Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 9095 Parcel 4 Limited Geotechnical Investigation 1 T .H.E. Soils Co., Inc. Phone: (951) 894-2121 FAX: (951) 894-2122 141548 Eastman Drive, Unit G. Murrieta, CA 92562 E-mail: thesoilsco@aol.com 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I June 16,2005 Mr. Firas Naber 43960 Northgate Avenue Temecula, California 92592 SUBJECT: I.IMITF.O GROTRCHNWAI. INVRSTIGATION Proposed Single-Family Residence Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 9095, :t3.I-Acres East Vallejo Road City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Work Order No. 858501.00 Dear Mr. Naber: In accordance with your request, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. has performed a limited geotechnical investigation for the proposed single-family residence at the above-referenced site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the engineering parameters of the on-site soils and provide design parameters. For our investigation we were provided with a 20-scale topographic "Site Plan", which was utilized to locate the subject site and as a base for our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. 1.0 INTROnIlCTION 1.1 Proposed Oevelopment The proposed development calls for the construction of a single-family residence with associated driveway and landscape areas. It is our understanding that the proposed residence will consist of a wood-framed, stucco-sided structure with conventional footings. 1.2 Site Oes"...ption The subject, nearly rectangular shaped :t3.1-acre parcel of land is currently vacant with a previously graded pad with associated 2.4: I to 6: I (horizontal:vertical) cut slopes. The subject site is located along the north end of East Vallejo Road in the city of Temecula, southwest Riverside County, California. The site is bordered on all sides by large parcel residential development. The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. Man-made improvements are limited to a previously graded pad on the northerly portion of the subject site with associated natural 2.4: 1 to 6: I (horizontal:vertical) cut slopes. Drainage onsite is accomplished by sheet flow generally to the south-southeast toward East Vallejo Road. Overall relief on the subject site is approximately 73-ft. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 I .~ .. j -<-'~~k' .'1 1I '_ I I 1 1 I . i \ ., \._- II Sale: I: Z5,OOll DoaO:IJ.j) o.tu.: WGS84 , . .. ., I FIGURE 1 \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. firas Naber June 16,2005 Page 2 Vegetation on the majority of the subject site consists of a low sporadic growth of annual weeds and grasses with a sparse to moderate growth of chaparral type vegetation on the cut slopes on the southerly portion of the site. 2.0 SITR INVRSTIGATION 2.1 Raekgrmmd Researeh and I .iteratllre Review Several published and unpublished reports and geologic maps were reviewed for the purpose of preparing this report. A complete list of the publications and reports reviewed is presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Field Investigation Subsurface exploration, field reconnaissance, and mapping of the site were conducted on March 30, 2005. Three exploratory trenches were advanced utilizing a Case No. 580 Super M extenda-backhoe equipped with a 2-ft bucket. Exploratory Trench T-1 was advanced to the maximum depth explored of9.0-ft below the ground surface (bgs). Information collected during our field mapping and the approximate location of our sample locations is presented on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Our field geologist mapped the site and obtained bulk soil samples for laboratory testing. 2.3 I .ahoratm:y Testin~ Program Representative bulk samples of soils encountered during our investigation were obtained for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing to determine the engineering parameters of representative soils included maximum density/optimum moisture, remolded direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, soluble sulfate content, corrosivity suite and expansion index. Laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM, Caltrans, and Uniform Building Code (UBe) test specifications, where applicable. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B of this report. 3.0 SIJRSIJRFACF. CONDITIONS Locally, sedimentary bedrock units of the late Pleistocene-age Pauba formation are exposed at the ground surface (Kennedy, 1977). An undocumented soil stockpile was observed on the northerly portion of the existing pad. T.H.E. Soils Company,lnc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 :z. I. ~'rP>/---~-~ S" - :. ~el' ~".,__'~'_ .~, ~~O "'1' "0" , "1 _ 0<'.'--- I~"! ~~~__--~:~-O::H,' ,-- . "", ~ I ." _~~'?/ .-'=o-_~ ,__c=,~>--c"-'j .--- M I ..,-f'3?::./'~'7 'rl ..~/)/ / /;;/.~::;;---~~/~~~___~~ CC~-.;' ",c~~~7~'=?'~-'W<<.?//::"C"- 1 ~,', /// ~??--?~,;~-o" ~ - ," ,00-3'---- ,,=,~,'c,>' ./.=/..-///7 ?"'-.cc: I ", f~/~;;~~:,~~~~~~~~~~~-=~0_~i'.~'~~~;-0~L~~~iG;;~ . //"".,~%Z~~~..,_.>-/--,. __/,//==-"./--"~'//<C- ..' ~/:/,/ f'J'/.~" ~/ ~ =~___o__,=-'=,/o" >.', _=~f~"<-C&=~ _'_~.5/~~/r=,-- II' d~' ///0 /"'// ~---~~/'---/ ~...' ?/__%?<==--O=-='/~_////""-" , ,~>>/:8 %.,i~F'~ "'_,_==~~~o- -C'?c'..,,- -- c '=""'0~_%==--";;C_~./'''''/~='' .. /,.<; ;-:!{($/~'~ ~-=.;_'_ _u ,_ ,. ,=><<' =,~~'i, .0 /,;=c=,~//-l"'-/ J I . .' 1f!#;:;~:!;}?J:?~f?~~/ ;;:::::;/~~~~.=:~} .#j1r~~2,;\~- ;-:c---~~~:~~ .' i?;;:;:';/' .. /;/~ // ;//-"'~i?d?,=,~-"-<2_-.~~=.=--,_?i?---=~~ --:~~ //.-:3~ . 11/" /' __ // /k ==_=_=__'_-' >- -' -- -,,/=<,>--'~~- ?C'--- /~.-; ~. W ~1; / I/!~/ 'w/- ,f-:f;<<#?;::;(,J;/,J \ ; ,! iff ,,<co? ",' .0 &W'~~-=~"'c ,?/?C, I'/~" . 'l!t~ il!! j fil/;:.;:-::;;:~'I , II' j/ ( ,;,,;,-' <",,-p>gff.0~-3~~-'J%' ~'" ent . ~ ;Ii j I"'~ ~''I~/1/1/~'/';;/-<;?}*;:;~' \ II ( ','- '- '. ,\ \~[i~ 32. ~~' ~ I' '/ I(/;'m" ' 'II"; f( /, I'" ' "(<---~_/--<~'" c/V ii; c',,,' Iii #/.:/4'1' ., __ ':' ' " "\\' \ ,".;- ,~.-- -""'ii-- - -,;rCi "1 ; /,,!, if, %/",,11 "",,- ~,' ',' ",' . ,\ ,,' " '- '~', ___"< :}/ ! r . & / W~~~I 'I;f, (;h-L., I) '" " :% \' :-:::<<: ~ ~\'r,.,\~ '\ \, ~ r~ ;/ f 1((, Ill!(~l(\;\\! r i ' ~~ ~~~) y, ~ :\.\ \\ \': ) \ '. . \ \ \ l r; J I! II _ II '('\"' \, \ I'" \ \ ,t I ii" I \, \ \ \" I kit.... g. Ii II'III!~\\\\ \\\'v" I . \ Q~ J ! ,/I'! Ii ;, !; ;)! / 1 i" {, '(/~ " 1'(\\"\;;;\\\' '-. ' \-.. \ ;,If',1; ,'i Ii ' ,1, "t !' .: I \ ~ ' ",' , ",.,' ,!- / / / / / / () / / " / ,I" ! ': I ~/.;:j, ~~I \ ,\\\\, ;<--::<;,\') ;:'-.y "" ;::. i, ' ~ /1 (// ////l' //'/ \/,r ll:' I Sl.. .. \ I \, .~\, \, '. " .... \, '\ '- ):'''' .......... ~;E" " ' " " ' ..' J, " !" fil " \' , ' ,\ '""",, __ ',:' '>-"s---- ,_____ " . . ' , I' / I! ! \ I; : \ ~ \~;' GI) /. \ . ......\ \, . , '\' ' ," "'-, \. ....,' Q' ,I \ / (,I) I L-- \;<l , 1-" ! ' '," . ' , ,," '" . ' " . ,/'-"" Q) r .. \ \:' '\\\ \, " '\ ....~ 1\ V. -t>,H, ," =?>' ,_.C'=~' ,,----~ , Quf I Q. ::: I '\' ,'. ~ " - " . --,-,---- -'---- J I _ ,!"; ~I '. ,\" 'i '. ',', __ ,y'-- L.,,/.c, >-., ~ "''','';,~"'--'"''''- . >, ^,,' '"' . ~EDIMENT SOIL STOCKPILES I /;" l ..', . ,~~~',- -- ~,~ ",,'0="~~'------~-'~" .. /" \\' ,,, " ~~_ __--='=--' _"..~,-.---'-~c- ,- - f .' . \ ^' ,-', ' \,., "," ," ' ,--~- '--- ----,.--'" " \ .. """ __,';' . ,',' ".,' ' .". ,-~= ,___,---' H ./' __ . ',\' . __" ' ,,__''',- , '.. " , ' , _> - w~~ ' I - ,- , ,\ ' ,', "'," --I. ,I' ' .",- . /' ".,., -- ,(., .,~-~/>,; '. --- _.~_.~ \ .' 'c' .. ,',' ' --','. ,'~,-- ,," ' ,.'" ../ /' .- ", .-'~' .-- ~" ..,.w __ " -- ; ~ . .:L. ' ~,<'. .. < '.. . - ;. ONOFGEOLOOlCCO . ,." . " ,; , ' . -, -,-"-",,-'" -- ~ ,.\ \ ' --,.~~ .- /' /.7 <.'... /"--'/ Z .-4/ . ~ '. ..I.!lliElO!. T.lLE. SO ILS COMP . ANY INC. ._.P./!i.CMJMEIU; . ALL BEAPIV~- .Q1J.,; SHO'llN ":. DIST/J~C~ -. --.- ONL;~ iER~')N WAS cO:; "N. F.~;-:ril' ',' I - nILE' st~~l./~P DOES '_,'drL!.:~[,f.:?th_~~' ,~~.:.~ ~~If'" r:ruAt _ EBSeM1&J2 r,RAS !E T J:QJJ:.. - -/3960 N(~NA '-,-~EEI?-' ;plW.'l.A. gp~E.., AVfNOE ..ill: (951} 2J~:49:;.~ - ..~_: PROPOSED~CA.LMA!' rARca....OI'P...~AMlLyltDlD ....... ..'" arYOF'rW'WfIrrTI~VALL&JO tots.;t.'U~ams .._~---.1tJVERSII) ROAD . C01JNTY WORK ORDIRIII:I9YI . CAUJOB:NlA DATE:.iI!tfIJIIl PLA~ 20 0 .. _ I L..__.'- Ie 20 ~ SCALF.: '0 80 : ~fE~o:ff';f~~~'.:~,::;;[ -" ;..,;~ .~.;~.- mE PI.-'N BAS - --I ,:,]~",-:""" ~__ -::_',,.'" f""' '" """. . . .EEl, H.~IE:'....,..." 1f --------..h:..9. n~" ,".---:-- I ,JOHN T l- penlSlon 01 I L' . ' "" ,~~o~C:i-' - ",' R"lN}l ." ~"...~"....._=~~-_I ,a.EO'''-~' .ART. P.E.! ..___ -=~_1J ::.:=~;: !~i::~",: i Z~"~/R~";i" _~'~ I F_~.\951)?57_4.L~ _ _ r- "~X: (9::_1~99-~':' -==f---- -.-1 ~- ..3 1"- 20' ,., ,.., W'G'K9n9OfU9 .t3D"tdl1d- SlIOS-31U-.-~ ," I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. firas Naber June 16, 2005 Page 3 3.1 Ilndoellmented Soil Stoekpile I)\'fap Symhol QII(\ An approximately 15-ft diameter by 4-ft high undocumented soil stockpile was observed on the northerly portion of the subject site. This unit generally consists of sandy silt (Unified Soils Classification -ML) that can be described as dark brown to olive brown, loose, soft with minor construction debris. ' 3.2 Sedimentary Redroek I)\'fap Symhol Qp.) Sedimentary bedrock units of the late Pleistocene-age Pauba formation were observed at the ground surface throughout the subject site and extended to the maximum depth explored of9- ft bgs. This unit generally consists of silty sand (Unified Soils Classification -SM) that can be described as dark yellowish brown, medium to coarse-grained, minor fine grain and gravel size, occasional subrounded cobbles to 6-inches in diameter, well graded, moist and medium dense to dense. Minor interbeds of olive brown silt (ML) were encountered, which can be described as moist, dense, and clayey in part. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered within our exploratory trench (T-2), which was advanced to the total depth explored of 1O.0-ft bgs. No mottling, often indicative of past high groundwater, was observed within our exploratory trenches. Historic high groundwater is anticipated to be at least 50-ft bgs in the vicinity of the subject site (Rancho California Water District, 1984). 3.4 E'I'l"SIIvAtinn rhAnu.tpri~ti('~ We anticipate that the undocumented fill materials can be excavated with ease utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition. We anticipate that the sedimentary bedrock materials can be excavated with moderate ease to mod~J:ate difficulty utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D- 9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition. :,-;'i~<;*~;'{~~\~~;'.~'~~H~<~':~' ':;;,.~jc:_'. - -,'":'?i(:-'-:' - 4.0 SRISMIc:ITV 4.1 R~nnA' Sp.hlmil"i(y The site isloc8ted 'm:aregion of generally high seismicity, as is all of southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The subject site is located within a State of California Alquist Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (Hart, 2000 & Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1977). The Elsinore Fault zone (Temecula segment) has been mapped along T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. firas Naber June 16, 2005 Page 4 the southerly boundary of the subject site with recommended structural setbacks (Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1977). The structural setback zone is delineated on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The Wildomar Fault of the Elsinore Fault zone (Temecula segment) is characterized as a right lateral strike slip fault with a total length of approximately 42-kilometers (CDMG, 1996). The State of California has assigned the Elsinore Fault (Temecula segment) a slip rate of 5 mm1yr. (+/- 2 mm/yr.) with a recurrence interval of 240 years (CDMG, 1996). This fault segment has been assigned a maximum moment magnitude of 6.8. Historically, significant earthquakes causing strong ground shaking have occurred on local and regional faults near the site. To evaluate historical seismicity, we have utilized a computer software program titled EPI, which utilizes an earthquake database compiled by California Technical Institute to analyze earthquakes of various magnitude that have occurred within a specified radius about the site. A total of 135 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have occurred within 177- kilometers (lOO-miles) of the site since 1932. The closest earthquake was a 5.1 magnitude event, which occurred approximately 30.6-kilometers (19-miles) northwest of the subject site on Monday, September 23,1963. The largest earthquake recorded within the specified search area occurred on Sunday, June 28, 1992, located approximately lOlA-kilometers (63-miles) to the northeast as a 7.3 magnitude earthquake. A graphical representation of the historical seismicity is shown on Figure 2. 4.2 211111 CRC Seismie Faeto.... speeitie to the sllhjeet site are as follows' The site is located within 2-kilometers of the Elsinore fault (Temecula segment) (lCBO, 1998). The Elsinore fault (Temecula segment) is reported as a Type B fault (lCBO, 1998; and 2001 CBC Table l6-U) in the vicinity of the subject site. The site is within Seismic Zone 4 (2001 CBC Figure 16-2, Table 16-1). The soil profile for the site is SD (200 1 CBC Table 16-J). The near source acceleration (N.) and velocity (Nv) with respect to the subject site are 1.3 and 1.6, respectively (2001 CBC Tables 16-S and 16- T). The site seismic coefficients of acceleration (C.) and velocity (Cv) are 0.44N. and 0.64Nv, respectively (2001 CBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R). T.H.E. Soils Company,lnc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ ~~ + M5 +M6 <>d-~ c:t-+ "t + N 4 + + ....m""'" 1932-2003IM.,.Uud. ...) ,,, mil. mdl." + + , V ~+ +-'+- EPI SoftWare 2000 SITE LOCATION: 33.4838 LAT. -117.1237 LONG. MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C TOTAL # OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 251 TOTAL # OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 135 MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS: I o I 100 50 MILES 5.0- 5.9: 120 6.0- 6.9: 13 7.0-7.9: 2 8.0- 8.9: 0 CLOSEST EVENT: 5.1 ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23,1963 LOCATED APPROX. 19 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS: 7.3 ON SUNDAY, JUNE 28,1992 LOCATED APPROX. 63 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE 7.1 ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1999 LOCATED APPROX. 90 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE 6.7 ON MONDAY, JANUARY 17,1994 LOCATED APPROX. 95 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE 6.7 ON SUNDAY, MAY 19,1940 LOCATED APPROX. 107 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE 6.6 ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 09, 1971 LOCATED APPROX. 96 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE G> FIGURE 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. firas Naber June 16, 2005 Page 5 Based on the above values, the coefficient of acceleration (Ca) is 0.57 and a coefficient of velocity (Cv) is 1.024 for the subject site. . 5.0 SF.CONOARV SF.ISMW HAZAROS 5.1 I,iquefaetion Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to increased pore water pressures caused by a significant ground shaking (seismic) event. Liquefaction typically consists of the re- arrangement of the soil particles into a denser condition resulting, in this case, in localized areas of settlement, sand boils, and flow failures. Areas underlain by loose to medium-dense cohesionless soils, where groundwater is within 30 to 40 feet of the surface, are particularly susceptible when subject to ground accelerations such as those due to earthquake motion. The liquefaction potential is generally considered greatest in saturated loose, poorly-graded fine-grained sands with a mean grain size. (D50) in the range of 0.075 to 0.2mm. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45-ft and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60-ft. Procedures outlined in two publications, I) The Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1997); and 2) Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117: Guidelines of Analyzing and Mitigation, Liquefaction Hazards in California: Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California (1997), provide for a "screening study" in lieu of a complete liquefaction analysis. It is our opinion that, due to the absence of shallow groundwater (Rancho California Water District, 1984), as well as the medium-dense to dense sedimentary bedrock underlying the subject site at the ground surface, liquefaction and other shallow groundwater related hazards are not anticipated, and further analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. . ~:>::r.':'_, ';.' . . The entire building pad will be founded entirely in engineered fill overlying sedimentaty '. ~t exposed at the pad . surface... ,Based on the above information, the liquefaction ..... P9tential is anticipated to be negligible. 'r:~"-~_~'~~rt~;:'~---,(Y~;~',->,::_-,-:,:--:.,.>~--,::'-~~F7'- ~i_'~i:;. 5.2 Grnnnll Rnptnftl: ?,":,!,,;;:::. 'T.H.E. Soil. ComPonY, Inc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r , Mr. firas Naber June 16,2005 Page 6 5.3 Seismieally Indlleed Soil Settlement Any proposed structures will be founded in medium dense to dense engineered fill compacted to 90% relative compaction (as determined by ASTM 1557). The settlement potential, under seismic loading conditions for these onsite materials is anticipated to be negligible. 5.4 I,andsliding No geomorphic expression of landsliding or slope instability was noted during our aerial photograph examination or site mapping. In general, the potential for landsliding during a seismic event is considered negligible under current conditions. 5.5 Roekfall Potential The subject site is situated at the top of a hill and is underlain by sedimentary bedrock units (Kennedy, 1977) that are free of large rocks. The potential for rockfall is anticipated to be non-existent. 5.6 Seiehes and TSllnami Considering the location of the site in relation to large bodies of water, seiches and tsunamis are not considered potential hazards of the site. 6.0 CONn ,IlSIONS . The proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations presented in the following sections are adhered to during site development . / " Locally,~entary bedt'ock unitS of the late Pleistocene-age Pauba formation are exposed at the groiind surface' (Keimbdy, 1977). An undocumented soil stOckpile was observed on the . northerly portion oftj1e exiSting pad. /o;~~fc1t6'~t4~~..ffJAt'lf{~"!"6tii~~pforlltory'frehcl1 (T -2);.Which was ',advan~ to the total depth explored of10.0-ft bgs. No mottling, often indicative of past , high:rground-.yater;;Wa8' obser,vea Withiit O'ut'exploi'atory trenches.' Historic high groundwater is'ailiicii'i~ma'to'be"'l'atleiiSt'i50-ftbgsin'the vicinity of the subject site (Rancho California .;~.water,bi$ict, 1984). .' ,-<-~b,~-'.f~iY:-',"j:~-'r~.:;'~'~---c4'~::~'~,~1",-";,,'i~:';'- . We anticipate that the sedimentary bedrock materials can be excavated with moderate ease to moderate difficulty utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition. ,.... ,,""". r.H.E. Soils Coni~aiiy. Inc. W.o. NO. 8S8S01.00 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Firas Naber June 16, 2005 Page 7 . The subject site is located within a State of California Alquist Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (Hart, 2000 & Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1977). The Elsinore Fault zone (Temecula segment) has been mapped along the southerly boundary of the subject site with recommended structural setbacks (Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1977). . Ground rupture during a seismic event normally occurs along pre-existing faults. Due to the presence of the Elsinore fault along the southerly boundary of the subject site, breaking of the ground during a seismic event is anticipated to be moderate to strong along the southerly boundary of the subject site. . The potential for seismically induced settlement, landslides, rockfall, tsunamis, and seiches are considered negligible. . The potential for liquefaction during a local seismic event is considered negligible. 7.0 RRCOMMRNDATIONS 7.1 General F.arthwork Recommendations for site development and design are presented in the following sections of this report. The recommendations presented herein are preliminary and should be confirmed during construction. Prior to the commencement of site development, the site should be cleared of any vegetation, existing asphalt driveways, concrete walkways, concrete foundations, water lines, electric lines, etc., which should be hauled off-site. The client, prior to any site preparation, should arrange and attend a meeting among the grading contractor, the design engineer, the soils engineer and/or geologist, a representative of the appropriate governing authorities as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. .Earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the recommendations specified in this report. 7.2 PrepArAtion or E'I'i~ti"'g {;rnnnd ~,:r ,i_~~'.. ;, All undocumented fill should be removed prior to fill placement and can be utilized as fill provided it is non expansive and free of debris. Owing to the uneven nature of the subject pad and the differing soil types within the sedimentary bedrock, the near surface soils should be excavated a minimum of 3-ft below finish grade or a minimum of 2-ft below the deepest footing, whichever is deeper. Overexcavation should extend a minimum of 5-ft outside the building footprint or a distance equal to the depth of overexcavation, whichever is greater. The overexcavation bottom should expose dense sedimentary bedrock materials that are free of pores and roots with a minimum in-place relative compaction of 90% (as determined by ASTM D-1557). T.H.E. Soils CompanY. Inc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. firas Naber June 16,2005 Page 8 Prior to placement of any fill materials onsite, the exposed earth materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum of 90-percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. 7.3 Fill Plaeement Approved fill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557 test method. No rocks, chunks of asphalt or concrete larger than 6 inches in diameter should be used as fill material. Rocks larger than 6 inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed and used as fill material. 7.4 Slope Stahility & Constn,etion We anticipate that cut/fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio, to a maximum height of approximately 30-ft, will be surficially and grossly stable if constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and in Appendix C of this report. We anticipate that the existing 2.4: I to 6: I natural slopes to be both surficially and grossly stable. Proper seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as soon as practical to inhibit erosion and deterioration of the slope surfaces. Proper moisture control will enhance the long-term stability of the finish slope surface. 7.5 EYp9n~iRn TollEtT Tpdinf A expansion index test was performed on a representative onsite soil sample collected during our investigation. The results, which are listed in Appendix C, indicate that the expansion potentia! for.the onsite soils was a 6, which corresponds to a very low expansion potential (0 to 20- 2001'CBC, Table 18-I-A).Expansion testing should also be performed on the earth materials-expi>sed Within the upper few feet of the pad surface at the completion of grading ,_,. .,' .~~~tor to their~p'pro,~8;l,.1'5 structural fill material. 7.6 Snlllhlp. SulfAte Cnntp.nt BaSed'on'oUr Soluble sulfate content testing, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpOint,''I'ype II,portiand Cementcan.be. used for construction. Laboratory analysis results mdf~tea'~sU1f()f No (riori~deteCtedrpw-per~million (ppm) for soluble sulfates in soil, which equates to a negligible sulfate exposure hazard (2001 UBC, Table 19-A-4). Sulfate content testing should be conducted on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. Babcock & Sons Laboratory of Riverside, California performed the laboratory analysis..Test results are presented in Appendix B. T.H.E. Soils emri~~;'inC:' '\' W.o. NO. 858501.00 \0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. firas Naber June 16, 2005 Page 9 7.7 Corrosion Pntpnti31 Corrosivity test results, which are summarized in Appendix C, indicated a saturated resistivity of 7,900 ohms/cm for the onsite near surface soils, which indicates the onsite soils are mildly corrosive (NACE International, 1984). T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering. If specific information or evaluation relating to the corrosivity of the onsite or any import soil is required; we recommend that a competent corrosion engineer be retained to interpret or provide additional corrosion analysis and mitigation. Babcock & Sons Laboratory of Riverside, California performed the laboratory analysis. 7.8 I.ateral I.oad Resistanee The following parameters should be considered for lateral loads against permanent structures founded on fill materials compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary. F.qlliv~l"nt Flllic1 Pr"~S1IT" for r p.v,,] R~~kfill Active: 35 pcf Passive: 483 pcf Coefficient of friction (concrete on soil): 0.45 If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces, the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two thirds of the above recommendations. These values may be increased by one third when considering short-term loads such as wind or seismic forces. 7.9 .Allnwahle SDfe ReAring- t:apDl'ity For footings founded in competent engineered fill,' an allowable safe bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (pst) may be used for design of continuous footings)hat maintain a minimum. width of lZ-inches and a minimum depth of atleast 12-inche!l~lo~ the lowest adjacent ~"'fhe bearing value maybe increase<ibylO% fOfeachadditiqJla! foot of dePth liridlor'Mdth to a maxiiriWn:Of 3,900psf. TheDearl11.g v'ahi~IDaY)~ ilib~ by one-third for seismic or other temporary loads. Total settlements under static loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill and/or in-place bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed abOUt 1/2 to '3/4 of I inch for a span of 40-ft. Differential settlements between footings designed for the maximum recommended bearing value are expected to be less than 1/2-inch for a span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil engineering parameters for irnported soil may vary. T.H.E. Soils Company,lnc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 \\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Firas Naber June 16,2005 Page 10 7.10 Fmmdation OesigJ1 Foundation elements should be placed entirely in medium dense to dense engineered fill compacted to a rninimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined with ASTM D-1557. For one-story or equivalent structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 12-inches wide and I2-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For two-story or equivalent structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 12-inches wide and I8-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. As a minimum, all footings should have one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and bottom of the footing. Footings should be founded entirely in engineered fill. Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six-milliliter-thick polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2-inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2- inches of clean sand is recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the concrete. The structural engineer should design footings in accordance with the anticipated loads, the soil parameters given in this report, and the existing soil conditions. 7.11 ClltlFiII Transition Cut-to-fill transitions will be eliminated by overexcavation of the near surface soils underlying the proposed structure as recommended above in Section 7.2. 7.12 ITtiliV Treneh Raekfill Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557 test method. It is our opinion that utility trench backfill consisting of onsite or approved sandy soils can best be placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards as a minimum. 7.13 SurfAt'e DrslinSllgr Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant structures. . All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices. Where landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape irrigation water. T.H.E. Soils Company,lnc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 \2.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Firas Naber June 16,2005 Page II 7.14 Constrlletion Monitoring Continuous observation and testing under the direction of qualified soils engineers and/or engineering geologists is essential to verifY compliance with the recommendations of this report and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions found are consistent with this investigation. Construction monitoring should 'be conducted by a qualified engineering geologist/soil engineer at the following stages of construction: . During placement of fill. . During overexcavation of the building footprint. . Following excavation of footings for foundations. . During utility trench backfill operations. . When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the entire project, however soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locations. The fmdings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions ofa property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our controL Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 \~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Firas Naber June 16, 2005 Page 12 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. H~ /~- es R. Hksr~- Project Manager JPF /JTRlJRH:jek ACCOMPANYING MAPS, n.I.IJSTRATIONS, AND APPF.NDWF.S Figure I - Site Location Map (2,000-scale) Figure 2 - Historic Seismicity Search (264,000-scale) Plate I - Geotechnical Map (20-scale) APPENDIX A - References APPENDIX B - Exploratory Trench Logs APPENDIX C - Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX D - Standards of Grading T.H.E. Soils Company. Inc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 \~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX ,A References T.H.E. Soils Company,Inc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 \..s" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RRFRRRNCRS California Division of Mines & Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California", Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of Cali fomi a", DMG Open File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706. California Division of Mines & Geology, Effective Jahuary 1, 1990, "State of Califomia Special Studies Zone Maps, Pechanga, California", Scale I" ;= 2,000'. Coduto, Don, P., 1994, "Foundation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall, pages 637-655. Department of Water Resources, August 1971, "Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California", Bulletin No. 91-20. Earth Research Associates, Inc., April 23, 1977; "Fault Investigation, Tentative Parcel Map 9095, Rancho California, Riverside County, California", Job Number 195-77. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, William A., 2000, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, CD-ROM Version. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, "California Building Code". International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO), February 1998, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be Used with 1997 Uniform Building Code" prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code" (UBe). Jennings, CharlesW., 1994, "Fault Activity MaP of Calif6rniaand AdjaCent Areas with Locations and Ages'of Recent y olcanic'Eruptions", c8IiforniaDivision.::~('Mm..es and Geology, Geologic D~~,~~~~:.. 6,~.;e,,)1~L~~:;H.~&,:,,-4i,i;,;~C~;i;.:.;~. .&\>:,i:;i(,.~t!E~~ti~i~'..;..... Kennedy, Michael P. & Morton, D. M., 2003, "Preliminary Geological Map of the Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle RiverSide County, California", U. S. Geological Sutvey;' Qpen-File Report 03-189, Scale: 1 "=2,000' . . Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, "Recency lIIld Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California", USGS Special Report 131. Rancho California Water District, March 1984, "Water Resources Master Plan". T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 \c;. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RFFF.RF.NCF.S (CONTINIJFO) Rodgers, Thomas H., 1965 (fifth printing 1985), "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet", California Division of Mines & Geology, Scale: 1 :250,000. U.S.G.S., 1997 "Pechanga, CA., 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map", Scale I" = 2,000'. AERIAl. PHOTOGRAPHS I1TII.I7.F.O YEAR/SCALE FLIGHT #/FRAME # AGENCY 1939/1 "=1,667' C-5750/211-74,211-75 Fairchild Collection 1962/1 "=2,000' Co. Flight/3-401, 3-402 Riv Co Flood Control 1974/1 "=2,000' Co. Flight/I 039, 1040 Riv Co Flood Control 1980/1 "=2,000' Co. Flight/l 057, 1058 Riv Co Flood Control 1983/1 "= 1 ,600' Co. Flight/200, 201 Riv Co Flood Control 1990/1"=1,600' Co. Flight/19-21,19-22 Riv Co Flood Control 1995/1 "=1,600' Co. Flight/19-17,19-18 Riv Co Flood Control T.H.E. Soils Company. Inc. W.o. NO. 858501.00 \1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B Exploratory Trench Logs T.H.E. Soil. Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 \8 1 i.~r LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE #580 SUPER L EXTENDA- DATE OBSERVED: 03/30/05 BACKHOE EQUIPPED WITH A 24" BUCKET ELEVATION: :!: 1137 lOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP z 0 " ~ 0 8 ~ wii " w g w ~ .w . ~~ TEST PIT NO. 3 "" , '" . ~. ~ ~ SOil TEST x " ~ -, ~~ ~ 0; :s~ ~ 0; DESCRIPTION 0 0 00 z ~ S " z ~ '0 w 0 . ~ . 0 - PAUBA FORMATION - CLAYEY SilTY SAND (SM): DARK BROWN, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, MOIST, MEDIUM f-- DENSE, NUMEROUS ROOTS, VERY WEATHERED 5 f--I- - - - - COBBl Y SANDSTONE (SM): YELLOW BROWN, MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED, DENSE, I-- WEll CEMENTED, WEll SORTED TOTAL DEPTH = 6.0' 10 NO GROUNDWATER - 1 - I 11 I I - I I l- I I l- I- ~ l- I- f-- I- ~ , - - ~ - :..,:. ., . I. . : , .. - - ~ . - - - - ~ JOB NO: 858501.00 LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE: T-3 \<\ 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I' 1 1 1 1 1 I LO GGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE #580 SUPER L EXTENDA- DATE OBSERVED: 03/30/05 BACKHOE EQUIPPED WITH A 24" BUCKET I I ELEVATION: ! 1139 LOCATION: SEe GEOTECHNICAL MAP z , t; 0 8 ~ '* ,G: I ~ . ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ " TEST PIT NO. 2 I . . z ~~ SOil TEST r " ~ , w " ~ ~ ~ " DESCRIPTION , z . 0 .z , w ~ 0 m m U zw I u -0 I PAUBA FORMATION I I- \ CLAYEY SILT (Ml): OLIVE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE. CLAYEY IN PART, NUMEROUS FINE ROOTS i l- I Sll TV SAND (8M): YELLOW BROWN, MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED, MINOR GRAVEL, I l- I 2- OCCASIONAL SUBROUNDED COBBLES TO 4" IN DIAMETER, MOIST, DENSE , I TOTAL DEPTH = 6.0' I NO GROUNDWATER I 10 , I I I , , 15 , , , - ! , - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - '. ... ,- I- ~ - - ~ JO B NO: 858501.00 LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE: T.2 :20 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE #580 SUPER L EXTENDA- DATE OBSERVED: 03/30/05 I BACKHOE EQUIPPED WITH A 24" BUCKET I ELEVATION: ! 1138 lOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP : z , C- o 8 w 'i " I w g ~ g, It w . ;= TEST PIT NO. 1 ~ . ~ . ~ z ~ ~ " w SOIL TEST ;; ~ < " ;; DESCRIPTION , 0 9 o ~ z 0 z , w ~ 0 W 0 W W 0 0 , 0 , I - PAUBA FORMATION I SILT (Ml): OLIVE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, NUMEROUS FINE ROOTS , I V - - I - MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE I I SIt TV SAND (8M): YElLOW BROWN, MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED, MINOR GRAVEL SIZE, CONTENT, REMOLDED DIRECT SHEAR, i - 2- I OCCASIONAL SUBROUNDED COBBLES TO 6" IN DIAMETER, MOIST, WEll GRADED, DENSE SIEVE ANALYSIS, SAND EQUIVALENT, , , ^ , EXPANSION INDEX, SOLUBLE SULFATE - - AND CORROSIVITY SUITE - .!2. , - TOTAL DEPTH = 9.0' I , NO GROUNDWATER , - , - - J2 - l- I- I- ~ 25 - - ~ - .., . . ../ - - ~ - - - - ~ JOB NO: 858501.00 LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE: T-1 2.\ 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 APPENDIX t Laboratory Test Results T.R.E. Soli. Company, Inc. w.o. NO. 858501.00 22. I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I.ARORATORVTF.STING A. c:Jassifieation Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Classification was supplemented by index tests, such as particle size analysis and moisture content. B. Ryp9nsinn Indey An expansion index test was performed on a reRresentative sample of the onsite soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 1441b/ft ,in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard No. 29-2. The test result is presented on Figure C-1, Table I. C. Mayimnm Oensity/Optimllm Mnistllre Content A maximum density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for a typical sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM 1557-Method A. The test results are summarized on Figure C-l, Table II, and presented graphically on Figure C-2. D. Partide Si7e Determinatinn Particle size determination, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve), was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils in accordance with ASTM D 422-63. Test results are shown on Figure C-3. E. Oirpcot ShpSlr A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site undisturbed soils. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume change. Test results are graphically displayed on Figure C-4. F. SSlnd 1f.qllivAl_~~!_.~_ A sand equivalent test was performed on a representative sample of the subsurface soils to supplement .visual classifications and mechanical analysis. The laboratory Standard used was ASTM: I> 2419-74. The test results are presented on Figure C-l, Table III G. Snlfslfp. Cnntp.nt A sulfate content test was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was California 417 A. The test results are presented on Figure C-l, Table IV and graphically represented on Figure CoSo T.H.E. Solls Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 23 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I.ARORATORV TRSTING ~eontinlled) H. Cnrrn~ivity Suite A corrosivity suite was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D 4318. The test results are presented on Figure C- IA, Table V and Figure C-5. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 24 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I TABLE I EXPANSION INDEX TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL T-I @ 2-6-ft 6 Very Low TABLE 11 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP ASTM D 1557 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE TEST LOCATION (pcf) ('Yo) T-I @2-6-ft 119.7 11.0 , TABLE III TEST LOCATION SAND EQUlV ALENT T-I @2-6-ft 76 TABLE IV SULFATE CONTENT TEST LOCATION SULFATE CONTENT T-l @2-6-ft ND (non-detected) ppm Figure C-l T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 8S8S01.OO 2S 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 TABLE V CORROSIVITY SUITE SATURATED REDOX I I TEST LOCATION RESISTIVITY pH SULFIDE POTENTIAL T-1 @2-6-ft 7,900 7.2 300 Negative Figure C-IA T.R.E. Soils Company. Inc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 ~ I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 125 120 4- 0 "- 115 , :J1 .... '" c '" ." 110 :J1 L D MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE 105 ~ " \. \. , ". \. ~ ~ ~ " , , 7 , / } ~ '" ~ ZAV for Sp.G.: 2.713 100 2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 5 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Method A, Modified Oversize correction applied to final results Elev/ Depth 2-6 Classification USCS AASHTO Nat. Moist. % > % < No . 4 No . 200 Sp.G. LL PI SM 8.5 % 2.713 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MOl" Imum 'dr!J ,dens I t!J" 1.!9.7 pcf Optimum moisture' 11.13 % MEDIUM.. BROWN SILTY SAND Remarks: Project No.: 8585131.1313 Project: FIRAS NABER Location: T-l Date: 4-138-2005 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE Z.1 Fig. No. I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 " < < " ; ~ ; 0 ~ ~ it Ii . m n N - . . : r : : I: \ I: , : i\ : : : : \ : : : : : : : : : : : jl : I: : I: \ : \ \. ....: 11 : !I 100 90 80 70 0::: WOO Z u: !z50 W o 0::: W40 D. 30 20 10 Particle Size Distribution Report " ~ c ~ i 8 ~ ~ o 500 100 " COBBLES 0.0 SIEVE SIZE 3/4 in. 1/2 in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #30 #50 #100 #200 0.1 0.01 0.001 " GRAVEL 2.1 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm "SAND 83.3 14.6 "SILT "CLAY I PERCENT FINER 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9 86.6 48.0 24.8 15.3 14.6 SPEC.' PASS? PERCENT (X=NO) Soil Descriation Atlerbera Umils LL= Coefficients 060= 0.830 015= 0.111 Cc= PL= PI= 050= 0.633 010= 085= 1.86 030= 0.361 cu= USCS= CIII~':~TO= Remarks (00 spocificaIioa proWled) Sample No.: T-I @2'{; LocatIon: Soun:e of Sample: Date: 616/05 EIevJDepth: 2'{; Client: Project: NABER T .H.E. SOilS CO. P ect No: 858501.00 PIat8 SENT BY: GEOSOILS,--INC:-; /bU!:kIIU~lj; ~'r n . I L . v.... . _ v~, ..., I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 3.1lOO ....- -TOO uoo 2,1lOO ':i Q. ::L l- e> '" w 1._ ~ ~ :r '" // o o 500 1,ooli ..'-.. ----.-1.500 NOIlII\l PRESSURE. pol s..- OIIIINEL ___..__u.,,__ Po . - ..... SheIr SIIIIpIe TJPO . _'T-' 2.0 ......, SI.- 20 Residual Shear ~ Ra,RIIdbd . I5e2lI1T-1 _: SaI\lpIIlI~ prior lO-.., /:::- y .Y / ,.9 y ,r.';" 2.000 :uoo .- ---3;000 'Y" : IIC% C + 107.7 : 1'.0 148 34 107.7 : 1'.0 147 33 "._u_._.. _ GeoSofts. Inc. 574' PlllmerW8Y ~- c.tsbId, CA92008 ~1Ir'" Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931.0915 _......... .. -.- DIRECT SHEAR TEST Pftljed: The SolIs Co. NumIler. 2498-A-SC Dale: April 2005 Plate C-4 2.<<\ I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 NELAP #02101 CA ELAP#1156 6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507.0704 P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432 PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 653-1662 www.babcocklabs.com z~ ;~~&ES~:t.~~gCK Established 1906 Client Name: T. H. E. Soils Co. Contact: John P. Frey Address: 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G Murrieta, CA 92562 Analytical Report: Page 4 of 10 Project Name: No Project Project Number: No Project Work Order Number: A5D0348 Report Date: 18-Apr-2005 Received on Ice (Y iN): No OC Temp: Laboratory Reference Number A5D0348-03 Sample Description Matrix Sampled DatefTime Received DatefTime T-1 @ 2-6 858501.00 Frias Naber Soil 04/04/05 00:00 04/05/05 12: 30 Groove Analyte(s) Result RDL Units Method Analysis Date Analyst Flag Saturated Paste pH 7.2 0.1 pH Units S-1.10 W.S. 04/13/0516:46 era Redox Potential 300 1.0 mV SM 2580 04/13/0516:46 era Saturated Extract Saturated Resistivity 7900 5 ohm-em SM 25208 04/13/0516:46 era Sulfide NEG N/A Water Elution 04/13/0516:46 era Water Extract Sulfate ND 10 ppm Ion Chroma!. 04/14/0501:57 CTHN-SAG, N_WEX ~<;\ ,11 .cco~{)" ,"'- +" ~ '" '" ~ " - " ~ 20 C-5 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 APPENDIX D Standards of Grading T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 858501.00 3\ 1 STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1 These specifications pres.art T .D.E. Soils Company, standard rocommmdations for grading and earthwork. No dcviatioo from these ~cations should be p<mtitted onless ~cally "",er=Ied m the goo<<<Imical rq>ort of the projed. ... by wril1<n oommonicatioo si~ed by the Soils Consultant. Evaluations perlormed by the Soils Conso\tant during the cou,," of g<ading may re:uh in subsequent recommendations whim could "",=ede these specifications orthe reconunendations of the gea.edu1ical rqlort. 1 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 The Soils Consultant is the Owntt's or Dcve1opa-'s fq)resentative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Soils Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer. Soils Engineer. Engineaing QeologisL, and ethers employed by and responsible to the Soils Consultant. 1 1 \.2 All clearing. site preparation, or earthwork perfonned on the projed. shall be conducted and directed by the Contractor WIder the allowance or supervision of the Soils Consuhant. The Contractor dtould be responsible for the safay of the project. and satisfactory compldion of all grading. During grading.. the Contractor shall remain acoessible. Prior to the conunencement of grading., the Soils Consultant shall be employed for the pmpose of providing field. laboratory, and office services for oonfonnance with the rocommendations of the gootedutical report and these specifications. h will be necessary that the Soils Consuhant provide adequate t...ing and observations so that he may provide an opinion as to ddamine that the work was accomplished as specified. h shall be the re:ponsibility of the Contra"'" to ass;" the Soils Consu\tant and keq> him apprned of work sdledules and dulnges so thal he may sdledule his _eI aocordingly- h shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipmart: and mahods to accomplish the work. in accordance with applicable grading codes, agency ordinances. these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Soils Coosuhant, unsatisfactory OJOditions, sud1as questionable soil. poor moisture condition. inadequate oompaction. adveneweathel', etc., are resuhing in a quality of work less than required in these ~cati_ the Soils Consu\tant will be o:mpow...ed to reied. the work and .~ thal """"",dion be stopped ontiI the ooodilions are r<dified. h is the Contractor's responsibility to provide safe access to the Soils Consultant for testing and/or grading observation pwposes. This may require the excavation of test pits andlorthe relocation of grading equipment. 1 1.3 1.4 I I 1.5 I 1.6 I 1.7 A final rqtort shan be issued by the Soils eonsuhant atte!lling to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. 1 Z.O SITE PREPARATION 2.1 All vegaation and deleterious material sha1l be disposed of off-site. This removal sha1l be observed by the Soils Consultant and concluded prior to fill plaoemenL Soil, alluvium, or bedrod< -.rials ddermined by the Soils Coosuhm1t as being unsuitable f... pIa""""" m COIIVaded fiI\s shall be nmoved from the site or used in opal areas as dclmoined by the Soils ConsuIIant Any -.rial moorporated as a part of a ~ded fill must be approved b) the Soils (;una..... prior to fill p~ Af\erthe ground autfacoto receive fill has beaI cleared, it shall be scarified, dilloed ancil... bladed by the CooIIa<torontil it is uoifonn and li<efron rots, hollowa, hummocka. or \:6<<...""", feature! whim mayprevmt uoiform llOIqladioo. The acarified ~ autfaoe _ _ be bnJut!IIl to oplimmn moislure, mixed as t1lqUin>cI, and ~ded as spec:ified. If the scarified ....e i greal<<than twdw> iad>es in cIcplh, the_ _ benmoved and placed in IiIIa not to"'- six iad>es or \<sa. Prior to placing liD, theglOUllll autfacoto m:eive fiII_ be obocrvaI. teUd, and approved by the Soils Coo....... ":" Any UIllIergJoomd ~,... caviti.. oud1..ceupoo!a, ciIIam, mining obalIs, tuDnels, sq>tictanka. we\ls, pipe Iin... ....\:6... ~to ben..."" or treated in a mmn<<pn.Qibed by1he Soils Cmftl1tmd '.~,,' '*J~~:~/'::~' ;-- ~~lt:;;~~.~~>:_.'-::!{('f;'~7. '" 1n....fiII tJIIIIilim .... and -..... .... are partially in ooiI, colluvium or IIIIWC8Ih<red bedrod< motoria\s. in ...... to provide uoifonn bOom ooodili_lhe becm:k portiCll1 ofthC I<< _ding. mioimum ar' feet outside arbuilding lines ....n be.........,...ud · mioimum of3..feet .. ,"_. '. ...... ',' ... ,..q'- '.;j"''''-,'Jf''~'. .. replaced with <>O<q>lIded fill. Oreal<< ~ClI1 could be required os ddermined by Soils C........... TypiciI dcWla..e iIOd>ed. 1 2.2 I 2.3 I 1 Z.4 2.' 1 3.0 COMPACl'ED 1I1LLS 1 3.1 Mal<rialto bep1aced ufill_ beli<e ofoqpaUc- and db<< deIdaiouI- and - be~bythe Soils c...n.... Soils poor ~............. or......... ~ _ be placed in ..... .....p1ed by Soils c.o....... or - be mi=d with lllherlOib serve 8S misfadory fill material. as direded by the Soils Consultant. 1 3Z- 1 I Standard Grading and EarthwQrk Sp..x.-;lications Page 2 1 3.2 I 1 3.3 1 3.4 I 3.5 1 3.6 3.7 1 3.8 1 1 3.9 3.10 1 3.1\ 1 3.12 I 3.13 Rode fragments less than six inches in diarndef may be utilized in the fill, provided: They are nct placed or ne<U:d in conoenlrated pockets. There is a sufficient amowrt of approved soil to sutTOWld the rocks. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Consuhant. Rodes greater than twelve inches in diatnaeI- shall be taken off-site, or placed in accordance with the recoounendations of the Soils Consultant in areas desiWlated as suitable for rock disposal (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is attached) Material that is spongy. subject. to decay, or otherwise considered Wlsuitable shall nol be used in the compacted fill. Represart.ative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Consultant to dd.ennine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously-te.<ited is enoountaed during grading, the appropriate analysis oflhis material shall be oonduded by the Soils Consuhant before being approved as fill material. Material used in the cotnpading process shan be evenly spread. watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not. to exceed six inches m. thickness to obtain 8 lDlifonnly dense layer. The fill shan be placed and oompad.ed 00 a horizontal plane, \Ulless otherwise approved by the Soils Coosuhant. If the moisture oontaIl or relative CQIllIlactioo varies from that required by the Soils Consuhant,. the OJotrad.or shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils C<multant. Each laya- shall be compacted to at least. 90 peccent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing mdhod specified by the controlling governmental agmcy or ASTM 1557-70. whichever applie<;. If compactioo. to a lessel'percartag.e is authoriud by the controlling govemmmtal agatcy because of a specific land use or expansive soil cmdition., the area to receive:fill ~ded to less than 90 peroml d1all either Le delineated 00. the grading plan and/or appropriate reference made to the area in the gectedmical rq>ort. All fills shan be keyed and benched through all topsoil. colluvium. alluvium. or aeep material. into so\U1d bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exaleds a ratio of five horizontal to cne vatical or in acooniance with the reconnnmdatioo.s of the Soils Consuhant. The key for side hilllills:mall bea minimum wi~ of 15 feot within bedrock or firm _Is, unI... otbenvise specilied in the gededmica\ rq>ort. (SeeddAil_dled.) Subdrainage devices shall be oonslrUded in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agmey, or with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant. (fypical Canyoo. Subdrain daails are attached) The cm.tnK1or will be required to obtain a minimum relstive ~adioo. of at least 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes. buttresses, and lUbiIizlIlim IiUs. This may be ad>ie'Ied by either ..... bui1ding the slope md alIling back to the oompa<ied ex>re, or by dire<1 oompadico of the slope fiwe_ aubble......-. or by my otb<<prooedure, _ pn>ducca theteqWred ~m approved by the Soi1a ('-""" All filla1cpea lIhoold be p1aDIed or prolcded &om crooim by otb... mdhoda specified in the Soi1a rq>ort. 3.14 Fill..- dcpea obaII be properly keyed through topaoil, oolluvium or aeEp _1 into rock or linn mat<rials, and the transitim shall be m;ppedofaUaoiIpriortop.....gfiU. (See_ddAil.) 1 4.0 C\lTSLOPES 1 4.1 4.2 1 4.3 1 4.4 4.5 I 1 The Soi1I Ow-11t.m ~,~ aU ad:"~. vertical inlavall c:lWClCdiDg five feet. If any cooditiooluot anticiplled in the gc:dcdmical report such as perdted willer, seepage. taIticu1ar or oonfined strata of a pot.entially adverse _lIIIIiMlnbIy iDc:IioiaI bellding.joiola or Doh p.................s during pading. th_ omditims ....ll be maly7;ed by the Soi1a C<mu1tant and .g..... '.. ..........~ i>elDadetooWple\halUplOOIaDa. (Typical ddaiIs forllabilialim of. podim of. cui a1ope...._ed.) Cut dopel1hlt face in 1he same directiCXl II the prevailing draiDllge shaD be protected fiom stope wash by a Dm-erodt"ble intercqnor &wale placed 81 thetop ofthea!ope. Ua\coa otbcnriae speciIied in the JIllllIcd1nical rq>ort. DO cui aIopea ....ll be .....voted high... or _ thm tbal allowed by the onIinanoes o. oonIroIIingtp..........ut_ciea. Drainage terraces shall be oonstructed in compliance with the ordinances of oontrolling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations ofth, Soils Consultant. 33 I Standard Grading and Earthwork Sp.x.-iticalions Pag...: 3 1 1 5.1 S.O TRENCH BACKFILLS Trmch excavation shan be inspected prior to structure plao:.mmt for oompdmt bottom. 5.2 1 5.3 1 5.4 5.5 I 5.6 I Trmdl excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled lU)(terthe supervision of the Soils Consultant. After the utility pipe has beat laid, the space WIder and 8TOWld the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a dq1lh of at least. one fOlX over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jd1ed into place before the controlled baddill is placed ovtTthe sand The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the Soils Consultant, shall be watered and mixed, as necessary, prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill. The oontrolled backfill shall be compacted to at lea!>1. 90 pen::ent ~fthe maximum laboratory dmsity, as detennined by the ASTM D1557-70 or the controlling governmental agency. Field dmsity tests and inspection of the backfill proc.e.dures shall be made by the Soils Consuhant during baddUling to see that proper moisture content and unifonn compadion is being maintained. The contractor shall providetet holes and exploratory pits as required by the Soils Consuhant to enable sampling and testing. 1 6.1 GRADING CONTROL Insped.ion of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Consuhant during the progress of grading. 6.0 6.2 1 6.3 6.4 1 In general., density tests should be made at intavals nd. exweding two fed of fill height or evay 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This aiteria will vary dqJmding 00 soil oonditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests mall be made to verify that the required compadioo is being adlieved Density tests mould also be made on the native surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils ConsuhanL All clean-out, proressed grmmd to received fill. key excavatims, subdrains, and rod<. disposals should be inspected and approved by the Soils Consuh.ant prior to placing any fill. h shall be the ContradOr's respoosibility to n<tify the Soils Consuhant when such areas will be ready for inspection. 1 7.1 7.0 CONSfRUCfION CONSIDERATIONS 1 7.2 7.3 I I I I 1 1 1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the oompld.ion and oonmudion of pennanmt drainage controls. Upon ~let.ion of grading and tcnnination of inspections by the Soils Consultant., no further filling or excavating. including that necessary for footings fOWldations, 1argetree wells, ntaining walls, or dher features shall beperformed without the approval of the SoiJs Consultant. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, intm::qlt.or swales, or other devices of pennanmt nature on or adjacmt to the property_ 3'\ I \1 r. Ii I [". 1 [: I [ II.' I [ I I. I r I [, -I 1 i I I I L; I" I ! I I 1 I 1 SlOE HILL CUT PAD DETAIL - NATURAL __- GROUND ~-- -- -- .--- -- ;' ...- ...- ...- .....- ...- ;' FINISHED CUT PAD OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR / r- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ~ r THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SUB DRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN ~ I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL ------------------- --~=~=========~~-il------======~=~=n---==~===~~~=n=---~=~===-:::-- ...,.--::~ _-__:...-_-_-I_-_-__=_ ---"';--::::::T:::::"1:ll --:...-----:...-:...---...;- -------- _-_~J tr }!IIN.i::---~ -:::-=-=-=-_-_-_-_-=-=- -; - - --_-1-=-:.-:...---------=-:.1-__:...-_-:::-:::_- _-__:... _:...-_- - -...;;-:.:::-_-_-_-__:...-_-_-_-_-_-_-..: 4 M IN. -_-r.;.~ 15' M IN. ~_-_-_-- ------37~~----------------~--------~-- ~=3=3===E=E====t3E====~==E=3f===3====== _ ~=====3======::E=~~-=~---- ::::_=_=_=_=_=_:;=~-=-=-=-=-=_=-j_:=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-_ -J_:_:_-_-_- __ ---------~----_-:... ---------------------------------: -- ;: - :;.7----------------..: OVERSIZE..- - -- WINDROW! FINiSH GRADE ----------. ---------------- ---- SLOPE "'- FACE GRANULAR SOIL' . To TilT voids, densified by flooding PROFILE ALONG WINDROW ---..----- -- - -- -- ."3G. I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT Nt>.TURAl GROUND l_ -- -- .- -- :cciMPACTED :-::Flll:-=-=-::'::::-~_...:'--'C.~~>:-'o:::-=-=-=- ~:=::----~+ --------=------ 3600 MIN. ------------------ ,,,-\ ---.J;..: '\V J" -. .=-..:----------------..::<.~---'"7-<c:-'"7J~-~--- ~ '1 . + ~-=-=-~-~-:::-=--S-:-J\'IF:.\3}..-~-~--:----:... OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT -~~----Z-:\.lt~_=--~ ,,,,'JA" --.-...... -,J.. ---....-0'-- ._~l.:'C.~~-~::::-~=-~ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR . j r-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ---1 1 THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - .- CUT LOT -- - --- - NATURAi GROUND . 1- -- -- - NOTE: Deeper overexcovation and recomoaction shaJl be perfarmed if de!ermined "a be necesscry by the geotech"icol consultanl. ~1 KEY DEPTH , I 15' I , o ET AI L eM/N.j ~ --~r~r~~";~;::, A~~%_- BACK CUT ----=-:::-=-==-=-=-=-~-'~ I: I OR FLA HE ---------L:j ----=--i'-=-=-=-=-=-~--- BENCHING ----2/0----_ _.:-=:.:E==t=;::=~====;::=:.:E====-:::=2~( -7 ~~~OARlA~~RNA TES A 2: ----- -------~--- /:=.- ---:...--:...------:..r.------------:...----:...- ----- --------r-.------- ----... --=-::=-=-::::::-:::-+-=-=-=-=;-~4: _-1// F'LTeR '''7''''IAL \ - ------------------ . ---------'--Y I J' ~ --_________+_____:L': Jfr. II,. , -------:...--:--------:...------:...1---:...-..:----- - -. - .. < t -------.------.r----. ,-CONNECliON .... .....,,, . -A--:------.-:.7<:c--i--r---:,..X-I"S%....'N /~:.~Ii" ....- ) -- -, -. :,z: '-~;""""~- LL.L ~-----X--------_-_----:...-_--------- /7- Q;::l...._~ -. I --____. Cl.' . - --1'p\fle '" -_-_-----2,o..M,!:',:::...------:...--:...--:...? -ciU1Lf. t I ! / - PERFOnA TE:J ?!F12 I KEY W I 4"fjMIN. OGU'P".?lT Sl~ _ G;,~L~. y IS F2T ' ! SLUrt. bUllht00 REPLACEMENT FILL Un I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OUTLET PIPES 4" fj Nonperforated Pipe, 100' Max. O.c. Horizontally, 30' Mox. O.c. Vertically .. I 2' MIN. AL TERNA TE A TE~.tPORARY F1LL LEVEL .~ 1!l'"MltJ. GHA VEL OR (' APPROVED ". ~!:lur... Ala.:~H . - - - RECOMPACTED FILL l/u. = .=:- '"f\\IN.SELECT BEDDING BACKFILL . ~ 11..". NONPEilfORA TED / PIP; / MlftA.i=1 '.0 FILTE::I FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIV ALENT DETAIL A-A' ALTERNATE B . NOTES: . Fill blanket, back cut, key width and key'depth are subject to field change, per report/plans. . Key.heel subcrain,blanket drain, or vertical drain may-be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. . SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain pipe sholl be installed with perforations cown or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforoted pipe. . SUBDRA1N TYPE - Subdrain type sholl be ASTM 02751, SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40 Acrylonlbile ButadIene Styrene lABS) or ASTM 03034 SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic ID""" ...;...~ ...... .........r...."~,., o.....,",,~I~nt FILTER MATERIAL: Filter material shall be Closs 2 permeable material per State of California Standard Specifications, or approved alternate. Class 2 grading as follows: PERCENT PASSING SIEVE SIZE I" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 100 90-100 40...100 25-40 18-33 5-15 oJ-7 0-3 38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BENCHING DETAILS _-:..-:-:--::::COMPACTED :::-:::.--:...:::.-:::: - ----------=- ~-=_C::; F ILL :..."'.::-------:..: ----=- -------- -:.... -- ------ -=..---------- -....::.... -_-: -----------------~~---- -----------------,.:-_--- ------=- -- - -:..-:- --==-~ __=-=~=~===========~~:-:-~-~-.c---j~' ___________- ~-l /I'....)I^' PROJECTED PLANE ---- _________----~L'--l I to I maximum from toe __~~:=~j:==~2=~~~~-~--.- ,:;;:1 of slope to cpproved ground ---=------2-?--------;?-------:.~ \ _ _-_-:_-/-~-:----- r! /kYJ2. REMOVE ~. __..:.:-2~-:=-=~~C~-l~ U~;~~IJ;18^~E , . ___-__._~-:::--~~'''''.. I", I r"\ --, ,...".... 11'~-r-----7~-:::---::::-:--. 48'~MINH' -J BENCH 1 "-,r---.....-------- .r-NC I t 1-;.--__--------- ,- . HEIGHT - ~_:::-:-:::.-2%MTN.==-:-:- (typical) VARIES /" T -~:----~--------. 2' MiN. I 15' MIN. I KEY ~OWEST BENCH "1 DEPTH (KEY) FiLL SLOPE NATURAL GROUND \ ___-'710.' \ --U::-' _-= COMPACTED ::-:-:::.-:::::.:- FILL OVER CUT SLOPE ---------lFILL:--;---------~ _-::::-:-:-:-::::-:-:::.:;..-~--==-::::--..?': _-====-==~-:===~=:===-=-:2-=~ -==~ _-=~----:::c-----:-~-~--- ~ REMOVE. NA TURALz~-:---=-..?'- ^' ---"'\ U~l~~TR~~~\ GROUN,:- ~ -- ~----:-=-=--------=->r. 4' MIN: I siNCH " _ __ __-.;:;...-=-_-_-__=__ BENC~ HEIGl;IT _ \_ - ~~2%MiN.~ (typical)l VARIES __ J -- _------. ~~ 15IMIN.~ .- -- LOWEST BENCH --- -- CUT FACE To be constructed prior to fill placement .- .- NOTES: LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change based C~ consultant's inspection. S;';!!DRAI~JAGE:. E:,,,k .:~;~:.,~ mey be required at the jiscretlon or the geotechnical consullan:. .3,\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ NATURAL GROUND ',~ REMOVE "I-~ UNSUITABLE ~~='-~====jE~====~~~=;~~~1?--;;-r~~~=====~===~~_===~~~r-jMATERIAL BENCH! NG ==~==-~=S:-~===============~==f:=========~ ==- ~- -----------...-- ---,7J -::=-s.=======~~~-=~=-=======Z--$ - - -=-=.;:-- ---.--- -- -...;z": -- ,:\,;';/~ - =-~~-=-=-=-=-::=-::=-X -.- t-_-_"".:::--_~_~~SU8DRAIN TRE!'lCH ':d:J-i SEE ALTERNATES ASB CANYON SUBORA1N DETAIL SU8DRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With AL TERNATE A: Filter Materia! ..-- FILTER MATERIAL 3 9 ft. /ft. / + COVER . 6" MIN. ------- BEDDING Alternate A-1 PERFORATED 6" f)MlN. SU8DRAIN 1 1/2" Gravel Wrapped AL TERNA TE 8: in Filter Fabric A~ ,-;,'IN. OVERLAP ~ f- A MIR:'FI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT I y," MIN. GRAVEL OR APPROVED EQUNALENT 3 9 ft. 1ft. --...., FILTER MATERIAL: Filter material shaH be Closs 2 pcrmeQbJe mCTerioJ per State of California Standard Specifications, or approved alternate. Closs 2 grodi~ cs follows: SIEVE SIZE PERCEr~T PASSING I" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-/5 0-7 0-3 NOTE: In addition to the wrapped gravel, outlet portion of the subdrain should be' equipped with a minimum of 10 feet long perforated pipe con- nected to a nonperforated pipe having a minimum of 5 feet in length inside the wrapped grave I. . SUBDRAIN INST ALLA TION - Subdrain pipe sholl be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforated pipe. . SUBORAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shaD be ASTM 02751, SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM 03034 SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01785, Schedule 40 A~ POlyvinal Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalanl "'1V