The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParcel 1-2 Geotechnical Investigation "( . ,~AC4:DI::~), cotLTING COPORATION L'o7~ o/L/d,l PRIU~IINA1!l' GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROJECT NO.: 99247-01 WORK ORDER NO.: 9906-1306-F DATE: July 15, 1999 PROdrcr sin: Lot 805 Parcel 2 of PM 24633, Lot 901 Parcell of TIM 28000 and Lot 902 Parcel 2 of TIM 28000 on Estero Street Temecula, California LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Assessor's Parcel Number 945-070-011,018 and 019 Riverside County PREPARED FOR: China Sea Development Corporation Carlos llizaliturri 6563 East Via Arboles Anaheim, California 92807 PMB C-233, 16776 Lakeshore Dr, Lake Elsinore Ca 92530, Tel (909) 245-2200 Fax (909) 245-4211 \ ., < ;ACADI5~ CttULTING COPORATION . Project # 99247-01 Work Order # 9906-1306-F July 15, 1999 China Sea Development Corporation Carlos Ilizaliturri 6563 East Via Arboles Anaheim, California 92807 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR TIlE SITE LOCATED ON LOT 805 - PARCEL 2 OF PM 24633, LOT 901 - PARCEL 1 OF TPM 28000 & LOT 902 - PARCEL 2 OF TPM 28000, ON ESTERO STREET, TEMECULA, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 945-070-011, 018 AND 019, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Dear Mr. Ilizaliturri: In accordance with your request and authorization, we have prepared this report of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation conducted for the above subject site. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the limited scope of field evaluation at the time and location of our site reView and may not represent conditions at other times or locations. By incorporating the "limitations" herein, there are no presentations and/or warranties, expressed, or implied to uniformity, chemical characteristics or merchantability of the property. Additional costs must be anticipated depending on future findings, regulatory requirements, or any other conditions. No specific design plans were available at the time of our soil evaluation. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance, please contact our office at your convenience. We appreciate this opportunity to be service to you. Respectfully submitted, . Enclosures PMB C-233, 16776 Lakeshore Dr, Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530, Tel (909) 245-2200 Fax (909) 245-4211 -z,.. ;~ , , \ . . July 16, 1999 Project No. 99247-01 INTRODUCTION At your request, we have performed a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the above referenced site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions with respect to the proposed development and to assess the soils and engineering constraints that might exist considering this development. The lOa-scale Assessor's Parcel Map was used to direct our field investigation. Plate 1 presents the Geotechnical data obtained during our field investigation. ACCOMPANYING MAPS, ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2 Geotechnical Map - (40-scale) - Plate 1 Fault Index Map - Plate 2 Appendix A - Geotechnical Boring Logs Appendix B - Summary of Laboratory Test Results Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix D - References 2 , , !I:~"'D:E"';M.A' 'p , "I~~l , A ~ '. . . .,. 2000 . 4000. . feel N SCALE INDEX MAP OF PARCEL 4, P.M. 16705 805, 901 & 902 ESTERO STREET TEMECUl.A, CALIFORNIA SOURCE:-U.S.G.S. 7~MIN. QUAD. TEMECULA 1968 CPR 1975} A. . . <)9247-Ul Page 3 SITE I .OCA TION/CONmTlONS The 107+/- acre rectangular-shaped Parcel 4, P.M. 16705 was graded into three lots at the southeast corner ofEstero Street and Ormsby Road, both improved paved roads, in the city of Temecula. Estero Street forms the northern property boundary for both lots, <)U 1 and ':102, and southern boundary for lot 805. The lots were previously mass graded in late 1989, utilizing cut and fill grading. The maximum cut and fill slopes are 9 and 14 feet respectfully at finished grades of2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The pad area of the lots are currently free of vegetation, but the existing slopes are covered with weeds and grasses. A large wash-out exists on the south-facing fill slope on the 902 Estero Street lot. Both lots 901 and 902 have a concrete drainage swale at the perimeter of the pad, which drains to Ormsby Road. The swale is cracked and broken in many places. The geographic relationship of the property to the surrounding areas is shown on the Index Map (Page 2). PR(Jp()S~:n D!!;V!!;l.OPM~;NT According to the information provided, the lots are to be utilized for a single-family residence and short paved driveways with associated appurtenances. On-site sewage disposal utilizing the septic tanklleach line method of disposal is planned in the pad area, based on previous percolation testing report by RGS, San Bernardino, dated September 13, 1994. seo..!!; OF Sl!;RVJCJ<;S The scope of our investigation included the following: 1. A review of available data pertinent to the site. 2. Subsurface exploration of the site utilizing 4 exploratory borings to depths as great as 15 feet. the borings were logged, and these logs appear in Appendix A of the report. The borings were tested for in-place density utilizing drive-ring sampling. Representative bulk samples were obtained for testing. 3. Laboratory testing of representative earth materials to develop soil engineering parameters for the proposed development. \ -5 " . . 99247-01 Page 4 4. PreparatIOn otthlS report presenting our tindmgs, conclusions and recommendations concerning site development based upon an engineering analysis of geotechnical properties of the subsoils as determined by field and laboratory evaluation. LABORATORy. TESTING The following tests were pertormed tor this project in our laboratory in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials, the State ofCalifomia Standard Specifications or contemporary practices of the soil engineering profession. Maximum Density - O.ptimum Moisture Determinations This test determines the density that a soil can be compacted to at various contents. For each soil moisture, there is a maximum dry density obtained and the associated optimum moisture content. The results are used to evaluate the natural compaction, control of the grading process and as an aId m developing the soil bearing capacity. This is based on ASTM Standard Dl557-78 (five layer method). In-Situ Moisture and Density These tests consisted of measuring and weighing drive ring samples to determiiIe iiI-place moisture and density. . The results are used to analyze the consistency of the subsoils and aid in determining the necessary grading to prepare the pad area. Sieve Analysis This test determines the material grading of the individiIal particle sizes and is used in generating an engineering classification. Sand Equivalent Testing This is a test for the rapid determination of the relative portions offme silt and clay materials within the soil samples, and is used for a relative comparison of soils in the determination of the adequate paving sections for parking, etc. ~ . . 99247-01 Page 5 ExpansIon Testing The expansion index of the soils are determined by the U.B.C. Method 29-2 and is used to design foundations for anticipated expansion forces. The expansion test results are presented in Appendix B. Direct Shear A direct shear strength test was pertormed on a representative sample of the on-site soils remolded to 90% relative compaction. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to absorb moisture while preventing volume change. This test is used to determine soil strengths for slope stability evaluations and for foundation bearing capacity. Sulfate Testing Water soluble suit ate was determined for the soils at anticipated finished grades. This test is used to determine concrete type in accordance with UBC Talbe I9-A-3. SUBSURFACE CONDmONS The area of the existing building pads is underlain by a 2.5-8 foot thick artificial fill The fill thickens to the south on both lots 90 I and 902, a maximum of 8 feet. The fill is in a dense compacted condition at 117.0 pcf (90% relative compaction) in B-2 at 1.0-2.0 feet, increasing to 120.3 pcf(93.3% relative compaction) in B-3 at 4.0-5.0 feet. Moistures were between 4 and 6 percent. Beneath the soiUcolluvium is the sedimentary bedrock of the Pauba Formation. The bedrock is very dense with in-place density of 123.6 (95.9% relative compaction) in B-4 at 4.0-5.0 feet and 6-7% moisture, increasing to over 128.0 pcf. The subsurface information indicates that the original transition from cut to fill has been mitigated by overexcavation to 30 inches. GROUND W An;R No ground water was encountered within the site to a depth of 15 feet on the lot. A concurrent sewage disposal test on the lot north of Estero Street (See Plate 1) did not encounter water to 50 feet. Several large ground water wells are operated within 0.5 miles of the site. The nearest well had an historic high ground water elevation of 1U27teet in March 1976 (DWR, 1978). The current water level is 993 feet, which places the minimum depth to ground water at over 160 feet at the site. 1 " . . 99247-01 Page 6 FLOODING Accordmg to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the County of RIverside, the site IS not located within the boundaries of a IOO-year flood plain. GEOI ,OGY Regional The site represents a portion of the Perris Block (English, 1926), an uplifted, but not tilted, block of granitic and metamorphic basement rocks with three distinct geomorphic and stratigraphic erosion surfaces (Dudley, 1936). Local The entire proposed building addition area is underlain at depths ofless than 4 feet by the sedimentary bedrock of the Quaternary Pauba Formation. Bedding attitudes were northwest strike with low angle dips of less than 8 degrees to the northeast. The poorly defined bedding was less than 6 inches thick and ranges in texture from silty sands to clayey sands with occassional clean sand intervals. Seismic Setting The site is not incllldedwithin any State or County fault hazard zone for active or potentially active faults. The regional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest active or potentially active faults to the site include the Elsinore (0.3 miles southeast), and the San Jacinto (31.8 miles northeast). The Elsinore (WiIdomar branch), because of its proxmity and resulting greater seismic potential, is the design fault when evaluating the site seismic parameters. We have utilized strain rates of 0.08 cmlyear for the Elsinore Fault as suggested by Clark, Harms, et al (1984) and Petersen (1996). For this project the maximum probable or "design earthquake" is defmed by CDMG Note 43 as the maximum historical event with a recurrence period of 100 years. We estimate the maximum probable earthquake for the Elsinore fault to be an event of 6.8 magnitude. This is in agreement with the deteministic model by Blake (1994). This is also in agreement with the estimated 6.6 earthquake in 1910 that was epicentered within 10 miles northwest of the site, but slightly higher than Petersen (1996). o .. . . 99247-01 Page 7 Ground Motion Parameters The ground motion characteristics which could affect the site during the postulated maximum probable earthquake of 6.6 magnitude on the Elsinore fault were estimated. Available information in the literature about maximum peak bedrock acceleration and the attenuation with distance (Schnable &. Seed, 1987), the effects of site-soil conditions on surtace ground motion parameters (Seed & Idress, 1982), and site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were utilized. This information indicates that maximum peak rock acceleration on the order of 0.64g may be anticipated at the site. Maximum ground surface acceleration is expected to be dampened due to the thick sedimentary bedrock with a value of about 0.54g. Repeatable ground acceleration can be estimated as 65 percent of peak ground acceleration for design purposes (ploessel & Slosson, 1974) with a value of about 0.36g. The predominant period of bedrock acceleration is expected to be 0.30 seconds with 30 seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt, 1973). Secondary Seisniic Hazards The depth to historic groundwater of 55+ fee, and dense nature of the sedimentary bedrock at shallow depths, precludes such secondary seismic hazards as liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement at the site. CONCLUSJONS ANO KM:OMNh;NDATfONS Foundation Design A strip and spread footmg foundation system should provide an adequate foundation for one and two-story buildings in this site. All exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent finished grade for two-story buildings, and 12 inches for one-story buildings. Interior footings may be founded a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. When the footings are founded in a minimum of 2 feet of properly compacted fill or dense bedrock, an allowable bearing capacity of I500psftor 12 inch wide tootings is acceptable tor dead plus live load. This value may be increased by one-third for short term wind and seismic loading conditions. <\ . . 99247-01 Page 8 When toundatlOns are placed in natural SOlIs, no cobbles over 6 inches should be left withm the base of the foundation. A typical foundation design is included in Appendix c.. Settlement When the upper 2.0-2.5 feet of fill is prepared in accordance with the "Foundation Design" and compacted fill requirements, footings should experience less than I-inch settlement with less than 1/2 inch differential settlements between adjacent footings of similar sizes and loads over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. This settlement is based upon grading of up to 30+ feet of till. If thicker tills are proposed, settlement could be greater and should be evaluated prior to placement. Concrete Slabs-On-lirade Sufficient tine-grained materials exists within near surface earth materials to possible create moisture problems. Therefore, we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete slabs that might receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering. This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil polyethylene vapor barrier sandwiched between a I-inch layer of sand, top and bottom, to prevent puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of the concrete. Nominal reinforcement of the slabs with 6x6 by 6x6 welded wire placed in the center of the slab is advisable. The subgrade below the slab should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted prior to placement of concrete. Expansive Soils Expansion testing of near-surface soils (B-2; 0-3 feet) indicate the near surface soils are low expansion perU.B.C. Table 18-l-B with a value ofl4. Slab and foundation should be designed for low expansion per U.B.C. Section 1815 as shown in Appendix c. Sulfate Content Soil sulfate testing yielded a nominal 30 ppm of soluble sulfate. Normal 2500 pound Type 11 cement may be used in construction. Earthwork Shrinkage and Subsidence When the 2-3 feet of overexcavated soils are regraded to compacted fill standards, earthwork shrinkage would be in the range of 5 to 6 percent with a recommended average of approximately 9 percent. Earthwork operations should cause only a nominal subsidence of approximately 0.1 foot or less in the driveway access and pad areas. \0 . . 99247-01 Page 9 Retaining Wall Uesign Retaining walls should be designed using the following parameters: o Active pressure (level backfijJ) 52 Iblft 1ft o Active pressure (2: I backfill) 61 Ib/ft 1ft o Active pressure (11/2:1 backfill) 72 Ib/ft 1ft For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of 0.25 may be used for frictional resistance. A value of275 Ib/ft 1ft may be used for passive resistance for footings placed into properly compacted fill. Frictional and passive resistance may be combined, provided the later is reduced by one-third. Special loads for dead plus actual loads should be considered in the drivewaylparking area that is retained. Lateral Loads Lateral loads in the near-sw1ace soils are: Active - 52 pounds per square foot of soil depth (psfi'ft) At Rest - 61 psfi'ft Passive - 275 psf/ft (for wood shoring) 350 psfi'ft (for concrete footings) Active means movement of the structure away from the soil; at rest means the structure does not move relative to the soil (Such as a loading dock); and Passive means the structure moves into the soil. The coefficient of friction between the bottom of the footings and the native soil may be taken as 0.25. Trench Stability The near-surface soil to a depth of 5 feet will stand vertically when excavated. The trenches in excess of 3 feet in depth should have the sides laid back at I: I in accordance with OSHA requirements. \\ .' , . . 99247-01 Page IO Slope Stability The current concept of construction has no additional grading planned. All the existing slopees are constructed as [mished inclinations of2:I or flatter. The hiM strength values make these slopes stable to over 45 feet at this inclination. No slope stability evaluation is necessary unless additional grading is contemplated. Selection of Shear Strength Parameters The following shear strength parameter utilized for our soil foundation bearing analysis was determined by our laboratory test results as presented below: Matenal (Cut or Fill) .FnctIOn Angle (pegree) CohesIOn Jb&. Anticipated On-Site Fill 26 485 We have utilized values of 26 degrees and 485 Ib/tt2 for bedrock cut slopes although it represents a conservatIve number, detennmedttom a remolded saturated sample. Bedrock IS expected to be 20% + stronger (Coduto, 1989). Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform Building Code Chapter 70 requirements. At no time should water be diverted onto the slope face in an uncontrolled and erosive fashion. Rapid erosion and rutting of the fill slopes is possible and they should be planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. ta:N El<A.J, SITJ<; GRAHlNti 1. Clearing and Grubbing The grasses and weeds WIthIn any proposed till areas WIll reqUlfe clearIng and removal ott~slte. Any boulders larger than 12 inches should not be placed in any structural fill within 10 feet of the finished grades. \1.- . . lJY247-UI Page II 2. l'reparation of Huilding Pad Areas Our subsurface investigation revealed that the proposed building locations on the pads are underlain by dense engineered compacted fill. The pads have been properly overexcavated, and no additional mitigation is required. 3. Preparation of Surface to Receive Compacted Fill All sufficiently dense (85 percent relative compaction) surfaces which are to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Other softer areas must be overexcavated to sufficiently dense material and recompacted. Typical overexcavation depths based on our tield testing would be 2~3 teet for the building areas and 1-1.5 feet in the parking/driveway areas. Actual depth of removal should be determined at the time of grading by testing. 4. i'iacement of Compacted Fin Compactedfili'is detmed as that material whichwillbe replliced in the areas ohemoval due to root removal, the placement of footings and paving, and also wherever their grade is to be raised. All fill should be compacted to a minimum of90 percent based upon the maximum density obtained in accordance with AS'1MD 1557:78 procedure. The area to be filled wijjbe prepared in accordance with the preceding section. The recompaction of the cut material may be waived if field density tests indicate densities in excess of compacted fill standards. Fills placed on natural slopes of5:I (horizontal to vertical) or steeper will require a key and benching as shown in Appendix C. 5: Pre-.Job Conference Prior to the commencement of grading, a pre-job conference should be held with representatives of the owner, developer, contractor, architect and/or engineer in attendance. The purpose of this meeting shall be to clarifY any questions relating to the intent of the grading recommendations and to verifY that the project specifications comply with recommendations of this report. \'? . . 99247-01 Page 12 6. Testing and Inspection During grading, density testing should be performed by a representative of the soil engineer in order to determine the degree of compaction being obtained. Where testing indicates insufficient density, additional compactive effort shall be applied with the adjustment of moisture content where necessary, until 90 percent relative compactIOn IS obtamed. InspectIon of cntIcal gradmg control procedures such as keys, mstallation or need for subdrains should be made by a qualified soils engineer or engineering geologist. 1. Deveiopmentimpact ProVIded the recommendatIOns of thIS report are mcorporated mto the deSign and construction of the residential project, both the proposed development and off-site areas will be safe from geologic and geotechnicai hazards. GENERAL All grading should, at a minimum,tolIow the "Standard Grading and Earthwork Specitications" as outlined in Appendix C, unless otherwise modified in the text of this report. The recommendations of ,this report are based on the assumptions that all footings will be founded in dense, native, undisturbed soil or properly compacted fiU soil. AJItooting excavations should be inspected prior to the placement of concrete in order to verifY that footings are founded on satisfactory soils and are free of loose and disturbed materials and fill. All grading and fill placement should be performed under the testing and inspection of a representative of the soil engineer. The tindings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with contemporary engineering principles and practice. We make no warranty, either express or implied. Our recommendations arebasecf on an interpolation of soil conditions between trench locations. Should conditions be encountered during grading, that appear to be different than those indicated by this report, this office should be notified. \6r.. . . Submitted, 2-28-00 Fred Jaleh R.C.E. 30527 Registration Expires 3-31-00 WLSjFJ:ss Distribution: (4) Addressee \~ . iD~ ~, i.HiJ .'. '0;, ~ / .' ...;:::~} I' ./ I . '. ",.~.,.. ~.. \ ,~., , 'Vcf ,,""~ ..".'\ \.... f """", ......:'-. :', 4.,,. ....~ ". ..~... ........, .~ \\ .......'1.~~I'....;u.R -.~"\ .'. "0. J ...... \ '" --- ~T I I , I I i .- " .-..--- --,i I r ! 'R 'N --- '-, 1947, r<i.M6.2 ..\Atn~ f,LULT .%" ....?t,. "'. ~ ~ '. '. .~~~ ...... ..... ..~ . . . . ,'~ .... . . .\.~ ' , ';I\, ";C: M'LES " .' ..' - ~ '. ....~' 1941. '1:t.JM5.9-S. , ;.. "\ I MAJOR EARTHQUAKES and RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION ' . \'\- '.. DR/'\SB'( R,l> ~ E sttRo Sr. IEMEcllL.A w.o. NO: 99241-0, DATE: .,( 99 FIGURE: PLATE 2 \Cp . APPENDIX A . \\ .;Prolel:t 'Number . .ProlectName Hole Diameter Elevation -=- ! . ..! g .c i ~ ! . " " 0 - '- - - 5- - - - 10- - - - . - IS- - - - -I- - - .- - - 125- . - - - -:- t30. C)O)~Ai -. It~ Dc;,I-1 '1 "OQ,u... 8" Boring No. O..L . Date 7/ 8/ ~Gj Drive Weight of '2.- - i c i s :; . . - ~~ ;; = ;! 1 1:- 5;: ;; .. j~ ~ c i '0 . :S . Q U. . . . ..-= : ~ 0 ~ I ;; Q Jl - ~ 1+ \\7." ~.a Z3 Ir~I.1.) / - ,... 3\ 17.2.~ ",4 44 ("6.;) - -i- I- - - - - - - - - - - - I-- - - - - - - - - - t- t- I-- -l- t- -- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION I Logged by Sampled by W, L S. i-Ie,..I/~ . h Jllll1F":./IH_ F,~L.. _ .t>,.""r,r;h ~I\.N IDVILb(i. .,,~ S.Vlr\ --i "/rnl"''(' C.I...,. '5"'~M.. O~"'~. "ty..I. 9ra.i. IDol... Cllm.d- I a1!.OQ.O<:'''--PA40~ ~"" _ J?"'......, IS l,y.t11<i,,", IOVa.. ~ /t" -l" ytl~ . I--j 10 '(I/.. ~/~ I",hfl..ddtd sll~ ~ A "d ~,.d -t,'rot CI..I\.:foY'.'" ~I'a" S..l'1:i. Q~%) c- D,C.. '''"''!?tclr .of t1..y~ Jilt (\O~.~ Y1..." -tnlc.k... \.ow It~ - ~J.J..~ <. S' ..j., ~f.. ~~ - i~~"", s-I.<I.....". _ M,,,~ 1 va. Ii.u..-t. y",!' d ''''~( <; '/.). , _ ~ - -- -.- -- h~ {.8('fV). S'l~ sil+mnt (g $1.) v.,';4, ~,J". ~e~ h l'~'~. . r- r- - ~;., dJ..a.... . . . . s: d l.;1o.HJiU I I) Y'vt '% . OJow - - - J'l., ffil~ti.;h J,,,,r'I"'_~ ~ , 1<1 - - - Cl~rlj S\ l+st>~. ell'- YhaM ,(~ .+0 tflll'la - l- I- - - - ,- r- - - r- \fb - . ';1 rIlJ1"v. PYbIr'V'l I()'f.<. (<( ~u..IiJ. j).( NIt 51. 1 cj"""p ~ dalolf -- Sa "tlt~ .;It,.J.,,(It - -- -- ...,~. ... .- .__..... ~ :P"'i'8ct 'Number , :PnljJ8Ct 'Name Hallt 'Diameter Elwatlon ~")Z47- . ~PrtJ '-My ,Boring No. B-j . equipment -Date l-iol'Jll.. B -i,1 7/8/CJ"J D~I L.L e'l Drive Weight Drop Sh.et Z- of 'Z - c: i i .l! GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION I ] . - ~~ ;; - ! . ~;: .' ; ;! ~ . - Sh~(I;~ I .! ;; t .. j~ Logged by W.L.- - .. :E c: i i ;; . = :S . c ~2 1E . . . . ! ; ~ 0 ~ '0 '" Sampled by , " i .. " III ii c :E ell - - P<t<<V", l=", _ S4l'1tka J','I.J-Jt>.r\L h..~,) y.,th clvrJ f.- - - - ""It,+, f\t ~ oc.e . tiN c.W.1" ,I..."" ,,rr.lJ1~ 1, /''l.' I-- - - - - - - wc,/t-- - -- I~. - - 9 - - ~ U - - I. ()II-(t,A '''~ I! ";7'... ~ - 1.1.. ~ .. . - I- , . , . - - ' . I- - - '1- - - I- - - .' - I- !- - I- - - I- - - f- - - - - - - ,~ - - - T.D. ~o I - - . . No \ii~/Mo1hl~ . '- '.- - - I- bCic.k.t7lkJ I ~:BM H"k /0 ~ - - I- - - I- B~rI'TE /l"j)oco - . - I- - - I- - - I- - - , \~ l- I . ~:PrOJect 'Number 'Prolect 'Name Hole Diameter EI 10 II 7 t') 't'( ~ 'Ut::\":l:cC;'H N I (.;AL '302.47.,-0. !BORING .OG Borl,!; 'No. , 'E> .'l... Date 7 / 8/~ '3 evat " - .. . b' ee I o I - i c: I i .2. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION , 'Ii .. - ~# ~;: ..,. J '" j ! . ~ ~ w,L Sheri; 'Ii l i !~ Logged by - .. :IE ; i ~ . . '" '" " 11 .2 i I! - . . Sampled by ~ ! 0 to I CI CI .lI ii " 01 0 Arz.r1~IClkL hl..L- - bY1>lAJvW h rHo", IDYIZ. Yb SI/1 SArrJ.. 11\0 - DS ~ 12- 117.0 4.'- - E.! I~ "f! r>1lnVl Clj <<till. 1...0).. S..d1ly -h A1~' - <is ('}a. B) - De.AAI, Gro. 10(.llI/J. Cofl~d-, 6cr. ;n~l/~ - - :>< "1.7 IU.2. 1\ - - '- ;0 (1m) 1..3 sa.~ Srlf. - ~- I ,-. - - ~7S \'lR.4 (.<:> - - 8E:D~UL- ~1lM.b~ Fm - bl'blUfllIII ~vJIO'(P..&!' -f,. . - "\1 lOJ'1.b) - - - ~1II1T;:d~% ,n+l.ii),(U.tJ.. sd~S~~, Md.-6~INvt;Py", - - - ('~'Ul.iQV1I.- (10i'.) Oc.c..'i~+Lt,,~ -la 111lYj[ "I~ nM - ID- ,. , 2.'l. 5-rVi'.)a.M d.~ ..al'll..'(';y,) r; . . - 30 ' , '. ... uJ. ..,2.. . Lo", . - ..o.'fb:1 Yi'lrTI;eJin dl(;. D-e.MJ..'h,' ~~ dt/U.(. - - ~ 44 .- - - S'(. d~ry JA~.. . . - - - C(4fj t tit . If ~ /I'. 11- I - Is.- - - T,O. IS~ - - - No WA1U!Hoi!1'1! c-.VI ~ .- r _ - - - - - . to...;.,' - - - - - .. .- - '- - - - - - . - - . - I- - . ,-. - - l- I-- - t- 'J,O r-- -'-- -, '- ----. --.- kePI-oEM\.( 6,. o Drive Weight to 1" "0 ..... .Equlpment 1401t . Drop Sh t ~ d (I f ,"ProJect 'Numbe;. . Project Name Hole Diameter :\.:it;,:UT!EC'H Nil CAL QQZ47 -0' .80 I N -- - , r ng 0.. FfClff)f.J\\Y 'BORING _OG ?i- 3 Date. 7 Ie Iqq K.sA <2. ., -,;0 8 " Drl.,. Weight equipment 140 ;jt EleYlltlon 117 ~- 1..i> Sh..t \. of I - i c - .. 8- 8 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ". - !ae ~;: .... ! .., ! ! . l ~ 'i i !~ Logged by vJ1. 5heY1ij - i :IE ; 'li . i . g = . 'i ~ ! 0 ~ I Sampled by g c:I .lI. ii g ell 0 . , .., ~71nclil-t. t' - S.eR ~-Z,{O.r 'WCY.f~'" - ... nll.. - - ... '2.2 II'1,S ,J,.,;ll, '/ , - ~ 6" 5.~ , .. .J ,. . (~1.1 ) . . - - - 2' 120.3 f- 5- ,') C.~M) l- . - - I- -. ~ 41 \17.' . ~~ilOq<.- ~lI.tb... fm - Sot( 13 - 1. ~ dvc\'1 f-I-o" f- 7.1- - ;;0 (~.ol I'""" - - - to . . - - 1.1) . I- \0- - - N. W4JJn./~'h'rhl~ ~ - - - - I- - - .1- -. - I- ;- - I- - - I- - . - I- ~ - I- - - - - - - . I- - l- I- - ~ I- -- l- I - - I- - - - 7,..\ - - I- - o 1. Tgio2- . 'proJect Number Project Name Hole Diameter \,;lI r;;Y,I~Cvr:1 '" I,\";AL .BOR' NC-.LOG 0024.0' :Borlng 'No. 1)- 4 Dale. 7/8/99 ~ .61 rts,4' AcItV E./V1 Y e,' Drive Weight EquIpment /4c/r l4o{l! 1-€. Elevation 111?- -t/_ LA'\' ~o I Drop Sheet 30' - i c i R GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 'ii - ". - !# ~;r -=- ! 'C ;i 1 . I ~ S iwJJ' 1i i .~ Logged by W. (.... J! a ~ ; ~oI 1 ~ 'i . Q i ~ ! . 11 ...:! I! t: 0 to I Sampled by " l> C .:J ii Q cZ 0 - ~ n IIB.,- _fTP..71f-lt/1\-L. nu.._ O..tl B,2.. ~ ~Cvlf~,. s,r - - n.. (")1.7) - - I- - f~b,. FVl1 _ ~ -~ ~ ~cr,(h;f' - - ')( 31 12a,/' 7. I ~t.o (l..IJ a<- S'.u ~ 5- '- 41) ("'.9) -' - - - '. - , - r- - - 0 I- - - I- (0 o. - "':1 ' , . ,. I- I,p {O - - l- N, 'WdIA IN.ih,~ I- - l- I- o _ I- , - - '. - - - - I- - l- I- - I- - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - t- I- 0 - I- r- - I- - - '- - 0 .. 1,.1/ - - ,- of : 'Project Number Project 'Name Hole Diameter '\:It:-..lllECHNICAL ~BORING eOG .. '1 q ~'&7-t 'Boring No. kc.4\ 9~Y o " o DrIve Weight 13'S Date. 7h/~g Equlpmanl fvlo 13/~ ,13 . 6 ( tfs If. 14D~ Drop -=?o" Elevation 11'"1'2 -t/_ Lil.,-, o '2.. Sheet I 01 I - i " i .!! GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION .. ". - !ae !;: 0;:- S 'C i : ! i ~ S'hw(,~ .:. 1 !~ Logged by \II! .L. J! 1Ii '0 . ; z: i. . e i z: . .. !! 'C ! 0 r: i Sampled by I' e CI .lI ii e .s 0 - - /'uCflf'-/ C rA-l f,U. _ &.v.. "-2-- -&, r dl14cr,(-Ji. n - - - t- - ~ I' '''.1 (,.1- t- - Z4 C!JJ.A .' t- . ~- ~4 124... 7,0 f4.v./?~ Fm -- &eo (l..o Cl'- - ~'9-'l-~ - h. - ~i'l I- - , t- .-- t- - ... - (, -. . , - t- T. D.I1)!:. . I- - ... No \fi~/Ho1li)", I- - t- - - t- - .. I. ,- ... I- - t- t- o ~ - -..... . - ... - - t- - -- t- t- - - - .. ~ - - >- ;.... - >- - - - . - - - - - - - 1,.'" t- - l- t- - . APPENDIX B . 11\ . . MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATION The maximum density was determined in accordance with ASTM standard D1557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is Sample Location Depth (Feet) Soil Description Maximum Drv Density Optimum Moisture B-2 0-3 (Soil Type A) Bedrock 128.9 yellowish brown silty fine to medium sand with clay 9,2 SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING U,B,C, METHOD 29-2 Sample Location Depth Expansion Index Expansion Potential B-2 0-3' 14 low SAND EOUIVALENT TESTING Sample Location Depth Sand Eauivalent B-2 0-3' 18 ,p ~ .; , )0- ct ...J U l/')l/') l/')l/') q ct ct .J.J UU ~ C q 1lI:Z: Cii ~<ri - <i Z . en ::>ct a: w f0- e w a: ::if: <( ...J e ...J z ::if: ~ - 0 I en 1lI0. a: ZZ U? w -ct I- ll..l/') ::::l W I ::if: en <( w e .J ~. N W Ja: en ...J (,)' W I- Ul (/)0 > a: lrZ !!:! q .<l: octet "", en a. OCll l<- t) ~~ I \ O' to. .J III > oct q lr ~ 9- ; q ~ o Z :5 r-- ~ g ~ PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .:z: .!- D.. III o By: ViIS Date: 7/ <)~ J.N. q" 247 - 0 i €~ / / OR",$~'l' ~11 TG:l'I E.CIH..A EXHIBIT NUMBER 1X CDII."If;II, Ell"""." end Geo/l),i.,. I ' - -. :6 :II , . . l- LL. 5 . 0 (I) ...... , , (I) 4 , l:L - , ~ , , I (I) :5 (I) , , , , W I , a:: , I l- .' , I , , . (I) , , 2 I, I , 11.1 (,!) , Z , - I a:: I <( I , , w. I . ' . , :I: (I), , I , I , " . 0 . , '0 J 2 j :5 4 5 6 NORMAL PRESSURE- KIPS / SQ. FT. .. . EXCAVA:rION NO. B-2. DEPTH: 0- ?J , , ..RCOMOL.PE-'t> R.E1..A~I\le, 't:oMI'Ac::r'IOrJ ' ,0 '30 '-0 . . SATURATED TEST IN SiTU MOISTURE TEST III .. '26 . III .. . .-. C .. 475 P,S.F C .. P.S,F - . 01 RECT SHEAR TEST DATA, PROJECT: ACA.1> f.IV\Y EXHI B IT 2-"- JOB NO" ~9 '241-01 DATE: ""/9<) . APPENDIX C . 'j,.fb . . STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless specifically superseded in the geotechnical report of the project or by written communication signed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Evaluations performed by the Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede these specifications or ~~e recommendations of the geotechnical report. . 1.0 GENERAL. 1.1 The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or Developer'S representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist, and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultant. 1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted and directed by the Contractor under the supervision. of the Geotechnical Consultant. 1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactorj completion of all grading. During grading, the Contractor shall remain accessible. 1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shal~ be employed for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and office services for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Consultant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Geotechnical Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. 1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are z.o... , . . .standard Grading .andEarthwork Specifications :Pa';e .Two resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 1.6 It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide access to the Geotechnical Consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may require the excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of grading equipment. 1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Geotechnical Consultant attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. 2.0 SITE PREPARATION 2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This removal shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant and concluded prior to fill placement. .. 2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the 'Geotechnical Consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site or used in open areas as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to.fill placement. 2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than twelve inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts not to exceed six inches or less. prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. ?P . . .. Standard Grading and .Earthwork Specifications 'Page .Three 2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide uniform bearing conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extendi~g a minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Greater overexcavation couldbe required as determined by Geotechnical Consultant where deep fill of 20+ feet transitions to bedrock over a short distance. Typical details are given on Figure D- 1. 3.0 COMPACTED FILLS 3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall.be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the Geotechnical Consultan~. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength Characteristics shall .be placed in areas designated by Geotechnical Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material, as directed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.2 Rock fragments less than twelve inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a minimum of 75% overall of fine grained material to surround the rocks. 3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.3 Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be taken Off-site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is given in Figure D-2. -p\ . . standard Grading ,and Earthwork Specifications Page Four 3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fill. 3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant as soon as possible. 3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six 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 Geotechnical Consultant. 3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by the Geotechnical.' Consultant, the Contractor shall rework.the fil~ unti1 it is approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. . 3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies. If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the geotechnical report. 3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium alluvium, or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report. (See detail on Figure D-3.) ~ , ,. . . ,Standara Grading .and'Earthwork Specifications Page 'Five 3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subarain details are given in Figure 0-4.) 3.12 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 over building the slope ana 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 approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the Geotechnical report . 3 .14 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be proper],y. keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be, stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail on Figure D- '3. ) 4 . 0 CUT SLOPES 4.1 The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet. 4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse: nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Geotechnical Consultant, and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these problems. (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are given in Figures 0-3a ana 0- 5. ) 4.3 cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the tope of the slope. .~"7 . . . Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page Six 4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. 4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. 5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the supervision of the Geotechnical Consultant. 5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall . be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand. ... 5.3 The on-site materials, or other soils 'approved by the .Geotechnical Consultant shall be watered and mixed as necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill. 5.4 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density. as determined by the ASTI D1557-70 or the controlling governmental agency. .5.5 Field density tests and inspection of the. backfill procedures shall be made by the Geotechnical Consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The. contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the Geotechnical Consultant to enable sampling and testing. 6.0 GRADING CONTROL 6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotechnical Consultant during the progress of grading. ?;Jb... . . . . . .StandardGrading and'Earthwork Specifications Page Seven 6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. 6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface material to receive fill as required by the Geotechnical Consultant. 6.4 All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals should be inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Consultant when such areas are ready for inspection. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage . controls. 7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Geotechnical Consultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings foundations, large tree.wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.3 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. /' 'l:P . . . . PUBLISHED REFERENCES Blake, T.F" 1998, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration rom Digitized California Faults, EQFAULT, July 1994 Blake, T,F., 1998, A Computer Program for the Assessment of Liquefaction Potential utilizing Field SPT Data, LIQUEFY2, August 1998 Department of Water Resources (DWR) , 1971, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the' Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California, Bull, No, 91-20, August 1971, 377 pages Hart, E,W" 1997, FaUlt-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map with Index to Earthquake and Fault Zone Maps, CDMG Spec, Pub, 42, 34 pages Kennedy, M,P" 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, COMG Spec, Report 131, 12 pages Petersen, M,O" Bryant, W.A" Cramer, C,H., Cao, T" Reichle, M.S" 1996, Probabilistic seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, CDMG Open-File Report 96-08, 33 pages Plossel, M,P" and Slosson, J.E" 1974 Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology Seed, H,B" Tokimatsu, K" Harder, L,F., and Chung, R,M" 1985, "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal of the Geotechnical Enqineerinq Division. American Society of civil Engineers, vol. 111, no GT12, pp 1425- 1445. TOkimatsu, K" and Yoshimi, y" 1984, "Criteria of Soil Liquefaction with SPT and Fines Content," Proceedinqs. Eiqhth World Conference on Earthquake Enqineerinq. San Francisco, vol III, pp, 255-262 UNPUBLISHED REFERENCES RGS Consultants, "prelimianry Percolation Investigation APN 945- 070-011, SEe Ormsby and Estero Street, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California", Report Dated september 13, 1994, Proj, No. 43-01 ~ , , . . APPENDIX D . ?J~ . BENCHING DETAI ~ FILL SLOPE - ------------ --------------- -~-----:.COMPACTED :----~-.:. __-:-:-:-:-:...:_-=.=:; FILL :...:...:-:~-::~ --------------------- --::::::~:::::~~:;::~=~~~~~-~ _~-_-.::_----------~-- _-_----- --- =:I" PROJECTED PLANE -~~-----..:-------:;;::::----~~-~ '/"'^' I to I maximum from toe .::::-:-:::-:-;:-Z~:-:.:[--=--=\:-,:~ . ______~_-__-~- N~ of slope to approved ground _-:::-:_:::-:::;;-...:-::::-_-:-::.:..-~~_:::.: __________...1 l ''''';f....... REMOVE _-_~-;~-.:----.,;:::.::...--~ UNSUITABLE -_-~---..:---.:-~----- MATERIAL ::----------7;--~ ~- ~ ". _:j: _~~~:~~:-: I ~~~ I BENCH '" l __--------- t I i HEIGHT -I- _:::::2% MTN.~::: (typical) VARIES -----~---- T "^~ - -;:,- 2' MIN. I IS' MIN. I KEY ~OWEST BENCH .., DEPTH (KEY) '" NATURAL GROUND \ _"": COMPACTED ::-:-::=:-::- ----~FILL ------- -----, -------~ ------- .,..-----.-:;. ---------.".------ --------:_----.::::-"'_-_-:...--::-~ ., -------~~---~--- -------~----------.:- --- ____---=_____ . ~ rl" _-.:.:-::..-:::"'.:_-_-.:;~-_ I -------------- - . REMOVE. NATURAL . -7".::::-_:-::::7.'-5 ,...,,-\ UNSUITABLE GROUND '\. ------------::.----~ ~ MATERIAL ~ .~ - _:-::---;;._ "'., r-4' MIN. BENCH _ _ - _-_-~c;:-_-_ BENC HEIGHT .. . _ _ - ....-:;; ~3%MiN.~ (typicalll VARIES _~ ____ T-- ~- ~~ ~ . . _ - ~15' MIN.~ . _ .... - I LOWEST BENCH I . FILL OVER' CUT SLOPE -- - CUT FACE To be constructed prier to fill placement NOTES: LOWEST BENCH: Depth and width subject to field change . based c:'\ consultant's inspection. SUBDRAINAGE:. Back dr!1ins may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. ~'t> . , '.ANSITION .LOT DETA!S CUT-FILL LOT NATURAL GROUND 1- - - - - -- -- - _ - _ 5' L _ _ - - _ _ - MIN. I ~ - ----~ ~----- --- : COMPACTED ~FILi..:-:-:-::::-~-.::':'--~?~--::::;: -::...:--:...--:I--------:~-- 30" MIN, _________________'.,"~ ---.i;.:"" '" ,,,. --r- .___________..-c.___.._\'t'r::__"....-_ ".. I ' --:j:~~.;:f~~~~~S~~;z:::~::-: OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT -..,......-71"'-U~-- "".,,, .---.....O..,'~ ----"""- ---",~ .------ --=.'i'~- -~-..:---- , UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR 1 ,-- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . ---1 1 THE GEOTECHNICAL CO.NSULTANT .. CUT LOT NATURAL. GROUND 1- -- --- -------- ..,,""" --....... .......... - - . - -REMOVE _ - _ _ - ~ UNSUITABLE ___ _ - . 5' L __ _ - 'MATERIAL _ MIN-. r-i - -----------_..:-_--_..:-~-~------_-:...__..:-__..:-_---- :,.__-:__:...-..:_..:__-_-:_-_-- --- -..::.;-...:::.?: _-_-_- - - - - --...x...- - - - - ..:_-_- ------ ::-COMPACTED :__ _....;::::::-_- /,,)l ~ I^ ~~~~~~ OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR f ,- MATERIAL APPROVED BY . t THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: . Deeper overexcovation ond recomoaction sholl be p~rformed if determined to be necesscry by the geotechniccr consultant. ?J~ . . . . . ROCK DISPOSAL DET AI L (Boulders greater than two feet in diameter) BUILDING Finish grade Clear area for foundations, utilities, and pools -0- ~ -"0" - -n--o--, o O-L 0 0 0-.... 4' I 15' I "- r ~ " "- '---r------ 10' or below depth of deepest utility trench, which ever is deeper o t Windrow TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (edge view) Clean IS.E, > 30) Granular soil flooded to fill voids Horizontally placed compacted fill PROFILE VIEW pP - . . .- .- FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS -FOR EXPANSIVE 'SOILS (ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGSl 1-STORY '00TIN08 EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX o - 20 21 - 50 51 - 80 81 - 130 VERY LOW EXPANSION LOW EXPANSION MEDIUM EXPANSION HIGH EXPANSION AU FOOTINGS 12 INCH!S ALL f1'OOTINIII 12 lNCHIa I!XTI!JtIOR FOOTINGS ,. exnltlOA FOOTINa' U tHe". OE.P, FOOTINOS DES". FOOTINGS INCHIS DEEP. INTERIOR DEEP. INTlRtoR FOOTlNOS 12 CONTINUOUS. NO STEIL CONTINUOUS. l-HO." ."A I'00TIJl08 12 INCHEI Deep. INCHES DElII'. 1-NO. a SA.. TOP REQUIReD POR eXPANSION TOP AHD lono... 1-MO. .. BAA TOP AND AND Bono... FOAces. lOTTO... ALL FOOTINoa ,. INCHlla ALL FOOTIN08 t. INCHea ALL "DOTlNO, ,. INCHEa eXTeRIOR '00TIN08 24 INCHe. O&EP. FOOTINOI O!!P. I"OOTlHaa DE!P'. '00TIN08 DeEP. INTIRIOR FOOTINGS ,. CONTINUOUS. NO lTEEL CONTINUOUS. 1-NO. 4 IAA CONTINUOUS. 1-NO. 4 IAA INCHES DUP. 1-hO. 4 IAR TOP REQUIRID FOR EXPANSION TOP AND 10TTOIII. TOP "'ND 10TTOM. AND 'OTTOW. 'ORCI!S. NOT AI!QUlMO. '2 INCHEI DI!!P. 1-NO. .. IAN " INCHI!I OIIP. 1-NO. . eAR U INCHEI DE!!p. 1-NO. 5 IAR TOP AND 10nOIll. TOP AND 10TTOW. TOP AND 10TTOW. '-STOffY ,.OOTINOI GAff AGE DOOR GRADE IU.. LIVING "'AI... FLOOR IU'I 3 1/2 INCHeS THICK. NO wel" 11/2 ,"ONES THtCK. s 1/1 INCHI!I THICK. . INCHes THICK.--t-X-e-flt MOUIItI'o ,.OR I~ANIION . X 11-10/10 WIRE MESH "'T t X 1-10/10 WIR!! III!!IH "'T W"'E MIIH "'T WID-HEIGNT. "ORCI!I. NOlAaE REQWlID. M'o-HEIOHT. 2 INCHla Mlo-HEIGHT. 4 INCHII NO. I DOWILLI 'ROM 'OOTlNQ . MIL VIICReEN M01.TURII GAAVEL 0fII UNO IAU. . OA"'YI!L OR ....ND IAIE. I TO lua "'T II INCHII ON I"'AAIER PLUS 1 INCH ....ND. . MIL VIIQUEIN 1II0llTURI IIIIL VIIOUEI!N MOISTURE CEHTI!R. .. INCHES OA"'VIL OA IA...ttE" PLua 1 INCH lAND. IAA..mR PLUI 1 INCH S"'ND. SAND I....E. . MIL VlIQUEIN MOlITUM! ........IEA ~U. 1 INCH lAND. Q"'AAGI! FLOOR SUI. 31/2 INCH.S THICK. NO MaSH I 1/1 INCHEI THICK. aliI INCHIlS THICK. .. INCHE. THICK. . X "'" AEQUlRID "OR aXPAHIIOH , x '''10/10 WIRE MEI" OR . X 1-10110 WWtI! e'" Oft . WlM IItEaH Oft QUA..TEIIl 'O"CII. NO IASI! "IOUlRID. QUARTER IUIS. JIOUTI QUA "TaR lLAIS. ISOUTH ILAI.. ISOLATI! ""OM InM NO MOISTURe IAltAle.. PROM STEM WALL 'DOTlNOa. ,.ROM ITEM WALL 'OOTINo.. WALL 'OOTINo.. .. INCHl. "IOUlAED. I INCHaI "OCK. O""'VEL OR .. INCH&:a ROCK. QAAVI!L OR ROCK. O"AVI!L OR lAND IAI" BAND IAII!. NO MOllTUftI! _ lAND 'ASE. NO MOISTURE NO MOISTURE I.RIUIIR BAARIE" AIQUIAI!D. BAAg.. AEQUlRIID. REQUIUD. II'''~''IOAkINCJ 0" LIVlNQ NOT REQUlRI!D. MOISTEH .OAK TO 11 INCHII Dell'TH SOAIC TO 11 INCHel DEPTH 10AK TO :14 INCHel DePTH TO .....IA AND GARAGE lLAI PRIOR TO POUAING TO 4.. ".OVE OPTIMUM TO ... "IOYE OPTIMUM ... AIOVI! OPTIMUM MOllTU". aOlLS CONCReTL MOISTUAI! CONTENT. MOllTURE CONTENT. CONTeNT. NOTII: 1) "'LL OIl"H. "'AE AELAnve'TO auB aUBaAAoe:. :n IPEClAL DEllaN II RSQUIRED POR VERY HIGHLY eXPANSIVE 101LI.. FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE) DOWEL (WHEN REQUIReD) ....ND UV&A YISQUE!N GRAVEL OR IANO IAII! (WHEN AIQUntlDJ 1>...\ JOB NO,: FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS DATE: FIGURE NO.: is CI) (!5 '- '" .... <Ll ...:I . C .... ...:I ........ '- '" t3 ~O' ~. <Ll . E'-' ~ I 'o.E--<O Cl CI) 0 C1)<Ll0 .... 0 Z .... '" LI) .&.... z <Ll .... '" <Ll ..... LI) I ~ (!5 0:: <Ll 'ClCXl LI) I 0 ~ 0 '<Ll U) Z CI) .LI) 0:: ~ .~ .... .lXl Cl .'52 .gj ..... 0 i z ii.i .... . ...:I < 0 , .en . II ~~ ~ '" .... S z ;J <Ll .... W g .0' ..... U) . :3. .~ ..... <Ll ~ C ...:I<Ll.... ~ U) gj p...~,....l...... Cl '" .O<Z'" 11. 11. <C Z ')00 >< ::i2 . f.U::C~" ~ .... U ~ <Ll . ",. <Ll <Ll W ". .- f.U - C [g. ~e.g~ ~ C g dP I- '" <Ll' .... 0 en 0 '" Cl 0:: .0 .> ::c>< .z U) <Ll <Ll .. '" ..... en . ~~ oci..j:Q~ ~. HO.,.,JU) ~ '0 . 6)00 ~ ffi ,,~ o::u "" Vn . c.... ....;30:.... SO"" <Ll..... "'''' ....:I........r.u~ 1<Ll ",...:IC . '... Ll)U) ~<HH .. t::IUlC .. - - ~ .0 'E '\1,11\ I, .\ - I N I I ... J W \ - - ~~~ . .". ..,-1100)- 't'r- - /... - alto' J i './- -f, , ~. ~;'~') I ~ 11t;~}., t- I,:; },i /q ~fJ2l :-i'- J I ~ ~ J 4-L/ !: I" ' ar'I' I I r- ~ /T'/' L -1 ,-11'-,-( . ~ / - r\ : \~:,\ \' ,/\ ~ - I ( I - I I ~ i. I - / .~ /"- (\J ~ "'- cO '<t lQ S )., .~ ~ t1 .., t\l Il ."" ~ : 0 G\ ~ ~ ~ C+- ~ ItS ~ I-.. ~ II;:, .~ ~ - -d II) (l) I d\ S cO .. " . . ., ::- ~. .... , - - , I "'.;:- i " ~ ~ ~ .'. \~ .- ...... - ......~;. ) i I!.sTF~ ~EE'r .... . . P' .'2'