Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEOTECHNICAL AND RGP REVIEW - TR 25477 AND 25476 (ROSETTA CANYON _ RAMSGATE -� 16t7-3, Gs ' /� /7.V-. 66 ALB US-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. I-K GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Mr. Chris Holmquist Centex Homes 2280 Wardlow Circle, Suite 150 Corona, California 92880 Subject: Rough Grading Plan Review, Tracts 25477 and 25476, Rosetta Canyon, (Formerly Known as Ramsgate Project), Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. Dear Mr. Holmquist: Pursuant to your request, Albus Keefe & Associates, Inc., is pleased to present to you our 40-scale rough grading plan review for the subject property. This report presents the results of our review of previous geotechnical reports for the site, supplemental seismic refraction evaluation, engineering and geologic analyses, and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to proposed site development as indicated on the referenced rough grading plans. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Albus-Keefe&Associates,Inc. " Patrick M. Keefe Principal Engineeri Geologist Distribution: (6) Addressee (4) Centex Homes,Attn.: Ms. Christina Hanneman (4) Hunsaker&Associates, Inc., Attn: Mr. Don Campbell 1403 North Batavia Street, Suite 115, Orange, CA 92867 (714) 744-9760 FAX(714) 744-9750 Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................. 1 1.3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION............................................................................... 2 2.0 INVESTIGATIONS..................................................................................................................4 2.1 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL WORK BY OTHERS ......................................................... 4 2.2 GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE MAPPING..................................................................... 4 2.3 SUPPLEMENTAL SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY...................................................... 4 2.4 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................................... 4 3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 5 3.1 GEOLOGIC UNITS................................................................................................................ 5 3.1.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill(Qaf) .................................................................................. 5 3.1.2 Topsoil (no map symbol).................................................................................................. 5 3.1.3 Alluvium/Colluvium, (Qal/Qcol)...................................................................................... 6 3.1.4 Older Fanglomerate (Qfo)................................................................................................. 6 3.1.5 Granitic Bedrock(Kgr)..................................................................................................... 6 3.1.6 Bedford Canyon Formation(Jbc) ..................................................................................... 6 3.2 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Foliation and Joints........................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Faulting............................................................................................................................. 7 3.3 LANDSLIDES......................................................................................................................... 7 3.4 GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................................. 7 4.0 ANALYSES............................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 SLOPE STABILITY............................................................................................................... 8 4.3 SEISMICITY........................................................................................................................... 8 5.0 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................9 5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................... 9 5.2 SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 9 5.3 SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................................................................. 10 5.4 RIPPABILITY AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS.................................................. 11 5.5 SHRINKAGE AND BULKING........................................................................................... 12 5.6 GROUNDWATER................................................................................................................ 12 5.7 SEISMIC HAZARDS............................................................................................................ 13 5.7.1 Ground Rupture .............................................................................................................. 13 5.7.2 Ground Shaking.............................................................................................................. 13 5.7.3 Liquefaction.................................................................................................................... 13 5.7.4 Seiche and Tsunami........................................................................................................ 13 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................ 13 6.1 EARTHWORK...................................................................................................................... 13 6.1.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ............................................................. 13 6.1.2 Pre-Grade Meeting and Geotechnical Observation........................................................ 13 6.1.3 Site Clearing.................................................................................................................... 14 ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page ii 6.1.4 Ground Preparation......................................................................................................... 14 6.1.5 .Lot Capping.................................................................................................................... 14 6.1.6 Geometry of Bedrock/Fill Contact.................................................................................. 15 6.1.7 Street Capping................................................................................................................. 15 6.1.8 Temporary Excavations.................................................................................................. 15 6.1.9 Canyon Subdrains........................................................................................................... 15 6.1.10 Scarification................................................................................................................. 16 6.1.11 Fill Placement.............................................................................................................. 16 6.1.12 Rock Placement Criteria.............................................................................................. 17 6.1.13 Fill Slopes.................................................................................................................... 17 6.1.14 Cut Slopes.................................................................................................................... 17 6.1.15 Stabilization Fills......................................................................................................... 17 6.1.16 Slope Backdrains......................................................................................................... 18 6.1.17 Lot Subdrains............................................................................................................... 18 6.2 EROSION PROTECTION FOR SLOPES............................................................................ 18 6.3 ROCK FALL PROTECTION............................................................................................... 18 6.4 IMPORT MATERIAL .......................................................................................................... 19 6.5 SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS ................................................................................. 19 6.6 POST GRADING CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 19 6.6.1 Site Drainage................................................................................................................... 19 6.6.2 Utility Trenches .............................................................................................................. 19 6.6.3 Irrigation Considerations ................................................................................................20 6.7 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................... 20 6.8 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 20 6.8.1 General............................................................................................................................ 20 6.8.2 Soil Expansion................................................................................................................ 21 6.8.3 Settlement Considerations .............................................................................................. 21 6.8.4 Allowable Bearing Value................................................................................................ 21 6.8.5 Lateral Resistance........................................................................................................... 21 6.8.6 Footings Dimensions and Reinforcement....................................................................... 21 6.8.7 Slabs on Grade—Very Low Expansion(EI<20)............................................................ 22 6.8.8 Slabs on Grade—Low Expansion(20<EI<50 &PI<18)................................................22 6.8.9 Post-Tension Slabs on Grade—Medium Expansion(EI>50 &PI<25).......................... 23 6.8.10 Foundation Setbacks.................................................................................................... 25 6.8.11 Footing Observations................................................................................................... 25 6.9 RETAINING AND FREE-STANDING WALLS ................................................................ 25 6.9.1 General............................................................................................................................ 25 6.9.2 Bearing Capacity, Lateral Bearing, and Reinforcement................................................. 25 6.9.3 Earth Pressures................................................................................................................25 6.9.4 Foundation Setbacks....................................................................................................... 26 6.9.5 Drainage and Moisture-Proofing.................................................................................... 26 6.9.6 Wall Backfill................................................................................................................... 26 6.10 EXTERIOR FLATWORK................................................................................................. 26 6.11 CEMENT TYPE ................................................................................................................ 27 6.12 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS......................................................................27 6.13 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ...................................................28 ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page iii 7.0 LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................28 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................30 APPENDICES (Volume I) APPENDIX A—Exploratory Boring and Trench Logs Plates A-1 through A-35 APPENDIX B—Laboratory Test Results Plates B-1 through B-18 APPENDIX C - Stability Analyses Tables C-1 and C-2 Plates C-1 through C-5 APPENDIX D—Seismic Refraction Data Plates D-1 through D-12 APPENDIX E- Typical Grading Details Plate E-1 through E-10 FIGURES (Volume I) Figure 1 - Site Location Map MAPS & CROSS-SECTIONS (Volume II) Plates 1 through 12 Geologic Maps (pocket enclosures) Plate 13 Geologic Cross-Sections (pocket enclosure) ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. f Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SC� OPE The purposes of our work were to review the referenced 40-scale rough grading plans and provide updated and/or specific geotechnical recommendations relevant to the proposed site development as Iindicated on the referenced rough grading plans. The scope of this review included the following: r • Review of previous geotechnical reports for the site • Review of the referenced 40-scale Rough Grading Plans f • Geologic Mapping • Supplemental seismic refraction survey • Engineering and geologic analyses • Preparation of this report. f 1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on our review of the referenced 40-scale Rough Grading Plans, the proposed development for Tract 25477 will involve rough grading of 213 single-family residential lots and associated streets. A detention basin is also planned along the eastern boundary of this tract, adjacent to Lots 162 and 163. Proposed development for Tract 25476 will involve rough grading for 290 single-family residential lots and associated streets. Other proposed developments for Tract 25476 include two open space lots and four detention basins. Cut and fill grading will be performed to achieve the desired surface configuration for the proposed developments. Maximum depths of proposed cuts and fills are approximately 60 feet and 53 feet, respectively. Cut and fill slopes are proposed at a slope ratio of 2:1 (H:V) or flatter, to maximum heights of approximately 45 feet and 70 feet, respectively. The rough grading plans also indicate that a mechanically-reinforced segmental retaining wall reaching a maximum height of approximately 22 feet will be constructed within the descending slopes behind Lots 232 through 236 of Tract 25476. In addition, conventional masonry block retaining walls up to 10 feet in height are also anticipated. fDetails of the future residential structures within the subject tracts are not known at this time. However, we understand that residential structures will consist of slab-on-grade, one- and/or two- story, wood-framed structures yielding light structural loads. ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 2 Street improvement plans are also not yet available; however, we understand that portions of the sewer and storm drain systems may locally exceed 25 feet in depth. 1.3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject tracts comprise more than 160 acres of land within the City of Lake Elsinore, California. The project area is located approximately 2.0 miles northeast of the intersection of the Interstate 15 Freeway and Highway 74. The proposed developments indicated on the referenced rough grading plans are generally bounded by natural hillside terrain and rural residential properties on the west, by Wasson Canyon and natural hillside terrain on the east and southeast, by natural hillside terrain and rural residential properties to the north, and by natural hillside terrain and portions of Tract 25478 (currently under construction) to the south. The approximate location of the site and its relationship to the surrounding area is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. Topography within southern portions of the property (Tract 25476) is generally characterized by hillside terrain with moderately- to steeply-inclined slopes descending from rugged ridgelines. Topography within the northern portions of the site (Tract 25477) is markedly flatter with rounded hilltops. Maximum overall relief within the limits of proposed grading is approximately 145 feet. Surface runoff is generally directed in all directions from the ridgelines and hilltops via sheet flow to drainage swales or narrow ravines. Overall, regional drainage across the site is directed to the south and southeast towards Wasson Canyon. Some of the vegetation within the site has been removed through previous discing operations. In general, a moderate to locally dense growth of grasses and native brush remains along the flanks of the steep hillsides and canyon bottoms. ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 3 y7f. "1�rr t`] J ..� • �d�. � - 1 I BZ��� man 0/t 1 O'.=Z�\ TRACT 77 76 u 1=-.... -• -- ' C ` n j .' 4 i Q 1 -TC'rsao o y�i {;j a'�J n •C�a •a :1 e :! f Q `�-I ate.„ 1 TP • N ti — ,l• ti � •� 1 A �sG 1i a• � -• 1 LP Al 1 � "�•��_.n� $tea +'{_3_' •�T���`ft�. � � I � �,.li Y 4 r � c- : f rAod SCALE: 1 t1=2000' N FIGURE 1 —SITE LOCATION MAP Tracts 25476 &25477 Rosetta Canyon Development City of Lake Elsinore County of Riverside, California From U.S.G.S 7.5 Minute,Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, 1953(Photo-revised 1988) ALB US-.KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. r Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 4 2.0 INVESTIGATIONS 2.1 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL WORK BY OTHERS Based on our review of available reports, a substantial amount of previous geotechnical studies have been conducted within and near the site by others (see References). Pertinent exploratory data and laboratory test results from the previous reports were utilized in developing some of the findings and conclusions presented herein. Geologic information and points of exploration by others were transferred to the enclosed Geologic Maps (Plates 2 through 12), and subsequently field checked. Pertinent exploration logs and laboratory test results by others that were utilized for this report are r attached in Appendices A and B, respectively. 2.2 GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE MAPPING A composite geologic map of the site was first prepared by compiling available data from previous publications and reports onto one base map. This included compilation of numerous field explorations (i.e. trenches, dozer pits, borings, seismic traverses) and geologic contacts as interpreted by others. The compiled map data was then assessed through geologic reconnaissance mapping of the site. Our engineering geologists performed geologic reconnaissance mapping in September 2004 to verify or modify the site conditions depicted within the previous reports. The compiled geologic I conditions were then transferred to the rough grading plans and are presented on the enclosed Geologic Maps, Plates 2 through 12 and Geologic Cross-Sections, Plate 13. f 2.3 SUPPLEMENTAL SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY We contracted GeoVision - Geophysical Services, in December 2002, to conduct a supplemental seismic refraction survey within the site. The purpose of the supplemental seismic refraction survey was to acquire more current geophysical data based on updated software capabilities and compare the findings to older geophysical data reported by others. The comparisons were conducted to evaluate the excavation characteristics of the underlying bedrock materials beneath the site. Thirteen supplemental seismic traverses (L-1 through L-13) were conducted within the subject property and [ adjacent Tracts 25478 and 25479. The approximate locations of the survey lines completed under the direction of this firm and others within the limits of the subject site are shown on the enclosed Geologic Maps, Plates 2 through 12. Pertinent details of the geophysical surveys with graphic presentations of the seismic data conducted by GeoVision, Geophysical Services, are presented in Appendix D. 1 2.4 LABORATORY TESTING Bulk samples of representative earth materials within the site and adjacent properties were obtained I by this firm and returned to our laboratory for testing. Testing conducted by this firm included maximum dry density and optimum moisture, direct shear and grain-size distribution. In addition, we have reviewed and compiled results of pertinent previous laboratory test data performed on representative site materials by other consultants in the past. Compiled test results include in-situ ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 5 moisture and dry density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, direct shear, consolidation, grain-size distribution, specific gravity, and soluble sulfate. Test data from this firm and others are presented in Appendix B. 3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The project area is located northeast of the Elsinore Trough which is situated near the southwestern limits of the Perris Structural Block in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Elsinore Trough, which contains Lake Elsinore, is a pull-apart basin associated with tectonic movement between the Wildomar and Willard faults on the south side of the lake, and the Glen Ivy North Fault Zone on the north side of the lake. These faults are all part of the northwest-trending Elsinore Fault Zone (EFZ), defined as one of the major tectonic zones in southern California. The EFZ extends approximately 1,000 kilometers from the Gulf of California northwest through southern California where it converges with the Whittier Fault and Chino Fault, near Corona, California. In general, the EFZ consists of several sub-parallel, northwest-trending, high-angle, right-lateral, strike-slip faults that form the trough boundary between the Santa Ana and Perris structural blocks. Cretaceous-age "Granitic Bedrock" underlies the northern portions of the site and is locally exposed as bouldery outcrops along the tops and flanks of elevated hilltops. Jurassic-age metasedimentary bedrock units of the Bedford Canyon formation are exposed along the rugged ridgelines and steep slopes in the remaining portions of the property. Significant surficial units within the site include topsoil and colluvium. Documented and undocumented artificial fill, recent alluvial deposits and older fanglomerate deposits are present in limited exposures within the site. The approximate surficial distribution of the geologic units is illustrated on the enclosed Geologic Maps, Plates 2 through 12. Detailed descriptions of each of the units are provided below. 3.1 GEOLOGIC UNITS 3.1.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill(Qaf) The undocumented fills present on the site are associated with dirt trails that exist locally within the site and exist along the margins of the site as perimeter road embankments and/or for utility pole support. Minor deposits of undocumented fill were noted adjacent to the northerly boundary of I Tract 25477. The undocumented fill materials are typically dry and loose and unsuitable for support of future fills and improvements. The undocumented fills are generally present at scales too small to be mapped. 3.1.2 Topsoil(no map symbol) In general, a poorly developed topsoil horizon mantles the weathered portions of the bedrock within the site. The topsoil materials generally consist of gray-brown, orange-brown or red-brown, sandy silt to silty sand. These materials are typically dry to damp, stiff to loose, porous, and contain root hairs. The thickness of the topsoil varies from about 1 foot to 2 feet. ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 - J.N.: 1216.00 Page 6 3.1.3 Alluvium/Colluvium, (Qal/Qcol) i Alluvial and colluvial soil deposits are present within canyon bottoms, drainage swales, and near the base of natural hillsides. These deposits are produced by the accumulation of soil and weathered r bedrock debris that has moved down slope by the process of creep and erosion (colluvium) or transported by water (alluvium) during storm events. In general, the alluvial and colluvial soils consists of various mixtures of gravelly sand and silty sand with abundant to scattered rock fragments and scattered boulders. These deposits are generally dry to moist and have been reported by others to be locally saturated in active drainage courses. Generally, these deposits are estimated to vary from approximately 2 to 10 feet thick with local exceptions to approximately 30 feet in active drainages. 3.1.4 Older Fanglomerate (Qfo) Isolated remnants of an older fanglomerate unit are present within the southwest and northeast portions of Tract 25476. This unit has been interpreted by others as being lower Pleistocene in age and is primarily comprised of poorly-sorted gravels and cobbles with scattered boulders that are interbedded with arkosic sand. This unit is locally highly weathered and distinguishable by a moderate development of orange-brown oxidation staining throughout. In general, the older fanglomerate unit is dense to very dense, dry to damp, and locally porous near the current ground surface. 3.1.5 Granitic Bedrock(Kgr) Cretaceous-age Tonalite, or "Granitic Bedrock" underlies the northern portions of the site and is locally exposed as bouldery outcrops along the tops and flanks of rounded hilltops. The granitic rock unit is generally medium to coarse grained, moderately hard to very hard and exhibits an orange-brown weathered hue near the ground surface to an olive-gray or gray-brown fresh color at depth. In general, the "granitic" rock is massive to weakly foliated, moderately to highly jointed, and contains resistant "core stone", dikes, and sills. In general, this rock unit is highly weathered near the ground surface. 3.1.6 Bedford Canyon Formation (Jbc) Jurassic-age metasedimentary bedrock of the Bedford Canyon Formation underlies the central and southern portions of the site and includes slates, quartzites, phyllites, and isolated limestone units. _ These rock units are the predominant bedrock materials beneath the southern portions of the site and are generally very hard to extremely hard, massive to well foliated, and highly jointed. In general, the quartzite is fine grained and massive and will likely exhibit the most difficult excavation characteristics. The limestone is also very fine grained and massive and is expected to be extremely hard, but is not extensive throughout the site. The most abundant rock types within the site are the slate and phyllite units that are anticipated to be less difficult to excavate in comparison to the other rock units within the site. The slate and phyllite units are typically laminated to well-foliated along relict bedding planes and are extremely fractured and jointed. ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 iPage 7 r 3.2 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 3.2.1 Foliation and Joints The bedrock units observed within the site exhibit indistinct to well developed foliation structure. Foliation within the Bedford Canyon formation is well developed and closely spaced within the slate unit and becomes progressively less developed within the phyllite, quartzite and limestone units. Foliations reported by others and observed during ongoing rough grading of adjacent tracts generally strike to the northwest and dip at moderate to high angles varying from approximately 50 to 80 degrees to the northeast. Foliation within the granitic bedrock is typically poorly developed to massive. Jointing of the bedrock materials is extensive throughout much of the site. Joint sets are typically frandomly oriented, closely spaced, slightly open in the near surface -weathered profiles and are predominately high angle. 3.2.2 Faulting Evidence of active faulting within and adjacent the site was not encountered during this investigation. Based on our review of the referenced publications and seismic data, no active faults are known to project through the site and the site does not lie within an 'Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. 3.3 LANDSLIDES No evidence of landslides was identified within or directly adjacent to the subject site. 3.4 GROUNDWATER In general, little groundwater was encountered throughout the majority of the site during our investigation and previous investigations within or adjacent to the site. However, previous consultants encountered significant groundwater in exploratory excavations in the vicinity of Wasson Creek, within the northeastern portions of Tract 25477. Groundwater in this area was encountered at depths ranging from 8.0 to 22.5 feet below the ground surface and likely exists as a perched condition within the sandy alluvial soils directly overlying crystalline bedrock materials. 4.0 ANALYSES 4.1 SETTLEMENT Analyses were performed to estimate long-term settlement of engineered fills. Secondary settlement was estimated using the correlation of natural moisture content to secondary rates of settlement in accordance with the relation presented in NAVFAC 7.1-237, as well as previous experience. From these sources, we obtain a secondary settlement coefficient of 2X10-3. Taking the design life of the structures as 50 years, we estimate the maximum total settlement is approximately 3 1/4 inches for ALB US KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. i Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 8 65 feet of fill. Based on the typical natural gradients of the site, we estimate the maximum differential settlement would be 0.40 inches over 30 feet horizontally. Analyses were performed to estimate the settlement potential of conventional shallow footings. The analyses were based on the elastic method and typical foundation loads. Based on our analyses, we estimate residential footings could experience a total settlement of approximately 1/8 inch. Differential settlement would likely be no more than %2 of the total settlement. 4.2 SLOPE STABILITY Geologic cross sections depicting various slope conditions within the site were analyzed with respect to slope stability. Our analyses of gross slope stability included evaluation of the highest fill and cut ' slopes and cut slopes with geologically-adverse conditions. The analyses were performed using the computer program Slope/W. Details of the program are f provided in Appendix C. Selection of shear strength parameters used in the analyses was based on the results of direct shear tests of representative materials performed by this firm on the adjacent tracts, by direct shear tests reported by previous consultants for the site and previous experience with similar materials. A summary of the values utilized is provided in Table C-1 in Appendix C. A i summary of the calculated factors of safety is provided in Table C-2 in Appendix C, and plots of the analyses are presented on Plates C-1 through C-5 in Appendix C. { Adverse geologic conditions with respect to slope stability occur where joints and/or foliation dip out of slope. To evaluate this condition, strength parameters in bedrock along the joints were conservatively assumed to be friction only and all cohesion was ignored when failure planes pass along the direction of joints and foliations. All slopes were analyzed for seismic stability using a pseudo-static factor of 0.15. No increases in ' shear strength were used for seismic analyses. 4.3 SEISMICITY I We have performed integrated historical and deterministic seismic hazard analyses utilizing computer programs EQSEARCH (Blake, 1989, updated 2000), EQFAULT (Blake, 1989, updated 2000), and UBCSEIS (Blake, 1989, updated 2000). A brief description of the programs and their functions are discussed below: 1 . EQSEARCH performs historical seismic analyses that computes estimated ground motions at the site using a catalog of historical earthquake data within a 62-mile (100-km) radius of the site and a selected attenuation relation to model subsurface earth materials similar to the site. The results of the analyses can be utilized to estimate how historical earthquakes may have shaken the site. EQFAULT performs a deterministic seismic analyses that computes estimated ground motion of the site using a selected attenuation relation to model earth materials similar to the site and a catalog of up to 250 digitized, 3-D California faults as earthquake sources within a 62-mile (100-km) radius of ALB US KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 9 the site. The results of the analyses can deterministically estimate how future earthquakes may shake the site. UBCSEIS performs an analysis to compute the distance to California faults. The program indicates the type of fault as classified in the 1997 UBC and develops the UBC seismic design parameters based on the selected soil profile type. Pertinent results from the historical and deterministic seismic hazard analyses are provided below: Historical Event: Based on the computer program EQSEARCH, the earthquake which occurred on May 15, 1910, appears to have affected the site the most during the past 200 years. This earthquake was located approximately 5.0 miles (8.0 km) from the site and was estimated to be magnitude 6.0. Peak horizontal ground accelerations (PHGA) were estimated for the historical earthquake using Campbell & Bozorgnia, attenuation equation (1997 rev.). The largest estimated mean PHGA experienced at the site since 1800 is 0.30g (fraction of gravity)with a standard deviation of 0.15g. Deterministic Event: Based on the computer program EQFAULT and using Campbell & Bozorgnia, attenuation equation (1997 rev), the largest estimated mean PHGA is 0.44g with a standard deviation of 0.22g associated with a moment magnitude of 6.8 earthquake along the Elsinore Fault. UBC Faults: Based on the computer program UBCSEIS, the closest Type A fault is the San Jacinto- Anza Fault located approximately 23.0 miles (36.9 km) from the site. The program also indicates the closest Type B fault is the Elsinore-Glen Ivy Fault located approximately 4.5 miles (7.0 km) from the site. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT From a geotechnical point of view, the proposed site development is considered feasible provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the proj ect. 5.2 SETTLEMENT Fill materials are anticipated to consist of relatively granular soils. As such, primary settlement of fills due to self-weight is anticipated to occur during fill placement and therefore, have no impact on proposed site development. Primary settlement induced by foundation loads is estimated to be negligible. No special mitigation of primary settlement will be required. Fills are anticipated to undergo long-term secondary settlement over the life of the project. Engineering analyses indicate a calculated secondary total and differential settlement of 3 1/4 inches and 0.40 inches over 30 feet horizontally, respectively. These values of settlement are considered I ALBUS KEEFE &ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20 2004 i - J.N.: 1216.00 Page 10 - tolerable for proposed residential development and as such, no mitigation of settlement is deemed necessary. . Fills placed at relative compactions greater than 90% and at moisture contents over optimum are not anticipated to exhibit hydro-collapse potential for the depths of fill proposed for the project. As such, settlement of fills due to hydro-collapse is anticipated to be negligible. No special mitigation of hydro-collapse will be required. Compacted fills are anticipated to yield relatively high blow counts. As such, seismic settlement of fills is anticipated to be negligible. No special mitigation of seismic settlement will be required. Proposed structures located within a 1:1 plane projected up from the base of segmental walls may experience larger magnitudes of total and differential settlement over the life of the structure due to long-term creep effects of the segmental walls. Based on previous'experience with segmental retaining walls, we estimate maximum total and differential settlements in this zone would not exceed 2 inches and 2 inches over 30 feet, respectively. As such, proposed structures located within a 1:1 plane projected up from the base of segmental walls should be designed to accommodate these total and differential settlements. We also anticipate that lateral displacement in this zone would not ' exceed approximately 2 inches. Based on anticipated wall heights and typical rear yard setbacks, residential structures are not anticipated to fall within this zone. If portions of residential structures do fall within this zone, special design considerations will be required such as deepened foundations or design of foundations to accommodate anticipated settlement. Specific recommendations can be provided once wall profiles and house plots are determined. 5.3 SLOPE STABILITY Results of analyses indicate factors of safety greater than 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic conditions, respectively. As such, proposed cut and fill slopes are anticipated to be grossly stable under static and seismic -conditions provided that grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations provided herein. Rapid draw-down conditions for slopes in proposed detention basins were evaluated within our referenced geotechnical report for the adjacent tracts (Tracts 25478 & 25479). Our previous lanalyses for rapid draw-down indicated factors of safety greater than 1.25. Plots of our previous analyses are presented in Appendix C. Since the proposed detention basins for the subject site are relatively similar to the adjacent tracts detention basins in geometry and anticipated soil material types, we conclude that the proposed detention basis will be grossly stable provided that grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations provided herein. Results of our previous stability analyses for rapid draw-down conditions are presented in Appendix C. I . Based on previous experience with similar materials, temporary excavations in soils made at a gradient of 1 to 1 (H:V) will provide a factor of safety greater than 1.25 for heights up to 15 feet. Vertical cuts in bedrock up to a height of 10 feet and % to 1 (H:V) cuts in bedrock up to 15 feet will provide a factor of safety greater than 1.25 provided no adverse geologic conditions are present. ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 11 Significant portions of site materials are relatively cohesionless. As such, many of the constructed fill slopes will be prone to surficial erosion during periods of rain. Permanent vegetation is anticipated to provide adequate mitigation for long-term erosion protection. Until permanent vegetation is established, slopes will likely require short-term erosion protection such as jute matting, polymer applicants, or other suitable methods as may be recommended by a landscape architect. No specific analyses were performed to evaluate the potential for scour erosion on fill slopes descending into the drainage separating the two tracts. Because site soils are relatively cohesionless, these slopes may be subject to scour during flooding. Adverse conditions due to potential scour can be mitigated through the use of slope protection methods such as rip rap. 5.4 RIPPABILITY AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS Based on our review of the referenced studies completed for the site, the supplemental seismic refraction work conducted by GeoVision - Geophysical Services, and our experience with the ongoing rough grading operation for the adjacent tracts, excavations within the bedrock materials are expected to encounter hard to extremely hard materials that will generally require heavy ripping with a Caterpillar D-9 or D-10 single shank dozer (or equivalent). Blasting should also be expected as depths of cuts extend through the variable weathered bedrock profiles. Additionally, the potential for blasting significantly increases within the site where "core stone", quartzite and limestone bedrock materials are encountered. However, other rock units can also be expected to require some blasting but to a lesser extent. Blasting will be largely dependent on the degree of discontinuities in the rock (i.e. jointing fracturing), thickness of such zones, foliation/relict bedding planes, grading contractors equipment selections and ripping techniques, and production rates determined by the developer and grading contractor. Graphic presentations of seismic refraction data are included within Appendix D. Though some of the seismic profiles presented in Appendix D indicate relatively high seismic velocities, the earth materials may still be rippable due to the presence of fractures and foliation, but at slower production rates. Trenching for utilities and foundations in the bedrock materials will be very difficult to impossible with conventional backhoe equipment. This condition could be readily mitigated by overexcavating the bedrock within pads and streets and replacing with compacted fill materials. Bedrock hardness will necessitate overexcavation of cut lots to allow for conventional trenching and landscaping. Landscaping of cut slopes exposing bedrock will also be very difficult. Removing cut slopes exposing bedrock and replacing them with stabilization fills can mitigate this condition. Excavations in the bedrock and alluvium will likely generate over-sized rock. The site can accommodate disposal of the oversized rock provided suitable disposal areas are fully utilized by the grading contractor. If disposal areas are not fully utilized, portions of oversized rock may require hauling from the site or crushing for placement on site. Rock trucks and loaders may be required for handling and placement of oversized rock when disposing of the material on site. Disposal of oversize rock within the site will also require having sufficient finer-grained soil to mix with rock fragments. Careful grading logistics will be required by the contractor to conserve finer material for such use when needed for disposal of rock. ALB US KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 12 5.5 SHRINKAGE AND BULKING The volume change of excavated materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with material types, in-situ density, and compaction techniques and effort. Based on laboratory testing and our experience with similar projects, the following estimates of shrinkage and bulking are summarized in Table 5.1 below. TABLE 5.1 ESTIMATES OF SHRINKAGE AND BULKING I: MATERIAL VOLUME CHANGE SHRINKAGE/BULKING FSurficial Soils 4% to 20% Shrinkage Bedrock 5%to 18% Bulking Subsidence as a result of scarification and recompaction of exposed surfaces is expected to be negligible. The above estimates of shrinkage and bulking are intended as a preliminary aid for project engineers in determining eartliwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and bulking that occur during the grading. 5.6 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was observed by previous consultants at depths ranging from 8.0 to 22.5 feet below the ground surface within the northeastern portion of Tract 25477, in close proximity to Wasson Creek. Groundwater was not observed within the remainder of the site at the time our investigation. However, perched water and minor seeps were reported at localized locations by others in the past. Groundwater conditions within the site may vary substantially as a result of seasonal variations of rainfall and future site development and irrigation practices. The relatively low permeability characteristic of the intact bedrock beneath the site will increase the potential for perched groundwater and localized nuisance seepage subsequent to site development. However, appropriate mitigation measures can be implemented during rough grading operations to reduce the potential for future nuisance water. Recommended remedial measures to reduce the potential for future nuisance water are discussed in Sections 6.1.5, 6.1.9, 6.1.16 and 6.1.17, of this report. ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 13 5.7 SEISMIC HAZARDS 5.7.1 Ground Rupture No active faults are known to project through the site nor does the site lie within the bounds of an "Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to fault displacement beneath the site is considered low. 5.7.2 Ground Shaking The site is situated in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. Due to the site's relatively close proximity to several active faults; the proposed development will probably experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the southern California region. Design in accordance with current UBC requirements is considered suitable to mitigate the effects of ground shaking. 5.7.3 Liquefaction Provided the recommended remedial grading measures discussed herein are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed development, adverse impacts as a result of liquefaction within the proposed development are considered remote. 5.7.4 Seiche and Tsunami The site is located a substantial distance from any significant body of water. As such, the potential for any hazards related to seiche and tsunami are considered remote. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 EARTHWORK 6.1.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable requirements of CALOSHA, the Grading Code of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, and the recommendations presented herein. 6.1.2 Pre-Grade Meeting and Geotechnical Observation Prior to commencement of grading, we recommend a meeting be held between the owner, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical consultant, to discuss proposed work and logistics. We also recommend that a geotechnical consultant be retained to provide soil engineering and engineering geologic services during site grading. This is to observe compliance with the design specifications or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. If conditions are ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 14 encountered during construction that appear to be different than those indicated in this report, the project geotechnical consultant should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required. 6.1.3 Site Clearing All vegetation and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. The project geotechnical consultant should be notified at the appropriate times to provide observation services during clearing operations to verify compliance with the above recommendations. Voids created by clearing should be left open for observation by the geotechnical consultant. Should any unusual soil conditions or subsurface structures be encountered during site clearing and/or grading that are not described or anticipated herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recommendations. 6.1.4 Ground Preparation All existing non-engineered artificial fill, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, weathered older fanglomerate deposits, and highly weathered bedrock materials are considered unsuitable for support of proposed structural fills and site development. These materials should be removed within the limits of grading through excavation or benching to expose competent fanglomerate or bedrock. Removal of unsuitable materials should extend laterally beyond the limits of proposed grading a distance equal to the depth of removal (i.e. 1:1 projection). Estimated depths of unsuitable materials, based on subsurface exploration conducted by this firm and by others, as well as this firm's experience with similar sites, are indicated on the Geologic Maps, Plates 2 through 12. Excavations associated with the removal of unsuitable earth materials within the northeastern portions of Tract 25477 will likely encounter relatively shallow ground water conditions. As such, dewatering methods will likely be necessary to allow for removals of unsuitable earth materials in this areas. All remedial excavations should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement to confirm the exposed conditions are as anticipated and to provide supplemental recommendations. if required. 6.1.5 Lot Capping Transition Lots: Proposed rough grading will create cut to fill transition lots and shallow fill lots. These lots should be overexcavated to a depth of 4 to 5 feet below final pad grade and replaced with a uniform fill blanket. The overexcavations should extend across the entire lot and should drain at a minimum 2% toward the deeper fill portion of the lot or other acceptable direction to mitigate against future water build up upon completion of site development. Where side yard and rear yard retaining walls are proposed, the lot capping overexcavations should extend at least 5 feet behind the face of wall or at least 2 feet beyond the back of footing, whichever is greater. A transition lot capping detail is provided on Plate E-1. Cut Lots: Proposed rough grading will create cut lots that will expose very hard bedrock. These lots will be very difficult or impossible to trench with conventional trenching equipment for future ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 15 footings as well as being very difficult to landscape. Therefore, all cut lots should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet at the rear of the lot to 5 feet at the front of the lot and replaced with a compacted fill blanket. Where side yard and rear yard retaining walls are proposed, the lot capping over excavations should extend at least 5 feet behind the face or wall or at least 2 feet beyond the back of footing, whichever is greater. To mitigate perched groundwater conditions and potential nuisance seepage, cut lots situated below cut slopes greater than 10 feet in height should be overexcavated to a depth of 4 feet at the rear of the lot to 6 feet at the front of the lot. Isolated low or flat spots of the excavation surface should be avoided to maintain positive flow toward the front of the lot. A cut lot capping detail is provided on Plate E-2. Additional recommendations to mitigate nuisance seepage are provided in Sections 6.1.9, 6.1.16, and 6.1.17, of this report. 6.1.6 Geometry of Bedrock/Fill Contact To mitigate the potential for excessive differential settlement, the geometry of the bedrock/fill contact within the upper 30 feet of the finish grades should be no steeper than 1.5 to 1 (H:V). 6.1.7 Street Capping Streets exposing bedrock or shallow fill will be very difficult to impossible to trench with conventional trenching equipment for the installation of future underground improvements. Therefore, the cut and shallow fill portions of the future streets should be overexcavated at least 18 inches below the invert of the deepest utility line within the street. A street overexcavation detail is provided in Appendix E, Plate E-3. 6.1.8 Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations in soil materials up to 15 feet in height, including trench excavations and retaining wall back cuts, should be laid back at a maximum gradient of 1:1 (H: V). If adverse geologic conditions or surcharging of the excavations are present, the geotechnical consultant should provide appropriate recommendations in lieu of these recommendations. If temporary excavations greater than 15 feet in depth are required in soil materials, the project geotechnical consultant should provide specific recommendations based on proposed work and site conditions. Temporary excavations in bedrock materials may be cut vertically up to a height of 10 feet provided that no adverse geologic conditions or surcharging of the excavations are present. Temporary excavations in bedrock materials that are greater than 10 feet in height should be laid back at a maximum gradient of 1/2:1 (H:V). If cuts in bedrock create a rock fall hazard for workers, the excavation should be laid back as recommended by the project engineering geologist or soil engineer. The project geologist or soil engineer should observe all temporary cuts to confirm that conditions are as anticipated herein and to provide specific recommendations in the event conditions differ. All temporary excavations should conform to the requirements of CAL OSHA. 6.1.9 Canyon Subdrains Subdrains associated with future engineered fill placement should consist of a 6 inch diameter PVC schedule 40 perforated pipe, or 8 inch diameter PVC schedule 40 perforated pipe when over 500 feet in length. The pipe should be embedded in 9 cubic feet per linear foot of 1/4 inch gravel wrapped in ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 16 Mirifi 140N, or other drain system approved by the geotechnical consultant. The subdrain should be placed on the bottom of the canyon where drainage outlet permits. The subdrain should be placed on the bottom of the canyon or be placed on a bench in the sidewall of the canyon, above the canyon bottom, if necessary, to permit the subdrain drainage to daylight. The subdrain should be set to drain generally at a minimum gradient of 2 percent. The outlets should consist of similar solid pipe and should daylight approximately 2 feet above the toe of slope, into a storm drain device, or other suitable location. The tentative locations of the canyon subdrains, based on the current rough grading plans,are shown on the Geologic Maps, Plates 2 through 12. The actual locations of the canyons subdrains should be determined in the field by the geotechnical consultant during rough grading. Grading should be sequenced so that subdrains installation may begin at the discharge point and progress upstream. The subdrains should be terminated at the upstream end approximately 15 feet below finish street or pad grade. Some cleanout areas may require additional excavation beyond the anticipated remedial removal depths to provide sufficient fill coverage above subdrains that locally cross shallow fill areas. It is our understanding that future utilities may be up to 25 feet in depth. Care should be exercised_ to prevent conflict with future utilities and subdrain systems in these areas. Subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade by the project Civil Engineer prior to burial. A typical canyon subdrain detail is provided on Plate E-4, Appendix E. 6.1.10 Scarification Prior to placement of compacted fill, the prepared ground should be scarified where practical to a depth of 6 inches, brought to a uniform moisture content of 100 to 125 percent of optimum, then compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. If the ground surface exposes rock that has been slightly disturbed and contains voids, a 6-inch layer of granular soil should be placed over the ground surface and flooded until the voids are filled. 6.1.11 Fill Placement In general, materials excavated from the site may be used as fill provided they are free of deleterious materials. Fill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than approximately 8 inches in thickness. The fills should contain sufficient finer granular materials to eliminate nesting of rock fragments. Each lift should be watered or air dried as necessary to achieve uniform moisture content of 100 to 125 percent of optimum, and then compacted in place to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Where fills are placed below a depth of 50 feet from finish grade,fills should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard. Each lift should be treated in a similar manner. Subsequent lifts should not be placed until the project geotechnical consultant has approved the preceding lift. Lifts should be maintained relatively level and should not exceed a gradient of 20 to 1 (H:V). When placing fill on ground sloping steeper than 5:1 (H:V), vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope. Typical benching details are provided on Plates E-5 and E-6, in Appendix E. ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 17 The laboratory standard for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 1557-91. Rough grading of the site at times may produce a limited amount of fines and a high percentage of rock fragments. Therefore, conservation of finer soil materials for mixing with rock fragments and selective fill placement is strongly recommended. Rock crushing may also be considered in order to generate sufficient fines. In addition,potential rock disposal areas should not be filled without using them for disposal of over-sized rock to the fullest extent possible. 6.1.12 Rock Placement Criteria Rocks over 8 inches in maximum dimension should not be placed within the upper 3 feet of the level portions of the building lots. Rocks between 12 inches and 36 inches in diameter (Oversize Rock) should be reduced in size or placed within engineered fills at least 10 feet below proposed pad grades or at least 18 inches below deepest utilities within streets, as presented on Plate E-7. Materials greater than 3 feet in diameter that cannot be reduced in size should be removed from the site. 6.1.13 Fill Slopes Fill slopes (fill over natural slopes, fill over cut slopes) should be constructed with a keyway having a minimum width of 15 feet and a minimum embedment of 2 feet into competent bedrock. A minimum fill thickness of approximately 10 to 15 feet should be maintained throughout fill slope construction to mitigate against sliver fills and cut/fill transitions within finished slopes. Details for fill slope construction are presented on Plate E-5. Where practical, fill slopes should be constructed by over filling and trimming to a compacted core. The face of slopes that are not over-built should be backrolled with a sheepsfoot roller at least every 4 vertical feet of slope construction. The process should provide compacted fill to within 12 inches of the slope face. Finished slopes should be track-walked with a small dozer or rolled with a vibratory compactor and grid roller in order to compact the slope face. The slope face materials will tend to dry out prior to final face compaction. As such, the addition of water to the slope face will likely be required prior to compaction to achieve the required degree of compaction at the time of slope face compaction. 6.1.14 Cut Slopes Heavy ripping or blasting should be conducted in a manner to minimize disturbing the bedrock below proposed cut slope finish grades. All cut slopes into bedrock should be cleared of loose rock fragments and observed by an engineering geologist at intervals not exceeding 10 feet during rough grading. The cut slopes should be observed in order to evaluate the competency of the slope. Disturbed bedrock or core stones exposed in the cut slope that pose a rock fall hazard will require stabilization by means of rock anchors, replacement with a stabilization fill, or other acceptable alternatives. 6.1.15 Stabilization Fills Cut slopes exposing locally adverse planar features (i.e. foliation, faults,joints) or fractured bedrock that poses a rock fall hazard and cannot be locally mitigated may require replacement with ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 18 stabilization fill slopes. General details for stabilization fill slope constriction are presented in Appendix $, Plate E-6. However, specific recommendations should be provided by the geotechnical consultant during grading depending on the actual conditions exposed. Cut slopes exposing bedrock will also be very difficult to landscape. If desired, such slopes could also be replaced with stabilization fills. 6.1.16 Slope Backdrains Slope backdrains are generally recommended in fill key excavations and stabilization fill slopes. The locations and necessity of slope backdrains will be determined by the project geotechnical consultant in the field during rough grading. General details for slope backdrains are presented in Appendix E, Plate E-8. 6.1.17 Lot Subdrains Lot subdrains or other acceptable alternatives should be installed at the rear or side yards of building pads where ground water is encountered during lot capping. Lot subdrains should also be considered if geologic conditions are encountered during grading that would allow for a building pad to be prone to future nuisance groundwater seepage subsequent to site development. Such conditions include faults and joints that can collect and transmit groundwater over long distances. General details for lot subdrains are presented in Appendix E, Plate E-9. The need for such drains and specific recommendations should be provided by the geotechnical consultant during grading. Lot subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade by the project civil engineer prior to burial. 6.2 EROSION PROTECTION FOR SLOPES Surface drainage should be directed in a non-erosive manner away from the tops of all slopes and retaining walls (masonry or segmental). Until permanent vegetation is established, slopes should be provided with short-term erosion protection such as jute matting, polymer applicants or other approved erosion control devices. The project landscape architect should provide specific recommendations for erosion protection. The project civil engineer should provide specific recommendations for mitigation of potential scour protection within the drainage separating the two tracts. 6.3 ROCK FALL PROTECTION Rough grading along the margins of the property, particularly where there are descending natural slopes, may result in rock falls as heavy equipment dislodge large rock pieces. Special precautions such as barriers/fencing or other acceptable measures should be taken to mitigate rock fall hazards that could adversely impact neighboring properties. Natural slopes should be inspected during grading by an engineering geologist to identify any potential rock fall hazards that could impact the proposed development or adjacent properties. Rocks determined to pose a rock fall hazard should be cleared or stabilized by means of rock anchors or other acceptable alternatives. Rock fencing may also be considered where there are property line constraints. ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 19 6.4 IMPORT MATERIAL If earth materials are imported to the site in order to balance the cut and fill rough grading operations or is needed to provide necessary soil for mixing with rock fragments, the proposed import soil should have an Expansion Index less than 20 (UBC Standard 18-2). Import sources should be indicated to the geotechnical consultant prior to hauling the materials to the site so that appropriate testing and evaluation of the fill material can be performed in advance. 6.5 SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS The rough grading plans indicate that mechanically reinforced segmental retaining walls up to 22 feet high will be constructed within the site during rough grading operations. At this time, the wall profiles are not available for our review. As such, design criteria for these walls cannot be prepared at this time. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate future segmental wall profiles and determine the geogrid type, spacing and embedment lengths, as well as backcut criteria and drainage requirements prior to wall construction. Segmental wall designs should include analyses of internal, external, and global wall stability with consideration of proposed site improvements. Segmental wall designs should follow the guidelines outlined in the most current edition of the National Concrete Masonry Association Manual. 6.6 POST GRADING CONSIDERATIONS 6.6.1 Site Drainage Positive drainage devices, such as sloping concrete flatwork, graded swales, and/or area drains, should be provided around the new construction to collect and direct all water to a suitable discharge area. No rain or excess water should be allowed to pond against building walls or foundations. 6.6.2 Utility Trenches Trench excavations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 6.1.8 of this report. All trench excavations should conform to the requirements of CAL OSHA. All utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Trench backfill should be brought to a uniform moisture content of 100 to 125 percent of optimum, placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches in thickness, and then mechanically compacted with appropriate equipment to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. The project geotechnical consultant should perform density testing, along with probing, to verify adequate compaction. Within shallow trenches (less than 18 inches deep) where pipes may be damaged by heavy compaction equipment, imported clean sand having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater may be utilized. The sand should be placed in the trench, thoroughly watered, and then compacted with a vibratory compactor. Jetting in lieu of mechanical compaction may be considered. I ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 20 6.6.3 Irrigation Considerations Excessive irrigation water can be detrimental to the performance of proposed site development. Water applied in excess of the needs of vegetation will tend to percolate into the ground. Such percolation can lead to nuisance seepage and shallow perched groundwater. Seepage can form on slope faces, on the faces of retaining walls, in streets, or other low-lying areas. These conditions could lead to adverse effects such as the formation of stagnant water that breeds insects, distress or damage of trees, surface erosion, slope instability, discoloration and salt buildup on wall faces, and premature failure of pavement. Excessive watering can also lead to elevated vapor emissions within homes that can damage flooring finishes or lead to mold growth inside the home. Key factors that can help mitigate the potential for adverse effects of overwatering include the judicious use of water for irrigation, use of irrigation systems that are appropriate for the type of vegetation and geometric configuration of the planted area, the use of soil amendments to enhance moisture retention, use of low-water demand vegetation, regular use of appropriate fertilizers, and seasonal adjustments of irrigation systems to match vegetation needs for water. Specific recommendations should be provided by a landscape architect or other knowledgeable professional. Future homebuyers should be made aware of these issues and consequences. 6.7 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Based on the 1997 UBC, the closest known Type A active fault to the site is the San Jacinto-Anna fault located approximately 37.0 km northeast of the site. The closest known Type B fault to the site is the Elsinore-Glen Ivy fault located approximately 7.0 km west of the site. For design of the project in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 1997 UBC, seismic design factors are provided in Table 6.1. TABLE 6.1 UBC Seismic Design Parameters Parameter Value Seismic Zone Factor, Z 4 Soil Profile Type, S D Near Source Factor,Na 1.0 Near Source Factor, Nv 1.1 Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.72 6.8 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 6.8.1 General These recommendations are based on typical site materials exposed during previous investigations and our experience with similar projects in the vicinity. The project geotechnical consultant should provide final recommendations following observation and testing of site materials during grading. ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 21 Depending upon actual site conditions encountered during grading, the recommendations contained herein may require modification. 6.8.2 Soil Expansion Testing of typical site soils performed during previous site investigations and recent rough grading operations for adjacent tracts indicates a Very Low to Medium potential for expansion (UBC Table 18-1-B). To accommodate the variances in soil expansion characteristics, two categories of conventional foundations and one category of post-tension slab foundations are provided for differing soil conditions. Specific recommendations for these three categories are provided in the following sections. The associated foundation category assigned to each lot will be provided in a separate report upon completion of rough grading operations. If site soils with a higher expansion potential are encountered, the recommendations contained herein may require modification. 6.8.3 Settlement Considerations Foundations should be designed to tolerate a maximum differential settlement of 0.5 inches over 30 feet. 6.8.4 Allowable Bearing Value Provided site grading is performed as recommended herein, a bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for spread and continuous footings having a minimum width of 24 and 12 inches, respectively, and founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The bearing value may be increased by 250 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot in width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum value of 3000 psf. Recommended allowable bearing values include both dead and live loads, and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic forces. 6.8.5 Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth up to a maximum value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used to determine lateral bearing for footings. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 times the dead load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. An increase of one-third of the above values may also be used when designing for short duration wind and seismic forces. The above values are based on footings placed directly against native soils or compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 6.8.6 Footings Dimensions and Reinforcement Exterior building footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated in UBC Table 18-I-D. Interior bearing wall footings for both one-story and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade. All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. The structural engineer may require different reinforcement and should dictate if greater than the recommendations herein. ALBUS KEEFE &ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 22 6.8.7 Slabs on Grade—Very Low Expansion (EI<20) Interior concrete slabs constructed on grade should be a nominal 4 inches thick. No minimum reinforcement is required from a geotechnical perspective. The project structural engineer should determine reinforcement of interior concrete slabs on grade. Concrete floor slabs in areas to receive carpet, tile, or other moisture sensitive coverings should be underlain with a moisture vapor barrier consisting of a poly-vinyl chloride membrane such as 6-mil Visqueen, or equal. The moisture vapor barrier should be lapped at least 12 inches at joints and protected with at least 2 inches of sand placed over the barrier. This vapor barrier system is anticipated to be suitable for most flooring finishes that can accommodate some vapor emissions. However, this system may emit more than 4 pounds of water per 1000 sq. ft. and therefore, may not be suitable for all flooring finishes. Additional steps should be taken if such vapor emission levels are too high for anticipated flooring finishes. The structural engineer should provide recommendations appropriate for crack control of the slab including consideration of areas to receive ceramic tile or other rigid, crack-sensitive floor coverings. Garage floor slabs should have a nominal thickness of 4 inches. Garage floor slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8-inch minimum felt expansion joint materials, and quartered with saw cuts or cold joints. Consideration should be given to providing a vapor barrier below the garage slab to mitigate the potential for effervescence on the slab surface. Block-outs should be provided around interior columns to permit relative movement and mitigate distress to the floor slabs due to differential settlement that will occur between column footings and adjacent floor subgrade soils as loads are applied. Prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils below slab-on-grade areas should be thoroughly moistened to provide a moisture content that is equal to or greater than 100% of the optimum moisture content. 6.8.8 Slabs on Grade—Low Expansion (20<EI<50 & PI<18) Interior concrete slabs constructed on grade should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches each way. Care should be taken to ensure the placement of reinforcement at mid-slab height. The structural engineer may recommend a greater slab thickness and reinforcement based on proposed use and loading conditions and such recommendations should govern if greater than the recommendations presented herein. Interior concrete floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture vapor barrier consisting of a poly- vinyl chloride membrane such as 6-mil Visqueen, or equal. The membrane should be properly lapped, sealed, and protected with at least 2 inches of sand. This vapor barrier system is anticipated to be suitable for most flooring finishes that can accommodate some vapor emissions. However, this system may emit more than 4 pounds of water per 1000 sq. ft. and therefore, may not be suitable for all flooring finishes. Additional steps should be taken if such vapor emission levels are too high for anticipated flooring finishes. ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 23 Special consideration should be given to slabs in areas to receive ceramic tile or other rigid, crack- sensitive floor coverings. Design and construction should mitigate hairline cracking through the use of additional reinforcing and careful control of concrete slump. Garage floor slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced in a similar manner as living floor slabs. Garage floor slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8-inch minimum felt expansion joint materials, and quartered with saw cuts or cold joints. Consideration should be given to providing a vapor barrier below the garage slab to mitigate the potential for effervescence on the slab surface. Block-outs should be provided around interior columns to permit relative movement and mitigate distress to the floor slabs due to differential settlement that will occur between column footings and adjacent floor subgrade soils as loads are applied. A 12-inch-wide grade beam, founded at the same depth as adjacent footings, should be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. Prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils below slab-on-grade areas should be thoroughly moistened to provide moisture contents that are at least 110 percent of optimum to a depth of 12 inches. Design of slabs in accordance with Section 1815 of the 1997 UBC, may be based on a weighted plastic index of 18. 6.8.9 Post-Tension Slabs on Grade—Medium Expansion (EI>50 & PI<25) The actual design of post-tensioned slabs and footings is referred to the project structural engineer. However, to assist the structural engineer in his design, the following minimum parameters should be considered. Edge and interior beams may utilize an allowable bearing value of 1,500 psf for beams having a minimum effective width of 12 inches and a minimum embedment of 12 inches. This value may be increased by 1/3 for seismic or other temporary loads. The allowable bearing value may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth and may be increased by 100 psf for each additional foot in width, up to a maximum of 2,000 psf. Lateral resistance may utilize a friction factor of 0.35 applied to the dead load for concrete in contact with soil. Passive earth pressure may be taken as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcf, up to a maximum pressure of 2,000 psf. Perimeter edge beams for both one-story and two-story structures should be founded at a minimum depth of 15 inches below the lowest adjacent final ground surface. Interior beams may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the tops of the finish floor slabs. ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 24 The thickness of the floor slabs should be determined by the project structural engineer with consideration of the requirements of UBC 1816; however, we recommend a minimum slab thickness of 4.5 inches. All dwelling area floor slabs constructed on-grade should be underlain with a moisture vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane such as 6-mil Visqueen or equivalent. A minimum of four (4) inches of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. This vapor barrier system is anticipated to be suitable for most flooring finishes that can accommodate some vapor emissions. However, this system may emit more than 4 pounds of water per 1000 sq. ft. and therefore, may not be suitable for all flooring finishes. Additional steps should be taken if such vapor emission levels are too high for anticipated flooring finishes. Pre-saturation of the subgrade below floor slabs will not be required; however, prior to placing concrete, the subgrade below all dwelling and garage floor slab areas should be thoroughly moistened to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs. Design in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1816, may be based on the following parameters: TABLE 6.2 Post-Tension Slab Design Parameters Parameter Value % Clay(portion passing No. 200 sieve) 30 Plastic Index 25 Plastic Limit 15 Clay Type Montmorillonite Depth to Constant Soil Suction(feet) 5 Constant Soil Suction(pF) 3.6 Velocity of Moisture Flow(in./mo.) 0.5 Subgrade Modulus (pci) 200 Values for e,,, may be estimated from Figure 18-III-14 of the UBC based on the selected Thornthwaite moisture index. Although the UBC indicates a Thornthwaite index of —20, consideration should be given to non-climatic factors such as irrigation practices that could affect the assumed value. Values for ym may utilize Table 18-III based on the parameters provided in the table above and the estimated em. Using a Thomthwaite index of —20, the em and ym values are summarized below: Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em 2.6 feet Edge Lift, ym 0.166 inches Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em 5.3 feet Center Lift, ym 0.717 inches ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 25 6.8.10 Foundation Setbacks The bottom' outer edge of foundations located adjacent a top of slope should be setback from the slope face a horizontal distance of at least 1/3 the height of the slope. The horizontal distance should not be less than 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet. 6.8.11 Footing Observations All footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedments recommended herein. These observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture softened materials and debris should be removed prior to placing concrete. 6.9 RETAINING AND FREE-STANDING WALLS 6.9.1 General The following design and construction recommendations are provided for general masonry retaining and free-standing walls. The structural engineer and architect should provide appropriate recommendations for sealing at all joints and water proofing material on the back of the walls. 6.9.2 Bearing Capacity, Lateral Bearing, and Reinforcement Retaining and free standing walls supported by competent native soils or compacted fill, may utilize the bearing capacities and lateral bearing values provided for conventional foundations as discussed in an earlier section of this report. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. All footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedments recommended herein. These observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture softened materials and debris should be removed prior to placing concrete. 6.9.3 Earth Pressures Retaining walls no more than 6 feet in height and supporting a level backfill should be designed for an active pressure and at-rest earth pressure of 30 and 55 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressure) for cantilever and restrained conditions, respectively. Retaining walls no more than 6 feet in height and supporting a 2 to 1 (H:V) backfill should be designed for an active pressure and at-rest earth pressure of 40 and 73 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressure) for cantilever and restrained conditions, respectively The above values are based on typical onsite granular materials possessing a Very Low expansion potential used for backfill material and on drained backfill conditions with no consideration for hydrostatic pressures. All walls should be designed to support ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 26 any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings in addition to the earth pressures. 6.9.4 Foundation Setbacks The bottom outer edge of wall foundations located adjacent a top of slope should be setback from the slope face a horizontal distance of at least 7 feet. The bottom outer edge of foundations located adjacent the top of segmental retaining walls should be setback from the wall such that the bottoms of footings are founded below a 1/4 to 1 (H:V) plane project up from the base of segmental walls. The horizontal distance should not be less than 5 feet from the top of wall. The above setbacks may be accomplished through the use of deepened footings or caissons below the foundation. If caissons are required, this office should provide specific recommendations. 6.9.5 Drainage and Moisture-Proofing All retaining walls supporting more than 3 feet of compacted fill should be provided a perforated pipe and gravel subdrain to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. The perforated pipe should consist of 4 inch diameter, ABS SDR-35 or PVC Schedule 40 with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be embedded in 1/4 to 1%2 inch open-graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. The gravel should be at least one foot wide and extend at least one foot up the wall above the footing. Filter fabric should consist of Mirifi 140N, or equal. Outlets should discharge into suitable collection structures. All walls supporting backfill should also be coated with a waterproofing compound or covered with such material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. The project structural engineer should provide specific recommendations for water proofing,water stops, and joint details. The use of weep holes may be considered in locations where aesthetic issues from potential nuisance water are not a concern. Weep holes should be 2 inches in diameter and provided at least every 6 feet on center. Where weep holes are used,perforated pipe may be omitted from the gravel subdrain. 6.9.6 Wall Backfill Onsite soils possessing a Very Low expansion potential may be used for backfill of retaining walls. The project geotechnical consultant should approve all backfill used for retaining walls. All wall backfill should be placed in accordance with recommendations presented under the "Fill Placement" section of this report. Flooding or jetting of backfill material may be considered. Specific recommendations should be provided by the geotechnical consultant based on proposed backfill materials and methods. 6.10 EXTERIOR FLATWORK Concrete sidewalks, patios, and similar flatwork should be a nominal 4 inches thick and provided with saw cuts or expansion joints at spacing no greater than 10 feet in each direction. Special ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 27 jointing details should be provided in areas of block-outs, notches, or other irregularities to avoid cracking at points of high stress. Drainage from flatwork areas should be directed to local area drains and/or other appropriate collection devices designed to carry runoff water to the street or other approved drainage structures. The concrete flatwork should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2% away from building foundations and masonry walls. Subgrade soils below flatwork areas should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete. The moisture content of the soils should be at least 100 percent of the optimum moisture content. Flooding or ponding of the subgrade is not recommended. Moisture conditioning should be achieved by a light application of water to the subgrade just prior to pouring concrete. I 6.11 CEMENT TYPE Laboratory testing for soluble sulfate content was performed during prior investigations. The test results indicate onsite soils contain less than 0.10% soluble sulfate. We recommend that the procedures provided in U.B.C. Section 1904.3 and Table 19-A-4, 1997 Edition, for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing solutions be followed for Negligible Sulfate Exposure. We further recommend that additional testing for soluble sulfate content be performed on site soils subsequent to rough grading and prior to construction of foundations and other concrete work. 6.12 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS No laboratory testing for R-value was completed during our investigation and as such, we have estimated the range of likely values for R-value to be 40 to 60. Using these values and the indicated traffic indexes (TI), we have summarized the anticipated structural sections in Table 6.1. Final structural sections should be based on actual R-value testing obtained after grading and appropriate traffic indices. Table 6.1 Preliminary Pavement Design Location Assumed A.C. A.B. T.I. (inches) (inches) Interior Streets 5.0-5.5 3 5 Secondary Access Streets 6.0 3 7 Arterials 6.5-7.0 3 10 4 8 A.C. =Asphalt Concrete, A.B. =Aggregate Base ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCL4TES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 28 Prior to placement of aggregate base, subgrade surfaces should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to uniform moisture slightly over optimum, then compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard. The laboratory standard should be ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should be placed in lifts no greater than 6 inches in thickness, brought to a uniform moisture slightly over optimum, then compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard. The laboratory standard should be ASTM D 1557. Aggregate base materials should be either Crushed Aggregate Base, Crushed Miscellaneous Base, or Processed Miscellaneous Base, conforming to Section 200-2 of the Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). Paving asphalt should be either AR 4000 or AR 8000 conforming to the requirements of Section 203-1 of the Greenbook. Asphalt concrete materials should conform to Section 203-6 and construction should conform to Section 302 of the Greenbook. 6.13 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES We recommend Albus-Keefe &Associates, Inc. be engaged to review any modifications made to the grading plans and to review precise and foundation plans prior to construction. This is to verify that the recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted and are incorporated into the project specifications and to provide detailed recommendations. If we are not provided the opportunity to review these documents, we take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our conclusions and recommendations. We recommend that a geotechnical consultant be retained to provide soils engineering services during construction of the project. These services are to observe compliance with the design, specifications or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. If the project plans change significantly, the project geotechnical consultant should review our original design recommendations and their applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those indicated in this report, the project geotechnical consultant should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required. 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report is based on the proposed development and geotechnical data as described herein and in the reference reports. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our previous laboratory testing are believed representative of the total project area, and the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil and bedrock materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could effect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observation and testing by a geotechnical consultant during the grading and construction phases of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report. ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 29 This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Centex Homes to assist the project consultants in the design of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. This report is subject to review by the controlling governmental agency. Respectfully submitted, 7VS-KEEFE&ASSOCLATES,INC QROFESS/p David E. Albus J' yc, ichael utt Principal Engineer No.2455 m Engineering Geologist G.E. 2455 * Ev.12131106 z C.E.G. 2341 OF Patrick M. Ke Principal En ' erng Geologist C.E.G. 2022 ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 30 REFERENCES Publications: Blake, T.F., 1989, 2000, Eqfault, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults. Blake, T.F., 1989, 2000, Eqsearch, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs. C.D.M.G., 1990, State of California Earthquake Fault Zones, Murrieta Quadrangle, Effective January 1, 1990. C.D.M.G. Open-File Report 92-03, 1992, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California. Gray, Cliffton. H., 1961, Geology of the Corona South Quadrangle and the Santa Ana Narrows Area and Mines and Minerals Deposits of the Corona South Quadrangle, Riverside and Orange Counties, California, C.D.M.G. Bulletin 178. Greenwood, Richard, B., 1992, Geologic Map of the Alberhill 7 %2 Quadrangle, C.D.M.G. Open-File Report 92-10. Hart, E.W., Revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, C.D.M.G. Special Publication 42. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, C.D.M.G. Special Report 131. Seed, H. Bolton, Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, Fred W., 1968, Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes, E.E.R.I. 68-5. Smith, Drew P., 1978, C.D.M.G. Fault Evaluation Report FER-72 (Lake Elsinore Fault Zone Segment from Lake Elsinore to Prado Dam, Riverside County, California). Smith, Drew P., 1979, C.D.M.G. Supplement No. 1 to Fault Evaluation Report FER-72 (Lake Elsinore Fault Zone Segment from Lake Elsinore to Prado Dam, Riverside County, California). Ziony, J.I., and others, 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region—An Earth Science Perspective,United States Geological Survey,Professional Paper 1360. Geotechnical Reports Rough Grading Plan Review, Tracts 25478, 25479 and Offsite Roadway Corridor, Ramsgate Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, by Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., Dated September 30, 2003, (J.N.: 1216.00). Summary of Geotechnical Due-Diligence Review and Supplemental Geophysical Investigation, Stonebridge/Ramsgate Development, Tentative Tracts 25476, 25477, 25478, & 25479, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California, by Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., Dated February 23, 2003, (J.N.: 1216.00). Interim Rough Grade Compaction Report, A Portion of the Ramsgate Development, Tentative Tract 25479, City of Lake Elsinore, California, by Neblett & Associates, Inc., Dated March 21, 2003, (P.N.: 191-001-07). ALB US KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Page 31 Rough Grade Compaction Report, Ramsgate Frontage Adjacent to Highway 74 Re-Alignment, Lake Elsinore, California, by Neblett &Associates, Inc., Dated November 8, 2002, (P.N.: 191-001-07). Updated Seismic Hazard Evaluation, Ramsgate Development Project, Tentative Tract No. 25476, 35477, 25478, and 25479, Lake Elsinore, California, by Neblett &Associates, Inc., dated September 30, 2002, (Project No. 191-001-04). Preliminary Geologic/Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Tentative Tract 30698 City of Lake g � Y Elsinore, California, by Neblett &Associates, Inc., dated September 12, 2002, (Project No. 407-000- i 03). Geologic/Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation and Grading Plan Review, Proposed Ramsgate Frontage Adjacent to Highway 74 Road Alignment, City of Lake Elsinore, California, by Neblett & Associates, Inc., dated September 18, 2000, (Project No. 191-100-05). Response to GeoSoils Review, Ramsgate Project, Tract 25478 and 25479, City of Lake Elsinore, California, by Neblett&Associates, Inc., dated May 18, 1999, (Project No. 191). Alluvial Quantities Study, Ramsgate Property, Tract No. 25476, City of Lake Elsinore, California, by Neblett &Associates, Inc., dated December 2, 1998, (Project No. 191). Geotechnical Feasibility of Purchase, Ramsgate Development, City of Lake Elsinore, California, by Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc., dated January 3, 1990, (Project No. 10337-00). Geotechnical Investigation, Ramsgate, Highways 15 and 74, Lake Elsinore, California, by Soil and Testing Engineers, Inc., dated September 12, 1988, (STE 8841100). Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Newly Acquired Parcels, Ramsgate Development, Lake Elsinore, California,by Hydro-Fluent, Inc., dated August 5, 1983, (Project No. 1030-01). E Preliminary Geologic and Rippability Investigation, Proposed Ramsgate Development, Lake Elsinore, California, by G.A. Nicoll and Associates, Inc., dated November 10, 1981, (Project R2491). Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Proposed 80 Acre Development, Elsinore, California, by G.A. Nicoll and Associates, Inc., dated May 7, 1981, (Project R2430). I . Plans lRough Grading Plans, Tract 25476, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, Sheets 4 - 11 of 14, W.O. 0919-25476. Rough Grading Plans, Tract 25477, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, Sheets 4 - 6 of 8, W.O. 0919-25477. ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. �r r APPENDIX A BORING & TRENCH LOGS F F, L L L L L L L L ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. . r r � r � r � r Logs of Test Pits Neblett& Associates December 2, 1998 � I. . I i f II - ` I - t � L f l - LOG OF TEST P/T No. NT-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 m o = >s Description and Remarks m" m in C mo ¢ E inN O d (L e o U 0 Alluvium (Qal): Clayey Sand, reddish brown, dry/slightly moist, soft, some rootlets, 1 abundant angular metamorphic bedrock fragments and pebbles 2 Bedford Canyon Formation (Jbcm): Metaconglomerate, reddish brown, hard, weathered, some rootlets, caliche and iron staining 3 hard to very hard 4 5 gray,Quartzite, hard to very hard Y� I� 6 ' Total Depth 6 Feet f� I��r 7 8 j 9 i 10 11 12 13 14 15 Comments: PLATE A-1 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-5 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 w E N E _ N W Description and Remarks CDN o � ( a° � 0 Alluvium (Qal): Silty Sand, medium brown, dry, loose, some rootlets 1 2 Bedford Canyon Formation (Jbcp): Phyllite, medium gray, hard, weathered, fractured 3 4 5 Total Depth 5 Feet 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Comments: PLATE A-2 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-7 SHEET 1 OP 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Baokhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 m = 0 C a C« m-a H Description and Remarks o= W � >- za ago QE o ag �v Crystaline Bedrock (Kqr): Tonalite, decomposed, brown, dry, very soft 1 2 3 4 becoming harder with depth Total Depth 4 Feet 5 6 7 - 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 l_ 15 Comments: i Ii PLATE"A-3. L__ LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-8 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 ..i;: m ; o E Description and Remarks I o= � Z� d'o 2 CL cn co �2 ag �c0 D Crystaiine Bedrock (K- 4r): Tonalite, decomposed, brown, dry to slightly moist, very soft 1 2 3 4 becoming harder with depth 5 Total Depth 5 Feet 6 7 8 9 I _ 10 11 12 13 14 15 �- Comments: I PLATE A-4 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-9 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 B a c k h o e LOGGED By BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 W C t N o c ? 5 E E 9 y m Description and Remarks o` N =)N o d 00 0-2 °C E 0 2 �U Crystaline Bedrock (Kqr): Tonalite, decomposed, brown, dry to slightly moist, soft to hard 1 2 3 4 becoming harder with depth 5 Total Depth 5 Feet 6 6 4 7 , 8 9 4; 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 lJ Comments: i PLATE A-5 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-10 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 a � a m CL E ca E t y a Description and Remarks Alluvium (Qai): Silty Sand, red brown, dry, loose 1 2 3 4 Crystaline Bedrock (Kgr): Tonalite, decomposed, brown gray, soft, slightly moist 5 t f 6 7 becoming harder with depth $ Total Depth 8 Feet 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Comments: L PLATE A-6 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-11 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 m C �^ a m0 ca o a.: V e �, a Description and Remarks �` �= m jn a� `. ¢ E V) N p�y a� � o 0 Bedford Canyon Formation (Jbcg): Quartzite, red brown, very hard, dry, well fractured, iron stained 1 2 3 Total Depth 3 Feet 4 5 6 7 8 9 ;- 10 11 12 - 13 L. 14 15 Comments: 1 I PLATE A-7 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-12 SHEET 1 OF 1 e DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY B N GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 r � m C M^ G N C a <D w U 4 m E E r u q a Description and Remarks c" �N om W0 iEE 2 L) D Alluvium (Qal): Silty Sand, brown, dry, loose 1 , Crystalline Bedrock (Kqr): 2 Tonalite, decomposed, red brown, slightly moist, soft to hard 3 4 becoming more dense 5 Total Depth 5 Feet i 6 i 7 - 8 10 4 4 11 12 13 14 15 I Comments: I PLATE A-8 LOG OF TEST P/T No. NT-13 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY 8N GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 m = in EN� G °' W Description and Remarks U m p- m > ZLrn m o CD a to cn p �, a c �U 0 Alluvium (Oal): Silty Fine Sand, brown, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense 1 2 3 4 5 moist 6 7 8 9 10 Silty Sand, brown, wet/saturated, very soft 11 Total Depth 11 Feet Water at 10.5 Feet 12 Caving at 9 feet 13 r 14 I 15 �l Comments: l PLATE A-9 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-14 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED ,6Y BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 m = �Q � m ,o CL L Ud H W Description and Remarks E,. �N Z m a'o M n o ev Alluvium (Qal): Silty Fine Sand, brown, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense 1 2 3 4 5 moist 6 7 8 9 10 11 Crystalline Bedrock (Kqr): r Tonalite, dark gray, moist, hard 12 Total Depth 12 Feet 14 15 Comments: it 4 PLATE A-10 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-15 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 « a E- m m W Description and Remarks p= m > > �� mo � E v� cn o a g , 0 Fanglomerate (Qfq): Silty Sand, brown, dry, loose, abundant rounded to subrounded boulders, 1 'cobbles and pebbles - 2 3 Bedford Canyon Formation (Jbcg): Quartzite, blue gray, dry, hard, fractured, iron stained - 4 1 5 Total Depth 5 Feet 6 7 8 ^ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IComments: I l PLATE A-11 L. LOG OF TEST P/T No. NT-16 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/27/98 EXCAVATION METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 mC: E N M. C" m a m y mw E N E ; ^ CL Description and Remarks p" m � > a mo ¢ E O 0 U Alluvium (Qal): Silty Sand, red brown, dry/slightly moist, loose, rootlets, some cobbles 1 2 Crystalline Bedrock (Kqr): Tonalite, decomposed, red brown, slightly moist, soft to hard 3 4 5 Total Depth 5 Feet 6 7 8 9 i0 11 - 12 13 14 15 Comments: PLATE A-12 LOG OF TEST PIT No. NT-18 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 10/28/98 EXCAVAT/ON METHOD 4x4 Backhoe LOGGED BY BN GROUND ELEVATION PROJECT NO. 191 a � 6 a � n W E v� � Description and Remarks 4 m� �Lrn mo iL o Alluvium (Qal): Silty Sand, red brown, dry/slightly moist, loose, rootlets 1 2 Bedford Canyon Formation (Jbcg): Quartzite, green gray, dry, very hard, fractured 3 Total Depth 3 Feet w 4 5 6 1 8 9 �. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Comments: -PLATE A-13 Logs of Test Pits G.A. Nicoll May 7, 1981 1 Project R2491 Appendix B SUMMARY OF TEST PIT LOGS Test Pit Depth Number' (feet) Description TP-1 0 - 13 Silty SAND - fine-grained, light brown, dry, loose to medium dense, micaceous gravel and cobble lens . at 2 feet; becomes coarse-grained at 3 feet and moist to very moist; ground water at 10 feet and slightly clayey - ALLUVIUM NOTE: 1. Caving encountered 2. Pit backfilled TP-2 0 - 6 Silty SAND - fine-grained, brown, dry, loose to medium dense , rootlets, porous micaceous; becomes coarse-grained at 3 feet and damp - ALLUVIUM 6 - 7 SAND - coarse-grained, gray , damp, loose to medium dense - ALLUVIUM i 7 - 9 TONALITE - yellow-gray, coarse-grained, weathered; excavates to medium- to coarse- SAND - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1. No caving 2. Pit backfilled TP-3 0 - 1 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, brown, dry, loose to medium dense, porous , rootlets - TOPSOIL/RESIDUAL SOIL 1 - 3. 5 TONALITE - soft to moderately hard, gray , damp, highly weathered - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1 . No caving 2 . Pit backfilled � I PLATE A-14 Project R2491 Appendix B Page Two SUMMARY OF TEST PIT LOGS �-a Test Pit Depth Number (feet) Description Ea F TP-4 0 - 11 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, brown, loose to medium dense; 6-inch hard layer at 2 . 5 feet, scattered gravel ; becomes moist at 3 feet, micaeous ; I becomes very moist to saturated at 6 feet, seepage at 8 feet, coarse SAND at 9 feet with some large cobblesand boulders - ALLUVIUM NOTE: 1 . Caving encountered 2 . Pit backf ill,ed TP-5 0 - 2. 5 Silty SAND - fine-grained, brown, damp, loose to medium dense, porous; rootlets; becomes clayey and silty at 1 . 0 feet - ALLUVIUM 2 . 5 - 5 TONALITE - brown-gray , moderately hard, moderately to highly weathered, moist; excavates to fine- to coarse SAND - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1 . No caving 2. Pit backfilled t TP-6 0 - 2 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, brown, ' dry to damp, porous , rootlets - ff E ALLUVIUM l 2 - 4 TONALITE - brown-gray , ,moderately hard , z slightly moist, moderately to highly weathered - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK i_ NOTE: 1. No caving 2. Pit backf illed TP-7 0 - 2 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, brown, damp , porous , rootlets - ALLUVIUM 2 - 4 TONALITE - gray-brown, moderately. hard, excavates to medium- to coarse-SAND; bedrock is more resistent on east side F. of pit - possible dike - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1 . No caving ' 2 . Pit backfilled PLATE A-15 Project R2491 Appendix B Page Three ' SUMMARY OF TEST PIT LOGS Test Pit Depth Number (feet) Description TP-8 0 - 2 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, brown, damp, medium dense - ALLUVIUM 2 - 4 TONALITE - brown-gray, moderately hard, damp, moderately weathered; excavates r+ to fine- to coarse-SAND - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1. No caving 2 . Pit backfilled �7 TP-9 0 - 1 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, brown, dry to damp, medium dense, porous, rootlets, scattered granitic cobbles - ALLUVIUM f1 - 6 GRANODIORITE gray-brown, moderately hard, highly weathered; excavates to fine- to g Y coarse- SAND - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1. No caving 2 . Pit backfilled �f TP-10 0 - 3 Clayey SAND - fine- to medium-grained; brown, damp to very moist, medium dense, scattered cobbles - ALLUVIUM 3 - 6 SLATE - brown, moderately hard, highly weathered, highly fractured - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION r ; NOTE: 1. No caving 2 . Pit backfilled I� E' PLATE A-16 Project R2491 Appendix B Page Four SUMMARY OF TEST PIT LOGS Test Pit Depth Number (feet) Description TP-11 0 - 3 . 5 Sandy GRAVEL - cobble, brown-gray, damp, hard, subangular to subrounded, granitic/ metamorphic derivative; difficult to excavate, scattered boulders, slightly silty - ALLUVIUM 3 .5 - 5 SLATE - gray-black, hard, fractured, moderately weathered; very difficult to excavate - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE: 1 . No caving 2. Pit backfilled TP-12 0 - 12 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, brown, damp to moist, medium dense, porous , rootlets , micaceous , scattered gravel; slightly clayey at 7 feet, small fractures r at 8 feet, white in fillings , some coarse SAND and fine GRAVEL at 9 feet; seepage at 11 feet; encountered increase in rock fragments at 12 feet - ALLUVIUM i� 12 - 14 SLATE - gray-black, hard, moderately weathered - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE: 1. Caving encountered 2. Pit backf it led TP-13 0 - 1 Clayey SAND - f ine- to. medium-grained, brown, slightly moist , moderately dense; scattered gravel and cobbles- ALLUVIUM TONALITE - brown-gray , moderately hard, i- damp, moderately weathered; excavates to medium- to coarse-SAND - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1. No caving 2. Pit backfilled PLATE A-17 Trench Logs Soil and Testing Engineers,Inc. September 12, 1988 i a Uj TRENCH NUMBER 21 z LU _ � O ELl=VATiON a °� <a 9 o o =LU Uj < < I V O U C v I DESCRIPTION I I I v 0 BG 'SC !.Red Brown CLAYEY SAND Dry Loose 71 CK JISW Lt. Gray SILTY GRAVELLY Dry/ Mea.Dens i SAND Humid Dense i J Bottom @ 6Z ' No I f water • r> I I = J I 0 I TRENCH NUMBER 22 lr SC eddish Brown CLAYEY Dry Loose ,I SAND (CO — SW Lt. Brown to Gray SILTY Humid Dense GRAVELLY SAND _ (Decomposed Granite) 5 _ J I - Moist �7er i Pr14P Refusal @ 8 ' on Bedrock J J I SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL and TESTING LOGGED BY: DATE LOGGED: _ ENGINEERS INC. GJ 8/4/88 JOB NUMBER 8841100 I PLATE A-18 si •,ee i W Z3 H W � V � � l w � CL TRENCH.`iI"I NUMBER W = W W Q) _ > O = LU J U Q 0- Q co W W �' I 0 L I d U a G += a I ELEVATION a �' a a a O Z w a w � w � a � < p0 � O alQ cr o i o rJ l DESCRIPTION Dark Gray, QUARTZITE Dry Very (Bedrock) Dense B: N30W,65NE J: N41E,81SE d Refusal TRENCH NUMBER 24 I � ICK I SM Light Brown, SILTY Dry to Loose to SAND Humid Med.Dense . I 1 (Alluvium) I B G 1 � I 5 I I I F-- i 1 ' SW ;sight Gray, WELL GRADED I Humid Dense ;SAND (D.G. ) I I � • J SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL and TESTING LOGGED BY: WITE LOGGED: ENGINEERS INC. GJ � 8/8/8 8 ` JOB NUMBER: 884110 0 PLATE A-19 Z I F a TRENCHtdU98ER 25 W I `' z "' W z J < LU W UJ to W Q C: W y y i ELE1/ATION a 0 I a z Q a l o LM, ¢a i d 0 o a N v l DESCRIPTION SM/lBrown, WELL-GRADED Humid Loose SW SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND ( (Alluvium) I SM/ Light Gray, WELL-GRADED Humid Dense SW SILTY SAND f i I I ' I TRENCH NUMBER 26 F I ' ICK ISM Orange Brown, SILTY Dry Loose I I iBG I (SAND (Alluvium) I I I 7 SM/ Orange Brown to Gray, Humid Dense to SW WELL-GRADED SLIGHTLY Very SILTY SAND Dense (D.G. ) 5 � rt J r _ I � • j — TRENCH NUMBER 27 I 0 SM/ Orange Brown, SILTY Dry Loose CK SC CLAYEY• SAND (Alluvium) t ' SM/ ray-Brown, WELL-GRADED Dry ery 5 I SW SLIGETLY SILTY SAND ense I SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL and TEEMING LOGGED BY: GJ DATE LOGGED''/8/88 ENGINEERS INC. JOB NUMBER 841100 r PLATE A-20 z ' a ° I TRENCH NUMBER 28 z ¢ W z z � � I € W Z ' aW M aW I» D n <e? � < W°� W co � Ln Wa E Wc p CL D ¢ O Z u O 2 OGo O j v DESCRIPTION U U o C SM Orange Brown, SZLT Dry Loose BG SC CLAYEY SAND ICR Medium ICR Dense 5 SM/ I Gray Brown, WELL-GRADED Humid Dense SW SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND (D.G. ). i I i ICI i _j j TRENCH NUMBER 29 0 GC/ Brown, CLAYEY SAND Dry Loose SCI GRAVEL (Alluvium) Tan to Licht Brown, Dry Dense to � PH1'LLITr (Bedrock) Very Dense _I I I j SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL and TESTING LOGsz.o BY: "JE GJ D LDGGEZ 8 68 ENGINEERS INC. i JOB NUMBER: 8841100 1 PLATE A-21 ZI } ° 30 _TRENCH NUMBER iiZ 0- Z i _<W z6 ~ i WWV t � Uj � O ELEVA TON a C 0 z sGa U) c. c pC) v i U c v DESCRIPTION ' SM I Light to Dark Brown, Dry Loose I j r_ SILTY SAND f ; ! (Alluvium) �r. GM/ Light to Dark Brown, Moist Medium — SM SILTY SAND & GRAVEL Dense 5 (Alluvium) - i I Refusal on Boulders �~ TRENCH NIIMBER 31 � I r I ISM/ Orance Brown, SILTY Dry Loose — SC CLAY='Y SAND (Alluvium) I IDarx Green Gray, Dry Dense PHYLLITE (Bedrock) B: N53W, 53N-Z N72W, 66SW 'J 1 J: N35W, 65NE I I � J L SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL and TESTING LOGGED BY: DATE LOGGED F-NGINESRs INC.Via GJ 8/B/88 IJOB NUMBER 8841100 PLATE A-22 Logs of Test Pits Hydro-Fluent, Inc. August 5, 1983 L . l _ 1 LOG OF TEST PITS Surface Elevation: 1602 ft. Logged By: JFD Test Pit Number Pit Orientation: NS Date: 6/20/83 Pit Dimensions: WA ft. JD Backhoe TA 3 Groundwater Depth: None Equipment: GEOLOGICAL So plesi ENGINEERING m Classification n Classification and Description and c Y nDescription —ti- - TOPSOIL SMi i Silty SAND - fine- to med.-grained, red brown, dry to damp, dense 6.4 118.5 -j L-7 CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK ,t (Kgr) v " Tonalite - grey brown, med.- to coarse grained, very hard, weathered 0 Bottom of test pit @ 4 ft. Notes: 1. No ground water 2. No caving 3. Pit backfilled Surface Elevation: 1654 ft. Logged By: JFD Test Pit Number Pit Orientation:. N10E Date: 6/20/83 Pit Dimensions: 2x1x3 ft. JD Backhoe TA-4 Groundwater Depth: Equipment: t TOPSOIL ' SM Silty SAND - fine-grained, red brown, dry to damp, w/granitic rock fragments 9.8 - CYSTALINE BEDROCK l Tonalite - red brown, fine-grained, o very hard, weathered, fractured 5 0 I J W ca r- Bottom of pit @ 3 feet Notes: 1. No ground water L 2. No caving 3. Pit backfilled . R A M S 6 A T E HYDRO-FLUENT, INC. Date: August 5, 1983 E ' geology• engineering• construction — - 1 Pro MG No: �030-01 PLATE A-?3 LOG OF TEST PITS Surface Elevation: 1616 ft. Logged By: JFD Test Pit Number Pit Orientation: N10W Date: 6120/83 Pit Dimensions: 2x10x7 ft. Groundwater Depth: None Equipment: JD Backhoe TA-5 GEOLOGICAL Samples Classification a ENGINEERING o and a we E _� �, Classification and Description o ,� Description c : c5,n o? m' �o c` c ALLUVIUMSAND - fine- to med.- grained red 3.6 97.9 brown, damp to moist, med. dense, SP w/silty sand lenses 7.1 108.1 5 — CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK (Kgr) C^> Tonalite - med.- to coarse-grained, red brown, mod. hard, weathered _ o _ oe c W m Bottom of pit 7 ft. — Notes: 1. No ground water 2. No caving 3. Pit backfilled Surface Elevation: 1603 ft. Logged By: JFD Test Pit Number Pit Orientation: N10W Pit Dimensions: 2x8x5 ft. Date: 6/20/83 Groundwater Depth: None Equipment: JD Backhoe TA-6 ALLUVIUM SP SAND - fine- to med.-grained red 3.1 - brown, dry to damp at 1 foot, loose to med. dense CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK (Kgr) _^ Y 5 _ WC a Tonalite - dk. red brown, med.-grained ce moderately hard, highly weathered O W so Bottom of pit @ 5 feet Notes: 1. No ground water 1 — 2. No caving t 3. Pit backfilled R A M S G A T E HYDRO—FLUENT, INC. ry Dote: August s, 1983 geology•engineering •construction Project No: 1030-01 PLATE A-24- , r r Boring Logs _ G.A. Nicoll fNovember 10, 1981 f - - f L L Project R2491 APPENDIX; B SUMMARY OF BORING LOGS Boring Depth Number (feet) Description B-1 0 - 2 Sandy SILT - brown, dry to damp, stiff - RESIDUAL SOIL 2 - 20 TONALITE - medium- to coarse-grained, soft to moderately hard; excavates to fine- to coarse-grained Silty SAND; drills with little difficulty; becomes harder at 5 feet - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1. No ground water encountered 2. No refusal 3. Boring backfilled B-2 0 - 4 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, reddish-brown, dry to damp,. medium dense to dense - RESIDUAL SOIL 4 - 20 TONALITE - medium- to coarse-grained, soft, weathered; becomes moderately hard at 6 feet; bedrock generally easy to excavate with 6-inch auger; becomes hard at 15 f eet - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK rt NOTE: 1. No refusal 2 . Boring backfilled B-3 0 - 1 Silty SAND - f ine- to medium-grained, brown , dry, medium dense; contains some rock fragments - RESIDUAL SOIL 1 - 12 QUARTZITE - moderately hard to hard, weathered; moderately difficult to drill; becomes very difficult to drill at 11 feet; no refusalat 12 feet but very slow drilling - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE : 1. No ground water encountered 2 . No refusal but very difficult to drill below 11 feet 3 . Boring backfilled PLATE A-25 Project R2491 Appendix B Page Two SUMMARY OF BORING LOGS +. Boring Depth Number (feet) Description B-4 0 - 1 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained , brown, dry, medium dense, rock fragments - RESIDUAL SOIL 1 - 9 QUARTZITE - moderately hard to hard, weathered; becomes moderately difficult to drill at about 6 feet; becomes very difficult to drill at 8 feet; refusal at 9 feet - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE: 1 . No ground water encountered 2 . Refusal at 9 feet l 3 . Boring backfilled B-5 0 - 1 Sandy SILT - light brown, dry, stiff - RESIDUAL SOIL 1 - 18 QUARTZITE - fine-grained , gray to dark gray, hard to very hard; may contain some inclusions of softer igneous rock; " generally difficult to drill; refusal at 18 feet - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION f ; NOTE: 1. No ground. water encountered 2 . Refusal at 18 feet 3. Boring backfilled s B-6 0 - 1.5 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, light brown, dry to damp, medium dense - C'w RESIDUAL SOIL r 1. 5 - 20 TONALITE - fine- to coarse-grained, soft, weathered; more difficult to drill below it 10 feet - CRYSTALLINE BEDROCK NOTE: 1 . No ground water encountered 2 . No refusal 3 . Boring backfilled 1 7 PLATE A-26 i..1 i Project R2491 Appendix B Page Three SUMMARY OF BORING LOGS Boring Depth Number (feet) Description B-7 0 - 1 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, light brown, dry , medium dense - RESIDUAL SOIL 1 - 26 QUARTZITE - gray to dark gray, hard to very hard; may contain some softer igneous inclusions ; very difficult to drill at 1 - 3 feet; less difficult at 4 - 13 feet; becomes difficult to drill at 13 feet; less difficult to drill at 21 - 23 feet; very hard at 25 . 5 feet; no refusal but very slow drilling at 26 feet - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION jNOTE : 1. No ground water encountered 2. No refusal but very difficult to drill below 25 . 5 feet 3 . Boring backfilled B-8 0 - 1 Silty SAND - fine- to medium-grained, brown, dry, medium dense - RESIDUAL SOIL 1 - 25 QUARTZITE - gray to dark gray , hard, closely fractured; becomes more difficult to drill at about 14 feet; very hard and slower drilling at 19 feet to 25 feet, less difficult at 20 to 23 feet; becomes very difficult to drill at 23 feet, very slow drilling; no refusal but very slow drilling at 25 feet - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE: 1 . No ground water encountered 2 . No refusal but very difficult drilling below 23 feet 3. Boring backfilled B-9 0 - 15 QUARTZITE - gray, hard, fractured; excavates to a fine- to medium-grained Silty SAND; very hard at 4 feet , difficult to drill; _ less difficult at 5 feet; moderately difficult to drill below 7 feet; no refusal but very slow drilling below 14 feet - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE: 1 . No ground water encountered 2. No refusal but very difficult to drill below 14 feet 3 . Boring backfilled i" ` PLATE A-27 Project R2491 Appendix B Page Four r� SUMMARY OF BORING LOGS Boring Depth Number (feet) Description B-10 0 - 20 QUARTZITE - gray, hard, fractured; very hard at 3.5 to 4 feet and at 7.5 to 8 . 5 feet; very hard at 10 feet, 12 to 13 feet and 15 feet; generally difficult to drill below 15 feet; very hard below 17 feet, slow drilling; no refusal but very slow --� drilling at 20 feet - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE: 1. No ground water encountered 2. No refusal but very slow drilling below 17 feet 3. Boring backfilled l B-11 0 - 10 QUARTZITE - gray, hard to very hard, weathered, fractured; very hard at 8 to 10 feet; refusal at 10 feet - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE: 1. No ground water encountered 2. Refusal at 10 feet 3 . Boring backfilled B-12 0 - '9 Silty SAND - fine- to coarse-grained, reddish brown, dry to damp, medium dense to dense; contains rounded, gravel to boulder-size granitic rocks; very hard and refusal at 9 feet on very hard boulder - FANGLOMERATE NOTE: 1. No ground water encountered 2. Refusal at 9 feet 3. Boring backfilled B-13 0 - 26 PHYLLITE - dark gray , hard, weathered and intensely fractured; contains some thin , very hard beds , probably of quartzite Ccomposition; very hard at 19 to 20 feet;very hard at 25 feet ; refusal at 26 feet on very hard rock (probably a quartzite i bed) - BEDFORD CANYON FORMATION NOTE: 1. No ground water encountered 2. Refusal at 26 feet .I 3. Boring backfilled i L_, PLATE A-28 Boring Logs Soil and Testing Engineers,Inc. September 12, 1988 z BORING NUMBER ° W _ � W x F < z Q z F• z fA ¢ W Z 0 J V ELEVATION 6 c c _ 1 _ W z tZ p W _ w to O u m W t v W 1/f d G L J t G H ` i ILO t W W i ¢ C J DESCRIPTION v U � U ML Light Brown, SANDY 'Dry Hard SILT US 51 BG 5 US Very 37 Stiff US SP Gray, MEDIUM SAND Dry Very 50•/4" (Decommosed Granite) Dense 10 �r US 50/4" r � ^ 15 20 _ US 50/3" t ! 25 _ US 50/4" I6; L_ 30 Lac C�n suesuRFacE EXPLORATIONLOG S®aL and rcS-nNG EN-MINISERS INC. LOGGED 8Y: SW DATE LOGGE0:8/17/88 l lion NUMBER: 884110C AT ATF A-29 W S S W j > _ BORING NUMBER 13 1- W � O W '� IL} h Z C = ~ H Z ` Cl G W Z ~ t W W M fA t p S = > r = W J V ELEVATION C S C W C Z p- $- 0- J y t W 0. an O H Nf W t Q W _ G W QJ Ol IL L = C = W s 0 Z W ILO N < p ¢ W W C O IC o d Q o c DESCRIPTION v I U ML Light Brown, SANDY Humid Very SILT Stiff S 23 102.4 6 .3 5 �S Dry 26 100.6 2. 9 TS Humid Stiff 16 101.9 6 .6 110 y _-. iUM T � : .. Molst ec. .4d luu. D . z : U5 a Gra , �� SAND Dense 15 20 Sat. 25 C II. I l ' US Very 78/11 _ Dense . I Becomes coarser 3 0 . L,c 3 0' W P r I SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG S=IL and TE="rINM LOGGED BT: SW GATE LOGGED: 8/18/88 ENMINEERS ING. cos NUMBER: 8841100'40 :51EPLATE A-30 ii z Y z a r > ° BORING NUMBER 14 W z �_ z c z a .• z m s > o W W 0 t t z � W , v ELEVATION c c z C 0- _ �+ �- z � M W N C! d Q d z z > o = W a Q C H DESCRIPTION Q z e O v o A U ML Light Brown, SLIGHTLY Dry Very I ` BG SANDY SILT Stiff US 32 110 .0 1. 4 5 US 26 107.3 2. 6 US Dry- 24 Humid 10 - 1 E US tiff 19 f IS - 20 US Wet Very 23 Stiff i Sat. 25 - L US 25 Refusal @ 26 ' Water @ 22� 1 � 30 r SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL and TES nNM 021vi ENMINEM S INC. LOGGED BY: SW DATE LOGGE6: '8/18/88 JOB NUMBER: 884T70 13-5/86 PLATE A-31 z BOR I IdG i�BU Ok16ER 15 r W �' _ o _ x = W V ELEVATION CC = C F W = F t - au d 0 O W - � C }- � c cm d O d • 49 Or W s o C O c 2 DESCRIPTION v O XL Brown, SANDY SILT Humid Hard US 85 JUS SP Gray Brown, FINE TO Dry Very 85/10 COARSE SAND Dense (Decommosed Granite) rat US 50/4" f+ , 0 1 , f = Refusal @ 12 ' No water i :5 f4 s l` t 1 5O1L and TES"4'PNG SUBSURFACE EXPLORATtO�I LOG ENGINEERS INC. LOGGED BY: SW DATE LoGGED:8/18/88 40 JOB NUMBER: 8841100 I _ - rs PLATE A-32 Z > Z a ° BORING NUMBER 16 � W � _ _� ° v = 0- W } r ~ t W = W W CN t t Z = F > O p 2 W V ELEVATION C C Z C - iii ~ � 1L < y � - W ► �p � O Y N W a U 6y - a K W t pf N G O t Z C Z W ; C O Q G as DESCRIPTION t v O 6 C G V G ML I Lt. Brown, SANDY SILT' Dry I Loose Bottom @ V No water Refusal - Bedrock 5 r r l� - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG S®IL and TEETINEs ENMINEERS IN=. LOGGED BY: SW DATE LOGGED: $/18/$8 JOB NUMBER: 8641100 "r�� PLATE A-33 rya _ W Z V Z _ = s — i ° BORING NUMBER 18 � W �� � Z C Z �-^ �' t W O W � (A t � p 2 — � ► = W V ELEVATION C r Q pJ 2 O _ IL in W to as a O 4 z 3 ao } a O = 4+ a C t to K O ¢ u+ W ; p d C p p I V C H J DESCRIPTION SP Grayish Brown, POORLY Dry Very GRADED SAND Dense sG (Decomposed Granite) US 50/3" 5 � u US Grav Black Color 50/4" 10 US Gray Color 50/4" 15 20 IUS 50/4" F: I ' r- 25 _ US 50/4" _ 30 US Bottom 30 , No w +0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG BOIL and TESTING E101GI101EER8 INC. LOGGED Br: $W DATE LOGGED: g/18/8 B JOB NUMBER: 8841100 j }S-� PLATE A-34 BORING NUMBER 19 W _ ° = W x z ~ Z t Z Z v Mdc r ¢ W s W ELEVATION c c = c c W = z o ~ A. O W d IL40 Of W < U W a N a. O d W s G t o H t t W p s W ; p= C96 H DESCRIPTION C d .2 O ML Brown, SANDY SILT Dry- Hard Humid US 53 I� BG 5 US Whitish Buff Color 85/110 Y US 50/5' 106.5 8.5 I ` 1 US ML/ Whitish Buff, SANDY Humid Hard 50/5" SM SILT/SILTY FINE SAND 15 SP Gray, POORLY GRADED Dry Very 50/5" SAND (Decomposed Granite) Bottom @ 20 ' No water L_ SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL ae,d TSSTING ENGINEERS INC. LOGGED e Ea Y: SW DATE Locc :g/18/88 JOE NUM8ER: 8841100 I PLATE A-35 r APPENDIX B r LABORATORY TEST RESULTS r i L . l l l . ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of onsite soils were determined for selected samples in general accordance with Method A of ASTM D 1557-91. Pertinent test values are provided in Table B-1. TABLE B-1 Soil Description Test Results Gravely Sand(SW) Maximum Dry Density: 134.0 pcf Optimum Moisture Content: 8.0 % Silty Sand(SM) Maximum Dry Density: 119.5 pcf Optimum Moisture Content: 13.0% Particle Size Analvses Particle size analyses were performed on representative samples of site materials in accordance with ASTM D 422-63. The results are presented graphically on the attached Plates B-1 through B-3. Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed for soil samples remolded to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. AMEC Earth and Environmental performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM D3080-98. Three specimens were prepared for each test. The test specimens were artificially saturated, and then sheared under varied normal loads at a maximum constant rate of 0.0083 inches per minute. The results are graphically presented on Plate B-4 and B-6. ALB US KEEFE&ASSOCL4TES,INC. PERCENT RETAINED o O O O O ti O C Z � O a H U � a ` _ N gar-, V] O J f O V N C I E"'i r~/1 W rid � W � IW > A z r ri o Z ..a � o N Oao o cn I w � i 1 a 0 U � � O x o N z 00 a w M O W Ar M � O M U c O � O QOi 000 Or- \10 M M N O O PERCENT PASSING Job No: 1216.00 ALgUSGEOEFE ASSOCIATES.�G GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OEOTECHNICM.CONBULTAHiB Plate No: B-1 PERCENT RETAINED 0 O N M N O- 000 001 O O O O C O z 3 F tn N � J V O � O � z cn00 pro W f c I O ,W., N � o � 0 0 U w Q ~ z a 0 N N N o Q p I � � I a 1 i w M o0 a o W tn M � w z o a M O o p O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CN 00 PERCENT PASSING Job No: 1216.01 /K ,LHUS-KEEFEC �S° .R"G GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION QEOTECliNtAL CON9U LTN7T8 Plate No: B-2 PERCENT RETAINED 0 O O O O a � o U z � 3 Q �= H N in cn tn o � z w w c� o w ~ > o I O w N o a mod' A o o a g 1 Z a N C5 I ' a � I z 00 c a M ' a k Z U O Q -� M � O a O �o O 00N 000 t- \4 k M N O O PERCENT PASSING Job No: 1216.00 ,LBUS-EEEFEh,nsSaULTAM ES.ING GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OHOTECNNICALCONBULTN(f8 Plate No: B-3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST PROJECT: Albus-Keefe#1216.00 Date: 10/12/2004 JOB NO.: 0-212-102200 SAMPLE LOCATION Loeffel Wall#7 SAMPLE TYPE Remolded/Saturated 3000 / DESCRIPTION: Grey Silty Sand w/Gravel 1 ! I 4 ks 2500 Specimen No. 1 2 3 9� 2000 a Normal Stress, psf 1000 2000 4000 y 1500 f Peak Stress, psf 996 1668 2950 2 ks Displacement, in. 0.037 0.059 0.070 N 1000 1 Ultimate Stress, psf 768 1512 2808 ! 1 ks Displacement, in, 0.250 0.250 0.250 500 Initial Dry Densitv, pcf 120.0 120.0 120.0 Initial Water Content,% 10.5 10.5 10.5 0 o z a Strain Rate, in/min. 0.0083 0.0083 0.0083 Axial Strain(%) 4000 ........................................ ........ ............................. I I Peak Ultimate Peak C(pso 350 110 41 Ultimate 3000 31 32 w N N y 2000 N l4 N t 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Normal Stress(psf) ame '.. Plate B-4 I DIRECT SHEAR TEST — �I PROJECT: Albus-Keefe#1216.00 Date: 06/17/2004 JOB NO.: 0-212-102200 SAMPLE LOCATION: Lots 190-195 #39 SAMPLE TYPE: Rem./Sat 2000 DESCRIPTION: Tan Gravelly Silty Sand 1500 Specimen No. 1 2 3 12 ksfI a I Normal Stress, psf 500 1000 2000 y Peak Stress, psf 528 876 1572 s 1000 N Displacement, in. 0.056 0.088 0.065 r I 1 ksf, Ultimate Stress, psf 408 780 1488 w Displacement, in. 0.250 0.250 0.250 5o0 .5 ksf Initial Dry Density, pcf 113.9 113.9 113.9 Initial Water Content,% 9.5 9.5 .5Strain Rate, in/min. 0.0083 0.0083F:9 0.0083 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Axial Strain(%) 4 3000 -- Peak Ultimate ---C(psf) 180 60 TT7 •Peak a Ultimate f 35 36 I I 2000 I I p ! I1 41111 N I L 1 1 R � i 1000 I I I 0 I 0 1000 2000 3000 Normal Stress(psf) ameO Plate B-5 DIRECT SHEAR TEST j PROJECT: Albus-Keefe#1216.00 Date: 0(3/14/7004 JOB NO.: 0-212-102200 SAMPLE LOCATION: #40 Wall 5 SAMPLE TYPE: Rem./Sat 2000 i DESCRIPTION: Brown Silty Sand I 1500 Specimen No. 1 2 3 2 ksf: Normal Stress, psf 500 1000 2000 g Peak Stress, psf 540 1008 1608 m 100065 ' � Displacement, in. 0.046 0.069 0.069 2 I I Ultimate Stress, psf 360 696 1404 1 ksf;I I Displacement, in. 0.250 0.250 0.250 500 Initial Dry Density, pcf 119.7 119.7 119.7 .5 ksf Initial Water Content,% 10.0 10.0 10.0 a Strain Rate, in/min. 0.0083 0.0083 0.0083 0 2 4 5 s 10 12 Axial Strain(%) 3000 — Peak Ultimate — •Peak C(psf) 260 30 ■Ultimate I I 35 35 2000 N i Q W y i V y i I 1 L I L I � I I 1000 i I I i I _ I I � I I I I I ' I ' I I 0 1000 2000 3000 Normal Stress(psf) amec Plate B-6 l Laboratory Data by Others I � i I � L ` L - r . . DIRECT SHE.4R TEST RESULTS 9t�10 0l =hOMn DESCRIPTION internal intercept SAMPLE fnc:ion M I (W � I 33 50 B_2 @ I_4 lRemolded to 90% { - IUndisturbed 32 230 I 8. 1 17- y e R_S � TTM AI I I 30 75 e-I1 @ 1-4 Remolded to 90% , 25 250, i B-18 @ 2 Undis urbed i B_19 @ 4 Undisturbed 38 I 50 ' T_25 @ 21-3 Remolded to 90$ 32 100 •• - 32 i 100 1 T-28 @ &t-1 Remolded to 90$ 30 � 75 t. T-32 @ 1;1-2 Remolded to 90% MAXIMUM DENSITY and OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM 1557-78 METHOD A_ mszsmum I optimum DESCRIPTION density moisture SAMPLE Ipc� { oantent 196i B-Z @ 1 Y-4 Brown Silt Sand 128.7 I 11. 6 . ii 1 � ' I 0 B-11 @ 1-4 IRed Brown Sand Silt 131.9 9 . B-17 @ 1-4 Light Brown SandY Silt 117.6 I 14 .5 T-10 @ 0-1 Brown Silt Sand 130.9 ( 8 .8 I - 8 .5 T-21 1-I Red Brown av lv Sand 35 . 0 T-25 @ 2�-3 Yellow Brown D.G. 128 .5 110 .5 T-32 @ 1�-2 Light Brown. Fine -Sand 128 . 0 10 .5 T-52 @ -1 Brown Clavev Sand 124 . 0 ) 12.5 �U�//i SOIL amd TESTING a RR I DATE 9/12/88 EIVG1NSHRS INC. 82 JOB NO. g$41100 I Plate No. - -- - Plate B-7 f SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I SAM PLE NO. 13-2 @. 2 13-2 @ 5 B-6 @ 2 B-6 @ 5 I _ -INITIAL MOISTURE% 3.5 3.6 17.2 11. 0 f I -INITIAL DENSITY, PCF 114.3 d 110.5 99.6 110 .5 -%CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 2.65 3.20 4 .20 1. 86 -96 CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED- 5.49 7.08 5 .35 2.32 -FINAL MOISTURE% 17.0 17'.6 26 .7 18 .6 I -AXIAL LOAD. KSF 1.37 1.37 1.37 1:37 I ' I 1 I SOIL and TESTING SNGII�SSPS INC. 9Y R.� I DATE 9/12/88 JOB NO. 8841100 late No. 83 - -- -Tlate B-8 -- SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS [SAMPLE NO. B-9 @ 8 B-12 @ 5 IB-12 Us 6-13 @ 4 -INITIAL MOISTURE% 5 . 0 14 .3 9 . 6 2. 9 -INITIAL DENSITY, PCF 125 108 .2 113.7 100.6 -96 CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 1. 98 3 .59 4 .27 3 .72 -% CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED 2 .36 3 .7 3: 4 .33 6 .30 -FINAL MOISTURE.% 10 . 9 25 .7 15 . 9 20.0 -AXIAL LOAD, KSF 1. 37 1.37 1.37 1.37 i i I I SOIL and TESTING ENGINEERS INC. t>3Y Ra I oAr_g/16/88 .IOB N0. 8841i0t, Plate No. 94 _-Plate B-9 r , r l ( .� SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I I ' SAMPLE NO. 18-I3 @ 7 T-14 @ T-24 @ I T-28 @ ll 104' 2 -INITIAL MOISTURE% ` 6.6 10. 6 I I.I 3.2 -INITIAL DENSITY, PCF 101.9 01 .9 107.2 92.3 97.1 -% CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 2.73 2. 65 I 4-.18 I 2.76 -%CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED i I 2. 99 1 3 . 68 I 11.87 I 14.02 -FINAL MOISTURE, % 21. 8 18. 0 I 24.7 I 19 . 9 -AXIAL LOAD, KSF' t 1. 37 1. 37 92.3 1.37 I I I - I � I` SOIL and TrmsTING 'Ale, ENGINEERS INC. BY RR I DATE 9/16/88 „ JOB NO. 8841100 elate No. 85 B- 10 I �� �► _ � ��� OHO �. ��a� �Qi ems!/�.J/�L ��� Z�i.��l�li� �® � ® �Qs �a �a ��� ��a� ��� nas� � ■a���ma • �� ■..room �a ���m� �� ® ®�o� o�� ���� yam �m� �m ®� ��o 0 ma ® � �� �� ® ���u�� a��sa� � ��A t�Q�»tom taO ��� _ oOa _ � �� �� ���� � ���� � ���� � ��t�� • � • a • - � - _ _ � - �� �_ • • °'< <= _% _ � �u a ■tea v�� � �� �e�ss �a�a�a ��v ��� �� ®�s�a��+�•� �-a-•�i is�r os�s ■0amo �� ����s - a� �o ��a=�� a�a Qae�a m� ����� � �� � �o ■o�o�o ao��a ��. !�O O=spa v vO��� ����� � ��� i �� � 0 a�� �� OB=�� 0� � O� aa��� ® mn �a�i�������� �� �� t�v� ��a �� ® i �® OS���� m�s ss�a�aa� �� ������ • • • � � s _� � _ _ = R' i_ • , + _ � � � GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS AND ATTERSURG LIMITS l.= I T-10 @ I T-17 a I T-28 � f :'-s2 � IT-52 T725 @ 24-3 #-1 I - I I I �I 4- ' - t 1 ° 10 0 91 v � Lu 100 . 100 95 I 82 � a s *4 98 100' 99 100 93 j 67 i w I �. $ 90 95 99 95 90 53 � a z *16 6.9 86 93 75 58 40 0 c s30 50 75 80 51 76 29 ° 050: 37 67 66 33 66 22 *100 26 56 51 17 55 17 I200 21 47 41 9 44 14 .05 mm I L p .005 mm ia .001 mm +� LICUID LIMB I PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX if I CLASStFlCAT10N SC SC SM SM/SP SM SM/SC 1 SOIL and TFESTING� ATE 9/12/88� SP�8C3II1ISSI�S INC.INC. BY RR JCS No: 8841100 Plate No. S8 _ Plate 13- 13 - LA AV A SSC CL= L4 3 ORSM iR.T:"--.= - C�-.-;oe, CaL==,a s • n fm-sue, Soil & Testing Engj-neers (1580) LAB NO. r52574 167 West Orangethc--e Placentia, cA 92670 Attu: Boo Russell SAIpr: Soil RECr1V"r� 08/23/88 DENUIICATION Ramsgats, mob No. 8841100 DASD ON 5AMPI-7 As Submitted Sulfate: Water Soluble B-2 @ 1-4 0.012 $ B-11 @ 1-4 ND< 0.001 $ � ASSQC'T�ED �Sb�R�TORIF�5 Tito L. Pwerrfl' TLC/hl � NOTE: Unless no in writing, all samples will be discarded by appropriate disposal protocol 30 days from date reported. - Tnfr r0Oorts Of the Auoc,algo Laborstorlts ae COnt10fn1Nl orOoflnY Of Our clients ana �( TIy not De'rtoIDOYCOO Or U340 for OuollCitlon In Dirt Or infull without our written lvfr�'CiC10y.'�'I Dfrrrinslon. This is for the mutual Drotfttlon Of tf1M DuOItC.Our Chent3.and OBrWivDS. :OM Plate B- 14 LA\ ASSOOLATED LUORAT•ORES 806 Nceli Be:= • c=-=, Criifcssfa -;L� - 71417n.8900 CL= Soil & Testing Engineers (1580) LAB NO F52799 167 West Orangethorpe Placentia, CA 92070 REPOR= 08/31/88 Attn: Bob Russell SAMPLE Soils FL7==D 08/25/88 ID t tr CA??ON Job No. 8 8 411.0 0 BPS ON S �vL�` As Submitted Sulfate: Water Soluble I T-25 @ 2 1/2 - 3 ' 0.001 % T-28 @ 1/2 - I ' 0.002 % T-32 @ 1 1/2 - 2 ' 0.042 % T-52 @ 1/2 - 1 ' 0.005 % ASSQC7IATED RATORIE Tito L. Paro1'�s� TLP/hl 1 NOTE: Unless notified in writing, all samples will be discarded 1 by appropriate disposal protocol 30 days from date reported. 7 33,7N5&CJ 'S=7NC Tne reeorts of me r+soe.ateo L.aooratones are conftaenttal oroaerty of our u,ents ana Tay net Do rearcoucao Or usso ter oumication in oart or In tins wltnout our written Dt*eni:son. Tnis is for tttt mutual oratectlon of ttte Ouoltc.our Ctanw.ano oursellres. �svflJruTletstal P late - 15 Project No. 1030-01 APPENDIX B Laboratory Testinq FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY DENSITY 1 The field moisture content and dry density were determined for the undisturbed samples obtained during the field exploration. The results are indicative of the conditions encountered at the time of exploration and are presented in the Logs of Test Pits. r In addition in-situ density testing of selected surf icial soils was conducted, the results of which are presented below: Test Pit No. Depth Moisture Content (percent) Dry Density (Ibs/cu.ft.) TA-10 I - 13.0 106.4 TA-I 1 2 7.8 108.8 WEATHERED BEDROCK DENSITY DETERMINATION The in-place density of weathered slate bedrock was determined for material from test pit TA-15. An estimated value was computed from:measurements of the rock specific gravity, -absorption value and fracture pattern. The results of the determination are presented below: Test Pit No. Depth Specific Gravity Absorption (percent) Dry Density (Ibs/cu.ft.) TA-15 1 2.58 2.0 154 COMPACTION Selected bulk soil samples were tested for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. Test results are as follows: Sample Soil Description Maximum Dry Density (Pcf) Optimum Moisture Con- TA-2@3-5 ft. SAND 132.0 9.0 % TA-10@0-1 ft. Silty CLAY w/sand 119.7 13.5 % TA-I I 1-2 ft. SiltySAND w/gr 120.3 12.2 % TA-14@0-1 ft. Sandy GRAVEL 129.5 9.5 % w/ 50% rock 142.0 5.2 % TA-15@0-1 ft. Sandy GRAVEL 131.5 8.5 % w/ 50% rock 145.5 4.7 % Plate 13- 16 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90 Percent Relative Compaction 4000 -AE 3- 3500 __ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,..j.i•.i..i..i..i.:r.i....i«i-b•b.i../«i..i.y...i..i..i.o.iwi..i..j.p. j.« .L.i«>«i-o a i«i«i. .i..i..i..:..i.,i.i..i..:.... �'..i..i..j...b..i. ;..<..1...•,.:.•(-.<....- «. w.j.. ...... .•._.. «.j._ .i.i.i..i..i•.i.o.i....i•-i•o»+i-b.i-.j.y.e.«i..i..i.b.o.i..i..iw. .i..j..j..i.<..i..i..i«}- :i..i..r.j.....>.<..j-.i....• '.:o.i..i...:>:,'•�.•�::j..i.F..i..j..•: .':i..i..i... .l.}i.(..j../..I.J•4•44 4..j.<..I..f..i.q.«I..I..l..i.h•i•K..j.}•y. .F.I.J..1.{..l..l..l.•/. .(..(... . . . . . . . . .....(.•j.•j...:: .� .<..t..e....:..�..: i. .:..}.h•j.....•v-<..(.i. 3000 _ z - SA i..i.A.A.a..i. . :..i. .a. . .i. . .. :.:. .: s..:.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..}..}..}.1»{_/..}.-0•<-...I../.a.-0.4.1-.3•.r.a...1..1.•!•y(«F.1../.0. .i•.i..i«i.:,.<..i..i..i. .:..i..i..i..i.e.<..i..i. i.., ...(..j....i..:...i. .i.i..j. :..i..:... ..j..i.A.A.i..i..j.A.:.. .j-.:.�.� �..i.s. :.s. :..:.• -:L.:..:..:. :•.:..:.:.s.s.L.: ...-:..... ......«... .............«:._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1..)..;.r..i..l../.a.<..../.•!•y.-0•b.l../..i.o. .j«i.•iw•i-.i..i..j.i. .i..j..j..i•i•.i•.i..i..i• .i..i•.i-.i-,j.d.i..l..}...b.:..l..i..•.i.i..i•.i. .o--}.<..i-•)•-).: 2500 LL _ �.. ....... ......... ..}..j.p.p•,•.1•y.-0.<.. .I..i.y.�>•<••1«i.y.0...1..1../.¢.(«a.l..j..i. .h.l. ..j.0.<..1..1.•/. . . . . . COL.cn ./ .4.0.4.1»F.j.O.i••1•.«N•i•j«4.1../......4. _ ..I..j.9.(..1«I..j.-0.4.,.1..1.4.q.(.•1.•1..)..}..•1.•1•-0•y4•h•1.•I.q. h.l..)«I.O.i..1••1••1• .t«<•.I..i.0.0•h.j..i. p.(..I..j..:_ry.i «i. .O--. ♦�//1� i«j..i•.j.q.F•1..•.1.-0.i..i..1..1. Y.4Uj VJ i..j..j..j.w nC•T•t-•f.-T••f«. ..l.y •..t.« .I..i..j.. _ w.j.» w.y.w•«•:•.• _•5..�•.;.y... 2000 -- - - - - - - - - -- w --- «j..j.o.i..j..j..i.o.i.. .j..i.b.•i-b.i..i«j..'y. .i..i..i.d.i..i..i..i..i. •i..i..)..i..i-i-.i..i..i. 7••yj.•i-.i..i. i..j.i.. .y.t..i..i..:.:}.i..i..j-.•-0•�<..i..j..i.e.t..i... v.i-. a _ N «3 i w lw - 1500 ,.'s..j.o.i..i..j..i. .i.. .i..i.o-4•i••i_j••i.o. .i..i..i•b.i•.i•.j•.j.o. './..j.•i.o•i«j..i..j. .<.....i..j.o.o.i........ •i••i..i-•i.o.i..i..j...o.o.i..i. - --- - -- - __-- - - .-.1 i.-i.�.i.. ...i.. _ «i.a._ ...i.A. '-•! wi..i-,j.i.. :i«i.o.p.<.i..i.:/-o :�:. «:-0.<:.i•:j:.'i.a• .i..l«j•'i.4-i..i«i..i. i-:i::j..j.;••.• -b•i»j«i-.i.•6:b.i«i...o - ..i.q.O.i-.i «.i. •:y.« j.... _ ..j.w i..j.w w.j.«w .«.j..j•«:..j»t.. -- -- - ..j.-1.0.4.1«I•.i.•i•4•..I..lp.• ..I..i..i.4. ./..1..>.4.4.i..j..i.p. .{«j..i..)-........ l..}. .i..a.l..j.-0.d.i..l..l..•J•(«I..I..i.p.6.<.•1..•-0.4•h•1..i•.).O•<..j...y.y.i..<..i....- j..j.w .j..j.« w.j.« ----.« «.j... ..j.. w.«•j..j..j.w.«. ....•!.«. _ __ SOME _ _ _ _ _.L.:... ••j••1•d•i^ •1•b•b• )•4•-0K»{••i••1«>• •1•K••/•?•t••i«I••i•J- •(••/••i••1•�0.4.1--1••>• •'•<••1••1.O.4•P-1••1• •At••1••F•i•A4•<••i• •O•-0K-•1••i••1.O•t•-1••-4•b•b•MI••-v.i K•• .4.•!•d ••1••1•-0•b• •1••Na•a•4.1••}«I.A •1••1••1.O.4•t^I••i-4- •4.1••i••F-0•t••N•N•N b•i•-1••i•O•-0•i••1••i• ••iK-•1••F/•hh•h•1• •-•O•<••j•yy4•P-i•••y-O•b•b•i••)••••4.<.. 50 . . . . . . . ... ..)..!-4.(..1..1«).y.h...i....n.4.<..I..j.>.y. .1..1..>.q.<..<..1..).a. .4.1..1«}.A<..I..I.y- .4.i-.j..i.O.q.1..i..). •4.h.j..F•I.a.i•.t..l. .v,.O.V.I..j..i.¢.i..l..«j.O.t..1•-1..:-. . . . . . . . . . .•....:j....:1.-LO_...:iF...•.GN.K..:t....•_:j.•..p:....•Lb«i.••.•.•..1j.«...:).•...•:.....w.....Ltt«-.....:lj...._.:J....::1...Lj...».I..•j«.«N-0.p««...<«i.....1li.....)jj•..Ow:•_..•. .:• : :« LA. •.4 N4OOiJi i-i.. iya . } 4 - Nw .w • r « Pow..:O...:<_....:/.«.I•..j..rw3...t>1...tGFy......... ..H- 0 -.:1•...0L.. ..•...: «.j.. «.�.. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 400.0 NORMAL STRESS, PSF Alluvium, (Cal) COHESION 528 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 31 .0 degrees symbol sample depth (u.) symbol boring depth ('m • LLUVIU toDIRECT SHEAR TEST NEBLETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE. SUITE 218 UNTINGTON BEACH, CA,.92649 714 840.8286 P.N. 407-000 DATE 9/1 2/02 Plate B- 17 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90 Percent Relative Compaction 4000 . 1 )4 4 t 1 ) ) '..,j•.j..>.4.14 ( ) - .4.j_j....4.4.1-.1.• .i.•[ ( )4 4< 1 / -- _ - _- -•• : - _. .._ ....... 7 3500 i._ - -i-•.•1••1•• 444.4•i••i••>-•>•4•••1-f^I•d^f•4•I••>•b ••1••j••>•O•i••f•-1••1• •:•i»1:•1.9.0.4•.i.•j• •4N-•1•N••i•4•. •�.• •4•<••i.•j•. }}}$•i-n•i••l••i••>•4•i.j•• ....S..jw. ..L..j.n ..j.... - . ..;..i..j.<..I..i..j.(-./-...1../.4.4.j..I..j-444• 4-4-i.4.j..[..1•.i.4• .p.l.J..j-6.<..j..j..j. .<..<.•i..j.4.i'!•o.j..j...:y.i..j..j..i.ii.i.i..j. j._j.::_..j..:.. ,;.•Y 4-i-.j..l..t.4 i....j..j..>.4.i..j^i..i.4- .1.•j«I.4.L.i..L.j.4. •i«i..i..j.P.l..i-.i..j. 4 4.i.4 4-�.wi..j. .S^i.y..j«i.y<..:..i...a.4 i..i..j...•-•i^i •i •t-N•F•N4.O.4- 3000 _ - - _ - -- - -- - - -- . . . . . . . . . "s::: : _ - ..j.. ...44. .j.. ..4.<..(•.j. QQ •.i a. ..>.4.4-F• ••�•• •.j-gW4•!••t••IM•O• •1••1••1.4•t••4.1••i•O• •P•1•H•4.4•t••1••1•.)• .j..j.4 1 -..._-.. --- �..i.:. ..i.-r.j.:- •L:_ - _ __ __ _L3« :..i. «.i•. .L.L wL.L ....-:.;..v� ,..L.1.. ....i.4.4.4.<..j.. •jj.'.. .i..iM.•j•4_.O•i•.j..j. -. .•.j4•) <^j««-- jO.« .,j.. .. . . .. . . 2500 u- CL •-1•d••i.(..1••1••i•4•<••••I••1.4.4•<••1•N••>•4• •1»I«).d-P•4.1••i-1 4• •t•.I•.Ya•j•0•(•.j••j••j• D•(•H.q•4•d.4./•: .4•t-./«I••i•4.P•/••i• •¢•9•t..i..).tir»l•.1. 4H.W1../•4.4•<•• I�- -Y•>•4•t»f••1••YO•ic• •1••Yd•d•P•1-h•)N• •1•-Ni•4H^P•fM -44-444-1-f-Y •t••i--/..1.0-d•<.•i«j. .O-i••j»j••j•4.1.•�••1. •0•=•f..1.q.:/N•P' ••j-4•(«P•j••j•0.4.6• i..r.« �.-2000: _ — _ _« [[ ..:.»-;,.L.:..:..:.J«.•• .L.L.:.»«j.=. i i..i.:_i..i..i.:. : «j.� ».:«j..i..•.._.L.»J. L. .......... ....._ , ^;..j 4 i.l..I..I.v.j.. 1.-j 4 d l..i-)«j 4. .j..i..i.4.i..i 4-4-4-4.?•t-.i•.". 4.t.i..Y4••i.i»j.0. .i.:.:..l..j..........j.._4.4 i-1..).. i..i.. 4.i.1..j....q.o i_. ...j..j..- .. .j«;.:..; . .Lu ..r._._._.. --- -- - - - 2 N3..:. .L.:..:. '.:....:. . . .' _. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1..).d.[..�,.1.-0•q•p.,.1..).:...}.P.�..1.•1•q. ./..(..).q.p.P.l.-FO• <..I.q«YO.O.1..(«). .<..• .q..j..j.<-.1..1. .-.<..I..I..i•O.t«(..1. .4.-.. ..q..i•. . . ..)•P•P•<^I-).d.4./.. r4-4-4- . ••i•->•4.4.1••1••i•<^(••••1•-j•O.O•<-•1••i^i•4• •i••i•-j•4•i••4N••)-4• •l»I•-1•' •i••1••1••i• •i••<»I••i-4.O•i••1••1• •4•(••j_I»j•4•i•-i--.• •O.O-<••i••. .. ..•. =-4.8•. i..j•4.4•l•• 000 : ' - '..'«'.:.'.'.. .'..i.4.4.i..i..j..i.4...i..i..i-4. .•1^i-4• i..j..j..i-S.i..i«i..j. .i•.i-i_>•s•e-i-•i^j^. .I••1••I••••t•-i••1• ••/.�F4.i••- .•1.0.4.(•.I••j•4.4.t•. T. y.r _ i..j..r.w.«.w. --- - -- -- --- - -- - - - - -- ..7..:-3..L.:..:. _ .:..3.L .3-•»:..:..:..i•3.•:•L...I.J•L.J-:•.i.-:« - )..Fd•t_!-•••j•4.<.•P.I.q•d•4•!.• ...-Yd.<..a•f.4.o.t•. .f..�.o.4.(«(. •d• .�••wi•o-i••o•i-•i•d• P•i••i••j•o•o:��i..i. .i-.i:.i..is4.,'r:i..i::�..:o.b.i^j-j•i•.i•.i..j. :e:d.�«�;.. . . . . . . . . . . . )•d•<••1••(•-)•p•<•• 1..)•O.O. - 1.4• l.•l••)•O.4•(^I..W (_I••)••)•O.P•j••l.•j• •1••4•f.•i•4.4•P•l••j• •4•i-(-1«Yd•P.p.l.••4.4•i••l.:l••i•�•i••h-j-O•<-O•(•J•-0.O•t•• i.« «.i....r.... .r..(.... «.»y.•• ..y._. «t..r. w.i..j._ ....(... «,i..j_j.i..:..^. «.i-.:.w..j.w.w.�.._..�.i..i.. 500 -- -- - ---- �. - -- ..i«i. _.i i. . .» wi«i.....a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.«.«:..i..i.«.J.L.. ..LJ.Y' .: _._.:.�..L. :.:»:.:..:•.: .:.J. .:..� .:.:..L.L.:..:.:.•w.-.J.::.«•:•.�...r....... 4^i•4•<••1••i•� -(•• •1••j•O.4.4.1••i••j•4• •1«I••F4-j••O.1•-)-4- •i••1•-0••)•O•h•1«I••j• •4.4.1••1•d.0•b•1••/•••O•i••1••1••!•4•P•<^I •a•4.4.1••1••1-4•t^• ••1.O•i••4.1••>•4.4./•• ..r.w r..r..• ........ «.i..i .i..r..j... w.i..j.y. w.i..r..j.w.-...i..j.�.. ..j..j..�.-.-•:• -- --— - -- i••1^j-v* -44-4-•>•4•o•j••j-•i• -<.:t••j••j•4.O•t••1•:j• `•i••j••i..i.J•P•i••i- •4.4-<••1-•1••1.4•i^i-»i ........ i••i•4-i-•i••i-•i•o.i....i..i.o.e•i«j••i-:Fo. •i.j.•i.i•P- - _ . . . _ 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF TP-10. & TP-19 Bedrock Samples (Combined) COHESION 186 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 31.0 degrees symbol sample depth (ft.) symbol boring depth (ft.' BEDROCK 5-0 ` DIRECT SHEAR TEST l L ETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARNER AVENUE.SUITE 218 TON BEACH,CA, 92649 714 840-8286 407-000 DATE 9/12/02 Plate B-18 r � r - a - APPENDIX C r - STABILITY ANALYSES i f 1 . ALBUS KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. r� Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Computer Program Stability analyses were performed using the computer program SLOPE/W(Ver. 4.23) by Geo-Slope. The program analyzes slope stability problems by a two-dimensional limit equilibrium methods 1 including Bishop's, Janbu, Spencer, Morgenstern &Price, and general limit equilibrium(GLE). The particular method used for each analysis is indicated on the output plots. Soil strength can be modeled in a variety of ways including standard Mohr-Coulomb, bilinear Mohr- Coulomb, and general shear strength relationships. Where material strengths have anisotropic properties, the program allows the strength to be modeled by introducing a strength function. The function allows the user to define a weighting factor that is applied to the standard Mohr-Coulomb strength depending upon the angle of inclination of the slice base. With this function, anisotropic conditions typically found in bedrock materials can be modeled. Potential failure surfaces are determined by circular surfaces, block-specified surfaces, or fully- specified surfaces. For circular surfaces, the user provides a grid of radius points and upper and E lower bounds for the radius search. The program calculates the factor of safety for each radius grid point and all increments between the upper and lower boundaries. For block-specified surfaces, the user provides two grids of points, one for points of entry and one for points of exit. The program calculates the factor of safety for all possible combinations of surfaces defined by connecting pairs of grid points. For fully-specified surfaces, the user defines a specific failure surface for which the program calculates the factor of safety. The program can also model other factors such as groundwater, earthquake loads, and external loads. Shear Strengths The shear strengths used in our analyses were based on direct shear testing and previous experience f with similar soils and rock at nearby sites. The strength values used are summarized In Table C-1 ` below: TABLE C-1 Summary of Shear Strengths Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle l Material (pcf) (psf) (degrees) Compacted Structural Fill (Qcaf) 125 150 31 Alluvium(Qal) 115 200 28 Bedrock(Jbc) 125 100 55 Across Joints &Fractures Bedrock(Jbc) 125 0 55 Along Joints &Fractures ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J.N.: 1216.00 Summary of Results Results of the analyses are summarized in Table C-2 below. Plots of the results are attached as Plates C-1 through C-5. TABLE C-2 Summary of Stability Analyses Static Factor Seismic Search Analysis Factor of Section Type Method Plates of Safety (Need>1.5) Safety (Need>1.1) Section A-A' Circular Bishop C-1 & C-2 1.86 1.31 Section B-B' Block Spencer C-3 & C-4 2.40 1.48 *Section H-H' (2) Basin Upstream Circular Bishop C-5 1.75 - (temp. drawdown) *from previous report ALB US KEEFE&ASSOCL4TES,INC. (000 6 X) w c(c C � v I N ch r LO �o 0 L N • v O C • E N O_ • •j co 2 aD a N Cb • • • • • N I • • • • LoI 6, � . • 0 • • • _ N • • to • � X 93. • . (> L 0 • o U co 0 (Q _cn I Q • • • • tt • • • • • o N • • a • • • O ti it J CL E2 ate. co I C VN N J V U I �(D+ O U L W N N 1 CD C r N L �fn U U co .lL ll chcu � (�J 0 0 _a o N I` co �� N m �o aLo mroU(o c0 m Z)U a Ou� — �w'Ww0Cj N N R C N r I U) U- - a CO (000[ X) (ISW-:U) uOIJen913 F � C� (OOO� LU 7� 7 00 \ ) 7�@ ` I n ~ /o k cq : _ § °°_ \ k� | cot. S 2=om N [ k | \� o \ § � w 2 § - % I CL 22 0 m m \ § 2vU- �� - 2 c ca E : � 0 � N C _ /m | \ / \E . E a dƒ | 00 J 3 2 | U) Ma ca 04 N U E N c % §0 & t .� � o o : . co -2 $ O 0e | • @ . . . ©I ° � \ 2 x (o a) 0 /f)\ @ o � _ 0 0 m 2 a E§3 Km 2 § 2. 2 U 2 a)- r { W | E > m Z 2«§go0a. 2 c CU .- .g [ _ ==o0- , z 2 § / $ $ k k % D q = @ c 0 m _ LL -j Q CO (OOD� (SI(4- U01BA91 3 I M (000 X) U LU IIIr � CI4 00 In 1 T O N a D coC .O lD a ILOO N O aLC;) EL II M Y N O C 11L or o? �I'� OUa �Ua y'c or O I N oo�Ud ` y N X C f0 f4 m FL IL L 2 f0 N • • • O O • • N • • • O � CC) . . . . 171 I0 CD No1 . . . . • U m T CIO • • •U Cl) J • •� 0 d • . • 00 l � ti J O +�+ O 0CIO ti I X O O CD N V C LU p`_ � (Al r C N U � oo a v U , 0 C a p ICIO c� � 0 *- � _ CD Eo t 1 � -,in, a An N (V r (9 C N (n - LL _3 < (n (000 X) (-JSW-:U) u011en913 F 17 (000 X)co 04 co v W M - — - N d r LO cn ca LO I �M �pC 11 Y'0 O II 0 o In OUd m� oZ CL 00 m a Li L 0 r m I 0 I • • O • O [ N [ • • O co [ . . • • �I I � 0 0 0 0 • • • •o N U C m M • • •L cn m Q J • •IL � • • • C) l �O J O C C Q) O M O sr 0 a CU � Q'N V `o W O ~ UEv, cV O� Q w I v ca vi :z N = [•, cn 10 aN a. O O (n CNQr- EF m p - °a m � O OgU u'C W > L w I o � Z � •�.� co j co � w U � (Dvc� .y � N . (6 (n � LL o cn pq (000 X) (-ISW-:U) u011ena13 y� L_ r (000 X) kn CD L M V o W ' L a I 0 0 CD 0 LO LO r( s l o � o ( LO j � LO l LO o 04� o v L7 me o ' 03am .+ O m M u cL / (D / L U M M � > / C/) ry / 5 / M / c y (O .2 J N d) _ • 0 • • �.i In U r • • • • • • E co N • • J Q' 3 N °� M C � cc' � g O O � o h IUD) ' + � F- NL C ca 227 m o S p A " U� 4) 00 aoii W +) N CoC p m� Ln Ln OUa o [� 0 cU2 N o =.C _ o N O :V N N o >>U N O .. E N L i� aaci•� O CD cc 2 a.�m c 2 cd o E �" W 0� O cv '� •- ry COZ U O f A to AN, 'n fA LL Q � v ccq (000 X) (ISW-:4) UOIIEA813 i II IJ ly APPENDIX D SEISMIC REFRACTION DATA ly ALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES, INC. INTRODUCTION A seismic refraction survey was conducted by GeoVision, Geophysical Services, at the Californiain December 2002. The purpose of the Ramsgate Development, Lake Elsinore, C seismic refraction survey was to map bedrock rippability at the site to a depth of 90 feet or more, where possible. Seismic refraction data was acquired along thirteen lines (Line 1 through Line I 13)within the property as shown in on the enclosed Geologic Map,Plate 1. Granitic rocks are considered rippable by a Caterpillar D8R Ripper to a velocity of 5,800 ft/s and marginally rippable to a velocity of 8,000 ft/s providing the rock is sufficiently jointed and fractured. Granitic rocks are considered rippable by a Caterpillar D9R Ripper to a velocity of 6,800 ft/s and marginally rippable to a velocity of 8,000 ft/s providing the rock is sufficiently jointed and fractured. Metamorphic rocks, such as slate, are considered rippable by a Caterpillar D8R Ripper to a velocity of about 6,300 ft/s and marginally rippable to a velocity of 8,500 ft/s providing the rock is sufficiently jointed and fractured. Metamorphic rocks are considered rippable b a Caterpillar D9R Ripper to a velocity of 7,200 ft/s and marginally rippable to a velocity of 9,100 ft/s ! providing the rock is sufficiently jointed and fractured. F The following sections include a discussion of equipment and field procedures, data processing, and results of the geophysical survey. 2 EQUIPMENT AND FIELD PROCEDURES Seismic refraction equipment used during this investigation consisted of a Geometrics Stratavisor signal enhancement seismograph, 10 Hz vertical geophones, refraction cable with 15- foot takeouts, and a 20-pound sledge hammer and aluminum plates or accelerated weight drop (AWD). All equipment was packed to the field site. j ' 1 Each seismic line consisted of a single spread of 24 geophones aligned in a linear array. A geophone spacing of 10 ff was used for a total line length of 230 ft. All geophone and shot point locations were measured using a 300-foot tape measure. Relative elevations of each geophone location were surveyed using a Nikon AP-7 automatic level. The approximate locations of the seismic lines were plotted on a site map provided by Albus-Keefe &Associates. A minimum of seven shot point locations were occupied on each spread: a center shot between geophones 12 and 13, interior shots typically between geophones 6 and 7 and geophones 18 and 19, end shots at geophones 1 and 24, and off-end shots located between 30 and 170 feet from the end geophones. Where possible, far-offset shot points were located at a distance far enough from the end of the spread such that all first arrivals originated from the target refractor(bedrock surface). Topographic relief and heavy vegetation in the vicinity of some of the lines limited :�. placement of the off-end shot points. A sledgehammer and or an AWD were used as the energy sources for each shot point. The final seismic record at each shot point was the result of stacking 5 to 15 multiple shots to increase the signal to noise ratio. Paper copies of all seismic records were printed in the field, and data were ` also stored on floppy disk. Data files were named with the sequential line, spread, and shot number and a ".dat" extension (i.e. data file 115.dat is the seismic record from line 1, spread 1, shot 5). 3 DATA PROCESSING Seismic refraction data were modeled using the generalized reciprocal method (GRM), as outlined in Palmer(1980 and 1981), Lankston and Lankston(1986), and Lankston(1990). GRM is a seismic-refraction interpretation method designed to accurately map undulating refractor z surfaces from in-line refraction data using both forward and reverse shots. The method is related to the Hales (1958) method and the reciprocal method (Hawkins, 1961) and can accurately model refractor surfaces with dips of less than 20 degrees. The first step in data processing consisted of picking the arrival time of the first energy received- at each geophone (first arrival) for each shot point. The first arrivals on each seismic record are 2 either a direct arrival from a compressional (P) wave traveling in the surface layer, or a refracted arrival from a subsurface interface where there is a velocity increase. First-arrival times were selected using the program FIRSTPIXTM, by Interpex Limited (1993). These first arrival times were saved in ASCII files containing each geophone location and its first arrival time, and imported into Microsoft® Excel so that corrections for shot depth could be made. Errors in the first arrival times were quite variable with error generally increasing with distance from the shot point. First arrival picking errors probably averaged about 1 ms with error probably less than 0.5 ms at geophone locations near the shot point and up to 2 ms at distal geophone locations. A first arrival was not picked if the potential error was considered too great. L Relative elevations for each geophone location were calculated from the leveling data using a spreadsheet. Elevation data was not converted to true elevation. f The seismic refraction data were processed using the GRM computer:program VIEWSEIS h (Kassenaar, 1989-1992). For each seismic line the first arrival and elevation data files were entered into the program, and time-distance plots for the forward and reverse shots were generated. Forward shots are shot points where energy travels from geophone 1 to 24. Energy travels in the opposite direction for reverse shots and shots inside each spread(interior and center shots) have both forward and reverse components. The first arrival data for all the shot points were then assigned to the layer from which they were refracted. Three layers were assigned to the travel time data. The travel time data refracted from the bedrock layer were then phantomed (shifted in time) to line up with the travel-time data associated with the,zero-offset end shot, therefore forming a single travel-time curve for each refractor along the line. This method was employed for both forward and reverse shots according to the procedures outlined in Lankston IL and Lankston (1986) and Redpath (1973). After phantoming was completed GRM processing i was conducted. C Errors in seismic refraction models can be caused by velocity inversions,hidden layers, or lateral velocity variations. At sites with steeply dipping or highly irregular bedrock surfaces, out of plane refractions (refractions from structures to the side of the line rather than from beneath the line) may severely complicate modeling. A velocity inversion is a geologic layer with a lower 3 seismic velocity than an overlying layer. Critical refraction does not occur along such a layer because velocity has to increase with depth for critical refraction to occur. This type of layer, therefore, can not be recognized or modeled, and depths to underlying layers would be overestimated. A hidden layer is a layer with a velocity increase, but of sufficiently small thickness relative to the velocities of overlying and underlying layers, that refracted arrivals do not arrive at the geophones before those from the deeper, higher velocity layer. Because the seismic refraction method generally only involves the interpretation of first arrivals, a hidden layer can not be recognized or modeled, and depths to underlying layers would be _ underestimated. A subsurface velocity structure that increases as a function of depth rather than as discrete layers will also cause depths to subsurface refractors to be underestimated, in a manner very similar to that of the hidden layer problem. Lateral velocity variations that are not adequately taken care of in the seismic models will also lead to depth errors. Seismic refraction data were also modeled using the SeisOpe Pro TM software package by Optim LLC. This software models first-arrival travel times using a nonlinear optimization technique called generalized simulated annealing. Test velocity models are created, through which synthetic travel times are calculated. These synthetic travel times are compared to the observed data and the model is adjusted and the process repeated until a minimum travel-time error model __. is obtained. This program has the capability of modeling horizontal and vertical velocity gradients unlike most refraction modeling software, which can only model undulating velocity contacts. The output of the modeling software is a color-enhanced image of velocity versus distance/depth. The first step in data processing consisted of picking the arrival time of the first energy received at each geophone (first-arrival) for each shot point. The first-arrivals on each seismic record are either a direct arrival from a compressional (P) wave traveling in the surface layer, or a refracted arrival from a subsurface interface where there is a velocity increase. First-arrival times were 4 selected using the program FIR.STPIXTm, by Interpex Limited. Errors in the first arrival times were quite variable with error generally increasing with distance from the shot point. First arrival picking errors probably averaged about 1 ms with error probably less than 0.5 ms at geophone locations near the shot point and up to 2 ms at distal geophone locations. Relative elevations for each geophone and shot location were calculated from the leveling data using a spreadsheet. Receiver/shot location and elevation data and first-arrival data were input into SeisOpt®Pro TM and a velocity model was generated. r 5 F 6s. i 4 REFERENCES Hales,F. W., 1958, An accurate graphical method for interpreting seismic refraction lines: Geophysical Prospecting, v. 6, p 285-294. Hawkins, L. V., 1961, The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refraction f investigation: Geophysics, v. 26,p. 806-819. Interpex Limited, 1993,FMTPIXTM V4.0 users manual, seismic refraction data 9F processing software: Interpex Limited, Golden, Colorado. Kassenaar, J. D. C., 1989-1992, VIEWSEIS seismic refraction analysis system, installation manual, program tutorial, reference manual, 50 p. Lankston, R. W., 1990, High-resolution refraction seismic data acquisition and interpretation, in Ward, S. H., ed., Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics,Volume I: Review and Tutorial: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma,p. 45- 74. Lankston,R. W., and Lankston,M. M., 1986, Obtaining multilayer reciprocal times through phantoming: Geophysics, v. 51,p. 45-49. Palmer, D., 1980, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation: Society of Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 104 p. Palmer,D., 1981, An introduction to the field of seismic refraction interpretation: Geophysics, v. 46,p. 1508-1518. Redpath, B. B., 1973, Seismic refraction exploration for engineering site investigations: U. S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station Explosive Excavation Research Laboratory, Livermore, California, Technical Report E-73-4, 51 p. 6 4 5 CERTIFICATION • This geophysical investigation was conducted under the supervision of a California Registered Geophysicist using industry standard methods and equipment. A high degree of professionalism was maintained during all aspects of the project from the field investigation and data acquisition, through data processing interpretation and reporting. All original field data files, field notes and observations, and other pertinent information are maintained in the project files and are available for the client to review for a period of ` at least one year. r • A registered geophysicist's certification of interpreted geophysical conditions comprises a declaration of his/her professional judgment. It does not constitute a warranty or 'y guarantee, expressed or implied, nor does it relieve any other party of its responsibility to abide by contract documents, applicable codes, standards, regulations or ordinances. fW, L L L L L L L L r r Velocity Model f100 100 fv- 80 80 rn I607 60 40 40 f 0 - - 20 40 - —--60 80 - 100 120 l Distance,ft 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Velocity,ft/s 20000 SW VELOCITY MODEL NE 15000 BEDROCK 10000 .0 O 5000 SOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK SOIL 0 DEPTH MODEL 100 SOIL v c SOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK a BEDROCK 1 I 0 25 50 75 100 Line Position (feet) LINE 1 'late D-1 F F Velocity Model 100--- 100 m 80 80 o - p LU - C 1 60= - 80 0 20 40 80 80 100 120 140 Distance,ft 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Velocity,ft/s 20000 _ S VELOCITY MODEL N 15000 BEDROCK �-- - -� d 10000 Z 0 t 3 5000 LSOIUHIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK SOIL 0110 y DEPTH MODEL 100 SOIL 90 F SOIUHIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK > 130 a� LU _ 70 ,_ -- BEDROCK -- 50 0 25 50 75 100 125 Line Position (feet) LINE 2 l 'late D-2 F FVelocity Model 100--. 100 1 4-1 80- = 80 0 ® - LU 60— 50 40— - 40 0 20 40 80 80 100 120 140 Distance,It 2000 4000 5000 8000 10000 12000 IVelocity,ft/s 15000 SW VELOCITY MODEL NE_ 10000 BEDROCK 2 5000 WEATHERED ROCK SOIUHIGHLY WEATHERED;ROCK 0 120 - DEPTH MODEL I 100 _ a� - SOIUHIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK 80 — ° - -- WEATHERED ROCK ° 60 a� _ BEDROCK L 40 0 25 50 75 100 125 Line Position (feet) LINE 3 �J 'late D-3 Velocity Model 100 -- 100 80— 80 m � e o 16 Q o w SO-- - 80 40 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Distance, ft mw- 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 'velocity,ft/s 15000 S VELOCITY MODEL N 10000 BEDROCK a) [_ WEATHERED ROCK 05000 SOIUHIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK 0 120 DEPTH MODEL 100 SOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK 80 WEATHERED ROCK 0 80 w BEDROCK 40 0 25 -- 50 75 100 125 Line Position (feet) LINE 4 Plate D-4 Velocity Model 100 --100 80 80 m o < w 60— 60 0 40 -- , 40 20 -—�-r-- — 20 0 50 100 150 Distance,ft 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Velocity,ft/s 20000 $ VELOCITY MODEL N 15000 BEDROCK m 10000 o WEATHERED R CK 5000 SOIUHIGH Y WEATHERED ROCK —SOIL 0 DEPTH MODEL 100 SOIL SOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK a� WEATHERED ROCK v 50 a� BEDROCK 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Line Position (feet) LIME 5 Plate D-5 i Velocity Model I150 -- 150 100--- 100 rn i LU 50- - so Aw - 0 1 J - --►-r— 7-1-r-T'--0 0 100 200 300 Distance,ft 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Velocity,ft/s 15000 w VELOCITY MODEL E 0 10000 BEDROCK m 0 5000 WEATHERED ROCK SOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK 0 DEPTH MODEL 150 .. SOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK m 100 k WEATHERED ROCK 0 ca " 50 BEDROCK 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Line Position(feet) LINE 6 I Plate D-b I SEISMIC REFRACTION DATA BY OTHERS I l 1 . 1 . l� �l P Ia _ter ._ _• 7. P. OOO l 1d1 C • •_ —_ �. ..__ i ---.— . 1__ . . _- tti .� W 1 .. --...�-- .«-�_ .. _ - •- MOM m r Ln W- 17 , N Q �_._ __ -- .... N - coo 77. _:._—...y.,' mot! coo - .—.. «.- . �.. . . .. ^ run . _. .__. __. .._ , W t'v �—31ti'I1 PLATE D-7 f —�—+— -!�_ .1 .�. ..ram- —. :• — •..� � � � - :—l�—�. � ..—: .�. --.-: ::_. t .. —M-- ---_ • pie � C� � � coo i _�._ _ ..:_.: .- : t. _ -- o 000 ICLM I m cc cc 9 Ln _.. _. . . ... _. - O O O coo OZ O J I Z O n 8 s — Q A I PLATE D-8 Cog cx ace 0 � zw �++ bw 177 coo ace b r+ tq m Z r- _ 0 0 m o e2-77-77 O O x oe -- . . - • --- — . _ ._ _— . . . . - - -. . . . . ... . _. - o00 coo Z 7. Ln -Off —- -�• --- -—. . ._. ._ . . _ . .m_ . . _-. � - W - •- 000 : ..—�. . _»-yam'_. O , Q W O O O O 1'�OJ U Q� r er ui I F-3vY11 PLATE D-9 a 2630 3000 417 500 u ui r 9090 LINE 1 A 75 W 0 4 3330 3125 11100 'LINE 2 9090 75 t NE u; 0 ` w r w = 3200 2940 t- 625C a �? LINE 3 w 13290 (� 75 N B2 0 2380! 2500 2780 l _ _ • !, 3850 3125 LINE 4 1_ - — — — — — - - — — - - 10000 75 S 0 68 5560 3000 7 LINE 7 1 1 1 0 0 75 0 200 SE DISTANCE-FEET PLATE D-10 r .0 1 LO_ O m uJ Z O — J p I O CD O `- ,cj c.. co U I' O C, CV O T O O O O tD tocD ,p O W CV i J c+m o O O r_ o II0 ti j01 m ! O ,N 1 O I p , t p � CO (D `' CM T co o t- o uj o q o O w c0 o T ce CA — O I c+7 N t p W 1 , O U i o z co O Lu iw O 00 z CO Z O J Q CV O O O O O O ` W LO T O O (D O 1 O ce) O O ') h O O CV O O O O O *' U) co p T CV CV ti U) s- LO � O i N CD coo o lA co Lf). w i p z ' w co O O i O } ti i ti 1�3d—Hld�O PLATE D-11 u 4� 6000 B24 ,4800 _ 6500 LINE 15 100 " E B26 s 0 4550 ?— 4000 I 4350 5260\ LINE 16 F- ? . a► w i w U- 1 0 0 E �^ a. 5000 w 0 0 6670 \ 5560 7_ 11100 12500 LINE 17 75 W B10 0 1L 6250 5000 6250 5560 8000 - LINE 18 75 0 200 E DISTANCE-FEET PLATE D-12 Centex Homes October 20, 2004 J:N.: 1216.00 APPENDIX E TYPICAL GRADING DETAILS l� L L L L L LALB US-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC. C TIFILL TRANSITION LOT Compacted Fill Unsuitable Material d Suoace Finish Surface - :� Per Soils 7� 2°/uMin. L,�., I-�I-, t✓� ,�., I \.\ \ii�//r,� \o\//r.�/.��\n\i-\//iG •it�.�.w/I�/I�/1�/1 �/I�/1- •_��/��/1_�/1�•/1 ' i=il% Overexcavate and Re with Compacted Fill Competent Material Not To Scale TRANSITION LOT CAPPING See attached sails report for specific recamrnendatlons. Plate E-1 j Cut Slope Compacted Fill per soils ,����\���• report R Finish Surface Imo♦/ -♦,`�,��,��I_�,_�r Competent Material Overexcavate and Replace per with Compacted Fill soils (LONGITUDINAL VIEW) ' report Surface --- Compacted Fill 0�9lnal Ground - Finish Surface Unsulle Material_ ;i+;;l;,+;i�;,�;i�;il;i+;,�;,�;,+•- `il ail�,I ail ail;il ail per soils Overexcavate and Replace report Competent with Compacted Fill per (LONGITUDINAL VIEW) Material sods report R per 2 Retaining Wall soils R _ report \\\\ \� �\ � ,_�,_�,`�I��/`�/_�I_�/_�/_�/`"_�,_"` ,��r�.,� /_�/S�,`♦/��/SDI \ \\ + ,:'/:'/ +', +�i+ i+�i +', \/\\\\ \� it;,1; �il_,,I_`il_�il'iI'il'i!' il- ,�!il' ,I_ il' 1'il_il_ , il_il' il' ,1�il' � / il'i+'i • 10'- 15' min. Competent \.�%. i...\..\.,>.� Material 12'Overexcavate and Replace (TRANSVERSE VIEW) with Compacted Fill Not To Scale CUT LOT CAPPING See attached soils report for specific recommendations. ALBUS-KEEFE&ASSOCIATES,INC.. Plate E-2 STREET RfGHT-OF WAY DEEPEST PROPERTY LINE mpacted Fill LITILITY TYPICAL LOT CAP Finish Surface \\�\\\\j`///fir. \/ _�✓_\/ _\/ � / _\, _\/_\/_\/ _\/ _\1 • -�l_\ \�\\�\\,�\i.�/�Di. ,\�\\: \r\ / -fit% -�/.- t/ I/ �/ - t/L J!•�i i, \ / Lateral: � � 1$"min. 16 mirt. Competent Material- below Invert elev. (tYp). Not To Scale �� �� ����'�� See attached soils report for specific recommendations. cow Nn 196 AL EIS-AF 'c&ASSOCIATES,IIYC Plate E-3 — Existing Ground Surface Proposed Finish Grade Colluvium and Alluvium (Remove) Proposed Compacted Fill------------------ Benching (typ) �`%\ \\\\ / \ `/� Competent n. ���� ///�%��� 2o/o mi Material �! Subdrain See Detail "A" Below NOTES: (location per soils engineer/geologist) Perforated Drain Pipe should be at least G inches in. diameter,or 8 inches for runs of more than 500 feet; consisting of either Shedule 40 PVC or SDR 35. A min.of 8 perforations per linear foot should be provided along the bottom of pipe.The perforations should be in two Filter Fabric rows 120 degrees apart, and have diameters of 318". Upstream ends should be provided with a cap. The pipe should slope at a min. 1%gradient toward Outlet Pipes. /�\� Glue all joints. �% Crushed Rock Outlet Pipe should.equal the diameter of the perforated pipe, consisting of either shedule 40 PVC or SDR 35.The pipe• should slope at a min. 1%gradient toward the Discharge Point. Backfill around Outlet Pipe should consist of onsite soils. Glue all joints. Crushed Rock should conform to the Standard Specifications " Min. for Public Works Construction, Section 200-1.2,for 3/4°. 6 Provide at least 9 cubic feet per lineal foot of Perforated Drain Pipe. (tYp•) Perforated Drain Pipe Provide at least 6 inches of gravel below Perforated Pipe. Filter Fabric should consist of Mldfl 140N or equivalent. DETAIL r�ArV Ends should overlap at least 12 inches. CALTRANS Class II Permeable Filter Material can be used in lieu of Crushed Rock encased in Filter Fabric Not To Scale CANYON ���� � See attached sails report for ',! 1 specific recommendations. 009MM m ALBUS-EFEhT&ASSOMTES,17VC— Plate E-4 Compacted Fill FILL SLOPE Finish Slope Face Plane Projected 1:1 Max. from Toe of Slope•ta Competent Material r 1 all •�Z� Unsuitable Material Natural Ground �•✓'�1 �„il ,1 4' fi o} Competent Material .� � EN �--{— Per Soils Report B CH ,��- _/�,� er Soils Report C Compacted Fill �� ��1��I ;`Y; FILL OVER Finish Slope Face CUT SLOPE Natural Ground Unsuitable Material Per Sails Repo , Competent Material er Soils Reporl 1 Cut Slope shall be Constructed prior to Fill Placement to Confirm Adequate Geologic Conditions Cut Slope Face. to be constructed prior ,-• CUT!'�' OVER to Fill Placement �s Natural Ground FILL SLOPE Finish Slope Facelee Overbuild Slope Face Compacted Fill Competent Material —� Plane Projected 1:1 Max. from Toe of Slope to Unsuitable Material For subdrains see Competent Material ,��� 1 1 4 «} "BACKDRAIN" detail. Per Soils Repo / Benching shall be done when slope angle is equal to or greater than 5:1. Minimum bench height shall be 4 feet er Soils Repo Minimum fill width shall be 9 feet Not.To Scale See attached molls repent for FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION spec9fc recommendations. COW Na.f ALB US- EEEE&�+2SO TES,EIC Plate E-5 9 fL Min. Backcut Gradient per Soils Report `- Finish Slope Face ,,_,, \\ \i\\\\\�y\, �cc, i\ \\ \D i\i\� Backdrain (tYp) i,:%i`�'71" `� %i,�%�/\/� (See"B/�1tr�VJfV111Y i_ i i:.r'_. detail) Competent Material 2%Tilt Back Benching(typ} 1 ft. Win. Per Soils Per Solis Report Report Not To Scale l _ See attached soils report for STABILIZATION FILL specific recommendations. ALBUS--KEETE&ASSOCZ4?ES,.LVC: Plate E-6 VEIN NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE 10 ft. Min. (typ) Finish Surface --------�-- l ----/ s------ �i�---------�%���� UI/— 15 ft. 4 ft. (typJ{)) N n. (tYP) Deepest �, Street Utility C� 3 ft. lax. I cod 1.5 Min. I ft. Min. Granular Fill NO (typ) General Fill Oversize Rock VIED PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE Finish Surface 10 ft. Min. (typ) -- --------------�m�smcccrccm�cs �cros------�a�oco�bcr�-J 4 ft. Min. (typ) cx�mmocmmmmmacmad 15 ft. mmc�ccmcommmo� 15 ft. General Fill I Min. NO Min. mmmmmmm mmoam mmmmmm typ ���j/\��\� oammmcaacmmcoccmm Competent Materi NOTES: A Oversize Rock should be placed within troughs created in the General Fill(windrows) B. Oversize Rock should be placed to avoid nesting. C. A layer of Granular FII(soil material having a maximum particle size of inches or less,and with a Sand Equivalent of 30 or more)should be placed over the Oversize Rock windrow and flooded. This process should be repeated until all voids have been filled. D. After the voids are filled with Granular Fill,the windrow should be track-walked with a dozer prior to placing General Fill over the windrow. E. Oversize Rode,suitable for disposal by these methods,is defined as larger than 12 inches but not more than 36 inches in smallest dimension. Not To Scale See attached soils report for OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL specific recommendations. ALBU.-EEEFE&ASSOC=S,LVG Plate E-7 FINISH SLOPE FACE CUTLET PIPE (typ.) 10Min. - /I- /1- /I- /1- /1- /I- /I-\\\�\�\\� 15'Max. ��1:7',l 7'i/7��,��i���l/�� � T/i✓i✓ BACI<CUT 2-1 _ /i /_ /I_- /I- /I /I- /1 �' / �,�/�/ SEE DET/•..11L "A" BELOW KEYWAY' NOTES: Perforated Drain.Pipe should be at least 4 inches in Outlet Pipe diameter, or 6 inches for runs of more than 100 feet, consisting of either Shedule 40 PVC or SDR 35. Filter Fabric A min. of 8 perforations per linear foot should be provided along the bottom of pipe.The perforations should be in two rows 120 degrees apart, and have diameters of 3/8". ,. Upstream ends should be-provided with a cap. The pipe - Crushed Rock should slope at a min. 1%gradient toward Outlet Pipes. Glue all joints. ' Outlet Pipe should equal the diameter of the perforated pipe, Q consisting of either shedule 40 PVC or SDR 35.The pipe , . ,,\\ should slope at a min. 1%gradient toward the Discharge Point. Backnil around Outlet Pipe should consist of cnsite soils. Glue all joints. Perforated Drain Pipe Crushed-Rock should conform to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction,Section 200-1.2,for 3/4". DETAIL Provide at least 5 cubic feet per lineal That of Perforated Drain Pipe. Provide at least 6 inches of gravel below Perforated Pipe. Filter Fabric should consist of Mirifi 14ON or equivelent. Ends should overlap at least 12 inches.. CALTRANS Class If Permeable Filter Material can be used in lieu of Crushed Rock encased in Filter Fabric Not To Scale �D A See attached soils report for BAC specific recommendations. (� �j'�;�`�T� 9 ��{'�{'�/'�/'T�����r �r�-r Oele4 Na BC UY1ll:l:.t'li &t`3L7�.JVl..J1l ES,3 VC. Plate E-8 Finish Cut Sicpe Propcsed Face Lot Surface Compacted Fill \�,1/\I�1/\I'I/\I/I/\I L- \11, \�1/\'/, \'/, \'/, \I L';1I"/\1�/\I�1/ _ /1 /I /! /I /I /I /1 /I /I /_\/_\I_\/_ /_ /_\/_ /_ /_ /_\/_\/_ ��y SI�LJ /1� /1�2/I� /1� /�� /I� It� /I� /�� /I� /I� /�� /I� / � , \ \Ii�11 \I i-\I dmin !i-11/-11 /\�\ (see DETAIL"A!' below) Outlet Pipe(typ.) Natural Materials NOTES: Perforated Drain Pipe should be at least 4 inches in diameter,or 6 inches for runs of more than 500 feet, consisting of either Shedule 40.PVC or SDR 35. Outlet Pipe A min.of 8 perforations per linear foot should be provided along the bottom of pipe.The perforations should be in two rows 120 degrees apart,and have diameters of 3/8". Filter Fabric Upstream ends should be provided with a cap. The pipe should slope at a min. 1%gradient toward Outlet Pipes. Glue all joints. \f Outlet Pipe should equal the diameter of the perforated pipe, Crushed Rock \, consisting of either sheduie 4'0 PVC or SDR 35.The pipe I should slope at a min. 1%gradient toward the Discharge Point. Backfill around Outlet Pipe should consist of cnsite soils. Glue all joints. Crushed Rock'should conform to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction,Section 200-1.2,for 3/4". Perforated Drain Pipe Provide at least 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of Perforated Drain Pipe. Provide at least 6 inches of gravel below Perforated Pipe. Filter Fabric should consist of Mirifi 14ON or equivelent DETAIL n n n Ends should.ovedap at least 12 inches. CALTRANS Class II Permeable Filter Material can be used in lieu of Crushed Rock encased in Filter Fabric Not To.Scale See attached Bolls report for LOT SUBDRAlN specific recommendations. �r ��+�+��+ �r�+ (7 �r Cu.2INa 12 ALBUS-31311iF &t11.719OCL=,17VC- Plate E-9 FINISH SURFACE IR..IGATION BOAC \\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ CAP COIFACTED FILL \ T "STEEL,PIPE / \ V DRAIN PIPE SLEEVE SOIL BACIFILL / T / \ CONCRETE BACI¢IWANCHOR �77 °•o 4" MIN. j i \ 1.6 MIN. FLANGE 6"TYP Not To Scale MONUMENT See attached soil$ report for SURFACE SETTLEMENT specific recommendations. DWIft20 Ali$US4EEF'&A SSOCL=,IZVC Plate E-10