HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 9833-1 Lot 6 Geotechnical Feasibility
I JC=' ''\ F
I M~GEN
Cor~oration
-SoiIEngineeringandConsultingServices-ErlgineeringGeology. CompaclionTesting
-Inspections- ConslructionMalerialsTesling-LaboraloryTesting . Percolation Testing
-Geology. Water Resoulce Studies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Gaitan Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 926-221-004
Tract 9833-1, Lot 6
Piasano Place
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2679-GFS
I
I
October 7,2002
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared for:
I
I
Mr. Art Gaitan
clo Highland Construction & Floor Covering
~27653 Commerce Center Drive
,
, Temecula, California 92590
" -
1.- ,__
, '
'/ '- ~ / I _
" ,
./ -- I
'\' -.
~ __ I
/ - - I
I' / "-
I '- ,," I .... "
-' ,- -- \ /'-'" ,,- .-- \...'
~, . ; .~~ ,:~;~~~~~, ~',"',~~~::.3~Efis1%~~~~E~~~~;~:~~-~~ ;::~::
...",,,,,Ii>~. "'~~l!i. "lii!li!ll1lilili." iI\~~iIO.n',"lii. .i!ll\!li !!L~..!l' w'ifl !ili'L~. "'. .".'
~~m"=:~%:II;l;a;;=~_:w,a;ili!m*~l\lim@~~~<$llIi~~""",*,*".i<>"Y;~>'/i:"~~ :f:'i'.<<;;.
-----"""..."" --""?,wiji- -~-""-:;"'.~""""""'_....._-~.~~":::;:;::.:.':==:.::::;~_
--- \--
-- \
j I \ I ~. f / ,I ~ : \ I "I
~.....~__ t. ' ,..<-~w~~
~~~~e.~~ &:~~eI-:~~: E
~l~~~ii_" I
B
,,\' -
" --- I
=-;".-k
, ,,- "-
,
, \ , __" I
'".-"'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Art Gaitan
Project No: T2679-GFS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title
Paqe
1.0
GENERAL GEOLOGy........
......1
2.0
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS...........................
..... ..2
3.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS. ....................... ....2
3.1 Foundation Design Recommendations (Footings and Floor Slabs) ...........2
3.2 Depth of Embedment ..................... ................... ................................3
3.3 Bearing Capacity.................. ................. ............ ....................3
3.4 Settlement ............ ........................ ........... .......... ................ ....3
3.5 Lateral Capacity....................................................... ......... ..3
3.6 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations. ................ ...4
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................. ................. .............. .......5
4.1 Utility Trench Recommendations.......................................................................... 5
4.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations ..............................................................5
4.3 Planter Recommendations ... ...... ............ ............. ....................................... .......... 5
4.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ....... ......5
4.5 Pre-Grading Conference ................................................... ...........6
5.0
CLOSURE
......6
z...
EnGEN Corporation
I ,.C':;" ~~ /
I ~GEN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
[
/:/
Cor~oration
-Soil Engineering and Consulting Services . EngineeringGeology-CompactionTesting
-Inspections-Construction Materials Testing . LaboraloryTesllng-PercolationTesling
. Geology. Water Resource 5tudies . Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
October 7, 2002
Mr. Art Gaitan
c/o Highland Construction & Floor Covering
27653 Commerce Center Drive
Temecula, California 92590
(909) 693-2254 / FAX (909) 699-7491
Attention:
Mr. Dave Johnson
Regarding:
GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Gaitan Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 926-221-004
Tract 9833-1, Lot 6
Piasano Place
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T2679-GFS
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Per your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has been retained to perform a
Geotechnical Feasibility Study for proposed development of the above referenced lot. It is our
opinion that a Preliminary Soils Investigation is not necessary for the work proposed on this site.
The history of the subject area is one of well-known geotechnical characteristics, to the degree
that an investigation would not be expected to provide any new and unusual data which would
cause a change in the recommendations presented herewith for grading and site development.
1.0
GENERAL GEOLOGY
Based on the site reconnaissance, the earth materials underlying the proposed pad area
most likely consist of alluvium and Pauba Formation bedrock materials. No known faults
or landslides traverse the property or the immediate surrounding area. The regional
geology has'been mapped by Michael Kennedy, and presented in "Special Report 131,
Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside
County, California", 1977, California Division of Mines and Geology.
- -'\
\
, ,
, -
I'
-, ,
, -
/ I ... ~,I '
! " \ - - - \
.... - -...-
/ \ - - - \ /
, -
- ' -
,
./" __ I
.- -,- i
I" ~ / "-
- / "' / , , ~ - -
-' \ - - - \ _" , I ~ ,_ _ _ \ " ~ , \ ."
;~ :_; , '~ .~~-"~~~,.((~",~S3;~~~_~~~g~-~~;~~;::~~r/r'g_'_:~'~~i:i'::
~g~~;j~$!iii~~~~:g~~~~~@.:~wm~~~~E.~$.~,"~iii~;E~ _~1~
~_mw;s:.~;'4.l1$3/Oli!_i!S.!.Q~M'!!%;jliS;$\i1!'*!%;j!OiJW~ii:2!lW~$i:$#~$t"*'W~W'~-:Z~
----,...=....,..--------...."'''''- _...."""'-_._""''''''''''.''''-=~'''~",,=-==.==.,-~,
- .... ""' . . n......"_""..,,>>;_...''''''~'~'J
~ -' '-
, ~
<:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0
3.0
3.1
Mr. Art Gaitan
Project No: T2679-GFS
October 2002
Page 2
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the relatively simple grading proposed for the site, no unusual conditions are
anticipated which cannot be mitigated during grading. The surficial materials at the site
are not considered suitable for providing sound structural support without some
recompaction. The following grading recommendations are presented based on familiarity
with the area and the earth materials expected to be encountered:
. Removals of unsuitable soils should be performed in areas underlying the proposed
structure and in areas to receive fill, and should extend to competent bedrock
materials. Removal depths should be determined by a field geologist from EnGEN
Corporation during grading operations. Removals to competent native earth materials
may result in a cut/fill transition condition. If this occurs, then the cut and shallow fill
portions of the pad should be overexcavated to a depth equal to half the maximum fill
under the structure, but not less than 18-inches below the bottom of all footings.
Overexcavation should extend a minimum of 5-feet outside the perimeter footings.
. All fill shall be brought to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and shall be
compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density.
. Our representatives will be on the site to perform density testing and inspection to
assure that the above recommendations are adhered to and to verify that the grading
is being performed in an acceptable manner. A report of rough grading will be
prepared upon completion of grading. If any design or construction recommendations
are in order, they will be made in the report and will be presented with the results of
density testing.
FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Desian Recommendations IFootinas and Floor Slabs): Foundations for
the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall
footings founded upon properly compacted fill. The recommendations presented in the
subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based on
geotechnical characteristics and upon a 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
~
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2
33
3.4
3.5
Mr. Art Gaitan
Project No: T2679-GFS
October 2002
Page 3
accordance with the 1997 Uniform 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. All continuous footings should be reinforced with at
least one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar near the top and one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing
bar near the bottom.
The following seismic parameters apply:
Name of Fault: Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment)
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Known Fault: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings should extend to a minimum depth
of 12-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. 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 garage door openings and
other doorway entrances.
Bearina Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum footing
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
design and construction, the allowable bearihg value for design of continuous and
column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 1,500 psf for
continuous footings and 1,500 psf for column footings in properly compacted fill
material. 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.
Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for
continuous and column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and
column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.50-inch or a
differential settlement of 0.25-inch in properly compacted fill.
Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for
resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
'5
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.6
Mr, Art Gaitan
Project No: T2679-GFS
October 2002
Page 4
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill- 150 pel
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill - 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the
base of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed, properly,
compacted fill material. The above values are allowable design values and may be
used in combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The
allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or
dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth
resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a
concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is
5.0 times the recommended design value.
Slab-an-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon the anticipated building
usage and upon a low expansion potential for the supporting material as determined by
Table 18-1-B of the 1997 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 at least 4-inches nominal in
thickness and reinforced with at least No. 3 bars at 24-inches on center each way
placed at mid-height of the slab cross-section.
<e
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
40
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Mr. Art Gaitan
Project No: T2679-GFS
October 2002
Page 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building fioor 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 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.
Finish Lot Orainaqe 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 pavement. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-
erosive manner should be provided.
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimum irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the building.
Supplemental Construction Observations and Testin!l: 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 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
EnGEN Corporation
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.5
5.0
Mr, Art Gaitan
Project No: T2679-GFS
October 2002
Page 6
prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify,
if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab pre-saturation, or other earthwork
completed for the development of the 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.
Pre-Gradinq Conference: Before the start of any grading, a conference should be held
with the owner or an authorized representative, the contractor, the Project Architect and
the Project Civil Engineer, and the Project Geotechnical Engineer's representative present.
The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to the intent of the
supplemental grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications
comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special
grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at
that time.
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 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
8
EnGEN Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Art Gaitan
Project No: T2679-GFS
October 2002
Page 7
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 supplement
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.
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.
EWRlOB:hh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
FILE: EnGEN\Reporting\lGS\T2679-GFS Art Gaitan. Geotechnical Feasibility Study
EnGEN Corporation
'\
I
I
I
I
~- I
~~L~ -~r--- RD I
J/;'.ffio i!~ --
/" ." ",I'" I
~_/ w~
,~;i>' .1 "j
if" ('<f"'~--,.-.-_I.lr.
"'...1 ](o6oo<i~ ---
<., (','~ ::,;
~ J 5,0
<'.<>0/....# ~icr:
iF I
.1""~~ I
;~~~.,
-b.,.~f'.... ~!ioq, "-/4;,
-".l{o!g "<f'-p'
,! .....J).
",.k---.AV (Y"~
"</$ --- ~-, ",i
-s/ -'J.
~- ~!
>-y ::/
'?9RO ~,
'"
)i
o
L_~
~<::>.
"
'/
I
I
I
--.
i
y-/
I
i
I
I
I
~.
-:<
~
I
#
I
/J
:;
//
/\
,,/
;i
"'30
)
~..,
"-
" ~
~"-,
\I.":-~'/
A\.\/
\~:-
'.
~~""
".
'~//
/";~;;..l..
=~m1 '\
^
~I \
~~ ,
I /
/ ,/
I .
~/// 28
, .'
,/ -""'I
--------
I
I
I
BASE MAP: Thomas Bros., Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties, 2002, page 979
EnGEN Corporation ~~~t~~~~~:l E~~~7:~ng
SITE LOCATION MAP
PROJECT NAME: GAITAN RESIDENCE
DATE: OCTOBER 2002
PROJECT NUMBER: T2679-GFS
SCALE: I" = 2400'
FIGURE 1
Special
Inspection
Material
Testing
Environmental
Assessments
I
I
I
N
I
-@-
t
\0