HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Rpt Lots 92-95 5/30/20021 'if Y Y
t
Iss
114a
i
b '.1
.A
5
Y r 1
i
t.'
v
t
d£OT£CHNICA£ REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING .'
MODEL LOTS92 THROU6hI,'h5; TRACT 2306GT,-
CITY'or TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY'
CAIIFORNlA
t
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES'
104 West Grand Avenue, Suite A'.'
'Escondido,: dlitbrnia..92025
r
May, 30, 2002;
/.IV: 188 01"
`-BGRNa0103'40
's
O PETRA
a ICOSTA MESA • SAN DIEGO • TEMECULA • LOS ANGELES
' May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
BGR No. 010340
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
104 West Grand Avenue, Suite A
Escondido, California 92025
IAttention: Mr. Gary McCoy
' Subject: Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots 92 through 95,
Tract 23066-1, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
' This report presents a summary of the observation and testing services provided by
' Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) during rough -grading operations to complete the
development of Model Lots 92 through 95 of Tract 23066-1 located in the Temecula
area of Riverside County, California. Conclusions and recommendations pertaining
to the suitability of the grading for the proposed residential construction are provided
herein, as well as foundation -design recommendations based on the as -graded soil
conditions.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Cuts, removals and recompaction of unsuitable low-density surface soils, lot
' overcxcavations and placement of compacted fill under the purview of this report have
been completed under the observation and with selective testing by Petra. The
' earthwork was performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in
previous geotechnical reports by Petra (see References) and the Grading Code of the
' County of Riverside.
' The completed earthwork has been reviewed and is considered adequate for the
construction now plamied. On the basis of our observations, as well as field and
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
27620 Commerce Center Drive • Suite 103 • Temecula • CA 92590 • Tel: (909) 699-6193 . Fax: (909) 699-6197 n petrate®ibm.net
I
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95[Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 2
laboratory testing, the recommendations presented in this report were prepared in
conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further
warranty is implied nor made.
SUMMARY OF AS -GRADED SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
' As -Graded Conditions
Grading included overexcavation of the proposed cut lot (Lot 93) and cut portions of
' the cut/fill transition lots (Lots 92, 94 and 95). The compacted fills range in depth
from approximately 2 to 3 feet. A lot -by -lot summary of the compacted fill depths is
' presented in the attached Table I. A general description of the soil and bedrock
materials underlying the subject tract is provided below.
• Compacted Engineered Fill (map symbol afc) — The compacted fill soils were
placed onsite -derived soil and bedrock materials and generally consist of fine- to
coarse-grained sand, silty sand and clayey sand.
' Pauba Formation Bedrock (Ons) — The Pauba Formation consists of dense, fine-
grained and well -graded sandstones, clayey sandstone with occasional gravel and
cobble beds. Some cross -bedding was observed within the Pauba Formation.
SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK
' OBSERVATIONS AND DENSITY TESTING
Clearing and Grubbing
At the time of grading, a majority of the tract was covered with a light growth of
grasses and weeds. This light vegetation was removed during overexcavation to
existing grades and mixed with the excavated soils in an acceptable manner (i.e., the
' resultant blend contained less than I percent organic materials). Heavy vegetation that
existed in local areas, as well as some construction debris, were removed from the site.
It
I
1
l�
I
1
1
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 3
Ground Preparation
Prior to placing structural fill, existing low-density surficial soils were first removed
to competent unweathered bedrock. Removals throughout the lots varied from
approximately 2 to 3 feet.
Prior to placing fill, exposed bottom surfaces in all removal areas were first observed
and approved by our project geologist or senior soil technician. Following this
approval, the exposed bottom surfaces were scarified to depths of approximately 6 to
8 inches, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a moisture content equal to or
slightly above optimum moisture content and then recompacted in-place to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent.
Lot Overexcavations
To mitigate distress to residential structures related to the potential adverse effects of
excessive differential settlement, the cut portion of cut/fill transition lots were
overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finish grade and replaced with
compacted fill. Lot 93 was a proposed cut lot that was undercut 2 feet during grading
and then replaced with compacted fill.
Fill Placement and Testine
All fill soils were placed in lifts restricted to approximately 6 to 8 inches in maximum
thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum moisture
conditions and Hien compacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Compaction was achieved by wheel -
rolling with an 824 rubber -tired dozer and loaded scrapers. The maximum vertical
depth of fill placed within the subject lots is approximately 3 feet.
It
q
I
1
I
7
I
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 4
Field density and moisture content tests were performed in accordance with nuclear -
gauge test methods ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017, respectively. Occasional
field density tests were also performed in accordance with the sandcone method
(ASTM Test Method D1556). Field density test results are presented on the attached
Table II and approximate test locations are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map
with Density Test Locations (Plate 1).
Field density tests were taken at vertical intervals of approximately 1 to 2 feet and the
compacted fills were tested at the time of placement to verify that the specified
moisture content and minimum required relative compaction of 90 percent had been
achieved. At least one in-place density test was taken for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill
placed and/or for each 2 feet in vertical height of compacted fill. The actual number
of tests taken per day varied with the project conditions, such as the number of
earthmovers (scrapers) and availability of support equipment. When field density tests
produced results less than the required minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or
if the soils were found to be excessively above or below optimum moisture content,
the approximate limits of the substandard fill were established. The substandard area
was then either removed or reworked in-place.
Visual classification of earth materials in the field was the basis for determining which
maximum dry density value was applicable for a given density test. Single -point
checks were perfonned to supplement visual classification.
Fill Slopes
No appreciable 611 or cut slopes exist within the subject lots.
it
R,
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
' TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 5
' LABORATORY TESTING
Maximum Dry Density
' Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type
' observed during grading were determined in our laboratory in accordance with ASTM
Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values for each phase of grading are summarized
' in Appendix A.
Expansion Index Tests
Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of soil existing at or
near finish -pad grade within the subject lots. These tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Test results are also summarized in
Appendix A.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits were determined for selected soil samples per ASTM Test Method
D4318. Test results are presented in Appendix A.
'
Soluble Sulfate Analyses
Soluble sulfate analyses were determined for representative samples of soil existing
at or near finish grade within the subject lots.
These tests were performed in
accordance with California Test Method No. 417.
Test results are summarized in
Appendix A.
I
1
1
I
1
1
IL
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 6
FOUNDATION -DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Types
Based on as -graded soil and geologic conditions, the use of conventional slab -on -
ground foundations is considered feasible for the proposed residential structures.
Recommended design parameters are provided herein.
Allowable Soil -Bearing Capacities
An allowable soil -bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used
for 24 -inch square pad footings and 12 -inch wide continuous footings founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may
be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth, to a maximum
value of 2,500 psf. Recommended allowable soil -bearing values include both dead
and live loads and may be increased by one-third when designing for short -duration
wind and seismic forces.
Anticipated Settlement
Based on the general settlement characteristics of the compacted fill soils, as well as
the anticipated loading, it has been estimated that the maximum total settlement of
building footings will be less than approximately 0.75 inch. Maximum differential
settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be about one-half the
total settlement. The maximum anticipated differential settlement of 0.38 inch in 30
feet may be expressed as an angular distortion of 1:960.
Lateral Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf
may be used to determine lateral -bearing resistance for building footings. Where
structures such as masonry block walls and retaining walls are planned on or near
7-
I
I
1
I
1
I
n
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 7
descending slopes, the passive earth pressure should be reduced to 150 psf per foot of
depth to a maximum value of 1,500 psf. In addition a coefficient of friction of 0.40
times the dead -load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils
to determine lateral -sliding resistance. An increase of one-third of the above values
may also be used when designing for short -duration wind and seismic forces.
The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill. In the
case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density.
Footing Observations
All footing trenches should be observed by a representative of Petra to verify that they
have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedments
recommended herein. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the
placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed
neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture -softened soil and any
construction debris should be removed prior to placing concrete.
Excavated soils derived from footing and utility trench excavations should not be
placed in slab -on -ground areas unless the soils are compacted to a minimum of 90
percent of maximum dry density.
Expansive Soil Considerations
Results of laboratory tests indicate onsite soil and bedrock materials exhibit VERY
LOW and LOW expansion potentials as classified in accordance with 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) Table 18 -I -B. A lot -by -lot breakdown for the different levels
of expansion is provided below.
a
I
1
1
1
[1
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 8
• Very Low Expansion Potential - Lots 93, 94 and 95
• Low Expansion Potential - Lot 92
Design and construction details for the various levels of expansion potential are
provided in the following sections.
Very Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less)
The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils
exhibit a VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC
Table 18-1-B. For soils exhibiting expansion indices of less than 20, the design of
slab -on -ground foundations is exempt from the procedures outlined in 1997 UBC
Section 1815. Based on this soil condition, it is recommended that footings and floors
be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following minimum criteria.
However, additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement should be
provided as required by the project architect or structural engineer.
• Footings
- Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated
in 1997 UBC Table 18 -I -C (i.e., 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and 18 -
inch minimum depth for two-story construction). Interior continuous footings
for both one- and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth
of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should
have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one- and two-story buildings,
respectively and should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one
bottom.
- Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as
second -story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a minimum
of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. No special reinforcement of the pad footings will
be required.
W
I
I
ALJ
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 9
• Floor Slabs
- Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and reinforced with
either 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded -wire fabric (6x6-W2.9xW2.9
WWF) or with No.3 bars spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center, both ways.
All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to
ensure the desired placement near mid -depth.
- Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor
barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or
equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches
of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the
concrete.
Garage -floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and should be reinforced in a similar
maturer as living -area floor slabs. Garage -floor slabs should also be placed
separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained
with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion -joint materials and quartered with
weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch -wide grade beam founded at the same depth
as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade
' beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one
bottom.
' Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all concrete slab -on -ground
Should be prewatered to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize
the development of shrinkage cracks.
Low Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 21 to 50)
' The following recommendations pertain to as -graded lots where the foundation soils
exhibit a LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with 1997 UBC
Table 18-I-13. The 1997 UBC specifies that slab -on -ground foundations (floor slabs)
' resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 require special design
considerations in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815. The design procedures
outlined in 1997 UBC Section 1815 are based on the thickness and plasticity index of
each different soil type existing within the upper 15 feet of the building site. For final
L. J
jp
I
I
1
I
I
[1
1
I
11
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 10
design purposes we have calculated an effective plasticity index of 12 in accordance
with 1997 UBC Section 1815.4.2.
The design and construction recommendations that follow are based on the above soil
conditions and may be considered for minimizing the effects of slightly (LOW)
expansive soils. These recommendations have been based on the previous experience
of Petra on projects with similar soil conditions. Although construction performed in
accordance with these recommendations has been found to minimize post -construction
movement and/or cracking, they generally do not positively mitigate all potential
effects of expansive soil action. The owner, architect, design civil engineer, structural
engineer and contractors must be made aware of the expansive -soil conditions which
exist at the site. Furthermore, it is recommended that additional slab thicknesses,
footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than recommended below be
provided as required or specified by the project architect or structural engineer.
• Footings
- Exterior continuous footings maybe founded at the minimum depths indicated
in 1997 UBC.Table 18-1-C (i.e., 12 -inch minimum depth for one-story and 18 -
inch minimum depth for two-story construction). Interior continuous footings
for both one- and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth
of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should
have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one- and two-story buildings,
respectively and should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one
bottom.
- Exterior pad footings intended for the support of roof overhangs, such as
second -story decks, patio covers and similar construction, should be a minimum
of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4
bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, near the bottom -
third of the footings.
VP
I
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 11
•
Floor Slabs
- The project architect or structural engineer should evaluate minimum floor -slab
thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815 based
'
on an effective plasticity index of 15. Unless a more stringent design is
recommended by the architect or the structural engineer, we recommend a,
t
minimum slab thickness of inches for both living -area and garage -floor slabs
and reinforcing consisting of either 6 -inch by 6 -inch, No. 6 by No. 6 welded -
wire fabric (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) or No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18
'
inches on centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on
concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid -height.
'
- Living -area concrete -floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture -vapor
barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil Visqueen or
equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed and at least 2 inches
'
of clean sand be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the
concrete.
- Garage -floor slabs should also be placed separately from adjacent wall footings.
with a positive separation maintained with 3/8 -inch -minimum, felt expansion -
joint materials and quartered with weakened -plane joints. A 12 -inch wide grade
beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across
garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with a minimum of two
No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
- Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all living -area and garage -
floor slabs should be pre -watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least
equal to or slightly greater than optimum -moisture content. This moisture
content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade
'
soils.
' POST -TENSIONED SLABS
In lieu of the preceding recommendations for conventional footings and floor slabs,
post -tensioned slabs may be used. The actual design of post -tensioned slabs is referred
' to the project structural engineer who is qualified in post -tensioned slab design, using
sound engineering practices. The post -tensioned slab -on -ground should be designed
' in general conformance with the design specification os 1997 UBC Section 1816.
11
1
[1
[1
1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 12
Alternate designs are allowed per 1997 UBC Section 1806.2 that addresses the effects
of expansive soils when present. However, to assist the structural engineer in his
design, the following parameters are recommended.
,Expansion Index >✓ F' ."
\ eq Low �-�
and Low;
J.. _
Assumed percent clay
30
Clay type
montmorillonile
Approximate depth of constant suction (feet)
7.0
Approximate soil suction (pF)
3.6
Approximate velocity or moisture flow (inches/month)
0,7
Thomwaite Index
-20
Average edge
Center lilt
4.6
Moisture variation depth, e,,
(feet)
Edge lift
2.2
Anticipated swell, y,
Center lift
1.4
(inches)
Gd -e lift
0.4
• Perimeter footings for either one= or two-story dwellings may be founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the nearest adjacent final -ground surface.
Interior footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top
of the finish -floor slab.
• All dwelling -arca floor slabs constructed on -ground should be underlain with a
moisture -vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane, such as 6 -mil
Visqueen. A minimum of l inch of clean sand should be placed over the
membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete.
• Presaturation of subgrade soils below slabs -on -ground will not be required.
However, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete.
• The design modulus of subgrade reaction (k) should be 300 tons per cubic foot.
It
J3
I
1
[1
1
11
[]
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 13
SEISMIC -DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Ground Motions
Structures within the site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of
seismic ground motions as provided in 1997 UBC Sections 1626 through 1633. The
method of design is dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy
category, building configuration, type of structural system and on the building height.
For structural design in accordance with the 1997 UBC, a computer program
developed by Thomas F. Blake (UBCSEIS, 1998/1999) was utilized which compiles
fault information for a particular site using a modified version of a data file of
approximately 183 California faults that were digitized by the California Division of
Mines and Geology and the U.S. Geological Survey. This program computes various
information for a particular site including the distance of the site from each of the
faults in the data file, the estimated slip -rate for each fault and the "maximum moment
magnitude" of each fault. The program then selects the closest Type A, Type B and
Type C faults from the site and computes the seismic design coefficients for each of
the fault types. The program then selects the largest of the computed seismic design
coefficients and designates these as the design coefficients for the subject site.
Based on the computer generated data using UBCSEIS, the Elsinore -Julian (Type A)
segment of the Elsinore fault zone, located approximately 12.1 kilometers from the
site, could generate severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment
magnitude of 7.1 and anticipated slip rate of 5.0 mm/year. However, the closest
Type B fault which is the Elsinore -Temecula fault located 1.3 kilometers to the
southwest of Tract 23066-1 would probably generate the most severe site ground
motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 and anticipated slip
rate of 5.0 mm/year. Based on our evaluation using UBCSEIS, the following 1997
UBC seismic design coefficients are recommended for the proposed residential
R
%/e X 3010 �/, �, -`� l�
I
1
1
I
I
11
L
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-I Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 14
structures. These criteria are based on the soil profile type as determined by existing
subsurface geologic conditions, on the proximity of the Elsinore -Temecula fault and
on the maximum moment magnitude and slip rate.
SOIL CHEMISTRY
Laboratory test results indicate onsite soils contain negligible soluble -sulfate contents.
As such, concrete in contact with soil may utilize Type I or 11 Portland cement. The
laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH from adjacent areas
indicate onsite soils may be slightly to moderately corrosive to buried steel in direct
contact with onsite soils.
RETAINING WALLS
Footing Embedments
The base of retaining -wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where retaining
walls are proposed on or within 15 feet from the top of any adjacent descending fill
slope, the footings should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal setback of H/3
15
1997 UBC TABLE.
FACTOR
Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone
4
16-1
Seismic Zone Factor Z
0.4
16-U
Seismic Source Type
B
16-J
Soil Profile Type
Sp
16-S
Near -Source Factor N.
1.3
16-T
Frear -Source Factor N,
1.6
16-Q
Seismic Coefficient C.
0.44 N. = 0.57
16-R
Seismic Coefficient C,
0.64 N, = 1.02
SOIL CHEMISTRY
Laboratory test results indicate onsite soils contain negligible soluble -sulfate contents.
As such, concrete in contact with soil may utilize Type I or 11 Portland cement. The
laboratory test data for chloride concentration, resistivity and pH from adjacent areas
indicate onsite soils may be slightly to moderately corrosive to buried steel in direct
contact with onsite soils.
RETAINING WALLS
Footing Embedments
The base of retaining -wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at a
minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where retaining
walls are proposed on or within 15 feet from the top of any adjacent descending fill
slope, the footings should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal setback of H/3
15
1
1
[1
I
I
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 15
(one-third the slope height) is maintained between the outside bottom edges of the
footings and the slope face; however, the minimum footing setback should be 5 feet.
The above -recommended minimum footing setbacks are preliminary and may require
revision based on site-specific soil and/or bedrock conditions. All footing trenches
should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that the footing
trenches have been excavated into competent -bearing soils and/or bedrock and to the
minimum embedments recommended above. These observations should be performed
prior to placing forms or reinforcing steel.
Active and At -Rest Earth Pressures
An active lateral -earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 40 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) should tentatively be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining
a drained, level backfill. Where the wall backfill slopes upward at 2:1 (h:v), the above
value should be increased to 63 pcf. All retaining walls should be designed to resist
any surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or structures in addition to the
above active earth pressures.
For design of retaining walls that are restrained at the top, an at -rest earth pressure
equivalent to a fluid having density of 60 pcf should tentatively be used for walls
supporting a level backfill. This value should be increased to 95 pcf for an ascending
2:1 (h:v) backfill.
Drainage
A perforated pipe -and -gravel subdrain should be installed behind all retaining walls
to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. Perforated pipe should consist of 4 -inch
minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS SDR -35, with the perforations laid
down. The pipe should be embedded in 1.5 cubic feet per foot of 0.75- to 1.5 -inch
4
a/�
I
1
11
I
I
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 16
open -graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N
or equivalent.
In lieu of a pipe and gravel subdrain, weepholes or open vertical masonry joints may
be considered for retaining walls not exceeding a height of approximately 3 feet.
Weepholes, if used, should be 3 inches minimum diameter and provided at minimum
intervals of 6 feet along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints, if used, should be
provided at 32 -inch minimum intervals. A continuous gravel fill, 12 inches by 12
inches, should be placed behind the weepholes or open masonry joints. The gravel
should be wrapped in filter fabric to prevent infiltration of fines and subsequent
clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent.
The backfilled portions of retaining walls should be coated with an approved
waterproofing compound to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls.
Temporary Excavations
To facilitate retaining -wall construction, the lower 5 feet of temporary slopes may be
cut vertical and the upper portions exceeding a height of 5 feet should then be cut back
at a maximum gradient of 1:1 (h:v) for the duration of construction. However, all
temporary slopes should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant for any
evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, Flatter
temporary slopes may be necessary. The potential effects of various parameters such
as weather, heavy equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary excavations
and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary
slopes.
it
17
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
LJ
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 17
Wall Backfill
All retaining -wall backfill should be placed in 6- to 8 -inch maximum lifts, watered or
air-dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum -moisture conditions and compacted in
place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
MASONRY BLOCK WALLS
Construction on or Near the Tops of Descending Slopes
Continuous footings for masonry block walls proposed on or within 7 feet from the top
of any descending slope should be deepened such that a minimum horizontal clearance
of 5 feet is maintained between the outside bottom edge of the footing and the slope
face. The footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top
and one bottom. Plans for any top -of -slope block walls proposing pier and grade -beam
footings should be reviewed by Petra prior to construction.
Construction on Level Ground
Where masonry block walls are proposed on level ground and at least 5 feet from the
tops of descending slopes, the footings for these walls may be founded at a minimum
depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. These footings should also
be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom.
Construction Joints
In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking related to the effects of
differential settlement, positive separations (construction joints) should be provided
in the walls at horizontal intervals of approximately 25 feet and at each comer. The
separations should be provided in the blocks only and not extend through the footings.
R
G
I
I
11
1
[1
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 18
The footings should be placed monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as
effective "grade beams" along the full lengths of the walls.
CONCRETE FLATWORK
Thickness and Joint Spacing
To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete sidewalks and patio -type slabs
should be at least 3.5 inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints
every 6 feet or less. Concrete driveway slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and
provided with construction or expansion joints every 10 feet or less.
Subgrade Preparation
As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgradc soils
below concrete -flat -work areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative density
of 90 percent and then thoroughly wetted to achieve a moisture content that is at least
equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should
extend to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade and maintained in the soils during
placement of concrete. Pre -watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the
concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. A representative of the
project soils engineer should observe and verify the density and moisture content of
the soils and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete.
PLANTERS
Area drains should be extended into all planters that are located within 5 feet of
building walls, foundations, retaining walls and masonry block garden walls to
minimize excessive infiltration of water into the adjacent foundation soils. The surface
of the ground in these areas should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent
I it
19
[]
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
[1
I
I
1
k
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-I Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 19
away from the walls and foundations. Drip -irrigation systems are also recommended
to prevent overwatering and subsequent saturation of the adjacent foundation soils.
UTILITY TRENCHES
All utility -trench backfill within street right-of-ways, utility easements, under
sidewalks, driveways and building -floor slabs, as well as within or in proximity to
slopes should be compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. Where
onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction will be required. Density
testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project soils engineer or his
representative, to verify proper compaction.
For deep trenches with vertical walls, backfill should be placed in approximately l- to
2 -foot thick maximum lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydra -hammer,
pneumatic tampers or similar equipment. For deep trenches with sloped -walls, backfill
materials should be placed in approximately 8- to 12 -inch thick maximum lifts and
then compacted by rolling with a shcepsfoot tamper or similar equipment.
As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe may be damaged by mechanical
compaction equipment, such as under building -floor slabs, imported clean sand having
a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into
place. No specific relative compaction will be required; however, observation, probing
and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed.
To avoid point -loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported
sand bedding should be placed at least I foot above all pipe in areas where excavated
trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand -bedding materials should be
thoroughly jetted prior to placement of backfill.
1 I
V
In
I
[1
11
E
1]
1
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 20
Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to any building footing (interior and/or
exterior trenches), the bottom of the trench should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v)
plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing.
SLOPE LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE
The engineered slopes within the subject tract are considered grossly and surficially
stable and are expected to remain so under normal conditions provided the slopes are
landscaped and maintained thereafter in accordance with the following minimum
recommendations.
• Compacted -earth berms should be constructed along the tops of the engineered fill
slopes to prevent water from flowing directly onto the slope surfaces.
"Che slopes should be landscaped as soon as practical when irrigation water is
available. The landscaping should consist of deep-rooted, drought -tolerant and
maintenance -free plant species. A landscape architect should be consulted to
determine the most suitable groundcover. If landscaping cannot be provided within
a reasonable period of time, jute matting (or equivalent) or a spray -on product
designed to seal slope surfaces should be considered as a temporary measure to
inhibit surface erosion until such time permanent landscape plants have become
well-establislmed.
Irrigation systems should be installed on the engineered slopes and a watering
program then implemented which maintains a uniform, near -optimum moisture
condition in the soils. Ovenvatering and subsequent saturation of the slope soils
should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry -out is also
detrimental to slope performance.
• Irrigation systems should be constructed at the surface only. Construction of
sprinkler lines in trenches is not recommended.
• During construction of any terrace drains, downdrains or earth berms, care must be
taken to avoid placement of loose soil on the slope surfaces.
• A permanent slope -maintenance program should be initiated for major slopes not
maintained by individual homeowners. Proper slope maintenance must include the
at
J-/
I
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
' TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula
May 30, 2002
J.N. 188-01
Page 21
' care of drainage and erosion control provisions, rodent control and repair of leaking
or damaged irrigation systems.
• Provided the above recommendations are followed with respect to slope drainage,
maintenance and landscaping, the potential for deep saturation of slope soils is
considered very low.
' • Property owners should be advised of the potential problems that can develop when
drainage on the building pads and adjacent slopes is altered in any way. Drainage
can be altered due to the placement of fill and construction of garden walls,
retaining walls, walkways, patios, swimming pool, spas and planters.
' POST -GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Petra should be notified at the appropriate times in order that we may provide the
following observation and testing services during the various phases of post grading
' construction.
• Building Construction
' - Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and
competent soil -bearing conditions.
' - Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough,
saturated or compressible soils.
' - Observe pre-soaking of subgrade soils below living -area and garage floor slabs
to verify adequate moisture content and penetration.
• Retaining -Wall Construction
' - Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and
competent soil -bearing conditions.
' Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough,
saturated or compressible soils.
It
a�
' RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
TR 23066-1 Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 22
t Observe and verify proper installation of subdrainage systems prior to placing
wall backfill.
'
Observe and test placement of all wall backfill to verify adequate compaction.
• Masona Block -Wall Construction
'
- Observe all footing trenches when first excavated to verify adequate depth and
competent soil -bearing conditions.
- Re -observe all footing trenches, if necessary, if trenches are found to be
excavated to inadequate depth and/or found to contain significant slough,
t
saturated or compressible soils.
• Exterior Concrete-Flatwork Construction
Observe and test subgrade soils below all concrete- flatwork areas to verify
'
adequate compaction and moisture content.
• Utility -Trench Backfill
Observe and test placement of all utility -trench backfill to verify adequate
compaction.
'
Re-Gradine
' Observe and test placement of any fill to be placed above or beyond the grades
shown on the approved grading plans.
1
1 •
a
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES May 30, 2002
TR 23066-I Lots 92-95/Temecula J.N. 188-01
Page 23
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions,
please contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOTECHNI AL, INC.
�xNEERIN
O
nkin S ephen M. I
,Q -7 EQ; io soeiate e logist Senior Assoc
N°if GE 692
ExP
J/SMP/keb
�qTE OF CP�x
Attachments: Figure I - Geotechnical Map with Density Test Locations
Table I - Lot -By -Lot Summary of As -Graded Soil Conditions
Table 11 - Field Density Test Results
References
Appendix A - Laboratory Test Criteria/Laboratory Test Data
Appendix B - Seismic Analysis
Distribution: (6) Addressee
No. 692'7'y
1�u
�. - �� � 8327 O• - I
34 \ ,�
pzi o78.2 ) i�° t ��3 II 1157
A I _ '
8-
94 94 -
�E
+<63
1197.
g3 , fc
!,
931150 '^ i
' - 1149
F
1198--
� 148
915 P= r 13$.
-F 1199 F 0 A
r 1147
f
-824
2.jj' / o
'yI /
/ Y / NORTH
_ -q -- 1 r% 0 -40 FEET
SCALE
EXPLANATION GEOTECHNICAL MAP WITH
(LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE) DENSITY TEST LOCATIONS
afc ARTIFICIAL FILL, COMPACTED
Qnn ��++ � PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PS PAUBA FORMATION SANDSTONE
JN 188-01 MAY 2002
1199 DENSITY TEST LOCATION FIGURE 1
� t M M M� t M t = M t• M M M� M�
TABLE I Tract 23066-1
LOT -BY -LOT SUMMARY OF SOIL CONDITIONS
Lot
Number
Maximum
Fill Depth
(ft)
Differential
Fill
Thickness
(ft)
Estimated
Differential
Settlement
Soil.
Expansion
Index/
Potential
Post-
Tensioned
Slab
Chloride
Exposure
Sulfate
Exposure
Soil
Condition
Codes*
Remarks
92
3
0
1:960
45/Low
-
Moderate
Negligible
E
93
2
0
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
94
3
0
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
95
3
0
1:960
3/V Low
Moderate
Negligible
Z
* per County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department Plan Check Memorandum dated April 5, 2001
Code Definitions (Reference: 1997 UBC):
E Foundations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 (Section 1803.2)
C For corrosion protection, if Table 19-A-2 is applicable
S If exposure of concrete to sulfate -containing solutions is moderate or higher per Table 19-A-4
D Differential deflection in the foundation due to differential settlement exceeds value in Table I8 -III -GG (consider Prefab Roof Trusses) [noted if>1.480]
P If post -tensioned slab system is to be used
Z If none of the above is applicable
Plate T-1 1
TABLE 11
PETRA{�EOTE��H0|CAL,XN��� T��23O66~1 Lots 92-95 MAY 2002
IJ.N. 188^01 ^Sandcome TABLE^111
A?
05/10/02
824
Lot 92
1175.0
14.4
104.3
87
8
05/10/02
825
Lot 92
1176.0
216
1066
88
8
05/16/02
914
R][No. 825
-
10.4
124.6
93*
2
05/16/02
015
Lot 92
1177.0
9.9
122.7
92
2
05/23/02
1147
KTNo. 824
-
9.8
120.7
92
l
N�
05/23/02
1148
Lot 92
1176.0
10.8
116.8
01
4
05/23/02
1149
Lot 93
1179.0
9.4
116A
91
4
N�
05/23/02
1150
Lot 93
1180.0
11.4
118.5
YA
|
�
05/23/02
1155
Lot 94
1182.0
9.8
119.4
90
7
05/23/02
1156
Lot 94
1183.0
8.9
117.8
90
9
�
05/23/02
1157
Lot 95
1183.0
9.0
1179
90
Y
05/23/02
1158
Lot 95
1184.0
10.5
122j
93
7
05/24/02
1175
Lot 92
1159.0
9.7
112Y
yl
ll
N�
05/28/02
1196
Lot 95
R8
10.7
119.1
yl
9
�
05/28/02
1197
Lot 94
PG
9.4
115.8
90
4
05/28/02
1198
Lot 93
P0
122
1142
92
|O
N�
05/28/02
1199
Lot 92
P8
12.8
120.0
92
8
PETRA{�EOTE��H0|CAL,XN��� T��23O66~1 Lots 92-95 MAY 2002
IJ.N. 188^01 ^Sandcome TABLE^111
A?
I
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Blake, T.F., 1998/1999, "UBCSEIS" Version 1.03, .4 Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code
Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, "Uniform Building Code," Volume 2, Structural Engineering
Design Provisions, dated April 1997.
Earth Research Associates, Inc., 1987, Evaluation of Faulting and Liquefaction Potential, Portion of Wolf Valley
Project, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated November 20, 1987.
, 1988, Preliminary Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Red Hawk Project, Rancho
California Area, County of Riverside, California, J.N. 298-87, dated February 2, 1988.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County,
California, CD1v1G Special Report 131.
Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1989, Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of
Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066 and 23067, Rancho California,
County of Riverside, California, Volumes I and 11, J.N. 298-87, dated May 8, 1989.
, 2001 a, Due -Diligence Geotechnical Assessment of Planned Grading and Site Development, Tracts 23066-1,
23066-2 and 23066-3, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01,
dated March 30, 2001.
, 2001b, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Tract 23066-3, Lot 129, Redhawk Development, Temecula
Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April, 18, 2001.
, 2001c, Response to Riverside County Geotechnical Report Review Sheet Dated April 24, 2001, Tracts
23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3, Redhawk Development, Temecula Area, Riverside County, Califomia; for The
Garrett Group LLC, J.N. 188-01, dated December It, 2001.
2001d, Documentation of Previous Interface Grading Adjacent to Golf Course Fairways, Tracts 23066-1,
23066-2 and 23066-3, Temecula Area of Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated December 10, 2001.
, 200le, Geotechnical Review of 40 -Scale Rough Grading Plans, Tracts 23066, 23066-1, 23066-2 and 23066-3,
Temecula Area of Riverside County, California, dated December 11, 2001.
, 2002a, Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and
30246, ,remecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 20, 2002.
, 2002b, Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Geotechnical Report Review Sheet,
Dated February 21, 2002 and Grading Plan Review Report, Tract 30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County,
California, BGR No. 020159, J.N. 188-01, dated March 21, 2002.
, 2002c, Geotechnical Design Parameters for Medium Expansive Soils, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and
30246, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated March 26, 2002.
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J.N. 188-01
MAY 2002
,A
I
1
1
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
1.N. 188-01
1
EN
REFERENCES (Continued)
2002d, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Model Lots, Tract 23066-1,
Lots 3 through 5, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3, 2001
, 2002e, Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Regarding Expansive Soils, Phase t, Tract 23066-2,
Lots 10 through 39, Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 3, 2002.
, 2002f, Geotechnical Recommendations, Post -Tensioned Slabs, Tracts 23066-1, 23066-2, 23066-3 and 30246,
Temecula Area, Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 9, 2002.
2002g, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Model Lots I through 8, Tract 23066-2, Temecula Area,
Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 26, 2002.
2002h, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Lots 9 through 39, Tract 23066-2, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated May 8, 2002.
1
1
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
1.N. 188-01
1
EN
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
LABORATORY TEST DATA
vea3o�6 -' -� -2
0 PETRA
11
L]
[1
1
1
1
I
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST CRITERIA
Laboratory Maximum Dry Density
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of soil and bedrock
materials in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Pertinent test values are given on Plate A-1.
Expansion Potential
Expansion index tests were performed on selected samples of soil and bedrock materials in accordance with ASTM
Test Method D4829. Expansion potential classifications were determined from 1997 UBC Table 18-1-B on the basis
of the expansion index values. Test results and expansion potentials are presented on Plate A-2.
Soluble Sulfate
Chemical analysis was performed on a selected sample of onsite soil to determine concentrations of soluble sulfate.
This test was performed in accordance with California Test Method No. 417. The test result is included on Plate A-3.
Atterber2 Limits
Atterberg limit tests (Liquid Limit and Plastic Index) were performed on selected samples to verify visual
classifications. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Test results are presented
on Plate A-3.
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01
31
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
Sam le ,
lk°j"Wis n
i 4
,3 Soil T " a
Optimum
x�
�Maxtmum
a
I
Dark brown Clayey Silty fine SAND
8.5
131.5
2
Light brown Silty SAND
8.0
133.5
3
Brown Clayey fine SAND
10.5
127.5
4
Light brown Silty, Clayey fine- to medium -grained SAND
10.0
128.5
5
Light brown very fine Sandy SILT
14.0
116.0
6
Light yellowish brown fine SAND
13.0
109.0
7
Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel
8.5
132.0
8
Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and Silt
12.5
120.5
9
Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay
8.5
130.5
10
Medium brown Clayey SILT
11.5
124.5
(1) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D1557
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J.N. 188-01
MAY 2002
Plate A-1
Il
EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA
`c JKj
. ±3
Fpansron
Ex
Expansion ,
'f E'R
xpansion
iSample�
jlf r,?Y 4Descnpt on
92
34
Low
93 through 95
2
Very Low
`c JKj
. ±3
R` dpi`.! r� "u 1 `W.i{A� +XY! i 3h ,.bli nr 3c%3�N"Je�' 2{Stf yErq{4it^ , lL{tv i i'iW' C'Ni4 P2J
k 3 w �a Y a tai 4 1 s a hExpansron
�3i
k' C�'t r '..c=
'f E'R
xpansion
iSample�
jlf r,?Y 4Descnpt on
{ Index
Potential
I
Dark brown Clayey Silty fine SAND
11
Very Low
2
Light brown Silty SAND
18
Very Low
3
Brown Clayey fine SAND
81
Medium
4
Light brown Silty, Clayey fine- to medium -grained SAND
75
Medium
5
Light brown very fine Sandy SILT
16
Very Low
6
Light yellowish brown fine SAND
0
Very Low
7
Yellowish light brown fine to course SAND with Clay and Gravel
2
Very Low
8
Yellowish light brown fine to medium SAND with trace Clay and
3
Very Low
Silt
9
Light brown Silty SAND with trace Clay
20
1 Very Low
' (2) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4829
(3) PER 1997 UBC TABLE 18-1-B
7
LI
' PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. MAY 2002
J.N. 188-01 Plate A-2
31
SOLUBLE SULFATE
ATTERBERG LIMITS`
92 through 95
0.01
ATTERBERG LIMITS`
(4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417
(5) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4318
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J. N. 188-01
MAY 2002
Plate A-3
3v
NofiF
"; Sotl?Type£m
tLtrtut «y
rLtm0—
W,Indexf
.4,
�i _
3
Clayey SAND
32
14
18
4
Silty, Clayey SAND
32
15
17
(4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417
(5) PER ASTM TEST METHOD D4318
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
J. N. 188-01
MAY 2002
Plate A-3
3v
I
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX B
1
1 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
1
1
1
1
I
1
,1
1
1
PETRA
1
1
OUT
1
1
1
I
1
[1
1
JOB NUMBER: 188-01
02
'•'t •'t is it ir'•••'•: •.:•i: :: is is :: is :: i; i; ::
... -. -r ...:.... it
U B C S E I S
version 1.03
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NAME: Richmond Redhaw
FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.4677
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.0860
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 12.1 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA
DISTANCE: 1.3 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME:
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.3
Nv: 1.6
Ca: 0.57
Cv: 1.02
TS: 0.716
To: 0.143
' Page 1
DATE: 04-13-20
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
OUT
?r �• :k :k •'.; '.; k :k '.; :k :k'.; '.; :k is � :: '.: � is �"'.r � '.r it ;r • � :k is k i::k is '.::t i::k i; -,•. �: '.; :k'.; � 4r :: '.r is it :k :: � X• .............. ..
CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are
limited in number and have been digitized from small
k scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently,
the estimated fault -site -distances may be in error b
y
several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that
the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and
adjusted as needed, before they are used in design.
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
FAULT
ABBREVIATED
TYPE
FAULT NAME
I(SS,DS,BT)
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
SS
ELSINORE-JULIAN
I SS
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
I SS
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
I SS
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
I SS
ROSE CANYON
I SS
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
I SS ,
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
I APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX. I
SLIP
IDISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG. I
RATE
I (km) I(A,B,C)I
(MW) I
(mm/yr)
I 2.6 I B I
6.8 I
5.00
I 12.1 I A I
7.1 I
5.00
I 31.2 I B I
6.8 I
5.00
I 33.3 I A I
7.2 I
12.00
I 34.1 I B I
6.9 I
12.00
I 46.5 I B I
6.9 I
1.50
I 49.0 I B (
6.9 I
1.50
I 53.6 I B I
6.8 I
4.00
56.6 I B I
6.5 I
2.00
Page 2
57
OUT
I
SS
CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 60.0 I B I 6.7 I 1.00
DS
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO ( 62.7 I B 1 6.7 1 12.00
I Ss
I SAN ANDREAS -Southern I 63.0 1 A I 7.4 1 24.00
1 SS
ELSINORE-WHITTIER 1 66.8 1 B 1 6.8 I 2.50
1 SS
PINTO MOUNTAIN I 73.8 1 B 1 7.0 I 2.50
1 SS
CORONADO BANK I 74.1 I B I 7.4 I 3.00
1 55
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 79.1 I B 1 6.9 I 1.00
I SS
PALOS VERDES I 81.5 I B 1 7.1 I 3.00
1 SS
BURNT MTN. 1 84.6 I B I 6.5 I 0.60
1 SS
CUCAMONGA I 86.0 I A 1 7.0 I 5.00
1 DS
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 87.4 I B 1 6.8 I 4.00
1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 87.8 I B I 7.0 I 1.00
I DS
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 87.9 I B 1 6.6 I 4.00
1 SS
EUREKA PEAK 1 89.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.60
1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 90.4 I B 1 6.7 1 0.50
I DS
SAN JOSE I 91.0 1 B 1 6.5 I 0.50
DS
CLEGHORN I 91.1 I B 1 6.5 I 3.00
1 SS
SIERRA MADRE (Central) I 94.8 I B 1 7.0 1 3.00
1 DS
LANDERS I 99.2 I B I 7.3 I 0.60
1 SS
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 102.4 I B I 7.1 I 0.60
1 Ss
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 102.4 I A I 7.8 I 34.00
SS
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 1 107.0 I B I 7.3 I 0.60
1 SS
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 111.1 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50
1 DS
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 111.6 I B 1 6.7 1 0.60
I SS
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 112.9 I B 1 6.9 I 0.60
1 SS
RAYMOND 1 115.4 1 B I 6.5 I 0.50
f
Page 3
-T'� ' 2,5 0 lod - 2
OUT
I DS
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
I SS
VERDUGO
I DS
ELMORE RANCH
I SS
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK
I SS
CALICO - HIDALGO
I SS
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
I SS
HOLLYWOOD
I DS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
I SS
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA
I SS
SANTA MONICA
DS
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
I DS
I 120.2 I
B
I 6.6 I
5.00
I 123.5 I
B
I 6.7 I
0.50
I 124.2 I
B
I 6.6 I
1.00
I 124.3 I
B
I 7.1
0.60
I 125.0 I
B
I 7.1 I
0.60
I 126.3 I
B
I 6.6 I
4.00
I 128.5 I
B
I 6.5 I
1.00
I 128.6 I
B
I 6.5 I
25.00
I 138.9 I
B
I 7.0 I
3.50
I 140.4 I
B
I 6.6 I
1.00
I 143.8 I
B
I 6.7 I
2.00
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Page 4
39
I APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX.
I SLIP
FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
FAULT NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)I
(Mw)
I (mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
SAN GABRIEL
I 145.6 I B I
7.0
I 1.00
I SS
MALIBU COAST
I 148.1 I B I
6.7
I 0.30
I DS
IMPERIAL
I 153.5 I A I
7.0 I
20.00
I SS
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE
I 157.0 I B I
6.9 I
0.60
I SS
ANACAPA-DUME
I 159.9 I B I
7.3 1
3.00
1 DS
Page 4
39
1
I
OUT
SANTA SUSANA.
1 161.7 I
B
1 6.6 1
5.00
1 DS
HOLSER
1 170.7 1
B
i 6.5 1
0.40
1 DS
BLACKWATER
1 173.2 1
B
1 6.9 1
0.60
1 SS
OAK RIDGE (Onshore)
1 181.7 1
B
1 6.9 1
4.00
1 DS
SIMI-SANTA ROSA
1 183.3 1
B
1 6.7 1
1.00
I DS
SAN CAYETANO
I 189.1 1
B
1 6.8 1
6.00
1 DS
SANTA YNEZ (East)
I 208.3 1
B
1 7.0 1
2.00
S
GARLOCK(West)
1 213.3 1
A
I 7.1 1
6.00
1 SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT
1 214.2 1
B
1 6.8 1
1.00
I DS
GARLOCK (East)
1 219.9 1
A
1 7.3 1
7.00
1 Ss
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA
1 222.8 1
B
1 6.7 1
0.40
1 DS
PLEITO THRUST
1 225.2 1
B
1 6.8 I
2.00
1 DS
RED MOUNTAIN
I 228.5 1
B
1 6.8 1
2.00
1 DS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
1 232.7 1
B
1 6.8 1
1.00
I DS
BIG PINE
1 233.2 I
B
1 6.7 1
0.80
1 SS
OWL LAKE
I 238.6 1
B
1 6.5 I
2.00
1 55
PANAMINT VALLEY
1 238.9 I
B
1 7.2 1
2.50
1 SS
WHITE WOLF
1 240.0 1
B
1 7.2 1
2.00
1 DS
TANK CANYON
1 242.2 1
B
1 6.5 1
1.00
1 DS
So. SIERRA NEVADA
1 242.6 I
B
1 7.1 1
0.10
I DS
LITTLE LAKE
I 243.9 1
B
1 6.7 1
0.70
1 SS
DEATH VALLEY (South)
1 245.3 I
B
1 6.9 1
4.00
1 , SS
SANTA YNEZ (West)
1 262.0 1
B
1 6.9 1
2.00
1 SS
SANTA ROSA ISLAND
1 268.8 1
B
1 6.9 1
1.00
I DS
DEATH VALLEY (Graben)
1 288.9 I
B
1 6.9 1
4.00
1 DS
LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE
1 305.1 1
B
1 6.8 1
0.70
1 DS
Page 5
q
1
1
1
t
1
OUT
OWENS VALLEY
I 314.0 I
B
1 7.6 I
1.50
1 SS
LIONS HEAD
1 322.5 I
B
1 6.6 I
0.02
1 DS
FAULT
SAN JUAN
1 325.6 I
B
I 7.0 1
1.00
SS
DEATH VALLEY (N.
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin)
1 330.2 1
B
1 7.0 1
0.20
1 DS
ROUND VALLEY (E.
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY
1 336.2 1
B
1 7.0 I
2.50
1 SS
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault)
I 339.8 I
B
1 6.5 1
0.25
1 DS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern)
1 342.9 I
A
1 7.2 1
5.00
1 SS
INDEPENDENCE
1 350.0 1
B
1 6.9 I
0.20
1 DS
LOS OSOS
1 359.5 I
B
1 6.8 1
0.50
1 DS
HOSGRI
I 368.7 I
B
1 7.3 1
2.50
1 SS
RINCONADA
I 377.7 I
B
1 7.3 I
1.00
I SS
BIRCH CREEK
I 406.9 1
B
I 6.5 I
0.70
1 DS
WHITE MOUNTAINS
I 410.4 1
B
I 7.1 I
1.00
I SS
DEEP SPRINGS
I 428.0 1
B
1 6.6 1
0.80
1 DS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping)
I 428.1 I
B
1 5.0 1
34.00
1 ss
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Page 6
I APPROX.ISOURCE I
MAX.
I SLIP
I FAULT
ABBREVIATED
IDISTANCEI TYPE I
MAG.
I RATE
I TYPE
FAULT
NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)I
(MW)
I (mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
DEATH VALLEY (N.
of Cucamongo)
1 431.0 1 A 1
7.0 1
5.00
1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (E.
of S.N.Mtns.)
1 443.2 I B I
6.8 1
1.00
Page 6
1
1
1
1
1
OUT
I DS
FISH SLOUGH
1 449.6 I
B
I 6.6 I
0.20
1 DS
HILTON CREEK
1 469.5 1
B
1 6.7 1
2.50
1 DS
HARTLEY SPRINGS
I 494.6 I
B
I 6.6 I
0.50
1 DS
ORTIGALITA
1 509.4 I
B
I 6.9 1
1.00
I SS
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res)
1 517.1 1
B
1 6.2 I
15.00
I SS
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS
1 523.1 I
B
I 7.1 I
0.50
1 DS
PALO COLORADO - SUR
1 526.3 I
B
I 7.0 1
3.00
1 SS
QUIEN SABE
1 529.7 I
B
1 6.5 I
1.00
I SS
MONO LAKE
1 530.8 I
B
I 6.6 I
2.50
1 DS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES
I 549.2 1
B
1 6.8 I
0.10
SARGENTS
I 554.0 I
B
I 6.8 I
3.00
1 SS
SAN ANDREAS (1906)
I 554.4 I
A
I 7.9 1
24.00
1 ss
ROBINSON CREEK
I 562.3 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
I DS
SAN GREGORIO
1 598.2 I
A
I 7.3 I
5.00
I SS
GREENVILLE
I 601.0 I
B
1 6.9 (
2.00
1 SS
ANTELOPE VALLEY
1 603.0 1
B
1 6.7 1
0.80
1 DS
HAYWARD (SE Extension)
1 603.1 1
B
1 6.5 1
3.00
1 SS
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON
I 604.1 I
B
1 6.5 I
0.40
1.
HAYWARDS(Total Length)
I 622.4 I
A
1 7.1 I
9.00
1 SS
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res)
1 622.4 I
B
I 6.8 I
6.00
SS
GENOA
1 629.2 I
B
I 6.9 I
1.00
I DS
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY
1 668.8 I
B
I 6.9 1
6.00
1 SS
RODGERS CREEK
I 708.1 I
A
i 7.0 1
9.00
1 SS
WEST NAPA
I 708.3 I
B
I 6.S I
1.00
I SS
POINT REYES
I 729.3 I
B
I 6.8 I
0.30
HUNTINGSCREEK - BERRYESSA
I 729.5 I
B
I 6.9 I
6.00
Page 7
Y�
OUT
I SS
MAACAMA (South)
I 770.1 I
B
I 6.9 I
9.00
I SS
COLLAYOMI
I 786.2 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.60
I SS
BARTLETT SPRINGS
I 788.6 I
A
I 7.1 I
6.00
1 SS
MAACAMA (Central)
I 811.7 I
A
I 7.1 I
9.00
I SS
MAACAMA (North)
I 870.5 I
A
I 7.1 I
9.00
I SS
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay)
I 875.3 I
B
I 6.8 I
6.00
I SS
BATTLE CREEK
I 892.8 I
B
I 6.5 I
0.50
I DS
LAKE MOUNTAIN
I 933.6 I
B
I 6.7
6.00
I SS
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND
I 951.5 I
B
I 6.9 I
9.00
I SS
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE
11008.7 I
A
I 7.4 I
35.00
I DS
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore)
( 1013.7 I
A
I 7.0 I
5.00
I DS
MAD RIVER
11015.4 I
B
I 7.1 I
0.70
I DS
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE
11023.1 I
A
I 8.3 I
35.00
I DS
MCKINLEYVILLE
11026.1 I
B
I 7.0 I
0.60
I DS
TRINIDAD
11027.4 I
B
I 7.3 I
2.50
I DS
FICKLE HILL
11028.2 I
B
I 6.9 I
0.60
I DS
TABLE BLUFF
11034.4 I
B
I 7.0 I
0.60
I DS
LITTLE SALMON (offshore)
11047.6 I
B
I 7.1 I
1.00
I DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I FAULT I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP
'TYPE ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE
I
1
' Page 8
Y3
OUT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II Page 9
49
FAULT NAME
I (km) I(A,B,C)l
(Mw) I (mm/yr)
I(SS,DS,BT)
BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE
11063.9 I B I
7.3 I O.SO
DS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II Page 9
49
r
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD
2.50
2.25
2.00
C: 1.75
0
0 1.50
L
1.25
U
Q 1.00
0.75
U
CL 0.50
0.25
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period Seconds
C)t� of 0
4,n
�1
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES
I R V I N E, I N C.
I N LAND EMPIRE REGION
RECEIVED
County of Riverside
Building & Safety
MAY U 1 2002
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING Date: April 24, 2002 MURRIETA
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GRADING DEPARTMENT
IRVINE Department of Building and Safety
RIVERSIDE 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
SAN DIEGO
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: District Grading Inspector
Subj: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade (Pads Only)
Reference: Grading Permit No. BGRO10340
Address Tioga Street Rhine Avenue
Tract No. 23066.2
Lot(s) 1 through 8, inclusive (Models)
As Engineer for the project, I hereby certify the rough grading (pads only)
for the referenced project in accordance with my responsibilities under the
Riverside County Grading and Excavation Code. Rough Grading has been
completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan
which includes: line and grade for all engineered drainage devices (graded
and ready for paving or construction), staking of property corners for proper
building location and inclination of all slopes, construction of earthen berms
and positive building pad drainage.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC.
Inland Empire Region
��[/ � QAo�css�o
TO UDLfy,Tat!
Paul R. Huddles n, W ?
RbE 58020 a a No. 58020
PRINCIPALS: Exp. Date: 06/30/02 ,a oa
rl CIv *'
BRADLEY B. HAV '9JF ^T�?
PAUL HUDDLESTON W.O. #0076-23066-2
2900 Adams Street
Suite A-15
Riverside, California
92504
(909) 352-7200 PH
(909) 352-8269 F%
www. hunsakeccom
T2 98 0 b
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES
I R V 1 N E, I N C.
N LAND EMPIRE REGION
RECEIVED
County of Riverside
Building & Safety
c
MAY 10 2002
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GRADING DEPARTMENT MURRIETA
IRVINE Department of Building and Safety
RIVERSIDE 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
SAN DIEGO Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: District Grading Inspector
Subj: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade (Pads Only)
Reference: Grading Permit No. BGR010340
Address Rhine Avenue Vanowen Lane
Tract No. 23066-2
Lot(s) 9 through 39 Inclusive
As Engineer for the project, I hereby certify the rough grading (pads only)
for the referenced project in accordance with my responsibilities under the
Riverside County Grading and Excavation Code. Rough Grading has been
completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan
which includes: line and grade for all engineered drainage devices (graded
and ready for paving or construction), staking of property corners for proper
building location and inclination of all slopes, construction of earthen berms
and positive building pad drainage.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC.
Inland Empire Region
��DQCFgrn
z a No. 58020
I R Hud leston, Jr.
E 58020
xp. Date: 06/30/02 srq CIVI Ra
PRINCIPALS: SOF CAL�FO
BRADLEY B. HAY
PAUL HUDDLESTON W.O. #0076-23066-2
2900 Adams Street
Suite A-15
Riverside, California
92504
(909)352-7200 PH
(9091352-8269 E%
www. hm,sake,.com
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IRVINE
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO
PRINCIPALS:
BRADLEY B. HAY
PAUL HUDDLESTON
2900 Adams Street
Suite A-15
Riverside, California
92504
(909)352-7200 PH
(909) 352-8269 F%
www. hunsake,.com
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES RECEIVED
I R V I N E, I N C. County of Riverside
INLAND EMPIRE REGION Building& Safety
Nov 15 2002
Date: November 14, 2002
MURRIETA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GRADING DEPARTMENT
Department of Building and Safety
4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: District Grading Inspector
Subj: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade (Pads Only)
Reference: Grading Permit No. BGRO10340
Address Fmbasgy Avenue
Tract No. ---2369-6 2 --�
Lot(s) 40 through 46, Inclusive
As Engineer for the project,`I�IaPEPh__ Cprtz,'�i3ii grading (pads only)
for the referenced project in accordance with my responsibilities under the
Riverside County Grading and Excavation Code. Rough Grading has been
completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan
(approved February 11, 2002) which includes: line and grade for all
engineered drainage devices (graded and ready for paving or construction),
staking of property corners for proper building location and inclination of all
slopes, construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, IN
Inland Empire Region
J
No. 5d020
Va'R. klu dIeston, Jr.58020 sr CIVIL
Exp. Date: 06/30/06 'SOF CAUL
W.O. #0076-23066-2
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IRVINE
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO
PRINCIPALS:
BRADLEY B. HAY
PAUL HUDDLESTON
2900 Adams Street
Suite A-15
Riverside, California
92504
(909) 352-7200 PH
(909)352-8269 F%
www. hunsaker.coun
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES
I R V I N E, I N C.
N LAND EMPIRE REGION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GRADING DEPARTMENT
Department of Building and Safety
4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RECEIVED
County of Riverside
Building & Safety
DEC 17 2002
NIURRIETA
Attn: District Grading Inspector
Subj: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade (Pads Only)
Reference: Grading Permit No. BGRO10340
Address Embassy Avenue
Tract No. 23066-2
Lot(s) 47 through Inclusive• and
73 through 78 inclusive
As Engineer for the project, I hereby certify the rough grading (pads only)
for the referenced project in accordance with my responsibilities under the
Riverside County Grading and Excavation Code. Rough Grading has been
completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan
which includes: line and grade for all engineered drainage devices (graded
and ready for paving or construction), staking of property corners for proper
building location and inclination of all slopes, construction of earthen berms
and positive building pad drainage.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC.
Inland Empire Regiorle, F
N Sr
Ci J
8020
C q, o0
Paulleston, Jr.
RC s> civ%.1
Exp. Date: 06/30/06 orCA51'
W.O. #0076-23066-2
PUNNING
ENGINEERING
SURVWNG
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IRVINE
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO
PRINCIPALS!
BRADLEY B'HAY
PAUL HUDDLESTON
2900 Adam, Slreel
Sulle A.15
Rlw rkc, CaRfornla
92504
(909)752.7200 PH
(9091 352-6269 F%
www. hunsaker.mm
HUN SAKE R REountyCEIVED
�+ p SOC IATES Building
& safety
CX I1JJ 1 1 J Building &Safe
I Rv I n E, I n C.
I N L A NO EMPIRE REGION
NO V 15 2002
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GRADING DEPARTMENT
Department of Building and Safety
4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
Riverside, CA 92541
Attn; District Grading inspector
Subj: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade (Pads Only)
Reference: Grading Permit No. RG 801014
Address EmbRsay Avanun
Tract No. 2301162
Lot(8) 79 through 82- Inclusive
As Engineer for the project, I hereby certify the rough grading (pads only)
for the referenced project in accordance with my responsibilities under the
Riverside County Grading and Excavation Code. Rough Grading has been
completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan
(approved February 11, 2002) which includes: line and grade for all
engineered drainage devices (graded and ready for paving or construction),
staking of property corners for proper building location and Inclination of all
slopes, construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATEP.,,ggV:*INi`;`,(NC
Inland Empire Re
,J
out uddI ton, "
RCE 58020 1\` Eu10.r,�3oo6j.k;f
Exp. Dote: 06/30/06
W.O. #0076-23066-2
Z 35vd 6928 ZcE 606 Do89v V v3Avsxn,:? 61:bI t1i33; Z0. S[ AON
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IRVINE
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO
PRINCIPALS:
BRADLEY B. HAY
PAUL HUDDLESTON
2900 Adams Street
Suite A-15
Riverside, California
92504
(909) 352-7200 PH
(909) 352-8269 FX
www. hunsaker.com
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES
I R V I N E, I N C.
N LAND EMPIRE REGION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GRADING DEPARTMENT
Department of Building and Safety
4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RECEIVED
County of Riverside
Building & Safety
JAN 0 8 2003
MURRIEM
Attn: District Grading Inspector
Subj: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade (Pads Only)
Reference: Grading Permit No. BGRO10340
Address Embassy Avenue
Tract No. 23066.2
Lot(s) 53 through 57, Inclusive; and
68 through 72, Inclusive
As Engineer for the project, I hereby certify the rough grading (pads only)
for the referenced project in accordance with my responsibilities under the
Riverside County Grading and Excavation Code. Rough Grading has been
completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan
which includes: line and grade for all engineered drainage devices (graded
and ready for paving or construction), staking of property corners for proper
building location and inclination of all slopes, construction of earthen berms
and positive building pad drainage.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC.
Inland Empire Re 'on
s¢
7 DDIFs
Ja No. ;
P I R uddleston, Jr.
E 58020
Ex . Date: 06/30/06 sT9 Cw-
P Jz�„_ _.i.,zcfb.
W.O. #0076-23066-2
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IRVINE
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO
PRINCIPALS:
BRADLEY B. HAY
PAUL HUDDLESTON
2900 Adams Street
Suite A -I 5
Riverside, California
92504
(909) 352-7200 PH
(909) 352-8269 FX
www. hunsake,xom
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES
I R V I N E, I N C.
I N LAND EMPIRE REGION
Rty
Countof Riverside
Building & Safety
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GRADING DEPARTMENT
Department of Building and Safety
4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
JAN 2 3 2003
M%�R%ETO►
Attn: District Grading Inspector
Subj: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade (Pads Only)
Reference: Grading Permit No. BGRO10340
Address Embassy venue
Tract No. 23066.2
Lot(s) 58 through 67, Inclusive
As Engineer for the project, I hereby certify the rough grading (pads only)
for the referenced project in accordance with my responsibilities under the
Riverside County Grading and Excavation Code. Rough Grading has been
completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan
which includes: line and grade for all engineered drainage devices (graded
and ready for paving or construction), staking of property corners for proper
building location and inclination of all slopes, construction of earthen berms
and positive building pad drainage.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC.
Inland Empire Region
P ul R. Huddleston, Jr.
RCE 58020
Exp. Date: 06/30/06
W.O. #0076-23066-2
03-2f-2004 04:37um From -RICHMOND AMERICAN +760-891-0372 T-997 P.003/005 F-897
PETRA
CFFrCFs IN 1HE COUNTIES or
ORANGE • SAN CIH00 . RIVERSIDE • LOS ANGELES SA.N RERNAHDWO
RECEIVED
County of RiversUarch I8, 2004.
Building & Safety J.N. 214-02
RIC11MOND AMUUCAN HOMES MAR 2 2 2004
100 East San Marcos Boulevard, Suite 100
San Minces, California 92069
MURRIETA
Altention: Ms. Janda Fmory
Subject! Geatechni¢al Report of Lot Reapproval, Lot 4, Tract 23066-21
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Reference: Petra Geotechnical, Inc-, 2002a, Geotechnical Report of Rough
Grading. Model Lots I through S Tract 23066-2, Temecula ,Area,
Rivofside County, California, J.N. 188-01, dated April 26, 2002
(13 GR No. 010340) -
.At your request, pyla GeOtCObnical, Inc. (Petra) has pYCpJred this letter of
reapproval of Lot 4 within Tract 23066-2 located in the City of Temecula,
California, Petra provided the geotechnical observation ,Ad testing services for
rough -grading operations (sec Reftrenoe).
The subject lot has remained in its graLied state since completion being used Ivr it
parking lot for the adjacent )nodels. Following tic r=Oval Of the asphalt, Petra
recommended that the pad 130 processed within the upper 6-inehos, moisture
conditioned as necessary and re-compaelcd to 90 percent relative compaction,
Following rework, Petra conducted a finish -grade density test to verify satisfactory
compaclion.
It is our opinion that the subject 10T is suitable for its intended use.
RCGOmmcndntiens for building and slab design remain applicable AS slated in iho
refeeanc„d r2port.
FETAA GEOTecJINICAL, INC.
41640 C.";'g PIyGL . 50110 107 2 Mue;e16 - CA oesse . TCI: (909) 600-9271 • Fax: (900) 670.7215
. 03-22=2004 04:37am From -RICHMOND AMERICAN
RICIIMOND AMERICAN HOMES
TR 23066-2 Lot 4/Temecul3
+760-991-0372 T-997 P-004/005 F-997
March 16, 2004
J.N_ 214.02
Page 2
WO tnPPreciatc this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please
contact this ofFiee,
Respectfully submitted,
RETi2A GLOTECHNICAy, LAIC.
k��44{�pN
90n R. Walker, GE c� � No- 671
Principal Engineer 4)
it FXP g r e
CJIT/GRW/glb/kms
Distribution! (2) Addres9oo
(4) Richmond American Homes _. pleld Office
Attention: Mr. CraigPcters
EA
03-22-2004 04:37pm From -RICHMOND AMERICAN +760-691-0372 T-997 P.005/005 F-697
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SuiroWNG
GOYERNMEW RELATIONS
IRVINE
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO
PRINCIPALS:
BRADLEY B. MAY
PAUL HUDDLESTON
3900 Adams Sheet
SuIWA-15
RI9BDIrN, CBAfatmlE
91504
190 91 352-7290 PH
19091332-6269 F%
1 . hum9ku-com
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES
I R V I N E, I N C.
INLAND EMPIRE REGION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - GRADING DEPARTMENT
Department of Building and Safety
39493 Los Alamos Road, Sults A
Murrieta, CA 92563
RECEIVED
County of Riverside
Building & Safety
Attn; District Grading Inspector
Sub): civil Engineees Certlfloation of Rough Grade
ReNrence: Grading Permit No, B-GRO.10
Address 45435 Tloea Street
Tract No. 23066,2
Lot(s) 4
MAR 2 2 2004
MURRIETA
As Engineer for the project, I hereby certify the rough grading of the pad for
Lot 4 In accordance with my responsibilities under the Riverside County
Grading and Excavation Code. Rough Grading has been completed
substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan which
Includes: line and grade for all engineered drainage devices (graded and
ready for paving or constructlon), staking of properly comers for proper
building location and inclination of all slopes, construction of earthen berms
and positive building pad drainage.
Notre: This Is a re-cerfJficat/on of rough grade.
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC.
Inland Empire Region �;• —...
rer �� � ; H�Oe'1Ly;�t::•
Paul : Hudd aston, r.
RCE'58020 `.
Exp, Date; 08/30106
W.O. #0078.23088.2
3 '30Vd 69re dSE 506 0033v s9 E:H2VSXnH 6b: bE (nHS) 40 , 7 1 "HVyu