Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tract 30289 (Geotechnical) (2)
2910164-25 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Tract(s) 30289 Parent Tract Site Address 2920 Wagon Train Lane Date 10/27/93 Location/Owner The Country/Dr. Shaw Geologist Triad Geotechnical Consultants Developer Soils Engineer Same as Geologist Civil Engineer John B. Abell, Inc. Review of: Grading P.C. No:_ Geologist Report(s Soils Report(s) Da X Geology and Soils Other Action Report(s) Dated 7/14/93, Geologic Insp. and Report of Compaction X Plan/Report is geotechnically approved Plan/Report is geotechnically approved subject to conditions below. Review Comments: Reviewed by Plan/report not approved for reasons below Submit Plan/Report for recheck. Include a copy of this review. Date <i/Z/99 D LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC GlhnicaMTCENGINEERING, INC. &c Envviimumcntal Consultants 11823 Slauson Ave., Unit 18 • Santa Fe Springs, Ca 90670 Tel: (310) 698.8238 • Fax: (310) %5-0364 24 Hour Answering Service (818) 585-8014 January 17, 1994 P.R. 96-SCO1-94 Mr. Grace Chu 4 r% c/o Tien -Ho Francisca Chen 1 Pinewave Engineering, Inc. 17026 Cypress Street, 2F, #G 05 U vwcpCovina, CA 91772, t w%" r—f V Subject: Addeudum Soils and Geology Report .1, Response to City Review Letter Dated December 20, 1993 Proposed Tennis Court, Lot 8, Tract No.30289 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California Oqlt Gentlemen: 2® As requested, MTC Engineering, Inc., has prepared this report in response to the City of Diamond Bar review letter prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated December 20, 1993. A copy 1 of the City review letter is attached at the end of this report. For your convenience, the responses are presented Following City review items. Review Item 1: An engineering.geologist report is required. A geologic map should be submitted that shows at a minimum, geologic contacts and depths or previous generations of fill in the proposed grading area. A geologic cross-section downslope should be provide,d in the report. Response of Item 1: A geologic map and geologic cross sections showing geologic contacts and approximately depths of previous'generations of fill in the proposed grading area are enclosed in this: report as Plates 1, 2 and 3. Cross section A -A shows the geologic section of the proposed grading area. Cross section B'-B" shows the geologic section of the site and its downslope. area. The cross section B'-B" is adapted from Leighton report: dated February 3, 1972 (Referenec 2). The geology of the subject site was previuosly investigated by James E. Slosson in 1967 (Reference 1) and F. Beach Leighton Associates in 1972 (Reference 2). Based on the review of the abovementioned geologic reports and our field investigation, the on -site earth materials in the I P.R. 96-SGO1-94 January 17, 1994 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 11 1 1 1 proposed grading area consist of compacted fill and bedrock. The compacted fill consists of clayey, slightly sandy silt in a moist and medium dense to dense condition. The upper one to two feet of fill is loose to slightly dense and not suitable for receiving new compacted fill. The bedrock consists of siltstone, shale and sandstone of. the La Vida Member of the Puenta Formation. The dip angles of bedding in the proposed grading area is in the range of 9 to 12 degrees. As indicated in Leighton report Reference 2), a buttress fill was placed at the toe of the slope ascending from Shadow Canyon Drive to stabilize the low - angle daylighted bedding (Plate 3). Slope stability analyses of the proposed buttress fills for the propsed development were performed and the results presented in Appendix A. The analyses indicate factors of safety greater than minimum Code requirement. It is our opinion that the site .is geologically stable and the development of the proposed tennis court will not adversely affect: the existing slope. Review Item 2: Stability of the proposed slopes (cut and fill) should be evaluated based on the geologic cross-section. Response of Item 2: The results of. the Slope stability analyses of the recommended buttress fills as presented on geologic cross section A -A are shown in Appendix A. The analyses .indicate factors of safety greater than minimum Code requirement for static and pseudo - static slope stability conditions. Review Item 3: Approximate removal depths of unsuitable fill or native material should be provided in the soils report. Response of Item 3: Based on our field investigation, the top one to two feet of the existing compacted fill in the proposed grading area has been deteriorated and not suitable for receiving new fill. The abovementioned unsuitable compacted fill portion should be removed and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Any substandard certified fill encountered during the grading should be removed and compacted to City required standard if the grade .is to be maintained and/or new fill is to be placed. P.R. 96-SGO1-94 January 17, 1994 Review Item 4: The compaction of certified fill at the site must be verified and accepted by the geotechnical consultant. The statement of acceptance should be provided in the soils report. Poor existing certified should be removed and recompar,ted prior to placement of new fill. Response of Item 4: The compaction of certified fill at the site will. be observed and tested by this firm. The compaction of certified fill at the site will be verified and accepted and the statement of acceptance will be provided in the soils report if our field tests indicate adequate relative compaction. Review Item 5: Plate P appears to be a wrong typical design for fill over existing slope proposed. The correct design should be shown on the grading plan. Response of Item 5: A revised plate (Plate 4) is enclosed in this report to present the recommended sections for the proposed buttress fills. The correct design should be provided in the revised grading plan. Review Item 6: Slab specifications shown on the grading plan do not agree with the recommendations in the soils report. Please comment. Response of Item 6: It is our recommendation that the recommended slab thickness 5 inches) should be noted on the revised tennis court plan. Review Item 7: Two feet of granular, non expansive, sandy soils was recommended under the proposed tennis court. This should be added to the plan as notes. What is the criteria for "non -expansive"? Response of Item 7: The use of two feet granular, non -expansive, sandy soils below the slab of the proposed tennis court will be addressed on the plan as notes.- A soil with an expansion index between 0 (Zero) to 20 is classified as non -expansive soil or very low expansive soil. ' P.R. 96-SGO1-94 January 17, 1994 The recommendations in our report dated 11-19-93 (Reference 6), unless superseded by this report:, are still applicable and should be incorporated into design and followed during construction. The general guidelines.for erosion control in hillside areas are enclosed in this report as Appendix B for your reference. If you should have any questions, regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, MTC Engineering Inc. H . MARK-1 President/Project Geologist RCE 46886, CEG 1783 O,Cr•,ologi6C ..'n v {. • ty v rs A TZE. TSAO No. 17No. C 046886 No. 1783 Gene Luu Exp. G-30.9CERTIFIED 5 * o o ENGINEERING Staff Soils Engineer GEOLOGIS JT9 CIVIL 0. P MATE F CAUF R? Encl : References FOF CAUFi ` City of Diamond Bar`•Revie.w . er (12-20-93) Plate 1, Geologic Map Plates 2 and 3, Geologic Cross Secr.ons Plate 4, Typical Seclion for Buttress Fills Appendix A, Slope Stability Analyses Appendix B, Guide for Erosion Control. in Hillside Areas I cc 1 I 11 4) Addressee P.R. 96-SGO1-94 January 17, 1994 t 1 1 1 REFERENCES 1. James E. Slosson, July 28, 1967, Geologic Report for Lot 8, Tract 30289, A Portion of Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, California 2. F. Beach Leighton & Associates, February 3, 1972, Geologic Report of Lot 8, and etc., Tract 30289, Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California 3. Duco Engineering, Inc., 01-04-91, Report of Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residence o Lot 8, Tract No.30289, Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 4. 'Triad Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 06-24-91, Assumption of. Geotechnical Consulting Letter for the Site. 5. Triad Geotechnical Consultants, Tnc., 08-09-91, Rough Grade Geologic Inspection & Report of Compaction for the Site. 6. MTC Engineering Inc., 1.1-19-93, Report of Soils Engineering Investigation, Proposed Tennis Court, 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 7. City of. Diamond Bar Review Letter dated 12-20-93. Prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. B. City of Los Angeles, November, 1992, Guide for Erosion and Debris Control .in Hillside Areas. r 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL DESIGN FINISHED 5URFAC i i COMPACTED FILL SEE DRAIN DE TA IQ 111 a* UPPEA BUTTRESS zs' A kEy WIDTH LOWER gUrTRE55 20' PROPOJEDC T4NhV15 COUP T f Min mUm Of 2'Th:W fill 69DROOK 4." P ErJORATED PIPE (CMP, S* OUI KEY DEPTH- At Least 3' Into Firm MAtel- A OCEPLH yLENT) FLAcFD n f CUBIC FOOT -PERLINEARFOOTOFORADEOF;LTER MATERIAL PIPE TO EXTEND FULL LENQrH OF BUTTRF5 CX, MINIMUM /0' H 1% J 4" gIyONPERFORAIFD I PE ' PIPE LATERAL TO qIPI W B>:NcH SLOPiF FACEArSb' I T- ERVAC Graded Filter Material to conform to State of California Dept. of Public Works Standard specificationsn for Class 2 Permeable Material. ProjectNo. 96SGo194 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Dimond Bar, California Plate 4 MTC Engineering DEC 29 193 16:52 LEIGHTON P,2 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET LEIOHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR' CITY OF.DIAMOND BAR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 2010164•51 Tract(s) Date . __ Oeeember 204 1903 Parent.Tract: Location/Owner -Tba country/Gras Chu' Site Address Geologist Developer Soils Engineer HTC Fogigggrinq. in;. Civil Engineer Review of! grading P.C.-No. Geologist;Report s) Dated Soils Rgport(s) Datted Geology aqd Soils Report(s) Dated Other Aotlont' Plan/Report-is geotechnically approved Plan/report not approved fbr.reasons below; plan/Report is ggeotecMically approved ,ybjy,pj p, for rachsck._ Include subject to:tonditions below, 6 c,Qp.y of th Y reyjew. Rev isw.Comantsi, 1. An engineering geologist report is required. ( geologic map should,be submitted,that shows at a:minimum, geologic contacts and depth's of previous a n"f fill in the proposed. grading area.rr A geologic cross:ffdtion downs ope should be provided in the report, -..._ - 2. Stability, of the proposed .slopes (cut and fill) should be evaluated based on the peologie•cross-section, 3. Approximate removal depths of unsuitable fill or native material should be provided in tha eotls report. 4. The compaction of 'certified fill at the site must be Verified and accepted by the geotechnical consultant. The statement of acceptance should bo provided in the soils report. Poor existing -certified fill should be removed and recompacted prior to placement'of new fill. S. `Plate F appears to be a wrong .typical design for fill over ex The correct design should be shown"on the grading plan, o,..•_i•n i ..,A f.v ,rnnamlhal memo 7671 e1I06903 'Z 0U hom. NN GAa Ey Co, p A v 4 CH A N M_ PINK M_ - L 6 7. DEC Z0 " i l6:oi I.. 46HIUN ._ P.3 II9101b4•i Slab specifications shown on the grading plan do not agree with the -recommendations in the lolls report. ' Please comment. Two feet of granular, non -expansive, sandy soils was recommended under the proposed tennis TCourt. This should.be_added to.th9 plan as notes. What is the criterie4or Reviewed Date .2gymber 20, 19XL". I 1 1 1 1] 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 C s. v C C W U P.R. 96-SO01-94 January 17, 1994 APPENDIX A SLOPE. STABILITY ANALYSES 1. General Plane slope stability analyses were performed to evaluate the static and pseudo -static (seismic) slope stability conditions of the slopes stabilized by the proposed buttress fills. Simplified Bishops Method was used in analyses. The following three (3) failure modes were analysed for each buttress fill: a. Failure Mode 1: Potential slip surface passes through the bedding plane, the compacted fill and daylights from the toe of the buttress (see Pigures A.1 and A.2) b. Failure Mode 2: Potential slip surface pa:.ise, through thn bedding plane, the bottom of the till key and daylights in front: of Ure toe of the huttres, (:see Figures A.1 and A.2) a.. Pailtire Mode 3: Potential slip surface passes through the bedding plane and then alone the bottom of r,he passive wedge passing through the f:rnnt bot:t.nm of 1 the fill key -and J..ryl ights in front of t:ho fi l l key (see Figures A.I and A.2). 2. Shear Strength Parameters Used in Analyses The peak and residual shear strength par•nmote.rs adapted from Duco report (Reference 3) and determined from our labornl:ory tests were used in slope stability annlvso:,. TIin prnk and rot+idu:.t1 shear strength parameter, were used in [irstic and pseudo -static. slope stability analyses, rce:ipoctivr.ly. For convc•uiell ceI the shear strength parameter:: used in analyses are .1i.stir+.1 below: I Material Unit Cohesion, psl' Friction Angle. deg Weight Peak Residual Pock ResiditaI Redding 120 pcf. 400** 150* 27`'* 1.2ib Fill 120 pcf 560* 400** 8* 23** Bedrock 120 pcf. 1400* 1400* 26* 26* Dat: a adapted from Duce report. Reference 3) Data determined from laboratory tests of MTC Engineering IP.R. 96-SGO1-94 January 17, 1994 3. Results 1 The results of slope stability analyses are summarized in Table A.1. Geometry of analyzed buttress slid details of calculations are pre:;f;nted on Figures A.l and A.2 :and Plates A.1 through A.6. The analyses indicate factors of safety greater thin minimum Code requirements. Table A.l Summary of Slope Stability Annlyscs Buttress Failure Factor of S.aFr:t.v Remarks Section Mode Static Seismic Lower 1 1.99 2.16 Figure A.1 Intl Flit.,! A.1. Lower 2 1.96 2.32 Figure A.1 and Plate. A.2 Lower 3 1.64 2.19 Figure A.1 and Plate A.3 Upper 1 1.62 2.12 Figure A.2 and Plate A.4 Upper 2 1.61 2.06 Figure and 3---------5,----•--------- a_2 Plate A_5 Upper 2.02 Figure 2 and Plate A.6 1 I 1 1 I V V) a o o ti 1 I 11 L TI CIO V 4j,`\ I L \ 1 S N to a1 gaaj) SIXd—n WA N v U N s f 0 D N a.J 1 LLL ti d S = N r 1 11 i u t Ak kxr k*i*fxx****Yx$**$i*$$YY$kf $Y*****$**$ffY*YYY*Y kxf ***k*1 x SLOPE STABILITY AND EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE ANALYSIS k PROJECT NAME : 2740 SHADOW CANYON LOWER SEC MODE 1 SEISMIC COEFFICIENT = .15 GEOMETRY OF SLOPE UNIFORM DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE . DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE = 12 SLOPE PT SLIP SURFACE PT SURCHARGE X) (Y) W (Y) (PSF) t6 i4 16 37.5 0 e4 4 64 52 0 11-1 48 112 56 0 132 58 132 58 0 STATIC FORCE BALANCE (FORCE UNIT : LBS) SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL. NO. WEIGHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRI'JING W ) (DEGREES) FORCE (LES) FORCE (LOS) 1 120 ISO 12 28030 17690 2 120 150 12 13760 9640 120 400 23 13090 0 SEISMIC FORCE BALANCE : SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL. NO. WEIGHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING PCF) (DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE- (L.6Si 1 120 400 27 68560 30490 2 120 400 27 33380 16,380 120 560 26 17580 .800 Yx*$$$**x*Y x RESULTS x***fx***f* STATIC SLOPE STABILITY = REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY 1.5 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.99 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 54890 LBS T TAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 27530 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.5 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.1 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.46 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 119540 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 48660 LBS 1 FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.1 1 1 PROJ.g6SGT SCALE: — DATE:. 1_-9416 MTC Engineering PLATE A - CtuuvftingSoit & Foundation Engintmng t YrYY kY[rk'k$x$x#k##x$###allitA#k$kY#k##Y'####kx###x##31'[1 YY ra" r SLOPE STABILITY AND EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE ANAI # PROJECT NAME : 2740 SHADOW CANYON LOWER SEC MODE 2 SEISMIC COEFFICIENT = .15 GEOMETRY OF SLOPE UNIFORM DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE 12 SLOPE PT SLIP SURFACE PT SURCHARGE X) (Y) (X) ('i) PSF) 16 3.4 16 40.5 0 84 34 •84 55 0 112 48 112 61 0 132 58 132 61 0 136.5 58 136.5 58 0 ' STATIC FORCE BALANCE (FORCE. UNIT : LBS) SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL KRIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING PCF) DEGREES)FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LBS) 1 120 150 2 33010 2Y:l Ci 2 120 150 12 15810 i1700 120 400 23 161SO O 4 120 400 23 2040 370 SEISMIC FORCE BALANCE : SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING PCF) DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LBS) 1 !20 400 27 80130 38960 2 110 400 27 38130 19890 3 120 560 4 120 560 28 21410 28 2850 2880 2r0 txx##Y##$#$ r RESULTS # kY$xx#xY#$$ STATIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFET'i = 1.5 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.96 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 67010 LES TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 34210 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.5 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILIT'i : REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.1 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFEiY = 2.32 TOTAL HORIZONTAL. RESISTING FORCE = 142520 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 61420 LBS 1 FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.1 Psoa.96SG1 scALec °A'E'..1-16-94 MTC Engineering PLATE A-2 Co=ldngSoil & Foundation Fsginecenng xkxh.kixxiv1itYxrt9it U ta%ItIIIiItit'ti'I,.tilr,ll,t%ittIAit* IkIt LOPE $ TAE1a IT'. ANC, E6UIVAL-14T Fi i!iD RRES',UF.c. ANALi:Ic• ixxxxxi I fit t L i%T r*TX4 iI1Y t.iiI ixxi it lii ti l%Abr i1%At 14%1*11111 PROJECT NAME : 2740 SHADOW CANYON LOWER EC MODE ) SEISMIC COEFFICIENT - .15 GEOMETRY OF SLOPE UNIFORM r-T,' ANGLE OF -*.LIP SURFACE DIP ANGLE OF SL:F' SURFACE = 1,,-. SLOPE PT _LIP SOWACE PT SUKHARGE X) ( Y) (X) (Y) (PSF) 84 , 4 F4 40. 5 00 112 48 ii', 61 0 1 127 55 127 :a.2 0 132 52 112 $i 6 136. 5 5 l:;.s 55 0 m STATIC FORCE 3ALANCE (FORCE UNIT LB:) SEGMENT UNIT COHE:ION FRliiiOla HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL 140. WEIGHT PSF} ANGLE NESI`'.TIN3 DRIVING PCF) DEGREES) FORCE (LB$) FORCE (LEES) 1 120 150 12 33010 22580 2 120 ISO Ii i5810 11700 3 120 150 1 220 3Y90 4 i20 400 23 3OW 1590 5 120 400 22 2040 370 SEISMD; FORCE BALANCE SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL. HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT PSF) ANGLE i'ZSI:TING DRIVING PCF) DEGREES) FORCE (Ld ) FORCE (LE+S) t 120 400 27 0130 38980 120 00 7 38130 19890 120 dot) 27 i E•210 6790 4 0 55C 6 4'SO 1220 i2'? 550 Aso 290 xxx23ttxr tt x RESULTS xxxx t'xx't:t-* STATIC SLOPF, c'iAc3LIiF REQUIRED FACTO... t1F 7AF;:i1 = ORIGINAL FAJ;il)R. EF ...I.. TOTAL HORIZONTA!. wESi;TING FORCE = 60140 L%s T! iAL hORIZ iNTAt. ORIV1Nli FACTOR OF SAF:.TY : . iEISMII_ _ LOGE 'TAPIR TT1 REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFEi'1 = 1.1 ORIGINAL FACTO, OF ;AFETY r 2.1i TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESIST iliii FORCE = i4O580 LE: TOTAL HORIZONTAL. OP.IVINi, FIERCE. = 54i5O LFS FACTOR. 1V SAFETY : i.' Proa.96SG1 I SCALE- MTC Engineering ComIt1gngSof1& FounCod0n Engineaing - V 1 J S L r 1 rn; r D x V' nV d ' i 1 J' y I 4 V . A 2 O S d s n v d r M a N S5 O Oaaj) i 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 11 txxtx Ili "txz$xz#$krxt:$$%x:cktk%#%i#$#tii.ii.t."IL, Af ikx'i t.iljr to SLOPE STABILITY AND EOUIVAL—ENT FLUID PRESSURE ANALY',1' Ail x%k%$=ttk$$$%%k#k$$#$$#xkk$$$$$$$#$#$x$% k x'r$lx lx k$ ixxtt t t.t PROJECT NAME : 2740 SHADOW CANYON UPPER SEC MODE l SEISMIC COEFFICIENT = .15 GEOMETRY OF SLOPE : UNIFORM DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE = 12 SLOPE FT SLIP SURFACE PT SURCHARGE X)(Y) X) (Y} (PSF) 55 26 55 28 0 132 28 132 44..i 0 220 40 220 63 0 236 46 23o 66.4 0 244 48 244 68.1 0 271 61.5 271 74 0 296 74 296 74 0 STATIC FORCE BALANCE (FORCE UNIT : LBS) SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING PCF) (DEGREES) FORCE (LB) FORCE (LED;) 1 120 150 12 26870 152t.0 120 150 12 55400 42190 120 150 12 10460 608.3 4 120 15O i2 4B0O ii O S 120 150 It 14760 11i'i •: 120 400 23 179*C 0 EI:M1C FORCE BALANCE SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION hORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT PSF) ANGLE RESISTING ORIVING PCF) DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LES) 1 120 400 27 66360 07O 1`r,' 400 27 133140 71970 120 400 25160 I ?%Atj ' 120 400 27 11920 641O 20 400 27 35640 18580 6 120 560 26 23970 2r1O x RESULTS rift##kik$k STATIC SLOPE STABILITY : R "12(kEis tAkt7R 41F =AFtTY = ! .a_ 0 GIN AL FAL UR OF SAFETY i.c•2 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 130440 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 80300 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.5 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY : REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1,1 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY' = 2.!2 TOTAL hOF17ONT,L RESISTING FDRCE = 2961i0 LES TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 129620 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.1 0 PROJ.96SG1 SCALE: — ATE16-94 MTC Engineering LA-4PTEAConm(ting Soil &Foundation FJ ginaenng 1 k2s#t$TY YfY#kf##f*kTi IYY*#iIYA$#tiltt$###$}YA *YXYxATix#xk}*#T. SLOPE STABILITY AND EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE ANALYSIS YT 1T 21'Y'Yfl Ti"tTT1'SYY#TX#2##T$}ZSt$YkiiAtt*AY11 $$f2AT*Zi l',x}2}}} PROJECT NAME : 2740 SHADOW CANYON UPPER SEC MODE 2 SEISMIC COEFFICIENT = .15 GEOMETRY OF SLOPE : UNIFORM DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE = 12 SLOPE PT SLIP SURFACE GT 3URCH_RGE lx1 (Y) (Xj (Y) (PSF) 41 26 41 26 0 132 35 132 47,3 0 220 40 20 66 0 23b 48 236 66.4 O 244 4. 244 71.1 0 271 b1.5 27I 77 0 7O6 74 296 77 0 0 5 74 300.5 74 0 SiATIC FORCE BALANCE (FORCE UNIi ;.LBS) tSEGhIENT UNIT COHESION FfiICT10N HORIZONTAL HORIZONiAI. N0. WEIGHT (PSFj ANGLE RESIjlf;G DRIVING PCF) (DEGREES) FORCE (1-65) FORCE (LES) 1 120 ISO 12 35080 '1390 120 150 12 61840 46630 3 120 150 12 11650 9250 4 120 150 12 5540 4340 S 120 150 12 16740 13040 A 120 400 23 217E0 0 7 120 400 t3 2040 SEISMIC FORCE BALANCE SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL. HORIZONTAL NO, WEIGHT (PSFj ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING PCF) (DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LES) 1 120 400 27 86150 36510 2 120 400 27 148090 62%0 3 120 400 27 27880 15260 4 1?9 4oQyy 7 13280 7410 5 Izv 400 37 40210 1PI 6. tipp JbV Zr: Z67;v g16G 7 x•u [b t85u -2v0 StYYYY't'k RESULTS « x$f2Y$Y$$x# STATIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY 1.5 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY 1.61 iOiAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE. = 154680 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE. = 46280 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.5 1 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.1 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.06 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 347210 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 168530 LES FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.1 0 PROJ.96SG1 SCALE: — , DATE:;.1-16-94 MTC Engineering PLATE Co=lungSotl& Foundation Pnglnrcnng Yi********Y**************1**1*************#*I*****'******i***i SLOPE STABILITY AND EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE ANALYSIS i#*Ii**************111**Y**Y**********1#%*Y***x'*I:t*x* PROJECT NAME : 2740 SHADOW CA14YON UPPER SEC MODE "s SEISMIC COEFFICIENT = .15 GEOMETRY OF 6LOPE : UNIFORM DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE = 12 SLOPE PT SLIP SURFACE PT SURCHARGE X) (Y) (X) (Y) (PSF) 41 28 41 28 0 220 40 220 66 0 2?b 4'6 "6 69.4 0 244 46 _ 244 71.1 0 271 61. ?1 77' 0 2W 74 290 BO.i 0 296 %i vt 77 0 100.5 74 300.5 74 0 STATIC FORCE BALANCE (FORCE UNIT : LES) : SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT PSF) 1L PC- 1 12r i50 2 0 15V 0 150 a E20 12v iSv 150 150 i20 1400 8 120 400 SEISMIC FORCE BALANCE : SEGMENT UNIT COHESION M0. WEIGHT PSF) i n-----400p0-- 2 Izv 40Qp yy400 i40 400 leo 1400 8 120 S60 4'Y*YYIY*YIY RESULTS # YYY**Y**Y Y* STATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LBS) 1`35060 1% _64O 4Ac30 1-' 11650 d250 i2 S4v vJ4v I2 16740 i::040 26 9620 -i630 23 2040 -370 FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (i.e ) Uo-50365 Z% 11 090 01,960 vkgo 15760 27 132:80 41;. 10 40210 2l9'iu 27 19700 6710 26 9740 -12SO 28 2850 ; -29u REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.5 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.51 iOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 150580 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 99680 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.5 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY : REQUIRED FA-:iOR OF SAFETY = i.1 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.02 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 347900 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 171820 LBS PROJ. 96SGT SCALE: DATE:,,7_76-99 MTC Engineering A-6 PLATECon3uldngSoii& Foundation Engineering IFACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST 2.0 1.5 1.0 a aw x 0.5 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 NORMAL STRESS (KSbF Boring Sample No.: Test Pit 3, Sample 4 Depth(ft.): 15 Description: MUDSTONE, Slightly Weathered to Weathered Sample Condition: Undisturbed * Soaked Symbol DryDensity Moituro Friction Cohesion Remarks: pc Content(%) Angle (pso O 96.4 20.5 27 400 Residual/Reshear Project No. 96-SG01-9 Plate A - '7 MTC ENGINHERING, INC. .,c....,. um o.... a. Uw 11. 9. F. RU, QW70 J t 1 1 SKETCH & LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 3 Elevation: See Topo Date Drilled: 1-14-94 Driving Weight:36 lbs, Drop:42 inches Depth Sample Blows US- Dry Moist. Baring in Type Foot CS Description Densi- Conlcm N62EFeetNo. ty.psf 1P 12 14 Remarks Ground Surface y 2 — SLOPE WASH SILT, Slightly Clayey -Clayey, 4 _ Slightly Sandy, Fine, Fragments of Siltstone, Mudstone and Sandstone), 6' Occasionally Lenses of Clay Fill to 1/2" Thick 2' Long, Stiff 8 _ 2 108 ML r Moist, Brown - Light Brown, Dark Brown Mottled 10 -r 111. 3 84 ML 12— h, v S3:%.._ 14 — 4 80 BR BR 96.4 20.5 End of Test Pit @ 15 Feet, No Ground Water 16 — No Caving. 18— SLOPE WASH: SILT, Clayey, Trace of Fine Sand, Slightly to 20•— Moderately Moist, Loose, Grayey Bram 22 _ BR: MUDSTONEW Moderately to Slightly Weathered, Well Bedded, No Fractures Observed, 24•— Visible Sandstone/Siltstone Interbeds, Moist, Brown to Light Brown 26_ 28 — Logged By: ML , Project No 96-SGOl-94 Plate: A- 8 MTC ENGINEERING, INC. g-t—h-1-1aEnvlrOmagntal C... sltantr 11833 S"Us9n Aga., Unit is • esn[a F. Springs, Ca 90690 SaL /3101 698.8338 Paz1 I1101 915-0364 24 Hogs "...It" 8arvirs 1818) 802-0938 1 1 1 t 1 APOMIX a TABLE OF CONTENTS Erosion And Debris Flows. . . . . . . . . Planting For Slope Protection . . . . . . . Irrigation Of Slopes. . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 8 Ud fir L'1::1''i J:'•,,,},.,.,... - ..,? , GUIDE- FOR- EROSION""AND' DEBRIS• CONTROL'- ; 3s:kib:;rri.rt P?aii{u'-IN HIL'LSIDE'`AREAS' 1 il:°11i i'.;...i FJ•1 •'( i!' J, £r!ia G•f1G! ; `;:vt SU•,, •!. - . e") evfaa:no'. EROSION, AND DEBRIS FLOWS eThe homeowner -has ,reason".toybe;;,concerned.abo,u"t,s;lopes on his 1 ;prope rty„that* _tars_n.of"protectedtby, pIanting;.•or natural growth" V,,i, n ,& such,slop}espar ,Vsubject,to_erosion.wh.icht.can result. in serious;?damage, to hi4sv.or„his neighbor's property. Rain which . fa91s' on pare slopes strikes with greater destruc- tive force. . than' -rain.which falls.on grass and 'vegetation. When rain strikes a bare' s I pe it carrie's.-part of the soil downs,,thers,l, o,pe.twith .,i{tand.jn,)ti,me;wears.gullies in•.the soil. If•.th,e. s;of!l,,becomes.lsaturated, debris flows::can follow, bris :fl S :.: ; t!•:. ." SDeows consist-of. mud, rocks, brush and even trees which are -moved by storm water. These flows may occur when water flows` °ove!r" hi lil'silde nareas that have been denuded. They are characteriied'as mud. slumps ranging in degree of severity from s'mal'1mud' stlinn io'!Ij` a ;l•.,,:;,;<., .,.,.' pop -outs to large slides moving with des*ructjve.force down the slopes 'and in a few instances as r,s-:. ,:•h ti !r r4!t+ !}f1 ?:T;7.51 :i Is.` - debris flows occurri" ng ?n ravine or canyon bottoms which in turn discharge"large quantities of mud at the mouths of the ray.i,nes,,, ort cany,onsi• 03'c: ii `6'i, 9il 3aUi: Mud -debris flows' a,re..,kn,pwn. to have, su_ffici.ent'strength to. destroy objects Iii'their'.pa.th s as .well as to .destroy portions of the slopes themselves..,,.Some- have ; resulted- in fatalities. Mud deposited in'.rear_yards, by flows canbe a critical problem. Any' of•.these occurrences can be of serious consequence to the homeowner. w,f• I• t 'i,s the'?'oY ihi's'pam'HIit to' mike "the owner of hill - side property' that' h'a ' fia'd'i't's groun`d cover destroyed by fire , grading" or levelo'pment;-•cognizant of,the problems that might occur during winter. stbries'.aod. to''•provide.methods' for con- trolling these problems y PLANTING FOR SLOPE PROTECTION Following any major brush"fire"or,other occurrence which has denuded the slopes'-S "- de••veloped-areas'; it is imperative that the burned off or removed nati.ve.brush or other planting be t!". i`% W i;i fi •'.: .r.. `„:iF IS aii •S '•;••7 It f , replaced iimmediately- with proper planting. This must be done Au R. f , a nj,a , Nor:• J_ , in order to prevent or reduce erosion which will surely follow s.? `'":07 rV.*7 , 7a+, Pi. . •t. • ' during the winter rains: Experience has shown that the most In st severe damage results from erosion occurring on those slopes which have been denuded of brush or other planting, whereas, in those areas where controlled planting exists, the damage t: tri, l :;:va3 in°. ti9t,n$;, r(i iuvtr i ,Or '. , 1, ,: tends to be relatively,small. The purpose of re -planting, then, is to protect slopes and watershed areas' and thereby.to prevent or minimize damage from erosion. Therefore, it is important when the time to the rainy a season is short:that..quick;growing ground cover plants be p,lanted ,£as, stsoon;zas,'p.gssib,le,,; Pubs can:be::followed after the rainy, season':,by the;;pl,ant;i,n,g?o,f••the more°,permanent and slower gr., o,wing;.fir.,e res•isti;ve l,ants,.>,a rt_s t' .,., x, sp c<. H k> :jb w:'i1`f %'•t 1:Y : rin t.•i.,a 1'".rl'"..d t,F: Seed- grasses•are recommended to fulfill the requirement of speedily stabili,zi.ng,the*surface of slopes. The following ground; co;ve;rs•. are:,,suggested,:, LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM (ANNUAU,RYEG'RASS);'- Mosf`commonly planted in burned areas. Comes up quickly either by iul i,rrjgation', or. rainfall. Matted roots.%,p.revent erosion. A percentage'of•the seed will be per enniil:!'yegrass which will car,ry'oye.r in. .following years -,and establish a cover., but Will be, difficultrto`dispose;of'when!irrigated along 1 with later,more ornamental planting. After seeding barren areas,.the areas can then be watered to set the seed and prevent, loss from wind. Bare spots can be re- seeded as,',they appear. BROMUS MOLLIS (SOFT CHESS) Good annual native grass bn.. that re -seeds; itself. It•gives good quick cover _and grows 6 to 12•'linch't1 }' 4': !! jriY$! ,y, C%t t,!i.. !YU .: !! "' : ;. • ies high, depending on available moisture. It so HS needs moisture:to germinate but will survive on natural raj n•f;al 1D-'once's estab.l•i she"d.` "? n••°• Y d•f-. _.•,•iwQe-%rz ;;: futr ::.., i .: _ •• ,. HORDEUM VULGARE ( BARLEY) — Germinates quick.l•y by irrigation or rainfall and.will give a rapid cover if irrigated. ,It is a., good.,plant for erosion control in winter but dies and becomesod'rybinn1the summer,.' Therefore It--shobld'be replaced 511J tb;! 13ri .r'J,t I i4 f't,•E; 'i3Vii!"_ +.ii.!'t• !ii,}.. i`;. j+ x;alw was, soon'.asTpossi:ble'.w.ith more`ifire retardant planting. yRe-seedi,ngacan,be. prevented by clipping• off the seed heads. .A suggested alterna.t-ive pFanting is 'a mix con- sisting .of•.•:b,arley,, and annual rye grass at a. ratio of r FU'v i i l.C.'Y,l Fy. C!s p5{ i Cr:i'i:. ;:i ?` three tiarley! l? to two rye. MIXTURE Recommended;:byzfAg.•ri•cultural-Extension'Service, Un;i,,v_ers•i,ty:of;.Ca•l iKfo:rni,a:.,1', ,.;i ':: ' ' '_ POUNDS PER no ri"r':i:V.ARI•ETY> 10',000 SQ.FT. Smirlo:;t;3nn is r:;r .. 1 11 ando', B rome 3 r., _-,Annualt,Ryegrass .a ::;.:, 5- Rose Clover 3 Sal inaii5trow be,r•rytClover,,,,: 2 TOTAL 14 f "'- it i'i ti1'j?t'•kt fii n3 i t'fi--.. •. - .. . A mixture of Blando Brome, Annual Ryeqrass' and Rose Clover a, j + j, '; - nnr r.y f,' t !11'u: q.{..Y .•:,j i,...y ., .' at a 3, 5,.2 ratio' is also recommended. BLANDO BROME - A good annual native ,grass that reseeds o} tin:;:; •- '.,.; :•,: •„ .:*; •,.. '. itself. ' It git ves a quick"'cover-arid•crows 6 to 12 inches hi'9• ti"depending..on available moisture to germinate, but too will survive on natural rainfall once established. i.. !Fi 8,4 t't,3 ')u '.y'{y:: . ?'i.fRN it,S i' `i,•,l.'...i ..fe::• The following ground cover plantsa.re..desirable for erosion 1 control in, hillside areas and while slower growing are recog- F'r.`•i . 4• 'YJCw.a nized as b• eing.more permanent than, the seed grasses and have the .'advantage of{' being fine retardant. 1 ICE PLANTS , r _(Note. that the:,recommended.,.plants.are of the small leaf variety and do not include the commonly known A large leaf'.ice .plants designated as Fig Ice Plant.) While no,t as.• •adaptable- to'so,i•l, eros,i.on:'..contro,l as ;some othertIlkii.ri..t l.s!1 h' !^'I J;J.:{''riiA4F.r:.'. ,-!'i. i. , •a1 i L. _. an^ts be;ca4use of, :th'{e. ;r .l;i mi ted root systems , i ce pl ants are, none.thelyess.acce',pt.ab;le, paJr.ticu.l.arl,y,on slopes of les,s than,;.about,3Oii.degr.ees.,! They, h"aye. certain advantages. They,are.heat,;anA, drou,ght,,toler,ant,{ The, pl,an,ts,.root easily, from pieces taken.., .ro,m est_a.b.li,shed.pl.an.tinas. They grow well on a hi'llsi,de if kept moist until a root system develops.--- Inlfires•'the -act-well`as barriers. to flamePY "" r!i •`r1 Y;a; i;'a :•c gym. .+jq .a'a ,;:... ;. when we'll irriigatedr,..: and; free from weeds and litter. The i: iA1a`{ 6;t T: ii, ( +" succulents have the gr+,avtesti 'fire resistance of. the fire 9 t!,','-'E'r"iir'it.r. bilF o-i n:;.:,it :-SO;I:'ti .^. retardant.. plants because of'thei'r "high' moistu're''content and...p.rostrate growth,,*h,abits.r A,v,ailabl.e s^Reties suitable b . forlplanting slopes., are: Delospe.rma x;Alba.ys.(Wh4i,te,,Trail,ing Ice Plant) Drosanthemum Hispidium (Roses Ice Plant) vk'•i'Casi'Y "R;)"fin s n:•: :,: i L'amphranthus Spectabilis (TraiIing,Ice"Plant) Malephora Croceum{/j(Croceum Ice 'PIant`) r.r i,ii i .. ie. on ';i rv,a ii o]. i r1:J k1; ;+ ,• ` HEDERA,CANARIENSISk:(ALGERIAN IVY),- is,a widely used cf ground cove,r wi{th I r9e,lg1ossyk,1eaves,., widely spaced on the stem. :'Once._ established: it grows rapi dly and wi 11 o. } v Ci `S ! ! .. not carry .f.ire easily i,f kept free of weeds. It prefers heat,and sun;.,,but,,must have;water•,,:s,ince the leaves burn in -hot zweatheri f,allowe,d,to get dry. Rooted cuttings obtained fromtnurserymen,., or;.from::•existing plantings will preadrforucomple•te;. cove r.. 5 nri fl C. •r .. 1? '•: fi ,+'F C': rT• •ri ]mot. . o OSTEOSPERMUM---FRUTI-C^0SUM', (TRA-ILINU'SOUTH'•AFRI'CAN' DAISY)- ffs' a rgoo`d''Mardy? cov"erlfor"banks and ='eros'ion 'control. It gi' ds" ii `:vi gorousl =t:rai ling. Kabi tj of growth`' an'd' `attractive s, j-i it greefoli`ager.the7yea'r' ro'und:". Plant's grow 12 to 18 oil"inch` es !hi`gh andA.`b`lo,ain'i'n early'`sp'ring"with daisy flowers about! ftiJo`'! in`c es'.i`n '`diameter'. K ll' u'') 5 (.Y {3l1 ':-is:.iil :t""..•" sl f :'F' -r .r .. BACCHARIS PILUL'" ARIS-VAR. PROSTRATA (DWARF COYOTE BUSH)- 2`a] f"i QJ- .B I,^. { .1 r,y L.}• Cstj ,a, a.r ir: s•T(.N (.:O r. .,^ ( :. .., - , is a lowsoreadi'ng'shrub, able to grow,well. under. dry conditions a's. well.,as moist; roots deeply to prevent If :1: .'• To fpP, W1 on!i Z q It'/I r. ,•ril 11/-"i 1, •st' .. erosion,;.presents a,good looking year, round appearance.. 1z'7't3L J 5`{th+2CU=:: !tCt'if tt.5i,1, ir• 'I]:h t:-."ii•. PEL'ARGON,'IUA! PELTAT UM (JVY:GER'ANIUM) '='i•s a't'railing plant recommended .for slope use:;`' blooms''in various` colors; does not` requi're ;toormach`' mo9 sture'and thrives in most soils. tJ.i E'i. ll 2.'.': $.ifd i:. 't!'1:%j;l •. •::'r• .:. .. VINCA MAJOR (PERIWINKLE) - is an excellent•plant for covering steaep.-slolples. Roots deeply and binds the soil well. Has. vigorous' growth with runners rooting as they, tb-:sp'read `f %• Grows t'o''18,'i.nches 'vHas.g.lossy green. foliaqe o .%o•and blue)' flower'seinY•thei spring- and, summer. r-rOtther recommended-..plants , are*1'isted,on Page 25 of this pamphlet. Firel'res stiveJ'prlantsisho,ul` d be gi'v'en 'seripus consideration inr!making'akIe=lect1bn f. b-r permanent' ground- cover,and certainly i tany,;non'='fire iris ittiveil" p'1'antin'g which might`be'used as an expedient for temporary erosion, control ' should be,- replaced the following season by fire resistive plants. 6 A.pamphlet,entitl.ed;',"'Fire Retardant Plants ,for Hillside Areas.." has, been made"..ay.ailzabletas a 'result of studies con- ducte,dL1by,personnel:,ofu.the;!Department of`Arboreta'and Bota•n'ic t,;;Gardens and> orrob•or'atedL6y-theJCounty. Forester''and Fire Warden';.,rFo,res,try 'Di ,vi,'sfon.,,,The? pamphlet,'classi•fies I. plantts,,,;i,n.,fourdfire:sretarda'nt;categori:es;'Cit'e'gory'No'.' 1 being;'the,;;mostgfi:re,,deta,rdint,°sand Category No,'-4 being the fleas.tcfi`re ret,a,rdan..V,,qu•Th.ec'p•lants`.are also classified'as to' their, relatJ- e,,drough,t,rtoler_ance,: cold hardiness, erosion control effectiveness, and maintenance, exclusive of -watering, that must be.provided to keep 'the plants. in a. relative, low fire -hazard, conditi.on.. The information and recommendations contained in.the pamphlet are recommended to the homeowner 4f n•. 1':•i yji :; SJ'S 'C+M t•t:r :' 1': :. •nA ` 1 . •. faced'with the problenr'of fire retardant and erosion control Rer,{z..i wth;§ Yrq'F.,*R:fPiC!;; •f)r{. .-.;'; [ :•t".-..i';.. planting. 5elected,plants from the pamphlet are listed in the suppl.ementary,:pl;anting.list on Page 25• The growth of plants takes`'time', however, some degree of surface''stabilizationy'..of the soil to help resist erosion can be immediately achieved in limited areas by several methods. Some, of the.5: VL .'e.imethod4•'i s v. that - permit, planting are listed below: STRAW MULCH.,':. • Y s Straw applied thi'ckly,to the soil surface can be punched into the Is l' 7s`'urfa'ce' "or'°cove red''wi•th chicken wire to prevent its be' in`g'b'Town".^avray: '`eStrawtwi'11'hold''surface soil•and moisture h ir,;aY^ v.t t•ref: N. t "t .. 1 f' 1 .. 1: •, forifhe rge'`r min'atino"seeds..that are planted before mulching. 0 I tt.'3F1saJUTE _MATTING;',::: y.Heavy, wotven.,j(ute..mesh"can',!be,Y,orlled over' thet+s'lope:and'•stapeled to the:;.igro,und:?,:yW;hen,.',proper,1ly;dnstailIediait°+stays:'in place and cannotbe!,lti;fted by r. .....,ng water,-',wind,ror growing vegetation. Regular,.,p!anJtin•,g,,proce,du;res•,z.canibe-fol-Iowed ,before laying the jute;, s.in;ce•fjute:;:w;i;lgl gji,n;;no:w,ay.pin,ter,fere with `establishing a growth onl,the;;,s;Jope.lr,The,-j,ute, Necomposes,46-ven'tual'1'y'but will rema n_jgn% gno,ugh;nfor, g.r..as,ses:_.or..tptl:ant'ings"to' become well established,; iau-,ic.i o,s.aa„", :r•. :.:';, ,-..:i:,:;+, .,..... .. ru. , 7•* m-,st S_i(xR•ri R`.: '.i'•', .rU,. k'. HY DRO-,,MULCH 1: dmulch is' .> !^••t., .., i 'IJn} i i .'+i:}'r •? i+'' <; i, Hydro - a mixture of'fibrous material, fertilizer and i`" ii tt'sa=i<y:; i! speed which is:blyown un`der,pressure onto slopes.to create an i .' M+nr! d 1 110.; .9 y ( '1 . "'.1 .. e._t `l4a ..:..1 •• erosion resistant surface. The applicatfon:of-this material is available through commerical outlets., IRRIGATION OF SLOPES iV =.: ': 1 +'1r t'!r'%,4 tiJ'r:f Rx•^I: (>':.: .'.j .. Where existing:sp.ri:nklering systems :do not cover•criti,cal s_ 7 r{'vir.!...•r. 'areasparticularly g;•µj•.;'••'! 9,9'C'$ borne' over areas ,'irrigation•must be 4 n provided. Sustained moisture is absolutely necessary in uiCi ,•`:3a :: i; :'r d. nrtt , ! i. I',,',:f••. . t orderfor seeds,to germinate: No satisfactory around cover can be grownwithout i.rrigat•i=on:'' "'''' • C:'til' ".g:` t:i(iU:J `?4''i':z•;;}.'.S:1a'?';U:. I,a-.•i1 '.t: !+,a' .. ,.:C ' The' simplest means - available to. the homeowner for dispersing water in such - instances, is to tap into ;the garden,i.r-rigation P`.L.i% r^.EH r'h@: 87(1t.;;;: ill(::. ,; r• - system. The system can be extended by, means o.f,. new,..or used r)•l: r: Zi Ctr ,vEi =C it.r••;'(ii, steel or galvanized pipe; plastic pipe, or plastic hose coupled together to reach : the burned over areas. Portable sprinkler 8 headsmounted;. on boards can, be -moved about easily and cover. the ' Iargest"areas:--.'at the least cost. Nothing Will. grow with- r1a qa9l k?J95rq'j! tc J: c,' °.: _:;: •: out. water,-so do not plant and depend,upon the weather. i,, Pri:orb,to_,seedi n,g,`;i.tcis};advisab1e tw'water'aII- burned or barren areas••. frequent,Ty, in small) amounts-, dampening the -'surface 'just short''. of 'erosion.. The pu rpose is to! soften the; .ground prior to sowing ' seed.'." After sowing, water, lightly two or three .. t5 . n'. is :!AC •:.'r "r @, Lrr•.3:i 'iiZ !'... •tf ,. ., .. times.per day. . i'!'1 3 .^t>, vI t;.shoo.l.d3tie?r'ecogni,ie.`d:;that i rri g'ati'on'-i n 'i tsel f can, if'' imp-r• oper•-lyouti•lized•;'-°be"the'tcause'of-erosi'on'''and"slope failures. El i= The'refore; the;iwatering'•of1:slopes and -yards must' be' judiciously done'to avoid damage'•'wh•i-ch''may result from saturation or run- off. .This is.particul.arly; true during the period before the 3i tlivo— i y :J 11$ lei; l'.. F_i ;; 'L,•r;(: •.. .. ',(l, g,,a+•. planting has become completely established. .. . it'.:c-: Z•.o egWliF'3•>G'ali,fk;:,„4J•9114 i.r' ...rd:„a. The,:rhomeovine. r-.4i's %autione.d`that areas - subjected' to borate bombing may be.sterile and•unab'le''td support plant growth for one :to: ith.ree=ye;ars"-'='!Mechani cal means -of 'e'rosi on 'control wi l l b6mecessa`ry:" if-theatarea•is'__critical: 'All borate visible on thea'surface,' sh-oul'd Jib`if.removed. Accummulated,ash- should not constitute.a problem for planting if deep,• accummulations on level areas. are, removed. Small amounts incorporated in the -soil will not be harmful. i t' rr s.;ai::1:M'41) pF1 ;, a ,=-i .y .. .-_, " 1' _- ,. • rty :n 8 n::iln6r y•9 , /..,, I i Y , GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Tract(s) 30289, Lot 8 Parent Tract Site Address 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive Geologist Soils Engineer MTC Engineering, Inc. Review of: Date February 22, 1994 Location/Owner The Country/Grace Chu Developer Engineer/Arch. Pinewave Engineering, Inc. Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated X Geology and Soils Report(s) Dated November 19, 1993 and January 17, 1994 X Other Site and Grading Plan. dated January 1. 1994, revised February 12, 1994 Action Plan/Report is geotechnically approved X Plan/Report is geotechnically approved subject to conditions below. Review Comments: Plan/report not approved for reasons below Submit Plan/Report for recheck. Include a copy of this review. The geotechnical consultant must prepare a final as -constructed geotechnical (soils and geology) report summarizing the grading and earthwork activities, and presenting the results of field and laboratory tests. Reviewed by Date February 23, 1994 lop lEIGNTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1N TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. Soils Engineering • Engineering Geology • Environmcnul Engineering 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964-2313 FAX (818) 810-0915 August 9, 1991 Job W91-207 CDR Construction Development 2748 Melissa Street West Covina, California 91792 p Subject: Rough Grade Geologic Inspection & Report of Compaction 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California Gentlemen: INTRODUCTION Pursuant to your request, representatives of this firm have mapped exposed bedrock, inspected and tested the fill placed during grading operations on the subject site. This report presents the results of these tests and inspections performed from June 24 through August 6, 1991. A rough grading map of the site showing test locations and other pertinent data is accompanying this report. only periodic inspections were requested and provided during the grading operation. Reference Data Used Report of Geotechnical Investigation - Duco Engineering, Inc., dated January 4, 1990. SITE PREPARATION Prior to the placement of any fill, the site was prepared for grading in the following manner: A. Surface debris and vegetation were stripped and hauled off - site. B. Trees were removed in the grading operation. C. No surface structures were present on the site upon our arrival. D. No subsurface structures were encountered during grading. E. Benching into bedrock or existing compacted fill was provided where the slope to receive fill exceeded an angle of 5:1. F. Acceptable material was prepared to receive fill by scarifying the exposed surface to a depth of 6-8 inches and precompacting to minimum requirements. G. Exposed bedrock structures were inspected during grading. Bedding orientations and other pertinent data mapped during grading are shown on the rough grading map. GRADING A. Fill was placed in 6-8 inch loose lifts, watered and compacted to the minimum requirements. B. The method used for adding moisture and compacting was a water truck or water hose and rolling with a dual sheepsfoot roller and track loader. A subdrain was installed at the base of the buttress fill. The drain consisted of 4" perforated pipe surrounded by three cubic feet of filter material with solid drain pipe exiting the slope face every 30 feet on center C. A compacted fill shear key, 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide was constructed on the downslope side of the proposed site to stabilize the building pad and buttress fill areas due to dip slope bedding conditions. D. A buttress fill was utilized to stabilize the cut slope area behind the proposed retaining wall at the rear of the site. The buttress was established with a key width of 25 feet behind the proposed wall and a depth of three feet below the lowest proposed adjacent grade. E. The low pad fill slopes were backrclled with a sheepsfoot roller at four foot intervals and then track rolled. The buttress slope was overfilled and cut back to expose the compacted inner core. F. The cut portion of the building pad was over -excavated three feet and recompacted to minimum requirements. TESTING A. Compaction standard used for minimum requirements was 90 percent of the ASTM Test Method D1557-78. B. Field density tests were performed in accordance with the sand cone method, ASTM D1556-82 and the nuclear gauge method, ASTM D2922-81. Results of these tests are attached as a part of this report. 9 C. Expansion tests were performed on typical soils in accordance with the UBC Standard No. 29-2 to determine their expansion index. D. Laboratory tests results are summarized below: Maximum Optimum Expansion Soil Classification Density Moisture Index Silty CLAY w/Diatomaceous 103.5 19.7 and Shale fragments Silty CLAY 103.8 19.1 63 Silty FIne-Medium SAND 113.6 15.3 - w/clay and Gravel COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Bedrock structure mapped during grading conforms to the geologic conditions described in the referenced Preliminary Geologic Report. B. Adverse geologic conditions were corrected by the construction of a shear key and buttress fill. C. The soil is classified as moderately expansive. D. Compacted fills reported herein have been properly placed and compacted for structural fill: Foundation design recommendations in the referenced report should remain valid for the graded site. E. The driveway was cut to a grade to allow construction of the proposed retaining walls. The backfilling of the retaining walls will bring the driveway to the design grade. The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD GEOTECIACI t G.E. 805 Enclosures: G FCS/lms Distribution: t`b. GE 005 Exp. 6-5i-93 4) INC. _ John L. K en C.E.G. 1209 Summary of Test Re ication Form 3 Wf JOHN L KNIFFEN No. 1209 CERTIFIEDENGINEERING GEOLOGIST I} EXP. Date 3o z fgTE JF 00t CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 1D0 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 714-860-CITY 714-860-2489 SUPERVISED GRADING INSPECTION CERTIFICATE DB ADDRESS/TRACT N0. 2740 Shadow Canvon Drive D.B. PERMIT NO. CONTRACTOR OILS ENGINEER'S ROUGH GF-ADING CERTIFICATION certify that the earth fills placed on the following lots were installed upon competent n3 rcperiy prepared base r.,ater_al and tor,.=acted in compliance with requirements of ild-ng Code Sect:=n 7010. I further certify that where the report or reports of an ineerinc ceelocist, relative to this site, have recor.:nended the installation of buttress i11s or other similar stabilizaticn measures, such earthwork construction has been ompleted in accordance with the approved design. CT NOS ee report dated -4j for cor,.pact--cn test data, recommended allcwable scil oaring values and ether reccr".mencaticns. Ns- - So-- trr (NO) Lt7-RESS FILLS nclnee LOT NOS. LCT NCS. s- gnat aze UPEnV:S:NG GF-IZ7NG r-NG7N7—r=.'S R000R GRAD--NG C= -----CAT-ON certify to the satisfar_cry cc^pleticn of -ouch grading including: trading to apprcx:mate a1 elevations, property lines located and staked; cut and fill slopes cer:ectly graded nd located in acc :dance v.t`, the -:teed desic-; shales and terraces called :early fc: avi^ bears nstalled; and :ecai:ed drainage s_cpes prcvided on the building pads. the: certifv that .`here :epert cr reports of an encineering ceelocist and/cr soils ee- have been p:epa:ed relative to this site, the recc..nendaticns cc -tamed in such eperts have been fclleved in the p:esecuticn cf _', - work. cineer No. 0%EnViS:?:G GRA'7NG 'GIN-ER'S FlN:,L G7.;LLING C-RTIFiCAT1ON e 1 certify to the satisfacrtery cem-plet'cn of cradi.-g in accordance vit_i the approved plans. nll regci:ed drainage devices have been -installed; slope planting established. and _ ica- icn systems =rcvided (where req-zired); and ode^:ate prcvisccr.s have teen made fcr drainace Of surface vaters frca each :-uildinc site. .he recor._,e.-.daticns of the soils enei:eer and/ or encir.eering gecloc'st (if such persons =ere erplc ed) have been-.-,ccrpc:ated in the wczk OT NOS. nci-eer Rec. No. Moisture Dry Lab Relative Test Content Density Max Compaction No. Date Elevation IV ocfl Density M 1 6/24 114.5 19.7 98.5 103.5 95 N 2 6/24 116.5 16.1 104.6 113.6 92 N 3 6/24 118.5 15.6 107.9 113.6 95 S 4 6/24 120.5 17.5 106.4 113.6 94 N 5 6/25 114.5 17.6 98.1 103.5 95 N 6 6/25 116.5 15.5 97.4 103.5 94 S 7 6/25 122.5 17.7 104.0 113.6 92 N 8 6/25 118.5 18.2 91.7 113.6 81 N 8a 6/25 118.5 26.3 93.4 103.5 90 S 9 6/26 120.5 18.5 102.2 113.6 90 N 10 6/26 122.5 16.4 102.2 113.6 90 S 11 6/26 124.5 18.6 97.9 103.5 94 S 12 6/26 126.5 22.7 94.1 103.5 91 N 13 6/27 128.5 22.2 99.5 103.5 96 N 14 6/27 130.5 20.8 90.5 103.5 87 N 14a 6/27 130.5 21.1 94.4 103.5 91 S 15 6/27 132.5 22.4 96.3 103.5 93 N 16 6/27 134.5 20.9 103.4 113.6 91 S 17 6/28 144.5 22.8 99.2 103.5 96 N 18 7/1 146.5 21.3 102.2 113.6 90 N 19 7/1 198.5 17.6 104.7 113.6 92 S 20 7/1 148.5 18.3 103.8 113.6 91 N 21 7/1 150.0 19.3 97.1 103.5 94 S 22 7/1 152.0 14.5 108.3 113.6 95 N 23 7/1 154.5 15.1 106.9 113.6 94 N 24 7/1 156.5 21.3 102.2 113.6 90 N 25 7/1 158.0 18.4 104.5 113.6 92 N 26 7/3 160.0 17.0 105.6 113.6 93 N 27 7/3 162.0 18.5 104.7 113.6 92 N 28 7/5 164.0 18.1 103.0 113.6 91 S 29 7/8 144.0 17.5 108.8 113.6 96 N 30 7/8 146.0 15.9 108.2 113.6 95 N 31 7/8 148.0 21.5 103.7 113.6 91 S 32 7/8 150.0 16.1 102.3 113.6 90 N 33 7/9 148.0 22.0 93.1 103.5 90 S 34 7/16 152.0 20.3 104.3 113.6 92 N 35 7/16 166.0 20.8 103.1 113.6 91 S 36 7/17 168.0 10.4 104.1 113.6 92 N 37 7/17 145.0 18.6 93.5 103.5 90 N 38 7/17 146.5 21.1 95.1 103.5 92 S 39 7/18 148.5 19.6 94.6 103.8 91 N 40 7/18 150.0 20.6 96.1 103.8 93 N 41 7/18 152.0 17.6 103.8 113.6 91 N 42 7/18 154.0 20.5 96.8 103.8 93 S 43 7/18 156.0 19.9 105.0 113.6 92 N 44 7/19 158.0 20.0 97.4 103.5 94 N 45 7/19 160.0 20.2 104.7 113.6 92 S 46 7/20 162.0 21.5 102.6 113.6 90 N 4 Moisture Dry Relative Test Content Density Max Compaction No, Date Elevation ($1 (ocf) Density f%1 47 7/20 164.5 23.3 88.1 103.8 85 S 47a 7/20 164.5 18.9 99.0 103.8 95 N 48 7/22 166.0 20.9 94.7 103.8 91 S 49 7/22 168.0 20.7 93.4 103.8 90 N 50 7/23 170.0 24.6 93.4 103.5 90 N 51 7/24 172.0 20.6 95.5 103.5 92 N 52 7/25 174.0 19.0 96.5 103.8 93 S 53 7/26 176.0 19.4 95.9 103.8 92 N 54 7/29 143.0 19.2 96.3 103.8 93 N 55 8/3 145.0 21.0 90.3 103.8 87 N 55a 8/3 145.0 20.9 93.4 103.8 90 S 56 8/6 146.0 16.3 101.3 103.8 98 S 57 8/6 137.0 18.6 101.2 103.8 97 S Slope Face 58 8/6 131.0 15.3 105.4 113.6 93 N indicates failing tests - area re -worked and re -worked N= nuclear gauge S= sand cone 61 OLCchnicalMTCENGINEERING, INC. &e Environmental Consultants 11823 Slauson Ave., Unit 18 • Santa Fe Springs, Ca 90670 Tel: (818) 802-0038 24 Hour Answering Service (800) 685-1707 April 14, 1994 Ms. Grace Chu 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive Project Ref. 96-I01-94 Diamond Bar, CA c/o Francesca Chen, General Contractor RE: GRADING OBSERVATION AND TESTING Proposed Tennis Court With A Pill and Cut, Slope 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, CA t ;_.0t4 Gentleman: This i.s to report the results of observations and tests performed in the proposed tennis court area. These observations and tests were required in order to comply with project specifications, recommendations of this firm, and City's ordinance. SITE CONDITIONS The property is located on the east side of Shadow Canyon Drive, a private street, in the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. The proposed tennis court is a addition to the esi.stinq two-story hillside horse. The tennis court is approximately 50 feet by 100 feet in size and is situated on a level pad created by cut - and -fill technique at northeast: portion of the subject property. previous certified fill. by others in the area of proposed tennis court are removed or recertified by this firm. The placement of the subdrains designed for the keyways of lower and upper slope in the proposed tennis court area were verified by a representative of this office. It should be noted that the elevation of tennis court was raised approximately two feeC in order to eliminate the previous proposed ret-a.inine wall. at the toe of the upper slope. GRADTNG PROCEDURES In general, grading and compaction in the area of proposed tennis court: were performed as following: 1. The area to be. eraded was first cleared of all exi.sti.n surface vegetation. construction debris, and other deleterious 1, April 141, 1994 materials. Project Ref.'96-I01-9=1 3. The -keyways for the lower and upper slope buttress fill were excavated to depths specified in MTC's soils and geology report, dated January 16, 19941. Suhdrains were installed per our. recommendations. After the removal of the surficial loose earth materials and substandard certified fill, benches were created and compacted fill was placed on the slope. The fill soils were moistened to secure a near optimum moisture condition and rolled with compaction equipment until the regiiired compact.Lon was obtained. 3. The specified minimum degree of compaction was 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by .ASTM D1557-91, standard method. Maximum dry density and optimum moistnr.e content of the various fill soils used are tabulated in Table One. In -place soil densities were determined in accordance with ASTM D-1556-90. standard method. The result of tests are tabulated in Table Two. The test locations are shorn on Plate A. attached, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SECTION :109 The observation and test results indicate that compactions was accomplished in accordance with recommendations of this office, the engineers for the project, and grading regulations of City of Diamond Bar. The soils used in fills on this DroJect Fire generally classi.fi.ed as silty wands, clayey silt. and silty clay. The completed subgrade of the proposed tennis court and the conditions of the Lower and upper buttress fill slopes are consistent with design recommendations. 1t. is our• recommendation that a slope stability analysis for the lower fiL.1 slope should be performed to evaluate the effect: of elevation change of tennis court. BesLdes, equivalent design to drain the surficiaL water from upper slope should be. considered to accommodate the e.Limi.nati.on of the retai.ning wall at the toe of the upper slope. The subdrains above the ke,vwnys should have an outlet to adequate areas to prevent, surficia.l. erosion. The snr'face erosion control device should be constantly maintained to ensure that they are properly functioned. This report pertains only to the grading and compaction within the proposed tennis court .;and Lower and upper buttress fil.', slopes as described herein and is sub.ier_t to review by the cr.ntrol.lin2 authorities for the project. 2. April 14, 1994 Project Ref. 96-I01-94 Section 309 It is the finding of this firm that the proposed structure and grading will be safe and that the property will not be affected by any hazard from landslide, settlement or slippage and the completed work will not adversely affect adjacent property in compliance with the county code, provided our recommendations are followed. Respectfully submitted, MTC Engineering, Inc. G - H. i President/Project Geologist Tze-Tzong, Taso, Soils Engineer RCE 46886 Engineering Geolog s.:;,;, G 1783 0 m No. C(( 046886 Distribution: (5) Ms. Francesca Chen, The General le." thAdr 3 April 14. 1994 Project Ref. 96-I01-94 TABLE TWO FIELD DENSITY TEST SUMMARY Depth Below Date Finish Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Grade Content; Unit Weight Compaction No. 79941 Feed 1%3 Pcf L). 18 3-11 6.0 L 44 19.3 98.5 90 19 4.0 L 43 16.3 101.0 91 20 3.0 L 43 1.1.3 101.4 91 21 J.0 L 3 1.3.0 101.3 91 22 3-12 2.0 L 43 16.7 100.9 91 23 0.5 L 43 17.0 102.1 92 24 3.0 U 3 17.0 100.4 90 25 2.0 U a:3 15.3 100.0 90 26 3-14 0.0 T 43 17.6 106.2 95 27 3-17 0.0 T s3 11.9 104.6 94 28 0.0 T 42 9.0 113.9 91 29 22.0 U 3 15.6 103.5 93 30 21.0 U 42 10.9 112.5 90 31 20.0 U Q 16.6 100.6 90 32 19.0 U 03 101.9 91 33 18.0 U 43 19.1 101.1 92 34 3-18 17.0 U 14 20.7 98.9 90 35 3-30 15.0 U 44 20.9 99.6 91 36 13.0 U 45 25.6 92.7 90 37 11.0 U 44 21.0 98.3 90 38 12.O U 45 23.7 92.8 91 39 10.0 U Q 22.3 92.9 91 10 8.0 U 5 23.3 93.9 92 41 8.0 U 5 25.2 94.3 92 42 6.0 U t5 24.3 93.0 91 43 6.0 U 45 25.5 93.9 92 44 4.0 U 45 23.5 94.6 93 45 2.0 U 5 27.8 93.6 91 46 0 U 45 24.8 92.1 90 47 3-31 3.0 U 44 22.5 99.9 91 48 3.0 U 4 22.1 99.6 91 49 4.0 U 44 22.7 98.7 90 50 0 U 44 22.8 98.2 90 Note L: Lower. Slope, 2:1(H:V) Buttress Fill Slope T: Tennis Court U: Upper Slope. 2:1(H;V) Cut. Slope. with Buttress Fill 1 Through 35: Soil Type See MTC Reports 96-SOI-93 and 96-SGO1-94 for Fill and Cut Slopes Details. MTC ENGINEERING, INC. &°E wonmcnta, Consulunt_ 11823 Slausen Ave., Unit 18 • Santa Fe Springs, Ca 90670 Tel: (310) 698-8238 • Fax: (310) 945-0364 24 Hour Answering Service (818) 585-8014 November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-501-93 Ms. Grace Chu, The Owner c/o Eric Au, President go-r z. Pinewave Engineering, Inc. -i; 17026 Cypress Street, 2/F, #G r= Covina, California, 91772_ SUBJECT: REPORT OF SOIL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED Tennis Court 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive =_ Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Gentleman: In accordance with your request, we are pleased to submit a report of soil engineering investigation for the proposed tennis court at the subject site. The accompanying report has been substantiated by previous reports reviewing, surface and subsurface exploration, and mathematical analysis made according to generally accepted geotechnical practice, including those field and laboratory tests considered necessary in the circumstances. Services performed by this facility at the subject site were conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions, No other warranties are expressed nor implied. It is the professional opinion of the undersigned that this report presents fairly the information requested by you. Respectfully submitted, MTC Engineering, Inc. Gene Luu ZGeotechnicallP. Chang RGE 1 Staff Engineer Engin QRO ESS/p C c` 2President/Project Geologist y Za2181 Distribution: 4) Addressee or_ EXP.3.3/_fs" m y TECHN O Q OF C40 November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-SO1-93 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 PREVIOUS REPORTS . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Location and Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Soils Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Site Preparation 3 Proposed Tennis Court . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Proposed Retaining Walls 4 Lateral Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS 6 REMARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 APPENDIX I FIELD INVESTIGATION APPENDIX II LABORATORY TESTS APPENDIX III GRADING SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX IV SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATION PLATE A VICINITY MAP B-1 GEOLOGIC MAP AND TEST PIT LOCATIONS B-2 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A -A B-3 OLD TOPOGRAPHIC MAP C-1 & C-2 LOGS OF TEST PIT D DIRECT SHEAR TEST PLOT E SLICES AND FAILURE PLAN FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS F TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL DESIGN i November 19, 1993 INTRODUCTION Project Ref. 96-S01-93 This report presents the results of a soil engineering investigation for the proposed tennis court to be constructed at 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California (see Plates A, Vicinity Map). The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information on the subsurface soil conditions on which to base recommendations for foundation design, grading and other relevant parameters for the proposed development. Our scope of work included the following: 1. Review of available soils and geologic reports by others, 2. Subsurface exploration by means of two test pits excavated with hand tools, 3. Sampling and logging and of the soils encountered in the exploratory pits, 4. Engineering Analysis, 5. Preparation of a report that summarizes the field findings, laboratory testing results, and.provides recommendations pertinent to the design and construction of the project. Site investigation is presented on Appendix I. Details of test pit locations and logs are presented on Plates B, C-1, and C-2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understood that the proposed development consists of a tennis court on the slope area at northeast portion of the subject property ( see Plates B-1 and B-2). Grading including cut and fill up to a maximum height of 20 feet and construction of retaining walls will be required for the development. PREVIOUS REPORTS The following reports were reviewed: 1. Geologic report for lot 8, Tract 30289, a portion of Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, California, Dated July 28. 1967, prepared by James E. Slosson, November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-SOl-93 2. Geologic report of lots',8, and etc., tract 30289, Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, Dated Feb. 3, 1972, Prepared by F..Beach,Leighton & Associates, 3. Report of geotechnical investigation for proposed residence on lot 8, tract ho. 30289,;Shad'6w Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, CA, Dated Jan. 4, 1990,, prepared by.Duco Engineering, Inc., Assumption of geotechnical consulting letter for the site, dated June 24, 1991, prepared by Triad.Geotechnical Consultants Inc., 5. Rough grade geologic inspection & report of compaction for the site, dated August 9, 1991, prepared by Triad Geotechnical Consultants Inc. SITE CONDITIONS Location and Topography The subject property generally is a graded, hillside lot presently occupied by a new two-story single house. The proposed tennis court will be founded on a descending slope, measured approximately 70 feet high, 16 degree steep, in the rear of the property. The existing surface was covered with dry weeds and scattered bushes. The depths of previously certified compacted fill shown on Plate B- 2, the Cross Section A -A, were obtained from the difference of the recently surveyed.topographic map and the old topographic map from geologic report, dated Feb. 3, 1972, prepared by F. Beach Leighton Associates (see Plate B-3). Subsurface Conditions Our exploration and previous reports revealed approximately 5 to 15 feet of certified compacted fill underlying by the Puente Formation of upper Miocene geologic age (see Plate B-4, Geologic Map of 1967's report by Slosson), which consists of siltstone, shale, and sandstone. The compacted fill consists of clayey, slightly sandy silt mantled by approximately one foot of loose clayey silt. The compacted fill and bedrocks are moderately expansive, Based on our field observation and labortaory testing, the certified fill may be competent to receive additional compacted fill and support the proposed tennis court. The compaction of the certified fill shall be further verified by this_off.ice....prior. to Placing additional fill_ 2 November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-501-93 No ground water was encountered in the test pits and none is anticipated to. be .within depths pertinent to the proposed development. It should be noted .that.fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur due to .variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors at the time observations are made. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The subject property is considered feasible for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint providing our recommendations ate followed. Sloes Stability After the completion of proposed grading, the steepest slope in the rear of the site is about 70 feet in height with a 2:1 ( horizontal vertical) slope gradient. Based on our slope stability analysis, the proposed cut -and -fill slopes will be stable providing that the surficial runoff is adequately directed away from the slopes. Slope stability analyses are present on Appendix IV and Plate E. Site Preparation In general, cut -and -fill grading technique will be used to built a level pad for the proposed tennis court. A typical keying and bending detail for the fill slope area is shown on Plate F. The previously certified fill in the area of the proposed tennis court should be further verified by this office prior to placing additional fill. Substandard certified fills should be removed and recompacted if encountered during the proposed grading. The fills should be compacted to at least 90 % relative density according to ASTM D-1557-91 and D-1556-90 standard methods. Overexcavation of two feet is recommended at the area of proposed tennis court. The overexcavation should be extended at least three feet beyond the limit of proposed tennis court. Five feet vertical cut and 1 : 1 (Vertical to Horizontal) sloping back for the temporary excavation above 5 feet is considered feasible based on laboratory soil testing results. Fill placement shall be in accordance with Grading Guidelines given in Appendix III. 3 November 19, 1993 Proposed Tennis Court Project Ref. 96-S01-93 For " the tennis court', the conventional slab -on -grade recommendations are usually increased due to the court size and exposure to extreme temperature. differential in addition to the geotechnical concerns. The' -following criteria are recommended: A minimum slab thickness of 5.0 inches, A moisture barrier, such as 6-mil visgueen, should be placed. The visgueen should be covered with two inches of clean sand to prevent puncture. Provide an exterior cut-off wall to a depth of three feet around perimeter of court reinforced with steel as provided for exterior footings, Positive reinforcement placement (i.e., blocks or chairs) between slab mid -section and upper one-third point, Tie slab reinforcement to perimeter walls or provide for free- floating joints,. Provide sealed (e.g., resilient caulking) expansion -construction joint across the net line, Slope one-half percent minimum to drain (one percent preferred). Because of the expansive characteristic of the on -site soils, we recommend that at least two feet of granular, non -expansive, sandy soils be placed underneath the proposed tennis court. A positive drainage system shall be provided to direct the surface runoff away from the slope area. Proposed Retaining Walls The proposed retaining wall shall be supported by foundations embedded at least 18 inches in firm bedrock or compacted fill. The stepped foundations may be required per Uniform Building Code if the bottom of the foundation are not level. Setback for the foundation of the retaining wall on the slope should be at a minimum of five (5) feet, measured horizontally from the surface of the compacted fill slope. Walls retaining drained earth and various slope ratios surface may be designed as followed equivalent fluid pressure: 4 November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-SO1-93 SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT RETAINED MATERIAL* FLUID WEIGHT HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL LB/FT. LEVEL 30 4 TO 1 35 3 TO 1 38 2 TO 1 43 Where the surface slope of the retaining earth varies, the design slope shall be obtained by connecting a line from the top of the wall to the highest point on the slope whose limits are within the.horizontal distance from the stem equal to the stem height of the wall. A lateral surcharge equal to one-third of the total vertical surcharge shall be applied to the walls. All retaining walls shall be adequately drained. A perforated PVC pipe on the order of 4 inches in diameter may be placed at the bottom of and behind the retaining wall, with perforations down or sideways, and surrounded with gravel. The pipe shall. be connected to the storm drain or other suitable drainage devices. Lateral Design Lateral loads may be. resisted by passive earth pressure and base friction. Allowable Maximum Coefficient Lateral Lateral of Bearing Bearing Friction Compacted fill 200 psf/ft. 2,000 psf 0.35 Firm Bedrock 250 psf/ft. 2,500 psf 0.38 If the frictional and lateral bearing resistances are combined, the lateral bearing resistance should be reduced by one-third. The above values may be increased by one-third for short durations of seismic and wind forces. . 5 November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-SOI-93 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS As a necessary requisite to the use of this report, the following shall be observed by personnel of this facility: Temporary excavations, Excavation of the shear key, Removal of unsuitable soils, Footing excavation of retaining walls, Fill placement and compaction for the proposed tennis court and retaining walls. We should be notified at least 2 working days in advance of the start of construction. A joint meeting among the client, contractor and our personnel is recommended prior to the start of construction to discuss specific procedures and scheduling. REMARKS This report was prepared on the basis of our understanding of the proposed development. In the event of any changes in the design or location of any structure, as outlined in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained herein may not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by us and our conclusions and recommendations are modified or reaffirmed after such review. This report is intended to reduce risk associated with the proposed construction project. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice presented in this report have been prepared in according with generally accepted geotechnical practices and are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on the surface/subsurface examination and the findings and observations at the exploratory locations. It is assumed that soil conditions at other locations of the subject site do not deviate significantly from those disclosed at the exploratory locations. Conditions may be concealed by earth material or existing improvements. If conditions are encountered during construction which appear to be different from those disclosed by the exploratory work, this office shall be notified so as to consider the need for modifications. This report is subject to review by controlling public agencies having jurisdiction. November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-SO1-93 APPENDIX I FIELD INVESTIGATION Field investigation included logging and examination of two exploratory hand dug test pits (see Plate B-1 for locations of test pits, Plates C-1 and C-2 for logs of test pit), The excavation of the exploratory openings was accomplished in order to determine the thickness of surficial fill materials overlying the site native soils. Additionally, the exploratory openings provided access for obtaining undisturbed and bag samples of representative earth materials for subsequent laboratory testing and evaluation. The exploratory openings were backfilled following mapping and field examination. Some settlement of the surface on the backfilled test pits isliable to occur. It is requested that the owner watch these areas for signs of settlement becoming a hazard to persons or property. The approximate locations of test pits were determined by tape measurement from the existing improvements. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. A continuous record of the soils encountered during the drilling was made by our field geologist and is presented on Plates C-1 through C-2, Logs of Test Pit. The lines designating the interfaced between soil strata on the logs of test pits represent approximate boundaries. The transition between strata may be gradational. November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-S01-93 APPENDIX II LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed after review of the field data and in consideration of the site conditions and probable foundation design to be evaluated. Laboratory testing included determinations of in situ moisture contents, densities and shear strengths of the on -site soils. Moisture -Density The moisture -density information provides a summary of consistency for the on -site soils. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined from the undisturbed samples, and the results are tabulated on,the Logs of Boring and Test Pits, Plates C-1 and C-2. Shear. Shear tests were made with 'a direct shear machine at a constant rate of strain. All shear tests were performed in the saturated - drained condition. Each sample was tested under a normal load appropriate for proposed development. The test results are plotted on "Direct Shear Plot". Plate D. 10 November 19, 1993 Project Ref. 96-S01-93 APPENDIX III GRADING GUIDELINES 1. The excavation for the site preparation should be inspected and approved by this office. The modification of our recommendations for the construction may be needed during the site preparation. 2. Prior to excavation and'placement of compacted fill, the site shall be cleared of all vegetation, loose topsoils, debris, and other deleterious materials. 3. The bottom of excavation shall be scarified and aerated or moistened to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to not less than 90 % of maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557-91 standard method. 4. Details for stabilization fill design is presented on Plate F. 5. Where compacted soils is to provide support for the tennis court, at least two feet of compacted granular, non -expansive, sandy soils beneath the concrete slab of tennis court is required. The excavation of loose soils should be extended beyond the tennis court at least three feet. 6. The area behind the retaining wall should be backfilled with compacted fill. A minimum of 90% of relative density should be obtained. The surface of the backfilling should be capped with concrete swale as shown on Plate B-2. 7. Field density tests shall be made in accordance with ASTM D1556-90. Field density tests shall be made for each 2-foot interval. S. No fill soils shall be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the field tests by the soils engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. 9. Planting and installation of erosion control and drainage devices shall comply with the requirements of the Grading Code of controlling agencies. E Appendix IV SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATION TSLOPE - slope stability analysis Revision 2.52 - 01/06/86 x TAGA Engineering Software Services Berkeley, California USA IBM PC & 8086/8088 MS-DOS Version by Design Professionals Management Systems Kirkland, Washinlaton USA coPyr.ight (c) 1.983,84,85 TACA copyright (c) 1989,84,85 DPMS PLAN FAILURE BETWEEN COMPACTED FILL AND BEDROCK INPUT DATA CONTROL DATA, NUMBER OF TRIAL SLIP SURFACES 1 NUMBER OF SPECIFIED SLOPE POINTS fl NUMBER OF POINT LOADS 0 NUMBER OF PRESSURE LOADS 0 INITIAL ESTIMATE OF F INITIAL ESTIMATE OF THETA ALLOWABLE FORCE IMBALANCE ALLOWABLE: MOMENT IMBALANCE SEISMIC COEFFICIENT ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER 3.000 10.000 i'L0.000 5 0.000 000 211.6.000 62.400 SLOPE POINTS COORDINATES X Y 48.00 32.00 104.00 32.00 163.00 60.00 171.00 72.00 NUMBER OF SLICES 8' AT THE TOE THE SLIP SURFACE AND THE GROUND SURFACE DO NOT MEET. THE Y-COORD OF THE SLIP SURFACE WAS SET EQUAL TO THE Y-COOR'D OF THE GROUND SURFACE. SLICE DATA Y Y GAMMA U CEE PHI DPHI 56.00 32.00 100.00 00 400.00 23.00 00 72.00 44.00 100.00 00 100.00 23.0U UO 88.00 48.00 100.00 00 300.00 23.00 00 104.00 52.00 100.00 00 400.00 23.00 00 120.00 57.00 100.00 ln) 400.00 3.00 00 136.00 61.00 100.00 00 400.00 00 152.00 66.00 100.00 u0 100.00 3.n0 00 163.00 68.50 100.00 00 4 00.0H 3.00 00 168.00 67.50 1 RESULTS ITERATION F THETA EXCESS EXCESS DEGREES FORCE MOMENT 1 3.000 10.0 4907.8 149719.9 2 2.650 18.6 69.4 836u.3 3 2.649 15.9 1 26.9 SECTION X INTERSLICE FORCES EFFECTIVE STRESSES ON SLIP SURFACE NUMBER COORDINATE FORCE THETA POA NORMAL SHEAR 0 56.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 NO TENSION CRACK 1 72.00 1522.7 15.9 I 411.2 216.3 2 88.00 979.7 15.9 20 1318.7 362.E 3 104.00 997.2 15.9 13 1694.1 422.5 4 120.00 2808.2 15.9 01 1706.6 423.7 5 136.00 2490.8 15.9 05 1469.8 386.7 6 152.00 2868.E 15.9 09 1140.9 333.7 7 163.00 1863.9 15.9 10 942.4 302.7 8 168.UO 1 15.0 00 575.9' 246.8 COMPUTED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.649 Execution complete, time = 9.34 seconds Vicinity Map 0 2740 SHADOW CANYON DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA Project No. 96-S01-93 Plate A MTC Engineering erg \\`\ \\` v IN CI OJ Q- 10i:l Ih- 1. III; )(I r• }, \/cr ` I CHU"S RESIDENCE pquo.o ua, rpOYLwiIV 4V/CaY. VLitl 1 M 15 Depth of Certified Compacted Fill T.P. 2 : Approximate Location of GEDLOGIC MAP AND, TEST PIT LOCATIONS Test Pit This Plan is revised from'geologic pROJ.:96S019 SCALE? -50 DATE:11-19-93 map prepared by Duco Engineering. m M T T G d t•j wW :'. o V h 0 4 1 47.j K 4. 4 L. S 4 Aporoxima et -Limi Topographic Map Before Placement of Certified Compacted Fill From Geologic Report, Dated 2-3-1972, Prepared By F. Beach Leighton & Associates 91 2740 Shadow Cayon Drive, Diamond Bar, California I PROJECT No.1 O-SOl-93 PLATE B-3 MTC Engineering LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 1 Elevation: +127 Feet Date Drilled:11-12-93 Driving Weight: 36 lbs, Drop:42 inches Depth Sample Blows US- Dry Moist. BaringinTypeFootCSDescriptionDensi- Cont<nz S52E Feet No. ty•psf Remarks 0 1 3 4 5 0_ 1— Ground Surface 1 Fill Certified 2 — Compacted Fi11 1 51 CH, Q 80.0 19.4 J 4 — 2 CL a 2 83.6 20.0 C 5— Facing N 6— 7— Fill: 8 — Silt, Very Clayey, Slightly Sandy, Fine Diatomacious, Loose, Slightly Moist, Light Gray„ Occasionally White Mottled.: 9— Certified Compacted Fill: 10 — Clay, Very Silty, Diatcmacious, Pieces of Rock Fragments To 2", Firm to Stiff,. Moist, Dark Brown, Occasionally White : 11 — Mottled. 12 — 13 — 14 — Logged BY:_ML, Project No. 96-501-93 Plate: C-1 M T C ENGINEERING. II TC. LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 2 Elevation: +160 Feet Date Drilled:11-12-93 Driving Weight:36 lbs, Drop:42 inches Depth Sample Blows US- Dry Moist. Baring in Type Foot CS Description Densi- Content Feet No. ty•psf S52E Remarks 0- 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ground Surface 1 j` Fill 2- Certified Compacted 3 _ Fill 4- 5- Facing N 6'- 7- Fill: 8 - Silt, Very Clayey, Slightly Sandy, Fine, Diatomacious, Loose, Slightly Moist, Light Gray, Occasionally White Mottled.- 9 - Certified Compacted Fill: 10 - Clay,- Verp'Si7.ty; Diatomacious, Pieces of Rock Fragments to 2", Firm to Stiff,; Moist, Dark Brown, occasionally White 11 - Mottled. 12 - 13 - 14 - Logged By:_Hl_ , Project No.96-S01-93 , P1ate:C-2 M T C ENGINEERING, INC. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 2.0 1.5 1:0 x 0 ..5 0 01 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 NORMAL STRESS (KSF) OT.P. 1,Sample_2 @ 4.5 Boring Sample No.: r T.p. 1,Sample 1 Depth(ft.):@ 3.0 O Clayey Silt Description: Clayey Silt Sample Condition: Undisturbed * Soaked Symbol Dry Density Moiture Friction.. _ Cohesion Remarks: pcf) Content N Angle"( 1 (psf) 83.6 20.0 23 400 Resival Project No.96-S01-93 Plate D MTC Engineering f: 1-1 qF I 6 to '6b rn n 4 W ' o U o a Co B2 Mi J¢-p1T; 2'THICK FILL CAP iD FINISHED SURFACE (SEE DRAIN DETAIL) i ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE i D/ 2 I'^""'I 1 / 'CSEE•DRA1N DETAIL)• COMPACTED FILL A / A. SLOPE TO HAVE A BENCH AT LEAST EVERY 25'-30' 4' PERFORATED PIPE (CMP, EQUIVLENT B. KEY DEPTH:. At Least 3' Into Firm Bedrock ASBESTOS OR PLACED IN 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT OF GRADED FILTER MATERIAL. PIPE TO EXTEND FULL C. KEY WIDTH:20'+B1+B2+etc. LENGTH OF BUTTRESS D. BACKDRAINS 6 LATERAL DRAINS LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FIRST DRAIN AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE A••' 0•: LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED AT DISCRETION OF GEOSOILS, INC. (SEE -DRAIN DETAIL) 4' NONPERFORATED PIPE LATERAL TO P PE:;;•; ;•;;' ,; SLOPE FACE AT 100' ABOVE BENCH •' INTERVALS GRADED FILTER MATERIAL TO CONFORM TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL DESIGN Project No. 96-501=93IIPlate= R MTC Engineering UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASThd D2487) [After USAWES (1967)"1 Major Divisions 0f 0 f Group Symbol, rypical Names GW Well -graded gravels, grevebsand mix. lures, little or no lines e GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel -sand mix. turn, little or no fines J d Ma Silly gravels, gravel-sand-141 mixtures C ° 0 GC Clayey graves, gravel -sand -clay mix. tyres c SW Weil -graded Sands,grsvelly sands, little e g or n0 tines Cc R F 0 C0 Sir, Poorly graded Sends, gravelly Sand$, It little or no fines o d Isn=Z c d c C.< 1 E SMa Silly sands, sand -sill mixtures C : c . u Y C F3 :Z SC Clayey tends, sandtlay mixtures O i ppp 0 C O Inorganic silts and very tine ands. ML rock (lour, silty or clayey line sands, or Clayey silts with Hight Plasticity eL Inorganic ciaYt of low to metlium CL Plalligity. gravelly clays, sandy days. silty clays. tun clays a's OL Organic sills and organ c silly clays of 4 low Pla uiciW J CInorganic silts, micaceous or diatoms. 5 MH ce0us fine Sandy or silly %oih, elastic L silts V F S CH Inorganic clays of high PlasJcily, lit clays Ein4 OH Organ¢ d+ys of medium to nigh Plasticity, organic silts J s• .Y L Pl Pool and olher highly organic soilso0 Z o Laboratory Classification Crilula is _ g0 E a P Cu a D60 greater than 4: Cc • IDggl between I and 3 S r Dlo Dip Dao i e Not meeting all gradation requirements lot GW sUN Vt t: ^ i 3- Atterbong limits below "A" Above "A" line with P,I, y d N N y y Z c. U` line or P.I. Ins roan 4 between 4 and 7 an border. a ar O i time cams requiring use of b e Atterberg limib below "A" dual symbols I) O m line with P.I. greater then 7 P E c D60 (Omits F Z CW • — greater than 6: Cc - between I and 3 010 Dip x Deo Not muting all gradation requirements for SW i S .. Z 0 Lag p Y w [ V Is u .- Atierbarg limits above "A" Limns Plotting in hatched W $ line or P.I. lest than L c rt ^ zone with P.I. between 4 w c p and 7 are borderline eases c $ " " Alterberg limits above Auir'r requiring use of dual sym- V g c o line with P.I. greater than 7 bolt, OO SIJim 60 SO e 40 Aasticity Chart IMPANN I' 0 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 liquid limit 80iriJ9n Of GM and SM groups Imo I.boivtalom of d end u arc 101 roads and alrllsid. only, SvbolvidOn It baled on Atterbarg limits: suffix d Used when L.L. Is 76 or lass and the P.I. is 6 of lass; Ina Suffix V used whom L.L. Is gr,star Man 26. Borderline cOlalficatlans, used to, snob Poneming chara,mrl,tles of Iwo groups, are designated by combination, of group Wmbab. For lxsmola. OW.00, wsibafeded poreysand mixture with clay bind•r. MTC Engineeing c SW Weil -graded Sands,grsvelly sands, little e g or n0 tines Cc R F 0 C0 Sir, Poorly graded Sends, gravelly Sand$, It little or no fines o d Isn=Z c d c C.< 1 E SMa Silly sands, sand -sill mixtures C : c . u Y C F3 :Z SC Clayey tends, sandtlay mixtures O i ppp 0 C O Inorganic silts and very tine ands. ML rock (lour, silty or clayey line sands, or Clayey silts with Hight Plasticity eL Inorganic ciaYt of low to metlium CL Plalligity. gravelly clays, sandy days. silty clays. tun clays a's OL Organic sills and organ c silly clays of 4 low Pla uiciW J CInorganic silts, micaceous or diatoms. 5 MH ce0us fine Sandy or silly %oih, elastic L silts V F S CH Inorganic clays of high PlasJcily, lit clays Ein4 OH Organ¢ d+ys of medium to nigh Plasticity, organic silts J s• .Y L Pl Pool and olher highly organic soilso0 Z o Laboratory Classification Crilula is _ g0 E a P Cu a D60 greater than 4: Cc • IDggl between I and 3 S r Dlo Dip Dao i e Not meeting all gradation requirements lot GW sUNVt t: ^ i 3- Atterbong limits below "A" Above "A" line with P,I, y d N N y y Z c. U` line or P.I. Ins roan 4 between 4 and 7 an border. a ar O i time cams requiring use of b e Atterberg limib below "A" dual symbols I) O m line with P.I. greater then 7 P E c D60 (Omits F Z CW • — greater than 6: Cc - between I and 3 010 Dip x Deo Not muting all gradation requirements for SW i S .. Z 0 Lag p Y w [ V Is u .- Atierbarg limits above "A" Limns Plotting in hatched W $ line or P.I. lest than L c rt ^ zone with P.I. between 4 w c p and 7 are borderline eases c $ " " Alterberg limits above Auir'r requiring use of dual sym- V g c o line with P.I. greater than 7 bolt, OO SIJim 60 SO e 40 Aasticity Chart IMPANN I' 0 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 liquid limit 80iriJ9n Of GM and SM groups Imo I.boivtalom of d end u arc 101 roads and alrllsid. only, SvbolvidOn It baled on Atterbarg limits: suffix d Used when L.L. Is 76 or lass and the P.I. is 6 of lass; Ina Suffix V used whom L.L. Is gr,star Man 26. Borderline cOlalficatlans, used to, snob Poneming chara,mrl,tles of Iwo groups, are designated by combination, of group Wmbab. For lxsmola. OW.00, wsibafeded poreysand mixture with clay bind•r. MTC Engineeing Inorganic silts and very tine ands. ML rock (lour, silty or clayey line sands, or Clayey silts with Hight Plasticity eL Inorganic ciaYt of low to metlium CL Plalligity. gravelly clays, sandy days. silty clays. tun clays a's OL Organic sills and organ c silly clays of 4 low Pla uiciW J CInorganic silts, micaceous or diatoms. 5 MH ce0us fine Sandy or silly %oih, elastic L silts V F S CH Inorganic clays of high PlasJcily, lit clays Ein4 OH Organ¢ d+ys of medium to nigh Plasticity, organic silts J s• .Y L Pl Pool and olher highly organic soilso0 Z o Laboratory Classification Crilula is _ g0 E a P Cu a D60 greater than 4: Cc • IDggl between I and 3 S r Dlo Dip Dao i e Not meeting all gradation requirements lot GW sUN Vt t: ^ i 3- Atterbong limits below "A" Above "A" line with P,I, y d N N y y Z c. U` line or P.I. Ins roan 4 between 4 and 7 an border. a ar O i time cams requiring use of b e Atterberg limib below "A" dual symbols I) O m line with P.I. greater then 7 P E c D60 (Omits F Z CW • — greater than 6: Cc - between I and 3 010 Dip x Deo Not muting all gradation requirements for SW i S .. Z 0 Lag p Y w [ V Is u .- Atierbarg limits above "A" Limns Plotting in hatched W $ line or P.I. lest than L c rt ^ zone with P.I. between 4 w c p and 7 are borderline eases c $ " " Alterberg limits above Auir'r requiring use of dual sym- V g c o line with P.I. greater than 7 bolt, OO SIJim 60 SO e 40 Aasticity Chart IMPANN I' 0 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 liquid limit 80iriJ9n Of GM and SM groups Imo I.boivtalom of d end u arc 101 roads and alrllsid. only, SvbolvidOn It baled on Atterbarg limits: suffix d Used when L.L. Is 76 or lass and the P.I. is 6 of lass; Ina Suffix V used whom L.L. Is gr,star Man 26. Borderline cOlalficatlans, used to, snob Poneming chara,mrl,tles of Iwo groups, are designated by combination, of group Wmbab. For lxsmola. OW.00, wsibafeded poreysand mixture with clay bind•r. MTC Engineeing CInorganic silts, micaceous or diatoms. 5 MH ce0us fine Sandy or silly %oih, elastic L silts V F S CH Inorganic clays of high PlasJcily, lit clays Ein4 OH Organ¢ d+ys of medium to nigh Plasticity, organic silts J s• .Y L Pl Pool and olher highly organic soilso0 Z o Laboratory Classification Crilula is _ g0 E a P Cu a D60 greater than 4: Cc • IDggl between I and 3 S r Dlo Dip Dao i e Not meeting all gradation requirements lot GW sUNVt t: ^ i 3- Atterbong limits below "A" Above "A" line with P,I, y d N N y y Z c. U` line or P.I. Ins roan 4 between 4 and 7 an border. a ar O i time cams requiring use of b e Atterberg limib below "A" dual symbols I) O m line with P.I. greater then 7 P E c D60 (Omits F Z CW • — greater than 6: Cc - between I and 3 010 Dip x Deo Not muting all gradation requirements for SW i S .. Z 0 Lag p Y w [ V Is u .- Atierbarg limits above "A" Limns Plotting in hatched W $ line or P.I. lest than L c rt ^ zone with P.I. between 4 w c p and 7 are borderline eases c $ " " Alterberg limits above Auir'r requiring use of dual sym- V g c o line with P.I. greater than 7 bolt, OO SIJim 60 SO e 40 Aasticity Chart IMPANN I' 0 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 liquid limit 80iriJ9n Of GM and SM groups Imo I.boivtalom of d end u arc 101 roads and alrllsid. only, SvbolvidOn It baled on Atterbarg limits: suffix d Used when L.L. Is 76 or lass and the P.I. is 6 of lass; Ina Suffix V used whom L.L. Is gr,star Man 26. Borderline cOlalficatlans, used to, snob Poneming chara,mrl,tles of Iwo groups, are designated by combination, of group Wmbab. For lxsmola. OW.00, wsibafeded poreysand mixture with clay bind•r. MTC Engineeing Laboratory Classification Crilula is _ g0 E a P Cu a D60 greater than 4: Cc • IDggl between I and 3 S r Dlo Dip Dao i e Not meeting all gradation requirements lot GW sUNVt t: ^ i 3- Atterbong limits below "A" Above "A" line with P,I, y d N N y y Z c. U` line or P.I. Ins roan 4 between 4 and 7 an border. a ar O i time cams requiring use of b e Atterberg limib below "A" dual symbols I) O m line with P.I. greater then 7 P E c D60 (Omits F Z CW • — greater than 6: Cc - between I and 3 010 Dip x Deo Not muting all gradation requirements for SW i S .. Z 0 Lag p Y w [ V Is u .- Atierbarg limits above "A" Limns Plotting in hatched W $ line or P.I. lest than L c rt ^ zone with P.I. between 4 w c p and 7 are borderline eases c $ " " Alterberg limits above Auir'r requiring use of dual sym- V g c o line with P.I. greater than 7 bolt, OO SIJim 60 SO e 40 Aasticity Chart IMPANN I' 0 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 liquid limit 80iriJ9n Of GM and SM groups Imo I.boivtalom of d end u arc 101 roads and alrllsid. only, SvbolvidOn It baled on Atterbarg limits: suffix d Used when L.L. Is 76 or lass and the P.I. is 6 of lass; Ina Suffix V used whom L.L. Is gr,star Man 26. Borderline cOlalficatlans, used to, snob Poneming chara,mrl,tles of Iwo groups, are designated by combination, of group Wmbab. For lxsmola. OW.00, wsibafeded poreysand mixture with clay bind•r. MTC Engineeing 60 SO e 40 Aasticity Chart IMPANN I' 0 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 liquid limit 80iriJ9n Of GM and SM groups Imo I.boivtalom of d end u arc 101 roads and alrllsid. only, SvbolvidOn It baled on Atterbarg limits: suffix d Used when L.L. Is 76 or lass and the P.I. is 6 of lass; Ina Suffix V used whom L.L. Is gr,star Man 26. Borderline cOlalficatlans, used to, snob Poneming chara,mrl,tles of Iwo groups, are designated by combination, of group Wmbab. For lxsmola. OW.00, wsibafeded poreysand mixture with clay bind•r. MTC Engineeing 0 10 30 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 liquid limit 80iriJ9n Of GM and SM groups Imo I.boivtalom of d end u arc 101 roads and alrllsid. only, SvbolvidOn It baled on Atterbarg limits: suffix d Used when L.L. Is 76 or lass and the P.I. is 6 of lass; Ina Suffix V used whom L.L. Is gr,star Man 26. Borderline cOlalficatlans, used to, snob Poneming chara,mrl,tles of Iwo groups, are designated by combination, of group Wmbab. For lxsmola. OW.00, wsibafeded poreysand mixture with clay bind•r. MTC Engineeing MTC ENGINEERING, INC. E vim enml Consu,tanm 11823 Slauson Ave., Unit 18 • Santa Fc Springs, Ca 90670 R E c s i V 8 0 Tel: (818) 802-0038 24 Hour Answering Service (800) 685-1707 MAY 1 7 1994 LEIGHTON # ASWw- ff ayPsP.R.196-SGO1-94 Sheet Dated S- 31,9 yMrs. Grace Chu -. n mG c/o Tien -Ho Franc4sca Chen y< Fri Pinewave Engineering, Inc. ter, 17026'Cypress Street, 2F, #G v r Covina, CA 91772 Subject: Response to City Review Letter Dated April 21, 1J14 Proposed Tennis Court, Lot 8, Tract No.30289 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California Gentlemen: 1 As requested, MTC Engineering, Inc., has prepared this ceport in response to City of Diamond Bar review letter prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated April 21, 1994. A copy of the review letter is attached at the end of this report. For convenience, the responses are presented following the City review items. Review Item 1: Provide a map showing the locations of all subdrains and outlet pipes, with elevations. Response of Item 1: A site map and a cross section showing locations and elevations of installed subdrains and outlet pipes are presented as Plates A and B. Review Item 2: Indicate if density of the older fill was verified during grad- ing per the preliminary investigation report (dated 11/19/93) Response of Item 2: The upper one to two feet of older fill was removed and/or recompacted before placing of new fill. The bottom of removal was tested by using probe to observed deeper weak spots. The results of tests were included in the grading observation and testing report. Review Item 3: Indicate results of expansion and sulphate testing at final grades. Are design recommendations from the earlier report 11/19/93) still applicable? I P.R. 96-SGO1-94 May 10, 1994 t Response of Item 3: Two expansion tests and two sulphate tests were forperformed soils at final grades. The expansion tests indicate expansion indexes of 24 and 27 (low). The sulphate tests indicate 0.03 and 0.07 percent by weight of water soluble sulphate (SO4) in soil. Based upon Table 26-A-3 of UBC, the sulphate contents are negligible for concrete exposed to soil. It is our opinion that 1 the recommendations of the referenced report dated 11/19/93 are still applicable. Review Item 4: Report indicates that the site is stable (per 309 statement), yet recommends a slope stability analysis be performed on the lower slope. This seems contradictory -- please explain. Response of Item 4: Based upon the slope stability analyses presented in our report dated 11/19/93, we evaluated that the raise of 2 feet for the lower buttress will reduce the factors of safety but may still has factors of safety greater than minimum Code requirement. Therefore, in our report dated 04/14/94 report we stated that the site is stable but a quantitative calculation of the factor of safety is recommended. That is, we request an authorization to perform the necessary slope stability analyses. The results of analyses indicate that the raise of 2 feet buttress height reduces the factors of safety but still has factors of safety greater than minimum Code requirement. Review Item 5: Please explain "depth below finish grades" on Table 2. For instance, Tests 8 and 9 are approximately 20 feet below grade, but the map indicates only 5 feet of fill is present. Response of Item 5: The definition of the "depth below finish grades" in our report dated April 14, 1994 was confused and should be clarified as the elevation below the finish grade of the top of (L) lower buttress or (U) upper buttress". That is, we assumed the top of the buttress as the referenced finish grade. For example, we presented Tests 8 and 9 as follows to indicate: Test 8 : 20.0 L -- test was performed approximately 20 feet below the finish grade of the top of the lower buttress. Test 9 : 18.0 L -- test was performed approximately 18 feet below the finish grade of the top of the lower buttress. P.R. 96-SGO1-94 May 10, 1994 If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, MTC Engineering Inc. A. MAR I President/Project Geologist TZE-TZONG, TSAO, RCE'46886 Soils Engineer Encl: References City of Diamond Bar Review Lette Appendix A, Slope Stability Anal, cc: (3) Addressee j (` No.o46886 Exp. 630-950-95 PF C P.R. 96-SGO1-94 May 10, 1994 REFERENCES 1. James E. Slosson, July 28, 1967, Geologic Report for Lot 8, Tract 30289, A Portion of Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, California. 2. F. Beach Leighton & Associates, February 3, 1972, Geologic Report of Lot 8, and etc., Tract 30289, Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California 3. Duco Engineering, Inc., 01-04-91, Report of Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residence on Lot 8, Tract No.30289, Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 4. Triad Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 06-24-91, Assumption of Geotechnical Consulting Letter for the Site. 5. Triad Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 08-09-91, Rough Grade Geologic Inspection & Report of Cbmpaction for the Site. 6. MTC Engineering Inc., 11-19-93, Report of Soils Engineering Investigation, Proposed Tennis Court, 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 7. MTC Engineering Inc., 01-17-94, Addendum Soils and Geology Report No.1, Response to City Review Letter Dated Decembert20, 1993, Proposed Tennis Court, 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 8. MTC Engineering Inc., 04-14-93, Grading Observation and Testing, Proposed Tennis Court, 2740 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 9. City of Diamond Bar Review Letter dated 12-20-93. Prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. 10. City of Diamond Bar Review Letter dated 04-21-94. Prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. 11. City of Los Angeles, November, 1992, Guide for Erosion and Debris Control in Hillside Areas. c v 1A x ... a y gyp, p y i 0 as o 08i • .i Vq kAa v. a I \ \ \ fiiso \ I $ \ \ \ A Nrny` / I W is 4 ':• i `a Z3 15 Tl Lj- UJ Liu h • 0.. I ,I ,' 3 J1` \ T' `.die 1?,i' 1 rirr )« 4 ems. e• r ,., lC\\.w '):: 'w • .•i•.,. 3 ., \ `[/ F•,r I I'-' r .''' `.•n•'8 1 * `• / ' `.. ` ` =_ ` r•".. ..: i-'•fai: `.. 7- 420:,`, UI 7 5 zoi ^. zo I Ler /may A yw' — ' J'¢,•'i.,.rc+ser DRIVE 55e: ; lip /bf ' ON C4' 2910164-61 9EOTLGHNICAL REVIr SNL[T LEIOHTON ANC FCRDI rea, INO, CITY GP DIAMOND Wa DEPA TNENT OF ENQINEE iNO Tract(s) 30282, Lot A Data 4/21 Parent Tract Loaatian/Owner, Xh_,_Co utw /v Chu_„ site Address soils Engineor dr0..enginrtering Review oft Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report s a ed Soils Reparttii lr ad Geology and $oils Report s e Other Actions Plan/Report is oeotechnically approved Y Plan/Report is eotechnically approved aubjoct to eonXiona below: Review Commentat Devaloper Engineer/Arch.! PI ap for Provide a map showing the locations of all subdrains and outlet pipes, with olovations. Indicate if density of the older fill was Verified during grading por the preliminary investigation report (dated 11/19/03). Indicate results of expansior, and sulphate testing at 1!inal grades. Are design recommendations from the earlier report (11/19/93) still epllcabIt? Report indicates that site is stable (per 3 9 tatementep, yat receinm6nds it slop* stability analysis be performed on the lower slopes. This stems contradictory -- pplaaae Wlain. 4pproximiLelyn 20efeetbelowbelowfinishgrade r but tithe Tmapeindicate nonly 5 feats Ofafill ait prastnt. Reviewed by 1"' '""'- ga'te e 1 Reviewed by Post-10 brand tax memo 7e7111e10401 Y P.R. 96-SGO1'-94 May 10, 1994 APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 1. General Plane slope stability analyses were performed to evaluate the static and pseudo -static slope stability conditions of the lower buttress. The purpose of the analyses is to evalaute the effect of the additional 2 feet of buttress height on the slope stability of the lower buttress. The Simplified Bishop's Method was used in analyses. The following three failure modes were analysed: a. Failure Mode 1: Potential slip surface passes through the bedding plane, the compacted fill and daylights from the toe of the buttress (see Figure A.1). b. Failure Mode 2: Potential slip surface passes through the bedding plane, the bottom of the fill key and daylights in front of the toe of the buttress (see Figure A.1) C. Failure Mode 3:. Potential slip surface passes through the bedding plane and then along the bottom of the passive wedge passing through the front bottom of the fill key and daylights in front of the fill key (see Figure A.1). 1 2. Shear Strength Parameters Used in Analyses The peak and residual shear strength parameters adopted from Duco report (Reference 3) and determined from our laboratory tests were used in slope stability analyses. The peak and residual shear strength parameters were used in static and pseudo -static slope stability analyses, respectively. For convenience, the shear strength parameters used in analyses are listed below: Material Unit cohesion, psf Friction Angle, de Weight Peak Residual Peak Residual Bedding 120 pcf-----400** 150*------27**------12* Fill 120 pcf 560* 400** 28* 23** Bedrock 120 pcf 1400* 1400* 26* 26* Data adopted from Duce report (Reference 3) Data determined from laboratory tests of MTC Engineering 1 3. Results The results of slope stability analyses are summarized in Table A.1. Geometry of analyzed buttress and details of calculations IP.R. 96-SGO1-94 May 10, 1994 are presented on Figure A.1 and Plates A.1 - A.3. The results of analyses indicate that the raise of 2 feet buttress height reduces the factors of safety but still has factors of safety greater than minimum Code requirement. Table A.1 Summary of Slope Stability Analyses Buttress Failure Factor of Safety Remarks Section Mode Static Seismic Lower -------------- 1 --------- 1.89 --------- 2.36 --------- Fig--ure----A.i----and Plate--------- A.i Lower------2--------1_88 2.24 Figure A.1 and Plate A.2 Lower 1 3 1.59 2.13 Figure A.1 and Plate A.3 Slope Stability Analysis x V1 N N b o N r s n u i J p a J \\ ej ' F b d \ N J. _ N S V 11 E M00 Q7 j LL 1 S I f / I I,,I LL, \ Project No. F.g-rq A.i MTC Engineering Slope Stability Analysis GEOMETRY OF SLOPE : UNIFORM DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE = 12 TE FT) SLIP)SURFACE,)PT SU(PSFRGE 16 32 16 37.5 0 80 32 80 51.1 0 112 48 112 58 0 132 58 132 58 0 STATIC FORCE BALANCE (FORCE UNIT : LBS) SEROENT WVNI,HT CO}FF IQN FRICTIONF) ANGLE HORIZORESSTNTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING PCF) l ( DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LBS) Z----------g---------1--y------------------------------ z3 158 12 16150 11510 3 120 400 23 13090 0 SEISMIC FORCE BALANCE SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WjPHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING 1--------- (DEGREES)- FORCE (LBS)- FORCE (LBS) 1 120 400 27 70180 32760 2 120 400 27 39120 isSeo 3 120 560 28 17580 1800 xxxxxxx***x RESULTS xxxxxxxxxxx STATIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.5 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.89 TOTAL HORI--ZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 58050 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 30720 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.5 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY : REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.25 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.35 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 126690 LdS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 54080 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) i.25 Project No. i v - L wa+— L5+4t-.zc6 -•lure ModQ plate A, I MTC Engineering Slope Stability Analysis GEOMETRY OF SLOPE : UNIFORM DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE = 12 SLOPE PT SLIP SURFACE PT SURCHARGE X) (Y) (X) (Y) PSF) 16 32 16 40.5 0 80 32 80 54 0 112 48 112 61 0 132 58 132 bl 0 136.5 58 136.5 58 0 STATIC FORCE BALANCE (FORCE UNIT : LBS) SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING PCF) DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LBS) 1 120 150 12 33430 2365012120150121843014030 3 120 400 23 16150 0 4 120 400 23 2040 370 SEISMIC FORCE BALANCE SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING' DRIVING PCF)-- - DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LBS) 1 120 400 27 60930 40470 2 120 400 27 44400 23650 3 120 560 28 21410 2860 4 120 560 28 2850 290 RESULTS # xxx#**##x*# STATIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY 1.5 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY i.88 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 70050 LES TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 37310 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY i 1.5 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.25 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.24 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 14959O LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 66710 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.25 PProject No. L Cut )e l n+irQSS^ (tnr¢ /'1odQ Z Plate t i_Z MTC Engineering Slope Stability Analysis GEOMETRY OF SLOPE UNIFORM DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE DIP ANGLE OF SLIP SURFACE = 12 SLOPE PT SLIP SURFACE PT SURCHARGE M (Y) W M (PSF) 16 32 16 40.5 0 80 32 80 54 0 112 48 112 61 0 127 55.5 127 64.2 0 132 58 132 61 0 136.5 58 136.5 58 0 STATIC FORCE BALANCE (FORCE UNIT : LBS) SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING PCF) (DEGREES) FORCE (LBS) FORCE (LBS) 1 120 ISO 12 33430 2365G 2 120 150 12 18430 14030 3 120 150 12 6220 3990 4 120 400 23 3060 -i590 5 120 400 23 2040 -370 SEISMIC FORCE BALANCE SEGMENT UNIT COHESION FRICTION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL NO. WEIGHT (PSF) ANGLE RESISTING DRIVING PCF) (DEGREES) FORCE (LES) FORCE (LBS) 1 120 400 27 80930 40470 2 120 400 27 44400 23650 3 i20 400 27 i5210 6790 4 120 560 28 4250 -1220 5 120 560 26 2850 -290 RESULTS STATIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.5 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.59 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE 63180 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRIVING FORCE = 39700 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.5 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.25 ORIGINAL FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.13 TOTAL HORIZONTAL RESISTING FORCE = 147640 LBS TOTAL HORIZONTAL DRTVING.FORCE = 69400 LBS FACTOR OF SAFETY ) 1.25 Project No. YtrLSy —{erg Mo+P Plate A.3 MTC Engineering 1 Environmerrtal Geotechnology Laboratoryi SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS PROJECT NAME: Chu/Shadow Cyn EGL NO.: 94-009-001 PROJECT NO.: 96-I01-94 CLIENT: MTC Engineering, Inc. DATE: 5-13-94 SUMMARIZED BY: KEAN TAN BORING SAMPLE DEPTH pH CHLORIDE SULFATE NO. NO. CONTENT CONTENT CALTRAN 422 CALTRAN 417 FT) 0/0) N/A 1 1.5 N/A N/A 0.07 N/A 2 0.5 N/A N/A 0.03 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 • Tel.: (310) 945-0689, Fax: (310) 945-0364 1 fcs IUM TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC Foundation Engineering • Engineering Geology Material Testing • Construction Inspection a i%237 rA31 AAiLnOAu STREET, Gi r r OF iiv uiiSTAY, CH 9i7»8 TELEPHONE (818) 964.2313 October 1.0. 1984 Job * 84-239 Mr. Joseph Falazzolo 407, So. She IIman Avenue San Dimas, Caiifornia 9177' T)L s"ems Subject: Addendum to Soils & Geologic Investigation Lot 29, Tract 3,0289 3101 S{e-ltfq:- a,e References: 1) Preliminary Soils & (73enl nnir lnvecti 4t,i nn dated 8-29-84 2) LA County Review letter dated 10-2-84 Dear Mr. Palazzolo: The landslide on the subject site is very shallow and a very small portion,of a large landslide. The slide plane encountered in our test pits corresponds well with the undisturbed bedding plane angles. The purpose of the proposed shear key is to stabilize the mass within the subject site only, and the geology outside the graded area is not significant. The proposed shear key is not strictly perpendicular to the bedding or slide plane; however, it extends snore than 40 feet west of the top of pad limit and will provide good protection from any movement in the direction of baddinq planes or suspected slide planes on the subject site. The cut slopes on the property adjacent to the northwest corner of the subject site are small (approximately 6 feet) and will not undermine the shear key or effect our analysis. The higher cuts (approximately 18 feet) at the south end of the site are at nearly right angles to the bedding and will not pose a threat to the proposed project. To provide a higher safety factor, we have added an additional shear key, 15 feet wide, at the toe of the west facing fill slope. Depth of the key will be a minimum 5 feet below the slide plane. In response to Item #2, we are not intending to remove, aII,:`s'' slide effected bedrock since it is in a dense condition and:;',. will provide good foundation support of vertical loads and;r.".• the shear key is provided to stabilize any horizontal sl i pp;.ge. Private sewers will not be used for the develoment. Respectfully submitted, TRIA'D- FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Frank C. Stillman RCE 16810 FCS/Ims Distribution: Addressee (4) F. Beach Leighton & Associates, Inc. 300 SOUTH BEACH BOULEVARD - LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA 90631 • 12131 694.1820 • 17141 526i1337 Project No. 1450 GEOLOGIC RIiPORT ON LANDSLIDE ADJACENT TO LOTS 29 THROUGH.36, TRACT 302S9 EQUESTRIAN ESTATES, DIAMOND BAR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES September 9, 1971 by F. Beach Leighton G Associates , for Diamond Bar Development Company) rIIiI.0 OFFICES: A9rwil/lo....,d OaAs „l.inl inu Iru Sno B0.1"w'14w F. Beach Leighton & Associates, Inc. 900 SOUTH BEACH BOULEVARD.- LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA 90631 • (213) 694.1826 • (714I 526-1337 September 9, 1971 project No. 1450 TO: Diamond Bar Development Company Attention: Mr. Ben Molina FROM: F. Beach Leighton $ Associates SUBJECT: Geologic Report on Landslide Adjacent to Lots 29 through 36, Tract 30289, Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles Introduction We have completed the subsurface investigation of the subject lots as outlined in our letter of June 2, 1971 (Stage 4). This investigation has consisted principally of a subsurface program of borings and backhoe trenches aimed at determining the northerly boundary of the large landslide adjacent to Lots 29 through 36. A previous geologic report on Lot 31 was also com- pleted by this office on June 17, 1971. The large landslide was studied originally by Dr. Richard Merriam (report dated July 18, 1961), who placed the northeast boundary of the slide generally along the drainage at the rear of and just beyond the subject lots (see accompanying geologic map). This location was based on a series of test pits located on either side of the slide boundary, however, none of the pits actually exposed the slide boundary. In a later series of reports on the subject lots (dated July 17, 1967 for Lots 32, 33 and 35; July 13, 1967 for Lot 34; and June 10, 1966 for Lot 36) James Slosson F, Associates interpreted the slide boundary as following the next drainage line to the northeast (see accompanying geologic map). This interpretation was based principally on two borings (see geologic map and Section C-CI), and indicated a potentially unstable condition on substantial parts of the subject lots. Our subsurface investigation was undertaken to resolve the differences in previous interpretations and consisted of 5 bucket -auger borings and 3 backhoe trenches on the subject lots. All borings were drilled to the maximum practical depth. Accompanying Illustrations Geologic Map of Lots 29 through 36 (40-scale) Cross -Sections A -A', B-B' and C-C' Boring Logs A-4 through A-8 1 FIELD OFI'IC[S; Apnurd1huu•41nd Oaks 1 1'll 11'Jf1.7A'1'l Uquw Hills IYIA1 .111.11 San Rmnard w I I IA1 IIIIA_InnC 1 Diamond Bar - Equestrian Estates - Tract 30289 September 9, 1971 1 Results of Investigation Borings A-4, A-6 and A-7 were drilled to depths of 1s to 25 feet strati - graphically below the position of the primary slip surface of the bedding plane landslide reported by Slosson at B-2 (see Section C-CI). In -hole geologic inspection of the borings -revealed no 'evidence of a slide plane as previnugly reported (see attached boring logs). Alaterials encountered below the zone of surficial weathering were firm to hard, and no broken or.fragmented land- slide debris was present. Boring A-8 was drilled near Boring B-1 in which the slide plane was reported at 33 feet by Slosson. The rocks encountered were very firm to hard, and efforts to drill through the reported slide plane were abandoned at a total depth of 29-feet 8 inches without encountering any evidence of slide debris or a rupture surface. Boring A-5, drilled near the south boundary of Lot 30, encountered the slide plane at 1.2 feet indicating that potentially unstable slide material could be present on substantial parts of Lots 29 and 30. Subsequently, three long backhoe trenches were excavated to determine the limits of the slide in these lots. Trenches LA-1 and.LA-2 encountered the slide plane at relatively shallow depth, and Trench LA-3 exposed both the plane and a colluvium-filled headscarp 15 feet in width (see geologic map). The slide plane is the same as that encountered in Boring A-5, and is a zone of rupture composed of green to greeni.sli- brown clay, highly broken and disturbed, with some si.ltstone and up to 30 percent caliche near the surface. The zone is 8 to 12 inches thick at most of the exposures, but thickens locally to up to 18 inches. The additional data on geologic structure obtained during the slide investi- gation continues to indicate relatively consistent northwest dip generally in the range of 9-13°. These dip rates result in local out -of -slope bedding com- ponents on northwest to west -facing natural slopes (see Sections A -A', B-B' and C-CI). However, bedding di.p and natural slopes are sufficiently gentle that with the absence of continuous clay beds this condition should not present a hazard to development. i - 2 F. Re: c111xi;;hton & Ak-oeialen, L'c. Diamond Bar - Equestrian Estates - Tract 30289 September 9, 1971 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions 1. The east boundary of the slide as determined in this investigation generally follows that previously interpreted by Merriam. Its. affect on specific lots is as follows: a. Slide material is not present_ on Lots 31, 34, 35 and 36. b. Slide material may be present in a small area at the rear of Lots 32 and 33. If present, the potentially unstable material is thin (see Section B-B') and at a location that should not seriously affect building on these lots. c. Slide material is present on substantial parts of Lots 29 and 30-. 2. Bedding dips out -of -slope locally on some northwest to west -facing natural slopes.. However, bedding dip and natural slopes are sufficiently gentle that with the absence of continuous clay beds this condition should not present a hazard to development. Recommendations The subject lots can be developed safely from a geologic viewpoint provided the following recommendations are taken into account in design and construction at specific sites: 1. Northwest to west -facing cut -slope:; should be avoided if possible as they will have to be cut no steeper than 10-130 or retained. 2. Restricted Use Areas as defined by the County of Los Angeles' directive of March331, 1970 are present on substantial parts of Lots 29 and 30 and on small parts of Lots 32 and 33. No residential dwellings should be designed in these areas unless additional geologic investigations are undertaken that lead to correction of the problems: No restricted use areas are present on Lots 31, 34, 35 and 36. 3. Elimination of Previously Defined Restricted Use Area - The Restricted Use Area located on Lot 31 in our Addendum Geologic Report:, Lot 31, Tract 30289, dated June 17, 1971 was based on the location of the landslide by others. This investigation indicates that the potentially unstable slide material is not present on this lot and that this Restricted Use Area can be eliminated. 3 - r. ltem•h lWon & WnmciUWN Inc. Diamond Bar - Equestrian Estates - Tract 30289 September 9, 1971 4. Geologic review of grading or building plans designed for specific sites should be conducted prior to construction. Additional geologic investigations may be necessary depending on the design of specific sites. Respectfully submitted, Donald 0. Asquith Registered Geologist (RG 2553) Reviewed by: T;cach Leighton Engineering -Geologist (F.G 599) jm Distribution: 5 Diamond Bar Development Company (5) - (2 for County of Los Angeles) Attention: Mr. Ben Molina 4 - 1. 13ruch l.ri h(on l ilns•c::dce. Inr. op Hole Elev. F^.72. GEOLOGIC DRILLING LOG 1,40.E Project ^•=•-• •-=>' '/,- tole Dia. 7y,, Tract ?,/12-22irypeofRig.' "- ,-: A1,17:, If)', Date Are' 10, Location of Hole Logged by2%%! 4:0.,:--, See Abbreviation List attached) ` I 0/y, Notes by /J%%%- ITTITUDES a)GLo hic ENGINEERING GEOLOGY DESCRIPTION PHYSICAL aai gS CONDITION p I 2e,44-r f//V. G,Auey Mort .Inl I— 7, "'-_ GrA aA c L LJ -{•fJJ SIP/O.! W.. 42.hn i,w( CrAo) fiJ.JC V/J "iCrrl S IU cOCI Cl/...-Sl n'I: SL Shn.'v ,rr._. SS Lf YIO ...•ef,l mf•i •e/ /l'JSV.K N°OS d 16A/6% e. S:,n.a CIL.1„. (;,A 0195`/A J4.'m 6erlt . _ 0..n, Firm-sl'.:+:b.dJ.•: cl I ow1J,IJ•• 1l 75WE C n;rl 5%trri• L N a(,,.liNc-r„e/ 4rN. CALaI? wl2r 41,;,. els$5 a.a. E SJ P,rn sl:zb(hdJa J,JJ 3CEd 12W'•% J,L. r... I:: naAC rJN/ n.a. ul ccc A.e+n.r •1:N 55 G/a/C. ,frl lrr.,rnua rural i„rJ FJ.n, Slia(. c< C. SiIArA f7.d /reA ` 1S Gttr 'Ar%,.1 Gr<1,,, CAIC, urlfr i •.i(.;iflt- I 1 SS: lea Lr,1coSlim? _ —I.N inrNr G;< t/ 3 0 Prsl:....1. J ter..• LQ u__- 1<Jo't: :'ot.+m ca•tof. o; s1;dr pinrs In /niervjL(r%J'IV; 1JI(1G1d1'I,,j_ of s1nIce ASS'=38 1 inVec( n., S{re c4 Z r c or< Anrr r r, rn_vmnar o_ A ecnnr A mine .__._..._ u•. v.• uu.V aJ4V1• Y• J.VVVVl1. t1.V Top Ilole Elev. 9A t' GEOLOGIC DRILLING LOG NO. A-4 ProjectT- % c.,••rn,: Tole Dia. 'I'/ Tract .3n2 89 pe of Rig Lni- 34 Date 1-96.71 See Abbreviation List attached) Location of Hole Logged by / -` ••: Sheet),_ofNotes by_ /b"/ r.. -.. Log PHYSICAL ATTITUDES ENGINEERING GEOLOGY DESCRIPTION CONDITION rOrientation skeet iv. 5•wAwG S$' t.ar->Y/n Sro. F„v[G(wi.MnrnoG U°r4 ilnrd, 5!;y+! l•) n cbr..rP Sl/,,1-AL 6.., -a••u 44,• , .Sed:.f LJ//U% l/"'.:w.b Psi,{G .i _ .tnrd •urnv i:rwi Am, GrGu. mel-E,rL Grn:w Jh:.• Sldled . r TCATRL 1 rN NofiiE//aa r; ll a •}-0 40' v, -19-71 .'1 stpv.+ed Sq1311 a, 8-°-71• t _ t Et I r. BEACH L' EIGIITON & ASSOCIATES —• Top Hole Elev. Hole Dia. Type of Rig See Abbreviation List attached) TTITADES . q)iGraphico.,Log F GEOLOGIC DRILLING LOG NO. JPc.' Sau}lf.lfv\e at Lek 36 Location of Hole Tract tt. ! Date 'L20 -%/ Logged bye•, /L .,. Notes by ENGINEERING GEOLOGY DESCRIPTION PHYSICAL CONDITION Dk rekLrN C,/. S4tfi LlF•J.:':/i C<iAr,Jra". C(PepS to 3J^ 51;W11 el.nd.Frm i".,.r, GRnon C 51.5±CrrC, Yle //r/, Cln,rcui lr;rb/ Lra, s/rud,<nJus. 5/,aJ rinn7, n+-•A r"v. hCL-SIL•:..,.[ let,(rq, i,+J[+{.lAlhl `lo brd. I;AL ri r0...r..I.•u1.& I U/3d AaglP, giAl ,{rL:i crdALJ j'. S k'.. f.rn,l !l0 6rni . .{b r brad: / SO % "- [i P L..i - G.e,i d m ' 1 11L) 1 P (rM1-J1_— ala Sr0 :,/ T0 Ca/.C:1C. 2•/a' Qfo 3V VIOL 9fNC1 ,ecit. A coke/J. rva.l l,i.,f 1f.+% ela •,. f.,.•l.,. A.%U., Pre.e. r. .o n,rn sr nee ,., :.,Ina e'c Aa.n? S141-of, dLt L/Gcr'>Lav, JIi,), i.J.l,lr,l u /30 % ,,.1«e..•.1,I:J SS dngz, ,:%a, _> 41 P,f.J.^111-0d„<n1.:4. 0 LILLL Si Lr Ml tq•!a!tfd 1)?MD: V!/•/GY/q r L G SI'IFfi Crfa r Lrl,/ Lyl. i{v f+/,i i..!: 1[f IJ{ 7i la/r7. ,1 IM1l( Efr•1 S.i. Aq•l,?, j/q! C•j.rlS rrL.l-+J,•L L/n: Jl.:.. (r.rJ.:l, A..e <an...a J.J 7o..Jis 6uA/,.,m3 .ovGrL.l r,,l LfneL enr6..)q.rn.c mql; r,L , C iiI—U j C S!:qr,. 55 rl(<e/rH r.i, n,e,.1 crP;r:, mnu"a f /- F;an erq,rd, J6.'„ hed,,"d rAAa G S1403,e c< wt Jri1tddrinjZl.1 $S L/nl, d<.w,or very 11.11 G "" iU AL DEAiN f r, r.-r_ Pln.0 PRIES 1, 1n,::.1 1., TG —_ o1 2,;,1 AY%IgLC le, Ze S%rnfi'Nq•, Al OIJJ.. iurdace h. ]"EACH LIi:IGHTON & ASSOCIATES iypeopBole Elev. '•''- GEOLOGIC DRILLING LOG NO._ Project-%<: ole Dia. _DU" r II Tract '• _' n'l of Rig !?rr.5 4 p.,, Npo.r Wear ak L yt .5S Date .r, lS•. 127/ See Abbreviation List attached) Location of Hole Logged ,by Notes by 17AL, ATTITUDES CL PHYSICAL 0 w GraENGINEERING GEOLOGY DESCRIPTION CONDITION IIn " hl-,ophic gSFC mrd Sera S145", 4cAi r?l, S(,)1L.:, tedded AY43% S.S, rirm - drI r L.N 6edd,d Yfo Sw med-(i..e G(ni urd SI+ nrO Yi>L1n•mr.l>lIN.GI,I GA/G rnn.cr,G rro-A,-s1;:lda... nal hire. 5'nn> SIi51nr1C ''in 6f'LrrJ, +'fin .i:ri rieJ a/3S S5Fv„;:->m cl !•i.,. 55 YL, &,), mer1 -1,e s,, :.I IN LedjJ ol2s% A,,! Lerla il(Al - DFMP slli6e- 4tn Lw —Lrj 1311. 1,>.,c . P_,,, -h.,. wi30% 55 46L, bedelFd eve" IF1r•n>uc,v pied _ A,n: 9rd r/Anr? 6( Aelr. C. C/{e%^,te n.n..-SS a.a: r^ CRAdA C dk ar %-LIrA, it„mN n A'N4 r'l w 2s rr? P?nG2 F(O/)1 S11jE5 ry boec 7-07H L AEPT,L/ n105 5: /. /_ovr0 76 31' 2• Free 1AO6, y 'art J J Very u,,, rfnoia F/nRD • ilnmP F. BEACH LFIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Top Hole Elev. 9?S-' Uole Dia. 1.11" pe of Rig I(See Abbreviation List attached) GEOLOGIC DRILLING LOG NO. A-7 ProjectTro; nn ••nr - r>: r:d, Tract Date s--, -? o -71 Logged by %.k% .:1 /!_r,.,. Notes by %,1i b r• G,: s l: ,>, PHYSICAL TTITUDES _J L, ENGINEERING GEOLOGY DESCRIPTION CONDITION rOrientation 1 r CGS = 'S7'c z'-6L 1w, sllu rnnd kfm, UIru ICrndaC 11r Yln 4u„ SA,Jdq, 1 A ZA, MM Q,r.n, drN IG' rMn C S1i S rJn[ j d ISd161 i° Y/.,(rN->(,r,r L.J.,,i.!•/;nGfa:n, .it..._L<,dlra t JG% e.+l.: /r. cld..•at p.ele l/ Ya 6r,7,:x i C a:mr;+drro , 14/ 0 ra a1 rfy, I rbed-6.:c cr<;, 6roc4rra,! t `urkc.. n+I6: fr 6c.11<A .5'S YIA Sr,+-> Jf rJ 1 ~,J L,C GIAiu , 44.ti Cr/./!A rJ 6oE d IL A L %` j r.LeAJ,die S4f rd6c0y // -> // G" - NO JIVWCa4,dU nF SIDE P/AlJQ AI 90E fl 11).y0 •• C rflaA C. SLSIAnC 0..Q. G,tq GIN->3, ++ fDJni 1 (,J/3D c ,J'tX.A. u3' t d Ivnu•1 - ' 9. SP 2s 3a Log Location of Hole Sheet _ L_of ) GrAdAC GI I<Inr/ GL. 0.. 4JIS6J6 SAPlP514S I pC Of0 Lra AIr c.4 brrl CDIAI Zedd,,cl Ll/ 2:% /n/,,,J,,l.l r.l SS c,v Srn.->,1 I. (rni 6"JJr.l C , rrer. SS 6rN J k1lC afA;N, CAIa A,. -> A44,drq rrt+ n , elAmA FpM - dAAJP AA,< 1, 5Ii441111 A cfee Nso F. BEACH LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Top Hole Elev. 97d- GEOLOGIC DRILLING LOG NO. /! a Projectir.• .r.,,.,•_..: - .,..:,,; Hole D:a. TractITypeofRigRr; yam: A-- }or (n Iln[ -&+ 30 Date <-10-7/ Locatio of Hole Logged by j),,,( See Abbreviation List attached) Sheet / of L Notes by ,d. b ATTITUDES J Log I . ENGINEERING GEOLOGY DESCRIPTION rL Orientation- 1 SS " L r",nn, h GeFca C nror.r, o r, Gr-•r i ,ti , , c a_ grnl fr• r6rd, JAs,. 6aa w/slre<;a c<L'aae r a Ca/e, rn r e IQ' cr- aa c- Sla Col ->em,,L.,, I&I w/a/ 1,'1241 25_ y 461,.E ->.Jk c,a, meA A .e, Jl:ti.ddd 94'' I 13Tj G jaa 4o . nrA S) -C i. a4' r— 6w(p .( .n< at,. 44,a rooms 0. 1 Lvccro >o T. d PHYSICAL CONDITION V y . hnrci - drV ri.,, hAril , , dry UI6, M $//•„L7 NO Frce 11-L F. BEACit LEIGI TON & ASSOCIATLS •--• TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC Foundation Engineering • Engineering Geology Material Testing • Construction Inspection 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964.2313 SEP 241984 PRELIMINARY SOILS AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 29, TRACT 30289 3101 STEEPLECHASE LANE DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER 84-239 AUGUST 29, 1984 Requested By3 Mr. Joseph Palazzolo 403 So: Shellman Avenue San Dimas, California 91773 TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC Foundation Engineering - Engineering Geology Material Testing • Construction Inspection 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964-2313 t August 29, 1984 Job M 84-239 Mr. Joseph Palazzolo 403 So. Shellman Ave. San Dimas, California 91773 Subject: Preliminary Soils & Geologic Investigation Proposed Single Family Residence Lot 29, Tract 30289 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California Referencess 1. Final Report of Compaction Tract 302B9 and off -site area by Donald R. Warren Co., dated 10/13/66 2. Phase 11 Engineering Geologic - Soils Work on Equestrian Estates - Tract 30289 by F. Beach Leighton & Associates dated 3/15/71 3. Preliminary Geologic Investigation of Tract 30289 by F. Beach Leighton & Associates dated 6/2/71 4. Geologic Report on Landslide adjacent to Lots 29 - 36, Tract 30289 by F. Beach Leighton & Associates dated 9/9/71 S. 'Final Grading Report for Tract 36282 by Buena Engineers, Inc., dated 4/30/82 Dear Mr. Palazzolo: This report presents the findings and conclusions of a soils and geologic investigation performed at the subject site. The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information on subsurface soils and geologic formations for evaluation on which to base recommendations for the development of the property. Our recommendations given in this report are intended for use in grading and pr'•eparation of construction plans for the foundation of the proposed project. 1 The field exploration consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the site and the excavating of 4 test pits to a maximum depth of 8 feet from the existing surface. A description of the methods used for the exploration and approximate locations of the test pits are presented in the Appendix of this report. INTRODUCTION Proposed Development: It is understood that the site will be developed for a one or two-story residential structure of frame and stucco type construction. The proposed structure is expected to be constructed on shallow foundations and to have light loads. Grading plans dated 6-5=84 have been reviewed and they indicate that the proposed grading will require cut slopes at 1 1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical up to 18 feet maximum in height, and fill slopes at 2:1 up to 24 feet maximum in height. Site Description: The property investigated is vacant and is located westerly of the intersection of Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Trail Lane in the Country section of Diamond Bar. It is roughly a'rec,tangular parcel having a street frontage of 475 feet and an average depth of 247 feet. 1 K 1 Drainage of the lot is northwesterly over natural slopes that have been disced to reduce fire hazards. Topographic relief within.the property io 56 feet. A concrete V ditch exists along the west side just outside the property. This ditch is above a 1 1/2:1 west facing 18 foot high cut slope for the 1 adjacent developed property. Subsurface Conditions: No man-made fills were recognized in any of the test pits during the field exploration. Natural topsoils are silty clays. They are black, moist and soft to medium firm. These sails are from 2 to 3 1/4 feet 1 thick:. Colluvial deposits were recognized in a 10 to 15 foot wide arcuate band generally traversing in a north/south direction through the central portion of the lot. The materials are clayey silts with sand. They are olive/green to orange/brown, moist, medium firm and mottled. These materials are the result of the filling in of the head scarp of an ancient landslide. Their parent sources are the 1 existing topsoil and weathered bedrock. tDetailed descriptions of the soils encountered at each test pit and the soil tests conducted, with their results are presented in the Appendix. GEOLOGY The underlying bedrock is not exposed on the site. As 1 1 3 I exposed in the test pits, it consists of thinly layered clay and sandy shale with an occasional massive sandstone bed. The shale units are orange/brown to gray/green, moist, medium firm and thinly bedded. The sandy shale layers are fine' grained. Clay layers are olive/green to dark brown and striated. The occasional sandstone beds are orange/brown, moist, medium dense to dense, fine to medium grained and friable. The geologic structure is a homo cline with bedding planes dipping to the northwest from angles of 9 to 16 degrees. The lot has.been affected by ancient landsliding. Investigations by others (references) as well as our present field work, indicates the area to be at the head of the Diamond Bar Landslide. Most of this slide has been bystabilized grading on adjacent properties (reference 5). What remains on the subject lot are the upper very shallow portions of this slide. The aforementioned filled in head scarp is the top of this slide. Land above this area is undisturbed ground. Land below this area was affected by this slide. Test pit data in these lower areas indicate the slide plane to be at depths of 6 to 7 feet below the surface with dips of 10 to 1B degrees to the northwest. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General: The information obtained during our investigation indicates that the subject site is suited for the proposed 4 development, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design considerations, protect plans, and job specifications.' The building site will be considered safe against hazard from landslide, settlement or slippage and the proposed construction will have no effect on the geologic stability of property outside of the.building site. Slope Stability: The proposed fill will be placed over an ancient landslide which has been previously investigated in the referenced reports and considered stable. Additional loads will be imposed on the landslide with the proposed grading and an analysis of the slide stability is presented an Plate E-1. To provide a minimum acceptable safety factor under seismic conditions, a 40 foot wide shear key is recommended to be constructed at the toe of the fill slope. The shear key should be extended to 5 feet below the slide plane which will be 11.5 feet below existing grade. At this depth, passive pressures will be sufficient to provide a higher safety factor against a failure on bedding planes below the shear key. The shear key should be constructed by removing and recompacting the bedrock as structural fill. The proposed cut slope will daylight bedding planes in bedrock. An analysis of this condition is presented on Plate E-2. Bedding planes are nearly level (10 degrees) and a satisfactory safety factor was obtained for the static case. In the seismic case a higher assumed f parameter is generally acceptable and we believe that T = 12 degrees is 5 conservative under these conditions. With the assumed + = 12 degrees and C = 200 psf, a satisfactory safety factor of 1.17 is obtained and a buttress fill is not required for gross stability. Surficial failures have occurred in the past under these conditions and we recommend that a stabilization fill be constructed on the slope in accordance with the Stabilization Fill Detail. STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL i Z % o '/- 3 ay. Ff/Pptr i.o. Peo rr vtJ y lve 3 KcY 5 "Non tJarf'oia le'110 jo e, Grading: All grading should conform to the requirements of the County of Los Angeles and the standard grading specifications presented in this report. Prior to grading, all structures, vegetation and debris should be removed from the site. Uncertified fills and topsoil should be excavated to firm bedrock. Cut portions of E5 the pad should be overexcavated 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. 1 Areas to receive fills should be scarified 6-8 inches to adjust the moisture content to near optimum conditions and then compacted to minimum requirements. Fills should be placed in 6-8 inch loose lifts at near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum densities for the typical soils should be established in accordance with the standard ASTM D1557-70 method of test. On -site soils may be used for compacted fills, provided they are free from organic and deleterious material. If imported soils are required, they.should be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to acceptance at the site, to insure a similar quality to that required by design. Grading operations should be conducted under the observation 1 of the Soils Engineer and Geologist to provide assurance of compliance with job specifications and a Certification of 1 Compacted Fill upon completion of grading. Shrinkage and Subsidence: Shrinkage as a result of recompaction of existing bedrock is expected to be approximately 5 to 10 percent. The recompaction zone includes materials which are overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill, as well as materials below the overexcavation which are scarified and compacted in place. 1 7 Subsidence in bedrock from the placement of fill should be negligible for the depth of fills proposed. lFoundation Design: Soils on the site are moderately expansive and all foundations should be reinforced continuous footings. Continuous footings having a minimum embedment of 18 inches into compacted soils may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings near descending slopes must have a minimum 5-foot horizontal distance from the side of the footing to the face tof the structural slope. A 1/3 increase in bearing pressure may be used in design when considering wind or seismic loads of short duration. Continuous footings should have minimum reinforcement of one Number 4 bar placed near the top of the footing and one Number 4 bar near the bottom. Lateral Resistance: Resistance to horizontal forces on foundations may be provided by the combined effect of passive soil pressures and frictional resistance between concrete and firm soils. Lateral soil pressures of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used up to 2000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 is recommended for the on -site soils. Floor Slabs: Concrete floor slabs may be supported by the natural or compacted fill soils. To provide uniform support, 1 the top 8 inches of natural soil should be scarified and compacted at near optimum moisture conditions. Due to the moderate expansive potential of the on -site soils, it is recommended that the top 18 inches have a moisture content of 120 percent of optimum established 24 hours prior to pouring 1 the concrete. Slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and reinforcement of 6x6 - 10/10 welded wire mesh, or equivalent, placed at the center of the slab. For moisture sensitive floors, a vapor barrier membrane covered with a minimum 2 inches of clean sand should be placed below the slab. A grade beam 12 inches by 12 inches should be provided across the garage entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. A similar transition section (thickened slab) may be substituted as 1 recommended by the Structural Engineer. Retaining Walls: Small unrestrained retaining walls with a level and 1 1/2:1 backfill should be designed to resist active sail pressures equivalent to a fluid pressure of 30 1 and 55 pounds per cubic foot, respectively, plus any additional surcharge expected from the surface. Weep holes consisting of open joints in block walls or 1-inch diameter holes at 2 foot intervals should be placed at the base of the wall 6 to 12 inches above finished grade, or an tadequate drainage system at the base of the wall should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressures. 9 All walls should have a granular backfill compacted as fill soil. Jetting should not be permitted. SUMMARY This report was prepared to aid the project designers, reviewing agencies, grading contractors, owners, and other concerned parties in completing their responsibilities for the successful completion of this project. The findings and recommendations were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practices. We make no other warranty, neither expressed nor implied. The findings and recommendations are based on results of the field and laboratory investigation, combined with interpolation of soil conditions between test pit locations. If conditions are encountered during grading or construction that appear to be different than those reported, this office should be notified. All footing excavations should be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Geologist prior to placing forms or reinforcement, to insure minimum depths into the recommended supporting material. n F[s] We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us at your convenience if you have any questions regarding this report. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Frank C. Stillman Wi 11 i" arii'G: 1A51 R.C.E. 16810 C.E.G. 502 FCS/WGU:lms Distribution: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Addressee (4) n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX The following Appendix contains a description of methods and laboratory test results which were used in the engineering evaluations and recommendations contained in the report. Included are the following Plates: Plates Plate A ----- Geologic Map Plate B ----- Geologic Cross Sections Plates C-1 through C-4 ----- Test Pit Logs Plate D ----- Direct Shear Summary Plates E-1 & E-2 ----- Slope Stability Calculations Site Exploration On August 21, 1994, field explorations were made by excavating 4 test pits at the approximate locations indicated on the attached Geologic Map, Plate A. A rubber tired backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket was used to advance the test pits to depths from 7 to 8 feet below the existing grade. Relatively undisturbed samples of soils were obtained in the field using a barrel drive sampler with a tapered cutting shoe. The soil samples were retained in 2.0 inch diameter by 6 inch tubes.within the sampler and secured with moisture resistant caps as soon as taken to minimize the loss of field moisture while being transferred to'our laboratory for testing. I Continuous observations of the materials encountered in the test pits were recorded in the field. The soils were classified in the field by visual and textural examination, and these classifications were supplemented by obtaining bulk soil samples for future examination or testing in the laboratory to assure classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. 1 Descriptions of the visual observations of color and soil condition, depth of undisturbed cores or bag samples, field density, and field moisture content are presented on the Test Pit Logs, Plates C. tLaboratory Tests and Results Maximum Density: Tests 'for maximum density and optimum moisture content were conducted in accordance with the ASTM D1557-70. The tests were made using a 4-inch diameter mold having a 1/30 cubic foot volume, with 25 blows of a 10-pound hammer falling 18 inches on each of 5 layers. The following results were obtained: Test Pit Depth Maximum Optimum No. feet) Soil Classification Dry Density Moisture 1 5.5 Clayey SILT 98.73 pcf 25.2 X 1 Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were conducted on remolded samples of the investigated soils to determine the angle of internal friction and cohesion. Samples were inundated for a minimum of 24 hours under normal load before testing and shear loads were applied quickly in accordance II 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e i 1 1 1 with the standard procedure for consolidated undrained shear tests. Horizontal forces were applied to pass the peak shear and determine the u/timate shear strength of the soil specimen. The results and ultimate shear strengths under increased moisture conditions are shown on Plate D. Expansion: Expansion tests were performed on typical soils to determine their expansion potential. The tests were made in accordance with the UBC Standard #29-2. The following table presents the expansion index data: Soil Type: Clayey SILT (bedrock) Location: Test Pit #1 0 5' Initial Moisture Content: 17.4% Final Moisture Content: 37.0% Initial Dry Density: 85.4 pc4 Expansion Index - 58 Expansion Classification - Medium III 0 TEST PIT LOG Project Steeplechase Lane Test Pit No. 1 Location see geologic map Job No. 84-239 Drill Date 8121184 Logged By Wu Driving weight UNIT (FILL, NATURAL, BEDROCK, etc.): MATERIAL (SAND, SILT, CLAY, etc.) - vi g 0 J v w Description (color, moisture, density, etc.) v\ uw m tci m a w v u N ` m3 v w0— ATTITUDE MEASUREMENTS: W vi 10, B- Bedding F- Fault 0 5 A U w ti a J - Joint C - Contact w 0 O TOPSOIL: Silty CLAY - black, moist, soft to L medium firm 1 2 3 WEATHERED BEDROCK: Sandy SILT with Clay - orange/brown, moist, soft to medium firm, mottled - some shale chips 4 BEDROCK: Sandy SHALE - orangelbrown to gray, moist, laminated - moderately fracture B 90.3 23.8 5 blocky 6 BN23E-1ON06' 7 8 END OF TEST PIT 7.0 FEET No Ground Water or Caving 9 Hole Backfilled 10 11 12 13 14 15 TRIAD FDIINDAMN FNGINFFRING. Inr- PLATL ' c-( I fl 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 i) In H. asn-4sTOW N OCT) ma ap 0. A4TSu9p A2Q rn o a oH 5ve-aO y N sozoNa.xo- I; ti m rn N 003 SMOTH N Iv ro I W H 48Tsag •auad U C I To41MS dnoif) N z y v s+ 4 S•D.S•fl UC) 0 N a m a•M T0 3 W C O aCi -roi. ti ro O ry h O ,roHppN q EWV) rz O N ro N HUQ) t ozE V IF+ Nu +I U) O G. O •H H A m r oroQ) O 'O E 'H 0) U) W H F W Lom 0 r O \U V O a Iw U) A H In Q E IV ro 0 O O l W ti 3 W m A O a U ry VFE y IH H I ro x E-1 o NQ) o c C H z c ro Lo RHa0 v, w a A a q O U W Z O NH a o i.i C-, z U ~ w O H W I h 1 v 4'+ IA I WWW wv wv wro w W O a v ti Q) U a O " 1 O~ 2 z to TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PLATE C_2 TEST PIT LOG Project Steeplechase Lane Test Pit No. 3 Location see geologic map Job No. 84-239 Drill Date 8121184 Logged By WN Driving Weight 1 1 1 1 1 n I 1 1 1 L] 1 t 1 1 I UNIT (FILL, NATURAL, BEDROCK, etc.): MATERIAL (SAND, SILT, CLAY, etc.) - o vi g y y u 4 a Description (color, moisture, density, etc.) N \ m wU UN a0 3 o w ATTITUDE MEASUREMENTS: y B- Bedding F- Fault pp -D c u m w J - Joint C - Contact c.7 a 'A Q O TOPSOIL: Silty CLAY - black, moist, soft to L medium firm 1 2 3 BEDROCK: SANDSTONE - orange/brown to gray, moist, medium dense to dense, medium 4 to fine grained, friable, - thin lense of laminated clay shale 5 SP @ 5' 1 to 3" thick, gouge zone N63E-14 6 N15E-13N - thin clay shale layer @ 7' 8 9 END OF TEST PIT 8.0 FEET to No Ground Water or Caving Hole Backfilled 11 12 13 14 15 TRIAD FMINIIAMN FNAINFFRINA Inc. PLATE C-3 In a) aua;v00 M aingsToN m w OCT) o A4TSuac dxa y N ON bes-E c ON 8:100-0 y S Inul 4003/sMOjqH U LI gsjsas auag I w mjogmdsdnoaD i+ s•3•s•n uu y llpynI W W h O pLj 3C3 '.pyi N p O O E yC A k bi W C w m bw c w o a v m r th a uOaCi v 0 bi 3 H F O j A n a 4 a.l 'O o m ro r F y In 0 b, try WHH I v 1 O4 V 4J.i M oHo Itsyppj ) 2r, n'! p u E cn E bZ) C7 OW14 ti a ro 3 W y ti 4 A N b 41 I a O, UuwNOm E L U y 'ri OH ' H C lu m 1 91Z1 CEtij04 ro O O Z F U to ZO O 3 m N W w H W ry H 2 2 2 A w 0 o v 3 3 o tet 0 1, z u b0 7 C TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PLATE Triad Foundation Engineering 1 BY: RR 1 1 1 1 1 1 Iw a. It 1 WaF w Ix 1 1 1 1 1 1 DIRECT JOB R : 84-239 DATE: 8-28-84 SHEAR SUMMARY 2.5" RING STRAIN — INCHES 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 NORMAL STRESS — P.S.F. 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 W 220 a 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 SAMPLE LOCATION: Test Pit N1 @ 5L5' SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Sandy SHALE SAMPLE TYPE: Remolded . 0: 32' C: 250 P.S.f. PLATE D-1 Triad Foundation Engineering BY: BR w P. N WrYF 1 1 1 1 1 DIRECT JOB N : 84-239 DATE: 8-28-84 SHEAR SUMMARY 2.5" RING STRAIN - INCHES 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 NORMAL STRESS - P.S.F. 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 W 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 SAMPLE LOCATION: Test Pit H2 @ 6' SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Clayey SILT with Fine SAND SAMPLE TYPE: Remolded 0: 28' C: 250 P.S.f. PLATE D-2 L G SC OP'r o SCC If'/a 1--lGL r A 7% /y * y5fZ 1 l may, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Zoa A /56 9 C/S y0 Sh/EAK Lei Asr' GZ kyv _Leo i{` A . /92/, S c? 67 3 74) ., A S -7 9s 676) yy < -97, 2.9. 2 4 2 9. q 4 2 3. 2 j /O yf 3 3, 6 D/< TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering Job no: 239 Date: ^. q_ Scale:/— 2o' By:,<S_ Gvr SLOP PoI27-/o/v yr S6C. A -A snn / 9J selm e A =/O° eos /1a v 50 /0 f, : ws,h "- S _ j 4n !%, [_n L. _ /OBff/0'` .ZDOh• 9(0 F,v / 9• / cosy—k!/s,.A frrm Cxc l Gt9SB76 4, GrZ G3/sin 1 .eG Ge,rx 11/(0.32 .) D i.2UDt76 S B617-re5z s 0 r z 8 m C 9 Sv,,„ t 9e=%*2<r7-5:41i'/` f/`9/?If—sY W." )- x RB - G. y 8 )-X it = /!l 3. 7 y zs'oX,s- o, i7. 4 3. Tot /G.I If 1, 7i 35.y TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. IF Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering lob no: 6 `/- 2 9 Date: cj - 0 $e Scale: / „ : 00 ' By: . - 7G/a7c C -Z p LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants TRANSMITTAL To: City of Diamond Bar Date: November 2, 1993 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Project No. 2910164-25 Attention: Ms. Anne Garvey Transmitted: The Following: For: X Mail/UPS Draft Report X Your Use Courier Final Report As Requested Pick Up Extra Report Proposal I Geotechnical Review Sheet Subject: Tract 30289, 2920 Waeon Train Lane City of Diamond Bar, California LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Apichart Phukunhaphan 1470 SOUTH VALLEY VISTA DRIVE, SUITE 150, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 (909) 860-7772 • (800) 777-2286 FAX (909( 860-1089 TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. Soils Engineering • Engineering Ce Iop • Environmental Engineering 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100. CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964-2313 FAX (818) 810-0915 July 14, 1993 Job No. 93-107 Newcastle Construction 201 N. 1st Avenue, #100 Upland, CA 91786 Attention: Mr. Gary Jackson Subject: Geologic Inspection and Report of Compaction 2920 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA Gentlemen: INTRODUCTION Pursuant to your request, representatives of this firm have mapped exposed bedrock, inspected and tested the fill placed during grading operations on the subject site. This report presents the results of these tests and inspections performed from May 7, 1993 through June 1, 1993. An "As Built" of the site showing test locations and other pertinent data is accompanying this report. Only periodic inspections were requested and provided during the grading operation. Reference Data Used Preliminary Geotechnical and Engineering Geology Investigation by MEC Geotechnical Engineers, dated June 28, 1993 and supplemental reports by MEC dated November 25, 1992, February 1, 1993 and March 26, 1993. SITE PREPARATION Prior to the placement of any fill, the site was prepared for grading in the following manner: A. Surface debris and vegetation were stripped and hauled off - site. B. Trees were removed in the grading operations. C. No surface structures were present on the site upon our arrival. D. Subsurface structures consisting of a 4" perforated pipe with 1 cubic foot of 3/4" filter material was placed in canyon bottom. E. Low density surface soil was removed to bedrock and recompacted to minimum requirements. F. A subdrain was placed in the major canyon across the site. G. Benching into bedrock was provided where the slope to receive fill exceeded a ratio of 5:1. H. Exposed bedrock structures were inspected during grading. Bedding orientations and other pertinent data mapped prior to and during grading are shown on the Final Geologic and Grading Map. GRADING A. Fill was placed in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, watered and compacted to the minimum requirements. B. The method used for adding moisture and compacting was a water hose and rolling with a track loader. C. Imported soil was used as fill to raise the pad to the desired grade elevation. D. Fill slopes were overfilled and cut back to expose the compacted inner core. TESTING A. Compaction standard used for minimum requirements was 90 percent of the ASTM Test Method D1557-78. B. Field density tests were performed in accordance with the sand cone method, ASTM D1556-82 and the drive tube method, ASTM D2937-83. Results of these tests are attached as a part of this report. C. Expansion tests were performed on typical soils in accordance with the UBC Standard No. 29-2 to determine their expansion index. D. Laboratory test results are summarized below: Maximum Optimum Expansion Classification Density Moisture Index BEDROCK: Siltstone with trace of clay and sand 107.3 17.3 BEDROCK: Imported mix, Siltstone/Clayey Silt 105.9 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Bedrock structure mapped during gr from the geologic conditions de Geologic Report. B.- C. 17.9 45 ading shows minor deviations scribed in the Preliminary The soil is classified as slightly expansive. Footing Type. Continuous or spread. Continuous footings should be reinforced with one Number 4 bar near the top and one Number 4 bar near the bottom of the footing. 2 D. Floor: Concrete slab on grade (with a minimum thickness of 4 inches and reinforced with [6x6 - W 1.4 x W 1.4 (6x6 - 10/10)] welded wire mesh, or equivalent, placed at the center of the slab). For moisture sensitive floors, a 6 mil moisture barrier membrane covered with 2 inches of clean sand should be placed below the slab. E. Subsoil below slabs should have moisture contents above optimum conditions. F. The allowable bearing capacity of the footings, compacted fill and bedrock, should not exceed 2000 and 2800 pounds per square foot, respectively, with a minimum depth of 18" and a minimum width of 12". This value includes dead and live loads and may be increased 1/3 for seismic loads of short duration. G. Compacted fills reported herein have been properly placed and compacted for structural fill. The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC, w/ A,41 Frank C. Stillman William G. Uhl G.E. 805 C.E.G. 502 FCS/WGU;mis Enclosures: "As Built" Geologic Map & Grad' gEP1Ca"n( Summary of Test Results City of Diamond Bar Form , Jl P Dist r' b Addressee (4) CERTIFIED dQP EcJknki ENGINEERING 4y ,m"`'"`?yet GEOl.O GIST Exp.6:33 ! F F OF GA% K SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Moisture Dry Lab. Relative Test Content Density Max. Compaction No. Date Elevation M D( Density M 1 5/07/93 66.0 15.9 100.1 107.3 93' D 2 5/07/93 68.0 14.8 97.8 107.3 91 D 3 5/08/93 70.0 16.4 96.6 107.3 90 D 4 5/08/93 72.0 13.6 101.0 107.3 94 D 5 5/08/93 72.0 14.3 102.3 107.3 95 D 6 5/08/93 74.0 15.2 99.5 107.3 93 D 7 5/08/93 74.0 13.4 97.2 107.3 91 r D 8 5/10/93 76.0 16.3 98.8 107.3 92 S 9 5/10/93 76.0 14.8 96.5 107.3 90 S 10 5/10/93 76.0 17.0 98.3 107.3 92 S 11 5/10/93 78.0 14.7 97.9 107.3 91 D 12 5/10/9/3 78.0 15.6 100.1 107.3 93 / D 13 5/10/93 78.0 16.1 96.6 107.3 90-' D 14 5/11/93 80.0 16.7 96.9 107.3 90 D 15 5/11/93 80.0 15.5 98.7 107.3 92' D 16 5/11/93 82.0 13.5 97.9 107.3 91 D 17 5/11/93 82.0 14.0 100.6 107.3 94 S 18 5/11/93 82.0 14.5 99.4 107.3 93 S 19 5/12/93 84.0 14.9 97.8 107.3 91 S 20 5/12/93 84.0 14.4 96.6 107.3 90 D 21 5/12/93 84.0 15.1 97.9 107.3 91 D 22 5/12/93 86.0 17.0 98.9 107.3 92 D 23 5/12/93 86.0 16.1 96.2 107.3 90 D 24 5/13/93 86.0 14.2 99.6 107.3 93 D 25 5/13/93 72.0 15.6 97.6 107.3 91 D. 26 5/13/93 74.0 16.1 96.9 107.3 90 D 27 5/13/93 74.0 14.9 97.2 107.3 91/ S 28 5/14/93 74.0 17.0 100.0 107.3 93 S 29 5/14/93 76.0 17.8 96.8 107.3 90/ S SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS, CONTINUED Moisture Dry Lab. Relative Test Content Densit Max. Compaction No. Date Elevation 1 Dcf Density 30 5/14/93 76.0 16.0 97.8 107.3 91 D 31 5/15/93 78.0 16.6 98.5 107.3 92 D 32 5/15/93 84.0 17.5 101.5 107.3 95' D 33 5/15/93 84.0 15.7 100.1 107.3 93' D 34 5/17/93 86.0 14.9 97.3 107.3 91' D 35 5/17/93 86.0 16.3 97.8 107.3 91 ' D 36 5/17/93 86.0 16.8 98.6 107.3 92/ D 37 5/18/93 84.0 17.4 96.4 107.3 90 / D 38 5/18/93 86.0 17.2 96.9 107.3 90 D 39 5/18/93 88.0(FG±) 18.3 98.7 107.3 92' S 40 5/18/93 88.0(FG±) 16.3 97.8 107.3 91l D 41 5/18/93 88.0 18.6 100.8 107.3 94D 42 5/19/93 88.0 19.0 96.6 107.3 90' D 43 5/19/93 90.0 17.6 97.5 107.3 91' D 44 5/20/93 90.0 14.7 99.5 107.3 93' S 45 5/20/93 90.0 15.6 96.9 107.3 90i D 46 5/20/93 90.0 18.3 98.1 105.9 93' S 47 5/21/93 92.0 17.6 96.2 105.9 91/ D 48 5/21/93 94.5 18.9 96.7 105.9 91d, D 49 5/21/93 94.0 17.1 97.1 105.9 92/ D 50 5/21/93 94.0 18.1 95.3 105.9 90 l D 51 5/22/93 94.0 19.0 96.5 105.9 91 D 52 5/22/93 94.0 17.5 99.2 105.9 94 D 53 5/22/93 96.0 16.0 97.3 105.9 92 D 54 5/22/93 96.0 17.8 95.3 105.9 90' S 55 5/22/93 96.0 18.8 96.1 105.9 91 D 56 5/24/93 96.0 17.9 98.7 105.9 93° D 57 5/24/93 96.0 19.5 97.2 105.9 92 D 58 5/24/93 96.0 17.6 97.6 105.9 92/ D SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS, CONTINUED Moisture Dr Lab. Relative Test Content DensHy Max.. Compaction 59 5/24/93 96.0 60 5/25/93 98.5(FG±) 61 5/25/93 98.0 62 5/25/93 98.0 63 5/25/93 92.0 64 5/25/93 94.0 65 5/26/93 96.0 66 5/26/93 98.0 67 5/26/93 100.0(FG±) 68 5/27/93 99.5(FG±) 69 5/27/93 95.0 70 6/01/93 96.5(FG±) 71 6/01/93 96.0(FG±) 72 6/01/93 99.0(FG±) 73 6/01/93 99.5(FG±) S - Sand Cone Method D - Drive Tube Method 17.1 16.0 16.7 17.9 17.0 16.4 16.3 19.2 17.4 17.8 17.0 16.1 95.3 105.9 96.3 105.9 98.5 105.9 95.4 105.9 96.6 96.4 98.6 97.2 96.1 95.4 96.6 98.2 105.9 105.9 105.9 105.9 105.9 105.9 105.9 105.9 90 D 91 D 93 / S 90 S 91 S 91, S 93 ' D 92 / D 91/ D 90 i D 91/ D 93 "1 D 17.6 97.3 105.9 920 16.7 99.1 105.9 94 17.0 97.6 105.9 92 303 ADDRESS/TRACT NO. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 100 DIA1IOND BAR, CA 91765 714.860-CITY 714-660-2489 SUPERVISED GRADING INSPECTION CERTIFICATE 2920 Wagon Train Lane PERMIT OH ER CONTRACTOR SOILS ENGINEER'S ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION I certify that the earth fills placed on the following lots were installed Leon competent and properly prepared base material and compacted in compliance with requirements of Building Code Section 7010. I further certify that where the report or reports of an engineering geologist, relative to this site, have recommended the installation of buttress fills or other similar stabilization, measures, sigh earthwork construction has been completed in accordance with the approved design. LOT NCS See report dated 7/14/93. for compaction test data, recommended allowable soil bearing values and other recommendations. E)YPA_NSiVE SOILS YES (NO) LOT NCS. 3L RE55 FILLS (YES)(D LOT NCS. rtE.".%AS i:eer a Rec.No G.E. 805 Date 7/14/93 s`cnature SUPE-VISING GRADING ENGINEER'S ROUGH GRADING C_RT:r:CATION certify :o the satisfactory completion of rouch gracing including: crading to approximate Final elevations, property lines located and staked; cut and fill slopes correctly -graded and located• in accordance with the approved design; swales and terraces crazed ready for avinc, berms nstalled; and required drainage slopes provided on the building'phds. I urther certifv that where report or reports of an engineering geologist and/cr soils neer have been arenared relative to this site, the reco.- endaticns contained in such reports have been follcwec in the presecuticn cf_• work. T NCS E_".F=-V S nc'_ No. UPERVISING GRADING ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION 1 Certify to the satisfactory completion of tracing in accordance with the approved plans. All re. ired crainace devices .have been installed; slope planting• established. and irriga- ticn systems provided (where required); and adecLate provisions have been made for drainage Of surface waters `rcm each building site. _he recoa_encations of the soils engineer and/ or engineering ceo'_oc'st (if such persons were e-plD}.ed) have been incorporated in the work NCS. neer Rec. No. Dat TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC Foundation Engineering • Engineering GeologyilFMaterialTesting • Construction Inspection 17231 EAST RAILROAD STHEET, CITY OF INOU61 RY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964.2313 December 14, 1984 Job # 84-239 Mr. •Joseph Palazzolo 403 So. Shell man Avenue San Dimas, California 91773 Subject: Final Geologic Inspection and Report of Compaction - Lot 29, Tract 30289 31 of Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California Dear Mr. Palazzolo: INTRODUCTION: Pursuant to your request, representatives of this firm have mapped exposed bedrock, and inspected and tested the fill placed during grading operations on the subject site. This report presents the results of these tests and inspections performed on October 26 through December 6, 1984. A Final Geologic and Grading Map of the site showing test locations and -other pertinent data is attached as Plate A. Only periodic inspections were requested and provided during the grading operation. . Reference Data Used Preliminary Soils and Geologic Investigation by Triad Foundation Engineering, Inc., dated August 29, 1984, and addendum report dated October 10, 1984. SITE PREPARATION: Prior to the placement of any fill, the site was prepared for grading in the following manner: A. Surface debris and vegetation were stripped and hauled off -site. B. No trees were existing on the site. f C. No surface structures were present on the site upon our arrival. D. No subsurface structures were encountered during grading. E. Low density surface soil;was removed to bedrock. F. Benching into bedrock was provided where the slope to receive fill exceeded an angle of 5:1. G. Bedrock was prepared to receive fill by scarifying the exposed surface to a depth of 12 inches and precompacting to minimum requirements. The cut portions of the pad were undercut three feet and replaced with compacted fill. H. Exposed bedrock structures were inspected during grading. Bedding orientations and other pertinent data mapped prior to and during grading are shown on the Final Geologic and Grading Map. GRADING• A. Fill was placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts, watered and compacted to the minimum requirements. B. The method used for adding moisture and compacting was a water hose and rolling with a single sheepsfoot roller and track loader. C. A stabilization fill was placed over the original proposed cut slope at the rear of the pad. The key for this fill is 6 feet deep and 15 feet wide. A backdrain with laterals was placed at the toe of this slope and slightly above pad grade. The toes of the north and west facing fill slopes rest on shear keys, the bottom of which are at least 5 feet below a slide plane. As the fill was placed to build the pad this slide was eliminated. D. Fill slopes were overfilled and cut back to expose the compacted inner core. TESTING A. Compaction standard used for minimum requirement was 90 percent of the ASTM Test Method D1557-70. B. Field density tests were performed in accordance with the sand cone method, ASTM D1556-64. Results of these tests are attached as a part of this report. 2 C. Expansion tests were performed on typical soils in accordance with the UBC Standard No. 29-2 to determine their expansion index. D. Laboratory test results are summarized below: Maximum Optimum Expansion Classification Density Moisture Index Brown Clayey SILT 98.7 25.2 58 Light Brown Fine 108.3 20.2 Sandy SILT w/Clay COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Bedrock structure mapped during grading conforms to the geologic conditions described in the Preliminary Geologic Report. B. Adverse geologic conditions were corrected by the placement of shear keys and stabilization fills as previously mentioned. C. The soil is classified as moderately expansive. D. Footing Type: Continuous footings reinforced with one Number 4 bar near the top and one Number 4 bar near the bottom of the footing. E. Floor: Concrete slab on grade with a minimum thickness of 4 inches and reinforced with 6x6 - 10/10 welded wire mesh, or equivalent, placed at the center of the slab. F. Subsoil below slabs should have a moisture content of 120 percent of optimum and a moisture barrier membrane covered with two inches of clean sand should be placed below the slab. G. The allowable bearing capacity of the footings should not exceed 2000 pounds per square foot, with a minimum depth of 1S inches and a minimum width of 12 inches. This value includes dead and live loads and may be increased 1/3 for seismic loads of short duration. The opportunity to be of service to you an this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Frank C. Stillman R.C.E. 16810 FCS/WGU;lms William G. Uhl CEG 502 Enclosures: Final Geologic Map a Grading Plan Summary of Test Results County Certification Sheet SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS REFER TO PLATE A FOR TEST LOCATIONS) Moisture Dry Maximum Relative Test Content Density 'Density Compaction No. Date Elevation M (_ pcf)- (pcf) (%) 1 10-31 68 28.7 104.9 98.7 100+ 2 10-31 70 26.6 103.6 98.7 100+ 3 10-32 72 32.1 93.6 98.7 95 4 11-1 74 .26.2 97.2 98.7 98 5 11-1 73 28.2 90.4 98.7 92 6 11-1 75 23.6 91.0 96:7 92 7 11-1 77 24.4 103.5 .98.7 IUU+ 8 11-1 76 27.1 97.1 98.7 98 9 11-2 78 26.6 93.7 98.7 95 10 11-2 80 28.8 94.4 98.7 96 11 11-2 79 22.2 102.4 108.3 95 12 11-2 82 23.2 100.9 108.3 93 13 11-3 81 28.7 93.8 98.7 95 14 11-3 84 20.9 102.2 108.3 94 15 11-3 84 28.2 91.6 98.7 93 16 11-3 86 27.7 92.5 98.7 94 17 11-5 87 22.1 102.9 108.3 95 18. 11-5 88 23.3 96.7 98.7 98 19 11-5 89 26.0 93.4 98.7 95 20 11-6 91 22.0 103.1 108.3 95 21 11-6 93 20.0 102.8 108.3 95 Denotes test result below minimum requirement. Area was reworked and retested. RR Denotes test taken by drive Cylinder method (ASTM D 2937-71). All other tests taken by sand cone method (ASTM D1556-64). TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC., • PLATE SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS REFER TO PI:•.TE A FOR TEST LOCATIONS) . Moisture Dry Maximum Relative Test, Content Density Density Compaction No. Date Elevation M (pcf) (pcf) (e) 22 11-7 95 29.4 95.7 98.7 97 23 11-7 97 23.3 92.1 98.7 93 24 11-8 98 26.9 93.4 98.7 86?, 24 A 11-9 98 22.2 96.9 98.7 90 25 11-9 100 21.8 97.6 98.7 90 26 11-13 98 13.8 112.8 118.5*** 95 27 11-14 100 21.2 97.1 108.3 90 28 11-14 102 24.4 102.4 108.3 95 29 11-15 104 23.3 98.9 108.3 91 30 11-15 105 22.6 98.2 108.3 91 31 11-15 107 22.0 104.4 108.3 96 32 11-16 109 21.1 101.0 108.3 93 33. 11-17 111 23.2 93.0 108.3 86 * 33 A 11-19 ill 20.2 95.5 108.3 88 * 33 B 11-20 ill 22.9 98.6 108.3 91 34 11-21 114 22.5 97.8 108.3 90 35 11-27 117 25.9 97.6 108.3 90 36 11-29 98,:5 % 28.8 88.1 98.7 90 37 12-6 FG 21.1 103.7 108.3 96 38 12-6 FG 22.2 102.6 108.3 95 Denotes Estimation Denotes test result below minimum requirement. Area was reworked and retested. Denotes test taken by drive Cylinder method (ASTM D 2937-71). All other tests taken by sand cone method (ASTM D1556-64). M= rTRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC. PLATE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER -FACILITIES BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION SUPERVISED GRADING INSPECTION VERIFICATION Lot 29, Tract 30289 lob dart. of TLact NO. Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, CA Paaelt No. riLL NE INipWTrm& 1 rarity that, where regulred, 99mNtd was PrePArd to racslve till ad A11 required benching sa cut La. ' o..®L sr //i / .( NoLCiLLt-[ Nog. . 7" Z Dot* 10-151-9Z W ( Wgoature) CUT SWpt IS%JWTxQw. Maed upon current state of aw Oct mslysla, 1 wrlty the statAilty of All cut slopes Be conatrw Er .or Data 4ulLgletReg. MB. 131ysecute) FILL INSYSMON`,Cr11111a h. v. hosn P/Ac an tad In "cardamom, with the appfrovoa plwo AM /spoCificAtims/. nVlneer 5 w.•-i Peg. go. (/ i i Ant. lsi te) DXAIhAx DEVICE MpECtION, i verity that All pipes, tote Am releforclag steel woro Placed ad located La Aocordence with the approved Plats aM spacltloAtloss. Engineer Nag. b. Data ISLgnatusa) NWGN GRADI M: VLRIPICATION BY BOILS ENGINEER, I verity that the earth. title, Wttrsaees. etAb111Yt1m s1e""res, till slope swr tAGeA ad eubdra Lpa Vlaoaa or constructed on the tattoo" lots Dare Installed sender try nape rvl sim Ln caaplaANna with rquLrousntt of W414A," Code "Ott" 7010 AAd La ACnOAdea" with tAe Appaolad OtOdln9 Plwe• Lots we. SoLls Engineer AAYIAa Bag. see. Lliu Data /Z -J y— s-/ ROUGN .: XAOING VEAL[CATION BY SUPERVISIIW GPN INe ENGINCPJI, I Verity that rough grading of the Iota hard helve hen bean CoeWletod uador NY SUMM"l"M is 00610rs6two with the 994dlRg Floss approved Of the Cousty on dea) Wt Nos. Engtnwr lowest" I. go. 0?f1// Date FINAL GRADING VLRIPICATION BY SUPCRVINING GRAL1ING ZWIRECR. I verify that all the work to be done under this I. srs t hea been ooap"tad In A000tmesce with the Approved plane aid %Paclticatloss. Engineer Paq. No. 4lgnaturo - Date FINAL GNADItR: VCXIYICAT1t.W BY GRADINr, CONTRLu.'I'OR: I verity that all the wort done under this por.tt At BY dLrac- Lwn was dons In sctvrdALwa with rho Ina Angola; County •uLldLng Code and tom ePprovw piano and speciel"t4ons nth the tollwtag eacspCloolsl (4e rtbo fully or write 'NONN•--ertAch addltlmal shot 1.1 nsceaaary), oncrdccac License No. a, gswcurs) ePIN:' NlPT ust' ONLY: Tract Mo. PeLwit Po. ivpurt Jienw.Rl by: hrlw 1Lfne ippmowd: A - 4 L Nwtpwrw u ..,! Yusbwtro 4. r MRathwr; purr W4.6d AppL Vol by DAto auto AJLJ LUL4 TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC Foundation Engineering • Engineering Geology Material Testing • Construction Inspection 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964.2313 FAX (818) 610-0915 February 20, 1990 Job #84-239 Mr. Joseph Palazzolo 403 S. Shellman Avenue San Dimas, CA 91773 Subject: Proposed Tennis Court Lot 29; Tract 30289 3101 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California References: 1) Preliminary Soils and Geologic Investigation By Triad Foundation Engineering, Inc. Dated August 29, 1984 2) Final Geologic Inspection & Report of Compaction By Triad Foundation Engineering, Inc. Dated December 14, 1984 Dear Mr. Palazzolo: Current Grading Plans by John B. Abell, Inc. dated December 14, 1989 indicate that a tennis court area is proposed along the northwest edge of the property. The proposed grading is shown on the attached Geologic Map. Also shown on this map is the extent and depth of certified compacted fill, along with geologic data taken before the fill was placed. Cross Sections A and B show 1 A 11 u the relationship of the proposed grading to the existing conditions. To properly found the new fill slope a 35 foot wide shear key is recommended to be constructed at the toe of north and northwest facing portions of the proposed fill. This key can be tapered to 18 feet wide along the west edge. The shear key should extend to 5 feet below the slide plane which is expected to be about 10 feet below existing grade. At this depth, passive pressures will be sufficient to provide a higher safety factor against a failure on bedding planes below the shear key. The shear key should be constructed by removing and recompacting the bedrock as structural fill. No permament cut slopes are proposed. Temporary vertical cuts for retaining walls will be up to 6 feet high. These will be in existing certified compacted fill and should stand well over a short period of time. All fill should be placed in accordance with the grading recommendations in our report of 8-29-84 (reference #1). A final report of inspection and compaction testing will be issued when the rough grading is complete. 2 0 0 Footing excavations should be inspected by the Soils Engineer to insure that they are in the anticipated bearing material. If you have any questions, please call. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. William G. Uhl C.E.G. 502 Javed S. Chak R.G.E. 197 WGU;JSC/thf Enclosure: Geologic Map & Cross Sections Stability Calculations Distribution: Addressee (4) 4 y -N0. 502 CERTIFIED Lit ENGINEERING ct GEOLOGIST 9 G $c-j7 < FOF C R'% Ri ri'tiJ 1 _ r) d J EhiSTING FrLG (CEr7?FrEp, i 3 O Ccm45+t/Z alto $6DRcck, I 11 c 4voPS( JL45-012 rC T/G ^4 Y = // 0 Y= 110 ('G42 SC,,LB r'r= z0 STA 15U T'( CALCULATIQt i SLICE jvo. fiCEA Fes' WEt6NT r/ps t SriT&evs NCR/nRL 40VCFrvr L L 270 30 80 57 17•0 24.0 I 14-S 1 2 76-8 9 98 75.3 14--S 5-2 3 j E8 { 9.7 l 5+ 94 8.( 5-2 6.5 33.3 26. 2 F- s. — 75.3i-/7L +(ZS•l)-47f- z6.z l-S3 TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. JTF Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering Job no:8 - 2 3 41 Date: Scale: By: JSC TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC . Foundation Engineering • Engineering GeologyNIFMaterialTesting • Construction Inspection 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964-2313 FAX (818) 810.0915 September 10, 1990 Job #84-239 Mr. Joseph Palazzolo 3101 Steeplechase Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Subject: Rough Grading Report of Compaction Proposed Tennis Court Lot 29; Tract 30289 3101 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California Dear Mr. Palazzolo: INTRODUCTION Pursuant to your request, representatives of this firm have inspected and tested the fill placed during grading operations on the subject site. This report presents the results of these tests and inspections performed from July 19 through August 24, 1990. A plan of the site showing test locations and other pertinent data is attached as Plate A. only periodic inspections were requested and provided during the grading operation. Reference Data Used Letter for Proposed By Triad Foundation Dated February 20, Tennis Court Engineering, Inc. 1990 Final Geologic Inspection & Report of Compaction By Triad Foundation Engineering, Inc. Dated December 14, 1984 Preliminary Soils & Geologic Investigation By Triad Foundation Engineering, Inc. Dated September 29, 1984 e 1 • • SITE PREPARATION Prior to the placement of any fill, the site was prepared for grading in the following manner: A. Surface debris was stripped and hauled off -site. B. No trees were existing on the site. C. No surface structures were present on the site upon our arrival. D. No subsurface structures were encountered during grading. E. Low density surface soil was removed to a depth of 18 feet and recompacted to minimum requirements. F. Benching into bedrock was provided where the slope to receive fill exceeded an angle of 5:1. G. Native soil was perpared to receive fill by scarifying the exposed surface to a depth of 6 inches and precompacting to minimum requirements. GRADING A. Fill was placed in 6 inch loose lifts, watered and compacted to the minimum requirements. B. The method used for adding moisture and compacting was a water hose and rolling with a track loader. C. Imported soil was used as fill to raise the pad to the desired grade elevation. D. Fill slopes were track rolled. TESTING A. Compaction standard used for 'minimum requirements was 90 percent of the ASTM Test Method D1557-78. B. Field density tests were performed in accordance with the sand cone method, ASTM D1556-82, the drive tube method, ASTM D2937-83, and the nuclear gauge method, ASTM D2922-81. Results of these tests are as follows (see page 3): PA r SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Depth Moisture Dry Lab Relative Test Below Content Density Max Compaction No. Date F.G. M (pcf) Density (%) 1 7-19 62.0 19.1 98.7 108.3 91 N 2 7-19 64.0 19.2 106.1 108.3 98 S 3 7-19 66.0 19.7 97.1 108.3 90 N 4 7-19 68.0 20.9 97.7 108.3 90 N 5 7-19 70.0 18.2 102.9 108.3 95 S 6 7-19 72.0 17.3 104.2 108.3 96 N 7 7-20 74.0 17.0 101.5 108.3 94 N 8 7-20 76.0 15.9 97.7 108.3 90 N 9 7-20 78.0 17.3 104.5 108.3 97 N 10 7-20 79.5 20.1 98.6 108.3 91 N 11 7-20 81.5 19.3 100.5 108.3 93 N 12 7-21 83.0 16.9 103.2 108.3 95 N 13 7-23 84.0 19.7 97.2 108.3 90 N 14 7-23 86.0 19.0 97.4 108.3 90 N 15 7-23 87.0 20.0 103.5 108.3 96 S 16 7-23 87.0 18.7 103.8 108.3 96 N 17 7-22 88.0 14.2 105.2 115.2 91 S 18 7-24 90.0 13.5 103.8 115.2 90 D 19 7-24 90.0 13.1 104.5 115.2 91 D D: Drive Tube Method. - N: Nuclear Gauge Method. S: Sand Cone Method. C. Expansion tests were performed on typical soils in accordance with the UBC Standard No. 29-2 to determine their expansion index. D. Laboratory test results are summarized below: Fine Sandy SILT with Clay Silty CLAY with a trace of Sand & Gravel Maximum Optimum 108.3 20.2 -- 115.2 13.0 56 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. The soil is classified as moderately expansive. B. Footing Type: Continuous or spread. Continuous footings should be reinforced with one Number 4 bar near the top and one Number 4 bar near the bottom of the footing. 4 3 C. Floor: Concrete slab on grade with a minimum thickness of 4 inches and reinforced with 6x6 - W 1.4 x W 1.4 (6x6 - 10/10) welded wire mesh, or equivalent, placed at the center of the slab. For moisture sensitive floors, a 6 mil moisture barrier membrane covered with 2 inches of clean sand should be placed below the slab. D. Subsoil below slabs should have moisture contents above optimum established 24 hours prior to pouring the slabs. E. The allowable bearing capacity of the footings should not exceed 2000 pounds per square foot, with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches. This value includes dead and live loads and may be increased 1/3 for seismic loads of short duration. F. Compacted fills reported herein have been properly placed and compacted for structural fill and should provide good support for the intended use. The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Frank C. Stillman, G.E. 805 . 4 GECOOS6Pfr3M3k' 4: FCS/thf %- _ n\ Enclosures: Plot Plan RlF. 41 City of Diamond Bar Form Distribution: Addressee (4) 4 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 100 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 714-860-CITY 714-860-2489 SUPERVISED GRADING INSPECTION CERTIFICATE Lot 29; Tract 30289 JOB ADDRESS/TRACT NO. 3101 Steeplechase Lane PERMIT NO. OWNER CONTRACTOR SOILS ENGINEER'S ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION I certify that the earth fills placed on the following lots were installed upon competent and properly prepared base material and compacted in compliance with requirements of Building Code Section 7010. I further certify that where the report or reports of an engineering geologist, relative to this site, have recommended the installation of buttress fills or other similar stabilization measures, such earthwork construction has been completed in accordance with the approved design. LOT NOS See report dated for compaction test data, recommended allowable soil bearing values and other recommendations. EXPANSIVE SOILS (93 (NO) LOT NOS. BUTTRESS FILLS (YES) LIP LOT NOS. REMARKS Enginee. L` Reg.No fire Date SUPERVISING GRADING ENGINEER'S ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION I certify to the satisfactory completion of rough grading including: grading to approximate final elevations, property lines located and staked; cut and fill slopes correctly graded and located in accordance with the approved design; swales and terraces graded ready for paving, berms installed; and required drainage slopes provided on the building pads. I further certify that where report or reports of an engineering geologist and/or soils engineer have been prepared relative to this site, the recommendations contained in such reports have been followed in the presecution of_tha work. LOT NOS ifiAR_jV4:1: Engineer Reg. No. Date SUPERVISING GRADING ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION I certify to the satisfactory completion of grading in accordance with the approved plans. All required drainage devices have been installed; slope planting established.and irriga- tion systems provided (where required); and adequate provisions have been made for drainage of surface waters from each building site. The recommendations of the soils engineer and/ or engineering geologist (if such persons were employed) have been incorporated in the work LOT NOS. Engineer Reg. No. Date CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 190 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177 909) 396-5671 SUPERVISED GRADING INSPECTION CERTIFICATE 22 IJOB ADDRESS/LOT AND TRACT NO.2740 Shadow Canyon Dr- Lnt8 Tract3028APERMIT NO. OWNER Grace Chu CONTRACTOR Francesca Chen I crify that the earth fills placed on the following lot(s) were installed upon competent and properly prepared base material and compacted in compliance with requirements of Building Code Section 7010. I further certify that where the report or reports of engineering geologist, relative to this site, have recommended the installation of buttresses, fills or other similar stabilization measures, such earthwork construction has been completed in accordance with the approved design. LOT-NO.(S) 8FESSIpy Sedreport dated April 14, 1994 for compa tiion.tt st aata,Gr'yco" ded allowable soil bearing values and other iecommendations. EXPANSIVE SOILS (YES) (NO) LOT N( BUTTRESS FILLS (YES) (NO) LOT NO. Signature (and vet-st#p) T9\ c ! V 1 L SUPERVISING GRADING ENGINEER'S ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION 1 certify to the satisfactory completion of rough grading including: grading to approximate final elevations, property lines located and staked; cut and fill slopes correctly graded and located in accordance with the approved design; swales and terraces graded ready for paving, berms installed; and required drainage slopes provided on the b ' ads. I further certify that where report or reports of an engineering geologist andlor soils engineer have been rE69 o this site, the recommendations contained in soils reports have been followed in the execution of the O \ C C q L LOT NO. ENGINEER a= to t i. AU REdl NU. No. 3bU`io I w DATE 4 - i 4 - i 11, Signature (and wet -stamp) SUPERVISING GRADING ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CER S I certify to the satisfactory completion of grading in accordance with the A&e&. I required drainage devices have been installed; slope planting established and. irrigation systems provided (whey red); and adequate provisions have been made for drainage of surface waters from each building site. The recomnn a soils engineer and engineering geologist (if such persons were employed) have been incorporated in the P N4 LOT NO.(S) S yk. \G C. 9 rnc lice Ail . REG. 1 - I TE_`L Signature and wet -stamp) A / / GRADING CER 77FICA 77ON BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND GRADINGW. 9 \P IRED FOR ROUGH GRADE INSPEC77ON AND RELEASE TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR SYRUCTO FINAL GRADING CER77FICA77ON BY THE GRADING ENGINEER IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL GRADE INSPEC77ON AND RELEASE TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR OCCUPANCY OF STRUCTURE. 9 • Bab Dickey Ge®tec@- nica6 RECEIVB® FEB7 A990 Mr. David Chen 1309 South Stardust Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Subject Dear Sir: Incorporated November 15, 1989 Geologic Review of Development Plan Shadow Canyon Drive Lot 8, Tract No. 30289 The Country," Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles This geologic review has been conducted at your request to provide data and recommendations for development of your proposed residence in "The Country." Work for this study has included an office review of on -file reports for this and nearby properties, a field reconnaissance of surface exposures, subsurface logging of four backhoe trenches in conjunction with Duco Engineering, map and section preparation, and report compilation. This study has been based upon the 8-scale conceptual plan and section by Lee -Yang Architects, dated 10/9/89. These plans depict a multi -level residence to be constructed on cut only through the use of retaining walls. Geologic Findings The hillside lot is considered to be feasible for residential development if remedial support can economically be obtained for downhill dipping bedrock. Work for this study has confirmed earlier work during rough grading of Tract 30289, which indicated bedrock shale dips downhill at shallow angles approximating the natural slope surface. With this orientation, any cuts into the bedded sequence must be supported. Cuts made across the bedding unsupport the uphill section, possibly creating landslide(s). The lot will require additional downhill shear keys as a minimum remedial measure plus strengthened retaining walls and possibly stabilization keys above retaining walls. If the grading scheme is decreased to a "no grading" use of the natural slope, a downhill shear key to the northwest and north would still be recommended to support the slope surface. 32145 Via Carlos • San Juan Capistrano. CA 92675 • (714) 240-387O Chen - Shadow Canyon Drive November 15, 1989 Page Two 1) Bedrock encountered in the four trenches consisted of well -bedded shales, with interbedded siltstone, claystone and sandstone. This material can readily provide support at shallow depth for foundations. 2) Bedrock structure consists of a very consistent northwest inclined homocline, with downhill dips parallelling the natural surface at angles of 8 to 20 degrees. This orientation is possibly unfavorable for hillside stability if bedding planes are either undercut or overloaded. The downhill descending beds can be expected to slide along clay interbeds where support is removed or where uphill loading is increased. Remedial support is expected to be required for all north, northwest and west facing excavations. 3) No faults were encountered and none are known on or near the lot. With no faults on -site, ground rupture from faulting is not considered likely during project life. 4) Ground shaking should be anticipated from offsite earthquakes during project life. Nearby potentially active faults include the Whittier fault 3 miles south. The overall exposure of the lot to potential duration and severity of shaking is considered to be greater than that of an average site in the Los Angeles Basin, due to its location near the boundary of the Northeastern and Central Blocks of .the Los Angeles Basin. Building design in accordance with at least normal Zone 4 seismic loading is considered geologically appropriate. The structural engineer should consider this loading in building design. In addition, the structural engineer should consider recent research on ground shaking by the United States Geological Survey which has predicted Modified Mercalli Intensity values of between 5.5 and 7.5 from possible earthquakes. These potential structural damage values are discussed further in the Appendix. Bob Dickey Geotechnical Incorporated Chen - Shadow Canyon Drive November 15, 1989 Page Three 5) No landslides, soil slumps, mass wasteage, ground water or other geologic hazards were encountered on the site. No "Restricted Use Areas," as defined by the Los Angeles County Engineer, are designated for this lot. 6) Surficial materials found on the site include a weathered bedrock mantle of 1 to 2 foot thickness atop the bedrock, a soil cover of 2 to 2-1/2 feet as penetrated in the trenches, and buttress fills placed during previous tract grading. The weathered .bedrock and soil were loose and compressible and are subject to settlement and possible creep if subjected to loading. Future foundations and engineered fill embankments should be established below the soil and weathered bedrock in firm bedrock. The fill materials were compacted, as reported previously by Robert Stone & Associates. 7) All shear keys and bedrock excavations should be geologically checked during grading to establish the consistency of geologic data used for remedial design. No fill reinforcement or foundations should be placed before such inspections, because new data may lead to design changes. 8) A compacted shear key across the north and northwest downhill slope should be established to support bedding planes beneath the surface. The keyway design should be based upon a downhill dip of 15 degrees below the horizontal. 9) Retaining wars supporting bedrock for excavations facing north, northwest and west may be designed to support well developed bedding planes inclined at 15 degrees below the horizontal. The walls may require stabilization fills to deepen potential failure plane paths and prevent cross -bedding failure beneath wall foundations. 10) Grading and foundation plans, and significant changes to these plans, should be reviewed and approved by both the geotechnical engineer and geologist before implementation. 11) Lg dscaoi.ng, Irrigation and slope maintenance should be in accordance with good hillside practice. Lightweight deeply -rooted plants should be favored, and heavy ice plants are not recommended. Irrigation should be minimal to maintain moisture levels. Over -watering should be religiously avoided; automatic sprinklers should be disconnected during seasonal wet periods. Application of too much water will increase slope maintenance costs by causing surficial slumping. Run-off flows should not be allowed to concentrate on slopes or near foundations since erosion is likely to be a result of such concentration. Severe wetting and drying of near surface materials should be avoided to minimize volume changes in potentially expansive soils. Bob Dickey Geotechnical Ircorpo^aced Chen - Shadow Canyon Drive November 15, 1989 Page Four 12) If the property is graded in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical consultants and maintained in accordance with good hillside practice, the property is considered to be safe from landslides and settlement, and adjacent properties will not be adversely affected by this development. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service on this interesting project. This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the field of engineering geology. Conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions based upon our experience and known site conditions, with the assumption that subsurface conditions are consistent with geologic data in a straightforward manner. No further warranty is offered or implied. Please call (714) 240-3870 if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL, INCORPORATED R. H. DICKEY, RG 3015,/EG 914, RCE Attachments: References Appendix - Geology Geologic Sketch Map and Section "B" Distribution: Draft to Addressee with invoice Bob Dickey Geotechnical Incorporated Chen - Shadow Canyon Drive November 15, 1989 Page Five References 1985 'Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Basin -- an Earth Science Perspective," I. J. Ziony, Editor, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360 1988 "Probabilities of Large Earthquakes Occurring in California on the San Andreas Fault," by The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, United States Geological Survey Open -File Report 88-398 Bob Dickey Geotechnical Incorporated Chen - Shadow Canyon Drive November 15, 1989 Page Six Appendix - Geology Site Conditions The lot lies in the Western Chino Hills, on a west descending ridgeline in "The Country." Previous site grading has included compaction of buttresses along Shadow Canyon Road and access drive construction. Overall natural slope angles average 3:1 to the north and 4:1 to the northwest. Graded slopes descend at 2:1 to Shadow Canyon Drive. Geologic Setting The property is part of a westerly inclined homocline near the southerly boundary of the Northeastern Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The surrounding hillsides. form a dipslope configuration, supported locally by buttresses along the Shadow Canyon uphill roadcuts. Bedding planes encountered in the trenches were found to dip consistently northwest at 8 to 20 degrees downhill. No faults or other geologic hazards were encountered. Nearby potentially active faults include the Whittier fault, 3 miles south. Although no active faults are present and ground rupture from faulting is considered unlikely, ground shaking from offsite earthquakes should be considered likely during project life. Recent research published by the United States Geological Survey has modeled the site reactions of this portion of Southern California to two scenarios of local earthquake activity, including a repeat of the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, and a medley of 87 postulated fault ruptures from 87 separate faults. The ground shaking reaction of the property to these events was predicted as between 5.5 and 6, and between 7.0 and 7.5 on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale for the Fort Tejon and 87 earthquakes, respectively (UM Professional Paper 1360.) Separate recent research on the San Andreas Fault has shown an average 145 year period of time between major earthquakes. Therefore, a major 7.5+ earthquake similar to the Fort Tejon event is considered to have a 60 percent probability of occurrence within the next three decades (USGS Open -File Report 88-398.) Bob Dickey Geotechnical Incorporated 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC Foundation Engineering • Engineering Geology Material Testing • Construction Inspection 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964.2313 PRELIMINARY SOILS & GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES LOTS 30 & 31; TRACT 30289 STEEPLECHASE LANE DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER 88-136 MARCH 11, 1988 REQUESTED BY: Mr. Skip Burton 6862 Manchester Boulevard Buena Park, CA 91620 I I I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 i 1 TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC Foundation Engineering • Engineering Geology Material Testing • Construction Inspection 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964-2313 March 11, 1988 Job ;#88-136 Mr. Skip Burton 6862 Manchester Boulevard Buena Park, CA 91620 Subject: Preliminary Soils and Geologic Investigation Proposed Single Family Residences Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California Dear Mr. Burton: This report presents the findings and conclusions of a soils and geologic investigation performed at the subject site. The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information on subsurface soils and geologic formations for evaluation on which to base recommendations for the development of the property. Our recommendations given in this report are intended for use in grading and preparation of construction plans for the foundation of the proposed project. The subject lots have been extensively investigated in the past and all subsurface information relied upon for our analysis came from the following reports: 1) Geologic Report by F. Beach Leighton Dated September 9, 1971 2) Compacted'Fill Report by Donald R. Warren Co. Dated October 13, 1966 3) Preliminary Soils & Geologic Investigation By Triad Foundation Engineering, Inc. Dated February 26, 1979 I 1 INTRODUCTION Proposed Development: It is understood that the sites will be developed for one or two story single family residences with wood frame and stucco type construction. The proposed structures are expected to be constructed,on shallow foundations and to have light loads. Grading plans enclosed (Geologic Maps) indicate that the proposed grading will require cut slopes at 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical up to 23 feet maximum in height, and fill slopes at 1.5:1 up to 25 feet maximum in height. Site Description: The property investigated is located off the west side of Steeplechase Lane in the County area of Diamond Bar (Thomas Guide p.97, E-5). Lot 31 remains in essentially the same condition as existed in our previous report, reference #3. Small to medium size trees are scattered across the lot and a heavy seasonal grass and weed cover exists. No recent grading has been done on the site. Lot 30 has considerable fill stockpiled on the lot. These soils are intended to be used in the grading of the two lots. 1 The fill contains considerable debris which will have to be removed and exported from the site during grading. Subsurface Conditions: Fill soils on the site are fine sandy silts with clay. Below the loose surface soils they are in a dense condition and capable of supporting proposed fills and 1 foundations. They were certified for structural support by the Donald R. Warren Company. 1 2 I ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC REPORT 2_ pS-LShadow Canyon Drive IRE C E I V E D Lot 3, Tract 30289 Diamond Bar, California AUG 26 1992 LUGHTON & ASSQCIATM August 3, 1992 PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to evaluate the engineering geologic characteristics of the subject property with respect to development of a single-family residence, and swimming pool. SCOPE: Included within the investigation was subsurface trenching of the property performed on July 24, 1992, geologic mapping of the trenches and review of pertinent reports, both of this lot and of adjacent. lots within this tract. EXISTING STRUCTURES: No manmade structures are built on the existing property. See the attached Location Map for the approximate location of the property. PROPOSED STRUCTURES: The grading plans, prepared by John B. Abell, Inc and dated 4-29-92, include construction of a new single-family residence, and swimming pool. This construction will include cut slopes facing both northward and southward, and various fill slopes within the property. See the attached Geologic Map and Cross Sections (In the Pocket). SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION: Five shallow 24-inch wide backhoe pits were excavated at various places around the property. The trenches were dug to a maximum depth of ten feet from the ground surface. The information from these pits, including general lithology and stratigraphy of each, was recorded and are included as a table in this report. The approximate attitudes for each test pit, where available, are shown on the Geologic Map. The test pit locations are shown on the attached Geologic Map as 1 through 5. The residence location has been superposed on the topographic map and grading plan. The following table provides the depths and descriptions of each of the Test Pits: T.P. NO. DEPTH, ft. DESCRIPTION 1 0-10 Fill 2 0-2 Topsoil - Dark Brown, silty clay. 2-5 Bedrock - Tan to Buff, interbedded H. GENE HAWKINS • 855 West loth Street • Claremont, CA 91711 -J744)-626-7_184- g 8 FIGURE L LOCATION MAP On •O,e ••• nr 154 1• fa • !i !J •]2 , L a0 2Y : w n: q\ln\ v ». .. 1 `— T iD• M B ' '0 ie 'e•pnv • ! , u 44r1 N •b:., ,•Ile t, a`•', 9 Jl Jc t0 ite A s : zz •• i;,•; '3 .. '° , 3. za * il] a ` q 39 w W LOT 3, TRACT 30289 DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA H. GENE HAWKINS • 855 West 10th Street • Claremont, CA 91711 • (714) 626-7181 I siltstones and sandstones. Beds to to 411 thick. Att=NO°E, 15"W. 3 0-2 Topsoil - Dark Brown, Silty Clay. 2-6 Bedrock - Interbedded clayey Siltstones and Sandstones. Slts thinly bedded. Att=N45"E, 9-11"W. 4 0-2 Topsoil - Dark Brown, Silty Clay. 2-5 Weathered Bedrock - Weathered inplace, interbedded siltstones and sandstone. 5 5-6 1/2 Bedrock - Interbedded Clayey Siltstones and Sandstone. Slts punky, Yellow material. Att=N30"W, 8"E . 6 0-2 1/2 Topsoil - Dark Brown, Silty Clay. 2 1/2-6 Weathered Bedrock - Yellow Brown, interbedded siltstones and sandstones. Att=75°W, 9"E. GEOLOGIC SETTING: The property lies in the Puente Hills east of Diamond Bar Blvd, within the community referred to as 'The Country'. The property lies along the west flank of a north - south trending ridge. 'The material underlying the property t consists of a wedge of controlled fill placed along Shadow Canyon Drive, a small amount of alluvial material, and a rather thin layer of topsoil overlying a sequence of interbedded siltstones and sandstones. 1 FILL The fill is a controlled fill, up to about ten feet thick under the lot. Test pit #1 was dug within the fill. It is my understanding that the fill was placed in about 1969 during the original development of the tract by consultants Warren and Slosson. SOIL The soils are on the order of two feet thick. They are composed of dark brown to brown sandy silts to silty clays. Typically, they grade into the underlying bedrock material. The soils appear to be rather expansive, dry, and somewhat powdery at the surface. At depth, they are more moist and denser. BEDROCK The underlying bedrock, a member of the Miocene -age Puente Formation, consists of interbedded clayey siltstones, diatomaceous siltstones and medium -grained sandstones. The individual beds within each unit varies in thickness from 1/8 inch to 1/2 inch for the siltstones and from a fraction of an inch to several inches for the sandstones. The color varies from yellow brown to dark grey. Bedding planes in the siltstones, though somewhat undulatory, are distinct and well-defined. In general, the attitudes dip toward the northwest and northeast at angles varying between 8 and 17 degrees. H. GENE HAW KINS • 855 West 10th Street • Claremont, CA 91711 • (714) 626.7181 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE: The attitudes suggest a rather low -angle synclinal and anticlinal fold pair plunging toward the north to t northwest. Small folds were noted in the excavations; however, they were very local and did not appear to be influencing the overall structure. No other geologic features were noted either on the surface or at depth in the excavations. Attitudes reviewed from previous mapping in the area by James Slosson and Robert Stone and Associates, in 1969, support the present information. The Geologic Cross -Section B-B' (In the Pocket) shows the very modest synclinal fold axis dipping toward the north. It also suggests that any west -facing cuts could have a small daylighted component out of slope. GROUND WATER: No evidence of ground water was noted on the property. There are no indications of springs or intermittent flow within the property. SEISMIC ACTIVITY: A review of historical faulting within this region indicates that there are no known active faults within several miles of the site. The nearest potential source of strong ground motion would be the Whittier fault to the south or the Chino Hills to the east. Ground motion from earthquakes on these faults would probably be similar to that experienced during the recent 1987 Whittier Earthquake. LIQUEFACTION; Because of the nature of the underlying material on this site, the lack of ground water near the surface and the rather modest levels of shaking expected, liquefaction potential is not considered significant at this site. FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION: The site is situated on the west flank of a north trending ridge in an area known as 'The Country'. It is underlain by, interbedded siltstones and sandstones of the Puente Formation. Well-defined bedding indicates that the overall structure is a pair of subparallel, northerly plunging syncline, and anticline with attitudes varying between 8 and 17 degrees. The soils appear to be sandy silts to clayey silts, and are potentially expansive. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Based on this investigation, the proposed development appears feasible from an engineering geologic perspective. The effects of the proposed construction should not adversely affect adjacent properties or future geologic processes if good engineering and construction practices are followed during the subsequent phases of this project. 2) The proposed addition of a fill for the construction of a single-family residence and swimming pool should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. However, the effects of these modifications should not adversely affect future geologic processes if good engineering and construction practices are followed during the subsequent phases of this project. H. GENE HAWKINS-855 West 101h Street • Claremont, CA 91711 • (714) 626.7181 3) The bedding, which dips toward the north to northwest, could cause a daylighted situation for west -facing cut slopes. Therefore, any slopes which are cut facing west should be reviewed by the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer prior to construction. t 4) Any foundations should extend through the topsoil and any creep -affected zone, into competent, inplace bedrock. 1 5) Any fills should be placed on competent, inplace bedrock. This would require the removal and recompaction of any topsoil or creep -affected materials. 6) The Engineering Geologist should inspect all excavations during construction and submit a final grading report to the reviewing agency following completion of the grading. Respectfull submit ER GF 0Sc H.G. HAWftIN$ H. Gene Hawkins No 952 CEG #952 CERIMID ENGINEERING GEOLOG'S1 r -30 T9Tf OF CAS\ i 1 I 1 1 1 1 H. GENE HAYVKINS •655 West 101h Street • Claremont, CA 91711 - (714) 626.7181 GEO TIONS UCO ENGINEERING, INC. SOIFILL CON ROL-I SOIL T SFGI 1UTING 711ViIX CIII1111111 I11). - WALNUT. CA 717HU 18181 964•3449 17191 594.7414 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 8, TRACT NO. 30289 SHADOW CANYON DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA FOR: Mr. David Chen c/o Lee & Yang Arch. 3711 Long Beach Blvd. Ste. 423 Long Beach, California 90807 January 4, 1990 Job No.: 9-336 Page Oua January 4, 1990 Job No.: 9-336 Introduction This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for a proposed single family residence to be constructed on Lot 8, Tract No. 30289, on Shadow Canyon Drive, in the City of Diamond liar, County of Los Angeles, California. The object of this investigation was to gather information and test data regarding the existing surface and subsurface soils conditions on the site upon which to base our recommenda Lions, for the safe and economical site preparation, grading and construction of the proposed structure. The results of our field and laboratory investigations, which form the basis of our recommendations, are included as a part of this report. ' The geologic conditions pertaining to the development of this site are contained in the Geologic Review of Development Plan, dated November 15, 1989, prepared by Bob Dickey Geotechnical Inc. and submitted under separate cover. Site Conditions The subject property is composed of an irregular shaped parcel of land situated on the side of a north to northwest facing slope above Shadow Canyon Drive. Existing surface gradients on the site range between 4:1 and lzcl locally. maximum overall topographic relief from the highest to the lowest point is approximately 100.0 feet. The natural surface soils encountered in the test holes consisted of 2.0 to 2.5 feet of sandy clay topsoil overlying 1.0 to 1.5 feet of weathered bedrock which in turn is underlain by interbedded shale, claystone, siltstone and sandstone bedrock with a consistent northwest dip of 8° to 20' and which generally parallels the existing slope face. The westerly or front portion of the property and the northeast portion consists of previously certified compacted fill, placed to fill natural drainage courses and to stabilize adversely oriented bedding planes exposed in the road cut along Shadow Canyon Drive. A partially paved driveway excavation accesses the site across the face of this slope. Page Two January 4, 1990 Job No.: 9-336 At the time of our field investigation, the site had been recently disced for weed control leaving patches of dry weeds in the inaccessible areas and numerous trees. The proposed construction consists of a split level, two (2) and three (3) story structure to be built on a combination cut/fill pad with associated areas for a swimming pool and tennis court. A Grading Plan, showing the proposed grading for the tennis court area, was not available for review at this writing. Retaining walls are proposed to be used to support the cuts required by the differences in elevations between portions of the residence, yard and below the rear yard cut slope. No ground water or significant caving were encountered in any of the test holes to the depths excavated. The geologic conditions exposed on the site and in the test holes were recorded by the project geologist and are presented in the Geologic Review of Development Plan, prepared by Bob Dickey Geotechnical, Inc. and submitted under a separate cover. Field Investigation The subsurface soil conditions were explored by excavating four (4) engineering test holes to depths of 4.0 to 6.5 feet using a backhoe with a 24.0 inch wide bucket. The geologic conditions exposed in the test holes were inspected and recorded by the project geologist, Bob Dickey. The approximate locations of the test holes are shown on the Grading Plan of the site prepared by Lee & Yang Architects on a scale of 1.0 inch equals 50.0 feet , attached herewith as Figure No. 1. Relatively undisturbed samples and disturbed, bulk samples of the typical subsurface soil types encountered in the test holes were obtained to be subjected to laboratory testing and analysis. A continuous log of each test hole was kept in the field at the time of excavation. These test hole logs, reflecting the condition and classification of each soil strata encountered, based on the Unified System of Soil Classification, as devised by A. Casagrande, are attached to this report as Figure Nos. 2 through 5. Page Three January 4, 1990 Job No.: 9-336 Laboratory Investigation In -situ moisture and density tests were performed on the undisturbed samples and the results of these tests are shown on the appropriate test hole logs at the depths sampled. Also shown are the results of calculations made to determine the relative compaction of the samples compared to the maximum density determined in accordance with ASTM test method D1557-78T. The expansion potential of the onsite soils was determined in accordance with the U.B.C. test standard 29-2. The results of the laboratory tests performed on the typical bulk soil samples are summarized as follows: Soil Tvue Max. Den. Opt. hoist. Gxpan. Index A -Shale 90.4 PCF 22.7% 110 B-Sandy clay (topsoil) 105.1 PCF 15.2% 175' C-Sandy silty clay (fill) 107.8 PCF 16.4% 138 Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of the undisturbed soils. The samples were tested in a state of saturation in order to duplicate extreme field moisture conditions. The results of these tests are as follows: Hole No. Depth,ft. Shear Angle Cohesion, P.S.F. 1 6.5 260 1400 2 1.5 200 800 3 Remolded 90% 280 560 Conclusions and Recommendations Development of the site, .as proposed, is considered to be feasible from a soils engineering standpoint and the site will be free from the hazards of landslide, settlement or slippage and will not adversely affect the stability of adjacent properties, providing the recommendations of the soils engineer, geologist and supervising grading engineer are incorporated and implemented into the design, site preparation, grading and development of the subject property and based on in -grading inspection by the consultants. Site Preparation The site presently contains a shallow to moderate dip -slope bedding condition in the bedrock underlying the proposed residential site. Geologic cross section B has been prepared to depict this condition and shown the relation of the existing geologic conditions to the proposed development Based on this condition, a compacted fill shear key will be necessary on the down slope side of the property to stabilize the building pads and a buttress fill will be necessary to stabilize the proposed cut slope behind the retaining wall. Page Fivo Junuary 4, .199O Job No.o 9-336 1, Continuous footings, embedded as recommended, into the compacted fill may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 1500 P.S.F. Lateral values may be computed at 250 P.S.F. per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2500 P.S.F. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the concrete poured in direct contact with the undisturbed soil. Retaining, Walls When properly drained and backfilled, and supporting a level surcharge, retaining walls shall be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 P.C.F. Retaining walls supporting a 2:1 sloping surcharge shall use an equivalent fluid pressure of 53 P.C.F. Expansive Soils The expansion potential of the existing onsite soils is considered to be Very High.The remedial construction measures recommended to minimize this condition are attached as Figure No. 15 under the appropriate Expansion Index category. In addition to the recommendations contained herein, those of the project geologist, as contained is the attached geologist report, dated November 15, 1989, shall be considered a part of this report. The recommended location and dimensions of the shear key shall be shown on the grading plan which in turn shall be reviewed and approved by the consultants prior to submittal to the appropriate governmental agency for plan check. The recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of our field and laboratory investigations, combined with the principles.of modern soil mechanics and sound engineering judgment. Should any unusual conditions arise during the site. preparation, grading or construction, or should drastic design changes be contemplated, this firm shall be notified immediately in order that proper modification to the recommendations, contained herein, may be made as deemed necessary. Page Five January 4, 1990 Job No.: 9-336 Continuous footings, embedded as recommended, into the compacted fill may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 1500 P.S.P. Lateral values may be computed at 250 P.S.F. per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2500 P.S.F. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the concrete poured in direct contact with the undisturbed soil. Retaining Walls When properly drained and backfilled, and retaining walls shall be designed for an P.C.F. Retaining walls supporting a 2:1 equivalent fluid pressure of 53 P.C.F. Expansive Soils supporting a level surcharge, equivalent fluid pressure of 40 sloping surcharge shall use an The expansion potential of the existing onsite soils is considered to be Very High.The remedial construction measures recommended to minimize this condition are attached as Figure No. 15 under the appropriate Expansion Index category. In addition to the recommendations contained herein, those of the project geologist, as contained in the attached geologist report, dated November 15, 1989, shall be considered a part of this report. The recommended location and dimensions of the shear keyshall be shown on the grading plan which in turn shall. be reviewed and approved by the consultants prior to submittal to the appropriate governmental agency for plan check. The recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of our field and laboratory investigations, combined with the principles of modern soil mechanics and sound engineering judgment. Should any unusual conditions arise during the site preparation, grading or construction, or should drastic design changes becontemplated, this firm shall be notified immediately in order that proper modification to the recommendations, contained herein, may be made as deemed necessary. Page c: x January 4, 1990 Job No.: 9-336 Should you have any questions with regard to this report or the recommendations contained herein, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, ENCINEERINC INC. y Uufrnne 'I Sterlin&/f. Whitey Expires CHEN'S RESIDENCE DIAMOND BAR, CA t, r., DUCO ENGINEERING I 1 ® LOCATION OF IFIGURFSCALE1 9W' 2007E CURRIER ROAD, WALNUT, CALIFORNIA DI LED TEST HOLE JOB N0. -, 8S NO. 1 Ij LJ i Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 11-13-89 LOG OF BORING NO. 1 PROJECT NO. 9-336 r OK Depths In Feet ,`` ` Gum, FIELD CLASSIFICATION 10 15 20 25 Sandy clay with shale bits -dark brown -fairly soft -dry Weathered Shale -Brown to tan brown -firm -damp 1 4 32.4 18.8 91.1 Bedrock -Thinly bedded diat. shale -tan -buff -white -dense -damp FIGURE NO. Q 0 Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 11-13-89 LOG OF BORING NO. 2 PROJECT NO. 9-336 Fee .o` `=` Goya FIELD CLASSIFICATION 0 Topsoil -Sandy clay with shale bits -dark brown -fairly soft- 1 B 32.7 0.7 78.9 Weathered Shale -Brown to tan brawn -firm -damp Bedrock -Thinly bedded diat. shale-tan-buff-white-dense- Z A 31,0damp 5 10 15 20 35 FIGURE NO. 3 Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 11-13-89 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 PROJECT NO. 9_336 6 DepthIn Feed ; : : .' EoFIELD CLASSIFICATION 10 15 20 25 1 C 6 S 7.1 80.2 Fill -Blended - shale and sandy clay -dark brown -tan -white -top 2' loose then firm -dry to damp Bedrock -Sandstone - white to rust -very dense -damp FIGURE N0. C 0 Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 11-13-89 LOG OF BORING NO. 4 PROJECT NO. 9-336 Depth W ti Feet = 4k n j FIELD CLASSIFICATION004 0- Topsoil-Sandy clay with shale bits -dark brown -fairly soft- dry 1 B 84.2 li. 80.1 Weathered Shale -Brown to tan brown -firm -damp Bedrock -Thinly bedded diat. shale -tan -buff to white-dense- 5 damp A+ 10 15 20 25 FIGURE NO. 5 ON g N, r TIN 1 0 EJ Job No. 9-336 DU CO Et`'.i.it i C "R\k.,G, INC. FIG. NO. 6 COMPACTED FILL HUTTRE"iS CALCULATION', FOR KEY ni-Arril cleoss-sr•.vrION F - UNIT COMP. FILL: _ ,IZ kcf SLOPE HEIGHT: = to ft. BASE 14IDTII: = 20 ft. WEIGHT: BEDROCK = iL kcf BUTTRESS HGT: _ _i ft. KEY DEPTH : = IS SLICE LJ ---- tea-- - F - — F = N0, dEICIIT DEGREES sin oC cos or, W sincC W cos aC L kips/foot) kips/foot) kips/foot) feet q•q',ii 2 3./G 170 121ZI 758 68.3 223.4 126 g 27,5 2 0 lc293 7771 173 4 7 VC A + mC B = SG degrees - cos = .SS9 , sin = .g2L7 Along Bedding Plane: Ci = ,%5 ksf 01 = 12 o Tan 0, FR 1 = Lc, + FN tan 0, FR= t,u,A.IS -+- Z^?.• -/. 2.124, - 18.% +97-D FR' = FP cos ( ccA + c( B) X ,SSclZ 1 Across Bedding Plane: C3= 1.4 ksf 03= -Z& o FR x = 2 x i-4 -t 2-1-4 -A 4877 _ 37.8 + 10.4 Normal Component of the Net Driving Force Acting on the Cross Bedding Plane: FR = (FTA - FR) sin ( oC v + dB) tan 03 = 3 I 66z7 4 . 0290 x , 4877 = Component of the Driving Force Along the Cross Bedding Plane: FT4' = FTA cos ( °c A + PCB) = G8,3 x .S59Z Tan 03 = , 4877 38.7 F.S. = IR Y FTB + F_RZ + FR5 = 37.1+ 17.3+ 4&+•6 = 103,4 = 2,11 Job No.: 9-3-2/1 Figure No.: — ' 7 BUTTRESS KEY DEPTH CALCULATION -- SEISMIC CASE SHEAR KEY p CROSS-SECTION u FOR: K Along Bedding Plane: FTA(s) FTA + IS FNA 8.3+ .!5 x 223, 4 101 F TA(s) r PA(s) cos or B FItA(x) Lci + FHA - IS F,t,A) tan 0 12rrX.IS 2z3,4-.iSXGB. ,zl2b = 16,9 + q5 4,Z t' i F RA(s) FRA(s) cos dA B Across Bedding Plane: FTB(s) FTB Ic FNU i FRB(s) Lc3 + FMB + IS FTB) tan ¢3 z7x1.9 2i.4+.I5x1-7.1' 4n77 = 37.8t 117 49.5 FR3(s) FTA(s) FRA(s)) sin or:A + B tan 3 F..S. (seismic) F RAW FIW S) + FR3(s) + FTB(s) FlTA(s) 15.2 I 14.1 OZ sco.9 SH Job No.: Figure No.: 8 a 0 S L o T 0 D' J CD Q Z Z o Z v W . 3 o W z on CO c o JOE3 NO, 9-336 DUCO F=P:GFNEERING, FNC. FtG, No. y COMPACTED FILL BUTTRESS CALCULATIONS FOR BASE WID'rll I C ROSS-SI!( CTION G - UNIT COMP, FILL: .IZ kcf SLOPE IIEICHT: - 'Z0 [L. BASE WIDTH: _ ZS ft. WEIGHT: BEDROCK _ . I Z- kc f BUTTItI SS IIC'f: _ ?.I f L . KEY • DEPTH _ c c , SLICE W oC° FT = FN = NO. WEIGHT DEGREES sin oC Cos°C IJ sin °C W cos °C kips/foot) kips/foot) kips/foot) feet A k \r0.2 20G 342.0 c1397 40.4 t 11. l 7G R 31.S n O 1.0 Along; Budding Plane : Ci= ,IS ks1 0,= 12o Tan 0,- ,2126 FL + F tan 0 R c Gx• 1S+ I11.I K •212> = 11.4 i- :3.& FRiFti = Fit, cos °C ` = -2, )C . 9397 Across Compacted Fill C2= .5/ ksf 02= 2n 0 P[ t s!•F/V-}•• 3l•sK.5317 = 1 t I(c,7 2 Vertical Component of the Net Driving Force Acting on the Base: FR3 = IFT.I - rR1 sin cK-A ran b2 = Horizontal Component of the Driving Force.: FTA% FTA cos oc A = 404)<- 9397 Tan 02= S317 32. 2 30. 7 35. a F. S. = F R, + FRZ + FRS f 1_ 4 = 1,70 FTA1 Job No.: 9'336 Figure No.: COMP:+C ED FILL BUTTRESS CALCULA'CION FOR BASE WIDTH (SEISmIC CASE) CROSS-SECTION FOR: K IS g Along Bedding Plane: FTA(s) FTA + IS FNA = .ISX 57.1 r TA(s) TA(s) cos eC \ = 57.1 X. ql `l7 FRA(s) Lc + FNA - IS FTA) 'Pan 0 _ x,Is + 111.E - . t5 x qo 4 .Z1z((, = 11,,l +' 32. 3 - 33 7 F RA(s) F RA(s) cos d \ x ,3 7 Across Comoaceed Fill: FTB(s) FTIl + S FNB FRB(s) Lc2 + FNB - IS F1,B) Tan 02 o._7 10,2 F'3 FTA(s) Flu s)) sin 0cA Tan 02 S7 3 F. S. (seis;aic) F• + r• + F ' RA( s) K6(s) 3 F TA(s) + F'FB(s) 2 o,-I + 4,3 _ 6 6-7 zA - 7 C • Job No. :-336 Figure No.: I COMPACTED FILL BU'rrm-.SS CALCULATIONS FOR KEY DEPTH CROSS-SECTION UNIT COMP. FILL: _ •IZ kcf SLOPE HEIGHT: • ZO ft. BASE WIDTH: - 261 ft. WEIGHT: BEDROCK _ •jZ kcf BUTTRESS HOT: 21 ft. KEY DEPTH ; - 3 ft. SLICE F: ---- oC° F F = NO. WEIGHT DEGREES sin ce- cos VC T. W since 1.1 cos d L kips/foot) kips/foot) kips/foot) feet A 0 ZO g397 7D.g I q4.5 115 g 1z,0 3q0 6293 7711. 7./0 97-3 20 x A + me B = degrees - cos . SISO sin = . ES72 Along Bedding Plane: C,= .IS ksf 0= 1Z0 Tan 0,_ •2-tUo FR = Lc, + FN tan 01 FRziu- = 1"7.1-1- 41.4 g F['cos ( cC A + VC ) = SS.G K . SIS0 R It B 0 ross Bedding Plane: C3= .! ksf 03= 26 F= OX1.4 + q,3X.4977 = 28+4t R 2 Normal Component of the Net Driving Force Acting; on the Cross Bedding Plane: FR = (FTA- FR) sin ( oC A + Oc B) Can 03 = 3 I 8572-- A.4877 Component of the Driving Force Along the Cross Bedding Plane: FTA. FTA cos ( d A + KB) = 70,e>X . SISo Tan 03= .e)977 roll Be), Z S. I F. S. = it: + FIB + 'R2 + FRa = _2S,1 2.07 Job No.: Figure No.: BUTTRESS KEY DEPTH CALCULATION -- SEISMIC CASE CROSS-SECTION_ i FOR: K 15 g Along; Bedding Plane: FTA(s) °TA + IS FNd r7o.8 i- .ISX IC')4J i TA(s) = FTA(s) Cos CC A B JO( G S150i., + FRA(s) = Lc, + (F - .IS FTA) tan 0, X70,8) .ziz6 i-7.3+ Z9.1 i. :.F RA(s) `RA(s) cos 'r-A + B i Across Beddin¢ Plane: FTB(s) - FTB - -IS FNB = 7,i7 FRB(s) = Lc 3 + iFNB + .1S F. tantan 93 4677 - 2s+ S•1 FR3(s) - (FI- FILI(s)) sin oCA + Il Can w3 goo s(.4) .857ZX.4077 F. S. (seismic) = F RA(s) + FRB(s) + FR3(s) + FTB(s) VTA( s) 51, 5 CC, 0 sco, 4 2,, O IS. z Job No.: %-336 Figure No.: /3 JOB NO.: E X P A N S I V E S O I L S R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S EXPANSION DEPTH OF REINFORC04ENT FOR BASE ROCK SATURATION CONTINUOUS INDEX FCClPING 4" NOMINAL SLABS OR CLEAN BELOW SLAB FOOTINGS FOR ALL BELOW AND FOUNDATIONS SAND UNDER SUBGRADE INTERIOR AND UBC 29-2 FINISHED SLAB AREAS EXTERIOR BEARING GRADE WALLS 0-20 12.0" None Required None None Not Required Very Low One 04 bar top and 21-50 12.0" bottom in footings 4.0" 12.0" Not Required Low 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh in slab Two f4 bars top and 51-90 18.0" bottom in footings 2 each) 4.0" 18.0" Required loderate 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh in slab Two 85 bars top and 91-130 Moll bottom in footings 6.0" 18.0" Required 2 each) High 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh in slab Two 95 bars top and Above bottom in footings 130 24.0" 2 each) p3 rebar @ 8.0" 24.0" Regiired Very High 24" o.c. each way i slab dowelled into the continuous fta. 0 U C 0 E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. FIGURE NO.: 14 Q" DIAMETER SOMO PVC. PIPE PLACED ON 30'CENTERS - I r ZY MIN. 25FT. CONSTRUCTION DETAI\-S TYPICAL BUTTRESS r1LL CCNCR E TG 6 QOW ITC14 V l/ ems // aEGRo KS COMPACTED L Fll.l 90% DISS'7 - 76 7 ' TYPICAL BENCNFS 7 4/DIAMETER 'EFFO ATED P.V.C. PIPE IM13CDOED IN 3 CO. FT. CF PEA GPNVE\. / LINEAL. FOOT. SHEAR KEY EXCAVATED INTp APPROVED 5EORCCK DUG() E NGINEERING, AMC. NO SCALE dot NO. 9-336 F1G RE Igo, 15 DUCO ENGINEERING, INC. SOFILL CONTROL- SOIL TESTINGNS 20938 CURRIER RD, - WALNUT, CA 91799 818) 964-3449 • (714) 594.7414 • FAX (714) 594-3853 REPORT OF SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE LOT 3, TRACT NO. 30289 SHADOW CANYON DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA FOR: TOVEY CONSTRUCTION 2385 ARTESIA AVENUE LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90805 JOB NO.: 2-101 AUGUST 12, 1992 RECEIVED AUG 26 1992 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Page One August 12, 1992 Job No.: 2-101 Introduction This report presents the results of a soils investigation for a proposed single family residence and swimming pool to be constructed on Lot 3 of Tract No. 30289, on Shadow Canyon Drive in the City of Diamond Bar, California. Figure No. 1 presents a plot plan of the site showing the soils data and surface features deemed pertinent to this report. The object of this investigation was to gather information and test data regarding the surface and subsurface soils conditions existing on the site upon which to base our recommendations for the safe and economical site preparation, grading and construction of the proposed residential structure. The results of our field and laboratory investigations, which form the basis of our recommendations, are included as a part of this report. The geologic conditions and engineering geologic recommendations pertinent to the site development are contained in the Engineering Geologic Report, prepared by Engineering Geologist, H. Gene Hawkins, dated August 3, 1992 and submitted under separate cover. Site Conditions The subject site occupies a rectangular shaped parcel of properly situated on the west side of a north -south trending ridge on the north side of Shadow Canyon Drive, in the City of Diamond Bar. Previous site grading, in 1969-70, has flattened the front portion of the site by placing compacted fill up to the street elevation and daylighting the fill onto the subject lot. The remainder of the site slopes to the west and southwest at an average surface gradient of approximately 3:1. Surface vegetation consists of a light to locally moderate cover of dry weeds and grasses with scattered walnut tree stumps with new second growth. The surface has been disced in the past for weed and fire control. Also noted were a few scattered piles of dumped soil and landscape trimmings and scattered surface debris. The property is bounded on the north, west and east by developed residential lots and on the south by Shadow Canyon Drive. Page Two August 12, 1992 Job No.: 2-101 The natural soils encountered in test holes 2, 3 and 4 consisted of 2.0 feet of silty, sandy clay topsoils, being loose and dry to damp, overlying thinly bedded clayey sand diatomaceous siltstones and fine sandstones. The bedrock is generally very firm to dense and somewhat weathered near the surface. The uncertified fill soils encountered to depths of 1.5 to in excess of 10.0 feet in test holes 1 and 5 are canposed of silty sandy clay with numerous bedrock fragments and occasional sandstone boulders. Where present, the topsoils are susceptible to downhill creep and are highly expansive. If possible, these soils should be eliminated from any proposed structural building area. Field Investigation The subsurface soil conditions were explored by excavating five (5) engineering test holes to depths of 5.0 to 10.0 feet using a backhoe with an 24.0 inch wide bucket. The approximate location of each test hole is shown on Figure No. 1. Relatively undisturbed samples and disturbed, bulk samples of the typical subsurface soil types encountered in the test holes were obtained to be subjected to laboratory testing and analysis. A continuous log of each test hole was kept in the field at the time of excavation. These test hole logs, reflecting the condition and classification of each soil strata encountered, based on the Unified System of Soil Classification, as devised by A. Casagrande, are attached to this report as Figure Nos. 2 through 6. Laboratory Investigation In -situ moisture and density tests were performed on the undisturbed samples and the results of these tests are shown on the appropriate test hole logs at the depths sampled. Also shown are the results of calculations made to determine the relative compaction of the samples compared to the maximum density determined in accordance with ASTM test method D1557-78T. The expansion potential of the onsite soils was determined in accordance with the U.B.C. test standard 29-2. The results of the laboratory tests performed on the typical bulk soil samples are summarized as follows: Page Three August 12, 1992 Job No.: 2-101 Soil Type Max. Den. Opt. Moist. Expan. Index A -Silty sandy clay (fill) 106.3 PCF 15.2% 96 B-Silty sandy clay (soil) 105.5 PCF 16.5% 95 C-Siltstone & sandstone 107.0 PCF 16.9% 81 D-Clayey sandy silt 106.3 PCF 18.1% 92 Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of the undisturbed soils. The samples were tested in a state of saturation in order to duplicate extreme field moisture conditions. The results of these tests are as follows: Hole No. 1 2 3 Depth,ft. Remolded 5.5 6.0 Shear Angle 250 280 270 Cohesion, P.S.F. 450 550 675 The results of consolidation tests, indicating the load -settlement characteristics of the typical subsurface soils are shown on the Pressure -Void Ratio Curve, attached to this report as Figure No. 7. Conclusions and Reccuuendations Development of the site, as proposed, is considered to be feasible from a soils engineering standpoint, based on the implementation and incorporation of the recommendations which follow into the site preparation, grading, and site development. The general dip of the underlying bedrock soils is to the north and northeast, therefore any proposed west -facing cut slopes will potentially expose daylighted bedding planes. Cross sections A -A' and B-B', included as a part of the referenced geologic report, have been prepared to depict this condition. The proposed terraced retaining walls on the hillside east of the proposed swimming pool will require special design considerations to mitigate this dip slope condition, or a minimum width buttress fill will have to be constructed in conjunction with the retaining walls. Site Preparation and Grading Prior to the start of grading, all existing surface debris and vegetation shall be stripped and hauled offsite to the satisfaction of the soils engineer. Page Four August 12, 1992 Job No.: 2-101 The existing fill soils comprising the front portion of the lot are relatively loose to a depth of 5.0 feet. It is recommended that the top 5.0 feet of the existing fill soils be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum density to a minimum lateral distance of 5.0 feet beyond the proposed residence and/or where additional fill soils are proposed to be placed, such as in the southwest corner of the lot. In order to provide a uniform condition for support of the proposed structural foundations and eliminate the transition from fill to cut within the proposed building area, it is recommended that the cut portion of the proposed building be over -excavated and replaced as a compacted fill to a minimum lateral distance of 5.0 feet outside the perimeter footing lines. Hillside areas to receive compacted fill, where the surface gradient exceeds an angle of 5:1, shall have any existing fill and all existing topsoils removed to expose the underlying bedrock. A minimum 15.0 foot wide shear key shall be excavated into the exposed bedrock at the toe of the proposed slope prior to the placing of any fill. The outside edge of the key shall be excavated to a depth of 2.0 feet into approved bedrock. The inside bottom of the key shall be tilted into the slope so that the elevation of the bottom of the key on the inside is at least 12.0 inches lower than that of the outside. As the compacted fill progresses upslope, all remaining topsoils shall be removed and adequately sized, horizontal benches shall be cut into the bedrock exposed in the side slope. Prior to placing any compacted fill, the exposed surface of the approved bedrock shall be thoroughly scarified to a depth of 6.0 inches, moisture conditioned and shall be preconpacted to the minimum requirement specified herein. Fill soils shall be spread in 6.0 inch thick loose lifts, watered or dried back as necessary to provide near optimum moisture content and shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum density determined in accordance with ASPM test method D1557-78T. Foundation Recommendations The expansion potential of the existing onsite soils are considered to be High. The following remedial construction measures recommended to minimize the affects of this condition. Page Five August 12, 1992 Job No.: 2-101 All exterior and interior bearing walls shall be supported by continuous footings a minimum of 24.0 inches in depth, measured from the lowest adjacent ground surface. The footings shall be a minimum of 12.0 inches in width for one (1) story and 15.0 inches in width for two (2) story structures respectively. All footings for the proposed residence shall be embedded the recommended depth into the compacted fill. The use of isolated pad or truncated continuous footings is not recommended due to the potential for differential movement from the expansive soils. The continuous footings shall be reinforced with a minimum of two (2) #4 rebar placed in the top and in the bottom of the footings (two each). concrete floor slabs shall be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and shall be cast on a 6.0 inch thick layer of graded aggregate base course or 6.0 inches of washed concrete sand with a 6 mil vapor barrier membrane placed in the center of the sand. The vapor barrier membrane may be eliminated in the garage area; however, the use of the aggregate base course section is recommended for underlayment of the concrete pool decking and garage slab. The floor slabs, including the pool decking, shall be reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh or #3 rebar placed on 16.0 inch centers, each way, in the center of the slab. The subgrade soils below the proposed concrete slabs shall be premoistened to in excess of optimum moisture content to a depth of 24.0 inches prior to casting the concrete. Continuous footings embedded the recommended depth into approved compacted fill may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 2000 p.s.f. A bearing value of 2000 p.s.f. may be used for retaining wall footings embedded a minimmm depth of 12.0 inches into approved bedrock. Lateral values may be computed at 400 p.s.f. and 250 p.s.f. per foot of depth to a maximum of 4000 p.s.f. and 2000 p.s.f. for bedrock and compacted fill respectively. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 may be used between the concrete poured in direct contact with the undisturbed bedrock and 0.30 for compacted fill. Page Six August 12, 1992 Job No.: 2-101 Retaining Wall Recommendations When properly drained and supporting a level backfill, the proposed retaining walls in the house and pool area shall be designed for the following soil parameters: The terraced retaining walls proposed to be constructed east of the swimming pool shall be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 65 p.c.f. The remainder of the retaining walls may be designed based on the following criteria: Angle of Retained Surface Equivalent Fluid Pressure Level 2:1 slope 40 p.c.f. 53 p.c.f. All structural fasting excavations shall be inspected and approved by this firm prior to placing forms or reinforcing steel to insure proper embedment into the recommended soil strata. It is the opinion of this firm that once the site has been satisfactorily graded in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report, the site will be free from the hazard of landslide settlement or slippage and will not adversely affect the geologic stability of the adjacent properties. The recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of our field and laboratory investigations, combined with the principles of modern soil mechanics and sound engineering judgment. Should any unusual conditions arise during the site preparation, grading or construction, or should drastic design changes be contemplated, this firm shall be notified immediately in order that proper modification to the recommendations, contained herein, may be made as deemed necessary. Should you have any questions with regard to this report or the recommendations contained herein, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, INC. Harvey i' e II St T-1 White, RCE! RC 1np o I/ CANYON_ DRIVE 2:1 cur ope roe ML Yg Ulm. it . j3 lw 4 N., % Is 0 c DUCO EN GINEERING F 20938 CURRIER RD. WALNUT CALIF. 91789 Yll DUCO Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 7_24_92 LOG OF BORING NO. 1 PROJECT NO. 2_101 DepthIn k`4 FIELD CLASSIFICATIONFeet boy gQ4y GOB 0 Fill -Silty sandy clay with shale pieces- dark brown, tan & brown -top 18" loose then firm -damp 1 A 91.7 19.7 86. Scattered concretionary sandstone boulders 5 dense @ 5' 2 A 98.4 26.1 92. 10 15 20 25 FIGURE NO. 2 DUCO Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 7-24-92 LOG OF BORING NO. 2 PROJECT NO. 2-101 a Depth 4~ FIELD CLASSIFICATIONFeet e¢ ov Qe 0 oo 0 Silty sandy clay -dark brown -loose -dry to damp 1 B 82.0 9.1 77.8 Bedrock -interbedded clayey siltstone and sandstone - gray, tan, buff -dense -damp 5 2 C 99.8 14. 93. 10 15 20 25 FIGURE NO. 3 DUCO Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 7-24-92 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 PROJECT NO. 2-101 Depth In Feet 0 o Q4 v w Go FIELD CLASSIFICATION 10 15 20 25 Silty sandy clay -dark brown -loose -dry 1 C 99.2 12.0 92. Bedrock -Interbedded clayey siltstone and sandstone - gray, tan,buff-dense-damp FIGURE NO. DUCO Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 7_24-92 LOG OF BORING NO. 4 PROJECT NO. 2_101 Depth In Feet 10 15 M 25 5e 4 ypv oQ' .0 44' 449 Gp' y goo FIELD CLASSIFICATION Silty sandy clay -brown -loose -dry 1 D 92.7 13.8 87. Weathered bedrock -clayey silty sand -light tan- irm to dense -moist Bedrock- interbedded clayey siltstone and sandstone- gray,tan,buff-dense--damp FIGURE NO. 5 DUCO Engineering, Inc. Date Drilled 7-24-92 LOG OF BORING NO. 5 PROJECT NO. 2-101 Depth In Feet y 4 FIELD CLASSIFICATIONy¢ yo q4 vo Fill -Silt sand clay with shaleyyy pieces -dark brown -tan brown -top 18" loose then firm -damp Nat. -Silty sandy clay -brown -soft- moist Bedrock -interbedded clayey siltstone and sandstone - gray, tan, buff -dense-damp 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE NO. 6 U LJ 1 I I 1 1 11 1 Other fills not shown on the Geologic Map are not compacted Lot 30) and will be removed and recompacted during the grading operation. Natural topsoils are clayey silts in a moist and porous condition. They are compressible under increased loads and not suitable for structural support without recompaction. Bedrock underlying the site is in a dense condition and where not disturbed from landslides (see Geology Section) they will provide good structural support. Soils on the site are moderately (bedrock) to highly topsoils) expansive with changes in moisture contents. GEOLOGY The earth materials underlying the site consist of disturbed and undisturbed bedrock materials and compacted fill soils, the latter which is covered under Subsurface Conditions. The bedrock material underlying the lots has been previously mapped as pertaining to the La Vida Member of the Miocene aged Puente Formation (Professional Paper 420-B, Geology and Oil Resources of the Eastern Puente Hills Area, dated 1964). It locally consists of moderate to thinly bedded units of siltstone, claystone and fine to medium grained sandstone. The siltstone and claystone units are light brown to gray and are in a dense, slightly to moderately weathered, and fissile condition. Sandstone units are light brown to orange brown, arkosic and in a moderately cemented, dense, and friable condition. 3 I 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The general structure of the underlying bedrock consists of a west to northwest dipping homocline. Bedding attitudes mapped on the site indicate dips of 7 to 23 toward the west and northwest. Disturbed Bedrock: Disturbed bedrock consisting of landslide debris has been mapped at three separate locations on the lots by three separate investigators (Dr. Richard Merriam, report dated July 18, 1961; James Slosson & Associates, report dated July 17, 1967; and F. Beach Leighton & Associates, Inc., report dated September.9, 1971). The most current investigation by Leighton appears to have the most accurate limits of the main landslide mass (see Geologic Maps 1 and 2 for location) and is significantly different from the location mapped by Slosson also shown on the Geologic Maps. A narrow zone of disturbed bedrock material was logged by the undersigned in Test Pit #3 of our referenced Prelminary Soils and Geologic report. This material which lies between the two mapped limits (Qs-1) may be attributed to disturbances such as creep forces and rapid weathering along the edge of the main landslide body rather than being directly part of the slide mass. This material is considered to be relatively shallow and could be removed and replaced during grading. The main slide mass as defined by Leighton (Qs-2) incorporates most of the southwest corner of lot 30 and due to the existing topographic expression may also be feasible to be removed and replaced as compacted fill during 1 4 grading. Depths of removal in the southwest corner of lot 30 are estimated to be approximately 14 to 16 feet. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General: The information obtained during our investigation indicates that the subject site is suited for the proposed development, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design considerations, project plans, and job specifications. Grading: All grading should conform to the requirements of the County of Los Angeles and the grading specifications 1 presented in this report. Cut and fill slopes can be constructed at 1.5:1 gradients. Slope stability calculations enclosed for fill slopes were taken from our previous report for lot 31, reference #3. Prior to grading, all structures, vegetation, and debris should be removed from the site. Uncertified fills and loose soils should be excavated to firm compacted soils or undisturbed bedrock. All ancient landslide material must be removed prior to placing fill soils. Fill slopes should be keyed into approved soils or bedrock with a 3 foot deep by 15 foot wide key. Slide debris should be removed and recompacted on cut the If transitionsportionsofpadandcutslopes. cut/fill) occur the cut portions should be over -excavated 3 1 5 I 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 t 11 feet and recompacted to provide compacted fill over the entire pad. Buttress fills are required on west facing cut slopes Sections C-C' and D-D'). Width of the buttress at its base should be 15 feet with a 3 foot key into approved bedrock subdrain at the toe of the slope elevation is required. Subdrains at the back of the buttress should be a 4 inch perforated pipe covered with gravel (2 cubic feet per foot) and connected to a non perforated pipe outletting to the toe of slope. Gravel should have a gradation in accordance with Table I. TABLE I Filter Material Gradation Chart Sieve Size Percent Passi 3 . 0 " 100 1.5" 90-98 3/4" 80-90 3/8" 70-85 4 50-70 40 15-30 100 0-20 200 0-10 Areas to receive fills should be scarified 6-8 inches to adjust the moisture content to near optimum conditions and then compacted to minimum requirements. Fills should be placed in 6-8 inch loose lifts at near optimum moisture A conditions and compacted to not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum densities for the typical soils should be established in accordance with the standard ASTM D1557-78 method of test. 1 0 I 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 n on -site soils may be used for compacted fills, provided they are free from organic and deleterious material. If imported soils are required, they should be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to acceptance at the site, to insure a similar quality to that required by design. Grading operations should be conducted under the observation of the Soils Engineer and Geologist to provide assurance of compliance with job specifications and a Certification of Compacted Fill upon completion of grading. Foundation Design: Continuous or spread footings having a minimum embedment of 18 inches into compacted soils may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Total settlements with the assumed loads should not exceed 3/4 inch and differential settlements under similar loads should not exceed 1/4 inch. A 1/3 increase in bearing pressure may be used in design when considering wind or seismic loads of short duration. Continuous footings should have minimum reinforcement of two Number 4 bars placed near the top of the footing and two Number 4 bars near the bottom. Lateral Resistance: Resistance to horizontal forces on foundations may be provided by the combined effect of passive soil pressures and frictional resistance between concrete and firm soils. Lateral soil pressures of 250 pounds per square 1 7 I foot per foot of depth may be used up to 2000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 is recommended for the on -site soils. Floor Slabs: Concrete floor slabs may be supported by the natural or compacted fill soils. To provide uniform support, the top 8 inches of soil should be scarified and compacted to minimum requirements at near optimum moisture conditions. Due to the expansive of the on -site soils, it ispotential recommended that the top 18 inches have a moisture content above optimum established 24 hours prior to pouring the concrete. Slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and reinforcement of 6x6 - W 2.9 x W 2.9 (6x6 - 6/6) welded wire mesh, or equivalent, placed at the center of the slab. For moisture sensitive floors, a vapor barrier membrane covered with a minimum 2 inches of clean sand should be placed below the slab. A grade beam 12 inches by 12 inches should be provided across the garage entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. A similar transition section (thickened slab) may be substituted as recommended by the Structural Engineer. Retaining Walls: Small unrestrained retaining walls with a level and 1.5:1 backfill should be designed to resist active soil pressures equivalent to a fluid pressure of 45 and 80 pounds per cubic foot, respectively, plus any additional surcharge expected from the surface. 1 8 11 i 1 I hl 1 1 I I 1 t 1 1 Weep holes consisting of open joints in block walls or 1-inch diameter holes at 2 foot intervals should be placed at the base of the wall 6 to 12 inches above finished grade, or an adequate drainage system at the base of the wall should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressures. All walls should have a granular backfill compacted as fill soil. Jetting should not be permitted. SUMMARY This report was prepared to aid the project designers, reviewing agencies, grading contractors, owners, and other concerned parties in completing their responsibilities for the successful completion of this project. The findings and recommendations were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practices. We make no other warranty, neither expressed nor implied. The findings and recommendations are based on the referenced investigations, combined with our interpolation of conditions on the sites. If conditions are encountered during grading or construction that appear to be different than those reported, this office should be notified. All footing excavations should be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Geologist prior to placing forms or reinforcement, to insure minimum depths into the recommended supporting material. i 9 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us at your convenience if you have any questions regarding this report. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Frank C. Stillman John L. n ffen G.E. 805 C.E.G. 1209 FCS;JLK/thf Distribution: Addressee (4) Enclosures: Geologic Maps Plates A-1 through A-3 --- Cross Sections Plates B-1 & B-2 --- Slope Stability o2 pf Ess/o I C. ST Fyc 1L No. GE W5 Z rr UA Exp.6-30489 rr 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 N 1i + C wO iL n u N1 O S Z N rr OO r't O i0 p V l() p O Cr N N 9 a v tf 1 C Q r 41 Z C9 N i 0 O l O rn N U a 4oJz3oiCOr a - d Q W F- o, J o- U U ztE N 3 c., a „ 11 LL UC J1 O Q 11 11 11 XLdO01Or•t p N O 2S of V•-1 f-I C C O CO N N O rV N t'1 40 V 0O COQ m n LJ U) n 1 N N N r1 I Lu v a V O W J U) N IDIll r1L : NI-1 r0 NlD N t) O O ZS U C IA 0 L N Q 3 b'> H + — H c + 3 WV) N N - v O M NfAI F- N Q 1 r/ m sWCIS Q V .fit H o N O ON Ld 11 If of W n d 11 LC ti WhUzNrnaFa-- N N to O to y IN Project: 88-136 Cal d By: F.S. Chk. By: 1 of__1 Date : 3-4-88 PLATE B-1 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY_* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SLOPE SURFACE FLOW LINES FAi Lv'RE PATH ASSU:JE: :) SATraA=+ -1 FAILURE PATH 7'D P-: t!T7 FLO;v Pw _ ;CATER PRESSUR- HZgD SATURATED SOIL 7,= ",'EIGHT WEP.; r.'T OF SOIL WATER U ,OIL -G:ic :. TER PRESSURE P;,. = CCS2 ( U = 1'1: 3 Cost - F (3) :s sin 2 aC F R (,Ws W) ..S2 d. tan 0 + c 2 (3)!Dlg-ii-;.) cos201- tan O + - s_ ma2 c._, 2( 3.5)(120-62)cos 345-tan29+2(280) 120( 3.5)sin68 1. 8 P. RA:ETERS Mtrl. p tan p c W ws oC sin 2'L COS2 e Fill 29 280 62 120 34 3.5 Ref: Report of the Orange County Slope Stability.Comuttee - January 10, 1972 IT TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. 0 LATE B-2 Job no, 88-136 Cate: 3-11-88 9y: F.S. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR n DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 0 Project No. 2910164-178 Tract(s) Lot 62, Tract 30289 Date: January 23, 2004 Parent Tract Location/Owner Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Site Address 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Geologist EGL Developer Soils Engineer EGL Engineer/Arch. EGL REVIEW OF: Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated X Geology and Soils Report(s) Dated November 17,2003 X Other Grading Plan, 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive X Previous Submittals Dated September 15, 2003 ACTION: Plan/Report is geotechnically approved X Plan/Report is geotechnically approved subject to conditions below. REVIEW COMMENTS: Plan/Report not approved for reasons below Submit Plan/Report for recheck. Include a copy of this review. 1. The geotechnical consultant must review and sign the grading plans to confirm their recommendations have been correctly incorporated into the plans. 2. A report of rough grading providing a summary of the geologic conditions encountered and the results of field density tests and laboratory testing must be provided at the completion of site grading. Reviewed by "__ .' Date January 23, 2004 David C. Smith, RCE 46222 Reviewed January 23, 2004 Leighton ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY 44ors1N LABORATORY. INC lgee"" WHS November 1.7, 2003 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro P.O. Box 5170 Diamond Bar. CA 91765 Subject: Response to the City of Diamond Bar Geotechnical Review Sheet, Project No.: 2910164-178, 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Lot 62, Tract 30289, Diamond Bar, California, dated October 3, 2003, EGL Project No.: 03-208-007L Reference: 1.Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geological Investigation of the subject site, by Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc., Project No.: 03-208-007EG, dated September 15, 2003 2. Report of Geotechnical Investigation of Slope Failure Common to Lots 51, 52, 77, 78, and 79, Tract 27539, Adjacent to Minnequa Drive and Sunset Crossing Road, City of Diamond Bar, by Kleinfelder Inc., job No.: 58-8405-01/003, dated January 18, 1999 Gentlemen: This letter provides EGL's response to the City of Diamond Bar Geotechnical Review Sheet regarding Review of the Geotechnical Investigation for the subject site. For your reference, the Review Sheet is attached and the responses are presented below. Item 1 Comply. Slope stability analyses along geologic contact planes of the subject site are performed. The results are attached to this response, see Appendix A. The slope stability analysis based on the cross section A -A' is performed in condition of along continuous bedding due to the bedding attitude of dipping out as shown on Figure 2. Relatively conservative cohesion of 185 psf and friction angle of 120 are adopted based on vicinity geologic data reported by Kleinfelder (1999), see reference report 2. The results indicated that the slope safety factors meet the City's minimum requirement. Item 2 Comply. Soil cohesion of 185 psf and friction angle of 121 are adopted based on vicinity geologic data reported by Kleinfelder (1999), see reference report 2. Item 3 All footings should be founded on the compacted fill. 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 16, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phono: 552-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 60? s Mr. Eko Kungoro Page 2 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007L November 17, 2003 Item 4 The recommended dimensions of the fill key in section 6.1.5 (a minimum of 12 feet wide and extend a minimum of 5 feet into the approved competent materials) remain valid to the Grading Plan. A revised Figure 5 is attached to this response. Item 5 A subdrain system generally included 4-inch perforated PVC pipes with holes facing down which were placed at the locations where required, such as at the base of the fill key or retaining wall. A layer of crushed stone approximately 1 foot in thickness was used to embed the pipes. The subdrain was wrapped with filter or drainage fabric. Approved filter material shall be free -drained materials, such as nonwoven geotextile of MIRAFI 140N or SUPAC 4 NP. After the installation of the subdrain, fill materials were then used to backfill the subdrain trench. The, subdrain system should be drained to the street or to the slope through rip raps that will dispense the energy of the runoff. Item 6 The fill materials were observed to be medium stiff to stiff in the drilled holes. No significant loose pockets were observed in the drilled holes. This included the contact between the fill and the bedrock materials. The 24-inch bucket auger blow counts presented in the boring logs of the reference report 1 indicated that the consistency of the existing fill was stiff. Our slope stability analysis to the surficial slope and the existing 3:1 (horizontal ; vertical) slope indicated the safety factor of the existing slope exceed the minimum slope stability requirement. Therefore it is our opinions that it is suitable to leave the existing fill on site. Item 7 Soils imported from off -site sources should be similar to the onsite soils and should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to transporting to the site. It is recommended that the medium or low expansive soils with Expansion Index less than 65 be used as backfill materials. Item 8 Comply. We appreciate this opportunity to be of services. Should you have any questions pertaining to this letter, please call us. ,c N/ FFa Respectfully submitted, Environmental Geotechnology r,.1 Hank Jong, PE, CEG 646, GE 2305 Dist: (1) Addressee FrP r9\NG-L/qy K rFrNo.230 j Exp.+(b`L 6 OTECH\'P I 1646 Exp. l L! Vincent Wang Project Engineer 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562.945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 a PROJECTED PUL4F I TO I 1AVOMM FROM TOE OF GLCPE 70 APPR(NM GROUND NATURAL GROUND, 2 9 F'-3,-dW LOWEST BENCH KEY) NATURAL GROUND 2% LowEs e TYPICAL E- rmrr L-.51 WK KEY DEPTH CUT rp= SKqL BE CONSTRUMED PRW TO FILL PLACELKW TO ASSURE CUT FACE ADwATE oEoLooc coNwan TO BE CONSTrMTED PROR TOFU PLACEMENT NATURAL GROUND OVERSUILTAND TIM SACK DESIGN SLOPE REMOVE PROJECTED PLANE I TO I MAXIMM FROM MATERIAL Toe OF OLCM To APPROYED GROUND CMICAL UP HEIGHT REMOVE W=ASV MATERIAL FILL SLOPE FILL -OVER -CUT SLOPE CUT -OVER -FILL SLOPE S' Mx-j I.— BENCHING SHALL BE DONE MEN SLOPES KEY DEM ILOWESTBENCHI -ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5.1 num MNIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET MNIMUM FILL VMDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory Project Location: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California Project No.: 03-208-007 TYPICAL KEYING AND BENCHING DETAILS Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 4 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007L November 17, 2003 APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses have been performed for the existing slopes, along cross section A — A', on Figure 2. Selection of coulomb strength parameters used for the analyses were based on the reference report data and evaluated in light of past experience. A summary of these strength parameters are presented in the following table: 1',t, 'ffL'Ai '. P=;,•. y., 2 •s.i.. t,,.y 1'. 0. Cohesion r Urnt Wet ht .: If. , 9 Friction,Angle' f s' rStatic/SeismicMatenalF r Pcf)` ' `"' Stattc/Setsmic De o- f')wtir`.; ,?. «,rpW' I., .a •': ;wa'r,•M, y aE'..• W. ree 3r W i dl fye 1. ,>S Xa T... s', SA tii 3•n T. > J_. Fill 100 32/32 200/200 Bedrock 100 12/12` 150/150' The friction angle and cohesion are based on Kleinfelder Inc (1999), see reference report 2 A summary of the stability analyses and corresponding preliminary geotechnical recommendations are summarized in the following table, and sections and calculations are presented on the following plates. I:: r•.` 2' .. ,:'•+,t,.p `.- Safef I,. *is'F.,i,"^'. wi. -,.,„.„r `•,sa :4,..a A'rw.", Prelimtna ' Factof•of eotechnicah ?" r-, •s Calec Mp ulatdydd'Condit+ii(b(s;,E'.',!a' Stan tsrnic) ' x '-Re omenidbtio y;1-- C=( S, J'l r %-=$trtl? "411. .,cS ,- ' . i.:",•2>af'.4 .41. b 1. .. i Proposed 2:1 fill slope along bedding Stable as after proposed and with construction load 3.912.73 construction 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0669; Fax: 562-945-0364 F a r- N mmmmNmO '• L7 O U V U i. 1J LO O VGILA b LOC1m a) 1= O L _ Lf7 N m X -P h- Ln N 7•i 320827x PCSTABL5 ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename 11-13-03 2:24pm vw C:320827X C:320827X.OUT C:320827X.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Along Bedding, Static condition 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 1 2 28.00 50.00 64.00 68.00 1 3 6.4...00 68_.00 118...00 68..00 1 4 118.00 68.00 118.50 72.00 1 5 118.50 72.00 130.00 70.00 1 6 130.00 70.00 140.50 78.00 1 7 140.50 78.00 149.00 78.00 1 8 149.00 76.00 220.50 80.00 1 9 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 2 10 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 2 11 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 2 12 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 2 13 188.00 73.00 220.50 73.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 100.0 100.0 150.0 12.0 0.00 0.0 0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (lb/sqft) (deg) 320827x 1 64.00 220.50 1500.0 0.0 NOTE - Intensity Is specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting on A Horizontally Projected Surface. Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 45.00 2 94.00 47.00 3 149.00 65.00 4 167.00 70.00 5 188.00 73.00 6 220.50 80.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 3.895 Page 2 r` Nmm mmNr-M0 b mOU U 34 U L. ZLM ti V) O C7 •.. F U pw .r4 C U7 GIW N m Ln m •+ ^ LI, rN•i .Nim C C y+, ti 7+ m Ln Ln N Ln N NLn r` rl M Ln41 riyrv N X Ln ¢ NI r-+ x M tim r- m . r rl £ Ln wLn Lnar- ca F LnU 94m Ln Nm 320827y PCSTABL5 ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 11-13-03 2:26pm vw C:320827Y C:320827Y.OUT C:320827Y.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Along Bedding, Seismic Condition 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 1 2 28.00 50.00 64.00 68.00 1 3 64...00 68...00 118...00 68...00 1 4 118.00 68.00 118.50 72.00 1 5 118.50 72.00 130.00 70.00 1 6 130.00 70.00 140.50 78.00 1 7 140.50 78.00 149.00 78.00 1 8 149.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 1 9 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 2 10 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 2 11 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 2 12 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 2 13 188.00 73.00 220.50. _.-__..7.3...00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. Fill 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 Bedrock 2 100.0 100.0 150.0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right No. (ft) (ft) 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 12.0 0.00 0.0 0 Intensity Deflection lb/sqft) (deg) Page 1 320827y 1 64.00 220.50 1500.0 0.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of 0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 psf Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 45.00 2 94.00 47.00 3 149.00 65.00 4 167 _0,0 7.0-0-0 5 188.00 73.00 6 220.50 80.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 2.731 Page 2 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR e ma's CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Project No. 2910164-178 Tract(s) _ Lot 62. Tract 30289 Date: October 3.2003 Parent Tract _ Location/Owner Mr. Eko Kuntioro Site Address 2887 Shadow Canvon Drive Geologist Soils Engineer REVIEW OF: Grading P.C. No. Developer Engineer/Arch._ EGL Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated X Geology and Soils Report(s) Dated September 15, 2003 X Other _ Grading Plan. 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Previous Submittals Dated ACTION: Plan/Report is geotechnically approved Plan/Report is geotechnically approved subject to conditions below. REVIEW COMMENTS: X Plan/Report not approved for reasons below X Submit Plan/Report for recheck. Include a copy of this review. 1. In See6on 3.3 the consultants indicate that the bedding attitudes are unfavorable to the site stability conditions, since they dip out of slope. They also discussed that the existing fill onsite was probably engineered to support the out dipping bedrock. Yet the slope stability analyses were performed assuming circular failure surfaces through massive bedrock. Slope stability analyses assuming along bedding failure planes, using appropriate along bedding strength parameters must be considered. 2. The consultants have performed direct shear tests to develop residual strength parameters for the bedrock material onsite. However, these tests do not accurately model the along bedding strength of the bedrock. Shearing and reshcaring interbedded sandstone and siltstone across bedding does not yield representative along bedding strengths. The consultant should refer to the James Slosson and Associates report they reference or other, more recent geotechnical reports prepared for nearby sites available at the City of Diamond Bar in order to develop appropriate along bedding strength parameters. 1W Leighton 2910164-178 3. In Section 6.1.2 the consultants indicated that all footings should be founded on the compacted fill. I-lowever, in Section 6.2.1, foundation design recommendations are given for footings founded on bedrock. Please explain, 4. In Section 6.1.5 the consultants indicate that the fill key should be a minimum 12 feet wide and extend a minimum of 5 feet into approved competent materials. The Typical Keying and Benching Details (Figure 5) indicates that die fill key should be a minimum of 2 feet into competent material and the Grading Plan indicates that the fill key should be excavated a minimum of 3 feet into competent material. Please clarify. 5. In Section 6.1.5 the consultants indicate that a subdrain consisting of perforated pipe should be installed in the key or bench and sloped to discharge to a "suitable collection facility". Please explain what a "suitable collection facility is and provide recommendations for an appropriate subdrain system, including filter material. A perforated pipe alone is not an acceptable subdrain. 6. In Section 3.2 the consultants indicate that the existing fill onsite is believed to be engineering (engineered) fill placed to support out dipping bedrock. Discuss the quality of the existing fill and the suitability of leaving that material in place. 7. It appears the development may require the import of soil to achieve design grades. Provide specifications for the import soil. 8. The geotechnical consultant must review and sign the grading plans to confirm their recommendations have been correctly incorporated into the plats. 7hc overexcavation requirement shown on the current grading plan does not agree with the soils report recommendation. Reviewed by / Date October 3 2003 David C. Smith, RRCCE4646222 Reviewed by X"c,,il7 Date October 3. 2003 Philip A. Buchiarelli, CEG 1715 Leighton 7_1- Mr. Eko Kuntjoro P.O. Box 5170 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. November 1.7, 2003 Subject: Response to the City of Diamond Bar Geotechnical Review Sheet, Project No.: 2910164-178, 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Lot 62, Tract 30289, Diamond Bar, California, dated October 3, 2003, EGL Project No.: 03-208-007L Reference: 1.Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geological Investigation of the subject site, by Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc., Project No.: 03-208-007EG, dated September 15, 2003 2. Report of Geotechnical Investigation of Slope Failure Common to Lots 51, 52, 77, 78, and 79, Tract 27539, Adjacent to Minnequa Drive and Sunset Crossing Road, City of Diamond Bar, by Kleinfelder Inc., job No.: 58-8405-01/003, dated January 18, 1999 Gentlemen: This letter provides EGL's response to the City of Diamond Bar Geotechnical Review Sheet regarding Review of the Geotechnical Investigation for the subject site. For your reference, the Review Sheet is attached and the responses are presented below. Item 1 Comply. Slope stability analyses along geologic contact planes of the subject site are performed. The results are attached to this response, see Appendix A. The slope stability analysis based on the cross section A -A' is performed in condition of along continuous bedding due to the bedding attitude of dipping out as shown on Figure 2. Relatively conservative cohesion of 185 psf and friction angle of 120 are adopted based on vicinity geologic data reported by Kleinfelder (1999), see reference report 2. The results indicated that the slope safety factors meet the City's minimum requirement. Item 2 Comply. Soil cohesion of 185 psf and friction angle of 120 are adopted based on vicinity geologic data reported by Kleinfelder (1999), see reference report 2. Item 3 All footings should be founded on the compacted fill. 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 2 EGL Proiect No.: 03-208-007L November 17. 2003 Item 4 The recommended dimensions of the fill key in section 6.1.5 (a minimum of 12 feet wide and extend a minimum of 5 feet into the approved competent materials) remain valid to the Grading Plan. A revised Figure 5 is attached to this response. Item 5 A subdrain system generally included 4-inch perforated PVC pipes with holes facing down which were placed at the locations where required, such as at the base of the fill key or retaining wall. A layer of crushed stone approximately 1 foot in thickness was used to embed the pipes. The subdrain was wrapped with filter or drainage fabric. Approved filter material shall be free -drained materials, such as nonwoven geotextile of MIRAFI 140N or SUPAC 4 NP. After the installation of the subdrain, fill materials were then used to backfill the subdrain trench. The subdrain system should be drained to the street or to the slope through rip raps that will dispense the energy of the runoff. Item 6 The fill materials were observed to be medium stiff to stiff in the drilled holes. No significant loose pockets were observed in the drilled holes. This included the contact between the fill and the bedrock materials. The 24-inch bucket auger blow counts presented in the boring logs of the reference report 1 indicated that the consistency of the existing fill was stiff. Our slope stability analysis to the surficial slope and the existing 3:1 (horizontal ; vertical) slope indicated the safety factor of the existing slope exceed the minimum slope stability requirement. Therefore it is our opinions that it is suitable to leave the existing fill on site. Item 7 Soils imported from off -site sources should be similar to the onsite soils and should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to transporting to the site. It is recommended that the medium or low expansive soils with Expansion Index less than 65 be used as backfill materials. Item 8 Comply. We appreciate this opportunity to be of services. Should you have any questions pertaining to this letter, please call us. \NEER/pP Respectfully submitted, 1. IV/6 rI W 1646 c ! Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Exp.`l(°f I 1 Hank Jong, PE, CE371646, GE 2305 Dist: (1) Addressee h ,rg NG-L/qy E E"P. 230 c 6 v sc OTECHN'P. Vincent Wang Project Engineer 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945.0689; Fax: 562-945.0364 PROJECTED TwIE I TO I MAXIMUM FROM Toe OF SLOPE TO AP \GROUND NATURAL MIK— KEY DEPTH ST BENCH lCEY) NATURAL GROUND i Ir LOWES S MIN. OVERBUILT AND THIM BACK \ DESIGN SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE I TO T MAJOMUI,1 FROM .0 TOE OF &APE TO -- APPROYEDGROUND\ =.r' REMOVE IU=ABL WTERIAL e TYPICJLL BENCH HF]OHT REMOVE WSWABLE MATEMAL R OLL D NATVFW. / GROUND REMOVE NSUITABL MATERIAL M -. - .0 FILL SLOPE FILL -OVER -CUT SLOPE CUT -OVER -FILL SLOPE s' Mx-f I ,2'MX— J BENCHING SHALL BE DONE MEN SLOPES KEY UriEST BENCH 'ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 51 Atim MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET MNIMUM FILL WDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET Project Location: Environmental 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Geotechnology Diamond Bar, California TYPICAL KEYING AND BENCHING DETAILS Mr. Eko Kuntjoro EGL Proiect No.: 03-208-007L Page 4 November 17. 2003 APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses have been performed for the existing slopes, along cross section A — A', on Figure 2. Selection of coulomb strength parameters used for the analyses were based on the reference report data and evaluated in light of past experience. A summary of these strength parameters are presented in the following table: b. v.d•w. Ei jyi[f .;J,: ¢^ f.eAI,rt: 6•• ,I. E: t:`yi..Y t ti ' r p: : y,i , i.. .fir' IJ Fnc[io2 "le ' f ..,dY•ti.. •. t.'Cohesiori •' P +t 4 <47s iNlatenal ^ Um P f)tgth ' ig w Statii /Seismic; a• , Static/Seismic. •. t ;a. a 6' Regree).{ + pp"(psf). :- L•,.n, .4. .,.4`i.•ILaF.4 C .4';ii. A }Ml lhiN.'•Mi:l n e.4f ., J.t1A.l SF i.`+i r/-.s .Eil JJw11P.1(8' .f'•:_o' Fill 100 32/32 200/200 Bedrock 100 12/12' 150/150' I he friction angle and cohesion are based on Kleinfelder Inc (1999), see reference report 2 A summary of the stability analyses and corresponding preliminary geotechnical recommendations are summarized in the following table, and sections and calculations are presented on the following plates. y.n. y "S yqi i Wi 'I b d'. i• 41 X 3 10 Ti L V 1" r' t .yf Y l r Q i f a` 0, 9P! { lm t# %`O,Of. ..!' iw:, iQ ki.. -, i- Factor of Safety x.a v 42 ;c Prelimina 4geotechnical RVCalculatedE-;0'1 iohs { : 4 StatiGsetsmic bJiJq8ihb1 .+. rtn K .Amf9m'-Tt2r«'..•3,-Ywi V•%'- 1• bnd.3 >.w' ..'4: :. .•lT •* Recommendatlon.; q iY..iY,1t yM Y.P. `as.-it;Ya, .'1 _ii Proposed 2:1 fill slope along bedding Stable as after proposed and with construction load 3.9/2.73 construction 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 m N Nmm mmNr-mO " V b O O U V f i4 P V) d 41 "d cn a) U61 C7 NOW U) m m lr) m • . u, m In m rNNi ri m ¢r- I 44 N Lf) N V 320827x PCSTABLS ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer-s Method of Slices Run Date: 11-13-03 Time of Run: 2:24pm Run By: vw Input Data Filename: C:320827X Output Filename: C:320827X.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320827X.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Along Bedding, Static Condition 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 1 2 28.00 50.00 64.00 68.00 1 3 64...00 68...00 118...00 68...00 1 4 118.00 68.00 118.50 72.00 1 5 118.50 72.00 130.00 70.00 1 6 130.00 70.00 140.50 78.00 1 7 140.50 78.00 149.00 78.00 1 8 149.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 1 9 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 2 10 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 2 11 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 2 12 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 2 13 188.00 73.00 220.50 73.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 100.0 100.0 150.0 12.0 0.00 0.0 0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (lb/sqft) (deg) Page 1 320827x 1 64.00 220.50 1500.0 0.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 45.00 2 94.00 47.00 3 149.00 65.00 4 167.00 70.00 5 188.00 73.00 6 220.50 80.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 3.895 m F aw r- Nmm m mNr-mO " b G1 O U V Ri4+ U '.4 NLo UG1 P u y C G4 b LANLU m w m m LO m -• ^ Lri m Ln m L!)-1 N m x 44 [- Lfi N 7D+ 320827y PCSTABL5 ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: 11-13-03 2:26pm vw C:320827Y C:320827Y.OUT C:320827Y.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Along Bedding, Seismic Condition 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 1 2 28.00 50.00 64.00 68.00 1 3 64...00 68...00 118...00 68...00 1- 4 118.00 68.00 118.50 72.00 1 5 118.50 72.00 130.00 70.00 1 6 130.00 70.00 140.50 78.00 1 7 140.50 78.00 149.00 78.00 1 8 149.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 1 9 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 2 10 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 2 11 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 2 12 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 2 13 188.00 73.00 22050 _.-....7.1-00 2- ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. Fill 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 Bedrock 2 100.0 100.0 150.0 12.0 0.00 0.0 0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right No. (ft) (ft) Intensity Deflection lb/sqft) (deg) Page 1 320827y 1 64.00 220.50 1500.0 0.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of 0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 psf searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 45.00 2 94.00 47.00 3 149.00 65.00 4 167 . 0.0 7 0 _0.0 5 188.00 73.00 6 220.50 80.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 2.731 Page 2 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SKEET LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR r' CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Project No. 2910164-178 Tract(s) _ Lot 62, Tract 30289 Date: October 3. 2003 Parent Tract l,ocation/Owner Mr. Eko Kuntioro Site Address 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Geologist Developer Soils Engineer L'•GL _ i Engineer/Arch._ REVIEW OF: Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated X Geology and Soils Report(s) Dated September 15, 2003 X Other_ Grading Plan. 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Previous Submittals Dated ACTION: Plan/Report is geotechnically approved Plan/Report is geotechnically approved subject to conditions below. REVIEW COMMENTS: X Plan/Report not approved for reasons below X Submit Plan/Report for recheck. Include a copy of this review. 1. In Section 3.3 the consultants indicate that the budding attitudes are unfavorable to the site stability conditions, since they dip out of slope. They also discussed that the existing fill onsite was probably engineered to support the out dipping bedrock. Yet the slope stability analyses were performed assuming circular failure surfaces through massive bedrock. Slope stability analyses assuming along bedding failure planes, using appropriate along bedding strength parameters must be considered. 2. The consultants have performed direct shear tests to develop residual strength parameters for the bedrock material onsitc. However, these tests do not accurately model the along bedding strength of the bedrock. Shearing and reshcaring interbedded sandstone and siltstone across bedding does not yield representative along bedding strengths. The consultant should refer to the James Slosson and Associates report they reference or other, more recent geotechnical reports prepared for nearby sites available at the City of Diamond Bar in order to develop appropriate along bedding strength parameters. Leighton 74 2910164-178 3. In Section 6.1.2 the consultants indicated that all footings should be founded on the compacted fill. However, in Section 6.2.1, foundation design recommendations are given for footings founded on bedrock. Please explain. 4. In Section 6.1.5 the consultants indicate that the fill key should be a minimum 12 feet wide and extend a minimum of 5 feet into approved competent materials. The Typical Keying and Benching Details (Figure 5) indicates that the fill key should be a minimum of 2 feet into competent material and the Grading Plan indicates that the fill key should be excavated a minimum of 3 feet into competent material. Please clarify. 5. In Section 6.1.5 the consultants indicate that a subdrain consisting of perforated pipe should be installed in the key or bench and sloped to discharge to a "suitable collection facility". Please explain what a "suitable collection facility is and provide recommendations for an appropriate subdrain system, including filter material. A perforated pipe alone is not an acceptable subdram. In Section 3.2 the consultants indicate that the existing fill onsite is believed to be engineering (engineered) fill placed to support out dipping bedrock. Discuss the quality of the existing fill and the suitability of leaving that material in place. 7. It appears the development may require the import of soil to achieve design grades_ Provide specifications for the import soil. 8. The geotechnical consultant must review and sign the grading plans to confirm their recommendations have been correctly incorporated into the plans. The overexcavalion requirement shown on the current grading plan does not agree with the soils report recommendation. Reviewed by Date October 3. 2003 DDavi /.' vid C. Smith, RRCCL46222 Reviewed by I't ei,,ill Date October 3 2003 Philip A. Buchiarelli, CEG 1715 cli: uSt-14 t"i 5(oZ-14S-4' 4 Leighton ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. Mr. Eko Kuntjoro P.O. Box 5170 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 REr,E,'%1Ep 2.105tic v-a pi! ;J.51 November 2, 2005 Subject: Response to the City of Diamond Bar Geotechnical Review Sheet, Project No.: 2910164- 178, 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Lot 62, Tract 30289, Diamond Bar, California, dated October 3, 2003, EGL Project No.: 03-208-007L1 Reference: 1.Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geological Investigation of the subject site, by Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc., Project No.: 03- 208-007EG, dated September 15, 2003 2. Report of Geotechnical Investigation of Slope Failure Common to Lots 51, 52, 77, 78, and 79, Tract 27539, Adjacent to Minnequa Drive and Sunset Crossing Road, City of Diamond Bar, by Kleinfelder Inc., job No.: 58-8405-01/003, dated January 18, 1999 Gentlemen: This letter provides EGL's response to the City of Diamond Bar Geotechnical Review Sheet regarding Review of the Geotechnical Investigation for the subject site. For your reference, the Review Sheet is attached and the responses are presented below. Item 1 Comply. Slope stability analyses using block sliding method and circular sliding method were performed. The results are attached to this response, see Appendix A. These slope stability analyses are based on the cross section A -A', Figure 2 and in condition of along continuous bedding due to the bedding attitude of dipping out as shown on Site Plan of Figure 1 attached. Relatively conservative cohesion of 150 psf and friction angle of 120 are adopted based on vicinity geologic data reported by Kleinfelder ( 1999), see reference report 2. When performed the slope stability analysis, these adopted shear strengths were added 20% in seismic condition. The results indicated that the slope safety factors meet the City's minimum requirement. Item 2 Comply. Bedrock cohesion of 150 psf and friction angle of 120 are adopted based on vicinity geologic data reported by Kleinfelder (1999), see reference report 2. When performed the slope stability analysis, these adopted shear strengths were added 20% in seismic condition Item 3 All footings should be founded on the compacted fill. 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A, Arcadia, CA 91006; Phone: (626) 263-3588; Fax: (626) 263-3599 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 2 EGL Project No.: 03-208-0071-1 November 2, 2005 Item 4 Based on the slope stability analyses presented in Item 1, the recommended fill key should be a minimum of 6 feet wide and 5 feet deep into competent bedrock materials. A revised Figure 3 is attached to this response. Item 5 A subdrain system generally included 4-inch perforated PVC pipes with holes facing down which were placed at the locations where required, such as at the base of the fill key or retaining wall. A layer of crushed stone approximately 1 foot in thickness was used to embed the pipes. The subdrain was wrapped with filter or drainage fabric. Approved filter material shall be free -drained materials, such as nonwoven geotextile of MIRAFI 140N or SUPAC 4 NP. After the installation of the subdrain, fill materials should be used to backfill the subdrain trench. The subdrain system should be drained to the street or to the slope through rip raps that will dispense the energy of the runoff. Item 6 The existing fill materials are recommended to be removed and recompacted. Grading Recommendation In order to provide a uniform support to the proposed structures, it is recommended that the existing low density, near surface soils be removed and recompacted to competent bedrock materials. The removal should also be extended at least five feet horizontally beyond the perimeters of the buildings. If there is a soil/bedrock transition through the building pads the soil should be removed and recompacted to a depth of three feet below the bottom of the footings. All building footings should be founded on the compacted fill. Locally deeper removals may be necessary to expose competent natural ground. The actual removal depths should be determined in the field as conditions are exposed. Visual inspection and/or testing may be used to define removal requirements. At the proposed fill slope area, fill should be keyed and benched into competent bedrock materials. Benching Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent bedrock materials as the fill is placed (See attached Figure 3). Fill Keys Fill keys, where required, should be a minimum of 6 feet wide and extend a minimum of 5 feet into competent bedrock materials. All fill keys should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to placing fill. Item 7 Soils imported from off -site sources should be similar to the onsite soils and should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to transporting to the site. It is recommended that the medium or low expansive soils with Expansion Index less than 65 be used as backfill materials. Item 8 Comply. 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A, CA 91006; Phone: (626) 263-3588; Fax: (626) 263-3599 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 3 EGL Project No.: 03-208-0071-1 November 2, 2005 We appreciate this opportunity to be of services. Should you have any questions pertaining to this letter, please call us. Respectfully submitted, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. (EGL) 9gi ESS1, Hank Jong, PE, CEG 1646, GE 2305 k y, C-L/ Dist: (1) Addressee X UJ cJ 41 1646 Exp. II 3:6 l V .4 Vincent Wang p 2 Project Engineer G1 m No.2305 Exp.tz/'O ki 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A, CA 91006; Phone: (626) 263-3588; Fax: (626) 263-3599 S DEPTH LOWEST KIM NATURAL GROUND Y MIN. DEPTH v FILL SLOPE REMOVE NSURABLE MATERIAL Hl eTYFMC.AL BENCH HEIGHT Alum HSULTAaLE MATERIAL CUT FACE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR / TO FILL PLACEMENT / NATURAL GROUND OVERSUILT AND TRIM LACK\ DESIGN SLOPE - C TYPICAL S' MU —1 .— 6'Mu KEY DEPTH LOWEST a IWIM REMOVE NSUITMU MATERLAL FILL -OVER -CUT SLOPE CUT -OVER -FILL SLOPE BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1 MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET MINIMUM FILL 1MDTH SHALL BE 9 FEEL" Project Location: Environmental 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Geotechnology Diamond Bar, California r Laboratory Project No.: 03-208-007 TYPICAL KEYING AND BENCHING DETAILS 3 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 4 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007L1 November 2, 2005 APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses have been performed for the existing slopes, along cross section A — A', on Figure 2. Selection of coulomb strength parameters used for the analyses were based on the reference report data and evaluated in light of past experience. A summary of these strength parameters are presented in the following table: Unit Weight Friction -Angle °, Cohesion, 4 Material' pcf)• Static/Seismic;, Degree) :: Static/Seismic Psf) Artificial Fill (Af) 120 32/32 200/200 Compacted fill 120 32/32 2001200 Along bedding Along bedding 12*/14** 150*/180** Bedrock 115 Cross bedding Cross bedding 26*/26* 300*/300* Friction angle and cohesion are based on Kleinfelder Inc (1999), see reference report 2 20% shear strength was added when performed slope stability analysis in seismic condition A summary of the stability analyses and corresponding preliminary geotechnical recommendations are summarized in the following table, and sections and calculations are presented on the following plates. Calculated Conditions Factor of Safety Static/seismic) Preliminary geotechnical Recommendation Proposed 2:1 fill slope, along bedding strength, 1.64/1.13 Stable as evaluated with construction load, file name: 320807A / 3208076) block sliding method Proposed 2:1 fill slope, along bedding strength, 2.08/1.35 Stable as evaluated with construction load, file name: 320807C / 320807D) circular sliding method 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A, CA 91006; Phone: (626) 263-3588; Fax: (626) 263-3599 r- J Q I ¢ nO c W O O T M cro U U 3O U ro y. L ^ U LU 00 a, 00W o N M: c a ~ 'oroLOl G1NOOOLO_ mN N m M L 1 1 320807A.OUT PCSTABLSM *° by Purdue university slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified janbu, Simplified Bishop or spencer's Method of slices Run Date: 11-03-05 Time of Run: 11:37am Run By: Input Data Filename: C:320807A.DAT Output Filename: C:320807A.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320807A.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 17 Top Boundaries 30 Total Boundaries proposed grade, 2887 Shadow Canyon A -A', static, block, along bedding Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 00 144.00 15.01 146.00 1 2 15.01 146.00 19.50 147.00 1 3 19.50 147.00 33.50 156.00 2 4 33.50 156.00 41.00 156.00 2 5 41.00 156.00 41.01 162.00 2 6 41.01 162.00 90.00 162.00 2 7 90.00 162.00 110.00 168.50 2 8 110.00 168.50 118.00 168.50 2 9 118.00 168.50 118.01 172.00 2 10 118.01 172.00 137.00 172.00 2 11 137.00 172.00 152.00 175.00 2 12 152.00 175.00 152.01 177.00 2 13 152.01 177.00 166.00 176.50 2 14 166.00 176.50 210.00 176.50 2 15 210.00 176.50 212.50 176.50 2 16 212.50 176.50 242.00 176.50 3 17 242.00 176.50 242.01 179.00 3 18 19.50 138.00 21.50 133.00 3 19 21.50 133.00 27.50 133.00 3 20 27.50 133.00 28.50 137.00 3 21 28.50 137.00 71.50 142.50 3 22 71.50 142.50 101.50 146.50 3 23 101.50 146.50 143.00 160.00 3 24 143.00 160.00 168.00 168.00 3 25 168.00 168.00 184.00 168.00 3 26 184.00 168.00 210.00 168.00 3 27 210.00 168.00 212.50 170.00 3 28 212.50 170.00 212.51 176.50 3 29 212.51 176.50 242.00 176.50 3 30 242.00 176.50 242.01 179.00 3 Page 1 1 1 320807A.OUT ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 .00 .0 0 2 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 .00 .0 0 3 115.0 115.0 150.0 12.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 3 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified 3 Direction counterclockwise cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. deg) psf) deg) 1 8.0 150.0 12.0 2 18.0 150.0 12.0 3 90.0 300.0 26.0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection No. ft) ft) lb/sgft) (deg) 1 166.00 210.00 2200.0 .0 NOTE - intensity Is specified As A uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected surface. A Critical Failure surface searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating sliding Block surfaces, Has Been Specified. 1600 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 2 Boxes Specified For Generation of Central Block Base Length Of Line segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Page 2 1 320807A.OUT sliding Block rs 5.0 Box x-Left Y-Left x-Right Y-Right Height No. (ft) ft) ft) ft) ft) 1 30.00 129.00 65.00 129.00 30.00 2 155.00 145.00 195.00 145.00 60.00 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most critical Of The Trial Failure surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most critical First. e Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified 3anbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-surf No. ft) ft) 1 3.46 144.46 2 4.48 143.83 3 8.95 141.59 4 13.54 139.60 5 18.01 137.36 6 22.22 134.66 7 26.23 131.68 8 29.87 128.25 9 34.67 126.86 10 165.94 151.59 11 169.01 155.54 12 171.08 160.09 13 173.31 164.57 14 176.30 168.57 15 177.49 173.43 16 177.98 176.50 1.636 f+ Page 3 Cti NL] CCO EA N Ory In Uti th E O VItiNN HJa m 00O C O O N T M C U U ti 0 bOO V) L n U 00000 N cD bL01 NNO0- 0L0_ N N rtN N00 X r7 1 320807B.OUT PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University Slope stability Analysis -- Simplified 7anbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of slices Run Date: 11-03-05 Time of Run: 11:27am Run By: Input Data Filename: c:320807B.DAT Output Filename: c:320807B.OUT Plotted output Filename: C:320807B.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 17 Top Boundaries 30 Total Boundaries proposed grade, 2887 shadow Canyon A -A', seismic, block, along bedding Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 00 144.00 15.01 146.00 1 2 15.01 146.00 19.50 147.00 1 3 19.50 147.00 33.50 156.00 2 4 33.50 156.00 41.00 156.00 2 5 41.00 156.00 41.01 162.00 2 6 41.01 162.00 90.00 162.00 2 7 90.00 162.00 110.00 168.50 2 8 110.00 168.50 118.00 168.50 2 9 118.00 168.50 118.01 172.00 2 10 118.01 172.00 137.00 172.00 2 11 137.00 172.00 152.00 175.00 2 12 152.00 175.00 152.01 177.00 2 13 152.01 177.00 166.00 176.50 2 14 166.00 176.50 210.00 176.50 2 15 210.00 176.50 212.50 176.50 2 16 212.50 176.50 242.00 176.50 3 17 242.00 176.50 242.01 179.00 3 18 19.50 138.00 21.50 133.00 3 19 21.50 133.00 27.50 133.00 3 20 27.50 133.00 28.50 137.00 3 21 28.50 137.00 71.50 142.50 3 22 71.50 142.50 101.50 146.50 3 23 101.50 146.50 143.00 160.00 3 24 143.00 160.00 168.00 168.00 3 25 168.00 168.00 184.00 168,00 3 26 184.00 168.00 210.00 168.00 3 27 210.00 168.00 212.50 170.00 3 28 212.50 170.00 212.51 176.50 3 29 212.51 176.50 242.00 176.50 3 30 242.00 176.50 242.01 179.00 3 Page 1 1 3208076.ouT ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type unit wt. unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 .00 .0 0 2 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 .00 .0 0 3 115.0 115.0 180.0 14.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 3 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. deg) psf) deg) 1 8.0 180.0 14.0 2 18.0 180.0 14.0 3 90.0 300.0 26.0 BOUNDARY LOADS) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection No. ft) ft) lb/sgft) deg) 1 166.00 210.00 2200.0 0 NOTE Intensity Is Specified As A uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient of .150 Has Been Assigned A vertical Earthquake Loading coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned cavitation Pressure = .0 psf A critical Failure surface Searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Page 2 1 320807B.OUT Specified. 1600 Trial surfaces Have Been Generated. 2 Boxes Specified For Generation of Central Block Base Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Sliding Block is 5.0 Box x-Left Y-Left x-might Y-Right Height No. ft) ft) ft) ft) ft) 1 30.00 129.00 65.00 129.00 30.00 2 155.00 145.00 195.00 145.00 60.00 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified janbu Method * * Failure surface Specified By 16 coordinate Points Point x-surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 3.46 144.46 2 4.48 143.83 3 8.95 141.59 4 13.54 139.60 5 18.01 137.36 6 22.22 134.66 7 26.23 131.68 8 29.87 128.25 9 34.67 126.86 10 165.94 151.59 11 169.01 155.54 12 171.08 160.09 13 173.31 164.57 14 176.30 168.57 15 177.49 173.43 16 177.98 176.50 1.131 Page 3 rhN I e xm Li vW 0OLJ- N a0LNNCO N X 0 IX p s W ~ O >, N m ItC E + E n toJ Um T NUd n CD 0 L0 LlN 1 320807c.OUT PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices Run Date: 11-03-05 Time of Run: 11:49am Run By: Input Data Filename: C:320807C.DAT Output Filename: C:320807C.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320807C.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION proposed grade, 2887 Shadow Canyon A -A', static, circular, along bedding BOUNDARY COORDINATES 17 Top Boundaries 30 Total Boundaries Boundary x-Left Y-Left x-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 00 144.00 15.01 146.00 1 2 15.01 146.00 19.50 147.00 1 3 19.50 147.00 33.50 156.00 2 4 33.50 156.00 41.00 156.00 2 5 41.00 156.00 41.01 162.00 2 6 41.01 162.00 90.00 162.00 2 7 90.00 162.00 110.00 168.50 2 8 110.00 168.50 118.00 168.50 2 9 118.00 168.50 118.01 172.00 2 10 118.01 172.00 137.00 172.00 2 11 137.00 172.00 152.00 175.00 2 12 152.00 175.00 152.01 177.00 2 13 152.01 177.00 166.00 176.50 2 14 166.00 176.50 210.00 176.50 2 15 210.00 176.50 212.50 176.50 2 16 212.50 176.50 242.00 176.50 3 17 242.00 176.50 242.01 179.00 3 18 19.50 138.00 21.50 133.00 3 19 21.50 133.00 27.50 133.00 3 20 27.50 133.00 28.50 137.00 3 21 28.50 137.00 71.50 142.50 3 22 71.50 142.50 101.50 146.50 3 23 101.50 146.50 143.00 160.00 3 24 143.00 160.00 168.00 168.00 3 25 168.00 168.00 184.00 168.00 3 26 184.00 168.00 210.00 168.00 3 27 210.00 168.00 212.50 170.00 3 28 212.50 170.00 212.51 176.50 3 29 212.51 176.50 242.00 176.50 3 30 242.00 176.50 242.01 179.00 3 Page 1 1 1 320807C.OUT ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type unit wt. unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 .00 .0 0 2 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 .00 .0 0 3 115.0 115.0 150.0 12.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 3 IS Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges specified 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. deg) psf) deg) 1 8.0 150.0 12.0 2 18.0 150.0 12.0 3 90.0 300.0 26.0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) specified Load x-Left x-Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) ft) lb/sgft) deg) 1 166.00 210.00 2200.0 0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified AS A uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Critical Failure Surface searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating Circular surfaces, Has Been specified. 1296 Trial surfaces Have Been Generated. 36 surfaces Initiate From Each of 36 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between x = 5.00 ft. and x = 41.00 ft. Page 2 1 320807C.OUT Each Surface Terminates Between x = 199.00 ft. and x = 235.00 ft. unless Further Limitations were imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A surface Extends Is Y = 20.00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are ordered - Most critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * Failure Surface specified By 44 coordinate Points Point x-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 7.06 144.94 2 11.76 143.24 3 16.50 141.65 4 21.28 140.18 5 26.09 138.83 6 30.94 137.59 7 35.81 136.47 8 40.71 135.47 9 45.63 134.59 10 50.57 133.83 11 55.53 133.19 12 60.50 132.67 13 65.49 132.27 14 70.48 131.99 15 75.48 131.84 16 80.48 131.80 17 85.48 131.89 18 90.47 132.10 19 95.46 132.43 20 100.44 132.88 21 105.41 133.45 22 110.36 134.14 23 115.29 134.96 24 120.21 135.89 25 125.09 136.94 26 129.96 138.11 27 134.79 139.40 28 139.58 140.81 29 144.35 142.33 30 149.07 143.96 31 153.76 145.72 32 158.39 147.58 33 162.99 149.56 34 167.53 151.65 35 172.02 153.84 Page 3 320807C.OUT 36 176.46 156.15 37 180.84 158.56 38 185.16 161.08 39 189.41 163.71 40 193.60 166.43 41 197.73 169.26 42 201.78 172.19 43 205.76 175.21 44 207.37 176.50 Circle Center At x = 79.4 ; Y = 337.4 and Radius, 205.6 2.080 *=" Page 4 E L O_ N O N ULti U 1f1OI U CDO E tiON J OnO Q IbO C N OT U CtdU U O ++ N L L U C N I0 O 00N N a) dLO) ONinO0- 0LO_ N Ln00 U1ro Ln 320807D.OUT PCSTABL5M ** b Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- simplified ]anbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices Run Date: 11-03-05 Time of Run: 12:03pm Run By: Input Data Filename: C:320807D.DAT Output Filename: C:320807D.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320807D.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION proposed grade, 2887 Shadow Canyon A -A', seismic, circular, along bedding BOUNDARY COORDINATES 17 Top Boundaries 30 Total Boundaries Boundary x-Left Y-Left x-Right Y-Right soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 00 144.00 15.01 146.00 1 2 15.01 146.00 19.50 147,00 1 3 19.50 147.00 33.50 156.00 2 4 33.50 156.00 41.00 156.00 2 5 41.00 156.00 41.01 162.00 2 6 41.01 162.00 90.00 162.00 2 7 90.00 162.00 110.00 168.50 2 8 110.00 168.50 118.00 168.50 2 9 118.00 168.50 118.01 172.00 2 10 118.01 172.00 137.00 172.00 2 11 137.00 172.00 152.00 175.00 2 12 152.00 175.00 152.01 177.00 2 13 152.01 177.00 166.00 176.50 2 14 166.00 176.50 210.00 176.50 2 15 210.00 176.50 212.50 176.50 2 16 212.50 176.50 242.00 176.50 3 17 242.00 176.50 242.01 179.00 3 18 19.50 138.00 21.50 133.00 3 19 21.50 133.00 27.50 133.00 3 20 27.50 133.00 28.50 137.00 3 21 28.50 137.00 71.50 142.50 3 22 71.50 142.50 101.50 146.50 3 23 101.50 146.50 143.00 160.00 3 24 143.00 160.00 168.00 168.00 3 25 168.00 168.00 184.00 168.00 3 26 184.00 168.00 210.00 168.00 3 27 210.00 168.00 212.50 170.00 3 28 212.50 170.00 212.51 176.50 3 29 212.51 176.50 242.00 176.50 3 30 242.00 176.50 242.01 179.00 3 Page 1 1 1 320807D.OUT ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of soil Soil Total saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 .00 .0 0 2 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 .00 .0 0 3 115.0 115.0 180.0 14.0 .00 .0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 3 is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges specified 3 Direction counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. deg) psf) deg) 1 8.0 180.0 14.0 2 18.0 180.0 14.0 3 90.0 300.0 26.0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load x-Left x-Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (lb/sgft) (deg) 1 166.00 210.00 2200.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected surface. A Horizontal Earthquake Loading coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A vertical Earthquake Loading coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned cavitation Pressure = .0 psf A critical Failure Surface searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating circular Surfaces, Has Been specified. Page 2 320807D.OUT 1296 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 36 Surfaces Initiate From Each of 36 Points Equally spaced Along The Ground Surface Between x = 5.00 ft. and x = 41.00 ft. Each surface Terminates Between x 199.00 ft. and x = 235.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A Surface Extends Is v = 20.00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are ordered - Most critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure surface specified By 44 coordinate Points Point x-Surf v-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 7.06 144.94 2 11.76 143.24 3 16.50 141.65 4 21.28 140.18 5 26.09 138.83 6 30.94 137.59 7 35.81 136.47 8 40.71 135.47 9 45.63 134.59 10 50.57 133.83 11 55.53 133.19 12 60.50 132.67 13 65.49 132.27 14 70.48 131.99 15 75.48 131.84 16 80.48 131.80 17 85.48 131.89 18 90.47 132.10 19 95.46 132.43 20 100.44 132.88 21 105.41 133.45 22 110.36 134.14 23 115.29 134.96 24 120.21 135.89 25 125.09 136.94 26 129.96 138.11 27 134.79 139.40 28 139.58 140.81 Page 3 320807o.OUT 29 144.35 142.33 30 149.07 143.96 31 153.76 145.72 32 158.39 147.58 33 162.99 149.56 34 167.53 151.65 35 172.02 153.84 36 176.46 156.15 37 180.84 158.56 38 185.16 161.08 39 189.41 163.71 40 193.60 166.43 41 197.73 169.26 42 201.78 172.19 43 205.76 175.21 44 207.37 176.50 Circle Center at X = 79.4 ; Y = 337.4 and Radius, 205.6 1.349 *** Page 4 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENTOFENGINFERING At, i Project No. 2910164-178 Tract(s) _ Lot 62. Tract 30289 Date: Ociober 3.2003 Parent Tract 1.ocation/Owner Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Site Address 2887 Shadow Canvon Drive Geologist _ FGL Developer Soils Engineer_ EGL Engineer/Arch.— EGL REVIEW OF: Grading P.C. No. _ Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated _ X Geology and Soils Report(s) Dated September 15, 2003 X Other Grading Plan. 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Previous Submittals Dated ACTION: Plan/Report is geotechnically approved Plan/Report is geotechnically approved subject to conditions below. REVIEW COMMEN'rs: X Plan/Report not approved for reasons below X Submit Plan/Repurt for recheck. Include a copy of this review. In Section 3.3 the consultants indicate that the bedding attitudes are unfavorable to the site stability conditions, since they dip out of slope. They also discussed that the existing fill onsite was probably engineered to support the out dipping bedrock. Yet the slope stability analyses were performed assuming circular failure surfaces through massive bedrock. Slope stability analyses assuming along bedding failure planes, using appropriate along bedding strength parameters must be considered. 2. The consultants have performed direct shear tests to develop residual strength parameters for the bedrock material onsite. However, these tests do not accurately model the along bedding strength of the bedrock. Shearing and reshcaring interbedded sandstone and siltstone across bedding does not yield representative along bedding strengths. The consultant should refer to the James Slosson and Associates report they reference or other, more recent geotechnical reports prepared for nearby sites available at the City of Diamond Bar in order to develop appropriate alone bedding strength parameters. Leighton 2910164-178 3. In Section 6.1.2 the consultants indicated that all footings should be founded on the compacted fill. However, in Section 6.2.1, foundation design recommendations are given for footings founded on bedrock. Please explain. 4. In Section 6.1.5 the consultamts indicate that the fill key should be a minimum 12 feet wide and extend a minimum of 5 feet into approved competent materials. The Typical Keying and Benching Details (Figure 5) indicates that die fill key should be a minimum of 2 feet into competent material and the Grading Plan indicates that the fill key should be excavated a minimum of 3 feet into competent material. Please clarify. 5. In Section 6.1.5 the consultants indicate that a subdrain consisting of perforated pipe should be installed in the key or bench and sloped to discharge to a "suitable collection facility". Please explain what a "suitable collection facility is and provide recommendations for an appropriate subdrain system, including filter material. A perforated pipe alone is not an, acceptable subdrain. 6. In Section 3.2 the consultants indicate that the existing fill onsiie is believed to be engineering (engineered) till placed to support out dipping bedrock. Discuss the quality of the existing fill and the suitability of leaving that material in place. It appears the development may require the import of soil to achieve design grades. Provide specifications for the import soil. 8. The geotechnical consultant must review and sign the grading plans to confirm their recommendations have been correctly incorporated into the plans. The overexcavation requirement shown on the current grading plan does not agree with the soils report recommendation. Reviewed by is ——/— _ _ _ Date October 3.2003 David C. Smith, RCG 46222 Reviewed by !d" /elAZ _Date Qs tober 3, 2003 Philip A. Buchiarelli, CLG 1715 Leighton EGL BORING LOG B-1 PROJECT LOCATION: 493 Woodward Boulevard, Pasadena, California DATE DRILLIED: 10-08-05 PROJECT NO: 05-114-035GE SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Sampler ELEVATION: NIA LOGGED BY: HT Sample 0 S: Standard Penetration Test a r r y c c R. Ring Sample Description of MaterialoMDtoDoa2 R 80 SM 83.3 8.3 Silty sand, medium to coarse grained, dark brown, moisture, dense to very dense trace hair roots 5 R 100 SM 85.3 7.8 Silty sand, brown to dark brown, silty, fine to medium grained, slightly moist to moist, very dense Gravelly refusal aC 2 6 feet. drillinq terminated Total Depth 6 feet No Groundwater 10 Hole Backflled Hammer Driving Weight =32 pounds Hammer Driving Height =48 inches 15 PLATE A-3 NNL. Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. Mr. Eko Kuntjoro P.O. Box 5170 Diamond Bar, California 91765 sn,) i,r,,evkm Sheet Dated oz91016V-17 k September 15, 2003 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Geological Investigation 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Lot 62, Tract No. 30289, Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. (EGL) is pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering and geological report for the subject site. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations for foundation designs and other relevant parameters for the proposed construction. Based on the findings and observations during our investigation, it is concluded that the proposed construction of the subject site for the intended use is feasible from the geotechnical engineering and geological viewpoint, provided that specific recommendations set forth herein are followed. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, please call the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. (EGL) of HankJ. Jong, GE cen 305, CEG 16 6:a ¢$ n,VinT t Wang Principal o-, A6WEER/ N' E p l / jt- ' oject Engineer Dist: ( 4)Addresse H't'o Fo. G< /7 G` r tA 1646 fig' o,) OrEA\A Exp. l ,,- 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 • Tel.: (562) 945-0689, Fax: (562) 945-0364 E- MAIL: MAIL@EGLAB.COM • WEBSITE: EGLAB.COM Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Geological Investigation Proposed Single -Family Residential Development at 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California Lot 62, Tract 30289 Prepared by ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, INC. Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 yNr.EkoKuntjoro EGLProject Nn.:D3^2D8'DD7E8 TABLE OF CONTENT l] PURPOSE ........................................................................................................ LZSCOPE OFSERVICES ....................................................................................... l3PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ l. 4SrrrCOxNurUUwS........................................................................................... 2/0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....... 2JSVo3 ^KBuCcDxpK}uATnw'..~...,,--'-'----....-......., 3. 0 GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................. llREGIONAL GEOLOGY ........................................................................... 3.2SITE GEOLOGY ..................................................................................... J3GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES .................................................................. J/|GROUND WATER ................................................................................. 4DSLOPE STABILITY ................................................................. 4.lEXISTING SLOPE .................................. ........................................... 4]FILL SLOPE .....-.'........~.,..-......'-'...~.~... 5/)CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 5JSEISMICITY ............................................................................... l2LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ....'''...,.....'''.....-. 53ExCavaTxouUTY....................................... .......................... - 5.4GUkF^CIA, SOIL Qaw0vac« woRsCnMuooTk]N............ ;........ IJ GROUNDWATER .....'-.....~....~......,....... 6] GRADING ............................................................. 8l/Site Preparation ........................................... 6/.JSbrficialSoil Removals ................................ 6. l3Treatment q/ 0mnovolBottoms .................... 6' 1.4Jtr,000u/ ........................................ 6./SFill Keys ....................................................... 6./ 613mching.-'--.,.'....-'-..'''~. I 2 3 3 3 4 F11 J h 6 6 6 0 K 7 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG 6.2 SIIALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN........................................................................................................................7 6.2.1 Bearing Value............................................................................................................................................7 6.2.2 Settlement..................................................................................................................................................7 6.2.3 Lateral Resistance.....................................................................................................................................7 6.2.4 Foundation Setback...................................................................................................................................8 6.3 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................................8 6.4 RETAINING/STEM WALL....................................................................................................................................9 7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN.................................................................................................................................9 8.0 CORROSION POTENTIAL.................................'......................................... ..................................... 10 9.0 TEMPORARY TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL.................................................................10 10.0 INSECTION.......................................................................................................................................10 11.0 DRAINAGE........................................................................................................................................11 12.0 111 STATEMANT.............................................................................................................................11 13.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................11 14.0 REFERENCE.....................................................................................................................................11 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 1 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This report presents a summary of our geotechnical engineering and geological investigation for the proposed single-family residential development at the subject site. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the area of proposed construction and to provide recommendations pertinent to grading, foundation design and other relevant parameters of the proposed development. 1.2 Scope of Services Our scope of services included: Review of available soil and geologic data of the area. Subsurface exploration consisting of logging and sampling of two boring holes. These borings were extended to a maximum depth of 21 feet below the existing ground surface. Drilling refusal was encountered in both borings. Boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory testing of representative samples to establish engineering characteristics of the on -site soil. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B and on the boring logs in Appendix A. Engineering analyses of the geotechnical data obtained from our background studies, field investigation, and laboratory testing. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed construction. 1.3 Proposed Construction Based on the information provided, it is our understanding that the proposed development consists of constructing 2 flat pads to accommodate a future single-family residential building and associated structures. The proposed development consists of only site grading at this stage. Some excavation and filling may be required to accommodate the living areas and tennis court. No detail structural loads are available at this time. 1.4 Site Conditions The subject site is located at the northwest side of the intersection of Shadow Canyon Drive and Steeplechase Lane in the City of Diamond Bar, California. The approximate regional location is shown on the attached Site Location Map (Figure 1). A Site (Geology) Plan is 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 45W. s sW i , , 5,hlr, Y /}a''.5 • ' '"' E\\t E S+ Fa) !/ vl /"flii , f 7 u a Y`'rasr••"-, c tLP r 0V Tm yr',7}'`\y'! i" / ` N' Ijt4'7• s.z .. By/.. / i, s, "" • c t " YPIN9 , w• t ,$, } I . t r ri . `,. i 1 "`%F f, ,,,vfdrl /+ 3' y Y r ra .g F{t ! .+ "`\ '•- i a. 1$ .Y8 r l /3 y'1 s y, Y 'Y y. rd \a .. ?.. ; 'rgp rr,g -`,p r}Y°',,+/h`Yr/ r/•_ft' r d j) f'C si`ica \ 1, ,tF'"^ i,"r i r: 'f r//1F r' La fS /P7• 9--- -xT' y.Y}./ ! •M1 "'l'h Y rtL . I{.C' 2• T - r T rat\ •' / `r1 ° > - 1 • Try' rh rkf B , i5 I,j, . Y i B / ,a 4'+, A', l•r+ h ` y v € ':Tins f' / r.$ 7y . t -•1-- .c 5 s I7, ': t R `r!'3 2d _ F SST I 9 1 \ 1 li; v+ 7 (° W i s b"v%,^ " B .C. '1`if+ Y- sl)e a l A J i % r \ a , \ A a Y.N„^'41 Y1.' •A Y A14 .''r 1 _ J'•1 i N T'.\F , s V s',(.}ii\ rsr• `z .•. ii r ;' r4r t r',1U,iW5 gTmt, ' P ,£'. 5 }B L 7 ny '' - "/S , c k . t B v rbl , QI 4aY"s t / Yr7 ... . y`r0 tj i).fi ..,-`-i r' iw` t ',C7.': '`'('a c (sdj..gl ( ,:>:s`' F \Trt IV 1 „t L°3 k Ld.s r+f'A J`,N , dr s''sjYt, ` t it!' s 'a" y,_.;","' } l Ols &"'`Tm 1P r . e1•G; 4 r ` U / 7 2 S.4 6 '' ; ` ~,rB: is 77 k, f ` %. 2dr 4` 6 i s /i p '• l / p' / / 1 1 L f/. Ir —. , ., Wr @\ \ y .'r !"" & 8.'w ! R Ka S(/ ,a \ \+ ,Jd °1 ,1"v.7'-Y c-i u1 '$, t\• _ "` 7 + u` , 4 +.. .S l \`' S n{' Yr/3. •. d 3 /2 O" sfr`'ta' 9 i,/ !r?i Y..r• ''^,. c. utir uJ ., L PX ``.-•.i\..,•FdA k,\ • ` ``.,,h t;,1.?S'`}."c 4 Hi INote: ENVIRONMENTAL Project Address: GEOTECHNOLOGY 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive N LABORATORYDiamond Bar, Californiat' 7jM EGL Project No.: 03-208-0 7 Map modifed from Dibblee (2001) Scale: 1 "=2000' "Geologic Map of the Yorba Linda Pmdo Dam Quadrangle" SITE (GEOLOGIC) MAP 09/03 FIGURE 4 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 2 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 provided on Figure 2. Cross section view of the site is presented on Figure 3. A Site (Geology) Map modified from Dibblee (2001) is provided on Figure 4. The project site is bounded on the east by Shadow Canyon Drive, south and west by the Steeplechase Lane, and on the other sides by the neighboring properties. The project site consists of descending slope facing southwest. The slope gradient is approximately 5:2 (horizontal: vertical) with maximum relief of 35 feet between the north property line and the south Steeplechase Lane, see Figure 2 and Figure 3. 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Subsurface Exploration Our subsurface exploration consists of the excavation of two borings. Drilling was extended to a maximum depth of 21 feet below the existing ground surface. Drilling refusal was encountered in both borings. The purpose of the excavation was to investigate the engineering characteristics of the onsite soils with respect to the proposed development. The borings were supervised and logged by an EGL's engineer and an engineering geologist. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were collected during drilling for laboratory testing. The approximate locations of these borings are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2). Boring logs are presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Representative samples were tested for the following parameters: in -situ moisture content and density, direct shear strength, consolidation, expansion index, and corrosion potential. The results of our laboratory testing along with a summary of the testing procedures are presented in Appendix B. In -situ moisture and density test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 3.1 Regional Geology The site is located at the eastern Puente Hills area. The Puente Hills are 15 to 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, in the northeastern part of the Los Angeles Basin. The Cenozoic sedimentary rocks in the eastern Puente Hills have a composite maximum thickness 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 3 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 of about 27,000 feet. In the northern and eastern parts of the eastern Puente Hills, the sedimentary rocks lie on granitic basement rocks of probably early Late Cretaceous age. 3.2 Site Geology The earth materials encountered at the subject site include fill overlying the bedrock of Monterey Formation. Description of the subsurface materials from top down is provided as follows: Fill - The subject site was observed to be mantled with a layer of fill with thickness of approximately 9.5 to 11 feet thick. These soils were light brownish gray silty clay, moist, medium stiff to stiff, and rooty. The placement of fill was mentioned in the report by James E. Slosson and Associates (1966), see reference report 3, for the adjacent Lot 61, Tract 30289. This fill is believed to be engineering fill placed to support out dipping bedrock. Bedrock- Bedrock materials of sandstone with siltstone interlayers were observed at approximately 10 feet deep below the existing grade. Sandstone was light gray, medium hard to hard, slightly moist, well cemented, and massive. Siltstone were light brownish gray, firm to medium hard, and well bedded. 3.3 Geological Structures No evidence of any previous bedrock instability and deep-seated landslide were observed during our field investigation. Based on Dibblee (2001), the site is underlain by Monterey Formation of Soquel Sandstone Member composed mostly of bedded sandstone, weathers tan, mostly medium grained, arkpsic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotite; includes minor silty clay shale. On site several bedding attitudes were measured at the borings B-1 and B-2. The bedrock attitude varied from North 220 east toward North -South and dip 210 toward East to 270 toward West. The bedding attitude is unfavorable to the site stability conditions, since they dip out of the slope. Based on Dibblee (2001), regional bedding attitudes dip approximately 18 degrees to north. The regional bedding attitudes are unfavorable to the slope stability since they dip out of the slope. The measured bedding attitudes are generally consistent with those reported by Dibblee (2001) and James E. Slosson and Associates (1966), see reference report 3. Small scale folding and bedding undulations are common features in the Monterey Formation. The 10'+ fill was probably engineering placed to support the out dipping bedrock 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 4 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 James E. Slosson and Associates,1966). 3.4 Ground Water Static ground water levels were not encountered during our subsurface investigation. Groundwater is therefore not expected to be a significant constraint during the construction. 4.0 SLOPE STABILITY 4.1 Existing Slope Existing slopes are at slope ratios of 5:2 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. Existing slopes within the subject site were observed and analyzed and are considered satisfactory and should possess adequate factors of safety against instabilities provided they are properly maintained. Results of slope stability analyses are presented in Appendix C. Based on the relatively stable condition of the existing natural slopes, we recommend that the existing slopes outside the proposed construction areas be left in their natural conditions (with a moderate growth of vegetation). Should additional planting be desired, only moderate irrigation should be applied. 4.2 Fill Slope Permanent fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and keyed and benched into the competent fill materials. Fill materials should be placed and compacted in accordance with the text of this report. Fill keys, where required, should be a minimum of 12 feet wide and should extend a minimum of 5 feet into the approved competent materials. Typical keying and benching details are shown in Figure 5. Subdrains consisting of perforated pipe should be installed in the key or bench and sloped to discharge to a suitable collection facility. All fill keys should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to placing fill. 4.3 Surficial Slope Stability and Landscaping All slopes will be subject to surficial erosion. Therefore, slopes should be protected from surface runoff by means of top -of -slope compacted earth berms or concrete interceptor drains. If slopes should be landscaped with suitable plants, the irrigation system should be installed and maintained. Over -watering and subsequent'saturation of slope surface should be avoided. 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 5 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated in the design and construction. The following is a summary of the geotechnical design and construction factors that may affect the development of the site 5.1 Seismicity Based on our studies on seismicity, there are no known active faults crossing the property. Our studies of regional and local seismicity indicate that the Whittier Fault trace (Reference No. 1) is located at approximately 3.7 miles south of the property. The site is located in a seismically active region and is subject to seismically induced ground shaking (M> 6.8, a > 0.44g) from Whittier Fault and nearby faults. 5.2 Liquefaction Potential Based on our review of the "Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Yorba Linda Quadrangle" by California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the site is located outside the mapped potential liquefaction areas. 5.3 Excavatability Based on our subsurface investigation, excavation of the subsurface materials should be able to be accomplished with conventional earthwork equipment. 5.4 Surfacial Soil Removal and Recompaction Based on our subsurface investigation, the existing near surface "soils consists fill which are not suitable for supporting the foundation and fill. Removal and recompaction of surficial soil is necessary. 5.5 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration. In our opinion, groundwater will not be a problem during construction. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the subsurface conditions exposed during field investigation and laboratory testing 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 6 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 program, it is recommended that the following recommendations be incorporated in the design and construction phases of the project 6.1 Grading 6.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to initiating grading operations, any existing vegetation, trash, debris, over -sized materials greater than 6 inches), and other deleterious materials within construction areas should be removed from the site. 6.1.2 Surficial Soil Removals All building footings should be founded on the compacted fill. In order to provide a uniform support to the proposed structures, it is recommended that the existing low density, near surface soils be removed and recompacted to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grade or 1 foot below proposed footing bottom, whichever is deeper, within the proposed building areas, and at least 1 foot within the drive areas. The removal should also be extended at least five feet horizontally beyond the perimeters of the buildings. The actual removal depths should be determined in the field as conditions are exposed. Visual inspection and/or testing may be used to define removal requirements. 6.1.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms Soils exposed within areas approved for fill placement should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted in -place to minimum project standards. 6.1.4 Structural Backfill The onsite soils may be used as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials and debris. Soils imported from off -site sources should be similar to the onsite soils and should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to transporting to the site. Fills should be placed in relatively thin lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to obtain at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM D-1557-00. 6.1.5 Fill Keys Fill keys, where required, should be a minimum of 12 feet wide and extend a minimum of 5 feet into the approved competent materials. Subdrains consisting of perforated pipe should be 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945.0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 7 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 installed in the key or bench and sloped to discharge to a suitable collection facility. All fill keys should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to placing fill 6.1.6 Benching Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent materials as the fill is placed (Figure 5). Keys and benches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant. 6.2 Shallow Foundation Design 6.2.1 Bearing Value An allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of the footings placed at a depth of at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground and founded on the bedrock materials. Single spread footings should be at least 24 inches square and continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide. This bearing value may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth or width to a maximum value of 2000 psf. The above recommended value may be increased by one third (113) when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. 6.2.2 Settlement Settlement of the footings placed as recommended and subject to no more than allowable loads is not expected to exceed 314 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent columns is not anticipated to exceed 1/2 inch for a span of 25 feet or less. 6.2.3 Lateral Resistance Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot, with a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one third (1/3). Active earth pressure from horizontal backfill may be computed as an equivalent fluid weighting of 30 pounds per cubic foot. Where the slope of the backfill is 2:1, an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 (pcf) may be used. Walls that are restrained against lateral movement or rotation at the top may be designed for the at -rest equivalent fluid pressure. An at -rest fluid weighting of 55 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945.0689; Fax: 562-945.0364 PROJECTED PLANE I TO I MkXuJM FROM TOE OF SLOPE To APPROVED GROLNfO NATURAL \ GROUND-, P uK OEM LLOOWEST BENCHIO:Y DEPTfI M NATURAL 01. I4_L`.,1 j 1_yY1tL KEY DEPnI C{rT fACL SHALL BE CONBTTUCTTO MCR TO FU- PLACEMENT To A89URE CUTFACE ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONCIToH TO BE CONSTRUCTED PF" TO FU PLACEMENT NATURAL GROUND i OVEMUILT AND TM BACK\ DESIGN SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE TOE OF BIOPE TO 7 NBLT LOWEST ING KEY DEPTHNXn READY! INSWASU MATERIAL L . -Rll REMOVE NSUTTABL MATERIAL FILL SLOPE FILL-OVER-CIJT SLOPE CUT -OVER -FILL SLOPE BENCHING SHALL BE DONE MEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1 IvUMMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET MNIMUM FILL VUDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET Project Address: Environmental 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive e Geotechnology Diamond Bar, California j • Laboratory EGL Project No.: 03-20"07 TYPICAL KEYING AND BENCHING DETAILS 11100 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 8 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 pounds per cubic foot may be used for free -draining, level backfill. Where the slope of the backfill is 2:1, an equivalent fluid pressure of 65 (pcf) may be used. The above values assume free -draining conditions. 6.2.4 Foundation Setback It is recommended that all foundation be setback at least 8 horizontal feet between the face of the southwest facing descending fill slope and the edge of the footing bottom (Figure 3). No passive pressure is allowed for the portion of the footings which maintain less than 5 feet between the edge of the footing and the slope face. 6.3 Foundation Construction It is anticipated that the entire structure will be underlain by onsite soils of medium expansion potential. The reinforcement of the foundation system should be designed by the project structural engineer. However, it is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced by minimum of two No. 4 bars placed in the top and two No. 4 bars placed in the bottom of the footings. A grade beam reinforced as recommended above for footings and at least 12 inches square should be utilized across the garage entrance. The base of the reinforced beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. Based on the effective plasticity index test (PI=27) and the expansion index (El = 51) obtained from our laboratory testing results, it is anticipated that the entire structure will be underlain by on-site soils of -medium expansion potential. -Based on the design -standard of UBC Code, Section 1815, the following presented our recommendations for the Slab -On -Ground Foundation. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of one No. 4 bar at a spacing of 16 inches on center. each way or it's equivalent. A minimum of 1 inch of sand should be placed over the membrane to aid in uniform curing of concrete. Concrete slabs in moisture sensitive areas should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum cif six -mil polyvinyl chloride (PC) membrane with all laps sealed. 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 9 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper positioning during placement of concrete. Garage slabs should be poured separately from the residence footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint materials to permit relative movement. 6.4 Retaining/Stem Wall Wall should be provided with subdrains to reduce the potential for the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Backdrains could consist of free drainage materials (SE of 30 or greater) or CalTran Class 2 permeable materials immediately behind the wall and extending to within 18 inches of the ground surface. A perforated pipe could be installed at the base of the backdrain and sloped to discharge to a suitable collection facility or through weep holes (Figure 6). Alternatively, commercially available drainage fabric could be used. The fabric manufacturer's recommendations should be followed in the installation of the drainage fabric backdrain. 7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN Our study of seismicity in the area indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the property. However, the subject site is located in southern California, which is a tectonically active area. Should the 1997 UBC be used for the structural design of the site, the following seismic related values may be used: Seismic Zone 4 Seismic Zone Factor (Z) 0.4 Soil Profile Type - Table 16-J So Seismic Coefficient Ca (16-Q) 0.44Na Cv (16_R)--0-.64Nv— Near Source Factor Na (16-S) 1.0 Nv (16-T) 1.2 Seismic Source Type (16-U) B Causative Fault (Distance): Whittier Fault (< 3.7 miles) Uniform Building Code design is intended to accommodate horizontal accelerations up to 0.4g for Seismic Zone 4. The proposed structures should be designed to accommodate this acceleration, at a minimum. However, the Project Structural Engineer should be aware of the information provided above to determine if any additional structural strengthening is warranted. 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 7 / WATERPROOF MEMBRANCE WALL COMPACTED IMPERIOUS SOIL 18-INCH MINIMUM APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL 16-INCH MINIMUM(SEENOTE) PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATION DOWN) GRAVITY DRAINED OR TO A SUMP PUMP 4-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 OR SDR 35 PVC PIPE (MINIMUM), WITH 2-INCH MINIMUM BELOW PIPE SOIL BACKFILL NOT TO SCALE NOTE: 1) Approved filter material shall be free -draining materials (SE of 30 or grater) or CaltransClass -11 permeable material. -As an-altemative;:3/4=inch ausFetl mck may- - be substituted for the approved filter material if an approved, nonwoven geotextile filter fabric is used to encapsulate the 3/4-inch crushed rock (such as MIRAFI 140N or SUPAC 4 NP) 2) Pipe perforations shall not exceed a slot width of 1/5-inch for slotted pipe and 1/ 4-inch diameter for drilled pipe to avoid migration of fines into the drain pipe. ENVIRONMENTAL Project Address: ENVIRONMENTAL MENTALY2887 Shadow Canyon Drive GEOTELABORATORY Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03.208-007 TYPICAL WALL BACKDRAIN DETAIL FIGURE G Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 10 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 8.0 CORROSION POTENTIAL Chemical laboratory tests were conducted on the existing onsite near surface materials sampled during EGL's field investigation to aid in evaluation of soil corrosion potential and the attack on concrete by sulfate soils. The testing results are presented in the Appendix B. According to UBC Table 19-A-4, a "negligible" exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with the onsite soil. Based on the testing results and UBC, it is concluded that Type II cement may be used. Based on the resistivity of soil sample, it is estimated that the subsurface soils are severely corrosive to buried metal pipe. It is recommended that any underground metal utilities be blasted and given protective coating. Should additional protective measures be warranted, a corrosion specialist should be consulted. 9.0 TEMPORARY TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL All trench excavations should conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. All utilities trench backfill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of ASTM D-1557-91. 10.0 INSECTION As a necessary requisite to the use of this report, the following inspection is recommended: Temporary excavations. Removal of surficial soils. Backfill placement and compaction. Foundation excavations. Utility trench backfill. The geotechnical engineer should be notified at least 1 day in advance of the start of construction. A joint meeting between the client, the contractor, and the geotechnical engineer is recommended prior to the start of construction to discuss specific procedures and scheduling. 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670: Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 11 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 11.0 DRAINAGE The pad should be properly drained toward the street away from the slope and structure via swales or area drains. Positive pad drainage shall be incorporated into the final plans. In no cases should water be allowed to pond within the site, impound against structures, or flow in a concentrated and/or uncontrolled manner down the descending slope areas. 12.0 111 STATEMANT Based on our field investigation and laboratory testing results, it is our opinion that the proposed structures will be safe against hazard from landslide,' settlement, or slippage and the proposed construction will have no adverse affect on the geologic stability of the adjacent properties provided our recommendations presented in the report are followed. 13.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the subject site and utilized in our laboratory testing program are believed to be representative of the area. However, soil materials may vary in characters between excavations. Since our investigation is based on the site materials observed, selected laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinion. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standard of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. 14.0 REFERENCE 1. Thomas F. Blake, (2000), EQFAULT: 'The Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From 3-D Fault Sources", WINDOWS 95198 Compatible Versions. 2. Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., (2001), "Geologic Map of the Quadrangle " Yorba Linda and Prado Dam 3. James E. Slosson and Associates (1966), "Geologic Report for Lot #61, Tract #30289, a portion of Equestrian, Estates. Diamond, Bar, California" 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating two borings to a maximum depth of 21 feet at approximate locations shown on the enclosed site plan, Figure 2. Upon completion of excavation, the trenches were backfilled with onsite soils that were removed from the excavations. The excavating of the test pits were supervised by an EGL engineer and an engineering geologist, who continuously logged the borings and visually classified the soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Ring samples were taken at frequent intervals. These samples, taken by a hand sampler, were obtained by driving a ring sampler with successive blows of 50-pound hammer dropping from a height of 32 inches. Representative undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were retained in a series of brass rings, each having an inside diameter of 2.42 inches and a height of 1.00 inch. All ring samples were transported to our laboratory. Bulk surface soil samples were also collected for additional classification and testing. EGL BORING LOG B-1 PROJECT LOCATION: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, Califomia DATE DRILLED: 08.07-03 PROJECT NO: 03-208-007EG SAMPLE METHOD: 24-inch bucket auger ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: KC Sample 0a ER. S: Standard Penetration Test T=o Ring Sample o D off ` 2 ` Description of Material CL Fill: silty clay, sandy, light gray, slightly moist, soft to medium stiff, rooty R 3 5-- 05.4 1- Fill: 5 R 5 CL 101.2 16.8 Silty clay, sandy, light brownish gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff 10 R 4 96.0 13.6 Bedrock: Sandstone, medium hard to hard, light gray, well cemented, slightly moist, massive, with siltstone interlayers, well bedded, layer thickness 114 to 1 inch, light brownish gray, firm to medium hard Bedding: N 24 E / W 13 @ 12 feet N-S/W27@15feet 15 R 5 99.4 23.2 201 I R I 5 I I 96.0 I 17.8 I Rocky refusal @ 21 feet, drilling terminated Total Depth'21-feet - - - - — — - No groundwater encountered Hole Backfilled Hammer Driving Weight =1800 pounds Hammer Driving Height =18 inches 35 PLATE A-3 EGL BORING LOG B-2 PROJECT LOCATION: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California DATE DRILLIED: 08-07-03 PROJECT NO: 03-208-007EG SAMPLE METHOD: 24-inch bucket auger ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: KC Sample 0 E3 S: Standard Penetration Test T to ' R: Ring Sample N V yDnsv3Un . o n' m o f ` Description of Material CL Fill: silty clay, sandy, light gray, slightly moist, soft to medium stiff, rooty R 6 105 14.2 5 R 2 CL 101.2 16.8 Fill: Silty clay, sandy, light brownish gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff 10 R 6 101.5 13.6 Bedrock: Sandstone and siltstone intedayers, sandstone fine grained, cemented, medium hard to hard, siltstone well bedded, layer thickness 114 to 1 inch, sandstone massive, thickness 3 to 12 inches 15 R 3 99.4 23.2 Bedding: N 22 WE W 16 Q 16 feet 20 R 6 96.0 17.8 Rocky refusal @ 20 feet, drilling terminated Total Depth 20 feet- ' — --- -- - - No groundwater encountered 25 Hole Backftlled Hammer Driving Weight = 1800 pounds Hammer Driving Height = 18 inches 30 35 PLATE A-3 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING During the, subsurface exploration, EGL personnel collected relatively undisturbed ring samples and bulk samples. The following tests were performed on selected soil samples: Moisture -Density The moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each relatively undisturbed soil sample obtained in the test borings in accordance with ASTM D2937 standard. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. Direct Shear Tests Shear tests were performed in a direct shear machine of strain -control type in accordance with ASTM D3080 standard. The rate of deformation was 0.0125 inch per minute. Selected samples were sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters: internal friction angle and cohesion. Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed soil samples in accordance with ASTM D2435 standard. The consolidation apparatus is designed for an one -inch high soil filled brass ring. Loads are applied in several increments in a geometric progression and the resulting deformations are recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are placed in contact with the top and bottom of each specimen to permit addition and release of pore fluid. Inundation of samples were performed at a load of one kip per square foot, and the test results areshownon theattached -Figures. — -- Expansion Index The Expansion Index was determined for the typical site material encountered in the borings. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D4829-95 and the test results are as follows: Effective plasticity index Based on UBC Code, Section 1815, the effective plasticity index is determined from the following equation: Effective plasticity index = Weighted plasticity index x Cs x Co, where Cs and Co are factors determined in accordance with UBC Code, Section 1815 The plasticity index is determined for the upper 15 feet of on site soils. Standard Test Methods for plasticity index is based on ASTM D 4318-00. The effective plasticity index result is presented as below: SampleLocation Effective .. plasticityindeX, ; B- 1 27 Corrosion Potential Chemical laboratory tests were conducted on the existing onsite near surface materials sampled during EGL's field investigation to aid in evaluation of soil corrosion potential and the attack on concrete by sulfate soils. These tests are performed in accordance with California Test Method 417, 422, 532, and 643. The testing results are presented below: Chloride Sulfate„ • 61Resistiyity. Sam ' Ibt6cation PH„ pprn)" okbyweight) ohrrJcm)% s is B- 1-&.B-2_Q_0_2- 7. 44 170_ _ 0.012 740 LLrn0- rntoW Of QW2to 4000 3500 300 2500 2000 150 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL BOREHOLE ID SAMPLE ID DEPTH FT) SAMPLE TYPE SOIL TYPE COHESION PSF) FRICTION ANGLE(DEG) O B-1 N/A 5.0 RING I CL 200 32 Vertical Loads PSF) Moisture Content Before Test (%) Moisture Content After Test (%) 500 16.8 27.4 1000 16.8 25.7 2000 16.8 24.0 Environmental Geotechnology e..... Laboratory Project Address: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 DIRECT SHEAR 09/03 ( ASTM D3080) FIGURE 11823 Slauson Avenue. Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA90670. Tel: (562)945-0689: Fax: (562)945-0364 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL COHESION FRICTION SYMBOL NUMBER NUMBER FT) TYPE TYPE PSF) ANGLE(DEG) O NORMAL 530 46 0 RESHEAR B-1 N/A 20.0 RING SandstonE 264 43 RESIDUAL 260 35 Vertical Loads PSF) Moisture Content Before Test (%) Moisture Content After Test (%) 500 17.8 31.2 1000 17.8 21.0 2000 17.8 28.0 Shear Rate: 0.0125 in/min Environmental 6: GeotechnologysrLaboratory Project Address: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 DIRECT SHEAR 09/03 ( ASTM D3080) FIGURE 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. Tel: (562)945-0689; Fax: (562)945-0364 LL U) EL rnU) WxF— W K Ww 4000- 350 30Q NORMAL 2500 RES EA 200 IX lsoo RE (DUAL 100 50 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL COHESION FRICTION SYMBOL NUMBER NUMBER FT) TYPE TYPE PSF) ANGLE(DEG) O NORMAL RESHEAR B_2 N/A 15.0 RING CL 450 32 RESIDUAL 435 24 Vertical Loads PSF) Moisture Content Before Test (%) Moisture Content After Test (%) 500 23.8 49.8 1000 23.8 39.8 2000 23.8 31.3 Shear Rate: 0.0125 in/min Environmental Geotechnology nwsl Laboratory Project Address: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 DIRECT SHEAR 09/03 ( ASTM D3080) FIGURE 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. Tel: (562)945-0689: Fax: (562)945-0364 z0 HQ OrLw0 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SA 2 3 4 5 6789 2 3 4 56789 0.1 1 10 COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) 2 3 4 5 8 7 9 9 100 SYMBOL- BORING- SAMPLE— DEPTH- SOIL— INIT. MOISTURE- INIT.-DRY— NIT.-VOID— NO NO TYPE CONTENT DENSITY RATIO FT) N PCF) 0 B-2 N/A 5.0 CL 25.1 98.7 0.707 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY Project Address: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 CONSOLIDATION 09/03 ( ASTM D2435) FIGURE ZO F OLLW0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 0.1 1 10 COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 100 SYMBOL- BORING- SAMPLE— DEPTH- SOIL- INIT'MOISTURE- INIT-DRY- INIT.-VOID— NO NO TYPE CONTENT DENSITY RATIO FT) PCF) 0 B-1 N/A 2.0 CL 14.2 112.0 0.504 ENVIRONMENTAL i GEOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY Project Address: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 CONSOLIDATION ASTM D2435) 09/03 FIGURE Z0 a o: 0LLWa 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 56789 2 3 4 56789 0.1 1 10 COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 100 SYMBOL BORING- SAMPLE— DEPTH- SOIL— INIT-MOISTURE- INIT- DRY— INIT.-VOID— NO NO TYPE CONTENT DENSITY RATIO FT) M PCF) O B-1 N/A 10.0 CL 13.6 103.0 0.635 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY J LABORATORY Project Address: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03.208-007 CONSOLIDATION 09t03 ( ASTM D2435) FIGURE APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses have been performed for the fill slope after. construction. Selection of coulomb strength parameters used for the analyses were based on our laboratory test data from this investigation and evaluated in light of past experience. A summary of these strength parameters are presented in the following table: b a..a 9• s i. o•,tr s : r i a atenal i F.. -,. .wn , n fi UnitWeight ! t r.*° pcff) i3 rar . r ^ + >s Fnction Angel ,. a m 4 rs , 'x Static/Seismica r? 4: StS eismic oats. oh onto i aUd Psfl Fill 100 32/32 200/200 Bedrock (Gross) 100 24/24 435/435 A summary of the stability analyses and corresponding preliminary geotechnical recommendations are summarized in the following table, and sections and calculations are presented on the following plates. tiF.3L.n.j n-0i#1'sJ°'"idd ds:swf 1*i l•"'F'D d y{r`'3`f P,Felimmary 1 11 v Calculated Conditions a a,1.'bCn .. r c..a-,.sE.+:c•r-tYc• irsau+. ^'y1 Stabc/seismic) r • rs'szca.a.5i geotech f 'Y j Recommendation s Ti F.'a ..d i'+^'vc-t .. w mYi?' % sir Ya /pPM1lx '.,Y ... •/FLI 1 t E }y .s A K'. 9E. •l.Y.% Proposed 2:1 slope with maximum height of 21 feet 3.56/2.19 Stable as existed Proposed 2:1 slope with maximum 3.11/2.11 Stable as existed height of 18 feet bO £ O :4m rt3 C A N r- Qmr- W co cm O Nm r V bOOV -r LM V wwNNNMgwO.gN MMMMMMMMMM ak.iNM iV7 0Naoo O 1.4 N O0+ CD m. r m Q1 ¢ w LO 7•i 8 m N mm 320827a PCSTABLS ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified .Ianbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer-s Method of Slices Run Date: 09-15-03 Time of Run: 11:54am Run By: vw Input Data Filename: C:320827A Output Filename: C:320827A.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320827A.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Existing Ground, Static Condition 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below End 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 1 2 28.00 50.00 45.00 52.00 1 3 45.00 52.00 72.00 57.00 1 4 72.00 57.00 99.00 59.00 1 5 99.00 59.00 136.00 70.00 1 6 136.00 70.00 149.00 78.00 1 7 149.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 1 8 220.50 80.00 239.00 81.00 1 9 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 2 10 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 2 11 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 2 12 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 2 13 188.00 73.00 239.00 73.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 100.0 100.0 435.0 24.0 0.00 0.0 0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Page 1 320827a Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 180.00 ft. and X = 239.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 93.16 56.57 2 102.55 55.12 3 112.29 52.87 4 122.24 51.84 5 132.23 52.05 6 142.13 53.49 7 151.77 56.14 8 161.01 59.97 9 169.70 64.91 10 177.72 70.89 11 184.93 77.82 12 185.92 79.03 Circle Center At X'= 125.6 ; Y = 132.4 and Radius, 80.7 3.557 *** Page 2 s. as bco C 04 A•• N d m A Lnr-1 I O cm37Ort3 V 3 m O pa F Ln a ti a. m as tiNr- mOm Nm 7 V S= OU u RS E••+ N +' 1) i. V) U cLn cv an x + Lo m i O 320827b PCSTABL5 ** by. Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer-s Method of Slices Run Date: 09-15-03 Time of Run: 11:55am Run By: vw Input Data Filename: C:320827B Output Filename: C:320827B.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320827B.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Existing Ground, Seismic Condition 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary x-Left Y-Left x-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 1 2 28.00 50.00 45.00 52.00 1 3 45.00 52.00 72.00 57.00 1 4 72.00 57.00 99.00 59.00 1 5 99.00 59.00 136.00 70.00 1 6 136.00 70.00 149.00 78.00 1 7 149.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 1 8 220.50 80.00 239.00 81.00 1 9 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 2 10 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 2 11 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 2 12 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 2 13 188.00 73.00 239.00 73.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 100.0 100.0 435.0 24.0 0.00 0.0 0 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Page 1 320827b Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 psf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X - 30.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 180.00 ft. and X = 239.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.63 51.72 2 51.69 47.48 3 61.05 43.97 4 70.66 41.20 5 80.46 39.19 6 90.38 37.97 7 100.37 37.52 8 110.37 37.86 9 120.30 38.98 10 130.12 40.89 11 139.76 43.55 12 149-16 t6-97 13 158.26 51.11 14 167.01 55.96 15 175.35 61.48 16 183.23 67.63 17 190.60 74.39 18 195.17 79.29 Circle Center At X = 101.0 ; Y = 164.7 and Radius, 127.2 2.190 Page 2 NGJ mamA Ln ofmmr- edV 3 V N m m m m m Lr)° mx 44 m 320827c PCSTABL5 ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer-s Method of Slices Run Date: 09-15-03 Time of Run: 11:59am Run By: vw Input Data Filename: C:320827C Output Filename: C:320827C.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320827C.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION After Construction, Static Condition 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 1 2 28.00 50.00 64.00 68.00 1 3 64.00 68.00 118.00 68.00 1 4 118.00 68.00 118.50 72.00 1 5 118.50 72.00 140.50 78.00 1 6 140.50 78.00 149.00 78.00 1 7 149.00 78.00 220.00 78.00 1 8 220.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 1 9 220.50 80.00 239.00 81.00 2 10 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 2 11 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 2 12 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 2 13 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 2 14 188.00 73.00 239.00 73.00 2 SOTROPIC-SOI1 PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 2 100.0 100.0 435.0 24.0 0.00 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right No. (ft) (ft) 1 64.00 118.00 Intensity lb/sqft) 1500.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Deflection deg) Page 1 320827c NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. to Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 180.00 ft. and X = 239.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 124.74 73.70 2 132.68 67.62 3 141.93 63.82 4 151.85 62.56 5 161.75 63.93 6 170.96 67.82 7 178.84 73.99 8 181.85 78.00 Circle Center At X = 151.6 ; Y = 100.6 and Radius, 38.1 3.113 Page 2 In 4 M b O 6 £ An N A mLn O .i N Z. i. trJAm 0 U i ` Ln CJ O +' NO O N.•IhhN D Dh O. a1 I+•i•i•i NNNN N NM to I . . . . . . . . NNNNNNNNNN O7 iC.iNMCV'1 Dh07Q+O i itGI N _ CH m mN m X +' CO ri r Q 4+ 7. m N W—. E 320827d PCSTABLS ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Plotted Outpu[ Filename: 09-15-03 12:0lpm vw C:320827D C:320827D.OUT C:320827D.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION After Construction, Seismic Condition 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 1 2 28.00 50.00 64.00 68.00 1 3 64.00 68.00 118.00 68.00 1 4 118.00 68.00 118.50 72.00 1 5 118.50 72.00 140.50 78.00 1 6 140.50 78.00 149.00 78.00 1 7 149.00 78.00 220.00 78.00 1 8 220.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 1 9 220.50 80.00 239.00 81.00 2 10 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 2 11 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 2 12 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 2 13 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 2 14 188.00 73.00 239.00 73.00 2 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (pef) No. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 100.0 100.0 435.0 24.0 0.00 0.0 0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (lb/sqft) (deg) Page 1 320827d 1 64.00 118.00 1500.0 0.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting.On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 psf A Critical Failure Surface searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 180.00 ft. and x = 239.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.00 51.00 3 48.22 42.79 4 57.74 39.72 5 67.46 37.37 6 77.33 35.75 7 87.29 34.87 8 97.29 34.73 9 107.27 35.34 10 117.18 36.69 11 126.96 38.77 12 136.56 41.57 13 145.92 45.08 14 155.00 49.28 15 163.74 54.14 16 172.09 59.64 17 180.01 65.74 18 187.46 72.42 19 192.82 78.00 Page 2 320827d Circle Center At X = 94.1 ; Y = 169.0 and Radius, 134.3 2.112 • *** Page 3 TRIAD FOUNDATION GINEER G IRC Foundation Engineering • Engineering Geology Material Testing • Construction Inspection OL,I yy 17231 EAST RAiLROAD STREET, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 • .( jTELEPHONE (818) 964-Y313 , October 10, 1984 Job # 84-239 Mr. Joseph Palazzolo 403 So. Shellman Avenue San Dimas, California 9177= Subject: Addendum to Soils & Geologic Investigation Lot 29, Tract 30289 31o1 *tPP-cL&*C References: 1) Preliminary Soils & Geologic Investigation dated 8-29-84 2) LA County Review letter dated 10-2-84 Dear Mr. Palazzolo: The landslide on the subject site is very shallow and a very. small portion,of a large landslide. The slide plane encountered in our test pits corresponds well with the undisturbed bedding plane angles. The purpose of the proposed shear key is to stabilize the mass within the subject site only, and the geology outside the graded area is not significant. The proposed shear key is not strictly perpendicular to the bedding or slide plane:. however, it extends more than 40 feet west of the top of pad limit and will provide good protection from any movement in the direction of bedding planes or suspected slide planes on the subject site. The cut slopes on the property adjacent to the northwest corner of the subject site are small (approximately 6 feet) and will not undermine the shear key or effect our analysis. The higher cuts (approximately 18 feet) at the south end of the site are at nearly right angles to the bedding and will not pose a threat to the proposed project. To provide a higher safety factor, we have added an additional shear key, 15 feet wide, at the toe of the west facing fill slope. Depth of the key will be a minimum 5 +met below the slide plane. u In response to Item #2, we are not intending to remove all slide effected bedrock since it is in a dense condition and - will provide good foundation support of vertical loads and the shear key is provided to stabilize any horizontal sl i pp:kge. Private sewers will not be used for the develoment. Respectfully submitted, TRIA DFOOUNNDDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Frank C. Stillman RCE 16810 FCS/ lms Distribution: Addressee (4) IN El nj RE Cr- iVED AUG 15 1994 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET LeiGHTCI; & ASSOCIATE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 2910164-64 Tract(s) 30289 Lot 3 Date June 8, 1994 Parent Tract Site Address f--2652 Shadow Canyon` Geologist Hawkins Soils Engineer Duco Review of: Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated Geology and Soils Report( Other Action: Dated- X Plan/Report is geotechnically approved Plan/Report is geotechnically approved subject to conditions below. Review Comments: Location/Owner Developer Tovev Construction Engineer/Arch. Abell U Plan/report not approved for reasons below Submit Plan/Reoort-for recheck. Include a copy of this review. o rn o r e, J OT ill Cz to { Reviewed by p e-l - Date June 8, 1994 David C. Smith ' Reviewed by 1 , z —" Date June 8, 1994 Ka St. Peters A LEIGNTONANDASSOCLATES Mr - H. GENE HAWKINS GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 855 West loth Street • Claremont, CA 91711 • [7141 626 7181 June4, 1994 RECI- IVEG JUN - 7 1994 LWHION 8 ASSOCIATE Mr. Ron Cobine DUCO ENGINEERING, INC. 20938 Currier Road Walnut, Ca 91789 APPROVE® SUBJECT: Final As -Graded Geologic Report Review Sheet Dated 2652 Shadow Canyon Drive Lot 3, Tract 30289 City of Diamond Bar, California REFERENCES: 1) Engineering Geologic Report by H. Gene Hawkins, dated -August 3, 1992. 2) Final Report of Compaction Tests by DUCO Engineering, Inc., dated April 23, 1993. 3) Geotechnical Review Sheet, dated May 31, 1994. Dear Mr. Cobine: In accordance with your request, I have prepared this Final As -Graded Geologic Report. Field geologic inspections were made between 1Feb93 and 3Mar93 to inspect the fill key excavations and the areas around the pool site. This work was done in accordance with the referenced Engineering Geologic Report. The geologic information noted during those inspections has been included on the attached As -Graded Geologic Map. The cross -sections have been revised in accordance with the noted information. , As noted on the geologic map, additional attitudes were collected in the bottom of the fill keys, and at various other points were bedrock was exposed. In general, the information was consistent I • with that presented in the original report. However, there was a slight variation as shown on Cross-section A=A% where a small synclinal feature is shown as "Revised" bedding. Item #2 of the Review Sheet requested documentation of any slump materials in the north corner of the lot. No significant slump materials were noted during the grading. However, some minor amounts of creep -affected bedrock to a maximum depth of about three feet were noted and were removed and incorporated into!the fill. No other significant geologic features were noted on the lot. No additional grading changes were required due to unforeseen geologic conditions. i CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The final grading is approved from a engineering geologic perspective. In accordance with Section 309, Los Angeles Building Code,: the proposed development appears to be feasible from an engineering geologic perspective. The effects of the proposed construction should not adversely affect adjacent properties or: future geologic processes if good engineering and construction practices are followed during the subsequent phases of this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Respectfully submitted, Q`v H.G. HAWKINSH. Gene Hawkins Na, 952 CEG #952 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GE LOGIST Exo. -:m 'V H. GENE HAWKINS.855 West 10th Street • Claremont, CA 91711 • (714) 626.7181 44' EN6. DEPr GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET .+ AN H 1994 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. DIAMOND CITY FOR p eae CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERI j Tract(s) 30289, Lot 24 Parent Tract Date August 5. 1994 Location/Owner "The Country"/Shah Site Address 2920 Wagon Train Geologist Developer Owner Soils Engineer Review of: Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated Jul Geology and Soils Report(s) Other Action: Dated X Plan/Report is geotechnically approved Plan/Report is geotechnically approved subject to conditions below. Review Comments: Reviewed by Davi Engineer/Arch. 64-25 Plan/report not approved for reasons below Submit Plan/Report for recheck. Include a copy of this review. Date August 4. 1994 UIGNTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. RECEIVEDSoilsEngineering • Engineering Geology • Environ annul Engineering R G C 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964.2313 j 0 f 2 8 i,3194 FAX (818) 610-0915 LHGHTON & ASSOCIATE July 21, 1993 Job No. 93-107A Newcastle Construction 201 N. 1st Avenue #100 Upland, CA 91786 Review Sheet Dated Y.-T. Attention: Gary Jackson rAY92Subject: Retaining Wall Report of Compaction2920WagonTrainLane Diamond Bar, CA Gentlemen: Pursuant to our request representatives of this firm' inspected and tested the fill placed during grading operations on the subject site. This report presents the results of these tests and inspections performed from June 4, 1993 through June 22, 1993. A Final Geologic and Grading Map of the site showing test locations and other pertinent data is accompanying this report. Only periodic inspections were requested and provided during the grading operation. Reference Data Used Geologic Inspection and Report of Compaction by Triad Geotechnical Consultants, dated July 14, 1993 GRADING A. Fill was placed in 6-8 inch loose lifts, watered and compacted to the minimum requirements. B. The method used for adding moisture and compacting was a water hose and hand tampers. C. Placement of Geogrids was inspected for conformance of required lengths (L) and vertical intervals (D). D. Imported soil was used for backfill. TESTING A. Compaction standard used for minimum requirements was 90 percent of the ASTM Test Method D1557-78. B. Field density tests were performed in accordance with the sand cone method, ASTM D1556-82 and the drive tube method, ASTM D2937-83. Results of these tests are attached as a part of this report. C. Expansion tests were performed on typical soils in accordance with the UBC Standard No. 29-2 to determine their expansion index. D. Laboratory test results are summarized below: Maximum Optimum Expansion Classification Density Moisture Index BEDROCK: Mix siltstone with clay, light brown 107.3 17.3 Import: BEDROCK silt - stone with clay, yellowish brown 105.9 17.9 45 SUMMARY The soil is classified as slightly expansive. Compacted fills reported herein have been properly placed and compacted for structural fill. The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, tct;&-/ TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.g'Opl 4s Exp. Fr3i?i3 Frank C. Stillman G. E. 805 '"ECF1N'' P FCS/mis sr9 oFcrU Enclosures: Final Geologic Map & Grading Plan Summary of Test Results City of Diamond Bar Form Distribution: Addressee (4) E ti SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Moisture Dr Lab. Relative Test Content Dens' Max. Compaction No. Date Elevation fncf) Density 1 6/09/93 90.0 16.0 97.8 107.3 91 D 2 6/09/93 90.0 17.6 97.5 107.3 91 D 3 6/10/93 90.0 18.1 96.8 107.3 90 D 4 6/10/93 90.0 16.1 98.9 107.3 92 D 5 6/10/93 92.0 17.6 95.9 105.9 91 D 6 6/10/93 92.0 18.1 95.5 105.9 90 D 7 6/14/93 90.0 15.6 96.5 105.9 91 D 8 6/14/93 94.0 16.6 96.4 105.9 91 S 9 6/14/93 94.0 17.0 98.7 105.9 93 S 10 6/15/93 92.0 16.9 97.1 105.9 92 D 11 6/15/93 92.0 14.9 96.3 105.9 91 D 12 6/15/93 92.0 16.0 99.8 107.3 94 D 13 6/16/93 94.0 17.7 96.2 105.9 91 D 14 6/16/93 94.0 16.5 97.4 105.9 92 D 15 6/16/93 96.0(FG) 17.2 95.2 105.9 90 S 16 6/17/93 96.0(FG) 18.3 98.7 105.9 93 D 17 6/17/93 96.0(FG) 16.2 97.0 105.9 92 D 18 6/17/93 96.0(FG) 17.9 97.5 105.9 92 S 19 6/22/93 96.0(FG) 16.4 95.4 105.9 90 S 20 6/22/93 102.0(FG) 18.1 97.8 107.3 91 D 21 6/22/93 101.0(FG) 17.5 96.9 107.3 90 D S - Sand Cone Method D - Drive Tube Method CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE W DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 714-860-CITY 714.860-'489 SUPERVISED GRADING INSPECTION CERTI:ICATE IJOB ADDRESS/TRACT NO. 2920 Wagon Train Lane PERMIT NO. OWN -ER Dr. Shah CONTRACTOR - -; ISOILS ENGINEER'S ROUGa GRADING CT_RTI=ICATION I certify that the earth fills placed on the following lots were installed upon competent and properly prepared base material and compacted in compliance with requirements of Building Code Section 7010. I further certify that where the report or reports of an encineering geologist, relative to this site, have :ecomimended the installation of buttress fills or other sirar stabilization measures, such earthwork construction has been co-,pleted in accordance with the approved design. III: ?•Cs See report dated 7/21/93. for compaction test data, recommended allowable soil bearing values and other recc mendaticrs. E =A2. SIVE SOILS (NO) 3L,'TRESS rI S (yE5) LCT NOS. LCT NCS. Rec.No G.E. 805 Date 7/21/93 sion, at..re certify to the sati5fac-Lry completion of rough grading including: grading to approximate final elevations, property __cos located and staked; cut and fill slopes correctly graded and located _n accc:cance with the approved design; swales and terraces traded ready for 7avinc be -stalled; and rec ired drainage slopes provided on the building pads. further certify that where rep^ -- or reports of an engineering geologist and/or soils engineer have been.trepared relative to this site, the reccrnendaticns contained in such reports have been followed in the .resecuticn cf_. _ work. ILOT NCS c_ neer Reg. No. S ri: ERVISI?:G GR:.e',I NG ESGINEER'S FINAL G7.1JING CERTIFICATION I certify to the satisfactory eo-pleticn cf c:ading in accordance with the approved plans. 11 _ -__ red dra'_^ace devices have been installed: slope planting established and irriga- en syster..s provided (.There :ec-z':ed); and ade--zate provisions have been made 'cr drainage c_ scrface wavers from each !Dui -'ding site. 7he recocnendations of the soils engineer and/ Cr enzineerirnc eec'gc's. (if sigh persons were en_'_o ed) have been _ncorpe:ated in the we:k NCS . IEn=_ nee: Date B DUC® Engineering, Inc. FOUNDFILLATJOCONTROL O SOIL TSSTIINCOwTI°NS 2093SCURRIER ROAD - WALNUT. CALIFORNIA 91789 213) 964. 3449 - (714) 594-7414 Q R E P O R T O F S 0 1 L 5 1 N V E S T I C A T I 0 N P R O P O S E D R E S I D E N C E L O T 6 9, T R A C T N 0. 3 0 2 8 9 S H A D O W C A N Y O N D R I V E, D I A M O N D B A R, C A L I F 0 R N I A FOR: P L F , INC. P.O. Box 310 Placentia, Ca. 92670 Job No.: 1-117, October 16, 1981 Page One October 16, 1981 Introduction Job No:: 1-117 This report presents the results of a soils investigation fur a proposed single family residence to be constructed on Lot 69, Tract No. 30289 on Shadow Canyon Drive, in the Diamond Bar area of the County of Los Angeles, California. The object of'this investigation was to gather information and data regarding the surface and subsurface soil strata upon which to base our recommendations for the safe and economical development of the site for the proposed residential structure. The results of our field and laboratory investigations which form the basis for our recommendations are included as a part of this report. The geologic conditions pertaining to the development of this site, as proposed, are contained in the Geologic and Grading Plan Review of the lot dated October 12, 1981, prepared by Bob Dickey Geotechnical',. Inc. and. submitted as a part of this report. Site Conditions The subject site is situated,on a west facing slope descending from the northwest' side of. Shadow Canyon Drive.' Maximum topographic relief across the site from east to west is on the order of 71 feet- at a slope gradientiof approximately 4:1. The natural slope surface continues to descend offsite to the west for approximately 75 to 95 feet where it daylights into alluvium and a canyon fill previously plac- ed on lots 50 and 51 on the east side of Steeplechase Lane. Lot 7, situated directly across Shadow Canyon Drive from the subject lot, incorp- orates a buttress fill on the west side of the lot adjacent to the street. The soils exposed in the test borings excavated on the subject lot consisted of 1 to 1k feet of sandy and silty -clay topsoils overlying sandstone and siltstone bed- rock which extended to the depths of our investigation. Previously compacted fill - to a depth of 5 feet was encountered in test hole No. 1. The interbedded siltstone and sandstone was noted to have:a consistent west to northwest dip approximating the natural slope surface. The topsoils. varied from loose to firm with the fill soils on the pad and bedrock being generally firm to very dense. A very resistant concretionary sandstone layer 16 to 24 inches in thickness was penetrated with difficulty in each of the three test holes. No evidence of recent movement in the designated slump creep area could be detected. A cross section of the site is presented as Figure No. 4. The site presently supports a few scattered oak and walnut trees with surface weeds and grasses growing on the slopes. The existing pad area had been cleared of veg- etation. Page Two October 16, 1981 Site Conditions (con' Job No.:, 1-117 According to the Grading Plan prepared by Stryker Engineering, dated 9-23-81, the existing graded pad adjacent to Shadow Canyon Drive is proposed to be lowered by cutting 4 to 10 feet off the existing elevations and placing this material down - slope to the west as a compacted fill. An additional cut -fill pad is proposed far- ther downslope, starting at the east edge of the equestrian easement, which will tie into the.upper pad fill. Future site development calls for construction of a swimming pool in•the.southwest corner of the upper pad fill and a possible tennis court on the lower graded pad. Field Investigation The subsurface soils conditions were explored by excavating three (3) engineering test holes to depths of 21 to 24 feet by means of a truck -mounted bucket auger drill rig using a 24 inch bucket. The geologic conditions exposed in the test holes were inspected and recorded by the project geologist, Bob Dickey. The approximate locations of the test holes are shwon on'the Geologic Sketch Map, included as a part of the previously referenced geologic report. A continuous log of the test holes was kept in the field at the time of excavation. These test hole logs, attached as Figures 1 through 3 reflect the condition and classifications of each soil strata encountered based on the Unified System of Soil Classification as devised by A. Casagrande. Relatively undisturbed samples of the typical subsurface soils encountered were re- covered using a 2.5 inch diameter hollow -tube sampler. Disturbed samples of the typical soils encountered were also obtained to be subjected to laboratory testing and analysis. No free water was encountered and no caving of the side walls was experienced in the test holes to the depths explored. Laboratory Investigation In -situ moisture and density tests were performed on the undisturbed samples and the results of these tests are shown on the appropriate test hole log at the depth samp- led. Also shown are the results of calculations made to determine the relative com- paction of the soils compared to the maximum density as determined by ASTM test met- hod D1557-70. The expansion potential was determined for the typical soilsencountered in accord- ance with the U.B.C. test standard 29-2. The results of the laboratory tests are as follows: Page Three October 16, 1981 Job No.: 1-117 Laboratory Investigation (con't) Soil Type Max. Den. Opt. Moist. Expan. Index A- Sandy clay & clayey sand 111.5 P.C.F. 13.0% 85 B- Bedrock-siltstone 92.9 " 25.2% 109 C- Silty sandy clay 104.0 ," 16.0% 83 D- Sandstone 117.3 12.3% 52 Direct shear tests were performed on typical undisturbed and remolded samples of the soils encountered from various depths. The soils were tested in a state of, saturation in order to duplicate extreme field moisture conditions. Results.of the tests are as follows:' Hole No. Depth, Ft. Shear Angle Cohesion, P.S.F. 1 11.5 250 1500 2 18.5 280 1500 3 Remolded to 90% 23 800 . Conclusions and Recommendations Development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering standpoint based on the implementation and incorporation of the following recomm- endations into the site preparation, grading, design and construction of the subject residential site. Side -hill fill shear keys are recommended for the toes of both proposed major fill slopes above and below, the proposed tennis court. The lower shear key shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width and shall be excavated to a minimum depth of 8 feet below the present ground surface or as necessary to bear a minimum depth of 18 inches.into the undisturbed bedrock lying below the surface zone of slump -creep materials. During the grading and filling operations in this area, all creep prone materials shall be -removed to the satisfaction of the soils engineer and geologist and level, benches shall be provided into the underlying undisturbed bedrock as the fill prog- resses upslope. The upper slope, which is proposed as a compacted fill over cut, shall be converted to an entire fill slope with the shear key being aligned with the toe of the proposed slope. This shear key shall be 20 feet in width and shall be excavated to a depth of 10 feet below the future tennis court pad elevation or toe of the slope. This depth and width of shear key will assure bedding planes which are continuously supported downslope. Page Four October 16, 1981 Conclusions and Recommendations (con't) Job No.: 1-117 Stability calculations for the recommended shear keys are attached to this report as figure numbers 5 through 12. A similar benching procedure and surficial soil removal shall be implemented during placement of the upper pad fill. Site Preparation and Grading Prior to any grading the existing vegetation in the.area to be graded shall be stripped and hauled offsite. Prior to placing any fill the shear keys shall be inspected and approved by the soils engineer and geologist. During the grading operation, all existing loose topsoil and weathered bedrock mat- erials susceptible to downhill creep shall be removed and adequate benches shall be provided into the underlying approved bedrock as the fill progresses upslope. The building pad area and any portions of the pad exposing bedrock shall be under- cut to a depth'of 2 feet and replaced as a compacted fill.blanket to provide uni- form foundation support and impede the precolation of surface water'into the under- lying bedrock. Fill soils shall be spread in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, watered as necessary and com- pacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum density as determined by ASTM test method D1557-70. Fill Slopes Fill slopes are recommended at slope angles of 2:1 and are considered to be stable at this angle when constructed in accordance with the following grading procedure. Unless the slopes can be overfilled and cut back to expose the compacted inner core, the grading of these slopes will require special attention and compactioe effort. Sheepsfoot rollers shall be used to construct the fill slopes with special attention given to rolling the outer 3 feet adjacent to the slope -surface. In addition a minimum of 3 passes with the sheepsfoot roller shall be made over the slope surface for each maximum 4 foot vertical interval of fill. All fill slope surfaces not overfilled and trimmed to grade shall be compacted by track rolling or using a grid roller to provide a uniform 90% compaction to the slope surface. All slopes shall be planted with an approved ground cover giving consideration to deep rooted, drought and fire retardant, low maintenance type of plants. All grading shall be performed under the testing and inspection provided by the soils engineer and geologist. Cut Slopes The west facing cut slope paralleling the driveway will expose shallow dipslope bed- ding as designed. It is recommended that this proposed cut slope be converted to an equipment width wide replacement fill slope. Retaining Walls When properly drained and backfilled and where retaining compacted fill or neutral bedding planes, the proposed retaining walls shall be designed for the following recommended equivalent fluid pressure:' Page Five October 16, 1981 Retainina Walls (con't) Retained Slope Angle Level 5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1k:1 Job No.: '1-117 Equivalent Fluid Pressure 30 P.C.F. 32 P.C.F. 35 P.C.F. 38 P.C.F. 43 P.C.F. 55 P.C.F. Any retaining walls which will support adversely oriented bedding planes will need to have the equivalent fluid pressure calculated based on the wall height and bedd- ing orientation. Expansive Soils The expansive potential of the soils that directly affect shallow foundations and slabs upon completion of grading is considered moderate. The remedial construction measures recommended to minimize this condition are attached as Figure No. 13 under the appropriate Expansion Index category. Foundations The recommended soil bearing value for continuous footings a minimum of 18 inches in depth and 12 inches wide shall be 1500 P.S.F. Footings for any retaining walls imbedded a minimum depth of 12 inches into bedrock may be designed for a soil bearing value of 2000 P.S.F. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be.used between the bedrock and the poured concrete. Lateral values may be computed at 400 P.S.F. per foot of depth for the bedrock mat- erials and 300 P.S.F. for compacted fill. Upon completion of site,+grading, the proposed swimming pool area will be composed en- tirley of compacted fill. The future construction of a swimming pool in this area, will in no way adversly affect the stability of the site. Based on the information and test data obtained during our investigation of the site and pending the satisfactory completion of the site grading and construction in acc- ordance with the recommendations of the soils engineer, geologist and supervising grading engineer, it is the opinion of this firm that the subject site will be free from the hazard of settlement, slippage or landslide and will not adversely affect the geologic stability of adjacent properties. Page Six October 19, 1981 Foundations (con't) Job No.: 1-117 The recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of our field and laboratory investigations, combined with the principles of modern soil mechanics and sound engineering judgment. Should any unusual conditions arise during the design or construction of this pro- ject, this firm, shall be notified immediately in order that proper modifications may be made as deemed necessary.,. In addition to the recommendations contained herein, those of the project geologist as contained in the report of Geologic Study, dated Octobdr 12, 1981, shall be con- sidered a part of this report. Respectfully submitted, DUCO ENGINEERING, INC. Approved by: Harvey Sterlin 'White, KCII 10863 DUCO Engineering. Inc. DATE DRILLED 8-5-81 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 o` 2 DeF Ih `' C 25 •v 10 a -V 1 0 In ¢" ;JAL !vJ `4 yP F.a r V 0 - 5 o V ` c0 5 - 10 - IS - 20 - 25 PRoIECT NO. 1-117 I7ELD CLASSIFICATION Topsoil- Silty sandy clay -dark brown -dry -soft 1 C 83.8 8.6 80.6 Weathered Bedrock- (Slump Creep) Interbedded siltstone and sandstone -tan to fuff-fairly massive but highly weathered along fractures and bedding planes -moist - firm to dense Layer of silicic sandstone -very dense -relatively flat lying Interbedded siltstone & sandstone with scattered stringers of caliche-grey tan to.fuff-moist-dense Siltstone- Grey brown to grey-silicic-moist-dense Siltstone- Massive with fine sandstone'interbeds-grey tan to buff -moist -dense Sandstone- (silty fine to medium sand) -tan-moist- dense to very dense 2 D Total depth 22'-no ground water I - I FIGURE. NO. I I iS 9 if N O cr Q Y p J W T Un a IU` Z, W 1 t 2 co N i.. 0. CIOtl i, i i ui J' t QzNt O $ LP tCOk 0 a Q9 O d i r J w JOB vio. 1-Ill FIGURE No. 4 g *o 2 Dt i I Z Zr w p4: v; I i V N O m a z Q r Q J JOB W, i-i(l FIGURE tW. 6 COMI'AC'ri,"D PILL. lUTTRESS CALCULATIONS FOR BASE WIDTH CROSS-SECTION UNIT COMP. DILL: _ .IS kcf• I SLOPE HEICET: ft. EASE WIDTH: = 15 ft WEIGHT: BEDROCK _ .IZ kcf BUTTRESS HCT: ft. EY DEPTH 8 ft SLICE W C/ P1 = I FN = NO. WEIGHT DEGREES sin c< Cos0< W sin a IW cos cc L kips/Pout) kips/foot) kips/FOOL) feet 24lq 9703 2.S(4 6-a7 24 g 5•as o o 1.0 0 Saes is Along llcdding Plane C, _ .15 ksf 01 = 120 Tan 0, = 2126 I FR = Lc + FN can 0 IIt = 2 1x.11 r Ic.z7 .2.126 = 3-G + 2.Lg 5.78 FR: = FRt cos c% A = 5 78 Y..g703 S•Gil Across Compacted PiL1 C2= .80ksf 02= 7.30 Tan 09= l s FR = ISX.a + S.85-A .4245 = 17 -+- 4_.4 e Verti.Cal. Compout.nC of the Net Driving Force Acting, on the ISa:w: Fit = F,1'A - I., Rl sill C/- A Tan 02 = I 2.54 5.78) .2liq X .4246- Dorizootal Compoucut of the Drivi.nh Force: 1"L:A' - I+,I,A . Cos o! A = r• + F P I F.S. = R, Ilf R., _ 5.61 t 14.46 + C- 33) 7,97 1, lAI Job Ho.: 1 117 Figure No.: _ COMPACT!?D FILL. [UPPRESS CALCULATION FOR BASE WID'1'N (SEISMLC CASE) CROSS-SECTION A -A FOR: K Along Isudding flume: I.-TA(s) = I",i.A .16 FNA = 2-5 + 1.54 f, TA(5> l= F„n(5) Cos .. n' = I. j o , . g703 1 RA(s) Lci + (pNA _L5 FTA) Lan 0I 24x.IS4( 1a-2-7-.38) .212 = 3.6 +2•l0 1'.Rn(:;) pRA(s) Cus A = S.70 X . 9763 Across CompacCccl Fill: F.]III + '(c' INil = 0 - .ELF It It = Lc.. + (I., - I5 FT11) 'ran Ifs •, ! S•SS - o . g2.45 2 + 2.46 F's = (Frn(s) lRn(5)) sin x A Tan 0, _ a.lo- 5.70) .2419 x-424 R' R.S. (seism + F + F' ic) = RA(s) RB(s) 3 1' TA(s) + FTB(s) 14.4P+ C-.16) 3.R8 + .88 . q 3.99 5.70 Gi1 14.49 48 Job No.: 1 r COMVAC'CI•:D FILL RU'C9•RIfSS CALCU:.,A'CIONS FOR BAST: WID"T CROSS-SECTION A -A UNFIT COMP. FUL: _ f2 kcf SLOPE HEIGHT: = 12 ft. BASE WIDTH: = 20 ft WE'LGHT: BPUROCIC _ ,12 kcf BUTTRESS 110'r: = _9'' ft. F-EY DEPTH : = 10 ft SLICE W p F NO. WGfGICC DECREES sin cC, CosoC W sin oc W Cos a L kips/four) kips/fuot) kips/four) feet 32•31 14° 2419 9703 7.82 3135 41.5 Atong_Beddi.ng l'Lano Ci = .15 ksf 0, = 12- Oo Tan 0, 1•It - LC + I+N eau F = 41.Sx.1S -I- 31.35X.Z126 = 6:13 i- (p•67 12.90 r., Flt Cos cT = 12_,QOX .9103 IZSI R A Across Comp:ctud Fill Cz= .QD ksf 0 = *2-: 0 'Can 0i = Zf.,• IR, = 0 . 4215 = 16,00 + 4.58 Vurti.cal Component of the Net Driving Force l Actin„ on the Base: FH, _ P.I'A - pRl) sin oC A Tan 02 = 7.G-2 o2,ea) C ,'419 X .4245 Ilorizoi,cal Cumx,C of the Driving Force: F•1,A' = I-, CA COS oC A = 7.82 Q I' + I' lf; R, r,= IZ-51+20.68+C-.52) = 32,.5-/ cL r.I,A, '7.59 • 7.59 Job INo.: Figure No. a0 COM!'ACTLD -11,1, BUTTRESS CALCULATION FOR BASE W1D'I'Fl (SI?ISM CC CROSS-SECTION A -A FOR: R = ,(-) g AlonK Beddi.n;c 1'Lane: P'rn(s) = F,I,A + ,IS FNA ']•82 4.70 rA(s) TA(s) COS '-,( A = 12.52 K 'g7a3 FRA(s) Lc, + (rNA - . iS FTA) Tan 01 _.. 41.SX,15+•2126 6,23 + &A2 1•RA(s) = l'RA(s) Cos X A = 12.65 X, q 703 Across .: oniDaCCcd Fi1L: 1• cB(s) I'Tis + •f`--_, FNB 0+- FRB( s) = LC. + (FNB - •15 'FTB) Tan 0, _ 2r)V.$+-( lo.g-0) •4245 = I&-t- I. SA I',rn' l Rn(s)) sin ,,cA Tan 01 _ C 12. 52 •- 12-• 65) .2419 . 42QS= F' +. F +, F' RA(s) RB(s) 3 r TA( s) + FTB(s) 12.15 t 1.62 Job No.: 12.15. 1 f2.65 i i 4 I i I I' I I 2o. 5s i I I l i 13. 77 i P i gL re No.: q . I Q —r 1 I 1 I 0 3 OD W + N O O Q n• i L i doa FIGURE N0. 10 COMPACTED FILL BUTTRESS CALCULATLONS FOR KEY DEPTH CROSS-SECTION UNIT COMP. FILL: 12 kcf LOPE'HEIGHT: = 13 ft. BASE WIDTH: 20 ft. WEIGHT: BEDROCK 12 kcf BUTTRESS HGT: = 13, ft. KEY J.. DEPTH lb f t . SLICE W rko T F NO. WEIGHT DECREES sin oc Cos Or- W sinc< N W cos 0C L kips/foot) kips/foot) kips/foot) feet: A -A 21 14 2414 47013 52.26 209-613 106. 21.60 3-3 S 44 19397 11,76 161-12- cos sin 7314AB -Afdegrees Along Bedding Plane: C.= .15 ksf 01 Tan 0,= .2126 I., R Lc + F tan 0 F Rl 106.Y. I'S 1 209.62 X •2 17 6 = 15. 9 0 +- 44.S7 F F Cos c< B) 68'20 4A.-ijRj' Rl A Across, Bedding Plane: Cy= ksf 3= 250 an 03 46,62 F R2 Ab63 9.+5- 4s.9s- I Normal Component of the Net. Driving Force Acting on the Cross Bedding Plane. F R l"I'A V R 1) sill ( c< A + 6< B ) Lan 03 62-26-- 60.47)"e 7314 C 4663 Component of the Driving Force Along the Cross Bedding Plane: F TA' = FTA cos (a. + OC 52.26 Y, 6820 A B F.S. = F R: + rTB + F R F R3 UAS 2.70 TA' Job No.: 1-117 fi.gk ro Nci.:' BUTTRESS KEY DEPTH CALCULATION -- SEISMIC CASE CROSS-SECTION A'—A' 1—A1 FOR: K = _,15 g . Ai.ona Beddiva 1'l.;nw: FTA(S) = FTn + IS FNA = 52,24P+.15x2o9.43 I..., Ws) _ F,rA(s) Cos <! A « B = 83.70 X -6820 I'RAW = LC, r (I NA - 1G "TA) Lan 01 2.ITI.63— 7,84) . 2126RA(s) RAk) c. Across B..-,I.Iing lltano: I'•rB(s) ''er = —I Nu = 11.76 — 2.72 FRB(s) = Lc; « (I'NB + jr F B) tan 03 Is-}(19.171 1,74) ,1663 = 37.5+q.2.% 10(s) = (I,"I.'A(s) - pUA(s)) sin cCA + B tan 01 03.76— cmo ) (3(4} -,r .4663 I' I'. 5. (seismic) = RA(s) +F + F RB( s) R+F3(s) 'fli(s) i TA ('a ) 46. 10 i 0,17+ 8,4q+ q,o4 = 164. 67, 68 S7, o I 1 83. 70 ! job No.:,__LZ I I+. i p,il ro No.: 2 _ i I Job tin.: 1-117 n L'XPANSIVE SOILS RL•'COt1HJ: RATION EXPANSION ni?PT1I OF RF.T;vFORC](i11;J'f BASE P,OCI; SATUI;ATIOiI ONTINUOUS IND1iX FOO'I'IN(: P01< 4" IJUPtIiJAi. OR Cl.IiAW i:l%L0W SLAB POOTIJJC6 FOR lilil.T" SLABS AND SAND FOR ALL INTERIOR UBC 29-2 FTNTSHED FOUNDATIONS LIVING AND ]:XTti?RTOR CFADH ARIA SLABS BILART.NG itALLS 0-20 12" None Required None None Not Required Very Low One F4 bar ton & bottom in Fdtns. 21-50 12" 4" 12" Not Renuired 6X6-IOXIO welded Low wire mesh in slat Two #4 bars top bottom in Fdtns. 51-90 1R" 4" 18" Renuired 6X6-10X10 welded Moderate wire mesh in s.lal Two #5 bars top bottom in Fdtns. 91-130 18" 6" 18" Requl;red 6X6-6X6 welded High wire mesh in slat Above i 130 24" R" 24" Renuired Very High nUCO RNCINERRINC, INr., u i u I u i FiJ;tire No,' 13 Z, , w The Yehle Company 1350 Palomares Avenue La Verne, CA 91750 i Dickey Ge®tech'nacal Incorporated October 12, 1981 Subject: Geological Study and Grading Plan Review Lot 69, Tract No. 30289 Shadow Canyon Drive, "The Country" Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles I i Gentlemen: This geologic study has been conducted at your request to provide data for design and construction of the proposed I residence in Diamond Bar. Work for this study has included an office review of previous site work by J.D. Stark &iAssociates 1978) and James E. Slosson & Associates (1966), as well as review of work on nearby lots by this writer. At least one other report I is believed to have been completed on Lot 69, a combination report i with lots to the west and north by Moore and Taber. This was i not available for review during the current study. Field work has included a site reconnaissance, geologic mapping at a scale of 1 inch equals 20 feet, subsurface logging of three excavations to depths of 21 to 24 feet, and preparation of this report with recommendations for development. This study has been based upon I the 20-scale Plan Number 408 by Stryker Engineering dated September 23, 1981. Geologic Findinqs The lot is considered to be geologically feasible for development, provided the recommendations of this and the soils engineer's report are considered during site development and:, occupancy. The most significant geologic factor to development I i One Newport Place, Fourth Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1714) 752-1004 The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Two is the shallow westerly dip to bedding planes beneathlthe surface. 1) Bedrock consists of interbedded siltstone and sand- stone which dips consistently westerly at angles of 8 to 32 degrees. This bedrock was found to be quite firm and can provide adequate bearing for foundations and fill embankments. With the pronounced alignment of bedding with the natural west descending. surface, it is.likely that any west facing cutslopes will require i remedial support by either compacted fills or engineered retaining i walls. To provide a stable building area on Lot 69, it is rec- ommended that a shear key be established downhill neap the ; equestrian easement. This is so that any significant grading on downhill lots will not undercut bedding and cause slippage. Design should be based upon calculations using a 14 degree downslope dip. The cutslo-t e above the driveway will likely require a minimal width replacement fill to provide a stable slope. 2) Surficial materials on the lot consist of native soils i and fill. The suitability of these materials is doubtful for i use beneath footings or structural fills. It is recommended I that all soils be removed in the graded areas. The old fill may or may not be suitable, depending upon compactionitests made during grading. 3) No landslides, faults or groundwater were encountered and none have been mapped on the site. No "Restricted Use Areas", as defined by the Los Angeles.County Engineer, are designated for this lot and none are believed necessary. A "slump/creep". zone was mapped by Slosson for the lower lot, although no pro- nounced creep was found by this writer in Boring 3. The keyway for the sidehill shear key should be geologically mapped so. BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Three I that the key is' carried well below any potential creep zones encountered. I I 4) The September 23, 1981 Plan is.geologically atisfactory and therefore approved. Items 12, 20 and 22 of the general I notes pertain to geologic conditions. These will require geologic inspections during excavation, will make this report part of the job specification, and will require obtaining consultant approval prior to implementation of grading plan changes. 5) ,Foundation excavations in bedrock should be mapped and approved prior to placement of steel and dation excavations in fill should be approved by the logically s. Foun- is engineer.1 1' 6) With no known active faults present, ground rupture from faulting is not considered likely. Ground shaking should i be anticipated from earthquakes occurring on nearby active faults. The overall exposure to potential repetition and severity of shaking is considered to be about average for the Los Angeles Basin. Buildings should be designed in accordance with normal Zone 4 seismic loading values. 7) It is the opinion of this writer, a duly registered civil engineer and -geologist, based upon the study herein described, if the proposed structure is constructed in accordance with the approved plans and under recommended inspections, that: a) The proposed structure appears safe against hazard from I landslide, settlement or slippage, and that b) the proposed building,and grading construction will have no.effect on the geologic stability of property outside of the building site. The nature and extent of tests conducted for purposeslof this study are, in the opinion of the undersigned, in conformance BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Four c r I with generally accepted practice in the area. Findings and statements of professional opinion do not constitute a guarantee or warranty, either express or implied. Thank you for this opportunity to be of continued service. Please call (714) 752-1004 if there are any questions. Respectfully submitted, I BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL INCORPORATED By // R.R. H. DICKEY, RG 30 EG 1914, RCE 26945 RHD:mb I , Attachments: Appendix - Geology Geologic Map and Section Distribution: Original to Duco Engineering for distribution, I BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL i The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Five APPENDIX - GEOLOGY Site Conditions The 1+ acre hillside lot overlooks Brea Canyon fkom an elevation of 795 to 830 feet. The site topography is a gentle west and southwest slope descending at 3 to 1 to 4'h to 1 from a graded pad on the west side of Shadow Canyon Drive. Previous site development is restricted to provision of utilities and access, with leveling of the fairly flat pad off Shadow Canyon. I Vegetation consists of native black walnuts, as well as weeds and wildflowers.. Geologic Setting The property lies on the west boundary of the Chino Hills within the Northeastern Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The bedrock Soquel Member of the Puente formation beneath !.the surface consists of interbedded siltstone and sandstone whichldips con- sistently west at shallow bedding angles of 8 to 32 degrees below the horizontal. The natural hillside surface is considered to be a "dip slope" with bedding generally parallelling the i surface. I I Surficial materials on the site consist of native soil atop the bedrock with thicknesses of 1 to 1 feet enclou!itered, and up to 5 feet of fill on the outer edge of the graded pad. i The soil was found to be generally soft to loose, while the fill was firm to dense. No geologic hazards such as landslides, faults, 'mass wastage, I unusual erosion or groundwater were encountered. James E.Slosson f has mapped an area of slump -creep on the lower lot, downhill I BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Six from our area of exploration. With no known active faults nearby, ground rupture from faulting is considered unlikely. Ground shaking should be anticipated from earthquakes occurring on nearby potentially 'active faults. Overall exposure to potential severity and repetition of ground shaking is about average for• the Los Angeles Basin area. BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL I Bob Dickey Geette'ci- n cal Incorporated October 12, 1981 I The Yehle Company 1350 Palomares Avenue I4LaVerne, CA 91750 Subject: Geological Study and Grading Plan Review Lot 69, Tract No. 30289 Shadow Canyon Drive, "The Country" Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles Gentlemen: I This geologic study has been conducted at your request to provide data for design and construction of the.prop ised residence in Diamond Bar. Work for this study has included. I an office review of previous site work by J.D. Stark & Associates 1978) and James E. Slosson & Associates (1966), as well) as review of work on nearby lots by this writer. At least one other report is believed to have'been completed on Lot 69, a combination report with lots to the west and north by Moore and Taber. This was I not available for review during the current study. Fiend work' has included a site reconnaissance, geologic mapping at,a scale I of 1 inch equals 20 feet, subsurface logging of three excavations to depths of 21 to 24 feet, and preparation of this report wit,Y recommendations for development. This study has been based upon the 20-scale'Plan Number 408 by Stryker Engineering dated I ; September ?3, 1981. Geologic Findings i The lot is considered to be geologically feasible for development, provided the recommendations of this and the soils , engineer's report are considered during site development and occupancy. The most significant geologic factor to development One Newport Place, Fourth Floor, Newport Beach, CA S2660 [7.14) 752I1004 0 The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 I Page Two I I I is the shallow westerly dip to bedding planes beneath the surface. i sand- stone Bedrock consists of interbedded siltstone and and- I stone which dips consistently westerly at angles of 8 to 32 1 degrees. This bedrock was found to be quite firm and can provide I adequate bearing for foundations and fill embankments. (with the pronounced alignment of bedding with the natural west descending I I surface, it is likely that any west facing cutslopes will require remedial support by either compacted fills or engineered retaining walls. To provide a stable building area on Lot 69, it is rec, ommended that a shear key be established downhill near the equestrian easement. This is so that any significant grading itI on downhill lots will not undercut bedding and cause slippage.) I Design should be'based upon calculations using a 14 degree downslbpe dip. The cutslope above the driveway will likely require a minimal width..replacement fill to provide a stable slope. I I I. 2) Surficial materials on the lot consist of native soils and fill. The -suitability of these materials is doubtful for ' I use beneath footings or structural fills. It is recommended that all soils be removed in the graded areas. The oldlfill may or may not be suitable, depending upon compaction tests 'I made during grading. 0 3) No landslides, faults or groundwater were encountered, and none have been mapped on the site. No "Restricted Use Areas as defined by the Los Angeles County Engineer, are designated for this lot and none are believed necessary. A "slump/,creep" zone was mapped by Slosson for the lower lot, although no pro -I nounced creep was found by this writer in Boring 3. The keyway for the sidehill shear key should be geologically mapped so 0 0 BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL i , I The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Three, ' I that the key is carried well below any potential creep zones encountered. I 4) The September 23, 1981 Plan is.geologibally sltisfactory and therefore approved. Items 12, 20 and 22 of the genleral I notes pertain to geologic conditions. These will require geologil inspections during excavation, will make this report part of the job specification, and will require obtaining consultant approval prior to implementation of grading plan changes. 5) Foundation excavations in bedrock should be geologically mapped and approved prior to placement of steel and forms. Foun- I I dation excavations in fill should be approved by the soils engines I 6) with no known active faults present, ground rupture I , I from faulting is'not considered likely. Ground shaking, should; be anticipated from earthquakes occurring on nearby active faults The overall exposure to potential repetition and severity of shaking is considered to be about average for the Los AIgeles Basin. Buildings should be designed in accordance withlnormal Zone 4 seismic loading values. I 7) It is the opinion of this writer, a duly registered I civil engineer and geologist, based upon the study herein desciib if the proposed structure is constructed in accordance with the approved plans.and under recommended inspections, that: i I a) The proposed structure appears safe against hazard from landslide, settlement or slippage, and that b) the proposed building and grading construction will have no effect on the geologic stability of property outside of the building site. i I The nature and extent of tests conducted for purposes of this study are, in the opinion,of the undersigned, in conformance I i BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Four with generally accepted practice in the area. Finding's and .I statements of professional opinion do not constitute a guarantee or warranty, either express or implied. I Thank you for this opportunity to be of continuedlservice. Please call (714) 752-1004 if there are any questions. ,• Respectfully submitted, BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL INCORPORATED By RHD:mb Attachments: Appendix - Geology Geologic Map and Section Distribution: Original to Duco Engineering for dis tribution I BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Five APPENDIX - GEOLOGY Site Conditions The 1+ acre hillside lot overlooks Brea Canyon f elevation of 795 to 830 feet. The site topography is I west and southwest slope descending at 3 to 1 to 4' t a graded pad on the west side of Shadow Canyon Drivel site development is restricted to provision of utilit I access, with leveling of the fairly flat pad off Shad Vegetation consists of native black walnuts, as well and wildflowers. Geologic Settina I rom an a gentle 1 from Previous I ies and 't I i awl Canyon). asl weeds,! The property lies on the west boundary of the Chin' I Hills within the Northeastern Block of the Los Angeles Basin.) The bedrock Soquel Member of the Puente formation beneath the surface consists of interbedded siltstone and sandstone which dips conl- I I I sistently west at shallow bedding angles of 8 to 32 degrees I below the horizontal. The natural hillside surface is considelred to be a "dip slope" with bedding generally parallelling) the surface. Surficial materials on the site consist of native (soil atop the bedrock with thicknesses of 1 to 1, feet encountered and up to 5 feet of fill on the outer edge of the graded pad: The soil was found to be generally soft to loose, while) the I I fill was firm to dense. No geologic hazards such as landslides, faults, mass wastage, unusual erosion or groundwater were encountered. James E.Slosson has mapped an area of slump -creep on the lower lot, downhill BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL The Yehle Company - Shadow Canyon Drive October 12, 1981 Page Six from our area of. exploration. With no known active faults nearby I ground rupture from faulting is considered unlikely. Ground. shaking should be anticipated from earthquakes occurring on I nearby potentially active faults. Overall exposure topotential severity and repetition of ground shaking is about average for the Los Angeles Basin area. I I I I BOB DICKEY GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING No. Tract(s) Parent Tract Location/Owner Site Address Geologist Developer Soils Engineer EGL Engineer/. REVIEW OF: Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated X Geology and Soils Report(s) Dated X Other Grading Plan, 2887 Sh Previous Submittals Dated ACTION: I ' a 64-178 Plan/Report is geotechnically approved X Plan/Report not approved for reasons belo-, Plan/Report is geotechnically approved X Submit Plan/Report for rechecks Include a subject to conditions below. copy of this review. i REVIEW COMMENTS: 1. In Section 33 the consultants indicate that the bedding attitudes are unfavorable to the site stabilit conditions, since they dip out of slope. They also discussed that the existing fill onsite was probabl engineered to support the out dipping bedrock. Yet the slope stability analyses were performed assumrn circular failure surfaces through massive bedrock. Slope stability analyses assuming along beds ing failut planes, using appropriate along bedding strength parameters must be considered. ` I 2. The consultants have performed direct shear tests to develop residual strength pirarrieters for the bedrock material onsite. However, these tests do not accurately model the along bedding strength of the bedrock. Shearing and reshearing interbedded sandstone and siltstone across bedding does not yield representative along bedding strengths. The consultant should refer to the James Slosson and Associates report they reference or other, more recent geotechnical reports prepared for nearby sites available at the City of Diamond Bar in order to develop appropriate along bedding strength parameters. i Leighton I i I 291 3. In Section 6.1.2 the consultants indicated that all footings should be founded Ion the comps However, in Section 6.2.1. foundation design recommendations are given for footings founded on Please explain. 4. In Section 6.1.5 the consultants indicate that the fill key should be a minimum 121feet widel and minimum of 5 feet into approved competent materials. The Typical Keying and iBenching Details I indicates that the fill key should be a minimum of 2 feet into competent material and the iGrai indicates that the fill key should be excavated a minimum of 3 feet into competent material. Please 5. In Section 6.1.5 the consultants indicate that a subdrain consisting of perforated pipe should be it the key or bench and sloped to discharge to a `'suitable collection facility". Please explain wliat a collection facility is and provide recommendations for an appropriate subdrain system, incluc material. A perforated pipe alone is not an acceptable subdrain. I I I 6. In Section 3.2 the consultants indicate that the existing fill onsite is believed to be ehgineerim fill placed to support out dipping bedrock. Discuss the quality of the existing fill and the leaving that material in place. 7. It appears the development may require the import of soil to achieve design grades. 1 Provide for the import soil. I 8. The geotechnical consultant must review and sign the grading plans to confirm their'recomr been correctly incorporated into the plans. The overexcavation requirement shownlon the plan does not agree with the soils report recommendation. I I Reviewed by Date David C. Smith, RCE 46222 Reviewed by zz/,---/ Date Philip A. Buchiarelli, CEG 1715 GG S +40&i- -poi- 1(t:- Li 5o2 -a145 - 03fi•¢ i 64-178 ed fill. i nd a re 5) Plan filtei I NO have I LIeighton Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. Septembe Mr. Eko Kuntjoro P.O. Box 5170 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Geological Investigation 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Lot 62, Tract No. 30289, Diam California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering and geological report for the subeec purpose of this report was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and provide recomn for foundation designs and other relevant parameters for the proposed construction. 1 I I 1 1 1 1 Based on the findings and observations during our investigation, it is proposed construction of the subject site for the intended use is feasible fi engineering and geological viewpoint, provided that specific recommenda are followed. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any to this report, please call the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. (EGL) k Hank J. Jong, GE 2305, Principal i Dist: (4) 1646 Exp I & rQRC:E S/[7%v NG L Q y 2 No. 2205 Exp I j1' 6 Wang Engineer oz 15, Bar, IS Thi uded that thi forth 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 • Tel.: (562) 945-0689, E-MAIL: MAIL@EGLAB.COM • WEBSITE: EGLARCOM Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Geological I Proposed Single -Family Residential Developmei at 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California Lot 62, Tract 30289 Prepared by ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY LABORA Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 IN Mr. Eko Kuntjoro EGL TABLE OF CONTENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... ...... 1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... ...... 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................. .................................................................... I ... ...... 1.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. I...... 1.4 SITE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. ...... 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................... j ...... 2.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION............................................................................................. ...... 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................... 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................... ; .................................................................. 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ......................................................................... ...... 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY ................................................................................... 3.3 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES ............................................................................................... ...... 3.4 GROUND WATER .............................................................................................................. ...... 4.0 SLOPE STABILITY ................................................. .................. 4.1 Exis-nNG SLOPE ..................................................................................... ...... 4.2 FILL SLOPE ......................................................................................... 4.3 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY AND LANDSCAPING ............................... 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 5.1 SEismicrry ........................................................................... - ........... 5.2 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAI .................................................................. 5.3 EXCAVATABILITY ............................................................................................................. ...... 5-4 SURFACIAL SOILREmOVAL AND RwompAcTION ............................................................. 5.5 GROUNDWATER ......................................................................... ....... 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 6.1 GRADING ........................................................................................... 6 1.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................... 6.1.2 Surficial Soil Removals .............................................................. 6.1.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms ................................................................................i....., 6 1.4 Structural Backfill ........................ ............................................. 61.5 Fill Keys ....................................... ............................................. 61.6Benching .............................................................................. .................................... ...... 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689: Fax: 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro EGL Projet 6.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN...................................................................................... 62.1 Bearing Value.......................................................................................................... 6.2.2 Settlement................................................................................................................ 6.2.3 Lateral Resistance................................................................................................... 6.2.4 Foundation Setback................................................................................................. 6.3 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................................... 6.4 RETAINING/STEM WALL.................................................................................................. 7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN.................................................................................................. 8.0 CORROSION POTENTIAL................................................................................... 9.0 TEMPORARY TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL.................................... 10.0 INSECTION.......................................................................................................... 11.0 DRAINAGE........................................................................................................... 12.0 111 STATEMANT................................................................................................ 13.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS......................................................................... 14.0 REFERENCE....................................................................................................... APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 7 i.... 7 7 I.... 7 I.... 8 8 I....9 I.... 9 A O 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 1 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This report presents a summary of our geotechnical engineering and geological investigation Ifortheproposedsingle-family residential development at the subject site. The purposes of this tinvestigation were to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the area of proposed constriction and to provide recommendations pertinent to grading, foundation design and other relevant parameters of the proposed development. 1.2 Scope of Services Our scope of services included: Review of available soil and geologic data of the area. Subsurface exploration consisting of logging and sampling of two boring holes. 1 borings were extended to a maximum depth of 21 feet below the existing ground su Drilling refusal was encountered in both borings. Boring logs are presented in Appendi) Laboratory testing of representative samples to establish engineering characteristics on -site soil. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B and on the borinc in Appendix A. Engineering analyses of the geotechnical data obtained from our background studies investigation, and laboratory testing. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendatioi the proposed construction. 1.3 Proposed Construction Based on the information provided, it is our understanding that the proposed develol consists of constructing 2 flat pads to accommodate a future single-family residential bt and associated structures. The proposed development consists of only site grading < stage. Some excavation and filling may be required to accommodate the living areas and court. No detail structural loads are available at this time. 1.4 Site Conditions The subject site is located at the northwest side of the intersection of Shadow Canyon and Steeplechase Lane in the City of Diamond Bar, California. The approximate re location is shown on the attached Site Location Map (Figure 1). A Site -(Geology) P t11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 A. f the logs field s for this Mr. Eko Kuntjoro I Page 2 of 1 EGL Project No.: 03 208 007EG September 15, 20C provided on Figure 2. Cross section view of the site is presented on Figure 3. A Site (Geolog! t Map modified from Dibblee (2001) is provided on Figure 4. The project site is bounded on th east by Shadow Canyon Drive, south and west by the Steeplechase Lane, and on the oth( sides by the neighboring properties. The project site consists of descending slope facin southwest. The slope gradient is approximately 5:2 (horizontal: vertical) with maximum relief t 35 feet between the north property line and the south Steeplechase Lane, see Figure 2 ar Figure 3. 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Subsurface Exploration Our subsurface exploration consists of the excavation of two borings. Drilling was extended to maximum depth of 21 feet below the existing ground surface. Drilling refuIsal was encountere in both borings. The purpose of the excavation was to investigate the engineerir characteristics of the onsite soils with respect to the proposed development. The borings were supervised and logged by an EGL's engineer and an engineering gel logi; Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were collected during drilling for laboratory tlestin, The approximate locations of these borings are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2). Boring lot are presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Representative samples were tested for the following parameters: in -situ moisture content at density, direct shear strength, consolidation, expansion index, and corrosion potential. Tt results of our laboratory testing along with a summary of the testing procleduI res are present( in Appendix B. In -situ moisture and density test results are presented on the boring logs Appendix A. I 3. 0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 3. 1 Regional Geology The site is located at the eastern Puente Hills area. The Puente Hills are 15 to 40 mill southeast of downtown Los Angeles, in the northeastern part of the Los Angeles Basin. TI Cenozoic sedimentary rocks in the eastern Puente Hills have a composite maximum thickne 1 11823 Slausan Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Faz: 562-945-0364 0 n 0 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro EGL Proiect No.: 03-208-007EG i Page 3 of i I September 15, 2063 tof about 27,000 feet. In the northern and eastern parts of the easkl rn Puente Hi sedimentary rocks lie on granitic basement rocks of probably early Late Cretaceous agel 3.2 Site Geology The earth materials encountered at the subject site include fill overlyingY9 the bedI Monterey Formation. Description of the subsurface materials from top down is provi follows: Fill - The subject site was observed to be mantled with a layer of fill with thickness approximately 9.5 to 11 feet thick. These soils were light brolwnish gray silty cl; I t moist, medium stiff to stiff, and rooty. The placement of fill was mentioned in I report by James E. Slosson and Associates (1966), see reference report 3, for i adjacent Lot 61, Tract 30289. This fill is believed to be engineering fill placed support out dipping bedrock. i Bedrock- Bedrock materials of sandstone with siltstone interlayers were observed approximately 10 feet deep below the existing grade. Sandstone was light gr medium hard to hard, slightly moist, well cemented, and massive. Siltstonle we light brownish gray, firm to medium hard, and well bedded. 3.3 Geological Structures I No evidence of any previous bedrock instability and deep-seated landslidl were olisery I during our field investigation. Based on Dibblee (2001), the site is underlain by Monter Formation of Soquel Sandstone Member composed mostly of bedded sandstone, weathers U mostly medium grained, arkpsic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotitie; includes mir silty clay shale. On site several bedding attitudes were measured at the boniings B-1 ai d B The bedrock attitude varied from North 220 east toward North -South and dip 21° toward East 1 270 toward West. The bedding attitude is unfavorable to the site stability conditions, since dip out of the slope. Based on Dibblee (2001), regional bedding attitudes dip approximate degrees to north. The regional bedding attitudes are unfavorable to the slope stability since dip out of the slope. The measured bedding attitudes are generally consistent with t reported by Dibblee (2001) and James E. Slosson and Associates (1966)I see reference n 3. Small scale folding and bedding undulations are common features iin the Mi n Formation. The 10'+ fill was probably engineering placed to support thel out dipping bec 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Fax:1562I945-0364 i Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 4 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 i James E. Slosson and Associates,1966). 3.4 Ground Water Static ground water levels were not encountered during our subsurface investigatic Groundwater is therefore not expected to be a significant constraint during the construction. 4.0 SLOPE STABILITY 4.1 Existing Slope Existing slopes are at slope ratios of 5:2 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. Existing slopes within t subject site were observed and analyzed and are considered satisfactory and should posse adequate factors of safety against instabilities provided they are properly maintained. Results slope stability analyses are presented in Appendix C. Based on the relatively stable condition of the existing natural slopes, we recommend i hat 1 existing slopes outside the proposed construction areas be left in their natural conditions (witl moderate growth of vegetation). Should additional planting be desired, only moderate imgat should be applied. 4.2 Fill Slope Permanent fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) a keyed and benched into the competent fill materials. Fill materials should be placed a compacted in accordance with the text of this report. Fill keys, where (required, should N minimum of 12 feet wide and should extend a minimum of 5 feet into the approved compet, materials. Typical keying and benching details are shown in Figure 5. Slubdrains consisting perforated pipe should be installed in the key or bench and sloped to dischlarge to a suita collection facility. All fill keys should be observed and approved by the pri 'ect geotechni consultant prior to placing fill. 4.3 Surficial Slope Stability and Landscaping t e All slopes will be subject to surficial erosion. Therefore, slopes should be protect6d fir I I surface runoff by means of top -of -slope compacted earth berms or concrete interceptor drai If slopes should be landscaped with suitable plants, the irrigation system should be instal and maintained. Over -watering and subsequent saturation of slope surface should be avoide, 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Faz: 562-945-0364 a a I Mr. Eko Kuntjoro I Page 5 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2062 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, it is our opinion that the proposec construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the (recommendations contained herein are incorporated in the design and construction. The following is a summary of the geotechnical design and construction factors that may affect the development of ti a site: 1 5.1 Seismicity Based on our studies on seismicity, there are no known active faults crossinglthe pror studies of regional and local seismicity indicate that the Whittier Fault trace (Reference located at approximately 3.7 miles south of the property. The site is tocateId in a s active region and is subject to seismically induced ground shaking (M> 6.8 a > 0. Whittier Fault and nearby faults. 1 5.2 Liquefaction Potential Based on our review of the "Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Yorba Linda Quadrangle" drangle" by Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the site is located o mapped potential liquefaction areas. 5.3 Excavatability I Based on our subsurface investigation, excavation of the subsurface materials shouldibe able to be accomplished with conventional earthwork equipment. I I 5.4 Surfacial Soil Removal and Recompaction Based on our subsurface investigation, the existing near surface soils consists fill which are not suitable for supporting the foundation and fill. Removal and recompactioni of surficial soil is necessary. 5.5 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration. In our opinion, ground ater will not be a problem during construction. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the subsurface conditions exposed during field investigation and laborato 1 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945.0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 1 iMr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 6 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 115, 2003 program, it is recommended that the following recommendations be incorporiated in the design and construction phases of the project. 6.1 Grading 6.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to initiating grading operations, any existing vegetation, trash, debris, over -sized materials greater than 6 inches), and other deleterious materials within construction areas should be removed from the site. 1 6.1.2 Surficial Soil Removals All building footings should be founded on the compacted fill. In order to provide a uniform support to the proposed structures, it is recommended that the existing low densilty, near surface soils-be.removed and recompacted to a depth of at least 5 feet elow existi , grade or 11ootbebelow proposefooting bottom, whichever is deeper, within the proposed building areas, and at least 1 foot within the drive areas. The removal should also be extended at least five feet horizontally beyond perimeters of the buildings. The actual removal depths should be determined in the field as conditions are exposed. Visual inspection and/or testing may be used to define removal requirements. I 6.1.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms Soils exposed within areas approved for fill placement should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted iniplace to minimlm project standards. 6.1.4 Structural Backfill The onsite soils may be used as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic mate' ials and debris. Soils imported from off -site sources should be similar to the onsite sloils and should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to transporting to the site. His should beplaced in relatively thin lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to obtain at least 90 tpercent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM D-1557I00. 6. 1.5 Fill Keys Fill keys, where required, should be a minimum of 12 feet wide and extend a minimum 5 feet into the approved competent materials. Subdrains consisting of perforated pipe should be 1 11823 Siauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0669; Fax: 562-945-0364 i i Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 7 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 15, 2003 installed in the key or bench and sloped to discharge to a suitable collection facility. All (fill keys should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant priorrlto placing fill. 6.1.6 Benching Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent materials as the fill is placed (Figure 5). Keys and benches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant. 1 6.2 Shallow Foundation Design 6.2.1 Bearing Value An allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of the footings placed at a depth of at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent gro I nd and founded on the bedrock materials. Single spread footings should be at least 24 inches squaire and continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide. This blearing value may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth or width to a maxi um value of 2000 psf. The above recommended value may be increased by one third (1/3) when consideriI g short duration seismic or wind loads. I 1 6.2.2 Settlement Settlement of the footings placed as recommended and subject to no more than allowable loads is not expected to exceed 3/4 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent columns is not anticipated to exceed 1/2 inch for a span of 25 feet or less. I I 6.2.3 Lateral Resistance Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid pressure Of 300 pounds per cubic foot, with a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the (dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive priessure component should be reduced by one third (1/3). Active earth pressure from horizontal backfill may be computed as an equivalent fluid weighting of 30 pounds per cubic foot. Where the slope of the backfill is 2:1, an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 (pcf) may be used. Walls that are restrained against lateral movement or rotation at the top may be designed for the at -rest equivalent fluid pressure. An at -rest fl I id weighting of 55 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562.945.0689; Fax: 562-945-0364 I I I PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO I 14k17WN FROM TOE OF SLOPE To APPROVED GROUND NATURAL rTYPrAL uftw&j'nu GROUND 7E- UATEMI IT r YtH.-+--iW' KEY LOWEST BENCH Q(Ey) NATURAL aROUND REMOVE ABU it MATERIAL LOWEST BENCH F W"4 OVERBUILT TRIM BACK DESIaH SLOPE PROJECTED KAM I TO I MAMMUM FROM TOE OF ELOPE To rutiL—j [Low;;MMYDEPTHACE" ruK KEY DEPTH CurfACE TO BE CONTITILICTED PRIM TO FILL PLACEMENT NATURAL GROUND REI#OVI! MUITABLE MATERIAL C rm"L T—BENCH HERINT BENCHING SHALL E ANGLE IS EQUAL Ti MNIMUM BENCH HI MINIMUM FILL WDI Environmental cr Geotechnology Laboratory 11/00 TYPICAL K BENCHING I FILL SLOPE FILL -OVER -CUT SLOPE CUT -OVER -FILL SLOPE 1 1E DONE MEN SLOPI OR GREATER THAN IGHT SHALL BE!4 FEE H SHALL BE 9 FEET 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 I rING AND EfAILS I I Pic[ RtY Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page 8 of 11 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 115, 2003 pounds per cubic foot may be used for free -draining, level backfill. Wheid the slope of the backfill is 2:1, an equivalent fluid pressure of 65 (pcf) may be used. The aboive valuesassume free - draining conditions. I I 6. 2.4 Foundation Setback It is recommended that all foundation be setback at least 8 horizontal feet between the face of the southwest facing descending fill slope and the edge of the footing ibottom (Figure 3). No passive pressure is allowed for the portion of the footings which maintain less than 5 feet between the edge of the footing and the slope face. 6. 3 Foundation Construction It is anticipated that the entire structure will be underlain by onsite soils of medium expansion 1 potential. The reinforcement of the foundation system should be designed by the' project structural engineer. However, it is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced by minimum of two No. 4 bars placed in the top and two No. 4 bars placeld inthebottom of the footings. A grade beam reinforced as recommended above for footings and at least 12 inches square should be utilized across the garage entrance. The base of the reinforced beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. eBased on the effective plasticity index test (PI=27) and the expansion index (El = 51) obtained from our laboratory testing results, it is anticipated that the entire structure will be underlain iby on -site soils of medium expansion potential. Based on the design standard of UBC Code, Section 1815, the following presented our recommendations for thei Slab -On' -Ground Foundation. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with I minimum of one No. 4 bar at a spacing of 16 inches on center each way or it's equivalent. A (minimum i f 1 inch of sand should be placed over the membrane to aid in uniform curing of concrete. Concrete slabs in moisture sensitive areas should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six -mil polyvinyl chloride (PC) membrane with all laps sealed t 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; Faz: 56 2 945-0364 i Mr. Eko Kuntjoro EGL Proiect No.: 03-208-007EG 9 o0i All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper positioning during place concrete. Garage slabs should be poured separately from the residence footings quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings s maintained with expansion joint materials to permit relative movement. 6.4 Retaining/Stem Wall Wall should be provided with subdrains to reduce the potential for the bu pressure. Backdrains could consist of free drainage materials (SE of 30 or Class 2 permeable materials immediately behind the wall and extending to the ground surface. A perforated pipe could be installed at the base of sloped to discharge to a suitable collection facility or through Alternatively, commercially available drainage fabric could be used. l recommendations should be followed in the installation of the drainage 7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN Our study of seismicity in the area indicates that there are no known property. However, the subject site is located in southern California, w area. Should the 1997 UBC be used for the structural design of the 1 1 1 1 related values may be used: Seismic Zone 4 Seismic Zone Factor (Z) 0.4 Soil Profile Type — Table 16-J Sp Seismic Coefficient Ca (16-0) 0.44Na Cv (16-R) 0.64Nv Near Source Factor Na (16-S) 1.0 Nv (16-T) 1.2 Seismic Source Type (16-U) B Causative Fault (Distance): Whittier Fault (< is of hydrostatic er) or ICalTran 1 18 incheslof aults crossing i tectonically a( following seiE miles) Uniform Building Code design is intended to accommodate horizontal accel for Seismic Zone 4. The proposed structures should be designed to acceleration, at a minimum. However, the Project Structural Engineer shou information provided above to determine if any additional structural strengthe Itions up to ommodate be awalre of i ig is warrantt 1 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562-945-0689; SOIL 18I INCH MINIMUM WATERPROOF MEMBRANCE p , T AP PROVEDFILTER N 16- INCHMINIMUM(SE r13t e PERFORATED PIPE (PERFO a •, GRAVITY DRAINED OR TO A WALL INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDU Q.• 35 PVC PIPE (MINIMUM), WIl MINIMUM BELOW PIPE j; 0; SOILBACKFILL pO pO. 0p?' O: O .Q NOT SO 0 '0 .Q O• o , TO NOTE: 1) Approved filter material shall be free -draining matey Caltrans Class If permeable material. As an altema be substituted for the approved filter material if an a filter fabric is used to encapsulate the 3/4-inch crust or SUPAC 4 NP) 2) Pipe perforations shall not exceed a slot width of 1, 1/ 4-inch diameter for drilled pipe to avoid migration ENVIRONMEN GEOTECHNOL i LLABORATORY TYPICAL WALL SE of 30 or k (such as MIR i Ifor slotted pipe s into the drain M DOWN) PUMP OR SDR I i nay file 40N Project Address: 2.887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 CKDRAIN DETAIL Flcur, G i Mr. Eko Kuntjoro Page,10 of 1 1 EGL Project No.: 03-208-007EG September 115, 2003 8.0 CORROSION POTENTIAL Chemical laboratory tests were conducted on the existing onsite near surface materials sampled during EGL's field investigation to aid in evaluation of soil corrosion potential land the attack on concrete by sulfate soils. The testing results are presented in the Appendix B 1 1 According to UBC Table 19-A-4, a "negligible" exposure to sulfate can be expected for placed in contact with the onsite soil. Based on the testing results and U i C, it is concli Type II cement may be used. I e 1 1 Based on the resistivity of soil sample, it is estimated that the su corrosive to buried metal pipe. It is recommended that any unc blasted and given protective coating. Should additional protective corrosion specialist should be consulted. 9.0 TEMPORARY TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BA All trench excavations should conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety o backfill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of ASTM D-1557-91. 10.0 INSECTION As a necessary requisite to the use of this report, the following inspection is Temporary excavations. Removal of surficial soils. Backfill placement and compaction. Foundation excavations. Utility trench backfill. The geotechnical engineer should be notified at least 1 day in adva construction. A joint meeting between the client, the contractor, and the gt is recommended prior to the start of construction to discuss spici scheduling. 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: 562.945-0689; soils are seve I metal utilities s be warranter ILL All utilities tre acted to obtai a a of the I start I of 1 i 562-945.0364 Mr. Eko Kuntjoro EGL Proiect No.: 03-208-007EG 11.0 DRAINAGE The pad should be properly drained toward the street away from the slope and strt swales or area drains. Positive pad drainage shall be incorporated into the final plar cases should water be allowed to pond within the site, impound against structures, or concentrated and/or uncontrolled manner down the descending slope areas. 12.0 111 STATEMANT Based on our field investigation and laboratory testing results, it is our c structures will be safe against hazard from landslide, settlement, or slit construction will have no adverse affect on the geologic stability of provided our recommendations presented in the report are followed. 13.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the subject site and utilized in our labora believed to be representative of the area. However, soil materials between excavations. Since our investigation is based on the site mate laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, the conclusions and professional opinion. These opinions have been derived in accordance practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. 14.0 REFERENCE 1. Thomas F. Blake, (2000), EQFAULT: "The Estimation of Peak Hor 3-D Fault Sources", WINDOWS 95/98 Compatible Versions. 2. Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., (2001), "Geologic Map of the Yorba Quadrangle " 3. James E. Slosson and Associates (1966), "Geologic Report for L portion of Equestrian, Estates. Diamond, Bar, California" 1 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Phone: that the and the in In a of and Prado Dam Tract #302891 a 1 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating two borings to a ma: at approximate locations shown on the enclosed site plan, Figure 2. excavation, the trenches were backfilled with onsite soils that we excavations. The excavating of the test pits were supervised by an EGL engine geologist, who continuously logged the borings and visually classified with the Unified Soil Classification System. Ring samples were take These samples, taken by a hand sampler, were obtained by drivi successive blows of 50-pound hammer dropping from a height of 32 inc Representative undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were retail rings, each having an inside diameter of 2.42 inches and a height of 1.0 were transported to our laboratory. Bulk surface soil samples were alsc classification and testing. i depth ofi 21 an er inac quent i san a series All ring Aed for c EGL BORING LOG B-1 PROJECT LOCATION: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, Califomia DATE DRILLIED: 08-07-03 I I i PROJECT NO: 03-208-007EG SAMPLE METHOD4-inch bucket auger ELEVATION: I N/A LOGGED BY: I KC SampIll I I I o E S: Standard Penetration Test n 3 N aD rn d R: Ring Sample L o D m m D o` 2` Description Material m' of Fill: silty clay, sandy, light gray, slightly moist, soft to medium stuff, rooty R 3 105.4 14.2 5 10 15 20 35 R 15 I CL 101.2 16.8 Silty clay, sandy, light brownish gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff I I R 4 96.0 13.6 Bedrock: Sandstone, medium hard to hard, light gray, well ceml nted, slightly moist, massive, with siltstone interlayers, well bedded, layer thickness 114 to 1 inch, light brownish gray, firm to medium hard Bedding: N 24 E / W 13 @ 12 feet R 5 99.4 23.2 N - S / W 27 @ 15 feet I I R 5 96.0 17.8 Rocky refusal @ 21 feet, drilling terminated Total Depth 21 feet No groundwater encountered Hole Backflled Hammer Driving Weight = 1800 pounds Hammer Driving Height = 18 inches PLATE A-3 I 1 EGL BORING LOG B-2 PROJECT LOCATION: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, California DATE DRILLIED: 08-07-03 PROJECT NO: 03-208-007EG SAMPLE METHOD 24-inc bucket auger ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: KC Sample 0 S: Standard Penetration Test a r 3 I y d R: Ring Samplew1'25n oU m o Description of Material CL Fill: silty clay, sandy, light gray, slightly moist, soft to medium stiff, rooty R 6 105.4 14.2 5 R 2 CL 101.2 16.8 Fill: Silty clay, sandy, light brownish gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff 10 R 6 101.5 13.6 Bedrock: Sandstone and siltstone intedayers, sandstone fine g ained, cemented, medium hard to hard, siltstone well bedded, layer thicknes 114 to 1 inch, sandstone massive, thickness 3 to 12 inches 15 R 3 99.4 23.2 Bedding: N 22 E / N 21 @ 12 feet N 2 W / W 16 @ 16 feet I 20 R 6 96.0 17.8 Rocky refusal @ 20 feet, drilling terminated I Total Depth 20 feet No groundwater encountered 25 Hole Backfilled Hammer Driving Weight = 1800 pounds Hammer Driving Height = 18 inches 30 35 I I PLATE A-3 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING 1 During the subsurface exploration, EGL personnel collected relatively undisturbed ring s and bulk samples. The following tests were performed on selected soil samples: Moisture -Density I I The moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each relitivelly undisturbed sample obtained in the test borings in accordance with ASTM D2937 standard. The results these tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. Direct Shear Tests Shear tests were performed in a direct shear machine of strain -control type in accordance ASTM D3080 standard. The rate of deformation was 0.0125 inch per minute. (Selected samp were sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the Coulomb shear strenl parameters: internal friction angle and cohesion. Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed soil samples in accordance H ASTM D2435 standard. The consolidation apparatus is designed for an one= i ch high si it fil brass ring. Loads are applied in several increments in a geometric progression and 1 resulting deformations are recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are placed contact with the top and bottom of each specimen to permit addition and release of pore fli Inundation of samples were performed at a load of one kip per square foot, arid the test esul Iare shown on the attached Figures. Expansion Index The Expansion Index was determined for the typical site material encountered in the tThe laboratory standard used was ASTM D4829-95 and the test results are as follows: 1 1 Sample -Location Ek ansion'lndex Cla'ssifcation- B-2 1-3' 51 mediul I Effective plasticity index Based on UBC Code, Section 1815, the effective plasticity index is following equation: Effective plasticity index = Weighted plasticity index x Cs x Co, where determined in accordance with UBC Code, Section 1815 The plasticity index is determined for the upper 15 feet of on site soils. S for plasticity index is based on ASTM D 4318-00. The effective pl presented as below: Sample Location Effective plasticity index B-1 27 Corrosion Potential Chemical laboratory tests were conducted on the existing onsite sampled during EGL's field investigation to aid in evaluation of soil cc attack on concrete by sulfate soils. These tests are performed in ac Test Method 417, 422, 532, and 643. The testing results are presented ined from t Co are fact( I Test Metho index result surface matei potentialland ce with Califo I is Chloride' Sulfate l Min. Resistivity Sample Location PH ppm) by weight) ohm/cm' B-1 & B-2 @ 0'-2' 7.44 170 0.012 i 740 1 4000 3500 I 3000- 2500- I a rnrn of 2000-' I 1 w 1500 1000- 50 e o- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 i 4000 NORMAL PRESSURE PSF) I I I SYMBOL BOREHOLE ID SAMPLE ID DEPTH FT) SAMPLE TYPE SOIL TYPE COHESION PSF) FRICTION ANGLE (DEG) O B-1 N/A 5.0 RING CL 200 I 321 I Vertical Loads PSF) Moisture Content Before Test (%) Moisture Content After Test (%) 500 16.8 27.4 1000 16.8 25.7 2000 16.8 24.0 Environmental GeotechnologywC`T Laboratory DI 09/03 11823 Slaus n Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Spnngs, CA 90670. Tel: (562)945-0689; Fax: (562)945-0364 8 i I Project Address: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bear, Califomia EGL Project No.: 03-208-001 I SHEAR D3080) I r...... d 4000- 3500- 300 N RMAL co 250 a LU W 200 o" N W RIESHEAR N 150 1000 500 1 0- 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) I I I 14000 1 , BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL COHESION FRICTION SYMBOL NUMBER NUMBER FT) TYPE TYPE PSFI) ANGLE (DEG) O NORMAL 530 146 RESHEAR B-1 N/A 20.0 RING SandstonE 264 I 43 0 RESIDUAL 266 i 35 Vertical Loads PSF) Moisture Content Before Test (%) Moisture Content After Test (%) 500 17.8 31.2 1000 17.8 21.0 2000 17.8 28.0 Environmental Geotechnology yr Laboratory 09103 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. Tel: (562)945-0689; Fax: (562)945-0364 1 DIRE I I Rate: 0.0125 in/min i I Project Address: 12887 Shadow Canyon Drive' Diamond Bar, Califomia 1EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 SHEAR. 400 1 350 300 NORMAL U) 250 EL U) uiw RES EA 20OU F.. N IYQW 1500 RESIDUAL 1000- 500 0- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL COHESION FRICTION SYMBOL NUMBER NUMBER FT) TYPE TYPE PSI) ANGLE(DEG) O NORMAL 360 40 0 RESHEAR B_2 N/A 15.0 RING CL 450 32 RESIDUAL 435 24 Vertical Loads PSF) Moisture Content Before Test (%) Moisture Content After Test (%) 500 23.8 49.8 1000 23.8 39.8 2000 23.8 31.3 Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory 1 1 09/03 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. Tel: (562)945-0689; Fax:(562)945-0364 DIR tate: 0.0125 in I Project Address: 2887 Shadow Ca Diamond Bar, C< EGL ProjectI No.: SHEAR I I Drive, a 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e z0 0 w 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.1 2 3 4 56789 2 3 4 567.89 2 3 4 587881 1 10 1100 COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) I I SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL INIT. MOISTURE INIT. DRY INIT.I VOID NO NO TYPE CONTENT DENSITY RATIO FT) FCF)i 0 B-2 N/A 5.0 CL 25.1 98.7 0.707 ENVIRONMENTAL i::: "'i GEOTECHNOLOG' LABORATORY 7J• 09103 Co Project No.: Drive 1 FIGURE 0 z0 F= 0LLw0 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 10 COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) 2 1 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL INIT. MOISTURE INIT. DRY INIT.I VOID NO NO TYPE CONTENT DENSITY RATIO FT) N PCF) B-1 N/A 2.0 CL 14.2 112.0 I I 0.504 ENVIRONMENTAL Project Addr GEOTECHNOLOGY Dial nd BayDiamond Ba JJ, LABORATORY EGL Project CONSOLIDATI Drive 09/03 6 5 3 2 1 0 1 z O 2t tr 3 O w 4 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.1 I IIIIII I I IIIII I Hill IIIII, 2 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 9 4 5 6 7 891 1 10 1( COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) I I SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL INIT. MOISTURE INIT. DRY I INIT. IVOID NO NO TYPE CONTENT DENSITY RATIO FT) PCF) O B-1 N/A 10.0 CL 13.6 103.0 0.635 Project Address: ENVIRONMENTAL 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive C54'rir%i GEOTECHNOLOGY f ::::•• Diamond Bar) California ORATORYW7LABEGL Project No.: 03 i208-007 CONSOLIDATIO 09/ 03 FIGU,, I I ! I I 0 t 1 1 1 1 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses have been performed for the fill slope after c coulomb strength parameters used for the analyses were based on from this investigation and evaluated in light of past experience. A sL parameters are presented in the following table: Sel Ictioi of these Fnctiom,AYigle. •- l.^L•.!'s`L'•I Cohesion T.' ' Ql9intWeighf .> r.:, ' Static/ Seismid` St'atVSeismic;" aten rrt"be gee' r E'Y; .•:.;':a of > r 'a;'',r a.;;"'r>'sc sn f9 ,.).' Fill 100 32/32 200/200 I Bedrock (Gross) 100 24/24 435/435 A summary of the stability analyses and corresponding preliminary geotechnical recommendations are summarized in the following table, and sections ani calculati ns aIre presented on the following plates. I Factdr.;of Safdfy, PFeliminary geotechnical CalculatddConditions.: Stat0seismic),-`:; Recommendation' F Proposed 2:1 slope with maximum height of 21 feet 3.56/2.19 Stable as existed Proposed 2:1 slope with maximum Stabile height of 18 feet 3.11/2.11 as exist) i d 1 1 1 1 1 El NmmI o LnAr•1 S= 07O73 V '• 3 WOpofoFF 9 a N a, CO NmmOCN Ub O U u 4 s. N U NG1 rtc CO r- N DFhNMd D Drlh L6 nOnWWW%DW hh MMMMMMMMMM w 4C'iNMd'Ln'Dh0]as0 r x m m Lf7 N ri r-I IN F 1 m LoNL17 r.4 m I I I I I I Lo I m I i m I I m Im E 320827a I 1 1 1 1 PCSTABL5 ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 09-15-03 Time of Run: 11:54am Run By: vw Input Data Filename: C:320827A Output Filename: C:320827A.O'JT Plotted Output Filename: C:320827A.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Existing Ground, Static Condit 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diam BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. ft) ft) ft) ft) 1 0.00 45.00 26.00 50.00 2 28.00 50.00 45.00 52.00 3 45.00 52.00 72.00 57.00 4 72.00 57.00 99.00 59.00 5 99.00 59.00 136.00 70.00 6 136.00 70.00 149.00 78.00 7 149.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 8 220.50 80.00 239.00 81.00 9 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 10 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 11 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 12 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 13 188.00 73.00 239.00 73.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore P] Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure C< No. (pcf) pcf) psf) deg) Param. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 2 100.0 100.0 435.0 24.0 0.00 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally it Type low Bnd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 i essure Piez. instant Surface pslf) No. 0.0 0 0.0 0 I Random Specified. I 1 Page 1 320827a 1 1 1 1 1 Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 180.00 ft. and X = 239.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Sw Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most 1 First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bi: Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 93.16 58.57 2 102.55 55.12 3 112.29 52.87 4 122.24 51.84 5 132.23 52.05 6 142.13 53.49 7 151.77 56.14 8 161.01 59.97 9 169.70 64.91 10 177.72 70.89 11 184.93 77.82 12 185.92 79.03 Circle Center At X 125.6 ; Y = 132.4 and Radius 3.557 *** Page 2 z i Method I 80.7 9-, d O £ Ss. r-I A•• N m 1 A LPJri 00mr- V 3 mmmooO.immmm i .iNNNNNNNN N NNNNNNNNN v.q NmvmWNWmO i m m Ln N r-I I r-q m N NO d N m c, x •1 LO cc 44 1 - D4 ri N m 0 r-1 X IL m LnMw 320827b PCSTABL5 ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices Run Date: 09-15-03 Time of Run: 11:55am Run By: vw Input Data Filename: C:320827B Output Filename: C:320827B.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320827B.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Existing Ground, Seismic Condit 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diami BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. ft) ft) ft) ft) 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.0C 2 28.00 50.00 45.00 52.00 3 45.00 52.00 72.00 57.00 4 72.00 57.00 99.00 59.0C 5 99.00 59.00 136.00 70.0C 6 136.00 70.00 149.00 78.00 7 149.00 78.00 220.50 80.0C 8 220.50 80.00 239.00 81.00 9 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 10 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 11 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 12 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 13 188.00 73.00 239.00 73.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore f Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure C No. (pcf) pcf) psf) deg) Param. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 2 100.0 100.0 435.0 24.0 0.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient OfO.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient OfO.000 Has Been Assigned Bar I Soil Tie Below Bnd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 2 2 2 2 I i I ure Piez. ant Surface psf) 0.0 0.0 Page 1 32O827b Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 psf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 180.00 ft. and X = 239.00 ft. Unless Further At Which A Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Su Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of Th Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bi Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) (ft) 1 42.63 51.72I251.69 47.48 3 61.05 43.97 4 70.66 41.20 5 80.46 39.19 6 90.38 37.97 7 100.37 37.52 8 9 110.37 37.86 120.30 38.98 10 130.12 40.89 it 139.76 43.55 12 149.16 46.97 13 158.26 51.11 14 167.01 55.96 15 175.35 61.48 16 183.23 67.63 17 190.60 74.39 18 195.17 79.29 Circle Center At X = 101.0 ; Y = 164.7 and Radius 2.190 *** L ified. i Method 7.2 Page 2 G U V1 UO O +' N OU N .i If7 •D r1 d' I!'7 '1 N C If) lam•-1•-IN MMMV'V"T MMMMMMMMM@) U rIN Ml1'I17 OFWG+O i L 4 lf) N ri I N _ Om X +` CD m 4. 1DO lul I I i I I 32O827c PCSTABLS ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 09-15-03 Time of Run: 11:59am Run By: VW Input Data Filename: C:320827C Output Filename: C:320827C.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320827C.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION After Construction, Static 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. ft) ft) ft) ft) 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 2 28.00 50.00 64.00 68.00 3 64.00 68.00 118.00 68.00 4 118.00 68.00 118.50 72.00 5 118.50 72.00 140.50 78.00 6 140.50 78.00 149.00 78.00 7 149.00 78.00 220.00 78.00 8 220.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 9 220.50 80.00 239.00 81.00 10 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 11 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 12 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 13 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 14 188.00 73.00 239.00 73.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore P3 Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Cc No. pcf) (pcf) psf) deg) Param. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 2 100.0 100.0 435.0 24.0 0.00 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Del No. ft) ft) lb/sqft) 1 64.00 118.00 1500.0 I I I I Soil Type Below Bnd 1 I 1I 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 2 i 2 2 I 2 2 essure Piez. nstant surface psf) No. I t 0.10 0: 0.10 01 0 ion I Page 1 320827c NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distrit Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using P Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Beer 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 180.00 ft. and X = 239.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimun At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Su Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bi Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 124.74 73.70 2 132.68 67.62 3 141.93 63.82 4 151.85 62.56 5 161.75 63.93 6 170.96 67.82 7 178.84 73.99 8 181.85 78.00 Circle Center At X = 151.6 ; Y = 100.6 and Radiu: 3.113 *** Random Specified. Spaced Elevation face. ritical Of The ritical Method ;* * 38.1 Page 2 m m m •" rU")-I rN-i QI m w LO V m N m W Lf7 •.rx mN r•i E. 320827d PCSTABLS ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 09-15-03 Time of Run: 12:O1pm Run By: vw Input Data Filename: C:320827D Output Filename: C:320827D.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:320827D.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION After Construction, Seismic 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive, Di BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. ft) ft) ft) ft) 1 0.00 45.00 28.00 50.00 2 28.00 50.00 64.00 68.00 3 64.00 68.00 118.00 68.00 4 118.00 68.00 118.50 72.00 5 118.50 72.00 140.50 78.00 6 140.50 78.00 149.00 78.00 7 149.00 78.00 220.00 78.00 8 220.00 78.00 220.50 80.00 9 220.50 80.00 239.00 81.00 10 0.00 42.00 94.00 47.00 11 94.00 47.00 149.00 65.00 12 149.00 65.00 167.00 70.00 13 167.00 70.00 188.00 73.00 14 188.00 73.00 239.00 73.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore P Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure C No. (pcf) pcf) Psf) deg) Param. 1 100.0 100.0 200.0 32.0 0.00 2 100.0 100.0 435.0 24.0 0.00 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity De No. ft) ft) lb/sqft) Bar I I I I Soil Type Below Bnd j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 12 I lection 2 2 II I iI I Piez. Surface NO. 1 01 of Page 1 320827d 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 64.00 118.00 1500.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distribi Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surf' A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of O.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 psf A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been 200 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Along The Ground Surface Between X - 30.00 ft. and X = 150.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X - 180.00 ft. and X = 239.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - 10.00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Su Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of Th Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most First. Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bi Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.00 51.00 2 38.96 46.56 3 48.22 42.79 4 57.74 39.72 5 67.46 37.37 6 77,33 35.75 7 87,29 34.87 8 97.29 34.73 9 107.27 35.34 10 117.18 36.69 11 126.96 38.77 12 136.56 41.57 13 145.92 45.08 14 155.00 49.28 15 163.74 54.14 16 172.09 59.64 17 180.01 65.74 18 187.46 72.42 19 192.82 78.00 K ., I I I Elevation rfale. I e Trial Critical LP, Method I* I I I i Page 2 320827d Circle Center At X = 94.1 ; Y = 169.0 and Radius 2.112 *** 134.3 Page 3 L_ GEOTECI-INICAL REVIEW SHEET LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 2910164-61 DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Tract(s) 30289, Lot 33 Date November 10, 1994 Parent Site Address 2925 Steeplechase Location/Owner The Country/Shu Geologist Triad Developer Soils Engineer Triad Engineer/Arch. Wilch and Associates Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated X Geology and Soils Report(s) Dated Interim Rough Grading - October 28, 1994 ACTION: Plan/Report is geotechnically approved X Plan/report not approved for reasons below Plan/Report is geotechnically approved Submit Plan/Revort for recheck. Include a copy of subject to conditions below. this review. 1. A finding in accordance with Section 309 of the Los Angeles County Code is required from the geologist and soil engineer. 2. Please revise the Supervised Grading Certificate to reflect the slope stabilization fill on the 1.5:1 cut slope. Reviewed by - __'Ie; Date November 10, 1994 David C. Smith Reviewed Kay St. Peters Post -it" Fax Note 767.1 Date "IJ/ 9 pagoes" To l<eri (1 ILLH From /9N tJE Co./Dept. _••l11 `C H + A8S eo" C i T y Phone # Phone # 9 6 _ 14, .7 / Fax I e 96E3 21 QC Fax # q k 1 1 1 LEIGNrON AND ASMAEES, INC qw-.` --.r r GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 2910164-61 DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Tract(s) 30289, Lot 33 Date November 10, 1994 Parent Tract Location/Owner The Country/Shu Site Address 2925 Steeplechase Geologist Triad Developer Soils Engineer Triad Engineer/Arch. Wilch and Associates ift—MOTS Grading P.C. No. Geologist Report(s) Dated Soils Report(s) Dated X Geology and Soils Report(s) Dated Interim Rough Grading - October 28. 1994 Plan/Report is geotechnically approved X Plan/report not approved for reasons below Plan/Report is geotechnically approved Submit Plan/Report for recheck. Include a copyo subject to conditions below. this review. REVIEW COMMENTS: 1. A finding in accordance wrCtSection 309 o he Los Angeles County Code is required from the geologist and soil engineer. 2. Please revise the Supervised Grading Certificate to reflect theslope stabilization fill on the 1.5:1 cut slope Reviewed by David C. Smith Reviewed by Kay St."Peters IEIGNTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC Foundation Engineering • Engineering Geology Material Testing • Construction Inspection 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964.2313 FAX (818) 810-0915 November 30, 1989 Job #88-136 Mr. Skip Burton 6862 Manchester Boulevard Buena Park, CA 91620 Subject: Rough Grading Report of Compaction & Geologic inspection Lot 31 - Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California Dear Mr. Burton: 1`s1t9 7]K IFN75 Pursuant to your request, representatives of this firm have mapped exposed bedrock, inspected and tested the fill placed during grading operations on the subject site. This report presents the results of these tests and inspections performed from May 5 through June 28, 1989. A Geologic and Grading Map of the site showing test locations and other pertinent .data is accompanying this report. Only periodic inspections were requested and provided during the grading operation. Reference Data Used Preliminary Soils & Geologic Investigation By Triad Foundation Engineering, Inc. Dated March 11, 1988 SITE PREPARATION Prior to the placement of any fill, the site was prepared for grading in the following manner: A. Surface debris and vegetation were stripped and hauled off - site. B. Trees were removed and the exposed cavities removed in the grading operations. 1 0 C. No surface structures were present on the site upon our arrival. D. No subsurface structures were encountered during grading. E. Existing fills and landslide affected bedrock were removed to firm undisturbed bedrock, cleaned of deleterious debris, and recompacted to minimum requirements. F. Benching into bedrock was provided where the slope to receive fill exceeded an angle of 5:1. G. Exposed bedrock structures were inspected during grading. Bedding orientations and other pertinent data mapped prior to and during grading are shown on the Geologic and Grading Map. GRADING A. Fill was placed in 6-8 inch loose lifts, watered and compacted to the minimum requirements. B. The method used for adding moisture and compacting was a water hose and rolling with a track loader. . C. Fill slopes were track rolled. TESTING A. Compaction standard used for minimum requirements was 90 percent of the ASTM Test Method D1557-78. B. Field density tests were performed in accordance with the sand cone method, ASTM D1556-82 and the drive tube method, ASTM D2937- 83. Results of these tests are attached as a part of this report. C. Expansion tests were performed on typical soils in accordance with the UBC Standard No. 29-2 to determine their expansion index. D. Laboratory test results are summarized below: Maximum Optimum Expansion Classification Density Moisture Index Silty CLAY with Fine 107.4 17.9 62 Sand & Bedrock OA COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Bedrock structure mapped during grading conforms to the geologic conditions described in the Preliminary Geologic Report. B. Adverse geologic conditions were corrected by the placement of buttress and stabilization fills as noted on the attached map. The base (key) of these fills is noted on the map. C. The soil is classified as moderately expansive. D. Footing Type: Continuous or spread. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two Number 4 bars near the top and two Number 4 bars near the bottom of the footing. E. Floor: Concrete slab on grade with a minimum thickness of 4 inches and reinforced with 6x6 - W 2.9 x W 2.9 (6x6 - 6/6) welded wire mesh, or equivalent, placed at the center of the slab. For moisture sensitive floors, a 6 mil moisture barrier membrane covered with 2 inches of clean sand should be placed below the slab. F. Subsoil below slabs should have above optimum moisture contents to a depth of 18 inches established 24 hours prior to pouring the concrete. G. The allowable bearing capacity of the footings should not exceed 2000 pounds per square foot, with a minimum embedment of 18 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches. This value includes dead and live loads and may be increased 1/3 for seismic loads of short duration. H. Compacted fills reported herein have been properly placed and compacted for structural fill and should provide good support for the intended use. It should be noted that the pad is about 6 inches to 1 foot below design grade as shown on the attached map. It also has an uneven surface and must be fine graded to drain properly. A City of Diamond Bar Supervised Grading Inspection Certificate is attached and is part of this report. A previously issued certificate for this lot (Lot 31) and tied to our report of September 20, 1989 is in error and not valid. Our report of September 20, 1989 is for Lot 30. 3 The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 5"','/ (i0 &- /" Gum Frank C. Stillman William G. Uhl G. E. 805 C.E.G. 502 FCS; WGU/thf Enclosures: Geologic Map & Grading Plan Summary of Test Results Diamond Bar Form Distribution L sJa EXjJ. Addressee ( 4) 0 OFCAt0 SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Moisture Dry Lab Relative Test Content Density Max Compaction No. Date Elevation U) (ncf) Density W 1 5-9 926.0 18.1 98.8 107.4 92 2 5-9 928.0 19.2 97.8 107.4 91 3 5-9 930.0 15.6 96.6 107.4 90 4 5-10 932.0 17-6 99.9 107.4 93 5 5-10 934.0 18.8 102.4 107.4 95 6 5-11 936.0 17.9 98.6 107.4 92 7 5-12 938.0 19.0 96.7 107.4 90 8 5-16 940.0 18.3 97.9 107.4 91 9 5-16 942.0 17.2 99.6 107.4 93 10 5-17 944.0 20.2 103.1 107.4 96 11 5-18 946.0 16.3 97.9 107.4 91 12 5-19 938.0 19.0 99.1 107.4 92 13 5-22 940.0 20.8 96.3 107.4 90 14 5-23 942.0 22.7 104.4 107.4 97 15 5-23 944.0 18.3 102.0 107.4 95 16 5-23 946.0 19.4 98.8 107.4 92 17 5-24 948.0 17.6 97.0 107.4 90 18 5-24 948.0 19.0 96.7 107.4 90 19 5-25 950.0 19.9 100.2 107.4 93 20 5-26 952.0 22.4 97.5 107.4 91 21 5-30 954.0 18.9 102.2 107.4 95 22 6-6 956.0 22.0 98.5 107.4 92 23 6-7 958.0 17.6 103.4 107.4 96 24 6-8 960.0 19.6 98.4 107.4 92 25 6-9 962.0 22.0 100.0 107.4 93 26 6-12 964.0 22.5 97.3 107.4 91 27 6713 950.0 21.7 97.7 107.4 91 28 6-14 952.0 19.9 100.3 107.4 93 29 6-15 954.0 17.6 105.5 107.4 98 30 6-15 956.0 21.8 102.0 107.4 95 31 6-16 558.0 19.0 101.2 107.4 94 32 6-16 960.0 19.8 97.0 107.4 90 33 6-19 962.0 20.6 98.5 107.4 92 34 6-20 964.0 21.2 100.0 107.4 93 35 6-21 966.0 20.3 103.1 107.4 96 36 6-22 968.0 18.2 101.0 107.4 94 37 6-22 970.0 19.0 101.1 107.4 94 38 6-27 972.0 22.5 98.8 107.4 92 39 6-27 974.0 20.5 97.6 107.4 91 40 6-27 976.0 21.7 99.9 107.4 93 41 6-27 978.0 20.9 96.7 107.4 90 42 6-28 950.0 19.8 101.3 107.4 94 43 6-28 950.0 20.8 99.1 107.4 92 44 6-28 952.0 22.1 97.0 107.4 90 45 6-28 952.0 19.9 99.5 107.4 93 Tests taken by Sand Cone Method. All other tests taken by Drive Tube Method. t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T. K. ENGINEERING CORP. Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants 3565 Lexington Avenue El Monte, California 91731 818)575-2856 •fax (818)575-1582 LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 925_Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California Part I - Limited Soils Engineering Investigation Report T.K. Engineering Corp. Our Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 Part II - Engineering Geologic Report The Geologic Outfit Project No. 1309 October 28, 1993 For Luan's Construction 1 1 Part I REPORT OF LIMITED SOILS ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION 1 BY T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. November 29, 1993 Our Job No. 93-213FG t 1 1 I 1 T. K. ENGINEERING CORP. Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants 3565 Lexington Avenue El Monte, California 91731 818)575-2856 •fax (818)575-1582 Luan's Construction 14683 River Ridge Ct. Chino Hills, CA 91709 TKE Job No. 93-213FG) November 29, 1993 Attn.: Mr. Jonah Luan Subject : LIMITED SOILS ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California 1 Dear Mr. Luan: We are pleased to present the following Limited Soils Engineering Investigation Report for the proposed recreation room and swimming pool at the subject site. This work was performed in accordance with our proposal dated September 28, 1993, and accepted by you. A preliminary evaluation of the subsurface condition was performed both by this office and The Geologic Outfit with respect to the proposed development. The results of our t studies indicate that the site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineer's standpoint. tThank you for the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact the undersigned, if there is any question concerning this report. Respectfully submitted, T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. By x( 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I COVER LETTER TABLE OF CONTENT Page No. INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................... 2 SITE CONDITIONS ............................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY .............. 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................... 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 3 General............................. 3 Existing Slope Stability............ 4 Site Preparation ................... 4 Cut and Fill Slopes ................. 6 Foundation .......................... 6 Lateral Resistance .................. 7 Retaining Wall ...................... 7 Concrete Slab ................... 9 Swimming Pool ....................... 9 Temporary Excavation ................ 9 Drainage ............................ 10 Slope Maintenance ................... 10 Mandatory 309 Statement ............. 11 Construction Observation & Testing.. 12 REMARKS ....................................... 13 APPENDIX A - Exploration and Laboratory Testing APPENDIX B - General Specifications for Site Grading & Excavation APPENDIX C - Existing Slope Stability Analysis Typical Fill Over Natural Slope ........................ Plate A-1 Typ. Subdrain Details f. Sidehill and Buttress Fills .... Plate A-2 Direct Shear Diagram............................Plates D-1 to D-3 PART II LETTER Pane No. SCOPE OF WORK ................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS ............................... 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................... 2 SEISMIC CONDITIONS ............................ 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 3 REMARKS ....................................... 5 SELECTED REFERENCES ........................... 7 Vicinity Map Area Geology Regional Geology Map Fault & Earthquake Map Epicenter Map Geologic Log - Test Pits 1-4 Geologic Map Geologic Section As Built Plan I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room TKE Job No. 93-213FG 2925 Steeplechase Lane November 29, 1993 Diamond Bar, California INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a limited soils engineering investigation for the proposed one story recreation room at the subject site. The purposes of this investigation are to determine the subsurface soil conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the site development. Our scope of authorized work for this investigation was limited to the proposed development area only. It includes limited field explorations during the course of a geological investigation performed by the Geologic Outfit, laboratory testing of the materials encountered during geological exploration, engineering analysis with respect to the proposed construction, and preparation of this report. This investigation has been conducted in conjunction with an Engineering Geologic Study performed by The Geologic Outfit. The results of the geologic investigation were summarized in their report dated October 28, 1993. For ease of reference, we have included the geologic report as Part II herein. A complete evaluation of the proposed development should consist of a thorough review of both this and the aforementioned report. The following sections of this report presents our findings, conclusions, recommendations, and supporting data. Page 1 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 As indicated on the site plan prepared by Jonah Luan & Associates, undated, the proposed development will include the construction of one-story recreation room, a gazebo and a swimming pool. The proposed development will be constructed on the west portion of the site. Grading will involve with cut and fill to create level pad for the proposed construction. It is estimated that the excavation will extend to a maximum depth of approximately 8 feet. Specific grading and structure plan including retaining wall are not available for this time. However, it is our request that when these plans become available, they should be forwarded to this office for review and comment. SITE CONDITIONS Description of site conditions is presented in the Geologic Report, Part H. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY Field exploration consisted of a site reconnaissance and limited exploration. The exploration was conducted by The Geologic Outfit and this office on October 25, 1993. It includes excavating four ( 4 ) test pits by backhoe to depths varying from 12 to 15 feet below the existing grade. The Page 2 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. I I 1 1 1 1 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 locations of the test pits are shown in Geologic Map (Part II). Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploration were logged by the personnel of the Geologic Outfit and the information was made available to us. Logs of test pits are presented in the geologic report, Part II. Laboratory tests were conducted to evaluate static geotechnical characteristics, upon which the engineering analysis is based. Description of the test procedures and the test results are also shown in the Appendix A. 1 1 1 1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on the results of our field explorations, the subject site is generally underlain by existing fill, colluvium and sedimentary bedrock. A detailed description of these units are presented in Part II, Geologic Report. Groundwater or seepage was not encountered in all four test pits. 1 General 1 1 1 1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The information obtained during our investigation indicated that the subject site is suitable for the proposed development provided that following recommendations are incorporated in the design, job specifications, and in the construction. It should be noted that the recommendations contained herein are intended to serve as guidelines to provide the project design consultants with Page 3 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 I Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room TKE Job No. 93-213FG 2925 Steeplechase Lane November 29, 1993 1 Diamond Bar, California preliminary design parameters. Prior to construction, any geotechnical related plans and/or documents should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that such plans and documents comply with our recommendations. Any need for additional investigatory work or revised recommendations will be given upon the review. 1 Existing Slope Stability The existing slopes at the site are relatively gentle towards the north and west. As indicated in the Engineering Geologic Investigation Report, the site topography and the bedrock characteristics are considered to be suitable for gross stability. 1 The analyses of existing gross slope stability on cross sections B-B and C-C as plotted in the geologic report ( Part II ) and surficial slope stability analysis for the 2:1 gradient slope are presented in Appendix C-1 to C-5. The results of our analyses indicate the stability possesses a factor of safety in excess of 1.5 and is considered to be grossly and surficially stable. Site Preparation Site grading will consists of cut into existing slope to create level pad. It is anticipated that the cut slope will be at 2:1 gradient to a height of approximate 8 feet. 1 Page 4 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room TKE Job No. 93-213FG 2925 Steeplechase Lane November 29, 1993 Diamond Bar, California The colluvium soils are generally moderate soft and are considered unsuitable to support the compacted fill and the proposed structures. However, it is anticipated that the unsuitable colluvium materials will be removed by the proposed excavation in the building area. If any soft pocket is encountered at the bottom of excavation, it should be removed and properly recompacted as engineered fill. All bottom of excavation should be observed by the soil engineer or his representative. It is recommended that the entire building area be provided at least 2 feet of compacted fill. 1 The excavated on -site soils may be reused as engineered fill provided they are free of organic, deleterious substances and have a suitable moisture content to obtain proper compaction. Soils imported from off -site sources should be similar to on -site soils and be approved by the Soil Engineer or his representative prior to placement. Bottom of excavation should be scarified, moistened, and properly compacted to 90% relative compaction at least upper 8 inches. Acceptable fill material should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 6 inches in thickness when loose and should be properly compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as 1 determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Grading operation should conform with applicable portions of the City of Diamond Bar Grading Code and the attached Appendix B (General Specifications For Site Grading and Excavations). 1 tPage 5 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room TKE Job No. 93-213FG 2925 Steeplechase Lane November 29, 1993 Diamond Bar, California Cut and Fill Slopes The proposed cut slope is anticipated to expose the bedrock strata that dipping out of slope. As indicated in the part II (geologic report), cut slope that is made at 2:1 (h:v) with favorable into slope bedding are anticipated to be stable to heights on the order of 30 feet. Any cut slope that expose out of slope bedding may require buttress fill or retaining wall. The recommendations for 1 buttress fill and retaining wall design will be provided upon the review of grading plans. The following recommendations should be followed for the fill slope construction: 1. Fill slopes should be built at gradient no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). 2. Fill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. 3. All fill slopes should be keyed and benched into existing slope in accordance with the attached Plate A-1 - Fill Over Natural Slope. Bottom of key way and benches should be observed by the soil engineer or his representative prior to fill placement. 4. Subdrains are recommended at the bottom of keyway. Installation of subdrain should be observed by a soil engineer. Foundation For design purpose, an allowable bearing value of 2000 pound per square foot may be used for the design of all foundations embedded a minimum of 18 inches into the competent bedrock. Page 6 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of embedment and 200 psf for each additional width to a maximum value of 3000 psf. The above bearing value may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loads. In addition, All footings should have a minimum setback of 10 feet, measured from the adjacent descending slope surface to the outer edge of footing. All footings should also be reinforced with at least 4 rebar N4, placed 2-top, 2-bottom. i i 1 h 1 1 1 Lateral Resistance Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by friction acting on the base of footings and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction between the base of footing and the bedrock may be assumed as 0.35. An allowable lateral bearing value against the sides of footings is recommended to be 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth to a maximum of 3000 pounds per square foot. Lateral bearing value only can be derived when the footing embedment exceeds 10 feet setback. Retaining Wall Retaining walls should be adequately designed to resist the lateral soil pressures and the anticipated surcharge loads. Where free-standing retaining structures are proposed, the following equivalent fluid pressures are recommended for the wall to retain the on -site soil with no hydrostatic pressure, and no adverse bedding surcharge: Page 7 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 Backfill Slope Horz. to Vert.) Equivalent Fluid Pressure Level 35 pcf 5 to 1 37 4 to 1 40 3 to 1 43 1 2 to 1 48 All retaining structures should include appropriate allowances for anticipated surcharge loadings, where applicable. In this regard, a uniformly distributed horizontal load equal to one-half the vertical surcharge load should be applied to a wall whenever a surcharge is within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height. All design pressures assume that sufficient drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by means of a system of subdrains and/or weep hole with filter material installed behind walls. Subdrain system may consist of perforated pipe encapsulated in suitable filter materials and placed near bottom of the wall. The drainage pipes shall be sloped to direct all intercepted waters to a designated area. The backfill of retaining wall should be non -expansive material and be properly compacted to at least 90% of laboratory maximum dry density. Retaining wall backfills should be tested at every height not to exceed 2 feet. Care should be taken when compacting adjacent to walls. Improper compaction techniques or equipments can produce excessive lateral loads. Page 8 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 r i 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California Concrete Slab TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 Based on laboratory test result, the colluvium ( sandy clay ) is considered to be medium in expansion potential. It is recommended that concrete slab supported by compacted soil or bedrock be at least 4 inches thick and be reinforced with rebar #3 or #4 at 24" on center, bothways, placed at slab mid -height. Such slab should be supported on 4 inches of washed sand or crushed rock. Where upward capillary of moisture is not desired, a moisture barrier, such as vinyl membrane with a minimum thickness of 6 mils, should be placed beneath the slabs -on -grade. The membrane should be covered by 2 inches of sand to aid in uniform curing of the concrete. Care should be taken not to puncture the membrane. Prior to placement of concrete, the subgrade should be pre -saturated to a minimum depth of 12 inches. Swimming Pool All swimming pool walls should be designed and constructed as a free-standing wall. The recommendations stated in "Retaining Wall" section may be used in the design. The bottom of swimming pool's excavation should be observed by the soil engineer. Temporary Excavation Unsurcharged temporary excavations in the bedrock that favorable into slope bedding may be cut near vertical up to 8 feet and sloped at 1:1 gradient or flatter to a maximum height of 30 feet for Page 9 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 a period not to exceed 6 weeks. The top soils overlying bedrock should also be trimmed back to a 1:1 slope. Tops of excavation should be barricaded at least 5 feet to prevent any storage or equipment loads. Any temporary cut that exposes the out -of -slope dipping strata should be made no steeper than the bedding plane. It is recommended that the current standards delineated in CAL -OSHA for safe working conditions be followed during construction. 1 Drainage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Adequate drainage system should be provided and designed by a civil engineer. All drainage should be directed away from the foundation areas toward the approved drainage devices. In no case shall water be allowed to pond within the site or be drained down the slope in an uncontrolled and concentrated manner. Slone Maintenance We recommend that the homeowner maintain an adequate debris, erosion and fire control program to protect the property. Sloughing and slumping of the slope surface may be anticipated if the slopes are left unprotected Page 10 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 over a period of time, especially during rainy seasons. It should also be noted that excessive landscape watering, rodent burrows and uncontrolled surface runoff may cause instability of the slope surface. The following recommendations are provided so as to minimize the potential for future erosion of the slope at the subject site. 1. The slope shall be planted with a suitable deep-rooted ground cover as soon as possible. Additional protection may be provided by the use of jute mesh or suitable geofabrics. If adequate ground cover is not established before the rainy season, sloughing and slumping of the surficial soils may occur. It is imperative that landscape watering be kept to the minimum required for normal plant growth. 2. Paved drainage swales and downdrains on the slope and drain inlet should be kept free of soils and debris. 3. All drainage system should be periodically cleaned up and properly maintained to insure its function. Mandatory 309 Statement Based on the results of our investigation on the subject site, it is concluded that the proposed construction will be unaffected by settlement, sliding, and slippage, provided all grading Page 11 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 operation is conducted in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations and constraints of the applicable sections of the Diamond Bar City Building Code with no adverse effect upon adjoining properties. Construction Observation and Testine As a necessary requisite to the use of this report, the following construction stages shall be observed and/or tested by a representative of this facility: 1. Temporary excavation. 2. Placement and compaction of any structural fill, including fill slopes. 3. Compaction of retaining wall, swimming pool wall, and utility trench backfill. 4. Bottom of excavation prior to receiving fill. 5. Bottom of excavation for keyways, benches, foundation, and swimming pool. 6. Installation of subdrain system. 7. Pre -saturation of subgrade within concrete slab -on -grade areas. If T.K. Engineering Corp, is not allowed to perform sufficient observations and adequate testing during construction, a statement regarding suitability and stability of the project can not be made accordingly. Page 12 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. P 11 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 It is recommended that a joint meeting among the client, contractor, and the Soil Engineer be held at least 2 days in advance of the commencement of construction to discuss specific procedures and scheduling. REMARKS This report is prepared based upon the proposed project as described, observation and findings during field investigation, and evaluation of the test results. The conclusions and recommendations are based upon the assumption that soil conditions do not deviate significantly from those described herein. If variations from our findings or undesirable conditions are found during construction, or if the proposed construction differs from that presently planned, T.K. Engineering Corp. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the client to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to developers, owners, buyers, Architects, tEngineers, and Designers for the project so that the necessary steps can be taken by the Contractors and Subcontractors to carry out such recommendations in the field. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of professional practice. Page 13 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. I h 1 LJ t I Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. All excavated pits used for subsurface exploration were backfilled with reasonable effort to restore the areas to their original condition. As with any backfill in an area as small and deep as a boring, some consolidation and subsidence of the backfill soils may result in time, causing some depression of the boring area and possibly a potentially hazardous condition. The client and/or owner of the property are advised to periodically examine the boring area, and if necessary, backfill any resulting depressions. This report is subject to review and approval by the controlling authorities for the project. T. K. Engineering Corp. should be retained during construction of the project so that continuous observation of the subsurface conditions can be made and additional recommendations can be given in the event of any change of condition. Any charges for necessary review or update will be at the prevailing rate at the time the review work is performed. Page 14 T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room TKE Job No. 93-213FG 2925 Steeplechase Lane November 29, 1993 Diamond Bar, California APPENDIX A EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATION Field exploration was performed by excavating four ( 4 ) test pits. They were excavated to depths varying from 8 to 12.5 feet below existing ground surface. Test pits were excavated by a backhoe. The encountered soils were continuously logged by our field personnel and classified by visual examination. Relatively undisturbed samples and representative bulk samples were obtained for laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples of soils were observed at frequent intervals by driving a thin -wall steel sampler with successive drops of a hammer. The soils were retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches in diameter and one inch in height. Normally, the central portion of the sample is retained in a plastic container for shipment to the laboratory. LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified in the laboratory. The final classification is shown on Part II. Shear Tests Shear tests were performed at a constant rate of strain. The purpose of the test is to determine the shear strength parameters including the cohesion and angle of internal friction. Each sample 1 is sheared under a specific normal load and the resulting strength are plotted on the "Shear Test", D-Plates. I T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 Expansion Tests Expansion tests were performed on selected samples in accordance with UBC Test Standard No. 29-2. A representative sample of the on -site upper soils was remolded at approximately 50% degree of saturation and then soaked for 24 hours. The results are as follows: Sample Soil Expansion Potential Location Description Index Expansion TP-2 @ 2.0' SANDY CLAY 80 medium T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. I 1 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room TKE Job No. 93-213FG 2925 Steeplechase Lane November 29, 1993 Diamond Bar, California APPENDIX B GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SITE GRADING AND EXCAVATIONS The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in case of conflict. Evaluation performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It will be necessary that the consultant provide adequate testing and observation so that the earthwork will be accomplished in accordance with the specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that the consultant may schedule his personnel accordingly. 1. All existing fill, near surface loose or soft soils, vegetation, debris and disturbed soils in structure, slab or pavement areas shall be excavated. The excavated areas shall be observed by the Soil Engineer. 2. Areas to receive compacted fill shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches and moistened, as required, to obtain near optimum moisture. Scarification shall continue until the soil is broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonable uniform and free of uneven features. The scarified areas shall be A) compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction method, or B) compacted and approved by the Soil Engineer. 3. Any loose pockets, soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable soil, extending to such a depth that surface processing can not adequately improve the condition, shall be overexcavated down to firm ground. The excavated areas shall be observed and approved by the Soil Engineer prior to placing compacted fill. 4. Fill, consisting of soil approved by the Soil Engineer, shall be placed in controlled layers with appropriate compaction equipment. Each layer shall be compacted to at least 90% of the laboratory maximum dry density for the material used. The field density shall be determined by the ASTM D-1556 Sand Cone Method or equivalent. T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room TKE Job No. 93-213FG 2925 Steeplechase Lane November 29, 1993 Diamond Bar, California 5. The excavated, on -site clean fill material is considered satisfactory for re -use as compacted fill. All imported fill shall be non -expansive and approved by the Soil Engineer prior to use in the controlled fill areas. Rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter shall not be used. 6. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, the geotechnical recommendations and specifications presented herein, and the approved grading plans. Observation and field tests shall be performed during grading by the Soil Engineer to assist the contractor in obtaining the required degree of compaction and the proper moisture content. Where compaction of less than 90% is indicated, additional compactive effort shall be made with the adjustment of the moisture content as necessary until 90% compaction is obtained. 7. No fill soils shall be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by rains, fill operations shall not resume until the field tests by the Soil Engineer indicate the moisture content and the dry density of the fill are as previously specified. 8. Where fills are to be placed on the ground with slopes steeper than 5 : 1 (horizontal : vertical), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet deep, shall expose firm materials and shall be approved by the consultant. Other benches shall be excavated in firm materials for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5 : 1 shall be benched or otherwise overexcavated when considered necessary by the consultant. 9. Compacting of slope shall be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of with slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope cut to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. 10. Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in the subdrain line, grade or material. All subdrains should be surveyed for line and grading after installation and sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 1 L 1 11 I F 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Proposed 1-Story Recreation Room 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California TKE Job No. 93-213FG November 29, 1993 11. Excavations and cut slopes will be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas shall be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. Where fill -over -cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. 12. Planting and irrigation of cut and fill slopes and installation of erosion control and drainage devices shall comply with the requirements of the Grading Code of controlling agencies. T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. 11 SUBJECT SLOPE Si W LI V CROSS .ce-c-D oA-s B hPPexfzix c- I JOB No. 93-2i3 FG Add a / QC TO _ t d = 2. 7/3 Hssuhe . c-tccuc*Q F*11-uRE tS R Wc, TK P Ash ka alt U- 0-. C = 400 pl F 20 RcF T.K. ENGINEERING CORP. GEOTEMARCAL ENGINEERS SCALE / "- 2 0 ' f CHK BY PCSTABL5 ** by Purdue University Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename Output Filename: PROBLEM DESCRIPTION DIAMOND BAR 12-2-93 16:00 TG 93213FG1.IN 93213FG1.OUT RECREATION ROOM - STEEPLECHASE IN, BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 5 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 00 8.00 12.00 8.00 1 2 12.00 8.00 12.10 12.50 1 3 12.10 12.50 41.00 19.00 1 4 41.00 19.00 69.50 24.00 1 5 69.50 24.00 129.00 26.00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. pcf) pcf) psf) deg) Param. psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 21.0 00 0 0 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 5.00 ft. and X = 15.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 55.00 ft. and X = 100.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -45.0 And .0 deg. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. 1 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method ** 1 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 1 5.00 8.00 2 14.00 3.65 3 23.78 1.54 4 33.77 1.79 5 43.43 4.38 t 6 7 52.20 59.60 9.18 15.92 8 64.47 23.12 2.713 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 5.00 8.00 2 13.80 3.26 3 23.56 1.06 4 33.55 1.58 5 43.03 4.77 6 51.30 10.39 7 57.74 18.03 8 59.68 22.28 2.715 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 5.00 8.00 2 13.99 3.61 3 23.74 1.41 4 33.74 1.49 5 43.45 3.87 6 52.36 8.41 7 60.00 14.87 8 65.95 22.90 9 66.17 23.42 2.718 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 5.00 8.00 2 13.89 3.42 3 23.55 83 4 33.54 32 5 43.40 1.93 6 52.71 5.59 7 61.04 11.12 8 68.01 18.29 9 71.63 24.07 2.744 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 6.11 8.00 2 15.60 4.85 3 25.53 3.68 4 35.50 4.54 5 45.08 7.40 6 53.88 12.14 7 61.55 18.56 8 65.27 23.26 2.747 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 6.11 8.00 2 15.01 3.44 3 24.82 1.51 4 34.79 2.35 5 44.14 5.90 6 52.15 11.88 7 58.21 19.83 8 59.13 22.18 2.747 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 5.00 8.00 2 13.41 2.59 3 23.08 05 4 33.07 63 5 42.38 4.28 6 50.10 10.63 7 55.48 19.06 8 56.15 21.66 2.753 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 5.00 8.00 2 13.91 3.46 3 23.55 80 4 33.53 13 5 43.44 1.48 6 52.87 4.79 7 61.45 9.93 8 68.83 16.68 9 74.25 24.16 2.762 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 6.11 8.00 2 15.13 3.67 3 24.86 1.36 4 34.85 1.16 5 44.67 3.09 6 53.85 7.06 7 61.97 12.88 8 68.68 20.30 9 70.83 24.04 2.767 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 6.11 8.00 2 14.88 3.20 3 24.55 63 4 34.55 45 5 44.30 2.65 6 53.25 7.12 7 60.87 13.59 8 66.73 21.70 9 67.52 23.65 2.780 APPENDIX C-2 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Recreation Room at 2925 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, CA PROJECT NUMBER: 93-213FG CROSS SECTION: B SLIDE PLANE: 1 METHOD OF ANALYSIS: BISHOP'S MODIFIED METHOD NUMBER OF SLICES: 4 SLICE DATA: SLICE NO. X Y-TOP FT) FT) 0 0 28.5 1 18.5 28.0 2 47.5 22.5 3 67.0 18.0 4 75.5 16.0 Y-BOTTOM Y-WATER SOIL TYPE NO. FT) FT) 25.5 25.5 1 20.0 20.0 1 11.0 11.0 1 5.0 5.0 1 11.5 11.5 1 SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS: SOIL TYPE NO. COHESION FRICTION ANGLE TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT PSF) (DEGREES) (PCF) 1 200.0 21.0 120.0 UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER: 62.4 PCF TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE SECTION: 83.73 KPF STATIC FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.97 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX C-3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Recreation Room at 2925 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, CA PROJECT NUMBER: 93-213FG CROSS SECTION: C SLIDE PLANE: 1 METHOD OF ANALYSIS: BISHOP'S MODIFIED METHOD NUMBER OF SLICES: 4 SLICE DATA: SLICE NO. X Y-TOP FT) FT) 0 0 37.0 1 4.5 36.5 2 43.0 32.0 3 72.0 25.0 4 89.0 21.5 Y-BOTTOM Y-WATER SOIL TYPE NO. FT) FT) 37.0 37.0 1 30.0 30.0 1 16.5 16.5 1 5.5 5.5 1 17.0 17.0 1 SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS: SOIL TYPE NO. COHESION FRICTION ANGLE TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT PSF) (DEGREES) (PCF) 1 200.0 21.0 120.0 UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER: 62.4 PCF TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE SECTION: 137.96 KPF STATIC FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.92 APPENDIX C-4 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Recreation Room at 2925 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, CA PROJECT NUMBER: 93-213FG CROSS SECTION: C SLIDE PLANE: 2 METHOD OF ANALYSIS: BISHOP'S MODIFIED METHOD NUMBER OF SLICES: 3 SLICE NO. X Y-TOP Y-BOTTOM Y-WATER SOIL TYPE NO. FT) FT) FT) FT) 0 0 21.0 21.0 21.0 1 1 5.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 1 2 41.5 12.0 4.0 4.0 1 3 45.0 11.0 6.5 6.5 1 SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS: SOIL TYPE NO. COHESION FRICTION ANGLE TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT PSF) (DEGREES) (PCF) 1 200.0 21.0 120.0 UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER: 62.4 PCF TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE SECTION: 32.60 KPF STATIC FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.87 SUBJECT JuRT4c1.44g$Go?d 47,+41 I JOB N0.93-oZ/3 r-67APQeu- ziX X. C -5 A JS4eat a Art FoetS I LPr)UAV, 64.bpd CtR1tT- oRM isotG Zew(T' AND difPAZ C-NG 71i41 LMtT- VRN ,S?ems PAR,tL GL ifl 8COpG ttXFICIdL lLo7 RIAL s ( 7cfl e c 'zoo PS f 4 _ . h _ . ( Z S. x I _ J 7s Tivwh ' oR Gu' Zoo t C its - 6Z. 4 K x ' 3Cos 27 f 26, z z.7 / F_ s = R-Pl D-F = 17z. - Its 1. 9 > 1. a- 0.rC R TYPICAL FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE Finished Grade compacted fill Toe of slope as shown on i 4' Ty ica1 grading plan OE- - Topography 2' min all a i i i i i f topsoil, colluvium, lweatheredbedrock 12' Minimum base key width 10 - Typical bedrock or approved bottom material Installed a subdrain pipe in accordancedwith the attached subdrain details Note: Where natural slope gradient is 5:1 or less benching is not necessary; however, fill is not to be placed on compressible or unsuitable material. Proposed Recreation Room JOB N0. 93-213FG 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, CA SCALE1"= N.T.S. T.K ENGINEERING CORP. IPt 4TE A-1r =nr= wrei cairtrJF== TYPICAL S'JBDRAIN DETAILS FOR SIDE -I=: AND BUTTRESS FILLS 4" min. diam. solid outlet pipe spaced at 100' hcrizontal intervals . 27. Min. Gr METHOD B I compacted fi11 Min.I ft.3per lin. ft Filter Material f 4" min. approved perforated pipe perforations down) J minimum 27 gradient to outlet. Bench inclined toward drain Typical benching METHOD A — Temporary fill level Min. 12" I Compacted Backfill cover i Min. 4" diam. approved solid outlet pipe 6" M n. 12 " IUn . F-T T)T77177 4-1 Filter Material to meet following specification_or approved equal: Sieve Size Percentase Passinz Try „ 00 3/41, .........90-100 3/8 ............ 40-100 No.4.......... 25-40 No.8.......... 18-33 No.30.......... 5-15 No.50......... 0-7 No.200........ 0-3 select bedding backfill Approved Pipe Tvoes: 1. Schedule 40 Poly -Vinyl - Chloride 2. Corrugated Mental Pipe 14ga. 6" AC di wed Alumimum Corru—'ated Pipe 1000 osi AC dipped 4. Acrylot_trile Butadinenne Schedule 40, 900psi Plate A-,'Z 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 a 3.0 Y n 2.5 W e x 2.0 W o 1.5 1.0 0.5 o.o 0.0 0.5 1.0 BORING NUMBER: T • P • t 1 DESCRIPTION: siltstone STRENGTH INTERCEPT (C): FRICTION ANGLE (fi): 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 NORMAL STRESS, ksf DEPTH: 5' ks` Degrees REMARKS: Scil samples tested at increased moisture 4.0 4.5 5.0 Project: 2925 Steeple Chase Lane DIRECT SHEAR TEST Diamond Bar, California RESULTS Job No. 93-21 3FG T.K. ENGINEERING PLATE 0 — , GEOTECI-NICAL ENGiNEEPS 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 NORMAL STRESS, ksf BORING NUMBER: T.P.1 DEPTH: 10 DESCRIPTION: sandstone STRENG T H INTERCEPT (C): ksf FRICTION ANGLE (0): Degrees REMARKS: Scil samples tested at increased mcis-:re Project: 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 2925 Steeple Chase Lane DIRECT SHEAR TEST Diamon Bar, California RESULTS 1 Job No. 93-213FG T.K. ENGINEERING PLATE 0 - 2 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 cNn 2.5 WxulN 2.0 2W N 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 NORMAL STRESS, ksf BORING NUMBER: T. P. 2 DEPTH: 2' DESCRIPTION: clayey silt STRENGTH INTERCEPT (C): 0.2 ksf FRICTION ANGLE (0): 26 Degrees REMARKS: Scil samples tested at increased mcisture Project: 2925 Steeple Chase Lane DIRECT SHEAR TEST Diamond Bar, California RESULTS Job No. 93-21 3FG T T.K. ENGINEERING PLATE D — 3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS Part 11 REPORT OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION m THE GEOLOGIC OUTFIT October 28, 1993 Project No. 1309 The Geologic Outfit" RAY A. EASTNtAN ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST 714) 871-9468 October 28, 1993 TK Engineering Corporation 3565 Lexington Ave. E1 Monte, Calif. 91731 2461 E. OrangetnOrpe Avenue Suite 229 Fullerton, California 92631 Subject: Engineering Geologic Investigation Proposed Recreation Room and Pool Residential Site at 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, Calif. Project No. 1309 Gentlemen: As requested, we have made an engineering geologic investigation at the subject site. Purposes thereof were to identify pertinent geologic factors with respect to proposed development of a recreation room and pool at the western side of the residential site. The development plan is preliminary and the discussions and recommendations provided herein must be considered as general. It is understood, however, that the proposed construction will 1 be comprised by a one story, wood frame structure and separate pool; the proposed foundations will consist of continuous footing systems. It is also understood that site grading will be comprised by moderate excavation with a cut slope at 2:1 to a height of ± 12 feet. An overview of the proposed development site is also shown by the accompanying plot plan. SCOPE OF WORK iThe scope of work carried out was based upon the preliminary planning information made available and was conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering geologic practice for the particular circumstances. In turn, the investigation was encompassed by the following points: 1) Review of available geologic maps and other reports on file at the City; 2) Field geologic examination of the site; 3) Subsurface geologic exploration by means of four test pits; and 4) Visual classification and evaluation of the units encountered with respect to proposed construction. The field geologic examination was conducted on October 25, 1993. Concurrently, the exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on the geologic map. In turn, findings of the geologic research and exploratory programs are presented on the accompanying geologic maps, sections and logs. e pg.2 SITE CONDITIONS The overall residential site is encompassed by ± 1.75 acres of partly developed land situated in the Puente Hills. It is bounded on the east by Steeplechase Lane, on the west by Sugar Pine Place and in general by residential development. In turn, the eastern portion of the site is occupied by a residence and related landscaping features whereas the western portion remains natural. Topography of the site is comprised by two main parts: namely, the aforenoted residence area consists of two main levels situated on fill whereas the natural area consists of a knoll with moderate slopes towards the north and west. The natural area in turn has a relief of ± 30 feet. An overview of the site and its topography is also shown by the accompanying base maps. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Geology at the site is encompassed by three basic units: namely, sedimentary bedrock, colluvium and fill. An overview of the geology is also shown by the accompanying geologic maps, sections and logs. The bedrock is assigned to the La Vida member of the Puente formation. At the site, it consists mainly of firm, interbedded brown siltstone and dark gray f-m sandstone with the beds being t 6-12 inches thick; the associated strata are gently folded with general dips of ± 6-18 degrees towards the northwest. The colluvium is present as a cover of ± 2-3 feet on the bedrock. It consists mainly of moderately soft, dark brown sandy clay with a porous texture. The fill is present as a compacted fill placed along a pre-existing canyon that was centered at about mid lot or t 80 feet east of the natural area. The aforenoted fill was placed under the inspection of the Donald R. Warren Company, Soil Engineers, in 1967. An off site feature of interest is the presence of residential development to the west in an area noted as a pre-existing massive landslide. The landslide proper, in turn, prior to development is as shown on the area geologic map which dates back to 1964. An earlier study by :Merriam (1961) also indicates the presence of a landslide, and several later studies by Crandall (1964), Stone (1969), Buena (1977), Irvine (1987) and Bagahi (1988) expand upon the subject. The noted studies indicate a recognition of the landslide and same has been mitigated during development of the subject area ( See for I pg.3 example Bagahi 1989 and Buena 1982). Finally, it may be noted that groundwater seepage was not encountered during the exploratory work for this investigation. SEISMIC CONDITIONS The nearest faults of known activity and greatest significance to the site are encompassed by the following: Fault Zone Approximate Location Earthquake Magnitude* Whittier 3 miles S 6.7 Chino 6 miles E 6.4 Sierra Madre 11 goN 6.6 Cucamonga 13 " NE 6.5 Elsinore 16 " SE 6.7 Newport 16 " SW 6.7 Raymond 18 NW 6.2 Verdugo 26 NW 6.4 Hollywood 27 " NW 6.5 San Jacinto 28 NE 7.0 San Andreas 29 " NE 8.1. Maximum probable magnitude, USGS, 1985. In turn, the associated ground motion parameters may be bracketed by the following: Anticipated Horizontal Acceleration* Fault Zone Peak (g) 65% Peak (g) Whittier 0.47 0.31 Chino 0.38 0.25 Sierra Madre 0.28 0.18 Elsinore 0.23 0.15 San Jacinto 0.18 0.12 San Andreas 0.21 0.14. Seed, el.al., 1983. An overview of the seismicity is also shown by the accompanying fault and earthquake epicenter maps. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is our professional opinion that construction of the proposed residential additions at the site is feasible from an engineering geologic standpoint, subject to the more specific conclusions and recommendations presented below: 1) Geologic Stability - The site is considered to be geological t pg.4 stable in as much as landslides or active faults are not known to be present . Moreover, the site topography and firm, steeper than slope dip characteristics of the bedrock are such as to be suitable for gross stability. 2) Seismicity - Provisions of the current Uniform Building Code are considered to be adequate for the anticipated site conditions. 3) Site Grading - It is anticipated that site grading can be accomplished with conventional earth moving equipment with moderate to very heavy ripping. It is further anticipated that the bulk of excavated materials will be suitable for use in compacted fills. Naturally, stripping of loose soils to expose underlying competent soils and/or bedrock will be required prior to placement of compacted fill. It is anticipated that such stripping will be required to depths of ± 2-4 feet in as much as the colluvium is anticipated to range to these depths. 4) Proposed Cut and Fill Slopes - The recommendation set forth below are for guidance only and will require confirmation when a detailed grading plan is available. Typically, cut slopes are encompassed by three factors: namely, 1) those less than 5 feet in height are anticipated to be stable; 2) those that are at 2:1 with favorable into slope bedding are anticipated to be stable to heights on the order of 30 feet; and 3) those that expose out of slope bedding are anticipated to require buttress fills or retaining walls. In turn, fill slopes of compacted soils at 2:1 are anticipated to be stable to heights on the order of 30 feet. The proposed cut slope at the site is anticipated to encounter bedrock strata that are, in part, dipping out of slope and, accordingly, a buttress fill would appear to be in order. 5) Expansive Soils - Experience with the colluvium and siltstone in the site area indicates that portions of these materials are expansive to some degree and precautions are required relative thereto. 6) Soluble Sulfates - The on -site soils and near surface bedrock are not anticipated to be high in water soluble sulfates. 7) Foundation Criteria - Two basic considerations must be fulfilled with respect to the engineering geologic aspects of the foundation criteria: 1) the foundations must be safe against shear failure of the soils or rock, and 2) post - construction settlement must be within permissive limits. The considerations set forth below have been made in view of these conditions. 1 pg.5 Adequate support for compacted fills and/or building and wall t foundations is anticipated to be provided by the bedrock subject, of course, to the discussions under geologic stability and cut and fill slopes. Naturally, it is recommended that all fills and building/wall foundations be established in competent bedrock or compacted fill as the case may be. As may be surmised, the colluvium is not generally considered to be suitable for the support of additional fill or building/wall loads. In addition, t the foundations should be established such as to have a minimal setback of 10 feet from any adjacent descending slope face and/or 1:1 projection from the base of any adjacent excavation. Finally, it should be noted that heavy ripping and jackhammer work may be required in the footing excavations and detailed work areas due to possible zones of hard rock and boulders. 8) Engineering Geologic Inspection - It is recommended that our geologist have the opportunity to review the finalized grading and construction plan when available in order to verify our findings as presented in this report. Further, it is also recommended that site inspections be made by our geologist during construction and grading in order to verify our findings to the geologic conditions encountered and additional recommendations may, of course, -be -required if conditions other than anticipated are found. 9) Per City Building Code - It is our finding, provided that the recommendations herein are followed, that the proposed additions construction will be safe from an engineering geologic standpoint against hazard from landsliding, settlement or slippage; further, the proposed status of building and grading as known will not adversely affect the geologic stability of adjacent property. REMARKS Several of the aforenoted items also fall under the purview of your office as the soils engineer and these may require further confirmation, laboratory testing, and analysis. These items include the site grading, slope stability, expansive soils, soluble sulfates, retaining walls, shoring and foundation design criteria. The conclusions and recommendations expressed herein reflect our best evaluation of the project requirements as based upon the planning information provided and information obtained at the geologic exposures and exploratory pit locations. It must be recognized, however, that evaluation of subsurface deposits such as those present at the site is subject to the influence of undisclosed and unforeseen variations in conditions that may occur in intermediate, unexplored areas. It must be the responsibility of the client to bring to our attention any unusual conditions which may be encountered in the course of project development. We trust that this ge at this time. Howeve have any questions. ely, 1 ,e6 Ray A astman CEG 423 attachments OM logic report will meet with your needs please feel free to contact us if you 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 pg.7 SELECTED REFERENCES Bagahi Engineering, October 1989, Final Soils and Geologic Inspection Reports, Tract 45345, Diamond Bar. May 1988, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tract 45345, Diamond Bar. Buena Engineers, April 1982, Final Grading Report for Tract 36382, Diamond Bar. October 1978, Preliminary Soils Mechanics Study and Geological Investigation of CUP 1030 Equestrian Center Site in Diamond Bar. April 1977, Slope Slide Study, ( Tract 36382 Diamond Bar. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1965, Geologic Map Sheets of California. LeRoy Crandall Associates, June 1964, Report of Soil Investigation, Proposed Equestrian Center, Diamond Bar. Dutch Holzhauer Engineering Co., 1967, As Built Grading Plan for Tract No. 30289, Diamond Bar, Ca. Irvine Soils Engineering, April 10, 1987, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Diamond Bar Village, Tract 36382, Lot 1, Diamond Bar Merriam, Richard, July 1961, Engineering and Geological Report of Landslide by Triad Engineering, Diamond Bar. Pacific Soils Engineering, October 1983, Deletion of Restricted Use Area, Parcel Map 10759, Diamond Bar, ( Related to subject landslide located east of the parcel ). Seed, H.B. el.al., 1983, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Robert Stone and Associates, September 1969, Stability of 29- Acre Slide, Diamond Bar Boulevard. U.S. Geological Survey, 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults of the Los Angeles Region: MF-1964. 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region: Professional Paper 1360. 1964, Geology and Oil Resources of the Eastern Puente Hills Area: Professional Paper 420-B. I I I I F Id ........... F-w M WIT, v 47 rl V- 2000' VICINITY MAP The Geologic Outfit RAY A. EASTMAN ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST GEOLOGIC LOG - TEST PIT 1 Project No.: 1309 Date: 10-25-93 Pit No. 1 1 Equipment: Backhoe Pit Dimensions: W 2' L 16' D 12' Elevation: 902 1 Depth,ft. Description Unit 0-2 Mod soft damp dk Colluvium1brnsdyclay -porous 2-4.5 Mod firm moist brn Puente fm siltstone w/thin layers of caliche 1 4.5-12 Firm moist interbedded at ± 6"-12" brn siltstone and dk gr f-m sandstone - N20E11N 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 No Seepage 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 t GEOLOGIC LOG - TEST PIT Project No.: 1309 Date: 10-25-93 Pit No. 2 Equipment: Backhoe Pit Dimensions: W 2' L 16' D 15' Elevation: 906 Depth,ft. Description Unit 0-2 Mod soft damp dk Colluvium brn sdy clay -porous 2-4.5 Mod firm moist brn Puente fm siltstone w/dk gr sandstone beds and thin caliche layers 4.5-15 Firm moist interbedded at ± 6-12" brn siltstone and dk gr f-m sandstone - N side - N20E24N Mid - N50E14N S side - NS9W No Seepage GEOLOGIC LOG - TEST PIT 1 Project No.: 1309 Date: 10-25-93 Pit No. 3 Equipment: Backhoe Pit Dimensions: W 2' L 16' D 14' Elevation: 896 Depth,ft. Description Unit t 0-2.5 Stiff dry dk brn Colluvium sdy clay -porous 2.5-14 Firm moist interbedded Puente fm t 6-12" brn siltstone and dk gr f-m sandstone - N20E18N 4" tan cemented ss at 9' thin layers of caliche to 4' 1 1 1 I 1 I No Seepage GEOLOGIC LOG - TEST PIT Project No.: 1309 Date: 10-25-93 Pit No. 4 Equipment: Backhoe Pit Dimensions: W 2' L 16' D 12' Elevation: 907 Depth,ft. Description Unit 0-3 Mod soft moist dk Colluvium brn sdy clay -porous 3-4 Hard cemented gr sandstone Puente fm 4-5 Mod firm damp yell brn siltstone 5-12 Firm moist interbedded at ± 6-12" brn siltstone and dk gr f-m sandstone N side - N60E6N S side - N20E14N No Seepage. EVU TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. p Soils Engineering • Engineering Geology • Environmental Engineering 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91 BurlsTELEPHONE (818) 964-2313 FAX (818) 810-0915 Review Sheet ®ate^,._02_6y September 9, Job # 94-195 Piermarini Enterprises 2100 S. Reservoir Pomona, California 91766 19` 9 O e Subject: Response to Leighton Review 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California References: 1) Review of Grading Plan By Triad Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. Dated August 17, 1994 2) Leighton Review Dated September 1, 1994 Gentlemen: The following comments and information are in response to the Leighton Review, reference two. Item 1 An analysis of off -site slopes would be difficult due to lack of permission to excavate test holes on properties with different ownership and lack of topography. This should not be required with the information shown on the Geologic Map of reference one. Slope gradients of properties below the landslide are of 10' and bedding planes are shown to be steeper than the ground surface. Slopes at this gradient and supported bedding planes are grossly stable and should not require more extensive investigation. 1 Item 2 The shear test referred to by Leighton is not a remolded shear test and not representative of a compacted fill slope in bedrock. Samples of bedrock were obtained from the site for maximum density and remolded shear tests. Tests for maximum density and optimum moisture content were conducted in accordance with the ASTM Test Method D1557-78. The tests were made using a 4-inch diameter mold having a 1/30 cubic foot volume, with 25 blows of a 10-pound hammer falling 18 inches on each of 5 layers. The following results were obtained: Soil Maximum Optimum Classification Dry Density Moisture Shale Bedrock 118.2 pcf 11.9% Direct shear tests were conducted on remolded samples of the bedrock to determine the angle of internal friction and cohesion. Samples were inundated for a minimum of 24 hours under normal load before testing and shear loads were applied quickly in accordance with the standard procedure for consolidated undrained shear tests. Horizontal forces were applied to pass the peak shear and determine the residual shear strength of the soil specimen. The results and residual shear strengths under increased moisture conditions are shown on the enclosed Direct Shear Summary. Calculations enclosed show that the proposed fill slope will have a safety factor well in. excess of minimum requirements for surficial stability. K 0 The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call us at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. l > ' Z a05 Y m Frank C. Stillman r,;,. 6-30-97 a G.E. 805 FCS/ccr F0 ck%-% P Enclosure: Direct Shear Summary Plate B-3 - Surficial Slope Stability Distribution: Addressee (4) 3 Triad Geotechnical Consultants Inc. BY: O.C. JOB N • 94-195 DATE• September 9, 1994 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 2.5" RING STRAIN - INCHES SAMPLE LOCATION: Cut Slope SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Shale Bedrock SAMPLE TYPE: Remold 29 C 350 p.S.f. 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 W 220 U 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 NORMAL STRESS - P.S.F. PLATE If T TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. tioi15 Engineering • 6ngincering Geology • Environmentallinginecring 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964-2313 FAX (818) 810-0915 4 ENG. DEPL 18,1A aw OMMOF06MR Piermarini Enterprises 2100 S. Reservoir Pomona, California 91766 Subject: Review of Grading Plan 2925 Steeplechase Lan Lot No. 33; Tract 30 98 Diamond Bar, Califor a August 17, 1994 Job W94-195 References: 1) Limited Geotechnical Engineering Investigation By T.K. Engineering Corporation Dated November 29, 1993 2) Engineering Geologic Report By The Geologic Outfit Dated October 28, 1993 3) Leighton and Associates Review Dated April 29, 1994 Gentleman: Pursuant to your request, we have inspected the subject site and reviewed the referenced reports. We concur with the findings and conclusions of the reports and are prepared to provide future geotechnical and geological consulting required for the project. We have reviewed the current grading plan and prepared a new Geologic Map to show geological conditions in relation to the 1 proposed development. Grading will be for a new guest house, swimming pool and tennis court in the rear area of the lot. The driveway will be extended for additional parking in the front area. The landslide shown on the Geologic Map is a well known and well investigated landslide which is reported in most of the referenced reports referred to by the Geologic Outfit. This landslide is very shallow and will be removed during the grading of the area. Portions of the landslide below the site (southwest) have previously been,removed and recompacted during the adjacent tract development. New Cross Sections have been prepared to show bedding plane conditions with the proposed grading. Daylighted bedding will be exposed on all cuts. Critical sections for analysis are considered through the tennis court retaining wall (Section C-CI) and the cut slope in front of the house (Section B-B'). We agree with Leighton's concern of using "tested" bedding plane parameters in analysis and recommend shear strengths of 0=100 and C=200 psf in accordance with Los Angeles County assumed parameters. This subject does not have universal agreement among Soils Engineers. Calculations enclosed show that the cut slopes with daylighted bedding will have a safety factor above minimum requirements for E gross stability which is due to the very low angle of bedding. Due to past surficial stability problems with daylighted bedding, all cut slopes with daylighted bedding (all cut slopes on this project) should be retained or regraded with an equipment width stabilization fill. s' J Stabilization Detail Based on remolded shear tests of bedrock taken from Test Pit 1 on the adjacent lot, which is shown on the Geologic Map, a compacted fill slope having a maximum gradient of 1'-,:1 (horizontal to vertical) will have a safety factor in excess of minimum requirements for surficially stability. 3 If cut/fill transitions still exist after removal of topsoils and landslide debris, the cut portion should be overexcavated 3 feet and replaced as compacted fill. This is intended to reduce run-off water infiltration into bedding planes. All other design recommendation in Reference One should remain valid. The proposed grading should leave the site safe against hazard from landslide, slippage, or settlement and should have no effect on the geologic stability of property outside the building sites. The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD GEOTECCHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Frank C. Stillman XJohnL. Kn'ffen G.E. 805 C.E.G. 1209 FCS;JLK/ccr Enclosures: Geologic Map Plates A-1 & A-2 - Structure Sections Plate B-1 & B-2 -'Slope Stability Calculations Distribution: Addressee (4) No. GE 00' ^' u m 6-30-11 m T * C Jr c IfGi1 N\'P n 9 F OF CpIIC OC. 4 u r JOHN L NNIFFEN \%' I No. TIFIED1209CER ENGINEERING y GEOLOGIST i Up. Date . ) if TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. e Soils Engineering 0 Engineering Geology • Em•ironntentat Engineering 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964.2313 FAX (818) 810-0915 October 28, 1994 Job #94-195 Piermarini Enterprises 2100 S. Reservoir Pomona, California 91766 Attention: Mr. Frank Piermarini Subject: Interim Rough Grading Report of Compaction and Geologic Inspection Tennis Court, Pool, Pool House, and Gazebo Portion of Project 2925 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California Gentlemen: INTRODUCTION Pursuant to your request, representatives of this firm have mapped exposed bedrock, inspected and tested the fill placed during grading operations on the subject site. This report presents the results of these tests and inspections performed from October 6 through October 27, 1994. An Interim Geologic and Grading Map of the site showing test locations and other pertinent data is accompanying this report. only periodic inspections were requested and provided during the grading operation. Reference Data Used Review of Grading Plan By Triad Geotechnical Consultants Dated August 7 and September 9, 1994 SITE PREPARATION Prior to the placement of any fill, the site was prepared for grading in the following manner: A. Surface debris and vegetation were stripped and hauled off - site. B. No trees were existing on the site. e C. No surface structures were present on the site upon our arrival. D. No subsurface structures were encountered during grading. E. Landslide debris was removed to undisturbed bedrock. Fill key areas were inspected for undisturbed bedrock prior to placing fill. F. Benching into bedrock and existing compacted fill was provided to remove landslide debris and to bond fill with the underlying ground. G. Bottom areas were prepared to receive fill by scarifying the exposed surface to a depth of 6 to 8 inches and precompacting to minimum requirements. H. Exposed bedrock structures were inspected during grading. Bedding orientations and other pertinent data mapped prior to and during grading are shown on the enclosed Geologic and Grading Map. GRADING A. Fill was placed in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, watered and compacted to the minimum requirements. B. The method used for adding moisture and compacting was a water hose and rolling with track loader and rubber tired equipment. C. A stabilization fill was utilized across the north facing slope at the rear of the property. The drain system is shown on the Geologic Map. The back drain has 4" perforated PVC pipe with holes down and to the rear. It is in a 3 cubic foot gravel pack. The laterals are solid 4" PVC pipe. D. Fill slopes were overfilled and cut back to expose the compacted inner core. TESTING A. Compaction standard used for minimum requirements was 90 percent of the ASTM Test Method D1557-78. B. Field density tests were performed in accordance with the sand cone method, ASTM D1556-82 and the nuclear gauge method, ASTM D2922-81. Results of these tests are attached as a part of this report. C. Expansion tests were performed on typical soils in accordance with the UBC Standard No. 29-2 to determine the expansion index. 2 D. Laboratory test results are summarized below: Maximum Optimum Expansion Classification Density Moisture Index Silty Clays with 108.8 16.8 60 Sands - Brown Clayey Silt - Light 112.7 15.2 ---- Brown E. Direct shear tests were performed on remolded samples of the compacted fill soils under increased moisture conditions to verify parameters used in slope stability analysis. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Bedrock structure mapped during grading conforms to the geologic conditions described in the Preliminary Geologic Report. B. Adverse geologic conditions were corrected by removing the slide debris and building a stabilization fill at the rear of the property. C. The soil is classified as moderately expansive. D. Footing Type: Continuous or spread. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two Number 4 bars near the top and two Number 4 bars near the bottom of the footing. E. Floor: Concrete slab on grade with a minimum thickness of 4 inches and reinforced with 6x6 W 2.9 x W 2.9 (6x6 - 6/6) welded wire mesh, or equivalent, placed at the center of the slab. For moisture sensitive floors, a 6 mil moisture barrier membrane covered with 2 inches of clean sand should be placed below the slab. F. Subsoil below slabs should have moisture contents above optimum conditions. G. The allowable bearing capacity of the footings should not exceed 2000 pounds per square foot, with a minimum depth of 18" and a minimum width of 12". This value includes dead and live loads and may be increased 1/3 for seismic loads of short duration. H. Compacted fills reported herein have been properly placed and compacted for structural fill. All grading within the areas shown on the enclosed plan is complete. Grading in front of the house will be completed at a later date. 3 The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 5FFrank C. Stillman G.E. 805 FCS;WGU/ccr Enclosures: Distribution: QPOFESS;p 7 St7< w LL No. GE 305 m CExp. 6-30-97 t F * 41F 0_ CA 9wc, liam G. .U1l G. 502 Geologic Map & Grading Plan Summary of Test Results City of Diamond Bar Form Addressee (4) Gf01O/ JOHN L. KNIFFEN No. 12D9 CERTIFIEDENGINEERING GEOLOGIST 2} 4 TTRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. tioils 6igincrring • Engineering Geology • Envirunmenul Engineering 17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 TELEPHONE (818) 964-2313 FAX (818) 810-0915 October 28, 1994 Job #94-195 SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Moisture Dry Lab. Relative Test Content Density Max. Compaction No. Date Elevation W pcf) Density M 1 10-06-94 73.0 18.8 101.8 108.8 94 S 2 10-06-94 75.0 18.7 97.9 108.8 90 N 3 10-06-94 77.5 21.1 98.3 108.8 90 N 4 10-06-94 79.5 20.4 102.0 108.8 94 N 5 10-06-94 81.0 16.4 102.8 108.8 94 S 6 10-06-94 83.0 20.9 97.7 108.8 90 N 7 10-06-94 85.0 21.9 99.7 108.8 92 N 8 10-06-94 87.0 17.6 99.9 108.8 92 S 9 10-07-94 88.0 18.1 98.7 108.8 91 N 10 10-07-94 90.5 19.2 100.6 108.8 92 N 11 10-07-94 89.5 18.1 99.4 108.8 91 N 12 10-07-94 90.0 19.6 99.2 108.8 91 N 13 10-07-94 91.0 18.2 100.2 108.8 92 S 14 10-10-94 82.0 18.1 98.5 108.8 90 N 15 10-10-94 85.0 15.9 101.2 108.8 93 N 16 10-10-94 87.0 15.1 103.5 108.8 95 S 17 10-10-94 89.0 19.3 98.8 108.8 91 N 18 10-10-94 90.5 19.6 102.3 108.8 94 N 19 10-11-94 92.0 19.0 99.6 108.8 91 N 20 10-11-94 91.0 19.7 100.6 108.8 92 N 21 10-11-94 92.0 19.4 101.0 108.8 93 S 22 10-12-94 91.5 18.4 100.5 108.8 92 N 23 10-12-94 93.5 19.9 102.2 108.8 94 N 24 10-12-94 93.0 17.5 98.8 108.8 92 S 25 10-12-94 93.0 17.9 100.4 108.8 92 N 26 10-13-94 94.5 17.4 102.6 108.8 94 N 27 10-13-94 94.0 17.0 101.7 108.8 93 N 28 10-13-94 95.0 19.6 101.7 108.8 93 N 29 10-13-94 94.5 19.7 102.2 108.8 94 N 30 10-15-94 94.5 15.2 102.6 108.8 94 S 31 10-15-94 95.5 18.0 103.3 112.7 92 N 32 10-17-94 96.0 20.9 102.1 112.7 90 N 33 10-17-94 98.0 18.3 101.9 112.7 90 N 34 10-17-94 98.5 20.4 100.9 108.8 93 S 35 10-17-94 900.0 16.7 99.3 108.8 91 N SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Moisture Dry Lab. Relative Test Content Density Max. Compaction No. Date Elevation M 13_cf1 Density 36 10-17-94 900.0 20.3 100.5 108.8 92 N 37 10-17-94 902.5 16.7 102.5 112.7 91 S 38 10-17-94 903.0 19.7 101.4 112.7 90 N 39 10-17-94 905.0 20.4 103.4 112.7 92 N 40 10-17-94 905.5 19.5 102.0 112.7 90 N 41 10-18-94 907.0 18.2 102.9 112.7 91 N 42 10-18-94 908.0 19.4 102.3 112.7 91 S 43 10-18-94 909.5 20.1 102.7 112.7 91 N 44 10-18-94 909.0 18.6 102.0 112.7 90 N 45 10-24-94 894.5 FG) 17.6 100.7 108.8 92 N 46 10-24-94 894.5 FG) 17.9 102.3 112.7 91 N 47 10-27-94 897.5 FG) 16.7 103.7 112.7 92 N 48 10-27-94 897.0 FG) 17.3 101.8 108.8 94 N 49 10-27-94 895.0 FG) 19.0 99.1 108.8 91 N S - Sand Cone Method N - Nuclear Gauge Method FG - Finish Grade 2 Triad Geotechnical Consultants Inc. BY: OC JOB #: 94-195 DATE: 10-28-94 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 2.5" RING STRAIN — INCHES SAMPLE LOCATION: AC stockpile SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Clayey SILT - gray -brown SAMPLE TYPE: Remold 0-. 2 6' C:700 p.S.f. 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 w 220 7 200 ISO 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 NORMAL STRESS — P.S.F. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21660 E. COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE ]00 DIAWND BAR. CA 91765 714-860-CITY 714-860-2489 SUPERVISED GRADING INSPECTION CERTIFICATE GCB ADDRESS/TRACT NO. 2925 Steeplechase Lane PERMIT NO. O NER Mr. Peter Shu CONTRACTOR SOILS ENGINEER'S ROUGW GRADING CERTIFICATION I certify that the earth fills placed on the following lots were installed upon competent and properly prepared base material and compacted in compliance with requirements of Building Code Section 7010. I further certify that where the report or reports of an engineering geologist, relative to this site, have recommended the installation of buttress ills or other similar stabilization measures, such earthwork construction has been cop'-eted in accordance with the approved design. LOT NCS See report dated October 28, 1994 for compaction test data, recommended allowable soil bearing values and other reccmmendations. E7:P _NSIVE SOILS 0 NO) LOT NOS. BUi_R2SS FILLS (YES) t'* LOT NOS. REy.AP.\S / Engineer -`1 Reg.No G.E. 805 Date 10/28/94 signature SUPE=VISING GRADING E':GINS=R'S ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION certify to the satisfactory completion of rough grading including: gracing to approximate nal elevations, property lines located and staked; cut and fill slopes correctly graded and located in acccrcance with the approved design; swales and terraces graded ready for av_ng, berms installed; and required drainace slopes provided on the building'pads. I rt.`.er certifv that where report or reports of an engineering geologist and/or sous engineer have been creoazed relative to this site, the recer.zendations contained in such reperts have been followed in the presecution of_.- work. LOT NOS A: KS Enc+neer g. No. Date SUPERVISING GRxDING ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION I certify to the satisfactory completion of grading in accordance with the approved plans. 11 rec•:fired drainage devices have been installed; slope planting- established. and irriga- tion systems provided (where required); and adeccate provisions have been made for drainace of surface waters from each building site. The recommendations of the soils engineer and% or engineering geologist (If such persons were employed) have been incorporated in the work LOT NOS. ngineer Rec. No. Da GO STABILITY CALCULATIONS JOB No. : . 94-195 STRUCTURE SECTION : C-C' PARAMETERS USED FOR ANALYSIS SHEAR ANGLE = 10 DEGREES COHESION = 200 P.S.F. UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL = 120 P.C.F. LENGTH OF WEDGE = 204.5 FEET AREA OF WEDGE = 1309.75 SQUARE FEET DIP OF BEDDING = 10 DEGREES RESULTS OF ANALYSIS FACTOR OF SAFETY = 2.5 NORMAL FORCE = 154.782 KIPS DRIVING FORCE = 27.292 KIPS STRUCTURE SECTION : B-B' PARAMETERS USED FOR ANALYSIS SHEAR ANGLE = 10 DEGREES COHESION = 200 P.S.F. UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL = 120 P.C.F. LENGTH OF WEDGE = 223 FEET AREA OF WEDGE = 1944 SQUARE FEET DIP OF BEDDING = 13 DEGREES RESULTS OF ANALYSIS FACTOR OF SAFETY 1.61 NORMAL. FORCE DRIVING FORCE 227.301 KIPS 52.477 KIPS PLATE S-1 W i M kA RLip' rr v h VVtJ l Ir µC LVI. O FT QTT+ZF.sr1 .S.D 19'3: EL.EV. T33.r A I" t'% -ram I I C/ATI/\, CrEDLO& I C MAP A CDMPACI&O All / e 77WS 2EPD 27" Q Q;G CauPACIPD f/LG L Gl1J i 7-P - Pu EN rE FM L S nrDsTdNE s s rrsLE 2 4)/P of )7EDD/NG -4 14oAizo qr 54L L_ - Si21kF 4 n/P of JbiA/TINrr- ID4"SO-Y 7-E! i Q 4PPRMAAA7 d &P7H 6F cou PacrsD F/t_L. TN JS 02 P02T ) 9%t7 UAw0fQ Tvt&IfJ I._IJ. DIAM,Jt _ 'ter :o 1 tk i" tt1.16 A, K,C• ca!e Drawn F C _ St+eet YQt i 1r o'1.•. . aceew\ e rt Cc( 4(.,ILtC UT,IRleb =i• 4l'! 1L 1' •CD' `/T il/ fz na , aim, i ObeLt- wt 134 CTCoLOG! C M A p APPRoxIAg1-- T , m,,, rs 0,0' f:= T: ,c`%J COM Us}GTG H L- Sr: fj-` it D g4s -0»/n/c- ST A jX- it f/,^ df 8 A A/,-v t• I<.!=t :`fir [?,.r+r3f.TE /=/C M T/IIL A"` Owl ST%z.'X DIP of tMlr QLtEST/L'Nf 13LF L`//1$ e 1 04;2allg l•- DER. J .C,aRP ST2rC D/P b,o= T 1''r> 01= ENE/7/ a J- Eareme% 1T W IUat+L Uc LVT'Ai of ad. C l f Fach"aY. veZ ac. o•vu- . A,pRlJX/Aa/9? .jpT'N r w+r K eci ,+ esa\ eraO ! l/ I •4 . eet ! 3.r+1 A T-` - TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering Date: /,;? - Scale: /'% _ 40 ' BY: ZZZT— 120 0 Ro,p. r_ey P.aPtxE C AOE - C7- —OL OG/ C /fit Ap LCC lL%icv ccwr cTt: v Fiw i_ 5-7Er s . 13 GNQC F JJ O ,¢ypQoxr.vR7 py pn of oc0 refis TRIADFOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering Date: I t_ K' ST7NG uE /> iQ Gf f3Bt?O'G' s x R? ir CL 0 o s- 14 qz Q O o c00 C vo 40 cyo o E i W J 0 0 4-- ti f0 Q O V iLII QD to e: Ln ti C\, S tyl lL VZ ill a.?r r yam. 9r lit Rnt++w Mr a R_ i i rr ai• r rrArrr GE-OGGY'riC GP -OS 5 SEGT/ONS rr+r MI r pldN C ,e rav r +..+ rr..M Gwlu.r•+. s.u#s ,W^e Su"p sr IF TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. Consulting Geologists - Soils Engineering Job no: Cf— 93 Date: g-2?-eKScale: // = 40 By: Lcc'C I` I T ram: T rw /lwr I C IVn.w. MAY nM AI wY moar/kaw I (JEOLfX'r!C CQbS S SEGT/ONS j 64 r r1il r w lYrr firwr„W rwrs r.tA• P[..vr c, 1e e'so !o Yo - 0 0 M TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. Consulting Geologists - Soils Engineering Job no, Cf-o 3 i Date: -ef -if pl Scale: /i=40 BY Gut 19 ii FQ P %v tITILt7lt6 =N•I L CAM" r•Co• 14 tt1 tZ JN v ev.c.°.t OR41/ f< Z.E CTrUL o &1 c ,/11.14,LD VA LAN a 4 AIL i 10 Eel r iJ---- O / fENVR1PtI 6E-•L J4tJ.QIL N i A I i!/`/ ;// e.Gemftff FLnC Kje LLC ' nL0? z _ of o%T-Sme p p i kk El Of LUL Z---COMM C- .O&D r. 6*7-4B/1U,04770/1 T PoR fLR1.fC u'[.4T1tG ' OF^ GE.1. 1EL O+rEC O[. pytlb•3t'f I oSE" / 4e,,4)o B / C OMcA4. '. ; / 4---s0C- , lo- 5 - 84 ftw cow e w.raee FoL% W [' Lr f TAr t Ce. 51 "I rMA.. 90M P4" ZA1;TG F0x2'4w 47ya'v 1— 45r,0`1c. $ J/P sr 2sNUL/4, F.vG3- J/ r1elk Si K'E •'P a. Surma' L 1 1-9-S7- A, r- 31 orKC-&S 5o, F/Nci- RyP 7r7449-A,S ST K9- :tl D1 OF S RPI f 3clx.itrD !'saJO LT! Tq QGcoA(MEN/gyp 5h6A4 nC f'. ouF/LFL/'D 17 B Jti4i1o.• IP 4TY- 14 TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering Job no: — Date: Scale: / = 4p' By: FL 210 - 190 170 150 This tennis court was raised up two feet from the approved Grading Plan. Proposed 2 Feet of Non -Expansive / TennissoilsisPlaced / Below the Slab of Butress Fill Tennis Court jr z - - - Existing / p grade f Subdrain - - 130 - Ex. Concrete 3, 7Feet --- — — Swale 110At Least 3 Feet Into Firm Earth Material 90 In Feet 7 n Approximate 2 feet of suficial soils was removed Existi g Verified Concre e Swale r.- Compacted ! . Fill 2 Subdrain y 190 170 t r guttse5s Fell` Contact of Bedrock And 1 — _ Compacted-- 150 Fill 148Feet TRUE DIP -- -`'SILTSTONE AND SANDSTONE Verified Compacted Fill SECTION A -A 30 10 go - In Feet As -Built Cross Section showing subdrainsLocations & Elevation PROJ.96I01 scALF:ALauLr't/ DATE:5_ 0-94 MTC Engineering PLATE Consuiting Sal & Fmtdaeon Engineering RL t•n Knnn This Plan is revised from the Grading Plan prepared by Pinewave ]Mgin eri-ng, Inc. rw 1w, - SC WRC• SnaL 5-LCnON A-< c xzv 9u at Sena r..Rnm cue .,-zz-+oa 1 LA- 8ASN 9 " HEREON A.2E ff L s NO. ala2 Y[N NON—iiH-SiC MAI OR i WAND sSANDSTOOE g I I f C N t J of 7,.iSee r 5.at 2.) l41C 96-sG01-94 BLamdaty of Fill y Grading Limit e50 Approximate Location Of Compaction Test Approximate Depth of Excavation in Feet Approximate Depth of compacted Fill in Feet ltie tennis o(DUa t was c-Xaded 2 feet higher than the grading plan shows uppers lnIng wall at the toe of the slope sas eliminated due to thedrarx3eoftheelevationforthetermiscourt, F -11 Dimension of the finis is 50 Feet by 100 Feet GRADING PLANT27411SUAnnw /`nnivn" Plot Plan And Test Location PEE,:- 01 SCALE:1-=4W DATE:4-14-94 MTC Engineering Co &Inr SOU& F.,dA an Fi 0,,,inr PLATE A i tl,11h MAMA = tQ f MIR Certifi RL ZLEV.c T.P.-2—Test Pit Location f a: Depth of Certified Capacted c rt ^.> z.•« .ce a F—_— V y ! . / / / / Fill wNomN-[ rNNwe a.-c tt u tra ;i•z/ / ;. ¢->.. l°p / / 1 I. b. Geologic Contact va•r. ea^a. e4 _ , / !' /' t aa- ;._ / vas •' AttitudeA7 ? LJ Bedding lax i aC' / / / I // \ , Cross -Section A -A1 ' V > Y 1 •>LL Cw,C" ei5x 9>CwTt tER_CN 4Y_ BRCCXS No. ,vz J I / ' \/R,u. _ ' 46, e' 77—'mow— .(See 1?iath z T.G. I( ( ` t. i _.t iG- / / % / i /:'=% * This Plan Was Revised From SITE & GRADING PLAN Prepared sy \ • •• _\ By PINEWAVE ENGINEERING INC. y° o, F /,( \ s i y"-' A—, Ile 4 Geology Mapped By H. Mark Lai Aos-'`/ / GJT F` 7 I { _.. 1 ! //_ — -- ."` ro`// 9 9 3 \ Y •i 1 ( ! / _t aW ./ .,u.`- / z:> N — tz-wu - BOt11 Of FillZoxdart' 0 t, N tI / BE; //lDy'.'.,N T oNA n sroTomt/ SITE & GRADING PLAN m o 2740 SHADOW CANYON DRIVE p Ze an of oiA cr: ErF FL 210 - 190 170 150 r try S 57 E - 210 Approximate 2 feet of suficial 190 soils to be removed Existing C6ncre e y Existing Swale Compacted Fill Y_ 170 Proposed%" 2 Feet of Non -Expansive Tennis soils is Recommended Court Below the Slab of / / TPA' Proposed Butress Fill Tennis Court j , Proposed Grade 130 Ex.Concrete Swale - ? z Existing rf7 Grade r 110, / /: At Least 3 Feet Into Firm Earth Material 90 In Feet SECTION A -A TRUE DIP 0 TF2 ButtYes_ proms i - Contact of Bedrock And Compacted 150 Fill SILTSTONE AND SANDSTONE 30 10 90 In Feet GEOLOGY MApG =D BY H MARK LA.I GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A -A PROJ-96SG1 SCALE: 1"=20 °'TE51-16-94 61TC Engineering PLATE Conr•rMg souk Found.^.don Engineering - maw-, w.-.. , a.• —ter. -_ - rt:'. '•",...aa N or 77 ,w •ay.r.•..f . •Ines rI/i- ML w»' be approved 07 tM lr:,d1M Ofticae:. k H G A / P / it/. a{P II j wrff el—•tea•• kA r , else, t+wru, and 1 -- /p,, `p/, `1iV f. Iwo • 9 L+ i. All ;traded sit.. meet Mpp oved at A ar.dt n9 r YRs'• of Mr. drug nag• a+loos approved at tM rouq LYY 46 it /Cifl, }'Dl. , Led 47! f' 7 /, ate:,:+. ) J 701 e f i / 1, . cr:' tn.' eroding porm,t •Ad •"".awed graAlnq Diana NOTE:nw De in t M ppsarseton of • responsible par•.fl drA CUT AND F11 '.+IIANTITILS SHOWN HEREGh REPRESCN" MLT TM C : us lubl• at the site at All time. f I _. .• VOLUMES RFf-'TH EXISTING AND DESIGNED GRADES *' ALLOYAN-! a_ The f,•ld tngiwwr wusi. ae' drainago staker err all droidm•e HAS B6EN MAP`. FOR CLEARING. GRUBBING. PRE-COWri ':ON, d•, .COS. zr, ir G7oeowwn n.11ELLING P<'"" VALS IF AM! '. HE GRAD:It. S. A1, starts, drain work is to be done under cor'ln"e"" iwe}stCtiem CONTRACTOR f 'tLl. BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DCTEaw:h:NG EXAC: by :be r,eld trn)ineer. Weakly seat., reports .hall he m1b"t- DIRT QUANTI-1-1 iN HIS GRADING (i.e.. OBTAIN i"•":OHAL Div- tar. by the ield tngImor to tM local swlldlw woe N[•tT t tsuptfrar t t 1' P apw.op , ttl AMP OR D1 t'' FXCESS DIRT TO BRING 517E TO P" iED 6RArrr Ofit.do. w • g . 1%' / , ff:al grodinq rust be approved before «ci+tPency o! Isn11a M+ I1 !i '• v,:/ be allow". 30716: a/ r , e+ ^„ -/. , /, // ), tr'.tions and •lies of all Oak Troes awut Ipa* . obe shown on thew•.. air•T a . CWra s . .• l _ f11 or. I1n5' plan. s / 1111 / ...: r t+— lee 1 i/yciC r4d7tr G'ON" MWT // y/ 4' A • t , / j -,` , i' %•C v /'QS 9. S.. strata plans for ta'•Prlrary drainage and erosion control erne• r i• ` '`t zle or_C , ; • - - r ,.vrr*ec w of - On Said liIJ / eGD- /sgr7 wr.wr•il to List used dbrifp the rainy seuon must bs submitted rT crfs glfs a'elo/I1' /9P/O,P ry S7.i/1T DI to t be is t. installed erosion control Mvv.Rb.x I and rin- pi _ ns swat M installed by not later CMm Ilo C7' ` 0L /Wr.my / f / ./ ar Y c, , ned in operable cowdaclm, until April 15. i/. iAA 1a F rs a /two /Ji1. / fir! ACC jr1400 ' -VA, 41l( .SC 4/ We [ 4., _..'f'•r Outlets for tan . AW10. T•. ascaptr be shown on •oo9-buu l t•grad1M Plan and elwetloe. LY/ iYDAiIr (. preventiveProgr3at thetr n• acttibi pio7»•4• QC /%(/ 14C A40W /C/v"y' tt• f• rbum-rg roodentpo lstr•puirod. Boa r to of rlodically for • w:tience or burrovlM r owts'a lnptr•and atr' oz l ) , \ f / ' ' ,( i • dstrc their 10ngldlenc• sAe:l wDloy t• f i 3 -- a-xr G? G<' r1 Y'.E / e fe if.cs,.u 4St4P1 -. / - L'" eafG%lY C//CIJ,,y6' A 1i,t' JCiSr f,..,i iraln.ra"` mewl at d1v.,cW,: 'roar 9 a'• • C LI / 11 r•. " ,'i I Lif/ !/i C.L' .need s, r• 7f' p,/ '• p//! ;4.Cr"' //< c'0'' ) ' I C' , ,R':' C•!C//•Ii t tame bout trait ia.. f.' r 'JV/ Ik-'/V A'I!'t'!aK/ .,(' /f,I`Li% G%` / .71. Method D" r •r sn' it a •in: au• s I •a- ap°l lcable:f tr f ` 1anal. De :owpa: 5 4 0 ' / `-/CA f?/,Vh/•f' 41 %,V%1-G% /,'C ¢-,lO Compaction Toot•olss,r deMetC as dK• f t J eoL4Iv / r r •.her• nnr wnpitceblst s two• acceptable [e - '^•'lAt.y e[t/rfa. P Ir:rall G. cv1. 70i alai f/ a,•'r-''. 1l• to 'wow 40,04 iALADi T ' ,.. .'•la den.'.. v . Hall its det.r.fnM oy a feel ldl ny .rlt iclal. 7014401 efficient test" of t f /1!I " f r•' f '' ' / t / T e, <• f/LL ffL •... to datersifrt t•- srAi 1/Je% 1.0/O .LV / /\ D 1 ",Mtty t:»{ eft• fee ff/• sells • Aril A. - L. S ,I / / / y / I i,,, • •% L Si 'M tni.uw number of twsf• nM l' be as }oll.,•..- r.NtS'2:'.^ lxvy._1 ', ,C1+'f ' /r _ ^._ s• 7fRrnlG ,;ATs ni 1 •. One Last for each two feet vertical 11.'! I y I' I by772F3s N,b sN[t K// mot., 'atwd, y / 1 ,e / JA/ i OM test for . eck 1000 cube yards of m. D' 71//V i. "} f 7 ! • / ' I 'f/ r L-- r / Own trot :c t_he locat ion ^t he (,nal f t i i tOpe !•" r f ". !tea F f ' C!Z 1 ! aq prh bul letsl _• 1:.'.tl ire each twr tr• r, .feral w l "/vJJ , ft Q/t•! i1I / / I' ( x / lift or fISL /- ^ / r/ / , , h ' % r ` / I ^ U ill 7 e. r '• , f qf7 portt_N tMrwotr r. 4 C/,VrJry SL'3ICe' _/ / p ?!Q /O L Sr r fou•rtfootivwtic&l lilt orfWittton the,A vjjw -A; 4/ _r esc` l be o r n y \ / /W 0 11sacestof th a0d 1toots [ propertiesll ewith lthed• s ro olliemec• 1 • f 6 ' ft 1/ /• /! / I S C'AL S7G pea rpoo - QD <welM, rtl t eai. sheer eeremgt he. 14 , I , . / r ,/ r v A,Q /,I( ?'he results of sveh testing shell be Inrlud-A two the repotts J s 777' f-(y1 required by Chapter 70. 70161hl L + /o S If. lS ,( ` ` Q / / / I feV .. •• /s. no rill .hall be placed until .trippiwq Of ^.t ••ion, J T Gj ! _ / 111 and of have boomunsuitable mils• and tmroved iY"• ^• •ubdrrlwa 904V Ode OrA~,- v !/11' W0$ f 1 7 f ! t Engineer. n• '.eistChAlCt1 A 1 ' / ` 9 ' t tt any) new wstw Irpoet ad and approved by i ^ '//G't S i durcer l / v .% Cv / of •o rock Of similar material greater thaw 7 ^ t •/u` X - ill b• placed to the 'fii unlss• rocormen<,•I Y. for slew P C A ? Q . f ir..r ad appr•wedt inawva.. . tPrl b.,"ui ldswg Oe a^- aw, IYv• Cr iAr• ' / // i ` NEAR K T``' ^ 'r' , _ --r / /I Prowlolona sAat1 W ardo for coatrlWtery trfll`w. ,•.rrrrrrarr •• f:/+!! v (!!LL Lf'7 (C L (, 1 - fr a/ t • / -- _ dr.in• q• st all teams. ontinuous Impaction by the Gtot•rh"Ical [Y^Ineer Or mil ree- rfs jd-r- 1 CJ ' __-_ / 7 ' / , / I Al / /T ponsibl• r.Pr• agntat1wm •hall be provided d,.' fM all fill Dieco- CC' ` 7 / 0 / , Y i \ / , / J / /' ,y I l.J gent and comp act i ono"psratione .there [this n+.• a depth greater G /. C 7 than 10 feet or r. wr.ece atwp.r th,:r' ampart- t \ \ f `' A ` r / Ill -- • O? ,1 \ ' A --- _ - / nontinuoua inspection by the Gpr videdinid2 ins toga. or his rkmt&l f (/ 84 2 s • + t ' 1rnE5s N3 W" o // ;' /; a Bible rePresgntative 1M11 be provided durin^s •l: eublreia1lrtel- IaUons. B ffl-f it / / ' The Geotechnlu: 6ngingcz .hall provide eYlf,[Unt it CL.OM p 11• n r ` Lr If' • lit' /' , // - norm thepreparation I• /. ( ^fY 1' , `andn of the vof flea natural 9rounn And the work Iserit be 1 1' -- -r,; / -..' i' /,;% f / " rforrdcompac inomccortancel with the 11 to be el- ansand MMfied lItc work Se beliwfgq \ , ` i r 110 b f JS' /['"h•,C p t lcanle sane .. gall zai- i ___ . '\/ :' i-y • , _ '(/ •! __- , / . QC/ ST/^ ? iU/NC •1'V ! n•nt.. a r ` may e ill. The gradin5 contractor shall submit the stst.••nt required b7 efS` 111 i,' y' Lt i' r I— _-- __ ./I ;S/ G jsu/ CY . Qer/oGvr•KC faction 1071 atthe eempl m't lsn of rough qr aAt••q. 4. v yy W G1P71r/ may j7eew / / ' regular Grading Nslrulrement p \ • •\ A Al` „ 11 DS r e k, ' ---- - — / 1i/. The persitt« pmthat "u or is .gent shall miry that , \ \ ,`1 •/ . 51 S / ETA /M Jw ltv L+, 2i/f "(rr•q ? nfflclal at leaat am working day to ahetee of regwirod a zr• ? ff %!! y7 j Sew s iGsu/1_ e, ,W,7- 0 J n.pstreion. at toOfi mq ec. ge• of the work: LAIII104. When the sit* hr beoif clrret of vtottatirrl 4 ' S • H / and unsr e, vod fill •rd it Ma been ocarifiWi. beweb" er D, /JY cv Gic u ich^ iuc, q / \ —. r , otherwise re red to, fill. as fill tree•,! `•,+ need tt/t{/ti 1 - S / %' / IiS/l/I.yf+'/1Y r./77l?Gws't`z..t_'x'!. UI> D/p' 2° °' r fL (Jo , . •33 19 ! / Dl. cM trior to thl. in. pettie". i _ / •may _ h, NO a. + 0 a Owlrt• final jf ` 1 / / ,—__ - _- ._ - l,re/ /S /'ll. I fi/%: !/ r ` i Li/ii,.M1':' L/. votati'.11•hed: ln„ J• 1 -1910 a..e1 1 f. . ill/ ' __ j \ L/ l , i •fir '. ( ;, y , 711 ' % i / - -. r. . the tv- a• .' t •A Fern, M .In{.7wa or r ^+w•• N & i' - f aw er*41nq 7ha• rrn ..rmtplete4, k ,Lei 1 ! i `1`` ' ti _ / \ / r Ff I t /`/ ! • / _ — i ' t y -'__ r ••;•p. twsl... .. Cf nlr• M glMtsn{I .Nee +'t. r1!'.!a<w r \ r` \ % ! ` ^ ,.' % ! ! - %II i/ J y"/ B •y wl.•+u losta. .• u had '.:- 40-2012. pi b' 1 lG^ 1 t i •;1. ' l tf PAI> •— / . / w VJr G'•/i. /! ' ruts, era r I' a .torte nave sweet t.lim ttsar. s9VIP L ` I T ./ • ' 1 i. K /• *,. / k K y G xr, l. idre, d G: f/ lri.. ww+lt4'••!!l v it iM tine rtoelTed fIT T 1 • , / % i'~ _ Iy t--. r• N - •Cdt: ic, to Mr P. .-,1 '. r•r, ,NI"....• 6l r 4 / i p I I 1 1 1 ' 1 + J Al • fr l ! / •. F "1•-• - / 1', wtgal ail Gradiaq, report. ere ., steetwote ^`1 r webal •••••' Prr• 'V ', • 1 e ai,_... " ., !' / / 0 - , I { ' LI • / • / f t' the saal' 91nq orficlul IF actrereeo•'e w1f.A - -, ,".••. "fM a./ w" i p /tee/ ff. seder• per+ last/o" filed ll:oe Angel s Mpertre' ' of /N' tc rite - V II • rr r1KttOo ill .tear 1 r _ C N'L( Yid Dl.lwiew, p'sr.{[ sateen), Utr• y Ogart. a ' ' .^ I / _ / y a(s SCr ..rtIfor + rowe. rwet aw or adl withlw Ott—Y f-ht of t•o i y . L 2 f • P I ' t ' r r f - w p ' i AA r 7 rip 1 ' / , Z 'A,,X. ' reroletonp•rste So ri r• lone / ewot bst Call tries furs flea l • - iI pe prtn to ttw•welnq work. Call i St 11 167-7 s` ee7//r — ---1 ror in/orwatinn. I , 1 / \ / a I h Y . xs /• ,/ i AW,p<y, 7 C 'y C' 91 1> I . k y II 1 1 a/ • I f ` 1 r ' , = /'. QKIogl r* pert flows ietClemol iw cat c004Warewt s met of the arslinq specificatiotr.eowolted wfu awl srs ,•• 1w••+ i J., r Y • $ ,L •• / / i1 ` l ' ff / itEi• Af•/I% W« AC'O Gy1. Tl / Cet gnat ed flare/"q Date {:> A1 'Kr•tint• a finish D.ce --3'-7i37/ W 1`1019M MA! a iVU?Acs • ; r BAif sRAt= j r — / — fife. sLsrAlTo _ _ / J 7 C CiTr A' / e R '. PCl//CIKi ,. 398 s- Cc7evaenerlein-<sF ;'u/vvTC o,7B9Qtt1 ET.71'AlIO! ' 'd- =?9,Cp - / ,0,(/ Kt/SC/I ';' -OSYD^ , v""M OI VY ` ' ' /i /iAi a % SE.,' %p " / TRIAD GEOTECNNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. Sy p6W I L Far u! / OG w LIME s+/E R Soils Engineering 711? 1 : I '• \ J `: '-` ,' Cnncultin Gcn try., welot - ao3-4o29 /t+''!"l.4E??• //tt 1(' 2i1: iii 99 /o"Q NOTICE 70 CONTRACTOR: \ Job no: 9/'2o Date. ' Scale rL' BY +lc sr- - = A%0V* 0rrAM1X % G Q TAKE DUI PRF. AUTI09ARI s ,W - a' THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO 1 ' k MEASURES TO PROTECT THE U7ILI7Y LINES SHOE' AND All OTRER - -` MEASURES NOT 0 RECORDS OR UTI SPOMN XE TSHO"ISPLAN. CALL j i a Y ' 7C•' . LOTS B /C!'Cs' TtC!/4/G' /N1 ,3C "iL_ f /C/2' f i- t,4`C d`\ lr' UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT A7 1- R00- 422-1171 RLlOYI c" a?9 7a A/?/S C//iI L'.I/ j(OS D//tom'.. LI.', Gam'/7LS Q/+ `/•ry 6/Qf/ti1G/siG!', C 4; /a a. = Bev cr (.iSY/' a/ +) S.Gv C/.I.c/ C,I`it J,.I.ct± (J/ 99L . ; ,f PGGG tzchdec a f)MMINCING IICAVATTnN / ICG =^ ls Y r.........r•_.--+_nitre-.__---uwrw.. n.. r_.'=_ram _.; ;_ _ • ,. Y.. . s t - -- - SCALE Foouv I - i v a TA6, Tt-C.E. l3Dcik) E 241 54 t•G>PA FE kVA WK I. E tC 17hE1".J-r Fl0\A t t7bvltil CK\ 7V VT7 -0 ER DETAIL E y 'T_OWE - Atut ETatL y,. nTct ^' VIGN ITY 1'-'IAP WTI* FL0\,/L_1 QE F/r>uw i" l V if TALC - 7=Ac.EME`i,1T FOE P:,iSLT UTILITIFGi Zg3 DF C D. CALIF. EMOAa44 Co. i G-tFt.l. TEL. oo. >tc O.Q. D lL6l-tQ h.e Reviewed and \ Ar{lroved by. 7- 1 jI7 Pleo -T SITE ut- Lit=a. TEL. LD PEQ DZ 0-5TT3 -323 TRAIL wAW4., c STREET ) PRIVATE r V e y 4 V" a y M a Y Ir 0 i-. t-*4tap k vri j_ d' c err ok alEc P,rmE bC,: F1 r L.F. FED. r gvE-L 4` f'E FrIZAtEt; F,Pg do *a,.. 10/f0 ij t l _ DETAIL 1 N T'5. CiiP AT - oW td- ry of FILL OLIW: ,) Te nQ aQ- g1=SCaNta 7,Dt •td GiPIL_E j WaG, EC17 1Z.C.E 2RDll Z ACC-UMt.D la"- • r_T F' C L3 titEwA ( Gig 4 EAaEMEIAT FOCP 6L tC UTtLtTt£ *Le) X G;G. CALIF. F-Vaat14r. VEe ALL CFU-Xi FtLLEC C:xL tt• w (' G ¢rxvq - 4 L \ R" COt1G.. QI Y -_ i 6Ctr-1i Ca t..E i cz re l f i- 4cAP' LAC AAA" Nc :' *LL 171`F t . t iJ/oc-=t>= •r ALL 3 J'E t'Ci? L V7 p PeT"cJfiliTt. E P2c C P M lc fP T6CT Lc C t.1 Yc'f t-1TtAl_ GA1rlP-r'ts- F M Irct'e-'rWG e MALL F E 4fN i.-lep, FATLT.(l-eiG GuA1iz zt i : CLTT 2-; FtLI_ 432,r, THE JN1,Et25iGfJEn CIVIL E 4roiq Efe Vr I_IEiES "rob Gk,('<XG Wort` Wia_ 13r, StJp ?VI:ED 1K Aczopl\t, l: v+ITO 5 flaly 7014 Of- THE WOO T'f ISoiL_qt G GopE ,J t aTE R A1 D w. GArt'(.l LL QGE 290i1 GENERAL N0.TFS 1. - Fill will he compacted to not less than 909 of maximum density as deter- mined by A.S.T.M. soil compaction test 01557-70T. 2. Field density will be determined by the sand -cone method, A.S.T.M. D1556-4. Li fine grained cohesive soils field density may be deter- mined by the drive -cylinder method, A.S.T.M. D-2937-71, provided not less than 20% of the required density tests, uniformly distributed, arebythesand -cone method. The method of determining field density shallbeshowninthecompactionreport. Other methods may be used if recommended by the soil engineer and approved in advance by thebuildingofficial. 3. Not less than one field density test will he made for each 2 vertical Lift of fill nor less that, one such test for each 1000 cubic yards ofmaterialplaced. At least one-half of the required tests shall he madeattinelocationofthefinalfill. slope. 4. No fill shall be placed untili stripping of vegetation, removal of unsuitable soils and installation of subdrains (if anv) have been inspected and approved by the soil engineer. 5. No rock or similar material greater than 12" in diameter will be placed in ti:e fill unless recommendations for strc.h placement have submitted by the soil engineer and approved in advance by the buildingofficial. 6. The grading contractor shall submit a written statement verifying thattheworkdoneunderhisdirectionwasperformedinaccordancewiththe approved plans and requirements of Chapter 70 of the county building code or descrioing all variances from the approved plans and require- ments of the ec-de. 7. The undersigned civil engineer verl.fien this grading work will be supervised in accordance with Section 7014 of the county building code. B. Finish grading will be completed and approved and slope planting and irrigation sys$eas Installed before occupancy of building. INSPHCTION WYMS 1. The permittee or his agent shall notify the building official at least 24 hours before the grading operation is ready for each of the followingInspections: Initial inspection: When the perm_ttee Is ready to begin work and before any grading or brushin•, is started. Toe inspectijq- After the naturr.l ground is exposed and prepared to receive f{11 and 'before any fill is placed. Excavation eatLon: After excavation is started and beforethedepthotlonexceeds10feet. Drainage device inspection: After forms and pipe are in placeandbeforeanyconcreteispoured. Rosh grad ity[: When all rough grading has been completed. Final iBaectiion: When all work, including installation of al[ drainage structures and other protective devices has been completed and the as -graded plan; and required reports have beensubslltted. the periittee need not wait for je inspector to arrive before rncaeding with the work. Sufficient testa of soil properties, including soli ,,,Fesand shear strength, shall bd Made during the grading nperatioaiF to verifv compliance with design criteria. The resv+_ts of such testing shall `,e rrnished to th, h,i'ding official upon completion of grading operations, orwhenne(essitar:d -; field conditions upon; the request of the buiiaing ficial. 3. The grading contractor shall submit a written statement verifying that the work done underhisdirectionwasperformedinaccordancewiththeapprovedplansandrequire- mentsofChapter70ofthecountybuildingcodeordescribingallvariancesfromtheapprovedplansandtherequirementsofthecode. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES I. The plans of a Designed irrigation system for full coverage of all portions of the slopesshallbeemittedandapprovedpriortoroughgradingapprovalbythecountyinspector. Nose bibs may be used for slopes up to 20 feet high when placed so that allportionsoftheslopescanbewateredwitha50foothose; sprinklers are required forhigherslopes. 2. Finish grading will be completed and approved and slope planting and irrigation systemsinstalledbeforeoccupancyofbuildings. 3. Separate plans for temporary drainage and erosion control measures to be used during therainyseasonwillbesubmittedpriortoOctober1. The control devices shown on saidplanswillbeLsatalledbynotlaterthanNovember1andmaintainedinoperableeomditiesuntilAil*WV4'. 4. ) Rt`i,of to eaamtemcb::4 work, a permit to operate in Fire Zone 3 shall be obtained from thefiredepartme:,t. Telephone 213-267-2461 for information. 5. Prior to isanenee of the building permits, a soil expansion test done in accordance withtheproceduresofU.B.C. Standard No. 29-2 is required. 6. Engineer must set drainage stakes for all drainage devices. 7. All cut and fill slopes shall be planted with an approved ground cover and provided withanlrrlgstiof, system as soon as possible after rough grading. In addition to thegroundcoverplants, shrubs spaced at 10 feet on centers both ways, or an equivalent combination thereof, shall be installed on all slopes exceeding 15 feet toheigbt. Plant material shall be selected which will produce a coverage of per - assentplantingeffectivelycontrollingerosion. Information shall be submitted to thebuildingofficialforapprovalpriortoplantingshowingthatconsiderationwargtvcnto: 1) deep rooted plants needing limited watering, 2) low maintainance, 3) high root to shoot ratio, 0 wind sYsceptobility, 5) fire retardance. S. The soflu-geology report prepared by Triad Foundation Engineering Tile., dated Au6uroTfA,I984, along with all addendums is hereby made a part of these plans. 9. When C/F contact Dine occurs in a building pad area, excavate the entire Pad area 11 andrec.ompact per the soils engineers instructions. 10. A copy of the gra,diag permit shall be posted on the site until grading has received finalapproval, r GEOLOGY NOTES I. Inspections must be made by the consulting geologist and soils engineer during the gradingoperation. 2. Rough grading must be approved by a final geology report, said report to include anas -built geologic map. 3. Foundation andlor wall excavations must be inspected and approved by the consultinggeologist. C eII 81 Associates S. CaU FORNSA 91773 7f4-599-7565 !C"ARD W CANTwf LL PC r 29 it BRAD/ NG PLAN 1- 0T 2q . TQ4C'T K o -.%C3"t 30 t G 7 EEPLEC"AxEc l_.Al4jj- PREPARED FOR: DRAWN BY: Y8. SALE: l°= hAli ,SDE t ALAzznLO 4t0 7 Ay. C, aF_U,..ty1A4 A-4E. cHECKEb sr: d08 N0: gd.-37 G Ahi D t1, t,4G, , CA. R t-TZ-0i DATE: - i - s4- SHEETS OF 1 Fit 960- 920 880 ME 80G Lot 33 m z Intersection C-C' J v Pit L-32 z_ (Proj.115) Pit L-33 of Proj.120) m AI Steeplechase Lane Lot 33 rFill I O `Ss CD -_ 920 i•s !i %SIt+SIt' f - . _ .-- s — ....._ • .. `\ Fill Y v-- -- -.. -+. .! . •_ •'= r .'//. J I t T S .S T. D. 4 a Sit + ss_ Sit+Ss_,•fir `r — lii [) ( Slty S i 4 V T D. 493 SECTION A -A' (N 70° W) 800 1 B Bt SECTION B-B'(N720W) 6• 140 I C C N28°W) N14°W) --- -- - - - N21°W)------ ---- - 1120 I I I I I I120 Lot 29-- - --- — - - - -Lot 30— I I Lot 31 I I I Lot 34 - - - -- -- I I Lot 35 - — --- -- _ - I Lot 36 1080 Pit L-29 Pit LA -I Intersection B-B' Intersection A -A' LL 1080 Projected 15') L I O z J z0 0QHCo ` D w z0 cD a I a O IG4G CrO z U w Z Q U O 1040 m p wm c V J 0 O Z Q W 1000 SIt+SS - --~ - -` -_-_ ` _'= CDX co 1000 m Z Q fr a_ O a m z Slide plane at 6' in pit TU 46" `. o_ 960 TD 396•' hard SS ........ m 960 T.D. 29181. 920 F i I I -- TD.29' Slit$S L ---- 880 880 hard Ss - T.D.493 r.D. 35± Primary slip surface of bedding 800 plane slide reported at 27 by Slosson 800 Fill- v 760 720 Scale I°=40' SECTION C-C- Equestrian Estates , Diamond Bar Tract 30289, Lots 29-36 9- 9 -71 720 III 3" conic or gunite w/b"x 6", g10 x g10 wire i 16 Iresh. DOWNDRAIi'J DETAIL No Scolcr 1 0 3" conic or a// '\ .' gun ite J g10 x g10 wire mesh. E INTERCEPTOR DHAIN DETAIL xl No Scsl i 21 2' 6" Rip_Rap to be stones or brokut` min. 6" di.a.grouted stone shall exti min of IS the dia. above FL grouted stlrfool Drain at off wall 6" Q RIP -RAP DETAIL No Scale GEOLOGIC MAP 2 of 2 GENERAL NOTE ,:- 1. ANY MOD IFICAI I-„_ .F OR CHANGES II, 1,rPROVED Lh,,LI1.G PLAINS MUST BE APPROVED by THE BUILDING w 1,.L. 2. ALL GRADING SIkl_ rUST HAVE DNA Ikl L SW'ALES 6E,.r, , AND OTHER DRAINAGE DEVICES APPROVED AT 11'. :" .'Ln GRADING ST;LL. 7020 (c). 3. A COPY OF THE C•...UiLG PERMIT MUST LE IN THE POSSESSION OF A RESPONSIBLE PERSON AND AVAILABLE Al 16E SITE. 4. THE FIELD EGL'ILLLn MUST SET DRAII... LL STAKES FOi, ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES. 5. ALL STORM DRA i I. 1 Ui.:. IS TO BE UL,I.L UNDER CONT I NUDUS INSPECTION BY THE FIELD ENGINEER. W'EEi.iS STATUS REPORTS SttALI BE SUBMITTED BY THE FIELD ENGINEER TO THE LOCAL BUILuII.L i,LD SAFETY OFFICE. b. FINAL GRADING i_. T bE APPROVED bLiOnE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS WILL BE ALLOWED. 307 (a) Ex C-CA-ii =,WAlLL it r G Cp(l}t .io+.+f dcU,.,r,,:.u,1 ;+c :or• / / , / '' 113 I 2 o 011 all 1 0 1: GlJ 1 / Z(PJCAL FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPH i WNTOEShOON • Gi i GRADING PLAN / ^ 0 1\-?Ical FRL, jE=O Cpl i1§ 11 • UOLl'i i . to4 i KA1ti: AL p - ' 10' 7-1 L 9IDRpO; OR rlRM k L IL g CorSt. S 4ercrl.toi- dry 1 ,` q I I L NOTES i. FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO I,,,i LESS THAI4 i OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED by A.S.T.M. SOIL COMPACTION 1LST D1557-76T. FIELD DENSITY SHALL BE DEIEr.r.It,ED BY SAND-CONL METHOD. A.S.T.M. D1$56-64. INFINE-GRAINED COHESIVE SOILS FIELD DENSITY MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE DRIVE - CYLINDER METHOD. A.S T M. D-_331-71, PROVIDED NOT LESS THAN 20', OF THE REQUIRED DENSITY TESTS, UNIFORMLY DI ,FAbUTED, ARE by THE SAND -CONE METHOD. THE METHOD OF DETERMINING FIELD DENSITi `_*TALL BE SHOti'N IN THE COMPACTION REPORT, OTHER METHODS MAY BE USED IF RECcr',LNDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER AND APPROVED IN ADVANCE cY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. SUFFICIENTTESTSOFSOILPh:•iERTIES, INCLUDING SOfI TYPES AND SHEAR STRENGTH, SHALLBEMADEDURINGGRADII.0 OPERATIONS TO VERTIFY COMPLICANCE WITH DESIGN CRITERIA. THE RESULTS OF SUCH TESTING SHALL BE FURNISHED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL UPON COMPLETION OF i%ADING OPERATIONS, OR WHEN NECESSITATED BY FIELD CONDITIONS UPON REQUEST OF lriE BUILDING OFFICIAL. ONE FIELD DENSITY TEST TO BE MADE AS FOLLOWS: a. ONE TEST FOR EACH TWO F001 VERITICAL LIFT. B. ONE TEST FOR EACH IOOD CUCIC YARDS OF MATERIAL PLACED. c. ONE TEST AT THE LOCATIGiN OF THE FINAL FILL SLOPE FOR EACH BUILDING SITE LOT) 114 EACH FOUR FOOT 'tEKITiCAL LIFT OR PORTION THEREOF. d. ONE TEST IN THE VICINITY OF EACH BUILDING PAD FOR EACH FOUR VERTICAL LIFT OR PORTION THEREOF. IRE RESULTS OF SUCH TESTING SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORTS REQUIRED BY 4. NO FILL SHALL bL PLACED UNTIL STRIPPING OF VEGETATION, REMOVAL OF UNSUITABLE SOILS, AND INSTALLATION OF SjLbRA1N5 (IF ANY ) HAVE BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE SOIL ENGINELM. NO ROCK OR SIMILAR MATERIAL G,EpTER THAN )',"IN DIAMETER WILL BE PLACED IN THE FILL UNLESS RECOMMENDATIONS FUR SUCH PLACEMENT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER AND APPROVED IN Ab,,,JNCE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. E. CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY 16L SOIL ENGINEER OR HIS RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE SMALL BE PROVIDED DURING ALL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OPERATIONS WHERE FILLS HAVE A DPETH GREATER 1,,AN 30 FEET OR A SLOPE SUPFACE STEEPER THAN 2:1. 7. LONIINOUS INSPECTION BY THE BOIL ENGINEER UR HIS RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE PROVIDED LURING All ' JbDRAIN INSTALLATIONS. 6. FILL SLOPES It. EXCESS OF = I-1EEPNZSS ki ARE TO BE CCIiSIRUCTED BY THE PLACEMENT OF SOIL A SUfFiCi. DISTANCE 6EYOI:D THE PROPOzED FINISH SL'JPE TO ALLOW COMPA:TIIcI EQUIPMENI cE OPERATED A, IHL OUIEP LIMITS OF THE FINAL iLOPE SURF:,CE, YHE EXCESS 1 IS TO BE RLi.011E1) PRIOR T( COMPLETION OF ROUGH C' r.ADING. (OIrER CUNSTRU--1, OCEDURES rL`; LE USED Whit, Il IS DEMONSTRATED TO THE t,_TI FACTION OF :UE LING OFFICIAL THAT THE AN LE OF SLOPE, CONSTRUC- IION METHOD .D OTHER F.AC106 WILL H.,'1E L J :LI,T EFFLC i 01b (a) DIL , Shi,LL i L `-;'FFICtEill THE PREPARA1101. fUUND AND Ill rLACEMENi ,-.t.. ;.L)MPAC1ION OF I d f ILL TO LL 1h' WnF:1 I`. 6G :ERFUkN[l ill ACCORDANCE '.'I1H THE FLAN AND fLICABLE COEi r.EQU1RE'.Lr,i' It [ TION !NOTES hL „ n GRADING i.LilLIIRLMENTS Il. THE PERMITTEE OR HIS AGENT :r,i,LL NOTIFY THE LUILDING OFFICIAL AT LEAST ONE WORrd:.1. UAY IN ADVANCE OF REQUIRED Ii.SPECTIONS AT 1"CLLOWING STAGES OF THE WORK: a. INITIAL. WHEN THE SITE HAS BEEN CLEARED OF VEGETATION AND UNAPPROVED FILL AND IT HAS BEEN SCARIFIED, BENCHED OR OTHERWISE PREPARED FOR FILL. NO FILL SHALL HAVE BEEN PLACED PRIOR TO THIS INSPECTION. b. ROUGH. WHEN APPROXIMATE FINAL ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED; DRAINAGE TERRACES, SW'ALES AND BERMS INSTALLED AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPES; AND THE STATEMENTS REQUIRED BY SECTION 7020 HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. C. FINAL. WHEN GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED; ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES INSTALLED; SLOPE PLANTING ESTABLISHED, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS INSTALLED; AND THE AS GRADED PLANS ANID REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND REPORTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. ENGINEERED GRADING REQUIREMENTS 12. IN ADDITION TO THE INSPECTION REQUIRED OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REGULAR GRADING REPORTS AND STATEMENTS SHALL BE SUbMITTED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7020 AND 7021. AGENCY NOTES 13. SECURE PERMISSION FROM (ROAD DEPARTMENT), (STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT) FOR CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING WITHIN STREET RIGHT OF WAY. 14. A PERMIT TO OPERATE IN FIRE ZONE 4 MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. CALL (213) 267-2461 FOR INFORMATION. 15. GRADING IN FUTURE STREET RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE INSPECTED BY THE ROAD DEPARTMENT CALL ( 213) 226-8281 FOR INFORMATION. GEOLOGY NOTES 16. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THE CONSULTANT'S SOIL AND GEOLOGY REPORTS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH ARE ARE A PART OF THE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS, 17. GRADING OPERATIONS MUST BE C014DUCTED UNDER PERIODIC GEOLOGIC INSPECTION REPORTS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION. 18. THE CONSULTING GEOLOGIST MUST APPROVE ani"H CRADING BY FINAL REPORT PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION. 1HE FINAL REPORT RUST INCLUUE AN AS -BUILT GEOLOGIC MAP. PLANTING AND IRRIGATION NOTES ly. THE PLANS OF A DESIGNED IRKIG:'.TION SYSTEM FOR FULL COVERAGE OF ALL PORT:ONS OF Y. E SLOPES SHALL BE SUBMITTED ,,ND APPROVED PRIOR TU RO:iGH GRADING APPROVAL BY THE CDJNTY IGSPECTOR. 7015 (b). 20. ALL CUT SLOPES ,VER S' At.D F+.. SLOPE, OVER 3' SHALL BE PLANTED WITH AN APPRC'.L9 GFAUND CCVER AND PROVIDED WtiH AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AFTER ROUGH GRADING. 7U19 (a) 21 PLANTING AIlD IRRIGATION PLAIN.. FOR SLOPES CKE..1ER THAN 20' IN HEIGHTS MUST BE FKE? ARCD AN:, SIGNED by .4 CI,iL LNGINFER OR L:,.•:SCAPE ARCHITECT. 7019 (c) iEXRTHWOFIK LEGEND l cur ................ 9zill . • • . . . F.)USTII'L k.LEvKr1C 4 FILL.......... PLED ELEVATION DUSTING CO lwi;ts i\ SPLZ AL NOTE: d- -D- - • • • • DAYI.IG T LINE THE: OIAYI lrl S1 AN Iil.R;JN ARE FCR T.C. . . . . . . TCP !F CIIRB PAFQ• LIT AIM I3C M N, PURPOSE- CNL.Y. F.L. . . . . . . FIIYt LIFE DIE LXAT tACMR SHALI.'VERTFY QUAN'I'IT- F.V. . . . . . . FINISH GRADE y lit+l_L, IM PRIOR M L-MUT' OF GRADING. F.S. . . . . . . FINISH SURFACE F. F. . . • . FINISH FLOOR T. E TRASH EN':LCbU1tE P.. . . . . . . PLAfIER i POF-MATION MATERIAL TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. 2' I 15' M.Lnicun I EARTH BERM MLinir DETAIL Consulting Geologists - Soils Engineering h- S::PE NATURAL SLOPE GRA9I&YS IS 511 OR LESS# a .. Date: - Soale: % — ; By: BLt7•- RING I5 Nr2 t+=CESSARY MIUSS STRIPPING' Job no: DID NOT R---U7'E AI.L C0;T3RESSIBLE MAT3=.RIAL. tu .: __ :..,. x a.c...:.i a>-;. -:.- s ..z•m-, ..:.---, - ... _r;. _=°i'$° - - . ... .,cam. c. — _-;.,. - 5, #pY s I VICINITY MAP LEGP,. L DESCRIPTION i GRADING PLAN F JOHN B. ABELL, INC. 14D WEST ORANGE STREET t COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91723 Phi 915 7671 _ r i 9 i. `• 5 r tik.1C Et IN AP IINVKO &WtNG PLANS MAST NE APPROVED BY 2. All tB1iAMM $?*% IgM RViYi E'RA 1 MACE tA,A,tt1 t•ERNS , AND OTM ZR LRA 1 NAGE DEVICES RMIIOM AT THE WIMWM 104 SIAIYE . 7020 (c ) . 3. A 0" K 70 t111111110IK P AXII MUST BE IN 7141 POSSESSION Of A RESPONSIBLE PERSON LUPIN AWIAKASLE AT IM SI'R. A. WE. fiaO tNOtnUR OIWY SET OMINAOIE STAKES FOR ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES. c } f, A4 SI M 081 M WEN: IS TO NE DOME UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY THE FIELD IAMT STATUS REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE FIELD ENGINEER TO 1f1: i i1KAj, SV1PW ANTS SAFETY OFFICE. IS. " ift $$Jgft WS1 0t AHROV[D BEFORE OCCUPANCY OF SUILDINGS WILL BE ALLOWED. 1. FILL SMALL 6E COMPACTED TO NOT LESS THAN 90% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY A.S.T.M. SOIL COMPACTION TEST 01557-78T. k t. fltLO DENSITY SHALL St DETERMINtD BY SAND -CONE METHOD. A,S.T.M. D1556-64. L1O IN FINE -BRAINED COHESIVE SOILS FIELD DENSITY MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE DRIVE- M IRKA A9740. A,S.T.M. D-2931.71, PROVIDED NOT LESS THAN 20% OF THE REQUIRED otogiTV TtSTS, UNIFORNLY OISTRISUTEO, ARE BY THE WO -CONE METHOD. THE METHOD oN I"T g.L'" _ - ` 0/ K?gAAI#ING FICLO Dj%StTY SFMIL Bt SHORAN IN THE COMPACTION REPORT, OTHER C. J70^"• \\ Mi' f1i00t MT Bt U6i0 IF Rt{OMMENOEO 6Y THE SOIL ENGINEER AND APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY 14 VjItS M1 SPACIAL. t1lAtiiilB ftM 0f BOt°L Pw ATIAS, INCLl101N131 SOIL TYPES AND SHEAR STRENGTH, 6MAU N NAOf 0W1tNt St"I%& 0"AIRT1ONS TO YSRTIFY COMPLICANCt WITH DESIGN ah s do C1it1' P IA. T1K AlSLILT6 OF SUCH YISTING SMALL BL FURNISNEO TO THE BUILDING LOFFICIALUPONC(AKCTION OF GRADING OPERATIONS, OR WHEN NECESSITATED BY FIELD j,,{ Y,If¢.•.1-- 2s Dc tir c1 [Dy j OSSo/7 COM01TtONt UhON RCOIII(ST ofTHE WILDING OFFICIAL. ONE FIELD DENSITY TEST TO i _ .` ....° / /' / 1 .. a. K k M k 9MM '1W0 Foe, C Y l 71 CAL LIFT. n 9'fErr / ON'E T,fOR EAC% 1000 CLN IC YARDS OF MATERIAL PLACED. T XC c. ME TtST AT TiM( LOCATION OF TN£ FINAL FILL SLOP{: FOR EACH BUILDING SITE I• ` ' / / ( LOT) It1 EACH FOUR POUT VERITICAL LIFT OR PORTION THEREOF. J. Cold TEST IN THE V1tINiTY OF EACH BUILDING PAD FOR 6ACM FOUR VERTICAL LIFT C` 75 / ,/ J / ORTION TwAOF. iTIME RESULTS Of SUCII 7EtT11lG SMALL BE INCLUDED IN TN€ REPORTS REQU{IIFD,iY I j8 mot. Z7, N`'<•ilISON Pam I 7. Giyi ' / A. NO FILL SHALL BE PLACED UNTIL STRIPPING OF VEGETATION, REMOVAL OF UNSUITABLE r , 11a 500# 11, LAND 1NSTAILLAti011 OF SUWA1NS (If ANY ) HAVE BEEN INSPECTED AND pi F°'. N)AX APWVED BYTiltE'liltt. 5. NO ft" OR SMtti I,d1AlUTAl GREATER THAN 121- IN DIAMETER WILL BE PLACED IN THE A / "i 1 dr' , { 2 cop _~-ei' -- r- . Z pjW 0USS 101: I)a0gWaiM16 FOR SUCM PLACEMENT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE SOIL l / j E>l l- ANi1 AHOU "N.AWAKE 6Y THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. i. C400"M INWKTt& 11T T%E SOIL ENGINEER OR HIS RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE m'Ot PRO IRA WRING ALL FILL PLACEMENT AND C014PACT I LAN OP£RAT I OHS '..MERE NAVE A D ETM VWATIEA T" 30 FEET to A SLOPE SURFACE STEEPER TMAH 2:1. 701 s0i;. E14GIOMER OF, H?S RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE A MMY1096 W011 S ALL cLWRAIW IKSTA-_IATIONS. 8. 7#1.1. SLOPES IN E=ESS OF 2:1 STE"NZSS MTbC ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE K +Z _ PLACE"' OF SOIL A SWFICIEIIT D1STA4Ce WORD THE PROPOSED FINISH SLOE TO o4- j -_j x / t r 9 (C /ILLIMP'CMMCTION EWSPNENT To 01 OVES.ATED AT THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE F114AL s a<al- StAN'%WCE. TGIF EXCESS r;LL IS TO 9E REMOVED fAOR TO COMPLETION OF ROUGM KAYOING. (OTHER CONSTRUCTION ROCEDMES MAY BE USED WHEN IT IS DEMONSTRATED TO THE-ATiS-AiT10K OF Tt.E WICL9wti OFF(ClAL.TNAT THE ANGLE OF SLOPS, COMSTRUC- 71111111 METNJO AM MIR FACTORS WILL: MAYE tQJIVALENT EFFECT.) 7016 (a) F - i K. THESOILMINETA S'4E1L FROVIDE S+IritCIENT INS?ECTIONS DIMING THE PREPARATION OF T%1 INTLUL 9RMWO AND TVE PiA{EMFNT ANC COMPACTION of THE FILL TO BE Y ///y(% / - J C / / G- L7 DFT ® TC HEE@WOM ISTiK§%G Pi?QF'ONIIEO IN A6;URWINCE VITH THE PLAN AIM I I c Lndica.. s Lirni so>C Lane/i jA0 INSPECTION IMS a.s De-Fi% 7ed by Le,'9%><on / ' No' W REGULAR GRADING REQUIREKENTS 11. T%E PERNITTEE OR *IS AGENT SMALL NOTIFY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AT LEAST ONE WORKING DAY IN ADOMGE OFREQUIREDINSPECTIONSATFOLLOWINGSTAGESOFTHEWORK: uI, a. WIT1A1.* WHEN THE SITE HAS BEEN CLEARED OF VEGETATION AND UNAPPROVED FILL a QI' J AMITRASBEENSCARIFIED, BENCHED OR OTHERWISE PREPARED FOR FILL. NO fill SHALL HAVE BEEN PLACED PRIOR TO THIS INSPECTION. I. tew". WNEN APPROXIMATE FINAL ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED; DRAINAGE TERRACES, SVALES AND S" M INSTALLED AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPES; AND TINE STATEMENTS REQUIREl;BY SECTION 7020 HA / I YE BEEN RECEIVED. aLIO 'n a.' FilML. WHEN GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED; ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES INSTALLED; SIM PLANTING ESTASLISNEO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS INSTALLED; AND THE AS GRADED PLANS AND REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND REPORTS HAVE BEEN C :ov>s>•, 12jo- % 10 slaNtT7Ea. W ENGINEERED GRADING REQUIREMENTS 12. IN ADDITION TO THE INSPECTION REQUIRED OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REGULAR Q t 6iiA0iNG REPORTSAMDSTATEMENTS SMALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL 1N ti *74 1 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7020 AND 7021. tY NO C -r $ LSO(, 57-I n 0 \O Ip / 'i AGENCY NOTES 3. SECURE PERMISSION FROM ( ROAD DEPARTMENT), (STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT) FOR n'Np' I Pfit CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING WITHIN STREET RIGHT Of WAY. yt+'++' _tea I 14, A PERMIT TO OPERATE IN FIRE ZONE 4 MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT p ZQ} I ' PRIORTOCOMMENCINGWORK. CALL (21-3) 267-2461 FOR INFORMATION. I5. GRADING IN FUTURE STREET RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE INSPECTED BY THE ROAD DEPARTMENT CALL (213) 226-8281 FDA INFORMATION. hL G1 1D2Z 1T I „ GEOLOGY NOTES too 16. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THE CONSULTANT'S SOIL AND GEOLOGY REPORTS N D , _ I*TTF.E, 1;IW. WEB WITH ARE ARE A PART OF THE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS. II L" I .0 `, ,G;,' 17.' t1IlAtitllG` SPERATIONS MUST Of CONDUCTED UNDER PERIODIC GEOLOGIC INSPECTION BY OTHER Lo--•--•r- Y KEPORT9 ' K SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION. 16. TIE COMOL ft GEOLOGIST MUST APPROVE ROUGH GRADING BY FINAL REPORT PRIOR TO 711E APNIIWAL BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION. THE FINAL REPORT MUST INCLUDE Qca t->(i T: c,o "'_'-- -„-; - AM AS-NftT GEOLOGIC W. ace Cc+//u v i um I PLA1fTi!IGAND' i RR tfiATl ON NOTES L a.ri d. y%We !3a^bPis ss da ir7ed b y ^3l4' s Sery e rr ^ ES. T1(E FLAtd8 OF .a bE:;ILNiO lRRI„ATtOd ;YST.-•M FOR RILL COVERAGE OF ALL POAT;OM; (,F K p 1 THESVOKS SMALL W_t*ITTLD AND APPROVED PPiOR TO ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL DY n // p ' I 9/ i a(ost {veh.- 64 alla.911utad. stage rhnll r ncY 1I '\ t#4ILL THE COMY 1HS' P1EC IU%. 7019 (D). jJ,t PYJ Q.r OG.M'ft1E L.21 apir.ot i:`ddl.a- i911. Ei „ /- "- Ali. UK SS,OMS OVER 5• AND F'LL SLOP€5 OVER 3' SHALL DE PI_:NTED*WiTH AN APPROVED G MO t1OV" AND PWI DEO V 1T'N AN INAI CATION S1 STEM AS SOON AS RACY I CAL AFTER Y.--: - : , II NuuBN+tAatrG. 7019 (,) p Pct>:n.@ a r71R lOr7 rJ Y __ A fi>< 21, PIAIRI# R #t0 IMICATION PLANS FOR SLOPES CREATES TWA 20, IN HEIGHTS MUST BE 112 Bedding -_dam 6aax «l ;` PAEtNKD AM tiG ft BY A CIVIL ENGINEER OR LANf•SCAPE AKCHITECT• 700 (c) w . Cot•,TaCT--!- - ra sT' Ho JI I&Y Lad A ro/', , DETAIL 1-1 Lrm.SO'+' Qs- 2 Rf deit'/i 4.'d Oy LaI'g ><M F_1 64c.CLOGY BY T. F.E. w /q f 3° , coat or . . uni Ci W/ box Srr l..J 010 x 010 W 1.. a WERCEPTi t DRAW DETAIL ffy UAV' No Scat• TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, (nc. Jab no: Consulting Geologists - Soils Engineering Date: - - Scale: "= 2J ' By: ,,' L LEGEND t 97 4 . . . . . . E) aSTndG ELEVATION a . . . . . PROPOSED EIEVATICN n rSTIM OarR10URS DAYLTGHT T. T.C. . . . . . . . TCET (y CLM F.L. . . . . . . . F .Cw Lrq: F.G. . . . . . F=NTSFI GpjT F.S. . . . . . . . FINISH SURFACE F.F. . . . . . . . F-WSH FIDOR T.E P. • • • . . . . . PL14nT. 7t EARLgBERM TAIL EARTHWORK Qyr................ FliL............... SPEMAL M- ITE: ITIE Q0W_-)-TMS SF( l'WV HEICal ARE FOR PEi34IT AND BCrIDf% PURPOSES 01` ', . Inm C ONTFOCm sanz vmuly Qunn rt TM PMOR TO S kff OF GRADING. TYPICAL FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE TOE SBCVK GH i atc i GRADING PLAN i pT E4' Typical r7tOJECT>m C 1iV6 T7SJRAL ' ' • BEVRocx on rlRx roRMATION MATERIAL 2' 1S• Tlinimum Minis NOTEt WHZ'RE MATITRAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS Sil OR LESS, srwmNC IS NOT NECESS"aY 12gimss. STRIPPING DID NOT Vj>mz ALL COMPRESSIBLE MATERIAL. LEGAL DESCRIPTION GRAFTING, PLAN. JOH N B. ARtLL, INC. IaD WEST ORANGE STREET f,% Uvt`IA F7,AgZ14-) 6, 7i(vv0 COVINA. CALIfORNIA 8172>t W" BlB-7B71 714) S23 - 72 SO ET I" -Tr' 9c5• max. U I GEOLOGIC MAF 1 -p 2- Q s-! 1,70I4fcr 1//rti Ln, TREE - L Aw- it c Ind/c11 5 L/1-27/,13- 0 -F Car; a- xi4:1 e— p )T _ - L'ILZ - T wu oxf f= 1 i - 4 I r' Ic Iv E G BY 0 -AS' Cd C->4/u V i CAh-1 i --- tin / • 1_ L)ebris ur de•r e r Sro s SanY to 1r or brdcen retey . j r(` - E' flia.m'c"•,, •-tome shall -'-ttmd E \ -•,: ds/r'de Do,blYS as* vJo-i'r'ner! 6y /.eta /, .•n ,.r ij the d'-, ;.,._„,, t: nfat•- ram'-,-dn I T nnaon/&- Fo,--n hn 1' j3pd/d7ng A iA7`c-rde )' i--w"--crot wall ^IrE V- 4 .. t PO / a, 6 1.R a o1il / MY y n '1 Rir-'^P DETA1I_ << LirniTS o- F Qs-2 ces da•F'r:ne,l by Lei9klrn ,m' S1ae1'r y c 6 OLOGY BY T.F.E./Inc. a d d t;7 A i 1I ude `0, - f 11 a 3" cnnc orgun;te w/ 6"x F". V% t r \ A1n r 110 wire mach, J I_-' 1: RCEPT0R DRAIN DE -TAIL VICINITY MAP I!n `rq1•• ri) GENERAL NOTES 1, Any MODIFICATIONS OF OR ENAKf% IN APPROVED GRADING PLANS MUST BE APPROVED BY 711E BUILDING OrflflAL. 7, All GRADING SITES MUST HAVE DRAINAGE SWALES BERMt, AND OTHER, DRAINAGE DEVICES APPROVED AT THE ROUGH GRADING STAGE. 7020 (c). 1. A COPY OF THE GRADING PERMIT MUST RE IN THE POSSESSION OF A RESPONSIBLE PERSON AND AVAILABLE AT THE SITE. 4, THE FIELD ENGINEER MUST SET DRAINAGE STAKES FOR ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES. S. All STOPM DRAIN WORK IS TO RE DONE UNDER CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY THE FIELD ENGINEER. VEEKLY STATUS REPORTS SHAH BE SUBMITTED BY THE FIELD ENGINEER TO THE LOCAL BUILDING AND SAFETY OFFICE. 6. FINAL GRADING MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS Will BE ALLOWED. 307 (a) FILL NOTES 1. FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO NOT LESS THAN 90 OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY A.S. T,M. SOIL COMPACTION TEST 01557-78T. 2. FIELD DENSITY SMALL BE DETERMINED BY SAND -LONE METHOD, A.S.T.M. D1556-64, IN FINE-GRAINED COHESIVE SOILS FIELD DENSITY MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE DRIVE - CYLINDER METHOD, A, S,T.M, D-2931-71, PROVIDED NOT LESS THAN 201 OF THE REQUIRED DENSITY TESTS, UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED, ARE BY THE SAND -CONE METHOD, THE METHOD Of DETERMINING FIELD DENSITY SHALL BE SHOWN IN THE COMPACTION REPORT, OTHER METHODS MAY BE USED, IF RECOMMENDED MY THE SOIL ENGINEER AND APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, SUFFICIENT 11ITS Of SOIL PROPERTIES, INCLUDING SOIL TYPES AND SHEAR STRENGTH, INALL Of MADE DURING GRADING OPERATIONS TO VERTIrY COMPLICANCE WITH DESIGN CRITtR1A. THE RESULTS Or SUCH TESTING SMALL BE FURNISHED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS, OR WHEN NECESSITATED BY FIELD CONDITION& UPON REQUEST Of THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. ONE FIELD DENSITY TEST TO BE MADE AS FOLLOW A. ONE TEST FDA EACH TWO FOOT VERITICAL LIFT. 11, ONE TEST FOR EACH 1000 CUBIC YARDS Or MATERIAL PLACED. I c. ONE TEST AT THE LOCATION OF THE FINAL FILL SLOPE FOR EACH BUILDING SITE LOT) IN EACH FOUR FOOT VERITICAL LIFT OR PORTION THEREOF, LEGEND A, ONE TEST IN THE VICINITY Or EACH BUILDING PAD FOR EACH FOUR VERTICAL L:rT OR PORTION THEREOF, 7+ E7CESTIWG E1ZVMCV THE RESVL•ESOFSUCHTESTINGSMALLBEINCLUDEDINTHEREPORTSREQUIREDBYEIEZtATTC'd FFOPCSFl) T_?LTST-_JG MTM,,PS 4, NO FILL SMALL F_ PLACED UNTIL STRIPFIAG OF VEGETATION, REMOVAL. OF UHSUITfAm D- -r„ _ ET SOILS, AND INSTALLA' TICN dF SIIRDRAINS (IF ANY ) HAVE BEEN INSPLCTED PRT P. (. 7rpr!71'i T ICE r CxtFT APPROVED BY THE SOIL ENCINEER. F,L . , , , mv LIIv'S 5. NO ROCK OR SIMILAR MATERIAL GREATER THAN 12" IN DIAMETER WILL BE PLACED IN THE F.G. , . FMSH GPJM FILL UNLESS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUCH PLACEMENT HAVE BEET; SlIPMITTED BY 711E SOIL F.S. . . . . E-MSTI SURFACE ENGINEER AND APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. F.F. . . . . Izli rwojO 6. CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY THE SOIL. ENGINEER OR HIS RESPCN;IPLE REPRESENTATIVE T.E. . . . . Ty ETA7L5L1}n SMALL BE PROVIDiO DUPtMG ALL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OPERATIONS I,*JEP,E SMALL P. FI1VTR F105 HAVE A DPETH GREATER THAN 30 FEET OR A Sk-OPE SURFACE STEEPER THAN 2:1. 7. CONTINOUS INSPECTION BY THE SOIL ENCINEER OR HIS RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE SMALL BE PROVIDED GUPIN, ALL SUSDRA14 INSTALLATIONS. 8. FILL SLOPES IF EXCESS Of 2:1 STEEPNESS PATIO ARE TU BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE PLACEMENT OF SOIL A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE BEYOtoo THE FROPOSFD FINISH SLOPE TO ALLOW COMPACTION EQUIPMENT TC nr OPERATED AT THE OUTER LIhITS OF 1YE FINAL SLOPE SURFACE. THE EACFSS F10- IS TO RE PFMCVED PR.InR TO COMPLETION Or ROUGH GRADING. (OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES MAY BE USED WHEN 11 IS DEMONSTRATED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BIIIDL;NG OFF tCIAI.THA7 THE .ANGLE OF SLOPE, CONSTRUC- TIDN METHOD AND OTYER FACTORS WILL HAVE 1001VALENT EFFECT,) 701E• (a) 4, EARTHWORK 9, THE SOLIENf,INEiR SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INSPECTIONS DURING THE PREPARATION OF 74E NATURAL GROUND AND THE FLACEMENI AND COMPACTION OF THE FILL TO RE SATI FIEDDETHATCODTHEQUWORK IS BEING PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN ANDAFF LIU. S. FITS,,,,•, INSPECTIONNOTES REGULAR GRADING REQUIREMENTS 11. THE PERMITTEE OR HIS AGENT SHALL NOTIFY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AT LEAST ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE OF REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AT FOLLOWING STAGES OF THE WORK: a. INITIAL. WHEN THE SITE HAS BEEN CLEARED OF VEGETATION AND UNAPPROVED FILL AND IT HAS BEEN SCARIFIED, BENCHED OR OTHERWISE PREPARED FOR FILL. NO FILL SHALL HAVE BEEN PLACED PRIOR TO THIS INSPECTION. D. ROUGH, WHEN APPROXIMATE FINAL ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED; DRAINAGE TERRACES, SWALES AND BERMS INSTALLED AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPES; AND THE STATEMENTS REQUIRED BY SECTION 7020 HAVE PEEN RECEIVED, c. FINAL. WHEN GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED; ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES INSTALLED; SLOPE PLANTING ESTABLISHED, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS INSTALLED; AND THE AS GRADED PLANS AND REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND REPORTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. ENGINEERED GRADING REQUIREMENTS 12. IN ADDITION TO THE INSPECTION REQUIRED OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REGULAR GRADING REPORTS AND STATEMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7020 AND 702). AGENCY NOTES 13. SECURE PERMISSION FROM ( ROAD DEPARTMENT), (STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT) FOR CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING WITHIN STREET RIGHT OF WAY. 14. A PERMIT TO OPERATE IN FIRE ZONE 4 MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. CALL (213) 267-2461 FOR INFORMATION. 15. GRADING IN FUTURE STREET RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE INSPECTED BY THE ROAD DEPART"c"T CALL (213) 226-8281 FOR INFORMATION. GEOLOGY NOTES 16. 4LL RECOMPENGk,T10NS INSLUDFD IN THE CONSULTANT'S Solt -AND GEOLOGY REPORTS MUST RE COMPLIFC WITH A.;E ARE A PART OF THE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS. 17. GRADING OPERATIONS MUST BE CONDUCTED UNDER PERIODIC GEOLOGIC INSPECTION IEPCRTS To RE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION, 18. THE CONSULTING GEOLOGIST MUST APPROVE ZOUGH GRADIIIG BY FINAL REPORT PRIOR THE APPROVA'. BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION. TPE' FINAL REPORT MUST INCI AI: AS -BUILT GEOLOGIC MAP. PLANTINS AND IRRiGATIUN NOTES 19• THE PLANS Or A DESIGNED IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR FULL COVERAGE Or ALL PORTIONS OF THE SLOPES SHA.LI- W cU7NITTED AND APPi;OVED PRIOR TO ROUGH GRACING APFRO•JtL BY THE OUHTY INSPECTOR. 7019 W . 20. ALL CUT SLOPES OVER 5' AND FILL SLOPES OVER 3' SHALL BE PLANTED WITH AN APPROVED GROUND COVER AND PROVIDED W'TH All IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AFTER ROAM GRADING. 7019 (A) 71. PLANTING AND IRRIGATION PLANS FOR SLOPFS CRFATER THAN 2;' IN 11EIGrITS MUST BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY A CIVIL rNGINEFR UR LAHOSCAPE ARCHITECT, 7019 (c) TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. Consulting Geologists - Soils Engineering Job no: Date: Scale: / ' 1= 2D r BY z_ CivA TZFS OF 1. 1 IP 4 ARE FOP PER"ST AND PQIDING PLTFT 7SF5 GNLY - EARTH BERM THE CCXn? A_ R SHALL VEPIiit QLW7=- DETAIL IFS PRIOR 70 S•IriRf OF GRADING. TYPICAL FILL OVER N) kTLTP.AL SLOPE TOE SHOWN ON 6FADING FLAN / FRt.JLt F.D 11%`t/ S. 15•,i /' /FRo1', / SLOFL ti / / 10' T}• r i ca - FOF?SATION MATERIAI, 2 1S' YSnimum 1Sn, m 1 NCTEI WID:RE NATVFAL ST.OPE G",DlmY' IS 511 OR LLss, iLiiC}FZNG IS NOT 1.'ECSSSASiY V1.'LESSSTFSFFI1tG DID NOT R274^VE ALL Co`4'REsSIPLE YAI'LT.IAL. LEGAL DESCRIPTION GRACING PLAN tsEEEF2LEC 11/ 1,1. IF- L.1-i;'GIA,1r;r' - _r_ JOHN B. ABELL, INC r F- P P_•u l . i 140 WEST ORANGE STREET COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91723, Pilo x PIS J671 RC G H GRADE ivr P o,,. ,,_ r ,... ins Anyi - ` CST M Ta s - must lab• 1cAt.Ons of or changwa in ap;.rn :.n qt adios Plana r ( ^ ? G(V 4'!w• ,. y, approved by the building Offteirl. 1- All graded •Item Ault have• drama t e rn• , norms, andL'k'irT a'rs^true • NOTE: r 6, t40 YY/. t'' LAGYJ GX/. Yltt'. ether dr.[nrq. device, . stage. 70201e) PProvd &t the couch gradlteqCALCUTANDt:',L QUANTITIES SHONN ' „ VOLUMES "—*FF-N EXISTING AND DHEAEOh REPRESENTS ONLY THE HAS bEF.N MADE FOR CLEARING, ESIGNED GRAPES. NO ALLOWANCE A copy of the gr&dlriq p+rmlt and aP re+w.! nradl[k: plan O{t wet he in the •session of • ruPrsalb). P•reon &wd v • vallaable at the site at all tire. SMBLLINI, GRUBBING, PRF_r ry ) EMOVALS C• FACT'. ON, LG• aq,ee•«.. i. // .~ / IF ANY. THE GRADIN ° rho hvitaald engiwr curt set dralwge •t.a.. tar •11 Ar•lwws..: S •wee "' •• iT / CONTRAC7r SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR GiN1dCw !) _ DIRT Qt!q riF,S TM , PETER EXACT ANjlr. p GBTAiN ADDI?10•IA" P' S. All store drain wort 1a t be doge urwr .-c.,:.,sewe n. sent ;wn n r. /- n HIS GRAU.MC (1.w. ear •tQ\i.• 1 '. 1 --'+ r, - .:'eD 4,. y th' r:•SA a &l n.a*" fly atotus 10•^. . a,rf A•r•y !''rIASrMi 4[t i Ft'FSS CTP? +O Br,n Sf?E T'7 01 by tt,. •slid cn 1n a 0•-417 bo w.wt[_ l aw.A/ Y (/ /a/. ` / _ tA'/ I la ..ev V - y'/ ' , r' -' r,l h.a, ' W o M less. _u she safety Vr Sr J7/ •!' ' E/ I `/ 1 / •, r,r 1 w,R J O.'r. t J • a \ `. . ` AO Z ••.w•• ' a 4 •#. a . 11 % c • ' ./. a Final qr dim NN1 be baton, r. Y t tJ11 1 neet ! • 1 • 1.. / .r• Li 107rl/c+reo. ra%. r er.d x r... i w "i'catlenn and mires of all Oak Trees w.' h.. ahova Pa the Poe, OF / ( i Y. may+ gr.dtnq plan. t ___ _ TL.i • a' "- ram• ^ - i "'4' vs .- AMC- t t ITir.1(/ J' •'r }1 - ,. a tent rtwT` Iy ` - •!'CGil.'VV hG ilJ ''n'/ 719t e'Hr'r•• loahe Wwd:dring the rolftarw..,_ry -. 00 ,{,/ 'Ilk // Prior to Oct Y iw DYrwtt e.,,w C/t i /l /," i . r October to 7na y m tun covet tvl °*,, •k- [tow en twlwy piano coat bw lnata].N by not 1 Car the- wrewmh•r 1 Ord Ael.- r 'S 't;:r '• °• ,i.(./SC .•/n/,C/t'y fame" In op•rsblw tondi<low intl) AVlll 15. ir.• .,e Ltt - r^' = t:2'Y : ;G"T Gen -, 4w fa,C 7,0 C/v!'t r(TvAWI;% l -'+" ii'i i•dlC) // iIX 3'11c a v.°/c?G'JM 4n r c o.(%, 1k0Vx~) / e, Q'. I / ti//'i• Geh%Y ' iNA i's' TMIs1411 •c w rbe nwhurn on r outlets " a bulIt•yedter7a..o•M•lwet,dO%.©M R41//?C .1fe5w D,rT A-I'w' / + gradlnq ri r. preventive progragrn protectttw.lope.frnwpot•ntfYlAawsoCronbrrrowlt pest slopesIVCi.%i/6L Perlodlc&lly tort evidenceof4DvrrOwlh,rr..'antalsrdatfirst•rld.nce oftheir existence •hail employ w" ovt••elwtorit,, hetrV_A ;;.o ^N J/ ( ll , p `LC- ' l. Root drainage must be dtvarted from yrwd•.l s: opea. 0~ +C /J./fY 7 !/iAirt/ 1 1 . r, l l Shall be _ de^r4s,,Ope Y.r/O / / " JJ - f1'C<0 T f- percent of Maximumpotdrygutdensityar full wwtsncbto y A. f Triw r•. • . -r, ••,_. 4. / r.°'' 1 i ir.V / / / / / / / •i w/jam iY .S//.i Of q0 Soli C L lj£A/ ompacUoa Tut 07s57_70, Method '0', where rPplle&let r1•t'IYY where not applicable a toot act table t, AW,•hailhe .&ad, lnf tat M thw bul2dl.g Official Od{,Pj'_ /• / , '% r L,rfrTs of lnCAv„`/G- .a Ir. ,°. • leis density # / / / 5 / /i ` I Q 'D EPTi/' O F1 LL (F6E r) q"'' building official. 60 01 fslrelnedby • _ ^•' aeceptsble to Ii a.. JJ .N / / / O oAf Ioy / Sufficient teats of the fill molls h..11 p.dq to detwrm/na tp._ riOl !/ \\i / ' / / I •l TEST GocvT/ dogs It thereof. rho minimum n Y.bor or rota shell De •• I•7'nva: 4dr TA _cL'3/CGr j /I%10 ,L%J.I/.1/ G1C)'.d/L : , i / t j \ rA TES ro AL /ai, Ts o F ny A . On. AA pS/VEIp,G f«r tut for seen two toot wrt tr•1 lift. w I • / , / / // , a D, one test for each 1000 _, A y / / ' !•la (_` /1.h rn lQ / t-r// , cubist yard• of material plagd. O' • L / \ _ - / / / / / / ` lX T /- 1 / F C. one tut at the location of the flnol ft)1 • *Pa for each buildiialPortionsit• tlot) !n each sour 'oot wartital lift orportiontMrd- pn• test to tba virintty or each Yl,dtnq Pwd for a•c% tour footverticalliftorPortionth«riot. Q/jt•/ `• 1 r O j- ,{` 4( = I , I ' i rI1// - 57 / 1 /x/^/eD fYor X` M/ tuff iciwntorw testa of fillmolls &Mall lie ww.fe to Verifyemm- A'1/ jAM / / , / 11 7 / s / O / ?rx4 nw pi sauce" f"" soil types wgelr seeta V- A.0 . r.•v I /7 %/w/4 Ii L'P / i Pl& bnct Proportion with tka d..ign r fa{ `y ' I /,t pL • . ypes one . Mar str Lw*/A( enfthe. J \ 7•rhorequired ireu ltm ormoth too ting *hall be fnoi•,< i • , ' ` I'yZ i/ / I J . ,. required by Chapter 70. 70164h .d iw LM reports 7 a . ge * hall r 1•e. 09 "i L `' 1 ' / / ` raoovai of be plae,•d until st r1 PP,:q Of .agmUtlon unsuitable able ao,,*, andinstolls•ton of subdr&lgs t/71j! .t/CC _ •Ir yE/92 K uryrT`i / / / / / Ilr neyl Mr. e.0 lit.p.et.d And . ... tGl _ (/ 1 r . _ / s i' 77i// CE' .i.// tnglneer. DD f the G.ot.tilmlca3 rowed 7k 9n&tar than +1Chas in diameter J golos.plcsimilar[Mtflll/ugreas r.tkon 1.plac.went formothbewnsubmitted byr • I . • IN ^ / • h y I, , . - r` / f f ` •pPrered [ A advartiY by the iml,ding Off,<w•-.tral LAPiweer and D...t/%,t= s j,e • 'hall be made for confzlbutoty too, r I njN11ftT / Provision L., ' ' • Z. S • /^ • ' l. dJ 1 \ / 'J / iI* // f:I Pontlnunu• inspection by the 10mcooteobnl cal r,nt nay Pt •1) tlwy- 1 / Mnal bl• r•pr•seotat lr• *hall be Meer or his re•- 91•- yi/• , 1 A•., rT1 p . P& ctlon o ration• f Mnt end Coe Provire ded ring all !ill ,a.-.- l-r- 1 ' 1 1 \--<,J'• L/ 1 ,• \.a '.'' , f Q..'• , mper'kli• 2av lrti, I SCiI,.f than ) P fees or al • • •lwpth gro.t.; slope surface •tee ,twr1s'. Y the Gactachn!, i1` i '/¢ r,T- - / b 5 /- . 4. '\ '•=w {r, %; _ _ / ) O. t'onU r.o.,• inspectlnn b i;/ \` ^\^lam' \ f_ Ii !/!,. aT l'3 I • 6 / t t .*1 \\ \j•,ti \ / ,• _ _ - _- / 1w mfbl• tepremgntat ive •hall bn provldma r.,.,•~Maw[ r tt 1, ^,L h , \ ' `. ` JR' • 4 Is!,nne. g r' 1 babe vrnrerrt'; 11'v' fr'" " , i [{ / S' ?' ' -7 , )F1'. -., , `•`. / ,I'.'thl' ? 7 / e , % f ./ r/. I141T" ., ,'i. {jt/ (, , r i F yna G•or. nnl ewt si.a. }r 3 n r AY .' ^- . / / !1 1 r, n rn a all pro.law n•h cal a. p-w<-.._'. 1 / . • \ rA ! , T ^ .--_ . ,nd co-1 .,-t Let of the f t . 1 to be f i . f ` ` ( / `+• / , \ 7G si / :,arfcr.-e P pmrrtlor ! tow aatl efi• !hr,t he roc. . Nnt r. D:•n 7 n• 'I_AN: r I \ • • i • ! w , 1, \ f ' ` !S n !n •ecnrtder.ra wltA ih• pi t /1• ,,,ff7 (' e'',• /17. '•1 t - V ,•!'.. . I" i- f /". 7 f{/i/./i t' ,(/w/ei'f!%•„L •e<. g s1_79 c tt[Mtcn+ llwl ier ub'.1f th^ ..n .• Guf.i of 4 T t 3 tilltittn } T 01 slit at b1i • lent i ` ,Ja(• ` t,w 1 Ja /•' r i / \ ^ { r • Q / ter;. r r J , r %' e: . S /J(e'e- .`- ,it Seto: •t laveNt o,oe 0 rk1 ,f ld , 1 . t A+/y 1 Y ` itY l`4 • J ..i/ ' ` / • / .QD1- wt'!% r !i•! /'-: Vr4 /'Yi InsPectlnn• •t fogl SiAmm Stagesgay in wdvv.a a tewlrK t'/ , )i , -•` 'i t\ Q t, ' _ mot/ ! / / ////Jt\\ ' , ` FA / ' if K`Y/ civ•:Ii,D ` , of ,nc ...•.., Y t \ J —}r• r 1\' x ° ' T7 / - --. ______. _-' _ 1 .iG i(% Irl •e' yli ![ /? '- Mti l. wamm the " t• ham brNn t e•... ay. c L. .vt, wYbe*, F.M wr 1 11) r/l yr :. r , j ,.nePprM PArMfillrordrlll. !a fA.3 -Za13 ha,n Yw.+g I , { ,A • y •.-I j% Oj-f o, Mrvlr it nes seen o- I. F ',.1 t s d /" //+y/ ll - -' ./!!` m y ? 3• cad Prior pmctfea. r < approu vain rlr, wl •lee utl.-. 1 i i t ' / e•tael, ahed: dra/ nb•. twerarwe, !Valve ...R'w ewom requt red o9 or the wlapsst •n- ,,.n e Colt •Ilwd at fly C Nerve 4 (r C..l Ci IsC II-T/try httlom 7070 it&" beam re•Y1...• totemmmt• Final/' v l\ ' • '.R / is ., 1 - - , 3i' 'ar r4 oT/,is. s device, mbem eroding kes mww 3 . , 1 / f1 • / ' /f' i , /1 " . 7r/! IJ Lces lwotai-hd o a-edv &I_ scot W , l - 1 t y '1 t/ Z' - 7y dr,'{ / .^ /tI .. %ww /•O ` ey• t nd re11Nf•nd the As Nigh pla." nm7e 1' \ / / • / ,. ( . ' mints. • mPmgta have Meg smissittwd, + mlrod stat.- r p t! , , i / ~--- -- yT 40 1V- , n . ddLtlow to the yxlj ! for egul arGrirMctlewregalr.d o' ^ . r•. 1/ 1; Z/ T1f •i J '071, tN OT(it1& IweateeTmand tatemtwr. ,..l ild/rhfi 111 1 • / to the OvlldlMvdantowit` •-• f Z A. I / s j S; • / I A; 1 - r N„xT y020 see Secure ism1 1 y r {, • QO(\ Al : 1 t y f JX IGJ/ LC N cwtatrucrlenaploe frost ( l.o. Angeles nmpmrtw. t t Public t` { yd I 1/ L _ ( S tviston, permrt•- f .aT q cows ., IJE i'Y I • ' [ - I .M"' "\- .dr N - C'•'Ai! - p /'i.(,// roll for cove truetaw ar grading wItAlb,K ra^&t xr j'my rasa / - V fIr C 11f. A got of Vey. fp`-WtS ?14W •''' R Ift/ ` y ' % • /q'w ±iVt AJ2 ri wr D+rtge*Per4ts LAt Firm soave must be ohtmined fro. Cite i- ,a /,A't^i/ for Department etloh. °rand ng work. "allIIUI 10>-?tft i • , s - o • w G,4/ v clrvj- i1sAm swig/Ci 3s ! / -7,v c d ,.lv, aIS. tT: M SaAal — r' I d9/ 1 ?7. All •sera 1uNiU'/%C' Co M'Jr1iigaolnd•[,ona ,Mel used ,n the a I / ogy report Mat bee ert., eul t.wt •• me11 aid it7 • + • stavaii Y •. R \ + '- ,.4) /_' ' ! "-Air fV/W/./y XA/0) aradl n9 aP• clf l c„[lory. celled with laid •cn r r`rt of the iR W TI OR , yiir_' ' + - '' V ratlrtod Starting Oat • 4 / S y •,ate I tr-1 1 Lea" lollC1N/ r 1 - f _ i r r"Tnl. RG cmvco "W4 7'c c f1 - n i 'Yl7./& yf79d S". L: c- iO. v r #/ 1 ' J , / :.,\ / ,ins • ' P - ® A AI dfdt-. 0- 40 /'? NOTICT TO CONTRACTOR: Afi THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED ' r TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY j?V MEASURES Tp PROTECTTHEU I' 17Y LINES SHf'VN AND ANY OTRER S s' 4V fk'•D/W BSI 6fY , n L INE, NOTOrR[ COPDS OR Nr' rHOYN 01 T^I" PLAY. CALL INCIRGROOND S[RYICF ALERT ). -Roo_«:- a Yl/ r ?p GZ*l0 CBTB G4 "B is/C.'r< DEro1[ nMN PCTNc rICAVA•`N7t!r ,y7,r• +.. aa .f x v ww.r-•--.ten..._ _ .. .. - Alt' eltl v',/ ?CAI^ N .•i,v ^ire/r. i.r w - of ' S lee G/244//l' yip / c. a f7 -- — t? L: tiT i9 L, vZ-'?hl ZG F• d_ - _- CdC, .',y i .i i'/, % f _ e aw a w a.-. _, aa•w--e.-- - .'` ni`!t' wari .. ! 'cam / r _ GEOLOGIC MAP FILL QAL TP l Z l20 tto T-P _ too looboo A 4o tam' 1 RopoSED 6ZLADc f! t Cx l too AND CROSS -SECTIONS MAN-MADE FILL PLACED ALONG STREET M) XTURE SOIL AND BEDROCK FRAGMENTS. ALLUVIUM - YOUNGER MATERIAL OVER.LYiNG BEDROCK SLIGHTLY MOIST, DENSE. PLEATTEFORMATION- WELL BEDDED SILTSTOA.2S, AND INTERBEDDED SANDSTONES. DIP AND STRIKE OF BEDDING. BROKEN WTIERE REFERENCED FROM OTHER REPORTS. CONTACT BETWEEN UNITS. BROKEN WHER UVCER TAIN. TIST PIT LOCATIONAND NUMBER. LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTION 1ATERRED FOLD AXIS BASED ON ATTITUDES IN SCALE' I, Z(D' AFPPri'.'Eo ev DRAWN eY DATE 8 — 7—q Z QEV15ED 1' I o z 95,1 DIA M013D 13 AP, CQA1%JNG NUMBER dos AWC GL S v'-T'i'Y 4LE: nt V ` v M ROIL l^ ma yy^ . BEDD/(,6' DIPS /Z-/8'I IJN/iLL AP>oxiM>rf iLL uMrr` i S MAAG A7TMLf DIPS 17 200DfX.AIRLL I LEGA` SCIZt p'77CN: LGT B 89 , RE=,LDM INSM7K742M!6E5 C30. oe i lu _ S SFri4bW 70N CRIVEso• xw-r or w Y mR. or for a,'rR. No. oz e9. ss UN^ BLN. Ipo. q• o raa. woo N6N L DN WINGv3CYOp.P f']OD NQN=M G ^!O!O GE01-06/C SrE[Cq MAP BAs A[lFY!>d7£HNIG4L TAr6RFi7Z47FD NAiff /E-/1Z99 UNINCORPORAT .r2 TERRITClCY LOS MrOELES CQUN T-r TOFOGR,a.PHIC M4,P C RO " I DN A Al R W IT i Z v L loco R , I t r rnasec Gro ae — I V) COY. c c /! Be dro- Pet e,- to Firs. 6Z 1 LBedroc.c Pue/7 60 9 YO TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. IV Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering Job no ^ - Date: 2 - "' Scale: % " = 2 C' By. J LK PLATE A-1 CROSS SF ION i 96 o 9 o 92 0 B Pro p. rccc:C i 49 i ili r r LQ Fin. Q // W L B/ ICOJ I 9 0 1790 F 11 so; Is c{ ed %°+ q Gom PgQr AFL// / ?6o 160 Pre F. jra aB J % Te Y3 r'2Je.^.•rOCK — lGGc?n 7lH qyo i 9vo q2o TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering Job no: Date: `-kk Scale: J "= Zo' By: JLl PLATE A-G C IOYO 1020 1000 10067 D D' 1 s ' C Pfo- ProP < i + s/» orrp a i Bent i 960 Bs reck 9yO lam k E E I I qg F'roPosedG<fad ,-S?or i i 13 drocft CROSS SC T I kC)/ N S C-C ', D-D" *- E -E 7TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, Inc. 1 Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering Job no: ,% Date: 3-h-" Scale: 1 " = zo ' By: /Z-/< PLATE A- 3 TO cn ZCi00 4JW..• CLU w O Q0N3 Tmss: Monterey Formation j / - ____ I mostly bedded sandstone, light gray, L_\ \ \\ \_)` \ / -==--== --- '-'-''"'-'`='°-" "- / I weathers tan, mostly medium grained, own — — / ; / arkpsic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotite; includes minor siltyjL , N, \ \ I clay shale Based on Dibblee (2001):" Geological I / Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Own , v/ I // ` Quadrangles" lqN111 I I , I P045P PAD .•, Tw1fs I I I If WNW \ \\\ \ \\ \ I \\// 100, Scale: 1"=20' LEGEND 41 ' ® B-1 Approximate Boring Location LW 1 Lk \CIF Environmental Project Location: Geotechnology 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive n \ / •• = Diamond Bar, California 1 / \ \ \ \ ` /// \ \ \ ,; -• • • Laboratory EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 J SITE (GEOLOGY) PLAN 09/03 FIGURE s. r6r N* LEGEND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORINGS B-1 21' Measured Bedding Attitude Af: Artificial Fill Tmss: Monterey Formation: Mostly bedded sandstone, light gray weathers tan, mostly medium grained, arkpsic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotite; includes minor silty clay shale (Dibblee, 2001) Fill Keys Fill keys, where required, should be a minimum of 8 feet wide or 1-1/2) and should extend a minimum of 3 feet into competent bedrock materials. All fill keys should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to placing fill. CONTACT LINE OF COMPLETED SLOPE 2:1 COMPETENT BEDRCOK PROVIDE NATURAL UNDULATING SURFACE 12 1hCK CAP NATURAL SLOPE BENCHES INTO COMPETENT BEDRCOK KEY Min. 3' DEEP INTO COMPETENT BEDROCK BY Min. 8' WIDE NOTE: ALL UNCERTIFIED FILL MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED TYPICAL BENCH DETAIL NM M sum 20 Scale 1' = 30' r! PayeAG eCQh-tru F o l =area X s+:.:a F Bto€; CIa4j78) B-j c2;,s,) 15-6,76) — — — _ (196 73)- --_ _ — .?—--+—'(=39.7'3) 00,TO) . (21x.q, 73) I / 1 J tab° 1^GL t e!/ r f_ f / ! p 28 so) - 7- Pro o a4+1 = 17' cl,At CT- E. 85 s .- c44r, ti7) Bunch G_t TwFsS Pro 9QG ZPro ?05-Fr,-JS5 aqi Q = i j -i3` E(key P_"Lh C=h z Tmss: Monterey Formation mostly bedded sandstone, light gray, weathers tan, mostly medium grained, arkpsic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotite; includes minor silty clay shale Based on Dibblee (2001):" Geological Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles" SECTION A - A' Scale: 1" = 2.0' Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory Project Location: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California Project No.: 03-208-007 CROSS SECTION A -A' 0Q+`03 FIGURE2 M ProP0-S Gr e 0", 78 8-r POJ c n--'--- _f it ,b8) II c`3o,7o) (IC7 C 285n) '" r J_ s l—Pro Pose( t7) Pro esed PPro ?05-e.o( T r1s yen ch Cat Tmss: Monterey Formation mostly bedded sandstone, light gray, weathers tan, mostly medium grained, arkpsic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotite; includes minor silty clay shale Based on Dibblee (2001):" Geological Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles" SECTION A - A' Scale: 1" = 20' Tim-, s PaJ Bto-- K Wit; ! Tv sS 17 ° Cu -(1- c !e Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory Project Location: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California Project No.: 03-208-007 CROSS SECTION A -A' 09103 FIGURE2 A 880 870 8 4s ) 8 qoo 7 Pad Cohn- ruc.fzo&A Area CISts,73)— _--_ E" _ — ._--— •(2d9.73) i T Ss eed —_ PuIv oycq4, 7Pro o 17° t ccu de o2) Twos$ apreAA Pro s¢ ci proFosse. d I tan l F,Ilkey ` "'`` ei,ch Cut Proposeod C5r r1:5LA 2 8-[ Pro p0se - Co s- fYu uft a— - -- - - 15'6,79) CrrAde Tmss: Monterey Formation mostly bedded sandstone, light gray, weathers tan, mostly medium grained, arkpsic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotite; includes minor silty clay shale Based on Dibblee ( 2001):" Geological Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles" SECTION A - A' Scale: 1" = 20' Environmental 6 Geotechnology rLaboratory Project Location: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, California Project No.: 03-208-007 CROSS SECTION A -A' 09 03 FIGURE 3 Tmss: Monterey Formation major portion of Puente Formation (Tpy) mostly bedded sandstone, light gray, weathers tan, mostly medium grained, arkosic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotite; includes minor silty clay shale Based on Dibblee (2001):" Geological Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles" E x-s4:--, t q C ecv e F raPny u lci:h Fx:s+;K0 6Y.d6 Propowl Cxrcc{(' PMP05FCI \ (Ii1.196.SJ a -I Iai,r7S) u95.r 6s (r77.S,t76.) c,o3.lt,as) =nf,:,..tyPCP (_(13,.,__Af- 5 I ' --- 17c ( 45,IyB _ LU r68? 13-2 E-J % — - r tc3,14) 145,166) A,162) Terms,,; 5 Courz El* 062 r i J 41— I f aYCAA J a" f e = 13 -- 26 ° c 335,t"71 C.PPo YeAlBetlC, ag3o3 CIz.5,t33E6 [,r33) Uta(a(Q = tb 2Jr dCut. LA5ed in Sloe <to,=4: Ar a1 f5 Ei€vat:ct 'aSfd ;rl S;e Pl.- ; r; Nte9 SECTION A - A Scale: 1" = 20' u7,l'74 ) Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory Project Location: 2887 Shadow Canyon Diamond Bar, California EGL Project No.: 03-208-007 CROSS SECTION A - A' 10105 FIGURE 2 i l4 ieV I"- «. I GE-o GYric Coos S SEcrioAls w l I I 8 •s we, o.•r w.r r «..w IM Or Alrr C rtrw••r aWtM ww1 JWP L Rev.%ft fib -eft -oft TRIAD FOUNDATION ENGINEERM, Inc. Consulting Geologists - Soils Engineering Job no: C - „13 y Date: -rq - Scale: // = • 6> BY: Gu C r . .+.. . ..tr.. .....4.rrwW r rMM.O+Wi1MwMrM.Mw.rrM 0 GEOLOGIC MAP Mo Ito A 13o m- co L,L py ri 7o, f A err- t av' t3AM- 3 R.AL c-rVA'De 1 Mo r-------------------------------- r,.- --= T i' iio' goo ' FILL QAL TP o too AND CROSS - SECTIONS MAN- MADE FILL PLACED ALONG STREET. MIXTURE SOIL AND BEDROCK FRAGMENTS. ALLUVIUM - YOUNGER MATERIAL OVERLYING BEDROCK. SLIGHTLY MOIST, DENSE. PUENTE FORMA TION- WELL BEDDED SIL TSTONES, AND INTERBEDDED SANDSTONES. DIP AND STRIKE OF BEDDING. BROKEN WHERE REFERENCED FROM OTHER REPORTS. CONTACT BETWEEN UNITS. BROKEN WHERE UNCER TA IN. - TEST PIT LOCH TION AND NUMBER LOCH TION OF CR OSS-SECTION INFERRED FOLD AXIS BASED ON A TTITUDES IN BEDROCK. As - C mm MAP RAV,' 8Y 11 v im Y Y 7 \` 9 / 7 68 TI JD- 5 Tmsso 15 15 16 y 12 Tmss % ) 7/ Tm y 9mot. 7 /' 8 / %j7R1 t/ 2 B ,, / 3 l3 ii 8 y C\ Tm i 1 20 Tms Tm i1 9 7 - \ Tm /o 1 15y1ii r Tm . ,J Tm 55 t\ 2D7 _ t - :2f 1 8 e,,.`' fir.' 'i-,^ 5 z `L y17 c 7 I'1 /7 Tm n '`, y 20 y/ f 1 y/ / 9 J10 ` vv /4 /3 / y Tmss + y 9 16 SITE I` 8 Tmss `— \ /0 3 9 \_L 1 a 14 Qls\ jTmlv 10 9_ 5 _/ O 7 \; j\i ,yams "\,27 S / 5 - 7 4\` ':/. i 14. Tm jSa-`+ IV 10 _1-- ` ` 6 i 7 J Tmlv 1 Tmss — 1 5C // C1717 Cal Tmlv 8 Qa \ / r 15 r \ 113 SL 5 1 r ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNOLOGY Project Address: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive N s' LABORATORY Diamond Bar, California Note: s EGL Project No.: 03-208-0 7 Map modifed from Dibblee (2001) Scale: 1 "=2000' "Geologic Map of the Yorba Linda PradoDam Quadrangle" SITE (GEOLOGIC) MAP 09/03 FIGURE 4 ie . / / / / // / / / / / / / / // / // // // / i _rverw Saw _ I Tmss: Monterey Formation r'snow— — — — — — — `- ` — — — — \ mostly bedded sandstone, light gray, C _ \ \--=--===---T--- \ I weathers tan, mostly medium grained, ark sic locally coarse and ebb) with minor biotite; includes minor silty clay shale Al Based on Dibblee (2001):" Geological Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \\\ \\ I %ww. /r // ` \ Quadrangles„ PA Tp Scale: 1" = 20' LEGEND B-1 Approximate Boring Location Environmental Project Location: 2887 Shadow Canyon Drive Geotechnology Diamond Bar, California 1 \At ..Laboratory EGL Project No.: 03-208-00 CS SITE (GEOLOGY) FLAN 09/03 FIGURE W 88 97D 8bo ab r,0,45) 8P r Pad L LA oPi irea Ex:st; y BIOLK tk t s------ ----- I--- j---+: 39,8+) 7---i—'(2d9.73) i Tm z p f iL-L Pro Qosect 041le = 170 cutvo CTe ACh Cat Pro 9B d z t70Pro oleo{ 7-w5 e l ch Cat C ( 4-9, 78 ) 8- 1 cl4. 5, Gy Cor?Sfj'Uf vi! (118.5,7z) _15' 479) 70) f ( IC c64,68) C118,(le 7.70) i Tmss: Monterey Formation mostly bedded sandstone, light gray, weathers tan, mostly medium grained, arkpsic, locally coarse and pebbly; with minor biotite; includes minor silty clay shale Based on Dibblee (2001):" Geological Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles" SECTION A - A' Scale: 1" = 20' Tve6s 774E IfgAl r L,>WPA1Vq — SfI,¢ooL J C'!U DRrvE DCTOBER /Z ) /99/ GEOLOGIC CROSs- SFCrlGYV LOT 69 7RArr NO. 3o289 D/f}MOND B4R ti n o SUR`ACc PROPOSED Ge,4D C3E ?D/N6 DIPS LM1A/#/_ L /4 DE,-eCES GED OG/ CRC ss-SECT rrU scaLE: i BOB D/,J574 TNC'. O a 860 8vo Ilk 900 R60 1/0 R p/-'o O Se G ' f l A y TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. Consulting Geologists — Soils Engineering no: 9y—/9S— Date: -17-s Scale: / "_ DLO' By: J Al 4y> V0 0 PLATE h-1 S T RUC TUP SECTION C 9'-/0 7 0 y00 3 r R TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. 4 l ConsultingGeologists — _ Soils Engineering lob no: 94/--/ 9S' Date: 8-/7- 9V Scale: " = to ' BY: /c c' 9yo H i 590 960 9 YO PLATE A-4 A AL- 4< r ED, B cO,Prop Pool. P-3 { F-uture Prop Add -- LO ` Fxi t Re ; f 14 t 400 14 i Base map - Luah Construction Co., undated LEGEND AF Fill QC Colluvium T$h Siltstone / Sandstone Strike / dip of Strata 1 "- 401 GEOLOGIC MAP ne Geologic Outfit " RAY A. E.,kS i ViA.N NG1NE=--1NG -''ST 0 1 "- 401 Prop Add I Res I QC 900 West Strata Add Qc Tsh Pool QC Res 900 AF Tsh_--.--- J m Add Pool IQC TO A GEOLOGIC SECTIONS The Geologic Oulf f - RAY A. EASTM.`_ t IL 7 , ', :. % \ ,<.;/ try l i i A\/ rlw 90 O SITE Q 6 Jam! 1 "- 40' AS. B U I LT PLAN Dutch Holzhauer Engineering Co.,1967 Tr 30289 The Geologic Outfit" Siue:rrnr Service !nc. 133494 RAY A. EAST MAN SURF, IAL SLOPE STAB I T Y SLOPE SURFACE T Pw FLOW LINES F9 FAILURE PATH 41 d ty 5 g d Ir ASSUME: 1) SATURATION TO FAILURE PATH 2) PERMEABILITY SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT FLOW Pw, = WATER PRESSURE HEAD Ws = SATURATED SOIL UNIT WEIGHT Ww = UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL WATER U = SOIL PORE WATER PRESSURE Pw = 2 Cos 2 oC U = Ww, Cos2 oC FD = ; (t) WS sin 2 d FR = i (Ws-Ww.) COS d tan 0 + c F.S. = 2 (=-) (Ws-Ww•) COS oC tan 0 + 2c Ws (Z) sin 2 d 2(3.5) (120-62) cos 34 tan 29+2(280) 120(3.5) sin 68 U* PARAMETERS Mtr1. 0 tan c I W wS cL I sin 2c+C. COS aC Fill 29 280 62 120 5401 3.5' i Ref: Report of the Orange County Slope Stability_Corrmittee -- January 10, 1972 PLATE B-2 SURFIC/AL SLOPE STABI L i t Y SLOPE SURFACE T Pw FLOW LINES F9 t+ 5 R d Ir FAILURE PATH ASSUME: 1) SATURATION TO FAILURE PATH 2) PERMEABILITY SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT FLOW Pw = WATER PRESSURE HFAD Ws = SATURATED SOIL UNIT WEIGHT Wye, = UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL WATER U = SOIL PORE WATER PRESSURE Pw = Z cos 2 oC U = WW cos2 0( F D = 3f (J WS sin 2 oC Fp = (Ws-Ww) cos2 d tan 0 + c F.S. = 2 (=-) (Ws-Ww) Cos 2oC tan 0 + 2c rs (,:) sin 2 ° 2(4)(120-62) cos234 tan 29+2(350) 120(4) sin 68 PARAl!ETERS Mtrl. tan P c I W l Ws oC sin 2oC cos2 oC Fill 29 350 62 1120 34 4' Ref: Report of the Orange County Slope Stability.Co=.ittee-- Jar.,:ary 10, 1972 TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC. PLATE B-3 Job no: 94-195 Date: 9-9-94 By: F. S. SUBJECT o T l,( i CROSS <Sscm &^ j JOB N0.q3 ai3:r-C:v APAeNa i x C - 2 Azsu Ms C o c L ? AAA (`t t-iC-R, u d E,9Add fsh F* t L u R,& ? LA-N C- P.t F V = t a. o P cr- SUBJECT t1t-oP6 4 tjgr c-(7?L CfZorJ SECTremj C JOB NO. Q3 - oZi3 f6, c APPC VZIX C — 3 Axju fc tutR G ?chA( FAXAFrE-1-60, G = d,00 P.0 F k' _ / a-° per- SUBJECT 3 Lo+?Eg ATA9(LQ) CA ,6Z el ECT i cf 1 C 170 A- a26 l L ( A-R 4t(E l E : u c P LAAJ C- oZ, Do Pr f oZ, o PGR JOB NO. 3 - ar3 -P t o ...5 n t 1' • t" t t tom; `'' f/' r \• ,.:,-. `•,. . :52. St-.'.:•. -. ={3 . tj..: =:.r,:i "f'f t -i jf _ rlj ru \ .: \ : , ) ,•;-4 t! }--r'. f i 'fit ! V \\ M.1_1``••::- \ _ , 9 lr/`````" f- r r''3 %•i(!i+`•a , zi1 . 1 :.:r ' g fti • ! i! j ( i! a''\':=>:)':•::. -- ---- ...0 t\ .\:' 9 :., 'N 0S1 Qal l h7,. c 1, \\' `': $ E ,1• "il' + `j ' . 1 c7 •`;=1i11... q ! !.t I r x T '-• _' .f ,-.Jj S t i 11 '',, !' 1 i" ;v•r j r t } , till r ta:• It 1 r'ii vx ;i e • !t' ./ t 1• f . </ f 'j !]{ :i' tic'c , ' ! ! i rill r j<i.l: ':/ .. .2 1 ':I'1,.: ;• t t ,t" u rl•/ i•, -``' - / t{= !11} lt1.i _ 1 a •r tii-- t zF 1 [ 1 ' r-rl T .`_ •-! r;}:. 1,':\t`; ! f4 i ¢' • =fr !ny O i• • T f 17i ri7ftt?%%t.f f,j•'{ I i /.'{ 1 `>• •` 1?•, ;''' t;i4' t { :f 1 :I 13f ,4 - 41-_— M ::`:: Id / . •• }11.. r ' • li../lr l ' '"'4rit1c r.a`+ . 1\; f .< r ( - f, ft }i = .•:5!1 n 4, 1 1 lljt t;''__ 1r 4{,=i1SLl fl .7: 1`ii`?+^j !11 ( "Y • 1,1I`.i.,`, 1 ¢S•!1.f,. ' t T14 / .''`•^ cCdC_r l' •. r`-=:, rl 1l' =ii-111i I`l;`' `\ i c{r i O2 }it i7r 1 t; 1 1 l=• y a`1'^- _ t,i l r!-"_ r mil (r 1 llS tNl t•. t Lir •„i l } ! '.:i^•t1.,,-i• '• \ t Q: -_. •' - '•12 :i„, 1%,f1. t ! ` •rtii l ,i'w ;@3-.• ._ - i,4.. \ Id,! ! "'7. .:I !`' Ilr , '' i' 4' l.K, m.• QI jY; ' +"""t ``':` ._}'\ C;r ' I;:" __r•t ..•;; Ir i• \;(:; _iy.\,y`:`1• .j i Y'£Q = '../'::1 "tit `^ . r•./:! r •-•',.,' l` p -1E:-i• t•`,= =` il. \\i:•. ;..'ifs _ j%1;,£L.. = ,i ,'\ '\i-;\"a\ r,.'%.;•- z!f M`! r .+ Si'.. ! ; .. a'!Ka `t. ff ==r•:.. i•C 'i\ t i, -;. _ !. \ `-•,4•,... \'."\ \ . S11' f• :: , .=>Ij'I -;:•i. • \\ •i i' ztt f• ! _ ` za.f.., . (.;. _ n.. ..n ..\`• f•c..:tt,r •: ; :.., .:; 'f• .i;;•3F ti..; ;:.-/-33.-r•ii, .'Lr - ,;'.,. }+f, , ` :,.. .—, u -j. h.fli ;:pj<3,i`i}`# x .+;i lslj• !' C (j`ti . 1'`, \ .:'= i 2000' USGS 1964 is k,TP1 ytu La Vida member Gray to white platy siltstone with white limy concre- tions and brownishfray to light -gray sort mwaceous siltstone: thin interbedded light -gray sandstone: tan andesitic tuff, tu. Sandstone units shown by litho - logic symbol AREA GEOLOGY "Die Geologic Outfit RAY A. EAST MAN ENGINEERING GE'JLOGIST ii^.f:c.da S-:• .•: • GEOMORPHIC PROVINCES Cam.. •;I'..:} + r. d:,.. ::r a:_+ i AND SOME PRINCIPAL FAULTS OF 4.:.:: . 1 CALIFORNIA Generalized Geologic Units CuawnerT aaarrn.nwrT reua Cr.wuoua aamrw.mory roue a V•- .r Tar r arT faCunanlari roclta a rouP e c francr3CAn-Knaa•.11a A Ouarernar, ona 'a 4.h •olcanc w„ato•c-P......c in.ioenar Dlu< T.-•^ :.-- roua al CSSCAGE RAMGE ona ona pranri c roua w000C PLATEAU C ••••• r I•:1. ._r.;- + T+ < omoua 1 ne aAS N.-d RSHGE n Oe uOJwE DESERTSERT 9 . oTeron c re.r.ca oouaor, L ' \ u.on C c unr Douno orT jam+ + } a } 7.} + + p y+ + } + + t + +++ + + + i -\ o z- eo roa,ILES SITE +r•\ ++} + r 0 • O 20 v KILOMETERS SCALE Rev. 5/86 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP The Geologic Outfit " RAY A. EASTMAN ENGINEERING GEOLCGIST O 6-6.9 Q 7 — 7.9 O 8 — 8.5 Magnitude (Richter scale), Earthquakes of magnitude 6 and over since 1852 Active Fault system 11901 D , 1922 1946- 1934_ Bakersfield 1c Tr 1952" 1S52— -I857 Sa r) 192'1 an bra _ ID - San ynez 1971 s Santa Barbara U 1QQ1 1925/ 1941 19 23, Los Angeles I \19$7j1918 1933' tin- 75mi 1947 A 1992 1987 1948 s d' J d7 1 fo 1599 1937 954 1965 El Centro IQ42 1987 1915 San Diego _ 1940 1979" O 1930, FAULT G EARTHQUAKE MAP The Geologic Outfit " RAYA- EASTMAN ENGINE EKING G'cDLCG;ST IIr.IwC ,\ 16.7 1910 J Y E N T U R A 923 \ N41 Compiled by Richard J. Proc'or A SSOCIAT70M OF EMGINEERIM46 GEOLQGZ T5 1973 S•w+ A .R 8 E :R H sr0 \\ QP/TGin ' 1907 9y 7 C ` 4r1 s Stir TWIT I 194QN6. --' IN010 o 9 I 76O j'C\,195• Y6 SAN I aEW t 1 e• a 1 m y t 1 a r E T E II s rI DES MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS IN THE SOLITHURN CALIFORNIA REviON EXPLANATION* AC1VE FAULT Wall lenath of `pull zone that breats Holocene deposits or that has hog seismic activity. Fault segment with surface rumffe during an historic eanhquatie, of •ith asetsmic fault creep. 0 Holocene voicanie activity Gin". Ptsoan, Cairo Prieto ana Solion Buttes FAULT MAP EARTHCUAKE LMMONS 1899 opro:imote !^tantrat area of eorthauaces that w 7+ occirrrJ 1769-933. Maannuaes not reta><aed by Instruments onor to 1906 were !stlmaied from damage reports assionea an Intensity 'AI trtaaifiea Metai1 scaler or create; 71is is rouanlV eaurvolent to ntcnter M 6.0. 31 moaeraiee— earihouates. 7 mcior and or* great earthouate 18571 were reportea in the 164-year pefloa 1769-193i 19sz 0 Eanhauate !^centers since i933, plotted from M 7-7 moraea mi..rrierits. Z° mooeerr" Ina three major eorinalstrs were remroea in the 40-yea perroa t933-4971 RAY A. EASTMAN ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST i Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil Engineering December 8, 2009 Mr. And Mrs. Terry Hao c/o Danielian Associates 60 Corporate Park Irvine, California 92606 Attention: Mr. John Danielian Subject: Report of Geotechnical-Investigation, Proposed Residential Development 2718 Steeplechase Lan L)ot 54, Tract 30289 Diamond•Bar; Califorriia-/ CLE Project No.: 09-215-001EG Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, Cal Land Engineering, Inc. (CLE) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Investigation Report for the subject site. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations for grading, foundation design and other relevant parameters for the proposed construction. Based on the findings of CLE's investigation; it is concluded that the proposed development of the subject lot is feasible from a geotechnical ,viewpoint, provided that recommendations presented herein are incorporated into design, grading and construction. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, please contact Cal Land Engineering. Respectfully submitted, Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants ePpF ES SIONq 5> PCy, C. v; No.2,5n rnm Jack C. Lee, GE 2153 Exp.3/.Grl Principal Engineer OF CAaTF= Dist: (4) Addressee Reviewed by: Exp. 021281:2^ 10 cr f a n Fred Aflakian, CEG 2051 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-10901 1 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION 1 Proposed Residential Development At 2718 Steeplechase Lane Lot 541, Tract 30289 Diamond Bar, California I 1 Prepared by CAL LAND ENGINEERING, INC. Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 1 i i Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 1 of 2 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................ :...................................................... ................................. 1 I 1.1 PURPOSE ...................................................... :....................................................................................... 1 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................... :....................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................... :....................................................................................... 1 1.4 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................ ..!.................................................................................... 1 2.0 REPORT REVIEW ................................... ......!....................................................................................... 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING.......................................................2 3.1 SUBSURFACE TION........................................................................................2 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ................................... :.......................................................................................3 4.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING............................................................................................................................3 4.1 SITE GEOLOGY............................................ I ....................................................................................... 3 4.2.1 Slopewash (Map Symbol -Qsw)..........I.......................................................................................3 4.2.2 Bedrock (Map Symbol- Tmss)............'.......................................................................................3 4.3 GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE......................................................................................................................3 4.4 GROUNDWATER ............................................. :................................................ ....................................... 4 4.5 BEDDING PLANE SLIDE ................................... :....................................................................................... 4 t5.0 SEISMICITY...........................................................................................................................................4 5.1 FAULTING..............................................................................................................................................4 5.2SEISMICITY...........................................................................................................................................4 5.3 ESTIMATED EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS.........................................................................................5 6.0 SLOPE STABILITY...............................................................................................................................5 6.1 EXISTING SLOPES...................................................................................................................................5 6.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................5 6.3 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY AND LANDSCAPING......................................................................................6 I 1 1 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 SEISMICITY .................................... ................ '..... ... .............................. .............................. .................... 6 7.2 EXCAVATABILITY............................................ :....................................................................................... 6 7.3 SURFICIAL SOIL REMOVAL AND RECOMPACTION......................................................................................6 7.4 GROUNDWATER.....................................................................................................................................7 7.5 SEISMIC INDUCED HAZARD.............................I.......................................................................................7 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 928211; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 2 of 2 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................I.........................................................................................7 8.1 GRADING..............................................................................................................................................7 8.1.1 Site Preparation .................................. :.................................. ....................................................... 7 8.1.2 Surficial Soil Removals................................................................................................................7 8.1.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms.................................................................................................... 7 8.1.4 Structural Backfill................................!.........................................................................................8 8.1.5 Benching.............................................I.........................................................................................8 8.1.6 Temporary Excavation.................................................................................................................. 8 8.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN.............................................................................................................................8 8.2.1 Bearing Value.....................................':.........................................................................................8 8.2.2 Settlement..........................................:.........................................................................................8 8.2.3 Lateral Pressures.........................................................................................................................8 8.3 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION.................................................................................................................9 I 8.4 CONCRETE SLABS..................................................................................................................................9 8.5 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL.................... ......'............................................................. ........................... 10 8.6 STABILIZATION CAISSONS .................................................................................................................... 10 9.0 CORROSION POTENTIAL .......................... ........................................................................................ 11 I 9.0 SEISMIC DESIGN........................................!........................................................................................11 1 10.0 INSPECTION.....................................................................................................................................12 11.0 COUNTY 111 STATEMENT ...................... ........................................................................................ 12 12.0 REMARKS.........................................................................................................................................12 13.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................12 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 1 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This report presents a summary of our preliminary geotechnical engineering and engineering geological investigation for the proposed construction located at the subject site. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the area of proposed construction and to provide recommendations pertinent to grading, foundation design and other relevant parameters of the proposed development. 1.2 Scope of Services CLE scope of services included: Review of available soil and geologic dataiof the area. Subsurface exploration consisting of logging and sampling of four test trenches. The trenches were extended to a maximum depth of 7 feet below the existing ground surface. Trench logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory testing of representative samples to establish engineering characteristics of the on -site soil. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendices A and B. Engineering analyses of the geotechnical data obtained from our background studies, field investigation, and laboratory testing. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed construction. 1.3 Proposed Construction Based on our review of the 10-scale grading plan by Call -and Engineering, Inc., dated November 11, 2009, it is understood that the proposed construction consists of cut and fill grading operation to create a multi -terrace levels building pad to accommodate the residential structure. Cut and fill from the existing grade would be needed to achieve the proposed grade. Exterior cantilever retaining walls up to 6 feet high and interior restrained walls up to 12 feet high are also proposed at the site. Column loads are unknown at this time, but are expected to be light. 1.4 Site Conditions tThe subject site is located at 2718 Steeplechase Lane in the City Diamond Bar, California. The approximate regional location is shown on, the attached Site Location Map (Figure 1). An 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 928211; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 2 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 easterly ascending slope occupies the proposed construction area. The maximum slope ratio is approximate 3:1 to 4:1 (horizontal to vertical). No major erosions were observed during our field investigation. The configuration of the site and existing topography are shown on the attached plan. This plan is modified from the 10-scale grading plan by Call -and Engineering, Inc. 2.0 REPORT REVIEW Based on CLE's review of the referenced report by James E. Slosson & Associatess (S&A), it is understood that a buttress fill was constructed along the Steeplechase Lane during the previous mass grading of the site. The purpose of this buttress was to stabilize the daylighted bedding plane. Based on the Geologic Report for the subject site (Lot 54) by S&A, the bedding plane landslide was reported at the subject site. This bedding plane slide was assumed based on the presence of minerals within rock that easily deform and/or slide in relation to one another and was reported to be at the depth of 40 feet below the surface. The S&A report also indicated that the down slope movement of this slide dose not appear to have been recent or appreciable, as evidenced" and " It appears that the slide mass in its present conditions has reached a point of equilibrium and future movement is unlikely". In addition, this landslide has been further stabilized by placing the fill along the Steeplechase Lane. The S&A report concluded that the site is suitable for the residential development with minor amount of grading. The geologic report by F. Beach Leighton & Associates (reference 3 report) indicated that the site is underlain by siltstone of Puente formation and no landslide was mapped. Additionally, the reports for the adjacent property (reference 2 and 4 report) also indicate that the immediately adjacent property is underlain by siltstone with bedding plane dipped toward northwesterly and no slide was mapped in these areas. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Subsurface Exploration Four backhoe test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 7 feet at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. The test pits were supervised and logged by an engineering geologist of this office. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were collected for laboratory testing. Logs of trench are presented in Appendix A. 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 i Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 3 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 3.2 Laboratory Testing Representative samples were tested for the following parameters: in -situ moisture content and density, direct shear strength, Expansion Index, and corrosion potential. Results of our laboratory testing along with a summary of the testing procedures are presented in Appendix B. In -situ moisture and density test results are presented on the trench logs in Appendix A. 4.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 4.1 Site Geology The project site is underlain by bedrock of Puente Formation. The bedrock is overlain by a thin 1 layer of slopewash materials. A description of the subsurface materials from top down is provided as follows: 4.2.1 Slopewash (Mar) Symbol —Qsw) The subject slope area was observed to be! mantled with a layer of slopewash. Slopewash i generally less thanl foot, but can be locally deeper. These soils were brown sandy silt to silty i sand, moist to very moist, loose, and rooted, with some roots and rock fragments. These materials are not suitable for structural support and should be removed entirely within the planned foundations. 4.2.2 Bedrock (Map Symbol — Tmss) Underlying the slopewash is the sandstone/siltstone of Puente Formation. The test pit encountered olive brown to yellow brown sandstone with occasional diatomaceous shale layer. The bedrock is generally dense, and slightly moist to moist. 4.3 Geological Structure Based on our subsurface exploration and review of the "Regional Geologic Map" by T.W. Dibblee and the referenced reports, the bedrock underlain the site is generally dip northwesterly at moderate angle. No evidence of any bedrock instability, such as landslide was observed during our field investigation. The measured bedrock attitudes are similar to the previous findings. It is recommended that any proposed northwesterly and northeasterly facing retaining n wall be designed for the potential geological impact loads as discussed hereon. 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821;iTel: 714-671-1050: Fax: 714-671--1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 4 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 4.4 Groundwater No ground water was encountered during our field investigation to a maximum depth of approximately 7 feet. Groundwater is not expected to be a significant constraint during future construction. 4.5 Bedding Plane Slide ' The referenced report by James E. Slosson & Associates indicated that the bedding plane slide is assumed based on the presence of minerals within rock that easily deform and/or slide in relation to one another and was reported to be at the depth of 40 feet below the surface. It is our understanding this landslide is stable underthe current conditions. Based on our review of the referenced reports and our surface mapping, it is our opinion that the bedding plane slide as indicated in the referenced S&A report will not impose any impact of the planned development. 1 5.0 SEISMICITY 5.1 Faulting By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined by the State Geologist as any fault that has been active during Quaternary time the last 1,600,000 years). Based on our study, there are no known active faults crossing the property. The known active regional fault is the Elysian Park Fault zone located about 1.2 miles from the site. 1 6.2 Seismicity 1 The subject site is located in southern California, which is a tectonically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site depend on the distance to causative faults, the intensity, and the magnitude of the seismic event. Table 1 indicates the distance of the fault zones and the associated maximum credible earthquake that can be produced by nearby seismic events. As indicated in Table 1, the Elysian' Park Fault zone is considered to have the most significant effect to the site from a design standpoint. O576 E. Lambert Road, -Brea, California 92821;' Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 I Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 5 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 TABLE 1 Characteristics and Estimated Earthquakes for Regional Faults Fault Name Approximate Distance to Site (mile) Maximum Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) Elysian Park 1.2 6.7 Chino- Central Avenue 2.0 6.7 Whittier-N. Elsinore 3.4 6.8 San Jose 5.1 6.4 Sierra Madre -San Fernando 11 6.7 Cucamonga 12 6.9 Compton Thrust 15 6.9 Raymond 16 6.5 Clamshell-Saw it 17 6.5 Verdu o 21 6.9 Newport Inglewood 21 7.1 Hollywood 25 6.4 San Gabriel 21 7.0 5.3 Estimated Earthquake Ground Motions In order to estimate the seismic ground motions at the subject site, EGL has utilized the seismic hazard map published by California Divisions of Mines and Geology (CDMG Open File Report e96-08) / U.S. Geological Survey (USGS Open File Report 97-706). According to this report, the peak ground acceleration for at the subject site for a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is at least 0.47g. This report also indicates that the subject site is location within a seismic zone i where the earthquake magnitude range is 6.5-7.0. 6.0 SLOPE STABILITY 6.1 Existing Slopes Existing slopes are at an average slope ratio of 3:1 or flatter. Existing slopes are considered grossly stable and should possess adequate factors of safety against instabilities provided they are properly maintained. i 6.2 Proposed Development The proposed development requires the excavation of the near surface soils/bedrock to a depth up to 20 feet below the existing grade at the rear portion of the planned residence. Based on our slope stability analysis, it is concluded that the proposed slope is considered satisfactory and should possess adequate factors of safety, against instabilities provided they are properly maintained. 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 6 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 Based on our analyses, it is recommended that a row of stabilization caissons be constructed along the lowest retaining wall at the rear portion of the planned development. The approximate location of the stabilization caissons is presented in the attached geologic map, Figure 1. These caissons should be designed to resist a lateral load as presented in Appendix C 6.3 Surficial Slope Stability and Landscapi ng All slopes will be subject to surficial erosion. Therefore, slopes should be protected from surface runoff by means of top -of -slope compacted earth berms or concrete interceptor drains. All slopes should be landscaped with a suitable plant material requiring minimal cultivation and irrigation water in order to thrive. An irrigation system should be installed. Overwatering and subsequent saturation of slope surfaces should be avoided. i 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our subsurface investigation and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the 1 recommendations contained herein are incorporated in the design and construction. The following is a summary of the geotechnical design and construction factors that may affect the development of the site: 7.1 Seismicity 1 Based on our studies on seismicity, there are no known active faults crossing the property. However, the site is located in a seismically active region and is subject to seismically induced ground shaking from nearby and distant, faults, which is characteristics of all Southern California. 7.2 Excavatability Based on our subsurface investigation, excavation of the subsurface materials should be able to be accomplished with conventional earthwork equipment. 7.3 Surficial Soil Removal and Recompaction Based on our field investigation and laboratory testing results, the site is underlain by a layer of slopewash which are relatively soft and varied in density. These soils should be removed to expose competent bedrock. 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 7 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001EG December 8, 2009 7.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration. In our opinion, groundwater will not be a problem during construction. 7.5 Seismic Induced Hazard Based on our review of the "Seismic Hazard Zones, Yorba Linda Quadrangle" by California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, it is concluded that the site is not located in the mapped potential seismic induced landslide or liquefaction areas. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the subsurface conditions exposed during field investigation and laboratory testing program, it is recommended that the following recommendations be incorporated in the design and construction phases of the project. 8.1 Grading 8.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to initiating grading operations, any existing vegetation, debris, over -sized materials greater than 6 inches), and other deleterious materials within fill areas should be removed from the site. 8.1.2 Surficial Soil Removals In proposed residence area and areas to receive fill, unsuitable surficial materials, including slopewash and soft/disturbed bedrock should', be removed to expose competent bedrock or at an anticipated minimum depth of 5 feet below the final pad grade. The depth of removals may vary with locations. However, based on our subsurface investigation we anticipated 1 to 2 feet of removal over the construction area is required. The actual removal depths should be determined in the field as conditions are exposed. Visual inspection and/or testing may be used to define removal requirements. 8.1.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms Soils exposed within areas approved for fill placement should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted in -place to project standards. 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 8 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001EG December 8, 2009 8.1.4 Structural Backfill The onsite soils may be used as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials and debris. Fills should be placed in relatively thin lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to obtain at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM D-1557-07. 8.1.5 Benching Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent materials as the fill is placed. Keys and benches' should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant. I A 8.1.6 Temporary Excavation Based on materials encountered in the test trenches, it is CLE's opinion that sloped temporary excavations may be made no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) for the underlying materials. No heavy construction vehicle loading nor surcharge loading should be permitted at the top of the slope. A representative of this loffice should inspected the temporary excavation to make any necessary modification. 8.2 Foundation Design 8.2.1 Bearing Value An allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for design of wall footings 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep. This bearing value may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth or width to a maximum value of 3000 psf. This value may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. 8.2.2 Settlement Settlement of the footings placed as recommended and subject to no more than allowable loads is not expected to exceed 3/4 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent columns is not anticipated to exceed 1/4 inch. 8.2.3 Lateral Pressures The active earth pressure to be utilized for northwesterly and northeasterly facing cantilever and restrained retaining wall designs may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 75 pounds per cubic foot i 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 9 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 The active earth pressure to be utilized for remaining cantilever retaining wall designs may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 40 pounds per cubic foot. The earth pressure to be utilized for remaining restrained retaining wall designs may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 70 pounds per cubic foot. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot, with a maximum earth pressure' of 3,500 pounds per square foot. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0,36 may be used with the dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. It is recommended that a minimum horizontal distance of seven feet be maintained between the face of the slopes to all structural footings. No passive pressure is allowed for the portion of the footings which maintain less than 7 horizontal feet between the face of the slopes and the edge of the footings. Any anticipated, super -imposed loads within a 45 degree plane (1 to 1 projection upward from the bottom of the footing) except for the retained soils, should be considered as surcharge and provided for in the design. 8.3 Foundation Construction All footings for structures and walls should be founded in approved compacted fill and founded i at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. All continuous footings should have a minimum of two No. 4 reinforcing bars placed at the top and bottom of the footing. A grade beam reinforced as recommended above for footings and at least 12 inches square should be utilized across the garage entrance; The base of the reinforced beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. a8.4 Concrete Slabs All concrete slabs should be at least four inches in thickness. Concrete slabs in moisture sensitive areas should be underlain with four inches of washed sand or crushed rock. In addition, a vapor barrier consists of a minimum of ten mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed should also be provided. A minimum of one inch of sand should be placed over the membrane to aid in uniform curing of concrete. 576 E. Lambert Road, -Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 10 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 Concrete slabs should be reinforced with a minimum No. 4 bars at 18-inches in center both way or its equivalent. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper positioning during placement of concrete. Garage slab should be pours separately from the residence footings. A positive separation should be maintained, with expansion joint materials to permit relative movement. Additionally, the residential concrete slab may also be designed in accordance with CBC Section 1815 or 1816. The above foundation and concrete slab reinforcement recommendations are provided in accordance with the geotechnical engineering viewpoint. Additional reinforcement may be needed in the area with concentrated loads due to heavy loading or traffic. i 8.5 Retaining Wall Backfill Walls may be backfilled with onsite soils. A free -drainage, selected backfill (SE of 30 or greater), should be used against the retaining wall and projected from the base of the wall at 3/4:1 horizontal to vertical) to the top of the wall., The upper 18 inches of backfill should consist of native soils. All backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557-07). i Adequate drainage system should be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of any hydrostatic pressure. This drainage system may consist of a four -inch diameter perforated ABS SDR-35 or PVC Schedule 40, and similar non -perforated outlet pipe. The perforated portion of the pipe should be embedded in at least one cubic foot per foot linear of 3/4 inch crush rock or equivalent material and wrapped in filter fabric. In lieu of above mentioned subdrain system, retaining wall may be constructed with weep holes near the bottom of the wall on approximate five feet centers. 8.6 Stabilization Caissons It is recommended that a row of stabilization caissons be constructed along the lowest retaining wall at the rear portion of the planned development. These caissons should be at least 30 inches in diameter and spacing at 3 times he caisson diameter as suggested by NAVFAC DM- 7.02 (Figure 33, page 7.2-114). The caissons should be at a minimum of 11 feet below the i lowest adjacent grade. The reinforcement of the caissons and bending moment should be designed by the project structural engineer in accordance with the above recommended spacing and length (see Appendix D). 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 11 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 9.0 CORROSION POTENTIAL Chemical laboratory tests were conducted on the existing onsite near surface materials sampled during CLE's field investigation to aid in evaluation of soil corrosion potential and the attack on concrete by sulfate soils. The testing results are presented in Appendix B. i According to CBC and ACI 318, Table 4.3.1 a "negligible" exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with the onsite soils. Therefore, Type II cement or its equivalent may be used for this project. Based on the resistivity test results, it is estimated that the subsurface soils are corrosive to buried metal pipe. It is recommended that any underground steel utilities be blasted and given protective coating. Should additional protective measures be warranted, a corrosion specialist should be consulted. 9.0 SEISMIC DESIGN Based on our studies on seismicity, there are no known active faults crossing the property. However, the subject site is located in southern California, which is a tectonically active area. Based on 2007 California Building Code (Chapter 16) the following seismic related values may be used: Seismic Parameters (Latitude: 33.975195 Longitude:-117.834180 Mapped 0.2 Sec Period Spectral Acceleration Ss 1.863g Mapped 1.0 Sec Period Spectral Acceleration S1 0.691g Site Coefficient for Site Class "D", Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient for Site Class "D", Fv 1.5 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, SMs I 1.863g Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1.0 Second, SMI 1.036g Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters for 0.2 sec, SDS 1.242g Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters for 1.0 Sec, SDI 0.691g The Project Structural Engineer should be aware of the information provided above to determine if any additional structural strengthening is warranted. 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 12 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 10.0 INSPECTION As a necessary requisite to the use of this report, the following inspection is recommended: Temporary excavations. Removal of surficial and unsuitable soils. Backfill placement and compaction. Utility trench backfill. The geotechnical engineer should be notified at least 2 day in advance of the start of construction. A joint meeting between the client, the contractor, and the geotechnical engineer is recommended prior to the start of construction to discuss specific procedures and scheduling. 11.0 COUNTY 111 STATEMENT Based on CLE's field investigation and the laboratory testing results, it is CLE's opinion that the grading and proposed structures will be safe against hazard from landslide, settlement, or slippage and the proposed construction will have no adverse affect on the geologic stability of 1 the adjacent properties provided our recommendations are followed. 12.0 REMARKS i The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on the findings and 8 observations at the exploratory locations. However, soil materials may vary in characteristics between locations of the exploratory locations. If conditions are encountered during construction which appear to be different from those disclosed by the exploratory work, this office shall be notified so as to recommend the need for modifications. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No warranty is expressed or implied. This report is subject to review by controlling public agencies having jurisdiction. 13.0 REFERENCES 1. "Report of Geotechnical and Geological Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 2718 Steeplechase Lane, Lot 54, Tract 30289, Diamond Bar, California", by EGL, Project No.: 00-208-001EG, dated April 21, 2000 2. "Preliminary Soils and Geologic Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, Lot 55, Tract 30289, 2730 Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, California", By Triad Foundation Engineering Inc., Job No.: 86-403, dated September 26, 1986 1 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 1 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao Page 13 of 13 CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG December 8, 2009 3. "Geologic Report, Lots 8, 12-14, 18, 27, 28, 42-44,46, 47, 49, 54, 59, and 62, Tract 30289, Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California", by F. Beach Leighton Associates, Project No.: 1683, date February 3, 1972 4. "Geologic Report, Lot 53, Tract 30289, Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California", by Robert Stone & Associates, Job No.: 69-204, dated June 11, 1969 5. "Geologic Report for Lot 54, Tract 30289, a portion of Equestrian Estates, Diamond Bar, California", by James E. Slosson and Associates, dated May 27, 1966 i I i 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION I Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating four backhoe test pits to a maximum depth I of 7 feet at approximate locations shown on the enclosed Site Plan, Figure 2. The excavation of the pits was supervised by a certified engineering geologist, who continuously logged the boring and visually classified' the soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Ring samples were taken at frequent intervals. These samples were obtained by driving a ring sampler with successive blows of 140-pound hammer dropping from a i height of 30 inches. Representative undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were retained in a series of brass rings, each having an inside diameter of 2.4iinches and a height of 1.00 inch. All ring samples were transported to our laboratory. Bulk surface soil samples were also collected for additional classification and testing. Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants TEST Pit LOG T-1 PROJECT LOCATION: 2718 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, California PROJECT NO: 09-215-001 I i Sample 0 m E S: Standard Penetration Test n 3 2 R: Ring Sample x i U N m c o 'o — R ML 14.1 25 R 30 108.7 9.6 32 5 — 10 15- DATE DRILLIED: 11-11-09 SAMPLE METHOD: Backhoe Sampler ELEVATION: WA LOGGED BY: FA Description of Material Slopewash: 0 - 0.5' Sandy silt to silty fine sand, light brown, moist, loose Bedrock: (Tmss) Siltstone/sandstone, olive brown to yellow brown, medium grained, slightly moist to moist, dense, occasional diatomaceous shale layers B) N 30 E, 15 NW I I i l Total depth 6.0 ft. Hammer Driving Weight: 140 lbs No groundwater Hammer Driving Height: 30 inches Trench Back0lled PLATE A-1 I Cal Land Engineering, Inc. I dba Quartech Consultants TEST Pit LOG T-2 PROJECT LOCATION: 2718 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, California PROJECT NO: 09-215-001 Sample 0a m E s 3 m 7 m c m U O W 10 15- c m c U y IR 6 0 o o 20 R 23 107.9 11.3 29 I i S: Standard Penetration Test R: Ring Sample DATE DRILLIED: 11-11-09 SAMPLE METHOD: Backhoe Sampler ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: FA Description of Material Slopewash:' 0 - 0.5' Sandy sill to silty fine sand, light brown, moist, loose Bedrock: (Tniss) Siltstone/sandstone, olive brawn to yellow brown, medium grained, slightly moist to moist, dense, occasional diatomaceous shale layers B) N 22 E, 22 NW i Total depth 6.0 ft. Hammer Driving Weight: 140 Ibs No groundwater Hammer Driving Height: 30 inches Trench Backfilled PLATE A-2 Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants TEST Pit LOG T-3 PROJECT LOCATION: 2718 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, California PROJECT NO: 09-215-001 I t Sample a S: Standard Penetration Test T Z W R: Ring Sample D` y^ Y 5 full DATE DRILLIED: 11-11-09 SAMPLE METHOD: Backhoe Sampler ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED BY: FA Description of Material Slopewash: 0 - 1.5' Sandy silt to silly fine sand, light brown, moist, loose Bedrock: (Tmss) Sandstone/siltstone, tan to light brown, medium grained, slightly moist to moist, dense B) N 55 E, 20 NW Total depth 6.0 ft. Hammer Driving Weight: 140lbs No groundwater Hammer Driving Height: 30 inches Trench Backfilled 0 PLATE A-1 Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants TEST Pit LOG T-4 PROJECT LOCATION: 2718 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, California PROJECT NO: 09-215-001 Sample E. S: Standard Penetration Test 3 ro to • R: Ring Sample DATE DRILLIED: 11-11.09 SAMPLE METHOD: Backhoe Sampler ELEVATION: N/A LOGGED By: FA Y ignn N ^ v 3 U a A' Description of Material Slopewash: 0-2' Sandy'sift to silty fine sand, light brown, moist, loose i— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Bedrock: (Tmss) Sandstone/siltstone, tan to light brown, medium grained, slightly moist to moist, dense 5 (B) N 60 E, 50 W 10 - Total depth 4.5 ft. Hammer Driving Weight: 140 be No grouhdwater Hammer Driving Height: 30 inches Trench Backftlled 15 I PLATE A4 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING During the subsurface exploration, CLE personnel collected relatively undisturbed ring samples and bulk samples. The following tests were performed on selected soil samples: Moisture -Density The moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each relatively undisturbed soil sample obtained in the test borings in accordance with ASTM D2937 standard. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. Shear Tests Shear tests were performed in a direct she machine of strain -control type in accordance with ASTM D3080 standard. The rate of deformation was 0.005 inch per minute. Selected samples were sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters: internal friction angle and cohesion. The shear test results are presented in the attached plates. Corrosion Potential Chemical laboratory tests were conducted on the existing onsite near surface materials sampled during QCI's field investigation to aid in evaluation of soil corrosion potential and the attack on concrete by sulfate soils. These tests are performed in accordance with California Test Method 417, 422, 532, and 643. The testing results are presented below: Chloride Sulfate Min. Resistivity Sample Location pH m by weight) ohm -cm T-1 @ 0-3' 7.42 42' 0.0070 2,200 Expansion Index Expansion Index test was conducted on the existing onsite near surface materials sampled during QCI's field investigation. The test is 'performed in accordance with ASTM D-4829. The testing results are presented below: Sample Expansion Expansion Location Index j Potential T-1 @ 0-3' 39 Low t E LLU) 0- u) wo' aw 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL COHESION FRICTION SYMBOL NUMBER NUMBER FT) TYPE TYPE PSF) ANGLE (DEG 460 34 T-1 N/A 5.0 RING Bedrock O 380 32 Vertical Loads PSF) Moisture Content Before Test(%) Moisture Content After test (%) 500 9.6 20.2 1000 9.6 19.9 2000 9.6 19.5 Calland Engineering, Inc. I Project Address: dba Quartech Consultants APN: 8713-018-026 Geotechnical, Environmental & Civil 2718 Steeplechase Lane Engineering Services Diamond Bar, California DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D3080) 11109 FIGURE APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Gross slope stability analyses have been performed for the existing slopes. Selection of coulomb strength parameters used for the analyses were based on our laboratory test data from this investigation and evaluated in light of past experience. A summary of these strength parameters are presented in the following table: Unit:Weigfitn h- s,:r;.',_.y; FnCtiori, bfit;' n le';, r4t..p4 r,,w::v he"sioii`. i .1a, d-%". tj-•'^'yws,gv. v^':';, (. f ; i'e_ StafiGSeismic' :.,- 4'1f'_•'0. 1` Statio%Seismic, a , ,i y.- .r.. ba.', i p,'/? ; w...u- — La wf • c^'..>;' ; 7'• .: ., ,,.t i' .i r ,:•. _ .:x{',..,...t De`iee :'tarx' vAi.:M :+, , t .aF;v'.:.4. Bedrock(Along Bedding) 115~ 12/16 200/250 Bedrock Cross Bedding) 115 26/37 300/400 Fill 115 26/30 250J350 i A summary of the stability analyses and corresponding preliminary geotechnical recommendations are summarized in the following table, and sections and calculations are presented on the following plates. Factor of Safety Conclusions and Preliminary Calculated Conditions Static/seismic eotechnical Recommendation Gross Slope Stability for the Existing Condition 1.20/---- Stable as Existed Gross Slope Stability for the Planned Development Lower Portion 1.5811.15 Stable as Planned Gross Slope Stability for the Planned Stable as Planned. A row of Development(Retaining Walls 1.5811.45 caisson be installed at walls Surficial Slope Stability for fill/siltstone up to 4 feet in thickness 1.54/— Stable as Planned u 1 1 GSTABL7 *** araa++ra+++rat++art+++rrta+af as++a++w++rtw+a++++++tra++ff•++w r++++aa+arar+tf+ta++ SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. Includes Spencer 6 Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo -Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. aaa++a+ta+rat++awr+a+wt+++ata++waa+arfttaarrwr++rwr+a+++r+araa+arra++rrra+r+w+aw Analysis Run Date: 12/08/2009 Time of Run: 10:15AM Run By: Username Input Data Filename: C:09215s0l. Output Filename: C:09215sDl.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:09215S0I.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Ex. Condition BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 10 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 35.00 47.00 35.00 1 2 47.00 35.00 74.OD 53.00 2 3 74.00 53.00 90.00 54.00 3 4 90.00 54.00 169.00 71.00 3 5 169.00 71.00 305.00 110.00 3 6 305.00 110.00 367.00 121.00 3 7 367.00 121.00 410.00 129.00 3 8 47.00 35.00 47.10 32.00 1 9 47.10 32.00 70.00 32.00 1 10 70.00 32.00 90.00 54.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No_ (pcf) pcf) psf) deg) Param. psf) No. 1 115.0 115.0 300.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 115.0 115.0 250.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 115.0 115.0 200.0 12.0 0.00 0.0 1 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 5 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 47.00 35.00 2 137.00 38.00 3 204.00 43.00 4 254.00 59.00 5 317.00 112.13 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.200 Table 1 - Individual Data on the 9 Slices*** Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 26.5 25634.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t 2 0.5 913.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 16.0 31893.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 47.0 118046.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 32.0 104375.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 6 35.0 138155.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 50.0 213933.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 51.0 130102.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 010 9 12.0 5513.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 9 Slices*** Slice Alpha x-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Shear Strength Shear Stress ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) 1 1.91 60.27 26.55 711.99 32.19 2 1.91 73.77 0.47 611.10 64.94 e 3 1.91 82.00 16.01 620.38 66.41 4 1.91 113.50 47.03 729.96 83.67 5 4.27 153.00 32.09 884.10 242.74 6 4.27 186.50 35.10 1028.32 293.76 7 17.74 229.00 52.50 1102.38 1304.04 a 40.14 279.50 66.71 844.72 1644.59 9 40.14 311.00 15.70 338.76 296.21 Sum of the Resisting Forces (including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 247482.33 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 847.12(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 206808.75 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 707.90(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 292.15(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** 1 1 1 r GSTABL7 •*• xattt+++++t+ta+*rarrrrrrra+rrft++++aatrrrrarrreffrr+++r+ffrr++rr+tataar+aa+rarr a SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, 8 Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo -Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. Brfar+++ r+xrr+aa+++aaaattraaxf++ttxxaaatfataa+af aaa++t+aaaat+xr+r+rrrrrrax++a+atr Analysis Run Date: 12/08/2009 Time of Run: 10:13AM Run By: UsernameeInputDataFilename: C:09215S02. Output Filename: C:09215s02.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:09215s02.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Lower Portion, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES , 19 Top Boundaries 22 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 35.00 47.00 35.00 1 2 47.00 35.00 74.00 53.00 2 3 74.00 53.00 90.00 54.00 3 4 90.00 54.00 109.00 58.00 3 5 109.00 58.00 109.10 61.00 3 6 109.10 61.00 134.00 61.00 3 7 134.00 61.00 134.10 63.00 3 8 134.10 63.00 163.00 75.00 3 9 163.00 75.00 163.10 78.00 3 10 163.10 78.00 186.00 78.00 3 11 186.00 78.00 204.00 88.00 3 12 204.00 88.00 317.00 90.00 3 13 317.00 90.00 311.10 95.00 3 14 317.10 95.00 322.00 98.00 3 15 322.00 98.00 322.10 105.00 3 16 322.10 105.00 328.00 108.00 3 17 328.00 108.00 328.10 113.00 3 18 328.10 113.00 367.00 121.00 3 19 367.00 121.00 410.00 129.00 3 20 47.00 35.00 47.10 32.00 1 21 47.10 32.00 70.00 32.00 1 22 70.00 32.00 90.00 54.00 3 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piet. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt- Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 115.0 115.0 300.0 26.0 2 115.0 115.0 250.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 3 115.0 115.0 200.0 12.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 5 Coordinate Point X-Surf Y-Surf Points No. (ft) (ft) 1 47.00 35.00 2 137.00 38.00 3 204.00 43.00 4 254.00 59.00 5 317.00 90.00 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface 1.582 Table 1 - Individual Data on the 14 Slices*** Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Her Ver Load No. ft) lbs) (lbs) lbs) lbs) (lbs) lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 26.5 25634.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.5 913.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 3 16.0 31893.3 0.0 0.0 0..0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 19.0 42061.3 0.0 0.0 0..0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.1 258.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 24.9 67335.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.1 277.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 2.9 8554.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 26.0 91589.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.1 420.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 22.9 97960.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 18.0 84190.3 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 13 50.0 215294.2 0.0 0.0 0.,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 63.0 108258.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 14 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Shear Strength Shear Stress ft) ft) psf) psf) 1 1.91 60.27 26.55 714.30 32.19 2 1.91 73.77 0.47 611.97 64.94 3 1.91 2.00 16.01 621.26 66.41 4 1.91 99.50 19.01 667.93 73.75 5 1.91 109.05 0.10 1 745.40 85.94 6 1.91 121.55 24.91 1 771.78 90.09 7 1.91 134.05 0.10 785.98 92.33 8 1.91 135.55 2.90 823.77 98.27 9 4.27 150.00 26.07 941.96 262.16 10 4.27 163.05 0.10 1085.73 312.86 11 4.27 174.55 22.96 1101.31 318.35 12 4,27 195.00 18.05 1185.61 348.08 13 17.74 229.00 52.50 1122.69 3312.33 14 26.20 285.50 70.21 590.92 758.68 Sum of the Resisting Forces including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 235440.38 lbs) Average Available Shear Strength including Tieback, pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 841.02(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 148521.38 lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress 530.53'(psf) Total length of the failure surface 279.95(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** GSTABL7 ••• rrttt+f+ara+++++t++r++rtrrtt+r+r+ff+taair+f+ff+++++rartr+r++++++ttt rr++++a rrt+++ SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. Includes spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, water Surfaces, Pseudo -Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. raxt+r+aaaxx rtta.+f+rt«rrrr+rr+t«ttr+r+r:rra++r.+a+«ata++ar+«rttrraaaar+ttxr+ Analysis Run Date: 12/08/2009 Time of Run: 10:00AM Run By: Username Input Data Filename: C:09215s02. Output Filename: C:09215s02.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:09215S02.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Lower Portion BOUNDARY COORDINATES 19 Top Boundaries 22 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. ft) 1 0.00 2 47.00 3 74.00 4 90.00 5 109.00 6 109.10 7 134.00 8 134.10 9 163.00 10 163.10 11 186.00 12 204.00 13 317.00 14 317.10 15 322.00 16 322.10 17 328.00 1B 328.10 19 367.00 20 47.00 21 47.10 22 70.00 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type ft) ft) ft) Below Bad 35.00 47.00 35.00 1 35.00 74.00 53.00 2 53.00 90.00 54.00 3 54.00 109.00 58.00 3 58.00 109.10 61.00 3 61.00 134.00 61.00 3 61.00 134.10 63.00 3 63.00 163.00 75.00 3 75.00 163.10 78.00 3 78.00 186.00 78.00 3 78.00 204.00 88.00 3 88.00 317.00 90.00 3 90.00 317.10 95.00 3 95.00 322.00 98.00 3 98.00 322.10 105.00 3 105.00 328.00 108.00 3, 108.00 32B.10 113.00 3 113.00 367.00 121.00 3 121.00 420.00 129.00 3 35.00 47.10 32.00 1 32.00 70.'00 32.00 1 32.00 90.,00 54.00 3 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 115.0 115.0 400.0 37.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 115.0 115.0 350.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 115.0 115.0 250.0 16.0 0.00 0.0 1 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned 1 A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0(psf) 1 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 5 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf 4-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 47.00 35.00 2 137.00 38.00 3 204.00 43.00 4 254.00 59.00 5 317.00 90.00 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method * * Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.153 Table 1 - individual Data on the 14 Slices*** water Water Tie iTie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bat Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. ft) lbs) (Its) lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 26.5 25634.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3845.1 0.0 0.0 2 0.5 913.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 137.1 0.0 0.0 3 16.0 31893.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4784.0 0.0 0.0 4 19.0 42061.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6309.2 0.0 0.0 5 0.1 258.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.7 0.0 0.0 6 24.9 67335.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10100.3 0.0 0.0 7 0.1 277.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.6 0.0 0.0 8 2.9 8554.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1283.2 0.0 0.0 9 26.0 91589.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13738.4 0.0 0.0 10 0.1 420.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.1 0.0 0.0 11 22.9 97960.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14694.0 0.0 0.0 12 18.0 84190.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12628.5 0.0 0.0 13 50.0 215294.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32294.1 0.0 0.0 14 63.0 108258.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16238.7 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data On the 14 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Shear Strength Shear stress ft) ft) psf) psf) 1 1.91 60.27 26.55 893.42 177.03 2 1.91 73.77 0.47 802.78 357.20 3 1.91 82.00 16.01 815.28 365.24 4 1.91 99.50 19.01 878.00 405.63 5 1.91 109.05 0.10 982.11 472.67 6 1.91 121.55 24.91 1017.56 495.50 7 1.91 134.05 0.10 1036.65 507.79 8 1.91 135.55 2.90 1087.43 540.50 9 4.27 150.00 26.07 1240,59 789.09 10 4.27 163.05 0.10 1432.91 941.70 11 4.27 174.55 22.96 1453.75 958.23 12 4.27 195.00 18.05 1566.53 1047.72 13 17.74 229.00 52.50 1443.94 1927.48 14 26.20 285.50 70.21 737.53 989.95 Sum of the Resisting Forces including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) 304320.72 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 1087.06(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 264717.38 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 945.60(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 279.95(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** ar GSTABL7 *++ trrx+x+f+rtrxar+«r+rrr*x«+rff++r«aaarfa+r++aa+rff rr+xxarfffrfrrr araxxaaa++rrxxr++ SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static;Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. wwrarrar+wr+a+++rrrwwax+Tarrwwra+r+warraa++++rrrrw warra+++raa++rfrr+ffrx«+fffff+r Analysis Run Date: 12/O8/2009 Time of Run: 10:27AM Run By: Username Input Data Filename: C:09215503. Output Filename: C:09215S03.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:09215S03.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Portion, Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 20 Top Boundaries 23 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) ft) Below End 1 0.00 35.00 47.00 35.00 1 2 47.00 35.00 74.00 53.00 2 t 3 74.00 53.00 90.00 54.00 3 4 90.00 54.00 109.00 58.00 3 5 109.00 58.00 109.10 61.00 3 6 109.10 61.00 134.00 91.00 3 7 134.00 61.00 134.10 63.00 3 8 134.10 63.00 163.00 75.00 3 9 163.00 75.00 163.10 78.00 3 10 163.10 78.00 186.00 78.00 3 11 186.00 78.00 204.00 88.00 3 12 204.00 88.00 317.00 90.00 3 13 317.00 90.00 317.10 95.00 3 14 317.10 95.00 329.10 96.00 4 15 319.10 96.00 322.00 98.00 3 16 322.00 90.00 322.10 105.00 3 17 322.10 105.00 328.00 108.00 3 18 328.00 108.00 328.10 113.00 3 1 19 328.10 113.00 367.00 121.00 3 20 367.00 121.00 410.00 129.00 3 21 317.00 90.00 317.10 85.00 3 22 317.10 85.00 319.00 85.00 3 1 23 319.00 85.00 319.10 96.00 3 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 115.0 115.0 300.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 115.0 115.0 250.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 115.0 115.0 200.0 12.0 0.00 0.0 1 4 150.0 150.0 8000.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 Trial Failure Surface specified By 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 317.00 90.00 2 367.00 121.00 Factor Of Safety is Calculated By The Simplified 7anbu Method + + 1 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.582 Table 1 - Individual Data on the 0 Slices*** Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice width Weight Top Bet Norm Tan Her Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.1 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.0 1415.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2.9 1600.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.1 96.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 5.9 7808.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.1 157.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 38.9 36052.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 8 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. ;Shear Strength Shear Stress ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) 1 31.80 317.05 0.12 282.76 149.57 2 31.80 318.08 2.30 9412.84 381.02 3 31,80 311,08 0.05 361,04 328.23 4 31.80 320.55 3.41 344.64 290.81 5 31.80 322.05 0.12 439.40 507.08 6 31.80 325.05 6.94 522.79 697.42 7 31.80 328.05 0.12 579.59 827.06 8 31.80 347.55 45.77 431.20 488.36 Sum of the Resisting Forces (including'Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 46383.34 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) 788.43(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 29254.53 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 497.27(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 58.83(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** GSTABL7 +*+ xt+r+aataxrrrwttwrtrr+a+rtrrrr+•t+wfw+rraeawrt+rrtfffwar++ata++++rrre++rr++rara++++r SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. Includes spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo -Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. ar+aattaat+a+ttxtar+xwwtt+a+++awt++++aaa+++++wtttta++aaaatt++artaaaaraataawrta+rtaa Analysis Run Date: 12/08/2009 Time of Run: 10:30AM Run By: Username Input Data Filename: C:09215503. Output Filename: C:09215S03.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:09215S03.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Upper Seismic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 20 Top Boundaries 23 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) ft) Below Bad 1 0.00 35.00 47.00 35.00 1 2 47.00 35.00 74.00 53.00 2 3 74.00 53.00 90.00 54.00 3 4 90.00 54.00 109.00 58.00 3 5 109.00 58.00 109.10 61.00 3 6 109.10 61.00 134.00 61.00 3 7 134.00 61.00 134.10 63.00 3 8 134.10 63.00 163.00 75.00 3 9 163.00 75.00 163.10 78.00 3 10 163.10 78.00 186.00 78.00 3 11 186.00 78.00 204.00 88.00 3 12 204.00 88.00 317.00 90.00 3 13 317.00 90.00 317.10 95.00 3 14 317.10 95.00 319.10 96.00 4 15 319.10 96.00 322.00 98.00 3 16 322.00 98.00 322.10 105.00 3 17 322.10 105.00 328.00 108.00 3 18 328.00 108.00 328.10 113.00 3 19 328.10 113.00 367.00 121.00 3 20 367.00 121.00 410.00 129.00 3 21 317.00 90.00 317.10 85.00 3 22 317.10 85.00 319.00 85.00 3 23 319.00 85.00 .319.10 96.00 3 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 115.0 115.0 400.0 37.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 115.0 115.0 350.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 115.0 115.0 250.0 16.0 0.00 0.0 1 4 150.0 150.0 8000.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0(psf) 1 1 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) f t) 1 317.00 90.00 2 367.00 121.00 Factor Of Safety Is calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.454 Table 1 - Individual Data on the 8 Slices*** Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice width Weight Top Bet Norm Tan Her Ver Load No. ft) lbs) (lbs) lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.1 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 2 2.0 1415.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 212.3 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4 2.9 1600.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240.1 0.0 0.0 5 0.1 96.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 6 5.9 7808.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1171.3 0.0 0.0 7 0.1 157.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 8 38.9 36052.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5407.8 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 8 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. deg) Slice Cntr Lang. shear Strength Shear Stress ft) ft) psf) psf) 1 31.80 317.05 0.12 347.43 185.76 2 31.80 318.08 2.30 9412.84 473.21 3 31,80 319,08 0,05 449,35 407.64 4 31.80 320.55 3.41 428.01 361.17 5 31.80 322.05 0.12 551.39 629.76 6 31.80 325.05 6.94 659.98 866.15 7 31.80 328.05 0.12 733.94 1027.15 8 31.80 347.55 45.77 540.71 606.51 Sum of the Resisting Forces (including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) - 52687.77 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) 895.59(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 36332.24 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 617.58(psf) Total length of the failure surface - 58.83(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** 1 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY INFINITE SLOPE W/PARALLEL SEEPAGE F.S. = C + (y, - yw) x H x cos2a x tangy a: Slope Angle y, x H x cosa x sina : Effective Friction Angle of Soil C : Effective Cohesion of Soil, psf H : Vertical Depth of Saturation, feet yt : Total Unit Weight of Soil, pcf yw: Unit Weight of Water, pcf 1 Soil Properties and Slope Ratio: a : 26.5° (2:1 Slope, Horizontal to Vertical) 26' C : 200 psf H : 4 feet y, : 115 pcf yw: 62.4 pcf F.S. = 200 + (115 — 62.4) x 4 x cos226.5 x tan26 = 282.2 = 1.54 115 x 4 X cos26.5 x sin26.5 183.7 1 Therefore, a 2:1 Slope should have adequate factor of safety against surficial instability under saturated conditions to depth of 4 feet. 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D STABILIZATION CAISSON ANALYSES The total length of the caisson/piers depends on the spacing of the caissons and is presented in the following: Calculations of the Caisson Length: From this report: Total Driving Force T = 49500 Ibs/7.5 feet 59400 Ibs/9.0 feet Depth to Assumed Slip Plane below pad grade: 5 feet or Below top of upper wall : 23' Total Wall Height 18 feet Passive Resistance'Ph = 350 " D or 3500 psf maximum Assumptions: Caissons spacing at S feet with diameter of B feet NAVFAC DM 7.02 (September 1986), page 7.2-112 Total resistance force is computed by the caissons to have an effective width of 3 times the caisson diameter. NAVFAC DM 7.01 (September 1986), pages 7.1-338 to 7.1-345 The surcharged of the soil/bedrock above the assumed slip plane can be used to calculated the passive resistance. However, the resistance force above the assumed slip plane was ignored. The required embedment depth is calculated by the following equations: ByForce: T+350x(5+f)xdxBx3=(1750xf+350xf2/2)xBx3 By take moment at T 1750+ 350 x f) x d x B x 3 x (d/2 + f+ 23/3) 1750 x f x (f/2 + 2313) + 350 x f2/2 x fx2/3 +23/3) x B x 3 by trial and error to resolve the d and f The design embedment length of the caissons is calculated by increasing 30 percent of the calculated length. The following table presents the calculated results. Caisson Spacing 7.5 feet 9 feet Rec. Caisson Diameter 2.5 3.0 Min. Embedment Length : D 4.6' 4.6' Recommended Length: L'= L X 1.3 6.0' 6.0' Recommended Total Length: D+L' 11.0' 11.0' 1 6 9L CZIZ AT/o.vs Fa, Wilt Laid Dwe 7, 13a diV Surc%sate reT%rei7(,-F ; O 'C7Pv/PC i Cl+/ Z'i Wr;• f 4nal/Sis 9,Kl 14C 6to,v - %./,. /// Pd,r JJCompa J Lo /_/ asfr a/ /J na//S s f ocoduros for rUQ // boa of clue 3ecYrak Ir4dI +er7'Fs ; X : ii P_; C = Zoo' Ti,S D Cio?E S ICL- r Sao Fsr S; F -Y r5%,) $Ceo 6 - YC r9 n r CL et-) PeVI) vt/4// leifhi H= /8 ' 36 /CR,t5L = 37. i / IA/ : 36'y /8'- a./s ff= 7 sZ kl/ft P P s%) !90 / S, 9* k7 r 2 h = w- '- _ -56.39 "'?-'A FA G 0 L CFAL cL/G/JT/o/s Fo R ZARTH o.a/ P_ /.6:js //S t 2-iSo s /63$ _ J;/ •,- H - 316 Jar 350'' F July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Mr. Jay Arora 19745 East Colima Road, Suite 12 Rowland Heights, California 91748 Subject: 2706 Indian Creek Dear Mr. Arora: 1. INTRODUCTION a) In accordance ,with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation for the project site located in Diamond Bar, California. b) We understand that the project will consist of the construction of a single-family, residential structure and related driveway at the western end of the 1-acre parcel of land. Thelresidential structure will consist of three levels, including a basement level. Retaining walls are also proposed to be constructed beyond the east side of the house! c) We reviewed the conceptual plan provided by Pete Volbeda Architecture/Planning showing the existing topography and location of the new structure. The plan was used as a base map for our Geologic Map, Plate 1. d) StrucLal plans are not available at present. We have assumed typical wall loads of 2 kips/ft and 50 kips for the columns. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of our investigation was to obtain subsurface data and to provide site -specific recommendations pertaining to: a) grading; b) processing of soils; c) foundation types; I% Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 2 d) foundation depths; e) bearing capacity; f) expansivity; g) sulphate content and cement type; h) shrinkage factor; i) settlement; j) pavement design; k) seismicity. 3. SCOPE The scope of services we provided was as follows: a) Preliminary planning and evaluations, and review of geotechnical reports/maps related to the project site and nearby surrounding area (See References —.Appendix A); b) Excavation of two (2) borings utilizing a 24-inch diameter bucket auger drill rig to a maximum depth of 76 feet; e) Sampling and down -hole logging of subsurface materials encountered in the boring excavations; d) Excavation and detailed logging of one 49-foot long trench and one 29-foot long trench to determine the trend and activity of a fault crossing through the site; e) Laboratory testing of samples representative of those obtained in the field, in order to evaluate relevant engineering properties; f) Engineering and geologic analyses of the field and laboratory data; g) Preparation of a report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 4. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration program is given in Appendix B, which includes the Logs of Borings. The graphic representations of the fault trenches are shown on Logs of Trenches, Figures B- 4 and B-5. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 3 5. LABORATORY TESTING A description of the laboratory testing and the results are presented in Appendix C. 6. BACKGROUND INFORMATION a) We visited the City of Diamond Bar to review files pertaining to the subject site. The subject property is designated as Lot 102 of Tract 23483. No geotechnical reports submitted specifically for the subject lot were found in the available files, however two of the following reports related to the subject tract were available for our review: i) Soil Engineering Report on Compaction Testing, Tract 23483, Lots I through 103, dated December 11, 1970, prepared by Robert Stone and Associates, Inc. ii) Final As -Graded Geologic Report, Rough Grading Completed, Tract 23484, Lots through 103, dated December 11, 1970, prepared by Robert Stone and Associates, Inc. b) Other than a shallow cut shown along the edge of Indian Creek Road, no significant grading was conducted on the subject property during the rough grading of the tract. Several bedding attitudes were, however, recorded along the edge of Indian Creek Road and along the bottom of the canyon on the As -Graded Geologic Map prepared by Robert Stone and Associates, Inc. Our review of the plan indicates that the local geologic structure generally dips to the north, northwest and northeast at angles ranging from 15 to 25 degrees from a horizontal plane. c) No landslides or faults are shown to exist on the project site. No restricted use areas are delineated on the subject property. A 20-foot wide flood hazard zone is delineated along the bottom of the canyon. 7. SITE DESCRIPTION 7.1 Location a) The subject site is located along the easterly side of Indian Creek Road, approximately 200 feet north of the southern terminus of the road. b) The approximate site location is shown on the Location Map, Figure 1. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 4 7.2 Surface Conditions a) The project is site is currently vacant and void of any building structures. A single-family residential property exists along the south side of the project site. The land adjacent to the north is currently vacant. b) A 3- to 6-foot high slope ascends from the eastern edge of Indian Creek Road at a steep gradient to a relatively level area before descending to the east at gradients ranging from 3:1 to 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) for a vertical height of 170+ feet to the bottom of a canyon. The area of the proposed development has recently been disced evidently for tire abatement. The slope descending from the proposed development area is heavily vegetated with trees and brush. c) Drainage at the site consists of sheetflow run-off of incident rainfall derived from within the property boundaries and surrounding up -gradient areas. Regional surface drainage is generally toward the south. 6.3 Geology 6.3.1 Regional Geologic Setting The subject property is located within the Eastern Puente Hills region, which forms part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges consist of a series of mountain ranges separated by longitudinal valleys. The ranges trend northwest -southeast and are subparallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The Peninsular Ranges extend from the southern side of the Santa Monica Mountains into Baja California, Mexico. 6.3.2 Local Geologic Setting Locally, the project site is underlain by Tertiary -aged SILTSTONE and SANDSTONE bedrock belonging to the Soquel Member of the Puente Formation. 6.4 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions, as exposed and observed within our boring and trench excavations, are described in the following sections. Geologic Cross -Sections A -A', B-B' (Plate 2) and C-C' (Plate 3) have been constructed to show the general geologic conditions underlying the site. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 5 6.4.1 Colluvium a) Approximately 6- to 12 inches of Holocene -aged colluvial soils were encountered in Trenches T-1 and T-2. b) The colluvium was generally found to consist of brown, dry, and soft Sandy SILT with abundant root hairs. 6.4.2 Puente Formation Bedrock a) Tertiary -aged bedrock, belonging to the Soquel Member of the Puente Formation, was encountered in all of our excavations. b) The encountered bedrock was found to generally consist of very pale orange to olive gray, slightly weathered to hard SILTSTONE with interbeds of SANDSTONE. Very hard Siliceous SILTSTONE beds were occasionally encountered within our explorations c) The bedrock was typically found to be poorly- to moderately well - bedded. Attitudes measured in the borings and trenches revealed bedding planes generally dipping to the north, northeast and northwest directions at angles ranging from 10 to 59 degrees from a horizontal plane. d) Regional geologic maps show the general bedding structure underlying the site area to dip in the north, northeast and northwest directions at angles ranging from 6 to 25 degrees from a horizontal plane. e) Based on our review of available published geologic maps, no landslides are shown to be mapped within the limits of the project site. No visual evidence of landslides was found to appear within the limits of the subject property during our field reconnaissance of the property or through our review of aerial photographs taken of the site area. FAULTING a) A fault was encountered in two of our excavations, Boring B-1 and Trench T-1. b) The fault, defined as a 1- to 2-inch wide CLAY gouge laden with caliche stringers, was observed to enter into the southwest sidewall of Boring B-1 at a depth of 28.5 feet below ground surface and exit from the northeasterly sidewall of the boring at a depth of 38 feet below ground surface. A SANDSTONE bed observed to appear approximately one inch higher (possible offset) along the northeast side of the fault relative to the southwest side. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 6 c) A bedding shear with polished surfaces and faint striations was noted along the fault zone at a depth of 28 feet below ground surface. The sheared bed was measured to dip in the northwest direction with striations plunging to the west at a 23 degree angle. Where the fault entered into the boring at 28.5 feet below ground surface, the fault surface was measured to strike at a 30 degree west of north trend and dip at a 70 degree angle to the northeast. The fault surface was measured to strike at a 70 degree west of north trend and dip at a 67 degree angle to the northeast where the fault exited the boring at 38 feet below ground surface. d) The fault encountered in Trench T-I was found to consist of a I -inch wide Clayey SILT gouge laden with caliche extending at a nearly vertical plane through the SILTSTONE bedrock. Caliche-lined fractures in a trellis pattern were noted to appear within five feet of the fault. The fault exposed in the trench was measured to strike at a 10 degree west of north trend. e) The top of the fractures and the fault terminated 2 to 3 feet below the existing ground surface. No fracturing or disturbance of the overlying Holocene -aged colluvium was observed in Trench T-1. f) Historical aerial photographs taken of the site area were gathered and reviewed. No surficial features indicative of active faulting (lineaments, rift features, etc.) within the project site boundaries were evident on the available photographs reviewed. g) Based on our observation of the features exposed in our explorations and our review of aerial photographs, it is believed that the fault crossing through the site is not active (surface rupture in the past 11,000 years), however, the fault is considered to be potentially active (surface displacement between 11,000 years and 1.8 million years). 8. GROUND WATER a) No seepage or groundwater was encountered in any of our excavations during the time of our field work. b) In direct proximity of the property, free ground water is not expected to be present, due to the relatively impermeable nature of the underlying bedrock materials. Intermittent water migrating through fracture zones as seepage may, however, occur within the underlying bedrock formations. The amount of seepage is primarily dependent on seasonal precipitation and irrigation use from the higher elevated properties. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 7 9. SEISMICITY 9.1 General a) The property is located in the general proximity of several active and potentially active faults, which are typical for sites in the Southern California region. Earthquakes occurring on active faults within a 70-mile radius are capable of generating ground shaking of engineering significance to the proposed construction. b) In Southern California, most of the seismic damage to manmade structures results from ground shaking and, to a lesser degree, from liquefaction and ground rupture caused by earthquakes along active fault zones. In general, the greater the magnitude of the earthquake, the greater the potential damage. 9.2 Ground Surface Rupture The closest known active fault is the Chino -Central Avenue Segment of the Elsinore Fault, located at a distance of about one mile northeast of the project site. Due to the distance of the closest active fault to the site, ground rupture is not considered a significant hazard at the site. 9.3 Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis a) We performed a deterministic seismic hazard analysis using the computer program EQFAULT. The program computes the peak ground acceleration and the maximum magnitude earthquakes on each of the faults found within a user specified radius. The computation of the peak acceleration is based on the closest distance between the site and each digitized fault and a user specified attenuation relationship. For our analysis, we used a 70-mile radius and the attenuation relationships developed by Boore, et al, (1997). Peak ground acceleration for the property is about 0.47g. b) Figure 2 shows the geographical relationships among the site locations, nearby faults and the epicenters of significant occurrences. The project site is not located within any State of California delineated Earthquake Fault Zone; however, during historic times, a number of major earthquakes have occurred along the active faults in Southern California. From the seismic history of the region and proximity, the Elsinore Fault and the Whittier Fault have the greatest potential for causing earthquake damage related to ground shaking at this site. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 8 9.4 Liquefaction The potential for the liquefaction is considered low due to the presence of shallow bedrock below the existing grade. Groundwater was also not encountered to the depths explored. 10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 General a) It is our opinion that the site will be suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical aspect, assuming that our recommendations are incorporated in the project plan designs and specifications, and are implemented during construction. b) We are of the opinion that the proposed structures may be supported on shallow spread footings founded in compacted fill. c) In our opinion, the proposed development will be safe against hazards from landslides settlement or slippage, provided the recommendations included in this report are implemented during the design and the construction. All grading and earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of this firm to achieve proper subgrrade preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, and placement and compaction of all structural fills. d) We are also of the opinion that with due and reasonable precautions, the required grading will not endanger adjacent property nor will grading be affected adversely by adjoining property. e) The design recommendations in the report should be reviewed during the grading phase when soil conditions in the excavations become exposed. f) The final grading plans and foundation plans/desitm loads should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. 10.2 Grading 10.2.1 Processing of On -Site Soils a) It is recommended that the underlying colluvial soils within the structural areas and extending five feet beyond the building perimeters at the bottom of the overexcavation should be removed entirely. Additionally, the bedrock should be overexcavated such that there is at least 3. feet of compacted fill below the bottom of the footings and the slab -on -grade. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 9 b) In order to reduce the potential for the differential settlement, the bottom of the overexcavation should have a gradient of 3:1 horizontal:vertical) or flatter. c) Wherever structural fills are to be placed, the upper 6 to 8 inches of the subgrade should, after stripping or overexcavation, first be scarified and reworked. d) There should be at least 12 inches of reworked existing soils or compacted fill under pavement areas. e) Any loosening of reworked or native material, consequent to the passage of construction traffic, weathering, etc., should be made good prior to further construction. f) The depths of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or any variation of site materials or conditions encountered during grading should be brought immediately to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer for proper exposure, removal or processing, as directed. No underground obstructions or facilities should remain in any structural areas. Depressions and/or cavities created as a result of the removal of obstructions should be backfilled properly with suitable materials, and compacted. 10.2.2 Material Selection After the site has been stripped of any debris, vegetation and organic soils, excavated on -site soils are considered satisfactory for reuse in the construction of on -site fills, with the following provisions: a) The organic content does not exceed one percent by volume; b) Large size rocks greater than 8 inches in diameter should not be incorporated in compacted fill; c) Rocks greater than 4 inches in diameter should not be incorporated in compacted fill to within 1 foot of the underside of the footings and slabs. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 10 10.2.3 Compaction Requirements a) Reworking/compaction shall include moisture -conditioning or drying as needed to bring the soils to slightly above the optimum moisture content. All structural tills should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. The optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should be determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557. b) Fill should be compacted in lifts not exceeding 8 inches (loose). 10.2.4 Excavating Conditions a) Excavation of on -site materials may be accomplished with standard earthmoving or trenching equipment. No hard rock was encountered which would require blasting. b) Ground water was not encountered. Dewatering is not anticipated. 10.2.5 Shrinkage/Bulking For preliminary earthwork calculations, an average shrinkage factor of 10 percent and a bulking factor of 5 percent is recommended for the fill and colluvial soils, and for the bedrock, respectively. (This does not include handling losses). 10.2.6 Expansion Potential a) Based upon observation and laboratory testing, the expansivity of the existing site soils is considered to be Medium. b) Any imported material, or doubtful material exposed during grading, should be evaluated for its expansive properties. c) The subgrade soils underlying the proposed concrete flatwork should be tested for their expansion potential during the concluding stages of the grading. 10.2.7 Sulphate Content a) The sulphate contents of representative samples of the soil are less than 0.1 %. The sulphate exposure is considered to be negligible. b) The fill soils should be tested for their sulphate content during the final stages of the rough grading. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page I 1 10.2.8 Utility Trenching a) The walls of temporary construction trenches should stand nearly vertical, with only minor sloughing, provided the total depth does not exceed about 4 feet. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes may be required, if greater depths are necessary. b) Trenches should be located so as not to impair the bearing capacity or to cause settlement under foundations. As a guide, trenches should be clear of a 45-degree plane extending outward and downward from the edge of foundations. c) Existing soils may be utilized for trenching backfill, provided they are free of organic materials. d) All work associated with trench shoring must conform to the state and federal safety codes. 10.2.9 Surface Drainage Provisions Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the buildings to direct surface water run-off away from structural foundations and to suitable discharge facilities. 10.2.1 OGrading Control All grading and earthwork should be performed under the observation of a Geotechnical Engineer in order to achieve proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, and placement and compaction of all structural fill. Sufficient notification prior to stripping and earthwork construction is essential to make certain that the work will be adequately observed and tested. 10.3 Slabs -on -Grade a) Concrete floor slabs may be founded on the existing compacted fill. The subgrade should be proof -rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. b) The slab -on -grade should be underlain by 4 inches of SAND. If a floor covering that would be critically affected by moisture is to be used, it is recommended that a plastic vapor barrier be installed at the midheight of the SAND layer. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 12 c) It is recommended that #4 bars on 16-inch centers or equivalent be provided as minimum reinforcement in slabs -on -grade. Joints should be provided. Slabs should be at least 5 inches thick. d) The finished floor elevation should be higher than the outside grade. e) The subgrade soils should be kept moist prior to the concrete pour. 10.4 Spread Footing Foundations The proposed structures, of the type anticipated, can be founded on shallow spread footings. The criteria presented as follows should be adopted: 10.4.1 Dimensions/Embedment Depths Minimum Minimum Embedment Width Below Lowest Finished Surface ft ft 3 1.5 2.5 Column Footings 2.0 2.0 up to 50 kips) 10.4.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity Embedment Depth ft) Allowable Bearing Capacity lb/ft) 2.0 2,500 2.5 3,000 Notes: These values may be increased by 600 lb/ft2 for each additional foot increase in the depth and by 200 lb/ft'` for each additional foot increase in the width to maximum value of4,500 lb/ft'-; These values may be increased by one-third in the case of short -duration loads, such as induced by wind or seismic forces; At least 4x#4 bars should be provided in wall footings, two on top and two at the bottom; Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 13 Footings adjacent to the slope should be sited such that horizontal distance from the lower outer edge of the footing to the competent slope should be % x the slope height; minimum 6 feet and need not exceed 40 feet as the site is underlain by the competent bedrock; In the event that footings are founded in structural fills consisting of imported materials, the allowable bearing capacities will depend on the type of these materials, and should be re-evaluated; Bearing capacities should be re-evaluated when loads have been obtained and footings sized during the preliminary design; Planter areas should not be sited adjacent to walls; Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer; Footing excavations should be kept moist prior to the concrete pour; It should be insured that the embedment depths do not become reduced or adversely affected by erosion, softening, planting, digging, etc.) 10.5 Settlements Total and differential settlements under spread footings are not expected to exceed 1-inch and'/< -inches in a horizontal distance of 50 feet, respectively. 10.6 Lateral Pressures a) The following lateral pressures are recommended for the design of retaining structures. Pressure (lb/ft1/ft depth) Lateral Force Soil Prorile Rigidly SupportedUnrestrainedWall Wall Level 34 Active Pressure 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) 48 At -Rest Pressure Level 55 Passive Resistance ignore upper 1.511.) Level 300 b) Friction coefficient: 0.37 (includes a Factor of Safety of 1.5). While combining friction with passive resistance, reduce passive by 1/3. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 14 c) These values apply to the existing soil, and to compacted backfill generated from in -situ material. Imported material should be evaluated separately. It is recommended that where feasible, imported granular backfill be utilized, for a width equal to approximately one -quarter the wall height, and not less than 1.5 feet. d) Backfill should be placed under engineering control. e) Subdrains comprised of 4-inch perforated SDR-35 or equivalent PVC pipe covered in a minimum of one cubic foot per linear foot of filter rock and wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric should be provided behind retaining walls. 10.7 Slopes a) Static and seismic slope stability analyses have been performed along Cross Section A -A'. The shear strength parameters utilized in the analyses were based on the laboratory testing conducted on undisturbed and remolded samples. The computed factors of safety were greater than the minimum requirement of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic conditions, respectively. The results of the stability analyses are enclosed in Appendix D. b) The on -site fill slopes are considered to be grossly stable at a slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. The fill slope should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). c) The fill slope should be overbuilt and cut back to design profiles, so as to achieve proper compaction on the slope faces. Overbuilding is usually on the order of 2 to 4 feet, depending on the soil, equipment, etc. Compaction efforts may be achieved by backrolling and gridrolling the slope as fill progresses, instead of overbuilding. Whatever means or widths of overbuilding are adopted, it should be ensured that the slopes are compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction at the finished slope surface. d) The proposed till slope should be properly benched and keyed. Keys, in general, should be constructed at a minimum of 12 feet wide and 3 to 5 feet deep with the bottom inclined away from the toe of the slope at 2 percent. The proposed fill should be interlocked (benched) into competent material. Typical benching dimensions: 5 to 10 feet wide x 4 feet high). e) Subdrains must be provided in all keyway excavations. Subdrain pipe shall consist of perforated, 4-inch diameter PVC, Schedule 40 or SDR-35, embedded in gavel rock and wrapped in Mirafi 140N (or equivalent). All subdrain shall be inspected prior to covering with the fabric and rock. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 15 e) Normal erosion control/maintenance will be required. We have enclosed Wet Weather Maintenance of Hillside -Home Sites, Appendix E, which will be beneficial in maintaining Hillside properties. 10.9 Pavement 10.9.1 Asphalt Pavement Section Based on Traffic Indices (T.I) and on the anticipated "R" — Value of 25 of the subgrade, the following tentative structural pavement sections are recommended. Location T.I. Asphaltic Concrete Aggregate Base inches inches Driveway Up to 4.0 3 4 10.9.2 Subgrade Preparation All pavement areas shall be inspected, tested for compaction requirements, reworked where required and approved immediately prior to the placement of aggregate base. Subgrade soils within the upper 12 inches of finished grade shall be moisture -conditioned where necessary, shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557, and shall be free of any loose or soft areas. 10.9.3 Base Preparation Unless otherwise specified, the base shall consist of Class Il '/-inch aggregate base or approved Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB). The base shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with the procedures described in ASTM Test Method D1557. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 16 10.8 Seismicity a) The following table provides the most recent seismic coefficients and seismic data in accordance with requirements included in the 2007 California Building Code of Regulations: ITEM VALUE REFERENCE Site Longitude (Decimal-degrees) 117.8129 Google Earth Site Latitude (Decimal -degrees) 33.9760 Google Earth Site Class C Table 1613.5.2 Seismic Design Category D 2007 CBC Table 1613. 5.6) Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration- 1.673 2007 CBC Figure Short Period (0.2 Sec) - Ss 1613.5(3 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration- 0.608 2007 CBC Figure 1 Second Period — S 1613.5(4 Short Period Site Coefficient -Fa 1.0 20076CBC Table0 1613.5.3(1) Long Period Site Coefficient F 1.3 2007 CBC Table 1613. 5.3(2) Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration 1 673 2007 CBC Equation c 0.2 Sec. Period Sms 16-37 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration 0. 790 2007 CBC Equation r ISec.Period S,,,i 16-38 Design Spectral Response Acceleration 1. 115 2007 CBC Equation 0. 2 Sec. Period (Sr,)16-39 Design Spectral Response Acceleration 0. 527 2007 CBC Equation 1- Sec. Period (Sin) 16-40 b) The potential for liquefaction is considered low due to the presence of the shallow bedrock and absence of shallow groundwater. 10. 9 Soil Corrosion Potential a) Soil Corrosion potential for metal and concrete was estimated by performing water- soluble sulfate, chloride, pH, and electrical resistivity tests during our prior investigation. b) In general, the chemical test showed a water-soluble sulfate of 0.0034 percent for near surface soils, indicating a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 17 c) Electrical resistivity is a measure of soil resistance to the flow of corrosion currents. Corrosion currents are generally high in low resistivity soils. The electrical resistivity of a soil decreases primarily with an increase in its chemical and moisture contents. A commonly accepted correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity for buried ferrous metals is presented below: Electrical Resistivity, Ohm -cm Corrosion Potential Less than 1,000 Severe 1,000-2,000 Corrosive 2,000-10,000 Moderate Greater than 10,000 Mild d) Results of electrical resistivity test indicate a value of 2,000 ohm -cm for the near -surface soils. Based on this data, it is our opinion that, in general, on - site near -surface soils are considered corrosive in nature. This potential should be considered in design of underground metal pipes. 11. LIMITATIONS a) Soils and bedrock over an area show variations in geological structure, type, strength and other properties from what can be observed, sampled and tested from specimens extracted from necessarily limited exploratory borings. Therefore, there are natural limitations inherent in making geologic and soil engineering studies and analyses. Our findings, interpretations, analyses and recommendations are based on observation, laboratory data and our professional experience; and the projections we make are professional judgments conforming to the usual standards of the profession. No other warranty is herein expressed or implied. b) In the event that during construction, conditions are exposed which are significantly different form those described in this report, they should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. Mr. Jay Arora July 20, 2009 Project 4021-04 Page 18 The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, GLOBAL GEO-ENGINEERrNG, INC. Mohan B. Upasani Principal Geotechnical Engineer RGE 2301 Exp. March 31, 2011) MBU/KBY: fdg Enclosures: Location Map Seismicity Map Typical Grading Detail References Field Exploration Unified Soils Classification System Logs of Borings Trench Logs Laboratory Testing Slope Stability Analyses Wet Weather Maintenance of Hillside -Home Sites Geotechnical Plan Geologic Cross Section Kevin B. Young Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 2253 Exp. October 31, 2009) Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Appendix A Appendix B Figure B-1 Figures B-2 and B-3 Figures B-4 and B-5 Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Plate 1 Plates 2 and 3 APPENDIX A References Reports and Maps Project 4021-04 Blake, T. F., 2000, EQFAULT.• A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Fault, User Manual and Program; 2. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for the Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 128-153; 3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Southern Region; 4. California Geological Survey, 2005, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Yorba Linda 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 010; 5. Dibblee, T.W, March 2001, Geologic Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles Eastern Puente Hills), Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #75; 6. Robert Stone and Associates, Inc., December 11, 1970, Soil Engineering Report on Compaction Testing, Tract 23483, Lots I through 103, Project No. 1-68-303-41; Robert Stone and Associates, Inc., December 11, 1970, Final As -Graded Geologic Report, Rough Grading Completed, Tract 23483, Lots through 103, Project No. 1-68-303-42; 8. Tan, Siang S., 1988, Landslide Hazards in the Puente and San Jose Hills, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 88-21; 9. U.S. Geological Survey, 1964 photorevised 1981, 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map, Yorba Linda Quadrangle. Appendix A Project 4021-04 Page 20 Aerial Photographs Continental Aerial Photo, Inc., January 2, 1953, Frames 9K-123 and 9K-124; 2. Continental Aerial Photo, Inc., January 30, 1970, Frames 60-3-82 and 60-83; 3. Continental Aerial Photo, Inc., June 12, 1990, Frames C83-12-33 and C83-12-34; 4. Continental Aerial Photo, Inc., February 23, 1999, Frames C133-29 and C133-30. Project 4021-04 APPENDIX B Field Exploration a) The site was initially explored on May 21, 2009, utilizing a truck mounted bucket auger rig to excavate two borings to a maximum depth of 76 feet below the existing ground surface. The site was additionally explored on June 23, 2009, utilizing a mini -excavator, to excavate a 49-foot long and a 29-foot long fault trench. The borings/trenches were subsequently backfilled. The approximate locations of the borings/trench are shown on the Geologic Map, Plate 1. b) The soils encountered in the excavations were logged and sampled by our Engineering Geologist. The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Figure B-1. The Logs of Boring are presented in Figures B-2 and B-3. The Trench Logs are presented in Figures B-4 and B-5. The logs, as presented, are based on the field logs, modified as required from the results of the laboratory tests. Driven ring and bulk samples were obtained from the excavations for laboratory inspection and testing. The depths at which the samples were obtained are indicated on the logs. c) The number of blows of the driving weight during sampling was recorded, together with the depth of penetration, the driving weight and the height of fall. The blows required per foot of penetration for given samples was then calculated and shown on the boring logs. d) No groundwater or seepage was encountered in any of our explorations during the time of our field investigation. e) No significant caving occurred in the borings/trenches excavated for this investigation. Project 4021-04 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Program The laboratory -testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were sampled and tested as described below. a) Moisture -Density Moisture -density information usually provides a gross indication of soil consistency. Local variations at the time of the investigation can be delineated, and a correlation obtained between soils found on this site and nearby sites. The dry unit weights and field moisture contents were determined for selected samples. The results are shown on the Logs of Borings. b) Compaction Representative soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, using the ASTM D1557 compaction test method. This test procedure requires 25 blows of a 10-pound hammer falling a height of 18 inches on each of five layers, in a 1/30 cubic foot cylinder. The results of the tests are presented below: Sample Depth Optimum Moisture Maximum Boring No. ft) Soil Description Content Dry Density Ib/ft' B-1 1-3 Sandy SILT 19.0 96.0 Appendix C Project 4021-04 Page 23 C) Direct Shear Direct shear tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed and remolded samples, using a direct shear machine at a constant rate of strain. Variable normal or confining loads are applied vertically and the soil shear strengths are obtained at these loads. The angle of internal friction and the cohesion are then evaluated. The samples were tested at saturated moisture contents. The test results are shown in terms of the Coulomb shear strength parameters, as shown below: Coulutnb Angle of Boring No. Sample Depth Soil Cohesion Internal Peak/ Undisturbed/ ft) Description lb/ft') Friction Residual Remolded e B-1 1-3 Sandy SILT ak Remolded 200 29 Residual B-1 35 SILTSTONE 1700 Undisturbed 29 Residual d) Expansion Surface soils were collected in the field and tested in the laboratory" in accordance with the ASCE Expansion Index Test Method, as specified by UBC Standard No. 29-2. The degree of expansion potential is determined from soil volume changes occurring during saturation of the specimen. The results of the test are presented below: Boring No. Sample Depth Soil Expansion Expansion ft) Description Index Potential B-1 1-3 Sandy SILT 15 Very Low Appendix C Project 4021-04 Page 24 e) Sulfate Content A representative soil sample was analyzed for the sulphate content in accordance with California Test Method CA417. The results arc given below: Boring No. Sample Depth Soil Sulphate ContentftDescriptiona B-1 1-3 Sandy SILT 0.0034 0 Chloride Content A representative soil sample was analyzed for chloride content in accordance with California Test Method CA422. The result is given below: Boring No. Sample Depth Soil Chloride ContentIft) Description a) B-1 1-3 Sandy SILT 0.0148 g) Resistivity and off A representative soil sample was analyzed in accordance with California Test Methods CA532 and CA643 to determine the minimum resistivity and pH. The result is provided below: Borin No. g Sample Depth Soil Minimum Resistivity7 p Hft) Description ohm -cm) B-1 1-3 Sandy SILT 2,000 8.5 Project4021-04 APPENDIX D Slope Stability Analyses Project 4021-04 APPENDIX E Recommendations - Wet Weather Maintenance of Hillside -Home Sites During the wet weather season, homeowners become concerned about the stability of their building site. In general, modern design and construction practice minimizes the probability of serious slope failure. The grading codes of the local jurisdiction (cities and counties) in California concerning filled land, excavation, terracing and slope construction are among the most stringent in the country and if followed, are adequate to meet most natural occurrences. Therefore, the concern of the homeowner should be directed toward maintaining slopes, drainage provisions and facilities so that they will perform as designed. The following discussion, general recommendations and simple precautions are presented herein to help the homeowner maintain his hillside -building site. The general public often regards the natural terrain as stable --"terra firma". This, of course, is an erroneous concept. Nature is always at work altering the landscape. Hills and mountains are wom down by mass wasting (erosion, sliding, creeping) and the valleys and lowlands collect these products. Thus, the natural process is toward leveling the terrain. Periodically (over tens of millions of years) major land movements build mountains and erosion tends to level the terrain. In some areas, these processes are very slow and in others they are more rapid. Development of hillsides for residential use is carried out, in as far as possible, to enhance to the natural stability of the site and to minimize the probability of instability resulting from the grading necessary to provide home sites, streets, and yards. This has been done by the developer and designers on the basis of geologic and soil mechanics investigations. In order to be successful, the slope and drainage provisions and facilities must be maintained by the homeowner. Homeowners are accustomed to maintaining their homes. They expect to paint their house periodically, replace wiring, clean out clogged plumbing, repair roofs, et cetera. Maintenance of the home site, particularly on hillsides, should be considered on an even more serious basis. In most cases, lot and site maintenance can be taken care of along with landscaping and can be carved out with less expense to the homeowner than repair after neglect. . Appendix E Project 4021-04 Page 27 Most close and hillside lot problems are associated with water. Uncontrolled water from a broken pipe, cesspool or wet weather causes most damage. Wet weather is the largest cause of slope problems, particularly in California where rain is intermittent but may be torrential. Therefore, drainage and erosion control are the most important aspects of home site stability. These provisions must not be altered without competent professional advice and maintenance must be carried out to assure their continued operations. We offer these procedures as a checklist to homeowners. I. Check roof drains, gutters and.down spouts to be sure they are clear. Depending on your location, if you do not have roof gutters and down spouts, you may wish to install them. Without gutters or other adequate drainage, water falls from the roof eaves and collects against foundation and basement walls, which can be undesirable. 2. Clear surface and terrace drainage ditches and check them frequently during the rainy season, with a shovel, if necessary. Ask your neighbors to do likewise. 3. Be sure that all drainage ditches and sub -drains have outlet drains that are open. This should be tested during dry weather. Usually this can be done simply with a hose. If blockage is evident, you may have to clear the drain mechanically. 4. Check all drains at the top of slopes to be sure that they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope itself, causing erosion. 5. Keep subsurface drain openings (weep -holes) clear of debris and other material, which could block them in a storm. 6. Check for loose fill above and below your property if you live on a slope or terrace. 7. Watch hoses and sprinklers. During the rainy season, little, if any, irrigation is required. Over -saturation of the ground is not only unnecessary and expensive, but can cause subsurface damage. 8. Watch for water backup of drains inside the house and toilets during a rainy season since this may indicate drain or sewage blockage. 9. Exercise ordinary precaution. Your house and building site were constructed to meet certain standards that should protect against any natural occurrence, if you do your part in maintaining them. Appendix E Project 4021-04 Page 28 10. Care and maintenance of hillside homes includes being sure that terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the top of cuts, or fill slopes are not blocked. They are designed to carry away runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. Generally, a little shovel work will remove any accumulation of dirt and other debris, which may clog the drain. If several homes are located on the same terrace, it is a good idea to check with your neighbors. Water backed up on their property may eventually reach you. Water backed up in surface drains will tend to overflow and seep into the terraces, creating less stable slopes. 11. Water should not be permitted to collect or pond on your home site. Ponded water will tend to either seep into the ground loosening fill or natural ground, or will overflow onto the slope and cause erosion. Once erosion is started, it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly. 12. Roof drains and gutters or down spouts should not be connected to subsurface drains. Rather, arrange them so that either water flows off your property in a specially designed pipe or it flows out onto a paved driveway or the street. The water then may be dissipated over a wide surface or preferably be carried away in a paved gutter or storm drain. Subdrains are constructed to take care of ordinary subsurface water and cannot handle the overload from roofs during a heavy rain. 13. Water should not be allowed to spill over slopes, even where this may seem to be a good way to prevent ponding. This tends to cause erosion and, in the case of fill slopes, can cut away carefully designed and constructed sites. 14. Loose soil or debris should not be left on or tossed over slopes. Loose soil soaks up water more readily than compacted fill. In addition, it is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide when laden with water and may even affect the soil beneath it. The sliding may clog terrace drains below or may cause additional damage in weakening the slope. If you live below a slope, try to be sure that loose fill is not dumped above your property. 15. Water should not be discharged into subsurface blanket drains close to slopes. French drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other ways of disposing of water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground and, if located close to slopes, may cause slope failure. 16. Surface water should not be discharged into septic tanks or leaching fields. Not only are septic tanks constructed for a different purpose, but they will tend, because of their construction, to accumulate additional water naturally from the ground during a heavy rain. Overloading them artificially during the rainy season is bad for the same reason as subsurface subdrains, and is doubly dangerous since their overflow can pose a serious health hazard. In many areas, the use of septic tanks should be discontinued as soon as sewers can be made available. Appendix E Project 4021-04 Page 29 17. Slopes should not be over -irrigated. In some areas, ice plant and other heavy ground cover can cause surface sloughing when saturated due to the increase in weight and weakening of the near surface soil. Planted slopes should be located, where possible, in areas where they will be adequately irrigated by rainfall. 18. Water should not be allowed to gather against foundations, retaining walls and basement walls. These walls are built to withstand the ordinary moisture in the }round and are, where necessary, accompanied by subdrains to carry off the excess moisture. If water is permitted to pond against them, it may seep through the wall causing dampness and leakage inside the basement. It also may cause the soil adjacent to the foundation to swell, resulting in structural damage to walls and footings. 19. New fill placed behind walls or in trenches should not be compacted by flooding with water. Not only is flooding the least efficient way of compacting fine-grained soil, but could damage the wall foundation. 20. Hoses and sprinklers should not be left running on or near a slope, particularly during the rainy season. This will enhance ground saturation, which may cause damage. 21. Ditches that have been graded around your house or the lot pad should not be blocked. These shallow ditches have been put there for the purpose of quickly removing water toward the driveway, street or other positive outlet. By all means, do not let water become ponded above slopes by blocked ditches. Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants Geotechnical, Environmental and Civil Engineering May 5, 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Hao c/o Danielian Associates 60 Corporate Park Irvine, California 92606 Attention: Mr. John Danielian Subject: 10=Scale Grading —Ran Review and Stabilization Fill Recommendations, 2718 Steeplechaset 54, Tract 30289, Diamond Bar, California Reference: "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 2718 Steeplechase Lane, Lot 54, Tract 30289, Diamond Bar, California", by Cal Land Engineering Inc. dated December 8, 2008, CLE Project No.: 09-215-001 EG Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is to inform you that CLE has reviewed the 10-scale grading plan by Call -and Engineering, Inc. Based on our review of the plan, it is our opinion that the proposed grading plan is feasible from the geotechnical engineering viewpoint. In accordance with the information provided by the project coordinator (Mr. Jack M.), it is our understanding that a stabilization' fill will be constructed along the rear yard retaining wall to eliminate the need pf the previous recommended stabilization caissons. Based on our review of the referenced report, it is estimated that the potential previous mapped slide plane will be removed during the remedial grading of the stabilization fill. In order to stabilize the mapped geologic structures, it is recommended that a stabilization fill of 25 feet in width and 8 feet in depth be constructed along the toe of the lowest retaining wall. Computer print out of the stabilization fill analysis is presented in the attached plates. It is also recommended that backdrains be installed at the toe of the stabilization cut. Backdrains should be consisted of 4-inches diameter PVC SRD-35 perforated pipe embedded in three square feet per linear foot of crushed rock which are wrapped in filter fabric. The drains outlet should be similar non -perforated pipe and drain toward the approved locations. The excavation and construction of the stabilization fill should be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. The grading recommendations presented in the referenced report remain valid and applicable. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions pertaining to this addendum, please call us. Respectfully submitted, Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants r k 2JJG4.3JaclC. Lee, GE 2153 Ray M. Re es 576 E. Lambert Road, Brea, Califdrnia,92821 rTel-:'714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 1 1 GSTABL7 **+ SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo -Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename Output Filename: Unit System: Plotted Output Filename: 5/6/2010 5:05PM Username C:09215SO4. C:09215SO4.OUT English C:09215SO4.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Upper BOUNDARY COORDINATES 22 Top Boundaries 25 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 35.00 47.00 35.00 1 2 47.00 35.00 74.00 53.00 2 3 74.00 53.00 90.00 54.00 1 4 90.00 54.00 109.00 58.00 1 5 109.00 58.00 109.10 61.00 1 6 109.10 61.00 134.00 61.00 1 7 134.00 61.00 134.10 63.00 1 8 134.10 63.00 163.00 75.00 1 9 163.00 75.00 163.10 78.00 1 10 163.10 78.00 186.00 78.00 1 11 186.00 78.00 204.00 88.00 1 12 204.00 88.00 317.00 90.00 1 13 317.00 90.00 317.10 95.00 2 14 317.10 95.00 319.10 96.00 2 15 319.10 96.00 322.00 98.00 2 16 322.00 98.00 322.10 105.00 2 17 322.10 105.00 328.00 108.00 2 18 328.00 108.00 328.10 113.00 2 19 328.10 113.00 367.00 121.00 2 20 367.00 121.00 410.00 129.00 3 21 410.00 129.00 450.00 138.00 3 22 450.00 138.00 600.00 138.00 3 23 317.00 90.00 317.10 85.00 3 24 317.10 85.00 332.00 85.00 3 25 332.00 85.00 367.00 121.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) pcf) psf) deg) Param. psf) No. 1 115.0 115.0 300.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 115.0 115.0 250.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 115.0 115.0 200.0 12.0 0.00 0.0 1 Static Trial Failure Surface Specified By 3 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf I No. (ft) (ft) 1 289.00 89.50 2 317.00 81.00 3 560.00 138.00 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method * * Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.488 Table 1 - Individual Data on the 12 Slices*** Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor ver Load No. ft) lbs) (lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) (lbs) lbs) 1 28.0 14490.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.1 132.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 2.0 3275.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2.9 5058.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.1 222.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 5.9 16020.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.1 309.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 3.9 13158.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 35.0 115829.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 43.0 134644.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 40.0 119571.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 110.0 163200.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 12 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Shear Strength Shear Stress ft) ft) psf) psf) 1 16.90 303.00 29.26 641.15 150.40 2 13.20 317.05 0.10 477.84 301.69 3 13.20 318.10 2.05 544.76 374.03 4 13.20 320.55 2.98 567.23 398.33 5 13.20 322.05 0.10 667.98 507.24 6 13.20 325.05 6.06 772.38 620.10 7 13.20 328.05 0.10 852.44 706.65 8 13.20 330.05 4.01 911.54 770.54 9 13.20 349.50 35.95 897.88 755.77 10 13.20 388.50 44.17 860.24 715.08 11 13.20 430.00 41.09 830.25 682.66 12 13.20 505.00 112.99 512.18 338.82 Sum of the Resisting Forces (including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 192371.59 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 689.85(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 129636.57 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 464.88(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 278.86(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** 00 00N 00v 0OM OON O O O O O O V M N Eh L LL ~ N M i 0 U mLL GSTABL7 *** t+a##arts#a++att++att#++#tta++ta+++a+a++++#a++ta+r++tt#+++##++#tt++#+tt+++tt++++ SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained-Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, water Surfaces, Pseudo -Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. r+a+#+#+#t#+++t#+####+#ar t#ar###tr+##+t+t#t+++##++t+t+++++t++++tt+++###+#+### 1 Analysis Run Date: 5/6/2010 Time of Run: 5:08PM Run By: Username Input Data Filename: C:09215SO4. Output Filename: C:09215SO4.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:09215SO4.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Upper, Seismic a=0.15g BOUNDARY COORDINATES 22 Top Boundaries 25 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below End 1 0.00 35.00 47.00 35.00 1 2 47.00 35.00 74.00 53.00 2 3 74.00 53.00 90.00 54.00 1 4 90.00 54.00 109.00 58.00 1 5 109.00 58.00 109.10 61.00 1 6 109.10 61.00 134.00 61.00 1 7 134.00 61.00 134.10 63.00 1 8 134.10 63.00 163.00 75.00 1 9 163.00 75.00 163.10 78.00 1 10 163.10 78.00 186.00 78.00 1 11 186.00 78.00 204.00 88.00 1 12 204.00 88.00 317.00 90.00 1 13 317.00 90.00 317.10 95.00 2 14 317.10 95.00 319.10 96.00 2 15 319.10 96.00 322.00 98.00 2 16 322.00 98.00 322.10 105.00 2 17 322.10 105.00 328.00 108.00 2 18 328.00 108.00 328.10 113.00 2 19 328.10 113.00 367.00 121.00 2 20 367.00 121.00 410.00 129.00 3 21 410.00 129.00 450.00 138.00 3 22 450.00 138.00 600.00 138.00 3 23 317.00 90.00 317.10 85.00 3 24 317.10 85.00 332.00 85.00 3 25 332.00 85.00 367.00 121.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) 1 115.0 115.0 400.0 37.0 2 115.0 115.0 300.0 30.0 3 115.0 115.0 250.0 16.0 Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface Param. (psf) No. 0.00 0.0 1 0.00 0.0 1 0.00 0.0 1 MI A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Ofo.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0(psf) Trial Failure Surface Specified By 3 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 289.00 89.50 2 317.00 81.00 3 560.00 138.00 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method * * Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.171 Table 1 - Individual Data on the 12 Slices*** Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. ft) lbs) (lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 28.0 14490.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2173.5 0.0 0.0 2 0.1 132.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 3 2.0 3275.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 491.3 0.0 0.0 4 2.9 5058.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 758.7 0.0 0.0 5 0.1 222.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 6 5.9 16020.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2403.1 0.0 0.0 7 0.1 309.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.4 0.0 0.0 8 3.9 13158.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1973.8 0.0 0.0 9 35.0 115829.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17374.5 0.0 0.0 10 43.0 134644.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20196.7 0.0 0.0 11 40.0 119571.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17935.7 0.0 0.0 12 110.0 163200.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24480.1 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 12 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Shear Strength Shear Stress ft) ft) psf) psf) 1 16.90 303.00 29.26 1026.14 76.12 2 13.20 317.05 0.10 610.80 494.61 3 13.20 318.10 2.05 699.03 613.21 4 13.20 320.55 2.98 728.66 653.05 5 13.20 322.05 0.10 861.50 831.61 6 13.20 325.05 6.06 999.15 1016.64 7 13.20 328.05 0.10 1104.71 1158.54 8 13.20 330.05 4.01 1182.63 1263.28 9 13.20 349.50 35.95 1164.62 1239.07 10 13.20 388.50 44.17 1114.99 1172.36 11 13.20 430.00 41.09 1075.45 1119.21 12 13.20 505.00 112.99 656.08 555.48 Sum of the Resisting Forces (including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 254130.72 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 911.32(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 217523.59 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 780.05(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 278.86(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** T R O t07 N 0O 00N OL W 2 c tq E° fn LH O LL T m N CO vrmJMm Q U U U N O0 r GSTABL7 **+ SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo -Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. xtxxt+++tttta+tt+ttt++ttt+tttxxtttxttt+tttxt+ttttt+xx+++*+++xx+++*+++xx++txx++xx Analysis Run Date: 5/6/2010 Time of Run: 5:11PM Run By: USername Input Data Filename: C:09215SO4. Output Filename: C:09215SO4.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:09215SO4.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Upper , Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 22 Top Boundaries 25 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No_ ft) ft) ft) ft) Below End 1 0.00 35.0,0 47.00 35.00 1 2 47.00 35.00 74.00 53.00 2 3 74.00 53.00 90.00 54.00 1 4 90.00 54.00 109.00 58.00 1 5 109.00 58.00 109.10 61.00 1 6 109.10 61.00 134.00 61.00 1 7 134.00 61.00 134.10 63.00 1 8 134.10 63.00 163.00 75.00 1 9 163.00 75.00 163.10 78.00 1 10 163.10 78.00 186.00 78.00 1 11 186.00 78.00 204.00 88.00 1 12 204.00 8.00 317.00 90.00 1 13 317.00 90.00 317.10 95.00 2 14 317.10 95.00 319.10 96.00 2 15 319.10 96.00 322.00 98.00 2 16 322.00 98.00 322.10 105.00 2 17 322.10 105.00 328.00 108.00 2 1s 328.00 108.00 328.10 113.00 2 19 328.10 113.00 367.00 121.00 2 20 367.00 121.00 410.00 129.00 3 21 410.00 129.00 450.00 138.00 3 22 450.00 138.00 600.00 138.00 3 23 317.00 90.00 317.10 85.00 3 24 317.10 85.00 332.00 85.00 3 25 332.00 95.00 367.00 121.00 3 l ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) 1 115.0 115.0 300.0 26.0 2 115.0 115.0 250.0 26.0 3 115.0 115.0 200.0 12.0 1 Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface Param. (psf) No. 0.00 0.0 1 0.00 0.0 1 0.00 0.0 1 Trial Failure Surface Specified By 3 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ft) ft) 1 317.00 90.00 2 332.00 90.00 3 550.00 138.00 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method * * Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.667 Table 1 - Individual Data on the 12 Slices*** Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. ft) lbs) (lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.1 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.0 1265.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 2.9 2334.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.1 132.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 5.9 11195.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.1 235.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 3.9 10495.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 6.2 16898.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 28.8 77881.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 43.0 111557.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 40.0 100841.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 100.0 126605.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 12 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Shear Strength Shear Stress ft) ft) psf) psf) 1 0.00 317.05 0.10 390.18 0.00 2 0.00 318.10 2.00 558.49 0.00 3 0.00 320.55 2.90 642.62 0.00 4 0.00 322.05 0.10 894.97 0.00 5 0.00 325.05 5.90 1175.47 0.00 6 0.00 328.05 0.10 1399.79 0.00 7 0.00 330.05 3.90 1562.55 0.00 8 12.42 335.09 6.33 1522.34 587.48 9 12.42 352.59 29.51 771.40 581.20 10 12.42 388.50 44.03 748.43 557.87 11 12.42 430.00 40.96 732.91 542.10 12 12.42 500.00 102.40 467.23 272.24 Sum of the Resisting Forces (including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 159486.30 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 669.49(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 95512.09 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 400.94(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 238.22(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** 00m 00N 00 0Ot+l 00w OO O O O O O V Cl) N v0s d 2 1 GSTABL7 *** SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. Includes Spencer & Morgenstern -Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber -Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo -Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. a**x+**}****#R*++a#*x***a*#***xR*x+t*#}*R#*******x**+t**#xx***++*x****#t Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: Output Filename: Unit System: Plotted Output Filename: 5/6/2010 5:13PM Username C:09215SO4. C:09215SO4.OUT English C:09215SO4.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Upper, Seismic a=0.15g BOUNDARY COORDINATES 22 Top Boundaries 25 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. ft) ft) ft) ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 35.00 47.00 35.00 1 2 47.00 35.00 74.00 53.00 2 3 74.00 53.00 90.00 54.00 1 4 90.00 54.00 109.00 58.00 1 5 109.00 58.00 109.10 61.00 1 6 109.10 61.00 134.00 61.00 1 7 134.00 61.00 134.10 63.00 1 8 134.10 63.00 163.00 75.00 1 9 163.00 75.00 163.10 78.00 1 10 163.10 78.00 186.00 78.00 1 11 186.00 78.00 204.00 88.00 1 12 204.00 88.00 317.00 90.00 1 13 317.00 90.00 317.10 95.00 2 14 317.10 95.00 319.10 96.00 2 15 319.10 96.00 322.00 98.00 2 16 322.00 98.00 322.10 105.00 2 17 322.10 105.00 328.00 108.00 2 18 328.00 108.00 328.10 113.00 2 19 328.10 113.00 367.00 121.00 2 20 367.00 121.00 410.00 129.00 3 21 410.00 129.00 450.00 138.00 3 22 450.00 138.00 600.00 138.00 3 23 317.00 90.00 317.10 85.00 3 24 317.10 85.00 332.00 85.00 3 25 332.00 85.00 367.00 121.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (Pcf) pcf) psf) deg) Param. psf) No. 1 115.0 115.0 400.0 37.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 115.0 115.0 300.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 115.0 115.0 250.0 16.0 0.00 0.0 1 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient.Of O.150 Has Been Assigned FI A vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Beer. Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0(psf) Trial Failure Surface Specified By 3 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 317.00 90.00 2 332.00 90.00 3 550.00 138.00 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method * * Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.236 Table 1 - Individual Data on the 12 Slices*** Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force .Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bat Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. ft) lbs) (lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.1 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 2 2.0 1265.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 189.8 0.0 0.0 3 2.9 2334.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 350.2 0.0 0.0 4 0.1 132.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 5 5.9 11195.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1679.3 0.0 0.0 6 0.1 235.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 7 3.9 10495.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1574.3 0.0 0.0 8 6.2 16898.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2534.7 0.0 0.0 9 28.8 77881.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11682.3 0.0 0.0 10 43.0 111557.4 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 16733.6 0.0 0.0 11 40.0 100841.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15126.2 0.0 0.0 12 100.0 126605.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18990.8 0.0 0.0 Table 2 - Base Stress Data on the 12 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Available Mobilized No. deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Shear Strength Shear Stress ft) ft) psf) psf) 1 0.00 317.05 0.10 465.94 43.11 2 0.00 318.10 2.00 665.17 94.88 3 0.00 320.55 2.90 764.77 120.75 4 0.00 322.05 0.10 1063.47 198.36 5 0.00 325.05 5.90 1395.52 284.62 6 0.00 328.05 0.10 1661.05 353.61 7 0.00 330.05 3.90 1853.72 403.67 8 12.42 335.09 6.33 1743.10 987.71 9 12.42 352.59 29.51 998.58 977.14 10 12.42 388.50 44.03 968.28 937.92 11 12.42 430.00 40.96 947.80 911.41 12 12.42 500.00 102.40 597.22 457.71 Sum of the Resisting Forces (including Pier/Pile, Tieback, Reinforcing Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 202476.52 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength (including Tieback, Pier/Pile, Reinforcing, Soil Nail, and Applied Forces if applicable) = 849.95(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 164432.73 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress - 690.25(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 238.22(ft) END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** 1 1 t 1 r.i..i-I 1 I r.1 i r ; . .r r. i . _'_ i-h -r f-r--r. i_. L r-iT f_1.L r I I ' 1_,,T 1•_L-.• i-_+---4--'.r--t_L r-""'-t- r-•_Y+ 4_`L r-..i _w-Y +`. .. rT t"-1I r._ 7 -r-' r -r rt... f . '- 7-r- r i 1 -r 1- i -r•-r t r- ' i I= - I'-1-_!' 1 I , l ITT--I I I r' I I.._1-I 1-i-1-1 r-, ": r a- j'. i i _r.,'L'j'^_ I 1 r` I-T__ 4 1 . ,j{•:+ 1-L I f I 1 , I i - "- . _ r •.-i_ fi rl I I rr L 11 _.iL:-- I fir•-r."}'- r'. 11 - - , - r fey•-_ r r i - a._-- I _,. i i I i-'-r-{-T ri r- r---.- L I_-•_ _ 1 220-- •; Qrt-_.- _ i"- ,T-- r 1 ._ . _ .. .. '~- fttttt-, _ I r I -I-- L 'i LLL, 1 1 I I 1 I 1 YL 1 , I r~-[ r-t- I I I I I f- I LI_L j 1 Y_ IIIII- r i 1 . L' I IY' I I I 7 _'1 1!r TT IT--•T r-r)-i I r Y v'1-•--` - r--r` •- ;-' - -*" r *"'"r,_-i --TTal.r. - r-r_ r I .-- r = - :_-t-: :.. ' :: - r- _- - .-:_ ` 7i -- r 1 .-T_ - f_ _ i " _ -_ .. _ - . . - _ !. {_ 1- I i I _-?-'T_I I- r-- I i 4_I i i-ir•rl-Il-- L -I-- II- I S R _ 1 'Tf-: 'L 1 -1-_I I I =--- I-' 1 -rrl rT_ I ' 1 - I ' I t- T7. i— 1 i_I Yri , r, f I —i' —— II, i i I IT T r' 1 T TT I1_L• . Il ~ L r'-1-> . I I ; I I I I I I I r I I LLl- 1- I; I I ___ I _ _1+I t-. r _ .___ L-• -_ t - -_ r- 1- rT ' fr _ 4U`'--T y-- *•ii_, W-•.: N I .. T N • r 1 jr- --- r l I II= jLI .. i1- /'I I - I- j--I-'- I_--Fr- Imo. 1 1 I i r jii I}'_-.IIy_-. L, I 1 1 I I i l 1r- y--1-I I I-r j-I,- 1 I _ I rI-I I ' I_ ' t 1 - I j_a1_(I-T.' •-E", -- j_j+-`-Q:, j ' I r_`_[1. I '-.tIt I 1 1 , t r.. i I r r I I_rY Y/f7S_$ L r '_ I 1 I _ i -a _ - ' T r _ = r.. r j .L J. `-? ryli. 1L:. lu. ... _ T --' I-« l-+ rl-, 1 - tN- a ` • .i : r ' 'tI : i L =_[. J 1-, --i,r; y y.J JL L 1- r-r-F-rrr --, 1i +:..I 1r 1I , I-F [- I IJ"' 1 I r—r Ij- +-- _ — I-! : ,_ yy f r rIir f", I- ' •-=-, k-I r t. r-t LL 1 r.(._;_ t. r LF _ . -. _ - 1 I..___ _._._ _+. r: a.-S O er_i"e( I Lr I i.i-'BGG477.E77Li T L LLB'-` Y -- Tc I ,.... , F14.:.. QV• VI-- t.-' L! I_i r- Ll-'T' I 7% /,./ lP ' f`` 1 /' r lya T ._{__'_ 1 Lf 5 i I Ii II T' L i T--ITTrrr I , I Illlllr i I ii__L_ 1i- I, -II ' I I —i 1I I j r i 1 _ i ' 11_',—. I 1 a.- Y 77 1 rl 1 t- I 1 , I , I : 1 rt ; y'r-- iriIr i r r 4- 1 T rt I.- i- i 1r•-i ' r-r yI T' ! J - ' y': - - - 1_.-. , r. «'--- F ._. a o %" B DorKG'a7Pq'e M./p T - I ,_ .. ... - - i - t _ ! T'y' rim-.., Lr II , ! r— 1 - Tr I '- r--_ i I 1 r I I _ I ir t I_ j i , 2 1 L' i I I fi•1 '_ I=`` rr_r 1 • I- L-I--L t Y y:Y-r- 4- 1-`-` T I t -- • '-- i Tr I H rr--t -r 1_II_L T- i t T- TTJ .- r_, r- f- I -i I_ t ---- i i 1 1 1 r-I I I- - r I i 1 rI•I—_— I Ir-r-' i-' I ,; I tl- I, 1 i- I-= 4 i ii'r-[_ . .. rtt—; i - r"I j-- j-f -f y- I F t- I i ~ t- - i - I. ;-L . i --` r.._ r t i T_ . i t I r' T I- r- "- } •-, : t t1.' -,--' _. _.I . y 4 .. .. _ _ : _ r _ _ _ i +1 r tLLt T - T 1-I-LI 1 L._J-_I_ I_TT`I ' i Y 1 I i_i"ir-L rT- t 1_ __F - it 1-j r4-a_Tr.74 T'r• "i-ram T-r..-' I T t 11 t-i-r • 7 1._._ I.--; C. S-r I' i-" a_t " "• y • _ T rr r i O, F r' t T Y" i_ T- t I 1r L' I r. a ,__...._-{._ r.F . V P .' i _ _ fS1" r i i Lr!_I r._--, T!--r;-r!--:Tl-+.-I-'t't",-t" T- r'-i-7 --: j 7-v-,Y i -- =''fir%- t ry ./-+ v:- r Qsry' f 1-i- t r ._ r-r IrL - i'- i - r ; t.+ I i r t IlL i'" i-1 3 r---+- t _ I ------"--------- --"--' -- - r i ri ii" I 1 I-rr I I f + r r: 1 ter-, r ..}-4.. I I i c... f a- r f V"/ '/ / IXl , - rk:.o. rc-+ • r'-i_rr i 't _-- r'rr- i-•-.. 1_Lr I' r_ T'• _ t-'+- 7 • F ^ i_ -i- a r r Y l rr. I . L Iir T • l i-, 4 i r fi , LTT _ IJ 11Y t- • a IH++},. .. l..i •' i4 .-T.i +•-+,r•rlr r_. 1. FTr it-1 ii.I i ai t" 1-FL I r H+ r rFi Tta fi Ti rl«It t FITrtT T- FT'YIrJ}}rf 0 = MMMIM m fib ' ® M wim = ® f® ® ® w 280 240 200 160 120 40 Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Ex. Condition C:\STEDWIN\09215501.PLT Run By: Username 12/08/2009 10:15AM Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Plez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface i No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. 1 115.0 115.0 300.0 26.0 W1 2 115.0 115.0 250.0 26.0 W I 3 115.0 115.0 200.0 12.0 W1 I i I 3 3 i 3 3 1 1 I 1 i 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 I GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.20 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified ]anbu Method GSTABL7 360 400 440 Illly = = ® ® ® ! 0 ® ® S IIII f8 s ® o 280 Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Gradlower Portion, Static C:\5TEDWIN\09215S02.PLT Run By: Usemame 12/08/2009 10:13AM 240 200 160 120 80 40 C 10 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.58 Ractor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simpllfled 7anbu Method GSTABL7 NW a a a a a ia a ar ; a u a s I.. I Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Grad Lower Poriont C:\STEDWIN\09215502.PLT Run By: Username 12/08/2009 10:00AM 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Frlctlon Plez, Load Value Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface Horiz Eqk 0.150 g< No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. i 1 115.0 115.0 400.0 37.0 WI 2 115.0 115.0 350.0 30.0 W, 3 115.0 115.0 250.0 16.0 Wt I I I 3 3 3 I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 73 1 1 0 40 80 120 160 ; 200 240 280 320 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.15 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified lanbu Method GSTABL7 j 360 400 440 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed Gradvpper Portion, Static C:\5TEDWIN\09215S03.PLT Run By: Username 12/08/2009 10:27AM 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.58 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method GSTABL7 I Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, Proposed GradUpper , Seismic C;\STEDWIN\D9215S03.P,LT Run By: Usemame 12/08/2009 10:30AM 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 Solt Total Saturated Coheslon Friction Plez. Load Value Type Unit Wt. Unit WL Intercept Angle Surface Horiz Eck 0.150 g< No. pcf) pcf) psF) deg) No. 1 1 115.0 115.0 400.0 37.0 W1 2 115.0 115.0 350.0 30.0 W1 3 115.0 115.0 250.0 16.0 W1 1 4 150.0 150.0 8000.0 0.0 W1 I I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 i 3 g 3 2 1 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.45 Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method GSTABL7 360 400 440 1 I t,? 1 •-ty1 ._l: ,I I- I _ I -rtjI I t J1+_` L_ I ; 1. ....i-1- ,YI L.. ,-:_-r{-ti-t- --- -.-r•-. . :._l .L 1 1 ^ F.__. -{-L ,-. 1, . a-i. ,., 1 , t L. I #• +;- ',i-7T _j•1'1i -I •' 1-`•'--- ,.. ; I 14 L ! + , __, '-. -• '-. - 1—"I- i --f i-' 1--`-f-.L_t- I - --- =- --.. , _ir _ .I_• -- - 1 T 1-._ 1 i a. r r-+-. a + , • T- _ a +-r i - I I i I I , ' h V . -. r , LTt 1- _I_i_.i-r r... .: _: T . r L_€-t-`-1 i-I...-.-._i - I- I i j r 1 iL i_I"-i 1-' i -r`-- i 1-- . '- • . '- -F-i-+--. a._-I- 1 . - ,---- - - u +' I IM-,-+-- _ " _ ' ... •...: ! t -_L ..: + L 1 *-'t I ! I I-L LL --1-. _J....L +T` ` I 'sPvr}_ _" '_• 1 _ T`t,_'- rl7- '- - * I - i - -- i - - [-1.1 t 1 } L 1_ rs_L[= *_:J- 1- I-T •-I Imo- - -u - *' •-` ' - - * - - I - _,-} ..J_t-+- ,-r-i TT-i 1-!`I't 1 I i-1- +. ^i+T +-- j.. J . I J I T- _! 1 '._"j-{ T}-I !-{--i"'_` t i-1-''-• I 'T_ ice_ _i - • _. t p _ . _ +. ..., . ... , 1 o j-- { : J_ f o osed_ T:?"_.:_L I rjr}_-"~^ • I t r 1_: r, I I r- -•-t- ' 1 _ _` _ '.h. 1-T:__.. - f i- I}-• - - Y`-• - _ N _ '. j - r. lye_._ l_.{l _L. j _ 71r' I f w..._ $ • y. a -a+ -{ _ I I! rl r1-1-T T S r 7 _ • "' - , N _ _ _ _ - . I 4-_ -. '"Y' i 7 .-/ I 1_ _ _I _j—_ !_!i_:_ cl_^I-!_ 4 _h T! t I T i -f 7--f i- •- - _ F L T—F r - - - - - _`_• » t • L+ -}' Y-: t_ ,. t.t a •;l._4. . it y. _j _li. 1 t_ _ , ! + y 1 i y.+... .. .- •-t - + I j == - ' - '.- 1 . / . .?- --j'' _ - --{- I- T 1-?_ I 1 i --{ t ' • ' , ' 7 ' ' +_ _ r I T_- a_ .. __ .1. __ i , ' _ -j.. I .. _ i i. ' _ __ _l -: ,—' f Ii i II-IT T ri j'-, , r _ -+ +' -s• T - I.. N -j — --yr_' _K'1?co %nPnlei Ll6tf c? 7 r , ] } y +' i • . ' ' ' - Y" - I _ ' , f- .J-o J I_r: !• .: L.14_"-.i-'.Ii I __ _ - j}{ r- - ! - ^ -+ - t T . ~ - _ , I , ' , _ IL j Jam_ 1_ i' i _4t'1,1= r-i -1 I I-r-t_.L!+ 1? Y/ '--1'_^ Y ,-1- - 1 i., ,7. — _/` - C_ '_r—' - i 11 I 1. 1--' ' iT ne1g1P iLiP. -- t-1.r = .1-r •- _ _ _ _i' `I'.. •_r-- Cd/YIIi C'l I I I r' 1 1 1 -- L' ( 6••2G'ID II i -L .-i-IQ5V = T, P ,P I I S C i r' '-_ • --r• , _M11 /L? y'J 1 ' /'///SSi--r _1__ I--j1-i' t. tII-' _I-` -" { -'-- rt"i-:1..LT f 11 +^--Y%3o-?-Tty_!_I T1' i5 -ii ; . _ I- + i-- L_-1J - 1 %,i +-. I-V-•-i -,-. I * '-r ' , i 11--•' 'T 1 - - - ' 1 - ' - --' - ! -• _ _ ^+ s Ti"I^_ 1 Tr-r?r ! _ I I I I I I T _I ' I _I +'1 I -i_ i -i1 II• I - '`; i i- _: _-'T--•- -''+-a -*'- Tr _ _..-.-_ • r.^.1.7.,may I 1?'r 1-I -r : o _ 1 i T T I i_' i-rr L .. . _ .. + _ , . -:+., Ai T'j_i IJ- ' T _ ,.. _2- 1— . _.. • r+ a 1 j ,_-;,1-LF-•-};-i-- L , i I y I I 1 I I j T 1 , -T-Ii -- I -f i" 1 - r i 7 + rT I _ T -'+"r- LI" 1-}-Y-.'- - - -+' w - • * » - 1_ •- t - -: 9T Yp ! a +6PR{a.r1Y Y-r I I - ! - ' ; >--'j i-n' B i I ,_ I _i_•i ! - I L'-'_`L __'1_r , 7 ' I t r_ _ lei • -Y 1 --. ' ._ -+l _-,--{-1 ,. t _ - • _ »+ - Q/ _^ r. ^_ I 1 1 _.L_ I' ' I__ 14 r 1}- f-+i- f• ., _ _ I t--- -. - ' _ -_. _.- r_r•- 'N'P-.%. .-: , a. _J I J_L' -Lj_!_ -i-- 1 TIr-r-'-1-• _ 1_1 }+ i1..}V r--,^ + -'- i+-•.. _ ---1r—-%o- i-1 , . y. 1 ,_ rt 11.,_ -,- _+.- _ a T Y .. • " I -i-,-i"-f-; I I i I I I I I rI i 1 t-; ; - -,-, -rr-!- . i I. rtI ! _ .' I _ , -_ + • ._. r ,.. - ! .. _ I 1 I _ I i_ _ I I I I 1- I ! I I -_' ' i __ ' ' i' , 1 ' + • «y't •,_t--r_' T ~t-r -•1 1 I 1___ + . «t- t r• + r-, - - --- - -I _ I ! I Y" _ I I-T-'-t _ _ _4-' T t- _T -i-jl I j - ;-ir i i- T-}- r----- 1:{+ j - 1 t-t -- r _— .. +. ,-~--• -_--.»-,^- ,-'t I I I I i I i Imo_ t" -- --- .._ •-- `+ _ - .. - I }- 1 I ' 1 I I t I I I-{ t . -- L _, a . -}-. I I_I I _I I I _ ? -i ij, 11--i— i I I -- • -' • ' T t ,-_. i r- -• _ t -- --- . V _L-- I I -I- - I I _I _i.J_i-1 I LI I _ 1 ! Li -I 1 ' - i i 1 L r1I - r '_./ • L- i .iJY .. r + - -._ . L I 1 I _ _ -}-- - - r I . r %VO1I_/,1ES.'. }• _ rr: _ .. _ 1 _. f_Y _I_I I It y f f ?l- j 1+, i t_ T lI I . - __ - , , L1y~y .!1 _ a_ .a-+_.. +_} i • - - -_ 1 _ - .. w I I ; -- L __ I _- 3- 11_ r i I _ r I l u"r) . I I} r-- 1 i +»-1 _ .-/.r J _ , .-. - -- I _ I _I I I _L j I -ti " 1r I I ', • 1- I yr '-h--- { - y'j- : t r I f T-.! y I_ TIil. . t I. . 1'1I- 1- --f-T- •_ '_- I -t. •.I { { ra-L-1 -i I I I T i A_' !-'•T_: t-{_ ' -I-! _T=.: _ 1-I_ } t.--_ _ _ i . j__!. .,.Tt t-r-•-j-+ .t ___r'-I-/- L1.i t i -1 J L - - , 1'-, ll .. 1 _ -'I !_i _i-.!--L __; _. 4-+-_i F,'j _.. .t_•_i., __i-• t-' ._____•-• I. j - TM-. {-1-i 1 _, ,,'It 'I T 1 1 1T+ 1 I , - , .- .. _ . T i _- ; ti -. r-- 1 - . - 'rl ,- I T '.++ . t_., .1 . L1 i : i F ... • -L . ! • r ! - J - _ I_' • 1-J- i - I-1 I , r_1 t I _ + 1- .+ . I , , r I i -I T _r y I + 1 J .. 1 ,