The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 3552 Lot 24 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation L .; e .ACADEMY e U>O'J,-d 3/I,1l. Th~L L...Dt"' 2."'\ ~O2.-~ CONSULTING CORPORATION PRET.T1\fINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROJECT NO.: 22140-01 WORK ORDER NO.: 0201-1677-F DATE: February 20, 2002 PROJECT SITE: Corner ofYnez Road and La paz Street Temecu1a, California LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Assessor's Parcel Number 922-160-016-9 Riverside County PREPARED FOR: Richard and Corina Williams 29592 Corte Copa Temecula, California 92592-2032 PMB C-2JJ, 16776 Lakesbore Dr, Lake Elsinore Ca 92SJO, Tel (909) 245-2200 Fax (909) 245-4211 \ Ii e ACADEMY e CONSULTING CORPORATION Project # 22140-0 I Work Order # 0201.1677-F February 20,2002 Richard and Corina Williams 29592 Corte Copa Temecula, California 92592-2032 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR TIlE SITE LOCATED ON TIlE CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND LA PAZ STREET, TEMECULA, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-160-016-9, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Williams: In accordance with your request and authorization, we have prepared this report of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation conducted for the above subject site. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the limited scope of field evaluation at the time and location of our site review and may not represent conditions at, other times or locations. By incorporating the "limitations" herein, there are no presentations and/or warranties, expressed, or implied to uniformity, chemical characteristics or merchantability of the 'property. Additional costs must be anticipated depending on future findings, regulatory requirements, or any other conditions. No specific design plans were available at the time of our soil e\\aluation. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance, please contact our office at your convenience. We appreciate this opportunity to be service to you. Respectfully submitted, ...~~;:::r,ESS?1,~~~~ F0R ACADEMY CONS~!~G~~~~G" __ :'U:.'.- ~..\~2:.';:.u /' '"_,''' __,' ~-'~~t ~ _ A,'{ ;;~J;J/';" )~:)j By'f~rl J eh M.s:.p.a:,".. ". .., .~. 7: // ',:-..- LFJ:da '- - ---- Enclosures PMB C-2J3, 16776 Lakeshore Dr, Lake Elsinore Ca 92530, Tel (909) 245-2200 Fax (909) 245-4211 7- .1 . . February 17, 2002 Project No. 22140-01 1.0 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 :respect to 'the proposed development and to assess the 'geotechnical and engineering constraints that might exist .considering this development. 'The 40-Scale Rough Grading Plan prepared by Academy, was used to Idirect our 'field work. Plate 1 presents our Geotechnical data ,obtained during our field investigation. At the time of our investigation, the property corners had been surveyed and staked. ,ACCOMPANYING MAPS. ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES I Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2 :Geotechnical Map - (50-scale) - Plate 1 IRegional 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- References ?> e INDEX MAP e o . SCALE 2000 4000 N feet INDEX MAP OF 3.03+/- ACRES, A.P.N. 922-160-016 SEC LA PAZ STREET & YNEZ ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 2 SQURCE: U.S.G.S. 7\ MIN. QUAD. TEMECULA 1963 (PR 1975) l\ ., e e 22140-01 Page 3 2.0 SITE LOCATION/CONDITIONS The irregularly-shaped 3.03 +/- acre lot is located at the southwest corner of La Paz street and Ynez Road, both improved ,paved roads, in the Temecula area of Riverside County. The :property is bounded by La Paz street to the south and Ynez Road 'to the north, with an existing home to the northwest, and vacant land in all remaining directions. 'Topographically, the parcel is very gentle descending to the : south-southwest at less than 10 percent. Total relief over the lot is 11+{- feet, but less than 4 feet in the area proposed for Ipad development. No bedrock is exposed at the site. .A large swale crosses the southwest central portions of the site, ,and displayed evidence of considerable previous running water. 'The water from this stream swale is directed off-site via a 36- inch CMP culvert beneath La Paz street. ,At time of our testing the site had been disced for weed control. iMinor grasses are located in the swale area. The topographic and geographic relations ips of the lot to ,adjacent areas is shown on the Index Map (Page 2). 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IBased on the initial 40-scale Rough Grading Plan, being prepared Iby Academy, the site will be developed with a cut and fill pad and driveway access from La Paz street. The pad will be Iconstructed with maximum cuts and fills on the order of 2 and 3 feet respectfully at finished slope inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The pad area for the Iproposed single-family residence will be designed in slight . transition from cut on the northwest to fill on the southwest. The generalized house footprint is shown on Plate 1. 'On-site sewage disposal will be utilized in the natural areas ,unaffected :by the current grading and is shown on Plate 1. The 'concurrent investigation conducted by this office will be ,reported under separate cover. 4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES :The scope of our investigation included the following: 1. A review of available data pertinent to the site. 5 ~ e e' 22140-01 Page 4 2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 3 exploratory backhoe trenches to depths as great as 15.3 feet. The trenches were logged, and these logs appear in Appendix A of this report. Several trenches were tested for in-place density utilizing the Sand Cone Method (ASTM 01556-64). Representative bulk samples were obtained for testing. 3. Laboratory testing of representative earth materials to develop soil engineering parameters for the proposed development. ,4. preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning site development based upon an engineering analysis of the geotechnical properties of the subsoils as determined by field and laboratory evaluation. 5.0 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. '5.1 Maximum Densitv - 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 Ibearing capacity. This is based on ASTM Standard 01557-00 (five 'layer method) . '5.2 In-situ Moisture and Densitv ,These tests consisted of performing Sand Cone Density tests (ASTM :01556-64) in the trenches to determine in-place moisture and ,density. The results are used to analyze the consistency of the ,subsoils and aid in determining the necessary grading to prepare Ithe pad area. ;5.3 Sieve Analvsis This test determines the material grading of the individual :particle sizes and is used in generatirtg an engineering ,classification. (;. , e e 22140-01 Page 5 5.4 Sand Eauivalent Testina 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. ,5.5 Expansion Testina The expansion index of the soils are determined by the D.B.C. :Method 29-2 and is used to design foundations for anticipated ,expansion forces. 5.6 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. 5.7 Soluble Sulfate ,A representative surface sample was tested to determine soluble :sulfate content. The test results are used to recommended the 'type and strength of concrete to be used in construction. 6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The area of the proposed pad is underlain by colluvial soils with 'variable thickness from 1-3 feet. The colluvium thickens to the :southwest . In-place densities for the colluvium were moderately ,low with densities of 104.6 pcf (81.5% relative compaction) to '114.2 pcf (88.9% relative compaction) and moistures of 6-8 Ipercent at ,2-3.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The underlying pauba Formation bedrock was dense to very dense ,with in-place densities of 116.3 pcf (90.6% relative compaction) ito 119.7 pcf (95.1% relative compaction) at 4-5.5 feet and 'moistures of 7-9 percent. 7.0 GROUND WATER :No ground water seepage was encountered on the site to a depth of 15.3 feet. Historic high ground water is expected to be 17-20 :feet at the lowest elevations of the lqt based on historic ground ,water in nearby wells on the adjoining 'property to the north and Inorthwest (DWR, 1971). 1 tit ~ 22140-01 Page 7 12.0 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. A probabilistic evaluation 'of potential seismicity for the site utilizing FRISKSP (Blake 1998) indicates a 10% ,probability of exceedance of 0.74g in 50 years assuming all :seismic sources. IWe have utilized strain rates of 5.0 rom/year for the Elsinore :Fault suggested by Peterson, et al (1996) to estimate the maximum Imoment earthquake. We estimate the maximum moment magnitude or "design earthquake" for the Elsinore Fault to be 7.5 magnitude 'with a 10% possibility of exceedance in 50 years. This is in ,agreement with the probabilistic model by Blake, (1998). 12.1 1997 U.B.C. Seismic Parameters: 'The following UBe seismic parameters should be incorporated into !seismic design: Nearest Active Seismic Source (Type B Fault) - 1.1 km Soil Type* - SD Near Source Factor N. - 1.3 Near Source Factor Nv - 1.6 * Soil type may be Sc but requires additional field work to verify. 13.0 GROUND MOTION CHARACTERISTICS :The ground motion characteristics which could affect the site ;during the postulated maximum moment magnitude of 7.5 on the iElsinore Fault were estimated. Available information in the . literature about max~mum peak bedrock acceleration and its attenuation with distance (Joyner and Borzognia, 1994), the leffects of site-soil conditions on surface ground motion Iparameters (Seed & Idress, 1982), and site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were utilized. The predominant period of bedrock acceleration is expected to be '0.30 seconds with 24 seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt, 1973) . '\ . ~, 22140-01 Page 6 8.0 FLOODING According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the County of Riverside, the pad site is not located within the ,boundaries of a 100-year flood plain. The stream crossing the southwest central portions of the property presents a flooding ,hazard in a wide channel 40-50 feet wide, but 4-6 feet below the .pad area. 'No potential for flooding exists on the proposed improved and ,elevated pad. 9.0 GEOLOGY 'The entire proposed building pad area is underlain at depth :sedimentary bedrock identified as the pauba Formation (Mann, ~955; Kennedy, 1977). The poorly-developed bedding was oriented lN80-85E and dipping 5-7 degrees NE. No evidence of slope . instability exists at the site or in the adjoining cut slopes ,along YnezRoad. ~o.o SEISMIC SETTING/GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS :The regional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest ,active faults to the site include the Wildomar Fault of the :Elsinore Fault Zone which is located approximately 1800 feet to the northeast. The Casa Loma branch of the San Jacinto Fault is .located 22 miles to the northeast. The Elsinore Fault zone because of its proximity and seismic IPotential to the site is the design fault when evaluating the :site seismic parameters. 11.0 HISTORIC SEISMICITY iDuring 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 sa~ Jacinto Fault (Hileman, ,Allen and Nordquist, 1974; Peterson, et all, 1996). The most Isignificant earthquake epicenter of magnitude 6.0M on the IElsinore Fault occured 12+ miles to the northwest in 1910 in Lake ,Elsinore. Several earthquakes of magnitude 6.8M and 7.0M have ,occurred on the Casa Loma and San Jacinto faults approximately :20-22 miles northeast. B - - 22140-01 Page 8 14.0 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS The dense well-cemented nature of the underlying sedimentary bedrock in 'the area of the existing pad at depths as shallow as 4.0 feet, and the historic depth to ground water over 18 feet precludes such secondary seismic hazards as liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement of the ground the house is being placed upon. No rockfall hazard exists at the 'nearly flat building site. 15.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ,15.1 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 24 inches below adjacent finished grade for two-story buildings, and 18 inches for :one-story buildings. Interior footings may be founded ,a minimum of 18 inches below finished grade. 'When the footings are founded in properly compacted fill or dense ,bedrock, an allowable bearing capacity10f 1500 psf for 15 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. IWhen 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. Four No.4 .bars, 2 top and 2 bottom, is recommended as a minimum design. 1'5.2 Settlement lOur subsurface investigation revealed that the alluvial soils on 'the south are loose and soft. Upon replacement with compacted :fill settlement potential will be reduced. Footings should ,experience less than 1-inch total settlement with less than 1/2 ,inch differential settlements between ~djacent footings of :similar sizes and loads. This settlem~nt is based upon grading :of up to 30 feet of fill over a distan~e of 60 feet horizontally. If thicker 'fills are proposed, settlement could be greater and ,should be evaluated prior to placement.: ;15.3 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 \0 - - 22140-01 Page 9 slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering. 'This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene vapor barrier sandwiched between a I-inch layer of sand, top and ,bottom, to :prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of the concrete. Reinforcement of the slabs with No. 3 bars on 24- inch centers centered in the 5 inch slab is recommended. The subgrade below the slab should be moisture conditioned and :properly compacted prior to placement of concrete. 15.4 Expansive Soils - Soluble Sulfate :Expansion testing of near-surface silty sand soils (T-l ; 0-3 ,feet) possible at finished grades indicate that the soils in the !pad area are medium expansion. Special design provisions are ;necessary for the foundation or concrete flatwork to resist ,expansion forces as shown on the Foundation and Slab IRecommendations for Expansive Soils in Appendix C. This is in ,accordance ,with the U.B.C. Table 18-B-1. 'The soluble sulfate content was 82 ppm allowing normal Type II ,concrete with 2500 psi strength. '15.5 Earthwork Shrinkaqe and Subsidence I IShrinkage of the colluvium will occur during grading, estimated ,as 8-10 percent when recompacted to compacted fill standards. The Isedimentary bedrock is expected to bulk 3-5% when placed as compacted fill. ;15.6 Retaininq Wall Desiqn IRetaining walls should be designed using the following Iparameters: :0 o o Active pressure Active pressure Active pressure (level backfill)' (2:1 backfill) (1 1/2:1 backfill) 47 lb/ft /ft 58 lb/ft 1ft 64 lb/ft/ft !For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.25 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 reduceq by one-third. 'Special loads for dead plus actual loads should be considered in Ithe driveway/parking area that is retained. \\ - - 22140-01 Page 10 15.7 Lateral Loads Lateral loads in the near-surface soils are: ,Active At Rest Passive - 48 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psfjft) - 64 psfjft - 275 psfjft (for wood shoring) 350 psfjft (for concrete footings) .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 0.25. ,15.8 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. ,15.9 Slope 'Stability 'The proposed grading indicates the maximum slope height is 3 feet ,at finished face inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. The high ,strength values allow 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut and fill slopes up to 35 feet without gross or surficial 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 ICut or Fill) Friction Angle IDeqree) Cohesion lli/f~ ,Anticipated On-Site Fill 23.0 490 iWe have utilized values of 23.0 degrees and 490 Ibjft2 for ibedrock 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 and fractures and bedding. All measured 'vague poorly-defined bedding was at a low angle. \~ - . 22140-01 Page 11 No evidence of slope instability exists on the site and adjoining areas. The ,bedrock and low angle orientation make all the natural slopes stable. Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapter 33 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 could occur, and they should be planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 16.0 GENERAL SITE GRADING ,16.1 Clearinq and Grubbinq Any heavy brush and grasses that exist 'at the time of grading should be stripped from any areas to receive fill and removed -off-site or stockpiled in landscape areas. 16.2 Preparation of Buildinq Pad Areas 'The proposed grading will encounter colluvium that should be ,removed toa minimum of 2 feet to a maximum of 3 feet to firm ,sedimentany bedrock as determined during grading inspections. The cut/fill transition should be removed by overexcavation to 3 feet. 16.3 Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill ,All sufficiently dense (90 percent rel~tive 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. Anticipated overexcavation and colluvial removal 'would be 2.0-4.0 feet on the west. Actual depth of removal should :be determined at the time of grading by testing. :16.4 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 Ibased upon the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM ID 1557-78 procedure. The area to be filled will be prepared in iaccordance ,with the preceding section. Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or .steeper will require a key and benching as shown in Appendix C. \?:> - - 22140-01 Page 12 ,16.5 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 the grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with recommendations of this report. ,16.6 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 percent 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. 16.7 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 'geotechnical hazards. 17.0 GENERAL .AII 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 of 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 performed und~r 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. 'Our recommendations are based on an interpolation of soil I 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. \~ "---- -> 195:2 M 6.1 " ,c~ :.- ~. \ '. ~~ .> c, 1952 ;;=1.16.400< :_~lt-\\.\.: - ': .( '0 ..... '\"..a. .." , , , ',.'0''\''-9 ~ "..0.....-9 "'i"c, \ ", (.>- t.(OC ........~ \" ~~ ...""-. " -I/-9l' "'.-" ".:'4 , ~:''''' ..........1&.(... . "<" ...~ARSTOW ~\ \.0,\ --.-/ R , I N .- ---- ---- -I I !1b*~ 000. -?!-~lfJ.~..~~~~~s F. \'l' " --,--~ ".., \. , I , I 1947 d,M6.2 "","N\~ F"'\J.-i \ ~..~q.' B - ------- \ I"~,. , V(r \ \ 1893 4 \ .r FAULT ~. .....\.. .......,.. '. BANNING ~ 1918 '/:".q . M6.8 vCr PALM SPRINGS ~. "'C:. 1933 '{;:. M6.3 1899 ",7+ '. ~an'a ", Catalina ". Island '.' lr. .? '0 ~ "'. - vI>( '" ~~ \;. "----, ('00 ""''' "YJ-e 1694 SAN '" ". MILES .~<:'~'" 1941~~\. f:/(Ull ""!"r-<1' M5.9-6,Q: HISIQRIC M6.0+ EPICE , I', . . " TERS 18 0-1998 1656 1> to AEG - 1973) W,O. NO: '22.140-01 LA "PAt. ST1Z8S.\, DATE: T~MfCULA -Z/O'Z FIGURE: PLATE 2 ., \-5" - APPENDIX A -_.~'C"-.<- . \rc . c "" . . . \ GIt""'-V"'t1' tJ- / ./ ---------- '\ - -c-=: ""', \ ( ~l f-t - -- ( ~ (J - -, II ?- ~ , l- ~",.. .."~~' .. .. ~ ~ " It, r ----- /"-- ~ ------ ~ , ',,-- 't: \ / I /l --------., ----- r :t ( ) / ..$ ,A ) / / / / -----.-.-------/" . . - en s::: / / / I I I QI Illl ~ ~ '.', '~ N, I; (l',1 ~I '"I I .~ S- O ..... ~, /0....., "'-. <l?-p" ------... ~"" .~ s::: o '::0: en s::: o 0; :z: o 8 ..<::; I- Z V) -0:: ".. V) u ~ w 0 !;;: ~ ~ S ~ ~ a..~ 8 >< ~ !;;: W -0:: -' ~ " 0 __ ~_,_u_ 0..''- c::: X OJ ...... ......:0: 0.. t 4, <<'> . j- '>t- r/.. . ~~ ~ "" <l , l>. -------/ ~- ---------- t ~ \' ...- ,,.. W ti"' -:3 D. 9 ~ , '" '" GE.HNICAL TRENCH.G Project 'Name WILLIAMS 22140-01 project 'Number Elevation 1032+/- T T -1 CASE 580 SUPER L BACkHOE rench No. Equipment ~ c i ~ .l! GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION . ~' Ii }~ 'i, ~ i - il '" , ~ . .. ?: = . . ~ t?- el .. l.)# : '! i I~. L. SHERLI NG 2/2/02 c I! . ~ Logged by '0 .' .!l -. Date ~ 'ii. .i! l.) . ~ ~ E .. :> Sampled by W.L. SHERLING .! II ~ & - - ~ Go . ;Z .:l i!' .. el 0 SCJ MD ~ 104. 6.2 ~M/S( SOIL/COLLUVIUM - Pale brown to 1 ight yellow brown lOYR I- - DS (81. ) 8/4 - 6/4 silty fine sand (60%) and sandy silt. Porous ~ sc2 GS soft dry unner 18-24" clav increases at lower contact. fil EI ~16. 7.4 s~ S04 (90. ) "- ~19.7 8.6 f-s - MD (95.' ) C BEDROCK - Pauba Fm - Yellow 10 YR 5/4 clayey fine-med. f- - sand, 10% clayey silt. Dense to very dense, sl. damp. "- - Occ. fine gravel to \" in sandy silt matrix. -- - Sand increases @ 10'+ as thin 1-3 inch thick bands of -- 10- silty sand. ~ - -- - : "" - "" LD. 15.3 Feet - No Water / Mottling -- 15- k! .- f- - . f- - , I- , GRAPIifIC LOG trend - scale: 1"K - · Test Symbols - - B - Bulk Sample R - Ring Sample I I I I . . . . SC - Sand Cone I I , , , , , I TTTT MD - Maximum o.nllly - - - - GS - Grain Size - - SE - Sand Equivalent - - E,I - ExpInllon Index (90) - Relallve Compoocllon - - - - - - - - ',' I I , , , I . , , . ! I ,., I I , I - - - \€> - GE.HNICAL TRENCH~G Project ,Name WI LLIAMS Elavallon 1043+/- Trench No. T-2 Project INumber 22140-01 Equipment CASE 580 SUPER L BACKHOE ~ c: - ~ .!I GEOTECHNICAL . I:: ll. i~ :!' ~ DESCRIPTION - - .. - - Ii ~ ' n t ... :: . . ~ ~ - u# . "! j 0 .. . u Logged by W.L. SHERLI NG c: I! . . 2/2/02 '0 . ! -. Date .r: it ~ u . = .. E .. -~ W.L. SHERLI NG o , ~ ~ Sampled by .! ", . ~ j .:l ~, .. 0 , 0 , 0 - SOIL/COLLUVIUM - Light yellow brown silty sand (75%) - ;~ ~14.< 5.2 and, sandy silt. Soft to sl. dense at lower contact. - 88.S ) Dry, Sharp lower contact. - - 5- -!i - BEDROCK - Pauba Fm - Yellow 10 YR 5/4 clayey fine - med. ,... - sand, 10% clayey silt. Dense to very ,dense, 51. damp - - Occ. fine gravel to !;oil in sandy silt matrix. - - Sand increases @ 10' +, as thin 1-3 inch thick bands of - 10- s il tv sand. -<< - - - - - - - T.D. 7.,4 Feet .. 15- No Water / Mottling ,45 - f- - f- - f- GRAPHIC LOG trend - scale: 1".. - - . Test Symbols - - - B - llult Sampl. - R - Ring $ampl. I I I I I I I . SC - Sand Cona I I I I I I I I I I I I MD - Maximum DanlUy - - - GS - Grain 51.. - - SE - Sand Equlvalanl '- - E I . ElIpanalon Indax (90) - Ralallv. CompIlcllon f- - f- - f- - f- - ,I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I . " , . - - - - - - \'\ - - - .-::.~~""'.'."'-~.-'r __ .:-:-.__:X::';.--~~~--::::,-~.,-,'.;".i-;?c._ APPENDIX B . 7..0 - ~ 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 Depth Maximum Optimum 'Location (Feet) Soil Description Dry Density Moisture 'T-1 0-3 (Soil Type A) Soil 128.4 12.1 light brown silty sand with 5% gravel T-1 5-7 (Soil Type B) Pauba 125.9 13.9 silty sand with minor gravel trace of clay SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING U.B.C. METHOD 29-2 :Sample Location Depth Expansion Index Expansion Potential T-1 0-3' 44 Medium SAND EOUIVALENT TESTING :Sample Location Depth Sand Eauivalent T-l 0-3' 16 z,.\ - . Direct Shear Test Data Project: I Williams Job Number: 22140-01 Date: 2/11 /0 1 5 ~ V V ......- r' ..... ..: u.. d ~ III Q, s:: . . 1/1 1/1 Gl .. ... II) Cl C ';: III Gl .s:: II) o o Normal Pressure-Kips/SQ. FT. 5 Excavation Number: T-l Depth: 0-3' Saturated Test rjJ = 23.00 Degrees c = 490 P.S,F. . Actual Values -Best-Fit Line 1.:z.... ~ Q C/) a: W I- W c :::!: a: ...J <( C ...J Z :::!: <( ci I II- IC/) 8 a: ,C/) 0 W 0) I- :> W I :::!: Sl <( IC/) C iW ~ IN W ,C/) Sl ...J U IW I- > 0 a: C\I g rt IW IC/) !! 0 0) . ". .. ,-- o o ~ f'. 2 0 PER C NT FINER BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION By: v.lL50ot.: 2/02 JoN. '22 '40 -0 \ r -_,- LA 'PI>, Z. ST. '"\E.MECOLA ) ILl 0 ZZ -< I!.(/) ; ~ ...J U ~ en (/)(/) (/)(/) << ...J...J UU oq ILl X iLcri -o:i. Z . :::l< ...J"': ' .Ja: ILl (/)0 O:Z << r: O(/) I!. U <,\<I , I 1-0 ...J ILl 0 > < Z 0: '. C) ; X l- ll. ILl 0 'Z-'? EXHIBIT NUMBER 'O-~ C"".u"h'tI E"tli"..,.. tint! GMJ/tJlJisl. - APPENDIX C _C_~,-~~-~ -'-c _",:. ":___~___~~_"c___ _= .... . z.~ - . STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICA nONS No deviation from these specifications should be pemritted 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 consultant. 1.3 The contractor should be responsible forthe safety of the project and satisfactory comple1ion 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 geo1echnical consultant provide adequate testing and observa1ions so thai he may de1ermine thai the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of1he contractor to assist the geo1echnical consultant and keep him apprized of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. 1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the contrac1or to provide adequa1e equipment and methods 10 accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications, and the p - . ST AND'ARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICA nONS PAGE 2 approved grading plans. It; in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are 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 IUs 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 Afinal report shall be issued by the geotechnical consultant attesting to the contractor's conformance with these specifications. 2.0 SITE PREPARATION 2.1 All vegetation and deleterious ma1erial shall be disposed of off-site. This removal shall be observed by the geo1echnical 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 fill must be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, tit shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the con1ractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. 7k i . - . STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS PAGE 3 The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than twelve inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts not to exceed six inches or less. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. 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 of5 feet outside of building lines shall be overexcavation a minimum of3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Greater overexcavation could be required as determined by geotechnical consultant where deep fill of20+ feet transitions to bedrock over a short distance. Typical details are given on Figure D-l. 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 approved by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by geotechnical consul1ant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material, as directed by the geotechnical consultant. z.1 - . STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS PAGE 4 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. 2. There is a rninimum of75% 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 D-2. 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 male rials 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 the is material shaIl 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 10 exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fiIl shaIl 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 geo1echnical consultan1, the contractor shaIl 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. ~ '. - - STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS PAGE 5 If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use of expansive soil condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the geotechnical report. 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 D-3. ) 3.1 I Subdrainage devices shall be cons1ruc1ed in compliance wi1h the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given in Figure D-4. ) 3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out 10 the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over building the slope and cutting back 10 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 n the geo1echnical report. 3.14 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and 1he transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure D-3. ) ~l\ - - STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS PAGE 6 4.0 CUT SLOPES 4.1 The geotechnical consultant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet. 4.2 Ifany conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of 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 ofa cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and 0-5. ) 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 top of the slope. 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 construc1ed in compliance with the ordinances of con1rolling 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 a1 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 approved by the geotechnical consultan1 shall be watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill. ?P . - - STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS PAGE 7 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 agencies. 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 consultant to enable sampling and testing. 6.0 GRADING CONTROL 6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the geotechnical consultan1 during the progress of grading. 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 everit, 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 c1eanout, 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. 3\ .' e e STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS PAGE 8 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 excavation, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be preformed without the approval of the geotechnical consultant. 7.3 Care shall be taken by the contractor during fmal grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. 3v . T-'NSITION LOT DET. CUT-FILL LOT NATURAL GROUND \ . -- - ..- -' ..-- -- -- -- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR , 1 ,-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . --.J f THE GEOTECHNICAL Co.NSUL TANT CUT LOT -- -- --- ..- _ __- -REMOVE __ .- - __ _ ---UNSUITABLE ___ _ - ' SI 1- _'- _ "MATERIAL _ MIN. it ~_:--:;-::::=~:-----------------------=-~ ~------------T--=--"":'::'----- -=------------- 30" MIN. :::COMPA~.;ED:-:_==--::2~-- I'}J ~ I^ T ~~~~~~~~ OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1 ,-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT -- - -- -- - ..-. . NATURAL GROUND ~- -- - - -- NOTE: Deeper overexcovotion ond recomooction sholl be p~rformed if de!ermined .0 be necesscry by the geotechniccl consultont. ?P . . . BENCHING DETAIL. FILL SLOPE ---- - --------------- -------'"':. COMP' CTED :-..: ..:----. -----. -'- - . - ----- _ ..:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-...; F ILL :..-----------..: --------------------- ---:-:-:-:-:-::_:-:-:-:-:-:::-?~~~ =::-:~-:-:::-:-:_~---;:::::::=.:-:~-::~ - _-_-..: -=--=-_-..:_..:_ -=-_-_-:;-~ ..:__-~- - - - -"1' ----------~-----~ ~~~ PRO E TED LANE ---- -----------~- J C P . _-..:__-_--=-_-___7~-_-_-_-_=__~-_ I to I maximum from ,oe -------....------~ "......;. _______.:I1""_____;If11'_ \""'/ of slope to approved ground _-?...::::-:::-:z:~---:-:.;:~..:..:- \ _-=--=-..:-/...::::.-------;-=-~- 1 J","Y~ REMOVE ..: -2..=':":":":- ""=..:..: ~ UNSU1T ABL: , _ __?------= - M"TERIAL ..='------=-;c .- ~ ' ,., ____~--'=-:::~ \ 4' MIN. I BE H I" ". :3:~~~~~::? ~BEN.CH1 HE~~iT --L _..:_-=--=2% MIN.:.----- (typical) VARIES T -:.:----..:.:---;:...: 2' MIN.\ IS' MIN. I KEY \'1.0WEST BENCH I DEPTH (KEY) '" NATURAL GRO\JlND \ - COMPACT=D ---------- _ -~--..:--~ Fl LL :_-..;:.:?-:-:?-:'i- ---------=---: - -.".....=-:::------? ________,.,.._________ i~ -------~-----~-~ _-..:__-_-_-_-..:_.z: ---...;::;c:---.... _-_-_-_-....=..:.-:::-=_-___::z::: ...."=::/,..~ __________......._:..J 1 _-.:...;:--::::-..:-------......----....1 . ,REMOVE. NA ,URAL -Z...?::"'"---------..z-: 'U;'1JAS~~''';..I:LL:: GROUND '- __ __~:::::~-;-~-~:-:.:':---=t ,.. "IN \ " I ::c..,... \. ~ --------:j I .. IYI . \. __ __ __ -- _:~.c::.:-:-:J r6ENCH-""1 ---. _ ~~2.%MIN'-:::J. (t':,pic:l~ -- _ _ _ \ --- ----- ';"""^' '"".... ......-~__ --- f...--1S' MIN.--1 __ ~ __ \ Lm'.JES, BENCH \ FILL OVER' CUT SLOPE \ 8ENCH HEiGi-i, '1';'?I:.S -- , -- ~ ,~-..:;:::. / CUT FACE To be constructed prior 10 fill placement NOTES; LOWEST BENCH: S~!!!J RAI:J AG E:, Depth and width subject to field change based c." consvltant's inspecticn. e,",~: c~:.:.,:; mey be re":luired at the jiscretlon oi the geotecnnical consultant. ?A r -,- --- .-.-,-- -.' , .~- -,----~ :.::t~~:O:~z:~C;;;;_..:-:_7 ~ ~j~}~:~?f~~O~~~ --------- ,~~,~,=,-,~ __~, _ _00,- Lc -- 'Gi4t~~k:-~- .. ~_1.''=:':~',,_t__ __. :~ir~:r~~~;7 ~: ~~:~::~_t~::~r-~ -- '~~~::t~:::_~_~-r ::~-=:--;.t~::::-_~A__ ___ ~~I~~~lt:::------ ;lf~~Yr a_ c~::~- i~-,-: .-~~:E:~-~:l-: . -':-':;-_":::.:J_ ~::t~,-:C'-;:-i- -- -~'--,,- -~ . ._-~~ ---. -----~ ,-..- -- .~.~---. .:::i:_:-__+~:;:;:.-::i-< ~~~1~:~:~' j-::~___ .:::;t_~~.:!~::::.:::t:: --' 1f~~~~-:~'::-:i~J~-_-_ ~-J~~sF~t . ~ .~~~~~:'~ 'i;f~1;1t =--~~~~~~-=- I. ~~:~:t::_E::d--_, tli~= ~~]o c~fnn !I!~:L ~~f~~1I~~4--'-- "~.~~::;~:J==~~~l: - ~::-:~ 1-7. -:-:_-1 t"--:=-:::-i.-:-- _ _,~ __, ~~,j ~C ~~k~f~-t!:;,~=-::t--:-'- ~~;r:-~-~:::}~': .;;-1 -~..:t~~~r':' --~t--:'< ..H_ . _1 :-- ~-W-~' : y, =~J-J' in ni --j .~_ co,, E:- -J.;-._=--_-i "-----~ i- -=::-j,::;- ,~ ,~~"-c ~ 'o~-=;~~c'c~~"; ~:::~'c~':C-:;_ e ___n..-'''''" ~ji~-~-~~ -"- .~-- --,~~.-~- ..--.'---.- ~~';^" - ----'-~. ~ ~ 'iA~c-'~fI"'e-B..I~~: fJ~-~~IK ~ Hn_~' ., __ _ _ - -- -.... .,...'.. - - -.- - ---~-~ - ~ ". . - ' ~ ---- - _:~-"7 __' _'-'::~ .t1: --;: --.- ----- ~~-- ------"-'-- - [) --~~~~ . - -~~~~i1~ ,~--=. -- -~~;;~~ -':f:~-::: .-----~- ~------_.- _~t~ --- ~.~., " .- ~--" -.._+-~^-_...~- _._,. c-___ _____.___~'_'__,_~_-._. ___~__ _;_____u~~._______ --~--- .._-_.~-~. , ----~- - .- -----.-.-.-- --- -"._-~._---~---- ._---,----------,,--.-~._- ----- ~-._-- --~------ ------------~ - - -- -----~-~ ------ - ---------- ,-..-.. --- -- ~--'---' __ ~. ~ __ ______ __u_~___~_ -- ---_.-.~ - ._---_.---~--- -. - ,--~------>----- ------~~ -" . ------ '_.'~~--,,-=-,-~. .------------ .~- ------ - ----------------~------ -._.- - ------,. -- - - -~-- ._-~- _____M_~._~__ __" ,___ -- ----~----_.-._. . --- --- --~ _..__~___~__._._ '~_n ---._~------ -'- -._----'--~ ... - --- -~--- -~--- -. -- ~~-_.. ----~ ---. .- -_._._------~~-~ ." ______w._____~_____. --~---~--~--_._~~--~ - - __ _____.~~__~~_____n__~. ---. ----.-----..--- . ~-- -~-- .~--- - ._-- ... "._-"~-- ----_.~-~,-- ---...--=:- - - ____n_ __________ .-__ ,,_ - ~-~.._----- ~- - -~-.,....~.- -- ~-~ - ..---- __ ______._..~_'n____ __ _ ,...._~~~~_.___ '_M'-_ -- -~---~-~~-- ---- . --- _._~-----~-_. _m.__.__ ____._~ --~~----.~- . ------ . ~~~ _ ____ __ ____~_"O _ n_'_ _ _ __~. ----~------- -- -~--~----~-- ---~ -- ---~ -- ----."-~- - i~j-c3i -- ~-'~ _ ~O~C ~=_'-~ ~ ~_ _ u,-~~ - - .,~~ ~~~~; ~~"-~,,,~{,:~~'~:::-:... u, _~_'. '"_ m'_ -~.-- - ~-_.~ ~~----.- ~-~- -~-- .. -...--..-- -- - -"-'-- _._~_.~~ _.~ ~-.- ___.~, 0___<______ ---~~~_._. --- --- - - . .. . e e PUBLISHED REFERENCES Blake, T.F., 1998, Computer Services Software, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Evaluation Horizontal Acceleration from California Faults, FRISKSP, July 1998 Blake, T.F., 1998, Comnputer Services Software, A Computer Program to Determine Historical Seismicity from Digitized California Faults, EQSEARCH, July 1995 Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion: Proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2927 Coduto, D.P., 1987, Down to Earth Soils Engineering, Vol. 1, Engineering Properties of Soils, Calif. Poly. University, Pomona, 193 pages. Clark, M.W., Harms, K., et al., 1984, Preliminary Slip-Rate and Map of Late-Quaternary Faults of California, U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 84-106, 12 p. DWR, 1971 Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California", Bull. No. 91-20, 377 Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in california, C.D.M.G. Special Report No. 42, 25p Hays, W.W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1114, 77p Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside county, California, C.D.M.G. Spec. Report 131, 12 pages Peterson,M.P., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C.H., Reichle, M.S., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, C.D.M.G. Open-File Rept. 96-08 Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil ~iquefaction During Earthquakes, E.E.R.I. Nomograph, 134p, Berkley Press Slemmons, D.B., 1977, State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States, Army Corps of Engineers, Misc. Papers, S-73-1, Repoort 6, Fault and Earthquake Magnitude, 240p Weber, F.H. Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards 'Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore an d Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, CDMG Open-File Report 77-5 LA, 96 pages ~