Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Geotechnical Report Tract 30698
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ROSETTA HILLS PROJECT-TRACT NO. 30698 LAKE ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR K13 HOME 363 10 INLAND VALLEY DRIVE WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA 92595 PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. 1 548 NORTH MAPLE STREET CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92880 PROJECT NO. 2467-CR DECEMBER 9, 2020 GEOTEK'G, GeoTek,Inc. 1548 North Maple Street.Corona,California 92880 (951) 710-1 160 Office (951) 710-1 167 Fax www.geotekusa.com December 9, 2020 Project No. 2467-CR KB Home 36310 Inland Valley Drive Wildomar, California 92595 Attention: Mr. Kurt Bausback Subject: Updated Geotechnical Report Rosetta Hills Project-Tract No. 30698 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Bausback: We are pleased to provide the results of our updated geotechnical report for the subject project located in the city of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. This report presents the results of our evaluation and discussion of our findings. Based on the results of our evaluation, development of the property appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations presented in this report and in future reports are incorporated into design and construction. GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report- Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 2 The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, ��ED 0F0 sr�� R. „�Ey GeoTek, Inc. +u° No.is 2 No.2V2 Exp. l OT ,G• OF CA1-�F Edward H. LaMont Robert R. Russell CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/22 GE 2042, Exp. 12/3 1/22 Principal Geologist Senior Project Engineer "'0'1-"n nf) I c Cit) Anna M. Scott Project Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee via email G:\Projects\2451 to 2500\2467CR KB Home Tract No 30698 Lake Elsinore\Updated Geotechnical Report\2467CR Updated Geotechnical Report Tract No. 30698.doc 'C-X'. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................. 1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................... 1 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................................................1 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................................................................................2 2.3 PRIOR REPORT REVIEW...........................................................................................................................................................3 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING................................................................6 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION..............................................................................................................................................................6 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................................................................................................7 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS...........................................................................................7 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING................................................................................................................................................................7 4.2 EARTH MATERIALS..................................................................................................................................................................7 4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY....................................................................................................................................................8 4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters..........................................................................................................................................................9 4.4.2 Surface Fault Rupture....................................................................................................................................................................9 4.4.3 Liquefaction & Seismic Settlements..........................................................................................................................................9 4.4.4 Other Seismic Hazards.............................................................................................................................................................. 10 S. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 10 5.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................................10 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................................................10 5.2.1 General............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 5.2.2 Site Clearing and Demolition................................................................................................................................................... 11 5.2.3 Remedial Grading........................................................................................................................................................................ 11 5.2.4 Slope Construction....................................................................................................................................................................... I I 5.2.5 Canyon Subdrains........................................................................................................................................................................ I I 5.2.6 Transition Lots and Cut Lots.................................................................................................................................................... 12 5.2.7 Engineered Fill............................................................................................................................................................................... 12 5.2.8 Excavation Characteristics........................................................................................................................................................ 12 5.2.9 Trench Excavations and Back fill.............................................................................................................................................13 5.2.10 Shrinkage and Bulking......................................................................................................................................................... 13 5.3 SLOPE STABILITY..............................................................................................................................................................13 5.4 ROCK RIPPABILITY..........................................................................................................................................................14 5.5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................................14 5.5.1 Foundation Design Criteria....................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.5.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 17 5.5.3 Foundation Setbacks................................................................................................................................................................... 18 5.6 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION..........................................................................................................18 5.6.1 General Design Criteria.............................................................................................................................................................. 18 5.6.2 Wall Back fill and Drainage....................................................................................................................................................... 19 5.6.3 Restrained Retaining Walls.......................................................................................................................................................20 5.6.4 Soil Corrosivity...............................................................................................................................................................................20 5.6.5 Soil Sulfate Content.....................................................................................................................................................................20 5.6.6 Import Soils....................................................................................................................................................................................21 la� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................................................................21 5.8 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION..............................................................................................................................................22 5.8.1 General............................................................................................................................................................................................22 5.8.2 Concrete Flatwork........................................................................................................................................................................22 5.8.3 Concrete Performance................................................................................................................................................................23 5.9 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................................24 5.9.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting..................................................................................................................................24 5.9.2 Drainage.........................................................................................................................................................................................24 5.10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................................25 6. LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................25 7. SELECTED REFERENCES.................................................................................................................26 ENCLOSURES Figure I —Site Location and General Topography Map Plates I through 5 —Geologic Map (SoilWorks Earth Sciences Group, 2014) Appendix A — Logs of Exploratory Test Pits and Seismic Traverses (Neblett & Associates, Inc., 2004) Appendix B—Air Track Boring Logs and Air Track Boring Location Map (AGS, 2020) Appendix C— Laboratory Test Results (Neblett& Associates, Inc., 2004) Appendix D —Slope Stability Analysis (Neblett&Associates, Inc., 2004) Appendix E— General Earthwork Grading Guidelines 'r� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page I 1 . PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions for the proposed development. Services provided for this study included the following: ■ Research and review of available geologic and geotechnical data, and general information pertinent to the site, ■ Review of the reports previously prepared for this site by Neblett & Associates (Neblett, 2004), SoilWorks (SoilWorks, 2014) and AGS (AGS, 2020), ■ Review and evaluation of site seismicity, and ■ Compilation of this updated geotechnical report which presents our findings and a general summary of pertinent geotechnical conditions relevant for site development. The intent of this report is to aid in the evaluation of the site for future development from a geotechnical perspective. The professional opinions and geotechnical information contained in this report will likely need to be updated based on our review of final site development plans. These should be provided to GeoTek for review when available. 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located north of the terminus of Elsinore Hills Road and east of the terminus of both Starina Street and Chambord Drive in Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. The site is also located to the southeast of Highway 74 and about I-% miles to the east of Interstate 15 (1-15). The site consists of approximately 50 acres. Based on review of aerial images and our site reconnaissance, the site generally consists of vacant and undeveloped land; however, a power line easement traverses the property in a southwest-northeast direction. The site has a hillside terrain, with elevations ranging from about El. 1,430 to El. 1,560. The primary drainage features flow to the west and northwest. GeoTek reviewed aerial photographs dated 1938, 1949, 1953, 1961, 1967, 1974, 1978, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1994, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2016 and 2018 that included the subject site. 'r� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 2 The site appears to have been vacant and undeveloped in the 1938 and 1949 photographs. In the 1953 aerial photograph, a small structure and access roadway is visible on the southwest section of the site. The current dirt and gravel access roadway first appear in the 1961 aerial photograph. The structure on the southwest portion of the site appears to have been razed by 1967. Some earthwork in the west central area of the site and several more dirt roadways can be observed in the 1978 aerial photograph. The high voltage power transmission lines appear to have been constructed between 1989 and 1990. The site remained generally unchanged in the 1990 and 1994 photographs. In the 2005 aerial photograph, portions of the site appeared to have been an actively developing residential tract. During grading, the site appears to have been stripped of vegetation. In addition, cut slopes were constructed near the southern property boundary. The site appears generally unchanged from 2005 to 2018. 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on a review of the Rough Grading Plan, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates and modified by Mayers and Associates, site development will include the construction of 158 single-family residential structures and associated street and lot improvements. Stormwater management facilities are also planned. We understand that the residential structures will be I or 2-stories in height and will be supported by conventional shallow foundation systems which will utilize conventional on-grade floor slabs. Maximum column and wall loads of about 40 kips and 3 kips per foot have been assumed for the purpose of this report. Once actual loads are known, that information should be provided to GeoTek to determine if modifications to the recommendations presented in this report are warranted. Based on a review of the Rough Grading Plan, we anticipate that the maximum depth of cut and fill will be about 40 to 50 feet, respectively. Cut and fill slopes up to about 60 feet and constructed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) are also planned. As site development planning progresses and plans become available, the plans should be provided to GeoTek for review and comment. Additional engineering analyses may be necessary in order to provide specific earthwork recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for actual site development. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 3 2.3 PRIOR REPORT REVIEW Neblett, 2004 On April 6, 2004, Neblett issued a Geologic/Geotechnical Engineering Review, 40-Scale Grading Plans report for the subject site (Neblett, 2004). Neblett also referenced a prior study performed by their firm for this site completed in 2002 (copy not provided). It appears that the field and laboratory data from the 2002 report is included within the 2004 Neblett report. Based on a review of information contained in the 2004 Neblett report, it appears that prior explorations at the site included excavation of twenty-nine (29) test pits excavated to depths ranging from about I to 8-'/2 feet below existing grade, where practical refusal on bedrock was encountered in each excavation. The Neblett report also included seven (7) seismic refraction traverses performed to assess the rippability characteristics of the bedrock materials. As noted by Neblett the Bedford Canyon Formation consisted of a phyllite member, typically consisting of a very hard, dark gray slaty metamorphic rock which is well-foliated to massive and a Bedford Canyon Formation quartzite member which is described to consist of a very hard to extremely hard light reddish brown to brown metamorphic rock which is poorly foliated to massive. Alluvium, where encountered by Neblett, is generally described as less than 5 feet in thickness and consisting of loose, dry gravelly sand to silty sand. The alluvial deposits were observed in small canyon areas on the site. Neblett also mapped localized undocumented fill deposits which appear to have been placed to span alluvial channels along existing dirt roads likely related to construction activity associated with the existing power poles. Due to the absence of any known active faulting on the site, Neblett concluded that ground rupture was unlikely but that strong ground shaking could occur due to regional fault activity. Since the alluvium and undocumented fill will be removed during site grading and based on the shallow depth to bedrock, Neblett concluded that the liquefaction potential at this site is nil. Neblett also noted that deep seated landslides and slumps are not present on the site or the adjacent properties. Neblett performed stability analyses for the planned cut and fill slops at the site. For their analysis, the highest fill slope was 67 feet and the highest cut slope was approximately 48 feet. For their analysis, Neblett used engineering judgement in the selection of the shear strength parameters for the engineered fill and bedrock materials. Using these assumptions, Neblett obtained static factors of safety values ranging from 2.1 to 5.7 and psuedostatic factor of safeties ranging from 1.5 to 3.8. All obtained factor of safeties exceeded the typical required standard of practice values of 1.5 for the static condition and 1.1 for the pseudostatic state. 'r� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 4 Neblett stated that fill slopes constructed form the on-site soil and bedrock will be prone to surficial erosion and adequate erosion protection is recommended. A surficial stability analysis was not included within the Neblett report. As previously noted, Neblett indicated that rock hardness was evaluated using seismic refraction traverses. For their evaluation, Neblett indicated a rock velocity less than about 5,500 feet per second (fps) was considered to be economically rippable using conventional mechanical equipment (such as a D-9/D-10 dozer). Rock velocities between about 5,500 fps to 6,000 fps were considered to require heavy ripping and possible blasting and rock velocities greater than 6,000 fps will probably require blasting. Based on their analysis, Neblett concluded that deep cuts (40 to 50 feet) will require heavy ripping and blasting. Neblett recommended that a D-10 dozer (or similar) be used in areas where heavy ripping is expected. Neblett further stated that a detailed hard-rock rippability analysis of the site should be performed in order to assess specific cut areas, grading and blasting procedures. Neblett also stated that excavation for underground utility trenches utilizing a backhoe within cut portions of the lots and streets may be difficult. Neblett indicated that consideration should be given to over-excavating street areas and cut portions of the lots to allow for easier utility trench excavation. Neblett indicated that over-excavation of unsuitable materials including soil, alluvium, weathered bedrock and undocumented fill should be performed. They estimated a removal depth up to about 5 feet but that depths up to about 10 to 15 feet may be needed in areas where undocumented fill is present. Fill materials, consisting of on-site soil and bedrock materials were recommended to be compacted to at least 90 percent of the material's maximum dry density, per ASTM D-1557. Rock materials greater than 8 to 10 inches in maximum dimension were considered oversized and will require special handling during site grading. Recommendations for over-excavating the cut portion of cut/fill transition lots were provided by Neblett, consisting of over-excavating the cut portion to a depth of 5 feet and backfill with a properly compacted fill. As noted previously, deeper cuts may be desired to reduce utility trench excavation difficulties. Neblett (2004) reported that surficial soil units (fill and alluvium) were estimated to shrink up to approximately 10 percent upon compaction, and bedrock to bulk 3 to 25 percent. Neblett (2004) reported that based upon their knowledge with the onsite bedrock material, expansive soils are not anticipated. However, Neblett recommends expansion testing should be done during grading to determine the expansion potential. No actual expansion index testing was performed nor reported by Neblett. ,-,C� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 5 Neblett (2004) reported that based on results of previous laboratory testing, sulfate exposure for concrete is considered negligible. Neblett recommended a maximum slope inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and also recommended that fill slopes be overbuilt by at least 3 feet and then be cut-back to their design grade. Neblett also indicated that fill keyways will require heel drainage systems. Following site grading, Neblett expected that conventional shallow foundations supported by low expansive fill would be suitable. Preliminary foundation and slab on-grade recommendations were provided. Neblett considered the sulfate exposure for the site soils to be negligible but recommended additional testing be performed during site grading. Laboratory testing to assess the corrosion potential for buried metal pipes does not appear to have been performed. Neblett also included a Probablistic Seismic Hazard Analysis in their report which was based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Copies of the logs of exploratory test pits and seismic traverses completed by Neblett (2004) are included in Appendix A of this report. Soifforks. 2014 An Addendum Geologic/Geotechnical Report was issued for the site by SoilWorks on March 31, 2014. The SoilWorks addendum was based on their review of the 40-scale grading plans and included updated seismic design parameters based on the 2013 California Building Code. SoilWorks noted that the development was to consist of 151 residential lots, three debris basins and five open space lots. The maximum depth of cut was noted to be 40 feet (Lots 12, 24 and 25) and the maximum fill depth will be about 58 feet (Lot 156). SoilWorks noted that the modifications to the prior grading plans were relatively minor with grade changes of about 0.1 to 5 feet for the pads. Three debris basins were added to the plan where residential lots had previously been proposed. SoilWorks noted that completed grading operations for an adjacent development has resulted in graded slopes that extended onto the subject site. The slopes were constructed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and consisted of fill slopes on the east and southwest boundaries and cut slopes exposing Bedford Canyon materials on the west and southeast property limits. SoilWorks also provided updated foundation design recommendations for the planned residential structures at the site. Soil design parameters for retaining walls were also provided by SoilWorks for both the active and at-rest states and for level and 2:1 sloping backfill conditions. GEOTEK K13 HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 6 SoilWorks reported that based on their experience with the on-site materials, it is their opinion that a "low" soil expansion index classification may be used for foundation design. SoilWorks also reported that additional laboratory tests should be performed during the rough grading to further evaluate the soil expansion potential with respect to foundation design and additional/revised recommendations should be provided, as warranted. Additional field explorations and/or laboratory testing was not part of the SoilWorks addendum report. AGS. 2020 Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (AGS) completed a Rippability Evaluation at the subject site on August 21, 2020. AGS monitored the completion of 13 air-track borings at the site, drilled by Arizona Drilling and Blasting. The rate of penetration at each boring was recorded and logs of the thirteen borings were included in the AGS report. The air-track borings were located within planned deep cut areas of the site based on a Cut/Fill map provided by Earth Tek Engineering Corp. that was included in the AGS report. Based on the results of the air-track borings, AGS indicated that most of the bedrock within the planned excavation depths are anticipated to be rippable utilizing a single-shank D-9 dozer (or equivalent) with some localized hard zones where blasting may be necessary. Excavations for deep utilities using an excavator may encounter practical refusal at shallower depths, dependent upon the utility depths. Copies of the AGS air track boring logs and track boring location map are provided within Appendix B of this report. 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION Field explorations were previously performed at this site by Neblett in 2004 and AGS in 2020. Neblett also performed seismic refraction survey lines to assess the bedrock rippability characteristics of the bedrock materials. Additional excavations were not performed by GeoTek for this updated report. The approximate locations of those prior excavations are presented on Plates I through 5 of this report. ,-,C� GEOTEK K13 HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 7 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was previously performed by Neblett for soil and bedrock samples collected from the site during their prior field exploration program. The results of the prior laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C. 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING The subject property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends from the point of contact with the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, southerly to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are mostly found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province, and the San Jacinto fault borders the province adjacent the Colorado Desert province. The site is located in an area geologically mapped by others to be underlain by quartz-rich and phyllite meta-sedimentary bedrock (Morton, D.M., and Weber, F.H., 2003), locally referred to as Bedford Canyon Formation. Local deposits of undocumented fill and alluvium are also present. The County of Riverside (https://countyofriverside.us/Residents/Propertylnformation.aspx) has designated the site area as "not in fault zone", "not in a fault line", "not in a liquefaction area" and "not in a subsidence area". The site is also not situated within a State of California liquefaction hazard area and is not within a designated Alquist-Priolo fault hazard zone. 4.2 EARTH MATERIALS Undocumented fill, alluvium and Bedford Canyon Formation (Quartzite and Phyllite Members) were reportedly encountered within the prior Neblett excavations at the site. The ,r� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 8 undocumented fill was noted by Neblett to have been placed over alluvial channels along existing dirt roads associated with the existing power line tower pads. An estimated fill depth was not provided by Neblett. Neblett indicated that alluvium was mapped in small canyons on-site which were generally less than 5 feet thick. The alluvium was observed to consist of loose, dry, gravelly sand to silty and with frequent bedrock fragments. The Bedford Canyon Formation materials were reported by Neblett to consist of very hard to extremely hard metamorphic rocks which were poorly foliated to massive. The quartzite member of the formation is reported by Neblett to be confined to the northwesterly portion of the site. 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER 4.3.1 Surface Water If encountered during earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of precipitation or possibly some minor surface run-off from immediately surrounding properties. Overall site area drainage is generally in a northwesterly direction, as directed by site topography. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the project civil engineer. 4.3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered within any of the Neblett excavations at the site. Based on the lack of groundwater encountered, it appears that groundwater will not be a significant factor during site development. 4.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within a State of California designated "Alquist-Priolo" Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007; CGS, 1986). GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 9 4.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters The site is located at approximately 33.7001° Latitude and -1 17.3165' Longitude. Site spectral accelerations (Sa and S,), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class "C" site, were determined from the SEAOC/OSHPD web interface that utilizes the USGS web services and retrieves the seismic design data and presents that information in a report format. The results, based on ASCE 7-16 and the 2019 CBC, are presented in the following table. SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.895g Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Si 0.68g Site Coefficient for Site Class "C," Fa 1.2 Site Coefficient for Site Class "C," Fv 1.4 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMs 2.274g Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SMi 0.953g 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 1.516 Second, Sys 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at I 0.635g second, Sri PGAm 0.963g Seismic Design Category D Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism. 4.4.2 Surface Fault Rupture The site is in a seismically active region; however, no active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within an "Alquist-Priolo" Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The nearest known active fault is the Elsinore fault located about 5-/2 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered to be nil. 4.4.3 Liquefaction & Seismic Settlements Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake- induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless and some low- plastic soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to '-'C� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 10 lateral movement, sliding and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but, after liquefaction has nil. Due to the presence of relatively shallow bedrock, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at this during is nil. 4.4.4 Other Seismic Hazards The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami is considered to be remote due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water. Due to the absence of a nearby free-face and the very low liquefaction hazard, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be nil. S. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL Development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. Specific recommendations for site development provided in this report will need to be further evaluated when development plans are provided for our review. The following sections present general recommendations. More specific geotechnical recommendations for site development can be provided when more finalized site development plans are available for review. 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS 5.2.1 General Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Lake Elsinore, the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and recommendations contained in this report. The General Grading Guidelines included in Appendix E outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix E. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 11 5.2.2 Site Clearing and Demolition Site preparation should start with removal of existing deleterious materials, any existing pavements and vegetation within the planned development areas of the site. All deleterious materials should be properly disposed of off-site. 5.2.3 Remedial Grading All existing fill, alluvium and highly weathered bedrock should be removed beneath all areas to receive new fill and/or surface improvements. Based on the prior work by Neblett, removal depths ranging from about 2 to 5 feet within the alluvium and up to 10 to 15 feet in areas of undocumented fill are anticipated. The precise depths of over-excavation should be determined a GeoTek representative during site grading based on the soil/bedrock conditions encountered. Once the base of the over-excavation is approved, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, be moisture treated to slightly above the soil's optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557) and then be compacted to at least 90% of the soil's maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Testing by GeoTek is recommended to document that the engineered fill soils have been moisture treated and compacted as recommended. 5.2.4 Slope Construction Grading details for slope construction are presented as details E-2 and E-3 in Appendix E. Fill slopes should also be overbuilt by at least 3 feet and cut-back to their design grade or the slopes should be back-rolled with a sheepsfoot roller or similar compaction equipment at vertical heights not exceeding 4 feet. The finished graded slope surface should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, per ASTM D 1557. 5.2.5 Canyon Subdrains Canyon subdrains should be installed in major drainage swales that will be filled with at least 10 feet of fill. A typical canyon subdrain detail is provided as Figure E-I in Appendix E. Anticipated subdrain locations were presented on Plates I, 4 and 5 of the SoilWorks report in 2014. The actual locations of subdrains should be determined by a GeoTek representative during grading based on the conditions encountered. The canyon subdrains should be tied into the project storm drain system (where possible) or daylighted as appropriate. The final 20-foot segment of the subdrain should consist of a non-perforated pipe. Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure. ,-,C� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 12 Portions of subdrains placed during construction of the adjacent Tract No. 25478 and new subdrains within the site should tie into the existing subdrains in the area of Lots 52 and 59. Additionally, an 8-inch diameter subdrain was installed during prior off-site grading below proposed Lot 157. The location and elevation of this subdrain should be verified prior to grading of the keyway below Lots 151 through 158. 5.2.6 Transition Lots and Cut Lots Rough grading will create cut, cut/fill transition and shallow fill lots. All lots should be overexcavated such that all lots are underlain by at least three feet of engineered fill and overexcavation bottoms should slope to drain to the adjacent street of suitable direction so ponding of water is not likely. The lateral extent of this recommendation should include the area extending at least 5 feet beyond the building limits. Transition (i.e. cut/fill) lots should be overexcavated a minimum of three feet below proposed grades or to a depth of 1/3 the maximum fill thickness. All cut lots exposing granitic bedrock should be overexcavated to a depth of three feet below proposed grade and replaced with engineered fill. 5.2.7 Engineered Fill The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Over-sized materials (+ 6 inches in greatest dimension) should be removed from the soil prior to its use as engineered fill. Alternatively, over-sized materials can be incorporated in the fills provided they comply with the Rock Burial Details presented on Plate D-4 in Appendix D. The undercut areas should be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill materials that are placed and compacted in general accordance with minimum project standards. Engineered fill should be placed in six-inch to eight-inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D 1557. 5.2.8 Excavation Characteristics Excavations in the on-site alluvial materials and undocumented fill materials should be readily accomplished with heavy-duty earthmoving or excavating equipment in good operating condition. It is possible that deep excavations extending into the on-site bedrock materials will require specialized excavation techniques and/or equipment may be needed. Localized blasting may also be necessary. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 13 5.2.9 Trench Excavations and Backfill Temporary trench excavations within the on-site materials should be stable at 1:1 inclinations for short durations during construction and where cuts do not exceed 15 feet in height. We anticipate that temporary cuts to a maximum height of four feet can be excavated vertically. Trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA regulations. The contractor should have a competent person, per OSHA requirements, on site during construction to observe conditions and to make the appropriate recommendations. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (as determined per ASTM D 1557). Under-slab trenches should also be compacted to project specifications. Where applicable, based on jurisdictional requirements, the top 12 inches of backfill below subgrade for road pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. On-site materials may not be suitable for use as bedding material but should be suitable as backfill provided particles larger than 6 inches are removed. Compaction should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. Ponding or jetting of trench backfill is not recommended. If backfill soils have dried out, they should be thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches. 5.2.10 Shrinkage and Bulking For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of about 5 to 15 percent may be considered for removal of undocumented fill and alluvial materials that need to be removed and replaced. A bulking factor of about 5 to 25 percent is estimated for excavations extending into the bedrock materials at the site. Based on the recommended over-excavation of unsuitable materials, subsidence is not anticipated. Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork construction. 5.3 SLOPE STABILITY Slope stability analyses were previously performed at this site by Neblett based on the slope configurations indicated on the 100-scale map provided to Neblett. As noted by Neblett, the highest cut and fill slopes were 48 feet and 67 feet and were to be constructed at inclinations of 2;1 (horizontal:vertical). Neblett evaluated the stability for eight different slope conditions for both the static and pseudostatic condition. The results of the prior analysis indicated a '-'C� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 14 minimum static factor of safety of 2.0 and a minimum, pseudostatic (seismic) factor of safety of 1.5. The obtained factor of safety values exceeds the typical required minimum safety values of 1.5 for the static condition and 1.1 for the pseudostatic condition. Based on these results, it is our opinion that the graded slopes will be grossly stable. The prior Neblett stability analyses are presented in Appendix D. 5.4 ROCK RIPPABILITY The rippability characteristics of the bedrock materials at the site were evaluated by Neblett (2004) and by AGS (2020). Nine seismic traverse graphs were presented in the 2004 Neblett report. AGS performed 13 air track borings in 2020 to further assess the rippability characteristics of the on-site Bedford Canyon Formation bedrock. The seismic traverse logs by Neblett and the air track borings by AGS show the approximate depths to rippable, marginally rippable and non-rippable bedrock at the specific locations. Neblett concluded that excavations deeper than about 10 to 40 feet will require heavy ripping and/or blasting. Neblett recommended that a D-10 or similar bulldozer in areas where heavy ripping is expected. The air track borings by AGS indicate the estimated depths to rippable, marginally rippable and nion-rippable materials at the specific boring locations. The AGS borings indicate localized zones of marginally rippable and non-rippable bedrock materials at the stie. Copies of the Neblett seismic traverse logs and the AGS air track borings are presented in Appendix B. 5.5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.5.1 Foundation Design Criteria Foundation design criteria for a conventional foundation system, in general conformance with the 2019 CBC, are presented below. The soils are anticipated to have a "very low" to "low" expansion potential in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Typical design criteria for the site based upon a "very low" and "low" expansion potential are tabulated below. These are minimal recommendations and are not intended to supersede the design by the project structural engineer. The conventional foundation elements for the proposed buildings should bear entirely in engineered fill soils or bedrock (not a combination of the two). Foundations should be designed in accordance with the 2019 CBC. ,r� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 15 Expansion index and soluble sulfate evaluation of the soils should be performed during construction to evaluate the as-graded conditions. Final recommendations should be based upon the as-graded soils conditions. A summary of our foundation design recommendations is presented in the following table: GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN Design Parameter "Very Low" Expansion "Low" Expansion Potential Potential Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam Depth (inches below lowest adjacent 12 12 grade) Minimum Foundation Width (Inches)* 12 12 Minimum Slab Thickness (actual)' 4—Actual 4—Actual 6"x 6"—W I A/W 1.4 welded wire 6"x 6"—W2.9/W2.9 welded wire Minimum Slab Reinforcing fabric placed in middle of slab or No. fabric placed in middle of slab or No. 3 bars at 24 inch centers 3 bars at 24 inch centers Two No.4 reinforcing bars, Two No.4 reinforcing bars, Minimum Footing Reinforcement one placed near the top and one one placed near the top and one near the bottom near the bottom Effective Plasticity Index** N/A 15 Minimum of 100%of the optimum Minimum of 110%of the optimum Presaturation of Subgrade Soil moisture content to a depth of at moisture content to a depth of at (Percent of Optimum) least 12 inches prior to placing least 12 inches prior to placing concrete I concrete * Code minimums per Table 1809.7 of the 2019 CBC ** Effective Plasticity Index should be verified at the completion of grading 5.5.1.1 An allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous and perimeter footings 12 inches deep and 12 inches wide, and pad footings 24 inches square and 18 inches deep. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 5.5.1.2 Based on the estimated site grading, we estimate a total static settlement of less than I inch. A differential static settlement of about '/z inch over a 40-foot span is also estimated. 5.5.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf for footings founded on engineered fill. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and ,-,C� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 16 concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 5.5.1.4 A grade beam, a minimum of 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, should be utilized across large entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. 5.5.1.5 A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2, the 2019 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E 1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane. It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g. stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the vapor retarder placed atop the underlying aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. Although the CBC specifies a 6 mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek's opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. The membrane should consist of Stego wrap or the equivalent. Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limited migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e. thickness, composition, strength, and permeability) to achieve the desired performance level. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 17 Moisture retarders can reduce, but not eliminate, moisture vapor rise from the underlying soils up through the slab. Moisture retarder systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, ASTM, CALGreen and California Building Code requirements and guidelines. GeoTek recommends that a qualified person, such as the flooring contractor, structural engineer, architect, and/or other experts specializing in moisture control within the building be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture and vapor transmission paths and associated potential impact on the proposed construction. That person (or persons) should provide recommendations relative to the slab moisture and vapor retarder systems and for migration of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structures, as deemed appropriate. In addition, the recommendations in this report and our services in general are not intended to address mold prevention; since we, along with geotechnical consultants in general, do not practice in the area of mold prevention. If specific recommendations addressing potential mold issues are desired, then a professional mold prevention consultant should be contacted. 5.5.1.6 We recommend that control joints be placed in two directions spaced approximately 24 to 36 times the thickness of the slab in inches. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer. 5.5.2 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations 5.5.2.1 To minimize moisture penetration beneath the slab-on-grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge. '-'C� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lal<e Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 18 5.5.2.2 Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed materials and be neatly trimmed at the time of concrete placement. 5.5.3 Foundation Setbacks Where applicable, the following setbacls should apply to all foundations. Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements: ■ The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set bacl< a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setbacl< should be at least 7 feet and need not exceed 40 feet. ■ The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. This applies to the existing retaining walls along the perimeter, if they are to remain. ■ The bottom of any proposed foundations for structures should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation. 5.6 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 5.6.1 General Design Criteria Recommendations presented herein may apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of six feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. Retaining wall foundations embedded a minimum of 12 inches into engineered fill or competent bedrocl< should be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one- third. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 19 An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in the table below for specific slope gradients of retained materials. Surface Slope of Retained Materials Equivalent Fluid Pressure (PCF) (H:V) Select Backfill* Level 35 2:1 60 *Select backfill should consist of approved materials with an expansion index less than or equal to 20 5.6.2 Wall Backfill and Drainage Wall backfill should consist of very low expansive soil and should include a minimum one-foot wide section of 3/4- to I-inch clean crushed rock (or approved equivalent). The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from the backdrain to within approximately 12 inches of finish grade. The upper 12 inches should consist of compacted on- site materials. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than eight inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. Water should not be allowed to pond behind retaining walls. Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the walls is undesirable. Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to develop. A 4-inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40 PVC, or approved equivalent) in a minimum of one cubic foot per linear foot of 3/4-inch or one-inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric should be placed near the bottom of the backfill and be directed (via a solid outlet pipe) to an appropriate disposal area. Walls from two to four feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes at 8 feet maximum spacing (e.g. approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag). Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface. However, nuisance water may still collect in front of the wall. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 20 Drain outlets should be maintained over the life of the project and should not be obstructed or plugged by adjacent improvements. 5.6.3 Restrained Retaining Walls Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or reentrant corners should be designed for at-rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf (select backfill), plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner, or as otherwise determined by the structural engineer. 5.6.3.1 Other Design Considerations ■ Retaining and garden wall foundation elements should be designed in accordance with building code setback requirements. A minimum horizontal setback distance of five feet as measured from the bottom outside edge of the footing to a sloped face is recommended. ■ Wall design should consider the additional surcharge loads from superjacent slopes and/or footings, where appropriate. ■ No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are evident by compression tests of cylinders. ■ The retaining wall footing excavations, backcuts and backfill materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative. ■ Positive separations should be provided in garden walls at horizontal distances not exceeding 20 feet. 5.6.4 Soil Corrosivity Testing to evaluate the corrosivity of the site soils with regard to buried metal conduits was not previously performed for this site. We recommend that the soil resistivity and corrosion potential at this site be tested in the laboratory for representative samples collected during rough grading. Once those test results are available, we recommend that a corrosion engineer be consulted to provide recommendations for the protection of buried ferrous metal at this site. 5.6.5 Soil Sulfate Content The sulfate content was determined by Neblett in 2004 for one representative soil sample from the site. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate for the tested samples was 'r� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 21 less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered "not applicable" (i.e. negligible) as per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318. Based upon the test results, no special concrete mix design is required for sulfate attack resistance. Additional soluble sulfate testing should be performed during site grading to determine if special sulfate-resistant concrete will be needed for areas of the site. 5.6.6 Import Soils Import soils should have expansion characteristics similar to the on-site soils. GeoTek also recommends that the proposed import soils be tested for expansion and sulfate potential. GeoTek should be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed. 5.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Pavement design for proposed on-site roadway improvements was conducted per Caltrans Highway Design Manual guidelines for flexible pavements. Based on the soils encountered within the test borings, we estimate an as-graded R-value of 40 for the roadway subgrade soils. For preliminary pavement design, we have also assumed Traffic Indexes (TI) of 5.0 and 6.0. We recommend that final pavement design be based on R-value testing of the graded street subgrades and the assigned TI values. Based on the assumptions noted, we offer the following preliminary pavement design recommendations. Thickness of Thickness of Asphalt TI Aggregate Base Concrete (inches) (inches) 5.0 3 4 6.0 3 7 The TIs used in our pavement design are considered reasonable values for the proposed street areas and should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Irrigation adjacent to pavements, without a deep curb or other cutoff to separate landscaping from the paving may result in premature pavement failure. Traffic parameters used for design were selected based upon engineering judgment and not upon information furnished to us such as an equivalent wheel load analysis or a traffic study. The recommended pavement sections provided are intended as a minimum guideline and final selection of pavement cross section parameters should be made by the project civil engineer, based upon the local laws and ordinates, expected subgrade and pavement response, and desired level of conservatism. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. Final pavement design should be checked ,-,C� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 22 by testing of soils exposed at subgrade (the upper 12 inches) after final grading has been completed. Asphalt concrete and aggregate base should conform to current Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 39 and 26-1.02, respectively. As an alternative, asphalt concrete can conform to Section 203-6 of the current Standard Specifications for Public Work (Green Book). Crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base can conform to Section 200-2.2 and 200-2.4 of the Green Book, respectively. Pavement base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum dry density (modified proctor). All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City Inspector where required. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern. Deleterious material, excessive wet or dry pockets, oversized rock fragments, and other unsuitable yielding materials encountered during grading should be removed. Once existing compacted fill are brought to the proposed pavement subgrade elevations, the subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to check for a uniform and unyielding surface. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned at or near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If loose or yielding materials are encountered during construction, additional evaluation of these areas should be carried out by GeoTek. All pavement section changes should be properly transitioned. 5.8 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 5.8.1 General Concrete construction should follow the 2019 CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide quality control testing of the concrete during construction. 5.8.2 Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete slabs, sidewalks and driveways should be designed using a four-inch minimum thickness. No specific reinforcement is required from a geotechnical perspective. However, some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated as a result of typical mix designs and curing practices commonly utilized in industrial construction. '-'C� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 23 Sidewalks and driveways may be under the jurisdiction of the governing agency. If so, jurisdictional design and construction criteria would apply, if more restrictive than the recommendations presented in this report. Subgrade soils should be pre-moistened prior to placing concrete. The subgrade soils below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, etc. should be pre-saturated to a minimum of 100% of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for "very low" expansive soils or 1 10% of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches for "low" expansive soils. All concrete installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, should be done in accordance with the City of Lake Elsinore specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City inspector, if necessary. 5.8.3 Concrete Performance Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticeable to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time. One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two directions and located a distance apart approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness. Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being considered "non-structural" components. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structures themselves. ,r� GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 24 5.9 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.9.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Overwatering should be avoided. Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to planting is not recommended. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decreased the long-term performance of slopes. It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundations. This type of landscaping should be avoided. Planters within 30 feet of the buildings should be above ground and underlain by a concrete slab. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains may be warranted and advisable. We could discuss these issues, if desired, when plans are made available. 5.9.2 Drainage The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground adjacent to the footings and floor-slabs. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved areas and not be blocked by other improvements. Roof gutters should be installed that will direct the collected water at least 20 feet from the buildings. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 25 It is the owner's responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season. 5.10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that site grading, specifications, retaining wall/shoring plans and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. Additional recommendations may be necessary based on these reviews. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should have GeoTek's representative perform at least the following duties: ■ Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of unsuitable materials. ■ Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. ■ Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing when necessary. ■ Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. ■ Test the fill for field density and relative compaction. ■ Test the near-surface soils to verify proper moisture content. ■ Observe and probe foundation excavations to confirm suitability of bearing materials. If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek, which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. 6. LIMITATIONS This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, our proposal (Proposal No. 0807820-CR) dated August 27, 2020 and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 26 The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since our recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. 7. SELECTED REFERENCES Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., 2020, "Rippability Evaluation, Tr 30698 Rosetta Canyon, City of Lake Elsinore, California," P/W 2008-02, Report No. 2008-02-B-2R, dated August 21. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, Errata Incorporated through March 15. Bowles,J. E., 1977, "Foundation Analysis and Design", Second Edition. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, "Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps," California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2019 "California Building Code," 2 volumes. California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 1977, "Geologic Map of California." , 1998, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," International Conference of Building Officials. , 2008, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117A. , 2010, "Geologic Map of California". Neblett & Associates, inc., 2004, "Geologic/Geotechnical Engineering Review, 40-Scale Grading Plans, Clurman Development Project, Tentative Tract 306978, Lake Elsinore, California", April 6. GEOTEK KB HOME Project No. 2467-CR Updated Geotechnical Report— Rosetta Hills Project December 9, 2020 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Page 27 SEA/OSHPD web service, "Seismic Design Maps" (https://seismicmaps.org). SoilWorks Earth Science Group, 2014, "Addendum Geologic/Geotechnical Report, Review of Revised 40-Scale Rough Grading Plan, Tentative Tract No. 30698, Lake Elsinore, California", March 31. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1967, "Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice", Second Edition. USGS, 2003, "Preliminary Geologic Map of the Elsinore 7.5' Quadrangle", Morton, D.M. and Weber, E. H., USGS OF-2003. GEOTEK 1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 1 0.5 MILES 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET y ! ;j ' ".�� •/r .- �y Modified from USGS 7.5-minute Lake Elsinore Topographic Map Sheet JIA APPROXIMATE SITE 4 AREA r ` nor .�.s� — �� r/ � �. .li-i ' _="-J'•i•: - ., _. WZ r .� �fir. � •�,t,\1:; _. • `� l _ � .'-.` -• Warm Springs Yallay >>•, 1.—' t? ` ; , ,' f� i`� : ' !� `�/ \1 KB Home Figure I Tract No. 30698 Site Location and Lake Elsinore County, California General NORTH Topography GEOTEK Project No. 2467-CR Map T 4y ,I• _ °a 1 a --- -II hTILT q P A l 4 5.5 Jbc�', 61 �� ' �= "h `% / ' N I �o D•' ''�'. j47ye /dal� Q � \ 6.. � I ao 1c I rn I 6° Z Z o JbC a 1 SCALE: ca a o 1 5 <5 i I� 75 39 � �6�� � � ,F I � o I � a 0 a. i 1asz�a / � Q Jbcp / o�1F � _ ------ - ----- - -- P-1446.1 1�0 �o P-1475J2 2 / / 5 Do �� \ �,- •" o v/ Tq 6 /// ai/T 1 SP � � \� � ,4 qa 3 8 � � 2: o C, EXIST. SLOP - 9 Y GRANTED TE ROCK NSTRUCTION �-I ACQUISITION CO., L.P. LD S.UR PER D0 �/ �P M 0.X2003 50 / � '/ ��" -��� P-14 4 h �� 48 1 o ° / 91 0 u 7 1494.7 CO N ao�c N 1' 2:1 Q� 1493.9 11 oA90 / _ _�---</ 14a914as, p- 1 -// 4 � OQ? -PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD \� pp• I � � 1476.2�R1 70 EXIST. UTILITY POLES Q �� w ;A N G.' s s// TP-21 uNE tsDo I � 40 GRA SETBACK / __ _n / S8 CN / '"so / bD'ry 4, 'V --��__ -- h 4 �' ^� h�� -Q88X 1ti rn // - / `�I 0 tF •' ' �� �O / 1490 IPR�C t�' O /0 2 F 'h'Z V a0.' a c,' 0 to O 41 �9� / ��' 49D2 ti°ti. �°tip° "cm o'vc o 0 0 ' /' 7490 TC '"`b \ h `L 9,n 96 0. '� __ _ O '� ,ham PROVE I °�/, 4902 ti 0.60 ,� a�0;k� \a° \ \ `6 .h ^ h i Q ° RNE 559 1 Q / o _ �q ��- BV 4, f �° ' .- a a - / ---------- FOR TRACT I ry Jbcp �, / 49DJ 9,. - - - -- - �� STREE'C / p,� �C.l _ a� ,¢ aj 4 OTHrE� � -iNE- 1 �I -�1 • __ ` P ROUGH GRAD I SETBACK L \ \\ � 7 I I1 I 42 I -� /o 1a9D P-1509:3 l .1 P-.1514.9 N I I p-i499.0 I 15 5 I nil o � s � rG. / I I P- / Evc o P,1, II p_1496.8 1 �I 45 •. I NI 46 I �I 49 Z�Osl / 4ge 9 N 492.5 494.3 P-1495.3 11 43 r 44 �i I I I 10 i / I b �✓.• ic? P-1493.0 P-1493.5 P% as0L a' , 9a T 39 �� 4 o I _�- 1 LI Z,C- 1 Q \ � 1445.4 � ' 9 � � '0'W cp EXIST. SLOPE CONSTRUCTION SMT. r '� ,a`o I 1pga tagg9' Q OI vJ 2:1 - r GRANTED BY WHITE ROCK � �b % I BB ro Sri .1 ACQUISITION CO., L.P. TO DONAL S. /// /" ply�O Q I iag8t g0 y j 0 - __ 2:J _ 1490 �5- 1- W d' A _ a�(-URMAN PER DOC. 2003-878,,, 1490_ I- _ �� �.$ / TP-22 TYPE h, A bl° R6y J 3•P(/ / �' G 1 g8.7 i 7zj� 6�4tf I 16�SF� I y �Sf 41 rrO/ � � � �0 LA P-1488.0- -1487.4 P-1486.9 P-1486.5 P-124986.0 P-1485.E2DT 2 2q 2E 25 24V IIj 15O14�ae 9 P R1484.7 P-1485.7e9 bg p0 P-1485.1P-14, P-1488T�.�2 I I P-1242q09 - - \� - !_ '/� ' e• \��gg3000� �1 / 1489.54c 1489.2A8g5 q 1G I-/ 1 "�I ROUGH GRADE SETBACK LINE T'gAg9 --- ----- \\`j\ ,�b �° "•.... / 1489.7 1489E - _ Ag1SOh 1��, 1 i l_J�. l \J. T- z b •" `O y / 7LU 4902 0,111A yh IV, o� 0� '� ryh„ry 0 0 - 1- 0.h 1 o h c h 1 RED A� CAR a DRIVE 0 J 16 /�. a vs� • � -_ - - - � v v �>0. a v° __.__ 14910 e^.14 •O \ 1 1G 1 1. p0 G 0 a a 5�'G' 4 099 _ 0. 1 e 1 \. a � \ \ c,\ �' 0' � � _ _ _ � • 0 .. � 1 n 11 v v 0� k V a V n 1 �� _ _ _ ti 300"VCv V � 1�a.� \ \ .6' -�� - �• j L. / �9 ��^ ;D$6pG p0h C, h� 5T 0`a' 0 i 00.C, 060 jC, � ,11G O,C'?� 0,�0c 0 1 1� 1- 1 60 b° 1.0 5� '0 "s c ro/ / t � �•J D��'' 1.• � W I4�9 �� TC BVC \��,/4�'��t -_ _ -- - _- - � i �`_ -W_ iOUCFrGRAOt - �� _ - a _ Q 16 - rc a91.4 6 Y �� A 1 M JbC 5' c 70 - i 6 Ap- 4_ P-1487.8 P-14 38 I J b ��- 6 0 _ _ 87.3 -P- p=i86 -14 6.0 P-1�5.5 p-14�. P-1487.5 l o l P-1491.5 I P 8 49 1 g g�c �c avc 3 4 �' 2D'IS zo' v D, 3 c f ® --�� fA r', 14 12 I"� 13 eS-3 • ;1 Q � � P,\a 1 '� ^ �/ ..- caf i ---- �6 I CONST CTION E ML EXIST. FUE MODIFICATION ESMT. `,y''[J�` \ j EXIS � ��CONSTR CTION ' \ \ ROCKA1.7 . IMP VEMENT \ ESMT. RANTED BY W ITE ROCK K \ ,1\ ACQUISITION CO., L.P. T DON D S. ACQUISITIO CO., L.P. TO DONALD S. G NG OR TRACT \ CLURMAN PER DOC.#2003 78 50 LURMAN P R DOC. 2 87824 104 105 106 AP DATE ID TIC 101c8 - 103 ATE of LATEST CHANGE TO HIS P �� v� �984_9- P=1494. -P--4&4.3- _ RS ��// �44 --P�485-- -1485.E P-1483.7 • 1040E '" Soy ( W o r k s v � 100 DATE OF THIS LOT �, \\\ 02 06 06 ���� `�� �\ _145.8 Earth Sciences Group PLATE oL E I A® BENCHMARK SEAL-ENGINEER PREPARED BY 350 Fischer Avenue GEOLOGIC EOLOGIC M A P D _._ G /4 DIAL •"ll�� 11LL SSii LL USC AND CS BENCHMARK DISK IN CONCRETE RoFEsslo Costa Mesa, CA 92626 TWO WORKING MONUMENT STAMPED D 307 1935, IS 38 FT WEST �oeo�ls sarh9t Sheet 4 BEFORE DAYS BEFORE OF CENTERLINE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 74, 33FT �x000 °FgFc ii y DOUGLAS SNYDER R.C.E. 24068 EXP. 12/31/07 DATE T: 7 1 4-6 6 8-5 6 0 0 YOU DIG SOUTH OF POWER POLE 19319 CWT. YOU DIG G.M. AN.5,14 ADDED EXTENDED DETENTION BASIN TO LOT 11, CHANGED TOTAL SHi N0.TO 11 ALL SHT '^ N0. 24068 HEIGHT OF LIGHT ABOVE STATION MARK 1 METER. RAISE PAD/STREET GRADES 0 LOTS 1-6, 30-42,90-96, 119-120, 133-158 SHEETS 4&5 E=E.i2/31/07 A THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SW PN 331 MARCH 2O14 TOLL FREE 1-8GG-227-260D zil D.S. 06105 AND ADD 4A&5A;REVISE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHEET 1;ADJUST MOST REMAINING PAD T P APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AN0/OR CITY A A PUBLIC SERVICE BY ELEV. 7425.76 NAVD 88 GRADES UP o.1'-D2'sHEErs 6,7&a yr croi� STATE LAWS, AND A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. MARK BY DATE APPR. DATE FOP OpE1Fo� w w w.s oil w o r k s i n c.c o m E E - CONSTRUCTION NOTES x-6 TYP v E E SHEET / / N O ■ / ACCESS / I O DOWN DRAIN PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 - *00,800 4... = ' -.._.� �- 4 1•" �^ --_ __:..,-_ O PASSIVE PAR - .. TERRACE- 7 E 2 400 ` PROPOSED ACC Qdl \�_ -1 T N T-ST' -- - Jb q 12 BENCH& TERRACE P DETAIL \\ \ ..................... - 2 YERS FILTER >`--- \ ———\1 10'/ \ \ \ ® CE DRAIN AIL ON SHEET 3 • s-- ';� MAT AL•-•-_•••••• 9 - - - \ OS CONCRETE DRAIN TO PIPE INLET PER DETAIL 7 A / a �7 SPLASH WALL PER DETAIL ON SHE T 3 RIP-RAP PER QFTA 0 Ti-�� �i I/ �� UTILITY V-DITCH PER DETAIL 0 EE7 3 l ...?....,, EXIST. '•• _ -- SMT. GRANTED BY ITE ^w,., 1 T-. �� -- --- = i' �� 11 6"N.D.S. ATRIUM-DRAIN/GRATE --- Jbcp TO LD CLURMAN PER 1 \ �� / 1 STALL 18"CUP ASPHALT-COATEDOR APPR D EQUAL \DOC.J/z -6 sz49u PASSIVE PARK �� Qal %�- i 14 INSTALL 4°_PERF H 0 FOR ALL SUBDRAIN PER AIL ONI SHEET R/ _ -_• _ \ / J bCg p ® REMOVE INTERFERING PORTION OF EXIST. CO NC. 3 I j "' -1 —-- A 1� PVC CONNECTION I TO CATCH BASIN NC. CH' DIT ,, i i T / I P-1448.3 29 -1448.9 P,4 -- �• - � � © DOWN DRAIN TO PIPE INLET PER DETAIL ON-SH 3 Q�f•I' � __ _ / ""••., INSTALL 12"PVC CHEDUL =40 0 Aa$RO(7ED E4 L,7YPE 1 EXIST. SLOPE CONSTR CTIt ESMT. Caf V' .k . 'III �� --- � - QIDO-1.1 cis GRANTED BY WHITE R CK I `� � �� I ✓ - _ �i Jbcp �� V100 15 / P-13 0 / PASSIV �PARK IoT xx ACQUISITION CO., L.P. TOO8250 S. ^ � I 93 Y� \ \ CLURMAN PER DOC. 2P03-g78250 / � �` 1 0.9 v( •7, / ,a���h 1 TON T=51" ( I 6 S➢ II O O \ I�10FOBcL3 /��...... 7.......QaI 2 TIRIAS FILTER / All", 23 I % Qal / 10'D X MATlBR1AL P 1� P-1 _ 1460 56.8 II z 12 P- 46 P- �' 9 z isYFRS FILTER fl, I I 458.3 I 1459.8 E �' �' so MATERIAL °�°° � a�s7 a n �- -- � i s�'� I �� cx ` _- -- �'SBi �• 7 L=7' °°""' o v°o ,i'T A r aovo �+ p SETBA_�K LIN,, -- W e ° _ W z `c' °;� � ° c t �v n 0' 4J✓,� u _ - ----- --- - 1a1 � N ^e _� -- �� ��^ ^� ^° n°- ° _ �° 0✓7 ^� q� nhh� .. 249 � a1 nL•1 la �13 � 2h eh h PROPOSED ACCESS 6 PROTE TED TI POLE TO cam- 131 �, I - T / ' ^ �. 1- .0 "^�g� l °I° i TO PASSIVE PARK I W N G A � ^a 4 xG 1 � h P41446.9 a' I sLreacK LINE y c I P-14.51.3_ 11 2.3� I afu / cafI — 12 1 I NP-1454.0 p-1455.5v l �1 gabC e �dE ;a i A� Ac^ " 5� v ■ I I I Q v Tc 34 o L I P-1457.0 v c 16 9�A5 A to rn E ti" I 7 xi �' 0 -o / � 2 66 J a 961� �6 \ 1 o II II ' �. \o \W A n°' - = - _ 5U ^ P- �1 b s `tip 1 / cn to 446.3 _ J o I � � � � 11 � c T I P OVEME z: 46Q J _ ° <F 1 �/ - i o — ---- a1 — � � I a 4 ��°o° oa 4 _ � Line 5 S1 0 E A CESS ROAD h0 ho ^,^G p - 2 xV w .m _ _ Y POLE IL. Q�' p8° 150T. 1 V ,Z 2547 39� a \ .���, a' P Fss �a1M_ w T IT S 5 ' I;` o � �.- 1 O O I 3 tC. I 00 0 - �6 9 - ,=" aso1T,. 1 1 fi p a 7 12 P-1445.4� � � o � \ °� cn e IT 0.1 0 o F '\T •� ,•,; ° \ 1 1 k�,c..\1 ES. � � I N rC � - � � �' ,� - ■ qN b' I 1^,^6 y ^I, g�y� \I/�\ 1q,8... I `° 5 �\� �� 94 V _ 041'h k1 ■ � i � 1 C or .^ c. ,� FS ro p F 1 x` � vsas 1 •� a�5go° i `c, Jbcp x0 EXIS. SLOPE CONST CTION ESML gab '�' h 3 ; F �T. ,, ��' I R 1 R 1 ^5 L�. --- I J p" o h IGRA�ITED BY WHITE R CK ',� ry 6 i p°.yx i �1 1 ^ , F` g5• U -� O v O 1l y"� I000 ISITION CO., L.P. FQ,�DONALD S. - I�"� �,�f 147�• 1 �^r°'y i i y. 1 �-sy 131 90� 1 16 1 ^ I° I CLU MAN PER DOC. 06P878250 I - - �, ,�39 ,� 53 ,Z.$ P� ^^� �/7 ^ °' 1 ^b G 1 , h°°�0"" O 1534.7 P 1444.E - �� S P, 4� �� h 14� P-1 69 1 hove I y z rkN 16 P� � A, 1 ti I �� � I oCNf �• �`.;�- I G• Q-,- � � .M'a��l`'�� ao �.6"wu ^ \u, / � 00 I �a ° 1 O I o x g R• o o�„ °o ° A I o"G o" Oo I ' 5% a� a `a xl` _ / �� XIST. FUE ODIFIC�I 7 a 0 ,^o�LOVR J b p T A I D BY WH � -� �r � � 1/�EI �� ��� �� / TO DONALI S. CLURMAN --`..- - 1 l0' I \ OD tT ROCK ACQ ITION CO., E'P. vo^^ DOC. 2003 878249 ` - y 1- ti „� a ^� a i i/'%/ -- -- i I ^� rt -_ P-1 43. I � ossg a � _ � I ti + � I A � I � � 28a �too v.5, � �� � I 1`}�I , I � � � � I w� e^�ti �v ^ ���'6 � ,��' � d�5 �� � - -�� ��QI sa .L� '0 � � ��� �Y_ `'� 1 � •� �\ O li < Cdf a P-144�.1 1 a s N j 36 P-1 �_... m h°1..\� PUE V /•QCtI� t1 N Ili 4i _ .. � tyj � � � /2•� � - � `n I aa� �.I I �� � � ' � a �a� � p U.E. 1 �h W I i II _41 a •z T c� I I ^h I p I s" Jbc 0 O i� �� CL ALE: — 4 " o ;��� A a TP I � c P-1442 4 I o Tic a x� \ I n a° � , a '� y0 PAC � II �^ � ,.. ,o• 0 I � -� M 3'P.U.E. H' N I �VTc H Boa MAD E IDENTIFIE DAT OF LA T CHANGE TO THIS M 381/04/0� BY:J-A:G LATE OF THIS,PLOT 01 ' I ' �� I 1 e" 1 03 29 \\�� V V KS x aa6/ ! {-- ---i- - j4 RIM i �\ %I l �� �.. -�'. \�� II +' i }T t Soil r — y Earth Sciences Group PLATE 2 SE E S H E E T N O . 4 350 Fischer Avenue • BENCHMARK SEAL-ENGINEER PREPARED BY Costa Mesa, CA 92626 GEOLOGIC MAP © HUNSAK DIAL MO AND GS BENCHMARK DISK IN CONCRETE ADDED EXTENDED DETENTION ft451N ON LOTS 124, 125, 126&127.REMOVED BASIN ON QROF ESS ION I R T: 7 1 4-b 6 8-5 6 0 0 Sheet 5 TWO WORKING MONUMENT STAMPED D 307 1935, IS 38 FT WEST G.M. M.5,14 LOT 119.CHANGED TOTAL SHT.NO.TO 11 ALL SHL F,o G�-PS Spy 4( BEFORE DAYS BEFORE ti�00 of F2m PLANNING SW PIN!331 MARCH 2O14 'W OF CENTERLINE R POLE 1 HIGHWAY 74, 33FT ELIMINATE TEMP.DETENTION aAsws LOTS n AND na,snow PERMANENT WATER Quaun BASIN o a c+ DOUGLAS SNYDER R.C.E. 24068 EXP. 12/31/07 DATE YOU DIG YOU DIG SOUTH OF POWER POLE 19319 CWT. � D.S. o3/os LOT n9 SHEETS 5,s AND to � a Three Hughes Irvine, CA s W w w.s o i I w o r k s i n c.c o m RAISE PAD/STREET GRADES 0 LOTS 1-6, 30-42,90-96, 179-120, 133-156 SHEETS 4&5 NO. 24065 THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 HEIGHT OF LIGHT ABOVE STATION MARK 1 METER. z D.S. 0s/05 AND ADD 4A&5A:REVISE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHEET 1;ADJUST MOST REMAINING PAD E,t2/31/07 APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AND/OR CITY AND SCALE:AS SHOWN P� GRADES UP 0.r-02'SHEETS 6.7&6. s P STATE LAWS, AND A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. A PUBLIC SERVICE BY ELEV. 1425.76 NAVE)88 MARK BY DATE APPR. DATE 9�f crop o^``' UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT REVISIONS °F cA�IF DATE:DECEMBER 2003 455 Linden Street,Laguna Beach,CA 92651 -4-6 rHE CLURMAN COMPANY INC. ENGINEER COUNTY KEN SEUMALO R.C.E. NO. 56915 (9491494-3707 REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FUTURE ITM NO. 32 �a BY OTHERS 'A.P. # 347' PROPOSED GRADING ESMT. PER ��� �� 0 � /1 —_�EPARATF INCTR12d4ENZ— �_�\� � �....... � � I $ � 490 PROP SEO GRADINC ESMT.1PE sEPA T� -e_Nsze T�_ _ Ex lanation $ �— SSO o \ `( Caf Compacted Artificial Fill-TR.25478 ---- f9l is 100, I o - �� 3 t5aa �� �\ dfU Undocumented Artifical Fill / -__ _ 11 r� II `1512.2 P-151 P-1525.J' P_15�1 _� _47 I Qal Alluvium 0 __ � . ��' P-15073 � 1 FIL - \ J °-� _ter/ � I I Jbcp Bedford Canyon Formation(Phylite) 510 JbCC{ Bedford Canyon Formation(Quartzite) LSD o —_ --_= 70 o Jb q Strike& p f Foliation/Relict Bedding hoF�T 0 I i d' ,�°,�o° 53 '�-- _______- — i ___: ,. I Jbcq o I � �— Strike& (Fracture c -� / / I � Ili I --- I I � 31 Dip o i n°�°�° 5 P-1546. � Q L I I Strike of vertical Foliation/Relict Bedding 1 o o °� o�? i� �c��� RAM �a I Strike&Dip ofVertical Fracture P-1454.9 l o 5 1 t <�5 �k� vNV• L T E 3 Approximate Location of Exploratory Test Pit o - - o s Q���c"`° \ TP- A A B Approximate Location of Shallow Seismic I - 3 47 A I I I i I - - '�\ Refraction Traverse Line S-7 I FIST. IMPI�OI� ENTS £t �ii I I m% � ��a o 0 0 13 _ goo l "� — i \s 1 Geologic Cross-Section Line ADIING FOR TRACT _ �� "°� . �' / f' ti° vv / Approximate Location of Fill Key i o A m a \ \ e �� 11 IEM arJ479-BY�ERS I -u � � 1g � y:`` A � � s o \ 1 Approximate Location of Recommended Subdrain -N ` m I � I 0) with Pipe Sizes,Ends,and Outlets 1 co ° TP- _ 9g :� uo \ �I 49 Jbc W Lsss, Ov o T� p Qsss�' 6 �� v Q i Approximate Location of Existing TR.25478 Subdrain(indicating Pipe Size,Ends,Outlets, 6 .0 tip^ ti \o and Elevation in Feet) a� <9 a �� T 5 m __ Geologic Contact,Queried where Surmised, " 47 t, < D goo 0\ �� Dotted where concealed 347 110 23 / _ - --- 1456 . V A.P.. . 73 IN V �a0 -- \ \ h 2 B I ti 80 1 / `� e�ci° —i i UNE OF SIGHT /----i�-----qe, a��. 2.oq ��� I -TYPE Y P-14s SCALE. 1" — 40' _ I 1 TON, k 1 E 1 �+b q U n�G F 0 `e" • 2 LAYER NLTER ZON i 5 14 - 1.9 452.1 i_ �4 0 LTG'�a O,�G �e�' Gish y�`' a�� 0 51aa 4-`°,�. ati ( MATERIAL MODIFICATION 0 - �. - 1I1\�EXIST.�FUEL MODIFICA,�t�,y,.� I hi _ `b Sccc p 1. TOz / �ti �p Ati - �� E \ 1 D' FUEL ESMT. GRANTED BY VfNQE1,1 d 5�1 3 ,�c,t- ��0. o •?o,`? ero o� a ACK LINE _ .. ROCK f4CQUISITION CO. P I .I� ) g73.33 T ��T a0�4G v�5�c '.°��T'2�c` ti� GFA T \ N 211,000 _ TO D0 ALD S. CLURMAN p A� N F ZS/,400 DOC.j 003-878249 i ` 3 TF �, - _ _f-f 0 1,1i 74 GR,��rr,.,_ - - - �...- T 148p y7 t - lag EXIST. FUEL MODIFICATION _ I �/ �. A 147b.b7 T t - 4g4.9 ESMT. GRANTED RA 7,9 & /� - O� •Q 1486. j F // P�� I 1 FOURMA COMMA RA ° THE , CLURMAN COMPANY, I C. PER s, �nz. li II o � r rs Ia6333TF I48a°°TW � a��j �; _ a �•9 "o° I' CONSTRUCTION NOTES L o DOC. 447022 p� la7a.e7 asT3,T rI o i 9 / �Q9 V # ,g ! 148 T p8 50 P'�492 10 DOWN DRAIN PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 -\ \� �_. \�� --_._( + c• / 1478677W / rr5 7 P 5.1 p-1 g94 E P j492 0 1�/1 Jbcq d O 6'BENCH& TERRACE DRAIN PER DETAIL ON SH ET 3 1 l � 147333 TF / 15 t ' I INTERCEPTOR DRAIN PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 8 I I ! t 112 �ryl�' 1<e�I �\ � TW �15 / laea / O5 CONCRETE DRAIN TO PIPE INLET PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 Igg3.33 - -f S / / T P POSED GRADING ESMT. 1478.67 TF I -_ O7 SPLASH WALL PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 CONCRETE V-DITCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 149 � �� O RIP-RAP PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 1485 / '(`� �� 10 UTILITY V-DITCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 6"AIDS ATRIUM DRAIN/GRATE 74 c ~6g. 2•� 9 48p14 INSTALL 18"CMP ASPHALT-COATED OR APPROVED EQUAL \/4j / �' / 14 INSTALL 12"PVC SCHED. 40 OR APED. EQUAL MAP DATE IDENTIFIER � I ° DATE OF LATEST CHANGE TO THIS MAP )I � >qs o 6. _� INSTALL 4"PERFORATED PVC SCHED. 40 FOR WALL SUBDRAIN PER DETAIL ON SH A 06/20/05 BY:J.A.G. �� f 3 Jbcq DATE OF THIS PLOT -------- 01 18 06 994 "' ) - —__ ROPOSED ACCESS S o i I W o r k s PLATE 3 �� -- I T N, T=5 --- �� (-� O 0 PASSIVE PARKEarth Sciences Group o - Z�/ 2 L YERS FILTER _ - MAP D � �•� � J� QajS E GEOLOGIC H E E / s / O 5 350 Fischer Avenue o BENCHMARK ••x• SEAL-ENGINEER PREPARED BY C o s t a M e s a, _ HUMS Sheet 6 USC AND GS BENCHMARK DISK IN CONCRETE ROF ess to •. Qa I T: 7 1 4-6 6 8-5 6 0 0 DIAL TWO WORKING MONUMENT STAMPED D 307 7935, IS 38 FT WEST OeG F5 Sv R BEFORE r DAYS BEFORE OF CENTERLINE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 74, 33FT of Fy nnurlgs sNYDER R.C.E. 24068 EXP. 12/31/OS DATE PLANNING SW PN 331 MARCH 2O14 SOUTH OF POWER POLE 19319 CWT. N i e Hughes Irvine, c w w w.so i Iwo r k s i n c.c o m YOU DIG You DIG e c.M. 4An.5,14 ADDED EXTENDED DETENTION BAsw TO Lon n7&na.cHaecEe rorAt ser No TO n ALL snr. N0. 2 068 31/0 THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEIGHT OF LIGHT ABOVE STATION MARK i METER e,a.iz/sl/os PRE TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 RAISE PORnoN of TRACT AND Aruusr MOST PAD ELEVATIONS HIGHER TO HELP ACHIEVE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AND/OR CITY AND SCALE:AS SHOWN D.S. ATE EARTHWORK BALANCE;ALL SHEETS. ss c STATE LAWS, AND A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. A PUBLIC SERVICE BY ELEV. 1425.76 NAVD 88 MARK BY DATE APPR. DATE 9TF or cnUFo�� - UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT REVISIONS DATE:DECEMBER 2003 455 Linden Street,La;una Beach,G 92651 �aa-a THE CLURMAN COMPANY INC. ............•...� REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT -A, 80 E 238, 00 / X 14 7.1 FUEL MODIFICATION EASEMENT W �2G�NPNG� PER DOC yy20D3-243427 ,5 &M 04'=' RE.03�J1L2003 i we R E y�/ E i 5y bcq cq �� y��a h� 0 136 i G Muc F 5g. 469 G �y ye P-1560 0 T / PASSI PARK_ - F iovOxli'IPr �y7.1��Y _ / JbC� C 0100 0.7•cfs 13�J ro R Q�,a -• 2 L ERS FILE E� 1 y I 3 f s' fi �....... �y, MAT RIAL v al /� 6hi r ��� 1 - PCP P-1558.3 9 9.2 LAYER FILTER M1 i �� / A S J MRIA .'�� �o°,y°o_ _`_ L %' i 2 o ti 38,0 h =7, �o M o_ aoo° 134 137 1559 P-1556.7 P- .9 �� a10 o -• __ tAgO � /�� 5 5 \ II \ T ` o 133 / 5 / ■ F 5y o ��^ P-1555.3 138 S6/ ROPO \ 1558. TV 3 \\ �� �-_ \ 2 pa ,• �$ � � '_��. tide � \�\ �/ � /S F Z , o. cat QAI 'moo / _ ¢i o \ 35 '. 6, r yo 45 2 3.9 I 50 50 _ /� -rp�/ tD Gp,-� - 750 JI _ �EXI$T. FUEL MODIFICA�10 �j G P-1 55.3 �� \ ESMT. GRANTED BY WHITE ` C / ROCK ACQUISITION CO., Line 5-5 V_ _ Cp i N TO THE CLURMAN CO., DOF`203782521_®8 W � � i , 131 N 20Q400 E 38,000�-15 � . \/\ G5 `W 0 P : A\M \M �— 140 EXIS P-1553.8 / M I,5 i I --Cn A_, Y \ �Q• ..\ L���S���� �R v I_ Tc�/ I fi. �' lq •.• I ESUT 1�a 0,v ^h"��o. w'5 II OF ��F��,pr�•�•4c•���Xe c '� .I6, D . O DONAL �LURMA I y n f OC 268785 --� / 1 l 143 BYW 22 142 1534.7 P-1550.9 P-1551.7 P-1552.0 41 rc. vvvv A A o 30 P-1550.8 W J cp h 15gD v �5�� o 1� 16 7 -� I o p,G o o 'I'Iy/ I 144 1 1 W 5e1 h� n ———— / I oGhc 1. i m no '0 LU — —_—— P-1552.3 P �9X// o c �o A - �+ Vo I DC n �o I T.,._ 1 ti 1 D N o \ I ' Coh � � �t\5556 I I � � I '� 00 SG i \ I I I I 1 0 i a _——�- yr' yc°' 145 h OD o 'till a� 2 020 o- U U E 2 ,DO a - P4 V I m CALEa B ti �I r m T 18'S i iTm I n / 148 � .. / 3 5G5 I II i —EXIST. UEL MODI71CAT ON 12' 3 I 1 44� 1 48 /1 47 II y Q U 1 N A O. o I ESML RANTED y4'D yV ITE P'"f 549.8 P-1 55 81551.8 ROCK ACQUISITI L.P. 8 8" 7 E a 1. J, CP I ��. n^ 75 I i ro rHE cLu ����c I 146 W S 'pC�/-d'7 o ^ , I C L � '� DOC. 2003-78 '� I l 9G I i V I >f I P-1552.5 i TP 5.5 5s1 ZA III I I ��� ;I j o N CON RUCTI 1 N NO T h I M 3'P.U.E. 3• IE. I I o T /I I 1550 1 DOWN DRA/ PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3/ oI I, it •+ MAP DATE IDENTIFI R 5 II W� tiGA� \I ' 1 n O2 6 BENCH TERRACE DRAIN PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 DATE OF LATEST CHANGE TO THIS / 06/20/05 BY:J.A.G. DATE OF THIS PLOT S E E S H E E T N O . 8 PLATE 4 �� 1806 _ - SOiIWOrks Earth Sciences Group •� 350 Fischer Avenue GEOLOGIC MAP I o • y� llBENCHMARK SEAL-ENGINEER PREPARED BY Cost a Mesa, C A 9 2 6 2 6 Sheet 7 �`"`D T USC AND GS BENCHMARK DISK IN CONCRETE r H U N ovess/ '- T: 714-668-5600 DIAL TWO WORKING MONUMENT STAMPED D 307 1935, IS 38 FT WEST �Oe�p5 SppNq( -0,� R BEFORE DAYS BEFORE OF CENTERLINE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 74, 33FT ��o0 of Fc PLANNING i�il SOUTH OF POWER POLE 19319 CWT. a 9 DOUGLAS SNYDER R.C.E. 24068 EXP. 12131105 DATE SW PN 331 MARCH 2O14 YOU DIG YOU DIG Three Hughes Irvine, w w w.s o i l w o r k s i Inc.e o m G.M. Jnfl$14 cwwcED TOTAL ser.No.TO I Au sHT. " N0. 2 31 THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1 TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 HEIGHT OF LIGHT ABOVE STATION MARK i METER. RAISE PORTION OF TRACT AND ADJUST MOST PAD ELEVATIONS HIGHER 70 HELP ACHIEVE Exp.12/31/05 P Al D.S. 06/05 EARTHWORK BAUNcr ALL SHEETS_ s cA APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AND/OR CITY AND SCALE:AS SHOWN s STATE LAWS, AND A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. A PUBLIC SERVICE BY ELEV. 1425.76 NAVD 88 v clvi� UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT MARK BY DATE REVISIONS APPR. DATECAE\FO�` n.re nereuue■,nna_.__.____ __._—_ 415 Linden Street.Lmuna Beach.CA 92651 p _ I / � +h G W I rtuon "C"I"Iwn w, �.r. - bV1�J nY\. IVI� nV L.7 CLt_O I 1, N Cq - I /1 (p .- � I i S5'� to -1 TO THE CLU'pC�4-d-N q�.1 C E V I O 1 \ O SG' �1" ^ 75 I I C LI � 3 f Ica v > 76 �i Doc.#2oo3 78 �3' �� INIIINSTALL 4"PERFORATED PVC SCHED. 40 FOR WALL SUBORAIN PER DETAIL ON SHE REMOVE INTERFERING PORTION OF EXIST. CONC. DITCH QdTP- I� I I �3'P.U.E. , Q oa a° I � I 1 co I5s° I I - 6 II ,t, � I II 16 26 � � 1�,- -_ -- - ----- . G. �`'�'� N �bCp {� I EXIST. SLOPE CONSTRUI N �1 P�1542� ESMT. GRANTED BY WHITE ROCK F� ACQUISITION CO., L.P. TO 1%�53 SDti I I ,09 I I �� DONALD 5. CLURMAN PDR 1 ° in _ _ ti vMi o ha Doay2o150782so 151 5 0}. OD 10 -53 10' 1v1: O I _ _ ______�________ ^� hG 1 _ -� 15 I JJJ 152 ti o i_-_-_•-_-_ i P-1540.5 P-1542 ! P-1544.6 tc I coon �5 sc°5e�� I ,h •--- ° I _ ,h 5 - / I �� I � �n � �67 I 125 h Cdf P-1540.8 2�8, °moo o�' Cn 5o1c h o �r- eke o cn m a c CO `h - 44�\\ \ � � I 5 t cp ---------• A 1 - --- F � � caf 52 2:1 0 'N w �y �, �� W,a�c, C 50 �/ A F.• -.57� ._.._.._.. _.._.._. _.._...� / � � a h D o _ -_ S ry ti �15002:1 � '• - � ---' No ^�tiD � -�,/.ti v� � / I - � -.,,1 76 1 124 --- h h I P-154.6 � EXIST. FUEL MODI ICATION � I � I� 1 83 � 1$2 � h - ��° "e °.ao `i o v.a °� - P P-1534.3 P-1541.3 o, ! ROCK ACQUISITIONY CO., L ■ __ - -. v., I ' _ - \ J�9.9 PER00DONALD S�CLURMAN Y 34. TO 1 I A P' V 123 RAD:--'II SETBACK LINE I I - I; _1520.$ '� f1 14.9 P-1532.9 I I 1 46 ' II NI 4� \ 'k 184 11 P-i499.0 1I P->453 6°�}�N I p-15 1 I ro, �7��� \ �o P-1496-- 1 O \ - P-1532.0 I - �------- -I----- 11 181 -11 \ P-1538.2 5.3 111 43 r 44 I I -------------- 1526 .' I 3 I II A1 11 1 I 11 2; T \ 42 16 122 1515LEXIST. SLOPE CONSTRUCTION W I 9505 - 1510 w I a0°1 4 s ESML GRANTED BY WHITE ROC - ---------- - W -- 5 oy° h5`°6 -ACQUISITION CO., L.P. TO I I �2 1 85 180 y - DONALD S. CLURMAN PER 'S _ 0 tF D C. 2003-87825 495--- 67 # P-1529.7 5- �; �- .�-_ P-1526.8 -- --- 1490 \- - I I I ` ------ - i211 5 Z TP 22 - - -- i I JbcpyooF I �� 7' 1 a' 7' w w of I `50 osp0 i t 19 ! 56 121 1 611 �61 a 9t �5 II P-7�5t 1 7 I /A �b aa6 I 15aao e1 1 a 15� ;I � F P-1522.7 V� I. s o �� T I\ ____-____ _- 27 26 )25 ® 23 22 21 I�I P-505.5 ! 15� tioo v ° � I \5 � o z1 A9 1a I 0 61 F P-1485.1 P-1484.7 F�1484.7 P-1485.7 P-1488.2 I P-1492.2 I P�498.0 o tw I I :c _ !', I - / / ° --- 1 1 179 9ns 6 F !I a96°o wF \S\oksf i 15o"'off II �.y \ r - --- 0-- -- 186 i n P-1522.0 85 W as°oo g oo iF >5 tf _a. tf Soy a1 °� P-1518.1 o- � h°zj oo° ' � 9 LU w W _ z i o:,00 - _-- � 3VC �1 4�`ti� `1,a,00 �,, '�. �c,hc, t� V.0 � - LU ti N \��_____ 4-- 00,o � �. o- _ ,c n see 1 mq `ti °1- _ � I ° I _ '�n � 1 178 12 `0�500 �����h°�EG I I I 187 I P 1514 `tiS -- - -- -- _ ti 100 V.C. / 6 \ �II^^ m P-1510.5 -____ ♦- �0 �P Jkzc\ _ r� N fbc S,� / I I I ��`, 0 n ��I 5• 11 IP{-�5 I a 1 - �/� 1 �� '-� ��_11PE R INc� aNCP / 1 a��` -- --- I � �'^ il" I _ �'N / ' moo° zn�ao 1I C7 zl ----- ,� o . 1505 P-1485. s 6 P-1487.5 mI P-14 1,5,- I m I P 97.0 Y505.0 P=151 2 II _P-15P1.� y X F -- 0 20' 20 10' 1"7�' �. / ----- ---- 1A ° 1�48 �d N - - �72 - a k- ` ° II _,L LAB oe /.e 9 I I - k52 118 � 1 - - �_90_� - -- ------------- MINOR - - 0, 4/x So IWorks oa �-- y _ 5872 - M�NTS \ �� %� Earth Sciences Group PLATE5 1 , EXIS. SLOPE CO Y W ITE R 1 9,400 / / ` +- MAP DATE IDENTIFIER \ , ESMT. GRANTED BY WHITE ROCK N 9 400 DATE OF LATEST CHANGE TO THIS MAP 06/20/05 BY:J.A.G. 109 1 \ DONALD S. CLURMAN PER 23 600 9,8BB a°n 1 DOG#2003-878250 �- --� � � 2 " 9 � 350 Fischer Avenue DATE OF THIS PLOT III I 111 25478 BY T ERS- EX18T. FUEL MODIFICATI N� �\. AMA , - GEOLOGIC MAP 01 •�p OG \ I 1 1 1L GRANTED BY WHITE RO K O -1483.4 -1 1 \, i P 1483.8 1 13 ACQUISITION CO., L.P. 0 DONALD S. 'F 1 - Costa Mesa, CA 92626 P-1484 7 1 1 4 CLURMAN PER DOC.#20 3-878249 jl� ''� P-1485.7 P-1486.E 115 116 r �I`'/ k �\' T: 714-668-5600 Sheet 8 �� Lzz;!-DP-1487.7 117 / � � SW PIN331 MARCH 2O14 • BENCHMARK SEAL-ENGINEER PREPARED BY w w w.s o i I w o r k s i n c.co m USC AND GS BENCHMARK DISK IN CONCRETE eR°FEss,oN DIAL �i'- TWO WORKING MONUMENT STAMPED D 307 1935, IS 38 FT WEST �,o oa,ps sNy q< BEFORE DAYS BEFORE II OF CENTERLINE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 74, 33FT Fe-o° of Fy i SOUTH OF POWER POLE 19319 CWT. o P DOUGLAS SNYDER R.C.E. 24068 EXP 12/31/05 YOU DIG YOU DIG NO. 24068 HEIGHT OF LIGHT ABOVE STATION MARK 1 METER. G.M. sw.5,a Aooeo exTer4oeo oereNnor4 easm TO LOT n.crwrvcRo rornr snT NO.TO n ALL ser THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANC Exp.12/J1/OS Qr. TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 Raise PoenoN or rend SHEETS. Awusr MOST Pao eLevanoNs wcRRR TO HELP Aceleve APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AND/OR CITY AND SCALE:AS SHOWN 1 D.S. 06 05 FARTNwoRK BALANCE ALL s ee s. o si r STATE LAWS, AND A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. THE CLURMAN COMPANY INC. o PI Ir eFaulrF av ELEV. 1425.76 NAVD 88 ,,,,,,, ,,,, ,,,_� REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT W.O. FOR F.B. FILE NO. APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS AND SEISMIC TRAVERSES (NEBLETT, 2004) Rosetta Hills Project Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR 'G, GEOTEK LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS Test Pit TP-1 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 — 3.5 Alluvium: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments, frequent rootlets and roots. 3.5 — 5.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 5.0—6.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite (Jbcq): Quartzite,reddish brown to tan, dry to slightly moist,very hard, with lesser(approximately 15%) Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist,very hard, platy,poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 6.0 feet (Refusal). No water,no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-2 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0— 1.5 Alluvium: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments,frequent rootlets and roots. 1.5 —2.5 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 2.5 — 5.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite (Jbaq): Quartzite,reddish brown to tan, dry to slightly moist,very hard, with lesser(approximately 10%) Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist,very hard, platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N80W 70NE Total Depth 6.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-3 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 — 3.0 Alluvium: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments, frequent rootlets and roots. 3.0 —4.0 Weathered Bedrock (wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 4.0—5.5 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite (Jbcq): Quartzite, reddish brown to tan, dry to slightly moist, very hard, with lesser(approximately 5%) Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 5.5 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-4 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—4.5 Alluvium: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments, frequent rootlets and roots. 4.5 —6.75 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 6.75 — 8.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite (Jbcq): Quartzite,reddish brown to tan, dry to slightly moist, very hard,with lesser(approximately 5%) Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy,poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 8.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-5 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 — 0.5 Soil: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish broom. dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments. frequent rootlets and roots. 0.5 — 1.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 1.0—2.5 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite(Jbcq): Quartzite, reddish brown to tan, dry to slightly moist, very hard, with lesser (approximately 5%) Phyllite interbeds,dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard,platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N88E Vertical Total Depth 2.5 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-6 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—0.5 Soil: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish brown. dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments, frequent rootlets and roots. 0.5 — 1.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard,frequent iron-staining 1.0 —2.25 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite(Jbcq): Quartzite, reddish brown to tan,dry to slightly moist, very hard, with lesser (approximately 5%) Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist very hard, platy, poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 2.25 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-7 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0— 0.5 Soil: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish brown, dnr to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments, frequent rootlets and roots. 0.5 — 1.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 1.0 —4.5 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite (Jbcq): Quartzite, reddish brown to tan, dry to slightly moist, very hard, with lesser(approximately 5%) Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations, and localized fracturing. Foliation Attitude: N58W 70NTE Fracture Attitude: N28E Vertical Total Depth 4.5 feet (Refusal). No water, no caving,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-8 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 —4.0 Alluvium: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments, frequent rootlets and roots. 4.0—5.25 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 5.25—6.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite (Jbcq): Quartzite,reddish brown to tan, dry to slightly moist, very hard, with lesser(approximately 10%)Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 6.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-9 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 —0.5 Soil: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments, frequent rootlets and roots. 0.5 — 1.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and lesser Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 1.0 —3.5 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite (Jbcq): Quartzite, reddish bro«n to tan, dry to slightly moist, very hard, with lesser(approximately 5%) Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard,platy,poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 3.5 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-10 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 —0.25 Soil: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, locally porous, frequent angular bedrock fragments, frequent rootlets and roots. 0.25 —0.75 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Quartzite and Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron- staining 0.75 —3.75 Bedford Canyon Formation, Quartzite (Jbcq): Quartzite,reddish bro«n to tan, dry to slightly moist, very hard, with frequent (approximately 50%) Phyllite interbeds, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N54W 49NE Total Depth 3.75 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-11 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 —2.5 Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Silty Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 2.5 —4.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 4.0 —6.5 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 6.5 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-12 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—4.5 Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Gravelly Sand, light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent phyllite bedrock fragments. 4.5 —6.5 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand,dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 6.5 —7.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite(Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist,very hard,platy,poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 7.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-13 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—0.5 Undocumented Artificial Fill(afu): Gravelly Sand, light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent phyllite bedrock fragments. 0.5 —2.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, extremely hard, poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 2.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-14 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—6.0 Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Gravelly Sand, light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent phyllite bedrock fragments. 6.0— 8.5 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining Total Depth 8.5 feet (Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-15 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—3.0 Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 3.0—3.75 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 3.75 —5.5 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, ven.hard, platy, well developed foliations, and localized fracturing. Foliation Attitude: N68W 39NE Fracture Attitude: N80E 75SE Total Depth 5.5 feet(Refusal). No water, no caring,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-16 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 — 1.0 Alluvium (Qal): Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 1.0 — 3.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 3.0 — 3.5 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N43W 42NE Total Depth 3.5 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-17 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0— 1.25 Alluvium (Qal): Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 1.25 —2.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand,dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 2.0 —3.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite(Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard,platy,poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 3.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-18 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 — 1.25 Alluvium (Qal): Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown. dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 1.25 — 5.5 Weathered Bedrock (wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 5.5 —6.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 6.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-19 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0— 3.0 Alluvium (Qal): Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 3.0—4.5 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 4.5 —6.5 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark fo medium gray, dry to slightly moist,very hard, platy, well developed foliations and localized fractures. Foliation Attitude: N52W 49NE Fracture Attitude: N80E Vertical Total Depth 6.5 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-20 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 — 1.5 Weathered Bedrock (wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining. Soil stripped by localized road grading. 1.5 —3.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations and localized fractures. Foliation Attitude: N55W 49N T Fracture Attitude: N36W 45SW Total Depth 3.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-21 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—0.75 Soil: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 0.75 — 1.25 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 1.25 —4.0 Bedford Canyon Formation,Phyllite(Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard,platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N41 W 42NE Total Depth 4.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-22 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 — 0.25 Soil: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 0.25 — 1.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 1.0 — 3.5 Bedford Canyon Formation,Phyllite(Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N47W 85-90NE Total Depth 3.5 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-23 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—0.5 Soil: Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 0.5 —2.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 2.0—4.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite(Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N46W 61NE Total Depth 4.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-24 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 —0.5 Weathered Bedrock(«•br): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 0.5 —4.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N75W 71NE Total Depth 4.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-25 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0— 1.75 Alluvium (Qal): Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 1.75 —2.5 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 2.5 —3.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite(Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, poorly foliated to massive. Total Depth 3.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-26 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—0.5 Alluvium (Qal): Gravelly Sand, light brown to light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 0.5 — 1.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, extemely hard, frequent iron-staining. Total Depth 1.0 feet(Refusal). No water, no caving,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-27 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 —0.25 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining. Soil stripped by localized grading. 0.25 — 3.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations and localized fractures. Foliation Attitude: N75 W 73NE Fracture Attitude: N80E 67SE Fracture Attitude: N55E 44SE Total Depth 3.0 feet (Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-28 Date Excavated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0—2.25 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining. Soil stripped by localized grading. 2.25 —7.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite(Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, with lesser(approximately 5%) Quartzite interbeds, reddish brown, dry, extremely hard, well developed foliations and localized fractures. Foliation Attitude: N38W 50NE Fracture Attitude: N83 W 63 S W Total Depth 7.0 feet (Refusal). No water, no caving,test pit backfilled. Test Pit TP-29 Date ExcaN�ated: 8/14/02 Depth (feet) Description 0.0 — 0.25 Soil: Gra,,,-elly Sand. light brown to light grayish bro xn. dry to slightly moist, loose, frequent angular, slaty phyllite fragments. 0.25 — 1.0 Weathered Bedrock(wbr): Phyllite fragments with occasional gravelly sand, dry, loose to moderately hard, frequent iron-staining 1.0— 3.0 Bedford Canyon Formation, Phyllite (Jbcp): Phyllite, dark to medium gray, dry to slightly moist, very hard, platy, well developed foliations. Foliation Attitude: N45W 60NE Fracture Attitude: N35E Vertical Total Depth 3.0 feet (Refusal). No water, no caving, test pit backfilled. 111 11 i 1 1771 Ti i 1111firrrImillinq: r Ln z l Im 7- L0ije v 5 a , % ll 1% ♦1 11e11 ' cu 4 / x " xf " " 1 ;I<;Y,- 4 < C:C i z m z LLJ 0 w c Z �P4 40b c Lil cc e ll I'll 1% LU CL t 4 4,t 4 z (L y e x e r r e LU t 4, Cc 1. e- e e e e e x cy. 13 e e cc C<C J c c cc.� m > ul ,'!-!4 4 4 el e e e e I-,%I, " / I:I:1 4 1;1 1;1 1; % CL CL r cc 0 LU 0 z x "I'll,IL I !111!! 11 fill[III 11.1114i.tif III III It UI a CL 0 0 0 ca � In Ul) 10 D -j 111117 ,17TIFFT 11111111 If III 11111111 Itill 11111 UTIIII III filll III I 7,TT7 I LU 1�1 0 CL Z M 4 4 cz Ct LU z 4 e e%e LU 0 4<, CIO 0 LU c 4,:4 c c LU IN C5, UJ, L I. I. IL z a Ld C) "t 4.:t 4e, 444 LU 0 z x I.FL I.,%'I 11 N % a Z 4u c > .1 r- C: in C) CL z x Ili fit if 111 111 11 Ili it Iiii I III if I if it Ili.III I I! Ili"11111 1,.11.1 ILWILUJIW x z Ln V) LM 4-1 F4 Cj Val � � iii{,{tti{i{ti{ [it[t{i'tit{{• +}� i,i { Kti.i,i,.tiiiit':{i •i;'•- [�.. �. rr{�{{.•,{M1{14 •{4{ .•{4{, <{iit{i;`{i{'ti{,i'ti{tLi ii• +1 {'{{{•.L i{.tlsi;its .i i•,r{i{ YY ON W Yy� {ri{s{{{li4r it,{, •4[•',`•.`i` q� Lu Lwt tsit ��{ii{{i2t,t i{i{its{ ii:_ al.�L � 4Y i i}•: i iiiii iiii { t`• L� 4d { ? {•rid { { { { {•{ { { {sit{ {i{ { {i{,•: {it I LO W �s[ii,{{{iii ty 2••24ii2{s{~{~ i i isiri•i K K s4{ i { i,i W fy <{SSs{{{d{dS{yP{{dr{`{{{•{i. WI Y� fs{2{[{4{s{ {{itt { { t { '444fi111 { i { { i i i i i LY it { t`i i { i { i { [i i 2 't:t{ii{{i{,{,ii iii{;',i`•i{. i+. rr twl � �:2{{<{iii{is[J {i{'•{i{ { - is ay:{Kriiii;{iii cc Lb. (h.�T-.Crl'ti•i tititi �' �: isK {• W !}, IGLisii i i i i ' � ti 'fi {iiiiiiiiiii{ J iisiiii{• 5..+ f S•iiri{iiii{{i iiiiiiiii^t} /p {<d{{r{. ej i J t{s{-Cl i{{.;{{i{{{siii{+.ti i cc t f, [;i{i{[i{ii y ! Ji{'{ildri<i{i{ir,�,{�rrr (�M+yay ula �°a�y Jt ,{S{{{i{{s{side{{{<{[{ii{i• V ►i {4 dr<{<<Sr<<{{S<<{'Y{S{ '�1' { YI�J 2 {s{{{ ,{si{i{s ��r 'rye r4J rtiM1,{{iti. s{.i it.4`,,s V1 LM- r'! �y tiJ, {{{'i"i{ii{iiiiii•';"'iiil'• Vfyh �y� li ca ca a o 0 0 0 � a � x z 0 TJ-1 Tli I I I)F-MI-I-TIT-FFT-Tl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I It I I I I I LO 0 CN r, rY ri!\r\ !' 1 �q Pr yi Ch w C I% LU 0 kn I LU c r4 41 Lo w 0 LT m > w C W. IL r x 0 LU 0 w CL iti 0 z x I x z Lei Ln Lr) "i CD -M fit III I I 1jr-r-FT11-111 I IFTTTI A I I I I I I-TT-"--L-1- ;% is z U) 0 J2 a IN CL < CL -j i% 00 Lli ro LIJ co "A C CL z to 0 CL LU LU 0 4-' LU c c uj Sitii (U IN > .1% uj CL ml a 0 "1 , , i., z Ix y .1%.1 .1%.1 cc 0 LU —j • Ull z << ui UJ 0 0 < < U, > CL CL Lw lz -IA..I I fill 1 1111.11 Ill i'LLIA-L'I 11 Ill I fill Illif x z IN IN 0 Lr) cc D J ly, '•r 4 Jl 4 4 J4 J4 .c z i r4 4 4 4 y`fr.••r4 f4 14,` ~•J•J J ,•J-/•• CD „•Iyf J f~r�f rrr' +gyp }4 F J`f•t`f•f J „�v M��Jt J}!`.v,4• '`J4 Jv Jx J}J4 Jv r• L4 am f f J l r + J r J J J J-/ry r`r +W•�• r}r\f'r''r,r''ry r.`J~'r'r'!`'r}r\r'r�r�. `y CD N•{ ';J`1�141}1`f4 Jv l4 J`J•J`J^J`r J J J J . L)) C r`! f}f`i`+t l4!\t F J f t• f�J F Jf n ,y.�.•1'� LU u f r 1 J t f f f r J J J J f `J J r`•J yyyy�� J f f f f J f •�,J f : J J J J r J J � ��+,•• r f f r r r ,�{•�~J F J f r r r r r tq � �ry `r`r r , J• J'f'± !`' f .r{`J' 'Jt' J r R,-, Y,� � \ \ Y rt�\rY'} `.r• J t.r}!~.�`fx? 'r\•,`,,\ r`J•`f••r�i 4 f,�' r r J r r r r i f f J'f � .•r r`J f f J - �\r'•. '�rY••', \ \ Y v } '+ '` 'c '` '' L•ry Jv JY JY Jk Jt r}.r4!Y r' l I f J l`J 1• J CL 4d: ; r r r f f r r ± r f Jv f r J J r r r .• r•- 4A. r ? r CL ' - r iyf F r r r ! r f I I f !'f r '•f J r r r r ++ % /* '4 '•.�4 Y Y Y Y i 4 Y \ggqppp } \ \ \ \ \ v. +.•}. t \ `v +4 'v 4+'. 4 ' / 1 r ��yy v L 4 4 '-. 4 \ '. 4 gi�pp++'(h. 4 4 }A{r. , v. -. } '•, ', 4 4 4 v. •, 4 4 L 4 v r r -r r rrr r r r r r r r ! ✓'r`! r r r r ,r r f ! J r r j F F F / F / f f ! J r J f .r F J J ! r t 4 4 1• %•Y 'v 'v 'v 4 f4 J4!4 r• i� J r• f J i r''' r r ! r r J I I J l f J J r ' J• J J ! t 1�4 4 4 •, t. 4 !4•r 4 4 4 \ '•. , , t ', v. L 4 ti `, 4 4 4 v 4 '. '•. .'4 r• r�. �'r r r'v'r',• r r, r r r f r r .r r r r r r YXY 4 \ \ ', \ rl Y } 4 1 4 1. k 'v k''v 4 •v } \, 'v •, J 4 4 } ,4 `. ••,A 4 4 k \ '•. �. h L L r•r r r ;• ,�,' r r F f r f I f 41 ! }. y. 4 Y s. 4 N 1 '•. \ `, Y o h \ } \ \ '•. t k 'v 4 4 '.. 4 k 4 4 4 1 t. iiiess J J f f f �" 4 4 L 4 4 4 `. 4 4 4 4 4 4 \ '. } 4 4 '+ "+ 4 4 4 ', 4 4 4 '•- t r�r - f •• r f r•f�•r`r• r r r t�r`r r r r r r r r•r`.•' r r r r r .� •r,• ` , \ \ } \ } v. v. } } } } }•`v } ;v f}rv.f\J}r}J'h,F••f`le . �y !`./`.!,f1 r-:�'F !Y f i f !Y IY fY J} /.v! /}F}/ r '`f\ .,. '•. 4 ti '•. '•. t W. Jv J J`J-r• ! r ! r ;' f f`f• r r' J Jv: : .y J f`! : 4 4 4 +4 '•. t \ J',r4 4 ft. , ` .\ �� \ -. ♦J4 4 r4 = J J /` f r r ` `' .' f`i f f l r /•/ ! /, }J /`f !`f /l J J l f`f l r~.% % 1 1r} 5 r`ry hf\f\F r} !}!'r~,rvJ r•J ! r+r r ryr •r•'rl pey +1�, '1 r 1 1 t 1 ti 1•1 l�l �z R CL n `,11t m z f Y/ YJ/ U J, n y/ y+ T'1 r1 4 —rt-T- f till 'IN "N N N N N LU I N, N UJ N N N N 0 CL < % "N 'N e% 0 e /N .1 F -e%CL %/N j,%/% .1 /N/N n u LU N N N z N /N "% I% % N M. %YN • N 11.%1, % N/ / .1 / ."'IN c 4J in % % 4- 4w I-N�,N /N N if/ 11 11 eN X 00 % N N C14 % % Lj % % % % % CL N N % ;N N N % I % N . N N %f l f l ! /N t 4 IN 1%. N % N N / f, I : (<<"4 < !I�1•1. <<< kr) " .i% 1 4 ., 4�.e-1.:1. — /% N/N , 4 4 4 -C� 0 << .%11% "% /N -C 4 z 4 -C 4 %".,11 1% /% e.% �N % e e I /1% e, '% ♦ N 0%x% . . N N N N m > uj -t444444 4 4 4 e • 1 4 % % % % % % < aj c > N 1% N L CL % % N N FL r m % N % 0 uj Virk 6� , z x illil 11111 Jill 0 X z I If 1 11111 1111 If I till 1 111111 11111 111111 If fill Ill 111 111111 fill if III 111111111 1 I.LL O j,I..1% 4 K -Zct 4< e,4: < < 4 4 4 4 4 IV �\ !Y f !�, \ S• ♦. \, !Sr i iii i �'i i'i i'S�'i}i it . . . . . . . . . . . . < < < 11 z m LLUJ zCr f f f r*1 I 1 .1 e*1 I. j"% :N 1 • 0 t.-I LO LU 0 co in 4. LO 4 !4 4 Y -�� 4.:4.c 444,4 4 Ll % %1Lm < < 4 444y41 1<I LLI % J 1. 1 4 1 .1 1 1 1 aj Yf 4 4 m > LU 4.c.; 12 Z 4 4 4 L. CL ♦ 0 w x 111111 Illitl 11111 iffill 111111 11111111111 HIM 111111 111111 c CL E 0 0 0 a x z cc D FT-FT"I I I I I I 1 11 "N e N % uj U) UJ % N' /N eN e., % e. 'N'N i C) 0 .1 / / / 11-' '- 11-,i 0 (4 I. '% ;' �% -�- , " e LU I CL < /%eN N J .'INJ J :N 0 e' ry cj� 0 0 / % % , N N N N /% %6 N N N N"N e J./11 11.,11., %" % Li N N N N N N N N z eN LU 0 N N LU c 4 1 / e P N N e N N e N e N e N 11,11,11 e % N % % N %.NN %e 1%e,1%/1%/1%/1%/1%/*%/11/1%.1%e.,",e e e d,.% • 'r uj e 1% It— /N e'e J e e /-,ol%/% N N I f N N,NNNNNI� % % % % N' N cc /N I/N'IN U7 w 0 0: 'k e e 1%/%/%/% % N %" J,1%/*1 Cl Z 41%.0'. 0) a > N N ill" e z 0: c CL E x z = a j E APPENDIX B AIR TRACK BORING LOGS AND AIR TRACK BORING LOCATION MAP (AGS, 2020) Rosetta Hills Project Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR '92r-, GEOTEK AT-1 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-1 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1535.0 ft (Cut: 43 ft) <12 Rippable _ Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-2 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 4 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-2 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1526.3 ft (Cut: 30 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-3 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-3 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1519.7 ft (Cut: 30 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-4 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-4 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1560.7 ft (Cut: 14 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-5 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-5 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1483.4 ft (Cut: 14 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-6 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-6 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1492.6 ft (Cut: 32 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-7 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-7 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1501.8 ft (Cut: 28 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-8 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-8 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1524.8 ft (Cut: 33 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-9 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-9 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1526.3 ft (Cut: 22 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-10 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-10 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1526.2 ft (Cut: 21 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-11 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-11 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1554.3 ft (Cut: 43 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-12 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-12 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1530.3 ft (Cut: 39 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot AT-13 Rate (sec/ft) 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 t d 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 Air Track: AT-13 Air Track Rate (sec/ft) Elevation: 1528.0 ft (Cut: 34 ft) <12 Rippable Equipment: AtlasCopco PowerROC T45 12-15 Marginally Rippable Excavated August 17, 2020 to Heavy Ripping (0)AGS PW 2008-02 >15 Drill & Shoot _ TRACT 30698 - NORTH ON+GD F2+89 ON+GD�ON+GD ON+GD ON GD ON+GD ON+GD ON+GD ON+GD \ Volume Report Design ys.Existing \��\ Area Volume Comp/Ratio Compact Export Change FO+3a FzS+n F28+95 F12+fie <FS+oo Co+27 y F1+00 C3+40 Cs+3t ca+12) Total Cut Fill OnGrade Cut Fill Cut Fill cut Fill -Import Per.1 Ft ACCESS Sub: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 6� I BASIN Sub' 20,512 14,447 6,004 61 6,084 2,525 6,084 2,525 3,559 7 c1+eq a0 s+313//cs«1z C3+06-c6+01 oN+GD ION+GD c6+s0 c1+a1 I\\ BENCH Sub: 41618 1,224 3,391 3 389 1,684 389 1,684 .1,295 17 HOASub: 15,076 12,518 2,517 41 3,122 487 3,i22 487 2,635 56 C2+92 C7+10 F5+O6 F13N2 F1p+15 co«s3 10+1a Ct+51 ON+GDP ON+G/D PADS Sub: 168,923 72,591 94,965 1,367 31,643 45,670 31,643 45,670 -14,027 626 SLOPES Sub: 132,494 44,820 85,032 2,642 12,857 35,933 12,857 35,933 -23,076 490 C2 8+11 ON+G I I STREET Sub: 53,827 41,826 11,763 238 24,485 3,177 24,485 3,177 21,308 199 +76 15+33 �F21+35 F17+92 C11+90 27+ 2 10+85 CO+38 D Np Regions Total 395,450 187,426 203,672 4,352 78,580 89,476 78,580 89,476 -10,896 1,464 \ Unspecified 13,187 5,893 6,833 461 1,472 4,407 1.00 1.00 1,472 4,407 -2,935 49 C5+z] 24+55 F6+84 F6+62 16+9q 3N4 30+30 C8+04 C7+51 ON+GD Job Total 408,637 193,319 210,505 4,813 80,052 93,883 80,052 93,883 -13,831 1,513 C12+41 18+22 F17+]6 C5+94 19+B1 21+73 11+39 F3+51 CS+gB ON+6D TRACT 30698 SOUTH Volume Report C4+18 F12+78 F14+54 Fa+58 F2+39 F6+77 F16+51 F3+61/C1+19/ \ Design vs.Existing Area Volume Corn/Ratio Compact Export Change Total Cut Fill OnGrade Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill -Import Per.1 Ft ���F0+98 F23+85 F29+11 F24+14 F22+51 F25+82 F19+25 F4+88/F3+03 ACCESS Sub: 13,376 2,710 10,250 416 94 2,159 94 2,159 .2,065 50 BASIN Sub: 37,263 31,943 4,765 555 14,658 758 14,658 758 13,900 138 - BENCH Sub: 6,322 968 5,339 15 291 3,650 291 3,650 -3,359 23 ON+GD ON+GD F7+32 F11+48 F2+21 FO+87.ON+G\ON GD HOA Sub: 21,294 8,845 12,283 166 4,689 3,516 4,689 3,516 1,173 79 _ PADS Sub: 855,264 431,465 420,148 3,651 246,368 249,300 246,368 249,300 -2,932 3,167 ON+GD ON+GD ON+GD� - SLOPES Sub: 285,025 97,805 183,601 3,619 44,166 99,816 44,166 99,816 -55,650 1,056- �`"�'""-- \ STREET Sub: 267,006 145,608 120,390 1,008 99,412 54,808 99,412 54,808 44,604 989 C12-75 C8+09 1v]3 Ci+20 C1+70 C1+43 Q+20O+GD Regions Total 1,485,550 719,344 756,776 9,430 409,678 414,007 409,678 414,007 4,329 5,502 \ Unspecified 27473 16,706 0,748 1,019 8,660 3,045 100 1.00 8,660 3,945 4,715 102 Job Total 1,513,023 736,050 766,524 10,449 418,338 417,952 418,338 417,952 386 5,604 CB+29 11+qt F9+96 F10+44 CO+93 21«23 2 8 1 1 ON+GD ON+GD F7450 CO+19 \fl C8+56 20+65 C9+17 F10+28 F2+39 C18+32 28+0 F1+2 F1+85 ON+GD i ON+GD ON+GD CO+76 C2+39 F14+38 33+50 F3+28 ON+GD 492. C2+70 37+98 25+31 1S+11 �F14+52 F3+77 11+93 GO+19 F18+41 F14+52 C2+45 15+52 23+54 C9+81 \F8+55 F23+92 F27+46 ON+GD C2+82 21+31 21-23 C4«98 F10+60 F16-82 F1+04 F7+77 F31+55 F18+63 C5+52 10+fit 19+85 F3+39\0 F0+87 F11+88 ON+GD� C4+29 24+41 30+10 18«07 M C2+92 FB-07 F11+24 F12+83 F17+69 F15+59 F2+77 F7+25 F13+45 F23+9q F10+62 C1+34 C5+]3 C9+43 wv q e C5+27 29+27 33+58 25+27 F3+68 F8+68 F5+43 F16+94 F12+72 F22+96`F 18+52 F +28 F26+g8 F36+51 33+87 F17+37 FON7 C9+98� C4+92 26+9 20+64 CO+25 F7+27 C1+72^C3+74 F5+22 F12+01 F34+94 F34+91 F21+15 F11+08 F35+17 F24+17 CII/\0+49 C8+38 C9+98 C2+89`C6+ F1+01' C1+5 17+91 18+00 18+24 C10+88\ F28+78 F31+07 F7+53 /C 33+8 F31+86 F19+09 C1+41 CO+64 C3+89� 1 � F5+75 F9+99 F8+30 C19+38 26+56 18+11 24+30 18+93 5+96 F26+19 F7+54 C7+80 F14+16 F31+88 i16-n1 F18+07 FO+8787 LEGEND F2t22 F1+72 CO+B\C5+C5+4 13+59 21+25 5 33+21 30+24 C11+04 F16+44 F7+55 C2+27 C6+21 F3+74 41111 F19t23 F3+90 y '`- \ /`AT-13 Approximate location of air track boring(AGS,2020) C0+25\�FO+29 F4;+0a-F15+97 F6+80 C2+66 C9+41 27+74 ' 33+76 20+62 F3+14 F12+41 F10+65 C2+97 C7+73 C9+07 C4+75 F0+48 LINE S-7 Approximate location of seismic refraction line(Nebblett and Associates,2004) ON GD 'ON+GD F13+52�_F40156, F29106 F6,59 F4+17 F8+18 C2+30 14+42 19+11 12+40 C4+87 F17+74 F12+11 C0+33 19+ 35+0 C5+54 ON+GD F11+79 F19+80 F24+57 F15+20 F3+99 F8 18,21 F10+62 C10+86 27+43 32+90 24+55 21+22 C5+42 12+29 23+69 30+94 C3+24 V \\\ \ 0.74 PLATE 1 Rippability Evaluation Location Plan ON GD F4+60 F31+tit�F50+94 F39+41 F20+39 F6+27 F12+79 F25+fA F14+34 C4+06 19+88 30+71 37+35 39+24 24+02 12+65 10+57 21+99 ON+GD \0N+G0 F31+74 F37+95 MP19163 F33+71 F32+00---F25+75 F26+67 F22+51 F\ C350 20+48 40+ 36+59 36+34 28+88 19+56 •16+618 F1+59 \ AGS \ 1 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS,INC Project: Report: Date: FO+51 F1+27 F4+2 F2+35-F4+00 F4+Op F4+87 F4+82 F4+74 F5+18 F4+17 C5+ C6+23 C5+q2 C6+14 C7+84 C6+53 C6+74 ON+GD P/W 2008-02 2008-02-B-2 August 2020 EARTH TEK TRACT 30698 - CUT/FILL ANALYSIS ENGINEERING CORP EXISTING TOP❑ VS SUBGRADE - NO STREET ❑X • DATE: O 7/2 9/2 O 2 O APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (NEBLETT, 2004) Rosetta Hills Project Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR 'G, GEOTEK The Clurman Company, Inc. Project No. 407-000-03 Geologic/Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation September 12, 2002 Tentative Tract 30698, Lake Elsinore, California Appendix C -Page 2 of 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS The samples obtained during the field investigation were transported to the laboratory for testing and analysis. The results of tests performed on selected samples are presented below. The laboratory testing program consisted of the following: Grain Size: Selected bulk samples of the alluvial and bedrock samples were tested in accordance with ASTM: D422 to determine soil particle size distribution. The test results are presented in Plates C-1 and C-2. Specific Gravity: The bulk specific gravity of a representative bedrock sample was tested in accordance with ASTM: D5779. The test results are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Sample Specific Gravity Bedrock 2.6 (*) (*) Average Value Direct Shear: Direct shear tests were performed on representative remolded samples of the alluvial and bedrock materials passing the No. 4 sieve, with a direct shear machine of the strain- controlled type in which the rate of strain is 0.01 inches per minute. The sample was remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D1557). Each sample was soaked in a confined state prior to shearing. Each sample was sheared under varied normal loads ranging from 1.0 ksf to 4.0 ksf. The test results are plotted on Plates C-3 and C-4. Unconfined Compression: Unconfined compression tests were performed on representative undisturbed samples of the bedrock, using ASTM: D2938 guidelines. The test specimens were prepared from bulk bedrock samples by trimming with a diamond bit and saw. Compressive strengths are presented in the following Table 2. The Clurman Company, Inc. Project No.407-000-03 Geologic/Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation September 12, 2002 Tentative Tract 30698, Lake Elsinore, California Appendix C-Page 3 of 3 Table 2 Unconfined Compressive Strength Compressive Sample Geologic Unit Strength (psi) Bedrock Jbcp 21,097 Bedrock Jbcp 3,185 Sulfate Content: A selected sample of the alluvium was tested for soluble sulfate content in accordance with the Hach procedure. Cement type and water-cement ratio should conform to the guidelines in UBC Table 19-A-4. The test results are presented in Table 3. Table 3 Sample Water Soluble Sulfate In Soil Sulfate Exposure (Percentage by weight % BC Table 19-A-4 Alluvium 0.0102 Negligible Maximum Density: Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content tests were performed on representative bulk samples (minus No. 4 sieve size) in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. The tests were performed using the minus No. 4 fraction of the samples. The results are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Location Maximum Dry Density(pcf) Optimum Moisture % Rock by Content(%) weight Alluvium 131.0 8.0 75 Bedrock 127.5 10.0 75 co 00 . . . . . . . . . . IlulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIII llllllllll111111lllllllllllll - ' IIII=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � � •LU Ui IIn111//111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 HIM 1111111111111111111111 •• co IIm11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • . ...111...11.1/.1.1..111...1.1.111.1.....1111111.11/1./.1.1111111/..11111111.11111111111/.al■1111.111 /■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■1■///■■■a/1■■■■■a■■111■■a■■■■■11■a■■■■■■milea■1111■1■a1■■■■■/1■111■aa1■1■1■1■■/■■ ■■■■■■■■■t■■■■■■■■■■1■aa1■ma■ala■■■■1■■■11■a■■1■■■11■a■mannaa■11t1■■1■1att111■■■■1■1laaat■1■■■1■ason ■■■■■woon■■■■■■■ago.■■■■■■■.■.onownsolow■■■■■■■Ina■aYm■■Hann■a.■■■mm■nmm.OMMORMONnn■mm■■■sommogn.Hann■.■a■an■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■■.■.■■ ................................................................................MMMMOO.among ................... . .................................................................................................... • Mason......................... .............................................::::••::::::••:::::.....� • • iiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii................... iiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii......iiiii - IIIAlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllP 111111111111111111111111111111111UR 1111111111111111111 � - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111 IIIII11111111111 - . ca Ilnllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll , LU 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 , /In111/11111111111111111111111I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/1111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111/ln111In II1111111n1111111/111n111111111111111111111111111/111 .........11 I'm 1..11.111...11/.11111.1..a1■/11■1.1■11///■1/..1111/.111■111/1111111..1111■/■111111/1.1 .....1...111.11.....111.1/1111111.1./..111.1/..1.1111//1111.11111..11■1■al.■■■111.1■■1■111111111...1 ■.son................■■.......,......................................■■a■■Y..■■a■.■■■■■mm.■...■■■mn■ ....man.■m■■an■nm..a■n■an■mm■■/■■m■■■m■n■■aa■.■mina■am...a■■■.■am■m.■■■■.■m■■■■amY■m■■■■■n■■■n■■amnn .......■....■......mina■......Im■■■a■m■Hannmm...■n■■ama..Hanna■■■■..m.............■................. .................................................................................................... .......... ......................................................................................... ..........: ........................................................................................ ..........:....................................................................................:... RIMINIIIIIIIO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIM IIIIIIIIII HIM IIIIIII111IIIIII RUN IIIIIIIIII • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 HIM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111 .....1...1111//.111.1./.1111/.1111//■11111//11111/111111111/1/1.1111//la■111/.111111.1.1111/11111111 ..........■■■■..■■■■laat■■■■a■1■1■att■■■attttllaaa■Itt11a1aa1■■t■/aa■■t11■■a■a111a/1/111■■aa■1111■1■ ....... nommanums Mo...11■■11a■11■11aa■1111■1■1■■aa.1111a■tt1■111taa■■1■■11ata1111a.a■11111at■11111t11■■a1aa1■111■ . ................. ommossompoom ...........onomooff..1......ONE.....................................................■■■■■.■ma. ocionnound . .................................................................................... .........;. :.:............................,............................................................... .;. .............................................................................:....... :••::::::::.;. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlI 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111�II ' Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilll 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr111111111r111r1111111111111111111111111111111A111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111/11111111111111111111111111111711111 I111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIInOn11I11111/11111/111111111111/111IIIIIIIn1111111111111r1111111 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuli uiiiiiiin■mlaiiiiiiiii:i■i::::. ::T::iiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiii1000" son iiiiiiiienusson ...............moons.Oman............................................■.............................. ......................................................................................... ..�... .. .... .................. ..............................................................,:.. .... • .111 ---111 ..... . III ... 111 ���111 • �111 -�11 -111 �-111 111�� 11�► 111 -1 illM Illllllilllllli1111111111 lillllllillllll�llllllill�lll�lllllllllillllllillllll�llllllilllli 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111illllllllllllllll - • I!HIIIIN 111!!l1111!!!IIIION111!!!!111!!!!111!!!!III!!!!III!!!!111!!P11111% 11100111!!01101 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ' • � Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/1111111 I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi�IlI111111111I11111111111I111111 - 1•-•/1■l•••■■■L_••■.IL---■/IC-'-.1■C---/IIC---■■/C---/I■C-•71/IC //1---7/■■•--7//1:-'7/.1---7//.-7 ■%%%■■long%■ now 111%%%111a%%%ana■%1%■■at%%%a 11t%%%■attl%%a■1t%%■tm:.Y%tttt%%%tt■■%%%tt11a%%ttla%%%mama%■ ■■1■■■11■1■1■ea■anal1■aaa■■aan/t11■ttt■a1■tt11/Blossom/ttttttt■mossomme/..:it■taattt■laal■■taatt/1lattt■11■■atttt■■ .m.....0.........p..pp.pp.pp.O.O..00..■■■weLl ...0.......■..0...a..O....■.0...... .........un■u.u.uoo.u...uo■■u■u■uo■■nea000uuuouom.uuoouonuuonuu ....00hs a on000uu.o...o.u■u.u.ouu.coou000u..o.uo..uo...u.00 . ....... • 0000000..00.ou ■u..ou000uu.....o.....uu000000u......o"UH, .11. .... :::0o::::u000.....::::o.•n... o::::•••::::•••::::•••::::0.11.ou11.1o.11 I!!!;IIIl1�IIII!°1IIIl11!III!II!111111!III!11!IIPII!111119111�! 111I11111191111!!IIIl111�1:�!�IIII!!!!Illliii1111iii1111��11111��lllliii1111!ii1111���1111iii111i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlI illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll UNION llllllllllllllllllll , 11I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111III 11p111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • !_._Ire•_..l111•_.:IIR.-.111l:::111l:::111!_._IIIe.._IIIe__Mlle__ III__.911:._3111:..911___�111•_7 � IIIEi11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/11111111/111111111/111111111 MIN 111 iiiEvil iiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii lime mm�unnununnuunuuuu■uunuunonnno■unuunnnnu■tnunnunn a ......................................................................................■.■.....■..... ■■a■.■■■.....m..■.m■..■..■■.■m..■■n..■■...■.■■...■■.m.mm■a■....a■■.n■■■.sown■.1m■.■■m..■.■■■.■mom ■■■.■ ....................:...........a. .........::::.....::::•::::.. ::eee��eeeeeeeeeeee5ee5eeee:::::eeeeC. eeeee8: • .. • III IIIIIIIIIIII'�IIIII�IIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII������I��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II 111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - . 11 = 1111111111111®111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111®1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 �� • n11111 IIIII/I/IIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111//11111111//11111�111/1111111111IIII/I/I11I111111111/11111111111/11111111111111111/1111111111 • . • ................1.W.....1.■.■.■..■11.■■■.■..11..■...■■1■..■.■.....■1■.....■..1..■..■1.■■1.■■.. ..■■■■■...■..■.■■....q.....1.........n........r..■...■......■.......■r.■.■■........■.■.■■.1..... ..■■■■....■..■......a...............■...........■........■........■.■....t■.....■.■.....■...Islas ...........■■■■■■.....■........................................................................... .......................■.....................................................................a..... •:::::::::::::::::1111::1111111111:111111111111111:1111111111111111111111111111111111:111111111111 . • 11111111111111111......1111111..::: - • • • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • • 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 � ■• Illlllllllllllllllllllnllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111/1111111111111111/I///I1111111111111111111/11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 .......■.■■.............■■■■■.1..■■.....11........11.■......1■1..■■...■.■1■...........■■..1...1■..■■ uunmm�nnnunnnu■..uuun nuuun nnnuu uunun nmm�uuunnnnnum nn..I.■Iu■I■■In.■I■■In.■I■■In■■I.In.■..n■...un....uou..n.nIInoIInIIIIIuuI.no.oInII.I.I.uI■IuIInIInI InIIuIIuIIuIIuIIuIIuIInIuIInIInIInIIIIIIIIIu..I..In..IIu■.Iu.■I.■Iu■■I..In..I..In..I..Iuu..I..In onnnunnnnunno nn ON ON!a HIM!!!I■ MIS unono■■so:unua Moms USuo ........■.■........ 0 ....... ..... n ........■...........■.■..................■■■.■ u ...■I■..■........n..I.0 IIIIII IIIIIII I I n .■I ............. • 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11/1111111111111111111111111111/11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ............. .■■■....■11■.■.....■1.■....■..1.....■■..11..............■.■.1.1.■..■..I.tl.■.■t.l.■..t■■......1...■. ■........■....................1...■.........................■....................................... ...........................t..1......t..■.......■...........■....................................... unununnum.■....n.n..n .....uou..n.ou nu.ro..n.00.ur...uu.ou.n.or■.o■.■r■.00.u.or..u..m..■ua.o.uonuo.nrnoonuw.n■ru■.on..uon.woouuo.on■u■.unruu.non..nono.n.on■rn■m■vuu.o..r.nuunn . nnn Omanou n■un ■ oonowouW■.w 0 ■ oouuuou.u. uuou ■. . 000uuoo.uo.ouu o.uonuu.uo■uu a uu.u000 uu.u.uoo■uouuu o.un.u. HIM M011110 IllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�� IIUP IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Hill IIII11 1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII►1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!IIIF+111 . Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllrllllll111llllrlIIII-r -- ---IlllrllllllllllllIIIIllllllllll�illlldll 1111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIII //I111111111111/11/I1111III/11111111I1111111/111111111111111111111III/11111111111/I11111I./IIIIINI111 - .........11/■.■....■I....t....1/.t......1.t........1.■....t......■.■■■1..1......1■■...■I.t.1...11.■■■ - - nnnnnunnunn.nnoun.nuuunumnuuunnn.nnuunnnuunu.nnnnuw • nunnmm�n.nuoma..mnummonm■.nnonnrnruuunuwo■nu�_nuwo..ann ■...mm�nunuunnu.■■■.u■■n.n....■un nuuuu nunnn uunnn nm nnnnunm oomoumnwonnnuuwnuu.n..m......... uoouunuuo...nnnu...... .■■■■■■...............■.........■.........■■■............■■...................................,...... III • llllllllllll Hill llinllllnlllillllmlllllllllrilllln�lllil��llin�lll►�iilllil Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllll - • UPHIM11110IIII1111111!!!!III!!!!111!!!!III!!!!III!!!!III!!!!111!!!.!111!!!!111!!!1�11!!!!III!! " 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ' • - Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll�illllllllllllll:/111111111111111 . IIII/11111111111111111111111111111111/111111111111111111111111111:111IIIIIII/IIII:111111111111111111 /11/1111111111/1111111III111111//1/111111111111/11111/11/111g1i11/11I111111/1/7I111111/111111111111 t•••mc•••na--•oar_ua-••.nc••-na•••n.c-••ntc••r:ac-:au.•••�.. �--oulc••�ut-•:au•a ..nnunnnnnnuuun..unnnunuununw■►.unununn_nununuununnunu ®, , uumm�nnnnuu■■■nn no nn►..■■■■■.■nnw.nn■nnnuunn■num.0 ■..■■■..........■■.■......■.■...■....■■.........■.■.r..■......................................■...■.. . .■■■■.......■.■■.■...■...................■..■■■■..■...........,.■.■............■■.■■.■..■.■..■.■■■ 1 ................................................................................................. 1....................... ........................................................................ I!!!Illliiillll II Jilill11 11i�1 11 ill III • 111 11 111 r11 rll 111 1 . I1111111111!�11:1i1��11111111!lgllpll11I111111I11111III111I1I11111111111111111111I1111111111111111 ®, 111111111i11111111l1■/111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111:illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll . Ililllllllrlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll • 'yr`9/1l:::111l�!.Ir1lr_IIIl�::111!!::111!!!:IIII::!IIII--�111!!:'J11/:�:9111!!�9111"!!9111��:1111�� i��11111111111111111111111/11111/111111111111111111111/11111111111111/111111111111111111111111111111 • ..■...■■.1■.■...t...1■■■..■...1....t....1..■.t■...11....t.....1.......1■.t.........I..t.......1■.■■. ..moons.■t.all......I.........r....................r......■.r.r......■.1.1.1.....■....■............. uoou..nuuoo uouuouuoonnu.■ou n■vn■u uuu.ouuonuuuuowoo.nuo. ....■.....■■..■.■■■■.season.Mass.■■..■■■■■■■...■■■■■■....■.■■■■■■■■■.■....■■■■■■■..■..■■.■.■■..■.■.. w..q..po..w►•••.■.....0■w■..wtwr••.w■■....wul••••uwr••..UP.q....••.■u..gw.P••..■.•••.ww.�. oouon..ou.u.u■uu000ION::8 ..uo.u■uuu..ouoo.uoov000uouu000 - ou.uo■ououu.ouu.o.o.uuuu....ouuoo....uo.■.v.u...u.u..u..00..ou... ..u..00u.u...u.o..uu■u.uu.u.uu..uuu..o.. .uou00000uu . • ...................�.. .�.. ..�.. .......................................................• • u • z DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90 Percent Relative Compaction 4000 I 3500 _ 3000 2500 ..:. . - .....:...: w . .:.:.:.:.>....:.. . 2000 Q w . 1500 1000 .............. 500 . : . . 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF Alluvium, (Qal) COHESION 528 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 31 .0 degrees r.symbol sample depth (ft.) symbol boring depth (ft. • LLuvlu 0.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST ?"INEBLETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE, SUITE 218 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA, 92649 714 840-8286 P.N. 407-000 DATE 9/12/02 PLATE C-3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90 Percent Relative Compaction 4000 3500 3000 2500 ....... ...... ..:.....:.:..:..:.:.<.. .: ..:...:..;..:..:..:..:..:..:....:..:..;..;. ui _.. w . . .... :.....:. . : 2000 ;.. Cc LIJ Q _ .. :.. .... ... >......:.:.;..:...:..:..:. ....... ....... s.:.. .. 1500 . . . 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF TP 10 & TP-19 Bedrock Samples (Combined) COHESION 186 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 31 .0 degrees F7 s7,bo sample depth (ft.) symbol boring depth (ft. BEDROCK 5.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST ?"INEBLETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE, SUITE 218 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA, 92649 714 840-8286 P.N. 407-000 DATE 9/12/02 PLATE C-4 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS (NEBLETT, 2004) Rosetta Hills Project Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR 'G, GEOTEK The Clurman Company, Inc. Project No. 407-000-03 Geologic/Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation September 12, 2002 Tentative Tract 30698, Lake Elsinore, California Appendix E-Page 2 of 5 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES General Slope stability analyses were performed for typical Cross-Sections D-D', E-E' and H-H' to evaluate the highest cut and fill slopes for the proposed development. The cross-sections analyzed are considered the most critical based on slope height, inclination and geologic conditions. Method of Analyses The slopes were analyzed by calculating the factors of safety for a circular-type failure using the Modified Bishop's Method and block-type failure surfaces using Modified Janbu Method. PCSTABL6H, a computer program developed by Purdue University, was utilized to evaluate the static and pseudo-static slope stability factors of safety. Surficial slope stability was evaluated for the engineered fill and bedrock materials using Infinite Slope Stability Analysis Method, and considering saturation depth of 4 feet below the slope surface. The surficial_ slope stability analysis considered 2:1 (H:V) sloping conditions for engineered fill and bedrock. For each cross-section analyzed, pseudo-static factors of safety were computed for the critical failure surfaces considering both block and circular analyses. A horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.15g was utilized. Design Shear Strength Parameters The shear strength parameters utilized for the slope stability analyses are summarized in Table E- 1 and are based on laboratory test results by this firm and our knowledge of the materials. Because of the extremely hard nature of the Bedford Canyon Bedrock materials, direct shear tests could not be performed to determine the strength properties. Representative samples of the bedrock units were cored in the laboratory and tested for unconfined compressive strength. Neblett&Associates, Inc. The Clurman Company, Inc. Project No.407-000-03 Geologic/Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation September 12, 2002 Tentative Tract 30698, Lake Elsinore, California Appendix E-Page 3 of 5 The design shear strength parameters for bedrock were conservatively estimated based on the results of unconfined compression testing and rock strength correlations presented by Hoek (2000) and Bieniawski (1989). TABLE E-1 - Summary of Design Strength Parameters Unit Weight, Friction Materials pcf Cohesion, psf Angle, degrees Engineered Fill 130 100 36 Bedrock, Cross-Foliation 170 3000 35 Bedrock, Along Foliation 170 500 15 Slope Stability Analyses Strategy Failure Modes and Conditions The slope stability analyses considered several potential failure modes, as shown below: 1. Failure surfaces along bedrock foliation/joint planes 2. Failure surfaces through engineered fill and bedrock foliation/joint planes The slope descriptions and the conditions analyzed for Cross-Sections D-D', E-E', and H-H' are summarized in the following Table: CROSS DESCRIPTION CONDITIONS ANALYZED SECTIONS Potential block-type failure along bedrock E-E' &H-H' Bedrock Cut Slope foliation/joint planes. Potential circular type failure through bedrock. Potential block-type failure along bedrock D-D' Engineered Fill Slope foliation/joint planes and fill key. Potential circular type failure through bedrock and fill slope. Neblett&Associates, Inc. The Clurman Company, Inc. Project No. 407-000-03 Geologic/Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation September 12, 2002 Tentative Tract 30698, Lake Elsinore,California Appendix E-Page 4 of 5 Summary of Slope Analyses The computed static and pseudo-static slope stability factors of safety are above the minimum requirement of 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. The following Table E-2 summarizes the results of the static and pseudo-static slope stability analyses for Cross-Sections D-D', E-E' and H-H'. The slope stability calculations are presented in this Appendix. TABLE E-2 - Summary of Slope Stability Analyses Cross- File I.D. Analysis Static Pseudo- Section F.S. static F.S. 407-D1 Block type-through upper section of fill slope 2.1 1.5 D-D' 407-D2 Block type-through entire fill slope 2.1 1.5 407-D3 Block type-along foliation plane, through 2.7 1.9 bedrock and fill key 407-D4 Circular type-through fill slope 2.0 1.5 407-E1 Block type-along foliation plane through 3.3 2.0 E-E' bedrock 407-E2 Circular type-through bedrock 4.5 3.1 407-H1 Block type-along foliation plane through 4.3 2.8 H-H' bedrock 407-H2 Circular type-through bedrock 5.7 3.8 Conclusions Based on the results of stability analyses and the discussions presented above, it is the opinion of this firm that the slopes are in conformance with County of Riverside and current industry standards, and are acceptable as planned. The slopes will be grossly stable, provided our recommendations are incorporated in the design and implemented during construction. Neblett&Associates, Inc. The Clurman Company, Inc. Project No.407-000-03 Geologic/Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation September 12,2002 Tentative Tract 30698, Lake Elsinore, California Appendix E-Page 5 of 5 Based on the surficial slope stability analysis, fill slopes may be prone to erosion. In order to protect the fill slopes, adequate slope protection measures (i.e. planting, drainage devices, slough walls, etc.) should be implemented as soon as possible. Neblett&Associates, Inc. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES STATIC CONDITIONS ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/11/2002 Time of Run: 6:15pm Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-D1.DAT Output Filename: C:407-D1.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-D1.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section D-DI , Fill Slope, Block Type, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 196.00 110.00 171.00 2 2 110.00 171.00 135.00 167.00 2 3 135.00 167.00 145.00 168.00 2 4 145.00 168.00 150.00 168.00 1 5 150.00 168.00 224.00 200.00 1 6 224.00 200.00 240.00 200.00 1 7 240.00 200.00 318.00 238.00 1 8 318.00 238.00 435.00 238.00 1 9 435.00 238.00 435.10 235.00 1 10 435.10 235.00 535.00 234.00 1 11 535.00 234.00 655.00 230.00 1 12 145.00 168.00 148.00 162.00 2 13 148.00 162.00 198.00 161.00 2 14 198.00 161.00 230.00 185.00 2 15 230.00 185.00 250.00 185.00 2 16 250.00 185.00 360.00 224.00 2 17 360.00 224.00 410.00 230.00 2 18 410.00 230.00 500.00 230.00 2 19 500.00 230.00 590.00 212.00 2 20 590.00 212.00 655.00 225.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135 .0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 3000.0 35.0 2 60.0 500.0 15 .0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 2 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Sliding Block Is 10.0 Box X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Height No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 160.00 138.00 280.00 186.00 60.00 2 300.00 208.00 410.00 215.00 40.00 Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 243 .10 201.51 2 251.55 197.20 3 305.23 210.79 4 309.77 219.70 5 314.31 228.61 6 318.85 237.52 7 319.09 238.00 *** 2 .097 *** 0 0 N V 4-0 O � Lf) s � � m .�C o v o Lr) O p m e- o3z a V � e- to 'O y O `c— .X "= w W aU a O X 1 ~ m 1 a O pE rt m $ „ Woo Cj F- Q aaa ; II m i C J c ' -p 10 U. _� p LL t� c d; r m no -----% Cfl U L UU W�wIDO ice+ N N N N �3wo0 ` o O o °= � _a n LL c O I'- 0 tz e-N Z O CL 0 ° J r a)LL C1 U.NNNNNNNNNN O LO M N N Q ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/11/2002 Time of Run: 6:16pm Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-D2.DAT Output Filename: C:407-D2.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-D2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section D-DI , Fill Slope, Block Type, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 196.00 110.00 171.00 2 2 110.00 171.00 135.00 167.00 2 3 135.00 167.00 145.00 168.00 2 4 145.00 168.00 150.00 168.00 1 5 150.00 168.00 224.00 200.00 1 6 224 .00 200.00 240.00 200.00 1 7 240.00 200.00 318.00 238.00 1 8 318.00 238.00 435.00 238.00 1 9 435.00 238.00 435.10 235 .00 1 10 435 .10 235.00 535.00 234.00 1 11 535 .00 234.00 655.00 230.00 1 12 145.00 168.00 148.00 162.00 2 13 148.00 162.00 198.00 161.00 2 14 198.00 161.00 230.00 185.00 2 15 230.00 185.00 250.00 185.00 2 16 250.00 185.00 360.00 224 .00 2 17 360.00 224.00 410.00 230.00 2 18 410.00 230.00 500.00 230.00 2 19 500.00 230.00 590.00 212 .00 2 20 590.00 212.00 655 .00 225 .00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130 . 0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 3000.0 35.0 2 60.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 3 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Sliding Block Is 20.0 Box X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Height No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 165.00 155.00 164.00 5.00 2 160.00 147.00 280.00 150.00 40.00 3 290.00 205.00 370.00 225.00 20.00 Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148 .10 168.00 2 151.51 166.26 3 175 .02 164.58 4 307 .16 215.81 5 316.24 233.63 6 318.47 238.00 *** 2 .091 *** 0 0 N U o rr�^ � a � a to o � � t v No In O p o c W r d 7Z N M a (A a c -moo a 'a w a o,' X m N Woo p -C m a° oca N H a a t O N �Q P¢ �� i N +O' — 0 LL LL O p C o v pO j V y U C.)c 00 � v 1 1 Q V a��ino N M 1 1 O O O N OO O 0= � o 1 � �t C� LL 1 a o o O Ec m tnO�� �NNMIntAln u'NNNNNNNNNN O O O O O O O 1p M N O N Q } ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer-s Method of Slices Run Date: 9/11/2002 Time of Run: 6:16pm Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-D3.DAT Output Filename: C:407-D3.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-D3.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section D-D' , Fill Slope, Block Type, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 196.00 110.00 171.00 2 2 110.00 171.00 135.00 167.00 2 3 135.00 167.00 145.00 168.00 2 4 145.00 168.00 150.00 168.00 1 5 150.00 168.00 224.00 200.00 1 6 224.00 200.00 240.00 200.00 1 7 240.00 200.00 318.00 238.00 1 8 318.00 238.00 435.00 238.00 1 9 435.00 238.00 435.10 235.00 1 10 435.10 235.00 535.00 234.00 1 11 535.00 234.00 655.00 230.00 1 12 145.00 168.00 148.00 162 .00 2 13 148.00 162.00 198.00 161.00 2 14 198.00 161.00 230.00 185.00 2 15 230.00 185.00 250.00 185.00 2 16 250.00 185.00 360.00 224 .00 2 17 360.00 224.00 410.00 230.00 2 18 410.00 230.00 500.00 230.00 2 19 500.00 230.00 590.00 212.00 2 20 590.00 212.00 655.00 225.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130. 0 135. 0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170 .0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 3000.0 35.0 2 60.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 3 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Sliding Block Is 20.0 Box X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Height No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 145.00 162.00 180.00 176.00 5.00 2 250.00 160.00 300.00 160.00 40.00 3 305.00 205.00 370.00 225.00 20.00 Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 149.32 168.00 2 152.05 166.61 3 273 .13 159.53 4 318.28 213.88 5 327.36 231.70 6 330.57 238.00 *** 2 .668 *** 0 0 N U O �..1 co V! Q. ` ^� 1� CO Y o U O L O O o m N mWo +, cCo e- a t z N v a =ate CL "a Ul a`Uv X !e E CO t o„2oo 00 a`mF- � � 0 0— C 4' O 2Q-oMQ ° Cn ++ M U. O O a v=o 0 Ct, r o CL.0 (U ci a i co U y o CO +>.cn Ua3 LLlO N r w- ++ cn p « o O ~C aM-n- ► +L+ ` O V O' C l�. _o L .�y co�,o N V ~ z � O Q. o o O �1.m I�OOOO�NMMR* LO c�mCOCOrrrrrrr u•NNNNNNNNNN O O O O O O O LO Od M N N Q } ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/11/2002 Time of Run: 6:17pm Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-D4.DAT Output Filename: C:407-D4.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-D4.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section D-DI , Fill Slope, Circular Type, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 196.00 110.00 171.00 2 2 110.00 171.00 135.00 167.00 2 3 135.00 167.00 145.00 168.00 2 4 145.00 168.00 150.00 168.00 1 5 150.00 168.00 224.00 200.00 1 6 224.00 200.00 240.00 200.00 1 7 240.00 200.00 318.00 238.00 1 8 318.00 238.00 435.00 238.00 1 9 435.00 238.00 435.10 235.00 1 10 435.10 235.00 535.00 234.00 1 11 535.00 234.00 655.00 230.00 1 12 145.00 168.00 148.00 162 .00 2 13 148.00 162.00 198.60 161.00 2 14 198.00 161.00 230.00 185.00 2 15 230.00 185.00 250.00 185.00 2 16 250.00 185.00 360.00 224.00 2 17 360.00 224.00 410.00 230.00 2 18 410.00 230.00 500.00 230.00 2 19 500.00 230.00 590.00 212.00 2 20 590.00 212.00 655.00 225.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 3000.0 35 .0 2 60.0 500.0 15 .0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 3000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 100 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 30 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 120.00 ft. and X = 270.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 300.00 ft. and X = 450.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -45.0 And .0 deg. Following Is Displayed The Most Critical of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 223 .45 199.76 2 233 .43 199.08 3 243.42 199.30 4 253 .36 200.42 5 263.16 202.43 6 272 .73 205.31 7 282.01 209.05 8 290.91 213.60 9 299.36 218.94 10 307.30 225.02 11 314.66 231.80 12 320.29 238.00 Circle Center At X = 236.0 ; Y = 309.9 and Radius, 110.9 *** 2.004 *** 0 0 N V O to '4w v aai -c 0 � o � 0 O LO o V a z a v m N � C c e .X „«M' 0 �caoo Q 'C W a0 o X 0 m N �' O m p E m a°mco N F- a`a I I �► ~ C d' 2cvMc a 0 LLQ Q -Uo N Q LL O 75 m V p0 0. M = V o«a�C ( U C) ()5 00 �, N m Q O V �9;;=CY) N fA U V N_' N O O (e) 4 O �A «� r�1 n N U) 6 lo-r—"" a'.•- � C) C O _m LL N T;"N Z m c O CL �m O r- r-r-N N N M(M It MR000000000 LL N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O LO It M N � y a ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/11/2002 Time of Run: 6:12pm Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-E1.DAT Output Filename: C:407-E1.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-E1.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section E-El , Cut Slope, Block Type, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 9 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right _Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 100.00 17.00 100.00 2 2 17.00 100.00 90.00 127.00 2 3 90.00 127.00 282.00 126.00 2 4 282.00 126.00 347.00 156.00 2 5 347.00 156.00 355.00 156.00 2 6 355.00 156.00 400.00 176.00 2 7 400.00 176.00 425.00 176.00 2 8 425.00 176.00 480.00 150.00 2 9 480.00 150.00 795.00 149.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 -5.0 3000.0 35.0 2 5.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 2 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Sliding Block Is 10.0 Box X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Height No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 275.00 106.00 350.00 130.00 30.00 2 355.00 120.00 420.00 120.00 50.00 Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 285 .44 127.59 2 288.19 126.16 3 297 .06 121.54 4 408.87 130.89 5 413 .49 139.76 6 418 .11 148.63 7 422 .72 157.50 8 427.34 166.37 9 430.90 173.21 *** 3 .290 *** 0 0 00 0 0 Q I ca N CD CL N o � 7 0o m N mp N mo �;, O IL z w- 7 ia) e- p, 0 O me X N y � aoo Q "O � o X o 4- UJ4- UJ a0 U m � E a N W o O i°cc f- m IL m eo -----1 M W a`IL N o �� �► ' W a C r U C mM C 1 I O u'a! Q �'- ---1 LL ca W _ Q N C N\ �/� ,y O a \ V v) V m t w o c \'. % 1 0 N U VO o 3 0�o ----• I— `«- ++ M= aron cq Co Cl U p �i N �3woo t� O F?, Q O N 9C c LL. O . a V ~ Z ^ U J d o I-L co r N N N N N N N N N N M LL' MMMMMMMMMM N Q o Q Q Q Q Q 10 do Cl) N O N Q } ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer-s Method of Slices Run Date: 9/11/2002 Time of Run: 6:13pm Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-E2.DAT Output Filename: C:407-E2.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-E2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section E-El , Cut Slope, Circular Type, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 9 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left _ X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 100.00 17.00 100.00 2 2 17.00 100.00 90.00 127.00 2 3 90.00 127.00 282.00 126.00 2 4 282 .00 126.00 347.00 156.00 2 5 347.00 156.00 355.00 156.00 2 6 355.00 156.00 400.00 176.00 2 7 400.00 176.00 425.00 176.00 2 8 425.00 176.00 480.00 150.00 2 9 480.00 150.00 795.00 149.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 . 00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 -5. 0 3000.0 35.0 2 5.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 3000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 100 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 30 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 250.00 ft. and X = 330.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 380.00 ft. and X = 480.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -45.0 And .0 deg. Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 266 .55 126.08 2 275 .98 122.74 3 285.61 120.07 4 295.42 118.10 5 305.34 116.83 6 315.32 116.28 7 325.32 116.44 8 335.28 117.31 9 345.16 118.89 10 354.89 121.17 11 364.44 124.14 12 373.76 127.78 13 382.79 132.08 14 391.49 137.01 15 399.81 142.55 16 407.72 148.66 17 415.18 155.33 18 422.13 162.51 19 428.56 170.17 20 430.80 173.26 Circle Center At X = 318.1 ; Y = 256.4 and Radius, 140.1 *** 4.496 *** 0 0 00 0 U O n co U) U E CL CL o M t to co o 0 U p m t m V N CL M ° LO X v � Ww Q O a a a00 � O o =., cc W a`U X G H ` cis n.IL N o II O L1J � _ m o L1J a m M 'A E M C N U) -ate a W U. 4-0 m � o m .v,pOC ca (n V o a Q O N e M m �' N « Q �+ V 5 x a c�0n (A CD U � ~ _ U)U y= O M 4-0 U) 5=00 O O 10 a am� O O O �+ � N U C ca _ m LL O F- Y Z C O CL J =10 LL e O r O e- � LA CO 1� 00 00 O O N V. N O O O O O O O �t CV) N N Q } ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/11/2002 Time of Run: 6:10pm Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-H1.DAT Output Filename: C:407-H1.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-H1.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section H-HI , Cut Slope, Block Type, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 142.00 35.00 148.00 2 2 35.00 148.00 180.00 148.00 2 3 180.00 148.00 255.00 178.00 2 4 255.00 178.00 263.00 178.00 2 5 263 .00 178.00 323.00 197.00 2 6 323.00 197.00 396.00 197.00 1 7 396.00 197.00 458.00 175.00 1 8 458.00 175.00 480.00 173 .00 2 9 480.00 173.00 520.00 182 .00 2 10 323.00 197.00 324.00 192 .00 2 11 324.00 192.00 384.00 192 .00 2 12 384.00 192 .00 392.00 188.00 2 13 392 .00 188.00 432.00 177 .00 2 14 432.00 177.00 437.00 172 .00 2 15 437.00 172.00 457.00 173 .00 2 16 457 .00 173.00 458.00 175.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 -60.0 3000.0 35.0 2 -40.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 3000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 100 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 30 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 120.00 ft. and X = 220.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 300.00 ft. and X = 420.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 20.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -45.0 And .0 deg. Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 168.28 148.00 2 186.63 140.05 3 205.98 134.98 4 225.87 132.90 5 245.84 133.86 6 265.44 137.84 7 284.21 144.75 8 301.72 154.42 9 317.55 166.64 10 331.35 181.12 11 342.43 197.00 Circle Center At X = 229.6 ; Y = 264.3 and Radius, 131.5 *** 5.744 *** O Ln Ln N O O Ln V •,J co N +.r O U) NLO W a n. o 0 Y O v N _O 0O o N r C y U M 'x U 61, �oo a o m C a �/ � W a U /� V m E N O N L h m �cc M o H a m m _ � o_a m = C a OW n C - ; m N.2 �����, O O r- li a M C a U4 1 1 N LL lJ.. U I� o a o U _ 0 2 Mo X N 'lC1 1 o a+ Q U O m +y+ 0 c 1 N F U a�w In 0 �---- `I'- U ��a�� () la M N O r 0 o.. Mn 1 U C c ,m LL O N�Z�N N o O Cr e- Z CL a o r Lb O O O N ('9 Itt 4* LA Co Co to U) NMCici Ili c'' CiCi Ili Ili N u .e ... -n O O O O O O O O O Ln O Ln O Ln O LA Ce) M N N e- e- N •X Q ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/11/2002 Time of Run: 6:11pm Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-H2.DAT Output Filename: C:407-H2.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-H2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section H-HI , Cut Slope, Circular Type, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 142.00 35.00 148.00 2 2 35.00 148.00 180.00 148.00 2 3 180.00 148.00 255.00 178.00 2 4 255.00 178.00 263.00 178.00 2 5 263.00 178.00 323.00 197.00 2 6 323.00 197.00 396.00 197.00 1 7 396.00 197.00 458.00 175.00 1 8 458.00 175.00 480.00 173.00 2 9 480.00 173 .00 520.00 182 .00 2 10 323.00 197.00 324.00 192.00 2 11 324.00 192.00 384.00 192.00 2 12 384.00 192.00 392.00 188.00 2 13 392.00 188.00 432.00 177.00 2 14 432.00 177.00 437.00 172.00 2 15 437.00 172.00 457.00 173.00 2 16 457 .00 173.00 458.00 175.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130. 0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170. 0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 -60.0 3000.0 35.0 2 -40.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 15.0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 3 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Sliding Block Is 10.0 Box X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Height No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 120 . 00 145.00 185.00 145 .00 5.00 2 190.00 100.00 255.00 100 .00 50.00 3 322 .00 190.00 395.00 190 .00 10.00 Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 151.23 148.00 2 153 .81 146.65 3 214.64 92.79 4 349.35 185.33 5 352 .82 192.00 6 355.37 197.00 *** 4.291 *** O LO LO N � O LO U � N U) N LO O CC G CL a s m cD o cc N a aV.. O m .� V N a5Z co r-r- (n N N (D ' Lo m" a M Q. 7 ca^ Ode QX O y m a o o ' V5 m o_ X o W aU U Woo M s m ao o m Ln a` F- a I I J r = C m O n. 0�dM� N O E C N _Q-o 0 = LL N U- O a p = V o� Mom � C J U U -` O m O Q N m" N ~3x cA v- a in m C/) •ti' N� v- U p M Q � Q C f0 m _ m LL ~ 0 z " O Q O Y � Z O. ME m' O LO le Coto rroococococo CO r- r` to to to r- to to N N "- rri rsi rsi psi Sri Sri Sri psi Sri Sri N CO A .� O O O O O O O O O In O to O Lo O LO N N r- N a SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES PSEUDO-STATIC CONDITIONS ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/12/2002 Time of Run: 7:57am Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-D1P.DAT Output Filename: C:407-D1P.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-D1P.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section D-DI , Fill Slope, Block Type, Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 196.00 110.00 171.00 2 2 110.00 171.00 135.00 167.00 2 3 135.00 167.00 145.00 168.00 2 4 145.00 168.00 150.00 168.00 1 5 150.00 168.00 224.00 200.00 1 6 224.00 200.00 240.00 200.00 1 7 240.00 200.00 318.00 238 .00 1 8 318.00 238.00 435.00 238.00 1 9 435.00 238.00 435.10 235.00 1 10 435.10 235.00 535.00 234.00 1 11 535.00 234.00 655.00 230 .00 1 12 145.00 168.00 148.00 162.00 2 13 148.00 162 .00 198.00 161.00 2 14 198.00 161.00 230.00 185.00 2 15 230.00 185.00 250.00 185.00 2 16 250.00 185.00 360.00 224 .00 2 17 360.00 224.00 410.00 230.00 2 18 410.00 230.00 500.00 230.00 2 19 500.00 230.00 590.00 212.00 2 20 590.00 212.00 655.00 225.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130 . 0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170 .0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 3000.0 35.0 2 60.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf Trial Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 243.10 201.51 2 251.55 197.20 3 305.23 210.79 4 309.77 219.70 5 314.31 228.61 6 318.85 237.52 7 319.09 238.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.504 O O n U N (n O O O E W a aj N a O N o LO �G N_ m O LWz IL7 N LL Q. y�aoo K (A m2E N x J o WE Woo IL n- a W a CL a e- � II om— o uc. 4 W O {Lam Q N � 'Ct O = C U p°' o (0 m241 J o" a m O H L) Q W O �3 Imo N r «Ca�� O p y� N U O o �W�Ooo N 1 � v _m O N�z�N O L 1 W O m o O r- J IL m z a.1.. O O O O O O O 1L d coo N N Q } ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/12/2002 Time of Run: 7 :57am Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-D2P.DAT Output Filename: C:407-D2P.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-D2P.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section D-D' , Fill Slope, Block Type, Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 196.00 110.00 171.00 2 2 110.00 171.00 135.00 167.00 2 3 135.00 167.00 145.00 168.00 2 4 145.00 168.00 150.00 168.00 1 5 150.00 168.00 224.00 200.00 1 6 224.00 200.00 240.00 200.00 1 7 240.00 200.00 318.00 238.00 1 8 318.00 238.00 435.00 238.00 1 9 435.00 238.00 435.10 235.00 1 10 435.10 235.00 535.00 234.00 1 11 535.00 234.00 655.00 230.00 1 12 145.00 168.00 148.00 162.00 2 13 148.00 162.00 198.00 161.00 2 14 198.00 161.00 230.00 185.00 2 15 230.00 185.00 250.00 185.00 2 16 250.00 185.00 360.00 224.00 2 17 360.00 224.00 410.00 230.00 2 18 410.00 230.00 500.00 230.00 2 19 500.00 230.00 590.00 212.00 2 20 590.00 212.00 655.00 225.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (ps`) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 3000.0 35.0 2 60.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf Trial Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 148.10 168.00 2 151.51 166.26 3 175.02 164.56 4 307.16 215.61 5 316.24 233.63 6 316.47 236.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.450 0 0 v N N O to W N LP CL o 0 N 0 .Y N to m V � U mw O O d OZ N m � co $ Lu m c N w /1 y C a0 0 x 0 m a`v O Q' O X m N F— EyE UL a CL &CLe- N � 11 � O LLaC.OM aC N U. T C r O T O m' o M CO V o 0"a m I— U c Q M A O O?r y a 7 µ-)A O N NN ~�CL 0 N L ' N O V O O �3.:.0o N O � 7 � _Oo m� y�Z�N 0 ) (n d O O m o O J mRt r m Z a O O O O O O O LO M N N _ Q ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/12/2002 Time of Run: 7:58am Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-D3P.DAT Output Filename: C:407-D3P.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-D3P.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section D-DI , Fill Slope, Block Type, Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 196.00 110.00 171.00 2 2 110.00 171.00 135.00 167.00 2 3 135.00 167.00 145.00 168.00 2 4 145.00 168.00 150.00 168.00 1 5 150.00 168.00 224.00 200.00 1 6 224.00 200.00 240.00 200.00 1 7 240.00 200.00 318.00 238.00 1 8 318.00 238.00 435.00 238.00 1 9 435.00 238.00 435.10 235.00 1 10 435.10 235.00 535.00 234.00 1 11 535.00 234.00 655.00 230.00 1 12 145.00 168.00 148.00 162.00 2 13 148.00 162.00 198.00 161.00 2 14 198.00 161.00 230.00 185.00 2 15 230 .00 185.00 250.00 195.00 2 16 250.00 185.00 360.00 224.00 2 17 360.00 224.00 410.00 230.00 2 18 410.00 230.00 500.00 230.00 2 19 500.00 230.00 590.00 212.00 2 20 590.00 212.00 655.00 225.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130 .0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170 .0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 3000.0 35.0 2 60.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf Trial Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 149.32 168.00 2 152 .05 166.61 3 273 .13 159.53 4 318.28 213.88 5 327 .36 231.70 6 330.57 238.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.912 0 0 U +.d N r-+ p N p 00 ^^(n LO aj N CL p o >` o ~ N Lo Ln m O ayz N $ v W ~ C. mcH a00 p Q �0/� m a`v ort X J pnW00 LL Q. a o a Q. a r' off—� c N' cam c O U. Q O C O ca U O"aoQ Q O ~ C �FA- Or N O air=Lo0 N N a�a•-•- N L p M r ~sae-� O � O � N�� N Rt W �m Z 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 Lo � M N N a $ ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/12/2002 Time of Run: 7:58am Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-D4P.DAT Output Filename: C:407-D4P.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-D4P.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section D-DI , Fill Slope, Circular Type, Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 11 Top Boundaries 20 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 196.00 110.00 171.00 2 2 110.00 171.00 135.00 167.00 2 3 135.00 167.00 145.00 168.00 2 4 145.00 168.00 150.00 168.00 1 5 150.00 168.00 224.00 200.00 1 6 224.00 200.00 240.00 200.00 1 7 240.00 200.00 318.00 238.00 1 8 318.00 238.00 435.00 238.00 1 9 435.00 238.00 435.10 235.00 1 10 435.10 235.00 535.00 234.00 1 11 535.00 234.00 655.00 230.00 1 12 145.00 168.00 148.00 162.00 2 13 148.00 162.00 198.00 161.00 2 14 198.00 161.00 230.00 185.00 2 15 230.00 185.00 250.00 185.00 2 16 250.00 185.00 360.00 224.00 2 17 360.00 224.00 410.00 230.00 2 18 410.00 230.00 500.00 230.00 2 19 500.00 230.00 590.00 212.00 2 20 590.00 212.00 655.00 225.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 50.0 3000.0 35.0 2 60.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf Trial Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 223 .45 199.76 2 233 .43 199.08 3 243 .42 199.30 4 253 .36 200.42 5 263 .16 202.43 6 272 .73 205.31 7 282.01 209.05 8 290.91 213 .60 9 299.36 218.94 10 307.30 225.02 11 314.66 231.80 12 320.29 238.00 Circle Center At X = 236.0 ; Y = 309.8 and Radius, 110.8 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.447 0 0 N O o p cfl ^,� W W LO C� ri o N � y >. O 0 ~ N LO Oa CD m'Wt ° Z N ay W �MC N � m� aoo Q O ,,pp CIO a Cl) V+ f m N 7E .� LL 4. a a r o co �m o ' u c roi c LL 4; ' O LL Q Q IN O cr c a o = M toU `n uwO no J (B m. �+or co V++ 0; Q �D 1+ O N v' µD cc CV)rl O 1- 0 O .: O V c��C00 N M f-2g��rl cc O U _m LL O to TZ�N 1 � Y Q Z �m a 0 0 0 0 0 00 LLO d0 M N N a ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/12/2002 Time of Run: 7:59am Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-E1P.DAT Output Filename: C:407-E1P.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-E1P.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section E-El , Cut Slope, Block Type, Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 9 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 100.00 17.00 100.00 2 2 17.00 100.00 90.00 127.00 2 3 90.00 127.00 282.00 126.00 2 4 282.00 126.00 347.00 156.00 2 5 347.00 156.00 355.00 156.00 2 6 355.00 156.00 400.00 176.00 2 7 400.00 176.00 425.00 176.00 2 8 425.00 176.00 480.00 150.00 2 9 480.00 150.00 795.00 149.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure •Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 -5.0 3000.0 35.0 2 5.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf Trial Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 285.44 127.59 2 288.19 126.16 3 297.06 121.54 4 408.87 130.89 5 413.49 139.76 6 418.11 148.63 7 422.72 157.50 8 427.34 166.37 9 430.90 173.21 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 2.032 0 0 0 C� ca o o � n O 'a E ar'` • O N 0 a o 0 N Jed N o v N A m . O _O cna 'z ++ m y 0 • w m � O ��w a a � a00 Q O a`c°�` 05 m X m +rIL V 0. IL IL N 00 N T- r II m o W O OI . 0 N '^ W' � C m M CLLQ� a u. O ...y4. N ~ V. C O. O V am O 0 Cfl L d OO C N co C 0- N � ,�, a.M O W y� L 1� V O OO M 0 Y V V) O � N O O' N 16. V/ Y Q ° o m 0 J L1 m l Z N N O O O O O o lO M N N a ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer-s Method of Slices Run Date: 9/12/2002 Time of Run: 8:05am Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-E2P.DAT Output Filename: C:407-E2P.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-E2P.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section E-El , Cut Slope, Circular Type, Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 9 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 100.00 17.00 100.00 2 2 17.00 100.00 90.00 127.00 2 3 90.00 127.00 282.00 126.00 2 4 282 .00 126.00 347.00 156.00 2 5 347.00 156.00 355.00 156.00 2 6 355.00 156.00 400.00 176.00 2 7 400.00 176.00 425.00 176.00 2 8 425.00 176.00 480.00 150.00 2 9 480.00 150.00 795.00 149.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 300-0.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type (s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 -5.0 3000.0 35.0 2 5.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf Trial Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 266.55 126.08 2 275.98 122.74 3 285.61 120.07 4 295.42 118.10 5 305.34 116.83 6 315.32 116.28 7 325.32 116.44 8 335.28 117.31 9 345.16 118.89 10 354.89 121.17 11 364.44 124.14 12 373 .76 127.78 13 382.79 132.08 14 391.49 137.01 15 399.81 142.55 16 407.72 148.66 17 415.18 155.33 18 422.13 162.51 19 428.56 170.17 20 430.80 173.26 Circle Center At X = 319.0 ; Y = 259.0 and Radius, 142 .9 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 3 .092 0 0 0 v co 0 0 O 'a E O � O LO CL • o H N a �- N O O cn "m_ c N a Z CO Lo U W o w m ca y ao o .K 'p t1) m 0 0 CL d W F- U �- (L a N O M m N c o �Y II • W O V Ol N N W 0c�M c U. N Q LL Q Q ca W N (� in mw0 n � U O m ') 6, 0 N J c o n''Q O CO V O = v M F- 4� N W W c) ri N= 4- 0 O U ��moo N c" a O � � = N fC d O a �O ,z LL O C01 A Y ..{.0 R � C W O J rl m r Z N N O O O O O O O lL M N N a ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/12/2002 Time of Run: 8:06am Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-H1P.DAT Output Filename: C:407-H1P.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-H1P.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section H-HI , Cut Slope, Block Type, Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 142.00 35.00 148.00 2 2 35.00 148.00 180.00 148.00 2 3 180.00 148.00 255.00 178.00 2 4 255.00 178.00 263.00 178.00 2 5 263.00 178.00 323.00 197.00 2 6 323.00 197.00 396.00 197.00 1 7 396.00 197.00 458.00 175.00 1 8 458.00 175.00 480.00 173.00 2 9 480.00 173.00 520.00 182.00 2 10 323.00 197.00 324.00 192.00 2 11 324.00 192.00 384.00 192.00 2 12 384.00 192.00 392.00 188.00 2 13 392.00 188.00 432.00 177.00 2 14 432.00 177.00 437.00 172.00 2 15 437.00 172.00 457.00 173 .00 2 16 457.00 173.00 458.00 175.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170 .0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 -60.0 3000.0 35.0 2 -40.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf Trial Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 151.23 148.00 2 153 .81 146.65 3 214.64 92.79 4 349.35 185.33 5 352.82 192.00 6 355.37 197.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 2.747 0 LO LO U o LO {.I N O .a N U) N O G. O N CL o N � N O O " ow o m ayz o � LD _. LU o M rn CL " np000 a O �• av 0 0 J oa �00 a M Ln CL ° N C 'v M C N U- Lo = O IL a 9 a N c a = O U A . .Oo °a a cs, U H 0= a o Q O o E- o.% N o3wlno i n O W w o V �' F-cameo In ° M = r— O � O N N O 1 � c Y m O Z Lo G. N O 0 0 O 0 O O O l0 0 U) O Ln O Ln M M Nr- N a } ** STABL6H ** by Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 9/12/2002 Time of Run: 8 :07am Run By: TEM Input Data Filename: C:407-H2P.DAT Output Filename: C:407-H2P.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:407-H2P.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PN 407-000-03, Cross-Section H-HI , Cut Slope, Circular Type, Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 142.00 35.00 148.00 2 2 35.00 148.00 180.00 148.00 2 3 180.00 148.00 255.00 178.00 2 4 255.00 178.00 263.00 178.00 2 5 263.00 178.00 323.00 197.00 2 6 323.00 197.00 396.00 197.00 1 7 396.00 197.00 458.00 175.00 1 8 458.00 175.00 480.00 173 .00 2 9 480.00 173.00 520.00 182.00 2 10 323.00 197.00 324.00 192.00 2 11 324.00 192.00 384.00 192 .00 2 12 384.00 192.00 392.00 188.00 2 13 392.00 188.00 432.00 177.00 2 14 432.00 177.00 437.00 172.00 2 15 437.00 172.00 457.00 173 .00 2 16 457.00 173.00 458.00 175.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 135.0 100.0 36.0 .00 .0 0 2 170.0 170.0 3000.0 35.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 -60.0 3000.0 35.0 2 -40.0 500.0 15.0 3 90.0 3000.0 35.0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf Trial Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 168.26 146.00 2 186.63 140.05 3 205.96 134.98 4 225. 67 132.90 5 245. 64 133.86 6 265.44 137.64 7 284 .21 144.75 8 301.72 154.42 9 317.55 166.64 10 331.35 181.12 11 342.43 197.00 Circle Center At X = 229.5 ; Y = 264.1 and Radius, 131.2 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 3.826 0 LO LO V N O }� O Lo �1 0 M c G N (n N Ct a 0 CL Q) N O � 07t z to -- V W c M y D C. moncc X ':3 a O 0 m X2 0 y F- m = E N M = ++ J `on Woo M 00H V a M �► N II Q7 o_ UCOMC N O LL p LLa9 a N C C) °d— o v . Q .,0.9 N J ca 0) = a+: N N d p N N V �W�wMO Ln L O♦+ G r M = V d cC z•-N N16. O � r (n Y d O [�' J M m Z tOc� a N O O O O O 0 0 O O Ln O LC) O LO O L) C) C9 a } APPENDIX E GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Rosetta Hills Project Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR 'G, GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-I Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures. General Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC and the guidelines presented below. Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading. Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified. 2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor's overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor's personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor's responsibility to properly compact the fill. 3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation. ,G� GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-2 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR 4. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm. S. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every I,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials. 7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows: a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete. Site Clearing I. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area. 2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials. This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers. 3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative. Typical procedures are similar to those indicated on Plate G-4. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-3 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR Treatment of Existing Ground I. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or creep effected bedrock, should be removed (see Plates G-1, G-2 and G-3) unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report. 2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative. 3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. 5. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Subdrainage I. Subdrainage systems should be provided in canyon bottoms prior to placing fill, and behind buttress and stabilization fills and in other areas indicated in the report. Subdrains should conform to schematic diagrams G-I and G-5, and be acceptable to our representative. 2. For canyon subdrains, runs less than 500 feet may use six-inch pipe. Typically, runs in excess of 500 feet should have the lower end as eight-inch minimum. 3. Filter material should be clean, 1/2 to 1-inch gravel wrapped in a suitable filter fabric. Class 2 permeable filter material per California Department of Transportation Standards tested by this office to verify its suitability, may be used without filter fabric. A sample of the material should be provided to the Soils Engineer by the contractor at least two working days before it is delivered to the site. The filter should be clean with a wide range of sizes. 4. Approximate delineation of anticipated subdrain locations may be offered at 40-scale plan review stage. During grading, this office would evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 5. All subdrainage systems should be observed by our representative during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 6. Subdrains should outlet into storm drains where possible. Outlets should be located and protected. The need for backflow preventers should be assessed during construction. 7. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Fill Placement 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report). 'G,. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page EA Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates. b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557. 4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative. 5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated suitable for rock disposal (see Plate G-4). On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested. 6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill. Slope Construction I. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. 2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-5 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR 3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. 4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction. 5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization. Keyways, Buttress and Stabilization Fills Keyways are needed to provide support for fill slope and various corrective procedures. I. Side-hill fills should have an equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material and tilted back into the hill (Plates G-2, G-3). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial soil and slopewash, and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by our representatives (See Plates G-1, G-2, and G-3). 2. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least one and one-half (1.5) equipment width wide (or as needed for compaction), and tipped at least one (1) foot into slope, should be excavated into competent materials and observed by our representative. c) The cut portion of the slope should be excavated prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary. The contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. (see Plate G-3 for schematic details.) 3. Daylight cut lots above descending natural slopes may require removal and replacement of the outer portion of the lot. A schematic diagram for this condition is presented on Plate G-2. 4. A basal key is needed for fill slopes extending over natural slopes. A schematic diagram for this condition is presented on Plate G-2. 5. All fill slopes should be provided with a key unless within the body of a larger overall fill mass. Please refer to Plate G-3 for specific guidelines. Anticipated buttress and stabilization fills are discussed in the text of the report. The need to stabilize other proposed cut slopes will be evaluated during construction. Plate G-5 shows a schematic of buttress construction. ,G, GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-6 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR I. All backcuts should be excavated at gradients of 1:1 or flatter. The backcut configuration should be determined based on the design, exposed conditions, and need to maintain a minimum fill width and provide working room for the equipment. 2. On longer slopes, backcuts and keyways should be excavated in maximum 250 feet long segments. The specific configurations will be determined during construction. 3. All keys should be a minimum of two (2) feet deep at the toe and slope toward the heel at least one foot or two (2%) percent, whichever is greater. 4. Subdrains are to be placed for all stabilization slopes exceeding 10 feet in height. Lower slopes are subject to review. Drains may be required. Guidelines for subdrains are presented on Plate G-5. 5. Benching of backcuts during fill placement is required. Lot Capping I. When practical, the upper three (3) feet of material placed below finish grade should be comprised of the least expansive material available. Preferably, highly and very highly expansive materials should not be used. We will attempt to offer advice based on visual evaluations of the materials during grading, but it must be realized that laboratory testing is needed to evaluate the expansive potential of soil. Minimally, this testing takes two (2) to four (4) days to complete. 2. Transition lots (cut and fill) both per plan and those created by remedial grading (e.g. lots above stabilization fills, along daylight lines, above natural slopes, etc.) should be capped with a minimum three foot thick compacted fill blanket. 3. Cut pads should be observed by our representative(s) to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. ROCK PLACEMENT AND ROCK FILL GUIDELINES It is anticipated that large quantities of oversize material would be generated during grading. It's likely that such materials may require special handling for burial. Although alternatives may be developed in the field, the following methods of rock disposal are recommended on a preliminary basis. Limited Larger Rock When materials encountered are principally soil with limited quantities of larger rock fragments or boulders, placement in windrows is recommended. The following procedures should be applied: I. Oversize rock (greater than 8 inches) should be placed in windrows. a) Windrows are rows of single file rocks placed to avoid nesting or clusters of rock. 'G,. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-7 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR b) Each adjacent rock should be approximately the same size (within —one foot in diameter). c) The maximum rock size allowed in windrows is four feet 2. A minimum vertical distance of three feet between lifts should be maintained. Also, the windrows should be offset from lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be closer than 15 feet to the face of fill slopes and sufficient space must be maintained for proper slope construction (see Plate G-4). 3. Rocks greater than eight inches in diameter should not be placed within seven feet of the finished subgrade for a roadway or pads and should be held below the depth of the lowest utility. This will allow easier trenching for utility lines. 4. Rocks greater than four feet in diameter should be broken down, if possible, or they may be placed in a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated into the compacted fill a minimum of one foot deeper than the largest diameter of rock. a) The rock should be placed in the trench and granular fill materials (SE>30) should be flooded into the trench to fill voids around the rock. b) The over size rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet from any slope face. c) Trenches at higher elevation should be staggered and there should be a minimum of four feet of compacted fill between the top of the one trench and the bottom of the next higher trench. d) It would be necessary to verify 90 percent relative compaction in these pits. A 24 to 72 hour delay to allow for water dissipation should be anticipated prior to additional fill placement. Structural Rock Fills If the materials generated for placement in structural fills contains a significant percentage of material more than six (6) inches in one dimension, then placement using conventional soil fill methods with isolated windrows would not be feasible. In such cases the following could be considered: I. Mixes of large rock or boulders may be placed as rock fill. They should be below the depth of all utilities both on pads and in roadways and below any proposed swimming pools or other excavations. If these fills are placed within seven (7) feet of finished grade, they may affect foundation design. 2. Rock fills are required to be placed in horizontal layers that should not exceed two feet in thickness, or the maximum rock size present, which ever is less. All rocks exceeding two feet should be broken down to a smaller size, windrowed (see above), or disposed of in non-structural fill areas. Localized larger rock up to 3 feet in largest dimension may be placed in rock fill as follows: GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-8 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR a) individual rocks are placed in a given lift so as to be roughly 50% exposed above the typical surface of the fill , b) loaded rock trucks or alternate compactors are worked around the rock on all sides to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, c) the portion of the rock above grade is covered with a second lift. 3. Material placed in each lift should be well graded. No unfilled spaces (voids) should be permitted in the rock fill. Compaction Procedures Compaction of rock fills is largely procedural. The following procedures have been found to generally produce satisfactory compaction. 1. Provisions for routing of construction traffic over the fill should be implemented. a) Placement should be by rock trucks crossing the lift being placed and dumping at its edge. b) The trucks should be routed so that each pass across the fill is via a different path and that all areas are uniformly traversed. c) The dumped piles should be knocked down and spread by a large dozer (D-8 or larger suggested). (Water should be applied before and during spreading.) 2. Rock fill should be generously watered (sluiced) a) Water should be applied by water trucks to the: i) dump piles, ii) front face of the lift being placed and, iii) surface of the fill prior to compaction. b) No material should be placed without adequate water. c) The number of water trucks and water supply should be sufficient to provide constant water. d) Rock fill placement should be suspended when water trucks are unavailable: i) for more than 5 minutes straight, or, ii) for more than 10 minutes/hour. 3. In addition to the truck pattern and at the discretion of the soil engineer, large, rubber tired compactors may be required. a) The need for this equipment will depend largely on the ability of the operators to provide complete and uniform coverage by wheel rolling with the trucks. b) Other large compactors will also be considered by the soil engineer provided that required compaction is achieved. 4. Placement and compaction of the rock fill is largely procedural. Observation by trenching should be made to check: GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-9 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR a) the general segregation of rock size, b) for any unfilled spaces between the large blocks, and c) the matrix compaction and moisture content. 5. Test fills may be required to evaluate relative compaction of finer grained zones or as deemed appropriate by the soil engineer. a) A lift should be constructed by the methods proposed, as proposed 6. Frequency of the test trenching is to be at the discretion of the soil engineer. Control areas may be used to evaluate the contractor's procedures. 7. A minimum horizontal distance of 15 feet should be maintained from the face of the rock fill and any finish slope face. At least the outer 15 feet should be built of conventional fill materials. Piping Potential and Filter Blankets Where conventional fill is placed over rock fill, the potential for piping (migration) of the fine grained material from the conventional fill into rock fills will need to be addressed. The potential for particle migration is related to the grain size comparisons of the materials present and in contact with each other. Provided that 15 percent of the finer soil is larger than the effective pore size of the coarse soil, then particle migration is substantially mitigated. This can be accomplished with a well-graded matrix material for the rock fill and a zone of fill similar to the matrix above it. The specific gradation of the fill materials placed during grading must be known to evaluate the need for any type of filter that may be necessary to cap the rock fills. This, unfortunately, can only be accurately determined during construction. In the event that poorly graded matrix is used in the rock fills, properly graded filter blankets 2 to 3 feet thick separating rock fills and conventional fill may be needed. As an alternative, use of two layers of filter fabric (Mirafi 700 x or equivalent) could be employed on top of the rock fill. In order to mitigate excess puncturing, the surface of the rock fill should be well broken down and smoothed prior to placing the filter fabric. The first layer of the fabric may then be placed and covered with relatively permeable fill material (with respect to overlying material) I to 2 feet thick. The relative permeable material should be compacted to fill standards. The second layer of fabric should be placed and conventional fill placement continued. Subdrainage Rock fill areas should be tied to a subdrainage system. If conventional fill is placed that separates the rock from the main canyon subdrain, then a secondary system should be installed. A system consisting of an adequately graded base (3 to 4 percent to the lower side) with a collector system and outlets may suffice. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-10 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR Additionally, at approximately every 25 foot vertical interval, a collector system with outlets should be placed at the interface of the rock fill and the conventional fill blanketing a fill slope Monitoring Depending upon the depth of the rock fill and other factors, monitoring for settlement of the fill areas may be needed following completion of grading. Typically, if rock fill depths exceed 40 feet, monitoring would be recommend prior to construction of any settlement sensitive improvements. Delays of 3 to 6 months or longer can be expected prior to the start of construction. UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractor's responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors' methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures. Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that "worked" on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience. I. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench. 2. Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is typically limited to the following uses: a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b) as bedding in pipe zone. The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction. 3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation. Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-I I Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR 4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a I:I projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil. 5. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractor's procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractor's attention. JOB SAFETY General Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects. I. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings. 2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site. 3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern. 'G,. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-12 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow. This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN SIDE VIEW Test Pit Spoil pile 50 ft Zone of Traffic Direction Non-Encroachment Vehicle parked here Test Pit oil pile Spoil 10 0 ,,one of Non-Encroachment 50 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment PLAN VIEW Slope Tests When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location. Trench Safety It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill. GEOTEK GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Updated Geotechnical Report Page E-13 Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Project No. 2467-CR All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which; I. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2. exit points or ladders are not provided, 3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractor's representative will then be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal. Procedures In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor's representative will then be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technician's attention and notify our project manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment. GEOTEK ALTERNATES Finish Grade Original Ground os . . . to 'ai. l.o a S�rf�ce M . l Suitable 4 feet typical Material Suitable Construct Benches Material where slope exceeds 5:1 Slope to Drain Bottom of Cleanout to Be At Least 1.5 Times the Width of 3 6" Perforated Pipe in 9 cubic feet per Lineal Compaction Equipment �. Foot Clean Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric 3' Finish Grade Original Ground >_ovs 5 dace Iiaterials: : : :: 4 feet t ical : : : Yp Suitable Construct Benches Material where slope exceeds 5:1 ;:ftif�f ��to Drain ;f:f�f�f�f f.f.f.f.f. Bottom of Cleanout to Be At Least 1.5 Times the Width of 6" Perforated Pipe in 9 cubic feet Compaction Equipment per Lineal Foot Clean Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric STANDARD GRADING 1548 North Maple Street TYPICAL CANYON GUIDELINES Corona,California 92880 CLEANOUT PLATE E-I TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE Finish Grade Compacted Fill Fill Slope Min. 3 Feet Compacted Fill Toe of Fill Slope -777777-71 Topsoil per Plan C011uvium Project Removal Creep Zone at 1 to 1 Bedrock Min. 0 F 0 all 2 F ee t Mi n.2/ I >`. >`> Minimum 15 Feet Wide or 1.5 Equipment Widths for Compaction DAYLIGHT CUT AREA OVER NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE Structural Setback ithout Corrective Work Daylight Cut Line er Plan Fmili :Grade . Project Removal s at 1 to 1 Min. 3 Feet Compacted Fill ir Compacted Fill :topsoil: : Min. C41luvlunl:• 2 Feet Min.2%Fall > > ; Creep Zone.:: Bedrock Minimum 15 Feet Wide or 1.5 Equipment Widths for Compaction STANDARD GRADING 1548 North Maple Street TREATMENT ABOVE GUIDELINES Corona,California 92880 NATURAL SID PES PLATE E 2 TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER CUT SLOPE Finish Grade 2: 1 Fill Slope Toe of Fill Slope per Plan 4' Typical Top II C Iuvium Min.2%Fall Creep Zone Minimum 15 Feet Wide or 1.5 Equipment Widths for Compaction Cut Slope TYPICAL FILL SLOPE SLOPE MIN. KEY MIN. KEY HEIGHT WIDTH DEPTH 5 7 1 10 10 1.5 15 5 1 2 20 15 2.5 25 15 3 25 SEE TEXT CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH SOIL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION I........................ ................... r:::::: ...........................................pk? .................. > j;`;' '!3edrock or tikCi/ate ke�r ef�fi� tbr`iYe�itW>` Suitable Dense Material . <;i <Id4�a�d>i ��® ;<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> STANDARD GRADING 1548 North Maple Street COMMON FILL GUIDELINES Corona,California 92880 SLO PE KEYS PLATE E 3 CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW FINISH GRADE 1 NO ROCKS IN SEE NOTE 1 FILL SLOPE THIS ZONE:::::::::.... ------------------- -------------------- 15 T IN. MIN ----------------------------------------- -------------- ----------------a--- >>. STAGGER ROWS T MIN. HORIZONTALLY ----------------------------------------- MINIMUM 15' CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION PLAN VIEW FILL SLOPE MINIMUM 15' CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION PLACE ROCKS END TO END D 1 DO NOT PILE OR STACK ROCKS MINIMUM 15' CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION 1 SOIL TO BE PLACE AROUND AND OVER ROCKS THEN FLOODED INTO VOIDS. MUST COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH ROCK WINDROW NOTES: 1) SOIL FILL OVER WINDROW SHOULD BE 7 FEET OR PER JURISDUICTIONAL STANDARDS AND SUFFICIENT FOR FUTURE EXCAVATIONS TO AVOID ROCKS 2) MAXIMUM ROCK SIZE IN WINDROWS IS 4 FEET IN DIAMETER 3) SOIL AROUND WINDROWS TO BE SANDY MATERIAL SUBJECT TO SOIL ENGINEER ACCEPTANCE 4) SPACING AND CLEARANCES MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPACTION 5) INDIVIDUAL LARGE ROCKS MAY BE BURIED IN PITS. STANDARD GRADING 1548 North Maple Street RO CK BURIAL DETAILS GUIDELINES Corona,California 92880 PLATE E-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MIN.3 FEET COMPACTED FILL c�q0 F TERRACE DRAIN AS REQUIRED SOLID OUTLET PIPE BEDROCK COMPACTED FILL 2 1 MIN.2 FEET EMBEDDMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MIN.15 FEET WIDE OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT SEE DETAILS FOR BACKDRAIN WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION AND HEEL DRAIN BACKDRAIN DETAILS <X 2%Minimum Fall 4"diameter perforated drain pipe 4"diameter solid outlet pipe(Schedule 40 (Schedule 40 PVC or equivalent)in PVC or equivalent)laterals to slope face or 6 cubic feet per lineal foot clean gravel storm drain system at maximum 100 foot wrapped in filter fabric maximum intervals HEEL DRAIN DETAILS Note:Additional backdrains may be recommended 6"diameter perforated drain pipe in 6 cubic feet per lineal foot clean gravel wrapped in filter fabric,outlet pipe to gravity flow with 2%minimum fall TYPICAL BUTTRESS AND STANDARD GRADING 1548 North Maple Street GUIDEUNNES Corona,California 92880 STABILIZATION F L PLATE E 5