Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tract Map 9833-1 Lot 2 Gudino Residence Geotechnical Study
SDVOSB 4- v -7. 2 ' GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY EnGEN 41625 Enterprise Cirde South. 2.26 Acres 13-2,1erneara Califoma 92590 Temecula, County of Riverside, California 95129G3511 -Fax 951.296.371 1 w .engencorp.com APN: 969-020-002 ' Project Number: 4103-GFS ' January 24, 2014 1 1 ' Prepared for: Mr. & Mrs. Carlos Gudino & Mr. Joaquin Dominguez Attention: Mrs. Jackie Gudino ' 2235 Cedar Street Santa Ana, California 92707 ' Gudino& Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Section Number and Title page ' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................1 1.1 Existing Site Conditions........................................................................................1 1.2 Site Suitability.......................................................................................................1 1.3 Foundations..........................................................................................................2 ' 2.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................2 2.1 Site Description ....................................................................................................2 ' 2.2 Project Description ...............................................................................................2 2.3 Scope of Work......................................................................................................3 2.4 Field Study............................................................................................................3 2.4.1 Exploratory Test Pit Backfill Compaction....................................................3 3.0 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................4 ' 3.1 Surface Soil Profile...............................................................................................4 3.2 Laboratory Testing................................................................................................4 3.2.1 General.....................................................................................................4 t 3.2.2 Classification ............................................................................................4 3.2.3 In-Place Density and Moisture Content Determination..............................4 3.2.4 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test......5 ' 3.2.5 Expansion Potential..................................................................................5 3.2.6 Direct Shear Test (Remolded)..................................................................5 3.2.7 Soluble Sulfates........................................................................................5 ' 3.2.8 pH/Minimum Resistivity ............................................................................6 3.2.9 Cloride Content.........................................................................................6 4.0 GEOLOGY and SITE SEISMICITY.................................................................................6 ' 4.1 Regional Geologic Setting....................................................................................6 4.2 Seismic Hazards...................................................................................................6 4.2.1 Surface Fault Rapture ..............................................................................7 ' 4.2.2 Liquefaction..............................................................................................7 4.2.3 Seismically Induced Landsliding...............................................................7 4.2.4 Seismically Induced Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis.............................7 ' 4.3 Earth Materials .....................................................................................................7 4.3.1 Colluvium (Qcol— Slope Wash — Unmapped)........................................7 4.3.2 Alluvium (Qal).........................................................................................8 4.3.3 Pauba Formation Bedrock (Qps)............................................................8 4.3.4 Undocumented Fill..................................................................................8 ' 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................8 5.1 General ................................................................................................................8 5.2 Clearing ................................................................................................................8 5.3 Excavation Characteristics ...................................................................................8 5.4 Suitability of On-site Materials as Fill....................................................................8 5.5 Grading Recommendations..................................................................................9 ' 5.6 Oversize Materials..............................................................................................10 ' EnGEN Corporation Gudlno&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ' Section Number and Title pane 5.7 Structural Fill.......................................................................................................10 5.8 Compaction Equipment......................................................................................10 t5.9 Shrinkage—Colluvium Weathered Bedrock.......................................................11 5.10 Keyways.............................................................................................................11 5.11 Observation and Testing ....................................................................................11 ' 5.12 Soil Expansion Potential.....................................................................................12 6.0 SLOPE STABILITY........................................................................................................12 ' 6.1 Cut and Fill Slopes .............................................................................................12 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................12 ' 7.1 Foundation Design Recommendations ..............................................................12 7.1.1 Foundation Size.......................................................................................13 7.1.2 Depth of Embedment ..............................................................................13 ' 7.1.3 Bearing Capacity.....................................................................................13 7.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters....................................................................13 7.1.5 Settlement...............................................................................................13 7.2 Lateral Capacity..................................................................................................14 ' 7.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations.....................................................................14 7.4 Exterior Slabs.....................................................................................................15 7.5 Retaining Walls Recommendations ...................................................................15 ' 7.5.1 Earth Pressures.........................................................................................15 7.5.2 Retaining Wall Design..............................................................................15 7.5.3 Subdrains .................................................................................................16 ' 7.5.4 Backfill......................................................................................................16 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................17 ' 8.1 Utility Trench Recommendations........................................................................17 8.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations .............................................................17 8.3 Planter Recommendations.................................................................................17 ' 8.4 Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations ...................................18 8.5 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ......................................19 8.6 Plan Review........................................................................................................19 ' 8.7 Pre-Bid Conference............................................................................................19 8.8 Pre-Grading Conference....................................................................................19 9.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................20 ' APPENDICES: APPENDIX"A"-TECHNICAL REFERENCES ' APPENDIX"B"-LABORATORY TEST RESULTS APPENDIX"C"-EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOGS APPENDIX"D"-TYPICAL GRADING SETAILS ' PLATE 1 —GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY SITE PLAN 1 ' EnGEN Corporation ' En Ell 1 January 25, 2014 ' Mr. & Mrs. Carlos Gudino & Mr. Joaquin Dominguez Attention: Mrs.Jackie Gudino 2235 Cedar Street Santa Ana, California 92707 tPhone: 714.878.8775 Regarding: Geotechnical Feasibility Study -Gudino and Dominguez Property 2.26 Acres, Northwest of Jedediah Smith Road, APN: 959-020-002 Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: 4103-GFS References: 1) Precise Grading Plan, prepared by Lamda Engineering & Development, dated: June 151", 2010, Scale: 1"=20'. ' Dear Mrs. Gudino, In accordance with your request and authorization, a representative of this firm visited the subject ' site on November 17, 2013, to visually observe the surficial conditions of the subject site, perform subsurface exploration, and collect samples of representative site earth materials for laboratory testing. Submitted herewith are the results of our findings along with recommendations and ' supportive data. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' 1.1 Existing Site Conditions: The subject site is currently undeveloped with a light growth of native grasses and weeds. A graded road provides access along the westerly property ' boundary. 1.2 Site Suitability: The proposed development appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the final design and construction of the project. Based on the information derived from the work ' conducted during this study, site preparation work will be required prior to placement of fills, foundation, hardscape and pavement improvements. Recommendations for remedial ' site earthwork are provided under§ 5.0 of this report. 41625 Enterprise Grde South. 9-2,Teme ula Califomia 92590 951.296.3511 -Fax 951.296.371 1 � Gudino& Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 2 ' 1.3 Foundations: The site is suitable for the use of standard continuous and isolated footings with slab-at-grade foundations. Expansion testing on samples of foundational earth ' materials from the site indicates a medium expansion potential. Criteria for foundation design are provided under§6.1 of this report. ' 2.0 SITEIPROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Site Description: The subject site is a 2.26-acre lot located northwest of Jedediah Smith Road, Temecula, Riverside County, California. Vertical topographic,relief across the site is approximately 40-feet with overall site drainage toward the southeast. The ' site consists of essentially two'(2) soil profiles which are defined as Alluvium and Pauba Formation Bedrock (sandstone) which is,exposed at the surface in the northerly portion of the'site (See Plate 1). Minor man-made improvements were observed on the site in the form of a post perimeter fence and dirt access road. Colluvium and residual soils ' (unmapped) are present as a thin cap covering the natural slopes across the study area of the site and ranges in thickness from several inches to approximately 3 feet, (see Exploratory Logs, Appendix A). Pauba Formation Bedrock underlies the colluvium and ' the alluvium at the site., The colluvium encountered exhibited porous conditions with loose to moderate densities. The Pauba Formation Bedrock conditions were found to ' be non-porous, and dense to very,dense and consisted of coarse to fine sands with varying amounts of silts and clays. A more detailed description of the earth materials at ' the subject site can be found.in §4.3 of this report. 2.2 Project Description: The proposed development is single-family residential with a ' main structure located approximately 40 feet from the westerly property boundary and a guesthouse approximately 40 feet northeast of the main house (see Plate 1). Both structures will be of wood-framed, slab-at-grade.design. The development of the lot will encompass typical hillside grading operations. Due to cut/fill transition beneath the ' proposed structures, some remedial grading is required to minimize post construction settlement. This will include the over-excavation and re-compaction beneath the ' proposed structures to a minimum depth of 3-feet beneath lowest adjacent final grade. The over-excavation should extend a minimum of 5 feet outside of the proposed building ' footprint, see § 5.0 of this report for detailed grading recommendations. Surface drainage will be directed to the southwest at a gradient of 2% or less. 1 ' EnGEN Corporation tGudino&Dominguez Residence r Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 3 ' 2.3 Scope of Work: The scope of this study was to provide preliminary geotechnical assessment of the surface and subsurface conditions within the proposed development ' area, and recommendations for the development of the site from a geotechnical point of view. The scope of work included: 1) site reconnaissance and geologic mapping; 2) ' subsurface exploration and field testing; 3) sampling and laboratory testing of on-site materials; 4) engineering analysis of field and laboratory data; and 5) preparation of this ' report. 2.4 Field Study: Field reconnaissance, geologic mapping and subsurface exploration was conducted on November 27", 2013. The purpose*of the subsurface exploration was to assess the underlying earth materials' in-situ density- and relevant geotechnical properties as well as the presence of historical groundwater conditions that might affect ' the geotechnical integrity of the proposed .development. Five (5) exploratory test pits were excavated within the proposed development area of the site ranging in depth from ' 6 to 15 feet from surface elevation: The exploratory test pits were excavated utilizing a rubber-tired backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket. Bulk samples were collected from ' selected depth intervals and in-place density tests were performed in the upper 4-feet of the exploratory test pits (see Logs, Appendix C). Representative soil samples were ' subsequently returned to this firm's laboratory for verification of field classifications and testing: Selected samples were tested_for.maximum density, USCS classification, shear ' strength, and expansion. In addition, soil samples were visually inspected for evidence of corrosive properties that .would dictate.a formal corrosive analysis of materials in ' direct contact with the proposed footings. The approximate location of the exploratory test pits are denoted on the Geotechnical Feasibility Study Site Plan, (Plate 1). ' 2.4.1 Exploratory Test Pit Backfill Compaction: The exploratory test pits were backfilled with loose soil cuttings after completion of logging, testing and sampling operations. No compaction efforts were applied during the backfill operations, and tests were not performed to determine the compaction of the backfilled material. The exploratory test ' pit backfill should be removed and re-compacted during grading for the winery and verified as meeting a minimum density of the surrounding earth materials within the ' body of the final grading report for the proposed project. ' EnGEN Corporation ' Gudino 6 Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS January 2014 Page 4 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 Subsurface Soil Profile: Based on our field reconnaissance and subsurface ' excavations performed,the site is underlain by the following earth materials: Earth Materials Range of Depth I Condition ' Undocumented Fill(AO Several Inches to 3' Undetermined Colluvial&Residual Soils(Unmapped) Several Inches to 3' Porous loose Alluvium Oat 3'to greater than 15' Loose to Medium Dense Pauba Formation Bedrock D s Dense to Ve Dense A thin mantle of colluvium covers the slopes in the higher northerly portion of the site and overlies the Pauba Formation Bedrock throughout, (see Plate 1). It varies in depth ' from several inches in the higher northerly portion of the property to approximately 3 feet ' in the lower southerly portion of the study site. Alluvium occupies the easterly and southerly portion of the subject property (see Platel). A small amount of undocumented fill was observed to existing in the dirt access road along the westerly property boundary ' (see Plate 1). The exploratory test pit logs 'of earth materials encountered during the subsurface exploration are included in the.Appendix. Further discussion of the on-site ' earth material is presented in §4.3 of this report. 3.2 Laboratory Testing: ' 3.2.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained during the site visit are presented in Appendix Br Following is a listing and brief description ' of some of the laboratory tests that have been performed for this study. The samples obtained during the field study will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This ' office should be notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days. ' 3.2.2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered during our field investigation were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils ' Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). 3.2.3 In-Place Density and Moisture Content Determination: Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2922-03 and ASTM D 3017-01 procedures for determining in-place density and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Test results are presented on the ' exploratory test pit logs provided in Appendix C of this report. ' EnGEN Corporation ' Gudlno& Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 5 ' 3.2.4 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test: Maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relationship tests were performed on samples of ' near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-02 procedures using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents ' and compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25 blows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture ' content determined from the plot. 3.2.5 Expansion Potential: 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 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 ' of between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under a pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (pso and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The resulting ' volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded and the Expansion Index (EI) calculated. ' 3.2.6 Direct Shear Test (Remolded): Direct sheartests were performed on selected samples of near-surface earth material,in general 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 pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus ' the normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal friction). ' 3.2.7 Soluble Sulfates: Preliminary visual assessment of the on-site earth materials indicate that there is a potential for corrosive soils to be in contact with the foundations after the ' site is graded. Soils are not always tested for Soluble Sulfates depending on the type of material encountered. Sandy soils are considered to be low in corrosive characteristics. ' Organic clays and clayey soils as well as soils containing a high degree of organic material are most typically identified with having corrosive properties. It is recommended that soils in contact with the footings for the proposed structures be tested for corrosive properties 1 , ' EnGEN Corporation ' Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number.4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 6 after completion of grading. The concentration of soluble sulfate should be determined in general conformance with California Test Method 417 procedures. ' 3.2.8 pH/Minimum Resistivity: Upon completion of grading operations, sample(s) of near surface soils that will be in contact with the proposed footings should be tested for pH and ' minimum resistivity in general conformance to CTM 643. Guidelines of testing for pH and Minimum Resistivity are those summarized under§ 3.2.7. 3.2.9 Chloride Content: Upon completion of grading operations, sample(s) of soils that will be ' in contact with the footings should be tested for chloride content. Guidelines of testing for chloride content testing are those summarized under§3.2.7. Soil sample(s) that will be in ' contact .with the proposed footings should be tested for chloride content in general conformance to CTM 422. ' 4.0 GEOLOGY AND SITE SEISMICITY ' ' 4.1 Regional Geologic Settina: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, on the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block ' is bound on the northeast by the San Jacinto Fault.Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and on the north,by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of 1 the Perris Block is not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending southeast from Munieta, Califomia (Kennedy, 1977; Mann, 1955). The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by large Mesozoic-age intrusive rock masses, locally ' flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Varying thicknesses of alluvial sediments derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fillAhe ' valleys and other low-lying areas. The earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report, (see Appendix C for ' exploratory logs). 4.2 Seismic Hazards: Because the proposed development is located in tectonically active ' southern California, it will likely experience some effects from earthquakes. The type or severity of seismic hazards affecting the site is mainly dependent upon the distance to the ' causative fault, epicenter and hypocenter, the intensity and duration of the seismic event, and the soil characteristics. The seismic hazard may be of a primary nature, such as ' surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The following is a site-specific discussion about ground motion parameters, ' earthquake induced settlement hazards, and liquefaction. The purpose of this analysis is ' EnGEN Corporation Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 7 to identify potential seismic hazards and to propose possible mitigation, if necessary, to reduce the risk to within acceptable levels: ' 4.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture: The subject site is. not located within the State Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone and there were no surface expressions of potential faulting observed ' during the field portion of the investigation. Therefore it is very unlikely that surface fault rupture will occur at the subject site. 4.2.2 Liquefaction: A formal liquefaction analysis was not included in the scope of this study. ' For the purposes of this report, a "formal liquefaction analysis" includes deep borings (minimum of 50 feet from lowest surface,elevation), consolidation testing of in-situ soil samples and settlement calculations of supportive soils under calculated seismic stresses. Alluvium is present on the subject property but will be removed to bedrock ' during the grading operations within the areas that will be improved. Consequently, it is very-unlikely that soils within the improvement areas of the site will be susceptible to ' liquefaction. Recommendations for site earthwork are provided under § 5.0 of this report. Based on the in-situ density of the Pauba Formation Bedrock within the ' proposed residential pad area (see Plate 1), the likelihood of liquefaction occurring within the bedrock formation where the residential structures are proposed is considered to be very low. 4.2.3 Seismically Induced Landsliding: Based on the grading plan reviewed for this study, ' The construction of engineered fills within the proposed improvement areas of the subject site will not be susceptible to seismically induced landsliding. The existing natural slopes ' are at an inclination of 2:1 or greater and as such it is our conclusion that the potential for seismically induced landsliding is low. ' 4.2.4 Seismically Induced Flooding. Seiches and Tsunamis: There are no large bodies of water in close vicinity of the subject site. Due to the large distance of the project site to the ' Pacific Ocean, the possibility for seismically induced tsunamis to impact the site is considered nil. ' 4.3 Earth Materials 4.3.1 Colluvium(Qcol - Slope Wash) Unmapped: A thin mantle of colluvium (several inches ' to 3 feet thick) was observed to overly Pauba Formation Bedrock as "slope wash" at the site and was found to be predominantly comprised of gravelly sands with some silt that was loose, dry and porous in place. EnGEN Corporation 1 ' Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number.4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 8 4.3.2 Alluvium IQal): Alluvium was observed in the lower easterly and southerly area of the 1 subject property, (see Plate 1). 4.3.3 Pauba Formation Bedrock(Qas): The subject site has been mapped within the geologic bedrock formation commonly referred to as the Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation ' Bedrock is a sandstone formation and on site is comprised of gravelly sands with varying amounts of silts and clays which are partially weathered near the surface and becomes dense to very.dense at a depth of approximately 3 foot from surface grade. ' 4.3.4 Undocumented Fills: A small amount of undocumented fill was observed to exists within the dirt access road., at the .southwesterly property boundary (see Plate 1). The ' undocumented fill appears to range in depth,from several inches to approximately 3 feet in depth. ' 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ' 5.1 General: The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for: 1. The use of a conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slabs cast on- grade. 2. The rework of unsuitable near-surface earth materials to create engineered fills for ' the building pads and support for exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and Pavement. Note: If pavement sub-grade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the ' building site and the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing of the subgrade.soil will have to'be performed before placing aggn;gate base material, asphaltic concrete or PCC pavement to repair areas which may ' have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. The following recommendations may need to be updated, modified and/or supplemented during rough grading as field conditions require. ' 5.2 Clearing: All concrete, asphalt, debris, roots, grasses, weeds, brush, trees and other deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed structure, exterior hardscape ' and pavement areas and areas to receive structural fill before grading is performed. No discing or mixing of organic material into the soils should be performed. ' 5.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the colluvium and alluvium is anticipated to be relatively easy. Excavation within the Pauba Formation Bedrock is ' anticipated to be moderately difficult to difficult. 5.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill: In general, from an engineering standpoint, the ' on-site earth materials encountered are considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials ' EnGEN Corporation ' Gudino 6 Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS January 2014 Page 9 should be free of significant amounts of organic materials and/or debris. Fill materials should not contain rocks greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension in the upper 5-feet ' of fill. Fill materials should not contain rocks greater than 12-inches in maximum dimension between 5 and 10-feet below proposed pad grade. Fills deeper than 10-feet may be used for oversize disposal. Oversize disposal of rocks greater than 12-inches ' maximum dimension should be conducted in accordance with Section 5.6, Oversize Material Recommendations, of this report. ' 5.5 Grading Recommendations for All Areas: 1. Organic Material: All organic material such as vegetation, including roots, should be removed from areas to be graded and not used in fills!' 2. Man-Made" Materials: All encountered man-made materials such as irrigation piping, electrical conduits and associated materials should be excavated and removed from the site and not used in fills. 3. Keyways, Removal and Over-Excavation Areas: All exposed keyway, removal and over-excavation bottoms should be inspected by the Project Geotechnical Engineer or authorized representative, prior to. placement of any fill in proposed building pad areas. An approved bottom will consist of competent bedrock that is ' probed and inspected to verify competency and.free from abundant or large pore spaces and approved by the aforementioned personnel. Testing of the on-site bedrock for quantitative analysis is not considered;necessary. 4. Undocumented Fills: All undocumented fills along the dirt access road and any other areas encountered during the grading operations should be removed to competent native ground with a minimum relative compaction of 85% and replaced ' as engineered fill if required. 5. Over-Excavation Areas: The footprint of the proposed residential structures is ' located within a transition between the Pauba Formation Bedrock and engineered fill and consequently spans a cuttfill transition. Over-excavation of the residential building pad will be required in order to render the supportive soils suitable for the ' proposed development. The over-excavation depth is anticipated to be 36-inches from the lowest adjacent finish grade of the residential building pad area, depending on the relative compaction of the bottom areas. to be tested during the over- excavation grading operations. Bottom areas with relative compaction of 85% or ' higher will be considered satisfactory bottoms to receive fill. The over-excavation should extend a minimum of 5-feet beyond the footing footprint (see Plate 1). ' 6. Approval of Bottoms: The approved exposed bottoms of all removal areas should be scarified 12-inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent before placement of fill. Maximum dry density and ' optimum moisture content for compacted materials should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-02 procedures. 7. Expansive Soils: Final verification of expansion potential for the soils used to 1 construct the building pad area should be determined at the conclusion of grading by performing an expansion index test. ' EnGEN Corporation 1 Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number.4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 10 ' 8. Corrosive Soils: The native soils encountered within both the proposed residential and guesthouse structures were observed to be sands with varying amounts of silt and clays present. These types of soils may have corrosive characteristics. Because of the nature of grading for any type of development, it is not know if these soils will be in contact with the proposed footings until near finished grade elevations have been achieved. It is recommend that soils that will be in contact with the proposed footings be sampled and tested for corrosive properties at near final grade ' elevations. If test results indicate that corrosive soils will be in contact with the proposed footings, appropriate recommendations should be provided in the rough grading report for final minimum foundation design based on soil properties. ' 5.6 Oversize Material: Oversize material is defined as rock, or other irreducible material with ' a maximum dimension of more than 12-inches. Oversize material shall not be buried or placed in fill unless.location, materials,-and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. .Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted fill (windrow). 'Alternative methods, such as water jetting or ' wheel rolling.with a backhoe may be required to achieve compaction in the fill materials immediately adjacent to the windrow. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 ' vertical feet of finish grade, within 15 lateral feet of.a finished slope face, or within 2-feet of future utilities. 5.7 Structural"Fill:. All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be accepted by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement. All fill ' should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should be no more expansive than the existing•on-site material, unless approved by the Project ' Geotechnical Engineer. Approved fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6.0 to 8.0-inches in thickness, and watered or aerated to obtain near-optimum ' moisture content (within 2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil moisture. Structural fill should ' meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density based upon ASTM 1557-02 procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than ' 2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. 5.8 Compaction Equipment: It is anticipated that fill compaction for the project will be ' achieved by the use of a combination of rubber-tired and track-mounted heavy construction equipment: Compaction by rubber-tired or track-mounted equipment, by ' itself, may not be sufficient. Adequate water trucks, water pulls, and/or other suitable equipment should be,available to provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The actual. EnGEN Corporation Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 11 ' selection of equipment is the responsibility of the contractor performing the work and should be such that uniform and proper compaction of the fill is achieved. Special ' equipment, such as an excavator, may be necessary if removals approach high moisture soils near the water table. 5.9 Shrinkage — Colluvium and Weathered Bedrock (within structure pad area): There ' will be a material loss due to the clearing and grubbing operations. Shrinkage of colluvial and weathered bedrock materials that are excavated and replaced as compacted fill ' should be anticipated. It is estimated that the average shrinkage of these soils will be on the order of.5 to 8 percent, based on fill volumes when compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. A higher relative compaction would mean a larger shrinkage value. ' 5.10 Keyways: ,A keyway excavated into competent soil should be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes that are proposed on natural grades of 5.'1 (horizontal to vertical) or steeper prior ' to placing fill. A typical detail for keyway construction is included in the Appendix of this report. 5.11 Observation and Testing: - During grading, observation and testing should be conducted by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative to verify that the grading is tbeing performed according;to the recommendations presented in this report.' The Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative should observe the scarification and the ' placement of fill and should take tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity and :degree of compaction obtained. Where testing demonstrates insufficient density, ' additional compaction effort, with the adjustment of the moisture content where necessary, should be applied until retesting shows that satisfactory relative compaction has been ' obtained. The results of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal finish grading report following completion of the grading operations. Grading operations ' undertaken at the site without the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative present may result in exclusion of the affected areas from the finish grading report for the project. The presence of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative will be for the purpose of providing observations and field testing and will not include any supervision or directing of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's employees ' or agents. Neither the presence and/or the non-presence of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his field representative nor the field observations and testing shall excuse ' the contractor in any way for defects discovered in the contractor's work. ' EnGEN Corporation Gudino 6 Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 12 5.12 Soil Expansion Potential: Upon completion of fine grading of the building pad, near- surface samples should be obtained for expansion potential testing to identify the ' Expansion Index (EI) of the soils in direct contact with proposed footings, and assign appropriate foundation and slab-on-grade recommendations for construction. Preliminary ' El testing was performed, yielding an Expansion Index of 53. This is classified as a medium expansion potential. Import soils or soils used near finish grade may have a different.El. Mixing of soils during grading could affect the overall Expansion Index of the ' fill. Final foundation design parameters should be based on Expansion Index testing of near-surface soils at the completion of grading operations. Therefore, at the conclusion of grading,.our firm should perform sampling and El testing of the soils at final pad grade and final foundation recommendation will be provided in the grading report ' for the project. Those results should be forwarded and incorporated into the final design by the Project Structural Engineer if they are different from.that of this report. ' 6.0 SLOPE STABILITY 6.1 Cut and fill Slopes: It is this firms opinion that the proposed cut and fill slopes to be constructed at the subject site will possess gross and surficial stability, in excess of ' generally accepted minimum engineering criteria (Factor of Safety at least 1.5) and will be suitable for their intended purpose, provided that proper.slope maintenance procedures t are implemented. 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 City of Temecula Grading Codes. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 7.1 Foundation Desian Recommendations: Foundations for the proposed structure may ' consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded in properly compacted fill. The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based upon a low expansion potential for the ' supporting soils and should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Project Structural Engineer should determine the actual footing width and depth in ' accordance with the latest edition of the California Building Code to resist design vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces and should either verify or amend the design based ' on final expansion testing at the completion of grading. EnGEN Corporation ' Gudino_&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 13 ' 7.1.1 Foundation Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12-inches and should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) No. 5 steel reinforcing bar ' located near the top and two (2) No. 5 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 characteristics or seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils. Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18- inches and be suitably reinforced, based on structural requirements. A grade beam, founded at the same depths and reinforced the same as the adjacent footings, should be provided across doorway and garage entrances: ' 7.1.2 Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings founded in properly compacted fill should extend to a minimum depth of 18-inches below lowest,adjacent finish grade for single and two-story structures. 7.1.3 Bearing Capacity: Provided the recommendations for site earthwork, minimum footing ' width, and minimum depth of embedment for footings are incorporated into the project design and construction, the allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for the total dead plus frequently-applied live loads is 1,500 psf for footings in properly compacted fill. The allowable bearing value has a Factor of Safety _ of-at least 3.0 and may increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as wind or seismic forces: 1 7.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters: The following seismic parameters apply: DESCRIPTION DESIGN PARAMETERS SITE LATITUDE: 33.4889°N ' SITE LONGITUDE: -117.111°W SITE CLASS: D SPECTRAL RESPONSE(SHORT): 0.2 sec)—Ss: 1.9 ' SPECTRAL RESPONSE- (I-SECOND): 1.0 sec)—S : 0.77 SHORT PERIOD SITE COEFFICIENT: Fa: 1.0 1-SECOND PERIOD SITE COEFFICIENT: Fv: 1.5 ' ADJUSTED SPECTRAL RESPONSE: Short Period -0.2 Sec—S : 1.9 ADJUSTED SPECTRAL RESPONSE: One Sec)—S : 1.2 DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE: Short Period 0.2 sec—S : 1.3 DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE: One Sec) 1.0 sec—S : 0.77 ' 7.1.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values and the maximum assumed wall and column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum ' settlement of 0.75-inch or a differential settlement of 0.50-inch in properly compacted fill under static load conditions. Since all alluvium is to be removed, the structures will rest 1 ' EnGEN Corporation ' Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 14 entirely on compacted engineered fill or competent bedrock. As a result, settlement '. calculations were not considered necessary. 7.2 Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows: ' Allowable Lateral Pressure(Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case: Compacted Fill—200 pcf Competent Bedrock—400 pcf ' Allowable Coefficient of Friction: Compacted Fill - 0.35 Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of,friction acting on the ' base of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with undisturbed, properly ' compacted fill material. The above values are allowable design values and may be used in combination without reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The ' allowable values may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth ' resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is ' 5.0 times the recommended design value. 7.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations: 'The recommendations for concrete slabs, both ' interior and exterior, excluding FCC pavement, are based 'upon the.anticipated building usage and upon a medium expansion potential for the supporting material as ' determined by Chapter 18 of the California Building Code. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, ' and construction) should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions should be taken during placement and curing of t all concrete slabs. Excessive slump (high water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used during either hot or cold weather conditions could ' result in excessive shrinkage, cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning, placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and procedures. Slab-on-grade reinforcement and thickness should ' be provided by the structural engineer based on structural considerations, but as a minimum, it is recommended that concrete floor slabs be at least 4-inches actual in ' thickness and reinforced with at least No.3 steel reinforcing bars placed 18-inches on ' EnGEN corporation Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 15 ' 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-inch to 2.0-inch minimum .layer of clean, moist (not saturated) sand to aid in concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures: 7.4 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, ' etc., with the-exception of PCC pavement)should be a minimum of 4-inches nominal in thickness. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand-or gravel base ' beneath the.slabs should be according to the current local standards. 7.5 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ' 7.5.1 Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backflled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or very low expansive potential materials. (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone ' extending upward and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter can be designed to resist the following static lateral soil pressures: Condition Level Backfill 2:1 Sloe 1.61 Slope Active 30 pcf 45 pcf 52 pcf ' At Rest 60 ocf Further shear and expansion testing of'poiential backfill material should be performed at ' the time of retaining wall construction to determine suitability. Walls that are free to deflect 0.01 radian at the top 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. ' 7.5.2 Retaining Wall Design: 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 an allowable bearing value of 1,500 psf when founded in compacted fill, and 3,500 psf when founded in unweathered bedrock (as long ' as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing). Allowable static lateral bearing pressure of 200 psf/ft may be used in compacted fill and 400 psf/ft may be EnGEN Corporation ' Gudlno&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 16 ' used in unweathered bedrock. An allowable sliding resistance coefficient of faction of 0.35 is applicable footings in fill or bedrock. When using the allowable lateral pressure and ' .allowable sliding resistance, a Factor of Safety of 1.5 should be achieved. 7.5.3 Subdrain: A subdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of retaining walls equal to or in excess of 4-feet in height to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup ' of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Gravel galleries and/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on-site and/or import materials, should be enclosed in a ' geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The,perforated pipes should be at least 4.0-inches'in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe. .For retaining walls ' with an overall height of less than 4-feet, subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous, gravel gallery, 'perforated pipe surrounded by filter rock, or some other ' approved system. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient and have outlets that drain in a non-erosive manner. Weep holes should be screened to prevent rodent access. 7.5.4 Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 34eet) 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 waterjetting 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 ' will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill, mechanical compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at least 90 percent ' of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment unless the wall is designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand or other imported backfill is used ' behind retaining walls, the upper 18-inches of backfill in unpaved areas should consist of typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 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 1557-02 procedures. ' EnGEN Corporation ' Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS January 2014 Page 17 ' 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of ' foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that all utility trenches excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back to an inclination not steeper than ' 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where interior or exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel and/or perpendicular to any building footing, ' the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1:1 plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent_footing unless the utility lines are designed for the ' footing surcharge loads. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill material should ' be compacted to a minimum of 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 1557-02 procedures. 8.2 Finish Lot Drainage 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. 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 10-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non- erosive manner should be provided. ' 8.3 Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of a 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 soils underlying the building. Where practical, it is recommended that subdrains be installed under the planter areas that will capture irrigation water and drain to a suitable discharge facility. 1 1 ' EnGEN Corporation Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 18 ' 8.4 Temporary Construction Excavation Recommendations: Temporary construction excavations for rough grading, foundations, retaining walls, utility trenches, etc., more than 5.0-feet in depth &to a maximum depth of 15-feet should shored/cut back as follows: Observed/Anticipated Earth Material Cal/OSHA Soil Inclination ' Classification Alluvium Type C 1.5:1 Bedrock ForrnaGons 8 Compacted Fill Type B 1:1 No surcharge loads (spoil piles, earthmoving equipment, trucks, etc.) should be allowed ' within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope equal to 1.5 times the depth of the excavation. Excavations should be initially observed by the Project ' Geotechnical Engineer, Project Geologist and/or their representative to verify the recommendations presented or to make additional recommendations to maintain stability and safety. Moisture variations, differences in the cohesive or cementation characteristics, ' or changes in the coarseness of the deposits may require slope flattening or, conversely, permit steepening upon review by the Project Geotechnical Engineer, Project.Engineering ' Geologist, and/or their representative. Deep utility trenches may experience caving that will require special considerations to stabilize the walls and expedite trenching operations. ' Surface drainage should be controlled along the top'of the slope to preclude erosion of the slope face. If excavations are to be left open for long periods, the slopes should be ' sprayed with a protective compound and/or covered to minimize drying out, raveling, and/or erosion of the slopes. For excavations more than 5.0-feet in depth which will not be ' cut back to the recommended slope inclination, the contractor should submit to the owner and/or the owner's designated representative detailed drawings showing the design of ' shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection. If the drawings do not vary from the requirements of the OSHA Construction Safety Orders ' (CAL OSHA or FED OSHA, whichever is applicable for the project at the time of construction), a statement signed by a Registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State ' of California, engaged by the contractor at his expense, should be submitted certifying that the contractor's excavation safety drawings comply with OSHA Construction Orders. If the ' drawings vary from the applicable OSHA Construction Safety Orders, the drawings should be prepared, signed, and sealed by a Registered Civil or Structural Engineer in the State ' of California. The contractor should not proceed with any excavations until the project ' EnGEN Corporation ' Gudino 8 Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 19 ' owner or his designated representative has received and acknowledged the properly prepared excavation safety drawings. ' 8.5 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing: Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation ' and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cut/fill transitions, fill placement, and ' excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made ' prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement ' subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork completed for the 'development of subject property should be performed by EnGEN ' Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not"performed by EnGEN Corporatlon, liability for the safety and performance of the ' development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation. ' 8.6 Plan Review: Any changes to the Project referenced No. 1 Concept Grading Plan and any grading or foundation plans for the proposed development should, be provided for ' review by this office to verify compatibility with, site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the recommendations contained in this report. If EnGEN ' Corporation is not accorded the opportunity to make the recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of the recommendations presented in this ' report. 8.7 Pre-Bid Conference: It is recommended that a pre-bid conference be held with the ' owner or an authorized representative, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical Engineer and the proposed contractors present. This conference will ' provide continuity in the bidding process and clarify questions relative to the supplemental grading and construction requirements of the project. ' 8.8 Pre-Grading Conference: Before the start of any grading, a conference should be held with the owner or an authorized representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the Project Civil Engineer, and the Project Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to the intent of the supplemental ' EnGEN Corporation Gudlno&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 20 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. 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 conclusions and recommendations of'this,repoit are modified or ' verified in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable standards of our profession and the accepted soil and foundation engineering principles ' and practices at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed beyond the representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made to obtain information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site, limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional'or localized ' off-site conditions that may have an impact at the site. The recommendations presented 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 Corporation should be noted 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, wholly or in part, by changes outside of the ' control of EnGEN Corporation which occur in the future. Reference materials used in the preparation of this report include many of the references from the comprehensive list presented in the Appendix of this report. 1 ' EnGEN Corporation Gudino & Dominguez Residence Project Number: 4103-GFS ' January 2014 Page 21 Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. Often, because of design and construction details which occur on a project, questions arise concerning the geotechnical conditions on the site. If we can be of further service or should you have questions regarding this report, please do ' not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be applicable on the project. ' Respectfully submitted, oration ' t n aimbridge, Prind jo ratene, nC al NREP 279, Project Manager GE 1 Q,?,OFESS/() Distribution: (2)Addressee ��O BORN BRgT �Fy ' ti Oy0 Fyn C Z HWB/OB/ch w No. 162 M z FILE: EnGENtpmjectsb000-seriesW100k103GFS0udinoresidence J). ECHN�`P�Q. q�OFCALIF 1 1 1 ' EnGEN Corporation ' Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS Appendix APPENDIX A ' TECHNICAL REFERENCES 1. California Building Code, 2010, State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2010, California Building Code. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. ' 3. California Geological Survey, 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces: CDMG, Note 36. 4. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., Revised 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. ' 5. Kennedy, M.P.; 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southem Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines..and Geology, Special Report 131, 12 p., 1 Plate, Scale 1:24,000. ' 6. 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. ' 7. Siang S. Tan, Michael P Kennedy, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5 Quadrangle, San Diego & Riverside Counties, California, Version 1.0, Scale 1:24,000, Digital Database by Brad Nelson and Gary Patt;dated 2000. 1 8. County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports. 9. Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - County Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles. 10. Riverside County Land Information System: http://www3.tima.co.dverside.ca.us/pa/rclis/ 11. Southern California' Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating ' Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999. 12. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 2013, Southern California ' Earthquake Data Center Website, http://www.scecdc.scec.org. 13. U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application, United States Geologic Survey Website (http://geohazards.usas.gov/designmaps/us/application.php), Earthquake Hazards Program, Seismic Design Maps for Engineers, 2013. 1 1 ' EnGEN Corporation Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103.GFS ' Appendix 1 ' APPENDIX B ' (LABORATORY TEST RESULTS) 1 ,1 .1 1 1 ' EnGEN Corporation ®E �E:Q'�QQQQCW""iSQ:C':E=C'RENN. ■■ ■■u . ■■■ . . UE MW nEo �C:: ::::Q B,:Q::E:�:QQon anQQ ■n ■■■ - ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ ::�:QC::::::C::Q ::::::::j�■QQ::::::'Q:':QE':::E KIN 1 o E■OW:OW■■■■uuKN■■E■W■n■►i._..■u.t■.■n■.:C■C■■■Q■■■■■■■ :::EEEEEE ':EQ:E C: e��Q "::'e: E:::':::: 'Q:Q ::: ... EE■■ ■■■ :Q■■ ■■E . QQ■■■■ C■■ �.■o E::EE�EaQ . Q:::E 'Q::E:::EEE:E::::::EQQ:E.:.. u■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■v ■■. . ..■■..■■■. pp.... .' ... ONE :■■ ■■ E::• ■::'■QO E:::' :Q■ ■i E: : € ■ ..EGi'_ri ■r�.�i■■..:EQ.nQ...:Gu■QE■■■..III�G■■■■■■C■:GII u■ u ■ . 9C ■ ■■CC■■ Qn■ Qm C C■■ ■: ■f■ ■C■■� Rip E . .. .. .'. ■■■ QQQ C = :' :C■. ■ ■■" ` EEEEE�B.''E'Q' �EE'E:�E■'QEE:� E'■'EE:E:E�HIM 1 m� ■u ■ u ■ ■■ ■■■e■■ E E E��E,.■,E E R IC'I' E�E K EMIM IEEE E ■■■ ■Q EE...Ee. C■■CQ.■Q REMARK Hill a' on N „ E::Q::E: :Q:77GSEE . ... ■■■. ... :• ■ ■■■ Q■■■ ■■■■ ■EnErmilillon ■■ € KENN :Qra::�EEE::�Q:::' ■D2::000::. " E:::E .. Q'A::::�CRO 'C::: �EEEEEEEEEEINE'E . . e:i5�■is■i : �i:::MEME E EEE�EEEEEEEEEEp'EEEE �E■.■:Q..■■■ Q...' KNOW W■■■ ■OW . . - r WICLAY, BROWNr • r • : r • r Figure • • • • 1 UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 12/27/13 ' Job Number: 4103GFS Job Name: Gudino Property ' Location: 31466 Jeddediah Smith Road Sample Source: Bulk Sample TP-4@2' Sampled by: WB Lab Technician: PB Sample Descr: Silty sand with clay, Brown Wet Compacted Wt.: 583.1 Ring Wt.: 197.1 Dial Change Time Net Wet Wt.: 386.0 Reading 1: 0.100 N/A Wet Density: 116.6 Reading 2: 0.136 0.036 Wet Soil: 225.2 Reading 3: 0.148 0.048 Dry Soil: 207.4 Reading 4: 0.153 0.053 ' Initial Moisture (%): 8.6% Initial Dry Density: 107.4 ' % Saturation: 40.7% Final Wt. & Ring Wt.: 678.8 ' Net Final Wt.: 481.7 Dry Wt.: 355.8 Loss: 125.9 Expansion Index: 53 ' Net Dry Wt.: 355.8 Final Density: 106.0 Adjusted Index: 46.9 ' Saturated Moisture: 35.4% (UBC 16-2) 1 1 ' EnGEN Corporation 41625 Enterprise Circle,"B-2" ,Temecula, CA 92590 Office: 961.296.3511 • Fax: 961.296.3711 ' WebSite: www.engencorp.com 1 1 ' COMPACTION TEST REPORT ' 132 —— — 130.5 ' 129 a C 7/ - ' z - 1\4 - 0 27.5 ' 126 ZAV for Sp.G. _ 124.5 2.58 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 ' Water content, % ' Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified Elev/ ClasslFlcation Nat. G % > % < ' Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. Sp. . LL PI #4 No.200 3.1 ' TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density= 131.4 pcf SILTY FINE SAND BROWN ' Optimum moisture = 7.8 % Project No. 4103-GFS Client: Remarks: Project: GUDINO PROPERTY SAMPLE!#A-I SAMPLED BY WB O Location: TPI ®2' Sample Number:A-I SAMPLED ON 11-27-13 EnGEN Corporation-, Figure ' Tested By: PB 1 COMPACTION TEST REPORT ' 125 — — ' 124 ' 123 c — a N C N 122 NAI 1 - 121 Sp. for Sp.G. _ 120 2.54 ' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Water content, % ' Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI % > % < ' Depth USCS AASHTO MolsL #4 No.200 1.7 ' TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density= 123.1 pcf SILTY FINE SAND,TAN ' Optimum moisture= 10.0% Project No. 4103-GFS Client Remarks: Project: GUDINO PROPERTY SAMPLE# A-2 SAMPLED BY WB o Location: TP2 @ 4' Sample Number:A-2 SAMPLED ON 1 I-27-13 1 EnGEN Cor oration Figure ' Tested By: P13 1 ' COMPACTION TEST REPORT t 126 ' 124 � zi -iT L 122 N C I N -t-- 1 120 t 118 ' — — — 7-AV for Sp.G. = 116 2.59 ' 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified Elev/ Classification Nat. Depth USCS AASHTO Moist Sp.G. LL PI #4 No.200 7.9 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density= 124.3 pcf SILTY SAND W/CLAY,BROWN ' Optimum moisture= 10.2 % Project No. 4103-GFS Client: Remarks: ' Project: GUDINO PROPERTY SAMPLE#A-3 r7 SAMPLED BY WB o Location: TP4©2' Sample Number:A-A SAMPLED ON 11-27-13 1 EnGEN Cor ' ,oration Floure ' Tested By: PB 1 Gudino 8'Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS ' Appendix 1 APPENDIX C (EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOGS) 1 1 1 1 1 1 EnGEN Corporation 1 ' EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG Project Number: 4103GFS Project: Gudino- Dominguez Residence Test Pit Number: TP-1 Surface Elevation: ' Date: 1/27/13 Logged By: HWB Location: SEE PLATE 1 Groundwater Depth Sol Graphic Description a sample Maximum Optimum Relative% Dry of situ wp 01 Depth Density Moisture Compaction OSCS Density Moisture D Corse sand with some silt and gravel,dry, loose, 0 light brown, (Qal) 1.25 ' -2 .:.: Fine to coarse sand with silt,moist,loose,Tan. (Qal) 131.4 7.8 82.2 108.1 8.4 2.5 -3.5 3.75 131.4 7.8 84.0 110A 15.4 ' 5 ' 6 : : Medium dense 6.25 ' 7.5 ' 8.75 ' 10 11.25 12.5 ' 13.75 ' -15 BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION @ IT BELOW GROUND 15 SURFACE. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED, NO INDICATIONS OF HIGH GROUND WATER CONDITIONS OBSERVED TO MAXIMUM DEPTH 16.25 EXPLORTED. INSTALLED MONITORING WELL PER RCDEH REQUIREMENTS. INSPECTED AFTER 24 ' HOURS. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. [17.5 ' Notes: EiTGEN Corporation 1 ' EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG Project Number: 4103GFS Project: Gudino- Dominguez Residence Test Pit Number: TP-2 Surface Elevation: ' Date: 4/27/13 Logged By: WB Location: SEE PLATE 1 Groundwater Depth C ' a° n Sample Maximum Optimum Relative% Dry In-Situ Soll Graphic Description E Depth Density moisture Compaclbn uscs Density o Coarse to fine with with some silt and gravel, loose, 0 dry to slightly moist, light brown. (Qal) 0.5 1 -1 : : Fine to course sand with silt and some clay, medium 1 131.4 7.8 83.6 109.9 8.4 dense, moist,tan. (Qps/Residual Soil?) 1.5 ' 2 2.5 -3 Fine to coarse sand with silt and clay,dense, moist, 3 131.4 7.8 90.5 111.1 10.4 tan. (Pauba Formation Bedrock,Qps) ' 3.5 ' 4 4.5 5 ' 5.5 ' -6 BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION @ 6'BGS. NO 6 GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED&NO VISUAL EVIDENCE OF HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS OBSERVED. 6.5 ' 7 ' Notes: EnGEN Corporation 1 EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG Project Number: 4103GFS Project: Gudino- Dominguez Residence Test Pit Number: TP-3 Surface Elevation: ' Date: 1/27/13 Logged By: WB Location: SEE PLATE 1 Groundwater Depth a Soil Graphic DescriptionI Sample Maximum Optimum Relative% OS� Dry In-SIN Depth Density Moisture compaction Density Moisture o X X. *: Gravelly, coarse to fine sand with some silt, loose, 0 GP-SP :!4 1041 dry, light brown. (Colluvium,CQaq) ' pii — 0.5 ■ Coarse to fine sand with silt and some clay, medium 1 GP-GC ' dense, slightly moist,tan. (Pauba Formation Bedrock). •1.5 1.5 131.4 7.8 81.7 107.4 6.4 1 2 ' 2.5 3 ' 3.5 3.5 123.1 10.0 92.4 GP-GC 113.7 10.5 4 4.5 1 5 1 5.5 -6 BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION @ 6'BELOW GROUND 6 SURFACE. ' 6.5 ' 7 ' Notes: EnGEN Corporation 1 1 EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG Project Number: 4103GFS Project: Gudino- Dominguez Residence Test Pit Number: TP-4 Surface Elevation: Date: 1/27/13 Logged By: WB Location: SEE PLATE 1 Groundwater Depth ' m s Sample Madmum Optimum Relative% Dry In-Situ SON Graphic Description E Depth Density Moisture Compactlon USCS Density Moisture w 0 Coarse to fine sand with some silt,loose, slightly 0 moist, light brown. (Colluvium,CQal)) 0.5 -t jR. • Coarse to fine sand with silt and clay,medium dense, 1 GP-GC ' moist, tan. (Pauba Formation Bedrock). i -1.5 1.5 131.4 7.8 80.3 105.5 4.8 2 ' 2.5 3 ' 3.5 ►. ' -4 4 123.1 10.0 93.1 CH 114.7 10.2 ' 4.5 S 1 5.5 ' -6 BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION @ 6'BELOW GROUND 6 ' SURFACE. 6.5 1 7 ' Notes: EnGEN Corporation EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG 1 Project Number: 4103GFS Project: Gudino- Dominguez Residence Test Pit Number: TP-5 Surface Elevation: ' Date: 1/27/13 Logged By: WB Location: SEE PLATE 1 Groundwater Depth n a Sample Ma)dmum Optimum Relative% Dry In-Situ ' Soil Graphic Description Depth Density Moisture Compactim uscs Density Moisture 0 Coarse to fine sand with some silt,loose, slightly 0 ML-SP moist, light brown. (Colluvium,CQal)) 0.5 -t �. • : Coarse to fine sand with silt and trace clay, medium 1 SP-SC dense, moist,tan.(Pauba Formation Bedrock). -1.5 � 1.5 131.4 7.8 80.0 GW-GC 104.1 4.4 ' y 2 ' 2.5 ' 3 ' 3.5 -4 4 123.1 10.0 90.3 111.1 10.24 1 4.5 1 5 ' 5.5 -6 BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION @ 6'BELOW GROUND 6 SURFACE. 6.5 ' 7 ' Notes: EnGEN Corporation Gudino&Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS Appendix 1 1 ' APPENDIX D ' (TYPICAL GRADING DETAILS) 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 EnGEN Corporation 1 ' KEY AND BENCHING DETAIL ' FILL SLOPE _ _ PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL ----------------------- 1 __ - -- EXISTING _ -'_!!----' -� GROUND SURFACE REMOVE _"�_-:__""__•_•_ UNSUITABLE • -- I------ MATERIAL U4' •-�•�- .. BENCH MW- T DlFIB'T . f (MIN 5') TIMW � 1 (—Ew 10'MIN. (EQUIPMENT WIDTH) 1 FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE - -- ----------- --------------------- ------------------- EXISTING GROUND SURFACE - ___ -� _ �-�-------�-- _--- REMOVE .t- - "------ - UNSUITABLE � .�.._.._.. MATERIAL BENCH SUBORAIN - BACXDRAIN DETAIL 2'MI c[v IM �..-- (MIN S') (WHEN REQUIRED) ENSURE ■uuu■ (EQUIPMENT WIDTH) a--u�u--R - ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ CUT SLOPE a'MWnm 01■rctn AaS fm PVC -ENNEN- a ' o■u (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR vip or aPwwetl wtwltWewitn • rMJrrumrMpnaum between 1/a' TO FILL PLACEMENT) tll■nemrpMwa[bnkpn lbeu fonbbonom. SuaMaM rindtltlayYgbtwfWubk Nubar9e NOY:Mappotaa fJter latrcit fr<Oiry pn pemethruuleriglneerY elryrwal. (11 r w)mr/be wraMtetl ' amrtl3/4'mNM k / apa eraM, CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE ' PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE 77- li CUT SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR ' EXISTING - ---- _- TO FILL PLACEMENT) GROUND SURFACE ---�-_-- - II f_ REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL /._ __ ' 2'WN.RFGBNtN .xp�'�1 O 11 —Eld 1 O'MIN. I�I BENCH (EQUIPMENT WIDTH) (MIN S') 41625 Enterprise Circle Sowh.'B-2- (951)2 3511 •Fm(951)2W3211 ' Note:Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions wrw.engercorPcorn encountered.Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered on field conditions encountered. 1 Minimum Horizontal Removal Limits ' RACKCUT INCLINED 1'HORIZONTAL TO I'VERTICAL OR AS DESIGNED BY ENGEN CORPORATION TO MEET CALOSHA REGUIREMENTS \ MEASURE FROM BOTTOM I\ OF PROPOSED FOOTING i ' 1.-ter{-w-'�- .'::'..•:;:.•:; '`�� O LU cc .iALLUVILIM,6�! \ . LENGTH:--:- ' BEDROCK OR COMPETENT ALLUVIUM (SOIL-): ' REMOVALS TO EXTEND TO THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING LINES EQUAL TO DEPTH OF REMOVAL (LENGTH = HEIGHT) 1 1 1 ' ENGEN CORPORATION GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ' CUT LOT 1Opsol'- RO gvpR SBETDAC1f R / FROM 6MMWR —Z► �"(Y`� � I5'Min. COMPACTED FILL OVERE%CAVATE AND RECOMPACf . . ;.�;NJ AOCORDANCE WIM REOOMMENDATIONS '. OF ME GEOTECHNICAL REPORT / NOTE: DEEPER EXCAVATION MAYBE SUITABLE SOIL OR REQUIRED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ' GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEER IN STEEP TRANSITIONS ' CUT-FILL LOT (TRANSITION) �RI° MWWUM S SE CN IRON 9THUCTURE-1 / Min.r ' COMPACTED FILL /' .�' J.. , . . . OVERE%CAVATE AND RECOMPACT :.; ..—,W ACWRDANCE VATN i1ECAMAENDATgNS •.../''f'::: ° G� ': :. .. •.. .. OF THE GEOTECHMGL REPORT ' SUITABLE SOIL OF &' ,r " / NOTE: DEEPER EXCAVATION MAY BE GEOLOGIC UNIT 1�0 / REQUIRED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL / ENGINEER IN STEEP TRANSITIONS 1 / EnGEN Corporetlon 1 Gudino& Dominguez Residence Project Number:4103-GFS 1 Plates 1 1 1 PLATE 1 1 i i 1 0 - i 1 i 1 1 1 EnGEN Corporation 1 Qrr PLATE 1 � s �b �� ciTr of a,22.97' \ TEMECULA SITE GUEST H \ 158.50 PAD J 'Ab pS) v �s u -4 _ Approximate Limits of 1 \ s» ,• Yw Rd e� ) Over-Excavation Are as 1 r"� Qal FLL 'so. \ ' rt i \ / VICINITY MAP-NO SCALE `1 16.4' 46) / ,P.s Qpg / / \\ i 1, Qps Qal \ / MAIN HOUSE /� L 158 50 PAD / / ® / LEGEND \ \ i cur / \ \ PAUBA FORMATION BEDROCK Qal =ALLUVIUM /Qal /'/ 'V = EXPLORATORYBACKHOEPIT TP-1 PS V — 7 =GEOLOGIC CONTACT \ \ \ III: LIMITS OF UNDOCUMENTED Approximate Limits of / � Undocumented Fill (Af) / / APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF OX AREA 0 40 BO 120 160 \\ al,, 1" = 40' V / Geotechnical Feasibilit Site Plan Project Name: Gudino & Dominguez Residence Date: January 2014 Project Number: 4103GFS Client: Mr & Mrs. Gudino EnGEN COrpOf ati0t) 41625 Enterprise Circle South,B-2 Temecu la,California 92590 951.296.3 511 - Fax: 951.296-3711 www.engencorp.com Legal Description: APN: 959-020-002