HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 50 Limited Geotechnical Investigation
I T .H.E. SoilJ Co., Inc.
Phone: (951) 894-2121 FAX: (951) 894-2122
141548 Eastman Drive, Unit G . Murrieta, CA 92562
E-mail: thesoilsco@laol.com
"I
"I
"I
,1
I
II
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. May 31, 2006
Mr. Bob Federighi
13MB Technical Services
26111 Ynez Road, Suite C-4
Temecula, California 92591
SUBJECT: T.TMTTF.O r.F.OTF.CHNTCAT. TNVF.STTr.ATTON
Proposed Garage Addition at Existing Residence
bOt 30;_Tfact3883
40550 Calle Madero
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Work Order No. 1060601.00
Dear}\vIr. Federighi:
In accordance with your request, we have performed a Limited Geotechnical Investigation for the
proposed garage addition 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 30-
scale "Precise Grading and Erosion Control Plan" prepared by BMB Technical Services
Consultants, which was utilized to locate our exploratory borings 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 lNTROmJrTTON
1.1 Propn~pcl np.vp.lnpnu~nt
The proposed development calls for the construction of a two-story garage with associated
bedroom, bath and remodeling of the existing garage into a study and sitting room. It is our
understanding the proposed construction will consist of a wood-framed, stucco-sided
structure with conventional footings. It is anticipated that minor cut/fill grading will be
utilized to achieve design grade.
1.2 Site Oe.cription
The subject site has been developed as a single-family residence with attached garage and
landscaped areas. The subject site is located at 40550 Calle Madero in the Meadow Brook
area of the city of Temecula, 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. 1060601.00
I
fJ ~ ' :---.1"/-'- Ii':::II'l'~ .."
,r,,!.< :~~ _ _ ._'.. ot' . 'lP" ~ f"u_\f ~l"" ~. ~~.~:9'" Jk:<\,,~ .-.::; :~:}:-
1 '..~..,~ ~-.o ~-~,....',.., ,,-./', I l~"""v' ," ;:'nV-11' :;1l~1~<1\Z...:'~.i~>/'
.fJf?:', ~:"7r--.f"-k-'-;\:2='" ':-<r{() , (7.Jr,t~.. '. <' iW~ 1) Yr.,,-="'~: -::i/' ~v. j.
:'?'~^. r.. .. ,y F;;~I "'" "". ~., ~s . _ .",.:5-~.~Qb ff-';!;r 'IL; ; \~'\. .'~' r :
{:' i."J.-' ~~'(-K '\0 I J7 ".----.'{'-l l'1i,'f\--. P t::e .Il;'IJ~"-'~~~r J,.;' I 'f:: ""; \i~ ..:r.-..-" .
1 .. ~l ~-jJ T '.- a. Ri-~' . "- cr' "--' -...... ~)}f'-- , ."'..,-~ Ii ~.~-..uYJ, I'"' 0 \. ; ~1. --.::...- :..- ' .',
7!'! ,<' 'tic. .f/p~~''f'/i -\:- . ~J...-c 1.//:.'/ I'." ':::::./ A."I' '-, ""~'~.' ".
.",' .;'>,-~\. ;:"~~.~-'~( ,?""J! ' ::J -..r--.. ..,,(.\....~ -- .,... -~.+. '. ,-.., "4 -1' "-~~ .,"
. r .' fif:~~jf/' .cr 1. "'0,,0ilCa. . ?-~~jJrr~~'%\\~' ~ ~ / :. '- ::-~..,"/. '2 1 IJW I~' a
~~ffoo~~ j\.~-:;" ~_.) ;f;:'~'=? ~~~~~~[S ~/ 2.4& /,//..0= :~~~ (fC~;j : .... . \\c ~ ;;:7
'1 0(1~, 1-.0 r~),c-:S ")i!'~'Nl-c ^o:", .':.':-f..@' .. '-"~ f..t"I~.,-:'2- ~'i~.
~~ ,IJ--. \-,},.. 011 ,,\ .1Jr< -/C::.::)'-\ -~_."",,,'. ~.J1-~'( lwj'..-: I '-. .- --'~~...rJJ7'
"lV'-'\...;p ,I" (\/1'6i,.., !\ U'-.:C: I"-hi ,:1') ,/ ..' i f'\I'(..1" <: .~ ! 0.' " ~...
~~ ~~Sl '!'/ifl{\./ -; .r,~ rf:i/>h / r rr:((!f''il,-?'"' 1jj\/ .5 I. ......:: ....
1 ?j~;;j )1~~~~J5"{(dJ "'- ~l ~;~1 ff"~! N YZ~~~j<:~~ .\~./ '.,11 (IJ -:-. \:
~{50'f;L Ir!.. 2i\1>J1.<:"[j'5 1 ~..:j0 /,f ~~(( ~:AW>4~~<'>~~F( Il?.,.' {....,,~~~:
",W,::VI}O..,..f' ) "c (.!,J'~, L (ff4;;~'; '''', Iy,; . .' 'fif%{~"'; /,5\)..Q":!.~_~
1 - -' I'\J:' ''- . -' . .,: -
<' "'-.' '0. I ',"'.. ) ''1''''-. . -v '" \ . ~7(__' <~ '" .; \. .",
. ~--(;U(~S~!Y.I;t' 'jl';oW1:i/.i'fi/J't ,-,--~'R~" I-~'-;;: ~fi"~:;=-:2j~~~~ .'1,,:': . /'1_...-/'
~...;. i I ./, ~ m'I),~ j . '7 :JM ;. :..------... -'~6 ~ ~J::.,/ !~j/- .... AO
1 ,=~'-"~'i:?f~ ,;:;:~~~.'''0-~ ~,i-' r::"~!:'-'':'"'' -. '-.,ljll;'S!2?/1g?~ " 1'~;::C---:5i' ~
,....~f~<~<~.~i[r-;~rf,:(~1';)fi~~.~))\~.).~<:.'/ ~. ~(t~W0~::: ..~~~fff:' ...~
\), ''-.J _~ r: ~~r J ~. ~;;;~- ~ y . ....",'" - t-:::;:::::::--- ~ev- ___~~.:~ 1/1 -. '.,
~ .1 '-;:""'->> ;~ (C'....) 'f( ,'" '. "~" j ..,.0<- :,? :.'<l. . '. / '
1 A:-, ,/-;-( f..-//~-;' ~\..0 I Jr .. :.r::. : .....e- .--', ~--- ,--.--~r 'I..:, :.';., :; ~.
'.JI .'.; ;:;;;r~,. '0 i CJ5 ... .!> .: . 0 ,'! ''''''y '(iO'o 1. eX,;' ~ir30 _:.
Ir:f)jf- ''.7\~~~ ~~jl ~~)X. -i' 2'~ ,,0 )f )1[ i " \.... ," fa '-J~7 ~
.r'~: )i\"~~. ~~r:;~~::3\\O~/ I.~ -.~((.c. --. -<.~ I c:! )1 I \--._:_-. ,--i:/~58' ..
I<~ ~! ~ /- q J~'" --;;))ff. ;p' ;":' +<#:. -;:J",."-.{.. 7(~ '\ r"\..\ \ u - 1,,_.
1 '7S"I/'-.'-.J ? ,~oN~" -';'~ ,~/-. ..~., ~:f;;;, . ( _\\'10>..1 \CC~ \-.. n: .',.,.,. '
'L.-:? _._.J 'j' J - I::..J II / . :' ,~' /;1 ...........)#~-c.~~ 0' _ _ l:i J:_-:\. \ .
I. ./ 1'~(CI(eJSJ 'tJ ,'f'''- ,.1, !.rJj-?--f(/<::/f~-.i;lt-./1f.~'/' {:f.- 'S:.. I ~. :::,/~..) . .~
, ,b.~r'dW' /;;1'/,.. If ".0 ,ff'-'~. \'-...- ~~l-::;'iVr1'(~i(S~t!7. .' r~>_-:~',l!\~~< ~
~ I ''''';j.c."".,.. "
If': Ui;. . ~., ::-:: -~- - --'---
II'. '1(!(i'lCV' 1/( / .'d M 012.'0" i<F;>o",,- ~~ 'r l!!fif/1 ,I .a:F': ~ .
ift...ti~!.'re"-~,,- . .' . ;, :j{~5l-' (0::?v , ., . (I~V J/ ( ~.'! .' ~. ' ,
Prif'~;lA~r;?s..:!J/ ~'~ .W~I:~,; ~:~~\i@:,:ftc;I~~'14'" '~ ~~~~ <>~1: "J; ~~~"c?:. ':).:
1 A ,....:;['" ! c=--. '/ / " 'mj-j/ ?!dL;?,~ H ~ .r~c. :.7e~.- 1 '--'" -~.. - -
~;'j'~~~';U.,Wii.Jt~;.,. /)W~~i'f~W'--/."1' :~~~ t~~.~~:Lt':'~~:;T
;,;; :c~~ r I <>. '",," .~~~./ ~ '" .v ;r--.~_ "-.2005 I '-~.....,.J~', . --, ~ '
1 ,)J(\./ "/' L-", '?A ) u,b '::;A~~--' .J.,,~ -:;-5 I . .. ~ ~~. ....
11 .~:-/~ \ t'1Ri?,', .>'~'l _-!". (.;k'.:;"'?Jf(~~r< I ~ ::~:,.":":;;;~"
~ (~'+""~f ...,..;, ) ':'rf'23..!-----'. ~~' .,i~:: ~N1.1~~ ,__.. i;':.., "."'--.;'"
. '. '" "'" \ ./)y~tt'~ ~~""~;p~l-:--""C 1;r?'~~~..:l-_.
I ,,~ "~...R ~;;'" V?kk .~--rr~~~~>~~":' c--. ~>'- 'Y~. -V.Iii:' ~'. </-:
. ~,,' ' '..J' Ji..':lJ7::' :~,L;b (~(S' 3'~ ~ ~ ~m:;7<'':' S\.f-"; -:: 1-- '. ii.. / -c:: <'2
'. ~" ,A'..;, i' . - '1 l..~O cf[; ~~~ rk--?", ". ~~~ 1 '::".J S '..~"
. "< . '.' _, -.- ,'....J~ "---__ I'. r () :'l~ ,_ ,0
1 "::;" ,~'.., '\ -' \::."..^~.. ~ .. ~~:t~ ~"i!t(gf.hlE' ~.: ~!:9_~,~ . ,'-1 V ~:( . .::> ~.. "nO"
Jj_, ;~. ~ K :\ \ ,.Ilqf- ~ ~ __~:/"'i, ~I o~-r<r,.~b~ .--' 12112 ::.j i ",'.J"3'~k.:
. \~. .. ;'\" ",/;1< I~~~t. . :",'='-.4 ~..~~ ,""" L '. .!_....co:.,. '._
'-'~,'.""'\.. A':~ 0' i\ "\t ,," j, --. - ':~o. .,.' 0~'r\::At~ .!-
1 ...,,<,,'i1:\. .,' . '.'I<A ,~..--:;0\-: ? _<C~ '::..T~r!" ~';5." . '.'/ -- '1~-J\f!:J:A:~~
'~~: -.:;.:~~~~~_ ~~~?~~"!~ ~ /<r i'lf;..=.'j' "
~'..\.. '-~<,.\;' '~y '0::J:;~..-" ~.-:-.(..'~~~ \ 0'..:( ~~/ .~~_5. : r
1 \/1, "~ ~o/~-~~;/aiLO~rt~~~~':'( ie) ,.lf1/
C' \~';"r<'~~~ ~\>,~~~~~J~ 'i.')....(~~.~YO~ . ~J.-,T-~i C::...0;i:><
1 ,:-~,......,' ./\ .:~~':~}l,f/'<V_--:'-:;-"" --.J! ....1.... >, .......,'... ..". ...~!
v .i~ .~\ >:: ,,-?" _\. ..". .~~_ ,,\( f/ __/" - r---... -~.i __, "'__ '. ~l!.J'--_:.~_ .. I . ,:. '-_,,""'--':"..6"'-
1
1
).D TopoQuatb Copyright 0 1999Il<Lorme Yarmouth, ME 04096 So.... Data; USGS
,1000 ft Seale: 1 : 15,000 DelaU; 13-0 Datum; WGS84 FIG U R E 1
'Z-
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 2
Topography on the subject site consists of a relatively flat graded pad with associated 2: I
(horizontal:vertical) fill and cut slopes. Vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed
development consisted of a few ornamental shrubs. Overall relief in the area of proposed
development is approximately 5-ft.
2.0 STTF. 1NVF.snr.A TlON
2.1 Rack~rollnrl Rp~p.arC'h :lnrl T .itp.ratllrp. 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 Field 1 nvp.ti~ation
Subsurface exploration, field reconnaissance, and mapping of the site were conducted on
May 23, 2006. Two exploratory borings were excavated utilizing a hand auger equipped
with a 2-inch auger. Exploratory boring B-1 was advanced to the maximum depth explored
of 5-ft below the ground surface (bgs).
Information collected during our field mapping and approximate location of our exploratory
borings are 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
borings. Copies of our exploratory boring logs are located in Appendix B.
2.3 T ,ahoratol}' Testing Program
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, remolded direct
shear, sieve analysis, expansion index and corrosivity suite testing (includes soluble sulfate,
resistivity and chloride testing).
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. Prime Testing Laboratory (Pti) of
Murrieta, California performed remolded direct shear, sulfate and corrosivity suite testing.
T.HE Soils Company, Inc.
w,o, NO, 1060601.00
~
....
'"''
,
~'>""
)>~ '....
~
~
~n
~ ill iM
\1 !I
~h
jlol:1 =:
6~ : '
;1 '-T ........
~;" .
=ID !.1
~,
~
~ Bill
ffiMiT Ii 'lI; A
. n~ ~T
'~!< U~
jj'i . .
~'
ill
Jill' ,
'" I ,
T-II I
f!Mlll I
1l~g]1 Ii I
,=1 M I
-I!l I
'l~1 _:
if~ I
Ell] I
l!!
g ~m :
, ljj'JlL__~______"
Sw:Di
~ill
l~
-ill",
'I.
~\I
.If"
~
"'W
'~
,
,
--l-------,.=tJ
\
,
I
,
~
q
i
---,
/')>~
~
~
,~'~...--
-,..- <1',11
,._- ----
.
~p
i
Ir
DJ
"
~:
I~
Ii
i
~
~
a
~
CIl
tzJ
,..,
~
Z
>-
~
z
o
~
a
i'l
~
t"'
l"l
'"
l"l
:z
"
/ Jf'
/
/
/
/
/
/
L//
/",
~
~,
,
,
"
'v
"
II
'"
.~ ~ € I~
1;;
~ '"
'" tl1
13 ~
! ~
,.. -<
g ~
~ :>:l
~ g
o ~
'"" 0
'""
~ ~
~ i
~ ~
~ ~
~ ::l
@ ~
~
8 -
~" 0
l1l ~ ~ ~
I~ .-
",ro
,,0
~~. ~
'"
-~
~
C!l
8
~~
"'~
/
~
~
,~
I
'"
..
!;
r
___L
~"l
"
'---r
t;i
~
tzJ
Z
t::l
~
I
I
2
~
i
I
L!
,
I
-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
ili
f
I
I
_JlwL_--1
~L
'-,.:0
,
l
I-
I
I
;
o-l
==
~
'"
o
....
t'"
'"
r"l
o
==
~
2
~
q
1--<1
I
o
I
o
I
I ;
~
z
~
a
~
('l '"
~ El
o C3
''"'' ~
~
I~~~
I~U;
~~t:l~~
~~!U
. ~
('l '"
~ ~
Cl 8
~ .,
5: ~
a
~
'"
o
~
~
z
o
I
~
o
\
i
~
,,~
~~
",?<
~~
8"
~
5il
~
~
'"
=
~
~
~
~~i ~
Ill' ,
%
"I~-' J~
1"'1-11: I:
.:Sll!z !Z
z'
2
aD
)>
~
,0-
~
o
~
?!'
T
.
T
.
T
I
~
j
i
~
I
)>
)~
,,~
ll!~
t~
n
~~
ill~
I!
s
~
~
[:j
~
z
~t:I:I
at<:l
VlZ
on
~::=
Z
~
'='
t<:l
0-3
>
.....
I:""
~
II
RI
IS
II
g
I
VI
~
"
"
~
~
ill
"
III
!1
vo
;
I
!i! ~
g~ !
:J
~ _ II l'l
" i ~
~ ~
ij
-
~I ~i
~- m
~ .. ~
U ~
..
!l~ ~
~
~ ~ ~~
~ C m
Z ~
~
:i!
'"
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~
!1 m
~ ~
~ ij
iO a
~ ~
"~i ..
;!~5
'" ~~,
h~i
'" Q
..... ~
~ " 0
~ ~ ~
... ~ fl
-~J
.
Q
-I
-<
o
..,.,
-I
rrl
;::
rrl
()
~!~~." P
oEll )>
g en,..,
8-
,,0"" zen
~.,,~ t';I 0
!O;3~,..,~ III
!'=~..I~~ ~
6",l!il =",_ 'Z'
!3,.,::! oz ~
0011 t""~ ~
~~~ ~
On Z (")
ew ~
"
vo
:0
'"
"
i!
"
'Z'
8
.,
~
o
~
;;I
I"
o
I
:~
I
'"
~
I~
~
!
~
I
ri-"
..
b
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
, I
I
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 3
3.0 SlJRSlJRF ACF. CONnITTONS
Locally, the subject site is underlain at the ground surface by sedimentary bedrock of the
late Pleistocene age Pauba formation (Kennedy & Morton, 2003). Minor fill materials are
anticipated in the front yard of the subject site.
3.1 Setlimenhu:y Retlrock ~Ap Symhol- Qps.)
Sedimentary bedrock units are exposed at the ground surface in the vicinity of the proposed
development. This unit consisted of silty sands (Unified Soil Classification - SM) that can
generally be described as dark brown to yellowish brown, fine to coarse grained, minor
gravel size, well graded, slightly moist to moist, medium dense to dense.
3.2 r.ronntlwAter
Groundwater was not encountered within our exploratory boring (B-1), which was
advanced to the maximum depth explored of 5-ft bgs.. According to historic high
groundwater records (Rancho California Water District, 1984), groundwater is anticipated
to be at least 50-ft bgs on the lower elevations of the subject site. Owing to the relative
dense nature of the sedimentary bedrock units underlying the subject site, it is our opinion
that shallow groundwater will not adversely impact the subject site.
3.3 F.Y{,QV9tion Ch9r~u.tp.rh:ti{"~
We anticipate that the fill soils and sedimentary bedrock units can be excavated with
moderate ease utilizing conventional grading equipment (Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or
equivalent) in proper working condition.
4.0 SF.lSMWITV
4.1 RegionAl Sei.micity
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, 1997 & CDMG,
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 & Morton, 2003). The closest known
major fault is the Elsinore fault zone (Glen Ivy segment) located approximately 4.5-
kilometers to the southwest.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
w,o. NO. 1060601.00
?
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 4
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.
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 134 earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or greater have occurred within 160.9-
kilometers (lOO-miles) of the site since 1932. The closest earthquake was a 5.1
magnitude event, which occurred approximately 27.4-kilometers (17-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 98.2-
kilometers (61-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 CRe Sehnnie FBC'tOrs: spel'ifil" to the ~nhje('t site are :IS follows.
The subject site is located 4.5-kilometers to the northeast of the Elsinore fault zone (Glen
Ivy segment) [ICBO, 1998].
The Elsinore fault zone (Glen Ivy 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).
The soil profile for the site is SD(2001 CBC Table 16-J).
The near source acceleration (N.) and velocity (Nv) with respect to the subject site are 1.0
and 1.2, respectively (2001 CBC Tables 16-S and 16- T).
The site seismic coefficients of acceleration (C.) and velocity (Cv) are 0.44N. and 0.64Nv,
respectively (2001 CBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R).
Based on the above values, the coefficient of acceleration (C.) is 0.44 and a coefficient of
velocity (Cv) is 0.77 for the subject site.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
wo, NO, 1060601.00
'"'
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
\
\
0d-~
~+
1::;,
+
+
N
EPI SoftWare 2000
SITE LOCATION: 33.5322 LAT, -117.1407 LONG.
MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C
TOTAL II OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 251
TOTAL II OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 134
MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS:
o
5,0- 5.9: 120
6.0-6.9: 12
7.0-7.9: 2
8.0- 8.9: 0
+ M5
+M6
+
50
MILES
100
CLOSEST EVENT: 5.1 ON MONDAY. SEPTEMBER 23,1963 LOCATED APPROX. 17 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE
LARGEST 5 EVENTS:
'7.3 ON SUNDAY, JUNE 28,1992 LOCATED APPROX. 61 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE
'7.1 ON SATURDAY. OCTOBER 16,1999 LOCATED APPROX. 88 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE SITE
i8.7 ON MONDAY, JANUARY 17,1994 LOCATED APPROX. 92 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE
.6,6 ON TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 09,1971 LOCATED APPROX. 94 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE SITE
i6.6 ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21,1942 LOCATED APPROX. 76 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE
FIGURE 2 "\
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 5
4.3 Seconda'1' Sei.mic Ha"ards
Owing to the subject site being underlain by medium dense to dense sedimentary bedrock,
depth to groundwater (+50-ft) and no known faulting (Kennedy & Morton, 2003), 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 Rockfall Potential
The subject site is located in an area of low rolling terrain, which is underlain by
sedimentary bedrock that is free oflarge rock. Based on the above, the potential for rockfall
is anticipated to be low.
4.5 l,anddide.
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 RIWOMMF.NnA nONS
5.1 r.enpraJ F,arthwork
Recommendations for site development and design are presented in the following sections
of this report. The recommendations presented herein are preliminary and should be
confirmed during construction.
Prior to the commencement of site development, the site should be cleared of any
vegetation, concrete walkways, concrete foundations, seepage pits, water lines, electric
lines, etc., which should be hauled off-site. The client, prior to any site preparation, should
arrange and attend a meeting among the grading contractor, the design engineer, the soils
engineer and/or geologist, a representative of the appropriate governing authorities, as well
as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours' notice.
Earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the recommendations specified in this
report.
g
T.H.E. Soils Company. Inc.
WO, NO. 1060601.00
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 6
5.2 Prppgr9tion of F:yi~ting (;rollnrl
Any undocumented fill or loose bedrock materials are considered loose and potentially
compressible in their existing state, and will require complete removal and recompaction or
off site disposal. Owing to the sloping terrain in the vicinity of the proposed garage pad, a
cut-to-fill transition is anticipated. The subject garage pad should be overexcavated a
minimum of 2-ft below the bottom of the deepest footing and should extend a minimum of
5-ft beyond the building footprint or a distance equal to the depth of removal, whichever is
deeper. Overexcavation 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). 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.
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 of 95-percent of the maximum dry density (as determined by ASTM D-1557).
It is our understanding that a seepage pit for the existing residence is located in the vicinity
of the proposed garage and will be moved from its current location during site construction,
The seepage pit should be abandoned in accordance with current Riverside County of
Environmental Health Guidelines.
5.3 Fill PllIcement
Onsite undocumented fill and bedrock units are anticipated to be suitable for use as
structural fill provided they are non-expansive. A qualified soil engineer should test import
materials to determine their feasibility for use as structural fill.
Approved fill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch lifts, brought to at least optimum
moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 95% 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 fill material.
5.4 Slope St9hility & Condn.ction
We anticipate that both cut and fill slopes constructed at a 2: I (horizontal:vertical) slope
ratio, to a maximum height of approximately 10-ft, will be surficially and grossly stable if
q
TH.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.o. NO. 1060601.00
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 7
constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and in
Appendix D of this report. Based on the proposed development we anticipate that any cut
and/fill slopes constructed at a slope ratio of 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) will be 3-ft or less in
vertical height.
The importance of proper fill compaction to the face of slope cannot 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; I) 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 Rxp~n.ion In<ll'X Tedil1g
Expansion index testing was performed on representative onsite soil samples collected
during our investigation. The result, which is listed in Appendix C, indicates that the
expansion index for the onsite soils is a 10, which corresponds to a VERY LOW expansion
potential (0 to 20 - 2001 CBC, Table 18-1-A). Expansion testing should also be performed
on imported soils prior to their approval as structural fill material.
5.6 Slllf~te Content
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 results indicated
NO (non detected) percentage by weight of soluble sulfate content, which equates to a
NEGLIGIBLE sulfate exposure (Table 19-A-4, 2001 CBC). Sulfate content testing should
be conducted within the building pads at the completion of grading. Prime Testing
Laboratory, Inc. (PTi) of Murrieta, California performed the laboratory analysis.
5.7 Corro.inn Potential
Corrosivity test results, which are summarized in Appendix C, indicated a saturated
resistivity of 3,200 ohms/cm for the onsite near surface soils, which indicates the onsite
\0
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.O, NO. 1060601.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 8
soils are mildly corrosive (NACE International, 1984). Results for pH and Chlorides are
included in Appendix C. 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. Prime Testing
Laboratory, Inc. (PTi) of Murrieta, California performed the laboratory analysis.
5.8 F.arthwork Facto,,"
The following shrinkagelbulkage factors should be considered for onsite earth materials
excavated and compacted during site construction. Shrinkagelbulkage values for imported
soils should be evaluated when the specific borrow source is defined,
Sedimentary Bedrock
0-5% Shrinkage
The above shrinkage values are estimated considering an average relative compaction at the
completion of grading of95 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.
5.9 T .lIteral T .oall Re.idance
The following parameters should be considered for lateral loads against permanent
structures founded on fill materials compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary.
F.q.niv~ If':nt Flnici Pr~ss.l1rf>: for T 'p'Vf':l R::tc..kfilt
Active: 35 pcf
Passive: 471 pcf
Coefficient of friction (concrete on soil): 0.35
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.
5.10 Allowahle Safe Rearing rapacity
An allowable safe bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (pst) may be used for
the design of continuous footings that maintain a minimum width of 12-inches and a
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.O. NO. 1060601.00
\\
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 9
minimum depth into the properly compacted fill of at least 12 or 18-inches below the lowest
adjacent grade for one- or two-story structures or equivalent, respectively. The bearing
value may be increased by 10% for each additional foot of depth and/or width to a
maximum of 3,400 psf. The bearing value may be increased by one-third for seismic or
other temporary loads.
Total settlements under static loads offootings supported on properly compacted fill and/or
in-place bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to
exceed about 112 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 1I2-inch for a span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during
construction. Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary.
5.11 FoundAtion Sydem Oe.igro
Foundation elements should be placed entirely in engineered fill compacted to a minimum
of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined with ASTM D-1557. For one-
story or equivalent structures, continuous spread footings should be a mininlum of 12-
inches wide and l2-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For two-story or equivalent
structures, continuous spread footings should be a minimum of 15-inches wide and 18-
inches below the lowest adjacent grade. As a minimum, all footings should have one No.4
reinforcing bar placed at the top and bottom of the footing.
Concrete slabs, in moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier
consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. A
2-inch layer of clean sand should be placed above the moisture barrier. The 2-inches of
clean sand is recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing
of the concrete. The pad surface should be saturated a minimum of 4 percent over
optimum moisture prior to concrete pour.
The structural engineer should design all footings and concrete slabs in accordance with the
anticipated loads and the soil parameters given.
5.12 Utility Trench BAckfill
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
mlmmum.
TH.E. Soils Company,lnc.
W.o. NO. 1060601.00
\"t-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 10
5.13 SlIrf9cP. Or9in9gr
Surface drainage should be directed away from foundations of buildings or appurtenant
structures. All drainage should be directed toward streets or approved permanent drainage
devices. Where landscaping and planters are proposed adjacent to foundations, subsurface
drains should be provided to prevent ponding or saturation of foundations by landscape
irrigation water.
5.14 C.ondnlction Monitoring
Continuous observation and testing under the direction of qualified soils engineers and/or
engineering geologists is essential to verify compliance with the recommendations of this
report and to 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 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 J.TMTTATTONS
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.
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.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
w.o, NO. 1060601.00
\~
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Bob Federighi
BMB Technical Services
May 31, 2006
Page 11
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,
Project Manager
JPF/JTRlJRH:jek
ArCOMPANVINr. MAPS, 1I.I.IISTRATlONS, ANn APPF.NIlTrF.S
Figure 1 - Site Location Map (2,000-scale)
Figure 2 - Historical Seisrnicity (264,000-sca1e)
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map (30-scale)
APPENDIX A - References
APPENDIX B - Exploratory Boring Logs
APPENDIX C - Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX D - Standards of Grading
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,O. NO, 1060601.00
\/\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
References
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W.O. NO, 1060601.00
\-)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
RF.FF.RF.NCF.S
BMB Technical Services, 2006, "Plot Plan, 40550 Calle Madero, Temecula, California", Sheet 1 of
1, Scale: 1"=30'.
California Division of Mines & Geology, 2000, "Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo
parthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region", DMG CD 2000-003 (CD-ROM Version).
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.
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., 1997 (Revised), "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Houston, S. L., 1992, "Partial Wetting Collapse Predictions", Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol. 1, pages 302-306.
International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, "California Building Code".
International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO), 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.
Kennedy Michael P. & Morton, D. M., 2003, "Preliminary Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5'
Quadrangle, Riverside County, California", Scale 1" = 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. 1060601.00
\1..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
RF,FF,RF,NCF,S (Continued)
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, J., 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., 1953 (photorevised 1979), "Murrieta,' CA., 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle
Map", Scale 1" = 2,000'.
T,H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
w.o, NO. 1060601.00
\1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Exploratory Boring Logs
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
WO, NO. 1060601.00
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L OGGEO BY: JPF MElHOD OF EXCAVATION: HAND AUGER WIT' AUGER DATE OBSERVED: 5123106
HOLLOW STEM AUGERS
ELEVATION: LOCATION: SEE GEOTECHNICAL
MAP
n ld~ ~ ..l ~"
! II ~g, BORING LOG NO. 1
n p~ ~i SOIL TEST
i DESCRIPTION
.. ~ "'I!I
V PAUBA FORMATION MAXIMUM DENSITYIOPTIMUM MOISTURE
I SILlY SAND (SM): DARK BROWN, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, MINOR GRAVEL, DENSE, CONTENT, DIRECT SHEAR, CORROSIVllY
- -.
I '" MINOR ROOTS SUITE, EXPANSION INDEX, SIEVE
- ^ ANALYSIS
5 SILlY SAND (SM): DARK YELLOWISH BROWN. FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, GRAVELLY IN
- "'- PART, DENSE, VERY MOIST, WELL GRADED
-
-
- TOTAL DEPTH = 6.0'
10 NO GROUNDWATER
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
I-
-
i!!!
~
-
-
-
-
~
JOB NO: 1060601,00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-1 \0,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L OGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: HAND AUGER WIT AUGER DATE OBSERVED: 5123106
HOLLOW STEM AUGERS
ELEVATION: L0CA11ON: SEE GEOTECHNICAL.
MAP
z ~~ ~ ~g
~ q II BORING LOG NO. 2
"- II ~~ ~ ~i SOIL TEST
~ ~ i DESCRIPTION
u -l!I
- PAUBA FORMATION
- SILTY SAND (SM): DARKYELLOWlSH BROWN. FINE TO COARSE GRAINED. MINOR GRAVEL
- SIZE. WELL GRADED. MOIST. SUBRDUNDED TO SUBANGULAR. BECOMING DENSER
WITH DEPTH
~
-
-
f-
I- TOTAL DEPTH" 4.0'
~ NO GROUNDWATER
I-
-
-
~
-
~
-
-
-
25
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
M
-
-
-
-
~
JOB NO: 1060601,00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-2 ?J:>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
T.H.E. Soils Company, Jnc.
W.O. NO, 1060601.00
1.--\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.A HOR A TORY TF.STINr.
A. Cla~udfif"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. RYpan~ion Torley
An expansion index test was performed on a re~resentative sample of the onsite soils
remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 lb/ft , in accordance with Uniform Building
Code Standard No. 29-2. The test result is presented on Figure C-l, Table I.
C. Ma"imllm Oen.ity/Optimllm Moi.hlre Content
A maximum density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for typical
samples of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM l557-Method A.
The test results are summarized on Figure C-l, Table II, and presented graphically on
Figure C-2.
D. Particle Si7e Determination
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-3.
E. Oirect Shear
A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative sample of the onsite
undisturbed soils. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were
saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to
absorb moisture while preventing volume change. Test results are graphically displayed
on Figure C-4,
F. Cnrrn~ivity Suite
Corrosivity suite testing including resistivity, soluble sulfate content, pH and chloride
content was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory
standards used were CTM 643, CTM 417 & CTM 422. The test results are presented on
Figure C-l, Table III and Figure C-5.
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,Q, NO, 1060601.00
"z"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE I
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
B-1 @ 0-4 ft 10 VERY LOW
TABLE II
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 1557
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
TEST LOCATION (pcf) (%)
B-1 @ 0-4 ft 130.3 8.2
TABLE III
CORROSIVITY SUITE
TEST LOCATION SATURATED CHLORIDE SULFATE
RESISTIVITY nH CONTENT CONTENT
B-1 @ 0-4' 3,200 6.2 ~ Non Detected
Figure C-l
T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
W,O. NO. 1060601.00
Z2:>
I
I
I
II
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Curve No.: 1
Project No.: 1060601.00
Project: FEDERIGHI 40550 CALLE MADERO. TEMECULA CA
Date: 5123/06
Location: B-1 @0-4
Elev./Depth: Sample No.
Remarks: DARK BLACKISH BROWN SILTY SAND
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Description:
Classifications -
Nat Moist = 6.59 %
Liquid Limit =
%>No.4= %
USCS:
AASHTO:
Sp.G. = 2.80
Plasticity Index =
% < No.200 =
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 130.3 pef
Optimum moisture = 8.2 %
80
" 1\ Test specification:
" ASTM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified
"\ "- "\
"
"-
~ " "-
"-
" "
~ , "-
" 100% SATURATION CURVES
" "-
"- "- FOR SPEC, GRAV, EQUAL TO:
"- "- 2,8
"- 2,7
..... 2,6
"- "
"- ......
.... ......
"- .....
..... .....
"- ......
..... ......
...... .....
" ......
..... ..... .......
....... ...... .....
....... .....
- ...... ~ .....
r-....
~- -- - , - n --- ~ - -
- - - -- n .--- - -
- - - -
5
10
15 20 25
Water content, %
30
35 ~IJ;. 4.0
Plate C-2
140
130
120
g, 110
i-
'c;;
c:
Q)
"
5 100
90
70
o
T.H.E. Solis Company, Inc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ~ :: ;;:; J ; ~ ; J W ; ; ~
i , :N" i , i ,
I , i
, ,
, I ! ! ,
, i , , ,
i , , ,
, i , II
i i 1\.1' i ,
, , ,
I I i I ,
i I I
I : i
! : ,
I ~ I I
,
! , , , ..... i I I
, I , I
I , ......... i
I , , ,
I I I II ! , ! i i
I i I I i I ! ,
, , I
, I , I
, , 1 I I II
, i I
I I I I II I I , , I
1 I I I I , I
, i I j I
I , !
I , i
I i ! I
I I I I , II i ~ I I !
I ,
I , ! I I ! I
I i ,
i I i Ii \\ I I ,
I T ! II I ! , ~ I I
I 1 , I II !
I i , I I I ,
I
! I , , i
! III I I I , II i , i\ ~ ,
i Ii i i , I I
I i i II i i ! i ,
I I 1 i ,
Ii I I I II I 1 I~ I
I ! i '1m
Ii i , ! i I i i I
, ' ,
100
90
80
?O
D::
W 60
Z
u::
I- 50
Z
W
U
D::
W 40
a.
30
20
10
% COBBLES
SIEVE
SIZE
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in,
#4
#10
#30
#50
#100
#200
Particle Size Distribution Report
<
<
c c c
c:; ~ i
000
o
8 0 0
. 0
100
1 0,1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% SAND % FINES
CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
6.3 26,6 32.4 6.3
10
0,0
% GRAVEL
CRS. FINE
0.0 28.4
PERCENT
FINER
100.0
93.2
89,9
71.6
65.3
50.4
26.3
10,9
6.3
SPEC:
PERCENT
Material DescriDtion
PASS1
(X=NO)
Pl=
Atterbera limits
ll= PI=
085= 1.67
030= 0.335
Cu= 6.73
Coefficients
060= 0,935 050= 0.592
015= 0.194 010= 0.139
Cc= 0.86
Classification
AASHTO=
USCS=
Remarks
F.M,=2,51
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: 1
Location: B-1 @0-4
Source of Sample:
Date: 5/25/06
Elev./Depth:
Client: FEDERIGHI
Prolect: FEDERIGHl40550 CALLE MADERO, TEMECULA CA
'};5
'T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc.
Murrieta, CA
Plate C-3
Pro ect No: 1060601.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
T.H.E. Soils Company
PN: 1060601.00 Federighi, Sample: B-1 @0-4'
Soil Description: (SM) I)ar1( Olive-Brown. Silty Fine-Coarse Sand wi trace Gravel
Displacement Rate: 0.020 inlm Box Gap: 0,025 in Max Data: 130.3 @ 8,3%
Remold Target Data: 92 % = 119,9 pet 10,4 %MC(-No.10) 2.65 GS(assumed)
.As Received Me: 10.4 % Adjusted Me: _ % -After Shear Me: - %
"Existing GfadaIion forundislurbed opecio,""", -No,10fraclion for remolded specimens
-rest 1 Speclmen (Highest Nonnal Stress)
r.
Q Undisturbed
DIRECT SHEAR
ASTM D 3080
. Remolded Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
SHEAR RECORD: Provo Ring Vert. Dial Prov, Ring Vert Dial Prov, Ring Vert,Dial
DlsDlacement (in): 0.010 90 -37 34 -9 26 ~
0.020 135 -33 78 -4 53 14
0,030 166 -19 102 15 65 54
0,040 180 -1 113 42 67 94
0.050 185 18 118 63 66 124
0.060 186 34 119 86 61 149
0,070 186 48 116 106
0.080 184 58 111 120
0.090 183 65
0,100
0,110
0.120
0.130
0,140
0,150
0.160
0.170
0,180
0.190
0,200
0.210
0,220
0.230
0.240
0,250
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
.SHEAR STRESS: Divisions Pounds Dsf
Test 1: 186 77 2412
Test 2: 119 50 1573
Test 3: 67 29 922
. *Peak Values
NORMAL STRESS (psI):
Test 1: 2764
Test 2: 1382
Test 3: 691
, Proving Ring
SN:1155-16-11938C
Calibrated 25-Jan-OO
I
dK./C6-
~:I 5~~;:f I
s/z 4-/0 h
__ By, Dale
Form No. 40R
Rev. 03Ill6
4000
?fo
3500
3000
..,.
! 2500
Looo
-
'"
i 1500
z:
'"
1000
500
o
o
1 000 2000 3000
NonnaIStress(psl)
4000
C-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ilB
Prime Testing, Inc.
38372 Innovation Ct Ste 102 Murrieta, CA 92563
ph (951) 894-2682 . fx (951) 894-2683
Client: T.H.E. Soils Company
Report Date: May 24, 2006
Client No: C01
Work Order: 6E12
Project No: 1060601.00
Project Name: Federighl
Laboratorv Testis) Results SummarY
The subject soil sample was processed In accordance with Califomla Test Method
CTM 643 snd tested for pH I Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643), Sulfate Content (CTM 417) and
Chloride Content (CTM 422). The test results follow:
Client Data Minimum Sulfate Sulfate Chloride
Samp/e Sample Depth pH ~eslstivit) Content Content Content
No. Location (ft) (ohm-cm) (mglkg) %bywgt (ppm)
- B-1 04 6.2 3200 ND ND 30
.ND=No DetectIon
We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any
questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures.
d f. Ks--
Ahmet K Kaya, Laboratory Manager
cO
___
ORGANIZATIONAL
ME M B E R
'2--'\
C-5
, I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
Standards of Grading
77>
T.H.E. Soils Company,lnc.
W.O. NO. 1060601.00
I
I
STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPEClFICA nONS
These specificotiOllll pn:sa1l T .H.E. Soils Company.lUndanI.~".~,.latiOllll fo< gJOding and earlhwortc.
I
No deviatiOllIium lbese specificotioos should be pcnnitted unI... ..,.,alkally sup<neded in lbe geW>dmical rq>Ort oflbe projcd 0< by wriUm oommunicotiOll sigoed by lbe
Soils Coosuhant. Evaluations pefformcd by the Soils Consultanl during the ooune of grading may result in subsequent I~LIII.oo.datiOOS which oould supen;ede these
specifications orthe recormmndations of the gectedmicull'q)Ort.
I
1.0
GENERAL
I
1.1 The Soi1s ConsuItan1 is lbe Own.... 0< Developer'> rqmosmtative OIllbe projcd. Fo< lbe purpose oflbese specificoti.... obscnatioos by lbe Soils
Cmsu1tant include obocrvoIioos by lbe Soi1s Eug;o=, Soi1s Engin_. Engin-mg Geologist, and olh... _Ioyed by and respoosible to lbe Soi1s
Consu1tant
1.2 All dearing. site prt1)antiao,. or earthwork performed 00 the projea. shall be concluded and direc1cd by the Cootrador under the aIlowanu or
IIIpR'Vldoa of the Soils ('oop.ltflrt
I
1.3
I
1.4
I
u
I
I
1.6
The ~ should be n'spOllsible fa< 1he sofcly oflbe projcd and satisfiIdory ~ldiOll of on go:odin& During go:odin& 1he c-.<lor shall
n:main acccsstblc.
Prio<to 1he _ of gJOdin& lbe Soi1s ConsuItan1 shall be _Ioyed fo<1hej>mpooe ofpnMding field, laboratory. and ofIioe......... fo<
cooformanco wiIh 1he. . "dol;"", of1he geW>dmical rq>Ort and lbese specificotioos. h will be."""""Y 1h8l the Soi1s ConsuItan1 provic1e
adoquste testing IIld obsavations so that he may provide an opinion as to dctaminc th8l the work was aooomplithed as ~ed. h ahall be the
n"pOllsibilily of the C<dradnc to ossist 1he Soils Cmsu1tant and keep bim ~ ofwod< _ and cbango:s ..1h8l be may sd1edule his
penonneI acoonIing1y.
h shall be the ..Ie rapoosibiIity of the eum.<1or to provide adequate equip.- and mdbods to aollOIq>lisb 1he wod< in acconlanco wiIh
opplicable gJOding...x.. agmcy onIinanocs, these specificoti.... and the approved l!I"ding plans. U; in the opinioo of the Soi1s Consultant,
unsatisfadory coodili.... aucI1 as quesliOllllble roi1,...... moisture coodilioo, inodequale ~adioo, adv<neweathec. de., .... resulting in a quality
ofwod< less than requiJaI in these lpClCilia<ioos. the Soi1s ('~a.'" will be cmpoweced to n;jcd 1he wod< and ............d 1h8l_ be
otopped DIIliI the coodilioos .... Rll1ified.
h is,the Contnldor's respcDlibility to provide safe access to the Soils Consultant for testing and/or gntding observation pwposes. This may require
the excavatioo of test pits andlortherelocat.ioo. of grading equipment.
1.7 A final rq>Ort shall be issued by the Soi1s Consu1tant allesling to 1he eum.c1or'. cooformanco wiIh lbese specificotioos.
I
2.1
SITE PREPARATION
1.0
I
2,2
I
2.3
I
I
2,4
I
2.5
All vegd8lioo and delaerious material shall be cfu;posed of off-sile. This removal shall be observed by the Soils Consultant and c:oo.cluded prior to
fillplaoancol
Soi1, alluvium, 0< bedrock materials dclecmined by the Soi1s C-,..... as being unsWlabIe fo<plaoancol in ~acled fi11s shall benmoved Iium
1he Bile 0< nsed in opal..... as dclermined by 1he Soils Cnna...... Any DIlOt<ria1 inoorponded as a part of a oompacled fill III1lSl be approved by
1he Soi1s Coo.a.... priorto fill p-'
AIh:r the ground surfilcoto JCCCive fill bas born cleared, it shall be scarified, disoed andlo< bladed by lbe eum.<1or DIIliI it is uniform and lice from
ruts, hollows, hllllllllOCb, 0< olhec IDtOVID feoluRs whidt may provaJl uniform CXlIq>adioo.
The acarified I!""'D'I aurfsoe man then be ~ to optimum moisluro, milood as required, and ..."acled as specified. If the scarified ...e is
_than twelve indMS in dcpth.1he...... man benmoved and plOoed in]jfb not to...",.,.J six in<b.. 0< leas.
Prio< to placing fill, 1he ground surfilco to ........ fill shall be obsecwd, laIed, and approved by lbe Soi1s Coosullanl.
Any undeqvound ltrudUIes 0< caviti.. aucI1 as """"I'O"1s ........ mining sbafls, tunnels, septic tanka, wells, pipe linea, 0< olh... are to be ranoved
or treated in 11DIODCI'praaibcd by1he Soils Cnn...kMd
In wI.fiU transition Ids and ....... wi lots are partioUy in roi1, ooIluvilDD 0< lDtWeathrn:d bedrock -.ria1s, in order to provide uniform bearing
c:oo.ditioos., the bedrodt. portioo. of the kt cxlatding a minimum of S fed. outside of building tines shall be ovcrexcavated a minimum of3 fed and
rq>lacod with oompacled fill, Oroata OV""""""",,OIl could be required as dclecmined by Soi1s Consu1tant TWical ddails are atladted.
I
3.0
COMPACTED FILLS
3.1 Material to be placod as fill....1I be lice of orpnic....... and olhec delclaioua _.... and ....ll be approved by 1he Soi1s Consu1tant Soi1s of
poor ".&bon,. expaosico. or ~ d1arad.aislics IlhaU be plaood in areas ~8J'.tM by Soils Caosult.anl or lbaU be mixed with other soils to
JCl'Ve as satWadory fill material. .. dircded by the Soils ConsuItanL
I
I
~
I
I
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page 2
I
3.2
I
I
3,3
I
3.4
3.~
I
3.6
I
3.7
3.8
I
I
3.9
I
3,\0
I
3.11
3.12
I
Rock fragments less than six indus in dianxta" may be utilized in the fill, provided:
They arelKt plaoed orncS.ed in ooo.oentnd.ed poc::k.ds.
There is a sufficient amount of approved soil to surround the rocks.
The distribution of rod<s is supervised by the Soils Consuhant
Rodes great<< than twelve inc:bes in c.liamdcrshaU betak.m off-site. or placed in 8ClXJI1iaooewith the .~dations of the Soils Coosultant in .
areas ...."'..'" as suilable for rock dillposal (A t)pioa1ddail for Rod< Diopoul is attad1ed)
Mal<rial thal ia lIpOI1g}'. subjec1 to decoy, or oIhclwiae considcrod unauilable IhaU not be used in the <X>IqIaded fill.
Rqm=dalive _lea of mat<ri.1s to be utili7.ed as <X>IqIaded fiIIlhaU be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils CoosuItant to delamine their
physical prnpaties. !fany 0IIIl<<iaI oIhec1han that preYiousIy lcIOod is atOOlllll<rod during J!'8din& the opproprialc ana1ysis oftbis OIIIl<<iaIIhaU be
~"'dod by the Soi\s ('~.'" -. being__ as fill mat<rial
Mal<rial used in the C<lOIpll<ting process tl1aI1 be evmIy spread. wal<>1:d, prooessed, and <X>IqIaded in thin Iifls not to ~ six ind1ca in thidcn....
to obtain a nnifonn1y datse laY"'. The fill tl1aI1 be plaoed and <X>IqIaded ... a borizanlal plane, uni.... oIhenvise approved by the Soi\s Consultant.
!fthe moisture -.... or _ .,....,.w... vari.. from that requiRd by the Soils ConsuIlam, the CoouWor tl1aI1 ....ork the fill unti1 it is
approved by the Soi\s eoo.......
EadllaY'" lIbaU be compaded to alleast 90 peca:nl of the maximum cIcnsily in compfum", with the testing mdhod ~ed by the controlling
goVQOlllalla\ ag,ucy or ASTM 1~~7-70. wbi_ 8I'Pti...
!f ~ to a Ieasecpa'Ollllage is aulhori=! by the cantrolling ~ _cy because of a IpOCific land use or c:xpanaive ooiI aa1c1ilion,
the.... to receive fill <X>IqI"~'" to 1ess1han 90 peca:nlIhaU eilbec be delineated ... the gJ8ding plan anellor appropriate Rf.....", made to the ....
in the geotecImical rq>ort.
All fiUs mall be keyed and beoduxl throut#t all topsoil. oolluviwn, alluviwn. or aeep mataial. into SO\D1d bedrock. or firm material where the slope
receiving fill exceeds a ratio offive horizontal to one vertical or in acoordanoowith the recommendations of the Soils Consuhant.
The key for side bill fi1Is IlbaU be a minimum width of I~ feo< within bedrod< or firm materials, uni.... oIhawise ~ed in the geotecImical report.
(See ddail alladled)
Subdrainage devices shaU be QODStructed in oomptiance with the ordinanres of the OJOtrolliog govanmental agency, or with the recommmdations of
the Soils Consuhant (T}1'ical Canyon Subdrain ddails are alladled)
The -.. will be requiRd to obtain a minimum -.,....,.w... of alleast 90 peca:nl out to the finish s1<Jpe fa", of fill lIopes, buttresses,
and lOabiIizali... fiUs. This may be ad1i_ by eilbecowr buildingthe s1<Jpe and culUng bacIc tothe <X>IqIaded oore, or by _ ......- of the
s1<Jpe face MIl suilab\e eqWpmmt. or by any othecprocedure, wbid1 procIuccs the roquiIod.,....,.w... __ by the Soils C_.....
I
3.14
3,13 All fiII.lopes lIboulcl bep\anledorprotec1odfrom aosi... by oIhecmdhodo ~edintheSoils nport.
I
4.0
CUT SLOPES
Fill-ovec-<>JI .Iopes IhaU be properly keyed tbroug!I topsoiL coUuvium or aeep material into rock or firm materials, and the -... tl1aI1 be
Ilripped of.U IOi\ prior to p1acingfill. (See _ ddail,)
4.2
4,1 The Soils Consuhant....U inspec1 all all.lopes al vatical intecvals """"",,",g five f....
I
4.3
I
4.4
I
4.~
I
If,any cooditions n<lt anticipated in the geotecImical rq>ort sum as pcrdled water, secpa&&; lenti.adar or ooofined strala of a patmtiaUy adverse
oalure, unfaVOlllbly iodined bedding, joinIa or fiull1 p..... at""""""'" during J!'8din& these aa1c1ili.... lhall be analyzed by the Soils CoosuItan1,
lll1d ..........mdali.... tl1aI1 be made to miIipe these problems. (T}1'icll ddails for lOabilizItion of. portion of a all slope are alladled)
Cut slopes that faoo in the same diredion as the prevailing drainage mall be prttcxtcd from dope wash by a non-erodible int.eroqxor swale placed 81
the top of the slope.
Unless oIbawise llpCCified in the gedadmical rqJOrt. no cut slopes shall be cxcavatcd hidtU' or steeper than thal aUOW'ed by the ordinances 01
cantrolling govemmenl818jp:1l<ies.
DrainagetaTlces ..U be CClDII:ruded in DOq)1ian.ce wiIh the ordinInces of ccutrolling govanmcr4alagencics, or with the 11I:IloAII1dUa1dations oftht
Soils Conauhant
"0
I
I
Standard Grading and Earthwork. Specifications
Page 3
I
5.0
TRENCH BACKFILLS
I
'.2
5.1 Trench excavatim shall be inspected prim-to slnKtUre plaament for ~ bcttom.
Trench excavatioos for utility pipes shall be baddilled unda'the supervision of the Soils Consuhant
H
I
SA
I
,.,
I
H
After the utility pipe has been laid, the space unda" and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at
least. me foot over the top of the pipe. The sand baddiI1 Iiball be unifonnly jetted into place bd'orethe con1rolled baddi11 is placed over-the sand.
The m-6it.e macria1s. or <6.er soils approved by the Soils Consultant. shall be watered and mixed. as necessary, prior to placcmmt. in lifts ova- the
sand baddill.
The ocotroned baddill shan be ~cIed to at least 90 puceul of the maximum loboratoly cknsiIy. as ddcnnined by the ASTM Dl"7-70 01' the
ocotrolling~all"lCY.
Field cknsiIy leaIa .... inJpedim of the baddill prucedurea oban be made by the SoiJs ('_.... during hoM;l1;"g to ... that proper moiIlure
eonlaIl...._ """'!'"dim is being maioIaioed. The _lluill provide"" holes .... aplontory pits as n>qUired by the SoiJs C~Q'"''
tomoble_lingmdteltiog. ,
I
6.0
GRADING CONTROL
6.2
6.\ 1mpe<tim of the fill plaoemart shan be provided by the Soils erosu_ duringtheprogress of gJ8dinv.
I
In ~ cknsiIyleala mould be made at iotervaIslWl..........gtwo feot offillheil!/1t 0I'ew:cy '00 adricyanls offill ploced. This criteria will
vary dq>aldiog m aoil coodilims and the .... of the job, In any .-. an adequate I1Ulllhcr of field cknsiIy leaIa shan be made to verifY that the
n>qUired ~ is being adUeoed.
6.3 DensiLy tests should also be made on the native surface material to receive fill. as required by the Soils Consultant.
I
6.4
I
All clean-oul, processed gJOOIld to received fiI~ key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposols should be iospeded and approved by the Soils
Cmsuh.ant prior to placing any fill. b. Iiball be the Cootrador's responsibility to notifY the Soils Coosuhant whm sum areas will be ready for
inJpedim.
7,\
CONSTRUCflON CONSIDERATIONS
7.0
I
7,2
I
7.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
Erosion oontrol measures. when necessary. shall be provided by the Cootrador during grading and prior to the completion and construdion of
pennanc::nt drainage controls. .
Upon 0JIq'1dion of grading IIOd terD1in8lim of inspedions by the Soils (pt..:nlhmt no further filling 01" excavating. including that necessary for
fooliogl foundations, Iarg,etree wells, rdainiogwalls, 01' db.. f........ shan beperl'ormed without the approval of the SoiJs 0--.....
Care ....n be token by the Contra<for during fin.1 gJ8diog to pres<<Vl> any bcnns, <hioage leml.... inl<foqrtor ....1.., 01' db.. deviOOl of
pennanart nllture on or adjacent to the property.
,,?\
I b
I 1.
I [J
I [
I [
I ["]
I t
I L
I ["
I t,
I -I
i
I I
I L
I I
,
I
I
I
I
I
SIDE HILL
CUT PAD DETAIL
-
FINISHED CUT PAD
--~
~]
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR ./
~ MATERIAL APPROVED BY ---1
r THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
SUBDRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REOUIREMENTS
DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN
~
I
I
I
ROCK
DISPOSAL DETAIL
I
I
.
------
- - - - - --=----:..---_-:....-------:...-----:...-:
----------------:'=-:'--------:..-----:...---:COMP ACTED' - - --
-------------:...---: 10' MIN. =-----__:...-__w :.-----:...-:
_-_~===::~~~~~~:~~~~~i~i=:====~@~i~:=~~:~
________7__~-------~~--------~r-
--------~--- --------~~--------~:
--=- :~~~~~~~f==~~~~~n~~~~~~~~n:~~~~~:-:
-....: I'O'-MIN :----<::----------------:... ----- -E--:..---:..------~ -------
--- __0 ..;...""'------------ 4' MfN - -- - -----
---------"------------- . -- -IS'MIN'- -------:-
- ---:...----:::t-~~-----------:..-------:...-- - - - --- -...:: -- - -..:.~.... -:...---
:::=S=;-::=:=====Et3E===~================= _ ~=========~====~-:.----
--------~------~------------~-~=~-----
-------------;-_-_-_-_-=- -:.... -:..--r_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-:_-_-_-_ -_-_---
----~----------------------
'-----S-- ------------:...-: -O-V e-R-S-IZ-E-:-------:.. - - --
~ --------- .
WINDROWl
FINISH GRADE
I
I
SLOPE
FACE
I
I
I
GRANULAR SOIL'
. To HiT voids,
densified by
flooding
I
I
I
I
I
PROFILE
ALONG WINDROW
I
. '\
-<,
I
I
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-
-
_ - -- -- -- -=- -' ...- -- MT~. f-
- -\: -,..... -
-. cOMP ACTED ~FILi.=-:-:::-:::::--:::---~?-lp..- -:.; ~--------:+---------------
-------------_____.."_1; ___):.:
';-------------------..;:<:.~----:-\:~--~~:...-~--- ' "1' -" -r'
-:-~-::~~:--S\)\-1;p...iL~-~------ OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
-:..--.,...-~--~€'.:~.!~...:..,..- ,"-"'....
-_:::,?-~~~_~ -: -0::-_-_-_-
----
--
--
- --
--
...-
. UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1
,-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ---I
1 THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
--
--
_ -::::: REMOVE __ --
_ _- UNSUITABLE~_- 5' 1_
_ _ - 'MATERIAL _ MIN. II
::-:-:-:-::;-:-:-:--:---..;-:----------------~-~---:...--------:c----------..;------:----:- 36" MIN.
~coM_;,;~iED ::___-~-- i'\ II\, ^. T
:...:~~j~~~~ OVEREXCAVATE AND .RECOMPACT
. UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR J
,-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY ----1
t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
-
--
--
--
NATURft.i GROUND
1-
--
--
-
--
....
-
NOTE:
Deeper overexcovotion and recomoaction shall be performed
if de!ermined -0 be necesscry by the geotechniccl consultanl.
?:A
L /S'-J
I~MIN. I !
~-__.L_______,
~----:-:-=-~z..J-l
------... I
_-:-::::-:~~ "LL BLAN'
---=----:...---:-:-:L: 30" MIN.
----=--------=--=-- BACK CUT
---------
------------------ 1:1 OR FlA HE
----------=------:... - BENCHING
--:...---20,-----------
---- 10--___
- ~- -" SUBDRAIN
, '_-:':'~:- _:~:~~~:::::=-~I SEE ALTERNATES A .3
--=:::::::::i~::i-'-:=:~:=::--' '
. ----===~;:::===:==_.-- :f==::====~=i--
----------- ----- -
------------ ----
-------------. ----, .
~---_----""l~.-_ ----z
""JI"'\ .- _ ~ _L.O. :('1":'-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
SLOPE BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES
4" fl Nonperforated Pipe,
100' Max. O.e. Horizontally,
30' Max. O.c. Vertically
KEY I':
OEPTH--L-
"- -----e,
-ou1\.E"t p\P
PERFCR.A. TE!J PIPE
4" II MIN,
..
I
2' MIN.
-,.,-
--=--:...~ . --
---'2""'M -------
------- '" /n..______..<
b ~- __ ...J€_
,
I KEY WIDTH . ,
c:auIP.....?H SIE ~ CENE.=lAU. Y IS FET !
AL TERNA TE A
OUTLeT ""~-::.
PIPE.-.,.:"'..........
MIAArl 1"'0 FIL TE:I
FABRIC OR APPROVSD
EOUIV ALENT
TEMPOAARY
F1LL LEVEL
-
II . : -_: RECQMPACTED FlU.
'.:./u. - -.
'"}\IIN; 'SELECTBEOOING '
BACKFILL
. 0 10<::-.1. NONPEilFORA TEll /
"IP~ ./
OET AIL A-A'
NOTES:
'. Fill blanket, back cut, key width and
key depth are subject to field change,
per report/plans.
.. Key.heel subdrain, blanket drain, or
vertical drain may be required at the
discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
. SUBDRAIN INST ALlA TION - Subdrain
pipe shall be installed with perforations
down or, at locations designated by
the geotechnical consultant, sholl be
nonperforated pipe.
. SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall
be ASTM 02751, SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01527,
Schedule 40 Acrylonlbile Butadiene Styrene
(ABS) or ASTM 03034 SOR 23.5 or ASTM
01785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic
l~"MIN.
GRA VEL OR
('. '\PPAOVEO
". S:!:lUrJA~~n
ALTERNATE B
FILTER MA TERfAL:
, Filter material shall be
Class 2 permeable material
per State of California
Standard Specifications,
or approved alternate.
Class 2 grading as follows:
SIEVE SIZE
I"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
Na.8
No. 30
No. SO
No. 200
PERCENT PASSING
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-IS
0)-7
0-3
?P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BENCH I NG DET AI LS
FiLL SLOPE
,
---------------
_---::..--::..---=COMPACTED ,------::..---,
- ----:::-=-:::::...:--::..~ FILL :..."-.:-=-:::--::..-:::~
---------------------
---------------------.
. ~-=-===~=~~=~~=~~~=f=;~~~~
__________-'_ ~ /I'''}'A'
PROJECTED PLANE __-_-_-_-_-_-_-_7~-_-_--~-::.--
I to I moximum from toe -=--=-_-_-_-:....--=-.....-z---------;...-:.;>::'"--,--
of slope to approved ground -=-=-=-=-=~?.:::-::::-=-;~=:::-=- '\' ,
__-_-_-_-/__-_-...::-_-..... REMOVE
,,__-:;;Z?~:::-=~~=::-:- UNSUITABLE
, " _-------.._'~ MATERIAL
-- --=-:-:::-=-;;-~==:.:-- ~4'MIN J
- ----~----- .
I -"L---,------
A' , -/------------ BENCH
-L ~-"::-=--2&---M--,-N-~-=-:-: ' (typical) I
____..0 .___ I
--'----=,;;;,----
T '
2' MNI 15' MIN. I
KEY !"LOWEST BENCH-+j
DEPTH (KEY)
NATURAL
GROUND \
~
BENCH
HEIGHT
VARIES
FILL OVER CUT SLOPE
_-: COMPACTED ::-:~
" ---------l FI LL =---:..-~----~
~-:-::==~===~~~~~=~=~~=~--~
____~_____ IC:l: ...
____.........-:_____."J'_
---.........-----."..---
---------------
REMOVE, NATURAL ~~-=-=-=-z= '
UNSUITABLE GROUND ::.?'______----:A> I
MATERIAL \ __ '\.- -- _-_-_--;;.:-~- h4' MIN:
__ __ __-.;:::..,~_-...::-_-:.... BENCH'"i
__ __ -- ~-:2%MIN.-:: (typical)l
__ T
-- ---: ~
........
........ -- -- \...--15' MIN.~
". -- I LOWEST BENCH I
, BENCH
HEIGl;iT
VARIES
--
".
".
".
CUT
FACE
To be canstructed prior
to fill placement
NOTES:
LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change
based c" consultant's inspection.
S;';~DRAI~JAGE:. e~ck .:~~:." mey be required at the
jiscretlon or the geotechnical consultant.
?fo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~NATURAL GROUND
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
:x..-~--------_"'::""_----------------- ;7- MATERIAL
--~--~~~~=:::-====-~;~P--;;-C~;~-;I~~-~==~~~~~ _--;-r
--"""--_-:...~ ' - . - /----- /
-:.... ""- - -.......- - -- - - -- -- - -- - -- -.,7-:": - -........
BENCHING - _ ~=:s:~=-::~~=~-=-:~i"~-==..7-J -
------------------~~
, ==~=~~==-==~~===~=====--::-----=
, =-..-------~
, -_-_--:::~~=~.:. SUB DRAIN TRENCH
, _.' SEE AL TERNA rES ASB
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
SUB DRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With
AL TERNA TE A: Filter Material
..-- FILTER MATERIAL
3
9 ft. 1ft.
COVER
. 6" MIN. .----'"
BEDDING
Alternate A-1
PERFORATED PIPE
6" OMIN.
SUBDRAIN 1 1/2" Gravel Wrapped
AL TERNA TE B: in Filter Fabric
.-A~ S","N. OVERLAP ~ I-
MIR';FI 140 FILTER
FABRIC OR
APPROVED
EOUIV ALENT
11'2" MIN. GRAVEL OR
APPROVED EQUNALENT
3
9 ft. 1ft.
--.....,
FILTER MATERIAL: .
Fil1er materiel shoff be
Closs 2 permeable mCTerial
per State of California
Standard Specifications,
Of opproved alternate.
Clos.s 2 grading os follows:
SIEVE SIZE
PERCEt,lT PASSING
I"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
100
~O-ICO
40-100
2S-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
NOTE:
In 'addition to the wrapped
gravel, outlet portion of the
sub drain 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.
. SUBDRAIN INST ALLA TION - Subdrain pipe sholl be installed with perforations down or.
at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, sholl be nonperforoted pipe.
. SUBORAIN TYPE - SOOdrain type shall be ASTM 02751, SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40 ~ 1
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM 03034 SOR 23.5 or ASTM 01785, Schedule 40
Poly vinal Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalant