HomeMy WebLinkAboutLots 19-21 Geotechnical Study
.
Ii
~
.
I
I
I
I .
I
~
. )
I
~
I
I
j
I
I
/'
I
I
;
',\
\
~~ p~< '. .>--'.
~ ,...1,=..~~~~.;...;..;:"_~.... "'::_i'L.-~,~.....
I I I I I
-I~I~_~_-
.!\~!t~~~~V(~;~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
E GEN C . . Soli EnglneeOng . Tesl1ng . Construe1loo Moteflal' Tesl1ng . Laboratoly Tesl1ng .,
n OrpOratlon . Envl,onmen1aISlleAssessmenls' Haza-';~';'~SJieck.aoop.
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation ,,,,. SR,8Clallnspec1lons . Geology . Englneel1ng Geology .
Ii
Corporllte Orne.
41601 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1
TemeaJla, CA 92590
(909)~/Fax: 676-3294
.2'11;.-2:230
RECE=IVED
AUG 222000
(,;111 Vi" I tMt(;ULA
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Single Family Residences
Lots 19, 20 and 21 otTract 9833-3_
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California,
Project Number: T1360-GS
March 11, 1998
Prepared for:
James and Mardi Margiotta
45750 Olympic Way
Ternecula, California 92592
Web--page addness: www.engencorp.c:om
E-mail address:engeDcorp@pe.net
,
"
Lc-+~';1.0
VI\t)ce ~eC\",
'YY:A 57 Ko..lo'Qy\ c.:\.
\evnecv\QI eeL
q~5<\:l
Orllnge County' OffIce
2615 Orange AvenU1!l
Santa Ana. CA 92707
(714) 546-4051/ Fax: S46~052
\
I
I)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
I
I
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title'
Paae
,,," .
'" ,
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................2
2.1 Authorization
2.2 Scope of Study
2.3 Previous Site Studies
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I PROJECT DESCRIPTlON.............................................3
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................3
4.1 Location
4.2 Legal Description
4.3 Topography
4.4 Vegetation
4.5 Structures
5.0 FIELD STUDY ..... ........ ....... .... ......... .................. ..... ............................... ......... .... ..... .........3
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................4
6.1 General
6.2 Classification
6.3 Maxirnum Dry Density I Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test
6.4 Direct Shear Test
6.5 Expansion Test
7.0 SITE CONDITIONS............................................................................................................5
7.1 Geologic Setting
7.2 Faulting
7.3 Earth Materials
7.4 Groundwater
7.5 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................7
8.1 General
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations
8.2.1 General
8.2.2 Clearing
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics
8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill
8.2.5 Removal and Recompaction
8.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements
8.2.7 Benching
8.2.8 Compaction Equipment
8.2.9 Shrinkage and Subsidence
8.2.10 Subdrains
8.2.11 Observation and Testing
8.2.12 Soil Expansion Potential
8.3 Seisrnic Design Recornmendations
8.3.1 Design Fault Zone
EnGEN Corperation '2-.
,
T
James and Mardi MargIotta
Project Number: T1360-GS
".
TABLE OF CONTENTS (conl)
'\
)
Section Number and Title ,,," - Paae
'"
8.3.2 Ground Accelerations .............................................................................11
8.4 Foundation Design Recommendations
8.4.1 General
8.4.2 Foundation Size
8.4.3 Depth of Embedment
8.4.4 Bearing Capacity
8.4.5 Settlernent
8.4.6 Lateral Capacity
8.5 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations .......................................................................13
8.5.1 Interior Slabs
8.5.2 Exterior Slabs
8.6 Utility Trench Recommendations
8.7 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations
8.8 Planter Recommendations
8.9 Ternporary Construction Excavation Recommendations
8.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations .......................................................................17
8.10.1 Earth Pressures
8.10.2 Foundation Design
8.10.3 Subdrain
8.10.4 Backfill
9.0 PLAN REVIEW ................................................................................................................20
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE ................................................................................................20
11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE..... ......................................... ........................................20
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING .....................................................21
13.0 CLOSURE ........ ....... ............ ...... ........ ..... ........ ........... ......... .... ... ... ......... ..... ...... ... .... ... ....21
APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation 3
,
.-
II
.'
)
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
(I
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
.
.
~~.~
; I ~ ' ;._ _ _ _ . ,"_n_~ -
) I I 1--'
-~.~~~_:
~\\\~!t\~~!t~!(!t~!(\!t!t~!i~!t!t!t!t!t!t!t~-
E GEN C . . Soil Engineering. Testing. ConstnJctlon Materials Testing . labOratory Tes1ing .
n orporatlOn . Environmental Site Assessments. HazordCXJS Mateoa~ SIte CleCflIJP.
Environmental and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation . Speclallnspec1lans . ~1a\lY '. Enginee.ng Geology .
,,,"
'"
March 11,1998
James and Mardi Margiotta
45750 Olyrnpic Way
Temecula, California 92592
(909) 699-5641
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Single Family Residences
Lots 19, 20 and 21 otTract 9833-3
City otTemecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1360-GS
References: 1. HLC Civil Engineering, As Built/Precise Grading Plan, 30655 Jedediah Smith
Road, Parcels 19, 20 and 21 otTract 9833-3, plans dated July 24, 1997.
2. Full Perspective, Structural Plans, Sheets S-1 through S-6, plans dated
August 1, 1996.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. James Margiotta:
According to your request and signed authorization, we have performed a Geotechnical
Engineering Study for the subject project_ The purpose of this study was to evaluate the existing
geologic and geotechnical conditions within the subject property with respect to recommendations
for grading of the site and design recommendations for foundations, slabs on-grade, etc., for the
proposed developrnent. Submitted, herewith, are the results of this firm's findings and
recommendations, along with the supporting data.
Regarding:
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As of this writing, Lot 19 is currently a vacant lot in a natural condition and Lots 20 and 21
were graded in the summer of 1997. This report gives earthwork and foundation
recornmendations for Lot 19 and foundation recomrnendations only for Lots 20 and 21.
Lots 20 and 21 were graded without a geotechnical consultant's observation or testing.
With the exception of the extreme northeast comer (which was observed and tested by
this firm) it is our understanding that all grading involved cuts and no fills. During our site
reconnaissance, it was observed that the pad areas where the proposed struc
Corporate omc.
41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 67&-30951 Fax: 676-3294
Orange County omce
2615 Orange Avenue
Santa Ana. CA 92707
(714) 546-4051/ Fax: 546-4052
Web-page address: www.cngcncorp.eom
E-mail address:C.ngenc:orp@pe.net
"1
r
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T1360-GS
March 1996
Page 2
be placed expose competent Pauba Formation sandsto,pE!: All slopes were reportedly cut
in competent Pauba Formation sandstone. On March 9, 1998, a representative from this
firm probed the slopes in question and found firm earth materials on all slopes except one.
The slope below the bench on the north slope of Lot 21 near Jedediah Smith Road
exposes loose fills with tension cracks. It is recommended that this area be track-rolled to
compact the soils and that density testing be performed to verify compaction results. In
addition, the bench on the slope on the east side of Lot 20 needs to be formed and have
gunite placed on it to prevent erosion.
The foundation plans for the Margiotta residence (Lot 21) have been reviewed. The
(
T
I
foundation plans and specifications (Reference No.2) have been determined to be in
conformance with this soils report.
)
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authorization: This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study
performed on the subject site for the proposed development. Authorization to perform this
study was in the form of a signed proposal.
2.2 Scope of Study: The scope of work performed for this study was designed to determine
and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions within the subject site with respect to
geotechnical characteristics, and to provide recommendations and criteria for use by the
design engineers and architect for the development of the site and for design and
construction of the proposed development. The scope of work included the following: 1)
site reconnaissance; 2) sampling of on-site earth materials; 3) laboratory testing; 4)
engineering analysis of field and laboratory data; and 5) the preparation of this report.
2.3 Previous Site Studies: No known previous geotechnical studies have been performed
on this site. The site was graded in the surnrner of 1997. A report for this grading
EnGEN Corporation
'.
,I
I
I.,
pi,
I
II
II
.
PI
.
..
rt
~/
.
~
III
.
.
.
II
\
.
.
3.0
4.0
4,1,
4.2
4,3
4.4
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136Q-GS
March 1998
Page 3
apparently was not produced.
,,,"
'"
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A two story, slab-on-grade, single family residence is proposed on Lots 20 and 21. It is
not known, at this time, what is proposed for Lot 19. It is therefore assumed that Lot 19
will be a single family residence. Lot 19 has not been graded. Lots 20 and 21 were
previously graded.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Location: The site is located on the south side of Jedediah Srnith Road between Cabrillo
Avenue and Calle De Velardo in the City of Temecula.
LeQal Description: Parcels 19, 20 and 21 of Tract 9833-3.
TODOluaDhv: The topography of the site at the time of this study was relatively flat
graded pads with 2:1 cut slopes and moderately to steeply sloping natural terrain,
4.5
Veaetation: At the time of the field study, vegetation across the site was light to moderate
and consisted of bushes, grasses and weeds.
Structures: At the time of the field study, there were no existing buildings or other types
of structures on the site.
5.0
FIELD STUDY
Large portions of the site have already been graded exposing Pauba Formation bedrock
(sandstone). The existing natural areas are thought to have less than 3 to 5 feet of
alluvium and/or slopewash. Soil samples were retrieved during the site reconnaissance
and further subsurface exploration would probably not yield any new significant findings.
Recommendations are made in sections of this report below for removal of all alluviurn
and/or existing loose fills or slopewash to competent bedrock during grading.
EnGEN Corporation S
11
I
.j
/
II
II
.
.
.
.
II
l=j
.
II
.
.
.
.
..
1
Ii)
I~
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number. T1360-GS
March 1998
Page 4
LABORATORY TESTING
""
ll'
General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the field study are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests which were performed. The sarnples obtained during
the field study will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be
notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days.
,Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered during the referenced
slope stability report was verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified
Soils Classification System, ASTM 02488-90, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures).
Maximum Dry Density I Ootimum Moisture Content Relationshio Test: A maximum
dry density I optimum rnoisture content relationship determination was performed on a
sarnple of near-surface sandstone in general accordance with ASTM 01557-91
procedures using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture
contents and compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches
and with 25 blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture
content of the specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content determined from the plot.
Direct Shear Test: A direct shear test was performed on remolded samples of sandstone
in general accordance with ASTM 03080-90 procedures. The shear machine is of the
constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a 1.0-inch high, 2.416-inch
diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were sheared at various pressures
normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were tested in a submerged
condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the normal confining
stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of intemal friction).
,
EnGEN Corpor.tion <;.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
)
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.5
7.0
7.1
7.2
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T1360-GS
March 1998
Page 5
Exoansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were pegoYmed on samples of sandstone in
general accordance with the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) Standard. In this testing
procedure, a remolded sarnple is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch diameter mold
to a total compacted thickness of approximately 1.0-inch by using a 5.5-pound weight
dropping 12-inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample should be cornpacted 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) calculated. The expansion test result is presented
on the UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results sheet.
SITE CONDITIONS
Geoloaic Settina: The site is located in the Perris Block in the Peninsular Range. The
Peninsular Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked
by volcanic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial I
alluvial sedirnents derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the
low-lying areas. Pauba Formation bedrock, alluvium and man-made fill materials underlie
the site. The earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in rnore detail
in subsequent sections of this report.
Faultina: The Elsinore Fault Zone (Wildomar Fault) traverses portions of Lots 19 and 20.
A 200 feet wide building setback has been established and is shown on the Referenced
plans.
San Jacinto Fault Zone: The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately 30 miles
northeast of the subject site and trends northwest-southeast. The San Jacinto Fault
system is a major right lateral strike-slip fault system that has displayed surface rupture
EnGEN Corporation
1
'.
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. /
I
1
-
.
.
..
..
\
..
i
I
~
7.3
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T1360-GS
March 1998
Page 6
and/or associated seisrnic ground shaking in 1899, 1918, 1923, 1934, Hl37,1942,and
1954.
Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone is a prominent and youthful structural
,
boundary between the Perris Block to the northeast and the Santa Ana mountains to the
southwest. The Elsinore Fault system is a major right lateral strike-slip fault system that
has experienced strong earthquakes in historical times (1856, 1894, and 1910) and
exhibits late Quaternary movement. The Elsinore Fault Zone is considered active and is
located on the west portion of the site. A maximum credible earthquake on the Elsinore
Fault Zone could produce a peak ground acceleration of O.84g at the subject site.
Earth Materials:
Lot 19: This lot has not been developed and is in a vacant, natural condition. It is thought
that approximately 3-5 feet of alluvium or slopewash mantles Pauba Formation bedrock
(sandstone).
Lots 20 and 21: These lots have been previously graded and expose Pauba Formation
bedrock (sandstone) and some minor fills. Minor fills are exposed in the lower northeast
corner pad and have been documented as properly compacted. ' Minor fills were observed
below the bench on the north slope of Lot 21 near Jedediah Smith Road. These fills are
thought to have been property compacted. However, there is no documentation showing
aerial
extent
compaction
results
of
these
fills.
or
7.4
Groundwater: Groundwater and/or groundwater seeps or springs were not observed on
the subject site. Groundwater is not anticipated to be within 30 vertical feet of the
proposed residences.
7.5
SecondarY Effects of Seismic Activitv: The secondary effects of seismic activity
normally considered as possible hazards to a site include various types of ground failure
and induced flooding.
The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure
EnGEN Corporation 8
".
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136o-GS
March 1 998
Page 7
depends on the severity of the earthquake, the distlWee of the site from the zone of
maximum energy release of the quake, the topography of the site, the subsurface
materials at the site, and groundwater conditions beneath the site, besides other factors.
Since a 200 feet wide building setback zone has been established on the site the
probability of hazards due to fault ground rupture on areas outside the building setback
zone is considered low. Due to the overall favorable geologic structure and topography of
the area, the potential for earthquake-induced landslides is considered low. Earthquake-
induced surface flooding due to seiches or tsunamis is considered rernote
since there are no large bodies of water up-gradient from the site. The potential for
liquefaction of the site during the design seismic event is considered low due to the dense
bedrock on the site. The potential for hazards associated with rock falls is considered
remote since there are no large, loose rocks uphill from the site.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General: The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the results of field and laboratory data obtained and on experience gained from work
conducted by this firm on projects within the property and general vicinity, and the project
description and assumptions presented in the Proposed Development I Project Description
section of this report. Based on a review of the field and laboratory data and the
engineering analysis, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical I geologic
standpoint. The actual conditions of the near-surface supporting material across the site
may vary. If variations of the material become evident during construction of the proposed
development, this office should be notified so that EnGEN Corporation can evaluate the
characteristics of the material and, if needed, make revisions to the recommendations
presented herein. Recommendations for general site grading, foundations, slab support,
EnGEN Corporation
<1
,
I
i '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
March 1998
Page 8
. . '" ~
slope maintenance, etc., are presented In the subsequent paragraphs.
8.2 Earthwork Recommendations (For Lot Number 191:
8.2.1 General: Grading plans for Lot 19 were not available at the time of this report. When
grading plans become available, they should be reviewed by this office in order to make
any additional recommendations (if necessary). The grading recornmendations presented
in this report are intended for: 1) the use of a conventional shallow foundation systern and
concrete slabs cast on-grade; and 2) the rework of unsuitable near-surface earth materials
to create an engineered building pad and suitable support for exterior hardscape
(sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the
time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately,
additional observations and testing of the subgrade soil will have to be performed before
placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete or PCC pavement to locate areas
which may have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or
seasonal wetting and drying. The following recommendations may need to be modified
and/or supplemented during rough grading as field conditions require.
8.2.2 Clearina: All debris, grasses, weeds, brush and other deleterious rnaterials should be
removed from the proposed building, exterior hardscape and pavement areas and areas
to receive structural fill before grading is performed. No disking or mixing of organic
material into the soils should be performed. Man-made objects encountered should be
overexcavated and exported from the site.
8.2.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the subject property is
anticipated to be relatively easy in the near-surface earth materials.
8.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill: In general, the on-site earth materials present
are considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be free of significant amounts
of organic materials and/or debris and should not contain rocks or clumps greater than 6-
EnGEN Corporation \0
.
,
.
I
.
.
I
I
.
. )
~
I
I
I
.
I
I
,
.
,
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136lJ..GS
March 1998
Page 9
inches in rnaximurn dimension.
,,," .
'"
8.2.5 Removal and Recompaction: All existing uncontrolled or undocumented fills (if any)
and/or unsuitable, loose, or disturbed near-surface soil in areas which will support
structural fills, structures, exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.), and pavement
should be removed. Existing fill (if any) and alluviurn or slopewash should be removed to
competent bedrock (Pauba Formation Sandstone) in areas to receive fill. Removal depths
are expected to be 3 to 5 feet but maybe deeper in localized areas. Rernoval depths
should be determined by the soils engineer representative at the tirne of grading.
8.2.6 Fill Placement Reauirements: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should
be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before
placement. All fill should be free of vegetation, organic material, debris, and oversize
, material. Import fill should be no more expansive than the existing on-site rnaterial.
Approved fill rnaterial should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10-inches in
compacted thickness and watered or aerated to obtain near optimum moisture content
(:1:2.0 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. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for
compacted materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM 01557-91
procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent from
optimum, unless approved the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
8.2.7 Benchina: Cornpacted fill placed against natural slopes should be placed on a series of
level benches excavated into competent native bedrock. The benches should have a
minimum 4.0 feet high back cut into competent bedrock.
8.2.8 Compaction Eauipment: It is anticipated that the compaction equipment to be used for
the project will include a combination of rubber-tired and sheepsfoot rollers to achieve
EnGEN Corporation \\
<
I
,
)
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
L )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T1360-GS
March 1998
Page 10
proper compaction. Compaction by rubber-tired or.}~ck"mounted equipment, by itself,
may not be sufficient. Adequate water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable equipment
should be available to provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The actual selection of
equipment is the responsibility of the contractor performing the work and should be such
that uniform and proper compaction of the fill is achieved.
8.2.9 Shrinkaae and Subsidence: There will be a material loss due to the clearing and
grubbing operations. Shrinkage of loose fill (if any) or alluvium or slopewash that is
excavated and replaced as compacted fill should be anticipated. It is estimated that the
average shrinkage of these materials will be less than 15 percent, based on fill volumes
when compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. A higher relative
compaction would mean a larger shrinkage value. Subsidence of fill during the planned
grading operation is expected to be minimal.
8.2.10 Subdralns: Although the need for subdrains is not anticipated at this time, final
recornrnendations should be made during grading by the Project Geologist.
8.2.11 Observation and Testina: During grading, observation and testing should be conducted
by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative to verify that the grading is being
performed according to the recommendations presented in this report. The Project
Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative should observe the scarification and the
placement of fill and should take tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity
and degree of compaction obtained. Where testing demonstrates insufficient density,
additional compaction effort, with the adjustment of the moisture content where necessary,
should be applied until retesting shows that satisfactory relative cornpaction has been
obtained. The results of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal
finish Grading Report following completion of the grading operations. Grading operations
undertaken at the site without the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative present
EnGEN Corporation I z.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
J
~j
.
;I
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
March 199B
Page 11
.v _
may result in exclusions of the affected areas frorn the finish grading report for the project.
The presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative will be for the
purpose of providing observations and field testing and will not include any supervision or
directing of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's employees or agents.
Neither the presence and/or the non-presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his
field representative nor the field observations and testing shall excuse the contractor in
any way for defects discovered in the contractor's work.
, 8.2.12 Soil Expansion Potential: Upon completion of precise grading of the building pad, near-
surface sarnples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to verify the
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.2
8.4
8.4.1
preliminary expansion test results and the foundation and slab-on-grade recomrnendations
presented in this report. The results of recent testing indicate an expansion index of 33
which is classified as a low expansion potential.
Seismic Desian Recommendations (Lots 19. 20 and 211:
Desian Fault Zone: The most significant earthquakes that may affect the site are
anticipated to occur along the Elsinore Fault Zone.
Ground Accelerations: An earthquake originating along the Elsinore Fault Zone with a
maximum credible magnitude of 7.5 could be expected to generate a peak ground
acceleration at the site in excess of approximately O.84g. It should be noted that the
intensity of the anticipated motions will depend on the magnitude of the earthquake and on
the distance of the zone of maximum energy release frorn the site.
Foundation Desian Recommendations (For Lots 19. 20 and 211:
General: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column
footings and continuous wall footings founded upon competent bedrock. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential for
'.
EnGEN Corporation
\3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T1360-GS
March 1998
Page 12
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 to
resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces.
8.4.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minirnum of one (1) NO.5
steel reinforcing bars located near the top and one (1) NO.5 steel reinforcing bars located
near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to rninor 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 doorways, garage or any other types of openings.
8.4.3 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in competent Pauba
Formation bedrock should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest adjacent
finish grade.
8.4.4 Bearina Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, 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 2000 psf for continuous
footings and 2000 psf for column footings in competent bedrock. This value may be
increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and/or foot of width to a
maximum of 3.0 times the designated allowable value. 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 dynarnic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
8.4.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recomrnended bearing values for
EnGEN Corporation \.,
I
~,
I
-
-
-
II
.
.
.
~;
.
rI
.
.
.
.
.
I
..
.
James and Mardi Margiotta,
Project Number: T136o-GS
March 1998
Page 13
continuous and column footings, respectively, and"lhe- maxirnum assumed wall and
,y
colurnn loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75-inch or a
differential settlement of 0.25--inch.
8.4.6 Lateral CaDacitv: Additional foundation design parameters based on competent bedrock
or cornpacted fill for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Bedrock - 300 pet
Fill - 200 pet
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
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 competent bedrock. The above
values are allowable design values and have safety factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into
them 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.
8.5 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both
interior and exterior, excluding PCC pavement, are based upon a low expansion potential
for the supporting material. 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 slurnp (high
EnGEN Corporation \-S-
<
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
March 1998
Page 14
water / cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper c}ll1l1g procedures used during either
hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in
the slabs. It is recomrnended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be
performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures.
8.5.1 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches in
thickness and be underlain by a minimum of 1.O-inch of clean coarse sand or other
approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade per the Earthwork
Recommendations Section of this report. Minirnum slab reinforcement should consist of
#3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center in both directions, or a suitable equivalent,
as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. The reinforcing should be placed at
mid-depth in the slab. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased
appropriately for anticipated excessive or concentrated floor loads. 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 by a 1.0
to 2.0-inch minirnum layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing
and to minimize potential punctures.
8.5.2 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimurn of 4.0-inches in thickness
and be underlain by a minimum of 12.0-inches of soil that has been prepared in
accordance with the Earthwork Recommendation section of this report. 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 6.O-inches and proof compacted to a
rninimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91 procedures
EnGEN Corporation \~
<
--',
I
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136Q..GS
March 1998
Page 15
immediately before placing aggregate base rnaterial or pla~rig the concrete.
8.6 Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, exterior hardscape, and/or pavement areas
should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. All utility trenches within the building
pad and extending to a distance of 5.0-feet beyond the building exterior footings should be
backfilled with on-site or similar soil. Where interior or exterior utility trenches are
proposed to pass beneath or parallel to building, retaining wall, and/or decorative concrete
block perimeter wall footings, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1: 1
plane projected downward frorn the outside bottorn edge of the adjacent footing unless the
utility lines are designed for the footing surcharge loads. It is recommended that all utility
trenches excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back according to the
\
/ ''Ternporary Construction Cut" section of this report or be properly shored during
construction. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate for the type
of backfill rnaterial and compaction equipment used. Backfill material should be
compacted to a rninimurn of 90 percent relative compaction by rnechanical means. Jetting
or flooding of the backfill material will not be considered a satisfactory method for
compaction unless the procedures are reviewed and approved in writing by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill
material should be determined according to ASTM D1557-91 procedures.
8.7 Finish Lot Drainaae Recommendations: Positive drainage should be established away
frorn the tops of slopes, the exterior walls of structures, the back of retaining walls, and the
decorative concrete block perimeter walls. Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to guide surface water away from
foundations and slabs and frorn flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should
be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be
EnGEN Corporation
\1
"-
I
~'
I
,
I
I
.
.
,
i ..)
.
II
I
.
.
.
~
III
II
8.8
8.9
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T1360-GS
March 1998
Page 16
allowed next to structures or on pavements. In \/fljjaved areas, a minirnum positive
gradient of 3.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minirnum
distance of 4.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a
nonerosive rnanner should be provided. Landscape trees and plants with high water
needs should be planted at least 5.0-feet away from the walls of the structures.
Downspouts from roof drains should discharge to a drainage system which slopes away
from the structure a' minirnum of 5.0-feet from the exterior building walls. In no case
should downspouts from roof drains discharge into planter areas immediately adjacent to
the building unless there is positive drainage away from the structure and the 5.0-foot
minirnurn discharge distance criteria is followed.
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the buildings.
TemDorarv Construction Excavation Recommendations: Temporary construction
excavations for rough grading, foundations, retaining walls, utility trenches, etc., more than
5.0-feet in depth and to a maximum depth of 15-feet should be properly shored or cut back
to the following inclinations:
Earth Material
Bedrock, Alluviurn or Cornpacted Fill
Inclination
1:1
No surcharge loads (spoil piles, earthmoving equiprnent, trucks, etc.) should be allowed
within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope equal to 1.5
times the depth of the excavation. Excavations should be initially observed by the project
Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist and/or their representative to verify the
recommendations presented or to make additional recommendations to maintain stability
and safety. Moisture variations, differences in the cohesive or cementation characteristics,
EnGEN Corporation I€>
<
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
March 1998
, Page 17
or changes in the coarseness of the deposits rnay requir~slope flattening or, conversely,
permit steepening upon review by the project Geotechnical Engineer, Geologist, or their
representative. Deep utility trenches may experience caving which will require special
considerations to stabilize the walls and expedite trenching operations. Surface drainage
should be controlled along the top of the slope to preclude erosion of the slope face. If
excavations are to be left open for long periods, the slopes should be sprayed with a
protective compound and/or covered to minimize drying out, raveling, and/or erosion of the
slopes. For excavations more than 5.0-feet in depth which will not be cut back to the
recommended slope inclination, the contractor should submit to the owner and/or the
owner's designated representative detailed drawings showing the design of shoring,
bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection. If the drawings do
not vary frorn the requirements of the OSHA Construction Safety Orders (CAL OSHA or
FED OSHA, whichever is applicable for the project at the time of construction), a
statement signed by a registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State of California,
engaged by the contractor at his expense, should be submitted certifying that the
contractor's excavation safety drawings comply with OSHA Construction Orders. If the
drawings vary from the applicable OSHA Construction Safety Orders, the drawings should
be prepared, signed, and sealed by a Registered or Structural Engineer in the State of
Califomia. The contractor should not proceed with any excavations until the project owner
or his designated representative has received and acknowledged the properly prepared
excavation safety drawings.
8.10 Retainina Wall Recommendations:
8.10.1 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
EnGEN Corporation \ '\
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T13SD-GS
March 1998
Page 18
,,," .
vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following'static lateral soil pressures:
Condition
Level Backfill
2:1 SloDe
Active
30 pet
60 pet
45 pet
At Rest
The on-site materials may be used as backfill within the active / at-rest pressure zone as
defined above. Walls that are free to deflect 0.001 radian at the top should 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 within a horizontal distance behind the wall should
also be should considered in the design. Uniform surcharge pressures should be applied
)
as an additional uniform (rectangular) pressure distribution. The lateral earth pressure
coefficient for a uniform vertical surcharge load behind the wall is 0.50.
8.10.2Foundation 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 the same average allowable bearing value across
the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the
footing),and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable sliding
resistance as previously recomrnended. When using the allowable lateral pressure and
allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used.
8.10.3 Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all
retaining walls to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic
pressures. Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery,
perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved systern. Gravel
galleries and/or filter rock, or another approved systern. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock,
<.
EnGEN Corporation 2.0
I
,
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,)
I
I
I
II
'I
II
I
)
I
I
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
March 1998
, Page 19
.v ~.
if not properly designed and graded for the on-site,j.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 places downward.
Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe.
Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain in a non-
erosive manner. In the case of Subdrains for basernent walls, they need to ernpty into a
surnp provided with a submersible pump activated by a change in the water level.
8.10.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3 feet) rnay
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 rnethods
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 rnaximum 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 rnaterial compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order
to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and into the subdrain
system. Maximurn dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill materials should
be determined in accordance with ASTM 01557-78(90) procedures.
'.
EnGEN Corporation z.\
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136O-GS
March 1998
Page 20
""
,jO
9.0 PLAN REVIEW
Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project, but before bids
for construction are requested, grading plans for the proposed developrnent 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.
10.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE
It may be desirable to hold a pre-bid conference 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 grading and construction
requirements of the project.
11.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE
Before the start of 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 grading recommendations and to verify that the
project specifications comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering
\
,
report. Any special grading procedures and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can
also be discussed at that time.
,
EnGEN Corporation
2Z-
I )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l)
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
)
I.,.,; ,
:Ji~:',,:..
:~:;.,:~:..,; .
I,' ~"f,',
:~!
.,
-it .'
"
i
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
March 1998
Page 21
12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING ;}'''"
13.0
Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and
testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to,
overexcavation cuts, 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 before installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel
to verify and/or modify 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 subject development should be performed by EnGEN
Corporation. If the observations and testing ,to verify site geotechnical conditions are not
performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the developrnent is
limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN
Corporation. If parties other than EnGEN Corporation are engaged to perform soils and
rnaterials observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be required to
assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by concurring
with the recommendations in this report or providing altemative recommendations.
Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field representative, nor the
field observations and testing, shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects
discovered in the contractor's work. The Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative
shall not be responsible for job or project safety. Job or project safety shall be the sole
responsibility of the contractor.
CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
".
EnGEN Corporation
23
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
March 1998
,Page 22
",,"
document. It mayor may not contain sufficient informati~n for other parties or purposes.
In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed
development 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 geotechnical 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, lirnitations
exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site conditions
which rnay have an irnpact 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 which are not reflected in
this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified 50 that supplemental evaluations can
be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be
modified or verified in writing. This report is not intended for use as a bid document. Any
person or company using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform
such independent studies and explorations as he deems necessary to satisfy himself as to
the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used
in the performance of the work on this project. Changes in applicable or appropriate
L
standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
,
EnGEN Corporation ~
r
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T13SD-GS
March 1998
" Page 23
-I
,,," ,
presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or 4n part, by changes outside the
control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the Mure.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services, If we can be of further service or you
should have questions regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully subrnitted,
EnGEN Corporation
~y.~~
Principal Engineering Geologist
Expires 11-30-99
Distribution: (4) Addressee
TD/OB/ch
) FILE: Wayne D:\REPORTSIGSIT136o-GS James & Mardi Margiotta
"
EnGEN Corporation
US'
)
APPENDIX
\
)
<
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
Appendix Page 1
Ii
".\#' .
~
I
1
,
,
I
.
,
( /
~
I
I
I
\1
Allen, C.R, and others, 1965, Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in
the southem California region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 55, no.
4, p. 753-797.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southem Califomia, Bulletin
170.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1969, Geologic rnap of California, San
Bernardino Sheet, Scale 1 :250,000.
Department of Conservation, Geology map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000 Quadrangle,
California, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1970, Regional geologic map of San Andreas and related faults in
eastern San Gabriel Mountains and vicinity: U.S. Geologic Society, Open-File Map, Scale
1 :125,000.
Engel, R, 1959, Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 146.
Envicom Corporation, 1976, Seismic safety and safety elements, Technical report for
County of Riverside Planning Department.
Hart, E. W., 1992, Fault-rupture hazard zones in Califomia: California Division of Mines
and Geology, Department of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 9 p.
Hileman, JA, Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern California
region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology.
Housner, G.W., 1969, Earthquake Engineering, Weigel, R L (ed.), Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1970, Chap. 4.
Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault map of Califomia with locations of volcanoes, thermal springs
and thermal wells, 1 :750,000: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data
Map No.1.
Jennings, C.W., 1985, An explanatory text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and
geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201, 197p.,
2 plates.
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.
Lamar, D.L, Merifield, P.M. and Proctor, RJ., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence Interval on
Major Faults in Southern California, in Moran, Douglas E., et. ai, 1973, Geology,
Seisrnicity & Environmental Impact, Association of Engineering Geology, Special
Publication.
15. Leeds, D.J., 1973, Geology, Seismicity & Environmental Impact, Association of
Engineering Geology, Special Publication.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
," -
,y
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
'.
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T1360-GS
, Appendix Page 2
EnGEN Corporation :z., 1
--
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (!&ntJ .
,y
16. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California:
State of California, Departrnent of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special Report
43.
17. Ploessel, M.R. and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations frorn
Earthquakes: Important Design Criteria, California Division of Mines and Geology,
California Geology, Vol. 17, No.9, pp 195-199.
18. Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside
County Cornprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains -
Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
19. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
20. Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seisrnic - Geologic Maps,
Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 146, Sheet 147 (Revised 11-87), Sheet 854B
(Revised 11-87), and Sheet 854A (revised 11-87), Scale 1" = 800'.
21. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet,
CDMG.
22. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the westem
United States: College of Engineering, University of Califomia, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
23. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1970. A simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential: College of Engineering, University of Califomia, Berkeley.
24. 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.
25. State of California, January 1, 1980, Special Studies Zones, Elsinore Quadrangle. Revised
Official Map, Scale 1" = 2 Mi.
26. Slale 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.
27. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1994 Edition.
EnGEN Corpoution
z.e
~
I
t
'.
.
I
I
]
.
"
.v
LABORATORY TEST RESUL 1S
'.
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
Appendix Page 4
EnGEN Corporation Zf\
DBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
02/25/98 - .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------~~--~-------------------------
JOB NO.:
JOB NAME:
LOCATION:
SAMPLE SOURCE:
SAl1PL.3: BY:
LAB TECH:
REt1ARKS:
SAMPLE DESC:
T1360-GS
Ii
JIM & MARDI MARGIOTTA
LOT 20
SAMPLE 2
JMB 02/24/98
JMB
SAND. GRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
~)
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
WET COMPACTED WT.
RING '..JT.
NET w"ET WT.
w"ET DENSITY
WET SOIL + TARE
DRY SOIL + TARE
TARE
INTITAL MOISTURE%
INTITIAL DRY DENSITY
~~ SATURATION
FINAL WT. + RING WT.
NET FINAL WT.
DRY fiJT.
LOSS
NET DRY WT.
FINAL DENSITY
SATURATED MOISTURE
584.8
192.5
392.3
118.5
147.2
133.7
0.0
10.1
107.6
48.2
620.6
428.1
356.3
71.8
352.7
106.5
20.4
DIAL CHANGE TIME
------------------------------
READING iI 0.100 N/A 1445
READING # 0.100 0 1500
READING # 0.100 0 1515
READING # 0.100 0 1435
READING # 0.100 N/A NIT
Expansion Index:
o
0.00
Adjusted Expansion Index:
(ASTM D 4829 10.1.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula. CA 92590
;30
)
~
',""
UBC Laboratory Exoansion Test Results
03/02/98
3\
JOB NO.:
=========================================================================
JOB NAME:
LOCATION:
SAMPLE SOURCE:
SAMPLE BY:
LAB TECH:
REMARKS:
SAMPLE DESC:
T1360-GS
JIM & MARDI MARGIOTTA
LOT 21
SAMPLE 3
JMB 02/25/98
JMB
SILTY SAND. BROWN
)======================================================================
WET COMPACTED WT.
RING WT.
NET WET WT.
WET DENSITY
WET SOIL + TARE
DRY SOIL + TARE
TARE
INTITAL MOISTURE/.
INTITIAL DRY DENSITY
f. SA TURA TI ON
FINAL WT. + RING WT.
NET FINAL WT.
DRY WT.
LOSS
NET DRY WT.
FINAL DENSITY
SATURATED MOISTURE
580.9
196.5
384.4
116.1
112.7
103.0
0.0
9.4
106.1
43.2
626.6
430.1
351. 3
78.8
348.2
105.2
22.6
DIAL CHANGE TIME
------------------------------
READING II 0.100 NIA 115=,
READING II 0.133 33 1210
READING II 0.135 35 1225
READING II 0.137 37 800
READING II 0.100 NIA NIT
Exoansion Index:
37
Adjusted Expansion Index:
(ASTM D 4829 10.1.2)
33.10
========================================================================
)
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula. CA 92590
,
T1360-GS
I
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 02/25198
=================================================~=7=====================
~ '
JOB NO.:
JOB NAME:
LOCATION:
SAMPLE SOURCE:
SAMPLE BY:
LAB TECH:
REf'1AF:':S:
SAt'1PLE DESC,
JIM & MARDI MARGIOTTA
LOT -19
SAt'1PLE 1
Ji1B 02/2~1/98
Pt1
SILTY SAND. BROWN
==========================================================================
TI1~1E
WET COMPACTED Wi.
RING I>n.
NET ;;JET WT..
JET DENSITY
-{.iJET SOIL + TAF:E
DRY SOIL + TAF:E
TAP:E
INTITAL MOISTURE%
INTITIAL DRY DENSITY
~: SATUF:ATION
:= I NAL L~JT..
+ RING
NET FI~,AL WT.
DF:Y ~ljT..
LOSS
NET D~~'-;' WT..
F I Nf:'L DENS I TY
SATUF:ATED MOISTURE
606.6
196.6
DIAL
CHANGe:
------------------------------
410.0
EEADING u 0 100 N/A 12')3
T>- .
F:EADING ;; u . 100 0 1218
READING ;; () . 100 0 123:::
F~EAD I NG ,~ 0 100 0 80e
.,. .
F:EAD I i".JG # (1 100 N/ ,,' ,'.,n-
. H
123.8
129.4
119.8
0..0
8.0
114..6
',"'T"
~.J I ..
46.1
633.3
436.7
379.6
57.1
377.1
113.9
< - 1
..:..;:1.....
E~.{paltsicn Inde>::
"
'-'
===========================================================================
Adjusted Expansion Index:
(ASTi~l D 4829 10.1.. 2)
0.00
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
'. 3.z.
I 135
130
<to
U
...
~ 125
:/I
+'
.~
..
c
,])
-0
:/I 120
...
l=l
115
110
PROCTOR TEST REPORT
I f"-
, ,,"
" .
I -.
"
"
I\.
~ ....
I i I..... " ,
1 i ~ "
I ; 1 I " i
I I I '" I
I I i I I I I. . I
I
I I I I ! ! I
I I 1 1 ! "'\.1
I I .j I I I I l'l
I ; I i 1 ! 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 I
I
I ; I I i I
I ; I I I \ I
1
3.5
6 8.5 11
Water content, r.
13.5
NModiTiedN Proctor, ASTM D 1557, Method A
Elew" I
Depth I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
,
1,'\
oj
)*1..
I,''t,:,~'
~.~;.t '
ClassiTication
USCS AASHTO
I Nat.
IMois.t.
i 6. '? %
PI
SP.G.
SP
2.65
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TEST RESULTS
Optimum moisture = 9.3 ~
Maximum drY density = 126.2 pCT
SAND
Project ~lo.: T1360-(3S
Project: MARGIOTTA
Location: LOT 213
Remarks:
ISAMPLE 2
I COLLECTED B'r' ,Tl'1B
iel2/25/98
I
l
Date: 02/27/98
PROCTOR TEST REPORT
SOIL TECH LABORATORIES
Figure No.
<
I
I
I
i
I
ZAV -r(it"!
SP.G.= 11
2.65
l
I
i
,
I
i
16 i
I
I
i
~ > X < j
t~o.4 No.2ee\
I
!
I
I
I
I
~
r, .
3600
)
<f-
III
...
-
III
III
a.
...
....
en
2400
...
(f$
a.
J:
en
121313
610010
51000
)...
III 40100
...
-
III
III
a. 30100
...
....
en
...
(f$ 210013
a.
J:
en
10100
0
I
Ij
psi'
deg
:r:Ir:::.::.::.
, '
, ' '
. ' ,
.............................................................
, ' '
::::::::::::::::::i::::::::::::::t::i::.IE::::::':::::.::!:::
RESULTS
163
44.9
1.00
.. ..
... .. .... ..... ...
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
....................................................................................................
, ,.,. ,,'. .'.:::::': :::i::i::i: ::i~::ri:: :i::i:::::i:: :i::i:Li :::::i::i::l: ::!::i::i::i::
:..;.. ..!..~..:..: ..:..:..:..:.. ..:..:..:..:.. ..;..~..~..~.. "1"1"1"1" ..~..;..:..!.. ..;..:..:..:.. ..:..:..:..;.. ..~..;..J..~..
C,
ell,
TAN ell
, ' ,
.... ...... ..' .,.. .. .' .
..,. .... .... .' . ....... .. ..,
.............. .............. .............. ...... ... . .............. .............. .............. .............. ...."........ ............. ..............
.... .... .... .... ." .. .... .... .,.. .'" ...
.. ,.. ,..t.. I" .. I.. ,.. . "I" "I"" .'..'....1 .. ,.. ,.. ..,..'.. I .. ,.. .. I .!.. j :: :,i :: ::~,:: i, : : :.i:: ;,' :: :: :.i :: ;.',:: i,:: i,:'. :: ;,: :: :,!:: .,! :: :,' " " :: ~.-: : .',:.': .,!.': 1,,'.. :: :.!: : ..',: : :,! : : ~,' :: :: ;,! :.' '.!: : ..1 : :,!::
::::::::i::::: ::;:::::,::i:: ::H:::::i:. .H::;::::: :::::.:T::.:.;.;. ,;..i..h. .H.H. '-!-'H.; .;.H.;. .;.!.;.;. .H.!.;..
" '
... .. . .. .... .. .' . ....
.... .... .' . .... .. . .... .... .... ... ...... -. ....
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... . .. .... . ,. ... .................... ....
::::::::i::::: :rH:::: ::::JTf :rn+H:!:'. ::'::::::: :i+rL :::::n:f :rH:r :::::H:r ::::::::n: :IT}f
",u.!. .;.,..I.;.L.'..!. .,.;.L. .;.
:!::::.:::: ::::::i:II:r;:I{ ::iITT '
.. . .' . ." - . -.
.. . .... .... ...
.. . .. - .......
..............."..........................,.......
. ." . . .. ...
..;. ,"i"!" ..j..~..~..;.. ..l..j.+.!.. .+.!..!<.. .
. .........
. ......."..........................................
. . .. ... . . .. ....
.... .... .... ....
. .:. .: . .!. . =.. ..:..: .:..!.. .. ~ ..:.. ;.. :" ..!..!.. ~ .. ! . .
o
o
1200
24013
. . .::1:.
. ! . .
:' .
, I ;
I
i
i , I . !
~ ~ ; ~
I I
:1 I
~;'
':4 ::fu
, Vt: :1:1:1 ; , i j ; i ,
I
,
'-.' !
1"./ ,~.. ,.
Iyr.!. ! r'.'.; ; 1 ~
..........
.
r)>:" I
..j. ! , , ; ; ! ,. , ; ,
. I
" ,.'. I ' .. '
.::.:::: ::'::!',::.:,' :,:.:.:..l'.:U..('T..: 'ITU
....~::j:: ::j::~::~::l:: ::;:: )::j:: ::j::;::~::1::I::1::l:.j::;::I::i::I::j::i::
',)::::t:q: :t: : :T:;::'!!,: :.:;::::1::::::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
4800
psi'
6000
7200
3600
Normal Stress,
ISAMPLE NO.
WATER CONTENT, ~
I~ DRY DENSITY, pei'
:..... SATURATION, r.
t: VOID RATIO
I~ IDIAMETER, in
I HEIGHT, in
I I~JATER CONTENT, ;.~
i~IDRY DENSITY, pei'
I~IISATURATION' ~
~ VOID RATIO
I ~ ,DIAMETER, in
I-~ IHEIGHT, in
INORMAL STRESS, psi'
I
IMA;<. SHEAR, psi'
1 2 3
8.2 8.2 8.2
113.4113.4113.4
47.5 47.5 47.5
10.45910.4590.459
2.42 2.42 2.42
1 . ee 1 . 00 1 . 00
14.7 15.5 15.2
113.4113.4113.4
85.1 89.7 88.0
0.4590.4590.459
2.42 2.42
1. 010 1. 100
2000 3000
2.42
1.1010
1101010
1184 2113 3179
STRAIN RATE, ~/min.
2.0002.0002.0013
o 0.1
Horiz.
0.2 0.3
Dei'or m. ,
0.4
in 'ULT.
SHEAR,
pST
11317
17102
2768
SAMPLE DATA
SAMPLE TYPE: REMOLDED
DESCRIPTION: SAND
~
r
LL=
ISPECIFIC
REMARKS:
~
rr.
PL=
GRAVITY=
PI=
2.65
;
I CLIENT: LUIS & MARDI MARGIOTTA
!
I
,
I
I PROJECT: LOT 20
I
ISAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE #2
PROJ. NO.: T1360-GS DATE: 03/03/98
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
SOIL TECH LABORATORIES ~
)
I
I
<
,
DRAWINGS
Ii
James and Mardi Margiotta
Project Number: T136D-GS
Appendix Page 5
,,,"
EnGEN Corporation 1>::5:'"
'.
~
ffin.
GTE California Incorporated
Right of Way Department
11 South 4th Street, Second Floor
Redlands, CA 92373
FAX (909) 335-8958
December 18,1997
In Reply Refer To
100-573-97
Mr,& Mrs. James Mar9iotta
45750 Olympic Way
Temecula, CA 92592
Subject: Quitclaim of Easement - Lot Line Adjustment for Lots 19, 20 and 21 - TR 9833-3 Temecula
)
Please be advised that GTE California will Quitclaim its easement(s) lyin9 within the subject property
and secured by document No. 88-354234 and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Riverside County, Califomia.
In order for me to proceed with my part in this quitclaim, we will require a processing fee of $150.00
payabl~to GTE Califomia to cover our administrative and recording costs. Please sent remittance to the
address above directed to my attention. Additionally, please provide me with the legal entity to whom
this quitclaim should be made out to on the quitclaim document.
Please allow 30 days for the County to record this document at which time we will send the Original
signed and recorded Quitclaim to your office.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to call me
at 909 @ 307-2656.
Sincerely,
----?: d
Tim Avila
Right of Way Administrator
cc: Alisa Garrett - Fallbrook Natl Bank
)
~
<