The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 3883 Lot 198 Rough Grading ~' ., . 1 T .H.E. Soils CID., Inc.. , Phonet (909),678-9669 FAX: (909)678-9769 31705 Central Street, Suite A. Wildomar, CA 92595 . ~ 388;0 L.ci\~8 E-mail: thesoilseo@aol.colll RECEIVED MA ~ 0 7 Z003 CITY 01" TEM[CUlA ENGINr;rEf'lINQ DEPARTMENT May 7, 2003 Mr. Brian Clark 41890 Enterprise Circle South remecuIa, California 92590 SUBJECT: REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING Proposed Residential Development, B03-0284 Parcel 7, Lot 198, Tract 3883 3000 Via Norte, Meadowview TemecuIa, Riverside County, California Work Order No. 565301.22 Dear Mr. Clark: INTRODUCTION In accordance with your authorization, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. has prepared this Report of Rough Grading presenting the results of our observation and testing during rough grading at the above subject site. All compaction test results are included in this report in Appendix B, Table I. The proposed single-family residence was graded in accordance with the requirements of the City of T emecula and the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBe). A 20-scale "Site Plan," prepared by Academy Consulting Corporation, and provided to us by you, was utilized to plot the location of all field density tests conducted during the rough grading operations. A copy of the 20-scale "Site Plan" was utilized as a base map for our Density'Test Location Map, Plate 1. One Tractor Doze It All performed the grading operations. ACCOMPANYING MAPS AND APPENDICES Figure I - Location Map (2000 Scale) Plate I - Density Test Location Map (20-Scale) Appendix A - Laboratory Results Appendix B - Results of Compaction Tests T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 565301.22 \ - . . Mr. Brian Clark May 7, 2003 Page 2 Proposed Development The proposed development calls for the placement of a single-family residence with associated barn, driveway and landscape areas. It is our understanding that the development is proposed for the construction of a wood-framed, concrete slab-on-grade, single-family residence and barn. Site Description The subject site is an irregular shaped parcel. The subject site is located along the south side of Via Norte in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, California The site is bordered on the east and west by similar residential parcels, on the north by Via Norte and on the south by a large open space (common area). The general location of the site and surrounding area is shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. Topographically, and prior to grading, natural gradients on the site varied from 7 to 25%. Drainage on-site is accomplished by sheet flow generally to the south toward existing natural drainage channels. Prior to grading, vegetation on the subject site consisted of a low growth of annual weeds and grasses. KEYWAY EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION OBSERVATIONS & TESTING Prior to rough grading, the areas to be graded were cleared of vegetation, which was removed from the subject site. Rough grading operations consisted of the excavation of a keyway along the toes of the fill slopes and driveway slope. The keyways were founded a minimum of 3-ft. below the existing ground surface and a minimum of2-ft. into dense sedimentary bedrock units. The keyways were tilted at a minimum inclination of 2% into the existing hillside. The exposed earth materials within the keyways were scarified a minimum of 12-inches below the exposed surface, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and recompacted to 90% of the dry density, as determined by ASTM 1557. Benching was maintained into medium dense to dense sedimentary bedrock that was free of pores & fme roots during grading operations. All topsoil/colluvial soils were removed during benching operations and were utilized as fill materials. The materials used for fill consisted of on-site light brown silty sands (Unified Soil Classification-SM) derived from the on-site topsoil/colluvial and sedimentary bedrock and import materials. Fill placement and compaction was achieved utilizing a J.D. 850C bulldozer at the proposed building pad and associated driveway areas. Moisture conditioning was accomplished utilizing a water truck. The fill was placed in 6 to 8-inch thick lifts and moisture conditioned with a water truck, as needed, to bring the material to near optimum moisture content, and was then properly compacted by track-walking with the dozer. A minimum degree of compaction of 90% was required, as determined by ASTM 1557. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 565301.22 Z- o o ~.~ ~~~ 1 .~. '.... ........, ".f'.W~1 (~(\W(\~.~ :r"""d.i/J ,~ . ~ ' :. ;,-:~, t~ L r' ~~ 1 L .--.- ~~ '-; ~ *...~ II 0 I _ ','" 0 ",,:":;; ~\t:::J\\~ \\ Li t;~~-:> ,~ ~...,~' ,\~u';:fC~ . ~~~.. ~'T ( dr~... c:-l'.'~Ji'.\~l.'-~~:c:'~~c::.~ , 't: l~o y;: : / I) :~~""'11 . ~1';> ': l:ZGi..':(N/E: I.,;~':;...'%' ,I .' .,.~ ,e ..; . / e::::::J 'l~;:: 24 ,. 'if'S'!>"'~ . ..' \\. \.':3f.~'f(~~~~fr"f~..r;:;' -~J Jr:~.o -,,-' ~)r: %.~~ I/i'''~'' ......--; ." .." '.I-~~((c~~~\~~~,(~7' (.i? I: 'Ii 7 J(I7 "J / ~f p"(f;f' .~~ A;~ \ 1" V\~U, '.'0 ~7~'-'A . . :#)ftl! \;;,;n ~ ~/~ L" ~~[ J\\,! '":~7~c6\ c.= ~.:'i.. ~!1'1.'~il'I~:"'~.;j~.~ lL..<J )K U/" /;;4P'iJ; @('.(~iI4 o~::'.jr : ~'Ti~:J[_D-,.( J'U~l200 :1 (~ o ',,':;:- """r-<r=~--, ,., , ,."~'?,.\.,, . ~ I 'I I)i " '-...a.... ~-i200';1.-J '.---~~ II~" c:::::> . \..._~ ~i!J':h:~' ::('~: ,~. ~ ~':1"'1 I ....1',< I lA' " c-c '~}", --1i (= ,JI" \ t '._~~."'-.\~ /, "<',0' .- 'J. I' I 1/ J "'. . """.CA....... ~'. Ii. ~ -~ ". '-- ~ II.c." -0 '-~ /;! -~ ,Z".'>.~~ ~~-:;;o'L",- ~~,~~:~~. ~~! ~ I., 1~' f'" AI\ r- !;~~~ 5:b~# \U:!A~ ~~2'~/ <P'.' ~ Il _'" ~ ~,/ tJiYs :::)~.': ~;~tr/~~\\. '/)/S ( t.:::j( ./ '>-~ IDa1' '\ '-... '.::::I j-l,....:> 111(/ r;: ""---"-":'--:;; '--..:.-1 L"-?- c/7rrJ -:''iIf/ )'o!_<'~.:' : ""c f..::: f.~~"""'- -- .3:<", . jJ:,' ,,,! "'lie:;"" _",0 .7 :;; '\\ '.~! /J/ : 'c't<"s~",,-- V...__..--- '~' '~~ ~4, ( ...l)J"-" IIi .,!) . :.~(Cj5 ^,' ,") ~-'t 'Fe ) ) W. '~~/"~"'30 l,~ J'--'- --... "--I ':::' i'P x "~ / V j..i"","- 00 'I'D '/l" t., ~.. 7/X"'....-.? ~. 1\:) ~(r" ;..~ /1 " ~-/JM-' "-..../ )ff ~_S\.0t,"'" r); r. ;J{o0' --. _~. k', r" I, l~l':::.'::~I/58"? (;:J.~. <::,-r~ rq ,~\ ->~-f,<,"{f. ,~) ~~. 1 -._"'--;::Iiil" ~ '- JI?k:..... r.,,-~ '!t'/lO)(lt ~ " ,,~~1jh: '\., :(, ~)1.~:->. ~ c.- I~O ~ ~(-:~;~'''::~~>~~(SW1($PJl fl/I .~tf2ff!1}:;'l" " ,L 'P~"-// . ,s>,=,,,, n 14"./'~t'>,,,,. ~ r, ~ ~ ~~ /'. 'F /~, '--''1.1.' .....-- ..' I,,,', 0 J. ''--.'/ . -'f~~~~~_ _.""..-=~ ~,~-__, / .' l\.... 11~:"" .." -(>"" A / 'I .J~"t(""I<~~~~.).t:'j\\~""':~~_3 .' /' \\ \" \......., ..~..... /;,/). -- -~/;::. \\ 1:..11: . ~~~ ~\ 'I) )'> W ' M'~12' 3Ji'tj'?i'Q ~ \l; ~~ '?1 C - I~;i~~/.>~. fi"''':-'':'[/,' r ~~~II"'/7~r/.i. I~ 'J.'i ~,IIr..~F~Jc:::-~MJ;,<7:~ m~ 'y' ':. /(\, ~ -^ ff' di$e-/.[' ~ .c;; - f;;g~,,~ ~'?~Y..'3-'7,. Y ~ ,,t@"/ .W.",. ~~r;7::?~' I "il q;y(I7'P/ I '" "I '-;:';~."l\i,~~,tg'.~M~d<; -:::: Q~Q /..." '\/""1{%b "",", .~ I,d ~~~""'~~~ 4' ~ ,'.. ~"'rn.. ~ '. ..;.- ~_, r~ ~'J, ~ I 0 ~ V '7 ~ '\.C;i _ !\....;Li);::.I<..;:jI;~--;?/r,1. v. f301.l"":: I~ r Pi:". :" <':L~' ~~\~~~'l.-' ,1 u~(o7<"-"':'~ t~"\:'~I'''~'~&'.fr~r~S8rPx2';;~ iJoO~ V .. ., I'-mil ~ ~ h'05f\ " ~_________'C::J ,,_c ,J'. I " -..' ~-::'i';;q.(( "0#/ '--\ 01 """ ~. 0:;" ';;'~C=>I II ':'If,w't?::..: "ll!"~~ ~~. ~,"'"'o" .. I J!fJ I) /, r-:---" ;,; ---." M;;' , ~70-';:'7 ~\b;\r--p:; V}(l;-L~' ,J J("., "'!: ~. . ,l';;)''-/ .. u~ ~' '~---rv'~:'\.\~.?-""'I',JT; "-'" " L'" '.>>'" ~ "'\, .,., ~ .: I .,,;' ),':f~'10 v [2'5)1 ( ~;L~ " >1-,\ j, / _ ~ ~= . _ " ;' - _ "<:' 'Ie-- ~t.. - ~.~ f ',0' "'", \ ./"11.. . - ""-' '=' . - "^, _ ~ ,- r- '" ~ - dY /200 /1 ~"'~.~I?> T/' ~~ ;c;~:-.-~ ""De ~~~ = J<:::-~~~~~ ~~. :;~-:r ~I~. ~ .' ~ r- --1...., "~~~~~~a ,,( '. ... -. ",,;~. A . -. ~ 1'9''' - f.;.;:\'..~' (j;0.i '1." 1/11.../ J~'(; O(;f)~ - ~.'~" \.N~i::~~~"~oID5~ U'':i~, ~o u~iI ~~. ~E~ ;~~'~ 9'~.w>~~::i;i'2~~- ~ .. !)~~'~ -(', I(~~.d /IZSZI, or" M' ~(~:~~(i~~\'--o::' y,,- :,AJ ""'----~ '1~ -IF d- r~~.;;< 'l"j!,y:;:i\:.~l~:~J\':rk/~f , ~w- ..? 'C 1":::';'5' P/l(~~"<:>' '/I~~~^\.'/?{[-J,,;'")jr?;/~S~ "'..' ~~~., ~ <..:;rr 0 i<s'o \ ~fl.;, -lfi~'i-f;orr7&'f"'P-~~,J(w~~ -..I "" ~ 'oj F/ = 'JrA ' 1/" ~Y7- ~~ ,-'~-'i2a4~ C" ~ ~~ /'51< ~ ~j D'" d" r 'II ~ ~ ,0 i~\\.~ 1~.r;::JC~ {~:b~ o I .....( ~....~( / V)\,~\y.< -/ /? ) ~"'-" '>~t%.L lC -2}r)~~~~)=t'~~"It~l~,i~A~~~~ ,KI~' ~,~~r' Vr'l a .<~.~1r<'/:~rM ~~nyo;i'--' . l(&~"\.c.,:J ~~,rx<..;;~f'~ {(,. " "\JI}i:> V I"i: ...C....:'::':' '., .... I ~ ,,~,.,-.,\... v r~ r ~ . ,(};:' #, ~\ ";" ' A (;:/,/1 ~f;;'1 ~. ROAD'., I' I., ~":: ~%J;/;.jJ~ ~"K!~ ../;~J ~:~~~r'/ ~rf': "V~.~c).:?IIj'I\;(~'lJJI~" :l--""::;..#'<J-.rt~.... /"". '~~":.;'\.'\.\ :9 ..--_ ~ - .- . . .<~{( 1....---- lnr~==-- ---..;- - -- : _ 0 ra :.". ." . . ~. ';-..::i.. 'i Y~jW~......,;;~ . ..~. ~ 'r-"a::'''- ,,: __~ /< ;;;;:,., '~-0:>~rl.~~ ,. .'. ". ,t,.\~I'\.~ ,...~"';J:..;... . ...(. .,' ~~ /, ..' I..'i, ,'.-.,.~. -' ;Ii ~::::s~ r'o. 1/)J/"-' &J;\ ~~.\j~~i<l. ~~::~ .~~~~J..o~~".~l (J~~:~W.,,~~;.~.t?f0>7 " ,."", \\ I ~",~~\:;!, ",:. . <~e"'+l~,..~~~.'<!~: ::"-~[]j''''~b~)~~~'~I~~'~~~~~!~S:'0iO'l\ ',' ,Vj 1\P ' ..' ;ell wr-/ ' . ...-......0(" "'" lrJf),.,/I!/ ,"j) \..,..I' ~'\, ~\, i "\ .. _ r--€P 1t"-o,i~P'.l:.t:',~, ,".. '<)?,)~J' ,.' n!::.~r(/t{~ )"-,'J/"I'"' r. J..D TopoQuads Copyright 01999 DeLorme Yarmoutb, ME 04096 Source Data: USGS 1000 ft Scale: I : 25,000 Detail: 13-0 Datum: WGS84 -3 FIGURE 1 ~ . . ,Mr, Brian Clark May 7, 2003 Page 3 TESTING PROCEDURES :Field Density Testing Field density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2922 (nuclear ,gauge). Areas failing to meet the minimum compaction requirements were reworked and retested until the specified degree of compaction was achieved, The elevations and the results of the field density tests are presented in Appendix B, Results of Compaction Tests, Table I. The approximate locations of the tests are shown on the Density Test Location Map, Plate 1. ~Maximum Density Determinations 'Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture determinations were performed in the laboratory on 'representative samples of the on-site soils used in the fill operations, The tests were performed in 'accordance with ASTM 01557, Test Method A The test results, which were utilized in' , determining the degree of compaction achieved during fill placement, are presented in Appendix A, ITable I. I Expansion Index Testing Expansion index testing was performed on a representative sample of the upper 3-ft of earth materials exposed at the pad surfaces. Test results yielded an expansion index of 25, which iridicates that the on-site soils exhibit low expansion potential (21-50). Test results are presented in ,Appendix A, Table 11, 'Silluble Sulfate Content ,A. representative sample of the upper 3-ft, of the earth materials exposed on the pad surface was , obtained for testing, It is anticipated that, from a corrosivity standpoint, Type II Portland , Cement can be used for construction, Test results performed on the representative sample of the . upper 3-ft, of earth materials exposed on the pad surface, at the completion of grading, indicated 26 ppm of soluble sulfate, which equates to a negligible sulfate attack hazard (Table 19-A-4, 1997 . UBC). Babcock & Sons, Laboratory of Riverside, California conducted the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix A, Table Ill. , Slope Construction : Cut and fill slopes constructed at a maximum 2: 1 (horizonta1:vertical) slope inclination to a , maximum height of30-ft are anticipated to be both surficially and grossly stable, Fill and cut slopes I located on the subject site were constructed at a maximum inclination of 2: I (horizonta1:vertical) T,H.E. Soils Co., Inc. w.O. 565301.22 '\ --'~~~ I'. \~'-. If;' . t> .. \ .,~ ..,;"I i," - & ~ 1lA ~. . eo ... i .... '^ , Ql \ . ... ". r II ... . ~ ' ~' '" .. \' - ' '=- ;,s, ,. :./ ; \ ' , , \" '''''''- .' \ ' >~/', .~...... \ '" - --......... " r->'" ~ ------ ~ . . ....,. ',' :.,-; ......[.~~l ....,.. .,". ] l>~IV$'WAl . ;' .:i:: {~ev .~.",~",""':':'\-:""'>:';ii"'";::-'''''''':';;''''':''' "':,.",.:' i":j" . ;:':':: ::..... '.:_:'~;':--'?Y~ .. ~:.l'~.:' ." . -. .~~ .~ '-.: " . .~~ f!:? ' , ,..",1" ..~- .1 ..,". . . ... --'---', -.. -' ~.~ "~-' - .--'-~.. ._,-~~, _.._-~---._.._- _.,~ _.""'""-..~.~:.. --~ "~ ~. (~) :E 0 ;:a ; ~ " ~ ~ m I ." ----,~ ''''C ,-- 1 ." C m ;00 ;:a m 0 ?i' o 0 >< c:w"o ;;tJ i <II ):803: .., en 0 !i '" . oCJ)~ == '" ~ 0 ;o::;mo ~ m - <)>c~ 3: I; N '" mz!!!(5 '" ~ 0 ;oozz 0 !i .... m !!!;oGl~ t'" is c c~r-m '" r z !i mJ11lpUl I"l 0 0 !':' o;!:~~ 0 (') ." o~;!:r- :: ~ 0 ;!: c: _0 "" 0 ~ zer-o > 0 ;!: ::;!o-<~ z ~ '" -< z 0 o~~(5 .... 0 0 z 0 -t '" )>_!!!z is c~c;!: 0 "T1 Z ." 'T1 m)> " -t S oz" m m ;0 0 ~ III -t I~ z m )> -< V\ \ ~ ~ bZ~ 20-SCALE e' . . Mr. Brian Clark May 7, 2003 Page 4 slope ratio to a maximum height of approximately 16-ft. and 15-ft" respectively, Fill slopes were constructed to approximate finish grade elevations and were then subsequently track walked with the dozer to achieve the required +90% relative compaction, €ut-to-FiII Transition Cut-to-fill transitions were located inside the proposed building pads at the house and garage footprint location, as staked and represented by the contractor. Therefore, the entire house and garage building pads were overexcavated a minimum of 3-ft below the finish grade elevation and to limits of the building pad, as represented by the contractor, If the building pad elevation or location is altered or relocated, T.H.E. Soils Co" Inc. should review the proposed location and additional recommendations will be made at that time. RECOMMENDATIONS Foundation Desigu It is anticipated that the foundation elements should be founded entirely in compacted fill materials. T,H,E. Soils Company, Inc, should perform a footing inspection, prior to placement of reinforcement, to insure the proposed footing excavations are in conformance with the job specifications. See inclusion in Appendix A, which references WAC Geotechnical Inc.'s, "Subsurface Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation for Proposed GradinglResidential Building Construction and Foundation Evaluation for Property Known as Lot 198, Tract 3883, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California; A.P.N.s 919-092-007," Dated September 12,2002. 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. Footings should be set back from the top of all cut or fill slopes a horizontal distance equal to at lea~t Y:z the vertical slope height with a minimum setback of at least 5-ft, Total settlements under static loads of footings supported on in-place bedrock materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed about 1/2 to 3/4 of I inch, Differential settlements under dynamic loads of footings supported on properly compacted fill materials and sized for the allowable bearing pressures are not expected to exceed 1!4-inches for T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc, W.O. 565301.22 ~ . . Mr. Brian Clark May 7, 2003 Page 5 a span of 40-ft. These settlements are expected to occur primarily during construction, Soil engineering parameters for imported soil may vary, Surface Drainage 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 offoundations by landscape water. €onstruction Monitoring Observation and testing, by T.H.E, Soils Company, Inc. is essential to verifY compliance with recommendations and to confmn that the geotechnical conditions encountered are consistent with the recommendations of this report, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. should conduct construction monitoring following excavation of footings for foundations; during any additional rill placement; during retaining wall backfill and during utility trench backfill operations. LIMITATIONS this report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his , representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. The project architect or engineer should incorporate such information and recommendations into the plans, and take the necessary steps to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field, 'This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering, We do not direct the , contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site, Th.erefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notifY the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe, This firm I did not provide any surveying services at the subject site and does not represent that the building i locations, contours, elevations, or slopes are accurately depicted on the plans, The findings of this report are valid as of the report date, However, changes in the conditions of a i property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works I 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, T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc, W.O. 565301.22 \ . . Mr. Brian Clark May 7, 2003 Page 6 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, SUMMARY Our description ,of rough grading operations, as well as observations and testing services, are limited to those precise grading operations performed between March 13, and April 23, 2003, The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been based upon our observation and testing, as noted. It is our opinion the work performed in the areas denoted has been accomplished in accordance with the job specifications and the requirements of ~e regulating agencies. No conclusions or warranties are made for the areas not tested or observed. This report is based on information obtained during rough grading. No warranty as to the current conditions can be made. This report should be considered subject to review by the controlling authorities, This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. a6AYWo~~ ?l~es R Harrison Project Manager n P.Fcl( ~ject Geologist JRH/JTR!JPF:jek T.H.E. Soils Co.. Inc. W.O. 565301.22 <0 . T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. . APPENDIX A References W,O, 565301.22 q . . References Academy Consulting Corp., "Site Plan, Parcel 7, Tract 3883", dated January 4, 2003; WAC Geotechnical Inc" "Subsurface Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, for Proposed Residential GradinglResidential Building Construction and Foundation Evaluation for Property Known as Lot 198, Tract 3883, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, A.P.N. 919-092-007", Work Order No, 00599, dated September 12, 2002. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. 565301.22 \0 . . A"(\' QII,l.{l92.o07; L01198. T,..Cl No. J883 W,O. 00599 exposure at or near-grade tempoI'm)' hackcIII eX('l1\'l1Iiont!:rollgh non-Imrk periods. Where improvements (either Oil (I/' o//.,'ilei may he afJi'cted hy telllf'(I/'w:,' instability, further restrictions such as slol clIlling. extending work day and or weekend schedules, or other requiremellls wllsider"d critical to sen'ing the specific circumstances may be imposed. .. 4.2 Spread Foundations For adequate support, the proposed structures may be constmcted on continuous and/or isolated spread footings founded exclusively into field approved compacted fill materials. Conventional shallow foundation system is considered suitable for planned residential and ancillary structures. Sulfate content is considered moderate. Type II, IP(MS), IS (MS) cement is recommended. Foundations maybe designed based upon the following values: Allowable Bearing: Lateral Bearing: Sliding Coefficient: 1800 Ibs.lsq.ft. 247 Ibs.lsq.ft. per foot of depth to a maximum of 1800 lbs.lsq,ft. 0.30 The above values:may be increased as allowed by Code to resist transient loads such as wind or seismic, Building code and structural design considerations may govern depth and reinforcement requirements and should be evaluated. 2. Other Design Recommendations · FOOTING DEPTH Exterior I;;l~-fu~hes below lowest adjacent grade in approved , compacted fill for one story anp 18-inches below adjacent grade in approved compacted fill for 2-story , Interior 12-inches below lowest adjacent grade in approved compacted fill for one otory and IE-inches below adjacent grade in approved compacted fil! for 2-story. < FOOTING WIDTH Exterior k12-15 inches minimum !c)r one and 2-slory. respectively. I ntcrior 12-15 inches minimum for one and 2-stor\'. respectively. \\ I!AGE II WAC Geotechnical, Inc. . . .,-'J.N QllJ..H'J:?-nU7; L01198. TraC1 No. .lIlS; W.O, 00599 . FOOTING REINFORCEMENT Exterior & Interior All continuous; four No.4 bars, two near the lOp. t\H> near the hottom for exterior and t ,vo No.4 bars, o,l}e ,near. the top and one nearthe'li6iiom'for the interior. Concrete Slabs Slab Thiclilless: 4-inches net, reinforced with 6x6-6/6 WWF, or witp #3 rebar at 16-inch ole, is recommended, 'Reinforcement should be installed at mid-height in the slab. · Under-Slab Treatment Living Areas , lO-rnil Visqueen; cover with at lea'st 2 inches of sand. Subgrade soils should btP~l:so.a:k~(t .. to contain at least optimum moisture content: immediately prior to placing Visqueen and to be verified by the so i1s engineering , consultant. The sand cover should be moistened prior to placing concrete, Grade Beam A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings should be constructed across all garage entrances, tying together the ends of the garage footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings Garage Slab Optimum moisture content in subgrade soil verified by the soils engineering consultant. · Fireplace Footings . Fireplace footings shall have a minimum embeddmenl depth of i 2-inchcs measured from the lowest adjacent grade and should be an integral part oflhe building foundation system. Fireplace slabs shall be treated in Ihe same manner as the living area slabs, 'Prior to pouring footings soils should be' pre-moistened and fi~ld approved by the project soils engineering consultant or his represenlativc, The sclllemcnt of properly designcd and constructed ICtllllclatioJls supportcd on approvcd earlh materials, carrying maximum anticipated veri icalloadings. arc cxpccled to be within tolerable limils. Estimated total and differential sellbncJlIS should he JlO more IIlao 3/4 and 1/2-inch, rcspeclivcly flH 40 lineal feet. \7-- I'l\(iE 12 VvAC (;cotcchnical. JilL . . ..\ J'.t\ 1I19-llll.;..I(;:': LoI19t1. Tract No. 3883 W,O,0059Q ~.J Resistance to Lateral Loads Resistance III lateral loads can be restrained by friction acting al the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0,30 Illay bc asslIllled with the nonnal dead load forces for footing established on compacted fill. An allowable passive lateral earth resistance of 247 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, may be assumed for the sides of foundations poured against compacted fill, However, the maximum lateral passive earth pressure is recommended not to exceed 1800 pounds, For design, lateral earth pressures oflocal soils when used as level backfill may be estimated from the following equivalent fluid density: Active: Passive: At Rest: ; 41 pcf 247 pcf ,,62 pcf 4.4 Shrinkage and Subsidence Based on the results of in-situ density and laboratory resting conducted for the project areas under study, it is our opinion that local site soils when used during grading, may be subjected to a volume change, Assuming a 90% relative compaction for the compacted fill, and assuming an o\uexcavation and recompaction of 36-inches of the existing surficial soils, such volume change due to shrinkage is expected to be on the order of 10 to 20 percent for colluvial soils, The above percentages are for estimation purposes, Actual percentage may vary during construction. Bedrock cut materials are expected to bulk on the order of 0-5 percent when placed as compacted fill 4.4,) FiU Slopes Fill slopes should be keyed with a minimum of i5 feet in width keyway with the toe and heel founded with a I -foot differential (heel deeper). 4.4,2 Cut Slopes All C"I slopes should he field evaluated by the project engineering geologis!. \'? I'Mil.13 WAC Geotechnical, Inc, . . A f' N on"_t.IY'?II.;::, 1..)1198. Tracl No. 3B8~ \',',(), 005'1'1 J,:; COIlSlruction Considerdtions ~,:;,I t. nsupported Excavation Temporary construction excavations up to a maximum depth or 5 icel may be made without any lateral support. It is recommcnded that no surcharge loads such as construction cquipment, bc allowed within a line drawn upward at 45 degree fi'om the toe of excavation. Usc of sloping for deep excavations may be applicable where plan dimensions of Ihe excavation are not constrained by any existing structure. 4.5.2 Supported Excavations If vertical excavations exceeding 5 feet in depth become warranted. excavation should use shoring to support side walls. . 4.6 Site Preparation Site preparations should include cut subexcavations and placement of soils as engineered fill. Such earth work should be in accordance with the applicable grading recommendations provided in the current UBC and as recommended within this report, This office should be notified 72 hours in advance of importing soils to site for placement as compacted fill, It will be necessary for the project soils engineering consultant to sample import soils with subsequent laboratory testing to detemlinc suitability of import soils for project construction. It i~ strongly recommended that import soils be sinlilar to site soils. The use of clayey soils for pad construction, is not recommended. 4.7 Soil Caving During excavations for decp utility trcnches, '~ome' caving may be expectcd. .All tcmporary excavations should be made at a 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio or flatler. and/or as per the construction guidelines provided by CaIOSH1\. 4.8 Retaining Wall Rctaining Slrllt'lures. if planned, should be dcsigllcd using the ti1110wing equivalent fluid densit)': r- Slope Surface of l:quivalenl Fluiu Densit:, (.[lef) Retained Material Importcd Local (horz. to vcrt.) Clean Sand Site Soil Level 30. ~.J;.i' 2:1 ft ~, 62 - v\ PAGE 14 WAC (;~"I('dlnieal, Ine, . T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results . W.O. 565301.22 I" \? . . , TABLE I Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture % Description LbslFf Moisture I Light Brown Silty Sand 128,9 10.4 2 Brown Silty Sand 115.0 15.1 I TABLE II I EXPANSION INDEX I TEST LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL Building Pad 25 Low TABLE III SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST LOCATION SULFATE CONTENT SULFATE HAZARD Pad Surface 0 to 3-ft 26 ppm Negligible T.H.E. Soils Co., Ine, W.O. 565301.22 \1;, .' . T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. APPENDIX C Results of Compaction Tests . W.O. 565301.22 \\ ,,' . . TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION CLARK Job'No.: 565301.22 DATE: MAY 2003 Test Test Elev/ Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type (ft.) (%) (PCF) (%) I I 3/20/03 1143.0 11.6 116.4 90N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 2 3/20/03 1144.0 10,9 110.4 86N** I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 3 3/20/03 1145.0 9.7 108.1 84N** 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 2A 3/20/03 1146.0 8.5 116,0 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 3A 3/20/03 1147,0 9.4 118.5 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 4 3/21/03 1148.0 6.7 115.5 90N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 5 3/21/03 1149.0 5.9 115.8 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 6 3/21/03 1150.0 7.9 116.7 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 .7 3/21/03 1151.0 10.3 116.8 91N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 ,8 3/24/03 1152.0 10.5 116.5 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 9 3/24/03 1152.0 8.4 115.9 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 10 3/24/03 1153.0 10.7 116.1 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 11 3/24/03 1153.0 10.8 116.0 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 12 3/24/03 1154.0 7.3 116.2 90N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 13 3/24/03 1155.0 11.0 120.2 93N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 14 3/25/03 1155.0 8.1 115.5 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 15 3/25/03 1143.0 9.1 115.6 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 16 3/25/03 1144.0 7.2 116,2 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 17 3/26/03 1144.0 8.7 117.4 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 18 3/26/03 1145.0 11.0 115.9 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 19 3/26/03 1156.0 10.0 116.7 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 20 3/26/03 1157,0 11.2 121.5 95N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 21 3/26/03 1158.0 8.7 123.8 97N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 22 3/27/03 1159.0 10.4 116.1 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 23 3/27/03 1160,0 9.9 117.6 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 24 3/27/03 1161.0 8,8 118,9 93N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 25 3/27/03 1146.0 9.6 115.9 91N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 26 3/27/03 1161.0 9.4 120.8 94N I SEE PLATE I OF I 27 3/27/03 1162.0 10,6 115,8 90N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 28 3/27/03 1146.0 11.4 118.2 92N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 29 3/31/03 1147.0 7,0 123.3 96N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 30 3/31/03 1148.0 7,6 125.0 97N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 SEE PLANS FOR DETAILS \ to SC-Sand Cone ASTM DI556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuciear ASTM D30 17-93, and D2922-91; NG-Natural Ground + 850/0= Passing Tcst; ..-Test Failed, See Retest , ," . . TABLE I RESULTS OF COMPACTION CLARK Job No.: 565301,22 DATE: MAY 2003 Test Test Elev/ Moisture Unit Dry ReI. Soil Location No. Date Depth Content Density Compo Type (ft.) (%) (PCF) (%) I 31 3/31/03 1163.0 7.0 122.1 95N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 32 3/31/03 1164.0 7,7 125.3 97N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 33 3/31/03 1149.0 7.3 124.1 96N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 34 3/31/03 1150.0 7.1 125.2 97N I SEE PLATE I OF I 35 4/2/03 1164.0 11.2 115.6 90N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 36 4/2/03 1165.0 8.1 119.6 93N I SEE PLATE 1 OF I 37 4/2/03 1151.0 10.1 116.9 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 38 4/3/03 1166.0 10.9 116.6 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 39 4/3/03 1165.0 7.5 116.6 90N 1 SEE PLATE I OF 1 40 4/3/03 1167.0 7.8 115.6 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 41 4/3/03 1151.0 8.4 121.7 94N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 42 4/3/03 1152.0 8.1 116,5 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 43 4/4/03 1152.0 12.6 115.6 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 44 4/4/03 1153.0 11.9 115.4 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 45 4/4/03 1157.0 12.3 118.9 92N 1 SEE PLATE I OF I 46 4/4/03 1158.0 11.5 117.6 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF I 47 4/4/03 1154.0 10.6 124.6 97N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 48 4/4/03 1158,0 9.8 116.6 90N I SEE PLATE 1 OF I 49 4/16/03 1167.0 10.8 116.0 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 50 4/16/03 1168.0 11.4 116.9 91N I SEE PLATE I OF 1 51 4/16/03 1169.0 12.0 117.3 91N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 52 4/16/03 1159.0 10,5 118.4 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 53 4/17/03 F.G, 11.7 115.9 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 54 4/17/03 F.G, 12.2 117.5 91N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 55 4/17/03 F.G.slope 10.6 115,6 90N I SEE PLATE 1 OF I 56 4/21/03 1168.0 11.3 115,7 90N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 57 4/21/03 1169,0 11.5 116.2 90N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 58 4/22/03 1168.0 12.6 111.3 97N 2 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 59 4/22/03 F.G. 10.9 107.8 94N 2 SEE PLATE I OF 1 60 4/22/03 F.G, 11.4 110.4 96N 2 SEE PLATE I OF I 61 4/23/03 F,G, 10.3 118.3 92N 1 SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 62 4/23/03 F.G. 10.8 118.6 92N I SEE PLATE 1 OF 1 ~~~~~ ~ SC-Sand Cone ASTM 01556-64; DC-Drive Cylinder ASTM D2937-71; N-Nuclear ASTM 03017-93, and 02922-91; NG-Natural Ground + 85~'d='Pa..,sing Test; **-Test Failed, See Retest " . AMJf1WTPJtrCU02-7011 D :rE: AUGUS:r 8, 2002 1-800- 564-7372 (909) 780-0150 FAX 780-8291 PROJECT NUMBER: 02-7011 DATE: AUGUST 8,2002 ( ~\J..~l ~~ ~VI~. JOB SITE LOCATION: VIA NORTE TEMECULA, CA LOT 198 OF TRACT # 3883 APN: 919-092-007 PREPARED FOR: MR. BRIAN CLARK @@~w RECEIVED NOV 1 9 2002 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Percolation Investigation AM/PAC AND ASSOCIATES ~o P.O. Box 545 . Norco, CA 92860 . . AMlPAC AND ASSOCIATES, INC, PROJECT # 02-7011 DATE: AUGUST 8, 2002 PROJECT NUMBER: 02-7011 CLIENT REQUESTING REPORT: DATE: AUGUST 8, 2002 MR. BRIAN CLARK (816) 505-4510 JOB SITE LOCATION: VIANORTE TEMECUlA, CA. APN: 919-092..{)07 LOT 198 OF TRACT # 3883 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSISTING OF A 5 BEDROOM FRAME HOME AND BARN, UTILIZING A SEPTIC TANK AND SEEPAGE PIT ON SITE SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT: THIS TEST WAS PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF USING AN ON SITE, SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM ON THE LOT IN QUESTION, THIS TEST WAS PERFORMED FOR A SEEPAGE PIT APPLICATION. THIS TEST AND REPORT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUFFICIENT AREA AND PROPER USABLE SOIL AVAILABLE FOR A SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TO SUPPORT A PROPOSED OR FlJTURE BUILDING PROJECT ON THE PARCEL OR LOT TESTED, PROPERTY:DESCRIPTION: THIS PARCEL IS A 0,6 + - ACRE LOT, DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE ASSESSOR'S MAP ATTAOHED, THE LOT IS IRREGULARLY SHAPED AND FRONTS VIA NORTE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LOT LINE OF THE PARCEL. THE LOT HAS BEEN CLEARED AND IS FREE OF WEEDS AND DEBRIS, NO TREES, ROCK OlJTCROPS, OlJTBUILDINGS NOR WELLS WERE NOTED ON THE PARCEL. A SEASONAL DRAINAGE COURSE IS NOTED, PROPOSED GRADING WILL REMOVE ANY DRAINAGE FROM THE VICINITY OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. THE TOPOGRAPHY IS NOTED AS GENTLY ROLLING TO HILLY, A GRADING PLAN IS CURRENTLY BEING PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. THE PARCEL IS EASILY FOUND USING THE ASSESSOR AND VICINITY MAPS ATTACHED, METHODOLOGY OF TESTING: PER THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH'S REQUIREMENTS: ALL EXCAVATIONS WERE MADE USING AMlPAC'S MOBILE DRILL 8-34, TRUCK MOUNTED CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER, DRILL RIG. A 6" DIAMETER AUGER WAS USED TO EXCAVATE THE SEEPAGE PIT PERCOLATION TEST HOLES AND THE EXPLORATORY BORE HOLES, AN EIGHT INCH AUGER WAS USED FOR ANY LEACH LINE PERCOLATION INVESTIGATION SITES, PERFORATED PIPE LINERS WERE USED TO MAINTAIN THE HOLE DEPTH AND DIAMETER DURING TESTING, A SOLlNST WATER LEVEL METER WAS USED TO MEASURE THE WATER LEVEL AT FILLS AND DROPS, A 100 AND/OR 300 GALLON TRUCK MOUNTED WATER TANK WAS USED TO PROVIDE WATER FOR TESTING. PERCOLATION TESTING WAS PERFORMED AFTER PRESOAKING, TESTING WAS PERFORMED IN THIRTY-MINlJTE INTERVALS OVER A SIX-HOUR PERIOD, AT THE END OF EACH THIRTY-MINlJTE PERIOD THE WATER LEVEL WAS MEASURED, THE RESULT NOTED, AND THE HOLES REFILLED TO THE "ZERO. LEVEL WITH WATER. ~\ . . AMIPAC AND ASSOCIATES, INC, PROJECT # 02-7011 DATE: AUGUST 8, 2002 THE "ZERO" LEVEL OR POSITION IS THE DEPTH AT THE PROPOSED INLET OF THE SEEPAGE PIT. TEST DATA: A SEEPAGE PIT PERCOLATION TEST HAS BEEN PERFORMED ON THIS PARCEL WITH THE FOLLOWING RESULTS: PIT A= 1.32 GALLONS PER SQ, FT, OF SIDEWALL PER DAY PITB= 1.30" .. .. THE DESIGN AND SIZE OF THE SEEPAGE PIT SYSTEMS IS BASED ON AN ASSIGNED "Q" OF 1,1 1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK INSTALL THREE PITS, 6' DIAMETER AND 25 FEET IN DEPTH AS MEASURED BELOW THE INLET. EXPLORAT0RY BORING, PERCOLATION TEST HOLE BORING AND PERCOLATION PRESOAKING WERE PERFORMED AUGUST 7, 2002, PERCOLATION TESTING WAS PERFORMED AUGUST 8,2002, ALL EXCAVATIONS WERE MARKED WITH LATH AND FLAGGING. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: AM/PAC AND ASSOCIATES IS REQUIRED, AS THE ENGINEER RECORD, TO APPROVE ANY GRADING PlAN SUBMITTED FOR THIS PROJECT, THE APPROVAL SHALL BE FOR THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE GRADING PLAN WITH RESPECT TO THE PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, SEE THE ATTACHED TYPICAL LEACH LINE CROSS SECTION AND SETBACK GUIDELINES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REQUIRES THAT THE LOT CORNERS BE MARKED AND THAT THE ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BE POSTED IN PLAIN SIGHT ON THE PARCEL ALL WATER WELLS MUST BE AT LEAST 100' AWAY FROM ANY SEPTIC TANK AND/OR LEACH LINE AND 150' AWAY FROM ANY WATER WELL, THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM AVAILABLE ON THIS PARCEL TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED BARN, RESIDENCE AND SEPTIC SYSTEM ONLY. 7J.-- . . AMIPAC AND ASSOCIATES, INC, PROJECT # 02-7011 DATE: AUGUST 8,2002 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE DATA PRESENTED IN THIS REPoRT AND USING THE RECOMMENDATIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, IT IS THE OPINION OF' THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT AREA ON EACH LOT IN QUESTION TO SUPPORT AN INDIVIDUAL SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM, THAT WILL MEET THE CURRENT CODES AND STANDARDS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BASED ON THE DATA PRESENTED IN THE REPORT AND THE TESTING INFORMATION ACCUMULATED, IT IS THE OPINION OF THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE GROUNDWATER TABLE WILL NOT ENCROACH WITHIN THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE LIMITS SET FORTH BY COUNTY AND STATE REQUIREMENTS. HORSE CORRALS, ANIMAL PENS OR DRIVEWAYS, EITHER PAVED OR UNPAVED, MUST NOT BE PLACED OVER LEACH LINES, THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHALL BE LOCATED SO THAT THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM AND THE REQUIRED 100% EXPANSION SYSTEM SHALL OPERATE BY GRAVITY FLOW. THE ORIGINAL LEACH FIELD AND EXPANSION SYSTEMS .LEACHING SIDEWALL AND BOTTOM AREA MUST BE IN NATURAL, UNDISTURBED SOIL AND AT THE DEPTH OF THE TESTS PERFORMED, THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT WERE DERIVED FROM DATA GATHERED FROM OUR FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, USING METHODS MEETING THE STANDARD PRACTICES AT THIS TIME. THIS REPORT IS BASED ON CONDITIONS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION. ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES, WHETHER NATURAL OR CAUSED BY MAN, MAY ALTER OR NEGATE THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN. NO WARRANTY IS MADE OR IMPLIED BY THE SUBMITTAL OF THIS REPORT NOR BY ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN AGREEMENT. ANY LIABILITY IN CONNECTION HEREWITH IS LIMITED TO THE FEE CHARGED FOR THIS REPORT, THE REPORT STAMPED "ORIGINAL" MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT WHEN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT IS MADE, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WILL NOT ACCEPT A COPY OF THIS REPORT, IF NO PROPOSED PLANS ARE AVAILABLE TO AMlPAC, INC. DURING THE TIME THE REPORT IS PREPARED, ADDITIONAL FEES MAY BE CHARGED IF AMIPAC INC, IS REQUESTED TO FURNISH A PLOT PLAN SYSTEM DESIGN AT A LATER DATE, THUS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL WORK, THIS REPORT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE WITHOUT AM/P j1S0J:F~~L ------ DAVID E, BALL R, RESIDENT AM/PAC AND ASSOCIATES, INC, 7P . . AMIPAC AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT # 02-7011 DATE: AUGUST 8, 2002 SOIL PROFILE DATA BORE LOG NUMBER: A 0-10' SIW TAN BROWN GRANITIC SANDS. FINE TO COARSE GRAINED FIRM AND DRY 10-30' SIC GRAYISH TAN SANDS, SLIGHT TO MODERATE CLAYS, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SANDS, VERY FIRM TO DENSE AND DRY 30-40' SIC GRAY TAN CLAYS, SIL TV TO FINE GRAINED SANDS, DENSE AND MOIST. BORE LOG NUMBER B 0-12' SIW TAN BROWN TO MEDIUM BROWN SANDS, FINE TO COARSE-GRAINED FIRM AND DRY 12-30' SIC TAN GRAY SANDS, SLIGHT TO MODERATE AMOUNTS OF CLAYS, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED VERY FIRM TO DENSE AND DRY GROUNDWATER INFORMATION GROUNDWATER AT THE TIME OF BORING: NONE GROUNDWATER AT THE 24 HR. RECHECK: NONE MONITORING WELL INSTALLED? NO '),-~ LLI~{ ..- ~.:, v 0 . ~ .. UJ o '" '" ::: UJ <( ,....'" '" '" '" % W .- t- ::: a: 0 o ... -' t Q:I 0 UJ . '" W ""0: <I- r"- ... '" "'~~'" ~~~ () \:'J... o ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~I~ {'('I r(\ .1 ~ ~ ~ w ~ r- ~ .~ ~ .l Ii 10 l' ~ ~ .. j ~ i ~ S~-- C'- k"<. \)i, \)0 D., r- I'- ~.:z -~..~ ~ 1-f\L ---. ~ ~o ............. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -'~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ .p ., -r 0.0: ~ :.':' q:;~ H %% o 0 W P\_ ~ lot -... % :;;.. ).. u '" -' C> '" u u.. 0:: ~. .0: 0 < '" a: ~ .9 .. % ~ ~ J - .. " ~ " .. % % - 0 u - I .. \) lY'\ 1- ---. ~~ .............. . '" \ ~~ I----- 1 ~ ~ "--t- . \'- ~ .- o tv') ........................ . I"-...-~ '. . ''I'---- r--...-... ...............--- - :.i g i ~ . i l! ~ ~ =~ ~ ! ~ :~ .. I- - t -;: ~ tl~t %D 0( If - -;J: = Ii: i: It Xiii: ~ . < ~, .6: it ~ ~ x ~ :. ... a.... t. . i! 0...<0 ~ ::~ ~. IlL,., .II: G -I t~~~'i: !:Q H . <.. .. ,~ ~. ;~== M~~S + 5ioctt8W= ~ ...~~~~.~. "al:<. -~ d ~ ~ -; :!: ;lOl!~.D~!t~ \ H -,. xl-...O.....-<I.---.... ~ g ~.~ :EE~:g;:V~ '-:r ::: ,,"lEI oJ :;.. ~~:r.:..i..~- u IJ <<D"'OOQt"~ ~ I -- .......0( A ..., c ~ ;; ~ ~; ~; -:; 0 (.J 1.-1, N\ ~~ ~ - t\ J. . , ~ ':i.- .~ ~ + <) IJ ~ O() ,,\ ~ ., I.r) \ (- G \'y\ E u rl. !J ( ~." \(\ ~j 0- ~ .Q "-:J j ~ ~\~ C\ p ~ ~ .- Gr ~'I~l . - .. w 00:'" :::; ~.~ "''''''' % W - to- ::= 0:: 0 o u.....J '" 0 w . '" w Z:r:; <( .... :Z:... w '" on .....J ,0 ,on ,U u.. u ,<1: CJ... ::::, , ~. , ,U "" ~. ...<<: ~~!;1 ~ .", <;:j, .u.. o m:~a:: .1- <t. LO ,~'O t:;- ...., ":l:: ,0 <( ~ :0 " '. -- - 0: err CI ~ . > ... 0 . :l - - ; ,,,,IE_ o.l U :i . .'~ CI . ~ /' \ \cI ~ ~U-~.~ Q ~\} ll' ft\ 0 p ~ ~ \~ r:::r-- ~ ~ ~ \Y\ lY\ rrt l'(\ ('f\ w ~ ~~ ~ 'll;) lI\ \l" ';l- ~ 0 ~ \~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ Q [,0--:' \J' \X) .\X) ~ ~ \"" ('~. r-- K "- ~. ~ ....... , .~ ~ ~ / . ---- r'--.. ~ ~ -.t- ./ I .......1---. ~. x j!:'~ ~ Ii. .. Q ~~~~~ ..... ..... ~ ..... ~f xx '" 00 ~ - ~ o ~ ... ... ... .. : j :l i~ ,,~ ~ !( ~ : ~ o U ..J ::: :5 .! ~ ::~ .. .... ~ .~ :1 ~~!c. Xli ! "a- i!: ..~~~~~ .~=x ~ -r. .. a!( ~ ~ ..:.: Gte ;; "':: .... ~"...$!';, X Q ~ .......- /l .... ~ o"'~"~.~l: 1,1" ~O".!(5~~J: + eJOlE'ell" t-I ot:;!y.. sn: - ~ai~t:....~ I ~ ;~.ii:~!: ;.; :r:? JOlt."... - 0( If .. 0(. 0.... 'Ii ..~~~ ...~= ;.. ...:, %:.- n.. '" II ~D-oo'n.~ ,.) :::::::" o;r_wko"J ~ \1) \.., '\ (J'I \ N \'- ~.I '-' , ! y .J-.- -- \ " ~ \..1) i "- ~ II.. -L l; \'. \J ~'<J., ~ ~ <...........J I --1 ~ . \.t) I '0 m j,.. I IlO lL . ./ .\. If'-. ~ Q ~ () .(0 ~~O (Y\{'{l (Y) \V (Y\ . r J If) .....--1- \ . ~ (J \J rf'J /~ .,:----~ --.........~ --......... /'""" '. '/, \ . % \\ ~ \ () VI ~'N ~~ 1.1) kit ~ \Yl \. \ 7Jp . . AMIPAC AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT # 02-7011 DATE: AUGUST 8, 2002 SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SET BACK REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN THE CLEAR REQUIRED FROM: SEPTIC TANK DISPOSAL FIELD SEEPAGE PIT BUILDING OR STRUCTURES 1, SFT, 8FT. 8FT. PROPERTY. LINE ADJOINING PRIVATE PROPERTY 2, SFT. SFT, 8FT, WATER SUPPLY WELLS 100 FT, 100 FT, 1S0 FT, STREAMS 50FT. SOFT. 100 FT. LARGE TREES 10FT, 10 FT. 10FT. SEEPAGE PITS SFT. SFT, 12 FT, DISPOSAL FIELDS SFT. 4FT. SFT, ON SITE DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LINE SFT, SFT, SFT, DISTRIBUTION ElOX SFT. SFT, SFT. PRESSURE PUBLIC WATER MAIN 3, 10FT, 10FT. 10FT. FLOOD PLAIN / FLOODING SFT. 15 FT, 1SFT, 1, INCLUDING PORCHES AND STEPS, WHETHER COVERED OR UNCOVERED, BREEZEWAYS, ROOFED PORTE-GOCHERES, ROOFED PATIOS, CARPORTS, DECKS, POOLS, 'RETAINING WALLS, COVERED WALKS, COVERED DRIVEWAYS AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES OR APPURTENANCES. 2, THE SYSTEM MAY GO UP TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING PUBLIC PROPERTY. PROVIDING NO PUBLIC WATER MAINS ARE WITHIN OR ANTICIPATED WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. A STATEMENT FROM THE WATER DISTRICT OF SERVICE IS REQUIRED, 3. PREFERABLY 2S FEET, 4, NO PART OF THE ABSORPTION SYSTEM SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN 2S FEET OF A 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN OR FLOODWAY, ALSO THE FINISHED GRADE IN THE ABSORPTION SYSTEM MUST BE AT LEAST 12" ABOVE THE LIMIT OF THE 100 YEAR FLOOD :PLAIN OR FLOODWAY TO PREVENT PONDING OR STANDING WATER AND/OR SHEET FLOW OVER THE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. NOTE: ALL LEACH LINE TRENCHES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 1S' AWAY FROM DAYLIGHT WHEN SLOPING GROUND IS PRESENT, SEEPAGE PITS MUST BE 2S' AWAY FROM DAYLIGHT. THIS IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY AND AFFECTS THE LEACHING SIDEWALL AND BOTTOM OF BOTH SYSTEMS, 1.--'\ . AM/PAC 1-800-564-7372 (909) 780-0150 FAX 780-8291 SEEPAGE :PIT SYSTEM ADVANTAGES OF THE SEEPAGE PIT DISPOSAL SYSTEM INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: A. MINIMUM AMOUNT OF AREA IS REQUIRED. B. LARGE CONTACT AREA WITH SOIL. C. AGGREGATE PROVIDES ADDED TREATMENT SURFACE AND PROTECTION OF SOIL. THE MAJOR LIMITATION OF THIS TYPE OF DISPOSAL SYSTEM IS ITS INABILITY TO BE USED iN HIGH GROUND WATER AREAS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY REQUIRES 100% EXPANSION AREA.. 48"MIN I8"MIN . \\ ~~ ?-\~ / -)) AM/PAC AND ASSOCIATES 1!b P.O. Box 545 . Norco, CA 92860 -... ~ t\j !::Ill::: ;t . ~~ :;{t-.: cc "<:~ ~~ ~~ ~::j ~~ '~ ~~ Q:, , ~ ~ 0) ~~ ~oI .~ ~ o ~" c. <' ~, \5Y @- ''''''.59sr e til ~ G) ~ E,,'1&" @ . Q . . . ~ .. . e ., , " '. 00> e ~ <, 'G:h' "~ ~ \ ~ $ . it " c, . 0 lil ~ '>\" <,' !!1 ~ '" ~ :.,." \ \~. <~ "- Q ~ .~- ~ ~ \ \" C0 '" z-<\ f}: ~ ~ -', {, (rl 1.,; k ([) ~ ~ " " 19'91t-' G) ~ IS'Lot . ~ ?fJ o o E) 01998 ThomasBnls. M S :l" ~ ill ;j i () So JI> ~ ~ :"' i Ill> ~ CO ~ ~ I\) ?J\ :"". '"\''''' ~ ~" '. ~. . \ 0;. , ~ -' ,. ' JaJOOl .. 1'r::: ~. N.f!IJ"z.b\~3 ~. / o...~ ft ~ SEe.. · 'A-A. II -r~ I ~ Ii 1t(8to.9. tM. 5kblM bt.. 70~ -r-{,tl) i 5 ~ 32,- f "" /; \~ VY I -r~ 5~t i t ~ '6''- \4.... ~c. 91..OU<. REThINItII& """'LL l-~ ioiO.Q' < . . EXHIBIT "A" SLOPE EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A PORTION OF LOT 542 OF TRACT MAP NO. 3883 RECORDED IN BOOK 63, PAGES 1 THROUGH 35 ON FILE IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAID PORTION BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGlNNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 198 OF SAID TRACT MAP NO. 3883, SAID POINT BEING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF VIA NORTE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERL Y HAVING A RADIUS OF 385.00 FEET WITH A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 19059' 21" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 09' 36", A DISTANCE OF 1.00 FOOT TO A POINT ON SAID RIGHT OF WAY WITH A 'RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 200 08' 57" WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY OF VIA NORTE, SOUTH 430 )3' 08" EAST A DISTANCE OF 22.19 FEET; ITHENCE SOUTH 3 I 0 50' 23" EAST A DISTANCE OF 29.54 FEET; iTHENCE SOUTH 300 51' 37" EAST A DISTANCE OF 69,20 FEET; ITHENCE SOUTH 14033' 14" EAST A DISTANCE OF 25.30 FEET; ITHENCE SOUTH)3O 04' 37" WEST A DISTANCE OF 14.75 FEET; ITHENCE SOUTH 440 43' 11" WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.21 FEET; !THIENCE NORTH 81006' 49" WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.33 FEET TO A POINT ON THE : EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 198; . THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 198, NORTH 19059' 21" WEST 'x DISTANCE OF 158.73 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, I SAID PORTION CONTAINS 3,041.00 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS, ?9 // ~ ~o~~~ ~\~ ''!JIQ'lJ~ ,,'(( \.' ~' .o~ (!>~ s'sy '!J'!> ~~' r;;.r:J ~ \l'1Z~ "\ (P.p-- EXHIBIT "H' ~ ^~ Iv<] / D, 'n ./" v/,- /!. ~// C;-y^, </ ./'V ""-2 /y o ...... l' \1 ~,,.., ",J '-'.r;, 0...... 0f ~ <9. ":9. /- ~" ""'') .. ./-<J / C,, '\." ./" V, ./" ./! y .:.:7~ 3.041 SQ FT "-:.0 Y,(\ \"",;-'."\ ../'\...j (Y '/k " V '~ _ <1'. '\~ U ." OJ & O"'} GRAPHIC SCALE :20 0 I~ ,. I 2. I ... I 80 I ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. ?A DENNIS JANDA, INC. LAND SURVEYOR/MAPPING SERVICES SHEET 1 OF 1 W.O. # 41934 MAIN STREET. 206. TEMECULA. CA 92590 - - M-03-00 SCALE: 1"= 20' DRAWN BY LD DATE1-28-03 SLOPE EASEMENT