HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Investigation
>
a
.
AUG 1 2 1999
jj
'Ii
---.._-
-.......
-"'-...-
GEOTECHNICAL INY'ESTIGA TION
PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Tract No. 23990
6.33 Acres
Southerly Side of Via La Vida
Between Calle Palmas and Via Sevilla
Temecula, California
SECOR Job No. 40231-001-02
August 17, 1998
prepared for
Hiram-Hill, LLC
610 Newport Center
Suite 1129
Newport Beach, California 92260
prepared by
RECEIVED
JAN 242000
CITY OF 7EMtr.ULA
ENGINEERING n/On: "T"M'"
-~rJ1"I, leNT
SECOR International Incorporated
25864-F Business Center Drive
Redlands, California 92374-4515
/'-.--
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTlAllIY
.~------
This repon'has been submiuedfor the sole and exclusive use of Hiram-Hill, UC and shall not be
disclosed or provided to any other emiry, corpor01ion. or third parry for purposes beyond the specific
scope or intent of this repon Wilholtl the express written consent of SECOR InlemaJional
Incorpor01ed (SECOR).
\
IN 40231-001-02
SECOR
1IIIel'lltlli()//(/{ fllcOlpOmll'cj
August 17, 1998
Mr. Ram Fullen
Hiram-Hill Development Company, LLC
610 Newport Center
Suite 1129
Newport Beach, California 92260
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Single-Fam~~t;sidential Development
Tract No.~41iOO'; 6.33 Acres
Southerly Side of Via La Vida
Between Calle. Palmas and Via Sevilla
Temecula, California
Gentlemen:
In response to your request, SECOR International Incorporated (SECOR) is pleased to present the
following "Geotechnical Investigation" for the subject site. This investigation was performed in
accordance with the instructions received from Hiram-Hill Development Company, LLC (Hiram-
Hill), and SECOR's proposal letter (PN 9g077-R) to Hiram-Hill dated May 28, 1998. The
objective of the geotechnical investigation was to assess the underlying soil conditions and develop
geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development.
The site consists of a partially graded hillside parcel of land in the City of Temecula. Originally,
the property topography consisted of two shallow east-west trending canyons that were separated
by a low ridge line. During the mass grading for the nOiiherjy adjacent residential tract, most of
the northerly canyon was filled in with compacted fill and minor cutting and filling was conducted
in the area of the central ridge. A cut slope was constructed along the westerly portion of the site
in conjunction with the mass grading of the westerly adjacent residential tract. The southerly
canyon is essentially in a native condition.
Fill placement.in the .central ridge was apparently not placed as a documented engineered fill, and
as a result willibe required to be removed and placed as a compacted. fill during the site grading. _
The native alluvial soils encountered in the lower portion of the southerly canyon are highly
variable with some being relatively loose and compressible. Accordingly, removal and placement
as compacted fill will, also be necessary during the site grading.
"Z-
-. - - . - - . -- -~- -~-_. -- - . ~ - --
""'--.o._~ ~. __ __-:-~.:r~~_-_ __ ____~_ __ --c; _ ____ _ ____ __
,,!=j.')'(;I-': f)",~'i}h'S:; r.i.'lIfer Orin'. Ner!!(/}/d~. C:I ()..!. ;-.1---/) 1 j (~)()l)! 331.(j f f() {()IIC)J. U)'-(>! _1,! F t\" :1I{'ll'._~('c(!rCIJJ!/
;~<t
Mr. Ram Fullen
Hiram-Hill Development Company, LLC
August 17, 1998
Page 2
For the most part, the fill placed in the northerly canyon area appears to have been properly
placed and compacted. As a result, only minor removal of the near surface materials in the
northerly canyon area where compacted fill has been placed will be necessary due to natural
weathering and weed abatement.
Following the Tecompaction of the near surface materials and rough grading the site will be
suitable for the support of the proposed structures with conventional spread footings provided that
the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the design and construction of the
'project. Preliminary laboratory testing indicates that the near surface materials have a very low to
low expansion potential; however, review of geotechnical reports from the mass grading indicate
. that some of the soils may have a medium expansion potential. Accordingly, we have presented
recommendations for design and construction of the houses for a medium expansion potential,
Final review of the expansion potential will be made at the completion of the rough grading.
The fmdings of the investigation and recommendations for site development are presented in the
attached report.
It has been our pleasure to be of service to you. Should you have any questions please contact
our office.
Respectfully submitted,
SECOR International Incorporated
I/o t
f"y J. ~ley Schweitzer, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
1h 1te-'0- u;sqj'-1:@
Nicholas S. Hont, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Distribution: (4) Addressee
IN.f02JI-Q01.o2
Ihg\9S.08Jug.msw\gi2Jltem.doc
:?
- - - - ~ - - - - -- - - -- - - - ~ - - . - - - -- - - - - - - . -.- --
- -- <=- - - - -. --.:;--
c
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Paee
1,0 INTRODUCTION .....,......,....,...............................,........................................................,................... 1-1
1.1 AUTHORlZA TION ....... ...................................................................................................................... I-I
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK...................................................................................................1-1
1.3 SITE DESCRlPTIONIBACKGROUND....... ......................................................... ...................... ........ 1-2
I A SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ......................................................................................................... 1-3
2.0 DESIGN DA T A................................................................................................................................... 2-1
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 SOIL BORlNGSrrRENCH PITS......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 LABORATORY SOIL TESTING........................................................................................................3-1
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3./ Regional Geology .........................................................................................................................3-2
3.3.2 Earth Units................................................................ ............................. .....................................3-3
3.3.3 Site Geologic Structure......................... ................... ................................................................ .. 3-4
3.3.4 Groundwater................................................. .................... ..................... .................... .... 3-4
3.3.5 Seismicity ..................................... .......................................................... .. 3-4
4.0 CONCLUSI ONS ..............................................................................,.................................................. 4-1
4.1 GENERAL.. ............... .......................... ................................................... ................ ... .......... ................4-1
4.2 SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................................................................................4-1
4.3 EVALUATION OF SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ................................................................ 4-1
4.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS ..................................................................... ..................................... ..................4-2
4.5 EV ALUA TION OF EXISTING FILL/COLLUVIUM......................................................................... 4-2
4.6 REMEDIAL GRf\DING ................................................................................. .......... ...........................4-3
5.0 RECOMl\<IENDA TIONS..................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN ....................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS-ON-GRADE........................................................................................5-2
5.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS ............................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.5 WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES ........................................................................................................ 5-3
5.6 SOIL CORROSIVITY.......................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.7 RETAINING WALLS .......................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.8 SLOPES........ ........................... ....... ............... ............. ...................... ................................ .................... 5-4
5.9 TENTATIVE PA VEMENT DESIGN..................................................................................................5-4
5.10 SITE GRADING ................................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.10.1 Clearing and Grubbing............................................................................................................... 5-5
5.10.2 Removals................................................................................................ ..................................... 5-6
5.10.3 Placement of Compacted Filf.................. .................................................................................... 5-6
5. 10.4 Import Soils......................... .......... ............. ......................................................... ........................ 5-7
5.10.5 Shrinkage and Subsidence .......................................................................................................... 5-7
5. 10.6 Trench Backfill............................................................................................................................ 5-8
5.11 SITE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................................. 5-8
5.12 SLOPE MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................. 5-8
I
A. I
1:-140231-001-02
1h1:\9R-08Jug.msw\gi2Jltcm.d'Jc
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
5.13 POOL CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................................5-9
5.14 POST INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES ............................................................................................... 5-9
6.0 CLOSURE....,................................,........,.....".....,...,..........................".,...,.......................................... 6-1
7,0 REFERENCES ...........,..................",......".....".......................,.,......"............................",................... 7-1
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Site Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Boring & Trench Logs
Appendix B - Test Results
Appendix C - Guide Specifications for Placement of Fill and Backfill
-- - - -. - - . . - - - -. - - ~ - ---..,. - -'
~ Fr'~-=~~.--~.--"';-$"';~~~"-::~__~~."E-;=._"""____7~::;:-_..,_""':.~ _ _. """'----"~"'__:;,,__"____~~ _
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 AUTHORIZATION
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed at the
request of Hiram-Hill, LLC by SECOR International I~f.?,rporated (SECOR) for the site of a
proposed single-family residential development, Tract~:" The proposed Tract will consist of
one and/or two-story single-family houses and interior streets, located on the southerly side of
Via La Vida 'between Calle Palmas and Via Sevilla in the City of Temecula, California
(Figure 1).
This report has been prepared for Hiram-Hill Development Company, LLC and their project
design consultants, to be used solely in the development of design of the proposed project as
described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other uses or the
purposes of other parties.
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
The objective of this investigation was to assess the nallire and engineering properties of the
encountered subsoils and to provide tentative geotechnical design recommendations for site
development. A "Site Acquisition Environmental Assessment" was performed concurrently with
this investigation and has been presented under separate cover.
The scope of work which was performed in accordance with the instructions received from
Hiram-Hill, LLC and SECOR's proposal letter to Hiram-Hill, LLC (PN 98077-R) dated May 28,
1998 included .the following tasks:
. Drill six soil borings;
. Excavate five exploratory test trenches;
. Perform laboratory soil testing on selected samples;
. Evaluate geotechnical properties pertinent to the design and construction of the proposed
development; and
. Summarize fmdings, conclusions, and recommendations in this report.
(p
~.:;.,' "
~- .- -. - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t - =_=':::0__-::'= -.;~~:~~~,..--' ->-~~~~.t""~_;='~-=--_--?~ -, _,,--,;;.~-.*__- -=-=.-- ~~ =_.;;;;7""""1..~ ~...~:-_ ""~ ::..~_--. -
I-I
1.3 SITE DESCRIPTIONfBACKGROUND
The site of the proposed development consists of an approximately 6.32 acre parcel of vacant land
located on the southerly side of Via La Vida berween Calle Palmas and Via Sevilla in the City of
Temecula, California. Site topography consisrs of an easr-west trending ridge that is locared in
the central portion of the site with portions of two east-west trending canyons located along the
northerly and southerly edges of the site.
Regionally, the subject is located near the southwesterly corner of the Perris Block which lies
northwesterly of the Elsinore Fault Trough and northwesterly of the Agua Tabia Mountains. The
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute IOpographic map for the Murrieta quadrangle
(Figure I) shows the subject site topography as being low lying hills with an elevation of
approximately 1,153 feet above mean sea level (msl) and the drainage towards the west.
The northerly canyon was partially filled with compacted fill in conjunction with the rough
grading of the easterly adjacent residential tract (Tract 20882-3) in 1988. According to the
Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading for that tract prepared by LeighlOn and Associates,
dated May 20, 1988, the maximum depth offill placed on the subject site is on the order of 25
feet. Review of that report also indicates that a canyon subdrain was installed in the bottom of
the canyon which is located just to the northeast of the property line. Following the placement
of the compacted fill, the topography in this area is generally fiat with a slight slope toward the
west and Via La Vida.
The canyon along the southerly edge of the property is essentially in a natural, ungraded
'condition. Both upstream and downstrea~ of the site, the canyon has been filled in with
compacted fill placed in conjunction with the rough grading of the adjacent residential tracts
(upstream Tract 20153 and downstream Tract 22593). Surface waters upstream and downstream
.of the site have been channelized into storm drain pipes. Review of available geotechnical reports
for the developments upstream and downstream of the site did not indicate that canyon subdrains
were installed beneath the compacted fill in this canyon.
Visual review of the central ridge indicates that some grading of the ridge has occurred over the
years. A cut slope is located on the site along the westerly property line. This slope which
descends down .to the adjacent tract (Tract 22593) was apparently constructed as an off-site cut
slope during the rough grading of the westerly adjacent tract. Topography of the rest of the ridge
indicates that movement of material by both cut and fill operations appears to have occurred.
At the time of the field exploration for this investigation, the site was vegetated by a moderate
growth of native grasses with several large trees located in the bottom of the southerly canyon.
IN.H2JI-OOI.02
!hg\98.0SJ.ug.mswlgi2Jltc:m.do.:
1-2
,..,. -- .
+----:-~.:- -"",--=-+-,! ----~~._~~ ~;~-=~:= -'::<~ .-.-"----=.:;~-..:- ~ :: ~~ ;..~~~..;~77"""~ -=-"'"'-- ~: -=....,~~:----'~:...... :=~ ;;'_'-" _A.+.__~':;:_:-~.=.:._",=i,.+_=-_
1
1.4 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The subject site is surrounded by a mixture of single and multi-family residential developments.
In addition to the on-site slope described above along the northerly ponion of the westerly
property line, off-site fIll slopes that ascend from the property lines to the adjacent tracts are
located along easterly and southerly property lines and the southerly portion of the westerly
property line.
IN40231-OQ1..()2
Ihg\98-OS;lug.msw\gi231tem.doc
1-3
"'" . - - '. . ~ .
------.---- -T- _ __~_ ________.__ _ ~.____" _ _.__ ____. ________.
--~::--:;;:: --= =- -- ~-;..-?==-;--~.~ .~~ ".-~----:;.~..::::;;;..-=~7--:....;- - -=~-- =:;-- ---,.,:~ ~ -_~;'____---=...::.;':7--=-:' ~__ ~ __=--,,::;_.-"'_ _
co
2.0 DESIGN DATA
The proposed development will consist of the construction of a tract of one andlor two-story
.single-family residential structures with associated streets and utility improvements. A Tentative
Tract Map showing 30 individual lots and two interior srreets was provided for our use in the
preparation of this investigation. However, it is our understanding that this concept is being
revised to reportedly allow for a general increase in finish elevation over the entire site from that
shown on the provided Tentative Tract Map. It is also our understanding that this increase in
overall site elevation will require the importation of a significant amount of fill material.
Although specific grading was not available at the time that this report was prepared, it is assumed
that this change in grading concept will require the construction of fill slopes along the southerly
and northeasterly portion of the site and/or the placement of off-site fill along ule lower portion of
the existing off-site slopes that are located adjacent to the property line. For the purpose of
analysis, we have assumed that the maximum height of new or modified slopes necessary for
development of the site will be on the order of 30 feet and that the following new slopes and
changes to existing slopes will be required:
. New cut andlor fill slopes at various locations around the site with a maximum height of 20
feet;
. Existing cut slope along the westerly property line will be decreased in height up to ten feet;
, . Existing off-site slope along the easterly property line (adjacent to the high point of the central
ridge) will require cut of up to ten feet below the toe of the existing slope, thus creating a f1ll
over cut condition; and
.. Existing off-site fill slopes along the southerly property line and the southerly portions of the
easterly and westerly line may be reduced in height by the placement of off-site fill at the toe
of the slope.
Building design information was not available at the time that this report was prepared. However,
for the purpose of analysis it has been assumed that the structures will be constructed with wood
framing and concrete slab-on-grade first floors. It is our understanding that the structures will be
. supported by conventional spread footings. Based upon our experience with similar projects, we
have assumed that continuous footings will carry loads of 1.5 kips per lineal foot or less and
columns will carry five kips or less. The site location and the layout of the proposed structures
are shown on Figure 2. .
1N4023t-OOt-02
lhg\98.08Ju!;.msw\gi2Jltcm.doc
2-1
l\
. k. . C.k k....q. "- ,:"., . , -
- -- - .------- --_._-~-- --- --.. ~-------~--"--- - ~ _. -
~--:.:.z-----..--.-_--...........~~--''''- - - - ~ =.--- -----"'0- ----:------""-- ~-._r~-=-~= =---=~~-'-~ ~ -. - - .- - ~
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
3,1 SOIL BORINGSrrRENCH PITS
A total of six soil borings and five test trenches were excavated at the site on May 26, 1998. The
borings were drilled using an 8-inch outer diameter, hollow-stem auger to depths of
approximately 30 feet below existing ground surface. The test trenches were excavated using a
track mounted dozer. The approximate boring and test pit locations are shown on the enclosed
Site Plan (Figure 2). The rationale for the boring locations was to locate the borings in each of
the two canyons and at both ends of the on-site portion of the ridge. The trenches were located
along the upper portion of the ridge in order to evaluate the extent of grading that was previously
done.
A SECOR Project Engineer was on-site to observe drilling operations, log subsurface soil
conditions, and to collect soil samples for physical and chemical analysis. Undisturbed samples of
the materials encountered were obtained from the borings by driving a 2.5-inch inside diameter
split-spoon sampler with a 140-pound hammer, free-falling 30 inches. The sampler was advanced
18 inches at each sample interval and the blow counts required to advance the sampler each 6-inch
drive length were recorded on the boring logs. The blow counts are used as an aid in the
evaluation of the consistency of the soils and correlating the various engineering properties. In
addition to the undisturbed sample retrieved from the borings, bulk samples of the near surface
materials were obtained from the borings and from selected test pits. The boring logs are
presented in Appendix A.
A SECOR Engineering Geologist was on site to observe excavation of the trenches and log the
subsurface conditions encountered. The logs of the test pits are also included in Appendix A. No
sampling of the materials encountered in the trenches was performed.
All borings and trenches were backfilled with native soil. No significant compaction of the boring
and test pit backfill was performed. Compaction of the test pit backfill will have to be performed
during rough grading for the subject project.
3.2 LABORATORY SOIL TESTING
The following laboratory tests were performed on selected samples in our laboratory in
accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), or contemporary
practices of the soil engineering profession.
JN~0231.001-02
Ih,!;\9S-0Saug.msw\gi2Jltcm.doc
3-1
\0
.,
. In-Situ Moisture (ASTM 0-2216) and Unit Wei~ht !Density): These tests were
performed on undisturbed samples by measuring the weight and volume of the sample
and determining the moisture by drying a portion of the sample in an oven. These results
are used to analyze the consistency and the degree of relative compaction of the
subsurface soils.
. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D-1557): This test is
used to evaluate the relationship of maximum dry density and moisture content under
standardized conditions. The data is used to compare in-situ characteristics with
"optimum conditions," evaluate existing conditions and methods for improving bearing
capacity and to control grading operations.
. Consolidation Tests (ASTM 0-2435): These tests were conducted to estimate the
potential settlementfheave of the structures by measuring the compressionfexpansion of
undisturbed drive samples under various normal loads. Water was added at some point
during the test in order to determine the effect of increased moisture.
. Direct Shear Test (ASTM 0-3080): The tests were performed on undisturbed drive
samples in order to obtain the soil shear values which are among the basic soil parameters
that are used to estimate soil bearing capacity, slope stability and lateral earth pressures.
. R-Value (ASTM D-2844): The R-Value test is used to evaluate the quality of soils and
aggregate base material for use as subgrade and base in structure pavement design.
. Expansion Index (ASTM D4829): These tests were performed on a portion of a bulk
sample of the near surface materials.in order to determine the expansion potential of the
soil when allowed to become saturated.
The laboratory results of all laboratory tests are presented in the Borings Logs (Appendix A) and
Appendix B.
3.3 SUBSURF'ACE CONDITIONS
3.3.1 Regional Geology
The site is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, a region characterized by
northwesterly trending faulting and mountain ranges. According to the Geologic Map of
California, Santa Ana Sheet (USGS 1969), the near surface natural materials underlying the site
and immediate vicinity consist of a Quaternary age alluvial fan with stream deposits derived from
JN40231-001.0Z
Ihg\9S-08~u~.msw\gi231Icm.doe
3-2
.
the adjacent mountains. The higher elevations consist of older, uplifted and dissected alluvium of
Pleistocene Age referred to as Pauba Formation. In the lower areas, the Pleistocene Age
materials are covered with Holocene (recent) alluvium. Regionally, these alluvial deposits consist
primarily of sand, silt and gravel.
3.3,2 Earth Units
The subsurface materials underlying the site include sedimentary bedrock of the Pauba formation
as well as colluvium and artificial (compacted) fill. The approximate distribution of these
materials on the subject site is shown on the enclosed Site Map. Figure 2.
Pauba Fonnation
The entire site is underlain by bedrock of the Pauba formation. In the central portion of the site
the bedrock exists near the existing ground surface. Along the southerly portion of the site the
bedrock is covered with colluvium from the natural canyons. In the northerly portion of the site
the colluvium has been removed and is now covered wid! artificial (compacted) fill from the mass
grading. The Pauba formation as encountered during our exploration consist primarily of silty
sandstone with interbeddes of siltstone and claystone. No significant cementation of the sandstone
was detected in any of the samples obtained during the field exploration.
Colluvium (Col)
Colluvium was encountered overlaying the bedrock in the areas of the southerly canyon. This
material consists of a combination of trimsported soils and residual topsoils which have
accumulated within the old drainages and along the base of the slopes. These deposits consist
. primarily of dark brown to light yellow brown, silty sands that are in the native state porous and
compressible. Review of referenced reports for the rough grading of the northerly adjacent
property and information received during our field exploration indicates that the colluvium was
removed from the northerly canyon prior to the placement of compacted fill.
Artificial (Compacted) fill (Qat)
Overlying the native materials in the northerly and central portions of the site is artificial fill that
was placed and compacted during the mass grading of the northerly adjacent property. This f1l1
was derived from the on-site materials during the mass grading and varies from silty sand to sandy
clay. In general, the fill materials placed in the northerly canyon were dense and moist. Fill
materials encountered in the central ridge area were loose and dry to slightly moist.
IN 40231-001-02
lhg\9S.08Jllj;.mswlgi23I tenl.doc
3-3
\z.-
3.3.3 Site Geologic Structure
Although the native materials underlying the colluvium and artificial fill is classified as bedrock
and assigned to the Pleistocene Age Pauba formation, no well defined geologic strucrure for the
on-site materials was encountered during the field exploration.
3.3.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was nor encountered within the depth explored for this investigation. Based upon
monitoring data from the regional Cooperative Well Measuring Program (WMWD, 1998), the
depth to groundwater at the site is estimated to be on the order of 300 feet below the ground
surface. As a result of this depth, groundwater is not expected to adversely affect the
development provided the recommendations resented herein are implemented.
3.3.5 Seismicity
The site, as is most of California, is located in a seismically active area. However, the site is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active or
. potentially active faults underlying the site or adjacent area. Tne closest known active or
potentially active fault is the Elsinore Fault which is approximately 0.61 miles from the site.
Other active faults that could have an impact on the development include:
.. Whittier-North Elsinore Fault located approximately 5 miles southwesterly of the site;
'. Cucamonga Fault located approximately 11 miles northeasterly of the site;
'. Newport-Inglewood Fault located approximately 26 miles southwesterly of the site; and
'. San Andreas Fault located approximately 26 miles northeasterly of the site
As a result of this separation from any known active fault system, seismic induced ground
. rupture is thus not expected at the site. The anticipated primary affect of a seismic event on any
of the adjacent fault systems would be a moderate to high level of ground shaking. Due to the
close proximity of the site to the Elsinore Fault Zone, it appears that this fault will be the
controlling feature for the seismic design of the proposed development. Based upon the above
distance from .the site to the Elsinore Fault Zone, the attenuation relation by Campbell &
Boorgnia (1994) and the maximum credible and probable (recurrence interval of 50 - 100 years)
earthquake magnitudes presented in the Riverside County Seismic Safety Element (1976), we
IN 40Z31.001~2
1h.:\98-OSaug.mswlgi23Item.doc
3-4
\~
have estimated the maximum peak ground acceleration at the site. The estimated maximum peak
,ground acceleration at the site for the maximum credible earthquake (M=7.0) is 0.63g while the
maximum probable earthquake (M=5.0) will produce a ground acceleration of O.l8g at the site.
Based upon the research of Ploessel and Slosson (1974), the repeat high ground acceleration
(RHGA) recommended for structural design of the development is 65 percent of the maximum
peak acceleration. For the subject site the RHGA for the maximum probable earthquake is
0.12g. Accordingly, the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the Structural
Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) guidelines are considered appropriate for design
of the structures.
IN 4023 1-00 1..{)2
Ihg\93...(1Saug.msw\gi23Item.doc
3-5
v\
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 GENERAL
The results of this investigation indicated that the site is suitable for the proposed development,
provided that :the recommendations presented herein are implemented during design and
construction the proposed development.
4.2 SLOPE STABILITY
In order to evaluate the gross stability of slopes necessary for the development of the site, SECOR
has performed preliminary calculations using Janbu's method of analysis as simplified by Singh
(1970). These calculations indicate that compacted fill slopes constructed with native or similar
materials and/or cut slopes excavated into native materials with a maximum height of 30 feet will
have a static factor of safety in excess of2.5.
Analysis of surficial slope stability using an Infinite Slope with Parallel Seepage approach
indicates that the factor of safety for the site following grading as recommended herein for new
slopes against potential surficial failures is also in excess of 2.5.
4.3 EVALUATION OF SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Liquefaction is the sudden decrease in shearing strength of cohesionless soil due to vibration.
During dynamic or cyclic shaking, the soil. mass is distorted, and interparticulate stresses are
transferred from the sand grains to the pore water. When the pore water pressure increases to the
point that the interparticulate effective stresses are reduced to zero, the soil behaves temporarily as
a viscous fluid (liquefaction) and, consequently, loses its capacity to support the structures founded
thereon.
Engineering research of soil liquefaction potential (Seed, et. a!., 1982 and 1985) indicates that three
basic factors must exist concurrently in order for liquefaction to occur, namely:
1) A source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, capable of generating soil
mass distortions;
2) A relatively loose sandy soil fabric exhibiting a potential for volume reduction; and
3) A relative shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground
surface) or completely saturated soil conditions that will allow positive pore
pressure generation.
~402]1.001-02
lhg\9~.OSJug.msw\gi2] I rem.doc
4-1
\6
Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation and review of the referenced reports
from the site mass grading of adjacent developments did not reveal any evidence that would
indicate groundwater should be expected beneath the site in the fill and/or native soils. Review of
the rough grading reports and the data received during this investigation indicates that the
compacted fill and native soils are relatively dense. Accordingly liquefaction induced by seismic
shaking is not anticipated at the site due to the absence of an established groundwater condition and
the absence ofloose sandy soils.
4.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS
Preliminary laboratory testing on portions of the bulk samples obtained during this investigation
indicates that the on-site near surface materials possess a low expansion potential as defined by the
Uniform Building Code. As a result, the preliminary recommendations for the design and
construction offootings and slab-on-grade floors and hardscape presented herein are based upon a
low expansion potential. It should be noted "'lat the site grading performed as part of the
proposed project may alter the distribution of the near surface materials and as a result the
expansion potential of the near surface soils that are present following grading in the building pads
will need to be evaluated.
4,5 EVALUATION OF EXISTING FILL/COLLUVIUM
Evaluation of the existing fill placed in the northerly portion of the site during the mass grading of
Tract 20882, indicates that with the exception of the near surface materials, the fill is relatively
dense and hard. According to the report, ?ll loose compressible colluvium was removed to firm
material prior to the placement of the compacted fill. No evidence was detected during this
investigation to .indicate that the fill was not placed and compacted as indicated in the referenced
rough grading report and the requirements of the Uniform Building Code andlor the County of
Riverside. The soft loose condition of the existing near surface material is believed to be due, in
part, to approximately 12 years of weed control measures and the recent heavier than normal
rainfall at the site.
.Soft compressible native colluvium was encountered in the lower portions of the southerly
canyon. Review of the data received from the field exploration and laboratory testing indicates
that the thickness of the compressible colluvium is on the order of 10 to 13 feet. In order to
eliminate the potential for adverse settlement of the proposed residences due to compression of
this material, the colluvium should be removed to firm native material prior to the placement of
any compacted fill in the southerly canyon. The estimated limits of the deep alluvial removal is
shown on the attached site plan (Figure 2).
IN 40231.00 1-02
lh~i98-08J.u!;.msw\l;i2) I tem,doc
4-2
\('p
4.6 REMEDIAL GRADING
.In addition to the compressible colluvium discussed above, past site grading, weed control and
natural weathering of the site have resulted in the rest of the site being covered with a thin mantle
of loose soil. Our evaluation indicates that in order to provide adequate support for new fill
andfor the proposed structures, it will be necessary to remove these soils and moisture condition
as necessary to near the optimum moisture content and recompact these soils. Preliminary rough
estimate of the depth of loose fill and native soil is three feet.
In addition, it is assumed that rough site grading will create lots containing cut/fill transition lines.
Our experience indicates that where a contact between bedrock and f111 exists at the ground
surface within a building there is a very high potential for adverse differential settlement of the
building to occur, As a result, we have recommended that where the transition between bedrock
,and fill occurs within a building, the bedrock be over-excavated as necessary to provide a cap of
compacted fill beneath the building.
IN<l.D2JI_OOI-02
Ihg\9S.08aul:.mswlgi2J Item.doe
4-3
\\
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations have been developed upon, in part, the information received
from the field exploration and laboratory testing performed for this investigation and the
information contained in the referenced reportS and represents our evaluation of existing site
conditions. These recommendations should be considered preliminary and subject to review and
possible revision following our review of the project grading plans and the actual site conditions
encountered during construction.
5.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN
Following completion of the site grading performed in accordance with the recommendation
presented herein, conventional shallow spread footings and/or post-tension are expected to
provide adequate support for the proposed structures.
An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1500 pounds per square foot is recommended. for
preliminary design of footings founded in properly compacted fill and firm native soil. A one-
third increase in the vertical bearing pressure may be assumed when considering short term
seismic or wind forces in combination with vertical loads. Footings should have a minimum
width of 12 inches and a minimum embedment depth below lowest adjacent grade of 18 inches.
A friction resistance of 0.35 between concrete and soil and a passive bearing pressure of 300
pounds per square foot per foot of depth, limited to 1500 pounds per square foot are
recommended for calculating resistance to lateral loads .
The minimum reinforcement of continuous footings should be two #4 reinforcing bars, one at the
top and one at the bottom.
Continuous footings should be extended across all exterior door openings.
The above recommended footing size and reinforcement should be considered minimums and
additional size and/or reinforcement should be provided as structural design considerations
dictate.
Alternatively, a post-tensioned slablfoundation system designed in accordance with the provisions
of the Uniform Building Code may be used for the support of the proposed structures.
Building settlement due to the above described footings loads should be less than one-inch total
and less than one-half inch differential between similarly loaded footings of the same size.
IN 4023 I-OOI.OZ
lh!:\9S-08aug.msw\!;i231Iem.doc
5-1
\l()
.5.2 CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS-ON-GRADE
At the time of concrete placement, the floor and garage slab subgrade should be firm, relatively
unyielding, and be at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches below pad subgrade.
Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, nominal. Building slabs-
on-grade should be reinforced with a minimum of No.3 reinforcing bars, spaced at a maximum of
16 inches on center each way. Additional reinforcing should be provided as structural conditions
dictate. If approved by the owner, equivalent welded wire mesh may be used for reinforcement of
concrete slabs-em-grade. However, to be effective, it is imperative that the reinforcement be
located within the center third of the slab thickness. The commonly used procedure of "hooking"
the reinforcement during concrete placement seldom, if ever, results in proper location of the slab
reinforcing.
To protect against capillary moisture from the underlying soil, the building floor slab in areas that
'Where a damp floor condition is unacceptable such as areas that are to be covered by carpet, tile or
other moisture sensitive floor coverings, should be underlain by a minimum 6-mil plastic
.membrane covered with a minimum of two inches of sand.
The garage slab should be separated from the foundation stem wall with felt and should saw cut
into quarters for crack control.
Other design and construction criteria for concrete floor slabs, such as mix design, strength and
durability, reinforcement and joint spacing, etc., should conform to current specifications
promulgated by the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
5.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS
It is anticipated that following grading the near-surface soils are expected to exhibit a low
expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code. Consequently, special design for
expansive soils are not considered necessary for the project. Recommendations presented herein,
are considered adequate for this range of expansive soil conditions. These recommendations
should be considered preliminary and subject to conformation or revision based upon the
expansion potential of the actual soils occurring near the ground surface in the building pad areas.
JN40BI-OOI.02
1h!;\91i-OSaug.mswlgi2Jllem.do<:
5-2
\0..
5.5 WATER"SOLUBLE SULFATES
The results of preliminary laboratory testing indicate that there are negligible concentrations, as
defined by the Uniform Building Code, of water-soluble sulfates in the soil. As a result, special
sulfate resistant concrete is not currently considered necessary for the subject project. The
concentration of water soluble sulfates in the near surface soil should, however, be confirmed at
the completion.of rough grading.
5.6 SOIL CORROSIVITY
The results of preliminary laboratory testing indicate that the near surface soils have a saturated
resistivity on the order of 1600 ohm-cm, and water extractable chloride of 39 ppm. In general
.term soils with this level of resistivity should be classified as non-corrosive to metal in contact
with the soil. The corrosion potential of near-surface soils should be confirmed at the completion
of rough grading by soil resistivity, pH and chloride testing.
5.7 RETAINING WALLS
,Retaining walls up to five feet in height that are part of the development and are constructed
structurally independent of the residences may be designed using the following parameters:
. Allowable bearing capacity
2,000 pounds per square foot (psi)
. Minimum depth of footing
18 inches or as necessary to provide
minimum horizontal distance of five
feet to descending slope faces *
. Minimum footing width
18 inches
. Active earth pressure
Level backfill
30 psf per foot of depth
Sloped backfill (2:1 H:V)
45 psf per foot of depth
. Passive earth pressure
Level ground
300 psf per foot of depth
Descending ground (2:1 H:V)
160 psf per foot of depth
. Sliding coefficient
0.35
lNH:!3I.ooI-02
lhs\SlS.081Ull.nuw\gi2Jlltm.doc
5-3
/.-.0
'" Additional horizontal distance between the bottom edge of footing and the slope face
should be provided as required by the Uniform Building Code.
Adequate provisions (subdrains) to drain the retained earth must be included in design and
construction of the walls. Where wet wall conditions are not considered desirable, the wall
should be water proofed.
. Backfills must be compacted to a mlmmum relative compaction of 90 percent in order to
preclude the occurrence of objectionable post construction subsidence. Caution must be
exercised during the placement and compaction of backfill materials to avoid temporarily over-
stressing the walls.
If retaining walls with a height greater than five feet and/or that are restrained at the top are
added to the project should be reviewed by a Geotechnical Engineer on an individual case.
5.8 SLOPES
During the proposed grading for the subject project, construction of new slopes and the
modification of existing slopes are anticipated. The maximum height of graded slopes is
anticipated to be on the order of 30 feet. Permanent graded slopes should be constructed with a
maximum slope inclination of 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Temporary construction slopes with
a maximum height of 30 feet may be constructed with a maximum inclination of 1 to 1.
Temporary trench excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with CALOSHA and
local safety codes. Review of the material types encountered during this excavation indicates that
a Soil Classification Type B as defined OSHA Rules and Regulations for design of trench slopping
and/or shoring.
5.9 TENTATIVE PAVEMENT DESIGN
Tentative pavement structural sections were evaluated in accordance with State of California,
:Departrnent of Transportation (CALTRANS) procedures using an R-Value of 17 for the near-
surface soils following grading and the City ofTemecula requirements for minimum traffic indices.
Grading of the site and the importation of fill material will significantly alter the distribution of
subgrade materials. As a result, the R-Value of the street subgrade soils and the corresponding
'pavement section should be confirmed following the site grading.
IN 4-0231-001.02
Ihg\98.o!!3IJg.nuw\gi23Itenl.doc
5-4
z.\
Traffic Type
Cui de Sacs
TI = 5.0
17
Asphalt Concrete (AC) Thickness (inches)
Aggregate Base (A B) Thickness (inches)
4.011
Local Residential
TI = 5.5
17
4.0"
8.0"
R-Value
6.0"
The above pavement sections are based upon the assumption that the subgrade is uniformly
moisture conditioned to at least two percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction to a depth of 12 inches at the time of base placement. final
geotechnical observatio'n and testing of subgrade should be performed just prior to the placement of
. aggregate base.
'The aggregate base should meet the specifications for Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) as contained
in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and should be compacted to at least
95 percent relative compaction with a uniform moisture content of near optimum.
5.10 SITE GRADING
In the absence of detailed grading information we have assumed that the grading necessary for the
project will consist primarily of lowering the grade in the area of the central ridge and raising the
grade with fill in the area of the southerly canyon. It is anticipated that this grading will require
the creation of some new slopes and the modification of some of the existing slopes.
5.10.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Clearing and grubbing of the site will be required to remove all vegetation and unsuitable material
prior to grading. Topsoil and soil containing vegetation, organics andlor humus should be
removed and disposed of off-site.
It is essential that excavations created by removing vegetation roots and other unsuitable
materials, should be backfilled with clean fill soil and should be compacted in accordance with the
requirements presented below.
JN4023[.OOI-02
lhg\9S-08J.ug.msw\gi:!3(tem.dlX
5-5
'],.v
5.10.2 Removals
In order to provide adequate and uniform support of new fill andlor structures, removal and
recompaction of near surface materials is considered necessary. The depth of required removal
should be determined during grading based on inspection by the Project Soils Engineer. The
following subsections outline the preliminary depths of removal considered necessary based on the
available preliminary data. In general, removal of all porous, collapsible and relatively loose
native soils (with less than 85 % relative compaction) should be required.
Loose Surface Soil
As the result of previous grading and years of weed abatement and recent heavy rains, most of the
site is covered with a mantle of loose, soft fill and soi!. Currently, the depth of loose fill and soils
removal is estimated to be on the order of two to five feet. The estimated depths of removal are
shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2.
In the area of the central portion of the site and southerly canyon, the depth of removals will be
considerably greater in order to remove loose compressible colluvium. It is anticipated that
deeper removals will extend to a depth of 10 to 13 feet below the existing grade in this area. The
approximate limits of the deeper removals are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2, that
should be further evaluated and verified by the Project Soils Engineer during grading.
Other localized. areas of deeper removals may also be necessary based on the inspections of the
Project Soils Engineer, depending on the conditions that exist at the time of grading.
Transition Lots
Bedrock beneath the building in building pads that contain a transition between bedrock and the
compacted fills should be removed as necessary in order to provide a minimum of three feet of
compacted fill below the bottom of all footings. Bedrock removal for transition lots should be
performed to a minimum of five outside the building limits.
5.1 0,3 Placement of Compacted Fill
Prior to the placement of fill, the bottom of over-excavations and areas to receive fill should be
scarified to a depth of 6 inches, then moisture conditioned to near-optimum moisture content and
surface compacted to the relative compaction specified below forfil!. The bottom of all over-
excavations should be observed by the project Geotechnical Engineer or his representative prior to
the placement of any fill.
IN 40~)I.OOI.02
Ihl;\9S.08Juj;.mswlgiZJlrem.doc
5-6
'tb
Placement of compacted fill should be performed in thin lifts at or over optimum moisture content
using mechanical compaction equipment. Unless specified otherwise, all fill should be compacted
to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based upon the maximum density obtained in
accordance with ASTM Standard D-1557.
During grading, frequent density testing should be performed by a representative of the soil
engineer to evaluate compliance with grading specifications. Where testing indicates insufficient
relative compaction, additional compactive effort should be applied with the adjustment of
moisture content where necessary until the required relative compaction is obtained.
5,10.4 Import Soils
Any imported soil shall be tested for expansion, strength and sulfate concentration and approved
by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importation to the project site. Final acceptance of any
imported soil will be based on the review of the soil actually delivered to the site.
5.10,5 Shrinkage and Subsidence
Calculations have been performed based on the in-situ unit weight of the materials encountered
during our geotechnical investigation and the estimated compacted unit weight of the materials
. after grading to estimate the shrinkage which might be expected as a result of the grading
recommended in our Geotechnical Investigation report. It is estimated that shrinkage on this
project could range from five to ten percen't by volume. Subsidence, as a result of the grading
operations, could range from zero to 0.2 feet in these types of materials. Please note that these
estimates are based upon limited available date and on interpolation of soil conditions between
tested locations. Consequently, the actual values may be more or less than estimated herein, and
thus, the estimates should be used with extreme caution.
The above values are based upon an assumed balance between the native cut and over-
excavation of loose alluvium which may vary depending on the actual grading plan developed.
As a result, the values for shrinkage and subsidence should be reviewed and adjusted as
necessary based upon the Geotechnical Engineer's review of the rough grading plan.
This firm assumes no responsibility for the use of these earthwork factors or the balancing of
earthwork quantities on this project and recommends that contingencies be developed for.
balancing the earthwork quantities based upon the actual shrinkage and subsidence which
occurs during grading.
r.-l402JI-OOI-02
Lh.,:'\9S-083ug,msw\lli23ltem.doc
5-7
7A
5.10.6 Trench Backfill
From a Geotechnical Engineering viewpoint, the on-site soils are suitable for use as utility trench
backfill. However, the City of Temecula may have special requirements for trench backfill that
limits the use of the on-site native materials.
All utility trench backfill should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and then
compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard.
Flooding/jetting is not recommended for the site materials.
All trench excavations should minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.
5,11 SITE DRAINAGE
It is imperative to building and overall site stability that positive drainage away from buildings and
slopes be provided. The use of area drains to drain the rear yards and the connection to roof
down spouts to the area drains should be considered.
Subsequent to .the rough grading of the building pads, the designed drainage away from the
. buildings and slopes should be maintained to allow runoff water to drain towards the street or
designed area drain. Failure to maintain positive drainage may contribute to foundation distress,
utility trench settlement, and/or slope failures.
During and subsequent to any homeowner improvements, the positive drainage away from the
. residential structures and top of slopes should be maintained.
. 5.12 SLOPE MAINTENANCE
The developer and the ultimate home owners should be aware that the continued stability of the
slopes is dependent on the continued maintenance of the slopes, including the maintenance of
landscaping and drainage devices. Any slope distress should be repaired immediately,
Seeding and planting of the slopes should by implemented to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a
well established and deep-rooted vegetation requiring minimal watering. The type of vegetation
and watering schedule should be established by a landscape architect familiar with hillside
maintenance. The watering requirements should be reviewed by this firm.
N~02JI-001.02
1h\:'.9S.08Ju!>.msw\gi2JltC:nl.doc
5-8
~
1?
A burrowing rodent suppression program should by established and maintained. Rodent activity
is very detrimental to slopes and the importance of curtailing such activity cannot by
overemphasized.
Along the top of the any slope, berms should be constructed in order provide positive drainage
away from the slope and to prevent surface water from flowing over the top of the slope.
Homeowner improvements that modify the drainage and berms should not be allowed.
. 5.13 POOL CONSTRUCTION
All pools and/or spas constructed on lots that are adjacent to descending perimeter slopes should
be constructed with a liner and subdrain to prevent leakage from the pool/spa saturating the slope
material.
. 5.14 POST INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES
Post investigation services are an important and necessary continuation of this investigation, and it
is recommended that SECOR be retained as the Project Soils Engineer to perform such services.
Final project plans and specifications should be reviewed prior to construction to confirm that the
full intent of the recommendations presented herein have been applied to the designs. Following
. review of plans and specifications, sufficient and timely observation during construction should be
performed to correlate the fmdings of this. investigation with the actual subsurface conditions
exposed during. construction.
The following items of construction should be observed and tested as necessary to ensure
compliance with the recommendations contained herein.
(a) Rough site grading, including inspection of the bottom of subexcavation in order to
determine the depth of required removal by the Project Soils Engineer;
(b) Footing excavations to confirm that the foundation elements are founded m the
recommended materials;
(c) Utility trench backfill;
(a) Street subgrade preparation and base placement and compaction; and
(e) All other items of work requiring an opinion of adequacy from the geotechnical engineer
to be included in a final geotechnical report.
]:-.140231-001-02
Ihg\9S-0Saug.msw\gi2Jllcm.doc
5-9
!&
6.0 CLOSURE
Our conclusions, recommendations and discussions presented herein are (I) based upon an
evaluation and interpretation of the findings of the field and laboratory programs, (2) based upon an
interpolation of subsurface conditions between and beyond the explorations, (3) subject to
confirmation of the actual conditions encountered during construction, and (4) based upon the
assumption that sufficient observation and testing will be provided by SECOR during construction.
Any person using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent
investigations as he deems necessary to satisfy himself as to the surface and subsurface conditions
to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on this project.
This report contains information which is valid as of this date. However, conditions that are
beyond our control or that may occur with the passage of time, may invalidate, either partially or
wholly, the conclusions and recommendati9ns presented herein.
The conclusions of this report are based on an interpolation of subsurface conditions encountered at
the boring locations. The actual subsurface conditions at unexplored locations may be different.
Consequently, the findings and recommendations of this report will require re-evaluation if
subsurface conditions different than stated herein are encountered.
Inherent in most projects performed in the heterogeneous subsurface environment, continuing
subsurface investigations and analyses may reveal fmdings that are different than those presented
herein. This facet of the geotechnical profession should be considered when formulating
professional opinions on the limited data collected on this project.
The findings and recommendations contained in this report were developed in accordance generally
accepted current professional principles and practice ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this locality. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
JN40231-001-0Z
lh!;\9&-08auJ;.mswl,!:i2Jltem.dQc
6-1
2-1
7.0 REFERENCES
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG); 1966; Geologic Map of California, Santa
Ana Sheet, Scale 1 :250,000.
CDMG, 1994; Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of
Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Compiled by Jennings, C.W.; Geologic Data Map No.6, Scale
1:750,000.
CDMG, 1990, Special Studies Zone Map, Murrieta Quadrangle.
California Geo Tek, Incorporated, 1988, Mass Grading and Compaction Control, Phase I,
Tract 22593, Rancho California Area, Riverside County, California, April 26, 1988, Project No
7S3WRC-I44.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), San Diego Region (7);
September 8, 1994; Water Quality Control Plan, CRWQCB, Colorado River Basin Region (7).
Inland Foundation Engineering, Inc., 1980, Preliminary Soil Investigation, Tentative Tract Nos.
13,936 and 14,284, Morago and General Kearny Roads, Rancho California, California, January
7, 1980, Project No. ROI6-002.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1988. Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Tracts 20882, 1,2
and 3, Ranch California Area, County of Riverside, California, dated May 20, 1988, Project No.
6861086''()3.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1986, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots I through 22
Tract 29882-3. Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California, dated
September 21, 1986, Project No. 2790722-10.
Ploessel, M.R. and Slosson, J.E.. 1974, repeatable High Ground Accelerations from
Earthquakes, California Geology, Vol. 27, No.9, pp. 195-199.
Singh, Awtar, 1970, Shear Strength and stability of Man-Made Slopes, Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, November, 1970.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Murrieta Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series, 1953,
Photorevised 1979, 1:24,000.
Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) , 1998, Cooperative Well Measuring Program,
Covering Upper Santa Ana River Watershed, San Jacinto Watershed and Santa Margarita
Watershed, Fall, 1997, dated April 1998.
1N40231.ooI-02
Ihg\98-08aull.mswlgi23Item.doc
7-1
z2;
FIGURES
'?o....
Ref: U.S.Geologicol Survey, 1953, Murrieta Quadrangle, Riverside County. CA.
7.5 Minute Series, Topographic, Photorevised 1979
SCALE
SITE LOCATION MAP
inch = 2000 feet
NORTH
Tentative Tract 23990
Alstrup Road
Murrieta. California
=
2000 1000 0 2000 feet
SECOR
PROJECT 40231 -001 -01
FIGURE 1
"APBROR 1 .DWG HOP
'YJ
06
NORTH
S C ALE
NOT TO SCALE
)
/
( Vi
<1:
I :2
I -.J
<1:
I 0...
~ W
-.J
-.J
<1:
U
I
i
~
-----
B- i-$-
T-2, ]
&
EXISTI~IG
HO~IES
TR 2259.3
/'"
, '\.
/ h"\.~
BORING LOCATIOI\! , '-1
TRENCH LOCATION // /....~ 0'("L-c
DEPTH OF RE~10VALS If"EET) /' "\. 1'( "",
APPROXI~IATE REMOVA.LS L11\oIlTY /\ "'\. '1 "
/'/ "'\.~
-...j\\)~ "\ ~
EXISTING
HOMES
_ \ \ \ TR 20882-.'
--r / & )
'-. \ 0 \ \
O~\J / \. '1~ \ \
~V ~ t-U
07iJ' - '\...." \ 8-5 \y\\ .
T-4fTill " -e- I
rn \,.
\ .
B;5 ( TT. 23990 \\ ) i '~/
g \ RIDCe:- T-W' \J\ ;1'''')1/
,., "'\. c. L;!I;r:~d?4\\ 'j~1! //
~ __ _ d{"f-4Y 'I ....'.......
T-2 ) T-S .......
~ / I,' ~V~5~'~I~
EXPLANANTIO~I
I
r1
rl
)
/
APPROXIMATE
APPFWXIMATE
APPROXI~IATE
EXISTING
HO~IES
-----
---
STOR~I
DRAIN
.B-.3
"---
EXISTING
HOMES
TR 20882-3
- ~ B-2
g --~ 1
-!
[D... ....
L...J "'-,
''\.STO~011
DRAIN
---.......
\ I
SITE VICINITY MAP
TENTATIVE TRACT 23990
6.32 ACRE SITE
TEMECULA. CAUFO,~fJIA
-
~ANYON 6_
1 1
/.::
1
EXISTING
. HOMES
TR 20i53
S E COR 'C>O\DWc-rMP\""ECU<ADwC P ROJ ECT: 40231 - 001 - 0 2
FIGURE: 2
;b\
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
;;z,
Logged By:
JSS
s~~.. egen to gs or
sampling method,
,,'bssirications and laboratory
, ;e$!io!! methods
Date Drilled:
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Boring Number:
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
Cat Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Eiev.(fi.): 'i?
~ Not Encountered
B-1
Total
Depth (fi.):
31.0
Drive
wr.(ibs.):
140
Drop
Disc.(in.):
30
~
Co
Well :S ?: ~
~ >
Construction Co C. <5
~ E co
0 ~
'"
Description
~
.~
c~
~~
0&
c
o
c
~
c
8_
~..
--
i::
'0
;;;
-
~
.g
5
Z
~
~
OJ
5
Fill: (SM) Silty SAND - brown to datk blOwn, moist, firm
to slightly stiff, some sandy silt
12
16
23
120 13.5
15
15
17
30
(SM) Silty SAND -blOwn to dark blOwn, moist, firm to
slightly stiff, some sandy Silt
13.5
116
13 117 13.5
17
22
. .
10 11 (SM) Silty SAND - blOwn to dark blOwn, moist, stiff, some 113 13.5
13 sandy Sile
20
19 122 10.0
28
35
14
19
25
109
10.0
17
50
(SM) Silty SAND - very dark gray blOwn with brown and
dark btown, moist, stiff, some sandy Silt
9.0
117
The substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings andlor
samples obtained during dtilling. Ptedominant matetial types shown on the log may contain diffetent matetials and the change flOlIl
one predominant matetial type to another could be diffetent than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Project No. 40231-001-02
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-I (sheet 1 of 2)
~
Logged By:
Date Dtilled:
Dtilling Comractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Boring Number:
JSS
St:=:= t' egen to ogs or
sampling method.
classifications and laboratory
lesting methods
5/26/98
Boring
D;.m.(in.):
8
Cal Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Elev.(ft.): sz
i: Not Encountered
B-1
Total
Depth (ft.):
31.0
Drive
wt.(Ibs.):
140
Drop
Dist.(in.):
30
~
:S Co ~
Well >,
!-
'" ~ >
Construction c.. C. 5
" E c:;
Cl ~
'"
" "
?;> ~ ~
c E
.~ 0
0- u_ ~
Description ~.2 ~.. Z
0& ~~ ~
1:- ~ C.
0 '0 E
"
:E '"
(SW) SAND - yellow brown with some tust brown. moist,
stiff
112
9.5
j
- ------ - -- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --
25
22
25
30
(ML) Sandy SILT - dark brown to olive yellow brown,
moist, stiff
30
(ML) Sandy SILT - dark brown with rust brown, moist,
stiff
Total Depth = 31.0 feet below ground surface
Groundwater was not encountered
35
The !substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings and/or
samples obtained during drilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain different materials and the change from
one predominant material type to another could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Project No. 40231-001-02
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-I
(sheet 2 of 2) .:A.
Logged By:
JSS
Set: ., Legen to ogs tor
sampling method.
clJssirl.cations and laboratory
[~stin2 methods
Date Drilled :
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.);
8
"
"-
Well ~ ?' ~
" ~
Construction c:. ;;, 0
" 0 O'i
'" ~
'"
Backfilled
with Soil
Cunings
5
5
5
6
8
6
10
9
12
15
17
20
25
12
15
20
14
15
20
13
28
35
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
HoHow Stem Auger
Boring Number:
10
15
Cal Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Elev.(fL); SZ
i Not Encountered
B-2
Drop
DlsL(in.);
30
Toeal
Depth (fi.):
31.0
Drive
wL(lbs.):
140
E ~
" "
.~ E J>
0 E
0- u_ 0
Description ,,~ ",," z
Os ~ - "
C:- o g.
~
0 .0 ~
:;; '"
Colluvium: (SM) Silty SAND - datk brown. moist, slightly
firm, slightly porous
108
12
(SM) Silty SAND - brown, moist, fitm, slightly porous
(SM) Silty SAND - light yellow brown, moist, firm,
slightly porous, slight increase in sand content
104 7.5
(SM) Silty SAND - light yellow, moist, stiff, slightly
porous..slight increase in sand content
117 9.5
(SM) Silty SAND - light yellow, moist, stiff. slightly
porous, slightly porous, slight inctease in sand content
100 12.0
-------------------------------
Pauba Formation(Qp): (ML) Sandy SILT - olive brown,
moist, firm to slightly stiff, low Sand
115 14.5
110 15.0
(SM) Silty SAND - olive brown with rust streaks, moist,
dense
The substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings and/or
samples obtained during drilling. Ptedominant material types shown on the log may contain diffetent materials and the change from
one ptedominant material type to another could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be reptesentative of subsurface conditions at other locations at times.
ProJect No. 40231-001-02
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-2 (sheet 1 of 2) ?;5'
Logged By:
Date Drilled:
Drilling Con[ractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Boring Number:
JSS
Set: ~ egen to ogs Or
sampling method,
classifications and laboratory
tesrin methods
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
Cal Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Elev.(n.): ~
.! Not Encountered
Total
Depth (n.):
31.0
Drive
wI.(Ibs.):
140
B-2
Drop
DiscOn.):
30
" v
"-
Well e. ?: ~
.c v 3
Construction C. C. 0
v E a
0 ~
'"
25
25
30
c -
.~ v v
C '"
0 E
c - u_ ~
Description v~ v~ Z
05 ~ - v
c:- g "C.
0 '0 E
~
:< '"
111 9.5
Pauba Formation (Qp): (SM) Silty SAND - dark brown 10
dark gray, moist, dense
2,'
.)
25
25
35
30
26
50
(CL) CLAY - olive brown, moist, stiff, low plasticity
Total Depth = 31.0 feet below ground surface
Groundwater was not encountered
35
The; substrata descriptions above 3re generalized representations and based upon visuaVrnanual classification of cuttings and/or
samples obtained during.drilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain diffetent materials and the change from
one :predominant material type to anothet could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Project No. 40231-001-02
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-l
(sheet 2 of 2) '!fp
Logged By: Date Dtilled: Drilling Contractor: Method/Equipment: Boring Number:
Hollow Stem Auger B-3
JSS 5/26/98 Cal Pac
Se..: "Legen to gs~ or Boring Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.): Total Drive Drop
sampling method, I Diam.(in.): Elev.(ft.): SZ Depth (ft.): wt.(1bs.): Disc.(in.);
clas.sifications and laboratory 8 i Not Encountered 31.5 140 30
testing methods
" "
" .~ v v
'" " .c
Well :: ,., >g 0 E
.... c - u_ "
" ~ Description u,B v'" Z
Consmlction E. C. ~ "'"" " ~ u
v c <:- ~ c.
'" ;;; E
'" '" '0 "
:;: '"
1<.... Colluvium: (SM) Silty SAND - line grained, very dark
brown, very moist, firm, porous
5 117 12.0
8
12
5 8 119 12.0
8
9
7 (SM) Silty SAND - fine gtained, very dark brown, very 112 10.5
8 moist, firm, porous, increase in sand content
10
Backfilled 10 7 (SM) Silty SAND - fine grained, very dark brown, very 115 14.5
with Soil 9 . . moist, no visible pores, increase in silt content
Cuttings 15
9 (SM) Silty SAND - fine gtained, vety dark brown, very 113 16.0
14 moist, firm, slightly porous
15
15 .. .. (SM) Silty SAND - very dark btown, very moist, fitm,
15 104 15.5
15 porous
18
Pauba Formation (Qp): (CL) Sandy CLAY - brown, stiff,
moist
15 III 20.0
30
35
The substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings and/or
samples obtained during drilling. Ptedominant material 'Ypes shown on the log may contain different materials and the change from
one ptedominant material 'Ype to another could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Project No. 40231-001-02
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-3
(sheet I of 2) P 1
Logged By:
Date Drilled:
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Boring Number:
JSS
.sc~ . Lege" to ogs tor
sampling method,
.:iassificadons and laboratory
(;:stir.g methods
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
Cat Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Etcv.(ft.): g
.t Not Encountered
Total
Depth (ft.):
31.5
Drive
wt.(lbs.):
140
B-3
Drop
DI".(io.):
30
u
"-
Well S ?' ~
u >
Construction C. C. 6
u E 2i
Cl ~
'"
E -
u u
?;- C -'"
~
.;;; 0 5
~ ~ u_
Description u~ u"" z
"'.e- ~ - u
i:' " C.
;;;
'" '0 E
~
:E '"
35
50
II
(SW-SM) Silty SAND - yellow brown, moist, dense, some
Silt
105
4.5
25
(ML) Sandy SILT - yellow blOwn, vety moist, stiff. very
Sandy
~
15
25
30
interbedded layers of (CL) CLAY, Sandy Silt (ML). and
(SM) Silty SA1'1D - olive blOwn, moist, dense, Clay has
low plasticity. fine grained Sand
30
16
24
30
Total Depth = 31.5 feet below ground surface
Groundwater was not encountered
35
The.substrata descriptions above afe generalized representations and based upon visuaUmanual classification of cuttings and/or
samples obtained during drilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain different materials and the change flOlll
one predominant material type to another could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of dtilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Project No. 40231-001-02
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-3 (sheet 2 of 2) 'tIC>
Logged By:
JSS
'See :' Legen to gs or
;:3mpJing method.
dJ.ssific3tions and laboratory
testing methods
I
Date Drilled:
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
~ u
e- o.
Well f=' ~
~ u ~
Construction c.. Q. 0
" ~ ;:;
Cl ;;
on
,Backfilled
WilhSoil
Cuttings
,.
.'
10
15
7
8
11
17
23
28
15
16
20
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Drive
wl.(Ibs.):
140
111
108 14.0
Boring Number:
B-4
Drop
Dist.(in.):
30
c -
<:- u u
C .0
." 0 c
~ ~ u~ ~
Description u~ u" z
0& " - u
i:' ~ 'C.
"
0 '0 E
~
:;:: on
Log of Boring
Figure
A-4
12.5
The 'substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings andlor
samples obtained during drilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain different materials and the change from
one predominant material type to another could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsutface conditions at other locations or times.
Date June 98
Cal Pac
Casing Groundwacer Elevation crt.):
Elev.(fc.): g
~ Not Encountered
Total
Depth (ft.):
31.0
Project No. 40231-001-02
Fill: (SM) Silty SAND - fine grained, brown, slightly
moist, loose, pieces of asphaltic concrete
- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - --
Pauba Fotmation (Qp); (SM) Silty SAND - fine gtained,
dark olive brown, moist, dense
(S-P:SM) Silty-SAND-- finegraIned, low silt - - - - - - --
~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
(SM) Silty SAND - fine gtained, dark olive blOwn, moist,
dense
-------------------------------
(ML) Sandy SILT - olive brown, stiff, moist, low Sand
(CL) CLAY - olive brown, moist, very stiff, low plasticity
-------------------------------
(sheet 1 of 2) 'bq,
Logged By:
JSS
Date Drilled:
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Boring Number:
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
Cal Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.);
Elev.(ft.): sz
~ Not Encountered
Total
Depth (ft.):
31.0
Drive
wt.(lbs.):
140
B-4
Drop
Disc.(ln.):
30
Well
:::.
"
c..
?'
"
0.
E
~
'"
.
~
~
~
o
c;
Description
" ~
?;o " "
" .0
.;;; 0 E
c - u_ ~
" u z
Cla "'"
~ - "
c ~ c.
0 '0 E
c
::;: '"
117 14.5
Construction
.c
c-
"
o
27 (ML) Sandy SILT - olive brown with tust brown, moist,
50 stiff, low Sand
-- ----- - --- - --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --
25
interbedded (SM) Silty SAND and (SW) SAt'lD - fine
grained, light tan to off-white, slightly moist, dense
17
18
29
interbedded (SM) Silty SAND and (SW) SAND - fine
grained, light tan to off-white, slightly ,moist, dense
30
Total Depth ~ 31.0 feet below ground surface
Groundwater was not encountered
35
The substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings and/or
,samples obtained during drilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain different materials and the change from
one predominant material type to anothet could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
,location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Project No. 40231-001-02
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A.4
(sheet 2 of 2)
A,o
Logged By:
Date Drilled:
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Boring Number:
JSS
See'" egen to gs or
sampling method,
classifications and laboratory
testing'methods
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
Cal Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Elev.(ft.): g
~ Not Encountered
Total
Depth (ft.):
31.2
Drive
wt.(Ibs.):
140
B-S
Drop
DiSl.(in.):
30
Well
s
~
Co
~
~
Q.
E
~
OJ
';;i
>
5
0;
I
I
[
;:; ~
~ ~
" JO
.;;; 0 E
,,- u_ ,
Description ~.2 ~"" Z
"'& ~ ~ ~
c ~ '"
'" .0 s
;::;: Vi
,Construction
""
E.
~
'"
Fill: (SM) Silty SAND - fine grained, dark brown, slightly
moist, loose
I Pauba Fotmation (Qp): (SW-SM) Silty SAND - light brown
5 and light rust brown, slightly moist, dense, low Silt
25 102 7.5
50 T
..
j~!
.,.
::;;:i
.
.
. ,
.
Backfilled 10 25 . (SW-SM) Silty SAND - light brown and light tust brown, 102 3.0
.
with Soil 50 . slightly moist, dense, low Silt
Cuttings . .
.
::r
-------------------------------
(SM) Silty SAND - fine grained, yellow brown, moist,
15 dense, occasional thin lense of low plasticity Clay
27 106 6.5
50
The: substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings andlor
samples obtained during.drilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain different materials and the change from
one 'predominant material type to another could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Projecl No. 40231-001-02
D2te June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-5 (sheet 1 of 2) .l\ \
Logged By;
JSS
S~e .'Legen to ogs or
)ampling method.
e lassifications and laboratory
It:sting methods
Well
Construction
Date Drilled:
5/26198
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
s
u
c.
?'
u
Q.
E
~
'"
~
~
o
0;
15
25
40
22
50
Drilling ConttaCIOt:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Drive
wI.(lbs.):
140
97
Boring Number:
B-5
Drop
Dist(in.):
30
c "
.~ u ~
C
0 E
0_ u_ "
Description u~ u"" Z
Cl,e. " ~ u
~ ~ ~
Cl .0
::;; Oi
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Cal Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Elev.(ft.): sz
i Not Encountered
TOlal
Deplh (ft.):
31.2
.d
C-
o
Cl
25
30
30
40
50/2"
interbedded (SM) Silty SAND and (ML) Sandy SILT - fine
grained, light brown, moist, dense
-------------------------------
(ML) Sandy SILT - light olive blOwn, moist, stiff
, ,
:....
..,
. ,
:.::;"
. ..
.:.t
:':":
."!6..
(SP-SW) Silty SAND - fine grained, tan, slightly moist,
dense, low Silt
19.0
The substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings and/or
samples obtained duringdtilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain diffetent materials and the change from
one,ptedominant matetial type to another could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Project No. 40231-001-02
35
Total Depth = 31.2 feet below ground surface
Groundwater was not encountered
Figure
A-5
(sheet 2 of 2)
A;z..
Logged By:
I JSS
i-;c~ .. ~egen to ogs or
I qmplmg method.
I ~lassifications and laboratory
:::sllng methods
i
Date Drilled:
Well
Construction
~ u
S Co ~
?'
u ~
"- "- c
u E 2
0 ~
'"
k~
~
,~
,-
p~==-B
~-,..,~
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Boring Number:
B-6
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
Ca. Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Elev.(fl.): SZ
i Not Encountered
Total
Depth (ft.):
31.0
Drive
we.(Ibs.):
140
Drop
Dist.(in.):
30
c ~
~ u "
C "'
." c E
c- u_ Z
Description "," ul:'<
0& ~ - "
i:' c "-
;;; s
0 .,
;;; r.r.
Fill: (SM-ML) Silty SAND and Sandy SILT - olive blOwn
to dark brown, moist, firm
13
20
20
115 I I.5
5 19 (SM-ML) Silty SAND and Sandy SILT - olive blOwn to 122 1 I.5
25 1 dark brown. moist, firm
36
,
(CCML)-Sandy CLAY and Sandy sfL'i:~ 01;;'. brown-t(o - .
11 dark brown, moist, firm, some silty Sand 115 12.5
19
24
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Backfilled to II (SM) Silty SAND - fine grained, light brown to datk gray, 120 10.5
with Soil 20 moist, dense, occasional gravel up to 1 h in size
Cuttings 30
15
20
20
25
(SM) Silty SAND - fine grained, light brown to dark gray,
moist, dense, occasional gravel up to 1" in size
118 11.0
The substrata descriptions above are genetalized tepresentations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings andlot
samples obtained during drilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain different matetials and the change from
one, predominant material type to anoEhet could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Project No. 40231-001-02
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-6
(sheet I of 2)
A:~
Logged By:
JSS
Sc:e "Legen [0 ogs~ tor
sampling method,
o..:1Jssiflcations and laboratory
t~:5tjng methods
Well
Construction
Date Drilled:
5/26/98
Boring
Diam.(in.):
8
s
~
c..
>-
f-
~
0.
E
~
'"
~
~
o
2i
60
Drilling Contractor:
Method/Equipment:
Hollow Stem Auger
Drive
wt.(lbs.):
140
Boring Number:
B-6
Drop
Dist.(in.):
30
c ~
~ ~
.~ c ~
0 E
c~ u_ Z
~~ ~..
0"" ~ - "
/:> ~ ~
0 '0
::;: ~
105 4.5
105
5.0
The substrata descriptions above are generalized representations and based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings and/or
samples obtained during dtilling. Predominant material types shown on the log may contain different materials and the change from
one predominant material type to anothet could be different than indicated. Descriptions on this log apply only at the specific
location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at othet locations or times.
Projecc No. 40231-001-02
.c
C.
~
o
22
5013"
25
30
. .
5g/~" ::~:
35
Cal Pac
Casing Groundwater Elevation (ft.):
Elev.(ft.): sz
i Not Encountered
Total
Depth (ft.):
31.0
Description
'.,,'1
.,(
:f
.:,:.
Pauba Formation (Qp): (SM-SW) Silty SAND to SAND -
fine grained, light tan, slightly moist, dense
(SM-SW) Silty SAND to SAND - fine gtained, light tan,
slightly moist, dense
(SM-SW) Silty SAND to SAND - fine gtained, light tan,
slightly moist, dense
Total Depth = 31.0 feet below ground surface
Groundwater was not encountered
Date June 98
Log of Boring
Figure
A-6 (sheet 2 of 2) 4l\
ECOR International Incorporated
Trench Logs
Test Pit No. epth (ft.) Description
T-l 0.0 - 3.0 FILL: Silty Fine Sand (SM), yellow brown, slightly moist, traces
asphalt, red clay pipe, wood and metal, occasional gravel.
T-2 .0 - 3.0 FILL: Silty Fine Sand (SM), medium yellow bro\\n, slightly
moist, traces of asphalt and wood, occasional gravel.
T-3 .0 - 4.0 FILL: Silty Fine Sand (SM), light to medium yel10w brown and
gray, slightly moist, traces of plastic, asphalt and ceramics,
occasional gravel.
T-4 .0 - 3.0 TOPSOIL: Silty Fine Sand (SM) dark gray bro\\TI, slightly moist
.0 - 5.0
PAUBA FORMATION: Silty Fine Sand (SM), light yel10w
brown, moist, massive
T-5
.0 - 1.5
TOPSOIL: Silty Fine Sand (SM), medium to dark gray brown,
slightly moist.
.5 - 5.5
P AUBA FORMA nON: Sand with varying amounts of silt
(SM,SP,&SW), moist, light yel10w brown to gray brown,
massive to localized lantinations (near horizontal).
A;5
APPENDIX B
TEST RESULTS
1\0
TABLE 1
SUM ,fARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE ID SOIL DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX lED
B-1 SANDY SILTlMU 45
B-2 SILTY SAND(SM) 22
TABLE 2
UMMARY OF R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE ID SOIL DESCRIPTION MEASURED R-VALUE
300 psi Exudation Pressure
T-2 SANDY SILT(ML) 17
.-
~\
.
PRESSURE - kips per ft.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
0
1 ~l--.
-...
2 I'----.
v-... ~
"-
II--...
.... 3 "-
r::
IV '"
0 -
... ..
IV
Q. 4
Z
0
i= 5
<t
C
:J 6
0
en
z
0 7
()
8
9
10
SAMPLE INFORMATION
BORING ~Io. B-1
SAMPLE DEPTH 10'
o TESTEO AT NATURAL M ISTURE CONTE~IT
. TESTED WITH WATER A OED
CONSOLI DA TION TEST RESULTS
SECOR F ROJECT: 40231 -001 -02 FIGURE: B-1
.A.CAD\ LIBRARY\, 8 - 2. owe
.1t
~
.
PRESSURE - kips per ft.2
, 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
0
( ~
:---....
1
2 ~
......... ~
~
... 3 4
c: h r-- '"
ell -
(J
... "
ell
Co 4
.
Z
0
t= 5
od;
0
:J 6
0
(fl
z
0 7
(,)
8
9
10
SAMPLE INFORMATION
BORING No. B-2
SAMPLE DEPTH 5'
o TESTED AT NATURAL M ISTURE CONTENT
. . TESTED WITH WATER A OED
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
SECOR F ROJECT:40231-001-02 FIGURE: B-2
ACAOi\ LIBRARY\, 8 - 2. DWG
~
1\
"
2
- 3
:1:
Cl)
:0
,....
.Cl) 4
,Q.
Z
0
1= 5
<C
0
::i 6
0
en
z
0 7
()
6
9
10
PRESSURE - kips per ft.2
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
100
o
k
--;-
4
\
\
\
1\
\
1\
\
'-
\
,., I)..
JW
SAMPLE INFORMATION
BORING No B-2
SAMPLE O::PTH: 12 1/2'
o TESTED AT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
. TESTED WITH WATER ADDED
SECOR
ACAD\UBRARY\B -2.0WC;
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
PROJECT:40231-001-02
FIGURE: B-3
~
.
2
... 3
c:
CI.l
0
...
CI.l 4
a.
Z
0
i= 5
<l:
Q
:i 6
0
en
z
0 7
U
8
9
10
PRESSURE - kips per ft.2
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
100
1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
o
f'-.. I--.
~
~ ,
""-
'"
...
SAMPLE INFORMATION
BORING No. B-3
SAMPLE DEPTH 10'
o TESTED AT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
. TESTED WITH WATER ADDED
SECOR
ACAD\UBRARY\B-- 2.0wC
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
PROJECT:40231-001-02
FIGURE: 8-4
5\
2
.... 3
c:
ell
()
"-
ell 4
a.
;Z
0
;i= 5
-=:
:0
.::i 6
0
(/)
;Z
0 7
U
8
9
10
PRESSURE - kips per ft.2
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
100
o
0- r-.
10- ......
I--ItJ
~
~ --
""
~
(0"
""-
'\
'\
I" f1I
,
SAMPLE INFORMATION
BORING No. B-3
SAMPLE DEPTH: 15'
o TESTED AT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT
. TESTED WITH WATER ADDED
SECOR
ACAD\ LIBRARY\, B-2. owe
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
PROJECT:40231-001-02
FIGURE: 8-5
5~
i~
2.0
r:.
Ul
::<:
z
Ul
Ul
(:J
c::
E-
Ul
c::
<:
(:J
-
>-'-<
(/l
1.0
.0
.0
1.0
2.0 3.0
NORMAL STRESS IN
4.0
5.0
T....,....,,....,
!\..'::lC
2.0
r:.
Ul
::<:
Z 4-'
- I , l
Ul I
Ul
(:J 1.0
c:: 1 1
b
Ul ~
c::
<:
(:J
:c
Ul
.0
.0 .1 .2 .3 .4- .5
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
BORrNG/SAMPLE : 84 DEPTH (ft) 15
DESCRIPTION : Clayey Silt (ML)
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ks!) .489 (PEAK STRENGTH)
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 32.0 (PEAK STRENGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (,,) (pcf) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ks!) SHEAR (ksf)
0 27,4 103.1 .534 .50 .70 .34
.0 30,4 95.,) .749 1.0D 1.25 .51
6 25,4 97.7 .724 2.0D 1.59 L32
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
SECOR/40231-001-02
-5.'?
2.0
/'
/ /
/" 7
~
Ul
)<:
z
Ul
f2 1.0
c:::
1Il
c:::
<
Gl
.,..
Ul
.0
.0
1.0
2.0 3.0
NORMAL STRESS IN KSF
4.0
5.0
2.0
~
{I)
)<:
Z
~
{I)
Ul
Gl 1.0
q:::
""'
UJ
c:::
<t
t:J
""
UJ
.0
.0
~
I
I
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION IN INCH
BORlNG/SAMPLE : 85 DEPTH (It)
DESCRIPTION : Silty Sand/Sandy Silt
STRENGTH INTERCEPT (ksf) .426
FRICTION ANGLE (degree) 31.6
20
(PEAK STRENGTH)
(PEAK STRENGTH)
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY VOID NORMAL PEAK RESIDUAL
SYMBOL CONTENT (%) (pcf) RATIO STRESS (ksf) SHEAR (ksf) SHEAR (ksf)
0 17.7 110.7 .521 .50 .72 .43
0 23.7 103.9 .621 1.00 1.06 .46
{:, 31.5 98.0 .720 2.00 1.65 .60
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
SECOR/40231-001-02
5"\
.
7) Fill soils shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 6 inches, brought to within plus or minus
two percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to nO[ less than the density
specified below.
8) Fill slopes shall be constructed at intervals not exceeding 4 feet vertically. Placement of
fill shall nO[ continue until the slope face, at a depth of 6 inches, measured perpendicular
to the slope face, has been tested and found to be compacted to at least the density
specified below.
9) All fill and backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory dry
density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 test procedure, except for the top 6 inches
of subgrade and the aggregate base layer underlying concrete slabs-on-grade pavements,
which shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.
10) Areas to receive backfill shall be cleared of trash, debris, and loose, soft, or disfUrbed
soils. Prior to placement of backfill, the areas shall be observed and approved by the
Project Soils Engineer.
11) Backfill shall be compacted by mechanical means to the density specified above. The
contractor shall select equipment and techniques to accomplish compietion of the backfill
to the specified density such that backfilling operations will result in no movement or
damage to completed work.
12) Observation and field moisture and density tests shall be performed by the Project Soils
Engineer at the time of fill and backfill placement to verify that the specified percentage
of moisture content and the required degree of compaction have been obtained. Where
the requirements or specifications are not met, additional effort shall be made with
appropriate adjustment of the compaction energy or moisture content as necessary until
the requirements and the specifications are met.
13) Wherever, in the opinion of the Soils Engineer or Owner's Representatives, an unstable
condition is being created, either by cutting or filling, the work shall not proceed in that
area until an investigation has been made and the grading plan revised, if necessary.
IN 40231-001-02
JhS\98-0hl.lg.mswlgiZJltem_doc
20f2
55
~."
.
APPENDIX C
GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMEl'.'T OF FILL AND BACKFILL
The guide specifications presented in this Appendix, together with the geotechnical report should
be used in development of technical specifications for the project. The following sections of these
guide specifications should be regarded as the minimum requirements to be included in the project
specifications.
I) All filling and backfilling operations should conform with applicable local building and
safety codes and to the rules and regulations of those governmental agencies having
jurisdiction over the subject construction. The earthworks contractor is responsible to
notify governmentlll agencies, as required, and the Project Soils Engineer at the initiation
of grading, and any time that grading operations are resumed after an interruption. Each
step of the grading should be approved in a specific area by the soil engineer and, where
required, by the applicable governmental agencies before proceeding with subsequent
work.
2) Prior to the start of grading, all debris, vegetation, deleterious materials, surface
obstructions and loose unapproved fill shaU be removed and disposed off site. Any
existing irrigation, drainage or utility lines, or other abandoned subsurface structures
shall be removed, destroyed or abandoned in compliance with specifications and
recommendations from the Project Soils Engineer.
3) Within areas to receive fiU or to provide structural support, all existing fill and dry
porous (potentially collapsible) or loose soils shall be excavated to expose dense, non-
porous natural deposits of soil.
4) Where fill is placed on a sloping ground that is steeper than 20 percent, the ground to
receive fill shall be prepared by proper keying and benching. The vertical and
horizontal sizes of the keys and benches shall be determined by the Soils Engineer. In
general, it shall be required that a keyway be constructed under the toe of the fill at least
10 feet in width, and fiU be placed and compacted on nearly horizontal benches only.
5) The excavated areas shall be observed by a representative of the Project Soils Engineer
to evaluate if suitable materials have been exposed.
6) Fill, on site or import, shall consist of materials approved by the Soils Engineer. Fill
shall be free of debris, organics and deleterious materials. Rock 3 inches or larger in
diameter shall not be used. Imported fill soil should have a plasticity index no greater
than 5.
IN407.JI.OOI-02
Ihg\98-08aug.msw\gi2Jlle:n.dcl;
lof2
~~
~ . ..
APPENDIX C
GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PLACEMENT OF FILL AND BACKFILL
61
<. ,.
E.S. BABCOCK
& SONS, INC.
Esr'-'Sl..ISHEOl9C)6
6100 Quail Valley Court Rivetside, CA 92507
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502
PH (909) 653-3351 FAX (909) 653-1662
Envitonmental Laboratory Certification # 1156
2836
Client:
Secor
Todd Shibata
23564-F Business Center Dr.
Client I. D. :
Site:
Description:
B4 0-4
JOB 40231-001-02
Temecula
~;illI'~~:iit~~i7 ~ - 001
Date Reported: 07/29/98
Collected By:
Date:
Time:
Submitted By:
Date: 07/24/98
Time: 0900
Redlands,CA 92373
Matrix:
soil-ag
Constituent
Result
Method
RL
Date !
Analyst
Wa.ter'Extractab1e Sulfate
Water'Extiacti3.ble',.Chloride.
Saturat~d'Re~{~tivity
150
., .... ..3.9 '.
1600
ppm
ppm
ohm-em
Ion Chrom.
Ion Ch1"Sm.
SN 2520B
5.
5.
O.
980727!B'd
980727!E',:
980728/B:':
NO = None detected at RL (Reporting Limit). RL units same as result.
Results reported in ppm expressed on air-dried soil basis.
cc: