HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Investigation for Robinsons May Expansion (4/12/01)Get.brariv , g
o�
& 4K
1 9 6 1 - 2 0 01
Leighton and Associates
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
GEOTECIINICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR ROBINSONS•MAY EXPANSION
PROMENADE MALL
TEMECULA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
April 12, 2001
Project No. 110398-001
RECD V
JUL 1 3 7001
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Prepared For:
MAY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
611 Olive Street, 13'° Floor, Ste 1300
St. Louis, Missouri, 63101
41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661
(909) 296-0530 • FAX (909) 296-0534 • www.leightangeo.com
GeWbrativ.
o�
-- Leighton and Associates
1 9 6 1 - 2 0 0 1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
April 12,2001
Project No. 110398-001
To: May Design & Construction Company
611 Olive Street, 13th Floor, Ste 1300
St. Louis, Missouri, 63101
' Attention: Mr. Randy Rathert
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Robinsons•May Expansion, Promenade Mall, City
of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates (Leighton) has performed a supplemental
geotechnical investigation of the subject site located west of the existing Robinsons•May at the Promenade
Mall in the City of Temecula, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation was to perform a
project specific geotechnical investigation within the proposed expansion area to determine the engineering
characteristics of site soils, update of site seismicity to current standards and provide recommendations for
further development (see references in Appendix A). Based on our review of the previous investigation and
the results of our current investigation, this report summarizes our findings, conclusions and
Irecommendations relative to the proposed Robinsons•May Expansion
Based on our study, the primary geologic and geotechnical constraint is the potential seismic hazard
associated with strong ground shaking and associated settlements. This primary geologic constraint and
mitigation design options are presented herein.
' If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate
this opportunity to be of service.
' Respectfully submitted,
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,
QpOFESSI
NO. QJE 2W to
!An$rew T. Guatelli, PE, GE EV. 12-31-03 Robert F. Riha, RG, CEG 1921
Senior Project Engineer Principal Geologist
ATG/RFWdlm/mm/2001/110398-001 ROB -MAY EXPPRELLM
Distribution: (7) Addressee
41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661
(909) 296-0530 • FAX (909) 296-0534 • www.leightongeo.com
I
ISection
[1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
110398-001
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Site Description....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Proposed Development...........................................................................................................................3
2.3 Scope of Services....................................................................................................................................3
3.0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING......................................................................... 4
3.1 Field Investigation....................................................................................................................................4
3.2 Laboratory Testing...................................................................................................................................4
4.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS................................................................................. 5
4.1 Geotechnical and Geologic Site Constraints..........................................................................................5
4.2 Regional Geology....................................................................................................................................5
4.3 Site Geologic Units.................................................................................................................................5
4.3.1 Artificial Fill (map symbol Af).......................................................................................... 6
4.3.2 Alluvium (map symbol Qal)............................................................................................... 6
4.4 Groundwater............................................................................................................................................6
4.5 Faulting and Seismicity...........................................................................................................................6
4.5.1 Site Faulting........................................................................................................................ 7
4.5.2 Fissuring and Differential Subsidence Potential................................................................. 7
4.5.3 Ground Shaking.................................................................................................................. 8
4.5.4 Liquefaction and Seismic Densification............................................................................. 8
4.5.4.1 Liquefaction and Seismic Densification........................................................................... 8
4.5.5 Other Seismic Hazards....................................................................................................... 9
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 10
5.1 General...................................................................................................................................................10
5.2 Seismic...................................................................................................................................................10
5.3 Earthwork..............................................................................................................................................10
5.3.1 Site Preparation................................................................................................................ 10
5.3.2 Removals and Recompaction........................................................................................... 10
5.3.2.1 Excavation of Footings Adjacent to Existing Robinsons•May...................................... 11
5.3.3 Structural Fills.................................................................................................................. 11
5.3.4 Utility Trenches................................................................................................................ 12
5.4 Surface Drainage and Erosion...............................................................................................................12
5.5 Preliminary Conventional Foundation Design.....................................................................................12
5.5.1 Alternative Foundation Recommendations...................................................................... 13
5.6 Interior Floor Slab Design for Conventional Foundation Systems.....................................................13
5.7 Corrosivity of Soils to Concrete and Steel..........................................................................................14
5.8 Slopes and Footing Setback....................................................................................................... ...
-i- ®�®
110398-001
Table of Contents (continued)
5.13 Monitoring of Existing Structures and Improvements........................................................................18
5.14 Landscape Maintenance and Planting.................................................................................................19
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW............................................................................................................... 20
6.1 Geotechnical Review of Plans and Specifications..............................................................................20
6.2 Construction Review............................................................................................................................20
6.3 Additional Geotechnical Studies for Foundation Alternatives...........................................................20
7.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................21
Accompanying Figures, Plates and Appendices
Figures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map Page 2
Figure 2 - Footing Enlargement Detail at Line 1 Rear of Text
Figure 3 - Footing Over Excavation/Backfill Detail at Line 1 Rear of Text
Plates
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Boring Location Map In Pocket
Appendices
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Log of Boring and Test Pits
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing and Test Results
Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
1
fill- N :w-
5.9
Anticipated Static Settlement...............................................................................................................15
5.10
Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance...............................................................................................16
5.10.1 Shoring and Underpinning................................................................................................
17
5.11
Preliminary Pavement Design..............................................................................................................18
5.12
Exterior Flatwork Recommendations..................................................................................................18
5.13 Monitoring of Existing Structures and Improvements........................................................................18
5.14 Landscape Maintenance and Planting.................................................................................................19
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW............................................................................................................... 20
6.1 Geotechnical Review of Plans and Specifications..............................................................................20
6.2 Construction Review............................................................................................................................20
6.3 Additional Geotechnical Studies for Foundation Alternatives...........................................................20
7.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................21
Accompanying Figures, Plates and Appendices
Figures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map Page 2
Figure 2 - Footing Enlargement Detail at Line 1 Rear of Text
Figure 3 - Footing Over Excavation/Backfill Detail at Line 1 Rear of Text
Plates
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Boring Location Map In Pocket
Appendices
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Log of Boring and Test Pits
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing and Test Results
Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
1
fill- N :w-
110398-001
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
' This report presents the results of our supplemental geotechnical investigation for the proposed
Robinsons•May expansion. The 30 -scale Site Plan prepared by RBF, plotted March 23, 2001, was used as a
base map for presenting our geotechnical information. This investigation was performed in general
accordance with the May Department Stores Company,. Scope of Work Rider, Form 19, Standard
Consultant Agreement Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix A).
As part of our geotechnical investigation, the published geologic literature (Appendix A) identifying
' geologic units, faulting and seismicity were reviewed. In addition, geotechnical reports prepared for this
property, (Appendix) were also reviewed.
' Based on documents and information provided to our office, the proposed expansion will consist of a two-
story, building expansion ("footprint" 195' x 88'). Based on the footprint dimension, the estimated square
footage of the expansion will be approximately 34,300 square feet. In order to develop this site into the
planned development, grading and earthwork will be needed to prepare the existing fill and natural earth
materials to receive the proposed improvements. This geotechnical investigation report summarizes the
findings, conclusions and recommendations that should be incorporated into the development of this
Robinsons•May expansion.
1
1
Base Map: U.S.G.S. Murrieta Quadrangle 7.5'
Special Study Zones, 1990
Robinson May
SITE A110—
Expansion
&Expansion LOCATION project No. 110398-001
Temecula, California MAP Date: April 2001 Figure 1
110398-001
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Description
The proposed Robinsons•May expansion is, located at the west end of the existing Robinsons•May at
the Promenade Mall, within the City of Temecula, California, (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The
property is bordered on the north, south and west by existing parking lots at the Promenade Mall and
on the east by the existing RobinsonseMay. The property is generally flat lying with an elevation of
' 1062 feet above mean sea level (RBF).
At the time of our field investigation the subject expansion area consisted of existing driveways,
parking areas, sidewalks and landscaping islands.
2.2 Proposed Development
' It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of a two-story expansion to the
existing retail store. Based on our review of the referenced plan, the site will be raised approximately 1
to 2 feet above existing site elevations using offsite import soils. Access will be off of existing mall
entrances on Ynez Road, Winchester Road, Overland Drive and Margarita Road (Plate 1).
The building will be uniformly 2 -stories with steel framing and preliminary foundation loads of 1.0
kips/If and concentrated loads of up to 160 kips as provided by the project structural engineer, W.E.
Moscicki Associates, hic. The parking area surrounding the building will be developed with asphalt
concrete (AC) surfaces sloped to drain. The building expansion may require utilities to be installed and
connected to the existing services nearby. Intermittent landscape improvements are indicated on the
plot plan provided.
' 2.3 Scope of Services
Leighton has provided the following scope of geotechnical services:
' • Review of referenced reports (Appendix A).
• Site reconnaissance.
t• Excavation, logging and sampling of three 8 -inch diameter hollow -stem, continuous flight
auger borings up to 50 feet deep. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B.
Approximate location of subsurface exploratory borings are presented on Plate 1.
• Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained during our field investigation. A
summary of our testing procedures and test results are presented in Appendix C and the boring
logs in Appendix B.
• Geotechnical evaluation and analysis of the collected field and laboratory data.
• Liquefaction analysis and determination of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) site
' seismic parameters.
• Consultation with the design structural engineer.
• Preparation of this report presenting the results of our findings, conclusions, geotechnical
recommendations for site grading, and construction considerations for the proposed
development.
I -3-®
1 110398-001
3.0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
1 3.1 Field Investigation
On March 26, 2001, three 8 -inch diameter hollow stem continuous flight auger borings were
excavated, sampled, and logged within the proposed development area. Approximate locations of the
boring and trench excavations are depicted on the Geotechnical Boring Location Map (Plate 1). Logs
of the borings and trenches are presented in Appendix B. Sampling and logging of the auger borings
were conducted by a senior staff engineer from our office.
The borings were excavated by a B-61 truck mounted drill rig, which utilized cable sampling with a
safety hammer. During the drilling operation, bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained
' from the borings for laboratory testing and evaluation. The locations and depths of the samples
recovered are indicated on the boring logs. The relatively undisturbed in-place samples were obtained
utilizing a modified California drive sampler, 2-3/8 inch I.D. (inside diameter), 3 inch O.D. (outside
diameter) and driven 18 inches with a 140 pound hammer dropping 30 inches in general accordance
with. ASTM Test Method D3550. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using a 24 -inch
long, 1-3/8 inch I.D. and 2 -inch O.D. standard penetration sampler driven 18 inches with a 140 pound
' hammer dropping 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1586. The number of
blows required for each 6 inches of drive penetration were noted and the number of blows to achieve
the last 12 inches of penetration were recorded on the log of borings (Appendix B).
3.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on the representative bulk, relatively undisturbed and standard
penetration test samples to provide a basis for development of design parameters. Soil materials were
visually classified in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Selected samples
' were tested for the following parameters: in-situ moisture content, dry density, gradation,
consolidation, direct shear, maximum dry density (Proctor), expansion index, Atterberg Limits,
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and corrosion suite (soluble sulfates, pH, resistivity and chlorides).
' Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) procedures. Corrosion tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test Methods (CTM) as noted in Appendix C. The results of our laboratory testing along with
summaries of the testing procedures are presented in Appendix C. The results of the in-situ moisture
and density determinations as well as the depths of other lab tests (see `type of test' column) are
presented on the log of borings (Appendix B).
I
J
( -4-
not**
I
I
I
I
110398-001
4.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
4.1 Geotechnical and Geologic Site Constraints
Review of the County of Riverside Seismic Hazard Maps (Envicom, 1976) indicates that a liquefaction
hazard has been identified within the subject site and should be considered in site development
analysis. Due to the nature of the underlying alluvial soils and the potential for the groundwater table to
rise, a liquefaction analysis was performed for the subject site. Other geotechnical constraints include
potential differential settlements between the existing Robinsons•May and the proposed addition and
the potential for moderate to severe ground shaking (M6.8) along the nearby Wildomar Fault (0.5
miles). The above concerns are addressed in this investigation and our recommendations have been
included in Section 5.0 of this report.
Opportunities for the site includes the low to medium expansion potential of the majority of site soil
material, favorable load-bearing characteristics, and site soils that are readily excavatable and
compatible with conventional earth -moving equipment. However, since the site will be raised by
importation of offsite materials, the expansion potential and soluble sulfate content of the selected
import site should be evaluated prior to delivery of these materials.
4.2 Regional Geology
The site is located in the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. More specifically, the
property is located approximately one-half mile east of a fault controlled, down dropped graben,
known as the Elsinore Trough (Kennedy, 1977). This graben is believed to contain as much as 3000
feet of alluvium which has been accumulated since Miocene time (Mann, 1955). The Elsinore Trough
is bounded on the northeast by the Wildomar Fault and on the southwest by the Willard Fault. The
Murrieta Creek Fault is located between and generally parallels the Wildomar and Willard faults in its
closest proximity to the site. These faults are part of the Elsinore Fault Zone which extends from the
San Gabriel River Valley southeasterly to the United States -Mexican border. The Wildomar and
Murrieta Creek faults are considered active and the Willard fault is considered potentially active (Hart,
1994; Jennings, 1994).
The Santa Ana Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore Fault Zone and the Perris Block is
located along the eastern side of the fault zone. The mountain ranges are underlain by pre -Cretaceous
metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California
batholith. Tertiary sediments, volcanics and Quaternary sediments flank the mountain ranges. The
Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are generally comprised of non -marine sediments consisting of
sandstones, mudstones, conglomerates, and locally volcanic units.
I4.3 Site Geologic Units
Our field exploration, observations, and a review of the pertinent literature (Appendix A) indicates that
earth materials within the site consist of documented fill soils and alluvium. Detailed descriptions of
the earth materials encountered in the borings and test pits are provided in Appendix B. A general
description of each unit follows.
-5-®
[1
I
I
I
I
I
110398-001
4.3.1 Artificial Fill (man symbol Afl
Approximately 6 to 12 feet of artificial fill has been placed and compacted within the expansion
area during previous grading under the observation and testing of Leighton (Leighton, 1999b). The
fill materials encountered generally consisted of brown, moist, medium dense silty sand. In
Leighton's exploratory borings, fill extended to depths ranging from 6 to 7 feet below the existing
ground surface (or approximately elevation 1062 feet msl) or 7.5 to 8.5 feet below the proposed
finished floor elevation of 1063.5 feet msl.
4.3.2 Alluvium (map symbol Oal)
Alluvial deposits were encountered throughout the site to the total depth explored (50 feet). The
alluvium consists of olive brown to brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, well -graded
sand, silty sand and sandy silt often containing variable amounts of clay to a depth of 30 feet.
4.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the current borings. Discussion on historical groundwater
elevations is presented in Leighton (1997a). The historic high groundwater table is estimated to be 20
feet below the existing ground surface.
4.5 Faulting and Seismicity
Temecula, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region as a 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 -trending regional faults such as
the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems produce approximately 55
millimeters per year of slip between the plates. The Elsinore fault zone comprised of the Willard Fault
and the Wildomar Fault, is estimated to accommodate 10 to 15 percent of the plate boundary slip
(WGCEP, 1995). The location of the site in relationship to known active faults in the subject area are.
depicted in the Site Location Map (Figure 1).
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
Earthquake Fault Zones to preclude new construction of certain inhabited structures across the trace of
active faults. The subject site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQSEARCH and
' UBCSEIS, (Blake, 2000a & d) and a probabilistic analysis utilizing FRISKSP (Blake, 2000c). The
nearest known active fault and source of the design earthquake is the Elsinore Fault Zone located
approximately 2,800 feet west of the site (see Figure 1). The maximum credible earthquake was
estimated to be magnitude 6.8 using the referenced geologic programs and available geologic
documents (Appendix A).
1 110398-001
1 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 10% probability of
excedence in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a peak ground shaking of 0.68
would be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake, therefore, is considered a magnitude 6.8 event
that would generate a probabilistic horizontal peak ground acceleration of 0.73g (FRISKSP, Blake
2000c). 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. This site is located within seismic zone 4. The UBC seismic design parameters are
presented below:
Seismic Zone = 4
Seismic Source Type = B
Near Source Factor, N. = 1.3
Near Source Factor, N 1.6
Soil Profile Type = Sp
_Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.73g
(10% probability in 50 years)
' However, it should be noted that the current Robinson's May and mall core buildings were designed
for a ground acceleration of 0.59g (10% probability in 50 years) based on the seismic knowledge and
standard of practice in 1997 (Leighton 1997a). The base of knowledge for seismic design evolves
1 rapidly as our experience with seismic activity increases. The structural engineer and architect should
determine which acceleration to utilize for the proposed expansion based on the interaction between the
original structure and the proposed expansion.
4.5.1 Site Faulting
The subject site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault hazards. No
faults are known to intersect the property. As indicated earlier, the Wildomar fault just to the
west is considered active, with a low to moderate level of activity.
1 4.5.2 Fissuring and Differential Subsidence Potential
The subject site lies within the County of Riverside's zone of potential fissuring and ground
1 subsidence. No apparent fissuring features or evidence of associated differential subsidence
were observed during any of our subsurface investigations performed at this site. The nearest
known fissuring feature is located approximately 6,800 feet west of the site, on the west side of
1 the Murrieta Creek flood plain. Typically, fissuring develops along previous established planes
of weakness such as active and possibly potentially active fault traces as well as steep contacts
between bedrock to recent alluvial soils.
1 Considering that the location of the active faulting has been established offsite, it is our opinion
that the site currently has a low potential for ground fissuring and associated differential
subsidence. If commercial water wells are installed near the subject site, ground fissuring and
1 differential subsidence potential could be substantially increased. At present, the site's low
potential for fissuring and subsidence will be adequately mitigated by proper engineering
design of the foundations and slabs of the proposed structures.
1
1 lill==
1 -7-_
J
I
4.5.3
110398-001
Ground Shakine
The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground -shaking resulting from an
earthquake on one of the major regional faults. The design earthquake is considered to be a 6.8
magnitude event on the nearby Wildomar (Elsinore) Fault, which is expected to produce peak
ground acceleration at the site of 0.73g. Ground shaking originating from earthquakes along
other active faults in the region (Murrieta Creek, Murrieta Hot Springs, etc.) is expected to be
less due to smaller anticipated earthquake magnitudes and/or greater distances from the site.
The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the 1997 edition of the Uniform
Building Code and state of the practice design methodologies of the Structural Engineers
Association of California.
4.5.4 Liquefaction and Seismic Densification
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils below a near surface ground
water table are most susceptible 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 manifested 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 the results of our subsurface exploration (Appendix B), the alluvial deposits on the
site contain localized strata of liquefiable soils below the onsite assumed high groundwater
depth (about 20 ft. below existing ground elevation). These soils consist of relatively thin strata
of relatively loose, clean to silty or clayey, fine- to medium -grained sands or sandy silt.
The results of our liquefaction analysis, indicate that the occurrence of the design earthquake
may locally reduce the factor of safety against liquefaction to less than 1.25 within various
strata of the alluvial soils below the projected high groundwater level and above a depth of 30
feet. If liquefaction occurs within these strata, settlement is expected to occur. Total dynamic
' settlement, calculated in accordance with Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987, could be on the order of
1 -inch across the building. Differential settlement may be, but is not likely to be, of similar
magnitude.
The occurrence of liquefaction and related settlement, as analyzed, requires that the design
earthquake occurs simultaneously with the rise of the ground water level to the projected high
of 20 feet below finish pad elevation. In the event of a simultaneous groundwater rise and the
design level earthquake occurrence, the effects at the surface of differential settlement
generated in the deeper soil strata would be somewhat limited due to the limited thickness of
liquefiable soils. Therefore, the potential for damage to surface improvements due to
liquefaction during the design life (50 years) of the project is considered to be low.
4.5.4.1 Seismic Densification of Non -Saturated Sands
' The site soils underlying the proposed Robinsons•May expansion were analyzed for
seismic densification under the design earthquake of M6.8 and a probabilistic
8 `®
I
110398-001
' ground acceleration of 0.73g. The site soils below the 8 to 10 foot deep proposed
artificial fill and above the dense older alluvium encountered in our borings at
approximately 30 feet may be subject to dynamic densification. The estimated
' settlement of the alluvial soils between 10 and 30 feet below finished floor elevation
(approximate elevation 1032 to 1052 feet msl) may be as much as 1 -inch with up to
3/4 -inch in differential settlement in 40 feet (angular distortion of 1/640).
In light of our analysis and assumptions, the potential combined effects of
liquefaction and dynamic densification settlements indicated herein are not additive.
The analysis of the liquefaction assumes a high groundwater table of 20 feet below
' proposed finished grades while the seismic densification of non -saturated sands
assumed a groundwater table of 65 feet below proposed finished floor. The
liquefaction of the site soils is not likely if the groundwater table is at 65 feet due to
the absence of water, conversely if the groundwater table is at 20 feet seismic
densification will likely not occur due to the high groundwater relative to the bottom
of the compacted fill. Therefore, the site soils will likely experience some form of
densification or liquefaction but likely not both during the design seismic event.
4.5.5 Other Seismic Hazards
tBased on our review and evaluations, the potential for ground rupture is considered very low as
the result of the design level earthquake in a nearby fault. The potential for tsunamis and
seiches as the result of the design level earthquake in a nearby fault is considered non-existent
for this site, due to the distance of the ocean or large open bodies of water from the project site.
1
I
1
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
110398-001
Based on our current and past geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed building
expansion is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and may be constructed as planned provided the
following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction. The following sections
discuss the principal geotechnical concerns affecting site development and grading and provides
preliminary grading and foundation design recommendations which should be implemented during
site development to mitigate site geologic constraints. However, even with the implementation of
these recommendations and adherence to the 1997 UBC, this does not preclude property damage
during or following a significant seismic event.
5.2 Seismic
Based on our review, the site does not lie within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However,
the potential for distress or damage to the planned Robinsons•May structure due to the design seismic
event is considered low provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented. Based on
our geologic review, the design earthquake is considered to be a 6.8 magnitude event on the
Wildomar Fault, which is expected to produce peak ground acceleration of 0.73g.
5.3 Earthwork
' Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
in Appendix D and the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix D
are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects. Some of the recommendations
' may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this
report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix D. The contract between the developer and
earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the
t fill properly in accordance with the recommendations of this report and the specifications in Appendix
D, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.
' 5.3.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill, pavements
areas and structural building, etc.) of the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface
obstructions, including curbs, sidewalk, asphalt and vegetation. Vegetation and debris should
be disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions, which extend
' below the recommended removal depths described herein or below finished site grades
(whichever is lower) should be filled with properly compacted soil. Should existing
underground utilities be encountered they should be completely removed and properly
backfilled in accordance with Section 5.3.4. Alternatively if the utility is not within the
' influence zone of the foundation it may be abandoned in place by fully grouting the pipe.
5.3.2 Removals and Recompaction
' Provided that the proposed new footings will be underlain by at least 3 feet of previously
documented fill, the near surface soils will need to be overexcavated to approximately elevation
-to- ®`��
I
1
C
C
E
110398-001
1059.5 feet MSL or 1 to 2 feet below current grades. Should less than 3 feet of previously
documented fill underlie the proposed footings, the near surface existing fill and alluvium
should be removed to 3 feet below proposed footing bottom elevation (continuous and isolated
pad footings) to a horizontal distance of one-half the footing width or 5 feet (whichever is
greater) horizontally outside the footing footprint except adjacent to the existing
Robinsons•May. The excavation adjacent to the existing Robinsons•May should be performed
in accordance with Section 5.3.2.1. For the balance of the building expansion footprint an
overexcavation of 4 feet below finished floor elevation (approximately elevation 1059.5 or 1-2
feet below current grades) is recommended. In order to excavate the above noted
overexcavation areas, a temporary 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination will be starting at 8
feet outside the footing footprint at the removal bottom excavation elevation up and away to the
existing ground surface. This temporary slope should be stable provided the contractor does not
stockpile earth materials or equipment at the top of slope. Surface grades around all excavations
should be sloped away for positive drainage.
For the parking areas and other improvements a one -foot removal is recommended depending
on site conditions (i.e. depth of weathering and depth of disturbance which may have locally
deeper removal depths). The removal bottom should be observed (tested as needed) by the
geotechnical consultant prior to placing. fill soils. After approval, the exposed surface should be.
scarified a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent
relative compaction in the upper foot of subgrade and 90 percent compaction below the upper
foot of subgrade. From a depth of 12 inches below base rock (or deeper) in parking areas, the
subgrade may be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction.
5.3.2.1 Excavation of Footings Adiacent to Existing Robinsons•Mav
The existing footings on the westerly side of the current Robinsons•May will be
enlarged in order to tie the proposed building expansion and current building
together, see Figure 2. A new braced frame will be constructed and the east
columns of the proposed expansion will tie into the newly enlarged footings. The
project structural engineer has indicated that a likely design would enlarge the
existing continuous footings from 6 feet in width to 9 feet in width and from 4 feet
in embedment to 6 feet in embedment (See Figure 2, rear of text). The excavation
should extend to 4 feet below proposed footing bottom elevation (i.e. 10 feet below
top of footing, if the footing embedment is 6 feet, approximate elevation of 1050.0
feet msl), see Figure 3. The soils immediately underlying the proposed footing
(excavation backfill) should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction
(ASTM D1557). Due to the difficulty of compacting soil underneath an existing
footing, as an alternative, the contractor may consider the use of engineered fill, i.e.
a 2 to 3 sack sand -cement slurry, as structural fill (minimum compressive strength of
100 psi at 28 days).
5.3.3 Structural Fills
The onsite granular soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free
of organic materials and debris. Import soils should be observed and tested by Leighton
representatives prior to site delivery. Acceptable import soils should have a negligible soluble
sulfate content and very low to low expansion potential.
Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be prepared in
accordance with Section 5.3.2, brought to at near optimum moisture content, and recompacted
I
110398-001
' to 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). 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 lifts not exceeding 8 inches in
thickness. Fill soils should be placed at or above the minimum optimum moisture content.
Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading
ordinances under the full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant.
' Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5 to I (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched
into approved existing soils (see Appendix D for benching detail). Oversize material may be
incorporated into structural fills if placed in accordance with the recommendations of
' Appendix D.
5.3.4 Utility Trenches
I
I
1
1]
The onsite and import soils if similar to onsite soils, are generally suitable as trench backfill
provided they are screened of rocks over 6 inches in diameter (not expected at this site) and
organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in
compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM
Test Method D1557-91).
Excavation of utility trenches should 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. Contractors should be advised
that sandy soils (such as the 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 the
trench wall. Spoil piles due to the excavation and construction equipment should be kept away
from the sides of the trenches.
5.4 Surface Drainage and Erosion
We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade the building area, such that drainage
water from the building area is directed away from building foundations (2 percent minimum grade
on soil or sod for a distance of 5 feet). Ponding of water should not be permitted, and installation of
roof drains which outlet into a storm water drainage system or other outlet approved is considered
prudent. Planting areas at grades should be provided with positive drainage directed away from
buildings. Drainage and subdrainage design for these facilities should be provided by the design civil
engineer and/or landscape architect. Erosion is possible on the pad and slopes if left unprotected
during the wet season.
This property is not within a defined FEMA 100 year floodplain.
5.5 Preliminary Conventional Foundation Design
Preliminary foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the
following recommendations. However, these recommendations should be verified at the completion
of grading.
LJ
110398-001
Based on information provided by the project structural engineer the following design loads were
used in our evaluation of the proposed building addition:
• Existing footing load (allowable bearing pressure): 4000 pounds per square foot (psf)
• Proposed wall loads: 1000 pounds per foot (1 kip/ft.)
• Proposed interior column loads up to 160 kips
• Proposed and existing floor loads within retail areas are assumed to be on the order of 30 to 100 psf
The following recommendations are based on the assumption that the proposed structural footings
will be underlain by a minimum of 4 feet of sandy soils with a low to medium expansion potential (90
or less per UBC 18 -I -B). The fill thickness and expansion potential should be confirmed during
grading and prior to import operations by the geotechnical consultant. The following table
summarizes our foundation design parameters.
Minimum Conventional Foundation Design Parameters
Minimum Width -
Isolated (Column)
Footings
Continuous Footings
6 feet square
6 feet
Minimum Depth -
4 feet
4 feet
Allowable Bearing Capacity -`
4,000 psf
4,000 psf
Minimum Reinforcement -
Structural Engineer's
Recommendations
Structural Engineer's
Recommendations
1) A temporary increase of 1/3 of the allowable bearing capacity may be allowed for wind and
seismic forces.
An increase in allowable bearing capacity for added depth and width of footing is not recommended
due to the need to limit differential settlement.
All reinforcement should be in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements. Interior
column footings should be structurally isolated from floor slabs. The structures should also be
designed for the anticipated settlement (see Section 5.9).
5.5.1 Alternative Foundation Recommendations
Alternative foundation systems may reduce the potential effects caused by the design earthquake
without performing the recommended earthwork. After discussions with the project structural
engineer and architect, the utilization of piles (driven or cast -in-place) or a mat foundation is not
desired due to cost and scheduling. However, specific recommendations can be provided should one
of the alternative foundation systems be chosen.
5.6 Interior Floor Slab Design for Conventional Foundation Systems
Concrete slab -on -grade construction is anticipated on both the exterior and interior of the proposed 2 -
story building expansion. The following recommendations are presented as minimum design
recommendations for slabs; they are not intended to supercede design by the structural engineer.
Design parameters do not account for concentrated loads.
e�_— --
13 - _�G
' 110398-001
' All slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at slab midheight with No. 5
rebars at 18 inches on center (each way). We are not recommending welded -wire mesh for slab
reinforcement because of the inherent difficulty in maintaining welded -wire mesh at slab midheight
during placement of large area concrete slabs. Additional reinforcement and/or concrete thickness to
accommodate specific structural or operational loading conditions or anticipated settlement should be
' evaluated by the structural engineer based on a modulus of subgrade reaction of 190 lb/inZ/in (pci) and
the anticipated settlements outlined in Section 5.9. We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the
contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed near midheight of the slab. Slabs in areas of
moisture sensitive floor covering or storage areas for materials sensitive to moisture should be
' underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sand (SE> greater than 30) to aid in concrete curing, which is
underlain by a 10 -mil (or heavier) moisture barrier, which is, in tum, underlain by a 2 -inch layer of
clean sand to act as a capillary break. All penetrations and laps in the moisture barrier should be
' appropriately sealed. Our experience indicates that the use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations
will generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking
should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often
aggravated by a high cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal
aggregate size and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during
placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected.
The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement) can reduce the
potential for shrinkage cracking.- Concrete should be deigned in accordance with the 1997 UBC for
table 19-A-4 for soils with negligible soluble sulfates.
' Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up
through the slab. We recommend that the floor coverings installer test the moisture vapor flux rate
' prior to attempting application of the flooring. 'Breathable" floor coverings should be considered if
the vapor flux rates are high. A slip sheet should be used if crack sensitive floor coverings are
planned.
Additional recommendations will be provided for structural slabs for use with drilled piers or pile
foundations if those alternatives are desired.
5.7 Corrosivity of Soils to Concrete and Steel
Geochemical screening of the onsite soils was performed. The screening is meant to serve as an
indicator of the design professionals in determining the level of input necessary from a qualified
corrosion engineer. Review of geochemical test results. by a qualified corrosion engineer is
recommended.
The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NAGE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a
substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment." From a geotechnical
viewpoint, the "environment' is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are reinforced
concrete foundations or various types of metallic buried elements such as piles, pipes, etc., which are
in contact with or within close vicinity of the soil.
In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble
sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. Table 19-A-4 of the UBC 1997 provides specific
guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceed 0.1 percent
or 150 parts per million (ppm). The minimum amount of chloride content in the soil environment that
are corrosive to concrete and steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or
'
-14-
��
110398-001
' plain steel substructures such as steel pipes or piles is .05 percent (500ppm) per California Test
Method 532. Results of laboratory corrosivity test conducted on near surface samples yielded soluble
sulfate contents of less than 150 ppm, chloride content of 166 ppm, a pH value of 7.8, and an
electrical resistivity of 2370 ohm -cm. Based on these results, concrete in contact with the existing
earth material at the site is expected to be subject to negligible sulfate exposure (as per Table 19-A4
of 1997 UBC). Metal components in contact with these soils could be subject to low to moderate
corrosion due to a relatively low soil resistivity value. Such components include (but are not
necessarily limited to) buried copper tubing, untreated steel, and aluminum elements in contact or
close proximity to site soils.
' 5.8 Slopes and Footing Setback
' We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural
footings and settlement -sensitive structures (i.e. fences, walls, signs, etc.). This distance is measured
from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall).
We anticipate that the existing slope in the southeastern corner of the building expansion which is
approximately 21 feet in height may be partially removed during the construction of the proposed
expansion. We anticipate this slope graded at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) at a maximum height of less
' than 22 feet to be grossly and surficially stable. This slope may be subject to erosion if left implanted
or unprotected following reconstruction of the slope.
' The 1997 UBC recommends that a 5 -foot minimum setback be established for the outside footing face
(bearing elevation) to the finished grade slope face. We should note that the soils within a slope
setback area possess poor long term lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining wall,
' sidewalks, fences, pavement, underground utilities, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be
subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement.
1 5.9 Anticipated Static Settlement
1
Settlement of some unremoved alluvial material, and properly compacted fill soils is expected to
occur due to the application of structural loads (elastic settlement), the majority of.which typically
occurs during and slightly after construction. Most of the settlement within alluvial soils under the
loading of compacted fill embankments is also expected to occur during or shortly after construction.
Because of the relatively high moisture content, hydroconsolidation of alluvium is considered to be
very low.
Consolidation characteristics of compacted fill and alluvial soils have been considered in conjunction
with the recommended allowable bearing capacities to evaluate settlement of structures. Total and
differential static and dynamic settlement should be on the order of 3/4 -inch and 1/2 -inch within 30
feet (Angular distortion, 1/720), respectively, provided that the recommended earthwork and
foundation systems are followed. These settlements may be exceeded for parking areas.
During the earthwork and placement of concrete under the existing footing, the designers should
anticipate up to 1/4 -inch of settlement due to minor yielding of shoring or removal of the soil bearing
material. The post -construction underpinning settlement (static) across the contact for the existing to
new addition is estimated to be approximately 1/3 -inch. Additional review is recommended upon
further refinement of structural plans and construction techniques.
15 _ ��®
I
1
I
110398-001
5.10 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance
Embedded structural walls or cantilever retaining walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures
exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the
wall can yield under load. If a wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it
can be designed for "active" pressure. If a wall cannot yield under the 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 structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by
the soil is the "passive" resistance.
' For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded
above the static ground water and backfilled with soils of very low to low expansion potential is
provided in the following 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 geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading
effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by 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. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in
Appendix D.
Lateral Earth Pressures
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)'
Condition
Level
Active
40
At -Rest
55
Passive2
250
(Maximum of 2.0 ksf)
' 1) Assumes drained condition in accordance with Appendix D.
2) Assumes the finished grade exterior of retaining wall will remain for the life of the
project.
' For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface.
In combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the frictional resistance should be
reduced by 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations.
The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration,
including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal distance between foundation elements providing
passive resistance should 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 the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem
design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding.
tWall 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. 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). The granular fill should extend horizontally to a minimum distance eq a to
'16-
' 110398-001
' one-half the wall height behind the walls. The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as
possible after backcut excavation. Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes may result in some localized
slope instability.
' For 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. Accordingly, an
increment of lateral pressure equal to 21.9 HZ, 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). All retaining wall structures should be provided with
' appropriate pipe and ground drainage and waterproofing.
5.10.1 Shoring and Underpinning
' It is our understanding that the design of the continuous footings along Line 1 and 0.9 will
consist of increasing the width and embedment of the existing footing by three feet in width
' and 4 feet in embedment (Figure 2, rear of text). This design change will nessitate the use of
underpinning the existing footing while excavation and construction occurs under the subject
footing. Leighton recommends that no larger than a 12 to 14 -foot wide section of the.existing
' footing be exposed and underpinned at one time and only with the approval of the project
structural engineer. Based upon conversations with the structural engineer; a likely construction -
sequence would be A -B -C (i.e. no more than one 12 to 14 -foot wide section opened on a
' portion of the two 74 foot long continuous footings at a time).
Based on the design for the proposed structure, excavations on the order of 5 to 10 feet are
anticipated. Temporary shoring of vertical excavations may be required. We recommend that
slopes or vertical cuts be retained by either a cantilever shoring system deriving passive support
from drilled solider piles (lagging -shoring system), a restrained tie -back and pile system, or a
two -way -braced system. Based on our experience, if lateral movement of the shoring system
' on the order of 1 to 2 inches cannot be tolerated, we recommend the utilization of a restrained
tie -back and pile system or two -way -braced shoring.
' For design of cantilevered shoring or two -way -braced shoring, we recommend a pressure
distribution resulting from an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pcf. Lateral earth pressures for
design of restrained shoring may be taken as a rectangular pressure of 30H (psf) where H is the
height (feet) of the excavation, including slopes above. Horizontal lagging elements should be
designed using a rectangular pressure distribution with a minimum 30 H psf pressure. For
footings adjacent to shoring, the designer should use 40 percent of the contact pressure as an
' additional loading. For preliminary design of tie -backs, we recommend a concrete -soil bond
stress of 500 psf of concrete -soil interface area for straight shaft anchors. This value should be
evaluated by field tests. Anchors should be grouted only behind the 40 -degree line up from the
footing base. This portion should also be used for calculating resisting forces. Tie -back anchors
' should be individually proof -tested to 150 percent of design capacity. Further details and
design criteria for tie -backs can be provided as appropriate. Since design of retaining systems
is sensitive to surcharge pressures behind the excavation, we recommend that this office be
consulted if unusual load conditions are anticipated. Care should be exercised when excavating
into the on-site soils since caving or sloughing of these materials is possible.
� eliR
-17- �®
110398-001
' 5.11 Preliminary Pavement Design
In order to provide the following recommendations, Leighton has performed an equivalent CBR test.
' The following pavement sections are provided for the interior driveways and parking areas. Based
upon the design CBR, which was converted to an equivalent R -value we provide the following
preliminary sections for planning purposes. Pavement sections were determined using the Caltrans
method for design of flexible pavements. Traffic Indices utilized in this method of design are based
on estimated equivalent axle loads over a period of 20 years. It is recommended that representative
samples of actual subgrade materials be obtained and tested as the basis for the final pavement design.
' • Standard Duty Parking Areas IncludingParking Stalls (Traffic Index = 5.0)
CBR = 13 (R -Value = 47): 3" AC / 6" AB
• Access Driveways (Traffic Index = 7.0)
CBR = 13 (R -Value = 47): 4" AC / 7" AB
Class 2 aggregate base should confirm to Section 26 of the State of California, Department of
' Transportation, Standard Specifications. Concrete cross gutters or other traffic areas should be
reinforced at a minimum with 6x6-10/10 welded -wire mesh at slab midheight. Asphalt Concrete,
Portland Cement Concrete, and.base materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with
' the 1997 Edition of the "Greenbook", Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
The upper 6 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95
' percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91 prior to placement of road base.
The base layer should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by
ASTM Test Method D1557-91.
' If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, some deterioration of the subgrade
load bearing capacity may result. We recommend some measures of moisture control (such as
deepened curbs or other moisture barrier materials) be provided to prevent the subgrade soils from
becoming saturated.
' 5.12 Exterior Flatwork Recommendations
We recommend that the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be designed by the civil engineer or structural
' engineer. We suggest control joints, at appropriate intervals, as determined by the civil or structural
engineer, be considered. We also suggest welded -wire mesh reinforcement and a minimum thickness
of 4 inches for sidewalk slabs. Sidewalks and curbs dedicated to the City of Temecula may require that
' no reinforcement be used. The project civil engineer should review the city sidewalk and curb
requirements during design. Due to the low to medium expansive soil characteristics, the sidewalk
subgrade should be presoaked to minimum 1.2 times to optimum moisture to 8 inches below subgrade.
5.13 Monitoring of Existing Structures and Improvements
Prior to the start of earthwork at the site, Leighton recommends the use of a preconstruction survey
(line and grade) on the adjacent properties and in public community right-of-way. This survey may
include the use of photo documentation, crack monitors and floor/hardscape level surveys.
Removals and recompaction at property lines along the side of the property should be performed in
stages such that the effects to existing lot walls, flatwork and foundations are minimized.
18_ t
110398-001
' 5.14 Landscape Maintenance and Plantine
' Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil and slope stability is significantly
reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be
maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for
planted slopes. Overwatering should be avoided.
In addition, graded slopes constructed with onsite materials may be erosive. Following
construction, any unplanted slopes may be subject to erosion. Eroded debris may be minimized and
surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon
after construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep-rooted types which
require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Compaction to the face of
fill slopes would tend to reduce short-term erosion until vegetation is established. In order to reduce
erosion on a slope face, an erosion control fabric (i.e. jute matting) could be considered.
' From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the
surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to
90 percent relative compaction.
I
I
1
AM
' -19-=
I
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
110398-001
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
that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity to review the following items.
' 6.1 Geotechnical Review of Plans and Specifications
1
1
I
1
The geotechnical engineer should review the project 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.
6.2 Construction Review
Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton and Associates representatives during
future grading and construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during
construction may vary from that encountered in the test borings. 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. Monitoring of adjacent improvements is recommended during earthwork operations in
order to minimize the potential for damaging adjacent improvements east and south of the subject site
(existing Robinsons•May and retaining wall, respectively).
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement,
foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed and tested.
6.3 Additional Geotechnical Studies for Foundation Alternatives
An additional geotechnical and geologic field investigation may be needed prior to the utilization of
some alternative foundation design recommendations, if chosen. Additional fieldwork may include
additional geotechnical review and borings. The additional field and laboratory work should be
summarized in an addendum report and include precise pile, stone column length and any foundation
plan review comments.
&__—_
-20-
I
1
1
1
110398-001
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for May Design & Construction 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 occurrences, 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 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 May Design &
Construction with whom Leighton 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 liability of Leighton and Associates.
-21-
as
Apr 06 01 12:56p W E Moscicki Assoc Inc 818 248 1867
p.2
W.E. MOSCICKI ASSOCIATES, INC. • Consulting Structural Engineers
3786 La Crescenta Ave. - Glendale,
CA 91208 • (818) 248-4491
PROJECT. q Oo SSS F--�(� @ 4 iF 1,
JOB NO.
SHEET:
DES. BY:
DATE:
SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINTS —A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED
t
i
[gg
f.
6 � �
� s
FAX TRANSMITTAL
# Of Peg"
t�-
W.EMA., INC.
CO
WM @10)2"91
DEPT
g1Xi (818)248.1867
FAX 1 ._.----r ,
!S CvSs
COMMENTS
I
I
1
E
MGCNWN I01 A LKMIL L �L, a ��
m
®E
W.E. MOSCICKI ASSOCIATES, INC. • Consulting Structural Engineers
3786 La Crescents Ave. • Glendale, CA 91208 • (818) 248-0491
PROJECT: q R%0 $Co 77(� @ GA/6 I . JOB NO. SHEEP.
-
DES. BY: DATE: -
SIGNATURE IS VALID ONLY ON PRINTS —A SIGNED COPY IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED
l
I S
�I
1 €
i
<I
'
t a
i l
f
I�
t
COMPACTION
l—
{
__
10DFS IMEM
(11 CT
1
NT.4�LCER Lam{ sTP.Ej1f(3 -'-MAT ; C2
NT
fElyj'IF�T
i
T—
su��?yi
p�L
Project No.
`MAS—
RAni
Project Name ��INs�aS-lYla+� I�I�° I
Engine r 'PAL/ AIG u
Date�_Figure No.
1800 691
EOTECnI AOC
L AT1.0M,.;.'
i
-'s1'wjW4y',,Expans,,
Rbbinson
Rived N, P
c linty, a(: rwa PLA
_ I Y
►e., Project hlt_1a9$.gg1I*e: t"", 2
En inee�lGeologist.. A,rojDA /i I Date: 4-2Ot • `f �*}� '
i XI ST 12 �, � ,~
'"`` -•�. �". a r AIN �•�: �Y
. C�eIq' on and Assoc �►tar�:
N
STORM DR
GRA121LIG NOJEa;
Eft WAVEZ-012-31
• fpr •.
A,
EXISTING ROBINSON S—MAY
1 CONSTRUCT X" A.C. PAVEMENT OVER X" A.B. r ,
� �. � � BUILDIN+� � � � J� r' � r •�
EXIST 1 z EMM
SANITARY SEWER
2 CONSTRUCT 4" THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK. EXIST 8" EIS FF'F=1063.5
`` SANITARY,, EVV.,11,30.,
CONSTRUCT TYPE D CURB 6 CF -%,PER C.O.T. STD. 204. , EXIST 24
EXI
'�. T 1� STORM DRAIN..
WATR N. _..
4 CONSTRUCT CURB AND GUTTER TYPE A--6 PER C.O.T. STD. 200.
,-- 61 IN E S
�5 CONSTRUCT HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP PER C.O.T. STD. XXX I JOIN EXIST
j
III ISCURB do SIDEWALK 1 ,
62.75 T
62.25 FS ...�.- .�,._. _,...,. -'=�" «-�,. ��,. • � �, '`
\
\63.0 OIN E ST``SLOPE `�•.� \ �.�
�\ \ +"^ UR
�� ,\`` VARIES `
EGEND
� 62. 5 TC
d ``.,,,,��. •'`�,. \ \�\ .,`. r �- �__.i► 62. FSS,,
k
»"mow, *r ♦ nrwrirrrµ " \ \� \\ , ` , .«+......._ . «�.« .. ...., .. -r`w..
IN
Af t�fietal Fill Placed
finder the 0bservatior end .�... \r,\a \ ` PB0P08 B N�30N'S-- w„,;\� .,�. 4.
, T�as#ing by !.sigh#otT AssaCiates '��, \ ,< � \;r �\'��t`'•,�`�,;�;�,,:,, � .,'',�:''� �•�,. '\', �
,_.....,,.�� 62 BUIL Ga'” -.a.-..,.... ,.. }..........M�.... _..,..`;�L\ t \\t\' ,x '1
'..G � , \ 1 L,\ \` \` w EXIST F1R ��AN
Older Alluvium �cirutecf where urtedj/{� .� •� - \r� `t .• 1063. �.�� \,��;,�`\�\`�, ti.�t�L\1� TO REMAIN
'"'► # \ L' •..•.,.�.....,...,»..,..r..,... , 2.50
\t\,\\\``,lt\ 1,\..�,;,\rt'\ C f1, ��." y'F. .� • •.'rt'r:
�' - \ -- , \ G PLANTtR ISLAM D
Pat L4 \ � � T REMAIN TY1�
SX
\ ti
Approximate Locatlo' O. Qf Exploratory �►rin '- L\ ,a \;\;r '�a: � `
... j \�,� rL . . 1 4,5► \�;,\\ \�`;, JOIN xlsT
\ l
\ s 48 F �t\,..t\ Lt\.\„ _ LIMIT OF GRADING a
`" :� t \ `,•�``; AT BAC
\ �' \ \ \ \ ` K OF CURB
\ a
1 Q5 Approxima a vatiar�, t? RemovalQ Irri�`�. r '\ \` '\ \ L , �` \,1, y\,\ r tL `,5�\I,\
# Ele � � �, ~ `� �ti ! ��\ , .�....�. �\\ �+�' \,,,\\ � '\��\ (� ST CURB TO
n O i1RAD / t ' ',� V , , \ , . ,'\`� 1 `\L\`y\\\ \\ ;\t�`' \V� f f y» a
'\rt �� LANDSCAPE .• � � • • LAN SCAPE '- RB
2 :\`' ;`� �•\• � ti\'' \ti ;�\, �',\\ ��\����\•,\,ti\�,;�`; ,.L;`,` � �'�iEMA )
., 1 AREA AEA \ ,�,\
I►' .,".''.r'
Approximate Limits o OSA rex ``� (Xt T`VR T\L,\ \\
• � � \�`\ \� � \\'\ ` \ \ \l''`L \ ` \ \ 'r `�\y \\ `\t \ L!'y\ 'L+y \, r Ly \ \,', ` \ \� ,\ \ ,,.L �,\ \ '\\ ' � \ i\\!1� ' ilk
a /'jH /'�
` \�\ �+ \ \ \\o L + ! '\ \\ \\ \\ e r,\ •,\: , \\\ \\',ti'ti\ \•r �k�\r \� ,�L\ \ \\, \ , , L\L \ �,��L\\,L\� j ,\`\ �l� ,.\ `\\,\`,'`y``'L �� EXIST �L RIcw�
•\ \\��`\ \\'tt iL .r `� , l`� 1' \ •\ \ \,\ , '\i�' .`,`,.,\ \\ ���,,,,� \' ,,y ,� -\\ `� , \` \ � ,.rr '�.,r\'' � •, \ `y�'`, \ \L \ ,,,•tL1� ',',\ , :\�`\ ATER LINE
'`�r.. `+e� �V- � • `\ t � `'+� \\� I r\� \ '\ � \� \\ \ a �""► ,1 \ \ , 1'1\\ \ K \\\\` \ ,4. \ ► , \.'L, `", , \\., . .�` „�' L \ L 'L\\r ' ;\` •,L� \\r a '�'\ �` + ,.'L'�1�\\\,� L\\ y\ \\L\�\ \'
a 4'�`�.�\� \L\` `\.�` \'!�\ \"'t\+, • \`\\.�+,,r�t1'�\rT'�P"""^- IL
t \ \,• 1\' -\ " \' ` , � 1 , t\ :�\�,\ '� ' � \r `\ L'i \L ' \\`ti• dd \ , \ \ 1 r • � \ \' t ! \ a l' \, , \ \, 11 ' � \\; . 1 \. � �,,\, \�,ti t \\,r\ ` `•`\�`�`� 1 \\.L , � \ y\\\ t \ � '� ..,...� y\ r' � '',
` A•r \ \ 1 r \ 11 y .: \\ ,'1 ` , ; ,�.. ,\�! r`t „ \\ `l \^\\.\ \��,'\\ \ �•\,� q 'i \•' 1�'\'1•l,r`'\' �' ` yr'
\. J�•,•.
\.. `�'� 1\ 1 ,rtL ,' , , ` .� a�\ `, L ., \a,�, `\ _\`' ,' \ , \ ' �1 �`� ``' r 4 ,, r ���`\,\\,1\.1' \ \ LL` \ \\\•,\ �\`` � \ , , `�\�\ taw _y.w+.�w�w....» ^L
� � � �`"'�"�, \1 \ `� •r`i,\•„It L\r\`\�,� � \,. \r1.,\.,`.1 y�\, `\ 1�. \�,�`\ '•,\t. �.\ , ,. �, , ,``��•\\,\\`L4\�'� 1L� \+\ \ .L\\1 t\ ',, \\1 \ `, \, , \��� ,,,t�\,����1\•y �`�\\� '\l �, �:ti •`w � ! �\'\a.
�'Ma � \ \ \ �� r�,,���-,..,,.. ' � .......,..,..,... \\�`;\ \, . ,\ti� .\ , ' �\� L `, - `,,• • � L � \ � , � \ , ^ \\,� i`, , • \`\L, � '., `; I \r't \ aww:. �. •.,»..�......,.,.«. a t....► "'� •,� 1. , �'�'' � ^�y
•, \\� o �,.� \ }-^`w,�,. `a....” ,w�4 .�1 � \ `ti..w, w \ , t�`\L `\\ y' r tr•\"� ,\; \,\.a, ��, L\ `� `�,`L\ ,\` \' �\ ,� a �� \ l``\\\``, `\,L 1�'\ a� \\ \
! � , \ '��.►+,. ` \` `\, L .\\�`..,i\ fy� '\�\e`\\ ,\ � •\a�v.. \,`\ ' �\\\\ \ \ \' \\,, ` \' \1\\ � ,' `\\,, \\\�• \�1 \�, \ \r •� \ •L `r
.. ._... N Ir I , \•\\�y � �, \ ,� y �� X. \• \ \ � S_t.\L�r9+' \ \,l\ \ L r t �,\ t '� \\ \y�` v\ �l , \ ,� \ �\ !., a \ , 1, •, ,\ "�' \`L1' \
�� \�\ � \` .r�\ \` ` : \ \ \`.t `�L\,\\, L r`;,\, ,`. ,\�\�� ````\` r �\,r `��� �,,`, r� LIMIT OF GRADING
\\ \ ! r�r �\ , 4 ;,y ,'� r,'\• \ ,\`., l� L\ 1.\\•\L.\`\ \ \�t \�\11\\��\\`. •,�L 1� \�1 \\'.,�..t\\'Y w..,....-.....�..._.
« CUR SID IALK
r k \11,� 4 �1 \. \ \. `, , �,�' �` \ , `\y \`.`, \ , ,w '•
? -'�k�lL,tr , , \ \ ; `\ ,, ; \ , \ , \, ,. \\ t, \\ , t�� L \ ; `, •. ,. , 4�. , `\,. ,, , f SAWCUT LINE`J\
\ \ r , \\ • 'L , L \ : ,�• \ ` \ ` , , \ \ A L �, \ • �"� , ,t \ ^•r.....�.,y,•,• �,`� `\ ', , ` �'1"� . `, 1. \\� L t • \ \ , \ N . \ \ , 't `'• \, .` L\ ,r, ' \ \ . , \ \� ` \ I �+ ' •�, a
•J IT I VRA \ ` 4 \`, 1 t•,t`. \ \ 1 ti ' 1\ ,\"�, ��,1 .' \.J\\
'+� ". 1 ! \`, w y�7���, \\, ,,�;`cT "} tit a \ \1\��, a.�. '3L •\ �`l\\r , . "".. ".
\• ,, ! r \ t , •\ L\\� •\' ,,•\ �\ _ \ l \r•\' t\\\\ ` ".v',ap \`',1, �`\"'t(� '\ ', 1 r \, \ �'fiT',i\' r_'!% , \. \ y •.�L ` ,, `�,\ \'L "\\\''Lr-,. r !\,i�•, t �,' �', , .'r'.,
A \ 1��. i t \ i\ R a\ •rt\\r ` \ \\\,\''. `•`,'•.\\ `,'.\ \\ „ ,. \�� , . .\ , \ . \ \ ,i!y `!., ,•';�,\,, ,`, �, \,..,, r !' �\, t.•�'., �' w s 'e -.,,r., ��.
F \ . 1, , , y r \ \ .\•• \\r a '1 \� '•. :\' . \ \ , r . , h ` \ �L„ • \ \ , \ C \ •,\ ' , \ „ , . \ . , L 't� ' , \ •r'r.'••' `' `t , \�\\ t �• L , \ •. '^wr ., i
///J/ \ , \ ! . y \ !,_, \ \' yy;,'... \ , \ , , ` A \ •,: L , , ' S�'C'`l' ,\\ \ , ,'• \ ,,'` . 7't'Y , ti \ �`,`•i ,. , 4,
/. , .\ ,�\ ' , , '�\ � � , ` \ , \� \ ` `1• (T , , • � �.�. l \ .a�.w \ \
\ \ \ ! ! \ "\ `\` Y , r 'F". x'' �T. ,\ , \ • \',` \ . .. tom, :� , \ „\\ .`\ �+�'C", .« _. „
rE E IST \ 4 � \ \, \\. ,' , �'.
TO NEISX\ \ . \ .\ 1 •, t \ ` \ , ` \ ` \ . \ r \ \ r 4', \''', \ \'• ,kl
URB / \ L L'' \ ,•` \ \„ \ \• L• ,r\ `.',\
. ``Vr '\y �\,t 1 \�\ �\ `.l�rL '\" , .1, ' �V,`1\\.L �`\ , L ,\��\-\' �\ \ r, \, ''�:"�L�',t \\\L, ;\ L ; \.,. \�\'1 ',:r.,' ' ,iL,,.t•\t .a \,1 \.'`•' ,.Lt`4`'t'\�,�\-�\ r�,.,.�,`t '�, �`rr\\ �`�`..\^�"• t.\i�\,\\'\.''\\!!T.�`\\ ,e \\\.t\•t\'\o \\\ ,L \r•;\ ', ti \ \ \�\• \ •,\\\ ; \` \`\ \. t , a L,t .., t ,t�\\• L` ' \ \,• \'L. ••. \ \ . \ � �•' a\\ \'',\ , .'\,' ),,t . .L •\, \• ,\`�!```h\„, .,' ,�.Lt•,\ ,1 ;\.;,\• � , ” L` .L \ ,�,t4,, ',,, ,\L: \\�\t, ,*� \\\►,L a,r\. t\' \'t L \\, L• 'f \' �"v�.\ � , \�y,.e!.',•�l\` '; \ \, ,\\!•t"\!L "�«,\\-'tr;�\L,, . \ \ \r` 'r�,\L' 1� -�\\ , tr"`�L `\\ +� \` >Y1,`',l\'�(,'vM'.•�L, \+,\.�\� \, ,.--^"-.'•.".^.,,+......_ «. .`- M.._ ..'�«„w''•..•-.-�.«. ,\
.` \
O ,
61.25 TC 4-1 .,....:...cz_a_ mr "a.•,., i,`. _
•- -�+' ._,. ... .. ., �. ,, -te1r' -: »
,
,.w .....
-.\
f' ... ;sk. '.'•--„,�..
a / 1'"\ \ `y t',\`4ti , .\! \ '•.1 •\ '\ .\\ ,,' \\, ,\` \,, ', ,\ \,,\ ,, \ \,\,\ \\,`\` ,L` ,L, 1 ''r` t \ 'r \t•�'r'` l �` „��� 1 �"°,'' ,,
•L ,.\
�'AT'\, ', �• 1\ ,•t „ \, , ,,',' ., .7 ., a , .,' ,, \•' ..,\`••`'l\ '\ \` 1\1 ,.,.
"4 \\ ,' \ 1y . \'• �l' 7rr`1y(,,` ,\ .1 51 `\'•\ \
�► »y .�.. � ,`"'' '°�. �,.i'!r T _ r , 4\ �..�,_, :.�! \. , \\ r;\\ \�\,'` a� ' \ \�'', \ •\.•\`,1�LL,\\ �yj\t\,•.L •.^,,.�`�1,�,'�\',.•• TL\+,a\,L',.ti,- \\\\•' ''•`,\1�\. �t\ '\�'!'t•t, ,��,\,'\�\' ,� ,' \,'.r,•,�L,, ',-qL„••`\`\!, , ,\ \„r! •,` `', \\`•'`.\\ 1� 1,' L,1`,''`.,'`5`,..\i\,',,\'• \ \t,t,\',` \„``,\,\,j�..r'a.'.xa\,\4��•1\•`.,.r�t°..\w..\��!.\`.,�L•' \`,y�L\t•r't,,\,, . ;t\ \ \.4.\tr. ,\ L,\. �,L`�.\\ �,�`` ,`�'ti\\.\ \�,,\`'\.r \\ •L�,'\\,\�,\` •\. \'`\1, ;,, .``,\”\',L\1\, ;`' : r� ,y\1,`,�\,"�x�'�t''''(,.";��,,'r t\��-1�,1 .•�\,•'1�\,`.�\y.._1. \,�``. �\��',�\\\y,L\, �,\,!\ \,\`'\ ,`1 \ 1.:`,L tr;.\\ ,'\\,'�t\L\', \y,\\,„t,. ' L \�\\ ';,\\. •\ .•`\\''r•. . �\ rlr\,r,' �,�•,\'a'` ,,••.` ,i; \t`,.•,,-\�\ 1\ ,1 \ L,\'` \,,,,``\�Lr,\,'�,,\,\,•,L, `\,,,:, t\,�\\ y'�\\L ,,,\`!•\\`' , '1\`r\kt\\\l ,, \•.1,,w•t5\, ,t\\1,,.'` ' \`',t•' ,\, \'\ \,` \ \\` ``\,`\'\\��\,\„t ' 't I' ,'•11 \,”`y\ ',, \,"r�\, •\\\1\�1t l'\\\ ,,` ,�\`\^t,\ \,\`' 1,\,° ••, ,1\`\. \` ,\ \�\\ \',•�.'\,�' •�\, ,.• \, `1�\r\lr•�?a,\ L
"Alk
EXIST 72
\ •!, ,Nl
STORM DRAIN
�A.�I._N._
\N 44 TC \
\,\\\
60:4 \.
._...-_.
FIRE H- YDRA.,N.. T
00"",
�FS
�k
"h
.�.t.
o_
t\ \\•\,�'. , , �\ .'t �� ` \ \ \*, ',',i�`,`\\,•`\� •� °`, •
a •. •\r\`,\` Lt\\'',\1:1., \•\ ,•\\ ,,,\i\ \, \I` � .,, •.,\•`\ \ L `1l,.� ,:\\I ,t' ,,r\\ \`t � ,t� 'Lt� .1\`\�� '',\, ,��",'\ ',\\L r \`,\��``�\.,\\ ,, `-\`•`,\•,•„ ..,...,..t.._...... ..
`',\\t```r\,1\�1 ,�\\' � `\' \'�, l 1�•_\ ,,� �.,t•\`\``•\\'',\\\ `•\:, �1\ ,a L, 1\! •'`.l`\\\'.\ \ .,..» .�
\'\ . \ \ . \� `, , •` . ,',`1 , t 'C"` . \ t ,1' \' r, , \; 1', ,. , I •���'T �""l' .4Tt�"''"`,L, '\ \ , ,`
L1 OF G ADING tit',,t ,� �,,. \ \\,+ L\\, ``r`\
A���s;�, �.~-.r ... .. y:,\ �,\\\�•',\:\\ ; �,\,\`,\.\'',\, \ , `' , , \\ \�\ \\ .,�L ,,,y L'„\\,` \ 1, 't ` \\\` ,'1'” \ •\ \,\,' L! �,,�.\. \ �..�...,,.►.�.
CUt 1'IG.,\�`
��,+1,�\,',tr'.\ �\ , \ ,� \\ ` \\', , \ \`\ ,�1\'\\`.�`\` ti.l `\ .�\„�.,� 'L` 1`\,r�'�""�'S•�'\"1",\ � ,.`\�,\�,�'.. .,r 1• �lL�\`t,\ \`��t \ \`. \ 6 k
R �`• \\;'\',\r' :L,, 1,\`.,\\ �. \ t•.\'\y\�� !t\ ',,,\ .'1\•,': \ ,\ y..r', \,\1,`\\\y 1\.\`'\ \;'.\�y\�',,,\! ,.\ \\ \\•',\�\ \\ \ \\ �\ \ , \. 'yl L.\t\`\,�`,'\\`\`, \� L\ 1 `R _.. .. .�..__..,
�.`.. ,,,, \':\1 \�,•�",',\\Llt,•\,\, ..� ,,'• Y~rY">'1-'rc-'` t \'\ L,, •,,\ ,`•. \, ,. ,\1, \\,,L`�,,. `\\\\\ 4,\� \,,L�`'`, \,�\. ,t\ L,� , p ,
....«,. ....s.w.wvr«.,.. .� r+..r..r+ ».._...w .\ L,', roo.,`•..`. \... -,fie••` .\ �,' \ '.',\' „• , ! 1, ,\ , ,, • , 1 ��'llr \4MIR;•\ \ rr4w.'\ �'\ 1\\t\ ,�r !\ • 1�. \N\ \.\ ,\\ 1'� j t'�, L �y ` .�••.... ....,.. y ........-......� t
!L1MIr_0FGFADlNO—
r .� _.. _ w �_.«..�... �...,�...�.. .,�� ._. w �'� -}•'
(SAWCUT U1
P1111101-. _ �_... ...� �.w.�.._..... �..�..., �_ ..__..�EXI•ST 30" _ ... _a_.. .._...._ r ..ri,__ ..__�__. _....�... • �- N,,.
STORM DRAIN •'�`'
+mow �` � ���^.• L r � . -+n ' `-fir. • n.:..� ,.1� : �• `�"'�
`�» -�,• ,,,t•,�,� . !! �'� .� ,,,rte' � \
EXIS ISeA.NDS ”' _, .., _._�. ,��... �. `� w . �... ,� . 'y r .�• ; ; , M ti
�d, •may �'"r r..r•�"„'"..""w- «.'.•""".•;�l.,w„ � ..� *� .e-- r f.,.,.• � `
TOR
E9(IST11�...-, ;� n.�,y•..,, w,
G PLAN R ISLANDS
s, �y '�'�.', � w�M�•r ,�.•�- ��.�,� ,� TO REMAIN �
EXI T UR '1 ET .•-.•p..r-
�, �' �. �- .•rte' � ,� � . ..,.
,,,. .«�,. y�.. XIS F1 E ,,..
30 15 3O 60 90 ,,,'•. .• yr�� --- -� µ « --� - r''��I'll -y'''�
� f a„�w� �� � "+�'"lr�,e.,,�w•��W '.`,�i..r.,+,"*,� �r���`'^•w,y M�� � �,..►yr” ,.►^-_ �•" �+ I•�.'I• �
�' - _ �`� q '"�.�-M'`h+,«:. "''w-".'�+'-'•�.'..N`'r"'w .... 'rl "�" Y '\ "r%• J”' .A•• p'
GRAM I C SCALE ....__�-•---
IN FEET
M..r--•-�--~- • �,��
XI ST 121' EM WD r~- .,.t-,"", `.. �' I✓' :.•i
\�
SANITARY SEWER r{
aw rr r
CV ,.
C' Underground Service Alert
by w " +r• t
O PLANNIN[� r dE8AC�N INCON®TRUQTIgN F K �.-�-
�....., ,
l7 ..�. ... • ' ..
a CALL TOLL FREE
EXIST 12" RCWD
1--800-422-4133 WATER LIN
w r W25 AL" PAFIIIAY
> FiY 52 *2W
a� C Cl N 8 U L`1" 1 N 13 9eA•12,16oa • FAX 949.47UM - WrrrwABF.aam
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
a CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REV I S I ONS DATE ACC#D BENCH MARK QEF S 10 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY COCKED BY
SCALEA ��� DAR I US FATAK I A BRYAN BERGERON MIKE TYLMAN RECOMMENDED BY: _ .. _ _ _ ... DATE: C I TY 0 TEMECULA DEP aF per,_ I C WOmS Drawing No .
44mow° A. jr e
►� Contractor HORIZONTAL. �``' .� �� A Plans Prepared . Under The Supery I s i on Of
0 1 " ! No • 4 0 ACCEPTED BY: ATE: PARCELPRINCIPAL ENGINEER, FOR CITY ENGINIEER NO, 28530 1
� Inspector SEE SFEET NO. 1 � �P. �-3t-a ,� t Q' RONALD J. PARKS
< VERTICAL MICHAEL A. TYLMAN
Dote co 1 sled PRECISE GRADING PLAN
Q N/A OF C A``i0 R.C.E. No. 43090 p a r e s 3-31--04 R.C.E. No. 19744 Ex p a r e s 9-~30-01
ROD I NSON'S MAY EXPANSION , PROMENADE MALL SHEET 2oF 4
I
110398-001
APPENDIX A
References
American Society 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, EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User's Manual, 77pp.
2000c, FRISKSP, Version 3.01 Computer Programs, for determining the probabilistic
horizontal acceleration, User's Manual, 99pp.
' ,2000d, UBCSEIS, Version 1.0, User's Manual for Evaluating the Seismic Parameters
in accordance with the 1997 UBC, 53pp.
' 1998, LIQUEFY2, A Computer Program for Liquefaction Analysis, User's Manual
88pp.
' Envicom Corp., 1976, Seismic Safety and Safety Elements, Technical Report for the County of Riverside
Planning Department.
' 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.
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.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern
Riverside County, California", Special Report 131.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1997a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Temecula Regional
Center, South and East of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Temecula, California,
dated April 9, 1997, Project No. 11971000-001.
' 1997b, As -Graded Report of Rough Grading, The Temecula Mall -Phase 1, Southeast of
Winchester and Ynez Roads, Temecula, California, dated December 5, 1997,
Project No. 11971000-003.
Al
[1
11
1
1
1
1
110398-001
References (continued)
1999a, As -Graded Report of Rough Grading, Robinson/May Building Pad, The
Temecula Mall, Temecula, California, dated January 13, 1999, Project No.
11971000-010.
1999b, As -Graded Report of Rough Grading, Mall Core Building Pad, The Temecula
Mall, Temecula, California, dated January 15, 1999, Project No. 11971000-010.
The May Department Stores Company, Scope of Work Rider, Form 19 Standard Consultant Agreement
Geotechnical Investigation, 7 pages, dated June 20, 1996.
Mann, John F., 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California Division of Mines and
Geology, Special Report 43, dated October, 1995.
NACE, 1995, Corrosion and Its Control, An Introduction to the Subject, 300 pp.
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.
WGCEP — Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern
California: Probable Earthquake Probabilities, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., Vol.
85, No. 2, pp 379-439.
U.S. Navy, 1986, Naval Facilities (NAVFAC) Engineering Command, Foundations and Earth Structures,
Design Manual 7.02 (DM 7.02), Revalidated by Change 1, September, 1986.
A-2
' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 3-26-01 Sheet 1 of 2
'Project Robinson's May Project No. 110398 -001 -
Drilling Co. CAL PAC Type of Rig B-61
Hole Diameter 8 in Drive Weight 140 IDS Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Hole+ 1063.5=F.F.' Location See Map
`o
z
DESCRIPTION
d
y
'all
IT
AJ
C
p y
U
O
dU.
CLL
C7
z
mIL
Z
O C
g 0
On
Logged By DAL
a
LU
y
Sampled By DAL
-
F-
0—
0AC
AC
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER BASE
--------------- ---------------
FILL
2.5': Medium brown, moist, dense, silty, fine SAND with clay
1
1 55
106.7
15.6
SM
5
CN
2
1 52
118.7
13.3
SM
______________________________
OLDER ALLLiVRJM alo
•
8.5': O iv brown to medium brown, moist, silty, fine SAND with
10
3
40
12.3
SM
some clay
@ 12.5': Grades to dark olive -brown, moist, clayey SILT
@ 13.5': Medium brown, silty, fine SAND
15
4
52
20.2
SM
-
20—.:@
20': Grades to medium dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND
AL, DS,
5
31
101.6
23.2
SM/SC
with little clay
CN
25
E**'
6
70
2.9
SW
@ 298': Light brown, damp to moist, well graded SAND
30
TYPE
OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE
S SPLIT
TYPES:
SPOON
G GRAB
SAMPLE
DS DIRECT
HD HYDROMETER Q-
SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS IX
R RING
SAMPLE
C CORE
SAMPLE
MD
MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS 1
B BULK
SAMPLE
CN CONSOLIDATION
EI EXPANSION INDEX �`�...
T TUBE
SAMPLE
CR CORROSION
RV R -VALUE
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Date 3-26-01
'Project
Drilling Co.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Robinson's Mal
CAL PAC
Hole Diameter 8 in Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Hole+ 1063.5=F.F.' Location
140 lbs
See
Sheet 2 of 2
Project No. 110398 -001 -
Type of Rig B-61
Drop 30"
c
w
00
'L
J
C7
d
z°
z
0.
E
m
fA
a
2
O
20
�MEO
V
r0:)
DESCRIPTION
Logged By DAL
Sampled By DAL
wd
a
F-
30
35
Total Depth 3 V
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled 3-26-01
Please note that elevation referenced on boring log is from proposed
finished floor R. MSL
elevation of 1063.5 per roject specification.
Actual top of hole is approximately 1062 ft. MpSL
40-
045505560TYPE
45-
50-
55-
60—
TYPE
OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE
TYPES:
HD HYDROMETER
S SPLIT
SPOON
G GRAB
SAMPLE
DS DIRECT
SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING
SAMPLE
C CORE
SAMPLE
MD
MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
_—
B BULK
SAMPLE
CN CONSOLIDATION
EI EXPANSION INDEX 1-`�
.�
T TUBE
SAMPLE
CR CORROSION
RV R -VALUE
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
140 lbs
Sheet 1
Project No.
Type of Rig
See Map
of 2
110398-001-
M
Drop 30"
Date 3-26-01
'Project
Robinson's
Drilling Co.
CAL
DESCRIPTION
Hole Diameter 8 in
Drive Weight
�'d
Elevation Top of Hole + 1063.5=F.F.'
Location
140 lbs
Sheet 1
Project No.
Type of Rig
See Map
of 2
110398-001-
M
Drop 30"
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2'
�y
DESCRIPTION
v
Od
�'d
O.O
"
z°
yc
dU
NW
w
>U.
z
Q
E
pLL
and
Gc
Oe
UV
_rn
m
w
a
�V
N?
Logged By DAL
a
N
Sampled By DAL
0
AC
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER BASE
------------------------------
E[LL fAfl
SA, MD,
@0-5'
2.5': Medium brown to olive -brown, moist, silty, fine SAND with
DS, EL
some clay
CR
5
2
54
117.6
14.5
SM/SC
AL
10
OLDER ALLUVIUM alo
•
9.5': Dark brown, moist, silty SAND with clay
DS, CN,
3
49
106.4
8.3
Sc
10.5': Dark brown, moist, silty SAND with clay
SA
@ 13': Medium brown, damp to moist, silty, fine SAND; Grades to
olive -brown, moist, silty fine SAND
15
4
61
113.5
3.1
SW
@ 16.5': Light brown, damp, well graded SAND with micro gravels
CN
@ 18': Medium brown, moist, silty SAND
20
5
23
106.3
14.5
SC
•
@ 21.5': Dark brown, moist, silty, very fine SAND with clay
SA
25
@ 24.5': Grades to dark grayish brown
•
@ 27.5':Dark grayish -brown, very moist, clayey SILT
30
TYPE
OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE
S SPLIT
TYPES:
SPOON
G GRAS
SAMPLE
DS DIRECT
HD HYDROMETER p_
SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS llL
R RING
SAMPLE
C CORE
SAMPLE
MO MAXIMUM
DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS S
—�
B BULK
SAMPLE
CN CONSOLIDATION
EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE
SAMPLE
CR CORROSION
RV R -VALUE
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
140 lbs
Sheet 2 of 2
Project No. 110398 -001 -
Type of Rig R-61
Drop 30"
See Map
0
`„
>d
yU.
LU
Date 3-26-01
0
L
100
rJ
'Project
z
Q.
E
m
Robinson's
y
I-) -U
co-
G
Drilling Co.
CAL I
DESCRIPTION
Logged By DAL
Sampled By DAL
Hole Diameter 8 in
Drive Weight
30-
Elevation Top of Hole+ 1063.5=F.F.'
Location
140 lbs
Sheet 2 of 2
Project No. 110398 -001 -
Type of Rig R-61
Drop 30"
See Map
0
`„
>d
yU.
LU
L
UWI
OIL
0
L
100
rJ
N
O
z
z
Q.
E
m
wo
and
a
y
I-) -U
co-
G
�'
r
�«
OC
�V
U; --r-
'V7
2ui
N?
DESCRIPTION
Logged By DAL
Sampled By DAL
14
F
O
01
c
30-
6
65
1.7
ML
•
@ 30.5': Light brown, damp, well graded SAND; grades to medium
brown, damp, fine to SAND
SA
silty, medium
35
40
@39.5: Interbedded dark brown, moist, silty, clayey SAND with light
SA
brown, damp well graded SAND
7
62
13.9
45
50-
8
45
14.1
@ 51.5': Top of Sam le - Light brown, damp, silty, fine to medium
SA
SAND; Bottom ot�Sample - Olive -brown, moist, silty, clayey SAND
55 Total Depth 53'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled 3-26-01
Please note that elevation referenced on boring log is from proposed
finished floor elevation of 1063.5 R. MSL per project specification.
Actual top of hole is approximately 1062 X. MSL
60
TYPE OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE TYPES: HD HYDROMETER
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX �_1`.�
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R -VALUE _`e
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 3-26-01
Project Robinson's Mal
Drilling Co. CAL PAC
Hole Diameter 8 in Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Hole+ 1063.5=F.F.' Location
140 lbs
Sheet 1
Project No.
Type of Rig
of 2
110398 -001 -
Drop 30"
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
y
�y
��;
DESCRIPTION
a
g
«,y
`rJd
L01
N
d
z°
d
NG
O
Cw
«C
10U
~
>LLGa7LL
J
O
d
p6
.y«'
Vf/j
G
Z
E
ma
Z
MV
OM
Logged By DAL
T
LU
to
Sampled By DAL
0
AC
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER BASE
--------- --------------
FILL
@ 2.5':': Medium brown, moist, dense, silty, fine SAND with some clay
5
1
53
113.8
15.2
SM/SC
2
64
123.1
10.9
SM
10
------------------------------
OLDER ALLUVIUM alo
•
9.5': Medium brown, moist, silty, fine SAND; little clay
3
68
12.9
SM
@ 13.5': Medium brown, moist to damp, silty, fine SAND; mottled
'
with dark brown, silty sand and rootlets
15
4
23
15.0
SM
@ 17.5': Same as above, no rootlets, no mottling
20
@ 19.5': Grades to dark brown, moist, silty, very fine SAND
5
21
19.6
SM
25
30
TYPE
OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE
S SPLIT
TYPES:
SPOON
G GRAB
SAMPLE
DS DIRECT
HO HYDROMETER Q-
SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS OL
R RING
SAMPLE
C CORE
SAMPLE
MD MAXIMUM
DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
d`���
B BULK
SAMPLE
CN CONSOLIDATION
EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE
SAMPLE
CR CORROSION
RV R -VALUE _
-a
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
' GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 3-26-01
'Project Robinson's
Drilling Co. CAL
Hole Diameter 8 in Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Hole+ 1063.5=F. F.' Location
Sheet 2
Project No.
Type of Rig
140 lbs
See Map
of 2
110398-001-
B-61
Drop 30"
;y
;d
dLL
W
sw
OLL
U
��
t7
N
C
z
z°
G
E
iA
we
l
mm
(L
N
dV
Ga
O
dM
Nd
oc
MO
Ny
:.7U
ry
0n:3
DESCRIPTION
Logged By DAL
Sampled By DAL
d
w
y
T
30-
6
80
2.4
SW
@ 305: Light brown, damp, silty SAND to light brown, damp, well
•
graded SAND
35
Total Depth 31.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled 3-26-01
please note that elevation referenced on boring log is from proposed
finished floor elevation of 1063.5 ft. MSL per project specification.
Actual top of hole is approximately 1062 ft. MSL
40-
04560TYPE
45-
60—
TYPE
OF TESTS: CO COLLAPSE
SAMPLE
S SPLIT
TYPES:
SPOON
G GRAB
SAMPLE
DS DIRECT
HD HYDROMETER rr
SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING
SAMPLE
C CORE
SAMPLE
MD
MAXIMUM DENSITY AL ATTERBERG LIMITS �
B BULK
SAMPLE
ON CONSOLIDATION
EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE
SAMPLE
OR CORROSION
RV R -VALUE
' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
' - 110398-001
' APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
' Atterberg Limits: The Atterberg Limits were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D423 for
engineering classification of the fine-grained materials and presented in the table below:
II
Sample Location
Liquid Limit (%)
Plastic
Limit (%)
Plastic
Index (%)
USCS
Soil Classification
B-1 @ 20'
30
23
7
CL
B-2 @ 5'
28
20
8
CL
' Classification or Grain Size Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain -size analysis by
sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM Test Method D422). The data was evaluated in determining
the classification of the materials. The grain -size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the
' Unified Soil Classification (USCS) is presented in both the test data and the boring and/or trench logs.
Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples.
Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression in general
accordance with ASTM D2435. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the
amount of vertical compression to the original 1 -inch height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented
in the test data herein.
1
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 to the shear box, and reloading the sample, 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 samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor -driven, strain -controlled, direct -shear
testing apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5 inches per minute (depending upon the soil type). The
test results are presented in the test data.
11
Sample
Location
Sample Description
Friction Angle (degrees)
(relaxed)
Apparent
Cohesion (psf)
B-1 @ 20'
Olive Gray Silty SAND
31.5
460
B-2 @ 5'
Olive silty SAND
35.1
147
B-2 @ 10'
Light brown silty SAND
32.3
150
C-1
1
1
1
1
110398-001
Laboratory Testing Continued
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index
Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately 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:
Sample
Sample Description
Compacted Dry
Expansion
Expansion
Location
130.5
Density (pcf)
Index
Potential
B-2 @ 0-5'
Olive -brown silty clayey SAND
112.2
52
Medium
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed
on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test boring. The results of these tests are presented in the
boring log.
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical 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
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
B-2 @ 0-5'
1 Olive -brown silty clayey SAND
130.5
10
Soluble Sulfates and Cholride: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard
9 ochemical methods (CTM 417). The test results are presented in the table below:
Sample
Sample Description
Chloride
Sulfate
Content
Potential Degree of
g
Location
7.8
(ppm)
(ppm)
Sulfate Attack*
B-2 @ 0-5'
1 Olive -brown silty clayey SAND
16683
Negligible
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A4, prepared by the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBG).
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance
with California Test Method 643. The results are presented in the table below:
Sample
Location
Sample
Description
p H
Minimum Resistivity
(ohms -cm)
B-2 @ 0-5'
Olive -brown silty clayey SAND
7.8
2370
C-2
10.0000
9.0000
c
8.0000
z
a 7.0000
¢ 5.0000
R 5.0000
z
0 4.0000
r
3.0000
O
w 2.0000
1.0000
0.0000
10.0
No Time Readings
100.0 1000.0
LOG OF TIME (min)
-1.00
ME
10.0000
9.0000
c
_-
8.0000
0
s 7.0000
a
6.0000
p 5.0000
z
O 4.0000
F
3.0000
O
W 2.0000
1.0000
0.0000
10000.0
No Time Readings
0 10
SQUARE ROOT OF TIME (min)
0
N 2.00
W
19 �.9
4.00
0.1
1.0 10.0 100.0
Pressure ,p (ksf
BORING
SAMPLE
DEPTH
MOISTURE
DRY
DEGREE OF
CONTENT (%)
DENSITY (pcf)
VOID RATIO
SATURATION (%)
NO.
NO.
(ft)
Initial / Final
Initial / Final
Initial / Final
Initial / Final
B-1
2
6.0
13.3 / 19.4
114.2/109.4
0.476/0.488
75/97
SOIL DESCRIPTION: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
No Time Readings
No Time Readings
10.0000
10,0000
9.0000
9.0000
8.0000
8.0000
U'
O
7.0000
7.0000
6.0000
M 6.0000
p
5.0000
< 5.0000
z
z
4.0000
O 4.0000
3.0000
3.0000
0:
Q2.0000
0 2.0000
1.00001,0000
0.0000
0,0000
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
0 10
LOG OF TIME
(min)
SQUARE ROOT OF TIME (min)
-1.00
II
0.00
Inundate with
Tap Water
1.00
I I
0
I I
0
aN
200
`
I
I
I
3.00
I
I I
I I
I
l
4.00
l
0.1
1.0
10.0 100.0
Pressure ,p (kso
BORING
SAMPLE
DEPTH
MOISTURE
DRY
DEGREE OF
CONTENT (%)
DENSITY (pcf)
VOID RATIO
SATURATION (%)
NO.
NO.
(ftJ
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
B-1
5
20.0
23.2/20.2
100.6 / 105.2
0.676/0.663
93/89
TFfYrtZEST,rLn1rS, Ir+C.
Prajeci No.: 110398-001
SOIL DESCRIPTION: Olive gray
silty sand ISM)
Robinson's May
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES OF SOILS
(ASTM D 2435)
04-01
No Time Readings
No Time Readings
10.0000
10.0000
9.0000
9.0000
_-
8.0000
2
8.0000
z
o
7.0000
0 7,0000
a
6.0000
6.0000
p
5.0000
0 5.0000
z
z
4
4.0000
O 4.0000
a¢~
3.0000
S 3.0000
2.0000
0 2.0000
❑
❑
1.0000
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
0
10
LOG OF TIME
(min)
SQUARE ROOT OF TIME (min)
-1.00
0.00
Inundate with
i
Tap Water
0
0
1.00
0
O
E
O
N
2.00
i
i
3.00
i
4.00
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Pressure
,p (ks�
MOISTURE
DRY
DEGREE OF
BORING
SAMPLE
DEPTH
CONTENT (%)
DENSITY (pcf)
VOID RATIO
SATURATION (%)
NO.
NO.
(ft)
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
B-2
3
10.0
8.3/20.9
107.1 / 105.8
0.574/0.569
39/95
Project No.: 110398-001
�ifiz.E.-L��rs.
TF rrIN'..
SOIL DESCRIPTION,
Olive silty sand (SM)
Robinson's May
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES OF SOILS
(ASTM D 2435)
04-01
No Time Readings
No Time Readings
10.0000
10.0000
9.0000
9.0000
8.0000
8.0000
❑Z-
7.0000
7.0000
¢
6.0000M
6.0000
p
5.0000
0 5.0000
Z
Z
4,0000
O 4,0000
QO
a
KKKo
3.0000
3.0000
2.0000
2.0000
❑
❑
1.0000
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
0
10
LOG OF TIME
(min)
SQUARE ROOT OF TIME (min)
-1.00
i
0.0o
Mnuntate
0
1.00
c
E0
i
0
W
2.00
3.00
i
i
4.00
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Pressure ,p (kso
BORING
SAMPLE
DEPTH
MOISTURE
DRY
DEGREE OF
CONTENT (%)
DENSITY (pcf)
VOID RATIO
SATURATION (%)
NO.
NO.
((t)
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
Initial /Final
B-2
4
15.0
3.1 /17.4
108.3 / 110.3
0.557!0.517
15/89
Project No.110398-001
:
TERi!>7.E'.Cr ?Ln�.s.
INc.
SOILDESCRIPT]ON:
Olive siltysand(SM)
Robinson's May
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES OF SOILS
(ASTM D 2435)
04-01
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC
' GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
' 1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 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
t geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
' in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
' 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,
' and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
' plan' prepared 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 exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
' interpreted 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 frequent basis.
' 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
' ground to receive fill, moisture -conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor 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 prepare 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
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical 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, insufficient 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 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If 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
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EAR'T'HWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
2.2 Processin¢: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay, lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, 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 grading.
2.4 Benching: 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. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
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.
2.5 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
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant 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 material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Placement operations 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
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of 6
1
' 4.0
I
1
3030.1094
t
meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near -horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditionine: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
D1557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture -conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling 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
maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testine: 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. Test 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 fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testine: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. 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 Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
11
I
1
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the 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 Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically 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 burial. 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 Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill -over -cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
1
1
' 3030.1094
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SEa30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit
to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant 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.
' Leighton and Associates, Inc. -
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
' 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
' compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
11
I
I]
LJ
[1
11
1 3030.1094
PROJECTED PLANE
I TO 1 MAXIMUM Fr" TOE
OF SLOPE TO APPSCVM GROUND
NATURAL
GROUND
7 YIN. �—iS YIN.
KEY DEPTH LOWEST BE'FCH
' NATURAL
GROUND
Y �
—•2S Al
/ �1S!
/ LOVYES7
2' MNL
•� - KEY DEPTH
' OUT FACE
SHALL BE C-1 ISTRI ICTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE
ADECUATE GEOLOGIC CCNOrnCNS
OVERBUILT AND
TRIM BACX\
SLOPE
t iS YI!
2' MJPI.J LOWEST BI
KEY DEPTHY)
EYING AND BENCHING
IV TYPICAL
HEIGHT
REMOVE
NSUrTABLJ
MATERIAL
4. TYPICAL
H � BENCH
HEIGHT
REMOVE
JNSUTTABLE
MATERIAL
CUT FACS
TO BE CCNSTRLICTED PRIOR /
TO FSL PLACE3AENT
NATURAL
GROUND /
4' TYPSCAL
REMOVE
NSUITABLI
MATERIAL
FILL SLOPE
FILL -OVER -CUT
SLOPE
CUT -OVER -FILL
SLOPE
For Subdrains See
Standard Detail C
HEIGHT '
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEW SLOPES
ANGLE IS ELIAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1
MINIMUM MIC H HESiHT SHALL BE 4 FLa
MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEE
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING 1 i
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
PLANE
'PROJECTED
I TO i MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF SLOPE TO
APPROVED GF;CUND\
OVERBUILT AND
TRIM BACX\
SLOPE
t iS YI!
2' MJPI.J LOWEST BI
KEY DEPTHY)
EYING AND BENCHING
IV TYPICAL
HEIGHT
REMOVE
NSUrTABLJ
MATERIAL
4. TYPICAL
H � BENCH
HEIGHT
REMOVE
JNSUTTABLE
MATERIAL
CUT FACS
TO BE CCNSTRLICTED PRIOR /
TO FSL PLACE3AENT
NATURAL
GROUND /
4' TYPSCAL
REMOVE
NSUITABLI
MATERIAL
FILL SLOPE
FILL -OVER -CUT
SLOPE
CUT -OVER -FILL
SLOPE
For Subdrains See
Standard Detail C
HEIGHT '
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEW SLOPES
ANGLE IS ELIAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1
MINIMUM MIC H HESiHT SHALL BE 4 FLa
MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEE
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING 1 i
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
I
FINISH GRADE
I01______C0MPACTE1) FILL
— — — — — — — — MIN -- — — — — — — — -- — — — — —
SLOPE FACE — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
--------- 7-7-----------
I;p -----------ALL--
- - -- --- - :��- 7_7
__7�-7-7
—
—MIN. —
IN. MIN:7 is, MW.--------- - ------------- t
7 7
-------- _— — — — — — — ------
OVERSIZE — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — —
WINDROW- — — —
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 JETTED OR FLOODED
APPROVED SOIL
• Oversize rock Is largerthan 8 Inches
in largest dimension.
Swidill with approved soil jetted or
flooded In place to fill all the voids.
• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
• Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished slope lace.
m
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
SECTION A -A'
-----------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - -
JET -FED OR FLOODED
APPROVED SOIL
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
------------
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS
NATURAL
GROUND
--- -- — — —— --- — -- —
\ — — —COMPACTED FILL
— -- — —
TYPICAL _ _ _
BENCHING � — — — — — — — —
— REMOVE
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
\.� SUBDRAIN
(See Alternates A and B)
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A PERFORATED PIPE SURROUNDED
WITH FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL (9FT /FI)
r �
FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL SMALL BE CLASS 2 PSWEA01E MATERLV.FER STATE OF
CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATION, OR APPROVED ALTERNATE
CLAM 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS
Sieve Sae Pare=nt Pmsina
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/8" 40-100
No.4 25'40
No.8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1 \% SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-2
PERFORATED PIPE
6'0 MIN.
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
12" MIN. OVERLAP - MSHMG E Enrearnoe¢
(N(MFl tglgt
FILTER FABRIC (a MIN. wmni A PROWD EQMA(EMO
(MIRAFI 140NC OR
APPROVED EQUNALEM
I..—� IF Mw.
SMw. PIX OPA E➢ l/f dEN GMDED GR
5q
No. O0. A>P1wED EC,UNNENr
3/4" MAX. GRAVELOR "cN-0.•nmuim
ALTERNATE B-1 APPROVED EQUIVALENTALEQUIVALENTALTERNATE B-2 i~ wo MIN
(9FT3/FI)
0 PERFORATED PIPE IS OFT ONAL PER
GOVERNING AGENCY S REQLIIREMEFITS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
CANYON SPECIFICATIONS
SUBDRAIN STANDARD DETAILS C '""�
1f
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
�J
Irl
I
1
OUTLET PIPES
4"1 NON -PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
S` MIN.
----- _ -
—!�% MIN _--BACKCUT
------ - --_- ---
1't _ - __ _--_ --
_ _------�°� MIN.- - - - -
--_
_2% MIN. -----
13 MIN.
KEY DEPTH KEY WIDTH
2' MIN.
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATEA POSITIVE SEAL SFaLD13E
PROVIDED AT THE JOINT
BENCHING
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
/MIN. 12" OVERLAP FROM THE TCP
e SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant 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% towards the
outlet
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, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
CALTRANS CLASS 2
FILTER MATERIAL (3F r?/FT)
OUTLET PIPE
(NON -PERFORATED)
OUTLET PIPE
_
(NON -PERFORATED)
T^ DUN.
3/4" ROCK (3FT3/FT)
WFAPP® IN FILTER FABRIC
\ly /
�" MIN.
T -CONNECTION FROM
COLLECTION PIPE TO OU LEr PIPE
BENCHING
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
/MIN. 12" OVERLAP FROM THE TCP
e SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant 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% towards the
outlet
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, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
I
_1
1
7
LJ
11
CUT -FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD
RESTRICTED USE AREA
OVEPEXCAVATE
AND RECCMPACT
I
NATURAL
GROUND
FINISHED CUT PPD
OVERBURDEN
OR UNSUITABLE - - - /-
MATIIUAL - - i1MIM. - _ -
- PAD OVEREXUIVATION AND RECOMPACIICN
SHALL BE PERFCRMED IF SPECIFIED
-�-�/ TYPICAL. BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CCNSULTANT
BENCHING
SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS
WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL CCNSULTANT
9' MBJ.
Z' MIN.
LEY
DEPTH UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
TRANSITION LOT FILLS
AND SIDE HILL FILLS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E
REMOVE
_
. UNSUITABLE
/
GROUND
.- _ _-_-_-.- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - {OMPACEDFILL - - - --, --.- - -
4'MIN.
-_-_- -_ - - -- y_
r_ _---_-_-_-
-
_-
ODRECOMPAE
_
- - - - - _,G - -
��\/
AND RKOMPACf
- - - - -
TYPICAL
- (. BENCFBNG
-
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED
BY THE GE(IrECHNICAL CCNSULTANT
SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD
RESTRICTED USE AREA
OVEPEXCAVATE
AND RECCMPACT
I
NATURAL
GROUND
FINISHED CUT PPD
OVERBURDEN
OR UNSUITABLE - - - /-
MATIIUAL - - i1MIM. - _ -
- PAD OVEREXUIVATION AND RECOMPACIICN
SHALL BE PERFCRMED IF SPECIFIED
-�-�/ TYPICAL. BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CCNSULTANT
BENCHING
SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS
WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL CCNSULTANT
9' MBJ.
Z' MIN.
LEY
DEPTH UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
TRANSITION LOT FILLS
AND SIDE HILL FILLS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <-50
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation
OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH
Sieve Size
Percent Passing
1^
100
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
90-100
OPTIONI2: GRAVEL WRAPPED
40-100
No.4
25-40
IN FILTER FABRIC
18-33
No. 30
WITH PROPER
No. 50
WITH PROPER
No. 200
0-3
SURFACE DRAINAGE
SURFACE DRAINAGE
- SLOPE
-
SLOPE
OR LEVEL
J- — L
OR LEVEL
12"
12"
NATIVE
NATIVE
WATERPROOFING
!'r.
(SEE GENERAL NOTES)
WATERPROOFING
(SEE GENERAL NOTES)
FILTER FABRIC
(SEE NOTE 4)
-
12" MINIMUM
`�
12" MINIMUM
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
WEEP HOLE
FILTER
WEEP HOLE
y4 m 1'h wa SIZE
(SEE NOTE 5)
(SEE GRADATION)
(SEE NOTE 5)
GRAVEL wawPED w FILTER
- 4INCH DIAMETERFABRIC
LEVEL OR
PERFORATED PIPE
LEVELOR
SLOPE
(SEE NOTE 3) _
SLOPE
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation
Per Caltrans Specifications
Sieve Size
Percent Passing
1^
100
3/4"
90-100
3/8"
40-100
No.4
25-40
No. 8
18-33
No. 30
5-15
No. 50
0-7
No. 200
0-3
GENERAL NOTES:
* Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable.
* Water prooring of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer
* All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum
*Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4 -inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project
engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding)
*Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.
Notes
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greaterand may be densified by water jetting.
2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/47 to 1 1/2 -inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric
3) Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule
40, Annoo A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in
diameter placed at the ends of a 120 -degree arc in two rows at 3 -inch on center (staggered)
4) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent.
5) Weephole should be 3 -inch minimum diameter and provided at 10 -foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should
be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the
sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement -type wall, a proper subdrain outlet
system should be provided.
6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer.
7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50
Figure No.