HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 33874 Geotechnical Report April 26, 2004• Soil Erginmrng ane Comlling S"m • Engi a ng Geology • Conpadion Telling
En Corporation 'mIDgy CWa�Amoum S"Ww, Place B�E Tio"nmrwdUelxl ognl5
• ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
.0
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Remington Avenue II
Assessor's Parcel Number: 909-370-024
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 28657-1, Remington Avenue
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
April 26, 2004
Prepared for:
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500
San Diego, California 92122
1 '[1
CORPORATE�OFFICE 41607 Enterprise Circle
ORANGE COUNTY OF 71JE 2615 Orange
WEB SITE: www.e
Suite 1, Temecula, CA 92590 •phone: (60-
296-2230 --fax:-(909) 296-2237 -
e, Santa Ana, CA 92707 • phone: (714) 546-4051 • fax: (714) 546-4052
mp.com • E-MAIL: engencorp@engencorp.com -
is
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
Section Number and Title
page
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................2
2.0 SITE
REVIEW................................................................................................................2
.............................................................................................10
6.3 Subdrain.............................................................................................................10
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 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 Elsinore Fault Zone — Murrieta Creek Segment .....................................
3
2.4.2 Elsinore Fault Zone — Temecula Segment........................................3
2.4.3 Surface Fault Rupture.....................................................................4
2.4.4 Restricted Use Zone ............................................. .........................
4
2.5
Seismicity.............................................................................................................5
2.6
Liquefaction ............. .............................................................................................
5
2.7
Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity..................................................................5
6.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................10
6.1 Earth Pressures..................................................................................................10
6.2 Foundation Design
.............................................................................................10
6.3 Subdrain.............................................................................................................10
6.4 Backfill................................................................................................................11
EnGEN Corporation
•
Section Number and Title
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
Page
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................11
7.1 Pavement Design ................................ ......... ......... .........
...........11
7.2 Utility Trench Recommendations........................................................................13
7.3 Temporary Excavation or Cuts .........
7.4 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations.............................................................13
7.5 Planter Recommendations .................. .........
7.6 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing......................................14
7.7 Pre -Grade Conference.................................................................................14
8.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING....................................................14
9.0 CLOSURE..............................................................................................................15
APPENDIX:
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
TABLE A - STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Is COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE
ZONING ACT REVIEW, COUNTY GEOLOGIC REPORT NO. 950 APPROVAL LETTER DATED
MAY 12, 1998
DRAWINGS
0
•�•~_��MW�
EnGEN
•Goll Enremoving and Consulting Services• Engineering Geology • Compaction tolmg
_—=-- _ HnG�yN Corporation
Instructions •- Water
Materials Testing •Laboratory Testing •Percolation testmg
_ _ 1J1 � `Jl Y 1 CL 1. 11 • "'G'eology •Water Fesource Slur3es • Phase 1811 Environmental Site Assessrrrent5
• ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK
April 26, 2004
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500
San Diego, California 92122
(858) 546-2930 / FAX (858) 546-2812
Attention: Mr. John Bragg
Regarding: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Remington Avenue II
Assessors Parcel Number: 909-370-024
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 28657-1, Remington Avenue
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Geotechnical Report and Compaction Test Results, Rough
Grading Operations, Tract 28657, Diaz Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, Permit Number: LD 98-037GR, Project Number: T1381 -C, report dated
June 9, 1999.
2. EnGEN Corporation, Updated Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed
Expansion of Existing Business Center, Parcels 1 through 9 of Tract 28657, Diaz
Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T1381 -GS,
report dated May 4, 1998.
3. County of Riverside Planning Department, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act Review, Project No. T1179 -FS, Tentative P.M. 28657 and P.M. 24085 and
24086, County Geologic Report No. 950 (update to County Geologic Report No. 627),
letter dated May 12, 1998.
4. EnGEN Corporation, County Response Letter, Geologic Report No. 950, Tentative
P.M. 28657 and P.M. 24085 and 24086, letter dated April 4, 1998, Project Number:
1179 -FS, report dated April 29, 1998.
5. EnGEN Corporation, Fault Location Investigation, Existing Restricted Use Zone, P.M.
24085 and 24086, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number:
T1179 -FS, report dated August 29, 1997.
6. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Response to County Geologic Review Sheet, Tentative
P.M. 24085, 24086, 21029 and 21383, Rancho California, California (A.P.N.: 909-
120-020 and -002; G.R. 627), response dated August 15, 1989.
7. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Assessment
District No. 155, P.M. 24085, 24086, 21382 and 21383, Rancho California, Riverside
County, California, report dated June 7, 1989.
CIORATE ATE OFFICE 41607 Enterprise Circle No rtl, Suite 1, Temecula, CA 92590 • phone: (909) 296-2230 • fax: (909) 296-2237
ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 2615 Orange Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92707 • phone: (714) 546-4051 • fax: (714) 546-4052
_ WEB SITE: www.engencoqp.rom •E-MAIL: engencorp@engencorp.cam
I _
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April 2
Pagee 2 2
Dear Mr. Bragg:
In accordance with your request and signed proposal, a representative of this firm reviewed the
referenced reports and visited the subject site on March 31, 2004, to visually observe, probe, and
sample the surface within the subject lot, in order to update the reports referenced above.
1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site consists of 5.43 -acres and is located on the northwest side of Remington
Avenue, southwest of Diaz Road, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
The proposed site improvements consist of an industrial building with a concrete tilt -up,
slab -on -grade type structure with associated landscape, hardscape and parking
improvements.
2.0 SITE REVIEW
2.1 Previous Grading Operation: Based on our review of the Referenced No. 1 Report,
grading of the site was completed in 1998. Grading consisted of an overexcavation and
• replacement operation. Depth of removals ranged from 5 to 8 -feet below original grade,
resulting in fill thicknesses of 14 to 17 -feet (Referenced No. 1 Report).
2.2 Site Reconnaissance: At the time of the site reconnaissance, the site had a light cover
of weeds and grasses. Some minor stockpiles, approximately 1 -foot thick, were located
near the center of the site. 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 Testing
2.3.1 General: The results of laboratory tests performed on a sample 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 sample 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 the sample will be needed beyond 30 days.
2.3.2 Classification: The 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
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April 2003
Page
3
Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and
Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedures).
2.3.3 Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Relationship Test: Maximum dry
density/optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on a
sample of near -surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 1557-00
procedures using a 4.0 -inch diameter mold. The sample was 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.
2.3.4 Expansion Index Test: A laboratory expansion test was performed on a sample 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 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 (psf) and allowed to soak for 24 hours. The resulting volume change due
to the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded and the Expansion Index
(EI) is calculated.
2.3.5 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 is necessary.
2.4 Faulting: Most of the southwestern portion of the site is located within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone (A -P Zone). However, no faulting was found on-site during the
previous studies (Referenced No. 1 through No. 7 Reports).
2.4.1 Elsinore Fault Zone — Murrieta Creek Segment: The Murrieta Creek Fault, part of the
Elsinore Fault Zone, lies off-site along the southwestern limit of the property, as
documented by previous studies (Referenced No. 3 through No. 7 Reports).
• 2.4.2 Elsinore Fault Zone — Temecula Segment: The Elsinore Fault Zone (Temecula
Segment) is located over 3,000 feet (approximately 1.0 kilometer) northeast of the site.
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April 2
Pagee 4 4
The Elsinore Fault Zone is a prominent and youthful structural boundary between the
Perris Block to the northeast and the Santa Ana mountains to the southwest. The Elsinore
Fault system is a major right lateral strike -slip fault system that has experienced strong
earthquakes in historical times (1856, 1894 and 1910) and exhibits late Quaternary
movement. The Elsinore Fault, a Type B Fault, has been used as the design fault for
engineering analysis due to the probability of a maximum earthquake magnitude of 6.8.
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: Surface rupture due to faulting is most likely to occur along
existing fault traces. The trace of the off-site Murrieta Creek Fault segment was located
and surveyed, and a Restricted Use Zone (RUZ) established as a part of the Referenced
No. 5 Report (County Geologic Report CGR 950). This report was part of a broader study
that addressed the subject site and surrounding parcels and was an update of previous
fault investigations performed in the vicinity that included the subject site (Referenced No.
• 6 and No. 7 Reports). The Referenced No. 5 Report sought to better define the location of
•
the fault, so that the RUZ could be made narrower than that recommended in the
Referenced No. 6 and No. 7 Reports. County review comments on the Referenced No. 5
Report were responded to in the Referenced No. 4 Report. The responses were accepted
by the Riverside County Geologist, Mr. Steven Kupferman, in a May 12, 1998, letter
(Reference No. 3). A listing of State -designated active faults within a 100 kilometer (62
mile) radius is presented in Table A in the Appendix.
2.4.4 Restricted Use Zone: At its closest point to the site, the fault lies at the southwestern
property line. The RUZ extends approximately 60 -feet inside the southwestern property
line at its maximum extent into the central portion of the southwestern side of the site
(Plate 1). No structures for human occupation should be constructed within the RUZ.
Based on the Referenced No. 3 through No. 5 Reports, the potential for fault surface
rupture on the subject site outside of the RUZ is considered unlikely. The current
conceptual plan shows that the proposed structure will lie outside of the RUZ. No
additional setback is considered necessary.
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April 2003
5 5
Protection should be provided for utility lines within the RUZ. Such protection may include
flexible connections and pressure sensitive valves to cut off flow in the event of differential
movement.
2.5 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 by Blake (2000c).
The attenuation relationships by Boore et al. (1997) for soil type So (stiff soil—shear
wave velocity 310 m/s) was utilized. For a complete discussion of the software and
probabilistic methods the reader is referred to Blake (2000a, b, c).
• FRISKSP computed a 0.78g for soil type So as the peak ground acceleration from the
design -basis earthquake, the horizontal acceleration that hypothetically has a ten
percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years.
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 different methodologies may also evolve.
2.6 Liquefaction: The site is underlain by alluvium and 14 to 17 -feet of compacted fill over
alluvium. Due to the thickness and density of the fill material, the, potential for liquefaction
is considered low.
2.7 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 flooding. 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
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 flat topographic conditions of the area, the potential for earthquake-
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April 2003
Page 6
induced landslides or rockfalls is considered low. Earthquake -induced surface flooding
due to seiches is considered low since there are no large confined bodies of water nearby.
3.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General: Final building 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. No construction of structures for human occupation
should take place in the designated RUZ. The recommendations presented in this report
are based on the Referenced No. 1 Report.
The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended for: 1) the use of a
conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slabs cast on -grade; and 2) the
rework of unsuitable, near -surface earth materials to create an engineered building pad
and suitable support for exterior hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement. The
following recommendations may need to be modified and/or supplemented during rough
• grading as field conditions require.
1. All vegetation should be cleared and not used in the fills.
2. All undocumented fills, stockpiles, etc., should be removed, cleared of any debris,
and may then be reused as engineered fill material.
3. After removal of vegetation, stockpiles, etc., the upper 1 -foot should be scarified
and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent compact.
4. All bottoms should be tested to verify 90 percent compaction.
3.2 Engineered Fill: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should be approved
by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or his representative before placement. All fill
should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris. Import fill should be
approved by the Project 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 density based upon ASTM D 1557-00 procedures. Moisture
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April 2003
Page 8
increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading such as
wind or seismic forces.
4.5 Settlement: Footings designed according to the recommended bearing values for
continuous and column footings, respectively, and the maximum assumed wall and
column loads are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.5 -inch or a
differential settlement of 0.25 -inch in properly compacted fill.
4.6 Lateral Capacity: Additional foundation design parameters based on compacted fill for
resistance to static lateral forces, are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 200 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction:
Compacted Fill — 0.35
Lateral load resistance may be developed by a combination of friction acting on the base
of foundations and slabs and passive earth pressure developed on the sides of the
• footings and stem walls below grade when in contact with. undisturbed, properly,
compacted fill material. The above values are allowable design values and have safety
factors of at least 2.0 incorporated into them and may be used in combination without
reduction in evaluating the resistance to lateral loads. The allowable values may be
increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live and/or dynamic loading, such as wind
or seismic forces. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0 -foot of
material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. The
maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 5.0 times the recommended
design value.
4.7 Seismic Design Parameters: The following seismic design factors apply:
Design Fault: Elsinore Fault — Temecula Segment
Fault Type: Type B Fault
Closest Distance to Fault: Less than 2 Km
Soil Profile Type: SD
•
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April 2003
Page 9
5.0 SLAB -ON -GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, excluding
PCC pavement, are based upon the anticipated building usage and upon a very low
expansion potential for the supporting material as determined by Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code. Concrete slabs should be designed to minimize cracking as a
result of shrinkage. Joints (isolation, contraction, and construction) should be placed in
accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special precautions
should be taken during placement and curing of all concrete slabs. Excessive slump
(high water/cement ratio) of the concrete and/or improper curing procedures used
during either hot or cold weather conditions could result in excessive shrinkage,
cracking, or curling in the slabs. It is recommended that all concrete proportioning,
placement, and curing be performed in accordance with ACI recommendations and
procedures.
5.2 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs -on -grade should be a minimum of 4 -inches
. nominal in thickness and be underlain by 1 to 2 -inches of clean coarse sand or other
approved granular material placed on properly prepared subgrade. Slabs that will be
subjected to crane loads for the purpose of tilting panels should be a minimum of
5 -inches in actual thickness. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 3
reinforcing bars placed 24 -inches on the center in both directions or a suitable
equivalent. 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 covered 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.
5.3 Exterior Slabs: All exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade (patios, sidewalks, etc.,
with the exception of PCC pavement) should be a minimum of 4 -inches nominal in
thickness. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a compacted sand or gravel base
beneath the slabs should be according to the current local standards. Subgrade soils
should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 6.0 -
inches and proof compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on
ASTM D 1557-00 procedures immediately before placing aggregate base material or
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
April 2003
10 Page 10
placing the concrete. 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
Temecula.
6.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 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 pcf
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 need to be restricted from such movement should be assumed rigid and
designed for the at -rest condition. The above values assume well -drained backfill and no
buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill
behind the wall should also be should considered in the design.
6.2 Foundation Design: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into
properly compacted fill, as standard 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
1.5 should be achieved.
6.3 Subdrain: A subdrain 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/or filter rock, if not properly designed and graded for the on-site and/or
import materials, should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Supac
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April
Pagee 11 11
4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the
system. The perforated pipes should be at least 4.0 -inches in diameter. Pipe
perforations should be 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 change in the water level.
6.4 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 used, the sand should be densified to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. If the specified density is not obtained by water jetting, mechanical
. methods will be required. If other types of soil or gravel are used for backfill,
mechanical compaction methods will be required to obtain a relative compaction of at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Backfill directly behind retaining walls should
not be compacted by wheel, track or other rolling by heavy construction equipment
unless the wall is designed for the surcharge loading. If gravel, clean sand, or other
imported backfill is used behind retaining walls, the upper 18 -inches of backfill in
unpaved areas should consist of typical on-site material compacted to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction in order to prevent the influx of surface runoff into the
granular backfill and into the subdrain system. Maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for backfill materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D
1557-00 procedures.
7.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Pavement Desian: 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
0 automobile areas, a TI of 6.0 for truck traffic areas, and an R -Value of 26. Based on
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144-SGS
. April
Pagee 12 12
this preliminary R-Value, the project designer should specify the appropriate pavement
section for the various traffic areas as follows:
Type of Traffic
Traffic Index
Pavement Section
Automobile
5.0
3.0 -inches A.C. over 6.5 -inches Aggregate Base OR
6.0 -inches of Portland Cement Concrete with a
compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days placed
on 95 percent subgrade.
Truck
6.0
3.0 -inches A.C. over 9.0 -inches Aggregate Base OR
7.0 -inches of Portland Cement Concrete with a
compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days placed
on 95 percent subgrade.
Final pavement design 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. Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Sections 203-
6 of the Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or an
iapproved equivalent. Aggregate base should conform 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 recompacted 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 subgrade, the subgrade soil 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 determined 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, additional observations and testing will be required prior to
placing aggregate base material or asphaltic concrete to locate areas that may have been
• damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
do Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
• April 2003
Page 13
drying. The pavement sections presented above are calculated minimum sections and
are subject to review and approval by the City of Temecula.
7.2 Utility Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be
backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that all utility trenches
excavated to depths of 5.0 -feet or deeper be cut back to an inclination not steeper than
1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or be adequately shored during construction. Where interior
or exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel and/or perpendicular to any building
footing, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1:1 plane projected
downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the utility lines
are designed for the footing surcharge loads. Backfill material should be placed in a lift
thickness appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment used.
Backfill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction
by mechanical means. Jetting of the backfill material will not be considered a
• satisfactory method for compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content for backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D 1557-00
procedures.
0
7.3 Temporary Excavations Or Cuts: All temporary cuts and excavations should be made
in accordance with CAL/OSHA 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 Drainage Recommendations: Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided next to tops of slopes and buildings to direct surface water away
from foundations and slabs and from flowing over the tops of slopes. 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 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 nonerosive manner should be provided.
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
April 2003
Page 14
7.5 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.
7.6 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing_ Any subsequent grading for
development of the subject property should be performed under engineering observation
and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation. Subsequent grading includes, but is not
limited to, any additional overexcavation of cut and/or cut/fill transitions, fill placement, and
excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN
Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made
prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify,
if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earthwork
completed for the development of subject property should be performed by EnGEN
• Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions
are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the safety and performance of the
development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by
EnGEN Corporation.
7.7 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 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 and/or difficulties proposed by the contractor can also be discussed at that
time.
8.0 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
41 limited to, overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary and permanent
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
April
2003
15 15
cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation
excavations. Observations should be made before installation of concrete forms and/or
reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify the conclusions and recommendations in this
report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other
trench backfill, hardscape subgrade, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall
backfill, slab presaturation, 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 performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability for the performance of the development is
limited to the actual portions of the project observed and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation,
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 concurring with the
recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations.
• 9.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described in this
document. It may or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes.
In the event that changes in the assumed nature, design, or location of the proposed
structure and/or project as described in this report, are planned, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes
are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report modified or verified
in writing. This study was conducted in general accordance with the applicable standards
of our profession and the accepted soil and foundation engineering principles and
practices at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, implied or expressed
beyond the representations of this report, is made. Although every effort has been made
to obtain information regarding the geotechnical and subsurface conditions of the site,
limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown regional or localized off-site
conditions that may have an impact at the site. The recommendations presented in this
report are valid as of the date of the report. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or
to the works of man on this and/or adjacent properties. If conditions are observed or
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144-SGS
April
Pagea 16 16
information becomes 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 this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside of the
control of EnGEN Corporation, 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 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 pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be
applicable on the project.
Respectfully submitted,
EnGEN Corporation
Melvinsky Fkarn r z�
Staff Engineer
<ais(',�-
Colby Matthews
Staff Geologist
MR/CM/RC/OB:hh
Distribution: (4) Addressee
File EnGEN/Reporting/SGSrr3l44SGS Keamy Real Estate, Supplemental Geotechnical Study
0
EnGEN Corporation
s
APPENDIX
•
L
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
Appendix Page 1
0
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
Appendix Page 2
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1. Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction—Induced Lateral Spread,
0
EnGEN Corporation
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, April 1995.
2.
Blake, T. F., 2000a, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.
3.
Blake, T. F., 2000b, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs.
4.
Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRISKSP for Windows, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for the
Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D
Faults as Earthquake Sources.
5.
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.
6.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
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_plan/gen_plan.
9.
County of Riverside, 2003b, County of Riverside General Plan — Hearing Draft, Safety
Element — Earthquake Fault Zones: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general_plan/
gen plan.
10.
County of Riverside, 2003c, County of Riverside General Plan — Hearing Draft, Safety
Element — Generalized Liquefaction: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general_plan/
gen_plan.
11.
County of Riverside, 2003d, County of Riverside General Plan — Hearing Draft, Safety
Element — Earthquake -Induced Slope Stability Map: http://www.rcip.org/documents/
general_plan/gen_plan.
12.
Hart, Earl 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 California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 38
pages.
0
EnGEN Corporation
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
isAppendix Page 3
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
13. Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern California
region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California
EnGEN Corporation
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.1, pg. 173-188.
15.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), February 1988, Maps of Known
Active Fault Near -Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portion of Nevada — To be
Used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code: Prepared by the California Division of Mines
and Geology.
16.
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.
17.
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.
• 18.
Morton, D. M., 1999, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, United States Geological Survey, Open File
Report 99-172.
19.
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Coa, T. Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A. and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open
File Report 96-706.
20.
Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake -Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron mental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, April 1998.
21.
Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1972, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western
United States: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 72-2.
22.
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.
23.
State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the
Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-21.
24.
Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in
Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984.
i
EnGEN Corporation
•
s
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
Appendix Page 4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued)
25. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
26. Vaughan, Thorup and Rockwell, 1999, Paleoseismology of the Elsinore Fault at Agua
Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America,
Volume 89, No. 6, pg. 1447-1457, December 1999.
EnGEN Corporation
0
0
0
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
Appendix Page 5
TABLE A- DISTANCE TO STATE DESIGNATED ACTIVE FAULTS
FAULT NAME
DISTANCE
(mile) km
MAX. MOMENT
MAGNITUDE
(Mmax)
Elsinore - Temecula
0.6
1.0
6.8
Elsinore - Glen Ivy
13.1
21.1
6.8
Elsinore - Julian
13.5
21.8
7.1
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley
21.6
34.8
6.9
San Jacinto - Anza
21.6
34.8
7.2
Newport - Inglewood
27.3
43.9
6.9
Rose Canyon
30.2
48.6
6.9
Chino - Central Avenue Elsinore
31.1
50.0
6.7
San Jacinto - San Bernardino
34.8
56.0
6.7
Whittier
35.2
56.7
6.8
San Andreas - Southern
38.5
61.9
7.4
San Andreas - San Bernardino
38.5
61.9
7.3
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek
38.8
62.5
6.8
Earthquake Valley
41.4
66.7
6.5
Newport - Inglewood L.A. Basin
43.4
69.9
6.9
Coronado Bank
44.1
70.9
7.4
Pinto Mountain
45.7
73.6
7.0
Palos Verdes
46.7
75.1
7.1
Elysian Park Thrust
48.2
77.5
6.7
Cucamonga
48.5
78.0
7.0
San Andreas - Coachella
49.6
79.8
7.1
Compton Thrust
49.8
80.1
6.8
North Frontal Fault Zone West
49.8
80.2
7.0
San Jose
50.5
81.3
6.5
Cle horn
52.6
84.7
6.5
Sierra Madre
52.9
85.2
7.0
North Frontal Fault Zone East
53.3
85.7
6.7
Burnt Mountain
54.9
88.4
6.4
Eureka Peak
57.7
92.9
6.4
San Andreas - Mojave
58.5
94.2
7.1
San Andreas - 1857 Rupture
58.5
94.2
7.8
Elsinore - Coyote Mountain
60.5
97.4
6.8
San Jacinto - Borrego
60.8
97.8
6.6
Helendale - S. Lockhardt
61.7
99.3
7.1
EnGEN Corporation
s
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
0
•
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
Appendix Page 6
EnGEN Corporation
•
•
13,
13(
128
I�
126
124
122
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified
'AV for
3p.G. _
!.65
Elev/ ClassificationNat. I I I No.4 I No.200
Mois. Sp.G. LL PI
Depth USCS AASHTO t
SM I 3.6
TEST RESULTS
Maximum dry density = 128.2 pcf
Optimum moisture = 9.7 %
Project No. T3144 -SGS Client: KREC III, LLC
Project: REMINGTON AVENUE II
• Location: REMINGTON AVENUE
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Remarks:
SAMPLE A
PROPOSED BUILDING AREA
COLL BY MR
COLL ON 3-31-04
Plate
Wet Compacted Wt.:
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 4/1/2004
•
186.3
Job Number:
T3144 -SGS
Job Name:
KREC III, LLC
Location:
REMINGTON AVENUE
Sample Source:
A (PROPOSED BLDG AREA)
Sampled by:
MR (3-31-04)
Lab Technician:
MT
Sample Descr:
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Wet Compacted Wt.:
580.3
Ring Wt.:
186.3
Net Wet Wt.:
394.0
Wet Density:
119.0
Wet Soil:
222.2
Dry Soil:
202.7
Initial Moisture (%):
9.6%
Initial Dry Density:
108.5
% Saturation:
47.0%
Final Wt. 8 Ring Wt.:
611.5
Net Final Wt.:
425.2
Dry Wt.:
359.4
Loss:
65.8
Net Dry Wt.:
356.1
Final Density:
107.5
Saturated Moisture:
18.5%
0
Expansion Index: 4
Adjusted Index: 2.8
(ASTM D 4832-95)
EnGF,N Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909)296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
Dial
Change
Time
Reading 1:
0.100
N/A
9:15
Reading 2:
0.103
0.003
9:30
Reading 3:
0.103
0.003
9:45
Reading 4:
0.104
0.004
1 -Apr
Expansion Index: 4
Adjusted Index: 2.8
(ASTM D 4832-95)
EnGF,N Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
(909)296-2230
Fax: (909) 296-2237
0
C�
•
RNALUE TEST REPORT
100
80
60
a)
m
40
20
0
800 700 600 500 400
300 200 100
Exudation Pressure - psi
Resistance R -Value and Expansion Pressure - Cal Test 301
Compact. Expansion Horizontal
Sample Exud.
R
Density Moist
R
No. Pressure Pressure Press. psi
Height Pressure
Value
pcf aha
Value
psi psi @ 160 psi
in. psi
Corr.
1 135 123.5 12.1 3.33 124
2.57 185 14
15
2 230 125.3 11.6 7.28 91
2.55 350 32
32
3 350 127.0 10.5 14.85 58
2.53 528 54
54
Test Results
Material Description
R -value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 26
SILTY SAND,BROWN
Project No.: T3144 -SGS
Tested by: DB
Project:REMINGTON AVENUE II
Checked by: RW
Location: REMINGTON AVENUE
Remarks:
Sample Number: A
COLL BY MRCOLL
ON 3-31-04
Date: 4/1/2004
R -VALUE TEST REPORT
EnGEN Corporation
Plate
i
is
E.S. BABCI
`a 11 19- &SONS, INC
stablished 19
E0fi
Client Name: Engen, Inc.
Contact: Engen, Inc.
Address: 41607 Enterprise Circle N.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
Report Date: 07 -Apr -2004
Sample Description
A T3144 -SGS KREC III, LLC
NELAP#02101CA ELAP#1156
6100 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 92507-0704
P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 92502-0432
PH (909) 653-3351 FAX (909) 653-1662
mw.babcocklabs.com
Analytical Report:
Page 2 of 3
Project Name
Engen -Sulfate
Project Number:
Purchase Order #2143
Work Order Number:
A4D0019
Received on tee (Y/N):
No Temp: °C
Laboratory Reference Number
A4D0019-01
Matrix Sampled Date/Time Received Date/Time
Soil 03/31/04 00:00 04/01/04 7:50
Analvtefsl R c tit RD tjnmts Method Analysis nate Analyst Flaa
Water Extract
Sulfate 12 10 ppm Ion Chromat. 04/06/0405:33 KOS N -SAG,
N-WEX
�o �N ACCO'q
o �n
x f f
U
F � r
KREC III, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
10 Appendix Page 7
r1
U
•
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ALQUIST-PRIOLO
EARTHQUAKE ZONING ACT REVIEW COUNTY GEOLOGIC REPORT NO. 950
APPROVAL LETTER DATED MAY 12, 1998
EnGEN Corporation
•
•
OFRW, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATIONAND
r` LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
P�
�dLAND YP�
Planning Department
Richard K. Lashbrook
Agency Director
May 12, 1998
Mr. Thomas Dewey, Principal Engineering Geologist
EnGen Corporation
41607 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 1
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act Review
Project No. T1179 -FS
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657
Parcel Map Nos. 24085 and 24086
County Geologic Report No. 950 (Update to County Geologic Report No. 627)
City of Temecula
Dear Mr. Dewey:
Aleta J. Laurence, AJC.P.
Planning Director
On behalf of the City of Temecula, we have reviewed your report entitled "Fault Location Investigation,
Existing Restricted Use Zone, Parcel Maps 24085 and 24086, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, CA"
dated August 29, 1997; and your response to County review letter dated April 29, 1998.
It should be noted that County Geologic Report (CGR) No. 627 was previously prepared for this property.
CGR 627 delineated active faulting and associated Fault Setback Zones on this property. The purpose of
the current report (CGR 950) is to further delineate the active faults on the property and recommend a
reduced Fault Setback Zone.
Your report determined that:
1. Six exploratory fault trenches were excavated along the previously mapped active, Murrieta Creek fault
in order to provide more detailed locations of this fault on the subject site. The locations of the active
faulting are delineated on Figures 1 and 2, Fault Investigation Site Plans, accompanying your report and
response.
2. Five of the six trenches encountered the active, Murrieta Creek fault with a zone of potential disruption
of approximately 15 feet wide. The sixth trench, located at the northwesterly end of the study area indicated
three distinct faults associated with the Murrieta Creek fault.
3. Ground surface fissures were observed on previously graded areas of the project site. These fissures were
Riverside Office • 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor • Indio Office • 46-209 Oasts Street, 2nd Floor
P. O. Box 1409 - Riverside, California 92502-1409 - Indio, California 92201
(909) 955-3200 • FAX (909) 955-3177 (760) 863-7055 • FAX (760) 863-7015
Letter to Thomas Dewey
Page 2
• coincident with the .trace of the active, Murrieta Creek fault encountered in the subsurface
exploratory trenches.
Your report recommended that:
1. The Restricted Use Zones (RUZ) shall be modified to be at least 50 feet on each side of the 20 foot
wide zone of disruption. The limits of the recommended RUZ are delineated on Figures 1 and 2,
Fault Investigation Site Plans, accompanying your report and response.
2. The fault zone shall be observed by the project engineering geologist during site grading
operations so as to verify and confirm the fault location.
3. Protection shall be provided for utilities located within the Recommended Restricted Use Zone.
Such protection shall include flexible connections and pressure sensitive valves to cut off flow in
the event of seismic or subsidence -induced differential movement.
4. Exploratory trenches excavated on PM 24086, EC -4, EC -5, and EC -6 shall be re -excavated and
properly backfilled during future grading operations on this project.
It is our opinion that your report was prepared in a competent manner and satisfies the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Final approval of your report is hereby given.
We recommend the following conditions be satisfied with respect to the subject parcel maps prior
to map recordation and/or issuance of any grading/building permits associated with these parcels:
1. The recommended Restricted Use 'Lone (RUZ) shown on Figures 1 and 2, Fault
Investigation Site Plans, in your report and response referenced above shall be delineated on
the project maps and/or Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS). The areas within the RUZ
shall be labeled "FAULT HAZARD AREA."
2. The following notes shall be placed on the ECS and/or project maps:
A. "The property is affected by earthquake faulting. Structures for human occupancy
shall not be allowed in the FAULT HAZARD AREA."
B. "County Geologic Report Nos. 950 and 627 were prepared for this property by
EnGen Corporation (8/29/97 & 4/29/98) and Schafer Dixon Associates (6/7/89),
respectively. These reports are on file at the Riverside County Planning Department
and with the City of Temecula.. Specific items of concern are as follows: earthquake
faulting, fissuring and ground subsidence, liquefaction, landsliding, and uncompacted
trench backfill."
3. The ECS and/or project maps shall be submitted to the Riverside County Planning
Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval.
•
is
Letter to Thomas Dewey
Page
4. The exploratory trench backfill shall be addressed by the project geotechnical consultant
prior to issuance of grading permits.
The recommendations made in your report shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this
project. It should be noted that the Restricted Use Zones recommended in your report (CGR950)
now supersede the Restricted Use Zones previously recommended in CGR 627, approval letter
attached. All other Restricted Use Zones and recommendations made in CGR 627 still pertain to
the subject property.
Sincerely,
Steven A.
SK:sk
DEPARTMENT
Director
Engineering Geologist
cc: Carol Donahoe, City of Temecula -Planning Department
California Division of Mines and Geology
G/Geology/CGR/CGR950-1
Riverside Office • 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor • Indio Office • 46-209 Oasis Street, 2nd Floor
P. O. Box 1409 • Riverside, California 92502-1409 • Indio, California 92201
(909) 955-3200 • FAX (909) 955-3177 (760) 863-7055 • FAX (760) 863-7015
•
•
11
DEPAinmEnr
October 16, 1989
Schaefer Dixon Associates
22 Mauchly
Irvine, CA 92718
Attention: Mr. Paul Davis
Mr..Nicholas F. Selmeczy
Mr. Michael L. Leonard, Sr.
SUBJECT: Seismic-Geologic/Liquefaction Hazard
Project No. 9R -4332C
Tentative Parcel Maps 24085 and 24086
APN: 909-120-020,022 _
County Geologic Report No. 627
Rancho California Area
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the seismic -geologic aspects of your report entitled "Report
on Geotechnical Investigation, Assessment District No. 155, Parcel Map 24085,
24086, 21029, 21382, and 21383, Rancho California, Riverside County, CA," dated
June 7, 1989 and your responses to County Geologic Review, dated August 15,
1989 and September'21, 1989.
It should be noted that previous reports prepared for this property were
entitled 1.) "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed
Industrial/Commercial Site, West of Cherry Street and Diaz Road, A.D. No. 155,
Rancho California, Riverside County, CA" by Leighton and Associates, dated June
23, 1986, and 2.) "Engineering Geologic Investigation of Faulting and
Anticipated Alluvial Removals, Proposed Industrial/Commercial Site, AD No. 155,
Rancho California, Riverside County, CA," by Leighton and Associates, dated
August 18, 1987. This report did not.recognize or address the potential for
ground fissuring in the area; which occurred in late 1987. It is understood
that your report now supercedes these previous reports for the subject
property.
Your report determined that:
I. The surface trace of a previously unmapped, through going fault extends
northwest -southeast across the center of the property. A short branch
of this fault trends more northerly, coincident with a strong
photolineament and the 1987 ground fissure. These faults are
delineated on Plate 1, Geotechnical Map, revised 8-15-89/9-21-89, in
your report.
2. These faults are considered to be active in accordance with State of
California, Division of Mines and Geology criteria.
3. The Willard fault traces located at higher elevations on the westerly
portion of the site are judged to be pre -Holocene in aae.
4080 LEMON STREET, 9T" FLOOR 46.209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(714) 787-6181 (619) 342-8277
Schaefer Dixon Associates - 2 - October 16, 1989
4. The Whittier -Elsinore fault zone is considered capable of the highest
ground motions at the site. A 100 -year probable magnitude earthquake
of 6.3 on this fault would result in a peak horizontal ground
acceleration of 0.418 at the site.
5. Liquefiable and marginally liquefiable zones are present in the
lower -lying portion of the site, below a depth of approximately 15
feet. The liquefiable areas are delineated on Plate 1, Geotechnical
Map, revised 8-15-89/9-21-89.
6. Surface subsidence may be induced by liquefaction and the settlement is
estimated to be in the range of 0.1 inch to 1.4 inches, however
reduction of bearing capacity for shallow spread footings is not
anticipated. The potential for lateral spreading is considered low
based on the present geometry of the Murrieta Creek Channel relative to
the liquefiable zones at the site.
7. The potential for seiches, earthquake -induced flooding and lurching is
considered to be extremely low at this site.
8. The mapped landslide at the northwest portion of the property is a
shallow, surficial failure.
9. Ground fissuring will most likely occur along the establish traces of
historic and Holocene fault displacements. It is not expected that
ground fissures will occur in portions of the property away from
pre-existing Holocene faults.
Your report recommended that:
1. No habitable structures shall be placed acrossed the active (Holocene)
faults and ground fissures.
2. A Restricted Use Zone (R.U.Z.) shall be established to include the
observed faults, their in-line projections and buffer zone. The total
width and extent of the R.U.Z. is shown on Plate 1, Geotechnical Map,
revised'8-15-89/9-21-89.
3. The effects of soil liquefaction, including loss of bearing capacity,
surface subsidence and lateral spreading shall be re-evaluated for each
Individual structure on the site when grading and building plans become
available.
4. The mapped landslide at the northwest portion of the property shall be
delineated on the projectggrading plans. In addition, the disturbed
surficial materials shall be completely removed during grading, in
is conformance with standard earthwork practices.
Schaefer Dixon Associates - 3 - October 16, 1989
0
0
L�
5. Recommendations for removing the uncontrolled fill from the exploratory
trenches, and for placement of structures adjacent to or astride any of
thesetrenches, should be specifically provided as part of the
geotechnical grading plan review report for the subject projects.
6. Final plans and specifications should be reviewed by the geotechnical
consultant prior to site construction.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and
satisfies the additional information requested under the California
Environmental Quality Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan. Final approval of the report is hereby given.
We recommend that the following conditions be satisfied before recordation of
Tentative Parcel Maps 24085 and 24086 and/or issuance any County permits
associated with this project:
1. The recommended Restricted Use Zone shown on Plate 1, Geotechnical Map,
revised 8-15-89/9-21-89 in the report shall be delineated on the
project maps and/or Environmental Constraints Sheet (E.C.S.). The
areas within the Recommended Restricted Use Zone shall be labeled
"FAULT AND GROUND FISSURE HAZARD AREA."
2. The following notes shall be placed on the E.C.S. and/or Subdivision
maps:
(a) "The property is affected by earthquake faulting and ground
fissures. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in
the Fault and Ground Fissure Hazard Area."
(b) "County Geologic Report No. 627 was prepared for this property on
June 7, 1989 by Schafer Dixon Associates, and is on file at the
Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern
are as follows: earthquake faulting, fissuring and ground
subsidence, liquefaction, landsliding, and uncompacted trench
backfill."
3. The E.C.S. and/or project maps shall be submitted to the Planning
Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval.
4. The exploratory trench backfill shall be addressed by the project
geotechnical engineering prior to issuance of grading permits.
5. Liquefaction reports for individual structures shall be submitted to
the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review and approval
prior to Plot Plan approval.
Schaefer Dixon Associates - 4 -
October 16, 1989
The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of seismic/geologic
hazards shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter - Planning Director
Steven/A. Kupterman
Engineering Geologist
CEG -1205
SAK:al
c.c. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. - Dean Allen
CDMG - Earl Hart
Building & Safety (2) - Norm Lostbom
John Chiu - Team 1
Is
0
0
DRAWINGS
0
KREC 111, LLC
c/o Kearny Real Estate Company
Project Number: T3144 -SGS
Appendix Page 8
EnGEN Corporation
•
" -- _Remi -rig iO rl /1 V e . mioTcxr wv[N[aE
Y,
1 C/2CAIIl
1 %. GEOLOGIC CONTACT N
Afu STOCKPILE
Afe ENGINEERED FILL 1r'=100'
O—� NORTHEASTERN LIMIT OF A -P ZONE
EnGEN Corporation Geotechnical Engineering Special Material Environmental
Engineenng Geology Inspection Testing Assessments
SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL STUDY SITE PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:
T3144scs
I LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Par 2 of PM 28857-1
DATE: APRIL 2004
1 SCALE: 1"=100'
CLIENT NAME:
KREC III, LLC
PLATE:
Ti—
BASE
BASE MAP: Conceptual Site Plan, provided by client
,611�r', -
44
161
/ 9
y5..°10t6 gaKn�A`•b'.0 � i. ,'�' �, ./,' ��' 1 /, "'��',.-c�7;`.
BM
_ 1..'Nell \� vol i
I l
A- ZEN'."
010-` •'�\ Ian!',�� llh- .,
SITE''•
FAULT \:!
'ois 'u O
_N V�p` ' t
00
Fdn
v'
up
0
EnGENCorporation Geotechnical Engineering Special Material Environmental
Englneenng Geology Inspection Testing Assessments
wnc 5.t1jaulcillyle
A -P ZONE MAP
PROJECT NUMBER:
I T3144 -SGS
I LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Par 2 of PM 28657-1
DATE: APRIL 2004
SCALE: 1"=2000'
CLIENT NAME: KREC III, LLC
RACE nnAD• noon_ •Innn sa..__:_._ n
FIGURE:
2
wnc 5.t1jaulcillyle