HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnicalReport(Feb.12,1988) -•.�
, ;`� � ,, "< � /�
M ��.�� # .. • . �E �� � ����� �o/ \V�
3,
_ GE�LO�IC
�
SEi��iCES, �NC.
24692 Del Prado Avenue
Dana Point, CA 92629 ` � �,,,,�,,,,,
(714) 496-8504
� GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
� for
A PROPOSED 29 SIRTGLE FAMILY HOP�E SUBDIVISION
6dITHITd TF� 10 ACRE PARCEL DESCRIBED AS
------�-- --- x-- �
�Ten.tati�e;.,Tract 232,2�0
� located
Southeasterly of the intersection of '
Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa
Riverside County, California
REQUESTED BY
Mr. Gary Dix
Dix Development
22865 Lake Forest Drive
El Toro, CA 92630 „
CONSTRUCTIOYd ENGIriEER CIVIL EYaGIIdEER
Mr. Dave Kaylor CM Engineering Associates
Paul Maote & Associates 225 East Airport Drive
117 Brookhollow Drive P.O.Box 6087
Santa Ana, CA 92705 San Bernardino, CA 92412
(714) 751-5557 (714) 884-8804
Report Date: February 12, 1988
�_� , Tentative Tract 23220 T�LE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1
1.1 General ............................ .............. 1
1.2 Site Location and Description ..................... 1
1 .3 Proposed Development .............................. 2
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................... 2
3.0 EXPLORATION ............................................ 3
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................. 3
4.1 General ........................................... 3
4.2 Fill (Af) ......................................... 3
4.3 Topsoil ........................................... 3
4 .4 Alluvium (4al) .................................... 3
4.5 Old Alluvium (Qoal) ...............................
4
4.6 Groundwater ....................................... 4
4.7 Seismic Conditions ................................ 4
4.8 Hazardous Conditions .............................. 5
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................... 6
5.1 General ........................................... 6
5.2 Moisture Content and In-Place Density ............. 6
5 .3 Compaction ........................................ 6
5.4 Expansion ......................................... 7
6 .0 DISCUSSION ................................e............ 7
� 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................a.......... 7
�
7.1 General ........................................... 7
7.2 Earthwork ......................................e.. 8
7.2.1 General .................................... 8
' 7.2.2 Clearing and Site Preparation._ ............. 8
7.2.3 Removals ................................... 8
� 7.2.4 Subdrains. •••••••••••••• 9
I 7.2.5 Compacted Fill ............................. 9
7.2.6 Fill Slopes ................................ 9
7.2.7 Cut Slopes ................................. 9
' 7.2.8 Transition From Cut to Fill ................ 9
7.2.9 Slope Drainage ............................. 10
� 7.2.10 Trench Backfill ............................ 10
' 7.3 Foundations ....................................... 10
7.3.1 General .................................... 10
' 7.3.2 Structural Footings ........................ 11
� 7.3.3 Lateral Loads .............................. 11
7 .4 Retaining Walls ................................... 11
' 12
' 7.4.1 Wall Pressure. ••••••••••••••••••
� ........... 12
' 7.4.2 Wall Foundation ............................
7.4.3 Lateral Resistance ......................... 12
7.4.4 wall Backfill .............................. 12
7.4.5 Prewetting of Slab Areas ................... 13
7.4.6 Moisture Barrier ........................... 13
i 7.5 Landscaping ....................................... 13
�
' 7.6 Drainage .......................................... 14
8.0 PAVEMENT ............................................... 14
' 14
j 9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ...............................
� 10.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................... ..... 15
i SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, iNC.
� ,
Tentative Tract 23G20 TA�3LE OF COI�d`I'EPITS
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS EXPANSION
LIST OF PLATES
Plate No.
1 VICINITY MAP
2 GEOLOGIC AND TEST HOLE LOCATION MAP
3-3A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
4 TYPICAL FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION
5 SIDE HILL FILL DETAIL
6 CUT/FILL TRANSITION DETAIL
�:: 7 RETAINING WALL DETAIL
APPENDIX A '
� SOUTH �DAST GEOLOGIC SEf�VICES, �N�.
s
1.0 INTRODUC�'ION �
l.l General
This repo.rt presents the results of our geotechnical exploration for a 29
single family home subdivision on a 10+ acre parcel of land within tentative
tr. act 23220 located southeasterly of the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle
, Medusa, in the County of Riverside, California.
Reference is made to our report entitled, "Geotechnical Report for a
Proposed 73 Single Family Home Subdivision within the 21 Acre Parcel
Described as Tentative Tract 23Q15, Riverside County, California" dated
January 29, 1988.
Applicable data presented an the referenced report is incorporated herein
except where amended.
1.2 Site Location and Description
General site location is depicted on the attached "Vicinity Map" ( Figure 1) .
` Site configuration and elevations (proposed and existing) are shown on the
"Geologic �and Test Hole Location Map" (Figure 2) . Figure 2 is based upon a
"Grading Plan for Vesting, Tentative Tract 1VIap No. 23220" dated December
1987 by CM Engineering Associates . Based on verbal information provided by
CM Engineering, the north arrow on their_ map has been revised to reflect
correct orientation. Additional data has been added based on observations by
the geologist during site exploration.
The property is bounded to the north and south by natural westerly sloping
terrain. An existing Metropolitan Water District Easement bounds the
westerly project boundary while an existing unpaved road/utility easement
bounds the eastern ° property line. The unpaved roadway is e�evated
approximately 12 feet above the gully in the vicinity of Test Hole 4.
The site consists of two gently westerly sloping ridges with a westerly
trending gully through the central portion of the site . The flanks of the
ridges range in gradient from 15:1 to 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) . Intermittent
stream flow from the site is directed to the west toward Santa Gertrudis
Creek which runs parallel with .Nicolas Road.
General topographic relief across the site is approximately 104 feet. The site
has been somewhat modified due to previous grading.
An unpaved road traverses north-south across the valley floor. Nearby road
cuts have been constructed at 12:1 to 1:1 gradients ranging to 30 feet in
height. These cuts expose admixtures of silt sand and gravel. The road
cuts are unplanted and are undergoing erosion. The approximate limits of
the existing fill generated by the cuts are shown on Figure 2.
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, �N�.
' ' '1'entative Tract 23220 -2-
Vegetation consists of native seasonal grasses which cover the site. Sage,
mesquite and cactus predominantly mantle the ridges .
1.3 Proposed Development
Based on the latest available plari, 29 single family horne sites are to be
created within the 10+ acre parcel. The lots will be extensively graded by
utilizing cut and fill grading techniques to provide for level pads. Improved
roads will be graded providing through access to the development. Grading
will consist of both cut and fill slopes no steeper than 2:1.
Single family, one and two-story residences will likely be constructed on the
graded pads . Foundation loads are anticipated to be light on the order of
1500 plf. The site is to be provided with a sanitary sewer system.
2.0 SCOPE OF V+10RK
This report is to be used for tentative tract purposes and to provide
information on the nature of the geology and geotechnical engineering aspects
of the site as they relate to the proposed development. Once a more detailed
plan is available South Coast Geologic Services should be contacted for review
of the plan and preparation of lot specific recommendations.
The scope of our work included the following items :
*Review of available geologic maps and publications;
*Excavation, Iogging and sampling of 6 backhoe test
holes to evaluate subsurface geotechnical conditions
and obtain samples for laboratory testing;
*Observation of existing surface topography and-• site
conditions ;
*Laboratory testing of selected soil samples;
*Evaluation of general geotechnical conditions as affected by
the proposed development; and
*Preparation of this report .
The following paragraphs present specific information on the items listed
above.
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, ����.
�' ' Tentative 7'ract 23220 -3 '
3.0 EXPLORATION �
Subsurface exploratiori was conducted on December 22 , 1987 . The Iocations of
' the test holes, estimated in the field by brunton and tape measurements, are
depicted on Figure 2. Test hole locations should be considered accurate only
to the degree implied by the method used.
Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a drive sampler. Samples
thus obtained were capped and sealed immediately upon extraction. Bulk
samples of representative soil types were also taken. Test holes were
backfilled upon completion of the work.
' 4.0 SbTBSURFACE CONDITI011TS
' 4.1 General - '
A description of the soil encountered in the test holes is presented on the
attached sheets entitled "Subsurface Exploration Log" (Figures 3 and 3A) .
' Each test hole represents conditions only at that particular location on the
date of our exploration. The stratification lines on the logs represent the
�� approAimate boundary between soil types , and the transition may be gradual.
4 . 2 Fill ( Af )
I Fill ranging in depth to --approximately 15 feet was observed wzthin the
existing road fill/ utility easement along the eastern property line. This road
; fill descends at an approximate gradient of lz:l onto the site. Up to 8 feet
� of fill was observed on the project site where previous grading has produced
i
spill fill along the trailing edge of the previously graded pads . The fill
i consists of a brown silty sand in a generally loose condition. In its presen
` condition the fill is riot considered suitable for either fill or foundation
support .
� 4.3 To�soil
i Topsoil ranging in depth to a maximum of 1.5 to 2 feet was observed along
the near vertical cuts on the ridge flanks. The topsoil consists of a brown
silty sand in a generally loose condition. In its present condition the topsoil
' is not considered suitable for either additional fill or foundation support.
�
4.4 Alluvium (Qal)
Recent alluvium to an observed depth of 8 feet was encountered in the central
gully area. The approximate boundary of the alluvium is depicted on Figure
2. The alluvial material consists of a brown silty sand to gravelly silty sand
I in a loose to medium dense condition.
Alluvium adjacent to the existing road filllutility easement was observed to be
' in a generally loose condition to an approximate depth of 7 feet. Based on
� SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, �N�.
�
' � ' Tentative Tract 23220 -4-
the oUserved low densities within the upper 2-32 feet (7 feet w the area
of Test Hole 4), the alluvium is not suitable for fill or foundation support.
Below the loose disturbed alluvium, the material is considered suitable for fill
and foundaticn support as proposed.
4. 5 Old Alluvium ( Qoal )
Well consoliciated old floodplain deposits (old alluvium) mantle the ridge tops
and uncierlie the surficial soil. The deposits consist of lerises of sand to silty
clayey sand with scattered quartzite, granite and volcanic gravels with
occasional cobbles. The material was found to be massive with no observable
geologic structure .
The old alluvium is poorly cemented and, where exposed, is readily erodible.
Trus material is considered suitable for both .fill and foundation support.
4.6 Groundwater
No grouridwater or seepage were noted during our exploration. However,
seasonal rains and other factors may alter groundwater ox• seepage conditions .
4.7 Seismic Conditions �
Based on review of available publications, no faults have been previously
� mapped on the site. No faults were encountered during our exploration.
Active faults which may affect the sti°uctures during their lifespan are the
�� Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone, San Jacinto and the San Andreas Fault Zones .
These faults are considered potentially active, displaying movement within the
last 11, 000 years . The active Fault Zones are located to the west and to the
northeast of the site, respectively.
, Recent ground cracks in the residential development within the Wolf Valley
area of Rancho California are currently under investigation by other
geotechnical firms . Several opinions have been postulated as to the primary
� cause for the ground subsidence. One opiniori is that the ground subsidence
is related to groundwater extraction by local water districts. Another opinion
' is that the cracking relates to the buried Wolf Valley Fault. The Wolf Valley
Fault, as mapped, is located approximately 2.5 miles southwesterly of subject
site. Further, to our knowledge, no municipal water wells are located within
the subject development .
Based upon the above limited information there is no apparent direct
correlation between the geologic conditions of Wolf Valley and the subject site.
, SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERUICES, �N�.
' � ' Tentative Tract 23220 '5
The following table summarizes some data concerning the active faults :
Approximate Recurrence Anticipated
Distance to Probable Interval over Max. Ground
Site Richter Length on Fault Accelerations
Fault (miles) Magnitude (vears) " �•�) ""
Elsinore 1.0 6.0 20-90 0.27 0.55
(Wildomar)
San Jacinto 19.0 6.0 4-10 0.19 0.13
Fault System
San Andreas 35 +8.0 n/a��%�-� 0.31 0.10
Fault Zone . •
* Housner, 1965, Proceedings of the Third World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering
** Schnable and Seed, 1972, Bulletin of Seismological Society
of America, Volume 63, No. 2.
*** No specific recurrence interval as event is likely to
occur within next 100 years.
Anticipated ground accelerations have been selected from two sources in order
to provide a range of possible design values. The values listed should be
considered as approximate; several complex factors including fault zone
geometry and intervening subsurface geologic structure may substantially
, alter these values .
Building codes for a long time have prescribed a method of design of
buildings for earthquake considerations . Many buildings that withstood the
"' San Fernando earthquake were designed for an acceleration of O.lg or less.
Considerable superficial damage occurred to buildings near the San Fernando
� Fault. However, only a few buildings collapsed which were generally: on
sloping terrain; had high ceilinged first floors with lobbies with long ceiling
spans; were tilt-up industrial buildings with relatively few partitions; or,
+ were built before the Building Code's seismic requirements took effect.
In considering values that should be used for design, the type of building
occupancy and extent of allowable damage should �e considered. To minimize
cracking, the peak predicted or maximum acceleration should be used. If
moderate cracking, spalling of plaster, and some breakage is permitted, a
value of 50 to 75 percent of the peak acceleration can be used. Collapse of a
building can be expected if a value approximating only 25 percent of the
acceleration is used. This was evident on substandard buildings constructed
before the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. An added consideration for lowering
the design vaiues from a peak value is that. the peak force is only instantane-
ous . This explains how buildings have undergone higher peak accelerations
than those for which they were designed. This reduction in peak acceleration
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SEI?VICES, �N�,
'' '� ' Tentative Tract 23220 '
for design does not necessarily indicate a lower safety factor, but rather
permits dynamic values to be considered for static design.
Based upon the above, the project may be designed for the acceleration
formula specified in the latest Uniform Building Code.
Due to the consolidated nature of the soils to be left in place at the site as
recommended in this report, and the anticipated depth to groundwater it is
� our opinion that the possibility of liquefactioii occurring at the site is remote.
I 4.8 Ha2ardous Conditions
� Based upon our site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration no hazardous
or toxic waste was encountered on the site. Therefore, it is our opinion that
i the site is currently free of hazardous and toxic waste material.
�
5.0 LAB�7RATORY TESTIATG
! 5.1 General
` The following describes the testing procedure and results derived from
laboratory testing. Test results are used as a partial basis for design
recommendations .
� Test holes were observed and logged in the fielcl_ Samples considered to be
representative were obtained for laboratory tests. The attached logs
; tabulate data based on laboratory classification tests and visual inspection by
' the geologist in the field.
� 5.2 Moisture Content ar.d In-Place Density
The field moisture content and in-place density are determined for soil
samples obtained by methods described in ASTM Test Method D2216. The
in-place dry density is computed using the net weight of the entire sample .
The field moisture content and in-place density results are tabulated on the
,' attached logs (Figux•es 3-3A).
I
5.3 Compaction
� Compaction tests were conducted on samples of the topsoil, alluvium and old
alluvium anticipated for use as compacted fill. This test is performed in the
laboratory in accordance with the ASTM Test Method D1557. The compaction
tests were made in a four-inch diameter mold having a 1/ 30th cubic foot
volume, with 25 blows of a 10 pound hammer falling 18 inches on each of five
layers for various moisture conditions . A new batch of soil was used for
each moisture condition . A summary of the compaction test results are
presented in Appendix A.
,
I
� SOUTH COAST GEOLC�GIC SE(�VlCES, �N�.
�
' � ' �ientative Tract 232`LO -7-
� 5.4 Expansion
An expansion index test was conducted on a sample of the soil considered
� representative of the most expansive onsite material. The test is conducted
in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. The test
results are presented in Appendix A.
6.0 DISCUSSION
The recommendations in this report are based on the Uniform Building Code
and random sampling as described in the previous paragraphs. Geologic
conditions and soil deposits may vary in type, consistency and many other
important properties between test holes . Therefore, this report should be
considered only preliminary in nature; its purpose is to provide information
on the nature of the geolqgy and geotech•nical engineering aspects of the
proposed development for tentative tract purposes. South Coast Geologic
Services, Inc. should continue to be retained for the project in order that
specific lot recommendations can be prepared based on specific development
plans .
For the purposes of preliminary design, the soil conditions where no
subsurface exploration was done for this report may be considered similar to
those described in this report. Conditions should be re-evaluated by the
geologist or soil engineer during site preparation for construction.
The on-site soils are anticipated to be easy to excavate with conventional
� earthmoving equipment. As the alluvial soils are subject to erosion, care
� should be taken to provide adequate protection for slopes and excavations
created during the rainy season.
An allowance should be made for the difference in the volume of compacted fill
placed and the volume from the excavation. The difference between the
volume of compacted fill measured in place, and the volume of excavation
measured in place, is called shrinkage and is expressed as a percent of the
volume of the excavated soil measured in place. Approximately 1Q and 20
percent shrinkage is anticipated to occur during processing of the alluvium
and topsoil, respectively.
7.0 RECON�ENDATIONS
7.1 General
We recommend that completed grading plans and project specifications be
submitted to us for review of the geotechnical aspects and additional
recommendations . The site should be developed in accordance with the
applicable portions of the recommendations contained in this report, and the
regulations of the governmental agencies. It is necessary to make the report
available to the contractor for his evaluation of the subsurface conditions .
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, �N�,
7 � 'Tentative �I'ract 23220 -�-
Foundation design values presented in this report for compacted fill are based
on the assumption that fill for foundation support will consist primarily of
soils with a low to mediucn potential for expansion. Where foundation or slab
support is derived from a fill soil different than that described above, design
values may be different than those provided in this report. Therefore, the
soil engineer should be notified once design grade has been achie°Jed to
evaluate changed conditions and prepare additional recommendations, if
. necessary.
7.2 Earthwork
7.2.1 General
The loose surficial soil materials are not suitable for additional fill support in
their present condition. This material should be removed from areas to
receive new fill. Removal should extend to such a depth that firm alluvial
deposits are exposed and verified by the soil engineer or geologist. Removal
of unsuitable soils should be observed by a representative of SCGS, Inc.
7.2.2 Clearing and Site Preparation
� The site should be cleared of trash, weeds and other obstructions. Any
excavation voids created during the clearing process that extend below the
proposed fiiiish grade should be backfilled with suitable material compacted to
' the requirements given below _under Section 7.2.5. To verify that any
excavations to remove material are properly backfilled, we recommend that the
; backfilling operations be carried out �znder the observation of a representative
� of SCGS, Inc.
� 7.2.3 Removals
The following information regarding removal depth is based on the subsurface
conditions observed during our exploration. Removal depth in unexplored
areas is unknown. To more accurately determine removal quantity, additional
exploration should be conducted just prior to commencement of grading.
Anticipated
Depth of
Litholo�ic Unit Removal - Feet
Fill 8
Topsoil 2
Alluvium 3z"��
Old Alluvium Scarify surface
�
; SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, ����.
A � Tentative Tract 23220 - y -
7.2.4 Subdrains -
Based upon similar geologic conditions on the adjacent tract development, no
subdrains are required provided that the soil material which underlies the fill
is suitably permeable .
7.2.5 Compacted Fill
Structural fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
as determined by ASTM Test Designation D1557. Fill material should be
spread and compacted in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted
thickness . Fill placed against slopes steeper than 5:1 should be benched into
firm alluvium. A 4 foot (minimurra) vertical bench should be maintained during
fill placement. If construction proceeds during the wet winter months, time
may be required to dry the. onsite finer grained soils to be used as fill, since
their rnoisture content will probably be appreciably above optimum.
Based upon the similar geologic conditions on the adjacent tract development
no significant amount of oversized rocks are anticipated during grading.
� 7.2.6 Fill Slopes
Fill slopes may be graded as steep as 2:1. Fill slopes �hould be keyed into
' firm alluvium soil approved by the geotechnical consultant. Fill placed on
slopes steeper than �:1 should be benched into firm alluviut�i during grading
to establish a good contact and minimize the potential for development of a
j slip plane. Benches should expose at least 4 feet (vertical) of material
� acceptable to the soil engineer. Figure 4 depicts typical fill slope construc-
tion. The keyway should be at least 15 f2et wide, 2 feet deep at the toe and
' 3 feet deep at heel of the key. The key and each fill lift placed should be
such that a 2 percent gradient into the slope is maintained. Fill slopes
should be over-filled at least 6 feet ancl trimmed back to achieve a firm ..
� surface . As an alternate to slope overfill the slope may be compacted at
, design grade during construction. Where this alternative is elected the
surface of the slope is to be com.pacted at intervals not exceeding 4 feet
� vertical as the fill is being brought to grade . Additional track rolling and
! grid rolling of the slopes may be necessary where slope tests reveal less than
90 percent compaction. Figure 5 depicts typical side hill fill slope construc-
' tion .
7.2.7 Cut Slopes
� Permanent cut slopes may be graded at 2:1. All cut slopes should be
observed by the project geologist at vertical intervals not exceeding 5 feet.
I 7.2.8 Transition From Cut to Fill �
Where a transition between cut and fill occurs within a building area, the pad
� area should be overexcavated to provide uniform foundation support. The
�
SOUTH COAST GEOLC�GIC SEf�VICES, �N�.
; ' Tentative Tract 23220 -10-
cut portion should be overexcavated to provide a compacted fill blanket
measuring at least 4 feet below the bottom of footings and slabs. The
overexcavation should be deepened near the fill area to provide a gradual
transition as shown on Figure 6. Overexcavation should extend beyond the
exterior perimeter of the exterior� footings a distance equal to or greater than
the depth of fill beneath ttie footings.
7.2.9 Slope Drainage
Terrace drains should be provided as set forth in the Code. A compacted fill
berm should be placed at the Lop �f all fill slopes . The berm should have a
height of 12 inches at the top of the slope and taper to zero height toward
the interior of the pad 4 feet from the top of the slope. Drainage from the
building site should be directed toward the street, away from the slopes.
A paved terrace drain should be provided at the top of all cut slopes.
7.2.10 Trench Backfill
Utility trenches should be placed outside of a 1:1 plane extending downward
from the base of structural footings except where passing under the
foundation pads . The backfill in the trench should be compacted to reduce
the potential for future settlement. Utility trenches should be backfilled with
fill placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. If
' on-site soil is used, the material should be compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction by mechanical means only.
� It has been our experience that sand, where used far trench backfill, is most
effectively placed as a sand/water slurry pumped into place followed by
vibratory densification. A 10:1 soil:cement mix should be used where trench
' backfill is to be done on sloping terrain ( steeper than 5:1) . Utility lines
� placed in sloping terrain should be anchored to minimize the potential for
movement .
7.3 Foundations
� 7.3.1 General
No information regarding structural loading was available to us at the time of
this report. Once specific structural and location plans are available for the
proposed structures they should be reviewed by our office for additional
recommendations .
The following design value recommendations are based on values presented in
the Uniform Building Code and are presented for preliminary design only.
Laboratory testing can be performed if requested, which may justify the use
of higher design values .
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, ���.
A ' Tentative r!'ract 23220 -11-
For the purpose of this report it is assumed that 1 and 2 story st� uctures
will be built and supported on conventional continuous footings extending into
either firm alluvium or firm compacted fill. Footings supporting 1 floor and a
roof should be at least 12 inches deep and 12 inches wide. Footings
supporting 2 floors and a roof should be at least 18 inches deep and 15
inches wide measured below- lowest adjacent grade acceptable to the soil
engineer. Footings on or within 10 feet of top of slopes should be deepened
to have a horizontal projection of at least 10 feet from the lowest outside edge
of the footing to the slope face.
7.3.2 Structural Footings
Strip footings having a depth and width of 12 inches may be designed for an
allowable bearing capacity of 1500 psf . This value may be increased by 300
psf for each 1 foot of increased width and/or dep�h to a maximum of 4500
psf .
A summary of these minimum foundation recommendations, including reinforce-
ment for conventional footings and slabs on grade is presented on Table 1.
The weight of the footing below lowest adjacent grade can be neglected. The
allowable foundation pressure may be increased up to one-third the given
value for earthquakes or other temporary forces. .
Footings adjacent to retaining walls or other footings should be deepened
below -a 45 degree. plane extended from the 'oase of the adjacent footing or _
wall .
�
' 7.3.3 Lateral Loads
Lateral loads for footings and slabs on compacted fill or firm alluvium may be
. designed for using a combination of lateral sliding resistance along the bottom
of slabs and passive earth pressure against the sides of footings . Lateral
slicling resistance may be determined by multiplying the dead load by a
' coefficient of friction of 0.25. Passive earth pressure is zero at the ground
surface and increases with depth at the rate of 150 psf per foot of depth to a
' maximum of 2250 psf for firm alluvium and compacted fill.
Lateral bearing and lateral sliding resistance may be combined.
7.4 Retainin� Walls
No retaining walls are currently proposed. The following recommendations are
presented for preliminary use only. Plans for retaining walls (including
location) must be submitted to South Coast Geologic Services, Inc. for review
prior to final design.
�
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, �NC.
. , ;
7.4.1 Wall Pressure
Non-rigid retaining walls up to 10 feet in height, which retain level, drained
backfill should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pcf
( minimum) .
A vertical component equal to one-third of the horizontal force may be
assumed at the plane of application of the force. The depth of the retained
earth shall be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the
wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for
overturning and sliding.
Surcharges on walls due to footings above a 45 degree plane extended up
� from the base of the wall footi�g should be added to the wall pressure
indicated above. Automobile loads may be assumed to be equivalent to 12
inches of soil.
i . '
7.4.2 Wall Foundation
Wall footings should be extended at least 18 inches into firm compacted fill or
firm alluvium measured below lowest adjacent firm surface and should have a
footing width of at least 2 feet. Wall footings proportioned as recommended
above may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 1950 psf .
7.4.3 Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads for wall footings can be ctesigned for using a coefficient of
friction of 0.25 (to be multiplied by the dead load) and a passive pressure
' value of 150 psf . This passive pressure value may be incrEased by 150 psf
for each additional foot of depth into firm approved soil to a maximum value
of 2250 psf .
7.4.4 Wall Backfill
The wall backfill should consist of predominantly granular material and should
be drained. A continuous layer of well graded gravel (as specified on Figure
7) 12 inches in width (minimum) should be placed along the intersection of
' backfill and surface of the backcut. This gravel blanket should extend to
within 2 feet of the ground surface (on-site soil is to be used as a cap to
, seal the gravel blanket against surface water infiltration) . Weepholes should
consist of unmortared joints in block walls or one (1) inch diameter round
holes in poured walls . The openings should be at least 6 inches above
finished grade to prevent surface water from flowing back into the holes .
Provisions should be made to collect the water from the weepholes and
conduct it via non erosive device to an approved location away from parking
and wulk•r�ay areas .
Walls to remain dry may be drained by placing a perforated pipe, holes down,
in the gravel and grading the pipe to daylight (2 percent gradient,
minimum) . Figure 7 depicts a typical rataining w�ll backdrain system. The
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERUICES, �N�.
� Tentative Tract 23220 -13-
pipe should be lower than the top of the floor slab and should be _ graded to
drain towards an approved location. The back of the wall should be
waterproofed.
Wall backfill should be compacted to a density of at least 90 percent of
maximum density using light compaction equipment only. A paved drainage
ditch should be placed along the top of walls where runoff is anticipated and
should conduct the water to an approved location.
Gravel and pipe placement should be observed by a representative of SCGS,
Inc. prior to placement of backfill.
i
7.4.5 Prewettin� of Slab Areas '
� Laboratory test results indicate that the soi� which currently mantles the site
has a low potential for expansion. No prewetting is required.
7.4.6 Moisture Barrier
Moisture barriers should be placed below concrete slabs in moisture sensitive
( areas. Barriers should overlay 2 inches of clean sand and should consist of
� a plastic film (6 mil polyvinyl chlo�ide, minimum). The barrier should be
covered with a minimum of 1 inch of clean sand. Sand overlying the barrier
I should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the conerete . The sand
!- should provide a suitable working surface and aid in the cure__of the
concrete . All joints of the b"�rrier should be sealed or overlapped at least 12
i inches. Care should be taken not to damage the barrier during construction.
7.5 Landscapin�
. Newly constructed slopes or existing slopes where vegetation is not sufficient
or has been damaged due to construction shot�ld be planted as soon as
i possible with a deep rooting ground cover requiring a minimum of irrigation.
� Burrowing rodents should be actively discouraged. Slope surfaces should be
maintained at a relatively constant moisture content. Periodic checks of slope
; conditions should be made to search for and correct potential surficial
� instability.
� Fill slopes should be planted as soon as possible with a deep rooting ground
cover requiring a minimum of irrigation. Slope surfaces should be maintained
at a relatively constant moisture content.
' Time, weather, plants, animals and man himself have an adverse affect on
natural and man-made slopes. Shallow slope failures can occur in time. If
the slopes are properly graded and maintained it is our opinion that they will
� remain stable .
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SER�ICES, �N�.
, i erlrativ� i ra�� ����� � �
. r� ,
7.6 Draina�e
The finished surface at the site should be graded so that water will drain
away from retaining walls, structures and slopes. Ponding of water should
not be permitted. Drainage from adjacent slopes should be directed away
from the proposed structures to an approved location. Planters adjacent to
foundations should be sealed and drainage diverted via non erosive device to
an approved location. Placement of planters, walkways, drive areas, etc. ,
should not be allowed to create depressed areas near foundations.
The building pads should have sufficient height above the curb to drain
toward the street on a slope of 2 percent from all points on the pad.
Terrace, diverter and lot drains should be designed in accordance with the
County of Riverside standards . Final grading plans should be reviewed by
I SCGS, Inc. for additional drainage recommendations.
I 8.0 PAVF.M[ENT
I Loose soil should be removed from parking and drive areas prior to placement
i �
of any new fill or pavement.
The following information regarding pavement section is advisory only and
should not be considered as recommendations that will necessarily result in
; trouble free pavement. This information is based on our experience with
pavements on different soil and has not been verified by detailed pavement
design testing. If you desire a pavement design, this can be provided.
Parking areas and drives may be paved with at least 3 inches of asphalt
concrete . The pavement aggregate should contain about 40 percent gravel
! with a maximum size of 1/2 inch, and about 60 percent sand . A seal coat
I should be used to make the pavement impermeable and less susceptible to
damage by surface water. The .paeement section should be. thickened near the ,
! edges and adjacent to planters to a depth of at least 15 inches.
! The pavement may be underlain with e inches of base course consisting of
about 60 percent natural river gravel or crushed gravel, and about 40
I percent well graded sand. Prior to placement of base courses, all subgrades
should be uniformly compacted to an unyielding condition. The base course
� material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. The
� above information is for "light" traffic areas (autos and small trucks) . Areas
which will receive heavy, repetitive truck traffic should have thicker
structural sections. It is suggested that any such areas be paved with at
i least 3 inches of asphalt concrete underlain by 10 inches of base course.
i 9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
i
I Cuts should be observed by the project geologist at vertical intervals not
; exceed.ing 5 feet. Unsuitable soil removal and placement of compacted fill
i
� SOUTH COASTGEOLOGIC SEI�VICES, �NC.
�
s ^� :
Tentative Tract 23220 -1 �'
should be observed and tested by a representative of SCGS, Inc. Areas to
receive fill and subdrains should be observed and approved by a representa-
tive of SCGS, Inc. prior to fill placement. A representative of SCGS, Inc.
should observe the footing excavations prior to placing of forms and steel.
It should be understood that the contractor shall supervise and direct the
work and shall be responsible for all construction means, methods,
techniques, sequences and procedures. The contractor will be solely and
completely responsible for conditions at the job site, including safety of all
persons and property during the performance of the work. Periodic or
continuous inspection by SCGS, Inc. is not intended to include verification of
dimensions (vertical or horizontal) or review of the adequacy of the contrac-
tor's safety measures in, on or near the construction site.
10.0 COI�TCLUSIONS � '
The recornmendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design
information for the proposed development, field observations, and subsurface
conditions abserved and interpreted during the field and laboratory work.
The subsurface conditions described are the result of interpolation between
� widely spaced test holes and should be checked in the field during construc-
� tion. Differences between the described and actual subsurface conditions
should be brought to the attention of this office .
' If the recommendations in our reports are followed during_ construction, it is
our opinion as geotechnical consultants that the proposed development, as
� shown on the plans, will not affect off-site geologic stability.
(
� SOUZ'I� COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, _ Inc.
�
i � � ���
�
' Tom Rauls
taff Geologist
^�;,
.•,' . ;,
� �
- � � � �;�.
�:-G" � � `�--- _
Carl t�enk ' � �� Maire 'LaChapelle' _' "',
' C.E.G �-��'� Q'� R.C.E.E';�13b733 ,.
. . �F CAL�F� '�;�� ,1','� ,� <�,
j Sh ��``�-• � =�``�---.:-_.
� �_�:.....,_.,...v
SOUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SERVICES, �N�.
i; � �
. .,
� TABLE 1
i FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS-LOW EXPANSION
CONVENTIONAL SLAB ON GRADE
r Surficial Soil Expansion Index: 0-50
; h(Footings supporting 1 floor and a roof)
. �%�*(Footings supporting 2 floors and a,roof) ',
I
; Foundation.- One and 2`wo Story Structures
� � Exterior Footing� Minimum width = 12" 15"�� , ,
' Minimum depth below lowest adjacent.grade = 12'',� .
. _ Allowable footing.pressure = 1500.g2�� 18'.'� , .
,,- Lateral bearing pressure - 150 psf�:..
_ _.. _ . ,
_. ..
_ __
` Lateral`sliding;resistance (friction:�coefficient).=0 25�
, . . . .. ,._ .
- Minimum reinforcement.= Two number 4,bars,'one._riear : ;''�
,
, .
, , .. . ..
� �. the.top and one near-the bottom. ` ' ��` ;
, . - . �..
,
� Interior Footing - Minimum width - 12"
; - (for slab floors) Minimum below top of slab = 12" ' . �
; Allowable footing pressure = 1500:�psf�
_. = , �:: . _ ,-- ..: _= - -- . _.- - -- - - _ :.. --=-_
.:_ ... . .. ..... . . . . �. . .
� � . Minimum.reinforcement:= �.io number bars, one riear'"the
- top and one near�.the bottom. :., �'
., .
�, Lateral bearing pressure = 150 psf � '
� Lateral sliding resistance (friction_coefficient) 0 25� -.
( � . '
; - _ .. ..._ _.
; Floor Slabs = Livin� Areas�
, . ._ .. � . -
, _
_� ,. ,
, : � '..,. ,. : . . e _ 4, � - , : ,:
( Minimum'thickn ss:- --� - - •"
I .- , � Lateral sliding resistance (fr.iction coefficient) 0 25�
� ' ` Minimum rein forcement = 6" x 6" - 1 0''x' 1 0 w e l d e d� W i r e; '
,
I ..':: mesh . y '.
�_ . � < .:.. . �,: '__ : . :. . ...... ... ,.
, , ,
. _: : �.: :' :.Moisture �Barrier - Living Areas : ,: . :._ . L . . - .
( -_ - 2 inches �clean .sand overlain by plastic film, miriimum '�
• ,
� �' " 6 mil.:polyvinyl chloride:or•equivalent overlain,by
� � ; .. - . ,:, , _ , ��
� a minimum of 1 inch clean sand to provide a�-working .
� . .. r.
' surface and. aid in� concrete curing � ;;� `' ;, 4 �
., �. . ._ - :,T : _; -
_ _„ _ - - -
.
i : . : .`
z '.
, : _ .. .
Prewetting S
lab Areas ,. , : . ;
,�,: ��: Slab area should be.thoroughly moistened immediately {,}'
� ,. ..�-,_. "; ; - - _ . ,, .. .:. _ . _ ,:. . _,..
: : . ,
� - prior to placing moisture barrier. -� -.
, - , ;.
�; (1) The allowable bearing value may be increased by 300 psf for each �. "
, --. :. . : . , .. _ -
_ � :
__
� : additional foot of width and/or depth to a maximum value of 4500 psf ,
(2) The lateral bearing pressure may be increased by 150.psf for each -
� � additional foot of depth to a maximum of 2250 psf.
i (3) Coef£icient to be multiplied by dead load. ' �
(4) Includes interior piers and footings for raised floors. ,_ :
� . . . .. _ _ � - - --- -
� -- ---::_-- - _ _- - --
� Calle Medusa, Phase II
I . . _. . . . � . . . .. . . . 1 � � _
. . Tentative:Tract 23220
_ _ _ _. .
�
Riverside Countv. CA _ -
, _ .,. ,
; .
�' SQUTH COAST GEOLOGIC SEI�VICES, �N� �
� } i
'
---'---- - -- - - --- i
� i
� � 2 � � Q 2�. ! � 9 � 20 �� ; �
- ; i g � �; � �
� ( � ' pf� � �
� 4� .v, � �
; --- - - rt - _-- _ _ � .. I
� � �
, � �., �
� ( 2 7 1 � Z� � 79 - z 5 !� 30 , 29 � LS
� I �
i � � ' q µ ik.
,t� � ��'� ,
, -- -- -- --- ;- ------- ---- - - � � � �-�, -- ----� ----- -- -- --
1 ' ' ' I �� �
, , .
i:- �4 ?5 � 3to � 31 i 3'� 33 �
j ` . � I i � �� i�
� - ' __ '- "_"'� __- _ __` "" '__"- �
, T8 S � � � , I
i �
` �� � � � i ---- �- - �
� 5 �
3 2 � � <o �:' '
� I t �
I � +
� � -.-�- - � - -- - - -�- j
, � � - --- � , -�-
;
I �� 7 l��G(�L� � , 2 � � 7 g I 9
� � �° �� � ! �
I / � �
�
--- VICINITY MAP
CALLE MEDUSA. PHASE II '
TEN?ATIVE TRACT 2322C'
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CA
�
FEBHUARY 1983 FIGURE 1
: SOUTH COAST 6EOL061C SEAVIC�S
� -� -. ;��., �r `: I i!n'; ; '�;G' �� �! r h
I F "r;"L�iHf1:::9 �F!:E �! LL'.y�tl? �. ,n.Fh �t. L j I i ��c I�!;kG:. I
! �=-��-:% � ;h -- � �(� �.CF�;�'�`" i �' ` . � i
I ; � '
i �y-- - ; i��nrrJ�; "�[:� �� _L%T�� !JF �uL� ' i ;,�G�G�:��;Ji: J�; V�T:i'� i
�.r� �,t F;'r`L.��.;. ..:�..ri .. _.
i — j ' -- --- -- --�
� ::.CI:f.C�° � �:� j�=� �__4' ��';�`�i?=,:?�:::'1e:V i�r:_;ra Pi,-; !
� i — � ---- — � r, i � l i � � � ;—;
j = � � j - y;;;:it���;i``I� � � �
� 'i. - ; I ;�p`.�;;r :,T! � �
' � i � „ Ctii='Iu'i � `' �`'Y� i F � ��; '_�`F;�r.T I , .a ; ,. '
��I - - --_-- _*r=��' I I �
i i�: �; i �� . � T f": �:i � ----,.__ il'�t .
I i �� � i I
' ' ' N L 1 i `
i � I I I� I i i i i
j i ' i I I � 1 -- ' - , -- �
I � :+;::� ttl�u,'Ll � 1 i � �'=�1`y c.7 hinW-�� t j.�_ ._ -��'u''1G:1 ��::i1°i�� � � i
� (.:.. • . I � ,� Y � � �_ !
! 3 � � � 1 �
�':. ,: ; �_ � i � � � ;
; "�-`.' ,
�'`': 3 I � � � i ;i -.� .i
; ; �r�. ' � � _..,� _, , :�
j , , �;s;; � ! �
: a,::., 4 � I i i � !
�;:::
' j :.:J� � i lC;t;y 'liiF�T lrr�:': Onri„ - -:*,gd � ` - -'
� ' €.; . 3';� , � : s'v, , :
i r i ;;;� �- 1, i ,ti ° __ ��rp ,. w:�':°} j . ''-,j : - ,
. �� i5=a � � �5 , '�' t
� f . �;:i� � I I � 5°.'...;.*, G' .__ �
�::,: .' � ^ � � ' � i 1 I I
� f.;>. [;;'. � f � � ( � !
' r.`':� ' I I !
� ` � :.: i j 7 � ! ' _ _ = I
E::;:; - - � j , i � ' � ± � !"' :
; s;>: i ; •:<{ -. ± � -, ; - , , ., . . . �
.:i :�.: .. .. . ,._`; �� � j" i
I i F�� ";s.� I i i ! , --'-
' �... i
� i
t
i .. : 'rj `' � � 1.71::',�r - -' ��'.':;? �T;?::�_. }:' _V?-== ��=;��cr{ I — i ��
- F:.�`riu� � • , =�; :_: ,� � � ;
� �,-,'. �j t i i L u i 5- ..-=-
l j t'':'; t;�:',''i ! _ j i ' "� � I !
� E� �.j ,• � � I � �
t S .1 � v( 1 I. Jiii,'; _..�� .' �ZC -- :i�or 3i._-c_ :� �: <<
� �.. � � � � � �=.='t�:= - --�' �'- . ._ '.�C '_u�.,^ �
; Fi'r� ;::3 � ;:,.i ! I'_ � i ;
' 4i "? {i� . i � i i _. . ' � !
� ,� i _ � � � � I _ � ; I _ . I
i ! ! J � � � I
, j .: . , .-�.��' i i y ,
•.', j _ _ - �_ I I i _ 1 i
, �
i
�
; t :j � i �� I ���+ c _ - ,�. _.,' ;-- �'-'��;� � i --
"', J �"�i'�I::� � ( �. . � i
. � : iv-1.,-.: I I I �
�' � � ' � 5'' "` '__ ... �.�. n""��' ..'n�" 1 ,
! � x'.:' I j ` i � � " " :� . ' . " - ' � _ i
: 5 ...,1 ':;::� � �:•1 I .. I r, �.j,n�!�PK Ci
! - F;:i 2� � _ , � _ � .
i - i.�:�� ,�'.;�� i . i L i I� i � i J i .
Ii ! V I;'r;l E.; . � . i � i i 1
j � i :•._,.� I . : _
�=" • = i
� �.'�i :;'�1 ?-„ = ii�I '"!l I ! � ..`:� �..
I f'::: i�i . _ . .. � - � � � �. - � �---�
i
- - i
�
i � ��"�.t!;�,=r;:� ��, _.^� _�N _:E ---- —i
� � — --- �
I � :T{:�l.Lr�t� �i`.I'1 . _�F!'`�", � i
� ,, "�w i �.''� �ar.4r i � ! i
� � '1:.��� : �Mr���' ! '
I ; iNir� !:rLl Sti�'� :r I .= ii?.:1:; '_',=- ` i
1 . *!�;i;;,' �r. ,'�- � NI_.� � - .,- .r c -; __- _ ;
: ��,_.yyT", , - - - �
� (�i`i=�T`,KF �l`�`� .+.� tiii I h:1:f � t,ry:;'1�` �,,.`Tl�'n;j �
: i .
� �� �;Y-L'1 u(�� iii{�V �i=1y'` � 1'Y f nrr ` f ' !
� ` � fE'�t L'.'..��r .Vk•�: � i�jli.j ° _
I L —. ----
i � �C�_`r; ..��5! at_�!'!;_.: ..��;`:iC�S, inC. '
i i ___,
, � �,. �
( EIP�Of±ATIOtr` DPTE � ±O��fD ?Y I �AiEF; LE`dE! TE�T Ht?i.E N�MBER �
� ?�-c�-B7 � T� � AC�Nt �ES�R'�IE�J ) 4,` i 6 !
I I ' ( � I
' iVPc OF �Xf'! QRNiI[�i ��!�IrMENT ' cLi;G� CF N�LE � kEFtRE?iCE �R C�;�TU�9 I
j � �
i E'3L�:hnQ i4; 1� �re:� :�: ^ !'��:11 �
� -�--�— —�� �— � �—r----� —�
,
' �; : � r�������;IC �� i�-� c� � �:.;�:;t;tE�;?NG I � �
i � ;: i ��c�;j �,��;; , P��`i� T E i LLr+�.=iF'+'ui'ii{r � t �
� H: � C „ � i i.,c. :,, i�, , w
i -� ! � i;..p r� �i � r�c;��;:p'';�r, i � i
, _
i i I ��; I�c�l � � � !
j j`� � i� j � i I ;
I
; I � ! , ;
i C j � f -�-- � --� ! --'
. � .:`::�� N::�" ::1^ ~ i� � � C_��i f�, ci 1 ty =='��. � t3t' �,. :.,.4.°5_
i ;;:i :. , .� � . �!e'7ii!R, v � i I
� {
i ,: �.�<_� I _ I + �y'31�1cu, �::�:p, �iJ�° � ! I
t`.?`:1 j
' I.;..' I
, � (:.:' ':c;i j �! 1 � � !
; ! �`', ' ;i � � 1 � i i � i
� `�:z .::' � f 1 �r�• .. � i:_ : F: .�a-� nn:�r_ ' j i f
_i: _ . t: .`:i, r:�:�.,, 5�rt
;± • � . , . , e�. �dP.� :
i �' - il I ' 1 i ! i ' � j i
_ ���i= . i ':�'�
I ' I � ' � I , .. _o I � !
! . �{?• 1 . . . .
. � � �fyiii .SI ' i r� � � � I i
� i f:�:;' ° i i i i ± ; I
i i:: �; •;': ; i ; i i � i j
i :` �;� i i I ; i i �
� ; �." �; i E i � i i
� E:: '.�;a — -- ;. `- .— ' �
i F��� . � ( ! � �,, c»: � yi nl;- tl t, �
i � . . . � z � -. t .'; � ''u�L'T � �
1 t ::'ri �rt ���.i I r �r i I �}?: ., .. �,.;�� c� i� ' I :.�� I" r.i
�� C � . _ _ � 1� �. 1.. F. l .: , , : 8 �
i. . : ,� �_.., s � i . i ' . . i � , i
- _ j i
! E�> ;`�� F..i? ' . I I _:i�, 7�';�� .:.:"t� ii Cd,�r ;t,_,c� I I ;
' E'` - r:� ! ! ( I i 1 !
:;::.; � � I ! ; I I j
. :'
� _ , :'
, . .
, _., ,.
,:, .,.... , ,
� `; ';:. - ---------------------------- ' ---------------------------------------------- "
, ,�:-��----------------- --- ' 1 1 I
� i f::`�7 1;�� ii:�ri -. � �` � r� � Cn-� ci' - �iu. C cia u: i r� r�'�r ^ il -�,I
{ � el._ !f� I,. iu ti� _ i` e , fe•,�_ �t ;,v� 1'� I �.
; � '::% .� " i ( I I - - - � , � _ ,..:�
i i " i:�:,.. _ y --� ,_ ?I'i..Ct_ �?!LF .e�i.l',4 ,.��°_;, �
��:i� t�:>°.i I i. � � � ` ��I
i
� i
1 �. ,,,; �
� �::�= ': ? i i L� � ( ,.�� ,. .r:
j- f�;< G;:; i�; i � i i !
� �:.;, . i `� i i j � i i
I ��`�` +�'� I,; I I + � i i
��� ,
� �Y'' ` fj;'_� i _ j i � i ! i
! k:;;; '�::i , j i i I 1 I
t t ' C � j ! ' ; I
. � f'��"i ':� � ...'�tC�: � ..J � IU � + � �i.C�� 7`.
r:• � '�
, i F':2� '..?^a I , � 1
� � - ii!?juu:e:! � 1 � i �5:ltj' SB��� �'fiWP. -lit� t:: (�?C:UR' L'i01f���� --�- { - �
� "�'� ��':i � � I �f�.ist. ioe:e 1 I '
i `''.� �:'.i i i i i . ;
f�: � E r I �
i ' '.: 4 �'�'------------------------------------------------- � ! --------------------------------------------
, i � i: � 1 � � - � �
� : �.i7 � I � � �� c � �+ c t� r�� ; r v �
�; jar �j;;:�;;;:� ! �i.ty a�:,, . c h- s. to s;ig7ti oranee ,
i '� .� !;-`:i � i j �
�';? �ta 1 �t-OS'� �CGI 1`'' C.'-,�D LC' 1?.�.�L� T��ll:'I� � �
i i E�:`: j:y� • � 4� i i G°l5_ j � 1 I
� � � I
� : 1 � �
i `I � " '
� � �>:�� � i i �
,;:,; , � ,
; ;�:: ��:;j �.��.��� a �,�,�i � i� � � �.��=:..�i
F:�; ���� �____t__� 1 i i i
; i
i _ i
� ��:.�Ct�'r;�� �t: s ; �� ;
� �,.FL�F:4I1 !: �L0
j � i
; c?flh+UAF'i,� SF�_.� :fJ'�;., ce,;ry;:�G}; � —
! �!fi;Ii% ��;'r�Lt ' i
I ' q�l� {:; ��hiPL� � �
� T�4:'! �4�L SH��:.Eh; � �C:1° ���US� Nt1�5F ii �
� 6�`r�l1p;��4nT�6; ����;��r� � Ter�i�Tive ira�: ^:�ar� i
i �; i���?S�Uh;E �Ly ! Ri' ��^L'(1tV .� ;i?i��ni� �
i , I�y-'rLWC� ilkY I'E��';:T`i ipc� ! I i
I I F�� �C?'�� ��w: F1�1!t �.., •
I � _ — �
i I ;
! I ;�UT;i CuF�i i:E�JL[�6IC 4��'i'?:cS, Inc. !
, i -- !
� � r
. � � i �:.
��,� �
_ � .,"�L�
.�� L I t'.� �:.
� O�SI�t. FINlSN f I
' � � '^�= r i
OcSIGtd r'INISH • I 1
GnHOE = � I
rILL SLOi'E • �
/ �. . . . . . .
i / - . � � � .
i ' ' • . •
i / . . '
/ � . - •
oES�cr; Fir;;s� _. /� � . � . � _� .
GR;,OE �. � " - ' .
/ _ . . ' COt,P:,CTcO =+! � --� . � • . • .
/ . . . .' • . . . • . � . .
t;OTES. � ,
� :.11 F�LL S�OPES. It:CLU�r�G BUIi�ESS At;O SiABiIIZATiO��f FI�LS. Sr�.tl BE Ovcr:FiL��D :: !..ir:i��U�. Gr S�x
' rtt� HORIZOtiTAILY 1'dITN CO�.SPAC7ED FILI At:� TRl�.if.!ED Td THE DFSIGt� FI�:;SH Gn'.0�.
` EXCE�TIOt�S:
A. fill SLOPE OVER CUj SIOPE
, E. FILL SLOPc H�JtiC"ct;T i0 EXISTIt;G I:(P.riO�'c!`�t;�S.
2, iHE EXCEPTIOhS ABOVE 1�'HICH DO NOT HAVE THE 6�007 Sl0?r OVEnG!LL :.�;�? ?r.1',: �rh�! 6� Cp:tr":-.CT�G
�S STaTEO ir� 7HE PROJECT S�ECIFICATIOt�S.
TYPICAL FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION
CALLE MEDUSA. PHASE �I '
TENTATIVE TRACT 23220
RIVERS�DE COUNTY. CA
FEBRUARY 1988 FIGURE ?
SOUTH CO�ST GEQLOGIC SEA�ICES
i � � - -- i
3 �P��A�
BLANKET Fl�,L IF RECOMMENOED
Bv iHE SOIL ENGINEER .
i�� MIN
o� OVERFiLi, �p' MIN.
' NO TRIM OF
� f,QMPACTED FILL '- � . ' � : • , .
�---- , j � . .
� . .. ...� .
� � � � . . � � �. � i. . i .
� FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE /\' • : . . � � � • . '
��. . ' . . . j� .
/.: :: ' .. .
' �.� . . %
� � . '. '. , � � ' -COMPETENT MATERIAL
' � � ' ACCEPTABLE TO THE
�• . '.': '�j'�. .
. ' : • • • • �/ /.�5f� VARIABLF SOII ENGINEER
- / - • ' . . . • /' •
j` /: ,�. •. • • . �'�:•
I � • ' ' � � � MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES
� I ' � � � � � � �S a FEET OR AS RECOM-
/• ' � . . . : .
� . : �. ' . . ' . - MFNDED BY THE SOIL ENGi-
� � - i� , NE�R
, 2' • - . . . • . . .
/ �
� � MINIMUM 1 TILT BACK
� 15 MIN. l- OR 2 PERC:NT (°rol SLOPE
(WHfCHEVER IS GAEATER)
i
I
� 'GREATER THAN 10' IF RECOM-
� MENOED Bv THE SOII ENGiNEcR.
i
�5 wHERE NO 6� OvE��►�,.
i
�
"FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWiNG SPEClFI SIDE H9 LL FiLL DETAIL
CATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALEN7: (CONFORMS TO
EMA STD. PLAN 323)
S1EVE SlZE PERCE�JTAGE PASSING CALLE iVIEDUSA, PHASE II
` t" t00 TENTATIVE TRACT.,23220
� 3/a" � 90 RIVERSIDE COUNTY: CA
3/g^ 40-100
N0. 4 25-40
N0. 8 i 8-33
� N0.30 5 FEBRUARY 1988 FIGURE 5
"°.50 °-' SOUT� COAST �aE0L069C SEA�6CES
• N0.200 0-3
i � w �
�
�
�
�
�
4 FOOT
� MINIMUM
I
I _�_
_, _ -<<��' �;: �.� �•�:",?� :z `�� �=� � � ������ �:���:=� �=` �v � . � . . t . . t . . ` � ,
"'� �� �—�`�����:.��—.—, �� ���`•���:� ;�:= �� 1
r:,.'�� �� ���;:"�=:\ �`���;1� c 1 � 1�� 4 FOOT MtNIMUM
� �-� a:.�.\ � �„�`;, ���` :. �( � 115�lATURAL MATERIAL �
� � ; .. �.��'�' _ _ �`\ �_ � �.,_�,.._ :-�� �
�,.��.� �;�.:�..��Z ��
, _��.�� g.� �_ � �\�\�� � � > > t � t � .
� • ;��..; �,� \\:,.-�.�.�-�'. ����t � ��1 1��
� F(l.L. ,��.�;.`'�:,� 1 � 1 1 � i1
� �-�.-:
�. \�.� ��� a-�_
,�� �.:,:�; \���:�;��\�\' ��-�' � � � � � ti� 1�'
��� � '�� ` -� -�= � _'���_ �_�� 1 � l U � 1 1-
�,� �.., ���� �� �
�:�����.:�.��-.��--� �, ���::,� ,� � � 1
��� �\_ `� ��� :- \\\ �, 1
_ ��� j �;�v 1 � � l
, �� �' � ���. � ��-\� 1 � i .1-�'
� �� :�.. �;�.--'��. �
��� -�, `��.. _
j �� �: \\�� �.�.���i �t � I.LL•
� ���.��"'e ��=`�. 1,��� OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
, ���\�����\=� 1,� ..
-�����\ �\•�`��c ,
��'�����\�' t
�:-�_
c`����>�.i�
.�, ..�.:,;.
i ���'
€����.�"'�
j ��� �
� MATERIAL ACCEPTAB�E TO S01L ENGIt1ER
i .
�
i
CUT/FILL TRAN
SlTiON OETA
{ l.
CALLE MEDUSA, PHASE It '
TENTATIVE TRACT 23220
RlVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
FEBRUARY 7988 FIGURE 6
SOUTN �COAST GE.OLOG9C SEflVICES
�
I� F �' _ �
�
i
I
2 FOOT NATIVE
SOIL CAP
" . L�' •�"o�T` 8,?�ru�i
•° QO'..2'l:: °•: • d
�• °•' •oe4�o(j9°�°v �
�°.• `:.0l0 �00,�
.. �.C;O�'�o o�
.o � "•° b ° `.".(.a
° YJ o
I . tP,A'4:0�•• ��� _
GRAVEL (F(ITE.R MIX WHERE p,.�o•• Q.•mA••.•
FILTER FABRIC IS NOT USED) ��:p
• .o 1 :bo : p
j •w •'e•:YeQ� Qr
� . . . • �O• o ��•�
E �d��. 0 .:�� n •Q
..p. o. O..'v•...-
•o o.� P � F 1 L T E R F A B R i C
� - '�� o�•'a ' • v" •Mirl°'n '�
• f;p� Py�l�{ (MIRI�t 140 O�R
0o :o-o:ad
i • °,° q � � ° � •'''-0' q '' • o:.••a'o,'� E Q 1 V A L E N T)
S}'�QvU�Q''• .a°� o ,..
a o � A,Oro �.�'�:
p:�Q�,
� ?, - ..c�. �.:o,'� •� �r�o�� .
o ro :Q' � o '
.°•�O,�.o��o' .
'o'�.�'�q p.q;b,,r,�,..°��'p0��,, '
�%� A�?o. bb� :i
, Q ��.���.�� . ..
o ' �
� �A • �` .
-- �'' a::.. •oo�.
�i PERFORATED PIPE. HOLES DOWN, . :�O.oO; ,; . �0 ;�
TO BE PL.A '�
�ED LOWER THAN TOP OF .°o'• �°'��
� •4 .o�o
AOJACEP1T FLOOR SLAB •: �-�.d�'p� -: _
0 0 0 °•'u'�O•°•; `. ,� ' 6` •( Art t N I N1 U M( )
(Zs�o.�p�m �°;�
ti:
i
' t �
� �M�Q1� �V�
i �
i
I
'FlLTER IAATERIAL To ME� Fo��owiN� sPEC�Fi- RETAIMItVG WAL.L� OETAIL
CATION Oft APPROVEO E�UIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO
i EMa STD. PLAtr 323) . _ PHASE il
SiEVE StZE PERCFNTAGE PaSSING CALLE i1AEDUSA,
t" i00 TENTATIVE TRACT 23220
; 3J4" 90-t00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CA
i 3/8" 40-1�0
N0. 4 25-40
N0. 8 t 8-33
i K0. 30 5-15
; H0. 50 0-7 FEBRUARY 1988 FtGURE 7
ko.2ao 0-3 SOUTN �COAST GEOLOGIC SERYICES
�
;
I y. ";: �
�
�
i APpENDIX A
i
r:
I
i
^" `'t'• �
I
APPENDIX A
Soil Maximum* Optimum* Expansion**
Description Density ( cf) Moisture Co) Index -
Topsoil- 125 9.0 18
silty sand,
brown,
fine to medium
grained
Alluvium- 129.5 7.5 0
silty sand,
� poorly sorted,
brown
Old Alluvium- 123.5 9.5 23
; silty sand,
� w/clay,
� reddish brown •
*ASTM D1557
� ** UBC 29-2
i
�
I.
I
�
I
l
�
Tentative Tract 23220
� County of Riverside, CaZifornia
�
�
l
�