HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical UpdateChris Stevens . Sean Smith
Tyrone Woods • Glen Doherty
EnGEN
April 5, 2013
PROJECT NO.:-24-ealIze
FILE CATEGORY : Z.
PROJECT MGR.-
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency
4080 Lemon Street, 9"' Floor
Riverside, California 92502-1409
(951) 955-1935 - Facsimile: (951) 955-3157
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE LETTER AND RESPONSE TO RIVERSIDE
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRE-DRC MEETING REVIEW
COMMENTS, GATEWAY PLAZA, CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. PA12-
178, review dated February b, 2013.
REFERENCES: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Geotecbnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed
Structures, Parcel Map No. 29132, South Side of Route 79 South, Westerly
Adjacent to Avenida de Missiones, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, Project Number: T2080-GS, report dated July 7, 2000.
2. EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Report and Compaction Test Results,
Rough Grading Operations, Schooley Trust, Parcels 1-5 of Parcel Map 29132,
Highway 79 South and Avenida de Missiones, City of Temecula, County of
Riverside, California, Project Number: T2080-C, report dated May 21, 2001.
3. Henry -Ann Company, Gateway Plaza Conceptual Grading Plan, scale 1"=30',
plan dated January 7, 2013.
Dear Mr. Jones:
This letter is presented as an update to the 2000 and 2001 geotechnical reports by EnGEN Corporation
referenced above, and as a response to the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency
Planning Department review comments dated February 6, 2012. The site was inspected by a geologist
from this firm on March 12, 2013. The geologic map of the vicinity is provided as Figure 1. The Riverside
County Fault Zone map is provided as Figure 2. A copy of a recent aerial photograph of the site is
provided as Figure 3. The review of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(RCFCWCD) historical aerial photographs is provided as Table 1. Copies of photographs taken during the
March 12, 2013 inspection are included as Attachment A. A copy of the County Review comments is
included as Attachment B. A reduced copy of the conceptual grading plan is included as Attachment C.
The site is located in the stream valley of the Temecula Creek, on the south side of Highway 79 and west
side of Avenida de Missiones, in Temecula, California. Topography at the site and surrounding areas is
nearly flat. A sparse to moderate cover of weed growth is located across the site, along with some scattered
brush. A pile of concrete rubble, estimated at approximately 5 feet by 5 feet in area, is located near the
northwestern corner of the site. The parcel adjacent to the north of the site is developed with a bank
building and associated driveway and parking areas, the parcel adjacent to the east of the site (across
Avenida de Missiones) is developed with single family residences, the parcel adjacent to the west of the
site is developed with condominiums and the parcels adjacent to the south of the site are developed with a
church/school building and associated driveway and parking areas.
The subject site is Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 29132. A geotechnical study was performed on Parcel Map
29132 by EnGEN Corporation in 2000. The 2000 geotechnical study was submitted to the City of
41625 Enterprise Circle South, B-23emecula California 92590 95 1,296.351 1 - Fax: 951.296.371 I
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Page 2
567389):);)8976<=>?P9¢?<7&?A>2
Base Map: USGS, 2000, Geologic map of the Pechanga 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego & Riverside County
LEGEND
0+14-&2)34V.
QSjC
o Youandng colluvlal deposits (Holocene and lat Pl.lstcena)- Mostly poorlyconsolidaled, Qp
= Pauisa Formation (early Pla)stocanal -Ligld Brovun,moderately well indurated.
poorly sorted slope wash and stream deposits.
extensively clossheded, channedled and filled sandstone and siltstone.
Qw
= Adtve channel and wash despoits(Late Holocene)- Unconsolidatedtolocally Tt
o Temecula Arkose(Pleistocene) -Pale greenish-yellrml welldnduraled,Medium and coarse -
poorly consolidated sand and gravel deposits In active washesand streams
giamed sandstone, imerbeded firm gralned, tuffaceous sandstone, siltstone and claystone.
Activeal)uv[umfloodplaindeposlts(LateHolocene)-Unconsolidatedtolocally
_ Fault - dashed where interred,dottedwhere concealed.Aunwanduomherindicate
__�••
puody consolidated sans and gravel deposts in active alluvial (loud plains
direction and angle of dip of larut plane.
Qya
_ Young alluvial flood plain depaslts lHoloceneand rate Pleistocenel- Mostly poorly,
'-' consolidated, poohysurted, permeable ll od plain deposits,
QyC
o Young Alluvium fan deposits lHolocena and late Plaistcenel- mostly poorly consolidated
and poorly rotted sand, gravel, cobble and boulder deposits in young alluvia( [arts.
QVOa
= Vary oldalluval Flood plain deposits (early Pleistocene)- Mostly well indurated,
poorly sorted semi -permeable clay and sand flood plain depusits
I
EnGEN Corporation
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Page 3
Temecula and approved for grading. Subsequently, the 5 parcels of Parcel Map 29132, including the
subject site, were rough graded in 2001 under the observation and testing of EnGEN. The 2001
compaction report was submitted to the City of Temecula and approved for construction. The buildings of
Parcel Map 29132 adjacent to the subject site were subsequently constructed between 2005 and 2010. As a
result of the removals performed during the 2001 rough grading, engineered fill thickness at the subject site
varies from approximately 15 to 20 feet below existing grade. The 2013 conceptual grading plan indicates
minor cuts and fills, on the order of 1 to 2 feet, are proposed at the site. Based on the conceptual grading
plan the engineered fill thickness beneath the proposed building pad will be approximately 18 feet. It is
assumed that the proposed development is a single -story slab -on -grade commercial building.
!'#$%&'(')'o "*&%+", &'- . $ / 0 1 '! 2 $ 3 0 '4 . /&'5.�-3'If 6
i
GpPo 13Mdr
` r < , �G •t Gp
`C_ f x• I `a ��� ��
0'4��
9a
CA
q o tii
VLO
.SITE �, ti
a A B : CDEEF
A B : CGHD I
TOmtula
I__,. .,
r
•• NOROVEOR •..,-. O ptt 1 ��Y� RgDBA tiiri�
'i 1-!LI. GR U �d� -� _ Y�'t.
YOny
,4, IX
SOS
��
�;
C?Q�� OLF
Riverside County TLMA GIS w
=7?®'A >B`1'* WEAFCV$GHIXIV#A) +!
LEGEND
r_1!"#"$%"&'()*$"# '+,%„w!%:)%"!
-+.-/ )0! 0$12,%0'3)2#$'41,"
r r
■$12. g0 `."1 #1+$•*,{1*=12.&}*0 ■!{°$�#'!$2&0'41,
I
EnGEN Corporation
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Page 4
The site appears to be in essentially the same condition as at the completion of rough grading of the site in
2001. The geotechnical recommendations of the 2000 geotechnical investigation and 2001 compaction
report are still considered valid and applicable. Prior to the proposed grading, vegetation and man-made
debris, including the observed pile of concrete rubble, should be removed from the site and not re -used as
fill material. Any undocumented fill encountered should be excavated, cleared of any debris, and may be
re -used as fill material. All bottoms should be scarified a minimum of 12-inches, moisture conditioned to
within 2% of optimum levels, and recompacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction, based on
ASTM D 1557 prior to fill placement. Pavement design recommendations should be provided based on R-
value testing of soils obtained from near subgrade elevation after the proposed grading is performed.
FIGURE 3 - Recent Aerial Photo
Source of Aerial: RCFCWCD, Photo dated: 3/16110, Note: Fault location based on USGS, 2000, Pechanga Quad.,
Alquist Priolo Special Study Zone per CDMG 1990.
The site is located within the US Geological Survey (USGS) Pechanga 7.5' Quad. Based on the USGS
Pechanga Quad geologic map, the Wildomar Fault, which is part of the larger Elsinore Fault Zone, is
EnGEN Corporation
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Page 5
located approximately 700 feet southwest of the site, as indicated on Figure 1 (USGS 2000). The fault does
not trend toward the site. The site is not located within an Alquist-Prioto Special Studies Zone (CDMG
1990); however, the site is located within a Riverside County Fault Zone, as indicated on Figure 2 (RCIAS
2013). Stereo pairs of historical aerial photographs were obtained from the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) and reviewed for geomorphology that would
indicate faulting in the vicinity of the site. The earliest aerial photograph, from 1949, was not available as
part of a stereo pair, however, subsequent photographs were available as stereo pairs. A strong
photolineament was observed southwest of the site in the stereo pairs of photographs. A summary of the
observations is provided in Table 1.
TABLE-1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW ,
Photo Date RCFCWCD
Description
Photo No.'s
5/23/49 1 of 71 t
(le photo only) The site appears to be fanned with row crops
sing ............. ....... .._.. ..._.
............ ........
........ ......
It appears the surrounding area is utilized for row crops. A strong
6/20/74 1039 & 1040 l
photolineament is observed — linear topography that trends northwest -
southeast along the western base of the hills to the north and south of the
site. The linear topography is visible in all subsequent photos.
5/4/80 1057 & 1058 k
The field at the site appears fallow; however, remnants of furrows are still
visible. .
11/27/83 ! 200 & 201
Same as the previous photo.
Remnants of furrows are no longer visible. The large housing development
4/10/90 19-21 & 19-22
l
to the southeast of the site is under construction. _..... ........... ........
_. .......... ........
i
_.... ............ ............. __.
are earth appears to be exposed throughout the entire parcel map, and the
2/3/1995 19-16 & 19-1
parcel map appears to be utilized as a staging area for adjacent construction.
The adjacent residential development to the east, has been constructed.
4/12/2000 `t 19-16 & 19-17
Bare earth appears to be exposed throughout the entire parcel map.
The individual parcels of the parcel map including the site, have been
7/27/05 19-17& 19-18
raded g • The adjacent condominiums to the west have been constructed.
,
The bank building adjacent to the north of the site and church/school
3/I6/10 19-18 & 19-19
As noted, a strong photolineament was observed southwest of the site in the aerial photographs. The
photolineament consists of linear topography, indicating faulting. The linear topography consists of hills
that trend northwest -southeast that are truncated by flat topography along the western base of the hills. The
truncation along the western side of the hills that indicates faulting corresponds with the location of
mapped faulting within the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone. The location of the faulting is depicted on
Figure 3. As shown, the location of faulting is approximately 700 feet southwest of the site, and does not
trend toward the site. No photoliueaments were observed to trend toward the site.
Several County Geologic Studies (GEO studies) were performed in the vicinity of the site. The locations of
nearby parcels that were studied are identified as GEO974, and GEO1559/GEO2316 on Figure 2. As
shown, GEO 974 encompasses a large residential development south of the site, while GEO1559/GEO2316
is located west of the site. Faulting is located in the eastern corner of GEO1559/GEO2316 within the A-P
Zone, and a building setback of 50 feet was recommended in that study. Faulting is located along the
eastern side of GEO974 within the A-P Zone, and a building setback of 75 feet was recommended in that
study. The subject site is located approximately 200 feet outside of the A-P Zone, approximately 700 feet
from the Wildomar Fault.
EnGEN Corporation
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Page 6
Based on the approved 2000 geotechnical investigation and 2001 compaction report at the subject site,
along with the review of the approved County Geologic Studies GE0974, and GE01559/GE02316, review
of published USGS, State and County Fault mapping, the review of historical aerial photographs and lack
of observable faulting features within the limits of the site m trending toward the site, the likelihood of
surface rupture at the site is low.
The 2000 EnGEN geotechnical investigation utilized UBC standards for seismic design parameters which
have subsequently been superseded by 2010 CBC standards. The 2010 CBC seismic design parameters are
provided below:
DESCRIPTION
DESIGN PARAMETERS
SITE LATrruDE:
33.4769`N
SITE LONGITUDE:
-I17.1662`W
SITE CLASS:
i D
SPECTRAL RESPONSE SI1012'r :
0.2 see --Ss: 1.89
SPECTRAL RESPONSE— 1-SECOND:
(1.0 sec) —Si: 0.77
SHORT PERIOD SITE COEFFICIENT:
E Fa: 1.0
1-SECOND PERIOD SITE COEFFICIENT:
i Fv: 1.5
ADJUSTED SPECTRAL RESPONSE:
Short Period - 0.2 see
— S,,,,,: 1.89
ADJUSTED SPECTRAL RESPONSE:
One See) — S,,,,: 1.154
DESIGN SPECITA1, RESPONSE:
l Short Period 0.2 see —
S,,: 1.258
DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE:
One See) 1.0 see — Sai:
0,770
The Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency Planning Department provided
review comments for the site dated February 6, 2012. The review comments are addressed below, and a
copy of the review comments is included as Attachment B. For ease of reference, County review
comments are restated with our responses.
Comment 1: Based on... the County's General Plan policies, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and
current practice, the following would be required and/or recommended,for this proposed
project:
An application for County geologic study (GEO) should be submitted to allow for formal
review of the above referenced EnGEN report [dated July 7, 2000], the report reviewed and
approved bl, the County Geologist prior to approving this project. The following are the
minimum requirements for the GEO report and associated submittal procedm-es:
PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THIS PROTECT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION, THE
FOLLOWING SPECIAL GEOLOGIC STUDIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED 710 AND
APPROVED BYTHE COUNTY GEOLOGIST:
A geologic/geotechnical investigation report. The investigation shall address geologic
hazards including, but not necessarily limited to, .slope stability, rock fall hazards,
landslide hazards, surface fault rupture, fissures, liquefaction potential, collapsihle
and/or expansive soils, hychroconsolidation, subsidence, wind and water erosion, dehris
flows, seiche, and ground shaking potential. For completeness and direct correlation
to the proposed project, the consultant shall he provided the most recent copy of the
project case exhibit (tract map, parcel map, plot plan, CUP, etc.),jor incorporation
into the consultant's report. Furthermore, the consultant .shall plot all appropriate
geologic and geotechnical data on this case exhibit and include it as an
appendix/figure/plate in their report. The geologic/geotechnical investigation report
EnGEN Corporation
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Page 7
shall be reviewed and approved by the County Engineering Geologist prior to
scheduling this case for a public hearing.
Response 1: A geotechnicai investigation was performed for the site in 2000. It was submitted to the
City of Temecula and approved for grading. The site and surrounding area was
subsequently graded in 2001. Geologic hazards are addressed in the 2000 investigation,
and a supplemental discussion on nearby faulting is provided above. The 2000
investigation has been updated with 2010 CBC seismic parameters above.
Comment 2: The project should be conditioned for incidental paleo finds.
Response 2: This comment should be addressed by a qualified paleontologist. It should be noted that the
site was rough graded in 2001, and therefore the paleontological context of any potential
finds has been destroyed. Only precise grading of the near -surface soils is contemplated as
a part of the proposed development.
Comment 3: It appears the impact to mineral resources would be less than significant.
Response 3: The site was rough graded in 2001 and only precise grading of the near -surface soils is
contemplated as a part of the proposed development. Therefore, we concur that the
proposed development poses an insignificant impact to mineral resources.
Comment 4: The project should be conditioned far the possibility of inadvertent archaeological finds as
well as for the possibility of uncovering human remains.
Response 4: This comment should be addressed by a qualified archaeologist. It should be noted that the
site was rough graded in 2001, and therefore the archaeological context of any potential
finds has been destroyed. Only precise grading of the near -surface soils is contemplated as
a part of the proposed development.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. We hope this is sufficient for your present needs.
Should you have any questions, please contact our office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
H. Wayne Bainbridge, Principal
General TviamAger
rP �y� E E RIN
Colby M hews, Engineerin Geologis ��
CEG 2460 O �i MATly c�
O
Distribution: (2) Addressee
Q F_ O
I- Nc.2460 —
Lij Ln
OF
CALI�G��\P
sbjo Bratene. al
GE 1 2
Q,�'pFFSS/
.
rrn
LU Na. 162 X
CC
v T}
`i�TFCH4A
\�OF CALIFO�/
EnGEN Corporation
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
References Page 1 1
REFERENCES
1. California Building Code (CBC), 2010
2. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1990, State of California Special Studies Zones,
Pcchanga Quadrangle, Revised Official Map, Effective January 1, 1990.
3. EnGEN Coilmration, 2000, Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Stucly, Proposed Structures, Parcel
Map No. 29132, South Side of Route 79 South, Westerly Adjacent to Avenida de Missiones, City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T2080-GS, report dated July 7, 2000.
4. EnGEN Corporation, 2001, Geotechnical Report and Compaction Test Results, Rough Grading
Operations, Schooley Trust, Parcels 1-5 of Parcel Map 29132. Highway 79 South and Avenida de
Missiones, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T2080-C, report dated
May 21, 2001.
5. Henry -Ann Company, Gatervav Plaza Conceptual Grading Plan, scale 1"=30', plan dated January 7,
2013.
6. Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS), 2013, Website reviewed at
http://www3.tlma.co.riverside.ca.tis/pa/relis , viewed on February 26, 2013.
7. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 2013, Southern California
Earthquake Data Center Website, http://wvww.seecdc.scee.m•g.
8. US Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps,
Open File Report OF 2008-1128.
9. US Geological Survey (USGS), 2000, Geologic Map of the Pechanga 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego and
Riverside County, California, scale 1'=2000'
10. U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application, United States Geologic Survey, Website
(littp://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.plip), Earthquake Hazards
Program, Seismic Design Maps for Engineers, 2013.
EnGEN Corporation
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Attachments 1
ATTACHMENT A
(Site Inspection Photographs)
FnGFN Corporation
] nG1 N Corp
Project No: 2080-CS
Gateway Plaza
Photos taken: 3/12/13
Photo PaW: 1
Photo #1
View from the northeast corner facing south toward the church/school.
Photo #2
View from the northeast corner facing south.
EnGEN Corp Photo Page: 2
Project No: 2080-CS
Gateway Plaza
Photos taken: 3/12113
Photo #3
View from the northeast corner facing west toward the condominiums.
Photo #4
View fromthe northeast corner facing west toward the condominiums.
EnGEN Corp
Project No: 2080-CS
Gateway Plaza
Photos taken: 3/12/13
Photo Page: 3
r
Photo #S
View from the northwest corner facing south toward the church/school.
Photo #6
View from the northwest corner facing east toward the single family residences
on the opposite side of Avenida de Missions. A relatively small concrete rubble
pile is located in the foreground.
EnGEN Corp
Project No: 2080-CS
Gateway Plaza
Photos taken: 3/12/13
Photo Page: 4
Photo #7
Concrete rubble pile near the northwest corner of the site.
Photo #8
View from the northwest corner facing north toward the bank.
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Attachments
ATTACHMENT B
(Riverside County Planning Dept. Review Letter)
CnGCN Corporation
PLAN. NON41 DEPARTMENT
]?ltecYpr .
Febntary 6, E413 PaS s 2 (including this -
City' ofTemeolrla PIE =4 De
�#iemivn: Kitany TaJi0i
`` Pre)3IC �eetingltewiev Comments
5 `' ,• Gat'ew,ay P
City of Te ecnl[a Case Ni' PA12-178 E
'' " • We ere'in recei t df the Manning Department Project Transm� I and case exhibits for the.referenced
case. In addiUc I in, We received a copy of a EndEN Corporatior July 7, 2000. °Geoteohnical/Ceological
Engineering Sturdy". The following comments are based on review of these documents and the
County'? GIS d tabase.
1. 11fnh no re Ord of the COunty precious) receiving y Ong Or revie ink the IwnG5N repent.
2. The Site Is I cateed in a County fault zone. 1 ;I
3. The'site pa iceI is located' in the County's subsidence potential zone and. very high ligp on
potential zone.,1 l
4" The °site is 1 6 cated in the Lounty's zone of low potential fo aleontoE ical resources.
Gee.. •
i f i
5. The ite is I caked In an area cfasslW by the State as M" -3 for mineral resources,
The 5ife is nit designate as beingof regional egional or statewid ' Ignificance for mineral resources,
7• lire Wte ma have contained sign ifroant cultural resources.) However, aerial photo review indicates
the site may:have been modified by grading and/or agdcult ral activities.
I
g rre t practice, the fol owing woulh the above and the C! d s General be required lan and/or recom Policies,
r Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and
`I onded for this proposed proleot:
9. An a�pllca8 h for County �eologic study.(GED) should be { ilimitted to allow for formal ieview of the
above refereced EnGEN report, the report reviewed and proved by the County Geologist prior to
approving this project. The following are the minimum requl ements for the GI=O report and
associated s I bmittal procedures:
P1-?1pR TO SCHEDULING THIS PROJECT FOR A PUBLIC' �i4RING/ACTION, THE FOLLOWING
SPECIAL G40LOGIC ,STUDIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED 1
GEOLOG1s7'. AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTy
I i
A geologib/M0h? hnical InvestJgatlon report. The investigation all address geol is bozo
including, but not ecesse ly limited to, slops stability, rock fall zalds, Iandsildehazards, hazards
fault
rupture, fissures, flquefaction pgtential, collapsible and/or expanOff soils, hydroconsolidation,
subsidence, wind land water erosion, debris flows, selche, and g; undshaking potential. For
Riverside Office - 4080 Lemon Street, 12th ploot iI
P-0Q Box 1409, R49relde, Gallfomla 92602-1409 �ssi,��I Office � Cali !;I Cerrito Road
(951) 958-3200 • Fax (951) 955-1811 ' �'"� a Califdmla 9Z211
i (760 �*3-9277 • Fax (760) 863-7556
completeness
recent copy of
the coosgltanr
data on this ca
Note: acquisi
(DBF esurnal
Planning Get
submitted, In
payment should
The appllcanta'
grading pemit fr
location of one
2. The project
I
3. It appears th
4. The project:
the possibilit
Although the Cc
hazards 'review c
impacts to Palec
be happy to pro\
other respurces.
Thank you for th
(961) 955ZB63
I
Sincerely,
RIVERSIDE
9 direct correlation to the proposed project, the
project case exhibit (coact rnapr parcel map, r.
n =port. Forthenore, the consultant shall plot a
exhibit and it it as an appendix/rigure/pl,
-lical investigation report shall be reviewed am
scheduling Phis case for a public hearing.
' I
of a County geologic inport (GCO) number an
$1224 fertho 1.48•acre proposed project). At
c Report application (case sub-ty)o GE03) ar
;on by the applicant or hisArer representative,
Depert). These iterns should be submitted at
lot be given to (he Planner or County Goologr:
Y their consultant should also be aevare that C
r any exploratory excavations consisting of 10
,to or more. This applios to all trenching, bori,
tion that mn y be necessary.
hOUld be conditioned for incidental paleo finds
� I
impact to mineral resources would be less tl
hould be conditioned for the possibility of inad
r of uncovering human remains.
i
rnry Geologist is not currently contracted with
thor than for projects within the Alquist-Priolo
ntological Resources, Archaeological, or Mine
ide'repo I. review services to the City for other
i
opportunity jo review this case for the City of
,'you have any questions.
DUN1Y PUNNING DEPARTMENT
Lbna, Director
vid L. Jones, CFG No. 22.8
hief'Enginering Geologist, TLMA-Planning
cc: Temecula File: PA12-0178
j
o1GeolMryrr ernsdllx ReWmvsVPA12 ;0978.dxK
,onsullant shall be provided the most
rt plan, CUP, etc.) for incorporation into
approprrato geologic and geotechh/cal
e in theirmfiort. The
approved by the County C'rigineering
submittal of review fees is inquired
&ports (2 wet-signod original copies),
or base fee payment'sllould be
one of the CounVa two main offices
e .and Use counter. Repoits and
directly.
mty Ordinance 457.98 tequiies a
7 cubic yards or greater in any one
Is'and any access road
significant.
r
I,
ent archaeological finds as well as for
City of Temecula for geologic
ie, or for review for potential
Flesources, the County would
ologic hazards and/or these
mecula. Please call me at
�� � 11 n 1�.� 19d0000ZMOBWZ'ela4 7,2:ek¢"d OOOOSSOlS6 wa���
Mr. David Jones, Chief Engineering Geologist
Riverside County
April 2013
Attachments
ATTACHMENT C
(Conceptual Grading Plan)
EnGEN Corporatio❑ —
1050
1040
30 0 15 30 611
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1'=30'
Fill 10 " 0 a I a -Ma
APPLICANTIOWNER:
PARKER 215, LLC
27989 HOLLAND ROAD
MENIFEE, CA 92584
ATTN: DON PARKER, PRESIDENT
TEL: (951) 377-2125
FAX: (951) 246-9010
A. P. N.:
961-290-002
PROJECT NAME:
GATEWAY PLAZA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 29132 AS PER MAP
FILED IN BOOK 199, PAGES 78 THROUGH 80,
INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY
DATE SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:
DENNIS JANDA, INC.
MAPPING/SURVEYING SERVICES
FIELD SURVEY DATE: 3-29-06
FEMA FLOOPLAIN AND/OR—FL-0-ODWAY,
NO FEMA FLOOPLAIN AND/OR FLOODWAY WITHIN
PROPERTY
SPECIAL HAZARD ZONES:
THERE ARE NO SPECIAL HAZARD ZONES WITHIN
PROPERTY
APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES (CY)
NET
CUT
FILL
CUT
FILL
1,222
1,911
689
M.
_z-_5_XU1
CROSS SECTION A —A
SCALE: VER: 1"=20'
HOR.: 1"=5'
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completect
1050
um
1040
1040
z
_j
a.
0
al
AVENIDA I
DE MISSIONS I
1050
1040
1050
am
PACEL 'A'
LLA NO. 3033
INST. NO. 382862
REC'D 11-2-88
O.R. RIV. CO. CALIF.
11
Uj
z
LU
0-
0
cr
(L
....................... .............................................................
SOUTHEASIERLY
WALK
......................... ........... ...... ................................................
IN-
717
77717
......................... ..................................... ...................... ................................
0+50 0+00 0+50 0+00
CROSS SECTION B-8 CROSS SECTION C—C
SCALE: VER: 1"=20' SCALE: VER: 1"=20'
HOR.: 1"=5' HOR.: 1"=5'
DATE I BY I REVISIONS I ACCID IDATE I BENCHMARK
PARCEL 1
A P.M. 29132
ALTURA CREDIT UNION,
IX 24' R C OCAL
Z;
AMENT
MIN
y.
D ROPOS D
H. F
-M.-,., ..,,,, .... S
�\ S
ONE
737347* E A
1050 1050
1040 1040
0+50 0+00
z
a.
0
. ..... ... ... ................ . . ..... .
t
........... ....
EXIST. SLOPE
ESMT. PER
INSTRUMENT
NO.2004-0009399
,a 01
_X60M*11 0 1011myj
ej
I 061LIZ
SCALE: VER: 1"=20'
HOR.: 1"=5'
SCALE SEAL:
1 11=30'
vertical
1050
1040
0+50
'Tji
EX,. PRIV.
j6NES" F. f.
0
(0
....... . ....
X
_2
EX 24' RECIPROCAL A I
EASEMENT
50' 50t
R.
w S
110
H
17
ii
lr
19
jj
ks
L
. . .......
V)
Llj
p
z
.... ... .......
vim/ ��� : II? } ?IV) ik.
U)
. . . . . . . . . . .
K
V_
LLJ
3
13
0
3
V)
:w z
a;,: R.
PROPOSED
"JONES" F. H
............
r Yu
PARCEL 3
- P.M. 2913,1
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN PER
LD05�022GR
. ....... .....
CROSS SECTION E—E
MODIFIED COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STD. NO.310
NOT TO SCALE
ENTRANCE TO RIP -RAP IS 2" OF RIVER ROCK OVER
PIPED FOR WIDTH OF
CONCRETE STEPOUT 6" OF GRAVEL FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION
(SAME AS DETAIL A (t=3). MATCH F.L. OF GUTTER
P.LANTER'�
m
TYPE
D-6
CURB is WI AT F.L. ELEV. '-.TYPE D-6 CURB
CROSS SECTION F—F
NOT TO SCALE
Drawn By Checked By
AP DP
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
DONM C. PARKER
R.C.E. No 42760 Expires
X 8'
101MIN-11
6161,N*-IN
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING CONTOUR — MAJOR
............... EXISTING CONTOUR — MINOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR — MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR — MINOR
................................
�: . .......... ......... PROPOSED CONTOUR — MINOR
S EXISTING SANITARY MAIN
_W_ EXISTING WATER MAIN
........ .
PAVEMENT AREA
...... ....
SIDEWALK AREA
LANDSCAPING AREA
20% DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION AND
SLOPE PERCENTAGE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT (ADA) PATH OF TRAVEL
PR CURB OUTLET — PER CITY OF TEMECULA STANDARD DETAIL 301
PR 8" PVC STORMLINE
PR 2' X 3' CATCH BASIN W/ "FLO—GARD CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERT
MODEL NO. FF-2436DO "
PR 2' X 3' CATCH BASIN W/ "FLO—GARD CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERT
MODEL NO. FG—M2436 I$
EXISTING 6' TALL CMU SCREEN WALL WITH STUCCO FINISH
o PR CURB & GUTTER TYPE A-6 PER CITY OF TEMECULA STANDARD
DETAIL 200
O PR TYPE "D-6" CURB PER CITY OF TEMECULA STANDARD DETAIL NO.
204A
O EX DRAINAGE PAN PER LD06-012GR
O EX 2' X 2' CATCH BASIN W/FLO—GARD CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERT
MODEL NO. FF-24D PER LD06-012GR
10 EX 8" PVC STORMLINE PER LD06-012GR
11 EX CURB OUTLET (STD. NO. 301) PER LD06-012GR
@ PR SLOTTED PARKING BUMPERS
13 PR EASTERN GRASS SWALE
14 PR SOUTHERN GRASS SWALE
15 PR DRAINAGE PAN
17 EX SANITARY LATERAL TAP
18 EX FIRELINE WATERLINE TAP
19 EX DOMESTIC WATERLINE TAP
20 EX FIRE HYDRANT TO BE RELOCATED
o21
GRASSPAVER2 POROUS PAVEMENTS YSTEM BY INVISIBLE
STRUCTURES, INC., PER MANUFACTURER'S FIRELANE DETAIL.
PA 06-0178
BUILDING AND SAFETY
REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
717LE 24 DISABLED A CCESSIBILI TY ONL Y
PLAN DATE: JANUARY 7, 2013 1 APPROVED BY NAME
N
,#*%,f TWf 0011 ^Ar APrM!FjFffAr,0"jf ffff
RECOMMENDED BY- DA 7Et-- A ULVAIYIMLNI OF J`ULFLAL. WUKAZ)
ACCEPTED BY- DATE- GATEWAY PLAZA
fiffi4W J. PARKS CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBUC WORKS
R.C.E. No. 19744 or
prepared f
PARKER 215, LLC.
Henry -Ann Company
Management — Builders
32823 TEMECULA PARKWAY, TEMECULA, CA 92592
(PH) 951-302-2600 (FX) 951-302-7676
DATE
Drawing No.
PRELIM -GRADING
C 1
Sheet 1 OF 1