HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 19872-5 As Graded Geotechnical _T � -: t-
1
1
1
' AS-GRADED
' GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
TRACTS 19872-5 & 19872-6
WOLF VALLEY
RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1
' PREPARED FOR:
MR. JIM MANISCALCO
' H.R. REMINGTON PROPERTIES
THREE MONARCH BAY PLAZA, SUITE 202
SOUTH LAGUNA, CALIFORNIA 92677
1
' APRIL 2, 1990
PROJECT NO. 101188-05
' /�/biyo�/�1►oore \
H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
' Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
' Engineering Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
GroundWater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
' Finish Grade Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
' Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Illustrations
' Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Maximum Density Test Results
Figure 3 - Retaining Wall Drain Detail
Table 1 - Summary of Field Density Tests
' Plate 1 - As-Graded Geotechnical Map, Tract 19872-5
Plate 2 - As-Graded Geotechnical Map, Tract 19872-6
Appendices
' Appendix A - References
' i 2
yayvffi/�1►oorc
—L
Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences CcinSVltanrs
' April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' H.R. Remington Properties
Three Monarch Bay Plaza, Suite 202
' South Laguna, California 92677
Attention: Mr. Jim Maniscalco
Subject: As-Graded Geotechnical Report,
Tracts 19872-5 & 19872-6,
Wolf Valley, Rancho California Area,
Riverside County, California
' Introduction
' In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed geotechnical
observation and testing services during the remedial grading operations of Tracts 19872-5
' and 19872-6 located in the Rancho California area of Riverside County, California
(Figure 1). This report summarizes our observations and our field and laboratory test
' results made during remedial grading operations at the site between December 13, 1989,
and February 16, 1990. Geotechnical recommendations regarding construction of the
proposed one and two-story residential structures are also included. The results of our
observations and testing of utility trench backfill will be presented under separate cover.
' Site Location
' Tract 19872 is a roughly rectangular, approximately 80-acre parcel bounded by Pala Road
to the east, Via Gilberto to the south, Pechanga Creek to the west and residential property
' to the north. This report has been prepared to summarize the as-graded geotechnical
conditions of Tracts 19872-5 (Lots 1 through 61) and 19872-6 (Lots 1 through 55), which
are located in the northern and western portions of Tract 19872.
1
' 10225 Barnes Canyon Road Suite A-1 12 • San Diego, California 92121 • Phone)619) 457-0400 • Fax)619) 558-1236
ca., ni,,r, • Irvine
H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
I '
Backeround
' The eastern portion of Tract 19872-6 was mass graded under the observation and testing
of Leighton & Associates in February 1987. The mass grading for Tract 19872-5 and the
western portion of Tract 19872-6 was performed between December 1988 and March
1989 under the observation and testing of Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc., as described in
' their report dated April 6, 1989 (Appendix A). Due to the discovery of ground cracks in
the adjacent Tracts 19872-1, 19872-3 and 19872-4 in August 1987, development of the
' project ceased temporarily while investigations were performed to evaluate the cause of
the ground cracks. Studies performed by Leighton and Associates, Inc., indicated that the
' ground cracks most likely developed along the Wolf Valley fault as a result of subsidence
due to pumping of ground water from nearby wells (Appendix A). Trenching was
' performed by Leighton and Associates Inc., Douglas E. Moran, Inc., and Ninyo & Moore
to locate a zone of ground cracks and fault offsets of the Wolf Valley fault, which trends
' roughly north-south through Tracts 19872-3 and 19872-4. As a result of the subsurface
investigations, a fault setback zone (Restricted Use Zone) was established by Douglas E.
Moran, Inc. This zone, which is shown on their map dated August 15, 1989, extends for
a distance of 50 feet to the west and east of the zone of fault offsets. The construction
' of structures for human occupancy is prohibited in the Restricted Use Zone. The
Restricted Use Zone does not extend into Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6.
' Upon completion of our investigation of faulting, our firm performed an investigation to
t evaluate the geotechnical conditions. As discussed in our report dated December 1, 1989,
limited areas of Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6 required removal and recompaction of fill and
alluvium due to low relative compaction of the fill or potential compressibility of the
alluvium. Trenches excavated and loosely backfilled during the investigation of faulting also
' required removal and recompaction. Remaining lots within Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6
were scarified in the upper 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted.
' 2
1
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' Earthwork
' o Earthwork Operations and Testing_ During Remedial Grading
The remedial grading operations for Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6 were performed
' under the observation and testing of our firm between December 13, 1989, and
February 16, 1990. The remedial grading of Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6 was
' performed concurrently with the remedial grading of Tracts 19872-3 and 19872-
4, located generally west and northwest of Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6. The
' results of our observation and testing for only Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6 are
presented in this report. The results of the grading observation and testing for
' Tracts 19872-3 and 19872-4 were presented in our report dated February 23, 1990.
' Grading observations and field density testing of compacted fills were performed
by our representatives, who were on-site during the remedial grading operations.
' The 40-scale grading plans for the subject property, prepared by PHB Engineering,
dated December 17, 1987, were utilized for our work during the grading operations
and for preparation of the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2). The
grading contractor on the site was Grand Terrace Construction. During the
' remedial grading operations, the remedial removals, and other on-site excavations
were observed, as necessary, by a geologist from our firm.
Prior to the commencement of remedial grading, several trenches were excavated
' to more accurately define the limits of removal proposed in our report dated
December 1, 1989. The test trenches indicated that the limits of removal were
generally less extensive than shown in our December 1, 1989, report. The actual
limits of removal are shown herein on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates
' 1 and 2).
3
4"offi/ GUre
1
1 H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
1
1 Prior to the commencement of remedial grading, vegetation and debris were
1 stripped and removed from areas to be graded. Loose artificial fill soils and loose
native alluvial soils were removed within the areas of proposed remedial grading
1 in accordance with our field recommendations and our report dated December 1,
1989 (Appendix A). Prior to the placement of compacted fills, the ground was
scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density, as
1 evaluated by ASTM D1557-78.
' o Remedial Alluvium Removals
Potentially compressible alluvial soils encountered within Tract 19872-6 were
1 removed in accordance with the field recommendations and the recommendations
presented in our report dated December 1, 1989, prior to the placement of
1 compacted structural fills. These areas, which are shown on the As-Graded
Geotechnical Map (Plate 2), were removed to moist, dense, competent material.
1 Alluvium was removed in Tract 19872-6 on Lots 18 through 31 to a maximum
depth of approximately 10 feet. Portions of Lots 18 and 19 were overexcavated
1 3 feet to reduce the fill differential across the lots.
1 0 Remedial Removals of Pre-Existing Fill Soils
Pre-existing fill soils with low relative compactions and/or low moisture contents
1 were removed, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent of
the maximum dry density in accordance with our field recommendations and our
1 geotechnical report dated December 1, 1989. Removals of exploratory trench
backfills from our subsurface investigation and of pre-existing fills from the mass
1 grading in areas where fills had low compactions and/or low moisture contents
were performed. We did not remove and recompact the exploratory trench
1 backfill for exploratory excavations performed by others. We understand that the
4
i )ftV&)KUUre
1
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' backfill for Trench SDA-13, which crossed Lots 1-5 in Tract 19872-6 and Lots 31-
' 33 in Tract 19872-5, was placed, compacted and documented by Schaeffer-Dixon
Associates as discussed in the report by Douglas A Moran, Inc., dated March 10,
1989.
Removals were performed in Tract 19872-5 on Lots 20 through 25 on El Osito
Court to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet. Portions of Lot 20 were
' overexcavated 3 feet to reduce the fill differential across the lot. Relatively loose
fill was also removed and recompacted from the rear of Lots 8, 9 and 10 in Tract
' 19872-6 on Escalante Court to a maximum depth of approximately 9 feet. The
areas of approximate removal and recompaction are shown on Plates 1 and 2.
' Due to the depth of some of the exploratory trenches and the unsafe conditions
' associated with entering the trenches to perform field density tests, most of the
trenches were not tested below a depth of 5 feet. Observations were made of
the backfilling operations and, in our opinion, it appeared that sufficient
compactive effort was applied to properly compact the soil.
' o Fill Compaction
Our observations and test results indicate that the structural fills placed during the
remedial grading of Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6 have been compacted to at least
t90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-78, with the exception of
a portion of the fill slope rebuilt above the storm drain between Lots 27 and 28
' in Tract 19872-5 and Lots 44 and 45 in Tract 19872-6. We understand that these
areas will be reworked within a few weeks of the date of this report. The results
' of our field density tests in fills placed and compacted during remedial grading are
included in Table 1. The laboratory evaluations of maximum dry density and
' optimum moisture content of representative samples of the fill soils are presented
' 5 /Vf*.9V& *oore
1
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
in Figure 2. The approximate extent of compacted fill and locations of field
' density tests are presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2).
' The results of field density tests performed in utility trench backfill are shown in
Table 2. The station numbers, which identify the test locations, are also presented
tin Table 2.
o Lots Scarified and Recompacted in the Upper 12 Inches
As recommended in our geotechnical report dated December 1, 1989, lots that
' were not overexcavated during remedial grading were scarified to a depth of ap-
proximately 12 inches. The soil was moisture conditioned to near optimum
' moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. The following lots were scarified and recompacted in the upper 12
' inches: Tract 19872-5, Lots 1 through 9, Lots 11 through 19, and Lots 26 through
61, and Tract 19872-6, Lots 1 through 17, and Lots 32 through 55.
' Engineering Geology_
' The geologic units encountered during remedial grading are generally similar to those
described in our report dated December 1, 1989. The approximate limits of the geologic
' units mapped within the project boundary are indicated on the As-Graded Geotechnical
Maps (Plates 1 and 2). A brief description of the geologic units encountered is presented
' below:
o Undocumented Fill Soils
' Some undocumented piles of loose end-dumped fill soils were encountered at
various locations on the site. These fill soils were removed.
6
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' o Exploratory Trench Backfill
During the remedial grading operations the trench backfills from our geotechnical
' investigation of the site were removed, moisture conditioned and recompacted in
accordance with our recommendations. The approximate limits of trench backfill
' removal and recompaction are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates
1 and 2).
o Fill Soils - (Map Svmbol-Qaf)
' Fill soils were placed and compacted during the remedial grading of the site under
the observation and testing of Ninyo & Moore. The approximate limits of the
' compacted fill soils on the site are indicated on Plates 1 and 2.
' o Alluvium - (Map Symbol-Qal)
' Some deposits of potentially compressible alluvium were encountered during the
remedial grading. These soils were removed to moist, dense, competent materials
t prior to the placement of structural fills in accordance with our field recommenda-
tions and the project geotechnical report dated December 1, 1989. The alluvium
consisted primarily of light gray to brown, silty sands and sandy silts. The alluvium
was encountered primarily in Tract 19872-6.
' o Pauba Formation - (Map Symbol-Qpl
' The Pauba Formation was encountered in both Tract 19872-5 and Tract 19872-6.
The Pauba Formation consists primarily of medium brown to red-brown, medium
' dense to dense, silty sandstone with lenses of gravel and cobbles.
' 7 Nlr'yo�Moore �
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' Ground Water
No ground water was encountered during the remedial grading operations. Our
' geotechnical investigation report indicated that the depth to the static ground water table
is generally at least 25 feet below existing grade, but may be shallower, especially in the
' vicinity of Pecbanga Creek.
' Finish Grade Soils
Visual observation and laboratory testing performed during our geotechnical investigation
suggest that the finish grade soils have a very low potential for expansion as determined
by UBC Standard 29-2. Expansion test results are presented in our report dated
' December 1, 1989.
' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The remedial grading of Tracts 19872-5 and 19872-6 was generally performed in
' accordance with our field recommendations and the recommendations contained in our
geotechnical report dated December 1, 1989. Our observations and field and laboratory
' test results indicate that the structural fill soils placed during grading have been compacted
to at least 90 percent relative compaction as evaluated utilizing test methods ASTM
' D1556-82, D2922-81, D2937-83,.and D1557-78.
' Foundation and Slab Design
' Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and
the following recommendations. The foundations are not intended to control differential
' movement of soils. Minor cracking of the foundations and slabs due to soil movement
and/or concrete shrinkage may occur. The following recommendations, which assume very
O
H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
t
' low expansion on pads of finish grade, may be utilized for one or two-story wood-frame
' residential structures.
o Footines
The proposed residences may be supported by conventional continuous or isolated
' spread footings founded in properly compacted fill materials at a minimum depth
of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade for one-story residences and
' at a minimum depth of 18 inches for two-story residences. Isolated footings should
have a minimum width of 18 inches and should be reinforced in accordance with
' structural considerations. Isolated exterior footings utilized for column support of
entry porches should be connected to the continuous footings with a grade beam.
' The grade beam should be reinforced with two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, one
placed near the top and one placed near the bottom.
' Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches for a one-story
residence and 15 inches for a two-story residence. The footings should be
reinforced with at least two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, on placed near the top
' and one near the bottom.
' When founded as above, spread and isolated footings may be designed using a
maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot. The
' allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for loads of short
duration such as wind or seismic forces. Our laboratory testing and calculations
indicate that total settlements for footings, designed in accordance with the above
recommendations, should be less than one inch for this type of light construction.
9
' )VhWV&/Moore
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' o Floor Slabs
We understand that post-tension foundation systems may be constructed for the
proposed residences on the site. If post-tension slabs are to be constructed, we
' recommend that the foundation system be designed by a qualified structural
engineer in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Post-Tensioning
' Institute. If a post-tension foundation system is not utilized, we recommend that
the footings and slabs be constructed as described below.
' All concrete slabs-on-grade should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations are
based on our observations that the soils within 3 feet of finished pad grade have
' very low expansion potential.
Concrete slab-on-grade floors (garages included) should have a minimum thickness
of 4 inches. If moisture-sensitive floor coverings are to be installed, we recom-
mend that the slab be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand, which is underlain by
a 6-mil (minimum) visqueen moisture barrier which is, in turn, underlain by 2
' inches (minimum) of clean sand. The upper 2 inches of clean sand is
recommended to protect the visqueen moisture barrier and aid in the curing of the
' concrete. The moisture barrier may be eliminated for garage slabs. If moisture
barriers are not used, we recommend that garage slabs be underlain by a
' minimum of 4 inches of clean sand. Further, we recommend that prior to the
placing of the slab, the subsurface soils should be pre-moistened, if necessary, to
' attain a moisture content that is above optimum moisture content.
Minimum reinforcement in the slab should consist of 6x6-10/10 (6x6-W1.4/W1.4)
welded wire mesh throughout. The wire mesh should be sheet stock, and care
' should be taken to see that the mesh is placed in the middle one-third of the slab
10 \�
' /�/lnyo�/�►oore
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' height. We recommend that the wire mesh be placed on chairs to aid in proper
' placement of the reinforcement. We further recommend, as part of your contract
with the concrete subcontractor, that the concrete subcontractor assures the mesh
will be placed in the slab per the above recommendations. Reinforcement
materials should be observed by a representative of a qualified materials testing
laboratory prior to pouring slabs.
' Our past experience indicates that there is a relatively high degree of difficulty
involved in the proper placement of welded wire mesh reinforcement within floor
' slabs. It is our opinion that appropriate placement of rebar reinforcement with
the use of chairs is more easily accomplished than welded wire mesh. Based on
' the above, we recommend that the use of rebar reinforcement in the concrete
floor slabs be considered as an alternative. If this alternative is utilized, concrete
' floor slabs may be reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars, spaced 24 inches
apart, placed in both directions. The reinforcing steel bars should be properly
' placed in the middle one-third of the slab (supported on chairs) and maintained
in that position during concrete placement.
o Moisture Conditionine and Concrete Placement
Prior to placement of the new slabs, we recommend that the subgrade soils be
moisture conditioned. In order to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the
' concrete during curing, we recommend that the concrete be placed with a
maximum slump of 4 inches. The slump should be checked at the site by a
' representative of a qualified materials testing laboratory prior to placement. We
further recommend that crack control joints be provided in both the interior and
' garage slabs in accordance with the recommendations of a structural engineer to
reduce the potential for distress due to minor soil movement and concrete
shrinkage.
11
H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
Building Setbacks for Slopes
We recommend a minimum setback of 8 feet from the face of slopes for building foun-
dations proposed near the top of slopes five feet or higher. The setback should not be
less than 8 feet and need not be greater than 10 feet. For slopes less than five feet in
' height, we recommend foundations be setback at least five feet from the top of slope.
' Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures
The following recommendations may be utilized for foundations and retaining walls on the
' site. Foundations placed in firm, natural soils or properly compacted fill soils may be
designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 (total frictional resistance equals coefficient
' of friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance value of 300 psf per foot of
depth (with a maximum value of 3,000 psf) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance
' can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance provided the
passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. The passive
resistance values may be increased by one third when considering loads of short duration
such as wind or seismic forces.
' Retaining walls backfilled using granular soils should be designed using the following
' equivalent fluid pressures.
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weights
' (pounder cubic foot)
Level Backfill 2:1 Slope Backfill
Cantilever wall/crib wall (yielding) 35 45
' Restrained wall (nonyielding) 60 80
12
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
t
' The above values assume non-expansive, granular backfill and free-draining conditions.
' Measures should be taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls.
Drainage measures should include the use of free-draining backfill materials and perforated
' drains, as designed by, the project architect or structural engineer. Drains should be
connected to outlets located away from the structure. A typical drainage design is
' attached as Figure 4, Retaining Wall Drain Detail. Walls should further be waterproofed
in accordance with the recommendations of the project architect. Retaining wall footings
' should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations presented
in this report and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations.
' Exterior Flatwork
' To reduce the potential for distress to the exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement or
expansion of the underlying soils, we recommend that exterior flatwork have crack control
' joints with appropriate spacings designed by the structural engineer. Efforts should be
made to maintain a uniform moisture content in the underlying soils, and positive drainage
' should be established and maintained adjacent to all flatwork.
' Drainage
Positive surface drainage should be established and controlled at all times. We recom-
mend that all future structures have eave drains and roof gutters to collect roof runoff.
Positive drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from any future
' structures, toward the streets or to suitable drainage facilities. Positive drainage may be
defined as a slope of at least two percent for a distance of at least five feet away from
' foundations and the top of slopes. Runoff should then be directed by the use of swales
and/or pipes into a collective drainage system. Surface waters should not be allowed to
' pond adjacent to footings. Area drains in the areas of decking and lawns are recom-
mended. We recommend that positive drainage away from the tops of slopes be provided
13
1 /yayo�/yloore
1
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' and maintained. Lot drainage should be directed such that surface water on slopes is
' minimized.
Limitations
The field investigation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this
' report have been conducted in accordance with current engineering practice and the
standard of care exercise by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in
' this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions,
recommendations, and professional opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist
' and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during
construction. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the
' observed conditions. If conditions different than those described in this report are
encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required,
' will be provided upon request. In addition, it should be noted that the near-surface soils
on all lots or graded slopes may become disturbed as a result of erosion, traffic, or other
' factors which are beyond our control, and may need to be reworked as part of future
development.
tThe precision of the field density tests and maximum dry density tests are not exact and
' variations should be expected. The American Society for Testing Materials has recently
investigated the precision of ASTM Method No. D1557-78 and has concluded the accuracy
' of the maximum dry density is approximately 4 percent of the mean value, and the
accuracy of the optimum moisture content is approximately 15 percent of the mean value.
' The precision of the field density tests has not yet been determined; however, it must be
recognized that these tests are also subject to variations in accuracy.
14
' /�nyn�/�/►oore
t H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any
' questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
' Very truly yours,
NINYO & MOORE
Clifford A. Craft, RCE 28832/GE 243 AGr1o7T Farrand, CEG 1087
Chief Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geologist
' CAP/CAC/GTF/atm �-PED GE'
O
Distribution: (6) Addressee G� l C
V T. F �
' (1) Mr. Karl Kretzschmar 1p'
Q r�O\No. toaA , s'�
C�rtifia� Z
Engin:rring
Grolooist
' Exp. x}
o QROFESS/1 qlF OF CPI'�
AL
' No. 28832
' sr c1 .
qTf OF CAUF�`��
15
/V*.9V& QQrr-
rL
n�talir�if10
S `
--- -------------- --
--- +- SITEK \
oOf ---- + -- --- -,--y>•=+- - - y-I --
I
I I o f I II
I I I I
__ __ _____ __ 4--_________-F_____ ____ _ _�__ tyY,_
I ;II,•',-----i—————
---Brief
01
fi
p m
- --- - - - - -- t - --------- + ------ 1 -- T � I > ., '
-- -------+ -------- _
I
I I
I I
I
R/VEAS/DEC I
I Y I SAN a G� O
______—+____- -___
�M I co
-�
I I
REFERENCE: 1988 Thomas Guide, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties Street Guide & Directory
' 0 '2640 6280
Scale in Feet
' NORTH
SITE LOCATION MAP
'
TRACTS 19872-5 AND 19872-6 RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE
101186-0 4/90 FIGURE 1
' SAMPLE MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM
LOCATION SOIL DESCRIPTION DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE
CONTENT
' 2 Dark brown clayey SAND 130.9 8.2
4 Dark brown silty SAND 128.1 9.6
6 Brown slightly clayey silty SA14D 134.1 7.7
7 Brown slightly clayey silty SAND 134.0 7.3
11 Dark brown sandy SILT 128.1 9.8
' 12 Brown-tan silty SAND 123.7 10.9
13 Brown silty SAND 130.8 7.7
t THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (ASTM) HAS EVALUATED THE PRECISION OF THE i:.4XIMUM
DENSITY TEST METHOD (ASTM D1557-78), AND HAS INDICATED THAT VARIATIONS IN THE TEST RESULTS CAN
OCCUR. ASTM DEFINES THE ACCEPTABLE RANGE OF TWO RESULTS IN TABLE 3 IN THE TEXT OF ASTM D1557-78.
' THE RANGE IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY TWO RESULTS E\PRESSED AS A PER-
CENTAGE OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE TWO RESULTS DOES NOT EXCEED 4.0 PERCENT. AS YET, ASTM HAS NOT
REPORTED PRECISION VALUES FOR FIELD DENSITY TEST METHODS, BUT 4!E EXPECT THAT VARIATIONS IN THE FIELD
DENSITY TEST RESULTS COULD ALSO OCCUR. ACCORDINGL'i, THE ACCURACY OF THE RELATIVE COMPACTION VALUES
PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT IS DEPENDENT ON THE PRECISION OF THE ASTM TEST METHOD, AND THEREFORE, THE
TEST RESULTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO VARIATION.
- — PE"WED 91 GEMIAL ACCORDN=Mf H ASTM 01667-7&
MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS
' TRACT19872-5 AND 19872-6
iyv�/�oore RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA \�
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
' PROJECT NO.1 DATE FIGURE 2
101188-05 1 4/90
FILTER MATERIAL
Filter material shall be Class 2 permeable
material per State of California Standard
Specifications or approved alternate
geofabric drain system.
Class 2 grading as follows:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING
1 100
3/4 90-100
' 3/8" 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
' No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
t
' SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO AT LEAST
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
RETAINING WALL 0 O O CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL,
0 COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90 PERCENT
0 RELATIVE COMPACTION*
c
o e o
o c
1' MIN. VARIES
0
O 0 0 D
O O 00
O O
' FINISHED GRADE o 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
6* MIN. O
T - - c
o
00 O p 3.
WALL FOOTING T 4' DIAMETER PERFORATED SCHEDULE
40 PVC PIPE OR EQUIVALENT INSTALLED
WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN. MINIMUM
1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO JUST BEYOND
' WALL AND THEN NON-PERFORATED PIPE
TO STREET OR SUITABLE OUTLET.
BASED ON ASTM D1557-78
' NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3
&4400re RETAINING WALL
DRAIN DETAIL
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DEIISITY TESTS FOR TRACTS 19672-5 AND 19872-6
Approx Moisture Content Dry Density Relative Soit
Test Test El ev. Field Optia Field Max. Coapaction Type
No. Date of Test location (feet) (%) (%) (pcf) (pcf) m No. Remarks
41* 12/26/89 FG LOT 110, 32 TRACT 6 61.9 6.3 8.2 119.3 130.9 91 2
42# 12/26/89 CF LOT NO. 29 TRACT 6 54.0 9.5 9.8 115.1 128.1 90 11
43# 12/26/89 CF LOT NO. 28 TRACT 6 55.9 10.2 9.8 116.3 128.1 91 11
44# 12/26/89 FG LOT NO. 33 TRACT 6 62.1 6.6 8.2 118.2 130.9 90 2
45# 12/26/89 FG LOT NO. 34 TRACT 6 62.4 7.0 8.2 119.1 130.9 91 2
46# 12/26/89 FG LOT NO. 35 TRACT 6 62.3 6.2 8.2 119.2 130.9 91 2
' 47# 12/27/89 CF LOT No. 30 TRACT 6 56.0 10.8 10.9 110.4 123.7 89 12 RETEST ON 59#
48# 12/27/89 CF LOT NO. 27 TRACT 6 58.0 8.2 8.2 118.5 130.9 91 2
49# 12/27/89 CF LOT NO. 25 TRACT 6 58.0 8.8 9.8 117.5 128.1 92 11
50# 12/27/89 CF LOT NO. 24 TRACT 6 60.0 8.5 9.8 116.1 128.1 91 11
51# 12/27/89 CF LOT No. 31 TRACT 6 61.0 11.0 10.9 113.9 123.7 92 12
52# 12/28/19 CF LOT 10. 18 TRACT 6 18.0 10.9 10.9 113.0 123.7 91 12
53# 12/28/89 CF LOT No. 20 TRACT 6 58.0 11.5 9.8 116.7 128.1 91 11
54# 12/28/89 CF LOT NO. 23 TRACT 6 56.0 7.0 8.2 119.5 130.9 91 2
55# 12/28/89 CF LOT NO. 22 TRACT 6 58.0 11.0 8.2 107.1 130.9 82 2 RETEST ON 56#
56# 12/28/89 CF LOT NO. 21 TRACT 6 60.0 7.4 8.2 119.2 130.9 91 2 RETEST OF 55#
57# 12/29/89 CF LOT NO. 19 TRACT 6 59.0 10.4 10.9 112.3 123.7 91 12
' 59# 12/29/89 CF LOT NO. 30 TRACT 6 56.0 11.9 10.9 113.9 123.7 92 12 RETEST OF 47#
97# 01/05/90 FG LOT NO. 1 TRACT 5 76.6 8.3 9.6 118.9 128.1 93 4
98# 01/05/90 FG LOT NO. 2 TRACT 5 76.4 9.0 9.6 116.5 128.1 91 4
99* 01/05/90 FG LOT NO. 3 TRACT 5 75.6 9.1 9.6 115.9 128.1 90 4
102# 01/08/90 FG LOT NO. 4 TRACT 5 75.2 10.2 9.8 116.9 128.1 91 11
' 103# 11/08/90 FG LOT NO. 5 TRACT 5 74.8 9.3 9.8 117.5 128.1 92 11
104# 01/08/90 FG LOT NO. 6 TRACT 5 74.3 10.5 9.8 117.0 128.1 91 11
108* 01/09/90 CF LOT NO. 24 TRACT 5 57.0 8.6 7.7 122.9 130.8 94 13
109* 01/09/90 CF LOT NO. 21 TRACT 5 63.0 9.1 7.7 126.1 130.8 96 13
110* 01/09/90 CF LOT NO. 23 TRACT 5 62.0 9.3 7.7 123.1 130.8 94 13
111# 01/09/90 CF LOT NO. 24 TRACT 5 63.0 8.6 7.7 118.1 130.8 90 13
' 112# 01/09/90 CF LOT NO. 21 TRACT 5 63.0 7.5 7.7 123.9 130.8 95 13
113* 01/09/90 FG LOT NO. 50 TRACT 5 65.7 7.8 8.2 110.0 130.9 84 2 RETEST ON 304#
114* 01/09/90 FG LOT NO. 53 TRACT 5 66.7 5.9 8.2 113.1 130.9 86 2 RETEST ON 305*
115# 01/10/90 CF LOT NO. 23 TRACT 5 64.0 8.7 8.2 123.7 130.9 94 2
116* 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 43 TRACT 6 60.5 9.8 9.6 118.5 128.1 93 4
' 117* 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 47 TRACT 6 61.0 8.6 9.6 116.1 128.1 91 4
118* 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 39 TRACT 6 61.3 10.3 9.6 120.5 128.1 94 4
119* 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 36 TRACT 6 62.0 7.4 9.6 114.7 128.1 90 4
120* 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 18 TRACT 6 60.6 9.6 9.6 120.7 128.1 94 4
121* 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 22 TRACT 6 61.4 11.4 9.6 121.7 128.1 95 4
' 125# 01/10,90 CF LOT NO. 20 TRACT 5 64.0 9.5 9.8 116.7 128.1 91 11
126# 01/10/90 CF LOT NO. 23 TRACT 5 65.0 9.7 9.8 117.9 128.1 92 11
128# 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 46 TRACT 6 60.7 8.3 9.6 115.2 128.1 90 4
129# 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 45 TRACT 6 60.5 8.6 9.6 115.2 128.1 90 4
1300 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 44 TRACT 6 60.5 9.6 9.6 115.7 128.1 90 4
131# 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 42 TRACT 6 60.7 9.0 9.6 117.5 128.1 92 4
' 132# 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 41 TRACT 6 60.9 10.3 9.6 116.6 128.1 91 4
133# 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 40 TRACT 6 61.1 8.6 9.6 114.9 128.1 90 4
134# 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 38 TRACT 6 61.6 9.5 9.6 115.3 128.1 90 4
135# 01/10/90 FG LOT NO. 37 TRACT 6 61.9 8.7 9.6 118.7 128.1 93 4
137# 01/11/90 CF LOT NO. 24 TRACT 5 64.0 7.6 7.7 119.1 130.8 91 13
13811 01/11/90 CF LOT 110. 21 TRACT 5 65.0 9.1 7.7 120.9 130.8 92 13
139* 01/11/90 CF LOT NO. 22 TRACT 5 65.0 8.2 7.7 125.3 130.8 96 13
141# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 19 TRACT 6 60.8 10.7 8.2 120.1 130.9 92 2
142# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 20 TRACT 6 61.0 12.4 8.2 118.7 130.9 91 2
143# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 21 TRACT 6 61.2 13.1 8.2 119.5 130.9 91 2
144# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 23 TRACT 6 61.6 8.6 9.8 115.3 128.1 90 11
' 145# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 24 TRACT 6 61.8 8.8 9.8 116.0 128.1 91 11
146# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 25 TRACT 6 62.0 10.7 9.8 117.2 128.1 91 11
147# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 26 TRACT 6 62.2 7.8 7.7 124.6 130.8 95 13
148# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 27 TRACT 6 62.4 8.2 7.7 122.7 130.8 94 13
149# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 28 TRACT 6 62.6 7.5 7.7 120.8 130.8 92 13
' 150# 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 29 TRACT 6 62.8 8.1 7.7 120.0 130.8 92 13
151# 01/11/90 FG LOT No. 30 TRACT 6 62.9 8.7 7.7 118.0 130.8 90 13
158* 01/11/90 FG LOT NO. 55 TRACT 5 70.0 7.8 8.2 119.5 130.9 91 2
159* 01/12/90 FG LOT NO. 59 TRACT 5 75.3 9.1 8.2 123.0 130.9 94 2
161* 01/12/90 FG LOT NO. 7 TRACT 5 73.6 5.7 8.2 122.5 130.9 94 2
162* 11/12/90 FG LOT 110. 11 TRACT 5 76.8 5.9 8.2 116.9 130.9 89 2 RETEST ON 287#
173# 01/12/90 FG LOT NO. 48 TRACT 6 62.0 8.7 9.6 116.0 128.1 91 4
174# 01/12/90 FG LOT NO. 49 TRACT 6 63.0 9.1 9.6 115.2 128.1 90 4
175# 01/12/90 FG LOT NO. 50 TRACT 6 64.4 7.8 9.6 114.9 128.1 90 4
176* 01/12/90 FG LOT NO. 14 TRACT-5 73.6 6.5 10.9 114.0 123.7 92 12
177# 01/12/90 FG LOT NO. 51 TRACT 6 65.1 9.1 9.6 115.4 128.1 90 4
' 178# 01/12/90 FG LOT NO. 52 TRACT 6 65.0 8.8 9.6 115.0 128.1 90 4
179# 01/12/90 CF LOT NO. 8 TRACT 6 67.0 11.3 10.9 117.0 123.7 95 12
181# 01/23/90 CF LOT NO. 8 TRACT 6 70.0 8.1 9.6 119.2 128.1 93 4
182# 01/23/90 CF LOT NO. 9 TRACT 6 72.0 8.0 9.6 118.8 128.1 93 4
189# 01/24/90 FG LOT NO. 8 TRACT 5 73.5 7.5 7.7 128.2 134.1 96 6
' 190# 01/24/90 FG LOT N0. 9 TRACT 5 74.0 5.7 7.7 132.2 134.1 99 6
191# 01/24/90 FG LOT NO. 12 TRACT 5 74.0 6.9 7.7 127.2 134.1 95 6
192* 01/25/90 FG LOT N0. 41 TRACT 5 72.5 12.6 10.9 116.7 123.7 94 12
193# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 51 TRACT 5 65.0 9.0 9.6 118.8 128.1 93 4
1
' TABLE 1 (Cont'd)
' Apppprox Moisture Content Dry Density Relative Soil
Test Test Elev. Field Optimum Field Max. Compaction Type
No. Date of Test Location (feet) M M (pcf) (pcf) M No. Remarks
1944 11111/90 FG LOT N0. 52 TRACT 5 65.5 8.1 9.6 120.9 128.1 94 4
195# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 54 TRACT 5 68.0 7.0 9.6 119.9 128.1 94 4
196# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 56 TRACT 5 71.0 8.9 9.6 123.4 128.1 96 4
197# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 57 TRACT 5 73.0 7.0 9.6 119.3 128.1 93 4
198# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 58 TRACT 5 74.0 6.8 7.7 121.1 134.1 90 6
199# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 60 TRACT 5 75.5 6.1 7.7 126.5 134.1 94 6
' 200# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 61 TRACT 5 76.5 7.2 7.7 123.8 134.1 92 6
201# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 1 TRACT 6 68.5 9.3 7.7 123.2 134.1 92 6
202# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 2 TRACT 6 69.7 13.3 9.6 117.3 128.1 92 4
203# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 3 TRACT 6 70.4 8.2 7.7 122.6 134.1 91 6
204# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 4 TRACT 6 71.2 12.1 10.9 115.2 123.7 93 12
' 205# (11/21/91 FG LOT 110. 5 TRACT 6 72.3 8.4 9.6 119.4 128.1 93 4
206# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 6 TRACT 6 73.0 8.2 9.6 118.4 128.1 92 4
207# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 7 TRACT 6 73.5 11.0 9.6 118.5 128.1 93 4
208* 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 8 TRACT 6 73.5 10.0 10.9 114.8 123.7 93 12
209# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 9 TRACT 6 73.0 11.5 9.6 117.0 128.1 91 4
210# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 10 TRACT 6 72.3 8.5 9.6 118.5 128.1 93 4
211# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 11 TRACT 6 71.3 9.3 9.6 119.5 128.1 93 4
212# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 12 TRACT 6 70.4 9.5 7.7 122.6 134.1 91 6
213# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 13 TRACT 6 69.7 9.0 10.9 116.9 123.7 95 12
214# 01/25/90 FG LOT NO. 14 TRACT 6 68.2 10.6 7.7 121.5 134.1 91 6
216* 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 53 TRACT 6 66.6 8.6 7.7 128.5 134.1 96 6
' 217# 01/26/90 FG LOT N0, 54 TRACT 6 66.6 8.4 7.7 122.1 134A 91 6
218# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 55 TRACT 6 66.5 7.6 7.7 120.6 130.8 92 13
219# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 33 TRACT 5 66.0 7.7 7.7 119.3 130.8 91 13
220* 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 32 TRACT 5 65.7 8.8 7.7 128.7 134A 96 6
221# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 31 TRACT 5 65.5 8.0 7.7 118.5 130.8 91 13
222# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 30 TRACT 5 65.3 9.7 7.7 118.1 130.8 90 13
' 223# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 29 TRACT 5 65.0 9.4 7.7 120.6 130.8 92 13
224# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 28 TRACT 5 65.0 8.4 7.7 125.3 130.8 96 13
225# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 27 TRACT 5 65.0 9.2 7.7 121.0 130.8 93 13
226* 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 34 TRACT 5 66.9 10.1 9.8 120.6 128.1 94 11
227# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 35 TRACT 5 67.8 11.8 10.9 111.4 123.7 90 12
' 2289 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 36 TRACT 5 68.3 9.0 10.9 114.1 123.7 92 12
229# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 37 TRACT 5 69.5 9.6 10.9 114.4 123.7 92 12
230# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 38 TRACT 5 70.5 9.1 10.9 111.2 123.7 90 12
231# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 39 TRACT 5 71.5 9.2 10.9 112.1 123.7 91 12
232# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 40 TRACT 5 71.8 10.5 10.9 111.7 123.7 90 12
2339 11126191 FG LOT 110. 42 TRACT 5 72.5 10.5 10.9 115.4 113.7 93 12
234# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 43 TRACT 5 72.0 9.3 10.9 113.8 123.7 92 12
235# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 44 TRACT 5 71.6 8.5 9.8 119.1 128.1 93 11
236# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 45 TRACT 5 70.9 9.2 10.9 112.5 123.7 91 12
237# 01/26/90 FG LOT No. 46 TRACT 5 70.0 10.1 10.9 114.8 123.7 93 12
2380 01/26/90 FG LOT No. 47 TRACT 5 69.6 8.6 10.9 113.0 123.7 91 12
239# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 48 TRACT 5 68.0 8.3 10.9 118.4 123.7 96 12
240# 01/26/90 FG LOT NO. 49 TRACT 5 67.0 8.4 10.9 116.0 123.7 94 12
267# 02/07/90 SF LOT NO. 22 TRACT 5 65.0 9.8 9.8 119.1 128.1 93 11
268# 02/07/90 SF LOT NO. 23 TRACT 5 64.0 10.1 9.8 117.2 128.1 91 11
269# 02/08/90 SF LOT NO. 24 TRACT 5 63.0 9.9 9.8 116.3 128.1 91 11
274# 02/09/90 CF MAGUEY Ct TRACT 5 70.5 13.5 9.8 117.2 1111A 91 11
287# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 11 TRACT 5 74.5 6.8 8.2 121.6 130.9 93 2 RETEST OF 162*
289# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 15 TRACT 5 68.5 8.0 7.7 117.3 130.8 90 13
290# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 16 TRACT 5 67.6 7.2 7.7 121.0 130.8 93 13
291# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 17 TRACT 5 66.8 7.8 7.7 118.0 130.8 90 13
292# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 18 TRACT 5 66.2 7.4 7.7 119.7 130.8 92 13
293# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 20 TRACT 5 66.0 9.9 7.7 121.5 130.8 93 13
294# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 21 TRACT 5 66.5 9.0 7.7 122.7 130.8 94 13
295# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 22 TRACT 5 66.8 7.1 7.7 122.6 130.8 94 13
296# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 23 TRACT 5 66.1 9.1 7.7 123.9 130.8 95 13
297# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 24 TRACT 5 66.1 8.0 7.7 123.2 130.8 94 13
' 298# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 25 TRACT 5 66.0 8.0 7.7 129.4 130.8 99 13
299# 02/12/90 FG LOT NO. 26 TRACT 5 65.8 7.2 7.7 123.9 130.8 95 13
303# 02/14/90 FG LOT NO. 19 TRACT 5 65.8 10.1 7.7 125.3 130.8 96 13
304# 02/14/90 FG LOT NO. 50 TRACT 5 65.3 10.9 8.2 120.7 130.9 92 2 RETEST OF 113*
305* 02/14/90 FG LOT NO. 53 TRACT 5 66.7 9.6 8.2 117.9 130.9 90 2 RETEST OF 114*
' 307* 02/11/90 FG LOT 110. 15 TRACT 6 65.0 8.0 7.7 125.7 130.8 96 13
308* 02/15/90 FG LOT NO. 13 TRACT 5 74.0 7.4 8.2 121.8 130.9 93 2
3D9# 02/15/90 FG LOT NO. 16 TRACT 6 64.7 8.6 7.7 118.1 130.8 90 13
310# 02/15/90 FG LOT NO. 17 TRACT 6 64.4 8.5 7.7 120.0 130.8 92 13
315# 02/15/90 FG LOT NO. 31 TRACT 6 62.5 9.4 9.8 123.0 128.1 96 11
316# 02/16/90 CF EL OS[TO CT. TRACT 5 63.0 7.9 9.8 118.9 128.1 93 11
' 317# 02/16/90 SF LOT NO. 9 TRACT 6 69.5 9.2 10.9 114.6 123.7 93 12
' vv
0
a
a
a
� appl� G�lD � � Q
0
a
a
a
a
a
0
a
� �o��o��j c000�c�
� �
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
1
' APPENDIX A
' References
' 1. Buena Engineers, Inc, 1984, Soil Engineering Report for Tract 19872, Southeast
of Temecula in Riverside County, California, dated September 26.
' 2. Division of Mines and Geology, 1989, Preliminary Review Map, State of California
Special Studies Zones, Pechanga Quadrangle, dated July 1.
' 3. Douglas E. Moran, Inc., 1989, Significance of Ground Cracks, Riverside County
Tract 19872, Pala Road at Loma Linda Road, Riverside County, California,
dated March 10.
' 4. Douglas E. Moran, Inc., 1989, Response to County Review, Report Regarding
Ground Cracks, Tract No. 19872, Riverside County, California (Moran's
' response to Riverside County Planning Department Letter dated June 30,
1989), dated July 13.
' 5. Douglas E. Moran, Inc., 1989, Response to County Review dated August 10, 1989,
Tract No. 19872, Riverside County, California, dated August 15.
' 6. Douglas E. Moran, Inc., 1989, Further Response to County Review of August 10,
1989, Tract No. 19872, Riverside County, California, dated August 31.
' 7. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault
Zone in Southern Riverside County: California Division of Mines and
Geology, Special Report 131, 12p.
' 8. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1986, Final Compaction Report of Rough Grading,
Tracts 19872-1 and 19872-2, Rancho California, California, dated January
' 9. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1987, Final Compaction and Geologic Report
of Rough Grading, Tracts 19872-3 and 19872-4, Spanish Oaks, Rancho
' California, California, dated April 7.
10. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1987, Geotechnical Investigation of"Ground Crack",
,. Tract 19872, Wolf Valley, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside,
California, dated December 7.
' H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
' 11. Ninyo & Moore, 1989, Geotechnical Evaluation of Faults and Ground Cracks,
Tracts 19872-3 through 19872-6, Wolf Valley, Rancho California Area,
' Riverside County, California, dated June 6.
12. Ninyo & Moore, 1989, Graded Slope Located North of Tracts 19872-3 and
' 19872-5, Rancho California Area, Riverside County, California, dated
June 22.
' 13. Ninyo & Moore, 1989, Geotechnical Evaluation of Subsurface Conditions, Tract
19872, Wolf Valley, Rancho California Area, Riverside County, California,
dated December 1.
' 14. Ninyo & Moore, 1989, Geotechnical Investigation of Faulting, Tracts 19872-3
through 19872-6, Wolf Valley, Rancho California Area, Riverside County,
' California, dated December 31.
15. Ninyo & Moore, 1990, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Tracts 19872-3 and
19872-4, Wolf Valley,Rancho California Area, Riverside County, California,
' dated February 23.
16. PHB Engineering, 1987, Grading Plans, Tract 19872-5 and 19872-6, County of
' Riverside, Sheets 2 and 3 of 3, Scale 1-inch equals 40 feet, dated
December 17.
' 17. PHB Engineering, 1988, Street Improvement Plans, Tract No. 19872-5, County of
Riverside, Sheets 1 through 4 of 4, Scale 1-inch equals 40 feet, dated
January 19.
' 18. Riverside County Planning Department, 1989, Seismic/Geologic Hazard, Job No.
88-23, Tract No. 19872, APN:918-I80-037040, County Geologic Report No.
621, Wolf Valley Area (County Response to Morans' Report dated March
10, 1989), dated June 30.
' 19. Riverside County Planning Department, 1989, Seismic/Geologic Hazard, Job No.
88-23, Tract No. 19872, APN:918-180-037040, County Geologic Report No.
621, Wolf Valley Area (County Response to Moran's Report dated July 17,
' August 15 and August 31, 1989), dated September 8.
ii
1
1
H.R. Remington Properties April 2, 1990
Project No. 101188-05
tAerial Photographs
' Source Date Scale Numbers
USDA 1984 1:1,600 176, 177, 178
' Riverside County
Flood Department
1
' iii
t
• 1
i
or P.
M r r j
'• 1 /g v
�4
A -*GRIADEDGEOTECHNICAL
179
TRACT 108-72ovivid-,"
Jski
20$
RANCHO CALIFORNIA' AREA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA-7
r101111 L A 317f
PR
CT N0. DATE
PLATE
1�0 polo
r-
tt o _ D
W .� 210.............. -
-h
211, - 0
\
"p 205 0' � % ,,;z
O AO '
I I I I I I I I I I
y -- 212
204 -
4
D� _
o o
'gyp -- Qr-Qo 30
t 0 � � �-
�o _
�. 203 N
7 c* A
13
0.00
,� A °
db
000A
o (� ► ^ 0-01�.�
% a6 Cam.oco IN
2,4- domw MEMO 2 mama X�
mama MON* smum MONO
y MOB wSm MMrrS MMMM MM.r� i
err s � '" MM+Mr MOMS snow
,fir+ Opp,000
0 43 59
307 - __ 1 04 -,
*wow> 150 _.
y 31
147
Ca g ray,. FO r .0)
�-,y ol 1 0, 000 owilill' z (10 (0
149 151 51
J 478 �-�. �r ty � � a _ t� 2 1 �
! , 48
r"
56 144
Q r
Mona
55
, r.- �� , ✓ (}�tg" � 1 r MM�r�M�rrr MN�rr Wr /IIn�OM �rnr�rrS� �s�Mr�M M�+rr N rrM �■O�I�rrM�wrAlr lm � Mid"ANN"Rorer
Y �� ,� . ,�a Q _ (J �. J y, .w .Mrr rrirrw
4-4—.1 12�
1217
77
too q/ 10, wow a 4
1120 $2 All-
maw*
l,/
ANONIS mows
- r..
V Li- O
..-� 17 5
lit 0
axe.• Q 0/
so
0.
Or
coo
0.
�� �� 0' ` �•
If
A"
i��
-44
N c� 41
46
49
• ; � / �� � ,�- 134 135
132oJ31 0 (sill"
33
30
�-
.116
8
1.73 �1-17 - —
C� r.. `-�
-- C�, � 119 r I >
7 o c L-ack
Q,r m G
of I WA z-
IT
•� `i�or
4
4-8 { _�_ L;�• -- �- _ _. .42 __ i s 4 Y /�
I 5 3 �o rg owl 0
o
Aar
lk
..
willimmewoomw -lime
Ty
/ 701^4 'tip NAp-
Mftm~ „n,M,Sr 6000 •w-'�= •a..�.w�.w.. �� ;:F_T A I L.. 0 Ay
.5EE DE-rA I L.. FOR SE C
a
SU14ZFACE ELEVA AJ
YEAZ WA 7-E)e
_//4 /V G/4
%
:t Q
i
NOTE: FOR LEGEND SEE PLATE 1 -°
REVISIONS: APPROV D B •
w •
H B ENGINEERING INC.
TRACT No. 19872
265 N. SAN GABRIEL BLVD.
PASADENA, �� �1�IEF� ICERE�I CIVI � CAL. 9i107 E L ENGNEER NA. 15857
DATE 12ti-V b7 EXP ;30 (818) 795-�516s is� 2
APPROVED BY: SCALE: of SHEETS
BENCH MARK .
A D I N G AN
1 ~-40
RIVER��DE COON-rY CALIFORNIA 5F.I TITLE SHEET FI L E Ivo.
1-16-69 EVI.54E PA 0 ,E.L ItEV. L0 5 I -- 15rjRE6r ALES/ R01 DosA DA7r E: FOR ROAD COMMISSIONER OATE:
I
.1 I
', S tI,• V. // 'T"' / T r
x5ov, ,
A
t "
I /,
tA If 4 y 1.
,
1 ♦ • •
{
,I % ,� f + . I + r
.. f 1 0 ----.I-:----
L 11 y 1
W. /04 ! ''
r .,_Y .- .._.. _..__��. meµ: __ ._. --- / I - r { ,' ''' . . 6I ., ... �..._- . •. ASseveGRADEDI ---. I . �GE � ��. �. - . -------- I .II I- '! � -------- - i �. MAP
'� ` i -.1 ,�., i C�. r i i "1 ,&
% -
. a *-q I
� - - "
, I , . �,
I I.,
.. $
'k i I
i -
. .
% % I..
I I.,
-., ... . . ;
I - 4 . I r--� �-,J-.----, .: . '. . I I I-T--- . . . I . ... ..-
. . 1 . I
f ; L-,------..j I �------1-4 �� I . I 1. ,
-� I . / - I I . . o.-,, . I
�� . I " ; ..
, \ . � 11 I
. I- ( ----.-_-.,-. : 1, \ i I I ., .1� �1------ I--, I , I �- I P I . � I .
1, I ""'O.I, . TOACT 40,872 g
,;:.'-" ,
I I " I \ "I.,-- 11
. I . . '. 1 I --- - -5,; . `.,-,�`"
1! . , '\ . . �140 I � Al % ; IN .e" I
_�t-�X---; A . t \ I
, I " -I' I . \ 1-.--.,.-,---] II ,,--,� -J/ I :". , ,�, � .
, .
,� --
RANCHO ALIFFO'A NIA AREA
1 4 1
/ / ! I 0 \\ r ` 5 ..
� .
i� .j \I 0, I \ I 1. �... A ���//// y �. _.. _ -.. .,--__..- ---••._.......... ..-. __. - ,
I , .� . % lm - .,---Akl�,:,. .-- . - . - -f- . . ,I . ...--'.'.,.,--'- ., -- . I .1 .,. ,.- I . 11 ,-*. --. , .�
, I its . , , "I I ', f-. I . . .. 11 I I " . 1- - ------ - - :,L "L---------- --� I .-..-, I I . . . ...
_ - -- :�&.t- -,.,,- I, RIVER' SIDE COUNTY9I 4 CALIFORNIA
. .------- I -... � . - I .
1; "I" �k I I I -,, � -- .8J
- . 0 . .... -1 Jill- --------- ----- . ��� - �, . lbor'.. ., I 11 .
-.-Z- .------- -
I' r / . _ -• . - --
r I I . I "' � . t ----I---- '.././• •G.G. re. ~... �.__` __ I C7�r-
l! �, .�__ PAgJEC7 NCB DATE
. �--,
r
, , r _ _ .-a 11.1 -,& I _ __- _�-�- �.._..� 0 PAS, r -I
1.166
•r, l., ..
Y
gavel Mo�.Soul am"
I 0 - I -
\ ! 1�.ilr�■ .,> _ ..r 11.0 - +lw.r.►�,Ir..,�_r.�.,.-..A.-..-.. _ ....-,.-_.....-.,...,4..µ.+r.+,..r .y, r. _Ji,._ri.1s.♦-...ww.4..�+'P' Y_r...�,•.:a,i •�M. ..
.. L 4 • a -
67 .1 � ' =Wj
iY I1. , f .•f A• '. " F,•.•-141 . I i"', ,a.. ..r �' a ,Y M 1, �, r V
-,;" I - ll� 9�
.162
� Ai I 1��; - . ? t I
'17
/( � ti t ` I 0j+ m j+
. / . w 4 � 287 f
i , i ,I
. o ( � 9 N p /
. iSI .4 -� /
' f _ w t. •\ S ,
F, 1 I 3 10 I ,. .,
A. '^ r
,14 1
( / "- __� 0 f &lv . Ca Ca•5 0FWT.� 1 . .1
. f I :. I' r r 0. I i
.. I . . .
.��,-.j -
I i
N 0 . I . . 1�b L ,;-� 1�0 . I q( 1. �
l �• • •`' •
1, I
125 r 308 a A
. �1, -1 > ,�.a k . �
I 11 . 1 6�u .1 .l
1� .1 .. 10 "I f %A� . . -,:*',�� I 0 i 0-295., ... . 47 - (0(0.Z a . 3 &7. 0.�:; � . I , I A f, I f
! (; . �-'. /
. _ � a �, T
t, t �, a, o V •,,,,a .d Q r ,j0
\ I
0\4 ls\�Il
r • r
91
1 , rr 298 a9 I g 290 %289 ;� ..Ir ,
:: _
l
r . . � � .
: j ; 2 9 2 / .. -fir e.`' •
.1 I
li�
T.
f r
11 .. .14 7 , 0 -
L-Ii., � -v . ------ .
: I I
- 1, I awa /"' ,� .` * I r - -- -
, I
1 I I I I,a , It . . / !
-)�'W�r
t ,1. I 01���:5
j . / - � ) 6 " �
-�JSI . (a 11 --'-0,L/ � -116' -
t ,,, ♦ / (;40. 11 ` .&� +**"JJJJJJJ� I
1 W10 I: \ _ . I I 0 ♦♦ q -.11 9 k " �
- ! 0 , ----, I 9 T? - -tr `rdarVI ``^- V
0 1 \ " # \9
�, I k , *I I'll I .- I / I . . .0 .."', V- I / -,�o - 0 0"I 1,
6 . -- I . .;* (X .1 -k <129 % . r k a - I . I I
. . I .1 ,!!., t I ".1, X. t 0 ^ . 44 '"i a
� 46�,.
-?, \ ..10 0 , / 14
-111i
•: 1 v t� �� -__ c r / 0
. .. -� 're-
.1 I
le, r.f
. 24 -- (11.*.cj V I I j 9 ,
. a .
' I , ram t ,4 ` y J .:"r\1- �-N . -� V/ � '�"'^'~~ •S _ QO - _. ,.-• 1 .` �•
I . . I \ I . 1 1,37 207 A -.1 . 7
i ` �' O
. _ I r , , ` I I ter �rI!PO -1 �.Al-- � 7 ,
. 1 2 q P105-"�-�Nl I
01
. 9�
I � I q
. \.J a
I I : r I \
I & 11 � .
. . I \ \ 00i 1, I I- V .
/,** I -� �-� / 4'
1 11 i I il I 11 ! 11 .. .11 S I . W- - (01 It . .,ON .,�- ..I I 4 1.% / , e --I I ,.-,) 0 % (� N
I . I I 'I) I 11. 1� I -. \... \.
0
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�`
..
(y) %
I f
-
�.
" . L
I\%- r 1 - (go ` ..
f �� r I I � I r 0 �. ti � .
,� s o� I
11 of �%J . kl,- \ , I %*. , - \I's :.11 . . I . I I, . .4t ". .... ". -70.0 . 7 .." �( . .1 - PV3 / I
. ".- - '-, % . I . . I ta.-1 1. I
. \- . 'a , . " 1-11 , I
,.�, .-
% \ rt�
1-W
0,
(O
% . . I
I . .� �..\ �� ; � ,�T ,wry �,.�. 0 \--" 1. `•; I 4 �-., �,-,,, , 1 ,-" \ �..`.y. � .,-`��11k ��9 �, �� � % i0 N I **ft ,L) .. pl�3 9 I 0 N I ,�'�'�.�, � ., � \ ,� .
'\. " lk-�,� go ..,I , , . . *� i 11 <1 . X / ..
[4.- .-"'
( -��
. I--" 306
. 11., . 4 \ Nj1. * . I -10 I .. .. %.. - / I .
� / n � /
., ., 'k I �
%Nftftwl� I ,
ko 1i4, ,
,,�'/ '\ 1�3
.(JO - - .. .. � .
I I a 11 I ,,
I I % . N I / I - �1, i\ . lip -.. 1�11 I o. 11 . .., \ I I .\ IL 0 0,I 11 /, �..,--.1 1, N N., 1.X 4 .�_
n ♦ ►., , N . (j/ .�
,�o- �� \---1�
y. �- 0%j
1.. '1, / VF2<0 '` , ,'<
• cl� 24--
� S& ()
. .
"1% I .
; I I . . r
r� %** .14, . I . V - ,
I \'IJ . I a ,� . k ,�.. � 111, .�,, I '
I ..
0� . �W. . .... -�- --
) I .
I .
. I � 0 1 . % \ . I I
� , 4 :
I ,. .. * . \ - I 1. ,-.
1.
'I t. I
ci \1 i N I
ql;?-4�0 -
1%.j E) .
f ti` �. r / 0 I ( 11 w ' ,� `
Is 11 \� � I
,.,.If"; �
, I
*, 1. i .� 1. -
I .
?.?:,3/
I . .
-. 1- a
4 VVV N.
L `r✓
,.
I ,"I i ., I , IN6 . t, --
I �b 11 I \
,� �, 1.
k 27
. �, ISN
` 9% 1-00 103 .. ./ ...
�.
.01 '�. . - I I ".,� '� il \ � . I -� - %1-1 I I - #A a 916,0410 ill, t I 10 6.,
1� W'_� \1 k "I.) ( . . \ . 01 ---15 !P , 10 0 . 4 1� .
;, ,I,. 4 it I t ,;, E5 . �,,I IPO Vol
22
N.
� z -
�� o p
�.�
1. lc� 4--� � 11 j �
%
()
I. ,ti� ko r 4 \ 304 . I A-i" r ter, -14.(P .4(3 - 3� !�, c\j �-•�
I r,, 4( t6
4 : - I ;
i fr P;;,H
, AIL oN o, a r5 o --�- 198 r,-1 .a
k�'/ 1 ,,,� 1; fit ,f �� Co •. '
-.1 ---1 5
1411
I I 11 .1 \11. C--' - -1.1.4 935 I/ 9 , - - -&- . , -, .
. I � �) , �I j f I\N, \.\"I 1\ 11. i% 4 ..-I ft* `1 1... . . - ki . r,9 1-11�C) Z9 . , o% --.-,% 10Z"',. , I . -1.I -- - I
'i I --
I . ., -*, 14 � 5j)I � 0 1-0 . . --�- 'IN I 0 0 Q -7,a.5 , "',iiiiiii�I %iiiii 0 /7�e�----- - , .
I I , I 4 .. *1 n - �- -- t-4 I - ol,,, M � ,
I �I � \ %.. \...) \-� . . 1. .. *1�.. I--10\-� I.. rt
I %ii ;>.3 0 -.,\�'y z I I- ;
i .,, 11 ` ,-q , �1�
ll� ' O /" • mot" , �11-1 y� 1 I234 - �' " .. -
: �� v - Nj 0 7 10
iii
I I I . %,J ,<Q �., .- -T S-S) t. 14
1 I - � , I - X 3 I - .
10 � 4 / : �'. , t VC . () -(O.O .,� .0, N"' , 99
! . . . I- . V I . 0 A') I I %.-, 236 0 � I �/60 . .4,> . I
/ I Q- 000 '?
;,j 1. I � . K".. , I I C�) I � 89 f, . 4 C i 1%b itz 5�) .. -N \)� �7- . ./, I
I 4 , I . V, 11 I . . 4* -
-- . I I % .1) a . �1�1. . �%
'� , / \ r ; �•„� \, r • , ,r`"\... -MO-, �a I Y L .`' (,� ,
. � / (�- ,� I i V . \ 0 11 I ..11 . . ,0. 411 A 1,17-?
. � A *%. I 1, . I : �V'l "' / ,
NA, 'r ('�
•.ter/ 1• t ` 7
,I ,% I r ram' r' r1 f r -,, 6)E5• � O . ♦ r
_ I. 42
,i. f \i � f
f +, , \ `\ /- t Ko- � .0 , ��`1,11, (h (� I % . - .
mi l',,, � I k fir; -1.O f �•
I t $1 (,.,,�. �-N",-� . . I \\jc-_.j. I , �
/ I 11 � I . P-9 , , . A 1 a..40 1�) -
1, I
. r `` / V . �- � 0 '`.
I k-1 . ( f opi - .. q,
�� / r f �' �./ ., 1 �� 1 /, 0 v �r �1-r ram(" y %
, �� Y .A A4._S4)9tAAN# ' �Ar/OV , -1 ' F .N; r: % a►3 -_ �b, LJO �
C7 c�f3
- h .►�
0 P r.3 / (;)a li- 11 L W .
I 11 I �- 7-� . 1 $ 11 k, � \ Q 11 (4 \V k. . it -�-��-N --1
• , Y� +,. - •+ r( � „I + / `i . \�/ rr �f �1 O +� r'"�• / wry .,, , - ...
`I (01 ! o
. \ � , I . .".*1 \ k 1,� " ii� 17, /I �s A I I � . .
0,
30
6" ,
% 0
� ,,_f � '. - -1- .
'fi:11 1 I . I \111. . r I I I . -10 I L
I II . a,-1. " ( r I I j -.----�� . y I � : I . - � I .. f, . . �lmopr� � - - %:3,. . rr . .
"I.. . " . I ) I , a - a �) % �', � �,)
, I I lr� / % I /1% A Lllll� . -- - � W , . I -
. t '-%, j " , ", , I ( -11 * - 55C# -- * .. A � ,q ,.-,- 0
ro
. I f o"
I + '\ a•� i r �J A* � .�-
�, ,�'♦ . / . '` -1P L -'' ,. Y ,`ten/ \9 • 192
f \\\ / 23
... \ �i / 1
` �.� �,ice• _!' J )" `` '� / r� r •.,, / 1 LO•�
op-
. i .?/ 23 ' . * I
IN, z/ �
�, , / � 9 ti t
1 r,,� ti .9 a� r
e --. cn 1
/ .�---N2 o - N
1 ' "'"�. r / l� ' / r I .'. 1 I. r e • y . . w •� �•..77 I 10.E - •t� �1�.� �
I . (--,--,-/ '� '� .11,i / f r%' !, I ,�--A \ '�' %�: \ -111 / �!�R - +ram' f . T ' LEGEND
-- r 1 �.4 N` - - \ 1 1 \� I rl a i F , = o' (,per. _. \, .1 % .
- 09
40
�` . I\1� .�� �� .� 10► 0 �� - -. 1`, ...- Approximate location of field densitytest
\ ` I ~ *. f~ r t • .r_r I • `✓ /• , s I ` ti ANC'Boom r1A"� ',
- ••,� i� -~� k I I. 1, . . �' 1��19,;. 0 1 v+�. If 1 :3 1 A :r. oxirmato location of removal &
r �J
E #1 % I " .j �"I �� ,i co pactior� .
! 7 .- . .
I '-,.111.1 I il �q " , /' �*41' 56 Jill, F
. ', A -_-._. ; j , `J., 41 � � �- � . ,� r----'-------•--► APprooMmato 11mits of tronch backfill removal , -
Q / ,
% / 11� '11 V% � f W \ I . I L---J & torn act one.
. � - - t ".- ----.,
` . I; ' - 1 . - � . _a� ,.,��. f.-µ-�-" ,� w; _ c contact .
I - "*\ Approximate location of geologi
I I "-, %_.,�,. I I
�, ' .4 , , I 11 -
I ..11 . 1% %.\, ,"...�
4 , ill 3 1 . �r .. - . I . . . . .1
,.1 I `- 1. `, E-r I I, .5 4 9: 1\ - _ I
T -\ T .
\ % I- `off f \ I AN. ,,, y compacted Fill
`
. f ,
r.
X
' � \. � .� - � . .� ; r .... I Alluvium
� � * a
I \ 4 1 1 �I 11 , \ \. I.1. / IN "11 6'� j/C(I I %A-4 I
. �+�r s , r �.-�-- -.1. t �� %� Pauha Formation circled w r here buried)
1�� . I-1 \
1 !!/�., , rti r ,11 . '� "./ t .,, o r r 4& �
i
. , / . ,�. : - . I I i .., / . 11 \. I . .1� .4 . . . 1..- .-I-.... ----- . ,
-#� . \e \ J X11-4 k � i I I I
� I I . ` -L ^', ' I ~t, ~ •t ` Jr 1 Lea` * r .
��J' _ ` I + f ! `,w t N� r i t ,E
�fj+/+ 1JN /-+ ; ; �� ,� i i ' II f` 11 j •r \-It, ` I , 4 Aoft- A PPRo�E� 1 t
} r r -�` `y �' j . Iy, .
.,,, .
, I
1.
: I
a 7 - , , �� -
6
..... - a
, \)
'.
J. I .1,
-'---- -- -
r- / 4 W n INC.P HEO...)k ENGINEERING
...
...
--- - --
. . 1,
------.. -i .- --..--- .--..
�.` ACT NO. ' � 1
. . --- --------- --- -- - ----- ------------
,� -------- - - -
l . .
� 87N,,�, ' ,( ---- - .---- -- 1,
I' 0 �% �'-"�W I t I I :,e-� , . 1 66 1 1 1r .� ,�",-A.\` ► % I0 1 �\, - I , 1 L% I ." �p � ,-, I k IS L .- W-. � -- -r-,W----- .• 265I . . -- - ill .� - . N. S�N �/A� �EL ��7 D.
-* Y / /
.� � r . i _•' ,I 1 RE ISTE ED lVIL EN i R N PASADENA, CAL.. 91I07. I , _ ; . I s` C G NEE 15 8 5 7COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 2 ."
i • . .-T . X _ - DATE• !2 �� �►7 �81�� �' -�5
1- I � ; ; , ,� i EXP• 6/30/89 ,
,, • _; G ADING -
,; ; , I :4 ►,, , ..., � - . ,.� � +y- � OF SHEETS r:
} / f �,- 1 r
\ f
. �- �
� ,�� /". !
. ,
.- ;.!t? : ti` 0 I t. Ii ,� IF .. . , .ir AI., % I 4 2 ------------ -- -- ---- -Jkl- -.- ,2��-�:�) L % I � N 'k, � N- , / ( . / ; I L . . . -- opoomonso-mono-q� ;--,,,-.. - APPROVED BENCH M AHK AN - 1'��
s
I flill.
/ I ,---. \,--,
. I At , * 1, I . .
1. ,-\ I I . ,,�'. I
I . % -'�,�,-�.-- L; $ % I 1 ,11 W . I I . . . -.--.- �
I , . # I - -- - - - - -- - I -.-- I
" " , , , 1. --,� " I ,. 17 1 ------ ---10. -@-- -
. ,
. I t. , N 1�. I 0 . V&4
. � 1. i .-�, , I . � . 11 N-) 1, .1 . . . . �- - ----- 14 bows-69111iiiii L" -
,--,/ \-V " ,-
't� . ill ism-- .- .���A-�
1% �k *. "
% "
. �.. = \ -V-1 t. Of
.�� -I - - I
f I F�11lEt �31DE Co Yy CAL,II+'aRr�lA E5EF- `�I�'LE 15 44E T . F �E Mo. Y:.
7 \7 r " ` ` / ti'' � ,` `1 1 e V\ \r ',' '♦ * M•�.,r r ,\ ,, • .` 1 ..
.�� X -.,. �� ' . �, FOR ROAD COMMISSIONER � ,�
w � \ , 4 ,• � r \ �� �;o . . ,DATE - DAT E_ . . s.�.
• , k,� «4 1
• •
I -'�, ,� i �1. . I- . . -- L I/ I % �-.,*, .� IL
to 5 +�I h �. S a ♦C'`., - _ ` �• i x� w. i:.l . ..... �,r-- # -# t` / ,' . ". .Mr � ml_fi�l i.«7 r.C�.i.L I.tk