Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Investigation ,. .. Sol E 'GEN Corporation •Soil Engineering•Testing•Construction Materials Testing•Laboratory Testing Corporation •Environmental Site Assessments•Hazardous Materials Site Cleanup Environmental and Geotecim ical Engineering Network Cotpof atlon •Special Inspections •Geology•Engineering Geology UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Proposed Structure R E C E I V E Lot 9 of Tract 27714 City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California FEB 't, h 1998 Project Number: T1343UGS HERRON+Hit-vAf=aNBUFF ARCHITECTS,INC. Prepared for: ppPR� La Masters of Fine Jewelry c/o Herron and Rumansoff ` 530 St. Johns Place Hemet, CA 92543 Corporate Office Orange County Office 41607 Enterprise Circle North,Suite 1 2615 Orange Avenue Temecula,CA 92590 Web-page address: www.engencorp.com Santa Ana.CA 92707 (909)676-3095/Fax:676-3294 E-mail address: engencorp@pe.net (714)6464051/Fax:546-4052 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number and Title ftqe 1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE REVIEW.......................................................................................................2 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS.................................2 4.0 STRUCTURAL FILL............................................................................................. 3 5.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 3 5.1 General 5.2 Foundation Size 5.3 Depth of Embedment 5.4 Bearing Capacity 5.5 Settlement 5.6 Lateral Capacity 6.0 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................5 6.1 General 6.2 Interior Slabs 6.3 Exterior Slabs 7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................7 7.1 Earth Pressures 7.2 Foundation Design 7.3 Subdrain 7.4 Backfill 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 9 E 8.1 Pavement Design APPRO 1AI 8.2 Utility Trench Recommendations C Y O 8.3 Temporary Excavation or Cuts QED g 8.4 Finish Lot Drainage 8.5 Planters ppR 8.6 Pre-Bid Conference 8.7 Pre-Grade Conference T WRC7`�A�� vou 9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING At ►�'"� °+t4� E45 A5S5o'i 66MK 10 HE JC7 10.0 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................... 13 EnGEN Corporation E�a r� N Corporation r11 �+ r rt •Soil Engineering•Testing•Construction Materials Testing•Laboratory Testing nGE ` o po a ion •Environmental Site Assessments•Hazardous Materials Site Cleanup Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation •Special Inspections •Geology•Engineering Geology February 23, 1998 La Masters of Fine Jewelry c/o Herron & Rumansoff 530 St. Johns Place Hemet, CA 92543 (909) 652-4431/ FAX (909) 652-0373 Attention: Mr. Russell Rumansoff Regarding: UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Proposed Structure Parcel 9 of Tract 27714 City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T1343UGS References: 1. Land Development Design Corporation, Preliminary Precise Grading Plan, Parcel 9 of Parcel Map 27714, Ynez Road, plans dated February 5, 1998. 2. Soil Tech, Inc., Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading , Lots 1-12, Parcel Map Number 27714, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project Number T4315-C, report dated May 14, 1996. 2. Soil Tech, Inc., Geotechnical Testing/Grading Report, Lot 11, Tract 3334, City of Temecula, Project Number T3320-C-90, report dated Cv� December 21, 1989. Dear Mr. Rumansoff: Per your request and signed Proposal, a representative of this firm reviewed the referenced previous reports and visited the subject site on February 13, 1998, to visually observe and probe the surface within the subject lot, in order to update the reports SET referenced above. 1.0 SITE / PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of approximately 0.75 acres, located on Ynez Road, 41607 Enter`�'Per kV"t'�N09f Temecula, California. The proposed development ws r 5 1 -on- Temecula,CA 92590 Web-page address: www.engencorp.com Santa Ana.CA 92707 (909)676-3095/Fax:676-3294 E-mail address: engencorp@pe.net (714)546AO51/Fax:546AO52 ti La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 2 grade, one-story structure. The remainder of the site will consist of paved parking and associated hardscape and landscape improvements. 2.0 SITE REVIEW Based on the Referenced No. 2 report, approximately 0.5 to 1.0 foot of compacted fill underlies the subject site. Based on the site visit, it appears that no additional grading has been performed since completion of grading as reported in the Referenced No. 2 report. The relatively flat site is currently covered with a slight growth of weeds and grasses. Erosion scars up to 1.5 feet deep were observed at the south end of the lot. Since this Updated Geotechnical Study involved no subsurface exploration, true verification of the referenced previous grading can only be made during the proposed grading. Should conditions be encountered in the field that may cause us to modify any previously made recommendations, they will be addressed in the Compaction Report. 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS The following earthwork recommendation alternatives may be used: Alternative A: Due to a cut/fill transition traversing the proposed pad, the entire building footprint should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below the proposed bottom of footings. The overexcavation should extend a horizontal distance of five (5) feet outside the building perimeter. EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 3 Alternative B: Since it is thought that up to a foot of compacted fill exists on the site, overexcavation may be omitted if footings are deepened so that they rest on competent native earth materials. It is anticipated that footing depths should be the recommended 18-inches in the northern portion of the site and up to 24" to 30" in the southern portion of the site. The exact footing depth will be determined by inspection in the field during footing excavation. Removals will not be required in hardscape or paved areas. These areas will require 12-inches of scarification, moisture conditioning and recompaction. The erosion scars located in the south portion of the site should be cleared of loose soils to competent earth materials and then properly backfilled and recompacted. 4.0 STRUCTURAL FILL All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement. All fill should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should be no more expansive than the existing on-site material. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6.0 to 8.0-inches in thickness and watered or aerated to obtain near-optimum moisture content (± 2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly oNSTp ANY Q mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density based upon ASTM D1557-78 (90) procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. EnGEN Corporation ti La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 4 5.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill or competent native earth materials. The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics as presented in the referenced report, and a low expansion potential (EI=23) for the supporting soils, and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing widths and depths necessary to resist design vertical, horizontal and uplift forces. 5.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12- inches. Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of any slight differential movements that may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or any seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced based on structural requirements. A grade beam founded at the same depths and reinforced, as the adjacent footings should be s provided across doorway and garage entrances. 5.3 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade in undisturbed, properly compacted fill or competent native earth materials. Frost is not considered a design factor for foundations in the area, as there is no significant frost penetration EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 5 in the winter months. Embedment of all footings on or near existing or planned slopes should be determined by a minimum setback distance measured from the bottom outside edge of the footing to the slope face according to the UBC and/or the local governing agency. 5.4 Bearing Capacity: The recommended allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for dead plus live loads and founded in undisturbed, properly compacted silty sand (SM) fill material is 2,000 psf. The allowable bearing value may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live loading such as wind or seismic forces. 5.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to a 2,000 psf bearing value and founded in undisturbed, properly compacted fill or competent native earth materials, are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.25-inch in properly compacted fill between similarly sized and loaded footings. 5.6 Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters based on undisturbed, properly compacted silty sand (SM) fill material (or competent native __----- earth materials) for resistance to lateral forces are as follows: Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), I To� Passive Case: 200 pcfAws b1L Allowable Coefficient of Friction: 0.30 The above values are allowable design values and have safety factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into them. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 6 6.0 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, are based upon a low expansion potential for the supporting material. The expansion potential of the slab subgrade areas should be verified at the completion of any supplemental grading for the structure. 6.2 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0- inches nominal in thickness and be underlain by properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of#3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center in both directions placed mid-depth in the slab or any equivalent system as might be designed by the Project Structural Engineer. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased for excessive design floor loads or anticipated concentrated loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered by a 1.0 to 2.0-inch minimum layer of clean sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures. If the moisture barrier is placed on crushed gravel material, it is recommended that a minimum of 1.0-inch of clean sand or other approved granular material be placed beneath the moisture barrier to prevent punctures from angular gravel fragments and projections. 6.3 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal in thickness and be supported on soil that has been compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-78(90) procedures and moisture conditioned to at least 120 percent of EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 7 optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12-inches immediately before pouring the slab. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to current standards. 7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS: 7.1 Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures: Con_ Level Backfill 2:1 Slope Active 30 pcf 45 pcf At Rest 60 pcf The on-site materials may be used as backfill within the active / at-rest pressure zone as defined above. Walls that are free to deflect 0.001 radian at the top should be designed for the above-recommended active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at- rest condition. The above values assume well-drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a horizontal distance behind the wall should also be should considered in the design. Uniform surcharge pressures should be applied as an additional uniform (rectangular) pressure distribution. The lateral earth pressure coefficient for a uniform vertical surcharge load behind the wall is 0.50. EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 8 .motion, Design: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same 7.2 rvu��.,.... d fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as depths into properly compacte standard foundations and may be designed for the same average allowable bearing value across the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing), and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable sliding resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used. if ultimate values are used for design, an approximate factor of safety (1.5) should be achieved. 7.3 __Sub._drain_ A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all retaining walls to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved system. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, or another approved system. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on- site and/or import materials, should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The perforated pipes should be at least 4.0 inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be places downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain in a non- erosive manner. In the case of Subdrains for basement walls, they need to empty into a sump provided with a submersible pump activated by a change in the water level. EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T7343UGS February 1998 Page 9 7.4 BackfiIV Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3 feet) may consist of 0.5 - to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand (Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if water jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of typical on- site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-78(90) procedures. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Pavement Design: R-Value tests were performed by Geotechnical & Environmental Engineerings on a representative soil sample in accordance with California Test Method 301 procedures. The test results, presented in the Appendix, indicate an R-Value of 29. The following recommendations are presented for the structural pavement section for the proposed parking and driveway areas for the subject development. The pavement section has been determined in general accordance with CALTRANS design procedures and is EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 10 based on an assumed Traffic Index (TI) of 5 and an R-Value of 29. The pavement section should consist of a minimum of three (3) inches of A.C. over six (6) inches of Class 2 A.B. Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Section 39 of the current CALTRANS Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to Class 2 material as specified in Section 26-1.0213 of the current CALTRANS Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. The subgrade soil, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for subgrade and aggregate base materials should be determined according to ASTM D1557-91 procedures. In dumpster pick-up areas, and in areas where semi-trailers are to be parked on the pavement such that a considerable load is transferred from small wheels, it is recommended that rigid Portland Cement concrete pavement with a minimum thickness of six (6) inches be provided in these areas. This will provide for the proper distribution of loads to the subgrade without causing deformation of the pavement surface. Special consideration should also be given to areas where truck traffic will negotiate small radius turns. Asphaltic concrete pavement in these areas should utilize stiffer emulsions or the areas should be paved with Portland Cement concrete. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC pavement to locate areas that may have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. In the proposed pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 11 the time the subgrade is graded for R-Value testing according to California Test Method 301 procedures to verify the pavement design recommendations. 8.2 Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that all utility trenches excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back to an inclination not steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where interior or exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel and/or perpendicular to any building footing, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1:1 plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the utility lines are designed for the footing surcharge loads. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means. Jetting of the backfill material will not be considered a satisfactory method for obtaining compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D1557-78(90) procedures. 8.3 Temporary Excavations Or Cuts: All temporary cuts and excavations should be made in accordance with CAUOSHA minimum requirements for Type C soil. If site restrictions require a different configuration, this office should be contacted to develop construction recommendations. 8.4 Finish Lot Drainage: Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water away from EnGEN Corporation La Master of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 12 foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a nonerosive manner should be provided. 8.5 Planters: Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the building. 8.6 Pre-Bid Conference: It is recommended that a pre-bid conference be held with the owner or an authorized representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical Engineer and the proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the supplemental grading and construction requirements of the project. 8.7 Pre-Grading Conference: Before the start of any grading, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the Project Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to the intent of the supplemental grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that time. EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 13 9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Supplemental grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Supplemental grading includes, but is not limited to, overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, hardscape subgrade, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork completed for the subject development should be performed by EnGEN Corporation if requested by the local building authority, or owner / developer. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation. If parties other than EnGEN Corporation are engaged to perform soils and materials observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations. 10.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this document. It may or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 14 of the proposed structure and/or project as described in this report, are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable standards of our profession and the accepted soil and foundation engineering principles and practices at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made to obtain information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site, limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site conditions that may have an impact at the site. The recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or information becomes available during the design and construction process that are not reflected in this report, or the referenced reports, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be modified or verified in writing. Changes in applicable or appropriate standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside of the control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future. EnGEN Corporation La Masters of Fine Jewelry Project Number T1343UGS February 1998 Page 15 Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. Often, because of design and construction details which occur on a project, questions arise concerning the geotechnical conditions on the site. If we can be of further service or you should have questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be applicable on the project. Respectfully submitted, EnGEN Corporation, 4 Thomas Dewey, CEG 1 5 jor 4ate , E 162 Principal Engineering Geologist Princi al Gical Engineer Expires 11-30-99 Expires 09-30-01 QQ,pF ESSICJH TD/OB/vjv Distribution: (4) Addressee m w N©.182 rn Wayne DIREP0RTS%GS1T1343UGS La Masters of Fine Jewelry CC P CMN�GOQ��P 4F CALIF No. 1975 CA``�OQ. EnGEN Corporation FEB 17'98 15:57 FR 909 699 9446 TO 67,63294 P.01 R-VALUE TEST REPORT 100 ....... ........... ....... . . ........ ................ ------------- 80 ............... . .......... ..... ........ ........ ............. ........... ............ ....... ......... ........... ........ 60 ............. ...... _ ..... m ................ .... .... ..... ..... 40 20 .... ..... ..... _.. ........... .......... ............ ................. 1 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 10 Exudation Pressure - psi Resistance R-value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301 Compact . Expansion HoriZOntal Sample Exud. R R Density Moist. Value [No Pressure Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure value pef % psi @ 160 psi in . psi Corr. psi 8 M30000 121 .8 12. 1 0.00 140 2.A3 94 8gA 2.54 296 29 29125.3 10.1 0.03 802.50 778 39 39 129.2 8 5.45 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DARK BROWN R-Valve @ 300 psi exudation pressure = 29 SILTY SANG Tested by: D. FOSTER Project No.: 429808.60 Checked by: C. STORTS Project: ENGEN Remarks: Location: LA MASTERS JEWELRY YNEZ ROAD Date: 2-27-1998 R-VALUE TEST REPORT QMT= =A C. ruv'r= MENTAL E7HiiIMBBV�. 1w_ Fig. NO. ** TOTAL PAGE.001 ** Los Angeles County Office: Orange County Office: 155 West Avenue J-5 2615 Orange Avenue Lancaster,California 93534 Santa Ana California 92707 bi r• 14 546-4051 f fax: 14 546-4052 ollilill ' $ .•y •i w •' (805)942-Ml I Fax:(805)723.3685 ) ) �iYe r.$v�r���ktt� !,� • �vrr��i.dP�r'ti.�::�. � }. INCMAC- aterial En Geotechnical Engineering Sal I �G on (Testing Assessmen sl ' ■ Engine s ering Geology I� GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING Lots 1-12, Parcel Map 27714 City of Temecula Riverside County, California Project Number: T4315-C CrT REVIEWED B, CHECK APPROVAL OF THESE F•,�q OR ANY APPFIOV OR LOM LA ASSC Prepared fo i EP7 ON NS E r. 7 JOB Uuln MacDonald Properties 20301 S.W. Birch Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660-1074 Corporate Office Post Office Box 15E8 41607 Enterprise Circle North • Temecula,Califomia 92593 • (909)676.2745 FAX(909)699-1757 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING Lots 1-12, Parcel Map 27714 City of Temecula Riverside County, California Project Number: T4315-C Prepared for: MacDonald Properties 20301 S.W. Birch Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660-1074 MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1 Location 2.2 Topography and Surface Conditions 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.1 Time of Grading 3.2 Equipment 3.3 Grading Operations 4.0 TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 Field Testing 4.2 Laboratory Testing 4.2.1 Moisture-Density Relationship Test 5.0 EARTH MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1 General 7.0 CLOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 APPENDIX: FIELD TEST RESULTS LABORATORY TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS SOIL TECH, INC. Los Angeles County Office: Orange County Office: 155 West Avenue J-5 2615 Orange Avenue Lancaster,California 93534 Santa Ana,California 92707 : ;�t (805)942-0991!Fax(805)723-3685 (714)546-4061 1 fax:(714)546-4052 ' IN Geotecfli Engineering Special Material Environmental ■ Engineering Geology Inspection Testing Assessments May 14, 1996 MacDonald Properties 20301 S.W. Birch Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660-1074 (714) 474-2030 Attention: Mr. Roderick MacDonald Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING Lots 1-12 of PM 27714 Ynez Road, City of Temecula Riverside County, California Project Number: T4315-C Reference: 1. Aaragon Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.,November 20, 1987,Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation, Proposed Commercial and Residential Development, Lot 11, Tract 3334, southeast of the intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way; Project No. 3386SF. 2. Soil Tech, Inc., December 21 , 1989, Geotechnical Testing / Grading Report, Lot 11, Tract 3334, City of Temecula; Project No. T3320-C-90. 3. Soil Tech, Inc. September 12, 1995, Pavement Design Recommendations / Updated Geotechnical Study, Parcel 27714, Parcels 1-12, City Of Temecula, Riverside County, California; Project Number T4315-PD. 4. RBF & Associates, Inc., undated, Preliminary Street Improvement / Fine Grading Plans for Parcel Map 27714, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Sheets 1-2. Dear Mr. MacDonald: According to your request and signed authorization, dated August 25, 1995, Soil Tech, Inc. has performed field observations, sampling, and in-place density testing during the rough grading operations for the referenced site. Submitted, herein, are the results of the findings and the supporting field and laboratory data. Corporate Office Post Office Box 1568 - 41607 Enterprise Circle North - Temecula,California 92593 - (909)676-2745 - FAX(909)699-1757 May 14, 1996 MacDonald Properties 20301 S.W. Birch Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660-1074 (714) 474-2030 Attention: Mr. Roderick MacDonald Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING Lots 1-12 of PM 27714 Ynez Road, City of Temecula Riverside County, California Project Number: T4315-C ry Reference: 1. Aaragon Geotechnical Consultants,ionPronosedovember Commerc0ial and Residential Soil and Foundation Investigation, P Development, Lot 11, Tract 3334, southeast of the intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way; Project No. 2. Soil Tech, Inc., December 21, 1989, Geotechnical Testing / Grading Report, Lot 11, Tract 3334, City of Temecula; Project No. T3320-C-90. 3. Soil Tech, Inc. September 12, 1995, Pavement Desk e/s omm2en Cittions y of / Updated Geotechnical Study, Parcel 27714, Temecula, Riverside County, California; Project Number T4315-PD. 4, RBF & Associates, Inc., undated, Preliminary of Temecula, County of Riverside, Grading Plans for Parcel Map 27714, ry California, Sheets 1-2. Dear Mr. MacDonald: 95, oil nc. has According to your request and signed authori atio density test dust u ring the Tough Ig grading performed field observations, sampling, and in-place operations edfor the referenced site. Submitted, herein, are the results of the findings and the data. supporting field and laboratory MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C May 1996 Page 2 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The grading referenced consisted of preparation of commercial building pads and adjacent access roads. The referenced site was graded to the elevations shown on the Reference No. 4 Plan. At the time of this writing, the types and locations of proposed structures have not been determined. Upon determination, this office should be notified and given time to review the proposed plans to determine if any additional grading will be necessary and to determine if existing design and construction recommendations are appropriate. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location: The subject property is located on the east side of Ynez Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of Solana Way, in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, California, as shown on the Vicinity Map presented in the Appendix. 2.2 Topography and Surface Conditions: The project site has been previously graded (refer to Reference 2). Topography of the site is relatively flat, vacant of any man-made structures, and covered by a light growth of native vegetation including grasses and weeds. A portion of Parcel 2 was covered with an isolated area of trees due to nuisance water draining from the adjacent housing tract stormdrain outlet. 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK 3.1 Time of Grading: Grading operations were conducted from November 20 through December 4, 1995. SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C May 1996 Page 3 3.2 Equipment: The rough grading of the commercial lots and access roads were performed using one (1) Caterpillar 623 scraper, one (1) Caterpillar 633 scraper, one (1) Caterpillar 140G blade, one (1) Caterpillar 824 rubber-tired dozer, and one (1) 4000-gallon water truck. 3.3 Grading Operations: Grading within the commercial pads consisted of a cut/ fill operation. Clearing of grasses and weeds was performed prior to scarifying to a depth of 12-inches, moisture conditioning to within 2.0 percent of optimum moisture, processing, and compacting to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Fill material was generated from cuts in Parcels 1, 3, 4 , 9 10, 11 and 12 and the access roads of the site, and from an off-site borrow area located at Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane to bring the northern portion of Parcel 3, the western portion of Parcel 1, Parcels 6, 7 and 8, and the southern portions of Parcels 5, 11 and 12 to finish grade elevation. The grading of Parcels 3, 4, 7, and 8 consisted of removal, scarification, and recompaction operations. The depth of the removals ranged from 3.5-feet to approximately 12.5-feet below adjacent existing grades due to saturation from adjacent nuisance water run-off. A previously existing 18-inch storm drain had evidently introduced nuisance water from the adjacent housing tract, thus creating a saturated condition. The removed material was stockpiled, returned to near-optimum moisture, and later used as fill material. Overexcavation, for erosion repair, was performed on the previously existing fill slope along the southern portion of Parcel 12 to a depth of 6.0-feet and a distance of 20-feet in length. Overexcavated bottoms were observed by a field representative as being in firm competent material prior to placement of fill. Subgrade material was scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 to 8.0-inches below the exposed surface and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Benching into firm competent previously existing materials was observed, as the fill progressed. Moisture conditioning of the on- SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C May 1996 Page 4 site soils was performed during the compaction process through the use of a water truck. Organics, such as trees, brush, roots and other deleteriuos materials were removed from the site cluing the grading operations. The pad areas were generally graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. However, the actual pad locations, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc., were surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project Civil Engineer. 4.0 TESTING 4.1 Field Testing: Field observations and in-place density testing were performed on a full- time as-needed basis during the grading operations. Where tests indicate failing results, the soils were reprocessed until at least 90 percent relative compaction was achieved. Test locations were randomly selected in the areas receiving fill and were recorded using approximate locations and elevations as could be determined in the field. Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed during the placement of the fill materials during the rough grading operations in general accordance with the following ASTM test procedures: Test Method for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depths) - ASTM D2922-81(1990). Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock in Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth) - ASTM D3017-88. The test results indicate that soils were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Test results are presented in the Appendix. The locations of the in-place density tests are presented on the Rough Grading Report Site Plan in the Appendix. SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C May 1996 Page 5 4.2 Laboratory Testin : The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the rough grading of the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix. 4.2.1 Moisture Density Relationship Test: Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Summary of Optimum Moisture Content / Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results. 5.0 EARTH MATERIALS The natural earth materials encountered on-site and from the off-site borrow area generally consisted of silty sands to sandy silts. No other imported soils were used on the site during the grading process. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION S 6.1 General: Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in the areas noted has been completed in accordance with the project plans and specifications, the Grading Code of the City of Temecula, and the Reference No. 3 Pavement Design Recommendations / Updated Geotechnical Study. The graded site in the areas noted as rough graded is determined to be adequate for the support of typical commercial structures and appurtenant facilities when the recommendations for design and construction of foundation, concrete slab-on-grade, pavement, etc., presented in the Reference No. 1 Geotechnical Study are followed. Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation and testing performed by Soil Tech, Inc. Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C May 1996 Page 6 to, any additional fill placement and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. An area of special concern, however, is the cut/fill transition lines which resulted from the previous grading. Based on our review of the old topography maps and grading plans, it is anticipated that portions of proposed building pads extend across the old cut/fill lines. As a result, overexcavation of the proposed building pads will need to be done. Overexcavation and recompaction shall extend to a minimum depth of 3.0-feet below existing grade or finish grade, whichever results in the deeper overexcavation, and to at least 5.0-feet horizontally beyond the building footprint. Soil Tech, Inc. should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork completed for the development of subject site should be performed by Soil Tech, Inc. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by Soil Tech, Inc., liability for the safety and performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by Soil Tech, Inc. )PJ OF 7.0 CLOSURE API This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described above. It may or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. The 'OR IONS ;OMP findings and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing performed during the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct representations of this report. SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C May 1996 Page 7 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, SOIL TECH, INC. ?4 Q'l Jason D. Gardner Osbjorn Bratene, GE 162 Field Supervisor Project Geotechnical Engineer Exp. 09-30-97 JDG/OB:df Distribution: (4) Addressee F 1W PDOCS\REPORTS\C\T43 t 5.RPT 1 1 SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C APPENDIX FIELD-TEST RESULTS (Summary of Field In-Place Density Test Results) SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (Nuclear Gauge Test Method) TEST TEST DEPTH or SOIL MAX. MOISTURE DRY RELATIVE / REQUIRED NO. DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV. TYPE DENSITY CONTENT DENSITY COMPACTION (1996) (FT.) (PCF) (1%) (PCF) N N 1 04-05 PADS 7 & 8 -6.0 1 128.2 14.2 115.8 90.3 N/A 2 04-05 PADS 7 & 8 -9.0 1 128.2 13.3 116.0 90.5 N/A 3 04-05 PADS 7 & 8 -6.0 1 128.2 11.7 108.9 84.9 90 3A 04-05 RETEST #3 -6.0 1 128.2 11.2 116.3 90.7 90 4 04-05 BOTTOM AREA -4.5 1 128.2 13.2 117.2 91.4 90 5 04-05 BOTTOM AREA -4.0 1 128.2 12.9 122.9 95.9 90 6 NO TEST 7 04-08 LOT 6 -1.0 1 128.2 16.0 105.8 82.5 N/A 8 04-08 LOT 6 -1.0 1 128.2 11.6 112.9 88.1 N/A 9 04-08 LOT 8 -2.0 1 128.2 11.1 115.6 90.2 90 10 04-08 LOT 8 -5.0 1 128.2 14.0 117.1 91.3 90 11 04-08 LOTS 3 & 4 -10.0 1 128.2 20.0 108.0 84.2 90 12 04-08 LOTS 3 & 4 -8.0 1 128.2 11.6 123.7 96.5 90 13 04-08 LOTS 3 & 4 -8.0 1 128.2 13.6 117.0 91.3 90 14 04-08 LOT 8 -3.0 1 128.2 12.4 117.0 91.3 90 15 04-08 LOT 8 -4.0 1 128.2 13.8 116.2 90.6 90 16 04-08 LOTS 3 & 4 -12.5 1 128.2 14.0 119.2 93.0 90 17 04-09 LOT 3 -8.0 1 128.2 10.9 114.9 89.6 90 18 04-09 LOT 3 -4.5 1 128.2 11.6 115.7 90.2 90 19 04-09 LOT 3 -6.0 1 128.2 10.2 116.3 90.7 90 20 04-09 LOT 3 -4.0 1 128.2 9.0 112.8 88.0 90 20A 04-09 RETEST#20 -4.0 1 128.2 11.4 114.8 89.5 90 20B 04-09 RETEST#20 -4.0 1 128.2 10.7 116.3 90.7 90 21 04-09 LOT 3 -2.0 1 128.2 10.4 109.7 85.6 90 21A 04-09 RETEST#21 -2.0 1 128.2 10.7 115.7 90.2 90 22 04-09 LOT 3 -2.5 1 128.2 11.2 108.6 84.7 90 22A 04-09 RETEST #22 -2.0 1 128.2 10.2 115.2 89.9 90 23 04-09 LOT 6 -1.5 1 128.2 9.1 110.1 85.9 90 24 04-09 LOT 6 -1.5 1 128.2 10.3 114.9 89.6 90 25 04-09 LOT 2 -0.5 1 128.2 10.2 114.9 89.6 90 26 04-09 LOT 2 -0.5 1 128.2 10.6 115.2 89.9 90 27 04-09 LOT 2 -0.5 1 128.2 10.9 114.8 89.5 90 28 04-10 LOT 6 -2.0 1 128.2 11.5 113.0 88.1 90 29 04-10 RETEST #28 -2.0 1 128.2 9.2 114.5 89.3 90 30 04-10 LOT 3 -1.5 1 128.2 10.5 116.4 90.8 90 31 04-10 LOT 4 -1.0 1 128.2 11.6 118.8 92.7 90 32 04-10 PAD 9 -0.5 2 129.6 11.0 116.1 89.6 90 33 04-10 PAD 10 -0.5 1 128.2 12.3 109.2 85.2 90 33A 04-11 RETEST #33 -0.5 1 128.2 13.1 109.6 85.5 90 . 33B 04-11 RETEST #33 -0.5 1 128.2 12.9 105.1 82.0 90 33C 04-11 RETEST #33 -0.5 1 128.2 9.4 108.1 84.3 90 34 04-11 PAD 10 -0.5 1 128.2 11.6 108.7 84.8 90 35 04-11 PAD 3 -0.5 1 128.2 10.5 115.9 90.4 90 (*) indicates Processed Bottom (F.G.) indicates Finish Grade SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS (Nuclear Gauge Test Method) DEPTH or SOIL MAX. MOISTURE DRY RELATIVE / REQUIRED TEST TEST NO. DATE TEST LOCATION (FTV. TYPE _DENSITY CF _CONTENT _DENSITY (C/OMPACTIO�) (1996) 90 04-11 PAD 3 -0.5 1 128.2 11.0 115.4 90.2 90 36 37 04-11 PAD 12 SLOPE -8.0 1 128.2 12.7 115.6 90.2 90 38 04 11 PAD 3 -0.5 1 128.2 12.1 116.3 90.7 90 0.5 1 128.2 10.1 115.8 90.3 39 04-11 PAD 3 -0.5 1 128.2 10.5 116.2 90.6 90 40 04-11 PAD 3128.2 11.1 115.8 90.3 90 41 04-11 PAD 12 -4•5 1 90 42 04-11 PAD 12 -1.0 1 128.2 12.3 115.2 90.2 43 04-11 PAD 4 -0.5 1 128.2 12.2 116.2 90.6 90 44 04-11 PAD 4 -0.5 1 128.2 12.9 113.8 88.8 90 44A 04-12 RETEST #44 1.0 1 128.2 9.3 115.1 90.2 128.2 11.4 116.1 90.6 90 45 04-12 PAD 4 1.0 1 90 46 04-12 PAD 5 -0.5 1 128.2 10.2 115.4 90.0 90 47 04-12 PAD 5 -0.5 1 128.2 12.4 116.1 90.6 90.1 90 48 04-12 PAD 6 -0.5 1 128.2 10.8 115.5 90 49 04-12 PAD 6 -0.5 1 128.2 12.2 116.3 90.7 90 50 04-1 PAD 6 -2.0 1 128.2 11.6 115.4 90.0 90 51 04-15 PAD 7 -2.0 1 128.2 10.4 115.5 90.1 90 52 04-15 PAD 7 -0.5 3 129.4 11.0 116.5 90.0 90 53 04-15 PAD 8 -0.5 3 129.4 12.1 117.1 90.5 90 54 04-15 PAD 8 -0.5 3 129.4 12.6 117.7 91.0 90 55 04-15 PAD 8 -2.0 1 128.2 12.3 115.9 90.4 90 5 04-15 PAD 12 -0.5 1 128.2 10.4 116.7 91.0 57 04-15 PAD 12 -0.5 2 129.8 12.2 117.2 90.3 990 0 58 04-15 PAD 11 -0.5 1 128.2 11.9 116.4 90.9 90 91.1 59 04-15 PAD 11 -0.5 1 128.2 9.9 115.6 1.2 90 60 04-15 PAD 11 -0.5 2 129.8 10.3 118.2 90 61 04 16 PAD 9 -0.5 2 129.8 11.4 117.4 90.4 61 04-16 PAD 10 -0.5 1 128.2 12.3 115.4 90.0 90 34A 04-16 PAD 10 -0.5 1 128.2 8.7 115.5 90.1 90 62 04-16 PAD 10 -0.5 1 128.2 10.4 110.2 86.0 990 0 63 04-16 PAD 10 -0.5 1 128.2 12.9 116.9 91.2 90 62A 04-16 RETEST #62 -0.5 1 128.2 11.3 116.7 90.2 90 34B 04-16 RETEST #34 0.5 1 128.4 11.9 116.2 90.690 64 04-16 PAD 8 -3.0 3 129.4 19.3 118.5 91.5 90 65 04-16 PAD 7 -0.5 3 129.4 9 3 1 1 4 91 5 90 66 04-16 PAD 7 -0.5 3 129.4 13.4 121.4 93.8 67 04 16 PAD 7 -0.5 3 129.4 13.6 118.9 91.9 90 90 68 04-16 PAD 6 -0.5 1 128.2 11.4 115.9 90'90.4 2 115.9 90 69 04-16 PAD 11 -0.5 1 128.2 10.7 90.3 90 70 04-17 PAD 8 -0.5 3 129.4 11.3 116.8 90 -0.5 4 120.5 12.3 112.4 93.3 90 71 04-17 PAD 8 -0.5 4 120.5 11.9 111.6 92.6 72 04-17 PAD 8 N indicates Processed Bottom (F.G.) indicates Finish Grade SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties Project No. T4315-C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (Summary of Optimum Moisture Content / Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results) (Summary of Expansion Index Test Results) SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Properties + Project No. T4315-C SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT / MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS ASTM D1557-91 SOIL MAXIMUM OPTIMUM TYPE SOIL DESCRIPTION, (USCS Symbol) DRY DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT (PCF) N 1 Brown Silty Sand (SM) 128.2 9.2 2 Brown Sand w/ Silt (SM) 129.8 9•2 *3 Tan Silty Sand (SM) 129.4 9.7 4 Tan Sandy Silt (ML) 120.5 11.9 * indicates import sample. SOIL TECH, INC. MacDonald Propertles Project No. 74315-C DRAWINGS (Rough Grading Report Site Plan) SOIL TECH, INC. ,mme ex,a..wnVf:.. Geotechnical Soil Inspection Material UCH ' ■ Consultants Geology Engineering &Testing Testing Y- Geotechnical Testing / Grading Report Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: T3320-C-89 Prepared for: Tavaglione Construction 26745 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92362 Corporate Office: Lancaster Office: 41607 Enterprise Circle North Post Office Box 1497 post Office Box 1568 456 East Avenue K-4,Suite#8 Temecula,California 92390 Lancaster,California 93534 (714)676-2745/ FAX: (714)699-1757 (805)942-0991 /FAX: (805) 723.3685 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number and Title Page 1 . 0 Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 2 Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . 3 Existing Topography and Site Conditions . . . . . . 2 2 . 0 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . 1 Grading Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2 . 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 . 3 Contractor and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 . 4 Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 . 5 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 . 0 Earth Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 4 3 . 1 Natural Earth Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 . 2 Fill Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 . 0 Foundation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4 . 1 Expansive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 2 Expansion Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 . 3 Steel Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 . 4 Foundation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 . 0 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 . 2 Acceptance of Work Performed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Summary of Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Relationship Curve( s ) Exhibit I Summary of Field Density Test Results Exhibit II Summary of Swell Test Results (UBC 29 . 2 ) Exhibit III Laboratory Test Results Appendix A Compaction Test Report Site Plans Figure 1 & 2 Soil Tech, Inc. t I NC 1"GICHGeotechnical Geology Soil Inspection Material Consultants Engineering &TestingTesting December 21, 1989 Tavaglione Construction Attn: Mr. Dick Brecker 26745 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92362 ( 714 ) 677-1172 Regarding: Geotechnical Testing / Intrim Grading Report Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 This firm has conducted field observation and compaction testing on the referenced site. Herein, are submitted the results of the findings with the supporting data. 1 . 0 Site Description: 1 . 1 General : The subject property is located between Ynez Road and South General Kearny Way in the City of Temecula of Riverside County ( see Site Plan, Figure 1 ) . 1 . 2 Proposed Development: The proposed development is represented to be apartment and condominium complex. These dwellings are to be constructed as one and two story wood-framed slab-at-grade structures . 1 . 3 Existing Topography and Site Conditions : The natural topography across the site was gentle rolling hillside . At the time of initial grading the site was covered with a light growth of natural vegetation . No structures or other man-made facilities were observed to exist on the subject property. Corporate Office: Lancaster Office: 41607 Enterprise Circle North Post Office Box 1497 Post Office Box 1568 456 East Avenue K-4,Suite #8 Temecula, California 92390 Lancaster, California 93534 (714)676.2745/ FAX: (714)699.1757 (805)942-0991 /FAX: (805) 723-3685 Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21 , 1989 Page 2 2 . 0 Scope of Work: 2 . 1 Grading Operations : The current grading operations were conducted in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation prepared by Aragon Geotechnical Consultants , Inc . dated November 20 , 1987 , Project Number 3386SF for Rancon Realty Fund IV. Grading consisted of a cut and fill operation. All cleanout preparations prior to fill placement were made in accordance with the recommendations of the project field engineering geologist based on exposed soil conditions . Detailed information on fill depths and test locations can be taken from the Compaction Test Report Site Plans (Figures 1 & 2 ) and Exhibit II . Compaction tests are representative of all fill placed within the limits of grading during the grading operations conducted from October 31, 1989 to December 7 , 1989 . 2 . 2 Site Plans : Limits and depths of fill , as well as test locations are indicated on the Compaction Test Report Site Plans (Figures 1 and 2 ) . The site plans were adapted from the grading plans prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates , dated March 31 , 1989 . Soil Tech, Ina Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21, 1989 Page 3 2 . 3 Contractor and Equipment • The grading operations were performed by Kemmis Equipment, through the use of several D-8 track mounted dozers , rubber tire mounted dozers , self-loading scrapers , motor graders and water trucks . 2 . 4 Site Preparation: The base of the fill slopes were keyed and benched into stable bedrock and/or firm native ground . Clean-out of unsuitable materials was performed at the toe of proposed fill slopes to a depth determined by a Staff Engineering Geologist . Deleterious and organic material was removed prior to the placement of fill and removed off site . Compaction of the fill material was accomplished by placement of the fill material in lens thicknesses of six ( 6 ) to eight ( 8) inches . 2 . 5 Testing: Field compaction testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM-D-1556-70 and ASTM-D-2922-81 . Laboratory "Proctors " (Maximum Density - Optimum Moisture Content Relationships) , were conducted in accordance with ASTM-D-1557 . 3 . 0 Earth Materials : 3 . 1 Natural Earth Materials : The natural earth materials encountered within the site area consist of silty sands . Soil Tech, Ina Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21, 1989 Page 4 3 . 2 Fill Material : A wide range of soil types were encountered throughout the grading, however, when processed for replacement as fill , the soils consist primarily of sands with various degrees of silt and clay present ( see Exhibit I ) . 4 . 0 Foundation Recommendations : 4 . 1 Expansive Soils : Representative soil samples were retrieved upon completion of grading for expansive soil swell testing. The swell test procedure utilized was the Uniform Building Code Test Designation Standard 29 . 2 . The material tested consisted of silty sand. 4 . 2 Expansion Index: The samples tested registered expansion indexes of 28 and 43 , "Low" expansive potential for subject site . Our enclosed "Suggested Guidelines for Design of Foundation and Slab Systems " should be referenced concerning design of on-site foundations for single and two story wood-framed structures . 4 . 3 Steel Reinforcement: Our enclosed "Suggested Guidelines for 2 7 1! Design of Foundation and Slab Systems " should be referenced �rior� ;;'8 A concerning steel reinforcement for single and two story wood-framed structures . Soil Tech, InG Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21 , 1989 Page 5 4 . 4 Foundation Guidelines : The foundation guidelines are for expansive soil conditions only and should not preclude more ridged structural requirements . The project engineer should be consulted to confirm adequete structural reinforcement . 5 . 0 Conclusions and Recommendations : 5 . 1 General : Laboratory and field testing results indicate relative densities greater than 90 percent within the referenced fill portions of the subject site . 5 . 2 Acceptance of Work Performed: Soil Tech, Inc . should be notified with respect to future development of the subject property which will encompass additional grading operations . The findings and recommendations expressed in this report are based on field and laboratory testing performed during the referenced grading operation and no warranty is expressed or implied beyond the direct representations of this report . Soil Tech, Inc. Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21, 1989 Page 6 Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report . Please direct any questions to this office . Respectfully Submitted, SOIL TECH, INC . Prepared By: Approved By: Ken Van Kalsbeek John T. Reinhart,RCE 23464 Manager of Operations Executive Vice President Expiration: 12-31-89 KVK:JTR: /sas Dist . ( 4 ) Addressee 1 Soil Tech, Inc Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21 , 1989 Page 7 EXHIBIT I SUMMARY OF MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS ASTM-D-1557-70 Test No . Sample Description Max Density Opt Moist . 1 . Brown clayey silty sand. (SM) 128 . 0 9 . 5 2 . Brown silty sand. ( SM) 127 . 9 9 . 2 3 . Brown silty sand. ( SM) 127 . 4 9 . 5 4 . Brown silty sand. ( SM) 128 . 6 8 . 5 5 . Brown silty sand. (SM) 129 . 8 8 . 9 6 . Tan silty fine sand. (SM) 126 . 2 9 . 7 7 . Brown silty fine sand. (SM) 118 . 8 12 . 3 8 . Brown silty sand. (SM) 121 . 0 11 . 5 I Soil Tech, Inc. Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21 , 1989 Page 8 EXHIBIT II SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS ASTM-D-1556-70 Depth Moist Dry Rel . Req. or Cont . Den. % Max. Soil % No Test Location Elev. % PCF Comp. Den. Type Comp 1 . See Site Plan Base 9 . 5 104 . 4 81 . 5 127 . 9 2 90 2 . Retest 1 Base 9 . 5 103 . 1 80 . 5 127 . 9 2 90 3 . Retest 2 Base 12 . 0 115 . 6 90 . 3 127 . 9 2 90 4 . See Site Plan +2 ' 8 . 7 114 . 6 91 . 3 127 . 9 2 90 5 . See Site Plan 1052 15 . 2 118 . 2 91 . 9 128 . 6 4 90 6 . See Site Plan 1053 8 . 7 121 . 9 95 . 3 127 . 9 2 90 7 . See Site Plan 1054 7 . 1 115 . 3 90 . 0 128 . 6 4 90 8 . See Site Plan 1052 10 . 3 119 . 0 92 . 5 128 . 6 4 90 9 . See Site Plan 1055 9 . 0 120 . 1 93 . 9 127 . 9 2 90 10 . See Site Plan 1053 7 . 8 116 . 7 90 . 8 128 . 6 4 90 11 . See Site Plan 1055 11 . 3 117 . 4 91 . 3 128 . 6 4 90 12 . See Site Plan 1057 8 . 3 120 . 0 93 . 3 128 . 6 4 90 13 . See Site Plan 1056 10 . 2 119 . 6 93 . 5 127 . 9 2 90 14 . See Site Plan 1058 8 . 6 118 . 0 91 . 8 128 . 6 4 90 15 . See Site Plan 1058 9 . 9 113 . 7 90 . 3 126 . 2 6 90 16 . See Site Plan 1058 8 . 2 123 . 9 96 . 3 128 . 6 4 90 17 . See Site Plan 1057 11 . 3 114 . 6 90 . 8 126 . 2 6 90 18 . See Site Plan 1055 10 . 4 120 . 0 93 . 3 128 . 6 4 90 19 . See Site Plan 1056 7 . 0 114 . 6 90 . 0 127 . 9 2 90 20 . See Site Plan 1056 6 . 0 119 . 4 93 . 4 127 . 9 2 90 21 . See Site Plan 1058 8 . 2 113 . 1 90 . 0 126 . 2 6 90 22 . See Site Plan 1058 6 . 0 122 . 8 95 . 5 128 . 6 4 90 23 . See Site Plan 1062 10 . 1 122 . 0 95 . 7 127 . 4 3 90 24 . See Site Plan 1060 5 . 0 118 . 3 92 . 9 127 . 4 3 90 25 . See Site Plan 1060 6 . 0 120 . 7 94 . 8 127 . 4 3 90 26 . See Site Plan 1062 7 . 6 120 . 8 94 . 8 127 . 4 3 90 27 . See Site Plan 1063 7 . 4 124 . 4 95 . 8 129 . 8 5 90 28 . See Site Plan 1064 7 . 2 123 . 4 95 . 1 129 . 8 5 90 29 . See Site Plan 1054 7 . 8 121 . 5 94 . 5 128 . 6 4 90 30 . See Site Plan 1052 8 . 0 122 . 8 95 . 5 128 . 6 4 90 Soil Tech, Inc. Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21 , 1989 Page 8 EXHIBIT II SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS ASTM-D-1556-70 Depth Moist Dry Rel . Req. or Cont . Den. % Max. Soil % No Test Location Elev. % PCF Comp. Den. Type Comp 1 . See Site Plan Base 9 . 5 104 . 4 81 . 5 127 . 9 2 90 2 . Retest 1 Base 9 . 5 103 . 1 80 . 5 127 . 9 2 90 3 . Retest 2 Base 12 . 0 115 . 6 90 . 3 127 . 9 2 90 4 . See Site Plan +2 , 8 . 7 114 . 6 91 . 3 127 . 9 2 90 5 . See Site Plan 1052 15 . 2 118 . 2 91 . 9 128 . 6 4 90 6 . See Site Plan 1053 8 . 7 121 . 9 95 . 3 127 . 9 2 90 7 . See Site Plan 1054 7 . 1 115 . 3 90 . 0 128 . 6 4 90 8 . See Site Plan 1052 10 . 3 119 . 0 92 . 5 128 . 6 4 90 9 . See Site Plan 1055 9 . 0 120 . 1 93 . 9 127 . 9 2 90 10 . See Site Plan 1053 7 . 8 116 . 7 90 . 8 128 . 6 4 90 11 . See Site Plan 1055 11 . 3 117 . 4 91 . 3 128 . 6 4 90 12 . See Site Plan 1057 8 . 3 120 . 0 93 . 3 128 . 6 4 90 13 . See Site Plan 1056 10 . 2 119 . 6 93 . 5 127 . 9 2 90 14 . See Site Plan 1058 8 . 6 118 . 0 91 . 8 128 . 6 4 90 15 . See Site Plan 1058 9 . 9 113 . 7 90 . 3 126 . 2 6 90 16 . See Site Plan 1058 8 . 2 123 . 9 96 . 3 128 . 6 4 90 17 . See Site Plan 1057 11 . 3 114 . 6 90 . 8 126 . 2 6 90 18 . See Site Plan 1055 10 . 4 120 . 0 93 . 3 128 . 6 4 90 19 . See Site Plan 1056 7 . 0 114 . 6 90 . 0 127 . 9 2 90 20 . See Site Plan 1056 6 . 0 119 . 4 93 . 4 127 . 9 2 90 21 . See Site Plan 1058 8 . 2 113 . 1 90 . 0 126 . 2 6 90 22 . See Site Plan 1058 6 . 0 122 . 8 95 . 5 128 . 6 4 90 23 . See Site Plan 1062 10 . 1 122 . 0 95 . 7 127 . 4 3 90 24 . See Site Plan 1060 5 . 0 118 . 3 92 . 9 127 . 4 3 90 25 . See Site Plan 1060 6 . 0 120 . 7 94 . 8 127 . 4 3 90 26 . See Site Plan 1062 7 . 6 120 . 8 94 . 8 127 . 4 3 90 27 . See Site Plan 1063 7 . 4 124 . 4 95 . 8 129 . 8 5 90 28 . See Site Plan 1064 7 . 2 123 . 4 95 . 1 129 . 8 5 90 29 . See Site Plan 1054 7 . 8 121 . 5 94 . 5 128 . 6 4 90 30 . See Site Plan 1052 8 . 0 122 . 8 95 . 5 128 . 6 4 90 Soil Tech, Inc. Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21 , 1989 Page 10 EXHIBIT II SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS ASTM-D-1556-70 Depth Moist Dry Rel . Req. or Cont . Den. % Max. Soil % No Test Location Elev. % PCF Comp. Den. Type Comp 63 . See Site Plan 1056 11 . 4 106 . 6 90 . 0 118 . 8 7 90 64 . See Site Plan 1058 11 . 1 113 . 5 95 . 5 118 . 8 7 90 65 . See Site Plan 1082 11 . 1 106 . 3 90 . 0 118 . 8 7 90 66 . See Site Plan 1080 10 . 9 106 . 4 90 . 0 118 . 8 7 90 67 . See Site Plan 1058 11 . 3 108 . 7 91 . 5 118 . 8 7 90 68 . See Site Plan 1060 11 . 5 112 . 0 94 . 3 118 . 8 7 90 69 . Retest 60 1080 14 . 0 118 . 7 92 . 8 127 . 9 2 90 70 . Retest 59 1079 10 . 8 115 . 1 90 . 0 127 . 9 2 90 71 . See Site Plan 1062 8 . 2 111 . 0 93 . 5 118 . 8 7 90 72 . See Site Plan 1081 11 . 3 113 . 1 95 . 2 118 . 8 7 90 73 . See Site Plan 1062 10 . 4 111 . 0 93 . 4 118 . 8 7 90 74 . See Site Plan 1083 12 . 3 107 . 8 90 . 8 118 . 8 7 90 75 . See Site Plan 1062 11 . 3 113 . 4 95 . 4 118 . 8 7 90 76 . See Site Plan 1063 10 . 2 111 . 3 93 . 6 118 . 8 7 90 77 . See Site Plan 1064 14 . 0 113 . 5 95 . 5 118 . 8 7 90 78 . See Site Plan 1064 9 . 9 112 . 5 93 . 0 121 . 0 8 90 79 . See Site Plan 1064 11 . 9 108 . 5 90 . 5 121 . 0 8 90 80 . See Site Plan 1065 12 . 4 114 . 0 94 . 2 121 . 0 8 90 81 . See Site Plan 1065 9 . 1 115 . 5 90 . 3 127 . 9 2 90 82 . See Site Plan 1075 10 . 5 110 . 6 91 . 4 121 . 0 8 90 83 . See Site Plan 1076 13 . 5 113 . 6 93 . 9 121 . 0 8 90 84 . See Site Plan 1067 12 . 2 108 . 8 91 . 6 118 . 8 7 90 85 . See Site Plan 1068 8 . 4 108 . 7 90 . 0 121 . 0 8 90 86 . See Site Plan 1070 8 . 2 115 . 6 90 . 4 127 . 9 2 90 87 . See Site Plan 1071 9 . 1 106 . 5 90 . 0 118 . 8 7 90 88 . See Site Plan 1071 8 . 9 116 . 3 90 . 0 129 . 8 5 90 89 . See Site Plan 1072 11 . 2 106 . 3 90 . 0 118 . 8 7 90 90 . See Site Plan 1073 8 . 4 122 . 6 94 . 4 129 . 8 5 90 91 . See Site Plan 1073 12 . 2 122 . 7 94 . 5 129 . 8 5 90 92 . See Site Plan 1074 10 . 1 113 . 4 93 . 7 121 . 0 8 90 94 . See Site Plan 1076 9 . 7 120 . 3 92 . 7 129 . 8 5 90 95 . See Site Plan 1077 11 . 6 110 . 1 92 . 7 118 . 8 7 90 96 . See Site Plan 1079 13 . 3 107 . 0 90 . 1 118 . 8 7 90 Soil Tech, Inc. Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21, 1989 Page 11 EXHIBIT II SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS ASTM-D-1556-70 Depth Moist Dry Rel . Req. or Cont. Den. % Max. Soil % No Test Location Elev. % PCF Comp. Den. Type Comp 97 . See Site Plan 1078 12 . 3 115 . 8 95 . 7 121 . 0 8 90 98 . See Site Plan 1080 9 . 5 125 . 7 96 . 8 129 . 8 5 90 99 . See Site Plan 1080 9 . 2 120 . 9 93 . 1 129 . 8 5 90 100 . See Site Plan 1081 8 . 8 123 . 1 94 . 8 129 . 8 5 90 101 . See Site Plan 1081 10 . 2 122 . 9 94 . 6 129 . 8 5 90 102 . See Site Plan 1082 12 . 0 110 . 9 93 . 3 118 . 8 7 90 103 . See Site Plan 1081 12 . 2 114 . 5 94 . 6 121 . 0 8 90 104 . See Site Plan 1083 8 . 2 109 . 6 90 . 6 121 . 0 8 90 105 . See Site Plan 1081 11 . 8 111 . 3 93 . 7 118 . 8 7 90 106 . See Site Plan 1071 10 . 0 115 . 9 90 . 6 127 . 9 2 90 107 . See Site Plan 1071 10 . 4 115 . 2 90 . 1 127 . 9 2 90 108 . See Site Plan 1070 12 . 0 116 . 9 90 . 1 129 . 8 5 90 109 . See Site Plan 1075 11 . 6 110 . 6 92 . 8 118 . 8 7 90 110 . See Site Plan 1083 11 . 4 114 . 0 94 . 2 121 . 0 8 90 ill . See Site Plan 1076 9 . 5 111 . 6 92 . 2 121 . 0 8 90 112 . See Site Plan 1072 13 . 5 109 . 0 91 . 8 118 . 8 7 90 113 . See Site Plan 1073 12 . 8 110 . 8 90 . 9 121 . 0 8 90 114 . See Site Plan 1072 13 . 3 109 . 6 92 . 3 118 . 8 7 90 115 . See Site Plan 1072 12 . 6 111 . 1 91 . 8 121 . 0 8 90 116 See Site Plan 1073 9 . 7 111 . 8 92 . 4 121 . 0 8 90 117 . See Site Plan 1075 9 . 4 111 . 7 92 . 4 121 . 0 8 90 118 . See Site Plan 1076 9 . 0 115 . 0 90 . 3 127 . 4 3 90 119 . See Site Plan 1076 11 . 2 108 . 4 90 . 0 121 . 0 8 90 120 . See Site Plan 1077 9 . 3 117 . 6 91 . 9 128 . 0 1 90 121 . See : Site Plan 1079 9 . 7 111 . 3 92 . 0 121 . 0 8 90 122 . See Site Plan 1080 9 . 5 118 . 0 92 . 6 127 . 4 3 90 123 . See 'Site Plan 1082 9 . 5 114 . 3 90 . 0 127 . 4 3 90 124 . See Site Plan 1067 8 . 8 115 . 7 90 . 5 127 . 9 2 90 125 . See Site Plan 1068 9 . 5 119 . 7 92 . 2 129 . 8 5 90 126 . See Site Plan 1069 8 . 9 122 . 8 94 . 6 129 . 8 5 90 127 . See Site Plan 1068 9 . 2 120 . 8 93 . 0 129 . 8 5 90 128 . See Site Plan 1069 9 . 0 111 . 3 92 . 0 121 . 0 8 90 Soil Tech, Ina Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21 , 1989 Page 12 EXHIBIT II SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS ASTM-D-1556-70 Depth Moist Dry Rel . Req. or Cont. Den. % Max. Soil % No Test Location Elev. % PCF Comp. Den. Type Camp 129 . See Site Plan 1069 9 . 7 106 . 9 90 . 0 118 . 8 7 90 130 . See Site Plan 1068 9 . 3 117 . 6 90 . 6 129 . 8 5 90 131 . See Site Plan 1070 9 . 1 121 . 8 93 . 9 129 . 8 5 90 132 . See Site Plan 1070 10 . 3 118 . 1 91 . 0 129 . 8 5 90 133 . See Site Plan 1071 9 . 0 119 . 6 92 . 2 129 . 8 5 90 134 . See Site Plan 1082 10 . 1 108 . 7 90 . 0 121 . 0 8 90 135 . See Site Plan 1083 9 . 9 109 . 6 90 . 6 121 . 0 8 90 136 . See Site Plan 1084 9 . 1 118 . 2 91 . 0 129 . 8 5 90 137 . See Site Plan 1070 10 . 7 120 . 8 93 . 1 129 . 8 5 90 138 . See Site Plan 1071 11 . 1 112 . 1 92 . 6 121 . 0 8 90 139 . See Site Plan 1072 10 . 5 113 . 2 93 . 6 121 . 0 8 90 140 . See Site Plan 1071 10 . 7 119 . 5 93 . 4 128 . 0 1 90 141 See Site Plan 1069 9 . 2 119 . 9 93 . 7 127 . 9 2 90 142 . See Site Plan 1070 8 . 5 117 . 1 90 . 2 129 . 8 5 90 143 . See Site Plan 1073 10 . 0 123 . 4 95 . 0 129 . 8 5 90 144 . See Site Plan 1072 11 . 0 117 . 5 91 . 8 128 . 0 1 90 145 . See Site Plan 1071 9 . 5 113 . 4 90 . 0 126 . 2 6 90 146 . See Site Plan 1071 10 . 7 116 . 6 91 . 1 128 . 0 1 90 147 . See Site Plan 1070 9 . 1 121 . 0 93 . 2 129 . 8 5 90 148 . See Site Plan 1077 11 . 1 109 . 3 90 . 3 121 . 0 8 90 149 . See Site Plan 1062 11 . 5 109 . 1 90 . 2 121 . 0 8 90 150 . See Site Plan 1071 9 . 0 119 . 5 92 . 1 129 . 8 5 90 151 . See Site Plan 1072 10 . 1 114 . 0 90 . 3 126 . 2 6 90 152 . See Site Plan 1071 9 . 5 121 . 6 95 . 0 128 . 0 1 90 153 . See Site Plan 1077 13 . 0 110 . 3 91 . 1 121 . 0 8 90 Soil Tech, Inc. Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21, 1989 Page 13 EXHIBIT II SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS ASTM-D-1556-70 Depth Moist Dry Rel . Req. or Cont . Den. % Max. Soil % No. Test Location Elev. % PCF Comp. Den Type Comp 154 . See Site Plan 1074 10 . 0 115 . 8 91 . 8 126 . 2 6 90 155 . See Site Plan 1091 9 . 1 116 . 0 91 . 9 - 126 . 2 6 90 156 . See Site Plan 1086 9 . 5 116 . 3 90 . 9 128 . 0 1 90 157 . See Site Plan 1087 8 . 2 114 . 2 90 . 5 126 . 2 6 90 158 . See Site Plan 1087 10 . 7 113 . 0 90 . 0 126 . 2 6 90 159 . See Site Plan 1088 10 . 5 115 . 3 90 . 1 128 . 0 1 90 160 . See Site Plan 1088 10 . 2 116 . 8 91 . 2 128 . 0 1 90 161 . See Site Plan 1091 10 . 1 109 . 0 90 . 1 121 . 0 8 90 162 . See Site Plan 1090 10 . 4 111 . 8 92 . 4 121 . 0 8 90 163 . See Site Plan 1066 8 . 5 114 . 4 90 . 0 127 . 4 3 90 164 . See Site Plan 1087 8 . 6 115 . 5 90 . 2 128 . 0 1 90 165 . See Site Plan 1088 10 . 8 115 . 8 90 . 0 128 . 6 4 90 166 See Site Plan 1087 8 . 4 115 . 6 90 . 3 128 . 0 1 90 167 . See Site Plan 1090 8 . 6 115 . 4 90 . 2 128 . 0 1 90 168 . See Site Plan 1063 9 . 0 117 . 3 90 . 4 129 . 8 5 90 169 . See Site Plan 1060 9 . 6 115 . 2 90 . 0 128 . 0 1 90 Soil Tech, Ina Lot 11 of Tract 3334 Project Number: 3320-C-89 December 21, 1989 Page 14 EXHIBIT III Swell Test Results UBC 29 . 2 Dry Sample Surcharge Density Moisture Condition Swell Number Depth - Ft . P .S .F. P.S .F. Before Test After Test Index 1 . 1 . 5 144 110 . 8 8 . 6 19 . 7 28 2 . 1 . 5 144 112 . 1 8 . 8 20 . 0 43 'T'' ~:.TC 1+JF P{ 'TED E3Y Soil Tech, Inc APPENDIX A Laboratory Test Data Sheets Soil Tech, Inc. UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 1 '!l1iS� JOB NO. : T5720-C JOB NAME: TAVAGLIONE LOCATION: LOT 11 OF TRACT 70=4 SAMPLE SOURCE: BUILDING PAD #22 SAMPLE BY: SH LAB TECH: ALV REMARKS: SAMPLE #1 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SILTY SAND, CROWN A WET COMPACTED WT. 5?0. 9 DIAL TIME B RING WT. 192. 2 ------------------ NET WET WT. 395. 7 READING #1 0. 200 1100 WET DENSITY 120. 4 E WET SOIL + TARE 209. 1 READING #2 0. 220= 1115 F DRY SOIL + TARE 192. 5 yY G TARE 0. 0 READING #1 0. 226 1315; INITIAL MOISTURE % 8. 6 INITIAL_ DRY DENSITY 1 10. E READING #4 0. 227 150 SATURATIOP,I 44. e K FINAL WT. 629. 4 READING #5 *. 2S 71 DRY WT. 556. 5 .� LOSS 1 . NET DRY WI . 364. 7 FINAL DENSITY 110. 0 —~ SATURATED MOISTURE 19. 7 SWELL INDEX 28 31 )I i( �c BC Latorator'. Expansion Test Results 12;11 /eg OB NO. : T?20-C j OB NAME: TAVAGL IONE LOCATION: LOT 11 OF TRACT 3304 SAMPLE SOURCE: BUILDING PAD # 4 SAMPLED BY: SH LAB TECH: ALV REMAR[--:S: SAMPLE #2 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SILTY SAND, BROWN A WET COMPACTED WT. 590. 5 DIAL TIME B RING WT. 1 S6. 5 ------------------- NET WET WT. 404. 0 READING #1 0. 200 1000 00 WET DENSITY 122. 4t E WET SOIL + TARE 205. Gt READING #2 0. 221, 1019 F DRY SOIL_ + TARE 1+_S. 4 G TARE 0. 0 READING # 0. 241 f' 5yt INITIAL_ MOISTURE '! e. c INITIAL DRY DENSITY 112. 1 READING #4 s=t. ^4^ 1GGt�t % SATURATION 4 i. 7 READING #5 tip. 2�-3 715 �:: FINAL W T. �.::_a. , DRY W T. 54. c LOSE - . S; NET DRY Y W T. 063. 4 - ---- F I NAL DENSITY 1 1 1 . 7 SATURATED MOISTURE 0, 0 SWELL INDEX 43 PROCTOR TEST REPORT 140 135 U 130 .100 Qi 'O 125 A 120 ZAV -For Sp.G. = 2.65 115 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 Water content, % ""Modified-' Proctors ASTM p Method A E1evl Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI f 7 % < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No.4 No. 200 SM X, 2.65 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Optimum moisture = 9. 5 X CLAYEY SILTY SANDp BROWN Maximum dry density = 128.0 pcf (STOCKPILE MATERIAL) Project No. : 3320-C-89 Remarks: Project: TAVAGLIONE 10-30-89 Location: LOT #11 TRACT #3334 SAMPLE #1 COLLECTED BY CDY Date: 10-31-89 PROCTOR TEST REPORT SOIL TECH LABORATORIES Fig. No. PROCTOR TEST REPORT 140 135 130 R 125 129 ZA'J -for Sp.is. 2.65 115 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 Water content, Y. "Modi-Pied' Proctor , ASTM , Method A ; Elewi Classification Nat; Sp.G. LL PI % > f < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. Na.4 No. 200 . SM 2. 65 r: TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Optimum moisture = 9.2 X SILTY BAND, BROWN i Maximum dry density = 127.5 pc-f (ORGANICS INCORPORATED) Remarks: - Project No. : 3320-C-8 is-30-89 Project: TAVAGLIONE Location: LOT #11 TRACT #3334 SAMPLE #2 COLLECTED BY CDY Date: 10-31-889 1 PROCTOR TEST REPORT SOIL TECH LABORATORIES Fig. No. PROCTOR TEST REPORT 140 135 130 oe 01, T 125 L 120 2AV -for kL Sp .G. = 2. 65 115 2.5 5 7.5 10 12. 5 15 17.5 Water content, X "'Modified" Proctor, ASTM ; Method A E1evf Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI > r < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No. 4 No.200 SM % 2.65 % % TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Optimum moisture = 9.5 X SILTY SAND, BROWN Maximum dry density = 127.4 pcf Project No. : 3320-C-89 Remarks: Project: TAUAGLIONE 10-30-89 Location: LOT #11 TRACT #3334 SAMPLE #3 COLLECTED BY CDY Date• 11-1-89 PROCTOR TEST REPORT SOIL TECH LABORATORIES Fig. No. PROCTOR TEST REPORT 140 135 I U 13i3 A IL 125 i + R !I{ 1 E 120 ZAV for Sp.G.= 2.85 115 1#1 1 LJ I I 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 I Water c ont ent , X "Modified" Proctor , ASTM , Method A E1ewl Classi+ication Nat . Sp , G. LL FI r > < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No. 4 No.200 � SM Y. 2. 65 % x TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I I Optimum moisture = 8.5 % SILTY SAND, BROWN - Maxi mum dr y dens i t y — 126. 6 p c-P TOPeO I L Project No. : 3320-C-89 Remarks: Project: TAVAGL I ONE 11-2-8 i' !� Location: LOT li OF TRACT 3334 SAMPLE #4 t COLLECTED BY RP Date: 11-2-89 a a PROCTOR TEST REPORT I SOIL TECH LABORATORIES Fig . No. PROCTOR TEST REPORT 140 I 135 U 139 w � 1 •vy A r. 125 L 12@ 2AV for Sp.G. = 2.65 115 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 Water content , X "'Modified" Proctor , ASTM , Method A Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI % > % < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No. 4 No.200 SM % 2.65 % % TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Optimum moisture = 8.9 % SILTY SAND, BROWN Maximum dry density = 129.8 pc-f Remarks: Project No. : T3320-G 11-3-89 Project: TAVAGLIONE - Location: LOT 11 OF TRACT 3334 SAMPLE #5 COLLECTED BY RP Date: 11-6-89 VS PROCTOR TEST REPORT ,T 7 SOIL TECH LABORATORIES I Fig. No. PROCTOR TEST REPORT 140 135 u 130 a. 44 1 � I 125 p 120 ZAV for Sp.G.= 2.65 115 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 2.5 Water content , X -Modifiedu Proctor , ASTM , Method A Nat. P I r E 1 e+�� Cl ass i-F G. LL No.4 No.200 USCG AASHTO Moist. Depth Y % SM 2.E5 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Optimum moisture = 9.7 f SILTY FINE SAND, TAN Maximum dry density = 126.2 p c f Remarks: Project No. : TJ320-C 11-6-59 Project: TAVAGLIONE SAMPLE #b Location: LOT 11 OF TRACT 3334 COLLECTED BY RP Date: 11-b-89 PROCTOR TEST REPORT Fig. No. SOIL TECH LABORATORIES PROCTOR TEST REPORT 130 X. I { 1 { 125 I I I i ! 120 I I I I I I I I ( I i 115 I II I i 110 } i } ' ZAV for Sp.G. = I I I 2.65 105 5 7.5 10 12. 5 15 17. 5 20 Water content , X 'Modified' Proctor r ASTM , Method A E1ev./ Classification Nat. I > C Sp ,G. LL PI No.200 Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No. 4 i SM-ML 12.65 { , TEST RESULTS I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Optimum moisture = 12. 3 % SILTY FINE SAND, BROWN Maximum dry density = 118.8 Pc f Remarks: Project No. : T3320-C 11-16-5' Project: TAVACLIONE Location: LOT it OF TRACT 3334 SAMPLE #7 COLLECTED BY RP Date: 11-10-85' I I PROCTOR TEST REPORT Fig . NO. SOIL TECH LABORATORIES �I PROCTOR TEST REPORT 135 i30 a 125 a I NJ c � a, 120 L Q 115 ZAV -For Sp .G.= 2.65 110 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 Wat er c ont ent , "'Modified" Proctor , ASTM , Method A Elev.,,, Classification at Sp• G. LL PI r 7 < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. ! No. 4 No.200 SM - 1-17 2.65 'l. TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Optimum moisture = 11.5 % SILTY SAND, BROWN Maximum dry density = 121 .0 pcf Remarks: Project No. : T3320-C { Project: TAVAOLIONE Location: LOT 11 OF TRACT 3334 SAMPLE #8 COLLECTED BY RP Date: 11-16-89 PROCTOR TEST REPORT SOIL TECH LABORATORIES Fis • No. L SG'G'^ESTED GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN OF FOUNDATION AND SLAB SYSTEMS )FOUNDATION SYSTEM TYPE I TYPE lI TYPE III TYPE IV TYPE V 11 _J 1E EXPANSION RATE VERY LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH EXPANSION INDEXJE 0 - 20 21 - 50 51 - 90 91 - 130 ABOVE 13(1 FOOTING DEPTH (STORIES) ONE TWO ONE TWO ONE TWO ONE TWO PERIMETER 12" 12" 12" 15" 18" 18" 24" 24" INTERIOR 12" 12" 12" 18" 12" 18" 18" 24" NOT 1 - No. 4 Steel Bar 2 #4 BARS REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED TOP AND BOTTOM (TRcB) (T&B) SPECIAL GARAGE NOT 12" X 12" WITH ONE 12" X 24" DESIGN GRADE BEAM REQUIRED #4 BAR TOP AND, BOTTOM 2 #4 (T&B) REQUIRED FOR 6 INCHES EXPANSION. SLAB THICKNESS 4 INCHES NOMINAL NOMINAL INDEX ABOVE FLOOR SLAB 6" BY 6" 130 11 REINFORCEMENT 6" X 6" - #10 / #1l1 #6 / #6 FOR DWELLINGS NOT WELDED WIRE FABRIC WIRE MESH REQUIRED GARAGES NOT REQ. 6"X6"#6/#6 SUBGRADE MOISTURE OPTIMUM MOISTURE 120% OF OPT. MOISTURE REQUIRED CONTENT OR GREATER BELOW SLAB AREA 6 MIL VISQUEEN 1 INCH MINIMUM OF SAND ABOVE VISQUEEN MOISTURE BARRIER FOR ALL EXPANSION INDEX'S SAND ABOVE SAND BELOW L 1 INCH 2 INCHES IF 4 INCHES NOTES: 1) NUMBER 3 BARS 18 INCHES ON CENTER MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WIRE MESH REQUIREMENTS. 2) SAND MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH ANY NON-EXPANSIVE SOILS WHICH ARE APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. 3) ALL SWELL TESTING IS PERFORMED FOLLOWING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE TEST DESIGNATION 29.2. 4) THESE FOUNDATION GUIDELINES ARE BASED SOLELY ON SOIL EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS. AND SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE MORE RIGID STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHOULD BE CONSULTED SHOULD LOADING REQUIREMENTS PRECLUDE THE 'DESIGN CRITERIA RECOMMENDED HEREIN. SOIL TECH, INC.. 27800B Las Haciendas, Unit 103 Temecula, CA 92390 / (714) 676-2745 / Fax (714) 699-1757 FIGURES 1 and 2 Compaction Test Report Site Plans Soil Tech, Ina