HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpdated Geotechnical Investigation
I
OFFICES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2002
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
_IPETRA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
MR. JACK HAMRY and MR. TOM TAYLOR
1280 Bison Avenue, Suite B9-66
Newport Beach, California 92660
Subject:
Geotechnical Update Investigation, 23-Unit Condominium Complex,
Tract 25055, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Petra Geotechnical, Inc. is pleased to submit herewith our geotechnical investigation
report for the proposed 23-unit condominium complex located in the City of
Temecula, California. This work was performed in accordance with the scope of work
outlined in our Proposal No. 1426-01 dated November 12, 2001. This report presents
the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing and our engineering judgement,
opinions, conclusions and reconunendations pertaining to geotechnical design aspects
of the proposed development.
It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any
questions regarding the contents of this report or should you require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~'
Mark Be ~ann
Vice President
LAB/SMP/MB/keb
Distribution: (6) Addressee
\
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
41640 Corning Place . Suite 107 . Murrieta . CA 92562 . Tel: (909) 600-9271 . Fax: (909) 600-9215
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR Z5055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
IN. 423-01
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
Location and Site Description ...................................... 1
Proposed Development/Grading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Purpose and Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING. .. .. . .. .. ... ... . . .. ..4
Field Exploration ................................................ 4
Laboratory Testing .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FfNDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Regional Geologic Setting ......................................... 5
Local Geology and Soil Conditions ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Faulting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................8
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Additional Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Clearing and Grubbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Excavation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ground Preparation - Fill Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Fill Placement ............................................... 12
Benching ................................................... 12
Import Soils for Grading ....................................... 12
Processing of Cut Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CutlFill Transition Lots ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Shallow Fill-to-Deep-Fill Lots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
GeotechnicalObservations .............................. _. . . . .. 13
Post-Grading Considerations ...................................... 14
Slope Landscaping and Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Utility Trenches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Site Drainage ................................................ 17
,...
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR ZS055ITemecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
Pageii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Seismic-Design Considerations .................................... 17
Ground Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity ............................ 18
Structural Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
Effects of Proposed Grading on Adjacent Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Soil Corrosivity ................................................ 19
Tentative Foundation-Design Recommendations ...................... 20
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Allowable-Bearing Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Settlement .................................................. 21
Lateral Resistance ............................................ 21
Footing Setbacks From Descending Slopes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Footing Observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Expansive Soil Considerations .................................. 22
Post-Tensioning.. .. ... .. . . . ... .. . . . .. .. .... . .. . .. . .... . .. . . . . .25
Retaining Walls ................................................ 26
Footing Embedments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Temporary Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Wall Backfill ................................................ 28
Masonry Garden Walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Construction on or Near the Tops of Descending Slopes .............. 28
Construction on Level Ground. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Construction Joints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Concrete Flatwork .............................................. 29
Thickness and Joint Spacing .................................... 29
Subgrade Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Planters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Soluble-Sulfate Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
GRADING-PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES .. . . . . . . . . 31
INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS ...................................31
.!>
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 250SS/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
References
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map (in pocket)
Appendices
Appendix A - Logs ofBorings/Logs of Previously Excavated Test Pits
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data
Appendix C - Seismic Analysis
Appendix D - Standard Grading Specifications
A.
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE INVESTIGATION
23-UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, TRACT 25055
CITY OF TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
CAUFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of Petra Geotechnical, Inc.'s (Petra's) geotechnical
update investigation of the subject property. The purposes of this investigation were.
to determine the nature of surface- and subsurface-soil conditions and to evaluate their
in-place characteristics; provide geotechnical recommendations with respect to site
grading; and for design and construction of building foundations. This investigation
also included a review of published and unpublished literature, as well as geotechnical
maps pertaining to active and potentially active faults that lie in proximity to the site
and which may have an impact on the proposed construction.
Location and Site Description
The subject site, which is currently vacant, is located north of Via La Vida,
approximately 1,000 feet east of Margarita Road in the City ofTcmecula, California.
The irregularly shaped property consists of highlands in the northwestern and
southeastern portions of the site and a densely vegetated drainage which transects the
site from the northeast to the southwest corners of the site. The site is bordered on the
north by ABC Day Care Center; the south by Via La Vida; the east by single-family
residential housing; and on the west by vacant land. End-dumped fill, construction
debris and household waste was observed in the southeastern comer of the site. The
general location of the site is shown on Figure 1.
Elevations vary from approximately 1,080 feet above sea level within the western
portion of the site to approximately 1,107 feet above sea level in the southeastern
portion of the site. Gradients on the site range from generally level to approximately
1.5: 1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v)). Drainage is generally towards the southwest.
:5
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 2
No underground structures are known to be present within the site.
At the time of our investigation storm drains emptied onto the site from adjacent
properties to the east and north. Surface flow was directed onto the northwestern
portion of the site from the adjacent day care center.
Vegetation within the site consists of lightly vegetated to barren hill sides in the
northwestern and southeastern portion of the site. The drainage which transects the
site was densely vegetated with tall grasses and trees.
Proposed Development/Grading
The enclosed 20-scale topographic map prepared by Engineering Ventures, Inc.
(Plate 1) indicates that the proposed development will consist of 23 condominium
units within the northern and eastern portions of the site. The drainage area in the
southwestern portion of the site is to remain a natural environmental mitigation area.
Maximum proposed cuts and fills are approximately 11 feet each. A 5- to II-foot high
retaining wall retaining 3 to 9 vertical feet of fill is proposed around the perimeter of
the development area within the site.
Background Information
The site was originally investigated by Petra in 1989 when they excavated eight test
pits to a maximum depth of 15 feet. Locations ofthe test pits are noted on Plate 1 and
test pit logs are presented in Appendix A. Artificial fill materials were encountered
to depths in excess of 15 feet in the northwestern corner of the site and 10 feet in the
southeastern portion of the site. Artificial fill-over-alluvium was encountered within
the drainage. The soils consisted of silty, well-graded sands and clayey sands which
Go
~
~
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14,2001
J.N. 423-01
Page 3
were moist to wet and loose to dense. Expansion potentials ranged from low to
medium and soluble sulfate contents were 0.016 percent.
Purpose and Scope of Services
The purposes of this study were to obtain updated information on the subsurface
conditions within the project area, evaluate the data, as well as provide conclusions and
recommendations for design and construction of the proposed structures, as influenced
by the subsurface conditions.
The scope of our investigation consisted of the following.
. Review of available published and unpublished data concerning geologic and soil
conditions within, as well as adjacent to the site that could have an impact on the
proposed development. This included review of data acquired by other engineering
firms for adjacent properties (see References).
. Geologic mapping of the site.
. Excavation, logging and selective sampling ofthree borings to depths of up to 36.5
feet. Boring locations are shown on Plate 1 and descriptive logs are given in
Appendix A.
. Laboratory testing and analysis ofrepresentative samples (bulk and undisturbed)
obtained from the borings to determine their engineering properties. Laboratory
test criteria and test results are presented in Appendix B.
. Preparation of a geotechnical map (Plate 1).
. Engineering and geologic analysis of the data with respect to the proposed
development.
. An evaluation of faulting and seismicity of the region as it pertains to the site.
. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and
recommendations for the proposed development.
1
tId
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 4
INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Exploration
Subsurface exploration was performed on November 28, 2001, and involved the
excavation of three borings to depths ranging from 26.5 to 36.5 feet utilizing a
CME 55 track-mounted hollowstem auger-drill rig equipped with an automatic
gravity-driven l40-pound hammer. Prior to our investigation, Underground Service
Alert of Southern California was notified.
Earth materials encountered within the exploratory borings were classified and logged
in accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification
System. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on Plate 1
and descriptive logs are presented in Appendix A.
Associated with the subsurface exploration was the collection of bulk (disturbed)
samples and relatively undisturbed samples of soil for laboratory testing. Undisturbed
samples were obtained using a 3-inch-outside-diameter modified California split -spoon
soil sampler lined with brass rings. The soil sampler was driven mechanically with
successive 30-inch drops of a gravity-driven l40-pound hanuner. The central portions
of the driven-core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our
laboratory for testing.
Laboratory Testing
Maximum dry density, expansion potential, soluble-sulfate analysis, consolidation
characteristics and shear strength of remolded and undisturbed samples were
determined for selected disturbed (bulk) and undisturbed samples of soil and bedrock
materials considered representative of those encountered. Moisture content and unit
dry density were also determined for in-place soil and bedrock materials in
~
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. T AYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
J.N. 423-01
Page 5
representative strata. A brief description of laboratory test criteria and test data are
given in Appendix B. In-situ moisture content and dry unit weight are included in the
exploration logs (Appendix A). An evaluation of the test data is reflected throughout
the Conclusions and Recommendations Section ofthis report.
FINDINGS
Regional Geologic Setting
The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California.
The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by steep, elongated, northwest-trending
valleys. More specifically, the site is located on the southwest portion of the Perris
Block which is bounded on the north by the San Gabriel and Cucamonga faults, on the
east by the San Jacinto fault, on the west by the Elsinore Trough and on the south by
an undefined zone south ofTemecula. The Perris Block is predominately composed
of crystalline granitic basement complex of Cretaceous-age Quaternary sediments
throughout most ofthe block with low rolling hills of Pleistocene-age sediments in the
Temecula area. Sparse volcanic units of Tertiary-age occur in the western portion of
the Perris Block.
Local Geology and Soil Conditions
Soils encountered during our subsurface investigation consisted of undocumented
artificial fill, colluvium and Pauba Formation bedrock. Petra encountered alluvium
beneath the artificial fill within the drainage area of the site in 1989.
. Undocumented Artificial Fill (map symbol afu) - Undocumented artificial fill was
encountered to depths of24 to 30 feet within the southeastern portion of the site;
to a depth of 19 feet within the northwestern portion of the site and to a depth of
2 to 4.5 feet within the drainage area within the site. The fill consisted of light
yellowish brown, silty to well-graded sand and silt. The soils were moist and
1\
:&
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
Page 6
medium dense to dense. The fill was derived during post-grading operations ofthe
adjacent housing tract in the late 1980s. Although the fill appears to be free of
construction debris and is relatively dense, there was no documentation of field
density testing within the site.
. Quaternary Alluvium (no map symbol) - Alluvium was encountered beneath the
artificial fill within the drainage area of the site. The alluvial soils extended to
depths in excess of 11 to 14 feet below current ground surface as encountered
during Petra's original investigation of the site (Petra, 1989). The soils consisted
of grey brown to brown silty to clayey sands and sandy clays which were very
moist to wet and medium dense/stiff.
. Quaternary Colluvium (no map symbol) - Colluvium was encountered beneath
the fill within Boring B-1. It consisted of moderate brown moist to medium dense
silty sand which was moderately porous. The colluvium, as encountered within
Boring B-1, was approximately 4 to 5 feet thick.
. Pauba Formational Bedrock (no map symbol) - Pauba Formation bedrock
underlies the entire site at depth. It is located approximately 24 to 32 feet below
current ground surface in the southeastern portion ofthe site; approximately 19 feet
below current ground surface in the northwestern portion of the site; and in excess
of 14 feet below current ground surface in the central drainage portion of the site.
Groundwater
No groundwater or seepage was encountered in any of the borings drilled for this study
to a maximum depth of36.5 feet. Furthermore, based on regional well records and on
our experience in the area, groundwater lies in excess of 50 feet below the ground
surface.
Due to the dense vegetation, flowing water could not be observed within the onsite
drainage.
\0
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
J.N. 423-01
Page 7
Faulting
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by
northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. Faults, such as the
Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas, are major faults
in this system and all are known to be active. In addition, the San Andreas, Elsinore
and San Jacinto faults are known to have ruptured the ground surface in historic times.
Based on our review of published and unpublished geotechnical maps and literature
pertaining to site and regional geology, the closest active faults to the site are the
Wildomar Branch ofthe Elsinore fault zone fault located approximately 0.6 kilometer
to the west; the Murrieta Hot Springs fault located approximately 3.6 kilometers to the
northeast; and the San Jacinto fault located approximately 33 kilometers to the
northeast.
The most significant fault, with respect to anticipated ground motions at the site, is the
Wildomar fault, due to its proximity and large possible magnitude.
No other active or potentially active faults project through or toward the site and the
site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone.
Seismicity
Several sources were consulted for information pertaining to site seismicity. The
majority of the data was originally obtained from Campbell and Bozorgnia which has
been incorporated into digital programs by Blake (see References) that allow for an
estimation of peak horizontal acceleration using a data file of approximately 150
digitized-California faults. FRISK was updated in 2000. The program compiles
various information, including the dominant-type offaulting within a particular region,
the maximum credible earthquake magnitude each fault is capable of generating, the \ \
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
Page 8
estimated slip -rate for each fault and the approximate location of the fault trace. This
data is then used for the "probabilistic" analysis of the site. The probabilistic analysis
(FlUSK) is utilized for sites where a liquefaction hazard may exist.
The probabilistic analysis, on the other hand, incorporates uncertainties in time,
recurrence intervals, size and location (along faults) of hypothetical earthquakes. This
method thus accounts for the likelihood (rather than certainty) of occurrence and
provides levels of ground acceleration that might be more reasonably hypothesized for
a finite-exposure period. Moreover, the State of California has adopted the standard
of using peak -ground acceleration exceeded at a 10 percent probability in 50 years,
also known as "Design-Basis Earthquake Ground Motion", in seismic analysis for
liquefaction calculations peffequirement of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBe)
Sections 1627, 1629.1 and 1631.2.
In conjunction with our liquefaction analysis, our probabilistic analysis was performed
by utilizing computer program "FRISKSP" (Blake, 2000) and adopting the attenuation
relationship for Holocene Soil (corrected) published by Bozorgnia, et. al. (see Blake,
2000). The results indicate the design-basis earthquake ground motion for the site is
0.60g for peak-ground acceleration with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded
within a 50-year period.
The results of our probabilistic analysis are included in Appendix C of this report.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
From a soils engineering and engineering geologic point of view, the subject property
is considered suited for the proposed construction, provided the following conclusions
\z..
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. T AYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 9
and recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and project
specifications.
Additional Work
Because of the uncertainties regarding the extent of poorly compacted existing fill
adjacent to the north and east property lines, we recommend that additional subsurface
investigation be conducted to define these conditions. We suggest that bucket-auger
borings be drilled along the property line to be down-hole logged by an engineering
geologist to define the fill contacts and observe the condition of the underlying natural
ground surface.
Earthwork
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable
requirements of the Grading Code of the City ofTemecula, California, in addition to
the' provisions of the 1997 UBC, including Appendix Chapter A33. Grading should
also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the attached Standard
Grading Specifications (Appendix D) prepared by Petra, unless specifically revised or
amended herein.
Clearing and Grubbing
All weeds, grasses, brush, shrubs and trees in areas to be graded shall be stripped and
hauled off site. Trees to be removed should be grubbed-out such that their stumps and
major-root systems are also removed and the organic materials hauled off site. During
site grading, laborers should clear from fills any roots, tree branches and other
deleterious materials missed during clearing and grubbing operations.
\?J
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
Page 10
All materials associated with existing structures, including storm drains should be
removed from the site. Drainage should be diverted to facilitate removals within the
canyon portion of the site (northeast corner). Upon completion of removals and the
placement offill materials, the storm drains should be extended through the site and
outletted to the natural drainage area within the site.
The project soils engineer or his qualified representative should he notified at the
appropriate times to provide observation and testing services during clearing
operations to verify compliance with the above reconunendations. In addition, any
buried structures, unusual or adverse soil conditions encountered that are not described
or anticipated, herein should be brought to the inunediate attention ofthe geotechnical
consultant.
Excavation Characteristics
Based on the results of our exploratory borings, residual soil materials and other
surficial deposits (i.e., alluvium and fill) will be readily excavatable with conventional
earthmoving equipment.
Groundwater
It is likely that water will be encountered within the drainage on the site. Diversion
measures will be necessary to direct the drainage water away from grading operations.
Ground Preoaration - Fill Areas
All existing low-density and potentially collapsible-soil materials, such as existing
undocumented fill and alluvium, will require removal to underlying dense native soils
from each area to receive compacted fill. Dense native soils are defined as
undisturbed native materials with an in-place relative density of 85 percent or greater
based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Prior to placing structural fill, exposed bottom \'\
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
IN. 423-01
Page 11
surfaces in each removal area should be scarified to a depth least 6 inches or more,
watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions and
then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative density of 90 percent.
Based on previous test pits (Petra, 1989), borings and laboratory testing, anticipated
depths of removals are shown on the enclosed geotechnical map (Plate 1). However,
actual depths and horizontal limits of removals will have to be determined during
grading on the basis of in-grading observation and testing performed by the project
soils engineer and/or engineering geologist.
Removal of the undocumented fill may be difficult, depending upon the manner in
which the engineered fill was placed during grading for the adjacent tract. Common
practice would suggest that the natural ground surface was properly prepared a
distance inside the project site prior to fill placement in order to establish a projection
of engineered fill extending outward from the tract at a projection no steeper than 1: 1
(h:v). The subsequent removals within the project site should encounter engineered fill
below the 1: 1 (h:v) projection from the property line. If the engineered fill for the
adjacent tract was actually placed in such a manner, removals of undocumented fill
within the subject site should be feasible without extraordinary grading measures. If
this is found not to be the case and removals must extend to full depth to the property
line, then specialized approaches will be necessary. An example of such an approach
is excavating and recompacting a series of slot cuts perpendicular to the property line
using a large excavator equipped with a compaction wheel. The slots are excavated and
recompacted in alternating sequences of every third slot to prevent localized
instability.
\1'
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR Z5055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 12
Fill Placement
All fill should be placed in 6- to 8-inch-thick maximum lifts, watered or air-dried as
necessary to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions and then compacted in-place
to a minimum relative density of90 percent. The laboratory maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557.
Benching
Compacted fills placed against sloped surfaces inclining at 5:1 (h:v) or greater should
be placed on a series oflevel benches excavated into dense native soils. Benching will
also be required where compacted fills are placed against temporary backcuts of
stability fills. Typical benching details are shown on Plates SO-3, SG-4, SG-5, SG-7
and SG-8 (Appendix D).
Import Soils for Gradinl:
In the event import soils are needed to achieve final-design grades, all potential import
materials should be free of deleterious/oversize materials, be non-expansive and
approved by the project soils engineer prior to being brought onsite.
Processinl: of Cut Areas
Where low-density surficial deposits of existing fill and/or alluvium are not removed
in their entirety in cut areas (building pads and driveways), these materials will require
overexcavation and replacement as properly compacted fill.
Cut/Fill Transition Lots
To mitigate distress to residential structures related to the potential adverse effects of
excessive differential settlement, cut/fill transitions should be eliminated from all
\~
~
~
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR Z5055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
J.N. 423-01
Page 13
building areas where the depth offill placed within the "fill" portion exceeds proposed
footing depths. This should be accomplished by overexcavating the "cut" portion and
replacing the excavated materials as properly compacted fill. Reconunended depths
of overexcavation are provided in the following table.
.-.'.-.-...-...'..,-,-...-,---.............-.:..,.....,..,-:..-.-'-.-.-........,..-.,..:...-.-....,..-.
~lllli~I~~~
up to 5 feet
Equal depth, 3 feet minimum
5 to to feet
5 feet
Greater than 10 feet
One-half the thickness offill placed on the "Fill"
portion (t 0 feet maximum)
Overexcavation ofthe 'cut" portion should extend beyond perimeter-building lines a
horizontal distance equal to the depth of overexcavation or to a minimum distance of
5 feet, whichever is greater.
Shallow FilI-to-Deep-FilI Lots
To mitigate distress to residential structures related to the potential adverse effects of
excessive differential settlement on fill lots underlain with substantial differences in
compacted fill depths, the "shallow" fill portions should be overexcavated to maintain
the minimum fill depths reconunended in the preceding section.
Geotechnical Observations
An observation of clearing operations, removal of unsuitable-surficial materials, cut-
and fill-slope construction and general grading procedures should be performed by the
project geotechnical consultant. Fills should not be placed without prior approval from
the geotechnical consultant.
\1
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
Page 14
The project geotechnical consultant or his representative should be present onsite
during all grading operations to verify proper placement and compaction of fill, as well
as to verify compliance with the other recommendations presented herein.
Post-Gradinf;: Considerations
Slope Landscaping and Maintenance
Adequate slope and pad drainage facilities are essential in the design of grading for the
subject tract. An anticipated rainfall equivalency on the order of 60 to 100I inches per
year at the site can result due to irrigation. The overall stability of the graded-slopes
should not be adversely affected provided all drainage provisions are properly
constructed and maintained thereafter and provided all engineered slopes are
landscaped with a deep-rooted, drought-tolerant and maintenance-free plant species,
as recommended by the project landscape architect. Additional conunents and
reconunendations are presented below with respect to slope drainage, landscaping and
irrigation. A discussion of pad drainage is given in a following section.
The most common type of slope failure in hillside areas is the surficial type and
usually involves the upper 1 to 6:1: feet. For any given gradient, these surficial-slope
failures are generally caused by a wide variety of conditions, such as overwatering;
cyclic changes in moisture content and density of slope soils from both seasonal and
irrigation-induced wetting and drying; soil expansiveness; time lapse between slope
construction and slope planting; type and spacing of plant materials used for slope
protection; rainfall intensity; and/or lack of a proper maintenance program. Based on
this discussion, the following recommendations are presented to mitigate potential
surficial slope failures.
. Proper drainage provisions for engineered slopes should consist of concrete terrace
drains, downdrains and energy dissipaters (where required) constructed in
\~
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page IS
accordance with the Grading Code of the City of Temecula. Provisions should
also be made for construction of compacted-earth berms along the tops of all
engineered slopes.
. All permanent engineered slopes should be landscaped as soon as practical at the
completion of grading. As noted, the landscaping should consist of a deep-rooted,
drought-tolerant and maintenance-free plant species. If landscaping cannot be
provided within a reasonable period oftime, jute matting (or equivalent) or a spray-
on product designed to seal slope surfaces should be considered as a temporary
measure to inhibit surface erosion until such time permanent landscape plants have
become well-established.
. Irrigation systems should be installed on the engineered slopes and a watering
program then implemented which maintains a uniform, near optimum moisture
condition in the soils.Overwatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils
should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry-out is also
detrimental to slope performance.
. Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of
sprinkler lines in trenches should not be allowed without prior approval from the
soils engineer and engineering geologist.
. During construction of terrace and downdrains, care must be taken to avoid
placement ofloose soil on the slope surfaces.
. A permanent slope-maintenance program should be initiated for major slopes.
Proper slope maintenance must include the care of drainage- and erosion-control
provisions, rodent control and repair ofleaking or damaged irrigation systems.
. Provided the above reconunendations are followed with respect to slope drainage,
maintenance and landscaping, the potential for deep saturation of slope soils is
considered very low.
. The homeowners association should be advised of the potential problems that can
develop when drainage on the pads and slopes is altered in any way. Drainage can
be altered due to the placement of fill and construction of garden walls, retaining
walls, walkways, patios and planters.
\'\
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR Z5055ITemecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
Page 16
Utility Trenches
All utility-trench backfill within street right-of-ways, utility easements, under
sidewalks, driveways and building-floor slabs, as well as within or in proximity to
slopes should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. Where
onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. Density
testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project soils engineer or his
representative, to verify proper compaction.
For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately 1-
to 2-foot-thick maximum lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydra-hanuner,
pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For deep trenches with sloped-walls, backfill
materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12-inch-thick maximum lifts and
then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot tamper or similar equipment.
As an alternate for shallow trenches where pipe may be damaged by mechanical
compaction equipment, such as under building- floor slabs, imported clean sand having
a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into
place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, observation, probing
and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed.
To avoid point-loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported
sand bedding should be placed at least I foot above all pipe in areas where excavated
trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand-bedding materials should be
thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill.
Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to any building footing (interior and/or
exterior trenches), the bottom of the trench should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v)
plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing.
].0
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 17
Site Drainage
Positive-drainage devices, such as sloping sidewalks, graded-swales and/or area drains,
should be provided around each building to collect and direct all water away from the
structures. Neither rain nor excess irrigation water should be allowed to collect or
pond against building foundations. Roof gutters and downspouts may be required on
the sides of buildings where yard-drainage devices cannot be provided and/or where
roof drainage is directed onto adjacent slopes. All drainage should be directed to
adjacent driveways, adjacent streets or storm-drain facilities.
Seismic-Design Considerations
Ground Motions
Structures within the site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of
seismic ground motions as provided in 1997 UBC Sections 1626 through 1633. The
method of design is dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy
category, building configuration, type of structural system, and on the building height.
For structural design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, a computer program
developed by Thomas F. Blake (UBCSEIS, 1998/1999) was utilized which compiles
fault information for a particular site using a modified version of a data file of
approximately 183 California faults that were digitized by the California Division of
Mines and Geology and the U.S. Geological Survey. This program computes various
information for a particular site including the distance of the site from each of the
faults in the data file, the estimated slip-rate for each fault, and the "maximum moment
magnitude" of each fault. The program then selects the closest Type A, Type B and
Type C faults from the site and computes the seismic design coefficients for each of
the fault types. The program then selects the largest of the computed seismic design
coefficients and designates these as the design coefficients for the subject site. Z \
tti
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
Page 18
Based on our evaluation, the Wildomar fault would probably generate the most severe
site ground motions with anticipated maximum moment magnitudes of 6.8 and
anticipated slip rate of 5 mm/year. The following 1997 UBC seismic design
coefficients should be used for the proposed structures. These criteria are based on the
soil profile type as determined by existing subsurface geologic conditions, on the
proximity of the Wildomar fault, and on the maximum moment magnitude and slip
rate.
I IIIIUI!IiIIIIl!ln~~jl~I!f.D'gllm;!1 'IIMi,;!:lliIIIIll l<t$qffig~llI:!lIM!li:1
1 6-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z OAO
1 6-J Soil Profile Type So
1 6-Q Seismic Coefficient C, OA4N, ~ 0.57
1 6-R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.64N, ~ 1 .02
I 6-S Near-Source Factor N, I .3
1 6-T Near-Source Factor N, I .6
I 6-U Seismic Source Type B
Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity
Secondary effects of seismic activity normally considered as possible hazards to a
site include several types of ground failure, as well as induced flooding. Various
general types of ground failures which might occur as a consequence of severe
ground shaking at the site include landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching,
shallow-ground rupture and liquefaction. The probability of occurrence of each type
of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults,
topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, in addition to other factors. All
of the above secondary effects of seismic activity are considered unlikely at the si te.
").1..
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N. 423-01
Page 19
Seismically induced flooding which might be considered a potential hazard to a site
normally includes flooding due to a tsunamis (seismic sea wave), a seiche (i.e., a
wave-like oscillation of the surface of water in an enclosed basin that may be
initiated by a strong earthquake) or failure of a major reservoir or retention structur e
upstream of the site. Since the site is located nearly 25 miles inland from the
nearest coastline of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation in excess of 1,000 feet above
mean sea level, the potential for seismically induced flooding due to a tsunamis run-
up is considered nonexistent. Since no enclosed bodies of water lie adjacent to the
site, the potential for induced flooding at the site due to a seiche is also considered
nonexistent.
Structural Setbacks
No structural setbacks are required within the site from a geotechnical standpoint,
provided unsuitable materials are removed as indicated herein.
Effects of Proposed Grading on Adjacent Properties
Grading of the subject site could have an impact on drainage of the sites to the
northeast and north. Additionally, removals of unsuitable soils in the northwestern
portion of the subject site, may encroach into the adjacent site to the west.
Soil Corrosivitv
Representative soil samples have been tested to determine the potential for corrosion
of metal pipes due to the soils on the site. The test results indicate that the soils are
corrosIve.
This conclusion is based on the following corrosive potential from resistivity level
readings.
1:b
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-01
Page 20
I .-,----..-..-..-..-....---.-....-----...----- ....................., ........--."'...."."-.,.."."."".--.....-.....------.... .\11
............................................................ .. --_..........,-,---..-----.-----------.--,-_..,-------.---......"...."..,
.-.'.... .-....-......................,-,...,...,-------...,...,.......,.
II;B:~I~!ty#jiti!iy!iIRiilmg qi\.!\rAA!r:!!irgiltiii!ti~lk .......'.
Over 1 0 ,000 M ild
5 , 000 - I 0 , 000 Moderate
I ,000 5 000 . Corrosive
- ,
500 - 1 , 000 Very Corros ive
Under 500 Extremely Corros ive
Note: If additional information is needed, a Corrosion Engineer should be consulted.
Tentative Foundation-Design Recommendations
General
Provided site grading is performed in accordance with the reconunendations of this
report, conventional shallow foundations are considered feasible for support of the
proposed residential structures. Tentative foundation reconunendations are provided
herein. However, these reconunendations may require modification depending on
ascgraded conditions existing within the building sites upon completion of grading.
Allowable-Bearing Values
An allowable-bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (pst) may be used for
24-inch-square pad footings and 12-inch-wide continuous footings founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent fmal grade. This val ue may
be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width and depth, to a
maximum value of 2,500 psf. Reconunended allowable-bearing values include
both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for short-duration wind
and seismic forces.
~A..
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 21
Settlement
Based on the general settlement characteristics of the compacted fill and in-situ
bedrock outside the influence zone of undocumented artificial fill left in-place, as
well as the anticipated loading, it has been estimated that the maximum total
settlement of conventional footings will be less than approximately 0.75 inch.
Differential settlement is expected to be about one-half the total settlement. It is
anticipated that the majority of the settlement will occur during construction or
shortly thereafter as building loads are applied.
The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the grading will be
performed in accordance with the grading reconunendations presented in this report
and that the project geotechnical consultant will observe or test the soil conditions
in .the footing excavations.
Lateral Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 2S0 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,SOO
psf may be used to determine lateral-bearing resistance for footings. In addition, a
coefficient of friction of 0.4 times the dead-load forces may be used between
concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral-sliding resistance. The above
values may be increased by one-third when designing for short-duration wind or
seismic forces. The above values are based on footings placed directly against
compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill placed
against the footings should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum
dry density.
p
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 22
Footing Setbacks From Descending Slopes
Where residential structures are proposed near the tops of descending compacted fill
slopes, the footing setbacks from the slope face should conform with 1997 UBC
Figure 18-1-1. The required minimum setback is H/3 (one-third the slope height)
measured along a horizontal line projected from the lower outside face of the footing
to the slope face. The footing setbacks should be 5 feet minimum where the slope
height is 15 feet or less and vary up to 40 feet maximum where the slope height
exceeds 15 feet.
Footing Observations
All building-footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical
consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils.
The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms,
reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trinuned neat, level and
square. All loose, sloughed or moisture-softened soil should be removed prior to
concrete placement.
Excavated materials from footing excavations should not be placed in slab-on-ground
areas unless the soils are compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry
density.
Expansive Soil Considerations
Results of preliminary laboratory tests indicate onsite soil and bedrock materials
exhibit a MEDIUM expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC
Table 18-I-B; however, expansive soil conditions should be evaluated for individual
lots during and at the completion of rough grading to verify the anticipated
condition. The design and construction details presented below may be tentatively
~
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
J.N. 423-01
Page 23
considered for conventional footings and floor slabs underlain with non-expansive
foundation soils but subject to possible modification depending on actual as-graded
soil conditions. Furthermore, it should be noted that additional slab thickness,
footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than the minimum
reconunendations that follow should be provided as reconunended by the project
architect or structural engineer.
Medium Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 51 to 90)
Results of our laboratory tests indicate onsite soils exhibit a MEDIUM expansion
potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC Table 18-I-B. The 1997 UBC
specifies that slab-on-ground foundations (floor slabs) on soils with an expansion
index greater than 20 require special design considerations in accordance with 1997
UEC Section 1815. The design procedures outlined in 1997 UEC Section 1815 are
based on a plasticity index of the different soil layers existing within the upper 15
feet of the building site. Based on subsurface stratigraphy and distribution of the
different soil types, we have calculated an effective . plasticity index of 20 in
accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815.4.2.
The design and construction recommendations that follow are based on the above
soil conditions and may be considered for minimizing the effects of moderately
expansive soils. These reconunendations have been based on the previous experience
o[:Petra on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed
in accordance with these recommendations has been found to minimize post-
construction movement and/or cracking, they generally do not positively mitigate all
potential effects of expansive soils. The owner, architect, design civil engineer,
structural engineer and contractors must be made aware of the expansive-soil
conditions which exist at the site. Furthermore, it is reconunended that additional
slab thicknesses, footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than 2."\
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. T AYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
IN. 423-01
Page 24
reconunended below be provided as required or specified by the project ar chitect or
structural engineer.
. Footings
- Exterior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction should
be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final
grade. Interior continuous footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12
inches below the lowest adjacent grade for both one- and two-story
construction. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 and
15 inches, for one- and two-story buildings, respectively, and should be
reinforced with two No.4 bars, one top and one bottom.
- Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs. such as
second-story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a
minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches
below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced
with No.4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, near
the bottom one-third of the footings.
. Floor Slabs
- The project architect or structural engineer should evaluate minimum floor-
slab thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815
based on an effective plasticity index of 20. Unless a more stringent design
is recommended by the architect or the structural engineer, we reconunend a
minimum slab thickness of 4 inches for both living-area and garage-floor slabs
and reinforcing consisting of No.3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on
centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete
chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid-height.
- Living-area concrete-floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture-vapor
barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6-mil Visqueen
or equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2
inches of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing
of the concrete.
- Garage-floor slabs should also be placed separately from adjacent wall
footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8-inch-minimum, felt
expansion-joint materials and quartered with weakened-plane joints. A 12- Z't;
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N. 423-01
Page 25
inch-wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should
be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced
with a minimum of two NO.4 bars, one top and one bottom.
- Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living-area and garage-
floor slabs should be pre-watered to achieve a moisture content that is 5
percent or greater than optimum-moisture content. This moisture content
should penetrate to a minimum depth of 18 inches into the subgrade soils.
Post-Tensioning
In lieu of the above recommendations for medium-expansive soils, a post-tensioned
system may be considered. Specific design reconunendations should be formulated
on the basis of actual as-graded soil conditions. The actual design of post-tensioned
footings and slabs is referred to the project structural engineer.
To assist the structural engineer in his design, the following parameters are
reconunended.
. Perimeter footings for either one- or two-story dwellings may be founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the nearest adjacent final-ground surface.
Interior footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top
of the finish-floor slab.
. All dwelling-area floor slabs constructed on-grade should be underlain with a
moisture-vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6-
mil Visqueen. A minimum of 1 inch of clean sand should be placed over the
membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete.
. Presaturation of subgrade soils below slabs-on-grade will not be required.
However, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing
concrete.
"/;.Ot.,
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR Z5055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 26
Assumed percent clay
50
Clay type
Montmorillonite
Approximate depth of constant suction (feet)
7.0
Approximate soil suction (pF)
3.6
Approximate velocity or moisture flow (inches/month)
0.7
Thomwaite Index
.20
Average edge
Moisture variation depth,
Center lift
5.3
em
(feet)
Edge lift
2.5
Anticipated swell, Yn,
(inches)
Center lift
3.2
Edge lift
0.8
Retaininl: Walls
Footing Embedments
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The base of retaining-wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where retaining
walls are proposed on or within 15 feet from the top of any adjacent descending fill
slope, the footings should he deepened such that a minimum horizontal clearance of
Hl3 is maintained between the outside bottom edges ofthe footings and the face of the
slope up to a maximum of 15 feet. This horizontal structural setback may be reduced
to 10 feet where footings are constructed near the tops of descending cut slopes. The
above recommended minimum footing setbacks are preliminary and may be revised
based on site-specific soil and/or bedrock conditions. All footing trenches should be
observed by the project geotechnical representative to verify that the footing trenches
have been excavated into competent-bearing soils and/or bedrock and to the minimum
?:P
ttA
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14,2001
IN. 423-01
Page 27
embedments recommended above. These observations should be performed prior to
placing forms or reinforcing steel.
Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures
An active lateral-earth pressure equivalent fluid having a density of 45 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) should tentatively be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining
a drained, level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2: 1 (h:v), the above
value should be increased to 75 pcf. All retaining walls should be designed to resist
any surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or structures in addition to the
above active earth pressures.
For design of retaining walls that are restrained at the top, an at-rest earth pressure
equivalent to a fluid having density of 68 pcf should tentatively be used for walls
supporting a level backfill. This value should be increased to 110 pcf for an ascending
2:] (h:v) backfill.
Drainage
Weepholes or open vertical masonry joints should be provided in retaining walls to
prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. Weepholes, if used, should be 3 inches in
minimum diameter and provided at minimum intervals of 6 feet along the wall. Open
vertical masonry joints, if used, should be provided at 32-inch-minimum intervals. A
continuous gravel fill, 12 inches by 12 inches, should be placed behind the weepholes
or open masonry joints. The gravel should be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent
infiltration of fines and subsequent clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist
ofMirafi l40N or equal.
In lieu of weep holes or open joints, a perforated pipe-and-gravel subdrain may be used.
Perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS
?>\
~
~
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14,2001
IN. 423-01
Page 28
SDR-35, with the perforations .laid down. The pipe should be embedded in 1.5 cubic
feet per foot of 0.75- or 1.5-inch open-graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Filter
fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equal.
The outside portions of retaining walls supporting backfill should be coated with an
approved waterproofing compound to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls.
Temporary Excavations
To facilitate retaining-wall construction, the lower 5 feet of temporary slopes may be
cut vertical and the upper portions exceeding a height of 5 feet should be cut back at
a maximum gradient of 1:1 (h:v) for the duration of construction. However, all
temporary slopes should be observed by the project soils engineer for any evidence of
potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, flatter slopes may
be' necessary. The potential effects of various parameters such as weather, heavy
equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary excavations and construction
scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary slopes.
Wall Backfill
All retaining-wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8-inch-maximum lifts, watered or
air-dried as necessary to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in
place to a minimum relative compaction of90 percent.
Masonry Garden Walls
Construction on or Near the Tops ofDescendin~ Slopes
Continuous footings for masonry garden walls proposed on or within 5 feet from the
top of any descending cut or fill slope should be deepened such that a minimum
horizontal clearance of 5 feet is maintained between the outside bottom edge of the
?JV
tt1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
J.N. 423-01
Page 29
footing and the slope face. The footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two
No.4 bars, one top and one bottom. Plans for any top-of-slope garden walls proposing
pier and grade-beam footings should be reviewed by the project geotechnical
consultant prior to construction.
Construction on Level Ground
Where masonry walls are proposed on level ground and at least 5 feet from the tops
of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded at a minimum depth
of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should also be
reinforced with a minimum of two No.4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Construction Joints
In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of
differential settlement, positive separations (construction joints) should be provided
in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 25 feet and at each corner. The
separations should be provided in the blocks only and not extend through the footings.
The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as
effective "grade beams" along the full lengths of the walls.
Concrete Flatwork
Thickness and Joint Spacin\!
To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete sidewalks and patio-type slabs
should be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints
every 6 feet or less. Concrete driveway slabs should be at least 5 inches thick and
provided with construction or expansion joints every 10 feet or less.
1:P
tti
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14,2001
J.N.423-0l
Page 30
Subgrade Preparation
As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils
below concrete-flatwork areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative density
of 90 percent and then thoroughly wetted to achieve a moisture content that is at least
equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should
extend to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade and maintained in the soils during
placement of concrete. Pre-watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the
concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. A representative of the
project soils engineer should observe and verify the density and moisture content of
the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete.
Planters
Area drains should be extended into all planters that are located within 5 feet of
building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry garden walls to minimize
excessive infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface of the
ground in these areas should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of2percent away
from the walls and foundations. Drip-irrigation systems are also reconunended to
prevent overwatering and subsequent saturation ofthe adjacent foundation soils.
Soluble-Sulfate Analyses
Laboratory test data indicate site soils contain less than 0.1 percent water-soluble
sulfates. Therefore, according to 1997 UBC Table 26-A-6, no special cement will be
required for concrete to be placed in contact with onsite soils.
?It
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055/Temecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 31
GRADING-PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use ofMr. Jack Hamry and Mr. Tom
Taylor to assist the project engineer and architect in the design of the proposed
development. It is recommended that Petra be engaged to review the final-design
drawings and specifications prior to construction. This is to verify that the
recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted and are
incorporated into the project specifications. If Petra is not accorded the opportunity
to review these documents, we can take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our
recommendations.
We recommend that Petra be retained to provide soil-engineering services during
construction of the excavation and foundation phases of the work. This is to observe
compliance with the design, specifications or recommendations and to allow design
changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to
start of construction.
If the project plans change significantly (e.g.; building loads or type of structures), we
should be retained to review our original design recommendations and their
applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are encountered during
construction that appear to be different than those indicated in this report, this office
should be notified inunediately. Design and construction revisions may be required.
INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the proj ect, as described and the geotechnical data obtained
from the field tests performed at the locations indicated on the plan. The materials
encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory investigation are believed
:f
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. J. HAMRY & MR. T. TAYLOR
TR 25055ITemecula
December 14, 2001
J.N.423-01
Page 32
representative of the total area. However, soils can vary in characteristics between
excavations, both laterally and vertically.
The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the
described geotechnical evaluations and represent our best professional judgement. The
findings, conclusions and opinions contained in this report are to be considered
tentative only and subject to confirmation by the undersigned during the construction
process. Without this confirmation, this report is to be considered incomplete and
Petra or the undersigned professionals assume no responsibility for its use. In
addition, this report should be reviewed and updated after a period of 1 year or if the
site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein.
This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named
or described above. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other
purposes.
The professional opinions contained herein have been derived in accordance with
current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~
Stephen M. Pool
Senior Associate
GE 692
~
~
~
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
SITE LOCATION MAP
,?\
"-
<(
"
W
t-
o;
REFERENCE:
California Division of Mines and Geology,
Special Studies Zone maps,
Murrieta Quadrangle dated Jan. 1, 1990
il
_ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
NORTH
o
,
2QOO FEET IN 423-01
,
DEC.. 2001
FIGURE 1
SCALE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
REFERENCES
Bergmann. M.C. and Rockwell, T., 1996, Holocene Slip Rate of the Elsinore Fault in the Temecula Valley. Riverside
County, California, dated February 8.
Blake, T.F., 1998/1999," UBCSEIS, Version 1.03, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code
Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources."
, 2000, "FRISKSP, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleratiou
and Uniform Hazard Spectra Usiug 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources."
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060742 0005 B dated
November 20, 1996.
Giessner, F.W.; Winters, B.A.; and McLean, J.S., 1971, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa
Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California, State of California Department of
Water Resources Bulletin 91-20.
Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, William A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CDMG Special Publication 42,
revised 1997, Supplements I and 2 added 1990.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering Design Provisions.
, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,
Preparded by California Division of Mines and Geology.
. Jenkins, Olaf P., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, Scale: 1:250,000.
. Jennings, C.W., 1962, Geologic Map of California, OlafP. Jenkins Edition, Long Beach Sheet, Scale 1:250,000.
, 1985, An Explanatory Text to Accompany the 1:750,000 scale Fault and Geologic Maps of California,
California Divjsion of Mines and Geology.
__, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Scale 1:750,000.
. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County,
California, CDMG Special Report 131.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1989, Preliminary Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed 30-
Unit Condominium Development on Via La Vida, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California,
J.N. 303-89, dated October 18.
State of California Department of Water Resources, 1966, Hydrologic Data: 1964, Volume V: Southern California,
Appendix C: Groundwater Measurements, Bulletin No. 130-64, July, 1966.
,1973, Hydrologic Data: 1972, Volume V: Southern California, Bulletin No. 130-72, Noveniber 1973.
IPETRA GEO'TECHNICAL, INC.
Ij.N. 423~01
DECEMBER 2001
':P
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
REFERENCES (Continued)
State of California Special Studies Zones, 1990, Murrieta Quadrangle, Scale 1:24.000, dated January 1,1990.
Weber, F.R., Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern
Riverside County, California, CDMG Open File Report 77-4 LA, May, 1977.
Western Municipal Water District, Cooperative Well Measuring Program, Spring 2001.
,PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J:N.423-01
DECEMBER 2001
?Jo....
~ll
~I:--
,.,0
MI
if[___
~51'
UI
_I~
II
~I--:
~:!
~I
::.-j
"------
'----(I" ".
~.
~I
WI
it
ill
~I
~rl
HI
~jl
:;C,_ ___
I'~
APPENDIX A
-- ,..--
. - ...."-
. _.._~ - ._. - ~ " -
-~" - ~::5----
LOGS OF BORINGS
_ PETRA
~()
~
~. ---.-",.- -'... ~--_.. ..----.. ------------ ---- ~- --.--
- ~~.__c::-__o_:c_:::_.._--,.,._--__:;;;_~--,..--::.:_:':::;-.=,:.:::_c~...o...--;c:~
I
I
I
:1
'I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
Key to Soil and Bedrock Symbols and Terms
! ~, ,
i"!
\. ,,~ ~ II
;~ ;~'h.'-t: l' '-I .:I;! I
'n
"0 ",0
~ ~ Cl
-; .~ ~~
"" '" .frl c <U
r~ E ~ ~
~ Vl '0 i; ";;;
::; r~ e.o
u ,...::;~
^
GRAVELS
more than half of coarse
fraction is larger than #4
sieve
Clean Gravels
less than 5% fines
mil
IffiII
m:J
ImI
r.=a
191
L'la
I1a
"
, "
0",
.g "
.:e74
" "
> "
.:!i! -5 more than half of coarse
~ B fraction is smaller than
" " .
.g ::0 sieve
!=: "(i;
" .-
'" >
"
u:i'U
=> .~
o
o_
N ~
."
0,"
Z i1
" ~
is
Gravels
Wlth fines
SANDS
Clean Sands
less than 5% fines
Sands
wIth fines
~.~ 0
00 ~~
1:1l.~ :crt:
'i~@o
0; E oS .~
~'5 ~
d" N-;;;
C -, E
~~ '"
SILTS & CLAYS
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
SILTS & CLAYS
Liquid Limit
Greater Than 50
Highly Organic Soils
. PETRA
~
ML
Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly-graded ve s, grave -sand mixtures, little or no mes
Sit Gravels, oorl - ded vel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey Gravels, poorly-graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
Poorly~graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
Silty Sands, poorly-gra e sand-gravel-silt mixtures
C ayey Sands, poorly-gra e sand-grave -c ay mixtures
Inorganic silts & very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands,
clayey silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
Organic silts & clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand or silt
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Organic silts and clays of medium- to-high plasticity
Peat, humus swamp soils with high organic content
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
-
,1 '-Ill! ~-,\:'A'
- ------- --+ -- .--- ---
Des<:ription Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size
Boulders >12" >12" LarQer than basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12" 3 - 12" Fist-sized to basketball-sized
coarse 3/4 - 3" 3/4 - 3" Thumb-sized to fist-sized
Gravel fine #4 - 3/4" 0.19 - 0.75" Pea-sized to thumb-sized f---.-..
coarse #10-#4 0.079 - 0.t9" Rock salt-sized to nea-sized r----.., -r-y
Sand medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079" Su~ar-sized to rock salt-sized ~
fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017" Flour-sized to sugar-sized to ~
Fines Passin~ #200 <0.0029" Flour -sized and smaller ,'"
-
, ~--
~J-.tHi~ tlJ~2.__t+.'j 2~h~!.."~~f~j,,-IJJ_IK ___ ___ __ _.____._ ___
MAX
EXP
S04
RES
pH
CON
SW
Maximum Dry Density
Expansion Potential
Soluble Sulfate Content
Resistivity
Acidity
Consolidation
Swell
MA
AT
#200
DSU
DSR
HYD
SE
Mechanical (Partical Size) Analysis
Atterberg Limits
#200 Screen Wash
Direct Shear (Undisturbed Sample)
Direct Shear (Remolded Sample)
Hydrometer Analysis
Sand Equivalent
~--- - -- -
~\t!(ninf'(9r~ ~
~--- - ^------- .
Trace
Few
Some
Numerous
<1%
1-5%
5 -12 %
12-20%
~ '~"1..UEH" :HliJ ~~"fJU)Jl ~J'\.~~/111 tWJ:,," - .
__~_ _ __ ________li_ ~_____ ____ ____
~
Approximate Depth of Seepage
~
Approximate Depth of Standing Groundwater
I
I
Modified California Split Spoon Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Bulk Sample
~
No Recovery in Sampler
~ --- ..
I ~ , ,
i6).....u"'I1.:: :~;.v,f.?ltn_~I,,'J;."___ ~
Can be crushed and granulated by
Soft hand; "soil like" and structureless
Can be grooved with fingernails;
Moderately gouged easily with butter knife;
Hard crumbles under light hammer blows
Cannot break by hand; can be
Hard grooved with a sharp knife; breaks
with a moderate hammer blow
Very Hard Sharp knife leaves scratch; chips
with repeated hammer blows
Notes:
Blows Per Foot: Number of blows required to advance sampler 1 foot (unless a lesser distance is specified). Samplers in general were driven into the soil or
bedrock at the bottom of the hole with a standard (140 lb.) hammer dropping a standard 30 inches.. Drive samples collected in bucket auger borings may be
obtained by dropping non-standard weight from variable heights. When a SPT sampler is used the blow count conforms to ASTM D~1586
A\
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Condominium Complex
Location: Via La Vida, Temecula
J6bNo.: 423-01
Client: J Hamry & T Taylor
Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auge Hanuner / Drop:140 Ibs / 30 in
Depth Lith-
(Feel) ology
. ','
. ','
.... .
. ','
..'
" .'
..'
. 5
. ','
Material Description
..' AR IFICIAL FILL (Afu)
Silty SAND (SM): light yellow brown, dry to damp,
loose; fine- to coarse-gramed, predominately
fine-grained.
..'
.. @ 5.D feet: Silty SAND (SM): light yellow brown,
..' moist, medium dense; fine- to coarse-grained, mottled
. :.. texture, few roots.
.' .
. ','
. .'
.... .
10
.. .
. .
..... .
" .'
.' .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .'
;;
;,
N 15
0-
0
<!J
<i
'"
0-
W
Q.
~
Q.
<!J
;;
'"
N
v
~
>
<!J
0
~
z
0
~
'"
0
~
Q.
X
W
.,- .
. ','
.' .
'. .
@ 10.0 feet: Silty SAND (SM): light yellow brown,
moist, medium dense; fine- to coarse-grained,
micaceous.
'. .
.'
'. .
.' .
. '.' @ 15.0 feet: Silty SAND/SILT (SMIML): light yellow
brown, moist, medium dense/stiff; micaceous,
. . horizontally layered.
. .
. .'
'.', .
.,' .
. ','
.' .
. .
. .
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
Boring No.: B-1
Elevation: 1107:1:
Date:
11/28/01
Logged By: LA Battiato
Samples
W
a Blows R B
t Per i u
e n I
r Foot g k
18
21
15
Laboratory Tests
Moisture Dry Other
Content Density Lab
(%) (pet) Tests
shear
5.8
118.7
9.4
118.3
12.2
112.6 chern,
EI
PLATE A-I
A,'b
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Condominium Complex
Location: Via La Vida, Temecula
Job No.: 423-01 Client: J Hamry & T Taylor
Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auge Hammer / Drop:140 Ibs /30 in
Depth Lith-
(Feet) ology
25
..'
. .'
30
..'
Material Description
20.0 feet: Sandy SILT (ML): light yellow brown,
moist, very stiff; fine- and coarse-grained, micaceous,
horizontally laminated.
@ 25.0 feet: Silty Well-graded SAND (SW): light
yellow brown, moist, medium dense; fine- and
coarse-grained, micaceous, horizontally laminated.
.' OUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Oco!).
@ 30.0 feet: Silty SAND (SM): medium brown, moist,
medium dense; locally massive, moderate porosity.
.' .
. .
. .
,:=: OUATERNARY PAUBA FORt'\1ATION (Ops).
'.-w:'
:'H-.
...........;.:-
:'N-.o.
...........;.:.
:.~.
.--;.:-
:.~.
..........;.;.
:.;.;...........
...........;.;.
:::.:.....:: @ 35.0 feet: Clayey SANDSTONE: light orange
:::.:.....:: brown, moist, dense; very fine-grained, with clay
:::.:.....:: development around grams, primary porosity.
:.~.
"
" 35
N
I-
0
'"
<i
0:
I-
W
<C
~
<C
'"
"
'"
N
v
W
>
'"
0
~
z
0
>=
<{
0:
0
~
<C
X
W
TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING = 36.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
BORING BACKFILLED.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
Boring No.: B-1
Elevation: 1107*
Date: 11/28/01
Logged By: LA Battiato
Samples
W
a Blows R B
t Per i u
e n I
r Foot g k
19
21
25
37
Laboratory Tests
Moisture Dry Other
Content Density Lab
(%) (pef) Tests
19.6 104.5
15.2
114.7
10.0
126.2 cnsol
6.6
109.0
PLATE A-2
A.,?/
I
I
,I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Condominium Complex
Location: Via La Vida, Temecula
Boring No.: B-2
Elevation: 1105*
Job No.: 423-01
Client: J Hamry & T Taylor
Date:
11/28/01
Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auge Hammer / Drop:140 Ibs /30 in
Logged By: LA Battiato
Depth Lith-
(Feel) ology
Material Description
Samples
W
a Blows R B
t PeT i u
e n I
r Foot g k
Laboratory Tests
Moisture Dry Other
Content Density Lab
(%) (pef) Tests
.' .
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afu)
Silty SAND (SM): light yellow brown, dry to moist,
loose.
. .
. .
..'
',', .
.' .
. ','
.' .
.' .
. .
.... .
'. .
5 @ 5.0 feet: Sandy SILT/Silty SAND (ML/SM): light 17 9.8 110.2
yellow brown, damp, medium dense/very stiff; fine- and
medium-grained, locally massive, few roots.
. .
..'
. .
. .
.' .
'. ..
. .
10 . .
.' . @ 10.0 feet: Silty SAND/San~ SILT (SMlML): light 14 11.5 114.8
. . yellow brown, moist, medium ense/stiff; fine- and
coarse-grained, micaceous, slight horizontal layering.
.' .
. .
..'
. .
'. .,' .
. .
..
. .
0;
"' 15
fi @ 15.0 feet: Well-graded SAND/SILT (SWIML): light 20 10.7 116.3
~ orange brown with dark grey layering, moist, medium
0
c:' dense; mottled texture and color, organically stained
oi
oc soil.
~
w
a.
~
a.
C:.
"
~
~
.
~
>
c:
0
~
z
0
>= PLATE A-3
'"
"
0 If'.
~ Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
a.
x
w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I c
:;;
N
I e-
o
C;
'"
'"
e-
w
I a.
,
a.
'"
:;
M
N
I ~
ro
>
'"
0
~
I z
0
f'
'"
'"
0
~
a.
x
I w
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Condominium Complex
Location: Via La Vida, Temecula
J6bNo.: 423-01
Client: J Hamry & T Taylor
Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auge Hanuner / Drop:I40 Ibs /30 in
Material Description
Depth Lith-
(Feet) ology
::: @ 20.0 feet: SIlty SAND (SM):
_ _.' ::: medium dense; organic stamed.
- -: .'
- -' ..:'
I-
:.~:
~
I- 25 - ~
r.'_.
~
~.
I-- - :~
~::
dark grey, mOIst,
.' .
.' .
OUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Ops)
strong decaying organic odor.
(aJ 25.0 feet: Silty SANDSTONE: orange brown, moist,
Oense; fine- to coarse-grained, locally massive, slight
dark grey discoloration, very slight pinhole porosity.
TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING = 26.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
BORING BACKFILLED.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
Boring No.: B-2
Elevation: I105~
Date:
11128/01
Logged By: LA Battiato
Samples
W
a Blows R B
t Per i u
e n I
r Foottg k
29
43 J
Laboratory Tests
Moisture Dry Other
Content Density Lab
('Yo) (pef) Tests
8.7 120.6
I-
I-
I-
10.1
123.4
PLATE A-4
A.-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Condominium Complex
Location: Via La Vida, Temecula
Boring No.: B-3
Elevation: 1098olo
Client: J Hamry & T Taylor
Job No.: 423-01
Date:
11/28/01
Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auge Hammer / Drop:140 Ibs /30 in
Logged By: LA Battiato
Samples
W
a Blows R B
t Per i u
e n I
r Foot g k
Laboratory Tests
Moisture Dry Other
Content Density Lab
(%) (pet) Tests
Material Description
Depth Lith-
(Fect) ology
5
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afu)
Silty SAND (SM): light yellow brown, dry to damp,
loose to medium dense.
@ 5.0 feet: Clayey to Sandy SILT (MH-ML): light
yellow brown, damp to moist, hard; mottled texture.
45
15.9
112.9
.' .
..'
. '.'
10
@ 10.0 feet: Silty SAND (SM): liiiht yellow brown,
moist, medium dense; fine- to medIUm-grained, locally
massive, slightly micaceous.
28
115.4
..'
13.7
..
..'
..'
. ','
. .
. .
.... .
. ','
"
v 15
"
f-
a
'"
'"
"
f-
ill
,.
,
"-
"
0
.:,
N
v
~
>
'"
0
~
z
0
"
'"
"
0
~
"-
>0
ill
116.5
@ 15.0 feet: Slightly Silty Well-graded SAND
(SW/SM): lightorown, damp, medium dense; fine- to
medium-grained, slight horizontal layering.
26
5.5
::;:::;:::::: QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qps).
,--..;,:-
:-~.
PLATE A-5
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
~
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Q
:!
N
I t-
"
"
<i
a:
t-
W
I <L
,
<L
"
;;
M
N
I ~
w
>
"
0
~
z
I "
i'
"
a:
0
~
"-
x
I w
EXPLORATION LOG
Project: Proposed Condominium Complex
Location: Via La Vida, Temecula
Job No.: 423-01
Drill Method: Hollow-Stem Auge Hammer / Drop: 140 Ibs /30 in
Client: J Hamry & T Taylor
D,eplh Lith-
(Feet) ology
25
.....-......
:-;..............
.-....;.;.
:.;.;-.
...........;.:.
:-;..,.....,.....
............;.;.
:.;.;.......,...
'-w;'
:.;.....-.
..........:.:-
;.;.............
...........;.:.
:.;......-.
...........;.:.
:.~.
...........;.:.
:.~.
.-..;.:.
;.:.:-.....
...........;.:.
:.;.;............
.--..;.: .
:ON.-.
,--...;.:.
:-N.-.
,--..;.:-
:.;.....-.
.-..;.:.
Material Description
20.0 feet: C ayey SANDSTONE: medIUm brown,
moist, dense; fine- and coarse-grained, u1?per few feet
are finer-grained and porous, deeper portIon is very
coarse-grained and nonporous.
@ 25.0 feet: SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE: light yellow
brown, damp, dense; fine-grained, locally massive.
TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING = 26.5'
NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
BORING BACKFILLED.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
Boring No.: B-3
Elevation: 109801:
Date:
11/28/01
Logged By: LA Battiato
Samples
W
a Blows R B
t Per i u
e n I
r Foot g k
50
49
Laboratory Tests
Moisture Dry Other
Content Density Lab
(%) (pel) Tests
11.4 125.8
13.2 109.2
PLATE A-6
1>...1.,
, '.
I:cl
Ie =--
lit
I-
I ~-
rl~
el-~.
~L
II;
~1
~I-
~ .-
~~I~'
~ _u
~I-'
~SJ :
~I
fl.
~I'-
r~~ -
"I
il-
"---
~:J-'I-:-
s'-
E~L c
~:jl'
~-
~J.-'
s--:L -
l~I'
~~I
'-I
:c. I
'-"'I
. 1 -
"-I
~: !
11&
:
'..-..:......c-. _
iL0GS'ClFPRi&,VIOUSLY EXCAVATED TEST PITS
e PETRA
.~;~
-.. -'-- ""
4.~
--,,-
- -.- --. --- -- ~ .
- u__ __ __ ___
I
I
I
I
I Test Pit Depth
I Number 1ft. )
TP-1
0..0 - 1. 5
I
I 1.5 - 2. 0
I
2.0 - 4.5
I
I 4.'5 - 14.0 +
I
I
I TP-2
0.0 - 4.5
I
I 4.5 - 8.5
I
I
I
J.N. 303-89
TABLE I
LOG OF TEST PITS
Description
UNCOMPACTED FILL
SILTY SAND WITH SOME CLAY: Light
brown; very fine to fine
grained; dry to slightly moist;
loose to medium dense. (SM-SC)
SAND: Light gray; fine to coarse
"grained; slightly moist; medium
dense. (SW)
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: Gray-brown; fine
grained; lenses of sandy to
clayey silt; micaceous; very
moist; medium dense. (SM-ML)
SAND: Light brown-gray; fine to
coarse grained; occasional thin
lenses of brown fine Silty Sand;
very moist to wet; medium dense
to dense. (SW)
Moderate Caving at 4.5 to 10.0 ft.
No Free Groundwater
UNCOMPACTED FILL
SILTY SAND WITH SOME CLAY:
Light brown; very fine to fine
grained; dry; medium dense.
(SM-SC)
ALLUVIUM
SANDY CLAY: Dark brown to brown
at depth; sand fine to medium
grained; moist; stiff. (CL)
c...a..
-------
I
I
I
.
I Test Pit Depth
Number ( ft. \
I
Tp.c.2 (cont'd)
I 8.5 - 11.0 +
I
I
1 TP-3
0.0 - 3.5.
I
1 3.5 - 7.0
I
7.0 - 8.5 +
I
.
. TP-4
0.0 - 4.0
I
I
-I
J.N. 303-89
Page 2
TABLE I
LOG OF TEST PITS
Description
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: Light brown7 fine
grained 7 trace of claY7 moist7
dense 7 transitional contact with
above; becomes sandier with
increasing depth. (SM)
No Caving
No Free Groundwater
UNCOMPACTED FILL
SILTY SAND WITH SOME CLAY:
Light brown; very fine to fine
grained 7 dry to slightly moist7
medium dense. (SM-SC)
ALLUVIUM
SAND: Dark brown to brownish-
gray below 5.0 feet; fine to
coarse grained7 some clay fines
below 6.0 feet7 very moist;
mediUm dense to dense. (SW)
CLAYEY SAND: Dark brown; fine
to coarse grained7 very moist;
dense. (SC)
No Caving
No Free Groundwater
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: Brown 7 fine to
medium grained7 wet; loose. (SM)
so
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test Pit
Number
Depth
. (ft.)
TP-4 (cont'd)
4.0 - 8.0 +
TP-5
TP-6
J.N. 303-89
Page 3
TABLE I
LOG OF TEST PITS
Description
ALLUVIUM
SAND: Dark brown to medium brown
below 6.5 feet; fine to coarse
grained; some clay fines; wet;
medium dense to approximately
6.0 feet; dense below. (SW-SC)
Caving in upper 4.0 feet
Trapped water at 4.0 feet
(Base of thick fill @ southeast corner)
0.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 6.0 +
0.0 - 2.0
,-
UNCOMPACTED FILL
SILTY SAND: Light brown; fine
grained; thick inter layers of
light brown, very fine to fine
Silty Sand; dry to moist at
contact with alluvium; medium
dense. (SM)
ALLUVIUM
SAND: Dark brown; fine to coarse
grained; moist; dense. (SW)
No Caving
No Free Groundwater
UNCOMPACTED FILL
SILTY SAND: Light brown; fine
grained; slightly moist; medium
dense. (SM)
?\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test Pit
Number
Depth
1ft. \
TP-6 (cont'd)
2.0 - 8.0 +
TP-7
0.0 - 15.0 +
TP.:.8
0.0 - 10.0 +
J.N. 303-89
Page 4
TABLE I
LOG OF TEST PITS
Description
ALLUVIUM
SANDI Dark gray with organic
odor in upper 12~ inches; brown
below; fine to coarse grained;
trace of clay fines; moist;
dense. (SW-SC)
No Caving
No Free Groundwater
UNCOMPACTED FILL
SILTY SANDI Light brown; fine
grained; thick inter layers of
light brown, fine to very fine
Silty Sand/Sandy Silt; slightly
moist to 4.0 feet; moist below;
medium dense to dense. (SM and
SM-ML)
No Caving
No Fre~ Groundwater
UNCOMPACTED FILL
SILTY SANDI Light brown; fine
grained; thick interlayers of
light brown, fine to very fine
Silty Sand/Sandy Silt; slightly
moist to 4.0 feet; moist below;
medium dense to dense. (SM) and
(SM-ML)
No Caving
No Free Groundwater
0$2--
.~I
~I-~
i~ ~
IE'; -
':::c'-'
jjl~
:pl"
II~
'jlf
I~~...
~I;
~I-: -
k:
al~
Ilf
~
rl~
II~
~il
'.._n____
~11
'"~I
~I
.-
.,
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
LABORATORY'TEST DATA
e PETRA
5'?
-===..
'-';:.._.L
."~..-._-_........~-,..,.._-_.-._--_..__. .-.---
__.,.,.."",,=_ .__-=_-:;,.=_","'.,,::,,-=~~-c-=-;,__-.:o_-cc- _"'0-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
,I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
.Soil Classification
Soils encountered within the exploration borings andtest pits were initially classified in the field in general accordance
with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method 02488). The
.samples were re-examined in the laboratory and the classifications reviewed and then revised where appropriae. The
assigned group symbols are presented in the boring and test pit logs. Appendix A.
In-Situ Moisture and Densitv
.Moisture content and unit dry density of in-place soil and bedrock materials were (j,termined in representative strala.
'Test data are summarized in the boring and test pit logs. Appendix A.
Laboratorv Maximum Drv Densitv
oM aximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil and bedrock
materials in accordance with ASTM Test Method 01557. Pertinent test values are given on Plate B-1.
:EXDansion Potential
Expansion index tests were performed on selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM
Test Method 04829. Expansion potential classifications wer determined from 1997 UBC Table 18-I-B on the basis
ofthe expansion index values. Test results and expansion potentials are presented on Plate B-1.
Soil Chemistrv
Chemical analyses were performed on selected samples of onsite soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate
and chloride, as well as pH and resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method
Nos. 417 (sulfate), 422 (chloride) and 643 (pH and resistivity). Test results are included on Plate B-l.
Direct Shear
The Coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal frictim and cohesion, were determined for an undisturbed
sample and for samples remolded to 90 percent of maximum dry density. These tests were performed in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method 03080. TIrree specimens were prepared for each test. The test specimens wer
artificially saturated. and then sheared under varied normal loads at a maximum coniant rate of strain of 0.05 inches
per minute. Results are summarized on Plate B-2.
Consolidation
A consolidation test was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method 02435. Axial loads were applild
in several increments to a laterally restrained I-inch-high sample. Loals were applied in a geometric progression by
doubling the previous load, and the resulting deformations were recorded at selected time illervals. The test samples
were inundated at a surcharge loaling approximately equal to the existing or proposed total overburden pressures in
order to evaluate the effects of a sudden increase in moisture content (hydra:ollapse potential). Results of these tests
are graphically presented on Plate B-3.
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J.N..423-01
DECEMBER 2001
5~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY'
.. .; w .. ,v. ^ w'~ ;:>~" .... .. f[ ".;.' ,."..'" " '-::""
.. ,.~, /" ":,;,,..,.:;... '-::<.....;:;-,.;.;..:-' ::;:;'}-?~~.-::.;:.'::::.,f't>>"',-:..."", .....''^'',.~,.,.. -:x.*<*' ,::::::":;.;:.:-<=::,':=.",,,,*.;.~..., "",..x.;........;, " v. ri~' :i; "..'..}'-"::.... ....._.. ;:,'.,....:.::>
" :-: . *.~..r.,.....:::::~;~:::::::{.(;..;H..$.....0.,' ?'<<"X" ..;:::>};.:;,,:,:;:..<m>'.;'x-"'.:::"::B .... R ....:. "-::--
>>...... .."~ ,,0- -xt)t~~'~tw::i:.~,~;....~..~~~.:;.~.:;~~>>thll$ $. ,%~t*.w.B/t.rY;~~~i~l~~.f:t':/~~.. ~.:: '...' .;.;.. .~~:.. ;h~, i:~",s""'":;:,,,
->;s~t .. 't,,~:{t %%.e.%e:::(':.,~<~<, .."tm'~ :.: :::. ;:......~;...::;..:.-:::~<>>~...\:~<+.::f>.~.::t-$i# ".;oJ S %;:;$ l~ ;\
~';:;1;:",,(:x< ..".....':... ...; ..<,'".. ~~Wf~.:t""r:;:t ~..~.. )~:-~;:t:X.:?::[@t1J$::.......~..~.x<A:::'+"i@~$.....)~r..~~;:t?,;:::"~;:)0'V %t<~)t!~J.:tV "',,1? .....
j~;<<~0~~,t~)~:::~.':,>.. <"'-,>>'." :;;S'&( ~;:::#1....&;:~("f-=:::, 'c' J~ $:'''I,W~1:.t;:~...)i~nifM'~.:r}{}>>-=:''{.<-P'', ~~~l'4iV:;.~; ~+::.;:<-.;:;~::ttm.-:tt-::~.~:~,,<~ :;{':::::2:1
_ , , ,~., :.~: ~ " "", ~ ,,,. ,>>.~, ~ " ~ ~:(W , w;.: ,.
~@3.0
7.0
131.0
Brown Silty SAND
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA
111111I11~H'b ,.~",,~lllllllllllill'11i111111.lfI11IillllIIIIIJlllrlll1111I11Irtl!.t':'~'i""".'.
i I B-1 @ 15.0 I Grey Sandy CLAY 52 Medium
SOIL CHEMISTRY
liljlllllllllllil, llllllllllii 1'1'."1 Urtf.~llftl~lH: ~l_ltl 111111111I
ww<-...... ~...~:::...'.d...
df1ff.@@WU@
B- I @ 15.0 0.0030 10.3 7.67 I ,600 concrete: negligible
steel: corrosive
(1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD 01557
(2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD 04829
(3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE 18-I-B
(4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417
(5) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 422
(6) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
(7) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
IPETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC
J:N.423-01
DECEMBER 2001
PLATE B-1
'55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
o
<8
~
:a
~
cr
~
~
~
Co
.~
'0
~
~
e
Co
en
en
~
f.
en
,.;
<(
UJ
:r:
en
c . c . . c c . c C c . . c c c . c . . c c . c . c . . c . c . c . c . . c c . c . c . . c . c . c . c . c . c . c c .
. c . c . c . c . . c . c . c . c c c . c . c c . c c . c . c . c . c c . c c . c . c . c c . c . c . . c . c c . c
c c . c . c . c . c . c . c . . c . c . c . c c . c c . c . . c . c . c c . c . c . c . c . c c c . c . . c . c . , . , .
. c . . , c , . , c c . . , . , c . c . , c . c . c . c . c . c , . . , . c . c . , . c . c c . c . , . , . c - , .
. c . c . , . c . . , . , . , , . . c , , c . . , . c . c . c . c - c . c c . . , c . c . , . c c . , . c . , . , . , . c .
,
. c . c . c . , c . c - c , . c - , . c , - c . , , . , . c . c . , c - . , . , . , . c - , . , . , . , . c - , . , . , .
, , , c . , , . , . c . - c . c . , . , - c . , . , . , . . c . , , . c . . , . , . , . , - . , . , . , . , . - c - c . , - , -
c . c . c c . c . c . c . , . . , . c c . , . . , . , . , . , . . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . . , c , . , . - , . , - , . , .
, . , . ,. c , . , . c - c . . , . , , . c - . c , , . , - - c . c . , . , . . , c . c . , . . , . , . , - , . . , . , . , . c -
,
. , . , c , . , . , . , . , . c . , , , . . c . c , . , . , - c - c c . . , . , . c , . . , , . , - c . . , , . , . , -
c c - , c - c . c - c . , . . , . c , . c , , , - c . . , , , , . . , . , . , . , . . c c - , . , . , . , - , . , .
c , , . c . , c , . . , , . , . c - c . , , . c - - c . , . , . , . . , - c . c . , . . , , c - c . . , . , . c . , -
,
. , - , . c , - . , c . c . c . , , , . c . . c . , , . , . c . c . c , , , c - c . . , . , . , - , , . , . , . ,
,
. c . c . , , . c . , . , . , . , c c . c . , . , , . , . . , . , . , . , - , - c , . , . , . , c . , . . , . , . , . , .
. , , . c , . . , , . , - c . . , , , . , . . , - , . , , . , . , . , . , . . , , . , . , . - c . , . , . , . . , . , . , . , -
, , . , ~
, . c . c . , . , . , . , , . , . , - c , . . , . , , . , - . c . , . , . , . . , . , c . c . . ~ _ L _ .. _ L _ _ L _ L ~ _
, , , , . , . ,
. , . , . , , . ,. , . , . , C , . C . , . , . , , . C , . , . , , . , . C . , . , . . ~~ L_I._I._
, , I ,
, . , . , , . . , , . , . , - - C , C . , . , . , . , - C . . , . , , . , . , . C , . C . . '-_I._I. _ _ L ~ I..- _ L _ L _
, ., I , , I
, . , . , , . , C C C . . C C . c , . , . C C . C . . , . , . , . , . ~ V:". , . , . , C C . C ,
. . ,
C , . C . , , . , , . , . - C . , - C . C . - . , , . , . c :~ _ _ L _ L ~ .,. , . , . , . , - , . , . C .
. .,
C . C . . C . C C C . , . . , C , . C . C . , , . , . c _'-_I._L_ .,. c . , , . , . , - , - , -
, , , ,
jidJ ~
. C C . c . c c . c c , - , , , - , - _1..1._,- _ - , - C - , - , - , - - , - , - C - C . - , , , - ,
% . . .
- , - C . C C C - C C C - - C , , - , - _L_'-_'- - , . , - C - C . C . , , - , - , - C . C . C - ,
/ ' , , , . ,
- , , - - , - - - - , , - , - - C _L_ _'-_L_ . - , . C , . . , , . , . , . . , . , . , . C . , . , , . ,
. . . . .
. , . 0< ~ ,
, _I._I._I.. _ , . C . C . C . , . , . , , . . , . , . , - C . C . , . , . , . . , . , . , . , .
.. . , ..
, . L_L.L_ _L _1._1._ _1._1._1._ , . , . C . , . , . , . , , . . C C . , . , . , . , . , . , . C . , C . c
~/ / I , , ,
_L_L_L _ . , . C C . C . . , . , . , . , . , . C , C , , , . , . , . , . C . C . C . C . , , .
.. ,
10:- v-: , , . , . - C . C C , . . , . , . C , . C . , , . , . , . , , . , . , . , . C . C . , . , . , . , .
.
_L_ L_L_ c . C C , . , , . , C . . C . , , . , . , . , . , . , - C . , , . , . . , , . , . , . , . C . C - C .
, , , ,
_1._1._1._1._ . c . , . , . , C C . C , . , . C C - c . , . , . , . , . . , , . , . C . . C . , . C . , . , . , . , . , .
,
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
o
o
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500 4,000
NORMAL STRESS - pounds per square foot
SAMPLE
LOCATION
FRICTION
ANGLE (0)
COHESION
(pSF)
DESCRIPTION
.B.t@3.0
Silty Sand (SM) - Peak
27
414
"
~
~
IZIB-I @3.0
Silty Sand (SM) . Ultimate
30
114
l-
e
"
~
~
I-
W
~
NOTES,-
.
~
"
"
M
N
.
~
<(
'l' J.N.423-01
~
~
u
Ii' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
is
Samples Remolded to 90% of Maximum Dry Density
AII-8amples Were Inundated Prior to Shearing
'5(P
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
REMOLDED TEST SAMPLES
December, 2001
PLATE B-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I :;
:!
OJ
I f-
a
'"
<{
IX
f-
ill
I a.
{L
q
0
'"
"
I ~
z
:a:
0'
f-
ill
I z
0
i"
<
0
:J
a
ill
I z
0
u
SAMPLE
LOCATION
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
INITIAL INUNDATE
DENSITY MOISTURE SATURATION LOAD
(pel) (%j (%j (ksl)
. B-1 @ 30.0
Silty SAND (SM)
123.3
66
2.80
8.9
0.18
0.7
1.4
5.6
44.8
11.2
22.4
2.8
0.35
I I I I
---
'-..
f':::
-.....
"1 "-
i'...
---
.......
~
.
.1 1 10 1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
:z:
.0
f=
<(
'0
:i 4.0
'0
Ul
:z:
o
.U
f- 5.0
z
UJ
U
cG
UJ
0..
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
o
o
-5,
VERTICAL STRESS - kips per square foot
J.N. 423-01
HETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
December, 2001
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
PLATE B-3
I
;.:.=C__
~"l
~--I
~l
--1-
fl1
r-.I.
-~.I
.1
:;-,
APPENDIX C
SEISMI€ ANALYSIS
I~I
..-I.
--1-
-I
~-1.
pi
~I
~~. ,I
o PETRA
nl
"'.
[~ .
_I,
7f6
_ _~=-=----=:....- __=- c::-~ - ___~ -
-- - -~-- -- -~~---- ~--~- -
- - ----
--~-- - - -
-----
----~-~--
.-------~-----==~.:.'_:.::: ..,e-.:'. _~
I
I
IZ
18
f-1
I~ ~
I~ ~
~o
I~ u
~~
Iu V1
u~
I~ @
. ,-..,
I 00 0\
;>0\
0\
IQ ~
OJ
I~ <
~~
I~ ~
~N
IZ 0
I~ ~
I~
I~
I
I
-
1\ -
-
~ -
\" -
\ -
-
-
-
'" -
1\
-
\ -
I\. -
'\ -
-
-
'\ -
I\.
"\ -
~ -
-
-
. -
r-.." -
~
-
o
o
o
o
~
o 0
o 0
o ~
~
(SJA) pOP8d UJ nl8C1
o
LO
.
~
LO
N
.
~
0.-
~C>
~-
C
o
+:i
LOCO
1'-1....
.0)
0-
0)
()
()
0<(
LO
.
o
LO
N
.
o
o
o
.
o
5\
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR SR COR 1
I · I I · I
25 yrs 50 yrs
I. I I T I
75 rs 100 rs
100
90
-- 80
?J2.
"-" 70
::>-
-'
-
~ 60
:0
:0
,I- 50
(L-
0) 40
:U
:c:
:cti
:0 30
:0)
:0)
:U 20
:X
W
10
o
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)
CpC!
-+1-
~
'el~
~I-f
Ll -
:E:.:J:
11-"
~I---
~__-c
II~
~I:-'-
E3 :
[1--
f'-
S'-JI-
eej -_
~-I-C-
ilc--~
I
bl=
~- -L
~I
~I~
=---.
[:1
~I~
~~I'::'-'
II -
,
APPENDIX D
STAN;I~RD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
_ PETRA
~\
.:..:::....:: --~ _~~-_;.'"~;c~__ __~_ _. '. >.._--=
".' .... ._.~... '-~.-..'~'- "'~' '. "
I
I
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
I
These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations
performed under the control of Petra Geotechnical, Inc.
I
No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in
the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils
Engineer and Engineering Geoiogist.
I
1. GENERAL
I
A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the Owner's or Builder's
representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, supervision by
the Soils Engineer includes that inspection performed by any person or persons
employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils report.
I
B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted
by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer.
I
C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to
the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the
fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall
also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer.
I
I
D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction
equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary,
excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction.
Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor. with due
consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year.
I
E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist attesting
to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications.
I
II. SITE PREPARATION
I
A. All vegetation and deleterious material such as rubbish shall be disposed of offsite. This
removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill.
I
B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer as being
unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed and wasted from the site.
Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Soils
Engineer.
I
I
C. After the ground surface to receive fi II has been cleared, I sha II be scarified, d isced, or
bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or
other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction.
I
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as
required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greaer than 12 inches in
depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches.
I
- Page 1 -
(,'t;
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
I
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested, and
approved by the Soils Engineer.
I
D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, rnining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be rernoved or treated in a rnanner prescribed
by the Soils Engineer.
I
E. In order to provide uniforrn bearing conditions in cut/fill transition lots and where cut
lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or unweathered bedrock materials, the bedrock
portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be
overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. (Typical details
are given on Plate SG-l .)
I
I
III. COMPACTED FillS
I
A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill,
provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer.
Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from
the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer.
I
B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill provided:
I
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine grained material to surround the rocks.
I
3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer.
I
C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken offsite or placed in accordiJ1ce
with the recomrnendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for
rock disposal. (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is given in Plate SG-2.)
I
D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not
be used in the compacted fill.
I
E. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed
by the laboratory of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any
material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the
appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon
as possible.
F. Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed,
and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly
dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless
otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer.
I
I
I
G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils
Engineer, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Engineer.
I
- Page 2 -
c,?J
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance
with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In
general, ASTM 0 1557-78, the five-layer method, will be used.)
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental
agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to
received fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the
grqding plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report.
I. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep
material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving rill exceeds
a ratio of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the
Soils Engineer.
J. The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15 feet within bedrock or firm
materials, unless otherwise specified in the soils report. (See detail on Plate SG-3.)
K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the
controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer
or Engineering Geologist. (Typical Canyon Subdrain deEils are given in Plate SG-4.)
L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills.
This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the
compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment,
or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction.
M. 1\11 fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified
in the soils report.
N. Fill-Over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep
material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soils
prior to placing fill. (See detail on Plate 5G-7.)
IV.
CUT SLOPES
A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not
exceeding 10 feet.
B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water,
seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably
inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these
conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer, and
recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. (Typical details for
stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Plates 5G-5 and 5G-8.)
C Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protectEd
from slope wash by a nonerodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
- Page 3 -
(pA.
I
I
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
I
D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be
excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies.
I
E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of
controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils
Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
I
V. GRADING CONTROL
I
A. Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the
progress of grading.
I
B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feEl of fill height
or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil
conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate numberof field density
tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved.
I
I
C. Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as required
by the Soils Engineer.
I
D. All cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock
disposals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering
Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify
1he Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection.
I
VI. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
I
A. Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during
grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls.
I
B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no
further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large
tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval
of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
I
C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms,
drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or
adjacent to the property.
I
I
I
I
- Page 4 -
c$
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CUT LOT
UNSUITABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT PAD
S:I:Al
GRADE
---
---
----
---
--- .
---I (D)
I-- OR
5' MIN.
-
---
--- ---
--- lo\A1ERlAL BEDROCK
--- \JNSUl1ABLE \,/EAli-\[RED ---
COLLUVlUlo\, ___ ------
10PSOlL.. ___---
___------PROPOSED GRADE
---
---
----
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
oVEREXCA V A TE
AND RECoMPACT
DEPTH OF FIll (F)
FOOTING DEPTH TO 3 FEET
3 TO 6 FEET
GREATER THAN 6 FEET
DEPTH OF oVEREXCAV'ATloN (D)
EQUAL DEPTH
3 FEET
ONE-HALF THE THICKNESS OF FILL PLACED ON THE
TILL' PORTION (F) TO 15 FEET MAXIMUM.
CUT -FILL TRANSITION LOT
ORIGINAL
~GRoUND
------ -
---------
--- (D)
OR
5' MIN.
co'
v
------
------
------
------
COMPACTED
FILL
PROPOSED GRADE
....----. ~U~, ___---
~lL, gL~~URSJ-Cf:-./
\ I> \ t\(R;o-- ---
\'/5J--- COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
---" APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL
""-- TYPICAL BENCHING
oVEREXCAVATE
AND RECoMPACT
(F)
~
---
----
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~
PLATE SG-1
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TYPICAL ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
FINISHED GRADE
CLEAR AREA FOR FOUNDATIONS, ~
/UTILlTIES, AND S\JIMMING POOLS
4'
'- VI",""
o
15'
15'
STREET
SLOPE FACE
5' OR BELO\J DEPTH
OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH,
\JHICHEVER IS GREATER
TYPICAL \"!INDRO\"! DETAIL (END VIE\"!)
7
c
HORIZONTAL PLACED
COMPACTED FILL
6 TO 8 INCH LIFTS
GRANDULAR SOIL FLOODED
TO FILL VOIDS
PROFILE VIE\"!
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~
PLATE SG-2
(q"\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN
ON GRADING PLANS
FINISHED GRADE
COMPACTED FILL
------
~....-- "P,,\J'?-0C'i-
~ -.J"p,'I""':--""-- --
____ -.)\0""./
----- C0\..\..0 / I~' \..
<;0\\..' -~ ~
/ 'I0?./ TYPICAL BENCHING
/ ...---./
./L------
...--.,L-- L 1
/ 1.1 PROJECTION
-r I:~~" ,:~'"",", -
BASE KEY WIDTH
2' MIN. DOWNSLOPE
KEY DEPTH
NATURAL
\TOPoGRAPHY
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR APPROVED
FDUNDA TIDN MATERIAL
~~J\'f3~ I
NOTE. WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5.1 OR LESS. BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY;
HOWEVER, FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL.
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~
PLATE SG-3 r;,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
'.
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
~ '\ NATURAL GROUND
" ~
" ~
"
"
TYP ICAL
BENCHING
"
"
SEE DETAIL BELo\.J
"~=
TOPSOIL. ALLUVIUM.
"-
~
--...........
21.
NOTE' FINAL 20 FEET OF PIPE AT OUTLET
SHALL BE NON-PERFORATED
1
DEPTH AND BEDDING MAY
VARY \.JITH PIPE AND LOAD
CHARACTERISTICS
--.,--
-----,,---
/"
~
/
/
, ,
d
MATERIA~
/
/'"
" "
d
~ d
" 0
d
"
d,
/
/
/
/
COLLUVIUM
/'
/'
.-/
-
COMPETENT BEDROCK DR
APPROVED FOUNDATION
"
FIL TER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF 9
CUBIC FEET PER LNEAL FOOT.
SEE PLATE SG-6 FOR FILTER
MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS.
~,
AL TERNA TE IN LIEU OF
FIL TER MATERIAL
9 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAL FOOT OF
OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN
FILTER FABRIC. SEE PLATE SG-6 FOR
GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS.
FIL TER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI
140N DR APPROVED EQUAL.
MINIMUM 6-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR ABS
SCR-35 \.JITH A MINIMUM OF 16 PERFORATIONS PER
LINEAL FOOT IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. PIPE TO BE LAID
\.JITH PERFORATIONS DO\.JN.
FOR CONTINUOUS RUNS IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET
USE 8-INCH DIAMETER PIPE
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~
PLATE SG-4
,=-l!\
II
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINISHED
GRADE
2'MIN.
1-~
NOTES,
BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION FIll DETAIL
TO TOP OF BACK CUT
lIS' MIN. r
FINISHED GRADE
4' SUBDRAIN
MAXIMUM
SEE DET AlL
PLATE SG-6
4' SUBDRAIN
2% MIN.
TYPICAL BENCHING
...
I"IIDTH VARIES CIS' MIN.)
~I
l. MAXIMUM VERTICAL SPACING OF PERFORATED PIPE OF 30 FEET.
2. MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETI"IEEN NON-PERFORATED
PIPE OF 100 FEET.
3. MINIMUM GRADIENT OF Tl"Io PERCENT OF ALL PERFORATED PIPE AND
NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE.
t 100' MAX. ---j
2'/. MIN.
----===
2% MIN.
~
PERFORATED PIPE <TYPICAL)
OUTLET PIPE <TYPICAL)
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~
PLATE 5G-5
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BUTTRESS OR STABILZATIDN FILL SUBDRAIN
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
,
,
,
,
,
APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL.
5 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAR FOOT.
IJITHoUT FILTER FABRIC, 3 CUBIC
FEET '.lITH FABRIC
4-INCH PERFORATED PIPE '.lITH
PERFORATIONS DOIJN. MINIMUM
2% GRADE TO OUTLET PIPE.
SLOPE FACE,
-\
A
-- 2% MIN.
,
A
4-INCH NON-PERFORATED PIPE.
MINIMUM 2% GRADE TO OUTLET.
_L
---j12' MINI-
APPROVED ON SITE MATERIAL PER SOILS ENGINEER
COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90% MAXIMUM DENSITY.
12' MIN.
4-INCH NON-PERFORATED PIPE
SECTlDN A-A
PIPE SPECIFICA TlDNS
1. 4- INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PVC SCHEDULE 40, DR ABS SDR-35.
2. ~llNIMUM 16 PERFORATIONS PER FOOT ON BOTTOM ONE-THIRD OF PIPE.
FIL TER MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL PER CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATION 68-1.025
CLASS 2
SIEVE SIZE
I INCH
3/4-INCH
Jl8-INCH
NO.4
NO. B
NO. 30
NO. 50
NO. 200
PERCENT PASSING
100
90-100
40 -I 00
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
AL TERNA TE' OPEN GRADED GRAVEL ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUAl)
OPEN-GRADED
SIEVE SIZE
] 1/2-INCH
]-INCH
3/4- INCH
3/B-INCH
NO. 200
PERCENT PASSING
88-]00
5-40
0-17
0-7
0-3
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~
,\
PLATE SG-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
D-
I 0
.-J
C/l
I f--
::J
U
w
I >
0
!Xl
<[
I w
D-
O
I .-J
C/l
.-J
.-J
I ~
LL
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
\
-'
-' \
L.
<=l
W
I- u.l
u \
<I
0.
::.;
0 (>C
u
\
~
\ ~ \
?
"0
6
L>
~~
<I -
U 0.
- >-
0. I-
>-
I-
<>
-
Vl
W
-
'"
<I
>
\
\
--'
<I
'"
W
I-
<I
::.;
Z
o
-
I-
<I
Q
Z
:::>
o
"-
<=l
W
>
o
'"
0.
0.
<I
'"
o
'"
u
o
'"
<=l
W
'"
'"
w
W
2
~
::.;LJ
:::>2
",W
-Vl
2';-,
"'0
_ Vl
If)
-'"
W
0.
'"
o
I-
:::>
u
\
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~
,\1..-
PLATE SG-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-J
~
I <[
I-
W
q
I .-J
.-J
~
L...
I z
D
~
l-
I <[
N
~
.-J
~
(Xl
I <[
l-
V)
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
\
\ .J t-
\ <1: W
0< w>-
w L...",
D3 t- o'"
<1: C"lw
\ ::;: z2'O
<1: -
U 0. Z <1:::;:
- >- 0 Io<
\ 0. t- - t-w
>- t- t-
t- o <1: VlW
- '" Vl",
Z W
Vl ::J .JW
W 0 '"
.J L... Vl
0<
\ <1: .J '" t-.J
W > W I.J
'" L... > 0<1:
<1: -I
'" '" 0 WVl
W '" I
0 t- o. W~
I U 0.
<r <1: 0.,
Vl 0. 0
Z ::;: '" .J -
. Vl t-
O 0 '" W
L... U W",W
'" L:Ola...
U
0 -L...
U 0
'" W~C"l
'" a...U,Z
\Il w
\Il '" V')~<I
t\ V'>:r:2=
Vlt-
1..1\ Wt:::I{l::::~
....J........WW
-8> Z:3t-W
4 ::J <r2'O
0\ QI--WL:J
z wz",z
7- ~WLJW
?\ - -::;:
:E: :::JQ...(/)(/)
0........1----1
\1\5 ::- W:::JI........
fr::OLJD
W_Vl
t- W
OWII-
Z'" U
WW
(/)....Jo...J
z...JDD
.........<I-..JO:::
>- <I: I (/)0...
.JI \ "'Vl
'" "'W
<I 0. CQ" DI
",<r \ ::J:3L...t-
::J'" Vl '
t-O
<rO \ "";C\j
zo.
0
t-
\ w
t-
\ \ 0
z
\
\
\ \
\
~
~
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
"\?
PLATE 58-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
SHEAR KEY ON DAYLIGHT CUT LOTS
PROPOSED CUT lOT ~
COMPACTED
FIll
.c;?
-6>"9
('1-
('v
/'
/ EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
r PROPOSED DAYLIGHT
RECONSTRUCT AT
1.5<1 DR FlA HER
CUT
w
W-4
NOTE, ''''' SHAll BE 10 FEET DR AS DETERMINED
BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER
~ PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~ 1~
PLATE SG-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mUSH
GRADE
I,
I
I
I
'I
LI).l!TS OF ROCK DIS?OSAL
/
Qa.C;;",cQQ.OaQ OC.O..cOc..O..o Oc..CocDo.::::;ac OCO<:>c.OCOoc
OCCJooQc.C:;;ocGC.OoQ OC.Coc.Ce::.Ooc::. Oc.C:;aoOC:.CJoO
Oc.=ocDc.=.o Oc.=.oOc.=ooOc=:;.cOc.=.o
OC=ocDco.o Oc.=ocDc=oo Oc::::::.cDc=oo
;. ROCK BLA.'iKET (TYP)
COMPETENT lvLATER1AL
PER SOU.S ENGINEER
SECTION A-A'
I,
i
!
FDUSrr SLOPE FACE
LLVlITS Of ROCK DIS?OS..;l
3' ROCK BLA."<'K=.IITiP.)
!
I
~ ~ ~... OGC::oc.Ce.Cac::. Qa.~<>cCa.Ooc
... ~ -... Oc..c",oUc.c::",c Oc.c:::",c:::..Ge:.Coc OC:.Cc:..:~
IS' )'lD.
C:o.c..c.Oc"C:::oc. Gc.":::::::..QQC.CaC Q~':=;ocQC::..c::oc.
//
Oa.CooQo.:::=;",c Go..::::::;oc.CQ.":::::::oc. C~':::;ocQa.c::::..c Oe:.c:::..,cOQ"c;""c
~
\~
--...-
I
/10' ),8'..
T
....2' }...f!)i.
,
"
10' ),lD.
T
1-"l':\.~1
~...
~ 2' ),C)i
\
~ CO?\.CP!:7::)ll ~L-\E~.u.
PER SOrr.S ~CIN""?
SICTIO); B-B'
o
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
\~
PLATE SG-10