HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 8595 Parcel 4 Geotech Feasibility (May14,2003)
I /~ -)..
I ~b:t::l-IL-~--EnGEN
Coq~oration
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services e EngineeringGeology. CompaclionTesting
-Inspections- ConstrudionMalerialsTesting. LaboratoryTestinge PercolalionTesting
. Geology. Water Resource Stm:lies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C"" ",
" ,_.___-c_. \
~I(r '
~.,~"..
, '
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Dods Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-140-008
Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 8595, Lolita Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 14, 2003
Prepared for:
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
30984 Lolita Road
Temecula, California 92592
-\
. ,,/
, .'
I'
/ '- ~,.-
-' \ - - - \ I "" \ _ _ _ \
~ -... '- " - '.-
" ,
.' --- I " -- I
, I I I ~,I) \ I: I \ I ''" I
__-......___-' :'_ '. ........>---..1I
COR ATE 0E6CE..4..160
~_"':-o"f'O"'-: ".,.~.='--'-'._~"..'-'-
'-'ORANGE COUNTY'n
~,.. '- r / " / / " r ~ I _ "/" I.... / /.... /" F /
1-, \_ .__ " \..-" -' 1/ __ \..-' " I"
'- _ -' '- _ '- '- / _ _' '- - ," -.---.........:..~ J" _ I - _ " -
\ F \__ I ,,', \ I I I " _~_J"-'~'--- . - . --;r-'----'-'"--------
_t-~=,;-.IL_.....<..... ,\,._~J ':-_~.----:.lr=---_r.-:- . - Ii P
~I . II U - . !I I!
E terprige Circi,,,N rt ,Suite.l..TemecOla;C;o;JJ2590,.-!phone:J9091 296aiio,"_faJ<: (909),296'2231 ~,=' "~~,
_ _" ".~- . _.c,_'_ ___', " "'::--~~;;-'~::O-'-- -,.
I E2615 Orange A e ue, Santa Ana, CA 92101 "phone: (714) 546,4051 "fax: (714) 546.4052
B~-SftE:'VVwW:en e c'orp:com"'-e:=MAlL:"engencorp@engencorp:'"com-, - -~ ~._-----
.:..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
Page
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION... ...... ......... ,....... ...... ............ ... ,.. ..... ...... ..... ,...... ... .......... 2
1.1 Site Description ..,.......................................,.............,.............,.............................2
1.2 Project Description ... ... .......... ..................... ...... ....... ........ ,....... ... ,................ ..... ,...2
2.0 FINDINGS . ... .......... .... ....... ...... .... .... ..... .... .... ,......... ...,........... ........ ...... ,........ ,........... 2
2.1 Site Review...... ... .... ..,.,...,...............,........... ..... ,... .........,............. ...... ..... ...... ,........2
2.2 Site History ...,.......... .... .......... ................. ,............ ...... .... ... ............ .............. .......... 2
2.3 Laboratory Testing.....,......,..............,...........................,........................................ 2
2.3.1 General.......................................................,.........,.............,.......,........... 2
2.3.2 Classification...............,.............................,...........,..........".........,.......... 3
2.3.3 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test.... 3
2.3.4 Expansion Potential.......................,............,.........,.,.........,..................... 3
2.3.5 Soluble Sulfates.....................,..,............................................,.......,........ 3
2.3.6 Direct Shear TesL.. ........ ................ ...:........ ........ ...." ,............... .............4
2.4 Excavation Characteristics .......,..... .,.............. ... ....... ... ....,..,............. ......,... ........ ,.4
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY ........ .............. .,............. ............ ,..... .... ,...........4
3.1 Geologic Setting ............................ ..... ........... .......... ............ .................... ...........,. 4
3.2 Seismic Hazards....,.....,..............................................,................,...................,.... 4
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 Existing Fill........,......... ......... ,....,...,.............. .... ...... ... ...,..... ...,...... ........... 5
3.3.2 Colluvium.,................,.............................,.... .,....,...........,.......,.,..............5
3.3.3 Pauba Formation ................... .............. ....... ............ .................... ............ 5
4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ... ,..........................., ............. ................. .......... ... 6
4.1 All Areas .... ,......... ........................................ ............................. ........... ..... ..... ....... 6
4.2 Oversize Material...................................................".,............................,...........,.. 7
4.3 Structural Fill,..............,..............................................................,.......................... 7
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................7
5.1 Foundation Design Recommendations .............................................,..................7
5.1.1 Foundation Size...............................................,......................................8
5.1.2 Depth of Embedment ..............................................,............,...........,..... 8
5.1.3 Bearing Capacity .............,...............................................,........".......,....8
5.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters ......,............................................................ 8
5.1.5 Settlement ................................,.............,...............................................8
5.2 Lateral Capacity. ...,... .............. ....................... ,.. .... ...... .............. ......... ,..,.... ,.... ...... 9
5.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations.. .... .... .... ................ ......, ....... ...... ..... ,.... ,.... ......9
5.4 Exterior Slabs ....................,...........................................,...........,...............,....,...1 0
EnGEN Corporation
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Number and Title
Page
6.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................,.................10
6.1 Earth Pressures........ ..................... ............. ...... ...... ............. ,..... ............. ,...... ..... 10
6.2 Retaining Wall Design ...,.........................................,..........................................10
6.3 Subdrain ............. .... ................ ,....... .......................... ........ ... ........ ........... ............ 11
6.4 Backfill... .............. ....... ,..... ............... .......,..... ...... ...................... ......, ....... ...... ...,..11
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS ............................,................,.............,......12
7.1 Utility Trench Recommendations................................................,..............,........12
7.2 finish Lot Drainage Recommendations ...................,.............,...........................12
7.3 Planter Recommendations ................. ....., ,............... .....,........,.. ... ......................12
7.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing .........................,............12
7.5 Plan Review........,..,.............................................,..,................,......,............,..,... 13
7.6 Pre-Bid Conference ............... ........ ....... ...................... ... ........... ........ ......... ,........13
7.7 Pre-Grading Conference ...............................................,......................,.............13
8.0 CLOSURE..,.,..,.....,....................,.......................................".,..,........,............,............. 14
APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
2...
1 ") ~'
/'''J\, -"'~,,-. //
I ~.d:lJ..,.,-,~:EnGEN
~,--,,~-
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
r'1;;:-":\ /
.-"
/ .... "" / I '- ,~I --.
~\-~._- .::\~~-_\/
\" \ /, \ \ I
" -- I "" "-- I \
- .... ~ I - ..... ~ I
~..;...:._~_..;. :, ,.l..~.u--'1r .,'
COR ATE~QEElCE..4..160
=~=, -''''ORANGE-COUNTY'O
-
,
-Soil EngineeringandConsullingSel'lices- EnllineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
-Inspections- ConstrllCllonMalerialsTesting. Laboratory Testmg . PercolallOnTesling
. Geology-WaterResourceSludl€s . Pl1ase 1& II Envlronmenlal Sile AsssssmenlS
Cor~oration
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
May 14, 2003
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
30984 Lolita Road
Temecula, California 92592
(909) 694-5901 I FAX (909) 694-5911
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Dods Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-140-008
Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 8595, Lolita Road
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2771-GFS
Reference:
L
South Coast Civil Engineering, Additional Pad Grading, Dads Residence,
30984 Lolita Road, Parcel 4 of Parcel 8595, Temecula, California, Order
No, 95-155, report dated August 25, 1995.
2,
Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc., Grading Plan, Parcel 4, Parcel
Map 8595, plans dated March 26, 2003,
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dods:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has visited
the subject site on April 28, 2003, 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 minor cut and
fill type grading will take place for the proposed structural development Footings are planned to
be excavated into either compacted fill or competent bedrock, but not a combination of both,
Grading for hardscape improvements will accompany the structural development and we have
included appropriate recommendations, Based on this firm's experience with this type of project,
our understanding of the regional geologic conditions surrounding the site, and our review of in-
house maps, 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 exposed conditions encountered during
grading,
/
\
>:,~ ..,J'
".
,.-;.~; --~---'--'~~'T~-''''
'/ " ~,,/ _ ' , '/ " ~ ~ I _' _ ~ / '- J / _" _ '/" F' / _" _ ' J /
"" - - - \ __ " / i ,,- - - \ " " / I -- \ - - \ 'J;t' / --,
I,.. \_ _._ '. \. " ~ _" ~
: ~ \ ~ \~- ~; \ ...." \ " \_-- i ,,~~ \ '/'~- ~~~=:- -~-~j.lr~'::~-:"~~;r--~'~~~--- :,
.. , .. ,.. , ~ ~-~-~-'II ' II Ii ii
~---.- --'-., . '-- - ., . ,..... . ~' ..Jl
E !erprise~i~'N rt,.S1Yt9,I,je\\,elJula;'CA'92596)bh6neL(~Q~}~,9~'1M~iE~IillPf~i~1' .. ,'~~~-.
I E2S"50range A e ue, Sahta Ana. CA 92707 . phone: (714) 546.4051 . fax: 1714} 546.4052
B-:SfrE: WWw;en e corp.colTl; -., E;:M)\lE:~enge-ricorp'@en:genc(frp~.com---:--'."""~ ~...............___c_ .
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 2
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site DescriDtion: The subject site is comprised of a 4.7 -acre parcel with vertical relief
of roughly 45-feet. The site occupies a northwest trending ridge with site drainage
towards the north. Access to the site is by the existing Lolita Road (Figure 1). The site
appears to have been previously graded and consists of a bedrock knob mantled by fill
and minor amounts of colluvium. Based on our site review, the existing structures
appear to be located primarily in cut, while the northwest facing slope and easterly yard
areas appear to be primarily in fill..
1.2 Proiect DescriDtion: Based on our review of the grading plans, the proposed
development will consist of one to two-story additions to the existing single family wood-
framed home, with a slab-on-grade foundation. We are providing general grading and
minimum footing recommendations for the proposed structures. Any changes to the
plans should be reviewed by this office so that additional recommendations can be
made, if necessary.
2.0 FINDINGS
2.1 Site Review: Based on our site visit, it appears that existing fill, colluvium and Pauba
Formation underlie the site. Since no deeper subsurface exploration was performed for
this investigation, the thickness and condition of the existing fill or colluvium is unknown,
Based on our experience in this area, we anticipate a 1 to 2-foot thick blanket of
colluvium to mantle the bedrock. Based on our conversations, the existing structural
footings are founded entirely into bedrock.
2.2 Site History: Based on our review of the Referenced No. 1 Report, a residential
structure was present prior to the 1995 investigation. No grading reports or maps other
than those referenced were presented for our review.
2.3 Laboratory Testing
2.3,1 General: 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,
EnGEN Corporation L\.
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 3
2.3.2 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 2488-93, 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.
2.3.3 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 1557-00
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.
2.3.4 Expansion Potential: Preliminary Expansion Index testing was performed on a mixture
of the import stockpiles, yielding an Expansion Index (EI) of 3. This is classified as a very
low expansion potential. At the conclusion of grading, our firm should perform sampling
and Expansion Index testing of the soils at final pad grade as well as at footing grade.
Those results should be forwarded and incorporated into the final foundation design by the
Project Structural Engineer. The Project Structural Engineer should determine the actual
footing width and depth to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces based on the
final Expansion Index test results. The recommendations for concrete slab-on-grade
reinforcement and thickness, both interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, should
be provided by the Project Structural Engineer based upon the information provided at the
conclusion of grading, and considering the expansion potential for the supporting material
as determined by Chapter 18 of the California Building Code. The Expansion Test Results
Sheet is presented in the Appendix.
2.3,5 Soluble Sulfates: Based on our visual inspection of the site and of the samples collected
during our site. visit, our experience with this type of project, and test results from similar
sites in the immediate vicinity, testing for the presence of soluble sulfates was not
performed. In our opinion, the near-surface soils do not contain excessive amounts of
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 4
soluble sulfates. As a result, normal Type II cement may be used for all concrete in
contact with native soils at the site.
2.3.6 Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on select samples of near-surface
earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 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),
The Direct Shear Test Results Sheets are presented in the Appendix.
2.4 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the colluvium is anticipated
to be relatively easy, The Pauba Formation bedrock is expected be rippable to the
desired depths with typical earth working equipment.
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
3.1 Geoloaic 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 and Mann, 1955). The Peninsular
Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic,
metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial/alluvial
sedirnents 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 section of this report.
3.2 Seismic Hazards: 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 surface rupture and/or 9round shakin9, or secondary,
such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement.
EnGEN Corporation G:.
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 5
3.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture: No known active faults exist on the subject site, The nearest
State designated active fault is the Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment), located
approximately 0,5 miles (0.8 Km) southwest of the subject site. This conclusion is based
on literature review (references) and EnGEN Corporation's site visit Accordingly, the
potential for fault surface rupture on the site is very unlikely.
3.2.2 Liauefaction: Based on a preliminary screening for liquefaction hazard potential
performed for the subject site as outlined in Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 117, and the dense formational Paliba Formation bedrock underlying the
subject site, it is our opinion that the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction are
considered low.
3.2.3 Seismically Induced Landsliding: Due to the overall relatively horizontal geologic
structure of the Pauba Formation in the vicinity of the site, the probability of seismically
induced landsliding is considered low.
3.2.4 Seismically Induced Floodina. Seiches and Tsunamis: Due to the absence of a
confined body of water in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the possibility of
seismically induced floodin9 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 Earth Materials
3.3.1 Existing Fill: Areas of existing fill were observed during our site visit No compaction
reports of the existing fill areas were provided for our review. It is our understanding that
all footings for the proposed additions will be founded entirely into existing bedrock.
3.3.2 Colluvium: Colluvium mantled the bedrock across the undeveloped portions of the site,
The colluvium consists of red brown to brown porous silty clayey sand, Since no deeper
subsurface exploration was performed for this investigation, the depth and condition of the
colluvium is unknown. Based on our experience in the area and the visible exposed
bedrock outcrops, we anticipate the colluvium to range in thickness form 1 to 2-feet with
local pockets up to 3-feet thick.
3,3.3 Pauba Formation: Pauba Formation was observed along slopes across the site and in
nearby road cuts. The Pauba Formation consists of a dense, weakly to moderately
EnGEN Corporation
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
4.0
4,1
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 6
cernented silty sand, tan to red brown, dry to moist and medium dense to very dense in
place. Regional geologic maps (Kennedy, 1977) indicate that the Sandstone Member of
the Pauba Formation underlies the site. Regional bedding orientations indicate an overall
northwest trend with a dip to the northeast of 50 or less, The Pauba Formation at the site
constitutes bedrock.
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
All Areas:
1. All vegetation should be removed from areas to be graded and not used in fills.
2. All undocumented fill must be removed from proposed cut or fill areas. Existing
fills that were engineered and documented may be left in place, provided
appropriate documentation is available and the current condition and competency
of the fill is verified and meets current industry standards.
3. In the structural areas, removals should extend to bedrock. Removals should
extend a minimum of 5-feet outside the structure. Removals in the hardscape
areas should extend to bedrock or to a minimum depth of 2-feet below the existing
grades where bedrock is not encountered, to or 2-feet below proposed grades,
whichever is deeper. Hardscape removals should expose competent colluvial or
bedrock bottoms. The material generated during removals should be cleared of
any debris, and may then be placed as engineered fill. Competent bottoms shall
be defined as undisturbed removal bottoms which exhibit a minimum relative
compaction of 85 percent. Deeper removals may be required depending upon
exposed conditions encountered. Bedrock bottoms should be probed to verify
competency.
4. All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the
Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist's representative prior to
placement of any fill. All removal bottoms should be probed to verify competency.
5. The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction before placement of fill. Maximum dry density and
EnGEN Corporation
g.
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
4.2
43
5,0
5.1
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 7
optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined
according to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
6. A keyway excavated into competent bedrock should be constructed at the toe of all
fill slopes that are proposed on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or
steeper.
7. All fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical).
Oversize Material: We anticipate that no oversize material will be encountered during the
grading for the proposed development. Should oversize material be encountered, please
contact our office for further recommendations.
Structural Fill: 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 uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should
meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density based upon
ASTM D 1557-00 procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than
2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Desil"n Recommendations: Foundations for the proposed structures may
consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded in properly
compacted fill or competent bedrock, but not a combination of both. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and upon an assumed 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 footing width and depth in accordance with the latest edition of the California
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 8
Building Code to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces and should either
verify or amend the design based on final expansion testing at the completion of
grading.
5.1.1 Foundation Size: 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 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.
5.1.2 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill
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,
5.1.3 Bearing Capacity: 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 1,500 psf for
footings in properly compacted fill and 2,500 psf for unweathered 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.
5.1 A Seismic Design Parameters: The following seismic parameters apply:
Seismic Source:
Seismic Source Type:
Distance to Source:
Maximum Historical Event:
Soil Profile Type:
Elsinore Fault - Temecula Segment
Type B
Less than 2 Km
6.8Mw
SD
5.1.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the
maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum
EnGEN Corporation
\\
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
5.3
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Oods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page g
settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.50-inch in properly compacted fill
under static load conditions.
5.2
Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for
resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted FiII- 250 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - 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, properly,
compacted fill 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.
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 crackin9 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-9rade 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 nominal in
EnGEN Corporation
\;L
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 10
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 recommendations.
5.4 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 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.
6.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Earth Pressures: 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:
Condition Level Backfill 2:1 Slope
Active 30 pcf 45 pcf
At Rest 60 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 are not capable of this 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.
6.2 Retaining Wall Design: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths
into properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard
foundations and may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 1,500 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 250 psf/ft and allowable sliding resistance coefficient of
friction of 0,35. Footings in sound bedrock may be designed for 2,500 psf. When using
EnGEN Corporation \.3
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
6.3
6.4
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number; T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 11
the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a Factor of Safety of 1,5
should be achieved.
Subdrain: 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 4-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. It is our understanding that a basement might be
constructed. It such an arrangement, proper waterproofing and either a sump pump
drainage system or drainage to daylight need to be designed. Low point of the drainage
system .should be at least 18-inches below finished basement floor.
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
EnGEN Corporation
\4
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
7.2
7.3
7.4
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 12
system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should
be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
7.0
MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
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 1557-00 procedures.
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 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 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-
erosive manner should be provided,
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.
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 9rading includes, but is not
EnGEN Corporation IS
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.6
7.7
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 13
limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cuUfill 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 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.
7.5
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
recomrnendations presented in this report.
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 process and clarify questions relative to the supplemental
grading and construction requirements of the project
Pre-Grading Conference: 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 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.
EnGEN Corporation \tP
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
8.0
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 14
CLOSURE
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 \ l
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
May 2003
Page 15
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
~~
Ernest W. Roumelis
Staff Geologist
EWRlOB:hh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FilE: EnGEN\Reporting\LGS\T2771-GFS Stephen Dods, Geotechnical Feasibility
EnGEN Corporatioo \g
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13.
14.
15.
16.
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dads
Project Number: T2771-GFS
Appendix Page 1
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1.
Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April 1995.
Bowles, Joseph E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition.
California Building Code, 1998, 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.
California Department of Conservation, Geology Map of the Santa Ana 1: 1 00,000
Quadrangle, California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
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
/c9slrghm/apl Map_indexlF4E.htm#SW
Hull, A. G., 1990, Seismotectonics of the Elsinore-Temecula Trough, Elsinore Fault Zone,
Southern California, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
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.
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.
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,
Riverside, County of, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition.
Riverside, County of, 1978, Seismic Safety/Safety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
Envicorn.
Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale: 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps,
Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 854B, Scale 1" = 800'.
Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet,
California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale: 1 :250,000.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 2002, Southern California
Earthquake Data Center Website, http://www.scecdc.scec.org,
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12,
EnGEN Corporation
\Q,
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
17.
18,
19.
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Oods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
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.
Temecula, City of, 1993, General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993.
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
EnGEN Corporation
Y:>
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
Appendix Page 3
EnGEN Corporation :2..\
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Jdb ilium""". T2n1-GFS
Job Name: OOOS RESIDENCE
Location: LOLITA RD.,TEMECULA
Sample Source: A (ADDITIONS AREA)
Sampled by: ER (4-28-03)
Lab Technician: PB
Sample Descr: SAND, LIGHT BROWN
5/1/03
Wet Cornpilcted \lilt:. 585,9
RingWt.: 185:9
Net Wet Wt.: 400.0
Wet Density: 120.8
Wet Soil: 209,1
Dry Soil: 187.7
Initial Moisture (%); 11.4%
Initial Dry Density: 108.4
% Saturation: 55.6%
Final \11I1. & Ring WI.:
Net Final Wt.:
Dry Wt.:
Loss:
Net Dry Wt.:
Final Density:
Saturated Moisture:
Dial Chan e Time
Reading 1: 0.100 N1A 2:25
Reading 2: 0.100 0.000 2:40
Reading 3: 0.099 -0.001 2:55
Reading 4: 0,098 -0.002 1-Ma
603.0
417.1
359.1
58.0
354.4
107.0
16.4%
Expansion Index:
o
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM D 4832-95)
2.2
.ii
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
22..-
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
'l3
a.
;i-
'ill
c
Q)
."
~
o
1\
\
\
/' r-... \
1/ " \
J " 1\
I \
"
/ ..
'\ \
II I\.
I\. \
/ '\
\. \
/ \.
- 1\
/
J \
I-
\
1\
120
118
116
114
112
110
6
ZAV for
Sp.G.=
2.6
18
8
10
12
Water content, %
14
16
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
Elevl
Depth
Classification
uses AASHTO
Nat.
Moist.
%>
No.4
%<
No.2Oll
Sp.G.
LL
PI
SP
8.1
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 118.1 pcf
Optimum moisture = 12.1 %
Project No. T2771-GFS Client: SlEPHEN DaDS
Project: DaDS RESIDENCE
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAND,LlGHT BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE A
ADDffiON AREA
CaLL BY ER
CaLL ON 4-28-03
_ LocatIon: LOLITA ROAD
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
'2:3
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
(J)
(J)
QJ
L
~
if)
L
o
QJ
.L
if)
3000
o
~
(J)
Q. 2000
if)
if)
w
n::
I-
if)
W
n::
::0
...J
~
1000
RESULTS
C. pst
cI>, de9
TAN ~
404
40.7
0.86
2000
o
o
0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.6
REMARKS: SAMPLE A
ADDITIONS AREA
COLL BY ER
COLL ON 4-28-03
Fig. No_:
3000
2500
....
(J)
Q.
2000
1500
1000
o
o
1000
Horiz. Displ., in
SAMPLE TYPE:
DESCRIPTION: SAND.LIGHT BROWN
500
3000
4000
Normol Stress. pst
SAMPLE NO. :
WATER CONTENT. %
~ DRY DENSITY. pet
~ SATURATION, %
!;i VOID RATIO
H DIAMETER. in
HEIGHT. in
WATER CONTENT. %
I- DRY DENSITY. pet
if)
W SATURATION. %
l-
I- VOID RATIO
<( DIAMETER. in
HEIGHT. in
NORMAL STRESS, pst
FAILURE STRESS. psf
DISPLACEMENT, in
ULTIMATE STRESS, psf
DISPLACEMENT. in
Strain rate. in/min
CLIENT: STEPHEN ODDS
PROJECT: DODS RESIDENCE
13.3
106,2
65.2
0.529
2.42
1.00
0.0
106.2
0.0
0,529
2.42
1.00
1000
1223
0.11
0.2000
5000
13.3
106.2
65.2
0.529
2.42
1.00
0.0
106.2
0.0
0,529
2.42
1.00
2000
2211
0.13
0.2000
2
SAMPLE LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD.
TEMECULA
PROJ. NO.: T2771-GFS DATE: 5-1-03
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
6000
3
13.3
106.2
65.2
0.529
2.42
1.00
0.0
106,2
0.0
0,529
2.42
1.00
3000
2944
0.10
0.2000
EnGEN Corporation
'21\
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Dods
Project Number: T2771-GFS
Appendix Page 4
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation ~
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
BASE MAP: Thomas 8ros., Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties, 2002, page 959 & 979
EnGEN Corporatl'on G.otoeh,;,'" ",."..ri,.
Engineering Geology
SITE LOCATION MAP
PROJECT NAME: DODS RESIDENCE
DATE: MAY 2003
PROJECT NUMBER: T2771-GFS
N
I
-@-
,
Special
Inspection
Material Environmental
Testing Asses'sments
SCALE: 1"=2400'
FIGURE 1
Zb