HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-1 Lot 14 Geotechnical Feasibiltiy Aug.3,2005
I /
I 1~urr:C:f..LE'~GEN
~~_4*'i00~YC1J5~;?1;iZ~~I~
" ,
,-- :, ~~ AT),' Of:FICEA!8ll \!iw,rj;eCifc1e td,)Jjte J.Temecula, CA 92590 ''Phone: {!I!l:1l~9tl,223(}' {aJs;;r~1i~~1'fr223i- ",:::~':::
, QB..;f.Jfitf.~&iJN'tY 0 FI J!' 26~9rillj9~ e ue< Saflta Ana, CA,92707, . Ph6Jl~'{i1'tl"64,6'4Q5j,' f-ex: 1714~$46.48~,,~' "~K.f ,,~';';~
B SITE: www.enecorp.com . E-MAIL: engencorp@engencorp.com W ~~ ~'^'-~'%::'':&~.
"
/'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
'.
I
.~.~
(//;:.
1ts};
:...
., ,
Coq~oration
-SoilEngineeringandConSlJlting5ervices-EngineeringGeology.CompactionTesting
-lnspections-ConslructionMalerialsTesllng-LIDoraloryTesling-Percolalion Testing
. Geology.WaterResourceStudies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Schatan Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 959-020-014
Lot 14 of Tract 9833-1
Rendova Place
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August3,2005
,
Prepared for:
Mr. Steve Schatan
43850 Rendova Place
"'femecula, California 92593
" .
, .
,,/ ."
" ,
,'/ "
\, -,
, .
, "
\ -'"' ,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Projecl Number:~ T3401-GFS
TAR I F OF r.ONTFNTl":
~Ar.:tinn Nllmhpr ::!Inri Titlp
eage.
1.0 SITEIPROJECT DESCRiPTION................................................................................. 2
1.1 Site Description ............................................................................................... 2
1.2 Project Description ..........................................................................................2
2.0 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Site Review .....................................................................................................2
2.2 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 General.............................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Classification. ~................................................................................... 3
2.2.3 Maximum Dry DensitylOptimum Moisture Content Relationship Test 3
2.2.4 Expansion Potential........................................................................... 3
2.2.5 Direct Shear Test............................................................................... 4
2.2.6 Soluble Sulfates................................................................................. 4
2.3 Excavation Characteristics .............................................................................. 4
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGYISEISMICITY ................................................................... 4
3.1 Geologic Setting ..............................................................................................4
3.2 Seismic Hazards... ....... ............. ................. ...... ........ ............ ................ ..... ....... 5
3.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture........................................................................ 5
3.2.2 Liquefaction .....................................:................................................. 5
3.2.3 Seismically-Induced Landsliding ........................................................ 5
3.2.4 Seismically-Induced Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis ...................... 5
3.3 Earth Materials ................................................................................................ 5
3.3.1 Artificial Fill (Af) ..................................................................................5
3.3.2 Alluvium (Qal) ......................................................................'.............. 5
3.3.3 Pauba Formation Sandstone (Qps) ................................................... 6
4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 6
4.1 All Areas ..........................................................................................................6
4.2 Oversize MateriaL. .......,............................. ...... ... ..... ....................... ....... .......... 7
4.3 Structural Fill...................................................................................................7
4.4 Soil Expansion Potential.................................................................................. 8
4.5 Soluble Sulfate................................................................................................ 8
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL ............................................................................... 8
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 8
6.1 Foundation Design Recommendations ........................................................... 8
6.1.1 Foundation Size................................................................................. 9
6.1.2 Depth of Embedment......................................................................... 9
6.1.3 Bearing Capacity................................................................................ 9
6.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters............................................................... 9
6.1.5 Settlement..........................................................................................9
6.2 Lateral Capacity ............................................................................................ 10
EnGEN Corporation
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
I
..
.
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
TARI F OF r.ONTFNT~
~.."tinn Nllmh..r "nn Titl..
Eage.
6.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations .................................~.............................. 10
6.4 Exterior Slabs ................................................................................................ 11
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 11
7.1 Earth Pressures............................................................................................. 11
7.2 Retaining Wall Design ................................................................................... 11
7.3 Subdrain ........... .......... .......... ..................... ..... ..... ...... ................... .......... ....... 12
7.4 Backfill........................................................................................................... 12
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS...............................,.............................. 13
8.1 Utility Trench Recommendations................................................................... 13
8.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations......................................................... 13
8.3 Planter Recommendations ............................................................................13
8.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing.................................. 14
8.5 Plan Review .................................................................................................. 14
8.6 Pre-Bid Conference....................................................................................... 14
8.7 Pre-Grading Conference ............................................................................... 14
9.0 CLOSURE ...............................................................................................................15
APPENDIX;
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
2-
I
.
.
.
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
"
/'
l~.nJ' ~
w' ... J
.~.3fi,..1n' ' GEN
d_~~'" -,"~ ",..
L' _,.
. Soil Enginee-ing and Consulling Services e EngirreeringGeology. Compaction Testing
Cornoratl' on elnspeclions-ConslruclionMalerialsTesling_LaboraloryTesting_PercolationTesting
1-:: . Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & 118wironmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
August3,2005
Mr. Steve Schatan
43850 Rendova Place
Temecula, California 92593
(951) 491-5969 / FAX (951) 303-9785
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILI'fY STUDY
Schatan Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 959-020-014
Lot 14 ofTract 9833-1
43850 Rendova Place
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T3401-GFS
,
Reference: 1. RJ Consultant and Development Services, Precise Grading and Erosion
Control Plan for Steve Schatan Residence, Lot 14, MB 101/075 of
TR 9833-1, APN: 959-020-014, plan undated.
Dear Mr. Schatan:
In ~ccordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has
visited the subject site on July 22, 2005, to visually observe the surficial conditions of the
subject lot and to collect samples of representative surficial site materials. Laboratory testing
was performed on these samples. Test results and preliminary foundation recommendations
for the construction and grading of the proposed development are provided. It is our
understanding that cut and fill type grading will take place for the proposed structural
development. Based on this firm's experience with this type of project, our understanding of
the regional geologic conditions surrounding the site, our review of in-house maps, and both
published and unpublished reports, deeper subsurface exploration was not considered
necessary. However, in lieu of subsurface exploration, additional grading beyond that
anticipated in this report may be necessary depending on the exposed conditions to be
encountered during grading. If any changes are made to the Referenced NO.1 Plans, they
should be reviewed by this office so additional recommendations, if necessary, can be
prepared.
"
\
~
, .
'. .
, ,
, '
-- \./
- - \,"
-- \ /'
\ " \
, .-
, '-'-'-
~ --~-...".
\ ' / ,-
, .
" ',' I ~ ;
: I , ' I ~_:" '--_ ~ ! '--' " _
'COR _ ATE; aifJ.c:E.. 4"6Q terprile Circlet< . Sufte~. iemanu/a, CA 92590' phone: 195J129,6:2230.jax~j9511-296-2239
ORAI':JGE 'COUNTY b FI 261$'Orange e "eo SMla Ana, CA 92707 . phone: (.l'j4) 54.6.A051' fax: 17M1546-4052
, ~ - B Sn"e: -www.~necorp.com - E.MAIL: engencorp@e"'ngencorp.c'6m
,'-'-' \ -,"
. -:-_-c-'"
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
1.0
1.1
1.2
2.0
2.1
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 2
l;ITF/PRO.lFl":T nFl;l":RIPTION
l;it.. n....r.riptinn' The subject site is consists of approximately 2.5-acres located at
43850 Rendova Place, north of the intersection of Rendova Place and Pio Pico, in the
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. An existing single story home with a
concrete driveway is located on site. The site is bisected by an east-west trending
ridgeline, with the existing home atop the ridge near its eastern end. The ridge slopes
at approximately 25 to 30 percent to the north, south, and east. The gently sloping, ,
low-lying areas north and south of the ridge are underlain by alluvium. Landscaping
around the existing house and driveway consists of grass, low ground cover and
mature trees, grasses and weeds are located on the remainder of the site.
Prnj"r.t n"c::r.riptinn' It is our understanding that the proposed development will
consist of addition of a detached four (4) car garage with a slab-on-grade foundation
west of the existing house, atop the ridgeline. The existing driveway will be utilized for
access. A retaining wall will comprise the northwestern wall of the proposed garage,
with a maximum height of 11-feet. The material generated from the excavation will be
used to create a landscaped play area near the southern corner of the site. We are
providing general grading and minimum footing recommendations for the proposed
development. No investigation of the existing home or driveway, or of any of the
previous fill on site was performed as a part of this study. All observations and
recommendations for the site included in this study pertain only to the proposed
development.
FINnIN(;l;
l;it.. R..vi..w' Based on our field reconnaissance, it appears that fill, alluvium, and
Pauba Formation Sandstone underlie the site. Pauba Formation Sandstone constitutes
bedrock at the subject site. The fill is located around the existing home and is assumed
to be associated with its construction, reportedly over twenty years ago. No
investigation of the existing fill, or of the existing home was performed. The southern
portion of the site, where the landscaped play area is proposed, is underlain by
alluvium and bedrock. The ridgeline, where the detached garage is proposed, is
EnGEN Corporation 4
.
1
1
1
1
1
.'
1
I
I
I'
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr, Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 3
underlain by bedrock. Since no subsurface exploration was performed for this study,
the thickness and condition of the alluvium is unknown.
2.2 I "hnr"tnry T,,!':ting'
2.2.1 c.::"n..." I , The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material
obtained during the site visit are presented in the 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.
2.2.2 r.1"<:<:ifi",,tinn' 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).
2.2.3 M"Ylmllm nry n"n!':ity/Optimllm Mni!':tllr" r.nnh'nt R"I"tinn<:hip T,,!':t. 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.
2.2.4 Fxp:ln!:inn Pnt"nti::ll' Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-
surface earth materials in general accordance with CBC 18-2 procedures. 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 of 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) is calculated.
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
.Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 4
2.2.5 nirpr:t !,;hp;lr Tp"t (Rpmnlrlprl)' Direct shear tests were performed on select samples
of near-surface earth material, which had been remolded to 90 percent of the maximum
density, 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, 2.416-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). '
2.2.6 !':nlllhlp !':lIlf;ltp,,' Samples of near-surface earth material were obtained for soluble
sulfate testing for the site. The concentration of soluble sulfates was determined in
general conformance with California Test Method 417 procedures.
2.3 FXr:;lv;ltinn r.h;lr;lr:tpri"tir:,,' Excavation and trenching within the alluvium is
anticipated to be relatively easy. Excavation and trenching in the bedrock will be more
difficult due to the higher bedrock densities typically encountered in the area. A
rippability sUNey was not within the scope of our investigation. Based on our
experience on similar projects near the subject site, the bedrock is expected to be
rippable with conventional grading equipment.
3.0 FNc.::INFFRINc.:: c.::Fnl nc.::V/!,;FI!,;MIr.ITY
3.1 c.::pnlogir: !';ptting' 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 alluvial and colluvial sediments derived from the erosion of the elevated
portions of the region fill the low-lying areas. The earth rnaterials encountered on the
subject site are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.
EnGEN Corporation '"
I
.
I
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
.
.
.
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 5
3.2 !';"ic::mic: H:mml,,' Because the proposed development is located in tectonically 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 ground surface rupture and/or ground shaking,
or secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement.
3.2.1 !';lIrf:U:" F::ullt RllptllrA' The site is not located within a State of California designated
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No faulting was observed during our site
.
reconnaissance. The nearest State designated active fault is the Elsinore Fault
(Temecula Segment), located approximately 4000-feet (1.2 kilometers) to the
southwest of the subject site. This conclusion is based on literature review (references)
and EnGEN Corporation's field reconnaissance. Accordingly, the potential for fault
surface rupture on the site is very unlikely.
3.2.2 I iqIlAf"r:finn' Based on Section 4.0, Earthwork Recommendations, of this report, and
the dense nature of the underlying bedrock, the potential for liquefaction at the site is
considered very low.
3.2.3 !,;"ic::mic:"lIy IndllC:Ad I "ndc::liding' Due to the overall massive and dense nature of the
bedrock, the probability of seismically induced landsliding is considered very low.
3.2.4 !';"ic::mir."lIy IndllC:Ad Flnnding !';,,;r.hA" "nd T""n"mi,,' Due to the absence of a
confined body of water in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the possibility of
seismically induced flooding or seiches is considered nil. 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.
3.3 F"rth M"t"ri"l"
3.3.1 Artific:i,,1 Fill {At.}. Previously placed fill was observed around the existing home at the
top of slope, and along the existing driveway. An investigation of the fill was not within
the scope of work for this study, therefore its consistency and condition are unknown.
3.3.2 Allllvillm {n"II' Alluvium is located in the low-lying, gently sloping portions of the site
to the north and south of the central ridge. The proposed landscaped play area is to be
partially located in the southern alluvial area. The alluvium consists of silty fine-grained
EnGEN Corporation ,.
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401.GFS
August 2005
Page 6
sand. Since no subsurface exploration was performed for this study, the thickness and
condition of the alluvium is unknown.
3.3.3 P""h,, Fnrm"lin" S,,"r",ln".. lOp,,), Pauba Formation Sandstone constitutes
bedrock at the subject site. It consists of silty fine-grained sand and is dense in-place.
The Pauba Sandstone may potentially contain silts and clays which are not apparent at
the surface.
4.0 FARTHWORK RFr.OMMFNnATIONS
,
4.1 All Ar.."'"
1. All vegetation should be removed from areas to be graded and not used in fills.
2. Removals of the alluvium in the vicinity of the proposed landscaped play area in
the southern portion of the site should be made to a minimum depth of 3-feet
below existing grades, or to competent bedrock, whichever is reached first.
Removals of the upper 1 to 2-feet of weathered bedrock in order to reach
competent bedrock should be anticipated. If structures and/or retaining walls are
proposed for the terrace area, deeper removals and/or overexcavation will be
n ecessa ry.
3. No removals beyond the proposed 3 to 11-foot cut for the detached garage are
anticipated, since it is anticipated to be founded into competent bedrock. However,
if the bedrock is found not to be competent, or if expansive silts or clays are
located within the bedrock at the proposed grade, overexcavation may be
necessary.
4. All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the
Project Engineering Geologist or his representative prior to placement of any fill.
All residual soils and weathered bedrock must be removed to competent bedrock.
Bedrock bottoms should be probed to verify competency.
5. The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches
<if possible), brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction before placement of fill. Maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be
determined according to ASTM D 1557-02 procedures.
EnGEN Corporation g
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
..
.
-.
.
..
.
'Mr. Steve Schatan
Projecl Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 7
6. A keyway should be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes that are proposed on
natural grades of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper. Keyways should be a
minimum of fifteen (15) feet wide (equipment width) and tilted a minimum of two
percent into the hillside. A series of level benches should be constructed into
competent bedrock on natural grades of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper prior
to placing fill.
7. All fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical). All cut slopes should be inspected by the Project Engineering
Geologist to verify stability. Cut slopes exposing significant amounts of soil may be
considered unstable. Unstable cut slopes may require flattening or buttressing.
4.2 Ov..r'::;7" M:lt..ri:ll' Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible material
with a maximum dimension greater than 12-inches. Oversize material shall not be
buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are
specifically accepted by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Placement operations
shall be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that oversize
material is completely surrounded by compacted fill (windrow). Alternative methods,
such as water jetting or wheel rolling with a backhoe may be required to achieve
compaction in the fill materials immediately adjacent to the windrow. Oversize material
shall not be placed within ten (10) vertical feet of finish grade, within fifteen (15) lateral
feet of a finished slope face, or within two feet of future utilities.
4.3 ~trlldllr:lll=iII' All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be accepted
by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement. All
fill should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should
be no more expansive than the existing on-site material, unless approved by the
Project Geotechnical Engineer. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal
lifts not exceeding 6.0 to 8.0-inches in thickness, and watered or aerated to obtain
near-optimum moisture content (within 2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be
spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed to ensure unifonnity of soil moisture.
Structural fill should meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry
density based upon ASTM D 1557-02 procedures. Moisture content of fill materials
should not vary more than 2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer.
EnGEN Corporation 9
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
Augusl 2005
Page 8
4.4 !';nil Fxp:lnc:inn Pnf<'nti:ll' Preliminary Expansion Index testing was performed,
yielding an EI of 17. This is classified as a very low expansion potential. Import soils or
soils used near finish grade may have a different EI. The bedrock can potentially
contain significant amounts of expansive silts or clays. Mixing of these silts and clays
during grading could affect the overall EI of the fill. If selective grading is desired in
order to ensure that expansive soils are not used near pad grade, this option should be
discussed with this firm and the grading contractor prior to grading the site. Final
foundation design parameters should be based on EI testing of near-surface soils and
be 'Performed at the conclusion of rough grading. Those results should be forwarded
and incorporated into the final design by the Project Structural Engineer.
4.5 !';nlllhl" !';lIlf:1t"... Test results (California Test Method 417 procedures) indicate a
negligible concentration of water soluble sulfates. As a result, normal Type II cement
may be used in concrete that will come in contact with native soils.
5.0 !,;I OPF !,;TARIIITY - r.FNFRAI
It is our professional opinion that cut or fill slopes no taller than 3D-feet and inclined at
2: 1 ,(horizontal to vertical) or flatter, will possess gross and surficial stability in excess of
generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are
suitable for their intended purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures
are maintained. These procedures include but are not limited to installation and
maintenance of drainage devices and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in
accordance with County of Riverside Grading Codes.
6.0 r.ONr.III!,;ION!,; ANn RFr.OMMFNnATION!,;
6.1 Fnllnrl,'lfinn n"..ign R""nmmpnrl:ltinn..' Foundations for the proposed structure may
consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded in
competent bedrock. If a structure is proposed for the landscaped play area, additional
recommendations, beyond those presented here in will be necessary. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and upon a very low expansion
potential for the supporting soils and should not preclude more restrictive structural
requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual
EnGEN COlj>oration \0
.
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
Mr. Steve Schalan
Project Number: T3401'GFS
August 2005
Page 9
footing width and depth in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building
Code to resist design vertical, horiz:ontal, and uplift forces and should either verify or
amend the design based on final expansion testing at the completion of grading.
6.1.1 Fnllnrbtinn S;71!' Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4
steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar located
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to minor varia,tions 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.
6.1.2 nl!pth nf Fmh..r1m..nt. Exterior and interior footings founded in competent bedrock
should extend to a minimum depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for
single story structures.
6.1.3 R.."ring r."p"r.it~,. Provided the recommendations for site earth work, 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 total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for
competent 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 forc~s.
6.1.4 SI!;"mir. n.."ign P"r"m..t..r,,' The following seismic parameters apply:
Name of Fault: Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment)
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Fault: 1.2 Kilometers (4000-feet)
Soil Profile Type: SD
6.1.5 SI!ttll!ml!nt. Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the
maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum
settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement.
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 10
6.2 1 ..b....1 r...p..c:ity. Additional foundation design parameters based on competent
bedrock for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Competent Bedrock - 300 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: Competent bedrock - 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 competent
bedrock. 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.
6.3 ~1..h_nn_C::...rb. R.."nmmpnn..tinn,,' 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
minimurn, it is recommended that concrete floor slabs be at least 4-inches in nominal
thickness and reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on
center, both ways, placed at mid-height of the slab cross-section. Final expansion
testing at completion of grading could cause a change in the slab-on-grade
EnGEN Corporation \2.
.
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
6.4
7.0
7.1
7.2
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 11
recommendations. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated
over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum
of 10.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be
overlapped or sealed at splices and covered top and bottom by a 1.0 to 2.0-inch
minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to
minimize potential punctures.
Fyl..ri"r SI"h,,' 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 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.
RFTAININc.: WAil RFr.nMMFNnATlnNJ';
F"rth Pr"",,"r..,,' Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (Expansion 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:
CEc~~::n
Lev~~ ~~rfill
2':5s~~;e
Further expansion testing of potential backfill material should be perfonned 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.
R..I"ining W"II n""ign' Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths
into finn, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard foundations and may be
designed for an allowable bearing value of 3,000 psf when founded in unweathered
bedrock (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing).
EnGEN Corporation
\3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 12
Allowable static lateral bearing pressure of 300 psf/ft may be used in unweathered
bedrock. An allowable sliding resistance coefficient of friction of 0.35 is applicable for
bedrock. When using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a
Factor of Safety of 1.5 should be achieved. '
7.3 !';lIhdr"in' A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of
retaining walls equal to or in excess of 5-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 5-feet, subdrains may
include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by
filter rock, or some other approved system. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow
gradient and have outlets that drain in a non-erosive manner.
7.4 R""kfill' 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 minirnum 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 cornpacted 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
EnGEN Corporation \"\
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 13
moisture content for backfill materials should be detennined in accordance with ASTM
D 1557-02 procedures.
8.0 MIl';r.FI I ANFOIIl'; RFr.OMMFNnATIONl';
8.1 Iltiliw Tr..nr.h R..r.nmm..nrl"tinn,,' 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.
8.2 Fini"h I nt nr"in"g" R..r.nmm..nrl"tlnn". 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 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 4.0 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.
8.3 PI"nt..r R..r.nmm..nrl"tinn,,' 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.
EnGEN Corporation \-S-
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
'.
.
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 14
~lIppl..m..nt,,1 r.nn..trudinn Oh..,,,v,,tinn.. "nrt T....ting' 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
presaturation, 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 perfonned by EnGEN Corporation, liability for
the safety and perfonnance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the
project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation.
PI"n R..vi..w' 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 confonnance 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.
Pr...Rirt r.nnf..r..nr...' 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 process and clarify questions relative to
the supplemental grading and construction requirements of the project.
Pr...(;r"rting r.nnfl'r..nr...' Before the start of any grading, 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
EnGEN Corporation ~
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
'I
I
I
.1
9.0
Mr. Steve Schatan
Projecl Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 15
comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special
grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed ~
at that time.
1":1 OJ:; I JRF
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in
this document. It mayor 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 conditions that may have an impact
at the site. The recommendations presented in this report are 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 \. "
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
August 2005
Page 16
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our 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
CM/OB:II
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN\Repcrting\GFS\T3401-GFS Schatan Residence. Geotechnical Feasibility Study
EnGEN Corporation \ ~
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Prajecl Number: T3401-GFS
Appendix Page 1
TFr.I-INIr.AI RFFFRFNr.F!,;
1. Californi~ Building Code, 2001, State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title
24, 1998, California Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials and
California Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes.
2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
3. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., Revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault
Zone Maps: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology, 38 Pages reviewed at the California Geological Survey's web page:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Mapjndex/F4E.htm#SW.
4. 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.
5. Morton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, version 1.0, Open File Report 99-172.
6. Riverside, County of, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition.
7. Riverside, County of, 1978, Seismic Safety/Safety Element Policy Report, June 1978,
by Envicom.
8. Riversid13 County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
9. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117,. Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999.
10. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 2004, Southern California
Earthquake Data Center Website, http://www.scecdc.scec.org.
11. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 2000, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle,
San Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A Digital Base Map, Version 1.0:
California Division of Mines and Geology and United States Geological Survey,
Southern California Aerial Mapping Project.
12. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
EnGEN Corporation \ l\
.
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
,
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS .
Appendix Page 2
EnGEN Corporation 2.c
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
'\
'\
1'\
'\
'\.
'\. ,
I\.
'\.
1-
.... I\.
, ........ ,
1/ '\
I "\
'I '\
I 'I\.
1/ "
I '\.
1/ I\.
I ~
'\.
137
132
127
'0
c.
;:. .
'w
c:
Q)
'0
~
Cl
122
117
ZAVfor
Sp.G.=
2.54
112
2
4
6
8
Water content, %
10
12
14
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-02 Method A Modified
Eleyl
Depth
Classification
uses AASHTO
Nat.
Moist
%>
No.4
%<
Sp.G.
LL
pt
No.200
SM
2.1
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 127.7 pcf
Optimum moisture = 8.4 %
Project No. T3401-GFS Client: STEVE SCHATAN
Project: SCHA TAN RESIDENCE
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
, SILTY SAND, BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE A
GARAGE
COLLECTED BY CM
COLLECTED ON (7/22/05)
. Location: RENDOV A PLACE
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Figure
.
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Number: T3401-GFS
Job Name: SCHATAN RESIDENCE
Location: RENDOVA PLACE
Sample Source: (A) GARAGE
Sampled by: CM (7/22/05)
Lab Technician: RPC
Sample Oeser: SIL TV SAND, BROWN
7/25/2005
Wet Compacted WI.: 593
RingWt.: 199.2
Net Wet WI.: 393.8
Wet Density: 118.9
Wet Soil: 228.3
Dry Soil: 211.3
Initial Moisture (%): 8.0%
Initial Dry Density: 110.1
% Saturation: 40.9%
Final WI. & Ring WI.: 632.3
Net Final WI.: 433.1
Dry WI.: 364.5
Loss: 68.6
Net Dry WI.: 362.1
Final Density: 109.4
Saturated Moisture: 19.0%
Dial
Change Time
Reading 1: '0.100 N/A 10:55
Reading 2: 0.116 0.016 11:10
Reading 3: 0.119 0.019 11:25
Reading 4: 0.121 0.021 25-Jul
Expansion Index:
21
Adjusted Index:
(UBe 18-2)
16.6
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(951) 296-2230
Fax: (951) 296-2237
;zz.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Established 1906
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Report Date: 29-Jul-2005
Lab Sample # Client Sample 10
Matrix
A5G2056-01
A!r340 l-GFS/Scha
tan Residence
Soil
Sample Identification
Date Sampled fu
,
07/22/0500:00
\" ACCO~
..'" /)-1
,~ 4-0
~ '"
'" "'-
"
" ...
'" x
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 653-1662
www.babcocklabs.com
AnalYtical Report: Page 1 of 3
Project Name: Engen - Sulfate
Project Number: Purchase Order #2747
Work Order Number: A5G2056 -
Received on Ice (Y IN): No
Temp:
oc
Date Submitted fu
,
07/25/0510:10
Courier-
CA
Overnight
~
1
I
I
I
I
1
I Sample Description
A1T3401-GFS/Schatan Residence
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 653-1662
www.babcocklabs.com
Established 1906
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Analytical Report:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Work Order Number:
Page 2 of 3
Engen - Sulfate
Purchase Order #2747
A5G2056
Report Date: 29-Jul-2005
Received on Ice (Y IN): No
Temp:
oc
Laboratory Reference Number
A5G2056-01
Matrix
Soil
Received DatelTiftle
07/25/05 10:10
Sampled'DatefTime
07/22/05 00:00
Analyte(s)
Result
RDL
Units
Method
Analysis Date Analyst Flag
Water Extract
Sulfate
ND
10
Ion Chroma!.
07/27/0517:59
cth N-SAG,
N_WEX
ppm
\~ AGGOR
,,-" 0-1
. ,A", 4-(;'1
.:; <"
'" *
'-'
u
""
2.~
~
~
1
I
,I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
NELAP #02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507,0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 653,1662
www.babcocklabs.com
Established 1906
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Report Date: 29-Jul-2005
Analytical Report: Page 3 of 3
Project Name: Engen - Sulfate
Project Number: Purchase Order #2747
Work Order Number: A5G2056
Received on Ice (Y IN): No
Temp:
oc
Notes and Definitions
N-SAG Results reported in ppm are expressed onan air dri.ed soil basis.
,
N_WEX
ND
NR
Analyte determined on a 1: 1 0 water extract from the sample.
Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit (RDL)
Not Reported
RDL = Reportable Detection Limit
MOL = Method Detection Limit
Approval
Enclosed are the analytical results for the submitted sample(s). Babcock Laboratories certify the data presented as part of
this report meet the minimum quality standards in the referenced analytical methods. Any exceptions have been noted.
Babcock Laboratories and its officers and employees assume no responsibility and make no warranty, express or implied,
for uses or interpretations made by any recipients, intended or unintended, of this report.
~tII-/(}~
III James K. Babcock 0
President
Allison Mackenzie
General Manager
o Lawrence J. Chrystal
Laboratory Director
cc:
Short ESB Report
," AGGO~
<,,<> 0-1
,'\. 4-",
~ <"
'" "-
<.>
<.> ~
"' ~
24
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
Mr. Steve Schatan
Project Number: T3401-GFS
Appendix Page 3
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation 2.1
1
.
I
1
1
1
.
I
1
1
1
I
I
.
I
1
I
I
I
EnGEN Co
ora ti 0 n Geotechn!cal Engineering Special Material
Englneenng Geology Inspection Testing
Environmental
, Msel$ments
VICINITY MAP
APN 959-020-014
PROJECT NUMBER:
DATE: AUGUST 2005
CLIENT NAME: STEVE SCHATAN
SCALE: 1"=2400'
FIGURE: 1
BASE MAP: Thomas Guide, 2005, Riverside County, pg 979
2.8
4"
3'-0"
I
4"
CL BROW
DITCH
",1 ~'__u___ t ~
~~
3' CONCRETE DR 3' ~500 AIR PLACE7 ~-
CONCRETE WI 6'x6' 1.4'Wxl.4'W
'WELDED WIRE MESH
<1 "
..
N
....
V-DITCH DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
~ t--'lllt~ I
~~~ "" 'I
~~~:...'
~cll[::111-
~ 41~~:'"
~ ,W/,,\
t- lL 1 t-r< r t\BklL K\1!
:,.- I-~!! .-,11-.:-:.':..' .
iH".11 ;U,'.', 'j.-..IIIJ'-."-..J '.....,.'.... .
/,/ 1 'I,' . .........
/ --- liT~!rn~jfl~=tn.r::::::.:.....::::.I..~111::: III
,/ -.'1 j /'--11'''''1'11-.'-11 ;1:..-..l~III'.--.'II':-'II',. 'II..
.'- ,'." I'U' ,-- ,-- ---1- ,'11,
'~"--I-'-I.~-I. ,'1--1 ,",----'-I-'L-1..1.,I'-"I',...1 -'1.1.' '
II :.-.: -::::-.::11 =t :::: =1::.: I . ',:: I'
I 1==/1 [-=:111=1 U=.=W:::J I [J I j='
1I
SILT FENCE DETAIL
.
.. ,-
, ..--
PROPOSED FINISH
GRADE -
VA YLlGH r LINE -\ I Bl~M f--
-\ \ \ V II ", 1 % MIN.,~. I
'\ \ \ N I.A \ \ V -
~"- . / / /\ \ \ V ! f / ! I
.........
'--. FILL
N.T.S.
NOfE: THE SILT FENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY A WIRE MESH IF THE FIlfER FABRIC
DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT STRENGTH AND BURSTING STRENGTH CHARACTERISflCS
CAS RECOMMENDED BY THE FABRIC MANUFACTURER)
2, STAPLE THE F IL TER
FABRIC TO THE FENCE.
1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE
A 6 INCH BY 6 INCH
TRENCH UPSLOPE FROM AND
ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS.
I -2' MAX.' J h-~_ - ::'-- ~ 21 MIN
, I ---11 '" >---:::: _ ..:.:-~;;;~:::tIt ,-4 --3' MAX.
---- --- -------_____ -~~~~nj!
_____- ~ /' ",.--- --- ","'-- - ~I 1:::1 lj=:t' -
.;";1 J~" / /' ~ ~~~il~m~T~III-'"
~~i \, ~ W~ -------) L::lfF.....:f1j..:.jll .,
,..--- - ~. -.L_. ",
~ r-- '~i In~ -... ......
----~~[~,Ti,)~,~i~. C G" fIIJII/II/I' --
-/ 4'~rfC:;ii~:III:-- Af
j. EX 1 L N D '1 HE F I L T E R FA B R I C
INTO THE 6* x 6* TRENCH,
4, BACKF ILL AND COtvlPAC I
THE EXCAVATED SOIL,
lJEGEND
PROPERTY LlNE
c,ASEMENT LINE
LY
)/
t:.XISi. l;I'?D.
PROPOSED SLOPE
o ------- - - 0 -........---....-
SILT FENCE
------------/1950 t-....-----
PROPOSED ELEV.
EXISTING ELEV.
(-~--
f---
DRAINAGE FLOW
f---
-- -7fT- --- ---77 r- -YT-'-
> >
EDGE EXIST. PAVEMENT
V DITCH
@&
ROCK RIPRAP
~--"'"'
Qat
---
-r--
EXISTING GROUND ~ ----~
1 '
__i_
- ~'7 t
~*.
---
EARTHEN BERM DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
-
ul
~~_ ;Rl ~~., ...
COMPACTED ~
~
~ \ \ REMOVE UNSUITABLE
~., MATERIAL
NA~ ~~ t BENCH HT.
-'->~:.~7 / / / L 2" MIN. 4' MIN. VARIES
.. BENCH
-'1 ' I (TYP.)
2' MIN. I .. 15 MIN. .
KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH
(KEY)
PROJECTED PLANE - 1 TO 1
MAX. FROM TOE Of SLOPE
TO APPROVED GROUND
0(('"
c:,\,;
,
I
,
1 ~'
TRAvEL WAY'"
')'
-::.,..
2'
-
)V
, ~,
,--" G::r
.J<(.
4" CUI\JC UK
3" ,A,C ON NA 11 ,t.
/-~'_.
~3.. ~// ~I---"- 6" AC DIKE
~.- ,/ .t::./, /" /" /" /" /" /" .I' ~ .L. . =- ^ P [R S TO , 2 1 4
,~:~ ::z:;:;z;:;<.1;) ..;? '. i'"
" , / ~
: \_)'/
\0
~
96.1fl
S"x5' RIPr<AP
'ZO 5'-75' t=1.7'
Ul ,..__
"--'"'lO
S
r
I~O
':J
/
~' (/0
/S 0
// S 105.0TW
(77, // ., 96.5TF' 98.01 W f~
~..., 108.OHP,'-. 96.5TF ::./ f~
. '1f ..." 'hW' J:;::--........""'"-- 0
q,.~/Y' /. _"- ~ ~ ~jQ --- _ _
r?o-V / .~i~~
~0-<- ~ c,~ ~ \
t?Q ~, s<<)~~ ~ ,..~;} \ FUTURE
(~0 -4/ o<?Oc,~~./V. // / \ NOr A pPAD
~ (s>0~ 97.5TW q~~~~~. /' hS.9Fr- 4RT
<9~ 96.5Tf /(; "e.~ /
96.2Fl ./ -. ~ /"... ,1\ *
8p.OfL ~ . Qps /"V.,rl,,/" l \ EX.\JREE
5 x5 RIPRAP .I"~~ . ~/ J",. TO R~AIN.
5'-75' t=1.7')r ~W "/ " t \
~ .~ ~G. CUV ',~ ~QPS\..~
~ 96.9FG. ~ '" '\ "\
,,,6<:5 ___ X /X( (1<" \/' .~,
~ ,," -- ~)X-.lREi' TO \ "/ ,\~G'\ ) "'A!
fII/III"""" eE/1Cr~VED ,.... ..' -l.{:) t-..~ <"_ / ,.",.,. ~..
.-' ",'" (\ .. / ~I C),," Gv '. "'. "
, 1:':;~ '" \ / ,,~" ~~'f .... ~\~ '\.
- ~ ,r;\ v^"" '\
~'~\/.'y) (' .~ -;;.\
\ \ ~ \ ^' A -s:-bS'"" 'il ,
.\ ('t\ ~~ O~~ ~
\ ~~ ~\, ~~; Q ~~ c;:;\
'\ " ,
85.0FG/HP . .'~ \. '-'-. ')
\B' ',,- 2/ Qps At!
----1 fi'l7' ' - I
~
__ II
----
.....
'1
"
~
/"'....
~
KEYING / BENCHING DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
o
o
---.,;
~
( t 1 r' 1) I (~ A I....J S l~: C: 1'1 () N
t)~l V A'fE ACCESS DI~IVEWA y
---
'_.J.
0'
N ' ."/
~08" C
...........
NOT TO SCALE
_.._----.---._---------~-_....__._------_.. - -..--.------ ..----. -., --- ---
""""'"'-
~'{73'
---.....
............
EX
. FIRE
H 'rDRA.1V r
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE LOCATION or GEO'-O<j,\; C~rACr\
EXISTING FILL
ALLUVIUM
Qps PAUBA FORMATION SANDSTONE
PL
CONCRE: fE v'~DIICh
~(StE DETAIL HEREON)
FL ~
-, ,., ~ -. -k.
~ Vf
~ PROPOSED
RE:T AINING WALL -~ ~ 4 CAR GARAGE
(SEPARA TE PERMIT) t/:
~
~
/;:. 1- 1----' I'":''' I" -/11""111 II ell T~i'
~-::I ; , --=-1' --. 1 !-.: - "'"'":: LI::-
~
~EC[rION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
BY
REVISIONS
DA 1 E ACC'O
BENC~~MARK
DATE
,,_ ___~_Q~J~ A CO! OB.__
"- ..--.......---,------,... -.,--- r------- -----..----,-....-----.....--.....--..------
,- f------'-- ---
INSPECTOR
,.... '- ..._---------
---,
..--,----.---.------..- -- '-- ----. ...,--.---, '-' ,_._-,--
DATE COMPLETED
---
SCALE
HORIZONTAL
1" - 30'
VERTICAL
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Qps
//
,~
~
(.>~
"-
" )<
"-, {~
\
\
/
Qps
/' ..
/ L
/ ~~-f-' P-
,\~dJy' / 75.0FL
/~
Qps
z
\ =~.
V4
-...1
\~
(j"\ ~
/'
,/
\ \'\\
\
\
!
\
\ /
~:\ V
/~\
-
.---- ~
I ~1- %?~
\/ 1-.
r..... ~..--- ..-----' --.
---.J .. r"- /--- ~
\ Q. I (60~\ I ~ I.
\\ ~ I" B~ C/ I
'- ~ ..01 CO
r 0 (Ss}/ :';/ .
I C) ."1 1'<1- I Qal
II~:: ~ I.
'--I...J I '
/0::: I / --
t~.~~J
Jo' JO)
~
o
(6'~
I
J
I]
~.
.-/'
z
--------
-..~
.J
Qps
',.:>
-'
Tl
CRASS PlAY AREA
fI.1.
PAD::: 15.0
........--~
-- ,
-..... ~ \
\~
cO
\g~
I
>-
, ')
'I
Qal
~
~
:/
J
~
Qal ,
.~:::3'
N 31.30'00:-,
Qps
Qps
- -
-
-
527.55'
/
I
\.'6~")
\.~)")
(&s
V
r&0
6
<)
~
o
{/0
I
t~
/
I
10' /
C/J/
r-
1$/
~I
/p
f'tJ1
I ~/
EXIST. TREES - ~
~~ PAO-I7:1.o ~~ ,(;c-IIFI'lc,
: ~ ~ ~~'- ~// ~~1ffi~IDv,~~lwr'
~ .'~" """-:-.'. :=--:11.1:~fT' n'Ti~WH~fu&fjfrlJ rnill'rr~f:'
I ~r111117li 1:'-=11' \( . .
'T __ _ _ ~. __ "'- -' . 11::; .:11' FlU AREA
- ,- '-- EXIST. GRO.
( IN FEET )
1 inch .=; 30 ft.
(s~
1-
~
I
, I
::1
/
I
I
II
SWAlE
PAD= 65.0
/
I
I
--
RENOC VA PI..
u hAP tile ::)C ALL:.;
II.-
5u
60
L
~' -,
~.._-
EnGEN Corporation ~ Ech.II.- ~, = EfMN..4i\o..4oJ
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY SITE PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER: I TM01-GF1' I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: I APN t59-02O..o14
1 DATE: AUGU$T 2001 I SCALE: 1"-30'
I CLIENT NAME: I STEVE SCHAT AN I PLATE: f 1
SECTION B- B
~~~~
_ ... u, '=' . . ~~~
CONSUL TANT AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
NOT TO SCALE
Rj
P.O. BOX 2170
TaECLU. CA 92593
PHONE (951) 491-5969
SEAl; ~~
rtf ~
/1/:;'1 ROf!DIT T. FElJEJllGHtl
I ~I No. 30000 r I
~\ Exp. 9-30-05 J". I
~~ CIVIL ~
~!f a: oo~
-
-
DESIGNED BY
'~~ ~-~~="':;~'=,,,,-=,-=- -
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
Df~AWINC NO
RECOMMENDED BY:
OEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK~
SHEET:_,?
DATE:
C/-l-Y ()F -r-E~M
CUI_A
'.PRECISE -wGRADING~ ".--
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
FOR:
STEVE SCHATAN RESIDENCE
LOT 14 MB 101/075 OF TR 9833-1
A.P.N. 959-020-014
")
Of: _, f-...;
PLANS PREP ARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
.ACCEPTED BY:
RONALD J. PARKS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR , CI TY OF TEMECULA
OF PUBLIC WORK
EXPIRES: 9/30/05
DA TE:
-'--- ,":~
I-~
~~
(~ ~l~l\
~~'t;!-~;/)
~~m
~. IiIE'I
ROBERT T. FEDERIGHI, R.C.E. 30000
Lie. EXP. 9-30-05
DATE
R.C.E. 19744