The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 3883 Lot 368 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Ear, ~h chnics ~--.. k ;' ~. , j 1 , F1REUMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 0,..--1 r\ngle - Lot ,Residential Development Lot 368, Tra~0910 Avenida Del Reposo, Meadow View Estates Temecula, Riverside County, California , December 7, 1993 PROJECT NO. 9319N)1 '. PREPARED FOR: Ruhl & Thelma Wolford c/o TEC 30903 Avenida Del Reposo Temecula, California 92591 I Ea.rth Technics 29645".Va.lle Olvera, ,'f:llmecula, California. 92591 (909) 699-5451 ~'--~.~-~. -';';'<_'+-Oc-'~,":",L= ~.:t::o,o::~~~___ ._;;::;;;=~,~~::.,- .~f~~~:C:_--::::T_~; :December 7, 1993 Project No. 93197-01 . INTRODUCTION At your request, we have performed a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the above referenced site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions with Irespect to the proposed development and to assess the geologic and ,engineering constraints that might exist considering this . development. The 20-Scale Precise Grading Plan prepared by TEC., Temecula dated November 22, 1992, was used to direct our field work. We examined !the site in the field accompanied by Mr. Dennis Jackson of TEC and discussed the proposed development. Plate 1 presents our Geotechnical data obtained during our field investigation. IACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2 Geotechnical Map - (20-scale) - Plate 1 " Regional Fault Map - (1" = 20 miles) - Plate 2 'Appendix A - Geotechnical Trench Logs Appendix B - Summary of Laboratory Test Results Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix D - Slope Stability Appendix E - References 2 o , i . INDEX. MAP ~- -\ IV~' , ,..,. ~,- : L.pJi~,~~~~ . <7 @ ~I \\0 ~r ~J))_ ',..1.)\"' 0 ~<::? b>_ T~_1(b. , ~ ~III .:&:C/C-JCT 'I'" ~ . tr .. :~~. '" c.Ji..p~~ ~~.,,<e:.z,~" :h\+.. ; r~~' ~rl~ '''~ 710 IV ~\'\::.l\ A ....~ ~ ~'-V; "~"j ...,\..S~ ~;[( ~ : . 0 ~O~_. 0,6X ",' 1 ~ D~;ia^~~. a" v ~~VI:~.~ '~i:'!:.~'" ~Z =;Q'o ~~ r . ~ ~-~\:1l' ro~I'~~ W;n ~~~ )/1/ , ,1:11\ 0\\, ~ ",: ~ ( =)J' l\:J'''' ~li( aCi "<7>_ ~~J2~~~V) -6" 0 ~Y~l~~fr ?!:?l,d-O: f ~ -;.=, "" a ~ ~ \'-=1 /' \~ !l 1111 :f1"V~ '/<oo~ ~""'J ~/./(-/;!/ f".. I ":" 'J?' ". ROAu .. '-,,\\~\ "-:;..,,, .-------...----..;:",~ .".-"'~, \\'-..--:7 "'t.N"', I 0/=\ \\~,,\. .-/ ~",-.: . ~: lie "--- jj /~ ~ //:" ~~ "'~" .. :% b r.:--. ~ :.6f7)((t:;;'3~'" ---.ll ( ~ K~o'-' ii: / \ ..),8 ", ~~.'7~.. ,~~ --'--~ ~\\@(':'-- ~~. :!!!/.~~ R .. l IV _ -- '5 \9"e:: ~ "- ~~~ ," ""n ~\ ~"" "'l:~~":;; ,""-Is.., ,( ~ 'ff J-- "'-'~ ,(7, '''?"Z ~ --------'::"PC31:::= ~S: ,- {2c.....:: '~~~9'~ /~ ~~~ ~ 0 )\r$~~~~" .".<--...~ ' '~~h ',.Ifr r.."Z ~0 ot~ \$12' J\"""~:~\~"" ~~".......3i f~~ 'rr'.r::.';1t-='>, C'o'!f 13'!Z,"'A ~"'" "_~~ :.0-,\f'c--C ~'i::i -...:::.;~~ ~ ---'~'c-------- .J I'-/"-,~~r,"''''' 0 .-__-:~~~ - '0.: . ::.\..~~ ~ ~'~~n/~V ''-\~-~7~~' ~. --. ..., , VI9i 'rr( ~S::'~'0- ""'=,..f=_______i'i' '.."",.Q , 7.J~ ~~~~--= --~ ~ X{\..~ ~~"~ ~G:> 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~~'LC3 ~J~~~'. I~~~.=~~~\ ),J ~ ~ .~. r~~~ ~~__ .. ~~)~"=:>,v. 00 D E':}-/ ,= ~Or. ~~~':""" "'\~~ .~~~~ ",,7 ~~01~~ =~, ~~ ;:!flb,~ l~... ~ o~i./1 1(%; .!.~ 'ii~ ~ "'.<. ':=:rL/ ;~ "."v ~41E: ~<:,. 'fit :~'0/ -- ""\~ ~~, . << .;lj~~10 ~lffrT:~L\ j-V ~~)5 ~.. o,,~. . .f O. r, V~.A~t=l ~I #' ~0 ~~ ~Ac:....r c -, _____- (0'-" ?.-<4 _ "'" .../ ""',,;;:: ;;.:.:~ -~ . ~"" ,--::t- ),-'~200 ". ..._______.-..~~~. ',,~ ~2',J,J _~^ "oj -- '-ji . ~ ~ .\..~ v~;;:; ..'--> " ~ tmo ~; . lrA.' ~ , '7 -"'V;;~ I~' a \\J c ~ ~'".s'd\' ;u ~ ',/~ ~~ , I, ,\')"';; .. bN . 12 .~.;'- ~~'i)~t.:::: .~ " ,N::)::; ~~ ~~~~/'r J?;Jlri <::)I~ ~ . ~./,. ~ n'''~.Y-. ((\~ ~ ~+ ~~..f@ ,~ o N 2000 4000 SCALE feel INDEX MAP OF LOT 368, TRACT 3883, AVENIDA DEL REPOSO, MEADOWVIEW TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7~ MIN. QUAD BACHELOR MIN. 1953 (PR 1973) .3 93197-01 Page 3 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS ~ The roughly rectangular 0.61+/- acre property is located north of ,Avenida Del Reposo in the Meadow View Estates development of southern Riverside County. The site is bounded by Avenida Del iReposo on the south, vacant land to the east and north, and an ,existing residence to the west. The Index Map (Page 2) presents the Itopographic and geographic relationships of the property to 'surrounding areas. Topographically, the site is variable from 3-10 degrees descending ~to the west along Avenida Del Reposo at the front of the lot, steepening at the rear to over 20 degrees in the vicinity of :the proposed disposal system. The area of the house is moderately Iflat to 8 degrees. No permanent improvements were noted on site, but several dirt piles had been stockpiled on the front of the lot. :At the time of our field work the lot corners had been surveyed and .staked. No bedrock outcrops were located on site. Vegetation consisted of ,light growths of grass and low weeds. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT , We understand that the site will be utilized for a 1 & 2-story ,single family residence of 3 bedrooms. The sewage disposal is proposed by use of the septic tank/leach line method in an area which is to remain natural ground. According to the referenced grading plan, cuts at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) to a maximum height of 8 feet will be constructed on the southeast, and fill at 2: 1 to a maximum height of 20 feet will be constructed on the northeastt. Several retaining walls varying in height from 5-8 feet ,will be constructed along the northwest pad area, and eastern property line. ; SCOPE OF SERVICES .The scope of our investigation included the following: ,1. A review of available data pertinent to the site, both pUblished and in-house unpublished data. .:\ 93197-01 Page 4 .2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 3 shallow exploratory backhoe trenches to depths as great as 15.2 feet. The trenches were logged, and these logs appear in Appendix A of this report. The trenches were tested for in-place density utilizing the Drive Cylinder Method (ASTM D2937-71). Representative bulk samples were obtained for testing. , 3. Laboratory testing of representative develop soil engineering parameters development. earth for materials to the proposed 4. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations concernlng site development based upon an engineering analysis of geologic and geotechnical properties of the subsoils as determined by field and laboratory evaluation. LABORATORY TESTING The following tests were performed for this project in our laboratory in accordance with the American Society for Testing and 'Materials, the state of California Standard Specifications or contemporary practices of the soil engineering profession. :Maximum Density - optimum Moisture Determinations !This test determines the density that a soil can be compacted to at various contents. For each soil moisture, there is a maximum dry density obtained and the associated optimum moisture content. The 'results are used to evaluate the natural compaction, control of the . grading process and as an aid in developing the soil bearing capacity. This is based on ASTM Standard D1557-78 (five layer 'method) . :In-situ Moisture and Density :These tests consisted of weighing and measuring the Drive Cylinder ,samples (ASTM D2937-71) in the trenches to determine in-place moisture and density. The resul ts are used to analyze the consistency of the subsoils and aid in determining the necessary grading to prepare the pad area. -:5- , 93137-01 ,Page 5 ;Sieve Analvsis . This test determines iparticle sizes and .classification. the material is used in grading of generating the individual an engineering ;Sand Equivalent Testinq :This is a test for the rapid determination of the relative portions :of fine silt and clay materials within the soil samples, and is ,used for a relative comparison of soils in the determination of the 'adequate paving sections for driveways, etc. !Expansion Testinq .The expansion index of the soils are determined by the U.B.C. 'Method 29-2 and is used to design foundations for anticipated expansion forces. ,Direct Shear 'A direct shear strength test was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils remolded to 90% relative compaction. :To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was ,saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which ,permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume change. This test is used to determine soil strengths for slope > stability evaluations and for foundation bearing capacity. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS !The site is underlain by a thick colluvial/soil deposit of silty sand with a trace of clay. Maximum thickness is about 3.5 feet on .the northeast with low moistures and low densities. In-place densities for the colluvium was measured at 94.3 pcf (74.4% :relative compaction) in T-1 at 1. 5-2.0 feet and 9.7% moisture. Beneath the colluvium at depths as shallow as 2.8 feet (Trench T-2) :is the sedimentary bedrock of the pauba Formation. This unit 'consists of a sequence of interbedded siltstones, sandstones and gravelly sandstones-all with varying percentages of clay. " , 9:3197-01 Page 6 In-place densities for the Paulba formation were moderately high from 119.8pcf (91.3%) at 5-5.5 feet in Trench T-l, to 120.2 pcf (91.6%) at 3.4-4.0 feet in T-2. , The orientation of the bedrock is very low angle at less than 6 :degrees to the southeast. No evidence of down slope movement is ,apparent in any of the surrounding natural slopes. (See also Slope :Stability Section). GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered to a depth of 15.2 feet at the . lowest portion of the lot, nor was it encountered during a previous :percolation test at the rear of the lot. Our field investigation .displayed no evidence, such as mottling, to indicate that perching :of ground water occurs at the soil/bedrock contact beneath the :site. No evidence of seepage was seen in the natural slope faces. Water has never been encountered in this area at depths less than ,25-30 feet below the ground surface, except seasonally within the 'stream channels. FLOODING ,According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the County of Riverside, the site is not located within the boundaries of a lOa-year flood plain. The large swale located 300 feet north of :the rear portion of the site would not impact the site, but is included in the 100-year flood plain. GEOLOGY :The entire site is underlain by the Pauba Formation a sedimentary ,bedrock of early Quaternary age. The formation represents a series :of terrestrial stream bed deposits which varies rapidly from silts :to sands and clean gravelly sands. Portions of the formation 'including at the site can be very sandy. The vague bedding exposed 'in T-1 and T-3 had an orientation across the site of N 20 - 40 E and 2-6 degrees south. No evidence of slope instability exists at the site. M.P. Kennedy (1976) shows no lineaments or other possible fault- related geomorphic features crossing the site. I 93197-01 'Page 7 SEISMIC SETTING/GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS . The regional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest active or potentially active faults to the site includes the IElsinore (1.8 miles southwest) , and the San Jacinto (15.4 miles Inortheast) . The Elsinore (Wildomar) Fault because of its proximity to the site ,is the design fault when evaluating the site seismic parameters. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF SEISMIC PARAMETERS .Paul t Maximum Peak Ground Probable Acceleration Distance to site Earthquake (M) At site (q) 1.4 Miles SW 6.8 0.40 15.4 Miles NE 7.2 0.15 .Elsinore ,San Jacinto HISTORIC SEISMICITY As shown in Table 2, during the last 100 years in the San Bernardino/Riverside area, the greatest number of moderate to large earthquakes (greater than 6.0 M) have occurred along the San Jacinto Fault (Hileman, Allen and Nordquist, 1974). The most significant earthquake epicenter on the Elsinore occurred 10 miles northwest at Lake Elsinore in 1910 estimated as a 6.0 magnitude .event. s 93197-01 Page 8 TABLE 2 EARTHOUAKE EPICENTERS GREATER THAN 6.0 M WITHIN 65 MILES Richter Approx. Distance to ,Date Maqnitude site form Epicenter Fault , 1857 8.2 88 miles NW San Andreas 1899 7.1 25 miles SE San Jacinto 1910 6.0 5 miles SW Elsinore .1918 6.8 37 miles NE San Jacinto 1948 6.5 43 miles NE MissionCreek 1972 6.2 54 miles NW San Fernando 1986 6.2 57 miles SE San Andreas ,We have utilized the computer program titled EQ (1989) to assess historic activity at the site. analysis, the maximum ground acceleration at the :period of 1800 to present is 0.24g. SEARCH (Blake Based on this site from the SEISMIC EXPOSURE :Although no precise method has been developed to evaluate the seismic potential of a specific fault, the available information on historic activity may be projected to estimate the future activity .of the fault. This is usually done by plotting the historic :activity in terms on number of events in a given time interval versus magnitude of the event. Based on such plots, recurrence intervals for earthquakes of given magnitudes may be estimated. The other method of determining maximum probable capability of the !fault is by evaluating the accumulated stress and determining the subsequent release of this stress in the form of an earthquake over a given interval of time. We have utilized strain rates of 0.8 em/year for the Elsinore fault as suggested by Clark, Harms, et al (1984) to estimate the maximum probable earthquake. For this project the maximum probable or "design earthquake" is defined by CDMG Note 43 at the maximum historical event with a recurrence period of 100 years. We 'estimate the maximum probable or "design earthquake" for the ,Elsinore fault to be 6.8 magnitude. This is in agreement with the deterministic model by Blake, (1989). 9 93197-01 Page 9 Based on data presented by Greensfelder (1974), we estimate the maximum credible event for the Elsinore Fault in this region would be an event of 7.0 magnitude. The maximum credible event is the ,greatest event that the fault appears capable of theoretically producing without a consideration of time interval based upon the 'present tectonic framework. GROUND MOTION CHARACTERISTICS . The ground motion characteristics which could affect the site 'during the postulated maximum probable earthquake of 6.8 magnitude 'on the Elsinore Fault were estimated. Available information in the literature about maximum peak bedrock acceleration and its attenuation with distance (Schnabel & Seed, 1973), the effects of :site-soil conditions on surface ground motion parameters (Seed & Idress, 1982), and site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were ,utilized. This information indicates that maximum peak rock acceleration on 'the order of 0.40 g may be anticipated at the site. Maximum ground surface acceleration is expected to be dampened by the thick (1200 feet) sedimentary sequence to about 0.28g. iRepeatable ground acceleration can be estimated at 65 percent of ipeak ground acceleration for design purposes (Ploessel & Slosson, .1974) with a value of about O.16g. The predominant period of ,bedrock acceleration is expected to be 0.30 seconds with 24 seconds :of strong ground shaking (Bolt, 1973). SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS . The dense nature of the underlying sedimentary bedrock coupled with :the depth to groundwater of over 25 feet precludes such secondary seismic hazards as liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement at :the site. No rockfall or landslide hazard exists at the site. The potential for seismically-triggered landslides is discussed in ,detail under the slope stability section. :According to the County Maps and Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Map, the site is not included in the Special Studies Zone for 'any active or potentially active faults. \0 9.3197-01 Page 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS : Foundation :Desiqn , ,A strip and spread footing foundation system should provide an ;adequate foundation for one and two-story buildings in this site. ,All exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches Ibelow adjacent finished grade for two-story buildings, and 12 inches for one-story buildings. Interior footings may be founded 'a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. When the footings are founded in a minimum of 2 feet of properly compacted fill or dense ,bedrock, an allowable bearing capacity of 1800 psf for 12 inch wide footings is acceptable for dead plus live load. This value may be ,increased by one-third for short term wind and seismic loading conditions. When foundations are placed in natural soils, no cobbles over 6 inches should be left within the base of the foundation. A typical !foundation design is included in Appendix C. One No.4 bar top and ,bottom is recommended as a minimum design. ;sett1ement Our subsurface investigation revealed that the natural soils below a depth of 2.0 to 3.0 feet are dense. When the upper 2-3 feet of !fill is prepared in accordance with the "Foundation Design" and compacted fill requirements, footings should experience less than ;1-inch settlement with less than 1/2 inch differential settlements 'between adjacent footings of similar sizes and loads. This settlement is based upon grading of up to 30+ feet of fill. If 'thicker fills are proposed, settlement could be greater and should be evaluated prior to placement. :Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Sufficient fine-grained materials exists within near surface earth :materials to possible create moisture problems. Therefore, we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete ,slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering. This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene vapor \I '93197-01 . Page 11 ibarrier sandwiched between a 1-inch layer of sand, top and bottom, 'to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of the ,concrete. Nominal reinforcement of the slabs with light 6 inch by ,6 inch, 10 gauge/ 10 gauge welded wire fabric is advisable. The ,subgrade below the slab should be moisture conditioned and properly ,compacted prior to placement of concrete. IEXtlansive Soils ;Expansion testing of near-surface soils (T-1 ; 0-3 feet) indicate 'the near surface soils have a low expansion potential. !Earthwork Shrinkaqe and Subsidence ,When the 2 feet of overexcavated soils are regraded to compacted 'fill standards, earthwork shrinkage would be in the range of 5 to ,20 percent with a recommended average of approximately 9 percent. i Earthwork operations should cause only a nominal subsidence of approximately 0.1 foot or less. IRetaininq Wall Desiqn :Retaining walls should be designed using the following parameters: .0 :0 o Active pressure Active pressure Active pressure (level backfill) (2: 1 backfill) (1 1/2:1 backfill) 50 lb/ft /ft 57 lb/ft /ft 66 lb/ft/ft IFor purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.30 may be used for :frictional resistance. A value of 275 lb/ft /ft may be used ~ :for passive resistance for footings placed into properly compacted :fill. Frictional and passive resistance may be combined, provided :the later is reduced by one-third. Special loads for dead plus actual loads whould be considered in ,the driveway/parking area that is retained. !Lateral Loads Lateral loads in the near-surface soils are: 'Acti ve 'At Rest ,passi ve - 42 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psf/ft) - 62 psf/ft - 275 psf/ft (for wood shoring) 350 psf/ft (for concrete footings) 1Z. '93197-01 :Page 12 ,Active means movement of the structure away from the soil; at rest ,means the structure does not move relative to the soil (Such as a loading dock); and Passive means the structure moves into the soil. The coefficient of friction between the bottom of the footings and 'the native 'soil may be taken as 0.30. 'Trench Stability The near-surface soil to a depth of 5 feet should stand vertically ,when excavated, however, trenches in excess of 5 feet in depth ,should have the sides laid back at 1: 1 in accordance with OSHA ,requirements. ;Slope Stability The current grading, including slopes and finished face inclinations, indicates the maximum slope height is 20 feet or less. The moderately high strength values allow 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes up to 25 feet without gross instability. Selection of Shear Strenqth Parameters The following shear strength parameter utilized for our slope stability analysis was determined by our laboratory test results as presented below: Material (Cut or Fill) Friction Angle (Deqree) Cohesion lb/ft2 'Anticipated On-Site Fill 32 375 o ,We have utilized values of 32 degrees and 375 lbjft2 for bedrock cut ,slopes although it represents a conservative number, determined ;from a remolded saturated sample. Bedrock is expected to be 20% + stronger (Coduto, 1989). 'Even more critical to overall cut slope performance is the orientation of joints, fractures and bedding. Plate 1 presents our 'f ield measurements of the vague bedding, and as can be seen on Plate 1, no adverse out-of-slope components are present to initiate "block" or "wedge" type failures. \3 93197-01 ,Page 13 !Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform !Building Code Chapter 70 requirements. At no time should water be 'diverted onto the slope face in an uncontrolled and erosive . fashion. Rapid erosion and rutting of the fill slopes is possible land they should be planted with drought resistant landscaping as ,soon as possible. GENERAL SITE GRADING 1. Clearinq and Grubbinq ,The vegetation will require clearing and removal off-site. Any !boulders larger than 12 inches should not be placed in any structural 'fill. ;2. Preparation of Buildinq Pad Areas The proposed building pad is shown in transition and will require an overexcavation from rough grade to eliminate the exposed cut and Ifill transition contact. A typical detail is shown in Appendix C. ;3. Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill :All sufficiently dense (85 percent relative compaction) surfaces ,which are to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a depth 'of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted :to 90 percent relative compaction. other softer areas must be :overexcavated to sufficiently dense material and recompacted. This ,would include raising existing fill grades. Typical overexcavation depths based on our field testing would be 2-3 feet. Actual depth of removal should be determined at the time of grading by testing. :4. Placement of Compacted Fill Compacted fill is defined as that material which will be replaced in the areas of removal due to root removal, the placement of !footings and paving, and also wherever their grade is to be raised. 'All fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent based upon :the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM D 1557-78 \~ 9:3197-01 Page 14 procedure. The area to be filled will be prepared in accordance 'with the preceding section. The recompaction of the cut material may be waived if field density tests indicate densities in excess ,of compacted fill standards. Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or ,steeper will require a key and benching as shown in Appendix c. S. Pre-Job Conference 'Prior to the commencement of grading, a pre-job conference should be held with representatives of the owner, developer, contractor, architect and/or engineer in attendance. The purpose of this :meeting shall be to clarify any questions relating to the intent of 'bhe grading recommendations and to verify that the project ,specifications comply with recommendations of this report. '6. Testinq and Inspection ,During grading, density testing should be performed by a representative of the soil engineer in order to determine the degree of .compaction being obtained. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied ,with the adjustment of moisture content where necessary, until 90 Ipercent relative compaction is obtained. Inspection of critical grading control procedures such as keys, installation or need for subdrains should be made by a qualified soils engineer or engineering geologist. , '7. Development Impact ,Provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into 'the design and construction of the residential project, both the proposed development and off-site areas will be safe from geologic hazards. 15' 93197-01 Page 15 GENERAL ,All grading should, at a minimum, follow the "Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications" as outlined in Appendix C, unless otherwise modified in the text of this report. The recommendations lof this report are based on the assumptions that all footings will ,be founded in dense, native, undisturbed soil or properly compacted fill soil. All footing excavations should be inspected prior to ,the placement of concrete in order to verify that footings are 'founded on satisfactory soils and are free of loose and disturbed ,materials and fill. All grading and fill placement should be Iperformed under the testing and inspection of a representative of 'the soil engineer. The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with contemporary engineering principles and practice. ,We make no warranty , either express or implied. Our ,recommendations are based on an interpolation of soil conditions ,between trench locations. Should conditions be encountered during grading, that appear to be different that those indicated by this ,report, this office should be notified. (4) Addressee ,- .,::~' .''''-.''~~i.: . "'t;:r.I""c;.-~ I '. .' , ';" .~~~~/:~~~~ . ...._ (;J "I' 1- . ~ H ~_.' . r:" il L; Ii 'h ,\ \~". 6 -3o~qq ~~,~,' ~'Y .:-.,.. , t" chroeder 33529 ration Expires 9-30-94 WLS/CS:ss .Distribution: . , ..~;.Y ---~~ \G. . . .; c. 4() 45 -:;. ~.' . ,', ~ : ,e'll . ' 1', ,,' -/~ ", '( . . " -- ;', '~5 ...6. .." .~ . ' '.. 'I. ", ,.. , l!:i' JO. ' I L/~I~' "'-? ,,0...: ". . . ...." ., 01,01 , . ~O- ; 1~~O:',..~I... ,;'0'1';';' " , .1 , . .1 I ;. . le"{~ ,,' ';' il: . , '. ..' ...... . I':, .' ',;' , .'.: .' : .;,~. \ . ' " , '.. ..-.~ ~:;--~ / '~1- . ' I EXPLANATION . .....,. T. f- ~ EXPLORATORY TRENCH by EARTH TECHNICS SYSTEM DESIGN '. * 3-BEDROOM HOUSE REQUIRES,1000-GALt.ON SEPTIC TANK * RECOMMENDED APPLICATION RATE OF 30 SQUARE FEET IS 300 ,SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA * 30% SLOPE REQUIRES 1.3. COVER FACTOR OR 390'SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA . ..:.* UTILIZING 1 FOOT' OF GRAVEL 130 LINEAR FEET OF 3-FOOT, WIDE LEACH tINE IS REQUIRED . .' ~.- * NO. PORTION OF ABSO;u'TION SYSTEM UNDER DRIVEWAYS. HORS,E<;:ORRALS . PORCHES. . . '......... -r- ~ BEDDING ATTITUDE c:;;;jjjjII T1 EXPLORATORY TRENCH by Calif. Gee Tek 3/22/84 YTP'4 PERCO~TION TEST by Calif. Gee Tek 3/22/84 '. ", PRIMARY & * SEPTIC TANK BENEATH CONCRETE lHLL REQUIRE ACCESS COVER . r--, ~"_ _ 100% LEACH LINES :J PLATE 1 ~ .LD,,:\ --- 1952 10116.1 ~f ~~;, L ~,';::'~'I" " ,/ 1/1 .. . . ''''~'''"" ~ .. ". ,~.p.G! "t.(ot> "'",\ '\'.." /~., ~. '+'+ ~""" ", '4"''' "'<,,,,, " .. t~ ~ '. '>\; .......I..'~ '\ ,.1,~~':"" ~ lOW ...... . ..". ~ '" ". '. '. I , '. " \ . " '. ---.. i I -'- -. i I I 1947 ..../M 6.2 ~"\l.T' R N .....\.~-s-~ <~ "'<> "~~ , .......... ........ '" '. '. ". . . . ,~ ,. . . . . . \~~. MILES ,_ 0 10 ~' "'-'~-" -, "'.c .,~ 1941'. .~t .-/M5.9-6.0 ..~ ~: j MAJOR EARTHQUAKES Bnd RECENnv ACTIVE FAUlTS h SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION . : ..~.. .~\.._.- .... 'U'._ ."u . -.;~ .._:.:_:....~./i.;~~.. "..,.. w.o. NO: 9~1'37~ 01 DATE: l'l/9?J PLATE 2 IP> "': , , ".'c 'i.. ~. ,; , ,',' ,'." .~, i' , ,~ " .,',. ,c' ,. :,-' APPENDIX A ,\- '--, .;-,,' , ", ,.,'" ~ '".' ,c', -'", \~, . :..:-. .., . .-, ~, . "." GEOTECHNICAL '. ; ~ g?;/ d;1- D I .. TRENCH .' LOG . >;.::~' ':;::''.< . Project Name ProJect Numbor 10 SO.'L.I"'L-I..tJ"IV~ - d~ ~vJISl,bl'l>;I/JY\~'IOYt<. 1b 'Slf~ 1b ~dt ~n s~,,~ ji! sy. (; MItj~Ml. o/~ p~hl ~'hbl'f)(}.N\'2.t;,(/4..414dijttt~aM,J-. 10114 u,rohJ. 4 - S"~. .. ::;':. .., 13f'-DIlo~. Vli.ltb",?'Wl - i'l-fnbeLl.Jj. SRftw....u d(~J., ~vI 7.S'(fI. % GoWJ..'3"~ ~~'(86'oJ'lhJ;)d-,../.. sll~ So....J bnlll)-. 1O'1r2. 5/3 WI~ rIllfl#l'1Qttl. f/irk;}\>4 of StJ.-i,f.- M1 tJVMl4f- t'\o<lvJ- ~~,'y-t, O~1Vi..wtlJ bu..J.U w i4f, Y'ILoJ, ShVlf eM'1 h cA-s ' . :~.. . ,.,l~i;"::;~',' Elevation . Equipment.. Lnrfr. , .~ Trench No. ."l./NO_ 1J. "...€ ..".,...,-. ". . ~. .;"'. .. GEOTECHNICAL"DESCRIPTION : . . Logged by lampled by lJJ L.. 8he>d'r \I 'Dlte ~::'. :' 12-!,d9'~ ~ ., I ,[). 8- N~'yJ~!~V'1 -'. , .-'.1 ' '.,. i '. I GRAPHIC ,LOG '.;' c. . -. r ,~::;;~:~}.::_:. .; ~:~";~~n2 ... -"-' '": .' .~. , _ _: '. r:~/.t!~ "..',,~~,,:<,:,;.';"W~h";)':' : "Ea'." ". ...;', ". -. .J' . _' ..;,.. .._ .' .:!-f- ~lt.. -' ;;..' ", ';','::'i'''f~ echnlcs... . ;:,:;~.::)?~~c~:i1: . '..' :.>..;.-,..,,". " li~. '!. trencll- scale: ,-. " · .Te8t'.'~boI8 :'-',"'.., ~ - 8u't"'hn,i.. R. RIIllI ,......,. Ie. .IancICofte". . MD -.Mubu';",DenaU, os .;o...,j':abe'iZ . '.. '>C-- _.,l- IE.. ; 1ancI.~ElildVli.ftt . . . ':'EI~~"~~~!nd1X . i~r~.O)- '~;,,~~;;1;;~,lCIlon , . ';::":' ',"'.;. . 1'. '" . ".; .' :,,~. ,L' , , ...-.~~ . ,;'.'y.:...., _\ . ':;.~.: . ...."-. "., .'._,,;,:::i&~~-- .'. , " '1~ 1 '. 20. , .' ---- --- --. -.. ~ r I~ -~~ . ~ It - l ~ I !. ~ r J; ~ i i ... it cO 0 E i~! ~ .. 0 " Project Name Project Number ~?> 6 10 .j- , , i I i I I , ! GRAPHIC LOG I 15 .. ~ ..-,<~',:~.~-1 " . . "', I '".- '( .' :.::~~~t~ --""-"'lr:.:l . . ~. ;;,.. ":' ~JI , , ^. GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH. LOG The... II)~I Cj1-D I Elevation Tr 'T-'2- , ench No. Equipment Lo.( h- Sllft-A 11'. ~t-1;> E. , GEOTECHNICAJ.:'C'DESCRIPTION Logged.... \N , L, SHU-u;.J~ . ",,' ! / ~, . Date ,Z- 4 0> . Sampled by /I ';,~ II-I Cou.u VltJ/v1 B.u. T- i ',';.,.- 1'20. e,.2.. It}J.(.) , B6-9fl.<XA'- - (JM.btl Ftn ~ 8-0 'T, j.'C{ ..-'.'.. 'Z 1,1). /0- N1> ~61.M/HJtf~ ' Cct ~, (j . ~ ...'......., ..' . ... ;~'{;~' .: . . .:'; ;"~:~:'l:.." . ,':..:_i.: , , ~~, ' trend - scale: 1-. .' .-,.;.-.., · .Test:Symbols . : .f. .. B. Bulk........ R. 11I1Ill ,:.....le '.' . . se . land, : ~:. . .MD. .u.xIniu.Denau, , OS ."Gr'lft:~.Ii. ~:-. . " . ,'. .. - ~. ,'SE"Iand't~.- .' ..... _." .,....').. ..,,'" . < EI.'~.!O"J.:lndex ,: (BOlo, R."I,"'(~eon...c.lon . .,,~: ~":: . -: ";> --<i{-ii~~7~P.'~~"~,;':' . .,....\.. , .}'::;.;'. '.',' -' -..... ,'" "E:~~~fi:i,: . . ,"i-o,,,,:t 'echnlcs::' :'. . '---;;:}:~~.;f{r .,' -- ,,-; ->,. ',' ~':, ,. , , ',' -,';' ", .:. '. , ., J,.\' ",,'-.. .:,t~.:'::;'f~~:;~~~ ~ ..t'.;.. " <""f.! Proll.ct Naml ProJlctNumbor . ,. -_1_' i, i- t". : II i ' ::- it ~. ,. o 15 '. i GRAPHIC ,LOG c ~ 11.- ... ~ i a .:'jf. 'GEOTECHNICAL' TRENCH " LOG,' ~ ~~/91- 0 , I!I; - I#: ! = ~ i i-! Itrend- :- " r. '"",,,. . '~,"::;'.:?t~;':..? . ,"... -:~:i;'~i;: .-f?~~~~) '-' .. ...... "';~" ...;~.:...: I, "".. , . _~-IJ.~'_,:;;,::-,~::,-.;;,~~. . ,.,~'! . ~ " .-.'. '''':-''~ l\:',,:__";.t:;- , . . , ~/ :r'._" " ~:""!"\,F' ..' ,:-.,,-.t:J~~:t,~:,t1..:i'.(-.<.<..~~~:_o: "','~'~~X:~: " ; ~::'~! ..;"';' . Elevation Equipment . /...I)rJG. [i ~PftL 1L ,,), Trench No. (;/tQt.,ro e,F', .. " .'." ~'-';:~'1':";;:'. GEOTECHNICAL . DESCRIPTION Loggld by tAJ L.-S he{I.'~_~""',>~~ --r- . . Dati Samplld by - 11--/4 /9 p '"""",", S\)IL-/c.l.L~~I~"" - ~ T~ i ~"r:IJi . ' . ; . ,:&wf~Y) :""'1'" ~J>M(:I:- ~L(~O Fl'!! cks~-h,;", y~ ~ ~n- c.,w,~ 7('l.--- C)' ~I, ~ sw. ,~Y,J ";,'.,, . . ..'-,.....,. :~ ':._ i, 5'~ T ~ i:. W'-:~(YIUJ,1. ~w s-o..,..J '{:. UJ3(JMIL , "-'"";;';&'..-'j' II ',:: ", 111/.. I, ,..;~:;: ':: .'. ,..~~tff;~;~' l'J <> W6brc ,..,..." ',e :l I,..... '" . ~.,', '.F" '. . .. !. I."~~t~'t"~.:.~,{~~~.!j};y. .: .,', :,Ear, 'h," '''~:;'\ ' .f., ",-" '-"/",, ,,,,,~:.' ':c' hn Ics -'c.. ' ,;.:;.,;~\;.;:~~_:!~,~~~~~tt~~ ~:,: ' '/,:,' .~).~~.~" ". .-:,~., ,- scale: 1-. , . ,', ...,:.. -"'" .-... .' ',-J,. ."d.}. ._" ..;.... . t-MII, 1 '.:;~~: ',.,. ," * .Te;tYS);.boIS. B. -~.~,:_~. 'R. RI""........ sc. Sand Conit ': , MD. ,lIuhuIR' :~.ltr , os. ,G,.li.-t....~',' . .',' n'. '?'. \::'.'.... '. SE. -'.allllhE4iuMient '.- . . ., '.', " .-. " "t~ . . ''if; . ~ '. ,EI,.ElpanlIoft.l.lndex . .. . '","",:r., " ;(8D)~ R.~IJve,~Con9IlClIon i~:,,:',""'": ',i-'il'ti!.~~~..,." r~'i:: "" " . .\,' : ,:::" --' '<':."",,::.:<'~"'~'!:hrrhL.:fZi{L' .," " T-~ . ..... -7',', . "";"";' ...... V-., '/,'(. '"" (',' ','. . . /',- "",, , ,\ -':;'C ';C' .." <,,-,' ',' ,~ ~ . APPE~OIX S , , . ,,". ,,"~ ".;" ',', . ~" ',-. ',C, , '<.: '.,'" ,'", " ':0:; SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTING Moisture 'Test Test Depth Dry Density Content soil Relative No. (Feetl (pcfl (%l Tvpe Compaction R-l 1.5 -2.0 94.3 9.7 A 74.4 R-2 5.0 -5.6 119.8 7.8 B 91.3 R-3 3.3 -4.0 120.2 8.2 B 91.6 MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATION The maximum density was determined in accordance with ASTM standard :D1557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is : Sample ; Location Depth (Feet) Soil Description Maximum Drv Densitv Optimum Moisture T-1 4-6 (Soil Type B) Pauba fm 131.3 + sandstone bedrock Light yellow brown to brown gray silty sand with gravel & trace of clay 11. 4 SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING U.B.C. METHOD 29-2 ;Sample Location Depth Expansion Index Expansion Potential T-1 4-6' 26 Low SAND EOUIVALENT TESTING ,Sample Location Depth Sand Equivalent T-1 4-6' 18 1-'\ (/)(/) (/)(/) <t <t ...J...J UU ~ O~ W:I: iii ii:lIi - <i. Z . U) ::;)<t a:: w I- w 0 ~ a:: ...J ~ 0 ...J Z ~ ~ , d I I- U) a:: WO ZZ W -<t U) I- I.L.(/) :0 W I ~ <( U) 0 ...J"': W ...in: N W U) ...J U I- W w (/)0 > a:: lrZ W 0: <t<t I-' O(/) I.L. U) U - -P I I r"'t ...J W > <t q lr (!) 0 ; q 2 0 a =..,. I<l -- o Q ~ ~ @ ~ ~ 2 ~ PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION By:iwLS Oat.: l'l-/~? JoN. ~~1'?>1-o\ Earth Tech,o,ics IEC.- 'R-~IIWl. lv'\eacloV'l\'It'w ; ~ ...J U o Z :I: l- ll. W o 2-'5' EXHIBIT NUMBER C""'II11ingCngi""" 11M GeoIDgi.,. . l- LL 5 . o CI) " CI) a. - ~ I CI) CI) L1J 0:: '.... V) (!) z - 0:: <t L1J :J: IV) PROJECT: 6 .. I I . . . . . . . . 4 .. . . II .;.. . ,. . " , . .. II I. I;' I' . I , . I. " . :5 . , '. , . . " , , I I . r II I I I I: 'I . , I I . , . . , , 2 , , , , ., I j, " . .. . J " , , , I' : o o , , , '. .' "; I". ;. I , , I .. III i' I I . 1'1 I' I I I'.. I I' .; I NORMAL 2 :5 '4 5 PRESSURE- KIPS / SQ. FT. 6 r 1<e.", 0 L.]) E-D '"'It> '3 C> /. EXCAVATION NO. T-1 DEPTH: 4 -6' SATURATED TEST IN SITU MOISTURE TEST ~ = .':bZ C = '/;75 . ~ & C & . P.S.F P.S.F DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA '.' 'T~ Earth Technics EXHIBIT t6,. . JoeNo"0!l1~1~of DATE: IU9?J .~y.. > , .-{ ,;C' -,,': -', ~ " , ' '. c ( ~" ",'..' ,'.f ,(;' "', ~ " '/" " APPENDIXC ,-, ",-', ." '-," it". ')..1 >---~ ---~.__..-- . . . STANDARDGRAD1NG AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present Earth Technics Inc., standard recommendations for grading and earthwork. No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless specifically superseded in the geotechnical report of the project or by written communication signed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Evaluations performed by the Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. 1.0 GENERAL ,1.1 The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or Developer's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist, and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultant. 1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted and directed by the .Contractor under the supervision of the Geotechnical ,Consul tant. . . 1.3 .The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading. :During grading, the Contractor shall remain accessible. , '- 1.4 .Prior to the commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of ;providing field, laboratory, and office services for :conformance with the recommendations of the :geotechnical report and these specifications. It will ,be necessary that the Geotechnical Consultant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. 'It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Geotechnical Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. 1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are I . I .{;~ Standard Grading and' Earthwork Specifications. Page Two resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. . 1.6 It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide access to the Geotechnical Consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may require the excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of ,grading equipment. '''' 1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Geotechnical :Consultant attesting to the Contractor's conformance Mith these specifications. 2.0 SITE :PREPARATION .' 2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This removal shall be observed :by the Geotechnical Consultant and concluded prior to .fill placement. .. ,. 2.2 soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the -Geotechnical Consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site or used in open areas as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fin must be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to.fill placement. 2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced,or bladed by r the Contractor until it is uniform and' free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. . . The scarified ground surface shall. then-- be'brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, ,and~compactedas specified. If the scarified zone is greater than twelve inches in depth, the excess shalt,be removed and placed in lifts not to exceed six inchesor less. . Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to fill shall be observed, tested, and approved Geotechnical Consultant. receive by the -./.,,..'.'",' . - .:.:-:",,;,,;:.:;.~ .-. ~9 ....", . standard Grading and .Earthwork specifications Pll.ge 'rhree 2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide uniform bearing conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Greater overexcavation couldbe required as determined by Geotechnical Consultant where deep fill of 20+ feet transitions to bedrock over a short distance. 'rypical details are given on Figure D- 1. :3.0 COMPACTED FILLS 3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be ll.pproved by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by Geotechnical Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material, as directed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.2 Rock fragments less than twelve inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. I . I 2. There is a minimum of 75% overall of fine grained material to surround the rocks. 3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.3 Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be taken Off-site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is given in Figure 0-2. -:P . Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page. Four .. '. 3.4 .' Material that is spongy, subject to decay ,or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill. 3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant as soon as possible. 3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.7 If the moisture content or relative. compaction varies :from that required by the Geotechnical-Consultant, the :Contractor shall rework .the fill until' it is approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.' .' . 3.8 ~Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the .maximum density in compliance with the testing method !specified by the controlling governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies. :If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by ,the controlling governmental agency because of a :specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area 'to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate ,Lef~~ence made to the area in the geotechnical report. . I 3.9 :All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium alluvium, or 'creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the-slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of' five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. " .' , .-:='-. 3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials,'unless . otherwise specified in the geotechnical report. (See , detail ,on Figure 0-3.) . ., .-. . '-.,. :".: " " p\ f; , ". .'.C. .Standard Grading and'Earthwork Specifications Page Five 3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given in Figure 0-4.) 3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over building the slope and cutting back.to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of. the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in ~he Geotechnical report. 3.14 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly. keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be, stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure 0- '3. ) 4.0 CUT SLOPES 4.1 The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet. 4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical repor-l:; such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse' nature, .. unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Geotechnical Consultant, 'and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these . problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a portion pf a cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and D- 5. ) I r 4.3 ,cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the tope :of the slope. ", . ?J~ r ,." :' '. :Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications jPage Six 4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling 'governmental agencies. 4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed incompliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. 5.0}'TRENCH BACKFILLS 5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the supervision of the Geotechnical Consultant. 5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand 'or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled backfill is ,placed over the sand. .... _" 5.3 The on-site materials, or other soils'~pproved by the -Geotechnical Consultant shall be watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill. 5.4 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by the ASTI 01557-70 or the controlling governmental agency. 5.5 Field density tests and inspection of the' backfill . procedures shall be made by the Geotechnical Consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The. contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the Geotechnical Con~u1tant to .enable . sampling and testing. 6.0. GRADJ:NG CONTROL I r 6.1 :Inspection of ,the fill placement shall be~ provided by .'the .Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of :grading. . .~,,:~~:,~>;~, . , . ,.:-;;:......,..,........ ,?/!/ ," i:. standard'Grading and'Earthwork Specifications Page Seven 6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the-job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. 6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as required by the Geotechnical Consultant. . 6.4 All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals should be inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Consultant when such areas are ready for inspection. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage ':controls. 7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of ,inspections by the Geotechnical Consultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for :footings foundations, large tree.wells, retaining ,walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.3 Care shall be taken by the Contractordurinq final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. I I> I ~ TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT .. NATURAL GROUND l~ - - -- - - -- -- 5' I- _ _-- _--- MIN. ~ . :cOMiA~fED ::FILi.:-:-:02-::;--I;.'Wh~-~ ~ ~-:-:--f::----_:::=-:::=: 30" MIN. ,_________________.~I\..... ___>- ,'" "\' ". --r-. .___________.......e-___..._..J.,.:r:__......-_ T --::~:~~?~~\i~S~~~-:-:-: OVEREXCAVATEAND RECOMPACT ,- -.,.-.,.- -:.o":\}~_:"'-- "'-"'^ ' .=-_- -;''ij\O'J ~--: .,,;:;.:::"'--- -::.?-"" --.:.----- ,. UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1 r- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . -----I 1 THE GEOTECHNICAL CO.NSULTANT CUT LOT NATURAL. GROUND 1- -- -- -. --- ..... -- -- .---- --- --- .".. --- ~--- .""..""'" ...-.- ,,---- " - -..:- REMOVE - -. h _~ _ _ - - --'1:l~;~~:;~tE~~'~ ...... -~r~. ~----------------------~--.~------------------------~ --------------------~~~~------~------------ ---_-:....--=---...:-_--....:-_-- -- ------ -- -- ~ ----- .-;CciMPACTEO==------...;:~-: ~" :...:~~~~ OVER EXCAVATE AND RE~OMPACT f r UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR co.. ,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY '.C" r THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT '. <t.' . ... ," . .NOTE: . '. ' '. ';:':':.'. . . . Deeper overexeovation and recomoadion shall be p~~f~~~d "if determined '0 be neeesscry by the geotechnical consultant. " . '-'::':?:';;~"'. .h:-..'~!~.,;r,:19:-;,.,-, " ..,.... ?:;? '- "'-.-;:~":.:.--:" BENCHING DETAILS PROJECTED PLANE I to I maximum from toe - - ------. ----:-:-:.COMPACTeD -:-:-:-:-:. __~-:-:-:-:"';--=_:':;FILL ::-.::-::~-:~ --------------------- -----------~---_---.-----_-:..---:;~_-:-_-~ _--: _::-~::-:~:;-:i"-:-=E"~-:;;.=-~ ___-..:_..:_ .:_-_-_-..:_.:_-::_ _ .:_~- - --- - - -::1' _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-:..~~----;- I,,~r^' . -------------- -- ------------- -- - . _____-_-_-_-;r_-___-_-;,- \~/ of slope to approved ground ..:_:-:-::-::_2~-_-:-::_-;~.:.: . . \ . __________... ! .. REMOVE .:;2".--'=::-::-----:::-::- UNSUIT ABU: __-------:7-:""--- MATERIAL _ _ -::_~:j:~C~;. M1N ~.~- /4 ~ -_-;..---_~-------- BENCH' BENCH' ^ 1 -r-_-;;~------.:.:..:---.: I HEIGHT --I- ----------- (' I) __-_-..=2% MIN.:"'-':: typlCO VARIES -----~---- T ~^"" -; :v- 2' MIN.l 15' MIN. I KEY t"LOWEST BENCH .., DePTH (KEY) I FILL SLOPE V' NATURAL GROUND \ - ------------ _-: caMP ACTeD =-:-:-~ FILL OVER' CUT SLOPE __-:-=:-JFILL%~:-7 ---------~---- -=----- ---------~-------=;. ~ ./ -------~~---~--- ----------------- - - ____........c_____ 6 ~ ""'" _-:__...:::...-::::c_-_-____;~-_ I --..........-- ------ - ... REMove. NATURAL . .z::-::_~ -...?"'_"'5. ,,.,,,-\ UNSUITABLE GROUND -:------...:.:::;-----~. ~ MATERIAL ~ '\... - ..:_::::--~- ...., r4' MIN. BENCH _ _ - _-..:-~~-_-- BENC HEIGHT ~ ....._., _ _ .,.. ":;~~2a;M-'I-N =- . ... . (typicolll VARIES I __ __ 10 __ . -.-'~ . ______ _ _ T - . ---- ..",.-~ ~ ~ . , - ~15t MIN.~ _ ' LOWEST BENCH I -' '-- CUT FACE To be constructed prior to fill placement ,". "_._"'--<W,. "-'-:' :;:;.J'_. . ..' ,;"",- . . . ....,' NOliES: . . . LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change .' based ~ consultant's inspection. ..... . S~20RAI:JAGE:. e:,~k e,.;.:.,s mer be required at the' :liscret Ion or the geotechnical consultant'. . .~ .~,." . FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS', FOR EXPANSIVE SOilS , (ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS) t-IITOfIIY FOOTINQI!I EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX 0-20 2t - 150 151 - 10 " - 130 VERY LOW EXPANSION LOW EXPANSION . MEDIUM EXPANSION HIGH EXPANSION ALL "OOTINOI '2 INCHE. ALL FoonNOS 11 INC~EI EXTnIO.. FOOTINOS " EXTlRIOfIl FOOTINGI 14 IHCHEI DEE~. FOOTUln~ DEi,el'. 'OOTI~a3 INCHES DEEP. INTERIOR DEEP, INTERIOR FOOTINOS 12 CONTIt!UOU!. r:o Cn::r:l CONTll'fUOue. H!O." I/.n FOOTI"GI 12 INCHES DEE". INCHEI DEEP. '.HO. . IAII TOP REQumED FOil ur;.rfS\Oii TOP AND BOTTOM. '-NO. .. IAII TOP AND . AND lonOM. FOlleEl. lOTTO... , I.LL FOOTIHI)8 " INCH~tI AU FoonNa!','(Ii INCHEe Al.L FOOTINOS 18 INCHES EXTERIOR FOOTINGS 14 INCHEI DEEr. FOOTIIlO: DEE:I., FOOTI>:3$ DEEP. FOOTING8 DEE'. INTERIOR FOOTINGS ,. C.(:;;TI!{UO:J::. i;O erE;;!. co;m~UOUG. HiO. 4 BAR CONTINUOUS. '~"O. 4 eAR INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. II IAR TOfI' ,REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION TOfl AND IOTTOM. TOfl AND 10TTOM. AND 'OTTOM. FORCIl.. .NOT REQUIRED. 12 IHCI:':':t1 DE;:,.. t-tlO. "' CAR 18 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 4 DA." 24 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. . 'A" TOP A.ND 'OTTOM. TOfl AND 'OTTOM. TOfl AND 'OTTOM. '-'TORY P'OOTJNOI ~""AaE DOOR (JRMIE 'EA" LlVINO- AREA FLOOR ILAIS a 112 I"C~ES THICK. NO MESH 8 112 INCHES THICK. . 112 ItCHES THICK. 4 INCHES THICK. I X 1-1/1 'MOORED FOR EXPANSION e x 8-10/tO WI"E MESH AT 8 X 1-10110 WIRE MESH AT WIRE MESH AT MID-HEIGHT. FORCES. NO "eASE REQUIRED. MID-HEIGHT. I INCHES MID-HEIQHT. .e INCHES NO. a DOWELLS FROM FOOTING . MIL VISQUEEN MOISTURE GRAVEL OR SAND lASE. e GRAVEL OR SAND lASE. . TO SLAI AT S8 INCHES ON IAP.RIER PLUS t INCH BAND. . MIL VISQUEEN MOISTURE MIL VISQUEEN MOISTURE ceNTER. 4 INCHES GRAVEL OR BARRIER 'pLUS 1 INCH SAND. IARRIER 'LUS tlNCH SAND. BAND lASE. e MIL via QUEEN MOISTURE IARRIER 'Lua t INCH lAND. QARAQE FLOOR SLABS 8112 INCHES THICK. NO MESH S 1/2 INCHES THICK. 8 112 INCHES THICK. 4 INCHES THICK. II X 1I.1I1t REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION II X 1-10110 WIRE MESH OR II X 1-101t0 WIRE MESH OR WaRE MESH OR QUARTER FORCES. NO BASE REQUIRED. QUARTER ILASS. ISOLATE QUARTER ILABS. ISOLATE aLABS. ISOLATE FROM STEM NO MOISTURE BARRIER FROM STEM WALL FOOTINGS. FROM lITEM WALL FOOTINGS. WALL FOOTINGS. 4 INCHES ,REQUIRED. 2 INCHES ROCK. GRAVEL OR 4 INCHES ROCK, GRAVEL OR ROCK, QRAVEL OR lAND .ASE. lAND IAaE. NO MOISTURE lAND lASE. NO MOISTURE NO MOISTURE IARRfER IARRIER REQUIRED. 'ARAER REQUIRED. REOUIRED. "RE-SOAII:ING OF LIVING ,NOT REQUIRED. MOISTEN SOAK TO 12 INCHES DEPTH SOAK TO 11 IfCHES DEPTH aDAK TO 24 INCHES DEPTH TO A"fA AND GARAGE SLAa 'PRIOR TO POURING TO 4'1 AaOVE OPTIMUM TO a'l AaOVE OPTlUUU 15'll ABOVE OPTIMW MOISTURE IOIU ,CONCRETE. MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENT. CONTENT. NOTEn: U ALL DI:PTHS ARE RELATIVE'TO SL.... IUIGRADE. 2) SPECIAL DESIGN UI REQUlRED FOR VERY HIGHLY EXPANSIVE 10lLI. FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAil (NOT TO SCALE) DOWEL. (WHEN REQUIRED) YI80UEEN ORAVEL OR lAND ....IE (WHEN REQUIRED) DEPTH OF HlE-IO"'IlED lOlL .; l~____~~~~_.:..-_~_ ?;~ FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE NO.: ...\.( ~.W:EARTH'TECHNICS .,oJ .~ ~'. . '."'-.'..~-, _-.i!:C APPENDIX D ?J:> SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY -------- , S.F. = H (If B) cos2o<tan ~ + C ~s H Sin<><- coso<. 0.;., zone of ' saturation ("A, ,( o. B94~) ~'n (0,44b'l.-) H = Depth of saturation zone ~B = Bouyant wei ght of soil ~ 7 tp .7 . 2l's = Total wet weight of soil = Uf(.o 0= Angle of internal friction = 3'2.. C= Cohesion = ~7'O S.F.= = ~. H' S.F. 1- 4.D I 4 2. ~4 k. 1.1~ , r\ hl:,.7)(' 8oo8)(O.'?40)....~15 H Q41.D)(O.44(,2)(o.e~4g) -=- 11(?8.?g);-~7S rI (0i., ~) Project No.: Calc. by: Chk. by: Date: ~ ,. ~310J7-0 \ WL.S' cSS {2Ibl'?~. ?J~ . APPENDIX E . t{J - REFERENCES . ,Blake, Thomas, F.,' Computer' Services and Software, .1989, A computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California.Faults, Eqfault, :July. 1989! ,Blake, Thomas F., Computer Services ahd'Software, 1986, A Computer Proqramfor the Empirical Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential, LIQEFY2, 1986; .. '. , ,Blake, Thomas 'F., Computer Services and Software, 1989, A' computer Program to Determine Historical Seismicity from' Digit.ize9- . Faults in Southern California, EQSEARCH, July 1989;. , ,Department 'of Water Resources, 1971, Water Wells and Springs in tl1e Western Part of the Upper Santa Ana Margarita River Watershed, . Bulletin:No. 91-20, August, 1971; c English, W.A., 1926, Geology and oil 'Resources Hills Re,gion, Southern California: U.S. Bulletin 768, 110 pp.; of the Puente Geology Survey . Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1988, Flood Insurance Rate -Map, Community Panel No. 060245 2740 B, Map Revised, September 30, 1988; Given,D.D., ,:,1981 "seismicity of the San Jacinto Fault Zone", South Coast Geological Society, Annual Field Trip Guidebook' No.9; ," .... . '"". .' Hart, E.W., i985, "FaUlt-Rupture Hazard Zones in california", California Division ,of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ~~; . ' . -.' . . ~'.' . ,....:. . Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California, California' Division, 'of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No.1; ,. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore:Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California" , Special Report 131; . , LeiC!]hton"and ;Associates, 1985, Geotechnical Investigation, Four . Parcels'(20;!: acres), Jefferson Avenue and Lemon >. Street, Tentative Parcel Map No. 21068,. Murrieta, 'Riverside County, california, Project No. 6851516-01, dated November;,4't'. 1985; . . . '-:.oj, ,Mann, John F., 1955,' Geology. of a Portion' of the Elsin'ore ' Fault Zone,.; Special. Report 43, California Division. of'iMines and "'Geology, October 1955;".,.:;G/:" o .- , .' ,':tr,7:.::'," " .~.... " ,.'. : '.';<::;,~~7;::::; :,. . '. ~"-";' .'. ., .~ l.. . ""~,.' -.......-. . ".-.'.. . (, A\ r , , , . ..,;:t....' ..-..... ~. ,. REFERENCES (CONTINUED) . McGoldrick, James P., Consulting Engineers, 1979,. Geologic and 'Seismic Hazards Investigation of Approximately 44 acre Parcel IMap 13648, SEC of Lemon Street and Jefferson Avenue, Murrieta, :California, dated December 14, 1979~ f Ploessel, M.R., Slosson, J .E.,. September, 1974, Repeatable High I Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology~ RANPAC Soils, Inc., 1989, Fault Hazard and Preliminary Geotechnical . Investigation, Murrieta Gateway Plaza, Tract No.' 21'335, KalmiC! I Street and 1-15, Murrieta, California, Work Order No.. 900-03, ,dated November 8, 1989 ~ Rassmusen Associates, 1979 , Preliminary Geology Investigation; : Parcel Map 13648, 'East Corner of Lemon' Street and Jefferson ,Avenue, Murrieta, California, Project No. 1467, dated March'. 23, 1979~ ' Real,' C.R., et. al., 1978, Earthquake Epicenter Map of California 1900-1974~ California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 39~ "\----.-....... . Rockwell,T.X., 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~' Rockwell, T.X:, "&Larmar, D.L., 1986, Neotectonics of the Elsinore Fault, Southern California, In Neotectonics and Faulting in Southern C~lifornia,pg 149, GSA Cordilleran Section, March 25-28, 1986~ ' , '. ,Schnabel, P.B., and Seed, H.B., 1973, "Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States", Bull. of the ,. Seismol. Soc. of 'Am., Vol. 63, NO.2, pp 501-516~ " 'seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion . and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,' Earthquake Engineering Research Institute~ ,'.'f-"" Soil Tech, Inc., 1986, Geologic and Seismic Hazards Investigation, 'Tentative Parcel,Map 21759, 'NE of Adams and'Ivy.;.street, Murrieta, California,. dated July 1986~' . ~':,,: .' . ~i',(:. ,Weber, .F.H., :Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to\'~Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, V.G.S. Open.File 'Report, 77-4 L.A. ,.,96 pages. ,;".,;';'" ....'.~; , .. -I~. . , '-':;;'''., ", 't. ~'V I. . '.' ,