HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 21766 Parcel 1 Geotech Investigation (Jun.16,2004)
I
e PETRA
OFFICES IN THE COUNTIES OF
ORANGE . SAN DIEGO . RIVERSIDE . LOS ANGELES . SAN BERNARDINO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 16, 2004
J.N.327-04
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
c/o Wing Building Consultants, Inc.
41485 Parado Del Sol Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: Mr. Mike Wing
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence,
Parcel Map 21766, Located On Colver Court, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California
Petra Geotechnical, Inc. is pleased to submit herewith our preliminary geotechnical
investigation report for Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 21766, located on Colver Court, in
the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This work was perfomled in
accordance with the scope of work outlined in our Proposal No. 1248-04 dated
April 23, 2004. This report presents the results of our field investigation,
laboratory testing and our engineering judgment, opinions, conclusions and
preliminary recommendations pertaining to geotechnical design aspects of the
proposed development. A supplemental review and, possibly, additional work will
be required once development plans have been formulated.
It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any
questions regarding the contents of this report or should you require additional
infOlmation, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~0~~
Clifford A. Craft, GE
Prindpal Engineer
RECEIVED
JC/CAC/RLGlkec
SEP 1 6 2004
Distribution: (9) Addressee
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
41640 Corning Place . Suite 107 . Murrieta . CA 92562 . Tel: (909) 600-9271 . Fax: (909) 600-9215
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
J.N.327-04
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
INTRODUCTION .................................................................. ................................... 1
Location and Site Description ............................................ ............................... .... I
Proposed Development/Grading........................................................................... 2
Purpose and Scope of Services..............................................................................2
INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................ 3
Aerial-Photo Review............. ................................................................................ 3
Field Exploration................................................................................................... 3
Laboratory Testing. ............................................................................................... 4
FINDINGS................. ... ............................................................................................ 4
Regional Geologic Setting .............. ...................................................................... 4
Local Geology and Soil Conditions ......................................................................5
Groundwater.. ....... ....... ................... .................. ..................................................... 5
Faulting.................................................................................................................. 6
Seismicity................................ .............................................................................. 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................7
General............................. ..... ................................................................................ 7
Earthwork....................................... .................. ................................ ..................... 8
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications................................................ 8
Clearing and Grubbing...................................................................................... 8
Excavation Characteristics.. .............................................. ................................ 9
Ground Preparation - Fill Areas........................................................................9
Oversize Rock Placement................................................................................ 10
Fill Placement.................................................................................................. II
Benching.......................................................................................................... 11
Import Soils for Grading ................................................................................. II
Processing of Cut Areas .................................................................................. 11
Cut/Fill Transitions......................................................................................... 12
Cut Slope................. ................... ..................................................................... 12
Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence................................................................ 13
Geotechnical Observations.............................................................................. 13
Post-Grading Considerations........ ....................................................................... 14
Slope Landscaping and Maintenance.............................................................. 14
Utility Trenches....... .... .................................................................................... 15
Site Drainage .................... ... ................................ ........................ .................... 16
Seismic-Design Considerations............ ............................................................... 16
Ground Motions ... .............. ........................................................ ..................... 16
Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity.......................... .................................. 18
Preliminary Foundation-Design Recommendations ...........................................19
\1tJ
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
General............................................ ....... ......................................................... 19
Allowable-Bearing Values ......................... .................... ...................... .... ....... 19
Settlement........................................................................................................ 19
Lateral Resistance ........................................................................................... 20
Footing Observations...................................................................................... 20
Expansive Soil Considerations........................................................................ 21
Retaining Walls... ................................................................................................ 22
Footing Embedments."................................................... ................................. 22
Active Earth Pressures ............................................................................ ..... ... 23
Drainage...................... ..................... ................. .............................................. 23
Temporary Excavations................................................................................... 25
Wall Backfill................................................................................................... 25
Masonry Garden Walls........................................................................................ 25
Construction on or Near the Tops of Descending Slopes ............................... 25
Construction on Level Ground........................................................................26
Construction Joints.......................................................................................... 26
Concrete Flatwork ............................................................................................... 26
Thickness and Joint Spacing ........................................................................... 26
Sub grade Preparation ............................................ ...... ,................................... 26
Planters................................................. ............................................................... 27
Corrosion............................................................................................................. 27
GRADING-PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES..................... 28
INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS ............ ............................. ... ................ ........... 29
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
References
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map (in pocket)
Appendices
Appendix A - Logs of Borings/Logs of Percolation Test Pits
Appendix B - Laboratory Test CritelialLaboratory Test Data
Appendix C - Seismic Analysis
Appendix D - Standard Grading Specifications
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, PARCEL MAP 21766
LOCATED ON COLVER COURT, CITY OF TEMECULA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of Petra Geotechnical, Inc.'s (Petra's) preliminary
geotechnical investigation of the subject property. The purposes of this
investigation were to detennine the nature of surface- and subsurface-soil
conditions, to evaluate their in-place characteristics and to provide preliminary
geotechnical recommendations with respect to site grading and foundation design.
This investigation also included a review of published and unpublished literature,
as well as geotechnical maps pertaining to active and potentially active faults that
lie in proximity to the site and which may have an impact on the proposed
construction.
A separate report has been prepared by under separate cover by Petra (Petra, 2004),
which included the results of Petra's study with regard to the construction of an
onsite sewage-disposal system consisting of septic tanks and leach lines.
Location and Site Description
A 20-scale tentative parcel map and preliminary grading plan prepared by Alpine
Consultants, Inc. was provided to Petra for this investigation. This plan is
enclosed as Plate I. The plan indicates that the subject property is located on
Colver Court, in the City of Temecula, California. The general location of the
subject property is shown on Platel.
The subject property exhibits hillside topography. Topographic relief across the
site is approximately 56 feet with elevations ranging from a low of approximately
104 feet above mean sea level (msl) to a high of approximately 160 feet msl. The
property is currently vacant and no water wells or other underground structures or
?Je
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 Parcell/Temecula
June 16, 2004
IN. 327-04
Page 2
utilities are known to be present on or near the site.
At the time of our
investigation, vegetation on the subject property consisted of brush and weeds.
Drainage was generally toward the south and Colver Court.
Proposed DevelopmenUGrading
The accompanying 20-scale tentative parcel map and preliminary grading plan
(Plate I) indicates cut-and- fill grading is proposed to develop a level building pad
for future construction of a single-family residence. Proposed vertical depths of cut
and fill in the future building area range from approximately 3 to 9 feet. A sewage-
disposal system consisting of a septic tank and leach lines is proposed for onsite
disposal of sewage effluent. A pool/spa and retaining walls, as high as
approximately 12 feet, are also proposed at the site.
Purpose and Scope of Services
The purposes of this study were to obtain infonnation on the subsurface conditions
within the project area, evaluate the data and provide preliminary recommendations
and design parameters for grading and foundation design.
The scope of our investigation consisted of the following.
. Review of available published and unpublished data concerning geologic and soil
conditions within, as well as adjacent to the site that could have an impact on the
proposed development.
. Geologic mapping of the site.
. Excavation, sampling and logging of four exploratory borings to acquire soil
samples for laboratory testing, as well as evaluate geologic structure and
lithology.
. Laboratory testing and analysis of representative samples (bulk and undisturbed)
obtained from the exploratory borings to determine their engineering properties.
'\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
IN. 327-04
Page 3
. Preparation of a Geotechnical Map.
. Engineering and geologic analysis of the data with respect to anticipated future
development.
. An evaluation of faulting and seismicity of the region as it pertains to the site.
. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and
recommendations for the proposed development.
INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Aerial-Photo Review
Sequential stereo-aerial photographs of the site area were reviewed and analyzed by
Petra (1967 to 1998). These photographs, obtained from Continental Aerial
Photographs, Inc., were at scales ranging from I inch equals 1,600 feet to 1 inch
equals 48,000 feet.
Field Exploration
Subsurface exploration was perfonned on May 24, 2004, and included the
excavation of four exploratory borings to depths ranging from approximately 16 to
21 feet utilizing a bucket-auger drill rig. EaJih materials encountered within the
exploratory borings were classified and logged in accordance with the visual-
manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System. The approximate
locations of the exploratory borings are shown on Plate I and descriptive boring
logs are presented in Appendix A. Associated with the subsurface exploration was
the collection of bulk (disturbed) samples and relatively undisturbed sanlples of
soil for laboratory testing.
In addition to the excavation of four borings, five percolation test pits for
percolation tests were excavated on the site (identified as P-I through P-5 on
Plate I). A separate report has been prepared by Petra under separate cover (Petra,
-s-e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 4
2004), which includes the results of Petra's study with regard to the construction of
an onsite sewage-disposal systems consisting of septic tanks aIld leach lines. The
approximate locations of the percolation test pits are shown on Plate I and
descriptive logs are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratorv Testing
In-situ dry density and moisture content, maximum dry density, expansion index,
corrosion and shear strength of remolded and undisturbed samples were determined
for selected disturbed (bulk) samples representative of those encountered. A brief
description of laboratory test criteria and test data are presented in Appendix B. In-
situ moisture content and dry density are included in the exploratory boring logs
(Appendix A). An evaluation of the test data is reflected throughout the
Conclusions and Recommendations Section of this report.
FINDINGS
Regional Geologic Setting
Geologically, the site lies within the Perris Block near the northeastem terminus of
the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Range Region is
underlain primaJily by plutonic rocks that fonned from the cooling of molten
magma deep within the earth's crust. Intense heat associated with these plutonic
magma metamorphosed the aIlcient sedimentary rocks into which the plutons
intruded. The Perris Block is bounded by the SaIl Jacinto fault zone to the
northeast and the Elsinore fault zone to the southwest. The site and adjacent hills
located within the Perris Block are underlain by the pre-Cenozoic crystalline
plutonic and metaInorphic basement rock that are a paIi of the Peninsular Range
Batholith.
~e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 5
Local Geology and Soil Conditions
Topsoil, alluvium and bedrock of the Temecula Arkose Fornlation were
encountered during our geotechnical investigation. Each unit is described in
greater detail below.
. Topsoil (no map svmbol) - Topsoil mantles the site, ranging in thickness from
about 1 to 3,5 feet. The soil was comprised of silty sand which was greyish
brown, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense and fine to coarse.
. Alluvium (map symbol Oal) - Quaternary alluvial deposits were observed in our
Borings B-2 and B-4 within the topographically lower-lying areas of the site.
The alluvium ranged in thickness from about I to 5.5 feet. This material
consisted of clayey sand which was brown and dark greyish brown, slightly
moist, medium dense to dense and fine to coarse.
. Bedrock: Temecula Arkose Formation (map svmbol Tta) - Pliocene-age
Temecula Arkose Formation bedrock was encountered at depths from I to 7 feet
below the existing ground surface within our borings. This material consisted of
fine- to coarse-grained, massive sandstone and siltstone which were various
shades of brown and light grey, slightly moist to wet, moderately haI'd to hard and
thickly bedded to massive. Structure appeared to strike northeast-southwest and
dip steeply to the south about 60 to 70 degrees.
Groundwater
No groundwater or seepage was encountered in the borings and percolation test pits
excavated for this investigation to a depth of 21 feet. Furthemlore, no evidence of
soil mottling or calcium-carbonate concentration was observed within the sides of
the borings that could have been indicative of a historically high groundwater level.
However, groundwater levels may vary due to seasonal fluctuations, irrigation
runoff or other factors.
1~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
IN. 327-04
Page 6
Faulting
The geologic structure of the southern California area is dominated mainly by
northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. Faults, such as
the Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas, are
major faults in this system and are known to be active. In addition, the San
Andreas, Elsinore and San Jacinto faults are known to have ruptured the ground
surface in historic times.
Based on our review of published and unpublished geotechnical maps and literature
pertaining to the site and regional geology, the site is not located within an Alquist-
Priolo Fault Hazard Zone. The closest active faults to the site are the Elsinore-
Temecula fault located approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers) to the south aIld
the Elsinore-Julian fault located approximately 10.3 miles (16.5 kilometers) to the
southeast. The most significant fault, with respect to aIlticipated ground motions at
the site, is the Elsinore- Temecula fault, due to its proximity and large possible
magnitude.
No active or potentially active faults are known to project through or toward the
site.
Seismicity
Several sources were consulted for information pertaining to site seismicity. The
majority of the data were originally obtained from CaInpbell and Bozorgnia which
has been incorporated into digital programs by Blake (see References) that allow
for an estimation of peak horizontal acceleration using a data file of approximately
150 digitized-Califomia faults. FRISK was most recently updated in 2000. The
program compiles various information, including the dominaI1t-type of faulting
within a particular region, the maximum credible earthquake magnitude each fault
is capable of generating, the estimated slip rate for each fault and the approximate
~e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 Parcell/Temecula
June 16,2004
IN. 327-04
Page 7
location of the fault trace. This data are then used for the probabilistic analysis of
the site.
The probabilistic analysis, on the other hand, incorporates uncertainties in time,
recurrence intervals, size and location (along faults) of hypothetical earthquakes.
This method thus accounts for the likelihood (rather than certainty) of OCCUlTence
and provides levels of ground acceleration that might be more reasonably
hypothesized for a finite-exposure period. Moreover, the State of California has
adopted the standard of using peak -ground acceleration exceeded at a 10 percent
probability in 50 years, also known as Design-Basis Earthquake Ground Motion, in
seismic aIlalysis for liquefaction calculations per requirement of the 1997 Unifornl
Building Code (UBe) Sections 1627, 1629.1 and 1631.2.
Our probabilistic analysis was performed by utilizing the computer progranl
FRISKSP (Blake, 2000) published by Bozorgnia, et. al. (see Blake, 2000). The
results indicate the design-basis earthquake ground motion for the site is 0.47g for
peak-ground acceleration with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded within a
50-year period. The results of our probabilistic aIlalysis are included in
Appendix C.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
From a geotec1mical engmeenng and engineering geologic point of view, the
subject property is considered suitable for the proposed constmction, provided the
following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design
criteria and project specifications. Grading should be conducted in accordance with
local codes and the recommendations within the report. It is also our opinion that
C\e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
IN. 327-04
Page 8
the proposed constlUction and grading will
stability of the adjoining properties.
not adversely impact the geologic
Earthwork
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
EaIihwork and grading should be perfomled in accordance with applicable
requirements of the Grading Code of the County of Riverside, in addition to the
provisions of the 1997 UBC, including Appendix Chapter A33. Grading should
also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the attached
StaIldard Grading Specifications (Appendix D) prepared by Petra, unless
specifically revised or amended herein.
Clearing and Grubbing
Weeds, grasses and blUsh in areas to be graded should be stripped and hauled
offsite. During site grading, laborers should clear from fills, roots or other
deleterious materials missed during clearing and glUbbing operations. Clearing
operations should also include the removal of trash and debris existing within aI'eas
of proposed grading.
The project geotechnical consultaIlt or his qualified representative should be
notified at the appropriate times to provide observation and testing services during
clearing and grubbing operations to observe and document compliance with the
above recommendations. In addition, should buried stmctures or unusual or
adverse soil conditions be encountered that are not described or aIlticipated herein,
these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the geoteclmical
consultant.
\0.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N.327-04
Page 9
Excavation Characteristics
Based on the results of our exploratory test borings, surficial deposits (i.e., topsoil,
alluvium, etc.) will be readily excavatable with conventional heavy-duty
earthmoving equipment. Cuts within bedrock materials are also aIlticipated to be
excavatable with conventional heavy-duty excavating equipment.
Ground Preparation - Fill Areas
Existing low-density materials, such as topsoil, alluvium and highly weathered
bedrock, should be overexcavated to underlying competent bedrock for areas to
receive compacted fill. Prior to placing structural fill, exposed bottom surfaces in
each overexcavated area should be scarified to a depth of about 6 inches or more,
watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions and
then compacted in-place to a relative compaction of 90 percent or more per ASTM
D1557.
Where overexcavation and grading do not provide 3 feet or more of compacted fill
below finished grade, within areas for proposed structures or walls, the area should
be overexcavated to 3 feet below proposed grade or 2 feet below bottoms of
footings, whichever is deeper. Actual depths of overexcavation should be
determined upon review of final grading and foundation plans, as well as during
grading on the basis of observations and testing during grading by the project
geotechnical consultant.
Based on exploratory boring and percolation test-pit data, as well as laboratory
testing, aIlticipated depths of recommended overexcavation are approximately 2 to
7 feet. However, actual depths and horizontal limits of overexcavation should be
determined during grading on the basis of in-grading observations and testing by
the project geotechnical consultant.
\'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 10
The estimated locations, extent and approximate depths for removal of unsuitable
materials are indicated on Plate 1. The actual depths of overexcavation should be
detennined during grading on the basis of grading observations and testing by the
project geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should be provided
with appropriate survey staking during grading to document that depths and/or
locations of recommended overexcavation are adequate.
Sidewalls for overexcavations greater than 5 feet in height should be no steeper
than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) and should be periodically slope-boarded during
their excavation to remove loose surficial debris and facilitate mapping. Flatter
excavations may be necessary for stability.
The grading contractor will need to consider appropriate measures necessary to
excavate adjacent to existing improvements or utility lines on the site without
endangering them or nearby offsite improvements due to caving or sloughing.
I
I
Oversize Rock Placement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Grading for the site is not anticipated to produce oversize rock. However, should
oversize rock (i.e., rock exceeding a dimension of 12 inches) be encountered, it
may be buried in engineered fills in the following manner.
The rock may be placed individually or windrowed in a manner to avoid nesting
and then covered with granular materials. The granulaI" materials should be
watered and/or jetted around the rock and then rolled so that the granular fines fill
the voids. A typical rock-disposal detail is presented in Plate SG 4 (Appendix D).
Note that oversize rock may not be placed shallower than 10 feet below pad grade
nor closer than 15 feet (measured horizontally) from a slope face.
\2--.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N.327-04
Page II
Fill Placement
Fill should be placed in 8-inch thick loose lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to
achieve near-optimum moisture conditions and then compacted in-place to a
relative compaction of 90 percent or more. The laboratory maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content for each major soil type should be detennined in
accordance with ASTM D1557.
Benching
Compacted fills placed against canyon walls aI1d on natural-slope surfaces inclining
at 5:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) or greater should be placed on a series of level
benches excavated into competent bedrock. Typical benching details are shown
Standard Grading Specifications (Appendix D).
Import Soils for Grading
In the event impOli soils are needed to achieve final-design grades, potential import
materials should be free of deleterious materials aI1d oversize rock, and exhibit non-
expansive, non-colTosive properties. Prospective impOli materials should be
observed and tested by the project geotechnical consultant prior to being brought
on site.
Processinl! of Cut Areas
Where low-density surficial deposits of topsoil, alluvium and/or highly weathered
bedrock are not removed in cut areas (building pads, walls and driveways), these
matelials should be overexcavated to competent bedrock and replaced as properly
compacted fill.
'v~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 Parcell/Temecula
June 16,2004
J.N.327-04
Page 12
CuUFilI Transitions
I
I
I
I
I
I
To reduce the detrimental effects of differential settlement, cut/fill transitions
should be eliminated from building and pool/spa areas where the depth of fill
placed within the fill portion exceeds proposed footing depths. This should be
accomplished by overexcavating the cut portion aJld replacing the excavated
materials as properly compacted fill. Overexcavated areas should also be at 2 feet
or more below proposed footing and pool/spa bottoms. Recommended depths of
overexcavation are given below. Actual overexcavation requirements will need to
be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant during grading.
I . . . .
. Depth of Fill Depth of Overexcavation
Up to 5 feet Equal Depth (3 feet minimum)
5 to 10 feet 5 feet
Greater than 10 feet One-half the thickness of fill placed on the "Fill"
portion (15 feet maximum)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Horizontal limits of overexcavation should extend beyond perimeter-building lines
a distaJlce equal to the depth of overexcavation or to a distance of 5 feet or more,
whichever is greater.
Cut Slope
A cut slope is plaJ1l1ed onsite at a slope ratio of2:1 (h:v) or flatter and to a height of
approximately 8 feet. The cut slope is expected to expose Temecula Arkose
saJldstone. Considering the absence of low-density cohesionless soils or planes of
weakness, the cut slope is expected to be grossly stable and neither buttress fill nor
stabilization fill is anticipated as replacements for the cut slope. However, in-
grading observation of individual cut slopes by the project-engineering geologist to
confinn favorable geologic conditions is recommended.
\-\$
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 13
Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence
Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite soil aJld
bedrock materials are replaced as properly compacted fill. Following is an estimate
of shrinkage and bulking factors for the vaJious geologic units present onsite.
These estimates are based on in-place densities of the vaJious materials and on the
estimated average degree of relative compaction achieved during grading.
. Topsoil
. Alluvium (Qal)
. Bedrock
Shrinkage 10 to 15%
Shrinkage 5 to 10%
Shrinkage 0 to 5%
I
I
I
I
Subsidence from scarification and compaction of exposed bottom surfaces in areas
to receive fill which are excavated into bedrock is expected to vary from negligible
to approximately 0.1 foot.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The above estimates of shrinkage, bulking and subsidence are intended as an aid
for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these
estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values.
Contingencies should be made for balaJlcing earthwork quantities based on actual
shrinkage and subsidence that occurs during the grading operations.
Geotechnical Observations
Prior to start of grading, a meeting should be held at the site with the owner,
developer, grading contractor, civil engineer and geoteclmical consultant to discuss
the work schedule and geotechnical aspects of the grading. Rough grading, which
includes clearing, overexcavation, scarification/processing and fill placement,
should be accomplished under the full-time observation aJld testing of the
geoteclmical consultaJlt. Fills should not be placed without prior approval from the
geotechncial consultant.
v10
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N.327-04
Page 14
I
I
A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should also be present onsite
during all grading operations to document proper placement and adequate
compaction of fills, as well as to document compliance with the other
recommendations presented herein.
I
I
I
Post-Grading Considerations
Slope Landscaping and Maintenance
I
Adequate slope and pad drainage facilities are essential in the design of grading for
the subject site. An anticipated rainfall equivalency on the order of 60 to 100"
inches per year at the site can result due to irrigation. The overall stability of the
graded slopes should not be adversely affected provided drainage provisions are
properly constructed and maintained thereafter aIld provided engineered slopes are
landscaped with a deep-rooted, drought-tolerant and maintenance-free plaIlt
species, as recommended by the project landscape architect. Additional comments
and recommendations are presented below with respect to slope drainage,
landscaping and inigation.
I
I
I
I
The most common type of slope failure in hillside areas is the surficial type and
usually involves the upper I to 6" feet. For a given gradient, these surficial-slope
failures are generally caused by a wide variety of conditions, such as overwatering;
cyclic changes in moisture content and density of slope soils from both seasonal
and inigation-induced wetting and drying; soil expansiveness; time lapse between
slope construction and slope planting; type and spacing of plant materials used for
slope protection; rainfall intensity; and/or lack of a proper maintenance program.
Based on this discussion, the following recommendations are presented to mitigate
potential surficial slope failures.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Proper drainage provisions for engineered slopes should consist of concrete-
terrace drains, downdrains and energy dissipaters (where required) constructed in
\~o
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
IN. 327-04
Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
accordance with the Grading Code of the County of Riverside. Provisions should
also be made for construction of compacted-eaIih benns along the tops of
engineered slopes.
. PennaIlent engineered slopes should be landscaped as soon as practical at the
completion of grading. As noted, the landscaping should consist of a deep-
rooted, drought-tolerant and maintenance-free plant species. If landscaping
cannot be provided within a reasonable period of time, jute matting (or
equivalent) or a spray-on product designed to seal slope surfaces should be
considered as a temporary measure to inhibit surface erosion until sllch time
pennanent landscape plants have become well-established.
I
I
I
I
. Irrigation systems should be installed on the engineered slopes and a watering
program then implemented which maintains a uniform, near optimum moisture
condition in the soils. Ovelwatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils
should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry-out is also
detrimental to slope performance.
. Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of
sprinkler lines in trenches should not be allowed without Plior approval from the
soils engineer and engineering geologist.
. During constmction of telTaCe and down drains, care mllst be taken to avoid
placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces.
I
I
. A pennaIlent slope-maintenance pro graIn should be initiated for major slopes not
maintained by individual homeowners. Proper slope maintenance must include
the care of drainage- and erosion-control provisions, rodent control and repair of
leaking or daInaged irrigation systems.
. Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage,
maintenance and landscaping, the potential for deep saturation of slope soils is
considered very low.
I
I
I
I
I
Utility Trenches
Utility-trench backfill within utility easements, under sidewalks, driveways aIld
building-floor slabs, as well as within or in proximity to slopes should be
compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent or more. Where onsite soils are
utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. The project soils
\\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 Parcell/Temecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 16
engineer or his representative, to document proper compaction, should perfonn
density testing, along with probing.
For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately 1-
to 2-foot thick loose lifts aIld then mechanically compacted with a hydra-haIllmer,
pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For deep trenches with sloped-walls,
backfill materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12-inch thick loose lifts
and then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment.
To avoid point-loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe,
imported sand bedding should be placed I foot or more above pipes in areas where
excavated trench materials contain significant cobbles. SaIld-bedding materials
should be compacted prior to placement of backfill.
Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to building footings (interior and/or
exterior trenches), the bottom of the trench should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v)
plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing.
Site Drainal!e
Positive-drainage devices, such as sloping sidewalks, graded-swales and/or area
drains, should be provided around each building to collect and direct water away
from the stmctures. Neither rain nor excess irrigation water should be allowed to
collect or pond against building foundations. Drainage should be directed to
adjacent driveways, adjacent streets or storm-drain facilities.
Seismic-Desil!n Considerations
Ground Motions
The site will probably experience ground shaking from moderate- to large-size
earthquakes during the life of the proposed development. Furthennore, it should be
\%.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 17
recognized that the southern California region is an area of high seismic risk and
that it is not considered feasible to make structures totaJly resistant to selsmlC-
related hazards.
Structures within the site should be designed aIld constructed to resist the effects of
seismic ground motions as provided in 1997 UBC Sections 1626 through 1633.
The method of design is dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics,
occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system aIld on the
building height.
For structural design III accordance with the 1997 UBC, a computer pro graIn
developed by Thomas F. Blake (UBCSEIS, 1998/1999) was utilized which
compiles fault information for a particulaI' site using a modified version of a data
file of approximately 150 California faults that were digitized by the California
Division of Mines and Geology and the U.S. Geological Survey. This program
computes various information for a patiicular site including the distaIlce of the site
from each of the faults in the data file, the estimated slip-rate for each fault and the
"maximum moment magnitude" of each fault. The program then selects the closest
Type A, Type B and Type C faults from the site and computes the seismic design
coefficients for each of the fault types. The prograI11 then selects the largest of the
computed seismic design coefficients and designates these as the design
coefficients for the subject site.
Based on our evaluation, the Elsinore- Temecula fault, located south of the site
would probably generate the most severe site ground motions with an anticipated
maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 aI1d anticipated slip rate of 5 mm/year. The
following 1997 UBC seismic design coefficients should be used for the proposed
structures. These criteria are based on the soil profile type, either compacted
artificial fill or bedrock, as determined by existing subsurface geologic conditions,
\<l,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
J.N.327-04
Page IS
on the proximity of the Elsinore- Temecula fault aIld on the maximum moment
magnitude aIld rate.
-- ". . '. .~ ..... .
.~ . '. UBC I ~~7 TABLE .. .'Fador ,
Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone 4
Table 16-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40
Table 16-U Seismic Source Type B
Table 16-J Soil Profile Type Sc
Table 16-S Near-Source Factor, N;J 1.3
Table 16- T Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.6
Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, C, 0.52
Table 16-R Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.90
Secondarv Effects of Seismic Activitv
Secondary effects of seismic activity normally considered as possible hazards to a
site include several types of ground failure, as well as induced flooding. Various
general types of ground failures which might occur as a consequence of severe
ground shaking at the site, including laIldsliding, ground subsidence, ground
lurching, shallow-ground rupture and liquefaction. The probability of occurrence
of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the eaIihquake, distance
from faults, topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, in addition to other
factors. The above secondary effects of seismic activity are considered unlikely at
the site.
Seismically induced flooding which might be considered a potential hazard to a site
normally includes flooding due to a tsunamis (seismic sea wave), a seiche (i.e., a
wave-like oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed basin that may be
.
~\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
IN. 327-04
Page 19
initiated by a strong earthquake) or failure of a major reservOir or retention
structure upstream of the site. No such conditions exist at the subject site.
Preliminarv Foundation-Design Recommendations
General
Due to the preliminary knowledge of the proposed site grading, preliminary
foundation-design recommendations are based on laboratory testing of the
predominant soil and bedrock materials encountered 111 our exploratory
excavations. The recommendations presented herein may be considered
appropriate for lightly loaded, shallow foundations, such as those supporting one-
or two-story, wood-framed structures. Supplemental design information will be
needed for more heavily loaded foundations, as would be the case with multi-story,
masonry or steel-framed structures. Final design recommendations will be
presented in the geotechnical report of rough grading, issued at the completion of
site grading.
Allowable-Bearing Values
An allowable-bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for
24-inch square pad footings and l2-inch wide continuous footings founded at a
depth of 12 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may
be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width and depth, to a value of
2,500 psf. Recommended allowable-beaI'ing values include both dead aIld live
loads and may be increased by one-third for short-duration wind and seismic
forces.
Settlement
Based on the general settlement characteristics of the compacted fill and in-situ
bedrock, as well as the anticipated loading, it has been estimated that the total
zz-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 20
settlement of building footings will be less than approximately 3/4 inch.
Differential settlement is estimated to be about 1/2 inch over a horizontal distaIlce
of 40 feet. It is anticipated that the majority of the settlement would occur during
construction or shortly thereafter as building loads are applied.
The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the grading will be
performed in accordance with the grading recommendations presented in this report
and that the project geotechnical consultant will observe or test the soil conditions
in the footing excavations.
Lateral Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a value of 2,500 psf may be
used to determine lateral-bearing resistaI1Ce for footings. The above values may be
increased by one-third when designing for short-duration wind or seismic forces.
In addition, a coefficient of friction of 0.4 times the dead-load forces may be used
between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance.
The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill or
bedrock. In the case where footing sides are formed, the backfi II placed against the
footings should be compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry density.
Footing Observations
Building-footing trenches should be observed by the project geoteclmical
consultant to document that they have been excavated into competent-bearing soils.
The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms,
reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trilllined neat, level and
square. Loose, sloughed or moisture-softened soil should be removed prior to
concrete placement.
t-?/.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
J.N.327-04
Page 21
Excavated materials from footing excavations should not be placed in slab-on-
ground areas unless the soils are compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry
density.
Expansive Soil Considerations
Onsite graJ1itic bedrock materials aIld a majority of the colluvial and alluvial soils
(sands and silty sands) exhibit a VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in
accordance with UBC Table IS-I-B. The project geotechnical firm should perfonn
a final evaluation of expansive soil conditions that exist within areas of proposed
construction during and at the completion of rough grading. Therefore, the
following design and construction details presented herein may be tentatively
considered for conventional footings and floor slabs underlain with non-expansive
or medium expansive foundation soils.
Verv Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less)
The results of our laboratory tests indicate that onsite soils exhibit VERY LOW
expansion potential as classified in aCCOrdaI1Ce with 1997 UBC Table IS-I-B. For
this condition, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and
reinforced in accordance with the following criteria. However, additional slab
thickness, footing sizes aIld/or reinforcement may be required by the project
architect or structural engineer.
. Footings
- Standard depth footings may be used with respect to building code
requirements for the plamled construction (i.e., 12 inches deep for one-story
construction and IS inches deep for two stories). Interior continuous footings
may be founded at a depth of 12 inches or greater below the top-of-slab.
- Continuous footings should have a width of 12 and 15 inches or greater for
one- and two-story buildings, respectively, and should be reinforced with two
No.4 bars, one top and one bottom.
z4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 22
Isolated interior pad footings should be 24 inches or more square and
reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations.
Interior isolated footings may be founded 12 inches or more below top-of-slab.
_ Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as
second-story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be 24 inches
square or greater and founded at a depth of IS inches or greater below the
lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced in
accordance with the structural engineer's reconnnendations.
. Floor Slabs
_ Living-area concrete-floor slabs should be 4 inches or more thick and
reinforced with either 6x6/WIAxW1.4 welded-wire mesh or with No.3 bars
spaced 24 inches on-centers, both ways. Slab reinforcement should be properly
supported so that the placement is near mid-depth.
Living-area concrete-floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture-vapor
retarder consisting of 10-mil polyethylene membrane or equivalent. Laps
within the membrane should be sealed and 2 inches or more of clean sand be
placed over the membraIle to promote uniform curing of the concrete.
Garage- floor slabs should be 4 inches or more thick and placed separately from
adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/S inch felt
expansion joint materials and quartered with weakened plane joints. A l2-inch
wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be
provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with
two No.4 bars, one top and one bottom.
- Prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened to
promote uniform curing of the concrete aIld reduce the development of
shrinkage cracks.
Retaining Walls
Footing Embedments
The base of retaining-wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at
a depth of 12 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where
retaining walls are proposed on or within 15 feet from the top of an adjacent
v50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
J.N.327-04
Page 23
descending fill slope, the footings should be deepened such that a horizontal
clearance of H/3 or more (one-third the slope height) is maintained between the
outside bottom edges of the footings and the face of the slope but not to exceed 12
feet, and not less than 7 feet. This horizontal structural setback may be reduced to
10 feet where footings are constructed near the tops of descending cut slopes. The
above-recommended minimum footing setbacks are preliminary and may be
revised based on site-specific soil and/or bedrock conditions.
Footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical representative to
document that the footing trenches have been excavated into competent-bearing
soils and/or bedrock and to the embedments recommended above. These
observations should be performed prior to placing fonns or reinforcing steel.
Active Earth Pressures
An active lateral-earth pressure equivalent fluid having a density of 35 pounds per
cubic foot (pet) should tentatively be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining
a drained, level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2: I (h:v), the
above value should be increased to 52 pcf. Retaining walls should be designed to
resist surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls, stlUctures, or vehicles in
addition to the above active earth pressures.
Drainage
Weepholes or open vertical masonry joints should be provided in retaining walls
less than 6 feet in height to reduce the likelihood of entrapment of water in the
backfill. Weepholes, if used, should be 3 inches or more in diameter and provided
at intervals of 6 feet or less along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints, if used,
should be provided at 32-inch or less intervals. A continuous gravel fill, 12 inches
by 12 inches, should be placed behind the weepholes or open masonry joints. The
gravel should be wrapped in filter fabric to reduce infiltration of fines and
~e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
J.N.327-04
Page 24
subsequent clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or
equivalent..
In lieu of weepholes or open joints, a perforated pipe-and-gravel subdrain may be
used. Perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch or more diaIneter PVC Schedule 40
or ABS SDR-35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be embedded in
1.5 cubic feet per foot of 0.75- or 1.5-inch open-graded gravel wrapped in filter
fabric. 'Filter fabric may consist ofMirafi 140N or equivalent.
Retaining walls greater than 6 feet high should be provided with a continuous
backdrain for the full height of the wall. This drain could consist of a geosynthetic
drainage composite, such as Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, or a pernleable drain
material, placed against the entire backside of the wall. If a penneable drain
material is used, the backdrain should be I or more feet thick. Caltrans Class II
permeable material or open-graded gravel or crushed stone (described above) may
be used as penneable drain material. If gravel or crushed stone is used, it should
have less than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain should be
separated from the backfill with a geofabric. The upper I foot of the backdrain
should be covered with compacted fill. A drainage pipe consisting of 4-inch
diameter perforated pipe (described above) surrounded by I cubic foot per foot of
gravel or crushed rock wrapped in a filter fabric should be provided along the back
of the wall. The pipe should be placed with perforations down, sloped at 2 percent
or more and discharge to an appropriate outlet through a solid pipe. The pipe
should outlet away from structures and slopes. The outside portions of retaining
walls supporting backfill should be coated with all approved waterproofing
compound to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls.
2-1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
IN. 327-04
Page 25
Temporary Excavations
To facilitate retaining-wall construction, the lower 5 feet of temporary slopes may
be cut vertical and the upper portions exceeding a height of 5 feet should be cut
back at a gradient of 1: I (h:v) or less for the duration of construction. However,
temporary slopes should be observed by the project geotechnical consultaIlt for
evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations,
flatter slopes may be necessary. The potential effects of various parameters such as
weather, heavy equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary
excavations and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability
of temporary slopes.
Wall Backfill
Retaining-wall backfill should be placed in 8-inch loose lifts, watered or air-dried
as necessary to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in-place
to a relative compaction of90 percent or more based on ASTM D 1557.
Masonry Garden Walls
Construction on or Near the Tops of DescendiDl! Slopes
Continuous footings for masonry garden walls proposed on or within 5 feet from
the top of descending cut or fill slope should be deepened such that a horizontal
clearance of 7 feet or more is maintained between the outside bottom edge of the
footing and the slope face. The footings should be reinforced with two No.4 bars
or more, one top and one bottom. Plans for top-of-slope garden walls proposing
pier and grade-beam footings should be reviewed by the project geotechnical
consultant prior to construction.
~~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 Parcell/Temecula
June 16,2004
J.N.327-04
Page 26
Construction on Level Ground
Where masonry walls are proposed on level ground and 7 feet or more from the
tops of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded at a depth of
12 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should
also be reinforced with two No.4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Construction Joints
In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of
differential settlement, positive separations (constmction joints) should be provided
in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 25 feet and at each corner. The
separations should be provided in the blocks only aIld not extend through the
footings. The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to
serve as effective grade beams along the full lengths of the walls.
Concrete Flatwork
Thickness and Joint Spacing
To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete sidewalks and patio-type
slabs should be 3.5 inches thick or more provided with construction or expansion
joints every 6 feet or less. Concrete driveway-slabs should be 4 inches thick or
more and provided with constmction or expansion joints every 10 feet or less.
Subgrade Preparation
As a further measure to reduce cracking of concrete flatwork, the sub grade soils
below concrete-flatwork areas should first be compacted to a relative density of 90
percent or more aIld then thoroughly wetted to achieve a 11loisture content that is
equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should
extend to a depth of 12 inches or more below sub grade aI1d maintained in the soils
during placement of concrete. Pre-watering of the soils will promote unifonn
~.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16, 2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 27
CUrIng of the concrete and reduce the development of shrinkage cracks. A
representative of the project geoteclmical consultant should observe and document
the density and moisture content of the soils aIld the depth of moisture penetration
prior to placing concrete.
Planters
Area drains should be extended into planters that are located within 5 feet of
building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry block walls to reduce
excessive infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface of the
ground in these areas should also be sloped at a gradient of 2 percent or more away
from the walls and foundations. Drip-inigation systems are also recommended to
prevent overwatering and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils.
Corrosion
The corrosion potential of the onsite materials was evaluated for its effect on steel
and concrete. The corrosion potential was evaluated using the results oflaboratory
tests on a representative sample obtained during our field exploration. Laboratory
testing was perfornled to evaluate pH, minimum electrical resistivity and chloride
and soluble sulfate content.
The test results indicate that pH of the sample of soil tested was 6.9. A measured
electrical resistivity of 8,900 ohm-em indicated that the site soils may be
considered non-corrosive to ferrous materials. However, consideration should be
given to using plastic piping instead of metal.
Testing further indicates a soluble sulfate content of 0.0082 percent and a chloride
content of 125 ppm. We recommend that Type II modified cement be used and
that a 3-inch thick concrete cover be maintained over the reinforcing steel in
;p.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 28
concrete in contact with the soil. A corrosion engineer can be consulted to provide
additional recommendations if desired.
This recommendation is based on one sample of the subsurface soils. The initiation
of grading at the site could blend various soil types and import soils may be used
locally. These changes made to the foundation soils could alter sulfate-content
levels. Accordingly, it is recommended that additional testing be perfonned at the
completion of grading.
GRADING-PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Sharon and Bruno Lebon
assist the project engineer and architect in the design of the proposed development.
It is recommended that Petra be engaged to perform additional subsurface
exploration and review both the rough-grading plan and the final-design drawings
aIld specifications prior to construction. This is to document that the
recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted and are
incorporated into the project specifications. Petra's review of the rough-grading
plaIl may indicate that additional subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and
analysis should be performed to address areas of concem. If Petra is not accorded
the opportunity to review these documents, we can take no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
We recommend that Petra be retained to provide soil-engineering services during
both the rough-grading and construction phases of the work. This is to observe
compliaIlce with the design, specifications or recommendations and to allow design
changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior
to start of construction.
"?\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N. 327-04
Page 29
If the project plans change significaIltly (e.g., building loads or type of stlUctures),
we should be retained to review our original design recommendations aIld their
applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are encountered during
construction that appear to be different than those indicated in this report, this
office should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be
required.
INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the project, as described and the geotechnical data obtained
from the field tests performed at the locations indicated on the plaIl. The materials
encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory investigation aI"e
believed representative of the total area. However, soils can vary in characteristics
between excavations, both laterally and veliically.
The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the
described geotechnical evaluations and represent our best professional judgment.
The findings, conclusions aIld opinions contained in this report are to be considered
tentative only aIld subject to confinnation by the undersigned during the
construction process. Without this confirmation, this repOli is to be considered
incomplete and Petra or the undersigned professionals assume no responsibility for
its use. In addition, this report should be reviewed and updated after a period of I
year or if the site ownership or project concept ChaIlges from that described herein.
This report has not been prepared for use by parties or proj ects other than those
naIlled or described above. It may not contain sufficient infonnation for other
parties or other purposes.
3Z-0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHARON & BRUNO LEBON
PM 21766 ParcelllTemecula
June 16,2004
J.N.327-04
Page 30
The professional opinions contained herein have been derived in accordance with
current standards of practice and no waITanty is expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
Robeli 1. Grego e II,
Senior Associate Geolo
c~Jo.~
Clifforir~ C;aft, GE
Principal Engineer
JC/RLG/CAC/kec
?~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~: ..... .~~::....---~~-',
I'. \ /-h.
.' \ . ~.c::-
~. G ,_f......-, "-/ ij"
oL~____ a\" _~~ /'" _.>.>~--,...~. >~>
"-,~_:.~=.~~.=~ ,: v~_._--L'!'e~e_~~J(L /,t.--:.~
Q---.-:__ ." _r ,u""_ /~";111
;:?:... ..,,- / ;:w-"""''''''''' If~",/- .
.~- II '\\. 11."-26
,<.1 1,-"'" I',. \1,.11(\0 -',~
: \'-\\\f';'f(~Y' '<~"'~,,:i: (t~\ .<.:ir=-,,/
r,\ "i . c.._<',' 7,-.) ( ~<
-i.{.~'\: '\..<,~';"'O<~-- '. /' ,~;'!(?:
#/~' ~\<
. ,""'"
q )
q"/
q
q
q
,
.,
.,
q
l-t;~/
/O/#:,
q ,
I
I
&
c
;'
\;
"-
SITE LOCATION MAP
!l:
"
W
....
Vi
Reference:
USGS topographic maps, 7.5 minute
series, Pechanga quadrangle.
dated 1968. photo revised 1988,
Temecula quadrangle, dated 1968,
photo revised 1975.
~
_ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
NORTH
JN 327-04
JUNE,2004
o
,
2000 FEET
,
SCALE
FIGURE 1
?A
I
I
REFERENCES
I
Alpine Consnltants Inc., 2003, "Grading Plan," dated March 15, 2003, Sheets I and 2, unsigned.
I
Blake, T.F., 199811999, UBCSEIS, Version 1.03, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building
Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources.
I
, 2000, FRISKS?, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak
Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources.
I
Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, William A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CDMG Special
Publication 42, revised 1997, Supplements I and 2 added 1990.
I
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Stmctural Engineering Design
Provisions.
, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in Califomia and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,
Prepared by California Division of Mines and Geology.
I
Jenkins, OlafP., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, Scale: 1:250,000.
I
Jemllngs, C.W., 1985, An Explanatory Text to Accompany the I :750,000 scale Fault and Geologic Maps of
California, California Division of Mines and Geology.
, 1994, Fault Activity Map of Califomia and Adjacent Areas, Scale 1:750,000.
I
Kemledy, M.P", 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside
County, California, CDMG Special Report 131.
I
Morton, D.M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30'X60' Quadrangle, Southern California,
Open File Report OF99-ln.
I
Petra Geoteclmical, Inc., 2004, Onsite Sewage-Disposal Feasibility Investigation, Proposed Single-Family
Residence, Parcell of Parcel Map 21766, Located on Colver Court, City of Temecula, Riverside County,
Califomia, J.N. 327-04, dated June 8.
I
Weber, F.H., Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern
Riverside County, Califomia, CDMG Open File RepOli 77-4 LA, May, 1977.
I
I
I
I
I
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
I.N. 327-04
lune 2004
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES (Continued)
Aerial-Photo2:raohs Reviewed
. . . .. Scale i
... Date .. Photo Number . I incb=--- feet .'
07/15/67 5HH - 44-45 1,600
02/08/88 88045 - 3-4 48,000
05/04/90 90116 - 18-20 36,000
06124/93 C94 - 4-120-12 2,000.
10104/95 CAP - 178-1791 2,000
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC
J.N. 327-04
June 2004
'b't-
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
I
I LOGS OF BORINGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I o PETRA
I ~l
I
Key to Soil and Bedrock Symbols and Terms
. PETRA
I
I
I
I
I
."
-= ~ 0
" - 0
.: .~ ~
~ '" ~ c ~
r=; E ~ ~
... "".... -:";;;
:.. 0 u
~ ~ e.o
u -~
^
~.~ 0
.- '" 0
~~~
] ~ ;ij I,)
"1; E? ~
~'o ~'in
~ S ~
ti: ^ Vi
GRAVELS
'5 : more than half of coarse
2 13 fraction is larger than #4
~ .:00: sieve
.~ <0
" 0
> "
.~ :: more than half of coarse
~ .9 frae'tion is smaller than #
" " .
.g ~ SIeve
. ='Vi
. .8":;:
'" "
rnu
::) .~
o
o_
N ~
ci "
Z .
~ ~
Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no mes
SiJ Gravels, oorl - aded vel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey Gravels, poorly-graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no tines
Poorly-graded sands. gravelly sands, little or no fines
Si ty Sands. poorly-graded sand-gravel-silt mixtures
Clayey Sands, oarly-graded sand-gravel-clay mixtures
Inorganic silts & very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands,
clayey silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Organic silts & clays oflow plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand or silt
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Organic silts and clays of medium-to-high plasticity
Peat, humus swamp soils with high organic content
. Clean Gravels
less than 5% fines
Gravels
with fines
Clean Sands
(less than 5% fines
Sands
with fines
SANDS
ML
SILTS & CLAYS
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
CL
OL
Mn
cn
on
PT
....
SILTS & CLAYS
Liquid Limit
Greater Than 50
Hi hlv Or anic Soils
I
I
I
I
I
I
Description Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size
Boulders >12" >12" Lar er than basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12" 3 -12" Fist-sized to basketball-sized
coarse 3/4 - 3" 3/4 - 3" Thumb-sized to fist-sized
Gravel fine #4 - 3/4" 0.19 - 0.75" Pea-sized to thumb-sized
coarse #10- #4 0.079 - 0.19" Rock salt-sized to ea-sized
Sand medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079" Su~ar-sized to rock salt-sized
fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017" Flour-sized to sugar-sized to
Fines Passin #200 <0.0029" Flour-sized and smaller
MAX
EXP
S04
RES
pH
CON
SW
Maximum Dry Density
Expansion Potential
Soluble Sulfate Content
Resistivity
Acidity
Consolidation
Swell
MA
AT
#200
DSU
DSR
HYD
SE
Mechanical (Partical Size) Analysis
Atterberg Limits
#200 Screen Wash
Direct Shear (Undisturbed Sample)
Direct Shear (Remolded Sample)
Hydrometer Analysis
Sand Equivalent
Trace
Few
Some
Numerous
<1%
1-5%
5 -12%
12-20%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--S'-"'"~I",~sr;""1lJiib~-"'Jj-~-;'D~7''''~'':tiz.7::_""a;- "",e;;::",,:',,:[J:'
~~L..,!lmp,,-~!L.apB~'JfIl!.',,(),,"~~k&!~~P~f'~J:.bl,~;:;:lit~;t::::k.
~
~
I
I
i
o
Can be crushed and granulated by
hand: "soil like" and structureless
Approximate Depth of Seepage
Soft
Approximate Depth of Standing Groundwater
Moderately
Hard
Can be grooved with fingernails;
gouged easily with butter knife;
crumbles under light hammer blows
Modified California Split Spoon Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Cannot break by hand; can be
grooved with a sharp knife; breaks
with a moderate hammer blow
Hard
Bulk Sample
Sharp knife leaves scratch; chips
with repeated hammer blows
Very Hard
No Recovery in Sampler
Notes:
Blows Per Foot: Number of blows required to ndvance sampler 1 foot (unless a lesser distance is specified). Samplers in general were driven into the sailor
bedrock 3t the bottom of the hole with a standard (140 lb.) hammer dropping a standard 30 inches. Drive samples collected in bucket auger borings may be
obtained by dropping Ilon~standard weighl from varinble heights. When a SPT sampler is used the blow count conforms to ASTM 0-1586
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
0
~
<D
>-
Q
I ~
~
~
>-
w
~
0:
"
I ~
0
~
~
N
>
"
I 0
~
Z
0
~
~
0
~
I ~
x
w
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Residential Development
Location: Colver Conrt, Temecnla, California
Client: S. and B. LeBon
Job No.: 327-04
Driving Weight:
See Notes
Drill Method: 24-in Bncket Auger
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
5
~
Material Description
TOPSOIL
Silty SAND (SM): greyish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose; fine to
coarse rootlets. scattered rock clasts.
BEDROCK: TEMECULA ARKOSE FORMA nON ITta)
Clayey SANDSTONE: dark yellow brown, slightly moist, hard; fine-
to coarse-grained, moderately weathered.
@ 1.5 - 2.0 feet: grades to coarse, abundant subrounded pebbles.
@ 4.5 to 5.0 feet: fine- to coarse-grained.
@ 5.5 feet: minor roots.
@ 6.0 to 6.5 feet: less clay.
SANDSTONE: dark yellow brown, moist, hard; fine- to
coarse-grained, massive, micaceous, subrounded pebbles and gravel,
friable, with some clay.
@ 8.0 feet: moist; coarse-grained with subrounded pebbles,
~.' micaceous.
.~'
10
~
~
.~
15
.'.~
'~'.'
'~'.
-~-'
.~,.
@ 10.0 feet: very moist: very friable.
@ 14.0 feet: very moist to wet.
Silty SANDSTONE: light olive brown, very moist, hard; very
fine-grained, micaceous, few coarse, minor laminae.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc,
Boring No.: B-1
Elevation: 1140 ft msl
Date: 5/24/04
Logged By: J Cain
W Samples Laboratory Tests
a Blows C B Moisture Dry Other
t Per 0 u Content Density Lab
e r I
r Foot e k (%) (pet) Tests
8
3.1
110.1
12
9
12
4.7
107.9
10
PLATE A-I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Residential Development Boring No.: B-1
Location: Colver Conrt, Temecula, California Elevation: 1140 ft msl
Job No.: 327-04 Client: S. and B. LeBon Date: 5/24/04
Drill Method: 24-in Bucket Auger Driving Weight: See Notes Logged By: JCain
W Samples Laboratory Tests
Material Description a Blows C B Moisture Dry Other
Depth Lith- I Per 0 u Content Density Lab
e r I
(Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pef) Tests
;:::'"-- 15
;..
f- ~~c- \-
TOTAL DEPTH ~ 21.0'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
BORING BACKFILLED
Notes:
Driving Weight: 0.0 - 25.0 reet ~ 2,500 lb5.
~
o
~
iD
~
o
"
~
~
~
W
0-
~
~
"
~
~
N
M
N
>
"
g
z
o
~
~
g
0-
X
W
PLATE A-2
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project:
EXPLORATION LOG
Proposed Residential Development
Location: Colver Court, Temecula, California
Client: S. and B. LeBon
Job No.: 327-04
Driving Weight:
See Notes
Drill Method: 24-in Bucket Auger
Depth
(Feet)
15
~
e
~
'"
~
0
"
~
~
~
w
~
~
~
"
~
~
"
"
0
~
z
0
~
~
0
~
~
x
w
Material Description
lith-
ology
TOPSOIL
Silty SAND (SM): greyish brown, dry, loose to medium dense; fine,
some coarse, porous.
5
ALLUVIUM (Oal)
Clayey SAND eSC): dark grey brown, slightly moist, dense: fine to
coarse, pinhole porosity, root hairs.
@ 3.5 feet: moist; increase in clay, no pores observed, micaceous.
@ Sandy CLAY/Clayey SAND (CLlSC): medium brown, very moist,
dense; fine to coarse, micaceous, caliche.
7.0 feet: undulato radational contact.
BEDROCK: TEMECULA ARKOSE FORMATION (Tta)
Clayey SANDSTONE: yellow brown, very moist, moderately hard;
coarse-grained, massive, micaceous, subrounded pebbles.
10
12.2 feet: Lower Contact: N42E 65S.
SILTSTONE: light brown, very most, moderately hard; very
fine-grained sand, massive, micaceous.
SANDSTONE: light grey, light yellow brown, slightly moist,
moderately hard; fine-grained, massive, micaceous.
.~:-.
:.'~
.~..
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
Boring No.: B-2
Elevation: 1136 ft ms\
Date: 5/24/04
Logged By: JCain
W Samples Laboratory Tests
a Blows C B Moisture Dry Other
t Per 0 u Content Density Lab
e r I
r Foot e k (%) (peI) Tests
7
6.1
122.0
shear
5
4
7.4
I] 9.3
8
7
23.2
106.6 shear
PLATE A-3
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
0
~
"
~
0
"
I "
"
~
w
~
~
~
"
~
I ~
N
~
"
0
I ~
z
"
~
"
0
~
~
I x
w
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Residential Development Boring No.: B-2
Location: Colver Court, Temecula, California Elevation: 1136 ft msl
Job No.: 327-04 Client: S. and B. LeBon Date: 5/24/04
Drill Method: 24-in Bucket Auger Driving Weight: See Notes Logged By: JCain
W Samples Laboratory Tests
Material Description a Blows C B Moisture Dry Other
Depth Lith- t Per 0 u Content Density Lab
e r I
(Feet) ology r Foot e k (%) (pef) Tests
..:2' ]6
~.
TOTAL DEPTH = 21.0'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
BORING BACKFILLED
Notes:
Driving Weight: 0.0 - 25.0 = 2,500 Ibs.
PLATE A-4
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project:
EXPLORATION LOG
Proposed Residential Development
Location: Colver Conrt, Temecula, California
Client: S. and B. LeBon
Job No.: 327-04
Driving Weight:
See Notes
Drill Method: 24-in Bucket Auger
Depth
(Feet)
Lith-
ology
10
Material Description
TOPSOIL
Silty SAND (SM): greyish brown, dry, loose; fine with coarse, minor
pinhole porosity.
BEDROCK: TEMECULA ARKOSE FORMATION (Tta)
Clayey SANDSTONE: yellow brown, slightly moist to moist, hard;
fine- to coarse-grained, massive, moderately weathered, rootlets.
Boring No.: B-3
Elevation: 1134 ft msl
Date: 5/24/04
Logged By: JCain
W Samples Laboratory Tests
a Blows C B Moisture Dry Other
t Per 0 1I Content Density Lab
e r I
r Foot e k (%) (pef) Tests
8
12 2.9 115.5
@ 4.0 feet: subrounded pebbles.
5
@ 5.5 reet: root hairs.
@ 6.0 reet: decrease in clay. 8 4.2 108.0
~
w
~
o
'"
~
0:
~
w
~
~
'"
~
o
~
N
M
N
>
'"
o
~
z
o
!;'
0:
o
~
~
x
w
15
.'.~
.~.
@ 8.0 feet: fine to medium, micaceous.
Clayey SILTSTONE: light grey brown, moist, hard; very fine-grained,
massive, micaceous.
@ 12.5 feet: grades to sandy siltstone.
SANDSTONE: yellow brown, moist, hard: fine- to coarse-grained,
massive, micaceous.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
8
15.8
111.6
6
PLATE A-5
AfP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Residential Development Boring No.: B-3
Location: Colver Court, Temecula, California Elevation: 1134 ft msl
Job No.: 327-04 Client: S. aud B. LeBon Date: 5/24/04
Drill Method: 24-in Bucket Auger Driving Weight: See Notes Logged By: JCain
W Smnples Laboratory Tests
Material Description a Blows C B Moisture Dry Other
Depth Lith- t Per 0 u Conlent Density Lab
e r I
(Feet) ology r Foot- e k (%) (pet) Tests
= 16
-sg.
.
TOTAL DEPTH = 21.0'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
BORING BACKFILLED
Notes:
Driving Weight: 0.0 - 25.0 reet ~ 2,500 Ibs.
I
~
e
~
'"
c-
o
"
~
~
~
w
~
~
"
~
N
M
N
>
"
o
~
z
o
~
~
o
~
~
x
w
PLATEA-6
Petra Geotechnical, Inc,
We
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
~
~
~
0
I "
~
~
~
w
~
0:
"
I ~
~
N
M
N
>
"
I 0
~
Z
0
;=
'"
~
0
~
I ~
x
w
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Residential Development
Location: Colver Conrt, Temecnla, California
Client: S. and B. LeBon
Job No.: 327-04
Driving Weight:
See Notes
Drill Method: 24-in Bucket Anger
Depth
(Feet)
lith-
ology
5
'.:~.
10
..................
15
.:~
Material Description
TOPSOIL
Silty SAND (SM): greyish brown, dry, loose to medium dense; fine,
some coarse, roots, subrounded to subangular pebbles.
@ 2.0 feet: some subangular and subrounded pebbles to gravel.
WEATHERED BEDROCK
Clayey SAND (SC): brown, slightly moist, medium dense to dense;
fine to coarse.
BEDROCK: TEMECULA ARKOSE FORMATION (Ttal
Clayey SANDSTONE: yellow brown, sligbtly moist to moist,
moderately hard; medium- to coarse-grained, moderately weathered
micaceous, subrounded pebbles and gravel.
@ 7.0 feet: hard.
@ 8.0 feet: fine- to medium-grained, some coarse grains.
SANDSTONE: yellow brown, velY moist, hard; coarse-grained,
granitic cobbles, with clay.
@ 10.0 feet: coarse-grained, abundant subrounded and subangular
gravel, few cobbles.
Clayey SILTSTONE: light grey brown, very moist, moderately hard;
micaceous.
12.0 feet: ve moist to wet.
SANDSTONE: yellow brown, wet, moderately hard; fine- to
coarse-grained, micaceous.
@ 15.0 feet: abundant subrounded pebbles.
TOTAL DEPTH = 16.0'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
BORING BACKFILLED
Notes:
Driving Weight: 0.0 - 25.0 feet ~ 2,500 Ibs.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
Boring No.: B-4
Elevation: 1120 ft msl
Date: 5/24104
Logged By: JCain
W Samples Laboratory Tests
a Blows C 8 Moisture Dry Other
t Per 0 u Content Density Lab
e r 1
r Foot e k (%) (pet) Tests
PLATE A-7
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOGS OF PERCOLATION TEST PITS
o PETRA
pt"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOGS OF TEST PITS
, .
,PERCOLA1'ION .
TEST PIT DEPTH DESCRIPTION
NUMBER - (ft), .' "
TOPSOIL
P-I 0.0 -2.0 Silty SAND (SM): greyish brown, dry, loose; fine to coarse, roots in upper I
foot, some subrounded pebbles
ALLUVIUM (Oal)
2.0 - 5.5 Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, slightly moist, medium dense; fine to coarse,
some clay, some caliche stringers, few subrounded pebbles
TOTAL DEPTH - 5.5 feet
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT BACKFILLED
TOPSOIL
P-2 0.0 - 3.0 Silty SAND (SM): grey brown, dry, loose; fine to coarse, rootlets, minor to
moderate porosity, abundant subrounded pebbles
BEDROCK: TEMECULA ARKOSE (Ita)
3.0 - 6.5 SANDSTONE: yellow brown, moist, moderately hard; coarse-
grained, moderately weathered, friable, few dark brown clay pods, few
subrounded pebbles, few granitic cobbles, in-filled rodent bUlTows
TOTALDEPTH-6.5 feet
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT BACKFILLED
TOPSOIL
P-3 0.0 - 3.5 Silty SAND (SM): grey brown, dry, loose; fine to coarse, rootlets upper I
foot, moderate porosity, some subrounded pebbles to gravel
BEDROCK: TEMECULA ARKOSE (Ita)
3.5 - 6.5 SANDSTONE: yellow brown, moist, moderately hard; coarse-
grained, moderately weathered, friable, subrounded pebbles and gravel
TOTAL DEPTH - 6.5 feet
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT BACKFILLED
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC
J.N. 327-04
JUNE 2004
Plate A-I
A,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOGS OF TEST PITS
h. , .. ..
PERCOLATION
I' '. TEST PI], DEPTH DESCRIPTION
NUMBER (ftj .. , ...
TOPSOIL
PA 0.0 - 1.5 Silty SAND (SM): greyish brown, dry, loose; fine to coarse, rootlets, minor
porosity
AELUVllJM (Oal)
1.5 - 5.5 Clayey SAND (SC)" j brown, slightly moist, medium dense; fine to coarse;
moderate pinhole to 1/16 inch porosity, abundant subrounded pebbles
TOTAL DEPTH = 5.5 feet
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT BACKFILLED
TOPSOIL
P-5 0.0 - 1.5 Silty SAND (SM): greyish brown, dry, loose; fine to coarse, moderate
pinhole to 1/16 inch porosity, abundant subrounded pebbles
AELUVllJM (Oal)
1.5 - 5.5 Clayey SAND (SC): brown, slightly moist, medium dense; fine to coarse,
moderate pinhole to 1/16 inch porosity, abundant subrounded pebbles
TOTAL DEPTH = 5.5 feet
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT BACKFILLED
JUNE 2004
Plate A-2
~
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J.N. 327-04
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
LABORATORY TEST DATA
o PETRA
Ifv
I
I
APPENDIX B
I
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
I
Soil Classification
I
Soils encountered within the exploratory borings were initially classified in the !ield in general accordance with
the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classitication System (ASTM D2488). The samples were re-
examined in the laboratory and the classifications reviewed and tben revised where appropriate. The assigned
group symbols are presented in the boring logs, Appendix A.
I
In-Situ Moisture and Density
Moisture content and unit dry density of in-place soil and bedrock materials were determined in representative
strata. Test data are summarized in the boring logs, Appendix A.
I
Laboratory Maximum Dry Density
I
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil and bedrock
materials in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Pertinent test values are given on Plate B-1.
I
Expansion Index
I
An expansion index test was performed on a selected sample of soil in accordance with ASTM D4829. Expansion
potential classification was determined from 1997 UBC Table 18-I-B on the basis of the expansion index values.
Test results and expansion potential is presented on Plate B-1.
Corrosion Tests
I
Chemical analyses were performed on selected samples of onsite soil to determine concentrations of soluble
sulfate and chloride, as well as pH and resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test
Method Nos. 417 (sulfate), 422 (chloride) and 643 (pH and resistivity). Test results are included on Plate B-1.
I
Direct Shear
I
The Coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion, were evaluated for undisturbed
and disturbed (bulk) samples remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density. These tests were
performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080. Three specimens were prepared for each test. The test
specimens were artificially saturated, and then sheared under varied normal loads at a maximum constant rate of
strain of 0.05 inches per minute. Results are summarized on Plates B-2 and B-3.
I
I
I
I
I
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J.N. 327-04
June 2004
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY'
Lo~ationlDepth
(feet)
Soil Type
Optimum
Moisture'
(%)
8.5
7.5
.,
B-1@2-3
B-2 @ 3-4
SANDSTONE (Temecula Arkose)
Clayey SAND (Alluvium)
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA
Expansion2'
Index
LoeationlDepth
. . (feet)
B-2 @ 3-4
Soil Type
Clayey SAND (Alluvium)
4
CORROSION TESTS
LocationlDepth
. . (feet) _ .
Sulfate'
'-(%)
Chloride'
(ppm)
pH'
Resisth1ty'
(olnn-em)
Corrosivity P';tential
MaxiIDum -
Dry DensIty'
(pet)
128.5
133.0
Expansion?
Potential
Very Low
B-I@2-3
0.0082
125
6.9
8,900
concrete: negligible
steel: non-corrosive
(1) PER ASTM DI557
(2) PER ASTM D4829
(3) PER 1997 UBC Table 18-I-B
(4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417
(5) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 422
(6) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
(7) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC
J.N. 327-04
June 2004
Plate A-I
~\
3,500
0
<8
~
"
, 3,000
0-
~
-
"
Co
~
."
C
~ 2,500
0
0.
'"
'"
::2
f-
'" 2,000
0:
<: . . . .
"'
:I:
'"
1,500
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5,000
4,500
4,000
1,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
"
.
~
~
D
"
~
'"
~
w
~
500
o
o
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500 4,000
NORMAL STRESS - pounds per square foot
SAMPLE
LOCATION
FRICTION
ANGLE (0)
COHESION
(PSF)
DESCRIPTION
. B-2@3.0
Peak - Clayey SAND
29
175
!%JB-2@3.0
Ultimate - Clayey SAND
29
110
NOTES:
Remolded Test Samples
Samples Were Inundated Prior to Shearing
~
"
.
:1
~
M
'"
~
~ J.N.327-04
~
~
u
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INe.
1S
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
REMOLDED TEST SAMPLES
June, 2004
PLATE B-2
~
~
"
~
~
N
M
~
~
~ J.N.327-04
w
~
"
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Q
'"
'"
~
a
"
~
~
w
~
'0
<E
"
@
50
~
;;
Q.
~
."
C
"
o
Q.
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
en
en
;:j
f-
en
'"
<(
'"
:r:
C/)
2,000
. ...;..
500 1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500 4,000
NORMAL STRESS ~ pounds per square foot
SAMPLE
LOCATION
FRICTION
ANGLE (0)
COHESION
(PSF)
DESCRIPTION
.8-2@ 15.0
Peak - Siltstone
31
1060
~8-2@ 15.0
Ultimate - Siltstone
31
55
NOTES:
Undisturbed Test Samples
Samples Were Innndated Prior to Shearing
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
UNDISTURBED TEST SAMPLES
June, 2004
PLATE B-3
~
II
I
I
I
I
I
327-04.0UT
***********************
*
*
*
*
U B C S E I S
*
*
*
*
Version 1.03
*
*
***********************
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
DATE: 06-04-2004
JOB NUMBER: 327-04
II JOB NAME: COLVER COURT
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
srTE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE:
srTE LONGITUDE:
33.4902
117.1279
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 16.5 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA
DISTANCE: 1.8 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME:
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.3
Nv: 1.6
Ca: 0.52
Cv: 0.90
Ts: 0.689
To: 0.138
********************************************************************
* CAUTION, The digitized data points used to model faults are *
* limited in number and have been digitized from small- *
* scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently, *
* the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by *
* several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that *
* the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and *
* adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. *
Page 1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
327-04.0UT
********************************************************************
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 1
--------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
I APPROX.ISOURCE
ABBREVIATED I DrSTANCEI TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I (A, B, C)
=======~~============~==========~=I========I=====~~
ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 1.8 I B
ELSINORE-JULIAN I 16.5 I A
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 26.6 B
SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 33.9 A
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 34.0 B
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 45.1 B
ROSE CANYON I 48.6 B
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 55.4 B
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 57.6 B
SAN JACrNTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 59.4 B
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 61.2 B
ELSINORE-WHITTIER I 62.2 B
SAN ANDREAS - Southern I 62.3 A
CORONADO BANK I 72 . 7 B
PINTO MOUNTAIN I 73.5 I B
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 74.8 I B
PALOS VERDES I 78.5 I B
CUCAMONGA 82.2'1 A
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 84.9 B
BURNT MTN. 86.1 I B
SAN JOSE 86.6 I B
CLEGHORN 88 . 0 B
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 89.3 B
SIERRA MADRE (Central) 90.4 B
EUREKA PEAK 90.7 B
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 92.0 B
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 92 .4 B
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 98.5 A
LANDERS 99.7 B
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 100.8 B
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 106.3 B
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 106.7 B
RAYMOND 110.8 B
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 111.6 B
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 114. 0 B
VERDUGO 118.9 B
HOLLYWOOD 123.9 B
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 124.7 B
CALICO - HIDALGO 125.5 B
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 125.8 B
ELMORE RANCH 128.7 B
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 130.9 B
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 132.7 B
SANTA MONICA 135.7 B
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 139.2 B
SAN GABRIEL 141.0 B
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAX.
MAG.
(Mw)
6.8
7.1
6.8
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.5
6.8
7.4
7.4
7.0
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.7
7.0
6.5
6.8
6.6
7.8
7.3
7.1
7.3
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.6
7.1
7.1
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.7
7.0
SLIP
RATE
(mm/yr)
5.00
5.00
5.00
12.00
12.00
1.50
1. 50
1. 00
4.00
12.00
2.00
2.50
24.00
3.00
2.50
1. 00
3.00
5.00
1. 00
0.60
0.50
3.00
0.50
3.00
0.60
4.00
4.00
34.00
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.60
0.50
1. 00
5.00
0.60
0.60
1. 00
4.00
25.00
1. 00
2.00
1. 00
FAULT
TYPE
(SS, DS, BT)
----------
----------
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
DS
SS
DS
SS
DS
DS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
DS
SS
SS
DS
DS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
DS
SS
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
327-04.0UT
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 APPROX. 1 SOURCE 1 MAX. 1 SLrp FAULT
ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE t TYPE 1 MAG. 1 RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME 1 (km) 1 (A,B,C) I (Mw) 1 (mm/yr) 1 (SS,DS,BT)
==================================1========1=======1======1=========1==========
MALIBU COAST 1 143.5 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.30 1 DS
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 1 143.5 I B 1 7.0 1 3.50 I SS
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 154.9 1 B I 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS
ANACAPA-DUME I 155.3 1 B 7.3 I 3.00 1 DS
SANTA SUSANA 1 157.1 1 B 6.6 I 5.00 1 DS
IMPERIAL 1 158.0 t. A 7.0 1 20.00 1 SS
HOLSER 1 166 . 0 I B 6 . 5 1 0 . 40 I DS
BLACKWATER 1 170.9 1 B 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS
OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 177.0 1 B 6.9 I 4.00 1 DS
SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 178.6 1 B 6.7 1 1.00 1 DS
SAN CAYETANO 1 184 . 5 t B 6 . 8 1 6 . OOiDS
SANTA YNEZ (East) 1 203.6 I B 7.0 1 2.00 1 SS
GARLOCK (West) I 208.9 1 A 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 209.5 1 B 6.8 1 1. OOiDS
GARLOCK (East) I 216.1 1 A 7.3 I 7.00 1 SS
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 218.1 1 B 6.7 1 0.40 1 DS
PLEITO THRUST 1 220.6 I B 6.8 1 2.00 I DS
RED MOUNTAIN 1 223.8 1 B 6.8 1 2.00 I DS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 1 228.3 1 B 6.8 I 1. OOiDS
BIG prNE 1 228.6 1 B 6.7 I 0.80 1 SS
WHITE WOLF 1 235.6 1 B 7.2 1 2.00 1 DS
OWL LAKE 1 236.5 1 B 6.5 1 2.00 I SS
PANAMINT VALLEY 1 236.8 I B 7.2 1 2.50 I SS
So. SIERRA NEVADA I 239.0 I B 7.1 1 0.10 I DS
TANK CANYON I 239 . 5 1 B 6 . 5 1 1. OOiDS
LITTLE LAKE 1 240.7 1 B 6 . 7 I 0 . 70 1 SS
DEATH VALLEY (South) 1 244.0 1 B 6.9 I 4.00 1 SS
SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 257.4 I B 6.9 1 2.00 1 SS
SANTA ROSA ISLAND 1 264 .4 t B 6.9 1 1.00 I DS
DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 286.7 I B 6.9 1 4.00 DS
LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE I 300.4 B 6.8 1 0.70 DS
OWENS VALLEY 1 310.6 1 B 7 . 6 I 1. 50 SS
LIONS HEAD 1 317.9 1 B 6.6 1 0.02 DS
SAN JUAN 1 320.9 I B 7.0 1 1.00 SS
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 1 325.5 B 7.0 1 0.20 DS
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 333.4 I B 7.0 1 2.50 SS
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 335.1 1 B 6.5 1 0.25 DS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 340.7 1 A 7.2 1 5.00 SS
INDEPENDENCE 1 346 . 6 1 B 6 . 9 1 0 . 20 DS
LOS OSOS 1 354 . 8 1 B 6 . 8 I 0 . 50 DS
HOSGRI 1 364.1 1 B 7.3 I 2.50 SS
RrNCONADA 1 373 . 0 t B 7.3 I 1. 00 SS
BIRCH CREEK 1 403.4 I B 6.5 1 0.70 DS
WHITE MOUNTAINS 1 407.1 I B 7.1 1 1.00 SS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 1 423.5 I B 5.0 I 34.00 SS
Page 3
61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
327-04.0UT
DEEP SPRINGS
6.6 1
0.80
DS
424.8
B
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 3
---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
1 APPROX.ISOURCE 1 MAX. SLIP FAULT
ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE 1 TYPE I MAG. RATE 1 TYPE
FAULT NAME 1 (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) (mm/yr) 1 (SS,DS,BT)
==================================1========1=======1====== =========1==========
DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 428.0 1 A 1 7.0 5.00 1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) I 439.5 1 B 1 6.8 1.00 1 DS
FISH SLOUGH 446.1 1 B 1 6.6 0.20 1 DS
HILTON CREEK 465.9 I B 1 6.7 2.50 I DS
HARTLEY SPRINGS 490.9 1 B I 6.6 0.50 1 DS
ORTrGALITA 504.8 1 B 1 6.9 1.00 1 SS
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 512.5 1 B 1 6.2 15.00 1 SS
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 518.4 1 B 1 7.1 0.50 1 DS
PALO COLORADO - SUR 521.6 I B I 7.0 3.00 1 SS
QUIEN SABE 525.1 I B I 6 . 5 1. 00 I SS
MONO LAKE 527.1 1 B I 6.6 2.50 I DS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES 544.5 1 B 1 6.8 0.10 1 SS
SARGENT 549.4 1 B 1 6.8 3.00 1 SS
SAN ANDREAS (1906) ,549.8 1 A 1 7.9 24.00 1 SS
ROBINSON CREEK 558.6 I B 1 6.5 0.50 I DS
SAN GREGORIO 593.5 1 A I 7.3 5.00 1 SS
GREENVILLE 596.5 I B I 6.9 2.00 I SS
HAYWARD (SE Extension) 598.5 1 B I 6.5 3.00 1 SS
ANTELOPE VALLEY 599.2 1 B I 6.7 0.80 1 DS
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 599.5 1 B 1 6.5 0.40 1 DS
HAYWARD (Total Length) 617.8 1 A 7.1 9.00 1 SS
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 617.8 1 B 6.8 6.00 1 SS
GENOA 625.3 1 B 6.9 1.00 1 DS
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 664.2 1 B 6.9 6.00 1 SS
RODGERS CREEK 703.5 I A 7.0 9.00 1 SS
WEST NAPA 703.8 I B 6.5 1.00 1 SS
POINT REYES 724.7 B 6.8 0.30 1 DS
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 725.0 1 B 6.9 6.00 I SS
MAACAMA (South) 765.6 1 B 6.9 9.00 I SS
COLLAYOMI 781.7 1 B 6.5 0.60 1 SS
BARTLETT SPRINGS 784.1 1 A 7.1 6.00 1 SS
MAACAMA (Central) 807.2 1 A 7.1 9.00 1 SS
MAACAMA (North) 866.0 1 A 7.1 9.00 1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 870.8 I B 6.8 6.00 I SS
BATTLE CREEK 888.7 1 B 6.5 0.50 I DS
LAKE MOUNTAIN 929.1 1 B 6.7 6.00 I SS
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 946.9 1 B 6.9 9.00 1 SS
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1004.1 1 A 7.4 35.00 1 DS
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1009.2 1 A 7.0 5.00 1 DS
MAD RIVER 1011.0 1 B 7.1 0.701 DS
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1018.5 1 A 8.3 35.00 1 DS
McKINLEYVILLE 1021.6 1 B 7.0 0.60 1 DS
TRINIDAD 1022.9 I B 7.3 2.50 I DS
FICKLE HILL 1023.8 I B 6.9 0.60 I DS
Page 4
()'e>
I
I
327-04.0UT
TABLE BLUFF
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore)
1029.9
1043.1
B
B
7.0
7.1
0.60
1. 00
DS
DS
I
I
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
I
Page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
1 APPROX. 1 SOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT
ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE 1 TYPE 1 MAG. 1 RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) 1 (Mw) 1 (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT)
==================================1========1=======1======1=========1==========
BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1 1059.4 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.50 1 DS
*******************************************************************************
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 5
6'\
I
-------- ___________________ __on -- -
I
I 0
.
- L!)
-
I~ -
- L!)
.
- -.:::t
I~ -
-
I~ - 0
.
- -.:::t
It)ii -
-
- L!)
.
~Qj - C")
-
l~tS - C/)
0 - 0"0
IU'J~ . c
- C")
- 0
I~;;:: - C,,)
- L!) Q)
U'Ja '00
- N
IZ<::t - "0
- 0
00 - o "C
I N Q)
I ~ Qj - 0..
-
~ J -
IU'J~ - L!)
.
I ~.~ /V - T"""
-
-
- 0
V' .
I Z.~ - T"""
-
CjVJ -
- L!)
I~ .
- 0
I~ -
-
IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII III I IIII IIII lilT 0
.
IQ 0
0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0
L.() N 0 f'.. L.() N 0 f'.. L.() N 0
. . . . . . . . . . .
I N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
1 (6) UO!leJala~x)V' leJl~eds (,I:>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
e PETRA
~\
I
I
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
I
These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations
performed under the control of Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
I
No deviation from these spedfications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in
the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils
Engineer and Engineering Geologist.
I
I. GENERAL
I
A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the Owner's or Builder's
representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, supervision by
the Soils Engineer includes that inspection performed by any person or persons
employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils report.
I
B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted
by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer.
I
C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to
the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread, mix, Wlter, and compact the
fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall
also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer.
I
I
D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction
equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary,
excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction.
Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due
consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year.
I
I
E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist attesting
to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications.
II. SITE PREPARATION
I
A. All vegetation and deleterious material such as rubbish shall be disposed of offsite. This
removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill.
I
B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer as being
unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed and wasted from the site.
Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Soils
Engineer.
I
I
C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, I shall be scarified, disced, or
bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or
other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction.
I
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as
required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greaer than 12 inches in
depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches.
I
I
- Page 1 -
"z...
I
I
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested, and
approved by the Soils Engineer.
1
D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed
by the Soils Engineer.
I
I.
E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut/fill transition lots and where cut
lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or unweathered bedrock materials, the bedrock
portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be
overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. (Typical details
are given on Plate SG-1.)
I
III. COMPACTED FillS
1
A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill,
provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer.
Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from
the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer.
1
B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill provided:
1
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine grained material to surround the rocks.
1
3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer.
I
C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken offsite or placed in accordalce
with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for
rock disposal. (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is given in Plate SG-2.)
I
D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not
be used in the compacted fill.
1
E. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill smll be analyzed
by the laboratory ofthe Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any
material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the
appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon
as possible.
F. Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed,
and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly
dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless
o.therwise approved by the Soils Engineer.
1
1
I
G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils
Engineer, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Engineer.
1
I
- Page 2 -
~
I
1
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1
H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance
with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In
general, ASTM D 1557-78, the five-layer method, will be used.)
1
.If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental
agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to
received fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the
grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report.
1
1
I. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep
material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds
a ratio of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the
Soils Engineer.
1
J. The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15 feet within bedrock or firm
materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG-3.)
1
1
K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the
controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer
or Engineering Geologist. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given in Plate SG-4.)
I
L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills.
This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the
compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment,
or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction.
1
M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specifioo
in the soils report.
1
N. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep
material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soils
prior to placing fill. (See detail on Plate SG-7.)
I
1
IV. CUT SLOPES
A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not
exceeding 10 feet.
1
B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water,
seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably
inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these
conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer, and
recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. (Typical details for
stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Plates SG-5 and SG-8.)
1
I
C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protecta::l
from slope wash by a nonerodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
1
I
- Page 3 -
(,It.
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geolDgical report, no cut slopes shall be
excavated higher or steeper than that allDwed by the ordinances Df controlling
gDvernmental agencies.
E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils
Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
V.
GRADING CONTROL
A. Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the
progress of grading.
B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feEt of fill height
or every 500 cubic yards Df fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil
conditions and the size of the jDb. In any event, an adequate numberof field density
tests shall be made to verify that the required cDmpaction is being achieved.
C. Density tests should also be made Dn the surface material to receive fill as required
by the Soils Engineer.
D. All c1eanouts, processed ground tD receive fill, key excavatiDns, subdrains, and rDck
dispDsals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering
Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be the ContractDr's respDnsibility to notify
the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection.
VI.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERA liONS
A. Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during
grading and prior tD the completion and cDnstruction of permanent drainage contrDls.
B. Upon completion of grading and termination Df inspectiDns by the SDils Engineer, nD
further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundatiDns, large
tree wells, retaining walls, Dr other features shall be performed without the approval
Df the Soils Engineer Dr Engineering Geologist.
C. Care shall be taken by the ContractDr during final grading to preserve any berms,
drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or
adjacent tD the property.
- Page 4 -
~
~:
-..
~
ci
''J~
"'......
.....-1'
~.
.....
;
~
! ~
__......._.......,__~~"''''.~~....~.b..1,.J
)':'..;.. 1.,11 ~(~t'\;;E CATCH B,\Sn~, ~;DS 1226 OR EQUAL
II :.)LA:'~TER DRAIN HI ATRIPi C~.ATE, g;nS 80 OR EQUAL
'" .\ 1)1:\.
'""'~""'~
1
98
~~ ..~,
,/
............
--....
. " t,;'. .
-....
I. .'
/'
;'
l',.
,,:-
~
I
I '\.
..'
I .
~"l.
(K~)
""-,,... ,---_...-.'/
SC ~\LE 1" -.:?rv
.........,""1
.. I 11 I n :\ .
DEC!{ DtL\IN J KDS 920H fFt EqrAL
/
~ i - .
167.24
'~!G
,I
I
I
......
(~,'
~.{.:'..;'
(.,~,
.. -'
I ".
'. '.......j
':::,\;'.\1:: TO PIPE TRA:':SITfOi':
;(,.-4
j.j>-
n :'~f~~',"'~~~': (:~\1'f.,:rl ;'~.\~;1;:-~ ':':,':'/;,?::..7'~"
()~~ ;Z.qt!i'\L
: t, ~..
\ " " ~ ~..
I _ . ~ .:. . .
I
../
'~ '\
'., \
) .\
! :.
I
I
NOTE: RECORD Ef\~r~.iFf\JTS r-\f='[ NOT PLOTTeD
I
.- "
.,/
/
t,,"
",~
.' ( .', ' ,
"
.- .......,-.
/
/'
/
/'
': "~,:')
~-" "
/"
,/
,I
/
//
/
.- ..""
.'"
// /"
.....
../
"',,,...,.
..,;
. ".-
-...- --. ~-.-
...... ....-...... '-~-
,/
/
/"
,.'
JI''/';'
/'
...-"
.-"~
..-
....-::. -'-.
153J)B --'--
,. . NG___ __ .._.
".
....
-'~
--
r
. .~
~:)
...-'
I-....~
.....'
r~
\~.
, ,'. . '~::1j.:z{ SEPARATE PER~41T
141.16
NG
','
121..31
~IG
C'"j/
I
;
j
.: '.: !~.l"~: u:;" 2.:- SLOPE
.. ..~ ."".,,---....._..~!...-~................
,
;
I
I
i
l
/
(
I
1.2112
~f4G
Tt.a
,Q.l
J
i
I
i
I
!
.
I
I
. r
. ., J.
1
i
i
J
\
"
.'
164.02
'l\lG.
I
I
115.4,0
f\#.Q
.""
~
/
~' .
1
I
11082
NG'
I
. ,
, 1 ;
J
'1.55.iJ;2
17
I
J
10Ji2
i e~,r..1
j~ ( ',~
I
(,
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
f
/
1
\
\
. :"':';...--"" ~.
-..",-..-
1 04.46
-FENCE tN.
/'
"
", 1id:~
. '41 ' /"
.'; <-
If . '\..
I --_J~---~.OO
n'111
1 01 .62
NG
, lOR.9~
PL GOR.
,;
".
,rJ......... ........
~:)Z-f,~W_ ''1'1' _-....
...... "'*""" ...~'V_...............~l.__ .".. ~ _~,~'~ .... ...
- .....
,....... ...... r'
;/
r;;-v ,
tar
. ,,--'
J~
.~ .
.".-
~
...,
<,;-.
100.90
NG
"
'1 .r~? 26
"~TG .
,,' . ~ ,,'
\./,/:/ ,~,..
r'
. :. . ~ . .
~.... \. l ~'
1 00.00
NG
~ :.:'1') ;~.~
I ';'.:'<X.,
13.0...82
"US
'1 '19.88
NG
1 ,. (1~p6
N'~"
'107A;t)
'l'"U:;
1 iU3 60
N~G
1\' 14
,
10l.22
~H3
( 9~t 14
',~G
'r. ".
1 00,,66 .
'-'- ,__N'(3~. "
. 1J)~.>:,:63~' '''~ '.
Eo\~
.,x.:J. '
.-.....-~......
.....
.~~<i'~...J:lWl~i!\\~!(,:;\l\IT'!'~-Awr.~,...,~\~,;!jl?,i;";t,~~('lf!,~1\'o,1Ii~~~~~
~ ~ ,,~
........ ...~
.~
L: F:? \// \(
Po r" c e ( 1 0 f' Flo. '" (~. (:' I
T e r1) e C Cft o} C A
L Cl C 0 1: e c~ Cl t:"l C l (1 \1 (;? 1"
Do te: 9-22-,OJ
I 1- - q
I. up tr
21766)
-,'"
. ..... ~... "..
< -" '"' ..."... '-.
113.5:0
NG
112J32'
D\f4Y
. /r
105:90
. 'OWY
.... 'i :' ...., ~
y '... , .. ~
C. c! 1_11'- t
:~~ ;:~ \~/ ~.'
.....
"..'
'. ,~~\iI.f;\\~"f~ifu.l.'\I'!"'l~.~~m>>,\~\ti:ril>A~~~-<<Wffi.:'Ai-'</t<t~~j;,@\'~\~lIIt.s>:!%r~~1!I',.''~~~,,<b.~_&'j5-8.~~ .
': "THIS:EPLA'''4$ WlftE 'PR['PARE:O O~4nEfl THE SuPEFtVtStOH OF:
. '.. .'Ii,,"~r{.~.j' '_.!\1.\l"',i,,,~$\jlIj"';'t:.,,,_ .J U.>.iIl'
~'~m~>~~J1ll~~1!Iil\! gJ J J J
~ U!
'.lllUrlJ.J.V~41 ~1_f1~ffii1i: 'rl~..l~Hn~..I.' rl..!)!',i~;,
/
GAil M. ANTOtJN
R.C. t. 41:671
. '. ,: ., ".... ~:.. ~':" '. "
0.... 1161
G, f,~.'\.
"'~""=~"'~:"'1':'~ ~
~' -- ...., .-
, ,_::.t,r::.\ :-;...""'1,....~.(1)f.':~
1. .. . ~ ~,~
~!
....
. .'
dtl,..
GEOTECHtIG\L., .. .
' I" '" J
J - I ,'; < '" i /", ' '
N
. . '" ~ Or:: ~ '- .' ~~ ,
:\-15-03
AL PI 01[: C lJ j\1 SCJL T Af\JT S
~
>>5i
\tl
i;
.:"
23011 ~~m!l iC'~~ ;"/J;~. \..:. y )--12,
_'. .0'. l/,
. "
L.J.C.
l
!
. J '<?' 2
. ....:,.:. "
'R.
. .".1. r
. .~.. . ~ .