The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833-3 Lot 16 Limited Geotechnical Investigation I T .H.E. Soils Co., Inc. Phone: (951) 894-2121 FAX: (951) 894-2122 141548 Eastman Drive, Unit G . Murrieta, CA 92562 E-mail: thesoilsco{Cilaol.com 1 1 1 I I 1 I I .. J 1 I 1 I 1 I I II I July 21, 2005 Mr. Glenn Plunkett 54 Arborside Irvine, California 92603 SUBJECT: RRCRRTTFWA TlON OF FINTSH.P AD & T .TMTTRD GF.OTRCHNTCA T. TNVRSTlGA TlON Proposed Single-Family Residence Lot 16 ofTract Map No. 9833-3 Calle De Velardo City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Work Order No. 690401.29 (Revised) Dear Mr. Plunkett: TNTRODTJCTlON This report presents the results of our site inspection and geotechnical review of the above- mentioned lot. The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. This pad was reported as a cut-to-fill tra.11Sition lot. There were no obvious signs of compromise observed on the pad surfaces during this assessment, with the exception of an eroded area in the driveway. Plans relevant to the subject property were reviewed to confirm the field observations and are included as Appendix A of this report. Frn.T.n TNVRSTTGA TTON Fip.ld Tnvp~tigSltinn Subsurface exploration, field reconnaissance, and mapping of the site were conducted on March 17, 2004. Four exploratory trenches were advanced utilizing a Case No. 580 Super M extenda-backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket. Exploratory trench T-1 was advanced to the maximum depth explored of9.0-ft below the ground surface (bgs). Information collected during our field mapping and the approximate location of the exploratory borings and trenches are depicted on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Our field geologist prepared field logs, performed in-place density tests and obtained bulk soil samples for laboratory testing and supervised excavation of the trenches. Copies of our exploratory trench logs are presented in Appendix B. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. w.O. #690401.29R \ I li-li I I 000 II Sale: I : 25,000 _It 13.-0 Ba...: W(JS84 FIGURE 1 - .':':'.I~_,-:,-,":.__.--';:I:P*fll . .~~, ------- - , .J ;;J~ '. "" _ _ ~ l!i:II~!I!~!I:i! B i~Jjll:if;;~;!f ~ n~w~~~. ~mm~~ ~ " ~ a ~ ~ ~ " B ~ ~ : P' ~ ~I ~~~~~~il~~"~~.~Sffi ~~~~il;~,,~~ f~i~~~" ~ H up J J ~ ~ ~ i I ~ i: I ~II~' ~~ ~ iTI ~ . ~~~B=!~~ ~ .'''d ;ljF;ip j I ~I""-' <:; Itrl ~WI~I d~1 !I~ :I~II ~l ~ ~ 0)( ~ E z ~ m m ,.. ,.. fO - (") .... > lJ> .... 5 z o ." > ,.. " c: (j; T' .. " 5 :; ~ c: ~ '" c: .. .... c: '" m : 1" l. II II = ~ I = ~ ::=::::: ::;::::: ~ = = = = ~ = = = I 0' I E' . ~ - -~ - --'-.-- ~ I J J f . !I' ~ i1l !I .. .~ 6 il I ~ - ---------- ---- " .tl€>~~ ~ ~~ .N ~ 111 .~, ~ ?~ ,.., ~ -- ' ---- ,-- - ,,'. ''-'''.' ......-. "';--M.'''' '''''''.'''''''.''--. ,....... --,c.. '''_... c"''-''''.''''"''''''''''''. ...., .~ 'f,\?t-,1~l1.;,".,R",~\.m~ii\'i\'<9i!?i}p~~' "~~' .,,~ :t<~"'''~~Rlilfi,",,' , . ~ , ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ f -tlf-iil'- ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ n ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ I \ ~ ~D I ~ '" ~ , ~ . &....."\..f !~ r ~i ~ r : i ! i 9 ~ iI '~!I !~di h~s~ 8~.~~ ~ ii i ! ~ -3 w ~~ Q. ~o Cll ~ i j I ~ II IN o - ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~j j i III ~ ~f. "! ~ il' .J iq~! ~ "-'I' I ~s( -'I' ,.. .'il '" , un ~!Cj I .. !l! ~ ~ ~ r o ~ o '1 -j r'l r- ;:: o r'l .... 0 c OalC) '; J>", ;lO "'....)> :D.iIJ C c ;lO~ z ! !lJ .... C) i! CZ'tI OJ m 0 r- :.'!t z, )> OlD Z 'il m ~ ~ '" <: , n '" ~ ~ ~ i tr r .1 tIl m m ~ III .... - ~ '" i!i l so i ire. ;;~~~ ., ." ,., ..~. :,;,!~;;:~.i!:1:iT?~~*::r~-;~i.;.t7 ,7;: ~ ,I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I ! I I I I I I Mr. Glenn Plunkett July 21, 2005 Page 2 T .ghnrsdn-:y Tp.s:tin~ Progr9m Representative bulk and in-place soil samples of the onsite soils encountered during our site investigation 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, corrosivity suite 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. E. S. Babcock & Sons, Inc. of Riverside, California performed soluble sulfate and corrosivity suite testing. SRTSMWTTV Regjnn91 SeiSlmil"ity The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of southem California, During its design life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. Based on GIS records provided by the City of Temecula, the southwest portion of the subject site is located within a State of California Alquist Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Fault Zone (Hart, 2000), however no active faults are known to traverse the site (Kennedy, 1977). The closest known active fault is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Glen Ivy) located within 2.0-kilometers to the southwest (ICBO, 1998) of the subject site. The approximate location of the fault rupture hazard zone is presented on our revised Plate 1. The proposed single-family residence is located a minimum of 260-ft from the fault hazard zone, which allows for an adequate setback from any possible active fault. That portion of the subject site located in the fault rupture zone is also located in an existing MWD easement and no structures are planned and/or allowed within this area. In accordance with Section 2621.6 (a) (2) (A), a fault investigation is not required for the subject structure, which is excepted owing to its classification as "A single-family wood-frame or steel-frame dwelling not exceeding two stories when that dwelling in not part of a development of four or more dwellings". 2001 California Building Code (CBC) Factors specific to the subject site are as follows: The site is located within 2.0-kilometers from the Elsinore fault (Glen Ivy) zone (ICBO, 1998). The Elsinore fault (Glen Ivy) is reported as a Type B fault (ICBO, 1998; and 2001 CBC Table l6-U) in the vicinity of the subject site. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. #690401.29R 3 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Glenn Plunkett July 21,2005 Page 3 The site is within Seismic Zone 4 (2001 CBe Figure 16-2, Table 16-1). The soil profile for the site is SD(2001 CBC Table 16-J). The near source acceleration (Na') and velocity (Nv I) with respect to the subject site are 1.3 and 1.6, respectively (2001 CBC Tables 16-S and 16-T). The site seismic coefficients of acceleration (Ca) and velocity (Cv) are 0.44Na and 0.64Nv, respectively (2001 CBC Tables l6-Q and 16-R). Based on the above values, the coefficient of acceleration (Ca) is 0.57 and a coefficient of velocity (Cv) is 1.02.for the subject site. The Wildomar Fault of the Elsinore Fault zone (Glen Ivy Segment) is characterized as a right lateral strike slip fault with a total length of approximately 38 kilometers (CDMG, 1996). The State of California has assigned the Elsinore Fault (Glen Ivy Segment) a slip rate of 5 mm/yr. (+/- 2 mm/yr.) with a recurrence interval of 340 years (CDMG, 1996). This fault segment has been assigned a maximum moment magnitude of 6.8. SRCONDARV SRTSMTC HAZARDS T .iqllp.f9ptinn 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 sands with a mean grain size (050) in the range of 0.075 to 0.2mm. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45-ft and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60-ft. Procedures outlined in two publications, 1) 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 Califomia: Southem 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 depth to groundwater of + 1 OO-ft (Rancho Water District, 1984)), as well as the dense to very dense sedimentary bedrock underlying the subject site at depth, liquefaction and other shallow T.H.E. Soils Co.. Inc. w.O. #69040l.29R I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Glenn Plunkett July 21, 2005 Page 4 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. Se~nnrl9Q' H979rcls: Due to the absence of known faulting in the vicinity of the proposed residence and shallow sedimentary bedrock underlying the subject site, the' distance from large bodies of water, the potential for secondary seismic hazards, including ground rupture, seiches, and seismically induced soil settlement, are considered unlikely. The subject site is located in an area of moderately steep terrain that is free of large rock and the potential for rockfall is anticipated to be negligible. 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. RRCOMMF.NDA nONS ~pnprSl' Based on the results of our investigation, the proposed residence is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations and information contained in this report are implemented during planning, design and construction. F.rns:inn n9m9~p The subject pad has incurred minimal erosion damage since the completion of rough grading operations. Minor erosion rills were observed within the existing driveway and fill slopes. These areas should be scarified a minimum of 1-ft below the ground surface, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and recompacted to 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D-1557. Cut-tn-Fill Tron.itinn Due to the existing cut-to-fill transition located on the subject pad, the proposed building pad should be overexcavated a minimum of 3-ft below finish grade elevation or 2-ft below bottom of footings, whichever is deeper. The overexcavation should extend a minimum of 5-ft outside the building footprint or distances equal to the overexcavation depth, whichever is greater. The overexcavation should expose medium dense, competent sedimentary bedrock or compacted fill soils that are free of voids and roots with a minimum of90 percent of the maximum dry density as T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. w.O. #690401.29R -\ I I 1 II 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Glenn Plunkett July 21, 2005 Page 5 determined by ASTM D-1557. The soils engineer and/or geologist should veritY the depth of removals in the field. In areas that do not yield competent material and/or areas containing large trees with deep root systems, basements, and/or septic systems, deeper removals may be necessary. Site Prep9r~ltinn Prior to placement of fill materials, the exposed earth materials should be scarified a minimum of 12-inches bgs, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of90-percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. Fill PI9rement Onsite earth materials are expected to be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are free of organics and are non-expansive. A qualified soil engineer should test import materials to determine their feasibility for use as structural fill. Fill imported from off-site areas should have low to very low expansion potential. The project geotechnical consultant should approve imported soils. At least two working days notice should be allowed for approval. If laboratory testing is necessary to obtain approval of the import source, an additional I to 2 days should be allowed. Approved fill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557 test method. No rocks, chunks of asphalt or concrete larger than 6 inches in diameter should be used as fill material. Rocks larger than 6 inches should either be hauled off-site or crushed and used as fill material. F,Yp9n~ion lndey Testing- An expansion index test was performed on representative onsite soil samples collected during our investigation. The results, which are listed in Appendix C, indicate that the expansion index for the onsite soils varied from 19 to 40, which is equivalent to very low and low expansion potentials, respectively (Table l8-I-B - 2001 CBC). Additional testing for expansion should be conducted within the building pads at the completion of overexcavation and recompaction, and final recommendations should be made at that time. Expansion testing should also be performed on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. Pl9dil'ity lndey Testing- Plasticity Index testing was performed on the sample with an expansion index of 40 encountered within exploratory trench T-2 @ O-l-ft below the ground surface. The results yielded a plasticity index of2,7. Test results are presented in Appendix C, Table IV. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. #69040I.29R 5 II I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I , I I I Mr. Glenn Plunkett July 21, 2005 Page 6 S..lf:RIte t:nntp:nt Based on our sulfate content testing, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland Cement can be used for construction. Laboratory analysis, which is listed in Appendix C, Table III indicate a test result of 17 -ppm (parts-per-million) of water soluble sulfates, which equates to a negligible sulfate attack hazard (2001 CBC, Table 19-A-4). Sulfate content testing should be conducted within the building pad at the completion of grading and on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. Fonndation Sydt'm. For one-story structures, all foundation elements should be placed a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade into competent bedrock material, whichever is deeper. An allowable safe soil bearing capacity of 1800 psf can be considered for continuous spread footings with a minimum width of 12-inches and a minimum depth of 12-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by 10% for each 1-ft of depth or 0.5 feet of width, up to a maximum of 2500 psf. Isolated square footings should be designed by the structural engineer in accordance with the anticipated loads and the soil parameters given. A friction coefficient of 0.30 can be considered for concrete poured neatly against compacted fill soils. A minimum reinforcement of 1-#4 bar top and bottom should be utilized. These values are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by 1/3 for combinations of short term vertical and horizontal forces. Total differential settlements, under static loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill or competent native material and sized for the allowable bearing capacity, are not expected to exceed 1/4 to 1/2 inch. These settlements should occur primarily during construction. T ,Sltp:rAI F.9rth Pre~~lIrp:~ The following parameters should be considered for lateral loads against permanent structures founded on fill materials compacted to 90% of the maximum dry density. These values represent backfill compacted to 90% of the maximum dry density that are free draining against permanent structures. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary: F<pl;valt'nt Flnkl Pr"""IIT" for J "V,,] Ra"kfill Active Passive Co-efficient of friction (concrete on soil): 35 pcf 425 pcf 0.30 T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. w.O. #69040J.29R C:. I I I I 1 I I I I I II I I I ,I I I I I I I. Mr. Glenn Plunkett July 21, 2005 Page 7 If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces, the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two thirds of the above recommendations. These values may be increased by one third when considering short term loads such as wind or seismic forces. GrllllingIFmmlllltion PllIn Review A grading/foundation plan review should be conducted prior to the commencement of construction to verify the recommendations of this report have been incorporated into the design. Specific recommendations for site grading should be provided at that time based on actual proposed grading and site layout. Additional subsurface exploration or fieldwork may be necessary to evaluate specific areas of the site. Cnn~tnl{"tinn Monitorinf Observation and testing during grading, prior to placement of concrete, is essential to verify compliance with our recommendations and to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with the findings of this investigation, The observations made are believed representative of the building pad; however, soil and bedrock conditions can vary significantly. As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary fmdings. If these conditions occur, the possible variations must be evaluated and designs adjusted, as required or alternate designs recommended. LTMTTATTONS Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable 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. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. This firm T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. #690401.29R 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I II I I I I I I I I Mr. Glenn Plunkett July 21, 2005 Page 8 did not provide any surveying services at the subject site and does not represent that the building locations, contours, elevations, or slopes are accurately depicted on the plans. 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 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 contact our office, Very truly yours, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. General Manager J . Reinhart, RCE 23464 Registration Expires 12/31/05 pfey oject Manager JRH/JTR/JPF:jek Enclosures: Figure 1 - Site Location Map Appendix A - References Appendix B - Exploratory Trench Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - Standard Grading and.Earthwork Specifications T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. w.O. #69040J.29R B I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I :I I APPENDIX A References T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. #69040J.29R 9 1 ,I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I RF.FF,RRN(,F,S Califomia 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, 1990, "State of California Special Studies Zones, Murrieta, CA Quadrangle, Revised Official Map", Effective January 1, 1990, Scale I" = 2,000'. 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. Coduto, Don, P., 1994, "Foundation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall, pages 637-655. Hart, E.W., 2000, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, CD-003 (CD-ROM Version). Intemational Conference of Building Officials, 2001, "California Building Code". Intemational 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. Intemational Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code". Jennings, Charles W" 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions", Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No.6, scale 1 :750,000. Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southem Riverside County, California", Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131. Marm, John F, Jr" October 1955, "Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California", California Division of Mines, Special Report 43, Petersen, M" Beeby, D., Bryant, W., Cao, C" Cramer, C., Davis, J" Reichle, M., Saucedo, G., Tan, S., Taylor, G" Toppozada, T., Treiman, J., and Wills, C., 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California", California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48, varied scales, T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc, W,O. #690401.29R \0 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I RRFF.RF.NC'FS (Continued) Ploessel, M.R., Slosson, J.E., September, 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Volume 1, "Foundations on Hydro-collapsible Soils, Pages 256-261. Rancho California Water District, March 1984, "Water Resources Master Plan". Schnabel, P.B., and Seed, RB., 1973, "Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Westem United States", Bull. of the Seismol. Soc. of Am., Vol. 63, No.2, pp 501-516. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Toppozada, T" Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., Cramer, C. and Reichle, M., 2000, "Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by M::: 5 Califomia Earthquakes, 1800-1999" Califomia Division of Mines Geology Map Sheet 49, varied scales. U.S.G.S., 1997 "Pechanga, CA., 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map", Scale 1" = 2,000'. Weber, F.R, Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestem Riverside County, California, DMG Open File Report, 77-4 L.A., 96 pages. A RRT AT, PHOTOGR A PHS TITH ,TZF.D YEAR/SCALE FLIGHT #/FRAME # AGENCY 1962/1 "=2,000' Co, Flight/3-401,3-402 Riv Co Flood Control 1974/1 "=2,000' Co. Flight/l039,1040 Riv Co Flood Control 1990/1 "= I ,600' Co. Flight/19-21,19-22 Riv Co Flood Control T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. #69040J.29R \\ I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B Exploratory Trench Logs T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. #690401.29R ,L I 1 LOG GED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE 580 SUPERM EXTENDA DATE OBSERVED: 3117/04 BACKHOEW~4"BUCKET ELEVATION: :!: 1130 LOCATION: see GEOTECHNICAL MAe z ~ 0 w ~.. E; 0 8 ~w .: wl ~ 5 z~ o!!'. TEST PIT NO. 1 [ ~ un ~~ w~ SOIL TEST ~~ DESCRIPTION ~ 5 "z 0 gs Zw U mom -0 - V TOPSOIL MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE f- - -- If- f- SilT (Ml): MEDIUM GRAY BROWN, GRADING INTO A FINE SAND. COARSE, lOOSE, POROUS, CONTENT, SIEVE ANAL VSIS, EXPANSION I , NUMEROUS FINE ROOTS . INDEX f- f- I COLLUVIUM ~ ^ SIL TV SAND (8M): MEDIUM BROWN, MINOR CALCAREOUS CHUNKS, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, NUMEROUS PORES AND LARGE ROOTS f- PAUBA FORMATION SANDY SilT (ML): OLIVE BROWN, DENSE, BLOCKY STRUCTURE, NUMEROUS CALCIC ~ \ INFILLING ALONG BLOCKY STRUCTURE TOTAL DEPTH = 9.0' NO GROUNDWATER ~ - - - - ~ - f- f- f- ~ f- - I '!!! I , , , - , - 35 - - - ~ JOB NO: 690401.29 LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE:T-1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I \3 I I LOG GED BY: .!fE METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE 580 SUPERM EXTENDA DATE OBSERVED: 3117104 BACKHOE W124" BUCKET ELEVATION: t 1151.5 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP ~ ~ 0 w wi' ~~ ~ 8 w ~ if ~w ~ ~~ TEST PIT NO. 2 2 ~ ~~ ~i SOil TEST x ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~o DESCRIPTION w z , u zw 0 u , . -0 V UNDOCUMENTED FILL EXPANSION - SILT (ML): OLIVE BROWN, CLAYEY IN PART, MOIST \ PAUBA FORMATION SAND (8M): WHITE, FINE TO COA~INED - - - ~ SilT (ML): OLIVE BROWN, MOIST, MICACEOUS, SANDY IN PART, CLAYEY IN PART - c- o I- to I TOTAL DEPTH = 7.8' , - \ - NO GROUNDWATER , - 15 l- I- i- ~ l- I- 25 - ~ - - l- I-- 35 - - 40 JO B NO: 690401.29 LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE:T-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I \4\ I LOGGED BY: JPF I z !; g "8@ w ~ ~~ I ~~lh ~ ~ ~ ~ u - I - I ..! - I - - I 2!' - - I - - 15 - I - l- I l- I- ~ I l- I - ~ - I - I 30 f- f- I - - ~ I l- I- l- I I- ~ I I ~ w# ~ .- . ~~~ ~ 6 " > . METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE 580 SUPERM EXTENDA BACKHOEW~4.BUCKET ELEVATION::!: 1151.5 >'" ~~ ~~ ~~ Zw -0 TEST PIT NO. 3 DESCRIPTION JOB NO: 690401.29 UNDOCUMENTED FILL \ SilT (ML): OLIVE BROWN, MOIST. lOOSE _ _ P4(JBA FORMATION , SILT (Ml): OLIVE BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, CLAYEY IN PART '"' FINE Sll TV SAND (8M): MEDIUM GRAY, SUGHTL~. VERY FINE GRAINED, VERY OEN;-- TOTAL DEPTH = 4.0 NO GROUNDWATER LOG OF TEST PIT DATE OBSERVED: 3/17/04 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAl ~ FIGURE:T-3 SOil TEST \~ I I LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE 580 SUPERM EXTENDA DATE OBSERVED: 3/17/04 BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET ELEVATION::!: 1151.5 LOCATION: SeE GEOTECHNICAL MAP ~ ~ 8 w . >'" w ~ ~ . ~ ~g TEST PIT NO. 4 '" ~ ~ d w ~~ SOil TEST ~ '" ~ . DESCRIPTION w ~ " ~ 8 zw Q W W -Q 0 I-- PAUBA FORMATION f- SILT (Ml): OLIVE BROWN, MOIST, MICACEOUS, CLAYEY IN PART - - I-- I-- $Il TV SAND (8M): MEDIUM GRAY, VERY FINE GRAINED, SUGHTL Y MOIST, WELL SORTED, 5 POORLY GRADED, DENSE I-- I-- TOTAL DEPTH = 5.0' NO GROUNDWATER ~ - - - 15 - - - - ~ - - - - 25 - - ~ - - - - ~ - - 40 JOB NO: 690401.29 LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE:T -4 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 II I APPENDIX C Laboratory Test Results T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. #690401.29R \1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T.ARORATORV TF,STTNG A, C1assifi"ation Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classification was supplemented by index tests such as particle size analysis and moisture content. B, Rypansion Tndey Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite soils remolded ~d tested under a surcharge of 144Ib/ft2, in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. The test results are presented on Figure C-I, Table I. C, May;mum Density/Optimum Moishlre Content A maximum density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for typical samples of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM 1557-Method A. The test results are summarized on Figure C-I, Table II and are graphically displayed on Figure C-2. D. P9rti~le Sb:e netprmin9tion A particle size determination, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve), was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils in accordance with ASTM D 422-63. Test results are graphically displayed on Figure C-3. E. Soluhle Sulfate Content A soluble sulfate content test was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was California 417 A. The test results are presented on Figure C-I, Table III and are graphically displayed on Figure C-4. F. Pl9dii'ity lntley Plasticity index testing was performed on representative samples of the on-site soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D 4318. The test results are presented on Figure C- I, Table IV. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. w.O. #690401.29R \~ 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-1 @0-5' 19 Very Low T-2@0-I' 40 Low TABLE II MAXIMUM DENSITY IOPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP ASTM D 1557 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE TEST LOCATION (pcf) (%) T-1 @ 0-5' 119.5 12.5 TABLE III SULFATE CONTENT TEST LOCATION SULFATE CONTENT T-l @ 0-5' 17 ppm I TABLE IV I Plasticity Index I TFST T Or.A TTON I fi I I T-1 @ 0-5' I 2.77 I Figure C-l T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. #69040I.29R \~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 135 130 4- U "- 125 :J1 ~ '" c OJ ." 120 :J1 L Cl MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE 115 ~ ..... ..... .... i' , r-.... r-.... ...... .... ...... ..... i".... ......... ..... I-.... ...... ..... ...... ... - ZRV for Sp.G. = 2.75 110 9 10 12 15 13 14 11 Water content, % Test specification: RSTM D 1557-91 Method R, Modified Oversize correction applied to final results Elev/ Depth 0-5 Classification U5C5 RRSHTO Nat. Moist. %} % < Nd . 4 Nd . 200 Sp.G. LL PI SM 2.75 TEST RESULTS MRTERIRL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 119.5 pcf Optimum moisture = 12.5 % GRRYISH BROWN 5ITL Y SRND Remarks: Project Nd.: 690401.29 Proj~ct: GLEN PLUNKET Locatidn: CRLLE VALERDO TEMECULR Date: 3-19-2004 MRXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE Fig. No. C-2 z.o 0 ~ ~ - - 1" ~I , , , : : .... , , ; "- ; , , ........ ; ; m Ii ! 1 1 I , , , , , ! , , , .... ! , : , ! ; i i , ! i I i I : I!l , , ! : 1 ; i , , , , , , , , ! , Ii , , I , , , , , , , , , , ; , I . i , , ! , , i ; , ; , I , , , ; i , ; ; : l ; , I: ; , ; ; , ; I 1 I , , : , ; , : , : , , , 1 Ii 1 I , , , , ; ; ; ; ! , I ; I , , , ; , , ; ; , , , : , ; , , ; ; , , , , ; , ; ; ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100 90 80 70 a: w60 Z u:: !z 50 W U a: W4Q D- 30 20 10 % COBBLES 0.0 SIEVE SIZE 1 in. 3/4 in. 112 in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #30 #50 #100 #200 Particle Size Distribution Report ~ ~ .& .5 ~ I ..s ..Iil.s: . ~ ~ ~ o " I ~ S ~ i % GRAVEL 2.4 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % SAND 22.8 0.001 0.1 0.01 % SILT % CLAY 74.8 PERCENT FINER 100.0 98.9 98,9 98.8 97.6 92,6 81.3 76.6 75.1 74.8 SPEC: PERCENT Soli DescrlDtlon PASS? (X-NO) PL= Atterbera Limits LL= PI= Coefficients Oeo= 050= 015= 010= cc= Classification AASHTO= Oe5= 0.891 030= Cu= USCS= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: T-1 location: Source of Sample: Date: 10/19/04 ElevJDepth: 0-5 T.H.E. SOilS CO. Client: GLEN PLUNKET Project: Pro ect No: C-3 2.\ Plate I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "l::I Establishecll906 Client Name: T. H. E. Soils Co. Contact: John P. Frey Address: 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G Murrieta. CA 92562 Report Date: 29-Mar-2004 Sample Description T-2@0-1 - 690401.29 - Plunket An:tlvtp.(~' Water Extract Sulfate NELAP /lQ2101CA 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 6 of 12 Project Name: No Project Project Number: No Project Work Order Number: A4C1854 Received on Ice (Y IN): No laboratory Reference Number A4C1854-04 Temp: oc Matrix Soil Received DaterTime 03/23/04 15:03 Sampled DaterTime 03/23/04 00:00 Result RDL Units Method Analvsis Date Analvst Flaa 17 10 ppm Ion Chroma!. 03/26/04 02:53 KOS N-SAG. N-WEX \~ AccOIf ~~ --7;.':-', 0-1 ~ ~ 'J + <::J' (-'"" <'..... .~ ~l/r... C-4 z.z.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. APPENDIX D Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications W.O. #690401.29R :z.3 I I STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS These specificolico........... T .H.E. Soils Company. standard """"""",datiOllll for pding and car1hworlc. I No deviatioo from these speWicatioos mould be pamitt.ed unless specifically superseded in the gectedmical rq>ort of the projea. or by written communicatim signed by the Soils Consultant.. Evaluations paformed by the Soils Consultant during the course of grading may resuh in subsequent u.u>tnu.a1dations whidt could suptnede these specifications orthe recommmdations of the geotedmical fq)ort. 1.0 GENERAL I \.1 I 1.2 I 1.3 1.4 I I 1.5 I 1.6 I 1.7 2.0 SITE PREPARATION A final rq>Orl shan be issued by1he Soils ConsuItan1atl<slingtothe Camador'. ccnformance with these specificati<XIS. The Soils Coosuhaal is the Owncr's or Developer's rqnesentative m the project. For the pwpose of these specifications, observations by the Soils Coosultant include observations by Ihe Soils Engineer. Soils Engineer'. Engineering Geologist. and oIhezs elq)loyed by and responsible to the Soils Ccnsuhant. All clearing. site ptq)aration, or earthwork performed on the project. shan be oonducted and direded by the Contrador Wider the allowance or supervbl.on of the Soils Consultant.. The Centrad<< should be responstble for the safay of the project. and S8tisfactory compldioo of all grading. During grading. the Contrador m.an remain accesstble. Prior to the commencema:rt of grading. the Soils Consultant shall be employed for the pwpose of providing fidd, laboratory. and office serviCleS for conformance with the recommendations of the gededmical nport and these specifications. h will be necessary that the Soils Consuhant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may provide an cpinion as to dctermi:ne that the work was accomplished as specified. h shan be the re:pcosibility of the Ccntra<1or to assist the Soils ConsuItan1 and 1=p him opprised ofwork sdieduI" and manges so thai he may sdiedule his p<nonneloooonlingly. h shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes. agmcy ordinances. these specifications,. and the approved grading plans. It in the opinion of the Soils Consultant, unsatisfactory oonditions, sudl as questionable soil. poor moisture oondition, inadequate oompadion, advene weather, etc., are resuhing in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Soils Consultant will be eaqxJWered to rqect the work and recommend that cmstrudion be !topped un1il the IX1OditiOllll are re<1ified. h is the Contractor's respoosibility to provide safe access to the Soils Coosuhant for testing and/or grading observation pwposes. This may require the excavation of test pits and/orthe relocation of grading equipmart. I 2.1 I 2.2 I 2.3 I I 2.4 2.5 I All vegetation. and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This ranoval shall be observed by the Soils Coosuhant and ooncluded prior to fill plaoement. Soil, o~ or bedrod<. -.:rials ddamincd by 1he Soils ('~a.'''' as being uosuiIable for p\aocmenl in """"oded tills .ban be nmoved from the siIe 01" used in opcu areas as ddamincd by the Soils Ccnsu\lanL Any -.rial inoooporatod as . part of. """"oded fill must be approved by 1he Soils 0-...... priotto fill placcmaJ1. Aft..- the lVOODd surtace to receive fill has been d....... h sha1l be soariIicd, disoed and/or bloded by the Ccntra<1or un1il h is uniform and liee from ruts, hollows, hlllDllllXb, or ether uneYal features whidt mayprevcnt uniform ClOIq'ad.ion. The scarified grouod ....uee shall then be brought to optioaml moisture, mixed as roquircd, and cooq>aded as specified. If the soariIicd 2me is greIler 1han tweJ\le inches in dqJtb. the CXQCSS sbaI1 be ranovcd and placccl in lifts DOl to exoced six iodaes or less. Prior to placing fill. the gTOlDld surface to receive fill shall be obsa'ved. tested, and approved by the Soils Consuhant. Any underground ItrUd:ures or cavities IUdt as cesspools, ci!tems, mining 8haAs., tunnels, sqRic tanks., wells, pipe lines. or .others are to be removed or treated in a lDIDDer presa"ibed by the Soils Ccnsu\lanL In all-fiIl_ I... and """" all Iels are partially in aoiI, colluvium or UDW_crcd bedrod<. -.:rials, in onIa- to provide lIIIifonn bearing oonditions, the betbodc.portioo. of the lot extending. minimum of 5 feet outside ofbuilding Iinmllhal1 be overexcav8led a minimum of3 fed. and "",Ioced with """"oded fill. Oroata- ov""""""'-co could be required as ddamincd by Soils Consultant. '\)1>iealddails are.....d1ed. I 3.1 COMPAcrEDFILLS 3.0 I I MAllcrioI to be placed as fiIl....n be liee of orpUc mati<< and....... deldcrious _.... and....n be approved by 1he Soils Consultant. Soils of poor gradatioo, "'P""Sioo. or ltr<rlllJh dJand<ristiea ....n be placed in areas .....l!I'..cd by Soils ConsuItan1 or ....n be mixed with .-b... soils to serve as satinadory fiU material. as direded by the Soils Consuhant. ~ I Standard Grading and Earthwork. Specificatims Page 2 I 3.2 I I 3.3 I 3.4 I 3.5 I 3.6 3.7 I 3.8 I I 3.9 3.10 I 3.11 I 3.12 I 3.13 Rock fragments less than six inches in diamder may be utilized in the fill., provided: They arend. placed or nested in ooo.oentrat.ed pockets. There is a sufficient amount of approved soil to surround the rocks. The distributioo of rocks is supervised by the Soils Coosuhant. Rocks greater than twelve inches in diamder shan be takm off-site. or plaoed in aooordance with the reoommcndatioos of the Soils Coosultant in areas desifll8led as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical cktail for Rock Disposal is atached.) Material that is spongy, subject to decay. or otherwise considered ~suitable shan not be used in the compaded fill. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compa~ fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Coosuhant to dttermine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is cnoourtta'ed dwing grading. the appropriate 8D.alysis of this material shall be OXl.dud.ed by the Soils Consuhant bd'ore being approved as fin msteriat Mataial used in the compacting process shan be evenly spread, wata'ed, processed, and compacted in thin lifts nd. to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a \Uliformly dense layer. The fill shan be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane. unless otherwise approved by the Soils Consultant. If the moiaure ooo.taIt or relative ~adioo varies from that required by the Soils Consuhant. the Cootraclor shan rework. the fill until it is approved by the Soils Consultant. Each layer shall be compacted to at least 90 percmt of the maximum density in compliance with the testing mdhod specified by the controlling governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applie'l. If compadioo to a lesser pezccntage is authorized by the controlling govemmeut.al agmcy because of a specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area to reoeive fill ~cted to less than 90 peroen1 shall either be delineated 00. the grading plan and/or appropriate reference made to the area in the geotottmicol nport. All fills shall be keyed and bmcbed throu~ all topsoil. colluvium, alluvium, or creq> material., into SO\Dld bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio offive horizontal to me vertical or in accordance with the reoommendatioos of the Soils Consultant. The 1rey foc side hi1l1ills m.n be. minimum width of I 5 feot within bedrocI< oc linn mab:rials, unless othl2Wise specified in the geotottmicol nport. (See ddail attadted.) Subdrainage devices &ball be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the o:utrolling governmental agency. or with the recommmdlrtioos of the Soils Consultant. (f~icol CaIlyoo Subdrain cktails .... attadJed.) The -..- will be required to obtain . minimum n:IaIive ......adioo of..1east 90 peroent out to the _ slope moo offill slopes, bulIn:sses, and lOabilizatim fills. Thia may be adrieYed by citha".... bui1dingthe slope IUd WIling bad< to the ......""00 core, oc by _ .......dioo ofth, slopefiloe __Ie equ;p-. or by any.......prooeduro, _ produces therequirod COIq>adioo approved by the Soils ConsuItaul. All fill .Iopa mould be plll1lled ocprote<1ed from...,.;oo by....... mdhods specified in the Soils nport. I 3.14 Fill-ov<<-<Ul stopa m.n be properly keyed throu~ topsoil, oonuvium oc a-eq> mab:rial into rod< oc linn mab:rials, and the -.itioo m.n b< ~ of.n soil prioctoplaeingfill (See attadted cktail) 4.0 cur SWPES I 4.1 4.2 I 4.3 I 4.4 4.5 I I The Soils Consuhant Ibalt inspect all cut slopes at vatical intervals exceediog five feet. If any oonditims nol anticipated in the geotec:bnical rqJOrt such as pcrdted water, aecpa~ 1cntioolar or ooofioed strata of a potentially advenk nature, unfavorably indined bedding. jointa oc molt planes _ during gradin& th<ae ooodilioos man be ana1ym1 by the Soils Consultant and .~..... n....... man be made to miliptetheseprobkms. (f~icoI cktails fur iUbiIizalioo of. portioo of. all slope....attadJed.) Cut stopes that face in 1he same cIir1nim as the prewi1ing drainage shall be prote<1ed from l10pe wash by . nm-a-odible interceptor .wale placed II thetop of the slope. Unlcsa oth<rwiae specified in the gootodmicol -. DO all slopa ....n be """,vak:d hi~<< oc __ than that .llowed by the ordinances 0 controlling g<>V<Ollll<Dlal.pcics. Drainageterraoes than be constructed in oomplianoewith the ordinances of QOl1trolling govemmc:ntalagcncies, or with the ,,,,^,,"~mxndalicns ofth. So;ta Consultant. 25 I Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page 3 I I 5.1 5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS Trmdt excawtioo mall be inspected prior to stnIdure plaament for ~ bat1om. 5.2 I 5.3 I 5.4 5.5 I 5.6 I Trmdt excavations for utility pipes mall be baddilled \Uldet"the supervision of the Soils Consultant. After the utility pipe has been laid, the space undet" and around the pipe shall be baddilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a dtvlh of at least one fO<t overthetop of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be lUlifonnly jetted into place before the oootroUed backfill is placed over the sand The oo-site materials, or ((ber soils approved by the Soils Consultant, shall be watered and mixed, as necessary, prior to plaoement in lifts over the sand baddill. The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least. 90 pe:rcart of the maximum laboratory density, as dd.ermined by the ASTM D 1557-70 or the controlling govemmentalagency. Fidd dmsity tests and inspection of the baddill proa:dures shan be made by the Soils Consultant during backfilling to see that proper moi&ture oontfIlt and uniform compaction is being maintained. The cootrador shall provide teQ holes and exploratory pits as required by the Soils Consultant to mable ~1ingandt.e:!ting. I 6.1 GRADING CONTROL Inspedioo of the fill placement mall beprovided by the Soils Consultant duringthe progress of grading. 6.0 6.2 I 6.3 I 6.4 In gm...~ dwsily tests lIbould be made at intervals nol exceeding two feet of fill heiilR or c:v<<y 500 ",bie yards offill placed. This critaia will wry dqNnding on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event., an adequae number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being ad::lleved. Density tests mould also be made 011 the native smface material to receive fill., as required by the Soils Coosu1t.ant. All c1ean-out, proa:ssed gJUIDld to r=:ived fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rocIc disposals lIbould be inspected and approved by the Soils Consuhanl prior to p1acing any fill. 11 lIball be the Contrador's ...ponsibi1ity to notiJY the Soils Consuhanl whm such areas will be ready for inspectioo. I 7.1 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS I 7.2 7.3 I I I I I I I Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. Upon compldion of grading and tcnninatioo of inspections by the Soils ~ no fiather filling or excavating. induding that neoessary for footinl'l' f_elations, largetree wells, n:taining walls, or other features lhall be pafonned without the approval of the Soils Consullanl Care lIball be ta1= by the Contra_ during final llJlIding to preserve any borma, drainage tornl.... inlora:ptor swales, or other devi"", of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. 2.b I rJ r II I L I [' I [: I [ I [ I [, I [' I [. -I. I I I I I L I I ' I I I I I OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SIDE HILL CUT PAD DETAIL - FINISHED CUT PAD --~ ~] UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR ~ ~ MATERIAL APPROVED BY ---..J r THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SUB DRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REOUIREMENTS DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN 2.7 I I ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL I I --------. ---=======0=~-j=6-;-M~~~=~===~~~~~~~r~-E===~ -----------~----------- FILL ---======~~=~~=~=~=~~!~=~=====~~~=~=;=~:;=~~J: --------T--~~------:~-----___:~ - __ __ - - - _ __ ~_ -0- _ __ _~-: ____ _ _ _ _ J '1-_- --------~--- --------- ----------~~ --==~=========i=:::==================n-=-=-===~===========:=-===~====:==:::-= ------~--U----:J:- -------n -- ------ . -,.'7-:' :-=::==~:c--==-==::- -===:=~"1:ll =-====-====-=-:::-::- =-::-=-::-- - -:..-J Q. J{IIN.l..- -------:..-----:..----------- -;- -----E-:. - - ------:-..J- - - --:..-:.- ----____:../"'_____________4 MIN. -- -15' MIN ~-------=- -------.;-..,......------------- - -. .--,--- ------:..<7flJ- --------------------------~-- :..:-:-:-:::-:-:-=-=-=-x_-:-- ::-=-=-:::-=-:::-:::-=-- -~: -:::-=-:::-=-:::-=-=-=-=-:-:-:---- :-------:..---_-:..-_-..7.:_-_-_ _-:..-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _ -_ -:..-_-_-:..-_-_-_-:..--. --------~------~------------ ------- ====:::==0=-:::==:=:====i===_-===================~-=-::- ------- .,;:-.,::-::;.7----:..---------:..-..: OVERSIZE..- --- WINDROW~ FINISH GRADE I SLOPE FACE I I I I GRANULAR SOILo . To TilT voids, densified by flooding I I I I I PROFILE ALONG WINDROW I I ...... '.' I 0"\ ~, "\y4.'" I I 2.8 I 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- - - .... - .....- --- .....- - ..- _ - ---: --- Mf~. r- - \.._. ....,-. :'!;Q~lA_cf~Q.~.f!.!-.!:i:=~-=~:~~-~~~~-:"~:~----- --- r------~-~:--- -.-. -=-------------------~_.:::__-__:_-~--~~:..-~--- \ l' -:-=-~-:::=~?=-~s"0.~p..~~-:;::=~------ OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT _..,....,.__ ,,_UL__ _ -,,-,VA ::-_--=-::-^O-..J<;;.___-:,;::;...~___ -":_t''C.\~ _-~ - - --_ ---- , , UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1 ,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ----.1 1 THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT CUT LOT - - -- _ -.::::::: REMOVE __ - _ _ - UNSUITABLE ____ _ - s' L__ __ - -MATERIAL _ MIN.rI -:..---------------------~---------------------- 36" MIN ~--------------------------~ ---------~------------ . ;::COMPACTED::-_-_-,z:::::-- 'I' "\ ^ T ~=":~j~~~~~ OVER EXCAVATE ANDRECOMPACT -- - - --- NATURAi GROUND 1- -- - - - -- - UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR f ,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: Deeper overexcovation and recomoactian shall be performed if de!ermined '0 be necesscry by the geotechnical consultonl. 2.9 t ~f~.-1 ! ~ ---~------_. - ----------L: J l ------------..r-- I _-:::-:~~:::-:~~ FILL BLANI< --~---------:-::c: 30" MIN. ---~--~-----_- BACK CUT ----::-:::-:-:::-:::-:::-:::-- "'A I: I OR FLA HE _ _-:-:-:-::-:-::-:-::-- BENCHING -------2%-=----__-_- __====- _=======j:==========_~ ~~~O:l'i~RNA TES A , ----------f:-----=----~---- - ------ -------- ------ -------- --:::-:-:-=-=-=--€-:-:-:-=~--....::=-- FllT~R !..U,7E;:lIAL ---------~~----~ ~ . _-:::-:-::::-:-::-:-:-:-:::-:-]-:-:-:-:-:-~ 3 fl. lift. '\ .. ------------------~--~-/-------_-. T-CONNECTlON . .. . ~'''''N )("--------""'Io...-_:.:r--=___7...-'! .; . .1.... ...- :_ - . _L,Q ;.z:~"'" ~~""'N._'~..U""L ___:.A:___'2~,--.-.,...-__-_-_-_-_-_-"'L.i'j/:J'-':'--7-- 1 - M '- ---6 p"'~ "41 t ------- ,0' '[l:.-_-----,./. -Ou1\. b PERFORATEO PIF~ .." MIN. EaUIP"':Ni~~_ ~;,~~ Y IS '--o.:T .1 4' D MlN, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REPLACEMENT FILL DETAIL OUTLET PIPES 4" fl f\Jonperforated Pipe, 100' Max. O.c. Horizontally, 30' Max. O.c. Vertically KEY I': DEPTH-L .. I 2' MIN. 1 Al TERNA TE A OUTLaT .....~::. Plf'e:~....."" MIRA;I 1~O FIL TE:t FABRIC OR APPRoveo EOUtv ALENT TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL flil.-; -.::-:- RECOMPACTED FI1.L ''}''IN''sEL~CTaEOaING -L aACKFILL . a M~"_ NONPE;;FORA TED / PIP; / DETAIL A-A' NOTES: .. Fill blanket,back 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. . SUBORAIN INST ALlA TION - Subdrain pipe sholl be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforated pipe. . SUBORAIN TYPE - Subdrain type 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 ......._, . ___.._-' __..:.._l__~ I~"MIN. GRA VEl.. OR (. APPRoveo : !!:lUrJ.A~!'H ALTERNATE 8 '. FIL TEA MA TERrAL: Filter material sholl be Class 2 permeable material per State of California Standord Specifications, or approved alternate. Class 2 grading os follows: SIEVE SIZE I" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8 No, 30 No. 50 No. 200 PERCENT PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 .30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BENCHING DETAILS FiLL SLOPE _-=_:-=~~OMPACTED :::-::--:...::-::: - -=-------=------:..'':: FI LL :..""".:----=----.: --------- -- -- -------- -----:_-------.=.,.,---: --=-=-=-:-=-=-=-=-::=~~-::-:;:...::--?~-:::-::: .. -=--=--=-----=---------""j.---.;:::..--::::""" "" ......' PROJECTED PLANE __:=====~====::S~?~j;j---;"'';~-4'''' I to I maximum from toe -=-=-=-=-=-=-=7:?-=~.:=~i-- ~;1 ------~~-----~- ~. of slope to cpproved ground -----=---::?~=-=-=-z~-=-= \ __-_-_-________~ REMOVE "" _--=-2:::::~=-=~..?="..::-:-::~ ~ UNSUITABLE NATURAL "" . ---::-'C-:::-==~=~y '_. ~ MATERIAL GROUND \ ' =...._--=-_7...!'::-'C-=-:-::- ~4. MIN. I BENCH ., I -/---,.-------- BENCH ~ " -L ,------------ 'HEIGHT U" _-::-=-::2%MIN:::::-=-=- (typical) V ARIES - '='"---- T ^' . 2' MIN. I IS' MIN. I KEY !'LOWEST BENCH -+j DEPTH (KEY) FILL OVER CUT SLOPE - ------------ _-: COMP ACTED ::::-::-~ ---------l FI LL :"--..;:::-:.:.---=-:;;;. .__=_=_=_=-=_=-:.~_~_~_~_-z: -------..------,-- -------~~---~--- --=-:-=-~=--=---=~--- -~ -..- ----~-----.,.,I'- -------------~--- --.,..----------- REMOVE. NATURALZ-::---:-=-::-:z.= " UNSUITABLE :-.?----------~ I GROUND "- . .. MATERIAL \ . _ _- ~ =-_-==-:;;~~- .. r~~~g'l: _ _ - ~::-3%MiN.::: .. (tyPiC:;;)! __ r .--- ~ ~ __ --.- -- ~Is' MIN.~ .- _ -- I LOWEST BENCH I .BENCH HEIGl;iT VARIES -- CUT FACE To be constructed prior to fill placement -- - NOTES: LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change based a" consultant's inspection. S;...eORAI~JAGE:. e~,k .:~~:.,~ mey be required at the jiscrel.an or the geotechnical consultant. .3>\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL BENCHING REMOVE UNSUITABLE ~~~=~=~~~~:=j.~-=-=-=-:::-:-=-:-:--:-=-:-~:~:-~-=-~::;Z-: MATERIAL _ -::-::;;::::::-:-=-:-:.. COMPAC..!.EI:? FIL,L ::------~-:..- I --::;:---- -'-. -:.. -:.. -:..-----:..------=-------- - - - -.,;z: ---:;:... -- _n -==--:~S~:-~~-=-=-:~=-~-:;i1 - ~_=E=~======~====~==E=~=j::-:::;-~=- ~-------..7-'- , -_-_~=~~ .:. SUB DRAIN TRENCH . _' SEE ALTERNATES ASB SUB DRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With ALTERNATE A: Filter Material ~ .....- FILTER MATERIAL 3 9 ft. 1ft. COVER . 6" MIN. .--/ FILTER MATERIAL: . Filter matericl shaH be Closs 2 permeable mCTerial per State of California Standard Specifications, or opproved alternate. Class 2 grading oz follows: 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 .' ....,. :.- :0.:. "::.0.::.-. s :: ... o. 51EVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING I" 3/4" 3/8" Nd.4 No, 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 BEDDING ,. Alternate A-1 Alternate A-2 PERFORATED PIPE 6"flMIN. SUB DRAIN 1 1/2" Gravel Wrapped AL TERNA TE B: in Filter Fabric NOTE: In addition to the wrapped grovel, outlet portion of the subdrain should be' equipped with Q minimum of 10 feet long . perforated pipe con- nected to Q nonperforated pipe having a minimum of 5 feet in length inside the wrapped grovel. ~8"iViJN. OVERLAP~I-- ~ ..... h MIR:"FI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EOUIVALENT I '/z" MIN. GRAVEL OR APPROVED EQUNALENT 3 9 ft. 1ft. ~ , . SUBDRAIN INST ALLA TION - Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, sholl be nonperforoted pipe. . SUBORAIN 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 Polyvinal Chloride Plastic. (PVC) pipe or approved equivalant 32,.