HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 509 Geotechnical Investigation
, .
C.H.~.
r ~
r'
, .
f'
i
I,
i ['
I.
r'
,
I,
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
MR. AND MRS. ALTON AND WANDA PACE
JOB NO. 04204-3
['
t.
[:
!:
!:
[:
[:
[:
[;
[:
!:
!:
RECEIVED
APR 1 3 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
[ .
1.
\
, .
C'
, .
c.
I.
r'
I.
, .
. .
, .
..
r'
t.
i:
[:
[:
r:
[;
[;
l:
I;
[ .
L
, .C ~. H. ~. INCORPORATED
P,O. Box 231, Colton, CA 92324-0231 .1355 E. Cooley Or" Colton, CA 92324-3954. Phone (909) 824-7210. Fax (909) 824-7209
March 22, 2004
Mr. and Mrs. Alton and Wanda Pace
35411 Del Ray Road
Temecula, California 92624
Job No. 04204-3
Dear Mr. Pace:
Attached herewith is the Geotechnical Investigation report prepared for the proposed single-family
residence, to be located at Tract No. 3883, Lot No. 509, in the City of Temecula, California.
This report was based upon a scope of services generally outlined in our proposal letter, dated February
6, 2004, and other written and verbal communications.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. If you have questions
or comments concerning this report, please contact this firm at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
C.H.J., INCORPORA.~ /'
L/ r~
~oke, Staff Engineer
JFC/lUJ:sra
Distribution: Mr. and Mrs. Alton and Wanda Pace (6)
2.
SOILS ENGINEERING . GEOLOGY . ENVIRONMENTAL . MATERIALS TESTING & EVALUATION . CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
r'
r.
, .
I.
r'
1.
f'
I.
! '
,
I.
! .
t.
, .
i
L
!:
[:
[:
!:
I:
[;
I:
l:
[~
[;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS .........................................
SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................
FIELD INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lJUBORATORYIN\nESTIGATION ..... ........ ....... ............ ......
SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FAULTING........................................................ .
Elsinore Fault Zone ................................................
Other Faults ......................................................
mSTORICAL EARTHQUAKES ........................................
SEISMIC ANALYSIS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Probabilistic Hazard Analysis ........................................
Seisrnic Zone .....................................................
Soil Profile Type ..................................................
Near Source Effect ................................................
SLOPE STABILITY ..................................................
GROUNDWATER AND LIQUEFACTION ................................
SlJBSIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FLOODING AND EROSION .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .
CONCLUSIONS .....................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In-Grading Geologic Observation .....................................
Seismic Design Considerations .......................................
General Site Grading ...............................................
Initial Si.te Prep~ation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preparation ofFill Areas ............................................
Preparation of Footing Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compacted Fills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shrinkage and Subsidence .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Expansive Soils ...................................................
Slope Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slope Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Drainage ....................,................................
Potential Erosion ..................................................
Spread Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slabs-on-Grade ...................................................
Post-Tensioned Slab Design .........................................
Concrete Flatwork ................................,................
Lateral,I..,oading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corroslvlty Testmg ................................................
Construction Observation ...........................................
LIMITATIONS ',...........................................,........
CLOSURE ., . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES ......................................................
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c.. .. ~ JjJ.
PAGE
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
11
11
11
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
20
22
22
23
23
24
25
27
.3
TABLE OF APPENDICES
c.. ..~ JjJ.
ENCLOSURE
!APPENDIX "A" - GEOTECHNICAL MAPS
Index Map .....,................................................. "A-I"
Geotechnical Map ................................................. "A-2"
Geologic Index Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "A-3"
Earthquake Epicenter Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "A-4"
"
'APPENDIX "B" - EXPLORATORY LOGS
Key to Logs ......................................................
Soil Classification Chart ............................................
Exploratory Borings . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .
"B" (lof2)
"B" (2of2)
"B-1 "-"B-4"
, i
APPENDIX "C" - LABORATORY TESTING
Test Data Summary ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "C-l"
Chemical/Corrosivity Test Results .................................... "C-2"
,.
'APPENDIX "D"- GEOTECHNICAL DETAILS
"
Slope Benching Detail ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . liD_I"
Footing Setback Detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liD_Zit
Differential Fill Detail .............................................. IID_3"
"
t.
APPENDIX "E"- GEOLOGIC DATA
Probability of Exceedance vs. Acceleration. . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
liE_I"
l:
[ :
I:
[;
l:
[:
I:
I:
l'
l.
4.
, .
, I
, .
r'
,
I.
! I
i.
! .
I.
f'
1.
1 :
!:
L
!:
I:
!l
u
Ii
U
l:
[;
c....~ ~.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
MR. AND MRS. ALTON AND WANDA PACE
JOB NO. 04204-3
INTRODUCTION
During March of2004, a geotechnical investigation was performed by this firm for the proposed single-
family residence, to be located at Tract No. 3883, Lot No. 509, in the CityofTemecula, California. The
purpose of this investigation was to explore and evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the subject site
and to provide appropriate geotechnical recommendations for design ofthe proposed structure.
To orient our investigation at the site, a 20-Scale Grading Plan, prepared by Temecula Engineering
Consultants, Incorporated, was furnished for our use. The Grading Plan indicated existing elevations
and proposed building location and elevation. It is our understanding that the indicated structure loca-
tions and elevations are only conceptual at this point in time and may vary from the fmallocations and
elevations. The approximate location of the site is shown on the attached Index Map (Enclosure "A-l ").
The results of our investigation, together with our conclusions and recommendations, are presented in
this report.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services provided during this geotechnical investigation included the following:
. Review:and analysis of stereoscopic aerial photographs flown between 1962 and 2000
. A geologic field reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area
. Placement of four exploratory borings on the site
. Logging and sampling of exploratory borings for testing and evaluation
. Laboratory testing on selected samples
. Evaluation of the geotechnical data to develop site-specific recommendations for site grading,
conventional static foundation design, and mitigation of potential geotechnical constraints
s
, ,
, ,
, .
! r'
I,
f I
1.
r'
I.
r'
1.
! :
!:
!:
I:
I:
II
l!
I:
I:
1:
[;
c.. ..-1.
Page No.2
Job No. 04204-3
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Information furnished this office indicates that the subject 0.5:l: acre site will be graded to accommodate
a single-family residence. It is anticipated that the structure will be one to two stories in height and of
wood frame and stucco or similar type construction. Light foundation loads are normally associated
with such structures.
Based on information contained on the Grading Plan, as well as observation of site topography and
nearby development, it appears that development of this site will entail cuts and maximum fills on the
order of25 feet. The final grading plan should be reviewed by the project geoteclmical engineer.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 0.5:l: acre, roughly rectangular parcel of land located northwest of the
intersection of Del Ray Road and Calle Pina Colada Road in the City of Temecula, California.
At the time of our investigation, the subject site was vacant, dominated by an east-west trending ridge.
The south portion of the site was coincident with the top of the ridge with the central portion of the site
sloping to the relatively planar area located at the base of the ridge. An east-west trending
canyon/ravine existed along the north property line. The area adjacent to Del Ray Road on the south
portion of the site was relatively planar. This area had previously been graded by the placement of fill
to construct a building pad. In addition, end-dumped stockpile fill existed on the northern portion of
the site. The building pad sloped gently to the west. The slope within the central portion of the site
vary up to 2.5 horizontal (h) to 1 vertical (v). An access road existed connecting the upper southern and
the lower northern portions of the site.
Vegetation across most of the site consisted of a sparse growth of weeds and grasses.
The subject site was bordered on the north and west by vacant land. The area west of the site was
occupied by a single-family residence. Del Ray Road existed to the south of the site with single-family
residences beyond
No other surface features pertinent to this investigation were noted.
"
, ,
, ,
r.
, .
,
I,
r'
I,
r'
t,
,.
I,
!:
[ :
[:
I:
!:
[[
[;
! :
[[
L
L
c.. ..~ ~.
Page No.3
Job No. 04204-3
As a part of this investigation, aerial photographs flown between 1962 and 2000 available from
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District were reviewed for evidence of
potential geologic hazards and past land uses. Placement of fill on the site was visible in the 1987 aerial
photographs reviewed. The area of fill coincides with the existing fill in the upper portion of the site.
Later photographs show further development in the areas surrounding the site. No other significant
features pertinent to this investigation were visible in the aerial photographs reviewed.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The soil conditions underlying the subject site were explored by means of four exploratory borings
drilled to a maximum depth of 50.0 feet below the existing ground surface with a truck-mounted CME
55 drill rig equipped for soil sampling. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are
indicated on the attached Plat (Enclosure "A-2").
Continuous logs .of the subsurface conditions, as encountered within the exploratory borings, were
recorded at the time of drilling by a staff geologist from this firm. Relatively undisturbed samples were
obtained by driving a split-spoon ring sampler ahead of the borings at selected levels. After the required
seating of the sampler, the number of hammer blows required to advance the sampler a total of 12
inches was converted to equivalent SPT data and recorded on the boring logs. The number is the SPT-
NValue and has been corrected for hammer type (automatic vs. manual cathead) and sampler size
(California sampler vs. SPT sampler). Undisturbed as well as bulk samples of typical soil types
obtained were returned to the laboratory in sealed containers for testing and evaluation.
Our exploratory borings logs, together with our equivalent SPT data, are presented in Appendix "B".
The stratification lines presented on the exploratory borings logs represent approximate boundaries
between soil types, which may include gradual transitions.
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
Included in our laboratory testing program were field moisture content determinations on all samples
returned to the laboratory and field dry densities on all undisturbed samples. The results are included
on the boring logs. An optimum moisture content - maximum dry density relationship was established
for a typical soil type. Direct shear testing was performed on a selected sample in order to provide shear
strength parameters for bearing capacity and lateral earth pressure evaluations. Expansion Index and
1
, ,
, I
C.H. ~ ~.
Page No.4
Job No. 04204-3
Atterberg Limits tests were performed on a selected sample of clay-bearing soil in order that we might
f , evaluate the expansion potential ofthe subsoils. A selected sample of material was delivered to M. J.
, . Schiff & Associates, Inc. for chemical/corrosivity tests.
r I
I
I,
r I
L
r'
,
, ,
! .
I;
l:
r:
[ :
!:
!:
It
I;
I:
I:
II
I'
l,
Summaries of the laboratory test results appear in Appendix "C".
SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
The site is located within the Temecula Basin, a portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province.. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province is characterized by northwest-trending
mountain ranges separated by northwest-trending faults.
The Temecula Basin is a fault-bounded sedimentary basin located between the Elsinore Trough on the
southwest and the Perris Block on the northeast. The Temecula Basin is infilled with slightly deformed
Late Tertiary to Late Quaternary continental sedirnents. The majority of the site is underlain by
sedimentary rock of the Pauba Formation as rnapped by Morton and Kennedy (2003). Measured
thickness of the Rauba formation is approximately 250 feet (Kennedy, 1977). Subjacent to the Pauba
formation are the Pleistocene-age urmamed sandstone and the Upper Pliocene-age Temecula Arkose.
The combined maximum thickness of these moderately to well indurated, predominately sandstones
is thought to be on the order of 1900 feet (Kennedy, 1977). An estimated depth to crystalline basement
rock at the site of between 1,000 and 2,000 feet therefore appears reasonable.
As encountered at the site, the Pauba formation consist oflight brown to gray, slightly consolidated,
sands, silts, and clays that are regionally inclined at a very shallow angle (up to approximately 50)
towards the north (Kennedy and Morton, 2003). Based on SPT and ring density data, the Pauba
Formation is generally in place in a medium dense to very dense state (cohesionless rnaterial) or a stiff
to ,hard condition (cohesive material).
Young alluvial charmel deposits are shown in the northwestern-most portion of the site (Morton and
Kennedy and Morton, 2003). These soils are expected to be in loose states. The younger alluvium at
the site is confined to the stream charmel bottom in the extreme northwest portion of the site.
Fill is present on the site associated with previously grading. Fill was encountered in Exploratory
Boring Nos. 1 and 2 to depths of2.5 to 5 feet, respectively.
'0
, ,
, ,
C.H.J.
Page No.5
Job No. 04Z04-3
Expansion testing. conducted on selected samples of clay bearing soil indicates a "medium" expansion
, , potential, in accordance with UBC Standard Test Method 18-Z.
I,
f'
, I.
! .
,
I,
! .
I
t.
l'
i
t.
1 :
[:
I:
I:
I:
l!
u
I:
I:
II
r:
l.
The results of our field moisture content determinations and field dry densities on all undisturbed
samples together with our equivalent SPT data indicate that the soils tested are not prone to hydro-
collapse.
Groundwater was not encountered within any of the exploratory borings to the maximum depths
attained.
Refusal was not experienced within any or the exploratory borings utilized for this investigation.
All of our exploratory borings experienced slight caving upon removal of the drilling augers.
A more detailed description of the' subsurface soil conditions encountered within our exploratory
borings is presented on the attached boring logs.
FAULTING
The site does not lie within or immediately adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
designated by the State of California to include traces of suspected active faulting. No active faults are
shown on or in' the immediate vicinity of the site on the published geologic maps reviewed. No
evidence for active faulting on or immediately adjacent to the site was observed during the geologic
field reconnaissance or on the aerial photographs reviewed.
The tectonics of the Southern California area are dominated by the interaction of the North American
Plate and the Pacific plate, which are apparently sliding past each other in a translational manner.
Although some of the motion may be accommodated by rotation of crustal blocks such as the western
Transverse Ranges (Dickinson, 1996), the San Andreas fault zone is thought to represent the major
surface expression of the tectonic boundary and to be accommodating most of the translational motion
between the Pacific plate and the North American plate. However, some of the plate motion is
ilPparently also partitioned out to the other northwest-trending strike-slip faults that are thought to be
related to the San Andreas system, such as the San Jacinto fault and the Elsinore fault. Local
compressional or extensional strain resulting from the translational motion along this boundary is
q
f l
r'
r,
( ,
, I
l,
f'
l.
r'
L
I'
t.
I:
!:
L
I:
I;
u
U
1 :
u
1:
[;
c....~..
Page No.6
Job No. 04204-3
accommodated byleft-lateral, reverse, and normal faults such as the San Jose fault, the Cucarnongafault
zone and the Crafton Hills fault zone (Matti and others, 1992; Morton and Matti, 1993).
ELSINORE FAULT ZONE:
The Elsinore fault zone is composed of multiple en echelon and diverging fault traces and splays into
the Whittier and Chino faults to the north. Although it is a zone of overall right-lateral deformation
consistent with the regional plate tectonics, traces of the Elsinore fault zone form the graben of the
Elsinore and Temecula Valleys. The Elsinore fault zone is comprised of several en echelon segments
in this area, including the Wildomar, Willard, and Wolf Valley branches.
The closest main, active strand of the Elsinore fault zone as shown on the Murrieta Alquist-Priolo map
is the Wildomar fault at approximately 1 3/4 miles to the southwest. Holocene surface rupture events
have been documented for several principal strands of the Elsinore fault zone, including the Wildomar
fault (Saul, 1978; Rockwell and others, 1986; Wills, 1988). This fault dominates the seismic hazard
at this site due to its activity, proximity, and maximum moment magnitude (Mlnax) earthquake. A
Mmax ofM 6.8 is assigned to a rupture of the Temecula portion ofthe Elsinore fault (Cao and others,
2003).
The Murrieta Hot Springs fault, an east-trending splay off of the Elsinore fault zone, is located
approximately 2 1/4 miles north of the site. The Murrieta Hot Springs fault is reported to displace late
Pleistocene sedirnents and form a groundwater barrier but is discontinuously overlain by unfaulted
Holocene alluvium and colluvium (Kennedy, 1977). However, unpublished radiometric dating by this
firm from trenches excavated across this fault revealed at least one latest Holocene rupture event.
OTHER FAULTS:
The San Jacinto fault is located approximately 19 miles northeast of the site, and it bounds the graben
of the San Jacinto Valley. The most active fault in Southern California, the San Jacinto fault, maybe
accommodating most of the plate boundary motion in this area (Matti and others, 1992).
The San Andreas fault zone is located along the southwest margin ofthe San Bernardino Mountains,
approximately 36 miles northeast of the site. The toe of the mountain front from the San Bernardino
area to San Gorgonio Pass roughly demarcates the presently active trace of the San Andreas fault, which
is characterized by youthful fault scarps, vegetationallinearnents, springs, and offset drainages. The
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (1995) tentatively assigned a 28 percent (~13
\0
, ,
,.
, .
, .
, ,
(I
. .
f'
l.
r'
I,
f'
,
I.
['
L
!:
l:
[:
[;
l!
[:
u
l:
II
I;
c.. ..~ ..
Page No. 7
Job No. 04204-3
percent) probability to a major earthquake occurring on the San Bernardino Mountains segment of the
San Andreas fault between 1994 and 2024.
HISTORICAL EARTHOUAKES
A map of recorded earthquake epicenters is included as Enclosure "A-4" (Bpi Software, 2000). This
map includes the Caltech database for earthquakes from 1977 through 2003. Earthquakes with magni-
tudes of 4 or greater are shown on Enclosure "A-4".
The only large historical earthquake that can definitely be attributed to the Elsinore fault was a M 6.0
event in 1910 in the Temescal Valley area. This event caused damage to structures from Corona to
Wildomar (Weber, 1977). Since 1932, four M 4.0+ earthquakes have occurred along the Elsinore fault
zone in the Santiago Peak area (Weber, 1977). No rneasurable earthquakes are known to have occurred
associated with the ground cracking along the Wolf Valley and Murrieta Creek faults during the late
1980's. The movement rnay have occurred by aseisrnic creep and/or may be secondary in character,
possibly related to subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal.
The San Jacinto fault is the most seismically active fault in Southern California, although it has no
record of producing great events comparable to those that occurred on the San Andreas fault during the
Fort Tejon earthquake ofl857 and the San Francisco earthquake ofl906 (Working Group on California
Earthquake Probabilities, 1988). Between 1899 and 1990, seven earthquakes ofM 6 .0 or greater have
occurred along the San Jacinto fault. Two of these earthquakes, an estimated M 6.7 in 1899 and aM
6.8 in 1918, took place in the San Jacinto Valley, northeast of the site. (Working Group on California
Earthquake Probabilities, 1988).
No large earthquakes have occurred on the San Bernardino Mountains segment of the San Andreas fault
within the regional historical time frame. Using dendrochronological evidence, Jacoby and others
(1987) inferred that a great earthquake on December 8, 1812 ruptured the northern reaches of this
segment. Recent trenching studies have revealed evidence of rupture on the San Andreas fault at
Wrightwood occurred within this time frame (pumal and others, 1993). Comparison of rupture events
at the Wrightwood site and Pallett Creek and analysis of reported intensities at the coastal missions led
Fumal and others (1993) to conclude that the December 8,1812 event ruptured the San Bernardino
Mountains segment of the San Andreas fault largely to the southeast ofWrightwood, possibly extending
into the San Bernardino Valley.
\l
"
r'
, ,
,
I.
r'
I
1.
f'
L
I'
1.
r:
f'
1.
[:
!:
[:
[:
[1
[[
u
[;
[~
I'
l.
c.. ..-1).
Page No.8
Job No. 04204-3
Surface rupture occurred on the Mojave segment of the San Andreas fault in the great 1857 Fort Tejon
earthquake. The Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas fault was responsible for the 1948 M
6.5 earthquake in the Desert Hot Springs area and for the 1986 M 5.6 earthquake in the North Palm
Springs area.
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
The precise relationship between magnitude and recurrence interval of large earthquakes for a given
fault is not known due to the relatively short time span of recorded seisrnic activity. As a result, a
. number of assumptions rnust be made to quantify the ground shaking hazard at a particular site.
Seismic hazard evaluations can be conducted from both a probabilistic and a deterministic standpoint.
The probabilistic method is prescribed for seismic design by the 200 1 California Building Code (CBC)
and was utilized to estimate the seismic hazard to the site during this investigation.
PROBABILISTIC HAZARD ANALYSIS:
The probabilistic analysis of seismic hazard is a statistical analysis of seismicity of all known regional
fimlts attenuated to a particular geographic location. The results of a probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis are presented as the armual probability of exceedance of a given strong motion parameter for
a particular exposure time (Johnson and others, 1992).
For this report the probabilistic analysis computerprogramFRISKSP (Blake, 2000) was used to analyze
the location of the site under the criteria for NEHRP D sites (Boore and others, 1997) in relation to
seismogenic faults within a 62-mile (100km) radius of the site. This program assumes that significant
earthquakes occur on mappable faults and that the occurrence rate of earthquakes on a fault is
proportional to the estimated slip rate of that fault. Maximum potential earthquake magnitudes are
correlated to expected fault rupture areas. The ground motions of each source are attenuated to the site
as per the selected method (i.e. Boore and others, 1997). The probability that the resultant ground
motions will be exceeded is calculated. From the summation of the probabilities of exceedance of each
ground motion level from all the potential sources, the total average armual probability of an
acceleration greater than each of the values requested is calculated (Blake, 2000). The resultant graph
of probability of exceedance vs. acceleration (Appendix "E") indicates that a peak ground acceleration
of 0.65g has a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (statistical return period 475 years).
This corresponds to the Design Basis Earthquake as defined in the CBC (International Conference of
Building Officials, 2001).
\'2-
. .
, ,
"
, ,
r'
I.
r'
i.
"
, .
( ,
L.
r'
l.
[;
[:
r:
[:
[:
U
II
u
1I
[
c....~ ..
Page No.9
Job No. 04204-3
SEISMIC ZONE:
Figure 16-2 presented in the 2001 CBC places the western portion of Riverside County, which includes
the site, within Seismic Zone 4. A Seisrnic Zone Factor "Z" of 0.40 is assigned to Seismic Zone 4.
SOIL PROFILE TYPE:
Based on the density and blowcount data from our exploratory borings, the appropriate classification
tor this site is SD' stiff soil profile.
NEAR-SOURCE EFFECT:
The seisrnic hazard to this site is dominated by the Elsinore fault. The adjacent Temecula segment of
the Elsinore fault is classified as a Type "A" fault by the State of California (Cao and others, 2003).
For the Type "A" classified Elsinore fault, at a surface distance of approximately 3 km, the applicable
near-source acceleration factor NA, as defined in the 2001 CBC, would be 1.40 and the near-source
velocity factor Nv would be 1.86.
SLOPE STABILITY
No evidence for deep-seated landsliding was observed on the site during the geologic reconnaissance
or on the aerial photographs reviewed. The Pauba formation is not a geologic unit that is generally
prone to landsliding (Kennedy, 1977).
The Pauba Formation consists predominantly of consolidated sands, with minor components of silts,
clays, and gravels that have been uplifted, slightly tilted, and incised. Tilting of bedding occurring in
conjunction with weaker lithologies (clay and silt beds) can result in an increased susceptibility to deep-
seated slope failure, particularly when out-of-slope bedding is exposed in cut slopes.
Bedding mapped in the Pauba Formation at and near the site is inclined toward the north and west at
50 or less, (Kennedy and Morton, 2003). Therefore, north- or west-facing cut slopes can be expected
to expose slightly out-of-slope bedding. However, Pauba Formation materials observed on-site
generally consisted of massive to cross-bedded sands and silty sands. Weak clay-bearing layers were
not observed at the site. According to the grading plans provided to this firm there are no cut slopes
proposed for the project. If cut-slopes are plarmed then an additional investigation may be required to
evaluate the stability ofthe proposed slopes.
\~
r,
II
r I
I'
r'
, I
['
l,
[ :
r'
I
l.
r'
I,
[:
[;
!:
[[
li
II
[l
l!
[!
u
I;
c.~ ...J.
Page No. 10
Job No. 04204-3
SETTLEMENT
Based on the in-place density as well as the cohesive nature of the soils encountered, we would expect
seismically-induced settlements to be insignificant. In addition, based on the relative and in-place
'densities of the soils encountered, settlement resulting frorn the anticipated fill and foundation loading
is,anticipated to be minor, provided the recommendations contained in this report are implemented
'during design and construction.
'For design purposes, an assumed maximum settlement of 1/480 (1 inch over 40 feet) should be con-
sidered. The soil profile conditions were sirnilar at all of our exploratory boring locations; therefore,
'we would anticipate negligible differential settlement between similarly loaded portions of the build-
mgs.
Given the moisture content, blow counts and in-place densities, soils subject to significant hydrocon-
solidation (collapse) would not be expected at the site. Soils suspected of a hydroconsolidation
potential were not encountered within any of our exploratory borings.
GROUNDWATER AND LIOUEFACTION
Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings placed on the site.
Liquefaction is a: process in which strong ground shaking causes saturated soils to lose their strength
and behave as a fluid (Matti and Carson, 1991). Ground failure associated with liquefaction can result
,in severe damage to structures. The geologic conditions for increased susceptibility to liquefaction are:
1) shallow groundwater (less than 50 feet in depth; 2) presence of unconsolidated sandy alluvium,
typically Holocene in age; 3) strong ground shaking. All three of these conditions must be present for
[liquefaction to occur.
The upper portion of the site is not an area considered conducive to groundwater extraction operations
due to the elevated topography and the site being underlain at relatively shallow depth by Pauba
,formation rock. The upper portion ofthe site is not in hydrological continuity with areas ofhistorically
high groundwater to the west due to the groundwater barrier effects of the Wildomar fault (Kennedy,
1977). Well data available from the California Department of Water Resources (2003) shows a depth
to ,groundwater of approximately 74 feet within the valley west of the site, as measured in State Well
No. 7S3W25ROlS on February I, 1968. Well data from other nearby wells suggest a minimum depth
\4.
, ,
"
, .
, ,
. ,
f'
i
I.
! :
p
l.
f'
1.
[ :
[ :
!:
[:
[;
[1
II
[J
l!
u
u
[ ;
c....~~.
Page No. 11
Job No. 04204-3
to groundwater of approximately 40 feet can be expected in the 10wer portion of the site (California
DepartInent of Water Resources, 2003). The well data from nearby wells represents the groundwater
depth within the valleys near the site. The available well data does not include possible wells within
the Pauba formation that underlies the majority of the site.
Although the depth to groundwater at the site is not known with certainty, it is expected the depth to
static groundwater is greater than 40 feet. Additionally, loose and compressible alluvial materials were
not found at the site. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is expected to be negligible.
SUBSIDENCE
The Pauba Formation underlies the entire site at a relatively shallow depth. Based on the geologic
setting of the site, the potential for subsidence and/or subsidence cracking is considered to be very low
during the lifetime of the proposed structures.
FLOODING AND EROSION
The site is located on an elevated hill area. Drainage area above the site is relatively minor. Significant
flooding of the site appears improbable. However, there is a potential for seasonal surface water within
the channel in the northwestern portion of the site.
The on-site soils and granular Pauba Formation materials are very susceptible to erosion by running
water. On-site drainage should be designed and maintained so as to prevent water from running across
the site and slope faces and causing erosion. Non-pavement areas should be vegetated as soon as
possible upon completion of grading.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field and laboratory investigations, it is the opinion of this firm that the proposed
development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations contained in
this report are implemented during grading and construction.
No evidence of active faulting was observed on or adjacent to the site during the geologic mapping or
on the aerial photographs reviewed.
\5
r I
. ,
r I
. ,
r'
I.
r I
I
[ .
r I
I,
r I
I,
[ :
[ :
[;
[:
Ii
[:
[!
[l
U
u
t:
I;
c....J.
Page No. 12
Job No. 04204-3
Severe seismic shaking of the site can be expected during the lifetime of the proposed residence.
No evidence for deep-seated landsliding was observed on the site during the geologic field reconnais-
sance or on the aerial photographs reviewed.
According to the grading plans no cut slopes are proposed for the site. If cut slopes are plarmed, then
an,additional investigation may be necessary.
Excessive landscape water may perch at granular fil1/Pauba formation interfaces. Springs or seeps may
be created at such interfaces as a result of grading of the site. It is possible that subdrains will be
necessary beneath significant fills. Free water conditions which rnay occur on or near building pad
areas will need to be rnitigated prior to structure placernent.
Liquefaction and other shallow groundwater related hazards are not expected.
Loose young alluvium exists within the on-site drainage in the extreme northwest portion of the site.
The upper portion of the site is underlain by dense Pauba formation.
Fill was noted in the south and central portion of the site associated with previous grading of the
building pad and access road. End-dumped stockpiled fill was noted on the northern portion of the site.
Based upon our field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that the alluvial and colluvial soils will
not, in their present condition, provide uniform or adequate support for the proposed structure. Our
density testing and SPT data indicate the surficial soils are generally in-place in medium dense to dense
states. The underlying Pauba Formation, alluvial, and colluvial soi1s are in place in medium dense to
dense states. These conditions may cause unacceptable differential and/or overall settlement upon
;1pjJlication of the anticipated foundation loads.
Because of site conditions and as an aid in identifying areas of fill and/or disturbed soils, it will be
necessary to remove, at a minimum, the upper 24 inches of existing soil in areas to be graded. To
provide adequate and uniform support for the proposed structures, it is our recommendation that the
building pad areas be subexcavated as necessary and recompacted to provide a compacted fill mat
beneath footings and slabs. The compacted fill mat will provide a dense, uniform, high-strength soil
layer to distribute the foundation loads over the underlying soils.
\C,
( 1
, .
, I
, ,
r'
t.
I:
! :
[ :
I'
Ii
I:
11
I:
I:
Ii
U
II
II
U
U
1
C.H.~.
Page No. 13
Job No. 04204-3
Laboratory testing indicates certain clayey soils on the site exhibit a "medium" expansion potential,
which can adversely affect the proposed residential foundation structures. These critically expansive
conditions can be compensated for using either specialized geotechnical grading parameters or design
of special foundation/slab systems. Grading of the site could be performed so that all structures will
be founded on a minimum of 3 feet of granular non-expansive soils to rnitigate the effects of such
expansive soils. In areas where the proposed grading establishes a minimum 00 feet of such material
beneath the bottoms of foundations and slabs, conventional foundations and slabs may be utilized
without compensation for these expansive conditions. For structural areas with less than 3 feet of the
granular non-expansive soil established beneath foundations and slabs, specialized foundations such
as'post-tensioned slabs, should be designed to resist the effects of these expansive soils. It should be
noted that soils with a greater expansion potential may be encountered during the grading operation,
which may require a non-expansive blanket of greater thickness.
hwrder to avoid problems associated with differential settlement, foundations should not be permitted
to span from fill to native soil or from deep fill to shallow fill conditions.
The hillside areas of the site and adjacent hillside areas off site present a potential for surface rain and
irrigation water runoff onto the site. In addition, the difference in permeability of a granular fill and clay
rich fill and/or native materials may present a potential for springs and seeps at the contact and/or base
of slopes. As such, consideration of this phenomena needs to be incorporated into the design of surface
'drainage, structures and retaining walls.
Results of chemical/corrosivity testing are presented in the CORROSlVITY TESTING section ofthis
report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
IN-GRADING GEOLOGIC OBSERVATION:
Because of considerations that require geologic input, including suitability of areas to receive fill, suit-
,ability of exposed materials for cut slope construction, potential nuisance water conditions, and approv-
,al of excavation bottoms, in-grading observation should be performed by the engineering geologist.
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
Moderate to severe seismic shaking of the site can be expected during the lifetime of the proposed
structures. Therefore, the proposed structures should be designed accordingly.
\l
, ,
, ,
r I
, ,
r I
t.
r l
I,
! :
f'
i,
I:
I:
Ii
!:
[;
It
II
II
[I
II
U
I
C.H.~ )j).
Page No. 14
Job No. 04204-3
The appropriate classification for this site is SD' stiff soil profile.
The site is 'subject to a near-source acceleration factor NA, of 1.40 and a near-source velocity factor N v
of 1.86 as defined in the 2001 CBC.
GENERAL SITE GRADING:
It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the presence of a repre-
sentative of the geotechnical engineer. An on-site pre-job meeting with the developer, the contractor,
and the geotechnical engineer should occur prior to all grading-related operations. Operations under-
taken at the site without the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusions of affected areas
from the final compaction report for the project.
Grading of the subject site should be performed, at a minimum, in accordance with these recommend-
ations and )'I'ith applicable portions ofthe CBC. The following recommendations are presented for your
assistance in establishing proper grading criteria.
INITIAL SITE PREPARATION:
All areas to be graded should be stripped of significant vegetation and other deleterious materials.
These materials should not be incorporated into site fills, but should be removed from the site for
disposal.
As an aid in identifYing areas of fill and/or disturbed soils, it will be necessary to remove, at a mini-
mum, the upper 24 inches of existing soil in areas to be graded. Any existing uncontrolled fills or
pockets of loose disturbed soils, encountered during construction should be completely removed,
Cleaned of significant deleterious materials and may be reused as compacted fill. Any roots or other
deleterious materials encountered at this time should be removed prior to replacing the soil.
Cavities created by removal of subsurface obstructions, should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soil,
organic matter and other deleterious materials, shaped to provide access for construction equipment,
and backfilled as recommended for site fill.
PREPARATION OF FILL AREAS:
Prior to placing fill, and after the mandatory subexcavation operation and removals of undocumented
fills and 100se soils, the surfaces of all areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of approxi-
\'0
, r
i I
f1
, ,
(1
I.
( I
I,
I:
! I
I,
[ :
f'
L
I:
I:
I:
I:
[!
[I
II
11
U
I;
c.. ..~ ..
Page No. 15
Job No. 04204-3
mately 6 inches. The scarified material should be brought to approximately 2 percent above optimum
moisture content and recompacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent in accordance with
ASTM D 1557.
PREPARATION OF FOOTING AREAS:
All footings should rest upon at least 18 inches of properly compacted fill material, except where
expansive soils conditions dictate otherwise (see EXPANSIVE SOILS section). In areas where the
required thickness of compacted fill is not accomplished by the site rough grading, the footing areas
should be subexcavated to a depth of at least 18 inches below the proposed footing base grade, with the
subexcavation extending at least 5 feet beyond the footing lines. This subexcavation operation should
include removal of all undocumented fill and 100se soils existing within the areas to be graded, even
though plarmed filling will be sufficient to satisfy compacted fill thickness requirements. The removal
of the minimum recommended removal depth, regardless, is to assist in 100se soils and uncontrolled
fi.11 identification.
Footings should not be allowed to span from shallow fill to deep fill soil conditions. Should grading
result in a situation where footings bear on more than 5 feet of compacted fill, such as along transition
areas, the subexcavation of the building pad areas should be deepened as necessary so as to provide a
uniform fill mat below bottom of footing. Fill thickness should not vary by more than 8 feet across any
one structure or by more than one-half the maximum depth of fill, whichever is less. This deepening
of the subexcavation may involve additional removals of older alluvium and Pauba Formation. The
"building pad area" includes the structure footprint and the zone of influence consisting of a 1 (h): 1 (v)
downward projection from the structure footing. Where the depth of subexcavation exceeds 5 feet
below finish grade, the overexcavation should extend beyond the building lines laterally a minimum
distance equal to the depth of subexcavation plus 5 feet (i.e., should subexcavation equal a depth of 15
feet below finish grade, the subexcavation should extend laterally a distance of 20 feet beyond the
building lines). A determination of specific building pad areas that require additional subexcavation
should be performed at the time of grading. In addition, all fills placed below the depth of 1 0 feet below
finish grade should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. A typical differential fill detailed
is included in Appendix "D".
The bottorn of this excavation should then be scarified to a depth of approxirnately 6 inches, brought
to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative
\1:(
. ,
, ,
c.. ..~.
Page No. 16
Job No. 04204-3
compaction in accordance with ASTM D 1557 prior to refilling the excavation to grade as properly
r , compacted fill.
I.
c,
i
I.
[ :
['
. .
r'
l.
I:
[:
I:
[:
I:
[I
u
II
l
l
I
COMPACTED FILLS:
The on-site soils should provide adequate quality fill material provided they are free from roots, other
organic matter, and deleterious materials. Unless approved by the geotechnical engineer, rock with a
maximum dimension greater than 8 inches should not be buried or placed in fills.
Import fill if required, should be inorganic, non-expansive granular soils free from rocks or lumps
>greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension. Sources for import fill should be observed and approved
by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use.
:Fill should be spread in near-horizontal layers, approximately 8 inches in thickness. Thicker lifts may
:be approved by the geotechnical engineer iftesting indicates that the grading procedures are adequate
to achieve the required compaction. Each lift shall be spread evenly, thoroughly rnixed during
'spreading to attain uniformity of the material and moisture in each layer, brought to between optimum
, 'moisture content and 2 percent above, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of90 percent
in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Where depths of fill are greater than 10 feet below finish grade, all
Ifill below 10 feet should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of95 percent.
: SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE:
I Based upon the relative compaction of the alluvial and colluvial soils, as well as Pauba Formation soils
. determined during this investigation and the relative compaction anticipated for compacted fill soils,
> we estimate a compaction shrinkage of approximately 5 to 10 percent. In addition, a subsidence of
: approximately 0.1 foot in areas of fill is also anticipated. Therefore, 1.05 cubic yards to 1.10 cubic
, yards of in-place soil material would be necessary to yield one cubic yard of properly compacted fill
I material. These values are exclusive of losses due to stripping, or the removal of other subsurface
, obstructions, if encountered, and may vary due to differing conditions within the project boundaries and
I the (imitations of this investigation.
Values presented for shrinkage and subsidence are estimates only. Final grades should be adjusted,
, and/or contingency plans to import or export material should be made to accomrnodate possible
variations in actual quantities during site grading.
ZJ:)
")
C)
"
! .
r'
I.
I!
I,
"
i i
f I
I.
!:
[;
I:
[:
I:
II
u
1I
u
II
t:
C.II..~ JI).
Page No. 17
Job No. 04204-3
EXPANSIVE SOILS:
Clayey soil materials tested during this investigation exhibited a "medium" potential for expansion with
a expansion index of 70 in accordance with UBC Standard Test Method 18-2 (2001 CBC). This
material exhibited a plasticity index of 7, per ASTM D4318. The results of these tests are presented
in the Test Data Summary, Enclosure "C-l ". Specialized construction procedures to specifically resist
expansive soil forces are therefore recommended. Our calculations, per CBC Chapter 18, indicate that
with a minimurn of 3 feet of granular non-expansive material established beneath the bottom of the
foundations, the weighted expansion index will be 7, and the weighted plasticity index will be 5. With
such a blanket of non-expansive material, conventional spread foundation designs may be utilized.
Without such a blanket of non-expansive material, specialized foundation systems such as post-
tensioned slabs are necessary. Geotechnical design r~commendations for both types of foundation
systems are provided in the representative sections of this report. Requirements for reinforcing steel
to satisfy structural criteria are not affected by this recommendation.
Because ofthe unknowns with respect to the grading operation and the mixing and potential importing
of soils at the site, it is our recommendation that the grading operation be closely monitored by the
geotechnical engineer and near the completion of grading each pad area be evaluated for expansive
soils. The results of that evaluation will determine the specific type of slabs and foundations appro-
priate for the sites fmal graded condition.
SLOPE CONSTRUCTION:
Fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2(h): l(v), up to a maximum height of25 feet. Should
fill slopes greater than 25 feet in height be desired, this firm should be contacted in order to provide
additional evaluation. Fill slopes should be overfilled during construction and then cut back to expose
fully compacted soil. A suitable alternative would be to compact the slopes during construction and
then roll the final slopes to provide dense, erosion-resistant surfaces.
Where fills are to be placed against existing slopes steeper than 5(h): l(v), the existing slopes should be
benched into competent material to provide a series oflevel benches to seat the fill and to remove the
compressive and permeable topsoils. The benches should be a minimum of8 feet in width, constructed
at approximately 2- foot vertical intervals. In addition, a shear key should be a constructed across the
toe ofthe slope. The shear key should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should penetrate a minimum
of2 feet beneath the toe of the slope into firm competent bedrock material (Appendix "D").
2-\
.,
, ,
.,
1 i
r'
II
, ,
. .
r'
I.
[:
[;
[:
[;
[[
[!
l!
u
u
E
E
C.H. ~ JjJ.
Page No. 18
Job No. 04204-3
SLOPE PROTECTION:
.
Inasmuch as the native materials are susceptible to erosion by running water, it is our recommendation
that the slopes at the project be planted as soon as possible after completion. The use of succulent
ground covers, such as iceplant or sedum, is not recommended. If watering is necessary to sustain plant
growth on slopes, then the watering operation should be monitored to assure proper operation of the
water system and to prevent overwatering.
Measures should be provided to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces.
SITE DRAINAGE:
Site drainage should be designed to accommodate expected rrmoff.
POTENTIAL EROSION:
The potential fOr erosion should be mitigated by proper drainage design. Water should not be allowed
to flow over graded areas or natural areas so as to cause erosion. Graded areas should be planted or
otherwise protected from erosion by wind or water.
SPREAD FOUNDATION DESIGN:
If the site is prepared as recommended, proposed structures located in areas not affected by critically
expansive soils may be founded on conventional spread foundations, either individual spread footings
and/or continuous wall footings, bearing on a minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill. In structural
areas affected by critically expansive soil conditions conventional spread foundations may only be
utilized if the site grading has established a minimum of 3 feet of compacted granular non-expansive
soil below the bottoms of foundations. Such conventional footings should be a minimum of 12 inches
wide and should be established at a minimum depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent final subgrade
level.
The following values are based soil strength parameters typical of on-site soils. The actual values
should be verified following the grading operation. For the minimum width and depth, footings may
be designed for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (pst) for dead
pIus Jive loads. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot
Of width and by 800 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum safe soil bearing pressure of
2,250 psf for dead plus live loads. The bearing values may be increased by one-third for wind or
seismic loading. Increases in footing depth must take into account the limitations presented by the
critically expansive soil conditions discussed above.
~
c....~~.
Page No. 19
Job No. 04204-3
If structures are to be founded on less than 3 feet of granular non-expansive soils, then a post-tensioned
slab, or other specialized foundation system, will be necessary to resist the effects of the expansive soils
conditions. Geotechnical design recommendations for post-tensioned slabs are provided in the POST-
TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN section of this report.
Based upon the existing soil conditions and recommended grading procedures, static settlement should
not exceed 1/480 (1 inch over 40 feet). Differential settlement between adjacent and similarly 10aded
foundations should not exceed 1/2 inch.
SLABS-ON-GRADE:
If the site is prepared as recommended, proposed concrete located in areas not affected by expansive
soils should bear on a minimum of 12 inches of compacted soil. The final pad surfaces should be rolled
to provide smooth, dense surfaces upon which to place the concrete.
"
In areas affected by expansive soil conditions conventional slabs-on-grade may only be utilized if the
site grading has established a minimum of 3 feet of compacted granular non-expansive soil below the
bottoms of the slabs. If slabs are to be founded on less than 3 feet of granular non-expansive soils, then
a post-tensioned slab, or other specialized foundation system, will be necessary to resist the effects of
the expansive soils conditions. Geotechnical design recommendations for post-tensioned slabs are
provided in the POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN section of this report.
.1
.,
, ,
l:
[;
Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor barrier. This
barrier may consist of an impermeable membrane. Two inches of sand over the membrane will reduce
punctures and aid in obtaining a satisfactory concrete cure. The sand should be moistened just prior to
placing of concrete.
[!
Il
U
POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN:
The following recommendations are provided for foundations embedded into the native cohesive soils
at the site. These values are preliminary and should be verified following the actual grading operation.
II
Expansion test results indicate that certain soils at the site have an expansion index of70, which equates
to a "medium" expansion potential. As such, Atterberg limits were determined to provide a soil plas-
ticity index for these clay bearing soils. The results of the tests indicate a liquid limit of25 and a plastic
limit of 18 for a soil plasticity index of 7. Based upon the results of the tests, we are providing the
following parameters required for the design of post-tensioned slabs (Ch. 18, Div. Ill, 2001 CBC):
2.'?
l;
t:
.,
,.
I'
,
l.
[[
[;
[ ;
[l
U
[;
C.H.~ Jj].
Page No. 20
Job No. 04204-3
1. Allowable soil bearing pressure
1,000 psf
2. Edge moisture variation distance
2.5 feet edge lift
5.4 feet center lift
3. Differential soil movement (expansive soils)
0.22 inch edge lift
0.97 inch center lift
4. Slab-subgrade friction coefficient
0.30
Numbers 2 and 3 above relate to expansive soils and are based upon a Thornwaite Moisture Index of
-20, a constant suction of3.6 pF at a depth of5 feet, a velocity of moisture flow of 0.7 inch per month,
and predomin;mtly illite clay soil with 30 percent clay.
As assumed value of the subgrade modulus of 150 pci can be used to determine the partition load
coefficient during uniform slab thickness calculations.
For structures founded on expansive soils, consideration should be given to connecting utility lines.
In general, connection should be flexible to allow for differential movement. Flexible pipe such as PVC
should also be utilized.
Should grading of the site result in blanket of at least 3 feet of granular soils below the bottoms of all
affected foundations, post-tensioned slabs specifically designed to resist the effects of expansion will
not be necessary.
CGNCRETE FLATWORK:
The expansive soils conditions identified on the site may adversely affect areas of portland cement
concrete (PCC) flatwork such as sidewalks, driveways, curbs and other non structural pavement areas.
For PCC flatwork supported on at least 3 feet of granular material, special design to resist the effects
of expansion willnot be necessary. However, PCC flatwork founded on less than 3 feet of granular
material will require special geotechnical or structural design considerations to accommodate the effects
of expansion. For structural building slab areas we have provided recommendations for post-tensioned
slab design; however, post-tensioned slabs are not practical for concrete flatwork. As such, we are
including the following general recommendations for concrete flatwork.
24,
fl
c.. \I.~ JjJ..
I.
Page No. 21
Job No. 04204-3
! !
I.
Geotechnical Methods of Mitigation:
[ '
Utilizing the weighted expansion index outlined in the UBC, the potential effects of expansive
soils can be incrementally decreased with greater thicknesses of granular material beneath the
flatwork. The expansive effects can be reduced to a level of insignificance by supporting the
flatwork on a minimum of 36 inches of granular material. In cases where this is impractical, a
minimum of12 inches of compacted granular non expansive material should be placed beneath the
flatwork.
j.
[:
[:
f'
t.
The expansive soils should be pre-saturated to a depth of24 inches at least 7 days prior to place-
ment of concrete. The pre-saturation should be to at least 5 percent above optirnum rnoisture
content.
[:
[:
The expansive soils should be protected from moisture fluctuations to the extent practical. This
may involvesuch factors as providing positive drainage away from the flatwork, avoidance of
adjacent landscaping (especially trees) requiring irrigation or perhaps placement of impermeable
membranes. Irrigation pipes should not be placed near flatwork and must be properly maintained
in order to avoid distress related to leaks and rupture. Landscape areas should slope away from
the flatwork and structural areas by at least 5 percent. All surface water runoff rnust be diverted
away from the margins of flatwork and structural areas, and directed into paved roadways or
appropriate drainage features.
Ij
[;
[;
Structural Methods of Mitigation:
[1
All flatwork .should be designed to resist the effects of expansion. Weare providing what we
consider typical recommendations. The actual design including reinforcement should be provided
by the structural or civil engineer.
[!
All concrete flatwork subject to the effects of expansive soils should be a minimum of 4 inches in
thickness and reinforced by utilizing a minimum of 6x6-WIOxWI0 steel welded wire
reinforcement (ASTM A 185-01) or #3 Bars at 14 inches each way at mid height.. Curbing should
contain at least one number 4 bar continuous top and bottom.
[!
[!
U
U
Where the flatwork abuts structures or adjacent flatwork the flatwork should be doweled into the
adjacent structure, to avoid differential elevation. The dowels should be smooth and either wrapped
or lubricated on one end to prevent bonding and allow for movement. In addition, felt or similar
material should be placed between adjacent slab edges.
[J
It should be cautioned that some distress to concrete flatwork may occur in spite ofthe measures taken
to mitigate the effects. However, the distress will be lessened by incorporating as many of the above
Z:5
, ,
"
, ,
[ I
l}
f'
,
l j
I'
l.
I:
f'
L
l:
[:
11
[:
I;
[!
II
[l
II
II
u
l
C-H.cJ.
Page No. 22
Job No. 04204-3
measures as practical into the design and construction of the flatwork. The costs of these preventative
measures should be weighed against the costs of future repairs and maintenance.
LATERAL LOADING:
Resistance to lateralloads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction. For footings
bearing against compacted fill or bedrock material, passive earth pressure may be considered to be
developed at a rate of 400 psf per foot of depth. Base friction may be computed at 0.35 times the
normal load. Base friction and passive earth pressure may be combined without reduction.
.
For preliminary retaining wall design purposes, a lateral active earth pressure developed at a rate of
45psf per foot of depth should be utilized for unrestrained conditions. This value should be verified
prior to construction when the backfill materials and conditions have been determined and is applicable
only to level, properly drained backfill with no additional surcharge loadings. If inclined backfills are
proposed, this firm should be contacted to develop appropriate active earth pressure parameters.
Foundation concrete should be placed in neat excavations with vertical sides, or the concrete should be
formed and the excavations properly backfilled as recommended for site fill.
CORROSIVITY TESTING:
Samples of soil material were obtained from selected depths along the alignment and delivered to our
consultant, M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc., for preliminary soil corrosivity testing. Laboratory testing
consisted of pH, resistivity, and major soluble salts commonly found in soils.
Soluble chloride content levels were generally not at high enough levels to be of concern with respect
to: corrosion of reinforcing steel.
Testing for ammonium and nitrate values indicated that the soils were not generally corrosive to copper.
Testing for pH values indicated that the soils were generally on the acid side but should not present a
concern as to corrosivity to steel, copper, or concrete.
Results of the resistivity testing indicated that the on-site soils are moderately corrosive in-situ and
corrosive at saturated moisture content state to ferrous metals.
Results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate a "negligible" anticipated exposure to sulfate attack, as
per Table 4.3.1 of the American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete Practice (2000). Based on the
Zip
, ,
r)
I,
r)
c.. ..~ JII.
Page No. 23
Job No. 04204-3
results of the "preliminary testing" performed, special requirements for concrete exposed to sulfate con-
I ' taining solutions, such as Type II cement or a specialized water cement ratio, does not appear necessary.
i;
f'
1.
fl
,
I.
I:
[:
I:
[i
[i
!;
Ii
[!
[!
II
II
II
I;
These tests have been performed in order to a provide preliminary screening of the site for potentially
corrosive soils. C.H,J., Incorporated does not practice corrosion engineering. If further information
concerning the corrosion characteristics, specific corrosion mitigation methods, or interpretation of the
results submitted herein, are required, then a competent corrosion engineer could be consulted. The
results of the testing performed by our consultant M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc. are included in
Appendix "C".
CONSTRUCTI0N OBSERVATION:
All grading operations, including site clearing and stripping, should be observed by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer. The presence of the geotechnical engineer's field representative will be for
the purpose of providing observation and field testing, and will not include any supervising or directing
of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Neither the presence of the geotechnical
engineer's field representative nor the observations and testing by the geotechnical engineer shall excuse
the contractor in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that the geotechnical
engineer will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project, which will be the sole
responsibility of the contractor.
LIMITATIONS
C.H.J., Incorporated has striven to perform our services within the limits prescribed by our client, and
in a marmer consistent with the usual thoroughness and competence of reputable geotechnical engineers
and engineering geologists practicing under similar circumstances. No other representation, express
or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended by virtue ofthe services performed or
reports, opinion, documents, or otherwise supplied.
This report I"Bflects the testing conducted on the site as the site existed during the investigation, which
is the subject of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the
passage of time, due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Changes
in applicable or appropriate standards may also occur whether as a result oflegislation, application, or
the broadening ofknowtedge. Therefore, this report is indicative of only those conditions tested at the
time of the subject investigation, and the findings of this report may be invalidated fully or partially by
changes outside ofthe control of C.H.J., Incorporated. This report is therefore subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of one year.
2.1
r!
I,
r I
r I
,
I,
f'
l.
[ :
II
II
I:
I;
11
I:
I:
I]
I!
[I
It
[l
II
I
C.H.-JJ.
Page No. 24
Job No. 04204-3
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon observations performed and data
collected at separate locations, and interpolation between these locations, carried out for the project and
the scope of services described. It is assumed and expected that the conditions between locations
observed and/or sampled are similar to those encountered at the individual locations where observation
and sampling was performed. However, conditions between these locations rnay vary significantly.
Should conditions be encountered in the field, by the client or any firm performing services for the
Client or the client's assign, that appear different than those described herein, this firm should be
contacted immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect.
If this report or portions thereof are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be
understood by all: parties that they are provided for information only and should be used as such.
The report and its contents resulting from this investigation are not intended or represented to be
suitable for reuse on extensions or modifications of the project, or for use on any other project.
CLOSURE
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust this report provides the information desired
at this time. Should questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
JFCrrAD/RJJ:sra
Respectfully submitted,
. CHJ,m~a
~ Cook< ''''''_=
Terr eA. Davis, R.G.7515
Pro' ect Geologist
Robert J. Jo son, G.E. 443
Senior Vice resident
"
I,
I'
I,
r'
,
I.
I:
['
I.
I'
L
I;
I:
!:
!:
[[
[l
[!
[I
[l
u
u
u
C.H.J.
Page No. 25
Job No. 04204-3
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2000, Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 3, Table 4.3.1.
Blake, T.F., 1998, FRISKSP: A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration
and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D faults as earthquake sources: Version 3.0m, May 1998.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra
and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work:
Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, January/February 1997, p. 128-153.
California Department of Water Resources, 2003, Groundwater module administration
http://wdl.water.ca.gov/gw/adrnin/main _menu _gw.asp.
Cao, T., Bryant, WA, Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C., 2003, The revised 2002 California
probabilistic seismic hazard maps, June 2003: published on the world wide& web:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/faulUlarameters/pdf/2002_ CA _Hazard _ Maps.pdf.
Dickinson, W. R., 1996, Kinematics of trans rotational tectonism in the California Transverse Ranges
and its contribution to cumulative slip along the San Andreas transform fault system: Geological
Society of America Special Paper 305.
Fumal, T.E., Pezzopane, S.K., Weldon, R.J., and Schwartz, D.P., 1993, A 100-year average recurrence
interval for the San Andreas fault at Wrightwood, California: Science, v. 259, p.
199-203.
Goter, S.K., Oppenheimer, D.H., Mori, J.J., Savage, M.K., and Masse, R.P., 1994, Earthquakes in
California and Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-647. Scale: 1: I ,000,000.
International Conference ofBuilding Officials, 2002, California Building Code, 2001 Edition; Whittier,
California.
Jacoby, J.C., Sheppard, P.R., and Sieh, K.E., 1987, Irregular recurrence oflarge earthquakes along the
San Andreas fault: Evidence from trees, in Earthquake geology, San Andreas fault system, Palm
Springs to Palm dale: Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, 35th Annual
Meeting, Guidebook and Reprint Volume.
Johnson, JA, Blake, T.F., Schmid, B.L., and Slosson, J.E., 1992, Earthquake site analysis and critical
facility siting: Short Course, Association of Engineering Geologists, Annual Meeting, October 2-9,
1992.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in southern
Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 131.
Kennedy, M.P., and Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Bachelor Mountain 7.5' Quadrangle,
Riverside County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-103.
Kennedy, M.P., and Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside
County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-189.
z.C\
']
, .
r t
j I
f'
I.
I'
,
1,
I:
I'
I,
I:
I:
[;
I:
[ ;
[1
[!
II
II
[!
U
I
C.Hl.~..
Page No. 26
Job No. 04204-3
REFERENCES
Matti, J.C., and Carson, S.E., 1991, Liquefaction susceptibility in the San Bernardino Valley and
vicinity, southern California - A regional evaluation: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1898.
Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Cox, B.F., 1992, The San Andreas fault system in the vicinity of the
central Transverse Ranges province, Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 92-
354.
Morton, D.M. and Matti, J.C., 1993, Extension and contraction within an evolving divergent strike slip
fault complex: The San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones at their convergence in Southern
California: in Powell, R.E. and others, The San Andreas Fault System: Palinspastic Reconstruction, and
Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178.
Mitchell, J.K., and Katti, R.I., 1981, Soil Improvement State of the Art Report: Proceedings, Tenth
.International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, General Reports,
p.264.
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Leinkaemper, J.J.,
McCrory, P.A., and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic seisrnic hazard assessment for the State of
California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08.
Rockwell, T.K., McElwain, R.S., Millman, D.E., and Lamar, D.L., 1986, Recurrent Late Holocene
faulting on the Glen Ivy North strand of the Elsinore fault at Glen Ivy marsh, in EWig, P.L., ed.,
Neotectonics and Faulting in Southern California, Guidebook and Volume, 82nd Annual Meeting,
Cordilleran Section, Geological Society of America.
Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic map of California, OlafP. Jenkins edition, Santa Ana Sheet: California
Division of Mines and Geology. Scale: 1:250,000.
Saul, R., 1978, Elsinore Fault Zone (South Riverside County Segment) with Description ofthe Murrieta
Hot Springs Fault: California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report 76.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B., 1967, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice: John Wiley, New York,
729 p., p. 347.
Weber, F.H., 1977, Seismic hazards related to geologic factors, Elsinore and Chino fault zones,
northwestern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File
Report 77-04. Scale: 1 :24,000.
Wills, C.J., 1988, Ground Cracks in Wolf and Temecula Valleys, Riverside County: California
Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report 195.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1988, Probabilities of large earthquakes
occurring in California on the San Andreas fault: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-398.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic hazards in southern California:
Probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 85, no. 2,
p.379-439.
2:P
r f
. .
r'
, i
f ~
i {~
[ ,
I;
1 :
I:
I:
I:
[;
[:
I:
l!
u
II
l!
u
u
I
c.. .. ~ JjJ.
Page No. 27
Job No. 04204-3
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, January 30, 1962, Black and White
Aerial Photograph Numbers 3-407 and 3-408.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, June 20, 1974, Black and White
Aerial Photograph Numbers 878 and 879.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, February 17, 1987, Black and White
:Aerial Photograph Numbers 3 and 4.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, January 29, 1995, Black and White
:Aerial Photograph Numbers 18-21 and 18-22.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, April 12, 2000, Black and White
:Aerial Photograph Numbers 18-23 and 18-24.
~\
c....J.
r r
I.
f'
I;
fl
I ~
[ :
I'
L
I'
Ii
! :
[;
[:
r:
[;
[;
1I
APPENDIX "A"
GEOTECHNICAL MAPS .
[l
II
U
II
[l
3>2.-
----------------
~
~
"
"-
"-
"
~
~
--,
----
"-~
"
--------
--
--
--
_----- -- -- --{1160}- -___ ___------
-------
-
--
--
~~
-
~
--
--
--
-
-. -~---::.......
--------
--
GO)-- --
" _ _ -- -l~ 75'57'11" E '
--,-~"'''- ,-. ::;;-"""----.,.~.. _.. .~.- ----- --J[_.
-
-
"
/
'40,g.9~__
---
,----- - - \ ~~y ,
-----~
,,~y - - - '- -.. - -- - - ---
~\
--_.~ r~ . I
/ I
/ i
/ ;
__----_-F",' /;;{{iZ~;~'~~~~R'S'(~\(~:;'I"~;; i
.,....." ;, '-..'."-""71--~"'I)F1. I
/'/ ,\<\\>-. ,1 ". -.--'; i ~~ "<;,mu-- l^'-'F r:" -,or
..,.\ ~l'" J --'::::"--'{ ./ l_U;N,.;lr, ~,1 il'-';,. b~At;t:j
/( LSt._p~..~ "'''':r'.-'-''' igi //', /B~4 AbROCK mp'-R~\p(5'd':1~0,-
'l,--,~:-'~'/~ ;ji,~;;_.~_1],;-:L""':"'66~8f'L __~it / Ig Or- --/
V ,~ ,..Jr- /-...dJ--I.\\1 ..f!.
/) "//.... j.// j-;'\.,. 74) ..- r...."". C}g'
/__/''''--''J..."./'''. /...-----\ \., " -------:'y"", I /'''' 'of,--O!t o-__~0-0--<-s'"-,0-'O'''''''
- . '.~t.. G _\ - -:'_:: MAX ~. ~-+ ;' ~, ~.;:;O.....J
- '-- '1 rlFL i,j, \..; I / 0....'
/1/ / ; _ -- -, \ ..,,- - ~.:~ ~ \ __~~: a'" '" "JV
l'/'-"y'::',-~""J t"I t .-~---.- l,t,"'63,2. /i. :--- S~ V",,--0__
Y.. '\.' -', ,'!.t..~-'- \ l.f ,...., , ", (j) ...--< j~ ..-\.\\15)-/ ,,~=-.-
-, -><: ,:0: S j~ ' -, ....." \_~ 1 ~
B< I "< i ' --......~, ~ ' ' -, .' _.-....--->---~- -.,:>;; I ..-
,,'<J ..:l.r/-:-- >.,..f"" U-_, ^, __=-\' .-.-'-- r;~_---,\ ~:\~~ ~~~ i .-"-__ .-_
,-, .--.. -- , . B" 0 I " '/'-J I ~__.--...': \..~ \~', ~ _.... C:;-J _ .~q-./ __ __---~-
...h'~',!J'l~l~ i '~~L~~:\c9.~')~",-\"-",-}~~~_~~~/j./ ; ,.;..,\,:-;:(....-.- 1'>1, '" . ~~Ij~~f-r.1~~ ._",.~FL nG,36h^ ),~) Z N Vi -:J'" C?t~STf;LlCV'S{5' fg;a,.~.---
~/' \., - .../. ,~-._-,:- !~':~.. . .' __~,:r;;' ~ f' , '. :. ~,~. '!"'-J;\\l'JiOX..""... P~-;-:vvfLo\:i.-"';-~)f.j
..- '\,- - --- I'D'" "'" --'" 1-" .' , . . ~.. ..- ~
..... '~,..,.:-::::l ". I/!' af~~-~ N,""S '':-' , . . , .'-- ...J.l"- '-:." ,.. ___ ____
/" 1~--':- , ,,' ~. ,"~ <:t") . .,.,..:...._ ' . . ~ {....--;" -- "'........... __--
./ ~\ \1 "-...' /- I ~ / --J '" . '. ...... --- ......-'Wr .Ac,l // _.-.--
,.../ ./; /. 1:;:---<,....-1" - . /. "I \~-,\V\'( ......-
/' ./ b f, , / "'1' "-:;...-' "-'1 'r /, I 4' oJ~ /'
./ 0 I ..!' -~ "<. ./, ' ! // I.'''.: /
/./ arili /' ""~~i "", : '~' -,..-' ~~ }-i'/ /' rlb=86.0
./ ~ l/ I '1) 15::' ___~---- -:;r""3'-'00 . ~{ 'r-~-...Jrs~e,:.o
././ ;yV 1 \/ .-,;"';1. . ;;'!,;-~~<t.~6.5-o Vi I .'1-=1 O'
" ",,:"I,':> : \ ,'. "~," ~~,.~.... 1 ~ .,..---;-..-:- I 'I'W__QA ','
/"/ ./'- A'J\ /! 1 --~ ""'-:.J: ___,......__- ---- ~ / '''' ~....."
...... = i,.,/ ' ! Vp. jES ", 1\' ;,ji / /-.r,~-=~B:O
...... 3: \ "~"~I _ ! /! .../ ,.. , , ,jJ4 ' ;_ '('l ~( H=6.0
// ~1-\-F:~fl/~}~:{~s:~tJ..~.' '.::;:;;7.. '----'-r-~{--... :-)q, 1-:=940
j -i VI ~. .......~.. ' - tW.. 10'l--FS""'58..0
z' \~'~8;lOFS 11 >, "'" _ .~:~ 1-. '..- ~':I ~ ;.1=5.0'
'_\!;-{~ ~/jf'r ~r!'"\i~ r:R!I'~" i ~ ~ (",{; ,.0:;, 'Sfl 8".4t1F~ _ . _ ,: t2:J 't. :< _ I B636r:~, '~.0. r"T'
-"-~Cf 'Zi;~I~_\~r;V~"'-"-';"~-"'';-..~ \\ /1 '1 Y.~>D:',~ <J_.'" 'IS! v 86..bF~ :r.: 1 86.36FSI."', .~. ~)' I TW""95.S
,1'"" "-'" ~" .,,- J I ~ , / \1).. _ J~ ?21 ~ r~""; ~'\'}\N~S't!"'-\.J- . '\'("':} I .:--FS=94.,)
j7'J 5::1 ' Sn.OF':.> '-\ 1,07%' ~ :-' \,~ .:"" 2: j MAX " 1/ H=oUY
; ~ . ,-. r~. I I "'---8- -1FS r- t.---r'". \ SLOPE '
~ I! -'60' t'l.. .. {<::J.._ .J~. <:. L ~1i/W
... ',c' ,'1<>'1- N '75""57"'" ,'-E-', ". ';'(W ",-' ,,,' ""=' 0"" 140 00" .
t.:iV,';' :~y I " , t-i- - <<31 -IX, ;~"'. -',' r
, "., "-
5'1 "J.~'." :.61. (37.L'5r~, \ :!2!
"'" ,:::.
/
I
, I
,I
(
I,
/'
Q)~
~'
/
/
/
/
/
/
;
:;i,'
!
/
/
/
/
-
"
/
r.fi_'
I
L
I
",~ .
\:1A -:D1 EX!S'1.
:I.~:' :1- \l~-Yl:;';'
-
-.
~
"
MATCH EX!S!
'. tS1.7:JfS)
'"
EXIST. A.C. CURB
"
"-
"-
"""---
I
i
\
-L
\
\
I
\
(85.1OFSf) \ \ (B5.55f"S:i:)
\ \ . \..;'<:\
\ 'r;~, ,,',
\ "\.L) --
,
,
I
I
I
I
/
Erw, ,I,
/11
i?OAD
\
\
.. ~
f
~
--.......- - -
....
"-
"-
"
"
-~.
n.
.'"
!
i
I
I
I
I
i
JlF"-'i
I
I
'I'
III
1E1'
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
\
\
\
\
-"'.
_i
DElL
\
I
)
--
--
--
)..\\~Y ,.
/
-"""7"'-------___
I
I
,
REY
~g
\
\
,
,
i
i
J
,~
/IJ
/
-
;;<
:?J
'):
T---
\
\
\
i
I
I
R/W
dJ
I
-f-
..l.
'"
~
'r
-r-
I
I
/
\
\
~~
LEGEND
8-4
S-
EXPLORA TORY BORING LOCA TIONS
SCALE 1"= 30'
PLAT
FOR: ALTON AND
WANDA PACE
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO"S09
TEMECULA, CALlFORNI~,
ENCLOSURE
UA.2":
DATE: MARCH 2004
JOB NUMBER
04204-3
~
'C.H.J., INCORPORATED
I
I
I
I
1
,
, J
; I
[I
[I
[I
II
[I
II
1I
FOR:
1I ALTON AND WANDA
PACE
lJ
DATE: MARCH 2004
II
,.
'i
L 1811II lEt! 9 rm l8IIIIMlI!RS
Mop _ with TOPOl. UI02 Nati<maI CIeogrephic (www ""'"'-lrrPhir.<omflopo)
INDEX MAP
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
ENCLOSURE
"A-1" ~
JOB NUMBER
04204-3
.. C.H....II,IIIXJIIIORA1ED
"
f?e',~ .~~, .
\, OVaa;,
, ,
,
~1'!~~'VI:lr~
" \.
\,
I '.,
I .,
. )....'1.
j .. .
.
! #
~
[I
['I
FOR:
1 ] ALTON AND WANDA
PACE
II
Qpts : Pauba Formation; sandstone member
(Pleistocene)
"'v : Geologic contact
3 ...z : Strike end dip 01 bede
a... map by: Morton Md KMnedy (2003)
lIurrlN tmd Bachelor Mfn. Quads.
! :
-N-
~
li41iz 3!4
luba 2Gbo 30ba .
SclI/e 1"=2000,..
1 Inch eqUeb
epproximetely 318 mi.
GRAPHIC SCALE
,
1_
scIoohot
Qya
I Young elluvlel chennel depoelts
(Holocene end Letest Pleistocene)
GEOLOGIC INDEX MAP
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
ENCLOSURE
"A-3"
DATE: MARCH 2004
JOB NUMBER
04204-3
Ii
[',
~ C.H.J., DICORPORATED
:1
[
[I
[I
[J
[J
[J
U ~o~~ONANDWANDA
PACE
U
,
[I
,
\, .......~~
',- &---"\ '........
:~, "~
r' '- _ ' -'" n ______-j
/)'J ~Qt . ;/--\ ~<
, i[ , . , J ~ \0ltO '/~'b: Devore"
'- ,,/ ~ ,," --6 '----
';Q::\ ~~ "-
u~ v ~ \r, 0
, (~ \ '\ / Whl~~
~ / i?J Anah~lm ~
r. \. 0
~SITE
~~
J1""
\ r,
\-..)
I
j' "'-,
, '-
i
i
,~ M5 i
V i
C) M61
n
~
M4
C~
~ \
\ \
'~ '\
\\
\
~.., f2 San Diego .
~lJ- ~ -------,/
, '--
~.
,
~"-,
~
o
o
o
o
~
I
I
N
o
--o----.Q:r
o
o
EPI SollWare 2000
Seismicity 1977-2004 (Magnitude 4.0+) 100 kilometer radius
SITE LOCATION: 33.522 LAT. -117.126 LONG.
I
50
KILOMETERS
100
, MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C
o
TOTAL' OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 555
TOTAL' OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 234
, MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS:
4.0- 4.9: 209
5.0- 5.9: 22
6.0- 6.9: 2
7.0-7.9: 1
8.0- 8.9: 0
CLOSEST EVENT: 4.0 ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21. 1997 LOCATED APPROX. 20 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO, 3883, LOT NO. 509
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
ENCLOSURE
uA.4" 3(0
DATE: MARCH 2004
JOB NUMBER
04204-3
C.H.J.,IIIOORPORATED
C.H.-JJ.
, ,
, r
, ,
, .
I'
l.
, 1
APPENDIX "B"
, i
EXPLORATORY LOGS
, 1
Ii
rl
,
l.
[;
[:
[1
11
1I
[!
U
u
U
[1
:)1
,
,
.,
c r
, ,
r r
l ~
I'
Ii
'1
, I
f!
l,
[:
[i
!1
I:
[1
II
II
u
u
l!
I
EnclG-'"e~.
Job No. 04204-3
KEY TO LOGS
LEGEND OF LAB/FIELD TESTS:
Bulk Indicates Disturbed or Bulk Sample
Dist. Indicates Disturbed Ring Sample
DS Direct Shear Test (ASTM D 3080)
Exp. Expansion Index Test (UBC Standard Test Method 18-2)
MDC Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture Determination (ASTM D 1557)
N.R. Indicates No Recovery of Sample
Ring Indicates Undisturbed Ring Samfle. Undisturbed Ring Samples are obtained with a "California
Sampler" (3.00" O.D. and 2.42" .D.) driven by an autornatic hammer with a 140-pound weight
falling 30 mches. The blows per foot are converted to equivalent SPT-N60 values.
SA Sieve Analysis (ASTM C 136)
SPT Indicates Standard Penetration Test. The SPT N60 value is the corrected number of blows
re<i.uired to drive an SPT sampler 12 inches using an automatic hammer with a 140-pound
weight falling 30 inches. The SPT sampler is 2" O.D. and 1-3/8" LD.
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM SPT BLOWS
Relationshi of Penetration Resistance to Relative Densi for Cohesionless Soils"
(After Mitc ell and Katti, 1981)
Number of
SPT Blows INlwl
<4
4-10
10-30
30-50
>50
Descriptive
Relative Density
Approximate
Relative Density ('Yo)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
0-15
15-35
35-65
65-85
85-100
.. At an effective overburden pressure of 1 ton per square foot (1 00 kPa). Note that our equivalent SPT
N.. values have not been normalized for overburden pressure.
Aooroximate Values of Undrained Shear Strength for Cohesive Soils
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
Number of
SPT Blows INwl
<2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
>30
Soil Consistencv
Approximate Undrained
Shear Strength (osf)
Less Than 250
250-500
500-1000
1000-2000
2000-4000
More Than 4000
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
3f6
'I
....
0::
. , e:{
J:
U
Z
., 0
, i ~
e:{
0
, , e:{
0::
t!)
"
, ,
, I
.,
"
~ ,
dO.
[;
[t
[i
[I
II
u
II
u
l
Enclosure "6" (20f2)
Job No. 04204-3
..
N
ii, www .. . .
.~! ,~ g... -...
?t'" to
.'.. ..
"
r
'!; ~ g.~ ....
N .. .
tl i N" !!! I! i;
ai
..
~ I oxw M .
~i .
It ~i!1 .. ~"'~
~ . . .
'";'
'~ . l;l8 I! N ,
.;.J : !ill!
'~ qON " lil
.
.
. ~'" .
-I!
.. rag h
:! ..,. ,
i ..
I I ~
. 8
u
8
"" ! I
I
'"
I ~ r
'), ~ 0
I"" dl
r r
u ~
I'\. I I
i~l1-E1 I\. ...J
0
'\ dl~
...J ...J
U r\.~
, I '~"
i~
l;;
I
o
~
o
e
....
0::
e:{
J:
U
g
!I
ffi
..
o
W
0:
~
51
~
..
1:1
.
o
..
...
~
~Sl
Ii!
"
\l
~o
..
o
~
ILl
I-
f1l;
>"0
(fl' I:!:!
Z ~
Q2'
I- 0:,
<l: 0'
~ 0,
LL Z
in :-
(/),
3:,
u .
.JZ
o .
:U
~4
z
::>
>-
....
-
U
....
lI)
e:{
..J
ll.
Sl
, HOlU':MJI$S'f"1:l JrotiO.1WIl08Y' "OJ I
0 . .;
. 0
t c ~ . ~ 0
0 ~ c . '.
. " 0 w c . i
!'; ;; u ~ . ~ . ~
~~ ~ ~ w ~ o. . .
1S .w Ww . ;, iil~ ! ~ wo c~ ;; , 0 .
~. ~! 0 . " W)o!:j ~:l5 E i
~L . ..
i:: 3' . = w >w . i !~ii u
'0 c > .. i 'u e~ ~::. 00 e
5 -i , c .. . ~o ~I!
;. 0 . ~.ttt
" ~i ~ c ou .~
.15 ~. ~ ~ 0 d wo)-!:! ~d. .- w! . ~!l 0.
!~ w .0 ~ ~ , >)o~t; 0= ~~ 0 aa ~w
l:l ~~ c ow o. >~ E ,.
~ . o. .0 ;, 0 c.!:iu<c Oc ~u i8
.. 0 ,- :~ . ,c- ." ~
'" :" .. . c' . a ~iii3C 0.. c' " ~i
as 0 :i .0 c . .
0" 0' o. ~ .; ~ . . i,:~': ~~ ~~ ~ ~~
w. .
o . !l . J w !:i!VlIz: ~ c "!l
> w. 0- ,; 0 dna5 ~gi
.. w~ 00 c~ .9t~ ;;~ dE :I.
... ow .~ c c . . 0 .
i~ o. ~ . c ~~~u u~ ,..
U 0 .w o. , ~ u....VlI u, ~o
it ' > . ." '0 c !~~~ zl/llaz ~~ ~g)o Ii ~~
'X ~~ . . ,~ ~. . . ....z.. ':I '.
" ~i r 5 w "- .a . w =i;:i ::,:~ Cc~ ;= -
a "" ~ :u .a~ .-
... . w ~ !l d 0 0 . .~ .:1 c'
a . ;; ~ ~ I w
0 00. ,
~~ ~ II. ~ U ~ Q. ~ U ..J ..J ..J :r :r :r ....
' ...1 '" '" '" '" CIl CIl CIl CIl ~ U 0 ~ u 0 Q.
~ .
....
q ~.fl1,. .:. . . lfJtt IE ~ ----- .~ ' ,
......,4...4. 1IlI..l(..IIlI.. . . . ~ l(\~ ........"... ----- , , ,
. . ~:A~:..~: ..... ~'tr..
. . ..':-.10:... ,I.,':, .~.~~ ........ ----- ' ,
-. ........... ......... , , ,
Ul_ J. ;; L
gi :r ow II
.... z' :r
;:ll i .." .... ~ii 0 .!
'"~w Uli j; .~
"'8 Ul z , z8 i. n
~~ -' ~3~ Ul ~~ ~
z~ '" <lW 0 u:u~
"I: > w "," Z ~ O. is
, .. r -,I: .. -$
'.. ~b 0: Ul t &~ Ul
s: u- '" : u~ : ~
, , u
'Cl Z
..' i~ ~~
~ ~l~~ ..
-' ,. '"
II: '" -' II) 0 Ul Ul Ul Ul III 15
~ 0 '" -' ~r" z 0 0 -' ':i 0 ,. ':i 0 li
'<) z ~ C . .. .. z z is z .. "
'> 0: .. ~ ~ .. .. w! ~; 0; .. -' iii .. -'
a: II) Ul Ul
'~ '" ~h Ul u u ~
,~ "
:r
~!liw Ipi ..
'" 0 ~ili5t 0 i
III '" II) '" '" ~
0: " -' Z
.. 0 ~i~i z ;; 0
.. ii:
0 a: III a: III ;J~~
u '" hc~ "
....
0::
"!t
J:
(!)
Z
o
-
....
e:{
(:)
~
lI)
lI)
e:{
..u
CJ
..J
-
o
lI)
Ii!
~
z
~
o
N
..
:>
w
o
o
o
..
,
I
I
I
I
S"ltOS 03M....,,-,.......:K)
o
..
o 0 0
. " N
XJONI A,J.I;)USV7d
2
~
EXPLORATORY BORING NO.1
Date Drilled: 3/8/04
Client: Alton and Wanda Pace
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig
Surface Elevation(ft): N/A
Driving Weight 1 Drop: 140 lb/30 in
Logged by: S.H.
Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
.,
,...., ~
SAMPLES !-< ~
0,...., '-'
S' ~ g!i: ~ ~ 0
U ....1
'-' ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ",'" ~~
:I: ~ ~ ~;> o!-<
!i: ~ CJ S 'S ....1f!3 ~Q
~ 0 [;l S$ ~~ 08 ~f2
0 0 ....1 0 ~ ~'-' ....1!-<
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light brown Fill {J 3015" 12.1
,
12.5 118 Ring
. . , Native ]0.5 MDC, DS
1-5 - X
37 9.7 118 Ring
"-'
:" " ' ' (SM) Silty Sand, fme with medium and coarse, light grnj 5.8
.. . , brown
I- 10 -::. ..
X 40 7,8 112 Ring
"-'
r 15 - ii (SP-SM) Sand, fine to medium with coarse and silt, 6.1
yellow brown
y~ 28 10.9 115 Ring
(ML) Sandy Silt, fine with clay, light brown 18.3
i- 20 - X
25 ]9,7 ]13 Ring
"-'
" (SM) Silty Sand, fine to medium with coarse and clay, 10.5
- 25 - :> light brown X
30 15,6 117 Ring
END OF BORING "-'
NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
- 30 - FilL TO 2.5'
SLIGHT CA VlNG
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
,
, ,
.1
.,
. ,
,I
. ,
,I
'I
I:
I:
[1
[I
.
[! 5l
:i
b
'"
-!
:c
"
II ~
tll
~
j;l
;!;
II '"
0
~
'"
z
iij
..
[j
I
iilC.~.~.
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509
TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA
Job No.
04204-3
Enclosure
B-1 A"o
EXPLORATORY BORING NO.2
Date Drilled: 3/8/04
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig
Surface Elevation(ft): N/A
"
. ,
, ,
~ I
! t
t;
. ,
, I
, ,
Ii
I'
[,
[i
[:
II
[[
[!
[! ~
"
M
...
C
"
-l
II 0
,
..
"
~
;!
U 8
~
"
z
~
I; a>
L
~
.;::
~
L'
:r.
~o
oS
Client: Alton and Wanda Pace
Driving Weight! Drop: 140 lb/30 in
Logged by: S.H.
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with me ium, coarse and gravel to
}", brown
(CL) Sandy Clay, fme with mediwn and coarse, brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fme to mediwn with coarse, brown
(SP-SM) Sand, fine to mediwn with silt and coarse, light
yellow brown
(ML) Clayey Silt, light brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine, light brown
END OF BORING
NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
FILL TO 5.0'
SLIGHT CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
i CC....~.
::I:
~
o
5
Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
~ .
SAMPLES f-< ~ ~
I 8~ ~ 9
~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ ~[!3
'S ... f!l >-
~ ;3 S~ ~o ~i j~
o 1%1 I%I~ ::?J o~
Fill 5,
25 13.8 123 Ring
11.6 Cor,. Exp.,
PI
Native 9.4
25 7.9 117
4.7
47 4.6 120 Ring
26.6
22 22.4 103 Ring
13.6
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
5lY11.5 12,0
123
Ring
10
Job No. Enclosure
04204-3 B-2/;,,\
15
20
25
30
')
Date Drilled: 3/8/04
Client: Alton and Wanda Pace
EXPLORATORY BORING NO.3
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig
Surface Elevation(ft): N/A
.,
, ,
, .
r,
II
II
I,
, .
.1
r'
l ~
f'
I,
r'
I j
[;
[;
[1
[!
[l
.
:il
:;
l-
S
-i
is
& 30
...
~
o
II
II
[j
[
g
~
'"
z
ii
o
m
8'
~
15
!is
o
5
10
Logged by: S.H.
Driving Weight! Drop: 140 lb/30 in
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
(SM Silty San , fine with medium and coarse, light
brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with medium and clay, light brown
(SC) Clayey Sand, fme with mediwn, brown
(ML). Sandy Silt, fine with clay, light brown
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with mediwn, coarse and clay, light
brown
(SC) Clayey Sand, fme to medium with coarse, red brown
END OF BORING
NO BEDROCK
NO REFUSAL
NO FILL
SUGHT CAVING
NO FREE GROUNDWATER
i!E:l....~.
15
20
25
Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
Native
~
g;j
~= ~~ ~ ~
g!~~;>o~S
~ S S:~tiJo ~C'
o III 1Ilt::!-~::E 08
13,8
9
~cn
!;ill-<
...l~
25 13,6 122 Ring
9.4
29 9,0 121
9.1
121
Ring
36 11.5 127 Ring
,
15,6
33 15,9 117 Ring
9.3
58/10" 7.5 123 Ring
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
14,3
35
13.8
118
Job No.
04204-3
Ring
Enclosure
B-3 A.'l--
. .
r 1
, ,
r'
, ,
f'
I,
r:
[;
r'
II
[ :
[:
[;
I ['
I I
[;
[l
[J
II
II
[J
II
Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
~ .
SAMPLES f-< c~
O~
~ O!;:: o~ ~ ~
~CI.l
~ :><: CI.l
~:> ~~
'S ~~ ~Q
Pl S S$ ~~
~ o ~ ~~ ~ o-e ....If-<
Native 4.6
EXPLORATORY BORING NO.4
Date DriJled: 3/8/04
Equipment: CME 55 DriJl Rig
Surface Elevation(ft): NI A
Client: Alton and Wanda Pace
2S
SPT
Driving Weight 1 Drop: 140 Ib/30 in
Logged by: S.H.
e- u
i ~ VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
!;:: ~ Ci
~ ~S
(SM) Silty San fme with me ium and coarse, li t
brown
9.9
39
SPT
5,
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with mediwn, coarse and clay, light
brown
10.2
31
SPT
10
15
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine to medium with coarse and silt,
light orange brown
11.6
34 SPT
20 (CL) Sandy Clay, fine with medium and coarse, orange IS,S
brown
27 SPT
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine to medium with coarse, orange 12,9
. 25 brown
~
:;
... 29 SPT
g
-;
Ii
~ 30
1l (SM)Clayey Silty Sand, fme with mediwn, light brown IS.s
~
!l
0
8 3S SPT
~
"
z
5
'"
i'IC].~.~. TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509 Job No. Enclosure
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 04204-3 B-4a t\?
l
EXPLORATORY BORING NO.4
Date Drilled: 3/8/04
Equipment: CME 55 Drill Rig
. , Surface Elevation(ft): N/ A
Client: Alton and Wanda Pace
Driving Weight! Drop: 140 lb/30 in
Logged by: S.H.
Measured Depth to Water(ft): N/A
'"' .
SAMPLES E-t ~ ~
' I 0..- ~
S' u I ~t ~ ~ 9
~ s:l VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ~~ Cl ~tI)
~ ~o ~ ~
'. ~i ~~ ~E ~~
,I Cl 03 Cl p:j .-lE-'
1 (SM) Clayey Silty Sand, fme with medium, light brown
'1
,I X 35 SPT
..
.. '--'
'I
I- 40 ..
, i ~F~%;: (SC) Clayey Sand, fme to medium with coarse and silt, 12.7
"."'~ orange brown
" ~'
.~, X 46 ~ SPT
.1
L::
" 45 y~ .
(SM) Silty Sand, fine with medium and clay, light brown 14.1
. . '.
'I , , , X 55 SPT
.I "--"
. ,','.'
f' 50 END OF BORING
II NO BEDROCK
[1 NO REFUSAL
NO FILL
SLIGHT CAVING
55 - NO FREE GROUNDWATER
[]
II - 60 -
[! ~
~
l-
e
'"
,
II 0
, - 65 -
..
'"
i
l! 8
~
'"
z
i5
L '"
jilt ~.II4.~. TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509 Job No. Enclosure
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 04204-3 B-4b~
!:
, ,
, ,
C.H.J.
, ,
,
I j
r T
I'
r ~ .
I j
[ :
[!
I:
[ :
!:
[;
. ['
. i
APPENDIX "e"
LABORATORY TESTING
!!
[!
[l
[!
[I
1I
[j
[
A.;~
, .
r I
"
II
['
I.
f'
I.
II
l.
f'
L
I;
I:
[i
[;
!:
f:
fl
II
c.. .. ~ JjJ.
Enclosure "C-l "
Job No. 04204-3
TEST DATA SUMMARY
OPTIMUM MOISTURE - MAXIMUM DENSITY RELATION:
\\STM D 1557-91
Boring
'No.
Optimum
Moisture
(Percent)
Maximum
Dry Density
(ncf)
Depth of
Samnle (it)
2.5
Classification
Silty Sand, fine light brown (SM)
1
12.0
122.0
EXPANSION INDEXaCES):
CBC Standard Test Method 18-2
Depth of Initial Final Degree of
Boring Sample Moisture Moisture Saturation Expansion Expansion
No. (ft.l (%) (%) (%) Index Potential
2 3.0 11.2 22.2 49.0 70 umedium"
'ATTERBERG LIMITS:
'ASTM D 4318
Boring
No.
Depth of
Samnle (ft.)
2.0
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
3
37
6
31
DIRECT SHEAR TEST - Remolded to 90% Relative Compaction: (Saturated)
l! ~STM D 3080
II
fl
[!
Boring
No.
Depth of
Samnle (ft.)
2.5
Apparent
Cohesion
(PSF)
o
Angle of Internal
Friction (0)
I
32
~
, ,
! '
,
, .
, ,
.,
l i
, I
l.
[ :
[ :
I:
I [
II
11
I:
II
I;
I'
l,
Job No. 04204-3
Enclosure "C_2"
M. J, Schiff & Associates, Ine,
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959
431 W. Baseline Road
Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: (909) 626-0967 Fax: (909) 626-3316
E-maillab@mjschiJJ.com
website: mjschiJJ.com
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
Alton and Wanda Pace
Your #04204-3, MJS&A #04-0340LAB
19-Mar-04
Sample ID
Boring 2
Depth 3.0
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-em 5,300
saturated ohm-cm 1,700
pH 7.4
Electrical
,Conductivity mS/cm 0.12
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+ mglkg 44
magnesium Mg2+ mglkg 27
sodium Na1+ mglkg ND
Anions
carbonate cot mglkg ND
bicarbonate HCO," mglkg 131
cbloride CI'- mglkg 30
sulfate SO/, mglkg 40
:Otber Tests
ammoniwn NO.'+ mglkg 5.1
nitrate NO," mglkg 15.2
sulfide S2- qual na
Redox mV na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.
mglkg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
A\
Page I of I
, ,
, !
C.H.~ JjJ.
(1
! ;
r)
l i
r!
, ,
I.
[ 1
I;
I:
APPENDIX "D"
GEOTECHNICAL DETAILS
I:
I:
11
[:
[!
Il
II
U
[!
II
U
U
A..?:>
'1
,'\
, COMPACTED FILL
"." ".' '..
. '.'
[ I
[I
[I
[I
, . ..... : .
. :..-:.:....>:.:,:. .:~';0 ~'.f~:j"
....:.::-.. ';""':-:'.:..;-:- 2'TYP
..' ..\;;..:..:.:-... .'. -. '.' -, .
..:~..;f.;:i: ::.~.:<-: .
---:.. ..~
. . '... . . ....... :.
"". ......~ ....
..'~~" ....
,- -- - .;.,-2%MIN....
2~^:!:D~~~~R -l- ..... '. .-'. .....
15' MIN,
(SHEAR KEY)
.- ---=-
8'TYP.
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL (48" MINIMUM) ,
FILL SLOPE
'I
II
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
_M~TERIAL _ __ _\ CO~A:DFIL~. ..' .....:.<">.:.:
-----.:.----,--. . .....~.--:.~.--.~....._:.~.:.
- ----:'" -" .
. ... '. .
. '. . . .'
'. . ". . .". ....
. ; ::'. . .' ..... 2~;rYP.
.' . . . f -
'~ATURAL GROUND . .15' MIN. . . . '.' . . '
~ ..'" :,::' .. ..' . ~~T~ ~: '. ..... 8 ' TYP.
: ~~Y(. :' ..... 0" .. " . .
/ 1 ..... 2% Ml,N.: '.: .
[[
[[
[!
[I
[I
[l
[l
II
U
[! DATE: MARCH 2004
I
2' MIN. ;SHEAR
KEY DEPTH
FILL OVER CUT SLOPE
15' MIN.
(SHEAR KEY)
NOTES:
CD DIMENSIONS SHOWN SUBJECT TO FIELD CHANGE BASED ON ENGINEER'S JUDGEMENT
o
o
BENCHING REQUIRED WHEN FILLING OVER NATURAL GROUND STEPPER THAN 5H:1V
WITHIN THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE, HORIZONTAL THICKNESS SHOULD NOT BE
GREATER AT THE TOP THAN AT THE BOTTOM
SLOPE BENCHING DETAIL
FOR:
ALTON AND
WANDA PACE
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO. 509
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
ENCLOSURE
uO.1"
JOB NUMBER AQ
04204-3 ""'\ \
C.H.J., INCORPORAtED
SlOPE BENCHING CETAIL 2
')
, .
rf
; i
r I
, I
) 1
[1
I:
: r
. .
, r
II
I:
[l
l:
[I
[I
II
II
[1
FOR:
II ALTON AND
WANDA PACE
II OATE: MARCH 2004
II
Building Setback Requirements
(Constructed Slopes)
FACE OF FOOTING
, ;
B
FACE: OF. BVll.Dm
,II
, TOP OF SLOPE
SLOPE HEIGHT {hi
(hletJ
0-16'
SETBACK {AI
, (hIe'l
6' Min:.
11/3 Min.
16'-120'
120'+
40'.
TOE OF SLOPE
SLOPE HEIGHT (hi
(fetttJ
0-10'
SETBACK (8)
(fettt)
6' Mln,
10'-30'
h/2;MIn.
16'
30'+
· or 8S directed by project engineering geologist
FOOTING SETBACK DETAIL
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO. 3883, LOT NO, 509
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
ENCLOSURE
"D-2"
JOB NUMBER.Co
04204.3 .:P
C.H.J., INCORPORAlED
CUT/FILL TRANSITON
STRUCTURE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
-----
d
---/
--
--
-
--
--
_-- ADDmONAL SUBEXCAVATIONlOVER EX
--
--
-------\DEPTH DF REMOVAL
--
PROPOSED GRADE
x
BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION (TVP)
-l'l'~
"~
DVER
EXCAVATION
LIMITS
~~
..-I)
BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION
,( .)
d
DIFFERENTIAL FILL
r I
,
STRUCTURE
I PROPOSED GRADE
1
: i
II
~~
-I)
,':0
d
--
--
--
-- X
--
--
---
__-ADDITIONAL SUBEXCAVATIONJOVER EX
--
--
-----\--
X
S'
OVER
EXCAVATION
UMlTS
BOTTOM OF FOUNDATION
r.
I'
d
~
DEPTH OF REMOVAL
NOTES: DIFFERENTIAL FILL THICKNESS ACROSS ANY ONE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE LESS THAN OR
EQUAL TO 8 FEET ,OR EQUAL TO Y, THE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF FILL, WHICHEVER IS LESS.
d = MAXIMUM DEPTH OF FILL x = d - 8 or x = Y, d (WHICHEVER IS LESS)
I
l
!
l.
DIFFERENTIAL FILL DETAIL
FOR:
l
[, DATE: MARCH 2004
ALTON AND
WANDA PACE
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TRACT NO, 3883, LOT NO. 509
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
ENCLOSURE
"0-3"
JOB NUMBER..c\
04204-3J
C.H.J., INCORPORAtED
l'1
, ,
C.1l .. J.
fl
l i
r 1
"
II
i 1
i I
[ 1
l j
[;
APPENDIX "E"
I:
[:
[ :
r:
GEOLOGIC DATA
I'
I,
I:
[l
[l
II
Ii
U -sz-.
l
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
. . ,
BOORE ET AL(1997) NEHRP D (250)1
I. I I A I
25 yrs 50 yrs
I · I I ~ I
75 rs 100 rs
"
, I
, ,
,
, ,
r'
i.
[;
[:
[ :
[ :
[:
[:
[:
[;
100
90
-. 80
'0
~
-- 70
)>,.
+J
-
.- 60
.0
co
.0
e 50
Q.
0) 40
()
c
co 30
'0
0)
0)
(.) 20
x
w
10
0
0.00
[I
[!
II
I II
,
[!
[l
I
ENCLOSURE: "E-1"
JOB NO.: 04204-3
0.25 0.50 0,75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (Q)
-5?