The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReview of Geo Investigation Study 4/25/2000f:. pETRA COSTA MESA • SAN DIEGO • TEMECULA •LOS ANGELES April 25, 2000 J.N. 208-00 EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION 17140 Bernardo Center Drive Suite 300 San Diego, Calif. 92128 Attention: Mr• Geoffrey Sherman Geotechnical/Geological osed Redhawk T owne Center, Route 79 South Subject: Review of Geotechnical Investigation an Temecula, County of Engineering Study, Prop is Road, Between Redhawk Parkway and AP Riverside, California. References: Appendix A Gentlemen: Of the Geotecluu ation and endix A) prepared by We are pleased to submit herewith our Study evlew reports (see Appen investigation Geotecbnical/Geological Engineering Center development. This review �'a d Redhawk Towne osalNo. 1154-00 others for the ProposeCe with the scope of Fork outlined in our Prop istin performed in accordan 2000. This report presents the results of our review of the Band Our April lg, understanding of the project, dated Ap to the geotechnical reports, a field reconnaissance, endations pertaining engineering judgement, opinions, conclusions and recomm ed development. geotechnical design aspects of the propos _.sr wMCAL INC. RED14AW-K -1U vy this protect. Should you have any you on require additional Leasure to be of seryice toy you req It has been a p of this reP°rt' or should questions regarding the contents information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, INC. PETRA GEOTECHN JCAL Ronald S. Halbert Senior Associate Engineer R C E. #42204 cdmy{Ie1\200pp200\208-00.8eoupb'0 April 25, 2000 ORATION. J.N. 208-00 EXCEL LEGACY CORP i page Redhawk Towne Center TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ,NTRODUCTION ................................................ I ... PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . • • . . . • ... ..................... AND SITE DESCRIPTIO 2 LOCATION OAPER ONS � � � . ' . . . . . • IMG ANTICIPATED GRAD ....................... . 3 INVESTIGATIONS • • ... FIELD IN�1 ............ ......... .. • .. 3 .3 FINDINGS ..........: • Regional Geologic Setting .........:. Geology and Subsurface conditions .......... 5 ...... . 5 Local ............... ................ Groundwater ........ ........... ........ .6 Faulting ....... 6 TIONS............................. SEISMIC CONSIDER'7 ........ 7 Ground Motions ........8 Seismic Hazards ... ............. . Secondary ............ Liquefaction ........ ...................... 8 Flooding ....... ................ AND RECO NDATIONS . 8 CONCLUSIONS ............................ • .... General ........... 9 EARTHWORK ......... .................. Earthwork Specifications . 10 10 Site Preparation .......... ................ Conventional .. ....... 10 It Fill Placement Fill Slope Construction .. .......... . It Observations ...... 12 Geotechnical 12 CONSIDERATIONS . • • .. ....... • • . .... . 12 GRADING POST - Site Drainage Backfill . . . Utility Trench B I EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. Redhawk Towne Center FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................ . General........ Capacities Allowable Soil Bearing p .... ........ Lateral Resistance ....... . t Apri125, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page ii 14 14 15 15 .16 16 Settlemen ...... Footing Observations . ' 16 MENDATIONS . • . 16 W ALL DESIGN RECOM . ................... 17 RETAINING Embedment . • Footing . 17 Minimum pressures .. t rest Earth _ ...... A • ....... .. • 18 ................. • .... ........... Active and 18 Drainage........ ... ............. ................. Waterproofing ..... Fall Backfill .......... . Retaining AND LONG-TEW ............. 18 NSTRUCTION SOILS .•....`* POST -CO EFFECTS OF EXPANSIV POST -CONSTRUCTION AND LONG-TERM P AND SOFTEN1l`]G ......... FILL SLOPE CREE.. ' ...... . SLOPE LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE... . 19 20 ,•21 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS .......... ..... . 21 21 REPORT LIMITATIONS � • ' TESTING .... .. ... .21 ING OBSERVATIONS AND • .. .................. � • 22 POST GSD gall Construction ... .. 22 Retaining ........... Concrete Flatwork Construe. Regrading.............tion . AppENDICES Appendix A - References Appendix B - GEOCON and EuGen Boring Logs Appendix C - Seismic Evaluation Data faction Anal specifications Appendix D - L,4ue Appendix E - Standard Grading P OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ENGINEERING STUDY, REVIEW CENTER, WKTOWNE AND GEOTECHNICALIGEOLOGIC WEEN PROPOSED REDHA ROUTE 79 SOUTH gET APIs ROAD, REDHAWKPA�WAY AND TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RNL' RSIDE, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION ineering and d to present the results of our eng Geotechnical Investigation Petra Geoteand clinical Inc. is please of the referenced aced by other geotechnical geology review reports Prep Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Strtdy P oses of this review were to evaluate the subject Property The Pure and provide soil conditions, their in-place characteristics, consultants for the subj P and construction of nature of subsurface respect grading and design geotechni cal recommendations with resp resentatives of of the structures and potential risk factors building foundations. This review also included a discussion with re efaction Excel Legacy Corporation as to the design settlement and hqu for various grading operations in regards to long term potential. PR�a�, Owners h a discussion of the project with the din through plan prepared by Trans Pacific It is our understan g of the conceptual grading p representatives and a review primary or anchor retail structures will be 7, 2000, that four p line Consultants dated March 1 bounds the southern Property Temecula Creek Channel which ortion of the site placed along the or restaurants in the northern p and/ and seven small retail storesor South. It iso understanding that one of the anchor yP structures parallel to State gighwaalMart retail store. It is anticipated that the anchor stru while construction with metal truss roof systems structures will house a W will be of masonry or concrete tilt -up v�ll be of wood -frame construction. These the smaller retail or restaurant structures 1 be constructed on conventional shallow foundations and concrete slab- the will EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. ter Apri125, 2000 J.N. 208-00 i Page 2 i Redhawk Towne Cen stems. Additional ation of improvements will consist of theinsllconcrete on -grade floor sy cement concrete andasphaltic site masonry walls, utilities, and Portland pavement driveways, loading ramPs and parking areas. TND AND SITE DESCRIPTION LOCA Parcel of land located south of the Stale rectangularly p of Temecula The subject site is a nearly d p pis Road in the City Highway 79 Southbettiv eenRedhawkParkway an the north by State California• The site is bounde on Parkway, on the east by Apis Road, and in the County of Riverside, Highway 79 South, on the west by Redhawk quadrant of on the south by the Temecula Creek Chann el. An area in the southwest 0. Proposed the site is identified as a Historical Site and is Trot included in the development. the site is relatively level with a southerly o erations, rotection barrier AS a result of past grading P eofabric and rock erosion contro P a light to fill slope which has a g el. Vegetation consists of g facing, Temecula Creek Chann along the edge of the Tem weeds- moderate eeds moderate growth of native grasses and exist within the historical s79 S nth d a e structures, historical buildings,adrant of the State Highway Six wood-fram the southeast 0. torm drain and other Texaco service station exists 0rthast corner of site. An existing s site and Redhawk Parkway, no utilities are know to exist on site. Some of these utilities iill be relocated during development in addition to the installation o Others' GRADING OPERATIONS AN1•ICIPATED Proposed building operations for the generation of the prop grading 1 grading in It is anticipated that ds will consist of minor cuts and fills of less than three feet. Additional - pa EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. e Center Apri125, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 3 Redhawk Town omp alluvial deposits the form of a partial removal and rec action of existing fills and l compacted mat for the proposed anchor form will be required to generate a uniY strictures. FIELD I1VYE TIG -[I N reconnaissance of the site to observe exposed by Our field work has consisted a geologic s to verify subsurface conditions were extended feet loratory boring roximately soil conditions. Exp of the borings varying from app April 1999 with depthsEnGEN in February and Geocon in Ap round surface, and by 61.5 mately 50 feet from the g approximately to approxim Y from approximately 16.5 feet to March 2000 with depths ranging fr Geocon and EnGEN have been feet. Boring logs from the ensuing reports prepared by placed in Appendix B along with the associated legends. FINDIN S Re ional eolo is Settin es Geomorphic Province of California. The northwest trending mountain ranges The site is within the Peninsular Rang es consist peninsular Range Province is characterized by The mountain rang separated by a series of sub -parallel fault zones. Of the Southern California Batholith and Igneous rocks the mountain generally of Cretaceous er sediments flank Jurassic metasediments and metavolcanic'. Young ranges to the southwest the coastal plain. along the coastal plain consist of Cretaceous The sediments flanking and lag the mountains along Donal deposits. These sediments Tertiary and Quaternary marine, non -marine a generally dip g cntly to the west and northwest, with several local areas defom1ed by tectonics. 2-1 EXCEL LEGACY CORPop'TION. Redhawk Towne Center i Apri125, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 4 ubsurface Conditions eolo and a on the southern sector of ] ocal G peninsular Rang LSGS Northern v,n on the exploratory borings and sho Locally, the site is located in the ed by the the Perris Block. As encountered in d surrounding area was develop geologic maps, the area of the site an natural deposits. Recent fills overlie these paragraphs and are shown on deposition of Pleistocene river terrace P deposits. The soil units are described in the following P the boring logs Presented in Appendix B in from approximately seven feet depth rang g Of the site and are composed of silty Fill materials overlie the natural soils to a dep to approximately nine feet over the majority laced as engineered fill under the observation sands and sands_ The fill material was P and improvements to Temecula Creek in the grading ort entitled "Report and testing of Geocon during ed by performed Geocon in their rep for Vail Ranch 1994• A sumrrrarY of the services p Grading Of Testing and observation Services During Remedial Commercial Site", dated September 1994 encountered at varying depths across the ewash deposits were ands' clays, clay ey sands, and sandy Natural dense to very denSe sanoverburden slop site which consist of hard or ravel. clays with varying amounts of g the fill materials and at the surface encountered beneath a earlier Alluvial deposits were deposited by river flow at some silt sands, silty clay, clayey silt, adjacent to the Historical Site which have been s o d y eocon report, the upper approximately four feet of period. These soils consist of varying lay and sandy silt. As stated in the G alluvial deposits were densified prior to the placement of fill materia the al April 25, 2000 ORATION. J.N. 208-00 EXCEL LEGACY CORP page 5 Redhawk Towne Center in depths and was encountered in some of dense silty sands with some Fnars Formatiorp underlies the site at varying aryg //borings The formation consists of very es along th These e sides of the .the explor � exposed in the cut slop indurated traces of clay. materials are also These sediments are moderately developments. ing from a few inches sandstones with varying in diameter to canyon in areas of other amounts of cobbles rang up to approximately twelve inches. Groundwater and EnGEN investigations at a n the GEOCON ground water Groundwater was encountered dung surface. Fluctuations of gr depth of 25 to 30 feet below the existing es within the Temecula Creek of removals an grading, it is elevations would be thelesuses on the anticOf water ipated depth'levation changes owever, ba grading procedures. Channel H not anticipated that the ground water will influence the Faultin eotechn. I maps and literature Based on our review of published and unpublished g Tonal geology, no faults ate known to travlo,atory borings pertaining to the site and reg was observed in the exp no indications of faulting eologic literature indicates site. Additionally, En it should be no that g placed by Geocon and E mile of the site. The Elsinore Fault ed within one ,recent fault system, which=lias-drs_ \ that the Elsinore Fault Zone is mapped ect site, it should'be no a or right lateral strike -slip Zone is a m J own to traverse the subj area Although no faults are known . the San Diego County is t activity. including consist of Of Southern California, which typically that much faultzo� to north a series of Quaternar-age g ulortherly` characterized by encrally strike in several individual, en echelon faults that g of these fault zones (and the individual Faults within the we direction. Some potentially active, zones) are classified as active while others are classified as only April 25, 2000 r' ORATION. J.N. 208-00 EXCEL LEGACY CORY page 6 Redhawk Towne Center Active fault Of the of faulting during the according to the criteria California Division of Mines evidence and Geology conclusive e those which have shown Potentially active fault zones zones are ears) while p ears Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 y och (11,000 to 2 million y have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Ep before the present) but no movement during Holocene time SEI MIC ONSIDE TI round Motions ed and constructed to resist the effects of Provided bed in Sections 1626 through 1633 of the 1997 Structures within the site should be design dependent on the seismic seismic ground motions as The method of design will be and on the Building Code, e of structural system, Uniform category, type zoning, UBC (categ seismic design criteria should be used for site characteristics, occupancy building height. The following subsurface the design of the Proposed faults. Fault locations ro osed structures. These criteria are based on existing proximity of the site to nearby T , is conditions and on the P utilizing a computer program entitled "EQFA'J geologic printouts inedby also by Blake (1998) and influences were determ entitled " UBCSEIS" by Blake (1996) and a program ams are included in Appendix C. from these progr FACTOR 1997 TABLE UBC p.40 16-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z So 16-J Soil Prof Type 0.54 N, Coefficient C, 16-Q Seismic 0.96 N„ Coefficient C 16-R Seismic 1.2 16-S Near -Source Factor Na 15 16-T Near Source FactorNV B 16-U Seismic Source Type April 25, 2000 ORATION. J.N. 208-00 EXCEL LEGACY CORP page 7 j Redhawk Towne Center Secunda Seismic Hazards all � considered as possible hazards to a site well as induced flooding' Various general Secondary effects of seismic activity norm � es of ground failure as round shaking include several types consequence of severe g' ht occur as a conseq and shallow types of ground failures which might ground lurching, round subsidence, gr o f occurrence e each type of ground failure depends Of the site include landsliding, g subsoils and ground rupture. The probability topography' on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, P ion Of the conditions, in addition to other factors. Based rig the above secondary econdary groundwater d the anticipate('g previous subsurface exploration dataat the site. effects of seismic activity are considered unlikely the life round shaking from earthquakes during rty will probably experience g recognized that the Southern The propent. Furthermore, it should be idered feasible of the proposed development. h seismic risk, and that it is not cons California region is an area of hi to make tures totally resistant to strucseismic related hazards. Li uef ti u rhes indicate that ground water boring logs in the referenced reports, tren silt sands, gxploratory consists of loose to dense sand, Y exists within the alluvial deposits which silty clay, clayey silt, and sandy silt. — b—" Bl��gg(� there is a zone of `LIQ�FY2 y �e existing ground Based upon analysis using ` liquefiable material at a�pl"oxrmately 25 feet below potentially q maybe susceptible to differential engineer foundation design should take this potential into surface. This material in the event of an carthqua e, settlement. The structural consideration. EXCEL LEGACY CORPOR-`"TION. Redhawk Towne Center April 25, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 8 Floodin otential hazard to a site Seismically -induced flooding Which might be considered a P a tsunami (seismic sea wave), a seiche, or failure of normally all includes floodingdue to The site is about 25 miles a major reservoir retention structure upstream of the site. therefore the probability of from the Pacific Ocean and at over 1000 feet in elevation, flooding from from a major reservoir fla tsunami is considered nonexistent.Sinceis ream site does not lie in close proximity to an enclosed body of water o retention structure, the probability of flooding due to seiche or dam break inundation is also considered nonexistent. Temecula Creek Channel, the Due to the sites location and elevation in relation to the tential for flooding as a result of climatic conditions is considered low due 0 the P° operations to an elevation above the 100 year raising of the site during past grading P L. ' flood plain. OpICLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Ge_ueraiview, the subject property From a soils engineering and engineering geologic Point of ercial development provided the proposed c° criteria lis considered suitable for the pro P orated into the design following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated and project specifications. ing the site is the presence of the alluvial The major consideration when develop representatives of Excel Legacy de osits which underlie the site. As discussed with r oration, there is a potential risk for settlement and/or differential settlement Corporation, o P ts from a scis' associated with potential liquefaction of the of fill material a erialireduces the Potentnic ial risk a acted In of fi comp � Construction of a uniformly 1 EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. Redhawk Towne Center April 25,2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 9 between an ro osed structure and an for distress, however, the ctha rtion must still be con due to the light loads ofethe proposed agreement all parties, it was agreed com acted mat of fill increase in reinforcementothat accept ble le lel. Allpstructures should materials would minimize potential rik to anfive foot thick compacted mat of soils measured from the be underlain by a minimum the depths of the foundations, changes bottom of the proposed footings. Depending on in grades, and the presence of alluvial deposits at the surface adjacent, to the Historical a artial rem val�nd recompaction operation will be req Sit , P uirements and the standard of practice recommend a minimum Although County re 4 of 90 percent relative compaction, it is our understanding that general requirements y W alMart is that all compacted fills are to be place at 95 percent relative compaction. If this condition must be applied to the existing engineered fill materials, then a action operation would be required. This situation should e removal and recomp should e addressed prior to actual grading operations. In addition, consideratioacted mat as given during Placement of additional fill or reeompacted fill for the comp to the potential for differential settlement if two varying degrees of compaction are attained in adjacent areas. EARTHN'OR Eart w rk S ecifications re orrrred�imaf r ccoC�Oe with the applicable 1 All earthwork and grading sho kYbe P :-, of Riverside, of the C.ty of Temecula and Pte County tnmendations prepared by this firm, and our provisions of the Grading Co in accordance with the following resJuted m Appendix E. Standard Grading Specifications p I I EXCEL LEGACY CO"O�`TIO V. Redhawk Towne Center April 25, 2000 J.N. 208-00 page 10 Site Pe aration below the bottom of proposed Existing fill materials and alluvial deposits in areas currently not underlain Y uniformly compacted mat thickness ep five feet compacted fill material. foundations, should be removed and replaced as uniformly of five feet beyond the extend a In' �of the removal should The horizontal limits equal to the depth of removal. 1, limits of the foundations or to a distance prior to placement of the exposed surface of the removal areas approved and at fill material, depth of a minimum of 6 inches, MO conditions, mpacted for placement of fill -optimum should be scarified to a and then reco a minimum of two Percent over percent. in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 p t E111 Placemen - Conventional laced - be used as compacted fill. All fill should be p On-site excavated material may water or air-dried as necessary to eight inches in thickness, moisture, and then compacted in in lifts not exceeding g slightly above optimum m achieve a moisture content slig Y action of 90 percent. Each fill lift should be treate relative comp laced until the preceding lift has place to a mmmum uent lifts should not be p in a similar manner. Subseq been approved by the project geotechnical consultant. density and optimum moisture content for each change The laboratory maximum dry 1557-91. in soil type should be determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM Fill Slo a Construction The finish surfaces of all fill slopes should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. ion should be achieved by overfilling the This surface compact d Y April 25, 2000 CORPORATION. J.N.208-00 EXCEL LEGACY Page 11 Redhawk Towne Center .overfilled slope surfaces at vertical intervals slopes during construction, backrolling acted inner not exceeding 3 to 4 feet, and then trimming the slopes back to the comp core. width of 15 feet or 1.5 times the width of the excavation Fill keys having a mimmum and compaction equipment should be provided at the base of the fill slopes. keys should extend through the loose surficial soils and excavatediritoeslope dense, competent ancient alluvium or bedrock, and tilted slightly The fill feet into Excavation Characteristics ilty sands, ds, clayey The on-site excavated materials are anticipated is are anticipatedsto be elatively easy t sands, and silty clayey sands. These sois anticipated. excavate with normal construction equipment. No blasting C, otechnical Observations approved by Exposed bottom surfaces in each removal areaplacing be No fillbserves anQ ld be placed the project geotechnical consultant prior to p without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant. site during grading eotechnical consultant should also be present on The project g compactionas well as to of fill, Operations to verify proper placement and adequate verify compliance with the other recommendations presented herein - verify April 25, 2000 EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. J.N. 208-00 Redhawk Towne Center Page 12 POST -GRADING CONSIDERATIONS Site_ 1ramaYe Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish -grade the site after the structures aters froth this site and adjacent and other improvements are in place. Drainage w S, floor slabs and onto the properties are to be directed away from foundationapprove footings, drainage natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and app facilities. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will ensure drainage that no waters ndations, footings and floor slabs. will seek the level of the bearing soils under the fou lift or Failure to observe this recommendTtioon could.r other r provemesult in nts on the sit�ining and differential settlement of the strut In addition, appropriate erosion -control measures shall be taken at all times during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly -constructed cut or fill slopes. Utility Trench Backfill All utility trench backfill within street rights -of --way, utility easements, under sidewalks, driveways and building floor slabs, and within or in proximity to slopes percent. Where on-site should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. Density testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant, or his representative, to verify adequate compaction. For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately 2- lifts, and then to 3 -foot thick maximum mechanically compacted with ahydra= EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 Page 13 hammer, pneumatic tamper, or similar equipment. For deep trenches with sloped walls, backfill materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12 -inch -thick maximum lifts, and then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment. As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment, such as under building floor slabs, imported clean sand exhibiting a sand equivalent value (SE) of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant, or his representative, to verify that an adequate degree of compaction is achieved. To avoid point loads and subsequent distress to asbestos, clay, cement, or plastic pipe, imported sand bedding should be placed at least one foot above all pipe in areas where excavated trench materials contain oversize rock. Sand bedding materials should be thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill. Where utility trenches are constructed in a direction that parallels a building footing (interior and/or exterior trenches), the bottoms of these trenches should not extend below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Where this condition is unavoidable, the adjacent building footing should be deepened so that the bottom of the utility trench is located above the 1:1 projection. EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. Redhawk Towne Center FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General April 25, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 14 The laboratory tests indicate that the on-site soils exhibit a very low to low expansion potential as classified in accordance with UBC Table 18-I-13. For this condition, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and reinforced in accordance 1 iwith the following minimum criteria. Foundation recommendations may require imodification after completion of the grading operations as a result of actual soil !conditions. Additional slab thickness, footing sizes and reinforcement should be provided as required by the project architect or structural engineer. • Standard depth footings may be used with respect to building code requirements for the planned construction. All footing should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade. • Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches, as indicated in UBC Table 184-D. • All Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No. 5 bars''two)top and two bottom. • `lnteriof isolated pad footings supporting raised floors should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final pad grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 5 bars spaced 18 inches on center, both ways, near the bottom of the footings. • Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final pad grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 5 bars spaced 18 inches on center, both ways, near the bottom of the footings. • Concrete floor slabs should have a minimum actual thickness of 5 inches and reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches on center, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid -depth. In areas of high loading such as EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. Redhawk Towne Center April 25, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 15 concentrated storage racks, consideration should be given to increasing the slab thickness to six inches. The foundation recommendations presented herein are based on previous laboratory testing and on the anticipated expansion potential and underlying soil conditions. The Structural Engineer should give consideration to the potential for liquefaction in the design of the foundation system and structure. Allowable Soil Bearing Capacities For design of building and retaining wall footings, an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for a 12 -inch -wide continuous footing founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final pad grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot. Recommended allowable soil bearing capacities include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for short -duration wind and seismic forces. Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot may be used to determine lateral bearing for building and retaining wall footings located at least 7 feet from the top of any adjacent descending slope. Where retaining wall footings are to be constructed on or within 7 feet from the top of a descending slope, a passive earth pressure of 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth to a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot should be used to determine the lateral bearing resistance. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 times the dead load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance for all building and retaining wall footings. EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. Redhawk Towne Center April 25, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 16 An increase of one-third of the above values may be used when designing for short - duration wind and seismic forces. Settlement Under the above recommended maximum soil bearing capacity, total maximum footing settlements are expected to be less than one inch and differential settlements between adjacent footings are expected to be less than 1/2 inch over a span of approximately 30 feet. The majority of the anticipated settlements are expected to take place during construction as footing loads are applied. Footing Observations All footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to ascertain that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils. These observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. Excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture -softened materials and any debris should be removed prior to placing concrete. RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Minimum Footing Embedment To mitigate the potential adverse effects of creep that will develop on the cut -and -fill slopes with a passage of time, footings for retaining walls proposed at the tops of descending slopes should be founded at a depth that will provide a minimum horizontal setback of 7 feet between the outside bottom edges of the footings and the slope face. This minimum embedment is expected to place the footings below any further creep -affected slope soils, as well as provide adequate vertical and lateral EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 Page 17 support without subjecting the footings to detrimental settlement. Active and At -rest Earth Pressures An active lateral earth pressure equivalent fluid having a density of 45 pounds per cubic foot is tentatively recommended for design of cantilevered walls retaining a drained level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (htv) the above value should be increased to 60 pounds per cubic foot. All retaining walls should be designed to resist any surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or structures in addition to the above active earth pressures. For design of retaining walls that are restrained at the top, an at -rest earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having density of 68 pounds per cubic foot should tentatively be used for walls supporting an ascending 2:1 (htv) backfill. The design recommendations presented above are based on the use of a non -expansive, free draining backfill material. It is further anticipated that a proper drainage system will be installed to prevent moisture buildup as presented in Appendix D. If dissimilar soil conditions or wall drainage are proposed, additional recommendation will be required. Drainage Perforated pipe and gravel subdrains should be installed behind all retaining walls to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. Perforated pipe should consist of 4 -inch - minimum -diameter PVC Schedule 40, or ABS SDR -35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be encased in a 1 -foot -wide column of 3/4 inch to 1.5 -inch open -graded gravel extending above the wall footing to a height equal to two-thirds of the wall height, or to a minimum height of 1.5 feet above the footing, whichever is EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. Redhawk Towne Center April 25, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 18 greater. The gravel should be completely wrapped in filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N, or equivalent. Solid outlet pipes should be connected to the subdrains and routed to areas suitable for discharge of accumulated water. Waterproofing Consideration should be given to coating the outside portions of retaining walls supporting backfill with an approved waterproofing compound or covered with a similar material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. Retaining Wall Backfill All retaining wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch -thick maximum horizontal lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum moisture conditions and then mechanically compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Flooding orjetting of backfill materials should be avoided. A representative of this firm should probe and test the backfills to ascertain adequate compaction. POST -CONSTRUCTION AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF EXPANSIVE SOILS The preceding recommendations for design of foundations and floor slabs for the residence and other site improvements are provided to mitigate distress related to effects of soils having low expansion potential. However, our experience has shown that over long time periods, expansive soils can and do result in some differential movement of structures built on them. Consequently, a certain amount of cracking and/or horizontal and vertical displacement can generally be anticipated. EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 Page 19 POST -CONSTRUCTION AND LONG-TERM FILL SLOPE CREEP AND SOFTENING The compacted fills placed on the sides of existing hillsides require special consideration when planning site development. Unconfined hillside fills are subject to slope softening and soil creep. This process (as described by R. Day, "Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. II, No. 2 1996) can occur in a fill slope even if compacted to current engineering standards and placed on properly benched terrain. Fills are typically placed at near optimum moisture contents in order to obtain the required degree of compaction. However, such fills when placed are at moisture contents below the degree of saturation. At optimum moisture the fill has a relatively high shear strength because of negative pore pressure. After construction of the fill slope, additional moisture is typically introduced into the fill from rain, irrigation, plumbing leaks and/or groundwater. As moisture infiltrates the fill, the slope softens and deforms as the pores fill with water and the pore pressures tend toward zero. In addition to the slope movement caused by softening, there can be additional movement due to the process of soil creep. Creep is defined as an imperceptibly slow and more or less continuous downward and outward movement of the fill slope mass. Creep can effect both the near surface soil and deep seated materials. Creep is also caused by deformation of the soil mass as a result of increase in after construction moisture contents. The above described processes are inherent to hillside fill soil masses and cannot be, by any practical means, eliminated during site grading. Therefore, these potential conditions must be considered during the design process. EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 Page 20 SLOPE LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE All cut -and -fill slopes should be provided with the proposed drainage facilities and landscaping as soon as practical upon completion of rough grading to minimize the potential for erosion, raveling or slumping. Additional recommendations with respect to slope landscaping and maintenance are presented below to mitigate surficial instability. • A landscape architect should be consulted to determine the most suitable ground cover for both cut -and -fill slopes. If landscaping cannot be provided within a reasonable period of time, jute matting or equivalent, or a spray -on product designed to seal slope surfaces should be considered as a temporary measure to inhibit surface erosion. • Irrigation systems should be installed on slopes exceeding a height of 10 feet and a watering program then implemented which maintains a uniform near -optimum moisture condition in the soils. Over watering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry out is also detrimental to slope performance. i� • Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of j sprinkler lines in trenches should not be allowed without prior approval from this firm. • During construction of the proposed drainage facilities, care must be taken to avoid placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces. • A permanent slope maintenance program should be initiated. Proper slope maintenance must include the care of drainage and erosion control provisions, rodent control and timely repair of leaking irrigation systems. • Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage, maintenance and landscaping, the cut -and -fill slopes are expected to be surficially stable and to remain so under normal conditions. EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 Page 21 FUTUREIMPROVEMENTS Should any new structures or improvements be proposed at any time in the future, other than those shown on the enclosed grading plan, Petra should be notified so that we may provide design recommendations to mitigate movement and/or tilting of the structures related to the effects of expansive earth materials. REPORT LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such are not to be considered a guarantee or warranty. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. POST -GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Petra should be notified at the appropriate times in order that we may provide the following observation and testing services during the various phases of post -grading construction. Retaining Wall Construction • Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to ascertain depth and competent soil -bearing conditions. • Re -observe all footings trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be excavated to inadequate depth and/or are found to contain significant slough, saturated or compressible soils. EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. Redhawk Towne Center April 25, 2000 J.N. 208-00 Page 22 • Observe and ascertain proper installation of subdrainage systems prior to placing wall backfill. • Observe and test placement of all wall backfill. Concrete Flatwork Construction • Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete flatwork areas to ascertain relative compaction, moisture content and moisture penetration. Regrading • Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades shown on the grading plan. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. If you should have any comments or questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ronald S. Halbert, R.C.E. 42204 Senior Associate Engineer R.C.E.#4220 QROFESS/ r_n N0. 042204 m sTq\Ct V �0` CALM Rov J. Rushing Senior Associate Geologist C.E.G.#1080 APPENDIX A EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1) "GeotechnicaUGeological Engineering Study, Proposed Redhawk Towne Center, South Side of Route 79 South, Between Redhawk Parkway and Apis Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California", prepared by EnGEN Corporation, dated April 7, 2000. 2) "Geotechnical Investigation, WalMart at Temecula, Temecula, California", prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated May 18, 1999. 3) Blake, T.F., 1996, "EQFAULT" - A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitalize California Faults, Version 2.20. 4) Blake, T.F., 1998, "UBCSEIS" - A Computer Program for Determining, 1997 Uniform Building Code Design Parameters, Version 1.03 5) Blake, T.F., 1986, "LIQUEFY2" -A Computer Program for Empirical Prediction of Earthquake - Induced Liquefaction Potential, Version 1.5. � APPENDIX B I GEOCON BORING LOGS Vol PAD D 5.000 SF PAI) A PAD B PAD C STATE HIGHWAY 79 x1000 SF 5.000 SF 3,000 SF . NOT A PART -r- - PE L— - " :p�� &I�1 011111 !HHHHHH! MH c ' Q�H+I�fi4Nft�{fH�ftNf4HfHH{fl L � IE o Hill I ' HMMME • Y� TfTTIIHV 1 135.372 SF <Q _ p o cn, PL PA ------ Pk • HI RI AR — 1 - I \—17 B z Q RE RE •00 : c: I 84.628 SF�1 RE \ 137,640 SF — \ i TC 6 SF _ <I OEOCD/: i . ry9�y TEMECULA CREEK CHANNELQcf.__., _..�PPRox .....APPROX v ___--- — ----- — ------ -----�--- -- 71 H T '1 PROJECT NO. 06298-42-01 SAMPLE SY viBOLS El ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 0 .-- DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)` ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. BORING B 1 Z W DEPTH SAMPLE o zi SOIL F�-ZLL N'-' W" IN N0' H o CLASS ELEV, (MSL.) 1071 DATE COMPLETED 4/?3/99 �N3 0� Nw FEET (USCS) H I-{ U) EQUIPMENT I.R.A-3008" wLUm oa Eo MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FH.L I( Dense, damp, medium -dark brown, Silty, fine SAND 2 J B1 1 _) �.. SM -Abundant mica 40 115.7 7.0 4 BI -2 { _ 6 B1-3 ---------------------------------- Dense, dam dark brown, Silty, p, ry, medium coarse j �- -I SM 60 118.6 12.1 �.� SAND 8 10 BI -4 ALLUVIUM 18 99.2 21.0 Stiff, Stiff, moist, dark brown -olive, Clayey SILT, with ( 111-5 very fine SAND 12 — -Abundant mica 14 B1-6 ML 15 16 18 B1 -6A Slight chemical odor at 18 feet � 20 B1-7 ------------------------------------- - Medium dense, damp, light olive -gray, fine SAND 22 - 24 -Becomes moist -wet, -fine to medium -grained BI -8 SP 30 26 28 Figure A-1 Lo of Boring B 1 SAMPLE SY viBOLS El ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 0 .-- DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)` ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06298-42-01 g "ring SAMPLE SYMBOLS '•. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)` ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE +_• i"c TUU Ur SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. BORING B 1 Z L" Z � , N^ vDEPTH �'� O O SOIL Ix FEET SAMPLE NO. � Cuss ELEV. (MSL.) 1071 DATE COMPLETED 4123199 �� rail w� �z H ❑ (USCS) F_ Ln H ❑(..) QUI H (�D EQUIPMENT I.R.A-3008" wwm >-a' �o EL W. ❑ Q 30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION B1-9 1 44 B1-10 SP Medium dense, saturated, medium -light gray, fine to 23 32 medium SAND 34 B1-11 -------------------------------------- 36 SP Medium dense, saturated, medium to light gray, very p :m Gravellymedium to coarse SAND na a 38 -------------------------------------- - - Mediumdense, saturated, light gray to brown, fine to medium SAND 40 42 SP r 44 B1-12 27 46- ' ------------------------------------- Medium-dense, saturated, light brown and gray, very 48 Sandy, medium to coarse GRAVEL Q. GP ae 50 BORING TERMINATED AT 50 FEET I Figure A-2 Lo of B ' B 1 I g "ring SAMPLE SYMBOLS '•. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)` ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE +_• i"c TUU Ur SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. i PROJECT NO. 0629R-42-01 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... LU TEST ... BORING B 2 .,,, „ SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DEPTH ❑ ... J 3 SOIL TABLE OR SEEPAGE Z I0jUI.; } H� W IN FEET SAMPLE NO. O H 0 o CLASS (uscs> ELEV. (MSL.) 1069 DATE COMPLETED 4/23/99 ~¢W er <C 3 NW 0' 0LL yz J EQUIPMENT I.R.A-300 8" H zu'um W �a �z c„ 0 a. 0 I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 { I SM FILL, { { Loose, damp, light brown, Silty, coarse SAND v ------------------------------------ { { Medium dense, damp'olive brown, Silty, fine sand to Sandy SILT 4 { -Some clay, abundant mica 6 B2-1 { { {�I SM 28 93.7 6.2 B22 8 I'. 1 10 ALLUVRJM I 132-3 SP Me idluumdense, humid, light brown to olive, fine to 19 101.1 2.7 medium SAND 12 -Noncohesive if disturbed 14 -------------------------------------- Stiff, moist, dark brown, very Sandy SILT ML -Some clay B2-4 --------------------------- 16 ----------- Medium dense, humid, light gray -brown, medium to coarse SAND SP -With some silt 18 20 ---------------------------- - - B2-5 ML Stiff, moist, dark gray -brown, Clayey e e SILT 10 -Trace silty very fine sand 22 24 -------------------------------------- B2-6 Medium dense to dense, wet, light gray -olive, fine to 26 SP medium SAND 25 102.7 16.7 Noncohesive when disturbed BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET Figure A-3 Lo of Borin B 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE .,,, „ SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNN SAMPLE I WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE nuie; int LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 1 PROJECT NO 1 06299-42-01 g ng SAMPLE SYMBOLS El' SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... Lj TEST ,.. BORING B 3 SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)` ZW } ❑ ... DEPTH Z ... o O SOIL ~¢ FEET SAMPLE NO. H o CLASS (uscs) MPLETED 4/Z3/99 ELEV. (MSL.) 1072 D:I.R.A-300 LLLU ��3 NtLL Qui jv Nw J H. En LSD EQUIPMENT 8" wWm > sU MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 { FU_L J Dense, damp, medium brown, Silty, medium -coarse 2 B3-1 {SAND _ I i SM -With some clay; abundant mica 53 112.6 14.6 4 B3-2 - { . { I. 6 B3-3 --------- ----------------------------- Dense, damp, olive -brown, slightly Silty, fine to { '�• { . 37 106.1 3.1 medium SAND • { SM -Abundant mica 8 �. 10 ALLUVIUM B3 4 Medium dense, damp, light gray -olive, fine to 20 102.1 3.7 B3-5Sp medium SAND 12 14 ----------- ML Stiff, very moist, olive -brown, Clayey SILT B3-6 micaceous - 16 - -Very Medium dense, damp, light brown, fine SAND SP 18 20 ---------------------------- Stiff, moist, medium -dark olive, Sandy SILT B3-7 ML -With some clay; abundant mica 8 22 24 -------- Dense, damp, light olive -gray, fine SAND B3-8 SP 31 26 BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET Figure A_4_ Lo of Bori B 3 g ng SAMPLE SYMBOLS El' SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ,.. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)` ®... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Z ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE ��. 'nC TUU U� SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. i PROJECT NO. 06298-42-01 ,.>. , og o ormg [SAMPLE SYMBOLS '- SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL G ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST --- DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Z ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: IML LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. BORING B 4 Z _ HUH Y H^ W DEPTH J 3 SOIL IN FEET SAMPLE No. O O z (USSR ELEV. (MSL.) 1065 DATE COMPLETED 4/73/99 HZti �(nm (n wv D= z Cnz Qz CDD EQUIPMENT I.R.A-300 8" W� W=m >� s D- o Uo MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o { : { { { Fni- } Dense, damp, medium brown, Silty, fine SAND 2 { �' -Trace clay -.{- �- 4 { SM �l {{ I 56 6 119.5 7.1 8 ALLUVIUM Medium dense, damp, light olive -gray, fine SAND 10 B4-2 SP -Cohesionless when disturbed Ij- 21 12 14 B4-3 25 16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET Figure A-5 L f B B 4 ,.>. , og o ormg [SAMPLE SYMBOLS '- SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL G ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST --- DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Z ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: IML LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. i1 PROJECT NO. 06298-42-01 I SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST X ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE I .-- WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE R� wU Ur SUd5URFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND T1MES. W BORING B 5 Z WDEPTH Z�FEETNO. O 3 SOILOC3 SAMPLE p• C2 ELEV. (MSL.) 1062 DATE COMPLETED 4/26/99 ��u. TX)L) yz tUSCS� F-iW cD EQUIPMENT I.R.A-3008" wwco a�v MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 A.I FILL Dense, damp, dark brown, Silty, medium SAND 2 B5-1 : j i SM 75/11' 128.3 7.4 4 B5-2 . { i.� 1 6 B5-3 ------------------------------- Dense, damp, olive to brown, Silty, medium SAND j. i �- SM 35 108.6 7.6 -} -Abundant mica 8 -------------------------------------- ALLUVIUM Medium dense, damp, light olive to gray, medium SAND 10 135-4 SP -Cohesionless when disturbed 28 12 14 -------------------------------------- Medium dense, damp, light brown, fine SAND BS -5 SP 1 6 16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET Figure A-6 Lo of Rod" B 5 SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST X ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE I .-- WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE R� wU Ur SUd5URFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND T1MES. PROJECT NO. 06298-42-01 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... W R ... BORING B 6 SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE DEPTH CHUNK SAMPLE _j 3 SOIL Z ^ H V~ FEET FEET SAMPLE NO. o D CLASco (USCS) ELEV. (MSL.) 1076 DATE COMPLETED 4/26/99 F-ZlL <C COL- T—UC LU cD EQUIPMENT I.R.A-3008"wwm>_d�, a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 { I { SM FICL Medium dense, damp, dark brown, Silty, fine to 2 { I medium SAND -------------------------------------- SP _Li&hl brown, medium to coarse SAND { i I i-} I Dense, damp, medium to dark brown, Silty, medium B6-1 SM SAND 54 120.7 8.5 6 B6-2 { I' -With thin layers of silt 8 10B6-3 -------------------------------------- Medium dense. damp, dark brown, Silty, fine to { -{ I SM medium SAND 26 107.4 20.7 { I -Organic odor 12 ALLUVIUM Medium dense, damp, light olive to gray, medium to 14 coarse SAND -Cohesionless when disturbed B6-4 32 104.8 3.3 16 - 18 SP -Becomes fine to medium -grained at 19 feet 20 B6-5 30 22 24 -------------------------------------- Stiff, moist, dark olive -gray, Sandy SILT; abundant B6-6 ML mica, trace clay 13 26 BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET Figure A-7 Lo of Borin B 6 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST R ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Z ... NATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE Int LUG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS S40WN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I PROJECT NO. 06298-42-01 g g .TV SAMPLE SYMBOLS ❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE _ ... NATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE -'Vn 'nC LUo U� SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. w BORING B 7 z H UF- DEPTH LD J 3 SOIL SAMPLE O C] F—zFEET N0' �' (uses) ELEV. (MSL.) 1062 DATE COMPLETED 4/26/99 �yu�iH T�U;c O F—LU H=XSEQUIPMENT I.R.A-3008" wWm me MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 {. FILL fi Dense, damp, medium brown, Silty, fine SAND 2 B7-1 : { -I- SM 43 4 :1 i B7-2 A. 4 4 6 { _� {- { 8 ALLUVIUM Medium dense, damp, light brown to gray, fine to medium SAND 10 SP 12 14 B7-3 29 16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET Figure A-8 Lo of Borin B '7 g g .TV SAMPLE SYMBOLS ❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE _ ... NATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE -'Vn 'nC LUo U� SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06298-12-01 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL HJ ... W a ... BORING B 8 SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... y H^ W DEPTH Z ... NATER 3 SOIL FEET SAMPLE N0. O H O CLAS ELEV. (MSL.) 1059 DATE COMPLETED 4/2 Z9r'HzE w� �Z (ucs> OEQUIPMENT W I.R.A-300 8" �a �aO U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 { { } FILL. Medium dense to dense, damp, medium -dark brown, 2 { Silty, fine SAND { -i -With some grit, pebbles 4 B8-1 { - SM 72 6 { 8 10 ALLUVIUM Medium dense, damp, light gray, medium to coarse 12 SAND -Cohesionless when disturbed SP 14 B8-2 30 16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET Figure A-9 Lo of Borin B 8 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL HJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST a ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ® ... CHUNK SAMPLE Z ... NATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE Int TUU OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. EnGEN BORING LOGS Project Number. T1971 -GS EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. &I Surface Elev.: 1059 Date: 2129x00 Logged By: CM Sal Graphic Oesaiption FE& Sample Depth USCS Blow Count Dry Density Moister re AWammn rnwn Nbistme ContentDensityCameM FILL �0 SM Silty sand, very dark gray, moist. 5 SM 19,21,25 1128 9.8 dense SP 6,10,15 115.9 3.1 I M and, gray 10YR 611), moist. medium dense, fine to medium grained Sand, gray (10YR 6/1), moist, 10 SP 6,9,11 85.4 4.0 medium dense, medium to coarse grained, trace gravel 15 SP 8,7,16 104.3 26 Sand, gray (10YR 611). interbedded 20 SP 6,6,7 91.4 223 with silty day, gray (10YR 611), moist, loose, trace gavel - Silty day, dark gray (10YR 4/1) 25 CL 5,9,15 100.7 124 interbedded with sand, gray (10YR 5/1), very moist to wet, stiff Groundwater Sand, gray (10YR 511) wet, medium 30 SP 9,10,10 107.6 17.8 = dense, medium grained, trace gravel Total depth 31.5 Groundwater 26 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GB Project Redhawk Tawne Cerner Boring Number. a2 Surface Elev.: 1062 Date: 21`29/0a Logged By: cm Sail Graphic Oesaipfion E I Sampo Depth uses Caurd cou81Mnt Ory Density Moisture Maximum Density timum Moisture m C'ment Content m 0 FILL SM Silty sand, grayish brown, moist SM 19,21,27 113.9 6.0 dense Sand, brown, moist, dense, medium 5 SP 13,16,20 106.0 16.9 grained SP 5,7,11 98.6 3.5 VI Santl; i9htbrownishgray (10YR 612), moist, medium dense, medium grained Sand, gray (10YR 6/1), moist, 10 SP 10,11,13 96.4 3.5 •- - medium dense, medium grained, rock in sampler Sand, gray (10YR 611) mosit 15 SP 4,6,10 89.5 15.4 medium dense, medium grained, mottled Sand, gray (10YR 6/1) moist, 20 SP 9,9,16 98.7 4.8 •• medium dense, medium grained Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), moist, 25 SP 10,15,21 106.9 4.1 • medium dense, medium grained Silty sand, dark brown (10YR 3/3), 30 SM 10,18,19 103.1 24.4 very moist, dense Total Depth 31.5 No Groundwater 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawlt Towne Center Boring Number. e3 Surface Elev.: toss Dare: =9100 Logged By: CM soil Descipbon m E Depmum Samth p uSCs � y Moisture Dmmum hlonisture Graphic H Content . content FILL 0 SP — Sand, light brownish gray, moist, IfF SP 12.20,36 113.9 5.4 very dense Silty sand, very dark gray, moist, 5 SM 13,18,24 119.5 12.7 dense Sand, brawn, moist, medium dense, SP 7,11,15 100.4 3.1 medium grained 10 SP 8,13,15 1012 2.9 ALLUVIUM Sand, light brownish gray (10YR • 6/2) moist, medium dense, medium to coarse grained Sand, gray (1CYR 6/1), moist, 15 SP 5,7,11 2.6 medium dense, medium grained Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 20 SP 7,9,13 99.1 2.7 62), moist. medium dense, medium to coarse grained • Sand, strong brown (7.5 YR 518), SP 3,4,4 93.4 3.6 •• interbedded with clayey silt very dark gray (10YR 3/1), moist, loose, mottled • Clayey silt, very dark gray (10YR 30 ML 6,8,15 95.8 21.2 3/1), very moist, stiff Total depth 31.5 No Groundwater 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation . EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. 84 Surface Elev.: 1o6o Date: 11/00 Logged By. CM Descrption E IN Depth USCS 510W Count I Dry DensdfMastureDensitycontentContent In-situMmdmum I otSoil MneGraphic SM rFILL and, grayish brown, maist, SM 13,23,36 115.8 6.3 ense 5 SM 21,36,50+6 102.5 7.7 SP 17,24,28 111.1 4.7 ALLUVIUM Sand light brownish gray (10YR 10 SP 7,9,13 98.1 3.5 611) moist, medium dense, medium grained, slightly mottled Sand, gray (1(7YR 611), moist, 15 SP 10,13,8 101.1 2.0 medium dense, medium grained Sand, gray (10YR711), moist, 20 SP 7,16,19 100.3 7.7 • dense fine to medium grained Sand, Il ht brownish gray (10YR 25 SP 9,13,19 1026 3.9 62), moist, medium dense, medium to coarse grained, slightly :• mottled Groundwater Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet, 30 SP 15,17,18 104.6 20.2 medium dense, medium grained Total depth 31.5 35 Groundwater 29 Notes: EnGEN Connotation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Carrier Boring Number. e5 Surface Elev.: taso Date: 3/1/00 Logged By: CM Sail Graphic Description - o E m Sample Depth USCS Blow Cava Dry Denary In -Situ Mooers I Maxim= Density optimum MQi m N content Content FILL 0 SM Silty sand, grayish brown, moist SM 6,25,33 120.4 7.4 very dense Silty sand, dark gray, moist 5 SM 8,15,11 110.1 8.4 medium dense ALLUVIUM -Zdgray(10YR 6/1), moist loose, SP 5,6,6 97.0 4.1 medium grained Sandy silt dark grayish brown 10 ML 3,3,8 80.8 37.7 '(10Y 4/2), moist, fine, porous, . slightly mottled Sand, light gray (10YR 7/1), moist, 15 SP 5,11,19 108.9 29 medium dense, medium grained 20 SP 8,12,17 98.5 3.7 Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1) very 25 SP 7,10,12 107.7 7.3 moist medium dense, medium grained Groundwater 30 Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet 8,14,17 101.0 2042 dense, fine to medium grained Total depth 31.5 SP Groundwater 29.5 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Toxme Center Boring Number. Be Surface Eiev.: 1os2 Date: 3/1/00 Logged By. CM Sail Graphic DeSaiPtion m a Sample Depth USCS 81ow Count. D Density 1^'SltuMajalum U�sm I Optimum Can�ten�t mm Content FILL I 0 SM Silty sand, grayish brown, moist, Irr SM 4,14,21 6.7 dense Silty sand, gray, moist, medium 5 SM 8,10,9 12.9 dense ALLUVIUM • 'Sand, grayish brown (10YR 52), SP 3.4,6 5.1 moist, medium dense, medium grained • Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), moist, 10 SP 3,6,7 10.6 • medium dense, medium grained ;i,+• r 1 t: Sand to silty sand, gray (10YR 5/1) 15 SP -SIM 4,4,10 7.7 'fr, t t: r' moist, medium dense :L7 CJ.C; :i?eci ti Sand, gray (10YR 6/1), moist, 20 SP 5,6,10 3.4 medium dense, medium grained Silty sand, gray (10YR 6/1), moist, 25 SM 7.7.9 6.7 medium dense Groundwater Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet, 30 SP 8,9,9 26.4 medium dense, fine to m um grained Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), wet, medium 35 SP 5,8,10 12.0 dense, coarse grained Notes EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. B6 Surface Elev.: 1062 Date: yvao Logged By: cm Said Graphic Descziodon o a Sample Depth USG'' Blow Count Dry Drnsity I^ � Mount nt Mannim _ I Moisture Density Content Heaving sand Total depth 38 Groundwater 28 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. s7 Surface Elev.: 1082 Date: 3/1/00 Logged By: cm Graphic Description m a m D� USCS Blow Covet Deis ty InSitu Moistwe Content M�Om� DAY Optimum MooWre Content ALLUVIUM 0 SP Sand, grayish brown (10YR 5l2), SP 6,8,9 104.9 3.5 moist, medium dense, fine to ' medium grained Sand, grayish brown (10YR 52), 5 SP 3,5,6 97.2 3.6 moist loose, fine to medium grained Sand, fight brownish gray (10YR 62), moist medium dense SP 4,8,10 97.6 4.3 • ' 10 SP 5,8,8 99.0 4.4 15 SP 6,12,17 100.0 6.6 Total depth 16.5 20 No Groundwater 25 30 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne center Baring Number. 88 Surface Bev.: 1064 Date: 311100 Logged By: cal soil Graphic D n a Sample Depth uscs I Blow count Dry Density R MoistMoegum M mdmum Densty Optimum rn Content Cerrtem ALLLMUM 0 SM sand, brown (10YR 513), SM 3,5,12 86.3 8.7 'Silty moist, medium dense, slight porosity Silty sand, brown (10YR 513), 5 SM 3,5,6 68.5 24.2 moist Doose sli ht porosity ��, Silty sand, brown (10YR 5/3), SM 4,4,8 93.0 8.2 moist, loose, slight porosity, slightly mottled 1 Sand, light brownish gray'(1OYR 1.0 SP 2,3,4 100.2 2.5 6/2), moist -louse -medium to coarse grained Silty sand, very dark gray (10YR 15 SM 5,6,7 79.0 37.1 ' 3/1) moist loose • Sand, gray (10YR 511) moist 20 SP 6,9,10 94.1 5.4 • medium dense, fine to medium grained Sand, grayish brown (10YR 512), 25 SP 13,18,23 109.6 5.1 moist, dense, medium grained Groundwater Sand, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) 30 SP 10,12,27 119.2 14.4 • wet dense, coarse grained Total depth 31.5 Groundwater 29.5 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number T1971 -GS ProjeCt Redhawk Towne Center Baring Number. e9 Surface Elev.: loss Date: 3/2/00 Logged By. CM Sok Graphic Desaiptim E Sample Depth USCS Slaw Count Dry Density in-situ Maximum Density I Moisture Content FILL 0 SM Silty sand, brown, moist, very SM 22,27,30 119.8 10.2 dense 5 SM 17,25,26 119.2 3.7 ALLUVIUM 5and, lightrowntsh ray (10YR 62), moist, medium dense, medium SP 8,12,12 105.8 6.3 :. grained . 10 SP 8,8,12 99.0 5.3 15 Sandy silt darts gray habrown ML 2,3,7 86.2 25.4 (10YR!4/2 ,moist fum, slight porosity\ightly. mottled 1 b Sand, greyish brown OYR 52), 20 SP 6,12.14 103.1 4.7 moist, medium dense, medium grained, slight mottled Sand, gray (10YR 5/1) moist, 25 SP 6,13,17 1027 4.6 • medium dense, medium grained Groundwater 30 SP 6,6,10 101.2 21.6 Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet, medium dense, medium grained Total depth 31.5 Groundwater 30 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. B10 Surface Elev.: Date: 31M) Logged By. cm son GPhrc Description oem E Depth USCMoisture CtwM Density Ini Dente,, optimum Moisture N Content Content 0 i FILL SM Silty sand, brown, moist dense, SM 50+3 7.9 trace gravel, rock in shoe Silty sand, brown, moist medium 5 SM 10,12,13 118.3 9.6 dense Silty sand, dark grayish brown, SM 8,13,13 115.1 16.1 moist medium dense ALLUVIUM Sand, gray (10YR 6/1) moist 10 SP 3,6,10 91.6 4.3 medium dense, tine to medium grained, mottled Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 15 SP 6,9,10 103.0 3.0 6/2) moist, medium dense, medium grained, mottled Sandy silt dark gray (10YR4/1 20 ML 3,3,3 69.7 47.0 moist sok strong organic s= Sand, gray (10YR 5/1) moist 25 SP 9,12,13 95.3 9.0 medium dense, medium grained Groundwater 30 4,6,10 No Recovery Total depth 31.5 35 Groundwater 30 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. 77471 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Caner Boring Number. 817 Surface Elev.: 10ss Date: awoo Logged By: CM Soil Graphic �esQiP�oa n 8 W8 Sample P Gepp USCS Blow Corurt D I Dryly'paimi p�yty InSltu content Ma�dmuin permty O mum Mouniffem Comem FILL 0 SM Silty sand, brown, moist, medium SM 5,18,15 5.7 dense • • .' S SM 3,5,8 12.3 ALLUVIUM • • Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 42), mors medium dense, medium SP 4,7,7 8.3 grained mottled Sand, right brownish gray (10YR 10 SP 2,2,3 5.4 •: 42) moist, loose, medium grained, mottled Sandy slit, very dark gray (10YR 15 ML 4,6,6 24.7 3/1) moist, firm •• Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), moist 20 SP 5,6,7 6.7 medium dense, fine to medium grained Silty sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet, medium dense, medium grained 25 SM 4,6,8 142 Groundwater Sand, gray (10YR 5/1) wet, medium dense, coarse grained 30 SP 10,13,14 15.0 No Recovery 35 3,5,6. Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. B11 Surface Elev.: 1066 Date: =100 Logged By: CM sailo esmpw smpieUSC Depth slow e Density In S;w�ani i Dty OpCmm Draphk u, CoonleM Heaving Sand 40 Total depth 37 Groundwater 27 45 50 55 60 70 Notes EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. 812 Surface Elev.: 1072 Date: 3/2/00 Lagged By: CM SOU Graphic Desaiptian E epyk . USCS slow Count Density In-situ Con Mwdmm Den9ty O mum Mwstum m Content FILL 0 SP Sand, pale brown, moist, dense, SP 15,15,16 116.0 11.0 medium grained Silty sand, very dark grayish 5 SM 15,25,30 116.4 13.9 brown, moist, very dense Silty sand, very dark grayish SM 8,8,17 113.6 15.4 brown, moist, medium dense ALLUVIUM Sand, gray (10YR 6/1), moist t0 SP 6,12,13 101.9 4.3 medium dense, fine to medium = grained, mottled Sand to silty sand, grayish brawn 15 SP -SM 4,4,7 103.1 16.1 a :e r i I; •rr.i.1: t (10YR 5/2), moist, loose i i:I•i ii' axc rr. Silty sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1) 20 SM 2,2,4 91.0 32.4 moist, loose ti Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), moist. 25 SP 8,12,13 95.7 7.3 medium dense, fine grained Groundwater 30 SP 7,10,10 106.3 19.8 . ' Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet, medium dense, medium grained Total depth 31.5 Groundwater 30 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. B13 Surface Elev.: 1os9 Date: x2joo Logged By: CM Soil Graphic Description m 6 sample Depth uses Blow Caum Dry Density In-Stuoptimum Maistura Matumtnn Density Moisture Content Content 0 FILL SM Silty sand, brown, moist, dense SM 10,15,17 120.5 7.4 • Sand, grayish brown, moist medium 5 SP 10,10,10 102.1 24 dense, fine grained ALLUVIUM Si' sansan , ark grayish brown SM 3,5,6 95.6 5.1 (10YR 4!2) moist, loose, slight porosity, mottled Sand, fight grayish brown (10YR 10 SP 3,3,5 95.1 25 62), moist loose, fine to medium grained, mottled Sand, light grayish brown (10YR 15 SP 5.7,11 97.7 2.4 812), moist, medium dense, medium grained Clayey silt very dark gray (10YR 20 ML 2,2,4 95.3 29.3 411), moist soft mottled Sand, gray (10YR 5/1) moist 25 SP 5,7,8 94.3 6.0 medium dense, fine to medium :. grained Groundwater 30 SP 7,9,10 108.0 18.9 .. Sand, dark gray (10YR4/1), wet medium dense, coarse, trace gravel Total depth 31.5 Groundwater 30 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. B14 Surface Elev.: 107o Date: w2/co Logged 8y: CM Soil Graphic DescMtion n Sample m Depth 11SCS Blow Count Dry« Density Moisture Mardmum Denwty Density optimum ! tae W Content Content 0 FILL SM Silty sand, brown, moist, loose SM 5,5,5 111.3 8.6 Silty sand, brawn, moist, dense, 5 SM 50+4 11.8 rock in shoe No Recovery 7,9,13 ALLUVIUM Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 10 SP 12,17,22 9.4 62), moist, dense Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 15 SP 3,4,6 97.0 25 • 62), moist, loose Sand, gray (10YR 611), interbedded 20 SP 2,3,6 103.1 9.4 - • with clayey silt, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist, loose Sand, dark gray(10YR 4/1 , moist, 25 SP 5,7,10 95.4 5.8 medium dense, fine to medium • grained, mottled Sand, dark grayish brown (10YR 42) 30 SP 4,6,9 97.2 3.3 very moist, medium dense, medium to coarse grained Total depth 31.5 No Groundwater 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Tow Center Boring Number. B15 Surface Bev.: 1067 Date: MMM Logged By: CM Soil Graphic Desciption E m Semple Dernn usCs Bknv Count Dry Density Moisture Mardmran Density rn Mire rn Content Content FILL 0 SP Sand, light brownish gray, moist, SP 7,10,12 110.5 11.9 : medium dense, medium grained Silty sand, very dark gray, moist, 5 SM 6,7,12 116.3 11.9 medium dense Sand, grayish brown, moist, medium SP 8;7,15 100.0 26 : dense, medium grained ALLUVIUM Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 10 SP 3,3,5 96.9 20.4 612), moist, loose, medium to coarse grained Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 62), moist medium dense, medium 15 SP 4,6,9 100.6 21 t0 coarse grained, slightly N mottled 20 SP 5,7,11 101.0 24 Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 25 SP 4,4,4 100.4 27 612) moist, loose, medium to coarse grained, motUed Clayey sift, very dark gray (10YR 30 ML 4,4,5 84.1 37.5 311), moist, soft Total depth 31.5 No Groundwater 35 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. x1971 -GS ProjeCt Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. 816 Surface Elev.: Date: 3/27/90 Logged By: cm Sail Graphk: Desaiptian m E m Sample DepN USCS Blow Count Dry Density Moisture Content Mm Density timum Moisture Content FILL 0 SM Silty sand, brown, moist, very 5 SM 21,28,31 8.8 ?iii?dd dense i ALLUVIUM :I -I: t: t-1 "ri:n: r" Sand to silty sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), moist, medium dense 10 SP -SM 7,9,12 12.4 L"1: rhC: Sand, gray (10YR 6/1), moist, 15 SP 3,7,4 - 5.8 •: medium dense, fine to medium grained 20 SP 6,6,7 6.9 Sand, gray (10YR 6/1), moist, Z5 SP 7,8,8 4.9 ;. •: medium dense, medium grained, trace gravel Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), very moist, 30 SP 8,9,11 7.6 •• medium dense, medium grained Groundwater Sand, gray (10YR 511), wet, medium dense, medium to coarse grained, 35 SP 5,5,5 13.4 t1 d trace silt Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhw* Towne Center Baring Number. 816 - Surface Elev.: Date: 327/00 Logged By: CM Graphic oesoiption E DeptSail h USCS Count Blow DDe y nsft MaLftne Den.4 sm I MDo IUM m Content Content Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), wet, dense, 40, SP 5,17,14 15.3 medium to coarse grained rock in sampler Sand, gray (10YR 6/1), wet, dense, 45 SP 10,16,18 14.1 trace gravel, rock in sampler [1 +: k I t: Sand to silty sand, dark gray 50 SP -SM 7,8,9 14.2 7): t 1:r! (10YR 4/1), wet; medium dense 4:1: V 11 :6: C 1.[ CI ;1[Y1 t: I1:1:1'1: Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet 55 SP 18,24,24 11.1 dense, coarse grained Gravelly sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1) SP 26,31,33 12.8 .. wet, very dense, coarse grained Total depth 61.5 Groundwater 32 85 70 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number: T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. 817 Surface Elev.: Date: vvioo Logged By: CM Soil G2Phic Cesaipticn m E SarnPie Depth USCS Blow Count Cry Density Mciswra htmdmm CensdY _ 17 icwtute m Content content ALLUVIUM 0 SP Sand, light brownish gray (10YR 5 SP 3,3,3 5.0 • 62), mors; loose, fine to medium grained 10 SP 3,4,5 5.8 Sandy silt, grayish brown (10YR 15 ML 3,4,5 25.8 512), moist, loose, mottled Silty sand, gray (10YR 5/1), moist, Z0 SM 7,7,7 8.7 medium dense, mottled, fine grained 25 SP 10,12,17 5.6 Groundwater 30 SP 7,12,13 227 Sand Interbedded with sandy silt, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet, medium dense, fine grained Sand, dark gray (10YR 4/1), wet, 35 SP 6,6,7 21.2 medium dense, medium grained Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. 017 Surface Elev.: Date: 127100 Logged By: CM Sok Graphic Cesaipeon m n o Sample Deptlr USCS Blew Count Dry, Densly Moistu a Densititu y Gerrsib Optimum Moisture vi Content Content Sand, gray (10YR 611), wet medium 40 SP 6,6,8 13.8 dense, medium grained Sand, gray (10YR 6/1), wet, medium 45 SP 13,13,14 14.2 dense, medium grained, trace gravel . 50 SP 7,9,11 17.2 55 SP 7,11,14 16.6 Sand, fight yellowish brown (10YR 60 SP 1823,31 19.4 • 6/4), wet very dense Total depth 61.5 Groundwater 30 65 70 Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971 -GS Project Redhawk Towne Center Boring Number. Bis Surface Bev.: toss Date: 3/17100 Logged By: OM Sop Graphic - Desaiption E Sample Depth uSc3 slow Count Dry Density In -Stu Masnua M�mam Density Optimum Moisture m' Content Content 0 IFILL SM • Silty sand, brown, moist, medium 5 SM 10,10,11 14.6 dense ALLUVIUM Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), moist, 10 SP 2,2,3 4.6 loose, medium grained Silty sand, grayish brown (10YR 15 SM 5,6,6 12.4 52 ,moist medium dense Sandy silt, very dark gray (10YR 20 ML 3,35 326 3/1), moist, firm • Sand, dark gray(10YR 4/1), moist dense, fine 25 SP 6,6,8 10.8 medium to medium grained 30 SP 7,9,11 20.6 Groundwater Sand, gray (10YR 511), wet, dense, 35 SP 11,15,17 22.0 ' medium grained Notes: EnGEN Corporation EnGEN Corporation GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Project Number. T1971GS Project Redhawk Towne Carder Boring Number. Bill Surface Elev.: 1068 Date: v27/00 Logged By. CM Sod Graphic Description m c m ur Sample Depth USCS Blow Count Dry Density Inw^ to Conte Maximum Den9tty Optimum Moisture Content Silty sand, gray (10YR 5/1), wet, 40 SM 7,9,12 17.4 medium dense, medium grained • Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), wet dense, 45 SP 14,19,31 14.5 medium grained, trate gravel Sand, gray (10YR 5/1), wet, very 50 SP 17,23,33 13.6 • dense, medium coarse grained 55 SP 17,23,33 13.5 Sand, grayish brown (10YR 52), 60 SP 15,19,31 13.4 wet dense, coarse grained Total depth 61.5 Groundwater 34 65 70 Notes: - EnGEN Corporation APPENDIX C rrrrxxrrrxrr»rr»rr»x x x * U B C S E I S x x * Version 1.03 r r COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 208-00 JOB NAME: Redhauk Towne Center FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: C:\UBCSEIS\Comgubc.dat SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.4800 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.0999 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SO NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 14.0 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA DISTANCE: 2.7 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: BURNT MTN. DISTANCE: 84.7 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.2 Nv: 1.5 Ca: 0.54 Cv: 0.96 Ts: 0.709 To: 0.142 DATE: 04-26-2000 DATE: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 » » E O F A U L T x ' Ver. 2.20 » x (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: Excel Legacy Corporation JOB NUMBER: 208-00 JOB NAME: Redhawk Towne Center SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.4799 N LONGITUDE: 117.0998 W SEARCH RADIUS: 65 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 1) Campbell 8 Bozorgnia (1994) Horiz. - Alluvi un UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+1-Sigma): M SCOND: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CALIFLT.DAT SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F=Fault Data File): A ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS _____________________________ Page 1 ------------------ ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME ------------------ BLUE CUT -------------------------- BORREGO MTN. (San Jacinto) -------------------------- CASA LOMA-CLARK (S.Jacin.) __________________________� CATALINA ESCARPMENT -------------------------- CHINO __________________________ COMPTON-LOS ALAMITOS __________________________ CORONADO BANK-AGUA BLANCA -------------------------- COYOTE CREEK (San Jacinto) -------------------------- CUCAMONGA __________________________ ELSINORE -------------------------- GLN.HELEN-LYTLE CR-CLREMNT __________________________ HELENDALE -------------------------- HOT S -BUCK RDG.(S.Jacinto) -------------------------- JOHNSON VALLEY -------------------------- LA NACION ____________________ LENWOOD-OLD WOMAN SPRINGS __________________________ NEWPORT-INGLEW000-OFFSHORE -------------------------- NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE -------------------------- PALOS VERDES HILLS ------------------------- PINTO MOUNTAIN - MORONGO -------------------------- ROSE CANYON -------------------------- SAN ANDREAS (Coachella V.) -------------------------- SAN ANDREAS (Mojave) -------------------------- SAN ANDREAS (S. Bern.Mtn.) SAN DIEGO TRGH.-BAHIA SOL. ------------------ __________ MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT APPROX____________________ DISTANCE MAX. PEAK SITE mi (km) CRED. SITE INTENS MAG. ACC. g MM -------- ----- ------ ------ 57 ( 92) 7.00 0.041 V -------- ----- ------ ------ 56 ( 91) 6.50 0.027 V ________ _____ ______ ------ 21 ( 34) 7.00 0.140 VIII ________ _____ ______ ------ 55 ( 88) 7.00 0.043 VI -------- ----- ------ ------ 33 ( 54) 7.00 0.081 VII ________ _____ ______ ------ 47 ( 76) 7.20 0.088 VI1 ________ _____ ______ ------ 46 ( 74) 7.50 0.083 VII ________ _____ ______ ------ 33 ( 53) 7.00 0.081 VII ________ _____ ______ ------ 52 ( 84) 6.90 0.040 V -------- ----- ------ ------ 1 ( 2) 7.50 0.510 X ________ _____ ______ ------ 24 ( 38) 7.00 0.121 VII ________ _____ ______ ------ 58 ( 93) 7.30 0.052 VI ________ _____ ______ ------ 24 ( 39) 7.00 0.117 V1] ________ _____ ______ ------ 61 ( 98) 7.50 0.058 VI 44 6_50 0_ - 038 V -------- -- 65 (104) 7.30 0.045 VI ________ _____ ______ ------ 30 ( 48) 7.10 0.100 VII ________ _____ ______ ------ 56 ( 90) 7.70 0.077 VII -------- ----- ------ ------ 53 ( 85) 7.20 0.054 VI ------ ----- ---- ------ 47 ( 76) 7.30 0.068 VI ________ _____ ______ ------ 30 ( 48) 7.00 0.093 VII ________ _____ ______ ------ i7 ( 76) 8.00 0.122 VII ________ _____ ______ ------ 50 ( 96) 8.00 0.091 VII ________ _____ ______ ______ 42 ( 68) 8.00 0.139 VIII ________ _____ ______ ------ i5 ( 88) 7.50 0.067 VI .------------------ IAX. PROBABLE EVENT .__________________ MAX. PEAK SITE 'ROB. SITE INTENS MAG. ALC. g MM 6.00 0.017 IV .____ ______ ------ 6.20 0.020 IV ____ ______ ------ 7.00 0.140 VIII 6.10 0.019 IV ____ ______ ------ 5.40 0.023 IV ____ ______ ------ 5.80 0.029 V ____ ______ ------ 6.70 0.041 V ---- ------ ------ 6.10 0.037 V ____ ______ ------ 6.10 0.021 IV ____ ______ ------ 6.60 0.464 X ____ ______ ------ 6.70 0.095 VII ____ ______ ------ 5.50 0.010 III 6.10 0.055 VI ------ ------ 5.20 4_20 5.50 i.90 5.00 5.20 i.80 0.007 II -0.006 II 0.009 111 0.035 V 0.017 IV 0.022 IV ------ 0.018 IV 5.90 0.036 6.80 0.044 7.40 0.055 6.70 0.046 6.20 0.021 DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 --------------------------------------------------------- MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT APPROX- ------------------- ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAX. PEAK SITE FAULT NAME mi (km) GRED. SITE INTENS MAG. ACC. g MM ----------------------------------- ----- ------ ------ SAN GORGONIO - BANNING 35 ( 56) 7.50 0.111 VII -------------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ SAN JOSE 55 ( 88) 6.70 0.033 V -------------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ SIERRA MADRE-SAN FERNANDO 56 ( 91) 7.30 0.050 VI -------------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ WHITTIER - NORTH ELSINORE 39 ( 63) 7.10 0.073 VII -------------------- MAX. PROBABLE EVENT ------------------- MAX. PEAK SITE PROB. SITE INTENS MAG. ACC. g MM ----- ------ ------ 6.60 0.056 VI ----- ------ ------ 5.00 0.007 II 6.30 0.022 IV ----- ------ ------ 6.00 0.028 V -END OF SEARCH- 29 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ELSINORE FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 1.5 MILES AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM -CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.510 g LARGEST MAXIMUM -PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.464 g APPENDIX D xfrffrxrxxxxxxxrrrrrfrrrfrrxx r r r L I 0 U E F Y 2 x r * Version 1.50 r x f rffffrxxrrrxrrrfffrffxfffffff EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: 208-00 DATE: 04-26-2000 JOB NAME: Redhawk Towne Center SOIL -PROFILE NAME: 2080CA: LD_4____ BORING GROUNDWATER D PTH: 25.00 ft / '�(JJC�� CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH.--25..00—ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.50 Mw SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.550 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1997, in press) Magnitude Scaling Factor: 1.442 rd -CORRECTION METHOD: Seed (1985) FIELD SPT N -VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS. Rod Stick -Up Above Ground: 3.0 it CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf JnI MINIM .. -U.6 F ELD DATA FROM B-15, EnGEN Apri( 7, 2000 REPOR ------------------- ----------------------------- NCEER 119971 Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 1 ___________________ ________________-_--_______-_ File Name: 20800.OUT --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALC. TOTAL EFF, FIELD FC CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N DELTA C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) N1_60 N (8/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ---- +------ I -_____+______y______+__ __+___-_+______+____-_+--___+____--+--_--- 1 0.25 0.016 0.016 20 * * * * + ** 1 0.75 0.047 0.047 20 - + * * * + *+ 1 1.25 0.079 0.079 20 - * • * + * ** 1 1.75 0.110 0.110 20 - * * » * • ** 1 2.25 0.142 0.142 20 * * + * • ** 1 2.75 0.173 0.173 20 - * * * *• 1 3.25 0.205 0.205 20 * * * * + ** 1 3.75 0.236 0.236 20 - * * * * * ** 1 4.25 0.268 0.268 20 - * * * * * •* 1 4.75 0.299 0.299 20 - * * w * x ++ 1 5.25 0.331 0.331 20 - * • * ` ** 1 5.75 0.362 0.362 20 - ` * * • + ** 1 6.25 0.394 0.394 20 - * * * + * ** 1 6.75 0.425 0.425 20 - * * * • ** 1 7.25 0.457 0.457 20 - * * * * • ** 1 7.75 0.488 0.488 20 - * * x x • wx 1 8.25 0.520 0.520 20 - * • * * +* 1 8.75 0.551 0.551 20 - * * * * + ** 2 9.25 0.582 0.582 6 1.00 * * * * ++ 2 9.75 0.611 0.611 6 1.00 * • * * * ** 2 10.25 0.640 0.640 6 1.00 * * * * * ** 2 10.75 0.669 0.669 6 1.00 * * * + * •• 2 11.25 0.699 0.699 6 1.00 * * * * • •* 2 11.75 0.728 0.728 6 1.00 * • * * + ** 2 12.25 0.757 0.757 6 1.00 * + * * + ** 2 12.75 0.786 0.786 6 1.00 * * * • * ** 2 13.25 0.816 0.816 6 1.00 * * * * ** 2 13.75 0.845 0.845 6 1.00 * • • * * +• 2 14.25 0.874 0.874 6 1.00 * • • + + ** 2 14.75 0.903 0.903 6 1.00 * • * * + ** 3 15.25 0.931 0.931 10 6.78 * • * ` • ** 3 15.75 0.957 0.957 10 6.78 * * • + * •* 3 16.25 0.982 0.982 10 6.78 * 3 16.75 1.008 1.008 10 6.78 * • * * * ** 3 17.25 1.034 1.034 10 6.78 * x • * x rx 3 17.75 1.059 1.059 10 6.78 * w * * * ** 3 18.25 1.085 1.085 10 6.78 * * * * * •* 3 18.75 1.111 1.111 10 6.78 * • * * • •+ 3 19.25 1.136 1.136 10 6.78 * * * * ** 3 19.75 1.162 1.162 10 6.78 * * * * * •• 4 20.25 1.188 1.188 12 0.43 * • * * * ** 4 20.75 1.214 1.214 12 0.43 * * * • •* 4 21.25 1.239 1.239 12 0.43 * + + • • •+ ------------------- ----------------------------- NCEER [1997) Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2 ------------------- ----------------------------- File Name: 20800.OUT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD FC CORR.ILIOUE. INOUC. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N DELTA C I(Ni)60IRESIST f STRESS SAFETY N0. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) N1 60 N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+------------------- 4 21.75 1.265 1.265 12 0.43 + * * * * +* 4 22.25 1.291 1.291 12 0.43 * * * + * ++ 4 22.75 1.317 1.317 12 0.43 * 4 23.25 1.343 1.343 12 0.43 * 4 23.75 1.369 1.369 12 0.43 * * e * » w 4 24.25 1.394 1.394 12 0.43 w 4 24.75 1.420 1.420 12 0.43 * 5 25.25 1.446 1.438 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.941 0.338 0.38 5 25.75 1.472 1.449 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.939 Oj341 0.38 5 26.25 1.498 1.459 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.938 0.344 0.37 5 26.75 1.523 1.469 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.936 .347 0.37 5 27.25 1.549 1.479 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.934 0.350 0.37 5 27.75 1.575 1.489 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.931 0.352 0.37 5 28.25 1.601 1.499 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.929 0.355 0.36 5 28.75 1.627 1.510 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.927 0.357 0.36 5 29.25 1.652 1.520 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.925 0.359 0.36 5 29.75 1.678 1.530 8 1.77 0.852 8.5 0.089 0.922 0.362 0.36 6 30.25 1.705 1.542 8 0.01 0.823 6.6 0.072 0.920 0.364 0.29 6 30.75 1.734 1.555 8 0.01 0.823 6.6 0.072 0.917 X0.366 0.29 6 31.25 1.763 1.568 8 0.01 0.823 6.6 0.072 0.914 0.368 0.28 APPENDIX E EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which Petra Geotechnical, Inc. is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist of record. I. GENERAL A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the Owner's or Builders' representative on the Project. For the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Soils Engineer includes that observation performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils report. B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer. D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year. E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. It EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 II. SITE PREPARATION A. All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site. This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill. B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Soils Engineer. C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested, and approved by the Soils Engineer. D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer. E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut -fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or unweathered bedrock materials, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. (Typical details are given on Plates SG -1.) III. COMPACTED FILLS A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer. EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine grained material to surround the rocks. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer, A. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is given in Plate SG -2). B. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill. C. Representative samples of material to be utilized as compacted fill shall ' be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon as possible. D. Material used in the compaction process shall be evenly spread, watered processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. E. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Engineer. F. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D-1557-91, the five -layer method will be used.) EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report. I. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material except where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. J. The key for hillside fills should be a minimum of 15 feet in width and within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG -3). K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given in Plate SG -4.) L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the soils report. N. Fill -over -cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Plate SG -7.) IV. CUT SLOPES A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet. EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer, and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slopes are given in Plates SG -5 and SG -8). C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a nonerodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. V. GRADING CONTROL A. Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placement. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verily that the required compaction is being achieved. C. Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as required by the Soils Engineer. D. All cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection. W EXCEL LEGACY CORPORATION. April 25, 2000 Redhawk Towne Center J.N. 208-00 VI. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS A. Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. 0 CUT LOT UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT PAD ORIGINAL GRADE MATER BEDROCK ' _ UNSUITABLE WEATHERED (D) CpCLUV1UM. OR TppSO1L, _�� 5' MIN. -� 5' PROPOSED GRADE i COMPACTED 4 (D) FILL (F)' COMPETENT BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL OVEREXCAVATE TYPICAL BENCHING AND RECGMPACT DEPTH OF FILL (F) DEPTH OF OVEREXCAVATION (D) FOOTING DEPTH TO 3 FEET EQUAL DEPTH 3 TO 6 FEET 3 FEET GREATER THAN 6 FEET ONE-HALF THE THICKNESS OF FILL PLACED ON THE 'FILL' PORTION (F) TO 15 FEET MAXIMUM. CUT -FILL TRANSITI❑N LOT ORIGINAL GROUND 5' (D) OR PROPOSED GRADE 5' MIN. COMPACTED FILL ( 10P_ p'_ E? D BEDR� AT NE i COMPETENT BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL OVEREXCAVATE AND RECGMPACT TYPICAL BENCHING S PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC REDHAWK TOWNE CENTER DWG. BY: RSH DATE: 04-26-00 JOB NO.: 208-00 1 PLATE SG -1 TYPICAL ROCK DISP❑SAL DETAIL FINISHED GRADE CLEAR AREA FOR FOUNDATIONS, UTILITIES, AND SWIMMING POOLS 13' SLOPE FACE 15' STREET 4' 15' 5' OR BELOW DEPTH WINDROW OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH, WHICHEVER IS GREATER TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (END VIEW) HORIZONTAL PLACED COMPACTED FILL 6 TO 8 INCH LIFTS GRANDULAR SOILFLOODED TO FILL VOIDS PROFILE VIEW REDHAWK TOWNE CENTER l PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. DWG: BY: RSH DATE: 04-26-00 JOB NO.: 208-00 PLATE SG -2 FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE FINISHED GRADE TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN COMPACTED FILL ON GRADING PLANS - ER - NATURAL / \1EPZN TOPOGRAPHY 11 PROJECTION 27 MIN. -- � 15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH 2' MIN. DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH TYPICAL BENCHING COMPETENT BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL NOTE: WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY; HOWEVER, FILL IS NOT TO BE. PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL. REDHAWK TOWNE CENTER PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. DWG. BY: RSH DATE: 04-26-00 JOB NO.: 208-00 l PLATE SG -3 I CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL \ NATURAL GROUND / \\ \ \ UNSUITABLE MATERIA TYPICAL \ / BENCHING \ TOPSOIL, ALLUVIUM, COLLUVIUM 2% ' COMPETENT BEDROCK OR SEE DETAIL BELOW APPROVED FOUNDATION NOTE: FINAL 20 FEET OF PIPE AT OUTLET SHALL BE NON -PERFORATED I • DEPTH AND BEDDING MAY VARY WITH PIPE AND LOAD FILTER MATERIAL- MINIMUM OF 9 CUBIC FEET PER LNEAL FOOT. SEE PLATE SG -6 FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CHARACTERISTICS ° , ALTERNATE IN LIEU OF ° FILTER MATERIAL 9 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAL FOOT OF ° OPEN -GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN ,• FILTER FABRIC SEE PLATE SG -6 FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM 6 -INCH DIAMETER PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR ABS SCR -35 WITH A MINIMUM OF 16 PERFORATIONS PER LINEAL FOOT IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE PIPE TO BE LAID WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN. FOR CONTINUOUS RUNS IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET USE 8 -INCH DIAMETER PIPE. REDHAWK TOWNE CENTER t PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. DWG. BY: RSH DATE: 04-26-00 JOB NO.: 208-00 PLATE SG -4 BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATI❑N FILL DETAIL TO TOP OF BACK CUT 15' MIN. FINISHED GRADE 4' SUBDRAIN FINISHED 30' MAXIMUM SPACING �Q` \-SEE DETAIL PLATE SG -6 GRADE �+ 4' SUBDRAIN j ..ti 2'MIN.2% MIN. -_i. / ATYPICAL BENCHING WIDTH VARIES (15' MIN.) 211HI 1. MAXIMUM VERTICAL SPACING OF PERFORATED PIPE OF 30 FEET. 2. MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN NON -PERFORATED PIPE OF 100 FEET. 3. MINIMUM GRADIENT OF TWO PERCENT OF ALL PERFORATED PIPE AND NON -PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE. �- 100' MAX. i� 2/ M - OUTLET PIPE (TYPICAL) it PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC PERFORATED PIPE (TYPICAL) REDHAWK TOWNE CENTER DWG. BY: RSH JOB NO.: 208-00 DATE: 04-26-00 PLATE SG -5 BUTTRESS OR STABILZATI❑N FILL SUBDRAIN SLOPE FACE APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL, 5 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAL FOOT, WITHOUT FILTER FABRIC, 3 CUBIC FEET WITH FABRIC A 4 -INCH PERFORATED PIPE WITH f- 2% MIN. PERFORATIONS DOWN. MINIMUM 2% GRADE TO OUTLET PIPE. A 4 -INCH NON -PERFORATED PIPE. MINIMUM 27. GRADE TO OUTLET. 12' �12' MIN APPROVED ON SITE MATERIAL PER SOILS ENGINEER COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 907. MAXIMUM DENSITY. 4 -INCH NON -PERFORATED PIPE SECTION A -A PIPE SPECIFICATIONS 1. 4 -INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PVC SCHEDULE 40, OR ABS SDR -35. 2.MINIMUM 16 PERFORATIONS PER FOOT ON BOTTOM ONE-THIRD OF PIPE. FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL PER CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATION 68-1.025 ALTERNATE: OPEN GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUAL) OPEN -GRADED SIEVE SIZE 1 1/2 -INCH 1 -INCH 3/4 -INCH 3/8 -INCH NO. 200 V PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC PERCENT PASSING 88-100 5-40 0-17 0-7 0-3 REDHAWK TOWNE CENTER DWG. BY: RSH DATE: 04-26-00 CLASS 2 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 -INCH 100 3/4 -INCH 90-100 3/8 -INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE: OPEN GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUAL) OPEN -GRADED SIEVE SIZE 1 1/2 -INCH 1 -INCH 3/4 -INCH 3/8 -INCH NO. 200 V PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC PERCENT PASSING 88-100 5-40 0-17 0-7 0-3 REDHAWK TOWNE CENTER DWG. BY: RSH DATE: 04-26-00 ►2 m G7 m O m n _z C) D r z C) O D W O z Oco m co O CZ) ;0 = co C/) o O p Z M n m z cn $ m G m �4 rm 6 0 FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE COMPACTED FILL CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM, OR CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSITION RE SHOWN ON 'AS -BUILT" NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY / CUT SO1�,UM/ROE/ 4' TYPICAL SOP / / 2i MIN. VARIES 10' TYPICAL • 15' MINIMUM OR PER SOILS ENGINEER BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL m —I G7 m O -i m C-) z_ n D r n c- 03 0 p G) Z o m p co (n D o;rN O p Z D m M m m m z m C) 6 C NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY f I i i i STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL s UNsj Pi �S� ' i 2MIN� 8 FINISH GRADE / 4' TYPICAL 4 RIES 10' TYPICAL COMPACTED FILL BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL NOTE; 1. SUBDRAINS NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED. 2. 'W' SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (15') FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 30 FEET FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS GREATER THAN 30 FEET, 'W' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER SHEAR KEY ON DAYLIGHT CUT LOTS PROPOSED CUT LOT �f COMPACTED \ FILL 9C �G T W INSTALL 6 -INCH PIPE SUBDRAIN� PER PLATES SG -4 AND SG -8 W EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROPOSED DAYLIGHT CUT NOTE 'w' SHALL BE 10 FEET OR AS DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER RECONSTRUCT AT 1.51 OR FLATTER REDHAWK TOWNE CENTER PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. DWG. BY: RSH DATE: 04-26-00 JOB NO.: 208-00 1 PLATE SG -9