HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833 Lot 10 Limited Geotechnical Investigation
IT.H.E. Soils Co., Inc.
.'honc; (909) 894-2121 FAX: (909) 894-2122
11548 Eastman Drivc, Unit G . Murricta, CA 92562
E-mail: thcsoilsco@aol.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECEIVED
APR 2 9 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
April 27, 2004
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
30647 Pina Colada Drive
Temecula, California 92592
SUBJECT: LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & PAD CERTIFICATION
Existing Single-Family Residential Pad
Lot 10 of Tract Map No. 9833
Jedediah Smith Road
Temecula, Riverside County, California
Work Order No. 583401.00
Dear Mr. Pacitto:
In accordance with your request, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. has performed a limited geotechnical
investigation and pad certification for the existing single-family residential pad at the above-
referenced site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the engineering parameters of the
existing onsite compacted fill soils and provide design parameters. You provided us with "Daily
Field Memorandums" prepared during grading operations by Engen Corporation of Temecula,
California and an approximately 20-scale "As-Built Grading Plan" prepared by Elliot Ulhrich of
Temecula, California for our investigation. The plan was used to locate our exploratory trenches and
was utilized as a base map for our "Geotechnical Map", Plate 1.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proposed Development
The proposed development calls for the construction of two single-family residences with
associated driveway and landscape areas. It is our understanding that the proposed
residences will consist of a wood-framed, stucco-sided structure with conventional footings.
Reportedly, a rough grading report was never prepared for the subject site.
1.2 Site Description
The subject, irregular-shaped, :!:5-acre parcel of land is currently vacant with a previously
graded pad on the southerly portion of the site. The subject site is located south of Jedediah
Smith Road east of Calle de Velardo in the city ofTemecula in southwest Riverside County,
California. The site is bordered on all sides by large-parcel residential development. The
geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location
Map, Figure 1.
.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
w.o. NO. 583401.00
\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .~..
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I 1;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page 2
Topographically, the subject site is dominated by a large east-west trending ridge located on
the southerly portion of the site. Drainage on-site is accomplished by sheet flow generally to
the north toward Jedediah Smith Road.
Man-made improvements include a previously rough graded single-family pad (Engen
Corporation, 200 I) with associated 2: I (horizontal:vertical) cut/fill slopes, drainage pipes,
irrigation systems and an asphalt paved driveway on the northerly portion of the subject pad.
Vegetation on the pad surface and the cut slopes on the southerly and easterly boundaries of
the pad consist of a sparse low growth of annual weeds and grasses. The existing fill slope
on the north side of the pad has been planted with ornamental plants.
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Backl!round Research and Literature Review
Several published and unpublished daily reports and geologic maps were reviewed for the
purpose of preparing this report. A complete list of the publications and reports reviewed is
presented in Appendix A.
2.2 Field Investil!ation
Subsurface exploration, field reconnaissance, and mapping of the site were conducted on
April 6, 2004. Three exploratory trenches were excavated utilizing a Case No. 580 Super M
rubber-tireextenda-backhoe equipped with a 2-ft bucket. Exploratory trench T-I was
advanced to the maximum depth explored of 10.0-ft below the ground surface (bgs).
Information collected during our field mapping and the approximate location of our
exploratory trenches is presented on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Our field geologist,
who prepared field logs, performed in-place density testing and obtained bulk soil samples
for laboratory testing, supervised excavation of the trenches. Copies of the exploratory
trench logs are presented in Appendix B.
2.3 Laboratory Testinl! Prol!ram
Representative bulk samples of soils encountered during our subsurface exploration were
obtained for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing to determine the engineering parameters
of representative soils included maximum density/optimum moisture, sieve analysis, soluble
sulfate content, and expansion index.
Laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM, Caltrans, and Uniform
Building Code (UBC) test specifications, where applicable. The results of our laboratory
tests are presented in Appendix C of this report.
T.H.E. Soils Company,lnc.
W.O. NO. 583401.00
7
-
,
~.:...:
"
>l.
~J"
'V~"
-
,.
,~,~. ~.,.;/ '~~1:
. ...~.v
j
.,
i
f
I
I
,
,
I
i
I
I
I
'i"
.! .
'k
i
~
i:
i
" . -
." . ,sf
...... '..;;1:.-.
:';..c,..~:~i ':
\~;:
-l
::
~
~
?
'"
'"'
i
."
...
~
:;:
['l
-
~ ~
~ ~
g t""2
}' o~
1;;:~~
Z::t::I::~s
~g:;;~...
~):il~~
"=>~::l:
~~qe~
h~h
. > ~ ~
o.!~
~ -~
~ .
~ ;
>
.~
"
o
~
o
~
"
.
i
.
>
..
~
~
~
~
5
"
g
-
-
~
-
~
-
~I & ~ ~
.
>
Ii
>
.
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
"
~
~
8
~
~
~
~
a
"
<
~
9
rn
-
1
\
\
~
.
"
I
~
~
~
o
~
R
8
~
>
3
-
,
-
/
-
-
-
\
-
_~~ '~::-;,:'Di~
.....'1
.,,)
-.,
.'
,.'
G.
,.
-
-
\\"\0
.-
"-::
~)('~~~.'.. ~. 'I
1\" '.
" .
11 i r fer
i i .~. .'~ I, ".
-
'~...
II.....
,
,i~
.1:
-
ri
....
"-l
.~,
'0
:.."
H
M
"3:
.M
n
.C
r
~., .
I, ;>,~-~~----
~" ,',,.'
',~.
'il.':
~,'
,;;.
'l
I~'
~
~.
-
II
~l
i I
~
-
~18
i I 'i.
I I t.e."
If IS i
I .
i
-
:.7:'-
I
,,;,'i--.:"'::'
-
i/.,,'f
~.;. "
':;..--
'~'- ...
g;~..
F}' ~ilf
b ~di
.J "a
tl, ,[
2..'
. '.
,
.-
;-"-".
..-..,.
-
~
"
il"
.,
!l
.~
f
it
f
.
.
.
.
~
~.
~
~
i
I
~
.
,
i
a
J
"-L
.>>
I
.
!
.
:i!
11
:l~f
~ .-
',< 'r.
":" . ~
f!
.
r~~,". ~
..: .
~r
-il.
t~i
f/1~li
fFa
. iI'l
~ I' "
'::.:c..,.._.
'~.,
..-.... .
-'~. - .
i
\
..
!
-
I
I
~
f
~
-
\
')
~
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page 3
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Locally, late Pleistocene-age sedimentary bedrock of the Pauba Formation (Kennedy, 1977) is
exposed at the ground surface within the existing cut slopes and pad surface on the southerly portion
of the existing pad and at shallow depths underlying the existing fill pad on the northerly portion of
the existing graded pad. Based on our exploratory trenches and the "As-Built Grading Plan",
engineered fill approximately 35-ft in thickness (including keyway excavation), overlies the
sedimentary bedrock units along the existing fill slope on northerly edges of the existing graded pad.
3.1 Enl!ineered Fill (Man Svrnbol- eO
Engineered fill materials were observed at the ground surface along the northerly edges of
the existing pad, and based on our field observations and the "As-Built Grading Plan", was
approximately 35-ft in thickness. This unit generally consists of silty sand (Unified Soils
Classification -SM) that can be described as dark yellow brown, very fine to coarse-grained,
with a trace of gravel, abundant fines in part, medium dense, moderately to well graded,
moist, and was apparently derived from the onsite sedimentary bedrock during grading of the
existing pad (Engen, 2001).
Based on our in-place density testing, the engineered fill materials achieved dry densities in
excess of90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-1557.
3.2 Sedimentary Bedrock (Man Svmbol- On)
Sedimentary bedrock of the late Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation (Kennedy, 1977) is
exposed on the ground surface within the cut slopes and pad surface of the existing pad and
at shallow depths beneath the existing fill slope along the northerly edges of the existing
graded pad. This unit can generally be described as dark brown to yellow brown, fme to
coarse-grained, abundant fines, trace of gravel, clayey in part, medium dense to dense and
moist.
3.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of 10-ft bgs within
exploratory trench T-!. Based on regional groundwater data (Rancho California Water
District, 1984), historic high groundwater is at least 100- ft bgs on the lower elevations of
the subject site. No mottling of the soil, which is often indicative of past high ground
water was observed.
~
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.O, NO, 583401.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page 4
3.4 Excavation Characteristics
We anticipate that the engineered fill and sedimentary bedrock units can be excavated with
moderate ease utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or
equivalent) in proper working condition.
4.0 SEISMICITY
4.1 Rel!ional Seismicity
The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of southern California.
During its design life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from
earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The subject site is not located within a
State of California Alquist Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (Hart, 2000). No active faults
are known to traverse the site (Kennedy, 1977). The closest known active fault is the
Elsinore Fault zone (Glen Ivy/Temecula) located about 4.0-kilometers to the southwest of
the subject site (International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1998).
2001 CBC (California Building Code) seismic factors specific to the subject site are as
follows:
The site is approximately 4.0-kilometers from the Elsinore Fault (Glen Ivy/Temecula) zone
(ICBO, 1998).
The Elsinore fault (Glen Ivy/Temecula) is reported as a Type B fault (ICBO, 1998; and 2001
CBC Table 16-U) in the vicinity of the subject site.
The site is within Seismic Zone 4 (2001 CBC Figure 16-2, Table 16-1).
The soil profile for the site is So (200 I CBC Table 16-1).
The near-source acceleration (Na) and velocity (Nv) with respect to the subject site are l.l
and 1.3, respectively (1997 UBC Tables 16-S and 16-T).
The site seismic coefficients of acceleration (Ca) and velocity (Cv) are 0.48Na and O.64Nv,
respectively (1997 UBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R).
Based on the above values, the coefficient of acceleration (C.) is 0.44 and a coefficient of
velocity (Cv) is 0.83 for the subject site.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.o. NO. 583401.00
Cp
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page 5
5.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
5.1 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to increased pore water pressures caused by a
significant ground shaking (seismic) event. Liquefaction typically consists of the re-
arrangement of the soil particles into a denser condition resulting, in this case, in localized
areas of settlement, sand boils, and flow failures. Areas underlain by loose to medium-dense
cohesionless soils, where groundwater is within 30 to 40 feet of the surface, are particularly
susceptible when subject to ground accelerations such as those due to earthquake motion.
The liquefaction potential is generally considered greatest in saturated loose, poorly-graded
fine-grained sands with a mean grain size (D50) in the range of 0.075 to 0.2mm.
Procedures outlined in two publications, I) The Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of
Seismic Hazards in California, Special. Publication 117: Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology (1997); and 2) Recommendations for Implementation of
DMG Special Publication 117: Guidelines of Analyzing and Mitigation, Liquefaction
Hazards in California: Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern
California (1997), provide for a "screening study" in lieu of a complete liquefaction analysis.
It is our opinion that, due to the absence of shallow groundwater, as well as the medium-
dense to dense sedimentary bedrock underlying the subject site at the ground surface and at
shallow depths, liquefaction and other shallow groundwater related hazards are not
anticipated, and further analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. Based on the above
information, the liquefaction potential is anticipated to be negligible.
5.2 Ground RUDture
Ground rupture during a seismic event normally occurs along pre-existing faults. Due to the
absence of known active faults (Kennedy, 1977) within the site bounds, breaking of the
ground during a seismic event is unlikely.
5.3 SeismicalIv Induced Soil Settlement
Any proposed structures will be founded in medium dense to dense compacted fill. The
settlement potential, under seismic loading conditions for these on-site materials is
anticipated to be negligible.
5.4 Landslidinl!
No geomorphic expression of landsliding or slope instability was noted during our aerial
photograph examination or site mapping. In general, the potential for landsliding during a
seismic event is considered negligible under current conditions.
T.H.E. Soils Company,lnc.
W,O. NO, 583401.00
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page 6
5.5 Rockfall Potential
The subject site is located at the top of a small hill that is free oflarge rock. The potential for
rockfall is anticipated to be negligible.
5.6 Seiches and Tsunami
Considering the location of the site in relation to large bodies of water, seiches and tsunamis
are not considered potential hazards of the site.
6.0RECO~NDATIONS
6.1 General Earthwork
Recommendations for site development and design are presented in the following sections of
this report. The recommendations presented herein are preliminary and should be confirmed
during construction.
Prior to the commencement of site development, the site should be cleared of any vegetation,
existing asphalt driveways, concrete walkways, concrete foundations, water lines, electric
lines, etc., which should be hauled off-site. The client, prior to any site preparation, should
arrange and attend a meeting among the grading contractor, the design engineer, the soils
engineer and/or geologist, a representative of the appropriate governing authorities as well as
any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. Earthwork
should be conducted in accordance with the recommendations specified in this report.
6.2 Preparation of Existinl! Ground
Based on our limited subsurface investigation, our in-place density testing of the existing fill
and review of the previous daily test reports during rough grading (Engen, 200 I), the
existing fill materials appear to have been compacted to +90 percent relative compaction as
determined by ASTM D-1557. The existing fill slope also appears to have been keyed and
benched in accordance with current industry standards.
In order to mitigate any potential differential settlement, any building pad should be
overexcavated a minimum of 3-ft below existing pad grade or a minimum of 2-ft below
bottom of the deepest footing, whichever is deeper, and extend a minimum of 5-ft outside of
the proposed building footprint.
Prior to placement of any fill materials, the exposed earth materials should be scarified,
moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to 2 percent above optimum
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,Q. NO, 583401.00
~
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page 7
moisture, and recompacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density (as
determined by ASTM D-1557).
6.3 Fill Placement
On-site existing compacted fill and sedimentary bedrock are anticipated to be suitable for use
as structural fill. A qualified soil engineer should test import materials to determine their
feasibility for use as structural fill.
Approved fill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to at least optimum
moisture content to 2 percent above optimum moisture, and compacted to a minimum of
90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557 test
method. Test results with moisture content less than optimum moisture content will be
considered as a failed test. No rocks, chunks of asphalt or concrete larger than 6 inches in
diameter should be used as fill material. Rocks larger than 6 inches should either be hauled
off-site or crushed and used as fill material.
6.4 Slope Stability & Construction
The existing cut and fill slopes were constructed at a 2: I (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio up
to maximum vertical heights of approximately 28 and 30-ft. We anticipate that cut/fill slopes
constructed at a 2: I (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio, to a maximum height of approximately
30-ft, will be surficially and grossly stable.
Proper seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as soon as practical to inhibit erosion
and deterioration of the slope surfaces. Proper moisture control will enhance the long-term
stability of the finished slope surface.
6.5 Expansion Index Testinl!
An expansion index test was performed on a representative onsite soil sample collected
during our subsurface investigation. The result, which is listed in Appendix C, indicates
that the expansion index for the on-site soils is "16", which corresponds to a very low
expansion potential (0 to 20, 2001 CBC, Table 18-I-A). Expansion testing should also be
performed on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material and on the pad
surfaces at the completion of rough grading.
6.6 Soluble Sulfate Content
Based on our soluble sulfate content, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint,
Type II Portland Cement can be used for construction. Laboratory analysis results indicate a
result of 13 parts-per-million (ppm) of soluble sulfates in soil, which equates to a negligible
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.o. NO. 583401.00
<\
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page S
sulfate exposure hazard (Table 19-A-4, 2001 CBC). Sulfate content testing should be
conducted on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. Babcock &
Sons Laboratory of Riverside, California performed the laboratory analysis. Test results are
presented in Appendix C.
6.7 Foundation Svstem Desil!n
Foundation elements should be founded entirely in compacted fill materials. T.H.E. Soils
Company, Inc. should perform a footing inspection, prior to placement of reinforcement, to
insure the proposed footing excavations are in conformance with the job specifications.
The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with
the allowable foundation pressures and lateral bearing pressures presented for Class 4
soils on Table 18-1-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The allowable
foundation and lateral pressures shall not exceed the values set forth in Table 18-1-A for
Class 4 soils unless data to substantiate the use of higher values are submitted.
Where the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may bear on continuous
and isolated footings. The footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches, and be
placed at least 12-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for one-story or equivalent
structures, with a minimum width of 12-inches, and be placed at least IS-inches below the
lowest final adjacent grade for two-story or equivalent structures. Footings may be designed
for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure for Class 4 soils as per Table 18-1-A of the 1997
UBC for dead plus live loads.
Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier
consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2-
inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of clean
sand is recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the
concrete.
The structural engineer should design footings in accordance with the anticipated loads, the
soil parameters presented in this limited geotechnical report and the existing soil conditions.
Footings should be set back from the top of all cut or fill slopes a horizontal distance
equal to at least Yz the vertical slope height with a minimum setback of at least 5-ft.
Total settlements under static loads offootings supported on in-place bedrock materials and
sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of I
inch. Differential settlements under dynamic loads of footings supported on properly
compacted fill materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.O. NO. 583401.00
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page 9
exceed 1/4-inches for a span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily
during construction. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary.
6.8 Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of90 percent of the maximum dry
density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557 test method. It is our opinion
that utility trench backfill consisting of on-site or approved sandy soils can best be placed by
mechanical compaction to a minimum of90 percent of the maximum dry density. All trench
excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards as a minimum.
6.9 Surface Drainal!e
Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant
structures. All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage
devices. Where landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface
drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape
irrigation water.
6.10 Construction Monitorinl!
Continuous observation and testing under the direction of qualified soils engineers and/or
engineering geologists is essential to verify compliance with the recommendations of this
report and to confrrm that the geotechnical conditions found are consistent with this
investigation. Construction monitoring should be conducted by a qualified engineering
geologist/soil engineer at the following stages of construction:
.
During grading and over excavation of pad,
Following excavation offootings for foundations.
During utility trench backfill operations.
When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading.
.
.
.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or
similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advice included in this report.
The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the
entire project, however soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locations.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,O, NO. 583401.00
\\
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
Mr. Peter Pacitto
Pacitto Construction
April 27, 2004
Page 10
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works
of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards
may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside
our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are
identified.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
JOb h~ V
Pr ~ ct Geologist
John . Reinhart, RCE 23464
Registration Expires 12/31/05
~~~
Project Manager
JPF/JTR/JRH:jek
ACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS. AND APPENDICES
Figure I - Site Location Map (2,000-scale)
Plate I - Geotechnical Map (20-scale)
APPENDIX A - References
APPENDIX B - Exploratory Trench Logs
APPENDIX C - Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX D - Standards of Grading
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,O. NO. 583401.00
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
References
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,O, NO. 583401.00
\=D
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
REFERENCES
California Division of Mines & Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California", Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the
State of California", DMG Open File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706.
California Division of Mines & Geology, Effective January I, 1980, "State of California Special
Studies Zone Maps, Wildomar, California", Scale I" = 2,000'.
Coduto, Don, P., 1994, "Foundation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall, pages 637-655.
Department of Water Resources, August 1971, "Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the
Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California", Bulletin
No. 91-20.
Engen Corporation, 2001, "Daily Field Memorandum, Santiago Estates, Lot 10 of Tract Number
9833, City ofTemecula, County of Riverside, California", Project No. T1878-C.
Engen Corporation, 1999, "Preliminary Sewage Disposal Feasibility Study (Leach Lines), Single-
Family Residential Lots - Santiago Estates, Lots 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Tract Number 9833, City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, California", dated December 22,1999, Project No. TI878-P.
Hart, E.W., and Bryant, William A., 2000, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, CD-ROM Version.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1998, "Maps of Known Active
Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be Used with 1997
Uniform Building Code" prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and
Geology.
International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, "California Building Codt;:" (CBC).
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code" (UBC).
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map
No.6.
Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone
in Southern Riverside County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 131.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.o. NO. 583401.00
\4\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
Petersen, M., Beeby, D., Bryant, W., Cao, c., Cramer, C., Davis, J., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G., Tan,
S., Taylor, G., Toppozada, T., Treiman, 1., and Wills, C., 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of
California", California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48, varied scales.
Rancho California Water District, March 1984, "Water Resources Master Plan".
Rodgers, Thomas H., 1965 (fifth printing 1985), "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet",
California Division of Mines & Geology, Scale: 1:250,000.
Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, c., Cramer, C. and Reichle, M., 2000,
"Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by M2: 5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1999" California
Division of Mines Geology Map Sheet 49, varied scales.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1953 (photorevised 1979), 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map, Murrieta,
California, scale I" = 2,000'.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.o. NO. 583401.00
,.-
\?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Exploratory Trench Logs
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,O, NO, 583401.00
\'-
w wi >'"
w ~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~~
~ !a~
. oz a
w . ,0
0 u zw
m -0
V
I
I
I
^
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE NO 580 SUPER M EXTEND-
A-BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET
ELEVATION:
TEST PIT NO. 1
DESCRIPTION
ENGINEERED FILL
6.8 118.0 SIL TV SAND (8M): YEllOW BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, VERY FINE TO COARSE GRAINED,
ABUNDANT FINE GRAINS IN PART, COBBLE, WELL TO MODERATELY GRADED
7.0 119.0
SILTY SAND (8M): YEllOW BROWN, AS ABOVE. BECOMING INCREASINGLY FINE GRAINED
WITH MINOR CLAY
TOTAL DEPTH = 10.0'
NO GROUNDWATER
LOG OF TEST PIT
DATE OBSERVED:4108/0 '/
LOCATION: seE PLOT PLAN
SOIL TEST
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT, SIEVE ANALYSIS, EXPANSION
INDEX, SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT
FIGURE: T.1
\1
w ~
.: ~
~ ~
o
.
wi
""
Oz
~~
oz
,0
u
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE NO 580 SUPER M EXTEND-
A-BACKHOE W124" BUCKET
ELEVATION:
>'"
15g
~~
~~
zw
-0
TEST PIT NO. 2
DESCRIPTION
ENGINEERED FILL
5.2 120.0 SIL TV SAND (8M): YEllOW BROWN, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, DENSE, MOIST, WELL
GRADED
7.6 119.0 SAN~L T (ML): DARK GRAY-BRdWf.l, SUGHTL 'f'M01~T~UCC~NAL ~AN(.rG'AATNs.
OCCASIONAL BRANCHES AND ROOTS (GENERALLY lESS THAN 1 %), MEDIUM DENSE,
OCCASIONAL ANGULAR COBBLES UP TO 3M IN DIAMETER
PAUBA FORMATION
SIL TV SAND (8M): DARK BROWN, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, SLIGHT L Y CLAYEY IN PART,
ABUNDANT FINES, SLIGHTLY MOIST. OCCASIONAl PINPOINT PORES
SIL TV SAND (8M): YEllOW BROWN. MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED. MINOR FINES,
OCCASIONAL GRAVEl SIZE
TOTAL DEPTH = 8.0'
NO GROUNDWATER
LOG OF TEST PIT
DATE OBSERVED:4108/04
LOCATION: see PLOT PLAN
FIGURE: T-2
SOil TEST
\~
~
~
.
~
~ ~
~ ~
o
.
METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE NO 580 SUPER M EXTEND-
A-BACKHOE W124" BUCKET
ELEVATION:
'# >(L
- 15g
~ ~~
8 ;!;~
TEST PIT NO. 3
DESCRIPTION
ENGINEERED FILL
SIL TV SAND (8M): DARK GRAY BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, TRACE COARSE
GRAINED, SLIGHTLY MOIST, OCCA$IQNAlLARGE BRANCHES OR ROOTS, GRADE
STAKE, MEDIUM DENSE
PAUBA FORMATION
SIL TV SAND (8M): DARK YELLOW BROWN, FINE TO MEDlUM GRAINED, MOIST, DENSE, NO
PINPOINT PORES
TOTAL DEPTH = 6.0'
NO GROUNDWATER
LOG OF TEST PIT
DATE OBSERVED:4106/04
LOCATION: SeE PLOT PLAN
FIGURE: T-3
SOIL TEST
\'\
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
.
.
.
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.O, NO. 583401.00
'Zf)
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TESTING
A. Classification
Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). Classification was supplemented by index tests, such as particle size analysis
and moisture content.
B. Expansion Index
An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils
remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 Ib/ft2, in accordance with Uniform
Building Code (UBC) Standard No. 29-2. The test result is presented on Figure C-l,
Table I.
C. Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content
A maximum density/optimum moisture content relationships was determined for a typical
sample of the on-site soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM 1557-Method A.
The test results are summarized on Figure C-l, Table II, and presented graphically on
Figure C-2.
D. Particle Size Determination
A particle size determination, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve), was performed
on a representative sample of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D 422-63. The
test results are shown on Figure C-3.
E. Sulfate Content
A sulfate content test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils. The
laboratory standard used was California 417A. The test results are presented on Figure
C-l, Table III and Figure C-S.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.o. NO, 583401.00
Z,\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
T-I @0-5 ft 16 Very Low
TABLE II
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 1557
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
TEST LOCATION (pcf) (%)
I T-I @0-5 ft I 130.5 I 8.0 I
TABLE III
SULFATE CONTENT
TEST LOCATION SULFATE CONTENT
T-! @ 0-5 ft 13 ppm
Figure C-!
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.O. NO. 583401.00
z,z.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water content, %
Test specIfication: ASTM D 1557-91 Method A, Modified
Oversize correction applied to final results
Elev/ ClassIfIcation Nat.
Sp.G.
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.
...
0
ll. 130
,
J)
..,
In
C
GJ
"
J) 125
L
Cl
0-5
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
140
\
"-
'\
\
,
I\.
II.
" "'" ""'-
'7 , ,
, " \.
/ \.. "
~ "
"
7 , '\
J '" \..
T "
I\.
"
"
I'
"
ZAV for
Sp .G.'
2.65
135
120
115
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15 17.5
LL
PI
% > % <
No . 4 No . 200
SM
7.4 ~
2.65
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dr~ denslt~ = 130.5 pcf
Optimum moisture c 8.0 %
DARK BROWN
SILTY SAND
Remarks:
Project No.: 583401.29
Project: PETER PACITTO
Location: T-1
Date: 4-07-2004
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE
Fig. No.
C-2
z.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Particle Size Distribution Report
.
J;; ...
. . ~ . Jii Jii Jii
j;S...S...~~ ;
o
~ g I i ~ ~ ~
;; ~ N . . - . . . .
I; 1\
1'\
II:
II:
~
II: , ,~
IT , , ~ ~
II: , : I:
II: , ,
n: , , , , , , ,
,
II: :1 ,
II: , :1 ,
II: , :1
II: ~ I
, :1
, , , J , :1
,
, , :1
100
90
80
70
a::
ill 60
Z
u:
!z 50
ill
()
a::
ill 40
0..
30
20
10
o
500 100
10
1
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND
49.3
0.01
0.001
0.1
% COBBLES
0.0
% GRAVEL
6.0
% SILT
% CLAY
44.7
SIEVE
SIZE
1 in.
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
#4
#10
#30
#50
#100
#200
SPEC:
PERCENT
Soli Descrlotion
PERCENT
FINER
100.0
98.4
97.6
96.7
94.0
81.9
58.3
49.6
45.5
44.7
PASS?
(X=NO)
uscs=
Atterbera Limits
LL=
Coefficients
060= 0.663
015=
cc=
Classification
AASHTO=
PL=
PI=
085= 2.37
D30=
Cu=
050= 0.313
DlO=
Remarks
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: T-I
Location:
Source of Sample:
Date: 4/26/04
Elev.lDepth: 0-4
IToHoEo SOILS
I Client: PETER PAC1TIO
CO. Project:
Pro ect No: 583401.29
Plate C-3
zA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Eslablished 1906
Client Name: T. H. E. Soils Co.
Contact: John P. Frey
Address: 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G
Murrieta, CA 92562
Report Date: 22-Apr-2004
Sample Description
T-1 @0-5 Peter Paelto W0#583401.29
Analvhds\
Water Extract
Sulfate
NELAP#02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (909) 653-3351 FAX (909) 653- 1662
www.babcocklabs.com
Analytical Report: Page 3 of 6
Project Name: No Project
Project Number: No Project
Work Order Number: A4D1006
Received on Ice (Y IN): No
Laboratory Reference Number
A4D1006-02
Temp:
oc
Matrix
Soil
Sampled DatefTime
04/09/04 00:00
Received DatefTime
04/13/04 11:25
Result
RDL Units
Method Analvsis Date Analvst Flaa
13
10 ppm
Ion Chroma!. 04/16/04 08:27 KOS N-SAG,
N-WEX
~" \~ ACCORI)~
....' 4-(">
,,'" '"
'" %
~ -
~ ~
z:5
C-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
Standards of Grading
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,O, NO. 583401.00
~
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
These tpeeifiatims prcsall T .H.E. Soils Company.lUlldanI.~OIIS f... grodiog ODd earthwark.
I
No _00 _ th...lpCcifi<<liOllS should be pcmDtted unless lpCcifically supeneded in the pedmicallqlOlt of the proje<t... by _ oommuni<<lim siglOO by the
Soils Consultant. EvalustiOllS pafonned by the Soi1s ConsuIlanl during the course of g<ading may resuk in subsequart reoonnna"latiOllS whidJ could supenede th...
specifiCllions or the recommendations of the gaUdmical rq>ort.
1.0 GENERAL
I
l.l
I
1.2
I
1.3
1.4
I
I
1.5
I
1.6
I
1.7
SITE PREPARATION
A final <<pOrt shall be issued by the Soils Consultant. sttesting to the ConIrador's oooformmoe with these specifications..
I
2.0
The Soi1s ConsuIlanl is the Owner's ... DeveIop<r's rqm:sartative 00 the proj.... F... the pnrpose of th...lpCcifi<<li..... obscrvationa by the Soils
ConsuIlanl include obscrvatiOllS by the Soi1s Engin..... Soi1s Engin..... Engineering Geologist, ODd dhcrs _Ioyed by and respmsible to the Soi1s
Consultant.
All clearing, site ptq)aration. or earthwork perlonned m the project shan be cooducted and directed by the Contractor under the aDO'MUlce or
IAlpervlslon of the Soils Consultant.
The CooIra..... should be respmsible f... the safay of the proje<t and satisfadory ~I""oo of all g<ading. During g<ading. the Contrador shall
remain acx:essJ.ole.
Pri... to the OOIlll11<DcanaII of g<ading. the Soils Consuhant lhall be _Ioyed f... the purpose of providing field, lsbonltory, and office ......ces f...
oonfonnance with the reoomm<ndatiOllS of the geotedmicallqlOlt ODd th... specificatiOllS. h will be necessary that the Soi1s Consuhant provide
adequate testing and observations 10 thld. he may provide an opinion as to daennine that 1he work. was accomplished as specified. h shall be the
responsibtlity of the Contrador to ....... the Soi1s ConsuIlanl and I=p him apprised orwork sdJedules ODd dJang<s so that he may sdJedule his
pcrsmnel acoordingly.
It shan be the sole responsibility of the Contrad.or to provide adequae equipment and methods to accomplish the work. in .ccordance with
applicable grading codes. agency ordinances. these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If; in the opinion of the Soils Ccosultant.
unsatisfa<1ory oonditicns, sud1 as quetioo.able soil. poor moistme condition. inadequate OOfl1)a<tion. adverse weather, dc.. are resuhing in . quality
of work less than n:qnired in th...lpCcificati..... the Soi1s Consuhant will be _cred to n;je<t the work and .~d that oooslrudim be
stopped until the ooaditiOllS are redilied.
It is the Contractor's respoostoility to provide safe 8o;:ess to the Soils Consuhant for testing and/or grading observatim pwposes. This may require
the excavation of test pits and/octhe relocatioo of grading equipment.
2.1 All vegrtatim and deldfrious matai.1 shan be disposed of off-site. This ranoval shan be obsaved by the Soils Consuhant and """eluded pri... to
fill placanall.
I
2.2
I
2.3
I
I
2.4
2.5
I
Soil, aUuvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Coosultant as being unsuitable for plaa:mcut in ~aded fills shan be removed fi'om
the sit<:... nsed in open areas as dderminOO by the Soi1s Consultant. Any _I inoorponb:d as a part of a oompaded fill must be approved by
the Soi1s ConsuIlanl pri...to fill placanall.
Afterthe ground surfllceto reoeive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced and/or bladed by the Contrador until it is uniform and free from
ruts, hollows, hUD1tllOCks. or ether uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture. mixed lIS required. llIld compaded lIS specified. If the scarified zone is
greater than twelve incites in dqJlh. the excess shall be removed and plaoed in lifts n<< to exceed six incites or less.
Priorto placing fill. the grOWld surface to receive fill shall be observed, tesled, and approved by the Soils CoosuhanL
Any undttground structures or cavities sum as a:sspooIs. cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels. septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or ethen are to be removed
Of" treated in a manna- presaibed by the Soils ConsuhanL
In cut-fill transition lets and where all. lets are partially in soil. colluvium Of" unweathered bedrock. mataiaIs. in order to provide uniform bearing
cooditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extmding a minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shan be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and
replaced with compacted fill. Greater ovaexcavation could be required as delermined by Soils Consuhant. Typical details are attached.
I
3.1
3.0 COMPACfEDFILLS
I
I
Material to heptaoed as Cdl shall be iiee of organic mst1et and c:dter deleterious substances, and shan be approved by the Soils Consuhant.. Soils of
poor gradation. expansion, or stnnglh dwact<<istics mall be placed in areas desill1lated by Soils Coosultanl or shall be mixed with c:dtec soils to
serve as satisfactory fill material. as dired.ed by the Soils Consultant.
z..1
II
I
Standard Grading ond Earthwork Specifu:otions
Pago 2
I
3.2
I
I
3.3
3.4
I
3.5
I
3.6
3.7
I
3.8
I
I
3,9
I
3.10
3.11
I
3.12
I
3,\3
I
3.14
4.0 cur SWPES
I
4,1
4,2
I
4.3
I
4.4
I
4,5
I
Rod< frll~ less 1han six ind.." in di_ may be utiliud in the fiI1. provided:
They ore.'" ploced ornestoc1 in conoentroted poc:I<ds.
There is a sufficimt amount of approved wi to surround the rock.s.
The distributicn of rocb is sup..vised by the Soils Consultant.
Rocis gre<4<< 1han twelve indies in di.-.. IhoU be ta1cm otf-oite, or placed in acoordance with the """"""",dations of the Soils ConsuItant in
..... desippaled as suitable for rod< disposal. (A '>Pical ddail for Rod< Disposal is ....dled)
Material that is spong)', subject to decay, 01" dherwise ccnsidered unsuitable shall net be used in the compacted fill.
Rq>resentative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shan be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Consuhant to ddermine their
physical J'I'OP'l1ies. If ony material oth..thon the! previously tested is eucounlfred during grading. the appropriate analysis of this mataial IhoU be
conduded by the Soils Consultant before being approved as till material.
Material used in the ~adingprocess shan be evenly spread, watcn:d, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six indies in thickness
to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill than be placed and compacted on a horizootal plane. unless otherwise approved by the Soils Consultant
If the moistw'e 0J0lmt or relative ~adion varies ftom that required by the Soils Coosul1ant, the Contrador &hall rc\Vork. the fill until it is
approved by the Soils CcnsuItanl.
EadJ. Ilyee shall be COlll'aded to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling
governm<lllalageucy or ASTM 1557-70, wbidl..... applies.
If ClOI:q)aaioo to a lesser percentage is .udJ.orized by the oonlrolling govcmmenta1 _pC)' because of a specific land use or expansive soil condition.
the area to receive fill ClJIIq)acted to less than 90 perc:cnt mall either be delineated 00. the grading plan and/or appropri8le refetmoe made to the area
in the ge<t<xlmical report.
All fills IhoU be keyed ond beudled through all topsoi~ oolluviwn, .lIuviwn, or a-eq> matai.~ into aound bedrod<. or firm matai.l wb...the slope
receiving fill exceeds a ratio oftive horizontal to me vertical or in accordance with the u..............-.datioos of the Soils Consultant.
The key for side hill fills mall be a minimum width of IS fed. within bedrock. or firm materials, unle;s otherwise specified in the gecWdmical f'q)ort.
(See ddai1....dled)
Subdrainage devioes shan be oonstJUtted in oompliancewith the ordinances of the controlling govemment.al agency, or with the reconunendations of
the Soils Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are attad1ed.)
The ClOIllJ'adof' will be required to ottain . minimum relative ~adion of slleast 90 pc:rcmt out to 1he finish slope face offill slopes. buttresses.
ond slabi1izaticn fills. This may be adrieved by either ..... building the slope ond wiling bad< to the """'4'.ded core, or by dinltt oompa<ticn of the
slope race with suitable equipment, or by ony otha' procedun; wbidl produoes the n:quired """'4'adicn approved by the Soils CcnsuItanl.
All fill.lop<s mould be planted or protected from crosicn by oth.. mdhods specified in the Soils rq>ort.
Fil1~ver-cut slopes shall be property keyed throuWt topsoiL, colluvium or tte:q) material into rock or firm materials. and the transition shall be
stripped of.1I soil prior to plocing till. (See atladled ddail.)
The Soils Consultant shan inspect all art slopes at vertical intavals exceeding five feel
If any conditions nc( anticipated in the gededmical Iq)ort sudl as perched water, seq>age. lenticular or confmed strata of a potentially adverse
nature, unfavorably inclined bedding. joints or fault planes enoountered during grading. these conditions shan be analyzed by the Soils Consultant.
and 11WVI1..I......datioos mall be made to mitigatethese problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a ad. slope are attadled.)
Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shan be prd.ed.ed from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale plaa:d at
the top of the slope.
Unless otherwise specified in the gecWdmical rqxwt.. no cut slopes shan be excavated hi~er or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies.
Drainage terraces shan be constru<1ed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. or with the reoonunendatioos of the
Soils Consuhant.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specificoti....
Pagel
5.0
TRENCH BACKFILLS
S.l Tr<nd1 exca_....O beinspew:d prior to stnl<tUreplaoemcol for~ bottom.
5.2
Trench excavations for utility pipes than be baddilted und<<the supervision of the Soils Consultant.
5.3
After the utility pipe has been laid, the space \U1der and around the pipe shan be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at
least one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand baddiII mall be unifonnly jd1ed into place before the cootroUed baddlll is placed over'the sand.
5.4
The oo.4ite IDIteriats. or <6er soils approved by the Soils Consultant. shall be watered and mixfld, as necessuy. prior to p1aoement in lifts over the
sand baadill.
5.5
The cootrolled baadill m.1I be oomp.ded to atle&t 90 pc=rt of the maximum l.boratory dmsdy, .s ddermined by the ASTM Dl557-70 or the
oontrollinggovemmental agmey.
5.6 Field d.mdy..... and impedim of the baddill procedures obaII be made by the Soils Consu_ during baddilling to see that propa- moisture
content and uniform ~diOD. is being maintained. The oontrador shall providetesl holes..d exploratory pits as required by the Soils Coosuhant
to....blelllltq>liogandtesting.
6.0
GRADING CONTROL
6.1
Inspec1im of the fill pl.""""" m.1I be provided by the Soils Consu_ duringtheprogress of gnlding.
6,2
In g<n....~ d.mdy..... mould be made at intcrvaIs not exa:eding two feel offill beil!/11 or evecy SOO ",bie yards offill placed. This _ will
vary dq>a1ding. m soil QOIlditims and the size of the job. In any ev<nt, an adequate number offield d.mdy..... ....11 be made to vai1y that the
roquired Olllq>adim is being .chieved. '
6.3
Density tests should also be made on the native surfaoe material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Coosultant.
6,4
All c1ean-out, pro=sed ground to reoeived fill, key excavaticns, subdrains, and rock disposals mould be inspew:d and approved by the Soils
Consu_ prior to placing any fill, It....1I be the Contrador's respmsibilily to notify the Soils ConsuItanl wh... sudJ areas will be ready for
inspaticn
7.0
CONSTRUCfION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Erosion oontrot measures, when neoessary. shatt be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the oompldioo and construttion of
permanent drainage controls.
7.2
Upcn oompldim of gnlding and tuminatim of impedi.... by the Soils Consultant, no finth...lilling or excavating. including that necessary for
footin!'.' founclaticns, large tree wells, ....ining w.Ds, or oth... features ....0 be pelfonned without the approval of the Soils Consuhant.
7.3
Care mall be taken by the Contrador during rmal grading to preserve any benns. drainage telTaoes, intfroeptor swales. or other devices of
permanent nature on or adjacart to the property.
z.~
r:
11
r
t
t;
IJ
I-~
I~
If:
1['
1[,
1_/
I
II
II
Ii
Ii
I
I
I
I
SIDE HILL
CUT PAD DETAIL
-
OVER EXCAVATE
AND RECOMPACT
FINISHED CUT PAD
OVERBURDEN
OR UNSUITABLE
MA TERIAL
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR ,
~ MATERIAL APPROVED BY ----1
r THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
SUB DRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--:-:~-:-:~-:-~=67i~=-::==f=f:==;~~-P~~E~-~=:~
----------------:..-~,~~ - - - :...:.-:..---:..---:..-:..~ FI - -:.-:..---:;
---- ------_~ LL------.
_-:..-::===~=~=~==:~:~~;=;====~~-=-=;~~~~=;~=-==~~~~
________7__~-------~-------~~-
--:=:0===~:;~;t=~=::~=f:n=-::=-::::=:::==-=-~=~=-==~::::=:-=~-:--
~-n -------l]- ----
- ------...;;>:-- ----'-..J:- - ---
-.,.7:" :-=:===:;;..~-=::::=- -=_===:=~"'O] =:f~~=== ==~=:::-
--10 MIN .--------------------E ;;t -
--_ __. .a~ ____________ t ------- -----
------__:z"_____________4 MIN. -=-- --=15' MIN - -----..::-
------t-"?"'-------------- - -- ._ ___
-----:..~~-~----------------- +
~====~====~=~:~3E::=~============~== _ ~==:===~~=:BF:~----:-
-~------~------------~~:_-----
;::=:==-===~::-=-==~ =-:::==-::::===:=~=-::=======:==:==~~-=-=-
;: - :;.7----:..-------:..---.: OVERSIZE..- ---
WINDROWl
ROCK
SLOPE
FACE
GRANULAR SOIL'
. To HIT voids,
densified by
flooding
PROFILE
,-
DISPOSAL DETAIL
FINISH GRADE
ALONG WINDROW
~\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT-FILL lOT
NATURAL GROUND
1-
-
..-
---
--
--
---
--
- ..-
......
..-
--
-
..-
......-
-
- -_.. --
:COMP ACT-ED :::FI LL :-=-=-3-2--:='::--€.?-lf>-~:"':';~--------:+----------=----
-----------------..~~\ ---j;.: ^'~ iI1'" -.-"
.~-=-::-=-=-=-:=-=~~----:'Ct-=~::::::-:- \ T
~-~:-~:.---~SIj-~F'~:.-:;::------------- OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
-----\--~'C.-:..\).!:...-...::c..- , ""'^
---c~O ,-------
---.~~ -..::..-------
, .
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1
,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY --1"
f THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
-- ---
_ -.:::: REMOVE ...... ...-
_ - - UNSUITABLE ~ _ - s' L
_- - 'MATERIAL _ MiN'. rJ
=------------------------------------ --:::::::?:-~------------x_---------...:------------- 36" MIN.
-=-::?ci~;ACTED::=~-~-= I' ~ ^. T
:.~~~~~~~~ OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR J
. ,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ----1
t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
-
-
-
--
---
-
NATLlRAL GROUND
1-
--
-
-
--
-
NOTE:
Deeper overexcovotion ond recomoactian shall be perfarmed
if de!ermined -a be necesscry by the geotec~"iccl consultant.
?:;z,
SLOPE BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL DETAIL
..
I
2' MIN.
OUTLET PIPES
4" D /'lonperforated Pipe,
100' Max_ O.c. Horizontally,
30' Max. O.c. Vertically
__-_~-:..-_-_-r
-------
_-_~~~::=-:c:
--------
---------
---------
---------
---------
---------
SUB DRAIN
SEE AL TERNA TES A 2'.
AL TERNA TE A
TEMPORARY
FILL LEVEL
8' MIN. OVERLA?
'POSIT1ve ScAL \. .
SHOULD aE ;;:t:2
PROVIDED .,
ATTkEJOONT ,~...
. .
S% MrN. ~l.;. 117 ~ ..:
OUTLET .,,;~~
P1PE~.,,-
MIRA;t 1040 FIL TE:1
FABRIC OR APPRovED
eoulv ALENT
I~"MIN.
GRA VEL OR
( APPROVED
" 50urJ AL.:~n
-- - RECOIolPACTED FILL
~f1. ==,
"}\\IN"'SELECT BEDD INO
-L BACKFILL
. a M~'l. NONPERFORA TED
PIPE
DETAIL A-A'
AL TERNA TE B
"
NOTES:
.
Fill blanket, bock cut, key width and
key depth ore subject to field change,
per report/plans.
Key heel subcrain, blanket drain, or
vertical drain may be required at the
discretion of the geotechnical consultant,
SUBDRAIN INST ALlA TION - Subdrain
pipe shall be installed with perforations
Gown or, at locations designated by
the geotechnical consultant, shall be
nonperforated pipe,
SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall
be ASTM 02751, SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01527,
Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
(ABS) or ASTM 03034 SOR 23.5 or ASTM
01785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic
FILTER MATERIAL:
Filter material shall be
Class 2 permeable material
per State of California
Standard Specifications,
or approved alternate.
Class 2 grading as follows:
.
SIEVE SIZE
PERCENT PASSING
.
.
I"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No. 8
No. 30
No_ SO
No. 200
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
S-IS
0-7
0-3
~?
10\'''''' ...:........ ....... ..........r......''''''.... o.ntl;,,~lon+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE
'"
_-::::::~::::COMPACTED :::-=:---=-::;
- ---------:...---:-..~:::: Fill :..."".:---------:...-.:
- --=-=-:-:-=-:-:-:-:-=-:-:-=-=-:;~ ~ =-=:
------------------'\----------~ - - - ----==-~
.. ---------:-::\.-_--:--- "'" w-.'
---------~~----~ -N
_ -=-=-=-:-:-=-:-:-:~==-2-----=-:. - --;I'-:;'~ --j
PROJECTED PLANE _-_-=-=:-=-=-.:-=:;::~~.:---.z:_~-:...
I to I maximum from toe -------;-------- \/
of slope to cpproved ground -=-=_:::-=-=~L~-:::-=-;;-~:::-:::- \ '
_ _--=-_-_-/__-_-_--=-.... REMOVE
"" ----~-/.:::-------,,:::...._--- UNSUITABLE
-~~-----~---- -
---::-::_=_:-=_::::-~~"... ~ MA I ERIAl
----- 4lN
-- ----_~---=----=- 'M. BENCH
A' ' -7---7~-------=----=-- BENCH.
-L ~=~i"2~-~1i({~==.:: I (typical) ~~~I~~
-----~----
T
2' MIN. I 15' MIN. I
KEY t"LOWEST BENCH "1
DEPTH (KEY)
NATURAL
GROUND \
_-: COMPACTED :-:-=:-:;;:-::"
---------l Flll.:---..::::-:.----:;..
_-=-~~~=*=~L.:=~~~=~~-z
____----e.._____ ~ ...
____-..-c_____~-
-----.-----..",..---
--- ....
REMOVE. NATURAL ~~~::=___::.?'_ -f '
UNSUITABLE ~----------~ I
MATERIAL \ GROUN':.... ~ - ~_=__-.;;.:-;C_-' r4' MIN:
_ --_..__--- BENCH'"'j
_ - - ~-';;;'2'2,yo-tirN:-- (typical)l
_ .1 .
_- ~ 1"
-- ......--......- ~~ 151MIN.il
..... - lOWEST BENCH
......
FILL OVER CUT SLOPE
BENCH
HEIGl;iT
VARIES
.....
CUT
FACE
To be constructed prior
to fill placement
.....
.....
NOTES:
lOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change
based C:l consultant's inspection.
S;.;!:.!JRAI~JAGE;. E:-,k .::-0:":; mey be required at the
iiscretlon or the geotechnical consultant.
"Y\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CANYON SUBORAIN DETAil
REMOVE
~- "':' ___ __;7__ UNSUITABLE
- s;:cc.:----------------------------- __ MATERIAL
-:.. --~-=-=-~-::-=-=-cOMPAcTED-FILi~-=:~-~-3:~-:.. - ,r-j
-_~_:..-_S;----- , - . - ----~-:- ,
-~~---~-----------------~~--
--- -- .::"'::=S~=-~~=-=-=~~-==~ - '
~?-~=~=3E~====~~~-3f=-
~-------..::;;c:
-_-_"'5-=~=~'.:::: SUB DRAIN TRENCH
_ SEE AL TERNA TES A&B
~ NATURAL GROUND
BENCHING
SUB DRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With
AL TERNA TE A: Filter Material
_ FILTER MATERIAL
3
9 ft. 1ft.
COVER
6" MIN. ------
BEDDING
AI!ernate A-1
Alternate A-2
PERFORATED PIPE
6"f)MIN.
SUBDRAIN 1 1/2" Gravel Wrapped
AL TERNA TE B: in Filter Fabric
~r;:-; .";';'IN. OVERLAP ~ I-
" ~
MIR:'FI 140 FILTER
FABRIC OR
APPROVED
EOUIV ALENT
1'12" MIN. GRAVEL OR
APPROVED EO UNA LENT
3
9 ft. 1ft.
'\
FILTER MATERIAL: .
Filter material sholl be
Closs 2 permeable mC:Teriol
pet' State of California
Standard Specifications,
or opproved alternate.
Class 2 grading os follows:
SIEVE SIZE
PERCENT PASSING
I"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No. 30
No. SO
No. 200
100
90-100
40-100
2S-40
18-33
S-IS
0-7
0-3
NOTE:
In addition to the wrappe<d
gravel, outlet portion of the
sub drain should be' equippe<d
with a minimum of 10 feet
long perforated pipe oon-
necte<d to a nonperforate<d pipe
having a minimum of 5 feet in
length inside the wrapped
gravel.
· SUBDRAIN INST ALLA TION - Subdrain pipe sholl be instolle<d with perforations down or,
at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforated pipe.
· SUBORAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall be ASTM 02751, SOA 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM 03034 SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01785, Schedule 40
Poly vinal Chloride Plastic. (PVC) pipe or approved equivalanl
?5~