expected to mostly occur during and within 90 days following fill placement. However, following [he Placement of fill ancl constniction of residences, additional settlement may occur due to (a) new footing/foundation loads and (U) compression within the fill due to the effects of landscaping inigation. Settlements of buildings on bedrock pads (cut) or setdement ' of fills, of less tl�an 10 feet thick overlying properly prepazed bedrock is not expected to Ue , significan[. 33.1 Settlement from Biiilding Loads � Buildings located on compacted fill soils (90 percent relative compaction) should be designed � in anticipalion of '/s inch of total settlement and '/a inch oE differential settlement in 40 feet. � This settlement is anticipated to occur during constn�ction as the load is applied, These � settlements and angular distortions are for imposed building loads and do not include i compression within the fill itself. ' , � 3.32 Settlement of Fill Soils – Static and Dynamic Fill ihickness on this Portion of the Roripaugh project site (Tract 29661) is expected to be up ��" to a roximatel 67 feet 'n pp y t cluding the planned removal depths. Our evaluation of � � ' compression within the planned fill soils assumes that the fill thickness variation within tlie � � limits of a residential lot is to 20 feet or less. In addition, as previously discusseci, Leighton recommends that fills in the upper 40 feet Ue compacted to 90 percent relative compaction while planned compacted fills greater than 40 feet (40 feet of thickness Uelow finished grades) be compacced to 95 percent relative compaction wilh the fill moisture conditioned to or above optimum. If the fill is compacted in chis manner, settlements are ` anticipated to be relatively low. Post-construction [otal settlements for areas underlain by 40 � ( feet or less of com�acted fill over dense bedrock is anticipated to be on the order of lh l0 1.4 inches with clifferential setllements on the order of 3 /a- inch in 40 feet. The cleepest fill areas, , �� (fill soils up fo 67 feet iri thickness) may ext�ibit static post-construction total settlements of 1 i to 2 inches with differential settlements of approxirnately 1 inch in 40 feeL � & � ��_��_ — �'� � � • -11- - ` . ; � � ll990013-001 Fill soils that are aUove the regional water table and described as sands (Unified Soil Classification System, SP, SM or SW) and compacted to near optimum moisture content, may be susceptible to dynamic densification during strong ground shaking. For [his particular site, densification is anticipated to be very low to low on fill soils compacted to 95 percent relative ' compaction and moisture conditioned to near optimiim. IIowever, fills compacted to 90 percent in the upper 40 feet may be subject ro post-earthquake effect of'/a to'/z inch of additional fill ' �' settlement in 40 feet due to dynamic densification. The project architect and structural engineer ' may wish to consider the eFfect oF this dynamic distortion in the seismic perforn7ance of .the - residential buildings. Although most utilities should tolerate the seismic distress anticipated, ,', — gravity drainage utilities sl�ould be evaluated for the effects of the above noted potential static �� and dynamic settlement. Settlement and resultant cracks in asphalt, flatwork and curbs are � likely when subject to seismic shaking and may not be practical nor economical to design these ' improvements to mitigate these eFCects. '� Settlement due to liquefaction is not anticipated to significanlly contribute to this dynamic '� settlement due to the planned preparation of the site with fill over prepared bedrock or dense older terrace formation st�rfaces within the residential pads and the absence of regional groundwatec. , 3.4 Slot�e Stability �— Cut and Fill Slopes Based on otir review of the referenced grading plan, cut and fill slope are proposed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) with �naximum heights of approximately 12 feet and 75 feet, respectively. � Slope stability calculations for fill slopes are presented in Appendix E. The shear strength parameters , used in the analysis were obtained from laboratory test data presented in Appendix D. Cut slopes � however should be observed by an engineering geologist during grading to provide any addi[ional recommendations if warranted by any adverse geological conditions. All slopes shoulci be constructed in accordance with the most current version of the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) guidelines and ' ,' County of Riverside requirements. � All 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) �11 slopes with 90 percent relative compaction (95 percent below 40 � ' feet) are considered stable (static and pseudo-static factor of safety greater than 1:5 and 1:1, � respectively) to a maximum height of 75 feet. All 2:1 fill slopes over 40 feet in height should be constructed with 90 percent relative compaction in "� the upper 40 feet and 95 percent relative compaction below tt�at. This 95 percent compaction should , extend from the slope face a minimum horizontal distance equal to the overali height of tlie slope or ' �.. approved bedrock_ � All cut and fill slopes designed and constiucted in accordance witli the reco�nmendations contained ; in ihis report are considered stable and possess a minimum static and pseudo-static factor of safety of : 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. � Cut and F11 slopes constnicted at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to verticat) are considerecl surficially �° stable, i.e. rOS >_ 1.5. Granular site materials ma be siib'ect to erosion if left un lanted or un rotecled. Y J P P � Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped (with ; I drought tolerant vegetation) as soon as possible aFter grading to �educe the potential for erosion. , � Berms should be prqvided at the top of fill slopes, Urow ditches should be constructed at the top of cut � slopes. Lot drainage should be directecl sucli that surface runoFf on the slope face is minimized. The outer portion of fill slopes should be either overUuill by 2 Ceet (minimum) and trimmed back to the ' ' finished slope configuration or compacted in increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a sheepsfoot roller as ' � the f 11 is placed and then trackwalked lo achieve lhe final configuration. � �, � � �IiR = �. � , 12- . � _� ' I � , . ... , , I . 11990013-001 � 3.5 Draina e � ,' Over-the-slope drainage should not be pennilted. All drainage should be directed away from slopes , and stn�ctures by means of approved permane»t/tempo�ary drainage devices. Adequate storm ' ' drainage of the super pads should be provided to avoid siltation of temporary catch basins. Linear � sandbagging of the super pads tangential to flow directions i�i periodic intervals, sliould reduce erosion potential of nmoff over these pads. - 3.5.1 Subdraina�e Subdrainage will be necessary in canyon fills where fills exceed 10 feet in thiclrness and in fill � over cut keyways. Fills generally saturate near the contact with less permeable bedrock and d�e � subdrains should outlet this excess water to suitab(e outlets. Contacts on fill over cut slopes . ° �� which daylight cut bedrock can present seepage problems once irrigation of the slopes and upper pads begins. The subdrainage widiin die fill over cut keyways should mitigate this seepage problem. Subdrain details aze provided in Appendix F, General Earthwork and Grading ', Specifications. Subdrains greater than 500 lineal feet should consist of 8-inch ciiameter PVC � perforate pipe. Subdrain location sl�ould be as-built by the project civil engineer. Outlets should � be protected by constniction of a concrete encased outlet. � �3.6 Tentative Foundation Desi�n ' Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations as provided by the project stnictural consultant and tl�e minimum recommendations presented in Table 1, Minimum ' , Foundation and Slab Design Recommendations. We recommend that as grading progresses, building � pads should be evaluated for their expansion potential and differential fill thickness. The final footing and slab design for each proposed stn�cture should be designed based on the results of that evaluation. � 3.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations � �The recommended lateral pressures for the site soil (expansion index less than 50 per iIBC 18-I-B) and level or sloping backfill are presented in the following table. � Lateral Eartli Pressures ,.. Equivalent rluid Weight (pc�' ; � ' Conditions ��. LeveL Backfill 2:1 Slope Backfill � � Active 45 65 � At-Rest 65 95 � . Passive 250 (maximum 2 ksfl 125 (Sloping Dorvn) I 1— Assiunes clrained condilions in accorclance with Appendix F. 2— t l ssmne§ Uie f i�us h e d gra de a djacent in all directions to Qie retaining w�all will cemain for tl�e life of Uie project. � Embedded stn�ch�ral walls should be designed for lateral earll� pressures exerted on d�em. The magnitude of these pressures depends on tl�e amount of deformation for ihe "active" case that the wall can yield under loa�l. 'I'his mag�iitude of deformation is typicall3� ' I ��_ — I � - 13 - . �e' � i I ' 11990013-001 ; range of 0.0005 to 0.001H, where "H" is height of wall. If the w.all can yieid enough to ,� mobilize the fiill shear strenglh of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If tlie wall cannot yield under ihe applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized ' and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" ; conditions. If a stnictt�re moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive° resistance. � � For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure (active, at-rest) for walls � -' founded above die static ground water and backfilled witli soils of very low to low � - expansion potential is provided in.the above table. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geoteclmical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent stn�ch�res should be evaluated by the geotechnicat and stniciural engineer. All retaining' walt structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. T7ie outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix F(presented at rear of text). �� ' For sliding resistance, the friction coe�cient of 0.35 may be used at d�e concrete and soil interface. In combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the frictional , resistance should be reduced tiy 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in �� accordance with stn�ctural considerations. The passive resistance value may be inereased � Uy one-third when considering loads of short duration, including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal distance between foundation elements providing passive resistance shoi�ld � be a minimum of three times the depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures. The total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should ' be tl�e vertical distance below tl�e ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at tlie heel of tlie footing for overturning and sliding. „ , Wall Uackcut excavations less tlian 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For backcuts greater than 5 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the backcut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper than l:l (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. For backcuts in excess of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical consultant. The granular and native backfill soils should , be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method ' D1557). T1ie granular fil! should extend horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one- � half d�e wall height behind the walls. The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavation. Prolonged exposure of Uackcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. " ' � Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soils or properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 18 inches below lo�vest adjacent grade and in accordance ;�� ' � with Section entitled Footing Setback. At this deptl�, an allowaUle bearing capacity of ' 2,500 psf may be assumeci. j For walls over 5 feet or tl�at present a life/safety hazard, tl�e lateral earth pressures shou(d � � be increased to reflect tlie increment of additional pressure caused by U�e design � earthquake. Accordingly, an increment of lateral pressure equal to 189 H where H is ,'� , tl�e heiglrt of d�e wall, should be applied at a distance of 0.6H above the toe of the wall: ! Under the comUined effects of static and earthquake loads on the wall, a factor of safety „ between 1.1 and' 1.2 is acceptable when evaluating the stability (siiding, overturnin of �' � � 8L i � � _ - 14 -, �`� I � � 11990013-001 � the wall (NAVFAC DM 72). All retaining wall structures should be provided with � , appropriate drainage and waterprooFing. 3.7 Footing Setback � We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance fi the face of slopes for all structural - footings and settlement-sensitive structures (i.e. fences, walls, signs, etc.). Tius distance is measured '� form the outside edge of the footing, l�orizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall). Slope Height Recommended Footing Setback < 5 feet 5 feet minimum ' " 5-15 feet 7 feet minimum � > 15 feet H/2, where H is the siope height, not to exceed 10 feet for 2:1 slopes � We should note that the soils wichin a slope setback area posses poor, long term latei stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavement, undergrouiid utilities, e[c.) constructed within this setback area may. be suUject to lateral to lateral �novement and/or differential settlement. „ � 3.8 Concrete and Corrosion Laboratory SulFate tesls from the overall Roripaugh site and nearby projects indicate a negligible to. ; moderate concentration of soluUle sulfates for onsite surficial soils (Appendix A). Additional testing of , exposed subgrade soils should be performed at or near the completion of grading. Concrete in contact with onsite earth materials soil should comply with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. , 3.9 Grading of Ex�ansive Soils I I. . Although the majority of [he onsite soils will have a low to medium expansion potential, localized � pockets of the alluvium and topsoil may have a medium to very high expansion potentiaL If , expansive soils are utilized at pad grade, typical expansive soil-related distress (siich as cracked �,.,, flatwork and stucco, poor vegetation growth, etc.) may be expec[ed over lhe life of the project. Accordingly, we recommend that if possiUle, expansive soils encountered during grading operations be placed in fill areas below a depth of 5 feet measured from the finished grade and not wi[hin 15 , � feet of the face of any slope. Expansive soils exposed at finished pad elevations sllould likewise be removed to a depth of 5 feet and replaced with very low to low expansion_potential compacted fill unless special foundation design recommendations for expansive soil are implemented. �� ; � 3.10 Transition Lots and Lot Ca�ping ' In order to reduce the potential for diFFerential settlement in areas of transition (cut-fill lots), we ;'' recommend that the entire cut portion of transition (cut-fill) Uuilding areas be overexcavated to a � minimum deptll of 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted fill of very low to low expansion ' potential. The overexcavation and recompaction should laterally extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond � the builcling perimeter or �extend 1lterally across the treated area oP tl�e lot. The base o I� �' � — ' ' , -15- �, ��_ 11990013-001 � overexcavated portions of the lot should slope at approximately 2 percent toward the fill side to avoid ponding water, wl�icli may result in fi�hire seepage proUlems. In addition, final determination of lots that require imdercutting due to rock or transition conditions should be determined in the field. � �' 3.11 Preliminary Pavement Desi�,n Parameters � ' Traffic Index (TI) data was not available to us at the time of.preparation of this report. . This TI. - information will be necessary to finalize the fle�cible pavement sections (AC and base roc�C). However, � - for planning and estimating purposes we have made some assumptions based on the anticipated usage. '� The recommendations provided below are for an assumed R-value of R=40. Tests of the exposed suUgrade should be performed at the completion of rough-grading to confiim the appropriate pavement � section. Appropriate TI data should be selected tiy the project civil engineer or traffic engineering , consultant for finalization of the pavement section and should be 'in general accordance with local, county and industry standards. � ; AC Pavement Section Thickness (assume R=40� � � TI Asphaltic-Concrete (AC) Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) '. Thickness (inches) Rock (R=78) Thickness (inches) ' , r 5.0 3 6 ' 5.5 3 � 6 6.0 3 8.5 "I7�e subgrade soils in tlie upper 6 inches of the driveways and parking areas should tie properly ,� compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be well moisture-. conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section is conskructed. , Minimtim relative, compaction requirements for aggregate Uase rock should be 95 percent of the , ma�cimum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" ("Green Book") cunent edition or (Caltrans) �, ' California Depart�nent of Transportation, Standard Specification Section 26, Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78. Asphaltic Concrete, Portland Cement Concrete and base materials . sliould conform to and be placed in accordance wit}i the current and adopted Green Book, Standard , � „; , Specifications for Public Works Construction. , � The paveinent sections provided in this section are meant as inini►num, if thinuer or highly variable �.,, pavement sections are constnicted; increasec! maintenance and repair may be needed. Ttie use of concrete cutoff or edge Uarriers should be considered at the perimeter of�the common parking or � driveway areas when tliey are adjacent to either open (unfinished) or landscaped areas. � . I �, ' , , � . � & ' , ��R=- � � - 16 - �= � � . ,' � 1 � • , � � � � 11990013-001� � 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering' practice. The poor performance of many � foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend ttiat Leighton and Associates be provided the opPortunity to review the following items. - 4.1 Plans and Specifications � The geotechnical engineer should review the project rough grading plans and specifications prior to '' release for bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to determine whether the geotechnical �� recommendations have been effectively imPlemented. Review findings should be reported in writing by the geotechnical engineer. ` ' 4.2 Construction Review ' Observation and testing should be perfornled by Leighcon and Associates representatives during construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during construction may vary from , that encountered in the test borings or trenches. Reasonably continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the of the actual soil conditions and il�e ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. ' Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earih materials, fill placement, foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed and tested Uy representatives of L.eighton and Associates. As noted in this report, pre-construction activities may include photographic or summary documentation of adjacent properties. The adjacent sites should be periodically monitored during constn�ction, particularly when working in close proximicy to property lines. ' Additional laboratory tests of subsurface materials to confirm compacted density and moisture content, ' �' corrosion potential, expansion potential, compression of deep fills and resistance value (R-value) ' { should be performed during grading. , 1 .. '� ; �», � I M ( I I � , I' ! . :IiR:- � -��- � -�: ; � �� , , .� ; 11990013-001 5.0 LIMITATIONS ; This report was prepared for Ashby llevelopment, Uased on Ashby Development's needs, directions and requirements at the iime. ` This report was necessarily based in part upon data oUtained from a limited number of observances, site , visits, soil ancUor samples, tests, analyses, l�istories of occt�nences, spaced subsurface explorations and - limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is necessarily incomplete. The -- � nahire 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. ,� ' This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except, the Ashby Development, its successors and assigns as owner of the property, witli whom Leighton has contracted for � the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at tl�at party's risk. Unaudiorized use of or , reliance on this Report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton & Associates from and , ' against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, , or strict liaUility of Leighton and Associates. � ,' �.. 1 � ��, ; � ( � � i � � & ! '� _ — � _ � �o ' - 18 - . �—�-- � i , '. , _ , __ . -- �� ,1-_-x. - 119900?3�01 , TABLE 1 I�'IINIMUM FOUNDATION AND SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS U.B C. E ion dex . ans In U C .C. ansi nindex .B. . E ion de U.B E o ans In x XP XP XP 0- 2 i-50 20 51-90 W io I,o E�mans n V w io eti' E M � E io erY Lo xvans n um ans n XP 1-Story Footings AIl footings 12" deep. Reinforcement for continuous footings: A(t footings 12" deep. Reinforcement for continuoac footings: AIl footings 18" deep. Reinforcement for continuaus (See Note 1) one No. 4 bar top and'oottom one No. 4 baz top and bottom footings: one No. 4 bartop and bottom. 2-Storp Footings ?ill footings 18" deep. Reinforcement for continuous footings: AII footings 18" deep. Reinforcement for continuous footings: All footings 18" deep. Reinforcement for continuous (See Note 1) one No. 4 baz top and bottom. one No. 4 bar top and bottom footings: one No. 4 bar top and bottom. Minimum Footing Width Continuous: 12".for 1-story Continuous: 12" for 1-story Continuous: 12" for 1-scory Continuous: IS" for 2-story Continuous: IS" for 2-story Continuous: IS" for 2-story Isolated column: 24° (18" deep minimum) Isolated column: 24" (18" deep minimum) Isolated column: 24" (18" deep minimum) Garage Door Cmde Beam A gade beam 12" wide x 12" deep A gade beam 12" wide x 12" deeQ A grade beam 12" wide x 18" deeQ (See Note Z) (18" deep for 2-story) should be provided acrossthe garage (18" deep for 2-story)shoutd be provided acrossthe garage should be provided acrossthe garage entrance. entrance. entrance. Living Area Floor Slabs Minimum 4" thick slab. 6x6-10/10 W WF reinforoement ai Minimum 4" thick slab. 6x6-1O/10 W WF reinforcement at Minimum 4" thick siab. 6x6-6/6 W WF or No. 3 bazs (See Notes 3, 4 and 6j midheiglu. 2" ctean sand over 10 mil moisture bazrier. midheight 2" clean sand over 10 mil moisture bacrier over Z" (� 18" each way or No. 4 bars @ 24" each way. 2" clean clean sand sand over 10 mil Visqueen over 2" clean sand. Garage F3oor Slabs Minimum 4" thick on 2" sand base over moisture bazrier on Minunum 4" thick on Z" sand base over moisture bazrier on Minimum 4" thick on 2" sand base over moisture bazrier (See Notes 4, 5 and 6) pad 6x6-10/10 W WF reinforced at midheight Slab should be pad. 6a6-10/10 W WF reinforced at midheight Slab should be on pad 6x6-6/6 W WF or No. 3 bars @ 18" each way or quaaer-sawn. quacier-sawn. No. 4 bazs @ 24" each way. Slab should be quar[er-sawn. Presoaking of Living Area Neaz optimum to a depth of 6". 1:2 times the opticnum moisture content io a depth of 12". 1.31imes optimum mois[ure content to a depth of 18". and Garage Slabs Allowable Beanmg Capacity - 2,000 pounds per square foot : 2,000 pounds per square foot 2,000 pounds per square foot (one-third inaease for short tenn (one-third increase for short term loading) (one-third increase for short term loading) (one-third increase for short teim loading) loading) Notes: (I) Depth of interior or ex[erior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent f�nish grade or drainage swale flowline elevation. (2) The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as that of the adjoining footings. (3) Living ama slabs should be tied to the footings as directed by the structural engineer. _ (4) 10-mil V'isqueen sheeting or equivalents are acceptable. All iaps and peneuations should be sealed. _ (5) Garage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a minimum 3!8" felt expansion joint. (6) Sand base should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or �eater (e. g-washed concrete sand). (7) Low and Medium Expansive soil lots using conventional foundation should comply with Section 1815 of the 1997 UBC. (8) Unless stated in the-attached report, for EI=21-�0 use PI=25, and EI=� 1-90 use PI=3 � _ I C ' � 4_tl �� r i"�414_t�I 1'�: F=i;=, 9�=i9•��F,��S=_4 LEI��HTi-ihJ F'H�:�E tr� - J � I -.�� . . , _ �-Ga�IpAC.�7ED �� ' Pf�O.lEC7E!] PLAN� � = A � � —�—��.-�='."`�'— ='-J' I 1 TO 1 MAX,U.IUM FFiC1�1 �'� -- —�- "_ r.� �—� -- 4"'F SLC]PE'tc] AP�C�y� GA[�iJN:O ; =°.."�-"� -�,.--° — ` , � -.�_� — �i11. S�.QPE -= �-^. _ __.. �� ' hEldAVE NATURAL � �_ �=w= _ 4'TYPlC.�U. tJt9SLlfi'A61� Gft�UND �. — '"` MA7�f1Ai_ -�-�— ' _ , -�-�- �— �ENC}i �BE3�1CM ' . �._ � _��` -'�, ANIM.--b�-- NF3aFir � ' r 1eIN. �~-"ts I�iN.—_..� 1C�''l DE� f1�! lDW��T �F�iC71 �� i �OFIPAC�" , . , �� L-`-�"`—�~ �iLL-OVE}�� CLfI' _��.;� �� —� .'�., Si.OPE i NAT�1Ra1.. ...,_ — == :_.�='- a� 7rntr,.� � G�aouNo �-� _—"- - \ � ��'__,- ± — ��7 H � B�Nr}� � i� ` J _ _�_ _�—� HF.1c�NT __� ~ - .. 611N�— ��IpYE -`'' � UNSi11TA6Lg ' �` .ti � 14' MIAL� k1ATE.a[AL i� �� '-�' ' I�.CW�S78�NC7i - x �utn�, '''', K�Y QL�F�i}j C�JI' MACf �1-�A1..L � t7�N�3TT,1lC7� PR3C7R TO F�LL F�,C��YT'T't� ISSiJFt� [�IT FAr� ' ' AD�.tATE ��OLOC3IC C�N�f170t1R 'i'O 8� �TAiJC� Pt"�hJfl TO FiL.L P�A(�r1E3lT' r'' -."- . � , ru7ut�a� ' /' Ct.JT-OY��-�iLl. � OROUND � , f � . �LflPE . � f �� ov��sui�,T �wu �'�'r= � ' ' . 7F+�na e.acx �`'� = � a � '�`~-' '� ` - Fcr �i�bdrains Sea, �_� _ DE3f�td S�UPE -` � � �auave St�r�r�ard Oetail G PFtOJL�.'T�D i�'1.ANE � �'��` ,�� — WSUfTAHL$ 1 TU t 1.1A�?(1MUM F�'�f�4 .� _,,�� _.t &lAT�flWL ' TDE oF SL� 70 - _�� ;,-� �� orac�uNV\ = =�--='_ a� rr�scai. \ ��'�-- r.T � #dPA� BENCN 0E.3iCii HEGi{T �� r1LL° , '-- r'� --- i �.r" -- Z:i �I)M =.• --� Bb?�}il?�H� 61-fr�111_ SE I,X. W1-{�'J 51_OPE3 ' ..,' �CC" IWOL� 14 F TYJ Cfi QR�� 1t{AP� 9:1 2' klrrc �� MIN1MUhI 8�3V�! HE.'�13H'f sHALL e� � F�'i K�'f OE�''7H LL7WE�T HENCl�Ii MIPAJI�IJM FILL 1MtJ]7-� �}{A�L BE 8 F�T ; --- - ---- ___ - -- G�NERAL EAR�`HWORK AND GaADIN� � � � , ��YING AND BENCHYN� SP��IFICATI�NS �, � � � S1ANaARD D�T'AILS A � �"',,;�, � -- .._._..� r�. � �"°"' , , • . � , , F=i1� '�',;'"��=�F=�4 1'�: E�i_; ��F��=r�'�F,F_�5=�4 LEI�=�I.� F'�-',�:�E Gi_; __.�.- - . --- � � �-- FlriisH ��Rna� .� — .._ — — 4 l0' � _ .COMPA�Tfl) F[t1. ` ' -- � SLQPF, FACE .y. , — .... —. — -- — t�l(N. � _ — ._ — ,. .� � — -, � _. — \� � _ y „`__ � _ -'.�`- -- ° _� -- ^�^ _ � ` _^ � — � -- ~ i � — �` -�' � ,�` , �� —�'-LL� -.--_ ��— � = � = �- � _� , � ._ _ T - -� ' - � �- � - _ �- � - ff f ' - - � -1- •-� /7 -) � + �� ^� _ T � .� I I .-_ ._ _ lQ � _ ; �''� �" "" — ` = =� , � _.,��! — � _ � � � `L/' .q_ "_ — _ .... _ hlihl. — -- — -- — --. � --- — -- _ , � -... — �` -.,-`�.�' � ..- �, _ -W -� -- a rnM`� � — iSTt�tW� _� T -- - , —:..�� -- �—�� --------— � ' W _ � .�J'�'` �. — — �— __ -- — , � - ^ '_' — — "' — — �—�OVERSI2E — .. � _, —.,,,. ` — " — — -- — � ' -- ^ .4 �`°_ _ _ ....� . _ � WINDROW' _. ._ _ � ` — � —. .;. =.a�'- - - -�-^-- - --- - - ,_ � - - — . .._. _ , JETT�P OR FLOODEU , ' " ' .� . APpRqVED SUiL � -- .�� I • Oversize rock Is large� fhan 8 Indies °-- -- �� tr� lar�r.st dimension. — _ , • Bac{�iil with aPP�nved soli Jetted or , _ � flooded In place to �ill afl the volds. _ � /� � • Do nuk buty rock v�lthin 10 fs� pf T � , �, finish grade. — """ —' — ---- — • .4Yindrow of huKeci rock shall he ``� —,. °— .--„ -- paraqel to the finlshed slape fa�. ��— �— � �� 'y�---,---.r� � � S�CTI(7N A-A' � � nRQFiLE ALQP�G WINDRQW ; .:�.�= =- ^ _ = =- �- _� - =- A = -� - �= � ` _ �._ = � _- � . � � � � � C� , � �- - - ,w-� = `= �-�_�` �-= �A'= �=_.--��=�.�-�__�-. ��_� � , ]�'1'C�D OR Ft_QQp[D A�PROV�U SOIL ' „�,,,, - ,�..�.� � UV�FZSI�E GENEftAI EARTHWORK NVU GRI�pING ''°��-, � '�, � �.��« � 5pECIFICATIqNS � � � �� Sl'ANDARa DE7AILS B � __----.---ti�.,.. . �.,._,� Rer. � oo `— � � � � I=11,:''�,!?I1I_1�1 1'�:t=1;; yity��IF,�i534 LEI�.�HTCqI Po�[�E Et4 • ; -�_... � NATUR,4l� � , , �/�Rc�uNn �� —�- �--� =_ =r� � 4; �===T �" �. rti ` T .� �. .� _ _coMPacr�n �� - _° — _ — — � , -�� — - �_. � - _ �� .r �� _ �.. _ �.,�� , / �: . __ ��.,.:.,_ — -. _ — — � _ — � / \ , � - _-`-` —.-�''- . � �� , TYPICIiL _�'-�� — ` — ..- — — -� � � � BENCHING _ ` _ _ _. . , -� �� ---�;� — — � — ` REMOVL , , �� _ �� _�� \ �� UNSUITABLE MATFRIAL , ��.:: f � -�-._.�. SU�DRAIN ; , (See Alternat�s A ancl B) � �� SU�DRAIN ALTERfJATE A PERFUp,ATEU F7� SVRftOIAJDEF] . F1lTER F1117EHU1L ' i —" 1"/ITH F1L7Bi MATF.StIAL FILTFR MnrF,RIAL Sh4ALL B� CLnSS 2 PE3iME48lEhU7flitAlFg�57q�lECf FIL7ER MP,tERinL fS� ]FTl CnLIFCRNiA STW�DnRD SF'F.QF[CAlIOh1, OR AFPRD��Fp ALIFNlA7E, ' . CWSS 2 GRnouJG AS FQLlOLY5: �,�\ 5(Q� See P�v�rR F�asMr'q 1 �� ip� . � 3/q" 90-19p „ � e•i•an.cc�ea �':', _ - 3�g" 4U 100 � �.°, T_..��c� No.4 �5-�10 "}1 n . tJo. 8 ` 1R-33 �' Nn.30 5-�5 � � "` �. Mlhl, ''� ,^ , No. SD 0-7 � fdo.200 0•3 SUBDP.AIhI ALTEfUJATE A-1 �.� SUeefW�d AL1ERr�inTE A - 2 f'ERFUfWTm P� -- — 6" f� P1IPl. SU�pRAIN ALTElZNAT� E3. bEl C�F CANYON SUf3DW1IN �RMINAt, � GRAVEi WRAPPED 1P! FnTER fABRIr_ � 12" MIN..CaVF,�tLAp o �G O �,,�— , F n,� Nen can�e cn_�u r� i�a; � FILTER FABRIC ° -- �,�c�>�� AfCPO �b EQUNALEJn � � _� (P�QRAFI 1�#ONC OR �� ` r ; �v �nn_ �t � . APFROV@b �QUP/AIBJT) � � ;�:: Y ; �.� ; �•i �u� ` '. (y •: %' :,6 -"�"; ,•- � r �— ' • �• �'• `f y 1--CAD . . y � � ' I . \` -�' ! • . . 1i' MtrL � o� rtw. � � � , � *�, f� � S MCI. VCRTFATEG �?/�' O[`F71 O0.4pED G+�AVFl � . 3(4" D1AX. GRAVE! QR nr,��.�P_war�o 6 "N MVi. 6kM�tAa!m ¢�tNiVPt�i �1�.��E��IAT� B APPROV�D Ev� uN��ar ALI� 8-Z � ea r�i. — e� (9R 3�FT1 ' ' ij PERFORATED PIPE IS �]f PER , GOVERNIM� .AG�Wr_Y'S P.E4YJip.a�ip�fTS , CANYC�N GENCR�1� EAI7THWQRK ANb GRADING �� , � SUBqRAIN SPECTFICA�1"T�7N5 ' � � � �' �� .� IAND/11�L� DEl"AILS C � — -..-- .�_ � —",- R � � , •. � F-�1 ,�"ZF=��=��1 12: �?S ��ii9��,EiS:_4 LEI�:;HTCq l PHi�E [�5 � , I �S MIN, . f dIIRET I'�P�S - � ` -" y..t� 4"`� NQN-P�a�(�CEU p1PE - T W- __� 100' MAX. O.C. HOIt?ZnNTALI..Y /� - 30` M A X. O, C. V E i� T I C 4 L- L. Y r f' '`_ � �-� =-- '� �~�`'� _ .,�- � = � ;�_=�.�,�' � , . - .-.. = — — o — � -7 r� r�ur. � = �ACICCU"I" . _'Y T-^ ;�__�� :� � ' , �, ' - ,_ _- -_ '- - _ _ _ � ; =- = BENCHiNG I _�._ —� ;_ �-=;�'-� `� i�t _ ==� "_ �W--. =�--�� ' � � _ _– � _– _.. – _2°!o MIiV. --_-;."^ ` _ -- –� ` _ '°– � – �– �- –` -~ " � - – ��== 2°� h�lra., �= = SU6DRAIN AL7�RNAl� g. � I;EY DEPTH �� 15 MIN. �� MIN. I2" UVERt�iF �;�1 i}1E717F 2' h1IN. ' � SUBbp,AIN AL'T'EWVA7E q Nosinve sEa� ��p BE �..� \ �� FILT'ER FASRIC PPqvtCr•L a.T rw� 7oi r�rr �� . :: . �. . /r ,,..-�(�tIRA�r 140 C�t CALTRt1W5t7A�,,�. \ ' l�pPROV� FILTER ML4TE{'�IAL ( S�t - 3�7� 5 5 ' . EQUNALQJI� MIN. _ � • ': r OUTL�T PtF� t``t � (�JOfJ•PFRFC�Rr1Tt3J) `""�-----a,,.,-- . f\ aurcE Pr� � �. �~ (tJON � . /�. � 6° raP�. . 3/a^ ROIX {3FT. ,— \ W RAFPE 111 �JFILTERFP.BRiC � r ' � �� " r�iN. � � r / . — . . . � . . , T-C'C.��NE�IOP� Fkr_h1 � CpLLECTIdN P(PE TO (xJ7'�ET' P1F'E i • SUBpRA1N INSTALU�1'IpN - Subrlraln collec:tt�r pipe shall be Install�d avith pe��forations down ar•, unless otherwis� designat�d by the geot�chnical consultank. Outlel pipes sha11 b� non°pe�forated piPe. The subdrain plpe shall have a� Ieast 8 p�rFarations unfformly spac�l p�r foc�t Perfiora�an �t�all b2 1/4" to i/�" If drllled hol�s are us��i, All subd�a�n pipes shall t�ave a gr�dlent at le�st 2°' to�vards th� outlet . SUBGRAIN PIPE - Subdraln pipe shall be �1517�1 p27S1, ,4STh1 U1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 At3S pfpe � � , or AS"I7�1 a3034 (Scl�edule �lfi) or SD}�, z3.S pVC plp�. . l�II outiet pfpe shai! be placecl In a t�er�ch and after fill Is �(aced above i�, rodd�d t�a ��rif Int rl I � �' � f Y � tY• E�UTTRE5S C7R c;Er��it�� T�woR�; Arvr� �;�r�l�� I � - �EPLACEM�NT l=Z�L sP�a��rYC�NS '"�• � �UaDRAYNS srn�iaa�ta a�r�u�s n . � �� `.T - .�._ -- �i� � � --- - Aev , A � � � E=t1 1'�: Fr3 9G=r��=ir�,4=�534 LEI��HTCifd F'��E 4iF, „ , � _" — �� .______ Ctll -�I�,L "11tAN5T�TOf`d LO�f° QVEI�EXG4VATION � ' `�—_�..�._—�--"_..--�----__-.-_ � . r'�r_� ��.�.�.�- , i ��. , �`�vr4 �r . i • UFlSU11A9LE ...--• ,'� GRJJUNU � ,,,,.: - .r-" .---" ' . l" . � 1f � ' ' I � . ,.-.�' S' I . �---' .--"' .'..-�^ M1N. - - ��. � T T�c F711 - - - -�- .`� -- - `�� h1TN. `.\�� . - - r..- '~ y � �� - -__.��_�.'-Y''_� `�,��i' "\ � � , t:.. ._ ,..._ �. _ � , "� .� -- - - -�- ,-r' �- - � �� .. . OVEFEXCAVATE " ' . AF7U RECCi4FA� �� _ .� � - .�"' �T - � T�PIC4L. � �..-,- ,�� BEP�CFUr�r., � �- -- 11NbV617HERED B�QFfjOC UP, htA'tE�.�l APPRO+rED ?` •�C \� y _ , �� 6Y T} IE GEUYEiHPJICPL CCaSULTPTJT" ��,��,��-� � , , •�o--- ��- ' s � , , , � i SIUE I FILL F042 CUT PAb - Nnic,an�. � ' �ao��a❑ ,� , , '�---� .� , � �' �,," , ' � � , � � ,,,.� � ,r- ""'� RFS�'fVl(. -�.._ �, � � OVEREXC",qY'A7E ''� '� � APJD RC{(x.1PACf r"� r�� FINISHED CUY Ppp (REFLACF,��EMTFIl1) �"! ,/� - �� _ ,` `• - �„� y � -,. � - _. _. . � `, \. \ A '� � \ r UvERBURCEi1 �"` ` ''.! �- . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . • . . . . OR UNSUITALIE � � - '""� ' � MA7�RIAL r ,.--��_� 1(t17t�]„ , -' :!`` �� -"— ... � �_- � !` pab �v�PEJU:AVATION M�P R�CAMPACTIOIJ � �_= ` S}{ALL 6E PEiiJ'CRt�1Eb IF SPC�FIED ,, - � � � T�PICAL BY'IIiE GEOTErtiNICAL'L'CNStJ�TAJ•ff --�; --. �""� BEIVChQ7JG _ �� _ �� ,- --- / `�� 2�,�N_ -" � -�-"��-"� SEE 57APJDARC DE"fA2L FCFt SUEC�P,41�JS ' 9' hIIN. �'�N P,kC�IJ1RED BY (-�C��hIhJICAL �(,y�${��TnpR. '� z�ri►� � �v oerr�i uNwen�Er,�� e��Rna on. r1a7e�tFt nr�R��.� ' eY n�� c�arEC}nar�w. ccr��r,�nr � GENER4L F�IR�CHWQRK AND �2.4DIN� . ' � � ; , r�rusl��o�v �o �1�_�� s��,-1�N5 � � ANa SI�E' M��.L C=�LLS sr��rJbAaD Drr��s E ``°�' -. � . �,.�-- � � . ;a iil 1'�:Fi,3 yF=i9•�9E,F=1534 �-EIGHTi=if! P��:=;E t=t, � ' __,:.�____--__---.____ � , ,. � SUBpRqTf�� ppnUNS AN� aACK WI-I� ��q�nV MA TEI�r1aL. I � XPAn1SIOn� z N��X or- ��o o!'nON i; Fin� s uRROUri[ >EO 4YCr�i `� `—�--, --�-=—, CLASS_ 7 pERMEAB[,F f�1A,TERIAL OPT]OP! 2: GRaV�I Y JR/1�'pED IN FtUER F�R1C �1'ITH P�'pPER SURFAC� DNAIIJQGE = lNI1'H PROPER � � �_ SLOPE SURFACE DRAINAG[ f` i � ,,_� OR LFVE� '� .r SLDPE � —� ��'�—� OR L�[L y 4 „ ... � ra, ... 7.S.�3Si �./ � . � ' � 1 �� , � fJAT�� ti"�A"T�RFR(30FING � � " P�ATayE (S�e cEN�aa�. NarES) - 4-� ' ,:'. ' WATERF'RG(1FING - -� � ' f _ , (5EE G�NERAI. PJOT�S) FILTER FABRIC , , — — i.r� r�IPimiuhi � (See N4TE q) � y Y ' .` � CI,q55 2 P�RF1E�� 12" MIN(f•tUhi i � Y�J�EP f�p� -�_ FILI�R h1A7E(tLqL ($EE NU`i`E S� (SEE �kqpATIbt7) vJ�.�P HOI.p _ , yy ro lt/� IN[H svP (5[E N07E �' Ganve� v✓P6PpeD RJ fai[R ' 1E1,'[LUF; � �' - -�- 4 INCflOIMtEi�ft .�' � ^- �-.t:�� .a FaewC. 5�� `'�� R@R�ORAT�p PIP� LEVELOR ' ' �� ' f T � (SEE NOTE 3) SLQPE F , f � . � . r.�� k . . , �—� ri� • ... „ • l.e, �' Class 2 Fllter Perrneable Mat�r{dl Graddtion f Per CAltran5 SpeClf'KetJons Sfeve Size Percent P�55n� 1 � Z00 , , 3/4" 90•100 � 3�8,� 90-100 ' � P�o. �1 25-q0 ' No. £3 18-33. , rao.3p 5 r�o, so a-; � No. zoo o-� � UEr��nA� ruo�s: �' --�-- --- _ * W�kerpraofing should be prnvtded where mqisture nulsance pibbl�m tl7inuyh the wall is undestrable, f °` �, Wat'er proofing of the watls ls not under piiryiew of Che geotechnlcal englneer � �* AI! drains should have a grad�ent of i percent minimurr� �'Outlet portlon of tiie subdrain.shvuld have a 4-inch dfameter solid pipe dischargeci into a s�lltahle dlspesaf ar�a deslgned by tlie pioJect englneer. The subdraln pipe sfiould be accessible for malnfenance (raidfng) `Okher subdrain bacl�ill options are su6j�t to the revlew by the geptechnlca! englneer and malifleation of design parameters. ! Notes: � 1) Sand should Fiave a sand equivalent of 30 or gr� and tnay be densified by �vater jettlng. Z) 1 �u , �, per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/Z-Inch stze gravel wrapped in filter fabric 3) Pipe type st be ASTp9 pi5�7 qCrylonitNle Butacti�ne Styr��e (ASS) SbR35 or AS1T.q b�.7E�5 Fafyvinyl Chluride plasti� (PVC), Schedule ; 40, AmZCo q2pOp PW�, �r appn�v�d equlvalent. Pipp should be in�talled with �erforations down. PPr�ora�ions s17oUld be 3/8 inch In � v'�ameker pl�ced at the ends of a 12d-d�gree arc In hvo iuws at 3-inch on center (staggered) � 4) Fiiter f�b�lc shoulci be h11r�fi 14pNC or a�proyecl equlvalent. ( 5) Weephole shQUld be 3�•inch rnlnimtin7 dfameter and provlded at !o-foot maxlmum fntervais. If � be located 1� Inches at�ove finisfied grade. If e>;p�sure is not perniitted sUCh as frx a wall �djacent to a s de a�{c/� r�t,�, � p�pe�under „ sldetiva(k to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent shnuld be pmvldE�i. �-or a ba� ►vall, a proper subdraln dutiet system should be prnvided. � 6) Retaining wall plans should be revie�vecl and apprqved by the g�technlCal �ngfneer. � 7) Walls OVer sIX feeC in helgtit �re subject te� a speclal revleW b Che eotechni� Y 9 .�! engineer and mocflflcations to lhe above r�quii�em�nts, � , �_—�_, R�TA�NING WALL� BACI<�ILL AfUb SU13Df2AIN DE�1`A�I� `-- �Q Ft WA - - �--�. � , I,.LS G f C.�R l,.�SS �N I '�� WH NATZVE MAT�RIAL f-iA D Cp ANSI ON IN pF < 50 � �� .�.__...� �� —...—.—' _ '— � " _.__� Rer. Fl�ure N�, � ��brating go A � � 4 '� � � —� � `= Leighton and Associates � � i 96 i- 2 0 oi GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS �� PRELIMINARY GEOTEC�-INICAL EVALUATION �_ PORTION OF RORIPAUGH RANCH � C�ATIVE CTTY OF TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � � � � May 22 2001 Froject No. 11990013-001 � . � � _ , � Prepazed For: ASHBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC. 470 E Harrison Corona,�California 92879-1314 � �� 41Z15 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661 , (909) 296-0530 • FAX /909) 296-0534 • www.leiahtonaeo.com ,� ��bratin � o� � �]L � � ` — — � `� = Leighton and Associates � � �� 1 9 6 i - 2 0 oi GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS May 22, 2001 �� Project No. 11990013-001 � To: Ashby Development Company Inc. 470 E. Harrison Corona, California 92879-1314 � Attention: Mr. Wesley Hylen I Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Porrion of Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California � In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. ei hton has com leted thi (I- g ) p s preliirunary geotechnical evaluation of the Roripaugh Ranch property located in the City of Temecula, Riverside � County, California (See Site Location Map, Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to fulfill the Geology and Soils section of the Environmental Impact Report being prepared by The Keith Companies (TKC). This report summarizes our fmdings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the la�own geotechnical _ � conditions encountered within the property. � The geotechnical constraints identified include potentially compressible alluvial soil and the secondary effects caused by estimated design . seismic event. Both of these conditions may be mitigated by '; followin� the pertinent sections of the current and adopted liniform Building Code and the recommendations presented in this report. It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible � from a geotechnical point of view, provided the findings and preliminary recommendations presented herein are implemented in the design and construction of the Roripaugh Ranch project. The geotechnical consultant should review and perform additional analysis of future grading and development plans and _ provide additional recommendations as needed. �� If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this o�ce. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. � Respectfully submitted, �; LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FE� E Q POFE3s�p � '� O� F, ' Q ?. G vq��R �---- . �� Q N0.1921� y� �?� � y 0 � , CERTA� � NO.GE?3Z0 � n ; ,/.�, / * EPIGINEERIPIB # /�.,/ ��' � E� 1�J1�3 ^' ✓ GEOLOGIST 4 , /✓:�'� �,�-��... E . � Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 (Exp. O7J2 � 2�.. ¢� �Andrew T. Guatelli, PE, GE 23 '��r Princi pal Geolo g isdOffice Mana g e r �;<;� �� CA` �� S e m o r P r o j e c t E n g i n e e r �OF �, t� ' - ATG/��d11I1/L&A 1999/990013-001 EIRGeoEvaLdoc � Distribution: (1) Addressee (6) The Keith Companies, Attention: Mr. Kent Norton (1 unbound) � 41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661 (909) 296-0530 • FAX (909) 296-0534 • www.leightongeo.com � 11990013-001 � TABLE OF CONTENI'S Section - -- - - -- Pase �� 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE .................................................:...................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................................... l 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHI�TICAL FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 3 2.1 Proposed Development and Site Description ; ...................................................................................... 2 .2 Regional Geology ...................................................................................................... ........................... 3 2.3 Site Geologic Units .............................................................................•-...............................................4 2.3.1 Topsoil (not a mapped unit) ......................................................................................................4 � 2.3.2 Artificial F'�ll-Undocumented (Map Symbol Afu) ....................................................................4 � 2.3.3 Alluvium/Colluvium (Map Symbol — QaUQc) .........................................................................4 2.3.4 Quaternary Pauba Formation (Map Symbol — QPs) ................................................................. 5 23.5 Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock (Map Symbol- Kgr) ...................................................................5 2 .3.6 Geologic Structure ..................................................................................................................... 5 � 2.4 Rippabiliry ...................................................•-.......................................................................................5 � 2.5 Faulting and Seismiciry .................................................................. ...............6 ....................................... 2 .6 Secondary Seismic Hazards .................................................................................................................7 � 2.6.1 Ground Rupture ......................................................................................................................... 7 � 2.6.2 Liquefaction, Densification and Lateral Spreading .................................................................. 7 2 .6.3 Seiches / Tsunamis ....:...............................................................................................................8 � ?.6.4 Floodina ..................................................................................................................................... 8 ,�` 2.6.5 Seismically-Induced Landslidin�. Rocl�alls ............................................................................ 8 2.6.6 Seismically-Induced Settlement ...........................................................................:....................8 � 2.7 Seismic Design Parameters ................ q .................................................................................................. 9 2.8 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................................... 3.0 CONCI.USIONS AND RECONIMENDATIONS ....................................................................................10 -� 3.1 General ................................................................................................................................................10 3 .2 Earthwork ...........................................................................................................................................10 � 3.2.1 Removal and Site Preparation .................................................................................................10 3.2.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials ................................................................................... l l 3.2.3 Utility Trenches .......................................................................................................................11 � 3.2.4 Shrinkage and Bulking ............................................................................................................12 3 .3 Settlement ...........................................................................................................................................12 ; 3.3.1 Settlement from Building Loads ............................................................................:................12 , 3.3.2 Settlement of Fill Soils — Static and Dynamic ...................................:....................................12 3.4 Slope Stability — Cut and Fill Slopes ...............................................................................................:.13 � 3.5 Drainage ..............................................................................................................................................14. 3 .5.1 Subdrainage .............................................................................................................................14 3.6 Tentative Foundation Design .........................................................................................:...................14 � 3.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations ...................................144 3 .7 Footin Setback..... i .......:....................................................................................................................15 ,�' g � ^ ` � ; 1 � & � �. �� ,1 - i - � j _�� 11990013-001 � Table of Contents (continued) 3 .8 Concrete and Corrosion ..................................................••--•-.............................................................16 - 3.9 Crrading of Expansive Soils ..:........::............................................................:.:.:...:.:..........................:.16 � 3.10 Transition Lots and Lot Capping ...................................... ....................16 ..............••-............................ 3.11 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters ........................................................................................16 � ., 4.0 GEOTECI�tICAL REVIEW ..•-••• .............................................................................................................18 4.1 Plans and S ecifications ............................... p ......................................................................................18 4 .2 Construction Review ..........................................................................................................................18 � 5.0 LIMI'I'ATIONS ...........................................................................................................................................19 � Accomnanvine Fi�ures. Tables Plates and Appendices � F� Figure 1— Site Location and Geologic Index Map Page 2 � Figure 2— Typical Alluvial Removal Detail End of Text � Plate � Plates 1— 2 Geotechnical Map In Pcck�t Plates 3— 6 Fault Trench Logs In Pocket �- Appendices � Appendix A— References . Appendix B— Geotechnical Logs of Exploratory Trenches and Borings � Appendix C— Laboratory Test Results � Appendix D— General Earthwork and Grading Specifications � � , � � ,�' & � � -- ` `�� - ii - _`� � . � 11990013 -�1 � 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE � The subject property addressed by this report consists of an approximately 602-acre portion of the approximately 800-acre Roripaugh Ranch Property located east of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The Site Location and Geologic Index Map (Figure 1), shows the approximate location of the subject site. � This office previously evaluated the remaining portion of the property Imow as the "Panhandle" (also dedicated as Tentative Tract No. 29661) in the referenced report dated February 28. 2001 (Appendix A). We � understand that development will include single family to multi-family residential, schools, commercial, � park sites and open space azeas. "' The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical evaluation is to summarize pertinent geologic/geotechnical data obtained to date, and evaluate this data with respect to the current plan for the subject site. Our current �, work included a geologic field investigation of the entire Roripaugh Ranch property that included borings, trenches and an extensive fault evaluation. The site development plan utilized for this review was prepared by The Keith Companies (TKC, 2001). We understand that the information included in this report will be � incorporated into the environmental impact report for the subject property. The scope of services conducted during our study is provided below: � � 1.1 Scope of Work Our scope of work performed specifically within the subject property included the followin� items: � • Review of provided information, including review of the 100-scale tentative tract lotting lay out study (Plate 1) prepared by the Keith Companies (2001), and review of reports presented in Appendix A. � � GeoloQic site reconnaissance and review of se uential airs of aerial hoto�ra hs. � 9 P P � P � • Excavation, sampling and logging of 40 exploratory backhoe trenches, 37 hollow stem au�er borings and 4 bucket auger borings (Appendix B) � � • Excavation, preparation, logging and analysis of 7 fault trenches (Plates 3- 6). • Laboratory testing of selected samples to determine optimum moisture, maximum dry density, ,� . expansion potential, sulfate content, grain size distribution, collapse potential, and shear strength. The results of our laboratory testing along with summaries of our testing procedures are presented in Appendix C. � • Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained form the current field investigation and laboratory testing. � �' • Review, technical analysis, and presentation of geotechnical data onto the preliminary tentative tract ' site development plan (Plates 1& 2). .� • Preparation of this report, presenting our conclusions and preliminary recommendations regarding the proposed grading and development of the site. The Division of the State Architect would require a detailed investigation for the proposed school site(s) or � assisted caze facilities, if planned. This preliminary evaluation is not meant as a substitute for a site specific - school or health care faciliry geotechnical report. It is our understanding that an evaluation of any potential presence of hazardous materials at the subject site would be prepared by others. The evaluation of hazardous � materials or the presence of inethane are beyond the scope of this report. �& � __ ,�� - � - �_-�. � 11990013-001 � 2.0 SUNIIvIARY OF GEOTEC�IIVICAL FINDINGS � 2.1 Pronosed Development and Site Description �� - The subject site is generally located east of the present unimproved end of Nicolas Road in the north eastern portion of Temecula, California (See Figure 1). Based on our review of the provided 300-scale � site development map (TKC, 2001) the proposed grading will consist of conventional cut and fill - hillside grading to create 824 single family residential graded lots, 2 Multi-Family parcels (28.1- acres), a 20-acre school site, a 20.6-acre pazk site, 4 commercial parcels (54.9-acres), 4 Open Space parcels � (223.5-acres) and associated roadways. We anticipate the proposed residential structures to be one- to � two- stories in height, with typical wood-frame construction and slab-on-grade foundations. The commercial parcels are anticipated to be up to three stories in height, with wood frame, steel frame, �, concrete tilt-up or masonry block cons�uction with slab on grade foundations. Based on review of the provided tentative tract development plan, (T'KC, 2001) the proposed maximum � excavation and fill depths are on the order of 60 feet and 36 feet respectively. Removal of unsuitable surface soils will increase the fill thicimess to approximately 60 feet. All proposed cut and fill slopes are assumed to be at inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. �, Topographically the site varies in elevation from a high of 1,4Z3 feet above sea level (msl) located on a prominent ridge line in the northeastern portion of the property to a low elevation of approximately � 1,180 feet (msl) within the Long Valley Wash, alon� the south-central property boundary. The property is characterized as a gently southwest sloping elevated plain with two major southwest and westerly trending drainages. The generally flat lying and gentle sloping portions have been utilized for dry farnun�. Sand has been locally excavated from the channel areas near the e�cistinQ entrance to the ranch. � Vegetation on site consists of a moderate growth of � and weeds, which cover the majcrity of the site to a relatively thick growth of brush present along the drainage slopes. A mature stand of eucalyptus trees exists near the main ranch entrance area and several other species were observed in the drainage � areas. Previous grading and improvements on site include several access roads, a dirt �eld, water wells � several residences and storage buildings. Based on our field observations, the adjacent propeRies are ' rural residential, agricultural and open space preserve. � 2.2 Re�ional Geoloev � The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California lmown as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that generally trend northwestward. The most common rock types found in the Peninsular Ranges consist of 140 to 105 million-year-old formations (Silver and Chappel, 1988), including the �, metasedimentary Bedford Canyon Formation, and Santiago Peak Volcanics. These formations were - inwded by granodiorite, quartz monzonite, and other granitics of the Southern California Batholith during the Cretaceous Period (Kennedy, 1977). Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the � region created the geomorphology present today. Specifically, the subject site is situated in the southern portion of the stable Perris Block, an eroded mass of Cretaceous and older crystalline and metamorphic rock. The Perris Block is bounded by the San Jacinto fault zone to the northeast, the Elsinore fault zone to the southwest, and the Cucamonga fault zone to the northwest. The southeast boundary, along the fringes of the poorly defined Temecula basin. � � & � — � '_ �. -3- �_ � 11990013-001 � The Perris Block in the Temecula Valley region has had a co lex eolo 'c hist mp g � ory. The Pems block has undergone relative changes in elevation of several thousand feet in response to movement within the � Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones. Tectonic movement of the past, in conjunction with the semi-arid climate and the weathering resistance of the rock, are responsible for the formation and preservation of ancient, generally flat-lying eros�onal surfaces now present at various elevations. The sedimentary units � of the subject site were deposited on these erosional surfaces. Alluvial deposits fill in the lower valley and drainage areas. The Site Location and Geologic Index Map, Figure 1, depicts the location of the subject site in relation to the regional geology as mapped by Kennedy (1977) for the area. � 2.3 Site Geolo 'c Units �, The earth materials encountered on site consist of undocumented artificial fill, topsoil, terrace material, two generations of alluvium, a sedimentary unit, and a crystalline granitic bedrock unit. . These units are discussed in the following sections in order of increasing age. Anticipated removal � depths within each of these units (when lmown) have also been provided in this section for ease of reference. General removals are discussed in Section 3.2 of this report. � 2.3.1 Topsoil (not a mapped unit) Topsoil mantles the majority of the site and may also underlie undocumented fill soils and � alluvium Topsoil composition and depth will vary depending upon which near-surface bedrock material it overlies. Topsoil generally consists of dark brown, silty sand with rare lenses of clay and minor to abundant roots depending on agricultural use. Generally, the topsoil unit will range from 1 to 3 feet thick, but thicker accumulations may be encountered. All topsoil materials � should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill soils and/or structural improvements. Topsoil materials cleared of debris and organic material are suitable for use as compacted fills. � 2.3.2 Artificial Fill-Undocurriented (Map Svmbol Afu) � Undocumented fill was obse�ved at several locations at the site and it is associated with past access road construction, sand pit mining, agricultural water retention and other agricultural use. Undocumented fill is also associated with all exploratory excavations. The undocumented fill is � considered unsuitable for suppoR of additional fill and/or structural improvements in its present density and moisture content. The clean undocumented fill soils may be used as compacted fill. Artificial fill may be on the order of 3 to 10 feet thick and locally deeper. � 2.3.3 Alluvium/Colluvium (Map Svmbol — OaUOc) Alluvial and colluvial soils will be encountered in drainage areas and along sloping hillsides ,, throughout the site. These soils generally consist of light to dark brown, loose to locally medium dense, porous, sand, silty sand and clayey sand. All porous compressible alluvium and all colluvium should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill and/or structural � improvements. Removal depths are anticipated to range from approximately 5 to over 25 feet and locally deeper depending upon location. The alluviaUcolluvial soils may be used as compacted fill material. �, � _ & � � —_ � -4- �_ � 11990013-001 � 2.3.4 4uaternarv Pauba Formation lMap Svmbol — C�s) � The Pauba Formation is present over the majority - of the subject site. The Pauba formation consists of light brown to red-brown to olive, dense, massive sandy silts, silty sands and local silty clay. The material is generally considered suitable for support of fill and/or structural �� improvements. However, weathered porous or friable materials exposed during grading may require removal or overexcavation. Removal depths in azeas of proposed swctural fill will be � on the order of 3 to 5 feet. Cut slopes exposing friable, non-cohesive sands, or adversely orientated clay seams soft clayey silt may require removal and replacement. 2.3.5 Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock fMap Svmbol- K� , Granitic bedrock is locally exposed along the base of northerl natural slo es in the Y P northeastern portion of the property located within the planned open space area. The granitic � bedrock underlies the entire site at varying depths. The granite consists of dense to very dense, white to light brown to gray-green, coarse-grained granodiorite. The granitic bedrock is not anticipated to be encountered during grading of the subject area addressed in this report. � 2.3.6 Geologic Structure 1 Geologic structure of the subject area is largely controlled by sequences of erosion and deposition. The site is underlain by granite at varying depths, due to the undulatory erosional surface of the b anite bedrock. Granite is exposed however along the north facing slopes in the northeast portion of the site. � The massive Pauba Formation bedrock unit was de osited on the unconformable surfac P e of the granite. As a result, the Pauba Formation is exposed throughout the property, and recently � deposited younger alluvium and colluvium derived from the Pauba formation and granitic sources east of the site fills the bottom of the drainages. The Pauba formation as observed in _ our borings (LB- 4, LB- 5, LB-6 and LB-7), indicate the Pauba formation is generally massive , to interbedded with variable silt and clayey silt inter-beds that are rarely continuous and generally horizontal to sub-horizontal. Several clay seams were encountered in Borings LB-7 slightly dipping (6 to 11°) to the south and southeast. Mapping of field exposures in the westerly portion of the site however encountered some beds within the Pauba formation that �, were dipping to the northwest and i�ortheast (22 to 27°). This dipping is believed to be related to the regional tectonics of the region. � 2.4 Rippability � Rippability of on-site earth materials is variable depending on the type of material and depth. The Pauba Formation, topsoil, alluvium and colluvium underlie the majority of the site. These materials should be rippable with typical conventional grading equipment such as the Caterpillar D9. Isolated � lenses of well-cemented soils can be expected within the topsoil that are expected to be rippable using conventional equipment. i �' � & = R== _5_ �_ � . . � � �.�•�L/ ` � �.. � ' _ � . ' �`: i � ,Y I \ ` 1! � O= �i .' � . $ u � � � �° �.�� , . , � 1. . � � ` 1/�`� - 7 � i7 {,' ( � � � - , �e�� / � . ` � �j . � 1 ,� - - - ° � � r k '-'*"+� •�'i 4 4 . ; �-- � ��o� > -� � � `�" „ _ �� h _ -.,, ,� �1�'� �� o�� 1�`�.�o��-�,=-� � � �ti �\ s +' � 4�� 1 �ti . � � � n ' M ♦ � � s� ��1� � t `L 1 r�,r+ �.-+ � � � � - � .�' � � � - , �` (�- ^ �� - Murrieta Hot Springs Road� � �`, ' , .�� ` ', �p � , . `� 1 � ` n ( /. Y � � l. i' " on' �� : _ _ ;. - - i � � � _ ! ° � �.�J � ` "��•.,c �t�' � , r L, � �' � r • � -i� `� � • � c - . � � � � �� _�. �r .� .• �- a . , ' � `� - ' , - /P ' � Ot �%. '• � ;� :�� ,� �- a ." SITE A �,�- o " .' f f � . „� •��i 5 ��- •'^ ' Qy ' � c,� ' , ,. - � �, ., � , . - r N ��\� �' ' - - � - 1 � � �� - _, -! -' � ' -; ,' `� �, _ � ° i o ; � .1, ,_ �, u..� � �� d \ �.. • � __ _ ; `._ ` �� -. __ � m , ,�\, » Calle �' - -_ -` �` �� • �. . � '� �°`�� .1 � C �` Chapos�- :--:- `. �. � i G_J�}�uC � °' d 'C ' � `.; ' � � _ - "' eD �' ' O � 1 _ .�_ v �, Qu��l� .. � _..` -�- 'r �y+�+0 ?� - � � . � o — ��-_'�'� � � � :�e � . ,� /J Q � ` m `4 � . - �,� �� j � a: � \r + �' 4 � - � � = 0 �� . . . , -',.. \ � 1�� ,_ _� =;:.tr� ' w ��:.r�-�" m _ `° _ ° ` � `. � � -_ `�• o - - __�.•` � �R N -� t `-_:__ .�,��,� � �"-�� i; �,: ` , .3 =_ . .; ?9 - :� J � 'C �r�= " -�� _Q' ,� .�•,� �• .,,, � �.. • ' � � ;��_.•:, �� ;_ �:� _, _ �s_ _ w, - m _--fi -_'�'� _.;.� - =�'C�c.--, \ "1..,, ' ,_,�� ,"� J � � `C �: _ _' �` � �� s , 1 � � J _� � _ � � � � . �\ `� �.�,. c..�.. - �� •c��,=�_ •. • ^ � :� .. ._ _ �; C ^ ��C�'w�'F ! �f� � � � �.�� / � O '�{` f �\ � - "`s - �'v� ' " - ' "� Q�s � _ •�-.,� � � � � `�, _ - L}' _ .tT` ,, ��` � � � �� =.�r�� - �.;� +_ _ D - , - �G_:';`�r�- � -_ �� _ ' - : v, = `_ _ _ �,�. ; ,_. ` _ _ ,'. ��.�\ '� : � _=_�gA:_--- . . —� "�;� . :.=�-�`�'� _ _ �� - _ ,- �^� - ,t� � �;,��f �� i_` � - � �, � �� a � , ' I � ,�� p _.� _ :�� :� �_: � -.�,,� �('.f,,;� , _ ' - - _ - , 8a . � a ,� Z e 0 � r . ' \ _^ 1% - 1.�» , ' . _ ^�� ": .; ± �e� . . � _ ,�' ;ri- - ' . '� = � �oa�' � � = ;= - }�"� .G>e '�r�� s'�'•� � ` ^. y � \,. �-, � M�r\'d� �' _ ' r � :.. � , _�,,�-:f�V'..� ,. _ _, G _- .� ' � +`� � `„ � � •-J�� ` _` .. _ `- --• ' � - ` � `-� - " �V� ►I\ � �- _ '• � �� ` : � � ' �� 1 , ,� , . � �`•�� r� �� ^p � :�c _o� ,. ;�.� v ; � � ° � , '� i`- Y; � � _ - �_i � -�` `'Z � -� r'.�' - � - . _" - v: . -' �i.� \;' _. Jt -1.�� ' ," . 15 � _ i162 . . � � � f _ , i / r?.M� " � ' _ � - :. ; . _ .!: � i j \ � �' :^.`y�,� -+� ` �:z/' J �'.�� ; � --� .� � . _. � _ �-'� �— .�^�- - �� _ ` �N � 1 r . �,,..J �`� . .. �'�� ~ � a.�- i�� = "� ,7� - _ � , ::o ��' _ . �� ^�} '� O" � �v�w� J � � - � • .9'i'!: � � -�� ` ' - . '! ; = �: � � ` ' -S +, a i� � ' "L>�S"L'M�"� �� _.—� •�. '�,: s �,'w- � � _ M��r��:.�J�_ , t.,. ��/� � , � �-_� 'r%� , -''1! � '� J .r- -- �c'C'" �� ^!'�� _i._`-. .ii ,, . �'1 � BASE MAP: Kennedy 1977 Recency and Character of Faulting along (See text for geologic legend) the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southem Riverside County, Califomia CDMG Speciaf Report No. 131 Q 2500 5000 � o Existing Road 1 "=2,500' �� Proposed Road Scale in Feet - Rot'ipaugh Rat1Ch� Site �ocation = & � Tract 29661 and �� = �� Long Valley Area (PA-13-22) Geologic Index Project No. 11990013-001 '� Temecula, California Map Date May 2001 Figure No. 1 � 11990013-001 � 2.5 Faultine and Seismicitv - -- 1 The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismicall active re'on as a Y � result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic � plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-vendin� regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault svstems accommodate approximately 55 millimeters per year of slip between the plates. The Elsinore fault � zone is estimated to accommodate a slip rate of 4-5 millimeters per year (mm/yr.) (WGCEP, 1995). 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). The State Mining and Geology Board has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active during the Quaternary Period (approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating � Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1994 and 1997 (Hart, 1997), as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on � sites located within Special Studies Zones in order to preclude new construction of certain inhabited structures across the trace of active faults. The subject site is not included within any earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo � Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Hart, 1997). The nearest zoned active fault is the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 3.4 miles (5.4 km) southwest of the southwest corner of the site. No features indicative of active faulting were observed within the project � boundaries during our supplemental investi�ation of the subject site. Several lineaments identified by Kennedy (Kennedy, 1977) enter or project into the west central, south boundary and east boundary azeas of the tract area (See Figure 1. Plate 1 and Plate2). Based on our recent trenching of � these lineaments, it was deternuned that they are not fault related. There are several significant active faults within southern California that could affect the site in � terms of ground shaking. Of these, the San Andreas San Jacinto, and Elsinore-Temecula Fault Zones are the most prominent due to their proximity and relative high seismic potential. Evidence supporting probable Holocene-aged faulting was observed and documented along the main trace of the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault in an earlier investigation for the tract located to the northwest � (Leighton, 1999). Along this fault, located appioximately 0.5 mile west to northwest of the subject tract, probable offset Holocene-aged soils and fissure in-filling was observed. Details of the site specific, subsurface fault investigation, sequential stereoscopic aerial photo review and lineament � analysis is contained in the report for that tract prepared by Leighton dated March 23, 1999 (Appendix A). � , � � .� � & � — -6- _�o � . � 11990013-001 � 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards � Secondary hazards generally associated with severe ground shaldng during an earthquake are ground rupture, liquefaction, densification, lateral spreading, seiches or tsunanus, flooding (dam or levee failure), landsliding, rock falls, and seismically-induced settlement. � 2.6.1 Ground Rupture � Ground rupture is generally considered to most, likely occur along pre�xisting active faults. As no evidence of active faulting was observed within the subject site, the potential for site ground rupture is considered unlikely. t 2.6.2 LiQUefaction. Densification and Lateral Spreading � Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Reseazch and historical data indicate that loose granular soils below a near surface ground water table are most susceprible to liquefaction, while the stability of most � clayey silts, silty clays and clays deposited in fresh water environments are not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. This effect may be mamfested at the ground surface by settlement and/or sand boils. In order for the potential effects of � liquefaction to be manifested at the ground surface, the soils generally have to be granular, loose to medium dense, saturated relatively near the ground surface and must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration of ground shaking. ,' Based on our observations and the findin�s of referenced geotechnical repons, the near surface loose/soft alluvial deposits (soils susceptible to liquefaction) on the site will �e � completely removed and. recompacted during remedial grading. In addition, a review of the boring data indicate that an existing shallow (30- foot) a oundwater condition is present within the Pauba Formation but not within the alluvial soils. Therefore, Qiven the subsurface � conditions observed, it is our opinion that the potential for adverse liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement to surface structures due to the design earthquake event is considered negligible to low for this site. When considering future or potential rise in groundwater due to irrigation of the proposed residential development, the potential for ,� liquefaction to affect surface improvements within the low lying Long Valley Wash areas underlain by alluvium is considered low. Areas underlain by compacted fill over Pauba formation materials have a negligible potential for liquefaction.. Improvements that cross � natural alluvial earth materials within Long Valley Wash or Santa Gertrudis Creek, i.e., utilities, bridges, roadway embankments, should either incorporate some liquefaction mitigation or remove the natural earth materials to bedrock (Pauba Formation) and replace � them with compacted artificial fill. The latter may not be feasible when considering the contrasting permeability of natural alluvium and artificial fill and the potential increased impedance of groundwater flow. This does not preclude the densification of dry granular � soils onsite above groundwater during strong ground shaking. Ground accelerations generated from the design seismic event (10% probability of � exceedance in 50 years) may produce settlement in relatively dry sands or granular earth materials located above the water table (ASCE, 1994). Based on visual inspection of the retrieved samples, blow counts recorded during drilling, and laboratory test results, we � conclude that there is a low potential for the onsite materials above the water table to densify � & � �_— �—_ � -7- _��. � � 11990013-001 , during strong ground shaking. Following remedial grading and development, the primary area of potential densification will be within the unimproved Long Valley Wash above the groundwater table. Refer to the settlement section of this document for estimated � magnitudes of settlement. The phenomenon of lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of soils adjacent to a � body of water or water course (river, stream, canal). Lateral spreading is therefore considered as a liquefaction-induced ground failure whereby block(s) of surficial intact natural or Artificial fill soil displaced downslope or towards a free face alon� a shear zone � that has formed within the liquefied sediment (Bartlett and Youd, 199�). The displacement of the ground surface associated with this lateral spreading may be on the order of several inches to several feet at the edge of a creek channel. Due to the relatively dry nature of the � Alluvial materials within the creek, the elevation of the bedrock below the creek. the creek cross-sectional geometry, and the planned remedial grading along the Long Valley Wash, the potential for lateral spreading to affect the development is very low. When considering the rise in groundwater within the alluvial materials in the Long Vailey Wash, this potential �I, for lateral spreading is considered very low to low. � 2.6.3 Seiches / Tsunamis Due to the inland location of the site, the possibility of Tsunamis is considered nil. Based on the elevation and proximity of the subject site to Lake Skinner, a seiche hazard is considered � very low. 2.6.4 Floodin� � The Metropolitan Water District Aqueduct s stem traverses near the western bound . Y ary Rupture of this pipeline could pose some local temporary-flooding risk. � 2.6.� Seismicallv-Induced Landslidino. Rocl�alls � Based on our review and subsurface investigation, no significant landslides have been identified during this investigation. The major earth materials observed, both granitics and the Pauba Formation, are generally not prone to landsliding, however surficial failures are lrnown to occur. Due to the relarively flat-lying nature of the Pauba formation and the massive granitic bedrock, � landsliding due to seismic activity is not anticipated. Since development is not proposed below potential rock fall areas, no hazard exists. � 2.6.6 Seismicallv-Induced Settlement Seismically Induced Settlement (dynamic densification) generally occurs within areas of loose � granular soils with relative low moisture and density. Provided the recommended earthwork removals outlined in Section 3.2 are performed, the potential for dynamic densification is considered low. We estimate the post�onstruction (grading) dynamic densification potential to � be in accordance with Section 3.3. Additional evaluation of estimated dynamic densification may be performed during the review of rough grading plans and preparation of re�dial earthwork guidelines or after the rime of rough grading. � . , � & � R== ,� _g_ �_ � 11990013-001 1 2.7 Seismic DesiQn Parameters Our evaluation of the regional seismieiry included a detemunistic analysis utilizing EQFALJI.T and � EQSEARCH, (Blake, 2000). The nearest Imown zoned active fault and source of the design earthquake is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 3.4 miles (�.4 km) southwest of the southwest corner of the site. The maximum credible earthquake is estimated to ' be magnitude 6.8. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often accepted as minimum � standards) based on maps showing ground motion with a 475-year return period or a lOCo probability of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a peak ground acceleration of 0.57g may be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake therefore, is considered a � magnitude 6.8 event on either the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone or the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault that would generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration of 0.�7g (FRISKSP. Blake 2000). The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the 1997 Uniform � Building Code (UBC) and seismic design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers Association of California. Seismic design parameters are presented below: � Seismic Zone = 4 Seismic Source Type = g Neaz Source Factor, N = 1.0 � Near Source Factor, N„ = 1.2 Soil Profile Type S Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.57g (10% probability in 50 years) � 2.8 Groundwater � Groundwater water was locally encountered durin� our recent field investieations at the subject site (see boring logs Appendix B). The ground water encountered during our 1999 investi�ation was � found only within the Pauba formation bedrock and was found to be generally more than 29 feet below the ground surface (Appendix B). � It should be noted that future irrigation water might impact proposed cut slopes or fill over cut slopes. Cut slopes that expose the Pauba formation with interbedded siltstone, sandstone and claystone may present some future seepage related problems. This should be evaluated on a case-by�ase basis during � grading. � � � � � & _ A=_ _ `` -9- _�� . � 11990013-001 � 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIVVIEENDATIONS 3.1 General - . _ _ _ � Based on our geotechnical evaluation, it is our o inion that the ro sed v p p po de elopment is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and may be constructed provided the following recommendations are � incorporated into design and implemented during grading and construction. The following sections discuss the principal geotechnical concerns affecting site development and grading, and provide preliminary recommendations for planning purposes. � 3.2 Earthwork � Earthwork should be performed in accordance with both the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix E, and the following preliminary recommendations. The recommendations � contained in Appendix E are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects. Some of the recommendations may not be stricdy applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix E and may be � amended during future plan review studies. The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place fill properly, in accordance with the recommendations of this report, notwithstanding testing and observation by the geotechnical consultant. Care should be taken by the contractor when grading along project boundaries � to protect existing offsite structures and properties. The developer may wish to include pre�onstruction photographic documentation and/or monitoring of adjacent improvements and properties prior to and during construction of this project. � 3.2.1 Removal and Site Preparation � Prior to grading of the subject site, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildin�s, etc.) should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, heavy vegetation, roots and debris. These materials should be � disposed of offsite. Removal of unsuitable, compressible materials should be anticipated within areas to receive fill, and within some areas of cut where unsuitable materials extend below proposed cut grades. Minor offsite grading may be necessary to achieve the desired � removals. Unsuitable materials consist of undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium and highly weathered bedrock, and they should be totally removed prior to fill placement. The removal depths of these materials will vary with location. Non-weathered to moderately weathered, non-porous, Pauba formation bedrock is considered competent material. � Keyways will be necessary at tce areas of all proposed fill slopes throughout the site. Ke wa s Y Y are also required for the fill portions of fill over cut slopes. Schematics of these keyways are � provided in the General Earthworks and Grading Specifications, Appendix E. Keyways should be excavated into dense, non-porous c�mpetent material, and geologically mapped prior to fill placement. For fill over cut slopes, a keyway should be excavated at the interface of the cut to � fill transition (after removal of unsuitable surficial soils) and after excavation of the underlying cut portion of the slope. Keyways for fill over cut slopes should be a minimum of 18 feet wide and inclined into slope a minimum of 2 percent. Keyways for larger (greater than 40 feet high) � fill slopes will require key excavations on the order of 20 feet wide into approved bedrock. In addition, benching should be performed into dense, competent material as fill placement proceeds adjacent to all slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical). A minimum bench height � of 2 feet into approved, competent material should be maintained at all times. � & � - 10 - _`� � , . . � 11990013-001 � Overexcavation of cut to fill transition pads should be performed to a minimum of 3 feet below � pad grade. Overexcavation limits may encompass entire lots or extend to approximately 10 outside building footprint(s). Overexcavation to depths greater than 3 feet maybe recommended in order to m;nimiTp the differential fill thiclmess to less than 20 feet within any structurai lot. Actual limits can be determined during rough grading procedures. It is expected that most � transition lots will not be overexcavated until rough-grading procedures occur on each of the individual pads. � After completion of the removal of unsuitable soils and overexcavation of transition lots, approved removal bottoms should be scarified a minimum of 6-inches, moisture conditioned as � necessary to near optimum and compacted. � 3.2.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials � The onsite soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of organic materials and debris. If boulders larger than four feet are encountered, they should be crushed/broken in place to a size less than four feet or removed from the fill area. Fills containing appreciable percent of rocks (greater than 20 percent) with diameters greater than 12 � inches should be placed in accordance with the alternatives presented in Appendix E. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be prepared in � accordance with Section 3.2 and scarified to minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted. 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 uniform lif[s not exceedin� 8 inches in thicl:ness. Fill soils should be placed at or above the minimum optimum moisture content and compacted to minimum 90 percent (95 percent for fills greater that 40 feet in depth) based on AS'TtiI Test � Nlethod D1»7. Fills placed on slopes, steeper than. 5 to 1(horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into approved formational soils (see Appendix E for benching detail). � Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with the City of � Temecula Grading Ordinance under the full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. 3.2.3 Utilitv Trenches � The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench bacl�ill provided they are screened of rocks over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench bacl�ill should be compacted in uniform � lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thiclrness) by mechanical .means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method D1557). � Excavation of utility trenches stiould be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications and all applicable OSHA requirements. The contractor should be responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards. Temporary utility trench walls � should be constructed at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclinations or flatter. Altemating shoring, designed in accordance with a structural engineer's recommendations should be used. � Contractors should be advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite alluvium) � can make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not taken. In addition, excavations at or near the tce of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles due to the excavation and I construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the trenches. -& _ _- ,� -ii- �_ � 11990013-001 � 3.2.4 Shrinkage and Bulking The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction� is expected to vary wich � materials, density, insitu moisture content, location and compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials will vary and accurate overall determination of shrinka�e and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site � include, if possible, a ' balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some variation. Based on our experience with similar materials, the following values are provided as suidelines: � Topsoil, Alluvium, Colluvium, 10 to 15 percent shrinkage Undocumented-reusable Fill and Weathered Pauba formation Bedrock � Pauba Formation Bedrock, non-weathered 10 perce t shrink to�5 percent bulking /D � r�r Lc � e r �� Ur�oF' � ? % _s��.-, •roy� ' 3.3 Settlement � Settlement of onsite fill materials is expected to mostly occur during and within 90 days following fill placement. However, following the placement of fill and construction of residences, additional settlement may occur due to (a) new footing/foundation loads and (b) compression within the fill due � to the effects of landscaping irrigation. Settlements of buildings on bedrock pads (cut) or settlement of fills, of less than 10 feet thick overlying properly prepared bedrock is not expected to be significant. 3.3.1 Settlement from Buildins Loads Buildin�s located on compacted sandy fill soils (90 percen[ relative compaction) should be � designed in anticipation of'/z inch of total settlement and'/o inch of differential settlement in 40 feet. This settlement is anticipated to occur during construction as the load is applied. These settlements and angular distonions are for imposed buildin� loads and do not include � compression within the fill itself. � 3.3.2 Settlement of Fill Soils — Static and Dvnamic � Fill thiclrness on this portion of the Roripaugh project site (Tract 29661) is expected to be up to approximately 36 feet. Fill thicla�ess including the pianned removal depths will increase this estimate to near 60 feet. Our evaluation of compression within the planned fill soils assumes � that the fill thiclrness variation within the limits of a residential lot is limited to 20 feet or less. • In addition, as previously discussed, Leighton. recommends that fills in the upper 40 feet be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction while planned compacted fills greater than 40 feet � (40 feet of thickness below finished � be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction with the fill moisture conditioned to/or above optimum If the fill is compacted in this manner, settlements are anticipated to be relatively low. Post-construction differential settlements for � areas underlain by 40 feet or less of compacted fill over dense bedrock, (Pauba Fomiation) is , anticipated 1 inch in 40 feet or less. Laboratory tests on the onsite alluvial material indicated Hydrocollapse (hydro consolidation) potential of 0 to 10.63 percent. Due to the planned grading � to remove these materials to the Pauba Formation, this hydrocollapse potential will be reduced to a less than significant amount. Further evaluation of the estimate of fill settlement should be performed when final grades and/or grading plans are provided. � � & � — - 12 - _`� � � � 11990013-001 � Fill soils that are above the regional water table and described as sands (Unified Soil Classification System, SP, SM or SV� and compacted to near optimum moisture content, may be susceptible to dynanuc dens�cation during strong ground shaking. For this particular site, � densification is anticipated to be low on fill soils compacted from 90 to 95 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to near optimum Addidonal analysis of dynamic effects on compacted fills should be performed when final grading plans are provided to this office. ' Although most utilities should tolerate the seismic distress anticipated, gravity drainage utilities should be evaluated for the effects of the potential static and dynamic settlement. Settlemeni and resultant cracks in asphalt, flatwork and curbs are likely when subject to seismic shal:ina � and may not be practical nor economical to design these improvements to mitigate these effects. Settlement due to liquefaction is not anticipated to significancly contribute to this dynamic � settlement due to the planned preparation of the site with primarily fill over prepared bedrock. Liquefaction and associated settlement is possible within the Long Valley Wash that is present onsite. Final designs for roads, utility crossings and bridges should evaluate the � potential for liquefaction and associated settlement. 3.4 Slone Stabilitv — Cut and Fill Slopes ' Our geologic mapping indicates that highly weathered or loose friable sands within the Pauba formation bedrock or unfavorable bedding may locally be exposed in the proposed cut slopes. ' Recommendations for alternative slopes can be provided during future grading plan reviews or on a case-by�ase basis based on conditions encountered in the field during �ading. � Cut slopes should be geotoaically mapped durin� �radinQ to evaluate tre e::posed conditior.s. Care should be taken not to over-cut durin� excavation of proposed cut slopes. Care snould �e taken to not attempt a"sliver" fill back into these areas. � Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface draina�e features and landscaped with drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible afrer grading to reduce the potential for erosion. Berms should be provided at the top of fill slopes, and brow ditches should be � constructed at the top of all cut slopes. The v�itch should be founded in dense fill or bedrock, but not in topsoil or colluvium Lot drainage should be directed such that runoff on slope faces in. minimized. Inadvertent oversteepening of cut and fill slopes should be avoided during fine grading � and building construction. If seepage is encountered in slopes, special drainage features may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. � In addition, due to the granular nature of some of the site soils, construction of the fill slopes may warrant blending of cohesive soils into very sandy soils in order to increase surficial slope stability. This should be further evaluated during future plan reviews. Medium to highly expansive clayey � soils, if placed within 15 feet of the slope face, may be subject to su�cial instability or slope creep. We recommend that clayey soils be thoroughly mixed with poorly graded sands to produce a better quality fill material which will be more effective in reducing erosion and increasing su�cial � stability. � Although the provided plans did not depict the final slope geometry for all slopes, it is anticipated � that cut and fill slope inclinations will be primarily 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) All slopes are to be designed to a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for static and pseudostatic analysis, respectively, when considering gross (global) stabiliry. All slopes should be conswcted in accordance with the � most current version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines and County of Riverside requirements. � & �`` __ � - 13 - _�� S 11990013-001 � All 2:1 fill slopes over 40 feet in height should be constructed with 90 rcent relative co ac ' Pe mp hon in the upper 40 feet and 95 percent relative compaction below that. This- 95-percent compaction � should extend from the slope face a minimum horizontal distance equal to the overall height of the slope or approved bedrock. ' The outer portion of fill slopes should be either oyerbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and �immed back to the finished slope configuration or compacted in increments of � feet (maximum) b}� a sheepsfoot roller as the fill is placed and then trackwalked to achieve the final configuration. � 3.5 Drainaee � Over-the-slope drainage should not be permitted. All drainage should be directed away from slopes and structures by means of approved pern�anenbtemporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage of the super pads should be provided to avoid siltation of temporary catch basins. Linear sandbag� ng � of the super pads tangential to flow directions in periodic intervals, should reduce erosion potential of runoff over these pads. � 3.5.1 Subdrainaee Subdrains will be necessary in canyons where fills exceed 10 feet in thiclrness and in fill-over- � cut keyways. Fills generally saturate at or near the contact with impermeable bedrock and the subdrains should outlet this excess water to suitable dischar�e areas. Contacts on fill-over-cut slopes which daylight bedrock can present seepage problems once irrigation of the slopes and . � upper pad areas be�ins. The subdrainage within the fill over cut kevwavs should miti�ate this seepage problem. Subdrain details are provided in Appendix D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. Canyon subdrains up to 500 lineal feet should consist of 6-inch � diameter perforated pipe. Canyon subdrains that aze greater than SOO lineal feet should consist of 8-inch perforated pipe and greater than 1,000 lineal feet should consist of 12-inch perforated pipe. A 20-foot section of non-perforated pipe should be placed at the outlet location. The connection between the perforated and non-perforated pipe should be sealed with a minimum 6- � inch thick, concrete cut-off wall placed a minimum of 2-feet beyond the perimetei of the gravel "burrito". All outlets should be protected with a concrete apron and cover. Subdrain pipe may be schedule 40 PVC (or equivalent) placed in accordance with Appendix D. � 3.6 Tentative Foundation DesiQn � Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations as provided by the project structural consultant and the minimum recommendations presented herein. Foundations are � anticipated to be conventional shallow footings with slab on-grade floors. All foundation designs should be in general accordance with the UBC (UBC, 1997 edition or currently adopted) and the recommendations herein. Alternative foundations may be provided if needed, following the review of the as-graded conditions. We recommend that as grading progresses, building pads should be evaluated � for their expansion potential and differential fill thicla�ess. The final footing and slab design for each proposed structure should be designed based on ihe results of that evaluation. � 3.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retainine Wall Desien Considerations The site retaining walls should be designed for lateral pressures using the low expansive � site soil (expansion index less than 50 per UBC 18-I-B) and level or sloping backfill� & �'_ __ � - 14 - _`�' � 11990013-001 � Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation for the `'active" � case that the wall can yield under load. This magnitude of deformation is rypically irr the range of 0.0005 to 0.001H, where "H" is height of wall. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "acc�ve" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strenEth of the soil cannot be mobilized ' and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resultin� resistance de��eloped b�� the soil is the "passive" resistance. ' Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated bv the geotechnical and structural engineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with � appropriate drainage and waterproofing. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. � Wall backcut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For backcuts greater than 5 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the backcut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. ' Alternatively, the contractor may elect to install shoring in lieu of a 1:1 layback of trench walls. Shoring should be properly designed by a structural en�ineer. For backcuts in excess of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should �be requested from the geotechnical consultant. The granular and native bac�ll soils should be compacted to at , least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D15�7). The granular fill should extend horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls. The walls should be conswcted and backfilled as soon as possible after � backcut excavation. Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes ma�- result in some locali��d slope instability. � For site walls over 5 feet or that present a life/safety hazard, the lateral earth pressures should be increased to reflect the increment of additional pressure caused by the design earthquake. Accordincly, an increment of lateral pressure equal to 19 H�, where H is the � height of the wall, should be applied at a distance of 0.6H above the toe of the wall. Under the combined effects of static and earthquake loads on the wall. a factor of safety between 1.1 and 1.2 is acceptable when evaluating the stability (sliding, overturning) of � the wall (NAVFAC DM 7.2). Ail retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. � 3.7 Footin� Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural � footings and settlement-sensitive swctures (i.e. fences, walls, sib s, etc.). This distance is measured form the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) as indicated in the UBC. Additional setback recommendations should be provided upon review of the � final grading plan. � We should note that the soils within a slope setback area posses poor, long term lateral stability, and ' improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavement, underground utilities, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. � � & � —_ -15- _`� � . � 11990013-001 � 3.8 Concrete and Corrosion � Laboratory Sulfate tests from the overall Roripaugh site and nearby projects indicate a negligible to moderate concen�ation of soluble sulfates for onsite surficial soils (Appendix A). Additional testing of exposed subgrade soils should be performed at or near the completion of grading. Concrete in contact � with onsite earth materials soil should comply with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Additional corrosion evaluations of onsite soils should include buried metals in contact with site soils. A qualified corrosion specialist should review the results of additional test results with respect to the � project plans. � 3.9 Gradin o� f Expansive Soils Although the majority of the onsite soils will have a low to medium expansion potential, localized � pockets of alluvium, topsoil and the Pauba fom�ation may have a medium to very high expansion potential. If expansive soils aze utilized at pad grade, typical expansive soil-related distress (such as cracked flatwork and stucco, poor vegetation growth, etc.) may be expected over the life of the � project. Accordingly, we recommend that if possible, expansive soils encountered during grading operations be placed in fill areas below a depth of 5 feet measured from the finished grade and not within 1� feet of the face of any slope. Expansive soils exposed at finished pad elevations should likewise be removed to a depth of 5 feet and replaced with very low to low expansion potential � compacted fill unless special foundation design recommendations for expansive soil are implemented. i 3.10 Transition Lots and Lot Capping � In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement in areas of transition (cut-fill lots), we recommend that the entire cut be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet, (or deeper to maintain a maximum fill differential of 20 feet), and replaced with properly compacted fill of very low to low � expansion potential. The overexcavation and recompaction should laterally extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the building perimeter or extend laterally across the treated area of the lot. The base of the overexcavated portions of the lot should slope at approximately 2 percent toward the fill side to avoid . � ponding water, which may result in future seepage problems. In addition, final deternunation of lots that require undercutting due to transition. or large differential fill thiclrness (greater than 20 feet) conditions should be deterniined in the field. � 3.11 Preliminarv Pavement Desi�n Parameters � Traffic Index (T� data was not available to us at the time of preparation of this report. This TI information will be necessary to finalize the flexible pavement sections (AC and base rock). However, for planning and estimating purposes we have made some assumptions based on the anticipated usage. � The recommendations provided below are for an assumed R-value of R�40. Tests of the exposed subgrade should be performed at the completion of rough-grading to confum the appropriate pavement section. Appropriate TI data should be selected by the project civil engineer or tra�c engineering ' consultant for finalization of the pavement section and should be in general accordance with local, county and industry standards. � � & `��_�—_ � - 16 - _`� � 11990013-001 �, The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches of the streets, driveways and parking areas should be properly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be well moisture- � conditioned to near optimum and �kept in this condition until the pavement sectiDn is consvucted. - Minimum relative, compacrion requirements for aggregate base rock should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform to the � "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" ("Green Book") current edition or (Caltrans) California Department of Transportation, Standard Specification Section 26, Class 2 a��regate base having a minimum R-value of 78. Asphaltic Concrete, Portland Cement Concrete and base materials ' should conform to and be placed in accordance with the current and adopted Green Book, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. � The pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered at the perimeter of the common parking or ' driveway areas when they are adjacent to either open (unfinished) or landscaped areas. � � � � , � � � ' � � � 8L � _� � - 17 - �-� 1 � 11990013-0p 1 � 4.0 GEOTEC�IlVICAL REVIEW � Geotechnical review is of aramount i ortance in p mp engu�eenng prachce. The poor perforn�ance of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend � that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity to review the following items. � 4.1 Plans and Specifications The geotechnical engineer should review the project rough grading plans and specifications prior to 1 release for bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to determine whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively implemented. Review findings should be reported in writin� by the geotechnical engineer. � 4.2 Construction Rev�ew ' Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton and Associates representatives during construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during cons�uction may vary from that encountered in the test borings or trenches. Reasonably continuous construction observation and � review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. ' Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils. approval of imported earth materials. fili placement, foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed ar.d tested by representatives of L.eighton and Associates. � As noted in this report, pre-construction activities may include photographic or summary documentation of adjacent properties. The adjacent sites should be periodically monitored during construction, particularly when working in close proximity to property lines. � Additional laborato tests of subsurface materials to confirm com act ry p ed density and moisture content, corrosion potential, expansion potential, compression of deep fills and resistance value (R-value) � should be performed during grading. � � , . � � � & � -18- �� . � 11990013-001 � 5.0 LIIvIlTATIONS � This report was prepared for Ashby Development, based on Ashby Development's needs, directions and requirements at the time. � This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil and/or samples, tests, analyses, histories of occun spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is necessarily 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 condirions can and do occur over time. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except, the Ashby 1 Development, its successors and assigns as owner of the properry, with whom Leighton 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 defend and indemnify Leighton & Associates from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liabiliry of Leighton and Associates. ' , ' ' � i � 1 1 � 1 � -& _ __ � . - i9- � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Design �— ; \ 2 � 2 � /7. � �� , 1 Fill E , �F ill o . � /� � �� 40' Channel �� `�� / 4 �� r: ! I ��-� , �` , � 10' Alluvium � '� � �� " ,' � L,, , Removal '^ Alluvium �;� �.' � /�� / r� :. !�fl � ;� � � i � � �. � ♦ �_, j' � ,� `� j '.1 � �� •1 , � _/ emo I� � rJ , � � �� .: � � `�'' � �� i '�---� _ _�--_` �---__--�' . Bedrock - Pauba Formation � NTS Project No. 11990013-001 � TYPICAL ALLUVIAL REMOVAL DETAIL Engre/Geol. ATG/RFR1e &�``�� Long Valfey Wash, Roripaugh Ranch o�af�edB KAB City of Temecula Date Mav2001 , Riverside County, Ca�ifornia Leighton andAssociates, lnc Figure r�o, z I � � � (' � � �• � i � � � � �w � s � � �■ a� � � � a � � � 11990013-001 � APPENDIX A References � W. J. 1997 E Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, , , mpirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, in Seismoloeical Research Letter, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997. w Adkan Engineers, 2000, Prelimin Gradin Plan, Tentative Tract No. 29661 0 �Y g , Ronpau�h Ranch Spectfic Plan, Plot Date January 20, 2000. ' Albee, A.L., and Smith, J.L., 1996, Earthquake Characteristics and Fault Activity in Southern California. in Lung, R., and Proctor, R., ed., Engineering Geology in Southern California, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, dated October 1966. �� American Sociery of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1994, Settlement Analysis, Technical Engineering and � Design Guides as Adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 9, ASCE Press, 1994. � Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQSEARCH A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, User's Manual. � , 2000b, EQFAITLT, A Computer Program for the Deternunistic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User's Manual, 79 pp. , 2000c, FRISKSP, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Seismic � Hazard Using Faults as Earthquake Sources, User's Manual, 116 pp. , 2000d, Annual Update of California Seismicity Database, Thomas F. Blake Computer � Services and Software. Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion, proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake � Engineering, Rome, Paper No. 292, pp. 1394-1313, dated June, 1973. Bonilla, M.J., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, in Wiegel, R., ed., Earthquake Engineering, � New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 47-74. Boore, David M., Joyner, William B., and Fumal, Thomas E., 1997, Empirical Near-Source Attenuation � Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Peudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra, in Seismological Research-Letter Vol. 68, No. l, January/February 1997. � BSSC, 1994, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1— Provisions, FEMA 222A4, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1— Provisions, FEMA 222A, Federal � EmerQenc Mana�ement A ency, 290p. California, Department of Water Resources, 1971, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-20. California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for � Evaluation� and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, Adopted March 13, 1997. � A-1 ' � 11990p13-001 � APPENDIX A (continued) Califorrua, State of, Deparoment of Transportation, 1987, Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Barthquakes in Califarnia, Modified from Maulchin and Jones; CDMG Map Sheet 45. � California, State of, Department of Special Studies Zone Map, Murrieta Quadran le, Prelimin Review g azY Map, dated July 1, 1979, Scale 1"=2000'. � Campbell, Kenneth, W., 1996, Strong Motion Attenuation Relationships, in Seismic Hazards Analysis, AEG Short Course, Thomas F. Blake Program Coordinator, January 20. 1996. � Earth Consultants International (EC�, 1999, Letter Report, Geomorphic Soils Analysis and Fault Trench Review for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, near Temecula, in Riverside County, California, (Leighton and Associates Project No. 990013-001), Project No. ' 998100-002, dated April 1, 1999. Geocon, 1990, Geologic Feasibility Study and Fault Evaluation for Roripaugh Property, 800 Acre Site, � Rancho Califomia Area, Riverside Counry, California, dated August 24, 1990, File No. 04301-03-01. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning � with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of . Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. � Idriss, I. M., 1994, Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Conditions, personal communication. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997 Uniform Building Code, Volumes 1-3. � , 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near — Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquake", Proceedings of the Eleventh � International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A.A. Belkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. � Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. � Keith Companies, The, 2001, Tentative Tract Map 29661 100 Scale Drawings (undated) received May 18, 2001. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California", Special Report 131. � Kramer, Steven, L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1996. � Krinitsky, E., L., Gould, J., P., Edinger, P., H., 1993, Fundamentals of Earthquake-Resistant Construction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993. � � Leighton; 1990, Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation of Possible Faulting, Proposed Roripaugh . � High School, Southwest of the Proposed Intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butte�eld Stage Road, Temecula, Riverside County, California, dated October 24, 1990, Project No. 11901094-01. , 1999, Supplemental Fault Investigation, Winchester Properties, Planning Area 6, 7 and 8, � Murrieta Hot Springs Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 11861432- 072, dated March 23, 1999. � A-� � 11990013-001 � APPENDIX A (continued) , 2000, Geotechnical Review of Preliminary Design Report Submittal, Long Valley Wash Channel � Improvements, Walcott Lane to the Eastem Boundary of Proposed Roripaugh Ranch Development, Ciry of Te�cula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 11990013- 001, dated May 1, 2000. . 2001, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Te�cula, Riverside Cotmty, Califomia, dated Febniary 28, 2001, Project No. 11990013-001. � McGuire, R. K., 1978, FRISK: Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis Using Faults as Earthquake Sources, U.S. Geological Survev Open-File Renort 78-1007, 69p. � Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Ciamer, C. H., Cao, T., Reichle, M. S. Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J. J., McCrory, P. A., and Schwam, D. P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of Califamia, California Denartrnent of Conservarion. Division of Mines and ,� Geolo�v Oven-File Report 96-08; U.S. Geolo�ical Survev Open-File Report 9E�706 Saul, R. B., 1978, Elsmore fault zone, south Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-76 and supplements (unpublished). � Schnabel, P.B., and Seed, H.B., 1973, "Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States", Bull. of the Seismol. Soc. of Am., Vol. 63, No. 2, pp 501-516. � Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, F.W., 1969, Characterisrics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. SMS, Proc. Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218. � Silver, L. T., and Chappel, B. W., The Peninsular Ranges Batholith: An Insight into the Evolution of the Cordilleran Batholiths of Southwestern North America, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 79, 10�-121, 1988. � Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, dated August, 1987. � U.S. Navy, 1986, Naval Facilities (NAVEAC) Engineering Command, Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.02 (DM 7.02j, Revalidated by Change 1, September, 1986. Wells, D. L., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture � Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, V.84, No. 4, pp 974-1002. � Willis, C. J., 1988, Crround cracks in Wolf and Temecula Valleys, Riverside County: Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-195 (unpublished). WGCEP - Working Group on California Farthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southem California: Probable Farthquake Probabilities, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., Vol. 85, No. � 2, pp 379-439. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED � Year F1i¢ht No. A� January 30, 1962 398, 399 Riverside Flood Control June 20,1974 879, 880 " May 4, 2980 . 907, 908 " December 8, 1983 399, 400 " ' September 16, 1990 29, 30, 31 i; September 16, 1990 38, 39, 40 � A-3 ' m , . � � � �t �► � � s � �� a� � �a� � �� s � � � � � � � � � � i � �� !.- � � '� ,� �! � � . TABLE 1 (continued) LOC OF TEST 1'ITS I'roject No. 11990013-001 LOGGED BY: SER CLCINT: Roripaugh Ranch DATE: 3-29-99 SAMPLE DRY TEST DI;PTH TYPE DENSITY MO1ST U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION PIT# (FT) C B & DEPTkI (PCF) �%� 0-2' SM Pauba Formation: Dark red-brown, damp to moist, dense, silty, flne to course SAND with gravel up to 1.5" in diameter, slightly weathered T-74 2-5' SM Tan, damp, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; minor rootlets in upper 1' 5=5.5' White-tan, very dense SANDSTONE T.D.: 5:5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-29-99 0-1.5' SM Pauba Formation: Dark red-brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; porous, abundant roots 1.5-5' SM/SP Tan, damp, dense, silty, very fine SAND with 3-6" interbeds/pads of white, T-75 medium to coarse SAND 5-9' ML Tan to olive, damp, stiff to hard, sandy SIL,T T.D.: 9'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , I3ackfilled 3-29-99 0-2' SM Pauba Formation: Dark brown, damp, medium dense to dense, silty, �ne SAND; blocky, porous, common rootlets 2-9' SM/SP Tan, damp, dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND; non-porous, common pads of T-76 wl�ite, medium to coarse SAND (becomes finer grained with depth) 9-12' ML Grades to olive, damp, hard, sandy SILT T.D.: 12'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , I3ackfilled 3-29-99 � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-5 � Date 2-1-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1212' ft. Ref. or Datum — � _ ° -� ~ m� �� GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � « « = M z e� o e0 �« �v� � � m m m !0 � O C ��L m V q� VV �►. m G ` Z � mm �c' oc _ ° ui � �o a � � o N� Logged By SER a N � U Sampled By SER � � ALLUVILIM (Qall ' 1210 1 14 107.1 7.1 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose, silty SAND; minor root hairs, slight porosity � 5 2 �6 119.8 9.4 SM @ 5': Same as above � 1205 � 10 3 18 103.4 8.5 SM @ 10': Brown to dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND (less silt) � 1200 � 15 a 2� 6.8 SW @ 15': Light brown, damp, medium dense SAND; with gravel up to .75" � 1195 � 20 5 22 103.4 14.2 SM PALJBA FORMATION fOncl @ 20': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; slight porosity � 1190 ' 25 6 5a 8.6 M/S C°� 25': Light brown, damp, dense to very dense SAND with small pockets of silty sand 1185 i � 30 � . SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE ' MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date 2-1-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Driiling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri9 B-53 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1212' ft. Ref. or Datum — o r � �, z �,O � m ;�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � w m � m r e, m m 3 0 �.� �•� �o � _ m�i p�i �� Z a °� G�a o� Vy o u� � � 00 a o �U �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � - � 57 106.0 21.4 SM 30': Brown to dark brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND � 118 � 35 . g 42 35': 18.1 SM @ Same as above 1175 , � � 9 60 103.5 22.2 SM @ 40': Brown to dark brown, wet, very dense, silt SAND Y @ 41': Groundwater Encountered � 1170 � 45 to 62 21.9 SM @ 45': Same as above � 1165 • � 50 i i 65�6' 99.0 29.0 SM @ 50': Same as above � 1160 Boring Terminated @ 51.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 41' ' S5 Backfilled 2-1-99 � 1155 - r � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE � MD MAXIMUM DENSfTY AL ATTERBERG LIMtTS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � • � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-6 Date 2-1-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1215' ft. Ref. or Datum — o„ r „ � p z �,o � �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m , «� ••� L° � � 3o c° ~c � �- m�i D�i 1 °� Z a °� C a or Vy o u� � N °° a Q g� �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � ALI_LIVILIM IQall �. � 9 91.1 9.5 SM @ 2': Brown to dark brown, damp, loose, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common root hairs �' 1210 5 ---------- 2 i7 110.7 7.5 SM ---------------------- 5': Same as above; slight porosity, common root hairs � , 1205 10 3 i7 99.9 5.8 SM @ 10': Same as above � � 1200 15 q 36 3.6 SP @ 15': Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense SAND � _ � 1195 Z� �.::.: 5 50/6' 1 O1 .7 17.0 SM PAl18A FORMATION (Oncl ��—� @ 20': Brown to light olive brown, moist, very dense, silty, fine SAND � ' 1190 25 6 50/6' 12.6 SM @ 25': Brown to dark brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND � � 1185 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSfTY AL ATTERBERG LIMfTS B BUIK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6 Date 2-1-99 Sheet 2 of 2 1 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1215' ft. Ref. or Datum — _ ° � ~ •� �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION " ' � m � m r v� m m °° o° c.. �.° `,�°N H mti O�i 10 � Z a �� a o� Vy "' 0 w � N 0° a Q �� o� Logged BY SER a � Sampied By SER � 7 70/6' 94.3 18.8 SM 30': Brown to olive, damp, very dense, silty SAND 1 � 1180 35 8 5ois M/S @ 35': Light brown to brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND � , 1175 40 g 50i6' g7,2 24.4 C/S @ 40': Dark brown, moist, ve dense, silt to cla e SAND rY Y Y Y � Boring Terminated @ 41.5' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-1-99 1170 45 � . � 1165 50 � � 1160 55 � � 1155 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COILAPSE S SPLR SPOON DS OIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � O RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOU�ATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES �- . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-7 Date 2-1-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig &52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1232' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z «~ •°� °�' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � «m «m so m o ;o c� �� H m�i D�i ' Z a �� G a o� Vy o ur � � 0° a Q g� �o� Logged BY SER a �' Sampied By SER � A I IVI 1M IQall � 1230 Bag 3 7 12 85.3 9.0 SM @ 2': Brown, damp, loose, sihy SAND moderate porosity, @ 1-5' common root hairs � 5 2 49 117.0 8.2 SM @ 5': Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND; slightly porous ' 1225 -------------------------------- PAUBA FORMAT�ON (Qosl � 10 4 60 10': Red-br 108.7 6.0 SM �° own, damp, very dense, silty SAND with gravel up to .25" � 1220 ' 15 5 20 6.1 SP @ 15': Light-brown to red, damp, loose to medium dense SAND with gravel up to .25" � 1215 , 20 s 61 61.7 53.7 SM @ 20': White to olive, moist, very dense, silty SAND with gravel up to 1 " � 1210 '� 25 7 50/6' 11.4 ML @ 25': Brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT � 1205 ' 30 � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERCa LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � , GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7 Date 2-1-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Driiling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1232' ft. Ref. or Datum — o z � o � m� a�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � � ~ ; ° � °' m � 3 � ��' '"� .� m mm �° o a o� m ° �m C) m � �ti �J z .. C a o.,, �Nj o u� � m °D a � � o �� Logged By SER a � � � U Sampled By SER � 8 59 95.5 28.8 SC 30': Tan to brown, damp, very dense, stiff, clayey SAND � 1200 � 35 . s a9 2�,g g� @ 35': Same as above, damp to moist � 1195 � � t0 40': Brown 50/6' 114.9 13.6 SP �° , wet, very dense SAND; Groundwater Encountered ' 1190 ' 45 � i 39 � g, � gp @ 45': Light brown to brown, wet, dense SAND � 1185 � 50 � 2 ag Sp @ 50': Same as above, no recovery � 1180 Boring Terminated @ 51.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 40' I Backfilled 2-1-99 55 � 1175 - � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCI�►TES � , � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-8 Date 2-2-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1221' ft. Ref. or Datum — :: o � z �~ m� °°' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � ' '+'- m« m r a o m °° °o c.� «� �y � ' mti D�i �� Z a °� G a o� V� c u� � N 0° a Q �U �o� Logged By SER a Sampled By SER � , . 1220 A I L1VI 1M IQall � > 1 3 106.1 4.6 SM @ 2': Brown, damp, loose, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common root hairs � 5 2 aa 1 12.2 5.6 SM @ 5': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND 1215 (less silt), slight porosity � � 10 3 35 103.4 9.2 SP @ 10': Red-brown, moist, medium dense SAND 1210 , ' 15 a io 6.2 P/SM @ 15': Light brown to red-brown, damp, loose, silty SAND 1205 � — 20 " '. ----------------- ' 5 74/11' � 16.7 9.0 SM PAl1gA FORMATION IQ� 1200 @ 20': Brown to red-brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, silty SAND � � ZS 6 80 16.0 ML @ 25': Light brown to olive, damp, very dense SILT 1195 � � , 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE Of TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS � B BULK SAMPLE Ck CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI D(PANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8 Date 2-2-99 SheeY 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. , Elevation Top of Hole +/-1221' ft. Ref. or Datum — �„ ��, _ � z „o � ;� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � o m ; � � � m o m .. mti ��i e Z a �� C a o� Vy o w � N O0 a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER a ' Sampled By SER � 7 SO 72.g 49.2 ML @ 30': Olive, damp, very dense SILT 1190 ' ' 35 g gp� q 35': Same as abov 0 9 ML @ e, mo�st 1185 : gag 9 ' ' • @ 35-39 � � 10 55/a• 96.4 22.7 SP @ 40': Olive to light brown, wet, very dense SAND 118 @ 41': Groundwater Encountered ' � 45 t1 58 32.6 Ml @ 45': Olive, wet, very dense SILT 1175 � � , 50 �y 5oi4" 94.6 16.6 SP @ 50': White to brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded 1170 SAND � Boring-Terminated @ 51.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 41' Backfilled 2-2-99 ' S5 1165 � � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INOEX SOSA(l1/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � • • • . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9 Date Z-2-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driiling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1188' ft. Ref. or Datum — � o � z „o � m� �; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � «m �m so� m m 3o c,� �� H > m m j o a o � o� ,� VC� ... m p`� '- Z E cp m� a o � —y ° w � y a Q �U �o� Logged By SER � ' Sampled By SER � Al t LIVILIM fOal► ' > >3 109.3 12.0 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose, silty SAND with 1185 gravel up to .25", common rootlets 1 5 Z �0 107.2 5.3 SP @ 5': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose SAND ' 1180 � 10 3 23 100.7 8.2 SP @ 10': Light brown, moist, loose to medium dense SAND � 1175 � 15 q Zq g.2 SP/ML @ 15': Light brown, moist, medium dense SAND with 4" interbed of olive silt � 1170 ! 20 5 39 102.7 6.1 SP @ 20': Brown, moist, dense oorl p y graded SAND � 1165 25 �... -------------------------------- � 6 23 14.2 ML PAUBA FORMATION IQ� @ 25': Olive, damp to moist, medium dense SILT � 1160 , 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9 Date 2-2-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1188' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z „o � �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m , �m �m sa m � ;o c �_ � F- mti �ti �� Z a o` O � or V� p u� � y 0° a Q �U y� Logged By SER � � Sampled By SER � 7 56 107.1 3.7 SP 30': White to light gray-brown, damp, dense to very dense SAND � 1155 , 35 8 30 36.0 ML �° 36': Olive, damp, medium dense SILT � 1150 1 9 90/9" 102.3 21.0 ML �° 40': Olive, damp, very dense SILT � 1145 � 45 i0 a5 37.7 ML �° 45': Same as above � 1140 i 50 >> so 65.0 53.3 ML �° 50': Same as above ' 1135 Boring Terminated @ 51.5' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-2-99 55 � 1130 � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY Al ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON �c ASSOCIATES � • I GEOTECHNICAL BORIIVG LOG B-10 Date 2-2-99 Sheet 1 of 2 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driiling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g-52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1194' ft. Ref. or Datum — � o„ r � � �, Z „o a �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � >m mm �° o a ou o� wm v�? ° C a .., o W� � � Z � O° a � � o y� Logged By SER a ' y � v Sampled By SER � Al I t1VIL1M I�all , � 7 2 99.9 9.4 SM @ 2': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common root hairs ' 1190 5 2 �8 90.5 6.6 SM @ 5': Brown, damp, loose to medium dense, sihy SAND; moderate porosity, common root hairs r 1185 � 1 3 36 98.5 12.0 SM �° � 0': Light brown to brown, damp, dense, silty SAND Iless sand) � , 1180 15 a 32 6.7 SM @ 15': Same as above � 1175 20 :..' -------------------------------- ' S 60 105.0 6.7 SP PAUBA FORMATI�N sl @ 20': Red-brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense, poorly graded SAND; iron-staining present, gravel up to , .25" 1170 � 25 6 88 5.8 SP @ 25': Light brown, damp, very dense SAND � 1165 � 30 ' SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIHECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERO UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES , . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10 Date 2-2-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1194' ft. Ref. or Datum — � ° � � •� �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° ' � �m «m so o m 3 c� �C oy H m�i Q�i � Z a �� C a o� Vy o W � y 00 a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER m �q a � , Sampled By SER � � 82/>>' 92.0 30.9 ML 30': Olive, moist, very dense SILT ' , 1160 35 a ss 19.4 ML @ 35'. Same as above ' @ 37': Groundwater Encountered 1155 � 9 50/6' 1 14.3 13.3 ML @ 40': Olive to brown, wet, very dense, sandy SILT � I150 � 45 �0 86/ti 25.6 SM @ 45': Dark brown, wet, very dense, silty SAND � 1145 , 50 i� 50ia 96.9 16.8 SP @ 50': White to Iight brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded SAND; gravel up to .5" � 1140 , 55 �2 5o�s' � �,2 M� @ 55': Olive, wet, very dense SILT ' Boring Terminated @ 56.5' 1135 Groundwater Encountered @ 37' � Backfilled 2-2-99 6 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTEFiBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX 505A(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 1 of 3 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. ' �evation Top of Hole +/-1197' ft. Ref. or Datum — o r � � z �,o � �°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � « m «� m = o� m m ; o c .�, � �o E - �ti ��i a� z a o� 0 a o� Vv� o w � y °0 a Q �� o� Logged BY SER Q Sampled By SER � 1 ARTIFICAL Fil I (Af �1 , 1195 i a9 111,4 6.3 SM @ 2': Brown to dark brown, moist, dense, silty SAND; ebundant rootlets, small pieces of plastic, moderate porosity , 5 2 i5 124.9 4.3 SP -------------------------------- A I 1VI 1M IQall @ 5.5':Light brown, moist, loose to medium dense, poorly , 1190 graded SAND , 10 3 12 97.1 14.2 SM @ 70': Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity , 1185 � 15 4 32 4.3 SP @ 7 5': Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND � 1180 20 :... 5 62 112.7 6.0 SP PAl ' @ 20': Red-brown, moist, dense to very dense SAND � 1175 � 25 6 27 13.0 SP @ 25': Red-brown, moist to wet, medium dense SAND 1170 , � 30 � � . SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS , D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMfTS B BULK SAMPIE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 2 of 3 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri9 &52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1197' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z �" m°� �' � GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � �„ «„ L � a o a� 3 �vi a► m m � m o ;� �r- .. H mti pti �� Z a °� G a or V�j o u� � y °D a Q �� o� Logged BY SER a , Sampled By SER � � �0 122.2 10.1 SW 30': Red-brown, moist to wet, dense SAND A 1165 ' 35 8 54 5.1 ML @ 35': Brown to olive, moist, dense SILT ' 1160 @ 38': Groundwater Encountered � � 9 50/5" 115.2 15.0 ML @ 40': Olive-brown, wet, ve dense, sand SILT rY Y � 1155 � 45 io a2 25.1 ML @ 45': Olive-brown, wet, dense SILT � 1150 • ' S0 i i 50/4" 121.6 15.1 SP @ 50': Brown, wet, very dense SAND ' 1145 � 55 � 2 88i> >' 27.9 SP @ 55': Same as above ' 1140 � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPIE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . . • ' I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11 Date 2-3-99 . Sheet 3 of 3 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driliing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. , Elevation Top of Hole +/-1197' ft. Ref. or Datum — � ° � ~ m� �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � , v ° m s m o m m 3o c� p� `� F �� m� �� o a o` G a �°� V � o m A z E mm o� —vi W � � a Q �� oa Logged By SER a , Sampled By SER � 13 50/5' 106.8 18.6 SP 60': White to light brown, wet, dense to very dense SAND � 1135 ' 65 � 4 50/5" 20.1 SP @ 65': Same as above ML @ 65.8': Olive, wet, very dense SILT, silty, very fine SAND ' 1130 Boring Terminated @ 66.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 38' Backfilled 2-3-99 70 � ��zs � � �5 , 1120 ' 80 ' 1115 � 85 ' 1110 - ' SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MO MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTEABERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES , . ' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 1 of 3 ' Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs __ Drop 30 in. 1 Elevation Top of Hote +/-1210' ft. Ref. or Datum — � m am a� w m „� m � �� y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � ' ; ~C �LL OLL �J z a 0 r 0 G Q« Vy p u� � N °D a Q �U �o� Logged By SER a , Sampled By SER � AI I 1VI 1M (Qall , � 29 105.0 9.3 SM. @ 2': Brown to dark brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common rootlets , 1205 5 2 i9 96.5 6.8 SM @ 5': Same as above � Bag 3 • @ 5-9' , PAUBA FORMATION fQn,cl - - - - - - - 1200 10 q 22 109.2 9.4 SM @ 10': Brown to dark brown, dry to damp, medium dense, silty SAND, slight porosity , ' 1195 15 5 26 5.5 SM @ 15': Same as above ' ' ' 1190 20 6 36 � � 2.7 g.g gM @ 20': Brown to dark brown, damp, dense, silty SAND ' ' 1185 25 7 �g � 7,2 P/SM oC� 25': Light brown, moist, medium dense SAND; silty fine SAND ' ' 1180 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON . DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPIE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SoSAr»i�� LEIGI-ITON & ASSOCIATES 1 � , GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 2 of 3 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs __ Drop 30 in. , Elevation Top of Hole +/-1210' ft. Ref. or Datum — � o � z r � m� °°' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � ' ,,,, t w w o w � aN� o m m � m m 3 0 C'� «. F° �� 01� 16J O a o � a � O VV r• u� � � Z y O0 a O �� o� Logged BY SER a , Sampled By SER � 8 30 96.2 31.6 SM 30': Dark brown, wet, medium dense, silty SAND ' ' 1175 35 9 52/6" 44.6 ML @ 35': Brown to olive, moist to wet, very dense, sandy SILT ' @ 37': Groundwater Encountered r 1170 40 10 84/11' 40': Brown r 98.1 27.8 ML �° to da k brown, moist to wet, very dense, sandy SILT ' ' 1165 45 ii 52/5' 1 1.5 SM @ 45': Brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND � ' 1160 50 � y 50/5" 109.7 1 1.4 M/S @ 50': Dark brown, wet, very dense SAND; fine, silty SAND ' ' 1155 55 �3 60/6' � 7,g gp @ 55': Dark brown, wet, very dense SAND -------------------------------- PAUBA FORMATION IQncl ' @� 56': Olive, wet, very dense SILT ML , 1150 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES , . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 3 of 3 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1210' ft. Ref. or Datum — > ;; o r � � z �o �; m°� �y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � , « m � m s o� o m 3 o c,� �+% �o mu �u �� Z a °� O c •o« V�j o u� � y 0° a Q �U '�o Logged BY SER " a > , Sampled By SER E- 14 50/6' 108.8 18.8 ML 60': Brown to dark brown, wet, very dense, sandy SILT , . ' 1145 65 � 5 50/6" 20.1 SP @ 65': Brown, wet, very dense SAND ' Boring Terminated @ 66.5' Groundwater Encountered @ 37' ' Backfilled 2-3-99 1140 70 , � 1135 75 , � 1130 80 ' � ��zs gs 1 , 1120 90 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULPATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(Il/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-13 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 1 of 2 ' Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1224' ft. Ref. or Datum — o s � �, z �, o�" :� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � ' «'m �'m ZCf m m .=O C.� ��„C �0 � mu D�i W,� Z a °� G a o� Vv) o u+ � y m a Q gU '� Logged BY SER a Sampied By SER � '. A IVI IM IQaU ' � Z� 98.5 9.5 SM @ 2': Brown to dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common root hairs , 1220 5 Z Zo 116.5 9.4 SM @ 5': Same as above ' , . 1215 10 3 i 8 109.5 7.8 SM C°� � 0': Brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND gp @ 7 1': Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND ' 1210 ' 15 . 4 32 -------------------------------- 8.5 SP PAt16A FORMATInN IO�yc1 @ 15': Light brown to brown, moist, medium dense to dense SAND , 1205 , 20 5 �gi> >' 120.7 8.3 CL @ 20': Brown to dark brown, moist, very dense, sandy CLAY, iron-staining present, gravel up to 1" ' 1200 , 25 6 32 24.2 MUCL C�° 25': Olive, damp to moist, medium dense SILT � 1195 ' 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTEHBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULPATE EI EXPANSION INDDC SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-13 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 2 of 2 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1224' ft. Ref. or Datum — o„ �„ � „ z �,o � �� ;�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m ' «m «m tw m m ;o c.� ?�' � � i— m u m . Q�i �� Z a o� G�a o..�m, V� O u� � N 0° a Q gU �o� Logged BY SER a ' Sampled By SER ~ � �� 98.1 21.8 ML 30': Brown, damp to moist, very dense SILT ' 1190 , 35 g 50/5' 3,2 gp @ 35': Light brown to white, dry to damp, very dense SAND ' 1185 , � 9 54/6" 113.0 9.1 SP @ 40': Same as above ' Boring Terminated @ 41 .5' 1180 No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled on 2-3-99 45 1 � 1175 ' S0 ' _ 1170 ' S5 , 1165 , � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS OIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/T!) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' . , . . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-14 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 1 of 2 ' Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs __ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of. Hole +/-1196' ft. Ref. or Datum — � o � z �� •� °°' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° ' „ t w a o ao � aetl� m i+ y �+ m L Q� O m ; p C,�, r++ �0 F. mii �ti �� Z a °. O a o., V��j' o w � � 00 a o gU fo� Logged BY SER a ' Sampled By SER ►� 1195 A I 11Vl IM IOall , i soi6' 135.5 4.6 SM @ 2': Brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, sihy SAND, minor rootlets ' S 2 28 86.6 1.6 SM @ 5': Same as above Iless siltl 1190 � Bag 3 ' @ 8-12' 10 4 22 101.3 2.8 SM @ 10': Light brown to red, medium dense, silty SAND; iron 1185 staining present ' ' 15 5 18 5.3 SM @ 7 5': Same as above 1180 1 20 " " -------------------------------- ' 6 2$ 101.1 14.3 SM/SP PAl16A FORMATIDN ((1„ 1175 @ 20': Light gray-brown to brown, damp, medium dense, fine SAND to silty, fine SAND ; stight porosity, minor , iron-staining ' 25 7 22 26.2 ML @ 25': Olive, damp, medium dense SILT 1170 ' ' 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSRY AL ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI DCPANSION INDIX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES , . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG �-14 Date 2-3-99 . Sheet 2 of 2 ' Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 - Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1196' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z �~ •� °°' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � �„ �„ s w w o w �« �vi m � m m � m o ;� �w ..� F- m�i ��i �� Z a o� C �a o« Vy o ur � y °D a Q �� o� Logged BY SER o, 1 Sampled By SER � 8 23 97.4 26.4 Ml 30': Same as above 1165 t � 35 s ss 5'• ' 1 1.6 SM @ 3 . ught brown, dry to damp, very dense, silty SAND 1160 � ' � i0 80 113.4 15.9 ML @ 40': Brown, moist, very dense, sand SILT Y 1155 � � 45 77 67 29.1 ML @ 45': Brown, moist, very dense SILT 1150 � ' � 50 1Z 50/6" � � 7.7 15.4 ML @ 50': Brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT 1145 � Boring Terminated @ 51.5' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-3-99 55 1140 � � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON .. DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RIN� SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMtTS B BUIK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(ll/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-15 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1289' ft. Ref. or Datum — o„ r „ � �, z „o � �°� �y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � « « ro m m 3o c� �� o �. mti Oti t Z a °� O a a� Vy O ur � � 00 a Z' � o y� �o99ed By SER a y � U Sampied By SER � � PAUBA FOFiMATI�N ((]p,c1 � 1 50 124.8 8.9 SM @ 2': Red-brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND, poorly sorted, minor root hairs 1285 � 5 Z 54 120.1 10.6 SM @ 5': Same as above � 1280 � 1 3 52/6" 124.7 7.3 SM @ 10': Red-brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND with gravel ' up to .75" � 1275 �, 15 q 2g 16.9 ML @ 15': Brown to olive, damp, medium dense SILT �� 1270 '� 20 5 68 107.9 5.4 SF @ 20': Light brown, damp, very dense SAND �, �� 1265 � 25 6 44 13.3 ML @ 25': Light brown to olive, damp, dense to very dense, sandy SILT � 1260 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-15 Date 2-3-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1289' ft. Ref. or Datum — � « � �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION °° � � « � m 3Q �' 'r " sp� m m 30 � ..� � � m�i O�i �� Z a �LL C a o;; Vy c u� � y 0° a Q g� �o� Logged BY SER a Sampled By SER � � 7 50/6' 101.0 2.7 SP 30': White Ii to ght brown, damp, very dense SAND �� 1255 � 35 8 � - 23.4 CL @ 35': Olive, damp, dense CLAY � Boring Terminated @ 36.5' 1250 No Groundwater Encountered � � Backfilled 2-3-99 � 1245 1 � 45 � i 1240 ,�, 50 � 1235 �� 55 � 1230 � 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLfT SPOON OS OIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS �, B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . �� GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-16 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ,� Elevation Top of Hole +/-1213' ft. Ref. or Datum —' , � ° « ~ m� »° GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � +� m t' m L Of m m 3 O C.r �,�,,~' �� F- � mLL �LL �J Z a � � C O. �r VN p u� � y 0° a Q gU �o� Logged By SER � � A w Sampled By SER F- TnPSOIL � , i 28 123.7 10.8 SC @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, medium dense, clayey 1210 SAND; abundant rootlets � 5 2 53 114.9 12.3 SM -------------------------------- PAUBA FORMATION (Qosl @ 5': Brown, moist, dense to very dense, silty SAND, minor root hairs �� 1205 � 10 3 65/6' 95.6 13.7 M @ 10': Brown, dam , ve dense, sand SILT L P rY Y � 1200 � 15 4 56 ML @ 15': Brown, damp, very dense SILT � 1195 ��' 20 5 64 108.3 2.4 SP @ 20': White to light brown, damp, dense to very dense SAND �, 1190 �. 25 6 61 gp @ 25': Same as above SM @ 26': Brown to olive, damp, very dense, silty SAND � 1185 �; 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS � B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/T� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-16 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 6-53 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1213' ft. Ref. or Datum — � � � z �~ •� p GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° ��, t,,, ao m o w � aVj m � � m �a �ap o a oti m � � m �j � LL � �� ` G a ., o W � � Z N 00 a Q gU No� Logged By SER � � Sampied By SER r � 86 83.9 34.7 ML 30': Olive, damp, very dense, SILT �` 1180 � 35 8 80 M� @ 35': Olive, damp, very dense, sandy SILT � 1175 � � 9 50/i2" 66.3 52.1 @ 40': Same as above ML ,� 1170 '� 45 10 64 ML @ 45': Same as above � ' 1165 Boring Terminated at 46.5' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-8-99 50 � 1160 _ � 55 � 1155 �� SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON _ DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS � B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . . . . �' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-17 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 1 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1215' ft. Ref. or Datum — o r � � z �,o � m� �y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � �m «m sa� o m ;o c.� r= � � m�i D�i �� Z a o� G o« VN o u� � � °D a Q �U �o� Logged By SER a � A ^ Sampied By SER ►= TOPS(�II / .(� L LIVI IM � w A � 30 82•7 2•9 SM @ 2': Dark brown, most, medium dense, silty SAND; minor rootlets, abundant porosity � 1210 5 w w A Z 28 103.5 5.8 SM @ 5': Brown to red-brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; poorly sorted, iron staining present � ... PAUBA FORMATION IQosl ----------------- ,� 1205 10 3 22 4 @ 10': Olive, dam medium dense SILT 93. 28.6 ML P. � � 1200 15 a 50 M/M @ 15.5': Brown, moist, dense, silty SAND / sandy SIL7 � � 1195 20 5 57 107.1 14.1 ML @ 20': Olive to brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT � . � 1190 25 6 32 ►y�� @ 25': Brown to olive, moist, medium dense, SILT � � 1185 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLtT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX So5Ar11�� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � �� GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-17 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driliing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig &53 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Driv� Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1215' ft. Ref. or Datum — � o„ t „ � �, z „o � m� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � :� m •• m r a� o m 3 o c �" e � � m� p� J Z a �� a o� Uy � u� � � O0 a Q gU �o� Logged By SER a, � Sampled By SER � 7 e9 106.0 4.7 SM @ 30.5': White to light brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND � �` 1180 35 . 8 94 gp @ 35': Same as above - - Bag 9 @ � ' - 35-38' � 1175 40 10 4 ': � 91.7 24.7 ML �° 0 Olive, damp, very dense, sandy SILT, minor gravel up to .25" � � 1170 45 i� 68 ML @ 45': Olive to brown, damp, very dense SILT � • �, 1165 50 �y 68 67.2 51.7 ML @ 50': Same as above ,� Boring Terminated at 51.5' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-8-99 1160 55 � � 1155 60 sanna�e rrr�s: Tr� oF rESTS: co co�u►PSe S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � ' �% GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-18 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-52 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1223' ft. Ref. or Datum — o = � �, z �,o � :°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° 1 «m wm re� m m 3o c.� �_ � � m�i �ti �.°� Z a °� O a a� V� o w � y °D a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � Al I IVI 1M IQall j - 1 50 88.3 25.2 SM @ 2': Dark brown to brown, moist to wet, medium dense, 1220 silty SAND; abundant porosity, common rootlets and root hairs � 5 2 27 5': Red 98.8 4.4 SM @ brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; abundant porosity, common root hairs � 1215 � 10 3 28 10': Red t li 107.4 1.7 SP C°� o ght brown, damp, medium dense SAND; iron staining present � � 1210 � 15 4 23 Sp @ 15': Same as above � 1205 20 " ' -------------------------------- � 5 � 106.0 14.1 SP PAl18A FORMATION IQnel @ 20': Red-brown, damp to moist, dense SAND, some clay; iron staining present � 1200 � 25 6 23 MUSP C� 25': Red-brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense,sandy SILT with 2-4"interbeds of sand 1 1195 �' 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OP TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSO�IDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/Tn LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-18 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 8-52 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1223' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z „o ;� �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � « m � m r o, o m 3 o c,� �� e F. mti Oti �-��+ Z a �� C C or Vy `p w � N 00 a Q gU �o� Logged BY SER a Sampled By SER � � � 52 94.9 27.9 ML 30': Br wn m o , da p to moist, dense SILT � 1190 � 35 8 3 35': Same as ab v 8 ML �° o e � 1185 � � 9 8z 91.5 28.2 ML �° 40': Same as above � . . 1180 Bonng Termmated at 41.5' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-8-99 45 � 1175 �. 50 � 1170 � 55 1 1165 , � • SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS �: D RING SAMPLE MO MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE � T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES - � . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-19 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 , Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-52 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs __ Drop 30 in. �� Elevation Top of Hole +/-1244' ft. Ref. or Datum — o� r „ � �, z „o � m p�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � «� ~'� L � � � 3O C � ~M � ~ mLL �{L �J z a ��. G C. �� p u� � y 0° a Q gU �o� Logged BY SER o, Sampled By SER � �. Al l LIVIIIM fQall � � 7 104.7 6.8 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose, sihy SAND; abundant porosity, common rootlets � 1240 5 2 �5 112.5 11.1 SM @ 5': Same as above � 1235 � 10 3 16 100.5 14.9 SM @ 10': Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND (increase in silt), very porous, common root hairs Bag 4 @ � 10-14' 1230 � 15 -------------------------------- 5 �4 SP PALIBA FORMATION 1(�� @ 15': Brown, damp, loose to medium dense SAND � 1225 , 20 6 50/12' 103.7 9.7 SP @ 20': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND; carbonate lined frature � 1220 � 25 � � gp @ 25': Same as above ML @ 26': Olive, damp, very dense, sandy SILT � 1215 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE p�! CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-19 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-52 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1244' ft. Ref. or Datum — � � � ° � ~ m� �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � «m wm so� m m 3 c... �_ �y � m� 0� �� Z a °� G a o« Vy o w � � m a � � o N� Logged By SER a N � U Sampled By SER � � 8 83ii6" 89.9 26.3 ML 30': Brown dam , p, very dense SILT � � 1210 35 9 a2 ML @ 35': Olive, damp, dense to very dense SILT � 1205 � � 10 58 78.6 48.5 CUML C°� 40': Olive to brown, damp to moist, very dense SILT/CLAY � 1200 � 45 ii �s gp @ 45': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND � 1195 ' S0 �Z 84/16" 96.7 27.2 ML @ 50': Brown to dark brown, damp to moist, very dense sandy SILT � , Boring Terminated at 51.5 1190 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-8-99 � 55 � 1185 � 60 " SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLQPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D HING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMfTS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VAIUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX , SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � • • • . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 1 of 3 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weipht 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1226' ft. Ref. or Datum — � � r � �, z � o � �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � « m � m s vi o m ; o c,.. « e � F- m1i �ti �� Z a °.�. C C, o� V� o u� � y 0° a Q gU �o� Logged By SER � � Sampled By SER � 1225 AI 1 l_1VIL1M Idall ` � 24 79.5 68.4 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; abundant porosity, common rootlets � 5 2 25 106.6 8.1 SM @ 5': Same as above 1220 � � 10 3 29 104.5 4.8 SP @ 10': Red-brown, moist, medium dense SAND 1215 � , 15 4 23 SP @ 15': Same as above 1210 � . . , 20 5 39 99.1 13.5 SP PAl1RA FORMATION 1(��,c1 - 1205 @ 20': Red-brown to brown, moist, dense SAND; becoming more fine grained towards bottom of sample � � 25 6 14 gp @ 25': Brown, damp, loose to medium dense SAND 1200 � � 30 � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSRY AL ATTERBERCa UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION tNDEX . SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20 Date 2-8-99 Sheet 2 of 3 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weipht 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hote +/-1226' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z �" m� °�' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION " � «,,, «" L w a o w �� tn m C1 m � m m 3 0 �'� �. F� ��i Q� �� Z ° a °� G n a ow Vy o ui � � °D a Q gU �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER F°� � 25 100.5 23.4 SP 30': Same as above 1195 ML @ 31': Brown, damp, dense, sandy SILT � � 35 8 55 gp @ 35': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND 11 r � � 9 90 @ 40': Same as abov 105.2 3.6 SP e 1185 � � 45 io 5oitt• gp @ 45': Same as above 1180 � . � 50 11 90/16' 76.7 43.8 ML @ 50': Brown, damp to moist, very dense, sandy SILT 1175 1 � 55 t2 50 ML @ 55': Same as above 1170 � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLtT SPOON , OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INODC SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � ' � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20 Date 2-8-99 - Sheet 3 of 3 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRlLLING Type of Rig 8-53 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weipht 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1226' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z �" •°� �°' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � "" m ~' m = Of 41 m W O G,� �«' � H m�i ��i �� Z a �� G a o« Vy o w � y 0° a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampied By SER � �3 �4 98.7 19.4 ML 60': Brown to olive, damp, very dense SILT 1165 � Boring Terminated at 61.5' � No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-8-99 65 1160 � � 70 1155 � ,� 75 1150 � � 80 1145 � � 85 1140 � � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSfTY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL �ORING LOG B-21 Date 2-9-99 Sheet 1 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 D�illing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 8-52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1233' ft. Ref. or Datum —' o � z �,o � �°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � «.m �m 'so m m 3o c� �� o H mti D�i t Z a °� C a a;; Vy c u� � N 00 a Q �� o� Logged By SER a � Sampled By SER � ALlL1VIUM (Qali � � 6$ 122.4 8.8 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, dense to very dense, silty SAND; 1230 moderate porosity, common rootlets � 5 2 30 99.8 5.3 SM @ 5': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common rootlets and root hairs � 1225 , 10 3 a5 101.5 3.3 SP @� 0': Light brown, damp, dense, poorly graded SAND; very friable � 1220 � is a 2s gp @ 15': Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense to dense, poorly graded SAND � 1215 20 :... -------------------------------- , 5 � 99.7 10.3 SP PAUBA FORMATION IORsI @ 20': Red-brown, damp to moist, dense SAND � 1210 � 25 6 18 gp @ 25': Light brown to brown, damp, loose to medium dense, poorly graded SAND � 1205 @ 29': Groundwater Encountered � 3 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON , OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-21 Date 2-9-99 Sheet 2 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1233' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z «~ m� �' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � „ r„ a ae o a . �,� m � m a aoi « m o c,� M+� � H m�i ��i �� Z a o� � n a or Vv) o u� � y °D a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampted By SER � � 29 106.2 18.9 SP 30': Light brown to brown, wet, medium dense, poorly graded SAND � 1200 , 35 . 8 � gp @ 35': White to light brown, wet, medium dense, poorly graded SAND � 1195 � � 9 70/6' 100.3 16.9 SP @ 40': White to light brown, wet, ve dense SAND ry � 1190 � 45 � � CL @ 45': Olive, wet, dense, silty CLAY; some interfingering of SW into CL observed � 1185 � 50 i� 52n2° 105.3 24.1 ML �° 50': Olive, wet, very dense, sandy SILT � 1180 � 55 72 ��, @ 55': White to light brown, wet, very dense SAND SP ' 1175 � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPIE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-21 Date 2-9-99 . Sheet 3 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1233' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z �a � :� py GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m :•m «m .r� m m 3o c,.. �« m � � mu °�'�i W. � a °� G a �'., v � c ui � � Z N 00 a Q gU �o� Logged By SER a � Sampled By SER � 73 75/6' 1 19.5 14.5 SP 60': Light brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded SAND � 1170 ta 5o/s^ SP @ 63.5': Same as above � 65 � Boring Terminated at 65' Groundwater Encountered at 29' ' Backfiiled 2-9-99 1165 ! 70 � 1160 � 75 � 1155 � 80 , 1150 � 85 � 1145 �. 90 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS � B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDIX SOSA(I1/T� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES �, • • ' � I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-22 Date 2-9-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driiling Co. CAL PAC DRiLLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1209' ft. Ref. or Datum — C � ° «" m� �° GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � � r t M Z W O q � tq(/� O i. r Lpl m m ;p C,� rC �p � m�i ��i �� Z a °� G a or vv� o w � N 00 a Q gU r o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER ~ Al l IVI IM fQa11 � � 25 1 19.3 9.3 SM @ 2': Red-brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity common rootlets � 1205 5 2 13 1 10.1 5.8 SM @ 5': Same as above, common root hairs � 1200 � 10 . . -------------------------------- 3 34 110.7 2.5 SP PAL18A FORMATI�N (Q�ycl @ 10': Red-brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND • Bag 4 @ � � 10-14' 1195 � 15 5 24 SP @ 15': Same as above � 1190 � 20 6 29 102.0 10.9 ML @ 20': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, sandy SILT, slight porosity � 1185 � ZS 7 45 ML @ 25': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense SILT � 1180 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLtT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-22 Date 2-9-99 Shect 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1209' ft. Ref. or Datum — o� r „ � �, z „o � �� p�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � � � ° � � ;� c° «c t- �LL m� �� o a o� O a =°« VU c m G Z � mm o� —v1 u� � y a Q �� oj Logged BY SER a � Sampied By SER � 8 78 91.5 30.6 ML 30': Olive, damp, very dense SILT � � 1175 35 9 35 M� @ 35'. Olive, damp, dense SILT � 1170 � i0 Sa 113.2 8.9 ML @ 40': Brown, damp, very dense SILT � 1165 � 45 ti 50/t2• gp @ 45': White to light brown, dry to damp, very dense SAND , ' 1160 � 50 �2 5plg• 102.9 2.1 SP @ 50': White, damp, very dense SAND 1 Boring 7erminated at 51.5' 1155 - No Groundwater Encountered , Backfilled 2-9-99 55 , 1150 � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON . DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/T� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-23 Date 2-9-99 - Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 8-53 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weigh4 140 Ibs __ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1320' ft. Ref. or Datum — o„ r „ � � z �,o � �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � « « so m m 3o c� r� m t- m�i Du 1 A� Z a �� G a o;; Vy c u, � y °D a Q �� o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � PAlJBA FORMATI�N (QRsI . - @a� � 2 g4/��' 112.6 11.0 SM @ 2': Red-brow�, moist, very dense, silty SAND; minor rootlets � 1315 5 3 ��Z• � � 5': Red-brown dam v 2 3 8.8 SM @ , p, ery dense, silty SAND with gravel up to .5" � t 1310 10 a 50/t i' 109.7 5.9 SP @ 10': Red-brown, damp, very dense, SAND , � 1305 15 5 7a gp @ 15': Same as above � 1 1300 20 6 5o�s' 1 10.3 7.7 SP @ 20': Same as above 1 , 1295 Z5 � � gp @ 25': Same as above, increase in fines at bottom of sample , � 1290 30 � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLIAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENStTY AL ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDDC SOSA(11/Tn LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES , • � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-23 Date 2-9-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driliing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-53 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1320' ft. Ref, or Datum — o � z �" m� °�' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � «m � m r a� m � ae ° e p �tn t " - m�i ��i �� Z a o� � a or V� o u� � N O0 a p g� �o Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � 8 50�17" 113.1 5.2 SP 30': Red-brown, damp, very dense SAND � � 1285 35 g gp 35': Same SP @ as above � . � 1280 40 i0 5on t°� 17.0 1 1.1 SP @ 40': Same as above; becoming more fine grained � Boring Terminated at 41.5 No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-9-99 1275 45 � � 1270 50 � , 1265 55 � � 1260 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE � MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDIX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � • � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-30 Date 2-12-99 Sheet 1 of 2 ' Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Wei�ht 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1302' ft. Ref. or Datum — o„ r „ � �, z �,o ' m� ;�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � � m a aw m m o c,� �•% �o m1i �LL �� Z a o� G C o.. Vy p u� � N °D a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER a Sampled By SER � � PAUBA F(�RMATION (Qnc1 � 1300 i 73 118.6 7.3 SP @ 2': Red-brown, moist, very dense SAND; minor rootlets � 5 2 5�/�2" 110.0 7. 5': Red-br 5 SP @ own, damp to moist, very dense SAND , 1295 � 10 3 50n i• gp @ 10': Same as above � 1290 � 15 q 63 ML @ 15': Brown, damp, hard, sandy SILT � 1285 � 20 5 50/71' 103.7 8.1 MUSP @ 20': Brown, damp, very dense, sandy SILT with 2-4" interbeds of white to light brown sand � 1280 , 25 6 52 MUSP C�O 25': Same as above 12'75 � � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(Il/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-30 Date 2-12-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 6-52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs __ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1302' ft. Ref. or Datum — � � o„ Z � �, z �, o; m� �; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � � � � � m ;o =� ~ ~ mLL m� m� o a o: C a o o C�N o u� � � Z y 00 a Q ��o �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER ~ 7 56/6" SM 30': Red-brown to brown, damp, very dense, sitty SAND � 127 � 3 8 9z gp @ 35': Red-brown, damp, very dense SAND � 1265 � � 9 50/6° 120.5 10.1 SM @ 40': Red-brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND � 1260 � 45 10 57 ML @ 45': Dark brown, damp, very dense, sandy SILT � 1255 Boring Terminated at 46.5' No Groundwater Encountered 50 Backfilled 2-12-99 , 1 1250 � 55 � 1245 , 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � O RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . , , • I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG �-31 Date 2-12-99 . Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driliing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1252' ft. Ref. or Datum — o s � �, z �,o a `� �; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � �m am �a o a ou m� am Vci � m ti C ti �'J Z � m � C c' o � °�y ° u� � y a A �U �� Logged �y SER a � Sampled By SER � A � 1VI 1M (Qal/Q 1 , Bag 2 125 �° o�� > >6 114.8 8.0 SC @ 2': Dark brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense, clayey SAND; minor rootlets � 5 3 25 112.3 4.1 SP @ 5': Light brown, moist, medium dense SAND; minor root hairs ' 1245 � 10 4 31 107.6 10.3 SP @ � 0': Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense SAND � 1240 � 15 5 42 gp @ 15': Brown, damp, dense SAND � 1235 � 20 Partial 6 20 106.7 7.3 M/S @ 20': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND with 2-6" . Recovery interbeds fine to coarse sand; porous locally 1 1230 � 25 7 32 gp @ 25': Brown, damp, dense SAND ' 1225 � 30 SAMPIE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERCa UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-31 Date 2-12-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig g_52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1252' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z �,o p m� ;y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m ' «m �m sa m m ;o c.� �� W F- mLL 0� �� Z a °� G a o« V��j' o W � � O° a t � o �o� Logged BY SER ° y_ a ' � � v Sampled By SER � $ �� 111.7 9.0 ML @ 30': Dark brown, moist, very dense, sandy SILT , 1220 ' 35 9 32 M/M @ 35': Brown, damp to moist, dense SAND with 2" interbed of brown ML � 1215 Boring Terminated at 36.5' ' No Groundwater Encountered ,� Backfilled 2-12-99 � 1210 , 45 � 1205 . i 50 � 1200 ' S5 ' 1195 � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES , . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-32 Date 2-12-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRIILING Type of Rig &52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1236' ft. Ref. or Datum — w e � ° �~ • �° GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° ��, L�,,, te Z �e O tA �� te�/j m � +�m «'m ZQ O m 3o Cv. rC � H �{� Q� J Z a � r � a ��.r VN p u� � N 0° a Q �U �oj Logged BY SER a ' Sampled By SER � 1235 ALl IIVIUM l�all , � 2� 111.3 5.5 SP @ 2': Red-brown, damp, medium dense, poorly graded SAND; minor rootlets ' S 2 � 107.0 5.2 SP @ 5': Red-brown, moist, dense SAND 1230 ' 10 . � 3 40 -------------------------------- SM PAUBA FOFiMATI�N IOnel 1225 @ 10': Light brown to brown, moist, dense, silty SAND , , 15 4 25 SM @ 15': Same as above 1220 , , 2 � 5 57 115.2 8.4 SP ;@ 20': Red-brown, moist to wet, very dense SAND; 1215 becomes finer grained towards bottom of sample , @ 23': Groundwater Encountered , ZS 6 37 gp @ 25': Red-brown to brown, wet, dense SAND 1210 ' ' 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS , D RING SAMPLE � MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/T� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-32 Date 2-12-99 Sheet 2 of 2 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri9 B-52 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1236' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z �~ m� p' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � , ««, �,,, s ae te O ne �« �my m m m � m O 3 =w «.0 H mLL �LL �J Z a � r � G �� Vy p u� � y 0° a Q gU �o� Logged BY SER a ' Sampled By SER � 7 59i6' 98.7 17.2 SP 30': Brown, wet, very dense SAND 1205 , ' 35 8 56/12' gp @ 35': Light brown, wet, very dense SAND 1200 ' , � 9 50/6' �y�,g 11,6 CL @ 40': Dark brown, wet, very dense, sandy CLAY 1195 � ' 45 70 64/6" gp @ 45': Red-brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded SAND 1190 � ' S0 � No siis' gp @ 50': Same as above 1185 - Recovery ' Boring Terminated at 51.5' Groundwater Encountered at 23' ' S5 Backfilled 2-12-99 1180 , , � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG IIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-37 Date 2-19-99 Sheet 1 of 3 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig &61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Dmre Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1231' ft. Ref. or Datum — a s � �, z �,o � �� ;�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° i �m �m �o o a o�i m� a��em �j w m u. 0 � ..—+ Z � O a o.., _vj o ui � N °D a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER a , Sampled By SER � 1230 A l IVI 1M (Qall , SP @ 7.5': Light brown, dry to damp, loose SAND; abundant � � 28 119.4 10.7 SM � roots � `------------------------------ OLDER ALLUVIUM IQoall @ 2': Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; , common root hairs, moderately porous 5 2 30 104.6 4.5 SP @ 5': Red-brown, moist, medium dense SAND 1225 ' ' 10 . -------------------------------- 3 32 99.5 9J ML PAUBA FORMATION IQRcI 1220 " @ 10': Brown, damp, medium stiff, sandy SILT , ' 15 4 21 gp @ 15': Red-brown, damp, metiium dense SAND 1215 � , Z � 5 25 110.8 18.1 SP @ 20': Olive-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, silty 1210 SAND � @ 23': Groundwater Encountered ' 25 6 30 100.2 14.9 SP @ 25': Dark brown, wet, dense SAND 1205 ' , 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS OIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS , D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION tNDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-37 Date 2-19-99 Sheet 2 of 3 ' Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRI�LING Type of Rig &61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive WeigM 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1231' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � z �" •� p' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � ' ., .0 ,,, a aA o w � ay m �• m •+ m t p� m m 3 O C r+� e0 � �LL OLL �J Z a �� G a �r Vy p u� � � 00 a Q �� yo� Logged BY SER Q ' Sampled By SER � � Z9 SP 30': Light brown to brown, wet, medium dense SAND 12 ' , 35 8 5a 1 35': B 24.7 12.0 SP @ ecomes dense SAND 1195 , � � 9 37 ML •� ----------------------- 1190 � 40.5': Tan, wet, stiff SILT - - - - - - - ' ' 45 �0 Soia• ML @ 45': Olive to tan, wet, very stift SILT 1185 ' ' ' S0 11 76 ML @ 50': Same as above 1180 , ' S5 �2 50/5' ML @ 55': Same as above 1175 ' , � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 . . . . 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-37 Date 2-19-99 Sheet 3 of 3 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driliing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Ri9 8-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs __ Drop 30 in. , Elevation Top of Hole +/-1231' ft. Ref. or Datum — o � � z �o � m� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � ' � m «' v'� t Of a1 m 3 O C� « C �0 h�- m�i D�i �� Z a °� O�a o� Vy o w � N 00 a Q �� o� Logged By SER a ' Sampled By SER � � 3 50/5" � ML @ 60': Same as above 1170 � 14 50/6' C� @ 63': Olive to brown, wet, very stiff CLAY ' 65 1165 Boring Terminated at 64' ' Groundwater Encountered at 23' Backfilled 2-22-99 ' 70 1160 ' � 75 1155 - , ' g � 1150 ' 1 85 1145 ' , � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSfTY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 . , GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-38 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 1 of 2 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig &61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-1244' ft. Ref. or Datum — o r � „ z �,o ;� �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m ' m m o� o m 3 o c.. �, � a m� �LL �� Z a �� G a 0° ;: VU o u� � y °D a Q �U y� Logged By SER a ' Sampled By SER � A 1 IVI IM IOall � Bag 2 @ 0-4' � 23 93.7 7.7 SM. @ 2': Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, sitty SAND; slightly porous, minor rootlets ' 1240 5 3 33 94.7 1 1.5 SM @ 5': Same as above � , 1235 • • 10 -------------------------------- 4 38 101.9 16.6 ML PAt16A FORMATION fC)nsl @ 10': Tan, damp, dens'e, silty SAND ' 1230 ' 15 5 28 SM @ 15': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND ' 1225 ' 20 6 41 110.7 12.5 SP @ 20': White to light brown, damp, dense SAND ' 122 , @ 24': Groundwater Encountered 25 7 35 gp @ 25': Brown, wet, dense SAND ' 1215 ' 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' • � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-38 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 2 of 2 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRtLLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. ' Elevation Top of Hole +/-124-4' ft. Ref. or Datum — '� GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � c � c .. « m aR �;— � ' «� «� _° � � 30° c° ~'`,� �� ~ mti �ti '°� Z °a °� O a o� V�� o w � � 00 a O �� yo� Logged BY SER a , Sampled By SER ►T 8 50/10" 118.5 14.8 SP 30': Light brown, wet, very dense SAND ' ' 1210 35 9 �an o' gp @ 35'. Same as above 1 1205 ' � 10 50/5" 1p2.g 23,2 Sp @ 40': Same as above ' 1200 ' 45 �i 3a GC @ 45': Olive, wet, dense granitic rock, highly weathered, sheared, Iocai trace of clay, iron-staining present, few preserved leaf pieces approximately .25 to .5" diameter ' 1195 � 50 12 50/5" GC @ 50': Same as above , Boring Terminated at 51.5' Groundwater Encountered 24' 1190 Backfilled 2-22-99 ' S5 ' 1185 � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON . DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANAIYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMfTS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 9 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRlLLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1228' ft. Ref. or Datum — o r � � z „o �" �°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � � � so� m m ;o c,.. „� �o � m�i ��i �� Z °. °� 0° •o� �?y o ur � y °D a Q �� o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � ALLLIVIUM IQaUQ -1 � � 25 99.7 7.6 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, medium dense, sitty SAND; 1225 moderately porous, common rootlets � 5 Z 3� 97.8 8.6 SM @ 5': Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND; sli htl orous 9 YP minor root hairs ' � 1220 ' 1 3 23 95.4 13.0 SM @ 10': Light brown to brown, damp, medium dense, sitty SAND; slightly porous � 1215 ' 15 a i2 gM @ 15': Same as above � ML PAUBA FORMATION IQo 1 — @ 15.5': Brown to tan, damp, medium stiff, sandy SILT ' 1210 � 20 5 Z� 108.6 14.1 SM @ 20': Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND , 1205 � 25 6 t7 ML @ 25': Olive to brown, damp, medium stiff, sandy SILT � 120 @ 28': Groundwater Encountered � � 30 � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON _ DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � • � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOC B-39 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +l-1228' ft. Ref. or Datum — � o„ s „ � �, z „o � �°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � « w r o m ;o c.� �� o � mti �ti �� Z ° °� °� C a o« VU1 0 u� � N O° a Q � �o� Logged BY SER a Sampled By SER � � 7 44 109.5 20.8 SP 30': Li ht brown w @ g , et, dense SAND � 1195 � 35 8 � SC @ 35': Light brown, wet, dense SAND with pockets of olive clay � 1190 Boring Terminated at 36.5' � Groundwater Encountered at 28' � Backfilled 2-22-99 � 1185 � 45 � 1180 � 50 � 1175 � 55 ` 1170 '� 60 SAMPLE NPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON . DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE � T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/Tn LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � ' ! GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-40 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 1 of 1 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1235' ft. Ref. or Datum — � , «� «M s � z � o � �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � m m a> o m 3 o c.a „ C �� OLL W J Z a o� m v .o m t�y �.. O a .., o w � � °D a � � o �� Logged By SER a � � O � Sampled By SER � TOPS�IL -,� A w > >5 91.6 10.3 SM @ 2': Brown to tan, damp, medium dense, silty SAND; moderately porous, common rootlets -.•�, 1230 5 2 t8 84.5 9.7 SM ------R ------------------------- AU A MATION IQ�19hlv WeA*hPrPd @ 5': Brown, dry to damp, medium dense, silty SAND, , slightly porous, common root hairs; carbonate line � fractures .- -, � 1225 10 - -------------------------------- 3 50/3" $$,2 17.0 SM PAUBA FORMATION (nn.el @ 10': Brown to olive, dry to damp, very dense, silty SAND; carbonate line fractures '. � �' 1220 15 4 50/5" ML @ 15': Olive, damp, very stiff SILT . �. � 1215 20 5 83/9" 86.9 20.6 ML @ 20': Same as above ; �� 1210 25 6 64 M� @ 25': Same as above (dry to damp) � Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-22-99 � 1205 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON . DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANAIYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDIX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . , . �" GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-41 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 1 of 2 �' Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1211' ft. Ref. or Datum — � � � , o s � � � z „o � m°, ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m �, :: m .. m r o, a► m ; o c 3 � �o f- �m mm �° o a o pa °� V o m � p � �� Z � o _vi " � � °D �' �' � o y� Logged By SER o, W y a � v Sampled By SER � � . 1210 ALI LIVIIIM IOa�/Qcl � `�� 1 38 105.2 3.1 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, dense, silty SAND; minor rootlets, . minor gravel up to .5", slightly porous � 5 2 34 101.8 4.4 SM @ 5': Light brown, damp to moist, dense, silt SAND; Y 1205 non-porous �, � 10 3 40 105.5 2.6 SP @ 10': Light brown, damp, dense SAND 1200 � � �' 15 4 20 g(y� @ 15': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND; minor 1195 roots up to 1" � . ,� 20 5 37 101.3 1.9 SP PAU6A FORMATION IOosl 1190 @ 20': Light brown to gray-brown, dry, dense SAND; very friable � ,� 25 6 t9 gp @ 25': Same as above � 1185 � � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , OS OIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDIX SOSA(11/T� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � • � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-41 Date 2-22-gg Sheet 2 of 2 �� Project RORIPAUGH RANCH � Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1211' ft. Ref. or Datum — o '' ae w � o t � � z �, o� m ;�; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � :.m .rm ro m m 3o c� �� o mu�. ��i � Z a ° � C a •o« Vy o u� � N ° �a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � � 4� 1 14.1 15.2 SP 30': Gray-brown, dense, wet SAND 1180 � @ 33': Groundwater Encountered � 35 8 27 Sp @ 35': Brown, medium dense, wet SAND 1175 � Boring Terminated at 36.5' � Groundwater Encountered at 33' � Backfilled 2-22-99 1170 � � 45 1165 � �, 50 1160 � � 55 1155 � �� 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS , D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTEHBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(Il/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORINC; LOG B-42 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 1 of 1 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Driv� Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1195' ft. Ref. or Datum — a � ° -- ' m� �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° � o � L � � � � � � ?~ p � � m m � m m 3 «s >m mm �° o a o u ° . m� a C�V F- _ �� y ` J Z ` C a �e, v(A o W � � °D a Q �� y� Logged By SER g � Sampled By SER � ALLUVIUM (Qall Bag 2 �' @ 0-4' 1 19 115.8 9.8 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, clayey SAND; highly porous, common rootlets ' 1190 5 3 t6 107.5 7.2 SP @ 5': Brown, dam to moist, medium dense SAND P ' , 1185 10 4 t8 105.2 7.1 SP @ 10': Light brown, damp, medium dense SAND � ` 1180 15 5 26 gp @ 15': Brown, moist, medium dense SAND; trace clay � PAUBA FORMATION IQosl � 1175 20 g a0 110.9 2.2 SP @ 20': Light red-brown, moist, dense SAND to silty SAND ,� � 1170 25 � 36 M� @ 25': Olive, moist, stiff SILT � Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-22-99 � 1165 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-43 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1207' ft. Ref. or Datum — '�, o�, r „ � �, z �o � �°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTiON � � m « m r� m m 3 o c,,,,, �+� �o � mti ��i m� Z a a� ��a •a« V� o ui � y °D a o g� �o� Logged By SER a Sampled By SER t-' �� Al l UVIl1M (�al/Q .1 1205 i 3Z �, 96.9 4.0 SM @ 2': Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND; highly porous, abundant rootlets ,� 5 Z 44 103.3 2.3 SP @ 5': Brown, damp, dense SAND 1200 - � ', 10 3 23 106.1 3.3 SP @ 10': Light brown, dry to dam , medium dense SAND P 1195 � �� 15 4 22 gp @ 15': Same as above ,� 1190 -------------------------------- PAUBA FORMATION IQocl �- 20 5 64 Sp @ 20': Red-brown, moist, very dense SAND � 1185 � 25 6 si M� @ 25': Olive, damp, hard, sandy SILT � 1180 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES. TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON . DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULPATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES �. • � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-43 Date 2-22-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 _ Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1207' ft. Ref. or Datum — o s z �o � �°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � � �• m «+ m t Q� m m 3 O C,� r� �0 F mLL OLL �J Z a �� 0 C �w UVj p u� � N 0° a Q �U �o� Logged By SER a � � Sampled By SER � 7 80/t t' SP @ 30': White, damp, very dense SAND � 1175 � 35 . s 8i gp @ 35': Same as above � 1170 � � 9 50i5' gp @ 40': White to li ht brown, dam ve dense SAND 9 P, rY � 1165 Boring Terminated at 41' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-23-99 45 � 1160 • ' S0 � 1155 � 55 � 1150 � 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS � B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPIE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDD( SOSA(Il/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B- 44 Date 2-23-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter g in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1334' ft. Ref. or Datum — ` s � z �,o � �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � r � t+� �+� LO m m 30 C rC �p F� m� p� � Z c' o� p a o p �?y ° w � � °D a Q gU �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � �; PAUEA F�RMATION (Qp,cl � _ Bag 3 i 90/1 t' 104.3 8.4 SM @ 2': Brown to tan, damp, very dense, sitty SAND; slightly �@ 2-5' porous, minor root hairs � 1330 5 Z 8$/>>" 103.4 7.3 SM @ 5': Tan, damp, very dense, silty SAND; non-porous � 1325 ,� 10 4 59 1 12.3 6.8 SP @ 10': Red-brown, moist, very dense SAND; trace clay � � Bag 5 @ 1320 - � 12-t 6' ! 15 6 37 SM @ 15': Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND � 1315 ' 20 � 58 105.4 5.7 SP @ 20': White to fight brown, damp, very dense SAND � 1310 � 25 S 50 ►y�� @ 25': Olive, damp, very stiff SILT � 1305 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES. TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS � B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INOEX SOSA(II/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . . . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-44 Date 2-23-99 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs __ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1334' ft. Ref. or Datum — c c .. « m � �'. � o � r« � �, z �, � � �,�, GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � � « rv, o m 3o c,� w« � E- �� Q� �J Z a o ` m� o m V� w C a ,,, o u� � N °0 a Q �U �o� Logged By SER � � a � Sampled By SER E- 9 86/11' SP @ 30': White to olive-brown, damp, very dense SAND � 1300 � 35 �0 52 35': White o li h w SP @ t g t bro n, damp, very dense SAND � 1Z95 � � ti ss gp @ 40': White, damp, very dense SAND � 1290 - � 45 . t2 23 C� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - @ 45.2': Olive, damp, medium stiff, silty CLAY � 1285 � 50 13 50/5' (y�� @ 50': Olive, damp, very dense, SILT � BoringTerminated at 51' 1280 No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-23-99 55 � 1275 � 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D R�NG SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX _ SOSA(Il/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � , • � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-45 Date 2-23-99 Sheet 1 of 1 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driliing Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1242' ft. Ref. or Datum — o r � � z „o � m°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � «m •�m s� o m ;o c �� a �LL �LL �� Z a �� C a o,° V�Uj' °` 0 u� � � m a � � o y� Logged By SER a � y � v Sampled By SER a A I IVI IM IQaIlQ 1 � 1 � � ss 109.0 6.0 SM @ 2': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND; moderately porous, common rootlets � 5 Z 24 101.8 5.4 SM @ 5': Light red-brown, slightly damp, medium dense, silty SAND; stightly porous � 1235 � 10 3 28 104.9 7.1 SM @ 10': Tan, damp, medium dense, silty SAND � 1230 � 15 -------------------------------- 4 29 SM PAU6A FORMATION I�Rc! @ 15': Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; slightly porous � 1225 � 20 5 30 107.0 11.4 SM @ 20': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SANO; few laminations � 1220 � 25 6 25 M� @ 25': Tan, moist, medium stiff SILT � 1215 Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-23-99 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VAIUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(I1/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-46 Date 2-23-99 Sheet 1 of 1 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 8-61 4X4 Hole.Diameter 8 in. Drive Weigh4 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1253' ft. Ref. or Datum — > � � � ° p= m� �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � f , r a Z ae A ae � aey ,j � m � m t o� m m 3 o c. M«% �o F- � mu�. �ti wJ Z °� �� p c, o. V� o w � � °0 a o gU io� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � A( I I IVIl1M (QaUQ -) � � 1 6 115.1 11.6 SC @ 2': Dark brown, maist, medium dense, clayey SAND; 1250 minor rootlets � PAUBAF�RMATION(QReI $ 2 � 100.0 28.7 ML @ 5': Olive, moist, very hard, sandy SILT; iron-staining present; carbonate line fractures L 1245 � 10 3 25 107.4 6.2 M @ 10': Li ht brown, moist, medium dense SAND w' S 9 �th pockets of olive silt � 1240 � 15 q 75 SM @ 15': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND � 1235 � 20 5 86/10' 1 15.0 14.4 SM @ 20': Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND � 1230 , 25 6 63 gp @ 25': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense SAND � 1225 Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 2-23-99 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSTf AL ATTERBEpG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX 505A(Il/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-47 Date 2-23-99 Sheet 1 of 1 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRI�LING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1229' ft. Ref. or Datum — �r �r � � z �o » m°� a�/j GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � :•� «� L° m m 3o c� �= m F. mti ��i �o� Z a o� G a ow Vy o w � y 0° a Q gU �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � Al l LIVItiM IQaVQ 1 � � 1 � 121.4 12.0 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, loose, silty SAND; moderately porosity, minor rootlets 1225 � 5 2 Z� 107.8 14.7 SM @ 5': Same as above, medium dense � � 1220 10 3 29 92.6 8.2 SM @ 10': Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; slightly porous � 1215 � 15 . � a ss -------------------------------- ML PAUBA FnRMATION IC�nel @ 15': Olive-brown to olive-tan, damp, hard, sandy SILT; few fractures � 1210 � 20 5 67 80.3 42.9 ML @ 20': Same as above � 1205 � ZS 6 a3 ML . - ------------------------------ SP @ 26': Light brown, damp, dense SAND � Boring Terminated at 26.5' No Groundwater Encountered 1200 Backfilled 2-23-99 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON DS DIHECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � • � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-48 Date 2-2499 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLtNG Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1334' ft. Ref. or Datum — � o r � � z �,o � �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP�ION m ' «� •I � L � � � ;o c � «� � ~ �� oLL J Z a o � p a ,o Uy �.. 0 'w � N 00 a Q �U �o� Logged BY SER a � Sampled By SER � PAU6A FORMATION (�p,el � 1 50/4' 1 10.9 9.5 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND; moderate porosity, common root hairs � 1330 5 2 85 114.9 10.6 SM @ 5': Tan to red brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND; slightly porous � 1325 � 10 3 68 1 15.6 7.2 SM @ 10': Same as above SP @ 11' Red-brown, damp very dense SAND with gravel up � to .75" diameter 1320 � 15 q 16 CL @ 15': Olive, damp, loose to medium stiff, silty CLAY � 1315 • gag 6 @ �� 20 . 18-22' 5 56 106.9 21.4 ML @ 20': Olive-brown, damp, hard, sandy SILT to silty SAND � 1310 � 25 7 56 g�y @ 25': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense SAND � 1305 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY Al ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDIX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � ' � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-48 Date 2-2499 Sheet 2 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig B-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � EJevation Top of Hole +/-1334' ft. Ref. or Datum — � � ° �- ~ m� �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � '+� �� t � � � ;O C � 3 � � ~ m� �� Z a �LL C a ow Vy � 0 w � y O° a Q �U y� Logged By SER a � Sampled By SER � 8 83 1 13.6 3.5 SP @ 30': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND � , 1300 � 35 9 73 ML @ 35': Olive to red-brown, damp, very stiff SILT •.aw � , 1295 � � 10 50/2" ML @ 40': Same as above .. - ------------------------------ SP @ 41': White to brown, damp, very dense SAND � 1290 � 45 ii �Z ML @ 45': Olive to brown, very stiff SILT ' . 1285 � 50 12 50/6" gp @ 50': White to light brown, damp, very dense SAND , Boring Terminated at 51' No Groundwater Encountered 1280 Backfilled 2-24-99 � 55 � 1275 i 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION IN�IX sosA�tlir� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � � � � � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-49 Date 2-2499 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 11990013-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig &61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1207' ft. Ref. or Datum — � o � z �o � m� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m �, :-m �m r m m 3o c� r� �o F- mti ��i i°� Z a �� G a oa Vt � ui � y 0° a Q gU �o� Logged By SER ° s a � Sampled By SER � A(LLIVILIM (CIaI/Qcl � 1205 Bag 2 � 77 1 14.5 7.2 SM @ 2': Dark brown, moist, very dense, silty SAND; moderately @ 1-5' porous, abundant rootlets � 5 3 80 100.5 12.6 @ 5': Same as above• trace of cla min r r SM , y, o oot hairs � 1200 � 10 4 20 109.4 5.8 SP @ 10': Red-brown, damp to moist, medium dense SAND � 1195 � � 15 ----------------- 5 50/6' ML PAUBA FnRMAT10N fOnsl @ 15': Olive to brown, damp, very stiff SILT � 1190 • ' Z � 6 82/��" 95.0 26.9 ML @ 20': Same as above � 1185 � 25 7 82 Syy @ 25': Brown, damp, very dense SAND � 1180 � 30 SAMPLE TYPES. TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULPATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES , . • I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-49 Date 2-24-99 Sheet 2 of 2 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. CAL PAC DRILLING Type of Rig 6-61 4X4 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1207' ft. Ref. or Datum — o �' w � m �— GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION °� .. � o � o., r ., �, Z�, o� .�N m « m •- m r c, m m 3 o c,.. ,� �= �o � m� �� Z a � G � a • o� U�j o ui � y °D � Q �v N� Logged By SER a � Sampled By SER � 8 50/6" 103.7 16.1 ML 30': Brown, damp to moist, very stitf, sandy SILT � 1175 r 35 9 8ais' ML @ 35': Brown to olive, damp to moist, very stiff SILT � 1170 � � 10 50/3" 102.4 8.8 Sp @ 40': Light brown, dry to damp, very dense SAND � 1165 Boring Terminated at 41.5' No Groundwater Encountered � Backfilled 2-24-99 45 1 1160 � 50 � 1155 � 55 � � 1150 � 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANAIYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS � B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-51 Date 4-22-99 . Sheet 1 of 1 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 9900 1 3-00 1 Driliing Co. CAL PAC Type of Rig B-53 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Ibs _ Drop 30 in. , Elevation Top of Hole +/-1305' ft. Ref. or Datum See Geotechnical Map o � „ z �, o;� m �y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � � m m o� m m 3 o c,� ., � � ��i �� Z a o� G a o m C)� ` u� � N O° a o gU �o� Logged BY AXT a ' Sampied By AXT � PAIIBA FnRMATION fQol � � 1300 5 1 78 5': M' SM @ edium brown, moist, dense, sitty, fine to medium SAND with gravel � � 1295 10 � � 1290 15 , , 1285 20 2 50/3" ML @ 20': Medium brown, moist, hard, sandy SILTSTONE; manganese and calcium carbonate visible @ 21 ': Practical refusal, difficult drilling � Total Depth 20.9' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 4-22-99 ' 1280 25 , � 1275 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS , D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � • ` GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 Date 3-1-99 Sheet 1 of 2 � Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Driliing Co. 411-DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow �rop 30 in. Eievation Top of Hole +/-1371' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 33.131V 117 6.13W ' ' o� r „ � � z �o � m� �y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � �� a � a � ~ � � �� ~� � ~ � Q�i �-� z °. °� A a o� Vv� o w � y O0 a Q ��o �o� Logged By RFR/SER a � — Sampled By RFR/SER � SM TOPSOIL 1370 `_ @ 0': Dark brown, dry to damp, silty SAND � _ SC PAl18A FORMATION ((�� — — — — — — — — — ' ' — — @ 1.5': Red-brown, damp, very dense, clayey SAND , 5 '-.� 1365 �' =� gp @ 6': Few local light brown, friable SAND interbeds within , � red-brown, damp, sihy SAND � � 10 —_ ., 7 4 101.7 4.9 1360 � t � = B:HORIZ. _ SP @ 12'6": Light gray, very friable, medium to coarse SAND; , Thick below is medium brown to red-brown, silty sand, _— few light gray, fine sand pods � 15 + 1355 — _. SP @ 16': Grades to light gray, medium dense, very fine SAND , + , � _ B:HORIZ. , 20 __ 2 s 105.4 8.8 �1350 � :. gp @ 21': Very friable SAND; some minor caving � � �— � _ , 25 . ' 1345 — . ' � ' . — gp @ 28'to 30': Gradational contact to light gray, very friable, _ � fine to medium SAND; abundant mica, few gravels I 6 e � 30 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE I S SPLIT SPOOfiI DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPIE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX �OSA(11/7� LEtG�ITON & ASSOCIATES � • � GEOT�CHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 Date 3-1-99 Sheet 2 of 2 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. 411-DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. � Elevation Top of Hole +/-1371' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 33.13N 117 6.13W a � �, z „o � m°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � ' m r m c, o m 3o cw. „_ � >� Q� �� Z a °� � a. � VU o w� � y O° a Q �U �o� Logged By RFR/SER a � — Sampled By RFR/SER � _ � 3 10 110.7 4.9 1 � _ $ W gp @ 31': Grades to light brown, fine to medium SAND; moist, , �, � medium dense to dense few gravels r ��' 1; , 35 — gp @ 34.8': 1" Thick medium gray, very moist, very fine SAND bed, mica bed, pinches and swells, bottom contact is 1335 _— iron-stained to light brown sand as above ' `. ' � 4 15 106.8 8.3 ML @ 40': Sha rp, irregular contact to medium gray, very moist, 133 ��` SILT to very fine sandy silt — gp @ 41': Grades to medium gray to brown-gray, fine to , f = i = medium SAND . � � � 4, --, 1325 • — : ' gp @ 48': Becomes fine to coarse SAND .. . � 50 ._ 5 10 101.5 6.4 1320 — r SP @ 51': Grades back to medium gray to brown, fine to — medium SAND; pods to 55' , Drive Weight: 0-25':25001bs; 26-48':15001bs; 49-66':7501bs � 5 � Total Depth 52' 1315 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 3-1-99 � � 6� SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS , D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMtTS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTOiV & ASSOCIATES � . I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 Date 3-3-99 . Sheet 1 of 1 , Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. 411-DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. , Elevation Top of Hole +/-1380' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 33.26N 117 5.97W � � ° �~ m �- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � o t�, w Z a O a �� N� o ' � � � � � 30 C � "C ~ >� m� �� o a �� C�a °'a' V "' m C Z � mm �e -N ° � � y a Q �U �o� Logged By RFR/SER � ' Sampled By RFR/SER � - - SM — Surface: Red-brown, moist, loose, silty SAND; minor � — T rootlets M/S PAUBA FORMATIDN (QRcI @ 1.5': Tan, dry, medium dense, silty, very fine to fine — . SAND and medium coarse SAND — � @ 3' to 8': Caving ' 1375 5 ' •, . , ^" '. � @ 8': Becomes damp � 1370 10 �. � 2 103.6 4.3 SP @ 10': Light brown to tan, dry to dam , fine to medium - • SAND; friable P ..- @ 10' to 14': Caving , _ _ Bag 2 @ — 12-15' � 1365 15 3 9 94.8 7.6 MUSP @ 15': Tan to brown, damp, sandy SILT and fine to medium SAND ' � 1360 20 a 101.4 5.7 SP @ 20': Brown, damp, fine to medium SAND ' @ 23' to 29': Caving � 1355 25 , Drive Weight: 0-25':25001bs; 26-48':15001bs; 49-66':7501bs � T.D. 29';No Groundwater; Caving at 3'-8', 10'-14', 23'-29'; 1350 30 - ' SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COILAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 • • - ' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG L�-5 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 1 of 3 Pro�ect RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 � Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1405' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.93N 117 5.33W I o„ r „ � � z „o � `� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m .. .- rv, m m 3o c,� «_ � F. m�i �u �..°� Z a °� G�a o� Vy o ' w � y 00 a Q gU �o� Logged By RFR/SER a, Sampled By RFR/SER A � I --; SM 4": Grades to red-brown, damp, dense, clayey SAND SC � �- � �. , . @ 3': Becomes less clayey 1400 5 ' . ' " Bag 1 Sp @ 6': Graded to red-brown, brown, dense, fine to medium • @ 5-8' SAND , . . @ 9': Becomes locally friable 1395 1 _. 2 i 6 120.8 7.9 SP � �. . _ . r � j ' __ ��-� @ 12.7': Irregular, cemented, clayey sand seam �1/2" thick) r�_,;',i,J @ Below: Medium, dark red-brown, very dense, fine to ' medium SAND 1390 15 ,��'� / @ 14': Sharp contact to medium gray, fine SAND; Vertical • , ' ` ; � l� � Fracture: iron-stained, no shears , I �_ � N � @ 16.3': Sharp contact to medium red-brown to light brown, • ^= ��y� a SM moist, medium dense, medium grained SAND @ 16.10': Grades to red-brown, slightly clayey, silty SAND .- 90 , SP @ 17.6': Becomes clayey, coarse SAND ' _ @ 19': Grades to silty, fine to medium SAND; moist to very 1385 20 moist . 3 5 102.3 6.4 � -: - @ 21': West wall, irregular interbed light brown, fine to coarse SAND (pinches out on south wall at 22.5') •- - @ 22.4': Sharp contact to medium grained, medium dense, ' _: _ very moist, fine SAND 1380 25 — ' _: :_ `^ �/ SM @ 26': Grades to red-brown, fine to medium sifty SAND — Ii � iv �: SP @ 27': 4" Thick, medium gray, fine SAND bed • • Below: interbed, red-brown, fine to medium SAND and - _ �b � � medium gray, fine SAND , - • 1375 30 � ' SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPIE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE ' SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX ' SOSA(11/T� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES , . ' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 2 of 3 Pro�ect RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 ' Driliing Co. 411 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1405' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.93N 117 5.33W I . o� � � � z �,o � �� y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � •.m o c, m m 3o c... � H. mLL �� Z a �` C a •o« Vy o ' u� � y O0 a Q gU �o� Logged By RFR/SER o, Sampled By RFR/SER � � _-- a �0 102.3 5.1 gp @ 31': Bedding is horizontal ' .` ; . ,: @ 34': Grades to medium gray to red-brown, moist, medium 1370 35 dense, fine to coarse SAND ' _• � � C: TI�:S'LJ @ 37': Few granitic gravels ' �•, ^ �S gM @ 37.9': Contact to medium gray, dense, silty, fine SAND; massive to very dense 1365 _�. 5 � 8 120.3 10.8 , � ,. 44': Becomes friable v lean fin SP @ , ery c , e SAND 1360 45 • • � _ Bag 6@ @ 46': Becomes less friable 45-48' , _ . , y� ' _ f, :_,� j ' SP/ML @ 48': Few medium brown, clayey, silt interbeds (variable: • — 8" to 1 /2" thick) � 3 S SM Below: Gray-brown, dense, moist, silty, fine SAND; massive 1355 50 .' � t 3 101.3 10.4 , • � ' _� . 1350 55 � - SC @ 55': Grades to gray-brown, very stiff, clayey, fine SAND, � � very moist ,� � @ 57': Becomes less clayey ' .-. . SM @ 58': Grades to brown-gray, dense, silty, fine SAND 1345 60 � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIM(TS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE � SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX I SoSArll�r� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � . ' GEO°rECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 3 of 3 Projeci RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER , Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1405' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.93N 117 5.33W I o�, r � � � z �o � m� �y GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° od cm n.o « m 3 �i mv �� `° f' m �� Z o °. °� G a •a� Vy o ' w � y °D a o �U �o� Logged By RFR/SER a Sampled By RFR/SER � � _!� e io 96.s 10.8 �, SM @ 61': Grades to medium gray, silty fine SAND , , — ' , 1 SP @ 63': Sharp contact; grades to light gray, medium dense, fine to medium grained SAND; very friable 1340 65 �• — _ � ' \_ , , \_� . �.r ML @ 69': Sharp contact to olive-gray, clayey SILT with 1335 70 carbonates = 9 7 87.1 22.7 ' � Total Depth 71' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 3-5-99 1330 75 Drive Weight: 0-25':25001bs; 26-48':15001bs; 49-66':7501bs , ' 1325 80 � ' � 1320 85 � ' 1315 90 � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE � SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX ' So5Arl1i� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 . , GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 1 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 , Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1329' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.50N 117 5.37W � o�, r � � �, z �,o ' m°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m .. m « m .c � m m 3 o c,� �•- �o F.- � Q�i �� Z a o� C�a o« Vt/) o ' w � y 0° a Q gU Noj Logged By RFR/SER a > Sampled By RFR/SER � � � SM TOPS�IL @ Surface: Red-brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty • fine to coarse SAND; minor rootlets , ' @ 4": No roots, non-porous, massive ' �• , 1325 - @ 4': Becomes dense 5 � � �. � 1320 — -` 10 � � , • @ 10': Becomes very dense _ ', , ` I 1315 ' C�� ,_ SM @ 14': Sharp contact, olive-gray, silty, very fine SAND 15 • .. C:;Y:_' � 7 a gp @ 15.8': Sharp contact to brown-gray, dry, medium dense, � _� fine to medium SAND , � 4 99.9 13.7 SM @ 17': Contact to silty, fine SAND, as above ' 1310 - %, V SP @ 19': 1" Thick, fine to coarse sand bed; parallels contact 20 above ' `. SM @ 21': Contact to medium brown, damp, medium dense, - silty, fine SAND ' 1305 ' � �-- Sp @ 24': Grades to medium gray, very dense SAND 2S ` � _' '. SM @ 25.2': Contact to red-brown, damp, dense, silty, fine SAND • �. gp @ 27': Grades to medium gray SAND ' \ - SM @ 28': Grades to red-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine SAND 1300 30 � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON , DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE . CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INOEX I SoSArll�r� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 2 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 , Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1329' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.50N 117 5.37W , .o� r � � � z �,o � �°� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m «. « r m m 3 o e� �� m �. mti �ti W� Z a °� Ca •a� Vy o ' u� � � °D a Q gU �o� Logged By RFR/SER a Sampled By RFR/SER � a --_ _ ' gP @ 32': Grades to damp, dense, fine to medium SAND; ' ` slightly friable 1295 _ @ 34': Becomes coarse SAND 35 • SM C� 34.5': Red-brown, very dense, damp to moist, silty, fine , SAND ' � I 1290 , , � `r 2 9 118.5 8.4 1 . , 1285 _ � . . @ 44'. Grades to medium red-brown, medium dense, silty, 45 ' , fine to medium SAND; slightly friable , , , Bag3@ . 45-48' , ` � 1280 � y G l ` .,�,r y ; t @ 49': Sharp contact to dark red-brown, very dense, silty, 50 ' fine to medium SAND • • a 18 106.4 8.4 � � �- ` @ 52': Grades to medium red-brown, silty, fine SAND ' 4 1275 �. 55 � - ' ' ,� � � _ � ? 5 21 120.0 10.8 1270 � � @ 59': Grades to dark, red-brown, very dense, silty, fine � '� SAND � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLR SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPIE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX I SoSAr�l�r� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES � ' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 3 of 3 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 ' Drilling Co. 41 1 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1329' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.50N 117 5.37W I o�, ��, � � z �,o � �� ; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ° 0) O m 3 `�' r H �m m� �J O a �r. GG �m U� O ' W u' p LL � Z � m ` O� —N y Q � yo� Logged By RFR/SER a Sampled By RFR/SER ►� ' -•, • Bag 6@ gp @ 61': Few medium gray, medium dense SAND; pods 60-63' �_�' 2/ SM @ SAND �ntact to olive-gray, very dense, sihy, very fine ' • ' . � G' Nc'�F 1265 3 1 S ,�: gp @ 64': Grades to red-brown, dense, fine to medium SAND 65 . SM @ 64.5': Grades to gray to olive-gray, dense to very dense, ' .. ,. • � sitty, fine SAND . ` °� M� @ 65.8': Sharp contact to olive-gray to medium gray, hard —'-_�— : J�1a'��: SlLT � ' Sc s , _ SM @ 68': Grades to silty, fine SAND 1260 70 �'. � 2a 106.7 13.7 � � Total Depth 71' 1255 No Groundwater Encountered No Caving 75 Backfilled 3-5-99 Drive Weight: 0-25':25001bs; 26-48':15001bs; 49-66':7501bs , ' 1250 80 , ' 1245 85 ' ' 1240 90 , SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE � SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX , SOSA(11/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' . . . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 1 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 ' Drilling Co. 41 1 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1267' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.53N 117 5.32W , � .. � o z �, o� m� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m � :.m «m s� m m 3o c,� �_ �o F ro� 0� � Z a �• G � a c �y � � u� � y °D a Q �U �o� Logged By RFR/SER a, Sampled By RFR/SER � � . , SM TOPSOI /CO I Ilvl 1M @ Surface: Dark red-brown, moist, loose to medium dense, . silty SAND 1265 • ' _. SC @ 4': Becomes clayey sand 5 -- 1 _- 1260 �� -------------------------------- - . SM PAUBA FORMATION ' �, @ 7': Grades to red-brown, very moist, silty, fine to medium SAND, thinly laminated, medium dense @ 8': Becomes dense 10 1 10 1 14.7 1 1.2 ' 1255 @ 12': Few gravels ' Bag2@ 12-1 5' 15 Sp @ 15': Gredes to very dense, fine to medium SAND; thinly ' laminated with crossbeds 1250 1 ��s 3�;Y�b� 20 � • �,0 5 -, SM @ 20': Grades to very dense, damp to moist, silty, fine to ' � C S%,y3ir medium SAND ��S CL @ 20.10': 3/4" Plastic, soft to firm, clay seam, continuous 1245 SP ground hole _� ;,S.�PJSs� 3 5 111.0 11.8 CL Below: Medium gray, dense, fine SAND _, 6 SE @ 22': Clay seam, 1/2" thick, slightly sheared. � " ' ,.- gp Below: Medium to dark gray, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND ML @ 24': Grades to medium gray, hard, SILTSTONE; few 25 •-� - vertical to near vertical random shears Bag 4 @ ' � � �` 24-27' 1240 � - �� ._ � �= • @ 28': Medium gray, soft, clayey, SILT bed, 2" thick, pinches out on north and south wall Below: Light gray, hard to very hard, locally cemented SILT 30 y (possible ash bedl , SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSfTY AL ATTERBERG UMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE ' SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX ' SOSA(II/7� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ' . � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG L�-7 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1990013-001 � Drilling Co. 411 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1267' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.53N 117 5.32W � o�, r „ � �, z �o � �� py GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION m �" m "� t Qf a1 m 3 O C,� �„ IB F� �y„ Q� �J Z a o ` G a �Q��„ VVj O � w � N °D a Q �� N� Logged By RFR/SER a Sampled By RFR/SER � � ' SM @ 30': Grades to medium gray, silty, very fine SAND 1235 SP @ 31.5': Grades to medium to fine SAND _. @ 32': Becomes very dense SAND � � i � �. 3y �: �� M� @ 34': Sharp contact: slightly irregulat, to medium to 35 -- dark red-brown, very hard, sandy SILTSTONE � T 6 � 1230 '� .,� � ., ' SM @ 38': Grades to medium brown, dense, silty, fine SAND 40 , . � —; Bag 5 @ 1225 40-43' @ 41.6': Contact to medium gray, dense, silty, fine SAND � �. gp @ 43': Grades to dense, fine to medium SAND 45 ��, � ',• H6 , 6 t2 101.6 21.2 @ SANDecomes slightly friable, grades to medium grained •. �; �� @ 46': Sharp contact to medium brown, dense, fine SAND 1220 },,, �� S ML @ 47': Grades to medium brown, very hard, clayey - , SILTSTONE � __ ' SM @ 48': Grades to medium gray, silty, very fine SAND Logged to 49' 50 -. , . � 1215 Total Depth 50' No Groundwater Encountered � No Caving Backfilled 3-5-99 Drive Weight: 0-25':25001bs; 26-48':15001bs; 49-66':750Ibs 55 � 1210 � 60 SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE � S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RtNG SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBfRG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE � SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION INDEX � SoSArll�r� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 1 . � � ��' � �� • . � �� r � � � �I� i� � , ��BLL i �conlinued) LOG OI�' 7'I;ST PITS Project No. 11990013-001 LOGGED I3Y: SER CLCINT: Roripaugh Ranch DATE: 3-24-99 SAMI'LE DRY TEST DCPTH TYPE llENSITY MOIST U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION � PI7'# (rT) C B & DEI'TII (PCF) �%� 0-2' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: llark brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets, highly porous 2-6' SM ��'own, damp, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; minor root hairs, T-40 slightly porous 6-8' SM/SP Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND und fine to coarse SAND; non-porous T.D: 8', No Groundwater, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-24-99 0-2' SP Alluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose, fine to coarse SAND; minor roots 2-6' SM Dark brown, very moist, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND with local trace clay T-41 6-7.5' SC Becomes clayey SAND 7.5-IU' SC Pauba Formation: Red-tan, very moist, medium dense to dense, clayey SAND 10-14' SM Becomes silty, fine to coarse SAND T.D.: 14'; No Groundwater Encountered; No Cavin ; Backfilled 3-24-99 0-2' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Ligf�t brown to brown, damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; common rootlets, highly porous ; 2-6.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly porous, ,I,-42 common root hairs 6.5-T SP/ML Pauba Formation: Red, moist, very dense, medium to coarse SAND with interbeds of olive SILT T.D.: 7'; No Groundwater Encountered, IVo Cavin , Back�lled 3-24-99 � � � � �- � � � �� ' � �� ` � � . 7'ABLE 1 (continued) LOC OF'CLST PITS Project No. 11990013-001 LOGGED I3Y: SER CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch DATE: 3-25-99 SAMNLE DRY TEST DEPTH TYPE DENS17'Y MOIST U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION PIT# (FT) C B & DEPTH (PCr) �%� 0-4' SM/SP Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty SAND and fine to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets, porous 4-6' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND; minor root hairs T-43 • 6-10' SM Puuba Formation: Red-tan, very moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 10-13' ML Brown to olive, moist, stiff, sandy SILT • T.D: 13', No Groundwater, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 0-2' SP Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, damp, loose, fine to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets 2-4' SM Tan to brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; T-44 common root hairs, highly porous 4-7' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, silty, fine to coarse SAND, becoming very dense at depth, upper 1' slightly weathered T.D.: 7', No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Qackfilled 3-25-99 0-2' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets , 2-4' SM Dark brown to black, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; t�igtily organic, abundant T-45 rootlets, strong organic odor 4-7 SM/ML Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, very dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND and sandy SILT T.D.: 7', No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 � � �` �� '' � � I� �. �,. .� �� TAaLr i ��o��tenUea� Loc oF ��cs Pl �rs Project No. 11990013-001 LOGGED BY: SER CLClNT: Roripaugh Ranch DATC: 3-25-99 SAMPLE DRY TEST DCPTH MOIST PIT# (FT) TYPE DENSITY �%� U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C B & DEPTI� (PCF) 0-1' SM Alluviun�/Colluvium: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty SAND; abundant roots, highly porous 1-4' SM � Dark brown, moist, medium dense, siity, fine to medium SAND; porous, common T-46 root hairs 4-6' ML Pauba Formation: Olive, damp, hard, sandy S(LT T.D.: 6', No Groundwater, IVo Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 0-2.5' SM/SP Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, damp, loose, silty SAND with pockets (8" in diameter oF light brown, medium to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets 2.5-6' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; common root T-47 hairs, slightly to moderately porous 6-8' SM/ML f'auba Formation: Olive-tan, moist, stiff, sandy SILT and silty, very fine SAND T.D.: 8'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown to dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty, 0-5.5' fine to coarse SAND, porous, common rootlets T � g SP Pauba Formation: Red-brown, moist, dense, fine to coarse SAND 5.5- • 10.5' T.D.: l0.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , dackfilled 3-25-99 0-4' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: I3rown to dark brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, silty, very fine to coarse, SAND; porous, common rootlets/root hairs T �� 4-8' SM Yauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND T.D.: 8'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , I3ackfilled 3-25-99 �> �, � �• fi��i � � � �!: 1� �. �'i �� '1 '� � TABLC 1 (continued) LO(. OI� TLST I'ITS Projcct No. 11990013-001 LOGGEU BY: SER CLCINT: Roripaugh Ranch DA1'C: 3-25-99 SAMPLI; URY TEST UCPTH MOIS'I' PIT# (FT) TYPE UCNSITY �%� U.S.C.S. DESCRIP'I'ION C, Q & DEYTII (PC�) �-1.5' SM Alluviurn/Colluviwn: Light brown to brown, damp, loose, silty SAND; abundant roots/rootlets 1.5-4.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous, T-50 common root hairs 4.5-6' SM Red-tan. to brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND T.D.: 6'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 0-2' SM/SP Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND with pockets of light brown, medium to coarse SAND (up to 6" in diameter), porous 2-6.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; moderately porous, common root T-51 hairs 6.5-10' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND T.D.: IU'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 0-1.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; higi�ly porous, abundant roots 1.5-5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; common root I�airs, moderately porous : T-52 5-9' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 9-10' SP Red-tan, moist, dense, medium to coarse SANU T.D.: 10'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 � � � � �. � �/� � � � � � �� , t� '� �- � � 1'A13LC 1 (continued) LOG O[�' 7'EST PITS Project No. 11990013-001 LOGGED QY: SER CLEINT: Roripaugh Itanch DATE: 3-25-99 SAMPLC TEST DEPTFI Y MOIST � PI'C# (�'T) TYPE llCNSITY �%� U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C 13 & DEPTI-I (PCI�) 0-1.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty SAND; highly porous 1.5-5' SM llark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; porous T-53 5-9.5' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAIVD T.D.: 9.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 0-2' SM/SP Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND, porous, and medium to coarse SAND; abundant rootlets 2-5' . SM Dark brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; porous, common root hairs T-54 � 5-8' , SM Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND T.D.: 8'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Caving, Backf Iled 3-25-99 0-4.5' SP/SM Alluvium: Light brown, damp, loose, fine to coarse SAND and silty SAND; abundant roots, porous 4.5-8' SM Brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; T-55 common root hairs, porous 8-12.5' SM/SP Ited-tan, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND and medium to coarse SAND T.D.: 12.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , I3ackfilled 3-25-99 �' � � �; � �' �� TA13L� 1 (continued) I.OG Or TEST PITS Project No. 1 1 9900 1 3-OOl LOGGED I3Y: SER CLCINT: . Roripaugh Ranch DATE: 3-25-99 SAMPLE DRY TEST DEPTH TYPE DENSITY MOIST U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION PIT# (rT) C, B & DEPTH (PCF) �%� 0-5' SM/SP Alluvium: Light brown to dark brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND witl� pockets of inedium to coarse SAND (up to 6" in diameter) highly porous, abundant rootlets T-56 5-7' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly • weathered T.D.: 7'; No Groundwater, Sli ht Cavin @ 0-2', Backfilled 3-25-99 0-1' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous, abundant roots/rootlets � 1-7' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND; moderately porous, common root hairs, becomes non-porous at —5' T-57 7-10' ' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine [o coarse SAND 10-11' ML Olive, very dense SILTSTONE; common calcium carbonate linings T.D.: I 1'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; 0-1.5' highly porous, abundant roots SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly porous, 1.5-3' common root hairs , T-58 SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 3-9.5' ML Olive, very dense SILTSTONE 9.5-10.5' T.D.: 10.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , f3ackfilled 3-25-99 � � ,� � � � � � �. � � � �' � ` � � �� TAI3L[? 1 (continued) 1.OG Or 'I'CS'I' YI'1'5 Project No. 11990013-001 LOGGED I3Y: SER CLCINT: Roripaugh Ranch UATE: 3-25-99 TEST DEI'TH SAMPLG DRY MOIST PI'I'# (FT) TYPE DENSITY � U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION C I3 & DEPTH (PCF) 0-2' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; abundant roots, (�ighly porous 2-4.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly T-59 porous, common root hairs 4.5-6.5' SM/SP Pau6a Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND and medium to coarse SAND; becomes very dense at 6' � T.D.: 6.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 0-1.5' SM Alluvium/Col(uvium: Light brown to brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous 1.5-3.5' SM Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium, slightly porous, common root hairs T-60 3.5-6' SM . Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 6-9' Bag @ 6-8' SM/ML Olive, damp, dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND and sandy SILT T.D.: 9'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backf711ed 3-25-99 0-1.5' SC Pauba Formation: Dark red-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND; common rootlets 1.5-4' SM Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; minor root hairs , T-6l 4-6' SM Olive, damp, dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND 6-9.5' SM Ulive to light brown, damp, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 9.5-l0' ML Olive, very dense SILTSTONE T.D.: 1.0'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-25-99 �' � '�� ' � �' � �� '� � 'I'AQLC 1 (continued) LOC Ur 'I'CS1' PITS Project No. 11990013-001 LOGGEU I3Y: SER CLEIN'I: Roripaugh Ranch DATC: 3-29-99 TCST DEPTfI SAMPLI; DRY MOIST PIT# (FT) TYPE DCNSI7'Y �%� U.S.GS. llESCRIPTION C, I3 & DEPTH (PCF SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, damp, loose, silty SAND; highly 0-2' porous, abundant roots SM Grades to dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; porous, 2-5.5' common root hairs T-62 ' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND 5.5-10' SP Ligf�t brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse SAND 10-12.5 ' T.D.: 12.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, IVo Cavin , I3ackfilled 3-29-99 0-2.5' SM Undocumented Fill: Brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND 2.5-9.5' SP Alluvium: Light brown to brown, moist to very moist, loose, fine to coarse SAND; minor roots T-63 9.5-15.5' SP/SM Pauba Formation: Red-brown, very moist to wet, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND and silty, fine to medium SAND; highly weathered T.D.: I5.5'; No Groundwater, Sli ht Cavin 0-4', Backfilled 3-29-99 0-3' SP Alluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, very loose, fine to coarse SAND 3-9' SM Brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse SAND with interbeds of 4- 6" of dark brown, silty, very fine to medium SAND , T-64 9-I 1' SP Pauba Formation: Red-tan, very moist, medium dense to dense, fine to coarse SAND; weatf�ered ! 1-13' SC Becomes clayey SAND T.D.: 13'; No Groundwater Encountered, Cavin 0-G, I3ackfilled 3-29-9� � GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7 Date 3-5-99 Sheet 2 of 2 Project RORIPAUGH RANCH Project No. 1 1 99001 3-001 � Driiling Co. 411 DRILL Type of Rig BUCKET AUGER Hole Diameter 30 in. Drive Weight seebelow Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-1267' ft. Ref. or Datum GPS: 33 32.53N 117 5.32W � o„ �„ � � z �, o� m� ��; GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION � m o � m o ; � �w .. � ��i �LL W� Z a °� � a •o m Vy o '� ui � � 00 a Q g� �o� Logged By RFR/SER a Sampled By RFR/SER � SM 30': Grades to medium gray, silty, very fine SAND 1235 SP @ 31.5': Grades to medium to fine SAND @ 32': Becomes very dense SAND � ML @ 34': Sharp contact: slightly irregulatory? to medium to �, 35 dark red-brown, very hard, sandy SILTSTONE 1230 � SM @ 38': Grades to medium brown, dense, silty, tine SAND 40 � Bag5@ 1225 40-43' @ 41.6': Contact to medium gray, dense, silty, fine SAND � gp @ 43': Grades to dense, fine to medium SAND 45 g t2 101.6 21.2 @ 45': Becomes slightly friable, grades to medium grained i SAND @ 46': Sharp contact to medium brown, dense, fine SAND 1220 ML @ 47': Grades to medium brown, very hard, clayey � SILTSTONE SM @ 48': Grades to medium gray, silty, very fine SAND Logged to 49' 50 � 1215 Total Depth 50' No Groundwater Encountered � No Caving Backfilled 3-5-99 Drive Weight: 0-25':25001bs; 26-48':15001bs; 49-66':7501bs 55 � 1210 ,� - 60 � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE S SPLIT SPOON DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS D RING SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMRS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION RV R VALUE T TUBE SAMPLE � SU SULFATE EI EXPANSION �NDEX �, SoSArl��r� LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ,� � � � � � � � � � � '� � � �� i �►[3LL i �cont�nued) LOG OF TCST PITS Project No. 11990013-001 LOGGED BY: SER CLCINT: Roripaugh Ranch DATE: 3-29-99 SAMPLC TEST DEPTH TYPE llENSITY MOIST U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION PIT# (�''1�) C I3 & DEPTH (PCF) �%� 0-4' SM '['opsoil: Dark brown, moist, loose, silty SAND; abundant roots 4-I 1' SC Colluvium: Medium olive brown, moist, medium stiff, sandy CLAY T-37 11-14' SM Pauba Formation: Red-brown, moist, dense, silty SAND with trace clay 14-IS' SC Olive, moist, dense, clayey SAND T.D.: 15', No Groundwater, No Cavin , Backfilled 2-26-99 � 0-3.5' SM Topsoil: Dark brown, moist, loose� silty SAND; trace clay, abundant rootlets 3.5-6' SM Pauba Formation: Red-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty SAND; minor T-38 rootlets 6-12' SP Red-brown, damp to moist, dense SAND T.D.: 12', No Groundwater, No Cavin , Backfilled 2-26-99 0-3.5' SM Topsoil: Dark brown, moist, loose, silty SAND; abundant rootlets 3.5-9' SP Pauba Formation: Red-brown, moist, medium dense to dense SAND T-39 9-10' SC Olive, moist, dense, sandy CLAY T.D.: 10', No Groundwater, No Cavin , Backfilled 2-26-99 : �r�t .r�r a� � t� �r � �r �rr �; ��r � � -��t. � �r. �� r +� TAI3LC 1 (continued) LOG OF TLS'f PITS �'roject No. l 1990013-001 LOCGED I3Y: SER CLEIN'I': Roripaugh Ranch DATC: 3-29-99 SAMYI.E llRY TCST DEPTH TYPC DENSITY MOIST U.S.C.S. DESCRIPTION P1T# (FT) C B & DI:NT�i (PCF) �%� 0-4' � SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; abundant roots, moderately porous 4-6' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND T-65 weathered 6-10' SM/ML Becomes dense with interbeds of tan, sandy SILT T.D.: 10': No Groundwater Encountered, No eavin , Backfilled 3-29-99 0-2.5' SM AlluviurrJColluvium: Light brown to brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; abundant roots, highly porous T-66 2.5-5.5' SM/ML Pauba Formation: Red-brown, moist, dense to very dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND with 3" interbeds of dark brown, hard, sandy SILT ' T.D.: 5.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-29-99 U-5' SM Alluviun�/Colluvium: Light brown, damp, loose, silty, �ne to coarse SAND; highly porous, abundant roots 5-6' SM Pauba Formation: Red-brown, moist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; T-67 slightly weathered 6-10' SM/SP Red-tarr, moist, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND with G' interbeds of fine to coarse SAND T.D.: 10'; No Groundwater, Sli ht Cavin 0-2', I3ackfilled 3-29-99 � � � � �� ' � � � � � � TAI3LC 1 (continued) LOG O� 7'CST PI1'S Project No. 11990013-001 LOGCED QY: SER CLEINT: Roripaugh Ranch UATE: 3-29-99 TES1' llEI'TH SAMPLE DRY MOIST PIT# (FT) TYPI; UCNSI'I'Y �%� U.S.C.S. UESCRIPTION C, I3 & DEPTH (PCF) 0-3' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to damp, loose, silty, fine to medium SANU; highly porous, abundant rootlets 3-8.5' SM Pauba Formation: Red-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, fine to coarse T-68 SAND 8.5-10' White-gray, very dense, SANDSTONE T.D.: 10'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , I3acktilled 3-29-99 0-4' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; highly porous, abundant roots T-69 4-S' Bag @ 0-2' SM Pauba Formation: Red-brown, moist, dense, silty, very fine to coarse SAND; common root hairs T.11.: 8'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-29-99 0-4.5' SM Alluvium/Colluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to moist, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; abundant roots, highly porous 4.5-7.5' SM Pauba Formation: Red-brown, very moist, medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; common root hairs T-70 7.5-10' SP Red-tan very moist, dense, fine to coarse SAND : 10-12' ML Dark brown-tan, moist, stiff, sandy SILT T.D.: 12'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-29-99 � � � � � � � � �. � � � � � � � � � � �rAa� 1 (continued) LOG OF TCST PITS Nroject No. 11990013-001 LOGGED QY: SER CLI;INT: Roripaugh Ranch DATE: 3-29-99 SAM{'LL DRY TEST DI:PTH MOIST P[T# (�'T) TYPL UCNSITY �%� U.S.C.S. UESCRIPTION C B & DCPTH (PCF) 0-3' SM Pauba Formation: Red-brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty, flne to coarse SAND; sligl�tly weathered, common roots 3-8' SM Red-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND; non- T-71 porous 8-10' SM Red-tan, damp, very dense, silty, very fine to medium SAND T.D.: lU'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-29-99 0-4' SM Alluvium: Light brown to brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; abundant roots, highly porous T-72 4-7' SM Pauba Formation: Red-tan, damp to moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND; minor rootlets (upper 1.5' is slightly weathered) T.D.: 7'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , I3ackfilled 3-29-99 SM Alluvium/Colluvium: I,ight brown, dry, loose, silty, fine to coarse SAND; 0-1.5' abundant roots, highly porous 1.5-4.5' SM Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; common root hairs, moderately porous T-73 SM Pauba Formation: Dark red-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse �AND; 4.5-6' slightly weathered , 6-8.5' SM/ML Red-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND with interbeds of hard, sandy S ILT T.D.: 8.5'; No Groundwater Encountered, No Cavin , Backfilled 3-29-99 V , � � � , • ; � r � �rr �r ,r� rr r� � � �r �rr � �r �rr �r � �r a� � � 11990p13-0O1 APPENDIX C � (Revised) � Laboratorv Testin� Procedures and Test Results Some of the following test results were performed during our over all study of the Roripaugh Ranch � property. Som,e specific tests may have been performed on samples collected from borings on tc�enches located beyond the limits of the tract, however are representative of the project site soils. � Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample tot he shear box, and reloading the saznple, pore pressures set up in the � sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1-hour prior to application of shearing force. The sar�les were tested under various normal loads, a motor�riven, strain- controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5 mches per minute (depending upon the soil type). The test results are presented in the test data. � Friction Angle APP�nt Sample Location Satnple Description (degrees) Cohesion � (Psfl B-12, 20-21' Dark Brown Silty SAND 34.9 41 � B-12, 40-�1' Brown Silty SAND 37.7 109 B-23, 0-4' Red-Brown Silty SAND 33.1 152 � B�4, 1-5' Brown Silty SAND 32.9 101 B-48, 18-22, Brown SII.T 30.1 102 � LB-6, 40-41' Light Gray to Brown SAND 35.2 160 LB-7, 22-23' Light Brown Poorly Graded SAND 21.2 283 r Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion � Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens aze molded under a given compactive energy to appro�cimately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an � equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: � Compacted Dry Expansio Fxpansion Sample Sample Description Density (pc fl n Index Potential ' Location � B-1, 0�' Reddish Brown Silty SAND 110.9 2 Very Low B-4, 5-9' Brown Silty SAND 107.6 4 Very Low � LFT-1, 4' Brown F'ine to Medium SAND 108.9 19 Very Low � LT-1, 11' Olive Sandy SII.T 87.7 144 Very High � C-1 � � � 1 1990p13-0O1 � Laboratorv Testins Procedures and Test Results continued � Moisture and Densitv Determination Tests: Mois�tune content and dry density determinabons were perfor�ed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the borings and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was � determined for "undisturbed" or "disturbed" samples. Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of rypical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in � the table below: � Sample Location Sample Description M�m� �Y Op��n Moisture Densiry (pcfl Content (°b) B-1, 0-5' Reddish Brown Silty SAND 132.5 8.5 � B-4, 5-9' Reddish Brown Well Crraded 130.5 8.0 SAND � LB-5, 45�8' Light Brown Sandy SII.T 122.0 12.0 LT-1, 5' Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND 134.0 8.5 � ,� R-Value: R-Value of a select samples representing typical site soils was determined in our laboratorv in � accordance with California Standard Test Method 301. The results are presented below. � Sample Location Sample Description R-Value B-4, #3 Brown, silty SAND (QP) 58 � T-24 Brown-olive, silty SAND (QP) 22 � � i � t � � � � C_ 2 . G � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING � • 1.0 General � l.l Intent: These General Earthwork and Crrading Speci.fications 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 recommendations 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 Consuttant during the course of grading may resuli in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). � 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work the ow�er shall employ the Geotechnical Consuhant 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 recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. � Prior to commencemern of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepazed by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. � During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe map, and document the subsurface e�osures to verify the geotechnical design � assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the urterpreted assumptions during the design phase the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed � conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial � removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the � subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequern basis. � 1.3 The Earthw ork Contractor: The Earthwork Convactor (Contractor) sha11 be qualified, � experienced, and Irnowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Cornractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely �. responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. 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 � 3030.1094 , . , . . � � Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 2 of 6 � .. _ work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to ' commencemeat of grading. The Coacractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consuhant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so tbat appropriate observations and tests can be planned and � accomplished. The Cornractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aw of all grading operations. � The Comractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the eazthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geoteehnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical � Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insuf�cient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical � Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. � 2.0 Preqaration of Areas to be Filled � 2.1 Clearine and Grubbins: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the ow�ner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. � The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removaLs depending on specific sife conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic � materials (by volume). No fill li.ft shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the � affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. � As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are 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. � � � 3030.1094 i . � � Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EAR1�iWORK AND GRADIIJG SPECIFICATTONS Page 3 of 6 � .. - 2.2 ProcessinQ: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the � Geotechnical Consuhant shall be scarified to a miiumum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the follo�ing section. Scazification shall continue uIItil soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or � clods and the worlang surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. � 2.3 Over�cavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, sof�, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to � competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during gading. 2.4 BenchinQ: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Ple�se see the Standard Details � for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 1� feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. . Other benches shall be excavated a minunum height of 4 feet into competent material or as � otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. � 2.� Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations � recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical 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 � deternuning elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. � 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essemially free of organic matter and other � deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consu}tant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical � Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible matenal wrth a ma�mum . dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, � materials, and placemeat methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement opera.tions shall be such that nesting of oversized material does 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 finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. � 3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall 3030.1094 � � � Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATTONS Page 4 of 6 � - meet the requiremeats of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the � Geotechnical Consuhaat at least 48 hours (2 worlang days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. � 4.0 Fill Placemern and Compaction � 4.1 Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in azeas prepazed to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thiclrness. The Geotechnical Consultant may ac.cept 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 unifomuty of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moishue Conditionin�: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mi,Yed, � as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture co�ent at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM 7est Method , D15�7-91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and eveniy � spread it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of ma.�imum dr5� density (ASTM Test Method D1»�-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either speci.fically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to � efficiernly achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slones: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, ' compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by baclQ011ing of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of � grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of ma�dmum density per ASTM Test Method D1»7-91. � 4.5 Compaction TestinQ: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction � test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. T'est locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the filUbedrock benches). � 4.6 Frequencv of Compaction Tes-tin¢: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embanlanent. 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 construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Conttactor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these � minim� S�II��S �Te IIOt I11eC. 3030.1094 , � Leighton and Associates Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS � Page 5 of 6 � 4.7 Com action Test Locations: The Geotechnical Co nsuttant shall �ocument thc approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor � shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consuttant can deternune the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimurn, iwo grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 � feet and veitically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. � 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the � grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional 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 buriai. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. � 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the � Geotechnical Consuhant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extern of removal shall be determined bv the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during �ading. Where fill-over-cut � slopes aze to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consuhant 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 safery of trench excavatians. � 7.2 All bedding and bacl�ll of utilit}� trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material � shall have a Sand Equivalent greater thau 30 (SE>30). The bedding sha11 be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a mirumum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top o� the - conduit to the surface. � 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical � Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consuttant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least � one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 3030.1094 � • � Lei ton and Associates c. 8� , � GENERAL EP,RTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS � Page 6 of 6 1 7.5 Lift thicl�ess of treach backfill shall nat � exceed those allowed m the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the ' Geotechnical Consuhant that the fill li.ft can be compacted to the minimum relarive compaction by his aherna�ive equipmeIIt and method. � . � � � � � � � � i 1 t 1 �� . 3030.1094 � • � - I — � . �=�T� �C-�—�-- I PfiOJE�'7E� PL.�1N� � N----, - J � , 1 T O 1 M A� A U� t F r' i C 1 1 A l' C E _�--- -- I o� si� ro �x1vo c�ouNC _ ��. FiLL SL.OPE ' �ove ��- -- UliSiJiTABL NA?URAL � =-- -- �' 7'YPlC'�L � GROUND ---�- ' YAT'E�?IAL � --�.�=__ BE3�C}! �BE�}i � " � �'?i YIN.-+.= HEiGI�iT ' 7 YUL� �1S Y1fL-�+� I � ��„� LOVYEST HE�iGi ��'1 � 1'AItPACTc'� _�-?`. • I —__-�=� _� FiLL-0VE�-CUT � - __ __ _�� _ .�� ' SLOF� � naTUFUt =�_�_� r �+cu I GROUND _ =? __ _ i B� � eacx � � - �_ �� HEGtiT � -� � ='r =__ I � �� RE310VE - littTe.-�- UNSIJi'fi1BL / � 16' MiTL� �1TE�IAL . / � LtWEST B�.'VC}I - r �rH. �••� � KFI DE�T'H CTT F31C� S7�il1LL B� PfaC:A 7D F3.L PiAC�,tE'dT TO ASSiJ� C37T F�1C� ATiKL:ATc GE�LCC�7C C.�JGRiGY�t3 TO BE Pf?lCFi TO F3.L Pl.A�lT � / / • I�1A7ZJRAL � CLJ'T-0�/E,��ij . cROUxa / SLOPE . � � -�� '. OVE-�BUILT AND �-- TRI�I BACX '�_- - � � - - .,. Fc� Subdrains Se� � _?`_-= Standard Detal C QESfGN SLGPE � RE3�IOVE PROJE�TE� PlJ1rJE � --z IiNSiJTTABLE 1 TO 1 MI1�ilJM F�C:fiA .C' _�_ �� _ MATEFi1l1L TCE Of SZCP� TO --�--- APPlaGV� GF�CtJND --z-- 4' TYPlGL \ ��` A�CTED gE,�JCti BE'dGi }iE.*GHT � - 1 -=�`riLL - -1-- -�------ BE�1QiWCi Si-ZALL BE DGVE WHE'V SLOR3 = 2X JIAIN -� - ANGLE 1S ECUAL TO CR GFiEr�TE-? THAN S:1 T MiN.� �S YW. MWIbRJM BE'+1�1 HES3HT SNALL 8E 4�i 1�Y DE�7'H LOVYEST HEi'1� MWIAAUM F7LL W10TH �1L1 BE 9 Fc; , -- - - -- -- � - � GEiVERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING 1& :EYING AND BENCNING SPEQFICATIONS � _- _- STi41VDARD DETAILS A � �� ,,. � � � �►sH c�aoE � ----- ---------------- — — — — — - — — —COMPACCID FI11 _ — — — — — - , SLOPEFACE _ — -- --- � _-- _ — — _ —_--- — — — — — — /� �. —� � �� — — — � � — — — — �� — _— — — �_— � — — — — — — � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---� ---- --- -- -- -- -- — — — — — � — � — — — — — — -- 10' -- --- -=iO �� -----�o- _— , --- MIN_ —� --- —.---- — — — -- ---- ---- -- � -- -- 4hQN = � _ — — — — �— -- -- �� — — -- ' — — — — — � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- � — — — --- VERS� — ------ --- _ �oROw — — — -- )ETTED OR ROODED � — �— ---- ------- APPROVEDSOIL ' — — — — • Oversize rock is largerthan 8 ind�es — — — — � in largest dimension. � _— � Baclffill with approved soil jetted or — - flooded in place to AI all the voids. Q �: ' • Do not bury rock within 10 fe� of _ _ _ _ _ finish grade � • Windrow of buried rock shall be _ _ _ parallel to the fini�ed slope face. SECRON A-A' � PROFILE ALONG WlNDROW � _- __- =� ==-= � ===A = _ =� = __ ==_-- =- , ------- ----- ---- - - � C� �-_ --- i =_ __-_ - _________ ___ _--___- ___- _-__-_ --_ _-_ =-- ___ --_-_-_-____- � ---- JETTEDORROODED ------ ------------- APPROVED SOIL ' � '�' � GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING � OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL s��ct�canoNS � = — - STANDARD DETAILS B �.�.,; �• � ``~f � �R�,. � � � NATURAL GROUND ' ` - . _ / , \�` _ — _ — —COMPACT'ED FILL — — — _ � --� — ---------- � — \�� --'`�_ =-- �� -- \ . � TYPICAL � ------- —� BENCHING -------------- REMOVE \�.� �s — �� \ ` UNSUITABLE MATERIAL , \�i SUBDRAIN (See Alternates A and 6} ' SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A �� Sl/tROUdD� F]LTER MATERIHL ' WTfFI FILTHt MAT6tWL FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE C1A55 2 PHtMEABLEMAT8tU1Lp@t57pTEpF CALIFORNIA SfANDARD SPEQFICATION, OR APPROVED ALTHtNATf. F�T� �� T �� CLASS 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS: Sieve Sme Pg�K P��O 1' 100 � Ri: ;'".e :: 3/4' 90-100 . �_ . : s•rtn.cwet •>�. �•r' 3/8' 40-1D0 .,-.�_• '.: ��.� No.4 2540 • • - •� � � ' ' No. 8 IB-33 �� 5-15 �^• No. 30 � 9' MIN� �. No. 50 0 No.200 0-3 SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A PER ��,� � SUBDRAIN ALTERNA7E A 6' 0 MIN. � SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B DETAIL OF CANYI�N SUBDRAIN 1ERMINAL ' 3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FIL7St FABRIC � � 12" MIN. OV621AP � ��ouoe ca�Rrv,e�c (�aiu�t iv�art � FILTER FABRIC - _ io• r+�N. a�aaai �wromo e�uv�� (hIIRAFf 140NC OR APPROVED EQUNALBV� • , n .`: �- I . { �� [.:,' zx ` � ` � •' � � � � �v : �. :� .-• `.. � FF� 15' M➢/. ' MD�. I 5' MC/. i6t10MT� 7M' �� GMDED liUV6 NON-fBtfORAT� 6 � 0 � ORKIROII�lQtAYAIHlf � ALTERNATE B-1 3 / 4 � M � . �� ALTERNATE B-2 � "TM� APPROVED EQUIVAL.B�ff ( 3 /� �:,� PERFORATED PIPE IS OPTIOW1LPHt ' GOVERNING AGENCYS REQUlRByBVTS � CANYON � �NERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING � & ' SPECIFICATIONS � —� , UBDRAIN �qNDARD DEfAILS C `�� , a��. � , �1S MIIV�. ( ' I -� -,._ _. _ _ _. � . ... ... ... ... ... .. ' ' ..-.:`..'..-..`..=i!...... OU'TLEf PIPES ._ �__ ... :_ ._ _. ._. „_ __ . 4"� NON-PERFORATED PIPE, . _ - �� .� � � ,� .. :.. ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY - - - - - - - - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY ... .. ... .. ... ...... ... .. ------_.___.... ..-�.-..-..=...-..=..-..-..=�•��.. ' - _-. __. _ _ ._ _. _. _.. ,.. . � _ __ _. _' BACKCUT ..: . �,.-..�� 2% MDJ. �.".." .. . ..� :.'..�.�::.�..�'..�: .'�..:"`.:':.:':.':.." ".�'. ..' ... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... .... ... .... ... ... ' . _. _. � _.. _ _ ... _ ._ _. ... _ .._ _. . . , . ... . . ... ... ... .... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... BENCHING 1 l�t ..-.-.:��-::= =:�=�� -�. �_ �_ ��..�:�=;%:: � .. .. .. . . ... . ...... ... .. ... ...... ... .. ... ...... ........ _______. ....... .. . ... ...2% MDV. � — -- ' .:.�...�:..-...��..:-..��.:-.:-..-:..`.:'.:°:.�.�.-.:-. ..-�..�v`.:�� SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B .: .. ...�:.—.2% MIIV . ...:.:..:... °...":.°'.' ..:'_.° 1S MIN IN. 12' OVERLAP FROMTHETOP � I�Y DEPTH KEY WIDTH 2' MIN. S U BDRAIN AL7ERNATE A Posrrrve s�►� s�ouin se �� FILTER FABRIC , PROVIDED AT TFE JOINT �j (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROV� CALTRANS QASS 2 ' EQUNALBV'� 595 FIL7St rv►7ErtIAL (sFT3/FT) MDV. �_ , OUTLET PIDE / � �� (NON-PERFORA7ID) OUTLFf PIPE (NON-PERFORATID) .. 6 � �� 3/4' ROOC (3FT3/FT) , WRAPP� IN FILTBt FABRIC / �' hIIN. � T-CONNECTION FROM COLLECRON PIPE TOOIIREf PIDE � . SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collecb�r pipe shail be installed with perforations dawn or unless otherwise designated by tt�e geotechnkal consuRant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated � pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be 1/4" to 1/2" if drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% tawards the outlet 1 • SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, ASTM D1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe. � • All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, afber fill is placed abov� it, rodded bo verify in �� ' BUTTRESS OR ��,� �utn�rowc AND GRanINC �& REPLACEMENT FILL s�c�noNS � � , SUBDRAINS � AND � D °�� ° _`�� 0.N. OO ' ' CUT FILL TRANSITiON LOT OVEREXG4VATION ' • � REMOVE � s ' U NSU ifABI.E � GROUND � / m � / � m / S / MIN. , __ ___ —__ ___ -- '—_ — {OMPACTm FIIl — — _ _ 4 MM � • — — — — — — — — —�— — — — — — Ji � — — — �—� — — — — T — � \ � ---�-_ ---- j' - - /- - � OVERFXCAVATE � • AND RECOMPACT — — _ _ _ � _ � _ —--- ----- TYPIG4L � — — — � BBIQ4NG j� UNWFATHERm BEDROOC OR MATERIAL APPROVED `` �� BY THE GEUTEClN ICAL CONSULTANT , ' ' SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD NATURAL GROUND � m , / / / � m � / � , �--- R61RICfED USEAREA � � / � OVEREXCAVATE �/ m FINISHED CUT PAD AND RECOMPACf � ( RE PLKEM ENT FILL) , _ — _ -_ - — — � ` .`��,... OVERBURDEN —m .e•.• . .��r��s�.�• — _ �— OR UNSUifABIE — — — I�11yZ � MATFRIAL ___ �-- PAD OVERD(CAVATION AND REmMPACTION , . — — — � � Y THE GEQi�� CONSU�IT� —� � TYPIGIL � � f BENQiING \ � - / ' 2% Mlll_ _ — ` SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAItlS WHEN REQUIRm BY GEOTECFNICAL CONSULTANf 9' Mitl ' 2' MIN. I�Y �� UNWEATHERm BEDR00C OR MATERIAL APPROVED BYTHE GEUTEChNICAL C�dSULTANi 1 , � GENERAL EARTHWORIC AND (�tADING � � _ TRANSITION LOT FILLS SPEC�ICATIONS ` �_ 1 AND SIDE HILL FlLLS sr�woaRn �r,v�s E _—�', ` 1 � �N. OO � I SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BAQCFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS D�ANSION INDEX OF �0 , OPTION 1: P8E AIRAOUNDED WIT}i OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED CLASS 2 PERMEABLE M4TERLIL IN FILTER FABRIC � WLTH PROPER -- WIlli PROPER ' SURFACE DRADVPGE SURFACE DRAIIdAGE SLOPE SLAPE I OR LEVEL OR LE1�EL ' lr • ir NATNE NATNE I WA7ERPROOFING . �•: �" ' (SEE GENERAL NQTES) �: WATERPROOFIIJG :'r '�' (SEE GENERAL NQrES) � Fbl'ER FABRIC :� u• ��M �' �. (SEE NOl'E � I C1A55 2 PERhEABLE •�� 1Z' MINII�UM ' 1NEEP FIOLE FILTER MATERI{1L ' •+ (SEE NUTE � ' ` • (SEE GRADAlION) (SE�E NOIE � GRAVEI �wwwPED Iri FttTFR ' 4INCHD1AMEiER a..� �� I LEVELOR PERFORATEDP�E LEVELOR ' SLOPE (5ff NQTE � SLOPE , I Claa 2 FILer Pertneable Ma�rial Gradatim I Per Caltrans Specificatlons � Sieve S¢e Percent Pasinq 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 I 3/8" 40-100 ' No.4 �-'� No. S i$ No.30 5-15 No.50 o-7 I No.200 o-3 , GENERAL NOTES: ' I * Waterproofing should be provided where moish�re nuisarice problem tfirough tt�e wall is undesirable. * Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geobechnical �gineer * All drains should have a gradient of 1 peR�t minimum *Oudet portion of tt�e svbdrain should have a 4-inch diametersdid pipe discharged into a svitable disposal area designed by the prflject ' engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessble for mainbenance (rodding) *Other �bdrain bacl�'ill opdons are svbject ta the review by tt�e geobechniml �gineer and modification of design pardmeters. ' I Notes: 1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greaber and may be demified by waber jettirg. 2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/21rxh 9ae gravel wrapped in filber fabnc - 3) Pipe type should be AS7M Di527 Acrylonitrile B�tadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Pdyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Sched�de �d , 40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalerrt. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perfaatior�s should be 3/8 irxh in diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree art in two rvws at 3inch on cenber (staggered) 4) Flter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent I 5) Weephole should be 3ynch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot m�6mum intervals. If o�o�ure is permitbed, weephd� shadd ' be located 12 inches above finished grede. If exposure is not permitted such as fora wall adjacent to a 9dewalk/curb, a pipe undertt�e sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be pravided. For a basement-rype wall, a propersubdrain outlet system should be pnwided. 6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by tlie geobechnical engineer. ' 7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geobedmical engineer and modifications t� the above requirements. I � RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SU�DRAIN DEfAIL =& FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT •� -._ _ I WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS DCPANSION INDEX OF <50 �� ' _ - � rtev. oo '