HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 30667-2 As Graded Rough GradingAS-GRADED REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING
FOR HARVESTON TRACT 30667-2
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
LLI!'~l1a1' COliitl'IUI'91~IeS
391 N. Main Street, Suite 301
Corona, California 92880
October 23, 2003
Project No. 110231-024
,
,1 ~~~°~EIVE
~ N ~N 0 8 ?p04
~ ENGINEE C~ T~MECU
RING DEppR M
~~~~~~~~ ~r~ ~~~~~~~~~~, 1~~~,
A LE;GNTC3;V f;;gJP CfJfl,7A,3i~iY
~
'
1
1
'
'
'
LJ
'
'
1
'
,
j~~
~~
~,.=
~
L2ight~n and A,ssociates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
October 23, 2003
To: Lennar Communities
391 N. Main Street, Suite 301
Comna, Califomia 92880
Attention: Mr. Bill Storm
Project No. 110231-024
Subject: As-Graded Report of Rough Grading for Harveston, Tract 30667-2, City of
Temecula, Califomia.
In accordance with yo~s request and authoiization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (I.eighton) bas been
providing geotechnical observation and testing services diuing rough grading opeiarions of Tract
30667-2, located in the City of Temectila, Califomia (See Figure 1). The accompanying as-gcaded
report st~arizes o~s observations, fieid and laboratory test resuits and the geotechnical conditions
encountered during the rou~ grading of lots 1 through 35 of Tract 30667-2 within the Harveston
Commimity.
If you have any questions regazding tlus report, please do not hesitate to contact this office, we
appreciate this opportuniry to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATE
~~~~'~
Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 (Exp.
Vice PresidenUPrincipal Geologi
RFR/ATG/mm/dlm
110231-02MSnaVas-g~d ryt hact 30667-2
S~IN ~~PED GF~~
~g ~RT F, O
~ ~C~ ~0 9~ 4~ QPOfE^us/p~
~ Q~ N0.'1921 y a%t <~~'~^~"W " ~~ V~ T r'~` f
~ ~fj- F
y~ 91GINEEflUIQ * ° ~. ~ ~~~d~` c fZQ .
p 0~°~o~gT Andrew Guatelli, GE 2320 0~:NO. GE2320 - Z
st q~ ~~ Associate Engineer 6' E~ t2ai+U ,~
OF Cq1. ~ . " u P.. ;
~ ~+,, ~ECtlt~'!'~
,;qJ~OF,Cp4\E~P
' Distnbution: (8) Addressee, (1 Unbound)
(2) Harveston Jobsite; Attention: Mr. Bob Hall
'
1
Z
41715 Enterprise CirGe N., Suite 103 a Temecula, CA 92590-566~
909.296.0530 ^ Fax 909.296.0534 . www.leightongeo.com
110231-024
, Odober 23, 2003
TA~I~E OF COfVTEPlTS
' Section paae
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0 SUMMARY OF ROUGH-GRP,DING OPERATIONS ...................................................................2
' 2.1 Site Preparation and Removals,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Z
.........................................................
2.2 Feld Density Testin9 ...................................................................................................z
2.3 LaboratoryTestin9 ......................................................................................................z
'' 2.4 Fil Placement .............................................................................................................3
2.5 Canyon Subdrains .......................................................................................................3
~ : 3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY
.................................................................................4
- 3.1 As-Graded Geologic Conditions ................................. ...................................................4
3.2 Gealogic Units 4
, ........
................................................. .................................................
..
3.2.1 Artificial FII (A~ .................................................. .....................................................4
3.2.2 Artificial Fil Leighton ~~) 4
' .................................... .....................................................
3.3 Geologic Structure and Faultin9 ................................ ...................................................4
3.4 Landslides and Suficial Failures 5
, ................................
3.5 Groundwater ........................................................... ...................................................
...................................................5
3.6 Expansion Testing of Finish Grade Soils
..................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5
' , 4.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. ...................................................6
4.1 General ................................................................... ...................................................6
, 4.2 Summary of Conclusions .......................................... ...................................................6
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..
................................................... ...................................................8
' S.1 Earthwork ............................................................... ...................................................$
' S.1.1 Bccavations ................... ....8
....................................................................................
5.1,2 Ublity Backfill, FII Placement and Compacdon ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 8
'': 5.2 Foundation and Strudure Design Considerations 8
..........................................................
5.3 Foundabon Setback from SIoP~ ................................................................................10
5.3.1 Structurai Setback, Lots 9 and 10 f ...............................................................10
~ 5.4 Structure Seismic Design Parameters li
.........................................................................
' S.5 Corrosion ............................. ......... 11
................... ........................................................
5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11
5.7 Concrete Flatwork,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13
.....................................................................
' S.8 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control ,,,,,,,13
~
~ -~- 3
Leighton
110231-D24
' October Z3, 2003
Table of Contents (cont.)
' 5.9 Graded Slop~ ..........................................................................................................14
5.10 Irrigation, Landscaping and Lot Maintenance ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14
' 5.11 Post-Grading Geotechnicaf Review,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14
5.11.1 Construction Review ..........................................................................................14
, 5.11.2 Plans and Specifications .................................................................................... 14
6.0 LIM1TAlI0NS ..................................................................................................................15
~ Accompanying Fgures, Tables, Plates and Appendices
Fgures
Flgure 1- Site Location Map Rear of Text
' Figure 2- Setback Diagram Rear of Text
Figure 3- Retaining Wall Drainage Detail for Expansive Soils Rear of Text
Fgure 4- Retaining Wall Drainage Detail for Low 6cpansive Soils Rear of Text
t
Tables
, bl
Ta
e 1- Lot by Lot Summary of As-greded Geotechnical
Conditions and Recommendations Rear of Text
Table 2- Minimum Conventional Foundation Design Recommendations Rear of Text
, Table 3- Minimum Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations Rear of Text
Table 4- Lateral Earth Pressures Rear of Te~
' Plates
' Plates 1& 2- As-Greded Geotechnical Map In Pocket
Appendices
, Appendix A - References
Appendix B- Summary of Field Density Tests
' Appendix C- Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Appendix D- Lot Maintenance Guidelines for Owners
'
'
' •
~ A
- ;; -
Leighton
~
110231-024
' October 23, 2003
' 1.0 INTRADUCTiON
In accordance with your request and authorization, L,eighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has
' performed geotechnical observation and testing services during the most recent phase of rough-
grading operations of Lots 1 through 35 of Tract 30667-2 within the Harveston Community. The
' subject tract had been previousiy "sheeY' mass graded under the observation and tesring of I,eighton
(L,eighton, 2003a).
' This as-graded report summarizes our geotechnical observations, field and laboratory test results
and the geotechnical conditions encountered during the recent rough grading of the subject lots.
In addition, this report provides conclusions and recommendations for the proposed development
~ of the subject lots.
The reference 40-scale gading plans for Tract 30667-2 (RBF, 2003) were annotated and urilized as
' a base map (Plates 1& 2) to plot geotechnical conditions and the approximate locations of the field
density tests taken during rough-grading operations.
'
~_J
,
1
'
,
'
'
'
'
~
-1-
L^cighton
~
r
'
LJ
'
'
~
'
t
'
'
'
'
110231-024
Odober 23, 2003
2.0 SUMMARY OF RAUGH-GRADING OPERATIORIS
Tract 30667-2 was initially sheet graded as Lot 14 within Tract 29639-1 under the observarion and
testing of Leighton (Leighton, 2003a). Rough grading to the approved design configurarion (RBF,
2003) was conducted by ACI, Inc. in July tlu~ough September of 2003, under the geotechnical
observation and testing services of Leighton. Leighton field technician(s) and geologist were onsite
on a full-time and as-needed basis, respectively, during grading operations. Grading involved the
complete removal of desiccated fill, erosion rills and surface erosion sediments to competent
previously-placed compacted fill (Leighton, 2003a) and the placement of compacted artificial fill to
depths of approacimately eleven feet to create the design residenrial lots and associated roadways.
2.1 Site Prenaration and Removals
Prior to grading, deleterious materials were removed from the azeas of proposed development
and disposed of offsite. Grading of the subject site was accomplished by removal of unsuitable
surficial material. The removals were completed until competent previously-placed
compacted fill (Leighton, 2003a) was encountered in accordance with the recommendations of
the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and the geotechnical recommendations made
during grading operations.
2.2 Field Density Testina
Field density testing was performed using the nuclear gauge method (AS'I`M Test Methods
D2922 and D3017). Tested areas appear to meet the minimum required 90 percent relative
compaction with optimum moishue content or above. Areas that testefl less than the required 90
percent relarive compaction, were reworked, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted
until the minimum 90 percent was obtained. The results and approximate locations of the field
density tests are summarized in Appendix B. The appmximate locations of the field density tests
aze depicted on the enclosed As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1& 2).
2.3 Laboratorv Testing
Laboratory compaction characteristics (masimum dry density and optimum moisture),
expansion index, Atterberg lixnits, and soluble sulfate tests of representative onsite soils were
performed during the course of rough-gading and are presented in Appendix C. A descriprion
of the laboratory test procedures aze also presented in Appendix C. The intetpretarion of the
laboratory data for each lot is presented in Table 1 at the reaz of text.
~
-2-
Leighton
~P
,
'
'
'
'
~
'
'
'
J
'
~
~
'
1
'
'
110231-024
Odober 23, Z003
2.4 Filf Placement
Fill consisting of the _ soil types listed in Appendix C was placed in thin lifts of
approximately eight inches, processed and moisture conditioned .to optimum moisture
content or above, and compacted in place to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory
derived maximum density. During the previous site mass grading (Leighton, 2003a) areas of
fill that were deeper then 50 feet were compacted and tested to 95 percent relative
compaction below the 50-foot depth. A 95 percent relative compaction zone (buttress) was
constructed in accordance to the recommendations of the reference report (Leighton, 2002)
along lots 14 through 16 in order to increase the seismic stability of the fill slope superjacent
to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. The buttress was constructed as depicted in Figure 2.
A structural setback is recommended as shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates
1& 2). Fill placement and compaction was accomplished with the use of heavy earthwork
equipment. For a description of the removal criteria and test results used in fiil over
alluvium azeas, refer to the previous rough-grading report (Leighton, 2003a).
2.5 Canyon Subdreins
The existing canyon subdrain constructed during rough-grading of Tract 29639-1 (I.eighton,
2003a) should be outletted to the planned permanent storm drain system that outlets into the
Santa Gertrudis Creek during the storm drain construction of Tract 30667-2. The approximate
location of the subdrain is presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1& 2).
Canyon subdrains, as constructed, were surveyed by RBF.
~
-3-
Leighton
~
110231-024
~ Odober 23, 2003
' 3.0 ENGYNEERING GE~DLOGYC 511MMARY
' 3.1 As-Graded Geologic Conditions
The as-graded conditions encountered during grading of the subject lots was essentially as
' anticipated. A summary of the geologic condirions, including geologic units, geologic strvcture
and faulting is presented below.
3.2 Geologic Un'~ts
The geologic units observed during grading of the subject lots consisted of Artificial Fill (A~,
and previously-placed compacted fill (Afl) which aze discussed below:
' 3.2.1 Attificial Fili (Afl - Locally derived artificial fill soils generally consisted of olive gray to
olive brown silty sand to locally slightly clayey silty sand. Artificial fill soils were placed
under the observation and field density testing by Leighton representatives during trus
, phase of grading. After moislure conditioning and thomugh mixing, the artificial fill soils
were placed in relatively thin (8-10 inches) lifts and compacted utilizing heavy duty
conshuction equipment.
' 3.2.2 Artificial Fill Leighton ~Afll - The artificial fill encountered from our previous phase of
grading 2002/2003 generally consisted of bmwn to dazk brown, moist, medium dense to
~ dense silty sand As encountered during grading, the artificial fill was genecally moderately
dense neaz the surface, becoming dense with depth. The weathered artificial fill materials
were scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture condirioned and thoroughly mixed and re-
used as compacted fill.
3.3 Geoloaic Structure and Faulti~
' Based on our geologic observations during site grading, the Pauba Formation is massive with
localized bedding, which is generally flat lying. No faulting or indications of faulring were
, anticipated or observed within or immediately adjacent to the subject tract. No faulting or
indications of active faulting was anricipated nor observed wiUun the subject lots during rough-
~ grading operarions. The neazest "zoned" active fault is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore
Fault Zone located approximately 1.0 miles (1.61an) to the southwest.
~
'
' .~
' ~
-4-
Leighton
1
~ -
t
,~
i~
'
'
~
,
'
'
,~
~
'
'
'
,
'
~
110231-024
Odober 23, 2003
3.4 Landsfides and Surficial Failures
Based on our review of the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and our geotogic
observations during the course of grading operations, there were no indicarions of landslides or
other significant surficial failures wittrin the subject tract. It should be noted that unplanted or
unprotected slopes aze subject to erosion and subsequent surficial instability.
3.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during recent or previous (I,eighton, 2003a) rough
grading. Canyon subdrains were constructed in general accordance with the project
geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and our field recommendations during the previous
grading (Leighton, 2003a). However, unforeseen conditions may occur after the completion of
grading and establishment of site imgation and landscaping. Perched groundwater may
accumulate at layers of differing permeability or at bedrock/fill contacts. If these conditions
should occur, methods should be taken to mitigate any resulting seepage. PresenUy the majority
of the subject site drains towazds the south and any surface runoff will tend to collect at low
points until such time that the proposed design drainage faciliries aze constructed. If water is
allowed to pond in these azeas for any length of time the subgrade in these areas may become
saturated and additional grading recommendations may be required to mitigate this condition.
We recommend that the project erosion control program be designed and implemented as soon
as possible to limit the poten6al of erosion damage or adverse effects to compacted fill.
3.6 Expansion Testing of Finish Grade Soiis
Eacpansion index testing was performed on representative near finish grade soils of the subject
lots. The test results indicate the on lot neaz-finish gtade soils have a very low to medium
expansion potential in accordance with Table 18-I-B of the 1997 UBC. Test results of samples
taken during the coutse of grading indicate that very low to very lugh e~cpansive soils exist on site
at various deptlis and loca6ons on the Harveston project site. Test procedures and results aze
presented 'm Appendix C. A lot by lot sununary of the as-gaded conditions for the subject lots is
presented in Table 1.
O
-5-
Leighton
~
,
'
Il
1
~
'
~
'
'
~
~
~
4.0
4.1 General
110231-024
October 23, 2003
The grad'uig of the subj ect lots was performed in general accordance with the proj ect geotechnical
reports and geotechnical recommendations made during the course of mugh grading. It is our
professional opinion that the subject lots aze suitable for their intended residential use provided
the recommendations included herein and in the project geotechnical reports are incorporated into
the design and conshvction of the residenrial structures and associated improvements.
4.2 Summarv of Conclusions
. Geotechnical condirions encountered during rough grading of the subject site were generally
as anticipated.
. Excavarions were made to dense previously-placed compacted fill (Afl) material during the
gading for the subject lots.
. Fill slopes within the subject tract range up to approacimately 16 feet in height. It is our
opinion that the compacted fill slopes on the subject lot are surficially and grossly stable
(undet normal irrigarion/precipitation pattems) provided the recommendations in the project
geotechnical reports and memorandums aze incorporated into the post-grading, construcrion
and post-construction phases of site development. Slopes are inherently subject to erosion.
As such, measures should be taken as soon as possible to reduce erosion for both short term
and long term slope integity.
• Laboratory testing of soils encountered during the course of grading indicates site soils to
possess a very low to very high expansion potenrial. Some expansive soil related distress to
flahvork should be anricipated. It is our opinion that the neaz surface soils influencing the
design of foundarion and slabs of the subject ~act should be considered to be very low to
medium expansive (per UBC).
. Laboratory tesring of neaz finish grade soils within building footprints indicates materials
which posses a very low to medium eacpansion potential and have a negligible concentration
of soluble sulfate. Laboratory test results aze contained herein Table 1 and Appendix C.
. Testing for minimum resistivity, chloride concentrates, and pH was not conducted during
~ the course of rough grading. A licensed corrosion engineer should be contacted in regazd to
determining ~e potential for corrosion if corrosion sensitive buried improvements aze to be
installed.
'
~
~
• The potential for ground-surface rupture on the site due to a seismic event is considered to
be low; however, as in most of southem Califomia, strong ground shaking should be
anticipated during the life of the shuctures. The standard design of structures to meet the
seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code (LJBC), Seismic Zone 4 will be
required.
~
-6-
Leighton
~~
110231-024
, . October 23, 2003
~ • Where tested, fill material placed during grading of the subject tract was placed at a
minimum of 90 percent relative compacrion (95 percent where recommended) at or above
1 the optimum moisture content. Field testing of compaction was performed by the nucleaz
gauge method (AST'M Test Methods D2922 and D3017).
. Foundations should be designed and constructed in accordance with Leighton's minimum
~ recommendations herein, the requirements of the City of Temecula and the applicable
sec6ons of the 1997 UBC.
' . Due to the reladvely dense nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the subject site, the
competency of compacted fills, as well as the lack of permanent shallow groundwater, the
potential for liquefaction on the site is considered very low.
. The front yard and driveway areas were intentionally left below design elevations
(appmximately 2 to 3.5 feet below pad grade) to accommodate future lot excavation spoils.
' Filling of these areas should be performed in accordance with the recommendations herein
for earthwork (section 5.1.2).
~
ll
,
'
~
r'~I
u
'
~
J
-7-
•
~~
Leighton
110231-024
~ October 23, 2003
' 5.0 RECAMMERJDATYOPIS
1 5.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of precise grading of the building
' pads, foundation installation, trench excavation and backfill, retaining wall backfill,
prepazarion of street subgrade, and placement of aggegate base and asphalt concrete
pavement. We recommend that any addirional earthwork on the site be performed in
'. accordance with the following recommendations and the City of Temecula grading
requirements.
5.1.1 Excavations -- Temporary excavations with vertical sides, such as utility h~enches,
should remain stable to depths of 4 feet or less for the period required to construct the
urility. However, in accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations greater than 4
, feet in depth should be shored, or laid-back to inclinations of 1:1 (horizontal to
vertical), if workers aze to enter such excavations. Leighton does not consult in the
~ area of safety engineering. The contractor is responsible for the safety of all
excavations.
, 5.1.2 Utilitv Backfil4 FiII Placement and Com a ion - All backfill or fill soils
should be brought to optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to
at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maxirnum dry density
, (ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thicirness required to produce
uniform compaction wiil depend on the type, size and condirion of compaction
equipment used. In general, the onsite soils should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8
~ inches in compacted thiclmess and placed on dense existing compacted Sll or other
earth material approved by the geotechnical consultant. The backfill that coincides
with pavement subgrade will be reworked and compacted in accordance with
, pavement design requirements.
5.2 Foundation and Structure Design Considerations
1 It is Leighton's understanding that single-faznily structures founded on post-tensioned or
convenfional foundation systems aze proposed. The proposed foundations and slabs should
~ be desigaed in accordance with the structural consultants' design, the minimum geotechnical
recommendations presented herein (text, Table 1 through 3), the City of Temecula
requirements and the 1997 UBC. In utilizing the minimum geotechnical foundation
' recommendations, the structural consultant should design the foundation system to acceptable
deflection criteria as determined by the shucturai engineer and azchitect.
Leighton
~
,
~
'
,
i
~
110231-024
Odober 23, 2003
Foundation footings may be designed with the following pazameters:
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2000 psf at a minimum depth of embedment of 12
inches, plus an additional 250 psf per 6 inches of
additional embedment to a maximum of 2500 psf.
(per 1997 UBC, capacities may be increased by 1/3 for
short-term loading condiUons, i.e., wind, seismic)
Sliding Coefficient: 0.35
Static Settlement Potential
Lots 1- 35
'
~
~
,
~
~
'
,
'
~
Total: 1 inch
Differential: 1 Inch in 40 Feet
The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the siab-on-grade thicirness
should be designed by the structural consultant based on recommendarions and soil
characteristics indicated herein (Tables 1 through 3), and the most recentiy adopted edition of
the UBC. The effects of seismic shaking on foundation soils may increase the static
differenrial settlement noted above to approximately 1 inch in 40 feet.
The under-slab moisture barrier should consist of 2 inches of sand (S.E. > 30) over 10 mil
visqueen over an addirional2 inches of sand (a total of 4 inches of sand). The recommended
vapor bazrier should be sealed at all penetrarions and laps. Moisture vapor transmission may
be additionally reduced by use of concrete addirives. Moisture vapor barriers may retard but
not elinunate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. A
slipsheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor
coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.) aze to be placed directly on the concrete slab.
Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally
reduce the poten6al for drying and shrinkage c~acldng. However, some cracking should be
expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often
aggravated by a lvgh water/cement ratio, high concrete temperatures at the time of placement,
small nominal aggregate size and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry and/or windy weather
conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture
fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 to 5 inches
at the time of placement) can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking.
~
-9-
Leighton
~~
,
,
'
,
r
'
'
'
'
'
'
IJ
~
,
'
110231-024
Odober 23, 2003
Fuhue homeowners and homeowners' association should be made awaze of the importance of
maintaining a constant level of soil moisture. Homeowners should be made awaze of the
potential negative consequences of both excessive watering, as well as allowing soils to
become too dry. unproperly designed, conshucted, or maintained planters often pond water
and cause deep moisture penetration and soil moisture change. Since deep and repeated soil
moisture change can damage the adjacent structure, placement of planters adjacent to
foundarions or other sensitive hardscape, such as pools and spas, should be discouraged if
adequate and proper maintenance can not be assured. Our recommendations assume a
reasonable degree of homeowner responsibility, if the homeowners do not adequately
maintain correct irriga6on and drainage, some degree of foundation movement should be
expected. However, this movement typicaliy does not cause structural damage, but will cause
such things as stucco cracldng and dry wall sepazarion.
The slab subgrade soils should be presoaked in accordance with the recoxnmendarions
presented in Table 1 prior to placement of the moisture barrier and foundation concrete.
5.3 Foundation Setback from Sloces
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all
structural footings (retainuig and decorarive walls, building footings, pools, etc.). This
distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope
face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of Hl2, where H is the slope
height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 5 feet and need not be greater than 10
feet. Please note that the soils within the struchxral setback area possess poor lateral stabiliry
and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pools, parios, etc.) conshvcted
within this setback azea may be subject to lateral movement and/or differenrial settlement.
The potential for distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened
footing or a pier and grade-beam foundation system to support the improvement. The
deepened footing should meet the setback as described above. Modificarions of slope
inclinations near foundations may reduce the setback and should be reviewed by the design
team prior to completion of design or implementation.
5.3.1 Stru ~ral ~ ba I~ Lots 9 and 10 -- Based on our supplemental analysis of
liquefaction and slope stability, it was determined that in the event of liquefaction
along the exisring Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel, some distress to the
manufactured fill slope is possible adjacent to Lots 9 and 10 of Tract 30667-2.
Six settlement monuments were placed along the top and toe of slope area adjacent
' t
to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. These monuments were surveyed by the
' project surveyor (RBF Consulting Inc.) from November 2002 ttuough April 2003.
Based on our analysis of the settlement data, it is Leighton's opinion that the subject
azea is suitable for its intended residential use (I,eighton, 2003b).
'
,
-10-
~
~ ~~
Leighton
110231-024
~ Odober 23, 2003
, A struchual setback has been established along the top of slope that runs through
lots 9 and 10 of Tract 30667-2 and continues through Tract 30667-3 pazallel to the
, Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. Habitable or critical structures should not be
constructed beyond the setback zone presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical
Maps (Plates 1 & 2).
, 5.4 Structure Seismic Design Parameters
' Struchues should be designed as required by provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
for Seismic Zone 4 and state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Shuctural Engineers
Associafion of Califomia This site is located with UBC Seismic Zone 4. Seismic design
~. parameters in accordance with the 1997 UBC aze presented below. Please refer to the
Supplemental Geotechnical Invesrigation (Leighton, 2001) for addirional informa6on.
, Seismic Source Type = B
Near Source Factor, Na =1.3
' Neaz Source Factor, N,. =1.6
Soil Profile Type = Sp
Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.68g
' (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
5.5 Corrosion
, For sulfate exposure and cement type refer to 'I'able 1 and the corresponding sections of the
UBC. Other than buried concrete improvements, a licensed corrosion engineer should be
, contacted in order to determine the potential for corrosion if corrosion sensitive buried
improvements are planned.
' S.6 Laterai Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Consideretions
, The recommended lateral pressures for very low to low expansive soil (eacpansion index less
than 51) and level or sloping backfill are presented on Table 4(rear of text). The onsite wall
excavarion materials should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to use as wall
;~ backfill.
Embedded struchual walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exeded on them. The
, magnitude of these pressures depends on the azt~ount of deformation that the wall can yield
under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be
designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the sheaz
, s~ength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls
should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves towazd the soils, the resulting
resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance.
' ~
`~
' -11-
Leighton
,
'
,
,
1
~
'
'
'
I~
,
,
'
'
LJ
,
'
110231-024
October 23, 2003
The equivalent fluid weights of Table 4 assume very low to low expansive, free-draining
conditions. If condifions other than those assumed above are anticipated, equivalent fluid
weights should be provided on a case by case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surchazge
loading effects from adjacent structures shouid be evaluated by the structural engineer. All
retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. The
outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is
illustrated in Figure 2.
Lateral passive pressures may be determined using the values provided in Table 4. In
combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the frictional resistance should
be reduced by 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structiual
considerarions. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when.considering
loads of short duration, including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal distance between
foundarion elements providing passive resistance shoutd be a minimum of three times the
depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures. The total depth of
retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground
surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for
overtuming and sliding.
Foundations for retaining walls in competent formarional soils or properly compacted fill
should be embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade. At this depth,
an allowable bearing capacity of 2,250 psf may be utilized. The bearing capacity may be
increased by 250 psf for each additional six inches of embedment to a maximum of 4000 psf.
Wail backcut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For backcuts
greater than 5 feet in height, the backcut should be flattened to a gradient not steeper than 1:1
(horizontal to vertical). Backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (based on AST'M Test Method D1557). Backfill should extend horizontally to a
minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls. The walls should be
cons~ucted and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavation. Prolonged exposure
of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability.
For unrestrained retaining walls within this tract that are greater than 5 feet (exposed; retained
earth) or that may present a life/safety hazard during strong ground shaking, the lateral earth
pressures should be increased by a seismic surchazge (seismic increment) in general
accordance with chapter 16 of the 1997 UBC. The location, distribution and maguitude of this
surcharge will be provided if such walls are pFoposed. Walls designed with such seismic
increment should achieve a factor of safety between 1.1 and 1.2 when evaluating stability
(sliding and overtunriug) of the wall (NAVFAC DM7.02).
~
-12-
Leighton
~~
'
110231-024
Odober 23, 2003
' 5.7 Concrete Flatwork
~ Expansive soils aze lmown to exist onsite and therefore concrete flatwork should be designed
and conshucted with the anticipation of expansive soil related dish~ess. Closer spacing of
control joints, reinforcement and keeping the flatwork subgrade at or above oprimum
, moishue prior to the placement of concrete may minimi~e cracldng and differenrial
movement.
, City of Temecula Standazd No. 401 "Sidewalk and Curb" specifies aggregate base or
approved select material under sidewalks and curbs when expansive soil is present. In lieu of
the aggregate base or select material under sidewalks and curbs, and with the approval of the
City of Temecula, the sidewalk and curb subgrade may be presoaked such that 120% of
' optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 8 inches is achieved prior to the placement
of concrete. Moisture testing must be performed by the geotechnical consultant prior to
' concrete placement.
' 5.8 Control of SurFace Water and Dreinage Control
Positive drainage of surface water away from shuctures is very important. No water should be
' allowed to pond adjacent to buildings. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing
drainage away from buildings at a gadient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet,
and fiuther maintained by a swale on drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. Where
limited by 5-foot side yards, drainage should be d'uected away from foundations for a
, minimum of 3 feet and into a collector swale or pipe system. Where necessary, drainage paths
may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes and/or paved swales. Eave gutters
, also help reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly
connected to appropriate outlets.
' Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided, if possible. Planters
should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch
basins and pipe drains, aze made. No ponding of water from any source (including
' irrigation) should be pemutted onsite as moisture infiltration may increase the potential for
moisture-related disiress. Experience has shown that even with these controls for surface
; drainage, a shallow perched ground water or subsurface water condition can and may
develop in azeas where no such condition previously existed. This is particulazly true where
~ a substanUal increase in surface water infiltration resulting from site irrigation occurs.
Mirigation of these conditions should be per#~ormed under the recommendarions of the
, geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis.
1
' w
' `~
-13-
Leighton
110231-024
, October 23, 2003
, 5.9 Graded Slooes
It is recommended that all siopes be planted with drought-tolerant, ground cover vegetation
, as soon as practical to protect against erosion by reducing runoff velocity. Deep-rooted
vegetation should also be established to provide resistance to surficial slumping.
Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during fine grading and construction.
' Retaining shuctures to support graded slopes should be designed with structural
considerations and appropriate soil pazameters provided in Section 5.6.
' S.10 Irriaation. Landscaping and Lot Maintenance
Site irrigarion should be confrolled at all times. We recommend that only the minimum
' amount of irrigarion necessary to maintain plant vigor be urilized. For irrigation of trees and
shrubs, a drip irrigation system should be considered. We recommend that where possible,
' landscaping consist primarily of drought-tolerant vegetation. A landscape consultant should
be contacted for proper plant selection. For large graded slopes adjacent to open space
areas, we recommend narive plant species be urilized and that irrigation be utilized only
' until plants are well established. At that time, irrigation could be significantly reduced.
Upon sale of homesites, maintenance of lots and common areas by the homeowners and
' homeowne~'s associarion, respectively, is recommended. Recommendarions for the
maintenance of slopes and properry aze included in Appendix D for your review and
, dishibution to future homeowners and/or homeowner's associarions.
5.11 Post-Gradina Geotechnical Review
, 5.11.1 Consr__r~!±ion Review -- Conshuction observation and testing should be performed
by the geotechnical consultant during future excavations, utility trench backfilling
, and foundation or retaining wall constnxction at the site. Addirionally, footing
excavations should be observed and moisture detemvnation tests of subgrade soils
should be performed by the geotechnical consultant prior to the pouring of concrete.
' 5.11.2 Plans and Specifications - The geotechnical engineer should review foundation
plans to evaluate if the recommendations herein have been incorporated. Foundarion
, design plans and specifications should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant
prior to excavation or uvstallation of residenrial development.
~
'
'
' ~
' -14-
Leighton
~$
110231-024
' October 23, 2003
' 6.0 LIMITATIONS
' The presence of our field representative at the site was intended to provide the owner with
pmfessionai advice, opinions, and recommendations based on observarions of the contractor's
work. Although the observations did not reveal obvious deficiencies or deviations from project
' specifications, we do not guarantee the contractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor
or his subcontractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor or his subcontractors of their
responsibility if defects aze subsequently discovered in their work. Our responsibilities did not
include any supervision or direction of the actual work procedures of the contractor, his personnel,
' or subcontractors. The conclusions in this report aze based on test results and observations of the
grading and earthwork procedures used and represent our engineering opinion as to the oompliance
~, of the results with the project specifications.
This report was prepared for I.ennaz Communities, based on their needs, directions, and requirements
, at the time. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied. upon by any party
except, Lennar Communities, with whom Leighton contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on
this report by any other party is at that parry's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this
' Report consritutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton and Associates from and
against any liability wluch may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault,
negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates.
'
'
,
~
,
'
,
'
, ~
, -15- `-`
\
Leighton
1
1
,
'
,
,
,
~
'
'
,
'..
I ,
I '
'
,
'
'
~r~~ 1C I ~~'
~Y ~'~
\~ ~
~ .,
.
_ .-
~
. ,
r
~, . ~
o ~ ,
i;~:_ _. \
~~ ~
`i ~
I
~
r~;~,~;..'_.,.`
' - -
~'::~
'
' "~~ ti } __
.
i
`
- ~1~ :"~! Q^
.
-
,
~
~
.~,~ - '?~'.
Q
Site Location ;a~.
\
` `.; 9,
.
~
Y
_ ,~~
'
~
,
- -I y~: ~~l~h:_ ;='~ -
O....,
~~ +_
_,`,~, yC
~
V
h
RO
~
~?~
~~
~ ~
~'F
S
U;
jv ~
'_
~.~'
" ~Y '
~
4
'~ ~
i
,~~ ~ ~ c~~, ~r
1 .~ ~
%
!
,~~ ~ti~~i '•
~i
eJ; ,~ r
; , ~.fe ,
~ l,Y~ ,~_ c~.
'V'
i~
~ L.,
,nvu.,.:' '''. ~ `~F,-
.... .r,.+...j `..;Tl .y..
~•.~
. f l,
y
- rF~ .1 ~):
` r
~
,
t,~
~~~
~ 'i3 ' -`;,
`~`
r4
`, '" ,x
, <, ; _
.l ^ ~'T/ /
~
~
'
' .\, ~.~ ` t ~ 4
~'-/
i ., L
6
: J~'7p i .
OO •'` _~SJi]
~ !.' I ~^
/
^
~ 'r
i'`.!G _ ~~
I -__
~" ` -
••
X
~~
~ '~
E
~1.
~
OO
~`
.
q _
_ Al,'
^
l
lF~ I
~
~c cOO ~ r~/~-i~
~ - .. _. r~h ti i ~~ .Y .)l~.
~ i ~
~~ '
1 _{'~/? - ~p.~~~. ~t. ~~ `,, ~1
~` ~ ~ .
-
~
~
'?'/~ ~~
C•C+:~l~h' .
_
. "" rti'.
'
~
~ ~ O~RTH
'y ~J
Base Map: The Thomas Guide Digital Edition Inland Empire 2004, Not To Scale
Harveston Project No. o
Tract 30667-2, $ITE ~.OCATION 110231-024 v~~
Temecula, California MAP Date • V
Riverside County, California october2003 FigureNo.1
,
'
~
'
,
u
,
'
l:
~
~
~
~
~
~
J
'
Suggested 5'
lateral setback
to face of backcut
from existing utilities
EXISTING ~
UTILITIES
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
SETBACK*
Anticipated to
- range from ~
5' to 25'
RCFC
CHANNEL
EMBANKMENT
Afu
Qal
Qp
Qp
'Structural setback with remediation performed as presented in Section 2.4
SETBACK DIAGRAM
Harveston
Temecula, California
Project No. 110231-024 ~
Scale NTS
Engr./Geol. ATG/RFR ?j`
Drafted By DLM
Date October 2003 Figure No. 2
- .
~
i
•
LIMITS ~
• OF ~
~ ~ ~ ~ Projection from
` ~ REMOVAL ~ bedrock/ailuvium
~~ ~ ~ ~~ removal contact
_~ ~ ~
~ ~
• ~
Qal , ,
,
'
'
1
'
SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE
WALL HEIGHT
OR HEEL W[DiH
WHICHEVER
IS GREA7FR
HAS IXPANSION INDIX OF >50
WATERPROOF
PER DESIGN
ENGINEER
CIEAN SPND BAIXFlIL
WRH S.E.>3J
APFROVED BY SOIIS BJGINEE{i
(MAV BE DENSIFlm BY CAMPACTIIXJ
OR WAiER ]Eff W G)
'
'
'
'
I GENERAL NOTES:
1
'
'
~
'
,
F1L1ER FABRIC
WEEP HOLE . ~. _ (SEE NQiE 4)
(SEENQiES) .~•~~
4" PERFORATED PIPEANDGRAVa
~ ~. ~::=~. (SEE NOTES 2 AND 3)
6" M[N.
NQiE: AS AN 0.LTHtNATE TO QEAN SAND BACKFILL,
CLEAN GRAVEL hV+Y BE UTII~ZED W[TH APPROVED FILTFA FABRIC A
SECOND ALTERNATE IS TO UTILIZE AN AGGRE('~1TE BASE MAiERiAL
COMPACTED TO 90 % RELATIVE COMPACTION. A SnMRE CP lHE
PROPOSED BASE MUST BE HPPROV~ BV TiE GEQIECHNICPL
CQVSULTlWT PRIORTO BACIffILL FOR AIRABILITY. COMPACTION
SFiOULD BEA0IIEVED WIiHWT DAMAGING THE WALL.
* Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable.
' Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer
* All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum
*Outlet portion of the su6drain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project
engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accesside for maintenance (rodding)
*O[her subdrain bac~ll options are subject to the review lry the geotechnical engineer and modification of design pa2meters.
No[es:
1) Sand should ha~e a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting.
2) 1 Cu. R. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1J2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter (abnc
3) Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASfM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloritk plastic (P/C), Schedule
40, Artnco A2000 PVC, w approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perFo2tions down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in
diameter placed at the ends of a 12o-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered)
4) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NCorapprovedequivalent.
5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 16-foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should
be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the
sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet
sys[em should be provided.
6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved lry the geotechnical engineer.
7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special reHew by the geotxhnical engineer and modifications to the above requirementr.
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL '~
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT 1~y
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS IXPANSION INDEX OF >50
Figure No. 3
I I SUBDRAIN OP7ION5 AND BACKFILL WHEN NATiVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <~0
OPrION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH
' CLA55 2 PERMEABLE MATERiAL OPTION Z: GRAVEL WRAPPED
I IN fILTER FABRIC
WITH PROPER WI7H PROPER
SURFACE DRAINAGE . SURFA~ DRAINAGE
' SLOPE SLOPE
( OR LEVEL OR LEVEL
12" 12"
t I NATNE . . NATNE
WATERP(t00F[NG
(SEE GENERAL NOTES) WATERPROOFING ~~r:
~ (SEE GENERAL NOTES) F[L1ER FABRIC
~ ~, 12" MINIMUM (SEE NOTE 4)
I CLA55 2 PERMEABLE 12" MINIMl1M
WEEPHOLE FILTER MATERIAL WEEPHOLE ~/a m l~h WCMS¢E
(SEE NOiE 5) (SEE GRADAT[ON) (SEE NOiE 5) GR4~EL wRPPPED IN FaIER
' FFBWC
; I 4 MCH DIAMETER
LEVELOR PERPORATEDPIPE LEVELOR
. SLOPE (SEE NO7E 3) SLOPE
' I
' CIa4 2 Filter Permeable Ma[erial Gradation
I Per Caltrans Specifcatlons
Sieve Sire Percent Pas4nq
1„ 100
' 3/4" 90-100
I 3~g^ 40-100
Na. 4 25-40
~ Na, g 18-33
Na.30 5-15
' I No. 50 ~-~
No.200 0-3
' GENERAL NOiES: -
I* Waterproofing should be pmvided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable.
* Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechniwl engineer
* All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum
I*Outlet portion of the wbd2in should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project
engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding)
~*O[her wbd2in batiffill opdons are wbject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.
' I Notes:
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting.
, 2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric
I 3) Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acryloni[rile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Pdyvinyl Chloride plastlc (PVC), Schedule
40, Artnco A2000 PVC, or appm~d equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in
_ diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered)
' 4) Flter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or apprrned equivalent.
I 5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot ma~dmum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should
be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent [o a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the
sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet
' ~ system should be provided.
I 6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer.
7) Walls over six fee[ in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical ergineer and modifcations to the above requirementr.
I I REfAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL ~
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT 23
' I WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS IXPANSION INDEX OF <50 '
Figure No. 4
'
~M
' o0
~
N ~
Q N
L
' ~ ~
~
O
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
~J
'
~
1
V1
N V1
^ N
~ VJ
~ h
~ VI
N N
N VJ
N V]
~ y
N VI
N vf
~ vi
N VI
N fA
N
y .C .~ .~ .~ .5.. ~.' .L .~ .L .~ ~
y
~ U U
C U
C U U
G U
C U
C ~
. U
~ U
C U
C U
C V
C U
F' V
f."
~
~ y
j
Q F
.
N .
N
-. .
N F
.
N .
N
-r .
o0
--~ .
00 .
..,
W .
~ .
N
.-. .
N
-. .
N
r. .
N .
W .
o0
r.
R ~ . ~ .
C
N
~
~ N
i+ N
ir 7J
Ir 77
F+ N
F+ N
F+ N
Ir N
i.~ N
L N
F+ N
i+ N
F+ ~
i-i N
ir N
L
N O ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ Y ~ ~ '~ ~ u ~ Y ~ ~
' C
~
H +
a
N +
~-
N +
a.
y
y
N +
s
y
h
h
N
y r.
+
y
N +
s
y a-
+
h
O ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 Q ~
~ ~ r
-/~ r
/r ~
I
/
--
i ~
I
-v
/ ~ ~ ~
-`~
-/-i ~
-4
C
i ~
-I
r
-~ r
/
-~ ~ r
-/-r ~
1
-/
-
i r
/
-
r
L y 7 ~ ~ ~ ~
+
F c
G ~ ~ ~ .
C
F C
F'+ C
G ~+
G ~ y-
~
G ~
+
F
~ ,
(C
~ r~
~p ~
~ 7
~ 7
~ '3'
G 7
~ '3'
rC 7
~ '~
~ ~
~ 3
~ 7
~ ~
£ 7
~ ~
~ 7
~
~. v
i ~Y y L
~Y ~v Y ~Y ~Y ~Y V ~V M! Y ~V Y
o L
°" ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
~
d
a ~
e ~
o ~
0 ~
0 ~
o ~
e ~
e ~
o ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
o ~
e ~
o
~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 N
.-. N
.-. N N N N N N N N
.-. N
~-. N N N N
C
A
N
C -~ m
,-..
~ ~
~
i
k' U
~ 3
~
~ ~ Q ~
O VJ W
O N
`"
`~
~ M
V tn
V t~'1
V t~1
V t~1
V M
V M
V
°O
~ M
V C''~
V
CO
~'
~
N U a
i
R
U `a
~Q ~
C4
Q
r1 ~ `+
~L Q -~
H
~ ~ V
LO M
+ ad+
a Q
' ~
a~ :ti y .-,
~
H F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ (j X~~ v
O~
~ 7
M 7
M 7
M cn
t~1 .-.
M O
tn .-•
M O~
N ~O
t~l v'~
f~1 N
t'l ch
M N
V' N
M 01
N
.C
'o
~o
L ~
G LL .~ H a+
o.x~ c
Q
w p
~ F ~
r
N ~
Q O
O N
C7
N
a~
a~
a~
a~
a~
a~
v
a~
v
v
d
a~
a~
a~
a~
,b, .~ °= ~
-' a
~ ~ a
-'
' a
' a .fl a a a
' a
- a p a a
~ ~ o c
n c
n on o
n ~o ;u ~o ao on ~n e
n ~o on on on
~ '" ^ - ~
~ ~ v~ x
w v
z a~
z a~
z a~
z a~
z v
z a~
z a~
z v
z a~
z a~
z a~
z v
z a~
z a~
z
~
~ d
~
J
a ;° o ~
' 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8
o ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 3 ~ ~
~
~ ~,;~ ~o
~ ~o
~ ~o
~ ,
'v
~ ~o
~ ~c
~ 'v
~ ~c
~ ~c
~ o
a 0
a 0
a 0
a 'v
~ ~o
~
wGja°, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
.n
y N M~ V v1 ~O l~ co Q~ O .-• N
.--~ M
.r V
r+ v1
.--~
w
O
a
v '
v m
, N O
O O
ti
N m
O N
1
' ~ ~
~
O
'
'
,
1
'
'
~
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
,
~
~ ~
~ y
~ y
~ h
~ N
~ y
~ y y
~ y
~ ~
~ y
^ N
~ ~
~ y
~
.
~ .~ .a .= .c .c .c ..c ~ ~ .a s .~ .~ .~
ti ,
~ 0
G 0
C 0
G 0
C 0
C 0
C 0
G 0
G 0
C 0
C 0
C 0
C 0
C 0
G 0
C
~
G1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o
. co co co w co 00 0o co co 00
. 00 00
. 00 00
. 00
ro
'.
'.
r.
,-..
r.
r
r
'
b
~
~
~. v
s. a~
~. v
~. v
~ v
.. v
s, a~
s. a~
r. a~
w a~
w a~
w a~
H a~
~ a~
w
V1 ~ 7 7 7 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ 7 7
C (J
N
vi V
rn V
.n ~+
rn V
vi
in a.+
m V
m ~
~n H
~n
m ~
rn ~
v~ V
(n t+
m
~ (li O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
~
~
~ ~
i
/ ~
+
!
~
~ ~
-+
/ ~
-+
G ~
r
F ~
r
/ i
~
/ ~
»
G
~
~ r
F ~
i
/
~
~
~
N -
.
C
G -.
~
~+
G
C
F -
.
~+
G ~
~ .
C
F -
.
~!
G .
-
~ i
~
~+
q
~+
G .
~ -
.
~
~ .
ca ~
y a ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 a ~ 7 7 '3 ~ 7 ~ ~
~ m ~O E ~ 'C
' ~ ~ ~ E '~" ~" ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ E
^~ ~
•Y ~V ~
Y ~Y Y ~V V y V V V •V • • •
0 w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
~
GI
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O
~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~
N N N N N N N N N - N N N N N N
~ ~-. r. .-. .-. ~-. .--i '. .-. .-. ,-.
L
l0
tll m
~
O ~ y
~ '"~ O
cC w (~"j ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
p y
" ~ °O V ~ ~ `~"~ ~ V V V V V V V M
U O
y
s. y, 'O
t'
N " y,~ c°
¢ `" ° a
n ,~
'i ~ V
~L Q Q ~
~+
s
J O
la M V ~
a i~ ~ O
'.+
N a~+ y~
H
~ ~ ~ F ~ ~
F
~ U ~ ~ ~
X~ ~
O
~n
~O
~
~n
oo
iD
O~
N
~
~--~
O
H'
~
M
~ O~.9 b 7 7 V' V V V' M r'1 ~Y 7 7 7 V V M
' ~ (~
~
~ ~ fy .
P.+
Q
o
~ ~w
~ ~
Q o
O a~
C7
N
a~
a~
a>
v
a~
a~
a~
a~
a~
a~
a~
a~
a>
a~
v
~ ~ ~
~ F" p A .O .O .D L L A L P A .O p p p.
10 'fl w v~i 0~ U'"9 00 b0 O~q bA 0A bA b0 ~1 b
^D bA OQ b4 bA
~ ~p ~ G. bl0 b0 b0 b0 bA W bA b4 b0 b4 ~
bA b0 OA bA bA
N ~ W z Z z Z z z z `Z 7 `L z Z Z z z
o ¢ -+
H
J
a ~ ~~~
~ F 6 E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ E 6 ~
Y
C 'U
in •+;,,
C~ ~
C ~
' 7
'C ~
'
f ~
' ~
'O ~
' '~
' ~
~ 7
~ 7
~C ~
~O 7
'C ~
~O ~
'O
J y y ' t7 O C C C O O N 77 N N 4J
y N
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ N
~ 7J
~ N
~ ~
~ m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
wwa;
~
a
z ~O [~ oo O~ O ;--~ N M 7 vl ~D l~ o0 01 O
.~ .--~ ~--~ N N N N N N N N N N M
a°
2~
~~
' o0
~
M ~.j
Q N
~
~
' 'y ~
O
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
~
'
'
'
t
~'~'., y
.L ti
..' ti
.~ N
.L N
.~'
V] ~ C G C G C
O
. Q oo N
-. N N N
~
.
~
N
C
F
7 ~ ~ ~ 7
N ~
C
~ y
R~ m
O N
O fn
O m
O vi
O
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
£ y O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ •..-. •., •., •~
o ~`' O O O O
a~i o e o e e
~ o 0 0 0 0
9 N
~-. N
~--i N
~-. N
~-. N
..
C
~
V1
o - y
°J w o
=
: c3 U ~
~ iC Q ~
Q
O ~ a~i ai `~ V ~ N rn ~
U
' a i ~ ~
i
~ Q' w U Q'
~
~
~ A .~
H
C `~
..A C
V
l0 M
a ~+ a~+ O
' ~
m :~ y ..
H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
U p U
O~,~ ~ ~
M
N
N
N
~
s ~ ~ F" w
a
~ ~ .
6~w o
o+
IA ~
Q O
O N
C7
N
a~
v
a>
a~
a~
R v ~
a~ ~ a .o
~ a ~ a
~ ~, y on tin ao on on
' 0
~ ~ ~w z z z z z
~
~ ~
~.
J
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7
O (j
~ •~ 'O 'O "C .
'O` '
7
J ~ ~ ~ ~ L
~
~ W a
k,
a~i
p
~
z ~--~
M N
t~1 M .
M 7
M ~/1
M
O
a
W ¢
~
~ ~
~ ~
~-. ~--i
~ ~
E-~ F
~ ~
~ C
O O
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
.--i N
~
,
,
'
'
~
'
,
'"
'
110231-024
October 23, 2003
TABLE 2
Minimum Convenrional Foundation Design Recommendations
UBC Expansion Potenrial
Very Low to Low Medium
1-Story Footing Depth of Embedment 12 ~ 18"
(Exterior and (Exterior and Interior)
Interior
2-Story Footing Depth of Embedment 18" Exterior 18"
12" Interior xterior and Interior
Isolated Column Footings Exterior of
18"
24"
Minnnum Foundation
Presoalang See Table 1
No. 3 rebaz placed at No. 3 rebaz placed at
mid-slab height ~d-slab height spaced
Minimum Slab Reinforcement spaced 18 inches on 15 inches on center,
Thiclmess center, each way,
each way; minimum
minimum slab slab thiclaiess 5 inches
thiclmess 4 inches
Two inches of sand over a 10-mil polyvinyl
Underslab Treatment membrane (Visqueen or equivalent) over an
addirional two inches of sand.
Notes:
' (1) Depth of interior or exterior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade. If
drainage swale flowline elevation is less than 5 feet laterally from footing, footing bottom
, to be minimum 6 inches below swale flowline
(2) Living azea slabs should be tied to the footings as directed by the structural engineer.
(3) Garage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a minimum 3/8" felt expansion
'. joint.
(4) Underslab treatment sand should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater (e.g. washed
' concrete sand).
(5) The lower two inches of underslab treahnent sand may be omitted on lots which possess a
very low potential (see Table 1).
'
'
' 2~
J
'
~I
'
'
1
1
t
~
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
110231-024
October 23, 2003
TABLE 3
Minimum Post-Tensioned Foundarion Design Recommendations
Expansion Potential (UBC 18-2)
Design Criteria Very Low Low Medium High
EI= 0.20 EI= 21-50 EI= 51-90 EI = 91-130
Edge Moisture Center Lift: 5.5 feet
Variation, em Edge Lift: 3.0 feet
Center Lift: 1.25 inches 2.0 inches 2.4 inches 4.5 inches
Differential
Sweli, ym Edge Lift: 0.4 inches 0.4 inches 0.8 inches 13 inches
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 150 psi/in 125 psi/in 125 psi/in 100 psi/in
Plasticity Index Non Plastic * * *
Minimum Perimeter Footing 12 inches 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches
Embedment Depth
Two inches of sand over a 10-mil polyvinyl membrane
Underslab Treatment (Visqueen or equivalent) over an additional rivo inches of
sand.
Presoaking See Table 1
(1) Depth of exterior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent fmish grade or drainage swale
flowline elevation (less than 5 feet laterally from footing, per code).
(2) Living area slabs should be ried to the footings as d'uected by the structural engineer. .
(3) Detailing of expansion crack control joints for PT slabs per structural engineer.
(4) Underslab treatment sand should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater (e.g. washed concrete
sand).
(5) The lower two inches of underslab treatment sanfl may be omitted on lots which possess a very
low expansion potential (see Table 1).
(6) Potenfia] total and differenrial settlement should be included cumularively with differenUal swell
pazameters.
* Plasticity index to be provided upon request if a ribbed UBC type (Section 1815) slab is preferred.
' ~
'
,
t
L~
110231-024
October 23, ~003
AP~E~dDIDC 6~
Leighton and Associates, 2001, Suppiemental Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical
Review of 100-Scale Mass Grading Plan, Tentative Tract No. 29639,
Harveston, Temecula, Califomia, LDOl-058GR, Project No. 110231-003,
dated August 15, 2001.
' Leighton and Associates, 2002, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tract No. 29639, Lots
14, 15, and 16, Harveston, Temecula, Califomia, Project No. 110231-007,
~ dated July 9, 2002
Leighton and Associates, 2003a, As-Graded Report of Mass Grading Harveston, Tract 29639-1,
City of Temecula, Califomia, Project No. 110231-006, dated February 5,
2003.
i
'
,
'
1
~
'
,
'
,
Leighton and Associates, 2003b, Release for Construcrion, Lots 14 through 16 (Neighborhoods 13
through 15), Tract 29639-1, City of Temecula, Califomia, Project No. 1 1 023 1-024,
dated September 12, 2003.
Navai Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil mechanics design manual 7.01, Change 1:
U.S. Navy, September.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986b, Foundations and earth struchues, design manual
7.02, Changes 1: U.S. Navy, September.
RBF Consulting, 2003, Harveston Tract 30667, -1, -2, and -3 Rough Grading, August 2003,
LD03-023GR, Sheets 3 and 4 of 6.
~
2~
A-1
Leighion
, 110231-024
October 23, 2003
, APPENDDCB
' Explanation of Summarv of Field Densitv Tests
~ A: Retest of previously failing compacrion test.
B: Second retest of previously failing compaction test.
' Compacrion tests taken during mass grading of site unless indicated by:
FG: Compaction tests taken on rough finish grade.
SF: Compaction tests taken on slope face.
' Test Location: Indicated by lot number.
' Test Method: Compaction test by Nucleaz Gage (ASTM 2922) unless indicated by
S: Sand Cone Method (ASTM 1556).
~ Test Elevation: Approximate elevation above mean sea level.
,
'
'
'
,
'
~
'
'
, ~
B-1
'
~
'
~
L~
LI
~
~fl
1 1
'
J
~
1
~
~~~
~
1 ~
~
1 I
~
~
,
I
~
L
~
E
a
>~
vo
~'~ ~C R O N-r O N N h N 1~ --~ N 7.. Vt ~D V~n .-. O l~ [~ M O O O O N
~ R T T T O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ m O~ 00 O~ W O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ T O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~
~ E
d o
C4 U
e ~noooo~n~nooooo00000000oooo~no~n~nv~~n~no
` y ooo.: ..;oo.:.~~;o~o~o~o:o;o~-~-~~~~.°:^~orioooooo,
~ ~ .. .. .. ., ~. ~. .~ .. ~.
~
~
ti 9 .-. ~O N.r V~ O~D .-. oD Q~ N l~ 7 l~ v~ 00 I~ ~O v~ Vl aO O~O nl l~ 7^ 00 ~O o0 v~ ~D
O a~ 'T ..-~ ~.-. O M O.. .. ~D .-. O~ O~ h oo O~ o0 0o M M t+t vt v~ ~O O a0 O O oo O oo ^
~ W ^ ^ ^ ^ ~--i .. N N N .+ N .+ .. .-~ .+ N N .+ .-.
~ O O~n vt vt O O~n Vl O O O O O O O v~ N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
~p ~O tV 00 00 00 ~O ~G o0 00 00 0o ao 00 0o a0 00 00 00 ~C ~G ao 00 ~D ~G iD ~C ~G ~G ~O ~D ~G o0
~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ O O O O O O O ~ N ~ ~ O O ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ N~ ~ ~ O
y 'n ^ ~-+ '+ ~--i ~
~~q l~ ~n N~/1 N o0 O M o0 7`D C-+ .+ O N ~O O~ O O o~ vt .-+ ~ N V~O ~n O~ ~n ~O -+
Q u O fn ~ oD (~ ~~ oo ~ O O~ 7 00 00 .--~ 00 N tV O~ O o0 1~ t+t ~ v1 h~ en M~~+t O~
~ W ~..tV. .~ ... ... .-. O~ O~ O~ Q+ oo O O~ ~~ O O~ Q~ ~--~ -+ O •~ O~
Q ... .-i ... ... .-. .-~ .--~ .-. ~. .~ .-. ... ... ... ...
d
~ n
~' 7 DO 00 00 a0 ~ 7 00 00 N N N N N N N o0 a0 h v~ N N v1 ~/1 V v~ 7 C 7 7 et N
v~
F 7~-+ O O O et ~ O O ~O ~O ~D ~O ~D ~O ~O O O O O \'J ~D O O 7 O 7 V' V' V V~O
v1 O~ N fn M t+l ... ... 1~ ~ et 7 R ~l v1 d' N O~ O~ T o0 G1 O O~ O 01 ao ~O O~ O N1 h
.~ o0 0o O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O. O~ O~ O T m aa o0 0o O~ oo O O~ O~ O~ oo T O~ O~
` O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O~ O O O O O O O~ O O O O O O O
•--. .-. '. '. .-. .-. '. .-. .--, .-. .-_
a
a~
E i
W
~
~
~ N.•. ~O Q~ 1~ O~ r+~ ~n o0 ~D ~O r'1 M I~ I~ O~ 00 O~ N M V~n h v~ C N O~--~ '+ h
N
~
+
-+
t
l '
N~
N N N N N N N~--~ ~-+ ~-+ N N r1 M M M~ N N N N N M M M ~
C
O
.
~
F~
..
v~ ww~.wwwwwwwwwwwww~~wwww~~wwwwC7C7c7C7
FO DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUwwUUVUwwv~cnrnmwwww
t'~1 M M e~l t+t M M M M M M M M M c~l c~l t~l t~l M M rl t+t t~l r~l t~l t~t Hl ~+1 M rh M
O\1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M
d O.--~ 7~ ~D ~O ~D ~D ~O 00 .--~ OO .--~ .--~ .+ .-. N N N N N N M'Q T O~ 01 O~ O~ C~ O~ ~
Cyi id ^ ~ ~ ~-+ ~ N~--~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N~
FG1 ~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~c~~c~~~~t~r~~~~oo
W V b[~ O~ O~ N M C~ O¢i O O ~-+ ¢ N iD r c0 O~ O--~ vl ~D t~ 00 T O-+ N M M
.-. N N N N t+l M M M V V Vl h Vl vl vl vl Vl vl Vl ~O ~O l~ 1~ V 4` d' Yl V'l Vl V'1 iD
~ •--i ti ._Mi .M-i .-Mi .-Mr .M-. .-M+
~['p z. •--~ ...i r-~ .-~ ~ r .--i .--i .--i .--~ .-n .--i .--i .--i .Y ~. '+ .~ .~ .--i .--i .r ~ r
~
W
O
~
c~
~
Z
N O J
~ W U
~`'> > W
~ = W
~ ~
~, o
~ d w
~ ~ f.l
~ ~ O
ZZ~
~ ~ ~ ;.;
d d d ~
~Q ~Q ~Q d
Y V L ~
a a a
~
N
N
O
U
N
d
m
U
O
y
Q
~
R
\
'
~~
~
'
'
~
~
~
I '
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
r
~
,,
~~
~
'
~
~
~
~
R
E
a
e~
e o
~~ M N N tn tn O O ~O N vt V O O~ ~O O N v~ ~D V M V O M H O N O M
O~ T O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ W O~ 00 Oi T T 01 O~ T O~ O~ O~ 01 O~ T 01 O~ O~ oo O~ O~ T O~
~ ~
Y O
a~
; oooooh~hoooooo~,~~,oo~,~~,hoooo~~oo~,
` p~ ~ O~ O~ N O O v1 00 ..1~. .-h. .h.. .-1~. ..h. .-N. vl 00 0o O~ O~ 00 a0 00 00 O O O O o0 00 O O o0
~ O .-. .. .-~ .-.
L
~
°' 9 N O~ O~ oo N~D V vt ao R l~ vl O O ~n N r+f l~ 7 M O~ N O O O~ ~+ ~O c+t O O~ oo ~n
~ ~ 00 Vl .+ .-~ 00 ~..Mi 00 fV ..V'+ M^.~- h~ ~.efr V~ Vl l~ ~D [~ l~ 00 [~ O~ [~ 00 l~ l~ h 00
~ W ,-. .. .-. N ... .-~ .-. .-.
~ oooooo~nooooooov~~n~n~n~n~n~.,~n~noooo~.,~nooo
p~ N 00 00 N fV ~D vt ~~ tV .tV. .tV-. .-(V. (`1 ~ 7 7 Q~ 01 R ef 7~ Q~ O1 O~ O~ R 7 O~ 01 N
y ~ O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ^ tn ~ ~ ~ r1 ~ ~ ^ ~ N N N t+t CE N ~ ~
y ~ ti ~ ~ ~^ ~^ ~
.ri
d~p .-. rt e~ CO oo O~ e~t ~/t O l~ N O 7-y v~ ~n ~n M C•.• ~+ 00 v~ V M O T oo a0 C N 7
Q 6~ ~/) O~ O~ V' 7^ v~ 00 ~O M vi vi O v~ M O~ ~D Q~ a0 T vt N~ ~D ~~ O a0 ~O N
>+ w O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O O O O~ O O~ O O~~ ~+ N N~ N ~N N.-~ .-~ ~
Q ... .-. ~ ... '. .-. .-. .-. .-. .. ^. ... .-. .. .-.
d
n O N N O O 7!~l ~' V 7 R 7 7 00 M N N ~+ M M M t'n '+ th M M
~~y' rt ~O ~O en nt R O O M t+l M rt c~ N O O O O O O O O O 7 V 7 7 O O 7 7 vi
t~ ~o ~n v ro ~ r~o ~o v~ ~n v v oo c~ ~o ~n ~n v rn~a v o~n ~n a o 0 0o r r o0
rn o~ rn rn o~ a a a a a rn rn a o0 00 00 00 0o w a a a a m o0 0o a a m o0 00 00
` o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a"i a~i '• •-•
f"i W
a
0 00 T O~+ ~O h~D Vl 7 r~l M N N vl ^ M~'+ O N M 7 vt [~ ~n ~~--~ O
~ '^ ~ N N~--~ N N N N N N N N~-+ ~-+ '+ M t1 M M t~ 00 O~ r'1 ~ ~'+ M
_
0
.~
0
a
.-Ci
M '
o °
N Q
G q
~ ~
C
0
m
~
z
O
M
~ J
W
° U
~`"> > W
~ = W
a,~., c7c7C7C~c7C7C7c7c7c7C7c'JC7C7c7c7c7c7C7wwwwC7C7c7Uww -r.wC7
FO u.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwv~rnv~v~wwwwv~v~v~rnw
c
O O
O ~ ~
a+ M M r~ ~ rn fn O O O O O O O
O O O O M ro M M M M M M M cn fn M
o
-
~~~ ~ d ~
d ~e ooooo~
~~,;,^,,;,~
;^,ooooo0000000~
~_..~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
~:,~.,~~~~.,
~.
~~.,~. E E
a
,
,
, c,
HL1 000000000ooooomooooo0000ooooocomooooo,c~rno,o~a.rnrno,o~arn..• 7 m p
Z Z J
~
N U f) U jr
V v~ lD t~ t~ 1~ ao O~ O'+
f't ~ vi ~O I~ ao O.--~ N M O.-~ N~n ~O 1~ q Oi o0
N
~O \D ~D i0
0 1~
0
0
0
0
0
0
N N
~
~ d ~ ~ C
a+ c
oa o
0
ao 0
0
00 0
00 0
0o O O O O--~ --~ ~ N N N
l
l
V
Nl M M~'1 .'~1 Vl ~!1 Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl V1 Vl Vl ~ Vl V V V V V~'S Q C V V O W ~O ~Q ~O ~
d O •--~ .-. .--. .--~ .-Y .Y .r .-+ .r .-~ .-r .~. .-~ ..-~ .+ ~ r ~.. (~l f~l ('~l t~l M fil M (~1 M M M Nl V L L L
Fz a a a~
~
~
L
W
~
Y
~
O
e C
O
•
d '~ M 7 O 7 V et I~
~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
R ~
W O
ai V
v~ vi ~n v~ vi vi vi
v 4 00 00 00 00 00 0o ao
~~
4
7
~' 9 O~ .r O~ R ~O V~ N
O
Y o
0
0
0
~
I
I~ ~I o
W o0 00 0
0
0
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~
~
~ fV N N N tV N fV
a,
y- ~ .-Mi ~ .~-i ~ .-Mi .~-~ .~.~
h
C
d~p h~n N l~ O oo R
Q
FT ~
~.
~
~
N
~
~
r
Q .
. ..
.-
.-
.-
. .-
+
m
n
~ ''~1 M M M c~l l'~1 M
V~ F h h h h h h h
00 l~ ~D ^ .. O O
W a0 W U O~ O~ O~
~ O O O O O O O
'v ti ~--i ~-y, ~--i 'n ~-n
VI 7
F FT]
~
( 0 N M d' vl
'
1~ 1 ~O M Pl M M
7~/
C
O
.~
u
0
.a
~
h
FO
~
F Ca
~ o
Fz
C~ C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7
wwwwwww
Nl c~l ~+1 Nl M M M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0
W W 00 O~ 00 00 O~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O~ O~--~ N M V Ul
v ~n ~n ~n ~n vi ~n
00 0o co w o~ w o0
ve~cv~v~
~
~ a
v
c
~
n
v
N
N
O
~ U
W O
~ y
M a
d C
cV m
0.. q
0
m
J
Z
N ~ J
~ W U
° Q w
~2 F-
~ c
d , o
~ ~ Y
~ ~ V
~ A O
2 Z J
~J V V
V V V M /
d Ql d C ~
O O ~O ~
~ L ~ -
aaac~
~
110231-024
October 23, 2003
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potenrial of selected materials was evaluated by the
Expansion Index Test, AST'M test method D4829 or U.B.C. Standazd No. 18-2. Specunens are
molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and
approximately 50 percent saturation or appmximately 90 percent relarive compaction. The
prepazed 1-inch thick by 4inch diameter specimens aze loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge
and aze inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests
are presented in the table below and in the soil characteristics table herewith Appendix C:
Sample Locarion Sampie Description Expansion
Index Expansion
Potential
I,ots 1-5 Brown silty clayey SAND 42 Low
Lots 6-9 Light brown lean SILT 64 Medium
I.ots 10-13 Brown silty SAND 19 Very Low
Lots 14, 15, 30, & 31 Pale brown lean SILT 56 Medium
Lots 16-18 Brown sandy lean SILT 52 Medium
Lots 19-24 Brown sandy lean SIL,T 51 Medium
Lots 25-29 Brown silty SAND 52 Mediuxn
Lots 32-35 Brown lean SILT 49 I.ow
7\
G1
h~
~ 3
F'~
~ ~
~~
¢ ~,
.~ ._
~3 'y
~ ~
~~
~o ~
o..
U M
~ b
~ o
b ~
~
~ L~J
Y r
b ~
~ ~
3 •`~
N ~
~ ~
'C
«= o
ro
E '~
~ ~
U
~
~ ~ O
o ~ ~
++ U 'O
N
V ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ .~
N 'r~' . ^
H ~
~o ~,
~ .o ~
~
~ c a
n. ~ `~
O ~ m
~
~ b w
~' 3 ~
'~ ~
.d }N., O
^ ~
~ O ti
~ ~ ~
a w, a~
~ ~ ~
•~ ~
~ ~ ~
.r
"~v
H ° Gl
U H ~
.«
N n ~
.~ ~ T
Y V~ ~O
~ Q °c
U o ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ U U U U
U y tO N N ~ ~
y v
~~ ' ~ a ~ a ~;, ~ , ~ N
~ a. a "
°"
z z z z z
o m o o ~
~ 8 ~ 6 0
~ 0 0
~
.a a ? 3 ~ ~ ~
a, ~'
a ~ ~ ~
~ a° x ~ '° ~ ~ ~ ~ a° ~ a° ~
w > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~
O
~y x
~ b
~
~
v~
M
h
N
~
~
~
~
~
~ 1 O~ V 7 00
W
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~
~ .G
~ p .O .O p
~ P p p A p p .0 L p L
w o 6o no ~o en ou So ao w eo m ao eo 0o en eo
~ ~' ~ °~° ~ e~n ~ ~ '"e~o ~
o ~ "'n
o '
"a
o m ~
o ~o n
"
n
W ~
i
H y
F-~ y
r~-~ y
F-~ Z y
f-~ 7r y
f+ y
H ~
Z ~
r
f+ y
/~ ~i
F-~ Z ~
y
f-~
~~
~ C ~
^p ^ ~~
` ~ v~ ^ v, ~ 'n t~ '^ t~ ~n v v ~ vi in
~ o
3 0 0 0 0 0 °. o ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0
~~ p O O O O C ~ O ~ O O O O V V V~
3w°
~
~
~ y
7 ~
~~.~„ \ y~ O v?
~ y~ O O p h O O O h
O ~ O O
'a'p ~~°,., W O~ 00 N oo O
cv N ~ O ~ T t~1
O~ V
Q~
~~ ~n ~n ~n o o ~n o ~n o 0 0 0 0 0 0
~,~, V O~ ~ .-. ~ 00
- N N N ~ 01 ~O N oo ~
y ~ N N N cn O N N N M O N
~Xr ~
~G Q
¢ a e
~
Q ~4
N ~'
b
a V~
Q c~a
~
° ~ ti c °~'' ~ '~
.~ A ~ .,~ q ~ ~ ~n A 3
~ ° c ~ ~' ~ '~ d d
~
4 z ~ ~
0
° ~ N T ~ ~' H ~ a~i ~ v U
Q Q p '~ p ~' a c
~e Q _i .a c~a
~ ~ C~ V] ~ p ~ U A ~ V] V] ~
U P U :~
L'' ~' L'' O ~ y ^ ~ O~ 'O ~' L`' p O ~
~
~,~ 'y 'y A > r
p
~ ..
o A C
~
~ ~
~
~ .;
^
O
3 3 3 ~ T ` O d 3 ~ T N A
.
L X ,~
~ ~ x
~ x
P1 m W ~ C7 A Q ,:a y~ O W W Q O Q
_, a
~
[
y,
~ T
H
N
M
V
vt
W
~
N
N
M
7
V
V~'t
~
~
O
~
~
~
U
w
O
~
b
7
~
w
O
~
~
~
w
0
U
q
0
.ro
~
~
~
.s:!
.o
~
~
~
w.
a N
¢ V
01
z
~
p
m
E~
ai
b
O
t..~
Q
b
.~
oa
~
W
~
~
w
0
0
~
r
~
~
~-.
."C'..~
0
~C
~
ro ~,,,('
~ ~~J
' 110231-024
October 23, 2003
' APPENDIX D
' Lat Main nan ~~id lin for Own rs
, Development areas, in general, and hillside lots, in particulaz, need maintenance to continue to
function and retain their value. Many owneis are unawaze of this and allow deteriotation of the
pmperty. It is important to familiarize owners with some guidelines for maintenance of their
properties and make them awaze of the importance of maintenance.
t Some goveming agencies require hillside pmperty developers to utilize specific methods of
' engineering and construction to pmtect those investing in improved lots or constructed homes. For
example, the developer may be required to gade the property in such a manner that rainwater will
be drained away from the lot and to plant slopes so that erosion will be m;n;m;zed. They may also
' be required to install permanent drains.
However, once the lot~is purchased, it is the buyer's responsibility to maintain these safety features
' by observing a prudent pmgram of lot care and maintenance. Failure to make regulaz inspection
and maintenance of drainage devices and sloping azeas may cause severe 5nancial loss. In addirion
to their own property damage, they may be subject to civil liability for damage occutring to
, neighboring properties as a result of his negligence.
The following maintenance guidelines are pmvided for the protection of the owner's investment.
' a) Care should be taken that slopes, terraces, berms (ridges at crown of slopes) and proper lot
drainage are not disturbed Surface drainage should be conducted from the reaz yazd to the
, sh~eet through the side yazd, or altemative approved devices.
b) in general, roof and yazd runoff should be conducted to either the street or storm drain by
' nonerosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters, and driveways. Drainage
systems should not be altered without expert consultation.
' c) All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace
drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy
, rain periods, performance of the drainage system should be inspected. Problems, such as
gullying and ponding, if observed, should be conected as soon as possible.
' d) Any leakage from pools, water lines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as
practical.
' e) Animal burrows should be eliminated since they may cause diversion of surface runoff,
promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil flowage.
' ~ Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a significant topographic
modificarion of the lot or slope, is desired a qualified geotechnical consultant should be
contacted.
~
D-1
~
, 110231-024
October 23, 2003
' g) If the owner plans to modify cut or nahual slopes aze proposed, an engineering geologist
should be consulted. Any oversteepening may result in a need for expensive retaining devices.
, Undercutting of a toe-of-slope would reduce the safety factor of the slope and should not be
undertaken without expert consultation.
, h) ff unusual cracking, settling or eazth slippage occurs on the pmperty, the owner should consult
a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately.
' i) The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures are as follows:
• Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of the slopes and drainage devices.
~ • Inadequate and/or improper planting. (Barren azeas should be replanted as soon as
possible.)
' - Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope.
, j) Hillside lot owners should not let conditions on their property create a problem for their
neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems, promote slope stability,
adequate drainage, proper maintenance, and also increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the
' community.
k) Owner's should be awaze of the chemical composition of imported soils, soil amendments, and
' fertilizeis to be utilized for landscaping purposes. Some soils, soil amendments and feriilizer
can leach soluble sulfates, increasing soluble sulfate concen~ations to moderate or severe
concentrarions, negatively affecting the performance of concrete improvements, including
, foundarions and flatwork.
'
'
'
,
,
~
, ~1
D-2
'