Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Parcel Map 21383 Supplemental Geotechnical Study Nov. 21, 2003
; E1 EN Corporation ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK 9FM 3t: -;31°J Soil Bgmeeo g and Convoking Senses • Engineering Geology • CampaGion Teeing Insaealmns • Consirw... Mali,on, Telling • LaW,al.,y Tong • Penealaeon Tesh, • Geology • Walo Resourm Sludies • Phase 18 II Envlmnmenlal She Assessments SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Core I Business Park Lot 1, Parcel Map 21383 Winchester Road and Diaz Road City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 21, 2003 Prepared for: RM Pacific 1001 Dove Street, Suite 108 Newport Beach, California 92660 i T -215 ,..-...-.--. S RPORATE QFFICE_41607,Enterprise'Circle North'Suite.l,Temecula,-CA 92590 phone (909)296-2230--.fax:11909)'296=2237 '9:1=-='•y='} _ 1 " -GRANGE COUNTY OFFICE 2615 Orange Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92707. •phone: (714) 546-4057_• fax' (716) 546-4052 _ WEB SITE: www.engencorp.com E-MAIL: engencorp@engencorp.com • • RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number and Title Page 1.0 SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................1 2.0 SITE REVIEW AND LITERATURE RESEARCH.................................................................2 2.1 Site Review...............................................................................................................2 2.1.1 Existing Site Conditions................................................................................2 2.1.2 Loose Surface Soils......................................................................................2 2.2 Literature Research...................................................................................................2 2.2.1 Previous Grading Operations.......................................................................2 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................5 2.2.2 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2 Site Preparation........................................................................................................5 4.0 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY..............................................................................................3 4.1 Geologic Setting.......................................................................................................3 4.1.1 Regional Geology.........................................................................................3 4.1.2 Seismic Hazards...........................................................................................4 4.1.3 Fault Rupture................................................................................................4 - 4.1.4 Liquefaction..................................................................................................4 4.1.5 Seismically Inducted Landsliding.................................................................4 4.1.6 Seismically Inducted Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis ..............................4 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................5 5.1 Site Preparation........................................................................................................5 5.1.1 Proposed Grading........................................................................................5 5.1.2 Grading Plans...............................................................................................5 5.1.3 Organic Debris and Loose Surface Soils.....................................................5 5.1.4 Existing Structures, Hardscape and Landscape,...,, ......... .............5 5.2 Engineered Fill...................................................................................... 5.2.1 Suitability of Fill.............................................................................................5 5.2.2 Compaction and Testing Method.................................................................5 6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................6 6.1 General......................................................................................................................6 6.2 Expansion Potential..................................................................................................6 6.3 Ground Acceleration.................................................................................................6 6.4 Foundation Design....................................................................................................6 6.4.1 Foundation Size and Reinforcement ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6 6.4.2 Column Footings ...................... ......... ......... ......... .............7 6.4.3 Grade Beams................................................................................................7 6.4.4 Depth of Embedment...................................................................................7 6.4.5 Bearing Capacity..........................................................................................7 6.4.6 Settlement.....................................................................................................7 6.4.7 Lateral Capacity............................................................................................7 6.4.8 Exterior Slabs...............................................................................................7 EnGEN Corporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued Section Number and Title Page 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Recommendations8 6.5.1 General .................................... 6.5.2 Interior Slabs.................................................................................................8 7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................8 7.1 Earth Pressures........................................................................................................8 7.2 Foundation Design....................................................................................................9 7.3 Subdrain....................................................................................................................9 7.4 Backfill..................................................................................................................10 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................10 8.1 Pavement Design....................................................................................................10 8.1.1 General.......................................................................................................10 8.1.2 Structural Section Design...........................................................................10 8.2 Utility Trench Recommendations............................................................................12 8.2.1 General.......................................................................................................12 8.2.2 Trench Depth/Cut Back..............................................................................12 8.2.3 Interior and Exterior Trenches....................................................................12 8.2.4 Compaction of Backfill Material ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12 8.3 Temporary Excavation or Cuts...............................................................................12 8.4 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations.................................................................12 8.4.1 General.......................................................................................................12 8.4.2 Gradients....................................................................................................13 8.4.3 Ponding.......................................................................................................13 8.5 Planter Recommendations.....................................................................................13 8.5.1 General.......................................................................................................13 8.5.2 Minimal Irrigation and Adequate Drainage ................................................ 13 8.6 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing..........................................13 8.6.1 General.......................................................................................................13 8.6.2 Other Observations.....................................................................................13 8.6.3 Foundation Observations...........................................................................13 9.0 PRE -GRADE CONFERENCE............................................................................................14 10.0 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................14 10.1 Client Report Changes............................................................................................14 10.2 Project and Property Changes................................................................................14 10.3 Standard of Practice...............................................................................................14 10.4 Limitations...............................................................................................................15 10.5 Changes in Standards of Care...............................................................................15 APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REFERENCES LABORATORY TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS X"I i November 21, 2003 0 EN RM Pacific 1001 Dove Street, Suite 108 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 752-9999 / FAX (949) 752-6362 Attention: Ms. Jan Harriman n LJ • Soil Engmeennq aib ConsulMq $erv¢es • Eilglnceung Geology • ludq ,uon Telling ��Oyl • Inspsunons • Cnnsimcoun Malenals Tesimq • Labo,alwy Testing • Pe¢olaban TO, n • Geology • Wale, Res'm. SWdu. • PAase 1811 Emuonnlenlal Sle Ass =.Is ENVIRONMENTAL $ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK Regarding: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Core I Business Park Lot 1, Parcel Map 21383 Winchester Road and Diaz Road City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T3002 -SGS References: 1. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Mass Grading Report No. 1, Parcel Map No. 21383 (Core I, Phase 1), Temecula, California, report dated August 1, 1991. Dear Ms. Harriman: In accordance with your request and signed proposal, a representative of this firm reviewed the referenced report and visited the subject site on November 13, 2003, to visually observe the surface conditions and collect samples of the near -surface soils within the subject lot, in order to update the report referenced above. 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of approximately 1.24 -acres and is located on the southern corner of Winchester Road and Diaz Road, in the City of Temecula, California. It is assumed that the proposed development will be a commercial concrete tilt -up or masonry, slab -on -grade type structure. The remainder of the site will consist of paved -y+ parking and associated hardscaap�e: and landsca,✓pe�i improvements. I vi I i - _ _ « .- -) _=•CORPORATEOFFICE 416071 Enterpnse,Cucle North`Sulte-1 Temecula, CA 92590 •phone: (909) 296-2230 fax 719091 296 2237.'"= �_.. ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 2615 Orange Aye ue; Santa Ana, CA 92707 • phone: 17141 546-4051 • fax: (7141 546-4052 i WEB SITE: www engencorp.com • E-MAIL: engencorp@engencorp com ' - • • RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 2 2.0 SITE REVIEW AND LITERATURE RESEARCH 2.1 Site Review 2.1.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Based on the information derived from the reference report, the City of Temecula and the site reconnaissance, it appears that no additional grading has been performed since completion of grading as reported in the Referenced No. 1 Report. A temporary mobile office type structure as well as temporary parking stalls and landscaping exists on the northern portion of the lot. 2.1.2 LOOSE SURFACE SOILS: A thin layer, up to approximately 6 to 12 -inches thick, of loose surface soils was observed covering the site. This loose material is probably associated with nearby construction activities and general site weathering and vehicle traffic over time. No unusual geotechnical conditions were observed. 2.2 Literature Review: 2.2.1 PREVIOUS GRADING OPERATIONS: Based on the Referenced No. 1 Report, the site is underlain by approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet of engineered fill. This report is not a recertification of the previous compaction operations. The County of Riverside was the oversight agency at the time of construction grading for the subject property and the City of Temecula accepted the referenced reports when it incorporated. This firm makes no warranty either expressed or implied as to the relative density of the supporting soils as represented in the referenced compaction reports. 2.2.2 ALQUIST PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE (AP ZONE): The subject site Is not located in an AP Zone (associated with the Elsinore Fault Zone, Temecula Segment). 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING: 3.1 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. Samples obtained during the field study will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office should be notified immediately if retention of samples will be needed beyond 30 days. EnGEN Corporation • S RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November2003 Page 3 3.2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials encountered during our site visit were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Determination and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedures). 3.3 Expansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of near -surface 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 of 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. 3.4 Soluble Sulfates: Samples of near -surface earth material were obtained for soluble sulfate testing for the subject site. The concentration of soluble sulfates was determined in general conformance with California Test Method 417 procedures. The test results indicate that water-soluble sulfates were not detected in excess of the reportable detection limit. As a result, sulfate resistant concrete is not necessary. 3.5 Direct Shear Test: Direct shear tests were performed on select samples of near -surface earth material in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-98 procedures. The shear machine is of the constant strain type. The shear machine is designed to receive a 1.0 - inch high, 2.416 -inch diameter ring sample. Specimens from the sample were sheared at various pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The specimens were tested in a submerged condition. The maximum shear stresses were plotted versus the normal confining stresses to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal friction). 4.0 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 4.1 Geologic Setting: 4.1.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY: The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern sector of the structural unit known as the Perris Block. The Perris Block is bounded on the northeast by the San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the EnGEN Corporation • ® RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 4 Elsinore Fault Zone, and on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The southern boundary of the Perris Block is not as distinct, but is believed to coincide with a complex group of faults trending southeast from the Murrieta, California area (Kennedy, 1977 and Mann, 1955). The Peninsular Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rocks. Various thicknesses of colluvial/alluvial sediments derived from the erosion of the elevated portions of the region fill the low-lying areas. Alluvium underlies the site. The earth materials encountered on the subject site are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report. 4.1.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS: Because the proposed development is located in tectonically active southern California, it will likely experience some effects from earthquakes. The type or severity of seismic hazards affecting the site is mainly dependent upon the distance to the causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the soil characteristics. The seismic hazard may be primary, such as ground surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The following is a site-specific discussion about ground motion parameters, earthquake induced settlement hazards, and liquefaction. The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential seismic hazards and proposed mitigations, if necessary, to an acceptable level of risk. The following seismic hazards discussion is guided by UBC (1997), CBC (1998), CDMG (1997) and Petersen and others (1996). 4.1.3 FAULT RUPTURE: Based on our review of the Referenced No. 1 Report, geologic parameters for the site have already been established. No faults exist on the subject site, therefore, the potential for hazards associated with fault rupture is considered low. 4.1.4 LIQUEFACTION: Based on the findings of the Referenced No. 1 Report, liquefaction potential was mitigated through site grading, therefore, the probability of liquefaction at the subject site is considered low. 4.1.5 SEISMICALLY INDUCED LANDSLIDING: Due to the overall favorable and gentle topographic conditions of.the site, the probability of seismically induced landsliding is considered low. 4.1.6 SEISMICALLY INDUCED FLOODING, SEICHES AND TSUNAMIS: Due to the absence of a confined body of water in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the possibility of EnGEN Corporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 5 seismically induced flooding or seiches is considered remote. Due to the large distance of the project site to the Pacific Ocean, the possibility for seismically induced tsunamis to impact the site is considered nil. 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Site Preparation 5.1.1 PROPOSED GRADING: The grading needed for development of the site appears to be minimal, and is expected to consist of minor grading and contouring of the site for proper drainage. 5.1.2 GRADING PLANS: Precise building and grading plans were not available at the time of this report. It will be the client's responsibility to provide grading and foundation plans to this office for review prior to permitting, so that supplemental recommendations can be provided if deemed necessary prior to construction grading operations. 5.1.3 ORGANIC DEBRIS AND LOOSE SURFACE SOILS: Any organic debris should be removed from the site and not used in proposed fills. All loose soils covering the site should be removed and may be re -used as compacted fill. All structure and hardscape areas should be scarified 12 -inches below original grade or proposed grade, whichever is deeper, moisture conditioned to near optimum, and then recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. 5.1.4 EXISTING STRUCTURES, HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE: All existing structures, hardscape and landscaping within the limits of the proposed development must be removed and hauled off-site. This includes, but is not limited to: asphalt, concrete, underground piping, etc. 5.2 Engineered Fill 5.2.1 SUITABILITY OF 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. Any import fill should be no more expansive than the existing on-site material. 5.2.2 COMPACTION AND TESTING METHOD: Approved fill material should be placed In horizontal lifts not exceeding 6.0 to 8.0 -inches in thickness and watered or aerated to EnGEN Corporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 6 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 content of fill materials should not vary more than 2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. 6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structure may consist of conventional column footings and continuous wall footings founded upon competent engineered fill. 6.2 Expansion Potential: The recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs for foundation design and construction are based on geotechnical characteristics and a low expansion potential (EI=27) for the supporting soils and are not intended to preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The actual expansion potential will need to be determined at completion of precise grading in order to verify the foundation design recommendations made herein. The Structural Engineer for the project should determine the actual footing widths and depths necessary to resist design vertical, horizontal and uplift forces. 6.3 Ground Acceleration: The anticipated peak ground acceleration for the site is 0.65g. The following seismic parameters apply: Seismic Source Type: Type B fault Soil Profile Type: SD Distance to Known Seismic Source: Less than 2 Km 6.4 Foundation Design 6.4.1 FOUNDATION SIZE AND REINFORCEMENT: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the top and one (1) No. 4 steel reinforcing bar located near the bottom of the footings to minimize the effects of any slight differential movements that may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics or any seasonal moisture change in the supporting soils. In the case of concrete tilt -up or masonry structures where the wall and footing system acts together as a deep beam, EnGEN Corporation • S RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 7 the recommended minimum footing reinforcing may be replaced by appropriate reinforcing of footings as determined by the Project Structural Engineer. 6.4.2 COLUMN FOOTINGS: Column footings should have a minimum width of 18 -inches by 18 - inches and be suitably reinforced based on structural requirements. 6.4.3 GRADE BEAMS: A grade beam founded at the same depths and reinforced as the adjacent footings should be provided across doorway, garage entrances, or any other perimeter openings. 6.4.4 DEPTH of EMBEDMENT: Exterior and interior footings should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade in undisturbed, competent engineered fill. Frost is not considered a design factor for foundations in the area as there is no significant frost penetration in the winter months. Embedment of all footings on or near existing or planned slopes should be determined by a minimum setback distance measured from the bottom outside edge of the footing to the slope face according to the California Building Code and/or City Building Codes. 6.4.5 BEARING CAPACITY: The recommended allowable bearing value for design of continuous and column footings for dead plus live loads and founded in competent silty sand (SM) material is 2,000 psf. The allowable bearing value may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live loading such as wind or seismic forces. 6.4.6 SETTLEMENT: Footings designed according to a 2,000 psf bearing value and founded in undisturbed, competent engineered fill are not expected to exceed a maximum settlement of 0.75 -inch or a differential settlement of 0.25 -inch between similarly sized and loaded footings. 6.4.7 LATERAL CAPACITY: Additional foundation design parameters based on competent silty sand (SM) material for resistance to lateral forces are as follows: Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure) Passive Case: Fill Material - 150 pcf Allowable Coefficient of Friction: 0.30 EnGEN Corporation • A RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 8 The above values are allowable design values and may be used in combination without reduction. For the calculation of passive earth resistance, the upper 1.0 -foot of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement. 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Recommendations 6.5.1 GENERAL: The recommendations for concrete slabs, both interior and exterior, are based upon low expansion potential for the supporting material. The expansion potential of the slab subgrade areas should be verified at the completion of any supplemental grading for the structure. 6.5.2 INTERIOR SLABS: Interior concrete slabs -on -grade should be a minimum of 4.0 -inches (5.0 -inches if a forklift or other heavy equipment is used on the slab) actual in thickness and be underlain by properly prepared subgrade. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 24 -inches on center in both directions placed mid -depth in the slab, or any equivalent system as might be designed by the Project Structural Engineer. The concrete section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased for excessive design floor loads or anticipated concentrated loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier a minimum of 6.0 mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped or sealed at splices and 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. 6.5.3 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 4 percent above optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 -inches immediately before placing the concrete. 7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Earth Pressures: Retaining walls backfilled with non -expansive granular soil (EI=O) or very low expansive potential materials (Expansion Index of 20 or less) within a zone EnGEN Corporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 9 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 The on-site materials of low expansion potential may be used as backfill within the active/at-rest pressure zone as defined above. Walls that are free to deflect 0.01 radian at the top should be designed for the above -recommended active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at -rest condition. The above values assume well -drained backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure. Surcharge loads, dead and/or live, acting on the backfill within a horizontal distance behind the wall should also be considered in the design. 7.2 Foundation Design: Retaining wall footings should be founded to the same depths into properly compacted fill, or firm, competent, undisturbed, bedrock as standard foundatiors and may be designed for the same average allowable bearing value across the footing (as long as the resultant force is located in the middle one-third of the footing), and with the same allowable static lateral bearing pressure and allowable sliding resistance as previously recommended. When using the allowable lateral pressure and allowable sliding resistance, a factor of safety of 1.0 may be used. If ultimate values are used for design, an approximate factor of safety of 1.5 should be achieved. 7.3 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 4NP, or a suitable substitute in order to prevent infiltration of fines and clogging of the system. The perforated pipes should be at least 4.0 -inches in diameter. Pipe perforations should be placed downward. Gravel filters should have volume of at least 1.0 cubic foot per lineal foot of pipe. Subdrains should maintain a positive flow gradient EnGEN Corporation • 4 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 10 and have outlets that drain in a non-erosive manner. In the case of subdrains for basement walls, they should empty into a sump provided with a submersible pump activated by a change in the water level. 7.4 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. 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Pavement Design: 8.1.1 GENERAL: Preliminary pavement recommendations are presented based on an assumed R -Value of the soils located at the site, and an assumed future traffic loading expressed in terms of a Traffic Index (TI). Samples for R -Value testing should be collected after precise grading of the subject site in order to verify the following design recommendations. 8.1.2 STRUCTURAL SECTION DESIGN: Pavement sections have been determined in general accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) design procedures based on a TI of 5.0 for automobile areas, a TI of 6.0 for truck EnGEN Corporation • S RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 11 traffic areas, and an assumed R -Value of 20. As a result, 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 -inches A.C. over 7.5 -inches Aggregate Base Truck 6.0 3 -inches A.C. over 10.5 -inches Aggregate Base Automobile 5.0 Portland Cement Pavement Alternative 7.0 -inches 4,000 psi PCC over 95 percent subgrade Truck 6.0 Portland Cement Pavement Alternative 8.0 -inches 4,000 psi PCC over 95 percent subgrade The project designer should choose the appropriate pavement section for the anticipated traffic pattern and delineate the respective areas on the site plan. The pavement sections presented are subject to review and approval by the City of Temecula. Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Sections 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or a suitable equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to Class 2 material as specified in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) or a suitable equivalent. The subgrade soil, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. 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. Special consideration should also be given to areas where truck traffic will negotiate small radius turns. Asphaltic concrete pavement in these areas should utilize stiffer emulsions or the areas should be paved with Portland Cement concrete. In areas where Portland Cement concrete is to be placed directly on subgrade, the subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately, additional observations and testing will have to be performed before placing aggregate base material, asphaltic concrete, or PCC pavement to locate areas that may have been damaged by construction traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and EnGEN Corporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 12 drying. In the proposed pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at the time the subgrade is graded for R -Value testing according to California Test Method 301 procedures to verify the pavement design recommendations. 8.2 Utility Trench Recommendations 8.2.1 GENERAL: 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. 8.2.2 TRENCH DEPTH/CUT BACK: 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. 8.2.3 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR TRENCHES: 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. 8.2.4 COMPACTION OF BACKFILL MATERIAL: 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. 8.3 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. 8.4 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations 8.4.1 GENERAL: 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 EnGEN Corporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 13 from flowing over the tops of slopes. The surface water should be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. 8.4.2 GRADIENTS: In unpaved areas, a minimum positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures and tops of slopes for a minimum distance of 5.0 -feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the property in a nonerosive manner should be provided. 8.4.3 PONDING: Ponding of surface water should not be allowed next to structures or on pavement. 8.5 Planter Recommendations 8.5.1 GENERAL: Attention to planter areas should be given relative to their potential to introduce excessive moisture into the soils surrounding footings. 8.5.2 MINIMAL IRRIGATION AND ADEQUATE DRAINAGE: 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. 8.6 Supplemental Construction Observations and Testing 8.6.1 GENERAL: 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. 8.6.2 OTHER OBSERVATIONS: 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. 8.6.3 FOUNDATION OBSERVATIONS: In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of concrete EnGEN Corporation 3000 X a m 2000 a in - 07 V) w u1 F- ff Low i Q Q 1000 mF w H 0- F - D 0 L 0 3000 2500 N a 2000 N N m 1500 m 1000 t 500 0 OL 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Normal Stress, psf 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Horiz. Displ., in SAMPLE TYPE* DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND (W/ GRAVEL),BROWN SPECIFIC GRAVITY= 2.65 REMARKS: SAMPLE A CENTER OF PAD COLL BY RW COLL ON 11-13-03 Fig No.: SAMPLE NO.. WATER CONTENT, % Q DRY DENSITY, pcf SATURATION, % Z VOID RATIO H DIAMETER, in HEIGHT, in WATER CONTENT, % r DRY DENSITY, pcf w SATURATION, F -- H, VOID RATIO Q DIAMETER, in NORMAL STRESS, psf PEAK STRESS, psf DISPLACEMENT, in ULTIMATE STRESS, psf DISPLACEMENT, in Strain rate, in/min LIENT: RM PACIFIC 1 2 3 10.9 10.9 10.9 115.5 115.5 115.5 66.7 66.7 66.7 0.432 0.432 0.432 2.42 2.42 2.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 115.5 115.5 115.5 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.432 0.432 0.432 2.42 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1000 2000 3000 792 1624 2015 0.14 0.16 0.13 724 1565 1927 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 OJECT: CORE I BUSINESS PARK MPLE LOCATION. WINCHESTER ROAD, TEMECULA OJ. NO.: T3002 -SGS DATE: 11-17-03 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT EnGEN Corporation Ah • MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT 135 130 125 U c N D 120 115 — ZAV for 2.65 110 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified Elev/ Depth Classification Nat. Moist. Sp.G. LL PI %> No.4 %< No.200 USCS AASHTO SM 13-2 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 128.4 pcf Optimum moisture = 9.8 % SILTY SAND,BROWN Project No. T3002 -SGS Client: RM PACIFIC Project: CORE I BUSINESS PARD • Location: WINCHESTER ROAD Remarks: SAMPLE A CENTER OF LOT COLL BY RW COLL ON 11-13-03 Plate MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK CORPORATION x , nu - - x 71 5 F52Q, '544 �' •482 D- � t 34 -947-7a. y47M7-814 73 ^a26.-F x 481R /Y 36 x4 x704 ,5_ 2� 521R 485 74S -74 100 +533 -490 x4:9R / -739.580 ^S.:,Q - x 72 7 i07 •543 F7J568 x 695 •547 �> •49tR'71 xx705 686 Z22 Z�, 736x Tlyt.� 744 478c xl _x > • x 35 , 692 741_-- —. 578 7 x75 x1 2 a0 SAO :5� 94 -30 xatxl(3}\x t-- 60 79 t53x 106 `60 45 _ -22106 r6' \,LL '89 -367 161 .1 x16 i 7(°' 124 .11,8S 239 98 25 x2Rx9 \ l� •682 a' -68 -48 L *1'26 ,J4 •2Si� 370x6 796x56 �� �? -� x3693\ 798 ° G ' / xq * 696 58 �36 X214 20 -797 -109 T 1 ..35{ -209 f� 9 i_� x84 x - 150 `� x 102 r. 366 - 8 15 v = Q 1 \ lC �W 6F', x 29 x 35 x 5H >� •11172 142 \ -36`23 ^ 493 x N Z7 ii • ' O x't J4 t 13 Y 69 x 14.`,.,. x� JC) ,•...�. _ • .. x F 24 • 56 x55 x71 x6, .. 1�!_>inc�hes,y�.,+r Rar�d: i42: x136 /. x 2,' Fit x16 -.59.�_ "925 North l 1-0-57 ---Y—� -7 I -390 I L "�•. f, .10.�'-.c Vii' x7V x97 - -18 v309 -la3 -3B -308 x xa9 x14 x128.\1 163 .95 -67 x81 x1Jfl_\ t 52 tLS 1 l 2 7 i x t 99r6 - 27 ©),1 2 -1178 ,7 F7� .'I I J -166 I Y }7x t f' 3 - 70N 1 . x 391 x 13 - 134 1 �f+� x54 x'7 �� ,, x80(7- x26-\ � U47 �� - �,� - b x 27 L7j N� x169 '$Q1 x91 66 N -171R x87 )? x17 x82 x129Y 2 • 191 1 x 310 x180 x164 -170 ` 50 •222 129 x163 x192 I t^x3130149- x7. x14�y '/ "x141 228 _ l; zz��s- -- -GI z --- - EnGEN Corporation Geolecnn,cl E i—Iip $yactal �tertal Environmental En meenn Gaol Ins ec0on Tg Assessme SITE PLAN PROJECT NUMBER: f T3002-SGS I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, PM 21383 DATE: NOVEMBER 2003 SCALE: V=100' CLIENT NAME: I RM PACIFIC FIGURE: 1 • A RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 14 forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. 9.0 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. 10.0 CLOSURE 10.1 CLIENT REPORT PURPOSES: 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. Reference materials used in the preparation of this report include appropriate references from the comprehensive list presented in the Appendix of this report. 10.2 PROJECT AND PROPERTY CHANGES: 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 are modified or verified in writing. If conditions are observed or information becomes available during the design and construction process that are not reflected in this report, EnGEN Corporation should be notified so that supplemental evaluations can be performed and the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report can be modified or verified in writing. 10.3 STANDARD OF PRACTICE: 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. EnGEN Corporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS November 2003 Page 15 10.4 LIMITATIONS: 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. 10.5 CHANGES IN STANDARDS OF CARE: 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 should you have questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Because of our involvement in the project to date, we would be pleased to discuss engineering testing and observation services that may be applicable on the project. File EnGEMRepm ing\SGS\T3002-SGS RM Pacific. Supplemental GS Osbjor B4ne,162 Presi ent Ex *res 09-30-05 EnGEN Cnrporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS Appendix Page 1 TECHNICAL REFERENCES 1. Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship Between Seismicity and Geologic Structure in the Southern California Region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55, No. 4, pg. 753-797. 2. Bartlett and Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction—Induced Lateral Spread, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, April 1995. 3. Blake, T. F., 2000a, EQ Search for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Califomia Historical Earthquake Catalogs. 4. Blake, T. F., 2000b, EQ Fault for Windows, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized Califomia Faults. 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. Bowles, Joseph E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, pages 277-280. 7. Bray, J. D., Seed, R. B., Seed, H. B., 1994, Analysis of Earthquake Fault Rupture Propagation Through Cohesive Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 3, 562-580. 8. Bray, J. D., Seed, R. B., Cluff, L. S., Seed, H. B., 1994, Earthquake Fault Rupture Propagation Through Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 3, 543-561. 9. Bray, J. D., i990, The Effects of Tectonic Movements on Stresses and Deformations in Earth Embankments, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Califomia, Berkeley, Califomia. 10. Bray, J. D., 2001, Developing Mitigation Measure for the Hazards Associated with Earthquake Surface Fault Rupture, in A Workshop on Seismic Fault -Induced Failures — Possible Remedies for Damage to Urban Facilities, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, University of Tokyo, Pages 55 — 79. 11. Califomia Building Code, 2001, State of California, Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 24, 1998, California Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials and Califomia Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes. 12. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1954, Geology of Southern Califomia Bulletin 170. 13. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. 14. California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, Scale 1:24,000. 15. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., Updated 1999, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in Califomia, 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. 16. 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, Califomia Institute of Technology. 17. Hull, A. G., 1990, Seismotectonics of the Elsinore -Temecula Trough, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. EnGEN Corporation • O RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS Appendix Page 2 TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued) 18. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBG), February 1988, Maps of Known Active Fault Near -Source Zones in Califomia and Adjacent Portion of Nevada — To be Used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code: Prepared by the Califomia Division of Mines and Geology. 19. 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. 20. Kennedy, M.P., 1999, Geologic Map of the Valley Center 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, Southern California Aerial Mapping Project. 21. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, Califomia: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131, 12 p., 1 plate, scale 1:24,000. 22. Kennedy, M.P. and Morton, D.M., 2003, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle. Riverside County California, Version 1.0, United Sates Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-189. 23. Kennedy, M.P., 2000, Geologic Map of the Pechanga 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A Digital Base Map, Version 1.0: California Division of Mines and Geology and United States Geological Survey, Southern Califomia Aerial Mapping Project. 24. Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M. and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence Interval on Major Faults in Southern California, in Moran, Douglas E., et. at, 1973, Geology, Seismicity & Environmental Impact, Association of Engineering Geology, Special Publication. 25. Lamar, D. L., and Swanson, S. C., 1981, Study of Seismic Activity by Selective Trenching Along the Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California, United States Geological Survey Open File Report 81-882. 26. Magistrale, H. and Rockwell, T., 1996, The Central and Southern Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 86, No. 6, pp. 1793-1803, December 1996. 27. 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. 28. 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, 29. Morton, D.M., 2000, Geologic Map of the Bachelor Mountain 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, Califomia: A Digital Base Map, Version 1.0: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology and United States Geological Survey, Southern California Aerial Mapping Project. 30. Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Romoland 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, Version 1.0: United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-102. 31. Morton, D.M., 2003, Geologic Map of the Winchester 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, Version 1.0: United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-188. 32. Morton, D.M. and Miller F.K., 2003, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the San Bernardino 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, United States Geologic Survey, Open File Report 03-293. EnGEN Corporation • A RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS Appendix Page 3 TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued) 33. 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, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-706. 34. Pradel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake -Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, April 1998. 35. Riverside County, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports, 2000 Edition. 36. Riverside County, 2003a, County of Riverside General Plan — Hearing Draft, Safety Element — Mapped Faulting in Riverside County: http//www.rcip.org/documents/ general_plan/gen_plan. 37. Riverside County, 2003b, County of Riverside General Plan — Hearing Draft, Safety Element — Earthquake Fault Zones: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general_plan/gen_plan. 38. Riverside County, 2003c, County of Riverside General Plan — Hearing Draft, Safety Element — Generalized Liquefaction: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general_plan/gen_plan. 39. Riverside County, 2003d, County of Riverside General Plan — Hearing Draft, Safety Element — Earthquake -Induced Slope Stability Map: http://www.rcip.org/documents/general_plan /gen_plan. 40. Rogers, T.H., 1966, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology. 41. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 2003, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Website, http://www.scecdc.scec.org. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential: College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. 45. South Coast Geological Society, Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse Ranges, 1982. 46. Southern Califomia Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999. 47. State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bulletin No. 91-20. 48. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 2000, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A Digital Base Map, Version 1.0: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology and United States Geological Survey, Southern California Aerial Mapping Project. EnGEN Corporation • O RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS Appendix Page 4 TECHNICAL REFERENCES (Continued) 49. Tokimatsu and Seed, 1984, Simplified Procedures for the Evaluation of Settlements in Clean Sands, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, October 1984. 50. Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Edition, by International Conference of Building Officials, 3 Volumes. 51. 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. 52. Waring, G. A., 1919, Groundwater in the San Jacinto and Temecula Basins, California, United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 429. 53. Weber, Jr., F. H., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 7711. 54. Wells, D. L., Coppersmith, K. J., 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement, Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America, Volume 84, No. 4, pg. 974-1002, August 1994. EnGEN Corporation • ® RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS Appendix Page 5 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EnGEN Corporation • 0 RM Pacific Project Number: T3002 -SGS Appendix Page 6 DRAWINGS EnGEN Corporation