HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 8598 Parcel 2 Geotechnical Report
I
"'::) /
/,--..r"^,_,'___ _/
I ~~_GEN
I
Corr:~oration
-Soil EngineeringalldConsulting 5ervices-EngineeringGeology. Compaction Testinll
elnspections.ConstructionMalerialsTesting. LaooratoryTes!inge PerClJlationTesting
. Geology. Water Resource Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
-I
I
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Proposed Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-140-004
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8598
'Lolita Road
City of T emecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T3047-GFS
I
I
February 1 0, 2004
I
I
I
II
1
1
1
I
Prepared for:
1
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
27431 Enterprise Circle West
TeITiecula, California 92590-4833
1:1Ii,
-:1:
, ,
, -
-I
~J
-, ,
, -
,- -
, -
, -
; -
, ,
\ f" -- \
, -
,
- -
, ,
,,_.......\
.\....- -'-
~ -~ I
- ,
'-
...;,1 1,-
E l~~p.li,,:i=Ircl~: N, It ; suitE!' i:'f~"cu ciui.590 -,phon'.: 195i):29li-2230 - fax: (951 L296'2237
FI ~~Ei~5i@!aiilil> f!. e ue, ~~Jl'J~,_~~7D't;phone: (7-141546-4051 - fax~("it41,,546;;!ri5i
s- SiTE: - w~.en e corp.corri-: E:' Alt":., e~ge~*corp@ferige~c~rp.c6m - -
- '"
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Paclflc Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
Paae
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 Maxirnum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test.... 3
2.2.4 Expansion Potential.,.., ..., ...,.., ......,......, ..." ... ....,... .... ...... ....."... ....., ...."..3
2.2.5 Soluble Sulfates, .........., ..., ......,... ... ....,.. .......... ...,..,.... ..., ...,..., ..... ....,..."..3
2.2.6 Direct Shear Test..,..., ......" ... ... ....... ......, ...., .... .......,...,.., ........, ...... .... ...... 4
2.3 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 Floodin9, Seiches and Tsunamis.............,.............5
3.3 Earth Materials ... ..... ....,...,.., ..., ......"...,.. ..., ......,.." ..."." ....,'."..".... "" ... ...... ..... .....5
3,3,1 Alluvium (Qal).,.., ...,."...".." ....., ... ...,........ ..." ...,....... """"""""""""'. ....,5
3,3.2 Colluvium (Qcol) ....., .... .... ... ......,... ..., ...,.."..., ...., ...,.., ........ .... ..." ...." ..."..5
3.3.3 Pauba Formation (Qps) ......, .....".., '" .... ..." ..." ..., ...,..,..., "" ...".... .....,.."..6
4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS .,.......,..,......,..,.......,............,..,...,.........,..,......,..., 6
4.1 All Areas ..., .....,... ..........,......,......, ....,.., ...,......,...... ....".... ...,...,..., ...,...,...... ..., ...."..6
4.2 Oversize Material.,....., ..., ....." ..., ...' ...,.., ...... .... ..., ..., .... ........, ..., """" ... ...... ..... ....,..7
4.3 Structural Fill., ......... ....,... ......:..... ... .... ... ......, ......, ..." ..., .....,." ... ...,......." ...., ...., ....,.7
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL .....................................................................................8
5.1 Fill Slopes. ..., .... ........,..., ... ..., ..., .... ... .... ......,.. ........ ...", ........ ...,..".." .... ...,.. ...,..., .... 8
5.2 Slope Maintenance and Protection Recommendations........................................9
5,2,1 Surface Drainage ...,.. "....,..,....."............".......".. ..'."...,..,....".........,..".. 9
5,2.2 Slope Berms.. ......, ...".., ......"..,."..".., ...,.." ..." ....,..,.., ..., .... ..... .... ....."..".9
5.2.3 Off-Site Drainage." ...,... ..... .....,.., ....,........, ....",......"..".., ..., ..." ........,...".9
5.2.4 Maintenance Responsibility.....,......, ... ..."." ..." ...., ....." ..."..,..." ..."..." ...,9
5,2.5 Slope Protection...., ...".."..,..,... ...,..".., ......,.. """""""""" ...,...", ... ...."...9
5,2,6 Excessive Irrigation,.."..,. ...,."..".. ..........".",........,.."..,..... ... ........." ....,..9
5.2,7 Burrowin9 Animals,.. ..... ... ..., ......,..,..., ... ....,.., ....",.., ... ..., """'" ..... ..... .... 10
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................,.........................10
6.1 Foundation Design Recomrnendations ......................."......................".............10
6,1.1 Foundation Size.......................................................................,............10
6,1.2 Depth of Embedment ..................................,..,.....................................10
EnGEN Corporation
t--'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Number and Title
Paae
6.1,3 Bearing Capacity .."."......"...."....."............................................"........10
6.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................11
6.1.5 Settlement ............................................................................................11
6.2 Lateral Capacity., .... ..., ..., ...., ..., ..., ....., ..."..,..... .... ..., .......,..'.. ...,.......,..,... ... ... ..., ... 11
6.3 Slab-an-Grade Recommendations.,.., ...., ........, "" ... ........ ... ... ...,.. .....,.., ... ... ...,..,. 11
6,4 Exterior Slabs.., ...".., ..., ...., ...,..,'.." ... ..., ...... ... ... ...., .....,.. ...,....., .......,.., ... ...,..,.., ... 12
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................12
7,1 Earth Pressures ...,.. ..... .... ....,.., ......., ... ...., ........, ..., ...,....,.. ...,..,...,.. ....., ...,.. .... ...,.. 12
7.2 Retaining Wall Design .,........,.......,....."..,.........,.......,......,'.....,........,......,..,........13
7.3 Subdrain .. ..., ....., ....... ..... ....,... "" ..., ..., ... .... ...,., ..., ......,....".....,.. ....."..,." ...,.., ... ..., 13
7.4 Backfill., ....,.. '" .... ......, ".., ..., ....".. .... ... .... ... ".... ....,.., ... .....,..,.., ".",..,.., ... ".. "., ... ... 14
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS "..".,..,.........".,.."....,,,,,..........,,..,............,.14
8.1 Utility Trench Recomrnendations....""................"........."......"..........."............., 14
8,2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations ............................"...............................15
8.3 Planter Recommendations " .... ..... ...... ".. ...... ..., ... ".... ... ...,..,.. ..., ....., ... ""'" ... ...,,, 15
8.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ...."..........................""..15
8.5 Plan Review. ... ..., ".. ......, .... ....,.., .... ... ....... .... ...... ......,.. "., '" ... ... ...... ... ... ....,.. ......., 15
8.6 Pre-Bid Conference ...,..., ..., ...., ... ....... ..., ... .........,... ......,.. ......,.. ... ...,.. "., ......,..".., 16
8.7 Pre-Grading Conference. .... ........ ".. ". ..., ... ... ..., ...,.. ...... ...... ...... ".......,.. ......., ......16
9.0 CLOSURE,., ...,.., ".... .... ..., ...", ...., .... ..., "., ...,.., ...,.. ". ".' ...,..,.. "...".. ..., .....,..,.."..,..,.., "." 16
APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
';>
,"\
COfJ~oration
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
. Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . EngineeringGeology.CompaclionTesling
. lnspeclions. Conslruction Materials Testing . LaboratoryTesting.PercolatlonTesting
.Geology.WaterResoufceStudies . Phase I & H Erivironmental Site Assessments
February 10, 2004
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
27431 Enterprise Circle West
Temecula, California 92590-4833
(909) 676-7000 I FAX (909) 699-7324
Attention:
Ms, Deanne Vigliotti
Regardin9:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Proposed Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-140-004
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8598
Lolita Road
City of T emecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T3047-GFS
Reference:
1,
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Precise Grading Plan, Parcel 3 of Parcel Map
8598, City of Temecula, plans dated September 23, 2003.
Dear Ms. Vigliotti:
In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has visited
the subject site on January 26, 2004, to visually observe the surficial conditions of the subject
parcel and to collect samples of representative surficial site materials. Laboratory testin9 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 geolo9ic 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,
- .
, .
" .
-
\- -- \
",'--,-
u ~___+;~m := ";W WI W
, ,
---
,
, -
,
, .
"\ ,~- \"
-- \,,'"
-- \ ,,'
" ,
- - \ ~ ' '
. .
, "
, .
. .
,
.
, '
- --
- - - :
, -
, -- I
'- .
. - -
\' , \
, ,-'-'
../: J
-.. _:....'
S',c-:!\.,:", ,:":. -:" _ -_:.:..",'::.;, . ,. '<:"::,, ',: :;. ::. _,', -'m'" ;..
E ~~pmiefcirc[e Nit, suiii.1(:Timei:u!a,:CA 9~590 . phon.: 1951 ),29li-223p. f~x, 1951) 29,6-'2237
'.''' - ,____ '7~'. "," ,,':t":':: ,':"'e'",:"Y'-:"'--Y:-'--,::-'" "',','.., -, ., " . "-",",,,' ','," _.
Flfg.i;1~0rab'g~ A e ue, Sant~.l}.niV,C~~2~07,; phone: (7141546-4051 . fax:JZJ4) S~'4052
8~StTE: www.enecorp.com;;E:MAti.:..ent:l~ncorp@e~gencorP.com .- -- - --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047.GFS
February 2004
Page 2
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site Descriotion: The subject site consists of approximately 4.8-acres with vertical
topographic relief of approximately 120-feet. The site is located between Santiago Road
and Lolita Road, east of the intersection of Lolita Road and John Warner Road, in the
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, The topography slopes towards the
north and south at gradients of approximately 25 to 35 percent. Overall site drainage is
through sheet flow towards the north and through the natural drainage course towards
the south. No structures were located on-site.
1.2 Proiect DescriDtion: Based on our review of the grading plan, the proposed
developrnent will consist of a one to two-story single farnily wood-framed residential type
structure as well as a separate detached garage type structure, with slab-on-grade
foundations, The rnain residential structure will straddle a cut/fill transition whereas the
separate detached garage type structure will be founded entirely into native bedrock
material. All fill slopes are planned to be constructed at a ratio of 2:1, horizontal to
vertical, or flatter, We are providing general 9rading 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 alluvium, colluvium and Pauba
Formation underlie the site. Alluvium occupies the low-lying southern portions of the
site. Colluvial materials may be observed on the natural slopes. Pauba Formation
constitutes bedrock at the site and it is exposed on the ridges in the central areas. Since
no subsurface exploration was performed for this investigation, the thickness and
condition of the alluvium and colluvium is not known, 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 TestinQ
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 iisting and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests performed. The sarnples obtained during the field study
~
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 3
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).
2.2.3 Maximum Dry Densitv/Octimum Moisture Content Relationshic Test: Maximum dry
density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on
samples of near-surface earth materials in general accordance with ASTM 1557-00
procedures usin9 a 4.0-inch diameter mold, Samples were prepared at various
moisture contents and compacted in five (5) layers usin9 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 specirnens is constructed and the maxirnum dry density and
optimum moisture content deterrnined from the plot.
2.2.4 Excansion Test: 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 rernolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch diameter mold
to a total compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch by using a 5.5 pound weight
dropping 12-inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample is compacted at a saturation
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 O. 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 as well as at footing grade, Those
results should be forwarded and incorporated into the final foundation design by the
Project Structural Engineer,
2.2,5 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 imrnediate vicinity, testing for the presence of soluble sulfates was not
(p
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 4
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.
2.2,6 Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on select samples of near-surface
earth materials in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 procedures. The shear
machine is of the constant strain type, The shear machine is desi9ned 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
subrnerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the normal
confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal friction),
2.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the alluvium and colluvium
is anticipated to be relatively easy, The Pauba Formation is expected to be rippable to
the required design depths with conventional earth workin9 equipment.
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
3.1 Geoloaic Settina: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Ranges physiographic
province of California and 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 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.
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
1
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 5
hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary,
such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement.
3,2.1 Surface Fault Ruoture: No known active faults exist on the subject site, The nearest
State designated active fault is the Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment), located
approxirnately 0.5 miles (0.8 Km) southwest of the subject site, This conclusion is based
on literature review (references) and EnGEN Corporation's site reconnaissance,
Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the site is very unlikely,
3,2,2 Liauefaction: Based on a preliminary screenin9 for liquefaction hazard potential
performed for the subject site as outlined in Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 117, and the dense formational Pauba Formation underlying the subject site, it
is our opinion that the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction is considered low.
3.2.3 Seismicallv Induced Landslidina: 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 Seismicallv 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 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 Alluvium (Qall: Alluvium exists along the lower drainage areas located at the far
southern portion of the site, The alluviurn consists of tan to brown sand to silty fine-
grained sand and was found to be moist and loose to medium dense in-place. Since no
subsurface exploration was performed for this investigation, the condition and thickness of
the alluvium is unknown. The alluvium is interpreted to be 4 to 6-feet thick in the far
southern portion of the site.
3.3.2 Colluvium (Qcoll: Colluvium mantles bedrock across the slope of the remainder of the
site, The colluvium consists of brown porous silty sand. Since no subsurface exploration
was performed for this investi9ation, the depth and condition of the colluvium is unknown.
Based on our experience in the area and the exposed road cuts at the site, we anticipate
t6
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3.3
4.0
4.1
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 6
the colluvium in the proposed fill areas to range in thickness frorn 1 to 2-feet with local
pockets up to 4-feet thick below existin9 grades.
Pauba Formation (ODS): Pauba Formation is exposed on the ridges in the center
portions of the site, A thin mantle of colluvium, not shown on the site plan, overlies the
bedrock on the sides of the slopes. The Pauba Formation is generally massive to thickly
bedded with near horizontal bedding. On-site, the Pauba Formation consists of brown silty
sand and was found to be moist and medium dense to dense in-place,
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
All Areas:
1. All vegetation should be removed from areas to be graded and not used in fills.
2. All man-made rnaterials and oversize rocks, if any, should be removed frorn the
site and not used in fills.
3. All alluvium must be removed to competent bedrock in the southern portion of the
site. The depth of alluvium is unknown at that location, but it is thought to be
approximately 4 to 6-feet.
4. All colluvium and weathered bedrock should be removed to competent bedrock in
the proposed fill, structural and hardscape areas, 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 1 to 4-feet in the colluvial areas, and 1 to 2-feet in the weathered
bedrock areas. Deeper removals may be required depending upon exposed
conditions encountered.
5. All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the
Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or the Engineering Geologist's representative
prior to placement of any fill. Bedrock bottoms should be probed to verify
competency,
6. 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
0..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.2
4.3
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 7
optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined
according to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
7. A cut/fill transition will exist on the site, Structures on shallow footings must not
straddle the cut/fill transition without the following remedial earthwork: The cut and
shallow fill portions of the structure areas should be overexcavated, The depth of
overexcavation should be one-half the depth of the deepest fill below proposed
grade with a minimum of 3-feet. The horizontal extent of the overexcavation
should extend outside of the perimeter footings to a distance equal to the
overexcavation depth with a minirnum of 5-feet. However, deeper removals may
be necessary depending on the exposed conditions encountered during grading. If
the entire structure is located entirely into native bedrock material, overexcavation
will not be necessary. If after grading only a small portion of the structure straddles
a cut/fill transition, an alternative to overexcavation may be to extend all footings so
they are founded entirely into native bedrock material. Such a decision should be
made in conjunction with the owner at the time overexcavation is to commence,
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 two percent into the hillside, A series of level benches should
be constructed into cornpetent bedrock on natural grades of 5: 1 (horizontal to
vertical) or steeper prior to placing fill.
9. All fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical).
10. All cut slopes should be inspected by the Project Engineering Geologist to verify
stability. Cut slopes exposing significant amounts of alluvium or slopewash may be
unstable. Unstable cut slopes may require flattening or buttressing.
Oversize Material: We anticipate that no oversize material will be encountered during the
grading for the proposed developrnent. 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
EnGEN Corporation
\0
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 8
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 rnore than
2,0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer,
SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL
5.1
Fill SloDes: Slope stability analyses were performed for the proposed 47-foot high, 2:1 fill
slope. Shorter or flatter slopes or the addition of a bench, per County grading codes, will
serve to increase the factors of safety presented herein, The slope was evaluated for
gross stability under static and pseudostatic (seismic) conditions, In addition, per County
of Riverside guideline, surficial stability analyses were performed assuming that the upper
4-feet of the slope face is saturated. Strength values were obtained frorn laboratory
testing of remolded shear samples from the on-site materials, in general accordance with
ASTM D 3080-98. The strength parameters used in the analyses are as follows:
Material Description Ultimate Phi Angle (degrees) Ultimate Cohesion (pst)
Brown Silty Sand 34 385
The computer program used to compute the safety factors for the gross slope stability
under static and pseudostatic (seismic) conditions was SB Slope by Van Gunten
Engineering Software, Inc. This program follows the lirniting equilibrium circular surface
method as described by AW. Bishop called the "Simplified Bishop Methods of Slices."
The following tables present the calculated minimum factors of safety for the analysis
conducted. The calculations for the analysis are presented in the Appendix.
Summary of Safety Factors for Gross Stability
Section Analyzed Factor of Safety (Static) Factor of Safety (Seismic)
X-X' 2.50 1.84
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 9
Summary of Safety Factors For Surficial Stability
Material Type Factor of Safety
Brown Silty Sand 2.33
5.2 SlaDe Maintenance and Protection Recommendations: The design and construction
of slopes are planned to create slopes that are grossly stable. Surficial slumping, creep,
pop-outs, rockfalls, and other factors are beyond the control of the Project Geotechnical
Consultant. The following recommendations are presented for slope protection and
maintenance.
5.2.1 Surface Drainaae: Surface water should not be allowed to flow over the slopes other
than incidental rainfall. No alteration of pad gradients should be allowed that will prevent
pad and roof run-off from being expediently directed to approved disposal areas away
from the tops of slopes.
5.2.2 SlaDe Berms: Top of slope benns should be constructed and compacted as part of finish
grading and should be maintained by the resident and/or the property owner. The
recommended drainage patterns should be established at the time of finish grading and
maintained throughout the life of the structures.
5,2.3 Off-5ite Drainaae: Concentrated surface waters entering the property from off-site
sources should be collected and directed to a permanent drainage systern away from the
tops of slopes.
5.2.4 Maintenance ResDonsibilitv: Residents and/or the property owner are responsible for
the maintenance and cleaning of all interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, downdrains
and any other drainage devices that have been installed to promote slope stability,
5.2.5 SlaDe Protection: It is recommended that slopes be planted with ground cover, shrubs
and trees that possess deep, dense root structures that require a minimum of irrigation. It
should be the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of
the resident to maintain such planting. Alteration of the planting scheme is at the
resident's and/or property owner's risk.
5.2,6 Excessive Irriaation: If automatic sprinkler systems are installed on the slopes, their use
should be adjusted to account for natural rainfall.
EnGEN Corporation
\v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number; T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 10
5.2,7 Burrowina Animals: The resident and/or the owner should maintain a program for the
elimination of burrowing anirnals. This should be an on-going program to protect slope
stability,
6,0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Foundation Desian 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 a very low expansion
potential for the supporting soils and should not preclude more restrictive structural
requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual
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 rninimurn width of 12-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimurn 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 rnay occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or seasona.1
moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings should have a minirnum width of
18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A
grade beam, founded at the sarne depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent
footings, should be provided across doorway and garage entrances.
6,1,2 Deoth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill
or competent bedrock 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.
6.1,3 Bearina Caoacitv: Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimurn footing
width, and rninimum 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
EnGEN Corporation
\?J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 11
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 Desion Parameters: The following seismic pararneters apply:
Seismic Source: Elsinore Fault - Temecula Segment
Seismic Source Type: Type B
Distance to Source: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
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 bedrock or properly
compacted fill under static load conditions,
6,2 Lateral CaDaci~: Additional foundation design parameters based on bedrock or
compacted fill for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 200 pet
Bedrock - 350 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill or Bedrock - 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the
base of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed, properly,
cornpacted 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
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.4
7,0
7.1
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 12
deterrnined by Chapter 18 of the California Building Code. Concrete slabs should be
designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction,
and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) guidelines, Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of
all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or
improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could
result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that
all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI
recommendations and procedures, Slab-on-grade reinforcement and thickness should
be provided by the Structural Engineer based on structural considerations, but as a
minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor slabs be at least 4-inches nominal in
thickness and reinforced with at least No, 3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches 9n center,
both ways, placed at mid-height of the slab cross-section, In areas where moisture
sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a
polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the
slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and covered top
and bottom by a 1.0-inch to 2,0-inch minimum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand
to aid in concrete curing and to rninimize potential punctures, Final expansion testing at
completion of grading could cause a change in the slab-an-grade recommendations.
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.
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (EI 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:
EnGEN Corporation
,..
\":>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.2
7.3
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 13
Condition Level Backfill 2:1 SloDe
Active 30 pcf 45 ocf
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 rnay 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.
Retainina Wall Desian: 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 when
founded in fill and 2,500 psf when embedded in bedrock (as long as the resultant force is
located in the middle one-third of the footing), and with an allowable static lateral bearing
pressure of 200 psf/ft when founded in compacted fill and 350 psf/ft in bedrock, and
allowable sliding resistance coefficient of friction of 0.35. Footings in sound bedrock may
be designed for 2,500 psf. When using 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 rnight be
constructed. If a basement is constructed, proper waterproofing and either a sump pump
EnGEN Corporation
\Co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.4
8.0
8.1
Trans-Paclflc Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 14
drainage system or drainage to daylight needs to be designed. The low point of the
drainage system should be at least 18-inches below the 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
corn paction. 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
corn paction. 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 gO 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 optirnum moisture content for backfill materials should
be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00 procedures.
MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
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 gO percent relative compaction by mechanical means.
EnGEN Corporation
\\
I
I
, I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.2
8.3
8.4
8,5
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 15
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 Drainaae 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 4.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of 3.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-
erosive manner should be provided,
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed with proper surface slope to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and
minirnal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the building.
Suoolemental Construction Observations and Testina: 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
Iirnited to, any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cut/fill transitions, fill placement, and
excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN
Corporation, should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made
prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify, if
necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork
completed for the development of subject property should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not 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.
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
EnGEN Corporation
\'6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.6
8.7
g.o
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 16
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.
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-Gradina 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
recomrnendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading procedures
and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that time.
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
EnGEN Corporation
\C\
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
February 2004
Page 17
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
inforrnation becornes 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 recomrnendations 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.
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\T3047-GFS, Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Feasibility Study
EnGEN Corporation
7P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
Appendix Page 1
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1. Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship Between Seismicity and Geologic Structure in
the Southern California Region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55,
No.4, pg. 753-797.
2. Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Ernpirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April1gg5.
3, Blake, T. F., 2000, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs,
4, Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A
Sumrnary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1,. Pages
128-153.
5. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
6. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southern California,
Bulletin 170.
7. County of Riverside Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983),
Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood
Plains - Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles,
8. County of Riverside, 2003a, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Mapped Faulting in Riverside County: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
generalylan/genylan.
g, County of Riverside, 2003b, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Earthquake Fault Zones: http://www.rcip.org/documents/generalylan/
genylan,
10. County of Riverside, 2003c, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Generalized Liquefaction: http://www.rcip.org/documents/generalylan/
genylan.
11. County of Riverside, 2003d, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety
Element - Earthquake-Induced Slope Stability Map: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
generalylan/genylan.
12, Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., 1997, Revised 1999, 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,
13. Hileman, J,A., Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California
Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 Decernber 1972: Seismological Laboratory, Califomia
Institute of Technology,
14. Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, pg, 173-188,
~\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued\
15. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1988, Maps of Known
Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portion of Nevada - To be
Used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code: Prepared by the California Division of Mines
and Geology.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18, Morton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, United States Geological Survey, Open File
Report 99-172.
19. Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Winchester 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County,
California, Version 1.0: United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-188.
20. Petersen, M.D" Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Coa, 1. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory"P.A. and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seisrnic Hazard
Assessrnent for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open
File Report 96-706.
21. Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No, 4, April1g98.
22. 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. EERC 72-2.
23. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Volume 5 of a Series Titled
Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records.
24. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No, 91-21.
25. Tokirnatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
26. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
27. Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No.6, pg, 1447-1457, December 1999.
EnGEN Corporation
tP
.
'.
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
Appendix Page 3
EnGEN Corporation
tP
I
I.
GEOSYSTEM SLOPE STABILITY PROGRAM
SE-SLOPE
~ROJECT DATA:
Project: T.P.C.,INC
Itocation: LOLITA ROAD
w"ilename: T3047GFS Description: 47' 2: 1 FILL SLOPE (STATIC)
ANALYSIS DATA:
tOint Coordinates
o. X Y
1 0.0 1185.0
I 2 30.0 1185.0
3 160.0 1200.0
4 255.0 1245.0
I 5 320.0 1245.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I ~
Line Left Right Soil Soil Density Cohesion Phi
No. Point Point No. No. pcf psf Deg
1 1 2 1 1 124.8 385 34.0
2 2 3 1
3 3 4 1
4 4 5 1
I
, I S8-SLOPE
Simp I i f i ed Bishop Slope Stobi I ity Analysis
il PROJECT: T. p, C. . INC
,I LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD
FILE: T3047GFS COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION
I CIRCLE X Y RADIUS FS
1 185.0 1285,0 90,0 2.50
I
I 1470
I 1440
I 1410
I 1380
Z
I 0 1350
H
f-
<(
>
W 1320
I -'
w
I 1290
/
1260
I
4
1230
I 3
1200
I _2
-,
1170
I
1140
30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
I HORIZONTAL DISTANCE ~
I Environmental and Geotechnical Eng i neer i ng Network Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
58-SLOPE
Simplified Bishop Slope Stabil ty Analysis
PROJECT: T.P.C. ,INC
LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD
FILE: T3047GFS
1360
1340
1320
1300
1280
1260
1240
1220
1200
1180
1335
z
o
H
I-
~
W
..J
W
1300
1265
1230
1195
1160
20
40
60
ao 100 120 l~ lW 180 200 220 2~ 260 200 300 3W 3~ ~ ~o ~
. .":'-2
..........~... 4
.;~>
..~....................3
..............,.' .
............... .
.........,., .
........, .
35
70
105
140
175
210
245
280
315
350
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation
1)P
I
I
GEOSYSTEM SLOPE STABILITY PROGRAM
SB-SLOPE
I>ROJECT DATA:
Project: T.P.C.,INC
.tocation: LOLITA ROAD
Ir'ilename: T3047GFS Description: 47' 2:1 FILL SLOPE (SEISMIC)
ANALYSIS DATA:
~oint Coordinates Line Left Right Soil Soil Density Cohesion Phi
o. X Y No. Point Point No. No. pcf psf Deg
1 0.0 1185.0 1 1 2 1 1 124.8 385 34.0
I 2 30.0 1185.0 2 2 3 1
3 160.0 1200.0 3 3 4 1
4 255.0 1245.0 4 4 5 1
5 320.0 1245.0
leismic
coefficient, horizontal ; 0.150
vertical 0.150
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S8-SLOPE
Simpl if i ed Bishop Slope Stab i I i ty Ana I ys i s
PROJECT: T.P.C. ,INC
LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD
FILE: T3047GFS COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION
CIRCLE X Y RADIUS FS
1 190,0 1295,0 75,0 1.84
1470
1440
1410
1380
z
o 1350
H
I-
~
~ 1320
W
1290
\
1260
I
I
I
I
I
I
1230
4
1200
_2
-1
1170
1140
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
1fb
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
z
o
H
J-
~
W
..J
W
SB-SLOPE
Simpl ified Bishop Slope Stobi I ty Analysis
PROJECT: T.P.C. ,INC
LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD
FILE: T3047GFS
1360
1340
1320
1300
1289
1260
1240
1220
1200
1180
20
60
80 100 120 1~ 100 180 200 220 2W 2W 280 300 ~o 3~ 300 ~o ~
40
1335
1300
1265
1230
1195
1160
35
Environmental
..........~... 4-
"/"
.~..................3
..,........,..,.. .
..,...,....... ..
..... -,.' -.,..
..... -,....
..:....2
70
105
140
175
210
245
280
315
350
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
1A
and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
Appendix Page 4
EnGEN Corporation
1P
I
I
I
I
tt
..
(fJ ..
Q. (fJ
Q.
(/)
(/)(/)
W(/)
OCW
f-OC
(/)f-
(/)
W
f- '"
<( <(
:::;W
HCL
f-
..J
::>
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
(fJ
Q.
(fJ
(fJ
ID
'-
-
(/)
3000
2000
1000
3000
2500
2000
1500
'-
2 1000
.L
(/)
I
I
I
I
I
I
...;
,"",.
,/, .
o
o
1000
2000
500
o
o
0.1
0.2 0.3
Horiz. Displ., in
SAMPLE TYPE:
OESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND ,BROWN
SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.53
REMARKS: SAMPLE A
MIDDLE OF SITE
COLL BY RW
COLL ON 1-26-04
Fig. No.:
C, psf
4>. deg
TAN ~
3000
4000
Normal Stress. psf
SAMPLE NO. :
WATER CONTENT, %
~ DRY DENSITY, pcf
::: SATURATION, %
!;1 VOID RATIO
H DIAMETER. in
HEIGHT, In
WATER CONTENT, %
f- DRY DENSITY, pcf
(/)
W SATURATION, %
f-
VOID RATIO
~
0.4
DIAMETER, in
HEIGHT. In
NORMAL STRESS, psf
PEAK STRESS, psf
DISPLACEMENT. in
ULTIMATE STRESS. psf
DISPLACEMENT. in
Strain rate, in/min
CLIENT: T.P.C. ,INC
PEAK
463
38.4
0.79
11.0
112,2
68.3
0.407
2.42
1.00
0.0
112.2
0,0
0.407
2.42
1,00
1000
1213
0.09
1007
0.22
0.2000
PROJECT: VIGLIOTTI RESIDENCE
SAMPLE LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD,
TEMECULA
PROJ. NO.: T3047-GFS
ULTIMATE
385
34.2
0.68
5000
2
11.0
112,2
68.3
0.407
2.42
1.00
0.0
112,2
0.0
0.407
2.42
1,00
2000
2132
0.10
1858
0.23
0.2000
6000
3
11.0
112.2
68.3
0.407
2.42
1,00
0.0
112,2
0.0
0.407
2.42
1,00
3000
2797
0.08
2367
0.22
0.2000
DATE: 1-28-04
DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
~\
I
I
I
I
'I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc.
Project Number: T3047-GFS
Appendix Page 5
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
?/t/