HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel 4 Geotechnical Evaluationr. .~.
~
.
- . ,, ,
•`L- ._M1~ ~~ •
' !-'~~DLM CONSULTING COPORATION
PRELIMINABY
GEOTECHNICAL
EVALUATION
PROJECT NO.:
99247-01
WORK ORDER NO.:
9906-1306-F
DATE:
July l5, 1999
PitOJECT 51TE:
Parcel4, Parcel Map 16705
805, 901 & 902 Estero Street
Temecula. California
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Assessor's Parcel Nur,~~b~r
945-070-011
Riverside Counry
PREPARED FOit:
China Sea Development Corporation
Carlos Ilizaliturri
6~63 East Via Arboles
Anaheim, California 92807
t~rN 2~f~ 33 i~Ai2 ~.
~ 3g ~, ~
PMB C-233, t6776 L~keshore Dq Lake Etsinorc Ca 92530, Tel (909) 245-2200 Fax (909) 245-4211
4~.
~ ~
i
t
5' •
' ~~~~~~ co:vsu~Tirvc covoa,~ rio~
Prolect ~ 90'_47-01
Work Order ~ ~906- I 306-F
.ru~v ~s. t999
China Sea Development Corporation
Carlos [lizaliturri
6563 East Via Arboles
Anaheim. California 92807
SUBJECT: PRELIM[NARY GEOTECHN[CAL EVALUAT[ON FOR THE SITE LOCATED ON
PARCEL 4, PARCEL MAP I6705, 305, 901 ~ 902 ESTERO STREET,
TEMECULA, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ~IUMBER 945-070-011, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
Dear Mr. Ilizaliturri:
In accordance with your request and authorization, ~ve have prepared this report of the
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation conducted for the above sabject site.
This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the limited
scope of fieid evaluation at the time and location of our site review and may not represent conditions
at other times or locations. By incorporating the "limitations" herein, there are no presentations
and/or warranties, expressed, or implied to uniformitv, chemical characteristics or merchantabiliry of
the properry. Additional costs must be anticipated depending on future findings, regulatory
requirements, or any other conditions. No specific design plans were available at the time of our soil
evaluation.
tf you have any questions regarding this report or if ~ve may be of further assistance, please
contact our office at your convenience. We appreciate this opportuniry to be service to you.
Respectfully submitted,
FOR ACADEMY
I~C~ GEO~J?~33
EXR 3i31lDO
FJ:da
Enclosures
PMB C-233, ~677G Lakeshore Dr, Lake Elsinore, Cn 92530, TeI~(909) ?45-?20U Nax (909) ?45-J21 t
Z
i~ .
1 ~
July 16, 1999
.
Project No. 99247-01
At your request, we have performed a Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation for the above referenced site. The purpose of our
investigation was to evaluate the underlying soil conditions with
respect to the proposed development and to assess the soils and
engineering constraints that might exist considering this
development.
The 100-scale Assessor's Parcel Map was used to direct our field
investigation. Plate 1 presents the Geotechnical data obtained
during our field investigation.
ACCOMPANYING MAPS, ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Index Map - (2000-scale) - Page 2
Geotechnical Map - (40-scale) - Plate 1
Fault Index Map - Plate 2
Appendix A- Geotechnical Boring Logs
Appendix B- Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C- General Earthu~ork. and Grading Specifications
Appendix D - References
~
a ~
INDEX MAP
OF
PARCEL 4, P.M. 16705
805, 901 & 902 ESTERa STREET
TEMECUl..4, CALIFORNIA
SOUR C E: U.S.G.S. 7~ MIN. QUAD. TEMECULA 1968 (PR 1975)
1V
~
~ zooo aooo
SCALE ' teet
' '~ • •
Yil_=i /-U i
Pace 3
SiTE L(iCATII)N/C(iivUfi 1oh '
~ ne l U7+r'- acre rectanguiar-shaped rarcei a, N.Ni. i b7u~ was ~*ratlzd mto tnree iots at tnz souineast
corner of Estero Street and Ormsby Road, both improved paved roads, in the city of Temecula. Estero
~tteec rorms tne nonnern propem nounaary tor botn iots, yU I and yUt, and soumern oounaary tor lot
SOS.
The iots were previousiy mass graded in late iyxy, utiliz[ng cut and Till gradfng. lhe maximum cut
and fill slopes are 9 and 14 feet respectfully at finished grades of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter.
i he pad area of the iots are cunentiy i~ee ot vegetanon, but the es~stmg siopes are covered wrtn weeds
and grasses. A large wash-out exists on the south-facing fill slope on the 902 Estero Street lot.
Both lots y~ I and 9~2 have a concrete draina~e swale at the perimeter of the pad, which drains to
Ormsby Road. The swale is cracked and broken in many places.
The geographic retationship oi the property to the surrounding areas is shown on the index Map (Page
2).
YRC)i'v5~;ll ii~;V~;i,ti"riv-~;iv i'
According to the intormation provlded, the lots are to be utilized for a single-Family residence and
shoR paved driveways with associated appurtenances.
Un-s~te sewage ciisposal utiiizmg the sepnc taniuieacii ime method of ciisposal is planned m the pad
area, based on previous percolation testing report by RGS, San Bernardino, dated September 13, 1994.
~t;tlY~ UF JEKVIC:ES
Tiie scope oT our investigation included the toliowing:
A review of availabie data pertment to ti~e site.
Subsurtace expioranon oi the sne unlizing 4 expioratory bormgs to depths as ;neat as i~ teet.
the borings were logged, and these logs appear in Appendix A of the report. The borings were
tested for in-piace density ulilizing drive-ring sampling. Represenlative bulk samples were
obtained for testing.
Laboratory testmg ot representatrve earth matenals to develop soil engmeermg parameters for
the proposed development.
~
S
, , •
;
9y?47-0 I
Page 9
Kexaining Wali Uesign
Retaining walls should be designed using the following parameters:
o Active pressure (Ievel backfi~l) 52 Ib/tt ift
o Active pressure (2:1 backfiil) 61 lb/ft /ft
o Active pressure (1 1/2:1 backfiil) 72 Ib/ft /ft
~
For purpose of lateral resistance, a value of ~25 may be used for frictional resistance. A value of 275
lb/ft /ft may be used for passive resistance for footings placed into properly compacted fill. Frictional
and passive resistance may be combined, provided the later is reduced by one-third.
Speciai loads for dead plus actual loads should be considered m the dnveway/parkmg area that is
retained.
Laterai Loatls
Lateral loads in the near-sur~ace soils are:
Acttve -~Z pounds per square Yoot of soil depth (psf/ft)
At Rest - 61 psf/ft
Passive - 275 psf/ft (for wood shoring)
3~u psfift (for concrete footings)
Active means movement of the structure away tiom the soil;. at rest means the structure does not move
relative to the soil (Such as a]oading dock); and Passive means the structure moves into the soil. The
coefficient of friction between the bottom of the footings and the native soil may be taken as 0.25.
Trench Stability
The near-surface soil to a depth of 5 feet will stand vertically when excavated. The trenches in excess
of 3 feet in depth should have the sides laid back at l:1 in accordance with OSHA requirements.
~
• ~
yvza~-u i
Page 8
W hen toundations are placetl in natural soils, no cobbles over b~nches shoultl be iett ~vithm the base
of the fo~mdation. A rypical foundation desi~an is included in Appendix C.
~emement
When the upper?.U-Z.5 feet of 6ll is prepared m accordance w~th the "Foundat~on vesign" and
compacted tili requirements, footings should experience less than 1-inch settlement with less than 1/2
inch differential settlements between adjacent footings of similar sizes and loads over a horizontal
distance ot ~+U teet. I his settlement is based upon gradmg ot up to 3U+ teet ot till. 1T thicker Yifls are
proposed, settlement could be greater and should be evaluated prior to placement.
Concrete Jlabs-Un-l~rade;
Sutticient tine-grained materials exists within near surtace earth materials to possible create moisture
problems. Therefore, we recommend that a moisture barrier be placed under any concrete slabs that
might receive a moisture-sensitive tloor covering. This moisture barrier should consist of a 10-mil
polyethylene vapor barrier sandwiched between a 1-inch layer of sand, top and bottom, to prevent
puncture of the barrier and enhance curing of the concrete. Nominal reinforcement of the slabs with
6x6 by 6x6 welded wire placed in the center of the slab is advisable. The subgrade below the slab
should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted prior to placement of concrete.
Ex~ansive Soils
Expansion testing of near-sud'ace soils (B-2 ; 0-3 Yeet) indicate the near sartace soils are low
expansion per U.B.C. Table 18-1-B with a value of 14. Slab and foundation should be designed for
low expansion per U.~3.C. Section tti 15 as shown m Appendix C;.
Julf'ate (;ontent
Soii sultate testing yielded a nominal 30 ppm of soluble sulfate. Normal Z500 pound Type 11 cement
may be used in construction. -
Earthwork ~hrinkage and Subsidence
When the 2-3 Y'eet of overexcavated soils are re~~raded to compacted till standards, earthwork
shrinka~e ~vould be in the range of 5 to 6 percent with a recommended average of approximately 9
percent. Earthwork operations should cause only a nominal subsidence of approximately 0.1 foot or
less in the driveway access and pad areas.
~
• •
~v_a;-u i
Page 4
~+. rreparanon ot tnis repott presentme our rmdmgs, conciusions and recommendanons
concerning site development based upon an engineering analysis of geotechnical properties of
lhe subsoils as cietermined by tielci anci laboratory evaluation.
L.~113UfZr1T03(Y l N;J I liVl~
Che tollowmg tests were pertormed tor th~s pro~ect m our iaboratory m accordance with the Amencan
Society for Testing and Materials, the State of California Standard Specifications or contemporary
practices o£ the soil en~nneering profession.
~Y(aximum Density - O~timum Moi~ture Determination
Tnis test determmes the densiry tnat a so~i can be compacted to at vanous contents. For each soil
moisture, there is a maximum dry density obtained and the associated optimum moisture content. The
results are used to evalua2e the naniral compachon, contrat of ihe gradmg process and as an aid m
developing the soil bearing capacity. This is based on ASTM Standard D1557-78 (five layer method).
In-Situ N[oisture and ~iensiq~.
These tests consisted of ineasurmg and weighmg dnve nng samples to determme m-piace mo~sture
and density. The results are used to analyze the consistency of the subsoils and aid io determining the
necessary gradmg to prepare the pad area. ~
Sieve Analysis
This test detennines the materiai grading oT the individual particie sizes and is used in generating an
engineering classification.
~and 'r;qmvaient'I esnng
This is a test lor the rapici determination oi the relative portions oC Gne silt and clay materiais within
the soil samples, and is used for a relative comparison of soils in the determination of the adequate
paving sections for parking, etc.
~
' • •
" ' y92=+7-u i
Pa~,e 5
i;xnansion i estmg
i ne ezpansion index or tne soiis are determ~ned by tne u.i3.C. ivietnod _'y-2 and is used to des~gn
foundations for anticipated expansion forces. The ezpansion test results are presented in AppendiY B.
Direct Shear
A direct snear strengtn test was periormed on a representativz sampie ot the on-site soiis remoided to
90% relative compaction. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the sample was saturated
prior to sneanng. ta saturating device was used wnich permiited the sampies io ansoro moisture while
preventing volume change. This test is used to determine soil strengths for slope stability evaluations
and For foundalion bearing capacity.
Sulfate Testing
Water soluble sulfate was determined for the soiis at antictipated iinisned grades. This test is used to
determine concrete type in accordance with UBC Talbe 19-A-3.
~ B-' FA 'E 'ONDTTI N-'
'1 he area of the existing building pads is underlain by a 2.~-8 toot thick artificial fill 1 he Till thickens
to the south on both lots 901 and 902, a maximum of 8 feet. The fill is in a dense compacted condition
at 117.0 pcf (90% relative compactionj in B-2 at LO-2.0 feet, increasing to 120.3 pcf (933% relative
compaction) in t3-3 ai 4.~-5.~ feei. Moistures were between 4 and 6 percent. t3eneath the
soil/coiluvium is the sedimentary bedrock of the Pauba Formation. The bedrock is very dense with
in-place density oC 123.(i (y5.y% relative compactiun) in B-4 at 4.0-5.0 ieet and li-7% moisture,
increasing to over 128.0 pcf.
The subsuriace information indicates that the originai transition from cut to Tiil has been mitigated by
overexcavation to 30 inches.
i~iiUufvU ~NA i'L"N
No ground water was encountered within the site to a deptti ~f i~ feet un the iot. A concurrent sewage
disposal test on the lot north of Estero Street (See Plate 1) did not encounter water to SO feet. Several
large ground water wells are operated within 0.5 miles ofthe site. 'Che nearest well had an historic
n~gh ;~round water eievation ot 1u~7 teet in iviarcn i9 i6 (u"wR, i978j. 'i he current water ievei is 99i
feet, which places the minimum depth to ground water at over 160 feet at the site.
~
• •
y92=17-u ~
Pa~e 6
FLUUDitvt;
Accordmg to the 'rederal ~,mergency V(anagement Agency and the C.'ounty ot K~verside, the sire is not
located ~vithin the boundaries of a 100-year t7ood plain.
(UEOLOGY
Regional
Che sue represents a portion ot the l'erns filock (English, IyZ6), an uplitted, but not nited, block oY
granitic and metamorphic basement rocks with three distinct geomorphic and stratigraphic erosion
surfaces (Dudley, 1936).
Local
l he entire proposed building addit~on area is underlain at depths of less than 4 feet by the sedimentary
bedrock of the Quaternary Pauba Formation. Bedding attitudes were northwest strike with low angle
dips ot less than 8 degrees to the northeast. The pooriy deYined bedding was less than 6 inches thick
and ranges in texture from silty sands to clayey sands with occassional clean sand intervals.
Seismic Setting
Che site is not included within any State or Counry fault hazard zone for active or potentially active
faults.
The re~,rional seismic setting is shown on Plate 2. The nearest active or potentially active faults to the
site include the Elsinore (03 miles southeast), and the San Jacinto (31.8 miles northeast).
The Elsinore (Wildomar branch), because of its proxmiry and resulting greater seismic potential, is the
design fault when evaluating the site seismic parameters.
We have utilized strain rates of OAS cmiyear for the Elsinore Fault as suggested by Clark, Harms, et al
(1984) and Petersen (1996). For this project the maximum probable or "desien earthquake" is defined
by CDMG Note 43 as the maximum historical event with a recurrence period of l00 years. We
estimate the maximum probable earthquake for the Elsinore fault to be an event of 6.8 ma~mitude.
This is in agreement witli the deteministic model by Blake (1994). This is also in agreement with the
estimated 6.6 earthquake in 1910 that was epicentered within 10 miles northwest of the site, but
slightly higher than Petersen (1996).
10
• •
yy?~+~-u i
Page 7
Ground Motion Narameters
The ~~round motion characteristics which could atfect the site during the postulated maximum
probable earthquake of 6.6 magnitude on the Elsinore fault were estimated. Available information in
the literature about maximum peak bedrock acceleration and the attenuation with distance (Schnable
~ Seed, 1987), the effects of site-soil conditwns on surYace b~ound mot~on parameters (Seed c~ (dress,
1982), and site response criteria (Hays, 1980) were utilized.
Chis information indicates that max~mum peak rock acceleration on the order oi 0.6ag may be
anticipated at the site. MaYimum , ound surface acceleration is expected to be dampened due to the
thick sedimentary bedrock with a value of about 0.54g.
Repeatable ground acceleration can be estimated as 6~ percent of peak ground acceleration for design
purposes (Ploessel & Siosson, 1974) with a value of about 036g. The predominant period of bedrock
acceleration is expected to be 0.30 seconds with 30 seconds of strong ground shaking (Bolt, 1973).
Jecondary Seismic Hazards
The depth to historic groundwater of »+ fee, and dense nature of the sedimentary bedrock at shallow
depths, precludes such secondary seismic hazards as liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement at the
site.
(:U1Vl:LUJIUNJ A1Vll Kr:t;UlVl1VI1~,1VllA110N5
Foundation Desigr~.
A strip and spread tootmg toundation system should prov~de an adequate toundation tor one and
two-story buildings in this site. Al( esterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches
below adjacent tinished ~,~rade for two-story buildings, and l2 inches for one-story buildings. Interior
foofings may be founded a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. When the footings are '
founded in a minimum of 2 feet of properly compacted fill or dense bedrock, an allowable bearing,
capaciry of,l ~UO psf for I Z mch wide tootmgs is acceptable tor dead plus live load. "Chis value may be
increased by one-third for short term wind and seismic loading conditions.
~~.
• •
9y247-U 1
Page 10
Jlope 5tabilitX
The cunent concept of construction has no additional grading planned. All the existing slopees are
constructed as finished inclinations of 2:1 or tlatter. The high stren~nh values make these slopes stable
to over 45 feet at this inclination. No s(ope stabiliry evaluation is necessary unless additional grading
is contemptated.
Selection of Shear 'trength Yarameter~
The following shear strength parameter utilized for our soil foundation bearing analysis was
determined by our laboratory test results as presented below:
Matenal rncnon Angle Cohesion
(Cut or Fill~ D e Ib/ft2
Anticipated On-Site Fill 26 485
We have utilized values of 26 degrees and 485 Ib/frZ for bedrock cut slopes although it represents a
conservative number, determmed Yiom a remolded saturated samp(e. ~iedrock is expected to be ZO%+
stronger (Coduto, 1989).
Drainage and terracing should be in accordance with Uniform Building Code Chapter 70 requirements.
At no time should water be diverted onto the slope face in an uncontrolled and erosive fashion. Rapid
erosion and rutting of the fill slopes is possible and they should be planted with drought resistant
landscaping as soon as possible.
I:~PI~ItnL SCI N: I;KAlll1v(;
1. Clearing and Urubbing
1'he grasses and weeds withm any proposed till areas wili reqwre cleanng and removal ott-srte. Any
boulders larger than 12 inches should not be placed in any structural till within l0 feet of the finished
~~rades.
~~
~ ' . ' • •
yvz~+~-u i
Page 11
L. Preparation ~t ISUddm~ Yaa areas
Our subsurtace investigation revealed that the proposed building locanons on the pads are underlam by
dense engineered compacted filL The pads have been properly overexcavated, and no additional
mitigation is required.
S. PreRaratinn of 1urYace to Keceive 'omoacted H ill
All sutfciently dense (85 percent relative compaction) surtaces which are to receive compacted 2ii1
should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to
90 percent relative compaction. Other softer areas must be overexcavated to sufficiently dense
matenal and recompacted. 7 ypical overexcavat~on depths based on our tield teshng would be 2-3 Yeet
for the building areas and 1-1.5 feet in the parking/driveway areas. Actual depth of removal should be
determined at the time of grading by testing.
a rlacement oi l.'omoacteA H'i11
Compacted till ~s detined as that matenal which will be replaced m the areas of removal due to root
removal, the placement of footings and paving, and also wherever their grade is to be raised. All fill
should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent based upon the maximum density obtained in
accordance with AJ 1'M ll l»"/-%x procedure. 1 he area to be filled wiil be prepared in accoraance
with the preceding section. The recompaction of the cut material may be waived if field density tests
indicate densities in excess of compacted till standards.
Fills placed on natural slopes of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper will require a key and benching
as shown in Appendix C.
5. Pre-Job (;onference
Pnor to the commencement of b~rading, a pre ~ob conterence should be held with representatives ot~the
owner, developer, contractor, architect and/or engineer in attendance. The purpose of this meeting
shall be to darify any questions relating to the intent of the ~~rading recommendations and to verify
that the project specitications comply with recommendations of th~s report.
~3
• •
yvza7-u 1
Page 12
6. I esting and Ins ecp tion
During b~rading, densiry testing should be performed by a representative of the soil engineer in order to
determine the degree of compaction being obtained. Where testing indicates insufficient density,
additional compactive effort shall be applied with the adjustment of moisture content where necessary,
unt~l yU percent relative compaction ~s obtamed.
lnspect~on ot cntical gradmg control procedures such as keys; mstallation or need tor subdrams should
be made by a qualified soils engineer or engineering geologist.
7. uevelopment impact
Yrovided the recommendarions of th~s report are mcorporated mto the design and construcrion of the
residential project, both the proposed development and off-site areas will be safe from geologic and
geotechmcal hazards.
GENERAL
All gradmg should, at a m~mmum, Yollow the "Standard Gradmg and Earthwork Speciticanons" as
outlined in Appendix C, unless otherwise modified in the text of this report. The recommendations of
this report are based on the assumptions that all footings will be founded in dense, native, undisturbed
soil or properly compacted till soil. All tootmg excavations should be mspected pnor to the placement
of concrete in order to verify that footings are founded on satisfactory soils and are free of loose and
disturbed materials and fill. All grading and till placement should be pertormed under the testing and
inspection of a representative of the soil engineer.
"Che tindmgs and rewmmendat~ons of th~s report were prepared m accordance wrth contemporary
engineering principles and practice. We make no warranty, either express or implied. Our
recommendations are based on an interpolation of soil conditions between trench locat~ons. Should
conditions be encountered during grading, that appear to be different than those indicated by this
report, this otfice should be notitied.
~~
h
, •
1
/~ t ~~ C+' ~ ••`
~\~~ T~~~ps~1u~,T;~ Submitted,
~ Q ~ ~ m,
_
c~ ~ -
~
t c ~, * J
'~. A
'`;,;~ ~~Warr_er~'^~i`' erlinq
~... G•C&~1.~`1. ~ 2
tion Expires 2-28-00
Fred Jaleh
R.C.E. 30527
Reqistration E~:pires 3-31-00
WLS/FJ:ss
Distribution: (4) Addressee_
•
\~
~ 1932 W:
M 6.1 ~ ' ~ e~ '
.. ~J` R ,f N ~ ~.i I ,~ r9 ~ i
9C
., / `
, .~ ~' '•'~~/ I ~ ,P,D ~_~ ~
F ~ ~ `~•,y4,Y w~ ~' ~~ .
A
,~ ,~ J~'S ~ ~t`A qL _ - ~ :
!~ 3 fp „/ ~ ~ C•~ ~. :
+ ^y~ac,~ ~~~ J~ 1947
~~.+ ~ ~4qr '•'•.~ ~'\ `e~o~~' ~M6.2
1952 ~ ~ ~ ~v<r ~ Fau~7
~MG4 ~W _ MpNtX
!~- 6>a~~ ~'YYOpO- ` i•' ~ y \ 4v~:'. '•.
, ~.y~UL7 SWIIICS fl .'. B4R TQW `,.,• \[40Y FAULT ~
•• • ~916 ~ ~ ~ ~. $ A ~`•-..-
\~F.a Cq C\ ~ 8
uCT ' _ -' ._ _ _' _ __ "_ ' ~I O;.
, I ~~ y\` \\ ~ ad
\~ ~ ~ I \9F 1'4.\ °!`e`~
. ~ i ~~~ OoO q;'O \ `,9~ , ~ <
~ 1893 ~ . ~ya i °s< ~OC~. F ~ \\i
,~ . ~ : c` '~ 1 V
~ .
4 \ W~ 19TI ~ I ~ t .\\yc~y'~' ~°~'f q~f
Q F. .~ S M~ ~ I899 ;.\;$,y `so r
AH \ . ~~ ' 1 ~ o' 64 ~ ~
~ ~ \ ~ ~'
~~+qrr~o L 0 S A N G E L E S ~~'~c "i ""t 9~`•.
~' ~
~ ~acE+ . ~ ~ . ~ 4EGHOpN/~ \S9HiNGS •~•~ • `i
Ni ~ 54N FERN4N~p FAULT \, ' p, ~
~4 FEfifJ O SlfqA4 M I~ 1769 ~. .
~ ~.~~4p~ F PMONGA F. N 1907 ~1
/~ 1~('p;b AUIT ,
' IB .S RAYM~~.,r.~ ~t ~~. ~. ~,p R H ~NtAIN '.
ti4ULT...s.. ~jqijCC.~P~' ~S I92OI 'POM%NA~l~'~* ~ BERN4F'fOINQ . N~Ok(+4S F~ PIN .•o~`p~~Y.
... ~ ~ ,,~ li
........ • • g~T 1~~0 . ~kjb ~ ~ -MiSS p ~ _ _.
ANGELES ~N
/ , ~ RrvFRSIDE . ~ ~ ,
••:lb,yK,q Kk"hITT/E!t ~r ~ c~ •. .n BANNI/yQ . ~ ~ A
, ' ' ~R 1890 ~ ~s ~. ~o ~19I8 ~ ~ o~
~~4 J 't oq~~T ~~ ~~' M6.8 , (.~,~~Cr
ONG '• g4N°A ~\ M63 , ~ ~~~~o • s~iNGS. . .
~~ F'; 0 R A N G E ` 4
'•.'G~~ G~ / . ~ INORE ~<T R I
:, . IB12 ~ ~ ..... ~ M7t ~
1933 ~ 4
. Mfi3 ~ . ~ . ~'~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ '~4~ ~ AN2A rq
SaMa ~ \ ~pp, ,~, C~,YTD ~
~,o,,,~ r-
h/end • ;~ \ 1910 ~~ ~ qC Co .
~ o ror~
SITE Fq ~.
, . . . ~ . G<\\`\Cq~~f,yT~ :
1
••'~~71 , ~ ~ ' . . ~ MILEH . 1894 JUUMI .
~~ s n N o i`~ 'c
Sar G•menh • ~cCf, . . ~
/riond <'F 1941 '
:yr~MS9-6. I •.•'... . . ' . l856 ~
.o
MAJOR EAR7HOUAKES and RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS
SOUTHERN CALIFORMA REGION
aRNSBY R-~ ~ Es~.RO Sr, TEt~t~cJ~A
W.O. N0: DATE: FIGURE:
99247 -o ~ '~(99 PLATE 2
`~
• •
APPENDIX A
~1
GE~ECHNICAL
BORIN~OG
Proiec! Number 9~124~-o gp~~~9 No, "b~Z
Projeet Name A'CA-DEMy Equipmsnt
Hois D(ameter ~`~ p~~~~ VVe19h~ ~¢ p~
Drop 3 Q ~~
Elsva tbn II i°J '1- ~o-t- "9av Sh~et ~ of ~
; ,~ ~ ~ s CiEOTEGiN1CAL DESCRIPTION
~ $
u ;
~ _
~ ~ l
B ~
~'~ `~
~ ~ ~n~•l. Shall
Logged by - ~`h
r
c ~
o '
W
..~ .
m o
o
~ ~~
$
Sampled by
0
MD-
DS
~
~ Z
I I'7, 0
4,C ~ifiC~~ ~~~.. _ brewn.a~, ~ow IOY26~6 s~I~sJse,~
~` ~
~9 (90~8) w/n,inM cl ana( 9~ra(. .S1.clyti,Y f~ adhrsof'dn
z7 11
2 G rn~, low~n. c,n~lac~, ~cr. ~n~v
~2 na.t
(
~
.
C. ,
.,
c~
30 (97•9) 6.3 sa~ d~l~•
35
41 128•4
C99.~1. 7•~ QED~~- iQ~bu Fm -
- broW~irh ~t,l~ew i~Qb/c 4e
~a w ID 1~~2 ~~6 i n~~n he~dt~ SI ~~~ S~ hal ~ ~nc( ~n.l, u~n ~YM
C~RA,n Iavv~.I~~%~ OCC. rn~-BtJr.li ~e q'y~v t~I
/ ~
t 4
(
I~ ' 22
30 ~
ru
15-~o~j~~ a~.,c cl ec sa H~( (s~ ~ ~
~ ~ /~ ~. ~~Y/A19 Zp
~
44 ,
0.~ b~ Yw~'~ia~tn d~p, ~Zn,,~-~ r C~tn.a,.~
s
~
l . d a n~ ~O d~ ~.,,~ .
[ clc.~„~ s~l~ lev~o.U !i~-~ti'
T, D . l5 '~
~Vo UlO~~Mo~~~q~~avinq
J J
i
~
~
'
Q~
Dats ~~8~`~y
GE~ECHNICAL BORlNG~.OG
Pro~eet Number q~~~ "~T Boring No. ~" 3 Date ~~0 ~`~~
Pro~ect Name ~~~~~ EQWpment ~'~b31LL $C~ '~SA
Hols Diameter 8 Driv~ Weiyht ~~~ ~ Drop ~id ~
Eieveflnn II'1~ t/- I-~T~~Z . ~ e~~~. ~ _. ~
; , ~ ~ ~ GEOTECHNICAL DESCAIPTION
S
" g
]
~ •
a !
~
a e
S L
2 ~
~
~ 5~n
~~
~
logged by ~ L.,S 1~ e/Ii h~
r
o' g
d
o y
S
~ .
m o
o
~ ~
'
~
Sampled by
, r
0
~11 PiC / A2. r^~i I.L - cS1.Q ~ ' 2 ~ ~p,.r' ' d90Gr ~J'~zon
" Zz
3~ ny,s
~~L `
~~ 5,3 ~, ,
. ~ ' . .
2 C 12a.3 .
5 39 C°13.3)
41 127.6 ~,L BE9Fo4~- PaKba ~'n _ ~`,~ 8-7, ~~CV~~on
So ~~~
t0
-r.~ to=
N o wa,t~.~M otfh J
\°~
G TECHNICAL BpRIN~LOG
. Pro~eet Number J~ Z ~- o I Boring No. ~' 4 Date 7/ d/9 9
Pro~ect Name -- ~~ ~'~~ Equipmsnt ~~ g/ ~~ ~3 • 6 I IfS~ '
Hols Diameter a~ DNw Wsipht - ~~-` ~'~ Dr 30 "
oP
Flwv~finn II'1t t/_ l.o'f" 41n ~ .
an~e[ or
~ ; ,
~ x
r f
~ s t3EOTEGiNICAL DESCAIPTION
i
t
`-' ~
~ t
`o
~
:
~~ ~~
~ a ,
Logged by ~ , L S ~k/L~ rd) ~
°~ ~
~ =
~3
~ i
m ~
c L
~ v~
$ I
Sampled by " ~
I
0 '
n iia.i s.i ~~~~cin-~ ~,w_ s.~ c3,Z ~ d~oG-,p-h,,.
zy (9t.~) i
31 ~~.b 7,~ l~LfJ(1-oq~ '~a.t{~a~vH - S.u ~'2~ ~OcnP~l?r
5 4~ (9~.y1
~a
~ 't',D la ~
Na Wdk ~Ne~1~ n~
7~
GE~CHNICAL BORING~OG
Pro~eet Number - ~Z$~~ ~ ~ Bortnq No. ~"5 Date ~~P~99
Pro~eet Name ~R 9~ Y Equlpment MO Bi v~ ~- 5 I I-I-S q
Hois Dlamete~ - R~ Driw Weiyht - ~¢~ ~ D-op ~ d'~
Elavatien i~-~ ~+L L.oT ~i n o ~ ' ^~--'
- -' ~a~~~Ol VI I
_ , ~ f s GEOTEGiNiCAL DESCRIPTION
~ pQ
J
~
~
c
Z
o e
~
Z
o ~
~'~ 3
Ch
~,
Logged by -~.~. Shali T_
~
o' n ~ ~ m o ~ $ Sampkd by ~'
, ,.
0
fi~Tl~iciFF~ F~~ _ d,e.~ ~-L -~Oi deocri~~..r1
~9 i19~1 6•~-
u c%z,a
!
5
~
4L
124.L
7.0 - Pa+,~ha ~ -
6tOR.oU~ _ ~.c 8-7- ~
~er~ P~j,~~ -
~ T, ~. i~=
No V'~(,,~lMo~~~
Z~
• •
APPENDIX B
u-
,
• •
MAXIMUM DENSITY - OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATION
The maximum density was determined in accordance with ASTM
Standard D1557-78. The result by full laboratory curve is :
Sample Depth Maximum Optimum
Location (Feet) Soil Description Drv Density Moisture
B-2 0-3 (Soil Type A) Bedrock 128.9 9.2
yellocaish brown silty fine
to medium sand with clay
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION TESTING
U.B.C. METHOD 29-2
Sample Location Depth Expansion Index Expansion Potential
B-2 0-3' 14 low
SAND EOUIVALENT TESTZNG
Sample Location Depth Sand Equivalent
B-2 0-3' 18
~
I ..
0
~
Q
~
Z
Q
H
N
vi
~
I
~
w
N
N
W
>
W
N
O
N
~
W
H
W
~
J
J
_ ~
O.~
~
w
F-
w
~
Q
0
W
J
U '
H
~
O .Q
~ a
O
O
O
O
a
~
a
J
U
J
N
w Z.
zQ
~N
I Ii
~ N ;
~ N i
Q Q
J J
U U
~ ~ I
W S
~ N
2 a
~ Q
~ a ~
N C
~2 -
O ~
N ~
U
w R~
r ~
~ ~
~
W
> 0
Q Z
~
c9
~
~
2
F-
a
w
0
PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE DISTRiBUT(ON
BytNJ~ Oate: 7~99 EXHIBIT
TEY1ECUtA NUMBER
~x 992~iT-oi ~sr~~zo/~ orz~nSBY Rv , Z~
Con~upinp E~pin~~rs en0 Cio/o pialf
i s
~
LL. 5
N
~
a 4
Y
1
N 3
W
~
H
~
2
C9
Z
~
a
_ ~
~
o _ ~ ~,~,~~,~~~~~~„ ,~-- ; ,
~ ~ 2 ~ 3 4 5 6
NORMAL PRESSURE-KIPS/ SQ. FT.
EXCAVA~ION N0. B-2 DEPTH: o-a
iZ~MO1~ED S'o 9a %, REUI"F~VE ~oMPACTIOnI
SATURATED TEST IN SITU MOISTURE TEST
~ = 26 • ~ e _.~
C= 475 P.S.F C= P.S.F
D I R ECT SHEAR TEST DATA
PNOJEG7: FXHI81~~
hCA~ E~nY
~.
JOB NO: 9~J Z4~ -O) D4TE: ~7I99 -
•
APPENDIX C
•
Z~
• •
STANDARD GRP.DING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFIC~'_"IONS
No deviation from thesa snecifications should be oe:-:nit~ed unless
specifically superseded in the geotechnical repor~ of the project
or by written communication signed by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Evaluations perfor•ned by the Geotechnical Consultant
durinq the course of grading may result in subsequent
recommendations which could supersede these specificst?cns or t:~e
recommendations of the geotechnical report.
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 The Geotechnical Consultant is the Owner's or
Developer's representative on the project. Eor the
purpose of these specifications, obse.rvations by the
Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the
Soils Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineerinq
Geoloqist, and those performed by persons employed by
aad responsible to the Geotechnical Consultant.
1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork perPormed
on the project sha11 be conducted and directed by the
Contractor under the supervision.of the Geotechnical
Consultant.
1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of
the project and satisfac~or~ completion of all grading.
Duriag grading, the Contractor shall re~ain accessible.
1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the Geotec:^.nical
Consultant shall be employed Por the purpose of
providinq field, laboratory, and office services for
conforsaance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report and these specifications. It will
be necessary that the Geotechnical Consultant provide
adequate testing and observations so that he may
determine that the work was accomplished as specified.
It sha11 be the responsibility of the Contractor to
~ assist the Geotechnical Consultant and keep him
apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may
schedule his personnel accordingly.
1.5 It sha11 be the sole responsibility of the Contractor
to provide adequate ecTUipment and methods to accomplish
the work in accordance with applicable grading codes,
agency ordinances, these specifications, and the
approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions,
such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are
~~
• •
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Two
resulting in a quality of work less than required in
these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant will
be empowered to reject the work and recommend that
construction be stopped until the conditions a:e
rectified.
1.6 It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide access
to the Geotechnical Consultant for testing and/or
grading observation purposes. This may require the
excavation of test pits and/or the relocation of
grading equipment.
1.7 A final report shall be issued by the Geotechnical
Consultant attesting to the C~ntractor's conformance
with these specifications.
2.0 SITE PREPARATION
2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be
disposed of off-site. This removal shall be observed
by the Geotechnical Consultant and concluded prior to
fill placement. ,
2.2 Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the
-Geotechnical Consultant as being unsuitable for
placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the
site or used in open areas as determined by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Any material incorporated as
a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placeaent.
2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been
cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by
the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts,
hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may
prevent uniform compaction. •
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to
optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as
specified. If the scarified zone is greater than
twelve inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and
placed in lifts not to exceed six inchesor less.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive
fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
~
• •
'~~ Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Three
2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as
cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed
or treated in a manner prescribed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
2.5 In cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are
partially in soil, colluvium or unweathered bedrock
materials, in order to provide uniform bearing
conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a
minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be
overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with
compacted fill. Greater overexcavation couldbe
required as determined by Geotechnical Consultant where
deep fill of 20+ feet transitions to bedrock over a
short distance. Typical details are given on Figure D-
1.
3.0 COMPACTED FILLS
3.1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be
approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soils of poor
gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall
~e placed in areas designated by Geotechnical
Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve
as satisfactory fill material, as direcced by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
3.2 Rock fragments less than twelve inches in diaaeter may
be utilized in the fill, provided:
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. There is a minimum of 75~ overall of fine grained
material to surround the rocks.
3. The distribution of rocks is supervised by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
3.3 Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be
taken off-site, or placed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant in areas
designated as suitable for rock disposal. (A typical
detail for Rock Disposal is given in Figure D-2.
Z~
.;
• •
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Four
3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise
considered unsuitable shall not be used in the
compacted fill.
3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as
compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of
the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their physical
properties. If any material other than that previously
tested is encountered during gradinq, the appropriate
analysis of this material shall be conducted by the
Geotechnical Consultant as soon as possible.
3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly
spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts
not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a
uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and
compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise
approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies
from that required by the Geotechnical-Consultant, the
Contractor shall rework.the fill until it is approved
by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the
maximum density in compliance with the testing method
specified by the controlling governmental agency or
ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies.
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authoriaed by
the controlling governmental agency because of a
specific land use or expansive soil condition, the area
to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall
either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate
reference made to the area in the geotechnical report.
3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all
topsoil, colluvium alluvium, or creep material, into
sound bedrock or firm material where the slope
receiving fi11 exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to
one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of
the Geotechnical Consultant.
3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimwn width of
15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless
otherwise specified in the geotechnical report. (See
detail on Figure D-3.)
~
• •
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Five
3.11 Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance
with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agency, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Consultant. (Typical Canyon Subdrain details are given
in Figure D-4.)
3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish
slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and
stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either
over building the slope and cutting back to the
compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope
face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure
which produces the required compaction approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from
erosion by other methods specified in the Geotechnical
report.
3.14 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly,keyed through
topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or fina
materials, and the transition shall be.stripped of all
soil prior to placing Pill. (See detail on Figure D-
'3 . )
4.0 CUT SLOPES
4.1 The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut
slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet.
4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical
report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or
con£ined strata of a potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes
encountered during grading, these conditions shall be
analyzed by the Geotechnical Consultant, and
recommendations shall be made to mitigate these
problems. (Typical details for stabili2ation of a
portion of a cut slope are given in Figures D-3a and D-
5.)
4.3 Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the
prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash
by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the tope
of the slope.
3~
, ~~ ~
•
•
Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Six
4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report,
no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies.
4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance
with the ordinances of controlling governmental
agencies, or with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Consultant.
5.0 TRENCH BACXFILLS
5.1 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be
backfilled under the supervision of the Geotechnical
Consultant.
5.2 After the utility pipe has been laid, the space under
and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand
or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one
foot over the top oE the pipe. The sand backPill shall
be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled
backfill is placed over the sand. "
5.3 The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the
•Geotechnical Consultant shall be watered and mixed as
necessary prior to placement in lifts over the sand
backfill.
5.4 The controlled backfill sha11 be compactec~"'to at least
90 percent of the maximum laboratory density as
determined by the ASTI D1557-70 or the controlling
governmental agency.
5.5 Field density tests and inspection of the backfill
procedures shall be made by the Geotechnical Consultant
during backfilling to see that proper moisture content
and uniform compaction is being maintained. The,
contractor shall provide test holes and exploratory
pits as required by the Geotechnical Consultant to
enable sampling and testing.
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by
the Geotechnical Consultant during the proqress of
grading.
3~
•
•
~ , Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Page Seven
6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals
not exceeding two feet af fill height or every 500
cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary
depending on soil conditions and the size of the job.
In any event, an adequate number of field density tests
shall be made to verify that the required compaction is
being achieved.
6.3 Density tests should also be made on the surface
material to receive fill as required by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
6.4 All cleanout, processed ground to receive fill, key
excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals should be
inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to placing any fill. It shall be the
Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical
Consultant when such areas are ready for inspection.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall•be
provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to
the completion and construction of permanent drainage
'controls.
7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of
inspections by the Geotechnical Consultant, no further
filling or excavating, including that necessary for
footings foundations, large tree~wells, retaining
walls, or other features shall be perPormed without the
approval of the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.3 Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final
grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces,
interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent
nature on or adjacent to the property.
3~
, FOUNDATiON AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIOENTIA~ BUILDINGS)
EXPAN9ION INOEX
0- t0
VERY LOW E%PAN910N
1-lT011Y fOOTIMO!
ALL FOOTIMOt 1] IMCNE!
OEE~. FOOTINOO
COMTIMUOYl. MO !TE[L
REOUINlO FOR E%~~XO~OM
FORCEl.
t-lT011Y FOOTMOe
ALL ROOTIMOL 1! IMCHES
OEl~. ROOTINO!
COMTINWUl. MO lTEEI
PE0111RED F011 E%~~MlIOM
FORCEl.
EXPANSION INDE%
31 - SO
lOW EXP~N910N
ALL fOOTIMU! 13 IMCN!!
DEE~. FOOTIMO!
COMTIM110Ul. 1-MO. ~ ~~II
TO~ ANO lOROY.
EXPANSIONINDE%
Sl - GO
MEDIUM E%VANSION
F%TERIOn fOOT~HOD ~~
INCME! OEE~. IMTERIOR
FOOTINGO tt iMCME! CEE~.
1-MO. l !AN TOV ~MO
lOTTOY.
E%GANSION INOE%
Gt - t90
HIQM E%PANSION
E%TE111011 fOOTM10D 2! IMCIK•
OFEI. IMTERIOF FOOTIM~~ tp
IMCM[! OFEP. t-NO. a lI111 TO~
AMD sOTTOY.
•LL FOOTINO! 1~ IMCMCt •LL POOTINOD ts IMCME! E%TENIOR fOOTIM06 14 IMCN!!
DlE~. ROO~MO! OEE~. FOOTiMaD OEEP. IMTERIOR fOOTiNOe f~
CONTIMUOUl. 1-MO. l lAll CONTIXUOUl. 1-MO. ~!~R IMCXE! OEEP. 1-~O. 6 G~R TO~
TO~ AMO lOTTOY, TO~ ANO lOTTOY. .1MC SOTTOY.
0~11ApE 00011 GRAOE NOT 11E011111EO. 1P IMCMlO OFEt. 1-MO. ~~~II 1~ IMGME! DEE~. 1-MO. ~~~II t~ IMCNE! OEE~. 1-MO. 6~All
~Q~Y TO~ AMO lOTTOM. TO~ AMO ~OTTOY. TO~ ~MD GOTTOY.
LIVNq AlllA fIOOR QAte 01/S IMCN!! TNICR.NO Y!!M J 1/3 INCNE! TINCR, 0 1/3 INGM[! TMICK. / INCMB! TNICK. ~ Y 0-V~
11lOU111ED Fp1 f%t~MaION s z ~-t0/t0 w111E r!!N ~T ~% 1-10/10 W111! 4!!M AT WIIIC YE~N 1T YIMMf10MT.
I011CH0. MO !A!E NEOU~1l0. YIO-XEIOXT. 3 IMCMEe MIO-MlIOMT. ~ IMCXEO N0, i OOMltI! IROY IOOTMO
~ YI~ VItOYEEM YOIOTVII[ OR~VEL 011 lAMO ~A~l. ~ OR~VfL 011 GAMp lA86. 1 TO llA~ AT i! IMCME! OM
t~RRI[11 KW t IMCN ]AMO. ~ Yq VILOUEEM YOIOiU11t YI~ VIOOUECM YOIOTURt ClMTlR. ~ MGNlS G11~VR 011
~~MKI1 T~U! 1 INCX sewo. ~~nnian r~ua i iheh seho. s~ho seaa. ~ ra vuow~M
MOIlTUII! lAllllllll KY~ t
IMGM t~MO.
O~MOf ~LOOII llA~6 ] t/= IMCN80 ~MICR. MO Y!!M 0 1/1 IMCX!! TMqR. 0 Vf N~CNQ! TNICK. ~ pCM!! MICK. ~% h~/~
R[OVI11l0 R011 E%~~MeIOM ~% ~-t0/t0 WIII! ~!!M 011 ~% htU/t0 WMQ Y!!M 011 WM! YlLM OII OV1111Tl11
fOI1CEi MO !~0[ RCOWII6D. OIIA11TE11 l~A~O. I80L~T! pV~11TR11 !~A!!. ItOLAi! ~LA~l. IlOIATC II10Y ~T[M
NO YOIOTU116 OAPRIl11 RqOY lTEY WALI fOOTIMpl, f110Y lTCY WAIL /OOTINOt. W~LL FOOTN100. ~ RICM!!
11[OYIIIBD. II IMCM!! IIOCR, 011AYEL OI1 ~ IMCN!! IIOCR, QMY(L OII IIOCK, OMV[l 011 lANO M!!.
lANO !~0[. NO YOI~TVII( . ~~MD ~AiE. MO YOI~TU11{ MO YOIlTYII! ~~1111q11
. lAPIIIQII RlOUIIIlD. - ~~11111[11 plOU111f0. II[OWO[D.
NI[~lOARIMO 01 l1VIN0 MOT 11lOU111l0. YOIlt[M ' ~O~R TO t! IMCMlt O['TM eoeK ro u reHee onn~ ~o~a to x~ iwewea oVrw ro
Al1EA ~MD OA11A0[ ~lA~ INIOII t0 ~OURIMO TO 1i A~OV! O~TIYYY T6 6f A~OV! OITIYYY ~l1 ~~OV! O~TIMUM MOIOTYII!
~q~D ~ONCAETC. YOIOTUIIE COMTEXT. Y01lTUR6 CONTlNT. GONTlMT.
NOT~~: 1) ~lL 0[PTN! All{ NlLATIV!'i0 6tA/ lU~OR~Ol.
t) !-fC1~L D6SI4N I! REOUIREO ~OR VENY MIOX~Y F%PANOIV@ eOIL0.
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL
MOT TO SCALE)
DONEL (WMEM
stw~ su~an~oe-~ M~RE
~ ~~ I 0l~TM OR
INTEIIq~
OEITM OR ~cQQO DB~TN O~ ROOTIMO
E%TER1011 ~=. t11F-60AKED ~
roorwo ~:o° sa~
INTE111011
FOOTIIq
uren
011 l~ND ~~!! (WNEX R80U111{D)
R6IM/OPGIMO ~~II
IWMtX II[OU111ED1
I FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS '~-~ I
' „ , ' ~ ROCK DISPOSAL DETAI L•
(Boulders greater than two feet
in diameter)
BUILDING
. Finish grade
Clear area for foundations,
utilities, and pools 10~ S
/ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ \
O O~. O O O~
O ~ 15 \~
~ \~
W indrow
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAI L iedge viewi
~_~ -,~
.-,•-, ~. ~
i i i~'i ~
`~i :
~i~~~~
Horizontally placed
compacted fill
15'
PROFILE VIEW
Clean (S.E. > 30)
Granular soil flooded
to fill voids
%
face
~--~------
10' or below depth of
deepest utility trench,
which ever is deeper
~J J
,~,,.~ ~
~ t, ;
APPENDIX D
•
~
dr 4~ ~ t ' .s ~:
p .r ~ c
1 cv ~
PUBLISHED REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998, A Computer Program for the Deterministic
Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration rom Digitized
California Faults, EQFAULT, July 1994
Blake, T.F., 1998, A Computer Program for the Assessment of
Liquefaction Potential Utilizinq Fie1d SPT Data, LIQUEFY2, August
1998
Department of Water Resources (D4~R), 1971, Water Wells and
Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River
Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California, Bull.
No. 91-20, August 1971, 377 pages
Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map with Index to
Earthquake and Fault Zone Maps, CDMG Spec. Pub. 42, 34 pages
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faultinq along the
Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California,
CDMG Spec. Report 131, 12 paqes
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer,. C.H., Cao, T., Reichle,
M.S., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State
of California, CDMG Open-File Report 96-08, 33 pages
Plossel, M.P., and Slosson, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground
Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology
Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985,
"Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance
Evaluations," Journal of the Geotechnical Enaineerina Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 111, no GT12, pp 1425-
1445.
Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, Y., 1984, "Criteria of Soil
Liquefaction with SPT and Fines Content," Proceedings, Eiahth
World Conference on Earthauake Engineerinq, San Francisco, vol
III, pp. 255-262
UNPUBLISHED REFERENCES
RGS Consultants, "Prelimianry Percolation Investigation APN 945-
070-011, SEC Ormsby and Estero Street, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California", Report Dated september 13, 1994,
Proj. No. 43-01
3~
,
.
r
~
(
(
Z
Q
Q
J
a
X
W
O
H
F
~
r'"
. ~
.°'ti.
a
•
~
~
Q
2
o
aWi
~
~-zi
~
U
. r-i
i
~
o
~
F
Q
~n
H
0.
C.~~
W
fn
r
~
~-,
w
~
a
¢
a
W
2
N~
z
Q
X
W
o
~
Z
fn
~
. ~
L~
w
~
~
~-
~ z
~
~
o
u~i
.~
(n
H
~
~
N
a
x~
oH
r~1U ~
wo
aw°o
mww
~n F`' in
~° u`°i a
. .-~ O
d~. F
O 6 Z P.
3 ~
F G O Q
~
H ~ a
o u. °' ~
Ha~acG
Ud3H
qtr HO
~
~~f1
~ ~
O
~~
~i - ' W H
aaw
~nvWi
x ..]~W
aaa
d~mo
s
~
~
~
,~s
~;~._
. - _. , .
- :~ - \
~,
~ - -- -_~
-~.`~,! .
0.
---"'-~~ - -; - - ~ - -- - ~
~jq ~`
...-...
~--~100
~ ~~.~.i ~'~~ _ - .
_- ~ ~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~> ~ N
~- ~ ~ e - ~ _ ~~
N ' . g .
~ Q
'O iW ~ ~~~i ~ _ I
~ ~ ~ I ~~ _ ~ .' 1--- ~ c+
,~ I ~ ~, L~~~` ~ ~ ~
i a t 1- " --
I a~o~ 0. `~ mLl ~~,
~ ~~ _ b I ~.
~ ~~~
I a
.. ~ ~ i ~ -'~' ~-~ . k
- ~ I: :i
~..-i ~
., , ~`
-\ - .
- _- -~
-- _ ;
~ W
g
a
~q- ~ --- -
,~
~'
I a
~
1 ~. `
l a N
/ ~
L -~ _ .
\ -.
~
1
~
.
E
~:
~ :~
r_ ~
~=1~% _
~~
, ~.
\~
,