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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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).
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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).
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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.
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
- 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
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 '
Project: 10143.003 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR
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
Riverside County, California
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 '
Project: 10143.003 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR
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
Riverside County, California
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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
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'
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
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
* * * 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
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
Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)
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'
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
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
* * * 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-2
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
S-6 dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt
Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/26/13)
71618
360'
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
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
* * * 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-2
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
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
Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)
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'
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
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
* * * 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-3
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
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
Drilled to 50'Sampled to 51.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/26/13)
3050-6''
51526
172528
142630
222939
360'
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
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
* * * 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-3
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
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
Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)
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'
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
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
* * * 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-4
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
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
Drilled to 50'Sampled to 51.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/26/13)
2850-5''
4450-6''
192523
202350
111113
7
5
131
103
260'
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
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
* * * 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-4
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
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'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Auto Hammer - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-5
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
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'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-6
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
SP-SMS-6 Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, light gray, dry, fine sand,friable, some mica
Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13)
212731
290'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-6
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
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'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-7
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
S-6 dense, light brownish gray, dry, very fine sand, micaceous, more silt
Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13)
81829
290'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-7
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
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'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-8
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
S-6 medium dense, light gray, dry, very fine sand, with silt
Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13)
4912
340'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-8
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
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'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-9
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
S-6 medium dense, grayish brown, dry to moist, fine sand
Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13)
61115
330'
BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE
BCGRST
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
il C
lass
.
2-27-13
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
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
* * * 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-9
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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
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.
Wt. of Container (g)
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)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
Wt. of Container (g)
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)
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-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
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
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
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
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)
Moisture Content (%)
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)
Moisture Content (%)
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)
Moisture Content (%)
Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm)
17556 18.87
Chloride Content (ppm)
Moisture Content (%)
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)
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
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.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-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.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-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
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-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.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-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.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-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.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-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.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
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
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
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
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
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
Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014 Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003
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