Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPREMLIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION I-2007-03 BIRTCHER CENTER T.H.F. Soils Co., Inc. Phone: (951) 894-ZlZl FAX: (951) 894-ZIZZ E-mail: thesoilsco@aol.com 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G •Murrieta, CA 92562 February 21, 2005 Ms.'Maiy Saenz Near-Cal Corporation 512 Chaney Street Lake Elsinore,California 92530-2711 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY GFQTF.C11N1CAi,INUSTIGATION Proposed Mass Graded Commercial Pad APN Nos. 377-151-044&377-151-045 (approximately 20-acres) NEC of Flint and Silver Street City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Work Order No. 167401.00 Dear Ms. Saenz; In accordance with your request, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed commercial pad located in the city of Lake Elsinore, California, The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the engineering parameters of the on-site soils and provide design I parameters and grading recommendations. For our investigation, we were provided by you with a l 60-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan" prepared by Madison Civil Engineering and Surveying of Corona, California. We have utilized the 60-scale site development plan as our "Geoteclmical Map",Plate 1. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Proposed Development The proposed development Viudes the construction of a mass graded parcel for commercial/industrial type development with associated landscaping, parking and driveways. We anticipate that typical cut/fill grading techniques will be utilized to achieve design grade. 1.2 Site Descrin inn The subject site is an irregular-shaped f18.61-acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Flint and Silver Streets in the city of Lake Elsinore in southwestern Riverside County, California. The site is located in an area of commercial/industrial development with interspersed residential parcels. The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map,Figure 1. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO.167401.00 y, ;it .. :�• Ti 1 /' ' �,•_ s-.�.__1 C. Windmill J7P ;..T. ,r•/� .' / Gi • s'�jC� , a ,. ./L � Crr _NSA ,,,• _ �,• :, � �,�- -d r jam• 1 • .�� � '' 1f, �y-1.' 'cY�;,;�, __ � �1...�= � ' 'fir BM 27 Blairw Reserwlr \/`- _ _•\ .�` rs •; O- _ " _—\."___ _. \�� —_��Za �p � Lam._ q � t� 1 I �•�t \ fli �/ d /1 1 O •J t - r •r• 'Y ! 7 ti (x � �r \ _ M I `` / • 11t l \ >� H// / i t �127' _E L; - ® R _ ••�1 "p - - - - - --- .M-- E _ FC 1 '1 1 4 , 1 N. 1 3-D TopoQued3 Copyright 0 1999 DcLorme Yarmouth,ME 04096 Source Data:USES 1000 R Seale:1:25,000 Detail:12"Datum:WGS.84 FIGURE 1 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 2 Topography on the majority of the subject site is dominated by a large hill with moderate to relatively steep terrain and natural gradients that vary from approximately 10 to 50 percent. The subject site is currently utilized as a quarry or dirt borrow site with existing dirt access roads, soil stockpiles and quarry area. Drainage on the subject site is generally accomplished by sheetflow to the north toward the existing flood control channel. At the time of our investigation, vegetation on the subject site consisted, for the most part, of a sparse dead growth of annual weeds and grasses. 2.0 SITE INVESTIGATTO 2.1 Background Research and Lat rat ur .Review Several published and geologic maps were reviewed for the purpose of preparing this report. A complete list of these publications and reports is presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Field Investigation Subsurface exploration, field reconnaissance, and mapping of the site were conducted on August 12, 2004 and August 19, 2004. Our field geologist mapped the existing quarry wall road cut exposures. Four exploratory borings were advanced utilizing a Mobile No. B-61 drilling rig equipped with 6-inch hollow stem augers. Exploratory boring B-2 was advanced to the maximum depth explored of 51.5-ft below the ground surface(bgs). Information collected during our field mapping and the approximate location of the exploratory borings are depicted on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Our field geologist prepared field logs, obtained in-place and bulk samples for laboratory testing, and supervised excavation of the exploratory borings. Copies of our exploratory boring logs are presented in Appendix B. 2.3 Lahnratna Testing Program Representative in-place and bulk soil samples of the on-site soils encountered during our site investigation were obtained for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing to determine the engineering parameters of representative soils included maximum density/optimum moisture, in-place densities (ring tests), direct shear, sieve analysis, soluble sulfate content, expansion index and corrosivity suite testing. Laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM, Caltrans, and Uniform Building Code (UBC) test specifications, where applicable. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Appendix C of this report. GeoSoils, Inc. of Carlsbad, California performed direct shear testing and E. S. Babcock& Sons,Inc.performed soluble sulfate and corrosivity suite testing. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO.167401.00 I . Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 f Page 3 f 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS l Locally,the majority of the subject site is underlain by metasedimentary bedrock, minor amounts of granitic bedrock, and intermediate age alluvium (Morton& Weber, 1991) on the southwesterly and northerly portions, respectively. Several soil stockpiles, apparently generated during onsite quarry operations,were noted along the westerly and northerly portions of the subject site. 3.1 1lndommented Fill - Neil Stockpiles (Map ymbol—if) Soil stockpiles were observed along the westerly and northerly portions of the subject site and appear to be associated with the onsite quarry operations. The observed stockpiles on the northerly portion of the site were generally associated with the dirt access roads and are less than 4-ft in height. Several soil stockpiles up to approximately 10 - 12-ft in height were noted on the westerly portion of the subject site. This unit predominately consisted of gravelly silty sands (Unified Soil Classification-SM) and gravelly silts (ML) and can generally be described as grayish brown, predominately fine grained with abundant gravel size, poorly to moderately graded, clayey in part, dry and loose. Based on our visual inspection and limited testing, these materials typically have a very low to low expansion potential. i3.2 intermediate Age Allnvoal Sails (Mal) Symbol - Qi4i Intermediate age alluvial soils underlie the westerly and northerly portions of the subject site at the ground surface and extended to the maximum depth explored of 51.5-ft bgs (B-2). lThe upper 22-ft of intermediate age alluvial soils generally consisted of interbedded silty sands (SM) and clays (CL). This unit can generally be described as reddish brown, I predominately fine grained with minor medium and coarse grains, occasional gravel size, poorly to moderately graded, clayey in part, dry (upper 3-ft) to moist and medium dense to dense. These materials typically have a very low to low expansion potential, based on our visual inspection and limited testing. The lower 28-ft consisted of interbedded fine grained sands (SM) and silts (ML) that can generally be described as white to green gray, fine grained, saturated, clayey in part, l medium dense and micaceous in part. 3.3 Granitic Re track(MagiSymhol - Karl l Granitic bedrock was encountered within B-1 at a depth of 16-ft bgs on the southwest corner of the subject site (see Plate 1). Morton&Weber (1991) have mapped this granitic bedrock as a granodiorite that can be described as yellow brown, coarse grained,very dense, and slightly weathered. This unit excavated mostly as coarse gravel (GM). These materials typically have a very low expansion potential,based on our visual inspection. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO.167401.00 I ' I ' Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 f Page 4 I3.4 Metasedimentan, Bedrock (Mai) Symhol -.Im) Metasedimentary bedrock is exposed at the ground surface throughout the majority of the subject site and is currently being mined as fill soils. The metasedimentary bedrock has been mapped by Morton and Weber (1991) as mostly a phyllite with lesser amounts of metaquartz sandstone and quartz rich metasediments. This unit can generally be described as dark brown to yellow brown, slightly weathered, highly fractured and reduces to a coarse sandy gravel (GM) with numerous angular chunks to 4-inches in diameter. These materials typically have a very low expansion potential, based on our visual inspection and limited testing. 3.5 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 22-ft bgs within our exploratory boring (B-2), which was advanced within the intermediate age alluvial soils on the westerly portion of the subject site to the total depth explored of 51.5-ft bgs. The metamorphic and granitic bedrock underlying the remaining portions of the subject site are generally not considered groundwater bearing with groundwater being transmitted along fracture systems. Should any water wells be encountered during rough grading operations, they should be plugged and abandoned in accordance with current regulatory guidelines. 3.6 Excavation Characteristics The soil stockpiles are anticipated to excavate. with ease utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition. The intermediate age alluvial soils are anticipated to excavate with moderate difficulty utilizing conventional grading equipment(Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent)in proper working condition. The metasedimentary and granitic bedrock materials are anticipated to excavate I with difficulty utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition. Due to the variable chemistry of the underlying metasedimentary and granitic bedrock, localized areas of granitic bedrock that will require blasting cannot be precluded. 4.0 SEURMiC ITY 4.1 Reginnal Seismicity The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The subject site is not located in a State of California Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone for active faulting (Hart, 2000). The closest T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 11 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 f Page 5 known zoned active fault is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Glen Ivy segment) located I approximately 3.5-kilometers to the southwest of the subject site (Hart, 2000). No active fault traces or fault features have been identified on the subject site (Morton & Weber, 1991) or were noted on or trending onto the subject site during our photo-lineament review. f The Wildomar Fault of the Elsinore Fault zone (Glen Ivy segment) is characterized as a f right lateral strike slip fault with a total length of approximately 38 kilometers (CDMG, 1996). The State of California has assigned the Elsinore Fault (Glen Ivy segment) a slip rate of 5 mm/yr. (+/-2 nun/yr.)with a recurrence interval of 340 years (CDMG, 1996). This 1 fault segment has been assigned a maximum moment magnitude of 6.8. Historically, significant earthquakes causing strong ground shaking have occurred on r local and regional faults near the site. To evaluate historical seismicity, we have utilized a computer software program titled EPI, which utilizes an earthquake database compiled by California Technical Institute to analyze earthquakes of various magnitude that have I occurred within a specified radius about the site. A total of 125 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have occurred within 177- kilometers (100-miles) of the site since 1932. The closest earthquake was a 5.2 magnitude event, which occurred approximately 16-kilometers (10-miles) west of the r subject site on Tuesday, May 31, 1938. The largest earthquake recorded within the specified search area occurred on Sunday, June 28, 1992, located approximately 100- kilometers (62-miles) to the northeast as a 7.3 magnitude earthquake. A graphical representation of the historical seismicity is shown on Figure 2. 4.2 Photo-Uneament Review A photo-lineament review of the subject and adjoining sites was performed during our preliminary geotechnical investigation. Topographically, the majority of the subject site is situated in an area of relatively steep terrain with the northerly and westerly portion of the site located in an area of gently sloping terrain. No geomorphic expressions suggestive of faulting, such as linear topography, offset streams, springs lines, and/or fault scarps, were noted within or adjacent to the subject site during our site investigation and aerial photograph review of the subject site. 4.3 2001 CRC. Seismic Factors Specific to the suhiect site are as follows: The site is located approximately 3.5-kilometers northeast of the Elsinore fault (Glen Ivy) (ICBO, 1998). The Elsinore fault (Glen Ivy) is reported as a Type B fault (ICBO, 1998; and 2001 CBC Table 16-U)in the vicinity of the subject site. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 + M 5 \ + M6 i I SITE + + ++ + + �- N EPI SoftWare 2000 Seismicity 1932-2003 (Magnitude 5.0+) 100 mile radius SITE LOCATION: 33.6787 LAT. -117.3361 LONG. � 1 MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C 0 50 100 TOTAL#OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 246 MILES TOTAL#OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 125 MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS: 5.0-5.9: 111 6.0-6.9: 12 7.0-7.9: 2 8.0-8.9: 0 CLOSEST EVENT: 6.2 ON TUESDAY,MAY 31,1938 LOCATED APPROX. 10 MILES WEST OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS: 7.3 ON SUNDAY,JUNE 28,1992 LOCATED APPROX. 62 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE 7.1 ON SATURDAY,OCTOBER 16,1999 LOCATED APPROX. 87 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE 6.7 ON MONDAY,JANUARY 17,1994 LOCATED APPROX. 77 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE 6.6 ON TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 09,1971 LOCATED APPROX. 79 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE 6.6 ON WEDNESDAY,OCTOBER 21,1942 LOCATED APPROX. 91 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE FIGURE 2 ly r- Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 6 The site is within Seismic Zone 4 (2001 CBC Figure 16-2, Table 16-1). The soil profile for the site is SD(2001 CBC Table 16-J). f The near source acceleration (Na) and velocity (N,) with respect to the subject site are 1.15 I and 1.4, respectively(2001 CBC Tables 16-S and 16-T). The site seismic coefficients of acceleration (Ca) and velocity (C,,) are 0.44Na and 0.64N, 1 respectively(2001 CBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R). Based on the above values, the coefficient of acceleration (Ca) is 0.51 and a coefficient of { velocity(C,,)is 0.90 for the subject site. 5.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS 5.1 Liquefaction fSoil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to increased pore water pressures caused by a significant ground shaking (seismic) event. Liquefaction typically consists of the re- arrangement of the soil particles into a denser condition resulting, in this case, in localized 1 areas of settlement, sand boils, and flow failures. Areas underlain by loose to medium dense cohesionless soils, where groundwater is within 30 to 40 feet of the surface, are 1 particularly susceptible when subject to ground accelerations such as those due to earthquake motion. The liquefaction potential is generally considered greatest in saturated, loose,poorly graded fine sands with a mean grain size(D5o)in the range of 0.075 to 0.2mm. 1 Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45-ft and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60-ft. j Procedures outlined in two publications, 1)The Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of I Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1997); and 2) Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117: Guidelines of Analyzing and Mitigation, Liquefaction Hazards in California: Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California (1997), provide for a "screening study" in lieu of a complete liquefaction analysis. It is our opinion that, due to the absence of groundwater and the dense nature of the metasedimentary and granitic bedrock; liquefaction and other shallow groundwater related hazards are not anticipated on a majority of the subject site, and further analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 7 Due to the high blow counts and the generally silty and clayey nature of the intermediate age alluvial soils; liquefaction and other shallow groundwater related hazards are not anticipated, and further analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. Any undocumented fill or loose intermediate alluvial soils will be removed and incorporated into compacted fill during rough grading operations (see Section 7.2 of this report). Based on the above information,the liquefaction potential is anticipated to be low. 5.2 Ground Rupture Ground rupture during a seismic event normally occurs along pre-existing faults. Due to the absence of known faults within the site bounds (Morton & Weber, 1991), breaking of the ground during a seismic event is unlikely. 5.3 Seismically induced Soil Settlement Provided the recommendations of this report are implemented, any proposed structures will be founded in medium dense to dense compacted fill or dense bedrock materials. The settlement potential, under seismic loading conditions for these onsite materials, in our opinion, is negligible. 5.4 1,nnd_ s No geomorphic expression of landsliding or slope instability was noted during our site mapping, aerial photograph or literature review. In general, the potential for landsliding during a seismic event is considered negligible under current conditions. 5.5 Rockfall Potential The majority of the subject site is located in an area of relatively steep terrain that is underlain by metasedimentary bedrock, which is free of large boulders. The westerly and northerly boundaries of the subject site are located in areas of gently sloping terrain that are free of large rock. The potential for rockfall is anticipated to be negligible. Due to the highly fractured nature of the metasedimentary bedrock minor spalling is anticipated at the base of all cut slopes. 5.6 Seiches and Tsunami Considering the location of the site in relation to large bodies of water, Seiches and tsunamis are not considered potential hazards of the site. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 8 6.0 CONCLUSIONS • The proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations presented in the following sections are adhered to during site development. • Locally, the majority of the subject site is underlain by metasedimentary bedrock, minor amounts of granitic bedrock, and intermediate age alluvium (Morton & Weber, 1991) on the southwesterly and northerly portions, respectively. Several soil stockpiles, apparently generated during onsite quarry operations, were noted along the westerly and northerly portions of the subject site. • Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 22-ft bgs within our exploratory boring (B-2), which was advanced within the alluvial soils on the westerly portion of the subject site to the total depth explored of 51.5-ft bgs. The metamorphic and granitic bedrock underlying the remaining portions of the subject site are generally not considered groundwater bearing with groundwater being transmitted along fracture systems. • Should any water wells be encountered during rough grading operations, they should be plugged and abandoned in accordance with current regulatory guidelines. • The soil stockpiles are anticipated to excavate with ease utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition. The intermediate age alluvial soils are anticipated to excavate with moderate difficulty utilizing conventional grading equipment(Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent)in proper working condition. The metasedimentary and granitic bedrock materials are anticipated to excavate with difficulty utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition. Due to the variable chemistry of the underlying metasedimentary and granitic bedrock, localized areas of granitic bedrock that will require blasting cannot be precluded. • The subject site is not located in a State of California Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone for active faulting (Hart, 2000). The closest known zoned active fault is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Glen Ivy segment) located approximately 3.5-kilometers to the southwest of the subject site (Hart,2000). • No active fault traces or fault features have been identified on the subject site (Morton & Weber, 1991) or were noted on or trending onto the subject site during our photo-lineament review. • The coefficient of acceleration (Ca) and coefficient of velocity (C,,) for the subject site are 0.51 and 0.90,respectively. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 9 The Elsinore Fault zone (Glen Ivy Segment) is characterized as a right lateral strike slip 1 fault with a total length of approximately 38 kilometers (CDMG, 1996). The State of California has assigned the Elsinore Fault (Glen Ivy Segment) a slip rate of 5 mm/yr. (+/- 2 { mm/yr.) with a recurrence interval of 340 years (CDMG, 1996). This fault segment has l been assigned a maximum moment magnitude of 6.8. It is our opinion that, due to the absence of groundwater and the dense nature of the metasedimentary and granitic bedrock; liquefaction and other shallow groundwater related hazards are not anticipated on a majority of the subject site, and further analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. Due to the high blow counts and the generally silty and clayey nature of the intermediate age alluvial soils; liquefaction and other shallow groundwater related hazards are not anticipated, and further analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. • The potential for seismically induced settlement, ground rupture, rockfall, landsliding, I seiches, and tsunamis during a local seismic event are considered negligible. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General Earthwork 1 Recommendations for site development and design are presented in the following sections of this report. The recommendations presented herein are preliminary and should be confirmed during construction. Prior to the commencement of site development, the site should be cleared of any vegetation, existing walkways, existing structures and concrete foundations, electric lines, underground utilities, existing septic tanks, etc., which should be hauled off-site. The client, prior to any site preparation, should arrange and attend a meeting among the grading f contractor, the design engineer, the soils engineer and/or geologist, a representative of the appropriate governing authorities as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. Operations undertaken at the site without the soils engineer present may result in exclusions of affected areas from the final compaction report for the project. Earthwork should be conducted, at a minimum, in accordance with the Standard Earthwork and Grading Specifications provided in Appendix D, except where specified in this report, and with relevant portions of the 2001 CBC. T.H.E,Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 r Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 10 7.2 nverexcavation and Preparation of 1xisting Ground Any undocumented fills and the upper 2 to 3-ft of intermediate alluvial soils are considered potentially compressible in their existing state, and will require their complete removal prior to placement of fill. Removals should expose medium dense to dense alluvial soils and/or metasedimentary or granitic bedrock materials that are free of roots and pores. The exposed soils should have a minimum in-place relative compaction of 85% (as determined by ASTM D-1557). The project soils engineer and/or geologist should verify the competence of the exposed bottom of removals in the field. In areas that do not yield competent j material and/or areas containing large trees with deep root systems,basements, and/or septic systems, deeper removals may be necessary. Prior to placement of any fill materials on-site, the exposed earth materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum of 90-percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. i 7.3 Fill Placement 1 Onsite undocumented fills, intermediate alluvial sediments, metasedimentary and granitic bedrock materials are expected to be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are non- expansive and free of construction debris. A qualified soil engineer should test import materials to determine their feasibility for use as structural fill. Approved fill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557 test method. No rocks, chunks of asphalt 1 or concrete larger than 6 inches in diameter should be used as fill material. Rocks larger than 6 inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed and used as fill material. 7.4 JWr� oenllanae Patentinj 4I The need for consolidation testing was carefully evaluated during the laboratory testing 1 phase of our supplemental investigation. Based on our appraisal of blow counts (N), in- place densities, and soil classification of the in-situ materials, it is our opinion that due to the generally high number of blow counts and relatively high in-place densities, consolidation testing was either not required or would not adequately reflect hydrocollapse potential. We anticipate that due to the high number of blow counts in the in-situ earth materials, minor sample disturbance has occurred and consolidation testing would not adequately reflect accurate percentage of collapse. Standard penetration resistance relationships among relative density and descriptive relative density (Mitchell and Katti, 1981) indicates materials with blow counts between 30 and 50 and above 50 indicate T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 11 materials that are dense to very dense, respectively. Based on the above, we determined that the hydrocollapse potential of the underlying silty sands and silts is low. 7.5 Expansion Index Testing Expansion index tests were performed on representative onsite soil samples collected during our investigation. The results, which are listed in Appendix C, indicate that the expansion potential for the onsite soils was a 17, which corresponds to a very low expansion potential (0 to 20 - 2001 CBC, Table 18-I-A). Expansion testing should also be performed within the building pads at the completion of grading and on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. 7.6 Sulfate C'.ontent Based on our sulfate content testing, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type 1I Portland Cement should be used for construction. Laboratory analysis results varied from 43 to 150 parts-per-million (ppm) of soluble sulfates in soil, which equates to a negligible sulfate exposure hazard (2001 CBC, Table 19-A-4). Sulfate content testing should be conducted on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material and on the building pads at the completion of rough grading. Babcock & Sons Laboratory of Riverside, California performed the laboratory analysis. Test results are presented in Appendix C. 7.7 Corrosion Potential Corrosivity test results, which are summarized in Appendix C, indicated saturated resistivity values that varied from 2,300 to 3,500 ohms/cm for the onsite near surface soils, which indicates the onsite soils are mildly corrosive (MACE International, 1984). T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering. If specific information or evaluation relating to the corrosivity of the onsite or any import soil is required, we recommend that a competent corrosion engineer be retained to interpret or provide additional corrosion analysis and mitigation. Babcock & Sons Laboratory of Riverside, California performed the laboratory analysis. 7.8 Farthwark Factors The following shrinkage/bulkage factors should be considered for on-site earth materials excavated and compacted during site construction. Shrinkage/bulkage values for imported soils should be evaluated when the specific borrow source is defined. Undocumented Fill 20-30% shrinkage Intermediate Alluvial Soils(upper 2-3 ft) 8-15%shrinkage T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 12 r Granitic Bedrock 0-3%bulkage Metamorphic Bedrock 0-3%bulkage The above shrinkage values are estimated considering an average relative compaction at the I completion of grading of 92 percent for the on-site soils. An increase in relative compaction, or deeper removals, could correspond to an increase in shrinkage values. ( Subsidence, as a result of ground preparation, may also be anticipated on the order of 0.15 feet, occurring mostly during site construction. An additional item would be the removal of large plants or trees. These plant and tree sizes may vary, but when pulled, may result in a iloss of 0.5 to 1.5 cubic yards of volume, respectively. Flexibility in design is essential to a balanced end product. 7.8 Lateral I.nad Resistance i The following parameters should be considered for lateral loads against permanent structures founded on fill materials compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary. Equivalent Fluid Pressure for Level Rackfill Active: 35 pcf Passive: 549 pcf Coefficient of friction(concrete on soil): 0.40 If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral 1 forces, the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two thirds of the above recommendations. These values may be increased by one third when considering short-term iloads such as wind or seismic forces. 7.9 Allowable Safe Rearing C a aP city An allowable safe bearing capacity of 2,600 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of continuous footings that maintain a minimum width of 12-inches and a minimum depth into the properly compacted fill of at least 12 or 18-inches below the lowest f adjacent grade for one- or two-story structures, respectively. The bearing value may be increased by 10%for each additional foot of depth and/or width to a maximum of 3,700 psf. The bearing value may be increased by one-third for seismic or other temporary loads. l Total settlements under static loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill and/or in-place bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of 1 inch for a span of 40-ft. Differential settlements between footings designed for the maximum recommended bearing value are expected to be less T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc, W.O.NO. 167401.00 I Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 13 than 1/2-inch for a span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during I construction. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary. 7.10 Foundation System Design Foundation elements should be placed entirely in engineered fill compacted to a minimum lof 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined with ASTM D-1557. For one- story or equivalent structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 12- inches wide and 12-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For two-story or equivalent I structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 12-inches wide and 18- ` inches below the lowest adjacent grade. As a minimum, all footings should have one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and bottom of the footing. Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier i consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2-inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the concrete. The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the anticipated loads and the soil parameters given. 7.11 Slope StahahiX& Unstrurflon We anticipate that cut & fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio, to a maximum height of approximately 30-ft, will be surficially and grossly stable if constructed I in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and in Appendix D of this report. Based on our review of the "Precise Grading Plans" proposed cut and fill slopes have been designed at 1.5:1 and 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratios to maximum vertical j heights of 118 and 28-ft,respectively. Based on the results of our slope stability analysis,presented in Appendix E, we anticipate [ that proposed cut slope will be surficially and grossly stable constructed to a design height of 118-ft at a slope ratio of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical). Surficial stability calculations were not performed on the cut slopes due to the underlying hard rock. The importance of proper fill compaction to the face of slope cannot be overemphasized. In order to achieve proper compaction to the slope face, one or more of the four following methods should be employed by the contractor following implementation of typical slope construction guidelines; 1) track walk the slopes at grade, 2) grid roll the slopes, 3) use a combination of sheeps foot roller and track walking, and/or 4) overfill the slope 3 to 5-ft laterally and cut it back to grade. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO.167401.00 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation l February 21, 2005 Page 14 Care should be taken to avoid spillage of loose materials down the face of any slope during grading. Loose fill on the face of the slope will require complete removal prior to compaction, shaping and trackwalking. Proper seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as soon as practical to inhibit erosion and deterioration of the slope surfaces. Proper moisture control will enhance the long-term stability of the finish slope surface. 7.12 Canyon Suhdrains Due to the gently sloping and relatively steep nature of the subject site and lack of steep canyons, perforated plastic pipe and gravel canyon subdrains are not anticipated to be required on the subject site. 7.13 Tentative Structural Section We recommend the following tentative structural section for the on-site parking and driveway areas. The tentative design of the pavement sections for the parking and driveway ` areas are based on an assumed R-value of 40 and Traffic Indexes (TI) of 5.0 and 8.0. R- value testing should be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify soils exposed at subgrade, and a final structural section design should be recommended at that time. 1 The recommended tentative pavement section is: AREA TI PAVEMENT SECTION Parking Areas 5.0 0.25' (3.0")AC over 0.35' (4.2")ABII Driveways(light traffic) 5.0 0.25'(3.0")AC over 0.35'(4.2")ABII Driveways(heavy traffic) 8.0 0.38'(4.6")AC over 0.70' (8.4")ABII It is recommended that the subgrade materials be compacted to a depth of 1 foot below subgrade elevation and that both the subgrade materials and the ABII be compacted to 95% relative to the maximum density of the respective materials, as determined by ASTM 1557- 92 laboratory tests. R-Value testing should be conducted on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material 7.14 I]tili ), Trench Backfill Utility trench Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557 test method. It is our opinion that utility trench Backfill consisting of on-site or approved sandy soils can best be T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 15 placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. I All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards as a minimum. 7.15 Surface Drainagg f Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant structures. All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices. Where landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape l irrigation water. 7.16 Grading Plan Review T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should review the final grading plans, when available,to verify conformance with the intentions of these recommendations. Some additional fieldwork may be necessary at that time. 7.17 Foundation Plan Review T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should review the final foundation plans, when available, to verify conformance with the intentions of these recommendations. 7.18 Construction Monitoring Continuous observation and testing under the direction of qualified soils engineers and/or f engineering geologists is essential to verify compliance with the recommendations of this report and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions found are consistent with this investigation. Construction monitoring should be conducted by a qualified engineering i geologist/soil engineer at the following stages of construction: • During grading including alluvial and undocumented removals and recompaction. • Following excavation of footings for foundations. • During utility trench backfill operations. • When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 Ms. Mary Saenz Near-Cal Corporation February 21, 2005 Page 16 I8.0 LIMITATIONS Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locations. IThe findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works r of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. f Therefore,this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. lThis opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions,please call. Very truly yours, � ,R,;INy9�� T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. R.C.E. NO. 23464 Exp 12/31/05 Cr ClCMAQ �p n P. Fre . Reinhart,RCE 23464 P o.ect Geologist Registration Expires 12/31/05 f l es R. Harrison 'st er 1, �G \ <: ro ect Manager No.C[G �{, j g eerin eologist u Registration Expires 3 Vires:03-03_95 JPF/JTR/JRH/CK jek °jF OF 1AI.IYO ACCOMPANYING MAPS, ILLUSTRATIONS,AND APPENDICES Figure 1 - Site Location Map(2,000-scale) Plate 1 -Geotechnical Map(60-scale) APPENDIX A—References APPENDIX C-Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX B -Exploratory Boring Logs APPENDIX D- Standards of Grading T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. APPENDIX E — Slope Stability Analysis APPENDIX A References T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 REFERENCES California Division of Mines & Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California", Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the fState of California", DMG Open File Report 96-08,USGS Open File Report 96-706. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1980, "State of California Special Studies Zone — fElsinore Quadrangle", Official Map—Effective January 1, 1980, Scale: 1-inch=2,000-ft. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1980, "State of California Special Studies Zone — Wildomar Quadrangle", Official Map—Effective January 1, 1980, Scale: 1-inch=2,000-ft. Coduto,Don,P., 1994, "Foundation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall,pages 637-655. Department of Water Resources,August 1971,"Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the f Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California", Bulletin No. 91-20. Hart, E.W., 2000, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones'in California", California Division of Mines and I Geology Special Publication 42, CD-003 (CD-ROM Version). f Houston, S. L., 1992, "Partial Wetting Collapse Predictions", Proceedings of the 7th International I Conference on Expansive Soils,Vol. I,pages 302-306. 1 International Conference of Building Officials(ICBO),2001, "California Building Code"(CBC). International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1998, "Maps of Known Active t Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be Used with 1997 Uniform Building Code" prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. International Conference of Building Officials(ICBO), 1997, "Uniform Building Code" C . Jennings, Charles W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions", California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Morton, D. M. & Weber, F. H., 1991, "Geologic Map of the Elsinore 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Riverside County,California",Open-File Map OF 90-700. Petersen, M., Beeby, D., Bryant, W., Cao, C., Cramer, C., Davis, J., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G., Tan, S., Taylor, G., Toppozada, T., Treiman, J., and Wills, C., 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California",California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48,varied scales. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 RFFF.RENC'F.S (Continued) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Volume 1, "Foundations on Hydro-collapsible Soils, Pages 256-261. Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., Cramer, C. and Reichle, M., 2000, "Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by M>_ 5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1999" California Division of Mines Geology Map Sheet 49,varied scales. CU.S. Geological Survey, 1997, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map, Wildomar, California, scale 1" _ 2,000'. I Weber, Harold F. Jr., May 1977, "Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology,DMG Open-File Report 77-4. f 1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS UTILIZED YEAR/SCALE FLIGHT#/FRAME# AGENCY 1962/1"=2,000' Co. Flight/1-168,1469 Riv Co Flood Control 1974/1"=2,000' Co. Flight/651,652 Riv Co Flood Control 1980/1"=2,000' Co. Flight/615,616 Riv Co Flood Control 1984/1"=1,600' Co. Flight/762,763 Riv Co Flood Control 1990/1"=1,600' Co. Flight/13-11,13-12 Riv Co Flood Control l l T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO.167401.00 APPENDIX B Exploratory Boring Logs TRE,Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401,00 LOGGED BY:JRH METHOD OF EXCAVATION: MOBILE NO.B-61 TRUCK MOUNTED DRILL RIG W/ DATE OBSERVED: 8/2/04 6"HOLLOW STEM AUGERS ELEVATION:+1301.5 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL i MAP IF O O w w ir u = LL N N w 0 a BORING LOG NO.-1 SOIL TEST ~ co N a Y g z a z DESCRIPTION a m O ❑ Um 7 m VO INTERMEDIATE AGE ALLUVIUM SILTY SAND(SM):YELLOW BROWN,MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED,TRACE GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL FINES,MODERATELY SORTED,SLIGHTLY MOIST,LOOSE(TOP 2')TO DENSE 72 y 9 4 108.0 20/22&50 BLOWS PER 4" 5 90 Y 10.6 109.0 40&50 BLOWS PER 4" SANDY SILT(ML):YELLOWISH BROWN,SLIGHTLY MOIST,SANDY IN PART,DENSE, 10 OCCASIONAL CALCAREOUS VEINLETS 90 V 25/40&50 BLOWS PER 4" DISTURBED SAMPLE,PARTIAL RECOVERY t � L15 f81 _ SANDY SILT(ML):YELLOWISH BROWN,AS ABOVE t GRANITIC BEDROCK WHITE TO YELLOW BROWN,COARSE GRAINED,SLIGHTLY MOIST,DENSE 20 52 TI 50 BLOWS PER 3" 25 TOTAL DEPTH=21.5' NO GROUNDWATER 30 35 40 JOB NO: 167401.00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE:B-1 LOGGED BY:JRH METHOD OF EXCAVATION: MOBILE NO.B-61 TRUCK MOUNTED DRILL RIG W/ DATE OBSERVED: 8/2/04 6"HOLLOW STEM AUGERS ELEVATION:+1277.0 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP o` gypp- w Cr- w a O m w a s o BORING LOG NO. 2 LL LL�n w cwi — SOIL TEST a a) p o U) °o a z DESCRIPTION og m zLU U D m U Z 0 INTERMEDIATE AGE ALLUVIUM SILTY SAND(SM):REDDISH BROWN,FINE TO COARSE GRAINED,DRY,LOOSE 5 SILTY SAND(SM):REDDISH BROWN,MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED,MINOR GRAVEL SIZE, 48 X 11 4 106.0 SLIGHTLY MOIST,MEDIUM DENSE 10 25 X V DISTURBED SAMPLE,PARTIAL RECOVERY CLAYEY SAND(SC):REDDISH BROWN,SLIGHTLY MOIST,ABUNDANT FINES,MINOR MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE MEDIUM AND COARSE GRAINS,MEDIUM DENSE (MAX),SIEVE ANALYSIS(SA),EXPANSION INDEX(EI),SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT 15 SANDY CLAY(CL):REDDISH BROWN,MEDIUM DENSE,MOIST,NUMEROUS ANGULAR (S),CORROSIVITY SUITE _ 18Ti 15.0 114.0 ROCK FRAGMENTS 20 A 15 T SANDY CLAY(CL):REDDISH BROWN,DENSE,AS ABOVE V GROUNDWATER AT 22' 25 SANDY CLAY(CL):REDDISH BROWN,MOIST,MEDIUM DENSE,SANDY IN PART, 19 I 30 50 SANDY CLAY(CL):WHITE TO TAN,MICACEOUS IN PART,DENSE,MINOR GRAVEL 50 BLOWS PER 5" 35 16 SANDY SILT(ML):OLIVE GREEN,VERY MOIST,MEDIUM DENSE,MICACEOUS,SANDY IN PART n0 12 JOB NO: 167401.00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE:B-2 LOGGED BY:JRH METHOD OF EXCAVATION:MOBILE NO. B-61 TRUCK MOUNTED DRILL RIG Wl DATE OBSERVED:8/2/04 6"HOLLOW STEM AUGERS ELEVATION:+1277.0 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP F O F a w >LL 8 W J W\ BORING LOG NO. 2 w J a F a s �-� I . N w 0� — SOIL TEST W r�i o a vai j i 0.z DESCRIPTION z a z O U m Z m U p SILTY SAND(SM):OLIVE GREEN TO ORANGE,MOTTLED,FINE GRAINED,POORLY GRADED, MEDIUM DENSE,SATURATED E 45 50 SANDY SILT(ML):GREENISH GRAY,SATURATED,SANDY IN PART 1 55 TOTAL DEPTH=51.5' GROUNDWATER AT 22.0' 60 ss 70 75 BO I JOB NO: 167401.00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE:B-2 LOGGED BY:JRH METHOD OF EXCAVATION: MOBILE NO.B-61 TRUCK MOUNTED DRILL RIG W/ DATE OBSERVED:8/2/04 6"HOLLOW STEM AUGERS ELEVATION:+1301.0 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP a 8 of �r oa BORING LOG NO. 3 w SOIL TEST +�. c� LL �a a r w = LL ~ Y o� SN W z a Z DESCRIPTION O U m Z m U Z O V INTERMEDIATE AGE ALLUVIUM MAX,DIRECT SHEAR,SA,El,S,C SILTY SAND(SM) YELLOW BROWN,FINE TO COARSE GRAINED.DRY,LOOSE 5 �/ 50 X SILTY SAND(SM) YELLOW BROWN,FINE TO COARSE GRAINS,DENSE SLIGHTLY MOIST 50 BLOWS PER 4" DISTURBED SAMPLE,PARTIAL RECOVERY I I 10 A 50 X SILTY SAND(SM) YELLOW BROWN.AS ABOVE,GRAVELLY IN PART 19 BLOWS PER 6"AND 50 BLOWS PER 5" DISTURBED SAMPLE,NO RECOVERY 15 69 IT 20 TOTAL DEPTH= 16.5' NO GROUNDWATER 25 30 35 40 JOB NO:167401 00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE:B-3 ,LOGGED BY:JRH METHOD OF EXCAVATION: MOBILE NO.B-61 TRUCK MOUNTED DRILL RIG W/ DATE OBSERVED:8/2/04 6"HOLLOW STEM AUGERS ELEVATION:+1280.5 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP F U O W w w U W O a. _ °a BORING LOG NO. 4 LL n y w cWi — SOIL TEST r m 3 N Q Y O Z a Z DESCRIPTION W ° zm Z �o p 1 INTERMEDIATE AGE ALLUVIUM SILTY SAND(SM):YELLOW BROWN,FINE TO COARSE GRAINED,ABUNDANT GRAVEL, DENSE,SLOW DRILLING,TOP Z IS LOOSE AND DRY 5 50 Y 5.7 1120 50 BLOWS PER 4" I 10 50 V SILTY SAND(SM):YELLOW BROWN,FINE TO COARSE GRAINED,GRAVELLY IN PART. 50 BLOWS PER 6" DENSE,SLIGHTLY MOIST DISTURBED SAMPLE,PARTIAL RECOVERY 15 y 50 50 BLOWS PER 3" DISTURBED SAMPLE,PARTIAL RECOVERY I- 20 TOTAL DEPTH = 15.5' NO GROUNDWATER 25 l 30 l 35 40 JOB NO; 167401.00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE:B-4 APPENDIX C Laboratory Test Results T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 1,ABORATORY TESTING I A. Classifientinn Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classification was supplemented by index tests, such as particle size analysis and j moisture content. B. Expansion Index Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 lb/A2, in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. The test results are presented on Figure C-1, Table I. IC. Maxitnwn Density/Optimum Moisture Content r Maximum density/optimum moisture content relationships were determined for typical samples of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM 1557-Method A. The test results are summarized on Figure C-1, Table II, and presented graphically on r Figures C-2 & C-3. D. Particle Size I)etermination Particle size determination, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve) including 200 washes, were performed on representative samples of the onsite soils in accordance with 1 ASTM D 422-63. Test results are shown on Figures C-4 through C-14. E. Direct Shear A Direct shear strength test was performed on a representative sample of the onsite undisturbed soils. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were l saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume change. Test results are graphically displayed on Figure C-15. F. Sulfate Content Soluble sulfate content tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils. The laboratory standard used was California 417A. The test results are presented on Figure C-111, Table IV and Figures C-16 & C-17. G. Carrosivitp Suite Corrosivity suite testing was performed on representative samples of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D 4318. The test results are presented on Figure C- 1A, Table V and Figures C-16 & C-17. T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 TABLE I EXPANSION INDEX TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B-2 @ 10-20 ft 17 Very Low B-3 @ 0-10 ft 17 Very Low TABLE II MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP ASTM D 1557 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE TEST LOCATION (pcf) N B-2 @ 10-20 ft 123.6 12.2 B-3 @ 0-10 ft 135.1 7.8 TABLE III SULFATE CONTENT TEST LOCATION SULFATE CONTENT B-2 @ 10-20 ft 43 ppm B-3 @ 0-10 ft 150 ppm TABLE IV CORROSIVITY SUITE SATURATED REDOX TEST LOCATION RESISTIVITY pH POTENTIAL SULFIDE E @ 10-20 ft 3,500 8.0 270 Negative B-3 @ 0-10 ft 2,300 7.2 320 Negative Figure C-1 T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 MAXIMUM DENSITYXOPTIMUM MOISTURE 135 130 4- U Q 125 c a, 120 u ca i 115 Ail ZAV for Sp.G. = 2.e5 110 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Method A, Modified Oversize correction applied to final results Elevi Classification Nat. % > % < Sp.G. ILL PI Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200 10-20 SM 9.9 : 2.85 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 123.6 pcf DARK BROWN Optimum moisture = 12.2 % SILTY SAND Project No . : 167401 .00 Remarks : Project : NEARCAL Location: B-2 Date: 9-08-2004 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE ^ w Fig. No . MAXIMUM DENSITYZOPTIMUM MOISTURE 145 140 U 135 T 01 i ZAV f or c (U Sp.G. = 130 2.75 L ca 125 120 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 Water content, Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Method A, Modified Oversize correction applied to final results Elevi Classification Nat. S G. LL PI % > % < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. P� N0.4 No.200 0-6 5.0 : 2.75 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 135. 1 pcf MED GREY Optimum moisture = 7.8 % DGi ROCK Project No . : 167401 .00 Remarks: Project: NEARCAL Location: B-3 Date: 9-08-2004 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE ('� Fig. No . �+-3 Particle Size Distribution Report C f 90 j 80 I i 70 — - W 60 — — Z 44 Z 50 - - - w � 11 H I I a 40 I l I 30 20 10 — o 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 4.2 42.7 53.1 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 1 in. 100.0 3/4 in. 99.0 1/2 in. 99.0 3/8 in. 98.9 Atterbe_m Llmlts #4 95.8 PL= LL= P1= #10 85.3 #30 66.7 Coefficients #50 57.5 D 1.96 D 0.390 D #100 57.4 85= 60= 50= D10= #200 53.1 D30= D15= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-1 @ 15 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: ElevJDepth: 15 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Protect: Pro ect No: 167401.00 Plate —4 Particle Size Distribution Report 100 F I 90 `I i 80 70 W 60 — Z 1 1 LL I Z 50 I — - w C) Ix ; I W 40 l n. 30 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0-0 8.0 61.1 1 30.9 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 100.0 3/8 in. 98.8 #4 92.0 Atterbern Limits #10 72.2 PL= LL= PI= #30 45.9 #50 37.4 Coefficlents #100 31.8 D85= 3.34 D60= 1.22 D50= 0.760 #200 30.9 D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-1 @ 20 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: EIevJDepth: 20 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Project: Pro©ct No: 167401.00 Plate C-5 Particle Size Distribution Report 100 I i j 90 e0 i 70 l ; z 60 j — II i + Z 50 l W j W 40 I _ 30 - f 20 10 i 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 10.8 41.8 47.4 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.` PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 98.8 3/8 in. 96.7 #4 89.2 Atterbera Limits #10 73.2 PL= LL= PI= #30 58.3 #50 52.8 Coefficients #100 48.8 D 3.71 D 0.722 D 0.194 #200 47.4 85= 60= 50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classlflcatlon USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 @ 10-20 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: ElevJDepth: 10-20 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Pro'ect: Pro ! t No: 167401.00 Plate C-6 Particle Size Distribution Report s 8 s gg 100 .� I 90 — - — 80 f I f 70 I W 80 Z Z 50 I 1 W W 40 30 - I 20 - - 10 500 100 10 1 0-1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 5.6 63.1 31.3 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC! PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 99.5 3/8 in. 98.3 #4 94.4 Atterbern Llmlts #10 88.5 PL= LL= PI= #30 73.5 #50 60.2 Coefficients #100 51.0 D 1.36 D 0.296 D 0.143 #200 31.3 85= 60= 50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 @ 20 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: Elev./Depth: 20 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Protect: Pro ect No: 167401.00 Plate C-7 Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 80 I — 1 70 i � ! j W 60 LL I I f— 50 Uj W 40 30 1 20 i i i i i i 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT °k CLAY 0.0 1 0.1 16.3 83.6 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 100.0 3/8 in. 100.0 #4 99.9 Atterbem Limits #10 99.5 PL= LL= PI= #30 97.7 #50 91.6 Coefficients #100 84.8 #200 83.6 D85= 0.155 Dgp= D50= D30= D15= D10= CU= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 @ 25 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: ElevJDepth: 25 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Pr"ect: Pro ect No: 167401.00 Plate C—v Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 60 I i 1 70 W 60 — — — —— — Z I I Z 50 U I d 40 i I I 30 H - i I I I I I 20 10 0 , 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 3.5 24.2 72.3 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 1 in. 100.0 3/4 in. 98.4 1/2 in. 97.9 3/8 in. 97.5 Atterbera Limits #4 96.5 PL= LL= PI= #10 95.5 #30 94.2 Coefficients #100 75.4 #200 72.3 D85= 0.339 D60= D50= D30= D15= 010= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 @ 30 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: ElevJDepth: 30 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Project: Prolect No: 167401.00 Plate — Particle Size Distribution Report o 100 I I I 90 i 80 70 4 W 80 Z_ LL � Z 5U w I I U � � � ; I a 4° E - 1t 30 1 20 I i I I 10 ' 0 500 1 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY —] 0.0 1 1.8 8.0 90.2 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 100.0 3/8 in. 99.2 #4 98.2 Atterbem Llmlts #10 95.8 PL= LL= PI= #30 92.7 #50 91.8 Coefflclents *100 90.7 #200 90.2 D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= CU= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 @ 35 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: Elev./Depth: 35 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Project: rr y Prolect No: 167401.00 Plate 'C'" l 0 Particle Size Distribution Report c g 157 100 i I 90 - 1 1 I � 80 - - 1 i 70 I I • W 60 — Z Z 50 I U � I • QL ! t W 4p a 1 ( I I I � I 30 so I I ' 10 I 0 1 1 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 0.6 1 76.6 22.8 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.` PASS? Soll Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 100.0 3/8 in. 99.8 #4 99.4 Atterberil Limits #10 98.7 PL= LL= PI= #30 71.8 #50 34.1 Coefficients #100 23.0 D 0.838 D 0.485 D 0.410 #200 22.8 85= 60= 50= D30= 0.266 D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no speci8cMon provided) Sample No.: B-2 @ 40 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: EIevJDepth: 40 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Protect: Pro ect No: 167401.00 Plate C—1 Particle Size Distribution Report _ pp gg gg gg 100 90 I I 80 i I I E 1 70 1 I I W 60 ' Z � I i Z 50 — i i 4 I 30 { _ I i I I 20 ; 10 i 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0-0 0.1 1 63.5 1 36.4 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 100.0 3/8 in. 100.0 #0 9.9 Atterbera Limits #30 92.1 PL= LL= PI= #50 55.8 Coefficients #100 38.4 D 0.530 D 0.330 D 0.257 #200 36.4 85= 60= 50= D30= DES= DSO= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 @ 45 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: ElevJDepth: 45 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Protect: Pro ect No: 167401.00 Plate C-1 2 Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 I f, I 80 70 , 1 1 w 60 I z 1 ' W 50 1 pW, 40 30 20 - I ' 10 f 01TI i 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 0.7 43.5 55.8 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC' PASS? Soli DescriAtlon SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 99.6 3/8 in. 99.6 #4 99.3 Atterbem Limits #10 99.0 PL= LL= PI= #30 90.1 #50 64.7 Coefficlents #100 56.1 D 0.530 D 0.238 D #200 55.8 85= 60= 50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 @ 50 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: Elev./Depth: 50 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Protect: 167401.00 Plate C- 3 Pro ect No: Particle Size Distribution Report 100 j I 1 90 ! 80 j j 70 W 60 LL Z 50 U ' a 40 ; i 30 20 10 i 500 100' 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 24.1 44.9 1 31.0 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) 1 in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.3 1/2 in. 95.3 3/8 in. 90.5 Atterberg Limits #4 75.9 PL= LL= PI= #10 55.0 #30 38.4 Coefficients #50 33.8 DS5= 7.23 D60= 2.49 D50= 1.54 #100 31.7 #200 31.0 D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-3 @ 0-10 Source of Sample: Date: 9/27/04 Location: Elev./Depth: 0-10 Client: NEARCAL T.H.E. SOILS CO. Project: Project No: 167401.00 Plate C-14 SENT BY: GEOSOILS, INC. , iuuyjl uai:_,; 2.500 - _ 2.000 -.... _ e 1,600 H 0: x � I 500 I - - - I 0 500 1,000 1.600 2.000 T,S00 3,00 NORMAL PRESSURE,psf Sample beptlwEG PrlmarylReeldual Shear Sample Type yd MC% — C • 1e74019-3 0-0 Primary Shear R911101ded 121.6 7.8 183 37 ■ 1674016-3 0.0 Residual Shear Rertwldld 121.6 7.8 172 37 Note:Sample Innur►daled prior to testing GeoSolls,Ir1a — DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Projed: The Solls Co. c fCarlsbad.CA MW Telephone: (760)438-3166 Number: 2498-A-SC Fax: (760)931-0915 Dabs: September 2W4 Plate: c-1 5 NELAP#02101CA ELAP#1156 l� 6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside,CA 92507-0704 Q P.O.Box 432 Riverside,CA 92502-0432 PH(951)653-3351 FAX(951)653-1662 E.S.BABCOCK www.babcocklabs.com &SONS,INC. Established 19M Client Name: T. H. E. Soils Co. Analytical Report: Page 7 of 10 Contact: John P. Frey Project Name: No Project Address: 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G Project Number: No Project Murrieta, CA 92562 Work Order Number: A410933 Report Date: 21-Sep-2004 Received on Ice(Y/N): No Temp: °C Laboratory Reference Number A410933-06 Sample Description Matrix Sampled Date/Time Received Date/Time B-2 @ 10-20 Nearcal WO#167401.00 Soil 09/08/04 00:00 09/10/04 10:30 Analyte(s) Result RDL Units Method Analysis Date Analyst Flag Saturated Paste pH 8.0 0.1 pH Units S-1.10 W.S. 09/17/04 16:40 imm Redox Potential 270 1.0 mV SM 2580 09/17/04 16:44 imm Saturated Extract Saturated Resistivity 3500 5 ohm-cm SM 2520B 09/17/04 16:42 imm Sulfide NEG N/A Water Elution 09/17/04 16:41 imm Water Extract Sulfate 43 10 ppm Ion Chromat. 09/15/04 22:39 CTHN-SAG, N-W EX `N ACCOR �,�° °� 'C-16 NELAP#02101CA ELAP#1156 6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside,CA 92507-0704 Q P.O.Box 432 Riverside,CA 92502-0432 PH(951)653-3351 FAX(951)653-1662 E.S.BABCOCK www.babcocklabs.com &SONS,INC. Eslablished IN6 Client Name: T. H. E. Soils Co. Analytical Report: Page 8 of 10 Contact: John P. Frey Project Name: NO Project Address: 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G Project Number: No Project Murrieta, CA 92562 Work Order Number: A410933 Report Date: 21-Sep-2004 Received on Ice(Y/N): No Temp: °C Laboratory Reference Number A410933-07 Sample Description Matrix Sampled Date,Time Received Date/Time B-3 @ 0-10 Nearcal WO#167401.00 Soil 09/08/04 00:00 09/10/04 10:30 Analyte(s) Result RDL Units Method Analysis Date Analyst Flap Saturated Paste pH 7.2 0.1 pH Units S-1.10 W.S. 09/17/04 16:40 imm Redox Potential 320 1.0 mV SM 2580 09/17/04 16:44 imm Saturated Extract Saturated Resistivity 2300 5 ohm-cm SM 2520B 09/17/04 16:42 imm Sulfide NEG N/A Water Elution 09/17/04 16:41 imm Water Extract Sulfate 150 10 ppm Ion Chromat. 09/15/04 23:40 CTHN-SAG, N-W EX A C C p q"4,p C-17 APPENDIX D Standards of Grading T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS TMese specifications present T.H.E. Soils Company,standard recommendations for grading and earthwork No deviation from then specifications should be patnitt.ad Lin less specifically superseded in the geotcdtnical report ofthe projcot or by written c mmunic tioxn sighed by the Soils Consultant. F aluati<xhs perfomed h� the Soil,Ccxhsultant during the course of grading may result in subsequent reocrnmendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations ofthe geotechnical report. 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 The Soils Consultant is the Owne'%or Developers representative on the project_ For the purpose of then:spucificatians.observations by the Soils Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer.Soils E ngincr,Engineering Geologist,and others anployed by and responsible to the Soils Consultant. 1.2 All clearing,site preparation,or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted and directed by the Contractor under the allowance or supervision ofthe Soils Consume 1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety ofthe project and satisfactory completion of all grading. During grading the Contractor shall remain accessible. 1.4 Prior to the commencernurit of grading the Soils Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of providing field,laboratory,and office services for conformance with the recommendations ofthe geotedmical report and these spmific ations. It will be noar%sary that the Soils Consultant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may provide an opinion as to determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Soils Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. 1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to s000mplish the work in accordance with applicable grading coders, agency ordinances,these:specifications,and the approved grading plans. 11, in the opinion of the Soils Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions,such as questionable soil,poor moisture condition,inadequate compaction,adverse weather,der,are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications,the Soils Consultant will be cmpowaod to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 1.6 It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide safe seem to the Soils Consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may require the ex,-.ovation oftest pits and/or the relocation of grading equipment 1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Soils Consultant t atics ingto the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. 2.0 SITE,PREPARATION 2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site. This removal shall be observed by the Soils Consultant and concluded prior to fill place wL 2.2 Sail,alluvium,or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed frorn the site or used in open arras as determined by the Soils Consultant_ Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted till must be approved by the soils Consultant prim to fin placement. 2.3 After the ground surfaceto receive fill has been cleared,it shall be scarified,disced and/or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and-free from ruts,hollows,hutmnodca,or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. lbe scuzW grand surface shall d m be broagU to,optmum moisture;mixed ss regtured,and compacted as specified If the scarified zone is gre"thatttwelm ioda in depth„the etwcoa&A be removed and phoed in ids notto exceed am kdhea OF leas. Priorto placing fill,the grand stuf icato reoave fill dull be obserrved,tested,sad approved by the Soils Consultant. Any underground Anwtuuea or avit m such as c0$W0 ls,eidarns,mining s hafia,tunnels,septic tanks,wells,pipe lines,or others are to be removed or teemed in a morsur prtaaibed by rho Soils Cmwtkant. 2.5 In atoll transition lots and where art lob are partially in soil,collu vium or unweathered bedrock mat"ls,in order to provide uniform berg conditions,the bedrodcportiea ofthe lot odend'tog a maimmn of 5 feet outside of building Irma droll be ovcrexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Greats overexcavatim could be required as determined by Soils Cohaubmd. Typical details are afiadred. 3.0 COMPACTED FII.I.B 3.1 Material to be Owed as fill dull be f m of organk matter and dher deldnious vAdances,and shall be approved by the Sorts CamakvmL-Soils o1 poor gradation,eogmwion,or drangh characteristics duU be planed in areas designated by Sorts Cmwkard.or dull be mixed wilh other soils to save as setisfadory fill material,as directed by the Soils Consultant. Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page 2 3.2 Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,provided: • They are not placed or nested in concentrated pockets. There is a sufficient amount of approved soil to surround the rocks. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Consultant. 3.3 Rocks j7.ata than twelve inches in diameter shall be taken off-site,or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (Atypical detail for Rode Disposal is attached.) 3.4 Material that is spongy,subject to decay,or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill. 3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Consultant to determine their physical properties. Ifany material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading the appropriate analysis ofthis material shall be conducted by the Soils Consultant before being approved as fill material. 3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread,watered,processed,and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise approved by the Soils Consultant. 3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by the Soils Consultant,the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Consultant. 3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to at least 90 percent ofthe maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70,whichever applies. If compaction to a kisser percentage is authorize d by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan and/or appropriate reference made to the area in the geotechnical report. 3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benchedthrough all topsoil,colluvium,alluvium,or creep material,into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical or in accordance with the rox-a mehdations ofthe Soils Consultant. 3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a mimmuun width of 15 foot within bedrock or firm materials,unless otherwise gxxif iod in the gootcdhnical report. (See detail attadhod.) 3.11 Subdrainage devious shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances ofthe controlling gove inettal agency,or with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant. (1lypical Canyon Subdrain details are attached) 3.12 The contractor will be roquired to obtain a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 perwn out to the finish slope face of fill slopes,buttresses. and stabilization fells This maybe achieved by either over building the elope and cutting back to the compacted core,or by direct compaction of tine slope face with suitable equipment,or by any Other prooudurr,which produces the required compaction approved by the Soils Consuhaut. 3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected fiom erosion by other methods specified in the Soils report. 3.14 Fill-over-art slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil,colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials,and the transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill (See attached detaiL) 4.0 CUT SLOPES 4.1 The Soils Consultant shall inspect all cut dopes at vertical intervals exceedmg five feet. 4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the gooteclhnical report such as perched water,seepage,lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adveu nature,unfavorably mdmod boddm&joints or fault planes encountered during grading there conditions shall be analyzed by the Soils Cansiltam and recommendations shall be made to mitigate thew problans. ('I�pical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut elope are attached.) 4.3 Cut dopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage ball be protected fiom slope wash by a non-avdiblc interceptor whale placed a the top ofthe dope. 4.4 Unless otherwise spewed in the Sootednial report,no ad dopes shall be asoavated higher or stages than that allowed by the ordinances o controlling governmental agenciee- 4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of oontrolling governmental agencies,or with the rooernmendations of th .Soils r'Mmltsal Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page 3 1 5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS I5.1 Trench excavation shall be inspected prior to structure placement for competent bottom. 5.2 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the supervision ofthe Soils Consultant. 5.3 After the utility pipe has been laid,the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the top ofthe pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand. r5.4 The on-site materisls,or other soils approved by the Soils Consultant,shall be watered and mixed,as necessary,prior to placement in lifts over the I sand backfill. 55 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent ofthe maximum laboratory density,as determined by the ASTM D1557-70 or the controlling governmental agency. 5.6 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made by the Soils Consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the Soils Consultant to enable sampling and testing 6.0 GRADING CONTROL 6.1 Inspection ofthe fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Consultant duringthe progrt>ss of grading 6.2 In gcncal,density tests should be made at intervals not exc a Aing two feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size ofthe job. In any event,an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. 6.3 Density tests should also be made on the native surface material to receive fill,as required by the Soils Consultant. t 6.4 All dcmnout,processed ground to rctvivod fill,key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals should be inspected and approved by the Soil !I Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Consultant when such areas will be ready fo inspection. 7,0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Erosion control measures,when n=-ssary,shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. 7.2 Upon oomplction of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Consultant,no further filling or excavating including that necessary foi footings foundations,large tree wells,rdammg walls,or other features shall be p Ao nnod withmA the approval ofthe Soils Consultant 7.3 Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices o. permanent nature on or adjaoentto the property. l I SIDE HILL CUT PAD DETAIL NATURAL GROUND OVEREXCAVATE FINISHED CUT PAD AND RECOMPACT -- ----- (REPLACEMENT FILL) _— _—_= — " "" " " " " " " ' _ _ • • '_ ___ ----? Pad overexcovation and recom actior OVERBURDEN — Q I OR UNSUITABLE --- _ —( shall be performed if determined to MATERIAL be necessary by the geotechn ical ---— — t—BENCHING consultant. —� UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR �r MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SUBDRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REOUIREMENTS DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE �.CONDITIO'NS'' AI O THICKNESS OF'''OVERBURD t I'" ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH GRADE -_--=-=--z10' MIN _ - FILL-- - __-__ SLOPE __==___� _— -_=___- FACE -____--�_=__--------1=—-_- ------ = -_=__— _.______ ---_------- _______________________= ja MIN. _ _ 'c ---- f------------- _1� MIN. __ -__ — --_______--__—__-- _==— ----- _ __ ----- ------------ ----- i-=-•�7—___=="OVERSIZE=---- WINDROW! GRANULAR SOIL ' -To fill voids, densified by flooding PROFILE ALONG WINDROW M TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT NATURAL GROUND t M IN. _ —_—_ ___ _—_-- _———_——————— =COMPACTED =FILL-_---�=t E LPL '� ___ 36"MIN. ------ _�,�Pg--f —_ _ —`_—__vc�s _—_ ----—_ OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT -- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT CUT LOT NATURAL GROUND 1 REMOVE -��UNSUITABLE MATERIAL MIN: __=__________y '_ =_ V — COMPACTED- -- ^------- ----^— --- -. _Y1L-L:' - - E: �OVI=REJCCAAIATEiAND, �RECOMPACT . UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED BY i THE'GEOTECHNICAL'CONSULTANT 1 NOTE: eUr overexcavation and recohmaction shall be performed if determined -o be necesscry by the geotechnicol consultant. SLOPE BUTTRESS OR Is, REPLACEMENT FILL DETAIL - MIN. OUTLET PIPES =_==i- 1 4" 0 Nonperforated Pipe, FILL BLAN 100' Max- O.C. Horizontally, _____=__=- 30 MIN. 30' Max. O.C. Vertically _ _ BACK CUT _ 1:1 OR FLATTI -- - _- BENCHING --r - ----- SUBDRAIN -__ __ ___,� SEE ALTERNATES A • _ —_— _ FILTER MATERIAL y' KEY —__-- T—CONNECTION �- -2% Min-- -- �OVTLET Pam` ---- ----- 4" MIN. 1 PERFORATED PIPE 2' MIN. KEY WIDTH 4"0MIN_ cOUIPv.='JT SIZ-GENERALLY IS FEET ALTERNATE A 8"WN.OVERLAP TEMPORARY ILL LEVEL POSITIVE SEAL SHOULD 2E 14'MIN. PROVIDED 0, GRAVEL OR -- — RECOMPACTED FILL AT THE J024T e y :APPROVED EQUWAILENT 1v �IN. SELECT aEDOING 5�MrN. �a BACKFILL OUTLET "J Mr 1.NONPERFORATED PIPE-�i� plp` / MIRAFI 140 FILTER / FABRIC OR APPROVED EOUIVALENT DETAIL A-A' ALTERNATE B :;NOTES_: FILTER::MATERIAL= � • ::rFilI,blanket,:back cut,.-key.-width and Filter material shall be .. 'ke depth,.aresubject.to field change Class 2 permeablelmaterial'- I per report/plans. :perState of.California �. 10 ,. Keyiheel=subdrain,b lank eti:.droin,•or :::Standard Specificotions,::.:: _ =vertic6'I drdin maybe required at the " ,or'op proved-alternate. discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Class 2 grading as follows: 1 • SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by 1" 100 the geotechnical consultant, shall be 3/41, 90-100 nonperforated pipe. 3/8" 40-100 • SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall No. 4 18-33 I be ASTM 0275% SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, No. 8 -33 No. 30 5-I5 Schedule 40lAorylonlUft'Butedlene-Styrene (ABS)-or, ASTM D3034'SDR 23.5 or ASTM No. 50 0-7 01785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic No. 200 0 3 BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE -___=COMPACTED —_____--__— ----—�_. ——————————————— ------- -�... _ C�T� it --_--_-_---- -/--_---- PROJECTED P!AiNE l to I maximum from toe ,-- of slope to cpproved ground REMOVE \ ---.-- tl?_Y_= UNISVITAi3LE NATURAL —__-- ,� MATERIAL GROUND _ —= �41 MIN. BENCH —�— BENCH �`— —'—_----- _—_—_—_——— � HEIGHT =-2_o MI_N.=— �tvpica1) VARIES 2 MIN. 15' MIN. KEY OWEST BENCH DEPTH (KEY) COMPACTED=_ `FILL OVER CUT SLOPE i�--zz- REMOVE. -NATURAL UNSUITABLE GROUND = —_—— --� MATERIAL __---- 4' MIN. BENCH '� ---  SENC HEIGkiT (typical) VARIES r 15' MIN. :LOWEST -BENCH CUT FACE To be constructed prior to fill placement NOTES. LOWEST.,BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change .'.. .based ai consultant's inspection. SUED RAIINAGE:. E.-rk dr;.:nz racy be required at the jiscretion of the geotecnnical consultant. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL NATURAL GROUND REMOVE _ - UNSUITABLE �--=== ______ -__—�_- MATERIAL -`s_`z-- _- _-_ -_----------------- —_ -------- COMPACTED FILL- ---------------- -- BENCHING --- - ---�_- --- �— ram- —=,7_'G _�___—�__—__.�= •� -_ SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE ALTERNATES A&B SUBDRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With ALTERNATE A: Filter Material FILTER MATERIAL: FILTER MATERIAL Filter material shall be 3 Class 2 permeable moTerial 9 ft. /ft. per State of California Standard Specifications, COVER or approved alternate. • 6"��1IN. Class 2 grading as follows: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING �• % BEDDING ` I" 100 3/4" 90-I00 Alternate A-1 4" MIN. Alternate A-2 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 PERFORATED PIPE No. 50 0-7 6" 0 MIN. No. 200 0-3 SUBDRAIN 1 1/2" Gravel Wrapped ALTERNATE B: in Filter Fabric NOTE: 8-MUN• OVERLAP In -addition to the wrapped i gravel, outlet:::portion of the subdrain::should__be , equipped PA with a minimum of 10-feet ° °° long perforated pipe.. con- MIR:,Fi 140 'FILTER netted #o anonperforated pipe FABRfCOR a -having -a minimum--of 5 feet in APPROVED _EQUIVALENT -length inside • ethe ''-wropped Alternate B-1 graveI lh" MIN. GRAVEL OR ernate B-2 APPROVED EQUIVALENT 9 ft. 3/ft. • SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforated pipe. • SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall be ASTM D2751,SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40 AcryloNtrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM D3034 SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1785, Schedule 40 PolyvkW Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equuvalant APPENDIX E Slope Stability Analysis T,H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO. 167401.00 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS I General The stability of both cut and fill slopes is dependent upon the strength characteristics of the soils and bedrock from which they are derived. Proposed 1.5:1 cut slopes are designed to a maximum vertical height of 118-ft and are expected to expose generally massive, yellow to dark brown metasedimentary bedrock (Morton & Weber, 1991). Numerous well developed and thinly spaced fractures were observed and mapped within the metasedimentary bedrock. Orientation of the fractures had distinct northeast trend. The orientations obtained during our field investigation are presented on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. 1 When the highest slope consisting of a given soil or bedrock type was determined to be grossly stable (static and seismic factors of safety greater than 1.5 and 1.1, respectively), slopes of lesser r height, derived from the same material, may be considered to be stable by inference. The y approximate location of our geologic cross-section is presented on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Slone Stahility Analysis A slope stability analysis was not performed for the proposed fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 slope j gradient to a maximum vertical height of 28-ft. We anticipate fill slopes constructed at a slope ratio I of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) are expected to be grossly and surficially stable under static and seismic conditions to a maximum design height of 28-ft. IFill slopes should be properly keyed and benched in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. Keyways should extend a minimum of 2 ft. into competent bedrock material and benching should be a minimum of 4-ft. vertical. A qualified engineering geologist, or their representative, should be on-site during slope construction and earthwork operations to assure that proper grading techniques, keyway development, and benching are accomplished. The potential for wedge and topple failure along the highest and steepest cut slope (1.5:1 to 118-ft) was evaluated using the computer program ROCKPACK III developed by C.F. Watts &Associates of Virginia. A stereonet analysis evaluates the orientation and geometry of bedding planes, fracture patterns and discontinuities identified relative to the proposed slope face to determine the potential j for wedge or planar failure. l The gross stability of the existing cut slopes is largely dependent upon the joint structure, fracture pattern, or foliation attitudes of the material from which they are derived. From a structural standpoint the onsite metasedimentary bedrock is characterized as generally massive with thinly spaced northwest and northeast trending fracture systems. No adverse conditions are anticipated. However, the cut slopes within the metasedimentary bedrock should be inspected during rough grading by the project engineering geologist to confirm our preliminary findings. As described above, the geologic structure of the mapped bedrock is not considered adverse in relation to the proposed cut slope faces. This is mainly attributed to the relatively steep dip of the fractures. This condition was verified by stereonet projection analysis, which confirmed the potential for planar or wedge failure of the proposed cut slopes is considered low. Minor spalling and "pop-outs" along the slope face will likely create an accumulation of debris long the toe of T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO.167401.00 r slope over time. This condition is not considered a hazard, but will require routine cleaning and removal of debris from the toe of slope. fAll cut slopes should be routinely inspected by a qualified engineering geologist or their representative to verify that anticipated structural conditions of the bedrock are exposed. In the r unlikely event that adverse conditions are exposed locally, specific recommendations for mitigation measures can be made at that time. l � I r l t I' T.H.E.Soils Company,Inc. W.O.NO.167401.00 DIP VECTOR STEREONET ANALYSIS FOR PLANE AND WEDGE FAILURE POTENTIAL FRICTION CIRCLE N CRITICAL ZONE INTERSECTION ,•• -�`•, OF GREAT •r ` CIRCLES % ;' .•: T l SLOPE FACE 1 PREPARED FOR: Commercial Pad l J APN 377-151-044 & 045 Lake Elsinore, California 1.5:1 CUT SLOPE FOR COMMERCIAL PAD DEVELOPMENT Egineology RGS G PROJECT NO. 1084-01 t i l . t j r JrF�( ljuv iz i INCH=60 €EEI. f -71 Qial f r �: 11 DRAUNC IMUr RECMD GA7€ _--- I -r- f-l�-r �:.J ., � / ,. •-ram—' c� ,�__ �' ;. •f r' l�tif I� ; r OR Qial - s- ` - I U•�°� �� S 4 `� ((((((����� ` RE1A910N RECDAD N0. DAIS DESCWP71pri -B-2 Qiah` / 1 Jm: I IN � ,• { �. � I� 4 r _ UNITS U I.F LNI)OCUMLTITED FILL t' r, r 1 ? ,+* � •� 1 ' �, I ' t N:M:,.,r:l 's'a tl -�_ \//. ,� '{i � I1��; ''r r n — �' 1��� 1 \` �-.r ✓ 'i - EDIAIEAOEALLUVIALSOILSOial * C0565 i.on METASEDIMENTARYELUROCK ExD.66N30-C UI I� A Jm 01I ' SYMBOLS o If P II g ` I STRIKE OF VERTICAL JOINTS . `_ •; _ � .: ' / PRINCIPOl IN CHARGE. ( STRIKE&Dll'OF JOINTS APPROXIMATE LOC4770N OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS -PROJECT nuNeQt uIc k3 ! / /� \ Il ♦ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTr1CTS ' �• / 3u APPRO GLOCATJONO!•GeOIAOICCROSS-SLCTIO.AI. �i� XQ�iAT \5 DRO,I�CY nnE 154 III — 1 - ------------- I ' Ili�l,l J °J� l !}''!!i- >/ �/ ✓�/ ai -.� ,.. 1 l r va i.� xx x , // I . ....,_ til ;..i JUL 227 f 411 T.H.E.SOILS COMPANY,INC. M RECOMMENDED FOR 07E• d ' GEOTECHNICAL AP f>. i PROPOSED MASS GRADED CONIMERCIAL PAD � � � � - _ � 7I9I04 _ APN NOS.377-I5I 044&377-151-045(APPROXII'LLTELY 20-ACRES) - - - CALL TOLL FREE �„'{�T 7f71•g NEC OF FLINT&SILVER STREET I i CJ CY OF LAKE CLSINORE,RI VERSIDE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA BENCH I accEF Fo sr' Dare 1-800-227 260000NCEPTUAL jj T LEAST TWO WORKING ; GAAF'aC DATA N\owc oltvrR: i67aul.oa BATE:FEs.2aos PLATE:I of I !' EER crrr of � DAYS,BEFORE You CA�r��PLAN W ENGIN - XXXXXX k_ CHECKED OK . : ..:SHEET NIA10M'^ , NO.: EXQ.DA1F: I i - i