HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILTY STUDY ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING I-2003-2 - -
•Soil Engineering and Consulting Sem s•Engineering Geology•Compaction Testing
EnGEN Corporation •Inspections•Construction tMatenalsceStud iesbrq•Laboratory-testing•l Site
Testing
•Geo!agy•Water Resource Studies•Phase I&II Ennronmentat Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
RECE1V17D
SEP m L 2003
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ENGINEERING DL"ARTMENT
Elsinore Airport Industrial Building
Assessor's Parcel Number 370-080-014-5
■ Parcel 14 of Parcel Map 6972, Corydon Street
City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2784-GFS
April 30, 2003
■
li
Prepared for:
Alesco Development Company, LLC
21021 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300
Woodland Hills, California 91364
x
_ - - - - ,
1 t ' r�•i•r rr w.•�•,.�w. �r-s•w--r--w:.w wr.-rr•
I � aiii//fr.
CORPORATE OFFICE 416071E iterprise Circle North,Suite 1,Temecula,CA 92590•phone:(909) 296-2230•fax:(909) 296-2237
ORANGE COUNTY OFF] E 2615 Orange Avenue,Santa Ana, CA 92707 •phone: (714) 546.4051 •fax:(714)546-4052
\ B SITE: www.enger)corp.com • E-MAIL: engencorp@engencorp.com
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................2
2.1 Authorization...........................................................................................................2
2.2 Scope of Study.......................................................................................................2
2.3 Previous Site Studies .............................................................................................2
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................2
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................3
4.1 Location..................................................................................................................3
4.2 Topography ............................................................................................................3
4.3 Vegetation ................................................................................. ...3
..........................
4.4 Structures...............................................................................................................3
5.0 FIELD STUDY ..................................................................................................................3
All
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................4
6.1 General ..................................................................................................................4
6.2 Classification ...........................................................................................................4
6.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test.............................................................4
6.4 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test....................4
6.5 Consolidation Test..................................................................................................4
6.6 Direct Shear Test....................................................................................................5
6.7 Expansion Test.......................................................................................................5
6.8 Plasticity Index Test................................................................................................5
7.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY .........................................................................6
7.1 Geologic Setting.....................................................................................................6
. 7.2 Faulting ................................................................... 6
...............................
7.3 Seismicity ...............................................................................................................7
7.4 Earth Materials .......................................................................................................7
7.4.1 Stockpile (Afl) .......................................................................
7.4.2 Alluvium (Qal)...........................................................................................8
7.5 Groundwater...........................................................................................................8
7.6 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity ....................................................................8
7.7 Liquefaction............................................................................................................8
7.8 Seismically Induced Landsliding.............................................................................9
7.9 Seismically Induced Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis...........................................9
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................9
8.1 General ..................................................................................................................9
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations ................................................................................9
8.2.1 General.....................................................................................................9
8.2.2 Clearing..................................................................................................10
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics.....................................................................10
8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill .....................................................10
8.2.5 Removal and Recompaction ..................................................................10
EnGEN Corporation
DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
RECEIVED
SEP — 2 2003
ENGINEERING DEr Al t i MENT
DEVELOPER:
ALESCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
�o9?,OFESSI,l
Q �
co DON LETEY �
AUGUST 21, 2003 w No 42465 z
w EXP 03/31/04 ,7
CIVI
Jensen & Associates CIVIL ENGINEERING•LAND PLANNING•LAND SURVEYING
1487 Woodvale Lane •Riverside,CA 92506• (909)780-1829 9 FAX(909)780-1629
INTRODUCTION:
The Airport Industrial Center is a proposed light-industrial building site on 2.3 acres located on
the northwest side of Corydon Street between Cereal Street and Garden Street in the City of Lake
Elsinore, California(APN 370-080-014-5). The Airport Industrial Center project is bounded on
the southwest by vacant land, on the west and northwest by the Skylark Airport, on the northeast
by a public storage facility, and on the southeast by an existing residence and store.
The existing site, which is vacant, has been farmed until recent years. Since farming operations
have stopped, the site has been regularly disced for weed control. The existing condition of the
site is dirt that has been disced.
The site currently drains to the west as sheet flow, and via minor earthen drainage ways,through
the Skylark Airport property towards Lake Elsinore. Upstream drainage from the immediate east
of the site is intercepted by Corydon Street and flows to a low point in Corydon Street further
south of this project. At this low point the drainage crosses Corydon Street via a roadway culvert
and flows west towards Lake Elsinore. Further upstream drainage is intercepted by Mission
Trail,where it is collected into an existing underground storm drain system. No upstream runoff
currently flows through the project site.
The proposed site improvements will convey drainage flows through surface facilities to a
discharge location on the northwest property line.
During construction proper temporary sedimentation control facilities are to be constructed and
maintained at the discharge point from the project site per the Erosion Control Plan for the
project. Upon completion of development, a permanent post-construction BMP basin will be
maintained at the discharge point from the project. The new permanent basin will be constructed
within the property and will be maintained by the property owner. The purpose of this permanent
basin is to collect sediment, debris and other contaminants from this project. This basin is to
clean nuisance flows and first flush storm runoff.
The percent of impervious cover prior to construction is approximately 0%. Upon project build-
out the site impervious cover will be approximately 85%. Development will not alter overall
drainage of the property.
METHODOLOGY:
The storm water flow rates have been calculated using the Rational Tabling Method per the
Riverside County Hydrology Manual. See attached calculation sheet.
For purposed of this study only the Q100 was analyzed as Q10 criteria will not apply as Corydon
Street and the site will carry the Q100 within Q10 criteria for top of curb.
CONCLUSIONS:
The existing Q100 passing through the site is 6.4 cfs. The Q100 for the developed condition is
6.3 cfs. The path of travel for storm drainage is longer for the developed condition. Also,the
BMP cleaning basin and concrete apron will act to slow and spread the discharge leaving the site
back to be substantially the same as the existing condition, and at the same flow rate.
1 1
6�
N
... p p O
0 1 1 to U
I i $
1 i cr
d 1 Q
t . 1
x k
o ZZ
it
d �. O
LL. N
O
C 1
0
aU
� ' to
Z �
0
o J o w o �
i W W
O p o
3W _ M �
co
J M M M
LLO �
le 2
� ► N
Ian ' cl, cI
a
O W t�l
m Q
a. zIlk
PLATE D-2
0
CWYWN STRMr F
VICINITY MAP
/k
1 rA I
s� q.11AI
I
Z
F m�
W
(L
At T Q
L (viol]
s ! O
S,jjly v �
opc
0.57AC Z 0-
0
Z
E- - - O
OFFSITE DRAINAGE FLOWS SOUTH TO AN Q (n
EXISTING OVERLAND CROSSING OF CORYDON STREET
FIGURE 2.2
Il Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued}
Section Number and Title Page
8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements..................................................................11
8.2.7 Compaction Equipment..........................................................................11
8.2.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence.....................................................................12
8.2.9 Fill Slopes................................................................................................12
8.2.10 Slope Stability—General.........................................................................12
8.2.11 Subdrains................................................................................................13
I 8.2.12 Observation and Testing.........................................................................13
8.2.13 Soil Expansion Potential .........................................................................13
i8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations ................................................................14
J8.3.1 General...................................................................................................14
r. 8.3.2 Foundation Size......................................................................................14
8.3.3 Depth of Embedment .............................................................................14
8.3.4 Bearing Capacity................................................................ .......14
. ... .......
8.3.5 Settlement..............................................................................................15
8.3.6 Seismic Design Parameters .............15
.......................
a8.3.6 Lateral Capacity......................................................................................15
8.3.7 Soluble Sulfate Content..........................................................................16
8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations.......................................................................16
8.4.1 Interior Slabs ..........................................................................................16
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs.........................................................................................17
8.5 Utility Trench Recommendations..........................................................................17
f8.6 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations ...............................................................18
8.7 Planter Recommendations...................................................................................18
8.8 Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations .....................................18
8.9 Retaining Wall Recommendations .......................................................................19
8.9.1 Earth Pressures........................................................................................21
8.9.2 Foundation Design ...................................................................................20
8.9.3 Subdrain...................................................................................................20
8.9.4 Backfill.............. ........................................................ ................................20
■ 8.9.5 On-Site Pavement Design Recommendations.........................................21
i
9.0 PLAN REVIEW ....................................22
............................................................................
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE .,..... ......*...... ......*,,****......**..........23
11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE......................................................................................23
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING .....................................................23
13.0 CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................24
IAPPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES
TABLE A— DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
SETTLEMENT DUE TO LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS I
EnGEN Corporation
C_.
.,., •Soil Engineering and Consulting Services•Engineering Geology•Compaction Testing
nGEN corporation •Inspections•Construction Materials Testing•Laboratory&11 ironm •Percolation Testing
I I• '' _ � •Geology
•Water Resource Studies •Phase I&II Environmental Site Assessments
iENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
April 30, 2003
I
Alesco Development Company, LLC
f21021 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300
Woodland Hills, California 91364
(818) 883-9665 / FAX (818) 883-9699
Attention: Mr. Jeff Sanner
Regarding GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Elsinore Airport Industrial Building
Assessor's Parcel Number 370-080-014-5
Parcel 14 of Parcel Map 6972, Corydon Street
City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Project Number: T2784-GFS
Reference: 1. Commercial Architects, Inc., Site Plan, Airport Industrial Building, plan
dated February 6, 2003.
Dear Mr. Sanner:
According to your request and signed authorization, we have performed a Geotechnical Feasibility
Study for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the existing geologic and
geotechnical conditions within the subject property with respect to recommendations for fine
grading of the site and design recommendations for foundations, slabs on-grade, etc., for the
proposed development. Submitted, herewith, are the results of this firm's findings and
recommendations, along with the supporting data.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' A geotechnical study of the subsurface conditions of the subject site has been performed
for the proposed development. Exploratory excavations have been completed and earth
' material samples subjected to laboratory testing. The data has been analyzed with
respect to the project information furnished to us for the proposed development. It is the
opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical/geologic
standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are followed in the
design and construction of the project.
' ` � — :�w�.�f rR tiBlr!✓•Iwr�..:..—�'_.,��r>Kt
.mss■s rwswrraswa�r ,� r��asrswt
CORPOnATE OFFICE 41607 E'terprt'se�Circle'Nort .Suite 1,Temecula,CA 92590•phone:�909)296-2230•fiax: (909)296-2239
' ORANGE COUNTY OFFI E 2615 Orange Avenue,Santa Ana,CA 92707 •phone: (714) 546-4051 •fax:(714)546.4052
I W_ i SITE: www.engencorp.com • E-MAIL: engencorp@engencorp.com
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authorization: This report presents the results of the geotechnical feasibility study
performed on the subject site for the proposed development. Authorization to perform this
study was in the form of a signed proposal.
2.2 Scope of Study: The scope of work performed for this study was designed to determine
and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions within the subject site with respect to
_ geotechnical characteristics, and to provide recommendations and criteria for use by the
design engineers and architect for the development of the site and for design and
construction of the proposed development. The scope of work included the following:
1) site reconnaissance and surface geologic mapping; 2) subsurface exploration;
3) sampling of on-site earth materials; 4) laboratory testing; 5) engineering analysis of
field and laboratory data; and 6) the preparation of this report.
2.3 Previous Site Studies: No known studies have been performed on the site.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Precise grading and building plans were not available at the time of this report. When
these plans become available, they should be reviewed by this office in order to make
additional recommendations, if necessary.
r It is our understanding that the 2.3-acre site will be developed with a two-story industrial
building. The proposed building will consist of concrete tilt-up, slab-on-grade type
structure with associated landscape, hardscape and parking improvements. The purpose
of this study is to provide earthwork and foundation recommendations for the proposed
development in accordance with current standard specifications for new construction in the
City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California. It is assumed that relatively light
J loads will be imposed on the foundation soils. The foundation loads are not anticipated to
exceed 3,000 pounds per lineal foot (plf) for continuous footings. The above project
description and assumptions were used as the basis for the field and laboratory
exploration and testing programs and the engineering analysis for the conclusions and
J recommendations presented in this report. This office should be notified if structures,
foundation loads, grading, and/or details other than those represented herein are
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 3
proposed for final development of the site so a review can be performed, supplemental
evaluation made, and revised recommendations submitted, if required.
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
4.1. Location: The site is located southwest of Cereal Street on the northwest side of
Corydon Street in the City of Lake Elsinore, California.
4.2 Topography: The topography of the site at the time of this study was relatively flat with
drainage by sheet flow to the northwest.
4.3 Vegetation: At the time of the field study, vegetation across the site consisted of a heavy
cover of grasses and weeds.
■ 4.4 Structures: No structures were observed at the time of the field study.
5.0 FIELD STUDY
Site observations and geologic mapping were conducted on April 9, 2003 by a Geologist
from this firm. A study of the property's subsurface condition was performed to evaluate
underlying earth strata and the presence of groundwater. Two (2) exploratory borings
were excavated on the study site. The borings were performed by Cal-Pac Drilling, using
a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8.0-inch outside diameter hollow-stem augers. The
maximum depth explored was approximately 51.5-feet below the existing land surface at
. the boring locations. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the earth materials
encountered were obtained at various depths in the exploratory borings and returned to
our laboratory for verification of field classifications and testing. Bulk samples were
obtained from cuttings developed during the excavation process and represent a mixture
of the soils within the depth indicated on the logs. Relatively undisturbed samples of the
earth materials encountered were obtained by driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with
1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch inside diameter brass rings. The sampler was driven with
successive drops of a 140-pound weight having a free fall of approximately 30-inches.
The blow counts for each successive 6.0-inches of penetration, or fraction thereof, are
shown in the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. The ring
samples were retained in close-fitting moisture-proof containers and returned to our
laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and pits are
1A
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 4
denoted on the Geotechnical Study Site Plan. The exploratory borings were backfilled
with soil cuttings.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
6.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the field study are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests which were performed. The samples obtained during
the field study will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be
notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days.
6.2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered in the exploratory
borings and pits were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The final classification is shown in the
Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix.
6.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test: The in-situ moisture content and dry
density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-98 and ASTM D
2937-94 procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The
dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined
as a percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Test results are shown in the
Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix.
6.4 Maximum Dry Density I Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test: Maximum dry
density/optimum moisture content relationship determination were performed on samples
of near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures
using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and
compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25
blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the
specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
determined from the plot.
6.5 Consolidation Test: Settlement predictions of the on-site soil and compacted fill behavior
under load were made, based on consolidation tests that were performed in general
accordance with ASTM D 2435-96 procedures. The consolidation apparatus is designed
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 5
to receive a 1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Porous stones are placed in
contact with the top and bottom of each specimen to permit addition and release of pore
water and pore pressure. Loads normal to the face of the specimen are applied in several
increments in a geometric progression under both field moisture and submerged
conditions. The resulting changes in sample thickness are recorded at selected time
intervals. Water was added to the test apparatus at various loads to create a submerged
condition and to measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the sample. The
resulting change in sample thickness was recorded.
6.6 Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of near-
surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 procedures. The
shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a
1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were
sheared at various pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were
tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the
normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal
friction).
6.7 Expansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-surface
earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 4829-95. In this testing procedure, a
remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch diameter mold to a total
compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch by using a 5.5-pound weight dropping 12-
inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample should be compacted at a saturation
between 40 and 60 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under a pressure of
144 pounds per square foot (psf) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The resulting volume
change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded and the
Expansion Index (EI) calculated. The expansion test result is presented on the UBC
Laboratory Expansion Test Results sheet.
6.8 Plasticity Index Test: Liquid limit and plastic limit testing was performed on two samples
of the subsurface soils. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D
4318-98 procedures. The materials tested have a Plasticity Index of 11. The results are
presented in the Appendix.
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 6
7.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
7.1 Geologic Setting: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern
sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block, The Perris Block is bounded on the
northeast by the San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and
on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is
not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending southeast
from the Murrieta, California, area. The Peninsular Range is characterized by large
Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and
sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial/alluvial sediments derived from the
erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying areas. Regionally, the
project site is located in the western portion of Riverside County. The site is located on
relatively flat terrain on the southern border of the Lake Elsinore Flood Plain. Materials
underlying the site include sequences of silty to clayey low energy lacustrine deposits
capped with low energy fluvial silty sand deposits. The earth materials encountered on the
subject site are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.
7.2 Faulting: The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula Segment) is located
approximately 3,000 feet to the west of the site. The Elsinore Fault Zone is a major right
lateral strike-slip fault system, which has experienced strong earthquakes in historical
times (1856, 1894, and 1910) and exhibits late Quaternary movement.
The following seismic hazards discussion is guided by UBC (1997), CBC (1998), CDMG
(1997) and Petersen and others (1996).
Surface Fault Rupture: No known active faults exist on the subject site. A fault inferred
by Weber (1977) lies approximately 200 feet southwest of the site. However, due to its
potential magnitude 6.8 earthquake, the design fault is the Temecula Segment of the
Elsinore Fault, a Type B Fault (UBC, 1997), located approximately 3,000 feet southwest of
the subject site. This conclusion is based on literature review and EnGEN Corporation's
site mapping and subsurface investigation. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface
rupture on the subject site is considered very unlikely.
A listing of active faults within a 100 kilometer (62 miles) radius is presented in Table A in
the Appendix.
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 7
7.3 Seismicity: Although no known active faults exist within the project limits, the site will
experience ground motion and effects from earthquakes generated along active faults
located off-site.
To estimate the potential ground shaking, EnGEN Corporation has performed the
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) outlined in Petersen and others (1996) and
UBC (1997). To perform this analysis EnGEN Corporation utilized the computer
software FRISKSP, developed from United States Geologic Survey (FRISK) by Blake
(1989-2000a, b, c).
The attenuation relationships by Boore et. al. (1997) for soil type SD (stiff soil —
shear wave velocity 250 m/s) was utilized. For a complete discussion of the
software and probabilistic methods the reader is referred to Blake (1989 — 2000a,
b, c).
With one standard deviation FRISKSP computed 0.70g for soil type SD as the peak
ground accelerations from the design-basis earthquake, the horizontal acceleration that
hypothetically has a ten percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years.
In sum, these results are based on many unavoidable geological and statistical
uncertainties, but are consistent with current standard-of-practice. As engineering
seismology evolves, and as more fault-specific geological data are gathered, more
certainty and different methodologies may also evolve.
7.4 Earth Materials: A brief description of the earth materials encountered in the
exploratory excavations is presented in the following sections. A more detailed
description of the earth materials encountered is presented on the Exploratory Boring
Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. The earth material strata as shown on the
logs represent the conditions in the actual exploratory locations and other variations
may occur between the excavations. Lines of demarcation between the earth materials
on the logs represented the approximate boundary between the material types;
however, the transition may be gradual. The following is a brief description of these
units in the order of youngest to oldest.
7.4.1 Stockpile (Afl): A stockpile of rip rap lies at the northern corner of the site.
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 9
from the evaluation of the site specific liquefaction hazard based on the geological and
geotechnical conditions, in accordance with the current standards of practice is
presented in the Appendix. The potential for hazards associates with liquefaction should
be mitigated if the earthwork and foundation recommendations made in this report are
adhered to.
7.8 Seismically Induced Landsliding: Due to the favorable topography, the potential for
seismically induced landsliding is considered very low.
■ 7.9 Seismically Induced Floodina. Seiches and Tsunamis: Due to the levee on Lake
Elsinore, the possibility of seismically induced flooding or seiches is considered low. There
is no possibility for seismically induced tsunamis.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General: The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on
the results of field and laboratory data obtained from the exploratory excavations located
across the property, experience gained from work conducted by this firm on projects in
the general vicinity, and the project description and assumptions presented in the
Proposed Development/Project Description section of this report. Based on a review of
the field and laboratory data and the engineering analysis, the proposed development is
feasible from a geotechnical/geologic standpoint. The actual conditions of the near-
surface supporting material across the site may vary. The nature and extent of
variations of the surface and subsurface conditions between the exploratory excavations
may not become evident until construction. If variations of the material become evident
during construction of the proposed development, this office should be notified so that
EnGEN Corporation can evaluate the characteristics of the material and, if needed,
make revisions to the recommendations presented herein. Recommendations for
general site grading, foundations, slab support, pavement design, slope maintenance,
etc., are presented in the subsequent paragraphs.
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations
8.2.1 General: The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for: 1) the
use of a conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slabs cast on-grade; and
2) the rework of unsuitable near-surface earth materials to create an engineered building
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 10
pad and suitable support for exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement. If
pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and
the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing of the subgrade
soil will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete
or PCC pavement to locate areas which may have been damaged by construction traffic,
construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. The following
recommendations may need to be modified and/or supplemented during rough grading as
field conditions require.
8.2.2 Clearing: All debris, roots, grasses, weeds, brush and other deleterious materials should
be removed from the proposed structure, exterior hardscape and pavement areas and
areas to receive structural fill before grading is performed. No disking or mixing of organic
material into the soils should be performed. Man-made objects encountered should be
overexcavated and exported from the site. Wells (if encountered) should be abandoned in
accordance with County/City regulations.
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the subject property is
anticipated to be relatively easy in the near-surface earth materials.
8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill: In general, the on-site earth materials present
are considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be free of significant amounts
of organic materials and/or debris and should not contain rocks or clumps greater than 6-
inches in maximum dimension.
8.2.5 Removal and Recompaction: As mentioned above, precise grading and building plans
were not available at the time of this report. When these plans become available, they
should be reviewed by this office in order to make additional recommendations, if
necessary. Any undocumented fills, oversized rock, incompetent alluvium, and/or
unsuitable, loose, or disturbed near-surface soil in areas which will support structural fills,
1
structures, exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.), and pavement should be removed.
The following recommendations are based on field and laboratory results:
1. Any undocumented fills should be removed and may be reused as engineered fill.
2. In the areas of the proposed structures, alluvium should be removed to a depth of five
(5) feet below existing grades. In cut areas removals should extend 5-feet below
proposed grade. Removals should be performed to a minimum horizontal distance of
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 11
five (5) feet outside the footprint. The removals are to mitigate for hydroconsolidation
and liquefaction potential.
3. All hardscape areas should be removed to a depth of two (2) feet below proposed
grades in cut areas and two (2) feet below existing grades in fill areas.
4. All exposed removal bottoms should be inspected by the Soil Engineer's
representative prior to placement of any fill. An approved bottom should test to a
minimum of 85 percent relative compaction.
5. The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction before placement of fill. Maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined according to
ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should
be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before
placement. All fill should be free of vegetation, organic material, debris, and oversize
material. Import fill should be no more expansive than the existing on-site material.
Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10-inches in
compacted thickness and watered or aerated to obtain near optimum moisture content
(±2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly
mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should meet a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for
compacted materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00
procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent from
optimum, unless approved the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
8.2.7 Compaction Equipment:ient: It is anticipated that the compaction equipment to be used for
the project will include a combination of rubber-tired and sheepsfoot rollers to achieve
proper compaction. Compaction by rubber-tired or track-mounted equipment, by itself,
may not be sufficient. Adequate water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable equipment
should be available to provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The actual selection of
equipment is the responsibility of the contractor performing the work and should be such
that uniform and proper compaction of the fill is achieved.
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 12
8.2.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence: There will be a material loss due to the clearing and
grubbing operations. Shrinkage of any existing undocumented fill and alluvium that is
excavated and replaced as compacted fill should be anticipated. It is estimated that the
average shrinkage of these soils will be on the order of 10 to 15 percent, based on fill
volumes when compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. A higher
relative compaction would mean a larger shrinkage value. Subsidence is expected to be
less than 0.1-foot.
8.2.9 Fill Slopes: Finish fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Fill slope surfaces should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction
based on a maximum dry density for the soil as determined by ASTM D 1557-00
procedures to the face of the finished slope. Fill slopes should be constructed in a skillful
manner so that they are positioned at the design orientations and slope ratio. Achieving a
uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling should be avoided. Any add-on
correction to a fill slope should be conducted under the observation and recommendations
of the Project Geotechnical Engineer. The proposed add-on correction procedures should
be submitted in writing by the contractor prior to commencement of corrective grading and
reviewed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Compacted fill slopes should be
backrolled with suitable equipment for the type of soil being used during fill placement at
intervals not exceeding 4.0-feet in vertical height. As an alternative to the backrolling of
the fill slopes, over-filling of the slopes will be considered acceptable and preferred. The
fill slope should be constructed by over-filling with compacted fill a minimum of 3.0-feet
horizontally, and then trimmed back to expose the dense inner core of the slope surface.
8.2.10 Slope Stability — General:
Fill Slopes: It is our opinion that properly constructed fill slopes below 30-feet in vertical
height, as planned, will possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally
accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are suitable for
their intended purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures are
maintained. These procedures include but are not limited to installation and maintenance
of drainage devices and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in accordance with
County of Riverside Grading Codes.
EnGEN Corporation
A
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 13
Cut Slopes: It is our opinion that properly construction cut slopes at inclinations of 2:1
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter will possess gross and surficial stability in excess of
generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are
suitable for their intended purpose.
8.2.11 Subdrains: Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, final
recommendations should be made during grading by the Project Geologist.
8.2.12 Observation and Testing: During grading, observation and testing should be conducted
by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative to verify that the grading is being
performed according to the recommendations presented in this report. The Project
Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative should observe the scarification and the
placement of fill and should take tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity
and degree of compaction obtained. Where testing demonstrates insufficient density,
f additional compaction effort, with the adjustment of the moisture content where necessary,
l should be applied until retesting shows that satisfactory relative compaction has been
I obtained. The results of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal
Finish Grading Report following completion of the grading operations. Grading operations
undertaken at the site without the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative present
may result in exclusions of the affected areas from the finish grading report for the project.
The presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative will be for the
IIld purpose of providing observations and field testing and will not include any supervision or
directing of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's employees or agents.
Neither the presence and/or the non-presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his
field representative nor the field observations and testing shall excuse the contractor in
any way for defects discovered in the contractor's work.
8.2.13 Soil Expansion Potential: Upon completion of fine grading of the building pad, near-
surface samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to identify the
expansion potential for each pad and assign appropriate foundation and slab-on-grade
I� recommendations for construction. The results of recent testing indicate a low
expansion potential (EI=30). However, expansion potential may change at the
completion of grading. Clayey soils, which may have a high expansion potential, were
encountered below 10-feet.
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 14
8.3 Foundation Design Recommendations
8.3.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column
footings and continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential for
the supporting soils and are not intended to preclude more restrictive structural
requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing
width and depth to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces. An Expansion Index
sample should be collected near the completion of grading in order to verify the following
foundation recommendation, which may be altered by a change in soil type exposed at or
near finished grade.
8.3.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No. 4
steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasonal
moisture change in the supporting soils. In the case of concrete tilt-up or masonry
structures when the wall and footing combine to form a deep beam system, the Structural
Engineer may alter the reinforcing as necessary. Final foundation size and reinforcing
should be determined based on the expansive potential of the supporting soils. Column
footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably
reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths
and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided across doorways,
garage or any other types of perimeter openings.
8.3.3 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill
should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for
single story structures and two story structures. Deeper footings may be necessary for
expansive soils purposes, depending on the final determination.
8.3.4 Bearing Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column
EnGEN Corporation
r
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Api it 2003
r Page 15
footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for continuous
footings and 2,000 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill. The allowable
Ibearing value has a factor of safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent
for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces. Once
grading is completed, the nature of the imported soils can be tested to determine if
increases in the allowable bearing value is justified.
8.3.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for
continuous and column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and
column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a
r
differential settlement of 0.25-inch between adjacent column loads under static load
conditions in properly compacted fill.
f settlement due to possible liquefaction h An evaluation o se p q as been made based on SPT
values, fines content and potential earthquake magnitude. Assuming that the earthwork
recommendations of Section 8.2.5 are performed, the results indicate a possibility of
potential seismically induced settlement on the order of 1.8-inches due to an earthquake
event of magnitude 6.8 on the Elsinore Fault. As a result, potential differential settlement
on the order of 0.9-inch may be experienced across the building length, which is well
within the normally accepted limits of 2-inches in 40-feet. The probability of such an
occurrence is considered remote, and it is our opinion that no special design is necessary
at this site for liquefaction purposes.
8.3.6 Seismic Design Parameters: The following factors apply:
Fault Type: Type B Fault
Closes Distance to Known Fault: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
8.3.7 Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters for resistance to static lateral
forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 250 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
li Compacted Fill - 0.35
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number: T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 16
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base
of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with properly compacted fill. The
above values are allowable design values and may be used in combination without
reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be
increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind
or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of
material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The
maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended
design value.
8.3.8 Soluble Sulfate Content: Negligible amounts of soluble sulfates were detected in the
representative sample used for chemical analysis (0.0032% by weight). As a result,
normal Type II cement can be used for all concrete in contact with native soils at the site.
8.4 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the expansion potential for
the supporting material. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a
result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in
accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions
should be taken during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high
water/ cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either
• hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in
the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be
performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures.
8.4.1 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches
actual in thickness and be underlain by 1.0 to 2.0-inches of clean coarse sand or other
approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade per the Earthwork
Recommendations Section of this report. Slabs subjected to crane loads for tilt-up
purposes should be a minimum of 5-inches in thickness. Minimum slab reinforcement
i should consist of No. 3 bars at 24-inches on center each way, or a suitable equivalent, as
determined by the Project Structural Engineer. Varying degrees of expansive potential
require additional slab reinforcing and thickness. Final lot identification and slab
construction requirements will be presented in the compaction report upon completion of
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 17
grading. It is essential that the reinforcing be placed at mid-depth in the slab. The
concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased appropriately for anticipated
excessive or concentrated floor loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings
are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with
a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should
be overlapped or sealed at splices and protected top and bottom by a 1.0-inch to 2.0-inch
minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to
minimize potential punctures.
8.4.2 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4.0-inches nominal in
thickness and should be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been
prepared in accordance with the Earthwork Recommendation section of this report.
Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the
slabs should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils should be
moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 12.0-inches and
proof compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D
1557-00 procedures immediately before placing the concrete.
8.5 Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, exterior hardscape, and/or pavement areas
. should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. All utility trenches within the building
pad and extending to a distance of 5.0-feet beyond the building exterior footings should be
backfilled with on-site or similar soil. Where interior or exterior utility trenches are
proposed to pass beneath or parallel to building, retaining wall, and/or decorative concrete
block perimeter wall footings, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1:1
plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the
utility lines are designed for the footing surcharge loads. It is recommended that all utility
trenches excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back according to the
r Temporary Construction Observations section of this report or be properly shored during
r. construction. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate for the type
of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill material should be
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means. Jetting
or flooding of the backfill material will not be considered a satisfactory method for
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2008
Page 18
compaction unless the procedures are reviewed and approved in writing by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill
material should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
8.6 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations: Positive drainage should be established away
from the tops of slopes, the exterior walls of structures, the back of retaining walls, and the
decorative concrete block perimeter walls. Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to guide surface water away from
foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should
be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be
allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a
nonerosive manner should be provided. Landscape trees and plants with high water
needs should be planted at least 5.0-feet away from the walls of the structures.
Downspouts from roof drains should discharge to a surface which slopes away from the
structure a minimum of 5.0-feet from the exterior building walls. In no case should
downspouts from roof drains discharge into planter areas immediately adjacent to the
building unless there is positive drainage away from the structure at a minimum gradient of
2.0 percent, directed onto a permanent all-weather surface or subdrain system.
8.7 Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the buildings.
8.8 Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations: Temporary construction
excavations for rough grading, foundations, retaining walls, utility trenches, etc., more than
5.0-feet in depth and to a maximum depth of 15-feet should be properly shored or cut back
to the following inclinations:
Earth Material Inclination
Alluvium or Compacted Fill 1.5:1
No surcharge loads (spoil piles, earthmoving equipment, trucks, etc.) should be allowed
within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope equal to the
depth of the excavation. Excavations should be initially observed by the project
Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist and/or their representative to verify the
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 19
recommendations presented or to make additional recommendations to maintain stability
and safety. Moisture variations, differences in the cohesive or cementation characteristics,
or changes in the coarseness of the deposits may require slope flattening or, conversely,
permit steepening upon review by the project Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, or their
representative. Deep utility trenches may experience caving which will require special
considerations to stabilize the walls and expedite trenching operations. Surface drainage
should be controlled along the top of the slope to preclude erosion of the slope face. If
excavations are to be left open for long periods, the slopes should be sprayed with a
protective compound and/or covered to minimize drying out, raveling, and/or erosion of the
slopes. For excavations more than 5.0-feet in depth which will not be cut back to the
recommended slope inclination, the contractor should submit to the owner and/or the
owner's designated representative detailed drawings showing the design of shoring,
bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection. If the drawings do
not vary from the requirements of the OSHA Construction Safety Orders (CAL OSHA or
FED OSHA, whichever is, applicable for the project at the time of construction), a
statement signed by a registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State of California,
engaged by the contractor at his expense, should be submitted certifying that the
contractor's excavation safety drawings comply with OSHA Construction Orders. If the
drawings vary from the applicable OSHA Construction Safety Orders, the drawings should
be prepared, signed, and sealed by a Registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State
of California. The contractor should not proceed with any excavations until the project
owner or his designated representative has received and acknowledged the properly
prepared excavation safety drawings.
8.9 Retaining Wall Recommendations:
8.9.1 Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone
extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to
I
vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition Level Backfill 2:1 Slope
` Active 30 pcf 45 pcf
At Rest 58 pcf
--
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 20
Walls that are free to deflect 0.01 radian at the top may be designed for the above-
recommended active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be
assumed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition. The above values assume well
drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live,
acting on the backfill within a horizontal distance behind the wall should also be considered
in the design.
8.9.2 Foundation Design: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into
properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard
foundations and may be designed for the same average allowable bearing value across
the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the
_ footing),and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable sliding
resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral pressure and
allowable sliding resistance, a Factor of Safety of 1.0 may be used. If ultimate values are
used for design, an approximate Factor of Safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
8.9.3 Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all
retaining walls to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic
pressures. Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery,
perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved system. Gravel galleries
and/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on-site and/or import
materials, should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a
suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The
perforated pipes should be at least 4.0 inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be
placed downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal
foot of pipe. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain
in a non-erosive manner. In the case of subdrains for basement walls, they need to empty
into a sump provided with a submersible pump activated by a change in the water level.
8.9.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3-feet) may
consist of 0.5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand
(Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if water
jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
1J
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 21
compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods
will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at feast 90 percent
of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted
by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is
designed for the surcharge loading.
If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used behind retaining walls, the upper 18-
inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of typical on-site material compacted to
a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface
runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for backfill materials should be determined in accordance with
ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
8.9.5 On-Site Pavement Design Recommendations: Preliminary on-site pavement
recommendations are presented based on R-Value testing of soils obtained from the site
and an assumed future traffic loading expressed in terms of a Traffic Index (TI).
Pavement sections have been determined in general accordance with CALTRANS design
procedures based on a (TI) of 5.0 for automobile areas, a (TI) of 6.0 for truck traffic areas,
and an R-Value of 10.
IType of Traffic Traffic Minimum Calculated Section
Index
I3-inches Asphalt Concrete over 9-inches Crushed Automobile 5.0 Aggregate Base. Aggregate Base to be placed on
properly prepared subgrade.
OR
An equivalent of a minimum of 7-inches Portland
Cement Concrete with a compressive strength of
4,000 psi at 28 days over 95 percent subgrade
3-inches Asphalt Concrete over 12.5-inches Crushed
Truck 6.0 Aggregate Base. Aggregate Base to be placed on
1 a properly prepared subgrade.
OR
An equivalent of a minimum of 8-inches Portland
a Cement Concrete with a compressive strength of
4,000 psi at 28 days over 95 percent subgrade
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 22
The project designer should choose the appropriate pavement section for the anticipated
traffic pattern and delineate the respective areas on the site plan. Since actual
calculations may, at times, conflict with City of Lake Elsinore adopted standards, the AC
pavement sections and the Portland Cement pavement section, are subject to review and
approval by the City of Lake Elsinore. Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as
specified in Section 39 of the current Green Book Standard Specifications or a suitable
equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to Class 2 material as specified in Section 26-
. 1.02B of the current Green Book Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. The
subgrade soil, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction. The aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for
subgrade and aggregate base materials should be determined according to ASTM D
1557-00 procedures. In dumpster pick-up areas, and in areas where semi-trailers are to
be parked on the pavement such that a considerable load is transferred from small
wheels, it is recommended that rigid Portland Cement concrete pavement with a minimum
thickness of 8.0-inches be provided in these areas. This will provide for the proper
distribution of loads to the subgrade without causing deformation of the pavement surface.
Special consideration should also be given to areas where truck traffic will negotiate small
radius turns. Asphaltic concrete pavement in these areas should utilize stiffer emulsions
or the areas should be paved with Portland Cement concrete. In areas where Portland
Cement concrete is to be placed directly on subgrade, the subgrade should be compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared
iat the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately,
additional observations and testing will have to be performed before placing aggregate
ibase material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC pavement to locate areas that may have been
damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and
drying. In the proposed pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at the time the
subgrade is graded for R-Value testing according to California Test Method 301
procedures to verify the pavement design recommendations.
9.0 PLAN REVIEW
iSubsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project, but before
bids for construction are requested, grading plans for the proposed development should
1 �
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 23
be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility with site geotechnical
conditions and conformance with the recommendations contained in this report. If
EnGEN Corporation is not accorded the opportunity to make the recommended review,
we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the recommendations presented
in this report.
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE
It may be desirable to hold a pre-bid conference with the owner or an authorized
representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical
Engineer, and the proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in
the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the grading and construction
requirements of the project.
11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE
Before the start of grading, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized
representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the
Project Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify
questions relating to the intent of the grading recommendations and to verify that the
project specifications comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering
report. Any special grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can
also be discussed at that time.
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and
testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to,
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and
fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations.
Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel
to verify and/or modify the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations
of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill,
pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other
earthwork completed for the subject development should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not
performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the development is
EnGEN Corporation
i
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 24
limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN
Corporation. If parties other than EnGEN Corporation are engaged to perform soils and
materials observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be required to
assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by concurring
with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations.
Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field representative, nor the
field observations and testing, shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects
discovered in the contractor's work. The Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative
shall not be responsible for job or project safety. Job or project safety shall be the sole
responsibility of the contractor.
13.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document. It may or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes.
In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed
development as described in this report are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified
in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable standards
of our profession and the accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices at
the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the
representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made to obtain
information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site, limitations
exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site conditions
which may have an impact at the site. The recommendations presented in this report are
valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can
occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works
of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or information
becomes available during the design and construction process which are not reflected in
this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can
be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be
modified or verified in writing. This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any
person or company using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
April 2003
Page 25
such independent studies and explorations as he deems necessary to satisfy himself as to
the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used
in the performance of the work on this project. Changes in applicable or appropriate
standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside the
control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. If we can be of further service or you
should have questions regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
ce,
Colby Matth ws Os jo Brate e, 162
Staff G olo Pre dent
Expires,fl9-34 .,
N etc
�
Q. '
izi w i{
Ra n EP09?599 No. 162
d ifI d Penng olo is �f
G �• f E � 04-30-05 IT � /
Distribution: 4)- ressee
FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\T2784-GFS Alesco Development,Geotechnical Feasibility Study
J
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
■
l
r
i
a
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
ProjPrt NurnhPr T2784-(IFS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1 Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship Between Seismicity and Geologic Structure in
the Southern California Region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55,
No. 4, pg. 753-797.
2. Anderson, J.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Agnew, D.C., 1989, Past and Possible Future
Earthquakes of Significant to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2,
pp. 299-335. .
3. Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction—Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, April 1995.
4. Blake, T.F., 1998, Liquefy2, Interim Version 1.50, A Computer Program for the Empirical
Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.
5. Blake, T. F., 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.
6. Blake, T. F., 2000b, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs.
7. Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the
Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D
Faults as Earthquake Sources.
8. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A
Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 128-153.
9. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southern California,
Bulletin 170.
10. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1969, Geologic map of California, San
Bernardino Sheet, Scale 1:250,000.
11, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, California Division of Mines and Geology,
Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special
Publication 117.
12. Department of Conservation, California, Division of Mines and Geology, Geology map of
the Santa Ana 1:100,000 Quadrangle, CDMG Open File Report 91-17.
13. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1970, Regional Geologic Map of San Andreas and Related Faults in
Eastern San Gabriel Mountains and Vicinity: U.S. Geologic Society, Open-File Map, Scale
1:125,000.
14. Engel, R., 1959, Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 146.
15 Hart, E. W., 1994, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines
and Geology, Special Publication 42, 1992 revised edition, 34 p.
16 Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California
Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology.
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
17. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code,
Whittier, California: ICBO, 3 volumes.
18. Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, pg. 173-188.
19. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal springs
and thermal wells, 1:750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data
Map No. 1.
20. Jennings, C.W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and
geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197p.,
2 plates.
21. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California
Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Map Data Series, Map No. 6, Scale
1:750,000.
22. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in
southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 131, 12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
23. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California:
State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special
Report 43.
24. Morton, D.M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0.
25. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A. and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology,
Open File Report 96-706.
26. Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron mental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, April 1998.
27. Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains -
Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
28. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
y General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
29. Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps,
Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 146, Sheet 147 (Revised 11-87), Sheet 854B
(Revised 11-87), and Sheet 854A (revised 11-87), Scale 1" = 800'.
.r 30. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet,
CDMG.
31. S.C.E.D.C., 2002, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Website,
http://www.scecdc.scec.org.
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Appendix Page 4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
32. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western
United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
33. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a Series Titled
Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records.
34. Sladden, 1998, Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Parcel Map 29082, Temecula Area,
Riverside County, report dated December 15, 1998.
35. South Coast Geological Society, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse
Ranges, 1982.
36. State of California, January 1, 1980, Special Studies Zones, Elsinore Quadrangle, Revised
Official Map, Scale 1" = 2 Mi.
37 State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 1998, California Building
Code: International Conference of Building Officials and California Building Standards
Commission, 3 Volumes.
38. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
39. Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
40. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
41. Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No. 6, pg. 1447-1457, December 1999.
42. Weber, Jr., F. H., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino
Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and
Geology Open File Report 77-4.
J
Id
i
EnGEN Corporation
l
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Appendix Page 5
TABLE A
DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM
FAULT NAME DISTANCE EARTHQUAKE
Mi (Km) MAG (Mw)
Elsinore-Temecula 0.6 0.9 6.8
Elsinore-Glen Ivy 3.2 5.2 6.8
Chino-Central Avenue (Elsinore) 20.9 33.6 6.7
San Jacinto-San Jacinto Valley 21.0 33.8 6.9
San Jacinto-Anza 23.1 37.1 7.2
Elsinore-Julian 23.8 38.3 7.1
Whittier 25.1 40.4 6.8
San Jacinto-San Bernardino 26.9 43.3 6.7
Newport- Inglewood (Offshore) 27.5 44.2 6.9
San Andreas-Southern 34.8 56.0 7.4
San Andreas-San Bernardino 34.8 56.0 7.3
Rose Canyon 35.3 56.8 6.9
Newport- Inglewood (L.A. Basin) 36.3 58.4 6.9
Elysian Park Thrust 38.2 61.5 6.7
Cucamonga 39.2 63.1 7.0
San Jose 40.3 64.8 6.5
Compton Thrust 40.8 65.6 6.8
North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 42.6 68.6 7.0
Sierra Madre 42.7 68.7 7.0
Coronado Bank 43.9 70.7 7.4
Palos Verdes 44.1 70.9 7.1
Pinto Mountain 44.3 71.3 7.0
Cleghorn 44.7 71.9 6.5
San Jacinto-Coyote Creek 46.8 75.3 6.8
San Andreas - 1857 Rupture 49.0 78.9 7.8
San Andreas - Mojave 49.0 78.9 7.1
North Frontal Fault Zone (East) 49.6 79.9 6.7
J Earthquake Valley 51.4 82.7 6.5
San Andreas-Coachella 51.6 83.1 7.1
' Clamshell-Sawpit 52.8 85.0 6.5
Raymond 55.2 88.9 6.5
Helendale-S. Lockhardt 56.8 91.4 7.1
Burnt Mountain 57.2 92.0 6.4
Eureka Peak 60.0 96.5 6.4
Verdugo 60.4 97.2 6.7
EnGEN Corporation
i
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Appendix Page 6
SETTLEMENT DUE TO LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS
BORING NO. 1
Layer Depth SPT (Nj)so FS Ev % Layer OH
No. Range (ft) Depth (ft) Thickness (ft)
1 0-8 5 51 Non-liquefiable N/A 8 0
2 8-13 10 22 0.5 2.0 5 1.2-inches
3 13-23 15 32 Non-liquefiable N/A 10 0
4 23-33 30 57 Non-liquefiable N/A 10 0
5 33-38 35 39 Non-liquefiable N/A 5 0
6 38-43 40 30 Non-liquefiable N/A 15 0
7 43-48 45 54 Non-liquefiable N/A 5 0
8 48-51.5 50 27 0.6 1.5 3.5 0.63-inch
AH = 1.83-inches
*Water set at 5-feet.
1 �
l
l �
i �
l '
i
EnGEN Corporation
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Appendix Page 7
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
(B-1 through B-2)
EnGEN Corporation
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T2784-GFS Project: Alesco Development Company, LLC
Boring Number: B-1 Surface Elevation:
Date: 4-9-03 Logged By: C.M.
c v In-Situ Optimum
Soil a Sample USCS Blow Count Dry Moisture Maximum Moisture
16 Descri tion E
> Graphic p in Depth Density Content Density Content
w
ALLUVIUM 0
Silty fine-to medium-grained sand,strong brown
(7.5 yR 5/6)moist, medium dense. -
SM 7-12-18 5.0 10.8
T Silty fine-to medium-grained sand,yellowish 5 SM 13-13-12 11.8
brown(10yR 5/6)moist, medium dense.
Light yellowish brown(10yR 6/4) SM 6-11-15 10.4
Sandy silt, light yellowish brown(2.5y 6/3)moist, 10 ML 2-5-6 23.1
stiff.
Clayey silt,olive(5y 4/3)moist,very stiff. 15 ML 5-7-11 21.4
20 ML 4-6-19 17.5
Clayey silt, olive(5y 4/3)interbedded with fine- 25 SP-ML 10-14-10 22.1
grained sand, moist, medium dense.
lJ
Fine-grained sand interbedded with clayey fine- 30 SP-SC 10-20-19 13.1
� r:r:� • grained sand, olive gray(5y 5/2)moist,dense.
�•y-�
Sandy silt, light olive brown(2.5y 5/3)moist, 35 ML 4-12-15 16.1
very stiff.
I
+ Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T2784-GFS Project: Alesco Development Company, LLC
Boring Number: B-1 Surface Elevation:
Date: 4-9-03 Logged By: C.M.
c In-Situ Optimum
Soil Description E Sample USCS Blow Count Dry Moisture Maximum Moisture
'w Graphic E Depth Density Density
w v, Content Content
Sandy silt, yellowish brown(10yR 5/4)moist,very 40 ML 5-9-12 14.4
' stiff.
Silty fine-grained sand, brownish yellow 45 SM 16-22-24 9.1
(10yR 6/6)moist, very dense.
Silty fine-grained sand to sandy silt, light brownish 50 SM-ML 5-9-12 17.1
gray(10yR 6/2)moist, medium dense.
Total Depth 51.5 feet.
No groundwater.
J5
60
I
65
.. 70
Notes:
I� EnGEN Corporation
1_T1
it
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T2784-GFS Project: Alesco Development Company, LLC
Boring Number: B-2 Surface Elevation:
Date: 4-9-03 Logged By: C.M.
0
Soil n Sample In-Situ Optimum
> Graphic Description S p USCS Blow Count Dry Maximum p
Depth Moisture Moisture
w p Density Content Density Content
ALLUVIUM 0
Silty fine-grained sand,strong brown(7.5yR
5/6)moist, very dense.
SM 9-21-46 120.7 10.2 126.5 10.8
Silty medium-grained sand, yellowish brown(10yR 5 SM 29-50+6 129.3 5.5
5/6)moist, very dense, slightly porous
Light yellowish brown(10yR 6/4). SM 14-37-43 121.2 8.5
Sand
y silt,grayish brown (2.5y 5/2)moist, hard, 10 ML 6-15-23 110.9 17.8
slightly porous.
Clayey silt, olive(5y 5/3)moist, stiff. 15 ML 7-9-17 98.8 26.5
20 ML 5-7-20 105.1 23.5
I
r
PERCHED GROUNDWATER at 24 feet. `1
t ;1:1: Silty fine-grained sand interbedded with fine- 25 SP-SM 10-18-29 121.4 14.7
grained sand, light brownish gray(2.5y 6/2)
wet, very dense
H i.laa:
I h�;l:l•
«l Fine-grained sand,gray(5y 5/1)moist, very 30 SP 9-31-50+5 110.0 19.4
dense.
i
I
Sandy silt, olive gray(5y 5/2)moist, hard. 35 ML 8-12-20 113.7 17.6
� I
Notes:
1 EnGEN Corporation
I
I ,
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Project Number: T2784-GFS Project: Alesco Development Company, LLC
Boring Number: B-2 Surface Elevation:
Date: 4-9-03 Logged By: C.M.
c In-Situ Optimum
g Soil p Maximum
io Description a Sample USCS Blow Count Dry Moisture Moisture
> Graphic Depth Density Content Density Content
w
Silty fine sand, strong brown 40 SM 12-26-50 123.2 14 1
(7.5yR 5/6)moist,very dense.
Silty fine-grained sand, yellowish brown 45 SM 7-18-27 112.8 17.3
(10yR 5/4)moist,dense.
Silty fine-grained sand to sandy silt, light brownish 50 SM ML 9-20-29 122.E 12.9
gray(2.5y 5/2)moist,dense.
Total Depth 51.5 feet.
Groundwater perched at 24 feet.
55
60
65
I
70
I
Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Symbol Description
Strata svmbols
0 Silty sand
�l ® Silt
Poorly graded silty
fine sand
Poorly graded sand
0�?
with clay
Poorly graded sand
? with silt
Poorly graded sand
Misc. Symbols
Bottom of boring
Boring continues
Water table during
drilling
Soil Samplers
Standard penetration test
California sampler
Notes :
II 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on 4-9-03 using an 8-inch diameter
continuous flight power auger.
2 . Water was encountered at the time of drilling at the depths shown.
3. Boring locations were measured from existing features and
elevations extrapolated from the design plan.
4 . These logs are subject to the limitations , conclusions , and
recommendations in this report.
� 5 . Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported
I L on the logs . - - ---- - -- —j�
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Appendix Page 8
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
J
EnGEN Corporation
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
130
128
I
t I
I
C
i
126
U _
a /
a
I
a�
� I
o � i
124
122
I I
i
- ' ZAV for
I Sp.G. _
120 I ! 2.68
i� 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
Elev/ Classification Nat. S G. LL PI
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. p No.4 No.200
SM 8.7
1� TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 126.5 pcf SILTY SAND,BROWN
.,� Optimum moisture = 10.8 %
Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SAMPLE B2 @ 0-5
COLL BY CM
• Location: CORYDON ST. COLL ON 4 9 03
MOISTURE- DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
I — -
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 5/7/03
Job Number: T2784-GFS
Job Name: ELSINORE AIRPORT IND. DEVEL.
Location: CLINTON KEITH ROAD
Sample Source: B2 @ 0-5
Sampled by: CM (4-9-03)
ILab Technician: DB
r Sample Descr: SILTY SAND,BROWN
■
f Wet Compacted Wt.: 613.9
Ring Wt.: 199.3 Dial Change Time
Net Wet Wt.: 414.6 Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 11:00
Wet Density: 125.2 Reading 2: 0.109 0.009 11:15
Wet Soil: 223.9 Reading 3: 0.117 0.017 11:30
I Dry Soil: 204.7 Reading 4: 0.128 0.028 11-Apr
Initial Moisture(%): 9.4%
f Initial Dry Density: 114.5
% Saturation: 53.7%
Final Wt. & Ring Wt.: 647.2
Net Final Wt.: 447.9
Dry Wt.: 379.0
Loss: 68.9 Expansion Index: 28
Net Dry Wt.: 375.7
i Final Density: 113.5 Adjusted Index: 30.1
Saturated Moisture: 18.3% (ASTM D 4832-95)
i�
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
i
3000
RESULTS
T
0 r-r
C, psf 297 ........... .......
pr
de 31 6 v-4-
.
L 14-1-
TAN 0.62 ..........
2000
t
F I Fi.r rt
-1144-
co
4. t ---&
Ld i. 144 1
Of
.4 .4i z
V) 1j 1
A
4.-
Ld Ll i I ; ! I I : I;
1000
L
E
7-
_j
H
<
1.1-. ....If
-'r-T-1 11"TT't-
4-1
4-1 i t i -f
................ . , a 1 : - - ..
...........
+
Ild-
0 1 ! ,
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Normal Stress , psf
3000
SAMPLE NO. : 1 2 3
CONTENT, % 11 .8 11 .8 11 .8
WATER
<-J DRY DENSITY, pcf 113 .7 113.7 113.7
_4+44- L SATURATION , % 67.2 67.2 67 .2
H
2000 z VOID RATIO 0.471 0.471 0.471
_44-4 H
DIAMETER, in 2 ,42 2.42 2.42
r---T-F
HEIGHT, in 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00
1500 WATER CONTENT, % 0.0 0.0 0 .
41
V)
DRY DENSITY pcf 113.7 113.7 113.7
U)
as 1000 Ld SATURATION, % 0.0 0.0 0.0
_c ......
VOID RATIO 0.471 0.471 0.471
<
DIAMETER, in 2.42 2.42 2.42
-+tf f-+4-
500 - - - - 1HEIGHT, in 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00
NORMAL STRESS, psf 1000 2000 3000
0 +fjrf--
FAILURE STRESS, psf 890 1575 2123
0 0. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 DISPLACEMENT, in 0. 15 0. 17 0. 15
Horiz . Displ . , in ULTIMATE STRESS, psf
DISPLACEMENT, in
Strain rate, in/min 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
SAMPLE TYPE: CLIENT: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND,BROWN
PROJECT: ELSINORE AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.68 SAMPLE LOCATION: CORYDON STREET
REMARKS: SAMPLE B2 @ 0-5
COLL BY CM PROD . NO. : T2784-GFS DATE: 4-11-03
COLL ON 4-9-03 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
Fig . No . : - EnGEN Corporation
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
100
80 _... ..... .....
1 60 ............... . .
a�
o ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ............... . .....
40 .... . . ..... ..... ................ ................... ...
..... ........ ..... ..... . ......
20 ..... ..... .....
0
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
Exudation Pressure - psi
Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301
Compact . Density Moist R
Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud . R
.
No. Pressure pcf % Value Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value
psi psi @ 160 psi in . psi Corr .
1 250 131 .6 9.9 9.70 101 2.46 622 32 32
2 175 129 . 1 1 10.8 2.73 142 2 .49 1 314 11 11
3 125 125.8 1 12.0 0.91 157 2.47 205 1 1
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
R-Value @ 300 psi exudation pressure 10 SILTY SAND,BROWN
Project No. : T2784-GFS Tested by: JH
Project : ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Checked by: RW
Location : CORYDON STREET Remarks :
SAMPLE B1 @ 0-5
LAKE ELSINORE COLL BY CM
Date: 4-11-03 COLL ON 4-9-03
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
Environmental and Geotechnical
Engineering Network Corporation Fig . No .
d NELAP#02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside,CA 92507-0704
P.O.Box 432 Hlverslde,CA 92502-0432
PH(909)653-3351 FAX(909)653-1662
E.S BABCOCK e-mail:esbsales@aol.com
&SONS,INC. www.babcocklabs.com
Eslabllshed 1W6
Client Name: Engen, Inc. Analytical Report: Page 2 of 3
Contact: Engen, Inc. Project Name: Sulfate
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N. Project Number: Purchase Order#1708
Temecula, CA 92590-5614 Work Order Number: A3D0555
Report Date: 17-Apr-2003
. Laboratory Reference Number
A3D0555-01
Sample Description Matrix Sampled Date/Time Received Date/Time
B1 @ 0-5 T2784-GFS Alesco Devel. Soil 04/10/03 00:00 04/11/03 8:15
Analyte(s) Result *RDL Units Method Analysis Date Analyst Flag
Water Extract
Sulfate 32 10 ppm Ion Chromat. 04/15/03 18:05 KOS N-SAG
*Reportable Detection Limit
A C C p R D9y
O O�
Q �
U
U �
Q =
0
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
1
WATER ADDED
2
3
4
,c
5
N
U
N
a
9
[ 10 .t 2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure- ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc C C Swell Press. Swell e Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ksf) (ksf) c r (ksf) % °
72.8% 10.2% 120.7 2.65 3.68 0.08 0.371
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
i� Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SAMPLE B2 @ 2.5
COLL BY CM
Location: CORYDON STREET
COLL ON 4-9-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
r
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
1
WATER ADDED
z
3
4 I
1 c 5
1 U
i
N
a
I s
I
e
l� s
i
r
10 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure-ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc C C Swell Press. Swell
Sat. Moist. (Pcfl Gr. (ksf) (ksf) c r (ksf) % eo
52.4% 5.5 % 129.2 2.65 3.33 0.09 0.281
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
SILTY COARSE SAND,LIGHT BROWN SM
Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SAMPLE B2 @ 5
COLL BY CM
Location: CORYDON STREET COLL ON 4-9-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
2 WATER ADDED
c
3
4
� I I
07
� 5
N
U
N
a
s I
a
I
l
9
f 10 1 2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure-ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell
Sat. Moist. (pcfl Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (kso % eo
61.4% 8.5% 1 121.2 1 2.65 1.69 0.09 0.365
1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
y-
SILTY SAND,BROWN SM
Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SAMPLE B2 @ 7.5
COLL BY CM
Location: CORYDON STREET COLL ON 4-9-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
o I
2
WATER ADDED
3
• 4
U)
c 5
N
U
N
d
6 f
I
7
8
I
9
i ,o
1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure-ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Swell e
Sat. Moist. (pcf Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf)
95.8% 17.8% 1 110.9 2.65 6.25 0.13 0.492
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
a SANDY SILT,BROWN ML
1 Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SAMPLE B2 @ 10
COLL BY CM
Location: CORYDON STREET
COLL ON 4-9-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
—1
0
c
1 i
z
WATER ADDED
3
12
� 4
N
U
a
5
i
i
i
I
6
7
I
8
i
9 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
11 Applied Pressure - ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc C c Crwell Press. Swell e
Sat. Moist. (pcf Gr. (ksf) (ksf) r (ksf) . °
104.1 % 26.5 %J 98.8 2.65 5.75 0.19 0.674
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
CLAYEY SILT,OLIVE BROWN ML
Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SAMPLE B2 @ 15
COLL BY CM
Location: CORYDON STREET
COLL ON 4-9 03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
0
2 LL
WATER ADDED
3
4
07
C 5
U
N
d I
6
7
8
. 9
10 1 2 5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure- ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press, Swell
Sat. Moist. (pc� Gr. (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) % eo
108.6% 23.5 % 105.1 2.65 4.55 0.13 0.574
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
CLAYEY SILT,OLIVE BROWN ML
Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
J SAMPLE B2 @ 20 '
COLL BY CM
Location: CORYDON STREET COLL ON 4-9-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
o
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ftNK
WATER ADDED
2
3
10
,c
U)
5
N
U
N
d
6
7
8 I
r 9
10
1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure- ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc I ---- c IC Swell Press. Swell e
Sat. Moist. (Pc� Gr. (ksf) (ksf) c r (ksf) % °
107.5 % 14.7% 121.4 2.65 6.62 0.04 0.362
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
COARSE SAND,BROWN SP
Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SAMPLE B2 @ 25
COLL BY CM
Location: CORYDON STREET COLL ON 4-9-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
■
u
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
WATER ADDED
'i 2
I
r 3
1
• 4
I
c
V 5 1
N
a
s
j 7
i
� 9 �
I
10 1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20
Applied Pressure- ksf
Natural Dry Dens. LL PI Sp. Overburden Pc C C Swell Press. Swell
Sat. Moist. (PCD Gr. (ksf) (ksf) c r (ksf) % eo
102.5 % 17.6% 113.7 2.65 4.31 0.08 0.455
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
CLAYEY SILT,OLIVE BROWN ML
l Project No. T2784-GFS Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT Remarks:
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SAMPLE B2 @ 35
COLL BY CM
Location: CORYDON STREET COLL ON 4-9-03
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
I ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Plate
Particle Size Distribution Report
� qq
100 1 i
I I II I I 1 1 I I II I 1 1 1 1 I
I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I
I I 1 I I I 1 I I
90 —
I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I
80 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1
1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I
1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1
70 - _ 1 1
I
I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I
I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I
N I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I
W 60
lJ 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I -
Z 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I
W I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I
I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I
Z 50 -
1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I
tjJ
Of
I -
N I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1
W 40CL
I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1
I I I I 1 1 I I I I I
30
Tfl
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I
20 _
1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1
I 1 1 I I I I 1
10 1 !
I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 i
I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I
0 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I
I 500 100 10 1 0.1 I 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm
%COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES
CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM LT
_ FINE SI CLAY
I 12.1 25.7 22.1 37.5
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) SILTY SAND,BROWN
#4 97.4
#8 88.5
#16 74.3
1130 64.2 A_ tterberg Limits
#50 54.7 PL= LL= Pl=
#100 44.6
#200 37.5 Coefficients
D85= 1.97 D60= 0.437 D50= 0.220
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= Cc=
Classification
USCS= SM AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE B 1 @ 5
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 4-9-03
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B1 @ 5 Source of Sample: SIEVE Date: 4-11-03
Location: CORYDON STREET Elev./Depth:
! ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Project No: T2784-GFS Plate
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1
90
I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1
I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1
80
I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1
1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1
70
N I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1
W 60 ;
zLL
1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1
1 I I I I I 1
Z1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I
Z 50
W I I I I I 1 1
N I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1
W 40 1
LL I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1
1 30 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1
1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1
20
-
I
1
10
I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1
1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I i I I i
0 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm
%COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES
CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.3 7.7 83.7
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) CLAYEY SAND,BROWN
#4 100.0
#8 99.9
#16 98.3
#50 88.1
# Atterberg Limits
#1000 85.4. PL= LL= Pl=
#200 83.7 Coefficients
D85= 0.131 D60= D50=
Cu0= C15= D10=
c—
Classification
USCS= SC AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE B 1 @ 10
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 4-9-03
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: 131 @ 10 Source of Sample: SIEVE Date: 4-11-03
Location: CORYDON STREET Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Project No: T2784-GFS Plate
Particle Size Distribution Report
m N N N m O N O OV O .C-
rl
100 �^
I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I
I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I
I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I
90
1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I
I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1
I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1
80
I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1
1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I
70
)
I I I I I I I I -
1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I
I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1
W 60
Z
I.i
Z 0 5
W
U 1 I I I I 1 1 I I
W 40
C
L.L
1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I
I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I
r 1
30
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1
I I I 1 1 1 r
20 I
-
I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1
10
1 i I
800 100 10 i 0.1
GRAIN SIZE- mm o.01 0.001
%COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND % FINES
CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I00.0 j
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description
SIZE FINER PERCENT I (X=NO) CLAYEY SILT,OLIVE BROWN
#4 100.0
#8 100.0
#16 100.0
#30 100.0 A_tterberq Limits
#50 100.0 PL= =
#100 100.0 LL Pl=
#200 100.0
Coefficients
D85= D50= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= Cc=
Classification
USCS= ML AASHTO=
SAMPLE B 1 @ 15 Remarks
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 4-9-03 j
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B1 @ 15 Source of Sample: SIEVE
Location: CORYDON STREET Date: 4-11-03
_ Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: T2784-GFS Plate
Particle Size Distribution Report
e c =_
100 8 « C
90 ' ' , 1 1 t
-
'
80
7°
I 1 I I I I 1 1
W 60
ZLL
�`_--
L
Z 50
w
U ,
^W 40
30
20 1
-
10
°
�00 100 10
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE- mm °01 0.00�
%COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND
CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM %FINES
FINE SILT CLAY
3.9 16.4 32.4 46.8
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Description
#4 99.5 CLAYEY SAND,OLIVE BRO 'N
#8 96.8
#16 90.2
#30 82.6
#50 75.1 Atterbera Limits
#200 62.3 PL= LL= P1=
46.8
Coefficients
( p85= 0.750 D60= 0.135 D50= 0.0863
Cu0 C15= D10=
c-
Classification
L USCS= SC AASHTO=
J SAMPLE B1 @ 30 Remarks
COLL BY CM
J (no specification provided) COLL ON 4-9-03
Sample No.: B1 @ 30 Source of Sample: SIEVE
j Location: CORYDON STREET Date: 4-11-03
Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
� ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Pro ect No: "f2784-GFS
Plate
Particle Size Distribution Report
ci
g o0
100 _r■�
1 1 I I I I 1 I I I
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I
90 —
r I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I
1 1 I I I 1 i I 1 1 I I 1 1
80
I 1 I I I r r 1 I
I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
70 I
1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I
N I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I
W 60
Z I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I
W
Z 50
W
1 I I 1 I r I I 1 I I I I I
W 40
�•L I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1
30
1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 -
1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I
I I I 1 I I
20
I 1 r I I I I 1 I I
10 ,
Jill I
I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I
0 1 I 1 I 1 1 I
500 100 10
01
GRAIN SIZE -mm 0.1
0. 0.001
%COBBLES %GRAVEL 4 %SAND %FINES
CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 47.5 51.9
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) SANDY SILT,BROWN
#4 100.0
#8 99.9
#16 99.8
#30 9 .8
8 A_ tterberg Limits
#100 79.3 PL= LL= PI=
#200 51.9
Coefficients
D85= 0.179 D60= 0.0909 D50=
D30= D15= DSO=
Cu= Cc=
Classification
Il ML AASHTO=
Remarks
SAMPLE B 12 50
COLL BY CM
COLL ON 4-9-03
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B1 @ 50 Source of Sample: SIEVE Date: 4-15-03
Location: CORYDON STREET Elev./Depth:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL Client: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT
Project: ELSINORE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Project No: T2784-GFS Plate
k
l�
Alesco Development Company,LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
SUMMARY OF PLASTICITY INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4318-98
Expansion Index Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index
30 27.0 16.0 11.0
■
■
r
i
EnGEN Corporation
� I
1
Alesco Development Company, LLC
Project Number:T2784-GFS
Appendix Page 9
DRAWINGS
■
■
EnGEN Corporation
N
it .
h~ '� y SfDGO S ao
: SEDCO
HILLS
Ik-
4-. >
' '� OLI E• Si 3 Rt
LAB UN 0 RE g VINE Si ,
NI 2I
YICTORIAM 8 IN V1C1ORit1�
I APRICOT LR f ZI 0 w a
MLEVIS STST
�`\ C
\\N\ s z LEMUN ST
SITE r CT Lao -
To
.. H YAG IFNIR nn�u To U
SKY(ARr:
Al.-Y-J
/ �\ ♦ WAITE ' Sy MA
EN
O1ou \� 3 BUNDY CANYON ,RD
Tow of 21wo
ELS1At)ltE
j
"
CANYON 27 DR
r sr RAYNOR u
i
m
\i uvula i ur
4\
PITT
sm
4`
ay�33 4_13It$
,,aT RU qP lty h' �A J
A Ti
l
I
l
i EnGEN Cot porationGeotechnical Enfjmeering Special Material Environmental
5
VICINITY MAP
I PROJECT NUMBER: I T2784-GFs I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Par 14 of PM 6972
DATE: APRIL 2003 SCALE: 1"=2400'
CLIENT NAME: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT CO,LLC FIGURE: 1
BASE MAP: Thomas Bros., 2000, Riverside Co., pg. 896-897
z-,�l- v,
rwg,
NP,
0.0 .7 �v
top
4�r;li ROMM!%
MR�VI Lee
.............
. ........
....... ....
..................
-----------------
AS
M,11�
2b,-C*
40
N,
like
YAKC7#2
..........:
41 S
2
ok
11�K 14161 77
JAI
n
P
-Emff
02
Jul
A
7�� fir
Y
z,
Ercc�
u
IX
4r:A,A�'
INP
v M2
AP
:F7.
#M am,"
VAT
;si�106-01
Qil
3%
.47
rLA1tMXS
vi,
Ali* n
VI
.LL-S, ........ ..
Vy , ct�lt,
Xlq
WN LAN7
0
P1,
17.
MIT#'
R,
4� 00
;-r� ,�,. � ,-
'n
U.4r
41
.... ......
an
.............
AlPf ;--r vnw.,
...........
V-�
A ......
-----------
Tk
AL
Fr I
MEN
-u�
OT MR,"_ge,4,ii
.wa
at
id ki