HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 31821 Supplemental Geotechnical Study
I~~
!I~EN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
TR3B'~1
Co~oration
.ScirEngineenngnConsuI!lIlQSeMces.~neetinoGeolog'l'.COOlllCbOoTestJ~
.inspecliom.C~onMatenalslesling.I..aborarOf)'Tesal19.~Tesring
.Geolll0.WaIlYRtscuteStudies.PI1aseI&liEnvir~ISitr~
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
SUPPl;.EMENTAl GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Remington Business Center
Asses,sor's Parcel Numbers: 909-370-012 and 909-370-016
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-3 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 24085-4
Remington,Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 22, 2003
Prepared for:
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KREC II, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iSection Number and iTitle
PaQe
1,0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRiPTION....".........".".....".."...""..."".".".""."......".. ""'''''''''''' 2
2.0 SITE REVIEW ."".."...".."....".."............"........."........."".....".""."."."..",. .......""..2
2.1 Literature Research .........."..""...."..."...........,,,.......,,..,,,,.,,..:..,,..,,.. .""".....""." 2
2.2 Site Reconnaissance....".."""""........."."."......""...""".,,,,,,,..,,..,,,.,. ...,,,,,.,,.2
2.3 Laboratory Testing...."..".." ".........."........, ..". .."......"" "... ".,,'.... "'"'''''' .. "..,,, "..2
2.3.1 ,General ".."... "" "..""...."... "......"........... "." """..", ""'"'''''''''''''''' ""'.." 2
2.3.2 ,Classification ...." ".."......"......"......"...... "'.." "'.. "...."... ".., ...... "..,.,....... 2
2.3.3 I Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test".. 3
2.3.4 : Expansion Index Test........................."........"..."...,,,..,,,.,,,......,..,,.,,,,,,.. 3
2.3.5 ,Soluble Sulfate Test ........"........".."........""......"".."".".....".."....."...3
2.4 Faulting ........................................... ..................... ..... ..... .......... ... .... ......, ....,..., .....3
2.4.1 ,Murrieta Creek Faull....................."".."..""".."".....,,,,,,,..,,.,,,,,,.....,,..,.,.3
2.4.2 ,Elsinore Fault Zone ....................."..."....""..."."..."".........,....",.,,,.,,,,,,,4
2.4.3 ,Surface Fault Rupture ......"..........."."...".""......"...,.,,,,,..,,..,,..,,...,.,,.,,,,4
2.5 Seismicity.."....... ""....""".."............"......"....",,.. """"'''''' "." "'"'''''''''''' "'''''''''' 5
2.6 Liquefaction .......................................... ........ ".... ............ ..... .......... ...... ... .... ....,...,.5
2.7 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity ..........".""......"......"""......"...."."",..""..5
3.0 EARTHWORK ~ECOMMENDA TIONS .........., "...."" """ "" "... "..." "."" ".."....",,,.,.,,,,, 6
3.1 General......"...."......""..""".........."......"."..."".",,,,,,,,...,,..,,,..,,,. """""'''''' ....,6
3.2 Engineered Fill ".."............:.....................".."....."...,,,,,,,,,.,,,...,,,,,..,,,,.,,,,,,.,.,...,... 7
40 FOUNDATION f!)ESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS...."".."........""......".."".,,, ,...7
4.1 General ...."...."..".."................""".............""......"...."""..".."."".,,.. 7
4.2 Foundation Size.."""........"...."....""...."..."."..""",,,,.,,,,..,,,. '.,......,.." .,,,,,,.,,...,,8
4.3 Depth of Embedment ........"".."...."...."".."........"...",,, "..""..". ......"".",,8
4.4 Bearing <;apacity "......"...."...."....".............."...""."""".." ....".."..".".........9
4.5 Settlement ..........""".........."............"...."....,, "".."" ".""......""....". . """".. "".9
4.6 Lateral Ci3pacity.."" ....".."...."............"...... "... "..." """"""" "." ".......,.."" "'''" "..9
5.0 SlAB-ON~RADE RECOMMENDATIONS "...."...."""..."."...",,,.,,..,,,,,..,,,,,,..,,,,...,,,... 9
5.1 General .."..........""...."........"....................""."...".""...,,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,....,,"""'"'''''' 9
5.2 Interior Slabs ......".."...."........"......"..".."..""...........""."."..."....""".."",,,...,,,,.. 9
5.3 Exterior ~Iabs ...".."..""""."...."...."......"'"..".."""."...."".".".....,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,..,...10
6.0 RETAINING WAI-l RECOMMENDATIONS .........."........"....."".."".".............."""..10
6.1 Earth Pre!>sures..".."".."""......"............"....""".."..."".."""."."...."."......."".,, 10
6.2 Foundation Design .."."................"........."............",,,..,,.,,.,,..,,.....,,,,,,.......,,,,....10
6.3 Subdrain .""...."..".."..."........................."".."""....,......,,,...,,,,.,,.,,,....""""'.....,, 11
6.4 Backfill ..".......".............."............."............""......".""....".""...".""..""........"..11
EnGEN Corporation
:z.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Number and Title
PaQe
7,0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS ....... "... "."".... "".."........" ""." 12
7.1 Pavement Design ......"..."...."..............."...."...."".......".""."....".",.... "........." 12
7.2 Utility Trench Recommendations........""......"...."."...."."".". ....."..."... ......"" 13
7.3 Temporary Excavation or Cuts ...........................................................................14
7.4 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations ""....".."....".....".......""...""...............14
7.5 Planter Recommendations ..............."...................""......,,,...,,...,,.,,,,..........,...,, 14
7.6 Stlpplemental Construction Observations and Testing "..........................."""...14
7.7 Pre-Grade Conference ....".............".......".",,,....,,,,.....,,,,...,,..,,....,,,......,,,,,,... 15
80 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING .............".........."""...."...........,, 15
90
CLOSURE
...'..........................................................................................................16
APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
TABLE A - STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
?
, I
'I~EN
I ' ,
I
I
II
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
April 22, 2003
. SOI~..c.r.uJtino""""'Eno<"""",Goo"". _''''no
-Inspeaions. CcnsmdiooI.berir.;Te:sling. ~or)'TeshI'll}. PIlrtm100nTesbng
-GeoIovY-wa,Re:soln:eSbWs .Pllase'&UErMItlll'8Q!SI1t~
Co~oration
ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
KREC II, llC
c/o Kearny Real Estate, Company
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500
San Diego, Califomia 94122
(858) 546-2930 / FAX (858) 546-2812
Attention:
Regarding:
References:
4.
5.
Mr..John !3ragg
SUPPlEJylENTAl GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Remingtoll Business Center
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 909-370-012 and 909-370-016
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-3 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 24085-4
RemingtOIil Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia
Project Number: T2775-SGS
1.
EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Report Of Rough Grading, Lots 1-10
of parcel Map 24085, A.P.N. 909-120-022, Diaz Road, City of Temecula.
Riv,erside County, California, Project Number: T1075-C. report dated
December 19, 1996.
EnGEN Corporation, Updated Geotechnical/Geological Engineering
Study, Proposed Expansion of Existing Business Center, Parcels 1
thrq'Jgh 10 of Parcel Map 24085, Diaz Road, Temecula, Riverside
County, California, Project Number: T1075-GS, report dated August 19,
1996.
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Report on Geotechnical Investigation,
Assessment District No. 155, P.M. 24085, 24086, 21029, 21382 and
21383, Rancho California, Riverside County, California, report dated
June 7, 1989.
Schaefer Dixon Associates, Response to County Geologic Review
Sheet, Tentative P.M. 24085, 24086, 21029, 21382 and 21383, Rancho
California, California (A.P.N.: 909-120-020, -002; G.R. 627), response
dated August 15,1989.
Smith Consulting Architects, Preliminary Design Site Plan, Remington
Business Center, plan dated December 13, 2002.
2.
3.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KREC II. LLC
clo Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 2
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site ,is 8.9,1-acres and is located on the south side of Remington Avenue in the
Westside Busil]ess Centre area in the City of Temecula. The site consists of two (2)
previously graded one-level pads, formerly Parcels 7 and 8 of Parcel Map 24085, and is
surrounded by commercial developments and vacant land. It is our understanding that the
proposed improvements will be a twelve (12) building industrial complex consisting of
concrete tilt-up, I slab-on-grade type structures with associated landscape, hardscape and
parking improvements.
2.0 SITE REVIEW
2.1 literature Research: Based on our review of the Referenced No. 1 Report, grading of
the site was completed in 1996. The site has a native cut/fill transition. Pauba Formation
bedrock and alll,lvium underlie the fill portion (References NO.1 and No.3), Bedrock is
exposed in the I]ative cut portio., of the lot.
Based on the rE;llatively flat topographic conditions at the site, the potential for hazards
associated with rock falls andlor landsliding is considered low. Based on the high density
of the underlying bedrock and the compacted fill material in the alluvial areas, the potential
for hazards asso,ciated with liquefaction is considered low.
2.2 Site Reconnaissance: Based on the site reconnaissance, it appears that no additional
grading has been performed since completion of grading as reported in the Referenced
NO.1 Report.
2..3 laboratory TestinQ
2.3.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained
during the site yisit are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief
explanation of thE;llaboratory tests performed. The samples obtained during the field study
will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be notified
immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days.
2:3.2 Classification: Jhe field classification of near-surface soil materials encountered on the
site were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils
EnGEN Corporation
':5
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 3
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of ,Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures). The final classification is shown in the
Moisture Density Test Report presented in the Appendix.
2.3,3 Maximum Drv,Densitv/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test: Maximum
dry density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on
samples of near-surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-00
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. The plot is shown in the Moisture
Density Test Report presented in the Appendix.
2.3.4 Expansion Index Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near-
surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 4829-95. In this testing
procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) layers in a 4.0-inch mold to a total
compacted thickress of approximately 1.O-inch by using a 5.5-pound weight dropping 12-
inches and with 15 blows per layer. The sample is compacted at a saturation between 49
and 51 percent. I After remolding, the sample is confined under a pressure of 144 pounds
per square foot (pst) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The resulting volume change due
to the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded and the Expansion Index
(EI) is calculated. The expansion test result is presented on the Laboratory Expansion
Index Test Results sheet.
2,3.5 Soluble Sulfate~Test: Based on this firm's familiarity with the soils used to construct the
building pad, it is our opinion that soluble sulfates are not a concern, and as a result, no
sulfate resistant concrete are necessary.
2.4 FaultinQ: The site is located within a State Designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone,
2:4.1 Murrieta Creek ,Fault: Traces of the Murrieta Creek Fault were encountered on the
subject site and: on adjacent lots to the north, south and east during fault trenching
investigations by: Schaefer Dixon Associates in 1989 (References No. 3 and No.4) and
EnGEN Corporation '=-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KREC II, LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 4
during grading (References No, 1 and No.2). Additional fault trenching and Cone
Penetrometer Tl?sting (CPT) was performed to the north, south, and east of the subject
site as a part of the Referenced No.3 Report. Two (2) well-defined Restricted Use Zones
(RUZs) were established on Parcel 1 by Schaefer Dixon Associates in 1989 based on the
information gathered during their studies (References NO.3 and No.4). The main fault
trace consists ofl two planes which are 0.01-foot to 0.1-foot thick and dip to the east. The
branch fault trac~ consists of a 1 to 3-foot wide zone of deformation. The main fault trace
(western) RUZ li.es along the western edge of Parcel 1 and extends approximately 80 to
85-feet into the parcel. The branch fault trace (eastern) RUZ lies on the eastern corner of
Parcel 1 and extends approximately 10 to 20-feet into the parcel. Both RUZs are shown
on the Referenced NO.5 Plans. The proposed buildings as shown on the Referenced No.
5 Plans, do not ,encroach into the RUZs. Therefore, no additional setback is deemed
necessary from: the already established RUZs. The Referenced No. 3 Report
recommends pn;Jtection should be provided for utility lines within the RUZs. Such
protection may include flexible connections of water lines and pressure sensitive valves to
cut flow in the event of differential movement.
2,4,2 Elsinore Fault ,Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula Segment) is located
approximately 2,750 feet (0.8 kilometer) to the northeast of the site. The Elsinore Fault
Zone is a major right lateral strike-slip fault system, which has experienced strong
earthquakes in historical times (1856, 1894 and 1910) and exhibits late Quaternary
movement. Due to the size of the expected maximum earthquake event (i.e. 6.8 Richter
Magnitude) the Elsinore Fault has been used as the Design Fault for engineering analysis
The following seismic hazards discussion is guided by UBC (1997), CBC (1998), CDMG
(1997) and:Petersen and others (1996).
2.4.3 Surface Fault Rupture: The Design Fault is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault,
a Type B Fault (UBC, 1997), located approximately 2,750 feet (0.8 kilometer) northeast of
the subject site. ifhis conclusion is based on literature review and EnGEN Corporation's
site mapping and investigation. Based on the Referenced NO.3 and NO.4 Reports, the
potential for fault, surface rupture on the subject site outside of the RUZs is considered
unlikely,
EnGEN Corporation
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2:6
2.7
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 5
A listing of state designated active faults within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius is
presented in Table A in the Appendix.
25
Seismicity: The site will experience ground motion and effects from earthquakes
generated along active faults located off-site,
To estimate the potential ground shaking, EnGEN Corporation has performed the
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) outlined in Petersen and others (1996) and
UBC (1997). To perform this analysis EnGEN Corporation utilized the computer software
FRISKSP. developed from United States Geologic Survey (FRISK) by Blake (1989-
2000a, b, c).
The attenuation relationships by Boore et. al. (1997) for soil type So (stiff soil _
shear wave ve,locity 310 m/s) was utilized. For a complete discussion of the
software and p,robabilistic methods the reader is referred to Blake (1989 - 2000a,
b, c).
With one standard deviation FRISKSP computed O.72g for soil type So (Figure 3) as the
peak ground acqelerations from the design-basis earthquake, the horizontal acceleration
that hypothetically has a ten percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years. This
increase from q.65g in the Referenced No. 1 Report is due to a change in the
attenuation relationships by Boore et. al. (1997).
In sum, these ,results are based on many unavoidable geological and statistical
uncertainties, but are consistent with current standard-of-practice. As engineering
seismology evolves, and as more fault-specific geological data are gathered, more
certainty and diffElrent methodologies may also evolve,
liquefaction: The site is underlain by bedrock and 12 to 14-feet of compacted fill over
alluvium and bedrock (References No. 1 and No.3). Due to the density of the bedrock
and the thickness and density of the fill material, the potential for liquefaction is low.
Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity: The secondary effects of seismic activity
normally considered as possible hazards to a site include various types of ground failure
and induced f1oqding. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure
depends on the ,severity of the earthquake, the distance of the site from the zone of
EnGEN Corporation
%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 6
maximum energy release of the earthquake, the topography of the site. the subsurface
materials ;at the, site, and groundwater conditions beneath the site, besides other factors.
Due to the overall favorable geologic and topographic conditions of the area, the potential
for earthquake-induced landslides or rockfalls is considered low. Earthquake-induced
surface flooding due to seiches is considered low since there are no large bodies of water
nearby.
3.0
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1
General: Final,buiiding and grading plans were not available at the time of this report.
Our office should review these plans once they are available and will make additional
recommendations, if necessary. Minor cuts and fills will be needed to contour the site
for proper drain?ge.
1. All organic debris and man-made objects should be removed from the site and not
used in prop,osed fills.
2. Any undocumented fills encountered should be removed and may be reused as fill.
3. Based on our review of the Referenced NO.1 Report, an existing cut/fill transition is
located in the central portion of the site and must be mitigated.
4. The top one (1) foot of existing soils are in a weathered condition throughout the
site. Areas to receive fill should be scarified 12-inches and recompacted.,
5. Buildings 1 through 4 are underlain by Pauba Formation bedrock. Buildings 7
through 12 are underlain by 12 to 14-feet of compacted fill over alluvium. Buildings
5 and '6, as, shown on the Referenced NO.5 Plans, will span the existing cut/fill
transition. Tre proposed Buiiding 5 is underlain by approximately 15-feet of fill, and
Building 6 is underlain by approximately 10-feet of fill below existing grades.
6. Structures should not span the cutlfill transitions. They must be placed entirely in
cut or entirely in fill, therefore, they must be overexcavated in the cut and shallow fill
portions. The depth of overexcavation should be half the maximum fill thickness
with a minimum of 3-feet and a minimum of 18-inches of fill below the footings.
Therefore, the overexcavation depth for Building 5 is anticipated to be 7.5-feet below
EnGEN Corporation
'\
I
I
,.
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
40
4.1
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 7
existing grade, and the overexcavation depth for Building 6 is anticipated to be 5-feet
below existing grade. Overexcavation should extend outside the perimeter footings
of the stru.cture the S:3me distance as the depth, with a minimum of 5-feet.
Overexcavation bottoms should be inspected to verify competency.
7. The hardscape areas should be scarified 12-inches, moisture conditioned and
recompacted.
8. All bottoms, that expose previously placed fill should be tested for minimum 90
percent relative compaction. Bedrock bottoms should be inspected to verify
competency.
3.2
EnQineered Fill: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, shoula be approved
by the Project Geotechnical Engineer andlor his representative before placement. All fill
should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should be
approved :by thEl Geotechnical Engineer before placement. Approved fill material should
be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6.0 to 8.0-inches in thickness and watered or
aerated to obtain near-optimum moisture content (:!::2.0 percent of optimum). Each lift
should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed to ensure uniformity of soil
moisture. Structural fill should meet a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of
maximum'dry dE;!nsity based upon ASTM D 1557-00 procedures. Moisture content of fill
materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the
Project Geotech,nical Engineer.
FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
General: 'Founc;lations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column
footings and cO,ntinuous wall footings founded upon competent fill or bedrock. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and
construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a very low expansion
potential for the supporting soils and are not intended to preclude more restrictive
structural requirements. The actual expansion potential will need to be determined at
completion of pr\,!cise grading in order to verify the foundation design recommendations
made herein. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual
EoG EN Corporation
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 8
footing widths, and depths necessary to resist design vertical, horizontal and uplift
forces. The al'1ticipated peak ground acceleration for the site is O.72g. The following
seismic paraml'ters apply:
Design Fault: Elsinore Fault - Temecula Segment
Seismic Source Type: Type B Fault
Soil Profile Type: SD
Distance to Known Seismic Source: Less than 2 Km
4.2
Foundation Size: Continuous footings should be designed by the project Structural
Engineer'for the effects of the expansive soil characteristics presented in Section 4,1
above. The m.inimum footing width should be 12-inches, and the footings should be
reinforced with a minimum of one (1) NO.4 steel reinforcing bar located near the top and
one (1) No. 4 ~teel reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the footings to minimize
the effects of any slight differential movements that may occur due to minor variations in
the engineeringl characteristics or any seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils.
In the case of concrete tilt-up or masonry structures where the wall and footing system
acts together as a deep beam, the recommended minimum footing reinforcing may be
replaced by appropriate reinforcing of footings as determined by the Project Structural
Engineer. Column footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and
be suitably reinf,orced based on structural requirements. A grade beam founded at the
same depths and reinforced as the adjacent footings should be provided across
doorway, garage entrances, or any other perimeter openings.
Depth of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings should extend to a minimum depth
of 12-inches for single story structures and 18-inches for two-story structures below
lowest adjacent finish grade in competent fill. Frost is not considered a design factor for
foundations in the area as there is no significant frost penetration in the winter months.
Embedment of all footings on or near existing or planned slopes should be determined
by a minimum s,etback distance measured from the bottom outside edge of the footing
to the slope face according to the California Building Code andlor City Building Codes,
or should be eVClluated based on final anticipated structural loads.
EnGEN Corporation \\
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'4.4
4.5
4.6
5.0
5.1
5.2
KREC II, LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 9
BearinQ Caoacitv: The recommended allowable bearing value for design of continuous
and column footings for dead plus live loads and founded in competent engineered fill is
2.000 psf for ,18-inch wide by 18-inch deep footings. The bearing value may be
increased by 200 psf for each additional foot in width or depth, to a maximum of 3,000
psf. The allowable bearing value may also be increased by 33.3 percent for short
durations of live loading such as wind or seismic forces.
Settlement: F,ootings designed according to the bearing value presented above and
founded in conwacted fill or bedrock are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement
of 1.0-inch or a differential settlement of 0.5-inch between similarly sized and loaded
footings spaced at roughly 30-feet apart, for column loads on the order of 100 kips and
wall loads on the order of 3,000 pounds per linear foot.
lateral Oaoacitv: Additional foundation design parameters based on competent silty
sand (SM) matE;lrial for resistance to lateral forces are as follows:
Allow:ilble lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure) Passive Case:
Fill Material or Bedrock - 150 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction: 0.35
The above values are allowable design values and may be used in combination without
reduction. For the calculation of paSSive earth resistance, the upper 1.0-foot of material
should be' neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement.
SlAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
General: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, are based
upon the anticipated very low expansion potential for the material in the upper 24-inches
of the slab area. The expansion potential of the slab subgrade areas should be verified
at the completion of any supplemental grading for the structure.
Interior Slabs:, Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.0-inches
nominal in thickness and be underlain by properly prepared subgrade. If the slabs are
to be subjected to crane loads for the tilting of panels, then slabs should measure a
minimum of 5.0;inches in actual thickness. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist
of No..3 reinforcing bars placed 24-inches on center in both directions placed mid-depth
EnGEN Corporation \ z.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.1
6.2
KREC II, LLC
c/o Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 10
in the slab or any equivalent system as might be designed by the Project Structural
Engineer. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased for
excessive design floor loads or anticipated concentrated loads. In areas where moisture
sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a
polyethylene vapor barrier a minimum of 6.0-mil in thickness be placed beneath the
slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and protected top
and bottom by a 1.0 to 2.0-inch minimum layer of clean sand to aid in concrete curing
and to minimize, potential punctures.
53
Exterior Slabs:. All exterior ccncrete slabs cast on finish subgrade should be a minimum
of 4.0-inches nominal in thickness and be supported on soil that has been moisture
conditioned to at least four percent above optimum moisture content to a minimum depth
of 12-inches imf11ediately before pouring the slab. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of
a compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be according to the current
standards of the ,City of T emecula.
6.0
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive granular soil (EI=O) or
very low expansive potential materials (EI=20 or less) within a zone extending upward
and away from the heel of the footing at a slope of 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter
can be designed, to resist the following static lateral soil pressures:
Condition level Backfill 2:1 Slope
Active 30 oct 45 pcf
At Rest 60 pcf -
Very low expansive materials should be used for backfilling. Walls that are free to deflect
0.01 radian at the top may be designed for the above-recommended active condition.
Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the
at-rest condition. The above values assume well-drained backfill and no buildup of
hydrostatic: pressure. Surcharge loads, dead andlor live, acting on the backfill behind the
wall should,also be should considered in the design.
Foundation DesiQn: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into
properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, bedrock as standard
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
64
KREC II, LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 11
foundations and may be designed for the same average allowable bearing value across
the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the
footing), and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable
sliding resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral
pressure ,and allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used. If.
ultimate values, are used for design, an approximate factor of safety of 1.5 should be
achieved.
6.3
Subdrain: A ~ubdrain system should be constructed behind and at the base of all
retaining walls .to allow drainage and to prevent the buildup of excessive hydrostatic
pressures, Typical subdrains may include weep holes with a continuous gravel gallery,
perforated pipe, surrounded by filter rock, or some other approved system. Gravel
galleries and/orl filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on-site andlor
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 Iperforated pipes should be at least 4.0-inches in diameter. Pipe
perforations should be places downward, Gravel filters should have volume of at least
1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient
and have outlets that drain in a non-erosive manner. In the case of Subdrains for
basement walls: they need to empty into a sump provided with a submersible pump
activated by a c(1ange in the water level.
Backfill: Backfill directly behind retaining walls (if backfill width is less than 3-feet) may
consist of 0.5 to 0.75-inch diameter, rounded to subrounded gravel enclosed in a
geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or a suitable substitute or a clean
sand (Sand Equivalent Value greater than 50) water jetted into place to obtain proper
compaction. If water jetting is used, the subdrain system should be in place. Even if
water jetting is ljsed, 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
EnGEN Corporation
\'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KREC II, LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 12
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 9rder 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 1557-00
procedures.
70
7.1
MISCEll.!ANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
PavementDesiQn: Preliminary pavement recommendations are presented based on R-
Value testing of, native soils, and an assumed future traffic loading expressed in terms of
a Traffic Index (TI). Pavement sections have been based on a TI of 5.0 for automobile
areas, a TI of 6.0 for truck traffic areas, and an R-Value of 38. Based on this preliminary
R-Value, the pr,oject designer should specify the appropriate pavement section for the
various traffic a~eas as follows:
Type of Traffic Traffic Index Pavement Section
Automobile 5.0 3-inches A.C. 14-inches Aggregate Base
OR
6-inches of Portland Cement Concrete at
4,000 psi on 95 percent sul;>grade
Truck 6.0 3-inches A.C. 17-inches Aggregate Base
OR
7 -inches of Portland Cement Concrete at
4,000 psi on 95 percent subgrade
The potential exists for lower R-Values than those presented in this report. R-Values as
low as 4 were encountered in the immediate vicinity. If these lower R-Values are used,
then the thickness of the aggregate base portion of the pavement design should be
increased to 10-inches and 14-inches respectively, for the Traffic Indexes of 5.0 and 6.0.
Final pavement rdesign by the Project Designer should be based on R-Value testing
conducted at the, conclusion of precise grading and prior to aggregate base placement and
paving.
EnGEN Corporation
~'5"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7,2
KREC II, LLC
c/o Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 13
Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Sections 203-6 of the
Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or an approved
equivalent. Aggregate base should confonn to 3/4-inch crushed aggregate base as
specified in Section 200-2.2 of Standard Specification for Public Works Construction
(Green Book) or an approved equivalent. Portland Cement Concrete should consist of
4,000 psi (minimum) design strength concrete. To properly prepare the subgrade, the soil
should be recorTJpacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, to a minimum depth
of 12-inches below finish subgrade elevation. If Portland Cement Concrete is to be placed
directly on subgraae, the subgrade soW should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
relative compaction to a minimum depth of 12-inches below finish subgrade elevation.
The aggregate, base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for subgrade and
aggregate base materials should be detennined according to ASTM D 1557-00
procedures. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared and aggregate base material is not
placed immediately, or the aggregate base material is placed and the area is not paved
immediately, adqitional observations and testing will be required prior to placing aggregate
base material 0\ asphaltic concrete to locate areas that may have been damaged by
construction traffic, construction activities, andlor seasonal wetting and drying.
The pavement sections presented above are calculated minimum sections and are subject
to review and approval by the City of Temecula,
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 andlor 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
EnGEN Corporation
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.5
7,6
KREC II. LLC
c/o Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 14
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 1557-00
procedures.
7.3
Temporary Excavations Or Cuts: All temporary cuts and excavations should be made
in accordance, with CAUOSHA minimum requirements for Type C soil. If site
restrictions require a different configuration, this office should be contacted to develop
construction recommendations.
7.4
Finish lot DrainaQe Recommendations: Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water away
from foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes, The surface water
should be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surface water should
not be allowed, next to structures or on pavements. In unpaved areas, a minimum
positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a
minimum distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the
property in a nonerosive manner should be provided.
Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structure should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the building.
Supplemental Construction Observations and TestinQ: Any subsequent grading for
development of lhe subject property should be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not
limited to, any aqditional 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 so as to verify andlor 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
EnGEN Corporation
\1
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.7
8.0
KREC II, LLC
c/o Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 15
Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed andlor tested by
EnGEN Corporation.
Pre-Grade Conference: Before the start of any grading, a conference should be held
with the owner: or an authorized representative, the contractor, the Project Architect, the
Project Civil Elilgineer, and the Project Geotechnical Engineer present. The purpose of
this meeting should be to clarify questions relating to the intent of the supplemental
grading recomfTIendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with the
recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading
procedures andlor difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that
time.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Supplemental grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Supplemental grading includes, but is not
limited to, over~xcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent
cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation
excavations. Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms andlor
reinforcing stee.1 to verify andlor modify the conclusions and recommendations in this
report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other
trench backfill, t;lardscape subgrade, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall
backfill, slab priasaturation, or other earthwork completed for the subject development
should be performed by EnGEN Corporation if requested by the local building authority,
or owner/developer. If the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not perforfTIed by EnGEN Corporation. liability for the performance of the
development is ,limited to the actual portions of the project observed andlor tested by
EnGEN Corpor;1tion. If parties other than EnGEN Corporation are engaged to perform
soils and materials observations and testing, they must be notified that they will be
required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical aspects of the project by
EnGEN Corporation
It
-
-
~-
...
-
...
-
-
-
-
....
-
--
-
...
..
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775.SGS
April 2003
Page 16
concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative
recommendations.
90
CLOSURE
This report has peen prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document. It mayor 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/orl project as described in this report. are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified
in writing. This l?tudy was conducted in general accordance with the applicable standards
of our profession and the accepted soil and founoation engineering principles and
practices at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed
beyond the reprt;lsentations 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 Ililay 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 andlor adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or
information beco,mes available during the design and construction process that are not
reflected in this, report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental
evaluations can be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in
this report :can be modified or verified in writing. Changes in applicable or appropriate
standards of care or practice occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge and experience. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in thislreport may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside of the
control of EnGEN Corporation, which occur in the future.
EnGEN Corporation \ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
'.
I
I
KREC II, llC
c/o Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number. T2775-SGS
April 2003
Page 17
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. Often, because of design and construction
deiails which occur on a project, questions arise concerning the geotechnical conditions on the
site. If we can be of further service or you should have questions regarding this report, please do
not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project
to date, we would be pl~ased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be
applicable on the project.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
Cv/~MQ:ti;?--
Qolby Matthews
Staff Geologist
CM/OB:hh
Distribution: (4) ,Addre,ssee
File: EnGENlReportinglSGsmns.s<;;s Keamy Real Estate. Supplemental GS
EnGEN Corporation
1P
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KREC II, LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
Appendix Page 1
APPENDIX
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.
13.
1'4.
16,
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1.
Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in
the southern California region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55,
No.4, pg. 753-797.
Bartlett and Youd, 1995. Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April 1995.
Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.
Blake, T.F., 20POb, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for
the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake
Catalogs.
Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic
Estimation of peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra using 3-D Faults as
Earthquake Sources.
Blake, T.F., 1998, Liquefy2, Interim Version 1.50, A Computer Program for the Empirical
Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes:
A Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1, pp, 128-
153.
California:Buildirg Code, 1998, State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title
24, 1998, California Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials and
California :Suildirg Standards Commission, 3 Volumes.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1969, Geologic map of California, San
Bernardino Sheet, Scale 1 :250,000.
California :Division of Mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf p,
Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of Southern California, Bulletin
170.
County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition.
County of Riverside, 1978, Seismic Safety/Safety Element Policy Report, June 1978, by
Envicom.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
Department of ,Conservation, 1991, Geology Map of the Santa Ana 1:100,000
Quadrangle, California, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 91-17.
EnGEN Corporation
1P
-.--- -
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
KREC II, LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
Appendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
16.
Dibblee, T.W, Jr., 1970, Regional Geologic Map of San Andreas and Related Faults in
Eastern San Gabriel Mountains and Vicinity: U.S. Geologic Society, Open-File Map, Scale
1 :125,000.
Engel, R., 1959., Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 146.
EnGEN Corpqration, 1996 Updated Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study,
Proposed Exp~nsion of the Existing Business Center, Diaz Road. City of Ternecula,
Riverside County, report dated August 19, 1996, Project Number: T1075-GS.
Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines
and Geology, D,epartment of Conservation, Special Publication 42, 9 p.
Hart, Earl W, and Bryant. William A., Revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone
Maps: State of <;:;alifomia, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
Pages reviewed at the California Geological Survey's web page: http://www.consrv.ca.gov
Icgs/rghm/apl MapjndexIF4E.htm#SW
Hileman, JA, A.llen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California
Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
Institute of Tech[1ology.
Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following
Liquefaction Durin9 Earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.1, pg. 173-188.
Jennings, C.W,! 1985, An explanatory test to accompany the 1 :750,000 scale fault and
geologic maps of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 201,
197p., 2 plates.
Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California with locations of volcanoes, thermal
springs and thermal wells, 1 :750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Geologic Data N1ap No.1.
Kennedy, M.P., !1977, Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in
southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Report 131,12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000.
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.
Morton, D.M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0.
Petersen, M.D.,i Bryant, WA, Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, PA and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessn:lent for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology,
Open File Report 96-706.
17.
~8.
19,
20.
EnGEN Corporation
1>
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
II
I
I
I
.
I
I
29
!30.
!31.
:32.
33.
!34.
!35.
:36.
'37.
'38.
'39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
KREC II, LLC
c/o Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
Appendix Page 4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
Riverside County Planning Department, February 1983, Seismic - Geologic Maps.
Murrieta - Rancho California Area, Sheet 147. Scale 1" = 800'.
Riverside County Planning Department, June 1982 (Revised December 1983). Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan - Dam Inundation Areas - 100 Year Flood Plains -
Area Drainage Plan, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
Riverside County Planning Department, January 1983, Riverside County Comprehensive
General Plan - county Seismic Hazards Map, Scale 1 Inch = 2 Miles.
S.C.E.D.C., 2002, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Website,
http://www.scecdc.scec.org.
Schnabel. P.B, and Seed. H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the
western United Sates: College of Engineering, University of California. Berkeley,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Volume 5 of a Series Titled
Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records.
South Coast Geological Society, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse
Ranges, 1982.
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for
Implementatior] of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
Liquefaction H'!zards in California, March 1999.
State of Califon;1ia, January 1, 1980, Special Studies Zones. Elsinore Quadrangle, Revised
Official Map. Scale 1" = 2 Mi.
State of Cali fomi a Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
Temecula, City of, General Plan. Resolution No. 93-92 (General Plan), adopted November
9, 1993.
Tokimatsu and, Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by Intemational Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
Vaughan, Thor,up and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain. Southern Califomia, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No, 6, pg. 1447-1457, December 1999.
Weber, Jr., F.H., 1977, Seismic Hazards to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault
Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, DMG Open File Report 77-4.
Yeats, R. S., Sieh, K., and Allen, C. R., 1997, The Geology of Earthquakes, Oxford
University Press, 568p.
EnGEN Corporation
1A
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KREC II. LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
Appendix Page 5
TABLE A - DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
MAX. MOMENT
DISTANCE MAGNITUDE
FAULT NAME (mile) (km) (Mmax)
Elsinore - Temecula 0.5 0.8 6.8
Elsinore - Glen Ivy 13.3 21.4 6.8
Elsinore - Julian 13.4 21.5 7.1
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley 21.8 35.1 6.9
San Jacinto - Anza 21.8 35.1 7.2
Newport -Inglewood (Offshore) 27.1 43.6 6.9
Rose Canyon 30.0 48.3 6.9
Chino - Central Avenue (Elsinore) 31.3 50.3 6.7
San Jacinto - San Bernardino 35.0 56.4 6.7
Whittier 35.4 57.0 6.8
San Andreas - Southern 38.7 62.3 7.4
San Andreas - San Bernardino 38.7 62.3 7.3
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 38.8 62.5 6.8
Earthquake Valley 41.3 66.5 6.5
Newport - In91ewood (LA Basin) 43.4 69.9 6.9
Coronado Bank 43.9 70.7 7.4
I?into Mountain 46.0 74.0 7.0
I?alos Verdes 46.5 74.9 7.1
Elysian Park Thrust 48.3 77.7 6.7
Gucamon9a 48.7 78.3 7.0
San Andreas - Coachella 49.7 80.0 7.1
Gompton Thrust 49.8 80.2 6.8
North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 50.1 80.6 7.0
San Jose 50.7 81.6 6.5
Cleghorn 52.8 85.0 6.5
Sierra Madre 53.1 85.5 7.0
North Frontal Fault Zone 53.5 86.1 6.7
Burnt Mountain 55.1 88.6 6.4
Eureka Peak 57.9 93.2 6.4
San Andreas - Mojave 58.7 94.5 7.1
San Andreas - 1857 Rupture - 58.7 94.5
7.8
Elsinore - Coyote Mountain 60.4 97.2 6.8
San Jacinto - Borrego 60.7 97.7 6.6
Helendale - S. Lockhardt 61.9 99.6 7.1
EnGEN Corporation
/'
7P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
KREC II, LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
Appendix Page 6
EnGEN Corporation
"'J;c,
I
I
I
II
'I
I I
I
II
I
'I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results
Job Numb..,. T2n5-SGS
Job Name: KREC III, LLC
Lacallon: REMINGTON AVENUE
Sample Source: A (pHASE 1)
Sampled by: CM (3-2~3)
Lab Technician: RW
Sample Oeser: SILTY SAND,BROWN
411/03
I
,
Wet Compacted V\iL
:;>;ll- .,...
''1". Y \'~L_
~ Wet Wl:
Wet Density:
I
Wet Soli:
D~SOii:
In,at Moisture (%):
Initial Dry Density:
I '
% ~Uration:
Final Wt. & Ring Wt.:
Net Anal WI.:
Dry WI.:
LosS:
Net[DryWl:
I Final Oensity:
Sat~rated Moisture:
~.)~
....,....
195.0
Dial
Change
Time
430.0
129.9
242.9
222.6
9.1%
119:0
59.2%
649.1
454.1
394.1
60.0
390.8
118.0
15.4%
Reading 1 : 0_100 N1A 11:00
Reading 2: 0.100 0.000 11:15
Reading 3: 0.100 0.000 11:30
Readina 4: 0.100 0.000 1-~r
Expansion Index:
o
Adjusted Index:
(ASTM 04832-95)
3.7
EnGEN Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92690
(909) 296.2230
Fax: (909) 296.2237
~1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
II
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60
<1J
, ::l
-
0
>
I
:a: 40
20
o
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
100
::
-,
. . . .
.... .-....... ."... ..........,................
80
-,....
-, ....
-,
~
r' "'" ........ .. ..
~
t ...
.............,.,
.~..,..............
, .
, , .
. , .
. . ,
...................:... .
. , .
r- ,,'
-....:
l.Lu.I, ',' I" I I I, I ,I, I I ,II ,J'I I , i
800 700 600 500
, , b_Ll. 'u 'u ,I UJ Ll. u' I , , ,
400 300 200 100
Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301
Exudation Pressure - psi
Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R
Moist. R
Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure Value
% Value
psi @ 160 psi in. psi Carr.
12.1 0.00 99 2.49 197 24 24
12.1 0.30 75 2.49 307 39 39
10.9 0.91 57 2.49 484 51 51
TEST RESULTS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I Com pac t . Dens i ty
t. Pressure
_ps i pcf
11 ,
100 126.8
12 150 127.2
13 200 129.0
I
I
R-Volue @ 300 psi exudation pressure = 38
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Project No.: T2775-SGS
Project: KREC III. LLC
Locotion: REMINGTON AVENUE,
TEMECULA
Date: 4-01-03
R-VALUE TEST REPORT
Environmental and Geotechnical
Engineering Network Corporation
Tested by: RW
Checked by: RW
Remarks:
SAMPLE A
PHASE 1
CaLL BY CM
CaLL ON 3-28-03
2Jb
Fig. No.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
KREC II, LLC
clo Keamy Real Estate Company
Project Number: T2775-SGS
Appendix Page 7
DRAWINGS
EnGEN Corporation
~
-.
I
I
I
I
I,
'I
,I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
EnG EN CorporationGeotedona' En.....ring
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT NUMBER: lEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Special .hleri.l
Environmental
DA TE: APRil 2003
CLIENT NAME: KREC III, LLC
Par 1 01 PM 24085-3 and
Par 2 01 PM 240854
SCALE: 1"=2400'
FIGURE: 1
BASE MAP: Thomas Bras" 2000, Riverside Co.. pg. 958
::P