The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParcel Map 33386 Parcel 2 Geotechnical Feasibilityi ; _ ~' '~ • ~/1133.3~~ ~~ ~j N~~ T . •$oilEnpinxriryantlCansullirqSernres•E~pireennO~~WY•Canps.tionTUlnp ^ • IiuupMiau • Canslruqian Malttials Tesliip • Ia~orylory R9i~ry • P¢rcolation iesti ~ LI= Corporation •Grolopy•Wah~flesourre5tutlies •Plyse1611EnvirmunenUlSaeACUSSmenp ENVIRONMENTAL Sl GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK ,~ 1 GEOTECHNiCAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ~ Proposed Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-140-004 I Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8598 ~ Lolita Road City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California ~ Project Number: T3047-GFS ::I~ ~ February 10, 2004 ~ < • ~ Prepared for: a Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc. ~ 27431 Enterprise Cirde West Temecula, California 92590-4833 r i / ; i I/ ~ / ~ / CORPORATE ~FFICE q1607 Emerprise Circle North, Suite 1,Temecula, CA 92590 • phone: (951) 296-2230 • fax: (951 ~ P96-2237 ~ ~_ ~ ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 2675 Orange Avenue, SaMa Ana, CA 92707 • phone: (714) 546-4051 • tax: p14) 546-0052 WEB SITE: www.engencorp.com • E-MAIL' engenmrp~~!engencorp.com .t ~ • ~s-Pacific Consultanffi, Inc. ~! Project Number: T3047-GFS TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ ~, Section Number and Title paae ' ~ 1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................. .......... ..... 2 1.1 Site Description ........................................................................... .......... .........................2 ._ 1.2 Project Description ...................................................................... .........................2 ~~ 2.0 FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 2 .......... I 2.1 Site Review .................................................................................. ............... 2 .......... ~ 2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................ ............... 2 ' j ~l ....................... 2.2.1 General .......................................................................... ......................... 2 ...................... 2.2.2 Classification .................................................................. ... 3 .................... ~ ~ .... 2.2.3 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test.,..3 2.2.4 Expansion Potential ........................................................ 3 ................... 2.2.5 Soluble Sulfates .............................................................. ..... ................... 3 ' 1 2.2.6 Direct Shear Test ............................................................ 2 3 Excavati Ch t ri ti ..... ........................4 ~ ,.. . on arac e s cs ........................................................... ........................4 3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY .................................. 4 ~ ............. 3.1 Geologic Setting ........................................................................... ........................ ........................4 3.2 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................... 4 .................. . ~ 3.2.1 Surtace Fault Rupture .................................................... . .... ............. 5 ~ 3.2.2 Liquefaction .............. ...................................................... ........... 5 ........................ 3.2.3 Seismically-Induced Landsliding,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, 5 3.2.4 Seismically-Induced Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis.... ..,, , 5 ....... , 4` 3.3 Earth Materials .............................................................................. ,.,. . .......................5 3.3.1 Alluvium (Qal) .................................................................. 5 .................... 3.3.2 Colluvium (Qcol) .............................................................. ... .......................5 ~ 3.3.3 Pauba Formation (G1Ps) ................................................... .......................6 4.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... .................... ..6 ~ ~ 4.1 All Areas ........................................................................................ 4.2 Oversize Material . .......................6 7 . ........................................................................... ............ 4.3 Structural Fill .................................................................................. ........... .......................7 f ~ 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY - GENERAL .............................................................. 8 ..................... _ 5.1 Fill Slopes:.-..-..-.:.:..::~. .........................................................:..::....... ~ .. 8 :.................. .. 5.2 Slope Maintenance and Protection Recommendations ................. .. .......................g ~ 5.2.1 Surface Drainage ............................................................. ......................9 5.2.2 Slope Berms ..................................................................... ......................9 5.2.3 Off-Site Drainage .............................................................. ......................9 ~ 5.2.4 Maintenance Responsibility .............................................. 9 .................. _ 1 5.2.5 Slope Protection ........................................................ ....... .... ................... 9 5.2.6 Excessive Irrigation ...................................................... ... 9 'r, .... 5.2.7 Burrowing Animals ............................................................ ...................... ....................10 J 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ~p , 6.1 Foundation Design Recommendations .......................................... .......... ~p ~ 6.1.1 Foundation Size ....................... ......... ......... .... ..... .........10 6.1.2 Depth of Embedment ....................................................... ....................10 EnGEN Corporation ~ ,i : ~ 7'~ns-Paciflc Consultants, Inc. ~~ Project Number: T3047-GFS ,~ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ~ Section Number and Title Pa°e 6.1.3 Bearing Capacity ..................................................................................10 ~ 6.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................11 i 6.1.5 Settlement .............................................................. ........11 ...................... 6.2 Lateral Capacity ..................................................................................................11 '1 6.3 Slab-on-Grade Recommendations .....................................................................11 ~' 6.4 Exterior Slabs .....................................................................................................12 7.0 RETA~NING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................12 7.1 Earth Pressures ..................................................................................................12 7.2 Retaining Wall Design ........................................................................................13 7.3 Subdrain .............................................................................................................13 7.4 Backfill ................................................................................................................14 _ 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,14 ;~ 8.1 Utility Trench Recommendations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,.....,,,,14 , 8.2 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,....,...15 ' ~ 8.3 Planter Recommendations ................................................... 8.4 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing ,,,,,,,, ..............................15 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15 8.5 _ Plan Review ....................................................................... .. . .... .. ... .. ... .. ......15 •~ 8.6 Pre-Bid Conference .............................................................. ..............................16 ~ 8.7 Pre-Grading Conference ...................................................... ..............................16 9.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................... ..............................16 ..f APPENDIX: , ` TECHNICAL REFERENCES tf~ SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS LABORATORY TEST RESULTS [`~; DRAWINGS F~ ~ ~ ~, 3 ,~ • • ____ _ EnGEN Corporation •~iIEnA~~~WaMLonwllinA~~~as'~AircttiipGeolopy•CompaclionTeslinp • Inspxtlons • Canstru~tim hl~enals iatbp • taEO2lmy ialinp • Perwlalion iaM1ip _ • Gwlopy • Wahr pespurce $IWies • Phaie I 8 0 EnviromieNal Site AsSpsmeMs ENVIRONMENTAL HL GEOTECHNICAI ENGINEERING NETWORK February 10, 2004 `p' Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc. 27431 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, Califomia 92590~833 ~' (909) 676-7000 / FAX (909) 699-7324 Attention: Ms. Deanne Vigliotti Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY STUDY Proposed Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 945-140-004 Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8598 Lolita Road City of Temecula, County of Riverside, Califomia Project Number: T3047-GFS ` Reference: 1. Trans-Pacific Consultants, Precise Grading Plan, Parcel 3 of Parcel Map l 8598, City of Temecula, plans dated September 23, 2003. V Dear Ms. Vigiiotti: In accordance with your request and signed authorization, a representative of this firm has visited {~~ the subject site on January 26, 2004, to visually observe the surticial conditions of the subject ~ parcel and to collect samples of representative su~cial site materials. Laboratory testing was !' I` pertormed on these samples. Test results and preliminary foundation recommendations for the ~ construction and grading of the proposed development are provided. it is our understanding that minor cut and fill type grading will take place for the proposed structural development. Footings ~' are planned to be excavated into either compacted fill or competent bedrock, but not a - combination of both. Grading for hardscape improvements will accompany the structural development and we have included appropriate recommendations. Based on this firm's '~ experience with this type of project, our understanding of the regional geologic conditions . surrounding the site, and our review of in-house maps, published and unpublished reports, subsurtace exploration was not considered necessary. However, in lieu of subsurtace exploration, additional grading beyond that anticipated in this report may be necessary depending on exposed ,~~ conditions encountered during grading. _~ _.. _.. ;-, ..~ _.. : ;~~ i t~ - -- .- _ . - _ - __. _..~._ ~ ;__ ,~.. .. __.__ __ _ _ .. i ~ /' j . " j .. ._ . ...... -- ~. ~ ; _ ' ~~~I 'i , ~ ~1 } CORP6HA7E OFFICE 41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite t,Temecula, CA 92590 • phone: (951) 296-2230 • fax: ~951) 296-2237 ,~ i ORANGE COUNTY OFFI~E 2615 Orange Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92707 • phone: (714) 546-0051 • fax: p14) 546-0052 i ,i ~ ff8 $ITE: www.engenwrp.com ~ E-MAIL: engencorp@engencorp.com ~ ~ ~.__ T.r=``~.~`"'''`r~~~..^.''~:~.~_-_:_._ ~ _.---. ~ 's.. `-"'~:.. s.,...~ I • ~s-Paciflc Consultants, Inc. } Project Number. T3047-GFS ~ February 2004 Page 2 E 1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Slte Descriotion: The subject site consists of approximately 4.8-acres with vertical ~ topographic relief of approximately 120-feet. The site is located between Santiago Road ~} and Lolita Road, east of the intersection of Lolita Road and John Warner Road, in the j City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. The topography slopes towards Yhe north and south at gradients of approximately 25 to 35 percent. Overall site drainage is -~~ through sheet flow towards the north and through the natural drainage course towards -j the south. No structures were located on-site. " 1.2 Proiect Descriotion: Based on our review of the grading plan, the proposed development will consist of a one to two-story single family wood-framed residential type r'~ ~ structure as well as a separate detached garage type structure, with slab-on-grade ~ foundations. The main residential structure will straddle a cuUfill transition whereas the - separate detached garage type structure will be founded entirely into native bedrock material. All fill slopes are planned to be constructed at a ratio of 2:1, horizontal to ~.s vertical, or flatter. We are providing general grading and minimum footing -~ recommendations for the proposed structures. Any changes to the plans shouid be , reviewed by this o~ce so that additional recommendations can be made, if necessary. 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 Site Review: Based on our site visit, it appears that alluvium, colluvium and Pauba ~ Formation underlie the site. Alluvium occupies the low-lying southern portions of the site. Colluvial materials may be observed on the natural slopes. Pauba Formation ~~ constitutes bedrock at the site and it is exposed on the ridges in the central areas. Since U. . , no subsurFace exploration was pertormed for this investigation, the thickness and i1 ~' condition of the alluvium and wlluvium is not known. The site is not located within a State designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No faulting was observed i~ during our site reconnaissance. _ 2.2 Laboratorv Testina -j 2.2.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth material obtained ~~~ during the site visit are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and brief ~ explanation of the laboratory tests performed. The samples obtained during the field study r J~ EnGEN Corporafion ~/ • Tre~acHic Consultants, Inc. Project Number. T3047-GFS February 2004 Page 3 will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be notified immediateiy if retention of samples wiil be needed beyond 30 days. 2.2.2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered during our site visit were verified in the laboratory in generai accordance with the Unified Soiis Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils (Visuai-Manual Procedures). 2.2.3 Maximum Drv Densitv/Ootimum Moisture Content Relationshio Test Maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on samples of near-surface earth materials in general accordance with ASTM 1557-00 procedures using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and compacted in five (5) fayers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches and with 25 biows per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determined from the plot. 2.2.4 Expansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were pertormed on samples of near-surtace earth materials in general accordance with ASTM D 4829-95 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 between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined under a pressure of 144 pounds per square foot (ps~ and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The resulting volume change due to the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded and the Expansion Index (EI) is calculated. Preliminary EI testing was pertormed, yielding an EI of 0. This is classfied as a very low expansion potential. Import soils or soils used near finish grade may have a different EI. At the conclusion of grading, our firm should perform sampling and EI testing of the soils at final pad grade as well as at footing grade. Those results should be forwarded and incorporated into the final foundation design by the Project Structural Engineer. 2.2.5 Soluble Sulfates: Based on our visual inspection of the site and of the samples collected during our site visit, our experience with this type of project, and test results from similar sites in the immediate vicinity, testing for the presernz of soluble sulfates was not EnGEN Corporation ~ V , ~-Pacific ConsulWnts, Inc. ~ Project Number: T3047-GFS February 2004 Page 14 ( drainage system or drainage to day~ight needs to be designed. The low point of the ~ drainage system should be at least 1&inches below the finished basement floor. ` 7.4 Bac ill: 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 enGosed in a i { 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 r~ of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should not be compacted d 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 bac~ll 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 1 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. 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS ~ 8.1 Utilitv Trench Recommendations• Utility trenches within the zone of influence of 1_~ 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 lifit thickness appropriate t for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used. Backfill materia~ shouid ~~ be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by mechanical means. , 1 EnGEN Cotporaaon ~ J ~ ; • I ~s-Paclflc Consultants, Inc. t Project Number: T3047-GFS ~ February 2004 Page 15 { Jetting of the backfill material will not be considered a satisfactory method for compaction. 1 Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for backfill material should be ~ determined according to ASTM D 1557-00 procedures. 8.2 Finish Lot Dreinaae Recommendations• Finish lot surtace 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 surtace water should ~ be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of surtace water should not be allowed next to strudures or on pav~ments. In unpaved areas, a minimum positive ~ gradient of 4.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum distance of 3.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a non- ~{ erosive manner should be provided. ~') 8.3 Planter Recommendatlons• Planters around the perimeter of the structure shouid 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. 8.4 Suoolemental Construction Observations and Testina• Any subsequent grading for development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading inGudes, but is not limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cu~ll transitions, fill placement, and ~` excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporadon, should observe all foundation excavations. Observations shoutd 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 ~ Corpocation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions R are not performed by EnGEN Cocporadon, liability for the safety and pertormance of the i development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by { EaGEN Corporation. ~ 8.5 Plan Review: Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications for the project ! I but before bids for construction are requested, grading and foundation plans for the _> ~I EnGEN Corporauon ~ ~ • ~s-Paclftc Consultants, Inc. ~ Project Number: T3047-GFS February 2004 Page 76 proposed development should be reviewed by EnGEN Corporation to verify compatibility with site geotechnical conditions and oonformance 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. 8.6 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. f~ 8.7 Pre-Gradina 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 + grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications comply with the ~ recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report. Any special grading procedures I 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 paRies 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 condusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes I are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or ,,1 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 ` 1 EnGEN Corpoiadon ~ • ~ans-Pacific Consultants, Inc. Project Number: T3047-GFS February 2004 Page 17 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 Corporacion should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can be pertormed 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 Corpocation which occur in the future. 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 o~ce at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project j to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be 1 applicable on the project. ~ Respe~- II submitted, EnGE; 'C~poration ~ ' ` ~ ~µ0fk ~f f , r- ` `^ ~ `~ ~ ~ `y ~ . ~! ~ 1599 <. ~~`-"~ , _ ~rtif d ' e I Geologist r`''~` F ~ ~ ;,;. ~ ~ ,- ~ xp' es 04-30-05 ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ v~ . ~ " '~ /RC/OB:h •~ : `: - ~ ~ . : o ~ ~ Dis F ~ a Addressee FlLE: EnGENVteporGng\GFSlT3047GFS, TransPadfic Consullants, Inc., Geotechnical FeesibilityStudy z ' ~ EnGEN Corporadon \~ • T•-Pacific ConsuMants, Inc. Project Number. T3047-GFS Appendix Page 1 ~ TECHNICAL REFERENCES 1. Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship Between Seismicity and Geologic Structure in ~ the Southem Califomia Region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55, No. 4, pg. 753-797. 2. Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread, ~ Joumal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, April 1995. 3. Blake, T. F., 2000, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.OOb, A Computer Program for the ~ Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Califomia Historical Earthquake Catalogs. 4. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Westem North American Earthquakes: A ~ Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1,. Pages 128-153. ~ 5. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in Califomia, Speciai Publication 117. 6. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of southem Califomia, ~ Bulletin 170. 7. County of Riverside 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. 8. County of Riverside, 2003a, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety ~ Element - Mapped Faulting in Riverside County: http://www.rcip.org/documents/ ~. general~lan/gen~lan. 9. County of Riverside, 2003b, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety Element - Earthquake Fault Zones: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general~lan/ ~ gen~lan. 10. ~ County of Riverside, 2003c, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safefy Element - Generalized Liquefaction: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general~lan/ gen~lan. t~ 11. County of Rivereide, 2003d, County of Riverside General Plan - Hearing Draft, Safety ~ Element - Earthquake-Induced Slope Stability Map: http://www.rcip.org/documentsl general~lanlgen~lan. 12. Hart, Eari W., and Bryant, William A.; 1997, Revised 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: State of Califomia, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38 Pages. 13. Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southem California Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, Califomia Institute of Technology. 14. Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following ~ liquefaction during earthquakes, Soil and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No.i, pg. 173-188. ~\ • Tr~Paciflc ConsulWnts, Inc. Project Number: T3047-GFS Appendix Page 2 TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continuedl 15. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1988, Maps of Known ! Active Fault Near-Source Zones in Califomia and Adjacent Portion of Nevada - To be J Used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code: Prepared by the California Division of Mines ' and Geology. i 1fi. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in ' ~ Southem Riverside County, Califomia: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131, 12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000. ! 17. Mann, J.F., Jr., October 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, Califomia: State of Califomia, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Special . ~ Report 43. ' ' 18. Morton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30 x 60 Quadrangle, Southem Califomia, Version 1.0, United States Geological Survey, Open File ~~ Report 99-172. 19. Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Winchester 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, Califomia, Version 1.0: United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-188. ~ 20. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory,,P.A. and Schwartr, D.P., 1996, Probabilis6c Seismic Hazard ~ Assessment for the State of Califomia, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open ~ File Report 96-706. 21. Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ; ~ Joumal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, April 1998. ~ 22. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the westem United States: College of Engineering, University of Califomia, Berkeley, Earthquake ;` Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2. ~"f 23. 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. (`~ 24. State of Califomia Department of Water Resources, Water Welis and Springs in the ,,~ Westem Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21. 25. Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in J Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984. ~ 26. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building Officials, 3 Volumes. i ~ 27. Vaughan, Thorup 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. __1 ~ EnGEN Corporation \~ 4 ~ Tr~-Paciflc ConsulWnts, Inc. 1 Project Number. T3047-GFS Appendix Page 3 SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS ~ , ~ , ~ EnGEN Corporarion ~3 ~ ~ ~ . I GEOSYSTEM SLOPE STABILITY PROGRAM SB-SLOPE ~20JECT DATA: Project: T.P.C.,INC ' cation: LOLITA ROAD Plename: T3047GFS Description: 47' 2:1 FILL SLOPE (STATIC) ANALYSIS DATA: int"Coordi~nates Line Left Right Soil Soil Density Cohesion Phi _. X Y No. Point Point No. No. pcf psf Deg 1 0.0 1185.0 1 1 2 1 1 124.8 385 34.0 2 30.0 1185.0 2 2 3 1 ~ 3 160.0 1200.0 3 3 4 1 4 255.0 1245.0 4 4 5 1 ' r 5 320.0 1245.0 I ~h~ I ~~ r I ~ I SB-SLOPE Simplified Bishop Slope Stobility Analysis PROJECT: T.P.C.,INC LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD FILE: T3047GFS COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION CIRCLE X Y RADIUS FS 1 185.0 7285.0 90.0 2.SD ia~ tu 141 138i Z O 135( H H- Q 1 W 132C J W 129a 1260 1230 1200 1770 11W HORIZONTAL DISTANCE `/ 7 ironmentol and Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation___ I ~ . I ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ u ~ ~~1 ) ~ I ~ . y ~ ~l '~ 1360 1340 7}20 7300 1280 1260 1240 1220 1200 1180 SB-SLOPE Simplified Bishop Slope Stability Analysis PROJEGT: T.P.C.,INC LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD FILE: T3047GFS t2o t~60 1335 Z O H t3oo Q w J W 1265 1230 7195 1160 }5 70 705 140 175 210 245 280 }7g }3p HORIZONTAL DISTANCE \(~ t~ Environmentol and Geotechnicol Engineering Network Corporation ~ ~ ~ I GEOSYSTEM SLOPE STABILITY PROGRAM SB-SLOPE - ~ROJECT-DATA: Project: T.P.C.,INC , 'ocation: LOLITA ROAD lilename: T3047GF5 Description: 47' 2:1 FILL SLOPE (SEISMIC) ALYSIS DATA: "-" oint-Coordinates Line Left Right Soil _o. X Y No. Point Point No. 1 0.0 1185.0 1 1 2 1 I 2 30.0 3185.0 2 2 3 1 3 160.0 1200.0 3 3 4 1 4 255.0 1245.0 4 4 5 1 1 5 320.0 1245.0 ~s'eismic coefficient, horizontal = 0.150 vertical = 0.150 ~ l -~ f^i I Soil Density Cohesion Phi No. pcf psf Deg 1 124.8 385 34.0 ~1 ~ SB-SLOPE ~ Simplified 8ishop Slope Stability Analysis PROJECT: T.P.C.,INC I ~OCATION: LOLITA ROAD FILE: T3047GFS COMPLETE SLOPE CROSS SECTION ~ CIRCLE X Y RADIUS FS 1 190.0 7295.0 75.0 1.84 14', 14! 147 738 Z O 135i H Q 1 ~''~ 7321 J W 129( 126C 1230 1200 1170 _l ,,,~ ~J I~ E HORIZONTA~ DISTANCE ~~ vironmental ond Geotechnical Engineering Network Corporation_ I , ~ l I~ t~~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ t 1::J ~ i~ ~ ~ I ~ I. _. ,~ ~} SB-SLOPE Simpiified Bishop Slope Stability Analysis PROJECT: T.P.C.,INC LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD FILE: T3047GFS 1360 1340 ,~2~ tJ00 1280 1260 7240 7220 1200 1180 1J35 Z O H t300 F- >Q LJ W 1Z63 1230 1195 1160 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 }~5 S50 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE ~~ vironmental and Geotechnicol Engineering Network Corporotion _ ' I • ~ns-Paeific Consultants, Inc. I Project Number. T3047-GFS Appendix Page 4 j LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ) _,~. ~~ ~ ,• I EnGEN Corporauon ~ .~ , . • I I . . _ i . .. ~7 ' ~ ~ ~ ! ~I 1 ~ ~ ~ ,I .~ ~ 3000 x ~ i a N 20~a a ~ N ~ W H..~ N N Q Q ~0~~ ~ W H a J ~ 0 '. , _ ;._ - ;. f . :... , ._ _. ; ~ _ ;~. s . ~. .. :... ~ .. _ . , ~ . _... _ :._.. ,, . :...r ~ . . . ~. - i - i.. . ~... .. . .t . . i. ~ « !...~ ~ . . ~. , . ... ...::.. . ...~ :... ,'....; ~ i..~:.. t... . i ; ~ : .,.... : : _...;.. _ ;.. ~ : ....:... ~ . ; ;. ~ ; ;. ; : - :... s ; ....,,. ;... . ....,.,.. . ...< ; ..;... ~ ~. , i, :... .. .. . , . : .., .., ;.. : . .. .,. ;.. .... . , ~ .... ~ ~ ; . i !. ... . : . : . : / : ~ . : . . , . . ... . ~ .... . . ..:...... . . :.. .:.'.. :... :.... ~,... .~.... ,~ ~ : ~ . . .. ;... ~ . ... .. ... .... :. ~ t..; :. :.. ' , . ' : ~ , .!._ . l.../ : _. ':.. . . ; : : . : . ' ....i.. A : ~ :..., , . .:. ,..s. , ;.. .. _ .. . ... ~ , ; . ... . PEAK ULTIMATE , i ~ _: , .... ; ;.... C psf 463 385 : : , ; + . ; .... ¢, deg 38.4 34.2 TAN ~ 0.79 0.68 0 3000 2500 ~ ~ ° 2000 a~ N w ~ 1500 ~ ~ c°~ 1000 r N 500 0~ 0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 Horiz. Displ., in SAMPLE TYPE: DESCR2PT20N: SiLTY SAND,BROWN 5000 6000 1 2 3 11.0 71.0 71.0 112.2 112.2 112.2 68.3 68.3 68.3 0.407 0.407 0.407 2.42 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.2 172.2 112.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.407 0.407 0.407 2.42 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1000 2000 3000 1213 2132 2797 0.09 0.10 0.08 1007 7858 2367 0.22 0.23 0.22 o.zooo 0.2000 o.zooo : VIGLIOTTI RESIDENCE :. /~ , I I I~ SPECIF2C GRAVITY= 2.53 REMARKS: SAMPLE A MIDDLE OF SITE COLL BY RW COLL ON 1-2&-04 Fig. No.: SAMPLE NO.: WATER CONTENT, ~ Q ORY DENSITY, pcf ~ SATURATSON, ~ Z VOID RATIO H DIAMETER, in HEIGHT in WATER CONTENT, % ~ DRY DENSITY, pcf F SATURATION, % r V02D RATIO Q DSAMETER, in HEIGHT in NORMAL STRESS, psf PEAK STRE55, psf DISPLACEMENT, in ULTIMATE STRESS, psf DISPLACEMENT, in Strain rate, in/min LIENT: T.P.C.,INC dPLE LOCATION: LOLITA ROAD, TEMECULA )J. NO.: T3047-GFS DATE: 1-28-04 DIRECT SHEAR T£ST REPORT EnGEN Corporotion ~ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Normol Stress, psf . ' I ' • ~ns-Paciftc Consultants, Inc. Projed Number: T3047-GFS ( Appendix Page 5 DRAWINGS ~j ~ , -! ~i Z~ EnGEN Corporation