HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 31259 Revised Supplemental Geotechnical Study~'
~
,~
~
.~
~
;~.
~
~
~~
~
~
~
~
~ y~ ~.._._r~.
~
~~-~~~n~„~~~GEN Corporation
ENVIRONMENTAL Sc GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
~v~~ a 33G~,
~ ~~~~,
~ ~_., .
1~ ~ 4~.
REVISED SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Buontempo Property
Parcel 3, Parcel Map 24085-2, Zevo Drive
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 25, 2003
Prepared for:
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
c/o Goodtime Enterprise
~~., 6920 Miramar Road, Suite 201
" 'San Diego, Califomia 92121
, `t
--- ~~ .
~°
AUG 1 4 2003
~nnecuu
i DEPARTLIENT
,
- , , , ,_ , ,
~ ~
~
~
~ ~
, ~ ~ ~
' ~
~ ~
~
.~
~
~ _ ~,
~ _ -,
~
~ ~
~
~ __ ,
= ~
~ ;
; ~ ~ ~.~~
,
~o_
~
„
;
, - , .
~ ~
;
, ; ~~
, ~ ~_ _. ~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
.e =~~_.1. '- ~uY11kIW tYiIS0lRaefa rwtaB;Rw~aww csi~eth'lS~naemac~6a&ime~a~ma~~sec¢G4s.AS6~~cB¢'w as&~fi.&tncl
cnsen[` ~~~~~~ E ~~ ~ rt I
^ $lr' '~ Oa^~ .~ a.. e ~~~
~ ~_ ~ I e LL~
ana a~.C-A 9~ 0~ ~p o e~ 7= `546405~~ax+~'14 ~46- 0 P ~- -.
v.
,.~,r anr^~I;
r~'r e~'~^('}~I ~
IiE'Ywvwe e
corpcom A
eo9encorp engencorpoom ~.. .._t t. ,.. .. ,..
~
~
~a~ _ ~ :: c.. L v .._ .
f C 4 '. - .
. .... ~a . ~: ..
. ._ ~r~
. . ~ _ -- .
• Soil EngineeiinB an0 Cwsultinp Services • Eipi~~~ • Compaqion Testing
• Inspaiiow • ConsWGion Mater~ISTZVinA • ~a~oialoryTUlinA • PercolationTetlirp
• Geology • Waler Aesowce StWia • Phase I 6 0 Enviionmenml Site Assessmems
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Projecl Number. T1075-SGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title Faqe
1.0 SITEIPROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................2
2.0 SITE REVIEW ................................................................................ ................................2
2.1 Literature Research .............................................................. ................................2
2.2 Site Reconnaissance ............................................................ ................................2
2.3 Laboratory Testing ................................................................ ................................2
2.3.1 General ................................................................... ................................2
2.3.2 Classification ...............:.......................................... ................................2
2.3.3 Expansion Index Test ............................................. ................................3
2.3.4 Plasticity Index Test ................................................ ................................3
2.3.5 Soluble Sulfate Test ............................................... ................................3
2.4 Faulting ............................................................................... .................................3
2.4.1 Murrieta Creek Fault .............................................. .................................3
2.4.2 Elsinore Fault Zone ............................................... .................................4
2.5 Seismicity ............................................................................ .................................6
2.6 Liquefaction ......................................................................... .................................6
2.7 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity ................................. .................................6
3.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... .................................7
3.1 General ............................................................................... .................................7
3.2 Engineered Fill .................................................................... .................................8
4.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... .................................8
4.1 Generai .............................................................................. .................................8
4.2 Foundation Size ................................................................... .................................9
4.3 Depth of Embedment .......................................................... .................................9
4.4 Bearing Capacity ................................................................. ............................. ....9
4.5 Settlement ........................................................................... ...............................10
4.6 Lateral Capacity ................................................................... ...............................10
5.0 SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... ...............................10
5.1 General ............................................................................... ...............................10
5.2 Interior Slabs ....................................................................... ...............................10
5.3 Exterior Slabs ...................................................................... ...............................11
6.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. ................................11
6.1 Earth Pressures .................................................................. ................................11
6.2 Foundation Design ............................................................. ................................11
6.3 Subdrain ............................................................................. ................................12
6.4 Backfill ......................................:......................................... ................................12
EnGEN Corporation 2
~'
~
~
I~ Section Number and Title
,
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
Paqe
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. ...................13
7.1 Pavement Design ............................................................................ ...................13
7.2 Utility Trench Recommendations ..................................................... ...................14
7.3 Temporary Excavation or Cuts ........................................................ ...................15
7.4 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .......................................... ...................15
7.5 Planter Recommendations .............................................................. ...................15
7.6 Supplemental investigations ............................................................ ...................15
7.7 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ................... ...................15
7.8 Pre-Grade Conference .................................................................... ...................16
8.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING ................................ ...................16
9.0 CLOSURE ........................................................................................ ...................17
APPENDIX:
TECHNICALREFERENCES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
LOG OF TRENCH SDA-6
DRAWINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3
~_ ~~ ~
~"'S .~• ~ -
,
~~'.~~: , :, ,; ,,:~;E1~GEN Corporation
ENVIPONMENTAL Hl GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
February 25, 2003
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
clo Goodtime Enterprise
6920 Miramar Road, Suite 201
San Diego, California 92121
(858) 967-0803 / FAX (858) 653-4998
Attention: Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Regarding: REVISED SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Buontempo Property
Parcel 3, Parcel Map 24085-2, Zevo Drive
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T1075-SGS
References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Report Of Rough Grading, Lots 1-10
of Parcel Map 24085, A.P.N. 909-120-022, Diaz Road, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California, Project Number: T1075-C, report dated
December 19, 1996,
2. EnGEN Corporation, Updated Geotechnical/Geological Engineering
Study, Proposed Expansion of Existing Business Center, Parcels 1
through 10 of Parcel Map 24085, Diaz Road, Temecula, Riverside
County, California, Project Number: T1075-GS, report dated August 19,
1996.
3. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Report on Geotechnical Investigation,
Assessment District No. 155, P.M. 24085, 24086, 21029, 21382 and
21383, Rancho California, Riverside County, California, report dated
June 7, 1989.
4. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Response to County Geologic Review
Sheet, Tentative P.M. 24085, 24086, 21029, 21382 and 21383, Rancho
California, California (A.P.N.: 909-120-020, -002; G.R. 627), response
dated August 15, 1989.
5. HLC Civil Engineer, Preliminary Grading Plan, Goodtime Enterprise,
LLC, Parcel 3 of P.M. 24085-2, plans dated December 5, 2002.
Dear Mr. Buontempo:
In accordance with your reqiie`st and signed proposal, a representative of this firm reviewed the
referenced report and visited_the subject site on July 3, 2002, to visually observe, probe, and
-- ,
_
:~ . _-sampie the surface within tfie subject lot, in order to update the reports referenced above. ~
r ~ ~~
r . ' ~ti. <:. _ __ /, --- '
_ ; ` _,
- - ~, , , , ~~ ,
~ ~ y. ~. ; ' r '~.i.,~~.~ig^
o°emal@76t~~~ ~~r.~wit7~
~ 4+ ~
~ C r '!ir ~'i- CC ~` Z t:i:~~"~ ~_'~:f
, .~ar~~~~.~~ „~a
__ ,
. `~ ~~~ - . - \~ ~ _~_.._~.~.~_.~~__w.._.a_~,_.._.._~.k__ ~.,_~~.~.x<
• Soil Enpincerinp anA ConsN~inp Services • EnpincerinA Geolopy • Canpaction Testinp
• Inspections • Consbuclian Mahrials Tesling • la6oalory Teslinp • Pemolation ieslinp
• Geolopy • Wate~ Aesource SNdies • Phase I 8 II Emironnenhl Sile Atsemnen6
.. . a~ ~ vv ~.y... r........ _ _
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 2
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is 6.2-acres and is located on the north side of Zevo Drive next to Zevo Golf in the
Westside Business Centre area in the City of Temecula. The site consists of a previously
graded one-level pad and is surrounded by commercial developments. It is our
understanding that the proposed improvements will be a two (2) building industrial
complex consisting of concrete tilt-up slab-on-grade type structures, with associated
landscape, hardscape and parking improvements.
2.0 SITE REVIEW
2.1 Literature Research: Based on our review of the Referenced No. 1 Report, grading of
the site was completed in 1996. The site is a native cuUfill transition lot. Pauba Formation
bedrock underlies the fill portion (References No. 1 and No. 3). Bedrock is exposed in the
native cut portion of the lot.
The potential for hazards associated with fault rupture is considered low since no known
active faults exist on the subject site. Based on the relatively flat topographic conditions at
the site, the potential for hazards associated with rock falls and/or landsliding is considered
low. Based on the lack of shallow groundwater and the high density of the underlying
eaRh materials, the potential for hazards associated with liquefaction is considered low.
22 Site Reconnaissance: Based on the site reconnaissance, it appears that no additional
grading has been performed since completion of grading as reported in the Referenced
No. 1 Report.
2.3 Laboratorv Testinq
2.3.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the site visit are presented in the Appendix. Foilowing is a listing and brief
explanation of the laboratory tests performed. The samples obtained during the field study
will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This o~ce should be notified
immediately if retention of sampies will be needed beyond 30 days.
2.3.2 Classification: The field classification of near-surface soil materials encountered on the
site were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
EnGEN Corporation ~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Numbec T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 3
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The finai classification is shown in the
Moisture Density Test Report presented in the Appendix.
2.3.3 Expansion Index Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-
surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 4829-95. In this testing
procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch 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 (ps~ 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. The expansion test result is presented on the UBC Laboratory
Expansion Index Test Results sheet.
- 2.3.4 Plasticitv Index Test: Liquid limit and plastic limit testing was performed on samples of
,~ near-surface earth materiai in general conformance with ASTM D 4318-98 procedures.
The material tested has a Plasticity Index of 10. The results are presented in the
.~
~ Appendix (Summary of Plasticity Index Test Results).
2.3.5 Soluble Sulfate Test: Samples of near-surface earth material were obtained for soluble
sulfate testing for the site. The concentration of soluble sulfate was determined in
general accordance with California Test Method 417 procedures. The test results
indicate a low percentage of soluble sulfates (0.0011% by weight). As a result, no
suifate resistant concretes are necessary. The test resuits are presented in the
Appendix.
2.4 Faultinq: The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
2.4.1 Murrieta Creek Fault: Traces of the Murrieta Creek Fault were encountered in the
adjacent lots to the east during fault trenching investigations by Schaefer Dixon Associates
in 1989 (References No. 3 and No. 4) and during grading (References No. 1 and No. 2).
The fault in the area of the subject site was found to consist of two pianes ("A" and "B"),
which are 0.01-foot to 0.1-foot thick and dip to the east at 60° and 22° to 55°, respectively
(Reference No. 3). The fault was located in Trench SDA-6, which is shown on Plate 2.
EnGEN Corporetion ~
~`
~
~~
,~.
~'
~
~
~
~
I ~
~
~
:~
~
I~
~
',
~
T
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Projed Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 4
The log of SDA-6 has been included in the Appendix. In summary, from STA 0+00 at the
southwest end of the trench extending northeast to approximately STA 0+75, continuous
Pauba Formation Bedrock was observed. Between approximately STA 0+75 and O+g5
(outside the subject site) the fault was encountered. The trench terminated at
approximately STA 1+02. Additional fault trenching and Cone Penetrometer Testing
(CPT) was performed to the north, south, and east of the subject site as a part of the
Referenced No. 3 Report. A well-defined Restricted Use Zone (RUZ) was established by
Schaefer Dixon Associates in 1989 based on the information gathered during their studies
(References No. 3 and No. 4). The western limit of the RUZ lies on the eastern property
line of the subject site. Therefore, no additional setback is deemed necessary from the
already established RUZ.
2.4.2 Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula Segment) is located
approximately 3,300 feet (1.0 kilometer) to the northeast of the site. The Elsinore Fault
Zone is a major right lateral strike-slip fault system, which has experienced strong
earthquakes in historical times (1856, 1894 and 1910) and exhibits late Quaternary
movement. Due to the size of the expected maximum earthquake event (i.e. 6.8 Richter
Magnitude) the Elsinore Fault has been used as the Design Fauit for engineering analysis.
The foliowing seismic hazards discussion is guided by UBC (1997), CBC (1998), CDMG
(1997) and Petersen and others (1996).
2.4.3 Surface Fault Rupture: No known active faults exist on the subject site. The Desig~
Fault is the Temecula Segment of the Eisinore Fault, a Type B Fault (UBC, 1997), located
approximately 3,300 feet (1.0 kilometer) northeast of the subject site. This conclusion is
based on literature review and EnGEN Corporation's site mapping and investigation. The
potential for fault surface rupture on the subject site is considered unlikely as it lies outside
the RUZ.
A listing of state designated active faults within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius is
presented in Table A below:
EnGEN Corporation ~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 5
TABLE A- Distance to State Desiqnated Active Faults
FAULT NAME
DISTANCE
(mile) (km) MAX.MOMENT
MAGNITUDE
(Mmax)
Elsinore - Temecula 0.6 1.0 6.8
Elsinore - Glen ivy 13.3 21.4 6.8
Elsinore - Julian 13.4 21.5 7.1
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley 21.8 35.1 6.9
San Jacinto - Anza 21.8 35.1 7.2
Newport - Inglewood (Offshore) 27.1 43.6 6.9
Rose Canyon 30.0 48.3 6.9
Chino - Central Avenue (Elsinore) 31.3 50.3 6.7
San Jacinto - San Bernardino 35.0 56.4 6.7
Whittier 35.4 57.0 6.8
San Andreas - Southern 38.7 62.3 7.4
San Andreas - San Bernardino 38.7 62.3 7.3
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 38.8 62.5 6.8
Earthquake Valley 41.3 66.5 6.5
Newport - Inglewood (L.A. Basin) 43.4 69.9 6.9
Coronado Bank 43.9 70.7 7.4
Pinto Mountain 46.0 74.0 7.0
Palos Verdes 46.5 74.9 7.1
Elysian Park Thrust 48.3 77.7 6.7
Cucamonga 48.7 78.3 7.0
San Andreas - Coachella 49.7 80.0 7.1
Compton Thrust 49.8 80.2 6.8 ~
North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 50.1 80.6 7.0
San Jose 50.7 81.6 6.5
Cleghorn 52.8 85.0 6.5
Sierra Madre 53.1 85.5 7.0
North Frontal Fault Zone 53.5 86.1 6.7
Burnt Mountain 55.1 88.6 6.4
Eureka Peak 57.9 93.2 6.4
San Andreas - Mojave 58.7 94.5 7.1
San Andreas - 1857 Rupture 58.7 94.5 7.8
Elsinore - Coyote Mountain 60.4 97.2 6.8
San Jacinto - Borrego 60.7 97.7 6.6
Helendale - S. Lockhardt 61.9 99.6 7.1
EnGEN Corporation g
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 6
2.5 Seismicitv: Although no known active faults exist within the project limits, the site will
experience ground motion and effects from earthquakes generated along active faults
located off-site. Figure 2 presents a map showing active faults in southern California,
historical earthquakes, and the project site location.
To estimate the potential ground shaking, EnGEN Corporation has performed the
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) outlined in Petersen and others (1996) and
UBC (1997). To perform this analysis EnGEN Corporation utilized the computer software
FRISKSP, developed from United States Geologic Survey (FRISK) by Blake (1989-
2000a, b, c).
The attenuation relationships by Boore et. al. (1997) for soil type So (stiff soil -
shear wave velocity 310 m/s) was utilized. For a complete discussion of the
software and probabilistic methods the reader is referred to Blake (1989 - 2000a,
b, c).
With one standard deviation FRISKSP computed 0.72g for soil type SD (Figure 3) as the
peak ground accelerations from the design-basis earthquake, the horizontal acceleration
that hypotheticaliy has a ten percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years. This
increase from 0.65g in the Referenced No. 1 Report is due to a change in the
attenuation relationships by Boore et. al. (1997).
In sum, these results are based on many unavoidable geological and statistical
uncertainties, but are consistent with current standard-of-practice. As engiheering
seismology evolves, and as more fauit-specific geological data are gathered, more
certainty and different methodologies may also evoive.
2.6 Liquefaction: The site is underlain by compacted fili and bedrock (References No. 1 and
No. 3). Due to the density of these underlying materials, the potential for liquefaction is
low.
2.7 Secondarv Effects of Seismic Activity: 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
depends on the severity of the earthquake, the distance of the site from the zone of
maximum energy release of the earthquake, the topography of the site, the subsurface
EnGEN Corporation ~
i ~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
~' Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 7
~~ materials at the site, and groundwater conditions beneath the site, besides other factors.
Since there are no active faults on the site, the possibility of hazards associated with
~ ground surface rupture is considered low. Due to the overall favorable geotogic and
~ topographic
f
l conditions of the area, the potential for earthquake-induced
id
d l
E
rth
k
i
d
rf
d
f landsiides or
rock
a
ls is cons
ere
ow.
a
qua
e-
n
uce
su
ace
looding due to seiches is
~ considered low since there are no large bodies of water nearby.
~ 3.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
~ 3.1 General: Final building and grading plans were not available at the time of this report.
Our office should review these plans once they are available and will make additional
~ recommendations (if necessary). Minor cuts and fills will be needed to contour the site
for proper drainage. All organic debris and man-made objects should be removed from
' the site and not used in proposed fills. Any undocumented fi~ls encountered should be
' removed and may be reused as fill. Based on our review of the Referenced No. 1
~ Report, an existing cut/fill transition is located in the central portion and along the east
side of the site, where an alluvial canyon had been cleaned out. The existing fill depths
are on the order of 5 to 10-feet. In addition, the top one (1) foot of existing soils are in a
weathered condition throughout the site.
~ Buiiding A, as shown on the Referenced No. 5 Plans, will span the proposed buUfill
transition. Building B, as shown on the Referenced No. 5 Plans, will span the existing
~ cut/fiil transition. ~
Structures should not span the cuUfill transitions. They must be placed entirely in cut or
~ entirely in fill, therefore they must be overexcavated in the cut and shaliow fill portions. The
depth of overexcavation shouid be half the maximum fili thickness with a minimum of 3-
~ feet and minimum of 18-inches of fill below the footings. Therefore the overexcavation
depth for Building A is anticipated to be 3-feet below finish grade, and the overexcavation
~ for Building B is anticipated to be 5-feet below finish grade. Overexcavation should extend
outside the perimeter footings of the structure the same distance as the depth; with a
~ minimum of 5-feet. Overexcavation bottoms should be inspected to verify competency.
The hardscape areas should be scarified 12-inches, moisture conditioned and
~ recompacted.
~ - EnGEN Corporation
~
\~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Projed Number. T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 8
All bottoms that expose previously placed fill should be tested for minimum 90 percent
reiative compaction. Bedrock bottoms should be inspected to verify competency.
3.2 Enqineered Fill: 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 from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should be
approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before placement. 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 (±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 1557-91 (1998) procedures. Moisture
content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent of optimum, unless
approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
I~ 4.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column
footings and continuous wall footings founded upon competent fill or bedrock. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a medium expansion
potential for the supporting soils and are not intended to preclude more restrictive
structural requirements. The actual expansion potential will need to be determined at
completion of precise grading in order to verify the foundation design recommendations
made herein. The Structurai Engineer for the project should determine the actual
footing widths and depths necessary to resist design vertical, horizontal and upiift
forces. The anticipated peak ground acceleration for the site is 0.72g. The following
seismic parameters apply:
Design Fault: Elsinore Fault-Temecula Segment
Seismic Source Type: Type B Fault
Soil Profile Type: SD
Distance to Known Seismic Source: 1.0 Km
EnGEN Corporation `~
i~
~
~
~
~
~"
~
~
~
~-
~~.
~ ~
~J
~
~
~
,~
~.
~
~
~
~
~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 9
The following laboratory results are representative of the native cut soils:
Expansion Index Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index
82 32 21 11
4.2 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should be designed by the project Structural
Engineer for the effects of the expansive soil characteristics presented in Section 4.1
above. However, in no case should footings be reinforced with less than two (2) No. 4
steel reinforcing bars located near the top and two (2) No. 4 steel reinforcing bars
located near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of any slight differential
movements that may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or
any seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils. In the case of concrete tilt-up or
masonry structures where the wall and footing system acts together as a deep beam,
the recommended minimum footing reinforcing may be replaced by appropriate
reinforcing of footings as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. 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 as the adjacent footings should be provided across doorway,
garage entrances, or any other perimeter openings.
4.3 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings should extend to a minimum depth
of 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade in competent fill. Frost is not considered
a design factor for foundations in the area as there is no significant frost penetration in
the winter months. Embedment of all footings on or near existing or planned siopes
should be determined by a minimum setback distance measured from the bottom
outside edge of the footing to the slope face according to the Uniform Building Code
and/or City Building Codes, or should be evaluated based on final anticipated structural
loads.
4.4 Bearinq Capacitv: The recommended allowabie bearing value for design of continuous
and column footings for dead plus live loads and founded in competent engineered fill is
2,000 psf for 18-inch wide by 18-inch deep footings. The bearing value may be
increased by 200 psf for each additional foot in width or depth, to a maximum of 3,000
EnGEN Corporatioi~ t~/
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 10
4.5
4.6
psf. The allowab~e bearing value may also be increased by 33.3 percent for short
durations of live loading such as wind or seismic forces.
Settlement: Footings designed according to the bearing value presented above and
founded in compacted fill or bedrock are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement
of 1_0-inch or a differential settlement of 0.5-inch between similarly sized and loaded
footings spaced at roughly 30-feet apart, for column loads on the order of 100 kips and
wall loads on the order of 3,000 pounds per linear foot.
Lateral CapacitV: Additional foundation design parameters based on competent silty
sand (SM) material for resistance to lateral forces are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure) Passive Case:
Fill Material or Bedrock - 150 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: 0.35
5.0
5.1
52
The above values are allowable design values and may be used in combination without
reduction. 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.
SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
General: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, are based
upon the anticipated medium expansion potential for the materiai in the upper 24-inches
of the slab area. The expansion potential of the slab subgrade areas should be verified
at the completion of any supplemental grading for the structure.
Interior Slabs: interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches
actual in thickness and be underlain by properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab
reinforcement should consist of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18-inches on center in
both directions placed mid-depth in the slab or any equivalent system as might be
designed by the Project Structural Engineer. The concrete section and/or reinforcing
steei should be increased for excessive design floor loads or anticipated concentrated
loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the siab,
we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier a minimum of 6.0-mil in
thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or
EnGEN Corpora[ion ~r3
~
~
~•
5.3
~
~
^
L~
.
6.0
' 6.1
,"
~
~
62
~
~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 11
sealed at splices and protected top and bottom by a 1.0 to 2.0-inch minimum layer of
clean sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures. The slab area
should be moisture conditioned to at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content to
a depth eq~al to footing depth immediately before placing the slab.
Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade should be a minimum
of 4.0-inches nominal in thickness and be supported on soil that has been moisture
conditioned to at least four percent above optimum moisture content to a minimum depth
of 18-inches immediately before pouring the slab. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of
a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the current
standards of the City of Temecula.
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (EI=20 or less) within a zone extending upward
and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter
can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition Level Backfill 2:1 Slo e
Active 30 pcf 45 pcf
At Rest 60 pcf --
The on-site materials have been tested to not qualify as backfiil within the active/at-rest
pressure zone as defined above. Imported low expansive materials shouid be u§ed for
that purpose. Walis that are free to deflect 0.01 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 shouid
also be shouid considered in the design.
Foundation Desiqn: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into
properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, bedrock 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
EnGEN Corporation \~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 12
footing), and with the same aliowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable
sliding resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral
pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used. If
ultimate values are used for design, an approximate factor of safety of 1.5 should be
achieved.
6.3 Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all
retaining walis 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 system. Gravel
galleries andlor 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 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 drai~ in a non-erosive manner. In the case of Subdrains for
~ basement walls, they need to empty into a sump provided with a submersible pump
activated by a change in the water level.
~ 6.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3-feet) may
~ consist of 0.5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean
sand (Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
~ compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if
water jetting is used, the sand shouid be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
~ compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical
methods will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
~ compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90
percent of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be
~ compacted by wheel, track or other roliing by heavy construction equipment unless the
wali is designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand, or other imported
~ backfiil is used behind retaining walis, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas
~ - EnGEN Corpora[ion
`5~
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
i ~
I, ~
~
~
~
~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 13
should consist of typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the granular backfill and
into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for
backfill materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
procedures.
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Pavement Desiqn: Preliminary pavement recommendations are presented based on R-
Value testing of native soils, and an assumed future traffic loading expressed in terms of
a Traffic Index (TI). Pavement sections have been based on a TI of 5.0 for automobile
areas, a TI of 6.0 for truck traffic areas, and an R-Value of 17. Based on this preliminary
R-Value, the project designer should specify the appropriate pavement section for the
various traffic areas as follows:
T pe of Traffic Traffic Index Pavement Section
Automobile 5.0 3-inches A.C. /8-inches Aggregate Base
Truck 6.0 3-inches A.C./11.5-inches Aggregate Base
Automobile 5.0 Portland Cement Pavement Alternative: `
6.5-inch PCC/95 percent subgrade
Truck 6.0 Portland Cement Pavement Alternative:
7-inch PCC/95 ercent sub rade
The potential exists for lower R-Values than those presented in this report. R-Values as
low as 4 were encountered in the immediate vicinity. If these lower R-Values are used,
then the thickness of the aggregate base portion of the pavement design shouid be
increased to 10-inches and 14-inches respectively, for the Traffic Indexes of 5.0 and 6.0.
Final pavement design by the Project Designer should be based on R-Value testing
conducted at the conclusion of precise grading and prior to aggregate base placement and
paving.
Asphalt concrete pavement materials shoutd be as specified in Sections 203-6 of the
Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or an approved
equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to 3/4-inch crushed aggregate base as
specified in Section 200-2.2 of Standard Specification for Public Works Construction
EnGEN Corporation `~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 14
(Green Book) or an approved equivalent. Portland Cement Concrete should consist of
3,500 psi (minimum) design strength concrete. To property prepare the subgrade, the soil
should be recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, to a minimum depth
of 12-inches below fnish subgrade elevation. if Portland Cement Concrete is to be placed
directly on subgrade, the subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
relative compaction to a minimum depth of 12-inches below finish subgrade elevation.
The aggregate base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for subgrade and
aggregate base materials should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-91 (1998)
procedures. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared and aggregate base material is not
placed immediately, or the aggregate base material is placed and the area is not paved
immediately, additional obseroations and testing will be required prior to placing aggregate
base material or asphaltic concrete to locate areas that may have been damaged by
construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying.
The pavement sections presented above are calculated minimum sections and are subject
to review and approval by the City of Temecula.
7.2 Utilitv 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 materiai should be placed in a lift
thickness appropriate for the type of backfili material and compaction equipment used.
Backfiil material shouid 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.
EnGEN Corpora[ion `~
'
~
~ 7.3
~
~
:~
^
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
^
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 15
Temporarv Excavations Or Cuts: All temporary cuts and excavations should be made
in accordance with CAL/OSHA minimum requirements for Type C soil. If site
restrictions require a different configuration, this office should be contacted to develop
construction recommendations.
7.4 Finish Lot Drainaqe Recommendations: Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water away
from foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water
should be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should
not be allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum
positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a
minimum distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the
property in a nonerosive manner should be provided.
7.5 Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the building.
7.6 Supplemental Investiqations: Once precise building and grading plans are available,
additional potholing in the proposed building and pavement areas could be conducted (two
(2) to five (5) feet in depth) to better identify the existing deeper soils conditions present at
the subject site. A proposal for these additional excavations and analyses could be
provided to you upon request.
,
7.7 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testinq: Any subsequent grading for
development of the subject property shouid be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not
limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut andlor cuUfill transitions, fiil 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 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 backfili, slab presaturation, or other earthwork
EnGEN Corporation ~~
'~ I
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
~ Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 16
~ 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
LnGEN Corporahon.
7.8 Pre-Grade 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 supplementai
~ 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.
~ 8.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Supplemental grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation
, and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Supplemental grading includes, but is not
limited to, overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent
~ cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporacion should observe all foundation
excavations. Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms and/or
~ reinforcing stee~ 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, hardscape subgrade, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall
backfili, slab presaturation, or other earthwork completed for the subject development
~ should be performed by EnGEN Corporation if requested by the local buiiding authority,
or owner/developer. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
~ are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed andlor tested by
~ EnGEN Corporation. If parties other than EnGEN Corporation are engaged to perform
soils and materials observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be
~ required to assume complete responsibiiity for the geotechnical aspects of the project by
' EnGEN Corporetion
\ Y
~
~
~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 17
concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative
recommendations.
~
^
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
I ~
~
9.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document. It may or 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 conciusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified
in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicabie 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. Atthough every effort has been made
to obtain information regarding the geotechnicai and subsurface conditions of the site,
limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site
conditions that may have an impact at the site. The recommendations presented in this
report are valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or
to the works of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or
information becomes available during the design and construction process that are not
reflected in this report, EnGEN Corporat;on should be notified so that supplemental
evaluations can be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in
this report can be modified or verified in writing. Changes in applicable or appropriate
standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report may be invalidated, who~ly or in part, by changes outside of the
control of EnGEN Corporation, which occur in the future.
~ - EnGEN Corporation !~`~
n
~ Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
February 2003
Page 18
~
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 you should 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.
,
~
~
~
~
1
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
C'a/~r~a
Colby Matthews
Staff Geolqgisti
(~lG~ "\ ~~S.oN c~~ ~Fo
Ramon ha ~ G"1599 ~ l~G~
Certifie E ih~r g ~ol~~i~t~~g~ ~
Expire 04-3~-~ ~y ~y 3~ '03 ~
CNVRC/OB:hh~ ~ ~.,~~
Distribution: (4 ,~ ~O~
c A~~
Fle: EnGEWFeportirigiSGS/f1075-SG mpo,REVISEDSupplementalGS
~ EnGEN Corporation ~~
i1
l._J
i
'
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~~
~
APPENDIX
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
Appendix Page 1
~ ~
~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
I , Project Number. T1075-SGS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICALREFERENCES
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, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
_ Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, April 1995.
~ 3. Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.OOb, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Fauits.
~ 4. Blake, T.F., 2000b, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.OOb, A Computer Program for
the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake
~ Catalogs.
5. Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic
' Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra using 3-D Faults as
Earthquake Sources.
~ 6. Blake, T.F., 1998, Liquefy2, Interim Version 1.50, A Computer Program for the Empirical
Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.
7. 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 Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 128-
153.
~ 8. California Building Code, 1998, State of California, Caiifornia Code of Regulations, Title
24, 1998, Catifornia Building Code: International Conference of Building O~cials and
Caiifornia Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes.
~ 9. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guideiines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
10. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1969, Geologic map of California, San
~ Bernardino Sheet, Scale 1250,000.
11. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P.
' Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet.
12. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of Southern California, Bulletin
~
13. 170.
County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical
- Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition.
~ 14. County of Riverside, 1978, Seismic Safety/Safety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
Envicom.
~ 95. Department of Conservation, 1991, Geology Map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000
Quadrangle, California, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17.
16. 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, Scaie
1:125,000.
- EnGEN Corporation
~
~3
~
~
, 17
i
,
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continuedl
Engel, R., 1959, Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 146.
18. EnGEN Corporation, 1996 Updated Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study,
Proposed Expansion of the Existing Business Center, Diaz Road, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, report dated August 19, 1996, Project Number: T1075-GS.
19. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines
and Geology, Department of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 9 p.
~ 20. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., Revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone
~ Maps: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
Pages reviewed at the California Geological Survey's web page: http://www.consrv.ca.gov
/cgs/rghm/ap/ Map_index/F4E.htm#SW.
21. Hileman, J.A., 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.
~ 22. 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.
~ 23. Jennings, C.W., 1985, An explanatory test to accompany the 1:750,000 scale fault and
geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Builetin 201,
197p., 2 piates.
' 24. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal
springs and thermal wells, 1:750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Geologic Data Map No. 1.
~ 25. 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. ~
26. 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.
27. Morton, D.M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
~ Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0.
_ 28. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A. and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic
~ Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology,
Open File Report 96-706.
29. Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps,
~ Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 147, Scale 1" = 800'.
30. Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983), Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains -
~ Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
, EnGEN Corpora[ion
~
~i
~
'
'
i
,
^
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
Appendix Page 4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
31. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 inch = 2 Miles.
32. S.C.E.D.C., 2002, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Website,
http:/Jwww. scecdc.scec.org.
33. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the
western United Sates: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
34. 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.
35. South Coast Geological Society, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse
Ranges, 1982.
36. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
Liquefaction Hazards in Califomia, March 1999.
37. State of California, January 1, 1980, Special Studies Zones, Elsinore Quadrangle, Revised
Official Map, Scale 1" = 2 Mi.
38. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulietin No. 91-21.
39. Temecula, City of, General Plan, Resolution No. 93-92 (General Plan), adopted November
9, 1993.
40. Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
41. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Offcials, 3 Volumes. ,
42. Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Eisinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Builetin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No. 6, pg. 1447-1457, December 1999.
43. Weber; Jr., F.H., 1977, Seismic Hazards to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault
Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, DMG Open File Report 77-4.
44. Yeats, R. S., Sieh, K., and Ailen, C. R., 1997, The Geology of Earthquakes, Oxford
University Press, 568p.
EnGEN Corporation ~p
~
~
~
f
~
,
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~,:
~
^'
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Projed Numbec T1075-SGS
Appendix Page 5
'
~ EnGEN Corporation 7/C
,
~
~
~
1
,
~
~
LJ
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Depth Dry Moisture Moisture Expansion
Soil Type Location Density Condition Condition
FT
( ~ (pc~ Before Test After Test ~ndex
A Cut Area -1 110.0 10.0% 22.4% 82
SUMMARY OF PLASTICITY INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4318-98
Soil Type LL PL p~
A 32 21 11
SUMMARY OF SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
Soil Type Location % by Weight
A Cut Area 0.0011
EnGEN Corporation ~~
_ ___
'
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
' Project Number: T1075-SGS
Appendix Page 6
'
.~
LOG OF TRENCH SDA-6
, BY SCHAEFER DIXON ASSOCIATES, JUNE 7, 1989
'
~
~
~
~
'
~
~ .
~
~
~
~
~
EnGEN Corpora[ion .gQ~
'1/
~
N
61
r
R
~~
0
N
W
aC
O
X
~
w
d
W
t
V
N
6
C
o- M ~
~ ~
LL
/ ~
/
/~ I
r
~ -~ ~
~ r
',- ~ , ~ ~ .
~
<
'I . '
-~-~ -- -, - -- - i - --
~ I
m- ~. I • I
T I
a ~ ~~ NS ~ `
_ ~ ~ f~ ~
~ -_f .
W - I •I a [~ 3UGHS
. _ f Q/ '
I
~ ~ I I I ~ ~ I ' .
W=1 aos `
U ~~ .o /
~ ' ~ 'e4i
~ _ ~
I' .-. ~ oi~~ S~
•~
Q N ~ ' Z ~ • ~1 . 00' •
~ ~ ° \ ~ ° i / •• '::~a~
tn ~ . . .. .
ae ` J ~-f ~• : ;:
W = ~. ~ '~ ~ ~ r• .:~o:
_ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ a:'.''~ %:•
V = r ~~ i W /~' . I.' • ~-.~• ..
Z ~ 3dOlS-NI-71h'3M8 " ~ ~ / •./„ ~ ; .
~ ~/ r
W ~ °- \. _ ~' ' / ` . I • y • ~,
~ V ~ ~/,~I.l.~ ',)•.' ' ~
~ ~ ~.. .
.~ I 1 ~ ~ ,. ' ~ N
~ ~ / I /~~.~/ .'~i• •, 2
. ~ i '~' ~ ~ ~ir~:~ • ( ~ ' 8~'
,- ~ ~' i ~ ~ ~,I; ~
.: ~+~, , . :'
~ ~ ) °~(F~ 14,::,'I' , .~••
_~ ~i IO jf~~N ~~ : .. ';I`;'
.~
~ i ~i
s ! Ifh~~ ~,I . • .
o_ ! Jfi~~,~~~~,~~.
~ , ~, ~ .
T ~
1
~ ) ~ 1,~; j1 . : .
~ ~ /i~ i ~l ~ : .
. •
~ J ( l~i/ ~ : '
~. f ~ .
~ ~_ •:
~ 9NI9901 ~0 lIWII
~
~ ~~
~
Q
_
•
~
b n
~ ~
~ ~
~
.
q
V
N
O
Y
_
~ g
~ -
-~
~
; ~ ~
u
o
g ~ «
b
L « t
F ~
~
"
•
g 5 `
° ~' t
~ ~ •
~ O }
°
~ " a
V
~ . ~ ~
C ^ ~ • ~
y ~ W
g "
~ ~'
..
~ ~ ~ .~
~
€ g
~ `
~ «
5
~~ `
~ ~
~ ~ q ^
K p ~ ~
CY p
N
~ J
[
i ~ ~ Y V
~
E a o $ $!~ F
$ ~ y ~ i~ ~
~ ~ ~ N ~O W
~
W
~
• • • Y • •
~
v
'
3
s
fr
€
.
~
'
.
~
K
O
W
Y 2
N
9 N
~ N
O N
L
E
~
E s
C ~
r r
u u
J[ Y
Y Y
Y ~
O O
O O
O O
H r
W ~ ~
~
~
H i •
N t m
~
66-LO-90- ~31tl4 ~Z££b216 ~'ON 1~3CONd
'0'd ~A9 U3A9addH 'W'0'tJ ~A8 NMtMO
'
~
,
, UNITS
'
'
^
~
'
'
,
~
'
~
'
'
~
~
,
SURFICIAL SOIL (A HORIZON)
11 CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND AND GRAVELS (ML):
Schaefer DixonAssociate
Trace of Sand fine to coarse grained, moist, soft to firm, dark brown to dark
grey brown (IOYR 4/2-4/3), very porous, trace of Gravel subangular to subrounded,
trace of rootlets to numerous rootlets in upper 1', upper 1• appears disturbed.
ALLUVIUM (Qal)
10 SANDY SILT WITH GRAVELS (ML):
Fine to coarse grained Sand, moist, firm to stiff, very dark grey brown (IOYR
3/2), porous, trace scattered subangular to subrounded gravels, trace of rooUets.
PAUBA FORMATION (Qps)
1O CLAYEY SILTSTONE:
Moist, hard to very hard, olive grey to dark olive grey (SY 4/2-3/2), numerous
clay parting surfaces, trace of Sand (fine to coarse grained) trace of rootlets,
weathered appearance.
2O SiLTSTONE TO SANDY SILTSTONE:
Moist, hard to very hard, olive (SY 5/3-4/3), traces of Clay, traces of clay
partings, scattered fine to medium grained Sand, trace of orange oxide mottling,
micaceous.
O3 SANDSTONE:
Fine to coarse grained, coarse at base, slightiy moist, hard, color variable, ligh[
brown grey (IOYR 6/2) to light yellow brown (2.SY 6/4), micaceous, orange oxide
mottling, trace Siit Ienses (light olive grey) (SY 6/2).
Q SANDSTONE:
Fine to coarse grained, slightly moist, hard, dark yellow brown (IOYR 4/4),
micaceous, numerous lenses-crossbedded, oxidized appearance, locally weathered.
~
7-A
'
,
,
~
' '
b
~ .
~
Eassoc~aans
Schaefer Dixon
TRRN('H SDA-6 (Cant.)
SANDSTONE WITH TRACE OF GRAVELS:
Fine to coarse grained with gravels in lenses, slighUy moist, hard, light olive to
light olive grey (SY 6/2-6/4), micaceous, gravels subangular to subrounded, orange
oxide mottling common.
SANDSTONE WITH TRACE OF GRAVELS:
Medium to coarse grained, slightly moist, hard, dark brown (7.SYR 3/2-IOYR
3/3), micaceous, traces of clay coating sand grains and cementing, trace rootlets,
trace Gravel, oxidized appearance.
SILTSTONE:
' Hard, moist, dark grey brown to olive brown (2.SY 4/2-SY 4/2), micaceous, very
thin sand laminae, traces orange oxide mo[tling.
,O8 SILTSTONE 7'O VERY FINE SANDSTONE:
Very fine grained, moist, hard, olive grey (SY 5/2), micaceous, traces of orange
oxide mottling.
I ,~ CLAYEY SILTSTONE:
~ Moist, hard, olive (SY 5/3-4/3), traces fine to medium Sand and rootlets, numerous
Clay partings.
~
LJ
~
~
~~
'
~
3~
7-A eont.
'
,
L_.I
,
'
'
~
'
'
,
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
t
DRAWINGS
Mr. Marcello Buontempo
Project Number: T1075-SGS
Appendix Page 7
EnGEN Corporation v
~
. _
- --._..._
~ N
~\`
, ,
, p~/~
a
,
~ cF
'4 7
,~
S~dy ~
,t'~i i~ ~
'` ¢ ~..,4s° `..
~~`
/ ~~
~'$'R
~ 'JeE L
~~
~ q .^- 6f~> I uB c,~'~
1~(`'
9
.y / P \~\
/
~ ,
. \~ ,
% / b 4.
l ,
a ' ~
i ~ ~
C~'1
'
S~ RN
_.~~~,ry . ~(~ I
1
p4 BILG . ~y
`1b~
y
v ~ ~(?~ ~
a
~ 4
q~ @~ .
/ I
,, ~\,4
\'fr
~ ~. ~
pa`
c~ ~
~~ „~
/ I
d„ ~ ~ ' r
~4
~ '
:. .
4 ..
\
~ '~
~FE~'~ nu~ vuu
CEMlER
i.
\ ..
44;.'`~~
a
...,~, ~
.../ .~~
, ~
\ ~~1\`' L\Q'.
C~' S~
P ~
c,~ 4a5°.a ~
~ /~,~.n
:~
`
a"..~< ~
~ T
i ~ t;'
' .p~
~`f~
~'
.
\ / ~0~4 ~ 4~~
2 VlT vrrnmme
Y41PL .YL
'AF
~ ; W
\
\
~
.. ~; %
/ ' i ~
' SITE ~ ~M~
A'Ft4 . o~ ;b
9. ~ ~
~
Ffi
. E~1'E ~
1\ ~
0.FMIxGt 1 ~S
~y ~ C^.~ KSR~
' f4~ <
~
b 4 s`w C4
iF
~l `b~
'
y oo ~ A
`~ ~~,o ~
p h~4 ~a
a
'f%
r~ ~`. ~' •$
~~f '.
F
,~
f~'" ~~i
5 ~
~
8~
J 4 ,~
8
r ~~`.v~ ..a* ~'8 ~
y S G~ ~F ~' ~3:
v+~~,s '~e \ '§, , a n~ ,
~r . ~
\ in'~1,
f ,,§P 4~0 tT
3 `
~~'9-~ 6 p
~~d
TEMECU
v
A~' ~
~,
~
E ~a~a \
~ &/SCy ~~ ~a
vi~
.
.
. ., ^
..~~' '~'
~ •.
WI
\
4 e c ~j .. ~ :+' '
'fJ ~5W ~IAV ~ W ~'~i ~!~, SiMGtF dx
e~ro
1
~ ~
~
~
p~
~
'.p, ~.~ :
~.w~ ~ o DEl
.~ ~ i
c~p RANCFIO:'~ ~.
ALIFO0.NIA
~ ~
.
9
q?E,,g ~~ Y 3)Hb g N.M,~ R~ ~ 4
' `~` M'
~
~
'
,~
wT
~ ~fi~ , I e~`3~
t°r
~
~ ~
K
'~
.
s
EnGEN Corporation~~~ E~~~, S~~ M.~tl Emironmmml
vicnvi~ M.~r
PROJECT NUMBER: Tto~s-sos LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Par a oF Pnn zaoes2
DATE: REVISED FEBRUARY 2003 SCALE: 7"=2400'
CLIENT NAME: MARCELLO BUONTEMPO FIGURE: 1
BASE MAP: Thomas Bros., 2000, Riverside Co., pg. 958
TJ~
'
~
,
, , 1100
' , 1000
' 900
~
' 800
' 700
' 600
Ii , 500
' 40C
' 30C
' 20(
' 10(
~ ~
'
-101
'
'
i
,
CARTHQUAKC CPICCNTCR MAP
T107i-SGS BUONTEh~PO
FIGURE 2
)0
v
'
I~ 1
,
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
III '
I~
I~~
~
~
~
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
BOORE ET AL. (1997) SOIL (310)1
~
100
90
80
~
° 70
~
~
~ 60
c~
~
° 50
a
~ 40
c
~
~ 30
U
W 2~
10
0
FIGURE 3
`~'
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)
~~„ ~:
/~~;%~ ~~~~ -~_.~~ M~ `":__
/ ,:%~,~ fv'~ ` ~ ., f i~;,= ., ~
s: ; ~ : j _, . .,.
: - _ ° .,- ~ .___ ~
( i~s
c.:.. / V -. J~ I -.~
~-. ~n / . Z ~ i~r~ ... :
N
a~o N
e
n
f
n
LL
W
~ ~
1~1 Q
a J
6.
0
a Z
o o
N
~ a ~
z N Q
O
F O tVll
~
d Q ~
O ~ ~
ra J ~
y ~ ~
F O O
ti
~ ~I N W
0
^ Q' C
~ j i
1 ~
~ m
W LL
m
f W W
~
Z S
2
W ~ ~
O r W
~ Q J
a o v