Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR 31920 Rough Grade Compaction Report =NAI Nehlett&Associates Laing—CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC. November 30,2007 31881 Corydon, Suite 130 Project No. 420-001-07 Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Attention: Mr. Michael A.Filler,Vice President Subject: Rough Grade Compaction Report Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Tract 31920 Lake Elsinore,California References: See attached List of References Dear Mr. Filler: 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of geologic and geotechnical services performed during rough grading for Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project, Tract 31920 in the City of Lake Elsinore, California. Rough grading was performed to develop the planned 661 residential building pads and associated roadways, a golf course, a golf course recreation center, a school site, and a park site. Figure 1 is a Site Location Map; Figure 2 is a Site Plan for the development. This report includes the results of our observations and testing during the rough grading for Parcels 9 through 11, 13 through 22, and 27 and the slopes adjacent to Parcels 11 and 27, and incorporates our previous findings presented in Reference Nos. 1 through 10. Parcels 20, 21, and 22, at the southern corner of the development, were intentionally left shallow of proposed grades to receive incidental spoil dirt from fine grading during construction of Stages 1 and 2 (Figure 2). Pertinent geologic and geotechnical engineering information are provided on the attached Geologic Maps and Geotechnical Maps, respectively, utilizing the 40-scale rough grading plan prepared by Wilson-Mikami Corporation, as a base. The approximate locations of field density tests and the approximate removal bottom elevations are shown on the Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1 through 11). Geologic data P.O. Box 1159-Huntington Beach, CA 92647 4911 Warner Avenue, Suite 218-Huntington Beach- CA - 92649- tel(714) 840-8286-fax(714)840-9796 •. po�4d4o� .-. .•Oa�,Qd00oe,�`��o d�� b0a0Q� v 17A-69 n0oo��4��p�os va Opppp�� 4 44�p ��400o d� 4good gpOp all +�a �Ap��O Q o00a 0 QQ��a � Ao pl&m ' • ��pa4� 0 OOa►Q .� ppo� d OpA qON tl ©. oar ` o � iao Q � pp ��Q►� �40 O oo� - 1 sfoao aav4 �►�'� ao►4 � �AorS � /000 ,Q,'0 �d4d�I `•y�dp0o Q� OdpO 4wa ''p0► � � o�oav+ ��`��40 04 �d .0��0" grgoAL416 lob q • •y 444444�0441��� =+ a0a�'�e�o0q ,•'� t'i�A,q� Igo Awel?q ee�eoo ._,3� ■ " a J �..►'�apbggpbgqav�����ab��a4� �A4 �,� �paaaaaa. • • � ■ Q ASSOCIATES4911 WARNER AVENUE,SUITE 218 W 10 Ecl w�� O a Q� In mu.r wxx xZ.<� z ':z,W •.� � pq �x z ti W x° o a e- CN -� z q W CN W F+ 3 v � 1 COJ _¢ V' r a4 n a LL U) w +a 6 II I I t I Z aai C� e LL LL Z O O mn o t H C F C� C9 O CJZ JZ ch Z W ❑ w ❑ W U) o OW Ow w Q� O it 11 W �. �• �. 4 d Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 2 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California acquired during grading, limits of grading covered in this report, concealed keyways, and drainage systems are shown on the Geologic Maps (Plates 12 through 29). Plate 30 is a Drainage Details sheet. The soil types and laboratory maximum density information are presented in Table I, and field density test results are summarized in Table II. 2.0 GRADING OPERATIONS 2.1 Removals Prior to the commencement of the removal operations, all vegetation, trash, debris, and deleterious materials were cleared and removed from the project area. Materials requiring removal in this area included the following: - existing structures including phone poles,piping, fencing, etc. - alluvium to recommended removal depths except where field determinations required deeper removal. Native alluvial material was removed and reused as engineered compacted fill to backfill the excavated areas. Removal depths generally ranged from 3 to 8 feet below pre-existing site grades. Additionally, to accomplish proposed grades, fill material from golf course excavations was utilized. The removals were monitored by the Project Engineering Geologist and extended to acceptable alluvial material. The removal bottoms were surveyed by Saddleback Survey, a subcontractor to the Project Civil Engineer, Wilson-Mikami Corporation. Pertinent elevations from that survey data are shown on the Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1 through 11). The golf course was contour graded to ±1 foot of proposed grades. As stated above, Parcels 20, 21, and 22 were intentionally left shallow of proposed grades pending future construction. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 3 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California 2.2 Drainay_e In the golf course slopes adjacent to Parcels 11 and 27, drained stabilization fill keyways were required. Additionally, a dewatering system to address nuisance water in the area of the golf course, and golf course irrigation lake and aesthetic lakes (designated as Lakes No. 1, No. 10, and No. 12, respectively -Reference No. 2), was constructed. Plate 30 is a Drainage Details sheet for the differing drainage methods. Drainage systems were constructed using differing methodologies, including: • The fill-over-cut slope adjacent to Parcel 11 and adjacent to the Recreation Center (Parcel 27 - see Plates 15, 18, 20 and 30) was constructed with either a French drain in the keyway heel constructed of a 2-foot thick mixture of crushed #2 and #3 rock within an approximately 3-foot wide and 3 foot deep trench and covered with Mirafi Fabric, or a 6-inch diameter, perforated Schedule 40 PVC pipe, surrounded by approximately 4 cubic feet per lineal foot of a mixture of crushed #2 and #3 rock, and enveloped with Mirafi Fabric. • To assist in draining the golf course of problematic groundwater near the golf course driving range, a perforated 8-inch diameter High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe surrounded by approximately 2 cubic feet per lineal feet of crushed #2 and#3 rock and covered with Mirafi Fabric was installed (see Plate 23). The drainage location and construction methodology for this area was directed by Wadsworth Golf Construction Company. This drainage system flows from the northern project limits (area of Golf Course Hole No. 8) to just north of the Irrigation Lake (Lake No.1) where the water is directed into an 8-inch solid Schedule 40 PVC carrier pipe with a headwall structure. The water is then transported to the irrigation lake drainage system. • The Irrigation Lake (Lake No.1) underdrainage system used a perforated 8-inch diameter HDPE pipe surrounded by approximately 4 cubic feet per lineal foot of crushed #2 and#3 rock and covered with Mirafi Fabric (see Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.: 420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 4 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California Plate 23). Neblett and Associated assisted in the drainage location and construction methodology for this lake. The drain was installed in the lake bottom that extended into the three main reaches of the lake. Chimney drains were installed to address seeps mapped in the lake walls, as needed, and directed to the main pipe/gravel drainage. The drainage system is plumbed to an 8-inch solid Schedule 40 PVC pipe and carried to a dedicated pump. The water is delivered to the San Jacinto River via a solid 8-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe. • The aesthetic lakes (Lakes 10 and 12) underdrainage system consisted of an 8-inch HDPE perforated pipe with 4 cubic feet per lineal foot of a mixture of crushed #2 and #3 rock and covered with Mirafi Fabric (see Plate 29). The drainage flows from beneath Lake No. 10 to beneath Lake No. 12 and is picked up by a dedicated pump which then directs flow to the water quality basin nearby the San Jacinto River via a solid 8-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The drainage location and construction methodology for this area was directed by Wadsworth Golf Construction Company. The water in the quality basin then flows into a storm drain via a conductor pipe, and is eventually outlet to the San Jacinto River. The underdrainage systems were constructed under the observation of this firm and in accordance with our recommendations. The locations of these drainage systems are shown on Plates 12 through 29. 2.3 Slone Stabilization The slope north of Parcels 11 and 27 (recreation center) was programmed as a fill over cut slope and thus required stabilization. A 20-foot wide drained keyway was also required for this condition(Plate 23). Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.: 420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 5 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California 2.4 Fill 'laterials Fill materials consisting of lacustrine deposits (Q41) were used to backfill the excavated areas and to attain the planned rough grade elevations. This material generally consisted of clayey sand and fluvial deposits of silty sand, and gravelly sand. Table I is a complete list of materials used as backfill material during the grading of Stage 2. 2.5 Fill Placement After the removal of unsuitable materials and over-excavations, as required, the approved removal bottoms were scarified, moisture conditioned at generally one to two percentage points above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (based on the applicable maximum laboratory density determined in accordance with ASTM: D 1557). Fill materials were placed during rough grading operations for Stage 2 of the Summerly Project between November 2005 and December 2006. The fill material was placed in loose lifts on the order of 6 to 8 inches thick, blended as necessary and moisture conditioned to approximately 1-3 percentage points above optimum moisture contents, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). Fill areas not attaining the required compaction were reworked and/or moisture conditioned and recompacted. Failed tests and retests are designated by an F or R, respectively, in Table II.Failed tests due to moisture condition are designated as F*. Earthwork equipment included CAT D-8, D-9, and D-10 dozers, CAT 660, rock trucks, Euclid SS40, Terex TS24, CAT 637, CAT 657, and CAT 623 scrapers, CAT 385 excavator, a Euclid SS40 tractor, and CAT 824 and 834 compactors with box- graders, and a Euclid SS40 tractor equipped with a disc, water trucks and water pulls for moisture conditioning. Soil blending was generally achieved using a CAT 824, 834,or D-9 bulldozer. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.: 420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 6 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California The maximum thickness of engineered compacted fill placed to achieve rough grade elevations is on the order of 20 feet (Parcel 11). In-situ density tests were performed during fill placement utilizing a nuclear gauge (ASTM: D2922). The soil types and laboratory maximum density test results are presented in Table 1. A summary of results of field density testing performed during the grading is included in Table Il. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the attached Geotechnical Maps(Plates 1 through 11). 2.6 Laboratory Testing Expansion and sulfate tests were performed on the site soils following the rough grading operations and the results are summarized in Appendix B. The test results indicate that the near surface soils in the graded areas exhibit very low to low expansion potential and negligible sulfate corrosion potential to concrete. Direct shear testing was performed on selected bulk samples, remolded to 90 percent relative compaction, and the results are included in Appendix B. 2.7 Remaining Earthwork At the time of this report preparation, Parcels 20, 21, and 22 remained shallow of proposed grades to accommodate spoil dirt generated from future precise grading earthwork. An addendum report will be issued for this area following completion of earthwork in this area. 2.8 Zones of Special Foundations Zones of Special Foundations (ZOSF) have been designated for a portion of the project development within Tracts 10, 11, 20, and 27. The ZOSF has been delineated on Plates 11, 12, and 17 (map pocket). 3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Alluvial deposits underlie the subject site to the depths excavated. These alluvial materials are generally sandy, and include localized fine-grained and coarse-grained strata, indicative of alternating flow regimes influenced by the nearby San Jacinto River on its progression to the Elsinore Basin. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.: 420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 7 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore, California A fault attributed to the Glen Ivy North Fault Zone was inferred to bisect the project area by Weber, et al (1977). Based on our previous fault investigations (Reference No. 2), this fault was not found in the vicinity inferred by Weber, et al(1977). A fault zone was found south of the subject site, which may be the Glen Ivy North Fault Zone. Faults within the Summerly development sphere were determined to be inactive. During the rough grading activities, the exposed subgrade was mapped by the Project Geologist. Evidence of faulting consistent with our previously mapped inactive faults (Reference No. 3) was mapped in the deep removal bottoms for the San Jacinto River, and in the area near Golf Course Lake No. 12. The faulting appeared in the removals approximately 32 feet below grade. No evidence of faulting was noted above this depth, nor was noted in other areas of Stage 2. Geologic information obtained during site rough grading is displayed on the Geologic Maps (Plates 14 through 29). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our observations and testing reported herein, it is our opinion that the grading and compaction within the Summerly Development area were performed in substantial accordance with our recommendations and project plans. The graded areas within the subject project development shown on Figure 2 (with the exception of Lots 20, 21, and 22) addressed in this report are considered suitable for their intended purpose as of the date of our last test in December 2006. Additional fill placement and compaction remain to be performed in the area of the Parcels 20, 21 and 22 to achieve proposed rough grades. The proposed development will be free of geotechnical hazards such as landslides, settlement, or slippage and will not have an adverse effect on the adjacent property provided our recommendations are followed throughout the life of the project. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.: 420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 8 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California For project planning purposes, the preliminary geotechnical design criteria presented in Reference No. 1, with the revisions and exceptions as discussed below, may be used. These criteria will be evaluated and revised, as necessary during the precise grading plan review based on the results of additional laboratory testing, as necessary. At the time of this report preparation, foundation details and loads were not available. These should be reviewed during the precise grading plan review to confirm the geotechnical recommendations provided herein and to develop supplemental recommendations, if required. The preliminary geotechnical design criteria applicable to the subject development are summarized below: Conventional Foundation Design Criteria The planned residential structures may be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on compacted engineered fill. The continuous and spread footings for these structures may be designed based on the preliminary criteria shown in Table 2. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 9 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LOW SOIL EXPANSION (Expansion Index=0-50 Allowable Bearing Pressure(1) 1,500 psf Minimum Footing Depth(2) 1-Story: 12 inches (All Footings) 2-Story: 18 inches(All Footings) Width of Continuous Footings Per 1997 UBC Footing Reinforcement For continuous footings, two No. 4 bars, one at top and one at bottom Lateral Soil Resistance(3) 250 psf per ft. depth, subject to a maximum of 2,000 psf Friction Coefficient 0.35 (Ultimate) Sub-grade Pre-saturation Soak 2-3 percentage points above optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches Garage Door Grade Beam 12 inches square with two No. 4 bars, one at top and one at bottom. The grade beam should be tied to the adjacent footings Notes: (1) The allowable bearing value shown above applies to footings minimum one foot wide at a depth of one foot below lowest adjacent soil grade. This may be increased by 250 pound per square foot (psf) for each additional foot of footing embedment or width, subject to a maximum of 2,500 psf. Also, the allowable soil bearing value may be increased by one-third to resist transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. (2) Below lowest adjacent exterior soil grade. (3) Passive soil pressure value is for level soil conditions adjacent to footings with a maximum value not to exceed 2,500 psf. Neblett&Associates, Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 10 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California Post-Tension Slab/Footings A post-tensioned slab/footing system may be considered as an alternate to conventional foundations for residence support. Presented below are preliminary geotechnical criteria for post-tensioned slab/footings based on Table 18-III-L and Table 18-III-AA of the 1997 UBC. These criteria are based on low expansive soil subgrade condition and assume a 40-percent montmorillonite clay fraction. Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 Climatic Rating(CW) 15 Depth to Constant Suction 7 ft. Constant Suction(pF) 3.6 Velocity of Moisture Flow 0.7 inch/month Center Lift e,,,=5.6 ft. y,,,=2.9 in. Edge Lift e,,,=2.7 ft. y,,,=0.62 in. Minimum Depth of Footings 24 inches(perimeter) Slab Thickness 5 inches thick(minimal). Sub-grade Pre-saturation Presoak approximately 1-3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. General Remarks (1) Adequate laboratory tests should be performed during precise grading to verify the soil expansion potential of the near grade compacted engineered fill, and the foundation criteria provided herein should be confirmed on a lot-by- lot basis. (2) The reinforcements shown above should be considered as minimum requirements. More restrictive criteria based on structural design and/or regulatory or Code requirements shall govern. All foundation excavations should be inspected and approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of reinforcement or concrete. Forming of footing excavations may be required. Excavations should be free of slough and debris and thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 11 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California (3) Excavated material from footing trenches should not be placed in slab-on- grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. (4) Isolated exterior post/column footings should be tied-back to the main foundation system in at least two (2) orthogonal directions. (5) Footing depths should not be allowed to be affected adversely, such as through erosion, softening,digging, landscaping, etc. (6) Where foundations encroach closer than five (5) feet horizontally from the flow line of drainage swales, the footing should be deepened sufficiently to maintain the required embedment depth below the adjacent flow line. Seismic Design A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and 1997 UBC seismic design parameters were provided in Reference No. 1 and these remain applicable for the project. The probabilistic seismic hazard analyses and the UBC seismic design parameters, excerpted from Reference No. 1, are included in Appendix A for reference. Foundation Settlement Structures bearing on compacted engineered fill will undergo settlements due to structural loads. Total static settlements for continuous and spread footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations and with structural loading typical for the residential-type construction (column and wall loads not exceeding 30 kips and 3 kips/lineal foot, respectively), are not anticipated to exceed 1-inch. In general, differential settlement between similarly loaded column footings and continuous footings over a distance of 30 feet is not expected to exceed 3/4 inch. A majority of these settlements will occur during construction, with the remaining settlements expected to be long-term. Neblett&Associates, Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 12 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California Slab-On-Grade Recommended criteria for slab-on grade are shown below: a) Liviny,Area Floor Slabs Living area concrete floor slabs should be 4 inches thick (minimum) and should be reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid height. No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center should be provided connecting floor slabs to footings. In order to minimize migration of moisture up through the concrete slab from soil sub-grade and potential damage to floor coverings, a moisture/water vapor retarder should be installed beneath floor slabs, as hereinafter recommended. b) Garage Floor Slabs Garage floor slabs should be 4 inches thick (minimum) with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, each way at mid-height. The slabs should be quartered or saw-cut. The floor slab should be isolated from stem wall footings. Provide 4 inches gravel or sand base below slab. Generally, no moisture barrier is considered necessary for the garage floor slab. A grade beam should be placed across the garage door opening as described in the Geotechnical Design Criteria(Page 9). c) Driveway Driveway concrete slabs should be 4 inches thick(minimum) with No. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, each way at mid-height. The slab may be placed directly on properly prepared sub-grade.No moisture barrier is required under driveway slabs. d) Exterior Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork and concrete walkways should be 4 inches thick (nominal). Hardscape areas within two feet of the descending slopes should include a thickened edge, deepened to provide a minimum five (5) feet horizontal setback between the bottom outside face of the thickened edge and slope face. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 13 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California e) Curb and Gutter Curb and gutter should be supported on approved compacted engineered fill. Prior to concrete placement, the sub-grade should be moisture conditioned to approximately 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture contents to a depth of 12 inches. f) Sub-grade Pre-saturation Prior to concrete placement, the soil sub-grade beneath slabs and curb and gutter should be thoroughly wetted to about 12 inches depth to a moisture condition of about 2 percentage points above the optimum moisture content and exhibit firm and unyielding condition. g) General Interior floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, including driveway, should be properly designed for the construction and service loading conditions, and potential settlements. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, reinforcing criteria, joint spacing, etc. should be established by the Project Structural Engineer. The recommended minimum reinforcements for concrete slabs provided above are intended for preliminary design only. More restrictive criteria as dictated by structural design or regulatory requirements shall govern. Moisture/Water Vapor Retarder for Concrete Slab-on-Grade It should be recognized that, even with site surface and sub-drainage measures, there is potential for saturation of ground beneath concrete floor slabs due to water infiltration from irrigation, rain, and run-off or flow through the soil subgrade. The upward migration of moisture in vapor phase from soil subgrade through the slab-on-grade is inevitable under normal living conditions as they exist within a closed environment (e.g., residence). It is imperative that the Contractor properly install the recommended site drainage measures, utility trench backfill, and the moisture/water vapor retarder system in accordance with the project design requirements and specifications to mitigate potential moisture/water vapor transmission into the structures. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 14 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California In order to reduce the potential for moisture/water vapor migration up through the slab and possibly affecting floor covering, wood cabinets and other objects, a moisture/vapor retarder is recommended under concrete slab-on-grade. The recommendations provided below are based on the guidelines of the American Concrete Institute (ACI Committee Report 302.1R- 96): • The moisture/water vapor retarder should consist of high strength polyethylene membrane and should meet or exceed the ASTM: E-1745-97 Class C material requirements for water vapor permeance, tensile strength and puncture resistance. The vapor retarder should consist of"Moistop Plus" (Fortifiber Building Products Systems) or "Vapor Block" VB 15 (Americover, Inc.), or approved equal. The vapor retarder should be underlain by a capillary break comprised of minimum 4 inches thick pea gravel layer. The gravel layer should be placed and compacted on approved soil sub- grade. • The installation of the moisture/water vapor retarder system requires specialized knowledge and experience and should be accomplished with the technical assistance and supervision of retarder system manufacturer and/or supplier. The membrane should be placed on approved gravel layer and properly lapped and sealed. Membranes intersecting utility pipes, sewer lines, ducts or drains must be properly wrapped around the penetrations and sealed. All punctures and rips in the membrane should be repaired prior to placement of concrete, following manufacturer's recommendations. The vapor retarder should be installed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM: E-1643, and in conformance with the installation procedures recommended by the manufacturer. • To minimize slab curling, a low slump concrete (low shrinkage mix design) should be used for the slab construction, as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. The placement of concrete slab should be observed and certified by the Concrete Deputy Inspector. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 15 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California The various entities involved in the project development, including the developer and contractor, must take proper steps to ensure an effective concrete slab-on-grade system design and installation in order to mitigate moisture/water vapor transmission. In addition, floor coverings and other built-in features should be carefully selected with vapor transmission in mind. It should be emphasized that, even with proper moisture/water vapor installation, proper control of irrigation and landscape water adjacent to the structure is very important to minimize problems caused by moisture and water vapor intrusion, and is the responsibility of the Homeowner. In addition, the Homeowner is responsible for maintaining proper site drainage as recommended hereinafter. Buildinp,Set-back Where foundations for buildings and retaining structures are located adjacent to slopes, the footing depths and setbacks should be in accordance with the 1997 UBC and the requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore. The horizontal distance from the outside edge of the footing to the face of slope,however, shall in no case be less than ten feet. For minor masonry walls, it is our opinion that minimum horizontal setback of 5 feet from the outer edge of footings to the slope surface may used. RetaininL Walls (a) Retaining wall footings should be supported on compacted engineered fill. The wall footings may be designed based on a maximum allowable soil pressure of 1,500 psf. For retaining walls, the recommended minimum footing depth is 2 feet below the lowest adjacent soil grade. (b) Retaining walls should be adequately designed to resist the lateral soil pressures and the anticipated construction loadings and service conditions. The earth pressure acting on retaining walls depends primarily on the allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic Neblett&Associates, Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore, LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 16 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California pressure. The following minimum lateral earth pressures are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure and no surcharge: Wall Condition Backfill Slope Lateral Earth Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure) ( cfl Level 40 Active Condition (Cantilever Walls) 2H:1 V 65 The above values are applicable to non-expansive, granular backfill (sands) placed between the wall stem and an imaginary plane rising at 45 degrees from below the edge (heel) of the wall footings. (c) The surcharge effect of anticipated adjacent loads on the wall backfill (e.g., traffic, footings) should be included in the wall design. If the wall is free to deflect, additional lateral pressure equal to 33 percent of the maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the height of the wall should be used in design. (d) The wall design should include water-proofing(where appropriate) and weep holes or back-drains for relieving possible hydrostatic pressure. The back-drain should consist of perforated Schedule 40 PVC pipe, minimum 4-inch diameter, embedded in minimum 3 cubic feet/foot of gravel and enveloped in MIRAFI 140 geo-fabric or approved equal. The drain pipe should be installed at a minimum gradient of 1 percent and should discharge into suitable outlet. (e) No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are attained,as determined by concrete compression tests. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 17 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California (f) Retaining wall backfill should be mechanically compacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). No ponding, jetting or flooding, should be permitted. Utility Trench Backfill Bedding material should consist of on-site sandy or imported materials exhibiting a Sand Equivalent(S.E.)value of 30 or greater, and should comply with the requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore. The fill soils derived from on-site excavations are considered suitable for trench backfill, provided they are free of organic material and rocks over 4 inches in maximum dimension. Backfill of all exterior and interior trenches should be placed in thin lifts and mechanically compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less than 90% based on ASTM: D1557. Care should be taken not to damage utility lines. Utility trenches should not be located within the influence of footings. This is defined as a zone located below the footing and a line sloping at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) outward from the outside edge of footings. If utility lines are located within the zone of footings, the backfill should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction or slurry backfilled(minimum 1-1/2 sack cement- sand mix). To prevent water migration into building sub-grade through the granular bedding layer and/or trench backfill, utility trenches should be backfilled with clayey soils or sand-cement slurry to minimum 3 feet length at their entry points in the foundation. Trenches greater than 4 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back in accordance with the requirements of local regulatory agency, the State of California Division of Industrial Safety and Construction Safety Orders, and Federal OSHA requirements. Concrete Design The results of soluble sulfate testing (Table 1) indicate negligible sulfate concentration. Based on the laboratory test results presented in Table III, sulfate exposure for concrete is Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 18 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California considered negligible (UBC Table 19-A-4). Concrete mix design, including water-cement ratio should be in accordance with negligible sulfate exposure as presented in 1997 UBC Table 19-A-4 and the requirements of the City of Lake Elsinore. Based on Table 19-A-4, special sulfate resistant concrete is not required. Site Drainage The Homeowners and Landscape Architect should be-aware of the potential problems that may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, paved walkways, and patios. Conditions which will lead to ground saturation must be avoided. a) All roof and surface drainage should be directed away from structures and their appurtenances and slopes to approved drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided. For graded soil areas, a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the structures should be maintained. b) The recommended drainage patterns should be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the structure or, if altered, should be replaced with properly designed area drain system. c) Irrigation activities at the site should be monitored and controlled to prevent over watering. Planter and lawn areas adjacent to structures should be avoided. If utilized, these should include measures to contain irrigation water and prevent moisture migration into the walls and under foundations and slabs-on-grade. d) It is imperative that all new construction maintain positive drainage to suitable discharge facilities. Adequate area drainage systems should be installed in planter areas and within flatwork areas, as required. For graded areas and hardscape areas should have a minimum surface gradient away from structures of 1 percent Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 19 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California Slope Plantiniz,Irrigation and Maintenance General guidelines for slope planting, irrigation and maintenance are shown below: (1) Slope planting should consist of appropriate drought resistant vegetation as recommended by the Landscape Architect. Landscaping of slopes should be completed as soon as possible and properly maintained. (2) The property owner is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of installed irrigation systems. Leaks should be repaired immediately. Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Over-watering with consequent excessive runoff and ground saturation must be avoided. (3) If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions. (4) All interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, down-drains, and any other drainage devices that have been installed must be maintained and cleaned. (5) If rodent activity is present, the property owner must undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals. This must be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability. (6) Water must not be allowed to flow over the constructed or natural slopes. This may require the construction of berms or ditches along the top of slopes, if such devices are not in place. 6.0 PLAN REVIEW During the design and precise grading phase, the fmal Precise Grading and Foundation Plans, including the design details of planned structures, such as structure type, location and configuration, and design loads, should be provided to the Project Geotechnical Engineer to verify the applicability of the recommendations previously provided and to develop additional and/or revised recommendations, as appropriate. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 20 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report presents information and data relative to the subject grading and placement of compacted fill within the limits shown on the attached Geotechnical and Geologic Maps(Sheets Plates 1 through 29). Representatives of this firm conducted periodic tests and made observations during grading in an effort to determine the compliance of the work with project specifications and the recommendations of this firm. During grading, our field personnel did not direct or supervise the contractor or his work forces. Professional and technical advice and suggestions were provided to the owner and/or his designated representative based on the results of the tests and observations. The results of field density tests reported herein are valid at the locations and depths tested and at the time of testing only. Changes in the condition and properties of compacted fill can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or human activities (such as soil expansion, shrinkage, rainfall, landscape 1 irrigation, and other factors) at or adjacent to the property. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Our observations and testing services as well as the findings and conclusions presented in this report are in accordance with the currently accepted principles and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions provided herein. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.: 420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 21 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California This Rough Grade Compaction Report for the Stage 2 portion of the Summerly Development Project is subject to review by the governing agencies. If you have any questions, or you require additional information,please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NEBLETT& ASSOCIATES, INC. ��G\NEER/NG ,\VEERING H. G/NJtt`Fob Q 9 0 �\O VFsyO�� <� U No.CEG 2250 y By: cn By: EXP.06-30.08 .iris A. Gu su n, 9-7Q•9!4 David . Ginter,P. CEG 2361, 'g°� xpires 9/30 CEG 2 50,Reg. Expi 0 \FQj Senior Projcct d \FOQ Chief Geologist LNG\VEER/NG M`IONq� �O ��y S. O - ) O QF \ �•\�l0 By: m By: G252 Daniel.1 a va,VONE73?lj. Si ney S. a Exp,s 30 1s RGE 2726, xs�� �0 EG 25 , Reg. pi 9 /09 Chief Enginee `rT9T oTEOHN�G���Q resi nt TFGF CA\-\F Attachments: F of CAS\E� List of References Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan Appendix A Seismic Hazard Evaluation Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Table I Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content Test Results Table II Summary of Field Density Test Results Plates 1 through 11 - Geotechnical Maps (Map pockets) Plates 12 through 29 - Geologic Maps (Map pockets) Plate 30 - Drainage Details (Following Map pockets) Distribution: Addressee(6 copies) Wilson-Mikami,Corp., Attn: Mr. Scott Wilson(1 copy) File: 420-001-07 113007 Laing-CP Stage2RGCompactionReportReport.doc Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 22 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Neblett & Associates, Inc., Preliminary Foundation Recommendations, Golf Course Structures, Southerly Development Site, Tentative Tract 31920, City of Lake Elsinore, California, dated March 21,2005 (Project No. 420-000-03). 2. Neblett & Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Review, Preliminary Lake Construction Drawings, The Links at Summerly, Lake Elsinore, California, dated April 14, 2005 (Project No. 420-000-07). 3. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and 40-Scale Grading Plan Review, Tentative Tract 31920, Stage 2 of Summerly Development, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside,California,dated February 7, 2006(Project No. 420-001-05). 4. Neblett & Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Recommendations, Golf Course Cart Paths, Tentative Tract 31920, Stages 1 and 2 - Summerly Development, City of Lake Elsinore, California,dated March 27, 2006 (Project No. 420-000-07). 5. Neblett & Associates, Inc., Revised Pavement Section Recommendations, Summerly Cart Path for EVMVWD, Tentative Tract 31920, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside,California,dated October 16, 2006 (Project No.420-000-07). 6. Neblett & Associates, Inc., Revised Pavement Section Recommendations, Summerly Cart Path for EVMWD, Tentative Tract 31920, City of Lake Elsinore, California, County of Riverside,revised October 23, 2006 (Project No. 420-000-07). 7. Neblett & Associates, Inc., Final Rough Grade Compaction Report, Stage 1 of the Summerly Development Project, Tract 31920, Lake Elsinore, California, dated May 11, 2007(Project No. 420-000-07). 8. Neblett & Associates, Inc., Interim Rough Grade Compaction Report, Parcel 9, Stage 2, Summerly Development Site, Tract 31920, Lake Elsinore, California, dated June 11, 2007 (Project No. 420-001-07). 9. Neblett & Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Review of Precise Grading Plan, Maintenance Facility, Summerly — Phase 1, Tract 31920-1, City of Lake Elsinore, California, dated July 24, 2007(Project No. 420-003-08). 10.Neblett & Associates, Inc., Interim Rough Grade Compaction Report, Parcels 18 & 19, Stage 2, Summerly Development Site, Tract 31920, Lake Elsinore, California, dated August 30, 2007 (Project No. 420-001-07). Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 23 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California APPENDIX A PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR PEAK GROUND ACCELLERATION AND 1997 UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS (Excerpted from Reference No. 1) Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 24 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION and 1997 UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Peak ground acceleration (PGA) values were calculated for the subject project. The PGA values provided here can be used in the design of pertinent structures of the subject project. The values provided here should be evaluated by the project structural engineer. Values are given for fill (soil) areas. The PGA analysis was performed by following the guidelines and recommendations provided in the following publications: the 1997 Universal Building Code (UBC); Martin and Lew (1999); California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publications 42 (1999) and 117 (1997); Petersen and others (1996); and Jackson and others (1995). PGA values were estimated by conducting a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using the FRISKSP computer program by Blake (1998). The PGA values represent ground motions that, as a minimum, have a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years, as required by the 1997 UBC. Three PGA values were calculated for fill (soil) areas using the attenuation functions of Boore and others (1997), Bozorgnia and others (1999) and Sadigh and others (1997) from the FRISKSP computer program. Table D1 lists the PGA values from each attenuation function and the mean PGA of the three values for fill(soil) areas. The probability of exceedance curves for each attenuation function are shown on Figures D1 through D3. The 1997 UBC seismic design parameters for the site were calculated for fill (SD soil type) areas using the UBCSEIS computer program written by Blake (1999). Table D1 includes the 1997 UBC seismic design parameters and Table D2 lists the faults within 100 km of the subject site. The design response spectrum for fill areas is shown on Figure D4 and a map of the active faults within 100 kilometers of the subject site is shown on Figure D5. Neblett&Associates, Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 25 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California TABLE D 1 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION VALUES AND SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS SOUTHERLY PROJECT LAKE ELSINORE CALIFORNIA PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION VALUES FOR FILL(SOIL) Attenuation Function FRISKSP Estimated PGA Value Bozorgnia and others(1999) 0.70g Sadigh and others(1997) 0.60g Boore and others(1997) 0.69g 0.66g Mean PGA Value 1997 UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS SITE COORDINATES NEAREST TYPE A FAULT Site Latitude: 33.6433 San Jacinto -Anza Site Longitude: 117.3019 Distance: 37.2 km UBC SEISMIC ZONE NEAREST TYPE B FAULT 0.4 Elsinore-Temecula Distance: 3.0 km UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS Na: 1.2 Soil Type SD(Stiff Soil Profile 600-1200 fdsec) Nv: 1.5 Ca: 0.53 Cv: 0.93 Ts: 0.708 To: 0.142 Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 26 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California ' TABLE D2 FAULT PARAMETERS SUMMERLY-STAGE 2 PROJECT, LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA APPROX. SOURCE MAX. SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCE TYPE MAG. RATE TYPE FAULT NAME (km) (A,B,C) (Mw) (mm/yr) (SS,DS,BT) -------- -------- =------ ====== ========= __________ ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 3.0 I B 1 6.8 1 5.00 1 SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 4.3 I B 1 6.8 1 5.00 I SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 32.0 I B 1 6.7 1 1.00 1 DS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 33.2 I B I 6.9 1 12.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA 37.2 I A I 7.2 1 12.00 1 SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER 38.9 1 B 1 6.8 1 2.50 1 SS ELSINORE-JULIAN I 39.9 1 A 1 7.1 1 5.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 41.8 1 B 1 6.7 1 12.00 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 44.7 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern I 54.9 1 A 1 7.4 1 24.00 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 57.6 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 SS ROSE CANYON I 58.2 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS CUCAMONGA I 61.4 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS SAN JOSE I 63.1 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) I 67.0 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 DS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 68.4 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 DS CLEGHORN I 70.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 70.7 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS PALOS VERDES I 70.9 1 B I 7.1 1 3.00 I SS CORONADO BANK I 71.2 1 B 1 7.4 1 3.00 1 SS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 76.4 1 A 1 7.8 1 34.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 77.1 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 81.2 1 B i 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 83.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 84.2 1 B 6.5 1 2.00 1 SS RAYMOND I 87.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 90.2 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS BURNT MTN. I 92.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS VERDUGO I 95.7 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS EUREKA PEAK 1 96.5 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 1 100.31 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 1 SS LANDERS 1 100.31 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 1 SS HOLLYWOOD 1 100.9 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 DS SS = strike-slip; DS = dip-slip Fault Parameters from Peterson and others (1996) Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 27 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California SEISMICITY REFERENCES Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work: Seismological Research Letters,Vol. 68,No. 1,pp. 128-153. Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K., and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical Ground Motion: Characteristics, Relationship with Horizontal Components, and Building Code Implications: SMIP99 Seminar on Utilization of Strong Ground-Motion Data, Sponsored by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Blake, T.F., 1999, UBCSEIS 1.03 A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources: Thomas F. Blake, Computer Services and Software,Thousand Oaks,CA. Blake,T.F., 1998, FRISKSP 3.016 A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources: Thomas F.Blake,Computer Services and Software,Thousand Oaks,CA. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Special Publication 42. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 177. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997,Uniform Building Code,Vol. 1 and 2,April 1997.Jackson, D.D., Aki, K., Cornell, J.H., Dieterich, J.H., Henyey, T.L., Mandyiar, M., Schwartz, D.,and Ward,S.N., 1995. Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,Vol. 85,No. 2,pp. 379-439,April 1995. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology,Geologic Data Map Number 6 Martin, G.R., Lew, M., 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMGSpecial Publication 117,Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California: Southern California Earthquake Center, Univ. of Southern California,March 1999. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H. Cao, T., and Reichle, M.S., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California: California Department of Conservation,DMG,Open-File Report 96-08. Sadigh, K., Chang, C.-Y., Egan, J.A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R. R., 1997, Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data: Seismological Research Letters,Vol. 68,No. 1,pp. 180-190. Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 28 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS I Neblett&Associates,Inc. Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 29 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California SULFATE AND EXPANSION TEST RESULTS 1 I Neblett&Associates,Inc. TRACT 31920 Stage 2—Summerly Development Sulfate and Expansion Test Results Parcel Lot Expansion Expansion Sulfate Sulfate Number Index Potential Content Exposure UBC Table 18-I-B (%) (UBC Table 19-A-4 9 1 0 Very Low 0.0043 Negligible 9 5 0 Very Low 0.005 Negligible 9 9 1 Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 9 13 7 Very Low 0.0032 Negligible 9 17 14 Very Low 0.0063 Negligible 9 21 6 Very Low 0.0043 Negligible 9 25 35 Low 0.0072 Negligible 9 29 11 Very Low 0.0079 Negligible 9 33 9 Very Low 0.0104 Negligible 9 37 1 Very Low 0.008 Negligible 9 41 11 Very Low 0.0112 Negligible 9 45 12 Very Low 0.0084 Negligible 9 49 20 Low 0.0064 Negligible 9 51 1 Very Low 0.0078 Negligible 9 54 4 Very Low 0.0086 Negligible 9 58 5 Very Low 0.0096 Negligible 10 1 0 Very Low 0.0044 Negligible 10 5 0 Very Low 0.0051 Negligible 10 10 1 Very Low 0.0068 Negligible 10 14 1 Very Low 0.0057 Negligible 10 18 4 Very Low 0.0048 Negligible 10 22 3 Very Low 0.0060 Negligible 10 27 16 Very Low 0.0111 Negligible 10 32 3 Very Low 0.0049 Negligible 10 35 4 Very Low 0.0033 Negligible 10 39 9 Very Low 0.0046 Negligible 10 43 21 Low 0.0098 Negligible TRACT 31920 Stage 2—Summerly Development Sulfate and Expansion Test Results Parcel Lot Expansion Expansion Sulfate Sulfate Number Index Potential Content Exposure (UBC Table 18-1-B) (% UBC Table 19-A-4 10 47 14 Very Low 0.0138 Negligible 10 50 13 Very Low 0.0126 Negligible 10 56 8 Very Low 0.0042 Negligible 10 58 0 Very Low 0.0051 Negligible 10 61 1 Very Low 0.0063 Negligible 11 1 10 Very Low 0.0046 Negligible 11 8 4 Very Low 0.0039 Negligible 11 13 19 Very Low 0.0051 Negligible 11 17 8 Very Low 0.0051 Negligible 11 21 0 Very Low 0.0078 Negligible 11 26 1 Very Low 0.0049 Negligible 11 31 8 Very Low 0.0092 Negligible 11 33 10 Very Low 0.0102 Negligible 11 37 12 Very Low 0.0098 Negligible 11 42 17 Very Low 0.0064 Negligible 11 53 19 Very Low 0.0032 Negligible 13 1 45 Low 0.0132 Negligible 13 9 33 Low 0.007 Negligible 13 17 48 Low 0.0128 Negligible 13 24 28 Low 0.0053 Negligible 13 31 2 Very Low 0.0144 Negligible 13 41 22 Low 0.0118 Negligible 13 49 0 Very Low 0.0116 Negligible 13 56 25 Low 0.0104 Negligible 13 62 17 Very Low 0.0086 Negligible 14 4 10 Very Low 0.0192 Negligible TRACT 31920 Stage 2—Summerly Development Sulfate and Expansion Test Results Parcel Lot Expansion Expansion Sulfate Sulfate Number Index Potential Content Exposure UBC Table 18-I-B %) (UBC Table 19-A-4 14 8 0 Very Low 0.0352 Negligible 14 11 0 Very Low 0.0416 Negligible 14 19 8 Very Low 0.0212 Negligible 14 27 7 Very Low 0.0256 Negligible 14 33 5 Very Low 0.0240 Negligible 14 39 27 Low 0.0252 Negligible 14 45 0 Very Low 0.0304 Negligible 14 50 11 Very Low 0.0544 Negligible 14 57 10 Very Low 0.0504 Negligible 14 63 25 Low 0.0576 Negligible 14 63 17 Very Low 0.0576 Negligible 15 1 0 Very Low 0.0061 Negligible 15 5 14 Very Low 0.0058 Negligible 15 9 0 Very Low 0.0039 Negligible 15 13 1 Very Low 0.0035 Negligible 15 18 9 Very Low 0.0042 Negligible 15 26 2 Very Low 0.0057 Negligible 15 29 0 Very Low 0.0090 Negligible 15 33 0 Very Low 0.0082 Negligible 15 41 4 Very Low 0.0041 Negligible 15 46 0 Very Low 0.0049 Negligible 15 51 0 Very Low 0.0049 Negligible 16 1 14 Very Low 0.0057 Negligible 16 5 1 Very Low 0.0056 Negligible 16 9 10 Very Low 0.0111 Negligible 16 17 17 Very Low 0.0092 Negligible TRACT 31920 Stage 2—Summerly Development Sulfate and Expansion Test Results Parcel Lot Expansion Expansion Sulfate Sulfate Number Index Potential Content Exposure UBC Table 18-I-13) % (UBC Table 19-A-4 16 21 8 Very Low 0.0040 Negligible 16 25 8 Very Low 0.0046 Negligible 16 29 7 Very Low 0.0040 Negligible 16 33 1 Very Low 0.0058 Negligible 16 46 3 Very Low 0.0054 Negligible 16 52 24 Low 0.0135 Negligible 16 56 12 Very Low 0.0063 Negligible 16 63 0 Very Low 0.0043 Negligible 17 4 18 Very Low 0.0396 Negligible 17 11 0 Very Low 0.0236 Negligible 17 25 9 Very Low 0.024 Negligible 17 34 11 Very Low 0.022 Negligible 17 42 16 Very Low 0.1152 Moderate 17 50 12 Very Low 0.0384 Negligible 18/19 A 3 Very Low 0.0188 Negligible (school) 18119 B 11 Very Low 0.0108 Negligible school 18/19 C 0 Very Low 0.0052 Negligible school 18/19 D 21 Low 0.0041 Negligible (school) 18/19 E 5 Very Low 0.0048 Negligible school 27 A 4 Very Low 0.0092 Negligible rec ctr 27 B 2 Very Low 0.0126 Negligible rec ctr 27 C 0 Very Low 0.0101 Negligible rec ctr) Laing-CP,Lake Elsinore,LLC November 30,2007 Rough Grade Compaction Report Project No.:420-001-07 Stage 2 of the Summerly Development Project Page 30 of 30 Tract 31920 City of Lake Elsinore,California DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Neblett&Associates,Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90% 4,000 ....... -14-3 4... 4- 3,750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ........ .... ......... ..... . 7-1:1:* T*:-7-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ........... .......... . . ... . . . . . . 3,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... i I j. . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . 3,250 . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... 4. ......... Z. 4-44-14. .. . . . . . . . . . 3,000 . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,750 ........ Z44. 4-4-4......... 444-4- 4. 114-11 44-4. 4 -4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500 cn ILL . . . . . . . . . . . . 4L ............... ... ......... (L . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ................. . ... ... . . ... 4. . ..... . .......... 2,250 *3 :1 . . . . . . . . . . .. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . 2,000 ......... 4 4. 4- c/) 4 4. 4 + 1,750 .; T i: ..... T 1 7 7 -7 7 cf) 7 7 V . ... . . . . . . 1,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ........ ....... .............................. 1,250 . . ... . . . . . . . . . ........ .......... ......... ... 4 4 1,000 . . . . . . . . . i i 4-i-44-44. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 7 .................... ........... i.t ..................... 4. .................. .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . A Z E.:............. ..... 750 ............. . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .............. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ... ................. . ............ . . . . . . . .. . . . ....... .......... HZ .. .... ............-......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ........... 250 ...... %. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . 0 ..... T 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF Sandy Silt to Silty Sand COHESION 222 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 32.0 degrees symbol boring depth(ft.) symbol boring depth(ft.) 0 L DIRECT SHEAR TEST LINANEBILETT &ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE,SUITE 218 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA,92649 714 840-8286 P.N. 420-000-07 DATE 11/30/01 PLATE B-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90% 4,000 . ....... ..... 3,750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .................. . ............. ... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . ... . . . . . . 3,500 4 4 Z 4.;.;.i 4-'.4. . ......... ............... .............. ...... ... ........... ... ....... .......... . 3,250 ....... 4 z...... iz........... . . . . . . . . . .. ............ .......... 44-4-44-1- 3,000 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ......... ... . ....... ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,750 . . . . . . . . . . ................... . . . . .• . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500 ILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ a. 4 ...................... . ................... . ...... c6 2,250 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . UJI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 -:-* . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... co ...... j.j. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,750 7 7 ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . 1,500 4 4- 1 4 -4-4- .................... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .................. ..... 7 7, 1,250 ... ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 ... . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ................ .... ....... ........ ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........is is . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................I............... ... ... i 4 250 ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . 0 . .. . . . . . . 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF Sandy Clay COHESION 846 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 30.0 degrees symbol boring depth(ft.) symbol boring depth(ft.) • N DIRECT SHEAR TEST INXNEBLETT&ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE,SUITE 218 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA,92649 714 840-8286 . P.N. 420-000-07 DATE 11/30/01 PLATE B-2 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90% 4,000 ...... ... ... ;-1 4-4-4. 4 'c- Z 3,750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... ....... ... ......... .. . ... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. ....... 3,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. ........... ...... . ............ .. .......... ........... ... ............ 3,250 ...... -.44"44.4.Z... 44- 4 3,000 . . . . . . .. . . . .............. ........... ........ . . . . . . . . . . ............ Z. . ....... 2,750 4 J.J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-tl . . . . . . . . 2,500 ................ ..... . . . . . . . .. . . . LL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. .................. . 7 ........ . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . - - .:......... ............. . . . . . . . CL ....... .... . ....... ..... ... ............. 4-Z. C6 2,250 4 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . to ................. ......... . . .. . . . . . . . . . ...i;. . . . . ..;..:.. . . . . . . . . . w . . . .1 . t1:1.1. . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 . . . .. . .. . . : . . . . . . . . . . ......... .... . ........ co ....... 4--4- i 4 4. . . . . . . . . . . < 1,750 .. ......... . . . . . . . . w ....... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . _w cf) .............................. ... .......... .. .. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1,250 . . . . . . . . . . ........... ........... .................. ............... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .... . .. .. ... ... . . . . . . . . . 1,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ..... ......... . ....... ............. ... ......... ....... 750 Z: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 ... ............... v . . . . . . . . . . ........... ............. ......... . . . . . . . . . . 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF Silty Sand COHESION 120 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 33.0 degrees symbol boring depth(ft.) symbol boring depth(ft.) 0 P DIRECT SHEAR TEST dNAINEBLETT &ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE,SUITE 218 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA,92649 714 840-8286 P.N. 420-000-07 DATE 11/30/0 PLATE B-3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90% 4,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . .. . . . 3,750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... T 7 3,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... ......... ..... ..... ................. ......... 3,250 4-:444o,4.;.(. 31000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ......... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 2,750 ......... . . . . . . . . . 44—.......................... ... .................. .. 44-4-1-1 -t- 1 4-t--t- i.1 4 .............. J. J ...... ......... LL 2,500 . . . . . . . .. . . . ........ . . . . .. . . . . . . ........ —.77 co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ........... ............ 0- 4 Z 2 j.; 4.-',4- 4." -t- ,250 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 * *— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;44... < 1,750 .. . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 c/) 1,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ......................................... . . . . . .. ... .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 1,250 .7 . . . . . . . . .. 1,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .... . 750 ....... . ....... .......................... .................. 4 ............. . ....... ............. ............ . .......J; ............ . .... ........ .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 500 . . . .. . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . .......... ............. ......... .. .......... ....... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... ... 4 250 0 ...... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . ... ..... . ... . 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF Silty Sand COHESION 108 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 32.0 degrees symbol boring depth(ft.) symbol boring depth(ft.) 0 S DIRECT SHEAR TEST 1EINANEBLETT &ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE,SUITE 218 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA,92649 714 840-8286 IP.N. 420-000-07 DATE 11/30/0 PLATE B-4 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90% 4,000 . . . . Z 3,750 . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ........ . . . . . . . . . . 3,500 444i. i-i 4 4 4 4.j­ Y t .......... .3 ........... ,250 ::-*--*........... .................................... .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1* ­7 7 Z. Z. . ................ ....... ......4- . ..4... -t-4. 4 3,000 . ............ ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,750 .......... ....... . ............... ... ..... ....... . . ....... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... ..... ............ Z...... . . . . . . . ... i.i.1.13 .1.1 4 i. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . 2,500 u- . . . . . . . . . . *.:.*.....I..*.:.:.:.:., . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. ..... . U) 0. . . . . . . . . . ...- . . . . .. . . C6 2,250 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2,000 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-1-4...... CD ........... ...... ..... ..... 4. . ..... .............. < 1,750 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... ............... . . . . . . . . . ..... ............. ........... . ..... ......... .. ......... . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N 1,500 . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ;...w. 1 44 4-4- .............. cn 1,250 ....... .. ........... ....... ZT T 7 Z ........ ........... ............. ..... ......... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... .............. ................ .. . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ...........f. 750 . . . . . . . . . 44 Z. ...... ............ .. .... . . . . . . . . . ... .:.........!4 I.J . . ... . . . . . . . .. .... . . .. . .. . .. 500 ....... ........... . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... ..... ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 250 4 4- 0 . . . . . . . . . . 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF Clayey Sand COHESION 90 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 29.0 degrees symbol boring depth(ft.) symbol boring depth(ft.) • U DIRECT SHEAR TEST JIMN BLETT 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE,SUITE 218 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA,92649 714 840-8286 P.N. Aqn-n 0-07 DATE 11/30101 PLATE B-5 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded to 90% 4,000 ........�-:— ............. 4 -4- 1 4 1.3 44-4.4-1- 3,750 ............. ....... ........... ........ 4..1.:.: 4. 3,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ... .......... 3,250 ....... 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. 3,000 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......vv.v ... . . . . . . . ........... ... .......... ............ . .......................... .. ....... 2,750 .A.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . .... 2,500 LL . ..... .............. e...... . cn .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . CL ..... ................... .. ......... 4 .".*... . . .. . . . . . . C6 2,250 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cn U.j 2,000 i . . . ... . . . . .. ... .. . . .. . . . co 4— ... . . . . 7 ..... ................... ..Z.40r.- ....... Z. %........... ........ ......... < 1,750 . . . . . . . . ... ULI V 1—v:... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ......... .............. ................. .......1-1— —........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .. 1,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..... .......... ....... 1,250 7 TV T-11.1 . . ... . .. . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 4 4 .......... ..... ........... ... 7 ......................... . 50 7 r ........... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . I 500 .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .............. .. . . . . . . . . . . ......... .................. ................... ..... • . . . . . . . . . . 250 0 . ..... 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF Silty Sand COHESION 156 psf. FRICTION ANGLE 33.0 degrees symbol boring depth(ft.) symbol boring depth(ft.) 0 W DIRECT SHEAR TEST NEBLETT &ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WARNER AVENUE,SUITE 218 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA,92649 714 840-8286 P.N. 420-000-07 DATE 11130/0 PLATE B-6