HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Geotech Investigation Jul.2,2003
I". f, i ~ 'I !, i r 'I : ! i r
; ; i i j i
1, ; , I f I:
i " ; \ 1 ! i Ii
I - Ii: ',', r ~, I ! I'
! l: II! I : I [
l; Ii j i i i I1I1
! I i I I, ! I i I'
'f ! 11 i f I I !
[ ' f!! if: I I
If: ! 1 ! t 1 ! I l
II i 11111 ! i i
: III i III II! I
III I! 1111111 I
111111111'111
IIII1 i "
1I1III I
I I, 'I ! I
! II1II II II
I I I III
I I I
I, I I
I '
I I ,I
I I I
I I' I
, ,
t . !
. I I
Ii,
I! :
, ,
, f 1
I', '
,- ,
. . .. ..;. ~ l' -" ____
k~k~~)-S
/,4f 2,:) ?lCy-
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
TRACT NO. 25004
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES, INC.
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2, 2003
\
.
,GEDeON
INCORPORATED
Project No. 20141-12-01
July 2, 2003
Innovative Communities, Inc.
200 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 100
Escondido, California 92025
Attention:
Mr. Peter Bilicki
Subject:
TRACT NO. 25004
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TEMECULA,CALITO~
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
~ -~ - /'
Gmrr,".~, OON"~~ 0
In accordance with your authorization and our proposal (LG-03240), we have performed a
supplemental geotechnical investigation for the subject property located along the south side of
Murrieta Hot Springs Road in T emecula, California. The accompanying report presents the results of
our study and includes our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geologic and
geotechnical aspects of developing the property as presently proposed. It is our opinion that the site is
suitable for development, provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
Should you have ,questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
/
/ / ("../'7 /:/,4-
'//~/"/::.o-.'
)(,,{// ;' /:P-L-~
.'~~c;ft . :us sell
,/ GF2042
/'~
/ '
/
/:7/--:1'/7 /-::; f// W
/.,/ . I /.' // .
'/, //" ./y~ X /-, t'/ /,~/ r/
7' ,. , /="~ ,rz,,7K-,
I ' Mark A. Sweeney 1// Dale !1'a~eleh1e
RG 7539 CEG 1760
RRR:MAS:DH:tg
(6) Addressee
<t.
43280 Business Park Drive, Suite 108 II Temecula, California 92590-3633 . Telephone {909) 587-8169 II: Fax (909)676-9860
/'
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................................. 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 1
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2
3.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) ....................................................................................................2
3.2 Metropolitan Water District Fill (Qfmwd) ............................................................................ 3
3.3 Topsoil (Unmapped) .............................................................................................................3
3.4 Alluvium (Qal) ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.5 Pauba Formation (Qps) ......................................................................................................... 3
3.6 Granitic Bedrock (Kgr)
4. GROUNDWA1=ER .................................................................'........................................................ 4
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 4
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity ......................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Seismic Design Criteria.........................................................................................................4
5.3 Liquefacti on .......................................................................................................................... 5
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 6
6.1 General.................................................................................................................................. 6
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics...................................................................................... 6
6.3 Grading........................................................................................................ _......................... 7
6.4 S ubdrains........................................................................................................................... .... 9
6.5 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors ............................................................................................. 9
6.6 Slopes. ....................... ..... ................. .......... ............................. ..... .......... ............. ...... ........... 10
6.7 Foundation..................... ................ ............ ........................... .... ........ ..... ............ ....... ...... ..... 11
6.8 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ..................................................................................... 14
6.9 Flexible Pavement Design................................................................................................... 15
6.10 Slope Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 16
6.11 Drainage ..............................................................................................................................17
6.12 Plan Review ........................................................................................................................ 17
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figures 2-4, Geotechnical Maps
Figure 5, Slope Stability Analysis
Figure 6, Surficial Slope Stability Analysis
Figure 7, Typical Stability Fill Detail
Figure 8, Typical Canyon/Swale Subdrain Detail
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-I - A-IS, Logs of Trenches
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-1, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-ill, Summary of Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Test Results
~
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX C
Trench Logs From Previous Investigation
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
A..
,
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the findings of a supplemental geotechnical investigation for a proposed 79-lot
residential subdivision located along the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road in Temecula,
California (see Vicinity Map, Figure l). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the site
geologic conditions, sample and observe the prevailing soil conditions and, based on the conditions
encountered, provide recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of developing the project
as presently proposed.
The scope of the investigation included a site reconnaissance, review of aerial photographs and
pertinent geologic literature (see list of References), and the excavation of fifteen (15) exploratory
trenches. Details of the field investigation are presented in Appendix A. The approximate locations of
the exploratory excavations are depicted on the Geologic Map, Figures 2-4.
A previous geotechnical investigation had been performed at this site by South Coast Geologic
Service in 1989. The approximate locations of their explorations are also provided on the Geologic
Maps (Figures 2-4). Copies of their exploratory excavations are provided in Appendix C.
Laboratory testing was performed on samples of materials obtained from the exploratory excavations
to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, plasticity
index, shear strength characteristics, and water-soluble sulfate content. Details of the laboratory
testing are presented in Appendix B.
The base map used to depict the site soil and geologic conditions consisted of a copy of the Rough
Grading Plan, Tract No. 25004, prepared by Medofer Engineering, Inc., undated (see Figures 2-4,
map pocket). The Geologic Maps depict the configuration of the property, existing topography,
mapped geologic contacts and features and the approximate locations of the exploratory excavations.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is a rectangular shaped parcel ofland located in the City of Temecula in Riverside County,
California. The site is bordered on the north by Murrieta Hot Springs Road, on the east and west by
land that is currently being graded and on the south by a single-family residential development. At
the time of the field exploration, the site was vacant. Foundations for structures that were previously
on the site are evident at the northern portion of the property on top of a hill. Cut/Fill pads are evident
in the areas of these concrete founcjations along with construction debris and trash. Vegetation on the
'5
Project No. 20141-12-01
-1-
July 2, 2003
/
,
site consists of chaparral, weeds and grasses with some ornamental trees in the area of the previous
structures.
A Metropolitan Water District (MWD) water easement is located on the property and is located at the
eastern side of the property and trends north south. The easement turns towards the central portion of
the property at the northern one-third of the site.
Topographically, the site is characterized by rolling hills and flat ridge tops with two relatively
narrow drainage areas with steep sides trending east west at the central portion of the site, Elevations
range from approximately 1,325 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the north-eastern portion of the
site adjacent to Murrieta Hot Springs Road to 1,235 feet above MSL in the bottom of a drainage at
the northwestern portion of the site.
We understand that a 79 lot single-family residential subdivsion with associated street improvements
is planned for the property. Based on a review of the referenced grading plans, we anticipate that the
maximum depth of cut and fill will be approximately 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively, not including
any remedial grading. Additionally, it is our understanding that slopes will have a maXlmum
inclination of 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical) with a maximum height of approximately 40 feet.
The descriptions of Lc'le site and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance,
observations during the field investigation, and a review of the referenced grading plans and geologic
publications. If project details differ significantly from those described, Geocon Incorporated should
be contacted for review and possible revision to this report.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The materials encountered on the site include surficial soils consisting of undocumented fill,
Metropolitan Water District fill, topsoil and alluvium. The formational materials consist of Pauba
Formation and Granitic Rock. The surficial soils and bedrock units are discussed below.
3.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf)
Undocumented fill was observed within the trenches excavated in the southern and central portion of
the site. The undocumented fill consists of loose yellow brown silty to clayey fine to coarse sand. The
maximum depth of undocumented fill is anticipated to be on the order of 12 feet thick.
Undocumented fill is considered unsuitable for support of structural fill and/or surface improvements
in its present condition and will require removal and compaction within planned development areas.
(g
Project No. 20141-12-0 I
- 2-
July 2, 2003
3.2 Metropolitan Water District Fill (Qfmwd)
Fill associated with the Metropolitan Water Districts water line easement was observed along the
eastern and north-central portions of the site. Our investigation did not include any work in the area
of this easement except mapping the approximate location.
3.3 Topsoil (Unmapped)
Most of the formational units (Pauba Formation and granitic rock) are covered by a layer of topsoil.
In general, the topsoil consists of loose to medium dense, silty to clayey fine to coarse sand with
some angular rock fragments. The observed thickness of the topsoil varied from approximately one to
three feet. The topsoil will require removal prior to fill placement or within cut areas where
settlement sensitive improvements are planned.
3.4 Alluvium (Qal)
Alluvial deposits are present within the existing drainage areas and beneath portions of the
undocumented fill. The alluvium is generally comprised of a loose to medium dense silty sand to
poorly graded sand. The maximum thickness of the alluvium encountered in the exploratory trenches
was approximately 15 feet. The alluvium will require remedial grading in the form of removal and
compaction prior to placing additional fill or settlement-sensitive structures.
3.5 Pauba Formation (Qp)
The Pauba Formation is exposed in the higher elevations of the site and underlies the undocumented
fill and alluvium across much of the site. The Pauba Formation was encountered at relatively shallow
depths in several of the exploratory trenches and is exposed at grade in some locations. The Pauba
Formation is comprised primarily of a medium dense to dense, brown to yellowish brown fine to
medium grained slightly to moderately cemented sandstone.
3.6 Granitic Rock (Kgr)
Granitic rock was encountered at the extreme northern portion of the site. The Granitic rock was
encountered at relatively shallow depths in our exploratory trenches. The exploratory trenches were
terminated at approximately 4 to 5 feet below grade. Where encountered in the exploratory
excavations, the Granitic rock is a dense gray, highly to moderately weathered, fine to coarse-grained
intrusive igneous rock.
'\
Project No. 20141-12-01
- 3-
July 2, 2003
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not observed within any of the trenches at the time of exploration. Research of
available well information in the general vicinity of the site suggests that groundwater is greater than
50 feet below existing grade. Therefore, groundwater related problems are not expected to be
encountered. If shallow perched groundwater is encountered during construction, it is our opinion
that it can be managed with the use of sump pumps placed in the bottom of excavations.
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region near the
active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of
seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas,
San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems are estimated to produce up to
approximately 55 millimeters of slip per year between the plates.
By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active' fault is one, which has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is
one that has been active during the Quaternary Period (last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are
used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards
Zones Act of 1972 and as revised in 1994 and 1997 as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on sites located
within Special Studies Zones to preclude new construction of certain habitable structures across the
trace of active faults.
Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Hazard Zone. The site could, however, be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major
earthquake on the Elsinore Fault or other nearby regional faults. Structures for the site should be
constructed in accordance with current UBC seismic codes and local ordinances.
5.2 Seismic Design Criteria
Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQFAULT and
EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000) and UBCSEIS. The nearest known active fault and source of the design
earthquake is the Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula Segment) located approximately 4.5 miles to the
west of the site. The maximum credible earthquake was estimated to be magnitude 6.8 Mw.
to
Project No. 20141.12.01
.4.
July 2.2003
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often accepted as minimum
standards) based on maps showing ground motion with a 475-year return period or a 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a horizontal peak ground
acceleration of 0.53g (probabilistic mean) would be exceeded in 50 years, The design earthquake is
considered a magnitude 6.8 Mw event that would generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration
(PHGA) ofO.53g (FRISKSP, Blake 2000). The effect of seismic shaking may be reduced by adhering
to the 1997 UBe and seismic design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers Association of
California. The UBC seismic design parameters for this site are presented on Table 5.2:
TABLE 5.2
SITE DESIGN CRITERIA
Parameter Value UBe Reference
Scismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-1
Soil Profile Sd Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, C, 0.44 Table l6-Q
Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.70 Table l6-R
Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S
Near-Source Factor, N, 1.l Table 16- T
Seismic Source B Table 16-U
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in Southern California are surface rupturing
of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground settlement. The
possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since active faults are not known to
cross the site. Lurching due to ground shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a
significant hazard, although it is a possibility throughout Southern California. Differential settlement
due to dynamic densification is anticipated to be minimal due to the presence of shallow bedrock.
5.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose
shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include
intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ
stress conditions and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in
the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake
accelerations. Due to the lack of a shallow water table, the presence of relatively shallow Pauba
Formation and hard granitic rock and the planned remedial grading, it is our opinion that the potential
for liquefaction at this site is very low.
C\
Project No. 20J4J-J2-0J
- 5-
July 2, 2003
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
, 6.1 General
6.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered at the site that would preclude the
development of the property as a residential subdivision provided that the recommen-
dations of this report are followed.
,6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.1.5
6.2
6.2.1
Undocumented fill soils and the existing alluvium are considered unsuitable in their present
condition for support of structural loads and will require removal, moisture conditioning,
and compaction.
The potential for liquefaction at this site is considered to be very low based on the presence
of shallow formational units and the planned remedial grading.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory trenches performed at this site
and is estimated to be in excess of 50 feet below grade. Therefore, groundwater related
problems are not anticipated to be encountered.
The majority of the on-site materials consist of clayey sands, which generally possess a low
to medium expansion potential, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Section 18-l-B, and exhibit good shear strength characteristics. The low to medium
expansive on-site soils are considered suitable for use as fill, capping of lots and
construction of fill slopes. Materials with an expansion potential greater than medium (if
encountered) should be kept at least 3 feet below proposed finish grade elevations.
Soil and Excavation Characteristics
In our opinion, the fill, topsoil, alluvial deposits and Pauba Formation can be excavated
with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. Excavations within the granitic bedrock
are expected to encounter more resistant materials and use of heavy-duty construction
equipment, such as a D~9 dozer with a single-shank ripper may be needed. In particular,
excavation difficulties should be expected in the area of Lot Nos. 60-62 where cuts up
to approximately 27 feet within the granitic bedrock are proposed. Dependent upon the
excavation characteristics of the granitic rock, some blasting could also be required.
Excavation difficulties should also be expected during utility trench construction even in
areas ,that are rippable with a D9 dozer. Any oversize rock (greater than 12 inches in
diameter) encountered should be placed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications presented in Appendix D.
\0
Project No. 20141-12-01
- 6-
July 2, 2003
6.2.2 All excavations should be performed in conformance with OSHA requirements.
Excavations made adjacent to property lines or the existing improvements should not be
left open during hours when construction is not being performed.
6.2.3 Laboratory testing was performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to determine the expansion characteristics. Results of Expansion Index tests
are presented in Table B-II. The on-site soils are anticipated to generally have a low to
medium expansion potential (Expansion Index of 90 or less) as defined by the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-I-B. Some localized high expansive soil (EI>90) may
also be present on-site. Laboratory Expansion Index testing should be performed on soils
exposed_ at finish grade subsequent to the completion of grading to verify the at-grade
expansion characteristics,
6.2.4 The results of laboratory testing indicates that the samples tested yielded water-soluble
sulfate contents with a "negligible" sulfate rating as defined by the 1997 Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Table 19-A-4. These tests are general indications only and additional testing
should be performed at [mish grade (materials within 3 feet of rough pad grade elevations).
6.2.5 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if
improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. It is also recommended that these
results, and the recommendations from the corrosion engineer be forwarded to the
appropriate design team members (i.e. project architect, engineer, etc.) for incorporation
into the plans and implementation during construction.
6.3 Grading
6.3.1 All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix D and the requirements of the City of Temecula.
Where the recommendations of this section conflict with those of Appendix D the
recommendations of this section take precedence.
6.3.2 Prior to grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or
developer, grading contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance.
Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
6.3.3 Site preparation should begin with the demolition of the removal of deleterious material,
underground utilities, construction debris and vegetation. The depth of removal should be
such that material exposed in cut areas or soils to be used as fill are relatively free of
\\
Project No. 20] 4 J -12-0 1
- 7-
July 2, 2003
organic matter. Removal of trees should also include the removal of stumps and root balls
that can extend to several feet below grade. Material generated during stripping and/or site
demolition should be exported from the site.
6.3.4 All loose/compressible alluvium and undocumented fill not removed by planned grading
should be removed to a depth where suitable soils are exposed. Estimated depths of
removal are indicated on the Geologic Maps (Figure 2 through 4) adjacent to the
.exploratory excavations. Actual removal depths should be determined by our personnel at
the time of mass grading based on the actual conditions encountered.
6.3.5 During remedial grading temporary slopes should be planned for an inclination no steeper
than 1: 1 (horizontal:vertical). Grading should be scheduled to backfill against these slopes
as soon as practical. Removals along the edge of grading should include excavation of
unsuitable soils that would adversely affect the performance of the planned fill, i.e., extend
removals within a zone defined by a line projected down and out at an inclination of 1: 1
from the limit of grading (where possible) to intersect with approved left-in-place soils.
6.3.6 After removal of surficial soils, the exposed ground surface should be scarified, moisture
conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted. Fill soils may
then be placed and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. All fill,
including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent
of the laboratory maximum dry density and near optimum moisture content, as determined
by ASTM Test Procedure D1557-00.
6.3.7 Due the potential for some oversized material (greater than 12 inches in greatest
dimension) being generated within excavations in the granitic rock, we suggest that the
deep excavations in the granitic materials occur during the early phases of grading so that
any oversized material can be properly utilized within the fill.
6.3.8 Lots that contain a cut/fill transition will require undercutting to reduce the potential for
differential settlement. In general, the cut portion of the cut/fill transition should be
undercut at least 3 feet, or 1. of the maximum fill thickness, whichever is greater, and
replaced with properly compacted engineered fIll. The bottom of the undercut portion
should be sloped at a minimum of 1 percent towards the fill portion.
6.3.9 Cut pads exposing granitic bedrock at finished grade should be considered for undercutting
to reduce future excavation difficulties for footings and utilities. We recommend
undercutting the exposed bedrock at least 3 feet and backfilling the excavation with a
properly compacted fill.
\1..-
Project No, 20141-12-01
- 8-
July 2.2003
I~
6.4
Subdrains
6.4.1 Subdrains should be installed in the major drainage swales that will be filled with at least
10 feet of fill. A cross-section of the typical subdrain configuration is presented on
Figure 7. The lower 20 feet of the subdrain installation should consist of non-perforated
pipe with a concrete cutoff wall constructed immediately below the junction of the
perforated pipe with the non-perforated pipe The cutoff wall should extend at least 6
inches below the sides and bottom of the subdrain trench and 6 inches above the top of the
'pipe. The upper end of the subdrain should extend to approximately 10 feet below [mished
grade.
6.4.2 In order to maintain a drainage gradient with the canyon sub drain system, it may be
necessary to extend the non-perforated outlet pipe beyond the limits of planned grading. As
an alternative design, a properly compacted fill may be placed within the lower
canyon/swale bottom until the minimum drainage gradient is achieved.
6.4.3 After installation of the subdrains, the project civil engineer should survey its location and
prepared "as-built" plans of the subdrain location. The civil engineer should verify the
proper outlet for the subdrains and the contractor should ensure that the drain system outlet
is free of obstructions. Tentative canyon/swale subdrain locations have been plotted onto
the 40-scale grading plan.
6.5 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors
6.5.1 Estimates of embankment bulking and shrinkage factors are based on comparing laboratory
compaction tests with the density of the material in its natural state as encountered in the
exploratory excavations. It should be emphasized that variations in natural soil density, as
well as in compacted fill density, render shrinkage value estimates very approximate. As an
example, the contractor can compact the fill soils to any relative compaction of 90 percent
or higher of the maximum laboratory density. Thus, the contractor has approximately a
10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Based on the limited work performed to
date, it is our opinion that the following shrinkage and bulking factors can be used as a
basis for estimating how much the on-site soils may shrink or swell (bulk) when excavated
from their natural state and placed as compacted fills.
\</;>
PrOject No. 20] 41- i 2-0]
- 9-
July 2,2003
TABLE 6.5
SHRINK/BULK FACTORS
Soil Unit ShrinkIBulk Factor
Undocumented Fill/Alluvium 5-15 percent shrink
Paub. Formation 5 percent shrink to 5 percent bulk
Granitic Bedrock 10-15 percent bulk
6.6 Slopes
6.6.1 Based on our review of the tract map, it appears that cut and fill slopes are proposed to
heights up to approximately 40 and 35 feet, respectively, at inclinations of 2: 1 (horizontal
to vertical). A stability analysis was performed for a maximum slope height of 40 feet
utilizing the soil strength parameters provided in Appendix B. A surficial stability analysis
has also been performed based on an assumed 4-foot zone of saturation. These analyses are
provided as Figures 5 and 6. The results of the analysis indicates that a proposed 40 foot
high 2: I slope will possess a static factor of safety of 3.4 and is therefore considered to be
suitable.
6.6.2 AIl fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 3 feet horizontally and then cut to the design
finish grade. As an alternative, fill slopes may be compacted by backrolling with a
sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet and then track-walked with a
D-8 bulldozer, or equivalent, such that the soils are uniformly compacted to at least
90 percent to the face of the finished slope.
6.6.3 Cohesionless soils should not be placed in the outer l5 feet of the face offill slopes. Where
cohesionless soils are exposed in cut slopes, these soils should be removed and replaced
with suitable soils.
6.6.4 All slopes should be planted, drained and maintained to reduce erOSlOn. Consideration
should be given to landscaping the slopes relatively soon after completion to reduce the
potential for surficial erosion.
6.6.5 Cut slopes may expose localized unstable zones due to adverse bedding. If an unstable
condition is encountered, remedial grading measures such as a stability fill may be
necessary. A detail for a typical stability fill is provided as Figure 8.
Project No, 20141-12-01
\p-.,
-10 -
July 2, 2003
6.7 Foundation
6,7.1 The following preliminary foundation recommendations are for one-and/or two-story
residential structures. The recommendations are separated into categories dependent upon
the expansive characteristics and the depth and geometry of fill underlying a particular
building pad and/or lot. Final foundation design recommendations for each building will be
presented in the final compaction report after the grading for the individual building pads
has been completed.
6,7.2 Foundations for either Category I, II, or III, as described in Table 6.7.1, may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst) (dead plus live
load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind
or seismic forces.
TABLE 6.7.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum Continuous Footing Interior Slab
Category Footing Depth Reinforcement Reinforcement
(inches)
I 12 Two No.4 bars 6 x 6 - 10/1 0 welded wire
One top and bottom mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Four No.4 bars No.3 bars at 24 inches on
Two top and bottom center, both directions
1II 24 Four No.5 bars No.3 bars at 18 inches on
Two top and bottom center, both directions
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to
50.
Category II: Maximum fIll thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to
90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet.across anyone building.
Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or
Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130.
Notes:
1. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches,
2. Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent subgrade (including topsoil, if planned). These
depths apply to both exterior and interior footings,
3. Ail interior living area concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick for Categories 1 and II and
5 mches thick for Category 1II. This applies to both building and garage slabs-oo-grade.
4. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for a 5-inch slab) of
clean sand or crushed rock.
\'5
Project No, 20]41-12-0]
-1]-
July 2, 2003
I
1-
5. All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should he underlain by a 10-mil vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the clean
sand recommended in No.4 above.
6.7.3 For Foundation Category ill, the structural slab design should consider using interior
stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In
addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in
width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
6.7.4 No special sub grade preparation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab sub grade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to
maintain a moist soil condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
However, where drying of subgrade soils has occurred, reconditioning of surficial soils will
be required. This recommendation applies to foundations as well as exterior concrete
flatwork.
6.7.5 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
. For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building and wall footirigs should be
deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet
horizontally from the face of the slope.
. Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance
should be increased to Hl3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of
the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut)
slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the
fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would
be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and
slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of
these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope
geometry have been determined.
. For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1
(horizontal:vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building and wall
footings should be at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless
of slope height.
. Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not
recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that
the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed
assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation
applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height.
\<e
Project No. 2014J-12-01
- 12 p
July 2, 2003
. Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a
slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
6.7.6 As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, consideration should
be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of
the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural
engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning
Institute (UBC Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soils, it
is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to
differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical
parameters presented on the following table entitled Post-Tensioned Foundation System
Design Parameters for the particular Foundation Category designated. It is recommended
that post-tensioned slabs have a minimum thickness of 5 inches. Recommended allowable
soil bearing pressures are presented in Section 6.7.2.
TABLE 6.7.2
PRELIMINARY POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN
PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institnte (PT!) Foundation Category
Design Parameters I (EI<51) U (EI<91) Ul (El<131)
1. Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
2, Clay Type - Monnnorillonite Yes Yes Yes
3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70%
4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7,0 ft. 7.0 ft.
5, Soil Suction 3,6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo, 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in.
9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft.
10. Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. 4.74 in.
Notes:
1. If fill depth variation across anyone building exceeds 20 feet, foundations should be designed
for the next highest category,
2. All slabs to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive
materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier with at least 2 inches of clean sand.
Project No. 20141-12-01
\"'\
- 13-
July 2, 2003
6.7.7 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soils and differential settlement of fills of varying thicknesses.
However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein,
foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit
some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence
may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete
,placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in
particular, where re-entry slab comers occur.
6.8 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.8.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density
of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pel). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0
to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that
the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1: 1 plane extending upward
from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those lots with
finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill
materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated, should be consulted
for additional recommendations.
6.8.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOIH (where H equals
the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where
walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf
should be added to the above active soil pressure.
6.8.3 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is
not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the
properly adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly
compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic
forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are
anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
6.8.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet
Project No, 20141-12-01
\t6
-14-
July 2, 2003
below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 50. The proximity of the
foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing
pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated, should be consulted where such a condition is
anticipated.
6.8.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
-compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating
the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by
floor sl"bs or pavement shoUld not be included in the design for lateral resistance, An
allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and
concrete. This fuction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth
pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.8.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.9 Flexible Pavement Design
6.9.1 The following pavement sections are preliminary. final pavement design sections should
be determined once sub grade elevations have been attained and R-Value testing on
sub grade soils is performed. This final testing and pavement section recommendations will
be provided upon completion of mass grading. These preliminary pavement thicknesses
were determined using procedures outlined in the California Highway Design Manual
(Caltrans) and are based on an assumed R-Value of 30. Summarized below are the
preliminary pavement section recommended thicknesses.
TABLE 6.9
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
Location Estimated Asphalt Concrete Class 2 Base
Traffic Index (11) (inches) (inches)
Short Local Streets 5.0 3 6
Collector Streets 6.5 3.5 9
Greater thickness may be required by the local governing agency.
\'\
Project No, 20141-12-01
- 15-
July 2, 2003
6.9.2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform
to Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications of the State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans).
6.9.3 Prior to placing base material, the sub grade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12
inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative
,compaction per ASTM D-1557. The base materials should also be compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 95
percent of the Hveem density.
6.9.4 Loading aprons such as trash bin enclosures should utilize Portland Cement concrete. The
pavement should consist of a minimum 7-inch concrete section reinforced with No.3 bars
at 24 inch spacing on centers, each way. The concrete should extend out from the trash bin
such that both the front and rear wheels of the trash truck will be located on reinforced
concrete pavement when loading and unloading.
6.9.5
6.10
6.10.1
The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface
drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the
pavement will likely result in saturation of the sub grade and subsequent pavement distress.
Slope Maintenance
Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) may, under conditions which are
both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope
instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope
and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the
slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is
generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of
subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result
from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may
also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recom-
mended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbedlloosened surficial soils be
either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected
and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and
adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the
incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope
instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to
rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future.
1P
Project No. 20141-12-01
- 16-
July 2, 2003
LlMITATIONSAND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation.
If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the
proposed ,construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated, should be
notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification
of -the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of
services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
2. This report-is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors canry out
such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as ofthe present date. However, changes in the conditions
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or
the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by
changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied
upon after a period of three years.
7,..\
Project No. 20141-12-01
July 2. 2003
I
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anderson, J. G., Synthesis of Seismicity and Geologic Data in California, U.S. Geologic Survey
Open-File Report 84-424, 1984, pp. 1-186.
Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal
Accelerationfrom Digitized California Faults, User's Manual, 1989a, 2000, p. 79,
Jennings, C. W., Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California, California Division of Mines and
Geology, Open File Report 92-03, 1992, and revised map dated 1994.
Larsen, E. S., Jr., Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona. Elsinore, and San Luis Rey
Quadrangles, Southern California, Geologic Society of America, Memoir 29, dated 1948.
Geologic Map of California. Santa Ana Sheet, Scale 1:250,000, California Division of Mines and
Geology, dated 1966.
Geology of the Santa Ana 1: I 00,000 Quadrangle, California, California Division of Mines and
Geology, dated 1991.
Geologic Map of the Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern Riverside County, California, Sponsored by
United States Geological Survey, dated 1977.
South Coast Geologic Service, Geotechnical Report. A Proposed Subdivision Consisting of 115
Single Family Homes, Tentative Tract 25004, dated October 23,1989,
State of California Special Studies Zones, Murrieta Quadrangle, California Division of Mines and
Geology, Effective January 1, 1990.
?-~
Project No. 20141-12-01
July 2,2003
~:r..
-j'
,
~
=/Yj
~;J-<"\..
18
I
'" ~l
~} 4"'\1' '
lJ,;;,:/.J"
'''1'-.,
r
, I
'" I
--~_.
l I
, 1" I
, ' ,
.11Ilc<i.. ,/.J,%- I
i
,
I
i~ ~16!
.~- ~t
....s~
I
__L
-iN
16
- I-
F '~l /1 i- (,0,,"-
~ ,~~ ,.-' ~"} ~ ;'-"')
.::; ~;:- v''':r' ~."
_L_
I
I
I
+---
I
'f'
\MI'....1......'"
~
B'
"'>1-.,...
,'" it,
O:::~ I:"r:
.~ '
,
I
ui
I
i
((>>lEReE jq
I
I
I :0:-.
~~: ,~~~INGJ RD
, ~ 1 .-'. -,.", -...,J
! ' ~ .
" ,.., ,'''> ';l
. ot....... ~./ 'i..i .,,..;,
I--
I
,
I
I
OEER PlSis..L.!L__
:;:;
;'!;
FRANCHISE
;CT
SITE! _,
I':.
. :::: ~.~ ~~~EIL~~::_.Hl)l ~ ~~~RI.!~:.___AQ. '-:-:'1
;\\;1 q.. i:_ 'i~:,
"
,~.
"
"fr, .P~.
t...., -"", .~
-~~~}r,;..I-
~!6!
I
I
I 21
;--_.+----,"'"-
v'~Df !1~'1-
--~ ~'t /
!Z\iS 7'
I-
" l
' ~')~:' r" '-J"
'" "'...' !
- r' ~ "'", .
_..ff..-.~_!,- .
I
.
~i
~;
f
: .'9'J~'l'\
<1>;"_,,,..
19:
_~!t<<l_
I ~[
1;--1
-,
5
~:
!i:IUTAIIl'
,
"
, .'\~
, ,
TgR
~ C1R
i
/ 3
It:~
I
lit
( ...
;. i1M---___~
''''"
---~
\)10\............
--
------
I';, 'It"
:'\1'\ f'. \.
"""
Ci'.i, r
'.~V[ll 01\
,
591
,~\~, (
HARTI7:IfINfRYJ--l
WINERY"~€.
\ ~\.. "'~(,~,
.,""'
-l
.!~
: ~~J(~
':'~,~
I<
SOURCE: 2003 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
t
N
NO SCALE
(Jj.EOCON
o
VICINITY MAP
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TRACT NO. 25004 7,,-'17
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANtS
432S0 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE. SUITE lOS, TEIlIECUlA. CA 92590
PHONE 909 587-8169 - FAX 909 676-9860
MS I RSS I
I DSK I DOOOD
DATE 07 - 02 - 2003
PROJECT NO. 20141 -12 - 01 FIG. 1
1GVICMAP
I
PROJECT NO. 20141-t2-01
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height
Slope Inclination
Total Unit Weight of Soil
Angle of Internal Friction
Apparent Cohesion
No Seepage Forces
H = 40 feet
2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical)
y, = 130 pounds per cubic foot
'" = 35 degrees
C = 1100 pounds per square foot
ANALYSIS:
)'c~ = yH laml> Equation (3-3), Reference I
C
FS = ~c'h Equation (3-2), Reference 1
yH
Yc~ ~ 3.3 Calculated Using Eq. (3-3)
Ncf = 16 Determined Using Figure 10, Reference 2
FS = 3.4 Factor of Safety Calculated Using Eq. (3-2)
REFERENCES:
(1) Janbu, N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics,
Series No. 46, 1954.
(2) Janbu, N., Discussion of J. M. Bell, Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design, No. SM6, November 1967.
CUT/FILL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25004
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
2^
FIGURE 5
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height
Depth of Saturation
Slope lnclination
Slope Angle -
Unit Weight of Water
Total Unit Weight of Soil
Angle of lntemal Friction
Apparent Cohesion
,
Y.
y,
~
C
Slope saturated to vertical depth Z below slope face.
Seepage forces parallel to slope face
P.NAL YSIS:
FS=
C+(r,- r .)2 cos2 i tan9i
ytZsinicosi
REFERENCES:
H
Z
2:1
= Infinite
= 4 feet
(Horizontal: Vertical)
= 26.6 degrees
= 62.4 pounds per cubic foot
= 130 pounds per cubic foot
= 35 degrees
= 500 pounds per square foot
= 3.2
(1) Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc. Second lntemationaI
Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1, 57-62.
(2) Skempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stability afNatural Slopes in London Clay, Proc. Fourth
lnternational Conference, SMFE, London, 1957,2,378-81.
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
,
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25004
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
1:5
FIGURE 6
..... ~ NATURAL GROUND
........<
...........................
ALLUVIUM AND
COLLUVIUM REMOVAL
....-
....-
..........
.....
..........
..............
,.////
.....
..........
.........- ---
--------
BEDROCK
SEE
NOTE:FI NAL 20' OF PIPE AT OUnET
SHALL BE NON-PERFORATED
6" DIA. PERFORATED
SUBDRAIN PIPE
9 CUBIC FEET I FOOT OF OPEN
GRADED GRAVEL SURROUNDED
BY MIRAFI 140N (OR EQUIVALENT)
FILTER FABRIC
"
NOTE:
,....6-INCH DIAMETER SCHEDULE 80 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FILLS
IN EXCESS OF 1 DO-FEET IN DEPTH
2. ..6-INCH DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FILLS
LESS THAN 1DD-FEET IN DEPTH
NO SCALE
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
INCORPORATED
o
GEOeON
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TRACT NO.25 004
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 1JP
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
4328Cl aUSINESS PARK DRIVE, SUITE lOB. TEMECUtA, CA 92590
PHONE 909 587-8159 - FAX 909676.9860
'BR/RSS
I
I DSK I TTYP8R
DATE 07 - 02 - 2003 I PROJECT NO. 20141 - 12 - 01 I FIG,7
CYNDTY<._ T IIVf031 RSS
NOTE 7
I' 'I
FINISHED SLOPE
'..,'~ NOTE 4
1LC NOTE 6
1
r NOTE 2
PROPOSED
ACCESS ROAD
I
UNDISTURBED
FORMATIONAL SOIL
OR
COMPACTED FILL
NOTE 5
_5% MIN.
,
2" MIN,J
1.5'
MIN.
DETAIL
NO SCALE
NOTES:
L...EXCAVATE BACKCUT AT 1:1 INCLINATION
2......BASE OF STABILITY FILL TO BE 3 FEET INTO DENSE, FORMATIONAL SOil OR
PROPERLY COMPACTED FILL SLOPiNG A MINIMUM 5 PERCENT INTO SLOPE
3.....STABILlTY Fill TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPERLY COMPACTED GRANULAR SOIL WITH
MINIMUM SHEAR STRENGTH OF $=30., C' 200pSf
4.....wHERE SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED IN BACKCUT, CHIMNEY DRAINS TO BE APPROVED PREFABRICATED
CHIMNEY DRAIN PANELS (MIRADRAIN. TENSAR, OR eQUIVALENT) SPACED APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET CENTER
TO CENTER OR 12-JNCH BY 24-JNCH SLOTS FILLED WITH FILTER MATERIAL (SEE NOTES). DRAINS WILL BE
REQUIRED WHERE AREAS OF SEEPAGE ARE ENCOUNTERED.
5.....FILTER MATERIAL TO BE 1-INCH. OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRJC
6 u..,COLLECTOR PIPE TO BE 4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PERFORATEO, THICK-WALLED PVC SDR 21 OR
EQUIVALENT, AND SLOPE TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM TO APPROVED OUTLET. CHIMNEY DRAINS
MAY: BE REQUIRED IF AREAS OF ACTIVE SEEPAGE ARE ENCOUNTERED
7.....IF HORIZONTAL EXTENT OF GRADING CONSTRAINED (e.g., THE PRESENCE OF PROPERTY LINE).
THE ,SLOPE SHOULD BE OVERBUILT, AT LEAST 4 FEET, AND TRIMMED BACK
TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DRAIN DETAIL
GEDeON
o
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
43280 8USINESS PARK DRIVE. SUITE 108 . TfMECULA.
PHONE 909 587.8169 - FAX 903 676-9860
CA 92590
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TRACT NO.25 004
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
7,.\
INCORPORATED
BR I RSS
I
I DSK/TTYPBR
DATE 07 - 02 - 20031 PROJECT NO. 20141 -12 - 011 FIG 8
STAEFll...03/ RSS l/IXIX
APPENDIX
1ft>
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on June 9, 2003, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and the
excavation of 15 exploratory backhoe trenches. Trenches were excavated using a John Deere 310
rubber-tire backhoe equipped with an I8-inch bucket. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained from the
exploratery trenches.
The soil conditions encountered in the excavations were visually examined, classified and logged in
general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). Logs of the trenches are
presented on Figures A-I through A-IS, The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered
and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the exploratory
excavations are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Figures 2 through 4.
1r~
Project No. 20141-12-01
-A-I-
July 2, 2003
PROJECT NO, 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 1 zw~ >- w*
w
>- "" Qor-: ""
DEPTH '" ~ SOIL ,,"z~ {j}-; "'i:'
SAMPLE 0 <(<(U5 z~ =>z
IN -' ~ "'t::;: ~tJ ""UJ
~- " CLASS -ELEl.L.-{MSI.)-- -- --1301-------DA:rE-COMi<LS:rED- --06109103
'--FEU- -~-NO:-- -g- -,------ - ~uj::: ,,-- -S:2.-I---
"" (uses) >-- OZ
:J 0 wWco '" '"0
'" EQUIPMENT JD 310 ,,"'- " u
'"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
~ 0
,,' TOPSOIL
I- ",' , SP Loose, yellow brown, damp, fine to coarse SAND with trace fine-grained silt,
fewer angular rock
I- - + + GRANITIC ROCK
2 TI-I + Dense, yellow brown to gray, highly weathered, fine-grained, GRANITIC
+ + ROCK
+ -Becomes moderately weathered
+ +
- 4 - +
-
I- +
1RENCHTERMINATED AT 5 FEET
Figure A-1,
Log:ofTrench T
20141-12.()1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
1, Page 1 of1
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ .. CHUNK SAMPLE
. .. DRIVE SAMPLE {UNDISTURBED}
.!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: Tt.lE lOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INOICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES.
;p
PROJECT NO, 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 2 Zw ~ r: w~
w
>- f- Qu ....:
DEPTH CO ~ SOIL f-Z~ Cij~ "'f-
0 ~., - Z~ :JZ
SA.MPLE ~ f-'"
IN 0 0 CLASS ELEV, (MSL.) 1286 DATE COMPLETED 06/09/03 HnS: ~0 f-w
NO I Z W-O >-'" !!!f-
FEET f- :J (uses) z'" ~ Oz
:0 C> ww", '" ::;0
'" EQUIPMENT JD 310 0."'- 0 <.J
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 TOPSOIL
, ,
SP Loose, medium brown, damp to moist, fine to coarse SAND, trace fine gravel, I-
clay
2 - + + GRANITIC ROCK
+ Dense, gray, fine-grained, moderately to slightly weathered, GRANITIC
+ + ROCK ~
+
4 TRENCH TERMlNATED AT 4 FEET
-
Refusal at 4 feet
-
Figure A-2,
Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of 1
20141-12.Q1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
o .. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ . . CHUNK SAMPLE
. n. DRive SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE lOG OF SUBSURFACE CONOlTIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONI. V AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT.lS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CQNDtTIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~\
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 3 ZUJ_ ~ *
>- UJ Qu""':
" ;.- (j)-; UJ_
DEPTH ~ SOIL ;.-Zu. "';.-
a Q?>," zu. "z
SAMPLE ~
IN a 0 CLASS ElEV. (MSL.) 1240 DATE COMPLETED 06/09/03 ;.-",i: UJ0 ;'-UJ
NO Z 0, !!l;.-
:I: UJ-a "-
FEET ;.- " (uses) z"'~ >-- az
::0 a UJUJ", '" ::;a
'" EQUIPMENT JD310 0.."'- 0 ()
'-'
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0 ?// ALLUVIUM
// Dense, dark brown, moist, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel, cobble f-
/{~ SC
2 ,/ f-
T3-1 //
I- - :,.-/ -------------------------------- 1---- --- ---
" Loose, gray to medium brown, moist, fine to coarse SAND, tTace gravel,
4 cobble f-
-
I- - SP f-
I- 6 '" l-
I- ,
+ + GRANITIC ROCK
I- a - + Dense, gray, moderately to highly weathered, fine to coarse, GRANITIC I-
+ ROCK
I- +
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9 FEET
,
Figure A-3,
Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of 1
o n. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ .n DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141.12.Ql.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
IJ .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ . CHUNK SAMPLE
. 0.. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ no WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURfACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPUES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER lOCATIONS AND TIMES.
;;1/
PROJECT NO, 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 4 6w -:- >-
>- W wi
f- f-
<:J ~ _U f- Ul-:- ",-
DEPTH SOIL f-Z~
SAMPLE 0 ~;::'ii; Z~ :J....
IN ~ 0 CLASS Wu f-Z
0 ELEV, (MSL.) 1289 DATE COMPLETED 06/09103 H";: ",W
NO, J: Z " ' -f-
FEET w- 0 >-r=.
.... :J (uses) z'" ~ Oz
::; 0 WW", '" ::;0
'" EQUIPMENT JD 310 0."'- " U
<:J
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 FILL
- Medium dense, yellow brown, damp to moist fine to coase SAND, trace clay,
gravel
2 T4-1 .'," , SP
.'
4 <
',' - TOPSOIL
I- SP Medium dense, medium brown, damp, fine to medium SAND, trace coarse
sand, silt
I.
I- 6 PAUBA FORMATION
I- Dense, yellow brown, damp, fine to coarse-grained, moderately weathered, l-
SM poorly cemented, SANDSTONE, some iron oxide staining
I- 8 .. .. l-
I- ..
TRENCH TERMlNA TED AT 9 FEET
FigureA4,
Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of 1
20141.12.()1,GPJ
I . SAMPLE SYMBOLS
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ .,. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ".. STANDARD PENETRATION TeST
~ .., CHUNK SAMPLE
. .. DRIVE SAMPl.E (UNDISTURBED)
x ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATlON AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO 8E REPRESEm ATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER l.OCATlONS AND TIMES.
"b'?
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 5 Zw_ ~
>- w Qu~ w*
DEPTH <!J ~ SOIL f-Z"- {ii"" ",-
SAMPLE 0 ~;::iii Zu. ::of-
IN ~ '" CLASS Wu f-Z
NO, 0 Z ELEV, (MSL.) 1248 DATE COMPLETED 06/09/03 f-"';: '" ' "'W
:I: w-o "- -f-
FEET f- ::0 (uses) z"'~ >-- Oz
::; 0 wWID " ::;0
" EQUIPMENT JD310 ,,-"- Q U
<!J
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0 ALLUVIUM
- - Loose yellow brown, damp to moist, fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel, -
, cobble
- 2 - , '-
SP
," , -
4 - -Becomes moist f.-
-
.Some roots up to 2-inches in diameter -
6 f-
"
- ~/; -------------------------------- ---- --- ---
Loose, gray, moist, Clayey, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, cobble
8 {/, SC
- /:.; Coarsae sand, roots up to 2-inches in diameter
//
10 ',///
//
//
lij~ -Cobble, gravel increases to approximately 300/0
12 - V//
//
..... PAUBA FORMATION
t- ..... Medium dense to dense, reddish brown, moist, highly weathered, poorly
....
.....
.... SM cemented, fine to coarse-grained, SANDSTONE. iron oxide stained
.....
t- 14 .... f-
.....
....
.....
....
.....
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 15 FEET
Fiigure:A-5,
l.og of Trench T 5, Page 1 of 1
o SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ h. OISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141.12-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!: WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPUES ONLY AT THE SPECIAC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
It IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
'IJ'.
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
" TRENCH T 6 Zw_
w I:: UJ~
>- f- Q01-
DEPTH " ~ SOIL f-Z"- Ci5--: ,,-
$AMPLE 0 ~;::iii z"- =>f-
IN ~ f-Z
0 0 CLASS W(j
NO Z ELEV. (MSL,) 1250 DATE COMPLETED 06/09103 f-Vl;: 00: VlLU
FEET r w-O -f-
f- '" (uses) ZVl~ >-- Oz
::; 0 WWID " ::;0
" EQUIPMENT JD310 <L"- 0 U
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
ALLUVIUM
- , Loose, medium broYlll, moist to wet, fine to coarse SAND, trace clay, gravel, l-
S? cobble
2 - f-
77~ - Lo~s~ ;;;edi~ b~~,~-;;-i;t;; ~~ cTa;y,- fut;t~c;;;';;-e SAND.-~~ -- ---- --- ---
I///-
4 - // cobble, gravel f-
// -
//;; I-
/ SC
6 ?>
//}
//
- 8 - ~//;
.... ?AUBA FORMATION
..... Medium dense to dense, reddish brown, moist, highly weathered, poorly
I- -
SM cemented, fine to coarse-grained, SANDSTONE, iron oxide sunned
....
I- 10 .....
l- ....
TRENCH TERMINATED AT II FEET
~igure A-6,
Log of Trench T 6, Page 1 of 1
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141-12-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
(] n. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
iJ '.. CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDiSTURBED)
.1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE lOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE CATE INDICATED
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
?~
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 7 Zw ~
>- w ~ wi'
co i Qa ~
DEPTH 0 SOlL r-Z lL oo~ ",-
:':.AMPlE ~ <1;=;in ZlL :or-
IN 0 0 CLASS W0 r-Z
ELEV. (MSL,) 1280 DATE COMPLETED 06/09/03 r-"';: "'w
FEET NO, J: Z 0, -r-
(uses) w- 0 >-~
r- :0 ZOO ~ Oz
::0 0 "'w co '" '"'0
'" EQUIPMENT JD310 0."'- " ()
co
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 >//
FILL
"/ Loose to medium dense, yellow brown, moist, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND,
(// IIace gravel r
2 - )/ SC I-
','/
I- 1>/
'//} l-
I- 4 '/
- TOPSOIL
- - , SP Loose, medium brown, damp, fine to medium SAND, trace silt, coarse sand
I- 6
PAUBA FORMATION
f.. - SM Dense, yellowish brown, damp, highly weathered, poorly cemented, fine to
medium SANDSTONE
I- a ....
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Figure A-7,
Log ,of Trench T 7, Page 1 of 1
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141-12-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE lOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHO'NN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
0: TRENCH T 8 Zw_
w ~ wi
>- ~ Qu~
DEPTH to ~ SOil I-Z~ 0;-; 0:-
SAMPLE 0 <:if''' Z"' OJ I-
IN ~ " ClASS I-Z
0 Wu
NO, J: Z HEY, (MSL.) 1278 DATE COMPLETED 06/09/03 I-u);: " ' u)w
FEET OJ (uses} w-O a. -l-
I- ZU)~ >-- Oz
OJ 0 wW'" 0: "0
a:: EQUIPMENT JD310 0.0:- Cl u
to
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 PAUBA FORMATION
I- Dense, gray brown, dry to damp, poorly cemented, fine to medium-grained
SANDSTONE
....
I- 2 - .....
l-
I- - SM
r-
....
I- 4 - .....
-2 to 7 feet, loose, cohesionless l-
..... -
- -
6 -
....
.....
....
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
Figu~e A-8,
Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of 1
o ". SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141-12..o1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!. n. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPUES ONLY AT THE SPECiFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDtCATED
'IT JS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
~'\
I?ROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
I '" TRENCH T 9 Zw_
>- w I: w*
" r- QUr-:
DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL r-Zu. Ci5-:- a:~
IN SAMPLE ~ ~;::ii; Zu., ",r-
0 " CLASS ElEV. (MSl.) ~~ r-Z
NO, :I: Z 1271 DATE COMPLETED 06/09/03 r-"'~ ",w
FEET r- '" [uses) w-O "- -r-
z"'~ >-- Oz
OJ 0 ww", '" ::;0
'" EQUIPMENT JD 310 ,,-"'- 0 "
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I- 0 v/~ FILL
, ' / Medium dense, yellowish brown, moist, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND
I- ,;/, SC
I- 2 - "//
PAUBA FORMATION
- - ..... Dense, yellowish brovro, damp, highly weathered, poorly cemented, fine to t-
....
.... medium SANDSTONE
..... SM
- 4 l-
..... -
....
.....
- I-
6 .... t-
..... MBecomes clayey sandstone
....
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
,
,
-'-
Figure A-9,
Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of 1
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141.12.()1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
IJ .., STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~... CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE; THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH lOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
,,?q;
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
DEPTH
IN
FEET
SAMPLE
NO,
)-
'"
o
~
o
:I:
t-
::;
'"
W
t-
~ SOIL
CI CLASS
5 (uses)
o
'"
o
TRENCH T 10 6w,-. ~ UJ~
_0"":
o-z~ Ql-; ",-
C;;;::iii z~ =ot-
w" t-Z
ELEV. (MSL.) 1242 DATE COMPLETED 06/09/03 t-"'s Cl ' ",w
w-o )-eo -t-
z"'~ OZ
wW'" '" :EO
EQUIPMENT JD310 ","'- Cl "
TJO-I
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
o
SC
TOPSOIL
Medium dense, medium brown, damp to moist, Clayey, fine SAND, trace
medium sand
2
4
PAUBA FORMATION
Medium dense to denc;e, yellowish brown, damp, fine Sandy SILTSTONE to
Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE, iron oxide stained with some caliche
staining
6
TI0-2
SMlSC
8
T10-3
10
12
TRENCH TERMINA TED AT 12 FEET
Figure A-10,
Log ofTrench T 10, Page 1 of 1
20141-12-Q1.GPJ
SAMPL" SYMBOLS
~ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
[] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ .. CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.l: ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOVlIN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
iT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REoRESENTATlVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
1J.
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 11 Zw _ ~
w w#
>- I- Qu .....:
DEPT:i '" ~ SOIL I--Z ~ ~-: ",-
SAMPLE 0 ;;;"u; z~ ",I-
IN ~ " CLASS w" I-Z
0 ELEV. (MSL.) 1264 DATE COMPLETED 06109/03 1--"';: "'w
NO I Z Cl . -I-
FEET w- 0 "-
I-- '" (uses) z'" ~ >-- Oz
::0 0 WWal '" :;0
'" EQUIPMENT JD310 ,,-"'- " "
'"
- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 17-,/
r,,/ ' ALLUVIUM
- / Loose, dark brown, wet, Clayey, fine to medium SAND, some coarse sand,
,:// trace fine gravel
'- 2 c./;/
" /
I- - ///
8// SC
'- 4 I{/'
r;)/ .
I- - /
I{/'
- 6 r///
I- - ://
PAUBA FORMATION
'- 8 Medium dense, yellow brown, moist to wet, poorly cemented, highly
SM weathered. fine to coarse SANDSTONE
'- -
~ 10 - ..
'- ..
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET
Figure A-11,
Log:ofTrenchT11,Page1of1
o SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
2014'.12~'.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
[l d' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
iiiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
. on DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.'!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE lOG OF SUBSURFACE CDNOITJONS SHOWN HEREON APPUES ONLY AT THE SPECifiC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~o
~ROJECT NO, 20141-12-0,
'" TRENCH T 12 zw~ ~
w w~
>- t- QOr-:
DEPTH CO ~ SOIL t-Z~ tiS"",:, ",-
SAMPLE 0 ~fOii; Z~ :>t-
'N ~ t-Z
0 0 CLASS ELEV, (MSL.) 1237 DATE COMPLETED 06109/03 t-U);: Wu U)W
NO :c Z W-O o ' _t-
FEET t- :> (uses) zU)~ >-eo Oz
:0 0 WW", '" >;0
'" EQUIPMENT JD310 ,,-"'- 0 u
co
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 ,II FILL
Iii Medium dense, grayish brown, dry to damp,Silty, fine to medium SAND r
2 I jl r
<Ijl SM
III f-
4 - ,I jl r
-
1 ,1,1
III PAUBA FORMATION
6 III SM Mediwn dense, yellowish brown, damp, Silty, fine to medium SAND f-
1,1
TIL"NCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
Figure A-12,
Log: of Trench T 12, Page 1 of 1
o n. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141-12-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
[] no STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ n. CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED]
.!- ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH lOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE,REPRESENTATlVEOF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER lOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~"
PROJECT NO, 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 13 Zw_ i': w~
>- w QU"":
DEPTH '" ~ SOIL I-Z"- U5--:- 11:-
0 ~~U3 Z"- :01-
SAMPLE ~ I-Z
'N 0 '" CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 1233 DATE COMPLETED 06/09/03 1-"';: w" "'w
NO :I: Z w-O "'a. -I-
FEET I- :0 (uses) z"'~ >-- Oz
:J 0 ww", '" :>0
II: EQUIPMENT JD310 0.11:- '" "
"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTlON
I- 0 ] 'I
F1LL
I- III Loose to medium dense, yellow brown, dry to damp, Silty, fine to medium
I ~" I SAND, t::rn.ce coarse sand, fine gravel
I- 2
i- ,111
III
I- 4 111
-
I- - I i
III SM
i- 6 ,I jr l-
I- - II i-
'III
I- 8 - III l-
I- III i-
I- 10 1;1 l-
i- Iii
)>;r. PAUBA FORMATION
I- 12 //. Dense, medium brown to yellowish brown, moist. Clayey, highly weathered, i-
f.F fine to coarse-grained SANDSTONE
- ~ /. /.. I-
:;?oK SMlSC
- 14 - :/1; I-
;;;(j/
1;:? I-
16 :;:>)
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
Figure A-13,
Lo,g:ofTrench T 13, Page 1 of 1
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ " DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
20141-12.{)1.GPJ
[I ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ .. CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ '" WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES QNl Y AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
iT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
~o/
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
" TRENCH T 14 Zw~ ~
>- w *
'" I- Qur-: w_
DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL I-Zu. in""; "I-
$AMPLE ~ Uiil Zu. ::>Z
IN 0 CLASS w() I-W
0 ELEV, (MSL.) 1245 DATE COMPLETED 06/09103 1-"';:
NO :r: z o ' !!ll-
FEET W-o 0.
I- :0 {uses) z"'~ >-- Oz
:0 0 ww", " ::;0
" EQUIPMENT JD 310 0."- " ()
'"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 1'1 FILL
- j Loose to medium dense, yellow brown to medium brown, dry to damp, Silty,
III fine to medium SAND, trace clay, coarse sand t-
2 ,III l-
I I
- III SM I-
4 I jl I-
0
,II
111 -
6 T14-1 III -
1.1
I- 8 1~1
... PAUBAFORMATlON
.... Medium dense to dense, medium brown to yellowish, highly weathered fine
I- - to coarse-grained SANDSTONE
I- 10 SM
l-
I- 12 ....
TRENCH TERMJNA TED AT 12 FEET
FigureA-14,
Log ofTrench T 14, Page 1 of 1
o ... SAMPlJNG UNSUCCESSFUL
~ .. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141.12-01.GPJ
, SAMPLE SYMBOLS
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ 'H CHUNK SAMPLE
. ..' DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT 1$ NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
~'?
"
PROJECT NO, 20141-12-01
'" TRENCH T 15 z'" _ ~
>- '" w~
I- QOr-:
DEPTH '" ~ SOIL I-Z"- 00,," ",-
SAMPLE 0 ~;::iJ; Z"- "I-
~ >-Z
IN 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 1238 DATE COMPLETED 06/09103 1-"';: "'u ",,,,
NO J: Z Cl ' ->-
FEET W-o >-eo
I- " (USCS) Z'" ~ Oz
:; 0 W"'a> '" :aO
'" EQUIPMENT JD 310 Q."'- Cl u
'"
MATERiAl DESCRIPTION
I- 0
>// ALLUVIUM
I- - ~~ Loose, dark: to medium brown, moist, Clayey, fine to medium SAND, trace
coarse sand, fine gravel
I- 2 /~ SC
//
I- - ///
'F//
'/
I- 4 {//
-
I- /}
~// .Few lenses of silty, fine to medium sand
- 6 - '//'
//
- [///
I- 8 - r//}
~//
e- r///;
/
L 10 L/>' f-
r)//
- ','/ f-
1;:>/
I- 12 - I//} I-
I{/' I-
r;/I
/
14 1;:>:'- f-
- r,,//
PAUBAFORMATION
16 Medium dense to dense, yellowish brown, damp to moist, poorly cemented, f-
SM highly weathered, fine to coarse SANDSTONE
.... f-
.....
18 ....
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 18 FEET
Figure' A-15,
LogofTrench T 15, Page 1 of 1
o ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
20141.12.Q1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
. ... DRIVE SAMPlE (UNDISTURBED)
.!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CO~JOITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
*'
--;
APPENDIX
~~
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected undisturbed
samples were tested for their in-place dry density and moisture content and consolidation
characteristics. Disturbed bulk and representative "undisturbed" samples were tested to determine
maximum dry ,density and optimum moisture content, R-Value, shear strength and expansion
characteristics. Water-soluble sulfate and pH and resistivity tests were also performed. Results of the
laboratory tests are presented in tabular form herewith.
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-00
Sample Maximum Optimum
No. Description Dry Density Moisture Content
(pel) (% dry wt.)
T3-1 Brown Clayey SAND 131.9 9.2
TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Sample Moisture Content Dry Density Expansion
No. Before Test (%) After Test (%) (pel) Index
T3-l 9.6 22.7 115.9 35
TIO-2 13.8 29.0 99.6 73
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Sample Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
No. (pel) (%) (psI) Resistance (degrees)
T3-1* 118.5 9.6 1100 35
*Samples remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near or slightly above optimum moisture content.
~
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure
T3-1 0.011 Negligible
Tl4-1 0.029 Negligible
/>,.'\
APPENDIX
t>{b
APPENDIX C
LOGS FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
FOR
TRACT NO. 25004
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
I>{\
r"""'"" ~"r'~" - --
~-~~..: ElfLORAlIDl!, DA!E:'~.-;.;,~ 1!~)OGGEOB1.~'!,;i~~:1 ~.~ATER,LEVEL~~",r~~TEsli~oLE' KUXBER"-,:...",,,
'f.;.~~. '. Oa-0AI-99 i" ,......4- ',' .' -'':','~ I ~~~,-),~", nes .~::;:.~:r~I.~~::::.,~~ .~~, Hone Enc:lunt~nd '~r:"~.:, I ".~~~',-;':~tJH-l. ~ JH-2 7':,. .'-~..
:':":' ",".' TYPE OF EI?lOnATIOH EQUI?XEHl "':';:,,': .,'.'.. :'. ::;":,::-0' ELltO? OF HOLE ,,:REFERE~CE OR OATUX
B......~ht'1!
6
R L
A 0
? 6
H
I
. C
"~,'i "', fill
(1,,,.
C.<t
~.'~~~
,:i;ltP,
~;;~;
'.;.cIJ~
""'0"
%..0:
.' ~.;fz.
, T )~.;;
J~-~-------
lCP
~6~
"~J.:t1
"-'.'1)1
:f:Q..~,
~ Bedrock
''''',,\d
"r ~(DG!C
OESCRI?TIOK
D S ..
E AT ..
P XY
T PP
H LE
E
I
1
3
\
"-5
!
7
8
9
10
Botto. . 9;'
F.:"""" Tcp"i!
IT~
K~
...1" -.'
(1~~ "7'::~" i Bf'dnd
I \/-
........t'
,) ~
..::....'
I
1 0
3
\
ScttDI ~ ~t I
~:;',.'
D DRIVE SAllPLE
.' ". w XOISTllRE CDI/IDlT lX)
i'~::"";'''' , ':IHI.ACl: DRY DEllSlT1' Ipcn
, .' . ~ " ;- "".'
l , 'J~fcr~.'tl;n 'pee".I'd on tho ('plc"tlcn LC9'
,'2-,-:' '. lu,l b. conslder.d In conjunction with Ihe
'.. r,ulnder.cf this r.port.
L,
Dctober 19B9
AP?ROI. 1310' .nd 1183'
'T,nt.tlve Tncl 1500\'
Eli611lEr:lIKG
CLAS51FIC.TIDH/DES~~IPTIOK
w I
Slndy 6RAVEl with ,iltj li9h1 r,ddi,h-
brown, dry, loo5e
,
6RAHDDIDRITEj gr"y. d.lp, w,.lhrr.d
Cl.y,y SAHD with ,ilt; ,ediu. brown, d~,
loose, blocIr ttructurr
"" .,';
7.1
lB.l
6RAHDDIDRlTE; gr'1, d.lp, w..ther.d
SUBSURFACE EIPLDRATIOH L06
T,nt.ti.. Tnc! IS0C~ ,
Ri..r,id, Count1, C.lifornl.
',SOUTll COAST GEDUl6lC StR'IlCE5, Inc.
fIgur. 2 ~()
.;;,~:~.~ , OPlORATIOR OATE .' .. ~": lOG.ED 01.., ,.",-,-\..:" :~7j;..:::. WATER lEVEL ''':'' ""-I . -" ":',,-TEST HOLE HUMBER
,'".. .....;n. .... '
.~:. ,r .. 08-0I-B9 -. '-'l.';"'';~;;- . OOB ..: .-~ "" :... Hone Enc.ounhnti " I lH-l, TH-" TH-S
: \, .~. .-~ .
TYpf or EIPlORATJOR [OUIPMEIfi ", ELlTOP or HOLES I REFLIERCE OR OATUM
,8ulh" APPROI. 1305' , 131 ~ t I 1m' I 'Tenb,tin Trlet 25001'
G D S I I I
R L GEOLOGIC E AT EliGINEERIHG
A 0 OE:CRIP T I OR P MY CLASSIFICATIOH/DESCRIPTIOH
P G T PP , i
H H lE
J E
I.
r"'"'' ---- ~--- - - - -\:I.y,y SAND ,ith Si It j aediua brown, drYJ-- I
T ~ /. , 1 loose I
H ,_... I
,I, . 2 GRAHOD lOR lIE;
- ... ,..... ,Bedr:ck - 9rtJI dap, lfe~thered
J _'I ~ ;I " 3 I I
'-', I I
' ,-
--.----- -.--.-..-'---. .-_. '. -- -----. -.., ---001\,. . 3' ,- - - ...... '''-'0_-._._-- -.. --.- .. T
:
~~- 'Fill Silty SAHDI liqht brown, dry, loose
----- 1
Ill'[:-
H lli iP~Ubl F~rlltion 2
'-/--1
- '1_1fl D SlHy SAKD, ledlUl brown, dup, den,e I. IU 106.0
, )j1ir: l very den,e
hTrJ- ;
,[';:/1'
Bottol . ~.
-
:~~ T,p5011 CI,y.! SAKD .ith 'III; ,..dlul,bro.., dr!,
:o:..~ I I..", bl.ct! ,tructur.
~:-.
Tf PJub~ Forl~tion 2 D Cl.T'! SAXD .nd lin, GRAVEL ,ith 'ill; l.D 111,9
H ~ 6 ledlua brown, dapl nq dens'!!
;1 l
;
5
O.ltUI . 5'
..
I~"~"
I GUBSURFACE EIPlORATIOH LOG
!
,
L . ,
D ,'DRIVE SAlIPLE ' T.nl.li,. Tr.cl 2500\
, .' MOISTURE COHTEllT Ill, Riv~r1id~ Countr, ~lifllnh
.'" I IH-fLACE DR! DEllSITl Ipcf)
.. '" ,",,",",'
>' In(ur..tl.~'''!r..''l'd an th, E'pl.ntl.n L.V' 2.4,
': 1ll,1 b, CO" d,nd in c.nJunct ion Ii Ih lh. Dcl.bor lqB9 Fiquro
j'", rruind,r .1 lhis,r"l'ort." ',.. SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, Inc. ' J
... ,.'.i..ot.- ._ ...-.;.:.i. ._:'~..:;:~':p; ~':Jf' ~;.~ . :.'
t :.f.......,-.~...t..,;.;;".~..~ ..-:.t.....-:-:-..... -::.....~~1~-:\ t.
-5'\
l~'!:~Ii:'HPlORAT}~PATE~:tP~~:':r~S:L06GED Br,~'~~~~.t:I1.~,A!ERLE'yEL ';:~r;':';,~<c:,:, ,~tESTHOlE IlIJnBER, 'i' ','; , "'J
:.~.:~::;'" 08-~~-e9 ..~i:'~~;,~~~:"?i:: ,;'~":.~:'.~r,~~>:':,DBB ...:.; ..~. ,:'~'.;"'~,~'.;~ ! ,:':..~:~Dn! EnCDuntend "", I.. .:",,'.;.:..TH-6, TH-7 J TH-€ .
~..' ',. ".- TrPE OF E1PLORATlOM EDUInEHT .,',:::;: .,.., :,';':",""",7 '~,::S\:, ELlTOP OF HOLES REFEREHCl: OR OATU~
i"lh.. ...."..... APPRO!. 127~', 1293', 1236' ';,nl,ll" T"et 2l00\'
5
R L
A 0
P 6
H
I
0 iTI
E . EHGIHml~G
P ~y , CLA5SIFICATIOH/OESCRIPTIOH
T PP , I
H LE
E
GEOLOGIC
OESCR! PT J OM
If~ -Top"il
HT ~i,?:it
.~. .
. )~~IPIUb. For..Ilon
6 ,1:0:.
tt~
I
1
3
I -, ------.-..-
..--- .
Bottu . 3'
~.:.:J' Top,,!l
E-:::l
~::.3 '
~7,""
~ .;~ ~~~~ 'F,~~:;~~--'-----'---- -- -- -. -. -- _m__
T ~ " ". "
R ...<>'9"
~t:~~.
;0"""
-~
~ :~~
1jfi
. 'Ii;,
~oi
;<.1.;0
I
1
3 0
5
6
7
B
9
iolto. . B\'
'1'1'1 Top";]
':1,11
TIN!
H I i~
1
1
J
,
5
e P.ub. For..llon
J>g
IottOl . 5'
<:::.:~:: D" DRIVE SPJlPtE
;.:' '~::.:,;' . ',' ~OISTURE COKmrr IIi
"','{,!F'/ ;IH-P\J\CEDRT ,Doom Ipei)
. ,-", .....:....:..,.:.:.l. . ._.... : .
.,..~:.:;:;~,:,I~forUtion prurntrd on ~hr E~plor~tion loqs
"';'.~.' .u51 beeon5Id.rf1l In conjunctIon .1 th Ih.
''':'.::;r.ulnder of, this r"l'orl. '
.~'!"S,~.~ .;;~!~~~:"~~'~:..<~::I~~:':.'.:": .,.... ~...'
Dclob.r I~B~
-Silty SANDj .euiu. reddish-hro"n, dry,-----
loo5r
SAHD ond fine GRAVEL ,Ith ,IH; I.diu.
rrddish-broKn, dd'P, dens!
'"
..
eLl'1!'1 SAND IIi th siltj u~diu. brown, drYJ
den5t!', blodr 5tnJcture ..
-.
------..........--.-_....------------
SAHD ,lnd fint 6RAYEl.j hn, dup, .diul
d.n"',~ri<bl. _ '.
109.2
5.3
D
3.0 96.0
ChT'r SILT .\ th ..nd; "clUJ brown, ''1,
lco~e, blocIY structure, white cl1itht '
Ion. 11th gr...l to I' It b'5e
Silty 5AHD .nd fin. GRAVEL .Ilh cl'T1
.ea~u. brown, dij, Gense
SUBSURFACE EIPtORATJOH LOS
T,nt,\;.. Tr,el 2500,
Rlv.r5Id. CountT, C.llfornll
FllUr. fS
-51--
SOUTH COAST 5EDLOGIC, SERVICES, Inc. '."~';'.);c;,
'~;.;',',ElPLORA !lON DATE
J!:... ~ . .
"';~"~, ',," OB-01-69 " DBB
TYPE OF EXPLORATIOH EQUIPNEHT
...,. ..,
" .'.dOBGED BY.~:j""T<::,,::fi: ',<;:':iii:\!;.~ATEHLEVEL":,"' ,:. ':'.:";'.~,,:JEST HOLE )(uNBER
.,.:..:~.: Hone EnCDuntend
'. TlH, TH-IO, TH-II
REFEREHCE OR DA TUN
., , EL/TOP OF HOLES
... e.,~h" I APPRO!. IIB2' , 1173', 1131' 'l.nt.tl" 1r.,\ 2500\'
0 S '- .. ." -' "
" ..
GEOLOGIC E AT EHGIIlEERIHG
DESCRIFTIOH P NY .. CLASSIFICAT J OH/OESCRIF11 OK
T PP , I
H LE
E
G
.. R L
A 0
P 6
H
I
C
r:r'~j!' Too"il
, " " -----------------------
, ~.
9 .
7!-+~ ..--- ----- -- ..
'.
;I.f'.
'.
PI'Jbi For.~ ti on
I
2 0
3
-,
Silty SAHD with clJY; ndiul brDMu, Dr.,.!
-ID~S~I blocry structure--------------------
S II IT SAHD .nd fi n. GRAVEL ,ith d.y;
le~iu. brown, drYI DenS!
\.1 112.1
._ ___ w__._,...____._._.
- Botto.. -t' ."
....;;;......
~iT 1moil
, MN.
. :f:h;(, AllUYl.. (oW
I '~~l
f 'jjllr.
1 n",ti
,Ht~,.,y
[11\' P;'b. Fomllon
I
~.[&fill
1
1
3
-
,
5
6
Bolt.. . 6t'
1
2
3 0
\
5
6
,
8
9
:
Betlo. . 9'
I'
I;
'.', .
" ~.;t
~
.
I ;.'j ~ 'P"b. F"..llen
,,,m~~rfl'
~"::~~;'.' -' :-
'r
).
: 0 DRTVE SAIll'LE
,. HOISTURt COHTERT m
.,;;,: :,IH-ftACE ORY OEHSITY, (pcf)
':"'~~'.:' ;;:.,.,...;"...~:..-: ,:,.: .~~. ~ i;.:, .
1~lor..il;..'im.nt.don the Elplo"II.. Le9s
:...1 b, consld.red,ln conj.ncllen .\Ih lho
~relllnd.r Df Ihl'.rrpo~t. 'i"':; "-, .
'.""" ,"II-~"-"""-"""~ _.
-. ,..{.,
t
~.i
S.ndT SILT ,lth cl'Tl ..diu broll1l, dry,
loose, nots
,.- -, ' ,....','
S.ndy SILTj lediuI brawn, dry, lediuI
de",e
I SAI!1I .nd GRAYELI ..di.. broll1l, dup,
U'diu denn ". -
SIItT SAND and Ilno ERAYEL .llh cl'TI d.rt
brDwn, dUPt dnse to nry denu :::--_>
SiltT SAKD .nd BRAYELI light bro.n, dry,
loose ". ..
9.7
8\.6
SlltT SAI!1I, br..., dm.
SUBSURFAct EIPLDRATJOH LOS
~ '.:::~.~.:i.~k~li.;.::
Ttnhtlv. 1r,,1 2S00~'~;':-',:':'"
Riversld. Counly, C.llfornl1 ..
..~
?"
Odob.r 19B9 ..
, , " " .........'. .. .- .Flgur. 2t ..
,N_SOUTll, (;D,AST .BEDLO,S.ICrom:I.Cl:~;'JllC~:;;:: -. '" I
.~EIPLOR~ rrOH ,DArE~~";:'. :'::~S':7-'''; LO,GED 8!_~~",~:;,>:' HAT~ LmL.t .e.,r;,: '::<"Z-B.1i'o!EST,J,HOLE HUMBER, :.: :'::'::)"::_
1..:I::;,':::'.io.;~;~':I:. 08-0,-89 ..;t.'i;:-:r";':Z:~~~:~~\l 'L,-~.. DBB .(;.S':~;.~'\i~' :~;~: Hone E?countered ;..'/:,: "".'r";;S~:tICj:}H::-12 ~ TH-i3. "..:. .~:~:.:.
'-, TYPE OF'EIPLORATION EOUIPMEHT '"",;'..,\~;,,.; I .' ELI TO? OF HOLES " REFEREHCC: OR DATUM
,,- ",
. 8"~h,,
,
R L
A 0
? .
H
I ,
C '
'",',>" .,,: APPRO!. 1237', 1213' 'l,nt.llv. Tnct 2500,'
o 5 P 8 I
E AT E L _ EH6IHEC:RIH6
P MY H 0 CLASSIFICAiIOH/DESCRIPTlON
1 P? ,
H LE R S I
E ,/
SFT
,EOLOG1C
DESCRIPllON
Alluvlu. Iyoungl
-------------------------------------------------
r.'
l!f~~ Alluviul 1.ld)
"T f:l/~
"I "H' I~X'l'''----''
i tw~'
2.:d'1'
I [r1';:!i
:Im.
R-r:.~
~.:::.::.
SAND .nd ,RAYEL; t.n, dry, I.."
2
J
--------------------------------------------
Silty StlHO If~ th jnn! j d.r~ brown, d.up,
: d.nn, Chy.y, b .c~y struclue! in upp"
D.. ----.-~___...__"'_ ,_ '_., _,_ _,..__..._8,0_ ___"'_
5 D 7.2 99.5
0
7 D SAHD .lth gr..,!; light brown, lolst, 7.0 10\ .\
IrdiuI den,e, frllble
8
8.drocl ..' D ,RAHODIORITEI qrernish-,nr, .oht, 39.9 80.8
"". .9 weIthered
BDttol _ ~'
I '
I
~~l
, "
1.p..11 ond Fi II
Alluvlul lOW 2
~ Pi 3
K \
-, \
I:
3 5
D
- b
Paub. Forution 7
8ott'l . 7'
:1.'.:,
"
:L;~~~:';:.: ;~: "r ,~.,
:1-::':'-";:,-:: D 'OOlY!' SAMPLE
~,,"'~-;D"~. ,IIlISlUlIf: COHTElfT IXI
, '5.t.~'.:.c:;:,.l_ IH-flACE DRY DEHSITT Ipcf)
';::~;:.:::":t":;;:.~::.;.~...
.. ,:'J": lnforllllon p"..nt.d .n th. "pl.rotlon Logs
'r.'~' lust b. consld."d In conJuncti.n 11th th.
[~~~;~~.~~,~~_l;:..th.h r-,port. . ,
Oclob.r 1989
;"~".: .
-f~~;:: 1:~~1.~~.~~~i.d.~~1:sbt~"21 :~p_
Silty SAXD .nd ,RAVEl with '11Yi ledlul
rrddlsh-brDwo, d~IPJ dense
1.2 112,1
Silly SA~ Ind fin. GRAVEl with '11Y;
dirk brown, d~lp, dens~
SUBSURFACE EIPLORA110H LOG
". ..',.. ~ .'
i.nt.ti,. ir.,t 2500\
Ri,ersld. C.unty, C<!lf.rnll,_"..
Rj~::
Fl gu," 2D
SOUTH COAST GEOUl6lC SERVICES, Inc.:",
e
0) ,
I
,
.
~
,
:
ij
II
1
~
I[,I>/"
t .......
,":.t:::/
.. ,)-':
:f
t' ,
~ . :~':
q,:~:
! r::~
I I t..'~
"j.;, l 1,/, f"....f"
. "'l '" I r- '1;'
:t~tl '~." {' , ' :. ,:,:J
' '... -- 1'" {;...
''''; ~." " ~,:
[/-:.fJ: ~! I]; f ;i: ij
i - '.'r". . j ~, , . II.
~ : ".1", L "r:r
. '1:~' !/ i' . '.
) ", ! 'II ilJ, J
.,.,,,.. O'''-T~)- - I 1 ;f 1 f ~f1 1
,I I '.': 91 ~IJ "fIt .') ~I
I ~ }':: I: ];1 d1n ~jli ~11 z!
. 'L'" ", ~ J. 111 .1 ~l
.'1" :: ' ~ 1l] ~ aPll ~.1i ~rl ~.'
~'.j:.: 0 ' ;;'" I .j J .IlI '3. .il
'j" ': :,:' ~ ~JI' ~J nil ~ ilj ~l
~j ;': :" ' ~l ill..!. .m".
o:~ -j . :t' ,,: ',::'
. . ......
, .
.1.'; -: t,'
,. 't. .. ;.
-/ ,J',
r. .'.
~r' ':.'
I '~ '. .'
'I' "
~. :
,. - , ..
:'/ ,:r " :'
, r'"
jI
~
O~
2
S" '
I
(
l -
MO'.. Hllor
,
o
I
,
,
I
/ l
o
lltoll .Ol!'~],]
, 0
o
,
o 0) 8
o
:U.".OlJ""J'J
.
I.,
.J
iC
~ ~<
Q. 0 U
n .
N>
!:::: ~:: c.g
Ui ~= .=
OJ ~ ~8 ~
0- I f H g
c:: we: ! ~
:3 ~
Q.
X
.,
..,
,~
,~
;~
DO
~
..,
~
ll:;
~:;:
o 0 0
6~
APPENDIX
~<t
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
TRACT NO. 25004
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 20141-12-01
?~
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
l.t. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case
of conflict.
1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employej:! for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject
the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3.
Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
tfJ'b
GI rev. 07/02
.2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills, In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 1 2
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
inches.
3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fmes. Fines are defined as
material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
s~
OJ rev. 07/02
3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.~,. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defmed by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to
suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request' from the Owner
the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspecte9 materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner
and Consultant.
3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and,
where ,appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics ofthe soil.
3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1-112 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
lP
GI rev, 07/02
4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
of this document.
4.3, After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4. Where the s lope ratio of the original ground i s steeper than 6: 1 (horizontal;vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched m
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade
I Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur
L
Varies
"B"
See Note 1
See Note 2 J
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES:
(1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to
permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be lQ-.
modified as approved by the Consultant.
GI rev. 07/02
4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, p lowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1.
Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
-wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
- ?
)._.
Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 ofthese specifications.
6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM DI557-00.
6.1.3, When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
~'V
GI rev. 07/02
6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as th.e ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-00. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at
least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below [mish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
v?l
GI rev. 07/02
6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall
be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to
control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. , Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the CJ>\
GI rev. 07/02
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1l96-93, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be
performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than
that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required
number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to
verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2- foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
,uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
V;~
GI rev. 07/02
6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7. ~. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
.test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed sUlface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on
the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the
maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected
layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
Co~
GI rev. 07/02
7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-00, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-96, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM DI557-00, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using lO.Pound Hammer
and l8-InchDrop.
7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829-95, Expansion Index Test.
7.6.2. Rock Fills
7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM Dl196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard
Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible
Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
Cq~
GI rev. 07/02
_._~
,
9.
CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.t. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactflry to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
f/l;
GI rev. 07/02