HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 292 Geotechnical Study�En�EN
COITION
41625 Enterprise Gale South,
B-z,Tbmecula California 92590
t 951-296.351 1 - Fax 951.196.3711
www.engencorp.com
Geotechnica! Feasibility Study
Lindsey Residence
Calle Tiara, Temecula, California
APN: 919-249-911
Project Number: 4134GFS
January 22, 2915
Prepared for:
Jeff Lindsey -
Post Office Box 1943
Temecula, California 92593
Lindsey Residence- Job Number: 4134GFS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... .................2
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION: ................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ......................................................................
2.3 SCOPE OF WORK: ................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.4 FIELD STUDY: ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................................3
3.1 SITE REVIEW: ................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3
3.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE: ...................................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 TRANSITION AREAS: ................................................................................................................................................ 3
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING....................................................................................................................................4
4.1 GENERAL: ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 CLASSIFICATION: .................................................................................................................................................... 4
4.3 MAXIMUM ❑RY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT RELATIONSHIP TEST: ................................................................ 4
4.4 EXPANSION TEST: ........................................................................................................................................... 4
4.5 SOLUBLE SULFATES: ................................................................................................................................................ 4
4.6 ❑IRECT SHEAR TEST: ............................................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY.............................................................................................................................5
5.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING: ............................................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS: ................................................................................................................................................. 5
5.3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS: ................................................................................................................................. 6
5.4 SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: ....................................................................................................................................... 6
5.5 LIQUEFACTION: ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.6 SEISMICALLY INDUCED LANDSLIDING:......................................................................................................................... 6
5.7 SEISMICALLY INDUCED FLOODING, 5£1CHES:................................................................................................................ 6
E.0 EARTH MATERIALS..........................................................................................................................................6
6.1 UNDOCUMENTED FILL: ............................................................................................................................................ 6
6.2 COLLUVIUM/RESIDUAL SOILS(C[2AL):....................................................................................................................... 6
6.3 ALLUVIUM(QAL):.................................................................................................................................................. 7
6.4 PAUBA FORMATION BEDROCK(QPS):........................................................................................................................ 7
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................7
7.1 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS (ALL AREAS).......................................................................................................... 7
7.2 SOIL EXPANSION POTENTIAL: .................................................................................................................................... 7
7.3 SOIL CORROSIVE POTENTIAL: ..................................................................................................................................... 7
8.0 SLOPE STABILITY (GENERAL}:..........................................................................................................................7
8.1 EXISTING SLOPES: ................................................................................................................................................... 7
8.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: ............................................................................................................... 8
8.3 FOUNDATION SIZE: .................................................................................................................................................. 8
8.4 DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT: .......................................................................................................................................... 8
8.5 BEARING CAPACITY: ................................................................................................................................................ 8
8.6 SETTLEMENT: ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
8.7 LATERAL CAPACITY: ................................................................................................................................................ 9
8.8 SLAB -ON -GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS:...................................................................................................................... 9
8.9 EXTERIOR SLABS: ................................................................................................................................................... 9
8.10 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................... 10
8.11 EARTH PRESSURES: ............................................................................................... I ............................................... 10
8.12 RETAINING WALL DESIGN: ..................................................................................................................................... 10
8.13 SUBDRAIN:.........................................................................................................................................................10
EnGEN Corporation
Lindsey Residence- Job Number: 4134GFS
8.14 BACKFILL:................................................................................................................................. ...11
8.15 UTILITY TRENCH RECOMMENDATIONS:.....................................................................................................................
11
8.16 FINISH LOT DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS: .............................................................................................................
11
8.17 PLANTER RECOMMENDATIONS: ............................................................................................................
12
8.18 SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING: ....................................................................................
12
9.4 PLAN REVIEW: ..............................................................................................................................................
12
9.1 PRE -BID CONFERENCE: ...................................................................................................................................
12
9.2 PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE: .........................................................................................................................
13
10.0 CLOSURE.......................................................................................................................................................13
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX 1 - GENERAL TECHNICAL REFERENCES
APPENDIX 2 - LA130RATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX 3 - EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOGS
APPENDIX 4- PLATE 1 - GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY SITE PLAN
APPENDIX 5- PLATE 2 - CROSS SECTION
EnGEN Corporation
January 22, 2015
Mr. Jeff Lindsey
Post Office Box 1943
Temecula, California 92593
Subject: Geotechnical Feasibility Study
AP 919-240-011, CaIle Tiara, Temecula, California
Project Number: 4134GFS
References: 1) Topographic Map Site Plan, provided by client, undated.
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has visited the
subject site on March 26, 2014 to visually observe the surface conditions of the subject site, perform
subsurface exploration and testing and collect samples of representative site earth materials. Laboratory
testing was performed on these samples. Recommendations for grading operations and preliminary
foundation design are provided in the subsequent sections of this report.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
+ Feasibility for development: It is the opinion of this firm that the proposed improvements
are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations
presented in this report are incorporated in the design and construction of the project.
Unsuitable Soils: A portion of the soils along the outer edges of the proposed
building pad is comprised of undocumented fill underlain by Pauba Formation
Bedrock, (see Plate 1). There was no record found for the site grading at the City of
Temecula or the Riverside County Building Departments. Based on available
historical aerial photographs of the site, the grading appears to have taken place
prior to 1996. Field tests taken during this study revealed less than 90% relative
compaction in the undocumented fill. As such, these materials are unsuitable for
structural support and should not be relied upon from a design engineering
standpoint. It is also recommended that the undocumented fill be removed to expose
competent native ground prior to placement of footings.
• Foundation System: It is represented the site will not be graded and that it is the
intention to construct the proposed residential structure on a stepped and/or pier
foundation system. Footings and/or piers should be founded into competent unweathered
bedrock. More detailed recommendations can be found under Section 8.2 of this report.
■ Expansive Soils: Areas to receive concrete slabs will be supported on soils that have a
Low expansion potential. Minimum slab design recommendations are provided under
Section 8.8, Foundation Design Recommendations% page 9 of this report:
I 'm41625 Enter rise Circle South B-2 Temecula California 92590 951.296.351 I Fax: 951.296.371 I ' `k`'i p :.:, :; a,
Jeff Lindsey — Linssey Residence
Project Number: 4134GF5
January 2015
Page 2
2.0 SITEIPROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Description:
The subject property is an irregular shaped approximately .8 acre parcel of undeveloped land
located east of Calle Tiara, in the City of Temecula, California. Vertical topographic relief across
the site is approximately 31 feet with overall site drainage toward the east. At the time the field
study was conducted, the site was covered with a light growth of native grasses and weeds.
2.2 Project Description:
It is represented that future development of the subject property will be a single-family wood or
steel -framed residential structure founded on a combination of stepped and/or pier foundations.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the site geotechnical conditions relative to the proposed
development and to provide recommendation for site earthwork and minimum foundation design
recommendations base on soil conditions that will be supporting the proposed structure.
2.3 Scope of Work:
The scope included: 1) site reconnaissance and geologic mapping, 2) subsurface exploration and
field testing, 3) sampling and laboratory testing of on -site materials, 4) engineering analysis of field
and laboratory data, and 5) preparation of this report.
2.4 Field Study:
Field reconnaissance, geologic mapping and subsurface exploration was conducted on March
26th 2014. The purpose of the subsurface exploration was to assess the underlying earth
materials' existing condition and geotechnical properties as well as the presence of historical
groundwater conditions that might affect the geotechnical integrity of the proposed improvements.
Four (4) exploratory backhoe test pits were excavated within the proposed improvement areas of
the subject site. Soils encountered consisted of colluvium/residual soils, undocumented fill and
Pauba Formation Bedrock, (see Exploratory Backhoe Logs in the Appendix). The exploratory test
pits were excavated utilizing a rubber -tired backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket. Bulk samples
were collected from selected depth intervals and in -place density tests were performed in the
upper 4-feet of each Exploratory Test Pit. Representative soil samples were subsequently
returned to this firm's soils laboratory for verification of field classifications and testing. Selected
samples were tested for maximum density, USCS classification, shear strength, and expansion.
In addition, soil samples were visually inspected for evidence of corrosive properties that would
dictate a formal corrosive analysis of materials that will be in direct contact with the proposed
concrete within the improvement areas. The approximate location of the exploratory test pits are
denoted on the Geotechnical Feasibility Study Site Plan, (Plate 1 and Plate 2).
2.4.1 Exploratory Test Pit Backfill Compaction:
The exploratory test pits were backfilled with loose soil cuttings after completion of logging, testing
and sampling operations. No compaction efforts were applied during the backfill operations, and
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey -- i_insdey Residence
Project Number: 4134GF5
January 2015
Page 3
tests were not performed to determine the compaction of the backfilled material. The exploratory
test pit backfill should be removed and re -compacted during site development to verify as meeting
a minimum density of the surrounding earth materials.
3.0 FINDINGS
3.1 Site Review:
The subject site is essentially an undeveloped lot. The natural topographic relief across the
subject lot is to the east at variable gradients averaging approximately 12 to 15 percent. The site
has been previously graded resulting in a level building pad adjacent to and east of Calle Tiara.
There was no grading plan available or documentation of the previous grading operations at the
subject site. As a result, a subsurface exploration and testing program was developed in order to
assess the condition of the graded area for the proposed development. The site is not located
within a State designated Alquist-Priolo Zone.
3.2 Subsurface Soil Profile:
Based on our site study, the majority of the pad area is comprised of Pauba Formation Bedrock
(mapped as Qps, see Plate 1 and Plate 2) and artificial fill (mapped as Af, see Plate 1 and Plate
2) underlain by Pauba Formation Bedrock.
Table 1 - Earth Materials
Earth Materials
Range of Depth
Condition
Colluvial Deposits
Several Inches to +3'
Porous, loose
Undocumented Fill
From 2 to greater than 10 feet
Moist, loose
Pauba Formation Bedrock
See Plate 1 & Appendix C
Dense to very dense
A thin mantle of colluvium covers the natural slopes throughout the site and overlies the Pauba
Formation Bedrock in the higher elevations (see Plate 1 and Plate 2). Undocumented fill was
encountered within the proposed improvement areas which ranged in depth from 3 feet to the
maximum depth explored. Pauba Formation Bedrock underlies the soils deposits throughout the
subject site. The exploratory test pit logs of earth materials encountered during the subsurface
exploration are included in the Appendix. Further discussion of the on -site earth material is
presented in § 4.3 of this report.
3.3 Transition Areas:
Because no grading is proposed for the subject site, once the undocumented fill has been
removed from the pad area, there will be no transitions between undocumented fill and the natural
bedrock formation. Because the proposed structure will be founded in unweathered Pauba
Formation Bedrock with a stepped and/or pier foundation system, there is no corrective grading
recommended for site preparation? Should the foundation design change from that planned this
time, EnGEN should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given.
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey — Linsdey Residence
Project Number: 4134GFS
January 2015
Page 4
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 General:
The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained during the site
visit are presented in the attached Appendix. Following is a listing and brief explanation of the
laboratory tests performed. The samples obtained during the field study will be discarded 30 days
after the date of this report. This office should be notified immediately if retention of samples will
be needed beyond 30 days.
4.2 Classification:
The field classification of soil materials encountered during our site visit were verified in the
laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System, ASTM D 2488-00,
Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedures). The
final classification is shown in the Moisture Density Test Report presented in the Appendix,
4.3 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test:
Maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on
samples of near -surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM 1557-02 procedures
using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and
compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25 blows per
layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the specimens is
constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determined from the
plot. The plot is shown in the Moisture Density Test Report presented in the Appendix.
4.4 Expansion Test:
Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near -surface earth material in general
accordance with CBC 18-2. In this testing procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2)
layers in a 4.0-inch diameter mold to a total compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch by
using a 5.5-pound weight dropping 12-inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample should be
compacted at a saturation between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined
under a pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (psf) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The
resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded
and the Expansion Index (EI) calculated.
4.5 Soluble Sulfates:
Soils are not always tested for Soluble Sulfates depending on the type of material encountered.
Sandy soils low in organic content are considered to be low in soluble sulfates and do not possess
corrosive characteristics. Clayey earth materials and soils containing a high degree of organic
material are typically identified as having soluble sulfates and corrosive properties. Should these
types of soils be encountered, corrosive testing will be performed. There were no samples
obtained during this study that contained high concentrations of clays or organic material,
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey — Linsdey Residence
Project Number: 41 34GFs
January 2015
Page 5
therefore corrosive testing of the soils was not deemed necessary and Type II Concrete can be
used for the foundation system.
4.6 Direct Shear Test:
Direct shear tests were performed on select samples of near -surface earth material in general
accordance with ASTM D 3080-03 procedures. The shear machine is of the constant strain type.
The shear machine is designed to receive a 1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch diameter ring sample.
Specimens from the sample were sheared at various pressures normal to the face of the
specimens. The specimens were tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses
were plotted versus the normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and
angle of internal friction).
5.0 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
5.1 Geologic Setting:
The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern sector of the structural unit
known as the Perris Block, The Perris Block is bounded on the northeast by the San Jacinto Fault
Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and on the north by the Cucamonga Fault
Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with
a complex group of faults trending southeast from the Murrieta, California area (Kennedy, 1977).
The Peninsular Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by
volcanic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial/alluvial
sediments derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying areas.
The earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent
sections of this report.
5.2 Seismic Hazards:
Because the proposed development is located in tectonicalIy active southern California, it will likely
experience some effects from earthquakes. The type or severity of seismic hazards affecting the
site is mainly dependent upon the distance to the causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event,
and the soil characteristics. The seismic hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or
ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The following is a site -
specific discussion about ground motion parameters, earthquake induced settlement hazards, and
liquefaction. The purpose of this analysis is to identity potential seismic hazards and propose
mitigations, if necessary, to an acceptable level of risk. The following seismic hazards discussion
is guided by CBC (2010).
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey— Linsdey Residence
Project Number: 4134GFS
January2015
Page 6
5.3 Seismic Design Parameters:
The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) seismic design parameters for the subject site are as
follows:
Description
Design Parameters
Site Latitude:
33.53331ON
Site Longitude:
-117.11544°W
Site Class:
D
Spectral Response (Short):
0.2 sec — Ss': 1.819
Spectral Response — (1-Second):
j 1.0 sec — Si: 0.724
Short Period Site Coefficient:
Fa: 1.0
1-Second Period Site Coefficient:
Fv: 1.5
Adjusted Spectral Res onse:
Short Period - 0.2 sec — Sms: 1.819
Adjusted Spectral Response:
One Sec — Sm1:1.086
Design Spectral Response: j
Short Period 0.2 sec -- Sds: 1.213
Design Spectral Response:
One Sec 1.0 sec -- Shc: 0.724
5.4 Surface Fault Rupture:
No known active faults exist on the subject site. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture
on the site is considered unlikely.
5.5 Liquefaction:
Based on the nature and density of the granitic bedrock formation, and the assumed depth to
groundwater the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction are considered low.
5.6 Seismically Induced Landsliding:
Due to the density and coarse -grained nature of the bedrock at the subject site, the probability of
seismically induced landsliding is considered low. Undocumented fill should be removed from the
site to prevent landsliding during a seismic event.
5.7 Seismically Induced Flooding, Seiches:
Due to the lack of a large body of water located above the subject site, the possibility of seismically
induced flooding or seiches is considered low. Due to the large distance of the project site to the
Pacific Ocean, the possibility for seismically induced tsunamis to impact the site is considered nil.
6.0 EARTH MATERIALS
6.1 Undocumented Fill: Undocumented fill has been identified within a portion of the existing
graded pad area and mapped as "Af" on Plate 1.
6.2 Coll uviumfResiduaI Soils (CQal):
Based on the subsurface exploration conducted for this study, colluvial material and residual soils
(unmapped) cover the majority of the near surface soil profile across the natural slopes on the
subject site.
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey — Linddey Residence
Project Number: 4134GFS
January 2015
Page 7
6.3 Alluvium (Qal):
Alluvium was observed and mapped near the easterly property boundary in the shallow surface
ravine draining in a general northeasterly direction, (See Plate 1). The alluvium is not within the
proposed development area and will not impact the proposed development of the site from a
geotechnical standpoint.
6.4 Pauba Formation Bedrock (Qps):
The subject site has been mapped within the geologic bedrock formation commonly referred to as
the Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation Bedrock is a sandstone formation comprised of a
mixture of silty sands, clayey sands and gravelly clean sands that is partially weathered near the
surface and becomes dense to very dense at a depth of 2 to 3 feet.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Earthwork Recommendations (All Areas)
It is represented that other than removal of the undocumented fill, no grading is proposed for this
project. However, should the planned grading of the subject site change from that represented
herein, this office should be notified so that supplemental recommendations may be given.
7.2 Soil Expansion Potential:
Preliminary Expansion Index testing was performed, yielding an El of 16.8. This is classified as a
very low expansion potential. Import soils or soils used near finish grade may have a different El.
7.3 Soil Corrosive Potential:
After a physical examination of the earth materials anticipated to be in contact with the footings of
the proposed structure, it is this firm's opinion that the earth materials encountered on the subject
site d❑ not possess corrosive properties normally requiring special concrete mix designs.
Consequently, normal Type 11 cement may be used in concrete that will come in contactwith native
soils. Final determination for soil corrosiveness should be determined upon achieving final grade
elevations and samples taken considered to be representative of those that will be in contact with
the proposed footings.
8.0 SLOPE STABILITY (GENERAL):
8.1 Existing Slopes:
It is our opinion that the existing slopes, are stable in their current inclination with the exception of
the undocumented fill (see Plate 1 and Plate 2). Due to the loose condition of the undocumented
fill within the pad area, it is recommended that the undocumented fill be removed to expose the
Pauba Formation Bedrock underlying it. It is our opinion that slopes comprised of the Pauba
Formation Bedrock will be grossly stable at an inclination of 2:1.
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey -- Lrnsdey Residence
Project Number: 4134GFS
January2015
Page 8
8.2 Foundation Design Recommendations:
JFoundations for the proposed structures may _consist of conventional column footings and
continuous wall footings founded in the Pauba Formation Bedrock. The recommendations
J
presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based on
g eofe chnical characteristics and upon a very low expansion index potential for the supporting soils
and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the
project should determine the actual footing width and depth in accordance with the latest edition
of the California Building Code to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces and should
1 either verify or amend the design based on final expansion testing at the completion of grading, if
J necessary.
8.3 Foundation Size:
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches. Continuous footings should be
continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the top
and two (2) No. 4 steel reinforcing bars located near the bottom of the footings to minimize the
effects of slight differential movements which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering
characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings should have
a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural
requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the
adjacent footings, should be provided across doorway and garage entrances.
8.4 Depth of Embedment:
Exterior and interior footings founded in native soils should extend to a minimum depth of 12-
inches for single story structures and 18-inches for two story structures below lowest adjacent
finish grade.
8.5 Bearing Capacity:
Provided the footings are founded within unweathered Pauba Formation Bedrock, minimum
footing width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column
footings, for the residential structure for the total dead plus frequently -applied live loads, is 2,500
psf when founded on unweathered Pauba Formation Bedrock. The allowable bearing value has
a Factor of Safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live
and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
8.6 Settlement:
Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the maximum assumed
wail and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey — Unsdey Residence
Project Number: 4134GP5
January2015
Page 9
differential settlement of 0.50-inch over a distance of 40-feet in unweathered bedrock material
under static load conditions.
8.7 Lateral Capacity:
Additional foundation design parameters for the residence based on compacted fill for resistance
to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Unweathered Bedrock — 200 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Engineered - 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base of
foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings and
stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed, native material. The above values are
allowable design values and may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the
resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short
durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of
passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a
concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times
the recommended design value.
8.8 Slab -on -Grade Recommendations:
The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement,
are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a very low expansion potential for the
supporting material as determined by Chapter 18 of the California Building Code. Concrete slabs
should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction,
and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of all concrete
slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing
procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage,
cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement,
and curing be performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures. Slab -on -
grade reinforcement and thickness should be provided by the structural engineer based on
structural considerations, but as a minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor slabs be at
least 4-inches in actual thickness and reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18-
inches on center, both ways, placed at mid -height of the slab cross-section.
8.9 Exterior Slabs:
All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc., with the exception of
PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness. Reinforcing in the slabs
and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey — Linsdey Residence
Project Number: 4134GFS
January 2015
Page 10
current local standards. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum
moisture content to a depth of 12-inches immediately before placing the concrete.
8.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations
8.11 Earth Pressures:
Retaining walls backfilled with non -expansive granular soil (EI=O) or very low expansive potential
materials (Expanslon Index of 20 or less) within a zone extending upward and away from the heel
of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the
following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition
Level 6ackfill
2:1 Slope
Active
35 pcf
56 pcf
At Rest
65 pcf
--
Further expansion testing of potential backfill material should be performed at the time of retaining
wall construction to determine suitability. Walls that are free to deflect 0.01 radian at the top may
be designed for the above -recommended active condition. Walls that need to be restricted from
this amount of movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at -rest condition. The
above values assume well -drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge
loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill behind the wall should also be considered in the
design.
8.12 Retaining Wall Design:
Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into firm, competent, undisturbed,
unweathered bedrock as standard foundations and may be designed for an allowable bearing
value of 2,500 psf (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing),
and with an allowable static lateral bearing pressure of 200 psflft and allowable sliding resistance
coefficient of friction of 0.35. When using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding
resistance, a Factor of Safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
8.13 Subdrain:
A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of retaining walls equal to or in
excess of 4-feet in height to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic
pressures. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on -site
and/or import materials, should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP,
or a suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The
perforated pipes should be at least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed
downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe. For
retaining walls with an overall height of less than 4-feet, subdrains may include weep holes with a
continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey -- Linddey Residence
Project Number: 4134GFS
January 2015
Page 11
system. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain in a non -
erosive manner.
8.14 Backfill:
Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3 feet) may consist of 0.5 to
0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi
140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand (Sand Equivalent Value greater than
50) water jetted into place to obtain proper compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain
system should be in place. Even if water jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water
jetting, mechanical methods will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill,
mechanical compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90
percent of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted
by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is designed for
the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used behind retaining
walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of typical on -site material
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface
runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for backfill materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-02
procedures.
8.15 Utility Trench Recommendations:
Utility trenches within the zone of influence of foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape,
and/or pavement areas should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that
all utility trenches excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back to an inclination not
steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where
interior or exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel and/or perpendicular to any building
footing, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1:1 plane projected downward
from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the utility lines are designed for the
footing surcharge loads. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate for the
type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill material should be compacted
to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means. Jetting of the backfill
material will not be considered a satisfactory method for compaction. Maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content for backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-
02 procedures.
8.15 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations:
Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas should be provided next to tops of slopes and
buildings to direct surface water away from foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops
EnGEN Corporation
i
Jeff Lindsey -- Lindsey Residence
Project Number; 4134GF5
January 2015
Page 12
of slopes. The surface water should be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of
surface water should not be allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a
minimum positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a
minimum distance of 3.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a
non -erosive manner should be provided.
8.17 Planter Recommendations:
Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be designed with proper surface slope to
ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate
into the soils underlying the building.
8.18 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing:
Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed under
engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading
includes, but is not limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cut/fill transitions, fill
placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN
Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to
installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the
conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill
placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course,
retaining wall backfill, slab pre -saturation, or other earthwork completed for the development of
subject property should be performed by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the observations and
testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability
for the safety and performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project
observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
9.0 PLAN REVIEW:
Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project but before bids for
construction are requested, grading and foundation plans for the proposed development should
be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility with site geotechnical conditions and
conformance with the recommendations contained in this report. If EnGEN Corporation is not
accorded the opportunity to make the recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for
misinterpretation of the recommendations presented in this report.
9.1 Pre -Bid Conference:
It is recommended that a pre -bid conference be held with the owner or an authorized
representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical Engineer
and the proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in the bidding
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey — Linddey Residence
Project Number: 4134GF5
January 2015
Page 13
process and clarify questions relative to the supplemental grading and construction requirements
of the project.
9.2 Pre -Construction Conference:
Before the start of any construction, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized
' representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the Project
Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify questions
relating to the intent of the supplemental grading recommendations and to verify that the project
specifications comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any
j special grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed
at that time.
10.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document. It may or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes. In the
event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed structure and/or
project as described in this report, are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained
in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions
and recommendations of this report are modified or verified in writing. This study was conducted
in general accordance with the applicable standards of our profession and the accepted soil and
foundation engineering principles and practices at the time this report was prepared. No other
warranty, implied or expressed beyond the representations of this report, is made. Although every
effort has been made to obtain information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions
of the site, limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off -site
have an impact at the site. The recommendations resented in this report are
conditions that may h p p
valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with
the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on this
and/or adjacent properties. if conditions are observed or information becomes available during
the design and construction process that are not reflected in this report, EnGEN Corporation
should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can be performed and the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report can be modified or verified in writing. Changes in
applicable or appropriate standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation
or the broadening of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes
outside of the control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future.
EnGEN Corporation
Jeff Lindsey-- Linsdey Residence
Project Number: 4134GFS
January 2015
Page 14
Thank you for the opportunity to provide ❑ur services. Often, because of design and construction
details which occur on a project, questions arise concerning the geotechnical conditions on the
site. If we can be of further service or should you have questions regarding this report, please do
not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project
to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may
be applicable on the project.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
qH.ne im ge, Pr' as ❑rn atene, P ' cipa
REPA 46729, Pr ' anager Project eotechni al Engineer, GE 162
HWBIOB.ch
Distribution: (2) Addressee
QQ,�,oFESSIoly
LU No. 162 M
�1 V
Al� of caO�o�`��
EnGEN Corporation
Lindsey Residence— Job Number: 4134GF5
Appendix I - General Technical References
I. California Building Code, 2013, State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013
2. 0, California Building Code.
3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
4. California Geological Survey, 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces: CDMG, Note 36.
5. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., Revised 2007, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
Alquist-Prioio Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: State of
California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
6. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern
Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131, 12 p., 1
Plate, Scale 1:24,000.
7. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California: State of
California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report 43.
8. Michael P Kennedy and D.M. Morton, Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5 Quadrangle, California,
Version 1.0, Scale 1:24,000, Digital Database by Rachel Alvarez and Morton, dated 2008.
9. County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical Guidelines for
Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports.
10. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
11. Riverside County Land Information System: http:tlwww3.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/pa/rclis/
12. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (SCEC), 2008, California
Geologic Survey (CGS), Special Publication 117A.
13. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 2014, Southern California Earthquake Data
Center Website, http://www.scecdc.scec.org.
14. U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application, United States Geologic Survey Website
(http://geohazards.usgs.govldesignmaps/us/application.php), Earthquake Hazards Program, Seismic
Design Maps for Engineers, 2014.
EnGEN Corporation
Lindsey Residence— Job Number: 4134GFS
Appendix 2 - Laboratory Test Results
EnGEN Corporation
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
115
114
113
c�
a
v
112
NN-
111
- 1
r
110
4.5 5 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
Elevl Classification Nat.
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. Sp.G.
SM 3.5
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density W 113.4 pcf
Optimum moisture = 8.7 %
Project No. 4134-GFS Client: Jeff Lindsey
Project: Lindsey Residence
o Location: TP1 @ 0-5 Sample Number: A-1
■
EnGEN
Tested By: DJ Checked By: PB
AV for
)p.G. -
:.30
LL Pl ❑♦a ❑/a c
#4 No.200
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAND TAN
Remarks:
SAMPLE# A -I
SAMPLED BY PBIDJ
Figure
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
Elevl Classification Nat,
Depth USCS AASHTQ Moist. Sp.G
SM 9.3
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 121.2 pcf
Optimum moisture = 12.4 %
Project No. 4134-GFS Client: Jeff Lindsey
Project: Lindsey Residence
o Location: TP2 @ 0-5 Sample Number: A-2
LEnGE--N ■
Corporation
Tested By: DJ Checked By: PB
AV for
p. G. =
.68
LL Pl % 7 % C
#4 1 No.2QQ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE# A-2
SAMPLED BY PB/DJ
Figure
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
124
123
,} 122
U
121
120
119 i_ I I i I I I I I I I I.,, I ,._ I I 1 1
7 8.5 10 11.5
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
13 14.5 16
AV for
3p.G. -
L68
Elect
Depth
Classification
Nat.
Moist.
S G.
p�
LL
PI
% >
#4
% r
No.200
USCS
AASHTO
SM
8.2
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density — 122.6 pcf SILTY SAND WITRACE CLAY, LIGHT
BltoWN
Optimum moisture = 11.8 %
Project No. 4134-GFS Client: Jeff Lindsey Remarks:
Project: Lindsey Residence SAMPLE# A-3
SAMPLED BY PB
❑ Location: TP3 @ 0-5 Sample Number: A-3 SAMPLED ON 3-28-14
■
IL
EnGEN -J Figure
Tested By: PB
300C
f
2000
f
4-
uj N
CL Q
N N
N N
Qi (D
1000
5CU
LL
0
3000
2500
2000
N
CL
N
U)
1500
L
c�
m
1000
500
0L_I I I I I I I I I II I M I I I I I
0 5 10 15 20
Strain, %
Sample Type: BULK
Description: SILTY SAND WITRACE CLAY,
LIGHT BROWN
Specific Gravity= 2.62
Remarks: SAMPLE# A-3 SAMPLED BY PBIDJ
-1 Figure
---- •rrr VVVV VVLV
Normal Stress, psf
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
3 2 Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
2 Hei ht, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
w
Saturation, %
Q Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Normal Stress, psf
Fail. Stress, psf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, psf
Strain, %
Strain rate, i n./min.
1
2
3
12.9
12.9
NIA
113.3
113.3
NIA
75.8
75.8
NIA
0.4442
0.4442
NIA
.2.42
2.42
2.42
1.00
1.00
1.00
NIA
NIA
NIA
1000
2000
3000
871
1731
2396
2.9
3.7
9.5
773
1614
2162
6.6
9.5
12.8
0.10
0.10
0.10
Client: Jeff Lindsey
Project: Lindsey Residence
Location: TP3 @ 0-5
Sample Number: A-3
Proj. No.: 4134-GFS Date Sampled:
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 2014
Job Number:
4134-GFS
Job Name:
Lindsey Residence
Location:
Calle Tiara
Sample Source:
TP2 @a 0-5
Sampled by:
PBIDJ
Lab Technician:
PB
Sample Descr:
Silty Sand, Brown
Wet Compacted Wt.: 615.8
Pin Wt b 197 1
Net Wet Wt.:
418.7
Wet Density:
126.4
Wet Soil:
223.5
Dry Soil:
202.6
Initial Moisture (%):
10.3%
Initial Dry Density:
114.6
% Saturation:
59.3%
Final Wt. & Ring Wt.:
643.3
Net Final Wt.:
446.2
Dry Wt.:
379.9
Loss:
66.3
Expansion Index: 25
Net Dry Wt.:
379.9
Final Density:
113.2
Adjusted Index: 30.2
Saturated Moisture:
17.4/Q
(UBC 18-2)
J
EnGEN Corporation
41625 Enterprise Circle,"B-2" , Temecula, CA 92590
Office: 951.296.3511 • Fax: 951.296.3711
WebSite: www.engencorp.com
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number:
4134-GFS
Job Name:
Lindsey Residence
Location:
Caile Tiara
Sample Source:
TP3@ 0-5'
Sampled by:
PB1DJ
Lab Technician:
DJ
Sample Descr:
Silty Sand, Light -Brown
Wet Compacted Wt.: 607.5
Ring Wt.:
197.1
Dial
Change
Time
Net Wet Wt.:
410.4 •
Reading 1: 0.100 NIA 3:25
Wet Density:
123.9
Reading 2: 0.103
0.003
3:40
Wet Soil:
233.1
Reading 3: 0.106
0.006
3:55
Dry Soil:
212.1
Reading 4: 0.109
0.009
4-Apr
Initial Moisture °/°}:
9.9%
Initial Dry Density:
112.8
% Saturation:
54.1 %
Final Wt. & Ring Wt.:
631.9
Net Final Wt.,
434.8
Dry Wt.:
373.8
Loss:
61.0
Expansion Index'
9
Net Dry Wt.: 373.8
Final Density: 111.4 Adjusted Index: 10.8
Saturated Moisture: 16.3% {UBC 18-2}
EnCEN Corporation
41625 Enterprise Circle,"B-2" , Temecula, CA 92590
Office: 951.296.3511 Fax: 961.296.3711
WebSite: www.engencorp.com
Lindsey Residence- Job Number: 4134GFS
Appendix 3 - Exploratory Test Pit Logs
EnGEN Corporation
TEST PIT LOG
Test Pit No.: TP1
PROJECT
PROJECT NO.
Lindsey Residence
4134GFS
CLIENT
DATE
Jeff Lindse
03/26/14
LOCATION
ELEV.
West Side of Existing Pad Area see Plate 1
1250
EXCAVATION METHOD
LOGGER
Wheel -Mounted Backhoe with a 24-Inch Bucket.
HWB
DEPTH TO -Water: nla When checked: Caving:
z U
0~
Z)
o
��
o
w `'�-
IL
¢ � V
DESCRIPTION
a
`�� Q
p �
�x
LL,
�•
c U
Lij
"
Sand, trace silt, loose, moist, light brown, (Residual Soil/
Colluvium).
1.5
1'MN SP-
•rxrM
Gravelly, coarse to fine sand with silt, and some clay, dense,
:�rfl
•�x�,.r SMBrown-Pauba
moist, Formation Bedrock (Qps).
4%11.1
3'af3f
AM
•rxi+:i
4.5 4FF3.E
sa:rrr
mf
•rxi�•c
7'Fr�Z
:�rFr.E
a�rrr
E
•ra:rx r
�:HrFi
4XCfr
•rx[�:r
fi 3:eFii
7
9
BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION @ 6'. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED AND NO CONDITIONS OBSERVED
THAT WOULD INDICATED HIGH GROUNDWATER
CONDITION.
3.9 1 8.7 1 113.41 105.41 92.9 1 Nuke
10.3 112.4 1 121.21 112.1 1 92.5 1 Nuke
Notes:
EnGEN Corporation
TEST PIT LOG
Test Pit No.: TP2
PROJECT
Lindsey Residence
CLIENT
Jeff Lindse r
LOCATION
Bottom of Undocumented Fill Slo ve
EXCAVATION METHOD
Wheel mounted backhoe with 24-inch bucket
DEPTH TO - Waiver: nla When checked: nla
z U
Oz
Cl-uvj ❑ESCRIF'71oN
� ' ' SM Silty sand with trace clay, moist, loose, brown (UndoMmented
Fill - UQ.
Sp-
4',:I
Gravelly, coarse to fine sand with silt, and some clay, dense,
Y
i .�.xr rr
eI
SM
moist, Brown- Pauha Formation Bedrock (Qps).
.+:rt7i
:,ari r
.i it
— 3 :r Cirr
ax.srr
7'errl
k;
_
•1:; L f L
�:r•rtr
:17: r M
axr rr
i i:irf } i
a5:crr
;1 H;•j�
-
BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION @ 5'. NO GROUNDWATER
_
ENCOUNTERED, NO INDICATIONS OF HISTORICALLY
HIGH GROUND WATER CONDITIKONS OBSERVED.
991
7
PROJECT NO.
4134GFS
DATE
312G114
ELEV.
1240
LOGGER
HWB
Caving: nla
N z
LU a
o a LLJ� 1-0
Z Q } aUj
v
5.4 1 8.7 1113.41 99.9 1 I Nuke
9.6 112.4 j 121.21 106.01 1 Nulte
Notes: Top of existing pad area. Appears to be less than 2 feet of undocumented fill in this area of pad. Pauba formation
underlains think layer of undocumented fill.
EnGEN Corporation
TEST PIT LOG
Test Pit No.: TP3
PROJECT
Lindsev Residence
CLIENT
Jeff Li
LOCATION
Bottom of Undocumented Fill Slope
EXCAVATION METHOD
Wheel mowited bac1dioe with 24-inch bucket
DEPTH TO -Water. i-da When checked: ii/a
!Z
0
CL C)
LU DESCRIPTION
LU
-j (D
LU
Silty sand with trace clay, moist, loose, brown (Undocumented
Fill - Ufl.
PROJECT NO.
4 1 -')4GFS
DATE
3/26/14
ELEV.
1240
LOGGER
HWB
Caving: ii/a
rr z
z
0 0 z
W Uj 0
EL LLI
IL 2
0 0
.-I C)
Sp- Gravelly, coarse to fine sand with silt, and some clay, dense, 8.6 12.4 121.2 101.6 Nuke
SM moist, Gravelly, coarse to fine sand with silt and trace clay,
moist, medium dense, brown, (Uf).
,3
ti 9.6 12+4 121.2 105.7 Nuke
M
W313
:kr"A
4,5
........ Pauba Formation Bedrock
IN: N
BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION @ 5'. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO INDICATIONS OF HISTORICALLY
HIGH GROUND WATER CONDITIKONS OBSERVED.
-7
Notes: Appears to be a "sliver fill with natural slope covered by undocumente fill pushed off of the top of the pad area.
Undocumented fill at toe of slope is approximately 5'thick, (see Plate 1).
- -- EnGEN Corporation
TEST PIT LOG
Test Pit No.: TP4.
PROJECT
PROJECT NO.
Lindsey Residence
4134QFS
CLIENT
DATE
Jeff Lindsey
3126114
LOCATION
ELEV.
Bottom of Undocumented Fill Sloe
1236
EXCAVATION METHOD
LOGGER
Wheel mounted backhoe with 24-inch bucket
HWB
DEPTH TO -Water: nla When checked: n/a
Caving: nla
2
��
U
5
co DESCRIPTION
z
N ❑
o o �aa
}
�
N~a
a
ao
IC1 aLU
ui P
�
0 o
0
SM Silty sand with trace clay, moist, loose, brown (Undocumented
12.7 12.4 121.2 102.8
Nuke
Fill - U0.
9
Pauba Formation Bedrock 19.8 12.4 121.2 101.8 Nuke
3 BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION a7 3'. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO INDICATIONS OF HISTORICALLY
HIGH GROUND WATER CONDITIKONS OBSERVED.
4
6
7
Notes: Appears to be a "sliver fill with natural slope covered by undocumente fill pushed off of the top of the pad area.
Undocumented fill at toe of slope is approximately2' thick, (see Plate 1).
EnGEN Corporation
Lindsey Residence- Job Number: 4134GF5
Appendix 4- Plate 7 - Geotechnical Feasibility Study Site Plan
EnGEN Corporation
GRAPHIC SCALE
o sa ao so 120 ISO
Ipsw0l
pia 01,
q `Q,ey ptd
elena
4
De\ Re
e Ra Sotana Way VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale
M
a
PLATE 1
LEGEND
TP-11
® = Approximate Location of Test Pits
= Soil Sample
Approximate Boundary of Geologic Contact
A = Approximate Location of Geologic Cross -Section
A
= Colluvium overlying Pauba Formation
= Pauba Formation Bedrock
= Undocumented Fill
GEOTECHNICALFEASIBILITY STUDY SITE PLAN I
41625 Enterprise Circle South, B-2 • Temecula, California 92590 - 951. 296.3511 • Fax; 951. 296-3711 • www.engencorp.com
Lindsey Residence- Job Number: 4134GFS
Appendix 5- Plate 2 — Cross Section
EnGEN Corporation
1340
1320
1300
1280
1260
1240
1220
1200
iIDid
1160
PLATE 2
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A -A'
1"=2V'
0 90 20 +40 60 So
J
1"=20'
A caire Tara Approximate boundary
Access Road between bedrock &
Existing Pad ndocumented fill
. . . . . . ,p%leCg`U'f_ , . Existing
ps . . �R-�. ;; �2. Slope
>....
s
• Qp$
•TPA. A'
...•.• ... .......................................... zP'.'.L��s. .
Cross Section
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
En EN
1340
1320
1300
1280
1260
1240
iPill
1200
1160
PLATE 2
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A -A'
1" = 209
0 10 20 40 60 80
1. a 20'
A Cade Tiara Approximate boundary
Access Road
• . . between bedrock &
• . Existing Pad ndocumented fill
. t°c Existing
: (, �s : • • : 2:1 Slope
,�. • `::. :" �
;.:
......'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. .'. TP.3.'.'
Cross Section
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
En ON