HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 31344 Geotechnical Reprt of Rough GradingGeotechnical Consulting
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OFROUGH
GRADING, TRACT 31344, "GALLERY
PORTRAITS", YNEZ ROAD AND RANCHO
VISTA ROAD, CITY OF TEMECULA,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0
Dated: October 13, 2006
Prepared for:
Mr. David Meade
GALLERY DEVELOPMENT
31618-1 Railroad Canyon Road
Canyon Lake, California
41531 Date Street a Murrieta a CA 92562-7086 .(9511461-1919 a Fax (951)461-7677
Geotechnical Consulting
October 13. 2006
Mr. David Meade
GALLERYDEVELOPMENT
31618-1 Railroad Canyon Road
Canyon Lake, California 92587
Project No. I05773-30
' Subject. Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Tract31344, "Gallery Portraits", Ynez Road and Rancho
Vista Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
This report presents a summary of the observation and testing services provided by LGC Inland, Inc., (LGC) during
rough grading operations to develop the subject site in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California.
Conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the suitability of the grading for the proposed construction are
provided herein, as well as foundation -design recommendations based on the as -graded soil conditions.
The purpose of grading was to develop 10 lots for construction of single family residences. The proposed buildings
will be one- and/or two-story structures with wood or steel -framed construction. Grading on the subject building
pads began during August of 2005 and continued to September of 2005, when the rough grading was interrupted to
complete the sewerline improvements in Portraits Lane. Rough grading resumed again in August of 2006 and was
completed in September of 2006.
1.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Removal and recompaction of low-density surface soils, processing of the exposed bottom surfaces or placement of
compacted fill under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation and with selective testing
by LGC. Earthwork and grading operations were performed in general accordance with the recommendations
presented in the referenced reports (see References) and the grading code of the City of Temecula, California. The
completed earthwork has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the construction now planned. On the basis
of our observations and field and laboratory testing, the recommendations presented in this report were prepared in
conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further warranty is expressed or
implied.
2.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
2.1 General
Geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were frequently observed and mapped by LGC's
geologic/technical staff.
2.2 Geologic Units
Earth materials within the site included Quaternary alluvium and previously placed undocumented fill
materials.
41531 Date Street • Murrieta • CA 92562-7086 49511461-1919 • Fax (9511461-7677
2.3 Groundwater
During grading operations, groundwater was not encountered.
2.4 Faulting
No faults were observed during grading operations on the site.
3.0 SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND DENSITY TESTING
3.1 Site Clearing and Grubbing
Prior to grading, all grasses and weeds were stripped and removed from the site.
3.2 Ground Preparation
The purpose of this grading operation was to provide compacted fill mat under each of the individual
building sites. In proposed areas where fills and/or shallow cuts less than 3 feet below original ground
surface were planned, overexcavation of existing ground surfaces extended into the underlying competent
alluvium to remove the existing loose alluvium and previously undocumented artificial fill materials. Since
the entire building pads were overexcavated, all cut/fill transitions were eliminated. Removals varied from
approximately 8 to 17 feet below original grades throughout most the of subject site, with locally deeper
removals. The average depth of removals throughout the lots was about t10 feet.
Prior to placing fill, the exposed bottom surfaces were scarified to depths of 6 to 8 -inches, watered or air-
dried as necessary to achieve at or slightly above optimum moisture content and then recompacted in-place
to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
3.3 Disposal of Oversize Rock
Oversize rock (rock generally greater than 1 foot in maximum dimension) was not encountered during the
removal operations.
3.4 Fill Placement and Testine
Fill materials consist of onsite soils. All fills were placed in lifts restricted to approximately 6 to 8 inches in
maximum thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, then
compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent by rolling with a rubber -tired bulldozer
or loaded scrapers. The maximum vertical depth of fill placed within the subject building pads as a result of
grading is approximately 19 feet.
Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2922 and
D3017 (nuclear gauge). Test results are presented on Table I (attached) and test locations are shown on the
enclosed As -Graded Geotechnical Map (Plate 1).
1 Project No. 105773-30 Page 2 October 13, 2006
Field density tests were taken at vertical intervals of approximately 1 to 2 feet and the compacted fills were
tested at the time of placement to verify that the specified moisture content and minimum required relative
compaction of 90 percent had been achieved. At least one in-place density test was taken for each 1,000
cubic yards of fill placed and/or for each 2 feet in vertical height of compacted fill. The actual number of
tests taken per day vaned with the project conditions, such as the number of earthmovers (scrapers) and
availability of support equipment. When field density tests produced results less than the required minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent, the approximate limits of the substandard fill were established. The
substandard area was then reworked or removed, moisture conditioned, re -compacted, and retested until the
minimum relative density was achieved.
Visual classification of earth materials in the field was the basis for determining which maximum dry density
value, summarized in Appendix B, was applicable for a given density test.
3.5 Slopes
Slopes constructed within the subject site consist of low -height 2:1 (h:v) fill and cut slopes varying to a
maximum height of 5 feet.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 Maximum Dry Density
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil types observed during grading were
determined in our laboratory in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557-00. Pertinent test values are
summarized in Appendix B.
4.2 Expansion Index Tests
Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of soil existing at or near finish -pad grade
within select building pads. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 4829-03. Test results
are summarized in Appendix B.
4.3 Soluble Sulfate Analyses
Water-soluble sulfate contents were also determined for representative samples of soil existing at or near pad
grade of select building pads in accordance with California Test Method (CTM) No. 417. Test results are
summarized in Appendix B.
4.4 Chloride/pHlResistivity
Samples of soil considered representative were tested for corrosion potential by testing for chlorides (CTM
422) and pH and resistivity (CTM 643). Test results are presented in Appendix B.
Project No. 105773-30 Page 3 October 13, 2006
5.0 POST -GRADING CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Landscaping and Maintenance of Graded Slopes
Unless long-term mitigation measures are taken, slopes may be subject to a low to moderate degree of
surficial erosion or degradation during periods of heavy rainfall. Therefore, it is recommended that fill
' slopes be landscaped with a deep-rooted, drought -resistant, woody plant species. To provide temporary
slope protection while the woody materials mature, the slopes should be planted with an herbaceous plant
species that will mature in one season or provided with some other protection, such as jute matting or
' polymer covering. The temporary protection should be maintained until the woody material has become
fully mature. A landscape architect should be consulted to determine the most suitable plant materials and
irrigation requirements.
' To mitigate future surficial erosion and slumping, a permanent slope -maintenance program should be
initiated. Proper slope maintenance must include regular care of drainage- and erosion -control provisions,
' rodent control, prompt repair of leaking irrigation systems and replacement of dying or dead plant materials.
The irrigation system should be designed and maintained to provide constant moisture content in the soils.
Over -watering, as well as over -drying, of the soils can lead to surficial erosion and/or slope deterioration.
' The owners should be advised of the potential problems that can develop when drainage on their pads and
adjacent slopes is altered in any way. Drainage can be adversely altered due to the placement of fill and
construction of garden walls, retaining walls, walkways, patios, swimming pools and planters.
5.2 Pad Drainage
Drainage on the pads should be designed to carry surface water away from all graded slopes and structures.
Pad drainage should be designed for a minimum gradient per the UBC with drainage directed to the adjacent
drainage facilities or other location approved by the building official. Ground adjacent to foundations shall
also be graded at the minimum gradient per the UBC to divert water from the foundation. After dwellings
are constructed, positive drainage away from the structures and slopes should be provided on the lots by
means of earth swales, sloped concrete flatwork and area drains.
5.3 Utility Trenches
All utility -trench backfill within street right-of-ways, utility easements, under sidewalks, driveways and
building -floor slabs and within or in proximity to slopes, should be compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent. Where onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be
required. Density testing, along with probing, should be performed by a LGC representative to verify
adequate compaction. Excavations for trenches should be made in accordance with OSHA requirements and
when excavations exceed 4 feet in depth they should be laid-back at a gradient no steeper than 1:1 (h:v).
For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfills should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in thickness
and then mechanically compacted with a hydra -hammer, pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For deep
trenches with sloped walls, backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than 6 to 8 inches and then
compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment.
Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to any building footing (interior and/or exterior trenches), the
bottom of the trench should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected downward from the outside
bottom edge of the adjacent footing.
' Project No. 105773-30 Page 4 October 13, 2006
6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
Conventional shallow foundations are considered feasible for support of the proposed residential structures.
Foundation recommendations are provided below.
6.2 Allowable Bearing Values
An allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended for design of 24 -inch -
square pad footings and 12 -inch -wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 -inches below
the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 1 foot of width
and/or depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot. Recommended allowable -bearing values
include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third when designing for short -duration wind
and seismic forces.
6.3 Settlement
Based on the general settlement characteristics of the soil types that underlie the building sites and the
anticipated loading, it has been estimated that the maximum total settlement of conventional footings will be
less than approximately'/< inch. Differential settlement is expected to be about %Z inch over a horizontal
distance of approximately 20 feet, for an angular distortion ratio of 1:480. It is anticipated that the majority
of the settlement will occur during construction or shortly thereafter as building loads are applied.
' The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the project geotechnical consultant will
observe or test the soil conditions in the footing excavations.
6.4 Lateral Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf may be used to
determine lateral -bearing resistance for footings. Where structures are planned in or near descending slopes,
the passive earth pressure should be reduced to 150 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 1,500 psf.
In addition, a coefficient of friction of 0.40 times the dead -load forces maybe used between concrete and the
supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. The above values may be increased by one-third
when designing for short -duration wind or seismic forces. When combining passive and friction for lateral
resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one third.
The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill. In the case where footing
sides are formed, all backfill placed against the footings should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
maximum dry density.
6.5 Footing Observations
All foundation excavations should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer to verify that they have
been excavated into competent bearing materials. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to
the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and
square. All loose, sloughed or moisture -softened soil should be removed prior to concrete placement.
Excavated materials from footing excavations should not be placed in slab -on -grade areas unless the soils
are compacted to a minimum 90 percent of maximum dry density.
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0 Page 5 October 13, 2006
' 6.6 Expansive Soil Considerations
Results of the laboratory tests indicate onsite earth materials exhibit expansion potentials of VERY LOW as
' classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -B. The design and construction details herein are
intended to provide recommendations for the VERY LOW level of expansion potential.
6.6.1 Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or Less
Results of our laboratory tests indicate onsite earth materials exhibit a VERY LOW expansion
' potential as classified in accordance with Table 18 -I -B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC).
Since the onsite soils exhibit expansion indices of 20 or less, the design of slab -on -ground
' foundations is exempt from the procedures outlined in Section 1815. Based on the above soil
conditions, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and reinforced in accordance
with the following minimum criteria. However, additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or
reinforcement should be provided as required by the project architect or structural engineer.
6.6.1.1 Footings
• Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated in UBC Table
18-1-C (i.e. 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and 18 -inch minimum depth for two-story
construction). Interior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction maybe
founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous
footings should have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one-story and two-story
1 buildings, respectively, and should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top
and one bottom.
• Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as second story decks,
patio covers and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded
at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. No special
reinforcement of the pad footings will be required.
6.6.1.2 Buildine Floor Slabs
Concrete floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of either 6 -inch
by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded wire mesh (6x6-W2.9xW2.9); or with No. 3 bars spaced a
maximum of 24 inches on center, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on
concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -depth.
' Interior floor slabs with moisture sensitive floor coverings should be underlain by a 10 -mil
thick moisture/vapor barrier to help reduce the upward migration of moisture from the
underlying subgrade soils. The moisture/vapor barrier product used should meet the
performance standards of an ASTM E 1745 Class A material, and be properly installed in
accordance with ACI publication 302. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that
the moisture/vapor barrier systems are placed in accordance with the project plans and
specifications, and that the moisture/vapor retarder materials are free of tears and punctures
prior to concrete placement. Additional moisture reduction and/or prevention measures may
be needed, depending on the performance requirements of future interior floor coverings.
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0 Page 6 October 13, 2006
Recommendations are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation recommendations
for sand layers to be placed below slabs and above/below vapor barriers and retarders for the
purpose of protecting the barrier/retarder and to assist in concrete curing. Sand layer
requirements are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be
provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction'. From a geotechnical perspective, a 1 -inch layer of sand over the moisture
barrier is considered to be the minimum. These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or
altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance expectations of the
foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for
concrete placement and curing are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration
of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer.
Garage area floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and should be reinforced in a similar manner
as living -area floor slabs. Garage area floor slabs should also be placed separately from
adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 -inch -minimum felt
expansion -joint materials and quartered with weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch -wide grade
beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage
entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top
and one bottom.
' Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living -area and garage area floor slabs
should be pre -watered to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the
development of shrinkage cracks.
6.7 Post Tensioned Slab/Foundation Desian Recommendations
' In lieu of the proceeding recommendations for conventional footing and floor slabs, post tensioned slabs
may be utilized for the support of the proposed structures. We recommend that the foundation engineer
design the foundation system using the geotechnical parameters provided in the table below. These
parameters have been determined in general accordance with Chapter 18 Section 1816 of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC), 1997 edition. Alternate designs are allowed per 1997 UBC Section 1806.2 that
addresses the effects of expansive soils when present. In utilizing these parameters, the foundation engineer
should design the foundation system in accordance with the allowable deflection criteria of applicable codes
and the requirements of the structural engineer/architect.
Please note that the post tensioned design methodology reflected in UBC Chapter 18 is in part based on the
assumption that soil moisture changes around and beneath the post -tensioned slabs are influenced only by
climatological conditions. Soil moisture change below slabs is the major factor in foundation damages
relating to expansive soil. The UBC design methodology has no consideration for presaturation, owner
irrigation, or other nonclimate related influences on the moisture content of subgrade soils. In recognition of
' these factors, we have modified the geotechnical parameters obtained from this methodology to account for
reasonable irrigation practices and proper homeowner maintenance. In addition, we recommend that prior to
foundation construction, slab subgrades be presoaked to 12 inches prior to trenching and maintained at above
optimum moisture up to concrete construction. We further recommend that the moisture content of the soil
around the immediate perimeter of the slab be maintained near optimum moisture content (or above) during
construction and up to occupancy.
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0 Page 7 October 13, 2006
' The following geotechnical parameters provided in the following table assume that if the areas adjacent to
the foundation are planted and irrigated, these areas will be designed with proper drainage so ponding, which
causes significant moisture change below the foundation, does not occur. Our recommendations do not
' account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Sunken planters placed adjacent to the
foundation, should either be designed with an efficient drainage system or liners to prevent moisture
infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even
with properly constructed planters. Based on the design parameters we have provided, and our experience
with monitoring similar sites on these types of soils, we anticipate that if the soils become saturated below
the perimeter of the foundations due to incorrect landscaping irrigation or maintenance, then up to
'approximately 1/4 -inch of uplift could occur at the perimeter of the foundation relative to the central portion
of the slab.
Future owners should be informed and educated regarding the importance of maintaining a consistent level
of soil moisture. The owners should be made aware of the potential negative consequences of both
excessive watering, as well as allowing expansive soils to become too dry. The soil will undergo shrinkage
as it dries up, followed by swelling during the rainy winter season, or when irrigation is resumed. This will
result in distress to site improvements and structures.
Geotechnical Parameters for Post Tensioned Foundation Slab Design
,<
PARAMETER.- ` ' : ,,
'. ; r' . ; ,VALUE-'-
VAGUE�-Ex
ansion Index
Expansion
Very Low
Percent that is Finer than 0.002 mm in the Fraction Passing the No. 200
< 20 percent (assumed)
Sieve.
Clay Mineral Type
Montmorillonite (assumed)
Thomthwaite Moisture Index
-20
Depth to Constant Soil Suction (estimated as the depth to constant
7 feet
moisture content over time, but within UBC limits)
Constant Soil Suction
P.F. 3.6
Moisture Velocity
0.7 inches/month
Center Lift Edge moisture variation distance, em
5.5 feet
Center lift, y,
1.5 inches
Edge Lift Edge moisture variation distance, e,,,
2.5 feet
Edge lift, ym
0.4 inches
Soluble Sulfate Content for Design of Concrete Mixtures in Contact
Negligible
with Site Soils in Accordance with 1997 UBC Table 19-A4
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming presaturation as indicated
200 pci
below
Minimum Perimeter Foundation Embedment
12
10 -mil thick moisture retardant in conformance with
Under slab moisture retarder and sand layer
an ASTM E 1745 Class A material overlain by 1 -inch
of sand'
1. Assumed for design purposes or obtained by laboratory testing.
2. Recommendations for foundation reinforcement are ultimately the purview of the foundation/structural engineer based
upon the geotechnical criteria presented in this report, and structural engineering considerations.
3. Recommendations for sand below slabs are traditionally included with the geotechnical foundation recommendations,
although they are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. The sand layer requirements are the purview of the
foundation engineer/structural engineer and should be provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302, Guide for
Concrete Floor and Slab Construction.
Project No. 105 7 73-30 Page 8 October 13, 2006
6.8 Corrosivitv to Concrete and Metal
The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) 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 the reinforced concrete
foundations or various buried metallic elements. Some of the many factors that can contribute to corrosivity,
' include the presence of chlorides, sulfates, salts, organic materials, different oxygen levels, poor drainage,
different soil types, and moisture content.
In general, soil environments that are detrimental to steel include high concentrations of chloride measured
per California Test Method (CTM) 422 and/or pH values of less than 5.5 measured per CTM 643. Another
major factor contributing to soil corrosivity to buried ferrous metal is low electrical resistivity, which can
also be measured using CTM 643. The minimum amount of chloride in the soil environment that is
considered corrosive to buried steel is 500 ppm. As the soil resistivity measured in ohm -cm decreases, the
' corrosion potential increases. Soil resistivity test results less than 1,000 ohm -cm are generally considered
very highly corrosive to buried steel. Based on limited preliminary laboratory testing and the generally
accepted criteria described above, it is our opinion that onsite soils should be considered mildly corrosive to
buried ferrous metals.
Table 19-A-4 of the U.B.C., 1997, provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble
' sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent by weight. Based on limited preliminary laboratory testing
performed on samples from the project area using CTM 417, the onsite soils are classified as having a
negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with Table 19-A-4, of U.B.C., 1997. Therefore, in
accordance with Table 19-A-4 structural concrete in contact with earth materials should have cement of
Type I or II.
' Table 19-A-2 refers to corrosion protection for reinforced concrete exposed to chlorides. Based on limited
laboratory testing performed on samples from the project area using CTM 422, the onsite soils have chloride
' contents less than 500 ppm. In accordance with Table 19-A-2, requirements for special exposure conditions
are not required due to chloride contents.
' These test results are based on limited samples of the subsurface soils. Laboratory test results are presented
in Appendix B.
LGC does not employ a registered corrosion engineer, therefore, we recommend that you consult with a
competent registered corrosion engineer and conduct additional testing (if required) to evaluate the actual
corrosion potential of the site and provide recommendations to mitigate the corrosion potential with respect
' to the proposed improvements. The recommendations of the registered corrosion engineer may supersede the
above requirements.
6.9 Structural Setbacks
Structural setbacks in addition to those required in the UBC, are not required due to geologic or geotechnical
conditions within the site. Building setbacks from slopes, property lines, etc. should conform to 1997 UBC
requirements.
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0 Page 9 October 13, 2006
ZO RETAINING WALLS
7.1 Active and At -Rest Earth Pressures
An active earth -pressure represented by an equivalent fluid having a minimum density of 35 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) should tentatively be used for design of retaining walls up to 10 feet high retaining a drained
level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above value should be increased to a
minimum of 52 pcf. All retaining walls should be designed to resist any surcharge loads imposed by other
nearby walls or structures in addition to the above active earth pressures.
For design of retaining walls up to 10 feet high that are restrained at the top, an at -rest earth pressure
equivalent to a fluid having a minimum density of 53 pcf should tentatively be used for walls supporting a
level backfill. This value should be increased to a minimum of 78 pcf for ascending 2:1 (h:v) backfill.
7.2 Drainage
Weep holes or open vertical masonry joints should be provided in retaining walls to prevent entrapment of
water in the backfill. Weep holes, if used, should be 3 inches in minimum diameter and provided at
minimum intervals of 6 feet along the wall. Open vertical masonryjoints, if used, should be provided at 32 -
inch -minimum intervals. A continuous gravel fill, 12 inches by 12 inches, should be placed behind the weep
holes or open masonry joints. The gravel should be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent infiltration of fines and
subsequent clogging. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent.
In lieu of weep holes or open joints, a perforated pipe -and -gravel subdrain may be used. Perforated pipe
should consist of 4 -inch -minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS SDR -35, with the perforations laid
down. The pipe should be embedded in 1.5 cubic feet per foot of 0.75- or 1.5 -inch open -graded gravel
wrapped in filter fabric. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent.
The backfilled side of the retaining wall supporting backfill should be coated with an approved
waterproofing compound to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls.
7.3 Temporary Excavations
All excavations should be made in accordance with OSHA requirements. LGC is not responsible for job site
safety.
7.4 Wall Backfill
All retaining -wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch maximum lifts, watered or air dried as necessary
to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent.
8.0 MASONRY GARDEN WALLS
Footings for masonry garden walls should also be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two top and two
bottom. In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking, positive separations should also be provided in the
garden walls at a maximum horizontal spacing of 20 feet. These separations should be provided in the blocks only
and not extend through the footing. The footing should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as
an effective "grade beam" below the wall.
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0 Page 10 October 13, 2006
In areas where garden walls may be proposed on or near the tops of descending slopes, the footings should be
deepened such that a minimum horizontal clearance of 5 feet is maintained between the outside bottom edges of the
footings and the face of the slope.
9.0 CONCRETE FLATWORK
9.1 Thickness and Joint Spacing
To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete sidewalks and patio -type slabs should be at least 3V2
inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Any concrete driveway
slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints every 10 feet or
less.
9.2 Subgrade Preparation
As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils underlying concrete
flatwork should first be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent and then thoroughly
wetted to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture
content. This moisture should extend to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade and be maintained in the soils
during the placement of concrete. Pre -watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the concrete and
minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer should
observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior
to placing concrete.
9.3 Drainage
Drainage from patios and other flatwork areas should be directed to local area drains and/or graded -earth
swales designed to carry runoff water to the adjacent streets or other approved drainage structure. The
concrete flatwork should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 1 percent away from building foundations,
retaining walls, masonry garden walls, and slopes.
9.4 Tree Wells
Tree wells are not recommended in concrete-flatwork areas since they can introduce excessive water into the
subgrade soils or allow for root invasion, both of which can result in uplift of the flatwork.
10.0 PLANTERS AND PLANTER WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
10.1 Planters
Planters that are located within 5 feet of building foundations, retaining walls, masonry -garden walls and
' slope areas should be provided with either sealed bottoms or bottom drains to prevent infiltration of water
into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface of the ground in these areas should also be maintained at a
minimum gradient of 2 percent and direct drainage to area drains or earth swales.
Project No. 105773-30 Page 11 October 13, 2006
Planters adjacent to a building or structure should be avoided wherever possible or be properly designed
(e.g., lined with a membrane), to reduce the penetration of water into the adjacent footing subgrades and
thereby reduce moisture related damage to the foundation. Planting areas at grade should be provided with
appropriate positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above adjacent paved grades
to facilitate drainage. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for
drainage, such as multiple depressed area drains are constructed. Adequate drainage gradients, devices, and
curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planting areas. Irrigation
methods should promote uniformity of moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork. Over -
watering and under -watering of landscape areas must be avoided.
10.2 Planter Walls
Low height planter walls should be supported by continuous concrete footings constructed in accordance
with the recommendations presented for masonry block wall footings.
10.3 Landscaping
In recognition that the future homeowners will add either soft-scape or hard-scape after precise grading, the
following recommendations may be used as a guide. It is paramount that future homeowners consult with a
professional engineer to ensure that the construction of future landscaping improvements will not cause
obstruction of existing drainage patterns or does not cause surface water to collect adjacent to the
foundation, creating saturated soils adjacent to the foundation.
Area drains should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to properly function. Homeowners should
also be made aware that excessive irrigation of neighboring properties can cause seepage and moisture
conditions on adjacent lots. Homeowners should be furnished with these recommendations communicating
the importance of maintaining positive drainage away from structures towards streets when they design their
improvements.
The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradients can create perched water conditions. This may
result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Maintaining adequate
surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance -type moisture
problems. To reduce differential earth movements such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in
moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a residential structure and associated
improvements, moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as
possible.
10.4 Swimminu Pools and Spas
' No pools or spas are shown on the plans. In general, due to the presence of soils with Very Low expansion
potential, LGC does not recommend pools or spas be located within 15 feet of the top of 2:1 (h:v) slopes
without special foundation design considerations. While expansive soil -related cracking of concrete flatwork
' and garden walls may only be cosmetic in nature, and thus tolerable, such cracking in pools and/or spas
cannot be tolerated. Soil expansion forces should be taken into account for design and construction of a
swimming pool and/or spa.
' For soils having a high or very high expansion potential, we recommend a lateral earth pressure of 78 pcfbe
used for design of pools/spa shells.
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0 Page 12 October 13, 2006
To avoid localized saturation of soils, landscaping of the backyard should not be planned with unlined
planter boxes in the immediate vicinity of the pool/spa shell.
The excavated material from the pool/spa area is often used to build elevated planter boxes and/or other
structures adjacent to the pool area. This practice imposes significant loads at the location of these structures
and induces differential settlements. This practice could jeopardize the integrity of the pool/spa and possibly
other improvements. Pool decking should also receive special design considerations, since the pool is
founded generally 5 to 6 feet below grade. If pool decking is not correctly designed for expansive soils,
differential movement between the flatwork and pool will occur. A geotechnical consultant should be
retained to evaluate the impact of planned improvements and provide proper recommendations for design.
Whether the pool/spa shell is in the zone of influence of the building or wall footing, the need for shoring or
support for the building or wall footing should also be taken into consideration.
11.0 POST- GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
It is the property owner's sole responsibility to notify LGC at the appropriate times in order to provide the
following observation and testing services during the various phases of post -grading construction. LGC is
not responsible for any geotechnical recommendations where the appropriate observations have not been
performed. It is of the utmost importance that the owner and/or contractor inform and request observations
during the following phases of work.
11.1 Building Construction
Observe all footings when first excavated to verify adequate depth and competent soil bearing
conditions.
Re -observe all footings, if necessary, if excavations are found to be excavated to inadequate depth and/or
found to contain significant slough, saturated or compressible soils.
11.2 Retainine Wall Construction
Observe all foundations when first excavated to verify adequate depth and competent soil bearing
conditions.
Re -observe all foundations, if necessary, if excavations are found to be at an inadequate depth and/or
found to contain significant slough, saturated or compressible soils.
Observe and verify proper installation of subdrain systems prior to placing wall backfill.
• Observe and test placement of all wall backfill.
11.3 Masonry Garden Walls
' Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and competent soil bearing
conditions.
' Re -observe all footing trenches following removal of any slough and/or saturated soils and re -excavate
to proper depth.
Project No. 105773-30 Page 13 October 13, 2006
11.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork Construction
Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete flatwork areas to verify adequate compaction and
' moisture content.
11.5 Utility -Trench Backfill
' Observe and test placement of all utility trench backfill.
' 11.6 Re -Grading
Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the finish grades shown on the
' grading plans.
12.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by
reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to
ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect
and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor
and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor
should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can and
do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent
properties.
In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
'broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes
outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification, and should not be relied upon after a
' period of 3 years.
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0 Page 14 October 13, 2006
' This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Please call if you have any questions pertaining to this
report.
ENGINEEq/
Respectfully submitted, �4.F`4;Pn E. yc( o
F
LGCINLAND, INC. 3H4 btu`JVOy,�"/Jy/�/ m
1 � -
p � A
LIFE
4Sthen M. Poole, GE 692 OF ryL Chad E. Welke, CEG 2378, PG 7933 '
Vice President Associate Geologist/Engineer
Principal Engineer
CEW/GEU/SMP /kg/ko
Attachments: Table I - Summary of Field Density Tests (Rear of Text)
' Appendix A — References (Rear of Text)
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (Rear of Text)
Plates 1 & 2 - As-Graded Geotechnical Map (In Pocket)
1 Distribution: (6) Addressee
1
1
1
IProject No. 105773-30 Page 15 October 13, 2006
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
TABLET
SUMMAKYOF17ELDDENSITYTESTS
Tr 31344
"Portraits"
N - Nuclear Test Method FG - Finish Grade CF - Compact Fill
Project No. 109773-30 NG - Natural Ground, 90% not required October 2006
TAY
Tort
Dd to
Tat
of
ittytlantian
ile�,Nca
(fee@
lion
TRW
D
4�
itioirtrm
c�omW09
.4098
1
N
08/29/05
NG
Lot
1119
1
113.0
8.1
128.0
88
2
N
08/29/05
Cr
Lott
1119.5
1
113.8
7.9
128.0
89
3
N
08/29/05
CF
Retest#2
-
1
117.2
10.6
128.0
92
4
N
08/29/05
CF
LOM 1
1118.5
1
112.4
8.5
128.0
88
5
N
08/29/05
CF
Retest #4
-
1
116.4
1 10.0
128.0
91
6
N
08/29/05
CF
Lot 1
1120
1
119.1
10.9
128.0
93
7
N
08/29/05
CF
Lot 2
1121
1
118.1
10.0
128.0
92
8
N
08/29/05
CF
Lot 3
1122
1
117.5
9.7
128.0
92
9
N
08/29/05
CF
Lot 4
1121
1
120.0
9.8
128.0
94
10
N
08/29/05
CF
Lot 4
1123
1
118.2
10.3
128.0
92
11
N
08/29/05
CF
Lot 2
1122.5
1
117.4
10.8
128.0
92
12
N
08/29/05
CF
Lott
1122
1
119.4
10.2
128.0
93
13
N
08/29/05
CF
Lott
1123.5
1
116.2
9.8
128.0
91
14
N
08/29/05
CF
Lott
1124.5
1
118.1
10.6
128.0
92
15
N
08/29/05
CF
Lot 5
1124
1
119.1
1 10.1
128.0
1 93
16
N
08/29/051
Cr I
Lot 3
1124
1
118.3
10.8
128.0
92
17
N
08/29/051
CF I
Lot 1
1124.5
1
121.0
10.5
128.0
95
18
N
08/29/05
Cr
Portraits Lane
1119
1
117.2
10.1
128.0
92
19
N
08/29/05
Cr
Portraits Lane
1121
1
119.6
10.5
128.0
93
20
N
08/29/05
Cr
Lot 4
1121
1
119.4
10.3
128.0
93
21
N
08/29/05
Cr
Lot 4
1123
1
118.2
10.9
128.0
92
22
N
08/30/05
Cr
Lot 3
1126
1
119.4
12.2
128.0
93
23
N
08/30/05
CF
Lot 3
1128
1
123.3
9.8
128.0
96
24
N
08/30/05
Cr
Lots
1129
1
118.0
10.6
128.0
92
25
N
08/30/051
CF I
Lot 2
1128
1 1
116.2
9.7
128.0
91
26
N
08/30/05
CF
lot 2
1127
1
115.2
9.0
128.0
90
27
N
08/30/05
CF
Portraits Lane
1125
1
117.1
10.1
128.0
91
28
N
08/30/05
CF
Lot 4
1131
1
116.9
10.7
128.0
91
29
N
08/30/05
CF
Lot 6
1120
1
117.2
10.3
128.0
92
30
N
08/30/05
CF
Lot 6
1120
1
117.2
12.6
128.0
92
31
N
08/30/05
CF
Lots
1125
1
116.9
10.9
128.0
91
32
N
08/30/05
CF
loth
1125
1
116.5
10.7
128.0
91
33
N
08/30/051
CF I
Lot 6
1126
1
118.1
10.0
128.0
92
34
N
08/30/05
Cr
Lot
1126
1
117.4
10.1
128.0
92
35
N
08/30/05
CF
Lot 6
1129
1
117.0
12.9
128.0
91
36
N
08/30/05
CF
Lot 5
1126
1
117.2
10.3
128.0
92
37
N
08/31/05
CF
Lot
1131
1
118.9
11.7
128.0
93
38
N
08/31/05
Cr
lot 5
1133
1
119.7
12.6
128.0
94
39
N
08/31/05
Cr
Lot
1136
1
117.6
10.2
128.0
92
40
N
08/31/05
Cr
Portraits lane
1125
1
118.3
10.8
128.0
92
41
N
09/01/051
CF I
Portraits Lane
1123
1
117.1
10.2
128.0
91
42
N
09/01/05
CF
Lot 7
1124
1
117.6
11.1
128.0
92
43
1 N
09/01/05
CF
Lot?
1124.5
1
117.5
9.8
128.0
92
44
N
09/01/05
CF
lot 6
1137
1
117.0
10.4
128.0
91
45
N
09/01/05
CF
Lot
1127
1
117.0
9.5
128.0
91
46
N
09/01/05
Cr
Portraits Lane
1130
1
117.7
10.2
128.0
92
47
N
09/01/05
Cr
Portraits Lane
1133
1
117.4
10.7
128.0
92
48
N
09/01/05
CF
Lot?
1130
1
118.1
11.1 1
128.0
92
N - Nuclear Test Method FG - Finish Grade CF - Compact Fill
Project No. 109773-30 NG - Natural Ground, 90% not required October 2006
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSNYTESTS
Tr 31344
'Tortraits"
Test No.
Test
Type
Test
Date
Test
of
Test location
Elevation
(feet)
Soil
Type
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Mas.
Density,
(pct)
M.
Comp.
M
49
N
09/01/05
CF
Lot?
1132
1
121.6
10.8
128.0 1
95
50
N
09/01/05
CF
Lot
1127
1
116.9
10.1
128.0
91
51
N
09/01/05
CF
Lot
1127
2
109.1
14.6
118.5
92
52
N
09/01/05
CF
Lot
1128
2
108.3
12.6
118.5
91
53
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot 7
1134
2
107.7
13.9
118.5
91
54
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot
1136
2
108.7
16.2
118.5
92
55
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot 8
1131
2
108.1
16.8
118.5
91
56
N
09/02/051
CF I
Lot 7
1140
2
109.6
14.7
118.5
92
57
N
09/02/051
CF I
Portraits Lane
1135
2
109.2
15.1
118.5
92
58
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot
1141
2
110.6
14.0
118.5
93
59
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot
1134
2
108.3
13.7
118.5
91
60
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot
1136
2
108.5
15.3
118.5
92
(A
N
09/02/05
CF
Portraits Lane
1136
2
109.3
15.6
118.5
92
62
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot 9
1127
2
109.5
14.6
118.5
92
63
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot
1128
2
106.7
16.4
118.5
90
64
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot 10
1130
2
107.8
1 14.2
118.5
91
65
N
09/02/05
Cr
Lot 10
1130
2
108.1
16.8
118.5
91
66
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot 9
1129
2
107.8
15.1
118.5
91
67
N
09/02/05
CF
Lot 10
1130
2
109.2
I4.7
118.5
92
68
N
09/02/05
Cr
Lot
1133
2
108.7
13.9
118.5
92
69
N
09/02/05
Cr
Lot 10
1135
2
108.9
14.1
118.5
92
70
N
08/30/06
CF
Lot 7
1121
3
118.5
9.6
130.5
91
71
N
08/30/06
CF
Lot 7
1123
3
119.3
10.1
130.5
91
72
N
08/30/06
CF
Lot
1124
3
122.4
9.7
130.5
94
73
N
08/31/06
CF
Lot 7
1126
3
121.6
10.5
130.5
93
74
N
08/31/06
CF
Lot
1127
3
119.3
9.3
130.5
91
75
N
08/31/06
CF
Lot?
1127.5
3
119.0
11.1
130.5
91
76
N
09/01/06
CF
Lot
1128.5
4
119.7
10.2
132.0
91
77
N
09/01/06
CF
Lot
1129
4
121.4
9.4
132.0
92
78
N
09/01/06
Cr
Lot
1130
4
118.9
9.3
132.0
90
79
N
09/05/06
Cr
Lot?
1132
4
122.6
9.4
132.0
93
80
N
09/05/06
Cr
Lot
1133
4
120.0
9.8
132.0
91
81
N
09/05/06
CF
Lot?
1134.5
4
122.8
10.1
132.0
93
,S2
N
09/06/06
CF
tot?
1136
4
120.2
9.8
132.0
91
83
N
09/06/06
CF
Lot 7
1138
4
123.4
9.1
132.0
93
84
N
09/06/06
CF
Lot
1140
3
119.6
9.2
130.5
92
85
N
09/06/06
CF
Portraits Lane
1131.5
4
120.1
9.1
132.0
91
86
N
09/07/061
CF I
Portraits Lane
1133
3
119.2
9.4
130.5
91
87
N
09/07/061
CF I
Portraits Lane
1134
3
119.8
10.7
130.5 1
92
88
N
09/07/06
Cr
Portraits Lane
1134.5
3
118.8
1 10.6
130.5
91
89
N
09/11/06
CF
Portraits lane
1136.5
3
117.9
9.1
130.5
90
90
N
09/11/06
CF
Portraits lane
1137
3
122.6
10.2
130.5
94
91
N
09/11/06
Cr
Lot 10
FG
3
121.7
8.9
130.5
93
92
N
09/11/06
CF
Lot
FG
3
120.6
9.1
130.5
92
93
N
09/11/06
CF
Lot
FG
3
119.3
9.8
130.5
91
94
N
09/11/06
CF
Lot
FG
3
120.0
10.1 1
130.5
92
95
N
09/11/061
CF I
Lot
FG
3
122.7
10.020
94
96
N
09/11/06
CF
lots
PG
S
120.8
8.1
1 30.5
93
N - Nuclear Test Method FG - Finish Grade CF- Compact IW
PenjectNo. 109773-30 NG - Natural Ground, 90106 not required OchAt er2006
TABLE
SUMMA r?Y OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Tr 31344
"Portraits"
Test No.
Test
Type
Test
Date
Test
of
Tut location
Elevation
(feet)
Soil
Type
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content M
Max.
Density,
(pcf)
Rel.
Comp.
M
97
N
09/11/06
CF
Lot 4
FG
3
119.6
7.7
130.5
92
98
N
09/11/06
CF
Lot 3
FG
3
126.4
1
8.4
130.5
97
99
N
09/11/06
CF
Lott
FG
3
122.0
7.5
130.5
93
100
N
09/11/06
CF
Lot 1
FG
3
117.9
7.8
130.5
90
N - Nuclear Test Method FG - Finish Grade CF - Compact PiII
Project No. 105773-30 NG - Natural Ground, 90% not required October 2006
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 2000, "FRISKSP, Version 4.0, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak
Acceleration and uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources."
, 1998/1998, "UBCSEIS, Version 1.30, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform
Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering
Design Provisions.
Lawson and Associates Geotechnical Consulting, 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the
Tentative Tract No. 31344, Located on the Northeast Side of Ynez Road and Southeast of Rancho
Vista Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, PN032314-10, dated January 13.
2005, Review of Foundation Plans for Tract 31344, Gallery "Portraits" Located at Ynez Road
and Rancho Vista Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, PNI03314-10, dated
October 7.
' Leighton and Associates, 1989, Geotechnical Investigation Within the Alquist —Priolo Special Studies
Zone, St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Lot 252, Tract 3833, Temecula Area, County of Riverside,
California.
1
APPENDIX B
' LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
APPENDIXB
Laboraton, Testing Procedures and Test Results
' The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative and qualitative data relating to the
relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in
general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures and/or California
' Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table
summarizing the test results.
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of representative samples
were determined with ASTM D 1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below:
SAMPLE.
NUMBER
SAMPLE
DESCRIPTION
MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY (pcfi
OPTIMUMMOISTURE
CONTENT t7d)
I
Olive -brown clayey SAND w/tr gravel
128.0
10.0
Lots 4 -6
Dk. olive -brown clayey SAND w/tr gravel
118.5
10.0
3
Dk brown clayey SAND w/tr gravel
130.5
9.0
4
Dk olive -brown clayey SAND w/tr gravel
1 132.0
1 9.0
' Expansion Inder: The expansion potential of representative samples was evaluated with the Expansion Index
Test. ASTM D 4829. The results of these tests are presented in the table below:
SAMPLE
LOCATIOA'
SAMPLE
DESCRIPTION
EXPANSION INDEX
EXPANSION
POTENTIAL*
Lots 1 -3
Silty SAND
4
Very Low
Lots 4 -6
Clayey SAND
19
Very Low
Lots 7 - 8
Silty SAND
0
Very Low
Lots 9 & 10
Clayey SAND
12
Very Low
• Per Table 18-1-B of 1997 UBC.
rMinimum Resistivity and PH Tests. Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed with CTM 643. The
results are presented in the table below:
SAMPLE
SAMPLEMINIMUM
RESISTMTY
PH
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
(ohm -cm)
Lots 4 - 6
Clayey SAND
8.1
2.400
Soluble Sulcate: The soluble sulfate content of selected samples was determined with CTM 417. The test
results are presented in the table below:
SAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLE
DESCRIPTION
SULFATE CONTENT
(0by pwigh1)*
SULFATE EXPOSURE*
Lots 1 — 3
Claycy SAND
0.001
Negligible
Lots 4 — 6
Clayey SAND
0.002
Negligible
Lots 7 — 8
Clayey SAND
0.005
Negligible
Lots 9 & 10
Clayey SAND
1 0.003
Negligible
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Unifomt Building Code (U.B. C.), Table No. 19-A-4, prepares by the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997).
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested with CTM 422. The results are presented below:
SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION CHLORIDE CONTENT (ppm)
Lots 1 — 3 Clayey SAND 43
Loi, - Clayey SAND �3
Project No. 105 7 73-3 0 Page 2 October 13, 2006
16 I
LOT 13
PAD=506° LOT 16
' \I 13 FJ PAD = 41
�� I I
11 ��
;M1
I �
\A
_
7126.6]
\ e 45
• -[1124.7]
11
\1 / 42 �—
1v
er /
TDA(' ,..'/� �-- 3 43
1\ \ LOf 1 ,% / 54 •
111 PAS= 0 13 �°� ,�.� \��; � •83 70 ,r
\ 1 �~ • � f
72 •48 C4 •
1 \ f
73' 71 77
• •
_ 49
150
1 1 /•. r 78 Q
z61 s
X85 88 1 84 •55
ms`s-
� l_
• •
in
.y _ _
9 4
•
97-1
•
LSI_ 21
20 •
q
p� �n mw
ICr
•'
13
LIMITS OF FAULT HAZARD ZONE
AS SHOWN BY SOILS ENGINEER
LOT 13
PAD=30
I
' II
I
—41e�
------------
- -
— —\ ----- -------------
--gib ) , 40 0 8 � I • �`
125.9] [112
j]� • ] — 3 — - - - -5 • • • I` \
• I --r
351 2' �\
4 > swR-►AT i • • 5•
I 60
• z A 34 41\
-�-_ - • z go• I \ \
c I • Cry �Q \ \
15
•
1162.15n
' • \ \ \ WTR_ -r'. _ ' - _ __ -_- - �_ = r -- - [ 1147
s
�6 � r F • 33 �— \
6.5' 1 1 �il�I , \
IPA R �8 NQ - \ �-A._ -
92
31 �_• \
j ;D I 9 \
• j 13� 68 �a I I • • 1 BR
*JLJ
�' • ,� �� SWR 63 15
[1125.2-
I ' u• \\
rV !�'i ,'
\ � 1
S a \
2.41 q • �� ��
�. _ [ 11-
L1126], 3 4 '— —. --
r
— D
_ � - - .. • ., d - -� x,11 4 2� 4g • 91 � � o
s �. D •,.• FS I yccp,
>?9
[11"2'6] to
—6*41D
67
poRTRAITS L � � � • � I � •
..00 16.00' 16.00' o - 64
BI LANE
65
•
15'
12
LOT 12
PAD=30
Cif#/3833
V LOT 1111
- - - - - - — EX. SIGNAL 9.
SPACE) LOT 11 (OPEN SPACE) AHEAD SIGN--� ignIII
iT TURN D
GN D ° e
° e ° - .D • ♦ •.• ..♦ •.• • • •Dr '•.•• D • • _D •. fes- .'t— ..�� DD • •• , D°.._._ -_° • _-- .
• • D
D
a----------------------
- ------ ---------------------------- ----------------
----------------------------------- ------------------
r 16' W 16"W —� 16"W 16"W 16"W\ 16"W 16"W 16"W 16"W 16"W 16"W 16"W 16"W 16"W —
0
LGC INLAND
41531 DATE STREET
MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562
1 Office: (951) 461-1919
Fax: (951) 461-7677
lark Bergmann
I Stephen
Poole
rincipal
Geologist
I Principal
Engineer
AS -GRADED GEOTECHNICAL MAP
TRACT 31344
CITY OF TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1:
Scale:
Date:
Referenc
Plate No.
I
Earth Units
Svmbols
LEGEND
(Locations are Approximate)
Afc - Artificial Fill, Compacted
- Limits of Report
100 - Density Test Location
•
[ 1120 ] - Bottom Elevations
GALLERY PORTRAITS
105773-10
GALLERY DEVELOPMI
1"=20'
October 2006
PLATE 1 of 2
3
Cu
J
i
—E
12„W — 12"W 12"W
— —E — —E —E — —E —E
12-W — 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W
i - f -4'
63
- - - - - - -
—E — —E —E— —E ? —E
i
Earth Units
4000
/000
h�
/ /'0 /
Symbols
'
(4022.2]
12"W 12"W -
-4cYi.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
—E —E
LEGEND
(Locations are Approximate)
Afc - Artificial Fill, Compacted
- Limits of Report
100 - Density Test Location
•
1120 ] - Bottom Elevations
Mark Bergmann Stephen Poole Name: GALLERY PORTRAITS
LGC I Principal Geologist Principal Engineer Project No. 105773-10
AS=G RAD E D GEOTECHNICAL MAP Client: GALLERY DEVELOPMENT
41531 DATE STREET Scale: 1" = 20'
MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562 TRACT 31344 Date: October 2006
1 Office: (951) 461-1919
Fax: (951) 461-7677 CITY OF TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Reference
Plate No. PLATE 2 of 2