Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tract Map 31597 Geotechnical Report
01'j 7 ORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Soil Engineering ♦ Geology ♦ Environmental z CONSOLIDATED REPORT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS TENTATIVE TRACT 31597 TEMECULA AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA j PROJECT NO. 31759.1C NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Prepared For: Highpointe Communities 24361 EI Toro Road Suite 100 Laguna Hills, California 92653 Attention: Mr. Steve Ludwig 6121 Quail Valley Court . Riverside, CA 92507 . (951) 653-1760 • Fax (951) 653-1741 OR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.s� Soil Engineering ♦ Geology A Environmental November 21, 2006 Highpointe Communities 24361 EI Toro Road, Suite 100 Laguna Hills, California 92653 Project No. 31759.1 C Attention: Mr. Steve Ludwig Subject: Consolidated Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations, Tentative Tract No. 31597, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. is pleased to present this summary report which represents a consolidation of several previous studies conducted by this firm for three adjoining parcels, now being considered as one under Tentative Tract No. 31597. In January of 2004, a preliminary geotechnical study was conducted for a 53.9 acre parcel, referred to as the original Tentative Tract 31597, located in the City of Temecula, California. Subsequent to this, in October and June of 2004, two additional studies were conducted for adjoining parcels. In October, a study was conducted for an 11 .3 acre site, and then in June a similar study was conducted for an 18 acre parcel, both of which lie adjacent to the original tract. At this time, the two smaller parcels have been combined into the original parcel to make an 83.2 acre tract, still referred to as Tentative Tract 31597. The purpose of this report is to consolidate the data obtained in the previous studies. In summary, it is our opinion that the combined site can be developed from a geotechnical perspective provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are incorporated into design and construction. However, the following geotechnical factors will be significant in the future planning and development of the proposed single family residential tract. The site is underlain by various natural earth units ranging from relatively dense Pauba Sandstone bedrock units to very loose younger alluvial deposits. The upper portions of the alluvial soils underlying much of the flatter portions of the site are in a loose to very loose condition to depths of approximately 7 to 35 feet. These units have a slight 6121 Quail Valley Court • Riverside, CA 92507 . (951) 653-1760 . Fax (951) 653-1741 1 I U U 1 1 1 I ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21. 2006 1 I 7 1 1 7 1 Project No. 31759.1 C to moderate potential for hydro -collapse and may be prone to unacceptable settlement upon loading. The elevated portions of the site, underlain by moderately consolidated units of Pauba Sandstone, are anticipated to be rippable to the proposed maximum excavation depths of 75 feet with standard heavy-duty earth -moving equipment. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor in the grading ofthesite. Due to the site's proximity in relation to various active faults, moderately strong ground motions could be expected from a large seismic event in the region. --- These,- and other, geotechnical factors that are anticipated to effect the proposed development of the site are summarized in the attached report. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Table of Contents Page No. INTRODUCTION..............................................1 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS....................................2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .................................... 3 SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................. 5 I LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM................................5 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.......................................6 Regional Geologic Setting ................................... 6. Site Geologic Conditions ................................... 7 Pauba Formation .........................................7 Terrace Deposits ......................................... 8 Recent Alluvial and Colluvial Deposits .......................... 8 Evaluation of the Hydro -Collapse Potential of the Alluvial Soils ......... 9 Groundwater Hydrology .................................... 9 Site Flooding Potential .................................... Mass Movement ........................................ 13 Faulting..............................................14 Historical Seismicity ...................................... 14 Secondary Seismic Hazards ................................. 16 Liquefaction ........................................ 16 Seiches/Tsunamis..................................16 Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure) ................... 16 Seismically -Induced Landsliding ......................... 16 Rockfalls.........................................17 Seismically -Induced Settlement ......................... 17 SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code) .......... 17 CBC Divisions IV: Earthquake Design Criteria Selection ............. 17 Seismic Zone......................................18 Near Source Factor .................................. 18 CBC Division V: Soil Profile ................................ 19 CBC Earthquake Design Summary ............................ 19 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. i 1 1 1 Table of Contents -1 Page No. Slope Stability ......................................... 20 CONCLUSIONS.............................................22 General..............................................22 Foundation Support ...................................... 23 Mass/Remedial Grading Consideration .......................... 24 Geologic Mitigations ..................................... 24 Seismicity..............................................25 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................26 General Site Grading ..................................... 26 Initial Site Preparation .................................... 26 Canyon Sub -Drains ......................................27 Preparation of Fill Areas ................................... 28 Preparation of Foundation Areas ............................. 29 Engineered Compacted Fill ................................. 29 Transition Lots ......................................... 30 Slope Construction ...................................... 31 Slope Protection ........................................ 31 Soil Expansiveness ...................................... 31 Preliminary Foundation Design .............................. 32 Settlement............................................32 Slabs -On -Grade .......................................... 33 Wall Pressures ......................................... 33 Preliminary Pavement Design ................................. 34 Sulfate Protection ......................................... 35 Construction Monitoring ................................. :. 36 LIMITATIONS..............................................37 TIME LIMITATIONS..........................................38 CLOSURE.................................................38 REFERENCES...............................................39 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Table of Contents APPENDICES Appendix 1.0 - Appendix 2.0 - Appendix 3.0 - Appendix 4.0 - .:E L Page No. Index Map, Plates, Regional Geologic Map, Description of Geologic Units, Historical Seismicity Maps, Cross Sections, Geotechnical Sketches, Sample Key, and Soil Classification Chart Field- Investigation Program and Boring and Trench Logs, Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results (LOR, 2004a) Field Investigation Program and Boring and Trench Logs, Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results (LOR, 2004b) Field Investigation Program and Boring and Trench Logs, Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results (LOR, 2004e) Appendix 5.0 - Field Investigation Program and Boring Logs, Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results, Slope Stability Calculations (LOR, 2005) LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 ' INTRODUCTION During November of 2006, this consolidation report of previous reports prepared by this firm for Tentative Tract 31597 was conducted by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. ' for Highpointe Communities, Inc. The current configuration of this tract includes 83.2 acres of land located generally south of Redhawk Parkway and east of Via Puebla in the Temecula area of Riverside County. I C In January of 2004, a preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted for a 53.9 acre parcel, referred to then as Tentative Tract 31597 in Riverside County, California (LOR, 2004a). Subsequent to this, in June of 2004, a preliminary geotedhnical investigation was conducted for an 18 -acre parcel, referred to at that time only by the Assessor's Parcel Number, 917-0310-007 (LOR, 2004b). Then, in October of 2004, a similar geotechnical study was conducted for an additional six parcels, referred to by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers of 917-260-036 and -04 and Parcels 917-310-018 through -021 (LOR, 2004c). These six parcels were 11 .3 acres collectively. All of these parcels lie adjacent to the original 53.9 acre site. At this time, the seven smaller parcels have been combined into the original tract to make an 83.2 acre tract, still referred to as Tentative Tract 31597. The purpose of this report was to consolidate the data obtained in the past studies, which provided a technical evaluation of the geologic setting of the site and an opinion on the suitability of the current proposed land development, as well as recommendations for development. The overall scope of our services included during the original studies include the following tasks: • Review of available pertinent geotechnical literature, reports, maps, and agency information pertinent to the study area; • Interpretation of stereo aerial photograph pairs of the site and surrounding regions, dated 1949 through 2000; • Reconnaissances level geologic field mapping to verify the areal distribution of earth units and significance of surficial features as compiled from documents, literature and reports reviewed; • A subsurface field investigation consisting of the collection of subsurface samples to estimate the average physical soil conditions pertinent to the LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C ' November 21, 2006 proposed development; ' • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained during the field ' investigation; • Development of geotechnical recommendations for site grading and preliminary foundation design; - • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings conclusions and recommendations for site development. , In addition to the reports mentioned above, this firm also conducted a slope stability evaluation report for the two tallest slopes proposed at the site: a 64 -foot cut slope and a 60 -foot fill slope (LOR, 2005). A letter regarding a potential spring within the far southern portion of the site was also prepared by this firm (LOR, 2004c). The information contained within these has been included in this consolidation report. The approximate location of Tentative Tract No. 31597 is shown on the attached Index Map, Enclosure 1.1 , within Appendix 1.0. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS A digital Tentative Tract Map, prepared by Engineering Solutions, was provided for our use (Engineering Solutions, undated). The site boundaries, general configuration of the proposed development, the existing topography, and general conditions of the site were indicated in this map. In order to avoid confusion, the boundaries of each of the previous reports that this report is a collaboration of (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, 2004e, and 2005), have been outlined separately in different colors on the Tentative Tract Map provided on the attached Plates, Enclosure 1.2 and 1.3, within the pockets of ,I Appendix 1.0 of this report. According to this map, the proposed project will consist of the development of 212 single family homes, plus interior access streets and open spaces. The structures are anticipated to be wood frame and stucco or similar type j construction. Light foundation loads are anticipated with such structures. l 2 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 ' Based on the existing elevations and the proposed grades indicated on the Tentative Tract Map, the development of the site will entail significant grading including excavating into the hillsides of up to approximately 75 feet and filling the adjoining valleys up to approximately 20 feet to create the level pad areas for the development ' of homes and the associated infrastructure. ' Below is a table which summarizes the consolidation of the previous reports/letters conducted by this firm for the site with project numbers, dates, references, parcels covered, color designation assigned to this consolidated report, and Append ix"number. LOR COLOR APPENDIX DATE/REFERENCE TRACT/PARCEL NUMBERS PROJECT NO. DESIGNATION NO. January 30, 2004 31759.1 Tract 31597 Green 2.0 (2004a) June 4, 2004 31907.1 917-310-007 Blue 3.0 (2004b) October 6, 2004 917-260-036 and -04, 31977.1 Red 4.0 (2004e) 917-310-018 through -021 March 11, 2005 Slope Stability of 31759.13 Black 5.0 (2005) Tract 31597 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The site consists of approximately 83.6 acres located along the far southern end of the Temecula Valley along the base of the Agua Tibia Mountains in southwestern Riverside County, California. At the time of our previous investigation (LOR 2004a, 2004b, 2004d, 2004e, and 2.005), the site was vacant land located in an area of rolling to steep hillsides with scattered residential ranches to the south and residential tract -developments to the north. The major topographic features are east to west trending ridges which form a steep hill on the north and south side of the site and descend towards a drainage course which transverses the central portion of the site in an east to west direction. The site vegetation was primarily moderate to heavy with the heaviest vegetation within and adjacent to the drainage and steeper areas of the site. Vegetation within the far northeastern portions of the site are sparser due to recent weed abatement practices. Woolpert Road was a dirt road cutting through the east side of the site. Monte Verde Road was a dirt road that cuts through the central 3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 S Project No. 31759.1 C portion of the site. Power poles are present along Monte Verde Road. Via Puebla, a paved roadway, lies west of the northern portion of the site. A four -cell concrete box is present within Via Puebla to allow drainage waters to exit on the site westward onto Redhawk Golf Course which lies beyond Via Puebla to the west. A small steel water tank and two small concrete pads were noted in the eastern portion of the site (formerly APNs 917-260-036 and -004)• A pipe, perhaps an old well, extends through one of the pads to a depth of approximately 34.5 feet and was dry. Within the south portion of the site (formerly APN 917-310-007), along the east side, several large trees and a rectangular concrete foundation are present. Our review of available aerial photographs of the site and immediate surrounding region indicates that the foundation was a water tank in the past. Within the southern portion of the western drainage of the site, a small amount of fill material appears to have been placed across the drainage and a steel pipe was placed along the bottom of the fill. The reason for this fill and pipe is most likely to tap a localized spring in this area or a water source (LOR, 2004d). To the east of the site are scattered single family properties. North of the site, on the top of the ridge, is a single family residential development. A four cell concrete box is present within Via Puebla to allow drainage water to exit the site and onto Redhawk Golf Course beyond Via Puebla to the west. Fill materials associated with this roadway and concrete box were noted. Several residential homes on relatively large lots lie east of the site. A tract of single family homes lies northwest and northeast of the site. A small nursery lies to the west of the southern portion of the site. A dirt trail and two piles of compost lie along the far northwest corner of the southern portion of the site, adjacent to the nursery. South of the site, another tract of single family residences is present. This development has resulted in extensive fill placement within the two drainages along the southern portion of the site. Concrete v -ditch drains are present along the face of these fill slopes, which flow into the drainages and onto the site. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ANALYSIS During the course of this study, an analysis of time -sequential stereoscopic aerial photograph pairs of the site and surrounding region, on file at the Riverside County Flood Control District were reviewed by a geologist from this firm. Stereoscopic aerial photograph pairs of the site and surrounding region dating from 1949 to January of 2000 were examined. A complete list of the photographs studied is given in the reference at the back of this report. No adverse geologic features were noted on the site in these photographs. In addition, no significant earthwork activities, other than El LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I 0- Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.11C November 21, 2006 the areas previously mentioned, were identified. SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION Our subsurface field exploration programs for the past three studies were conducted on November 17, 20, December 12 of 2003, April 26; 28, September 8 and 10 of 2004, and February 14 of 2005. In total, these consisted of drilling a total of eleven exploratory borings with a truck -mounted CME 55 drill rig equipped with an 8 inch diameter hollow stem auger, "seven large diameter borings with a truck mounted Caldweld bucket -auger drill rig equipped with 18 and 24 inch buckets, and fourteen exploratory trenches using a New Holland LB 75 B backhoe equipped with a 24 -inch bucket. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 16 to 51 feet and the trenches were excavated to depths of approximately 8 to 15 feet. The conditions encountered within our subsurface exploratory borings and trenches were logged by geologists from this firm. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained from the borings at approximate depth intervals of 5 to 10 feet. In- place density tests were taken in accordance with ASTM D 2922, the Nuclear Density Method, at selected levels within the trenches. In addition, select bulk samples were obtained from the trenches. All samples were returned to the laboratory in sealed containers for further testing and evaluation. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings and trenches are presented on the enclosed Plates, Enclosure 1.2 and 1 .3, within Appendix 1.0. The trenches and ' borings from each study are color coded. A detailed description of the subsurface field exploration programs and the boring and trench logs are presented within Appendices 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Selected soil and bedrock samples obtained during the field investigation were subjected to laboratory testing to evaluate their physical and engineering properties. Laboratory testing included moisture content, dry density, laboratory compaction, direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R -Value, consolidation, expansion index, and soluble sulfate content. A detailed description of the laboratory testing program and the test results are presented in Appendices 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, and 5.2. The laboratory data from each report is color coordinated to avoid confusion. I ' 5 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 3175'9.1 C November 21. 2006 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Regional Geologic Setting The site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. This province incorporates several northwest trending mountain ranges, such as the Santa Ana and San Jacinto Mountains, which run from near Los Angeles to the southwest into the Baja California Peninsula. Lying in-between the larger mountain ranges are a series of valleys and basins, such as the Elsinore Valley and the Perris Plain. The Elsinore Valley is a linear, fault controlled valley running along the eastern side of the Santa Ana Mountains from Corona south to Temecula. The eastern side of this valley is joined by a higher relatively flat plain which extends to the San Jacinto Mountains. While the floor of the Perris Plain is relatively flat, it is dotted with small erosional remnant hills, consisting predominately of intrusive igneous crystalline bedrock and very old metamorphic rocks. The subject site is located near the southeastern margin of the Elsinore Valley and the southwestern margin of the Perris Plain where the two features meet near Temecula at the base of the Agua Tibia Mountains. Here a small series of northeast trending hills runs along the southern side of the Pauba Valley. These hills are composed of a core of crystalline bedrock mantled by a relatively thin series of much younger sedimentary rocks. The depth of these younger rocks at the site was not determined for this study, but are anticipated to be on the order of several hundred feet or more. Collectively these younger sedimentary rocks have been named the Temecula Arkose and the Pauba Formation. The Temecula Arkose is the oldest of the two thus typically underlies the slightly younger Pauba. The Pauba Formation was once Capped with a wide -spread sedimentary cover of- younger, moderately well consolidated, reddish - brown sandstones and claystones. Erosion has eroded off the majority of these units leaving behind only a few remnant terraced deposits. The closest known active earthquake fault, in relation to the site, is the Wildomar fault, lying approximately 1,750 feet to the southwest. This fault is one of the bounding faults to the northeast side of the Elsinore Valley. A series of faults has been postulated to exist south of the site along the Agua Tibia fault zone. However, the location and occurrence of these faults is not well documented. a LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1] 1 1 ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 1 1 I 1 1 Project No. 31759.1 C The regional geology of the site and immediate surrounding areas as mapped by Kennedy (1977), is presented as Enclosure 1 .4, within Appendix A. Cross sections of portions of the site, A -A' and B -B', are attached as Enclosures 1 .5 and 1.6, within Appendix 1.0 (LOR, 2004a). It should be noted that the proposed topography indicated on these sections is based upon older plans (LOR, 2004a) and differ from those indicated on the current plan (Engineering Solutions, undated). However, the existing topography and subsurface geology based on our past investigations (LOR, 2004a and'2005) remains unchanged. Thus, the general' proposed grading and over all geologic conditions anticipated is illustrated by the cross sections. Site Geologic Conditions The surficial materials at the subject site can be broken down into three main types; (1) the relatively older sedimentary units of the Pauba formation; (2) the somewhat younger terrace deposits, and; (3) the recent alluvial and colluvial deposits which fill in the valleys and gullies and mantle the hillsides. The approximate locations and extent of these units across the subject site is illustrated on the enclosed Plate, Enclosures 1.2 and 1.3, within the pockets of Appendix 1.0 of this report. Pauba Formation ' The entire site is thought to be underlain by the Pauba Formation which in turn is believed to lie on top of Temecula Arkose. This unit, which is exposed across the base of the mountains to the south and much of the Temecula Valley to the north, is composed of succession of late Pleistocene age (ranging in age from 1.1,000 to 700,000 years) sedimentary rocks of moderately well indurated sandstone and ' siltstone, with some minor conglomerate. These units can be poorly bedded and massive to thinly bedded to cross bedded with channels. These characteristics ' represent the river and flood plains environment that these units are thought to have been deposited in. While the Pauba Formation underlies the entire site these units have been covered across much of the lower flatter portions of the site with valley infill by erosion and valley alluvial. These units were only noted within the bottom portions of some of our deeper borings and in the base of the hills in and around the site. Typically, as encountered, the Pauba Formation consisted of hard, damp to moist, yellowish brown ' 7 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 P Project No. 31759.1 C sandstone. However, a very minor unit of massive siltstone was encountered within one of our excavations placed in the southern part of the site (Trench T-2, LOR, 2004a). Terrace Deposits Capping the hills along the far northern and far southern portions of the site, there is a unit of reddish brown silty sand with clay and some cobbles and gravel. This unit was massive and dense. The contact of this unit over the Pauba within the far northern portion of the site was relatively level with a slight dip to the north. The contact of this unit over the Pauba within the far southern portion of the site was assumed to be relatively level. Recent Alluvial and Colluvial Deposits The lower, flatter, portions of the site were infilled with various units of relatively recent, unconsolidated, units of alluvium. These were noted within our borings and trenches to be composed primarily of silty sand which was typically light brown and damp. Lessor units of sandy silt and both poorly and well graded sands were also noted. Some thin lenses or layers of clayey sand/sandy clay were noted. These materials were typically loose to very loose in the upper portions, becoming slightly denser with depth. Consolidation testing of these materials indicated a slight to moderate potential for collapse when wetted. A detail discussion of this testing follows in the Evaluation of the Hydro -Collapse Potential of the Alluvial Soils section of this report. The colluvial materials were observed mantling the northern hillside of the site. As encountered, these units typically consisted of silty sand and clayey sand which was dark to strong brown and dry to moist. These units were typically in a dense state. A detailed description of the subsurface soil conditions as encountered within our exploratory borings and tenches is presented on the Boring and Trench Logs within Appendices 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1. 1.1 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 K Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21. 2006 Evaluation of the Hydro -Collapse Potential of the Alluvial Soils Soil samples from the lower lying valley portion of the site were recovered and tested for their collapse potential in general accordance with ASTM D 5333. These tests showed collapse indices ranging from approximately 1 to 5.0 percent for the upper alluvial units. Based on the classification of degree of collapse presented within ASTM D 5333, the alluvial soils have a slight to moderate potential" for collapse when a surcharge load is applied and/or the sample becomes wetted. To estimate the approximate depth of the collapsible stratum at the site, criteria such as a collapse index greater than 2 percent, an in-place compaction of less than 85 percent, and/or a degree of saturation of less than 85 percent were utilized to identify these unsuitable soils. Based on these standards, it was estimated that the alluvial soils within the valley portion of the site to various depths ranging from approximately 15 to 35 feet may be prone to collapse; therefore, these materials should be completely removed and replaced as engineered compacted fill. The minimum removal depths are shown on the enclosed Plates, Enclosure 1 .2 and 1 .3, within the pockets of Appendix 1.0 of this report. The results of the collapse tests are presented within Appendices 2.2, 3.2, and 4.2. Groundwater Hydrology Due to the varying hydro -geologic characteristics of the varying types of earth materials underlying the site, sedimentary bedrock and loose alluvial, the site could be anticipated to have several different water tables. If there is sufficient -precipitation, the local runoff that seeps into the alluvial materials may "perched" on the alluvial - bedrock contact due to the relatively low porosity of the bedrock, as compared to the loose alluvial. This water would then generally follow the alluvial bedrock contact along the surface drainage routes, or down the valley on the site to the west then finally northwest into the Pauba Valley to the north. However, seepage of this aquifer over time, along with subsurface flow from the Agua Tiba Mountain regions to the south may buildup within the older sedimentary bedrock units, in turn possibly "perching" on the crystalline basement rocks at deep depths. Groundwater was not encountered within any of our exploratory borings or trenches within the site, including the borings which penetrated,entirely through the valley alluvial and into the bedrock. However, local seepages of perched groundwater were encountered at approximately LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. V� Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Project No. 31759.1 C 24.5 feet in Boring BA -1 and at 43.5 feet in Boring BA -2 (LOR, 2005). These local seepages are believed to be the result of the recent heavy rains which caused percolation of water through the upper weathered portion of the bedrock, reaching the significant depths that were not encountered in our previous studies (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, and 2004c). A very small area located along the far southwestern portion of the site was noted by the project biologist as containing vegetation that indicates continuous moist soil conditions (LOR, 2004c). While this area was noted during our preliminary geotechnical study (LOR, 2004b), no actual seepage was noted coming from this source and it was not considered a significant geologic constraint to the proposed development of the site. The subject "spring" is located on the southwest portion of the site on the east side of a large gully leading up to the south. The area lies at an approximate elevation of about 1,240 feet above mean sea level and on the side of the hill approximately 16 feet above the apex of the gully to the west. No water was noted at the surface in this area. The only indication is the vegetation restricted to a small area about 20 feet in diameter. An old pipe leading from this area down to the north indicates that this area may have been tapped as a water source in the past. As noted below for the site, the depth to groundwater is anticipated to be on the order of greater than 50 feet, based on very sparse regional data. However, the potential for perched water was noted due to the varying hydro -geologic characteristics of the varying types of earth materials underlying the site, i.e. crystalline bedrock at depths with shallower sedimentary bedrock and loose alluvium. It is thought that during periods of heavy precipitation, the local runoff that seeps into the alluvial materials may perch on the alluvial -bedrock contact due to the porosity differential of the alluvium/bedrock contact. This water would then generally follow the alluvial bedrock contact along the surface drainage routes or down the valley on the site to the west then finally northwest into the Pauba Valley to the north. However, at the subject "spring" area, any such perched water would collect in the bottom of the gully to the west and would not be anticipated on the hillside. Based on a review of the topography of the site, an on -source origin for the water at this location appears unlikely. 10 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. H 1 I I 1 lJ 1 t Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21. 2006 Project No. 31759.1 C The aerial photographs and topographic maps reviewed of the region indicates that the subject "spring" lies along the south side of a small valley that drains from the northeast to the southwest then makes a sharp turn to the northwest at the site leading to the Pauba Valley. The subject site is actually at the apex of the turn in the canyon. There is a smaller, higher, parallel valley adjacent to the southeast draining into Wolf Valley. This apex of this higher valley is up to 100 feet above (1,340 feet above mean sea level) the approximate elevation of the on -site -subject "spring" area. According to geologic mapping documented in our previous geotechnical study (LOR, 2004b), the subject site is underlain by sedimentary sandstone units associated with the Pauba Formations. The hills to the southeast of the parallel valley are underlain by the slightly older, somewhat better indurated sedimentary members of the Temecula Arkose. Both of the canyons appear to be infilled with alluvial deposits. The bedding attitudes of both the Temecula Arkose in this region are thought to dip to the north and northwest at angles from 20 to 50 degrees, while the Pauba is thought to incline to the north at a lessor gradient on the order of 5 to 20 degrees. Based on the data given above, one possible source of the groundwater seep would be the infiltration of groundwater in the upper canyon to the southeast above the site. In this canyon, groundwater is anticipated to seep into the canyon sediments, although recent development of this canyon may have altered this flow. This seepage would normally continue downward until it encounters the less permeable underlying bedrock. At this point, it would most likely flow downward along this contact towards Wolf Valley. However, where this water encounters the less steeply dipping Pauba Formation on the northwest side of the valley, under the sediments, it is likely that some of this water will enter some of the more permeable members, and then flow along this 5 to 20 degree angle along the top of less permeably rocks.- It is,possible that the subject "spring" on the site represents the contact with one of these more permeably beds with the site topography. Generally, true artesian springs are associated with areas where the ground surface is lower than the hydrostatic head pressure of an underlying confined aquifer and a passageway of some type, typically a fracture or joint, exist from the aquifer to the surface. This allows the hydrostatic pressure on the aquifer to push the moisture up through the crack until it seeps out onto the surface. The subject site is known to contain fracturing due to the uplifting of the Agua Tibia Mountains to the south and the Wildomar and other faults of the Elsinore fault system to the southwest. While we LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 11 Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Project No. 31759.1 C were not able to determine in our studies the presence of a confined aquifer at depths under the site, this certainly is a likely possibility. Another item noted in the aerial photographs that predates the massive development of the regions around the site is the general bedding of the Pauba Formation, which appears to be dipping gently to the north in the hills northeast of the site and then they appear to bend at the apex of the bend in the creek, dipping to the northeast along the hills northwest of the site. This feature tends to indicate that while the beds generally are dipping north, they have abroad warp or downward dipping fold called a syncline, with the apex of the fold also coinciding with the site and the subject "spring's area. It is possible that some moisture would follow the apex of this fold flowing downward to the northeast. It could be possible that one of the more permeable beds in this fold might outcrop at this location and allow some seepage of the moisture. In summary, it should be noted that there are several potential sources for the seepage area noted on the site. All of these scenarios would involve water entering the subsurface from a distance away from the site, then either daylighting with the site at this location or being pushed up by hydrostatic head pressure. In either case, the source of the water would be regional and it would appear that any changes to the site, short of burying the subject "spring" area, would have little effect on the water flow into this area. In order to determine the possible depth to a deeper aquifer, we checked the Western Municipal Water District's Spring 2003 Cooperative Well Measuring Program data base which list depth to groundwater readings from water agencies in the region. However, no wells were listed, within the immediate region around the site. The nearest well on this data base is well number 8S2W20R00, which lies approximately 1 .8 kilometers (1.1 miles) west of the site, within the Wolf Valley at an approximate elevation of 1,090 feet above mean sea level (m.s.l.). The depth to static groundwater in this well was measured on April 27, 2003 at a depth of approximately 148 feet below the ground surface, at an elevation of approximately 942 above m.s.l. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) web site listed the nearest well on this data base is well number 8SW28C01 S, which lies at an approximately 1.1 kilometers (0.7 miles) to the west of the site, within the Wolf Valley at an approximate elevation of 1,129 feet above m.s.l. The depth to static groundwater in this well was last measured on May 2, 1973 at a depth of approximately 92 feet below the ground 12 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I U H 1 mrd ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 ' surface, at an elevation of approximately 1,037 feet above m.s.l. Historically, data for this well dates back to 1923 and the shallowest groundwater level recorded was on ' December 1, 1939 at a depth of approximately 70 feet beneath the ground surface, at an approximate elevation of 1,058 feet above m.s.l. Data for another well located ' approximately 2.3 km (1 .4 miles) within the valley that comprises the northern portion of the site was available. Groundwater was last measured in this well in November of 1967. The well was reported to lie at an elevation of 1,360 -feet above m.s.l. and tgroundwater was reported at a depth of 243 feet or an elevation of 1,1 17 feet above m.s.l. Closer wells may be present to the site, such as to the north within the larger Pauba Valley, however, the well data above, especially the data from the well within the tvalley which the site lies within, provides the most applicable data for the site. ' Based on the Tentative Tract Map supplied, elevations across the site range from an approximate high of 1,316± feet above m.s.l. in the far northern and southern portions and a low of 1,151 feet above m.s.l. in the west central portion. Therefore, ' the depth to groundwater under the site is anticipated to be greater than 50 feet. While some shallower perched zones may exist, no groundwater was found at the site twithin the upper 51 feet. Site Flooding Potential Portions of the subject site lie within a broad valley within a "blue line" stream along the central portion. As noted on the attached U.S.G.S. topographic map, Enclosure 1 .1 , within Appendix 1 .0, this valley does have a relatively large watershed area extending over 2 kilometers (1 mile) to the northeast. Therefore, the potential for site t flooding cannot be completely ruled out and should be evaluated by the project civil engineer. ' Mass Movement The hillside portions of the site contain relatively steep slopes. In these areas, the underlying bedrock is composed predominately of well indurated silty sandstone and sandstone with very poor or no bedding development. Such units typically have high ' strength characteristics which tends to lessen the occurrence of mass movements. The areas around the hillside have relatively flat relief, which precludes mass ' 13 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 r Project No. 31759.1 C movement such as landslides, rockfalls, or soil creep. However, as shown on the attached Regional Geologic Map, Enclosure 1.4, the bedrock units in the site are have a regional dip generally to the north. In addition, as observed within our large diameter boring (LOR, 2005), north dipping bedding was present. Our past evaluation (LOR, 2005) of the conditions encountered within our large diameter boring placed along both a north and south facing slope within the southern and northern portions of the site, respectively, found no evidence of mass movement and found that the proposed cut and fill slope in those areas were grossly stable (LOR, 2005)• Faulting There are no known active faults at the site. In addition, according to the Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California (Hart and Bryant, 1997) the subject site does not lie within a current State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the County of Riverside Seismic Hazard Map of the site and immediate surrounding region, the site does not lie within a county fault zone. A copy of this map is provided as Enclosure 1.7 within Appendix 1.0 of this report. The closest fault within an Earthquake Fault zone is the Wildomar fault located approximately 1,750 feet to the southwest. This fault is sometimes referred to as the Temecula segment of the Elsinore fault zone. Lessor known faults may occur closer to the site. The County of Riverside seismic hazards map for the region indicates that a series of faults run along the base of the Agua Tiba Mountains in the region of the site. The closest of these,,while they do not project into the site, lies southeast of the subject site. The potential of movement on these faults is not well understood. Other faults in the region include the San Jacinto fault located approximately 33 kilometers (20 miles) to the northeast, the off -shore portion of the Newport fault zone located approximately 47 kilometers (29 miles) to the southwest, and the San Andreas fault approximately 63 kilometers (39 miles) to the northeast. Historical Seismicity In order to obtain a general perspective of the historical seismicity of the site and jsurrounding region a search was conducted for seismic events at and around the area within various radii. This search was conducted utilizing the historical seismic search 14 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I 1 1 1 I I ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 ' program by EPI Software, Inc. This program conducts a search of a user selected ' cataloged seismic events database, within a specified radius and selected magnitudes, and then plots the events onto an overlay map of known faults. For this investigation the database of seismic events utilized by the EPI program was obtained from the ' Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) available from the Southern California Earthquake Center. At the time of our final search, the data base contained data from January 1, 1932 through December 31, 2003. ' In our first search the general seismicity of the region was analyzed by selecting an ' epicenter map listing all events of magnitude 4.0 and greater, recorded since 1932, within a 100 kilometer (62 mile)radius of the site, in accordance with guidelines of the California Division of Mines and Geology. This map illustrates the regional seismic ' history of moderate to large events. As noted on Enclosure 1 .8, within Appendix 1 .0, the site lies within a somewhat "quiet' region of the normally seismically active ' southern California with numerous medium and larger sized events typically clustering along the San Jacinto and San Andreas faults to the northeast. Of these events, the closest was a magnitude 4.5 located approximately 16 kilometers (9.9 miles) east of ' the site. ' In the second search, the micro seismicity of the area lying within a 10 kilometer (6.2 mile) radius of the site was examined by selecting an epicenter map listing events on the order of 0.0 and greater since 1979. In addition, only the "A" events, or most ' accurate events were selected. Caltech indicates the accuracy of the "A" events to be approximately 1 km. The results of this search is a map that presents the seismic ' history around the area of the site with much greater detail, not permitted on the larger map. The reason for limiting the events to the last 25 years on the detail 'map is to enhance the accuracy of the map. Events recorded prior the mid 1970s are generally ' considered to be less accurate due to advancements in technology. As noted on this map, Enclosure 1 .9, while there are scattered events around the site, no distinct trend is conspicuous. ' In summary, while there have been no significantly large earthquakes in the immediate I region around the site, the micro -seismicity clustered around the site accentuates the potential for the site to experience a large seismic event on one of the larger faults in the region. ' 15 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Secondary Seismic Hazards Project No. 31759.1 C Other secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include liquefaction, seiches and tsunamis, earthquake induced flooding, landsliding and rockfalls, and seismic -induced settlement. Liquefaction: The potential for liquefaction generally occurs -during strong ground shaking within loose sands and some silts sediments where the groundwater is usually less than 50 feet. Based on the data obtained during our investigations (LOR' 2004a, 2004b, and 2004e), while the alluvial materials underlying the site are typically granular and loose, the lack of saturation due to the absence of shallow groundwater drastically lowers the potential for liquefaction. Our investigations (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, and 2004e) show that portions of the site are underlain by shallow bedrock units, which are not prone to liquefaction. It should also be noted that, the recommended remedial grading measures contained within this report will require the removal of all loose upper alluvial materials and thus counteract the susceptibility of liquefaction at the site. Seiches/Tsunamis: The potential for the site to be effected by a seiche or Tsunamis (earthquake generated wave) is considered nil due to absence of any large bodies of water near the site. Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure): There are no large water storage facilities located on or near the site which could possibly rupture during in earthquake and effect the site by flooding. Seismically -Induced Landsliding: Due to the relatively low relief across the central and eastern portions of the site and surrounding region, the potential for seismically induced landsliding in these areas is considered nil. In the portions of the site with greater relief, predominantly along the ridges in the northern and southern portions, no adverse bedding conditions were noted within our excavations within the units which comprise these areas of the site (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, and 2005). Past authors (Kennedy, 1977) indicate a regional dip to the north of the bedrock materials. No evidence of past landsliding was noted during our site reconnaissance nor in our review of aerial photographs of the subject site nor in our large diameter borings (LOR, 2005)• 16 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 1 1 1 1 ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 Rockfalls: No large exposed, loose or unrooted boulders were noted above the site ' that would affect the integrity of the site. Seismically-Induced Settlement: Loose, unsaturated sands can densify when subjected ' to earthquake shaking. This subsurface densification is manifested at the ground surface in the form of settlement. Seismically-induced settlements often can cause structural distress of foundations and damage to pipelines placed at shallow depths. ' Since the site is underlain by up to 35 feet of unsaturated, relatively loose alluvial materials, the potential for seismically-induced settlements is high. Such soils are recommended for complete removal and replacement as engineered compacted fill. After the remedial earthwork recommended herein is conducted, we believe that angular distortions within the proposed improvement areas will not exceed 1/480. ' SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code) Design requirements for structures can be found within Chapter 16 of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) based on building type, use and/or occupancy. The ' classification of use and occupancy of all proposed structures at the site, and thus design requirements, shall be the responsibility of the structural engineer and the ' building official. For structures at the site to be designed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16, the subject site specific soils and seismic criteria are provided in the following sections. ' CBC Divisions IV: Earthquake Design Criteria Selection Procedure and limitations for the earthquake design of applicable structures can be obtained from Division IV of Chapter 16 of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). ' However, it should be noted that the building code requires the minimum design to allow a structure to remain standing after a seismic event, in order to allow for safe evacuation. As stated in section 1626. 1, "The purpose of the earthquake provisions ' herein is primarily to safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life, not to limit damage or maintain function." Therefore, a structure built to CBC code may still ' sustain damage which might ultimately result in the demolishing of the structure. The CBC Division IV requires that all sites, unless exempted, be assigned a soil profile ' type and a regional seismic zone. The criteria for the selection of a site soil profile can be found in the 2001 CBC Division V, discussed in later sections. t17 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21. 2006 Project No. 31759.1 C Seismic Zone: As shown on Figure 16-2 within Chapter 16 of the 2001 CBC, the site is located in Seismic Zone 4. Section 1629.4.2 of the 2001 CBC directs that all sites in Seismic Zone 4, unless exempted, shall have a near source factor determined. Near Source Factor: Near source factors are determined based on the distance to the nearest Type A, or B seismic source (earthquake fault). Once these are determined near source values can be obtained, dependent on structure type, from Tables 16-S or 16-T within the 2001 CBC. Seismic source types are classified as A, B, or C, based on description, maximum anticipated magnitude, and slip rate. Type C sources are not considered as they do not increase the standard near source factor value of 1.0. The following table lists the seismic source type requirements. Table 16-U Seismic Source Type' Seismic Seismic Source Definitions Source Type Seismic Source Description Maximum Slip Rate Magnitude (mm/yr) Faults capable of large magnitude events, A Mz7.0 SR z5 and have a high rate of seismic activity. M>_7.0 SR <5 B All faults other than A and C. M<7.0 SR > 2 Mz6.5 SR <2 Faults that are not capable of producing C large magnitude earthquakes and that have M < 6.5 - SR <2 a relatively low rate 6f seismic activity. 'Source 2001 CBC Specific parameters for earthquake faults within the state of California can be obtained form the State of California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 96-08 (DMG 1996). As noted in ourFaulting section of this report, the nearest known active fault to the site, is the Wildomar fault, referred to as the Temecula segment of the Elsinore fault zone, located approximately 1,750 feet (0.5 kilometers) to the southwest. In LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 1 1 1 H ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1C November 21, 2006 ' According to the DMG Open File Report 96-08 the Temecula segment of the Elsinore fault zone has a slip rate of 5 mm/year, and an estimated magnitude event of 6.8. The Temecula segment of the Elsinore fault zone is therefore classified by the State as a Type B fault. The nearest known active Type A fault, according to the table above ' and the UBC Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones (UBC, 1998), is the San Jacinto fault located approximately 33 kilometers (20 miles) to the northeast. According to the DMG Open File Report 96-08 the Anza segment of the San Jacinto ' fault has a slip rate of 12 mm/year, and an estimated magnitude event of 7.2. ' CBC Division V: Soil Profile _ As noted in our excavations at the site, the majority of the subject site is underlain by ' unconsolidated alluvial units, with some areas of sedimentary bedrock units. Therefore it is our opinion that the soil profile type of So should be used for the entire subject site ' unless futures studies indicate less conservative values may be appropriate on specific areas. ' CBC Earthquake Design Summary ' As determined in the previous sections, the following earthquake design criteria have been formulated for the site. However, these values should be reviewed and the final design should be preformed by a qualified structural engineer familiar with the region. 1 1 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 19 SEISMIC AND SOIL CRITERIA Seismic Zone 4 = Factor 0.40, Soil Type = Sp Nearest Source Fault Name Distance N NV C. C, Type (km) ' (0.44 N,) (0.64 NJ A San Jacinto 35 1.0 1.0 0.40 0.64 B Elsinore 0.5 1.3 1.6 0.57 1.02 T, - C,/2.5Ca = 0.72 To - 0.2T, = 0.14 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 19 Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Slope Stability Project No. 31759.1 C The County of Riverside (2005) requested that the previous slope stability analysis conducted by this firm (LOR, 2004d) should be finalized by in-place sampling and laboratory testing of the bedrock materials at the site. However, since the time of the subject stability analysis, the grading plans for the project have been modified significantly. The new grading plans (Engineering Solutions, undated) incorporate an 1 1.3 -acre parcel to the east (LOR, 2004e) and a 18.4 -acre parcel to the south (LOR, 2004b) to the originally proposed 53.9 -acre site (LOR, 2004x). As indicated in our previous report (LOR, 2005), the new plans also indicate cut slopes into bedrock (Section X -X', Enclosure 1.10) up to 64 feet in height and at gradients of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and fill slopes (Section Y -Y', Enclosure 1 .11) up to 60 feet and gradients of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical)• The results of our stability analysis and findings of our bedrock strength investigations performed for the evaluation of the proposed 64 -foot tall cut slope and 60 -foot tall fill slope are presented within Appendix 5.0. The location of these slopes (as previously proposed) are shown on Enclosures 1 .10 and 1 .1 1 within Appendix 1.0. The locations of these areas are also presented on the current plan provided to this firm on Enclosures 1.2 and 1.3 within the pockets of Appendix 1.0. Our subsurface investigation in 2005 included the drilling of three exploratory borings with a bucket auger drill rig to depths ranging from 36.5 to 65.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were advanced near areas where the tall cut slopes into bedrock materials are currently planned. These locations are presented on Enclosures 1 .0, 1 .1 1 , 1 .2, and -1.3, within Appendix 1 .0. During our field •w. ork, the materials encountered in the borings were downhole logged by geologists from this firm. Undisturbed as well as disturbed samples were taken at vertical intervals of approximately 5 feet. The samples obtained were then taken to our laboratory for testing and storage. In our laboratory, testing included dry density and moisture content determinations of all samples obtained as well as direct shear testing on selected, undisturbed and remolded bedrock samples. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions found within our exploratory borings (BA -1 through BA -3, LOR, 2005) are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs, within Appendix 5.1. A Sampling Key is presented as Enclosure 1.12. Results of laboratory tests conducted are presented within Appendix 5.2. 20 1 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. �I ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 F Irl Project No. 31759.1 C The data from our recent borings and laboratory testing was found to generally in concur with the information presented in the referenced studies for the project that the site is underlain by bedrock of the Pauba Formation which consists of sandstone, siltstone, and claystone. As shown in our boring logs, these rock sequences had predominately near horizontal to horizontal structures. However, an occasional steep bed of claystone, such as the claystone found in boring BA -2 at 60 feet with an approximate dip of 31 *SE and strike of N70'W was noted. The bedrock tended to be internally massive or poorly bedded, well indurated, and exhibited shear strength parameters ranging from 32 to�38 degrees as friction angle ((�) and from 50 to 530 psf as cohesion (c), when tested in direct shear. ,, As previously mentioned, local seepages of perched groundwater were encountered ' at approximately 24.5 feet deep in boring BA -1 and at 43.5 feet deep in boring BA -2. These local seepages are believed to be the result of the recent heavy rains which ' caused the percolation of water through the upper weathered portions of the bedrock, reaching significant depths as they were not noted in our original study. As indicated before and shown in detail within Appendix 5.2, variable shear strength parameters were found for both the bedrock and fill materials. Thus, we selected to utilize for our new stability calculations average parameters of (� equal to 32 degrees and c equal to 250 psf for the bedrock and of � equal to 37 degrees and c equal to 150 psf for the engineered compacted fills. A moist unit weight of 130 pcf was also ' used for both bedrock and fills. The subject parameters were then used for evaluation of the tallest slopes currently proposed at the site. These are a'64 -foot tall, 2:1 ' (horizontal: vertical) cut slope into bedrock materials (Section X -X', Enclosure 1.10) and a 60 -foot tall, 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) fill slope (Section Y -Y', Enclosure 1.11). The stability analyses were conducted to assess the surficial stability of the subject slopes and their stability under static and pseudostatic loading. The computer program PCSTABL5M (Van Aller, 1999) was used for the static and pseudostatic analysis. A ' seismic coefficient of 0.25g was included in the pseudostatic calculations. The factors of safety obtained are summarized in the following table: 1 ' 21 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Project No. 31759.1 C The above tabulated factors of safety suggest adequate stability conditions for the subject slopes. Therefore, we believe that the slopes should be grossly stable to the proposed maximum inclination of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and heights of 64 feet in cut and 60 feet in fill. Complete results of the slope stability analysis is presented within Appendix 5.3. Our most recent field observations primarily noted tight, well indurated, massive bedrock at the site (LOR, 2005)• Only within boring BA -2 some steep beds of claystone were encountered. Because these beds of clay may potentially appear with unfavorable orientations in some slope areas, careful in -grading geologic inspection of all slopes is still recommended and should be performed by the project engineering geologist and additional slope stability analysis may be needed, depending on the actual field conditions encountered. Also, as noted during our latest explorations, nuisance groundwater seepage may be encountered during slope construction (LOR, 2005). Measures, such as additional surface drainages and/or other,remedial options, should be assessed and implemented at that time to prevent erosion of the slope materials. - CONCLUSIONS General Our past studies consolidated into this report provides a broad overview of the geotechnical and geologic factors which are expected to influence future site planning and development (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, and 2005)• On the basis of our field investigations and testing programs, it is the opinion of LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into design and implemented during grading and construction. 22 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 1 C 1 H 1 1 COMPUTED FACTORS OF SAFETY SLOPE SECTION Surficial Static Pseudostatic Stability Section X -X' (64 -foot tall, 2h:1 v, cut 1.80 1.85 1.10 slope) Section Y -Y' (60 -foot tall, 2h:1 v, fill slope) 1.50 1.90 1.15 The above tabulated factors of safety suggest adequate stability conditions for the subject slopes. Therefore, we believe that the slopes should be grossly stable to the proposed maximum inclination of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and heights of 64 feet in cut and 60 feet in fill. Complete results of the slope stability analysis is presented within Appendix 5.3. Our most recent field observations primarily noted tight, well indurated, massive bedrock at the site (LOR, 2005)• Only within boring BA -2 some steep beds of claystone were encountered. Because these beds of clay may potentially appear with unfavorable orientations in some slope areas, careful in -grading geologic inspection of all slopes is still recommended and should be performed by the project engineering geologist and additional slope stability analysis may be needed, depending on the actual field conditions encountered. Also, as noted during our latest explorations, nuisance groundwater seepage may be encountered during slope construction (LOR, 2005). Measures, such as additional surface drainages and/or other,remedial options, should be assessed and implemented at that time to prevent erosion of the slope materials. - CONCLUSIONS General Our past studies consolidated into this report provides a broad overview of the geotechnical and geologic factors which are expected to influence future site planning and development (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, and 2005)• On the basis of our field investigations and testing programs, it is the opinion of LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into design and implemented during grading and construction. 22 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 1 C 1 H 1 1 1 ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 ' It should be noted that the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings and trenches are indicative of the locations explored. The subsurface ' conditions presented here are not to be construed as being present the same everywhere on the site. Therefore, conditions may be encountered during future ' investigations and/or construction of the project which differ significantly from those presented in this report. ' Foundation Support Based upon the field investigations and test data, it is our opinion that the majority of the native alluvial soils, will not in their present condition, provide uniform and/or adequate support for the anticipated structural fills and the proposed residential ' structures and other improvements. Our in-place density and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data indicated variable in-situ conditions of the upper native soils, ranging ' from very loose to medium dense states. In addition our consolidation testing of the alluvial materials in the upper 40 feet noted that the potential to hydro consolidate was significant in the upper 15 to 35 feet, however, this value dropped to less than 1 t percent at 40 feet. This condition may cause unacceptable differential and/or overall settlements upon application of the anticipated foundation loads. ' To provide adequate support for the proposed structural fills, roadways, and residential structures, we recommend that all loose, hydro collapse prone alluvial soils be removed ' prior to placement of fills and/or construction of structures and replaced as engineered compacted fill. This compacted fill will provide a dense, high-strength soil layer to uniformly distribute the anticipated foundation loads over the underlying soils. ' In areas across the site where the_proposed development will result in deep cuts into the underlying bedrock, materials additional removals may not be required. -These areas, however, should be evaluated by the project engineering geologist in the field when such conditions are exposed. ' Conventional spread foundations, either individual spread footings and/or continuous ' wall footings, will provide adequate support for the anticipated downward and lateral loads when utilized in conjunction with the recommended fill mat. 23 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1C November 21, 2006 Mass/Remedial Grading Considerations Existing structures, including water wells proposed for abandonment, need to be properly abandoned/demolished in accordance with current regulatory agency requirements. Significant remedial grading of the site is anticipated for the proposed site development. This will include significant excavations into the existing hillsides and deep cuts into the alluvial valley for removal of highly compressible alluvial soils. The onsite bedrock materials are considered to be rippable to the anticipated depths using standard, heavy duty earthmoving equipment. However, some areas of hard bedrock materials could be encountered. Removals anticipated within the alluvial valleys will most likely require sub -drains at the bottom to minimized the build-up of sub -surface water within the fills. These sub - drains will most likely be placed along the center of the valleys. However, due to the low gradient of these areas of site, the lower portions of the main canyon removals along the central portion of the site may not have sufficient fall on the site for positive drainage. This can be mitigated by trenching offsite to a non -nuisance area, or by placing all fills below the lowest drained elevations at a higher compaction standard (i.e. 95 percent relative compaction). In addition, the upper portions of the two valleys within the far southern portion of the site have been previously filled during the past development of the adjacent property to the south. Currently, the surface of these fill slopes drain into the valleys in this area of the site. It is not known ,if sub -drains area present in this area. Therefore, if fills are proposed within these valleys, measures will need to be taken to ensure proper drainage of the adjacent slopes and any sub -drains which may be present. Additional recommendations _for canyon sub -drains can be found in the Canyon Subdrains section of this report. Geologic Mitigations Final grading plans should be reviewed by this firm prior to development to ensure the contents of this report have been adhered to. Continuous geologic inspections should be conducted by the project engineering geologist during grading of the hillside areas. The on-site bedrock materials most likely to be exposed in cut slopes were noted to be massive and lacked unfavorable bedding planes which could impact slope stability. 24 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I 1 [] 1 E H 1 1 I 1 ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.11C November 21, 2006 However, we noted some bedding dipping to the northwest. The overall stability of the proposed cut slopes should be confirmed via in -grading geologic inspections provided ' by the project engineering geologist to verify that no adverse rock structures are present within slope areas. Inspection should be conducted at a minimum of 10 -foot ' intervals during grading. If out -of -slope bedding components are encountered, additional slope stability analysis may be needed. A stabilization fill may be needed to be constructed over the face of such slopes to mitigate the weaker bedding planes. A ' geotechnical sketch of a typical stabilization fill is presented as Enclosure 1.13, within Appendix 1.0. Nuisance groundwater seepage may be encountered during slope ' construction. Measures such as additional surface drainage and/or other remedial options should be assessed and implemented at the time of construction. ' All proposed cut pads into bedrock should also be evaluated during construction by the project engineering geologist to verify the conclusions made in this study. ' Seismicity Seismic ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre-existing active faults. Since no known active faults are known to exist at, or project into the ' site, the probability of ground surface rupture occurring at the site is considered nil. Due to the site's close proximity to the active portions of the Elsinore fault zone ' described above, it is reasonable to expect a very strong ground motion seismic event to occur during the lifetime of the proposed development on the site. Large ' earthquakes could occur on other faults in the general area, but because of their lesser anticipated magnitude and/or greater distance, they are considered less significant than the Elsinore fault zone from a ground motion standpoint. The effects of ground shaking anticipated at the subject site, should be mitigated by the seismic design requirements and procedures outlined in Chapter 16 of the ' California Building Code. However, it should be noted that the current building code requires the minimum design to allow a structure to remain standing after a seismic ' event, in order to allow for safe evacuation. A structure built to code may still sustain damage which might ultimately result in the demolishing of the structure (Larson and Slosson, 1992). I I25 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS General Site Grading Project No. 31759.1 C Grading of the subject site should be performed in strict accordance with the applicable portions of Appendix Chapter 33 of the California Building Code, and applicable local ordinances, as well as the recommendations within this report. These recommendations include that an on-site, pre -job meeting with the developer, the grading contractor, the civil engineer, the jurisdictional agency, the project geotechnical engineer, and the project engineering geologist should occur prior to all grading related operations. It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the representation and presence of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Operations undertaken at the site without, the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusions of affected areas from the final compaction report for the project. Prior to grading and after the pre -grade meeting, all areas to be graded should be stripped of significant vegetation and other deleterious materials. All uncontrolled fills encountered during site preparation should be completely removed, cleaned of significant deleterious materials, and may be reused as compacted fill. Cavities created by removal of subsurface obstructions should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soil, organic matter and other deleterious materials, shaped to provide access for construction equipment, -and backfilled as recommended in the -following Engineered Compacted Fill section of this report. Any wells, dry or otherwise, should be properly abandoned in accordance with current regulatory agency standards. Initial Site Preparation All loose materials with a potential for significant consolidation upon the applied load should be removed from the areas to received engineered compacted fill or intended to support structures. According to the data developed during our past investigations 26 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. H H 1 1 J 1 ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 C I A4 Project No. 31759.1 C (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, and 2004e) mitigation removals required prior to placing fill will vary greatly from the hillside areas to the lower valley areas. Hillside Excavation Areas: The bulk of the proposed grading across the hillside areas calls for deep excavations which should expose competent bedrock units which are anticipated to be competent for the intended use. However, in any of the hillside areas where fills are proposed, or the proposed cuts are less than 3feet, the excavation should be further extended a minimum of 3 feet into the bedrock materials to remove the overlying loose topsoils, slope wash, colluvium, and weathered bedrock materials, which may be present. In addition, all cuts which expose bedrock materials should be observed by the project engineering geologist prior to placing fill in these areas. Areas that have been cut to grade for the support of structures should be similarly observed by the project engineering geologist to verify the uniformity and/or adequacy of the exposed bedrock for foundation support. Alluvial Valley Areas: All loose alluvial materials should be removed from areas to receive engineered compacted fill or intended for the support of structures. Removals should continue until the in-place density testing of the finer grained alluvial materials notes dense, damp, materials with in-place densities of equal to or greater than 85 percent of the laboratory determined maximum density and/or a degree of saturation of greater than 85 percent or if the more granular units (SP -SM) are encountered. The data developed during our past investigations (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, and 2004e) indicates that alluvial removals on the order of 7 to 35 feet will be required from the valley areas. To provide lateral support the removals areas should extend outward from all structural areas a distance equal to the depth of the removal. Estimated minimum alluvial removal depths are shown on the enclosed Plates, Enclosure 1.2 and 1 .3, within Appendix 1.0. . Canyon Sub -Drains Generally canyon sub -drains are recommended in order to minimize the potential for hydrostatic buildup within the fills, even if the canyon bottoms and clean-out areas are dry at the time of removals as future irrigation buildup may drastically increase the infiltration of water into the subsurface. Therefore, subsurface canyon sub -drains should be installed within the bottom of all the valley clean-out areas and the precise location of the sub -drain system will need to be designed in the field by the geotechnical consultant. Generally, the sub -drain system should start at the fill -native LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 27 Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Project No. 31759.1 C boundary where fills are greater that 10 feet in depth and continue down the slope to drain to a protected, non -nuisance area outside of the fills. Typically the drain system is placed at the bottom of the canyon clean-out. However the wide bottom of the main valley clean-out of the site may not have a narrow, confined, clean-out area. The pipe may need to be placed at the lowest elevation of the fill -native contact which will drain offsite. Care must be taken to keep subdrain systems below or outside future subsurface improvements such as proposed swimming pools, retaining wall footings, etc. It should be noted that the 35 foot deep removals anticipated along the southern portion of the site may not allow for a subdrain placed at the bottom of this removals to gravity drain anywhere onsite. As the lowest elevation on the site, after removals, is about 1,132 feet above m.s.l., then all removals which are below this depth will not drain onsite. Therefore, a trench may be require offsite down the canyon to direct the flow to a lower area. The end of the onsite sub -drain system should then be directed into a solid PVC drain pipe in this trench. If this is not permitted, then only the areas which lie above the lowest elevation that allows for positive drainage should have a drain system installed. The lower lying areas should then be filled in with engineered compacted fill, then a solid pipe can extend across the fill to a non -nuisance area. In order to reduce the hydroconsolidation potential from the build-up of water in the fills placed below the sub -drain areas, these fills should be placed at a minimum compaction of 95 percent and placed at 1 to 2 percent over the optimum moisture content. Existing slope drainage, any subdrains, and any other drainage feature associated with the development to the south should not be negatively impacted by the site development. Mitigation measures should be provided by the project engineer. Typical sub -drain requirements are presented on Enclosure 1 .14, within Appendix 1.0 Preparation of Fill Areas Prior to placing fill and after conducting the remedial removals discussed above, the surfaces of all areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches. The scarified soil should be brought to near optimum moisture content and recompacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). W i LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I N Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 Preparation of Foundation Areas All footing should rest entirely upon at least 24 inches of properly compacted fill material or entirely upon competent bedrock materials. In areas where the required thickness is not accomplished by site rough grading, the footing areas should be further subexcavated to a depth of at least 24 inches below the proposed footing base grade, with the subexcavation extending at least 5 -feet beyond the footing lines. The bottom of this excavation should then be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) prior to refilling the excavation to grade as properly compacted fill. ' Due to size constraints, a 1 :1 projection outside the footing lines of the bottom of the excavation may not be feasible. Therefore, in this case the fill materials placed from ' the footing line to the back cut should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at or very near optimum moisture content. ' If any proposed fill thickness is greater than 50 feet, the fill is considered a deep fill. Therefore, all fill located at a depth greater than 50 feet shall be compacted to at least ' 95 percent of the laboratory determined maximum density. In addition, a settlement monitoring program should be established. ' The minimum fill thickness across any one building pad should be at least half of the maximum fill thickness across the same building pad, but need not exceed 15 feet. ' Engineered Compacted Fill ' The on-site soils should provide adequate quality fill material, provided they are free from organic matter and other deleterious materials. Unless approved by the ' geotechnical engineer, rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than six inches should not be buried or placed in fills. Oversized material may be stockpiled for landscaping purposes or placed in a rock disposal area as approved ' by the owner, developer, geotechnical engineer, and local agency having jurisdiction Import fill should be inorganic, non -expansive granular soils free from rocks or lumps ' greater than six inches in maximum dimension. Sources for import fill should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use. ' 29 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Project No. 31759.1 C Fill should be spread in maximum 8 -inch loose lifts, each lift brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Based upon the relative compaction of the near surface soils determined during our previous investigations (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, and 2004e) and the relative compaction anticipated for compacted fill soil, we estimate a compaction shrinkage factor of approximately 10 to 15 percent for the mass graded site. The loose alluvial soils are anticipated to have a shrinkage=factor of between 15 to 25 percent. Therefore, 1.10 cubic yards to 1.25 cubic yards of in-place materials would be necessary to yield one cubic yard of properly compacted fill material depending on the type of material being utilized. The hard bedrock materials are anticipated to have a bulking factor of about 0 to 5 percent. Therefore, 0.95 to 1.00 cubic yard of in-place materials would be necessary to yield one cubic yard of properly compacted fill material. It is assumed that the large cuts proposed within the northern portion of the site comprised of bedrock materials, will make up the majority of the materials utilized for fill at the site. In addition, we would anticipate subsidence of approximately 0.10 feet. These values are for estimating purposes only, and are exclusive of losses due to stripping or the removal of subsurface obstructions. These values may vary due to differing conditions within the project boundaries and the limitations of this investigation. Shrinkage and/or bulking should be monitored during construction. If percentages vary, provisions should be made to revise final grades or adjust quantities of borrow or export. Transition Lots In all areas were a cut/fill transition line extends beneath a proposed building location the cut portion of the pad should be undercut an amount equal to one third or more, as measured from the bottom of the footing, of the deepest fill beneath the structure with a minimum depth of 3 -feet and a maximum of 15 -feet, and replaced as compacted fill. The undercut should also extend outward from the building footprint a distance equal to the depth of the undercut with a minimum distance of 5 -feet. 101E LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 ' Slope Construction tPreliminary data indicates that cut and fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. Fill slopes should be overfilled during construction ' and then cut back to expose fully compacted soil. A suitable alternative would be to compact the slopes during construction, then roll the final slopes to provide dense, ' erosion -resistant surfaces. Where fills are to be placed against existing slopes steeper than five horizontal to one ' vertical, the fill should be properly keyed and benched into competent native materials. The key, constructed across the toe of the slope, should be a minimum of 12 to 15 - feet wide, a minimum of 2 feet deep at the toe, and sloped back at 2 percent. ' Benches should be constructed at approximately 2 to 4 feet vertical intervals. Typical keying and benching operations are presented on Enclosure 1 .15, within Appendix 1.0. Slope Protection ' Since the native materials are susceptible to erosion by running water, measures should be provided to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces. Slopes at ' the project should be planted with a deep rooted ground cover as soon as possible after completion. The use of succulent ground covers such as iceplant or sedum is not recommended. If watering is necessary to sustain plant growth on slopes, then the ' watering operation should be monitored to assure proper operation of the irrigation system and to prevent over watering. ' As indicated on the Tentative Tract Map, fill slopes are proposed along the both sides of the natural drainage within the valley portion of the site. If this drainage is to be left ' in a natural state, mitigation measures should be conducted to provide protection to the toe of fill slopes from erosion from this source. ' Soil Expansiveness t The majority of the materials encountered during this investigation were granular and considered to have a very low expansion potential. However, isolated fine grained ' units were encountered and tested for their expansion potential in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 18-2. The test results indicate a very low expansion potential for the fine grained soils tested (LOR, 2004a). Therefore, specialized ' 31 ' LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Project No. 31759.1 C construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil activity are not anticipated at this time. In order to verify this, additional evaluation of on-site and any imported soils should be conducted during the rough grading operation. Preliminary Foundation Design If the site is prepared as recommended, we anticipate the proposed residential structures may be safely founded on conventional spread foundations, either individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings, bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of engineered compacted fill or entirely upon bedrock materials. All foundations should have a minimum width of 12 inches and should be established a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. For the minimum width and depth, footings may be designed using a maximum soil bearing pressure of 1,800 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. Footings at least 15 inches wide, placed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, may be designed for a maximum soil bearing pressure of 2,100 (psf) for dead plus live loads. The recommended pressures apply for the total of dead plus frequently applied live loads, and incorporate a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for temporary wind or seismic loading. Foundations should be setback from slopes as detailed on Enclosure 1.16, within Appendix 1.0. Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base:friction. For footings bearing against compacted fill, passive earth pressure may be considered to be developed at a rate of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. - Base friction may be computed at 0.35 times the normal load. Base friction and passive earth pressure may be combined without reduction. Settlement Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the width of the foundation and the actual load supported. Maximum total settlement of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations are estimated to be on the order of 0.5 inches. Differential 32 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I 1 I I 1 ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1 C November 21, 2006 ' settlements between adjacent footings should be about one-half of the total ' settlement. Settlement of all foundations is expected to occur rapidly, primarily as a result of elastic compression of supporting soils as the loads are applied, and should be essentially completed shortly after initial application of the loads. ' Slabs -On -Grade To provide adequate support, concrete slabs -on -grade should bear on a minimum of 18 inches of compacted soil.- The final pad surfaces should be rolled to provide smooth, dense surfaces upon which to place the concrete. d Slabs to receive moisture -sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor ' barrier. This barrier may consist of an impermeable membrane. Two inches of sand over the membrane will reduce punctures and aid in obtaining a satisfactory concrete ' cure. The sand should be moistened just prior to placing of concrete. The slabs should be protected from rapid and excessive moisture loss which could ' result in slab curling. Careful attention should be given to slab curing procedures, as the site area is subject to large temperature extremes, humidity, and strong winds. ' Wall Pressures ' The design of footings for retaining structures should be performed in accordance with the recommendations described earlier under Preparation of Foundation Areas and ' Foundation Design. For design of retaining wall footings, the resultant of the applied loads should act in the middle one-third of the footing, and the maximum edge pressure should not exceed the basic allowable value without increase. ' For design of retaining walls unrestrained against movement at the top, we ' recommend an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used. This assumes level backfill consisting of recompacted native soils placed against the structures and within the backcut slope extending upward from the base of the stem at 35 degrees from the vertical or flatter. To avoid over stressing or excessive tilting during placement of backfill behind walls, theavy compaction equipment should not be allowed within the zone delineated by a 45 degree line extending from the base of the wall to the fill surface. The backfill ' 33 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 r Project No. 31759.1 C directly behind the walls should be compacted using light equipment such as hand operated vibrating plates and rollers. No material larger than three inches in diameter should be placed in direct contact with the wall. Wall pressures should be verified prior to construction, when the actual backfill materials and conditions have been determined. Recommended pressures are applicable only to _ level, properly drained backfill (with no additional surcharge loadings). If inclined backfills are proposed, this firm should be contacted to develop appropriate active earth pressufe parameters. Toe bearing pressure for non-structural walls on soils, not prepared as described earlier under Preparation of Foundation Areas, should not exceed California Building Code values, (CBC Table 18-1-A). Preliminary Pavement Design Design for a preliminary pavement was conducted in accordance with the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. Based upon our sampling and testing programs (LOR, 2004a, 2004b, and 2004e), upon Traffic Indices assumed for roadways typical of this type of project, and typical design R -value used by the County of Riverside, it appears that the structural sections tabulated below should provide satisfactory pavements within the subject development. It should be noted that the on-site soils vary in R - value quality. Final design of the roadways should be based on actual Traffic Indices R -value of the soils exposed at subgrade, and ultmately falls under the purview of the County of Riverside. AREA T I DESIGN PRELIMINARY SECTION R -VALUE Local Streets and 5.0 20 0.25'AC/0.60'AB On -Site Parking Local Collector Streets and 7.0 20 0.30'AC/1 .00'AB On -Site Truck Lanes Major Collector 8.0 20 0.40'AC/1.15'AB AC = Asphalt Concrete AB = Class 2 Aggregate Base 34 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 I 1 1 11 1 I 1 I ' Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 1 I I I I Project No. 31759.1 C ' The above structure sections are predicated upon 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of all utility trench backfills and 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of the upper 6 inches of street sub -grade soils and the aggregate base ' utilized. In addition, the aggregate base should meet Caltrans Specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base. I I LJ I I I I The above pavement designs were based upon the results of preliminary sampling and testing, and should be verified by additional sampling and testing during site grading when the actual subgrade soils are exposed. Final sampling and design of the roadways falls under the purview of the County of Riverside. Sulfate Protection The results of the sulfate tests conducted on selected subgrade soils expected to be encountered at foundation levels are presented in Appendices 2.2, 3.2, and'4.2. Based on the test results the sulfate exposures of on-site soils is considered negligible by the CBC. Therefore, no specific recommendations are given for concrete elements to be in contact with on-site soils. LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 35 DESIGN AREA T.I. PRELIMINARY SECTION R -VALUE Local Streets and 5.0 50 0.25'AC/0.35'AB On -Site Parking Local Collector Streets and 7 0 50 0.30'AC/0.45'AB On -Site Truck Lanes -' Major Collector 8.0 50 0.40'AC/0.45'AB AC = Asphalt Concrete AB = Class 2 Aggregate Base ' The above structure sections are predicated upon 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of all utility trench backfills and 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of the upper 6 inches of street sub -grade soils and the aggregate base ' utilized. In addition, the aggregate base should meet Caltrans Specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base. I I LJ I I I I The above pavement designs were based upon the results of preliminary sampling and testing, and should be verified by additional sampling and testing during site grading when the actual subgrade soils are exposed. Final sampling and design of the roadways falls under the purview of the County of Riverside. Sulfate Protection The results of the sulfate tests conducted on selected subgrade soils expected to be encountered at foundation levels are presented in Appendices 2.2, 3.2, and'4.2. Based on the test results the sulfate exposures of on-site soils is considered negligible by the CBC. Therefore, no specific recommendations are given for concrete elements to be in contact with on-site soils. LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 35 A B I Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 Construction Monitoring -14 Project No. 31759.1 C Geotechnical post investigative services 'are an important and necessary continuation of this investigation to verify that the recommendation given in this report are incorporated into the project construction. Items requiring additional tasks include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1) All future grading plans and specifications should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant•prior to construction to confirm that the intent of the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the design. 2) A pregrading meeting held with the developer, geotechnical consultant, grading contractor, project design engineer, and grading official. 3) All grading operations should be conducted under the full time observations of the geotechnical consultant. These observations should be conducted during: a) All site preparation -stripping and removals and valley clean outs. b) All excavations at the site including approval of the bottom of excavation prior to filling. C) Scarifying and recompacting prior to fill placement. d) Placement of all engineered compacted fill and backfill, including approval of fill materials and_ the performance of sufficient density tests to evaluate the degree of compaction being achieved. e) Drainage system installation. f) Subgrade preparation for pavements and slabs -on -grade. 4) All grading excavations, including the mitigation removals, sub -drain installation, cut pads, and cut slopes should be observed by the project engineering geologist. LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 36 Highpointe Communities, Inc. Project No. 31759.1C November 21, 2006 In addition, additional testing for soluble sulfate content, expansion potential, and street pavement design should be performed after the site is rough graded. It is our ' recommendations that all removals and sub -drain installation should be verified in the field for locations by the project licensed survey team. ' After the completion of the rough and finish grading all the aspects of the grading should be summarized in a Final Compaction Report, prepared by the geotechnical consultant. ' LIMITATIONS J This report contains geotechnical conclusions and recommendations developed solely ' for use by Highpointe Communities, Inc. and their design consultants, for the purposes described earlier. It may not contain sufficient information for other uses or the ' purposes of other parties. The contents should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other facilities without consulting LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. I 1 The recommendations are based on interpretations of the subsurface conditions concluded from information gained from subsurface explorations, and a surficial site reconnaissance. The interpretations may differ from actual subsurface conditions, which can vary horizontally and vertically across the site. Due to possible subsurface variations, all aspects of field construction addressed in this report should be observed and tested by the project geotechnical consultant. If parties other than LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. provide construction monitoring services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project being completed by concurring with the recommendations provided in this report or by providing alternative recommendations. The report was prepared using generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices under the direction of a state licensed geotechnical engineer. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Any persons using this report forbidding or construction purposes should perform such independent investigations as deemed necessary to satisfy themselves as to the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on this project. LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 37 R Highpointe Communities, Inc. November 21, 2006 TIME LIMITATIONS Project No. 31759.1 C The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of -Practice and/or Governmental Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly -or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a significant amount of time without a review by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. CLOSURE It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. We look forward to being of further assistance to you as construction begins. Should conditions be encountered during construction that appear to be different than indicated by this report, please contact this office immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect. i Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. 'I p,OFESSi�_.,._ ..._—..--. Andrew A. Tardie wac °�y� jGh_y'e�rvrtes, PE C66619 Staff Geo gist y,oP �D�nll"Enger w NO.._2 30 M p� E%PIRAT:pA CRTE fn S 09130/C2 i gesident euer, GE 2030 `�q� �A Fdr��P rey . Jo ston, CEG 1893 Engineering Geologist b•F• y' GC:AAT:JJJ:JPL:has 5 w S.�4,� ' i0. r J ' �':9. LPI `F.: ri) �' r:� `•'�C?. Distribution: Addressee 161 a V •? rE;,Pin. ® ENGlN;237C m M1 TRTFOFcAL1FOP� sr clvo- e' FXV qTF OF CAUEO 38 I T D LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I 1] I 1 REFERENCES California Building Standards Commission and International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California Building Code, 2001 edition. County of Riverside Building and Transportation Department, 2005, Review Comments to Slope Stability Assessment, Tract Map No. 31597, dated January 13, 2005. Engineering Solutions, Tentative Tract 31597, Amendment No: 4, undated Hart, E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault -rupture hazard zones in California, California Dept. of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. , International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1997 edition. International Conference of Building Officials, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, February 1998. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recent and character faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in southern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131. Larson, R., and Slosson, J., 1992, The role of seismic hazard evaluation in engineering reports, in engineering geology practice in southern California, AEG Special Publication Number 4, pp 191-194. LOR Geotechnical. Group, Inc., _2004a, Preliminary Geotechnical. Investigation, Tentative Tract 31597, South of Redhawk Parkway, North of Monte Verde Road, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 31759. 1, dated January 30, 2004. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2004b, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 18 -Acre Parcel, APN 917-310-007, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 31907. 1, dated June 4, 2004. LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 39 I LOR Geotechnical Group, 2004c, Site Observations of Spring on the 18 -Acre Parcel, ' APN 917-310-007, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 31907- ' 12, dated July 14, 2004. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2004d, Slope Stability Assessment, Tentative Tract ' Map 31597, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 31759.12, dated August 25, 2004., ' LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2004e, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, APN 917-260-036 and -04 and APN 917-310-018 through -021, Temecula Area, Riverside , County, California, Project No.`31977.1, dated October 6, 2004. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2005, Slope Stability Calculations, Tentative tract Map ' 31597, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 31759.13, dated ' March 11, 2005. Petersen, M.D., W.A. Bryant, C.H. Cramer, T. Cao, M.S., Reichle, A.D. Frankel, J.J. Lienkaemper, P.A. McCrory, and D.P. Schwartz, 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-08 and U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 96-706. Reeder, W., 2000, Earthquake Plotting Program, EPI Software. Van Aller, Harold, 1999, Stedwin Slope Stability Program, Copyright 1999. I .N I LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 1 1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ._ 1 (Source: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) 1 1 1 lJ 1 1 L 1 I 1 1 k I 1 1 DATE PHOTO NO(S)• SCALE May 23, 1949 AXM 10F.78, Book 2A 1"=1,667' January 30, 1962 3-401 and 3-402 1"=2,000' June 20, 1974 1041 and 1042 1"=2,000' May 4, 1980 1059 and 1060 1"=2,000' November 23, 1983 174 and 175 1"=1,600' April 10, 1990 20-12 and 20-13 1"=1,600' February 3, 1995 20-13 and 20-14 1"=1,600' April 25, 2000 20-14 and 20-15 1"=1,600' 1 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 41 Y I 1 1 .1 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. APPENDIX 1.0 ' 1.1 Index Map 1.2 and 1.3 Plates (in pockets) ' 1.4 Regional Geologic Map (Kennedy, 1977) 1.4a Description of Geologic Units (Kennedy, 1977) ' 1.5 Cross Section A -A' ' 1.6 Cross Section B -B' 1.7 County of Riverside Fault Hazard Map ' 1.8 Historical Seismicity Map (100 km Radius) 1.9 Historical Seismicity Map (10 km Radius) ' 1.10 Cross Section X -X' ' 1.11 Cross Section Y -Y' 1.12 Sample Key 1.13 Geotechnical Sketch (Stabilization Fill) 1.14 Geotechnical Sketch (Canyon Subdrain) t 1.15 Geotechnical Sketch (Key and Benching) 1.16 Geotechnical Sketch (Foundation Setback) 1 .1 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I tjo BM sl Ground', i c'4 �i°Wil%; �.e r _ elle T. f'r;_ .t �> \�., �• � ,Jt ,�.\'>°� %=.�-.�• _ �% ` r '. Alll''"` �I �?'• \ .�' ,.� +� _r'y� .� i{:G"moi Id IQ 1.7 'rC � �a. :�Y .r t 1�I ,-i4Y ♦lip. ,_ 1 �,..` c /" it-�' IN v nO .. �'S.•} M r�C 1, -C�aP ) � /�/ • C' Y. t4trJ, riN `': P E C H -P� �. �'/ I of tel: l,�w�� r \ • F ryF� \ �� Tn k •-C ; INDEX MAP PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 31597, TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PROJECT NO.: 31759.1C CLIENT: HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES ENCLOSURE: 1.1 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: NOVEMBER 2006 SCALE: 1"= 2,000' Lf < OPEN SPACE � � [}| oo| / / r-1 �REB`�TERRACEDRAIN 2 N.T.S. ~' USAL RD. EEPY HOLLOW DR. -PERT LN. -LOT SUMMARY TABLES Lot Table Lot Table Lot Table Lot Table Lot Table Lot Table Lot # Area Lot # Area Lot # Area Lot # Area Lot # Area Lot # Area 1 8418.08 41 7280.00 81 7224.04 121 7577.97 161 10212.22 201 11362.12 2 8781.72 42 7280.00 82 12608.94 122 1 9471.86 162 8073.43 202 10371.19 0.05 7432.93 43 7717.50 83 8979.60 123 9709.92 163 8753.51 203 8585.13 4 8342.99 44 7897.19 84 9200.95 124 8529.16 164 7461.58 204 8047.76 5 7727.47 45 7897.19 85 9775.00 125 8142.34 165 8537.24 205 13871.58 6 8265.14 46 7897.19 86 9954.53 126 7942.47 166 8816.80 206 15017.33 7 1 7727.22 47 7613.09 87 10524.19 127 8246.62 167 8380.26 207 14102.26 8 7771.10 48 7285.59 88 8434.27 128 9195.95 168 8117-39 208 13988.80 9 10162.99 49 7246.11 89 10079.64 129 8919.82 169 8240.00 209 11745.85 10 8916.76 50 7223.85 90 11031.16 130 8542.80 170 8240.00 210 9955.50 11 8122.75 51 7215.00 91 11841.93 131 8339.76 171 8240.00 211 9878.31 12 7381.41 52 7215.00 92 11087.70 132 8945.33 172 8375.30 212 9700.69 13 7700.86 53 7215.00 93 11279.44 133 7255.81 173 8807.88 14 7705.01 54 7687.46 94 11376.05 134 8023.74 174 8709.84 15 7571.54 55 7856.79 95 11039.20 135 9550.66 175 8611.79 16 7639.87 56 7452.61 96 9694.71 136 9352.31 176 8513.75 17 7200.05 57 7661.34 97 8116.38 137 7530.32 177 8544.41 18 1 7200.05 58 7527.44 98 9933.90 138 11510.05 178 9078.85 19 7328.84 59 7248.69 99 10261.35 139 7534.39 179 8961.88 20 9712.62 60 7292.94 100 9832.00 140 7310.81 180 8844.97 21 1 8595.41 61 7229.02 101 9728.87 141 8140.00 181 9600.64 22 9281.48 62 7621.4 1 102 9569.79 142 76,34.00 182 10237.49 23 8776.94 63 7782.52 103 10503.92 143 9196.32 183 12076.34 24 9339.59 64 8409.37 104 11712.80 144 9970.00 184 10651.38 25 9023.29 65 13886.46 105 9220.35 145 8994.34 185 11083.28 26 9266.69 66 16592.71 106 5701.33 146 5496.15 1505 12400.67 27 9050.46 67 14481.85 107 9747.10 147 8591.05 187 12201.50 28 8924.49 68 14494.17 108 11515.95 148 8453.97 188 10143.61 29 7670.00 69 8619.23 109 10486.88 149 15591.56 189 9401.17 30 7670.00 70 10191.71 110 13169.85 150 11297.90 190 12198.12 31 9629.35 71 8288.29 111 12137.30 151 9921.82 191 10764.64 32 8854.56 72 7224.80 112 9631.06 152 7788.45 192 10592.38 33 7252.19 73 8739.23 113 8461.52 153 7347.78 193 12639.52 '34- 7280.00 74 10077.08 114 9001.70 154 7592.95 194 10711.33 35 7280.00 75 10950.27 115 11978.09 155 8511.32 195 9801.74 36 1 7280.00 76 10533,04 116 8157.20 156 8275.66 196 9833.61 37 7280.00 77 10303.43 117 8812.32 157 12323.52 197 10079.46 38 7280.00 78 8821.08 118 7207.50 158 11026.10 198 9182.42 39 7280.00 79 9163.11 119 7280.00 159 9441.61 199 8407.68 40 7280.00 80 8425.15 120 7660.00 160 9962 .71 200 1 8449. Lot Table Lot # ACRES LOT A 2.99 RAMP _7 OPEN 3 6.719 LOT C 2.57 LOT D 2.36 LOT E 0.29 LOT F 0.60 LOT C 0.78 -E"n|Oraho[yBoring, pUpkpt Auger, i OR 2004n DRAIN / LOT J 0.62 LOT K 0.41 LOT L 2.10 LOT M 3.410 LOT N 0.05 LOT P 0.48 +- � Cross Sections Lj LOT R j 0.2 2 5| K \/|{��@�'`�� MAP �b/ ' / NOT TO ^ BROW | | LOT JJ ' | | | 'Approximate) | { RAMP _7 OPEN 3 SPACE ylr0� �=° SECTION D -D J ME| ---' N.T.S. � �� -- BROW QmS `| DITCH / / .. ap Symbols � \ ~� \ ' / r |o -� -E"n|Oraho[yBoring, pUpkpt Auger, i OR 2004n DRAIN / PAD |co 1 / | / c� M /< 10 15' EMERGENCY PAD OVER FLOW PAD 24"SD 18" SECTIONj-j SECTl{lNP-P N.T.S. N.7.! / BROW � I/ /~ DITCH | SECTION E -E PL | l | | N.T.S. / / 20'L F- ----. R/� ' OPEN SPACE 12' | N.T.S.2% TERRACE DRAIN STREET 'C' SECTION M -M ---1 . . �- -SETBACK �NE | R/W � | | | 'Approximate) | { / ' 3 "E' ylr0� �=° |c� |< .c� J ME| - Younger Alluvium �� -- / |{] QmS `| \ / .. ap Symbols |oz / \._TERRACE \ ' / r __j -� -E"n|Oraho[yBoring, pUpkpt Auger, i OR 2004n DRAIN / / ! ' ~ |����MM�� ~~�r'^~~^~'� ''~''~'/~~'^`~~~^~ 1 / | / c� M SECTION IF -F | � / - #nr�U 8nn8[|M����M� ���""�°°� �"'"'°`�"°°"^'`"� '�^~'~=°°" \ | N.T.S. L�j | SECTION E -E PL | l | | N.T.S. / / 20'L F- ----. R/� ' OPEN SPACE 12' | N.T.S.2% TERRACE DRAIN STREET 'C' SECTION M -M ---1 . . �- -SETBACK �NE | R/W z� �� o SETBACK=LINE L - - __1 ffo| . _ �o SIDEWALK (CURB AND GUTTER PICAL LOT SETBACKS N.T.S. 4 OPEN SPACE 1111 E F�\ TAc_��',,,VE __.,:�__'RACT 597 »��'U=�`��' u o »�f U � /�=/�=� RTflor' � U «��»�� K� ��� ������/���x� ��� ������K�/� ��� � �� & �U��H���� ����� 8 �U � 8 ���U U V��� ��� « " ""~� `~~" °"= =~�,`=," [POE ^" ~" °�~"�, " ^~�" �` Z" " ~=~" ^ ^ ~~=" ���U� :���D ��� ��� ��8�������[��� � � ��� . . .=� ~~ ~~ ��. . . . 0- V= ~ ~. ~ ~�~. .��.~~~.�~I �~ "~ .. ~~� .�'. CAF0R5^8-k\11jA FESRAIiRff , 2006 SEIE SHEET 2 } � ' GENERAL NOTES: ` 1. ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. : 917-310-003' 004, 033. 007 ' 917-280-036. 040, 917-310.-018, 018. 020` 021 2. THIS MAP IS LOGATtED WITHIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. 3. EXISTING ZONING R -R 4. PROPOSED ZONING� R-PAVEIMENT � ' 5. SURROUNDING ZONiNG: R-1 ' cup:3 27. 0. ACREAGE BEING DIVIDED GET AND GROSS 81.8 AC. IS _ 7. THIS PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO OVERFLOW, INUNDATION, OR FLOOD HAZARD. � 8' THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN FEMA FLOOD PLAIN ZONE C - | ! E��!STIQ{� \/[A p[]��[�L/\ DRIVE FEMA PANEL 060245 3J55D DATEDNJV. 20. 1996 � STD 104 . S. TOTAL LOTS 212 N.T.S. ! 10. K4|N|MUW LOT SIZE 7,200 SF ` 11. ADJACENT LAND U -SE SINGLE FAMILY RE3iOENT|A T � 12. EXISTING LAND USE VACANT ` 13. PROPOSED LAND USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ` 14. STREET |MPR : PER ORDINANCE 460, SCHEDULE A. 15. YEAR 2002 THOk&AS BROS. WAP BOOK PAGE: 979 C0ORD.: C-4 10. ALL LOTS SHALL !4/4/E l% MIN. GRADE TOWARD STREET FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES. 17. THIS PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO U{jUEFACT0N OR OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS. AND IS NOT WITHIN A SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE. 18. THIS PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A COMMUNITY SERVICE AREA. 19. THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS FOR THIS 7ENTAT(VE TRACT MAP. 20. ALL EXISTINGEASEMENTS ARE TO REMAIN IN THEIR CURRENT DESIGNATED LOCATION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ' 21. NO SUBSURFACE SEPTIC SEWAGE DISPOSAL IS PROPOSED. 22. THERE ARE 'NO MOBILE HOMES OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SPACES, UNITS OR LOTS PROPOSED WITHIN THIS TRACT. � 23. OPEN 3PACE/LOTis TO BE MAINTAINED BY HOA ' ' 24. ALL SLOPES !ARE 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 25. THERE ARE NO KNOWN WELLS ON THE PROPERTY OR WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE TRACT BOUNDARY 26. NO EXISTING || DWELLINGS OR BUILDINGS ON THE SITE 27. CONTOURS DERIVED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FLOWN BY ARROWHEAD MAPPING CORPORATION IN JULY 2003 REF. NO. 03^-205'01 28. ALL STREET R|GHT-0E-WAYS SHOWN IN THIS MAP SHALL BE DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE. / 29. THIS MAP FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31597 WAS PREPARED IN DECEMBER, 2004. �| ! EARTHWORK/ | DESCRIPTION CUT VOLUME /CY\ FILL VOLUME /CY\ RAW VOLUMES 528,000 236'000 SUBSIDENCE AND STRIPING 37,000 OVEREX -INCLUD|NG ALLUVIAL REMOVALS 883'000 883'000 SHRINKAGE '| � 228'000 TOTALS 1'411,000 1'411'000 ! | NET IMPORT ' O ' | / LEG/\L DESCRIPTION: I TOWNSHIP 83^ RANGE 2W, SECTION 22. PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 17822, AS SHOWN IN BOOK 102' PAGE JO AND PARCELS 1' 2, 8c 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18681, AS SHOWN IN BOOK 113,'PAGE 78 AND PARCELS 1, 2' 3 8c 4 OF PARCEL MAP 20858 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 132 PAGE 7{) AND PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 17322 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 103 PAGE 18, ALL OF PARCEL MAPS' RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. i BASIS OF BEARING: ` THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE UNE FROM CORS STATION "Pk4OB^ PALOWAR OBSERVATORY TO CORS STATION ^SCWS" SHORECL|FFS MIDDLE SCHOOL BEING NORTH 81^50'16" WEST. BASED UPON OBSERVATIONS AND DATA OBTAINED FROM SCRIPPS ORBIT AND PERMANENT ARRAY CENTER VIA THE INTERNET. COORDINATES ARE ESTABLISHED BASED UPON THE VVGS 84 DATUM EPOCH 20034822 CALIFORNIA ZONE 5' OBSERVATIONS FOR DATUM SHOWN HEREON WERE OBTAINED IN THE. FIELD ON| 5 -24 -OJ AND REDUCED USING TREMBLE GEOK4AT|CS OFFICE SOFTWARE. | BENCHMARK: | | � FO. STANDARD U.5.G-S. BRASS DISK SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE MONUMENT STAMPED 1955, 5.1 MILES NORTH ALONG A PAVED ROAD FROM THE k4|33|ON SAN ANTONIO DE PALA' AT PA[A, 5.1 MILES SOUTH OF TEMECULA, AT THE SAN DIEGO -RIVERSIDE COUNTY UNE' IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 14' SOUTH OF THE COUNTY LINE SIGN, 29.5' WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROAD, !17.5, SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF A TRACT ROAD LEAO|NG� NORTHWEST, 1.2' WEST OF A FENCE LINE` 1.7' NORTH OF A WITNESS POST' / ABOUT 4 1 � FEET HIGHER THAN � . � THE ROAD AND SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST PROJECTING UP ABOUT 6 INCHES. � � ELEVATION BASED UPON THE NGVO 29 DATUM U.5.G.S. BM. NO. VV897 ELEV. = 1255.35 | FULL REPORTS' FORTHE REDUCTIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE PROJECT SURVEYOR ' | . � ! ! |� / i ^ | � | � ! . / oc| �| SECTION N -N . ` AC PAVEMENT % MONTE VERDE DRIVE STD 104 N.T.S. R. 50 25 0 50 100 � SCALE: 1" = 50' i Exp. 6-30-07 DATE BY CIVI _]_MARK � � ENCLOSURE 1 "2 | EXPLANATION | 'Approximate) | { �f `" � ��U ^""'^~"~ Fill ylr0� �=° Colluvium ~��.UNU0 Qol - Younger Alluvium �� -- ~ Terrace Deposit QmS `| -_j / .. ap Symbols - D,nJnra|nFyBoring, Hollow Stern 1_010, \ ' / r __j -� -E"n|Oraho[yBoring, pUpkpt Auger, i OR 2004n � - �n�O0�l�����b�� �~r'~'~~~^� �~`^.°/ Hollow ~'~~'" �-^^^~~ '~ / ! ' ~ |����MM�� ~~�r'^~~^~'� ''~''~'/~~'^`~~~^~ 1 / | / ExploratoryBoring, Hollow Stem, K1R M _E°p°~a°°'x Trench, L=R 2004m | � / - #nr�U 8nn8[|M����M� ���""�°°� �"'"'°`�"°°"^'`"� '�^~'~=°°" \ | M L�j +- Site Boundaries,|OR 2004e °�. ~����k�n'�Contact,` ����p�VV8p��DD `Dlnf� -_��- ��� ----�. ----- approximate / / +- � Cross Sections Lj of CLIENT.: Un�ixo ����U����^�1���. i� &r�o/ � ----'�- ''��-r--- Communities '----Tract.-- -- ----- '-- � /�nxnh/ California Riverside County, � | UJ Clf z� �� o SETBACK=LINE L - - __1 ffo| . _ �o SIDEWALK (CURB AND GUTTER PICAL LOT SETBACKS N.T.S. 4 OPEN SPACE 1111 E F�\ TAc_��',,,VE __.,:�__'RACT 597 »��'U=�`��' u o »�f U � /�=/�=� RTflor' � U «��»�� K� ��� ������/���x� ��� ������K�/� ��� � �� & �U��H���� ����� 8 �U � 8 ���U U V��� ��� « " ""~� `~~" °"= =~�,`=," [POE ^" ~" °�~"�, " ^~�" �` Z" " ~=~" ^ ^ ~~=" ���U� :���D ��� ��� ��8�������[��� � � ��� . . .=� ~~ ~~ ��. . . . 0- V= ~ ~. ~ ~�~. .��.~~~.�~I �~ "~ .. ~~� .�'. CAF0R5^8-k\11jA FESRAIiRff , 2006 SEIE SHEET 2 } � ' GENERAL NOTES: ` 1. ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. : 917-310-003' 004, 033. 007 ' 917-280-036. 040, 917-310.-018, 018. 020` 021 2. THIS MAP IS LOGATtED WITHIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. 3. EXISTING ZONING R -R 4. PROPOSED ZONING� R-PAVEIMENT � ' 5. SURROUNDING ZONiNG: R-1 ' cup:3 27. 0. ACREAGE BEING DIVIDED GET AND GROSS 81.8 AC. IS _ 7. THIS PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO OVERFLOW, INUNDATION, OR FLOOD HAZARD. � 8' THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN FEMA FLOOD PLAIN ZONE C - | ! E��!STIQ{� \/[A p[]��[�L/\ DRIVE FEMA PANEL 060245 3J55D DATEDNJV. 20. 1996 � STD 104 . S. TOTAL LOTS 212 N.T.S. ! 10. K4|N|MUW LOT SIZE 7,200 SF ` 11. ADJACENT LAND U -SE SINGLE FAMILY RE3iOENT|A T � 12. EXISTING LAND USE VACANT ` 13. PROPOSED LAND USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ` 14. STREET |MPR : PER ORDINANCE 460, SCHEDULE A. 15. YEAR 2002 THOk&AS BROS. WAP BOOK PAGE: 979 C0ORD.: C-4 10. ALL LOTS SHALL !4/4/E l% MIN. GRADE TOWARD STREET FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES. 17. THIS PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO U{jUEFACT0N OR OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS. AND IS NOT WITHIN A SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE. 18. THIS PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A COMMUNITY SERVICE AREA. 19. THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS FOR THIS 7ENTAT(VE TRACT MAP. 20. ALL EXISTINGEASEMENTS ARE TO REMAIN IN THEIR CURRENT DESIGNATED LOCATION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ' 21. NO SUBSURFACE SEPTIC SEWAGE DISPOSAL IS PROPOSED. 22. THERE ARE 'NO MOBILE HOMES OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SPACES, UNITS OR LOTS PROPOSED WITHIN THIS TRACT. � 23. OPEN 3PACE/LOTis TO BE MAINTAINED BY HOA ' ' 24. ALL SLOPES !ARE 2:1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 25. THERE ARE NO KNOWN WELLS ON THE PROPERTY OR WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE TRACT BOUNDARY 26. NO EXISTING || DWELLINGS OR BUILDINGS ON THE SITE 27. CONTOURS DERIVED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FLOWN BY ARROWHEAD MAPPING CORPORATION IN JULY 2003 REF. NO. 03^-205'01 28. ALL STREET R|GHT-0E-WAYS SHOWN IN THIS MAP SHALL BE DEDICATED FOR PUBLIC USE. / 29. THIS MAP FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31597 WAS PREPARED IN DECEMBER, 2004. �| ! EARTHWORK/ | DESCRIPTION CUT VOLUME /CY\ FILL VOLUME /CY\ RAW VOLUMES 528,000 236'000 SUBSIDENCE AND STRIPING 37,000 OVEREX -INCLUD|NG ALLUVIAL REMOVALS 883'000 883'000 SHRINKAGE '| � 228'000 TOTALS 1'411,000 1'411'000 ! | NET IMPORT ' O ' | / LEG/\L DESCRIPTION: I TOWNSHIP 83^ RANGE 2W, SECTION 22. PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 17822, AS SHOWN IN BOOK 102' PAGE JO AND PARCELS 1' 2, 8c 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18681, AS SHOWN IN BOOK 113,'PAGE 78 AND PARCELS 1, 2' 3 8c 4 OF PARCEL MAP 20858 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 132 PAGE 7{) AND PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 17322 AS SHOWN IN BOOK 103 PAGE 18, ALL OF PARCEL MAPS' RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. i BASIS OF BEARING: ` THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE UNE FROM CORS STATION "Pk4OB^ PALOWAR OBSERVATORY TO CORS STATION ^SCWS" SHORECL|FFS MIDDLE SCHOOL BEING NORTH 81^50'16" WEST. BASED UPON OBSERVATIONS AND DATA OBTAINED FROM SCRIPPS ORBIT AND PERMANENT ARRAY CENTER VIA THE INTERNET. COORDINATES ARE ESTABLISHED BASED UPON THE VVGS 84 DATUM EPOCH 20034822 CALIFORNIA ZONE 5' OBSERVATIONS FOR DATUM SHOWN HEREON WERE OBTAINED IN THE. FIELD ON| 5 -24 -OJ AND REDUCED USING TREMBLE GEOK4AT|CS OFFICE SOFTWARE. | BENCHMARK: | | � FO. STANDARD U.5.G-S. BRASS DISK SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE MONUMENT STAMPED 1955, 5.1 MILES NORTH ALONG A PAVED ROAD FROM THE k4|33|ON SAN ANTONIO DE PALA' AT PA[A, 5.1 MILES SOUTH OF TEMECULA, AT THE SAN DIEGO -RIVERSIDE COUNTY UNE' IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 14' SOUTH OF THE COUNTY LINE SIGN, 29.5' WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROAD, !17.5, SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF A TRACT ROAD LEAO|NG� NORTHWEST, 1.2' WEST OF A FENCE LINE` 1.7' NORTH OF A WITNESS POST' / ABOUT 4 1 � FEET HIGHER THAN � . � THE ROAD AND SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST PROJECTING UP ABOUT 6 INCHES. � � ELEVATION BASED UPON THE NGVO 29 DATUM U.5.G.S. BM. NO. VV897 ELEV. = 1255.35 | FULL REPORTS' FORTHE REDUCTIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE PROJECT SURVEYOR ' | . � ! ! |� / i ^ | � | � ! . / oc| �| SECTION N -N . ` AC PAVEMENT % MONTE VERDE DRIVE STD 104 N.T.S. R. 50 25 0 50 100 � SCALE: 1" = 50' i Exp. 6-30-07 DATE BY CIVI _]_MARK � � ' EK10INEERIINC-7 SOLUTIONS 2155 CHICAGO AVE. SUITE 201 RIVERSIDE CA 92507 1 PHONE (9 51) 784-0286 S_0-LUTz0Nqj FAX - (951) 784-0287 COUI%gy DAVID G. CURRINGTON DATE ( | i TEENTATIVE TRACT 31597 SCHEDULE "All } / ENCLOSURE 1 "2 | EXPLANATION ! 'Approximate) | { �f `" � ��U ^""'^~"~ Fill ylr0� �=° Colluvium ~��.UNU0 Qol - Younger Alluvium �� -- ~ Terrace Deposit QmS `| - Sedimentary nx#��rnrk �on�u��rofDO / .. ap Symbols - D,nJnra|nFyBoring, Hollow Stern 1_010, \ ' / r -Exploratory Trench, klR 2004o -� -E"n|Oraho[yBoring, pUpkpt Auger, i OR 2004n � - �n�O0�l�����b�� �~r'~'~~~^� �~`^.°/ Hollow ~'~~'" �-^^^~~ '~ / ! ' ~ |����MM�� ~~�r'^~~^~'� ''~''~'/~~'^`~~~^~ 1 / | / ExploratoryBoring, Hollow Stem, K1R | \ _E°p°~a°°'x Trench, L=R 2004m | � / - #nr�U 8nn8[|M����M� ���""�°°� �"'"'°`�"°°"^'`"� '�^~'~=°°" 1 ^ , 1 _�Hp�nUn�8' Ul��O0�n ~..'_- ._ ._-'__'_~... | -�K�Boundaries, Uf���MO�� °.°~"=�~^.^�°"�" � / Site Boundaries,|OR 2004e °�. ~����k�n'�Contact,` ����p�VV8p��DD `Dlnf� -_��- ��� ----�. ----- approximate ! l ��� / "~� i - M�nf6 mfoJ| 'cJ �8 A� \ "~°p"' "" ~°'=,= ""~,"� �� � = ^^ ` ' / � Cross Sections / PROJECT NO.: 31759.1 C DATE: November 2006 CLIENT.: Un�ixo ����U����^�1���. i� &r�o/ � ----'�- ''��-r--- Communities '----Tract.-- -- ----- '-- � /�nxnh/ California Riverside County, � | LOR Geotechnical GU ' EK10INEERIINC-7 SOLUTIONS 2155 CHICAGO AVE. SUITE 201 RIVERSIDE CA 92507 1 PHONE (9 51) 784-0286 S_0-LUTz0Nqj FAX - (951) 784-0287 COUI%gy DAVID G. CURRINGTON DATE ( | i TEENTATIVE TRACT 31597 SCHEDULE "All } / / X 1 77.3 X 1278. X 1281. �. LIMITS OF r GRADING i f x 00, TERRACE NDA X 1282.2 X x X X y � x �I LII TO CE 1287.1 ERR x- _ -- --- - - - ------- --___-- - ----- _ -- hJ I t I X 1286.7 X X 12 9.3 X x �- CONNEgLJO- DRAIN 1234.3 1268 1264 Kqm Kgmd 0000 000 o 0 o e o8 Qal Conglomerate horizon in Alluvium, Colluvium, and slope wash Quartz monzonite Kqm, fresh roc;, ✓,qmd, decomposed rock. sandstone formation Qoa1 Kgd Older alluviumDip and strike of bedding Granodio rite Qtr Kgb so� ` --J— Stream -terrace deposits Gabbro and quartz bearing gabbro Dip and strike of over - turned bedding QC K9D _ Terrace deposits Granophyre 1 IS Approximate dip and strike E Kh of bedding Landslide deposits Hybrid rocks —moo Mixed gabbro, granodiorite and low-grade Strike and dip of layering Qds metamorphic rocks. in volcanic rocks Dripping Springs Formation Jm —75 Metamorphic rocks of the Bedford Strike and dip of S -surface Qps Canyon Formation and Santiago Peak in metamorphic rocks QVf Volcanics Pauba Formation Qps, sandstone part; Qpf, fanglomerate part. —�50 — — — ` — Dip and strike of joint Qus Geologic contact Quc Y., Unnamed sandstone and conglomerate, formation ^' Strike of vertical joint Qus, sandstone part; Quc, corglcmerate part. ___ Syncl tt he Tta ois -4— t5d1 Temecula Arkose Anticline Landslide deposit and corresponding number. Tsr .---, ✓ 0 o U Santa Rosa Basalt Dike Inmetamorphic]S me tdmOrphtC rock complex D FAULT Tot Solid line where confirmed, dashed line Older terrace deposits where inferred. Tuffaceous horizon EXPLANATION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS (Kennedy, 1977) PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 31597, TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PROJECT NO.: 31759.1C CLIENT: HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES ENCLOSURE: 1.4a LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: NOVEMBER2006 SCALE: NO SCALE Tentative Tract Map No. 31597 ttwr a MotuDR8 .. .j gt oR 1 t� � 9yggp 4'�1 Q SARJ51��`'r�� Sti � � BSY � < AVE 3 mo.atE o b p � ROCKY BAR OR `�•-Vq I T` Approx scale 124000 r_ RiverskB County qS 0 ---___ _ 2479R Selected paycel(B): 917-260-036 917-260-040 917-310-004 917-310-007 917-310-018 917-310-019 917-310-020 917-310-021 917-310-033 917-310-036 917-310-037 FAULT ZONES CIRCULATION ELEMENT ❑ SELECTED PARCEL F-1 NOT IN A FAULT ZONE ULTIMATE RIGHT -OF -WAV ALOUIST-PRIOLO RIVERSIDE COUNTY COUNTY FAULT ZONE ECI RECOMENDED ELSINORE FAULT ZONE 'IMPORTANT• eNa111ds is made avaaade Iln e Carxy Geographic IMamerm System_ Tre etiumelion is for m(erence Itis imerMed Rnot arty, remrded dowm a ollw pWic remNs. CoNacl eplxopiale Cantly to my i 4WWnis a Co to re used as rase level Ma and 7 rel iNended to " umP s Depadmenl a Agency it r�ssary. Re/erence to rewrde0 dowmems aeb purGc tewras may re rieressary aM is aArisarle. sswy Ref may MMPRINTEDON...11rV2000 - - - - COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FAULT HAZARD ZONE MAP PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 31597, TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PROJECT NO.: 31759.1C CLIENT: HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES ENCLOSURE: 1.7 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: NOVEMBER SCALE: AS SHOWNOWN 1280 1260 1240 1220 H W 1200 LL 1180 1160 1140 1120 1100 {B PL Topography i Qps ,Proposed Topography Qps B•1 (extrapolated) BA -4 (extrapolated) Affi I 111 1280 1260 1240 1220 T 1200 m 1180 1160 1140 1120 1100 CROSS SECTION B -B' PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 31597, TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PROJECT NO.: 31759.1 C CLIENT: HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES ENCLOSURE: 1.6 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: NOVEMBER 2006 SCALE: 1"=60' (H=V) 7� Ji M4 1 Hesperia— M 5 M6 + + F"Ll, � Palm spnngs + + + Ir 1k, + SITE AvaL + + + ,2) San Diego + + + + + 4 + 74 4— 111 I'm + EPI Soft Ware 2000 + + # Seismicity 1932-2004 (Magnitude 4.0+) 100 kilometer radius 1 1 SITE LOCATION: 33.4643 LAT. -117.0785 LONG. 101171��� MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C 0 50 100 TOTAL # OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 1476 KILOMETERS TOTAL # OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 626 MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS: 4.0- 4.9 : 572 5.0- 5.9: 47 6.0- 6.9: 7 7.0- 7.9: 0 8 ",9: 0 CLOSEST EVENT: 4.5 ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 04, 1935 LOCATED APPROX. 16 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS: 6.5 ON TUESDAY, APRIL 09, 1968 LOCATED APPROX. 93 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE 6.4 ON SUNDAY, JUNE 28, 1992 LOCATED APPROX. 85 KILOMETERS NORTH OF THE SITE 6.4 ON FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1954 LOCATED APPROX. 85 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE 6.4 ON SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 1933 LOCATED APPROX. 83 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE 6.1 ON THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1992 LOCATED APPROX, 89 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE Enclosure 1.8 M1 i M2 � I M3 SITE LOCATION: 33.4643 LAT. -117.0785 LONG. MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: A 0 5 10 TOTAL # OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 1202 KILOMETERS TOTAL # OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 262 MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS: 0.0- .9 : 60 1.0- 1.9 : 181 2.0-2.9 : 20 3.0- 3.9: 1 4.0-4.9 : 0 5.0- 5.9: 0 6.0- 6.9: 0 7.0- 7.9' 0 8.0- 8.9: 0 CLOSEST EVENT: 1.6 ON THURSDAY, APRIL 06, 2000 LOCATED APPROX. .6 KILOMETER OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS: 3.2 ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1981 LOCATED APPROX. 2 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE 2.7 ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2002 LOCATED APPROX. 6 KILOMETERS SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE 2.7 ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 04, 1989 LOCATED APPROX. 5 KILOMETERS SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE 2.7 ON SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1981 LOCATED APPROX. 3 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE 2.6 ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1981 LOCATED APPROX. 2 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE Enclosure 1.9 '�1Py P P�� . S—UWT5 or GRADING I 11 Scale: 1 = 100 -/--.. �,� y �lll �,'1\/�,.♦ _ --_ --'BDUTRARYACT � :�'•.FIk -o- 26t>041 -LOW%I Or '•` \\" \`\� L TERRACE \ — _ — - I45; ai- LIMITS Or GRADING 1 IJ �I i II IIT I!. 1,. III'. OPEN SPACE - - LOT 'D' 101,1439 5F TERRACE DRAIN Ot 103 ,2554 A� 123 122 1246.4 247 1025 \ ,: .s� 12450 it ;\Qps_ 123'40_/-'�-- l� 101----- , 238 a 1 105 I Qal 12� 1340 1320 1300 LU 1280 0_ 1260 1240 1220 1200 0 50 100 150 200 FEET Legend a Z Q w (Locations App(oxirnate) Map Units U Cal Younger Alluvium 01 Terrace Deposits Ops Sedimentary Bedrock, Pauba Formation Map Symbols 1 4 ® Additional Bucket Auger Borings February 14, 2005 .; - 142 - 143 performed by LOR on — — — Approximate Geologic Contact 12,111 8 Cross Section 1340 1320 1300 LU 1280 0_ 1260 1240 1220 1200 0 50 100 150 200 FEET Scale: 1" = 50' FEET 0 50 100 150 200 1340 1320 1300 1280 R IT 1260 1240 1220 1200 U o r M Z L K a a Z Q w - ,,;ij,;;1; U ;5I z M 1 4 U y= 140 e i 141- 1246 a zas 6 �- .; - 142 - 143 _r r j W -- 12,111 8 W w Z o C7 - - � ✓, " 144 Q J 12407- ---_ i•, W 2 ----- ---_ _ CONC v -DITCH " --- Ln - — �_= I M /♦ — - 145 r m-- 1240.0 124 11• 1 245 2 -a3, •__ cF's I 139 -- _ ------ - 12389 -- =I 146 - -= 3 - p 125 _ e - 123 _ I 4 -_-� W 12388 138 g--""------"�_ •- 114; cn i 123322 0 W Scale: 1" = 50' FEET 0 50 100 150 200 1340 1320 1300 1280 R IT 1260 1240 1220 1200 U o r M Z L K a a Z Q w o o N W m w 0 Z at Z � 0 N a U 0 U W z M On U wo W W w Z o C7 � X a Q J i � a W 2 W Ln I M /♦ LU Q. > a .3 p F- 2 F- F L V U Uj a F W w O d U 1290.31_z Qal -, 198 \ 1 12170 88 1218 3 VN �\ �., 197 i � 1235.5/, 196 189 �`�ti eN/� 12455/ § a 1 226 9� 1236.0 GROG INLET • O ORNN VSEMfNi x/191 U 1 246 6 OPEN S ,ACE LOT'F' ; 56.060.4_ SF GRIDiLMI15 0 RRMGf ?\' Qal DOWN I„1 1. - ti oRUN 192 1266.0 195 \ 12543 —11 ' 194 \ . RRP �'' `1260 5 UG ♦ MOV -T „$ 193 1263.5 Scale: 1" = 100' OPEN SPACE LOT 'G' 35 ACRES uuirs or � cwaRc Mw„ r - �•,,.-. '� ,,\t\:+ Legend 185 (Locations Approximate) Mao Units U Oat f, -- - Terrace Deposits 1280 ..-'Tana>Gf IRKi OOUf/OWYJ _ _ O 1260 Additional Bucket Auger Borings performed by LOR on February 14, 2005 — — — Approximate Geologic Contact LU Cross Section LI 1240 . t 1936 LU 8 �aov IN�cr {I uunsorJ ,'-/ i s S 212` - 112063y` Q J J n 1220 a W M 1200 A -4`\r\ Opts q' -I-- m M t:1213.3 121: ' ��'�211 Q ~ Z W F L '^ v V v 1290.31_z Qal -, 198 \ 1 12170 88 1218 3 VN �\ �., 197 i � 1235.5/, 196 189 �`�ti eN/� 12455/ § a 1 226 9� 1236.0 GROG INLET • O ORNN VSEMfNi x/191 U 1 246 6 OPEN S ,ACE LOT'F' ; 56.060.4_ SF GRIDiLMI15 0 RRMGf ?\' Qal DOWN I„1 1. - ti oRUN 192 1266.0 195 \ 12543 —11 ' 194 \ . RRP �'' `1260 5 UG ♦ MOV -T „$ 193 1263.5 Scale: 1" = 100' OPEN SPACE LOT 'G' 35 ACRES uuirs or � cwaRc Mw„ r - �•,,.-. '� ,,\t\:+ Legend 1300 (Locations Approximate) Mao Units U Oat f, -- - Terrace Deposits 1280 ..-'Tana>Gf IRKi OOUf/OWYJ _ _ O 1260 Additional Bucket Auger Borings performed by LOR on February 14, 2005 — — — Approximate Geologic Contact LU Cross Section LI 1240 LU = � LL Q J J n 1220 a W M 1200 W F 1180 Scale: 1" = 50' FEET to inn 150 200 250 300 1300 1280 1260 1240 1220 1200 1180 0 SU luu U. _-- FEET Legend r r It o w (Locations Approximate) Mao Units U Oat Younger Alluvium at Terrace Deposits Ops Sedimentary Bedrock, Pauba Formation Map Symbols O ® Additional Bucket Auger Borings performed by LOR on February 14, 2005 — — — Approximate Geologic Contact LU Cross Section Scale: 1" = 50' FEET to inn 150 200 250 300 1300 1280 1260 1240 1220 1200 1180 0 SU luu U. _-- FEET U Q M Z w CL r r It o w W 04 W m� w O z o Z p Fn a ui of U W F- O g 0 OU LU d W Z O iY = � LL a Q J J n a W M W F m M Q ~ Z W F L '^ v V v Amill w WZo0W a R U 11 1 1 1 I CONSISTENCY OF SOILS SANDS SPT BLOWS CONSISTENCY 0 - 4 Very loose 4 -10 Loose 10 -30 Medium dense 30 -50 Dense Over 50 Very dense COHESIVE SOILS SPT BLOWS CONSISTENCY 0 - 2 Very soft 2 - 4 Soft 4 - 8 Medium 8 - 15 Stiff 15 -30 Very stiff 30 - 60 Hard Over 60 Very Hard SAMPLING KEY Symbol Description us CS - INDICATES CALIFORNIA COARSE SPLIT SPOON SOIL SAMPLE COARSE - INDICATES SAND CONE FINE OR NUCLEAR DENSITY TEST Geotechnical Group, Inc. - INDICATES BAG SAMPLE SCALE: NO SCALE - INDICATES STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPs) SOIL SAMPLE MAJOR DIVISIONS "FNO LOcr us CS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: NOVEMBER 2006 SCALE: NO SCALE WELL -GRADED GRAVELS. GW GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES GRAVEL` AND CLEAN GRAVELS '"! LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY )LITTLE OR NO SOILS FINES) POORLYGRAOED GRAVELS COARSEGP GARVEL SAND MIXTURES, GRAINED LITTLE OR NO FINES solLs SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVELSAND MORE THAN 50% Of GM SILT MIXTURES COARSE FRACTION GRAVELS WITH RETAINED ON FINES NO a SIEVE IAPPREUABLE AMOUNT OF FINEST CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - GC SAND CLAY MIXTURES - - WELL GRADED SANDS. SIN GRAVELLY SAND$, LITTLE OR SAND CLEAN SAND 1 NO FINES AND p.ITTLE OR NO _ POORLY GRADED SANDS SANDY FINEST MORE THAN 50% SOILS SP GRAVELLY $AND$, LITTLE OR OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO FINES SIEVE SIZE SM SILTY $ANO. SAND SILT MORE THAN W% OF MIXTURES COARSE FRACTION SANDS WITH FINES PASSING NO < (APPRECIABLE SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) SANDS, SANDCLAY jCLAYEY SC MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS. ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR ML CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE HOU10'MIT MEDIUM PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY GRAINED AND LESS THAN 50 CLAYS / CL CLAYS, SANDY CIAYS, SILTY CLAYS SOILS EAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC OL SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS MH OR OIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS MORE THAN SILT S INORGANIC CLAYS OF RICH L IS Of MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN LIQUID OMIT AND GREATER THAN 50 / CH PLASTICITY FAT CLAYS 110 200 SIEVE CLAYS SIZE o ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM — OH TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT AND MANURE WITH HIGH ORGANIC MATERIALS NOTE DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL UTAbS1HGAI IVNa PARTICI F S17F I IMITS BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12 3' 3A NO 4 NO IV NO `IU CUU IN S STANDARD SIEVE SIZE) SAMPLE KEY PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 31597, TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PROJECT NO.: 31759.110 CLIENT: HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES ENCLOSURE: 1.12 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: NOVEMBER 2006 SCALE: NO SCALE I 0 7stGbi'll till is an equip - d w to 12 feet) compacted fill that is placed against a natural d=2'min. 10'_f2' slope that is subject to excessive w= erosion such as gullying of filling STABILIZATION FILL caused by water or wind. Figure 5-2S The difference between a buttress fill and a stabilization fill source C- Michael Scullin - GEOTECHNICAL SKETCH (Stabilization Fill Detail) PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 31597, TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PROJECT NO.: 31759.1C CLIENT: HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES ENCLOSURE: 1.13 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: NOVEMBER 2006 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 0 9IGINAL GROUND COMPACTED FILL BEDROCK OR COMPETEW i MATERIAL APPROVED BY 4' MIN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTAI /�4' MIN " S SUBDRAIN TRENCH BENC14ING SEE ALTERNATIVES A & B — — SUBDRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With ALTERNATIVE At Filter Material, No Filler Fabric FILTER MATERIAL /-1 9 ft'/ft GT 6" MIN 6" MIN - PERFORATED PIPE See Notes Below Alternative A-1 FILTER MATERIAL - Filter material shall be Class 2 1� permeable material per State of California Standard Specifications. or approved alternate. Class 2 grading as follows. SUBDRAIN ' SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION, Subdrein pipe shall be Installed with perforations down. Pipe diameter shall increase a length of subdrain increases as follows- up to 600 ft -6" pipe, 600 It to 1200 ft -8" pipe, greater than 1200 It. as evaluated and approved by geotechnical consultant. Pipebells should point upstream. Joints and ' connections should be glued with appropriate adhesives. SUBDRAIN TYPE. Subdrain type Shall be ASTM D2751, SDR -35 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadien Slyrene(ABS) or ASTM D3034 SDR 35 or ASTM D1785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic(PVC) pipe or approved equivalent. Connecting elements should consist of materials compatible with the subdrain pipe. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING PROJECT: 100 PROJECT NO.: 31759.1C 3/4" 90-100 ENCLOSURE: 1.14 3/8" 40-100 DATE: NOVEMBER 2006 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 Alternative A-2 No. 200 0-3 SUBDRAIN ' SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION, Subdrein pipe shall be Installed with perforations down. Pipe diameter shall increase a length of subdrain increases as follows- up to 600 ft -6" pipe, 600 It to 1200 ft -8" pipe, greater than 1200 It. as evaluated and approved by geotechnical consultant. Pipebells should point upstream. Joints and ' connections should be glued with appropriate adhesives. SUBDRAIN TYPE. Subdrain type Shall be ASTM D2751, SDR -35 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadien Slyrene(ABS) or ASTM D3034 SDR 35 or ASTM D1785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic(PVC) pipe or approved equivalent. Connecting elements should consist of materials compatible with the subdrain pipe. CANYON SUB -DRAIN DETAIL PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 31597, TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PROJECT NO.: 31759.1C CLIENT: HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES ENCLOSURE: 1.14 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: NOVEMBER 2006 SCALE: NO SCALE TYPICAL KEYING AND BENCHING DETAIL COMPACTEO FILL PROJECTED PLANE I I MAX , FROM TOE OF SLOPE 10 APPROVED GROUND �j g TYP NAI URAL L T Y P GROUND �.. \\ RIMOVE UfJSUITABLE rli-fEf hill fAIN 117 R41fl IPAUi.91 2 PillfJ KFY� 12 15' r.11fd IKCY) DF PTH Di -I SLOPE rlili F'� �� E�IP:IPP1_I�rIy ;HD": �I [.inn if l_I 10 FI[ID Utf r1GE P,'SfU �n F n �I u[rn ; ,VI CF i11,r II 71 CLrJf HIrIG �F nf_q REO '✓L'Cr: FII I Irli. (JVER fJP iUF��iE GFpl:rdD '=iFFP�i� THAll 5u i•,; KEY AND BENCHING DETAIL PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 31597, TEMECULA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PROJECT NO.: 31759.17 rl ICKM. HIGHPOINTE COMMUNITIES ENCLOSURE: 1.15 DATE: NOVEMBER LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. SCALE: NOT TO APPENDIX 2.0 -- ' 2.1 Field Investigation Program and Boring and Trench Logs (LOR, 2004a) ' 2.2 Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results (LOR, 2004a) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I 1 1 1 1 1] APPENDIX 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION (LOR, 2004a) Subsurface Exploration Our subsurface field exploration program was conducted on November 17, 20, and December 12, 2003. This consisted of drilling a total of five exploratory borings with a truck -mounted CME 75 drill rig equipped with an 8 inch diameter hollow stem auger, four large diameter borings with a truck -mounted Caldweld bucket -auger drill rig, and three exploratory trenches with a tractor -mounted back hoe. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 20- to 50 -feet and the trenches were excavated to a depth of approximately 8 feet. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings and trenches are presented on the enclosed Plate, Enclosure 1.2, within the pocket of Appendix 1 .0 of this report. The drilling exploration for Borings BA -1 through BA -4 was conducted using a Caldweld bucket auger drill rig equipped with an 18 -inch bucket. The soils were continuously logged by our staff geologist who inspected the site, maintained detailed logs of the borings, obtained undisturbed as well as disturbed soil samples for evaluation and testing, and classified the soils by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classified System. Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsoils were obtained at select intervals. The samples were recovered by using a California split barrel sampler of 2.4 -inch inside diameter and 3.25 -inch outside diameter from the ground surface to the maximum depths attained. The samplers were driven by a kelly bar dropped from a height of 12 - inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler into the ground two consecutive runs of 6 -inches are indicated on the Boring Logs, B-1 through B-4, within this appendix. The weight of the kelly bar used to drive the soil sampler decreases at depths as indicated in the following table: DEPTH OF SAMPLE (ft.) DRIVING WEIGHT OF KELLY BAR (lbs.) 0-24 2,150 25-44 1,350 45-65 1,150 The undisturbed soil samples were retained in brass rings of 2.42 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height, and placed in sealed plastic containers. Disturbed soil ' samples were obtained at selected levels within the borings and placed in sealed containers for transport to the laboratory. 1 The drilling exploration for Borings B-1 through B-5 was conducted using a CME -55 drill rig equipped with an 8 -inch diameter hollow stem auger. The soils were continuously logged by a staff geologist from this firm who inspected the site, maintained detailed logs of the borings, obtained undisturbed, as well as disturbed, soil samples for evaluation and testing, and classified the soils by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsoils were obtained at a maximum interval of 5 feet. The samples were recovered by using a California split barrel sampler of 2.4 -inch inside diameter and 3.25 -inch outside diameter from the ground surface to the maximum depths attained. The samplers were driven by a 140 -pound automatic trip hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler into the ground the final 12 inches were recorded and further converted to an equivalent SPT N -value. Factors such as efficiency of the automatic trip hammer used during this investigation (80%), inner diameter of the hollow -stem auger utilized (3.75 in), and rod length at the test depth were considered for computing of equivalent SPT N -values corrected for field procedures (=Nso) which are included on the Boring logs, Enclosures B-5 through B-9, within this appendix. The undisturbed soil samples were retained in brass rings of 2.42 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height, and placed in sealed plastic containers. Disturbed soil samples were obtained at selected levels within the borings and placed in sealed containers for transport to the laboratory. The trenching exploration was conducted using a New Holland LB 75 B backhoe with a 24 -inch bucket. The soil encountered were continuously logged by an engineering geologist from this firm who visually observed the site, maintained detailed logs of the trenches and classified the soils encountered by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. All samples obtained were taken to our laboratory for storage and testing. Detailed logs of the borings and trenches are presented on the enclosed Boring and Trench Logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-12, within this appendix. A Sampling Key is presented on Enclosure 1. 12, within Appendix 1.0. ' S 97.0 5 ELEVATION: 10 3 � N N EQUIPMENT: HOLE DIA.: 18"—f ' - oZ- layers. 16.1 U 109.2 o. � w o @ 45 feet SILTY SAND, trace cobbles approximately 15% gravel to 3", 25% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, ' S 97.0 5 ELEVATION: 10 3 15 6 20 3 25 21 I � 30 tz 35 9 ' 40 18 45 26 50 50-5 s 55 ' 60 PROJ CLIE L-0 sampler. 16.8 PROJECT NUMBER: 97.0 NT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1190 LOG OF BORING BA -1 @ 35 feet becomes finer grained, approximately 15% medium grained sand, 75% fine grained sand, 10% silty noes, light yellowish brown, moist with some thin 2 to 4 inch horizontal silt November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: HOLE DIA.: 18"—f ENCLOSURE: B-1 - ML SM SM layers. 16.1 109.2 @ 40 feet SILTY SAND/SANDY SILT, approximately 50% Me grained sand, 50% silty fines, light gray brown, moist. @ 42 feet trace cobbles to 1" ofgranitic composition. 8.2 102.7 @ 45 feet SILTY SAND, trace cobbles approximately 15% gravel to 3", 25% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, O vi 14 25% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, light yellowish brown, mois micaceous rings disturbed. 47 feet E RO�J K, Pauba Formation, slightly weathered, sandstone, trace gravel to 3", appraximately 25% coarse 4@ DESCRIPTION grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, fight yellowish brown with iron oxide SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, SM 15% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines dark blackish brown moil loose. @ 1 foot ALLUVIUM:SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained 5 3 sand, 35% silty lines, brown, dry, abundant pinhole porosity. @ 2 feet becomes slightly coarser grained, trace gravel to 12", approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines, brown, dry, remains porous. 80.6 5 feet rings disturbed. 8 feet approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 20% silty IlnesAight 1 SP yellowish brown, damp, abundant pinhole and slightly larger orosi . 2.2 102.1 SM @ 15 feet POORLY GRADED SAND with slit, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, fight yellowish brown, moist will 6 to 8 inch thick horizontal layers of SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, l0% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 35% silty fines, light tannish brown, moist. @ 25 feet SILTY SAND layers no longer present, cobble in tip of 7.3 108.9 sampler. 16.8 PROJECT NUMBER: 97.0 NT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1190 R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. @ 35 feet becomes finer grained, approximately 15% medium grained sand, 75% fine grained sand, 10% silty noes, light yellowish brown, moist with some thin 2 to 4 inch horizontal silt November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: Coidwem HOLE DIA.: 18"—f ENCLOSURE: B-1 - ML SM SM layers. 16.1 109.2 @ 40 feet SILTY SAND/SANDY SILT, approximately 50% Me grained sand, 50% silty fines, light gray brown, moist. @ 42 feet trace cobbles to 1" ofgranitic composition. 8.2 102.7 @ 45 feet SILTY SAND, trace cobbles approximately 15% gravel to 3", 25% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, light yellowish brown, mois micaceous rings disturbed. 47 feet E RO�J K, Pauba Formation, slightly weathered, sandstone, trace gravel to 3", appraximately 25% coarse 4@ grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, fight yellowish brown with iron oxide No rdl No caving No groundwater Bedrock 47-50.5' ECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 NT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1190 R GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: Coidwem HOLE DIA.: 18"—f ENCLOSURE: B-1 45 5a No fail No caving No groundwater Bedrock 3540.5' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1177 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: Caldweld HOLE DIA.: 18"7 ENCLOSURE: B-2 TEST DATA LOG OF BORING BA-2 A m a O DESCRIPTION 0 SM TOPSOIL SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, SM ISa/. medium grained sand, 55% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines dark hlacklsh brown, moist, loose. @ I foot ALLUVIUMSILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained 5 sand, 20% silty fines, light brown, dry, abundant pinhole 6 1 119 8 10 porosity. @ 2 feet trace gravel to 1/2". @ 5 feet approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 25% ane grained sand, 35% silty fines, dark 10brown, abundant pinhole porosity, dry. 4 7.7 110.6 @. 7 feet approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines, yeaowish brown, damp, some pinhole porosity. 10 feet trace gravel to 1/2", decrease In porosity. 15 7 g.3 116.7 @ 15 feet approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 31)% medium grained sand, 35% line grained sand, 25% silty tines with trace clay, brown, moist, micaceous. SP @ 19 feet POORLY GRADED SAND with sill, approximately 20 5 9.5 109.5 1 SM 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, light yellowish brown, moist 25 1 7 12.3 101.6 SNI @ 29 feel SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse-grained sand, 30 1 25% medium grained sand, 25% ane grained sand, 40% silty 5 17.2 109.3 fines with trace clay, yellowish brown, moist 35 30 1119 121.7 1 @ 35 feet BEDROCK: Psuba Formation, moderately weathered, sandstone, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines with trace clay, red brown, damp. ' @ 37 feet becomes more dense. 40 304" 8.0 114.5 @ 40 feet becomes much less weathered and coarser grained, T approximately 25% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, red brown, damp, 45 5a No fail No caving No groundwater Bedrock 3540.5' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1177 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: Caldweld HOLE DIA.: 18"7 ENCLOSURE: B-2 SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, SM 20% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 25% silty Mes dark blackish brown moist, loose. O¢ 1 fool ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% gravel to V2", 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 20% silty tines, tight brown, dry, abundant pinhole porosity. ® 9 fees approximately 5% gravel to 112", 10% coarse grained 5.2 110.0 sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 15% ' silty fines, yellowish brown, moist. ®14 feel BEDROCK: Pauba Formation, moderately weathered, 12 9 7 121 2 ' sandstone, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines with trace clay, light reddish brown, moist. Q 17 feet becomes much less weathered, deose, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, reddish brown, damp. 15-9" 9.2 123.3 , -- -- END OF BORING No nil No caving No groundwater Bedrock 14.20.5' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: TEST DATA ELEVATION: 1161 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: Caldweld HOLE DIA.: 18" 1 ENCLOSURE: B-3 LOG OF BORING BA -3 z °� zt� o w -1 U U }` z D l m u 0 r�cnnn rnmrnwr SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, SM 20% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 25% silty Mes dark blackish brown moist, loose. O¢ 1 fool ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% gravel to V2", 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 20% silty tines, tight brown, dry, abundant pinhole porosity. ® 9 fees approximately 5% gravel to 112", 10% coarse grained 5.2 110.0 sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 15% ' silty fines, yellowish brown, moist. ®14 feel BEDROCK: Pauba Formation, moderately weathered, 12 9 7 121 2 ' sandstone, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines with trace clay, light reddish brown, moist. Q 17 feet becomes much less weathered, deose, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, reddish brown, damp. 15-9" 9.2 123.3 , -- -- END OF BORING No nil No caving No groundwater Bedrock 14.20.5' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1161 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: Caldweld HOLE DIA.: 18" 1 ENCLOSURE: B-3 3 SM @ 20 feet SILTY SAND, trace coarse grained sand, approximately 20% medium grained sand, 55% Bne grained sand, 25% silty Braes, brown, moist, trace pinhole porosity. 30 12.6 119.6 ' SW Q 25 feet WELL GRADED SAND with sill and gravel, SM approximately IS% angular metamorphic gravel to 3", 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 5% stity fines, reddish brown, wet. CM 29 feet BEDROCK: Pauba Formation, slightly weathered, 30 30 8.6 113.0 , sandstone, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 5% silty lines, yellowish brawn, damp. Q 32 feet becomes much less weathered, very dense. 10.2 1 1 110.9 1 4 No fill No caving No groundwater Bedrock 29.35.5' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1166 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: Caldwek HOLE DIA.: 18" TEST DATA N z w LOG OF BORING BA -4 w FF-- 7 O U O Z w a o cz z 1= O 0 DESCRIPTION SM TOPSOIL: SILTY BAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, SM 25%r medium grained sand, 40%. fine grained sand, 30% silty ones dark bla[kish brown moist, loose. Q I foot ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained 5 9 3.4 1 send,20% slily fines, light brown, dry, abundant pinhole porosity. 5 feet remains dry and porous. 7 feet becomes damp. SC __ Q 8 feet SANDY CLAY, approximately 20% medium grained 10 sand, 20% fine grained sand, 60% clayey Braes of low plasticity, 5 12.3 113.2 ' strong brown, damp. , @ 11 feet SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, SM 25% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 25% silty (ion, light ye8owlsb brown, moist. 15 ' SW 6 3.8 117.3 Q 15 feet WELL GRADED SAND with silt, approximately 25% SM coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, ye8owish brawn, moist. SM @ 20 feet SILTY SAND, trace coarse grained sand, approximately 20% medium grained sand, 55% Bne grained sand, 25% silty Braes, brown, moist, trace pinhole porosity. 30 12.6 119.6 ' SW Q 25 feet WELL GRADED SAND with sill and gravel, SM approximately IS% angular metamorphic gravel to 3", 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 5% stity fines, reddish brown, wet. CM 29 feet BEDROCK: Pauba Formation, slightly weathered, 30 30 8.6 113.0 , sandstone, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 5% silty lines, yellowish brawn, damp. Q 32 feet becomes much less weathered, very dense. 10.2 1 1 110.9 1 4 No fill No caving No groundwater Bedrock 29.35.5' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1166 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 17, 2003 EQUIPMENT: Caldwek HOLE DIA.: 18" ENCLOSURE: B4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 °O 42 13.0 SW @ 30 fat WELL GRADED SAND, trace gravel to 1/2", SM approximately 25% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, light yellowish brown, moist 35 4 feet some iron oxide stainin wet. 58 10.5 @'34feel BEDROCK: Psubs Formation, sandstone, moderately weathered, composed of trace metamorphic gravel to 3/4", approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, light tan, moist. 40 123 13.6 @ 40 feet become much less weathered, silty sandstone, approximately 15% medium grained sand, 60% fine grained 45 No fill No groundwater Bedrock 3541.5' 50 PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1161 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 20, 2003 EQUIPMENT` CME 55 F 1 ENCLOSURE: B-5 z LOG OF BORING B-1 a ti Z U— W V vUi, o am 14 a a w o DESCRIPTION 0 8.3 SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, SM 20%. medium grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines dark Dlacklsh Drown moist, loose. @ I foot ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse 5 grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained 38 4.6 128.8 sand, 35% silty fines, light brown, dry, abundant pinhole porosity. 5 feet becomes damp, porosity still present. 10 SP 18 3.2 @ 10 feet POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 10% coarse– grained sand, 35•/ medium grained sand, 50% line grained sand, 5% silty fines, light yellowish brown, damp. 15 SC 12 14.2 - @ 15 feet CLAYEY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 35% clayey fines of low plasticity, moist, brown, micaceous. 20 24 12.5 @ 21 feet POORLY GRADED SAND with silt, approximately .5% SP SM coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 10% silty lines, light yellowish brown, moist. 25 @ 25 feet trace gravel to 1/2". 23 12.0 °O 42 13.0 SW @ 30 fat WELL GRADED SAND, trace gravel to 1/2", SM approximately 25% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, light yellowish brown, moist 35 4 feet some iron oxide stainin wet. 58 10.5 @'34feel BEDROCK: Psubs Formation, sandstone, moderately weathered, composed of trace metamorphic gravel to 3/4", approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, light tan, moist. 40 123 13.6 @ 40 feet become much less weathered, silty sandstone, approximately 15% medium grained sand, 60% fine grained 45 No fill No groundwater Bedrock 3541.5' 50 PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1161 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 20, 2003 EQUIPMENT` CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8" 1 ENCLOSURE: B-5 TEST DATA F ' F LOG OF BORING B-2 a y pl 4 li.it u ° O S .4 O C4 1 W W O O N 0 DESCRIPTION ' 6.0 SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, Shf20•/. medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines brown, moist, loose. @11 fool ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 20% coarse 5 ML grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained 4 16.2 106.1 sand 15% slity fines Un drir. porous. I iM 4 feetND SAY SILT, approximately 40% fine grained sand, SM 60%. illy Mee blackish brown moist, Porous,soft. a� 7 feet SILTY SAND, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 10 8 14 3 20% medium grained sand, 25% One grained sand, 40% silty fines with trace clay, dark brown, moist. 15 5 13.3 © 15 feet becomes slightly finer grained and light yellowish brown. it I 20—,, 4.1 SP aQ 20 feet POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 40% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 5% silty Ones, light yellowish brown, moist. 25 26 4.9 SP ® 25 feet POORLY GRADED SAND with silt, approximately 'k SM 10% coarse grained sand, 40•/, medium grained sand, 40% One grained sand, 10% silty fines, light yellowish brown, moist. 30 21 21.8 SC ®30 feet SANDY CLAY, approximately 25°/. One grained sand, � SM 75•/. da a fin of low Plasticity, zravish brown, moist. Q 31 feet SILTY SAND, approximately 20% coarse grained sand, 1h 30% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 20% silty 35 Ones, light yellowish brown, moist. 59 10.8 g 35 feet occasional 4 inch thick fine grained sand layer within prevlousiv described SILTY SAND. 40 26 10.2 45 Its 8.6OD '• 45 feet tract metamorphic gravel to 2'. 77 ® 46 feet BEDROCK: Pauba Formation, sandstone, moderately weathered, approximately 25% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 20% One grained sand, 25•/ silty Ones 50with trace clay, trace iron oxide staining. ' 109 9.9 @ 50 feet become much less weathered, approximately 30% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 30% One grained 55 No fdl No groundwater Bedrock 46.51.5' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1185 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 20, 2003 EQUIPMENT: CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8" ENCLOSURL•: B-6 I 0 1 ' S 10 ' 15 20 25 1 30 ' 35- 0 U 5 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1188 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 20, 2003 � NtN- HOLE DIA.: 8" k z LZ O OU ' 3 OJ a Z O m 0 O m U IaJi W 0 1 ' S 10 ' 15 20 25 1 30 ' 35- 0 U 5 LOG OF BORING B-5 T.5 SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, SM 25Y. medium grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 25% silty ` fin blackish brawn moil loose. 19 3.0 114.9 ■ @ 1 foot ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, light brown, dry, some pinhole porosity. 29 2.6 127.9 ' @ 5 feet becomes coarser grained, trace gravel to 1/2", approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, light brown, dry, some pinhole porosity. 13 8.3 122.3 ' @ 10 feet approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 35% silty Ones with trace clay, brown, some pinhole porosity, moist. 19 11.5 119.8 ' @ 15 feet BEDROCK: Pauba Formation, sandstone, moderately weathered, approximately 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 30% silly fines with trace clay, light reddish brown, wet. 8.4 1 123.5 1 ' @ 20 feet becomes finer grained with silt, approximately 65% fine grained sand, 35% silty fines, brown, moist, micaceous. No fill No groundwater Bedrock 15.25' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1188 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 20, 2003 EQUIPMENT: CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8" 1 ENCLOSURE: B-9 OU OJ m U U IaJi q _ h } 0 LOG OF BORING B-5 T.5 SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, SM 25Y. medium grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 25% silty ` fin blackish brawn moil loose. 19 3.0 114.9 ■ @ 1 foot ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, light brown, dry, some pinhole porosity. 29 2.6 127.9 ' @ 5 feet becomes coarser grained, trace gravel to 1/2", approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, light brown, dry, some pinhole porosity. 13 8.3 122.3 ' @ 10 feet approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 35% silty Ones with trace clay, brown, some pinhole porosity, moist. 19 11.5 119.8 ' @ 15 feet BEDROCK: Pauba Formation, sandstone, moderately weathered, approximately 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 30% silly fines with trace clay, light reddish brown, wet. 8.4 1 123.5 1 ' @ 20 feet becomes finer grained with silt, approximately 65% fine grained sand, 35% silty fines, brown, moist, micaceous. No fill No groundwater Bedrock 15.25' PROJECT: Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1188 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: November 20, 2003 EQUIPMENT: CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8" 1 ENCLOSURE: B-9 I 1] 1 1 H 11 I 1 1 W PROJECT: CLIENT: LOG OF TRENCH T-3 SM 111PSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 30°/. medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 25°/. sll M B hl brown, porous, dry, loose. SM I@ 1 foot TERRACE DEPOSIT: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% gravel, 15% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 30 (° sBh• fines with clay, red brown, dry, massive, Tract No. 31597 rte Communities LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. 4 feet PAUtBA SANDSTONE: Faint, nearly horizontal bedding. typically massive, light yellowish brown, damp, relatively easy to excavate, some pebbles and gravel, typically subrounded. No fill No caving No groundwater Bedrock 4-8' PROJECT NUMBER: ELEVATION. DATE EXCAVATED: EQUIPMENT: BUCKET W.: 24" T 31759.1 1314 December 12, 2003 LB 75B ENCLOSURE: B-12 1 1 11' 1 1 1 APPENDIX 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING (LOR, 2004a) General Selected soil samples obtained from the borings and trenches were tested in our laboratory to evaluate the physical properties of the soils affecting preliminary foundation design, grading criteria and construction procedures. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction with our investigation included moisture content, dry density, consolidation, laboratory compaction, direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, expansion index, R -value, consolidation, and soluble sulfate tests. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented in the following paragraphs: Moisture -Density Tests The moisture content and dry density information provides an indirect measure of soil consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils on this site. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected soil samples, and the results are shown on the boring logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-12, within this appendix, for convenient correlation with the soil profile. Laboratory Compaction Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine compaction characteristics using the ASTM D 1557-02 compaction test method. The results are presented in the following table: LABORATORY COMPACTION Optimum ptimum Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Moisture Number (Feet) (U.S.C.S.) Dry Density Content (pcf) M) BA -1 3-4 (SM) Silty Sand 130.0 10.0 B-3 1-2 (SM) Silty Sand 1 134.0 7.0 Direct Shear Tests Shear tests are performed with a direct shear machine at a constant rate -of -strain (usually 0.05 inches/minute). The machine is designed to test a sample partially extruded from a sample ring in single shear. Samples are tested at varying normal loads in order to evaluate the shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. Samples are tested in a remolded condition (90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557) and soaked, according to conditions expected in the field. The results of the shear tests are presented in the following table. DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Angle of Apparent Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Internal Cohesion Number (Feet) (U.S.C.S.) Friction (Psf) (Degrees) BA -1 3-4 (SM) Silty Sand 38 500 Consolidation Tests The apparatus used for the consolidation tests (odometer) is designed to test a one - inch high portion of the undisturbed soil sample as contained in a sample ring. Porous stones and filler paper are placed in contact with the top and bottom of the specimen to permit the addition or release of water. Loads are applied to the test specimen in specified increments, and the resulting axial deformations are recorded. The results are plotted as log of axial pressure versus consolidation or compression, expressed as strain or sample height. Samples are tested at field and greater -than field moisture contents. The results are shown on Enclosures C-1 through C-12, within this appendix. Sieve Analyses A quantitative determination of the grain size distribution was performed for selected samples in accordance with applicable portions of the ASTM D 422 laboratory test procedure. The determination is performed by passing the soil through a series of sieves, and recording the weights of retained particles on each screen. The results of the grain size distribution analyses are presented graphically on Enclosure C-13, within this appendix. I ' Sand Equivalent ' The sand equivalent of selected soils were evaluated using the California Sand Equivalent Test Method, Caltrans Number 217. The results of the sand equivalent ' tests are presented with the grain size distribution analyses on Enclosure C-13, within this appendix. ' R -Value Test ' Selected soil samples were tested to determine their R -value using the California R - Value Test Method, Caltrans Number 301. The results of the R -value tests are presented on Enclosure C-13, within this appendix. Soluble Sulfate Content Tests ' The soluble sulfate content of selected subgrade soils were evaluated. The concentration of soluble sulfates in the soils was determined by measuring the optical density of a barium sulfate precipitate. The precipitate results from a reaction of barium chloride with water extractions from the soil samples. The measured optical density is correlated with readings on precipitates of known sulfate concentrations. The test results are presented on the following table: SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TESTS Sulfate Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Content Number (Feet) (U.S.C.S.) (% by Weight) B-1 Surface (SM), Silty Sand <0.005 B-2 5 (SM) Silty Sand <0.005 B-4 2 ISM) Silty Sand <0.005 B-5 2 ISM Silty Sand <0.005 1j Expansion Index Tests Remolded samples are tested to determine their expansion potential in accordance with the Expansion Index (EI) test. The test is performed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 18-2. The test results are presented in the following table: 1. EXPANSION INDEX TESTS Boring Number Sample Depth (Feet) Soil Description (U.S.C.S.) Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Potential B-4 12-13 (SC) Clayey Sand 4 Very Low Expansion Index: 0-20 21-50 51-90 ,Expansion Potential: Very low Low Medium 91-130 High 1. I 1 1 L! STRESS, psf Specimen Identification i Classification I DD MC% • BA -1 15.0 (SP -SAS Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 99 2 DATE LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 Enclosure C-1 5 T R A 1 N STRESS, psf Specimen Identification i Classification I DD MC% • BA -1 15.0 (SP -SAS Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 99 2 DATE LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 Enclosure C-1 5 T' R A N ` STRESS pst Specimen Identification Classification DD MC 0 •i 8A-1 20.0 (SP -S" Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 98 18 DATE _ 1/19/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST Enclosure C-2 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 10 0 m: I 1 1 I� 1 1 1 1 1 '-1 1 1 2 -- — - - 4 — 8 S T R A 10 -- N 12 16 18 ---- 100 1,000 10,000 STRMSS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% 0 BA -1 30.0 (SP -S" Poorly Graded Sand with Silt 100 9 PROJECT Tract No. 31597 - Temecula, California PROJECT NO. 31759.1 DATE 1/19104 CONSOLIDATION TEST Enclosure C-3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92507 2 — 4 6 8 s T R �— N — 2 12-- —14 14-- 16-- –1618 - 18 2100 --- 1,000 10,000 ' STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification MC% BA-1 40.0 (SM-ML) Silty Sand-Sandy Silt fDD 104 14 PROJECT Tract No. 31597 - Temecula,Califomia _ PROJECTNO. 31759.1 DATE 1/19104 CONSOLIDATION TEST Enclosure C-4 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 1 1 1 1 S T ' R 1 1 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification I Classification I DD I MC% 1*1 BA -2 5.0 1 (S" Silty Sand 1 112 1 7 Temecula _Califomia PROJECT NO. 37 /by.1 _ DATE 1/19/04 LID CONSOATION TEST Enclosure C-5 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 s R A N :j SMESS, psf Specimen Identification ' Classification DD MC% 101 BA -2 10.0 1 (S" Silty Sand 112 8 Tract No. 31597 - Temecula Califomia PROJECT NO. 31759.1 _ --- -----DATE 1/19/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST Enclosure C-6 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S T R A N STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD I MC% BA -2 15.0 (S" Silty Sand 113 10 - DATE_ CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 Enclosure C-7 1 2 — a 6 8 S ' T R A 10 I - N 12 14 16 — 18 — 100 1,000 10,000 STRESS, pst Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • BA -2 25.0 (SP -S" Poody Graded Sand with Silt 101 12 PROJECT Tract No. 31597 -Temecula, California PROJECT NO. 31759-1 ----DATE--1/19/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST Enclosure C-8 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92507 1 R 2 - — - ---- 4 S T - R -- A 10 N --- 12 i 14 lb 18 -- 100 1,000 10,000 - STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% 0 BA -2 30.0 (Slut) Silty Sand 105 17 PROJECT Tract No. 31597 - Temecula Califomia PROJECT NO. 31759.1 _ DATE 1/19/04 _ CONSOLIDATION TEST Enclosure C-9 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92507 1A S T R A 2. STRESS, Mf Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • BA -3 10.0 (S" Silty Sand 108 5 PROJECT Tract No. 31597 - Temecula, Califomia PROJECT NO. 31 /b9.7 _---- —_-- _ DATE 1/19/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST Enclosure C-10 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S T R A N I 2 rj STRESS Inr Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% 01 BA -4 10.0 (SC) Sandy Clay 104 19 PROJECT _ DATE 1119/04 CONSOLIDAT1-0N —TEST Enclosure C-11 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 k. 11 2 — - - - 4 S T R N 8 10 - 14 16 -- 100 1;000 ,•. STRESS, psf 10,000 Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • BA -4 15.0 (SW -S" Well Graded Sand with Silt 105 3 PROJECT Tract No. 31597 - Temecula California PROJECT NO. 31759.1 DATE 1/19/04 _ CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 Enclosure C-12 I 1 1 11 I APPENDIX 3.0 3.1 Field Investigation Program and Boring and Trench Logs 1 (LOR, 2004b) ' 3.2 Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results (LOR, 2004b) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 T OR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I 1 1 f1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX 3.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION (LOR, 2004b) Subsurface Exploration Our subsurface field exploration program was conducted on April 26 and 28, 2004. This consisted of drilling a total of three exploratory borings with a truck -mounted CME 55 drill rig equipped with an 8 -inch diameter hollow stem auger and seven exploratory trenches with a tractor -mounted back hoe. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 16 to 51 feet and the trenches were excavated to a depth of approximately 8 to 14 feet. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings and trenches are presented on the enclosed Plates, Enclosures 1.2 and 1 .3, within Appendix 1 .0. The drilling exploration for this was conducted using a CME -55 drill rig equipped with an 8 -inch diameter hollow stem auger. The soils were continuously logged by a staff geologist from this firm who inspected the site, maintained detailed logs of the borings, obtained undisturbed, as well as disturbed, soil samples for evaluation and testing, and classified the soils by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsoils were obtained at a maximum interval of 5 feet. The samples were recovered by using a California split barrel sampler of 2.4 -inch inside diameter and 3.25 -inch outside diameter from the ground surface to the maximum depths attained. The samplers were driven by a 140 -pound automatic trip hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler into the ground the final 12 inches were recorded and further converted to an equivalent SPT N -value. Factors such as efficiency of the automatic trip hammer used during this investigation (80%), inner diameter of the hollow -stem auger utilized (3.75 in), and rod length at the test depth were considered for computing of equivalent SPT N -values corrected for field procedures (=Nso) which are included on the Boring logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-3 of this Appendix. The undisturbed soil samples were retained in brass rings of 2.42 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height, and placed in sealed plastic containers. Disturbed soil samples were obtained at selected levels within the borings and placed in sealed containers for transport to the laboratory. The trenching exploration was conducted using a New Holland LB 75 B backhoe with ' a 24 -inch bucket. The soil encountered were continuously logged by a staff geologist from this firm who visually observed the site, maintained detailed logs of the trenches ' and classified the soils encountered by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. [1 All samples obtained were taken to our laboratory for storage and testing. Detailed ' logs of the borings and trenches are presented on, the enclosed Boring and Trench Logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-10, within this appendix. A Sampling Key is presented ' on Enclosure 1 .12, within Appendix 1.0. 1 I 1 1 rI 1 1 1 1 50 29-5" a CLIENT: Highpointe Communities W 1172 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: April 28, 2004 EQUIPMENT` LOG OF BORING B'2 W N F F d r LL z F z c C U a (n z F w v ° V: 4 a w � C p N O m � L DESCRIPTION 0 SM ALLU VIUM.SI LTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained sand. 15% medium grained sand, 55% fine grained sand, 251/ 9 6.6 73.2 silty fines, gray brown, dry, loose. 0 2 feel approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 10% medium 5grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 35% silty fines, brown, 23 5.4 117.8 damp, some pinhole and slightly larger porosity. 0 10 feel approximatch 5% coarse grained sand, 20% medium IU 12 4.0 106.6 grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines, brown, damp, trace pinhole and slightly larger porosity. 15 SI' 17 2.8 108.2 0 IS feet POORLY GRADED SAND pith sill, approximale 1p SM IS % coarse grained sand, 35 % medium grained sand, 40% fi grained sand, 10% silty fines, yellowish brown, damp. 20 18 3.7 108.2 SW - __ 0 20 feet WELL GRADED SAND, trace gravel to IR", -_ approximately 30% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grain, = sand, 35% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, yellowish brown, moist. 25 -To3.2 - - 21 12.4 30 45 8.7 110.6 S01 030 feet SILTY SAND, approximately 15% coarse grained son 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 15% silly fines, brown, moist. 3.5 SW 40 10.7 107.5 _ 0 35 feel WELL GRAVED SAND, approximately 30% coarse _ grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained = sand, 5% silty fines, light yellowish bro,, n, moist. 40 42 11.1 40 fee(BEDROCK: Poulin Formation, SANDSTONE, v approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grains sand, 45% fine grained sand, 10% silly fines, light yellowish \ brown, moist. 45 29-5" 9.3 105A --IMA 99.7 55 Me No fill No caring No groundwater Bedrock 40-51' 'PROJECT: APN 917-310-007 PROJECT NUMBER: 31907.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1172 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: April 28, 2004 EQUIPMENT` CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8"_1 ENCLOSURE: B-2 j PROJECT NUMBER: 31907.1 14.3 ELEVATION: 115.3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: SNI ALLUVIUb1'SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained LOG OF BORING B-3 HOLE DIA.: 8" ENCLOSURE: B-3 r 9 grained sand, 10% silty fines, light white tan, moist. 2.4 �� 106.9 o silty fines, gra)brow n, dry, loose. o z z o 12.9 119.6 z w U 04 v ac 2 feet approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% one grained sand, 20% silty fines, brown, 17 29-6" O ~ vi 7 1 j END of Boa1Nc dry some pinhole porosity. - No fill v @ 5 feet approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 25% medium d m O 2 dry, trace pinhole porosity. @ 10 feet grace gra, el to 1/2", moist. 7 _ 6.0 IIFCCRIPTION 9 10.4 112.8 1 (a1 15 feet porosity no longer visible. 14 4.2 106.1 S\1' @ 20 feet WELL GRADED SAND with silt, approximately 25% SM coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, yello„ish bro„n, moist. 15 12.3 111.0 M SM @ 25 feet SILTY SAND, approximately 30% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, brown, moist. 107.1 SP @ 30 feet POORLY GRADED SAND with silt, approximately SM 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 50% grained sand, 10% silty fines, light yellow ish brown, moist. ]OSA @ 35 feet becomes wet. 31 PROJECT NUMBER: 31907.1 14.3 ELEVATION: 115.3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: SNI ALLUVIUb1'SILTY SAND, approximately 5% coarse grained @ 30 feet WELL GRADED SAND with silt, approximately 25' coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine HOLE DIA.: 8" ENCLOSURE: B-3 sand, 25% medium grained sand, 4.5% fine grained sand, 259 9 grained sand, 10% silty fines, light white tan, moist. 2.4 106.9 ■ silty fines, gra)brow n, dry, loose. 294" 12.9 119.6 Q 1 fool becomes more dense. @ 45 feet BEDROCK. Pauba Formation, SILTY SANDSTONE approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grai sand, 45% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, yellow brown, moist. ac 2 feet approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% one grained sand, 20% silty fines, brown, 17 29-6" 2.7 —110 1 END of Boa1Nc dry some pinhole porosity. - No fill @ 5 feet approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 25% medium No caring grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 20% silt)' fines, bro„n, dry, trace pinhole porosity. @ 10 feet grace gra, el to 1/2", moist. 7 _ 6.0 108.0 9 10.4 112.8 1 (a1 15 feet porosity no longer visible. 14 4.2 106.1 S\1' @ 20 feet WELL GRADED SAND with silt, approximately 25% SM coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, yello„ish bro„n, moist. 15 12.3 111.0 M SM @ 25 feet SILTY SAND, approximately 30% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, brown, moist. 107.1 SP @ 30 feet POORLY GRADED SAND with silt, approximately SM 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 50% grained sand, 10% silty fines, light yellow ish brown, moist. ]OSA @ 35 feet becomes wet. 31 PROJECT NUMBER: 31907.1 14.3 ELEVATION: 115.3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: • SSV SNI @ 30 feet WELL GRADED SAND with silt, approximately 25' coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine HOLE DIA.: 8" ENCLOSURE: B-3 grained sand, 10% silty fines, light white tan, moist. 294" 12.9 119.6 \\ @ 45 feet BEDROCK. Pauba Formation, SILTY SANDSTONE approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grai sand, 45% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, yellow brown, moist. 29-6" END of Boa1Nc No fill No caring No groundwater Bedrock 45-50.5' PROJECT: APN 917-310-007 PROJECT NUMBER: 31907.1 CLIENT: HiglipoiDte Communities ELEVATION: 1172 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: April 28, 2004 EQUIPMENT: CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8" ENCLOSURE: B-3 I 1 [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I f [1 1 I 1 0 u 1 1 1 I 1 1 LJ 1 L 1 �J SI' ALLUVIUM:POORLl' GRADED SAND,approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 70% fine grained sand, 5% silo' fines, light brown, dry. �a1 1 foot becomes blackish gray, with roots, moist, some boulders Sm to 1'. 1.5 feet SILTI' SAND, approximately 15% gravel and boulder to 1', 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 15% Silt) fines, brmrn, moist. 5 rl5 feet BEDROCK.1'auba Formation, SANDSTONE, \ approximately 20% coarse grained sand, 30% medium g \ sand, 40% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, light ycllosc brown, hard, moist. \ n 7 feet sonic gravel to 3". C 8 feel becomes damp. No rill No caving No ground"ater Bedrock 5-12' 15 PROJECT: APN 917-310-007 PROJECT NUMBER: 31907.1 CLIENT: Higllpointe Communities TEST DATA LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE EXCAVATED: April 26, 2004 EQUIPMENT: LB 75B LOG OF TRENCH T'5 ENCLOSURE: B-8 z L �y] t1 F p O U N -� U 4 O vi ` � F � U O s f)FSCRIPTION SI' ALLUVIUM:POORLl' GRADED SAND,approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 70% fine grained sand, 5% silo' fines, light brown, dry. �a1 1 foot becomes blackish gray, with roots, moist, some boulders Sm to 1'. 1.5 feet SILTI' SAND, approximately 15% gravel and boulder to 1', 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 15% Silt) fines, brmrn, moist. 5 rl5 feet BEDROCK.1'auba Formation, SANDSTONE, \ approximately 20% coarse grained sand, 30% medium g \ sand, 40% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, light ycllosc brown, hard, moist. \ n 7 feet sonic gravel to 3". C 8 feel becomes damp. No rill No caving No ground"ater Bedrock 5-12' 15 PROJECT: APN 917-310-007 PROJECT NUMBER: 31907.1 CLIENT: Higllpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1228 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE EXCAVATED: April 26, 2004 EQUIPMENT: LB 75B BUCKET W.: 24" ENCLOSURE: B-8 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I .5 o z 31907.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1292 LOG OF TRENCH T=7 DATE EXCAVATED: April 26, 2004 r LB 75B BUCKET W.: 24" ENCLOSURE: B-10 H < C a d T U d lNil :D ;1 2 F -� O N U O L DESCRIPTION SP ALLU VIUM:1'OORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 10°/ coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 55% fine rained sand 5 % sit fines while tan dry, loose. Stsl C I foot SILTY SAND, approximately 5% gravel to 2 1/2", 2( coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, gray brown, moist, slightly to dense. @, 3 feet (race cobbles to 6 inches. @11 feet BEDROCK Pau ba Form at ion, SILL I SAN USI ONL, muderatel)weathered, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 35% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, yellmvish brown, moist, moderately hard. 12.5 feet becomes much less weathered, hard. 15m� No fill No caving No groundwater Bedrock I1-14' PROJECT: APN917-310-007 PROJECTNUMBER: 31907.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1292 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE EXCAVATED: April 26, 2004 EQ111MENT: LB 75B BUCKET W.: 24" ENCLOSURE: B-10 1 ' General 1 I 1 1 1 I APPENDIX 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING (LOR, 2004b) Selected soil samples obtained from the borings and trenches were tested in our laboratory to evaluate the physical properties of the soils affecting preliminary foundation design, grading criteria and construction procedures. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction with our investigation included moisture content, dry density, consolidation, laboratory compaction, direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R -value, consolidation, and soluble sulfate tests. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented in the following paragraphs: Moisture -Density Tests The moisture content and dry density information provides an indirect measure of soil consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils on this site. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected soil samples, and the results are shown on the boring and trench logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-10, within this appendix, for convenient correlation with the soil profile. Laboratory Compaction Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine compaction characteristics using the ASTM D 1557-00 compaction test method. The results are presented in the following table: LABORATORY COMPACTION Boring/ Sample Maximum Optimum Trench Depth Soil Description Dry Density Moisture Content Number (Feet) IU.S.C.S.) (pcf) M) B-2 2-3 (SM) Silty Sand 127.0 9.5 T-1 3-4 1 BEDROCK: Sandstone 1 128.0 110.0 Direct Shear Tests Shear tests are performed with a direct shear machine at a constant rate -of -strain (usually 0.05 inches/minute). The machine is designed to test a sample partially extruded from a sample ring in single shear. Samples are tested at varying normal loads in order to evaluate the shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. Samples are tested in a remolded condition (90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557) and soaked, according to conditions expected in the field. The results of the shear tests are presented in the following table. DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Sample Angle of Apparent Boring Depth Soil Description Internal Friction Cohesion Number (Feet) (U.S.C.S.) (Degrees) (Psf) B-2 2-3 (SM) Silty Sand 37 100 Consolidation Tests The apparatus used for the consolidation tests (odometer) is designed to test a one -inch high portion of the undisturbed soil sample as contained in a sample ring. Porous stones and filler paper are placed in contact with the top and bottom of the specimen to permit the addition or release of water. Loads are applied to the test specimen in specified increments, and the resulting axial deformations are recorded. The results are plotted as log of axial pressure versus consolidation or compression, expressed as strain or sample height. Samples are tested at field and greater -than field moisture contents. The results are shown on Enclosures C-1 through C-6, within this appendix. Sieve Analyses A quantitative determination of the grain size distribution was performed for selected samples in accordance with applicable portions of the ASTM D 422 laboratory test procedure. The determination is performed by passing the soil through a series of sieves, and recording the weights of retained particles on each screen. The results of the grain size distribution analyses are presented graphically on Enclosure C-7, within this appendix. Sand Equivalent The sand equivalent of selected soils were evaluated using the California Sand Equivalent Test Method, Caltrans Number 217. The results of the sand equivalent I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' tests are presented with the grain size distribution analyses on Enclosure C-7, within this appendix. ' R -Value Test ' Selected soil samples were tested to determine their R -value using the California R - Value Test Method, Caltrans Number 301. The results of the R -value tests are tpresented on Enclosure C-7. 1 1 1 1 1 Soluble Sulfate Content Tests The soluble sulfate content of selected subgrade soils were evaluated. The concentration of soluble sulfates in the soils was determined by measuring the optical density of a barium sulfate precipitate. The precipitate results from a reaction of barium chloride with water extractions from the soil samples. The measured optical density is correlated with readings on precipitates of known sulfate concentrations. The test results are presented on the following table: SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TESTS Boring Number Sample Depth (Feet) Soil Description (U.S.C.S.) Sulfate Content (% by Weight) B-1 2 (SM) Silty Sand <0.005 B-2 2-3 1 (SM) Silty Sand <0.005 B-3 2 ISM) Silt Sand <0.005 S T R A N STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD I MC% • 8-02 too I (SM) Silty Sand 104 2 California DATE 5128/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-1 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification) Classification DD MC% • 8-02 150 1 (SP -SM) Poorly Graded Sand w/silt 104 2 PROJECT APN917-310-007- California DATE 5/28/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-2 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 S R A I N s rReSS, psr Specimen Identificationi Classification DD MC'/6 • B-02 20.0 1 (SW) Well Graded Sand 107 2 California DATE 5/28/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 Enclosure C-3 I H 1 1 1 1 1 CONSOLIDAI IUN I tS I LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-4 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 2 4 6 -- — g S T R — A i N 12 14 16 18 2100 1,000 10,000 STRESS, p+f Specimen Identification Classification DO MC% • 8-03 5.0 (SM) Silty Sand 108 3 PROJECT APN 917-310-007 - Redhawk Area Temecula, PROJECT NO. 31907.1 California DATE 5/28/04 CONSOLIDAI IUN I tS I LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-4 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 0 t 2 4 ' s S T R A I 10 N 12 14 16 18 2100 1,000 10,000 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • 8-03 15.0 (SM) Silty Sand 109 9 PROJECT APN 917-310-007 - Redhawk Area Temecula PROJECT NO. 31907.1 California DATE 5/28/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-5 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 0 I L 1 1 1 1 1 LJ I CONSOLIDATION TES I LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92,507 Enclosure C-6 — 2 4 G — � 8 S I' R 10 N i 12 14 ]6 18 20 100 1,000 10,000 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • B-03 200 (SW -SM) Well Graded Sand w/silt 102 3 PROJECT APN 917-310-007 - Redhawk Area Temecula PROJECT NO. 31907.1 California DATE 5/28/04 I CONSOLIDATION TES I LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92,507 Enclosure C-6 HIM i I I APPENDIX 4.0 ' 4.1 Field Investigation Program and Boring and Trench Logs (LOR, 2004e) ' 4.2 Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results (LOR, 2004e) [1 1 1 [] 1 1 1 1 1 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. I rl 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 APPENDIX 4.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION (LOR, 2004e) Subsurface Exploration Our subsurface field exploration program was conducted on September 8 and 10, 2004 and consisted of drilling a total of three exploratory borings with a truck- mounted CME 55 drill rig equipped with an 8 inch diameter hollow stem auger and excavating four exploratory trenches with a tractor -mounted backhoe. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 36 to 51 feet and the trenches were excavated to depths of approximately 9.5 to 15 feet. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings and trenches are presented on the enclosed Plate, Enclosure 1.2 within Appendix 1.0. The drilling exploration for was conducted using a CME -55 drill rig equipped with an 8 -inch diameter hollow stem auger. The soils were continuously logged by a staff geologist from this firm who inspected the site, maintained detailed logs of the borings, obtained undisturbed, as well as disturbed, soil samples for evaluation and testing, and classified the soils by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsoils were obtained at a maximum interval of 10 feet. The samples were recovered by using a California split barrel sampler of 2.4 -inch inside diameter and 3.25 -inch outside diameter from the ground surface to the maximum depths attained. The samplers were driven by a 140 -pound automatic trip hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler into the ground the final 12 inches were recorded and further converted to an equivalent SPT N -value. Factors such as efficiency of the automatic trip hammer used during this investigation (80%), inner diameter of the hollow -stem auger utilized (3.75 in), and rod length at the test depth were considered for computing of equivalent SPT N -values corrected for field procedures ( Neo) which are included on the Boring logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-3 of this Appendix. The undisturbed soil samples were retained in brass rings of 2.42 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height, and placed in sealed plastic containers. Disturbed soil samples were obtained at selected levels within the borings and placed in sealed containers for transport to the laboratory. The trenching exploration was conducted using a New Holland LB 75 B backhoe with a 24 -inch bucket. The soil encountered were continuously logged by a staff geologist from this firm who visually observed the site, maintained detailed logs of the trenches and classified the soils encountered by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. In-place density determinations were conducted at selected levels, within the trenches utilizing the Nuclear Gauge Method (ASTM D 2922). Disturbed soil samples were obtained at soil changes and other selected levels within the trenches. The samples were placed in sealed containers for transport to the laboratory. All samples obtained were taken to our laboratory for storage and testing. Detailed logs of the borings and trenches are presented on the enclosed Boring and Trench Logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-7, within this appendix. A Sampling Key is presented K 1.0. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 55 Fil10-1' No groundwater Bedrock @ 45' PROJECT Pena Trust Property FF.. 31977.1 z ELEVATION: 1201 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED:September 8, 2004 LOG OF BORING B-1 tFir N N ENCLOSURE: B-1 W p}, t}v� O u— zL 0 via ao o N A am o :5 DESCRIPTION U 01 a ISM F&L/f. QYjQ1L SILTY SAND, approximately 10% cosine gamed SM nand, 25% medium gained and, 40% fise gamed sand, 20% silty 11 2.0 109.4 fine fight limm dry. bee. @ l foot ALLUVIUM: SE.T•Y SAND, approximately 1 come 5 gained sand, 35% medium gamed sad, 40% Brae raised Sand, 15 2.7 114.0 1 15% silty fines, brown, damp, medium deme. 10 @ 10 feet approximately 200/6 coarse rarood sand, 30% medium 10 7.8 124.2 gained sand, 25% fine gained sand, 25% silty fines, brown, moist 15 i SP 15 3.1 109.9 @ 15 fed POORLY GRADED SAND with tilt, approximately 10% SM come gamed sand, I S% medium gamed sand. 65% fine rained sand, 10% silty fines, light brown, moist 20 1 SW Is 22 106.2 _ - @ 20 feet WELL GRADED SAND, aapppprmoximately 5% gravel to 112% 35% sand, 35% fine 20% coarse grained Sand, medium gained - rained sand, 5% pity Imes, yellow brown, damp. 25 12 SM 11.9 118.0 @ 25 fed SMTP SAND, approximately 10% coarse ®tamed sand, 25% 400/6 tine sand, 25% Silty fines, dark mW mm gained sand, grained brown, moist. 30 1 @ 30 feet approximately 15% come grained a" 35% medimn 14 11.6 108.0 gained sand, 35% fine rained sand, 15% silty fines, yellow brown, I moist 35 I SW 19 17.3 106.4 @ 35 feet wELL (TRADED SAND with silt, appmximatdy 20% • SM come gamed sand, 35% medium grained send, 35% fine gained and, 10% silty fines, light ye0owisb brown, moist 40 SM 14 12.7 l 18.2 @ 40 feet SILTY SAND, approximately 15% medium gained send, 5091° fine grained a" 35% silty fines with trace clay, grecumb brown, molt, trace ism oxide staining. 45 29d" 120.4 @ 45 fed BEDROCK: Pauba Formation, SILTY SANDSTONE, epptoximately 101/6 come gained sand, 35% medium gained sand, 35% Sne grained sand, 2096 silty fines, yellow brown, mmst 50 @ 50 feet becomes comer grained, approximately 35% come grained 8.1 103.7 sand, 30% medium grained sand, 30°A fine grained sand, 5% silty 55 Fil10-1' No groundwater Bedrock @ 45' PROJECT Pena Trust Property PROJECT NUMBER: 31977.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1201 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED:September 8, 2004 EQUIPMENT: _ CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8e ENCLOSURE: B-1 14 20 0.2 53 6.0 4,0 115.9 1 115.2 1 307S 109.f— F18 09.1 21 35 F18 --T3 9 110.5 I 401 91 6.9 113.3 1 1 1 1 1 Cl 1 1 LOG OF BORING B-2 SM FILLTOPSOB„ SILTY SAND, appmxiniately S% mcae grained } SM z Lu w -- LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. 1 outapprmt�ely 10%oarae ' HOLE DIA.: 8" O vi a` 30% silty fines, gray, brown, damp, uredo® dean. 115.9 1 115.2 1 307S 109.f— F18 09.1 21 35 F18 --T3 9 110.5 I 401 91 6.9 113.3 1 1 1 1 1 Cl 1 1 LOG OF BORING B-2 SM FILLTOPSOB„ SILTY SAND, appmxiniately S% mcae grained 31977.1 SM and, 2o% medium grained sand, 4S% fine grained sand, 25% tilty fi3aaH& brown,bo e. 1201 -- LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. 1 outapprmt�ely 10%oarae ' HOLE DIA.: 8" grained and, 25% medium grained sand, 35% true grained sand, - 30% silty fines, gray, brown, damp, uredo® dean. ® 5 fed some pinhole porosity, dry ' Q 16 feet approximately 5% costae grained sand, 35% medium gained sand, ON. fine grained sand, 201A silty fines, light ye0pw brown, ' damp, some pinhole porosity and slightly largm porosity. SP Q 15 feet POORLY GRADED SAND, ptprortimamly 10% costae ' gamed and, 25% medium grained and, 60% fine gramod sad, 5% why fines, light tan brown, drop. ® 20 feet becomes finer grained, spproaienatelY 5% come gained ' sand, 35% medium grained sand, 55% fine gamed sand, 5% silty floes, yellow brown, dry. 1 ' 35% SM ® 30 fat SILTY SAND, approximately 10% 00133e grained and, mednrm gamed and, 40% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, light brown, moist ' @ 35 feet apptoxmutely 700K fine gained and, 300K silty fines, graY brown, moist ' l Q 40 feet 9FPROC& Pauba Formation, SANDSIDNE, approximately 15% medium gained sand, 80% fine gained sand, 5% silty tines, light yellow brown, moist, bard. , , END OF BORING Pio err No groundwater ' Bedrock ® 49 PROJECT. Petra Trust Property PROJECT NUMBER: 31977.1 CLIENT Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1201 -- LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: EQUIPMENT: September 8, 2004 CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8" 1 ENCLOSURE: B-2 1 1 1 t 1 1 LOG OF BORING B-3 oA F Q z EZy OU U\ wV J O Vi �v Q am w � DESCRIPTION 0 p yE SM FL,i/fOPSOIL: SLLTY SAND, taw coxae graimd Ism Sand, 35% mOdOtm gamed 35% fine gniaed nand, 20% silty Cma bone. 42 2.9 130.7 ' t�an foted otALLtN[Utd: SIL7Y SAND, Wpmctmate-1y tOYe crone 0°� siltyfines3 tilt b�awa,dry,dmee 40% �e gained esod, 5 21 4.6 126.1 ' 5 feet some pinhole purwity, medium dense. 7s 122.9 ' 12.4 —f-199 , 20 16 1 t 7. --� 121.2 I 35 29-5" 1 1 7.2 1 108.9 I sond, 6ee 5% fine gained sand, 20'/� ty fine°�s, brown. damp, aD+na� visible porosity. ® 15 feet approximaely 5% wase gained send, 25% medium gained sand, 50% fine gamed sand, 20% silty fines, yellow bmwo, darM. (a3 20 fon appro:imstely 5% coxae gained sand, 30% medium gained send, 30% fine gamed sand, 35% silty fines with true clay, brown, moist. nximatety 15% wane gained sand, 35% medium gained sand, fine gained and, 10% silty fines, yellow brown, mist, hard, 16L 0.1' No groundwater Bodroek Q 30' Pena Trust Property PROJECT NUMBER: 31977.1 _PROJECT: CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1199 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: September 8, 2004 EQUIPMENT: CME 55 HOLE DIA.: 8" 1 ENCLOSURE: B-3 8l 3.3 I 104.8 110.3 SM LOG OF TRENCH T-2 ,Litt PSOI! SELTY SAND imately 5% coarse gnineu sand, 25% median gained a 45% fine gamed sand, 25% silty fine light s brown, dry. loose. I That ALLUVIUM: SII.TY SAND. appavmatdy Iu% Wiiw paned sand, 3o% medium prdned m4 35% finearmed wad. 25% silty fine, brown, dry, some pinhole pmonty, 6aomw rose dmaa. ® 6 feet became damp, pinhole porosity less abundanL ® 10 feel becomes moist, porosity no loogtr visible SC 8 11 feet CLAYEY SAND, approximately 10% coarse gained and, 25% medium granted sand, 35% fine grained sand, 30% clayey fine of low 0unci brown, moist. 12 fed BEDROCK: Pauba Pormabon, SWTSTONE, sppmxraately 5% come gained sand, 15% medium gained sand, 15% fine Pillo•1' No caving No groundwater Bedrock Q IT PROJECT: Pena Trust Property Z 31_977.1 }a} } 1202 �0 O oa F j J O U ENCLOSURE: B-5 W5 W o` V � 0.1 SN 8l 3.3 I 104.8 110.3 SM LOG OF TRENCH T-2 ,Litt PSOI! SELTY SAND imately 5% coarse gnineu sand, 25% median gained a 45% fine gamed sand, 25% silty fine light s brown, dry. loose. I That ALLUVIUM: SII.TY SAND. appavmatdy Iu% Wiiw paned sand, 3o% medium prdned m4 35% finearmed wad. 25% silty fine, brown, dry, some pinhole pmonty, 6aomw rose dmaa. ® 6 feet became damp, pinhole porosity less abundanL ® 10 feel becomes moist, porosity no loogtr visible SC 8 11 feet CLAYEY SAND, approximately 10% coarse gained and, 25% medium granted sand, 35% fine grained sand, 30% clayey fine of low 0unci brown, moist. 12 fed BEDROCK: Pauba Pormabon, SWTSTONE, sppmxraately 5% come gained sand, 15% medium gained sand, 15% fine Pillo•1' No caving No groundwater Bedrock Q IT PROJECT: Pena Trust Property PROJECT NUMBER: 31_977.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1202 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE EXCAVATED: September 10, 2004 EQUIPMENT: New Holland BUCKET W.: 24" ENCLOSURE: B-5 11 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 ® g feet porosity no longer present SP IQ 12 feel POORLY URADW biANL MIM3yelloww w�, �- Pill 0.1' No caving No proundwater No bodrock wcimately 10% mum 50% fine grained sand, PROJECT: Pma Trust Property_ PROJECT NUMBER: 31977.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities Z-4 ..-.--1201 _ LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE EXCAVATED: September 10, 2004 EQUIPMENT: OF TRENCH T-4 BUCKET W.: 24"—F ENCLOSURE: B-7 Q zC WLOG U twit ao < (d o Wc� W o v v x p ¢ A 0 DESCRIPTION 0 0.7 SM pjj�{'9PSOI1,: SQ.TY SAND, app�oximatr}y 10% wrae gamed 35% fine eeod, 25% n7ty sand, 30%meth® grained and. gamed ne t brown. bogie j SM -No 1 foot 91°l,(L\'IItM: S1LTY SAND, apin x matdy I S°k wazse T j Rained eeod, 30% medium gained u nd, 309% fine gnincd amd, % rilty firm, dads brown, damp, wine pmhob poraity, sltglrtly more donee. Qa 2 feet becomes Wo1eL 82 7.4 106.3 @ 3 feet becmues mora dense. 15 ® g feet porosity no longer present SP IQ 12 feel POORLY URADW biANL MIM3yelloww w�, �- Pill 0.1' No caving No proundwater No bodrock wcimately 10% mum 50% fine grained sand, PROJECT: Pma Trust Property_ PROJECT NUMBER: 31977.1 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: ..-.--1201 _ LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE EXCAVATED: September 10, 2004 EQUIPMENT: New Holland BUCKET W.: 24"—F ENCLOSURE: B-7 APPENDIX 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING (LOR, 2004e) General Selected soil samples obtained from the borings and trenches were tested in our laboratory to evaluate the physical properties of the soils affecting preliminary foundation design, grading criteria and construction procedures. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction with our investigation included moisture content, dry density, laboratory compaction, direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R - value, consolidation, and soluble sulfate content. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented in the following paragraphs. Moisture -Density Tests The moisture content and dry density information provides an indirect measure of soil consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils on this site. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected soil samples, and the results are shown on the boring and trench logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-7, within this appendix, for convenient correlation with the soil profile. Laboratory Compaction Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine compaction characteristics using the ASTM D 1557-00 compaction test method. The results are presented in the following table: LABORATORY COMPACTION Optimum Trench Sample Depth Soil Description Maximum Dry Density Moisture Number (Feet) (U.S.C.S.) (pcf) Content M T-1 1 2-3 1 (SM) Silty Sand 1 129.0 7.5 T-1 1 4-5 SM Silty Sand 1 131.0 9.0 1 I I I Direct Shear Tests Shear tests are performed with a direct shear machine at a constant rate -of -strain (usually 0.05 inches/minute). The machine is designed to test a sample partially extruded from a sample ring in single shear. Samples are tested at varying normal loads in order to evaluate the shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. Samples are tested in a remolded state (90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557) and soaked, to represent the most unfavorable conditions expected in the field. The results of the shear tests are presented in the following table. DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Angle of Apparent Trench Sample Depth Soil Description Internal Cohesion Number (Feet) (U.S.C.S.I Friction Well (Degrees) T-1 2-3 (SM) Silty Sand 38 0 Consolidation Tests The apparatus used for the consolidation tests (odometer) is designed to test a one - inch high portion of the undisturbed soil sample as contained in a sample ring. Porous stones and filler paper are placed in contact with the top and bottom of the specimen to permit the addition or release of water. loads are applied to the test specimen in specified increments, and the resulting axial deformations are recorded. The results are plotted as log of axial pressure versus consolidation or compression, expressed as strain or sample height. Samples are tested at field and greater -than field moisture contents. The results are shown on Enclosures C-1 through C-12, within this appendix. Sieve Analyses A quantitative determination of the grain size distribution was performed for selected samples in accordance with applicable portions of the ASTM D 422 laboratory test procedure. The determination is performed by passing the soil through a series of sieves, and recording the weights of retained particles on each screen. The results of the grain size distribution analyses are presented graphically on Enclosure C-13, within this appendix. Sand Equivalent The sand equivalent of selected soils were evaluated using the California Sand Equivalent Test Method, Caltrans Number 217. The results of the sand equivalent tests are presented with the grain size distribution analyses on Enclosure C-13, within this appendix. R -Value Test I I Selected soil samples were tested to determine their R -value using the California R - Value Test Method, Caltrans Number 301. The results of the R -value tests are presented on Enclosure C-13, within this appendix. ' Soluble Sulfate Content Tests The soluble sulfate content of selected subgrade soils were evaluated. The ' concentration of soluble sulfates in the soils was determined by measuring the optical ' density of a barium sulfate precipitate. The precipitate results from a reaction of barium chloride with water extractions from the soil samples. The measured optical density is correlated with readings on precipitates of known sulfate concentrations. The test results are presented on the following table: SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TESTS Trench Number Sample Depth (Feet) Soil Description IU.S.C.S.) e Coontentent (% by Weight) T-1 4 (SM) Silty Sand < 0.005 T-2 5 (SM) Silty Sand < 0.005 T_2 2 (SM) Silty Sand < 0.005 T-4 3 SM Silt Sand < 0.005 Il I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1P r 1 1 1 S, T R A N STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DO MC% • B-01 10.0 (SM) Silty Sand 112 9 County, CA DATE 10/4/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-1 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 A 1� 1' 4 6 ' ' - 5 T R A IO N - 12 1 11' 14 i� 16 — 18 ' 2100 1,000 10,D00 - STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • B-01 15.0 (SM -SP) Poorly Graded Sand w/silt 104 2 j I I I PROJECT Pena Trust Properly- Redhawk Area,_Rrverside PROJECT NO. 31977.1_ County CA DATE _ CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-2 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92607 �I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S T R A N e� STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • B-01 25.0 1 (SM) Silty Sand 111 I 14 County, CA DATE 10/4/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-3 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 S T R A 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 2 STRESS, pst !cimen Identification Classification DD MC% B-01 30.0 (SM) Silty Sand 108 _11 County, CA DATE 10/4104 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-4 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 I I 1 1 1 III 1 1 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92607 z a b — s I R 8 — 1 N e 10 – 12 14 16 IS - -- 21 p� 1,000 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification • B-02 10.0 (SM) Silty Sand 10,000 DD MC% 121 5 PROJECT Pena Trust Property County CA - Redhawk Area Riverside PROJECT NO. 31 777.1 DATE 10/4/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-5 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92607 imen Identification B-02 15.0 STRESS, psf Classification (SP) Poorly Graded Sand CA DATE CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 DD MC% 99 in Enclosure C-6 I S N A N STRESS, psf I Specimen Identification I Classification DD MC0 t! B-02 20.0 (SP) Poorly Graded Sand I 102 2 1111119;T91114411 DATE CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 Enclosure C-7 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD I MC% • 8-02 30_0 _ _ (SM) Silty Sand 10. 12 DATE CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92607 I:[all Enclosure C-8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S T R A STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DO MC% e; B-03 5.0 (SM) Silty Sand 125 5 _ DATE CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 Enclosure C-9 I 2 - ii S R A _ P 10 N '� 12 I 14 k i 2100 1,000 10,000 STRESS, psr Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% (SM) Silty Sand 115 12 rB-0315.0 PROJECT Pena Trust Property - Redhawk Area Riverside PROJECT NO. 31977 i County, CA DATE 10/4/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-10 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification I Classification DO MC% • B-03 20.0 1 (SM) Silty Sand 117 J 14 DATE 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-11 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507 S T R A z STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification DD I MC% B-03 25.0 1 (SM) Silty Sand—L--Ll2 13 �, CA V DATE 10/4/04 CONSOLIDATION TEST LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Enclosure C-12 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92607 I I APPENDIX 5.0 ' 5.1 Field Investigation Program and Boring Logs (LOR, 2005) 5.2 Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results ' (LOR, 2005) 5.3 Slope Stability Calculations (LOR, 2005) I I I I I I I I I I LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. J APPENDIX 5.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION (LOR, 2005) ' Our subsurface investigation included the drilling of three exploratory borings with a bucket auger drill rig to depths ranging from 36.5 to 65.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were advanced near areas where the tall cut slopes into bedrock materials are currently planned. These locations are presented on the enclosed ' Plate, Enclosure 1 .2 and 1 .3, within the pockets of Appendix 1 .0 During our field work, the materials encountered in the borings were downhole logged ' by geologists from this firm. Undisturbed, as well as disturbed, samples were then taken to our laboratory for testing and storage. Detailed description of the subsurface ' conditions found within our exploratory borings are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-3, within this appendix. A Sampling Key is presented on Enclosure 1.12 within Appendix 1.0. 1 I 8 1 1 92 10 c r z ELEVATION: 8 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. 1 15 { � Caldwe ld iu! 10 feet becomes coarser grained, approvimmehY 111 u C t - z Z LL medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand. 5% silk flues, z - Z v \/ ' G 8 1 1 92 10 c r (ii, 8 feet becomes slighth more cemented. ELEVATION: 8 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. 1 15 { � Caldwe ld iu! 10 feet becomes coarser grained, approvimmehY 111 -1 ENCLOSURE: B-1 8 9.3 20 medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand. 5% silk flues, II I1.7 25 I I 9.3 10A DATA F c r (ii, 8 feet becomes slighth more cemented. ELEVATION: \, LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: 1 { � Caldwe ld iu! 10 feet becomes coarser grained, approvimmehY 111 -1 ENCLOSURE: B-1 subrounded gra, el to 3'•, 30% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand. 5% silk flues, remains yellm% hroa n, moist, massiNe. LOG OF BORING BA -1 DESCRIPTION \ BEDROCK .I'aulm lbrmalion, SANDSTONE, slightly ,Heath ere, approsimalelr 5% gravel (o2", 25% coarse grained sa nJ, 30 medium grained Nand, 35% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, \\\' yellow brow a, hard, moist, massi, e. i iu, 5 (eel becomes less wea lhereJ. -( 1 124.5 ' END OF BORING No fill No caving Water accumulated at bottom of hole Bedrock 0-36' PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.12 (ii, 8 feet becomes slighth more cemented. ELEVATION: \, LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: 1 { � Caldwe ld iu! 10 feet becomes coarser grained, approvimmehY 111 -1 ENCLOSURE: B-1 subrounded gra, el to 3'•, 30% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand. 5% silk flues, remains yellm% hroa n, moist, massiNe. \/ ' rr 20 feel becomes more cemented, ren' hard. \\ n 21.5 feel contact ,N ith fine to medium grained SANDSTONE, N73 -NV 6°N. \/ �\ (io 23.7 feet contact with SAN'Dl CLAN STONE, N'820": 70N, a pprosimately 10% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grain sand, 20% fine grained sand, 50% clayey fines Nr ill, lo,r plasticity, red broNN'n, near seepage, hard, massive. (m 24.5 feet seepage. 1 124.5 ' END OF BORING No fill No caving Water accumulated at bottom of hole Bedrock 0-36' PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.12 CLIENT- Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1239 LORGEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: February 14, 2005 SO Caldwe ld HOLLEEDDIA.: A.: 24" -1 ENCLOSURE: B-1 PROJECT: Tentative Tiac(No.31597 PROJECTNUMBER. 31759.12 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities TEST DATA LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: February' 14, 2005 EQUIP1vIENT: Caldweld HOLE DIA.: 24" ENCLOSURE: B -2a z LOG OF BORING BA -2 c - �- C — DESCRIPTION 0 SNI IOPS01L SILT) SAND, trace of gravel to 1/2", approximateh 20% coarse grained sand, 30 % medium grained sand, 25% fin .�1 /i SCI rained sand 25% silt' Ones black brown moist loose. I foot] L RACE DEPOSI I SAND) CLAY, approsimateh' 15% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 25% fin ji grained sand, 35% clayey fines of loss plasticiq', reddish bross' �� moist, dense, non -porous, massise. to 5' q •a' 3 feet trace of moderateh Nea(hered, subruunded cobbles ,ui 4.5 feet becomes di 11 coarser rained. \� 'w feel ssitltBBDROCF:,PauhA forma Pon, 5.5 gradation con(aet moderatehnealhcred, SILII SANDSTONE, trace fine grace approxima(eh 15% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grains brown, sand, 50% fine grained sand, 10% silo- fines, yelloss ' damp, massive, weak]) cemented, hard. \ •a) 8 feet some rounded to subrounded cobbles, approsimateh 5 IO ' / silty fines, micaceous, massise. 2 5.7 105.3 \ ra` IJ feet becomes slightly coarser grained ss ith some ss eathereJ, 5 15-6 friable, angular cobbles in 8". 6 a \� ia, 17.5 feel becomes coarser grained, approximalch' 5% grasel 250/., coarse grained sand. 30% medium grained sand, 10% sill fines, micaceous, slightly cemented, fairly weathered. 20 6 7.2 110.8 �g, 21 feet occasional highh ssealhered, friable, sub -rounded / cobbles and grasel to 10". ' w 24 feet highly oeathered, friable, subrounded granitic boulder 25\\(12" --F3 \ ) with 2mm thick grussification. 10 t) l09 9 , / ray 25 feel high]) sseathered granitic cobbles. \\/ ai 26 feet contact with SI LT)' SANDSTONE, NI SOE 20N, approximatco 10% medium grained sand, 80% fine grained \ sand, 10% silty fines, gray brown, moist, micaceous. 30 /�I i'a) 29 feet (race of gravel, damp, massive. I l 10' 110 6 �a' 30 feet becomes slightly coarser grained, approximately 25% \,\ / coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine \� grained sand, 5% silty fines, red bross n, moist. n 31.5 feel back to SILT)" SANDSTONE, approximately 25% \\'• coarse grained sand. 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, reddish brown, micaceous, / massise, damp. 35�� !a! 33.5 feel occasional friable, cobbles and boulders to 12". 101.6 12 4S ' \ w34 feel approximately 4" thick, discontinuous, high[)' oxidized layers, slightly coarser grained than above, damp. �. %fi! 36.5 feet very near horizontal gravel layer, moderately to sec erelc svealhered clasts to 2", overall unit remains massive, \\' micaceous, damp, slightly lighter in color. ri 39 feet becomes coarser grained, approximately 5% gravel to PROJECT: Tentative Tiac(No.31597 PROJECTNUMBER. 31759.12 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION. 1308 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED: February' 14, 2005 EQUIP1vIENT: Caldweld HOLE DIA.: 24" ENCLOSURE: B -2a r 25 1 116.3 1110.6 SO 64 107.5 / �\ 20 8.9 100.4 ' To ---2 1 3 104.3 t \ 20 12.3 1194 ' LOG OF BORING BA -2 3", 30% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 5% silly fines, light broe'n, micaceous, damp, weakly cemented. in� 41 feel gradational change, SILTISANDSTONE, trace coarse grained sand, approsimarely 35% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, light brown, damp, massi+c. ,W, 42.5 feet contact ,i(h SILTI SAN'DSTON'E, N790R 70S, approvimateh 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grainer sand, 55% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, Ian brown, moist 43.5 feel slight water seepage, becomes SAND% SILTSTON'E/SILTI SANDSTONE, approximate N' 10% medium grained sand, 40% tine grained sand, 50% silt) fines, gray brown, micaceous, moist. !g- 45 feet becomes slightly coarser grained, strong brow n. fa148.5 gradational change, SILTY SANDSTONE, approximatel,) 5% medium grained sand, 75% fine grained sand, 20%silh' fines, brown, damp, micaceous, massive. (w 50.5 feel thin, discontinuous SI LTSTONE, approximately 25 fine grained sand, 75% silty fines, gray brown, micaceous. !_151 feet SILTI SANDSTONE, appro>imately 5% coarse grain, sand, 10% medium grained sand, 75% fine grained sand, 10% siltv fines, Ian brown, damp, micaceous. (a; S2 feel horizontal contact with SANDY SILTSTON'E, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 55% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, Ian bros+n, micaceous. n 52.5 feel gradational change SILTY SANDSTONE, appro.ximately 5% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 55% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, tan bross'n, micaceous. �a 59 feet becomes moist. ran 59.25 feet contact with CLAYSTONE, N700W 3105, low plasticity, micaceous, strong bra,, n, damp to moist. END OF No fill No caving Water seepage at 43.5' Bedrock 5.5-66' PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.12 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities z 1308 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED. February 14, 2005 EQUIPMENT: Caldweld HOLE DIA.: 24" 1 ENCLOSURE: B -2b L u] � C / L z i- CJ G G 40 20-10" 3.4 r 25 1 116.3 1110.6 SO 64 107.5 / �\ 20 8.9 100.4 ' To ---2 1 3 104.3 t \ 20 12.3 1194 ' LOG OF BORING BA -2 3", 30% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 5% silly fines, light broe'n, micaceous, damp, weakly cemented. in� 41 feel gradational change, SILTISANDSTONE, trace coarse grained sand, approsimarely 35% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, light brown, damp, massi+c. ,W, 42.5 feet contact ,i(h SILTI SAN'DSTON'E, N790R 70S, approvimateh 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grainer sand, 55% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, Ian brown, moist 43.5 feel slight water seepage, becomes SAND% SILTSTON'E/SILTI SANDSTONE, approximate N' 10% medium grained sand, 40% tine grained sand, 50% silt) fines, gray brown, micaceous, moist. !g- 45 feet becomes slightly coarser grained, strong brow n. fa148.5 gradational change, SILTY SANDSTONE, approximatel,) 5% medium grained sand, 75% fine grained sand, 20%silh' fines, brown, damp, micaceous, massive. (w 50.5 feel thin, discontinuous SI LTSTONE, approximately 25 fine grained sand, 75% silty fines, gray brown, micaceous. !_151 feet SILTI SANDSTONE, appro>imately 5% coarse grain, sand, 10% medium grained sand, 75% fine grained sand, 10% siltv fines, Ian brown, damp, micaceous. (a; S2 feel horizontal contact with SANDY SILTSTON'E, approximately 5% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 55% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, Ian bros+n, micaceous. n 52.5 feel gradational change SILTY SANDSTONE, appro.ximately 5% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 55% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, tan bross'n, micaceous. �a 59 feet becomes moist. ran 59.25 feet contact with CLAYSTONE, N700W 3105, low plasticity, micaceous, strong bra,, n, damp to moist. END OF No fill No caving Water seepage at 43.5' Bedrock 5.5-66' PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 31597 PROJECT NUMBER: 31759.12 CLIENT: Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1308 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. DATE DRILLED. February 14, 2005 EQUIPMENT: Caldweld HOLE DIA.: 24" 1 ENCLOSURE: B -2b 8 3.4 102.2 7 40 --TOO.0 , lb 10" Z3 122.1 , 7 -H 20 6.3 PROJECTNUMBER: 31759.12 ` ' , , 13.5 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. U 11.7 IQIII14ENT: 118.9 HOLE DIA.: 24" ENCLOSURE: B-3 L L i_ Z ✓' �-' C' '� Z CF— � G 8 3.4 102.2 7 40 --TOO.0 , lb 10" Z3 122.1 , 7 -H 20 6.3 PROJECTNUMBER: 31759.12 115.5 —F2 ' , , 13.5 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. U 11.7 IQIII14ENT: 118.9 15.4 117.3 , LOG OF BORING BA -3 BEDROCK Pauba Formation, moderately eeathered, SANDSTONE, approximately' 25% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 5%silty fines, red brown, damp, micaceous, massive. (ai 2 feet approximate attitude on faint ,ca(licred beds, N'300E 40 (a, 3 feet becomes less weathered. (a 3.5 feet thin discontinuous SILTSTONE, gran brow n, damp. r? 4.5 feet SILTSTONE contact wish SANDSTONE, NWE 30S. (a' 6 feel less wcalhered, massne. (a� 14 feet becomes coarser grained, approximately 5% weathered friable gravel to 3", 20% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained. sand, 5% silty fines, yellosc brown, damp, micaceous, massve. (a_) 15 feet grades to SILIISANDSTONE, 101Y. weathered friabb granitic gravel and cobbles (0 4", appros int ate])' 10% coarse grained sand, 20% medium grained sand, 60% line grained sand, 10% silt' fines, brown, damp. Q16.83 feet sharp horizontal contact SAND) SILTSTONE, trac coarse grained sand, 5% medium grained sand, 10% fine grained sand, 85% silt) fines, gray brmsn, damp, massive, micaceous. u 20 feet slightly coarser grained. 21 feet grades to CLAY STONE, slight plaslicih', strong browr slightly micaceous. @ 24 feet slightly' coarser grained, SANDI CLAI STONE, approsimately 5% coarse grained sand, 10% medium grained sand, 20% fine grained sand, 65% clayey fines of low plastcit strong brown, damp, slightly micaceous, hard. iw 27.5 feet grades to SIL"I'l' SANDSTONE, trace of weathered grmcl to 1/2", 10% coarse grained sand, 30% medium graine sand, 50% tine grained sand, 10%silt fines, massive, yellmv brown, damp, micaceous. 6aD 29 feet becomes finer grained, approximatel3' 60% fine graine sand, 40% silt' fines, strong brown, damp, micaceous. (a 3' , feet SANDI CLAYSTONE, approximately 10% medium I grained sand, 20% fine grained sand, 70% clayey fines of to,,, No fill No caring No groundwater Bedrock 0-36' PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 31597 PROJECTNUMBER: 31759.12 CLIENT. Highpointe Communities ELEVATION: 1278 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. .DATE DRILLED: February 14, 2005 IQIII14ENT: Caldiveld HOLE DIA.: 24" ENCLOSURE: B-3 APPENDIX 5.2 LABORATORY TESTING (LOR, 2005) General Selected soil samples obtained from our boring were tested in our laboratory to evaluate the physical properties of the soils and bedrock anticipated to compose the subject slopes. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction with our investigation included moisture content, dry density, and direct shear. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented in the following paragraphs. Moisture -Density Tests The moisture content and dry density information provides an indirect measure of soil consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils on this site. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected soil samples, and the results are shown on the Boring Logs, Enclosure B-1 through B-3, within this Appendix, for convenient correlation with the soil profile. Direct Shear Tests Shear tests are performed with a direct shear machine at a constant rate -of -strain (usually 0.05 inches/minute)• The machine is designed to test a sample partially extruded from a sample ring in single shear. Samples are tested at varying normal loads in order to evaluate the shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. Samples are tested in a relatively undisturbed condition and soaked, according to conditions expected in the field. The results of the shear tests are presented in the following table: DIRECT SHEAR DATA OBTAINED ON UNDISTURBED BEDROCK SAMPLES Reference No. Sample Taken From Sample Material Cohesion C (psf) Friction Angle (degrees) LOR, 2005 BA -2 @ 20 ft Silty Sandstone 530 38 LOR, 2005 BA -2 @ 50 ft Siltstone 350 32 LOR, 2005 BA -3 @ 10 ft Sandstone 50 32 I H �J I 1 I I I I I I 1 11 DIRECT SHEAR DATA OBTAINED ON REMOLDED SAMPLES OF THE PROBABLE FILLS Reference No. Sample Taken From Sample Material Cohesion C (psf) Friction Angle $ (degrees) LOR, 2004a BA -1 @ 3 - 4 ft Alluvium ISM) 500 38 LOR, 2005 BA -1 @ 25 - 26 ft Claystone 280 32 LOR, 2004b BA -2 @ 2 - 3 ft Alluvium (SM) 100 37 LOR, 2004b T-1 @ 2 - 3 ft Alluvium ISM) 0 38 APPENDIX 5.3 SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS (LOR, 2005) SURFICIAL STABILITY ANALYSIS This analysis assumes the following: 1) Surficial saturation from 0 to 4 feet 2) Sufficient permeability to establish water flow. Given: F= c + ( yz -v„,d) cost-tano yz sin -cos - Where: - = slope inclination =26.6° o = friction angle of soil along sliding surface = 31" c = cohesion of soil along sliding surface =400 psf z = depth to sliding surface = 4 ft d = depth of water =4 ft y = unit weight of soil =135 pcf yw= unit weight of water =62.4 pcf F = factor of safety For Cut Slopes into Bedrock Materials Using: o = 32° c = 250 psf F = 250 + (135-62.4) x 4 x cost (26.6) x tan (321 = 1.8 135 x 4 x sin 26.6 x cos 26.6 For Fill Slopes Using: o = 37° c = 150 psf F = 150 + (135-62.4) x 4 x cosi (26.6) x tan (37) = 1.5 135 x 4 x sin 26.6 x cos 26.6 w m m m m i m m m m m m m m m m m m 175 150 125 100 75 50 26 01- 0 Proposed 60' Tall Fill Slope - Static Analysis C:\GABY\,SLOPEMDATA\31759.1WEWFILL.PL2 Run By: JPL, LOR Geotechnical 3/8/2005 12:31PM 9 i A 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 PCSTABL6M/si FSmin=1.92 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 225 250 275 C \aaby\,slope\data\31759 1\newfill OUT Page 1 ** PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer s Method of Slices Run Date: 3/8/2005 Time of Run: 12.31PM Run By. JPL, LOR Geotechnical Input Data Filename: C:newfill in Output Filename: C:newfill OUT Unit ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: C:newfill PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Proposed 60' Tall Fill Slope - Static An alysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left No (ft) 1 .00 2 18.00 3 61.00 4 123.00 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 129 185 225 240 61 72 76 91 107 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -Left (f t) 32 00 31.00 31 00 62.00 62.00 90.00 90.00 92 00 31.00 31.00 32.00 37.00 42.00 -Right (ft) 18 00 61 00 123 00 129 00 185 00 225.00 240 00 275 00 72.00 76.00 91.00 107.00 120.00 14 120 00 47.00 135.00 15 135.00 52.00 147.00 16 147 00 57.00 160.00 17 160.00 62.00 175.00 18 175.00 67.00 19S 00 19 195.00 72.00 225.00 20 225.00 77.00 275.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil i -Right (f t) 31.00 31 00 62.00 62.00 90.00 90.00 92.00 80.33 31.00 32.00 37.00 42.00 47.00 52 00 57.00 62.00 67.00 72.00 77.00 80.33 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 1 2 2 2 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piet. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (Pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (Psf) No. 1 130.0 140.0 250.0 32.0 00 .0 0 2 130.0 135.0 150.0 37.0 .00 0 0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified 900 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated 30 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 30 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 50.00 ft. and X. = 80.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 170.00 ft. and X = 210.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf 1' -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 61.38 31.19 2 76.37 31.76 [1 I I I 1 1 1] 1 L� I r-:\gab}\slope\data`,31759 7\iewfjll GUT Page 2 l 91.26 33 54 4 105.96 36 53 5 120.37 40.71 = 134.39 46.04 7 147 93 52.50 8 160.90 60.04 9 173.21 68.61 10 184.78 78 15 11 195.54 88 60 12 196 77 90 00 Circle Center At X = 62.0 Y = 215.0 and Radius, 183.8 1 917 Individual data on the 23 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (f L) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 13.4 5401 3 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 2 1 2 1020 0 0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 3 .4 328.3 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 4 14.6 18466.2 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 .3 428.0 0 0 0 0 .0 .0 0 6 14.7 28221.8 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 7 1.0 2303 1 0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 13.0 31320.3 .0 .0 .0 -0 .0 .0 .0 9 .4 954.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 10 2.6 6887 9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11 6.0 14936.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 12 5.4 12637 7 0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13 .6 1485 2 0 .0 0 .0 .0 0 .0 14 12.0 29333.4 .0 0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 15 .9 2282.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 16 12.1 28994.0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 0 .0 17 .9 2088.7 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 18 6 2 14025.2 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 0 19 6 1 12712.1 .0 0 0 0 .0 .0 0 20 11.6 20497.0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 21 2 330.8 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 22 10.5 8939.8 .0 0 .0 .0 0 0 0 23 1.2 111.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X. -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 62.41 31.71 2 77.38 30.65 3 92.37 31 11 4 107.24 33 09 5 121.83 36 56 6 136 00 41 49 7 149.59 47 82 8 162.48 55 50 9 174 52 64 45 10 185.59 74.57 11 195.59 85 75 12 198.67 90.00 Circle Center At X = 80.4 ; Y = 178.0 and Radius, 147.4 *+* 1.944 **` Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (f t) _ 64.48 32.74 2 79.45 33.76 3 94.27 36.05 4 108.85 39.60 5 123.06 44.39 6 136 82 50.36 7 150.02 57.50 C.',gat,,\slope\data\31755.1\newfill.0UT Page 3 8 162.56 65.73 9 174 35 75.00 10 185 31 85.24 11 189.59 90.00 Circle Center At X = 60 0 , Y = 208.111 and Radius, 175 5 *** 1.949 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf 'i -Surf No. (fL) (ft) 1 66.55 33 78 2 81.55 33.44 3 96.51 34.52 4 111.31 36.98 5 125.81 40 82 6 139.88 46 00 7 153.42 52 47 8 166.28 60.18 9 178.37 69 06 10 189.58 79.03 11 199.80 90 00 Circle Center At X = 77 6 , Y = 193.6 and Radius, 160 2 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 67 59 34.29 2 82 58 34.74 3 97.46 36.60 4 112.11 39.85 5 126.38 44.47 6 140.15 50.41 7 153.30 57 62 8 165.72 66.04 9 177.28 75.59 10 187.90 86.19 11 191.05 90.00 Circle Center At X = 70 4 , Y = 193.3 and Radius, '*+ 1 951 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No (ft) (ft) 1 64 48 32.74 2 79 42 34.14 3 94.22 36.58 4 108.81 40.06 5 123.12 44.56 6 137.08 50.05 7 150.61 56.51 8 163.66 63.91 9 176.16 72.21 10 188.03 81.37 11 197.73 90.00 Circle Center At X = 52.1 ; Y = 245.3 and Radius, *** 1.953 ''* Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 54.14 31.00 2 69.03 29.17 3 84.03 28 97 4 98.96 30.40 5 113.65 33.44 6 127.92 38.06 7 141.60 44.19 8 154.54 51.78 9 166.58 60.73 10 177.58 70.93 159.0 213.0 J 1 I I I I 1 1 1 C \gaby\slope\data\31759 1\ne»fill OUT Page 4 11 187 40 82.27 L" 192 76 90.00 Circle Center At X = 78 4 , i = 166 3 and Radius, 137 4 Failure surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf r1c (ft) (ft) 1 68.62 34.81 2 83.61 34.21 3 98 58 35.17 4 113 36 37 70 5 127.80 41.76 6 141 74 47 32 7 155 01 54 30 8 167.49 6:: 63 Q 17Q02 72 22 10 189.48 82.97 11 195 02 90 00 Circle Center At `: = 81.9 ; Y = 177 3 and Radius, 143 1 1 058 *. Failure Surface Specified B1 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf Plo (ft) (ft) 1 57.24 31.00 2 72 16 29 41 3 87.16 29.32 4 102.09 30.75 5 116 80 33 67 6 131.15 38.05 7 144.98 43 85 8 158 16 51.02 q 170 55 59 47 10 182.03 69.13 11 192 47 79.89 12 200.48 90 00 Circle Center At X = 80.5 ; Y = 177 8 and Radius, 148.7 *+* 1 959 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No If t) (f t) 1 51 03 31.00 2 65 95 29.43 3 80 95 29 24 4 95.90 30.43 5 110.68 32.99 6 125.16 36 90 7 139 22 42 13 8 152 74 48.63 q 165.60 56 35 10 177 70 65 22 11 188.93 75.17 12 199.19 86.11 13 202 22 90 00 Circle Center At X = 75 5 , Y = 191 9 and Radius, 162 7 *** 1.963 *** 175 150 126 100 76 50 26 0L 0 Proposed 60' Tall Fill Slope - Pseudostatic Analysis C:\GABY\SLOPE\DATA\31759.1WEWFILL.PL2 Run By: JPL, LOR Geotechnical 3/8/2005 12:33PM 9 o - 1 " 1 1" 1/ 25 50 75 100 126 150 176 200 PCSTABL5MIsi FSmin=1.13 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 225 250 275 I H I 1 1 r \gaby\slope\data\31759.1\newfill OUT Page 1 ** PCSTABLSM '* by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis -- simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices Run Date: 3/8/2005 Time of Run: 12 33P Run By: JPL, LOR Geotechnical Input Data Filename C.newfill.in Output Filename: C:newfill OUT Unit ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename. C-newf111.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Proposed 60' Tall Fill Slope - Pseudosta tic Anal}'sis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 00 32.00 18.00 31.00 1 2 18.00 31.00 61.00 31.00 1 3 61.00 31.00 123.00 62.00 2 4 123 00 62.00 129.00 62.00 2 5 129.00 62 00 185 00 90.00 2 6 185 00 90.00 225.00 90 00 7 225.00 90.00 24n.00 92 00 8 240.00 92.00 275.00 80.33 2 9 61.00 31.00 72.00 31.00 1 10 72.00 31.00 76.00 32.00 1 11 76.00 32.00 91 00 37.00 1 12 91.00 37 00 107.00 42.00 1 13 107.00 42 00 120.00 47 00 1 14 120.00 47.00 135.00 52.00 1 15 135.00 52.00 147.00 57.00 1 16 147.00 57.00 160.00 62.00 1 17 160.00 62.00 175.00 67.00 1 18 175.00 67.00 195.00 72.00 1 19 195.00 72.00 225.00 77.00 1 20 225.00 77.00 275.00 80.33 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt Unit Wt Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 140.0 250 0 32 0 .00 .0 0 2 130.0 135.0 150.0 37 0 .00 .0 0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .250 Has Been Assigned A vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 (psf) A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 900 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 30 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 30 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 50.00 ft. and X = 80.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 170.00 ft. and X = 210.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method \gaby\slope\data\31759.1\newt ill OUT Page 2 Failure Surface Specified B,' 12 Coordinate Points Point A - Surf Y -Surf NO (ft) (ft) 1 61.38 31.19 2 76.37 31.76 3 91.26 33.54 4 105.96 36.53 5 120.37 40.71 6 134.39 46.04 7 147.93 52.50 8 160.90 60.04 9 173.21 68.61 10 184 78 76.15 11 195 54 88.60 12 196.77 90 00 Circle Center At X = 62.0 , . = 215.0 and Radius, 183 8 ++• 1.135 "• Individual data on the 23 slices Water water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice width weight Top Bot Norm Tan Her Ver Load No (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 13.4 5401 3 0 0 .0 .0 1350.3 .0 0 1 2 1020.0 0 .0 .0 .0 255.0 .0 .0 3 4 328.3 .0 .0 0 .0 82 1 .0 .0 4 14.6 18466.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 4616.5 0 .0 5 .3 428.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 107.0 0 .0 6 14.7 28221.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 7055.5 .0 .0 7 1.0 2303.1 .n .0 .0 0 575.8 .0 .0 8 13.0 31320.3 .0 .0 .0 0 7830.1 .0 .0 9 954.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 238.7 .0 .0 10 .4 2.6 6887.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 1722.0 .0 0 11 6.0 14936.1 0 .0 .0 .0 3734.0 .0 0 12 5.4 12837.7 .0 .0 .0 0 3209.4 .0 .0 13 .6 1485.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 371.3 0 0 14 12.0 29333.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 7333.3 .0 .0 15 .9 2282.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 570.7 .0 .0 16 12.1 28994.0 .0 .0 0 .0 7248.5 .0 .0 17 2088 7 .0 .0 .0 .0 522.2 0 0 18 .9 6.2 14025.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 3506.3 .0 .0 19 6.1 12712.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3178.0 .0 0 20 11.6 20497.0 .0 .0 0 .0 5124.3 0 .0 21 .2 330.8 0 .0 0 .0 82.7 .0 .0 22 10.5 8939.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 2234.9 .0 .0 23 1.2 111.9 .0 0 .0 .0 28.0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 63.45 32.22 2 78.45 32.49 3 93.38 33.85 4 108.18 36.31 5 122.76 39.84 6 137.04 44.43 7 150.95 50.05 8 164 41 56.67 9 177.34 64.26 10 189.69 72.78 11 201.38 82.18 12 209.77 90.00 Circle Center At X = 67 4 ; Y = 236.4 and Radius, 204.2 +++ 1.147 +++ Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf 140 (ft) (ft) 1 64.48 32.74 2 79.47 33.44 I 11 1 1 L 1 C_\9aby\slope\data\31759 1\newfill OUT Page 3 94 37 35 18 4 109.11 37.95 5 1^3.62 41.74 6 137 84 46.53 7 151 69 52.29 8 165 10 59.00 9 178 02 66.63 10 190.37 75.13 11 202.11 84 48 12 208 13 90 00 Circle Center At X = 62 1 Y = 247 6 and Radius, 1 148 " Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X. -Surf Y -Surf No if t) (f t) 1 64 48 32.74 79 42 34.14 3 94 22 36.58 4 108 81 40.06 5 123.12 44.56 6 137.08 50 05 7 150 61 56.51 8 163 66 63.91 9 176 16 72.21 10 188.03 81.37 11 197.73 90.00 Circle Center At X = 52.1 ; Y = 245.3 and Radius, 1 151 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 65 52 33.26 2 80.52 33.47 3 95.46 34.81 4 110 25 37.28 5 124 82 40.84 6 139.08 45 50 7 152.95 51.21 8 166 35 57.95 9 179 21 65.68 10 191.45 74.35 11 203.00 63 92 12 209.31 90.00 Circle Center At X = 70 3 ; Y = 231.7 and Radius +** 1.153 *•* Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf Pio (ft) (ft) 1 66.55 33.78 2 81 55 33.44 3 96.51 34.52 4 111.31 36.98 5 125.81 40.82 6 139.88 46.00 7 1S3.42 52.47 8 166.28 60 18 9 178.37 69.06 10 189 58 79 03 11 199.80 90.00 Circle Center At X = 77.6 ; Y = 193.6 and Radius *+* 1.153 1Y4 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 67.59 34.29 2 82.57 34 99 3 97.46 36 80 214.9 213.0 198 5 160 2 C'\gaty\slope\data\31759 1\newf ill OUT Page 4 , 4 112.17 39.73 5 126.62 43.75 6 140.73 48 84 7 154 42 54 98 8 167 61 62 12 9 180.22 70.24 10 192 19 79.28 11 203.45 89.19 12 204.25 90.00 Circle Center At X = 65.9 , Y = 233 9 and Radius, 199.6 ** 1 153 '** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point ?:- Surf -Surf No (fL) (f t) 1 62.41 31.71 77 38 30.65 3 92 37 31.11 4 107.24 33.09 S 121.83 36 56 6 136.00 41 49 7 149.59 47 82 8 162.48 55.50 9 174.5^_ 64 45 10 185.59 74.57 11 195 59 85.75 12 198 67 90.00 Circle Center At X = 80 4 ; 'i = 178 0 and Radius, 147.4 Failure Surface Specified B} 12 Coordinate Points Point X. -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (f t) 1 67.59 34 29 2 82.58 34.80 3 97.49 36.39 4 112.25 39.07 5 126.78 42.81 6 140.99 47 60 7 154.82 53.42 8 168.18 60.23 9 181 02 67.99 10 193 25 76 67 11 204.82 86 22 12 208.78 90.00 Circle Center At X = 68.3 ; Y = 239.2 and Radius ««� 1.157 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (ft) 1 67.59 34.29 2 82.54 35.52 3 97.35 37.86 4 111.96 41.28 5 126.27 45 78 6 140.21 51 32 7 153.70 57 87 8 166.67 65.41 9 179.05 73.88 10 190.76 83.25 11 198.03 90.00 204.9 Circle Center At X = 58.4 ; Y = 236.7 and Radius, 202.7 **« 1.159 *** 1 m m m r m m - __ - m m - _ - - _ 175 150 125 100 75 s0 25 0 L 0 Proposed 64' Tali Cut Slope - Static Analysis C:\GARY\SLOPE\DATA\31759.1\NEWCUT.PL2 Run By: JPL, LOR Geotechnical 3/812005 12:25PM ° °o oc °p9° 25 50 75 100 126 160 175 200 225 250 PCSTABLSMIsi FSmin=1.87 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method C \gaby\s3ope\data\31759 1\newcut OUT Page 1 , •� PCSTAHL5M *� by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 3/8/2005 Time of Run: 12:25PM Run By: JPL, LOB Geotechnical Input Data Filename C newcut.in Output Filename: C.newcut OUT Unit ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: C newcut.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Proposed 64' Tall Cut Slope - Static Ana lysis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 10 Top Boundaries 10 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type Mo. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 32.00 38.54 34 00 1 2 38.54 34 00 111 00 70.23 7 3 111 00 70.23 117.00 70.23 1 4 117.00 70.23 172.54 98 00 1 5 172.54 98.00 197.00 98 00 1 6 197.00 98 00 207 00 94.00 1 7 207.00 94.00 217.00 90.00 1 8 217 00 90 00 223.00 86.00 1 9 223.00 86.00 232.00 82.00 1 10 232.00 82.00 246.00 78.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit wt. unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (Pct) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) He. 1 130 0 140.0 250.0 32.0 .00 0 0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 900 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 30 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 30 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 20.00 ft. and X = 75.00 ft Each Surface Terminates Between X = 125.00 ft. and X = 200.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 16.00 it. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * � Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method a Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 38.97 34.21 2 54.96 34.69 3 70.85 36.53 4 86.54 39.70 5 101.89 44.19 6 116.81 49.57 7 131.19 56.99 8 144.93 65.20 9 157.91 74.54 10 170.07 84.95 11 181.29 96.35 12 182.66 98.00 Circle Center At X = 41.4 ; Y = 222.5 and Radius, 188.4 1 1 I I 1 Slice No. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I 1 11 1 1 C-\gaby\slope\data\31759.1\newcut.OUT Page 2 "* 1 671 Individual data on the la Slues Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Width Weight Top Bot (dorm Tan Hor Ver Load (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 16 0 7811.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15.9 21B42-5 0 0 0 .0 .O .0 0 15.7 32539 1 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 0 15.4 39706.0 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 9.1 26044 9 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 5 8 16164.5 .0 .0 0 .0 0 0 .0 2 489.1 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 .0 0 14.2 37374 3 .0 0 .0 0 -0 .0 0 13.7 35116.1 0 0 .0 .0 .0 0 .0 13 0 29673.0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 0 0 12.2 22085.8 0 .0 0 .0 -0 0 0 2.5 3595.4 .0 0 .0 0 .0 .0 0 8.8 6933 9 .0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 1.4 147 1 0 0 0 . U 0 0 .0 Failure Surface Specified B; 1-1 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf "i -Surf No. (ft) (f t) 1 33.28 33.73 2 49.25 32 80 3 65.24 33.45 4 81.08 35.66 5 96 64 39.41 6 111.75 44 67 7 126.27 51.38 8 140.07 59 48 9 153 00 68.90 10 164.95 79.54 11 175.80 91 30 12 180.86 98.00 Circle Center At X = 50 8 ; Y = 195.1 and Radius, 162 3 *+* 1.868 '** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (f t) 1 35.17 33.83 2 51.15 32.92 3 67.14 33.52 4 83.00 35.63 5 98 59 39.23 6 113.77 44 29 7 128.40 50.75 8 142 36 58.57 4 155 52 67.67 10 167.77 77 97 11 178 98 89.38 12 185.98 98.00 Circle Center At X = 52.8 , Y = 201.6 and Radius, 168.7 .++ 1 891 *'* Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (f t) 1 33.28 33.73 2 49.24 32.67 3 65 23 33.15 4 61.11 35 14 5 96.72 38 63 6 111.93 43.60 7 126.60 49.99 8 140.60 57.74 9 153.79 66.80 10 166.06 77.07 C:\gaby\slope\data\31759.1\newcut.OUT Page 3 11 177 29 88.46 12 185.06 98 00 Circle Center At X = 52.4 , Y = 200 0 and Radius, 167 4 +* 1.892 '*+ Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No (f t) (ft) 1 31.38 33 63 2 47 32 32 24 3 63 32 32 42 4 79.23 34.15 5 94.89 37.41 6 110 16 42.19 7 124 89 48 43 8 138.94 56.08 9 152.19 65.06 10 164.50 75.26 11 175.75 86.66 12 184.97 98 00 Circle Center At X = 53.6 , 'i = 196.1 and Radius, 164.0 *** 1.898 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Cocrdinate Points Point X -Surf S -Surf No. (f t) (f t) 1 21.90 33 14 2 37 87 32 29 3 53.87 32 76 4 69.77 34.53 5 85.47 37.61 6 100.86 41.97 7 115.85 47.58 8 130.32 54.41 9 144.18 62.39 10 157.34 71 49 11 169.71 81.65 12 181.20 92.76 13 185.77 98.00 Circle Center At X = 40.2 ; Y = 226 8 and Radius, 194 6 +�* 1.902 +*+ Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (£t) (ft) 1 31.38 33.63 2 47.32 32.21 3 63.32 32.31 4 79.24 33 92 5 94.93 37.03 6 110.26 41.62 7 125.08 47 64 8 139.27 55.03 9 152.70 63.73 10 165.24 73.67 11 176.78 84.75 12 187.22 96.87 13 188.02 98.00 Circle Center At X = 54.3 ; Y = 200.8 and Radius, 168.8 *** 1.905 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 35.17 33.83 2 51.11 32.38 3 67.11 32.55 4 83.01 34.31 5 98.66 37.66 6 113 89 42 55 7 128 55 48.95 I 1 1 11 C:\gaby\slope\data\31759.1\newcut OUT Page 4 8 cle 142 50 56.79 9 155.60 65.98 10 167.71 76 44 11 178 71 88 06 ]2 186.39 98 00 C Center At X - 57 5 ; Y = 191.3 and Radius, 159.1 *** 1.906 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf 'i -Surf No. (f t) (f t) 1 40.86 35.16 2 56.84 36.01 3 72 67 38.31 4 88 23 42.05 5 103.38 47.19 6 118.00 53 69 7 131.97 61.50 8 145.17 70.54 9 157.48 80 76 10 168.81 92.05 11 173.78 98.00 Circle Center At X 39.6 , Y 210 4 and Radius, *** 1.909 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf Plo (ft) (ft) 1 40.66 35.16 2 56 81 33 85 3 72 80 34.28 4 88.66 36.44 5 104.18 40.31 6 119.19 45.84 7 133.52 52.97 8 146.98 61 61 9 159.43 71 66 10 170.72 83 01 11 180 70 95.51 12 182.28 98.00 Circle Center At X 60.9 , Y 180 5 and Radius, *** 1.910 *** 175.3 146 8 175 160 125 100 76 50 25 0L- 0 Proposed 64' Tall Cut Slope - Pseudostatic Analysis C:\GABYISLOPE\DATA\31759.1\NEWCUT.PL2 Run By: JPL, LOR Geotechnical 3/8/2005 12:27PM nCO �0� GC 0 10� �5 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 PCSTABL6M/si FSmin=1.12 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 225 250 I f C. C Q �5 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 PCSTABL6M/si FSmin=1.12 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 225 250 I [] 1 C \gaby\slope\data\31759.1\newcut OUT Page 1 +* PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices Run Date 3/8/2005 Time of Run 12 27PM Run By: JPL, LOR Geotechnical Input Data Filename C:newcut.in Output Filename: C: newcut.OUT Unit: ENGLISH Plotted Output Filename: C:newcut PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Proposed 64' Tall Cut Slope - Pseudostat is Anal}sis BOUNDARY COORDINATES 10 Top Boundaries 10 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 00 32 00 38 54 38 53 34 00 111 00 3 111.00 70 23 117.00 4 117.00 70 23 172.54 5 172 54 98.00 197.00 6 197.00 98 00 207 00 7 207.00 94.06 217 00 8 217.00 90 00 223.00 9 223 00 86.00 232.00 10 232.00 62.00 246.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Fight (f t) 34 00 70 '3 70.23 98 00 98.00 94.00 90.00 86.00 82.00 78.00 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure No. (pcf) (pcf) (Pat) (deg) Param. 1 130.0 140.0 250.0 32.0 ' A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .250 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0 (psf) A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, 900 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 1 1 •o Soil Type Below Bnd Pressure Piez. Constant Surface (psf) No .0 0 Using A Random Has Been Specified. 30 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 30 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 20.00 ft. and X = 75 00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 125.00 ft. and X = 200.00 ft Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 00 ft 16.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * I Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 38.97 34.21 2 54.96 34.69 3 70.85 36.53 4 86 54 39.70 5 101.89 44.19 6 116.81 49 97 7 131.19 56.99 8 144.93 65.20 C \gat,,\slope\data\31755.1\newcut.OUT Page q 157.91 74 54 10 170.07 84 9S 11 1B1 29 96.35 12 182.66 98.00 Circle Center At X. = 41 4 , . = 222 5 and Radius, 188 4 *** 1.117 #+' Individual data on the 14 slices Water hater Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (It's) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbsl (lbs) 1 16 0 7811.5 .0 0 .0 0 1952 9 .0 0 2 15.9 21842.5 .0 .0 .0 0 5460 6 .0 0 3 15 7 32539.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 8134.8 .0 0 4 15 4 39706 0 0 0 0 .0 9926.5 .0 .0 5 9.1 26044.9 0 .0 .0 .0 6511 2 0 0 6 5.8 16164.5 .0 .0 0 .0 4041 1 0 .0 7 489.1 0 0 0 0 122 3 .0 0 8 14.2 37374.3 0 .0 .0 0 9343.6 .0 0 9 13 7 35116.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 8779 0 n 0 10 13.0 29673.0 0 .0 .0 .0 7418.3 0 0 11 12.2 22085.8 .0 0 .0 .0 5521.4 0 0 12 2 5 3595 4 .0 .0 .0 .0 898.9 0 0 13 8.6 6933.9 0 0 .0 .0 1733.5 .0 .0 14 1 4 147.1 0 0 .0 0 36.8 0 0 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (f t) 1 38.97 34.21 2 54 93 35.25 3 70.60 37.30 4 86.51 40 36 5 101.99 44.40 6 117.18 49.43 7 132 02 55.40 8 146.45 62 31 9 160.41 70.12 10 173.85 78.81 11 186 71 88.33 12 197.80 97.68 Circle Center At X = 30.7 Y = 285 4 and Radius, 251.3 •+* 1 120 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 38.97 34.21 2 54 94 35.06 3 70.83 36.97 4 86.56 39 87 5 102 08 43.78 6 117.31 48.68 7 132 20 54.55 8 146 68 61.36 9 160 69 69.08 10 174.17 77.69 11 187.08 87.15 12 199.06 97.18 Circle Center At X = 33.5 ; Y = 283.1 and Radius, 248.9 #** 1.122 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 35.17 33.83 2 51.15 32.92 3 67.14 33.52 4 83.00 35.63 5 98.59 39.23 [1 1 1 1 1 I C:\9aby\slope\data\31759.1\newcut.OUT Page 3 6 113.77 44_9 7 128 40 50.75 8 142 36 58.57 9 155 52 67.67 10 167.77 77.97 11 178 98 89.38 12 185 98 98.00 Circle Center At X = 52.8 , Y = 201.6 and Radius, 168.7 aa+ 1 118 *aa Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (ft) 1 44 66 37 06 2 60 60 38.42 3 76 41 40.83 4 92 04 44 29 5 107 40 48 77 6 122 42 54.26 7 137.06 60.74 6 151.23 68.16 9 164.86 76 51 10 177.94 85 75 11 190.36 95.83 12 192.70 98.00 Circle Center At X = 32 3 , Y = 277.5 and Radius, 240 7 +'+ 1.130 '** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X. -Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (ft) 1 33.28 33.73 2 49.24 32.67 3 65.23 33.15 4 81.11 35.14 5 96.72 38.63 6 111.93 43.60 7 126 60 49 99 8 140.60 57 74 9 153 79 66.80 10 166 06 77.07 11 177 29 88.46 12 185.06 96.00 Circle Center At X = 52.4 , Y = 200.0 and Radius 1.130 * " Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 33.28 33.73 2 49.25 32 80 3 65.24 33 45 4 81.08 35 66 5 96 64 39.41 6 111.75 44 67 7 126.27 51.38 8 140 07 59 48 9 153.00 68.90 10 164 95 79.54 11 175.80 91.30 12 180 86 98.00 Circle Center At X = 50.8 ; Y = 195.1 and Radius ++* 1.132 "* Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21 90 33.1.1 2 37.87 32.29 3 53.87 32.76 4 69 77 34.53 167.4 162.3 I C_\gaby\slope\data\31759 1\newcut OUT Page 4 , 5 85.47 37 61 6 100.86 41 97 7 115.85 47 58 8 130.32 54 41 9 144.18 62 39 10 157 34 71.49 11 169.71 81 65 12 181.20 92.78 13 185.77 98.00 Circle Center At X = 40.2 , 'i = 226.8 and Radius, 194.6 *** 1.134 **' Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point `:-Surf Y -Surf No. (f t) (f t) 1 42.76 36 11 2 58.63 38 17 74.35 41 14 4 89.68 45.00 5 105.16 49 74 6 120.15 55 3.1 7 134.79 61.79 8 149.04 69 06 9 162.85 77.14 10 176.18 85 99 11 188.98 95.58 12 191.85 98.00 Circle Center At X = 14.8 , Y = 314.1 and Radius, 279.4 *** 1.134 **' Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point Y, -Surf Y -Surf No (ft) (f t) 1 31 38 33 63 2 47.32 32.24 3 63 32 32 42 4 79.23 34.15 5 94.89 37.41 6 110.16 42.19 7 124 89 48 43 8 136.94 56 08 9 152.19 65.06 10 164 50 75.28 11 175 75 86.66 12 184.97 98.00 Circle Center At X = 53 6 ; Y = 196.1 and Radius, 164.0 *** 1 135 *** I I 1 1 1 I I