The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833-2 Lot 5 Limited Geotechnical Investigation I T .H.E. Soils Co., Inc. i Phollc: (951) 894-2121 FAX: (951) 894-2122 '141548 Eastman Drivc, Unit G. Murricta, CA 92562 E-mail: thesoilsco(tilaol.colII I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I January 31, 2006 Mr. Andy Lakey P.O. Box 31 Temecula, California 92593 SUBJECT: T .TMTTF.O r.FOTF.CHNTC AT. TNVF.STTr.A TTON Proposed RV Garage & Pool Cabana at Existing Residence Lot 50fTract9833-2, APN: 945-020-005 43395 Manzano Drive City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Work Order No. 981501.00 Dear Mr. Lakey: 111 accordance with your request, we have performed a Limited Geotechnicallnvestigation for the proposed RV garage and pool cabana located at the above referenced site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the engineering parameters of the onsite soils, existing site conditions, and provide design parameters including allowable bearing values. For our investigation, we were provided with a 20-scale "Precise Grading Plan" prepared by JMM Consultants, which was utilized to locate our exploratory trenches and as a base map for our "Geotechnical Map", Plate 1. Based on the results of our investigation, we anticipate that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the conclusions and recommendations presented below are implemented during site development. 1.0 TNTROOTlCTTON 1.1 Propo.ed Oevelopment The proposed development calls for the construction of a RV garage and a pool cabana. It is our understanding the proposed structures will consist of wood-framed, stucco-sided structures with conventional footings. It is anticipated that minor cutHill grading will be utilized to achieve design grade. 1.2 Site Oe'''ription The subject site has been developed as a single-family residence with detached garage, existing pool, tennis court, and landscaped areas. The subject site is located on the southwest comer of Santiago and Manzano Roads in the city of Temecula in southwest Riverside County, California. The site is located in an area of large parcel residential properties. The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.o. NO. 981501.00 \ I ;1 I I I I I I I I I I ~" I '2.- I ,. I I I . I I I I . . I I . I . I . Mr. Andy Lakey January 31, 2006 Page 2 Topography on the subject site consists of a relatively flat graded pad with associated 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) fill and cut slopes. A highly incised westerly trending drainage course is located on the northerly portion of the subject site, which is currently utilized for a tennis court. Vegetation on the subject site consists of a manicured lawn and ornamental trees and shrubs. Overall relief at the subject site is approximately 40-ft. 2.0 SITF. TNVFSTTr.ATTON 2.1 Ra"kr:rollnd R.....ar"h and I .it..ratllr.. Review Pertinent published reports and geologic maps were reviewed for the purpose of preparing this report. A complete list of the publications and reports reviewed for this investigation is presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Fi..ld Investigation Subsurface exploration, field reconnaissance, and mapping of the site were conducted on November 23, 2005. Two exploratory trenches were excavated utilizing a Case No. 580 Super M rubber tire extenda-backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket. Exploratory trench T-l was advanced to the maximum depth explored of l6-ft below the ground surface (bgs). Information collected during our field mapping and approximate location of our exploratory trenches is shown on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Our field geologist, who prepared field logs and obtained bulk soil samples for laboratory testing, supervised excavation of the trenches. Copies of our exploratory trench logs are located in Appendix B. 2.3 I .ahoratoQ' Te.ting Pror:ram Representative bulk samples of soils encountered during our subsurface exploration were obtained for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing to determine the engineering parameters of representative soils included maximum density/optimum moisture, sieve analysis, soluble sulfate content, sand equivalent, corrosivity suite and expansion index testing. Laboratory testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM, Caltrans, and Uniform Building Code (UBe) test specifications, where applicable. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Appendix C of this report. E. S. Babcock & Sons, Inc. performed soluble sulfate and corrosivity suite testing. 3.0 SlffiSTlRFAC.F. C.ONOTTTONS Locally, the subject site is underlain at the ground surface and at shallow depths by sedimentary bedrock of the late Pleistocene age Pauba formation (Kennedy, 1977). Minor T.H.E. Soils Company,lnc. W.O. NO. 981501.00 2> en Q) :::I ....... Dr (Q o ;:u o Q) c.. I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 '" -I~ !-'l~ :<!Ii'>:: ", 1 1 -I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I "'I ~I till ":1 ~I~ f'> Iz '" " ""I~. I~ I; ~I "I ~ I i'll 1 1 I ~ m ,00'09 - ~;LI.LO N , " , " 4{o <oj' , 7.0 <;r, ~ . /1'.</ ".9,.9 C? A. V 'va , .96'...1 > '"''.? 8 1'; '" f;Je 8 ~ ~ '< '" ~ Ii'" . " " .. ,"':. !;~ .~~ ~,J ~~ B % o ~~ Sl~ ~ ~~ 8~ ~~ o " c ~ - -- ..~~. ~ ~! &1 "~ ~iiI '" .~ ;>: . Vj ~ ~ <') is ,"=r,;:, .~~ 1'i ,." % ;< o i: ~[[: ~ " i!1.-~ -!'l I ~ I I ~ ,I ." ~ 0 0 0 f,j ,~ (,r\)~~~s.s ~ g . . i i ~I ~ : II I ~ ,. ~e~~. fS ~ ~ ~ -311m ~. . -l~~J L ~ ~nl~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ri ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~ !.~ j . I . i ~ : i , I ,_I , ~....' JT""'" '1' \":'< <:t \" - 1;Tlq II ~ ! il ~ 'i'_ ~ii1I'" ~'" ~ ~ ~ " " " " ) ,~ "- .~ ~ ,<0 ,OJ fiY cg; ,;; I ~ ~ ,0 ~ .;; -0 I I ~ ~ i ~ ,.. c. o -Y1 .. tl ~ I I B ' " :.. - 0;': I r~i< j I i!~ ~ ~ , I M~ ~ ~ s ~ f II ~ ~ I II )l ii I ! ~ 1.-:"... '!' " I ~ t~- ~.. ~~i!l i C""I ~~ !Ii c;;: ;lJ n .,,~ f'l s: ~c~~ I: n"'t'" ~~~~ t:"!h ~ I, :>-lli", . "'''''" , ;<~Ci ~ ~(Q ~ !Xl... C5 ~~I~ i ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ . l\a ~ I I )l ~ I r I . r ~ g ~ ., , I i ~ f ~ ~ I j ~ ~ .> I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I Mr. Andy Lakey January 31,2006 Page 3 amounts of undocumented fill and undifferentiated alluvium/colluvium were encountered within the highly incised drainage course on the northerly portion of the site, 3.1 TlndO<'lImented Fill ~Map Symhol- Qut) Undocumented fill was encountered on the westerly portion of the tennis court and is anticipated to underlie the entire tennis court. This unit consists predominately of clayey silty sand (Unified Soil Classification - SM) and can generally be described as dark grayish brown, fine grained, minor medium and coarse grains, moderately graded and moist. 3.2 Tlndifferentiated AlluvillmlC.ollllvium ~ap Symhol - Qal) Undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils located on the subject site are generally restricted to the highly incised drainage course located on the northerly portion of the subject site, This unit consists predominately of dark brown silty sand (SM), that can generally be described as dark brown, fine to coarse grained, moist, medium dense with minor pinpoint pores. 3.3 SedimentaQ' Redro"k ~ap Symhol- Qp.) Sedimentary bedrock units are exposed both at the ground surface and at shallow depths throughout the subject site. This unit consisted predominately of silty sands (SM) that can generally be described as dark yellowish brown, fine to coarse grained, well graded, moist, dense. 3.4 r.roundwater Groundwater was encountered within our exploratory trench (T-1) at a depth of 15.5-ft bgs. T -1 was advanced on the west portion of the highly incised drainage course located on the northerly portion of the subject site. According to historic high groundwater records (Rancho California Water District, 1984), groundwater is anticipated to be at least 100-ft bgs on the lower elevations of the subject site. It is anticipated that the groundwater encountered within T -1 is in a perched localized condition. Owing to the relative dense nature of the sedimentary bedrock units underlying the subject site, it is our opinion shallow groundwater will not adversely impact the subject site. 3.5 F..."avation Chara"teri.ti". We anticipate that the undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils can be excavated with moderate ease utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition, The sedimentary bedrock is anticipated to be excavated with moderate ease to moderate difficulty utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or equivalent) in proper working condition. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. w.o. NO. 981501.00 ':5 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I , I I 1 Mr. Andy Lakey January 31, 2006 Page 4 4.0 SFISMWITV 4.1 Regional Seismicity The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The subject site is not located within a State of California Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone for active faulting (Hart, 2000), No active fault traces or fault features have been identified on the subject site or were noted on or trending onto the subject site (Kennedy, 1977). The closest known major fault is the Elsinore fault zone (Temecula segment) located approximately 3.0-kilometers to the southwest. The Elsinore fault zone (T emecula segment) is characterized as a right lateral strike slip fault with a total length of approximately 42 kilometers (CDMG, 1996), The State of California has assigned the Elsinore Fault (Temecula segment) a slip rate of 5 mm/yr. (+/- 2 mm/yr.) with a recurrence interval of240 years (CDMG, 1996). This fault segment has been assigned a maximum moment magnitude of 6.8. Historically, significant earthquakes causing strong ground shaking have occurred on local and regional faults near the site. To evaluate historical seismicity, we have utilized a computer software program titled EPI, which utilizes an earthquake database compiled by California Technical Institute to analyze earthquakes of various magnitude that have occurred within a specified radius about the site. A total of 131 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have occurred within 160.9- kilometers (tOO-miles) of the site since 1932. The closest earthquake was a 5.1 magnitude event, which occurred approximately 28.9-kilometers (l8-miles) northeast of the subject site on Monday, September 23, 1963. The largest earthquake recorded within the specified search area occurred on Sunday, June 28, 1992, located approximately 99.8- kilometers (62-miles) to the northeast as a 7.3 magnitude earthquake. A graphical representation of the historical seismicity is shown on Figure 2. 4.2 2001 eRc. Seismic Fadors spedfi" to the sllhject site are as follows: The subject site is located 3-kilometers to the northeast of the Elsinore fault zone (Temecula segment) [ICBO, 1998]. The Elsinore fault zone (Temecula segment) is reported as a Type B fault (ICBO, 1998; and 2001 CBC Table 16-U) in the vicinity of the subject site, The site is within Seismic Zone 4 (2001 CBC Figure 16-2, Table 16-1). T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 981501.00 Cp I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I \\ I I ) \ m iiM'1 ~d-~ + N +1 4- rt itt + + ','.m.'" 1932-2003 (...",.... 5.~) 100 mil. mdl". t + -' EPI SoftWare 2000 SITE LOCATION: 33.4938 LAT, -117.1137 LONG, I 50 MILES I 100 MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C TOTAL # OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 251 I o TOTAL # OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 135 MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS: 5,0- 5.9: 120 6,0- 6.9: 13 7.0-7.9: 2 8.0.8,9: 0 CLOSEST EVENT: 5.1 ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23,1963 LOCATED APPROX. 18 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS: 7,3 ON SUNDAY, JUNE 28, 1992 LOCATED APPROX, 62 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE 7,1 ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16,1999 LOCATED APPROX. 89 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE 6,7 ON MONDAY, JANUARY 17.1994 LOCATED APPROX. 95 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE 6,7 ON SUNDAY, MAY 19,1940 LOCATED APPROX. 107 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE 6,6 ON TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 09,1971 LOCATED APPROX, 96 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE 1" FIGURE 2 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I II I 1 Mr. Andy Lakey January 31,2006 Page 5 The soil profile for the site is Sn(2001 CBC Table 16-J), The near source acceleration (N,) and velocity (Nv) with respect to the subject site are 1,2 and 1.5, respectively (200 I CBC Tables 16-8 and 16- T), The site seismic coefficients of acceleration (C,) and velocity (Cv) are 0.44Na and 0.64Nv, respectively (2001 CBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R), Based on the above values, the coefficient of acceleration (Ca) is 0.53 and a coefficient of velocity (Cv) is 0.96 for the subject site. 4.3 SecondaQ' Seismi<' "a"ards Due to the site being underlain by medium dense to dense sedimentary bedrock both at the ground surface and shallow depths throughout the subject site and no known faulting, the potential for secondary seismic hazards including liquefaction, ground rupture, seiches and tsunamis and seismically induced soil settlement are considered negligible, The loose bedrock soils will be removed and recompacted during grading operations (see Section 5.2). 4.4 Roekfall Potential The subject site is located in an area of low rolling terrain, which is underlain by sedimentary bedrock that is free of large rock. Based on the above, the potential for rockfall is anticipated to be low. 4.5 I,and.lide. No geomorphic expression of landsliding or slope instability was noted during our site mapping or literature review. No adverse conditions were observed within the exploratory trenches or during our site mapping. In general, the potential for landsliding during a seismic event is considered low under current conditions. 5.0 RF,C.OMMENOATTONS 5.1 C.eneral Farthwork Recommendations for site development and design are presented in the following sections of this report, The recommendations presented herein are preliminary and should be confirmed during construction. TH.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.o. NO. 981501.00 fO I I I , II I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I Mr. Alldy Lakey January 31, 2006 Page 6 Prior to the commencement of site development, the site should be cleared of any vegetation, existing asphalt driveways, concrete walkways, concrete foundations, concrete tennis court, water lines, electric lines, etc" which should be hauled off-site. The client, prior to any site preparation, should arrange and attend a meeting among the grading contractor, the design engineer, the soils engineer and/or geologist, a representative of the appropriate governing authorities, as well as any other concerned parties, All parties should be given at least 48 hours' 1I0tice, Earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the recommendations specified in this report. 5.2 Preparation ofF,xiding r.rollnd The undocumented fill and alluvial soils are considered loose and potentially compressible in their existing state, and will require complete removal and recompaction or offsite disposal. Removals should expose medium dense to dense sedimentary bedrock units that are free of roots and pores, The exposed soils should have a minimum in-place relative compaction of 90% (as determined by ASTM D-1557). Removals within the undocumented fill and alluvial soils for the RV garage are anticipated to extend a minimum of7-ft bgs on the west end and a minimum of3-ft bgs on the east end of the proposed pad, Removals should extend a minimum of 5-ft beyond the building footprint or a distance equal to the depth of removal, whichever is deeper. The pool cabana should be overexcavated a minimum of 3-ft below the existing grade and extend a minimum of 5-ft beyond the building footprint The project soils engineer and/or geologist should verify the competence of the exposed bottom 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. A keyway should be established along the toe of any proposed fill slope, The outside edge of the keyway should be founded a minimum of 2-ft into medium dense to dense native and inclined into the hillside at a minimum 2% gradient The keyway excavation should expose native soils that are free of pinpoint pores and fine roots. Any existing unsuitable earth materials should be completely removed by benching during rough grade operations. Depths of removals within the keyway areas are anticipated to be at least 7-ft below the original ground surface on the outside edge of the proposed keyway pad, Prior to placement of fill materials, the exposed bedrock 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). 5.3 Fill Placement Onsite undocumented fill, undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils and bedrock units are anticipated to be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are non-expansive. A T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 981501.00 C\ I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I Mr. Andy Lakey January 31,2006 Page 7 qualified soil engineer should test import materials to determine their feasibility for use as structural fill. Approved fill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557 test method. No rocks, chunks of asphalt or concrete from the demolition of the tennis court 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 fi 11 material. 5.4 Slope Stahility & c.onstm"tion We anticipate that both cut and fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio, to a maximum height of approximately 30-ft, will be surficially and grossly stable if constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and in Appendix D of this report. Based on our review of the 20-scale "Precise Grading Plans", fill slopes are proposed to be constructed at a maximum slope ratio of 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) to maximum vertical height of 10-ft, No cut slopes are proposed for the proposed development. No changes to the existing 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) cut and fill slopes are plarmed. The importance of proper fill compaction to the face of slope carmot be overemphasized. In order to achieve proper compaction to the slope face, one or more of the four following methods should be employed by the contractor following implementation of typical slope construction guidelines; 1) track walk the slopes at grade, 2) grid roll the slopes, 3) use a combination of sheeps foot roller and track walking, and/or 4) overfill the slope 3 to 5- ft laterally and cut it back to grade. Care should be taken to avoid spillage of loose materials down the face of any slope during grading. Loose fill on the face of the slope will require complete removal prior to compaction, shaping and trackwalking. Proper seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as soon as practical to inhibit erosion and deterioration of the slope surfaces. Proper moisture control will enhance the long-term stability of the finish slope surface, 5.5 F."pansion Index Testing Expansion index testing was performed on representative onsite soil samples collected during our investigatioll. The result, which is listed in Appendix C, indicates that the expansion index for the onsite soils varied from 15 and 18, which corresponds to a VERY T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.o. NO. 981501.00 \0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Andy Lakey January 31, 2006 Page 8 LOW expansion potential (0 to 20 - 2001 CBC, Table l8-I-A), Expansion testing should also be performed on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material. 5.6 Sulfate c.ontent Based on our sulfate content testing, it is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland Cement can be used for cOllstruction. Laboratory analysis results indicated 67 parts-per-million (ppm) soluble sulfates, which equates to a NEGLIGIBLE sulfate exposure (Table 19-A-4, 2001 CBC). Sulfate content testing should be conducted within the building pad at the completion of grading. E.S. Babcock & Sons, lnc, laboratories of Riverside, California performed the laboratory testing, 5.7 C.orrosion Potentia' Corrosivity test results, which are summarized in Appendix C, indicated a saturated resistivity of 3,000 ohms/cm for the onsite near surface soils, which indicates the onsite soils are mildly corrosive (NACE International, 1984). T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering, If specific information or evaluation relating to the corrosivity of the onsite or any import soil is required, we recommend that a competent corrosion engineer be retained to interpret or provide additional corrosion analysis and mitigation, Babcock & Sons Laboratory of Riverside, California performed the laboratory analysis. 5.8 F,arthwork Fadors The following shrinkage/bulkage factors should be considered for onsite earth materials excavated and compacted during site construction. Shrinkage/bulkage values for imported soils should be evaluated when the specific borrow source is defined, Undocumented Fill Undifferentiated Alluvium/Colluvium Sedimentary Bedrock 5-10% Shrinkage 8-12% Shrinkage 0-3% Shrinkage The above shrinkage values are estimated considering an average relative compaction at the completion of grading of 92 percent for the onsite soils. An increase in relative compaction, or deeper removals, could correspond to an increase in shrinkage values. Subsidence, as a result of ground preparation, may also be anticipated on the order of 0.15 feet, occurring mostly during site construction, T.H.E. Soils Company. Inc. W,O. NO. 981501.00 \\ I I I I . I I 1 I I 1 I I I I. I I I I Mr. Andy Lakey January 31,2006 Page 9 5.9 FOllndation System ne.ign It is anticipated that the foundatioll elements for both the RV garage and the cabana will be founded entirely in compacted fill. T.H.E. Soils Company, lnc, should perform a footing inspection, prior to placement of reinforcement, to insure the proposed footing excavations are in conformance with the job specifications, The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the allowable foundation pressures and lateral bearing pressures presented for Class 4 soils on Table 18-I-A of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), The allowable foundation and lateral pressures shall not exceed the values set forth in Table 18-1-A for Class 4 soils unless data to substantiate the use of higher values are submitted. Where the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may bear on continuous and isolated footings. The footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches, and be placed at least 12-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for one-story houses, with a minimum width of 12-inches, and be placed at least 18-inches below the lowest final adjacent grade for two-story houses. Footings may be designed for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure for Class 4 soils as per Table 18-1-A of the 2001 CBC for dead plus live loads, The structural engineer should design footings in accordance with the anticipated loads, the soil parameters given, and the existing soil conditions. Total settlements under static loads of footings supported entirely on properly compacted fill and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of 1 inch for a span of 40-ft. Differential settlements between footings designed for the maximum recommended bearing value are expected to be less than 1/2-inch for a span of 40-ft, These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary. 5.10 Concrete Slah-On-r.rade Concrete slabs, in moisture sensItIve areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A 2- inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of clean sand is recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the concrete. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. w.o. NO. 981501.00 \~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Andy Lakey January 31, 2006 Page 10 5.11 IJtilily Tren"h Ra"kfill Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557 test method. It is our opinion that utility trench backfill consisting of onsite or approved sandy soils can best be placed by mechanical compaction to a minimum of90 percent of the maximum dry density, All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards as a minimum. 5.12 SlIrfa"e Orainagr Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildillgs or appurtenant structures. All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage devices, Where landscapillg and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape irrigation water. 5.13 c.onstn.dion Monitorinr: Continuous observation and testing under the direction of qualified soils engineers and/or engineering geologists is essential to veriJY compliance with the recommendations of this report and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions found are consistent with this investigation. Construction monitoring should be conducted by a qualified engineering geologist/soil engineer at the following stages of construction: . During rough grading operations including keyway and overexcavation inspections. During placement of any fill. Following excavation of footings for foundations. During utility trench backfill operations. When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading. . . . . 6.0 I .TMIT A TTONS Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locations, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.o. NO. 981501.00 \~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I Mr. Andy Lakey January 31,2006 Page II The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the cOllditions 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 call. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. Very truly yours, pt1 PI ~ect Geologist Project Manager JPF/JTR/JRH:jek A('COMPANVINr.MAPS, TT.T,TTSTRATTONS, ANO APPF,NOTCRS Figure 1 - Site Location Map (2,000-scale) Figure 2 - Historical Seismicity (264,000-scale) Plate I - Geotechnical Map (20-scale) APPENDIX A - References APPENDIX B - Exploratory Trench Logs APPENDIX C - Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX D - Standards of Grading T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. w.o. NO. 981501.00 ,A.. I !I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I APPENDIX A References T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 981501.00 ,. \"J II 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RF.FFRF,NC.FS California Division of Mines & Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California", Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California", DMG Open File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706. Carson, Scott E. and Matti, Jonathan c., 1985, "Contour Map Showing Minimum Depth to Ground Water Upper Santa Ana River Valley, California, 1973-1979", U,S,G,S, Map MF-1802, Sheet I of 2, Scale: 1:48,000, Coduto, Don, p" 1994, "Foundation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall, pages 637-655, Department of Water Resources, August 1971, "Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California", Bulletin No, 91-20, Hart, E,W., 2000, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, CD-003 (CD-ROM Version). Houston, S. L., 1992, "Partial Wetting Collapse Predictions", Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol. I, pages 302-306. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, "California Building Code". International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1998, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada to be Used with 1997 Uniform Building Code" prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code". Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No,6, JMM Consultants, 2005, "Precise Grading Plans for Proposed RV Garage & Pool Cabana, 43395 Manzano Drive, APN 945-020-005, Lot 5 of Tract 9833-2", Sheets 1 & 2 of2, Scale: 1" = 20'. Kennedy Michael P. & Morton, D. M" 2003, "Prelirninary Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California", Scale I" = 2,000', U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 03-189, Kennedy, Michael p" 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. w.o. NO. 981501.00 \1, I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I RFFF.RF.NC.FS Wontinlled) Mann, John F, Jr., October 1955, "Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone" California Division of Mines, Special Report 43. Petersen, M., Beeby, D., Bryant, W., Cao, C., Cramer, c., Davis, 1., Reichle, M., Saucedo, G" Tan, S" Taylor, G., Toppozada, T., Treiman, 1., and Wills, c., 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California", California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 48, varied scales, Rancho California Water District, March 1984, "Water Resources Master Plan". Rockwell, T.K" Millman, D.E" McElwain, R.S" and Lamar, D.L., 1985, "Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California", Lamar-Merifield Technical Report 85-1. Rogers, Thomas H" 1992, "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet", California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1 :250,000, u.s,G.S., 1997, "Pechanga, CA., 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map", Scale 1" = 2,000'. T.HE Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 981501.00 \\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B Exploratory Trench Logs T.HE Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 981501.00 \~ I I LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE NO 580M EXTENDA BACKHOE DArE OBSERVED: 11/23/05 W/24" BUCKET ELEVATION:! 1264 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP e 8 ~ w:l w . ~~ TEST PIT NO. 1 ~ ~ , ~ < SOIL TEST . . .w -" DESCRIPTION " '5 oz . 9 ,0 w 0 0 . . u V UNDOCUMENTED FILL MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE I CLAYEY SilTY SAND (8M); DARK GRAY BROWN, FINE GRAINED, MINOR COARSE AND CONTENT (MAX), SIEVE ANAL Y$IS (SA), I - MEDIUM EXPANSION INDEX (EI), SOLUBLE I UNDIFFERENTIATED ALLUVIUM/COLLUVIUM SULFATE, CORROSIVITY SUITE 5 ^ SilTY SAND (8M): DARKABAROWN, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED. MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE. MINOR PINPOINT PORES - PAUBA FORMATION .!E. SilTY SAND (8M): YELLOWISH BROWN, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, WELL GRADED, MOIST, - DENSE - - - -'2 - - - - TOTAL DEPTH = 16.0' 20 PERCHED GROUNDWATER AT 15.5' - - - - - ~ - - l- I- ~ l- I- l- I-- ~ I-- - - ~ JOB NO: 981501.00 LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE: T-1 \'\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE NO 580M EXTENDA BACKHOE DATE OBSERVED: 11/23/05 W/24" BUCKET ELEVATION:! 1264 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL MAP " ~ ~ " .. w ~ . u w , " " TeST PIT NO. 2 "- < z > r ~ . w ~ SOIL TEST ~ I;: ~ z " DESCRIPTION w 9 0 0 z U w 0 ro ro 0 V PAUBA FORMATION MAX, EI I- ^ SILT (ML): OLIVE BROWN, ABUNDANT ORANGE IRON STAINING, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE TO l- I- DENSE, MICACEOUS, STIFF, BECOMING DENSER WITH DEPTH l- S l- I- TOTAL DEPTH = 5.0' l- I-- NO GROUNDWATER ~ ~ - - 20 - - - ~ - - - - ~ - l- I- I- ~ t- - ~ JOB NO: 981501.00 LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE: T-2 1..0 I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I II I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I il I APPENDIX C Laboratory Test Results T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO. 981501.00 1--\ I II I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I T.A ROR A TORY TFSTTNr. A. c.Jassifi"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. Rxpansion Index Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 Ib/ft2, in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard No, 29-2. The test result is presented on Figure C-l, Table I. C. Maximllm Oensity/Optimllm Moistllre c.ontent Maximum density/optimum moisture content relationships were 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-l, Table II, and presented graphically on Figures C-2 & C-3. D. P9rtirle Si7.e np.tp.rmin~lfion 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. The test results are shown on Figure C-4. E. SlIlfate 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-l, Table III and Figure C-S. F. C.orrosivity SlIite A corrosivity suite test was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D 4318, The test results are presented on Figure C- 1, Table IV and Figure C-5. T.HE Soils Company, Inc. W.o. NO. 981501.00 2,7" I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE I EXPANSION INDEX I TEST LOCATION I EXPANSION INDEX I EXP ANSlON POTENTIAL I T-l @0-5 ft 18 VERY LOW T-2 @ 0-2 ft 15 VERY LOW TABLE II MAXIMUM DENSITY /OPTlMUM MOISTURE RELA TlONSHIP ASTM D 1557 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE TEST LOCATION (pcf) (%) T-I @ 0-5 ft 125.6 9.3 T-2 @ 0-2 ft 99.4 25.1 TABLE III SULFATE CONTENT TEST LOCATION SULFATE CONTENT T-1 @0-5 ft 67 ppm TABLE IV CORROSIVITY SUITE SATURATED REDOX TEST LOCATION RESISTIVITY pH POTENTIAL SULFIDE T-1 @ 0-5 ft 3,000 6.6 99 Negative Figure C-1 T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. NO, 981501.00 ~!? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 135 4- tl Cl. 125 , on .... '" c " ." on 1213 L 0 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE 1313 " , I\. " \ I\. "- " lo-" """ .. I\. ~ ..... \. . ..... "- ..... " I~ " '\ 1"- I\. " "- I\.. " I\.. 115 ZAV for Sp.G.= 2.75 lIB 5 7.5 113 12.5 15 17.5 213 Water content, % Test spec If I cat I on: ASTM D 1557-91 Method A, Modified Oversize correction appl ied to final results Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI % > % < Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.2BB 0-5 SM 5.8 ~ 2.75 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dr~ denslt~ = 125.6 pcf Optimum moisture = 9.3 % DARK BROWN SILTY SAND Remarks: Project No.: 9815131.1313 Project: LAKEY Location: T-1 Date: 1-24-213136 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE C-2 't-~ Fig. No. Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-91 Method A, Modified Oversize correction applied to finel results Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I 110 105 4- U "- 100 , :J) +' '" C " ." 9S :J) L 0 0-2 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE 90 ... .... ... .... ... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .... .... .... .... ..... ~ ". .... ... ..... ... ... ,; ..... ... .... ~ '" I'- I' , ., " .- ZAV for Sp. G. = 2.85 85 23 24 2S 26 27 28 29 LL PI % > % < No . 4 No . 200 23.4 % 2.85 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 99.4 pcf Optimum moisture = 25.1 % LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND Remarks: Project No.: 981501.00 Project: LAKEY Location: 1-2 Date: 1-24-2006 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE ?5 Fig. No. C-3 c c . S ~ ; . . G - N - - : : '" : " : : : "- : : : N : : \ : \. : : : : : I: : 1: II : I: : : I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 100 90 eo 70 a:: weo z u::: '2:50 W o a:: W40 Q. 30 20 10 'IIi COBBl ES 0.0 SIEVE SIZE 3/4 in. 1/2 in. 3/8 in. 114 1/10 1/30 1/50 1/100 1/200 Particle Size Distribution Report . .E t::!.5 -E .5 ~ o ~ ~ ~ Il ~ E 'IIi GRAVEL 1.3 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm 'IIi SAND 41.4 0,1 0,01 0,001 'IIi SILT 'IIi CLAY I 57.3 PERCENT SPEC: PASS? FINER PERCENT (XENO) 100.0 99.5 99.5 98.7 94.2 78.0 65.3 57.4 57.3 Soil DescriDtion PL= Atterbera Limits LL= PI= Coefficients 060= 0.205 050= 015= 010= Cc= Classification AASHTO= 085= 0.917 030= Cu= USCS= Remarks (00 spccifica1ioo provided) Sample No.: T-I Location: Soun:e of Sample: Date: 1/26/06 ElevJDepth: 0-5 Client: LAKEY project: ~ C-4 T.H.E. SOilS CO. Plate P No: 981501.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Celebrating a Century of Reliable Data NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156 6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507-0704 P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432 PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 653-1662 www.babcocklabs.com ~;~ d_L:l Established 1906 E,S, BABCOCK & SONS, INC. Client Name: 1. H, E, Soils Co. Contact: John p, Frey Address: 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G Murrieta, CA 92562 Report Date: 20-Dec-2005 Analytical Report: Page 12 of 14 Project Name: No Project Project Number: No Project Work Order Number: A5L0904 Received on lee (Y IN): No Temp: oc Laboratory Reference Number A5L0904-11 Sample Description 981501001T-1@0-5Lakey Matrix Soil Sampled DatelTime 12/09/0500:00 Received DatelTime 12/09/05 17:10 Analyte(s) Result ROL Units Method Analysis Date Analyst Flag pH Units S-1,10W,S, 12/19/0515:17 era mV SM 2580 12/19/0515:17 era ohm-cm SM 25208 12/19/0515:17 era N/A Water Elution 12/19/0515:17 era ppm Ion Chroma!. 12/15/05 09:07 KOS N-SAG, N_WEX Saturated Paste pH Redox Potential 6.6 99 0,1 1,0 Satu rated Extract Saturated Resistivity Sulfide 3000 NEG 5 Water Extract Sulfate 67 10 z,1 ~~ ,~ 1- <:) co '" '" '" "- C> _ C-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D Standards of Grading t:b T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W,O. NO. 981501.00 I I STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFlCA nONS Th~ specifications pre!itnl T .H.E. Soils Company, !Undard rcconuntlldations fOr grading and earthwork. I No deviation from these specifications should be permitted wtless specifically superseded in the geotechnical report afthe project or by writtm communication signed by the Soils Consuhanl. Evaluations pcrformoo by the Soils Consuhant during tIle CQun>e {)f grading may resuh. in SUbscqUlDt recommendations whidl could sup~c these splX.--ifications or the reconuut2ldations of the geotechnical rqJOrt. I 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 The Soils Consultant is the Owners or Developer's representative on the projed. For the purpose ofthcsc specifications, obsavations by the Soils Coosuhant include observations by the Soils Engineer, Soils Engineer. Engineering Geologist, and others employed by and responsible to the Soils Consultant. I 1.2 All clearing. site prq>aration, or earthwork performed on the project shall be COflducted and directed by the Contractor under the alloWlll1('e or supenrision of the Soils Consuhant. I 1.3 I 1.4 I 1.5 I 1.6 I 1,7 SITE PREPARATION A final rqwrt shan be issued by the Soils Consu1tant attesting lothe Contractor's oooformance wilh these specifications. I 2.0 2,\ I 2.2 I 2,3 I I 2,4 I 2.5 The Contractor should be responsible for the safay of the project and satisfactory oomplaion of all grading. During grading. the Contractor shall remain aCOf'SSible. Prior to the commencemart of grading. the Soils Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and office services for conformance with the recommendations of the geotedmical report and these specifications. h will be necessary that the Soils Consuhant provide adequate testing and obsavations so that he may provide an opinion as to determine that the work was accomplished as specified. h shall be the responsibility of the Cootractor to assist the Soils Consuhant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his pasoonel aocordingly. h shan be the sole responsibility of the Cootrador to provide adequate equipmart and methods to accomplish the work in ao.:ordance with applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Soils Consuhant, Wlsatisfadory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture condiLion, inadequate compaction, advm:e weather, ac., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications., the Soils Consuhant will be empowm::d to n:ject the work and reconunend th81 construction be slopped until the conditions are redified. h is the Contractor's responsibility to provide safe access to the Soils Consuhant for testing and/or grading observation putposes. This may require the excavation of test pits and/or the relocatioo of grading equipmart. All vegdation and deleterious material shan be disposed of off-site. This removal shall be obsEnred by the Soils Consultant and concluded prior to fill plaocma1l. Soi\, alluvium, oc _ -.rials ddcrmined by the Soils {'~a.'''' as being unauitab\e foc pl_ in """"aded fills sbal1 be removed from the site or used in apa1 areas as determined by the Soils Ccosultant. Any material incorporated as a part of a ~aded fill must be approved by the Soils CrIftC!Illtttnf priorto fill p1a<:elIlClll.. Afta-the _d aurfaeeto roceive fill bas been cleared, it &han be scarified, diaced andloc bladed by the euu.dor until it ia uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hlt~ or <<her unevm features whidl may prevmt uniform ~actim. The acarified .,.....J _ _ tha1 be brougIIl to aptimum moislure, """'" as roquired, and .,,,,,,,ded as TpCCified. \fth. acarified zooe ia flC'lk<than _ iadoes in depth, the """'"" _ be removed and placed in 1iIIa... to """"'" aix _... oc_ Priorto placing fill, the _d ourfioeeto roceive fill &hall be oboaved, IA:liled, and approved by the Soils Conaullanl. Any undezground 9lrUctw'eS or cavities sudI as cesspools, cist.ems. mining shafts, tunnels, sqrtictmtks, wells, pipe lines. or othen are to be removed or treated in a mamJ.a' presaibed by the Soils CmsuI1anL In all.,filltnoaitionlolB ..d wbcro all I... are partially in aoiI. ooIluvium oc.....eathcTed bedrock -.riala, in ...... to provide uniform bearing oonditions, the bedrol;k portioo of the lot exlatding a minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines &halt be ova-excawted . minimum of 3 feet and fq)laced wilh compacted fin. Greater overexcavatioo could be required as ddennin:ed by Soils ConIUhanl. Typical details are attached. I 3,\ 3.0 COMPACTED FILLS I I M8ta:ia1 to be placed as fill _II be free of organic mati.<< and c6.<< dekterious substanocs. and shan be approved by the Soils Consultant. Soils of poor p.dation, expaosioo, or strm(!#h c:baradaUtics 1Ib.1I be placed in areas desigrrated by Soils Consubard. or shall be mixed wilh dher soils to serve as 881iJfactory fill material. as dircded by the Soils Consuhant. Z!\ I I Stand.1.rd Grading and Earthwork SplX.;lialti~'l!lS Pagl.::2 I 3.2 I I 3.3 3.4 I 3.5 I 3.6 I 3,7 3,8 I I 3,9 I 3.10 I 3,1\ 3.12 I Rock fragmmL" ll.::sS than six indu~ in diamder may he utilizOO in thl.:: till. provided: They are no!. placed orncs1ed in cono::ntrated pockct.<;. There is a sufficient amoWlt of approved soil to surround the rocks. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Consultant. Rocks greater than twelve inches in diam~er shall be taken off-site, or placed m accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical dctail for Rock Disposal is attached.) Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered Wlsurtable shall not be used in the compacted fill. Rqm~art.ative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Consuhant to ddermine their physical properties. lfany material otherthan that previously tested is mcountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Consultant before being approved as fill material. Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a lDliformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, lDlless otherwise approved by the Soils Consuhant. lfthe moisture contmt or relative compaction varies from that. required by the Soils Consultant, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Consultant. Each layer shan be compacted to at least 90 percmt of the maximum density in compliance with the testing mahod specified by the controlling govenunental agmcyor ASTM 1557-70, whidlever applies. If compactioo to a lesserpercent&.ge is authorized by the ccntrolJing govenunmtal agency because of a specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area to receive:fill oompaaed to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan and/or appropriate refermce made to the area in the gectedmical report. All fills shall be keyed and bendted througtl an topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, or aeep material. into SOWld bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds 8 ratio oftive horizontal to one vertical or in accordance with the reconunendations of the Soils Consuhant. The key for side bill fills shall be a minimum widlh of 15 feet within bedrodc or firm materials, unless oIh<lwise specified in the gectedmioal rq>orl (Seecldail attadlod) Subdrainage devices shall be construded in compliance with the ordinances of the oootrolling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Soils Consuhant. (fypical Canyon Subdrain cldails are attadlod) The oontrador wiD be JeqUired 10 obWn a minimum rdalive oompadim of alleast 90 pcr=rt out 10 the finisb dope face offill dopea. - and _m IiUs. This may be adlievod by eith... eve< buildingthe dope and adling back 10 the OOIJlIl'Ided ooro, or by _ OOIJlIl'Iction of the dope faoe with auilabIe~ or by..y _prooedure, whidl produo<s the JeqUired OOIJlIl'Ictim approved by the Soils Cmsuhant. I 3,14 3.13 All fil1dopcs should be planted or prtteded fillm erosim by db<< methods specified in the Soils rq>ort. 4.0 CUT SLOPES I 4,1 4,2 I 4,3 I 4,4 I 4,5 I Fill-over-<Ul alopes lIball be properly keyed througlttop..u. colluvium or ""'" material into rock or firm materials, and the trauailim lIball be Ilripped of all aoiI prior 10 placing fill, (See _ed cldai1.) The Soils Consuhantllhall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals exoeedingfive fed. If any oonditiOOl n<t anticipated in the gootedmical rq>orl sum as penited wata', seepage, lentiadar or ClOllfined strata of a p<Untially advene nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fauk planes _ during l!I"Iin& th_ oanditions shall be ..a1yzed by the Soils Consultant, and 1~d8lioos man be made to mitigaletheseproblems. (T)pical dttails for lltabilization of a portion of a cut slope are dadud.) Cut slopes that. face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slopewuh by a non-aodible intecccptor swale placed at thetop of the slope. Unless otherwise specified in the ~iC81 report., no cut slopes shall be excavated higbCl" or tileeper than that allowed by the ordinances of oontroIling governmental agencies. Drainageterraces Ihall be constructed in OOlq)liance with the ordinances of controning govanmmtal agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils Consuhant. ?:P I I ~'landard Grading and Earthwork Sp......-ificatiollj; Pag~J I 5.0 5.1 TRENCH BACKFILLS Trmm excavation shall be m.speded prior to structure placertlU"1t for competent bottom. I 5.2 5.3 I 5.4 I 5.5 5,6 I TrcrH:h excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled undcrthe supervisioo of the Soils Consuhant. After the utility pipe has ~ laid, the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with cle4ln sand or approved granular soil10 a depth of at least one fool over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jdted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand. The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the Soils Consultant, shall be watered. and mixed, as necessary, prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill. The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density, as ddermined by the ASTM D1557~70 or the controlling governmental agency. Field density tests and insped.ion of the backfill procedures shall be made by the Soils Consuhant during backfilling to see that proper moisture content and lUlifonn oompadion is being maintained. The contrador shall provide test. holes and exploratory pits as required by the Soils Consultant to enable sampling and testing. I 6,1 6.0 GRADING CONTROL Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Consultant during the progress of grading. 6,2 I 6.3 I II 6.4 In gmeral, density tests should be made at i:ntavals nct exceeding two feet of fill heiWrt or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed This criteria will vary dqxnding on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number offield density tests mall be made to verifY that the required compadion is being amieved. Density tests mould also be made on the native surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Consultant. All clean~ processed ground to received fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals mould be inspected and approved by the Soils Consuhant prior to placing any fill. It shan be the ContradOr's responsibility to notifY the Soils Consuhant when sum areas will be ready for insped.ion. 7,1 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.0 I 7.2 I 7,3 I I I I I I Erosion cmtrol measures., when necessary, shall be provided by the Cootrador during grading and prior to the compldion and oonstrudim of permanent drainage oontrols. Upoo. COII1'Icti.oo. of grading and tellDDultioo. of inspedions by the Soils Cnnqnltllnf. no fiutha- filling or eKC8vating. including that necessary for r.....W' roundati_IarJlo-weUs.....mmg walls, or olher r........ ....n beperfonned wilhoollhe approval of the Soils CoosuIlanl. Care mall be taken by the Cootrador during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or oth<< devioes of permanent nature 00. or adjacent to the property. "?\ I r. 11 I : I [ I [ I [ I I' I ,- I [ I I" I f. I -\ i , I I I I I I I I OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL I I: I' , SIDE HILL CUT PAD DETAIL - NATURAL", __-- GROUND :::--- -- -- ---- -- ...... ...... ...... ...... ./ ...... ,.., FINISHED CUT PAD UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR , .r- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ----1 r THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SUB DRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN ~z.. ~ FINISH GRADE ___=_-============j::=:t.:::~==~==~===-::::--:::-=--:::-=-=-:::-:::-::::-::::-~ _-=-==}:~3=3=====-~~=~~f-I:~=:-~=~==~~~~ ~LCLT ~-~==jf=:r SLOPE --------------f---------- FACE . '~=~=~=~~~?i~=~=~=~~=~==~=~~~=~;~~;~n=;~ c5~E===3:__-_-_-~_-_-_-~-_-_-_-_-_-_-~.:?:::-_-:..__=_-___=_- -_---~~- --------~------------------------~-~~~~ --t============~~-U------====~~i==n- - =~==~=~==~n------=-===j::=~~=-'- -:-"--::~ _-_-_-_-_-E___=_-_-_ ------::=:::J:::::"'!:ll -----=---------__=_- ___=_-_-_- ___=_"':J ~ .!"!~ IN.~---~-=-=-=_::::___=_-____=_-_-=-=- --; - - - ___=_-}-=-:.---=----------=-j-_-:_-=-:.--- --------:/-----________4 MIN. --i---IC' MIN :,;;;.:---- --=----:-------=- --r_~_- ___=_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-____=_-_ __ _ ----T--:..: -='_ _ -..:.:.."1----_- ----------:-V~~~--------- ~------------- :"""--------------=- ---~---~~---------------- ~=~.=-:::---------------------:-- =~==~===S=~3f=E==~====-::::-j_ =t==3=======3=3==-=~-=-..o-==}:==~-=-=----- -- '--- ---- ---:;E'------- --=--- --=--_-_-_ -_ _:.. -_ -_-_ -...:~ -_-_ -_-; - - ~-,::..::.;>--:..--------------:.:: OVERSIZE,.- --- WINDROW! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL GRANULAR SOIL'_ . To TilT voids, " densified by flooding PROFILE ALONG WINDROW --- -- --.----- -- ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT N;',TURAL GROUND \ T__ -- -- -- .... --- \..: ~ - :~-Q~lA_CTED :::FI LL :-=-=--:::;:::::--':::-::--t?-~~:--:'-~ ~--------:+ --------------- 36" MIN. ------------- ."i ---j:..: '\V /"- .___________--c..___..._~\r:'--....._- ....... 111 ....... \ +. --=-=-:::-=-=-=-:;;'---:::::~-:--~'i>~~':::"':'~~-=-= \ ~_ --~-------:-t.S\J_~:"'-'----------- OVER EXCAVATE AND RE\..OMPAC I ---,-__ ",-\.l ___~ '''-''/A'' --.-....."''.J~ ----"'-- -~~~~~-~:.:~:~ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR . j ;-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ~. 1 THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT -- -- CUT LOT - -- --- - NATUR.ii.i GROUND 1- - - - - NOTE: Deeper overexcovotion and recomooction sholl be performed if de!ermined '0 be necesscry by the geotec!>nico( consultonl. ?j\ I': ~ LIs' I I~ MIN.r 1 ~ - - - ,..:':_-.-.--- - - _. ~-~~~~~=~~r ! mLu, - __=_ _=_ _=_ - - -. -r '. 30" MIN. ---.... -~~~~~~~- BACKr.UT _-=-=======~:::-=-:::- "/---1'''''_ I: i OR -FlA HE -----------_-_-_~~ BENCHING ----=-=-2%~~--=---~=;;~ SUBORAIN - -----.--...1 / '--E ALTE~"AT-C: A __--=-:=~.I=~~~~=-=-=-=~-r~l vC: t1j~ C'-J r\ ~t -~-=-=-:::-=-r--::::-=-=-=-=~=-=~ %-~ ----c::~:~~31f=~~:t:~:~:~yy// F1LT)c~,~:/~_C~AL ~h _\ ----::::-=-=-=-=-.=-=::-~-:::_:::_1_=-=__::::-:::_- /' T-CONNEC,ION '''- ~d"" r---------,.OC.--,-'-----/'.J>- . x:~:-+ 1"""- 1 .... ,- ,---- r__ _r~A 5%MIN /.'.~4- . ~ -,0-' '-~;""""---j...J.LL t :A ------------~ '" ~::J'" -'"= -, / ------=-----2",o"M1'n -------. -:'---E'P"'~ ,,,," t / __. --- J ~'------f.. CUI\. . I - - ...... ,,1 I EOu;;;;i~~t ~~~J~ Y 15 reT .1 SLOPE BUTTRESS REPLACEMENT FILL OR o ET AI L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OUTLET PIPES 4" f] t'-Jonperforoted Pipe , ' , 100' Max_ O.c. I-'orizontally, 30' Mox. O.C. Vertically KEY DEPTH i ~ I 2' MIN. ".. El MIN. PS:;:;F::;:V.. TE:) P!FS AL TERNA TE A TE~.iPOAARY FILL LEV EL 8" MIN. OVE.?L..:..? .POSITIvE SCAL~ SHOULD aE Y PROVIDED AT THE JOONT 5%MrN.~ , . - - RECOMPACTEO FILL IlL/. = =:- o";'\\IN.SELECT BEODING --L SACKFILL . a M~'l, NONPEilFORA TED / PIPE / .~ I !:zoo MIN. GRAVEL OR ( APPRovED " ~~ur"AL:~H MIRA;l 140 FIL TE:1 FABRIC OR APPRoveo EOUIV ALENT DETAIL A-A' AL TERNA TE 8 . NOTES: .. Fill blanket, bock cut, key width and key depth ore subject to field change, per report/plans. . .' Key..heel subcrain, ,blanket drain, or vertical drain may-be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. . SUBORAIN INST ALlA TION - Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations cown 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) ar ASTM 03034 SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic , , FILTER MATERIAL: Filter material sholl be Closs 2 permeable material per State of California Standard Specifications, 'or approved alternate. Closs 2 grading os follows: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING I" 100 3/4" ~O-I 00 3/8" 40-100 No.4 25-40 No.8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 .,p No. 50 -J-7 No. 200 0-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BENCHING DETAILS - . ---------------- _-_--:....-::=:_ C.QMP ACTEQ :::.:...=...:-:...=-:::: -----------:...----~FJLL :...-------:...---..: --------------------- -=-=~-===========~-===~::====-==:;:---?~-:.~~ ;p;;','~~;:c;;7,;m '0' __~~=~~@~~~@sr~~~--'" or slope to cpproved ground --...:------:z-z-...:-------;:--------:r- \ _ _-_-_-~./- ----...:---.... r 'kY;:"" REMOVE " _-.:-2:~-:-=-=-~-~_::-=-J< 1 UNSUITABLE ~'- C_-------:?:.----" f '1^-I~RI^' NATURAL '-. --------...- ,~, ~ ,,~ -. ~~ GROUND \ _-~ ...:-======~~=~:=== I 4' MIN. i " , /I, _/-___,...------ f<- ~ BENCH ~-7-A'''' , I-Y-7~~------:------~- i BENCH: HEIGHT ,r-' -L ~y:----2O;--M-IN-:-----:... (tvpical) 'VARIES ~____ ,C .___, . _ -----:==>0----- /' T 18'\ //'.,'\:11',- 2' Ml~,L 1 15' MIN. I KEY t'LOWEST BENCH-, DEPTH (KEY) FiLL SLOPE FILL OVER CUT SLOPE _-: COMPACTED ::-=-:::;::::-:' ----..:---l FILL =---:-~----~ _~~=-=-=-=_:.:_-~_~-~--z _-=-=:=:=:~=~:~=:-:-::z~-=-- ----~----- ~ ... ____________."J'_ -------------..,.---- ---------------- REMOVE. NATURALz~-=-=-:z= ' UNSUITABLE GROUND",...., :.?'---~------~ . I MATERIAL \. _ ~- _-_--:...-..;;.--c-- 'r4' MIN: \, _ ---==--- .. BENC~ _ \_ - - ~-~}2%-MiN.~- . ,(typicaIJ1 __ T - -- __-......---~15'MIN.~ ...... ...- LOWEST BENCH ...... BENCH HEIGl;IT VARIES ...- CUT FACE To be constructed prior to fill placement ...... ...... NOTES: LOWEST BENCH; Depth and width subject to field change . based C~ consultant's inspection. S~~DRAIIJAGE;, e:c;' (~:::.,~ mcy be required at the jiscretlon or the geotechnical consultant. ~ I II I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CANYON SUBORAIN DETAIL ~ NATURAL GROUND "",- ~ REMOVE +--~ UNSUITABLE \:..",-: -~ --- --:...-:... -----:...--'-.:...------:...---:...---- -- --------:...-:...-:...-~-_- MA TER IAL ~~~=-==~===~==::-COMF;AC2~~-FI~~~=====~=~~ / "N'H'NG ~ t=::::\'Sf:::::~=-:-:=::::=:::::::::::~~ J ~=~==~~===~~~==~~~~~~ .;;------~----------.:...-----------..;Z-----~ ~"'/t'..., ~~-----:....-_-_---~_{ '.,.,,1......' "r=-=~~~~~~~D:t~~RT:p~T~C; ASB SUBDRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With ALTERNATE A: Filter Materia! ..-- FILTER ~ATERIAL~ 9 ft. 1ft. /. ., + COVER .':...~.' "",. . 6" M1N.------- .' ..:....., BEDDING AI!ernate A-1 PERFORATED 6" flMIN. SUB DRAIN 1 1/2" Gravel Wrapped AL TERNA TE 8: in Filter Fabric ~~6"""N. OVERLAP~r- /h ~\ MIR:'FI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EOUIV ALENT I Yz" MIN. GRAVEL OR APPROVED EO UNA LENT 3 9 ft. 1ft. ~ FILTER MATERIAL: Filter materiel :shell be Closs 2: permeable mC1'erial per Stote of California Standard $pecifico1ions, or approved alternate. Cless 2 grodirwg cs follows: SIEVE SIZE PERCEiH PASSING I" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 100 ~O-ICO 40-100 25-40 /8-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 NOTE: In addition to the wrapped grovel, outlet portion of the subdrain should be' equipped with a minimum of 10 feet long perforated pipe con- nected to 0 nonperforated pipe having a minimum of 5 feet in length inside the wrapped grove I. . SUBORAIN INST ALLA TION - Subdrain pipe sholl be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, sholl be nonperforated pipe. . SUBORAIN TYPE - Sub drain type shall be ASTM 02751, SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM 03034 SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01785, Schedule 40 "1,1 POlyvinal Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalant ,..