HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 30 Geotechnical Investigation (Apr.7,1998)
-
K<f.PbRTS
I-
TERRA
GEOSCIENCES RECEIVEr
APR 28 1998
CfTV'0FTEMECULh
ENGINEERING DEPARTME
.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
LOT 30, TRACT 9833-3,
APN 945-150-015
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
,.
-
April 7, 1998
Project No. 98936-01
..
-
-
.
Prepared for:
Harry Wiersema
8315 Merrill Avenue
Chino, CA 91710
-
Engineering Geology. Geophysics . Geotechnical Applications
l
.
1'0. Box 1099, Lorna linda, CA 92354 . 909-796-4667
.
.
Harry Wiersema
8315 Merrill Avenue
Chino, CA 91710
Regarding:
Geotechnical Investigation
Lot 30, Tract 9833-3,
APN 945-150-015
City of Temecula, California
Project No, 98936-01
'.
-
'-
INTRODUCTION
As authorized by you, this firm, in conjunction with Schroeder Engineering, has per-
formed a Geotechnical Investigation of the above-referenced site. The purpose of this
investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions with respect to the proposed
development and to assess the geologic and soil engineering constraints that might
exist.
We understand that the site is to be utilized for construction of a one-story single-family
residence. In addition, we understand that an on-site sewage disposal system, is
proposed to dispose of on-site generated effluent, and has been tested and designed
by others. Based on the Precise Grading Plan, prepared by Lawrence R. Phelps,
Temecula, California, site grading will consist of approximately 2,430 cubic yards of
both cut and fill materials. Up to 7:t feet of cut and fill is proposed with no slopes
exceeding 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) in gradient.
In summary, development of this site, as proposed, is geotechnically feasible, provided
that the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are adhered to. At
the time of grading, the undersigned engineer, Mr. Craig Schroeder, Schroeder Engi-
neering, Downey, California (562-927-2857), should be contacted, since he will provide
the necessary soil engineering services.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If any questions should arise
concerning the information presented in this report, please feel free to contact us at
your convenience.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SCHROEDER ENGIN~ERINGI
~tit U~
crai;t'tt(oeder
R.C.~~~~9
z..
.
98936-01
Page 1
.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
.
The following services were performed during this study, as outlined in our proposal
dated July 21, 1997, and as authorized by you on March 19, 199B:
A Review of available published and unpublished geologic and geotechnical data in
our files pertaining to the site.
B. Photogeologic analysis of stereoscopic aerial photographs obtained from the
Riverside County Flood Control District.
C. Field geologic reconnaissance and geologic mapping of the site and vicinity by a
Certified Engineering Geologist.
D. Excavation, logging, and soil sampling of three exploratory backhoe trenches, up
to 14 feet in depth,
E. Laboratory testing of the representative soil samples, including, but not limited to;
moisture and densities, maximum densities, sieve analysis, direct/remolded shear,
and sand equivalent.
F, Perform a detailed, site-specific geoseismic analysis, integrating both deterministic
and historic seismic parameters.
G. Preparation of a preliminary report, presenting our findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations pertaining to the proposed development, from a geotechnical
standpoint.
.
.
.
.
Accompanvinq Maps and Appendices
.
Page 2 - Site Location Map
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map
Plate 2 - Cross Section A - A'
Plate 3 - Earthquake Epicenter Map
Plate 4 - Microseismicity Map
Appendix A - Exploratory Trench Logs
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Data
Appendix C - Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Appendix D - References
.
.
.
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
"I0I\'>l'31\'
""
w
'"
'0
Ii!
*
...
'-
o
),
.
r-
o
-
'"
_0
;i
OJ
(")
-
'"
<Xl
'"
'"
!.>
CijI
:3
(1)
(")
~~
&'
s;
o
3
~.
;;?
lQ
(1)
I/o
G'l
~
'"
;cj
o
-
en
-
-t
m
5
(")
~
-
o
z
;c
.~
"'tI
"
GO
Ul
CD
,."
.
98936-01
Page 3
.
SITE CONDITIONS
.
The subject site is located at the southeastern corner of Pescado Drive (north
boundary) and Calle De Velardo (west boundary), in the city of Temecula, Riverside
County, California. A vacant lot borders the south with an MWD easement bordering
the west. The property sits atop a plateau with the overall gradient towards the
southeast, as shown on Plate 1. No structures are present. Vegetation consists of low
lying annual grasses with chaparral type brush along the natural slope and swale area
in the southeast. Minor grading appears to have been performed in the past to create
the lots in the area for custom sales.
.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
.
The subject site is situated within a natural geomorphic province in southwestern
California known as the Peninsular Ranges, which is bordered on the east by the Gulf
of California and Salton Trough, the north by the Transverse Ranges (San
Bernardino/San Gabriel Mountains and Santa Monica Mountains), and extends
southerly into Baja California, into the Pacific Ocean to the west. This province is
traversed by numerous northwesterly-trending faults, creating and subdividing this area
into many subparallel, northwesterly-trending ranges and valleys. The largest faults
and fault zones parallel the Wildomar Fault system and are probably closely related,
Within the Peninsular Ranges, there are several substructural regions, all with unique
geological characteristics. Regionally, the subject property is located within the Perris
Block. The Perris Block, approximately 20 miles by 50 miles in extent, is bounded by
the San Jacinto Fault Zone to the northeast, the Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwest,
the Cucamonga Fault Zone to the northwest, and to the southeast by the fringes of the
Temecula basin where the boundary is ill-defined.
The Perris Block has had a complex history, apparently undergoing relative vertical land
movements of several thousand feet in response to movement on the Elsinore and San
Jacinto Fault Zones. These movements of the geologic past, in conjunction with the
semi-arid climate and the weathering resistance of the rock, are responsible for the
formation and preservation of ancient, generally flat-lying erosion surfaces now present
at various elevations that give this region its unique geologic character.
.
.
I.
.
The site lies along the southern fringes of the Perris Block, within the Temecula Basin.
This basin is occupied by the low, rolling topography of the Pauba Mesas, which are
remnants of alluvial fans formed during late Pleistocene time. Kennedy (1977) and
Mann (1955) indicate the site to be underlain at depth by sedimentary bedrock of the
late Pleistocene Pauba Formation, The Pauba Formation, for the most part, is
moderately well indurated, extensively cross-bedded, channeled, and filled sandstone
and siltstone facies that contain occasional intervening cobble and boulder
conglomerate beds, The bedding is shown to have an overall east-west strike, dipping
gently to the north averaging five degrees. Observations of the exposed bedding in the
adjacent cut slopes indicate an overall east-west strike direction, dipping 3-14 degrees
where measured. Locally, Kennedy indicates the site to be capped by a thin mantle of
Terrace deposits (late Quaternary). This deposit was also visible along the cut slopes
having a sharp, irregular and undulating contact with the underlying Pauba Formation.
A portion of the geologic mapping by Kennedy is shown on Figure 1 below, for
reference purposes,
.
.
5
.
I
98936-01
Page 4
.
;.,r\';" > )'\0' ~~,. ~,''''?'''----'v~~'' .,:'-:--,'ii '\',--" ,- ,~....,
/ ,,~~.~ _ - 0; - .../ ..;../~.,~l.:': ;:=::';.1 _ '-. '-"~-I:?O':)~--;l' . '. ,. I /' \ ~ ~/
")~i~ -Vi~" ,; /::"'~~~:~,/\' <n' 1~ -,;1''"...~~T-
"'-<",,-,< I! '~"'~ "~,", '-' ,";' ,.
_ ,- ":,< / ~ s:: ,- ")) .":' -,. f
", ~ ,"':' ,"?,. - . .... -- ,. ",~ 1~ / '
_ ~<. '--J',- "'::_-...L..-:::.C: C;)" I'..... ~ - ,,\\.- ~- /
-~ "'. \.... -JI.. ~ ,- I ,- \~ /
-"=." "~'~,, o"h':r-~',~,;;:'~<',<.:-~~,~~,:} > t.,'\~>'
~' c::.., --,,"\" ~f('Ncl.,X:~', ,~, 1\~ ~ .~,
',- ~/ ';:~"". -J'I-flf')'~"'.' ---.....,'-~;\' ' ... -C-<' ~
'/\) -':'JI!':..' /'.1(. -- ~I .~.,-" ,~-J \ \ .....
<;"V;JJ1,y" --,~' (ic:'\' ;' ;""':;jiR.'\ "), ~ ~ '-, ,
~ Af~~~"v,,:; - 1:'1' -- l'-' --r t\ j;. i \
I' " r -~\S~:1~ ,~ :~"~~ ", !"W~\ ~);:::> ; \ -..
, - ':l <: ""-''''~';.';''' I,~. ~r;,Rjrl ,<:;\ ,\ \
- ;:.(, · - ~ IA!'^ I" t /6" ., l~ ,I ....._
_ 1,\ ;..;~ ~:(-l5 ~{?~}"'~ '. : /_~ (~,'>f:;'-.--~~ I \ -
~, ~ '__ II / /"~ !.'....~ \ # -/ l \ '-. 0:: I 0"
-- '"' ~-, ",. \ J '1J~~ - \ ' ~ ,I; ~.." '" I c.:
D - ;..:..}! _IT '~"- (', '1I~.4~ ) I; ... \ 1- "'" '\
II __'/''1 ~' /I~'? _\ \!__ ,:t"~.-.., ,-1:,.\l)_r-_~--, ,I,;, ""'-;-i1~ .1
I "'--:S I. , ." ,,..,,, ," ,< I" ~!<l" ,.$f'
:1 -:- ....~ .,' -;;....-...;;~r \;--. ~.~'-J.,,( ~I \\t~r ~o,' V
II,,,,;,:, T'0,~' ~';,.=~;r,,:"':::r-, ,~_~-:_ /(""i\:;~;;; . ~ \\~:-,::,,"" ( I, -,' .
I .L-,."..... 7"'"'---4"-~.}T ,....~-:>'......___--....,.. _v'W~,. ( .\ ^'~,\ ' I ......../',
. .''''' " ",/ -=c_Z-, 4-,'..~ b. ~', '~'~- "'" 'J", / '
:,. "1- "," J:j '.1 ,\\1'", .J. \._\;._)(~\, ,,,' S. '--~ I
., ,y-t;':Q (f' 0v2: ".J\~,"~c,I 0)1 "",,,..0., I '0 / , ','1"
o fIrg" "!;i:\1Ii '.:...0",,"') \'';:>''~ ?-"J', cJ' ~"" A"r-. / I' ' I;
t.. -: - -~ /:, ~ - ,'-----t-..,,=-~.~\.~~,<~'<- I I:.j / c",~ 1... .." \.~':
- 1:>'1 _Q ^ ~""~ ,,\'-.e~... ,"',~ /........ . ~- '
~x" ~""" /," u-sP.F;"?h'~ ''-''':~-,,;.';'S$;:;'.':r''- ~''J-..~ . I'~' \~/. -" :i,
/': .;v"\ ',( _! " ""'. r .'~., ......--Xf .. . ,\ - J:: _
- _ / ~ ~ tl--'/ . -' ,>-;-_~ \,,;~';!,::,~!" . - M ~,' '. ;;~~ "'rJ J.!-_I~ . . ! .. . .' '\ '- .-f,~ -
~': ~~ _ ," .~, ....._' ' .w, ". " " ',,, _ . '. . . . . . ~
?1.",' . s '..-, ~;" ,-""" .:; - """z"'C' ~, ~$.;.\~~,-:';';:~~~" / ' ,''''-'-~ - '7
" " I)" _......... \ , . ...- ._.....-~'\'-.I~ _..,.;.-::.\ 0: ......... / '"
......'-..1 -'-.,.. .,. '_",,~ .>.,,> _ ~';">::""~ .~~~'i" \ / o~~
) , .., ~, '--<4;",,!,-__ ~ '. -dj'-.\ '" \ ,r 1" 2000'
A,4j""":,-, ',cfJ, ' 't \ .~, "o.Q " -. .-' - 'U "~.'~ \ / ~_' =
~
0:-0 I
'~O<:>I
/ '.
I.
.
I
/1
/'
.
.
FIGURE 1. Regional Geologic Map (Kennedy, 1977), Subject site shown in circle.
.
EARTH MATERIALS
.
Based on our field observations and subsurface exploration, the site is underlain at
depth by well stratified sandstone/silty sandstone of the Pauba Formation overlain by a
thin mantle of Terrace deposits, Local artificial fill deposits were found within the upper
portion of the drainage swale area near the proposed garage and fill slope area. The
approximate location of the surficial distribution of the earth materials is shown on Plate
1. These materials are generally described below.
.
Artificial Fill (at):
.
Locally along the swale in the building pad area, were fill materials consisting of a loose
silty sand up to a depth of 3% feet were trenched. Thicker fill deposits could be present
locally, including further down slope in the swale. These materials were probably
placed during creation of the building pads for the lot sales in the area. Natural colluvial
soils should be expected in the swale in the area below the proposed fill slope, This
area was inaccessible for equipment, therefore, removal depths prior to fill placement
should be determined in the field during grading,
.
~
.
I
98936-01
Page 5
.
Terrace Deposits (Qt):
Mantling the site to a depth of up to eight feet locally, is a generally massive reddish
brown clayey silty sand terrace deposit. This unit is exposed across the cut slope
bordering the western property line and along the very top portion of the cut slope
bordering the south, This material was found to be moderately dense.
.
.
Pauba Formation (Ops):
Exposures, along the cut slopes in the south and west portions of the site, revealed a
well bedded, thinly stratified sandstone member of the Pauba Formation, with very thin,
clayey siltstone lenses. The bedding observed locally was found to be northerly-
dipping (into and neutral to slope), with dip angles of 3 to 14 degrees as shown on Plate
3. The sandstone is moderately well cemented, friable, and highly fractured. The
fractures are closely spaced, high angled, and have a major defined joint set. Localized
small folding was observed.
A more detailed stratigraphic description of the subsurface earth materials encountered
locally is presented in Appendix A, in the form of Exploratory Trench Logs, with the
approximate field locations of the exploratory excavations shown on the accompanying
Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.
.
GROUNDWATER
.
.
No springs, seeps, phreatophytes, or flowing water were observed at the site during our
field reconnaissance, and no indications of shallow water was found during our
literature research. According to data provided by the State of California, Department
of Water Resources (1971), there are no nearby wells drilled within the hill in the local
area. All of the wells within a one-mile radius are shown to be located along the bottom
of the hills, in the alluvial channels, Based on a review of all of the pertinent well in the
region, groundwater is anticipated to be greater than 200 feet in depth.
FAULTING
.
.
There are no known active faults that traverse the site, based on published literature,
nor was there any photogeologic or surficial geomorphic evidence suggestive of fault-
ing, The site is not located within a State of California "Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone" for fault rupture hazard (Hart, 1994). The nearest known active fault is the
Wildomar Fault, approximately 2,200 feet to the southwest (see Figure 1), and is
considered to be the design fault for the site. The Wildomar Fault is one of the central
strands of the Elsinore Fault Zone System, which runs from the Los Angeles Basin to
the north, into Mexico to the south.
NATURAL SLOPE STABILITY
.
No large gross or deep-seated landslides were observed at the site or mapped by
others, nor were any shallow slumps observed locally. In addition, photogeologic
analysis did not reveal any indications of local slope instability,
.
7
.
98936-01
Page 6
.
SEISMICITY
.
The primary geologic hazard that exists at the site is that of ground shaking. The
strength of earthquake-induced ground shaking is commonly measured as maximum or
peak ground acceleration. Acceleration is defined as the time rate of change of velocity
of a referenced point during an earthquake, commonly expressed in percentage of
gravity (g). Its value at a particular site is a function of many factors, including, but not
limited to, earthquake magnitude, distance to causative earthquake, various seismic-
source parameters, site location relative to direction of energy propagation, and geo-
logic conditions at the site.
An overview of the general faulting/seismic parameters was performed by use of re-
cently-developed computer programs (Blake, 19B9; EQFAULT) to determine approxi-
mate regional fault distances and expected ground shaking levels. The attenuation
relationship used is that of Boore and others (1993), larger-mean-B, The "mean" rep-
resents the best-fit curve for the range of acceleration levels (the median value or the
50th percentile of data scatter about a regression curve), typically used for "non-critical"
facilities, such as the subject residential project.
Boore and others developed equations for predicting peak horizontal acceleration from
a selected western North American data set. They developed an equation to estimate
the "largest" horizontal component and one to estimate the "randomly oriented" horizon-
tal component. The distance used in their equations is the shortest distance (km) from
the site to the vertical projection of the earthquake fault rupture on the surface of the
earth. This attenuation relation uses a threefold classification of site conditions (A, B
and C), based on average shear-wave velocity of the earth materials in the upper 30
meters, At the site it is anticipated that the underlying earth materials (upper 30 meters)
in the proposed building areas are Holocene alluvial deposits (based on published
maps and subsurface exploratory excavations) which would fall within site condition "B"
(average shear-wave velocity = 360 to 750 m/sec). Shear-wave velocities from near-
surface materials have been generalized in the area (Fumal & Tinsley, 1985) and as-
signed a mean velocity of 435 m/sec (late Pleistocene sediments). Based on this data
and the new site classifications assigned by Boore and others (1993), the attenuation
relationship used in this analysis is for Site Class B (360 to 750 m/sec).
A summary of the deterministic data is as follows:
A. Thirty-six major "potentially active/active" (late Quaternary) faults are within a 62-
mile (100 kilometer) radius, with the nearest known active fault being the
Wildomar Fault (Elsinore Fault Zone), located approximately 2,200 feet southwest
of the site (see Figure 1), and is considered the design fault.
B. The largest estimated maximum moment magnitude (Mw) earthquake associated
with the Wildomar Fault is Mw6.8, with an estimated maximum site acceleration
(mean) of 0.49g.
It should be noted that the above-estimated moment magnitude and horizontal ground
acceleration are based on the known current tectonic setting of the region and "state-of-
the-art" attenuation relationships. The maximum moment (Mw) earthquake is the maxi-
mum earthquake that is specific to that source, based on estimated rupture dimensions
for that segment of the design fault. The value used in this analysis for the maximum
moment magnitude earthquake has been determined by the C.D.M.G. (1996).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
.
98936-01
Page 7
.
HISTORIC SEISMICITY
.
A computerized search, based on Southern California historical earthquake catalogs,
has been performed using the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 19B9). The fol-
lowing table and discussion summarizes the historic seismic events (greater than or
equal to 4.0M) that have been estimated and/or recorded during this time period of
1800 to December 1997, within a 62-mile (100 km) radius of the site.
TABLE 1 - HISTORIC SEISMIC EVENTS
Richter Maqnitude
No. of Events
.
4.0 - 4.9
5.0 - 5.9
6,0 - 6.9
7.0+
548
65
1B
o
.
It should be noted that pre-instrumental seismic events (generally before 1932) have
been estimated from isoseismal maps (Toppozada, et aI., 1981). These data have
been compiled generally based on the reported intensities throughout the region, thus
focusing in on the most likely epicentral location. Instrumentation beyond 1932 has
greatly increased the accuracy of locating earthquake epicenters.
A summary of the historic earthquake data is as follows:
A. At least 83 significant historical earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 and greater, during
the period of 1800 to December 1997, have been estimated and/or recorded
within a 62.-mile (100 kilometer) radius of the site.
B. The closest recorded notable earthquake epicenter (magnitude 4.0 or greater) is a
M4.5 event on November 4, 1935, located approximately 12 miles to the east-
northeast.
.
.
.
C, The nearest estimated significant historic earthquake epicenter (pre-1932) was
approximately 22 miles northwest of the site (May 15, 1910, M6.0).
D. The nearest recorded significant historic earthquake epicenter was an M5.0 event
on September 23, 1963, located approximately 19 miles northeast of the site.
E. The largest estimated historical earthquake epicenter (pre-1932) within a 62-mile
radius of the site is a M6.8 event on April 18, 1918 (app. 19 miles northeast).
F. The largest recorded historical earthquake was the M6.7 Big Bear event, located
approximately 52 miles to the northeast (June 2B, 1992).
An Earthquake Epicenter Map, which includes magnitudes 4.0 and greater for a 100 km
radius, and a Microseismicity Map, which includes magnitudes 0.0 and greater for a 10
mile radius, have been included as Plates 3 and 4, respectively, for reference purposes,
These maps were prepared using the computer program EPI (Reeder, 1997), based on
the Caltech fault and earthquake epicenter database of instrumentally-recorded events
from the period of 1932 to March 199B.
.
.
.
9
.
98936-01
Page B
.
SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
Secondary permanent or transient seismic hazards generally associated with severe
ground shaking during an earthquake are ground rupture, liquefaction, seiches or
tsunamis, flooding (water storage facility failure), landsliding, rockfalls, and seismically-
induced settlement. These are discussed below.
.
Ground Rupture - Ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along
pre-existing faults. Since no known active faults are believed to traverse the site, the
probability of ground rupture is considered low-nil.
Liquefaction - The potential for liquefaction generally occurs during strong ground
shaking within fine-grained, granular, loose sediments where the groundwater is usually
less than 50 feet below the ground surface. Since groundwater is anticipated to be
greater than 200:t feet, the potential for liquefaction at the site appears to be nil.
SeicheslTsunamis - Based on the far distance of large open-bodies of water and the
elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches/tsunamis is con-
sidered nil.
.
.
.
Floodinq (Water Storaqe Facility Failure) - There are no water storage facilities on or
near the site that could cause flooding due to failure during a seismic event.
Landslidinq - Due to the gently sloping terrain and favorable to neutral bedding
structure, landsliding due to seismic shaking is considered to be very low-nil.
Rockfalls - Since no rock outcrops are at or adjacent to the site, the possibility of local
rockfalls during seismic shaking is considered to be nil.
Seismicallv-Induced Settlement - Seismically-induced settlement generally occurs
within areas of loose, granular soils. Since the site is underlain by semi-consolidated
sedimentary bedrock deposits, the potential for settlement is to be nil.
.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I.
General
Based on our study and review of available pertinent literature, development of the site
for the proposed residential development appears to be geotechnically feasible, pro-
viding the following conclusions and recommendations are adhered to.
.
.
Faultinq/Seismicitv
No faults are known to traverse the site and no secondary seismic hazards are
anticipated. The nearest known active fault is the Wildomar Fault (Elsinore Fault Zone),
located approximately 2,200 feet to the southwest and is considered to be the design
fault. Ground shaking from earthquakes accounts for nearly all earthquake losses, It is
generally recommended that the structures be designed to at least meet the current
seismic building code provisions in the latest UBC edition; however, it should be noted
that the building code is described as a minimum design condition and is often the
.
\0
.
98936-01
Page 9
.
maximum level to which buildings are designed (Holden & Real, 1990). The majority of
property owners are not aware that structures, built to code, are designed to remain
standing after an earthquake so that the occupants can evacuate safely, but then may
ultimately have to be demolished (Larson & Slosson, 1992). The site characteristics
and the estimated deterministic acceleration level, as previously outlined in the report,
should be considered and reviewed by the design Structural Engineer.
.
.
Slope Stability
Based on our literature research and field exploration, no indications of slope instability
appears to be present at or adjacent to the site, The underlying geologic structure is
locally favorable to neutral, with respect to existing and proposed cut slopes.
.
Foundation Desiqn
Based on the location of the proposed structure (see Plate 1), the outside footing
perimeters will extend into both fill and bedrock materials, A representative cross
section (Cross Section A - A', Plate 2) has been prepared to generalize the existing and
anticipated subsurface conditions locally. Due to the potential for differential settlement
between the fill materials and the bedrock, all of the footings should either be founded
on bedrock or er;]tirely within competent fill materials. Two approaches to construction
of the foundation system could be considered and are outlined below.
Bedrock Footinas: This will require a caisson and grade beam foundation system,
except where the regular footings are within bedrock materials, or extending all of the
continuous footing into competent bedrock through the fill materials, The caissons
should be excavated at least 18 inches into competent bedrock. The caissons should
be designed using the following parameters:
Caisson Capacities
Diameter of Caisson
24"
Depth into Competent Bedrock
18"
36"
.
.
.
1.5'
4,0'
8.0'
15.0'
6,000 Ibs.
10,000Ibs.
20,000 Ibs,
35,000 Ibs.
11,000 Ibs.
18,000Ibs.
27,000Ibs.
47,000Ibs.
25,000 Ibs.
30,000 Ibs.
40,000 Ibs.
70,000 Ibs.
.
The caissons should have a minimum of four, #4 vertical rebar tied with #3 rebar at 18
inches, All caissons and footings should be designed to withstand the loads transferred
to them by the building walls and the building columns,
Continuous footings will require that all exterior footings should be founded a minimum
of 12 inches below adjacent finished grade and 12 inches in width for one-story
structures. When the footings are founded in approved bedrock, an allowable bearing
capacity of 2,000 psf for minimum 12-inch-wide footings is acceptable for dead plus live
load, This value may be increased by one-third for short term wind and seismic loading
conditions. Reinforcement of the footings with a minimum of one No. 4 bar, top and
bottom, is recommended,
.
.
Il
.
98936-01
Page 10
.
Fill Footinqs: Due to the transitional nature (cut/fill) of the proposed building location,
we anticipate that the pad elevation will need to be overexcavated and recompacted an
additional 4:1: feet below proposed grade to allow for a minimum uniform compacted fill
thickness of at least 36-inches below the bottom of the footings, extending five feet
beyond the footing limits.
All exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below adjacent finished
grade and 12 inches in width for one-story structures. Individual column footings
should have a minimum width of 18 inches and be founded at least 1B inches below the
lowest adjacent soil grade. Interior footings may be founded a minimum of 12 inches
below finished grade. When the footings are founded in properly compacted fill or
approved native materials, an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf for minimum 12-
inch-wide footings is acceptable for dead plus live load, This value may be increased
by one-third for short term wind and seismic loading conditions. Reinforcement of the
footings with a minimum of one No. 4 bar, top and bottom, is recommended,
.
.
Settlement
.
When the soil is prepared in accordance with the "Site Preparation" (General Site
Grading, #3, Page 12) and compacted fill requirements, footings should experience less
than one inch of settlement with less than 1/2-inch differential settlements over a span
of 20 feet. This settlement is based upon potential grading of up to 7:1: feet of fill and
the proposed building, If thicker fills are proposed, settlement could be greater and
should be reevaluated prior to placement.
.
.
Lateral Desiqn and Retaininq Wall Desiqn
The footings of all retaining walls should be placed either entirely within compacted fill
or entirely into competent bedrock (minimum of 18 inches) and five feet from any slope
face. All walls should be designed with a gravel backfill and subdrains or weep holes
for proper drainage.
The following soil parameters should be used for lateral design and retaining wall de-
sign, and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loads.
.
Coefficient of friction
Unit weight of soil
Active equivalent fluid pressure (level)
Active equivalent fluid pressure (2:1)
Passive equivalent fluid pressure(level)
Passive equivalent fluid pressure(2:1)
Allowable bearing pressure (bedrock)
Allowable bearing pressure (fill)
35
125 pcf
35 pet
55 pcf
350 pcf
200 pcf
2,000 psf
1,500 psf
.
.
The allowable bearing pressure of the bedrock may be increased 200 psf for each ad-
ditional foot of depth to a maximum of 3,000 psf, The allowable bearing pressure for
any fill materials may not be increased for each additional foot of depth.
.
(Z-
.
98936-01
Page 11
.
Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
.
Sufficient fine-grained materials exist within near surface earth materials to possibly
create moisture problems. Therefore, we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed
under any concrete slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering. This
moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene vapor barrier sandwiched be-
tween a one-inch layer of sand, top and bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and
enhance curing of the concrete. Nominal reinforcement of the slabs with light six-inch-
by-six-inch, 1 0-gauge/1 O-gauge welded wire fabric is advisable. Large slabs should
have crack control joints on 10-foot centers, and small slabs should have them on five-
foot centers.
.
Expansive Soils
Based on laboratory testing (see Appendix B), the clayey terrace deposits were found
to have an expansion index of 64, which is considered moderate. No highly expansive
soils are anticipated. It is however, still recommended that expansion testing be per-
formed upon the completion of grading to evaluate any expansion potentials,
.
.
Earthwork Shrinkaqe and Subsidence
When the existing upper soils are regraded to compacted fill standards (see Placement
of Compacted Fill, Page 13), earthwork shrinkage in the upper seven feet should be
estimated to range between 12 and 15 percent (based on an average of 92 percent
relative compaction), Earthwork operations should cause only a nominal subsidence of
approximately 0,1 foot or less.
.
Fill Slope
The fill slope is expected to consist of granular soils with moderate amounts of silts and
clays derived from excavation of on-site soils. The slope will be up to 25 feet in height
ranging from 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) to 4: 1. Due to the cohesive nature of the on-site
soils, stability of the slope appears to be favorable, providing proper keying, benching,
drainage and slope erosion potentials are performed as described further in this report.
.
Drainaqe
.
Over-the-slope drainage should not be permitted. All drainage should be directed away
from slopes and building areas by means of approved permanent drainage devices.
Ponding of water should not be permitted. Planting of the fill slope should be performed
using drought-type resistant vegetation and/or the use of geofabric materials.
.
Trench Stability
The near-surface soil, to a depth of five feet, may not stand vertically for more than
several hours when excavated. Trenches in excess of five feet in depth should have
the sides laid back at 1: 1 or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements.
.
13
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
98936-01
Page 12
GENERAL SITE GRADING
1.
General
2.
All grading should be performed in accordance with Schroeder Engineering's
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications outlined in Appendix C, or unless
otherwise modified in the text of this report.
Clearinq and Grubbinq
The site should be cleared of any vegetation and hauled off-site. Any and all de-
bris and all deleterious and oversized materials (if present) should be carefully
removed and also hauled off-site, The soils should be overexcavated and
processed as described below.
3.
Site Preparation
The site will require removal of loose, natural soils, based an field observations
and laboratory testing, It appears necessary to overexcavate approximately four
feet of fill and/or natural soils in the area predominantly along the east (see
trenches T-2 and T-3, Appendix A), including any colluvial soils accumulated in
the swale area, prior to the placement of any fill. Thicker deposits of relatively
loose soils (fill or colluvial materials) may be present locally and should be
evaluated during grading by the soil engineer or his representative,
The area along the swale and slope area proposed for the fill slope, will require
removal of all unsuitable soils (i.e" fill, topsoil, colluvium, etc.) into competent
sedimentary bedrock prior to the placement of fill. The slope area will require a
toe bench (see benching detail, Appendix C). This bench will be 10 feet wide and
should be inspected by an engineering geologist or soil engineer prior to
placement of fill to insure that the key is entirely located within native firm bedrock
materials. All unsuitable soils should be removed as the key is benched,
The exposed bottom of all overexcavations should be scarified a minimum of 12
inches, brought to near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction. For columns greater than five feet in depth, no
preparation of soils is necessary when in-place densities indicate 85 percent
relative compaction beneath the footings, providing all foundations are in bedrock
materials.
If the footings are proposed to be placed entirely within fill materials, we anticipate
that the pad elevation will need to be overexcavated and recompacted an
additional 4:t feet below proposed grade to allow for a minimum uniform
compacted fill thickness of at least 36-inches below the proposed footings,
extending five feet beyond the footing limits. This will reduce any potentials for
differential settlement in the proposed fill materials since the footings will rest in up
to seven feet of fill at it's thickest point near the swale in the garage area.
\~
.
.
.
.
:.
I
I.
.
.
.
.
.
98936-01
Page 13
4. Placement of Compacted Fill
Compacted fill is defined as that material which will be added to the site and/or
replaced in the areas of removal, due to relatively low density soils. All fill should
be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent, based upon the maximum density ob-
tained in accordance with ASTM D1557 procedure. The area to be filled will be
prepared in accordance with preceding Section 3.
5,
Review of Gradinq Plan and Specifications
We recommend that the soil engineer have the opportunity to review the final
Grading Plan and specifications to assure that they include the items of the soil
report for the benefit of the owner and the contractor, and, in particular, to verify
the overexcavation depth and elevation, if proposed grade elevations are different
from that of the existing ground surface present at the time of our field investiga-
tion, Additional geotechnical studies may be necessary if conditions vary from the
proposed development as indicated in this report.
6.
Pre-Job Conference
Prior to the commencement of grading, a pre-job conference should be held with
representatives of the owner, developer, contractor, architect and/or engineer, and
soil engineer in attendance, The purpose of this meeting shall be to clarify any
questions relating to the intent of the grading recommendations and to verify that
the project specifications comply with recommendations of this report.
7,
Testinq and Inspection
During grading, density testing should be performed by a representative of the soil
engineer to determine the degree of compaction being obtained, Where testing
indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied with the
adjustment of moisture content, where necessary, until at least 90 percent relative
compaction is obtained, The subgrade of the overexcavation and the footing ex-
cavation should be inspected and approved by us prior to placement of fill and/or
concrete,
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations, data
from the trench excavations, laboratory tests, seismic analysis, and our present
knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that variations in the soil
conditions could exist between the points explored, which would make it necessary to
revise some of the recommendations. If any soil conditions are encountered in the field
during construction which are different from those described in this report, our firm
should be notified immediately so that a review may be made and any supplementary
recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the
proposed loads or structural locations, change from that described in this report, our
recommendations should also be reviewed and revised if warranted,
15
.
98936-01
Page 14
.
Our firm has prepared this report in accordance with the scope of services outlined in
our proposal dated July 21, 1997, which was authorized by you on March 19, 1998,
We make no warranties, either expressed or implied, to the professional advice
provided under the terms of this agreement and described in this report. The recom-
mendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate pro-
gram of tests and observations will be conducted during the construction phase to verify
the anticipated soil conditions and to verify compliance with the recommendations. All
footing excavations should be inspected prior to the placement of concrete to verify that
footings are founded on satisfactory soils and are free of loose and disturbed materials,
including rocks. All grading and fill placement should be performed under the testing
and inspection of a representative of the soil engineer
Our firm necessarily assumes no responsibility for the compliance of the construction
with the design plans or the recommendations of the report unless we have been re-
tained to perform the on-site construction observations. Should conditions be encoun-
tered during grading that appear to be different than those indicated by this report, this
office should be notified.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'=>
II
!" ~!" ,.. ;'"
m il f lif ;.
-~i..f fl 11
~..~ z.. 1_
allg. ,..'(. g il~ !f6.
g~: ! i ;!i" ~~
-ie ... _ ~3 l...
~ "I'" -:.;; 2 :l:l il!
..!!. I ~:o." oO-
iiis ;. it. ~~l Si
~:t r ~ ! ~~ .3
W : ""I i'
A t. i, ~
ih ' it'
l~ i if J
[I ~ ~! i
H' :.'
."' j" g
Ei ~ ,f- I
!!:i i !? ~
,~l! ~l:
" .
fl. nl~;
,~ f: f
ll' 8'" !.
~ ..Ill! n
eo lia-~
~ ;;...!~
· <Hi'
i" .JEC'
... ~'2.g~
i Poi
. tl!"
n'rH
. 1 .~
i j'
3 J,-t~
i ,fll
i ~J'~
. . II
'~ in
!"' !-
"in. ,
"I "J" .
f =' ; !
i!: A 1i
I'. h =
goO ... g
:>:l ~; ;;;
~~i'; l!
g ~~,' fl" ;
.. ~~ oolE. 51
~/; ell!!!i!1" i
'Hi~!. f
'3,3,. Ii .-
~-!; - 3 ...
5'01 ii ~ i
3tg:'~ .. I-
~11{ ~ !
Hi!,j i t
,.~! ~ ,
1"1' ·
;" 'I ~ '
-h = I
i.j- I ;;
I,ll' ,
.~ f i
;;
ltl
ai
ii~
Pif
'i1~'=
in
;!}::
r~;
Iii
.,
li~
;:.-e..il
fh
m
~~;.
~i~
...
"if
~;
f
.
~
Z;;2~
~~'I!;;
~~~f
l~~~
;; ~"!!-
i:.~':
I ~ ~,~
2!l1!.!.
!!.i.l:
I:.ii"i
~n
5"!!
;; E 11.\
!;p
3;'s.i
ia
"-':!i.
h~
" .
-'", ~
',"
o. "
roj
,,-
.. ~ :;
..
1i
"t
!-i
if
'.'
,-.
a~
o!
li
ii
'iil.
f~
"'
I,
~,\1
'\
!
!
f
i.
~~---~-~-~-=.
~ ~ ~ ~ w
P'
;jj
.:::-....
,..
,"'
i;~
~r~
" '
"2l11
i~'
.,'
.il
,~ 1
df;
~~:>
~. ~ ..
."
"...li"
,'-
.. ~o
~I!or
3h.
"
2..:1l
i.;:1'"=.
H3
~~ ;
F~
A't.l
! ;j
;~""
;ii"l
....
..
It;J
1it
".-
;;.<! ~
a!
?'il ~
In
~L
~ ~i
;~
H
~2.
,q
. ,
B
~
,
i
.
i
.
[
.
.
I
,
.
,
!
,
!
~
!
l-i"li
., .
~:g"!
g ~ ~
3~~
g~~
i'gr
i ~i
:h
" 'i!
~n
~. i-
! j i
~h
~: I
~;~
"lp
id
~, ~ -
.. .
m
~- & g
;;",t
::;J ~
ii-;
~~~
"-02
~~
:H
jl
Ii
:~
&i
gi
.=r~~-=.-=='':;;!"''-'-'-"
- "
. .
~i!;~
mn
~!lH
1m
::: ~ " .
u ~ . -'
". ~ ~
in!
.. ~ ~ ;,
Hl~
Hi!
1 H ~ ~~j
~ """ ~ i~ z
!!~~~i~
Hum
9~~g~~t
:qnu~
:. ~ ;. ~ ~ ~
~'~.~'f'~:;~
m!1l
:il;~'
o
..
!5
h
;f~
;-;
:r~
,.
s=
i~
w'
~~
,
,
~
,
"
>.:
w
~
!
,
j
i
.
1
,
.
~
.
~
1
~
.
,
.
.
I
~
"'
~ =
H
H
F
~~
~ 5
.,
B
!<
j.
or
g;-
;.
i
.
,
,
.
,
,
r-
m
C)
m
z:
Q
~----:a:...-=,-=~.
o
..
-I
m
",
"
~
0:.
ff1
;g
'"
=i
'"
o
"0
Ul
~
c:
III
>
i
!:i
<5
z
,
c.\ \
III Cl
g ~
~ i4
3 ~
=i -I
c: ~
<::> -I
m
>.
>.J ~ I
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
-I
"
~
<>
:x
n
c
~
"
~
~
"
"
n
c
~
~
tl
~I
(,)1
0)
I
o
...
,
I
,
I
I
I
"
e
G)
m
o
-I
m
(')
~
Z
.--
(')
)>
r-
i:
)>
"'0
, \
~ /,
">0
~~ Ii:
~~ 6~":
{'-;..
--
I
I
/
"'-
8_
--r
,
I
)
l') f
c/)'
0'
" I
gj
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
D
3f
"'
I'l
'"
"
F
r
1
,
---
,-
n
j
"
')
I
"'-1
Y"-lii{
~ 3'.<>>
'h
','"
no f
o ~.
, :;
".
,:;,0;,
~.
~ ,
II
"
,r
H~1~
00 c.' I,..
00": ,<
.~'-'! i~'
J'q J
\'-
'-........
/,
-
DE'
')
l
~c ."
.'
.,
,:"
.'~
: \
~'t\"')
?<r:!
:~ ". V
(.~ /1
\',
n
"
,
'"
o
~\
\
)
"
~'-
/J
I
j.j/
:;1
~.
.,/ -
/' ~
://~/
// /
/ /
/~/'\
// .
.---' '
, ,
-4""
/\,
//'
/
7,
.,,j "-J
I~ Q,
=- =--s\~~ "\
n.
,:-,1
"\ / ,
'.~. .---~ I
-.,----:
..
'"
'-'"
.
"
~
~
"
~
~
,
~
~
,
.
l
n
,
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
n
I
"
z
g
.
.
o
,
;
~
"
n
~
"
~ -:j'2::P
\" I) m\JI
....~
;; ~lJ
6'1 1l,IQ f\\
(1;> _o~
;" 'p"
~ - ~
~~-~
J:
.
,
"
~
<
.
g
~
&111
.
n
n
"
,
;
M
o
.
~
.
~
g
Iii
~
iI
<
20
g
.
~ ~'
. ~
:ll \
~I
[
2
}
11
1;
a
!,
~
'!
,.
I
~.
If
~
~
,.
','
~
,
il
W
1~
~
fr
,
~
~l'
~
f
~
'.
~~
\
l
,
110,
"
r.
H
t
t
"
,
,.
('
"
'"
,.
""
'"
"
o
1':
'"
"
~
2
.
j;:
"l
J:
~
"
"'()
- 0
F ~
~~
~e
OQ
''^''
~,~c;l
, 0'
I ~I
-[01
~~.:
~ 1-"
"
,.
[11
Q
fllQL___
Z --0
\J
%
~ C
-< ~
-<
""l\
F C
2
'" ~
~
"'
/
-\ -l"i'J:\}11""""T\-11
\J'lCl r'l 11'" Ijllj'
.0 ifSI_\l ~
"1l"l) C ~ ~ ,
~ I Q \J<
o 0 x
'll \1 r.] !1] l\I
,\ n I 2 M-. \~ "
Ocm,,~d~
'1\ . -' bC11 I'
m"ll pE~
" '11m
-;:: -l
---!!.- ~,
~\- - ~-6
...... ~ ~
. .~~ 0 r., ~ Z
I . '1 [11 ~ ^
-( ~"
, '~":~~
...... " ' . Q i>~.J), I
I \" --.l t.
....Jj 'n....
" L-l~). ~L.~ ~ ~
" -< \ '. ,
"J I ,~~ f\l -:-< I.
,:J ~n ~,\1~~
v C 1~2<D
" -'~. ~ C
r I ' ~ \l1
~ 1m d
~ 10 P w
I ""' SJ
1 ~ ~
t ~
"' ~
\\.
e-
~)
i()
~.
r
y
,
.'
"
"
"\
'j
~
"1
;::
,
.r i:"'l:iJ~
;'
.@ ~~~) __0 ,
<: C\l ['( ,-< 1'>. ~T~ \,\\ \J'l n ~ \)-
~~~Lt'-> 1~-~)~~~~~ I~
Sa (j',-l t;r> ~~ N()~:~
~, 81 . r-, f;. 'r')'O\!rJ:~
1;1 f;l [ v ~ <;> r; II:) ,"
, i~ i<:l 11' ; \S1 i.:'
! 8 \'1 -If- - 0".~ 10
< .: ,,<'.7
~, ~ ~. III ~ ''-, G I"
.\1 r 0-; ~~0~f' /
r ,tz fll\ \l . ',' ~
P.I\ t." '" . r [~ -- 0
- '':\ - I - ~ -\
\~ ~1,(j V ~~~G\
11 -0/ t; \J~ Jfl ~ (: 9 \,....
-" $ ~
p
,
z
,
':;
~
,8
,
'"
5:
rn
en
~
8
,n
en
N
o
d
-'Ii
~
..,
!l:
\JI
n
.~
.
"
/
<
o
1
.,
.,
"'
~
lJ
o
'TJ
-I
",
3:
",
n
c
r
J>
g
,
a
o
,
,
,
:J'
_v
..v~""'-=-~
-:..-"o:=.,.,..,..,.,-=:==----=-=~'
~~...~=.==1:"
..-.
:..~.:"--
",,,,.-,-=~.
r::~:~c:-:~;=;:'==-c ~~~C::~-::':='
135010 s,c..NTp... RITA go. 8'3117 MEf.2\?ILL ,\'/E:.
TEMECULA, C,A. 92S92 CHINO, CD-UF. G~1710
(9<::A) -""" ~"' ('P') ""'7' 370,7
_~'.' G:> 7.2.:::-328 I _ FN "m- 28")")
~__._.,.. . ,,"...__,~._,.~..~c_.." '.~.Tr:""-="'-~". =.r"_=,.~",:;;-:-..,..==_c..i!':=_r'_=~_-
7l..r
'1_ \l'IC'lro
.jo -. . ~ ,I 'J
'-J. :.~ 'I ~ 1J~ 1))
~z N~ I ~ --u: ~~
~ 0_ ~ . 0
~-"'",
C
M
~
.
~
,
M
Z
~
C
~
~
o
.
r
n
<
c
.
^
"
o
,
,
i
z
,
(j)
rA)
.s ~
1> 0
1~ Z~
"- (;1m
.j 0
,f>~. iii
~1> m
'0
- -<
~~i
0",
iji",
,;,
-
-I
"0
r
~
ITI
...
)>
-
'"
'"
o
Z
ell tll
,." m
~ ~
_z
_0.. f/)
m
en ::l
Co) <5
"" z
m
m
X
(ij
~
z
Cl
Cl
:0
o
c:
Z
'"
--\
( \
\ \
/ I
1 I
/ ,I
1 I
I I
o I ~ I
" 10 C'5 I
.. ~
, '" I
I g
I I ~ I
./ I
I I I
) ID). I
1/- I
---tr "',
~ I I
, I /
I L ___/
) I
/D) J
€ I \
.~ )
/
/\
/ ."
/ ~
. -;--
--- / ~
m
/ ""
Cl
/ ~
I ~
'I
()
..
__ii'
'"
<>
~
or
~
a.
o
-
'"
Cl
-
'"
'"
o
-
'"
'"
o
-
'"
...
o
N
Co>
o
J
...
I
'v
10
/..,
I ,
I I
I,
\ \
I .
~
o
"
)>
"0
"0
..
~
<>
"
~
g>
a.
a.
S'
co
S'
z
<>
2:
<:
:I:
o
~
j;j'
o
"
~
e
~
>
I""
m
...
.
II
I\)
q
......
:I:
o
:'"
II
~
...
.:...-
"*
<0
co
<0
(.)
0)
I
o
...
(")
:rJ
o
en
en
en
m
o
-f
-
o
z
)>
I
)>
.
)>
.
-
'"
(l)
o
-
'"
....
o
-
'"
'"
o
-
'"
CIl
o
-
'"
...
o
-
'"
Co>
o
0:;
"
I""
~
m
I\)
.
\"=r-
,......
~
'.
"'\
(!) M4
C) M5
C) M6
.- ~.~
~
'-
.
.
,~J
.
trL
~""!I" "
-....... ,'\. (~)
I,r \ ,,~I
T" \
, ' I '-- "" Avalon
----- '-
~":;:\-'l' ,
\ ''\~-;t, ITI 'e
............ - \~IT ( \I~I
.......... ~~.'" ITI
"ITI ':c'~-
~::=.
oachella
.\\%".,~
"
"
----
"
.
~..!_-
'\
t
C)
CJ
,T,
.... T
!,;..
",
1'1
,'-;-
~"
, ,
,T,
TI I" ~
~ I;~ -=.- I~I
" 1'1 ':J:-L:l-
.T I 'f,. 'l!I'I,\,ll
~ -',"'I' ,""-=-- 11,
ji[T~' ~ ....!.J
Ilt~ ll...tl'lll~ll: I r-Trr ITI
~'Tr - 1-1 j -
I~r'=' II~II I
.
I"
,T,
N
'I
II~,I
T
EPI SoftWare 1997
Seismicity 1932-1998 (M4.0+) 100 km radius; Lot 30, Tract 9833-3
.
SITE LOCATION: 33.487 LAT. -117.1186 LONG.
MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C
TOTAL # OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 1272
TOTAL # OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 571
MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS:
4.0- 4.9: 517
5.0- 5.9: 47
6.0- 6,9: 7
7.0- 7,9: 0
8.0- 8,9: 0
CLOSEST EVENT: 4.5 ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 04,1935 LOCATED APPROX. 19 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE
I
o
"
50
KILOMETERS
I
100
.
.
LARGEST 5 EVENTS:
6,5 ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 04,1948 LOCATED APPROX. 84 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE
6.4 ON SUNDAY, JUNE 28,1992 LOCATED APPROX. 83 KILOMETERS NORTH OF THE SITE
6.4 ON TUESDAY, APRIL 09,1968 LOCATED APPROX, 97 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE
6.3 ON SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 1933 LOCATED APPROX. 79 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE
6.2 ON FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1954 LOCATED APPROX. 89 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE
.
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
\"
.
PROJECT NO. 98936-01
PLATE 3
.
c
o
.
c.
:'~:;;';-
. . .' .
~ ..' 4 0 .
.:""{ .
,,;t:.""
:: '~;;. .
.....
:r',:\',
M1
-'.:
"
",-:'
'. "'.'
-:;,
M2
.
"
0
0
.
C'
0
:",
Cl . :~~:o
:." ~-
~" ........ .
." ,'.i~ .......-;,..., co'
~'. f.',~~""""'" 0 ~.'
.\ ~,,)., ,~;:J'- - '''" "
'" \" \, . ......... ~.
...... I\,\\~,. (') '. ;-........ " C) M5
~'~~~~..'~." .' , .M',,:""",~ (2) M6
~~..ir:41-jl' 7":~~
" l./'~":' :..::t2" ,f' .". , . ~~~l:s......' .'
,-' " >"~":;];;';~:'-:' :~":~'~..:':"~
~ ~~. .
o '. . "".,\..' o. . '.,0
" ., ,.' ".,'" .
o (C}. ~: 0 ..~\,\ co. ,)_i;.~\.~~,:~~:'"!''' ;"'~;';.(>~:::~.'::'. '.~'.'
~ '.-' '";,;>',, '..
':~~'!;'" ~~i:L.":/: ,.,~}<;\:., :,:. ;,';"',;'
. 0 131- d .' .~. ~'. ,.,' _ 0' .
o
M3
.:(ik
o
";" .:~.f.'-:'
'..,::;,~(
C)
M4
;i/':i'
','
':':'
.
o
o
o
....
.<.'.
.
o
'::'
'.......
.......'., .
;~.~;~~i::';;
N
EPI SoftWare 1997
Seismicity 1932-1998 (MO,O+) 10 mile radius; Lot 30, Tract 9833-3
.
SITE LOCATION: 33.487 LAT, .117,1186 LONG.
MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C
TOTAL # OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 3849
TOTAL # OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 665
MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS:
0.0-.9: 174
1.0.1.9: 397
2.0- 2.9: 77
3,0- 3.9: 17
4.0- 4.9: 0
5.0- 5.9: 0
6.0- 6.9: 0
7.0- 7,9: 0
8.0- 8.9: 0
CLOSEST EVENT: 2.2 ON WEONESOAY, AUGUST 09,1978 LOCATED APPROX. .6 MILE OF THE SITE
I
o
I
10
I
5
MILES
.
.
.
LARGEST 5 EVENTS:
3.6 ON MONDAY, MAY 19, 1947 LOCATED APPROX, 8 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE
3,5 ON MONDAY, JULY 15, 1935 LOCATED APPROX. 3 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE
3,2 ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1995 LOCATED APPROX. 5 MILES NORTH OF THE SITE
3.2 ON THURSDAY, APRIL 21,1988 LOCATED APPROX, 5 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE
3.2 ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 29,1987 LOCATED APPROX. 6 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE
MICROSEISMICITY MAP
..
zc
PROJECT NO. 98936-01
PLATE 4
~.-
~~;~. -
~-
~~;-~:-
:I~~=?~
I-
I''"
I~~
I.
I~~ '
I~~~_~~-
APPENDIX A
"o__:""'::C':.::;::~.-
--.~.-"
..
- ._.-..
,,-_ocq~~~~'~~"~:'~!!r~:~t~~j~~r~;~%iltt~~rI~];-B2~~]gj~I;
::':':::,:tr~,:)rm:r[w: " ^"'., ,;-;,,,,"----.,.;,.,.,,.
~~::~S:~:~:::;~:;:Z:;Y::':~;:8~:i:~:,:::::;' ..- -: .....- .,.....
;'-':0""
EXPlJORA TORY TRENCH LOGS
II'-, ,
1;:';:--
EC:C
~:c_~~._
!'ii.on
~:~:.-'
II.
I"'
~?
.~
;-::-:;-"-
~--
fit
::'''::-~ -.
i'f'
I.
.
.
.
.
. -5
.
.
.
.
. -20
EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG
II TRENCH NO. T-1 II
PROJECT NUMBER: 98936-01
PROJECT NAME: Harry Wiersema
SITE LOCATION: Lot 30, Tract 9833-3, Temecula, CA
EQUIPMENT: JD 310 Backhoe
BUCKET WIDTH: 24" - Diameter
SURFACE ELEVATION: 1275 Feet
;;-
~
.... iii ..J
Z ~ Z 0
0 u w u STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION III
. j:: . .e, .... iii :IE EARTH
..; z >-
.... w 0 2-
'" Ul U 0. ~ Ul MATERIALS
m w 0 ~ U >-
,g, .... ..J in w w Cl
... w w z '" 0. PATE PRILL ED: March 23, 1998 0 (Geologic Symbol)
:E: 0 ..J ..J W ::> ~ ..J
.... W 0. 0. 0 .... 0
0. :IE :IE ~ Ul ..J :E:
0. 0 0 LOGGED BY: Donn C. Schwartzkopf, CEG ....
w ~ ..; ..;
0 Ul Ul c :IE Ul ::;
SM SILTY SAND: Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2), fine-coarse ...-" Topsail
-
.-..
grained, wet, slightly cohesive, loose, roots present - -..
-
."-,,
, -
CLAYEY SILTY SAND: Reddish Brown (5Y 4/4), fine-coarse :;I:: ~ TERRACE
SM :t~f
grained, massive to crudely stratified, wet, cohesive, DEPOSITS
moderate clay present, firm :r::r: (Qt)
::'::=.:~
::I:::J::
.::r::
, R 108.6 12.2 :t1f
MD ':i::':i::
GS ::I::l
SE B .~:...=:=.:
::r::
:r:'::i::':
- RS :":i:"
R 116.7 11.1 ..
:1:::1::
:::r:::
::r:::::r::.
:::1::':)
::r:::T:
:'::e:'
:r::I:
-:'::r::'
:~:i~':
':i::':i::
, SANDSTONE: Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4), fine-coarse PAUBA
SM
grained wet, friable, slightly cohesive, silt present, non FORMATION
- indurated, moderately stratified , .. (Qp)
1- - ....
-
-..
TOTAL EXCAVATION DEPTH 14,0'
- NO GROUNPWATER ENCOUNTERED -
TRENCH BACKFILLED (Uncontrolled)
,
, . TEST LEGEND
MP-Maximum Pensity EI-Expansion Index B-Bulk Sample
, SE-Sand Equivalent RS-Remolded Shear DS-Direct Shear
R-Drive Ring SC-Sand Cone N-Nuclear Pensity GS-Grain Size 2Z-
-10
-15
.
.
.
.
'.
. -5
.
.
.
.
. -20
EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG
II TRENCH NO. T-2 II
PROJECT NUMBER: 98936-01
PROJECT NAME: Harry Wiersema
SITE LOCATION: Lot 30, Tract 9833-3, Temecula, CA
EQUIPMENT: JD 310 Backhoe
BUCKET WIDTH: 24" - Diameter
SURFACE ELEVATION: 1263 Feet
~
.... oj ..J
Z 0;::- Z 0
0 u w <.i STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION III
. ;:: . .e .... oj :; EARTH
.... <( w z 2- >
~ Ul U "- ~ 0 Ul MATERIALS
w 0 ~ u >
~ .... ..J iii w w Cl
u. w w z a: "- DATE DRILLEP: March 23, 1998 0 (Geologic Symbol)
J: 0 ..J ..J W ::> ~ ..J
.... "- "- c .... 0
"- w :; :; > Ul ..J J:
"- i5 i5 LOGGED BY: Donn C, Schwartzkopf, CEG ....
w ~ <( <( a:
c Ul Ul C :; Ul :J
SIL TV SAND: Dark Grayish Brown (10YR 4/2), fine-coarse no ARTIFICIAL
SM ...-
-
grained, wet, slightly cohesive, loose ...- FILL(af)
- -
-
...-
, -"
...-
-...
...-
-...
...-
-...
...-
-,
...-
-
...-
-"
...-
-...
...-
-...
-
-"
-
-...
...-
SANDSTONE: Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4), fine-coarse n.... PAUBA
8M
grained wet, friable, slightly cohesive, silt present, indurated, FORMATION
... moderately stratified, hard excavation, clay films along (Op)
fracture surfaces (ped faces)
- -
TOTAL EXCAVATION DEPTH 6.0'
... NO GROUNPWATER ENCOUNTERED ,
TRENCH BACKFILLED (Uncontrolled)
...
, ,
,- -
,
... ,
... ..
- -
,
, ...
. TEST LEGENP ,
MP-Maximum Density EI-Expansion Index B-Bulk Sample
... SE-Sand Equivalent RS-Remolded Shear PS-Plrect Shear ~
R-Prive Ring SC-Sand Cone N-Nuclear Density GS-Grain Size
-10
-15
.
I
.
.
.
.
. -5
.
.
.
.
. -20
EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG
II TRENCH NO. T-3 II
PROJECT NUMBER: 98936-01
PROJECT NAME: Harry Wiersema
SITE LOCATION: Lot 30, Tract 9833-3, Temecula, CA
EQUIPMENT: JD 310 Backhoe
BUCKET WIDTH: 24" - Diameter
SURFACE ELEVATION: 1269 Feet
~
~
I- <Ii ..J
Z "'" Z 0
0 u I1J u STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION III
. ;:: . .a I- <Ii ::;; EARTH
<( z >-
I- I1J 0 ~
'" U 0.. ~ '" MATERIALS
~ I1J 0 ~ U >-
~ I- ..J u; I1J I1J l.'l
LL I1J I1J Z 0:: 0.. DATE PRILLED: March 23, 1998 0 (Geologic Symbol)
J: 0 ..J ..J I1J => ~ ..J
I- I1J 0.. 0.. e I- 0
0.. 0.. ::;; ::;; ~ '" ..J J:
I1J ~ <( <( 5 5 LOGGED BY: Donn C. Schwartzkopf, CEG l-
e '" '" e ::;; '" ::;
SM SILTY SAND: Dark Grayish Brown (1 OYR 4/2), fine-coarse h.- ARTIFICIAL
...-..
grained, wet, slightly cohesive, loose ...-.. FILL (at)
_".
-
_h'
- - ..
...-..
...-..
-..
- , ...-..
...-..
- ,
..._"
- -..
, - - ,
-
...-..
-
."-,,
,
SM CLAYEY SILTY SAND: Reddish Brown (5Y 4/4), fine-coarse ::.::::.:: TERRACE
::r:: ~
- I R 118.9 13,3 grained, massive to crudely stratified, wet, cohesive, ' :r::r:: DEPOSITS
moderate clay present, firm ::1:: (01)
.7.:.7.:
- - ::::I:::l
7.:"':::'.:
:::c::r
':i:::i::
-:;:;::'
:r:.:::;::
.::r::
:::i::':i::
SM SANDSTONE: Yellowish Brown (10YR 5/4), fine-coarse PAUBA
grained wet, friable, slightly cohesive, silt present, non FORMATION
GS ~ B indurated, moderately stratified .. (Op)
SE
'..
- - ..
.......
,
TOTAL EXCAVATION DEPTH 11.0'
- NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
TRENCH BACKFILLED (Uncontrolled)
,
,
- -
,
,
, . TEST LEGEND
MD-Maximum Density EI-Expansion Index B-Bulk Sample
, SE-Sand Equivalent RS-Remolded Shear DS-Pirect Shear 2.4
R-Prive Ring SC-Sand Cone N-Nuclear Density GS-Grain Size
-10
-15
~~=---
!~':
I=c- '
~""".
1-
~-
~~--
~c-:--
~::-,,-
~-i;:~~
~::',::.;::::;-:
~--
~_-'-cc--
~;
~~:-~-
-~----.- -
~BC--
~--
~~T.;,
.-
~~--
;:::-f~~=
~~~~--
;:.:;::/,
~~--
~
'.-
~i~--
~~_e-
~:-
it;:
~=
~~~-o:
_=t_,,~-
~,,---
[I=~
~=--
~-~--
~---""-
,~
~i~.
~;-~-';-'-:
r::., ,-
~"'=-~
~'
"'.n
:zj;',;:'
~:-".C
",;.,::_--;-
..~-
'~~;
APPENDIX B
---.',
~ ~~'~-","""'_.-- ~ -~ ---"~----'-
. ..~._...__..-
---;:!W--~~~~";;;;~0~~> ~~~":c'Z: ~-- "';':':':',"""",H:~~:::::;:::;;;;;~:::::~;g;-;..:
- ~~t~~"?~~~~":~~~A.h~;:"'J~~~~'~L~;~ A n:~~tTiitill'iM ,}'@;fggf:b
':":'::-':':'::-':8:::::*::::;:
:.::';c':"::.';'-;
.-.-.-.-.'.-,-....,-,-.-.-.-.-.-,-.-.-.-..-.-,-.,-,-...-.-........
"""""""-'--"--'-'-',""-',"
;':'-';';"':';.:':':""';';':':-;':':-0;':';-""-0;','''';C':"':"
...,.,,-'-----"----. "...
..-.--.-..-..-,.-..
....... --
................,.
.,'-.'.'.,'.',.,'.-.'~-'.'.'.'
LABORA TORY TEST DA TA
2:S
.i.Il.liia(~--':'.'~~:-~liC-:--'cC-~: ,"o.:~;~~,~' :iiif,Jij?~~
.
SCHROEDER ENGINEERING
LABORATORY TEST DATA
.
Project: 98936-01
Lot 30, Tract 9833-3
Temecula, California
Location Maximum % Passing Sand Expansion
. Soil Type Compaction 200 sieve Equivalent Index
T-1 @ 3-5' 130.5 @ 9.5% 19.1 18 64 Moderate
T-3 @ 8' 16.4 32
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
z.c.
.
.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
.
Project: 98936-01
Temecula, California
Lot 30, Tract 9833-3
.
.
.
.
SHEAR
STRESS
PSF
.
.
Trench
.
T-1
.
.
3000 1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I 1 1 1 1
1 I 1 1 1 1
2500 1---------1---------1---------1---------1---------1
1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1
2000 1---------1--1------1---1-----1---------1----1----1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1
1500 1---------1--1------1---1-----1---------1---- ----I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
1000 1---------1--1------1---1--- -1---------1----1----1
1 I I 1 1 1 1 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
500 1--------- - ------1---1-----1---------1----1----1
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
o 1---------1--1------1---1-----1---------1----1----1
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
NORMAL STRESS PSF
Depth
Symbol
.
c
o
Remarks
3-5'
30
200
90% compacted
Saturated
Relaxed values
21
.
I
.
SCHROEDER ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF
SIEVE ANALYSIS
PERCENT PASSING
. Project: 98936-01
Lot 30, Tract 9833-3
Temecula, California
.
Sieve T-1 T-3
size @3-5' @8'
3/4"
3/8" 100.0 100,0
#4 96.8 95.6
#8 89.8 87.0
#16 74.4 70,9
#30 52.5 44,5
#50 337 29.5
#100 23.7 21.0
#200 19.1 16.4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
0,.,_
~~~ '~~ ,-:~-"_::"'~'-',: ~,=~ ,-,~--_:j~~~
J-S~'.
S::_:':_--::, -
~L. .."
~:7 ~
~,
;.:
;;.:::._u
E'-.-",u
!~~:~~:::u_
I~~
[0~--
~:_"~"
"",~
".' ,
; .-
A~PPENf)IX · C
\::
- - ------- - -....-
..._..._--~
--'--",' .. . ... ...-
~--- -- - -----~- ----~-
~ ~ '"'" _~ ,..2_-L ~~-~~,,->i.~- -::-~~~ _'
_ _ _ - -- -"'----;~~y=:.:I:.:;:::;::7:;~__",...,_~ -
~""'~
STANDARD GRADING AND
EARTHWORKSPECIFICA TIONS
.,'C-'-'-
~:_--
;;;--
~;'"-.
~.,
~'.
e"
!iiJ;~ :, ~
~L
I~_~-
~,.
~"
f-
~-
,~
,~
~~~-=-.::. - - - -~=- -:.=:-~~~;;:..=-=, - -~~~
-Cr"-"
._,'.-:,...,...,.......-.-'.---,
~-~-~"
~~,~f~:~_":'..::;~,
-yo.'
::~~~;~~~
~_ "'~.~.:z.:'~~:~:::~,;.-;,;.-:~;
'~--_._-----
IZ"" -
fI.',
,
:-- -- --- --~-
u__.._ __ _
.
.
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
.
These specifications present Schroeder Engineering standard recommendations for grading and
earthwork. No deviation from these specifications should be permitted, unless where specifically
superseded in the geotechnical report of the project or by written communication signed by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may
result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report.
1.0 GENERAL
.
1.1 The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or Developer's representative on the project.
For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Geotechnical Consultant
include observations by the Soils Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering
Geologist, and those performed by persons employed by, and responsible to, the
Geotechnical Consultant.
.
1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted
and directed by the Contractor under the supervision of the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory
completion of all grading. During grading, the Contractor should remain accessible.
.
1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall be employed
for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and office services for conformance with
the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be
necessary that the Geotechnical Consultant provide adequate testing and observations so
that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the
responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Consultant and keep him
apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel
accordingly.
.
1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor
moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a
quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
.
.
1.6 It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide access to the Geotechnical Consultant for
testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may require the excavation of test pits
and/or the relocation of grading equipment.
1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Geotechnical Consultant attesting to the Contractor's
conformance with these specifications.
.
3:0
.
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 2
.
2.0 SITE PREPARATION
2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This removal shall
be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant and concluded prior to fill placement.
.
2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Geotechnical Consultant as being
unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site or used in
landscaped areas as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant. Any material
incorporated as a part of compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to fill placement.
.
2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it 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.
.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as
required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in
depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to six inches.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed, tested, and
approved by the geotechnical consultant.
.
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities, such as cesspools, cisterns, mmmg shafts,
tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or others, are to be removed or treated in a manner
prescribed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or
unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide uniform bearing conditions, the
bedrock portion of the lot, extending a minimum of five feet outside of building lines,
shall be overexcavated a minimum of three feet and replaced with compacted fill.
3.0 COMPACTED FILLS
.
3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious
substances, and shall be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soils of poor
gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by
Geotechnical Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill
material, as directed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3.2 Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
I. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
.
2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks,
3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Geotechnical Consultant.
..
3\
.
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 3
.
3.3 Rocks greater than eight inches in diameter shall be taken off-site or placed in
accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas
designated as suitable for rock disposaL
.
3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable, should not
be used in the compacted fill.
.
3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by
the laboratory of the Geotechnical Consultant 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 Geotechnical Consultant
as soon as possible,
3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and
compacted in thin lifts not to exceed eight inches in thickness, to obtain a uniformly
dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless
otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density, in compliance
with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency or ASTM
1557, whichever applies.
.
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental
agency because of a specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area to receive fill
compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or
appropriate reference made to the area in the Geotechnical report.
.
3.9 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 five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Consultant.
3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within bedrock or firm
materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report.
.
3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the
controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Consultant.
.
3.12 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; by
direct compaction of the slope and cutting back to the compacted core; by direct
compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment; or by any other procedure which
produces the required compaction approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
3Z-
.
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 4
.
3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in
the Geotechnical report.
3.14 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 soil prior to placing
fill.
.
4.0 CUT SLOPES
4.1 The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut slopes or vertical intervals not
exceeding 10 feet.
.
4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the Geotechnical report, such as perched water,
seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably
inclined bedding, joints, or fault planes encountered during grading, these conditions
shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist, and recommendations shall be made to
mitigate these problems.
.
4.3 Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected
from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
.
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the Geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated
higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental
agencIes.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant or
Engineering Geologist.
.
5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
.
5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the supervision of the
Geotechnical Consultant.
5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe shall 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 backfill shall be uniformly jetted into place before the
controlled backfill is placed over the sand.
.
5.3 The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the Geotechnical Consultant, shall be
watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill.
.
5.4 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum
laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557-78 or the controlling governmental
agency.
I.
?:O
.
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 5
.
5.5 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made by the
Geotechnical Consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture content and
uniform compaction is being maintained. The contractor shall provide test holes and
exploratory pits as required by the Geotechnical Consultant to enable sampling and
testing.
.
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Consultant during
the progress of grading.
.
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height
or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criterion will vary, depending on soil
conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density
tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved.
.
6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as required by
the Geotechnical Consultant.
.
6.4 All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock
disposals should be inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placing any filL It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical
Consultant when such areas are ready for inspection.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
.
7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during
grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls.
.
7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Geotechnical
Consultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings,
foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed
without the approval of the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.3 Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms,
drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent
to the property.
.
.
.
I
24
~;
=-.
~,":;.:-:-
.;;-c~
~~"
~;l"
~':::~-=
~"~
Il'.~:"
~~~-
.',.
t':;c-'
~,,-
~---
r.-
~:~--
W
:~~;,~-~
=---.---
e,.__
~'~~
'i~
,
.-
"'--j
'-'-":---.-.,--,"
----~,-
**"="""~'^" o,~~..~~..._ "'.~ .y..,.....,...,.,.,.,.".", ...,..,.
'~,.' ..'~ "'. "'7~.'..~-~"-"~,;.;i~'f"",~,-,,,,c"-"'-'" .;""",:.,',',',',',',",",',.~~~:~~%:~~~:::;~:~::::,-:-:-:-:+:,.:~:~::.:.,.:-:.:.:,:...:,:. ,.., .., ...~~..,.
- ",;:",;",,~:... -.~___ "",;,;,":.>~~,:;:::,,;~: .:-:.,.:.,:.:.":,:",,,,,,,,,;!,,;:';';'''''; ::::;i~[:~~ .....~~~,
-"-'-'':;,;.;.,:'::'t:::.:
:::~::::::;:::::(:-::::::::::;~
...........-....-....-.
APPENDIK D
):::~::::t:,;;:;
'--'-'--"-"-""';'-':';'-':';'-'''''',",_.:._.:,.,
....-.---.---.--....,.,..,-..".,'
.... .n
.."........,...
.:,:';':,~:.:,:': .
REFERENCES
.
.
REFERENCES
.
Avery, T.E., and Graydon, L.B., 1985, Interpretation of Aerial Photographs, MacMillan
Publishing Co., New York, Fourth Edition, 554 pp.
Blake, T.F. (19B9), EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak hori-
zontal acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalog, Version
2,01,1993.
Blake, T.F. (19B9), EQFAUL T, A computer program for the deterministic prediction of
peak horizontal acceleration from digitized California faults, Version 2.01, 1993.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B" and Fumal, T.E., 1993, Estimation of Response Spectra
and Peak Accelerations from Western North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report,
U,S.G,S. Open file Report 93-509,55 pp.
.
.
California Division of Mines & Geology (CDMG), 1975, "Recommended Guidelines for
Determining the Maximum Credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquakes," Note
No. 43.
.
California, State of, Department of Water Resources, 1971, Water Wells and Springs in
the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No, 91-20,
Envicom Corporation and the County of Riverside Planning Department, 1976, Seismic
Safety and Safety General Plan Elements Technical Report, County of Riverside,
Volumes I and II.
Fumal, T.E., and Tinsley, J.C., 19B5, Mapping Shear-Wave Velocities of Near Surface
Geologic Materials, in Ziony, J,I. (ed), Evaluating Earthquake Hazard in the Los Ange-
les Region - An Earth Science Perspective, U.S.G.S, Professional Paper 1360, pp.
127149.
.
.
Geologic Society of London, 1986, Site Investigation Practice: Assessing BS 5930,
Geologic Society Engineering Geology Special Publication No.2, 423 pp,
Hart, E,W., 1994, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California," California Division of
Mines & Geology Special Publication 42.
Holden, Richard, and Real, Charles, 1990, Seismic Hazards Information Needs of the
Insurance Industry, Local Government, and Property Owners in California; An Analysis,
CDMG Special Publication 108.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1994, Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edi-
tion.
.
.
Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore
Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, CDMG Special Report 131.
Larson, R, and Slosson, J., 1992, The Role of Seismic Hazard Evaluation in
Engineering Reports, in Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, AEG
Special Publication No.4, pp. 191-194.
.
?:ID
I-
I
I
.
Mann, J.F., Jr., 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California
C,D,M,G. Special Report 43.
Toppozada, T.R, et aI., 1981, Preparation of Isoseismal Maps and Summaries of
Reported Effects for pre-1900 California Earthquakes, C.D,M.G. Open File Report B1-
11.
.
Toppozada, T.R, and Parke, D.L., 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes,
1900 - 1949, CD.M.G. Open File Report B2-17,
U.S, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, "Engineering Geology Field
Manual," undated, distributed 1989, 59B pp.
Weber, F. Harold, 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and
Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, CDMG Open File Report
77-4 LA, 96 pp.
.
.
Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, R.F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting Poten-
tials, in Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region, U.S.G,S, Profes-
sional Paper 1360,
MAPS UTILIZED
.
Greenwood, RB., and Morton, D.M., 1991, Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000
Quadrangle, California, CDMG Open File Report 91-17,
Jennings, C.W., 1992, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1 :750,000,
CD.M.G. Open File Report 92-03.
Rodgers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, CDMG, Santa Ana Sheet, Scale
1 :250,000 (Second Printing 1973).
.
.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS UTILIZED
Continental Aerial Photo, Inc., 1990, Photo Nos. 3 and 5, Scale 1" ::: 3,000', color,
dated May 4, 1990.
Gee-Tech Imagery, Inc., 1987, Photo Nos. 226 and 227, infrared, Scale 1" ::: 2,000',
dated December 22, 19B7.
Riverside County Flood Control District, 1962, Photo Nos. 76 and 77, Scale 1" :::
1,000', dated 7-24-62.
Riverside County Flood Control District, 1974, Photo Nos. 960 and 961, Scale 1" :::
2000', dated 6-20-74.
Riverside County Flood Control District - 1990, Photo Nos. 1B-26, 18-27, and 1B-28,
Scale 1":::1,600', dated 1-28-90,
.
.
.
~1