HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR SOUTH SHORE PROJECT II TR 36567 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
FOR
SOUTH SHORE II PROJECT, TRACT 36567
LAKE ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC
515 AVOCADO AVENUE
CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625
PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
710 EAST PARKRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE 105
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92879
PROJECT No. 0967-CR3 APRIL 8, 2013
GEOTEK
GeoTek,Inc.
710 East Parkridge Avenue,Suite 105,Corona,CA 92879-1097
r 951-710-1 160 Office 951-710-1 167 Fax www.geotekusa.com
I
April 8, 2013
Project No. 0967-CR3
South Shore II, LLC
515 Avocado Avenue
Corona Del Mar, California 92625
Attention: Mr. Erik Lunde
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567
Proposed Residential Development
Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Dear Mr. Lunde:
GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide herein the results of our geotechnical
evaluation for the subject project, located in the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County,
California. This report presents the results of our evaluation, discussion of our findings,
and provides geotechnical information for the site and preliminary recommendations for
foundation design and construction. In our opinion, site development appears feasible from
a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated
into the design and construction phases of site development. The recommendations in this
report are subject to further review/evaluation and potential modification once more complete
grading plans become available.
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call our office.
�Op�CFE
P l
Respectfully submitted, Ep QE C��Q,�NA
GeoTek, Inc. CO H. �`�OC�G' a Expo 2C% 4
C? 02 N „F p. 13
J n.
� w No 2 � —t N �+� Ir,;
Exp FCH Vl
N� `��L'artiftegoW ��� FC i
Edward ont -V Geri CA`\FpQ' Ronald
CEG 1892, Exp. 7/31/14 GE 2524, Exp. 6/30/13
Principal Geologist Senior Project Engineer
(2)Addressee
(4) K&A Engineering;Attention: Mr, Farris Haddad
G.\Projects\0951 to 1000\0967CR3 South Shore 11,LLC Lake Elsinore\0967CR3 Geo Reportdoc
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................1
2. INTENT AND SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................................2
3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...............................................................3
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................................................3
3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................................................................................4
4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................4
4.1 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS...........................................................................................................................................4
4.2 CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATION............................................................................................................................................5
4.3 LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................................................................................................5
S. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS...........................................................................................5
5.1 REGIONAL SETTING................................................................................................................................................................5
5.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS................................................................................................................................................6
5.2.1 Undocumented Fill(Unmapped)...............................................................................................................................................6
5.2.2 Colluvium(Mapped as Qc).........................................................................................................................................................6
5.2.3 Alluvium(Mapped as Qal)...........................................................................................................................................................6
5.2.4 Granitic Bedrock(Mapped as Kgr)...........................................................................................................................................7
5.2.5 Metasedimentary Bedrock(Mapped as Ju)..........................................................................................................................7
5.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE.........................................................................................................................................................7
5.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER...........................................................................................................................................8
5.4.1 Surface Water.................................................................................................................................................................................8
5.4.2 Groundwater....................................................................................................................................................................................8
5.5 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY....................................................................................................................................................9
6. SEISMIC CRITERIA..............................................................................................................................9
6.1 DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT........................................................................................................................................................10
6.2 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS...................................................................................................................................................10
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................10
7.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................................10
7.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................................................10
7.2.1 Site Clearing.................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
7.2.2 Removals........................................................................................................................................................................................ I 1
7.2.3 Fills.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 I
7.2.4 Cut and Transition Lots............................................................................................................................................................. 11
7.2.5 Excavation Characteristics........................................................................................................................................................ 12
7.2.6 Slope Stability................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
7.2.7 Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence...................................................................................................................................... 14
7.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................................15
7.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria....................................................................................................................................................... 15
7.3.2 Settlement...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
7.3.3 Foundation Set BacFs...............................................................................................................................................................- 16
7.3.4 Underslab Vapor Retarder........................................................................................................................................................ 17
7.3.5 Concrete Cracking....................................................................................................................................................................... 17
7.3.6 Soil Corrosivity........................................................................................................................................................................—.... I8
'r-x,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Pie ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION..............................................................................................................................................18
7.4.1 General............................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
7.4.2 Concrete Mix Design.................................................................................................................................................................. 18
7.4.3 Concrete Flatwork........................................................................................................................................................................18
7.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION..........................................................................................................19
7.5.1 General Design Criteria............................................................................................................................................................. 19
7.5.2 Wall Backf II and Drainage...................................................................................................................................................... 19
7.5.3 Restrained Retaining Walls......................................................................................................................................................20
7.5.4 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations............................................................................................................................20
7.6 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................................21
7.6.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting..................................................................................................................................21
7.6.2 Drainage.........................................................................................................................................................................................22
7.7 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................................23
8. LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................................................23
9. SELECTED REFERENCES.................................................................................................................24
ENCLOSURES
Figure I —Site Location Map
Figure 2—General Site Topographic Map
Fi ur 3—Aerial Photo Map of Site Area
Plate I —Geotechnical Map
Plates 2 and 3 —Geotechnical Cross Sections
Appendix A—Logs of Exploratory Excavations
Appendix A.I —Seismic Refraction Data
Appendix B—Laboratory Testing
Appendix C—Slope Stability Analyses
Appendix D—General Grading Guidelines for Earthwork Construction
JQ:�,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page I
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the results of this evaluation, the major geotechnical findings or design and
construction considerations are summarized as follows:
■ The site is primarily underlain by metasedimentary and granitic bedrock units, which are
mantled with a variable thickness layer of colluvial and/or alluvial materials. Alluvial
deposits are identified and expected in the main drainage areas dissecting the site (see
Plate 1). Localized undocumented fill materials are also noted on the site, mostly
associated with existing access trails and roadways, and additional areas of
undocumented fill will also likely be encountered during grading. These undocumented
fills appear limited and surficial in nature, and are not identified on the Geotechnical Map
(Plate 1).
■ For planning purposes, complete removal and recompaction of all undocumented fill
materials, colluvium, alluvium and highly weathered bedrock materials should be
anticipated.
■ The majority of the onsite materials appear to be suitable for foundation support or re-
use as fill provided they are prepared in accordance with the grading requirements
included in this report. Site soils generally appear to have a "very low" expansion
potential (EI<21), based on preliminary test results and experience in the area.
■ For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of 10% to I S may be applied for the surficial
materials (colluvium and alluvium) requiring removal and recompaction. However,
bulking of up to 10 to 15% should be anticipated for granitic bedrock, and 15 to 25% for
metasedimentary bedrock. Actual bulking and shrinkage percentages will vary
depending on location, depth of material, material type (i.e. geologic units), level of
compaction attained during rough grading, and other factors.
■ Strong ground shaking is expected at this site due to the known earthquake faults in the
vicinity. However, the risks of seismic densification and liquefaction are considered low
due to the dense nature of the underlying soils, absence of a shallow groundwater table
and the recommended remedial earthwork provided herein.
■ Deep fills anticipated for the site (up to 100± feet) will likely necessitate settlement
monitoring subsequent to rough grading. Fills in excess of 40± feet in thickness will
likely be recommended to be monitored for settlement prior to construction of
structural improvements. Increased compaction standards, including attaining a
minimum of 93% relative compaction for all fills greater than 40 feet from finish grade,
are recommended.
'GX,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 2
■ Canyon subdrains and stabilization slope backdrains are recommended for the site.
General recommendations for subdrain and backdrain construction are included in
Appendix D.
■ The onsite alluvial, colluvial, weathered granitic bedrock and metasedimentary bedrock
materials are anticipated to be largely excavatible with conventional heavy-duty grading
equipment. Excavation(s) in the less-weathered bedrock materials (i.e., granitic and
metasedimentary materials) may locally require special excavation techniques. Oversize
rocks (>8 inches) should be anticipated and hard corestones (i.e., floaters) may be
encountered at a shallow depth and may also require special handling and placement.
Localized more indurated metasedimentary beds (quartzite units) may also require
special handling and placement.
■ Deep cuts anticipated for the site (up to 100± feet) may locally expose materials
necessitating special excavation techniques and rock placement methods.
■ In general, cut and fill slopes constructed to the heights currently proposed at 2:1 (h:v)
gradients and shallower are considered grossly stable on this site.
■ Although considered grossly stable, cut slopes exposing metasedimentary bedrock
materials are anticipated to locally be very blocky and difficult to establish landscaping
upon. Consideration should be given to replacing some cut slope areas with engineered
fill for this reason. This will also likely be a factor for some cut slope areas exposing
granitic bedrock. Finish cut slopes should be mapped an engineering geologist to
evaluate the exposed surface for obvious surficial slope stability or rock fall concerns.
■ Conventionally reinforced spread and/or continuous wall footings are considered a
suitable foundation system for the proposed buildings, provided further verification and
review of settlement characteristics and soil expansion potential are performed at the
completion of final site grading. Consideration should be given to the use of post-
tensioned foundation systems in deeper fill areas (i.e., fills in excess of 40 feet in depth).
2. INTENT AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and planning of the proposed development.
Implementation of the advice or findings included in this report is intended to reduce risk
associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice
contained herein are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that
unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction.
This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond
the specific areas of proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no
'G_'
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 3
evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our current
understanding of the project and the client's needs, our proposal dated February 15, 2013 (P3-
0901512r3), and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this
region.
The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored that is shown on the Geotechnical
Map (Plate 1). Plate I utilizes a I"=100' scale map provided by K&A Engineering, Inc. as a base.
Additional subsurface exploration and supplementary laboratory testing may be necessary at a
later date once site grading plans become more complete. Services provided for this study
have included the following:
■ Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the
site (see referenced reports and literature),
■ Site exploration consisting of the geologic field mapping and excavation, logging, and
sampling of nine (9) exploratory test trenches, and five (5) seismic refraction survey
lines to evaluate rock hard ness/excavatabi I ity,
■ Laboratory testing on soil samples collected during the field investigation,
■ Review and evaluation of site seismicity, and
• Compilation of this geotechnical report which presents our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for site development.
3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site, which consists of approximately 72 acres, is located northeast of Interstate
Highway 15 and roughly one mile east of Lake Elsinore, in the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside
County, California (see Figure 1). More specifically, the irregularly shaped site is located
roughly one-quarter mile to the northeast of Camino del Norte Street, just north of the closed
Elsinore Sanitary Landfill site. The subject property is comprised of primarily ungraded and
vacant land. The site can be considered as having hillside terrain, with variable surface drainage
but generally directed toward the south and southwest (see Figure 2) via natural drainages.
Total relief across the site is on the order of 300± feet. A portion of the southeastern-most
site area appears to have been used as a borrow site, as an open excavation area is present.
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 4
Site vegetation consists of native brush, weeds and grasses. Some small trees are also located
in drainages and low-lying site areas. The property ranges in elevation from a low of
approximately 1520 feet above mean seal level (msl) toward the southwestern edge of the
property, to roughly 1820 feet above msl near the northern site boundary.
Surrounding properties to the east, west and north are in an apparent natural condition and
undeveloped. A former landfill (Elsinore Sanitary Landfill) is located adjacent the southeast of
the subject property. This landfill is understood be owned by the City of Lake Elsinore and
maintained by the Riverside County Waste Management Department, and was closed in 1986.
An aerial photo of the site area is included on Figure 3.
3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
We understand that most of the subject site is planned to be subdivided into typical single-
family residential lots, with a portion of the southeastern site area possibly being utilized as a
park site. A detention basin is also conceptually planned for the southwestern corner of the
site. The single-family residential development is expected to predominantly consist of typical
one or two-story wood-framed structures with conventionally reinforced slab-on-grade and/or
spread and continuous wall footings. Structural loads are expected to be typical for such
construction.
A 100-scale grading plan was available for our review at the time of the herein evaluation. This
grading plan was used as the base for our Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). The 100-scale plan was
provided by K&A Engineering, Inc. Based on review of the plan, it is anticipated that cuts of up
100± feet and fills of up to 100± feet will be required to achieve proposed finish grades. If site
development plans change, GeoTek should review from a geotechnical perspective. Additional
evaluation and/or subsurface exploration(s) may be recommended at a future date if deemed
necessary subsequent to review of future development plans.
4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS
No previous geotechnical field explorations or reports are known to have been completed for
the subject site. GeoTek has completed a Geotechnical Evaluation for the property immediately
adjacent and west of the subject site (GeoTek, 2011). A geotechnical report for a proposed
development of the property immediately to the northwest of the subject site (Lawson &
Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., 2004) was also reviewed in conjunction with
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project. Tract 36567 Page 5
completing the herein evaluation, as was a Semi Annual Groundwater and General Site Monitoring
Report for the Elsinore Sanitary Landfill (County of Riverside Waste Management Department,
2012) for the landfill to the southeast of the subject site.
4.2 CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATION
The herein reported field exploration was conducted by GeoTek in March of 2013. An
engineering geologist from our firm logged the excavations and collected samples for use in the
laboratory testing. Logs of exploratory excavations are included in Appendix A. Locations of
the excavated trenches are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Field geologic mapping
of the site was also performed.
4.3 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil and bedrock samples collected during the
field investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification
of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the
engineering design and analysis. The results of the laboratory testing program along with a
brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in
Appendix B.
5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS
5.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The subject property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges province. The Peninsular Ranges
province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. Basically, it
extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, 975
miles south to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100
miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California
and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province.
The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks.
Three major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto
Fault zones trend northwest-southeast and are found in the near the middle of the province.
The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 6
5.2 GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS
A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the subject property is presented in
the following sections. More detailed descriptions of these materials are provided in the logs
of the exploratory trenches included in Appendix A. Based on our site reconnaissances, field
mapping, subsurface excavations, and review of the referenced reports and published geologic
maps, the site is underlain to the depths explored by Quaternary-age alluvial deposits,
Cretaceous-age granitic and Jurassic-age metasedimentary bedrock units. Colluvial materials
locally mantle the bedrock. Localized undocumented fill soils are also scattered across the site,
and other fill materials may also be encountered or identified during earthwork for the project.
5.2.1 Undocumented Fill (Unmapped)
Localized undocumented fill soils were observed scattered across the site. The existing fills
noted are largely associated with existing dirt trails and roadways that traverse the site, and
some fill materials also appear to be associated with a former onsite borrow pit/excavation area
(near the southeastern portion of the site, immediately north of the adjacent landfill property).
These undocumented fill materials are expected to be suitable for reuse as engineered fill
provided they are free from deleterious materials and oversize rocks.
5.2.2 Colluvium (Mapped as Qc)
Colluvial materials locally mantle site bedrock units. Thicker accumulations of colluvial soils
noted on the site are identified on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). In general, these materials
typically consist of cobbly and/or gravelly silty sand, and may be reused as engineered fill
provided they are processed and meet project specifications. Based on our experience with
similar soils, the onsite colluvial materials likely possess a "very low" to "low" expansion
potential (Expansion Index, EI<51) when tested and classified in general accordance with ASTM
D 4829.
5.2.3 Alluvium (Mapped as Qal)
Quaternary-age alluvium was encountered in most of the exploratory excavations toward the
southern portion of the site, and has also been mapped in the primary site drainages. In
general, these materials consist of silty sand to gravelly silty sand. Based on our lab testing and
experience with similar soils, the onsite alluvial materials possess a "very low" expansion
potential (0:5EI<21).
GeoTek recently excavated test trenches TP-1 through TP-9 in the primary site drainages.
The intent of excavating these test pits was to help evaluate the approximate depth of alluvium
in these drainage areas, and to assess the suitability of these materials from a geotechnical
'Cr,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 7
perspective with respect to proposed site development. The thickest alluvium encountered
onsite in our exploratory excavation was approximately 10 feet, in our test pit TP-7 (see Plate
1). More detailed descriptions of the alluvium encountered in the site drainages explored are
included on the logs in Appendix A. In general, site alluvial materials may be reused as
engineered fill provided they are processed and meet project specifications.
5.2.4 Granitic Bedrock (Mapped as Kgr)
Mesozoic-aged (Cretaceous) granitic bedrock has been mapped toward the southern and
southwestern site areas (see Plate 1). Surficial granitic boulders were also observed along
portions of the western edge of the property, and may be underlying portions of that site area
as well at relatively shallow depth. The granitics are plutonic in origin, and intruded into the
older/pre-existing now metasedimentary units described below. Where weathered, the
granitic material generally decomposes into brown, gray, black and orange mottled, fine- to
coarse-grained sand with gravel, cobble and boulder size clasts. Where relatively un-
weathered, the granitic bedrock can be very hard. Discussion of excavatability and slope
stability are presented in later sections of this report. Onsite granitic materials are expected
to possess a "very low" expansion potential (0:5EI<21).
5.23 Metasedimentary Bedrock (Mapped as Ju)
Upper Jurassic age metasedimentary bedrock has been mapped across the majority of the site
(see Geotechnical Map, Plate 1). This mottled dark unit is primarily comprised of inter-bedded
quartzite, phyllite and slate units. The thinly bedded slate and phyllite units are generally
heavily fractured, jointed and folded. Relict bedding is commonly measurable in this material.
The quartzite units are relatively dense and are more resistant to weathering, and are
commonly exposed along most site ridgelines. Further discussion of excavatability and slope
stability are presented in later sections of this report. Metasedimentary bedrock materials are
expected to possess a "very low" expansion potential (0:5EI<21).
5.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Granitic bedrock is structurally massive, with overall irregular to locally regular joint patterns
likely. Relict bedding within the metasedimentary bedrock units has been measured at various
locations across the site (see Geotechnical Map, Plate 1). Where measured, the bedrock
strike generally trends to the northwest, with dips of 40+ degrees down to the northeast.
Prominent joint and/or fracture patterns have also been noted at various locations on the site,
and also appear to locally control site topography (orientation of joints commonly results in
differential weathering patterns, which helps to form topography).
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 8
No landslides have been identified on the site. Near surface slope instabilities may also locally
occur across the site, on steeper slope areas in particular, and should be further assessed
during site earthwork construction by an engineering geologist.
5.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER
5.4.1 Surface Water
Existing natural site drainage channels are found at various locations across the property, with
the most prominent channels identified on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). No surface water
was encountered or noted during our recent field exploration for the project, or in any of the
referenced geotechnical reports. Any surface water on this site is the likely result of direct
precipitation or surface run-off from surrounding sites that may be directed to the subject
property. Overall site drainage is generally directed in a westerly direction, with local
variations common. Provisions for surface drainage will need to be accounted for by the
project civil engineer. All site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the project civil
engineer.
5.4.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory excavations, and is not
anticipated to be a factor in currently proposed site development. The presence of natural
groundwater conditions or perched groundwater can not be precluded, however.
Groundwater depth in the site vicinity is expected to be well over 100 feet below natural
ground surface elevations (California DWR). However, perched groundwater or localized
seepage can occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practices, and other factors not
evident at the time of this investigation. Some perched groundwater should be anticipated in
the vicinity of the existing drainages throughout the property, or where relatively
impermeable bedrock units are present and/or exposed during grading operations. Some
perched groundwater is understood to exist in the vicinity of the landfill located adjacent to
the southeastern portion of the site (County of Riverside Waste Management District, 2012).
Natural groundwater gradient in the site area is understood to be to the southwest.
Subdrain systems are recommended and should be placed subsequent to performing removals
during the earthwork construction in the area of the existing natural drainages, or where
seepages are encountered during grading, based on exposed conditions and planned
development (see Plate G-I, Appendix D for generalized subdrain construction guidelines).
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 9
5.5 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by
northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is in a seismically
active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site
situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Special Studies Zone. No County of
Riverside designated fault or fault zones have been designated or are known to exist on the
site.
Fault studies previously completed by other consultants, including Geowest (1987) and Lawson
& Associates (2005), have indicated no active faulting in the immediate site area. GeoTek
concurs with these findings (the Elsinore fault is now generally indicated as being located several
miles to the west of the subject property on most geologic maps of the region). Based on
review of information available in our library and review of air photos for the site in our library,
no other faulting has been reported on the subject property. No active site faulting has been
identified or mapped by this firm.
6. SEISMIC CRITERIA
The site is located at approximately 33.6795 Latitude and -1 17.3079 Longitude. Site spectral
accelerations (Ss and S I), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class "D" site (portions of the
project site can be classified as Class "B" at a later time, depending on final graded
configurations), were determined from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards Program,
Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by
Latitude/Longitude, 2009 Data. The results are presented in the following table:
SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.501 g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S I 0.600g
Site Coefficient for Site Class"D", Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class"D", Fv 1.5
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, 1.501 g
SMS
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration Parameter at I second, 0.900g
SMI
Design Spectral Response Acceleration for 1.001 g
Parameter for 0.2 Second, SDS
Design Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.600g
Parameter 1.0 Second, SD I
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 10
6.1 DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT
The potential for liquefaction and associated settlement on this site is considered low due to
recommended removal of the existing alluvium and colluvium, and the relatively dense nature of
the underlying materials and lack of shallow groundwater table.
6.2 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during our
investigations, aerial photograph and/or literature review. Thus, the potential for existing
landslides is considered low based on the reviewed data. Geologic observation and mapping
should be performed by an engineering geologist during earthwork operation.
The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami are considered to be
negligible due site elevation and distance from an open body of water.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 GENERAL
The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided
that the recommendations provided herein are incorporated into the design and construction
phases of development. However, these recommendations are considered preliminary and
should be subject to further review and evaluation once site grading plans become more
complete.
7.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS
Earthwork and grading should be performed in general accordance with the applicable grading
ordinances of the City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, the 2010 California Building Code
(CBC), and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in
Appendix D outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-specific situations. In the
event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the text of this report should supersede
those contained in Appendix D.
7.2.1 Site Clearing
In areas of planned grading or improvements, the site should be cleared of any existing
improvements or structures, vegetation, roots and debris. These deleterious materials should
'C_X'
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page I I
be properly disposed of offsite. Any holes resulting from site clearing, tree removal, and/or the
trenches excavated during this or possibly other prior geotechnical studies of the site should
be replaced with engineered fill materials compacted to the project standards.
7.2.2 Removals
If not removed by the proposed grading, all undocumented fill materials, colluvial and alluvial
materials are subject to complete removal and recompaction within the limits of grading. If
applicable, structural removals should extend a minimum 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection
down and away from proposed finish grade elevations.
7.2.3 Fills
The onsite soils are considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they are free from
vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Remedial removal and/or undercut areas
should be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill that is placed and compacted in
accordance with the general grading guidelines presented in Appendix D.
Some portion of the onsite bedrock may generate moderate to significant quantities of
oversized rock (i.e., material greater than 8 inches). These materials should be placed using
the procedures outlined in Appendix D. Alternatively, oversized materials may be disposed of
off-site.
Due to the anticipated fill depths in some proposed areas of the project, settlement monitoring
is recommended in order to help evaluate whether the estimated remaining settlement is
within the project specification prior to construction of structural improvements. This
monitoring is recommended for representative site areas where fill depth exceeds 40± feet. A
more detailed settlement monitoring program can be developed when grading plans become
more finalized, and during earthwork construction, when as-graded site conditions become
apparent.
Compaction levels for deeper site fills are also recommended to be relatively higher than
otherwise prescribed. For fills greater than 40 feet in depth, a minimum relative compaction of
93% is recommended. Maximum dry density should be determined in general accordance with
ASTM D 1557.
7.2.4 Cut and Transition Lots
All cut lots and cut portions of transition lots should be overexcavated a minimum of three (3)
feet below finish pad grade or two (2) feet below bottom of deepest footing, whichever is
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 12
deeper, and replaced with engineered fill in an attempt to provide a more uniform condition
and decrease the potential for differential settlement. Lot overexcavation bottoms should be
cut to drain to an adjacent street at a gradient of at least 1%, to reduce the potential for
possible ponding of perched groundwater subsequent to development. In addition, cut/fill
transition gradients are not recommended to exceed 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient.
Consideration should also be given to overexcavating site streets to the depth of the deepest
utility, in order to facilitate subsequent trenching for underground utilities (sewer, storm drain,
water, joint utilities, etc.). Overexcavation recommendations should be provided based on
review of finalized site grading plans, and conditions exposed during grading.
7.2.5 Excavation Characteristics
Rippability studies and opinions regarding site area excavatability have previously been
provided and/or performed nearby project sites by others, including GeoTek (2011), GeoSoils,
Inc. (GSI, 1990 and 1991), Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. (2004) and
others. In addition, results of seismic refraction traverses recently completed for the subject
site are included in Appendix A.1, at the back of this report. Approximate locations of the
refraction traverses reported on herein are indicated on our Geotechnical Map (Plate 1).
The seismic refraction traverses recently completed for the subject site appear very similar to
results for adjacent properties. Based on review of the results, site bedrock appears to
generally be excavatable with conventional earthmoving equipment to depths ranging from
roughly 30 to 90+ feet, depending on location (see results presented in Appendix A.1).
However, some resistant bedrock units may require the use of a single-shank ripper on a
Caterpillar D-10 or larger bulldozer (or equivalent) at shallower depths, or locally where
conditions dictate (possible quartzite units or granitic corestones).
The majority of the subject site consists of mapped metasedimentary and granitic bedrock
units. The data produced by seismic lines and other data are subject to interpretation.
However, based on knowledge of earthwork completed on nearby projects in similar bedrock
units, excavations to the depths currently anticipated for the subject project are feasible
without the need for blasting. The ultimate need for special excavation techniques and/or
blasting will only be known during rough earthwork construction.
Further exploration can be conducted at a later date when more site specific grading plans
become available if additional assessment of this topic is desired.
'G'
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project. Tract 36567 Page 13
Oversize rocks (>8 inches) should be anticipated in both the granitic and metasedimentary
bedrock units on this site and hard "floaters" may also be encountered at relatively shallow
depths and require specialized excavation techniques.
Excavation in the colluvial and alluvial materials is expected to be easy using heavy-duty grading
equipment. Saturated alluvium may be encountered in some of the drainage channels,
depending on the time of year. However, at the present time it is not generally anticipated
that significant quantities of saturated alluvium will be encountered.
All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground utilities should
be constructed in accordance with local and Cal-OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations
within the onsite materials should be stable at I:1 (h:v) inclinations for cuts less than 10 feet in
height.
7.2.6 Slope Stability
Based on our field mapping and experience with similar soil and bedrock types, 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical) fill slopes constructed with the onsite soils in accordance with the grading
requirements presented in this report will have calculated factors of safety in excess of 1.5
under static conditions and 1.1 for seismic conditions for slopes with a maximum height of 90±
feet (see slope stability analyses presented in Appendix C). Shear strengths used in the
analyses (C = 100psf, phi = 35°) are a "composite" strength based on the results of the
remolded samples tested. Additional review and analyses for higher slopes should be
completed when final grading plans become available, if different than the herein site
development plan.
In general, proposed 2:1 (h:v) gradient cut slopes excavated into site bedrock materials are
anticipated to be grossly stable. Mapped metasedimentary bedrock structure is generally
favorable to proposed cut slopes in any orientation due to the relatively steep dip angles
measured within this unit across the site (see Cross-Section A-A' on Plate 2). However, local
folding, joint patterns and fracturing of this bedrock may locally reveal adverse structure upon
excavation of some slopes proposed to be cut into this material and should be mapped by an
engineering geologist upon excavation. Appendix C presents global stability analysis for Cross-
Section B-B' which is the highest 2:1 fill slope proposed. Global stability analyses of this Cross-
Section B-B' indicate factors of safety in excess of code minimums for an engineered fill
condition.
Granitic bedrock is anticipated to be structurally massive, but also could expose adverse
structural features (joint and/or facture patterns). If adverse structure is exposed and
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE II, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Pie 14
identified in proposed cut slopes upon excavation, stabilization fills may be subsequently
recommended. In addition to the above, surficial stability and rock fall potential will need to be
reviewed upon excavation of all cut slopes on the site. Subsequent to excavating, project cut
slopes should be observed and mapped by an engineering geologist in order to determine if
additional corrective grading and/or recommendations are needed (specifically with respect to
rock fall potential, localized out-of-slope bedding, joint or fracture patterns).
Some of the onsite materials used as engineered fill have relatively low cohesion values.
Placement of these materials at/ear finish slop grade will result in surficial slope stability factor
of safety of less than 1.5 and should be avoided. If such materials are placed at/ear finish slope
grade, then additional mitigative measures such as jute mesh, slope netting, etc. may be
required. Additional evaluation may be prudent at the grading plan review stage.
7.2.7 Shrinkage, Bulking, and Subsidence
Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, bulking,
subsidence (not expected on this site), trench spoil from utilities and footing excavations, and
final pavement section thicknesses as well as the accuracy of topography.
Shrinkage and bulking are primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved
during construction, in-place density prior to removal and recompaction, and methods and
techniques used to remove, transport and compact the respective material(s). For planning
purposes, a shrinkage factor of 10 to 15 percent may be considered for the surficial materials
(colluvium and alluvium) requiring removal and recompaction. A bulking factor of 10 to 15
percent may be considered for the granitic bedrock, and 15 to 25 percent for the
metasedimentary bedrock. Variations in bulking percentages are primarily due to variations in
material types (i.e. slate, phyllite, quartzite, etc.) for the metasedimentary materials, hardness,
density, depth of cut, degree of weathering, rippability, method of fill placement, etc.
The County of Riverside has designated a portion of the site as being susceptible to subsidence
on their Transportation and Land Management website. The susceptibility to subsidence is an
issue that affects large regions within Riverside County and no site specific designation
constraints are generally imposed by this designation. The subject site in almost entirely
underlain by hard bedrock, and all "soft" sediments are recommended to be completely
removed as part of remedial site earthwork. Subsidence is not considered to be a geotechnical
constraint for the subject project, and the post-earthwork potential for subsidence is
considered to be negligible.
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE II, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 15
The shrinkage and bulking estimates provided above are primarily based on laboratory testing
on samples collected for the herein study (see Appendices A and B), information from
consultants and developers working on recently graded sites just to the north of the subject
property (by Lennar Homes and Centex Homes), and previous experience with similar site
bedrock and surficial materials on nearby projects.
The above estimates are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork
quantities. It is recommended that site development be planned to include an area(s) that
could be raised or lowered to accommodate final site balancing.
7.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
7.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria
Preliminary foundation design criteria for conventional foundation system in conformance with
the 2010 CBC are presented herein. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to
supersede the design by the structural engineer.
Based on the results of this evaluation and our past experience, the majority of the onsite soils
may be classified as "very low" to "low" expansive soils (050<51) with a Plasticity Index (PI) of
less than 15. Laboratory testing should be performed at the completion of site grading to verify
the expansion potential of the exposed soils. Thus, for planning purposes, preliminary
foundation design criteria are presented in Table 7.3.1 below. Actual as graded conditions will
determine the applicable foundation design criteria.
TABLE 7.3.1 — MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
E.I.<- 20 20<_ E.1.<-50
DESIGN PARAMETER P.I. < 15 P.I.< 15
Foundation Depth or Minimum I floor— 12 1 floor— 12
Perimeter Beam depth (inches 2 floor—18 2 floors—18
below lowest adjacent grade)
Foundation Width (Inches) I floor— 12 1 floor— 12
2 floors—IS 2 floors—15
Two No.4 bars, Two No.4 bars,
Footing Reinforcement one top one one top one
bottom bottom
Minimum Slab Thickness (inches) 4 4
No. 3 bars, No. 3 bars, placed
Minimum Slab Reinforcing placed 18"on- 18"on-center
center
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 16
Presaturation of Subgrade Soil Subgrade well
(Percent of Optimum/Depth in Vetted before 100/12
inches) pouring
concrete
An allowable bearing capacity of 1500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of
perimeter or continuous footings 12 inches deep, and pad footings 24 inches square and 12
inches deep. This value may be increased by 200 psf for each additional 12 inches in depth and
by 100 psf for each additional 12 inches in width to a maximum of 2500 psf. The allowable
bearing value may be increased by one-third when considering short-term live loads (e.g.
seismic and wind loads).
The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 psf
per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot. A coefficient
of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When
combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be
reduced by one-third.
7.3.2 Settlement
Based on the anticipated loading conditions described in Section 3.2 and our evaluation of
settlement characteristics, the differential settlement for the site is expected to be less than I
inch in a 40-foot span at the completion settlement monitoring. Due to the depths of fill
anticipated at the site, site settlement parameters should be reviewed when site development
plans become more finalized. Monitoring deeper site fills (greater than 40 feet) for settlement
is recommended to evaluate the remaining settlement is within the anticipated design value.
The preliminary location of areas subject to settlement monitoring and locations of the
settlement monuments can be presented at a later date subsequent to review of more finalized
site development plans.
7.3.3 Foundation Set Backs
Where applicable, the following setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements
not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential
settlements:
• The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H
is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at
least 7 feet and need not exceed 40 feet.
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 17
■ The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as
to extend below a 1:1 (h:v) projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall
stem.
■ The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to
extend below a 1:1 (h:v) projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation.
7.3.4 Underslab Vapor Retarder
A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture
migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2010
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2 and the 2010 CBC
Section 1910.1. It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane
can be adversely impacted as a result of construction related punctures (e.g. stake
penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences
should be limited as much as possible during construction.
Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones.
Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture
resistant. Although the CBC specifies a 6 mil vapor retarder membrane, it is GeoTek's opinion
that a minimum 10 mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be
considered, unless other wise specified by the slab design professional. Moisture and vapor
retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture
transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture
transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and
environmental conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of
suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through
the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e.,
thickness, composition, strength, and permeance) to achieve the desired performance level.
Consideration should be given to consulting with an individual possessing specific expertise in
this area for additional evaluation. More restrictive local jurisdictional requirements may exist
and should be complied with.
7.3.5 Concrete Cracking
Control joints should be provided to help minimize random cracking. One of the simplest
means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur along. These do
not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that
develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always
effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We recommend that
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE II, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 18
control joints be placed in two directions spaced the numeric equivalent of two times the
thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab would have control joints at 8
feet centers). As a practical matter, this is not always possible nor is it a widely applied
standard.
7.3.6 Soil Corrosivity
The soil resistivity at this site should be tested in the laboratory on representative samples
collected at the site subsequent to rough grading. Preliminary test results indicate "moderate"
corrosion potential for the site (see results in Appendix B). A determination of corrosivity
potential and sulfate content of site soils, and their affect on proposed site development, should
then be provided prior to site development and subsequent to earthwork construction.
7.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
7.4.1 General
Concrete construction should follow the CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix
placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide quality control testing of
the concrete during construction.
7.4.2 Concrete Mix Design
The sulfate content of site soils collected near finish grades will help to determine concrete
mix design (cement type, water/cement ratio, etc.) to be recommended for the project.
Preliminary test results indicate sulfate contents of less than 0.1% by weight, which is
considered "not applicable" (i.e., negligible) as per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318. Additional testing
should be performed as the project progresses. Final design should be based on samples
obtained at/near finish grades.
7.4.3 Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the most visible
aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, being
considered "non-structural" components. Cracking of these features is fairly common due to
various factors. While cracking is not usually detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest that the
same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself.
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project Tract 36567 Page 19
7.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
7.5.1 General Design Criteria
Recommendations presented herein may apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical
retaining walls to a maximum height of 10 feet. Additional review and recommendations
should be requested for higher walls.
Retaining walls embedded a minimum of 12 inches into engineered fill or dense formational
materials should be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf. An increase of
one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads).
The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 psf
per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. A coefficient of friction between
soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive
pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-
third.
An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active pressure
against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in Table 6.5.1 below for specific
slope gradients of retained materials.
TABLE 7.5.1 —ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained Equivalent Fluid Pressure Equivalent Fluid Pressure
Materials (Select Backfill*) (Native Backfill)
(H:V) (PCF) (PCF)
Level 35 40
2:1 55 60
*Select backfill should extend a minimum distance of H/2 behind the wall and have an El of less than 21 and Sand Equivalent of
30 or greater.
The above equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such
as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or adverse geologic conditions.
7.5.2 Wall Backfill and Drainage
The onsite very low expansive soils are suitable for backfill provided they are screened of
greater than 3-inch size gravels. Presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the
parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The backfill materials should be placed in
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 20
lifts no greater than 8-inches in thickness and compacted at 90% relative compaction in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided
and maintained.
Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to
prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter
(Schedule 40 or SDR 35) perforated collector pipe embedded in a minimum of one cubic foot
per lineal foot of 3/4 to one inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric.
The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet. A minimum of two outlets should
be provided for each drain section. Spacing between drain outlets should not exceed 100 feet.
Waterproofing of site walls should be performed where moisture migration through the wall is
undesirable.
Walls from 2 to 4 feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes
at 10 feet maximum spacing (e.g. approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag).
Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block
extended above the ground surface. However, nuisance water may still collect in front of wall.
7.5.3 Restrained Retaining Walls
Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or
reentrant corners should be designed for at-rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid
pressure of 60 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant
corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height
of the wall laterally from the corner.
7.5.4 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
For preliminary planning purposes only, the following pavement design sections are provided
for the subject development. Actual recommendations will need to be based on R-Value
testing, to be completed after rough grading of the project is complete for the subject street
areas.
The following table summarizes the preliminary pavement sections based on an estimated R-
Value result for the site. Traffic indices used for design should be provided by the governing
agency, or the project civil engineer. The pavement sections are subject to the review and
approval of the City of Lake Elsinore and/or County of Riverside. Performance of the
pavement sections will ultimately be based largely on construction methods and traffic loading,
and subgrade performance.
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE II, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 21
MINIMUM RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Assumed R- Depth of Asphaltic Depth of
Location Traffic Index Value Concrete (inches) Aggregate
Base (inches)
Interior Streets & Cul-de 4.5 40 3.0* 4.0*
Sacs
Interior Local Streets 5.0 40 3.0* 4.0*
Enhanced Local Streets 6.0 40 4.0 5.0
Collector Streets 7.0 40 4.0 7.0
*Indicates minimum GeoTek recommended section.
It is also recommend that six (6) inches of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement be used
in heavy truck traffic areas such as fire lanes, trash dumpster pads and approaches. The PCC
pavement should be placed on a minimum of four (4) inches of aggregate base. Requirements
of Section 302-6 of "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (Greenbook)
regarding mixing and placing concrete should be followed. Keyed joints should be provided in
the longitudinal direction spaced at a maximum of 10 feet on center. Crack control joints
should be provided in the transverse direction spaced at a maximum of 10 feet on center and at
corners. Proper reinforcement should be considered for the concrete construction.
All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of
base material, placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with
the County of Riverside specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a
County Inspector where required.
The aggregate base should consist of crushed rock with an R-Value and gradation in accordance
with Class II Aggregate Base (Section 26 of the Standard Caltrans Specification) or Crushed
Aggregate Base (Section 200-2 of the Greenbook). Minimum compaction requirements should
be 90 percent for subgrade and 95 percent for aggregate base, as per ASTM D 1557 (modified
proctor). Where no base section is provided or constructed, the upper 6 inches of subgrade
should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Jurisdictional minimum
compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern.
7.6 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.6.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is
significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 22
slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life
should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff, and maintaining
a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be
lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the
prevailing climate.
Overwatering should be avoided. The soils should be maintained in a solid to semi-solid state
as defined by the materials Atterberg Limits. Care should be taken when adding soil
amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to
planting is not recommended. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents
should be implemented and maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decreased
the long-term performance of slopes.
It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will
result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of
landscaping should be avoided. If used, then extreme care should be exercised with regard to
the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains
may be prudent and advisable. We could discuss these issues, if desired, when plans are made
available.
As previously indicated herein, it may be difficult to establish landscaping on some cut slopes
currently planned for the project, due to the anticipated rocky and hard zones anticipated to
be locally exposed at finish grades. Consideration should be given to overexcavating some of
these cut slope areas.
7.6.2 Drainage
The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly
emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow
uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations
and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward
approved area(s) and not be blocked by other improvements.
It is the owner's responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their
lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine
schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season.
'G�,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE II, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 Page 23
7.7 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this
office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this
report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and
foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical
recommendations. These representatives should perform at least the following duties:
■ Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable
materials.
■ Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement.
■ Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil
samples for laboratory testing where necessary.
■ Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test
the fill for field density and relative compaction.
• Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm suitability of bearing materials.
If requested, GeoTek will provide a construction observation and compaction report to
comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the
project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of
construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained.
8. LIMITATIONS
The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however,
soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or
conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes
or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or
recommendations performed or provided by others.
Since our recommendations are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and
laboratory testing, our conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions that are
limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to
allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been
derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or
implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE II, LLC Project No. 0967-CR3
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Proiect Tract 36567 Page 24
9. SELECTED REFERENCES
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2010 "California Building Code," 3 volumes.
California Department of Water Resources groundwater well data (http://wd1.water.ca.gov).
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
County of Riverside Waste Management Department, 2012, "Semi-Annual Groundwater and
General Site Monitoring Report (April I, 2012 — September 30, 2012) for the Elsinore
Sanitary Landfill," dated October.
Engle, R., 1959, "Geology and Mineral Deposits of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle California," in
Bulletin 146, C.D.M.G.
GeoSoils, Inc., 1990, "Feasibility Geotechnical Study, Missing Links Parcel, Lake Elsinore,
County of Riverside, California," W.O. 2064-A-OC, dated February 5.
GeoSoils, Inc., 1991, "Supplemental Rippability Assessment, Spyglass Ridge, Missing Link Parcel,
City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California," W.O. 477-A-RC, dated
September 17.
GeoTek, Inc., 2011, "Geotechnical Evaluation, Spyglass Ranch Project, ±259-Acre Property,
Proposed Residential Development, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California," Project
No. 0283.1-CR3, dated April 29.
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Geowest, 1987, "Fault Trenching and Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Spyglass Ridge Project,
Camino del Norte at Lugonia Street, City of Lake Elsinore, California," Project File No.
672-001, dated August 31.
Google Earth Air Photos, 2009.
Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., 2006, "Discussion of Relative Rippability of
Bedrock Materials, Tract 31593, Lake Elsinore, California," Project No. 031039-01, dated
January 24.
2005a, "Geotechnical Review of the Potential for Active Faulting within the Proposed
Development Area of Tract 31593, City of Lake Elsinore, California," Project No.
031039-03, dated June I.
2005b, "Geotechnical Clarification of the Potential for Active Faulting within the
Proposed Development Area of Tract 31593, City of Lake Elsinore, California," Project
No. 031039-01, dated May 12.
2004, "Updated Geotechnical Review of the Mass Grading Plan Tract 31593, City of
Lake Elsinore, California," Project No. 03 1 039-0 1, dated June 11.
'921r,
GEOTEK
aiwi S 30 ,,, ""�•pJ �" 28
g _ •�
' t_.C✓Vt
F 4f.
t`�F' Q.�rilm � 4•sr .
32 APPROXIMATE SITE AREA
Y N S' l e�YM_►"t�'1�
LA "�SINORE
41w
LUGONIA—r--- ST c�
Sr ;'P 5 NIA, 4
PAW
A N ,fn� C N NIICWI�. ST S.
p�_A
J 5
f a�
awn`�Lr.
;A -
_, r �
-�PtON W ��,
i •y7� ,� _, pF k0 �s I 1 ♦. l �i I IIR X.-D
< AV tX �v AtxraoEE e W vlwn� 1 ator>E
r1 :.,,,�tr 7 � � �(3% ¢vy?l� - _•.Ib• j � yi�•;�- � 11}u.w w�syl� cj'/y
Jot t, � „,r• -J�tJ .1 �T` ,v�! .. a�1�
Ic
a m.7 +�i:Y at �8 l vw �...I a " oil
" __,; "" �„ •..L ,d ° n-
mmfIlk L —
~ ROgO C aO
4fES AE tar,,t DAWES A+� ��pq lgF; ilg� �1y0y.p�
SR CIT r ��r.' «;f ,� - :.4R� 'sN y •�y� CTI "i} E3•SI r,W�y;>r .�•
u
>wsr
et
A. 9I 9
LAKE ATE CEMI OR-:
ELSINORE LAKE
LEVEE f - ■ „yam
If ELSINORE �- �r
OIAtVN0 0it-
!
ST
W!
gl � �l �s dui. 3•f'i
a
South Shore II Project
Lake Elsinore Area Figure I
Riverside County, California
Modified from The
Site Location G E O T E K GeoTek Project YVo.: 0967-CR3 Thomas Guide, Map
Riverside County,
Scale: V=2,400'
117,333330 W 117.316670 W WGS84 117,300000
1
NN
't9 �• •.• y � --�"� ) �•• •„'= -'/S9 qh t� � ice'
/ / r
3 0 0
ram -} - 1 t M
• Il . /ice i `• ✓ .I� � I( M
CO� � • I • / r ! O� � 4 � j�I L� �D
00
uc Q L Q r ^l rj _ It l C 1
se
w h� • t t N ( �Z. A .:.
_ •� 1 i II I 1 � J 11 ,Y q
Jl 47 ' • II 11 I It
, ♦ j ' C / 11 •I 11 �}�1 � //tom�
♦ / 1�i t ,1 V
I ,7,
�. o
0 � 12 •' I �- / �•�+ ..- � \k /i h 1 tip
f�5 \ ark '/A •ii
H If
117.333330 W 117.316670 W WGS64 117.300000 W
TN (MN 6 t MILE
j 130 �000 FEET 0 500 1000 MUMS
r+ Map created with TOPO!0 @2003 National Geographic(www.nationalgeographic.cornitopo)
South Shore II Project N
Lake Elsinore Area Figure 2
County of Riverside, California
General Site
Modified from USGS Topography
G E O T E K
7.5 Topographic Map Map
GeoTek Project No. 0967-CR3
�j "yak ,_ it •_' �
f
i
� I
1
AREA
• ti
Lugoma St
Flint St. Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 USA
w -Flint S.
v� 2013 Google
a - Google earth
I,na fiery Date 6.7.;2012 33 4048,31',N 117 18'28 59"'B elev 1627 f1 Eye all 8680 ft
�III�1111'.I1MI1' 'I'
I
i
IA�
III ,
Ju
U
0
llll
_r
`
1 I i
rwie,. eea9
reu, w-m w-a ru •.o II
AB Uf
w
I
� 2 0
,I
\
I
K r7 11�
1
sL° z 1
me
•w-ae
I A06 '
r
QC Ju
I
II \
I r,m
J
I
,,. 7708
I
w
SL-4
Ju
I _ I
• ��� •,.r ��
�r
.w mo
K9 r
III „� i
I I
� I
„ maw.
II 1 it
III I
,
\ _
K /fir °I
i r„
r
0
u �.
yKgr
1� — -- •e�,ee,e
id
PT 3
"
Ju/K r-¢
i. II � e� � . \ I �o-r /•w— y,. � �,,,, �rwr � e„ � Ju
I
TP—t
E
, I
0
I � r -
/
TP-9
' II
II .
(EXCAVATED AREA)
' \ 7\
gr
LEGEND
0
�I
Qa' Quaternary Alluvium
I a
QC QuaternaryCulluvium
(ELSINORE
; Kg r Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock SANITARY
LANDFILL)
Ju Upper Jurassic Metasedimentary Bedrock
T P—9 M Approximate location of Exploratory Trench
S—L-5 Approximate Location of Seismic Line Refraction Line
'I t
L____B.
Approximate Location of Geologic Cross-Section G e o t e c h n i c a l Map P ate t
Approximate Location of Geologic Contact
Strike and Dip of Bedding JC
n o e. aorkraya s. 1o1
S Corona.Cal'tarn rnic a 92879
!Ao Strike and Dip of JoinUFraction GEOTEK
- - - - GeoTek Project No. 0967—CR3 Date 3/28/13
I
I I
s an Ea Dowmen�lORnrilrvG Geolek',Job,IPN.996].J SW/i,Sr(up!rlaPar Or 1 19 2 111, <p 9y Al-,
I
III
A N 5 E --- A'
1900 1900
E�dsting Ground
,-
1800 1800
Proposed Grade
1700 1700
.o
1600 Jul 1600
1500 1500
Cross Section A—A' Plate 2
,,r�
GEOTEK
Project No. 0967-CR3 Scale: I"= 100'
B WE B'
1800 1800
1700 1700
Proposed Grade
1600 1600
f E)dsting Ground
QaI
Kgr
1500 1500
Ju
1400 J 1400
Cross Section B—B' Plate 3
G E OT E K
Project No. 0967-CR3 Scale: I" = 100'
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567
Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Project No. 0967-CR3
,12y-,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC APPENDIX A
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore 11 Project,Tract 36567 Page A-
A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586. The SPT sampler is typically
driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30
inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of
boring. The split-barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal
diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically
classified in the field, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing.
The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring)
The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550. The
sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with I-inch long, thin brass rings with inside
diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18
inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded
for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from
the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Bulk Samples (Large)
These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from
the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.
Bulk Samples (Small)
These are plastic bag samples which are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of
earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These
samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices.
B -TRENCH LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and
rock on the logs of trenches:
SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-c Fine to coarse
f-m Fine to medium
GEOLOGIC
B:Attitudes Bedding:strike/dip
J:Attitudes Joint: strike/dip
C: Contact line
........... Dashed line denotes USCS material change
Solid Line denotes unit/formational change
Thick solid line denotes end of trench
(Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the logs of trenches)
'G,
GEOTEK
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber Tire Backhoe
CLIENT: South Shore II,LLC DATE: 311812013
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing
t E TRENCH NO.:TP-1 -
a v V 0
E j t 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Alluvium:
SM Clayey silty SAND(SM),red brown,slightly moist,loose to medium
dense,porous MD,El,SR
5-
@5', becomes more cobbly
Hi¢hly Weathered Granitic Bedrock:
Excavates as f-m silty SAND,light red brown,damp
MD,SH,SR
10
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
No Groundwater Encountered
No Caving
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
15 -
Z3mR1s TX1 ®---Ring Sample L" Large Bulk Sample ---Water Table
W
Laboratory Testing AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MD=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
J SR=Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber Tire Backhoe
CLIENT: South Shore II,LLC DATE: 3/18/2013
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing
c
L TRENCH NO.: TP-2
0
v v z o v r
D a v U U
A E v 0 O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 3
Alluvium:
SM Gravelly silty f-m SAND(SM),light red brown,slightly moist,loose,
porous,roots
@ 1.5',becomes cobbly gravelly silty f-m SAND (SM),red brown,slightly
moist,medium dense,metamorphic and granular clasts, layered
5
Highly Weathered Granitic Bedrock:
Excavates as f-m silty SAND,light red brown,damp
10
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
No Groundwater Encountered
No Caving
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
15
Z Sample TXRe ■---Ring Sample �---Large Bulk Sample �— ---Water Table
W
0 Ld34raawry Testin&, AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MD=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
J SR=Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber Tire Backhoe
CLIENT: South Shore II,LLC DATE: 3/1 8120 1 3
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing
c
L E TRENCH NO.:TP-3
Z U U 0 L p E m H
N E D v O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Alluvium:
SM Clayey silty f-m SAND(SM),red brown,slightly moist, loose to medium
dense,porous
5I
Highly Weathered Granitic Bedrock:
Excavates as f-m silty SAND,light red brown,damp
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
No Groundwater Encountered
10 No Caving
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
15
Za^�i2L�LLYR ■--Ring Sample ---Large Bulk Sample ---Water Table
W
O Labgra 4ry__T_girig. AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MD=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
J SR=Suhte/Resistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber Tire Backhoe
CLIENT: South Shore II,LLC DATE: 3/18/2013
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing_
` S
L E N TRENCH NO.: TP-4 B
a v N
E D b y O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 3
Alluvium:
SM Gravelly silty f-m SAND(SM)with cobbles,gray brown,damp,loose;meta
sedimentary clasts of gravel
El
5
Highly Weathered Meta-sedimentary Bedrock:
Excavates as blocky,cobbly gravelly SAND,mottled yellow brown,very
dense
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No Groundwater Encountered
No Caving
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
10
15
Z54mic In= e---Ring Sample �...Large Bulk Sample �_ ---Water Table
W Laborawry TmiM AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MD=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
J SR=Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber TireBackhoe
CLIENT: South Shore II,LLC DATE: 3/18/2013
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing
c
L E N TRENCH NO.: TP-5 `
0
Z 6 U i o � L
E a `a, O
N
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Alluvium:
SM Clayey silty f-m SAND(SM),red brown,slightly moist,loose,porous
Highly Weathered Meta-sedimentary Bedrock:
Excavates as blocky,cobbly gravelly SAND,mottled yellow brown,very
dense,Practical refusal @ 2'
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 2 FEET
No Groundwater Encountered
No Caving
5-
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
10 -
15
ZU-ple Type: ®---Ring Sample ®---Large Bulk Sample ---water Table
W
0 Laboratory Tcsting: AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MD=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
J SR=Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber Tire Backhoe
CLIENT: South Shore II,LLC DATE: 3/18/2013
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing
21
E TRENCH NO.: TP-6 -
a c
p a w U U ,e t
H E D A O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 3
Alluvium:
SM Clayey silty f-m SAND(SM),red brown,slightly moist,loose,porous
Highly Weathered Granitic Bedrock:
5 Excavates as f-m silty SAND,light red brown,damp
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9 FEET
10
No Groundwater Encountered
No Caving
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
15
ZSample Tyne: ■__.Ring Sample ®---Large Bulk Sample ---Water Table
W
0 Labong ry TeItingL AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MD=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
J SR=Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber Tire Backhoe
CLIENT: South Shore II,LLC DATE: 3/1 8120 1 3
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing
E E TRENCH NO.: TP-7
3 v N U 0 r
E E ] O`
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Alluvium:
SM Gravelly,cobbly,silty f-m SAND(SM),medium red brown,slightly moist,
loose to medium dense,layered,meta-sedimentary clasts
5
10
Highly Weathered Granitic Bedrock:
Excavates as f-m silty SAND,light red brown,damp
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11.5 FEET
No Groundwater Encountered
No Caving
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
15
ZSAmRls_TXRCL ---Ring Ring Sample ---Large Bulk Sample ---Water Table
Wa
t3 l"goratory T&ntn_g; AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MID=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
.I SR=Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber Tire Backhoe
CLIENT: South Shore 11,LLC DATE: 311812013
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing
S
L E N TRENCH NO.: TP-8
W W Z U V p@ H
v
0 N E ? Q 0
V5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ;
Alluvium:
SM Gravelly,cobbly,silty f-m SAND(SM),medium red brown,slightly moist,
loose to medium dense, layered,meta-sedimentary clasts
5-
Highly Weathered Granitic Bedrock:
Excavates as f-m silty SAND,light red brown,damp
TRENCH TERMINATED AT B FEET
No Groundwater Encountered
10 No Caving
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
15
Z 771
---Ring Sample ---Large Bulk Sample �_ ---Water Table
W
0 LaboratQry_SS;.tjnj;_ AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MD=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
J SR=SulhtelResistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 0967-CR3 LOGGED BY: EHL
PROJECT NAME: Lake Elsinore EQUIPMENT: Rubber Tire Backhoe
CLIENT: South Shore II,LLC DATE: 3/18/2013
LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
SAMPLES Field Testing Laboratory Testing
FL E TRENCH NO.: TP-9
a H H
a w U U a 0 2i L
E E v Q O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Highly Weathered Meta-sedimentary Bedrock:
Excavates as blocky,cobbly gravelly SAND,mottled yellow brown,very SH,SR
dense;Practical refusal @ 2'
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 2 FEET
_ No Groundwater Encountered
No Caving
Backfilled with Trench Spoils
5-
10 -
15 -
ZSac* iv-TTYRea �---Rmg Sample ®---Large Bulk Sample ---Water Table
W Laboratory Testine: AL=Atterberg Limits El=Expansion Index MD=Maximum Density SA=Sieve Analysis
W
J SR=Sulfamilkesistivity Test SH=Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test CO= Consolidation
APPENDIX A. I
SEISMIC REFRACTION DATA
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567
Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Project No. 0967-CR3
GEOTEK
l
Subsurface Surveys & Associates, Inc.
urfac 2075 Corte Del Noaal. Suite W Carlsbad. CA 92011
Phone: (760) 476-0492 Fax: (760) 476-0493
GeoTek. Inc. April 2, 2013
f710 East Parkridge Avenue, Suite 105
Corona, CA 92879
Attn: Ed LaMont Re: Seismic Survey Summary Report
South Shore II Project Site—Lake Elsinore, CA
fThis report covers the results of a seismic refraction survey performed at the South Shore H
Development Site in Lake Elsinore, California. The purpose of the survey was to measure the
compressional wave velocity of bedrock for rippability assessment and to provide cross sections
showing thickness of the weathered zone and depth to the unweathered interface. This should be
useful for planning cuts and other earthwork.
The field work was conducted on March 19, 2013. Five seismic lines were recorded at locations
selected by GeoTek. A survey location map is provided on Figure 1 that shows the position and
orientation of the traverses.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
fA review of the"Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet", (California Division of Mines
and Geology, 1966) indicates the local area is underlain by Mesozoic rock of three different
types. They are described as follows: 1)marine sedimentary rock(Upper Jurassic age)that is
llocally metamorphosed 2) granitic rocks that are primarily tonalite and diorite and 3)basic
intrusive rock. Surface deposits are mainly colluvium on the hillsides.
fAn unnamed fault is mapped between the I-15 freeway and the survey area. This feature trends
NW-SE and is roughly parallel to the Glen Ivy Fault, which is 1-1.5 miles to the southwest.
DATA ACQUISITION AND FIELD METHODS
Seismic refraction data were recorded with a Bison 9024 signal enhancement seismograph and
30 Hz geophones. The standard spread layout used 24 geophones with a 10-foot spacing. Each
spread used five shotpoints, one off each end(1 0-footoffset)and three within the interior of the
�I
spread. Depth of investigation was approximately 60-70 feet.
Compressional wave energy was created by sledge hammer impacts on a metal plate. The signal
enhancement feature of the seismograph allowed returns from repeated hits to be stacked, thus
1
improving the signal. Each record was stored digitally on an internal hard disk and printed copies
of each seismogram were made in the field on thermal paper. Example seismic records from this
survey are shown on Figure 2.
Relative elevations of all shotpoints and geophones were determined by differential leveling with
a hand level. Geophone 1 (distance=0 ft.) at the beginning of each line was the reference station.
f All other elevation measurements along the line are relative to this point.
l The endpoints of each seismic spread are marked by a labeled wooden stake. The latitude and
longitude coordinates of the stakes were recorded with a hand held Garmin GPS receiver and
used to prepare the line location map on Figure 1.
f SEISMIC REFRACTION METHOD
` The refraction method involves measuring the total time for compressional waves to travel from
a shotpoint through the subsurface to a set of geophones placed linearly along the ground. Based
on Snell's Law,when two or more layers are present with increasingly higher acoustic velocity,
waves become critically refracted across the layer boundaries and begin traveling at the speed of
the underlying layer. The advancing waves then generate new wavefronts back to the ground
surface. The first surge of energy hitting the geophone is termed the "first arrival" and is depicted
on the seismogram as a high angle deflection along each trace. Example field records from this
fsurvey that show the first arriving energy are provided on Figure 2.
l Recognition of direct wave arrivals (non-refracted)verses refracted waves is a key element of
refraction interpretation. To assist this process,the first arrival times measured from the seismic
records are plotted on graphs of time verses distance called Time-Distance graphs.An example
T-D graph from Line 2 is shown on Figure 3. Based on changes in slope on the graphs, a
preliminary layer number(i.e. 1, 2, 3)is assigned to each segment of the graph. The layer
assignments together with time, distance and elevation data are input to a computer for additional
processing.
DATA REDUCTION AND VELOCITY DETERMINATION
I Seismic data from this survey was processed using two methods for generating seismic velocity
cross sections. One method produces layered earth models and uses the average velocity across
the spread to calculate the thickness of the layers. This is the most widely used approach for
rippability surveys because depths to refracting(velocity)horizons can be measured directly from
the cross sections. Layered models are best applied when there is not a significant lateral
variation in velocity along the line and the layer interfaces are relatively flat.
The second modeling approach uses what is referred to as tomographic inversion and produces
` velocity gradient cross sections in color. Tomography does not perform refraction layer
calculations or attempt to measure discrete depths. Instead, the main objective is to create a
2
velocity distribution grid in the subsurface. Each node of the grid has a specific velocity
associated with it. The goal is to adjust or"iterate"the velocity matrix so that the computer
derived travel-time curves match what was recorded in the field. The final velocity grid is then
loaded into a contouring program that produces color-filled cross sections. This method is
typically used for imaging the shape and configuration of complex structures such as faults,
landslides and intrusions, and areas where strong lateral velocity gradients are suspected within
the weathered profile.
Layered Models
Processing and interpretation of this data set was accomplished with"SIPT2", an interactive
inversion modeling program developed by James Scott for the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The
inversion algorithm uses the delay time method to construct a first pass depth model. The model
is then adjusted by an iterative ray tracing process that attempts to minimize the discrepancies
between the total travel times calculated along ray paths and the observed travel times measured
in the field.
This program calculates refractor velocity in two ways. First, apparent velocities from each shot
are determined by the inverse slope of a best fit(least squares)line through datum-corrected
travel times. True velocity is estimated from the apparent velocities by using the following
equation:
Vt=2(Vu x Vd)/(Vu+Vd)
where Vt=true velocity
Vu=apparent up dip velocity
Vd=apparent down dip velocity
The second method uses a more sophisticated set of equations (the Hobson-Overton formula)
developed by the Canadian Geological Survey. The final velocity assigned to the refractor is a
weighted average of the results of the two methods. The weighting is based on the number of
arrival times used in the computations.
Velocity Gradient Models
The tomographic modeling program used for this survey is SeisOpt Version 3.5 from Optim
LLC. It uses a proprietary inversion algorithm that applies a non-linear optimization technique
called generalized simulated annealing to adjust the velocity grid points for the best statistical
match. It is referred to as an optimization because it attempts to find the model that has the least
minimum travel-time error between the calculated and observed(field)measurements.
3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Layered Velocity Cross Sections
Data from Lines 1, 2, and 3 were processed using our standard layer modeling software for
rippability surveys. Results from refraction analysis show a three layer solution beneath these
lines. Velocities posted on the cross sections represent averages as described in the previous
section. Therefore,minor localized changes in velocity may occur along any profile. A
description of the layers is provided below and a cross section summary is shown in Table 1.
Layer 1 - is mostly colluvium and highly decomposed and fractured bedrock.
Layer 2 - is interpreted to be weathered bedrock. The velocity range is 3114-4142 ft/sec and is
considered rippable with a Caterpillar D-9.
Layer 3 -represents hard slightly weathered to unweathered bedrock.
Table 1. Cross Section Summary
Velocity Velocity Velocity Depth Range
Line Layer 1 Layer 2 Laver 3 Layer 2/3 Interface
1 1559 4722 8479 38 -44
2 1635 3629 7407 37 -50
3 1474 3507 ND >60
Velocity in(ft/sec), Depth in(feet)
ND -not detected
Weathering tends to be gradational for most rock types and usually produces a gradual increase
in velocity with depth. Consequently, variation of+ 10% from the posted averages may occur
between the top and bottom of Layer 2.
Figure 4 presents a rippability chart(courtesy of Caterpillar Tractor Co.) for a D9R Ripper. Bar
graphs show the relationship between seismic compressional wave velocity and ripper
performance for various rock types in three categories: rippable,marginal, and non-rippable.
Metamorphic rocks are listed as marginally rippable at approximately 7200 ft/sec and are
considered non-rippable above 9000 ft/sec. Granitic rocks are marginally rippable at 6800 ft/sec
and non-rippable above 8000 ft/sec. This chart is provided only as a guide and should not be
considered absolute. Other geologic factors that may influence bedrock rippability at this site
include the degree and grade of metamorphism, the presence of fractures,joints,possible
intrusive bodies and changes in rock composition.
4
Velocity Gradient Models
f
I Data from Lines 4 and 5 showed highly irregular refraction horizons and significant lateral
changes in velocity across the spreads. The layer modeling program, that does ray tracing and
uses the average velocity of each layer to calculate depths,was smoothing and flattening the main
[ features and produced unreliable results. To maintain the true geometry and provide better
resolution, a more robust modeling approach was applied that uses tomographic inversion
processing. Results are displayed on Figures 8 and 9.
The geologic structures shown on the color models could be related to granitic intrusion or zones
[ of highly metamorphosed and hardened metasediments. These complex features were not
observed on Lines 1,2, and 3.
The tomographic modeling for Line 4 produced a velocity range of 1192-6151 ft/sec and the
range for Line 5 was 1181-7527 ft/sec. The high end values are close to or within the marginally
rippable range for granitic and metamorphic rock. If ridge line cuts below Lines 4 and 5 are
greater than 35-40 feet, ripping may be difficult across these high velocity zones.
1 All data acquired during this survey is considered confidential and is available for review by your
[ staff at any time. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this project.
Please call if there are any questions.
Phillip A.Walen
Senior Geophysicist
CA Registration No.GP917
5
G
1
LO
N �� -
N C
IS
0
1 � N
r
�F CV J
1
111 1
Example Seismic Field Records
L
t�K�N M1)X)————-——---——
—W N—) 0 CO I Cr,0-L w K)— AWN—Ow W-40 0-r-WN—OQ M-40 0 L WN—
'A:
..........
-Mr-
00
E31SC)r%l QOOO SERIES 131SON 0000 E3EFZI 'E:O
Record Name: LAKE0003 Record Name; LAKE0005
Date 03:19:13 Time 07:43 Date 03: 19:13 Time 07:45
Figure 2
2L co
g
w LM
U-
IN
q
c
L
o -- w
o P4
N P4
M �
N J a
N L
� L
J A� yy
i � W
L
Q
cc
U _!
co
� C
W N
J � L
cu
u
L b
J
M 1�
n 06
E 0
Rippers Ripper Performance
• D9R/D9T
D9R/D9T
Multi or Single Shenk No.9 Ripper
•Estimated by Seismic Wave Velocities
Seismic Velocity 0 1 2 3 4
Molars Per Second 10M I I i r i
Feet Per Second 1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
TOPSOIL
CLAY
GLACIALTILL
IGNEOUS ROCKS
GRANRE
BASALT
TRAP ROCK
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
SHALE
SANDSTONE
SILTSTONG
CLAYSTONE
CONGLOMERATE
BRECCIA
CALICHE
LIMESTONE
METAMORPHIC ROCKS
SCHIST
SLATE
MINERALS and ORES
COAL
IRON ORE
RIPPAIRS- MARGINAL r� NON-RIPPABLE
Figure 4
If
' •A'iiA'iA`iiiiil•iii �
•Y%2 ♦ ss ♦ ♦ s ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ v ♦ sss ♦ ss
r I r / A %! I I ! ! I%!%A%r%I A%A I !!
LL
I r A A I r A A ! A A A A I A I ! A I I
Y,. sss ♦ s ♦ ss ♦ ♦♦ ♦ sss♦ s♦ ♦ ♦
% I% % % % % % ♦
I I A ! I A I A A r ! A I r r I r A%I%A r N
I I A I / I A A A A I r I! r A I I r ! sw
•} `:::A`iiiiii iiiil A
y. `i iIZ IZ i1`iiii...iiii asi
3 ,♦ s ♦ ♦ s ♦ s ♦ ssss ♦ s ♦ s ♦ ♦ sss ♦
I I I I I I /
/ IAA I
III / A A !
i iiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir`ii art
{:• iiii '11% % iiiiiiiA`ii % ell
C . . . . ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ . . ♦ . . . . . A
%! / A I A I A/ r A I I I A I A V.
A I ! I
:} •iiiiiii/`iii iiiiiiiiii V
�. ! I I I I I I A I I I I A A r r r A I A r
`iiiiiii/`iiiiiiiiiliii M�9 •
I r I I / I I / I / I I / r A I I I L
_:} ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ s
%
%
%
%
/ / I / / / / I I I%I I r I%/ / / III r /
! / / I A /
.$ sss ♦ ♦ ss ♦ s ♦ ♦ s ♦ s ♦ ssss ♦ s
:3' ♦ ♦ ♦ ss ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ss ♦ ssss ♦ s
u3; ♦ss ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ssss ♦ ♦ suss
I / I A I I I r I I , A I A A / A A / / I A I
}' `iiiiiiiii `%iiiiiii i
r ! 40
! I I r I I ! I A • / I I ! A I I A I
•i iiiii Asi i r'• 1%
. ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • s s
I A I A I/ I i r • I r I I I I A i i 0 J
;Ii iA iA iI iI iI AIs lI ii r:IA♦AII II /s! I.!♦i.
%,
LILL
I I A
s
i r
. A
I I I A r i I A i i A r r r I r r i i
sss ♦ sss ♦ ♦ ♦ss ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ s
t; r A I i r I I I r I I ! / I I A i i
:'♦i iiiii ii i i i i i i i i i iIM
Fvm
I r r i i i A I i i I i A i I A i i i
y' `iiiIf... iiiiiiiii r
Ys ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ sv • . • . . . • . •Po.. .
Y• ♦��Z%�rsi���� �����i
r= ♦ i �! A
I I I A I I ! A ! A A I I A A I I A r
Y. s ♦ ss ♦ sv ♦ ♦ ss ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ %p
I r i r i A I i r I i i
� ••. ♦ ♦ ss ♦ sv • sssssss s ♦ s
f ♦ ♦ ♦ ss ♦ sv ♦ ♦ sss ♦ sss ♦ s
Y..♦ ♦ ♦ ssssv ♦ ♦ ♦s ♦ s ♦ ss ♦ s �
Y=) ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦♦ v ♦ ♦ ♦s ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦
AllriiAiil / IIII / II
I I I A / I / A A A r // / I I / /
•'} iiiiiiir♦iiiiii �
:h ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦ sys ♦ ss ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
I I A I r I r r r r r r r i i ♦ � s
i
A
•y i iii i
I
F: ♦ ♦ ♦ s ♦♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ ss ♦ s ♦ ♦ ♦ A u
I r A i r i i i i A r I I I I A I
a * Ir rirAiriirAic iii
s;i% s ii
'71
1994 OZ I M
W
rt /%, / , / / , / / / ,
Z
%rk ♦ \ . \ \ \ \ ♦ \ \ \ \
iiiil i
%
• I I I I / / I / / / / / /
I , / I%I%I%, /
III/`IIIIIIIIiII pig
fi' iIiIIIIiIIIII/\: q
. \ \ ♦ . . \ . \ \ . \ \ . + U
J. I , / L
♦ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ \ \ \J.\ \Ip
\ N
I%II% /`I%%%%I%I I%I% /
I / / // I • ♦ / / / / / I / I / W
N19 :IIIII N % % % % % % N 40
i `I / //
iiiiiii
\ . ♦ \ \ . \ ♦ \ \ \\ \ ♦
/ , I 0 J
J. , I / / , /
/ . , ,
nw / , / / /
p% /f/ Joli,ii,lI ,i//i0J
%
%
Y,. \ ♦ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ ♦ \ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
/%/ /t , ,%,
/ , , / , , / / / / / I�
,r5 \,iiii \ ♦ ♦ ♦ \ \ ♦ \
/ / I / / / / I I / / / /
/ ,/ I /%/ / / /
Y,Yy . \\ . \ \ . . ♦ \ ♦ \ .
/ // I III / I, / /
POO
/ // / / / I / / f I /
,%/%/ / % u
/ , / I ,
X.
, I /
/ , , / I I, // / I � L
/ d d I
L
laal OZ I M
t� G�
I / /r / / / I / / I / / / / / / / / I / d L
W / r /t / f / / / // t / / / / f / / / fdLUL
ff / / / / r / ft / ad
iiii iiiiii�. A
/ PIANO/ / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / d .RY
/ I / I I //
'Y' ♦ \ ♦ \ , ♦w \ ♦ \ \ ♦ \ ♦ ♦ ♦ \ ♦ , \ ♦ ♦ ♦ i
/ / / I / I
/ J./ / / / / / f / rI
drr
A
/ / / / . fad
k iii iiiiiiiii/♦iiiiiiiiiir . N�1 r
I / / / f / /r / / / f / / / / / / / / / f / / tr „4
\ ♦ \ w \ \ \ , \ ♦ \ \ , \ w \ , \ ♦ \ \ ♦ , ♦ ♦
. / / / / / / / // , / / f/ / . / / / / / / / t ,
iii/wi/\i iiiii% iiii/wiir if♦d +�
y�p ♦iiiiiii i TT...r♦i iiiiiiRAW
1 0M i" i iii i.M i i iiiiiii i i d
\ ♦ , , \ \ , ♦ ♦ , \ ♦ , w ♦ , \ ♦ ♦ , \ ♦ \ \
4�if♦iiiiiiiiiii.4. twiiiiiiii/` d
iif/ .�ii
I I I / / / / I I I / "I, / I / / I I I # d
i/J\/ I r,/ f %I t r
ID
F� F
t. \ ♦ \ \ ♦, \ \ ♦ \ \ ♦ ♦, \ \ ♦ , \ \ \
♦iiiiii it iiii i�ii/`iii � N
♦r i/Iw♦♦i�♦ii/,i/i♦iIi♦if,Iii,i//ww iIw i//`,/iIiw♦ti/iw♦f//i`♦♦fi/i/,♦,
call;OR
Ii cis
\ ♦ N O �CO
% N
^�7 L
}, ♦ , ♦ ♦i ♦ \, w ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ , ♦ ♦ ♦ RO
%
f / / I f /
/ / I /
I / /a y
IfIIf / IIII / /% %
/ a t N L
'} iiiir/wi i i ii a 3
to a If it il to 11 is I is i 1 01 No it I No it #1 is No I if It I it IN IN I Il lAd u CL
1991 OZ
U U CD
N
o 2 a
O a a
u te(D
o ca m m 0
00
CMPCD c000c� 00000
w
z 00
LL
C=P
CZ)
F: o
c t; %C
75
S r• CD
• . • CD
1• 1
u' .k o
m
0
a)
0
0 0 C
a
a CD
$
m
0 >.N N Y
y 2 L 1° m my
C 3 (n m
CD Ca Cz CD C=P Q CD Q Cyr CS CD u�L�� =
CD
U4
1
1 i 1 C4
Z ;r �
cu
. . . . . . o
�y CV
CD
• • • • co
LO
ko
1
d
C%
t11 V
4°
.r. N
�• � o
. . . CC)
o
- o
C+�
w
w
0
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567
Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Project No. 0967-CR3
'G,
GEOTEK
SOUTH SHORE 11, LLC APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Evaluation April 8, 2013
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567 _ Page B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method
D2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory trenches included in Appendix A.
Moisture-Density Relations
Laboratory testing was performed on a representative site samples collected during the subsurface
exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for representative
soil types was determined in general accordance with test method ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. The
most recent results are included herein on Plates MD-I through MD-3.
Expansion Index
Expansion Index testing was performed on soil samples collected during our field explorations. Testing
was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829. The Expansion Index (EI) test
results indicate a very low expansion potential for the materials tested. The results are included herein
on Plates EI-I through EI-2.
Direct Shear
Shear testing was performed on remolded samples of the-site soil materials in general accordance with
ASTM Test Method D 3080. The test results are included herein on Plates SH-I and SH-2.
Sulfate Content
Analyses to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed by others in general
accordance with California Test No. 417. The results are included herein.
Resistivity
Soil samples collected at the site were tested by others for resistivity in accordance with California Test
643. The results of the testing are included herein.
'G,
GEOTEK
'�G�
G E O T E K
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Client: South Shore Il, LLC Job No.: 0967-CR3
Project: South Shore II Lab No.: Corona
Location: Lake Elsinore
Material Type: Brown Silty Sand
Material Supplier: N/A
Material Source: N/A
Sample Location: T- 1
Cc_D1 -2'
Sampled By: EHL Date Sampled: 18-Mar-13
Received By: N/A Date Received: 19-Mar-13
Tested By: DI Date Tested: 22-Mar-13
Reviewed By: N/A Date Reviewed: 3-Air-13
Test Procedure: ASTM 1557 Method: A
Oversized Material (%): 0.0 Correction Required: Lies X❑ no
♦ DRYDENSnFY(pd):
I
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE
a CORRECTED DRY DENSITY
150 (Pcf):
ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY
145 - ---®.. --3C — (Pcf)
r +
140 X S.G.2.7
v 135 — AC S.G.2.8
n 130 _
o S.G.2.6
z 125
w - - OVERSIZE CORRECTED
120
0 115 —ZERO AIR VO DS
f
110
i Poly.(DRY DENSITY(pcf:)
105
- Poly.(S.G.2.7)
100
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Poly.(S.G.2.8)
MOISTURE CONTENT,
�— - Poly.(S.G.2.6) I
l
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES
Maximum Dry Density, pcf 134.0 @ Optimum Moisture, 0% 8.0
Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture,
( MATERIAL D_ESCRIPT_IO_ N I
Grain Size Distribution: Atterberg Limits:
% Gravel(retained on No. 4) Liquid Limit, %
% Sand (Passing No.4, Retained on No. 200) Plastic Limit, %
% Silt and Clay(Passing No. 200) Plasticity Index, %
Classification:
Unified Soils Classification:
AASHTO Soils Classification:
Plate MD-1
"G�
G E O T E K
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Client: South Shore II, LLC Job No.: 0967-CR3
Project: South Shore II Lab No.: Corona
Location: Lake Elsinore
Material Type: Light Brown Sand
Material Supplier: N/A
Material Source: N/A
Sample Location: T- 1
(CD-8-9'
Sampled By: EHL Date Sampled: 18-Mar-13
Received By: N/A Date Received: 19-Mar-13
Tested By: DI Date Tested: 22-Mar-13
Reviewed By: N/A Date Reviewed: 3-Apr-13
Test Procedure: ASTM 1557 Method: A
Oversized Material (%): 0.0 Correction Required: aes F- no
♦MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE DRY DENSITY(pcf):
CORRECTED DRY DENSITY
-- (Pcf).
150
ZERO AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY
145
140 ;�e `y(� l X S.G.2.7
a 135 * S.G.2.8
v f `
a
130 � m S.G.2.6
z 125
w \ - OVERSIZE CORRECTED
120
-T---
0 115 - �- — -- — —ZERO AIR VOIDS
110 - -- Poly.(DRY DENSITY(pcf):)
105 — -- -- Poly.(S.G.2.7)
100
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Poly.(S.G.2.8)
MOISTURE CONTENT,
Poly.(S.G.2.6)
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES
Maximum Dry Density, pcf 125.0 @ Optimum Moisture, %1 10.5
Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, %
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Grain Size Distribution: Atterber Limits:
Gravel (retained on No. 4) Liquid Limit,%
Sand(Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) Plastic Limit, %
Silt and Clay(Passing No. 200) Plasticity Index,%
Classification:
Unified Soils Classification:
AASHTO Soils Classification:
Plate MD-2
"''""
G E O T E K
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Client: South Shore II, LLC Job No.: 0967-CR3
Project: South Shore II Lab No.: Corona
Location: Lake Elsinore
Material Type: Gray Brown Gravelly Silty Sand
Material Supplier: N/A
Material Source: N/A
Sample Location: T-9
@0-2'
Sampled By: EHL Date Sampled: 18-Mar-13
Received By: N/A Date Received: 19-Mar-13
Tested By: DI Date Tested: 25-Mar-13
Reviewed By: N/A Date Reviewed: 3-ADr-13
Test Procedure: ASTM 1557 Method: A
Oversized Material {%): 2.0 Correction Required: Gres X� no
MOISTURE/DENSITY RELATIONSHIP CURVE ♦ DRY DENSITY(pcf):
■ CORRECTED DRY DENSITY
150 (pd):
ZERO_AIR VOIDS DRY DENSITY
145 (pd)
140 `\fi\ ' —— X S.G.2.7
v 135 f
I X S.G.2.8
a
130
i e S.G.2.6
Z 125
120 i
LU OVERSIZE CORRECTED
01
0 115 —ZERO AIR VOIDS
110 —Poly.(DRY DENSITY(pcf):)
105
Poly.(S.G.2.7)
100
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I Poly.(S.G.2.8)
MOISTURE CONTENT,
Poly.(S.G.2.6) �
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP VALUES
Maximum Dry Density, pcf 129.5 @ Optimum Moisture, % 7.5
Corrected Maximum Dry Density, pcf @ Optimum Moisture, %�
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Grain Size Distribution: Atterberg Limits:
Gravel (retained on No. 4) Liquid Limit, %
Sand (Passing No. 4, Retained on No. 200) Plastic Limit, %
Silt and Clay(Passing No. 200) Plasticity Index, %
Classification:
Unified Soils Classification:
AASHTO Soils Classification:
Plate MD-3
O r
o w
U 7 o W
i F-
.o � J
O r a
z
m
m
J C
m
N U)
Q U) N
N C
N o � co
N , O f6
mH CO C c c c W
C O co
L F
m N N
a w Z O_ O_ O CD O_ O E
d •Q' p co O CO w w w -j N
V i V Q O O O O O O
� O W O O O O C] O Z �' CO
W co
• otS uo
aJ d
NQ Q Z N N cn In coO M
d 10
F� 0 cn (n W
M M M M M M W
^ c Cl CD Q
V' H N N N N N N Z
W < N N N N CCN n coZ
r N N N N N N m
M M M M co C ?� Cl) O
WO od COO N
G a N 7
Z W
Z
O ~
N
a
Q
X CM 00 U0 O CO
CX1 ^ M
z
Z O
O Q
Q Z
Z �
W
O W
mac-, Wcn
o
L M L _ G c Z
a U U) c O
O H
O O O v N Z O O
cn o U) cc u1 E Mo -0C)
m G U Q o
p p E D 04/�
C_ LO Q_ Cl) coo (A V
i U E E m L
y O a O) m c N
C >
W � p am 0 ° : �� o M o
Z 3 0 o L EE y ( V O ° m
m m y
a)
W V a a z o cn o
Q m 0 O ui LL a 2
m
O N
O` C W
C) 7 e W
_ O
O
O N d
z >, o
y
m >
J �p
M C
i
r N O O CO
N m Lo
N m d d E
M c c Ur C -°°C W
�ii
U
ca _ O
o �-
O O ,Q M M CO M C) ~
V C"J m
i V Q N N N N N N J (A N d•
O O O CD O O
IJ.V o �S In
yw Q. Q. z II llf�] C�
1► Q y ti Q M of (M a �ii m II
W x
M M M_ _M _M W
M
V/ W O G O O O O E Z
H W N N CV N N N m _
Q N C� N N N ua U) Z
N N N N N N N �
cM Cl) co (n co V) 3 m O O
W O xS Ln (n
Z13 N LOU
co
Z
O ~
Q
Cl) v
a
CL Ln ti co C� P. O ti MW O M V r r O N
z
z
O Q
� z
J = C _ H
— cm E
W C
L M 0 L z
fn U Cn _O
L L O od Cfl �' •^�
O C) O z C) a
° M
U) C) fn @ m 0 m EO LL F V
Q
m U p N N
C_ tfy U C) ° `!
m o a m m c m
i zm L E m
�. V Q� O C O C > y? C
W o 2 ,� o
0 0 c � °
O :: v v c s s m pp a 2 w -- Y
C 1 1 C71 O O) >i — a, U C6
W a a 3 z o. 2 Cn 0
0 a m 0 o w U. 0 = —
G E O T E K
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Client: South Shore 11,LLC Sample Source: T-I @ 8-9'
Project Number. 0967-CR3 Date Tested: 3/29/2013
Soil Description: Light Brown Sand
1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 ! 1
5.5 - -1- - - - - - - 1- - - -'- - -■• - - '- - - -
1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 1 1
r
1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ / . 1 p
4.5 - -1. - L - - - 1- - -1- - - -■. L
r 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ■ ■ 1 1 p
Y
4i -1- r -1 - - r � -I- r -■- r -p - >r
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ W
3.5 - .1. L _ J - 1_ J -I- _ L - .■- L - .■ . - J
W
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ Q
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■
1 ■ _
3 - -, - - - - -, - - -- - - -1- - - -■- • - -■ - � � - N
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 ■
2.5 _ -1 V - J - - 1- J _ -1- _ i _ - ■. - .■ - - 1. _ J
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 ■
1 1 I 1 1 I I ■ ■ ■ 1 p
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ p 1 ■
1.5
0.5
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ■ ■ 1 1
1 - . 1 - 1 1 1 _ 1 - 1 - 1 _ p - ■ - ■ - 1 - 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
NORMAL STRESS Iksf)
Shear Strength: 0 = 32.2 ° C = 0.00 ksf
Final Water Ina ry
Test No. Load(ksf) Content(%) Density(pcf)
1 1.4 18.0 108.9
2 2.8 17.3 109.2
3 5.5 16.3 108.8
Notes: I -The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded cc approximately 90%from a bulk sample
collected during the field investigation.
2-The above reflect residual shear strength at saturated conditions.
3-The tests were ran at a shear rate of 0.025 in/min.
PLATE SH-I
G E O T E K
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Client: South Shore II,LLC Sample Source: T-9 @ 0-2-
Project Number: 0967-CR3 Date Tested: 3/29/2013
Soil Description: Gray Brown Gravelly Silty Sand
1 1 1 1 + 1 I ■ ■ 1 1 1
5.5
1 I- 1 1 ■ ■ 1 a
1 1 1 + 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ 1 1 1
5 - -1- - r - ti - - r - - -■- - T - -■- - r - -1 - - r - -1
+ 1 1 1 1 ■ + . ■ 1 / ■
4.5 -1- 1- - -+. 3 - •+- - L -
I 1 1 1 ■ ■ + 1 ■ i 1
f 4 - 1 _ 1 - 1 1 - 1 _ ■ _ 1 _ ■ - ■ - 1 - 1 - 1 y
-1- r -1 - r � -.- s -■- r
1 1 1 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 I 1
3.5 . .1 - L _ 1 1. J - -+. 1 - -+- L - -+ - - L - -1 h
1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 �Q
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ILA
3 - -1 - - r - -1 - 1- - i - -+. - - -+- - - - -1 - - i - -1 L
1 1 1 1 + ■ ■ 1 + 1 1 1
1 1 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 i ■ i 1 i ■ i i
1 / 1 1 ■ 1 1 / 1 1 I
1.5 - .1 . . ► . a - 1- - ■ - -1. . i . .1. - i . -1 . . 1. - y
' 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 1 1
1 1 - 1 - ■ - ■ - 1 - ■ - ■ . 1 - 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1
0.5
r
1 / 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 1 1
1 / 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ 1 1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 35 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
NORMAL STRESS(ksf)
Shear Strength: 0 = 36.9 ° C = 0.23 ksf
Final Water Final Dry
Test No. Load(ksf) Content(%) Density(pcf)
1 1.4 17.8 112.1
2 2.8 17.4 1 13.9
3 5.5 17.1 113.8
Notes: I -The soil specimen used in the shear box was a ring sample remolded to approximately 90%from a bulk sample
collected during the field investigation.
2-The above reflect residual shear strength at saturated conditions.
3-The tests were ran at a shear rate of 0.025 in/min.
PLATE SH-2
Cal Land Engineering, Inc.
dba Quartech Consultants
Geotechnical, Environmental &Civil Engineering
March 25, 2013
Geo Tek Inc.
710 East Parkridge Avenue, Suite 105
Corona, California 92879
Attn: Mr. Edward Lamont
RE: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS/REPORT
Client: So. Shore LLC
W.O. 0967- CR3
Project: So. Shore II
QCI Job No.: 13-167-03d
Gentlemen:
We have completed the testing program conducted on samples from the above project. The tests
were performed in accordance with testing procedures as follows:
TEST METHOD
Corrosion Potential CT- 417, CT-422, CT-532 (643)
Enclosed is Summary of Laboratory Test Results.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testing services to Geo Tek, Inc. Should you have any
questions, please call the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
Cal Land Engineering, Inc. (CLE)
dba Quartech Consultants (QCI)
Abe KazerrizadpK
Laboratory Manager
Enclosure
576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, CA 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050, Fax: 714-671-1090
Cal Land Engineering, Inc.
dba Quartech Consultants
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil Engineering
For: GeoTek, Inc. Date: March 25, 2013
W.O.: 0967 - CR3 QCI Project No.: 13-167-03d
Client: So. Shore LLC Summarized by: ABK
Project: So. Shore II
Corrosivity Test Results
Sample PH Chloride Sulfate
Resistivity
ID Depth CT-532 CT-422 CT-417
° CT-532 (643)
(Feet) (643) (ppm) We°iA y (ohm-cm)
TP-1 1 -2 8.86 95 0.0050 5,100
TP-1 8 - 9 8.24 127 0.0020 6,900
TP-9 0 -2 7.84 141 0.0015 3,800
576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090
APPENDIX C
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567
Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Project No. 0967-CR3
GEOTEK
0
N
J
I
I
o
N M I =
yr
q) CR
CL W r
O c
N NLZ
s
C � m
LO
en
O G>
vco ,`�
7 it NC0 1
N
LN
a � s
� m \ N �
+� 0) U) aoo
'o o f LL. A
a0 ` N
S j 2 ! `t N ::
N y Eoo
p l r- `1 a J Lv
c uN) moo 7
V �1 o V
N
rnCDuj� N C9 d
0 �Q:coco Q
0 CD
0 p4)f r y no o c�
p v L4
o p U c v LL.
I >.
Z D w � �•� oo• d
�OE L)�riC)
m
a o ,
a� � •moo
U � UTAO O
H'c V — O
� r
— N
O p_p�CV
U) Z i
U1
— v = p 1
CO Q N
I
m '
LLL�L?to�o _r-- t--I_rCD
1
M N CD O
m
cn
0
I
C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3_basin Surface #1.OUT Page 1
i
*** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D. ,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.2, Jan. 2011 **
(All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices.
(Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback,
Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope,
r Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water
Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces.
Analysis Run Date: 4/8/2013
Time of Run: 12:022M
Run By: Username
Input Data Filename: C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3 basin Surface #l.in
Output Filename: C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3_basin Surface #1.OUT
Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3_basin Surface #1.PLT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Proj . No. 0967-CR3 Highest
2:1 (h:v) Fill Slope Static
, . BOUNDARY COORDINATES
3 Top Boundaries
5 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (Et) Below Bnd
1 0.00 130.00 137.00 130.00 1
2 137.00 130.00 315.00 219.00 1
3 315.00 219.00 500.00 219.00 1
4 0.00 115.00 460.00 130.00 2
5 460.00 130.00 500.00 135.00 2
Default Y-Origin = 0.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 125.0 125.0 100.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 0
2 130.0 130.0 400.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 0
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
25 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 120.00(ft)
and X = 140.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 320.OD(ft)
and X = 380.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.OD (ft)
20.00 (ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 500
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 500
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 4.096 FS Min = 1.650 FS Ave = 2.915
Standard Deviation = 0.660 Coefficient of Variation = 22.66 0
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 137.895 130.447
2 157.617 133.766
I .
C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3 basin Surface #1.OUT Page 2
3 177.122 139.189
4 196.348 143.701
5 215.233 150.286
6 233.718 157.922
7 251.744 166.5B5
8 269.254 176.248
f 9 286.194 186.891
11 10 302.509 198.449
11 318.148 210.9L6
12 327.193 219.000
r Circle Center At X = 89.175 ; Y = 481.202 and Radius = 354.122
(' Factor of Safety
*** 1.650 ***
Individual data on the 12 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
� • Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
1 19.7 8064.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 19.5 22448.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 19.2 33457.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 18.9 41078.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 18.5 45365.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 18.0 46444.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 17.5 44504.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
8 16. 9 39802.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
9 16.3 32651.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
( 10 12.5 19437.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
I` 11 3.1 3674.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
12 9.0 4570.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
i Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
` 1 137.895 130.447
2 157.340 135.L27
3 176.571 140.617
4 195.556 146.907
5 214.261 153.988
6 232.652 161.847
7 250.698 170.468
8 268.368 179.839
9 285.628 189.941
10 302.451 200.758
11 318.805 212.270
12 327.562 219.000
Il Circle Center At X = 36.620 ; Y = 591.758 and Radius = 475.227
Factor of Safety
*** 1.659 ***
I Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Il Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 140.000 131.500
2 159.471 136.070
I 3 178.732 141.455
4 197.750 147.646
5 216.491 154.631
6 234.920 162.399
`I 7 253.007 170.935
8 270.719 180.225
9 288.024 190.251
10 304.892 200.997
l 11 321.293 212.443
l 12 329.893 219.000
Circle Center At X = 41.799 ; Y = 594 .419 and Radius = 473.220
Factor of Safety
*** 1.666 ***
l Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
1 .
F
C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3_basin Surface #LOUT Page 3
F
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 137.895 130.447
2 157.219 135.603
3 176.349 141.438
4 195.260 147.947
(' 5 213.929 135.121
I6 232.333 162.950
7 250.448 171.426
8 268.252 180.537
9 285.723 190.273
C1 10 302.838 200.620
11 319.577 211.566
12 330.110 219.000
Circle Center At X = 2.572 ; Y = 677.076 and Radius = 563.130
Factor of Safety
*** 1.676 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 140.000 131.500
2 159.918 133.313
3 179.663 136.493
4 199.143 141.024
5 218.265 146.886
6 236.938 154.050
7 255.073 162.482
8 272.585 172.143
9 289.391 182.986
10 305.410 194.960
11 320.567 208.009
12 331.685 219.000
Circle Center At X = 123.834 Y = 420.626 and Radius = 289.577
Factor of Safety
*** 1.683 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 138.947 130. 974
I 2 158.913 132.147
3 178.756 134. 645
4 198.390 138.456
5 217.726 143.565
6 236.680 149.948
7 255.168 157.576
8 273.108 166.417
9 290.421 176.431
10 307.029 187.574
I 11 322.859 199.797
Il 12 337.842 213.045
13 343.737 219.000
Circle Center At X = 131.304 ; Y = 431.537 and Radius = 300.661
Factor of Safety
1.748 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
I 1 127.368 130.000
2 147.290 128.228
3 167.289 128.411
4 187.175 130.548
5 206.756 134.616
6 225.847 140.579
7 244.264 148.378
8 261.830 157.939
9 278.378 169.171
10 293.750 181.966
1
I
C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3_basin Surface #1.OUT Page 4
11 307.799 196.201
12 320.389 211.741
(� 13 325.176 219.000
ICircle Center At X = 155.420 ; Y = 332.527 ; and Radius = 204.460
Factor of Safety
*** 1.754 ***
r Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Paints
ly Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 122.105 130.000
2 141.971 127.686
(l 3 161.969 127.399
l 4 181.893 129.141
5 201.538 132.895
6 220.700 138.621
7 239.184 146.260
8 256.797 155.735
9 273.359 166.941
10 288.699 179.780
11 302.658 194.102
12 315.093 209.767
13 321.004 219.000
Circle Center At X = 154.795 ; Y = 324.252 and Radius = 196.983
Factor of Safety
*** 1.761 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 140.000 131.500
2 159.748 134.664
3 179.337 138.699
f 4 198.728 143.596
5 217.884 149.346
6 236.767 155.931
7 255.339 163.356
I 8 273.566 171.590
9 291.410 180.622
10 308.838 190.434
11 325.815 201.007
12 342.307 212.320
I 13 351.177 219.000
Circle Center At X = 78.352 ; Y = 579.131 ; and Radius = 452.154
Factor of Safety
*** 1.769 ***
I Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Il Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 140.000 131.500
2 159.899 129.493
3 179.898 129.719
4 199.746 132.176
5 219.197 136.831
6 238.006 143.629
7 255.940 152.482
8 272.774 163.282
9 288.297 175.892
10 302.316 190.156
t 11 314.656 205.896
l 12 322.747 219.000
Circle Center At X = 167.946 ; Y = 307.721 and Radius = 178.423
Factor of Safety
*** 1.795 ***
l **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT *k**
i
_ o
i
I N
N�
I
C> o "� p
r
N co
Oo
M N
(D
N
a � Q
aN
° ca m
Fm >
M r,
it ^ al omu
r _ U
N
N Ia:3z
1 a" J
� � ca00 Q v i
c dUv O f! V
M a m Eoo N
J o N c`aoo
Vo as
d o o m CD N
y-
°Oi O
c °'I .o a
Z °� t ac o 1i
w O c--�v
IL O 0 0 O
li Q U6o O
a04cl) T-
ii 5
��moo,
o ui 0 1 `'
a��2
I � I
cS.C;
U)�z
Y r
V U
O
U)0 LL NI �
m
Cl)
O O p m
N
C9
C:\Program Fi1es\GREGE0\0960cr3 basin Surface #1 Surface #1e.0UT Page 1
*** GSTABL7 **k
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2,005.2, Jan. 2011 **
(All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices.
(Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback,
Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Carved Phi Envelope,
Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water
Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces.
Analysis Run Date: 4/8/2013
Time of Run: 12:05PM
Run By: Username
Input Data Filename: C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3 basin Surface #1 Surface #le
.in
Output Filename: C:\Program Files\GREGEO\O960cr3_basin Surface #1 Surface #le
.OUT
Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: C:\Program Files\GREGEO\O960cr3_bas1n Surface #1 Surface #le
.PLT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Proj. No. 0967-CR3 Highest
2:1 (h:v) Fill Slope Pseudostatic
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
3 Top Boundaries
5 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
1 0.00 130.00 137.00 130.00 1
2 137.00 130.00 315.00 219.00 1
3 315.00 219.00 500.00 219.00 1
4 0.00 115.00 460.00 130.00 2
5 460.00 130.00 500.00 135.00 2
Default Y-Origin = 0.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 125.0 125.0 100.0 35.0 0,00 0.0 0
2 130.0 130.0 400.0 38.0 3.00 0.0 0
Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) = 0.150(g)
Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = O.15O(g)
Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.O00(g)
Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor = 0.000
Trial Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 137.895 130.448
2 157.617 133.766
3 177.122 138.189
4 196.348 143.701
5 215.233 150.286
6 233.718 157.922
7 251.744 166.585
8 269.254 176.248
9 286.194 186.881
10 302.509 198.449
11 318.148 210.916
C:\Program Files\GREGEO\0960cr3_basin Surface #1 Surface #le.OUT Page 2
12 327.193 219.000
DEFLECTION ANGLE & SEGMENT DATA FOR SPECIFIED SURFACE(Excluding Last Segment)
Angle/Segment No. Deflection(Deg) Segment Length(ft)
1 3.23 20.00
2 3.22 20.00
3 3.23 20.00
4 3.22 20.00
5 3.22 20.00
6 3.22 20.00
7 3.22 20.00
8 3.22 20.00
9 3.22 20.00
Circle Center At X = 89.178(ft) ; Y = 481.195(ft) ; and Radius = 354.115(ft)
* * Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.186
***Table 1 - Individual Data on the 12 Slices***
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
1 19.7 8064.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1209.7 0.0 0.0
2 19.5 22448.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3367.3 0.0 0.0
3 19.2 33459.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5018.9 0.0 0.0
4 18.9 41079.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6161.9 0.0 0.0
5 18.5 45366.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6804.9 0.0 0.0
6 18.0 46444.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6966.6 0.0 0.0
7 17.5 44503.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6675.6 0.0 0.0
8 16.9 39803.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5970.6 0.0 0.0
9 16.3 32651.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4897.8 0.0 0.0
10 12.5 19438.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2915.8 0.0 0.0
11 3.1 3674.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 551.2 0.0 0.0
12 9.0 4570.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 685.5 0.0 0.0
***Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 12 Slices***
Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized
No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Shear Strength Shear Stress
* (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf)
1 9.55 147.76 20.00 351.42 126.28
2 12.78 167.37 20.00 798.94 410.22
3 16.00 186.74 20.00 1127.75 697.33
4 19.22 205.79 20.00 1346.08 959.60
5 22.45 224.48 20.00 1462.01 1171.07
6 25.67 242.73 20.00 1483.34 1309.72
7 28.89 260.50 20.00 1417.85 1357.83
8 32.12 277.72 20.00 1273.48 1302.93
9 35.34 294.35 20.00 1058.42 1138.53
10 38.56 308.75 15.97 809.01 898.04
11 38.56 316.57 4.03 623.86 674.25
12 41.79 322.67 12.13 297.07 292.85
Sum of the Resisting Forces (including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing
Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 225507.47 (lbs)
Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing,
Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 1063.06(psf)
Sum of the Driving Forces = 190082.80 (lbs)
Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 896.06(psf)
Total length of the failure surface = 212.13(ft)
CAUTION - Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Modified Bishop
Method. This Method Is Valid Only I£ The Failure Surface
Approximates A Circular Arc.
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
APPENDIX D
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
FOR EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
South Shore II Project, Tract 36567
Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California
Project No. 0967-CR3
'G,
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-I
South Shore II Project Site. Lake Elsinore, California Project No 0967-CR3
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork
construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in
general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated
conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our
hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a
reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing
and observation used to evaluate those procedures.
General
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18
and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC (2010) and the guidelines presented below.
Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has
regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and
actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up
at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report
and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding
these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting.
Grading Observation and Testing
I. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading.
Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of
test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results
of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these
reports, our office should be notified.
2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed
and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is
responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are
intended to evaluate the contractor's overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor's
personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing
and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor's responsibility to
properly compact the fill.
3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed
by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify
our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation.
4. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by
this firm.
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-2
South Shore II Project Site, Lake Elsinore, California Project No. 0967-CR3
5. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every
1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the
fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density
tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally
being obtained.
6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted,
based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will
be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress
construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in
delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test
procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of
operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials.
7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows:
a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill,
three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be
employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the
outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction
is being achieved.
8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is
complete.
Site Clearing
I. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is
not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well
outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing
should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area.
2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material
from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials.
This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment
operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers.
3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used
are observed and found acceptable by our representative. Typical procedures are similar to
those indicated on Plate G-4.
Treatment of Existing Ground
I. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or
creep effected bedrock, should be removed (see Plates G-I, G-2 and G-3) unless otherwise
specifically indicated in the text of this report.
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-3
South Shore II Project Site Lake Elsinore. California Project No 0967-CR3
2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial
alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless
directed otherwise by our representative.
3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than
indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.
4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches,
moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.
S. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated
and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.
Subdrainage
I. Subdrainage systems should be provided in canyon bottoms prior to placing fill, and behind
buttress and stabilization fills and in other areas indicated in the report. Subdrains should
conform to schematic diagrams G-I and G-5, and be acceptable to our representative.
2. For canyon subdrains, runs less than 500 feet may use six-inch pipe. Typically, runs in excess of
500 feet should have the lower end as eight-inch minimum.
3. Filter material should be clean, 1/2 to I-inch gravel wrapped in a suitable filter fabric. Class 2
permeable filter material per California Department of Transportation Standards tested by this
office to verify its suitability, may be used without filter fabric. A sample of the material should
be provided to the Soils Engineer by the contractor at least two working days before it is
delivered to the site. The filter should be clean with a wide range of sizes.
4. Approximate delineation of anticipated subdrain locations may be offered at 40-scale plan
review stage. During grading, this office would evaluate the necessity of placing additional
drains.
5. All subdrainage systems should be observed by our representative during construction and
prior to covering with compacted fill.
6. Subdrains should outlet into storm drains where possible. Outlets should be located and
protected. The need for backflow preventers should be assessed during construction.
7. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors.
Fill Placement
I. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however,
some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report).
2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned,
processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to
obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal
plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative.
3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the
contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
'G,
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page DA
South Shore II Project Site, Lake Elsinore. California Project No.0967-CR3
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should
be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal
areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in
clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture
content will control production rates.
b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry
density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental
agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557.
4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks;
c) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative.
5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller
fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated
suitable for rock disposal (see Plate G-4). On projects where significant large quantities of
oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If
significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be
requested.
6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum
dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable
methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned
to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill.
Slope Construction
I. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished
slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back
to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.
2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with
compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer
edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after
trimming may be necessary.
3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction
should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil
should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades.
Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes
should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the
slope is built.
4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the
most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction.
'G,
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-5
South Shore 11 Project Site. Lake Elsinore, California Project No. 0967-CR3
5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the
face with fill may necessitate stabilization.
Keyways, Buttress and Stabilization Fills
Keyways are needed to provide support for fill slope and various corrective procedures.
I. Side-hill fills should have an equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil
and into competent material and tilted back into the hill (Plates G-2, G-3). As the fill is
elevated, it should be benched through surficial soil and slopewash, and into competent bedrock
or other material deemed suitable by our representatives (See Plates G-1, G-2,and G-3).
2. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner:
a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill
interface.
b) A key at least one and one-half (1.5) equipment width wide (or as needed for
compaction), and tipped at least one (1) foot into slope, should be excavated into
competent materials and observed by our representative.
c) The cut portion of the slope should be excavated prior to fill placement to evaluate if
stabilization is necessary. The contractor should be responsible for any additional
earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. (see Plate G-3 for schematic
details.)
3. Daylight cut lots above descending natural slopes may require removal and replacement of the
outer portion of the lot. A schematic diagram for this condition is presented on Plate G-2.
4. A basal key is needed for fill slopes extending over natural slopes. A schematic diagram for this
condition is presented on Plate G-2.
5. All fill slopes should be provided with a key unless within the body of a larger overall fill mass.
Please refer to Plate G-3 for specific guidelines.
Anticipated buttress and stabilization fills are discussed in the text of the report. The need to stabilize
other proposed cut slopes will be evaluated during construction. Plate G-5 shows a schematic of
buttress construction.
I. All backcuts should be excavated at gradients of 1:1 or flatter. The backcut configuration
should be determined based on the design, exposed conditions, and need to maintain a
minimum fill width and provide working room for the equipment.
2. On longer slopes, backcuts and keyways should be excavated in maximum 250 feet long
segments. The specific configurations will be determined during construction.
3. All keys should be a minimum of two (2) feet deep at the toe and slope toward the heel at least
one foot or two (2%) percent, whichever is greater.
4. Subdrains are to be placed for all stabilization slopes exceeding 10 feet in height. Lower slopes
are subject to review. Drains may be required. Guidelines for subdrains are presented on Plate
G-5.
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-6
South Shore II Proiecc Site. Lake Elsinore, California Project No 0967-CR3
5. Benching of backcuts during fill placement is required.
Lot Capping
I. When practical, the upper three (3) feet of material placed below finish grade should be
comprised of the least expansive material available. Preferably, highly and very highly expansive
materials should not be used. We will attempt to offer advise based on visual evaluations of the
materials during grading, but it must be realized that laboratory testing is needed to evaluate the
expansive potential of soil. Minimally, this testing takes two (2) to four (4) days to complete.
2. Transition lots (cut and fill) both per plan and those created by remedial grading (e.g. lots above
stabilization fills, along daylight lines, above natural slopes, etc.) should be capped with a
minimum three foot thick compacted fill blanket.
3. Cut pads should be observed by our representative(s) to evaluate the need for overexcavation
and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly
fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of
materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper
overexcavation may be recommended in some cases.
ROCK PLACEMENT AND ROCK FILL GUIDELINES
It is anticipated that large quantities of oversize material would be generated during grading. It's likely
that such materials may require special handling for burial. Although alternatives may be developed in
the field, the following methods of rock disposal are recommended on a preliminary basis.
Limited Larger Rock
When materials encountered are principally soil with limited quantities of larger rock fragments or
boulders, placement in windrows is recommended. The following procedures should be applied:
1. Oversize rock (greater than 8 inches) should be placed in windrows.
a) Windrows are rows of single file rocks placed to avoid nesting or clusters of rock.
b) Each adjacent rock should be approximately the same size (within —one foot in
diameter).
c) The maximum rock size allowed in windrows is four feet
2. A minimum vertical distance of three feet between lifts should be maintained. Also, the
windrows should be offset from lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be closer than 15 feet to
the face of fill slopes and sufficient space must be maintained for proper slope construction (see
Plate G-4).
3. Rocks greater than eight inches in diameter should not be placed within seven feet of the
finished subgrade for a roadway or pads and should be held below the depth of the lowest
utility. This will allow easier trenching for utility lines.
'G,
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-7
Souch Shore II Project Sice Lake Elsinore, California Project No. 0967-CR3
4. Rocks greater than four feet in diameter should be broken down, if possible, or they may be
placed in a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated into the compacted fill a minimum of
one foot deeper than the largest diameter of rock.
a) The rock should be placed in the trench and granular fill materials (SE>30) should be
flooded into the trench to fill voids around the rock.
b) The over size rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet from any slope
face.
c) Trenches at higher elevation should be staggered and there should be a minimum of
four feet of compacted fill between the top of the one trench and the bottom of the
next higher trench.
d) It would be necessary to verify 90 percent relative compaction in these pits. A 24 to 72
hour delay to allow for water dissipation should be anticipated prior to additional fill
placement.
Structural Rock Fills
If the materials generated for placement in structural fills contains a significant percentage of material
more than six (6) inches in one dimension, then placement using conventional soil fill methods with
isolated windrows would not be feasible. In such cases the following could be considered:
I. Mixes of large rock or boulders may be placed as rock fill. They should be below the depth of
all utilities both on pads and in roadways and below any proposed swimming pools or other
excavations. If these fills are placed within seven (7) feet of finished grade, they may effect
foundation design.
2. Rock fills are required to be placed in horizontal layers that should not exceed two feet in
thickness, or the maximum rock size present, which ever is less. All rocks exceeding
two feet should be broken down to a smaller size, windrowed (see above), or disposed of in
non-structural fill areas. Localized larger rock up to 3 feet in largest dimension may be placed in
rock fill as follows:
a) individual rocks are placed in a given lift so as to be roughly 50% exposed above the
typical surface of the fill ,
b) loaded rock trucks or alternate compactors are worked around the rock on all sides to
the satisfaction of the soil engineer,
c) the portion of the rock above grade is covered with a second lift.
3. Material placed in each lift should be well graded. No unfilled spaces (voids) should be
permitted in the rock fill.
Compaction Procedures
Compaction of rock fills is largely procedural. The following procedures have been found to generally
produce satisfactory compaction.
1. Provisions for routing of construction traffic over the fill should be implemented.
'G,
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-8
South Shore II Project Site Lake Elsinore, California Project No. 0967-CR3
a) Placement should be by rock trucks crossing the lift being placed and dumping at its
edge.
b) The trucks should be routed so that each pass across the fill is via a different path and
that all areas are uniformly traversed.
c) The dumped piles should be knocked down and spread by a large dozer (D-8 or larger
suggested). (Water should be applied before and during spreading.)
2. Rock fill should be generously watered (sluiced)
a) Water should be applied by water trucks to the:
i) dump piles,
ii) front face of the lift being placed and,
iii) surface of the fill prior to compaction.
b) No material should be placed without adequate water.
c) The number of water trucks and water supply should be sufficient to provide constant
water.
d) Rock fill placement should be suspended when water trucks are unavailable:
i) for more than 5 minutes straight, or,
ii) for more than 10 minutes/hour.
3. In addition to the truck pattern and at the discretion of the soil engineer, large, rubber tired
compactors may be required.
a) The need for this equipment will depend largely on the ability of the operators to
provide complete and uniform coverage by wheel rolling with the trucks.
b) Other large compactors will also be considered by the soil engineer provided that
required compaction is achieved.
4. Placement and compaction of the rock fill is largely procedural. Observation by trenching
should be made to check:
a) the general segregation of rock size,
b) for any unfilled spaces between the large blocks, and
c) the matrix compaction and moisture content.
5. Test fills may be required to evaluate relative compaction of finer grained zones or as deemed
appropriate by the soil engineer.
a) A lift should be constructed by the methods proposed, as proposed
6. Frequency of the test trenching is to be at the discretion of the soil engineer. Control areas
may be used to evaluate the contractors procedures.
7. A minimum horizontal distance of 15 feet should be maintained from the face of the rock fill
and any finish slope face. At least the outer 15 feet should be built of conventional fill materials.
Piping Potential and Filter Blankets
Where conventional fill is placed over rock fill, the potential for piping (migration) of the fine grained
material from the conventional fill into rock fills will need to be addressed.
'G,
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-9
SOUtfI_Shore II Project Site, Lake Elsinore, California Project No. 0967-CR3
The potential for particle migration is related to the grain size comparisons of the materials present and
in contact with each other. Provided that 15 percent of the finer soil is larger than the effective pore
size of the coarse soil, then particle migration is substantially mitigated. This can be accomplished with a
well-graded matrix material for the rock fill and a zone of fill similar to the matrix above it. The specific
gradation of the fill materials placed during grading must be known to evaluate the need for any type of
filter that may be necessary to cap the rock fills. This, unfortunately, can only be accurately determined
during construction.
In the event that poorly graded matrix is used in the rock fills, properly graded filter blankets 2 to 3 feet
thick separating rock fills and conventional fill may be needed. As an alternative, use of two layers of
filter fabric (Mirafi 700 x or equivalent) could be employed on top of the rock fill. In order to mitigate
excess puncturing, the surface of the rock fill should be well broken down and smoothed prior to
placing the filter fabric. The first layer of the fabric may then be placed and covered with relatively
permeable fill material (with respect to overlying material) I to 2 feet thick. The relative permeable
material should be compacted to fill standards. The second layer of fabric should be placed and
conventional fill placement continued.
Subdrainage
Rock fill areas should be tied to a subdrainage system. If conventional fill is placed that separates the
rock from the main canyon subdrain, then a secondary system should be installed. A system consisting
of an adequately graded base (3 to 4 percent to the lower side) with a collector system and outlets may
suffice.
Additionally, at approximately every 25 foot vertical interval, a collector system with outlets should be
placed at the interface of the rock fill and the conventional fill blanketing a fill slope
Monitoring
Depending upon the depth of the rock fill and other factors, monitoring for settlement of the fill areas
may be needed following completion of grading. Typically, if rock fill depths exceed 40 feet, monitoring
would be recommend prior to construction of any settlement sensitive improvements. Delays of 3 to 6
months or longer can be expected prior to the start of construction.
UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors responsibility. The geotechnical consultant
typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make
sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors' methods and procedures are adequate
to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is
critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures.
'G,
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-10
South Shore II Project Site, Lake Elsinore, California Project No. 0967-CR3
Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be
successful. However, procedures that "worked" on previous projects may or may not prove effective
on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss
them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and
experience.
I. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape
should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the
laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench.
2. Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or
jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is
typically limited to the following uses:
a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and,
b) as bedding in pipe zone.
The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench
compaction.
3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of
the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation.
Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper
three feet below sub grade.
4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area
extending below a I:I projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar
to the surrounding soil.
S. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing
frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractors procedures. A probing rod would
be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If
zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to
the contractors attention.
JOB SAFETY
General
Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety
considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground
personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The
company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the
contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid
accidents and potential injury.
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-I I
South Shore II Project Site. Lake Elsinore California Project No 0967•CR3
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following
precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction
projects.
1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled
safety meetings.
2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the
job site.
3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle
when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits.
In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above,
we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.
Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's
safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative
sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors
authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select
locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The
contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test
period. Again, safety is the paramount concern.
Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The
technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the
fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of
equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.
A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading
equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the
sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow.
This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically
decreases test results.
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-12
South Shore II Proiect Site, Lake Elsinore, California Proiect No 0967-CR3
TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN
- SIDE VIEW
Test Pit Spoil
pile
50 ft Zone of
Traffic Direction Non-Encroachment
Vehicle parked here Test Pit Lwe�.
o
4 111 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment I 50 ft Zone of
Non-Encroachment
PLAN VIEW
Slope Tests
When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test
location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe
operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing.
The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following
testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location.
Trench Safety
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is
needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other
applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench
backfill.
All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid
back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are
directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or"riding down" on the equipment.
Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which;
I. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back,
2. exit points or ladders are not provided,
3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the
trench, or
4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.
'G,
GEOTEK
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Evaluation Page D-13
South Shore II Project Sice Lake Elsinore California Project No 0967_CR3
If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy
requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors
representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to
safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal.
Procedures
In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's
failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and
contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor's representative will then
be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is
rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing,
recompaction or removal.
In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety
guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project
manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative
and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and
safety in general.
The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will
serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of
non-encroachment.
The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will
serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of
non-encroachment.
GEOTEK
ALTERNATE
.1
l
FINISH GRADE �f
1
N'�'' ORIGINAL GROUN r
�S'S�RR4s2S ! -titi'..
SUITABLE :•::•'•:•::•'
MATERIAL
't0.OSE:SUR IACE:MATERI?LS: =: f{ SU17ABLE 4 FT
::::....:•::::•:' ::' MATERIAL TYPICAL
CONSTRUCT BENCHES 4..:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::.............:.:.....:::::: :::
WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS 5.1
3' # .�a�t�..:.
BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT TO BE I S s �'S�'4i ;? E IN 9 CUBIC FEET PER
LINEAL FOOT TCL AED N GRAVEL WITH FILTER
LEAST 1.5 TIMES THE WIDTH OF FABRIC TO COVER SURFACE OR COMPLETE
COMPACTION EQUIPMENT I—3' —I WRAP PER FEILD CONDITIONS
ALTERNATE
1� J�
FINISH GRADE
13
ORIGINAL GROUND r�
` _ /
...... .. ... iN
SUITABLE �' ':•:•:•:•::•::;:...;..::.':..:...•...•. ::_::•:: :::•:;.:'.
MATERIAL `ti :?:::::::::=: ?...:.... :...... ".
�. =:
....::•::: 4 FT
.':':'.... :....:':':':':....: .......... TYPICAL
CONSTRUCT BENCHES ;:;:: :'•:: ':;::;:::::::::::::::;::: :::::::::::::;; >�'} SUITABLE
WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS 5:1 ^L� ''' ::`':''' MATERIAL
6` PERFORATED PIPE IN 9 CUBIC FEET
BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT TO BE AT PER LINEAL FOOT CLEAN GRAVEL
LEAST 1.5 TIMES THE WIDTH OF WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES TYPICAL CANYON
CLEANOUT
GeoTek, Inc. PLATE G - I
TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER
NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE
FINISH GRADE
:::MIN.36'::•::....
—COMPACTED FILL SLOPE
FILL CAP
r.�. ;`� :::� ::.:::::::::::: ::•.•.. TOE OF FILL
SLOPE PER
I'll::; ZI :CQI:LUVtiPub=
:EftEt~P•.Z01' FLAN PROJECT
:BEDROCK ... —' — REMOVAL AT
1701
: ::Zz::: `:'::::BEDROCK: r
.1.. ,Z,,,,,..,,,
.....:... :.... ZZ
t .S`r
2' M IIN--0-
;; '
`MIINIIv1lJM,15 F`i CLEAR„
OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT
:: ; ZI
WIDTHS FOR
:::;;;
,.
DAYLIGHT CUT AREA OVER
NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE
STRUCTURAL l
SETBACK WITHOUT
CORRECTIVE WORK DAYLIGHT CUT
LINE PER PLAN
PROJECT
REMOVAL AT
`1TOi
•:FINISH GRADEMIN.3r
COMPACTED FILL T
.�t� ,
::TOpSQIG;�:=::::
T MIlN—1`
;;BEDROCK •Z ALL"2 (t(1bi=::`::•:
,.,
.:MIINIMUI%4 15 FT CLEAR OR; .-;;';;;;
1,5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS
FOR COMPACTION
"BEDROCK
'• ::
TREATMENT ABOVE
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES NATURAL, SLOPES
GeoTek, Inc, PLATE G - 2
. � � . • � .
Y �
COMPACTION
�� NI
•' ! O } O •- I!! f IIN /
I
/f
I
1 •
1 •
III III
,I/INIII
I /INIIIIII i 0 dl t�-.D
IIII IlIII/IIINIIII/IIII
III/INIIVI/�NIIIIIS/IIIIIIIf��IN/ ,I cif pP O- B L-:O /IN/I/I/I/II/IN/II I! II/I/IIN
III/IIIINIINIIIIIIIIIIII/I/I t�
fil II;I; .'• •'
/NII/IIIIIIIIIIIIN,INIII� IIIIII ' II/III/����I/I/IIIIII/I�IIIIIlI��/I/II
IIN �ry ,� II/I III/II;I/III/III/NMI/INI
IlIIpN A' DENSE IIII/IILIIII/II/IIIIII/IIIIIIIfIII/III/IIIIN IIIIII;%I I%III IIII/III/IIIINI III%III
NI I!I IIIIIIIIIIII/II/IIIIyNI IIII%IIIIII/I�IIII/IIJI%II�IISI(IIII%II III I IIN/III%I I�I/I/III IIIIII III
III//III/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/�I1�IIIIIIIN/t1/NII/IIIINII/IIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIISI/I/I/II/II/II/�I/I/IIIIII/INIIII/II/I/I/
III/INIIII III IN IIIIIIJ�IINIIIIIIIIIII/I/IIIIIiIII/IIII%%III%IIIAdff/III/I/I/I/II%%III/I�iIS/II�;�IIIII/IIIIIII%IIII/II;I
IIJIIIIIIIIIIIII I%III,ISI/♦%%IIIIi/SIiIIIIIIIIII%IJ I NIV%l/SIIIIIISIIIIII/II/I/I/NI/III%II;II�,;IiiIII/II/III,IIII� %I;COMMON FILL
f INIII/ INIIIIIIINII/IIII/II IIN/II/II/IIII (IIII/I/IIIN /IIIIIIIIII/I/I I/I/I/7/I/I/I/II III,NIIINIII/INI
STANDARD GRADING
GUIDELINES SLOPE
GeoTek, Inc.
PLATE
CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
FINISH GRADE
1.
SEE NOTE 1 NO R KS
.aN 7H. FILL SLOPE
;20Nc :::::
.. ......... .
3' MIIN
MIIN•
. . . . . .. ... . .... ...`_.. . ... .. . ..
Col. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . ...
STAGGER ROWS 3' MIIIJ
HORIZONTALLY
Ira
MIINIIv1UM 15 FT CLEAR OR 1.5
EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION
PLAN VER
FILL SLOPE /
1
I
MIINIMUM 15 FT CLEAR OR 1.5
EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION PLACE ROCKS END TO END.
I DO NOT PILE OR STACK.
�33rT �,. `•'M. �'y��T� �}�„c� ! � 'I• � � 1I ���
MIINIMUM 15 FT CLEAR OR 1.5 SOIL TO BE PLACED AROUND AND OVER ROCKS
EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION AND FLOODED INTO VOIDS.COMPACT AROUND
I AND
OVER EACH WINDROW
NOTES:
1) MININUM SOIL FILL OVER WINDROWS SHOULD BE 7 FEET AND SUFFICIENT FOR FUTURE EXCAVATIONS (e.g.SWIMMING POOLS)TO
AVOID ROCKS.
2) MAXIMUM ROCK SIZE IN WINDROWS IS 4 FEET MINIMUM DIAMETER.
3) SOIL AROUND WINDROWS TO BE SANDY MATERIAL SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE BY SOIL ENGINEER
4) ALL SPACING AND CLEARANCES MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPACTION.
ROCK BURIAL
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES DETAILS
CeoTek, Ind. PLATE G - 4
GRADE TO DRAIN
COMPACTED'. FINISHED
SLOPE FACE
IMINIMUM 36"
COMPACTED
;FILL BLANKET .-
I
TERRACE DRAIN AS
-- REQUIRED
2
;
.. \^
GRADE TO DRAINS
SEE DETAIL ith. ..... .................... DRAIN
(KEY TO FALL TO HEEL
_MINIMUM 1 FT
I
KEY TO BE MINIMUM,
2 FT DEEP OR PER
KEY TO BE MINIMUM 15 FT PLUS WIDTH �_ REPORT
OF TERRACE DRAINS OR 1,5 EQUIPMENT
WIDTH USED FOR COMPACTION
-- -- --'
t
4 •'. ,� 2%MINIMUM FALL
4'DIAMETER PERFORATED
DRAIN PIPE PVC SCH.40 OR 4"DIAMETER, SOLID OUTLET
EQUIVALENT IN 6 CUBIC FT LATERALS TO SLOPE FACE OR
DRAIN ROCK WRAPPED IN STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT
FILTER FABRIC MAXIMUM 100 FT INTERVALS
NOTE: ADDITIONAL BACKDRAINS MAY BE RECOMMENDED
BUTTRESS AND
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES STABILIZATION SLOPES
GeoTek, Inc. PLATE G - 5