APPENDIX E Geotechnical Report - Agua Caliente EIS/Appendices/Apx_D_Geotech_Rprt.pdf · Plate 1 – Geotechnical Map . Appendices Appendix A – Field Exploration / Geotechnical Borings

APPENDIX E Geotechnical Report

75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Unit 107 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Unit 107 Palm Desert, CA 92211Palm Desert, CA 92211 760.776.4192 760.776.4192 760.776.4080 Fax 760.776.4080 Fax www.leightongroup.com www.leightongroup.com

T R A N S M I T T A L To: Meridian Consultants, LLC May 15, 2014 860 Hampshire Road, Suite P

Westlake Village, CA 91361 Project No. 10143.003 Attn: Mr. Tony Locacciato, AICP

Transmitted: The Following: For:

X Mail/Overnight Draft Report X Your Use

Courier X Final Report As Requested

Pick Up Extra Report

Proposal

Other

Subject: Soils/Geology Review, Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside

County, California

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Robert F. Riha, CEG / Simon I. Saiid, GE Copies to: (3) Addressee

SOILS/GEOLOGY REVIEW

SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN -

RANCHO MIRAGE AREA

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for

MERIDIAN CONSULTANTS, LLC 860 Hampshire Road, Suite P

Westlake Village, California 91361

Project No. 10143.003

May 15, 2014

75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Unit 107 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Unit 107 Palm Desert, CA 92211Palm Desert, CA 92211 760.776.4192 760.776.4192 760.776.4080 Fax 760.776.4080 Fax www.leightongroup.com www.leightongroup.com

May 15, 2014 Project No. 10143.003

Meridian Consultants, LLC 860 Hampshire Road, Suite P Westlake Village, CA 91361 Attention: Mr. Tony Locacciato, AICP Subject: Soils/Geology Review

Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area Riverside County, California

In accordance with your request and authorization, we are pleased to present herewith the results of our geotechnical/geologic review of the subject site located southwest of the intersection of Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, north of Dinah Shore Drive and east of Los Alamos Road, in the Rancho Mirage area of unincorporated Riverside County, California. We understand that the subject site/parcels, known collectively as planned “Section 24” will consist of a mix of retail, entertainment, office, resort and residential development. This report summarizes our findings and conclusions, and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site development. Based on the results of this review, the site is considered suitable for the intended use provided our recommendations included herein are properly incorporated during design and construction phases of development. However, design level geotechnical evaluations will be needed to further define the extent of remedial grading and/or allowable settlements based on individual building loads and requirements. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Simon I. Saiid GE 2641 (Exp. 09/30/15) Principal Engineer

Robert F. Riha CEG 1921 (Exp. 02/29/16) Senior Principal Geologist

Distribution: (3) Addressee

Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003

- i -

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Section Page

1.0 I N T R O D U C T I O N ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Site Location and Description ............................................................................. 1

1.3 Proposed Development....................................................................................... 2

2.0 F I E L D E X P L O R A T I O N AN D L A B O R A T O R Y T E S T I N G ............... 3

2.1 Field Exploration .................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................. 3

3.0 G E O T E C H N I C AL AN D G E O L O G I C F I N D I N G S ................................ 4

3.1 Regional Geology ................................................................................................ 4

3.2 Site Specific Geology .......................................................................................... 4 3.2.1 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol Afu) ................................................................4 3.2.2 Dune Sand (Map symbol Qs) .............................................................................5 3.2.3 Quaternary Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal) .............................................................5

3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water ........................................................................ 5

3.4 Faulting and Fissuring ......................................................................................... 5

3.5 Ground Shaking .................................................................................................. 6

3.6 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement) ..................................... 7

3.7 Flooding ............................................................................................................... 7

3.8 Seiche and Tsunami ........................................................................................... 7

3.9 Expansive/Collapsible Soils ................................................................................ 7

3.10 Slope Stability and Landslides ............................................................................ 7

4.0 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S ....................... 8

5.0 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S ............................................................................... 9

5.1 General ................................................................................................................ 9

5.2 Earthwork Considerations ................................................................................... 9 5.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading .............................................................9 5.2.2 Cut/Fill Transition Lots ......................................................................................10 5.2.3 Structural Fills ...................................................................................................10 5.2.4 Shrinkage and Subsidence ..............................................................................11 5.2.5 Import Soils .......................................................................................................11 5.2.6 Utility Trenches .................................................................................................11 5.2.7 Drainage ...........................................................................................................12 5.2.8 Slope Design and Construction ........................................................................12

5.3 Foundation Design ............................................................................................ 13 5.3.1 Bearing and Lateral Pressures .........................................................................13 5.3.2 Settlement ........................................................................................................14


- ii -

5.3.3 Vapor Retarder .................................................................................................14

5.4 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................. 14

5.5 Geochemical Characteristics ............................................................................ 16

5.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters ....................................................... 16

6.0 G E O T E C H N I C AL C O N S T R U C T I O N S E R V I C E S ............................ 18

7.0 L I M I T AT I O N S ................................................................................................ 19

R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................................................................ 20

Accompanying Tables, Figures, Plates and Appendices

Tables

Table 1. 2013 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients ................................................... 6

Table 2. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) ............................... 15

Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design ........................................................................ 16 Figures End of Text

Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Regional Geologic Map Plates

Plate 1 – Geotechnical Map Appendices

Appendix A – Field Exploration / Geotechnical Borings Appendix B – Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Appendix C – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix D – ASFE Important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report


- 1 -

1.0 I N T R O D U C T I O N

1.1 Purpose and Scope

This soils/geology review is for the proposed “Section 24 Specific Plan” project

located in the Rancho Mirage area of Riverside County, California (see Figure 1).

Our scope of services for this review included the following:

Review of sequential pairs of aerial photographs and our in-house and relevant published data for this area (see references at the end of this report).

A site geologic reconnaissance and visual observations of surface conditions.

Excavation, sampling and logging of 9 exploratory geotechnical hollow stem auger borings throughout the site. Logs of test borings are presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration program. A brief description of laboratory testing procedures and laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

Geotechnical engineering analyses performed or as directed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE) including preliminary foundation and seismic design parameters based on the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). A California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) performed engineering geology review of site geologic hazards.

Preparation of this report which presents the results of our review and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development.

This report is not intended to be used as an environmental site assessment (Phase

I or other).

1.2 Site Location and Description

The project site is located on several contiguous undeveloped parcels (Assessor

Parcel Numbers (APNs) 673-120-021; -022; -023; -024; and -025), totaling

approximately 577.33 acres (gross). The property is located southwest of the

intersection of Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, north of Dinah Shore Drive, east

of Los Alamos Road in an unincorporated portion of Riverside County, California

(within the sphere of influence of the City of Rancho Mirage). The approximate

limits of the site are shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The property is


- 2 -

located immediately west of the Aqua Caliente Casino Resort Spa; north and east

of the Westin Mission Hills resort community and northwest of Desert Ridge Plaza

shopping center.

Topographically, the site and surrounding area slopes to the north and north-east.

Site elevations range from high point elevation of approximately 356 feet above

mean sea level (msl) near the southwestern corner to a low point elevation of

approximately 248 feet (msl) near the northeast corner of the property.

The site is currently vacant land characterized with typical sand dune topography.

It appears that a borrow source was located along the central western boundary

and as well as an area for soil stockpiling in the southwest corner. Remnants of

gravel parking lot are located at northeast corner, adjacent to intersection of Bob

Hope Drive and Ramon Road.

1.3 Proposed Development

Based on a provided project description and conceptual plan by MSA Consulting,

we understand that the proposed mix-use development will consist of retail,

entertainment, office space, resort, residential lots, park sites, open spaces,

several lakes and associated street improvements. Although structural loads are

not known to us at this time, typical column loads for retail, office/hotel, and

commercial structures are expected to range up to 200 kips and perimeter bearing

wall loads are to range up to 6 kips per lineal foot. We anticipate residential lots to

host a one- or two-story single or multi-family residential homes consisting of

typical wood-frame structure with slab-on-grade foundations.

We anticipate that site grading will include typical cut and fill grading to create level

pads, access streets and maximum 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes. Based on

provided preliminary Earthwork Exhibit (ALT 10) prepared by MSA Consulting Inc.

(MSA, 2014) the maximum proposed cut and fill thickness is on the order of 45 feet

(cut) to 50 feet (fill).


- 3 -

2.0 F I E L D E X P L O R A T I O N AN D L A B O R A T O R Y T E S T I N G

2.1 Field Exploration

Our field exploration program consisted of 9 hollow-stem auger borings excavated at the approximate locations shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1, Geotechnical Map). During excavation, bulk samples and relatively “undisturbed” Ring samples were collected from the exploration borings for further laboratory testing and evaluation. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained utilizing a modified California drive sampler (2⅜-inch inside diameter and 3-inch outside diameter) driven 18 inches in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed using a 2-inch outside diameter (1⅜-inch inside diameter) sampler driven 18 inches in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1586. The number of blows to drive the samplers are recorded on the boring logs for each 6-inch increment (unless encountering refusal or >50 blows per 6 inches). Sampling was conducted by a staff geologist from our firm. After logging and sampling, the excavations were loosely backfilled with spoils generated during excavation. The logs of exploratory test borings are presented in Appendix A.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk and undisturbed drive samples to provide a basis for development of remedial earthwork and geotechnical design parameters. Selected samples were tested for the following parameters: insitu moisture and density, maximum dry density (Proctor), R-Value, gradation, collapse, soluble sulfate, pH, resistivity and chloride content. The results of our laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B.


- 4 -

3.0 G E O T E C H N I C AL AN D G E O L O G I C F I N D I N G S

3.1 Regional Geology

The site is located within the Coachella Valley area in the Colorado Desert

Geomorphic Province of California. The San Bernardino Mountains of the

Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province are to the north and the San Jacinto

Mountains of the Peninsular Range are to the south. The dominant structural

feature in this region is the active San Andreas transform system that consists of

several major northwest-trending right lateral strike slip faults that extend through

the San Gorgonio pass along the southern foothills of the San Bernardino

Mountains, and along the northeast margin of the Coachella Valley. The San

Andreas Fault Zone is composed of a series of fault zones of which the South

Branch of the San Andreas is located in the vicinity, generally north of the site.

Figure 2, Regional Geologic Map, depicts the fault location and shows the region

as underlain by unconsolidated Holocene sediments (alluvium and other deposits).

The site itself is underlain by wind-blown (aeolian) sand deposits as well as alluvial

soil eroded from the nearby mountains and deposited in the site vicinity.

3.2 Site Specific Geology

Based on the results of our field exploration and review of relevant geologic data

for this area (see References), the site subsurface materials consist of dune sands

over alluvium to the depths explored. Stockpiled undocumented fill soils are locally

observed onsite. These units are discussed in the following sections in order of

increasing age and further described on the logs of geotechnical borings in

Appendix A.

3.2.1 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol Afu)

As indicated above, a borrow source and associated grading was located along the central, western boundary and soil stockpiling was observed in the southwest corner. Grading to produce a large gravel parking field was also noted in the north east corner of the site. If encountered during site grading, undocumented fills are considered unsuitable for support of additional fill or structures or other planned improvements. The undocumented fill soils appear to be generated from onsite or nearby sources; hence they should be generally suitable for use as compacted fills provided they are cleared of debris, organics, and any deleterious materials.


- 5 -

3.2.2 Dune Sand (Map symbol Qs) Dune sand materials are expected to mantle the majority of the site. The depth of the dune sand materials cannot be easily verified based on this limited investigation and relatively homogenous onsite alluvium. However, it is estimated that the dune sands generally extend to a depth varying from 5 to 20 feet below ground surface (BGS). These materials generally consist of light brown gray to darker gray and loose to medium dense silty sand to poorly-graded fine sand. Based on the results of our laboratory testing, these materials are expected to possess a very low expansion potential (EI<21) and N-values ranging from 5 to 15 blows/foot.

3.2.3 Quaternary Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal) Quaternary-aged alluvial deposits were encountered in all of our borings to the maximum depth explored. As encountered, the alluvium typically consists of light brown to brownish gray, medium dense to very dense, poorly-graded fine sand to sand with silt. The alluvium is expected to generally possess very low expansion potential (EI<21).

3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings and no standing water was observed on the ground surface during the time of the investigation. According to Department of water Resources, Southern District, Well 04S05E29A001S located west of the site, groundwater depths may be between 160 and 175 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on this data, it appears that shallow groundwater has not been present recently, or historically. As such, groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to development of the site and considered to be no impact to this site. However, it should be noted that local perched water conditions may exist intermittently and may fluctuate seasonally, depending on rainfall and irrigation conditions. Surface runoff from the adjacent elevated portions of the site should be anticipated.

3.4 Faulting and Fissuring

This site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or County of Riverside Fault Zone. No active, inactive fault traces or fissuring are known to traverse the planned development portions (Bryant and Hart, 2007) and no evidence of onsite faulting was observed during our investigation. As defined by the California Geologic Survey, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years).


- 6 -

The closest known active fault zone is the Coachella Segment of the San Andreas

Fault Zone located approximately, 5.0 miles (7.6 km) northwest of the site (Blake,

2000d). Twenty eight active faults are known to exist within 100 Km (62.4 miles) of

the site. A table of the major active earthquakes (>5.5 Mw) within 20 miles of the

site in the last 150 years is presented in the table below. The South Branch

Segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone is considered to be the source of the

design earthquake. Due to the distance to active fault(s), ground rupture at this

site is considered to be no impact.

Fault Segment Distance from Site Moment Magnitude

San Andreas 4.7 miles (7.6 Km) 7.1

Burnt Mountain 9.6 miles (15.5 Km) 6.4

Eureka Peak 11.8 miles (19.0 Km) 6.4

Pinto Mountain 20.3 miles (32.7 Km) 7.0

3.5 Ground Shaking

Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe

earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern

California and can be considered a significant impact. Intensity of ground shaking

at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance

from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. Based on the 2013

California Building Code (CBC) and using the USGS Ground Motion Parameter

Calculator, the seismic coefficients for this site are provided in the following table:

Table 1. 2013 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients

CBC Categorization/Coefficient Design Value (g)

Site Longitude (-116.41581) Site Latitude (33.80725)

Site Class Definition D

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 2.01

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.97

Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.00

Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv 1.50

Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 2.01

Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM1 1.46

Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 1.34

Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SD1 0.97

* g- Gravity acceleration


- 7 -

3.6 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement)

Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of cohesionless soils can be caused by

strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate

that loose granular soils below a near-surface groundwater table are most

susceptible to liquefaction. Due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the

liquefaction-induced settlement is considered to be no impact for this site.

However, during a strong seismic event, seismically-induced settlement can still

occur within loose to moderately dense, dry or saturated granular soils. Settlement

caused by ground shaking is often non-uniformly distributed, which can result in

differential settlement. Based on the proposed remedial grading recommendations

in areas of planned development, the potential total settlement resulting from

ground shaking is considered minimal or less than ½ inch in the upper 50 feet of

soils. The seismically-induced ground settlement is considered to be less than

significant impact when the recommendations contained herein are implemented.

3.7 Flooding

The site is not within a FEMA flood plain. However, the northeast portion of the site

is within a Coachella Valley Water District flood hazard area (CVWD, 2014 and

Northwest Hydraulics, 2014).

3.8 Seiche and Tsunami

Due to the sites elevated location and lack of nearby open bodies of water, the

possibility of the seiches or tsunami is considered to be no impact for this site.

3.9 Expansive/Collapsible Soils

Limited laboratory testing indicated that onsite soils possess a very low expansion

potential (EI<21). Based on the remedial grading recommendations in areas of

planned development, the potential impact due to collapsible soils, if they exist

onsite, is less than significant.

3.10 Slope Stability and Landslides

Cut and fill slopes are currently planned on the order of approximately 20 feet high

at inclinations of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). As such, slope instability is not

considered an issue at this site. The site is not considered susceptible to

seismically induced landslides and therefore there is no impact for this site.


- 8 -

4.0 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S

Based on the results of this review, it is our opinion that the proposed development is

feasible from a geotechnical/geologic standpoint. The following is a summary of the

main geotechnical findings or factors that may affect development of the site.

The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable for reuse as fill during proposed grading provided they are relatively free of organic material and debris.

Undocumented fill soils (existing stockpiled soils), topsoil, and loose dune sand are considered to be potentially compressible. These materials should be recompacted in areas of planned development.

The near surface soils are potentially compressible in their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading. As such, these materials should be removed (over-excavated) and re-compacted in all settlement-sensitive areas based on specific building loads and settlement criteria for individual structures.

Based on our subsurface exploration, it is our opinion that the onsite earth materials can be excavated with heavy-duty conventional grading equipment in good working condition.

Evidence of active faulting was not identified within or projecting into the planned development area. Strong ground shaking may occur at this site due to local earthquake activity.

Groundwater was not encountered; however, perched groundwater may develop in areas of soils with contrasting permeabilities possibly resulting in saturated soil conditions.

Based on preliminary laboratory results and field observations, onsite earth materials are expected to possess a very low expansion potential and negligible sulfate exposure to concrete.

Cut/Fill slopes are anticipated to be less than 20 feet in height and are expected to be grossly stable. Due to the cohesionless nature of site soils, surficial erosion should be anticipated.

Unprotected pads and slope faces will be susceptible to erosion. This risk can be reduced by planting the slopes as soon as possible after grading, and by maintaining proper erosion control measures.

A relative small low lying northeast portion of the site is located within a local CVWD Flood Hazard area. The design civil engineer should review this condition and address the flood design mitigation.


- 9 -

5.0 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

5.1 General

Based on the results of this review, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical viewpoint. Design and grading of the site should be in accordance with our recommendations included in this report and based on additional site-specific development plans and evaluations made during design and construction by the geotechnical consultant.

5.2 Earthwork Considerations

Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix C as well as the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix C, are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix C.

The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly in accordance with the recommendations of this report, and applicable County Grading Ordinances, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant during construction.

5.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) of the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, heavy vegetation and boulders. Roots and debris should be disposed of offsite. Septic Tanks or seepage pits, if encountered, should be abandoned in accordance with the County of Riverside Department of Health Services guidelines.

The near surface soils are potentially compressible in their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading. As such, these materials should be removed (over-excavated) and re-compacted in all settlement-sensitive areas in accordance with specific building loads and/or settlement criteria for individual structures. In general, it is estimated that with pre-watering to optimum moisture condition to depths of 5 to 7 feet below existing grades (in fill areas) the planned remedial removal depths may range from 3 to 5 feet below bottom of footings for most buildings. In


- 10 -

general, the depth of removal should be anticipated to extend to 3 feet below street subgrade, pad subgrade or footing bottom, or whichever is deeper. However, such criteria should be further verified based on review of future site development plans and foundation loads.

Acceptability of all removal bottoms should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant and documented in the as-graded geotechnical report. The removal limit should be established by a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) projection from the edge of fill soils supporting settlement-sensitive structures downward and outward to competent material identified by the geotechnical consultant. Removal will also include benching into competent material as the fills rise. Areas adjacent to existing structures or property limits may require special considerations and monitoring. Steeper temporary slopes in these areas may be considered.

5.2.2 Cut/Fill Transition Lots In order to mitigate the impact of underlying cut/fill transition conditions, we recommend over-excavation of the cut portion of transition lots. Over-excavation should extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings or one-half of the maximum fill thickness on the lot, whichever is deeper (not to exceed 10 feet). This overexcavation does not include scarification or preprocessing prior to placement of fill.

5.2.3 Structural Fills The onsite soils are generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill provided they are free of debris and organic matter. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557) and near or above optimum moisture content. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness.

Fill slope keyways will be necessary at the toe of all fill slopes and cut slope replacement fills. Keyway schematics, including dimensions and subdrain recommendations, are provided in Appendix C. All keyways should be excavated into dense bedrock or dense alluvium as determined by the geotechnical engineer. The cut portions of all slope and keyway excavations should be geologically mapped and approved by a geologist prior to fill placement.


- 11 -

Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) should be benched into dense soils (see Appendix C for benching detail). Benching should be of sufficient depth to remove all loose material. A minimum bench height of 2 feet into approved material should be maintained at all times.

5.2.4 Shrinkage and Subsidence The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon compaction is expected to vary with materials, volume of roots and deleterious materials, density, insitu moisture content, location, and compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some variation. Based on our experience with similar materials, we anticipate 12 to 15 percent shrinkage in the upper 5 to 10 feet of dune sand/alluvium.

Subsidence due solely to scarification, moisture conditioning and recompaction of the exposed bottom of overexcavation, is expected to be on the order of 0.10 foot. This should be added to the above shrinkage value for the recompacted fill zone, to calculate overall recompaction subsidence.

5.2.5 Import Soils Import soils and/or borrow sites, if needed, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to import. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less-than 2 percent), have a very low expansion potential (with an Expansion Index less than 21) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements.

5.2.6 Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1.2 and 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2012 Edition (or most recent). Fill material above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) by mechanical means only. Site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided these soils are screened of rocks over 1½ inches in diameter and organic matter. If imported sand is used as backfill, the upper 3 feet in building and pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent. The upper 6 inches of backfill in all pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.


- 12 -

Where granular backfill is used in utility trenches adjacent moisture sensitive subgrades and foundation soils, we recommend that a cut-off “plug” of impermeable material be placed in these trenches at the perimeter of buildings, and at pavement edges adjacent to irrigated landscaped areas. A “plug” can consist of a 5-foot long section of clayey soils with more than 35-percent passing the No. 200 sieve, or a Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) consisting of one sack of Portland-cement plus one sack of bentonite per cubic-yard of sand. CLSM should generally conform to Section 201-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2012 Edition. This is intended to reduce the likelihood of water permeating trenches from landscaped areas, then seeping along permeable trench backfill into the building and pavement subgrades, resulting in wetting of moisture sensitive subgrade earth materials under buildings and pavements.

Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications and the California Construction Safety Orders (2012 Edition or more current). The contractor should be responsible for providing a "competent person" as defined in Article 6 of the California Construction Safety Orders. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite alluvium) could make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not properly implemented. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles from the excavation(s) and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the trenches. Leighton does not consult in the area of safety engineering.

5.2.7 Drainage All drainage should be directed away from structures, slopes and pavements by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage of any proposed pad should be provided to avoid wetting of foundation soils. Irrigation adjacent to buildings should be avoided when possible. As an option, sealed-bottom planter boxes and/or drought resistant vegetation should be used within 5-feet of buildings.

5.2.8 Slope Design and Construction Based on our understanding and planning purposes, all fill and cut slopes will be designed and constructed at 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) with benches at maximum 30 foot intervals. These slopes are considered grossly stable for static and pseudostatic conditions. For planning purposes, cut slopes exceeding 5 feet in height should be constructed as replacement fill slopes due to the highly erosive nature of site soils. Future grading plans should be subject to further review and evaluation.


- 13 -

The outer portion of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back to the finished slope configuration or compacted in vertical increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a weighted sheepsfoot roller as the fill is placed. The slope face should then be track-walked by dozers of appropriate weight to achieve the final slope configuration and compaction to the slope face.

Slope faces are inherently subject to erosion, particularly if exposed to wind, rainfall and irrigation. Landscaping and slope maintenance should be conducted as soon as possible in order to increase long-term surficial stability. Berms should be provided at the top of fill slopes. Drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is minimized

5.3 Foundation Design

5.3.1 Bearing and Lateral Pressures Based on our analysis, the proposed residential/ and retail/commercial structures may be founded on conventional foundation systems based on the design parameters provided below. The proposed foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural consultants’ design, the minimum geotechnical recommendations presented herein, and the 2013 CBC. In utilizing the minimum geotechnical foundation recommendations, the structural consultant should design the foundation system to acceptable deflection criteria as determined by the architect. Foundation footings may be designed with the following geotechnical design parameters:

Bearing Capacity: A net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci may be used for design of footings founded entirely into compacted fill. The footings should extend a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. A minimum base width of 18 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 3 square feet (1.75 ft by 1.75 ft) for pad foundations should be used. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind).

Passive Pressures: The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third


- 14 -

The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab-on-grade thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based on recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein and the most recently adopted edition of the CBC.

5.3.2 Settlement For preliminary design purposes, the project civil engineer, structural engineer, and architect should consider the potential effects of both static settlement and dynamic settlement presented below.

Static Settlement: Most of the static settlement of onsite soils is expected to be immediate or within 30 days following fill placement. A differential static settlement of 0.5 inch over a 40-foot span may be considered. Additional settlement will also occur in the future if sites grades are raised or due to specific or large footing/foundation loads.

Dynamic Settlement: Based on our analysis, we estimate that total

dynamic settlement is expected to be less than 0.5 inch. Differential settlement is expected to be minimal or less than 0.25 inches over a 40-foot horizontal span.

5.3.3 Vapor Retarder

It has been a standard of care to install a moisture retarder underneath all slabs where moisture condensation is undesirable. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but not totally eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Leighton does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted with to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. This person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed appropriate. The slab subgrade soils should be well wetted prior to placing concrete.

5.4 Retaining Walls

Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength 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 toward the soils, the


- 15 -

resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive soils should be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures:

Table 2. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained)

Loading Conditions

Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)

Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill

Active 35 50 At-Rest 50 80 Passive* 300 150 (2:1, sloping down)

* This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of the project, not to exceed 3,000 psf at depth. If sloping down (2:1) grades exist in front of walls, then they should be designed using passive values reduced to ½ of level backfill passive resistance values.

Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalent-fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils that are free draining. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight values provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non-standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall design.

All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix C, Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail. Wall backfill should be non-expansive (EI 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be used as wall backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28-day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction equipment should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer.


- 16 -

5.5 Geochemical Characteristics

Limited laboratory testing indicated a negligible concentration of soluble sulfates in onsite soils for representative samples. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

Additional corrosion testing should be performed on representative finish grade soils at the completion of rough grading. Concrete foundations in contact with site soils should be designed in accordance with 2013 CBC. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted to review the results of laboratory tests and coordinate additional testing if corrosion sensitive materials are to be used.

5.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters

In order to provide the following recommendations, we have assumed an R-value of 45 based on our laboratory testing and the granular nature of the onsite soils and results of our laboratory testing. For the final pavement design, appropriate traffic indices should be selected by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant and representative samples of actual subgrade materials should be tested for R-value.

Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design

Street Type

Loading Conditions

TI

AC Pavement Section Thickness

Asphaltic-Concrete (AC) Thickness (inch)

Aggregate Base (AB)

Thickness (inch)

Parking Stalls 5 3.0 4 Local Street 5.5 to 6 3.0 6 Heavy Traffic

Driveways/trucks 6.5 to 7 4.0 6

The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches should be properly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be moisture-conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. Proof-rolling subgrade to identify localized areas of yielding subgrade (if any) should be performed prior to placement of aggregate base and under the observation of the geotechnical consultant.

Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works


- 17 -

Construction" (green book) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78. Asphaltic concrete should be placed on compacted aggregate base and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction

The preliminary pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed.


- 18 -

6.0 G E O T E C H N I C AL C O N S T R U C T I O N S E R V I C E S

Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the opportunity to review the grading plan and foundation plan(s) for each type of structure that design level recommendations can be provided based on actual loads and locations. Reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided:

After completion of site demolition and clearing,

During ground preparation, fill slope key excavations, overexcavation of surface soils and subdrain placement as described herein,

During compaction of all fill materials,

After excavation of all footings, and prior to placement of concrete,

During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and

When any unusual conditions are encountered. Additional geotechnical exploration and analysis may be required based on final development plans, for reasons such as significant changes in proposed structure locations/footprints. We should review grading (civil) and foundation (structural) plans, and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project.


- 19 -

7.0 L I M I T AT I O N S

This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This investigation was performed with the understanding that the subject site is proposed for residential and commercial development. The client is referred to Appendix D regarding important information provided by the Associated Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) on geotechnical engineering studies and reports and their applicability.

This report was prepared for Meridian Consultants, LLC., based on its needs, directions, and requirements at the time of our investigation. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except Meridian consultants, LLC, and its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton and Associates, Inc. has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton and Associates, Inc. from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates, Inc.


- 20 -

R E F E R E N C E S

ASCE, 2010, ASCE Standard 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures by Structural Engineering Institute.

Blake, T. F., 2000a, EQSEARCH, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the Estimation of

Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake

Catalogs, Users Manual, 94pp., with update data, 2013.

Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E. W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps:

Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, Special Publication

42. Interim Revision.

California Building Code, 2013, Volumes 1-3, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part

2, Volume 2 of 2.

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), 2000, Water Data Library (WDL)

home page, http://well.water.ca.gov/.

California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2012, Landslide Inventory Maps,

www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/LSIM/lsim_maps.

Coachella Valley Water District, 2014, Notice of Intent of Prepare an Environment Impact

Statement for Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan, Riverside County, dated

February 12, 2014.

Civil Tech Corporation, 2005, LIQUEFYPRO Version 5.2, A Computer Program for

Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis, Civil Tech Software, 2005.

FEMA, 2008, FIRM Panel 06065C1595G and 06065C1585G, Effective August 28, 2008.

Morton, D. M., et al., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’X 60’

Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, USGS Open-File Report 99-172.

MSA Consulting Inc., 2014, Preliminary Earthwork Exhibit – ALT 10, 200-scale, dated

January 16, 2014,

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2014, North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms

Stormwater Management Plan, Morongo Wash Watershed Hydrology and

Hydraulics, April 25, 2014 (Revisions to December 2, 2013 report).

Riverside County, Department of Transportation and Land Management, Building and

Safety Department, Planning Department, Transportation Department,

Technical Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000.

http://well.water.ca.gov/

http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/LSIM/lsim_maps


- 21 -

Riverside County, 2003, Riverside County General Plan Safety Element and Appendix H,

Adopted October 7, 2003, Geotechnical Report (Technical Background

Document).

Riverside County, 2013, Riverside County Land Information System, Riverside County

Integrated Project Web Site. Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, Figures

cited: Figure 12, Flood Zones; Figure 14, Seismic Hazards; Figure 16, Slope

Stability.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, Cathedral City 7.5-Minute Quadrangle

Topographic Maps. (Printed from TOPO, website, http://www.topo.com).

United States Geological Survey, (USGS), 2011, A Computer Program Published by USGS

to calculate Seismic Hazard Curves and Response and Design Parameters

based on ASCE 7-10 seismic procedures, Version 5.1.0, Revision February.

United States Geological Survey, (USGS), 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and

Santa Ana 30’x60’ quadrangles, California, Version 1.0, Open File Report

2006-1217.

United States Geological Survey and California Geologic Survey, 2006, Quaternary fault

and fold database for the United States, accessed May 19, 2011 from USGS

web site: http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/

United States Geological Survey, 2011, A Computer Program Published by USGS to

calculate Seismic Hazard Curves and Response and Design Parameters

based on ASCE 7-05 seismic procedures, Version 5.1.0, Revision ed. Feb

2011.

Youd, T.L. and I.M. Idriss (Co-Chair), 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary

Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on

Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, published October

2001.

Aerial Photos Reviewed

Date Source Photo

2-15-77 RCFC RIV 5-20/5-21

11-9-89 RCFC C-122-51-212/213

7-9-93 RCFC C95-22A-92/93

5-20-95 RCFC C108-51-165/166

http://www.topo.com/

Copyright:© 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

³0 5,000 10,000

Feet

Figure 1

Scale:

Leighton

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2014Thematic Information: Leighton

1 " = 5,000 '

Project: 10143.003 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR

Map Saved as V:\drafting\10143\003\GIS\of_2014-05-15\Figure1.mxd on 5/16/2014 9:56:26 AM

Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)

Date: May 2014SITE LOCATION MAP

Rancho MirageSection 24 Specific Plan

Riverside County, California

ApproximateSite Location

³0 5,000 10,000

Feet

Figure 2

Scale:

Leighton

Base Map: United States Geological Survey, 1/2013Thematic Information: Leighton

1 " = 5,000 '


Map Saved as V:\drafting\10143\003\Maps\10143-003_F02_RGM_20140224.mxd on 2/24/2014 10:56:23 AM

Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)

Date: May 2014REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP

Rancho MirageSection 24 Specific Plan


ApproximateSite Location

QsQa

Quaternary-age Dune Sand

Quaternary-age Alluvium

LEGEND

S an A n d r e a s F a u l t

Qa

Qa

Qs

Qs

Qs

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

NAP

Afu

Afu

Qs

Qs

Qs

Afu

Afu

Qs

Qs

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-3

B-2

B-9

B-1

T.D.50'

T.D.25'

T.D.30'

T.D.30'

T.D.30'

T.D.50'

T.D.30'

T.D.30'

T.D.30'

Map Saved as V:\drafting\10143\003\GIS\of_2014-05-15\Plate1.mxd on 5/16/2014 10:49:27 AM

Plate1

LeightonScale: Date: May 20141 " = 200 '


Reference: Figure 23C, Conceptual Mass Grading Exhibit by MSA Consulting, Inc., undated.

Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)Thematic Info: Leighton

GEOTECHNICAL MAPRancho Mirage Section 24 Specific Plan


Legend

&<Approximate Location of Exploratory Borings showing total depth

Approximate Geologic Contact

B-9

T.D.30'

Afu

Qs

Artificial Fill (Undcumented)

Quaternary-aged Dune Sand

³0 200 400

Feet


A P P E N D I X A

Field Exploration Logs of Exploratory Borings

SP-SM

SP-SM

SA, MD,CR

B-1

R-1

R-2

R-3

S-4

S-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, grayish brown, dry, fine sand,

micaceous, some silt

No Recovery, sand fell out of sampler

medium dense, light brownish gray, dry, fine to medium sand

No Recovery

Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)

Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand,some silt and mica

Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, light gray, dry, finesand

789

101213

61116

71011

101314

1

1

88

350'

BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE

BCGRST

BSS

Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop

So

il C

lass

.

2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By

Drilling Co.Drilling Co.Project

Project No.

See Boring Location Plan

Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

350

345

340

335

330

325

320

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling

* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *

Co

nte

nt,

%

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1

Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N

This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU

% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL

DSEIHMDPPRV

DIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE

SASESGUC

SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

SPR-6 Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, (norecovery)

Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/26/13)

111924

350'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

320

315

310

305

300

295

290

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 2 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP

R-1

S-2

S-3

R-4

S-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light brownish gray, dry, fine sand

medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, (no recovery as ring,recovered as bag)

medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous

medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous, some silt


medium dense, gray, dry, fine sand, some silt

medium stiff, gray, dry, fine sand, some silt and mica, very friable

5810

458

6910

181921

71113

1

1

360'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

360

355

350

345

340

335

330

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


S-6 dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt


71618

360'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

330

325

320

315

310

305

300

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 2 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP SA, CR,RV

B-1

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, some coarse

grains

loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, some mica, friable

loose, light gray, dry, fine to medium sand, some mica

medium dense, light gray, dry, fine to medium sand


Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand

medium dense, light brownish gray, dry, fine sand, some silt

355

335

3610

81316

6910

1

1

1

360'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

360

355

350

345

340

335

330

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP-SM

SP

R-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-10

dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, friable

Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, grayish brown, dry, finesand

dense, light brownish gray, dry, very fine to fine sand, friable

Poorly graded SAND, dense, light brown to light brownish gray,dry, fine sand, some silt, micaceous, friable

dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt, micaceous, friable


3050-6''

51526

172528

142630

222939

360'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

330

325

320

315

310

305

300

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 2 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP

SP

SP-SM

SW

CO

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

R-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand

medium dense, gray, dry to moist, fine sand, some silt (water addedto hole)

medium dense, dark gray, dry to moist, fine sand, some silt


Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry to moist, fine sand,micaceous, some silt (water added to the hole)

Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, olive brown, dry to moist,fine sand, micaceous (water added to the hole)

Well-graded SAND, dense, olive brown, dry to moist, fine to coarsesand, some silt, micaceous (water added to the hole)

599

111928

163240

143342

213143

20

17

4

13

102

106

103

109

260'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

260

255

250

245

240

235

230

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SW

SP

SM

SP-SM

R-6

R-7

S-8

R-9

S-10

Well-graded SAND, dense, olive brown, dry to moist, fine to coarsesand, some silt, micaceous (water added to the hole)

dense, dark grayish brown, dry to moist, fine to coarse sand, somesilt and mica (water added to the hole)

with gravel, very dense, light brownish gray, dry, fine to coarse sand,micaceous, some cobbles

Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous,some silt

SILTY SAND, dense, light brown, dry, fine sand, to sandy silt

Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, grayish brown, dry to moist,fine sand, micaceous


2850-5''

4450-6''

192523

202350

111113

7

5

131

103

260'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

230

225

220

215

210

205

200

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 2 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP

SP

SP-SM

SP

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

R-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous

Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)medium dense, grayish brown, dry to moist, fine sand, micaceous,

some silt

Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, light brownishgray, dry to moist, fine sand, micaceous (water added to the hole)

dense, light brownish gray, dry to moist, very fine sand, micaceous,friable (water added to the hole)

Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry to moist, fine sand,micaceous, some silt (water added to the hole)

very dense, light gray, dry to moist, fine sand, friable (water added tothe hole)

Drilled to 25'Sampled to 26'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13)

112031

132637

1336

50-6''

2050-6''

2650-5''

2

7

7

108

103

101

270'


BCGRST

BSS

Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Auto Hammer - 30" Drop

So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

270

265

260

255

250

245

240

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 1

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP

SW

SP

B-1

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

S-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, friable, some

mica

medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, friable, trace silt (wateradded to the hole)

Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)Well-graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry, fine to coarse sand,

friable, some silt in the top part of sample (water added to thehole)

dense, light brownish gray, dry, fine to medium sand, friable (wateradded to the hole)

dense, light gray, dry, fine to medium sand, friable, some silt (wateradded to the hole)

Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt

81424

1630

50-5''

172948

2350-5''

192630

9

1

109

104

290'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

290

285

280

275

270

265

260

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP-SMS-6 Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, light gray, dry, fine sand,friable, some mica


212731

290'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

260

255

250

245

240

235

230

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 2 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP

SP

SP-SM

SP

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

S-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous,

some silt

Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)medium dense, light gray, dry, medium sand, micaceous

dense, grayish brown, dry to moist, fine sand, some silt (water addedto the hole)

Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, light brownish gray, dry tomoist, fine sand, micaceous (water added to the hole)

Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry to moist, fine sand,micaceous, some silt

dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt

142133

1750-6''

1331

50-5''

1650-6''

162430

3

13

7

109

112

105

290'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

290

285

280

275

270

265

260

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


S-6 dense, light brownish gray, dry, very fine sand, micaceous, more silt


81829

290'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

260

255

250

245

240

235

230

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 2 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP

SP-SM

SP

SP

R-1

R-2

B-1

R-3

R-4

S-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, fine sand, some mica

medium dense, light brownish gray, dry to moist, fine sand, friable,some silt and mica (water added to the hole)

Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, grayish brown, dryto moist, fine sand, micaceous (water added to the hole)

Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, light brownish gray, dry tomoist, medium sand, some silt and mica (water added to the hole)

Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)dense, light gray, dry to moist, medium sand, micaceous, friable,

some silt

dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, friable

71516

41618

71425

192442

71617

2

3

4

100

113

117

340'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

340

335

330

325

320

315

310

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


S-6 medium dense, light gray, dry, very fine sand, with silt


4912

340'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

310

305

300

295

290

285

280

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 2 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


SP

SP-SM

SP-SM

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

S-5

Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light brownish gray, dry, fine sand,

some silt

medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt and mica (wateradded to the hole)

medium dense, light brownish gray, dry to moist, fine sand, more silt

Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, light brownishgray, dry, fine sand, some mica

Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)Poorly graded SAND, dense, light olive brown, dry to moist, fine

sand, some mica

medium dense, light olive brown, dry to moist, fine sand, more silt,some mica

799

61013

71319

71531

6810

2

7

3

3

107

106

102

113

330'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

330

325

320

315

310

305

300

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 1 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC


S-6 medium dense, grayish brown, dry to moist, fine sand


61115

330'


BCGRST

BSS


So

il C

lass

.

2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sampled By


Project No.


Rancho Mirage

10143

Drilling Method7"

Sam

ple

No

.

Fee

t

300

295

290

285

280

275

270

Hole Diameter

Mo

istu

re

Ground Elevation

Dep

th

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Blo

ws

Ele

vati

on

Per

6 In

ches

Page 2 of 2

Att

itu

des

SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling


Co

nte

nt,

%


Logged By

Date Drilled

BSS

Fee

t

S

(U.S

.C.S

.)

Lo

g

Typ

e o

f T

ests

Gra

ph

ic

pcf

Location

Dry

Den

sity

N




DSEIHMDPPRV


SASESGUC



A P P E N D I X B

Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Project Name: Tested By: JAP Date: 03/04/13

Project No.: 10143.002 Checked By: JMB Date: 03/06/13

Exploration No.: B-1 Depth (feet): 0-5.0

Sample No.: B-1

Soil Identification: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light gray.

DE 921.2

921.2 918.9

408.8 408.8

510.1 0.5

DE

890.9

408.8

482.1

(in.) (mm.)

3" 75.000

1" 25.000

3/4" 19.000

1/2" 12.500

3/8" 9.500

#4 4.750

#8 2.360

#16 1.180

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075

GRAVEL: 0 %

SAND: 94 %

FINES: 6 %

GROUP SYMBOL: (SP-SM) 5.28

0.81

Remarks:

100.0

100.0

97.5

100.00.1

100.0

68.3161.7

12.5

5.9

386.5 24.2

**

480.2

47.4

PAN

268.1

Percent Passing (%)

Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)

After Wet SieveWt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)

Wt. of Container (g)

Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)

Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)

Container No.


100.0

Cu = D60/D10 =

Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0

100.0

U. S. Sieve Size

Wt. of Container No._____ (g)

Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)

Moisture Content (%)

100.0

Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

Cumulative Weight

Dry Soil Retained (g)

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)

ASTM D 6913

Container No.:

RANCHO MIRAGE

of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS

Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

GRAVEL FINESFINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM

10143.002

SANDSILT FINE

HYDROMETER

RANCHO MIRAGE

Project No.:B-1 Sample No.:

Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

ASTM D 6913

Soil Identification: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light gray.

(SP-SM)

GR:SA:FI : (%)

Exploration No.:

Depth (feet): 0-5.0

Project Name:B-1

Mar-130 : 94 : 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)

"

Sieve Landscape; B-1, B-1 ( 2-26-13 )

Project Name: Tested By: MRV / JAP Date: 03/04/13

Project No.: 10143.002 Checked By: JMB Date: 03/06/13

Exploration No.: B-3 Depth (feet): 0-5.0

Sample No.: B-1

Soil Identification: POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light gray.

GH 746.2

746.2 743.3

217.4 217.4

525.9 0.6

GH

723.3

217.4

505.9

(in.) (mm.)

3" 75.000

1" 25.000

3/4" 19.000

1/2" 12.500

3/8" 9.500

#4 4.750

#8 2.360

#16 1.180

#30 0.600

#50 0.300

#100 0.150

#200 0.075

GRAVEL: 0 %

SAND: 96 %

FINES: 4 %

GROUP SYMBOL: SP 5.40

0.95

Remarks:

100.0

100.0

97.7

100.00.0

100.0

65.7180.5

11.9

4.4

419.2 20.3

**

502.5

41.0

PAN

310.2

Percent Passing (%)

Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)

After Wet SieveWt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)


Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)

Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)

Container No.


100.0

Cu = D60/D10 =

Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

100.0

U. S. Sieve Size

Wt. of Container No._____ (g)

Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)


100.0

Dry Wt. of Soil (g)

Cumulative Weight

Dry Soil Retained (g)

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)

ASTM D 6913

Container No.:

RANCHO MIRAGE

of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS

Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

GRAVEL FINESFINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM

10143.002

SANDSILT FINE

HYDROMETER

RANCHO MIRAGE

Project No.:B-3 Sample No.:

Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

ASTM D 6913

Soil Identification: POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light gray.

SP

GR:SA:FI : (%)

Exploration No.:

Depth (feet): 0-5.0

Project Name:B-1

Mar-130 : 96 : 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)

"

Sieve Landscape; B-3, B-1 ( 2-26-13 )

Tested By : RS Date: 3-4-13

Input By : JMB Date: 3-6-13

Depth (ft.) 0-5.0

X Moist Mechanical Ram

Dry Manual Ram

Mold Volume (ft³) 0.03325 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.

250 325 400 175

1 2 3 4 5 6

6162 6196 6151 6065

4209 4209 4209 4209 AS-REC'

1953 1987 1942 1856 M/C

966.0 1051.6 1200.0 1242.7 921.2

891.2 944.4 1051.3 1167.9 918.9

157.9 144.2 150.0 151.9 408.8

10.2 13.4 16.5 7.4 0.5

129.5 131.7 128.8 123.1

117.5 116.2 110.5 114.6

118.0 11.5

PROCEDURE USED

x Procedure ASoil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve

Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter

Layers : 5 (Five)

Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)

May be used if +#4 is 20% or less

Procedure BSoil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve


Layers : 5 (Five)

Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)

Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is

20% or less

Procedure CSoil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve


Layers : 5 (Five)

Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)

Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.

is <30%

Particle-Size Distribution:

GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:

LL,PL,PI

Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)

TEST NO.

Wet Density (pcf)

Dry Density (pcf)


Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)

Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)

Weight of Container (g)

Weight of Mold (g)

Net Weight of Soil (g)

Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557

Project No.:

Location:

RANCHO MIRAGEProject Name:

10143.002

B-1

Soil Identification:

Sample No. :

Moisture Added (ml)

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light gray.

B-1

Preparation Method:

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

125.0

130.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Dry

De

ns

ity (

pcf)


SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75

X

X

Compaction A&B; B-1, B-1 ( 2-26-13 )

One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils

(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'

Project Name: Tested By: JAP Date: 3/4/13Project No.: Checked By: JMB Date: 3/6/13Boring No.: B-4 Sample Type: IN SITUSample No.: R-2 Depth (ft.) 10.0Sample Description:Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled )** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.

Initial Dry Density (pcf): 102.3 Final Dry Density (pcf): 103.7Initial Moisture (%): 18.8 Final Moisture (%) : 20.1Initial Height (in.): 0.9830 Initial Void ratio: 0.6478Initial Dial Reading (in): 0.0500 Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.70Inside Diameter of Ring (in): 2.434 Initial Degree of Saturation (%): 78.2

1.050 0.9947 0.00 1.19 1.19

2.010 0.9921 0.00 0.93 0.93

H2O 0.9893 0.00 0.64 0.64

-0.28

Rev. 01-10

Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =

Corrected Deformation

(%)

Pressure (p) (ksf)

0.6674

0.6630

Final Reading (in) Void Ratio

RANCHO MIRAGE

0.6583

0.0553

0.0579

0.0607

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SW-SM), gray.

10143.002

Swell (+) Settlement (-) % of Sample

Thickness

Load Compliance

(%)

Apparent Thickness

(in)

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000

Def

orm

atio

n %

Log Pressure (ksf)

Deformation % - Log Pressure Curve

Inundate With Distilled Water

TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT

CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS

Project Name: Tested By : JAP Date: 3/6/13

Project No. : 10143.002 Data Input By: JMB Date: 3/7/13

Boring No. B-1

Sample No. B-1

Sample Depth (ft) 0-5.0

Visual Soil Classification

Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) 921.2

Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) 918.9

Weight of Container (g) 408.8

Moisture Content (%) 0.5

Weight of Soaked Soil (g) 100.0

Dillution : 1 3

Water Fraction (ml) 25

Tube Reading <50

PPM Sulfate <150

ml of Chloride Soln. For Titration (B) 25

ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 0.6

PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * Titre (1) * 1000 / 10g 12

PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 12

Container No. A

Temperature (C°) 22.8

pH Value ( METHOD A ) 7.40

Rev. 11-09

<0.0150% Sulfate

RANCHO MIRAGE

pH TEST, ASTM D-4972

CHLORIDE CONTENT, AASHTO T-291

SULFATE CONTENT, Hach Kit Method

(SP-SM)

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST ASTM G-187

Project Name: Tested By : JAP Date: 3/6/13

Project No. : 10143.002 Data Input By: JMB Date: 3/7/13

Boring No.: B-1 Checked By: JMB Date: 3/7/13

Sample No. : B-1 Depth (ft.) : 0-5.0

Visual Soil Identification:** NOTE: ASTM G-187 REQUIRES SOIL SPECIMENS TO PASS THROUGH NO.8 SIEVE PRIOR TO TESTING. THEREFORE, THIS TEST METHOD MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE FOR COARSER MATERIALS.

Initial Moisture Content (%)

Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 921.2 Initial Soil Weight (gm)(Wt) 1500.0Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 918.9 Box Constant: 6.7522Wt. of Container (g) 408.8Moisture Content (%) (MCi) 0.45 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100

Remolded Specimen

Water Added (ml) (Wa) 125 175 225 275 325

Adj. Moisture Content (%) (MC) 8.82 12.17 15.52 18.87 22.22

Resistance Rdg. (ohm) 10000 5900 3500 2600 2600

Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) 67522 39838 23633 17556 17556

Rev. 11-04

(SP-SM)

RANCHO MIRAGE

Moisture Adjustments

(

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

So

il R

esis

tivit

y (

oh

m-c

m)


Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm)

17556 18.87

Chloride Content (ppm)


Sulfate Content ppm / % Soil pH

ASTM G-187, D-2216 HACH KIT METHOD AASHTO T-291 ASTM D-4972

12 7.40 <150 <0.015

Soluble Sulfates(Hach Sulfate Test Kit)

Project Name: Project Number:Date: 3/6/13Technician: JAP

Sample Identification % Sulfates

Water Fraction Tube ReadingBoring No.: B-3 3 :1 3 <50 <0.0150

Sample No: B-1 = <150Depth (ft.): 0-5.0

Dilution Reading (PPM)

RANCHO MIRAGE10143.002

R-VALUE TEST RESULTSDOT CA Test 301

PROJECT NAME: Rancho Mirage PROJECT NUMBER: 10143.002

BORING NUMBER: B-3 DEPTH (FT.): 0-5

SAMPLE NUMBER: B-1 TECHNICIAN: S. Felter

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Gray SP DATE COMPLETED: 3/8/2013

TEST SPECIMEN a b c

MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 7.6 8.0 8.4

HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.54 2.52 2.56

DRY DENSITY, pcf 112.9 113.6 113.1

COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 350 275 150

EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 566 353 151

EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 0 0 0

STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 20 29 40

TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.70 5.05 5.36

R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 79 69 58

R-VALUE CORRECTED 79 69 59

DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c

GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0

TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0

STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.34 0.50 0.66

EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00

EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART

R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: N/A

R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 66

EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 66

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

CO

VER

TH

ICKN

ESS

BY S

TABI

LOM

ETER

in fe

et

COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0100200300400500600700800

R-V

ALU

E

EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)


A P P E N D I X C

EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

-i-

APPENDIX C

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page 1.0 GENERAL 1 1.1 Intent 1 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2

2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 2.2 Processing 3 2.3 Overexcavation 3 2.4 Benching 3 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3

3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4 3.1 General 4 3.2 Oversize 4 3.3 Import 4

4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4 4.1 Fill Layers 4 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 5 4.3 Compaction of Fill 5 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5 4.5 Compaction Testing 5 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5 4.7 Compaction Test Locations 6

5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6

6.0 EXCAVATION 6

7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6 7.1 Safety 6 7.2 Bedding & Backfill 7 7.3 Lift Thickness 7 7.4 Observation and Testing 7

Standard Details A - Keying and Benching Rear of Text B - Oversize Rock Disposal Rear of Text C - Canyon Subdrains Rear of Text D - Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains Rear of Text E - Transition Lot Fills and Side Hill Fills Rear of Text Retaining Wall Rear of Text

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications

-1-

1.0 General

1.1 Intent

These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and

earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the

geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations

contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific

recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general

Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical

Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised

recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the

recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record

Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical

Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants

shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and

accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and

recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the

"work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule

sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and

compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall

observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical

design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly

different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the

Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes

in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency

where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped,

elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared

for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas,

all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and

processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction

testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical

Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a

routine and frequent basis.



-2-

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor

The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and

knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to

receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The

Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these

Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely

responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and

specifications.

The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical

Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the

number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork

contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor

shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work

schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such

changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and

accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant

is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment

and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable

grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the

recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If,

in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as

unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient

buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than

required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work

and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the

conditions are rectified.

2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing

Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be

sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the

owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals

depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more

than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more

than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be

allowed.



-3-

If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work

in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed

immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to

continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products

(gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents

that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping

or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor,

punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.

2.2 Processing

Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the

Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.

Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the

following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and

free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform,

flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

2.3 Overexcavation

In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved

geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,

organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be

overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant

during grading.

2.4 Benching

Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to

vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key

shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent

material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be

excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise

recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping

flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat

subgrade for the fill.

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas

All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and

benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to

being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The

Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant



-4-

prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for

determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 Fill Material

3.1 General

Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other

deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant

prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable

gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas

acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve

satisfactory fill material.

3.2 Oversize

Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum

dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless

location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the

Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of

oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely

surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed

within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or

underground construction.

3.3 Import

If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall

meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given

to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before

importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests

performed.

4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction

4.1 Fill Layers

Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per

Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness.

The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the

grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be

spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and

moisture throughout.



-5-

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning

Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to

attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.

Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in

accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test

Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill

After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall

be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density

(ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized

and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to

efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes

In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of

slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at

increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing

satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion

of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least

90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing

Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be

performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall

be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered.

Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test

locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that

are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and

at the fill/bedrock benches).

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing

Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or

1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline,

at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope

face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure

that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the

Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork

construction if these minimum standards are not met.



-6-

4.7 Compaction Test Locations

The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and

horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with

the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that

the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient

accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100

feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be

provided.

5.0 Subdrain Installation

Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical

report(s), the grading plan. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional

subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on

conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land

surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient

time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 Excavation

Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the

Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on

geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined

by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions

during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope

shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement

of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise

recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 Trench Backfills

7.1 Safety

The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of

trench excavations.



-7-

7.2 Bedding and Backfill

All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with

the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works

Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30

(SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and

densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of

90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the

surface.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction.

At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.3 Lift Thickness

Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard

Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can

demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to

the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.

7.4 Observation and Testing

The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the

Geotechnical Consultant.

All. SLOPE

PROJECTED PLANE 1: 1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND

EXISTING GROUND SURFACE

Rll. -ovet-cur SLOPE

CUT -ovER-ALl. SLOPE

PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND

KEYING AND BENCHING

REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL

REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL

UT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT

BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5: 1. MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET.


STANDARD DETAILS A Leighton

FINISH GRADE

- - - - - - "10'- - - - - - - - - - - -_____________ COMPACTED FILl_ - - - - - -- - - - - - - - MIN.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-~-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------~---------------~--

- --=-=-=-=-=~=n-=-=-=-=-=-~0.-=-=-=-=-=-=-="--.J--~ ------------/_------ ------------- - ------------------_-_____ ?-______________________ _ -_-_-_-_-_-_ ---~----=-~=-7)---_-_-_-_-_-~_-_-_-_-- -_-_-_-_-,C_-_-_\Jo----~-~----_-_-_-_---:J-_/o----_-

_-_-_~~~~----/----_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -, . _-:_-!-:----~.~N~--~t.--------_____ -~ _____ - - - - - 4 MIN. - - - - - - - -

----y-~-------------- ---------_-_-_-_-_-_-_ ----~---_-_-_-_-_-/\~----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-------- -- ------ ~-....,r--_----------_-_-_-_-_--7-----_-_-_- _- -_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--- - - 7 - - - - - - - - OVERSIZE - - - - - - - - - -

--------_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-WINDROW·_-_-_-_---.

~-~--------------

• Oversize rock is larger than 8 inches in largest dimension.

• Backfill with approved soil jetted or flooded in place to fill all the voids.

• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of finish grade.

• Windrow of buried rock shall be

parallel to the finished slope face.

PROFILE ALONG WINDROW

-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=--:A~ := --:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:= -~

~-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=--:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-A'~:=-_-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-~----_-_-_-

JETTED OR FLOODED APPROVED SOIL

~ f .li

i ~--------------------~--------------~--------~!

OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPEOFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS B Leighton

I E

i I

L_------------------------------------~~------------------------~L-------------------~~

NATURAL GROUND

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A PERFORATED PIPE SURROUNDED WITH FILTER MATERIAL

FILTER MATERIAL (9FT 3/FT)

SUB DRAIN (See Alternates A and B)

FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF

CALlFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATION, OR APPROVED AlTERNATE. CLASS 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS;

Sieve Size 1"

3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8

No.JO No. 50 No.200

Percent Passing 100

9D-100 10-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 D-7 0-3

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1 SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-2

ALTERNATE B-1

PERFORATED PIPE 6" Ill MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B

3/4" MAX. GRAVEL OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT

(9FT3/FT)

ALTERNATE B-2

PERFORATED PIPE IS OPTIONAL PER GOVERNING AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS

DESIGN FINISHED GRADE

DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL

~ 15' MIN.----o~~~-= I S'MIN

· • 6'fiJ MIN.----I I NON-PERFORAliD

~ t -~ ~

~------------~-------------------~~---------~1

CANYON SUB DRAIN


STANDARD DETAILS C Leighton

I E

i I

~------------~-------------------~~---------~~

1'±

OUTLET PIPES 4"+ NON-PERFORATED PIPE,

100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY

------------------------------------------------------- ----------------2% MIN.~------ ---

I ,15' MIN; I

BACK CUT

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B =?J -----======~~~~==========-=--== 0

KEY DEPTH I . K~· ~~~TH I 2' MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A

CAL TRANS QASS 2 FILTER MATERIAL (3FT.3/FT)

H:ONNECTION FROM COUECTION PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE

POSmvE SEAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED----... AT THE JOINT

3/4" ROO< (3FT31Ffl-----WRAPPED IN FILTER

• SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall

•

be 1/4" to 1/2" if drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet.

~ SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, ASTM D1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe ! or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe. -

• All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity. ~

f------------r----------.----i ~ BUTTRESS OR

REPLACEMENT FILL SUBDRAINS


STANDARD DETAILS D

., Leighton i

" ~---------------~---------------L---------~~

OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION

--------

REMOVE UNSUITABLE\_

GROUND \...-___..

--------

--------

SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD NATIJRAL

GROUND~ .....-

OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT

{REPLACEMENT FILL)

.....-

--------/ / FINISHED QJT PAD

/

L...:::::::~~..-U<------- SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS ~' Ml~. •I WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTR:HNICAL CONSULTANT

~ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTR:HNICAL CONSULTANT

~ t ..Ill

~ :8

~------------------------------------~~------------------------~~------------------~1

TRANSITION LOT FILLS AND SIDE HILL FILLS

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPEOFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS E Leighton

I E

i I

~------------------------------------~~------------------------~~------------------~~

SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF ~0 OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH

CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC

. LEVEL OR

SLOPE

GENERAL NOTES:

SLOPE OR LEVEL

12" MINIMUM

CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION)

4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE

(SEE NOTE 3)

WATERPROOFING ----+--1 (SEE GENERAL NOTES)

Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation Per caltrans Specifications

Sieve Size Percent Passing 1" 100

3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No.4 25-40 No.8 18-33

No. 30 5-15 No. so 0-7 No. 200 D-3

* 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

SLOPE OR LEVEL

Fll TER FABRIC (SEE NOTE4)

*Outlet portion of the subdrain 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) *Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.

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/+ to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric 3) Pipe type should be ASTM 01527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM 01785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule 40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved 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) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent. 5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-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 system should be provided. 6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. 7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.

RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT

WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50 Leighton Figure


A P P E N D I X D

ASFE Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

Important Information About Your

Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.

Geotechnical Services Are Performed lor Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique- Set ol Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a

parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or • project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantlyfrom those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are 11/ot Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer•s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that

have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your ASH-Member Geotechncial Engmeer lor Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

ASFE THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G1 06, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017

e-mail : [email protected] www.asfe.org

Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for

purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

IIGER08041.0MRP

Documents

APPENDIX E Geotechnical Report - Agua Caliente EIS/Appendices/Apx_D_Geotech_Rprt.pdf · Plate 1 – Geotechnical Map . Appendices Appendix A – Field Exploration / Geotechnical Borings