HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3929 Lot 173 Geotechnical Feasiblity � �� �
,�..; , ,�.-�.. _..�..._.. - - -
� I" � !� ' • Soil Engineering and Consulling Services • Enqineerinp Geology • Canpadion Tesling
� �� , - • Inspeclion5 • Consiruttion Material5 Testinq • laboratary Tes{inq . pa�cofalion Testinq
I J' ��_.,. ;. E riGEN C o rp o ra ti on • Geolopy • Water flesource $IuOies • Phase I 8 II EnvironmenUl Site Assessments
, ENVIRONMENTAL $l GEO7ECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
'
�
' GEOTECHNICAL FEASlBILITY STUDY
Sidhu Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 929-111-002
Lot 173 of Tract 3929 �
' Solana Way and Via Norte
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Cafifornia
Project Number: T3444-GFS
;
' January 3, 2006
' �
:' �
�
,'
i 1 �
'
i'
� �
, Prepared for:
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny & Nancy Sidhu
39697 North General Keamy Road
� Murrieta, California 92563
m .�.._ ,.. _�..__.�_� ,.,..... _....,.� �,�..
�,_ _��„ �
.�.,_ ..
�_ - ..'_ -. .,,�_ . .,. -, .,��-'- - _.. _.. , ,�_,.,,,
- � . -- � , . , _. , . , _ , , . . , . . , . , , , - � . -• - - . -- � , - - ,
.1. � `� i . I ` i ` \ I _ . . _ ..'_ i � � \ ' ' -' ` '_".. ` �' �._ ..�ATa.r�.. �.eYEa, �
, . . .. , . _ _ . � . -s�:r,��n..w� ~`;.. :�+.::
. ..._. . . ,,_., , � , : .: � . �. . � . � . �.:
. _ , _. .. . . , . . �, ' � �-- .. .: � _ .:,
" COR ATE. QFF1�E 4a60 nterprise Circle N r�h; $4iie 1 Temecula, CA 92590 •�phona: (951► 296„2230 !�a�c (951,)�9G-�'�37 ° ~
�RANGE COUNTY � FI E 2615 Orange e ue, Santa Ana, GA 32707 • phone: �714) 546-4051 •�fax: {714) 546 40T�2"' ` _
. - .:. �, ... . , : _ ;-_ _.,.
. ...._ . . .. ,
-
B SITE: www.en e corp.com • E-MAIt:•engencorp@engencorp:com �— .-
_
_ .� ., _ .. _. �.
F ,�.,. -._ � ;. _. �. . . _ ... . �.. _. � .. _. _ p
_ _
.. . _ , � _.,...
' -.,...., :.. ... � � ...�.�,. .. .... , i ., . : ., y .., . �
�' �
� � Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project IYumber: 7344a-GP5 •
r
TAB� F OF C()NTENT}
' S� ic�n N ��pt�pr and Title P�
' 1.0 SITFJPROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................2
1.1 Site Description , 2
1 .2 Project Description ...............................................................................................2
I I 2.0 FIND(NGS ......................................................................................................................2
j 2.1 Site Review ...........................................................................................................2
;' 2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................2
2.2.1 General. .2
2.2.2 Classification ..........................................................................................2
' 2.2.3 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test....3
2.2.4 Expansion Potential ................................................................................3
2.2.5 Direct Shear Test ....................................................................................3
' 2.2.6 Soluble Sulfates ......................................................................................3
2.3 Excavation Characteristics .4
' 3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICIN .....................................................................:
3.1 Geologic Setting . .4
3.2 Seismic Hazards ...................................................................................................4
' 3.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture .............................................................................4
3.2.2 Liquefaction . , 5
3.2.3 Seismicafly-Induced Landsliding .............................................................5
' 3.2,4 Seismically-Induced Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis ...........................5
3.3 Earth Materials .....................................................................................................5
3.3.1 Undocumented Fill (Afu) .........................................................................5 L
' 3.3.2 Pauba Formation Sandstone (Qps) ........................................................5
4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................5
' 4.1 All Areas ...............................................................................................................5
4.2 �versize Material. .7
4 .3 Structuraf Fi11 .........................................................................................................7
' 4.4 Soil Expansion Potential .......................................................................................7
4.5 Soluble Sulfate , 8
� 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY — GENERAL ....................................................................................8 .
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................8
' 6.1 Foundation Design Recommendations :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
6.1.1 Foundation Size. .g
6.9 .2 Depth of Embedment .............................................................................9
' 6.1.3 Bearing Capacity ....................................................................................9
6.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters . • g i
6.1.5 Settlement ..............................................................................................9 ;
' 6.2 Lateral Capacity ....................................................................................................9 .
. EnGEN Corporaaon v
1 �
� i
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS � •
�
' T R F nF .ONTFNTS
SPCtion N�mher and Title p�g
' 6.3 Sfab-on-Grade Recommendations ..................... ...................................1Q
� 6.4 Exterior Slabs .....................................................................................................10
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................11
7.1 Earth Pressures ..................................................................................................11
' 7.2 Retaining Wall Design ........................................................................................11
7 .3 Subdrain .............................................................................................................11
' 7.4 Backfill ................................................................................................................12
8.0 MISCELLANEQUS RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................12
8.1 Utility Trench Racommendations ........................................................................12
, 8.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .............................................................13
8.3 Planter Recommendations .................................................................................13
' 8.4 Supplemental Construction Obsenrations and Testing ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
8.5 Plan Review .14
8.6 Pre-Bid Conference .. ................... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ............14
' 8.7 Pre-Grading Conference ....................................................................................14
9.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................14
t APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
' LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS.
,
'
'
�
'
1
, , 3
'
i , • , � �
� • r -,t � - - - -a� — �`—
!� �� - • Soil Engiraering and Conwpirry Services • EnBl�ering Geoingy • Co�actian TesUnp
I � I' , �' - • Ins eGions • ConshaUlon MalgiaB Tcstirp • Wborator Testin Percalation Testing
J�..r...+._. __ _ � � ..EnGEN Corporation •Geolopy.WatnResoutceStudies •Phase1811Environ enlaiSifeASSecsmmis
I, ENVIRONMENTAL Hc GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
' January 3, 2006
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
39697 North General Keamy Road
' Murrieta, California 92563
(951) 600-8641 / FAX (951) 244-4023
Regarding: GEOTECHNlCAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
' Sidhu Residence
Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-111-042
Lot 9 73 of Tract 3929
1 Solana Way and Via Norte
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: 73444-GFS
' Reference: 1. Bratene Construction and Engineering, Precise � Grading Plan, Sidhu �
Residence, Via Norte and Solana Drive, Temecula, Califomia, plans
, undated.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sidhu:
, In accorciance with your request and signed authorizatian, a representative of this firm has visited
the subject site on October 90, 2005, to visually obsenie the su�cial conditions of the subject lot
and to collect samples of representative su�cial site materials. Laboratory testing was performed
' on these samples, Test results and preliminary faundation recommendations for the constn�ction
and grading of the proposed development are provided. It is our understanding that cut and f+ll
type grading wifl take place for the proposed structural development. Based on this firm's
' experience with this type of project, our understanding of the regional geologic conditions
suROUnding the site, our review of in-house maps, and both pubfished and unpublished reports, ,
deeper subsurface exploration was not considered necessary. However, in lieu of subsurFace !
' exploration, additional grading beyond that anticipated in this report may be necessary depending
on the exposed conditions to be encountered during grading. If any changes are made to the
� Referenced No. 1 Plans, they should be reviewed by this office so additional recommendations, if �
�' necessary, can be made.
'
, `.
.
. rr_ ..���_ __ -_.. ..._,�, _ �:�:
-.t�- _... ..... ...�M - -
.a�._�.,_.: ,
_
• � . . � -, . .,% • .^ ' . ,.� � . .. . . ' . . .,� ' ' ,
,. '� . ,,,---,. � -, � �-, --, -��. -- �,;.,,.--- �, ���. -- �,-,,,'
,�, -� : ,�`' , ', ' ` ` ` `�`�.', ,',\� , �,.``` } . - �-��.
, , �� , ' _�� ,� �-.�� H -?.�`y .,���i?�
. . . . . . . . . - ' ' ' r . ' a " . £,.. �..:w ...paF�.i�57!f
� ' . . _ , � � �_ .. . . ... .;. .. .. .:.. . � ,.. :
,.. . ; .... . .. _. � _. _ . . ... .. . . . . . .... -�,.' �; ,� . _.. .,..
" CQR. ,,ATE Qf.�l�,; '160 nter rise Citcle N h, SuttQ�l,Temecuia, CA 92590 • hone: 951 98 22�Q •�3a� .���-� 23fr$�3�-� — —w �
� _ . .: 4. - P - . . p �.. � �,: .-
�-. �
� ORANGE COUNTY O FI E 2615 Orange e ue, Santa Ana, CA 92707 • phone: (714) 546 4051 • t`ax:-1714) 546 4052 ' -.-`-'�
8 SITE: www.en e corp.com • E-MAIC: engencorpQengancorp.com
Q •--'-•"--..�...��a_<�a:_._�___.sr,�. .... .,...�,.e+,�r,.� . . . --. -
- — i0
�:
� �,. ...� ... . "'_ „� .. . ..... �,. ,,. �
... . ....:, . . ...;_..._ �, ., ..... . . _. � ... . .._ y .�....�..... -.«r �+e.: �
s �►
� Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS
� January 2006
Page 2
I' 1.0 SITF/PRO IEGT DES(:RlPTIDN
i
,' 1.9 Sitp I�esrri tion The subject site consists of approximately 0.71-acres lacated on the
northern corner of Solana Way and Via Norte, in the City of Temecula, Courtty of �
Riverside, California. Topography on site is gentfy sloping to the west at gradients of �
�1
'; approximately 5 to 10 percent. A small pad area exists at the northem portion of the lot.
� t A small amount of undocumented fill associated with the pad are present. Vegetation �
on site consists of native weeds and grasses, with some bushes and trees located along �
I
' the drainage. No structures are located on site.
9.2 Pr�ject D�c t�en. It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist
� of a one or two story, wood-framed single famiiy residence with a slab-on-grade
foundatian. We are providing general grading and minimum footing recommendations i
' for the proposed development.
2.0 FINDINGS
' 2.1 Sitp RPView Based on our field reconnaissance, it appears that undocumented fill, and
, Pauba Formation Sandstone underlie the site. Pauba Formation Sandstone constitutes
bedrock at the subject site. The undocumented fill is located along the southern and
� western portions of the existing pad area was found to be dry and loose. The remainder
of the site is underlain by bedrock. Since no subsurface exploration was performed for
' this study, the thickness of the undocumented �II is estimated to be approximately 2 to
8-feet fhick.
' 2.2 �ahnratorP Tp_stin�,a�
2,2.1 CenPral The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
' during the site visit are presented in fhe Appendix. Following 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 office should be notified
immediateky if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days. �
� 2.2.2 Ctassificatinn The field classification of soil materials encountered during our site visit
were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils Class�cation
' •�
EnCEN Corporation
i
' � �
Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu .
Project Number: T3444-GFS
' January 2006
Page 3
' System, ASTM D 2488-00, Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils
(Visual-Manual Procedures).
' 2.2.3 Maxim��m Dr�r DPnci yl�ntim�m Mnistur _.ont _r�t Relatinnchi Twc • Maximum dry
density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were pertormed on
' samples of near-surface earth material in general accordance with AS7M 1557-02
procedures using a 4.0-inch diameter mald. Samples were prepared at various
' moisture contents and compacteci in five (5) layers using a 10-paund 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.
' 2.2.4 �,Xpancfen Petentiai Laboratory expansion tests were perFormed on samples of near-
surface earth materials in general accordance with CBC 18-2 procedures. In this testing
' procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch diameter mold
to a#otal compacted thicicness of approximatefy 1.0-inch by using a 5.5 pound weight
' dropping 12-inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample should be compacted at a
saturation of between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under a
' pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (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.
2.2.5 tlirect Shpar T_ P��t (Rp_�dl, Direct shear tests were performed on select samples of
' near-surface earth materiai, which had been remolded to 90 percent of the maximum
densiry, in generat accordance with ASTM D 3080-03 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 i
pressures normal to #he face of the specimens. The specimens were tested in a I
' I
submerged condition. The maximum shear st�esses were plotted versus the normal !
confining stresses to determine the shear sfrength (cohesion and angle of internaf friction). �
� 2.2.6 so1 �h�p S+Ifat _c Samples of near-surface earth material were obtained for soluble
1 sulfate testing for the site. The concentration of soluble sulfates was determined in
general conformance with Califomia Test Method 417 pracedures.
�
'
�P �
EnGEN Corporation
'
' � �
Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS
' January 2006
Page 4
, 2.3 EYr_avatinn Charac�tRrieti _c Excavation and trenching within the undocumented fiU is
anticipated to be relatively easy. Excavation and t�enching in the bedrock will be more
1 difficult due to the higher bedrock densities typically encountered in the area. A rippability
survey was not within the scope of our investigation. Based on our experience on similar
projects near the subject site, the bedrock is expected to be rippable with conventional
�' grading equipment. �
i
� 3.0 FNGIN ERIN +, O; CY/SFiSMIGITY
. ,
3.1 ��g�c sPtt��P; The site is located in the Northem Peninsular Range on the southern
' sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Bloc.ic. The Perris Block is bounded on the
nor#heast by the San Jacinto Fauit Zone, on the southwest by fhe Elsinore Fault Zone, and
' on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The so�them boundary of the Perris Block is
not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending
' southeast from the Murrieta, California area (Kennedy, 1977). The Peninsular Range is
characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by voicanic,
, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Various #hicknesses of alluvial and colluvial
sediments derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying
' areas. The earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detaif in
subsequent sections of this report.
' 3.2 Seismic Haiards Because the proposed development is located in tectonically active
southern California, it will likely experience some effects from ea�thquakes. The type or
' severity of seismic hazards affecting the site is mainly dependent upon the distance to the
causative fault, the intensiry of the seismic event, and the soil characteristics. The seismic
' hazard may be primary, such as ground surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or
secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement.
' 3.2.1 S�rfa __ Fa �It R � ��r�• The site is no# located within a State of California designated
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zane. No faulting was observed during our site
' reconnaissance. The nearest State designated active fault is the Elsinore Fauft (Temecula
Segment), located less than 2 kilometers to the west of the subject site. This conclusion is
' based on literature review (Kennedy, 1977) and EnGEN Cocporacion�s field
reconnaissance. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the .site is very
� unlikely.
EnGEN Corporation �
'
� •
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS
, January 2006
Page 5
' 3.2.2 ��Afactinn Based on Section 4.0, Earthwork Recommendations, of thts report, and the
dense nature of the underfying bedrock, the potential for liquefaction at the site is
' considered very low.
3.2.3 Spic_mir_ally Ind�� _d andSlidino; Due to the overall massive and dense nature of the
, bedrock, and the low topographic relief on site, the probability of seismically induced
landsliding is considered very low.
' 3.2.4 Spismicafly Ind�ced �In{Ling, SPichpc and Tc�nami� Due to the absence of a
confined body of water in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the possibility of
' seismically induced flooding or seiches is considered nil. Due to the large distance of the
project site to the Pacifc Ocean, the possibility for seismically induced tsunamis to impact
' the site is considered ni1.
3.3 Farth Materialc
1 3.3.1 undnc�ment�d Fiu t0f 1r Undocumented fill is present along the southem and western
' portions of the existing pad area. Su�cially, fhe undocumented fill was found to oonsist of
silty fine-grained sand. No subsurface expforation was performed for this study, however,
, the thickness of the undocumented fill is estimated to be approximately 2 to 8-feet thick.
3.3.2 Pauha Formattnn Sand,aten�P_ (On_s1 Pauba Formation Sandstone constitutes bedrock
' at the subject site. It is exposed on southern portion of the subject site. The Pauba
Formation Sandstone may potentially contain expansive siJts and clays which are not
, apparent at the surface.
4.0 FARTHWORK RECOMMEN�ATI�NS .
' 4.1 A(I Areas�
' 1. All vegetation should be removed from areas to be graded and not used in fills. All
undocumented fill should be removed and recompacted. Undocumented fiE1 is
1 estimated to be approximately 2 to 8-feet thick at the existing pad along its southem
and westem sides.
, 2. After removal of all undocumented fill, removals of the top 1 to 3-feet of weathered
bedrock should be pertormed. The �emoval bottoms should expose � competent
�
EnGEN Corporation �
'
i � �
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
I Project Number: T3444-GFS
, January 2006
Page 6
' bedrock. Actual removal depths should be determined during grading under
exposed conditions.
' 3. The proposed structure straddles a cut/fill transition, therefore, the cut and shallow
fiA portions should be overexcavated. The cut and shallow fill portions should be
' overexcavated to a depth equal to at least half the maximum fill thickness, with a
minimum of 3-feet. The overexcavation should extend beyond the perimeter of the
' structure a distance equal to the overexcavation depth, with a minimum of 5-feet.
The maximum fill thickness, after �emovals have been performed, is expected to be
;, approximately 9 to 10-feet. Therefore, the overexcavation should be performed to a
depth of 5-feet below pad grade, to a distance of 5-feet beyond the perimeter of the
' structure.
4. All exposed removal and overexcavation bottoms should be inspected by the Project
' Geologist or his representative prior to placement of any fill. Dry, loose �
undocumented fill should be removed to competent bedrock. All residual soils and
' weathered bedrock must be removed to competent bedrock. Bedrock bottoms should
be probed to venfy competency.
' S. The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas shauld be scarified 12-inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90
' percent relative corripaction before placement of fill. Maximum dry density and
op6mum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined according
, to ASTM D 1557-02 pracedures.
6. A keyway should be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes that are proposed on
� natural grades of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper. Keyways should be a
minimum of fifteen (15) feet wide (equipment width) and tilted a minimum of two
, percent into the hillside. A series af level benches should be constructed into
competent bedrock on natural grades of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper prior to
' placing fill.
7. All fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to
� vertical). AI1 cut slopes should be inspected by the Project Geologist to verify stability.
Cut slapes exposing loose soils may be considered unstable. Unstable cut slopes
' may require flariening or buttressing.
EnGEN Cocporation 1�
� �
� � �
Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS
' January 2006
' Page 7
I 4.2 �vPrcizA MatPrial Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible materiai with
a maximum dimension greater than 12-inches. Oversize material shall not be buried or
' placed in fill unless focation, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted �
by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Placement operations shall be such #hat nesting af
oversize material does not occur, and such that oversize material is completely
' surrounded by compacted fill (windrow). AI#emative methods, such as water jetting or
wheel rolling with a backhoe may be required to achieve compaction in the fill materials
' immediately adjacent to fhe windrow. Oversize material shall not be placed within ten (10)
vertical feet of finish grade, within fifteen (15) lateral feet of a finished slope face, or within
'� two feet of future utilities.
' 4.3 Str�cturat Fill Afl fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be accepted by
the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before pEacement. All fill
should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should be no
' more expansive than the existing on-site material, unless approved by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not
' exceeding 6.0 to 8.0-inches in thickness, and watered or aerated to ob#ain near-optimum
moisture content (within 2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and
� should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should
meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density based upon
� ASTM D 1557-02 procedures. Moisture content of fill materia(s should not vary more than
2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. ;
' 4.4 seil xnanainn Pnt _n �ai• Preliminary Expansion Index testing was performed, yielding
an EI of 2. This is classified as a very low expansion potential. Import soils or soils used
' near finish grade may have a different EI. The bedrock can potentially contain significant
amounts of expansive silts or clays. Mixing of these silts and clays during grading could
' affect the overall EI of the fill, If selective grading is desired in arder to ensure that
expansive soils are not used near pad grade, this option should be discussed with this
, firm and the grading contracfor prior to grading the site. Final foundation design
parameters should be based on EI testing of near-surface soils and be performed at the
' conclusion of rough grading. Those results should be fon+varded and incorporated into
the final design by the Project Structuraf Engineer.
�
EnGEN Corporation C�
�
� � �
Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu .
Project Number: T3444-GFS
, January 2006
Page S
�' 4.5 sniuhie S�IfatPS Test results (Califomia 7est Method 417 procedures) indicate a
I negligible concentration of water soluble sulfates. As a result, normal Type I! cement may
' be used in concrete that will come in contact with native soils.
�
� 5.0 SL�PF STABI! ITY — GENERAL
� '
': r !t is our professional opinion that cut or fiil slopes no talfer than 30-feet and inclined at 2:1
(horizonfal to vertical} or flatter, wili possess gross and su�cial stability in excess of
� generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and are
suitable for their intended purpose, provided that proper slope maintenance procedures
' are maintained. These procedures include but are not limited to installation and
. maintenance of drainage devices and planting of slope faces to protect from erosion in
' accordance with County of Riverside Grading Codes.
' 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND REGOMMENQ TA I�NS
6.9 Feundation Dpsi�n RQCemmRndatiens Foundations for the proposed structure may
, consist of conventional column footings and continuous wa!! footings founded in
compacted fill ar competent bedrock, but not a combination of both. The
' recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geatechnical characteristics and upon a very low expansion
' potential for the supporting soiis and should not preclude more restrictive structural
requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual
t footing width and depth in accordance with the latest edi#ion of the California Building
Code to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces and should either verify or
� amend the design ;based on fina( expansion testing at the completion of grading.
6.1.1 Fnundatinn Si _• Continuous faotings should have a minimum width of 12-inches.
' Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1 } No. 4
steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located
, near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of slight differential movements
which may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characterisfics 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
�
EnGEN Corporation r`
I
, , � �
Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444GFS
� January 2006 .
Page 9
' grade beam, founded at the same depths and �einforced the same as the adjacent
footings, should be provided across doorway and garage entrances.
' 6.1.2 Dgn h ef Fmhpdment Exterior and interior footings faunded in compacted fill should
extend to a minimum depth of 12-inches below lowest adjacent frnish grade for single
� story structures and 18-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for two (2) story
structures.
' 6.1.3 aarin a r_itv� Provided the recommendations for site earth work, minimum footing
;
width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project
� design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and
column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 2,000 psf for
;' compacted fill and 3,000 psf for bedrock. The allowable bearing value has a Factor of
Safety of at least 3.0 and may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live
� and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces.
;�
� 6.1.4 �eicmi� Design ParamPtprc The following seismic parameters apply:
' Name of Fault: Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment)
Type of Fault: Type B Fault
, Ciosest Distance to Fault: Less than 2 kilometers
Soil Proflie Type: SD
� 6.1.5 sett�pmP, Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the
maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum
� settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of Q.5-inch across a distance of 50-feet. �
6.2 t_atera� Ca a_i v Additional foundation design parameters based on competent
1 bedrock for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Eqaivalent Flufd Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill — 200 pcf
, Bedrock — 300 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: Compacted Fill - 0.35 � ;
1 Late�al ioad 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 compacted fill. The above
values are allowable design values and may be used in combination withaut reduction in
� evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The a(lowable values may be increased by
�
EnGEN Corporation ,Z' �
'
, � �
Mr, and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS
' January 2006
Page 10
, 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic
forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material
� should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum
recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended design value.
, 6.3 Stae.on Rpcnmmendatien�, 7he recommendations for concrete slabs, both
i
interior and exterior, exciuding PCC pavement, are based upon the anticipated building
' usage and upon a very low expansion potential for the supporting material as
determined by Chapter 18 of the Califomia Building Code. Concrete siabs shouid be
' designed to minimize cracking as a resuit of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction,
and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete lnstitute
' (ACI) guidelines, Special precautions should be taicen during placement and curing of
all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) af the concrete and/or
improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could
, result in excessive shrinkage, cracicing, o� curling in the slabs. It is recommended that
all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI
, recommendations and procedures. Slab-on-grade reinforcement and thickness should
be provided by the structural engineer based on structural considerations, but as a
` minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor slabs be at least 4-inches ir� nominal �
thickness and reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center, ,
' both ways, placed at mid-height of the slab cross-section. Final expansion testing at �
completion of grading could cause a change in the slab-on-grade recommendations. 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 10.0 mil in
, thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or
sealed at splices and covered top and bottom by a 1.0 to 2.0-inch minimum layer of
� clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential
punctures.
' 6.4 E�ctprier s�ah�� All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks,
etc., with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum o# 4-inches nomina{ in
' #hickness. 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
,
EnGEN Corporation Y�
' .
' � •
Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS
� January 2006
Page 11
' should be rnoisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of
12-inches immediately before placing the concrete.
' 7.0 R TAININ , WA RE .�MM [�DATIONS
7.1 Farth Pr _ss�irPS Retaining walls backfilled with nan-expansive granular soil (El=O) or
' very low expansive potential maferials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone
e�ending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to
' ve►tical} or flatter can be designed to resist the foilowing static lateral sail pressures: .
' �
1 Further expansion testing of potential backfill material should be pe�formed at the time of
retaining wall construction to determine suitabiiity. Walls that are free to deflect 0.01
' radian at the top may be designed for the above-recommended active condition. Walls
that need to be restricted from this amount of movement should be assumed rigid and
� designed for the at-rest condition, The above values assume well-drained backfill and no
buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill
� behind the wall should also be considered in the design.
7.2 RQ,�aininO,,,Wall DPCian Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths �
� into firm, competent, undisturbed, natural soil as standard foundations and may be
designed for an allowable bearing value of 2,000 psf when founded in compacted fill (as
, long as the resultant force Ps located in the middle one-third of the footing} and 3,000 psf i
when founded in competent bedrock. Allowable static lateral bearing pressure of 200
' psf/ft may be used in compacted fill and 300 psf per foot may be used in competent
bedrock. An aJlowable sliding resistance coefficient of friction of 0.35 is applicable for
' both compacted fil! and competent bedrock. When using the allowable Iateral pressure
and allowable sfiding resistance, a Factor of Safety of 1.5 should be achieved.
' 7,3 S��hdrain A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of �etaining
walls equal to or in excess of 5-feet in height to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup
' of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly �
designed and graded for the on-site and/or import materials, should be enclosed in a
, geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to
� EnGEN Corporadon `�
�
� • .
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Projeci fVumber: T3444-GFS
� January 2006
Page 12
' prevenk infilt�atian of fines and clogging of the system. The perforated pipes should be at
least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed downwarci. Gravel filters
' should have valume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe. For retaining walls
with an overall height of less than 5-feet, subdrains may include weep holes with a
, continuous gravel gallery, perforated pipe surrounded by filter rocic, or some other
approved system. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets
that drain in a non-erosive manner.
� 7.4 8�L Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3-feet} may
• I
� consist of 0.5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a �
geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean sand
� (Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if water
jetting is used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
, compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical methods .
wilf be required. If other rypes of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical
� compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent
of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted
' by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is
designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used
t behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of �
typical on-site materia( compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in order
, to prevent the influx of surFace runoff into #he granular backfll and into the subdrain
system. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture cantent for backfll materials should
' be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-02 procedures.
' 8.0 MIS _ t ON 0 1S RF .�MM N�ATIONS
8.1 ltilit� Trench Recemmendatienc 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 ve�tical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where interior or
� exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel and/or perpendicular to any building footing,
EnGEN Corporation
1��
'
' � �
Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS
' January 2006
Page i3
' the bottom of the trench shouid not be loca#ed below a 1:1 plane projected downward from
the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing uniess the utility lines are designed for the
' footing surcharge loads. Backfll material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate
for the type of backfil! material and compac#ion equipment used. Backfill material should
' be compacted to a minimum af 94 percent relative compaction by mechanical means.
Jetting of the backfifl maferial will not be considered a satisfactory method for compaction.
Maximurn dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill maferial should be
�' deteimined according to ASTM D 1557-02 procedures.
' 8.2 Finich Lot Drainagp R�?cnmrr�endatinns� Finish (ot surface gradients in unpaved areas
shou(d be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water away from
' faundations and slabs and from flowing over the taps of slopes. The surface water should
be directed toward suitable drainage #a�ifities. Ponding of surface wate� should not be
allowed next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive
' gradient of 4.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum
distance of 3.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non-
' erosive manner should be provided.
� 8.3 PlantPr RPCemmendatinnc Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed with proper surface slope to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and �
, minimal irrigation water is allowed to percolate into the sails underiying the building.
$,4 �n 1� emgntal .enctr �r.tfon 06cw_rvations and TpstinP Any subsequent grading for
' development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporarion. Subsequent grading includes, but is not
1 limited to; any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cuUfill transitions, fill placement, and
excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes.. In addition EnGEN
' Corpotation, should observe all faundation excavations. Observations should be made
prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel ta 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 badcfi(I, pavement
, subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork
completed for the development of subject property should be performed by EnGEN
CorporatlOi� If any of the obseroations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
! are not performed by EnGEN Corpocation, iiability for the safety and pertormance of the
EnGEN Corporadon `�P
'
�
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: T3444-GFS
, January 2006
Page i4
1 development is limited to the actual po►tions of the project observed and/or tested by
EnGEN Corpotation.
' 8.5 Plan Review Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project
but before bids for construction are requested, grading and foundation plans for the
proposed development should be reviewed by EnGEN Corporarion 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 wili assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the
' recommendations presented in this report.
8.6 Pre -Bid Gonferenr_e It is recommended that a pre-bid conference be held with the
, owner or an authorized representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the �
Project Geotechnical Engineer and the proposed contractors present. This conference will
' provide continuity in the bidding process and ciarify questions refative to the supplemental
grading and construction requirements of the project.
' 8.7 Pr �,-('�adin9 Gnnference Before the start of any grading, a conference should be held I
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 suppleme�tal �
' grading recommendations and to verify that the p�oject specificatiorts comply with the
recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading procedures
' and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that time.
9.0 - os iR
' This report has been prepared for use by the par#ies Qr 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 conclusions and recommendations of this report are modifed or
' verified in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable
standards of our profession and the accepted soil and foundation engineering principles
' and practices at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or
� EuGEN Corporadon ,�
�
� �
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
, Project Number: T3444-GFS
January 2006
Page '15
' expressed beyond the repre`sehtations of this repoft, is made. Although every effort has
been made to obtain information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of
' the site, limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized
off-site conditions that may have an impact at the site. The recammendations 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
i
�' to the works af 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 Corporauon should be notified so that supplemental
evaluations can be perfarmed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in
t 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 repo�t may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside of the
control of EnGEN Corporarion which occur in the future.
' Thank you for the apportunity to provide our services. Often, because of design and construction
details which occur on a project, questions arise conceming the geotechnical conditions on the
' site. If we can be of further service or should you have questions regarding this report, please do
not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project
to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be
� applicable on the project.
Respectfully submitted
' EnGE C do '
�
�
' . Ry Waro
.P. Genera nager ��O�R�A T� �o� Q�pfESS/pHq
' I r �/VI O � G N �� ��T ` ��'G�
f / t!� i
� i ! � . 8084 0 � � C� �
' Colby Matthews, PG xP � s jorn raten 6�0. 162 �
Senior Staff Geologis s � a .�' Presi nt � Exp. 09l30/07 �
Expires 06-30-07 4T FOF CA����P Expires 09-30-0 � � `G ��, �
, T 1 'ECHN ��
SRW/CM/OB:II � �qt1�
Distribution: (4} Addressee
' FlIE: EnGEMReportinglGFS\T3444-GFS Sidhu Resldence, Geotechnical Feasfbility Study
`�
' EnGEN Corporation
� �
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number: 73444-GFS
' Appendix Page 1
' TFCHNIC,4L REF�REN(`,Fy
1. California Building Code, 2041, State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title
' 24, 1998, California Building Code: Intemational Conference of Building Officials and
California Building Standards Commissian, 3 Valumes.
2. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, State of Califomia Special Studies Zones,
, Murrieta Quadrangle, Revised O�cial Map, Effective January 1, 1990.
3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
, 4. Hart, Ear! W., and Bryant, William A., 1997, Revised 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in '
California, Alquist=Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone
�' Maps: State of Califomia, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
Pages reviewed at the Califomia Geologica! Survey's web page: http://www.cansrv.ca.gov
/cgs/rghm/ap/ Map_index/F4E.htm#SW.
' S. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fauft Zone in
Southern Riverside County, California: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 131, 12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
' 6. Morton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southem California, version 1.0, Open File Report 99-172.
' 7. Riverside, County of, 2000, Transpartation and Land Management Agency, Technical
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition.
8. Riverside, County of, 1978, Seismic Safery/Safety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
' Envicom.
9. Riverside Counry Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive .
General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
' 10. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC}, 1999, Recommended Procedures for �
Implemenfation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
' Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999.
11. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 2004, Southem Caiifomia
Earthquake Data Center Website, http://www.scecdc.scec.org,
'
12. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
t
'
'
'
EnGEN Corpocatioa l V
'
� � • .
Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number. T3444-GFS
, Appendix Page 2
r
, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
'
'
'
'
,
, �
� '
'
' �
'
'
�
'
'
EnGEN Corporation �
�
,
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
, 130
, '
' 128
�
' '126
a
�
� �f/1
C
N
�
�
�
' 124
'
, 122
I
, ZAV fOf
Sp.G. _
120 2.60
' 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 '
Water content, °k
i
' Test specification: ASTM D] SS7-02 Method A Modifieri
Elsv/ Classiflcation Nat, %> °�<
Depth USCS AASHTO Moisk Sp.G. �� P � No.4 No.200
1 SM 4.6
' TEST RESULTS MATERIAE. DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density = 128.7 pcf SII-'1'Y SnND, BROwN
' Optimum moisture = 9.0 %
ProJect No. T3444-GFS Cllent: SONNY SmHiJ Rema�ks:
, Project: SIDHU itESIDENCE SAMPLE A
W.CORNER OF SOLANA VIA NORTE
• Location: SOLONA WAY COLLECTED BY RW
COLLECT'ED ON (10/10/OS)
, COMPACTfON TEST REP�RT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL �
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION Flgure
'
I
' � �
' UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results �
Job Number: T3444-GFS
' Job Name: SlDHU RESIDENCE
Location; SOLONA WAY
' Sample Source: A (WESTERN CORNER)
Sampled by: RW (10l10/05)
Lab Technician: MC
' Sample Descr: SlLTY SAND, BROWN
� Wet Compacted Wt.: 602.3
Ring Wt.: 185.9 Dial Change Time
Net Wet Wt.: 416.4 Reading 1: 0.100 N/A 2:05 �
� Wet Density: 125.8 Reading 2: 0.100 0.000 2:20
Wet Soii: 224.2 Reading 3: 0.095 -0.005 2:35
, Dry Soil: 205.2 Reading 4: 0.092 -0.008 11-Oct �
Initial Moisture (%): 9.3%
Initia! Dry Density: 115.1
' % Saturation: 53.9% �
Final Wt & Ring Wt.: 620.2
' Net Finai Wt.: 434.3
Dry Wt.: 381.1
, Loss: 53.2 Expansion Index: 0
Net Dry Wt:: 377.8
Final Density: 114.1 Adjusted Index: 1.5
, Saturated Moisture: 14.1% (UBC �8-2)
'
'
'
' EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
, (951) 296-2230
Fax: (959 ) 29fi-2237
'
�
'
�����■■��t��■��■�■�■��■■■■�■��■■�■�����1\�1■��■r■■�r■■■��■r���r
■■�■�■���■��■�■A�■■ii■�■�■�rr�A���■■l���l�■��t■�■�li��■����■
���■��■■����l������■�������■■t��■■�■■■�r■�■������■���■��■■��
■������������■■�■�������t�■��r�■�■��■■■■�■■�����■�t��■■■■��■
���■■/■���■■■�■���■������■r�I■�A��rr�a���1��■■�����������fi1
�At■■��t�r�■��■■■�1��r�■��II■�����■�����������R\�■t���1t■�■1
■��r■■��■■r��■�/■�a�■■�!�/J■e�■�■■i�i■���■■��■�������t������
�������■�■����t��■t�■�■<I_��■■�■���■����/�1������aal�����1/��
���■����■�■■������■■�■■��w�����■■���o�■����■����■■■■a�������
�� �■■■��■■������■����a�■.►.a��■�����■����■�■��■�■�■���■����■���■
������■��■■��■■�■■■��■��!.��■����■■�■�■■■��■■��■■�����■���■■��■■
�■�■����r\■■��■�����'.i��������r��■■r�1�\�■���■■�■��■■���t■�i
■��■■�/■���■■■���■�::7����/������t■����■�■��■��■��A���������■
■��
��
����������������J��■■r�■■■��■��■��■�1�■5����/�r��■■■■l���A■t
■��■����■�/�■t►J■�■����r�■���li■�A�■■������i���■�■■■■�■■���r
��■■��■■��/��%a■������■����■���■■1■�■��■�■��■■����/������■��
■�����■■��■■�a/�■��■■��■■�!■�■■�■�■��■■��■���■■■�■����■■��■�
�������■��■■���i�������■�■��■■�■�■���������■��■■���■■�����■��1�■
�l���■��■!'i���r�■�r�■\�������������■�■■■/■�■�r�������■������
� ■��■!�■■�����■���■�����■�■■/�■■�/������■!��■�■■■�■�■■����■■■
• ��r���■/J■■��■■/����r■■■■��■t■■A�����■�r���a����■■�■■■���■��
���■■�/J■■■�i�■��■����■■■���■■■��■
����%a����i������ii��■�������a'����[.�'� �= -
■■�ia�■���■a����■��■■■��■■�■�■■���
■���■■��■�■�����■��■�■��■����■��■■,,.:, . .
■�.���■■����■��■■■��■■���■■��������
� ����i■�■���■����w�■��u������■�■■���' � • � � • �
� ��� ��� ��� •�,� ��� .���
. .
� � � ����■�����i���■■���o■
����t�■�t���v�■�■��� - .- .
������■■�■�■���:�a■�
����■�■��■���■����■■ - . -
��■��■■�������■�■����■
�■��■�:��������■���� . .- .
�����■�■��■�■■�■���■
��■►�������■����■���■ .. . . .
■■��■■��■�■■■a����■■
���i�������■■��■■��■� . � - . . � - � � � � i � �
���■��a�■■■�■�■���■����
�rnr���■��■■�����■■�f . _ -
�n■�■■■�■������■����
■�����•:-.�����■������ - . � � � i � �
����i�■���■��■�■���a
� � r,�►.�■■����■����■��■■ - . -
�i'���■���■�■�■���■�■
u ������������■f��■�� . . - .
ii�■���■������■���■�■
� � � ui■����■��■■�■t���■■�� . .
N�■■■��I�I�■���■� �����
11�/!����■��i�����■�A . . - . .
li�%���■■■���■■■■��■■
�1�����������■������� �_ --
� � li!■�■■��■�■����■�■��� - .
/■���■■�■��■����■■��
!��■■�������■�■��■■� • - • 111 111 111
� �1�l�V■����■����■�� • � �
� � � � � ' � . _ - 1 I ' i
. • • - - � �I �� •:
� .. • 1 I • 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
� - � - ' • � � • �
�- . • � ..�
• • - 1� 1�
�• �! � • • 1
• � C � � �
• i• 1 1 1 '• • i. 0 1 I f
� '�'
'• � •
. �' •..�' •
_. .
� �
' Mr. and Mrs. Sonny and Nancy Sidhu
Project Number. T3444-GFS
' Appendix Page 3 ,
'
' DRAWINGS
r �
�
� .
�
i
i �
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
�
1 �
EnGEN Corporadon
�
�UCTION NOT�S AND QUaNTITY'. ESTI�MATE �
MS TO BE CONSTRUCT�D OR INSTALLED ' QUANTITY UNIT ' / '
,, ,
V DRAIN PEF2 DETAIL� SHEET G 2 '' ` �F , ��33 N � �`
�
. 230. �. ;: �
,. �
,,. ,. _
:. ,
, i;1 ,6 ,., ,: Cy ; „y, ; p�
i . , \ . / _ � , , !
DRIVEWAY/PAVEMENT 'ON NATjVE 1890 , SF � �^ � �� / t
ING AC`CUfjB 30 : LF: g f ,,. � " �; J �? l��Gr�,aF � Y i
EWAY APPROACH°,PE�2 CITY.OF TEMECULA S7U NQ 207;; 1 i EA ''�° '. � >°. • �e�;� y
v �
^� F4MP
, N - ^� ti � ��p ��i
" '
A \ y� Y
. ` . 6 '� Q \' �+
; „� � .
-.. .. , . � . � . -.�', ..�� �-� . ��.'. ' PA I .0 • .��- D
. J179.9__ � 11� 0
:..'. ..� I �. : � .� • . ' '
; r `�
< i :: ; '' � �;
� p� � >� �
; E ,�139. 7 _':
'; \ \ 11�0. '.�-. ,.'.
�. \ . ,�-�\
E . � ��� � � � - G 11 0 � �� J �
� \.�
����� , �;� r -� 30 �.. .� Oj coNG v owvri ; � . .o :` veo n,a. ..
� ��� . ; q „�9 �
�.
:
�
� � �' C \ �;� ' Q s \ ��?, �;. 0 F 1 1'.1 Z 52 .:.
�n " ' C , � R 4.90 00
.... ' :. NAT . .' 3.�fANC MIN , : ,�,�. ; ' '' \� � ��.Y
r `, � w�exr�oho wwu . �y l. 9.5;90
� e
w i� o
�- 5 ;
� T`(PICAL CQNCRETE� � " `. P ` � � \ • ' '
V .DRA�N DETAIL - � / � '
NTS', o e. �y� �'�/ � LeG�NO,� t
� y I . �^ "" ' ^ � . !
(� ' C� r_� .: �I V.� l�PPftO%IMAiE LQCqTION OF O�OlOOIC CONTACT
tl' ^ . t . :' . ' � '.
,�,' AYPROXINATELOCATIONOFlANP�ECOLLCCTION �
SECTION ' ' ro �' � O ` � ,
7 CONC V pANN ":' p (� .:' � f1N � UNtlUCyMEMEOFIIL �.,,�
, '
.; ... . ' ', . � ... ,'. O. . .. .'. .. ' .
y t :
. _ .. . . ,�.. . _ .. .,.
.. .
C�1 ' P/�UBAfafiMAilON9AND9TONE �
; �2 6 X8'X12 0 RIP.-RAP ' ' . � � �.
t.
ENERGY pISSIPATOR ^ - � ' � ��� �
lr t
.:� ..�' ''. USE 100�f ROCK ,., ; ..: �
� ��ii2o . ) � ;
, R � 7 � . � q �q
V J'' C�/
,. � � � �.� � o � , � ,
I N � Z �' \� ��\ ��� ;� �
21�IN 1
PO MNf �_ 4 � �� . . -. \ \� :� ' �
IiEOb '. \ _ \ ��\�" �..V-- . .:
�� ',.: Z \��\ �\ � Q 90 Q� �� �:
� , ' / � �"�� 5 Og �
` • , _
`l '
' / ` �;
,:. ,
,. :.
O. .y �
R 3 �
fllL SIOPE /� �: � L 54.9
` y >
`
' � �
TYPICAL. BERM DETAIL �QC�
SETBACKS rrts I�q '�
� ttPICAt �GMVELH445_ � � � 1
.- . � � '.; '.
. , .: ; : , •. (7 NICH) .
MCMEEN�SICNING iHESE'PW15 IS � �' J
fOft ASSURWC fHE ACCUAACY Oi OE6�GN ♦(v ( �
31LIIY Oi iHE WOflK.HEREON. TNC . :.�,WLIJTE�..:DISPOSAL. � �� EnGElY��Cor OLAIJOR� _�+�'+' '1` � ��t�"�
cREVUiCIES.utISINC nrrER COUNtt ' ' �� - .. . ♦ �'!�' . ' -'� .� .�' . ..'�'�'. ' ...:..: .. ...... •: •1 l �. CEOLOGICSffEYLAN � GRAPHIC SCACE� ,
WflING COf{SINUCiION, iNE PRNpi[, � ._�pIC/1L. GRAVELBAG D�AIL ;:�NI:�.WASfE'i0 RCMD SEWER MTf�Y :�; pq6JeC/NV �BEM: T)M40i! lCO�IOEfCNIMpM� LOT11) TMACTWH ' 0��,;_IQ 0'. '� Ap '.�80 80����.
41 Bf flE5PON51BLE fOF UEI�RMININC -� - ,�� ,
�E SOLUfION AND flE415lNG'iHE PtiWS � _ SCAI.E:NTS . �'�..•�,• � �;; . . SEPfICI ;._ { ._..., �:�; i �OMEiJaNUN.wYxaO! : �DC l[: ��:x�� . ' 1'�20'.:`"' �
L BY i11E GN �' ' ��' . :. :: �.... . : , .. . '..: . - - . .
, �_-... : ..• ., . -�: , .., � . �: .. ;:.:� . � . ... � "�. .�.: ' '�I C46NTNAME:� .::.. lONxYl�OMV '. ' FqUNE: � .�1 .
,. ... '�.: ' ,'.-', �.::;: , ��_ ��.
......: ... ... ... . ... . . . ... . .. ' '�'�' �. �, � :.. , + �
� �.., .� OATE 6V.. • � � �'REVISIONS � : .. ORTE ACC'D " �'. , •..� ' : .: -: � . UESIGNED �BY •. �' ��RAWN BY '.CHECKEO BV ' ',, .. . .
' � SCPLE , ' .ytOf(Sflp�
. oe .: n , ,oe; . �caiurNOeoer o�uc ' CIPY'OF' IL�,MG�%;ULA
.Ka 11 i .. . .. . .: � e��. � ' ' � . ' .. • D .: � UAVMIMFNf'OF PUBLIC �. WOflKS ��'� �� � �� ��
��, y � HORIZOMAL . F+„ � . Plaiu Npa�d VMr lM SiW!��^^ OI :�- :., .
ac.Ka.���' � zo',; �~.�*�� a i ���m � � - a� PRECISE GRA�(NC PLAN ('�
. y w. i rv ��.:�� odi. ocnnr arrccron av wauo nams .- .. rpr ,.. .�T �''.
� ' � " ° ° � aswam+ eranne �< PO�D �•� °"� �SIOHU RESIOENCE
..:' ._ ' .. .HA... . ��Yf[A\\4 �R '; . �.
. . •. .• 4ERIICAL . . i llll� , -
..'� �.. � : � � � . .. . o,e, rb .' - �- sien ' u/ao/o� Rac. � inst' r i A �NOR�E' Ec. SOLANA OR � . .
. ..�::. , �� :.-. �..>. -�. . -..�.::. �-. ..'•. � . ..:.��- � . . � �. � . .. .�.,.. ,. �. ��` :,"IEMECUCA'-CA
:,� .., � ���' N : ,, .'�.
.-.�...,. .. . .. .:
: .. . _.. >� , .. :: :: . ,,... . . .: . . .. . .. ; 2 or 2 � .:_-