HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3883 Lot 436 Geotechnical Feasibility
~EN COfRoration
. Soil EngirteeringandConsullingServices. EnllineeringGeology. Compaction Testing
.lnspections-ConslructionMalerjalsTesting. Laboratory Tesling . Percolation Testing
. Geology. Waler Resource Sludies . Phasel&IIEnvironmentalSileAssessments
.
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NElWORK
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Pulido Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-292-013
Lot 436 of Tract 3883, 30965 Avenida Del Reposa
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 18, 2004
Prepared for:
.~~,
~~~C"
Mr. and Mrs. Craig Pulido
30870 Avenida Del Reposa
~' Temecula, Califomia 92591
m
f'~', (~...__
'-.;:i:
....
"
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
! .
.
.
.
I .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SectIon Number and Title
fig!
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 Laboratory Testing.............. ....................................................... ....................... .... 2
2.2.1 General....................... .............. ......... .............................. ............... ........ 2
2.2.2 Classification.. .................. ..................... ........... .......... ...... ........... ...........3
2.2.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density Test............................................. 3
2.2.4 Expansion Potential......................... ............... .......... .......... ....................3
2.2.5 Direct Shear Test.................................................................................... 3
2.2.6 Soluble Sulfates............................ ................... ..... ..... .................. ........... 4
2.3 Excavation Characteristics ...................................................................................4
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY .......................................................................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 Undocumented Fill (Afu).........................................................................5
3.3.2 Colluvium (Qcol). ............. ......... ........ ............ ................... ............ ........... 6
3.3.3 Pauba Formation Sandstone (Qps)........................................................6
4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................6
4.1 All Areas ...............................................................................................................6 .
4.2 Oversize Material....................... ........ ...................... ....................... ........ .............. 8
4.3 Structural Fill......................................................................................................... 8
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL .....................................................................................9
5.1 Fill Slopes ............................................................................................................. 9
5.2 Cut Slopes ................... ........ .......... ..... .................... ........................ ........ ..............9
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................9
6.1 Foundation Design Recommendations ................................................................9
6.1.1 Foundation Size...................................................................................... 9
6.1.2 Depth of Embedment ...........................................................................10
6.1.3 Bearing Capacity ..................................................................................10
6.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................10
6.1.5 Settlement ............................................................................................10
z.
EnGEN Corporation
-<
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
II
II
I II
II
II
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Number and Title
figg
6.2 Lateral Capacity..................................................................................................10
6.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations.....................................................................11
6.4 Moisture Barrier Recommendations ...................................................................11
6.5 Exterior Slabs .....................................................................................................12
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 12
7.1 Earth Pressures..................................................................................................12
7.2 Retaining Wall Design ........................................................................................12
7.3 Subdrain ............... .......... ............ ............. ............... ........ ........... ....... .................. 13
7.4 Backfill .... .......... .... .... ................. .......... ........ ........ ... ........ ....... ....... .......... ............ 13
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 14
8.1 Utility Trench Recommendations........................................................................ 1 4
8.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .............................................................14
8.3 Planter Recommendations .................................................................................14
8.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ......................................15
8.5 Plan Review.................................................................................................:......15
8.6 Pre-Bid Conference............................................................................................15
8.7 Pre-Grading Conference ................................ ...... ........................ ....... ...............15
9.0 CLOSURE .... ...... ... ........ ......... ................. ....................... .... ... ........ ........ .............. .........16
APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
LABORATORY TEST ,RESULTS
DRAWINGS
.:>
:'~EN
. Soil Engineering and Consullinll Services . EngineeringGeology-CompactiOllTesliflll
Cornoratl'On elnspeGtionseConslructionMalerialsTeslingel.abOfaloryTeslingePercolaliOllTeslinll
t-:: . e Geology e Water Resource Studies e Phase t & II Environmental Sile Assessrrenls
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NElWORK
.
.
August 18,2004
.
Mr. and Mrs. Craig Pulido
30870 Avenida Del Reposa
Temecula, California 92591
(951) 296-9092
.
.
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Pulido Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-292-013
Lot 436 of Tract 3883,30965 Avenida Del Reposa
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T3241-GFS
.
.
Reference:
.
1. Manning Engineering, Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, Lot
436 of Tract No. 3883, Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-292-013, City of
Temecula, plans dated June 30, 2004.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pulido:
.
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has
visited the subject site on August 2, 2004, to visually observe the surficial conditions of the
subject lot and to collect samples of representative surficial site materials. Laboratory
testing was performed on selected 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 with import material will take
place for the proposed structural development. Footings are planned to be excavated into
compacted fill. Grading for hardscape improvements will accompany the structural
development and 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,
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.
.
.
.
.
.
1~,_;
::'S~'::-'~
..,
..
.
.
I.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 2
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site DescrlDtlon: The subject site is comprised of approximately 0.6-acres with
vertical relief of approximately 45-feet, and drainage to the south at a gradient of
approximately 5 to 20 percent. Previous grading has resulted in existing cut slopes
located along Avenida Del Reposa and along the east property lines. A pad area is
located at the base of the cut slopes. It is likely that fill has been placed over the
south-facing slope below the existing pad area. Access to the existing pad is by a
dirt driveway located on the northwest side of the site leading from the existing
Avenida Del Reposa. No structures are located on the site.
1.2 Prolect DescrlDtion: Based on our review of the referenced grading plan, the
proposed development will consist of a two-story single family wood-framed home
with a slab-on-grade foundation, which includes a daylight basement. A separate
pad will be constructed for a proposed pool. All fill slopes are planned to be
constructed at a ratio of 2: 1, horizontal to vertical. Cut slopes are planned to be
constructed at ratios of 2:1 or flatter. We are providing general grading and minimum
footing recommendations for the proposed structure. 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 reconnaissance, it appears that undocumented fill,
colluvium, and Pauba Formation underlie the site. Since no deeper subsurface
. exploration was performed for this investigation, the thickness and condition of the
colluvium and undocumented fill is unknown. The site is not located within a State
designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No faulting was observed during
our site reconnaissance.
2.2 Laboratory Testlna:
2.2.1 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
5
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 3
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 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.
2.2.3 In-Sltu Moisture Content and Density Test: The in-situ moisture content and dry
density were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216-98 and ASTM D
2937-94 procedures, respectively, for each selected undisturbed sample obtained. The
dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is
determined as a percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Test results are
presented in the Appendix.
2.2.4 EXDanslon Potential: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of
near-surface earth materials in general accordance with ASTM D 4829-95 procedures.
In this testing procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two layers in a 4.O-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 blow per layer. The sample is
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 (pst) 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. Preliminary
EI testing was performed, yielding an EI of 2. This is classified as a very low expansion
potential. Import soils or soils used near finish grade may have a different EI. At the
conclusion of grading, our firm should perform sampling and EI testing of the soils at
final pad grade. Those results should be forwarded and incorporated into the final
design by the Project Structural Engineer.
2.2.5 Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on selected 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.O-inch high, 2.42-inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were
<P
EnGEN Corporation
.
.
.
.
I.
.
.
.
.
I .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 4
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 intemal friction).
2.2.6 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 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 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the colluvium and
undocumented fill is anticipated to be relatively easy. Excavation and trenching in the
Pauba Formation will be more difficult due to the higher bedrock densities typically
encountered in the area. A rippability survey was not within the scope of our
investigation. However, based on our experience on similar projects near the subject
site, the Pauba Formation is expected to be rippable with conventional grading
equipment.
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
3.1 Geoloalc Settlna: The site is located in the Northem Peninsular Range on the
southem 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 \he Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southem
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, Califomia 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 sediments derived from the erosion of the
elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying areas. The earth materials encountered
on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.
EnGEN Corporation
'1
~
.
--
~
.
.
.
i.
II
II
.
--
..
.
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 5
3.2
Seismic Hazards: Because the proposed development is located in tectonically active
southem Califomia, it will likely experience some effects from earthquakes. The type or
severity of seismic hazards affecting the site is mainly dependent upon the distance to
the causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the soil characteristics. The
seismic hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or
secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The following is a site-specific
discussion about ground motion parameters, earthquake induced settlement hazards,
and liquefaction. The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential seismic hazards
and proposed mitigations, if necessary, to an acceptable level of risk. The following
seismic hazards discussion is guided by UBC (1997), CBC (1998) and CDMG (1997).
3.2.1 Surface Fault RUDture: No known active faults exist on the subject site. The nearest
State designated active fault is the Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment), located
approximately 3.3 miles (5.5 Km) from 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 Llauefactlon: Based on the densities typically encountered in the underlying material
(Pauba Formation), the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction is considered
low.
3.2.3 Selsmicallv-Induced Landslldln9: Due to the overall favorable topographic
conditions of the site, the probability of seismically induced landsliding is considered
low.
3.2.4 Selsmlcallv-Induced Floodlna. Seiches and Tsunamis: Due to the absence of a
confined surface 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 Earth Materials'
3.3.1 Undocumented Fill (Aful: The northeastern and northwestem portions of the site
were previously graded to a generally flat L-shaped pad. These portions of the existing
pad are thought to be underlain by Pauba Formation. The southem portion of the pad
EnGEN Corporation
8
II
..
--
--
--
,.
--
--
.
~
I..
II
--
.
3.3.2
3.3.3
4.0
4.1
III
.
~
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number. T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 6
is underlain by undocumented fill. No documentation of the grading was available for
review at the time of this study. Undocumented fill located in the driveway was
observed to be approximately 2 to 3-feet thick. A 6 to 8-foot tall fill slope was observed
on the southern side of the existing pad, however, the exact thickness is unknown. The
undocumented fill consists of silty fine-grained to medium-grained sand.
Colluvium (Ccon: Colluvium mantles the Pauba Formation across the remainder of
the site. The colluvium consists of brown, porous, silty fine- to medium-grained sand
and is interpreted to be approximately 2 to 3-feet thick in the proposed fill areas.
Pauba Formation Sandstone (CDS): Pauba Formation bedrock is exposed on a
portion of the existing dirt driveway and along the northern portions, of the existing pad.
The Pauba Formation is generally massive with near horizontal bedding and it
constitutes bedrock at the site. On site the Pauba Formation consists of silty medium-
grained sand, and was found to be moist and medium dense in-place.
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
All Areas:
1. All vegetation and organic material should be removed from areas to be graded
and not used in fills.
2. All man-made materials and oversize rocks should be removed from the site
and not used in fills.
3. All undocumented fill must be removed from the proposed cut or fill areas. The
depth of undocumented fill is unknown; however, it is thought to be
approximately 2 to 3-feet thick in the existing driveway and approximately 6 to
8-feet thick in the fill slope located on the southem end of the existing pad.
After the undocumented fill has been removed, colluvial and weathered bedrock
materials should proceed as in No.4 below.
4.
All colluvium and weathered bedrock should be removed to competent bedrock
in the proposed structure area, cleared of any debris, and may then be placed
as engineered fill. Based on our experience in this area of southwest Riverside
County, depths of removals are anticipated to be approximately 3 to 4-feet in
EnGEN Corporation
q
.
II
..
~
,
ItII
--
--
--
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241.GFS
August 2004
Page 7
5.
the alluvial areas, and 1 to 2-feet in the weathered bedrock areas. Removals
should extend to a minimum distance of 5-feet outside the structure. Removals
in the hardscape areas not included in the structural removals should extend to
a minimum depth of 2-feet in the colluvial areas. Deeper removals may be
required depending upon exposed conditions to be encountered during grading.
Due to the fact that the lower house pad appears to be located entirely into
native cut material whereas the upper house pad appears to be located entirely
into engineered fill totaling approximately 9 to 11-feet in total thickness, a
transitional overexcavation will be required in order to mitigate for possible
differential settlement. The lower house pad should be overexcavated to a
depth of 5-feet below finish grade and to a horizontal distance of 5-feet outside
the proposed structure footprints. A cut/fill transition exists on the proposed
pool pad area. The pad area will be acceptable as graded for a typical pool
construction. However, if a permanent foundation is to be constructed, a
transitional overexcavation will be required.
6.
All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the
Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or Project Engineering Geologists'
representative prior to placement of any fill. Bedrock bottoms should be probed
to verify competency.
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 optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be
determined according to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
7.
8.
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. Keyways should be a minimum of 15-feet wide (equipment width)
and tilted a minimum of 2 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.
EaGEN Corporation
\C
. Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 8
.
--
9.
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 adversely oriented joints or planes of weakness,
or significant amounts of alluvium or slope wash may be unstable. Unstable cut
slopes may require flattening or buttressing.
10.
4.2 OverSize Material: 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 vertical feet of finish grade, within fifteen lateral feet of a
finished slope face, or within two feet of future utilities.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.3 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.o-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.
EnGEN Corporation
\\
.,
.
II
.
.
II
..
..
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 9
5.0 SLOPE STABILlTY-GENERAL
5.1 Fill SloDes: It is our opinion that properly constructed fill slopes, as planned, will
possess gross and surficial stability in excess of generally accepted minimum
engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and will be suitable for their intended
purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures are implemented. 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 City of
Temecula Grading Codes.
5.2 Cut SloDes: All cut slopes should be constructed in substantial accordance with the
plans at a slope ratio of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The cut slopes
should be surficially inspected by the Project Engineering Geologist. No adversely
oriented joints or planes of weakness should be observed during our inspection. It is
our opinion that properly constructed cut slopes, as planned, 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.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Foundation Deslon Recommendations: Foundations for the proposed structures
may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded in
properly compacted fill. 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. It should be
understood that imported soils may exhibit a different expansion potential, which may
cause the following recommendations to be modified. The Structural Engineer for
the project should determine the actual footing width and depth in accordance with
the latest edition of the California Building Code to resist design vertical, horizontal,
and uplift forces and should either verify or amend the design based on final
expansion testing at the completion of grading.
6.1.1 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
EnGEN Corporation
\z.-
II,
.
II
II
II
III
III
II
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
II
II
II
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number. T3241-GFS
August 2004
Pege 10
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. A
majority of the footings will consist of retaining wall foundations, which are discussed in
Section 7.0 of this report.
6.1.2 Deoth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted
fill should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish
grade.
6.1.3 Bearino Caoacltv: 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 footings in properly compacted fill. 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.
6.1.4 Seismic Deslon Parameters: The following seismic parameters apply:
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Known Fault: 5.3 Km
Soli Profile Type: So
6.1.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and
the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a
maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.50-inch in properly
compacted fill under static load conditions.
6.2 Lateral Caoacitv: 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 Fill - 250 pet
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: Compacted Fill - 0.35
EnGEN Corporation
\0
~'
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6.4
. Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number; T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 11
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.
6.3
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 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. Concrete slabs should be
designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction,
and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and
curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of the
concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather
conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is
recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in
accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures. Slab-on-grade
reinforcement and thickness should be provided by the structural engineer based on
structural considerations, but as a minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor
slabs be 4-inches nominal in 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.
Moisture Barrier Recommendations: Interior concrete slabs-an-grade should be
underlain by a minimum of 1.0-inch of clean coarse sand or other approved granular
material placed on properly prepared subgrade per Section 4.0, Earthwork
Recommendations, of this report. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings
\L\
EnGEN Corporation
I,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
II
II
..
..
II
..
..
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004 . .
Pege 12
are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier
with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture
barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered by a 1.0-inch minimum
layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize
potential punctures.
6.5 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.
7.0 RETAINiNG WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 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 Sloae
Active 30 oct 45 oct
At Rest 60 oct -
Further expansion testing of potential backfill material should be performed at the time
of retaining wall construction to determine suitability. Walls that are free to deflect 0.01
radian at the top may be designed for the above-recommended active condition. Walls
that need to be restricted from this 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 within
a horizontal distance behind the wall should also be considered in the design.
7.2 Retalnlno Wall Deslon: 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 2,000 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 psflft and allowable sliding resistance
EnGEN Corporation
\'5
--
--
III
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Pege 13
coefficient of friction of 0.35. However, retaining wall footings determined to be fully
embedded in unweathered bedrock may be designed for an allowable bearing value of
3,500 pounds per square foot and lateral bearing of 400 pounds per square foot/foot of
depth. When using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a
Factor of Safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
..
! III
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
III
7.3 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.
7.4 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
EnGEN Corporation
\~
.,
.
.
III
II
..
..
..
..
II
II
II
..
II
II
II
II
II
II
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Pege 14
percent relative compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the
granular backfill and into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for backfill materials should be determined in accordance with
ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 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 1557-91 (1998)
procedures.
8.2 FinIsh Lot Dralnaae 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.
8.3 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.
EnGEN Corporation
\1
--
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 15
8.4
SUDDlemental Construction Observations and Testlno: 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 cutlfill
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.
8.5
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 recommendations presented in this report.
8.6 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.
8.7 Pre-Gradlno 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
EnGEN Corporation
\'6
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
i'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mr. & Mrs. CraIg Pulido
Project Number. T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 16
supplemental gradirig 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.
9.0 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
\q
--
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
August 2004
Page 17
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.
FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\GFS\T3241-GFS Craig Pulido. Geotechnical Feasibility Study
EoGEN Corporatioo
7,,0
..
.
.
..
..
II
II
II
II
..
..
..
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Mr. & Mrs. CraIg Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
Appendix Page 1
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1. Bowles, Joseph E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, pages 277-280.
2. California Building Code, 1998, State of California, California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, 1998, Califomia Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials
and California Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes.
3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
4. County of Riverside, 1978, Seismic Safety/Safety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
Envicom.
5. County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition.
6. Hart, E. W., Bryant, W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Revised 1997,
Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Department
of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 38 pp.
7. Hull, A. G., 1990, Seismotectonics of the Elsinore-Temecula Trough, Elsinore Fault
Zone, Southern California, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
8. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone
in southern Riverside County, Califomia: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Special Report 131,12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
9. Lamar, D. L., and Swanson, S. C., 1981, Study of Seismic Activity by Selective
Trenching Along the Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California, United States Geological
Survey Open File Report 81-882.
10. Magistrale, H. and Rockwell, T., 1996, The Central and Southern Elsinore Fault Zone,
Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 86, No.6,
pp. 1793-1803, December 1996.
11. 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.
12. Morton, D.M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern Califomia, Version 1.0.
13. Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains
-Area Drainage Plan, Scale: 1-lnch = 2 Miles.
14. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
15. Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps,
Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 147, Scale 1" = 800'.
16. S.C.E.D.C., 2004, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Website,
htlp:/lwww.scecdc.scec.org.
z,.\
111I'
II
--
III
-.
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number. T3241-GFS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
17. Schnabel, P. B. and Seed, H. B., 1972, Accelerations In Rock for Earthquakes in the
Western United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC72-2.
18. 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.
19. Temecula, City of, 1993, General Plan, adopted November 9,1993.
20. Tschebotarioff, G. P., 1973, Foundations, Retaining and Earth Structures, The Art of
Design and Construction and Its Scientific Basis in Soil Mechanics, 2nd Edition, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 642 p.
21. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
22. Vaughan, Patrick R, Thorup, Kimberly M. and Rockwell, Thomas K, 1999,
Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua Tibia Mountain, Southern Califomia,
Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America, Volume 89, No.6, pg. 1447-1457,
December 1999.
23. Weber, F. H., Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and
Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, California Division of
Mines and Geology Open File Report 77-4.
24. Wells, D. L., Coppersmith, K J., 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude,
Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement, Bulletin of
the Seismology Society of America, Volume 84, No.4, pp. 974-1002, August 1994.
25. Yeats, R S., Sieh, K, and Allen, C. R, 1997, The Geology of Earthquakes, Oxford
University Press, 568p.
EaGEN Corporation
z,.1--
,.
--
"
--
--
--
--
--
,
-
--
,.
--
--
,.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
.
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
Appendix Page 3
EnGEN CotpontiOD
-z..'b
~.
,
:
UBC Laboratory expansion Test Results
Job Number: T3241-GFS
Job Name: PULIDO RESIDENCE
Location: AVENIDA DEL REPOSO
Sample Source: A (UPPER CUT AREA)
Sampled by: RW (8-2-<l4)
lab Technician: DB
Sample Oeser: SIL TV COARSE SAND,lIGHT BROWN
8/312004
Wet Compacted Wt.: 619.4
Ring Wt: 200.6 Dial Chan e Time
Net Wet Wl: 418.8 Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 10:50
Wet Density: 126.5 Reading 2: 0.101 0.001 11:10
Wet Soil: 216.8 Reading 3: 0.101 0.001 11:25
Dry Soil: 199.0 Readin 4: 0.101 0.001 3-Au
.- Initial Moisture (%): 8.9%
Initial Dry Density: 116.1
% Saturation: 53.5%
.. Final Wl & Ring Wl: 636.4
Net Final Wl: 435.8
~ Dry Wl: 384.4
Loss: 51.4 Expansion Index: 1
- Net Dry Wl: 381.3
Final Density: 115.2 Adjusted Index: 2.4
Saturated Moisture: 13.5% (ASTM 04832-95)
--
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
..
..
.
1--'\
I
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
:
II
MOISTURE. DENSITY TEST REPORT
\
\
- \
I' \.'
/ ~
j
II ,
) ~\
7 \'
J '1\
I '\
)
I \
II \
4 \
\
~
\
\
\
\
!\
129
127
125
8-
~
..
c
-8
?:-
o
123
121
119
3
ZAV for
Sp.G.=
2.58
13 15
5
7
9
Water content, %
11
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
Elevl
Depth
Classification
USCS AASHTO
Nal
Moist
%> %<
No.4 No.200
Sp.G.
LL
PI
SM
1.9
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density '" 128.0 pef
Optimum moisture = 9.4 %
Project No. T3241-GFS Client: CRAIG PULIDO
Project: PULIDO RESIDENCE
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY COARSE SAND,LIGHT BROWN
Remarks:
SAMPLE A
UPPER CUT AREA
COLLBY RW
COLL ON 8-2-04
. location: A VENIDA DEL REPOSO
MOISTURE. DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Plate
~
-
-
,-
, ft
,
, -
.",
o.'t;
-0.
l:lui
!X!
, iiiJO
CD(/)
.....,
e(ll
=~
::l
3000
2000
1000
o
o
1000
3000
2500
';; 2000
0.
gj
~ 1500
"-
(II
CD
.s::;
(/)
1000
500
o
o
0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4
Horlz. DIsp!., In.
Sample Type: REMOLDED
Description: SILTY COARSE SAND,LIGHT
BROWN
LL.. PL.. PI=
Auumed Specific Gravity- 2.58
Remarks: UPPER CUT AREA
COLLBYRW
COLL ON 8-2-04
Plate
Tested By: DB
Failure Ultimate
225 166
40 40
0.85 0.85
4000 5000 6000
2000
3000
Normal Stress, pst
3
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pet
;m Saturation, %
.E Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Hei ht in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pet
! Saturation, %
;( Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Hel ht in.
Normal Stress, pst
Peak Stress, pst
Displacement, In.
Ultimate Stress, pst
Displacement, in.
Strain rate, in.lmln.
1000
998
0.15
939
0.22
0.20
2
1
10.3
115.1
66.7
0.3995
2.42
1.00
N/A
1
Client: CRAIG PULIDO
Project: PULIDO RESIDENCE
2
10.3
115.1
66.7
0.3995
2.42
1.00
N/A
2000
2064
0.19
2025
0.23
0.20
3
10.3
115.1
66.7
0.3995
2.42
1.00
N/A
3000
2690
0.18
2641
0.23
0.20
Location: A VENlDA DEL REPOSO
Sample Number: A
Proj. No.: T3241-GFS Date: 8-3..04
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ~
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
Checked By: RW
Mr. & Mrs. Craig Pulido
Project Number: T3241-GFS
Appendix Page 4
DRAWINGS
III
-z,1
EnGEN COIporalion