HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 36055 Parcel 17-22 Supplemental Geotech Investigationti Geotechnical
Environmental
Materials Testing
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED TWO-
STORY RETAIL STRUCTURE LOCATED ON 3RD
STREET AND OLD TOWN FRONT STREET IN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
Dated: May 6, 2008
Project No.: [051222-10
Prepared For:
Mr. Bill Dalton
NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE
41911 5"' Street, Suite 302
Temecula, California 92590
`p-�p 41531 Date Streei": Murrieta • CA 92562-7086 •(951)461-1919 • Fax (951)461-7677
44
Geotechnical
Environmental
May 6, 2008 Project No. 1051222-10
Mr. Bill Dalton
NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE
41911 5`h Street, Suite 302
Temecula, California 92590
Subject: Supplemental Geoiecludcal Investigation for file Proposed Two -Story Retail Structure
Located on 3id Street and Old Town Front Street in the City of Temecula, California
LGC Inland, Inc. (LGC) is pleased to submit herewith our supplemental geotechnical investigation report for the
proposed Two -Story Retail Structure, located on 3'd Street and Old Town Front Street in the City of Temecula,
California. LGC previously performed a preliminary investigation for the southern portion of the site and
presented preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations in the LGC, 2006 report. In this phase of
work, additional field investigation was performed on the northern portion of the site. This supplemental
geotechnical investigation report presents the results of additional field investigation, laboratory testing and our
engineering judgment, opinions, conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical design aspects
of the proposed development. LGC's previous work (LGC, 2006) has been included herein and this report
supersedes the conclusions and recommendations presented in the referenced LGC, 2006 report
It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the
content of this report or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office at
your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
LGC INLAND, INC
Mark Bergmann
President
JAM/YP/GEU/MB/kg/ko
Distribution: (6) Addressee
41631 Date Street • Murrieta • CA 92562-7086 •(951) 461-1919. Fax (951) 461-7677
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION ».»._....................._._....................................................... ............... .......................... 1
1.1
Purpose and Scope of Services......................................................................................................1
12
location and Site Description........................................................................................................1
1.3
Proposed Development and Grading..............................................................................................3
9A1
............. ---............................. ....... ----
... ... ............. ... �.�_------------
2 0
CEOTECSNICAL CONDITIONS
11
2.1
Regional Geologic Setting.............................................................................................................3
2-2
Local Geology and Soil Conditions...............................................................................................4
2-3
I zudslides------•---...--•----.-...........................................................................................................4
24
Groundwater....................................................................................---.........-...-............................4
2_5
Aerial Photograph Interpretation .................................... ..............................................................
A
2.6
Faulting..........................................................................................................................................4
2.6.1 Liquefaction......................................................................................................................6
2.6.2 Liquefaction Induced Settlement......................................................................................6
2.6.3 Lateral Spread...................................................................................................................7
2.6.4 Shallow Ground Rupture..................................................................................................7
2.6.5 Tsunamis and Seiches.......................................................................................................7
2.7
Seismic Design Criteria................................................................................................................7
2:8
Slope Stability.........................................................................................................................:.....8
2!9
Laboratory Testing.........................................................................................................................8
3.0
CONCLUSIONS......._
............................................................................................................................8
4.0
RECOMMENDATIONS .»».......» ...»»........_........ ..._..........
»_ .................................................9
4.1
Site Earthwork...............................................................................................................................9
4-1-1 Side —
9
4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction..............................................................................................9
4.1.3 Import Soils for Grading..................................................................................................10
4.1.4 Cut/Fill Transition and Fill Differentials..........................................................................10
4.1.5 Shrinkage, Bulkage and Subsidence ................................................................................10
4.1.6 Temporary Stability of Removal Excavations..................................................................11
4.1.7 Fill Placement and Compaction.......................................................................................12
4.1.8 Trench Backfill and Compaction.....................................................................................12
4.1.9 Cal/OSHA Soil Classification..........................................................................................12
4.2
Foundation Selection..................................................................................................................12
4.2.1 General............................................................................................................................12
422 Conventional F ------- ... -... -... _..................... -............ _........ - ............ _..... _..13
4.2.3 Building Floor Slabs.......................................................................................................13
4.3
Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations.............................................14
4.4
Structural Setbarlcs. - -- __ -----............ _...........................................................15
4.5
Pavement Recommendations......................................................................................................15
4.6
Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal..............................................................................................17
4.7
Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork................................................................................................17
4.8
Cartrol of Smfkm Water mW Drainage COntml............... _........ .._._........... _........ _.._............... 18
4.9
Slope Landscaping and Maintenance ...........................................................................................18
4.10
Future Plan Reviews, Construction Observation and Testing
.......................................................19
S.0LIMITA
TIONS ......... »............................................................................................................................19
TABLE OF CONTENTS Wont'd)
LIST OF TABLES, APPENDICES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Tables
Table 1 — Cut -Fill Transition (Page 10)
Table 2 — Shrinkage and Bulkage (Page l 1)
Table 3 — Lateral Earth Pressures (Page 14)
Table 4 — Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections (Page 15)
Table 5 — Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork (Page 18)
Figures
Figure 1 — Site Location Map (Page 2)
Figure 2 — Regional Geologic Map (Page S)
Figure 3 — Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (Page 16)
Plate 1 — Geotechnical Map (Rear of Text)
Appendices
Appendix A—References (Rear of Text)
Appendix B — Field Exploration (Rear of Text)
Appendix C—hAwratanyTeahPtxun dunaa,andTeat11malis(Amiof,T'ezi
Appendix D—'Design' Spectrum (Rear ojlT-xf)
Appendix E — Liquefaction Analyses and Liquefaction Induced Settlement (Rear of Text)
Appendix F — General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading (Rear of Text)
Project No. 1051222-10 Page ii
May 6, 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Parpose and Scope—of Services
The main purpose of our previous and current investigation was to evaluate the pertinent geotechnical
conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical design criteria for grading construction, foundation
design, retaining walls, pavemeut desigm and other relevant aspects relative to the proposed development
of the site. This report presents the results of our both geotechnical investigation for the proposed
development.
Our scope of services included:
Review of geotechnical reports and geologic maps pertinent to the site (Appendix A)
& subsurfa= investigptina ined"�i� the excavation, sampling, and logging of small -diameter
rx#jmm r bmings- '3'9rrm (3) bmwrgs 4aWed B-11 ermt% 9-3 wee advaroad an 000MAM TV,
and three (3) borings were advanced on April 10, 2008. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix
B, and their approximate locations are depicted on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. All of the
excavations were logged and sampled under the supervision of an engineer or geologist from our firm.
The borings were excavated to evaluate the general characteristics of the subsurface conditions on the
site including classification of site soils, determination of depth to groundwater, and to obtain
representative soil samples.
Geologic mapping of the site.
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained during, our subsurface investigation
(Appendix C).
Engineering and geologic analysis of the data with respect to the proposed development.
Determination of design spectrum that pertains to the site (Appendix D).
Liquefaction analyses and estimation of seismically induced settlement (Appendix E).
Preparation of General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Appendix F).
Preparation of this report presenting our fundings, conclusions and preliminary geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed development.
1.2 Location and Site Description
The subject site is located on the east side of Third Street, south of Front Street in the City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California. The general location and configuration of the site is shown on the Site
Location Map (Figure 1).
The topography of the site is relatively flat, with a general elevation of the property of 1001 feet above
mean sea level. Local drainage generally flows towards the south and east.
..l ` el
r
10
�6
F � �6i'_'-M <E.IifYS illi Wl11[iS
At� A!'PRf1AAU7F 4116E U%'A FIU%
41
_s
V 2004 DeLorme (www.delorme.com) Topo USAGE.
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
Yom.,
STREET
YP
The site contains an existing residence with a detached garage and additional outbuildings. The subject
site has a dense cover of annual weeds and grasses with several trees surrounding the existing structures.
1.3 Proposed Development and Graditrg
It is our understanding that the proposed 2 -story retail building will be a combination wood framed and
masonry structure with anticipated 5-6 kip continuous loads and 200-250 kip column loads.
The Site Map provided by you was utilized in our investigation and forms the base for our Geotechnical
Map (Plate 1).
1.4 Subsurface Investigation
Our subsurface investigation was performed on December 27, 2006 and April 10, 2008 and consisted of
sax (6) hvUaw-s&em age horm (B -I throa.4g}1 "I exteodiug to depths uqa ng from. approximately IWA
to 51 fed below existing ground surface. The locations of'tfie borings were comffirta red on'Phe site in order
to avoid potential underground conflicts and to accommodate nig accessibility. Prior to the subsurface
work, an underground utilities clearance was obtained from Underground Service Alert of Southern
California_ The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1. At the conclusion of the
subsurface investigation, all the borings were backfilled with native materials. Minor settlement of the
backfill soils may occur over time.
During our subsurface investigation, representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were retained
for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing was perforrrred on representative soil samples and included
moisture and density tests, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, corrosion, R -Value, and
expansion. A discussion of the tests performed and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix C.
The moisture and density test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B.
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Regional Geologic Setting
Regionally, the site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The
Peninsular Ranges are characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend west to northwest. The
northwest -trending topography is controlled by the Elsinore fault zone, which extends from the San
Gabriel River Valley southeasterly to the United States/Mexico border. The Santa Ana Mountains lie
AMC &c wcm= =k of the Ehmore fault moa wbde die Penn Block is locabod aloaug tht r� side
of the fault zone. The mountainous regions are underlain by Pre -Cretaceous, metasedimentary and
metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California Batholith. Tertiary and
Qa g 9MIJS Me V=Maft =rnpraaigift of MMmMW=r WAXIBMIS WMAVIMEg dd SIH4WWMr,, nmui
conglomerates, and occasional volcanic units. A map of the regional geology is presented on the
Regional Geologic Map, Figure 2.
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 3 May 6, 2008
22 Local Geology and Soil Conditions
The pm4cftY is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside
County, California in an area of shallow
artificial fill (undocumented) underlain by Quaternary old axial channel deposits.
The earth materials on the site are comprised of undocumented artificial fill underlain by Quaternary old
wLial channel deposits_ A gcsrcral description of the soil materials observed on the site is provided in the
following paragraphs:
• Artificial Fill, undocumented (mac symbol AM: Undocumented artificial fill, was encountered to a
depth ranging from 3 to 10 feet below ground surface. These soils consist predominately of locally
demrwA duaki vaay M Yei OMV-hMMM Niq tray dfigcyy saoda,. Tihim unite is Mgmitiiagy Mauw tea, V&HY Most. tad
dense/stiff in condition. Some minor amounts of debris were noted in the undisturbed samples.
Quaternary Old Axial Channel Deposits (Ooa)• The Quaternary old axial channel deposits were
encountered directly below the undocumented fill to the maximum depth explored (51 feet). These
mmz=6 pFedonEinum4 etaon swd of poorly geaaird sand and sih*eiayey sand. These m"aiala were
generally moist to very moist and medium dense to very dense.
2.3 Landslides
WIA
2.5
2.6
RCFW ty of data swt ioaai coe de pia mcne of hudsrWk s an or adjacent Wa She site Thr
potential for the existence of landslides is considered insignificant since the site is relatively flat -
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at approximately 26%: to 28 feet below the existing ground surface during
out investigations. A revacw of the Califomaa Depwtment of Waw Resources data indicated historic high
groundwater level of approximately 19 feet below ground surface (Well No. 08S03W12N013S,
approximately 500 feet from the site).
Aerial Photograph Intertaretation
No strong geomorphic lineaments were interpreted to project through the site during our review of aerial
photographs of the subject property. Geomorphic evidence of active landsliding was not observed on the
site. A table summarizing the aerial photographs utilized in our geomorphic interpretation of lineaments
and landslides is included in Appendix A - Aerial Photograph Interpretation Table.
Faulting
The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known
faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) onsite. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is
considered nil since active faults are not known to cross the site -
Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the southern
CAi+forriaa Term, w%cb may aifety[ rlte Mare, indole MMI tagw%cdon zd dymmrie >vorA6earratt. Othm
secondary seismic effects include lateral spread, shallow ground rupture, and seiches and tsunamis. In
Project No. 105!222-10 Page 4 May 6, 2008
5 \�� � nl $¢ �� `". i ' ' .r � \\ R, �o- •lu' ,cw\ .•a=xl�dk�:
g V I Nl r,CIMAII III 10 A r 11 1 _
� \,'•'`, '':.��k it r ? ,� I '� "��Il. � i
' i
n
r
l/ ♦
!' a 8 ♦ P
LEGEND
Qoa Quatemary Ofd Axial Charnel
DeposAS1. 1• /: a
l Oa - Qualemary Axial Channel
Deposits s-
Op - Quaterway Pauba Fonnallon Rr n7
QM - OtMOMMlr Pa+a Fantafon.
Fangloncale Membc
' Kt J Golf
Gealoglc CoMaJ � i - _
Fauf1 Trace ! �' n\ t
—� - Beth* AMkmft M
�; A1Wde
GEOLOGIC MW OF THE TEMECULA 7.5' QUADRANGLE SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE
COUNTIES, CM FOFWAK A DK;FTAL DATABASE VERSION 1.0 By Siang S. Tan and Mchael P.
Key DW W Vabbass by Brad Nelson ad Gary Pan 2000 1. Cafionnia Dmtaon of Mines and ,t y „r..r, .
GaoYyl 1'w.dN/i; CA 2 U. S. G®loij al Survey. Riverside CA - ar.a. r.a
Project Name 3RD STREET
LG, C FIGURE 2 Project No. 105IM-10
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPS E SER/ YP
INL
AScale NOT TO SCALE
Date May 2008
general, these secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California
region and are dependant on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology.
The major active faults, within 20 miles of the subject site, that could produce these secondary effects is
the Elsinore -Temecula Fault and Elsinore -Julian Fault among others. A discussion of liquefaction and
these secondary effects is provided in the following sections.
2:6.1 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly
to a fluid when subject to Ingh4nbettsity gourd shaking, Liquefaction occurs when three general
conditions exist 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non -cohesive (granular) soils; and 3)
high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near
surface cohesion less soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesion
less soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential- In general, cohesive
soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Cohesive soils may be susceptible to
liquefaction if they meet all of the following criteria that are commonly referred to as the
"Chinese Criteria" (Seed et al, 1985):
Clay content (defined as percent finer than 0.005 min) less than 15 percent
A liquid limit less than 35 Percent
An in-situ moisture content greater than 0.9 times the liquid limit
Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and ground fissures.
Liquefaction analyses were performed on boring B4, considering the historic high ground water
of 19 feet below the existing surface and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.53g (discussed in
Section 2.8). The professional software Liquefy2 (interim Version 1.5) developed by Thomas F.
Blake was used to perform the liquefaction analyses. Based on the liquefaction analyses, the soil
layer between approximately 19 and 23 feet has a potential for liquefaction. However based on
the Ishiahara's chart (Ishihara, 1985) no surface manifestation is anticipated due to the volume of
overburden materials. Liquefaction analyses are attached in Appendix E.
2.6.2 Liquefaction Induced Settlement
Based on our analysis, liquefaction -induced settlements may occur at the site. The estimation of
potential liquefaction or induced settlements is divided into two separate causative mechanisms:
the dynamic settlement of dry coarse-grained soil above the groundwater table and seismic
settlement below the groundwater from liquefaction.
Dynamic settlement of dry sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a
result of a seismic event. A dynamic settlement of approximately Ya -inch is estimated based on
the procedures proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and the calculations are attached in
Appendix E.
Based on the results of the liquefaction analysis (based on the SPT data) and dense nature of old
axial channel deposits (Qoa) saturated sand settlement due to seismic shaking is negligible.
ProjectWo.1051222-10 Page 6 May 6, 2008
The calculations estimated the total liquefaction -induced settlement. Differential settlements due
to lateral heterogeneities in the roil profile would likely be only a fraction of the total dynamic
settlement. We conclude that the differential settlements would be buffered by the remedial
removals. Based on the publication, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG
Special Publication 117. Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating. Liquefaction in California, it
can be concluded that the differential settlement at level ground sites with natural soils are
expected to be small even if total settlements are large. However, for design purposes differential
settlement should be assumed to be approximately one-half of the total settlement. Based on the
above, the estimated differential settlement that should be considered in site development is
approximately Y, -inch.
2.6.3 Lateral Spread
Lateral spread involves @re lateral displacement of large surface blocks of soil due to liquefaction
of subsurface layers. Lateral spread generally develops on gentle slopes that move toward a free
face such as a stream or channel. lire site is located close to the Murrieta Creek. However, due to
the absence of shallow liquefiable soils the potential for lateral spread is considered nil.
2.6.4 Shallow Ground Rupture
Ground rupture due to active faulting is somewhat likely to occur on site due to the presence of
known active fault traces within the immediate site vicinity. Cracking due to shaking from distant
seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
Z6.5 Tsunamis and Seiches
Based on the elevation of the proposed development at the site with respect to sea level and its
distance from large open bodies of water, the potential of seiche and/or tsunami is considered to
be nil.
2.7 Seismic Deshm Criteria
The design spectrum was also developed based on the CBC, 2007 and is presented in Appendix
D_ The following parameters were used.
Site Coordinates: 33.49200 N, 117.14830 W
Site Class: D
Site Coefficients: Fa = 1.0, Fv = 1.5
Based on the above parameters the following design parameters were derived.
Desiga Spectral response acceleration at shorter periods (SDs) = 1321 g
Design Spectral response acceleration at 1 -second periods (SDI) = 0.743g
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) for liquefaction analyses (2 percent chance of being exceeded
in 50 years) = 0.53g (SDs/2.5, Section 1802.2.7, IBC, 2006)
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 7 May 6, 2008
2.8 Slone Stability
No significant cuttfill slopes are anticipated. Therefore, slope stability is not considered a constraint to
the site development.
2.9 Laboratory Testin e
Laboratory testing of the onsite soils was performed dry on representative samples obtained from the
borings and irrduded moisture and density tests, maximum dry density and optimuur moisture, Farparmon
Indra, R-Vahre, Sulfate and Chloride Crnntent, resistivity, and pttL A discaissiau of the tests performed and
a summary of the results are presented in Appendix C. The moisture and density test results are presented
on the boring logs in Appendix B. These results should be confirmed at the completion of site grading.
Expansion potential testing indicated Expansion Index of 5 ("Very Low" 2001 CBC, EI from 0 to 20).
SLrilffifir t M&hMUW MF&Me gill Ilm &= (BIBB 'Ka by acagfttt ( pa =11 CBC
Table 19-A-4).
Corrosion testing indicated on site soils are moderately corrosive.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based an the resulls of our gootechmcal investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is
feasible fmm a geotedamcal standpoint, provided the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report
are considered and incorporated: into the project design process. The following is a summary of the primary
geotechnical factors determined from our geotechnical investigation.
Basad an our subsurface exploration and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports, the site is underlain by
undocumented artificial fill (Afu) and Quaternary Old Axial Channel Deposits (Qoa).
The si k fis Malt k=Md W&MM a< of fort mme No ad&= spiloys we kmmm (b
traverse the subject site.
The upper approximately 5 to 8 feet of site soils are not suitable to support the proposed building.
Groundwater was encountered in our borings during this investigation at depths of 26%2 feet and 28 feet
below existing ground surface; perched groundwater conditions may occur during seasonal fluctuations.
Based on the conclusions of our subsurface explorations review of the data and liquefaction analysis, only a
layer between approximately 19 to 23 feet has a potential for liquefaction.
For design purposes a liquefaction -induced settlement of approximately h -inch with a differential settlement of
approximately 1/4- inch should be considered.
Active or potentially active faults are not known to possibly exist on the site.
The main seismic hazard dud may affect the site is from ground shaking from one of the nearby active regional
fes, The, esdaiated, nonnUa&RitUde VACigbLed peak hon taontal gfoun& areelerarinnfly a. 2 porraut of
pro"adbi'fttyrffexceeffancein5Dyears -is a.53g(CBC'TNIO'T).'Ocher'sin$mScisniiev ettsweTMIrmisiderarl
significant for the proposed development.
There are no known landslides impacting the site.
ProjectWo. 1051222-10 Page 8 May 6, 2008
Laboratory test results of the onsite soils indicate a very low expansion potential and negligible potential for
solublesulfate attack on normal concrete.
Laboratory test results indicate that on-site soils are moderately corrosive to buried metals.
From .a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as fill,
provided they are relatively free from rocks (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction
delm si , mmb aqpmw mamuL It us wbapabcd Omt d= suits may bre camwated twitbt coavemfiema& heavy-
duty construction equipment.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Site Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation and remedial grading followed by
construction of slab -on -grade type foundations followed by asphalt paving of the parking area and
driveways. All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable
requirements of the appropriate reviewing agency, the provisions of the 2001 California Building Code
(CBC), mdrding Appendix Chapter 33, and the Gaal Earthwork and Grading Specification for Rough
Grading included in Appendix F. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those
included as part of Appendix F.
4. LI Site Preparation
Prior to grading of areas to receive shocnral fillor engineered structures, the areas should be cleared
of surface obstructions, any existing debris, potentially compressible material (such as
undocumented fill soils,'or unsuitable alluvium) and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris
should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. All debris from the proposed demolition
activities at the site should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. Holes resulting from the
removal of buried obstructions or utilities, which extend below finished site grades should be
replaced with suitable compacted 611 material. Areas to receive fill and/or other surface
improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near -optimum
moisture eonda m, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on American
Standard of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method D15Sn.
4.1.2 Removal and Reconrpaction
The upper portion of the site is underlain by potentially compressible soils (alluvium or
undocumented artificial fills), which may settle under the surcharge of fill and/or foundation loads.
Compressible materials not removed by the planned grading should be excavated to competent
material and replaced with compacted fill soils. We anticipate removals on the site to be on the
order of 5 to 8 fleet below existing grade, however, localized, deeper removals should be anticipated
where deemed necessary by the geoteclinical consultant based on observations during grading, The
removal should extend at least 5 feet outside the building footprint and the proposed grading should
provide at least 3 feet of compacted fill below the proposed fwmdabons. in pavement arras
generally the upper 2 to 3 feet should be removed and recompacted. However, in undocumented
fill areas, removal depth should be evaluated during grading on case by case basis. Groundwater is
not anticipated to be encountered during site grading.
Project No.1051222-10 Page 9 May 6, 2008
From a geotechnical perspective, soil that is removed may be placed as fill provided the material is
relatively free from rocks (greater than It inches m manmtan dimension), organic material, ad
construction debris, is moisture -conditioned or dried (as needed) to obtain above -optimum moisture
content, and then recompacted prior to additional fill placement or construction.
4.L3 Import Soils for Grading
In the event uv gmtt souls are needed to acfucve finial design grades, all potential import materials
should be free of deleterious/oversize materials, non -expansive, and approved by the project
geotechnical consultant prior to commencement of delivery onsite.
4.1.4 Cut/Fill Trant*ion and Fill Differentials
To mitigate distress to structures related to the potential adverse effects of excessive differential
sefUement, aWfill transitions should be eliminated firm all building areas where the depth of fill
placed within the 0.fi1P" portion exceeds proposed footing depths. The entire structure should be
founded on a uniform bearing material. This should be accomplished by overexeavating the "cut"
portion and replacing the excavated materials as properly compacted fill. Recommended depths of
overexcavation are provided in the following table:
TABLE I
Cut/Fill Transition
Up to 5 feet Equal Depth
5 to 10 feet 5 feet
Greater than 10 feet One-half the maximum thickness of fill placed on the
"fill" nortion (20 feet maximum)
Overexcavatim of the "cut' portion should extend beyond the perimeter building lines a
horizontal distance equal to the depth of overexcavalion or to a minimum distance of 5 feet,
whichever is greater.
4.L5 Shrinkage. Bulkage and Subsidence
Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite earth materials are
replaced as properly compacted fill. The following (Table 2) is an estimate of shrinkage and
bulking factors for the various geologic units found onsite. These estimates are based on in-place
densities of the various materials and on the estimated average degree of relative compaction
achieved during grading.
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 10 May 6, 2006
TABLE 2
Shrinkage and Bulkage
v'.�"-`�i''3+^t��_.� X 1 R yr••F'.."i^ lF ,a�.'_, fK:n.4:•y'•
Artificial fill, Undocumented 10 to 15
Quaternary Old Axial Channel Deposits 6 to 8
Subsidence from scarification and recompaction of exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas to
receive fill is expected to vary from negligible to approximately 0.I -foot.
The above estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in
delerrrrirrirrg earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some
caution since they are not absolute values. These are preliminary rough estimates which may
vary with depth of removal, stripping losses, field conditions at the time of grading, etc. (Handling
losses, and reduction in volume due to removal of oversized material, are not included in the
estimates).
4.1.6 Temporary Stability of Removal Excavations
All excavations for the proposed development should be performed in accordance with current
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Agency) regulations and those of other regulatory
agencies, as appropriate.
Temporary excavations maybe cart vertically up to five feet Exons over five feet should be
alw,cui, slaor:ed,,.os cut, t® a ILLI V (hQdz .vim LL vertical, V) slope gadient.. Surface water sbauld
be drvmted away from tore exposed crit, and nvt be iflvwed to prm$ vn'tvp of 4Yse CxrWMfvras..
SurEwc wam should be dnmftd away tnom the cq mivad cults amd not be to pond ou tie of
the excavations. Temporary cuts should not be left open for an extended period of time.
Where sufficierrt space is not available for sloped cuts directly adjacent to existing structures or
improvements the cut shall be performed by the A -B -C slot method as outlined below.
The banks of the excavation shall be made at 1 H:1 V or a combination of vertical cut and
a1H:1V.
2. Vertical cuts, not exceeding 15 feet in width are made in the locations of the first slot
"A.,
3. Back -fill and compact the first slot.
4. The second adjacent slot, `B" is excavated.
5. Back -fill and compact the second slot.
6. Then the third slot "C" is excavated.
Back -fill and compact the third slot.
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 11 May 6, 2008
8. Repeat the above steps until all the required excavations are performed adjacent to the
existing improvements.
4.L7 Fill Placement and Compaction
From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill,
provided they are scmened of rocks greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension, organic materials
and construction debris. Areas prepared to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements
should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, brought to at least optimum -moisture content,
and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557).
The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size
of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts generally not
exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed
in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical
consultant.
In general, oversized material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within
2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. Oversize material may be incorporated into
design fills in accordance with our standard grading details (Appendix F).
4LL8 'Trench Backfill and Compaction
The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of rocks and
other material over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in
uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at
least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM Test Method D1557) and brought to at least
optimum -moisture content.
If trenches are shallow and the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the
utilities; dean sand, having sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater, should be used to bed and
shade the utilities. Sand backfill should be densifred. The densification may be accomplished by
jetting or flooding and then tamping to ensure adequate compaction. A representative from LOC
should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project specifications.
4.1.9 Cal/OSHA Soil Cl=dficadon
'Based on the soil types encountered during our preliminary investigation, onsite soils should be
generally classified as Type B. LGC does not limit the sod classification to one type as soil may
u OWW sl= FW1r =MUee, tlMS Da gmed&we a
,Cal/OSHA "competent person' from determining soil type on a case-by-case basis.
4.2 Foundation Selection
4.2.1 General
Preliminary recommendations for conventional foundation design and construction are presented
herein. Final structural loads for the proposed struct ales when brown, should be provided to our
office to verify the recommendations presented herein.
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 12 May 6, 2008
The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design
by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design nor a
corrosion consultant.
4.2.2 Conventional Foundations
Exterior continuous footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 18 -inch minimum depth
for two-story construction. Interior continuous footings for two-story construction may be
founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous
footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches, for two-story buildings.
Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 Wif ,
for continuous and spread footings with a minimum of 24 inches wide and 24 inches deep into
certified compacted fill. A factor of safetyigreater than 3 was used in evaluating the above
bearing capacity values. This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot in
depth and 150 ipsf far each additaaual foal of width to a maximuin valve of .4,500 ,ps£ T.he
bearing capacities should be re-evaluated when loads and footing sizes have been finalized.
Lateral forces on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction at the bottom
of the footing. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and a passive
earth pressure of 250 Ibdft2/ft. The passive eaith pressure incorporates a factor of safety of about
1.5. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should
be reduced by one third.
Based on the general settlement characteristics of the soil types that underlie the building sites
and the anticipated loading, it has been estimated that the maximum total settlement of
conventional footings will be less than approximately 1 inch. Differential settlement is expected
to be about %z inch over a horizontal distance of approximately 30 feet. It is anticipated that the
majority of the settlement will occur during construction or shortly thereafter as building loads
are applied.
The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the project geotechnical
consultant will observe or test the soil conditions in the footing excavations:
All footing excavations should be cut square and level, and should be free of sloughed materials.
Subgrade soils should be pre -moistened for very low expansion potential.
4.2.3 Buildinr Floor Slabs
We recour r' a minimum floor slab thickness of 4 inches, reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced a
maximum of 24 inches on center, both ways for the office areas. All slab reinforcement should
be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -depth.
Interior floor slabs with moisture sensitive floor coverings should be underlain by a 15 -mil thick
moisture/vapor barrier to help reduce the upward migration of moisture from the underlying
subgrade soils. The moisture/vapor barrier product used should meet the performance standards
of an ASTM E 1745 Class A material, and be properly installed in accordance with ACI
publication 302. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisturelvapor barrier
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 13 May 6, 2008
4.3
systems are placed in accordance with the project plans and specifications, and that the
mo4stwre/wepvr meter mmmtari ik we face of tem wtd pmomms Vnx to
Additional moisture reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the
performance requirements of future interior floor coverings.
Sand layer requirements are the purview of the structural engineer, and should be provided in
accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction".
Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete
placement and curing are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project
requirements provided by the architect and developer.
Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all floor slabs should he pre -watered to
achieve a moisture content that is at least equal or slightly greater than optimum moisture
oonuart This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the
subgrade soils.
Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations (If Any)
�.. .:_.... . ,.,,. .. ,.:.,. r , , , , . A
:, ,. ,
TABLE 3
Lateral Earth Pressures
Active
40 55
At -Rest
60 73
Passive
250 —
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude
of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can
yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the
wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth
pessure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at -rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward
the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance.
The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free -draining conditions. The backfill soils (having Sand
Egmakney Vemor'l w 30) *mW bz m mrpmled flan art kW 90 T on
ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as
possible after backout excavation. Prolonged exposure of backout slopes may result in some localized slope
instability. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure
values should be provided on an individual -case basis by the geotechnical engineer.
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 14 May 6, 2008
Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and
structural engineers. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and
appropriately waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall
drainage design is illustrated on Figure 3. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not
provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is
generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water, which contains soluble salts,
migrates over a period of time 'through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. if such seepage or
efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential.
For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. Wall
footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance value may
be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads. When
combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one
third.
Foundations for retaining walls in properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 24 inches below
lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed.
II w.,v_�mu m.. - m: ):Lof the contractor.
4.4 Structural Setbacks
Structural setbacks, in addition to those required per the UBC, are not required due to geologic or
geotechnical conditions within the site. Building setbacks from slopes, property lines, etc. should
conform to 2001 CBC requirements.
4.5 Pavement Recommendations
Preliminary Laboratory Test results indicate an R -value of 60. However, for design purposes an R -Value
of 50 was used. Based on an R -value of 50, and assumed Traffic Indices (TI's) of 6, 7, and 8, we
recommend the following nummurn pavement sections (Table 4). These naaommeadatiom should be
confirmed by additional testing at the completion of grading. Final pavement sections should be confirmed
by the project civil engineer based upon the project Traffic Index and the City of Temecula minimum
requirements.
TABLE 4
Recommended Minununr Pavement Sections
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 15 May 6, 2008
.
�3.0
ahs'
3.0�
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.0
6.0
8.0
6.0
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 15 May 6, 2008
EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL,
NATIVE 13ACXFILL COMPACTED
TO MMUMUMiS %RELATIVE
1'MMQ.QAA�
.L
WATER PROOFING PER CPIS ENGINEER 11��
FREE DIWdR&'IG SAID BACKFILL
BE 301OR:GI EATER
SACKCUT PER OSHA
MPEMUM7 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT
BURIRITOTVPE SUBDRAIN. CONSISTING OF
314 K4CH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN
MIRAR 140M OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT
4 INCROIAMEfER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED
P{BLPFE 110 FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE
FOORNGANALL DESIGN PER CML ENGINEER —
FIGURE 3
RETAINING WALL DETAIL Geol./ En
SER/ YP
The aggregate base material should conform to the specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base (Caltrans)
or Crushed Aggregate Base (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction). The base material
should be compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The subgrade should
achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent through the upper 12 inches. Base and subgrade
spud be 00 a - tome ad or s,➢i811iiy over
optimum. The EL -value sbould be obtained during the concluding stages of grading, and the final
pavement .section will then be designed accordingly. Trs for the streets within the subject project site
should be obtained from the City, County or calculated by a traffic engineer. The above
recommendations are considered applicable if complete removals of the compressible materials are
performed in the pavement areas.
4.6 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal
The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (MACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a
substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment"_ From a geotechnical viewpoint,
the "environment" is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete
foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebars, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct
contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil.
In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble
sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. Table 19-A-4 of the U.B.C., 1997, provides specific
guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent
by weight or 1,000 ppm. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are
corrosive to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel
substructures such as sted pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532.
Based on testing performed during this investigation within the project site, the onsite soils are classified
as having a neglivible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of U.B.C., 1997.
Therefore, concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with Table 19-A-4 for
the' negligible category. It is also our opinion that onsite soils should be considered moderately corrosive
to buried metals.
Despite the minimum recommendation above, LGC is not a corrosion-cngineering firm. Therefore, we
recommend that you consult with a competent corrosion engineer and conduct additional testing (if
required) to evaluate the actual corrosion potential of the site and to provide recommendations to reduce
the corrosion potential with respect to the proposed improvements. The recommendations of the
corrosion engineer may supersede the above requirements.
4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork
Cmrnete 8atwork (such as walkways, bicycle trar7s, etc.) has a high potential for cracking due to
changes in soil volume related to soil -moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive
cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in
Tattle 5. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along
construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding
additional reinforcement wilf further reduce cosmetic distress.
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 17 May 6, 2008
TABLE 5
Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork for Very Low Expansive Soils
Is a.. > ..+.Y,c> OR
&'
M°°imllrn
4 (nominal)
4 (full)
4 (full)
City/Agency
Thickness to
Standard
Presoak to 12
Presoak to 12
City/Ageacy
Presaftwafim
wet Down
inches
inches
Standard
No. 3 at 24 inches
No. 3 at 24 inches
City/Agency
Reinforcement
—
on centers
on centers
Standard
City/Agency
Thickened Edge
—
81, x g"
_
Standard
Saw cut or deep
Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep
open tool joint to a
open tool joint to a open tool joint to a City/Agency
Choc& Control MiMMMMM ®ff V3 the
of l//3 &Coff in the stwdord
concrete thickness
concrete thickness concrete thickness
Maximunr.Joint
lO GMft errs
11 City/Agency
ung
5 feet
cut whichever is
6 feet
Standard
closer
4.8 Control of Surface Water and Drainaze Control
Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be allowed to
pond adjacent to buildings. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from
buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet, and further maintained by a
swale ,or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. Where necessary, drainage paths may be
shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes.
Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided Planters should not be designed
adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are
made. Over watering must be avoided.
4.9 Slope Landscapin-c and Maintenance
Adequate slope and pad drainage facilities are essential in the design of the finish grading for the subject
site, The overall stability of graded slopes should not be adversely affected provided all drainage
provisions are properly constructed and maintained thereafter and provided all engineered slopes are
landscaped with a deep rooted, drought tolerant and maintenance free plant species, as recommended by
the project landscape architect.
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 18 May 6, 2008
4.10 Future Plan Reviews, Cons&uctdon Observation and Testdn�
Future ,plan reviews are necessary to ensure that recommendations and conclusions fiom LGC Inland,
Im have beeaa incorporated into the plans. Modifications to the plan may arise from our review
therefore our review should be performed as soon as practical. Such reviews should include, but are not
limited to:
•? Rough Grading Plans
0 Foundation Plans
Retaining Wall Plans
`! '.Storm Drain/SewerfWater Plans
Plans should be forwarded to the project geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist for review and
comments, as deemed necessary.
The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and
WAM%TMd armatyses. Tsm M"Raimrs *MM be dwdmd M the few d
construction by a representative of LGC.
•, : „ : ,,, , , ,:. • L - i ,:, , -L-L=,
prior to construction.
5.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and drill ordmardy exercised, under similar circumstances,
by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and
submitted fur labondory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing performed are believed
,epi mentative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different
than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the project soils engineer
and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the remili ity of the owner, or of his/her rive,
to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the
amintect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the
contractor and/or subcontractor property implements the recommendations in the field. The mor and/or
subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be
unsafe.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can
and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or
adjacent properties.
Project No. 1051222-10 Page 19 May 6, 2008
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
11 1 n " 1' .11"I ✓, l'' 1 .fl•I! f I wY.il-Im f4 tl r. , \Ylt e I T II' JI'- 11' I J••J .16 C 11 It..
1 Int Ial.W41, 4J :Yl • N A..A! A- AAA �_ t. ITIS......b ., .A—A, ♦.,, il. _.. I..,i
�V:O"' P}JJI I 1• Y YVol
The oppmtumty to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any gpestions regarding, the content of this
report, ar s%ould you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your earliest
conveniencr-
Respectfidb7 submitted,
LGC IA[LdlA", LNIC
a /q
`fog ?in9tq mr4 RCE fat"
EngineesmgDivision Manager
JAMIYP/iS:ER/kg/ko
'UV
Scott E. XWhtmyer, PG 7933
Geology Division Manager
Projerl Aq% D051222-10 Page 20 May 6, 2008
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION
APPENDIX A
Re erenees
Jenkins, Olaf P., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California
LGC Inland, Inc. (LGC), 2006, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Retail Development,
Located at 3'a Street Adjacent to Murricta Creek, Parcel No. 922-046-012, City of Temecula, Riverside
County, California, dated March 17.
Morton, D.M., Hauser, Rachel M., and Ruppert, Kelly R., 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa
Ana 30'x60' Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 2.0, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report
99-0172.
Tan, Siang S., and Kennedy, M.P., and Morton, Douglas M., 2000, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Temecula
7.5' Quadrangle, Version 1.0.
2000, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5 Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties, California; A
Digital Database, Version 1.0.
Aerial Photocraph Interpretation Table
WOW19v'*,r^z:� �o,,.'.,..Y7ti.17,.i:it�sf
6-20-74 758,959 1" = 2,000'
11-27-83 199,200 1" = 1,600'
(/
APPENDIXB
Field Exploration
L'3A 0 L.. ,.,.'1
A Tecomraissance of the site was carried out by LGC's personnel. The locations of the exploratory
exc:avanons were chosen to obtain subsurface information needed to achieve the objective for this
iiwio!41jgr1ion_
A visual survey was conducted to verify that the proposed excavations would not encounter any
subsurface utility lines. No underground lines were encountered during the field exploratory program.
B-2 ftnara tEm Drilling and Sampling
The subsurface exploration program for this project was performed on December 27, 2003 and April l0,
200$3 and. ¢operated o£ excav atm a£ %a (fn) boxings,, a-6 dwoeugG &4 to a neaiin mun deluth of Sl % fmk
below the existing grade. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on The lCeoleehnical Map,
Plate (_
Borings B-1 through B-6 were excavated using a truck -mounted, 8 -inch -diameter hollow -stem auger
drill rig supplied by Cal-Pac Drilling of Yucaipa, California. The borings were excavated and sampled at
rcegu➢ar intervals: generally every 5 feet to the maximum excavated depth of each boring. The borings
uvere sampled using a 2-3/8 inch -inside -diameter (ID) Modified California Sampler or a 1 -3/8 -inch 1D
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler.—Samples-were-obtained as the sampler was driven into the
bottom of the boring by a 140-pound=CME-�automatic-trip-hammer free falling from a height of 30
iirrubm.
The ring samples wase placed in plastic cans, labeled, and transported to the laboratory. The SPT soil
samples were examuined and cwcfully removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed, labeled, and
ttr,=T.=ted to the laboratory for testing as well.
;Bulk samples also were collected during the course of drilling by taking cuttings obtained from the auger
fflights. The bulk samples were selected for classification and testing purposes and may represent
muM me off -s=16 a itftm dc l Recovered sampks Uwe bqgwd and simme l to obe
£erlB aAcr classification and testing.
LJJW ;F:�l , ,
The boring logs describe the earth materials encountered, sampling method used, and field am
llaboratory tests performed. The logs also show the boring number, date of completion, and the name o
the logger and drilling subcontractor. A representative of LGC logged the borings in accordance with th
Simndard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure) ASTM D2488
593 -'The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate and the transition betwee.
d.ffzrcnt soil layers may be gradual. The logs of the borings are presented on the following pages.
Geotechnical Borina LouB-1
Date: December 27 2005 Project Name: 3rd Street Two Story Retail Page 1 of 2
Prolect Number. 1051222-10 Logned BY: AW
Drill' n : '2-R Type of Rig: CME-55
Drive W . hti lbs.: 140 D in.: 30 Hole Dia in.:
8
Toon of Hole Elevation ft : 1001.5 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Ma
CL
Standard Penetration Test
SpT
CURVE
m'
o
c
d
0
m
c 'o
Z
v
DESCRIPTION
Mom
t O
a n
o
pp
Depth
N
m
-M
ru m o
Cl) rcn 0
O m
0
10 30 50
AM
Artificial Foil, IhldoawrlerrterN
MAX. B.
as
Clayey SAND; dark yellowish brown, slightly
Hale, pH
1000
moist, loose, fine to coarse sand, trace fine
�",
gravel
Chlodde,
s
a
wa
3.2
as�u
5
R-Value
s
5 s'
S 'I
:a.2::::..
5.1
104.1
5.88.5
7
99r.1
6 1
Q0a
Quaternary Old Axial Channel Deposits:
Silly SAND; Clark yegowish brown, slightly
u
p,3 %A
7.3
105.
7-58-8
17
t9
moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand
10 w
ss
a+
4.8
109.9
10.0-11.5
22
990-
ins
M
is
yellowish brown, medium dense
713
s-1
'
4
1s.o-�es
24
9a5
a1
amy. y most, very dense
as
M
77
mnxs
50
o,
9 {ells
'
PC" C7raded SAND with SILT: Wey. mast.
1
rzi
degree. RSR t0 coarse grained, One gravel
lxru
18
'lT il.i
29�S[
.s2, n
12.1
25.0-26.550
975
251
:1101 1
'rr.tl:r
XT
i:Ft I
�
•):lilt
'�xtrr
Sample Lgowd
Geotechnical
e SPT
B RingS®mpie:(Mmedifred)
Consulting
o
Standard Penetration Test
COio
P
n
SpT CURVE
c
O
o -
:1
Z
o
DESCRiPTiON
►-
U
n
o
r
o a
3 p
Depth N
pn
w
3'
E
-m
OE
to
0
n
m o
m
u)
t°n 0
0 to
`
10 30 50
Qoa
Quaternary Old Axial Channel Deposits:
1000
SC
Clayey SAND; dark yellowish brown, moist,
dam, fifMtss CMMW s�noh
16
30
a-1
9.9 121-5
2s -O
44.22
30
1 I
16
medium dense
995
R-2
9.2 122.2
5.0-65
28.81
i
24
V6f� dR.t]SB
4m
ag
8S®67
40
—
i
i
SM
Silty SAND; dark yellowish brown, moist,
X90
5o
R-0
dMW— 6MC to Carie sand
8.5 128.7
1o.o-n.5
33.5
—
—Sp
SAND: yellowish brown, slightly moist, very
—
— —
—
— — —
es
20
dense, fine to coarse sand
985
40
Rs
1.4 113.5
15.0-16.5
80.3
,I
i
dense, interfingered with silty sand
980
22
22
S-1
16.0-21.5
44
I
: € €
SM
Silty SAND; grey, moist, very dense, fine to
25
25
`:
coarse send
975
I
R$
wet
B. 10.
25.0-26-5
60,3
�I
No Groundwater
IFT
Sample d.eaerxl
In Spr
Geotechnical
8 lam' (CAm°dlfed)
Consulting
Project Nmmhw.
11251222-10
on �
RLOWWWar, JM
DnWhm Company:
Cal Pac
I Type of Rio: D-61
Drive Weicht
(lbs.): 140
1 Drop in.: 30 Hole Dia.
in.:
8
To of Hate Flpvat*nn (ft
1002
L Hole Locatiam See Geotechnical t1Aap
pemed-AM-Tesftl
0
CL
SPT CURVE
ci
0
0
co v
z
Z
DESCRIPTION
CL
CM 0
C �0
0
Depth N
T
46
> CL
.9 4)
0
E
40 0
.2
C
0 E
CD >'
CL
MW a 113
(n W Q
CD U)
C3
10 30 50
Alu
ANIfilliclal FWL Undocurnerrawk I
I
bm
My SAND; orange to yellow brown, slightly
1000
I
nxisk loose to nKWwm densis, fine ID coarse
grimed, some Toolets
P
am
Old Axial Chainard Dmosils.
1 all
III
3A15 12
0
SM
SlIfty SAND,, TigM tan to yelowish brown,
micist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained
R-2
Sc
- - - - - - - -- -
12.
112.0 &M-5 10
Clayey SAND; dark brown to bladr, moist,
995-
medhim dense, fine grained,
- -
su
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - mak,
SEW S#Agx Cho& IID daft WOMM Mmiab.
-
- - -- I
Meemm ftym, fma to CMM -9, Eon It
clays
-to
ofFve brown, oxidation, decrease in trace
7
18
R4
R4
clWYs
ot
17
990
— — — — — — — — — — — — -
6I PoodyGrodods
§P AND.Wgray towake,
12
14 ..... slightly moist medium dense, fine grained,
...... obirouroded to sub arodw (quaft kklqw
6 biotite)
ti S-1
T2
S-2
.16
AT
F57
SPvGeotechnicalFtim Sample(CA modified) i Consulting
18
Geotechnical Bofing Log B-2
Date: December 27 2005 Proect Name: 3rd Street Two Story Retail Paqe 1 of 1
Ill i AW
DA Com
: 2-R I Type of Rio: CME -55
Drive
140 Drop (oL 30 thole Dia
8
Top of Hole
Elevation (ft : 1000 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Ma
n
o
Standard Penetration Test
SPT i
CURVE
y
Q
n
E 0-
v
'o m
DESCRIPTION
0
F-
F
0
r
U a a
o-0
p
Depth
N
ro
�
Lu m a
is to N 0
(D W
0
10 30 50
�
1000
u
AN
Artificial Fill. Undocumented:
SC
Clayey SAND; dark yellowish brown, slightly
mist, medium dense. fine to coarse grained,
fine and coarse gravel, metal chain debris
7
14 6"
&6
2s"
t2
a
119S
5
s
bole
ITTTF
7 R-2
7.4
1101
5.0$.5
11
9
8
moist
7 Ra -
0.
97.0
7.5.9.0
9
7
I
i
990--n'
'7
U R4
Q0a
Quaternary Old Axial Channel Deposits:
9.8
121.6
10.o.11s
19
Clayey SAND; dark yellowish brown. slightly
17
SC
moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand
985-19
14 €
'24 `
SM
Silty SAND; yellowish brown, slightly moist,
R8
30
mecium dense, fine to coarse sand
2.1
10.
15.0-1e3
36
1.f2(i
ax(44
SPAN
SAND with Sitt; yellowish brown, slightly
980-20
10 ?Tili
moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand
12 tsa) {
s1
3.5
xoo-z1.5
24
12 }«.ri
'h41i•I
' '
•Iii{1{
SM
S1ty SAND; grey, moist, very dense, fine to
975
25
30
coarse sand
3.
13.
33.5
Total Depth: ss'
1
No Groufdeeta
I
Semallell'�Oerld
Geotee
d SiTf
iniCal
B 1trMSwn*(CAmoMed)
Consulting t
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
_ P•'' =7gol
1 iln •
•J'
. .
.IIG -
I^III• !il �; lll! i- 1
- .br
•
=-r.
ter. • . ,
V
n.
b
i
u
1 1 1
• r.
Sppeyy
•1 gi..bna. • i _ 1 u. •... w
......
, .
ppptHHSq5)
�CP��eq
LINEMEN,.,
E
,r2__a
;"diiiF,
... rk yellowish
mo■■■■
■r�■■■■
1
iririii,
Iti,i00o:loose
ori■■■■
1
1'111 Illl�l,
■��llm�nl
10►<<0�0
02:
;ion■■
+0 ifIE
irr:ra
. dark grayish..
�ISEEMS
[Ess■■
/
t . •
e
. coarse grain
\�1■_E■■■■
—— Poorly
medium dense, ....grained,■
limo■■
trace fine grain
Depth: 16.5'
No Groundwater
son
■Total
■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■mons
E■■■n■
1:1.
■■loss
MENNEN
+1
■■■■■■
■■1121
■■mons
■■■■m■
SEEMS■
loom■■Geotechnical
8 Rft;Sampte1CAmodfieM I Consulting
R -Value: The R -value of representative samples were determined with CTM 301. The test results are presented in
the table below:
B-1 @ 0-5 feet I Clayey SAND with pace Qravel ( 60
JFxdmm Reu&Lvity and oK Tesw Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed with CTM 643_ The
results are presented in the table below:
Soluble Sulfate The soluble sulfate content of selected samples were determined with CTM 417. The test results
are presented in the table below:
Yver"Nift Ya9-A-4,of'1?T q Cly.
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested with CTM 422. The results are presented below:
B-1 @ 0-5 feet I Clayey SAND with trace gravel 1 10
Project No. 1081953-10 Page 2 May 6, 2008
APPENDIX C
.Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative and qualitative data relating to the
relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered'representative of site conditions were tested in
general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures and/or California Test
Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table
summarizing the test results.
Soil Classifwadon: Representative samples were classified with ASTM D 2487. The soil classifications (or
group symbol);are shown on the laboratory test data and/or exploratory logs. Soil classifications are supplemented
with Visual -Manual Soils Descriptions and Identification with ASTM D 2488.
Moisture and /Density Determinadnn Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D 2216) and dry density determinations
(ASTM D 293.7) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory excavations.
The results of these tests are presented in the exploratory excavation logs. Where applicable, only moisture content
was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples.
MamUnmin Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of representative samples
were determined with ASTM D 1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below:
Expansion Index The expansion potential of representative samples were evaluated with the Expansion Index
Test, ASTM D 4829. The results of these tests are presented in the table below:
* Per'Table 18-1-B of 2001 CBC.
APPENDIX D
DESIGN SPECTR UM
1.35 I ---
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.16
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.00
0.75
a 0.70
a
0.06
om
0.56
0.50
OL/61
0.48
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
o.00
&00 025
Design Spectrum Sa Vs T
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 200
T (sec)
APPENDIX E
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES AND LIQUEFACTION INDUCED
SETTLEMENT
* L I Q U E F Y 2
* Version 1.50
+ *
EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF
EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
JOB NUMBER: I051222-10 DATE: 04-23-2008
JOB NAME: Boring B-4
SOIL -PROFILE NAME: oldt.LDW
BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 28.00 ft
CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 19.00 ft
DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.80 Mw
SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.530 g
BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.30
MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1997, in press)
Magnitude Scaling Factor: 1.285
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 ft
CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf
MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6
------------------- -----------------------------
NCEER (1997) Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 1
----------------- ----------------------------
File Name: oldt.OUT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
CALC.I
TOTALI
EFF. (FIELD
I FC I
I
CORR.ILIQUE.I
11NDUC.ILIQUE.
SOILI
DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI
N
IDELTAI
C I(N1)601RESISTI
r ISTRESSISAFETY
NO -1
(ft) I
(tsf)I
(tsf)I(B/ft)IN1_601
N I(B/ft)1
RATIO(
d I
RATIOIFACTOR
----+------+------*------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------
1 II
0.251
0.0161
0.0161
10
1 I*
I
* I
I*
I
I
**
1 1
0.751
0.0471
0.0471
10
1- I
I
* I
* I
I
I
**
1 II
1.251
0.0781
0.0781
10
1- I
I
I
I
I
I
**
1 1
1.751
0.1091
0.1091
10
1- I*
I
* I
` I*
I
I
**
1 1
2.251
0.1411
0.1411
10
1- I*
I
* I
I
I
I
**
1 1
2.751
0.1721
0.1721
10
1- I
I
* I
I*
I
* I
**
1 1
3.251
0.2031
0.2031
10
1 - I
* I
* I
* I
* I
* I
**
1. II
3.75,1
0.2341
0.2341
10
1 - I
* I
* I
* I
* I
* I
*`
1 II
4.251
0.2661
0.2661
10
1 - I
* I
* I
I
* I
* I
**
1 II
4.751
0.2971
0.2971
10
1- I
I
I
I
I
I
**
2 11
'5.251
0.3281
0.3281
10
1 - I
* I
* I
I
I
* I
**
2 II
5.751
0.3591
0.3591
10
1- I
I
* I
I
I
**
2 II
6.251
0.3911
0.3911
10
1 - I
* I
* I
* I
*
*
**
2 II
6.751
0.4221
0.4221
10
1 _ I
* I
* I
* I
* I
*
**
2 11
7.251
0.4531
0.4531
10
1 - I
* I
* I
* I
I
*
**
2 11
7.751
0.4841
0.4841
10
1 - I
I
* I
* I
* I
* I
**
2 II
8.251
0.5161
0.5161
10
1 - I
I
* I
I
* I
* I
**
2 11
6.751
0.5471
0.5471
10
1 - I
I
* I
* I
I
* I
**
2 '1
9.251
0.5781
0.5781
10
1 - I
I
* I
I
` I
` I
**
2 11
19.7511
0.6091
0.6091
10
1 - I
I
* I
I
* I
* I
**
3 II
110.251
0.6411
0.6411
17
1 - I
* I
* I
* I
* I
I
**
3 II
10.751
0.6721
0.6721
17
1- I
I
I
* I
I
I
**
3 '1
11.251
0.7031
0.7031
17
1 - I
I
` I
* I
* I
* I
**
3 ',I
11.751
0.7341
0.7341
17
1 - I
* I
* I
* I
I
I
**
3 1
12.251
0.7661
0.7661
17
1- I
i
I
I
I
* I
**
3 1
12.751
0.7971
0.7971
17
1- I*
I
I
* I*
I
* I
**
3 1
13.251
0.8281
0.8281
17
I - 1
* I
3 1
13.751
0.8591
0.8591
17
1- I
I
I
I
I
* I
**
3 1
14.251
0.8911
0.8911
17
1- I*
I
*
I
I
* I
**
3 11
14.7511
0.9221
0.9221
17
1 - I
* I
* I
* i
* I
I
**
4 II
3'5.251
0.9531
0.9531
23
1 1.451
* 1
* 1
` 1
* 1
* 1
**
4 1
1.5.751
0.9841
0.9841
23
1 1.451
* 1
* 1
1
* 1
* 1
**
4 1
16.251
1.0161
1.0161
23
1 1.451
* 1
* 1
1
* 1
* 1
**
4 II
36.751
1.0471
1.0471
23
1 1.451
* 1
* 1
1
* 1
* 1
**
4 II
17.251
1.0781
1.0781
23
1 1.451
* 1
* 1
* 1
* 1
* 1
**
4 117.751
1.1091
1.1091
23
1 1.451
* 1
* 1
* 1*
1
1
**
5 1
18.251
1.1411
1.1411
12
1 1.151
* 1
* 1
* 1
* 1
* 1
**
5 11
18.751
1.1721
1.1721
12
1 1.151
1
* 1
* 1
* 1
* 1
**
5 II
39.251
1.2031
1.1951
12
1 1.1510.8971
14.3 1
0.15210.9591
0.3331
0.59
5 II
19.751
1.2341
1.2111
12
1 1.1510.8971
14.3 1
0.15210.9581
0.3361
0.58
5 1
20.251
1.2661
1.2271
12
1 1.1510.8971
14.3 1
0.15210.9561
0.3401
0.57
5 1
20.751
1.2971
1.2421
12
1 1.1510.8971
14.3 1
0.15210.9551
0.3431
0.57
5 1
21.251
1..3281
1.2581
12
1 1.1510.8971
14.3 1
0.15210.9541
0.3471
0.56
-------------------
NCEER
-------------------
(19971
Method
-----------------------------
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
-----------------------------
PAGE 2
File
Name: oldt.OUT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
CALC.1
TOTALI
EFF. (FIELD
I FC I I CORR.ILIQUE.I 1INDUC.ILIQUE.
SOILI
DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI
N
IDELTAI C I(NI)601RESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY
N0.1
(ft) I
(tsf)I
(tsf)1(e/ft)IN1_601
N 1(8/ft)I RATIOI d I
RATIOIFACTOR
----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------
5 1
21.751
1.3591
1.2741
12
1 1.1510.8971 14.3
1 0.15210.9521
0.3501 0.56
5 1
22.251
1.3911
1.2891
12
1 1.1510.8971 14.3
1 0.15210.9511
0.3531 0.55
5 1
22.751
1.4221
1.3051
12
1 1.1510.8971 14.3
1 0.15210.9491
0.3561 0.55
6 1
23.251
1.4531
1.3211
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9481
0.3591 1.41
6 1
23.751
1.4841
1.3361
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9461
0.3621 1.40
6 1
24.251
1.5161
1.3521
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.394 10.9451
0.3651 1.39
6 1
24.751
1.5471
1..3671
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9431
0.3671 1.38
6 1
25.251
1.5781
1.3831
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9411
0.3701 1.37
6 1
25.751
1.6091
1.3991
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9391
0.3721 1.36
6 1
26.251
1.6411
1.4141
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9381
0.3751 1.35
6 1
26.751
1.6721
1.4301
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9361
0.3771 1.34
6 1
27.251
1.7031
1.4461
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9341
0.3791 1.34
6 1
27.751
1.7341
1.4611
27
1 1.4710.8051 29.5
1 0.39410.9311
0.3811 1.33
7 1
28.251
1.7661
1.4771
40
1 1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9291
0.3831NonLiq
7 1
28.751
1.7971
1.4931
40
1 1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9271
0.3841NonLiq
7 1
29-251
1.8281
1.5081
40
1 1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9251
0.3861NonLiq
7 1
29-751
1.8591
1.5241
40
1 1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9221
0.3881NonLiq
7 1
30.251
1.8911
1.5401
40 1
1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9201
0.3891NonLiq
7 1
30.751
1.9221
1.5551
40 1
1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9171
0.3901NonLiq
7 1
31..251
1.9531
1.5711
40
1 1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9141
0.3921NonLiq
7 1
31.751
1.9841
1.5871
40
11.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9121
0.3931NonLiq
7 1
32.251
2.0161
1.6021
40 1
1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9091
0.3941NonLiq
7 1
32.751
2.0471
1.6181
40 1
1.7210.7541 40.9
IInfin 10.9061
0.3951NonLiq
8 1
33.251
2.0781
1.6341
40 1
1.6810.7241 39.3
IInfin 10.9031
0.3961NonLiq
8 1
33.751
2.1091
1.6491
40 1
1.6810.7241 39.3
IInfin 10.8991
0.3961NonLiq
8 1
34_25111
2-1141111
IL-6WI
40
11 1-6811®_7/24111 39_3
Ilymiim 110-89611
0-39-BlInnoliq
8 1
34.751
2.172)
1.6801
40
1 1.6810.7241 39.3
IInfin 10.8931
0.3981NonLiq
8 1
35.251
2.2031
1.6961
40
1 1.6810.7241 39.3
IInfin 10.8891
0.3981NonLiq
8 1
35.7511
2.2341
1.7121
40
1 1.6810.7241 39.3
IInfin 10.8861
0.3981NonLiq
8 1
36.2511
2.2661
1.7271
40
1 1.6810.7241 39.3
IInfin 10.8821
0.3991NonLiq
8 1
36.751
2.2971
1.7431
40
1 1.6810.7241 39.3
IInfin 10.8781
0.3991NonLiq
8 1
37.251
2.3281
1.7591
49
1 1.6810.7241 39.3
IInfin 10.8741
0,3991NonLiq
8
p 371..77511
71..3151911
11-7rn4)II
V1
II 1...6B11®.•7714111 39.3 IIlmffurdl I10)..S3n111
m••3�111atvrII �4i
9
1 38.251
2.3911
1.7901
40
1 1.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8661
0.3991NonLiq
9
1 38.71511
2.4221
1.8061
40
1 1.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8621
0.3981NonLiq
9
1 39.251
2.4531
1.8211
40
1 1.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8581
0.3981NonLiq
9
1 39.751
2.4841
1.8371
40
11.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8541
0.3981NonLiq
9
1 40.251 2.5161 1.8531
40
1 1.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8491 0.3971NonLiq
9
1 40.751 2.5471 1.8681
40
1 1.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8451 0.3971NonLiq
9
p 4IL_2511 2.57811 IL_88411
40
11 1L_65110-697911 379_9 0Inffnm 110-84011 0. 396 0 NnuaffAq
9
1 41.751
2.6091 1.9001
40
1 1.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8361 0.3961NonLiq
9
1 42.251 2.6411 1.9151
40
1 1.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8311
0.3951NonLiq
9
1 42.751
2.6721 1.9311
40
1 1.6510.6971 37.9
IInfin 10.8261
0.3941NonLiq
9 1 43.251 2.7031 1.9471
-------------------
NCEER [1997] Method
File Name: oldt.OUT
40 1 1.6510.6971 37.9 IInfin 10.8221 0.3931NonLiq
-----------------------------
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
----------------------------
PAGE 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
CALCI
TOTALI
EFF. (FIELD
I FC I I
CORR.ILIQUE.I
IINDUC.ILIQUE.
SOILII
DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI
N
IDELTAI C 1(NI)601RESISTI
r ISTRESSISAFETY
NO.11
(ft) I
(tsf)I
(tsf)I(B/ft)IN1_601
N 1(B/ft)1
RATIO( d 1'RATIOIFACTOR
----+------}------}------}------}-----}-----}------+------
i" -----f------+------
9 1
43.751
2.7341
1.9621
40
1 1.6510.6971
37.9
IInfin
10.8171
0.3921NonLiq
9 1
44.251
2.7661
1.9781
40
1 1.6510.6971
37.9
IInfin
10.8121
0.391INonLiq
9 1
44.751
2.7971
1.9931
40
1 1.6510.6971
37.9
IInfin
10.8071
0.3901NonLiq
10 1
45.251
2.8281
2.0091
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.8021
0.3891NonLiq
10 1
45.751
2.8591
2.0251
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7971
0.388INonLiq
10 11
46.251
2.8911
2.0401
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7921
0.3861NonLiq
10 146.751
2.9221
2.0561
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7871
0.3851NonLiq
10 1
47.251
2.9531
2.0721
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7821
0.3841NonLiq
10 1
47.751
2.9841
2.0871
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7761
0.3821NonLiq
10 1
48.251
3.0161
2.1031
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7711
0.381INonLiq
10 1
48.751
3.0471
2.1191
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7661
0.3801NonLiq
10 1
49.251
3.0781
2.1341
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7611
0.3781NonLiq
10 1
49.751
3.1091
2.1501
34
1 1.5110.6731
31.3
IInfin
10.7561
0.3771NonLiq
APPENDIX E
LGC INLAND, INC.
General Earthxwrk and Grading Specifications For Rough Grading
1.0 General
LI Intent: "These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork
:shown on the ,approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These
'Specifications:are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of
,conflict, tie specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general
`Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the
,course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these
specifications,onthe recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consukant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
:employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
(Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and
.accepting ,the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and
irecommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
:Prior .to comnmencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan"
prepared ,bythe •Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule suffirient persorvrel to penfarm the
appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
Dining the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and
*@ -ice _ Q= e2Cp4 auges to v@fi* dw. gpoteC6mgal deur p, ass&imp - n¢ if illi observed
con&fions-are Tound to be significardly d"ryferer t lban'Phe n1terprelted assamp6VM *Ming the design
phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in
:design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture -conditioning and processing of the
�sdbgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the
attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall
provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and fi-equent basis.
L3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
lexperienced,.and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to
7eceive fill, imoisture-oonditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill- The Contractor shall
TeJiew :and :accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to
commencement of grading, The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading
_imaccordance with the project plans and Speorlirations. "llre Cortractw shall prepare and submit tD
�the,owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork
tgrading, the number of "equipment" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork
Seismic Densification and Dynamic Settlement Calculation for Dry Sands
1051222
(N1)00 wag calculatW by the method suggealbd in DMG Special Publication SPI 17
§ettlement Analysis, Toklrnatsu and Sc ASCE, Evaluation of Settlements in Dry Sands Due to Esthgyake ®haking,
dourMal gt the Goelechnlcel Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 113, No. 8, Agust 1987
w�
V
Magnitude at earthquake :
dmelt
i
3 '66
O 01 N
U) g
M
>
,t ,£ 2
OL OL
O
8
A
A.AO
MW
g
Z
o
Hemmer Energy Rstlo (E„,)
Nell Diameter Ffttar (C�)
gdoipliiig Wh rotldr (t,)
s
N r
c E
c b
G n n
U ,i u
LL z a
1.30
1.00
1.00
Ci
Y
r
��
(7
r�
April 23, 2006
�
c
eIt
N y r
> >N
N«
m e
U�
e
U
,�
u
a
1
ft
5
rt
5
rl
2.5
30.0
120.0
300
0.75
29
76
20
85
200
1226
0.99
8 4E -0y
1.7E-04
2.7E-05
2.4E-05
in
0.00
2
7
2
8.0
10.0
120.0
720
0.75
10
16
20
21
480
1200
0.98
2 E-04
7.8E-04
6.7E-04
5.9E-04
0.03
3
7
10
3
8.5
10.0
120.0
1020
0.76
10
14
20
18
680
1362
0.97
2,6E-04
9,7E-04
1.0E-03
9.2E-04
0.07
4
1
12.5
2.5
11.3
11.0
120.0
1350
0.75
11
13
20
18
900
1549
0.96
2, E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.0E-03
0.06
5
12
'oilb
15
2.6
13.8
17.0
120.0
1850
0.85
19
21
20
28
1100
1942
0.95
2,8[ -04
8.2E-04
5.5E-04
4.9E-04
0.03
6
1
18
3
18.5
23.0
120.0
1980
0.85
25
26
20
31
1320
2281
.95
2,9p 04
7,9E-04
3.9E-04
3.4E-04
0.02
7
1
23
6
20.5
12.0
120.0
2460
0,95
15
13
20
18
1640
2104
.93
3 8 -04
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
0.14
8
25
28
S
1 2551
27.0
1200.
3060
0,95
33
27
20
33
2040
2856
.92
3 4E-04
8.3E-04
3.7E-04
3.3E-04
0.04
Note
26
A
Total Settlement (inches)
(N1)00 wag calculatW by the method suggealbd in DMG Special Publication SPI 17
§ettlement Analysis, Toklrnatsu and Sc ASCE, Evaluation of Settlements in Dry Sands Due to Esthgyake ®haking,
dourMal gt the Goelechnlcel Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 113, No. 8, Agust 1987
APPENDIX F
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
24 Benchint•: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to
vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a
graphic illustration_ The lowest bench or key shall be a aunimum of 15 feat wide and at least 2 feet
deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be
acnvaled a ® hcq* of4 %et uAD aam eb3it mmkiiaL or as admxwtw rmannacaMd by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be beached or
otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
2.5 Era/wadon/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed
areas, key bouams, and benches, shall be observed, rnaPped, elevations recorded, and/or tested
prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor
shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A
hurried saveyar shad provide the survey comd Lir de!®g ck%ahnns of pocesud arm,
keys, and benches.
3.0 Rd] Material
3.1 General- Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious
substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of
poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength
shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to
achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 �e: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than S inch shall not be buried or placed iu fill unless IMS materials and
plaoerrherrC rrn-rPrvcPs arc spccifiarlTq acezpted by the f zvtt elaricaP Ctxrsoltarht Ptace... cre operations
shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is
completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within
10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3 If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet
Q= raqsireanents of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical
Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be
determined and appropriate tests performed.
4.0 Fig Placement and Compachfon
4.1 FN Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0)
in near -horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant
may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the
dicker layers. Each Layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity
of material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fig Morstnre Condiitionine: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as
necessary to attain relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum
density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the
American Society ofTesting and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
Project No. !051222-10 Page 3 May 6, 2008
contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the
owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan
at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for
observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate egmpmert and methods to
accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances,
these Specificatiors, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading
plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as
unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size,
advorse v "Oier, cle., we S'M a RM&Y a( VOA less that eoquaiud in drove spea ick, the
Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction
be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor's sole responsibility to provide
proper fill compaction.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and GrmbbinE: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material
shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner,
governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site
conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by
volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 10 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic
materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected
arra, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and
handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel
fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous
waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may
constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The
contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant
does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire
the services of a qualified environmental assessor.
2:.2 pound that has bo® dcdmmd sonfaatory for supPat of til by Ow
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is
not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall
continue until soils are broker down and free of oversize material and the working surface is
reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: ht addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic -rich, highly
fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated
by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
Project Mo. 1051222-10 Page 2 Mav 6, 2008
5' -1 ypical Compacted Fill
if Reccimmix" by Soils Engineer
Proposed Grade 15' win
4' Typical
4' Per
f. PVC Bact
wralf,
4" Solid PVC Outlet (30' Max
JK
2-1
4. Competent matwiaL
5' M IN .1 rK in Back C3n or as
Oes4wd In Soils Emiffiee,
Key Dimensions Per Soils Engineer Greater of 2 %Slope
�wi Tilt Bach
Peri. PVC Pipe
Perioratmoiz Dvrw.
12' Min Overlap,
secured Everty 6 Pee[
Sched 40 Solid PVC Outlet Ptlx,. (l3act,,Nllcj
and Compacted With Native Materials)
Outlets Ee. be Plar Ever,
5 ft./Ft VC 1 112" Open Graded Vmf,
C40fabnK wavand
or Approved Equivalent)
'TYPICAL BIJ17RE SS
031 DRIAIL
4.3 Compaction of Fr7L After each layer has been moisture -conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it
shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test
Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically
designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of
compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at
increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results
acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the
fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test
Method D1557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall
be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. location and frequency of tests shall he at the
Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not
necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of
compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to
slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testier: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one (1) test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face
zwNar rash 10 fest o6 vcrucai hagbi of skgc The Cambacter shad awe dw W const rartum is
such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Gcotechnical Consultant. The Contractor
shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the
project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical
Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two (2) grade
SOAZs irra haMMMsl &WIROW Of 100 fCd Md nip less aham 5 led 2t &arm POkM1W test
locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading
plan, and the Standard Details. The Geoterifmical Cornsaltarrt may reoommerd additional subdrams and/or
changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during
grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after
installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over -excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical
Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The
actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation
of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill -over -cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the
Project No, 1051222-10 Page 4 May 6, 2008
slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of
materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
T1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSl1A requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a
Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SF>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the
conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent
of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one (1)
test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
TS Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of
Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant
that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment
and method.
Project No. 1051222-l0 Page 5 May 6, 2008
Deeper in Areas o2
SwdrmaS PttNs, Etc.
G epe F ace
r
ti.� ♦ E t - c
Windcaw 4araliH to Jo�z Face.
Proposed Grade
•ani
r• 1
.\"V ..as ..J..r•��.5` ,. Lsii BOIMtlef-.
-Oversize Material "`: i' .`•' :.J\, "\'
JetiCd or Fio3Ci2G Pi OAC\
Granular Material --
Excavated 7 Tench
or Dozer V -cm
Note: Oversize Rock is Larger
than 8' in Maximum Dimension.
Section A -A'
OVERSIZE ROCK
DISPOSAL DF TAIL
Cut Lot.
(Exposing Lkirscitable ScAE at Design Gcaaej
Remaw Un—_Aatle Competent Material
Material —1
:!ConvaCted Fill
JIM
1:1 Projection To Comp"a" uk"S Cia&
coffQetcm Wmiterim I OvLmxcavate anti Reco"Pact
Nate 1: Removal BiXWM Stmic be Qackm Noce 2- Where 0csign Cut tors are
-Wit'r, awnriurni 2 % Fall Towards Street or Excavated Entirely I nto Competent
Other Suitable Area (as Determined by Material, Overexcavation May Still be
Scil!i Enqurear) to Avoid Ponding Below Required for Hard -Rock Conditions or for
Buadwq Materials With Variable Expansion
Characteristics.
Cut/Fiff racisition Lot
Proposed Grade
1:1 Projection To
Competent Material
CA07zXc@1A0tF
and RecompacL
Cut At nD Steeper tlaaa 21 (K:V)
Below Building Footpi-int
`Deeper if Specified by
Sods Enwieer
CUT AND TRANSITION
LOT OVERE, XCAVATION
DETAIL
Competent material
1:1 Projection To
Competent Material
CA07zXc@1A0tF
and RecompacL
Cut At nD Steeper tlaaa 21 (K:V)
Below Building Footpi-int
`Deeper if Specified by
Sods Enwieer
CUT AND TRANSITION
LOT OVERE, XCAVATION
DETAIL
4' Perf. PVC Backdraul
4' Solid PVC Outlet
1 15' Mit ---�
Ka? Dklieisions Per Soils
Engineer (Typically H/2 or 15' Min)
5' Typical Compacted Fill
if RecornaRrmied by Soils Engineer
Prcpowd Crede -- r— 15' Mut
7►t7",.. i;>�.i: 8• (30' Max.)
c; t: -feral
Gaupntnnt Mawrial
It
2.1 (H:V) tuck Cut or as
It Designed by Soils Cruyveer
1 �
Perf. PVC Pipe
Perforatiora Down —
12- Mui Overlap,
Secured Every 6 Feet
Scbed. 40 Solid PVC Otrtlet Pipe- fWackfaied
and Conn, acteo With malum Matertats)
(iLatlets to be Placed Every 100' (P4ax1 O C
5`f(./Ft. 3/4" - 1112" Open Graded Rory
Geofabric (Mirafi 14ON
or Approved Equivalent)
Greater of 2 % Slope
TYPICAL STABILIZATION
FILL DETAIL
Fill Slope
Proposes
Gi
1Compaeted FIN'
r::..
Natural r- ✓_
': I?�rTi�i-jBa.C'1&16-F9
Competeict wateriai • " y rtl301c
TypfCdi
oW
E' Typical
_ �GE�B�'J�2.��Ib�'1'c Qr r�}�ti1vC ifrt'trai:l.
2- WL.'.`_Mari KEy Width
Fill—Over—U& S
Proposed Cdl
Natural
Ground x-,oi
_--L 4' Typical
Cut Face, '"Hilwatial Mil
Typical
Wit ares
2' �•Gre�i'er"of; S1Qp�„„ 1 out Tilt Back
�•- �- '15' Min. Kcy WJdtn
` Conscrucc Cut Slope First
Cut -Over -Fill Supe
Natural Ground
Overbuild and Trim Back
/ Cut Face
Proposed Grade
1:1 Projection to
Competent Material
Wnpacted Fill
Competent Material
% Slope or 1 Foot Tilt Back
15 Wf Ker Wlott. Nae. Nawfai - Steeper Thain 5:1 (tt:V%
Must Be Bencned.
KEYING AND BENCHING
Natural Ground
Prgxxed Grade
..�". _ jk via.. a t+ s •.r ♦ s< a' ..; C...S._
�-'"�C a`C_a.•.1 r4F � Y -' _ .`fir :'(r '~ `-:'. }S'.°.:
•.�`y :<::'; "; �' r'• ; Coupaicted FiU I••. .�::�i+'iv,:.. ^.'J;�_:f. ..
Benches
f ', .:.A: -t,,`;•:..•. :rte -:.c- „a::.. - ` Renwve Unsuitable
Materials
1ftce51t:
mCcuSttR:�ts T. =ztess o 500' } !�'
iA1.r`
j r
Sha Use 8" Diameter Pipe
2) Final 20' oe Pipe ac Outlet Shall be 12" Man. Overlap,
Solid aixl Bachfilled with Fine graiiwd Secured Every 6 Feet \ J �-
Material 6" Collector Pipe
(Schecl. 40. Perr. PVC)
9 Fc /Ft.
3/n" - I I/2" Ci usfwl Rock
y�i�'b'i¢ Pdebir� r�sl0xa
or Approved Equivalent)
Proposed Outlet Detail l
`rrgrosed'Gmde — -- May be Deeper Dependent
upon Site ctralitiams
10, Min r 6- Feriara"W WC SCha&ft q0
�-'1� 1 •`'— __,__ —31, ' - 1 1/2" CraSI1Bd 1100L
-6" S,did PJC TIPS or %tWrvv , P(tumdrdrry i
CANYON SUBDRAINS
LGC�f�gqINLAND
eee-IlMEM
EM7
�g�y,It1t�
... .1 3a� fid�:
QE0T[Gnnww� —f r
App 922414"12
LAMM
aanhSMrte
AN Andlclal fill. Undmum ,*d
0. Oulrnry Old lull Gmnl pepoub
amaau
Limps of this Report
- Geologic Contact
8 Boring Location
7F1 Recommended Removal Dahill