HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-7 Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Volume III1
1
1
1
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER
SPECIFIC PLAN NO.263 AND EIR NO. 340
VI. LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE
A Notice of Preparation and Project Correspondence
B Geotechnical Investigation
C Engineering Report
D Cultural Resources Report
(Archaeology and Paleontology)
E Biological Assessment
F Traffic Analysis
G Noise Assessment
H Fiscal Impact Report
to comments received at the scoping meeting, all pertinent written comments received
prior to the meeting will be incorporated into the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Written comments should be addressed to the City of Temecula, 43172 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, CA 92390, to the attention of Samuel Reed.
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
11
DATE OF MEETING
PLACE:
TIME:
July 26, 1990
Temecula City Hall
43180 Business Park Drive
3:00 P.M.
_',c0. ROA/•
NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETING
THE CITY OF TEMECULA
'
43180 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92390
A PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING has been scheduled to provide an opportunity for all
interested agencies and concerned citizens to provide current input on Specific Plan
'
No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5589, described as follows:
APPLICANT: BEDFORD PROPERTIES
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads
PROPOSAL: Construct a 230.8 acre commercial development including
the following:
1. 65 acre regional mall,
2. 75 acres of office space,
3. 16 acres of specialty retail,
4. 57.5 acres of general retail, and
'
5. 17.3 acres hotel.
'
The information gathered at the scoping meeting will be incorporated.into the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the project. The purpose of the scoping meeting
is to update the environmental documentation now under preparation. In addition
to comments received at the scoping meeting, all pertinent written comments received
prior to the meeting will be incorporated into the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Written comments should be addressed to the City of Temecula, 43172 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, CA 92390, to the attention of Samuel Reed.
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
11
DATE OF MEETING
PLACE:
TIME:
July 26, 1990
Temecula City Hall
43180 Business Park Drive
3:00 P.M.
_',c0. ROA/•
Cane Information and Background
' Applications for Specific Plan No. 263, Change of Zone No. 5589 and General Plan
Amendment No. 231 were submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on
September 6, 1989. The applications proposed a 230.8 acre master planned
commercial development. The proposed project consists of 65 acres for a regional
mall, 75 acres of office space, 16 acres of specialty retail, 57.5 acres of retail, and
17.3 acres for a hotel. The proposed project would encompass the area located
southerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Winchester Road, between Ynez Road and
' the proposed alignment of Margarita Road (vicinity map attached). The Riverside
County Planning Department determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
would be necessary to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project. A
Notice of Preparation (N .O. P.) was sent to selected agencies and concerned entities
' on October 5, 1989 (see attached N.O.P. and original mailing list). The agencies
that responded to the Notice of Preparation were as follows:
Department of Food and Agriculture
CITY OF TEMECULA
Department of Transportation
Department of Water Resources
California Waste Management Board
Mayor
P.O. Box 3000
Councilmembers
Ron Parks
Temecula, Califomia 92390
Patricia H. Birdsall
Eastern Municipal Water District
(714) 694-1989
Peg Moore
Mayor Pro Tem
FAX (714) 694-1999
J. Sal Mulioz
Karel F. Lindeman
United States Postal Service
DATE: JULY 6, 1990
'
NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETING
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 AND CHANCE OF ZONE NO. 5589
TEMECULA REGIONAL MALL
Cane Information and Background
' Applications for Specific Plan No. 263, Change of Zone No. 5589 and General Plan
Amendment No. 231 were submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on
September 6, 1989. The applications proposed a 230.8 acre master planned
commercial development. The proposed project consists of 65 acres for a regional
mall, 75 acres of office space, 16 acres of specialty retail, 57.5 acres of retail, and
17.3 acres for a hotel. The proposed project would encompass the area located
southerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Winchester Road, between Ynez Road and
' the proposed alignment of Margarita Road (vicinity map attached). The Riverside
County Planning Department determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
would be necessary to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project. A
Notice of Preparation (N .O. P.) was sent to selected agencies and concerned entities
' on October 5, 1989 (see attached N.O.P. and original mailing list). The agencies
that responded to the Notice of Preparation were as follows:
The comments received from these agencies are considered tentative and not
necessarily comprehensive. The City of Temecula was incorporated on December 1,
1989, approximately 2 months after the above mentioned applications were filed with
the County of Riverside. Agencies and individuals responded to a brief, general
description of the project and not to the Specific Plan itself. The City of Temecula
will now be the lead agency for the EIR. Processing will be done by City staff and
the EIR will go before the City's Planning Commission and City Council for
tconsideration.
The City of Temecula does not have an adopted General Plan. Each project is
L
Department of Food and Agriculture
Department of Transportation
Department of Water Resources
California Waste Management Board
Riverside City/County Public Library
Fire Department
Office of Road Commissioner S County Surveyor
San Bernardino County Museum
Eastern Municipal Water District
Southern California Gas Company
California Institute of Technology
University of California Riverside/ARU
Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Conservation District
United States Postal Service
The comments received from these agencies are considered tentative and not
necessarily comprehensive. The City of Temecula was incorporated on December 1,
1989, approximately 2 months after the above mentioned applications were filed with
the County of Riverside. Agencies and individuals responded to a brief, general
description of the project and not to the Specific Plan itself. The City of Temecula
will now be the lead agency for the EIR. Processing will be done by City staff and
the EIR will go before the City's Planning Commission and City Council for
tconsideration.
The City of Temecula does not have an adopted General Plan. Each project is
L
Pvaluated on its own merit, but the City is currently utilizing Riverside County's
Southwest Area Plan as a policy guide. As a result, the application for General Plan
Amendment No. 231 is no longer applicable. However, the City will be reviewing the
proposal to determine if the proposed land uses will likely be consistent with the
future General Plan for the City or detrimental to the City if the project is ultimately
Inconsistent with the Plan.
Intent of the Scoping Meeting
The purpose of the scoping meeting is to update the Notice of Preparation which was
mailed approximately nine months ago. The scoping meeting will provide an
opportunity for all interested agencies and concerned citizens to provide current
input on the proposal. The major change, which has occurred since the original
N.O.P. was sent, is the City's recent incorporation. In addition to comments
received at the scoping meeting, all written comments received prior to the meeting
will be incorporated into the draft EIR. Written comments should be addressed to the
City of Temecula, Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA
92390, to the attention of Samuel Reed, and will be accepted up to thirty 130) days
from the from the date of this notice. All potentially significant effects should be
addressed to insure orderly and comprehensive consideration and public disclosure
of the project impacts.
Date and Place of Scoping Meeting
Date: July 26, 1990
Place: Temecula City Hail
03180 Business Park Drive
Time: 3:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS: Agency Notice of Preparation dated October 5, 1989
Applicant's Notice of Preparation date October 5, 1989
Riverside County Case Transmittal Sheet
Riverside County "issues to be Included" in SP 263
- 2 -
r4 X
\\'
VICINITY MAP ®.
REGIONAL CENTER DATE: 8-25-89 to I.:��:,.:..
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Lesley Likins, Project Planner
AGENCY NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
"ft: October 5, 1989
TO:
PROJECT QSR N0.ITITLR:
Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263,rehensive General Plan
'
Ammxknent No. 231, and Change of Zone No. 5589
'
P2031M RPONRORt
Turrini fi Brink Planning Consultants
3242 Haliaday, Suite 100
'
Santa Ana, CA 92705
PRO`TRCT LOC'TION:
The project site is located southerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek'and
Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the proposed aligment of
Margarita Road in the Rancho California/Temecula area within Section
26 of Township 7 South, Range 3 West.
PRQISCT ORSCRIPTION:
Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 is a 230.8 -acre project pro-
'
posing mixed-use commercial development, consisting of 65 acres of
regional mall, 75 acres of office, 16 acres of specialty retail,
57.5 acres of retail, and 17.3 acres of hotel.
'
Pursuant to the Riverside County Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act, notice is given to responsible and interested
agencies, that the Riverside County Planning Department plans to oversee the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the project. The purpose
of this notice is to solicit guidance from your agency as to the scope and
content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR.
Information in that regard should be submitted to this office as soon as
possible, but not later that 30 days after receiving this notice.
Attached is a copy of the issues to be included 1n the draft EIR. If you
have any questions, please contact Lesley Likins, Project Planner, at (711)
787-6356.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Lesley Likins, Project Planner
Coss &.- Specific Plan No. 263
Canprehensive General Plan krencknent No. 231
Change of Zone No. 5589
flrlfllNL
glrwwr's stun
1LORHil" s kittpt11t.
jL111t�IrYo,
Afire W. 11,10*4ltO n *
�rIM1Mk/
_1C}Hdit file frNlctiM District
tadarM ...
Ifimlrts firt DIIt[kt
_/strklr tum
�LfIMt Will
—ports IIIy1111•
glMit►M1t, .
g,�IrM h[Mr
_ptlM•DMIIM
�iisrlrN•Ird!!"••
�kMN fltlkrct
gwtla!•Ilrt
ILU[ 1rMrm but; .
jL111t. of lrlrl-d Ont
�LM1t.
of hd d-Apiclltut
X_MK v1 taaltl MrdM1
j�talt. It DOW ast•#autks
X.Mt. If IMIacM
ILN11ul htnl
jLNfla of 111ttrlc f[IutNtiss
1LNfIM d-11mi"-d•uw[tl,' . .
Jktr 1191" 111 4041"1 Mut
Lal. ask, tlrrlook Md
_j91. NrillM N NMI d 1M1"1
2Lclttlllr
District 1 1 X
uskict111 _
1L104101 MM 11111t1 Astrd MIH
District 11 _
tkttkt 19 X
_M. Al. Wrr. Df -tuts. IBs1)
Ciuklk Valley Am. of $Its. JeWl
.Lk. Arrt Air lulitl 1ru11Mrt District
.Lwalltrstdl 4fflot
iLMttwlgrl} 4wWwwK
- jLttatlle d IrErt1•IUbIM
]LAMtt 11/t.
_k,L of Drlstkr .
Lt11t. if 1eMMlc W Asrllttl talltlrlrt
1M11" Mtk91tl
_iwiq aMtra111MN•Mkrrl"I
NICO
_tlM ltrct M/Mtct AM111M
_2110¢12MrlrM rf.itlMtl., .
_41111-fiN fuD d i1etlltlM District
_hags fnb"d 1rc[MtlM lktrlrt
-$I Holes" ►ort d MRMtlM tktrid
_IMMrrt-Wrrl Will fort d huMtiM
11Ntict
Grdrll+ pHtl Nq d 1M "110-Nrtrlct,
_Mom of kd 10"Imt
d.W11H ftrnt Mrrla:
to 1trMdirt_
8"AclsG _
[ltrelsd
]LI.f: fltl All 41Nlllr
2_1.1. Postal Mriin
"T NII cos"ITAIM District:
IM jtrlltt lull
ilNrMrlrtclNr-tars �L
cwtMlk-curl.
" _ta. f11t. If - tM Isk[!K, MttM d
MekMtlM
—Ass Mcudlrr
.MM1r
_IM N"r
—tMorw
tiil�
g; le. Gl. YI•u
rJlottlh
k�Mtl! *iglw G:
htw:..
g Mart• Rlylea G.
_Mier
- ._G•tf•ntel Ifthow Co. 11HAM)
'
_jam odea• ..
h•tMce hciilo-bilt•ir . .
Paet
_Itdl•a; Mode, 8@14nt• tei•11teN
_tu Jeclde
�et- JUM Rlly
Arte ar hily.tmint llatrletr
—poaMet
--hod"
ecop Comosky Nnku Il•ttlet
.+Mt1tRp
_1*16m: C•taEtl Nrelae Ihttkt
hM Iaat
Mloot.eumty -knkn lhttict
/flet•
_fel. gtisp I ty lerHca-flittict
'_leUf
�plge.,
titer Districts
-Awk Map
_Wla tell•
C•eNelie Ally vatic Itettfet
'
_Cdk al City
Ztnten b•lcipl,*ut lietclet
-feta jet 41elop :
_tbieen Valley baiotpi voterlldtict
_hn Telly idit blftrtct
'
Heeler et hoern:
_0/119111 Coaly tt1Mr Ihtrlct
Leta meet lintel titter blftrict
I�ILIJiLLiClt
_..wcri•ta Mita• Rta lhttlet
hh Nth laitet " /httlet
�1•alleiElN
_JIM Ge• Ceotf'vattritftctet
heele!-Utfl•/ .
tefeerfl bta •!fillet... .
_1elwft #ifiw
_wetstrletlelpl U t•lletilet
Combllf valley fliilN_,
Mtnp}ltee UK 11ftdrt .
hrw-erorteHlN
_Note W RhnlN flew Mustily
Iaat wis-wti1N
hart MU how
batt eot•t famed
it Rancho California Water District
li-lhibKt 11I rllll 1CMfI
lobe fee fraerrlLeoer• teeee.
'
-JMlfece thin
_lot tt "wo - ..
_Ca1w was ftetettl leen laic.
_JKIP golf 1w
_hia ta•da k•prtt hate Wec.
_Mike sank
_wile still Iteptq "Mn lime.
_ wm Rlky-b w
_tai felly tYooltT he•lyo•t-C•t►.
X terrkte R1NN ..
hdlyNrl Cfftee•brwwr'rAaa.
-fierl•e Isla
_Ila Camtrgerty, Own low.
his pcley tilflai
II"n It•f ft•terty hear AUK.
hie Nth killed
heprtlioet• levee. of li•etelh Co.
hrch tfle•k
_Ia City Chic Color
'
hnlf tdee Hit Meal
_he City-bomenr'• heec.
_iimsih 1d11N
hoot Wtaleft Yetrkt, •bele ball
Avow steal
_tat tlnrNh tafeao s'f Meet.
'
it JedN••tilElei -
_pumet• hfatet Hour
Eftwouido
_1heM•ta•bo•wn laeatla
_181 Rile-Ide•1
_40hp-Melia Ierel tteta
hNeratloaoecl low.
�Wtl lti
_iNio !ills bee•wn U•ec.
_letereeeeteh Ira kqutl omit AUK.
X-fe. Col. /a Co.
_on" had Comity, lt•ee.
•tawlesMissl t+slkr♦waWilsifupCs�.
_JMNw�iik iwwn Wu.
_taounf atlsw.tMllrawut
lassakisw lssse. ✓
_ftUMk ,kKfks:* awdl
.Lul wet It.• nlw Aftmtur
>Kwl, in Mu din ewof
IUpn-ftNKmr
ii-ketwkput smua wit, to ktactk
_me -Co uatlw Odwk ,ftmo, tssyr
g/sf bmw"lww "M}riM ININ)
_jWd Ls twos kar
_js City ukur
_%mesas tYwsr
_40. of tk ky4ftf N Mtwcs)
_jps,CsllwL fslW,Mila
�kdw t<w rt).wl tl�.t
OI1lhcMA bttw IW IKktr
riles ��`I/rWdU
rRiverside City/County Public Library
1 RiVOINDrEc counry
1
PLAnninc DF.?.awnr:nc
APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF PREPARATION
1 OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1 DATE: October 5, 1989
TO: Bedford Development Company
27405 Ynez Road
Rancho California, CA 92390
PROJRCT CARE NO./TITLE:
Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263, Comprehensive General Plan
Amendment No. 231, and Change of Zone No. 5589
PROJECT SPONSOR:
Turrini & Brink Planning Consultants
' 3242 Halladay, Suite 100
Santa Ana, CA 92705
' PROJECT LOCATSON:
The project site is loczxed southerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek and
Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the proposed alignment of
1 Margarita Road in the Rancho California/Temecula area within Section
26 of Township 7 South, Range 3 West.
' PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 is a 230.8 -acre project pro-
posing mixed-use commercial development, consisting of 65 acres of
regional mall, 75 acres of office, 16 acres of specialty retail,
57.5 acres of retail, and 17.3 acres of hotel.
Pursuant to the Riverside County Rules to Implement the California
1 Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), it has been determined that the
above referenced project may have a significant effect on the environment and
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
OPTION TO REVISE PROJECT
' Upon receipt of this notice, the project sponsor may revise the project to
avoid or mitigate any adverse impact. If the potential adverse effects are
substantially mitigated by the revised project, an EIR shall not be required
' and a Negative Declaration (statement of no significant effect) shall be
prepared.
4080 LEMON STREET, 9T" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
The staff requirement to prepare an EIR may be appealed to the Planning
Commission within ten (10) days of the receipt of this notice. The appeal
must be made in writing and contain a brief discussion of how the project
will avoid the environmental effects listed on the attachment. The appeal
must be accompanied by: (1) adhesive labels containing the names and
addresses of all property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries;
and (2) a filing fee of $77.00.
It has been determined that the project sponsor is responsible for the
preparation of the Draft EIR, and should seek the services of an
environmental consulting firm to prepare the draft document.
The Draft EIR must meet the form and content requirements of the Planning
Department (see attached sheet for the required topics.). A preliminary draft
shall be submitted for review and if determined acceptable, the consultant
will be notified of the appropriate number of final draft copies to be
provided for distribution to state and local agencies, and interested
parties.
The Draft EIR must be submitted within 120 days of this Notice, unless an
extension of not more than thirty (30) days is received and granted by the
Department.
LULL
If the Environmental Impact Report application fee has not been previously
paid, a fee of 5,220.00 must be submitted to the Planning Department within
thirty days of this notice.
PROJECT PRESUMED ARANDONED
Unless the fee and the Draft 'EIR is submitted within the time periods
specified alcove, the project will be presumed abandoned, and the application
will be immediately returned to the sponsor with no further action.
If you have any questions, please contact Lesley Likins, Project Planner, at
(711) 787-6356.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Ro er S. Streeter, Planning Director
Le ley Sikns, Project Planner
' ATTACHMENT
' ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN DRAFT EIR
SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 263
' The Draft Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263, Comprehensive
General Plan Amendment No. 231, and Change of Zone No. 5589 shall address all
topics required by Sections 15122 through 15126 of the State Guidelines (copy
attached). However, the following concerns shall be emphasized in the report:
Landform and Topography
' Describe the general characteristics of these elements as they pertain to
the project site. Also, indicate any proposed modifications to existing
conditions based on anticipated grading or other activities required for
' site improvements or development. Alternative grading concepts which may
reduce impacts should be evaluated.
' - Historical Land Use
Briefly discuss present and previous land use on the site along with po-
tential adverse impacts from previous land uses. Discuss the impacts that
' any utility easements may have on this project and vice -versa.
- Geology and Seismicity
Seismic potential should be delineated in terms of magnitude, intensity,
ground acceleration, duration frequency, and recurrence. Discuss poten-
tial for liquefaction. Address the existing conditions as they may con-
strain or modify the development of the project. Discuss the impact of
' potential groundshaking on proposed land uses.
Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage
' Address impacts the proposed development will have on the project site with
respect to water courses on site. Impacts on ground water resources in
terms of overdraft and/or pollution should be addressed, as well as poten-
tial impacts to downstream properties. Assess the proposed development
with respect to flooding from the 100 -year floodplain and dam inundation
(i.e., public health/safety).
1J
Open Space and Conservation
Discuss open space areas in relation to outdoor recreation, public health
and safety, conservation and management of economically productive natural
resources, and preservation of ecological and historical resources.
Address both beneficial and adverse impacts of the project to the open
space inventory.
- Climate and Air Quality
Address potential impacts on air quality with respect to Regional Statistical
Area No. 49 and the South Coast Air Quality Basin.
- Soils, Agriculture
Assess the impact of converting Prime Farmland to other land uses.
Discuss the agricultural potential and viability of the project site on
the basis of soil types, terrain, and the availability and cost of water.
- Noise
Examine project -generated noise in relationship to noise -sensitive land
uses in proximity to the project site. Include construction noise in your
analysis. Also, Aiscuss potential noise impacts from roadways.
Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Discuss the potential for generating hazardous materials and wastes from
the proposed land uses, assessing impacts and mitigation.
- Archaeological/Cultural Resources
An archaeological resource study should be conducted for the site.
- Biology
Flora and fauna should be described and inventoried, with special emphasis
on the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. Discuss potential impacts from the intro-
duction of exotic species and potential conflicts with native species.
Public Facilities and Services
Identify existing infrastructure and potential impacts to existing public
services. The discussion should focus on the potential increase in demand
for public facilities and services including, but not limited to, the fol-
lowing:
- Sewer Facilities
- Water Supply
- Flood Control Facilities
- Solid Waste
- Parks and Recreation
- Fire, Police, Emergency Services
- Local Utilities, Easements
- Schools
- Libraries
- Health Services
- Airports
Include a cost analysis of extending, upgrading,
facilities to serve the project.
I
1
I
and/or constructing new ,
Circulation, Traffic '
Address available circulation to the site and identify potential impacts.
Address alternative circulation, such as bicycle and pedestrian trails,
and identify potential roadway improvements.
Energy Conservation
Estimate the quantities of energy demand for the proposed project and out- ,
line mitigation and conservation measures designed to minimize the demand.
Cl
Scenic Environment
1 Discuss the existing setting of the project site and evaluate the on-site
visual impacts and off-site viewshed impacts frau the project.
' - 'Nails
Discuss the proposed project in relationship to existing and planned rec-
reational trails along Santa Gertrudis Creek.
- Cost/Revenue Analysis
Assess the potential fiscal impacts to Riverside County fran major reven-
ues and costs associated with the proposed specific plan project.
- Growth Inducement
Address the project's growth inducing potential, including both beneficial
and adverse impacts. Outline possible mitigation measures.
' - Proiect Alternatives
Describe a range of project alternatives, focusing on alternatives capable
of eliminating or reducing environmental effects. Alternatives should in-
clude the "No Project" alternative and an agricultural use of the project
' site.
Cumulative Impacts
' Examine the potential cumulative impacts with respect to current develop-
ment activity and proposed development within the local region.
' - Mitigation Monitorirmg and Reporting, Program
Include a monitoring and reporting program for proposed and/or required
mitigation necessary to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects
of the project.
.c J.i.+v %-I r<c.ut.nft-)_1 AU6 - 6 1990
' RRTMIDF. COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
' 3499 Tenth Street Riverside, California 92501 (714) 788-9770 (714) 788-1415 (FAX)
MEMO
1
TO: Samuel Reed, Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
FROM: Eileen Dalton, Development Specialist
Economic Development Agency
DATE:' August 3, 1990
' SUBJECT: Notice of Scoping Meeting, SP 263 and CZ 5589
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above mentioned
' project.
Upon review, I found the proposal is not located within any Airport
Influenced Area under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County
' Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Therefore, the proposal.need
not go before the ALUC for their review and determination,.
' Should you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 788-9770
or x58916..
I
1
SAN. BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM / % �\ \
' � ���� �i�� GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY
Irmo
2024 Orange Tree Lane • Redlands. CA 92374 ��� \�� DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMER
' 17141792-1334 • 192,0062 • 826.4826 a 829-4823 /VIII\��� Director
July 20, 1990
s�
City of 'Temecula, Planning. Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
atto: Samuel Reed
re: NOP, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263, CZ 5589, TEMECULA REGIONAL MALL
The initial scoping for the above-referenced actions is incomplete in that it
' fails to address nonrenewable paleontologic resources. The subject parcel is
located on the Pauba Formation, which is known to contain significant
nonrenewable paleontologic resources that will be impacted by construction
excavation. The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to
' develop a program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources which should
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
' 1. Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain
paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor
should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid
construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to
contain the remains of small fossil mammals. The monitor must be empowered
to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large
specimens. The .most cost-efficient method of salvage of small fossils is to
' remove sediments containing the fossils to -stockpiles offsite. The fossils can
be removed by screen washing elsewhere while excavation continues on site.
2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, including
' washing of sediments to recover small vertebrates. This will allow the fossils
to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix
around specimens being stored.
3. Identification and curation of specimens into an established museum
repository with retrievable storage.
4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of
specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead
Agency, signifies completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic
resources.
Si(nnccerrely,
Dr. Allan D. Griesemer
Museums Director
' DATE: July 13,.1990
OUR REF:
' SUBJECT: Specific Plan 263
[1
I
I
TO: City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
E
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above -captioned
Specific Plan.
It is the position of the United States Postal Service that all
new projects have centralized mail delivery. In commercial
projects, this can be acomplished through the use of mail rooms,
indoor central delivery eauipment or outdoor central delivery
equipment. It is requested that provisions for one of ''these
types of delivery be shown on the final prints for the project.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
*Stve
SSiinccer
IFitc j -k
Growth Management Coordinator
San Bernardino MSC
1900 W Redlands Blvd
San Bernardino, CA 92403-9334
t %jure I i yr Ill V GnaiuL.
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FRANKLIN E. SHERKOW
Uiren nr of Tra mporudon
COUNTY ADM INISTRATIVE CENTER
MAILING ADDRESS:
July 20, 1990 Ro. Rna 1090
Rivenldc. Califmnla 93502
(714) 275.6880
FAX (714) 275.6731
Mr. Samuel Reed
City of Temecula 'Al
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive fay ry
Temecula, CA 92390
RE: Notice of Scoping Meeting for Specific P1an.No. 263 and
Change of Zone No. 5589
' Dear Mr. Reed:
The County of Riverside Department of Transportation has reviewed
' the above referenced document. Enclosed is a copy of a letter
sent to the County Planning Department on October 30, 1989 in
response to the original Notice of Preparation. In addition to
the recommendations contained therein, we suggest that impacts of
recently proposed developments be included in the traffic
analysis. A traffic demand management program for the project
should also be part of the analysis.
' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this updated NOP.
Please send us a copy of the draft EIR for review as the
information contained therein will assist us in planning for the
' local area remaining under County jurisdiction.
If you have any questions, please contact Paul Wright, Planner
II, at (714) 275-6773.
'Sincerely, 1
Edwin Studor
Transportation Planning Manager
' ES:MD:PW:jw
Attachment
1
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER • 4080 LEMON STREET • RIVERSIDE., CALIFORNIA 92501
11
LeRoy D. Smool
ROAD Cl1MM®OIQl a MUM SURVEYOR
October 30, 1989
' Roger Streeter, Planning Director
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
' ATTN: Lesley Likins
Dear Lesley:
COI AOMNUMME @OII
MA6RS AODRM
P.O. 001 1010
ArMISn CAl00RM 1ES{C
(114) M 45M
RE: CGPA No.231/SP No.263/,
COZ #5589/Winchester Rbad/
Regional Center
The Riverside County Road Department has received your
Notice of Preparation for the above referenced proposed project.
we welcome the opportunity to review the proposed DEIR in order
to evaluate possible impacts to the County Road Circulation
System.
Specific Plan #106C, Specific Plan #103, Specific Plan #220 and
Specific Plan #164.
Consideration should be given to the cumulative impacts
' that continued growth in the area will have on the County
circulation system from a "worst case" viewpoint. The EIR should
include discussion of impacts to the transportation system such
t as traffic growth, traffic safety, drainage, construction,
maintenance and operation of any road improvements'. Cost related
to transportation improvements should be discussed. Public
transportation and accommodations for both pedestrians and
' bicycles should also, be included in the study.
1
COUNTY ADMINUTRAME CENTER " 4080 LEMON STREET • MERME. CALUDRNIA 92501
Winchester Road has
been proposed as an Urban
Arterial
'
Highway (134' right of way).
The Regional Center will
increase
trip generation substantially
in the area around Winchester Road.
'
Therefore, a detailed traffic
County guidelines, will be
study, prepared in accordance with
required. The cumulative analysis
must also include the impact
of the following projects:
French
valley Airport, Specific Plan
#184, Specific Plan
#173 and
Specific Plan #106C, Specific Plan #103, Specific Plan #220 and
Specific Plan #164.
Consideration should be given to the cumulative impacts
' that continued growth in the area will have on the County
circulation system from a "worst case" viewpoint. The EIR should
include discussion of impacts to the transportation system such
t as traffic growth, traffic safety, drainage, construction,
maintenance and operation of any road improvements'. Cost related
to transportation improvements should be discussed. Public
transportation and accommodations for both pedestrians and
' bicycles should also, be included in the study.
1
COUNTY ADMINUTRAME CENTER " 4080 LEMON STREET • MERME. CALUDRNIA 92501
CGPA #231/SP #263/COZ #5589
October 30, 1989
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact John Goodlett at
(714) 787-1445.
veryy respectfully yours,
Edwin Studor
Transportation Planning Manager
ES:JG:jw
CGPAsCGPA.231.SP.263
I
[1
I
I
11
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PALOMAR OBSERVATORY 10544
July 25, 1990.
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
City of Temecula
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200 1
Temecula, California 92390
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
I recently received your notice of a scoping meeting for
a project (Temecula Regional Mall) originally submitted
to the County of Riverside and identified as Specific
Plan 263, Change of Zone 5589. Unfortunately, a prior
commitment prevents me from attending the meeting on
July 26; I hope this letter will help convey Caltech's
interest in this process.
Caltech owns and operates the Palomar Observatory
(located about 20 miles southeast of Temecula), which is
the home of the 200 -inch Hale Telescope and other
telescopes used for astronomical research. Discoveries
made at Palomar have, over the years, led to profound
changes in our understanding of the universe. By the
introduction of new technological techniques, the
Palomar Observatory continues as one of the most
important research facilities on the planet.
Recently, the effectiveness of the Palomar telescopes
has been threatened by the increased use of out -door
lighting in the region. Stray light from these sources
illuminates particles in the atmosphere, brightening the
sky and overwhelming the light from the faint stars,
galaxies and quasars. As the areas around Palomar are
developed, the effects of this light pollution grow.
For the past eight years or so, we have been working
with the communities in San Diego and Riverside Counties
to establish policies designed to stem the growth of
light pollution while meeting the lighting needs of the
growing communities. Good examples of these are the
County street lighting policy requiring the use of low-
pressure sodium (LPS) lamps and the Riverside County
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91125 TELEPHONE (5151 356-1035 TELEX 673425 CALTECH PSD
Mr. Gary Thornhill
July 25, 1990 '
Page Two
Ordinance 655 which regulates other forms of lighting. '
These county regulations were applicable in Temecula
before the city was incorporated.
In the case of the Temecula Regional Mall, I strongly '
recommend adhering to the policies that currently apply
in the unincorporated portions of Riverside County; that
is, ordinance 655 and the use of LPS street lighting. '
Over the longer term, we note that Temecula is now the
closest city to Palomar Observatory and it is growing '
rapidly. These two facts make it essential that
Temecula adopt lighting policies similar to those of
Riverside County. To this end, I would be pleased to
meet with you to discuss the process in greater detail; '
I will call to arrange a meeting.
The future of Palomar depends on our ability to control ,
light pollution. The consequences of our failure to act
can be gauged by the situation at the Mount Wilson
Observatory, where a 100 -inch telescope lies idle
because of uncontrolled light pollution. Fortunately,
the communities around the observatory have supported
our effort to solve this problem and I hope the City of
Temecula will join with us.
sincerely yours, r
Robert�rucato
Assistant Director
RJB:pc ,
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TEMTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, G 9581A
DATE: October 12, 1989
TO: Reviewing Agencies
OCT 19198
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: The Riverside County NOP for the Regional Center Specific Plan
SCHN 89020013
Attached for your comment is the Riverside County Notice of Preparation of a
draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Regional Center Spcific Plan
Project_
Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and comments on the scope
and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their
own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt 9f this notice. Te
encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their
concerns early in the environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to:
Ms. Lesley Linkins
Riverside County
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
with a cony to the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH
number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.
If you have any questions about the review process, call John 'Keene
at 916/44-5-0613.
Sincerely, "/'
/
David C. Nuneakamp
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
Attachments
cc: Lesley Linkins
'CALIFORNIA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
1020 NIMH SnUMT. SUITE 300
SACRAMENTO. GWFOANIA 95814
' Kos A 619x9
Ms. Lesley Linkins NOV 2 11989
Riverside County
' 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Riverside, California 92501 PLANNING DEPARTMENT \
' Subject: SCB,#.89020013 - Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Regional
Center Specific Plan, Riverside County.
' Dear Ms. Linkins:
The California Waste Management Board staff have reviewed the NOP
for the DEIR for the Regional Center Specific Plan. The project
entails the development of a 65 acre regional mall, 75 acres of
office space,_16 acres of specialty retail, 57.5 acres of retail,
and 17.3 acres of hotel.
' It would be helpful if any forthcoming environmental documents
included the following:
* Identification of types and quantities of wastes
generated from the project which will require
landfilling.
' * Identification of the impact of these '= quantities on
remaining landfill capacity.
' * Identification of the final disposal site/s for the
project's generated waste.
' * Identification of alternatives to landfilling waste.
New commercial developments increase the amount of waste being sent
' to local landfills, which are rapidly running out of space. In
order to preserve remaining disposal capacity, Board staff
encourage that every effort be made to minimize the amount of solid
waste going to landfills by maximizing recycling and waste
reduction efforts. Board staff suggest that the following measures
be considered in order to maximize recycling, reduce waste, and to
promote the consumption of recycled materials:
' * Information could be provided to businesses about the
recycling services in the development area. Identify buy
back centers and possible markets for recyclables in the
' area. Suggest to businesses that they recycle glass,
Y
MR*
Page Two
Ms. Lipkins
metal, paper, cardboard, and other materials to the
maximum extent feasible.
* Insulation and other products made of recycled materials
may be used in the construction of development
structures.
* Suggest to businesses that they utilize recycled
materials, such as paper, glass, and metals, to the,
maximum extent possible.
These considerations should be investigated thoroughly befoie
construction is initiated.
In addition, Board staff suggest that any forthcoming environmental
documents identify past land uses and identify any waste disposal
activity occurring on or near the site. The document should also
identify adjacent land uses and potential health and safety impacts
resulting from prior land use.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Jeannie Blakeslee of the California Waste Management Board's. Local
Planning Division at (916) 327-0454. If you would like information
about waste reduction or recycling measures which would be
appropriate for your development project, please contact Carole
Brow at (916) 324-6946.
Sincerely,
4s,GgeH. Larson, Manager
ource Conservation and Local Planning Divisions
0
' DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
P. O. Boa 6598
LOS ANGELES
90055-1598
1
1
1
1
Nova W9
County of Riverside R�1(�COUKSYr
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor PNi�18�T
Riverside, CA 92501
Attention: Lesley Linkins
Subject: Notice of Preparation of DEIR for the Regional Center, Offices,
Retails and Hotel, dated October 1989, SCH 89020013
Your referenced document has been reviewed by our Department staff.
Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damage
prevention, are attached.
The Department recommends that you consider implementing a comprehensive
program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free, fresh
water supplies for beneficial uses that require high quality water.
For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at
213-620-3951•
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this report.
Sincerely,
Charles R. White, Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments
cc: Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
d
1
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESGURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
\
1
FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER RECLAMATION
To reduce water demand, implement the water conservation measures described
here.
'
Required
'
The following State laws require water -efficient plumbing fixtures in
structures:
o Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low -flush toilets and
'
urinals in virtually all buildings as follows:
"After January 1, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state
'
shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which
are water -conservation water closets as defined by American National
Standards Institute Standard A112.19.2, and urinals and associated
flushometer valves, if any, that use less than an average of 1-1/2
gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer
valves are exempt from the requirements of this section."
'
o Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) (Appliance '
Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that give Che
maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink
faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the American National
Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI
A112.18.1M-1979.
o Title 20, California Administrntive Code Section 1606(b) (Appliance
Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply
with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in
'
California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance
with the provisions of the regulations establishing applicable
efficiency standards.
o Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(b)
'
(California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings) prohibits
the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to
the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards.
o Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5352(i) and (j)
address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before
'
hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to
steam and steam -condensate return piping and recirculating hot water
piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than
between floors or in interior walls. Insulation of water -heating
'
systems is also required.
1
o Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of
residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain
conditions are satisfied. Included is the requirement that, in most
instances, the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by
water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned '
water.
o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public
facilities constructed after January 1, 1985, be equipped with '
self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water.
To be Implemented where applicable t
Interior:
1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square ,
inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure -reducing
valve. _
2. Drinking fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing
valves.
3. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and res2rpoms.•
Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower.
4. Laundry facilities: Water -conserving models of washers be used.
5. Restaurants: Water -conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray
emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be
served upon request only.'
6. Ultra -low -flush toilets: 1 -1/2 -gallon per flush toilets be installed in
all new construction.
Exterior:"
1. Landscape with low water -using plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn -dependent uses, such as
playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses.
3. Group plants of.similar water use to reduce overirrigation of
low -water -using plants.
4. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low -water -using
landscaping and sources of additional assistance.
*The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in
developing these materials or providing other information.
S1
I
' 5. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of
' soil will improve the water -holding capacity of the soil by reducing'
evaporation and soil compaction.
6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are
' often adapted to low -water -using conditions and their use saves water
needed to establish replacement vegetation.
7. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and
' evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems
are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
' 8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and to aid in ground water recharge.
I
d
iJ
9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
10. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or grey water for irrigation.
11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious
paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation
of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water
recharge.
13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer
recharge areas as open space.
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
In flood -prone areas: flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
proposed development should be based on the following guidelines:
1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground
water should be mitigated. \
2. All building structures should be protected against a 100 -year flood.
3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the 100 -year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the
Environmental Impact Report.
4. At least one route Of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a 100 -year flood.
1
5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside
developments.
6. Revegetation of disturbed or newly constructed slopes should be done as
soon as possible (utilizing native or low -water -using plant material).
7. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be
assessed and mitigated as required.
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
with sediment transport during construction.
0
3
I
Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Conservation District
711 W. Esplanade Avenue, Suite C - San Jacinto, California 92383 - Phone (714) 654-7733
Dear �e 6�>/ ,Z.'C,ns
' We acknowledge receipt of the Preparation of an Environmental impact
Report for
in Riverside County, California that was addressed to the USDA, Soil
' Conservation Service and the Eisinore—Murrieta—Anza Resource
Conservation District on _/Z _JL=�3�for review and comment.
We have rBviewed the above Environmental impact Report and find z%Z :
' 1. There are no controversial items in the report within the realm
of the Soil Conservation Service's expertise and responsiDil Iles,
which include the following items:
a. We do not find any serious potential problems with soil
erosion and/or flooding within the project area.
b. There is no Prime, State, Unique or Locally important rarmiand
' involved in the project area.
c. We find no conflict with any SCS on—going or planned,programs
.or projects.
' d. There are no wetlands involved in this project.
We find that the items listed below should be reviewed by your
committee:
SL C� � 1•T'ZGh Oj+i �'... 7��.r/rI Lin��Y
L_2sL_�•� � �•__ �`'" 4 _��__L= _�� fir'_'= /=ri�•r'•�_______
�C DL Ll� ��0�. ��...7 ��--�-�1-Y_�.t -__f rl_�/�s r_LJ' ✓ /.�i< 7� _
//-
��.----------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed
' project.
Sincerely,
Leon Sorel
' Chairman l
CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SELF. GOVERNMENT
r
NIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ILE OF THE DIRECTOR Pn LO MAR OBSERVATORY 105-24
' OCT 161989 October 12, 1989
' RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
' M. Lesley Likins
' Planning Department
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
Dear M. Likins
This is in response to your Notice of Preparation
' of an Environmental Impact Report in connection with the
Change of Zone No. 5589 (Specific Plan 263).
' Caltech's interest in this case derives from the
possible adverse impacts on the Palomar Observatory
resulting from the use of outdoor lighting on the
project.
I assume the developer will be informed of the
requirements of the Riverside County Lighting Ordinance
' 655. It is not possible, however, to determine from the
Notice of Preparation if the project's lighting plan
will require additional forms of mitigation; this will
become clear when the draft EIR becomes available. I
' would be pleased to receive a copy for comment at that
time.
' Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Rober J. rucato
' Assistant Director
RJB:pc
File: LANDUSE/RCZ5589
CJ
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 91125 TELEPHONE (816) 354.4033 TELECOPIER (015) 543-1517 TELEX .75425 CALTECH PSD
TO: DATE: jolt -7 (ac '
FROM: ,
RE:
z6 6Zvn,;(- #t- 2-31
E L �
G.,fMI 0 VSE 1 t chi. ,
GEN. FO Rhl 1, Be, 8/87)
1
i
1
1
n
_'
1
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
IIV l vvram^,iuN WIIn imm
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LESLEY LIKENS
GLEN 1. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
SPECIFIC PLAN 263
CGPA 231.
10-17-89
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
�47a%RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
V(7I4) 787.6606
OCT 191989
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The proposed project would be consistent with current Fire Department planning
and service levels established in the Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Aid
Master Plan. The draft documents should address the cumulative impacts due
to the increased caused by additional building and population with proposed
mitigation as conditions of approval.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be refer;ed to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
ml
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
3
By
Michael Gray, Deputy Fire Marshal
Inv
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46.209 OASIS STREET SUITE 405
'
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342.8886
1
n
_'
1
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
IIV l vvram^,iuN WIIn imm
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LESLEY LIKENS
GLEN 1. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
SPECIFIC PLAN 263
CGPA 231.
10-17-89
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
�47a%RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
V(7I4) 787.6606
OCT 191989
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The proposed project would be consistent with current Fire Department planning
and service levels established in the Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Aid
Master Plan. The draft documents should address the cumulative impacts due
to the increased caused by additional building and population with proposed
mitigation as conditions of approval.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be refer;ed to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
ml
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
3
By
Michael Gray, Deputy Fire Marshal
r•L r
Mfr
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
lIn COUNJY
AND FIRE
3� (.'
PROTECTION
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
10-17-89 �
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405
3760 12TH STREET
1
INDIO. CA 92201
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(619) 342.8886
(714) 787.6606
TO: PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
1
ATTN: LESLEY LIKINS
1
RE: SPECIFIC
PLAN 263/CPA 231/CZ 5589
The following change
of zone 5589 will not negatively impact the Riverside
1
County Fire Department. All other concerns will be addressed and replied to
during the E.I.R./Specific Plan review process.
1
RAYMOND H. REGIS
T
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist
1Kurt
ml
i
1
1
OCT 18198y
RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
i
1
1
' 2024 Orange Tres Lane • Redlands. CA 92374
17141792-1334 • 792-0052 • 825.4825 • 825-4823
1
F
L
k
aeDtember 'L'[. Pdbs r
Leslev Likins. Specific Plans
Riverside County Planning Department
4U8U Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, LA 92501
.N D. GRIESEMER
Director
OCT 121989
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
re: EIR NOP SP Z63. 0GPA Z31, L,'L 5589. Rancho lalifornia/Temecula
Portions of the above -reference pro.iect are located on very fossiliferous
sediments of the Pauba t'ormation. Construction excavation is likely to impact
significant nonrenewable paleontologic resources. A program should be
developed by a vertebrate paleontologist to mitigate these impacts that should
include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Monitoring of excavation in areas identifies as likely to contain
paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. '1'he monitor
should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid
construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to
contain the remains of small fossil mammals. The monitor must be empowered to
temporarily halt or. divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large
specimens.
2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, including
washing of sediments to recover small vertebrates.
3. Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with
retrievable storage.
4. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of
specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead
Agency, signifies completion of the Plan to Mitigate Impacts to Paleontologic
Resources. -
(�Wely 0
Lr. Allan 1). uriesemer
Museums Director
ADG : RER/,ir
I
1
October 23, 1989
United States
Postal Service
'Leslie Likins. Project Planner
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
REF: SP No. 263, GP Amendment No. 231
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above captioned SP.
It is the position of the United States Postal Service that -,all
new projects have Centralized Mail Delivery through Neighborhood
Delivery and Box Collection Units or other central delivery
equipment. It is suggested that this be reauired and shown on
the final plot plan map.
' If You have any questions, feel free to contact me.
0
Sincerely
Steve Fitch
'
Growth Management Coordinator
Delivery & Retail ANalvsr�
General Mail Facility
1900 W: Redlands Blvd.
'
San Bernardino, CA 92403-9334
0
�1 Y Gl�1VG �VYI IL
1 ?Unninc i)Emi ammi:
AGENCY NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF 5AN ENVIRONMENTAL IM7 ,
DATE: October 5, 1989 of
ARU
C RUED IN
1 TO: UCR Archaeological Research OCT 20 1989 OCT 11 1989
900 University Ave.
1 Riverside, CA 92507 RIVERSIDE COUNT.,,
PROJECT CSE N0./TITLE: PLANNING OEPgRTMENT
1 Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263, Canprehensive General Plan
Amendment No. 231, and Change of Zone No. 5589
PROJECT RPnNRORi
1 Turrini & Brink Planning Consultants
3242tirthab!,!t;a r, c a:clillnil
Holladay, Suite 100 �0ivauiir; of Califon w
Santa Ana, CA 92705 Riverside, CA 92521
1 PROJPrT TnrATT ON.
The project site is located southerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek and
1 Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the proposed aligrrnent of
Margarita Road in the Rancho California/Temecula area within Section
26 of Township 7 South, Range 3 West.
1 DROJE T n.gRIPTTON:
Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263 is a 230.8 -acre project pro-
posing mixed-use ca mercial develognent, consisting of 65 acres of
1 regional mall, 75 acres of office, 16 acres of specialty retail,
57.5 acres of retail, and 17.3 acres of hotel.
Pursuant to the Riverside County Rules to Implement the California
1 Environmental Quality Act, notice Is given to responsible and Interested
agencies, that the Riverside County Planning Department plans to oversee the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the project, The purpose
of this notice !s to solicit guidance from your agency as to the scope and
1 content of the environmental information to be Included in the EIR.
Information in that regard should be submitted to this offict as soon as
possible, but not later that 30 days after.receiving this notice.
1 Attached Is a copy of the issues to be included in the draft EIR. If you
have any questions, please contact Lesley Liklns, Project Planner, at (711)
787-6356.
N 0 St.+✓✓N 1� C" /'CSow/Y1.S
1 Very Y' trul Yours, rj rCCCW H& O&W Snccz rG� aha L."S.
Sw�✓�Boi aS darts oho {
1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO S, �rdre ,.nwi�.ojltrs
S {e
ICj
Roger S. Strpeeter, Planning Director -04t � C"/h.�,fa/ reSo /c es 4r� ls�eounlC/t
1
Jade, I }I!kln�J oiwfl^9 o'avClo`J/ne.vT a %r�a(,�iGA� ,✓I,�.PSY. CA10 (cC be cans vIreon.
Le ley L k1 s, Project Planner alo��j
r o�IG�e 1 VJ
1 4080 LEMON STREET, 9T" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(714) 787.6181 (619) 342-8277
I
1
I
I
I
REVISED FEASIBILITY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
230± Acre Rancho California Regional Center
South and East of Winchester and Ynez Roads
Rancho California, California
' PREPARED FOR:
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
' 27405 Ynez Road
Rancho California, California 92390
PREPARED BY:
ICG Incorporated
' 1906 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 240
Redlands, California 92374
1
' OCTOBER 18, 1989
JOB NO: 08-6574-012-01-00
' LOG NO: 9-3650
1
0= OUR ORIGINAL REPORT, ISSUED
' '�� PREV;OUSLY UNDER OUP. FORMER NAME
HIGHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.
incorporated
Inland Empire Office:
1906 Orange Tree Lane.
Suite 240
' Redlands, CA92374
7l7141792-422222zz October 18, 1989
fax: 714/7984844
' Corporate Office: Bedford Properties Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
5 Mason
Nine, CA 92718 27405 Ynez Road Log No: 9-3650
714/951-8686 Rancho California, CA 92390
fax: 714/951-6813
' San Diego Attention: Mr. Greg Erickson
County Office:
9240 Trade Place, SUBJECT: REVISED FEASIBILITY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Suite 100
' San Diego, CA 92126 230± Acre Rancho California Regional Center
619/536-1102 South and East of Winchester and Ynez Roads
fax: 619/536-1306 Rancho California, California
Orange County Office:
15 Mason Gentlemen:
Irvine, CA 92718
714/951-8686
fax: 714/951-7969 In accordance with your request, we have completed a revised
' feasibility geotechnical report for the subject site.
Utilizing the results of our previous investigations
(Highland Geotechnical Consultants, November 1988 and
February 1989), we have developed preliminary geotechnical
conclusions and recommendations pertinent to the proposed
commercial development.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated.
If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
ICG Incorporated
Inland Empire Division
rone �AnoZ �GE
' Chief Engineer
TMC:vdp
' Distribution: (6) Addressee
I
'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2
'
1.1 Project Characteristics
2
1.2 Purpose
3
1.3 Scope/Authorization
3
1.4 References
3
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
3.0
SITE INVESTIGATION
5
3.1 Field Exploration
5
'
3.2 Laboratory Analyses
5
3.3 Aerial Photograph Review
6
4.0
GEOLOGY
6
4.1 Geologic Setting
6
'
4.2 Geologic Units
7
4.2.1 Pauba Formation
7
'
4.2.2 Alluvium
7
4.2.3 Artificial Fill
8
4.3 Structural Geology
8
r4.4
Drainage
10
4.5 Groundwater
10
4.6 Skinner Dam Inundation Area
10
5.0
SEISMICITY
11
'
5.1 Regional Seismicity
11
5.2 Earthquake Effects
12
5.2.1 Earthquake Accelerations
12
'
5.2.2 Ground Rupture
13
5.2.3 Ground Surface Cracking
13
5.2.4 Soil Settlement
14
5.2.5 Liquefaction
14
'
5.2.6 Seismically Induced Flooding
15
6.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
15
'
7.0
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
17
17
7.1 General
7.2 Grading and Earthwork
17
8.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued - Page 2)
PAGE NO.
7.2.1 Site Preparation
17
7.2.2 Preliminary Preparation of Existing
Soils 18
7.2.3 Fill Placement
20
7.2.4 Subdrainage
21
7.3
Slope Stability
21
7.3.1 Cut and Fill Slopes
21
7.3.2 Fill -Over -Cut Slopes
22
7.3.3 Slope Protection/Maintenance
22
7.4
Settlement Considerations
23
7.4.1 Earthwork
23
7.4.2 Transition Lots
23
7.4.3 Foundations
24
7.5
Surface and Subgrade Drainage
24
7.6
Foundation and Slab Recommendations
25
7.6.1 General
25
7.6.2 Foundations
26
7.6.3 Lateral Load Resistance
27
7.6.4 Concrete Slabs/Flatwork
28
7.6.5 Set -Backs
28
7.7
Soil Sulfate Content
29
7.8
Utility Trench Backfill
29
7.9
Pavement Design
30
7.10
Retaining Walls
31
7.11
Grading and Foundation Plan Review
32
7.12
Construction Monitoring
32
LIMITATIONS
OF INVESTIGATION
33
1
Attached
and Included:
1
Appendix
A, References
Appendix
B, Logs of Borings, Key to Logs, CPT Data
Appendix
C, Laboratory Test Results
Appendix
D, Standard Details
L
Figure 1,
Location Map
Figure 2,
Map of Historic Epicenters
Figure 3,
Seismicity of Major Faults
1
Figure 4,
Liquefaction Analysis
Figure 5,
Foundation Slab and Recommendations
Figures B-1 through B-15, Logs of Borings
Figure B-16, Key to Logs
Figures C-1 through C-5, Laboratory Test Results
Figures D-1 through D-3, Standard Details
1
1
71
Ll
�1
11
1
1
I
11
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
1.0
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 2
Presented herewith are our preliminary geotechnical
conclusions and recommendations pertinent to the proposed
Rancho California Regional Center in Rancho California,
California. The geographic relationships of the site are
shown on the enclosed Location Map, Figure 1.
1.1 Proiect Characteristics
The subject project is located south and east of the
Winchester Road and Ynez Road intersection, with the
north boundary abutting Santa Gertrudis Creek and
Margarita Road forming the east boundary. Vegetation
consists of some trees with a moderate growth of weeds
and/or alfalfa covering the site. Man-made features
include various structures, dirt roads and a horse
track in the eastern portion of the site. A couple of
areas of artificial fill exist within site bounds, the
largest being located between Winchester Road and Santa
Gertrudis Creek. Topographically, the site slopes
towards the southwest with maximum relief on the order
of 90 ft. According to information provided by the
client, the proposed development will consist of mostly
1- and 2 -story buildings, with possibly some 6- to 8 -
story buildings as well. It is our understanding that
standard cut and fill grading procedures will be
followed to provide flat building pads and areas to be
paved.
7:A
7L
4�.H'ot
7
7,a Walef ot
1 %I - w .0
p
—1106"
\j
I L/
00
<1
j,
\2j.�3
79
`,*1036 Gagpe Sm M 1072
13
lkv
i � 1 -
Reservoir
Gag,
L
o
0
�7_ r
ADAPTED FROM U.S.G.S. MURRIETA,
CALIFORNIA OUADRA"QLE SCALE 1'-260W
LOCATION MAP -RANCHO CALIFORNIA REGIONAL CENTER
jns mn. I nAve. I ........
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
1.2 Purpose
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 3
The purpose of this report was to determine preliminary
geotechnical engineering and geologic parameters for
the site based on previously performed field and
laboratory work, and develop preliminary conclusions
and recommendations relative to project development.
1.3 Scope/Authorization
The scope of this work was outlined in our
Authorization No. 0212, dated October 2, 1989. Verbal
authorization to perform this service was given on
September 24, 1989 by Mr. Greg Erickson.
1.4 References
For the purpose of preparing this report we were
provided with a 200 -scale map titled "Regional Center
Specific Plan" dated October 16, 1989, by Turrini &
Brink Planning Consultants. This revised feasibility
geotechnical report is based on field and laboratory
work as presented in the referenced reports by Highland
Geotechnical Consultants dated November 21, 1988 and
February 13, 1989. These and other references are
listed in Appendix A.
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the
information presented in the referenced geotechnical
feasibility reports. our work was limited to the scope
t
1. The proposed project is feasible for development from a '
geotechnical standpoint.
2. The lower portions of the site within the Santa
Gertrudis Valley are susceptible to liquefaction during
major seismic events. This area is also within the
Skinner Dam inundation area for a 100 year event.
Appropriate preliminary mitigation recommendations are
provided herein.
3. The alluvium and near -surface soils appear to be of
variable density and compressibility and may not
provide uniform structural support. Appropriate
preliminary mitigation measures are contained herein.
4. The site is not located within any State or County
Special Studies Zone.
5. The recommendations in this report do not apply to that
part of the site (southwest corner) covered by the
referenced Highland Geotechnical Consultants report
dated April 25, 1989.
'
Bedford Properties
Job No:
08-6574-012-01-00
October 18, 1989
- Log No:
Page 4
9-3650
requested and is specifically
addressed to
the proposed
'
project as described herein.
In summary,
our findings are
as follows:
1. The proposed project is feasible for development from a '
geotechnical standpoint.
2. The lower portions of the site within the Santa
Gertrudis Valley are susceptible to liquefaction during
major seismic events. This area is also within the
Skinner Dam inundation area for a 100 year event.
Appropriate preliminary mitigation recommendations are
provided herein.
3. The alluvium and near -surface soils appear to be of
variable density and compressibility and may not
provide uniform structural support. Appropriate
preliminary mitigation measures are contained herein.
4. The site is not located within any State or County
Special Studies Zone.
5. The recommendations in this report do not apply to that
part of the site (southwest corner) covered by the
referenced Highland Geotechnical Consultants report
dated April 25, 1989.
' Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
' 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
3.1 Field Exploration
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 5
' Samples, representative of the materials encountered
during our previous field investigations, were obtained
for laboratory testing. Results of in-place moisture
and density determinations, including classifications
and Standard Penetration Test results, are shown on the
Subsurface exploration of the site was previously
performed on September -21,. 1988 and between --January 3
and 12, 1989 (see referenced geotechnical feasibility
'
reports). Those borings drilled in September 1988 are
distinguished by asterics (Boring Logs 1' through 6*);
in all, a total of 11 test borings were drilled to
depths between 19.5 and 45.5 ft. An 8 in diameter
hollow -stem auger, powered by a truck -mounted rotary
drilling rig, was used to advance the test borings. In
addition, 13 Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT) were
performed to depths between 27 and 44 ft. A standard
10 cm2 electric cone, advanced by a truck mounted
hydraulic press, was used to provide a continuous log
of the subsurface strata encountered during these
tests. The approximate locations of the test borings
and CPT soundings (labeled PC -1, etc.) are shown on the
Geotechnical Map, Plate 1, included in Appendix E.
Logs of Borings are presented on Figures B-1 through B-
16 and the "Key to Logs" is on Figure B-17. These
figures and the CPT data are included in Appendix B.
3.2 Laboratory Analyses
' Samples, representative of the materials encountered
during our previous field investigations, were obtained
for laboratory testing. Results of in-place moisture
and density determinations, including classifications
and Standard Penetration Test results, are shown on the
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 6
Logs of Borings in Appendix B. All other applicable
laboratory test results and descriptions are included
in Appendix C.
3.3 Aerial Photograph Review
The referenced aerial photographs were carefully
reviewed for the subject project. Results of this
review indicated that linear features suggest surface
effects of faulting exist north of the site, but no
such features were found within site bounds.
4.0 GEOLOGY
The geology discussion from the referenced Highland
Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., (February 1989) report is
generally applicable to the subject site and is repeated
here for convenience.
4.1 Geologic Setting
The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province east of the Santa Ana Mountains.
The Peninsular Ranges extend southward from the Los
Angeles Basin through Baja California, and are
characterized by large Mesozoic Age intrusive rock
masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary and
sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges have a
general northwest -trending structural grain that
includes such geologic features as faults, bedding and
foliation trends, and geologic contacts.
Locally, the site is underlain by recent alluvial
deposits in the Santa Gertrudis valley and drainage
areas, while the hills consist primarily of late
Pleistocene Age sedimentary bedrock, known as the Pauba
' Formation (Mann, 1955).
4.2 Geologic Units
4.2.1 Pauba Formation (Map Symbol: Qps)
Bedford Properties
'
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
October 18, 1989
Log No: 9-3650
'
stiff to stiff clayey silt and silty clay beds.
Page 7
rLateral
ft thick soil horizon on the flatter topographic
displacement
and uplift of the region has
occurred
on a series
of major northwest -trending faults
which are thought to
be related to the regional
These materials typically consist of loose to
tectonic
framework.
Some of these faults zones have
interbedded silty sands, sandy silts and sands.
remained
active to the
present time, including the
Elsinore
Fault Zone
west of the site.
Locally, the site is underlain by recent alluvial
deposits in the Santa Gertrudis valley and drainage
areas, while the hills consist primarily of late
Pleistocene Age sedimentary bedrock, known as the Pauba
' Formation (Mann, 1955).
4.2 Geologic Units
4.2.1 Pauba Formation (Map Symbol: Qps)
The Pauba Formation exposed on the site consists
'
of light brown laminations and beds of poor to
well indurated silts, sands and gravels with
occasional intervals of greenish -gray, medium
stiff to stiff clayey silt and silty clay beds.
This formation is commonly mantled by a 1 to 4
'
ft thick soil horizon on the flatter topographic
areas.
4.2.2 Alluvium (Map Symbol: Qal)
These materials typically consist of loose to
medium dense fluvial and channel deposits of
interbedded silty sands, sandy silts and sands.
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 8
4.2.3 Artificial Fill (Map Symbol: a£)
The observed artificial fill consists of light
brown to brown sands and silty sands.
4.3 Structural Geoloav
The dominant structural feature in the area is the
northwest -striking Elsinore Fault Zone. This zone fits
the dominant northwest -southeast structural and
regional tectonic pattern displayed by other fault
systems, including the San Andreas and San Jacinto
Fault Zones. The Elsinore Fault Zone extends for more
than 200 km from Corona on the north to beyond the
Mexican border on the south (Biehler and others, 1964).
Individual faults in this zone are generally less than
1 to 2 km long, although several have continuous mapped
lengths in excess of 25 km (Weber, 1963).
The Elsinore Fault Zone is a prominent and youthful
structural boundary that separates the Perris Block
(English, 1926) along its eastern side from the Santa
Ana Mountains along its western side. The term
"Elsinore Trough" is commonly used to describe the
fault -controlled graben valley between Corona and upper
Wolf Valley. Geologic mapping by Kennedy (1977)
indicates that the eastern side of the Elsinore Trough
(Wildomar Fault Zone) is composed principally of right -
stepping, strike -slip faults that have a west -dipping
normal component, whereas the western side (the Willard
Fault Zone) is composed of a series of east -dipping,
steeply inclined faults.
I
I
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 9
Locally, the Elsinore Fault Zone is divided into 3
principal northwest -trending faults. The Wildomar
Fault Zone is located 0.4 mi west of the site, the
Willard Fault Zone 1.5 mi to the southwest and the
Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone 0.9 mi to the north.
1 Most individual faults of the Willard Fault Zone can be
traced for only 1 to 2 km and many for less than a few
hundred meters. The faults have a complex
' discontinuous relationship to one another and only as a
group form a through -going zone (Kennedy, 1977). The
' Willard Fault Zone is not classified as active by
either the State or County and no evidence of recency
has been encountered (Shlemon, 1987 personal
communication).
The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone is composed of
several faults that have an average strike of N750W and
a dip of 80°S (Kennedy, 1977). This fault zone has
been mapped by Kennedy (1977) as being nearly
continuous from the southeast portion of Murrieta to
Murrieta Hot Springs. The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault
is not currently classified as an active fault by state
' or local agencies, but this status may change in the
future since new evidence of Holocene Age activity has
recently been recognized by these agencies.
' The Wildomar Fault Zone is a northwest -striking, west
dipping high -angle normal fault. This fault zone is
presently included within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone (see Figure 1). No portion of the site is
included within a State or County fault hazards zone.
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
4.4 Drainage
I
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 10
Drainage of the site is accomplished by downward
surface percolation and sheetflow which is generally
directed into southwest flowing canyons and the Santa
Gertrudis Valley.
4.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in Borings 1 and 7 at
depths of 33 and 38 ft below the existing ground
surface, respectively. Based on data from 9 water
wells within and adjacent to the site (Department of
Water Resources, 1971), the historic regional high
groundwater levels vary from 20± ft to 45± ft below the
ground surface in the western to eastern portions of
the site, respectively. We have mapped these historic
groundwater contours on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1,
included in Appendix E.
According to the County of Riverside Energy Resources
Map, thermal waters may underlie the subject site. It
is beyond the scope of this report to determine the
existence and extent.of thermal waters.
4.6 Skinner Dam Inundation Area
The Santa Gertrudis Valley portion of the site lies
within the Skinner Dam inundation area for a 100 year
event. Appropriate diversion and/or channel structures
should be considered during design to prevent flooding
of the proposed development.
' Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
r
5.0
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 11
' The seismicity discussion from the referenced Highland
Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., (February 1989) report is
' generally applicable to the subject site and isrepeated
here for convenience.
5.1 Regional Seismicity
'
The site is located in a region of generally high
seismicity as is all of Southern California. During
its design life, the site is expected to experience
ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or
Distance of Site
local causative faults. Figure 2 shows the geographic
'
relationship of these faults to the site and the
Magnitude
epicenters for numerous large earthquakes that have
Fault
occurred in historic time. The table in Figure 3 lists
1890
known regionally active faults, their maximum probable
'
earthquake magnitude and seismic parameters for
identified causative faults.
. Earthquake epicenters (exceeding 6.0 on the Richter
Scale of Magnitude) within a 65 mi radius of this
' project are listed below:
Approximate
Richter
Distance of Site
'
Date
Magnitude
To Epicenter (mi)
Fault
1890
6+
42 N
San Jacinto
1899
6+
55 N
San Andreas
1907
6+
45 N
San Andreas
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Richter
Date Magnitude
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 12
Approximate
Distance of Site
To Epicenter (mi)
Fault
1910
6+
18
NW
Whittier -
Elsinore
1918
6.8
18
NE
San Jacinto
1923
6.3
33
N
San Jacinto
1933
6.3
.45
W
Newport -
Inglewood
1937
6.0
54
SE
San Jacinto
1948
6.5
54
NE
San Andreas
References: Hileman, et. al., 1973
Toppozada, et. al., 1978
5.2 Earthquake Effects
5.2.1 Earthquake Accelerations
We have analyzed the possible earthquake
accelerations at the site and determined that,
for the intended use, the most significant event
would be a 7.0 Magnitude earthquake occurring
nearby on the Elsinore Fault Zone (Wildomar
Fault). The accelerations produced at the site
by such an event would exceed those of events on
any other known fault.
A Magnitude 7.0 earthquake occurring on the
Wildomar Fault could produce a peak ground
acceleration at the site on the order of 0.63g
m m m m r m m= r= m m m m m m m
IlL -*,.T
1 m _
LI
<wa.nw —. �t °,u � � 1r wuq v I • w /, � \ \ Y nr<
r.e
EI{ anw wr
i urn
,°.�. .� \ Y
d
ex
y
9
1-0—OR ORE LRP_ UIL \
'LL�{iL f.rT•� yOR ..q OIIUOYOm.11rv1• V
MEMO noyu
M
N.I .O Y.I4r Ve, .rNO\ y I
..u.x.w.. IY.Iw.V01 \..I. 10[r110Y,p
rr..�. w..ru... �r.r xrx. eICLYIIY. LIILYYYY1. lOG.tIO.
.r xxYrL>w YIYt)N. x. ir, 1N NI4.VN WpYrr IOY ; -
I IN.rO14ANuuU .n. M
MAP
OF HISTORIC
EARTHQUAKE
EPICENTERS, MAGNITUDE > 5.0
B NO.: 08-6574-012-01-00
OATE:
OCTOBER 1989
FIGURE: 2
SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS
Hot Springs
Seed and Idriss (1982)
Ploessel and Slosson (1974)
Gutenberg and Richter (1956)
ob No: 07-6574-016-00-00
Figure
m m i r mm = m m m m m_ � mm mm
ESTIMATED
APPROXIMATE
MAXIMUM
ESTIMATED
REPEATABLE
MODIFIED
DISTANCE FROM
PROBABLE
PEAK GROUND
HIGH GROUND
MERCALLI
'AULTS
SITE (MILES)
EARTHQUAKE
ACCELERATIONI
ACCELERATION
INTENSITY
lsinore
0.4 W
7.0
0.63g
0.41g
IX
(Wildomar)
an Jacinto
19 NE
7.1
0.31g
0.21g
VII -VIII
an Andreas
32 NE
7.5
0.27g
0.18g
VII -VIII
:urrieta
0.9 N
6.5
0.59g
0.38g
VIII -IX
Hot Springs
Seed and Idriss (1982)
Ploessel and Slosson (1974)
Gutenberg and Richter (1956)
ob No: 07-6574-016-00-00
Figure
m m i r mm = m m m m m_ � mm mm
I
I
I
L
1
i
I
I
I
F
I
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 13
(Seed and Idriss, 1982), with the duration of
strong motion exceeding 30 seconds (Bolt, 1973).
Peak acceleration is not, however, always
representative of the accelerations for which
structures are actually designed (Ploessel and
Slosson, 1974). Repeatable high ground
accelerations at the subject site from a 7.0
Magnitude earthquake on the Wildomar Fault are
estimated to be on the order of 0.41g. The
design of structures should comply with the
requirements of the governing jurisdictions and
standard practices of the Structural Engineers
Association of California.
5.2.2 Ground Rupture
Breaking of the ground because of active
faulting is not likely on the site due to the
absence of known active faults within site
bounds. Our investigation found no evidence of
active faulting within site bounds based on our
surface and subsurface exploration.
5.2.3 Ground Surface Cracking
It is our opinion that subsidence cracking is
unlikely at this site due to the absence of
known faulting within the site and the
relatively low contact angle observed in field
tests between the alluvium and sedimentary
bedrock. As discussed in a later report
(Highland Geotechnical Consultants, April 1989),
Bedford Properties Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
October 18, 1989 Log No: 9-3650
Page 14
cracking of the ground due to groundwater
withdrawal is not expected to occur.
5.2.4 Soil Settlement
Generally, the soils underlying the site consist
of loose to medium dense alluvium and medium
dense to very dense sedimentary bedrock. The
settlement potential under seismic loading
conditions for these on-site materials is, in
our opinion, moderate to low, respectively.
5.2.5 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength
during a significant seismic event. It occurs
primarily in loose, fine to medium grained,
granular material in the presence of
groundwater. Liquefaction occurs as soil
particles are rearranging into a denser
condition, which can result in localized areas
of settlement, sand boils, and flow failures.
We have investigated the liquefaction potential
of on-site soils using procedures presented by
Seed and Idriss (1982) and the Committee on
Earthquake Engineering (1985). Our analysis is
based on the geotechnical and seismological data
obtained for the project site, and indicate that
the granular soils in the Santa Gertrudis Valley
are typical of soils that will likely liquefy
during major seismic events. Liquefaction
11
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 15 .
analysis results are presented graphically on
Figure 4. Points to the left of the M=7 line
represent areas and depths likely to liquefy,
whereas to the right of this line, liquefaction
is not likely to occur. We have also delineated
.ontthe -Geotechnical Map, Plate 1, in Appendix E
the area considered susceptible to liquefaction.
Preliminary recommendations to mitigate this
potential are contained in Section 7.2.2.
5.2.6 Seismically Induced Flooding
The northern portion of the site adjacent to
Santa Gertrudis Creek may be subject to
seismically induced flooding from a dam failure
at Skinner Reservoir. The project Civil
Engineer should consider proper diversion or
channel structures to prevent flooding of the
proposed development.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our previously performed subsurface exploratory
work, it appears that the site is predominantly underlain by
medium dense to very dense sedimentary bedrock in the
'
elevated portions of the site and loose to medium dense
alluvium within the drainage areas. The bedrock generally
'
consists of late Pleistocene Age clayey silts, silty clays,
silts, and sands; the clayey silt and silty clay portions
'
of this bedrock can have high expansion potentials. The
alluvial soils are generally comprised of silty sands, sandy
silts, and sands. These soils exhibit moderate strength
I
0.:
¢
U.
O
LL
za
0 O
O o
U O
Q N
LL.i 0.,
w 1
�w
a¢
?w
cn ¢
M o_
U z 0.
UJ
>o
cr
O�
_ m
aw
¢>
y0
W > 0.
¢ f-
y U
w
U LL
_ LL
U w
}
U
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
CORRECTED PENETRATION RESISTANCE N1- BLOWS/FT.
I LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
JOB 14O : .... ���. _ �.� �. �.. DATE: •wow FIGURE:
I
PC2035'
e e m
N m A
a► � � i �
87040' ► P 430'W-4pC
► Ct 5030'
030
' PC3
35' C�40'
C4 /
/ PC
P25'
Pcs 40'1 /137®3)s / UNLIKELY
LIKELY /
/
'
i
1
J
3
2
1
0
i
0 10 20 30 40 50
CORRECTED PENETRATION RESISTANCE N1- BLOWS/FT.
I LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
JOB 14O : .... ���. _ �.� �. �.. DATE: •wow FIGURE:
I
fl
1
F
F
J
11
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 16
characteristics when used as compacted fill and have a very
low to low expansion potential. Artificial fill consisting
of silty sands and sands were observed at various locations,
including along Santa Gertrudis Creek. Groundwater was
encountered in Borings 1 and 7 at depths of 33 and 38 ft
below the ground surface, respectively.
I
1
F
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 17
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
Based on the results of our previous investigation, the
proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint. Preliminary recommendations for site
grading and design of building foundations and slabs
along with preliminary pavement designs, are presented
in the following sections of this report. The
recommendations presented herein are preliminary in
nature and should be confirmed once a site grading plan
becomes available. A preliminary geotechnical
investigation has already been performed for the
southwest corner of the site (Highland Geotechnical
Consultants, April 1985); the recommendations provided
herein do not pertain to that report.
A summary of our findings is contained in the
"Executive Summary", Section 2.0.
7.2 Grading and Earthwork
7.2.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, the site should be stripped
and cleared of any existing vegetation, trees,
' structural foundations and any miscellaneous
debris. Excavations resulting from the removal
' of concrete rubble, brush, debris or any buried
obstructions should be backfilled with properly
compacted fill.
i
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 18
Abandoned and in-service utilities may exist on-
site. The proper companies should be contacted
for the exact location of these utilities.
Pipes to be abandoned should be properly capped
and/or removed off-site. Concrete pipes may be
either crushed in place or removed. The cleared
and stripped materials containing vegetation
and/or organic materials should not be
incorporated in fills, but should be either
removed from the site or used in landscape
areas.
7.2.2 Preliminary Preparation of Existing Soils
• Alluvial Removals
Alluvial removals beneath building sites will be
recommended in the field on an individual basis
depending on structure types and depths of
proposed fills. No grading plan was available
for our review, but we estimate that alluvial
removals will be on the order of 3 to 8 ft. The
actual removal depths should be established in
the field by both inspection and density testing
during grading. Settlement monumentation may
also be required if fills in excess of 25 ft are
anticipated in these areas.
• Non -Engineered Fill Removals
It is recommended that non -engineered fills in
building areas be removed. This may require
'
Bedford Properties Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
October 18, 1989 Log No: 9-3650
'
Page 19
significant existing fill removal within the
Santa Gertrudis Valley portion of the site.
'
Rippability
Based on -previous rippability_studies performed
within the Pauba Formation near the subject
site, we anticipate easy to moderate ripping in
cut areas.
'
Liquefaction Mitigation
'
"Liquefaction",
As presented in Section 5.2.5,
'
the subsurface soils within the Santa Gertrudis
Valley are susceptible to liquefaction. We
recommend that a minimum 4 ft thick compacted
'
fill mat overlying a 1 ft thick gravel blanket
be provided under the proposed structures in the
'
affected area. Overexcavations for fill mats
should extend a minimum lateral distance of 5 ft
'
from the outer edge of exterior footings. Other
include
mitigation recommendations using post -
tensioned slabs and additional footing
reinforcement to reduce the effects of possible
differential settlement from liquefaction. To
mitigate the potential for lateral spreading in
this area, it is recommended that vertical
'
gravel drains be strategically placed to help
reduce the potentially rapid increase in pore
'
pressures during seismic events. The design of
this system should be performed during the
grading plan review process.
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Other Removals
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 20
To provide a uniform support for the proposed
foundations, the remaining near -surface soils
should be removed and replaced as compacted fill
to a minimum depth of 3 ft below existing grade
or 2 ft below the bottom of proposed footings,
whichever is greater. Overexcavations should
extend a minimum lateral distance of 5 ft from
the outer edge of exterior footings.
Prior to fill placement in all the above
situations, the exposed soils should be
scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 in, brought to
near optimum moisture content and then compacted
to a minimum 90% relative compaction (ASTM D
1557).
7.2.3 Fill Placement
All fill soils should be placed in 6 to 8 in
thick loose lifts, brought to near optimum
moisture content and compacted to a minimum 90%
relative compaction (ASTM D 1557).
Fill imported from off-site areas should have a
very low to low expansion potential. Imported
soils should be approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer prior to use. At least 2 working days
notice should be allowed for approval.
I
[1
1
L
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
7.2.4 Subdrainaae
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 21
At this time, subdrains at the fill/bedrock
contact are not anticipated. However, final
determination_ of the necessity for subdrains
should be made during removals, at which time a
Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer can observe
actual subsurface conditions. A "Typical Canyon
Subdrain Detail" showing installation details is
included in Appendix D, Figure D-1.
7.3 Slone Stability
Natural slopes on the subject site range from
relatively gentle to moderately steep; no inherent
stability problems with natural slopes are expected.
The following sub -sections present our preliminary
recommendations for designing and constructing the
anticipated slopes.
7.3.1 Cut and Fill Slopes
Cut and fill slopes should be designed and are
expected to be grossly stable at 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) slope ratios, or flatter,
to heights of 20 ft. Slopes of greater height
as well as the final design of all cut and fill
slopes should be analyzed during grading plan
review.
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 22
If natural slopes are steeper than 5:1,
compacted fill should be keyed and benched into
firm material (preferably bedrock) as shown in
Appendix D, "Fill Slope Over Natural Ground
Detail", Figure D-2. Proper placement and
compaction of fill slopes is essential to
providing adequate gross and surficial
stability. Feathering of fill over tops of
slopes should not be permitted.
Temporary construction slopes should also be
placed at slope ratios of 2:1, or flatter. The
temporary slopes should not remain unsupported
for more than 90 days or during periods of
intense rainfall.
7.3.2 Fill -Over -Cut Slopes
Fill -over -cut slopes above building pads should
be eliminated by constructing stabilization
fills against cut portions of slopes.
Construction of such fills should include the
i
excavation of keyways, as shown in Figure D-3,
"Fill Slope Over Cut.Slope Mitigation Detail",
in Appendix D.
7.3.3 Slope Protection/Maintenance
Slope erosion of on-site sandy soils and bedrock
is a significant concern with regard to
surficial stability. We recommend that fill
slopes be properly compacted and that all cut
Bedford Properties Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
October 18, 1989 Log No: 9-3650
Page 23
' and fill slopes be planted with erosion
resistant vegetation or other protective devices
as soon as possible after grading.
'
7.4 Settlement Considerations
7.4.1 Earthwork
'
Due to the wide variation in compressibility of
'
the alluvial areas, we have recommended removal
of alluvium to competent soils in order to
'
minimize detrimental settlements. During
construction, however, some subsidence on the
order of 0.2 ft can be expected to occur in
'
alluvial areas due to movement of construction
equipment. .
'
Alluvial soils can be expected to shrink on the
'
order of 15 to 20% when recompacted. The amount
of shrinkage will depend on several factors,
including grading methods and the existing in-
place densities and moisture contents of such
materials. The soil derived from bedrock
'
excavations could bulk on the order of 2 to 4%.
7.4.2 Transition Lots
' Lots located in cut/fill transition areas should
be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 ft
' below finished grade and brought to grade with
compacted fill as outlined in Section 7.2,
"Grading and Earthwork". These measures will
1
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 24
reduce possible differential settlement to
acceptable levels as discussed below. Lots in
areas of shallow cuts should be processed as
outlined in Section 7.2.
7.4.3 Foundations
Total and differential settlements under static
loads of footings supported on properly
compacted fill and sized for the recommended
bearing pressures are not expected to exceed
about 1 in and 3/4 in, respectively. These
settlements should occur primarily during
construction, provided that alluvial soils are
removed as recommended above.
7.5 Surface and Subgrade Drainage
Surface runoff onto down-slope areas should be
minimized to prevent saturation of underlying soils and
bedrock. Water should never be diverted onto a
constructed or natural slope in an uncontrolled manner.
To enhance future performance in the building pad
areas, it is recommended that all pad drainage and
runoff from roof drains be collected and directed away
from proposed structures toward proper disposal areas.
We recommend that a minimum 2% gradient away from
foundations be maintained in soil areas and 1% in paved
swale areas.
I
1
-'
11
1
1
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 25
It is important that drainage patterns be established
at the time of final grading and maintained throughout
the life of the project. It should be understood that
altered drainage patterns, landscaping, planters and
other improvements as well as irrigation and variations
in seasonal rainfall all affect subsurface moisture
conditions, which in turn could affect structural
performance.
7.6 Foundation and Slab Recommendations
7.6.1 General
The natural soils in foundation areas are
expected to be predominantly very low to low in
expansion potential. However, this should be
confirmed at the conclusion of rough grading
since clayey silt/silty clay portions of the
Pauba Formation can have high expansion
potentials. The attached Figure 5, "Foundation
and Slab Recommendations", presents detailed
foundation construction recommendations for
various expansive soil conditions. Final
foundation and slab recommendations should be
based on expansion tests taken in the near-
surface,subgrade soils at the completion of
rough grading. If highly expansive conditions
exist within the top 3 ft of final grades, it
may be necessary to remove and replace the top 3
ft with less expansive material. In areas of
potential liquefaction (Santa Gertrudis Valley),
it is recommended that structural reinforcement
' Bedford Properties Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
' October 18, 1989 Log No: 9-3650
Page 26
' be increased to help mitigate the potential for
localized settlements. These recommendations
' should not be applied to structures over 2
stories in height; such structures should be
evaluated individually to provide appropriate
recommendations. A Structural Engineer should
' evaluate configurations and reinforcement
requirements for structural loadings, shrinkage
and temperature stresses.
Our recommendations are considered generally
' consistent with the Standards of Practice. The
potential for favorable foundation performance
' can be further enhanced by maintaining uniform
moisture conditions during and after
construction.
1
7.6.2 Foundations
' Preliminarily, structural frames of the proposed
' buildings can be supported on shallow footings
founded on compacted fill and designed for the
' following net allowable bearing pressures:
Minimum
Footing Width Depth Allowable Bearing��
Type(in)if n) (lb/ft')
' Commercial Structures (1 S 2 Stories):
' Continuous 18 18 2600
Square 24 24 3000
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS
(ONE- AND TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS)
EXPANSION INDEX
EXPANSION INDEX
0-20
21-60
VERY LOW EXPANSION
LOW EXPANSION
1 -STORY All footings 12 in
All footings 12 in
FOOTINGS deep; 1 #4 bar top
deep; 1 #4 bar top
and bottom in
and bottom in
- continuous footings. -
continuous footings.
2 -STORY All footings 18 in All footings 18 in
FOOTINGS deep; 1 #4 bar top deep; 1 #4 bar top
and bottom in and bottom in
continuous footings continuous footings
GARAGE DOOR 12 in deep; 1 #4 bar 12 in deep; 1 #4 bar
GRADE BEAM top and bottom top and bottom
EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION INDEX
51-90 91-130
MEDIUM EXPANSION HIGH EXPANSION
Exterior footings 18
Exterior footings 24
in deep, Interior
in deep, Interior
footings 12 in deep;
footings 12 in deep;
1 #4 bar top and bottom
1 #5 bar top and bottom
in continuous footings
in continuous footings
All footings 18 in
deep; 1 #4 bar top
and bottom in
continuous footings
18 in deep; 1 #4 bar
top and bottom
Exterior footings 24
in deep, Interior
footings 18 in deep;
1 #5 bar top and bottom
in continuous footings.
24 in deep; 1 #5 bar
top and bottom
LIVING AREA 3 1/2 in thick; no mesh
3 1/2 in thick; 6X6 - 30/10
3 1/2 in thick; 6X6 - 10/10 4 in thick; 6X6 - 6/6 wire
FLOOR SLABS required for expansion
wire me•h et mid -height;
wire mesh at mid -height;
mesh at mid -height: #3
forces; no Case required;
2 in gravel or sand
4 in gravel or sand base;
dowels from footing to slab
6 mil moisture barrier
base;'6 mil moisture
6 mil moisture barrier
at 36 in on center; 4 in
plus 2 in sand
barrier plus 2 in sand
plus 2 in sand
gravel or sand base; 6 mil
barrier required.
barrier required.
moisture barrier plus 2 in
sand
GARAGE FLOOR 3 1/2 in thick; no mesh
3 1/2 in thick; 6X6 - 10/10
3 1/2 in thick; 6X6 - 10/10 4 in thick; 6X6 - 6/6 wire
SLABS required for expansion
wire mesh or quarter slabs;
wire mesh or quarter slabs;
mesh or quarter slabs;
forces; no base required;
Isolate from stem wall
Isolate from stem wall
Isolate from stem wall
no moisture barrier
footings; 2 in rock, gravel
footings; 4 in rock, gravel
footings; 4 in rock, gravel
required.
or sand base; no moisture
or sand base; No moisture
or sand base; No moisture
barrier required.
barrier required.
barrier required.
PRE-SOAKING OF Not required; Moisten prior Soak to 12 in depth to 4 Soak to 18 in depth to 5 Soak to 24 in depth to 5
SOILS IN LIVING to placing concrete. percentage points above percentage pointe above percentage points above
dt GARAGE AREAS optimum moisture content. optimum moisture content. optimum moisture content.
NOTES: 1) All depths are relative to lowest adjacent grade
2) Special design is required for very highly expansive soils (E.I. greater than 130)
3) These are typical minimum recommendations. Local conditions may dictate other controlling recommendations. Refer to
body of report for site specific recommendations.
4) These recommendations are based on soil conditions alone and should not be considered a structural design.
BLAB
DOWEL (WHEN
DEPTH OP
EXTEN10R
FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
WIRE
DEPTH OF
BITERIDR
DEPTH OR
PRE-SOAKED
SOIL
INTERIOR
FOOTING
1 112 INCH BAND LAYER
'MOISTURE BARRIER
CAPILLARY BREAK: 4 INCHES Of -BIB
�ORAYEL OR WASHED COARSE BAND
BAR
FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
I
11
1
[1
Bedford Properties Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
October 18, 1989 Log No: 9-3650
- Page 27
Footing depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent grade.
'.The allowable bearing values should be reduced by 1000 lb/ft2 in
areas susceptible to liquefaction.
These values -are -for dead-plus-live.loads-and. .
may be increased by 1/3 for combinations of
short-term vertical and horizontal forces.
These recommendations are preliminary and should
be examined during grading plan review when
structural loads can be more closely estimated.
Structures higher than 2.stories should be
evaluated individually to provide appropriate
recommendations.
7.6.3 Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads against building foundations may
be resisted by friction between the bottom of
footings and the supporting soils. An allowable
friction coefficient of 0.40 is recommended.
Alternately, provided the footings are cast neat
against compacted soils, an allowable lateral
bearing pressure equal to 300 lb/ft2/ft of depth
may be used, with a maximum lateral bearing
pressure of 3000 lb/ft2. A combination of
friction and lateral bearing pressure may be
used provided the latter is reduced by 1/3.
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 28
These recommendations should be considered
preliminary and examined during grading plan
review.
7.6.4 Concrete Slabs/Flatwork
Concrete slabs/flatwork in exterior building
areas should be designed according to the
expected soils conditions and anticipated usage.
The recommendations presented on Figure 5,
"Foundation and Slab Recommendations", should be
applied where pertinent. For elastic design of
heavily loaded slabs, a subgrade modulus of 250
lb/inz/in may be used for preliminary designs
and estimates. In addition, construction joints
should be provided at a minimum spacing of 20 ft
O.C.E.W. to reduce the effects of any possible
soil movement and concrete shrinkage.
7.6.5 Set -Backs
Buildings located adjacent to the top or toe of
a slope should be set back 1/2 the height of the
slope, with a minimum and maximum set -back of 5
and 15 ft, respectively. The set -back distance
should be measured horizontally from the face of
the slope to the closest element of the
structure.
' Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
' 7.7 Soil Sulfate Content
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 29
' Based on our experience with soils similar to those
encountered on-site, we anticipate that Type I or II
' Portland Cement may be used in the construction of
concrete foundations or slabs in contact with the
' subgrade soils. This condition should be confirmed by
performing sulfate tests at the completion of rough
grading.
' 7.8 Utility Trench Backfill
'
It is our opinion that utility trench backfill
'
consisting of the on-site sandy soils could be best
place by mechanical compaction to a minimum 90%
relative compaction (ASTM D 1557).
As an alternative, granular material (S.E. > 30) may be,
'
placed in lifts and thoroughly jetted in-place;
however, jetting should only be considered to apply to
trenches no greater than 2 ft in width. Following
'
jetting operations, trench backfill should be
thoroughly and mechanically compacted and/or wheel -
rolled from the surface to a minimum 90% relative
compaction.
'
Raveling and some caving is expected in utility
trenches. Therefore, for all trenches in excess of 5
'
ft in depth, laying back the trench sides to 1:1
(horizontal:vertical) or shoring in accordance with
OSHA requirements is recommended.
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
7.9 Pavement Design
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 30
Our recommended preliminary pavement designs are based
on laboratory testing of the soils which are expected
to occur at finished subgrade in the parking areas.
The laboratory testing consisted of particle size
analyses and sand equivalent testing. Based on these
results, we estimate that the subgrade soils will have
a design R -Value of about 30. Of course, this may vary
depending on the top 3 ft of subgrade soils in pavement
areas, and the pavement sections below should only be
used for preliminary estimates. The Traffic Index is
assumed in accordance with typical engineering
practice.
Accordingly, we recommend the following preliminary
pavement designs, subject to further evaluation and
testing:
Automobile Parking/Local Streets:
T.I. = 4.5 4.5 -in Asphaltic Concrete over
Compacted Native Subgrade
Collector Streets:
T.I. = 5.5 4 -in Asphaltic Concrete over
5 -in Aggregate Base
Heavy Truck/Bus Areas:
T.I. = 7.0 4 -in Asphaltic Concrete over
10 -in Aggregate Base
or
6 -in Portland Cement Concrete over
4 -in Aggregate Base
' Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
I
I
1
1
1
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 31
The top 6 in of subgrade in areas to be paved should be
scarified, moistened to near optimum conditions and
compacted to at least 95% relative compaction (ASTM D
1557). Aggregate Base should meet the requirements of
Section 26 of the California Department of
Transportation Standards -,and Specifications for Class
II Aggregate Base and be compacted to a minimum 95%
relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Asphaltic Concrete
should meet the requirements of Riverside County and be
compacted to 95% relative compaction (CA 304).
Portland Cement Concrete should meet the requirements
of Section 302-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction.
7.10 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be preliminarily designed in
accordance with the following criteria:
EARTH PRESSURE (lb/ft'/ft of depth)
Unrestrained Walls Restrained Walls
Backfill Level 2:1 Sloping Level 2:1 Sloping
Soil Tyne Backfill Backfill Backfill Backfill
On -Site Sandy Silts/
Silty Sands 40 50 50 60
Select Granular/
On -Site Sands 30 40 40 50
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 32
Walls subject to surcharge loads should be designed for
an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to 1/3 or
1/2 the anticipated surcharge pressure for unrestrained
or restrained walls, respectively. To relieve possible
hydrostatic pressures on walls, the wall backfill
should be drained using backdrains that daylight to
proper drainage devices. Backfill soils should be
properly compacted as outlined in Section 7.2.3, "Fill
Placement", but should be compacted to no more than 95%
relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). All on-site soils
used for wall backfill should be approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer. Wall footings should be
designed as recommended in Section 8.6, "Foundation and
Slab Recommendations".
7.11 Grading and Foundation Plan Review
As foundation and grading plans are completed, they
should be forwarded to us for review to assure
conformance with the intentions of the recommendations
contained in this report.
7.12 Construction Monitoring
Continuous observation and testing under the direction
of our Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist is essential to verify compliance with our
recommendations and to confirm that the geotechnical
conditions found are consistent with this
.investigation.
' Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
' 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 33
' Our analysis was performed using the degree of care and
skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by
reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing
in -this -or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed
or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional
Aadvice included in this report.
The previous samples taken and used for testing and the
observations made are believed representative of the entire
project. However, soils and geologic conditions can vary
significantly between test borings.
' As in most projects; conditions revealed by excavation may
be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs,
the changed conditions must be evaluated by the Project
.Geotechnical Engineer and Geologist and designs adjusted as
required or alternate designs recommended.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the
responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to
ensure that the information and recommendations contained
' herein are brought to the attention of the architect and
engineer for.the project and incorporated into the plans,
' and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor
and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the
field..
' This firm does not practice nor consult in the field of
safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's
operations, and we cannot be responsible for anyone other
Bedford Properties
October 18, 1989
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
Log No: 9-3650
Page 34
than our own personnel on the site. Therefore, the safety
of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The
contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of
the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present
date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can
occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to
natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent
properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from
legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control.
Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as
changed conditions are identified.
I
Bedford Properties Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00
October 18, 1989 Log No: 9-3650
Page 35
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If
you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
ICG Incorporated
Inland Empire Division
I
I
Roy!Aeshing, CEG 0
Chief Geologist
Registration Expires 6-31-90
THIS DOCUMENT IS A REPRODUCTION
OF OUR ORIGINAL REPORT. ISSUED
PREVIOUSLY UNDER OUR FORMER NAME
HIGHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.
William G. TurnezzjRCE 437dq�`,
Project Engineer';
Registration Expfig s 3-31-93 ,.
Reviewed By:
'one
.M C1��,GE 223
Chief Engineer
Registration Expires 12-31-90
WGT:TMC:RJR:vdp
I
I
Roy!Aeshing, CEG 0
Chief Geologist
Registration Expires 6-31-90
THIS DOCUMENT IS A REPRODUCTION
OF OUR ORIGINAL REPORT. ISSUED
PREVIOUSLY UNDER OUR FORMER NAME
HIGHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS. INC.
I
1
I
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
I
I
I
1
1
I
' Biehler, S., Kovach, R.L., and Allen, C.R., 1964, Geophysical
Framework of Northern End of Gulf of California Structural
Province, in Van Andel, T.H., and Shor, G.G., Jr., editors,
Marine Geology of the Gulf of California: American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 3, p. 126-143;
I
Bolt, B.A., 1973, "Duration of Strong Motion", Proceedings of
Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume 2, No.
292, p. 10;
'
Committee on Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Liquefaction of Soils
During Earthquakes, National Research Council, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 240 p.;
Department of Water Resources, State of California, 1971, "Water
Wells and Springs in the Western part of the Upper Santa
Margarita River Watershed", Bulletin No. 91-20, Prepared by
'
United States Department of Interior Geological Survey;
English, W.A., 1926, Geology and Oil Resources of the Puente
Hills Region, Southern California: U.S. Geologic Survey Bulletin
768, p. 110;
Gutenberg, B., and Richter, C.F., 1956, Earthquake Magnitude,
Intensity, Energy and Acceleration (Second Paper), Bull. Seismo.
Soc. Am., v. 46, No. 1, p. 105-146;
Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R., and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity
of the Southern California Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December
1972: Pasadena, California, California Institute of Technology
Seismological Laboratory, p. 487;
Kennedy, K.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;
Mann, J.J., Jr., 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault
Zone, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 43;
Ploessel, M.R., Slosson, J.E., September 1974, Repeatable High
'
Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology;
Riverside County Planning Department, 1976, Known Fissure
Location (Approx), Area of Potential Subsidence, Seismic Safety
and Safety General Plan Elements Technical Report by Envicom;
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute Nomograph;
I
(Continued Page - 2)
Toppozada, T.R., Parke, D.L., and Higgins, C.T., 1978, Seismicity
of California 1900-1931: California Division of Mines and
Geology Special Report 135, p. 39;
Weber, F.H., Jr., 1963, Geology and Mineral Resources of San
Diego County, California, Division of Mines and Geology, County
Report 3, p. 35.
UNPUBLISHED REFERENCES
Highland Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., November 21, 1988,
"Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, 130± Acre Commercial
Development, SEC Winchester Road & Ynez Road, Rancho California,
Riverside County, California", Job No. 08-7555-004-00-00, Log No.
8-2860;
Highland Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., February 13, 1989,
"Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, 1050± Acres - Rancho
California Commerce Center, Rancho California, Riverside County,
California", Job No. 08-6574-012-00-00, Log No. 9-3016 (Revised);
Highland Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., April 25, 1989,
"Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 23± Acre Pace Center,
SEC of Ynez Road and Apricot Road Intersection, Rancho
California, California", Job No. 08-6574-015-00-00, Log No. 9-
3242;
Highland Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., May 9, 1989,
"Supplemental Addition to the Geotechnical Feasibility
Investigation, 1050± Acres - Rancho California Commerce Center,
Rancho California, California", Job No. 08-6574-012-00-00, Log
No. 9-3251 (Revised);
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
County Flight, 1-28-62 Photos: 15, 16, 17, 406, 407, 408, 409
County Flight, 1-8-83 Photos: 359, 360, 361, 397, 398, 399
I
L7
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF BORINGS
KEY TO LAGS
CPT DATA
11
I
I
I
I
1
a
I
1
i
1
d
1
DATE OBSERVED: 9-21-88 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: DRS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Plot Plan
W
Z
o
a
IL
w j
o IL
a
LOG OF BORING 1'
W
LL
a
a
o
U.
J
f
0
a
N W
a F
Sheet 1 Ot 1
SOIL TEST
i
L
WU
¢
7
o
Z=
DESCRIPTION
a
q
m
O
'W
0
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: medium brownish gray,
dry, very fine to medium, trace
fine gravel
@3' Becoming slightly clayey,
5
19
14
I l0
medium dense
15
@7' SAND: medium dense - No Recovery
10-
20
@11.5' Light brown, fine to medium,
slightly moist, medium dense
15-
12
@17.5' Becoming predominantly
coarse, moist, medium dense
20-
25
@25' SILTY SAND: blue -gray,
fine to coarse, moist
30
18
@29.5' SAND: yellowish brown,
coarse, thinly laminated, moist,
occasional coarse gravel, medium
dense
Total Depth = 30.5'
35
No Groundwater Encountered
DATE OBSERVED: 9-21-88 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: DRS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Plot Plan
W
L
o
a
>
a.
a
W_
o$
a
LOG OF BORING 2•
W
LL
Lz
In
o
LL
W
N
a
H=
U>.
Sheet I of I
SOIL TEST
in
-i
in
WU
m
¢
7
E o
= Z
DESCRIPTION
O
N
W
U
M O
0
ALLUVIUM
SANDY SILT: medium brown, dry,
9
98
trace coarse gravel
@2' Grading into a fine sand,
moist, medium dense
5-
10
105
@6' Denser
10
@9' SILTY SAND: medium grayish
brown, moist
@11.5' SAND: light gray, fine to
coarse, moist, loose
15—
@17.5' SANDY SILT: dark grayish
brown, very fine to fine, moist,
20
medium dense
25-
30—
@29.5' SAND: light brown coarse,
slightly moist, medium dense
@30' SANDY SILT: dark greenish gray,
very moist to damp, medium dense
Total Depth = 30.5'
35
No Groundwater Encountered
[1
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 9-21-88 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: DRS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Plot Plan
w
U
o
a
IL
mj
r
o�
a
LOG OF BORING 3*
W
ao
N aw
O
F
E
of
M
N i
r
Sheet 1 of 2
SOIL TEST
v"
1
aLU
a
d
w0
m
a j
o
E
Z
DESCRIPTION
N
m
U
H w
0
ALLUVIUM
SANDY SILT: dark brown to brown,
slightly moist
5
26Sli
8
110
Slightly 5'
@ g y porous, occasional
?very
9
104
white caliche veinlets, medium
23
dense
@6' SILTY SAND: medium brown slightly
moist, medium dense
10
@8' Light brown to orangish brown,
fine, trace coarse
16
@11.5' SAND; light gray dry to
slightly moist, medium dense
15-
27
3
100
@16' SAND: light yellowish brown,
coarse, medium dense
20
@19' Becoming brown, fine to coarse
21
@21.5' Becoming orangish brown
and coarse to gravelly, slightly
moist, medium dense
25
14
@26' SANDY SILT: light grayish green,
moist, medium dense
30-
8
@31.5' Light gray coarse moist,
loose
35—
@37' GRAVELLY SAND: light gray,
increasingly more difficult
DATE OBSERVED: 9-21-88 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: DRS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Plot Plan
.
o
a
r
0.
a
W j
o a
LOG OF BORING 3'
LW
W
az
ai
o
U.
a
i
Sheet 2 OL 2
Q
a�
W
J
uai
W
Q>
F
SOIL TEST
WU
J
a
j
L a
Z Z
DESCRIPTION
D
N
m
O
yO
40
moist, medium dense
Total Depth = 40.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
45—+
50-
55-
60-
65-
70-
75—
7
I
1
I�
7
1
J
I
I
1
I
DATE OBSERVED: 9-21-88 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: DRS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Plot Plan
W
o
a
�
w�
oIL
a
LOG OF BORING 4•
w
ao
m F
o
LL
F
w
E
m
rc
� Z
U y
Sheet I of I
SOIL TEST
tllQ
N
J
Nw
QF
WU
m
Q
j
E o
= Z
DESCRIPTION
o
N
m
U
Hw
0
ALLUVIUM
SANDY SILT: light brown, slightly
moist, trace coarse, dense
5
47
5
118
@4' SILTY SAND: medium orangish
brown, dry to slightly moist, dense
18
4
101
@7' SAND: light brown very fine,
slightly moist
10
@10.5' SANDY SILT: medium to dark,
8
moist, loose
@12.5' SAND: light brown, fine,
slightly moist
15-
10
@17.5' Loose to medium dense
20-
25
-----------------------------
@25' SANDY CLAY: bluish gray,
moist, stiff
--------------------------
@27' SAND: dark brown, fine, medium
dense
30
20
@29.5' Tan, coarse, slightly moist,
gravelly in part, medium dense
Total Depth = 30.5'
No Grounwater Encountered
35—
I JOB
..
I
I FIGURE.
DATE OBSERVED: 9-21-88 METHOD OF DRILLING• 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: DRS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Plot Plan
W
o
a
}
a
W
a
r IL
o a
LOG OF BORING 5*
w
U.
aZ
to F
o
LL
W
N
H=
U y
Sheet 1 Of I
SOIL TEST
EL
a
4
U
J
m
¢
j
E p
Z
DESCRIPTION
0
N
m
U
H W
o
0
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: light brown, dry,
trace gravel, medium dense
@3' SANDY SILT: orangish brown,
32
11
121
very fine to coarse, moist, dense
5
21
5
105
@6.5' SAND: light orangish brown,
fine to coarse, slightly moist,
medium dense
10
25
@11.5' GRAVELLY SAND: becoming tan
to white, coarse, moist, medium
dense
15-
21
@17.5' SILTY SAND: light gray, fine to
coarse, moist, medium dense
20—
0-----------------------------
-
------------------------------
@23'
@23' CLAYEY SILT: light brownish
25
green, wet, stiff to dense
-
------------------------------
@28.5' SAND: medium, very fine,
20
30
moist, medium dense
Total Depth = 30.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
35
7
I
I
I
I
I
Ll
DATE OBSERVED: 9-21-88 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: DRS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Plot Plan
W
o
a
a.
w
o U.
n
LOG OF BORING 6'
w
WQ
u"
o
a
f
L
¢
U
a
� z
Uj
0 v
Sheet 1 of 2
SOIL TEST
N Q
N
j
N W
¢ F
WU
"'
0
a
j
E o
==
DESCRIPTION
O
N
m
U
'W
°
0
ALLUVIUM
SANDY SILT: light brown, dry, medium
Maximum Density/
dense
Optimum Moisture
@1' Becoming slightly clayey
Direct shear
5—
13
6
106
@4' SILTY SAND: dark brown, fine to
Expansion
coarse, slightly moist, medium dense
Sand Equivalent
Sieve
11
12
109
@° 7' Moist, medium dense
10-
14
@11.5' SAND: medium brown, dry,
coarse to gravelly, medium dense
15-
-10
@18.5' Black to dark gray, coarse
20—gravelly,
dry
@19' SILTY SAND: dark grayish brown,
fine, very moist, medium dense
21
@22.5' SAND: light gray fine to
coarse, trace gravel, dry, slightly
25—moist,
medium dense
30
14
@29.5' SANDY SILT. dark greenish
brown, very moist, medium dense
35
.. •ww �uwwww�a��swa.
.
DATE OBSERVED: 9-21-88 METHOD OF DRILLING: g" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED By. DRS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Plot Plan
W
i Z
o
a
>
I
a
W-
o IL
a
LOG OF BORING 6'
IL
NLL
W
N
N z
ay
Sheet 2 of 2
SOIL TEST
L
WU
m
a
j
p
Z Z
DESCRIPTION
O
d
m
U
, 0_
40-
45—
20
@44.5' SAND: dark brown, very fine,
very moist to damp, highly
micacious, medium dense
Total Depth = 45.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
50-
55-
60-
65-
70-
75—
I
I
I
I
G
I
I
11
I
DATE OBSERVED: 1-10-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Aueer
LOGGED BY: RCM GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Mao
W
o
a
>
�
a
W j
o a.
a
LOG OF BORING 1
W
U-
a=
o
N
a
mZ
Q>.
Sheet 1 Of I
a
W
SOIL TEST
WU
i
2
j
E 0
= Z
DESCRIPTION
O
N
m
U
HO
0
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: yellowish brown,
slightly moist, loose to medium
dense
27
7
122
5
_ .
------------------------------
SILTY SAND light yellowish brown,
16
7
106
slightly moist, medium dense
------------------------------
-
SAND: gray, slightly moist, trace
10
12
9
113
silt, slightly moist, medium dense
-----------------------------
SILTY SAND: yellowish brown,
15
moist, medium dense
15—
------------------------------
SILTY SAND: dark gray, moist,
loose
5
PAUBA FORMATION
20
CLAYEY SILT: greenish gray, moist
to wet, medium stiff
SANDY SILT: yellowish brown,
moist, dense
32
25-
30—
-----------------------------
SAND: gray, wet, saturated, trace
silt, dense
50
35
Total Depth = 35'
Groundwater Encountered @33'
DATE OBSERVED: 1-10-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: RCM GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical May
w'Z
°
Q.
a
a
W j
°
LOG OF BORING 2
LILI L
LL
� i
a>
Sheet I of 1
in
w
as
SOIL TEST
E
W
m
a
D
D
Z=
DESCRIPTION
O
N
m
U
t+ O
0
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: dark brown, moist,
loose to medium dense
27
7
116
5
-----------------------------
SAND: yellowish brown, slightly'
32
7
114
moist, trace silt, dense
---- --------- ---- - ----- - - - - - -
SILTY SAND: dark gray, moist,
10
15
20
medium dense
------- ----------------
SILTY SAND: brown, moist, medium
22
13
106
dense
15
-------gray--, -moist, oist, medium dense
19
20
PAUBA FORMATION
SILTY SAND: yellowish gray,
55
moist, very dense
25
-----------------------------
SILTY SAND: yellowish brown,
moist
40
30
Total Depth = 29.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
35
I
1
[1
I
DATE OBSERVED: 1-12-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: RCM GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
w
z
~°o
a
s
W.
y
o a
LOG OF BORING 3
LL
LL
N~
N
W
N
N Z
Lu
UQ y
Sheet I of 2
SOIL TEST
d
U
LU
E
R=
W
-i
m
¢
0
7
DESCRIPTION
N
m
U
H W
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: brown, moist, loose
Particle Size Analysis
Sand Equivalent
SILTY SAND yellowish brown, slightly
36
5
118
moist, dense
Maximum Density
Expansion
5
_ _
SAND: yellowish brown, slightly
19
.3
101
moist, medium dense
20
6
107
10
19
12
15
SAND: yellowish brown, moist,
trace silt, medium dense
21
20
-----------------------------
SAND: yellowish gray, moist,
trace gravels, medium dense
27
25—
------------------------------
SILTY SAND: brownish gray, moist,
24
medium dense
30—
------------------------------
SANDY SILT: yellowish brown, moist,
—
medium dense
27
35
SILTY SAND: brownish gray, moist,
DATE OBSERVED: 1-12-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: RCM GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Mao
W
U
o
a
W'•�
lox m
LOG OF BORING 3
U
LL
U.z
q
m=
a''
Sheet 2 of 2
N
m
SOIL TEST
H
jU
30
m
Y
O~
-j
a.
LL
WO
U
J
m
Q
j
E p
Z
DESCRIPTION
N
m
U
H WO
40-
21
Total Depth = 42'
No Groundwater Encountered
45-
50-
55-
60-
65-
70-
75—
11
I
'I
r
L
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 1-12-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: RCM GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Mar)
W
a=
0.
a
a-
r
°a
LOG OF BORING 4
IL
o
�
N
U) Z
}
Sheet 1 of 1
W
SOIL TEST
U~
E
1LL
m
0
C
Z
7
Z
DESCRIPTION
0
N
m-
U
H W
0
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: light brown, moist
-----------------------------
SILTY SAND: dark brown, moist,
14
8
110
slightly porous, medium dense
5—
------------------------
SILTY SAND: light brown, moist,
13
10
115
slightly porous, medium dense
11
16
110
Consolidation
10
14
PAUBA FORMATION
15
SANDY SILT: yellowish brown,
medium dense to dense
34
20
Total Depth = 19.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
25-
30-
35—
DATE OBSERVED: 1-12-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: RCM GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map
W
_O
0.
s
—r
W`
LOG OF BORING 7W
LL
"
LL O
y F
U.EF
N
Qoa
N Z
_
a r
Sheet I Of 2
W
SOIL TEST
WU
m
C
7
E D
Z Z
DESCRIPTION
O
N
W
U
�+ ui
O
0
ALLUVIUM
SILTY SAND: dark brown, moist,
loose
I1
3
102
SAND: gray, fine to medium,
5
slightly moist, loose
-------------------------------
11
11
92
SILTY SAND: dark gray, moist,
loose
-
-----------------------------
SAND: gray, fine to coarse, moist,
10
7
loose
-----------------------------
SAND: gray, fine to medium,
15
7
96
moist, loose
15—
------------------------------
SANDY SILT: dark gray, wet, loose
6
20—
------------------------------
SAND: gray, fine to coarse, moist,
16
medium dense
25—
------------------
SANDY SILT: black, moist
23
-----------------------------
30
SAND: gray, fine to coarse, moist,
medium dense
@30 Gravels
35
-----------------------------
31
SILTY SAND: yellowish brown,
moist, dense
r
n
J
I
I
LI
[1
I
I
1
1
DATE OBSERVED: 1-12-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED By: RCM GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Mal)
wz
o
a
s
W
o a
LOG OF BORING 7
U.N
a
N=
a�
Sheet 2 of 2 _
W
U)
SOIL TEST
U
E
IL
Uj
m
a
j
p
Z Z
DESCRIPTION
D
N
m
U
pq 0
40
Total Depth = 40.5'
Groundwater Encountered @38'
45-
5505560657075
50-
55-
60-
65-
70-
75—
,
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS
SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GRAINED
GRAVELS
ORE THAN
MORE HALF OF
COARSE
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LESS THAN
5% FINES)
SOME
GW
Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines.
36 - 50
GP
Poorly graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines.
GRAVEL
1 - 2
GM
fines with ls, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines or
plasticity.
SOILS
FRACTION IS
LARGER THAN
MORE THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -day mixtures, plastic fines.
HALF OF
MATERIAL IS
LARGER
THAN NO.
200 SIEVE
SANDS
MORE THAN
HALF OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN
CLEAN
SANDS
(LESS THAN
5°b FINES)
SW
Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
SAND
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non-pleatic fines or fines with
low plasticity.
NO. 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
SC
Clayey Bands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic tinea.
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT IS
L Q S THAN 50%
ML
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey
fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity.
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.
OL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.
MORE THAN
HALF OF
MATERIAL
SILTS AND CLAYS
MH
silts
oils, si(tmicaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty
s.
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
IS SMALLER
THAN NO.
LIQUID LIMIT IS
GREATER THAN 50%
200 ,SIEVE
OH
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PI
Peat and other highly organic soils.
GRAIN SIZES
BOULDERS
COBBLES
'GRAVEL
SAND
SILTS B CLAYS
COARSE I FINE
COARSE I MEDIUM FINE
12" 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES OR NUMBERS
RELATIVE
PROPORTIONS RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY
DESCRIPTIVE
TERM
PERCENT
TRACE
1 - 10
LITTLE
11- 20
SOME
21- 35
AND
36 - 50
SANDS, GRAVELS AND
NON -PLASTIC SILTS
BLOWS/FOOT
VERY LOOSE
0 - 4
LOOSE
4 -10
MEDIUM DENSE
10 - 30
DENSE
30 - 50
VERY DENSE
OVER 50
CLAYS AND
PLASTIC SILTS
STRENGTH**
BLOWS/FOOT
VERY SOFT
0 - 1/4
0 - 2
SOFT
1/4 - 1/2
2 - 4
FIRM
1/2 - 1
4 - 8
STIFF
1 - 2
8 - 16
VERY STIFF
2 - 4
16 - 32
HARD
OVER 4
OVER 32
*:Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 -in to drive a 2 -in O.D. (1 -3/8 -in I.D.) Split -Spoon Sample (ASTM D 1586).
Unconfined compressive strength in tons/ft as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the Standard Penetration
Test (ASTM D 1586), Pocket Penetrometer, Torvane, or visual observation.
DRILLING NOTES:
1. ■ RING SAMPLE - Number of blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 in. _
2. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST - Number of blows per foot as; above*.
3. ® SHELBY TUBE - 3 in nominal diameter tube hydraulically pushed.
4. PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tone/ft2).
KEY TO LOGS
[]
❑ TIP RESISTANCE (Ton/ft'2)
❑
DEPTH
(m)
DATE , 01/03/se
LOCATION , PC -1
FILE N 1 2
LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATIO
�I I
I
i
1
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L S N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
?ROJECT
NAME:
HIGHLAND SOIL
PROJECT
NO.
6574012-0
'
LOCATION
PC -1
DATE
01/03/88
AVERAGE UIIT WEIGHT
DEPTH TO GROUND
OF SOIL .(PCF)-- 125
WATER(FT)---------- 28.7
DEPTH
�C
FS
FR
SOI;. 3EHAVIOF. TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO SU
__.
TSF.
TSF.
N
Ni
NM
DEG
TSF TSF
'
i
5.7
0.1
0.88
SANDY SILT AND SILT
2
8
0.03
--
---
0.01 --
'
0.4
.£
Cl.-
=5.0
`_0.3
J.1
0.2
0.48
0.32
SILT? SAND
SAND
7
8
20
21
0.09-
1.:3
-
---
-
0.03
).05
1.1
135.1
0.2
0.23
SAND
9
23
1.52
--
---
0.07 --
1.4
88.7
0.2
0.24
SAND
12
28
1.68
--
---
+0.09 --
'
7
1.
:36.4
0.4
0.27
SAND
19
41
1.71
-_
0.11
2.1
194. 5
0.3
0.13
SAND
"5
53
1.88
-
__-
-
0.13
2.4
194.2
0.2
0.0£
SAND
25
50
1.93
--
---
0.15 --
2.7
3.1
227.9
255.4
0.3
0.7
0.13
0.2E
SAND
SAND
29
33
56
62
1.97-
1.91
-
---
-
0.17 --
0.19
3.4
193.4
0.5
0.27
SAND
26
48
1.76
--
---
0.21 --
3.7
161.2
0.4
0.27
SAND
22
39
1.73
--
---
0.23 --
'
4.0
:28.7
0.5
0.37
SAND
18
32
1.59
48
90
0.25
4.4
_04.6
0.4
0.37
SAND
15
26
1.54
47
31
0.27,
4.7
8.
0.3
].;_
SAND.
:4
_2
1.58
46
78
0.29 --
5.0
94.:
0.3
0.35
SAND
14
22
1.54
46
76
0.31
'
1.3
88.2
0.3
0.36
SAND
13
20
1.50
-5
74
0.33 --
5.7
89.4
0.3
C.36
SAND
13
20
1.51
45
74
0.35 --
6.0
6.3
97.0
95.6
0.3
0.4
C.31
0.40
SAND
SAND
14
14
21
21
1.60
1.48
45
45
76
75
0.38
0.40
6.7
88.1
0.3
0.36
SAND
13
19
1.50
44
72
0.42 --
7.0
32.4
0.3
0.36
SAND.
12
17
1.48
44
70
0.44 --
'
7.3
90.2
O.3
0.35
SAND
13
19
1.52
44
72
0.46
7.6
102.6
0.4
0.42
SAND
15
21
1.48
44
74
0.48
3.0
101.2
0.5
0.44
SAND
15
21
1.44
44
74
0.50 --
'
8.3
8.6
=07.9
87.5
0.5
0.4
0.46
0.43
SAND
SAND
16
13
22
13
1.44
1.40
44
43
75
68
0.52 =_
0.54
8.9
84.E
0.2
0.29
SAND
12
1G
1.59
42
56
0.56 --
9.3
82.0
0.3
0.30
SAND
12
1-5
1.56
42
65
0.58 -
'
9.6
83.3
0.3
0.36
SAND
12
16
1.49
42
55
0.60
9.9
101.0
0.4
0.38
SAND
15
18
1.53
43
71
0.62
10.2
127.6
0.6
C.44
SAND
18
23
1.52
44
77
0.64 --
10.6
147.9
0.6
0.42
SAND
21
26
1.57
44
82
0.66
'
10.9
159.6
0.8
0.47
SAND
23
28
1.54
45
84
0.68
P S O N E E R D R = L L 2 N G
7£PTH .0 FS
FT. TSF. TSF
11.2
160.9
0.-
.71_.:-
27
1.55
44
11. :-*
155.2
C.i
_
47.5
0.6
12.5
141.,
0.7
_2.9
1`3.7
:_.6
I: c
SAND
7
26
-_4.6
o.
31
0.74
--
14..
55.:
0.9
}.:
:,.5
0.5
14.3
16.8
0.2
15.2
46.5
0.5
15.5
79.3
0.8
15.8
97,_
1.2
16.1
150.2
1.0
16.5
101.1
0.3
13.8
43.4
1.5
17.1
60.4
1.4
17.5
96.7
1.0
_7.850.3
0.aZ
:).8
).48
SAND
0
21
_-.Z
O.2
18.c
iS.J
0.3
19.1
;f.F.F
1.0
19.4
115.6
1.3
19.8
99.7
1.5
20.1
109.6
1.5
20.4
116.7
1.4
20.7
101.8
1.3
121.1
38.6
1.7
21.4
27.4
1.1
21.7
29.6
1.1
22.0
67.8
1.5
22.4
70.5
1.8
22.7
84.1
1.4
23.0
30.4
2.2
23.4
92.2
2.1
23.7
92.-
3...
24.0
102.8
4.1
24.3
85.4
4.1
24.7
82.8
4.3
25.0
106.5
5.0
INTERPRETED CONE,PENETRATION TEST DATA
FR SOIL BEHAVICR TYPE
SPT I5C PHI =P. PO SU ,
N N1 MM DEG TSF TSF.
0.45
SAND
23
27
1.55
44
34
0.77
--
0.45
SAND
23
-7
1.56
44
33
n.;2
- -
I: c
SAND
22
26
1.52
44
31
0.74
--
51
SAND
22
-5
1.47
44
79
0.76
--
0.46
SAND
2023
1.52
43
71
0.73
--
39
SAND
22
24
1.61
44
10
0.80
--
;.zc
SAND
23
__
_.55
44
0
0.aZ
--
).48
SAND
0
21
1.43
43
74
0.84
--
0.75
SAND
17
13
:.0`_
41
43
0.87
--
1.58
SILTY SAND
16
17
0.08
38
42
0.89
--
2.E7
SANDY SILT AND SILT
7
7
0.02
SI
20
0.91
--
1.01
SILTY SAND
5
5
0.05
32
20
0.93
--
1.10
SILTY SAND
13
13
0.09
37
24
0.95
--
0.95
SAND
16
16
0.61
39
51
0.97
--
1.26
SAND
22
_2
0.33
40
59
0.99
--
0.65
SAND
23
23
1.34
42
74
1.01
--
0.33
SAND
18
18
0.95
40
60
1.03
--
3.46
SANDY SILT AND SILT
18
17
0.02
36
30
1.05
--
2.32
SILTY SAND
13
18
0.06
38
39
1.G7
--
1.32
SAND
19
18
0.68
40
56
1.09
--
1.49
SILTY SAND
14
14
0.08
37
32
1.11
--
3.42
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
10
10
---
--
---
1.13.1:32
..c'2
SANDY SILT AND SILT
-
:;,0_
29
2O
1.15
--
_.:a
SANDY SILT AND SILT
f,
6
0.02
31
20
1.11
--
0.33
SAND
'.9
iii
0.94
40
58
.,1-
1.13
SAND
23
21
0.68
40
60
1.21
--
1.47
SAND
26
23
0.13
39
53
1.23
--
1.35
SAND
25
22
0.38
40
57
1.25
--
1.17
SAND
23
21
0.65
40
59
1.28
--
1.29
SAND
23
20
0.39
39
53
1.30
-
4.25
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
19
17
---
--
---
1.32
2.33
3.98
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
12
---
--
---
1.34
1.63
3.61
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
12
---
--
---
1.36
1.77
2.20
SILTY SAND
20
17
0.06
37
36
1.38
--
2.57
SILTY SAND
22
18
0.05
37
37
1.40
--
1.61
SILTY SAND
23
19
0.09
33
43
1.42
--
2.76
SANDY SILT AND SILT
25
2i
0.05
38
41
1.44
--
2.27
SILTY SAND
27
22
0.07
38
45
1.46
--
3.48
SAIIDY SILT AND SILT
33
27
0.03
38
45
1.48
--
4.01
SANDY SILT AND SILT
42
34
0.02
39
49
1.50
--
4.78
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
42.34
---
--
---
1.52
5.24
5.14
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
44
36
---
--
---
1.54
5.08
4.73
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
51
41
---
--
---
1.56
6.56
P 2 O N E E R D R M L L Z N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEFTH
C
FS
FP,
SUIT. BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
FHI
DR
PO
SU
'
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
14
N1
MM
DEG
TSF
TSF.
3_._
3.90
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
26
21
---
--
---
1.58
3_50
?5.:
4C.
9
2.18
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
10
').JS
34
30..1.60
9.0
1.5
3.•69
SANDY SILT P.ND SILT
13
14
0.01
?_
20
1.62
--
'
=`: IT
?.
54.8
J.3
2.8
3.83
5.18
SANDY SILT AND SILT
C:,AYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
__
31
17
24
0.01
=5
-
1.64
1.67
--
3.32
_ 0
_._
._
4,27
CLAYEY SILT AND 3ILT7 '.'LAY
3.
'S
-_1
-
1.69
'4.43
CLAY
63
53
---
--
---
1.71
4.17
4.=?
SANDY 71L =.i4D SIT'
5°
42
71
t4
1:73
'
c ..
_ _..
-.n
�0
ILTY SA14D
54
0. C8
42
i2
1.75
--
2£.3
'S4.
7.1
2.'J1
SAND
74
55
0.56
:4
96
1.77
--
-11.7
"_ 3
6.5
5.0
--.--7
4.32
SAND
SANDY SILT 'AND SILT
69
50
52
3'.
0.43
0.01
43
38
91
48
1.79
1.80
=_
29.
-2.3
3.8
5.22
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
39
29
---
--
---
1.81
4.40
29.0
1"6.1
5.9
5.51
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
59
43
---
--
---
1.82
6.51
'
29.9
'3.6
3.4
4.62
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
.36
26
---
--
---
1.83
4_48
30.-
'O.:i
1.4
2.04
SILTY SAND
20
15
0.07
36
30
1.84
30.6
53'.3
Z.2
3.80
SANDY SILT AND SILT
25
18
0.01
35
23
1.85
--
=06.3
1.2
1.08
SAND
21
15
0.68
33
44
1.86
103.z'
4.2
4.02
SANDY SILT AND SILT
42
31
0.02
33
43
1.87
31.6
3S9.=
5.0
_.38
SAND
59
43
1.14
44
95
1.88
--
3`.=222.3:'
3.59.0
:_ 9
3.25
2.40
SILTY SAND
SAND
67
90
48
65
O.OG
0.33
41
4
75
36
1.89
1.90
=_
4?C.,
5.6
.14
SAND
'•1
51
1.52
z
500
1.92
--
_..
SAND
'6
54
1.53
45
100
1.93
--
_3.-
°1i;;'_
=:..1
_,OO
SAND
70
50
1.68
45
300
1.94
33.0
"',? 2
4.14
0.85
SAND
64
45
1.78
45
100
1.95
--
33.9
457.4
0.2
0.04
SAND AND GRAVEL
46
33
4.81
45
100
1.96
--
'
34.2
34.5
145.6
423.2
3.9
1.5
2.68
0.35
SILTY SAND
SAND AND GRAVEL
42
49
30
35
0.07
3.06
39
44
55
100
1.97
1.98
=_
31.9
236.1
3.',
1.29
SAND
48
34
1.07
42
85
1.99
--
35.2
413.2
3.4
0.81
SA14D
56
39
1.74
44
100
2.00
--
'
35.=
323.1
0.1
0.04
SAND AND GRAVEL
34
23
4.64
43
90
2.01
35.?
160.9
3.5
2.19
SILTY SAND
44
30
0.09
39
59
2.02
36.2
331.1
3."
0.98
SAND
49
34
1.45
43
91
2.03
--
36.5
403.0
1.6
0.39
SAND AND GRAVEL
48
33
2.67
44
99
2.04
'
26.3
2.4.3
.1 .7
0.65
SAND
37
26
1.60
42
81
2.05
37.2
2£0.5
0.1
0.05
SAND AND GRAVEL
29
20
4.43
42
83
2.06
--
37.5
163.0
2.9
1.7£
SAND
39
27
0.26
39
59
2.07
--
'
ram
(M)
DATE 3 01/03/08
LOCATION , PC -2
FILE 0 3
FRICTION RATIO
P
=
O N E E R
D R
=
L
L
=
N
G
INTERPRETED CONE
PENETRATION
TEST DATA
PROJECT
NAME:
HIGHLAND
SOIL
PROJECT
:40.
657401_-,i
'-C
CAT I CN
P.--2
2ATE
01/03,188
'
A'IERAG£':NIT
WEIGHT
OF SOIL (PCF)--
125
DEP^H
TO GROUND
WATEP.(FT)----------
34.;
DEP T
IC
3CIL BEHAVIOR
TYPE
SPT
--50
rHI
^P,
PO
.3U
'-T.
SF.
TSF.
LEG
TSF
TSF
0.1
=6.2
J.0
0.18
SILTY SAND
4
17
0.09-
0.01
0.4
25.8
:..2
0 .39
SILTY SAND
7
22
0.07
-- --
-
0.03
--
O.c
2'.1
0.2
0.74
SILTY SAND
8
20
0.38
--
---
0.05
--
'
1.1
1.4
40.0
90.2
0.2
0.1
0.45
0.09
SA14D
SAND
9
12
23
2',
0.30
1.S8
--
--
---
---
0.07
0.09
--
1.7
116.9
0.4
:.34
SAND
16
36
1.30
--
---
0.11
--
2.1
105.0
0.6
0.59
SAND
17
35
1.27
--
---
0.13
--
2.4
94.4
0.6
0.61
SAND
15
31
1.19
-_
-
C.15
2
98.0
0.4
).40
SAND
14
28
1.49
-
-
0.17
_-
_.'
92.Y
0.4
C.48
SAPID
14
27
1.37
--
---
0.19
--
'
3.4
2.7
82.2
73,4
0.5
0.6
x.63
0.85
SAND
SAND
14
14
25
26
1.09
0.67
-_
-
-
-
0.21
0.23
SAND
15
26
0.56
46
'1
0.25
--
:.:
'4.
0.5
J.73
SAND
i
24
0.80
-5
-
0.27
--
'
4.'
71.3
0.7
C.91
SAND
15
23
0.__
45
70
0.29
5.0
51.6
1.5
2.87
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
18
29
0.04
43
51
0.31
--
5..i
�7.4
1.3
3.50
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
16
25
0.01
41
51
0.33
--
'
5.7
6.0
46.3
53.2
1.5
1.5
3.25
2.76
SANDY SILT
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
AND SILT
18
18
28
0.02
42
56
0.35
27
0.04
42
59
0.38
0.3
54.2
1.3
2.43
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
17
25
0.05
42
59
0.40
--
6.7
46.2
1.5
3.31
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
18
26
0.02
41
53
0.42
'
7.0
31.4
1.3
4.14
CLAYEY SILT AND
SILTY CLAY
15
22
--
---
0.44
1.93
7.3
30.5
1.1
2.54
CLAYEY SILT AND
SILTY CLAY
14
19
---
-
--
---
0.46
1.88
7.6
33.9
1.3
3.89
CLAYEY SILT AND
SILTY CLAY
16
22
---
--
---
0.48
2.09
8.0
27.1
1.2
4.31
CLAYEY SILT AND
SILTY CLAY
14
19
0.50
1.66
'
S.3
21.0
0.7
3.38
CLAYEY SILT AND
SILTY CLAY
10
13
---
--
---
-
0.52
1.28
8.6
23.0
0.7
2.99
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
10
13
0.02
36
29
0.54
'
8.9
9.3
43.4
30.0
1.1
1.0
2.53
3.43
SANDY SILT
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
AND SILT
14.19
13
17
0.04
0.01
39
37
46
0.56
-=
35
0.58
3.6
32.6
1.0
3.16
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
13
17
0.02
37
36
0.60
--
9.9
16.2
0.7
3.66
CLAYEY SILT AND
SILTY CLAY
9
11
---
--
---
0.62
1.11
'
10.2
19.6
0.6
3.00
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
8
11
0_01
35
21
0.64
--
10.6
19.0
0.6
3.11
CLAYEY SILT AND
SILTY CLAY
8
10
---
0.66
1.14
10.9
26.4
0.8
2.95
SANDY SILT
AND SILT
11
13
0.02
36
27
0.68
--
P 2 O N E E R D R 1L L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
11
DEPTz
kC
FS
FP.
SOIL EEFAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO
SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
;d
N1
MM
DEG
TSF
TSF.
,
11.1
1E.2
0.6
3.51
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
9
10
---
--
---
0.70
1.10
11.5
13.7
-.7
1.74
SANDY SILT AND SILT
9
11
0.02
'S
-2
C.72
--
,
11.3
l.c
l.i
3.58
t-LAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
14
17
---
--
---
0.74
1.94
''.8
3.57
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
10
12
---
--
---
0.75
1.34
i2..
26.4
1.3
-.7c
SANDY SILT AND SZ=
16
18
0.04
38
40
0.78
--
,
12.9
13.9
1.4
1.76
SANDY SILT AND MLT
17
18
0.04
38
41
C.80
--
=_.1
70.C-
1.1
1.50
SILTY SAND
i9
21
:.09
40
°•1
--.82
--
-._
;4•-
..?
2..
SAND': SIL': AND 'SILT
_4
15
-.CS
-
36
0.84
--
,
-.
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY -LAY
3
---
--
---
i.37
0.92
14.1
11._
0.2
1.33
SANDY SILT AND SILT
;
`_
0.02
30
20
0.89
--
14.5
18.7
0.5
2.61
SANDY SILT AND SILT
8
8
0.02
3
30
0.91
--
14.8
12.1
0.4
3.21
::LAY7_Y SILT AND SILTY CLAY
5
6
---
--
---
0.93
0.70
'
15.1
16.2
0.5
2.96
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
7
-
---
--
---
0.95
0.96
15.5
11.5
0.3
2.35
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
5
0.01
30
20
0.97
--
15.8
14.5
0.4
2.60
SANDY SILT AND SILT
6'
6
0.01
31
20
0.99
'
16.1
13.5
0.4
3.03
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
6
6
---
--
---
1.01
0.78
16.5
22.8
0.7
3..07
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
10
0.01
33
20
1.03
--
16.8
99.3
1.2
1.17
SAND
21
21
0.51
40
58
1.05
--
17.1
93.1
1.3
1.41
SAND
24
23
0.14
40
55
1.07
--
,
17.5
91.8
1.4
1.55
SILTY SAND
24
24
0.10
40
54
1.09
--
17.3
138.8
1.4
1.00
SAND
25
23
0.94
42
69
1.11
--
13.1
220.1
1.4
0.61
SAND
'2
30
1.51
44
37
1.13
--
,
lE.i
23'x.3
1.3
0.53
SAND
33
31
1.64
44
90
1.15
--
:3.0.67
SAND
32
30
1.45
43
85
1.17
--
'9.1
1:14.4
1.4
-).Q-A
3n
SAND
31
28
1.24
43
01
19.4
184.9
1.9
1.02
SAND
31
29
1.06
42
78
1.21
--
19.:
210.1
2.2
1.03
SAND
35
32
1.12
43
83
1.23
--
20.1
279.4
2.5
0.88
SAND
42
37
1.43
44
94
1.25
--
20.4
'14.7
2.5
0.78
SAND
44
40
1.59
45
98
1.28
--
'
20.7
274.0
1.8
0.66
SAND
38
34
1.61
44
92
1.30
--
21.1
245.9
1.4
0.55
SAND
34
30
1.64
43
88
1.32
--
21.4
186.2
1.3
0.69
SAND
28
25
1.37
42
76
1.34
--
'
21.7
70.0
1.7
2.44
SILTY SAND
21
18
0.06
37
38
1.36
--
22.0
158.4
1.7
1.05
SAND
28
24
0.96
41
69
1.38
--
22.4
227.2
1.3
0.55
SAND
32
27
1.59
43
83
1.40
--
22.7
174.9
1.8
1.02
SAND
30
25
1.03
41
72
1.42
--
,
23.0
101.2
2.0
2.01
SILTY SAND
28
24
0.08
39
49
1.44
--
23.4
221.6
2.1
0.97
SAND
36
30
1.20
42
81
1.46
--
23.7
227.7
2.5
1.11
SAND
38
32
1.09
43
82
1.48
--
,
24.0
268.4
2.8
1.03
SAND
42
35
1.27
43
89
1.50
--
24.3
238.4
2.4
0.79
SAND
43
35
1.55
44
92
1.52
--
24.7
297.3
1.9
0.64
SAND
41
33
1.68
44
92
1.54
--
'
25.0
314.8
2.1
0.66
SAND
43
35
1.70
44
94
1.56
--
P 2 CD N E E R D R 2 L L = N G
I
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH 1C FS
' FT. TSF. TSF
39.1 54.9 2.5
FR
-5.3
311.1
1.9
PHI
7
305..
1.6
25..
2?1.5
1.6
MM
--
294.6
1.6
':1,
_6.0
.:34.
1.6
34
:".V-
244.0
_._
1.58
--
3.52
1.8
•40
32
4.7
1.:
92.1.60
--...
_ 8
_;..
1.5
SAND
2E.=
_22.2
1.0
'
23.5
28.9
1`3.8
::06.0
0.9
1.0
0:54
29.3
256.=
1.2
1.77
29.5
235.4
1.1
'
29.9
211.1
1.0
30
30...
215.`_
1.9
1.67
30.6
209.4
1.0
33
30.9
195.1
2:3
'
31.3
:29.8
.43
SAND
31.:,
1'_0.7
1.3
4C
119
131.3
1.4
'
SILTY SAND
20
15
C.39
36
34
1.73
--
'_.52
SAND? SILT AND SILT
18
"_3
33.2
213.2
1.0
1.75
X3.6
208.1
1.0
21
33.9
203.9
1.3
51
34.2
34.5
157.3
93.7
3.8
2.0
SAND
34.5
88.2
1.9
40
35.2
121.6
3.2
'
35.5
143.3
4.8
1.59
35.9
206.1
2.8
--
36.2
153.8
4.1
25
36.5
74.7
2.5
1.83
36.8
50.9
1.0
32
37.2
62.2
3.1
78
37.5
118.1
4.2
'
37.5
34.2
4.5
41
38.2
37.3
1.7
0.89
38.5
36.1
1.3
1.26
38.8
43.5
1.4
--
0.50
SAND
30
39.1 54.9 2.5
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SFT
D50
PHI
DR
PO
SU
N
N1
MM
DEG
9
TSF
TSF.
0.61
SAND
42
34
1.74
44
93
1.58
--
3.52
SAND
•40
32
1:81
44.
92.1.60
---
0.53
SAND
39
31
1.76
43
901.62
--
0:54
SAND
39
31
1.77
43
91
1.64
--
0.56
SAND
38
30
1.72
43
39
1.67
--
0.48
SAND
33
26
1.70
42
S2
1.69
--
.43
SAND
=4
19
1.53
4C
66
1.71
--
:.53
SILTY SAND
20
15
C.39
36
34
1.73
--
'_.52
SAND? SILT AND SILT
18
"_3
i;.02
33
20
1.75
--
0.84
SAND
21
16
1.06
39
51
1.77
--
0.54
SAND
23
17
1.47
40
62
1.79
--
0.48
SAND
29
22
1.59
41
73
1.81
--
0.46
SAND
34
25
1.75
42
82
1.83
--
0.47
SAND
32
24
1.69
42
78
1.85
--
0.49
SAND
30
22
1.60
41
73
1.87
--
0.89
SAND
34
25
1.26
41
74
1.89
--
0.50
SAND
30
21
1.59
41
72
1.91
--
:.17
SAND
34
25
0.94
40
69
1.93
--
1.67
SAND
33
23
0.17
38
51
1.95
--
1.66
SILTY SAND
29
21
0.10
38
44
1.97
--
1.06
SAND
24
17
0.85
38
50
2.00
--
1.23
SAND
21
15
0.35
37
27
2.02
--
0.83
SAND
16
1.11
38
52
2.04
--
0.91
SAND
25
17
1.08
39
56
2.06
--
0.46
SAND
30
2:
1.65
41
72
2.08
--
0.48
SAND
29
20
1.60
40
69
2.10
--
0.63
SAND
30
20
1.45
40
68
2.12
--
2.41
SILTY SAND
44
29
0.08
39
57
2.14
--
2.11
SILTY SAND
26
18
0.08
36
36
2.16
--
2.15
SILTY SAND
25
17
0.07
36
34
2.17
--
2.67
SILTY SAND
36
24
0.06
38
45
2.18
--
3.36
SANDY SILT AND SILT
46
30
0.04
38
52
2.19
--
1.37
SAND
39
25
0.80
40
68
2.20
--
2.50
SILTY SAND
46
30
0.08
39
58
2.21
--
3.40
SANDY SILT AND SILT
27
18
0.03
35
27
2.22
--
2.00
SILTY SAND
15
10
0.06
33
20
2.23
--
4.97
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
33
21
---
--
---
2.24
3.74
3.55
SANDY SILT AND SILT
41
27
0.04
37
44
2.25
4.74
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
46
29
---
--
---
2.26
5.74
4.48
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
19
12
---
--
---
2.27
2.18
3.63
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
16
10
---
--
---
2.28
2.10
' 22
SANDY SILT AND SILT
17
11
0.02
32
20
2.29
4.56
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
27
17
---
--
---
2.30
3.28
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L = N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEFTF
?C
FS
FR
SOI! BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF•
a
N
N1
MM
LEG
TSF TSF.
39.5
'0.0
2.7
3.85
SANDY SILT AND SILT
29
19
0.02
35
24
2.31 --
39.3
150.1
3.6
2.02
SAND
47
30
0.1l
39
GO
2:32 --
40.1
195.0
1.7
0.89
SAND
31
20
1.20
40
54
2.33 --
40.5
L'3.5
3.6
4.30
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
38
24
---
--
---
2.34 5.06
X0.8
331.1
?.7
1.40
SAND
56
35
1.06
42
36
2.35 --
41.1
37'.0
2.4
0.63
SAND
49
31
1.83
43
Z1
2.36 --
41.4
291.6
3.1
0.-1
SAND
41
2:
1.61
41
2,1
2.37 --
41.,
__6.9
SILTY SAND
5-
36
,.1
?3
2.38 --
__.:
34.8
4.6
1.51
SAND
54
33
0.78
41
80
2.39 --
42.1
354.9
2.6
0.74
SAND
48
30
1.71
42
88
2.40 --
42.'
342.°
2.1
0.60
SAND
45
28
1.81
42
87
2.41 --
43.1
3'_5.2
1.5
0.44
SAND
43
26
1.94
42
86
2.42 --
43.4
313.3
1.4
0.44
SAND
41
25
1.91
42
84
2.43 --
43.7
302.7
11A It 2 UI/Ud/ee
' - LOCATION # PC -3
FILE X 4
LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATIO
0 TIP RESISTANCE (Ton/ft-2) 500 O (Ton/ft-2) 5 O (PERCENT)
' O
H
' DEPTH
CEJ
1
1
p
1
I
II
1
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L = N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
PROJECT NAME:
HIGHLAND SOIL
FROJECT NO.
6574012-0
10CATION
PC -3
DATE
01/03/88
.VER:AGE UNIT 7.4EIGHT
0£ SOIL P PCF) -- 125
DEPTH
�C
FS
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
£T.
TSF.
TSF.
3.1
0.0
1.92
' AYEY SILT AND SILTY ;:LAY
.4
21,.2
:.0
0.15
SILTY SAID
C.8
24.5
0.1
0.20
SILTY SAND
1.:
18.4
0.1
0.44
SILTY SAND
1.4
20.4
0.4
1.76
SA14DY SILT AND
SILT
1.7
23.4
0.8
2.29
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
2.1
39.1
1.1
2.,1
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
2.4
50.6
0.9
1.72
SILTY SAND
2.7
51.0
0.6
1.20
SILTY SAND
3.1
73.1
0.5
0.64
SAND
3.4
53.9
0.7
0.77
SAND
3.7
80.3
i.0
l.;:i
SAND
4.0
:58.0
1.3
1.88
SILTY SAND
4.i
44.9
_.2
3.43
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
4.7
5_.E
1.:)
_.33
SILTY SAND
2.0
_5.a
1.3
2.35
SILTY SAND
5.3
`_2.4
1.2
2.33
SILTY SAND
5.7
70.1
1.2
1.67
SILT? SAND
6.0
72.1
1.3
1.80
SILTY SAND
3.3
31.0
1.0
1.25
SAND
6.7
75.5
1.0
1.35
SILTY SAND
7.0
64.0
1.1
1.70
SILTY SAND
7.3
.18.3
1.6
3.33
SANDY SILT, AND
SILT
7.6
94.7
0.9
'0.90
SAND
8.0
89.1
0.7
0.74
SAND
3.3
55.3
0.6
0.90
SAND
8.6
35.1
1.0
2.93
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
8.9
40.2
1.0
2.39
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
9.3
81.7
0.6
0.70
SAND
9.6
80.3
0.6
0.72
SAND
9.9
72.8
0.7
0.92
SAND
10.2
102.1
0.5
0.52
SAND
10.6
99.3
0.4
0.44
SAND
10.9
98.5
0.4
0.41
SAND
SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
I
d N1 MM CEG TSF TSF
4 --- -- --- 0.01 0.13
7 22 0.10 -- --- 0.03 --
7 17 0.09 -- --- 0.05 --
5 13 0.08 -- --- 0.07 --
7 16 0.04 -- --- 0.09 --
11 24 0.04 -- --- 0.11 --
14 29 0.03 -- --- 0.13 --
15 30 0.07 -- --- 0.15 --
14 27 0.09 -- --- 0.17 --
13 24 0.99 -- --- 0.19 --
16 30 0.99 -- --- 0.21 --
20 35 0.24 -- --- 0.23 --
19 34 0.07 45 70 0.25 --
18 31 0.02 43 59 0.27 --
16 2' 0.07 44 63 0.29 --
17 28 0.05 �3 63 0.31 --
16 26 0.05 43 60 0.33 --
19 30 0.08 44 67 0.35 --
20 31 0.08 44 68 0.38 --
<0 30 0.19 44 70 0.40 --
20 30 0.10 43 68 0.42 --
18 26 0.08 42 62 0.44 --
19 27 0.02 41 53 0.46 --
18 25 0.82 44 72 0.48 --
15 21 0.99 43 70 0.50 --
14 20 0.42 42 60 0.52 --
13 18 0.03 38 41 0.54 --
13 17 0.04 39 43 0.56 --
14 18 1.00 42 65 0.58 --
14 18 0.95 42 63 0.60 --
15 19 0.54 41 60 0.62 --
16 19 1.35 43 70 0.64 --
15 18 1.44 42 69 0.66 --
14 17 1.48 42 68 0.68 --
P S O N E E R
D R
S L
L S N G
INTERPRETED CONE
PENETRATION
TEST
DATA
DEPTH CIC F3
FT. TSF. TSF
i1.2
96.0
0.4
D50
75.5
0.6
i.
36._
0.9
12.2
_0.4
1.0
Ni
MM
DEG
TSF
TSF.
l3...
_3-.4
_....
14
1?4..
1.52
- -
36
0.70
:4._
17.4
1.1
14.5
33.6
0.2
14.8
105.1
0.6
15.2
108.:,
0.6
15.5
114.5
0.7
i5.8
14
0.04
16.1
=00.9
1.5
16.5
211.1
1.3
16.8
194.1
1.0
1;.1
174.1
0.9
17.5
153.0
0.7
17.3
150.3
0.7
18.1
159.3
0.8
13.4
151.c
0.7
18.3
-48.5
C.-
C.-
19-
19.1
1:3.3
0.7
19.4
35.2
1.0
19.8
29.3
1.3
20.1
48.3
1.6
20.4
181.4
1.4
20.7
225.9
2.7
21.'_
219.1
2.8
21.4
161.2
2.4
21.7
142.8
2.3
22.0
66.7
2.3
22.4
83.8
1.9
22.7
210.:
1.6
23.0
257.3
2.5
23.4
240.1
2.0
23.7
246.7
2.3
24.0
236.1
1.5
24.3
230.3
1.4
24.7
223.1
1.7
25.0
224.5
1.5
1
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO
SU
N
Ni
MM
DEG
TSF
TSF.
t
G.-7
SAND
14
17
1.52
42
36
0.70
--
0.77
SAND
14
16
0.32
41
57
0.72
--
2.53
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
14
0.04
37
34
0.74
--
4.70
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
12
13
---
--
---
0.76
1.23
0.93
SAND
21
24
0.95
43
72
0.78
--
,
0.88
SAND
2'_
26
1.07
43
76
0.80
--
0.96SAND
24
26
0.97
43
1
0.82
--
0.32
SAND
_1
2
1.07
=2
'1
0.84
--
'
=G
SAND
i8
19
0.82
=i
61
0.87
--
2.88
SANDY SILT AND SIL':
14
15
0.03
36
30
0.89
--
2.47
SANDY SILT AND .SILT
11
12
0.04
36
26
0.91
--
0.56
SAND
16
17
1.31
41
03
0.93
--
0.57
SAND
17
17
1.31
41
64
0.95
--
0.60
SAND
18
18
1.29
41
65
0.97
--
0.79
,SAND
25
25
1.22
43
76
0.99
--
'
0.74
SAND
31
31
1.34
44
85
1.01
--
0.60
SAND
31
30
1.50
44
37
1.03
--
0.54
SAND
28
27
1.52
43
83
1.05
--
11.54
SAND
25
25
1.49
43
78
1.07
--
0.48
SAND
22
21
1.51
42
73
1.09
--
0.46
SAND
22
21
1.53
42
72
1.11
--
0.49
SAND
23
22
1.52
42
74
1.13
--
,
0.47
SAND
22
20
1.53
42
72
1.15
--
-45
SAND
21
20
1.54
42
70
1.17
--
3.50
SAND
20
19
1.47
41
67
1.19
--
1.13
SAND
19
17
0.42
39
48
1.21
--
,
4.54
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
15
14
---
--
---
1.23
1.75 .
3.36
SANDY SILT AND SILT
19
17
0.02
26
28
1.25
--
0.78
SAND
28
25
1.27
42
76
1.28
--
'
1.20
SAND
39
35
1.01
43
35
1.30
--
1.28
SAND
39
34
0.92
43
83
1.32
--
1.48
SAND
34
29
0.54
41
70
1.34
--
'
1.62
SAND
33
29
0.31
41
65
1.36
--
3.48
SANDY SILT AND SILT
25
22
0.03
37
36
1.38
--
2.30
SILTY SAND
24
21
0.07
38
43
1.40
--
0.75
SAND
32
27
1.36
42
80
1.42
--
'
0.99
SAND
40
34
1.28
43
88
1.44
--
0.85
0.95
SAND
SAND
36
38
30
32
1.36
1.29
43
43
84
85
1.46
1.48
--
--
'
0.61
SAND
34
28
1.56
43
83
1.50
--
0.62
SAND
33
27
1.54
42
82
1.52
--
0.78
SAND
34
27
1.37
42
80
1.54
--
0.68
SAND
33
27
1.47
42
80
1.56
--
'
I
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L 2 N G
1
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH tC FS
FT. TSF. TSF
' 29.9 136.7 4.3
30.2 159.6 3.4
-'0.5 388.4 ...6
35.3
339.3
2.5
'
25.
289.7
2.4
SU
36.0
325.8
2.1
'
28.9
356.1
2.0
0.5
'
`6.3
.:6.G
366.4
`.1
.3
SAND
'7.0
--58..
2.7
1.43
3..-
-=9.7
3.5
' 29.9 136.7 4.3
30.2 159.6 3.4
-'0.5 388.4 ...6
30.9
259.0
2.2
'
33.0
.42.4
1.5
SU
2€.
191.3
1.9
'
28.9
140.2
227,.6
2.0
0.5
'
29.3
151.3
2.2
SAND
29.6
68.0
2.7
' 29.9 136.7 4.3
30.2 159.6 3.4
-'0.5 388.4 ...6
C.7
30.9
259.0
2.2
'
31.3
157.1
r
SU
31.6
^01.9
...3
'
31.9
;8.0
2.6
'
3
139.6
3.4
SAND
'2.6
51.7
1.3
C.7
35.5 55.1 2.2
35.9 104.1 3.5
36.3 80.8 2.3
.:3.
z.2.^
1:6
'
33.6
31.7
1.1
SU
33.9
38.1
1.1
'
34.2
34.5
78.6
28.6
2.1
1.5
'
34.9
25.1
0.8
SAND
35.2
30.7
1.0
35.5 55.1 2.2
35.9 104.1 3.5
36.3 80.8 2.3
' 38.8 193.8 3.4
39.1 56.1 2.3
TR
36.5
86.3
2.7
D50
36.8
.3.04.0
3.0
SU
27.3
346.0
3.7
N
37.5
384.0
3.9
'
37.8
373.4
4.6
SAND
38.2
356.7
4.2
1.43
38.5
317.1
3.1
' 38.8 193.8 3.4
39.1 56.1 2.3
TR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
?HI
DR
PO
SU
N
N1
MM
DEG
TSF
TSF.
0.90
SAND
43
34
1.43
43
91
1.58
--
0.82
- SAND
42
33
1.50
43
90
1.60
--
0.69
SAND
41
33
1.63
43
91
1.62
--
0.73
SAND
40
32
1.58
43
89
1.64
--
0.86
SAND
40
31
1.41
43
86
1.67
--
=.91
SAND
39
30
1.35
43
84
1.69
--
1.97
SAND
40
31
_.30
42
34
1.71
--
_.91
SAND
-37
28
1.27
42
80
1.73
--
1.76
:AND
36
27
0.1G
39
SS
1.75
--
J.97
SAND
32
34
1.12
41
70
1.77
--
1.41
SAND
30
22
0.52
39
57
1.79
--
0.41
SAND
31
23
1.71
42
77
1.81
--
1.47
SAND
32
24
0.51
39
60
1.83
--
3.92
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
29
21
0.01
36
29
1.85
--
3.17
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
42
31
0.05
39
54
1.87
--
_.13
SILTY SAND
43
31
0.09
40
61
1.89
--
0.88
SAND
43
31
1.44
42
86
1.91
--
0.85
SAND
39
28
1.41
42
81
1.93
--
1.39
SAND
32
23
0.61
39
59
1.95
--
3.43
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
30
21
0.03
36
34
1.97
--
3.81
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
28
20
0.02
-27
2.00
--
2.42
SILTY SAND
39
37
0.08
39
53
2.02
--
3.40
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
20
14
0.02
34
20
2.04
--
1.93
SILTY SAND
11
7
0.05
_2
30
2.06
--
'-.61
SANDY SILT AMD
SILT
19
13
0.=5
-
-'
2.08
3.53
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
14
10
---
--
---
2.10
1.85
2.81
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
14
9
0.03
32
20
2.12
--
2.68
SILTY SAND
24
16
0.05
36
30
2.14
--
5.07
CLAY
29
19
---
--
---
2.16
1.65
3.07
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
10
7
0.02
30
20
2.18
--
3.16
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
12
8
0.02
31
20
2.20
--
3.90
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
24
16
0.01
34
20
2.22
--
3.31
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
35
23
0.04
37
39
2.24
--
2.89
SA14DY SILT AND
SILT
26
17
0.05
35
30
2.26
--
3.10
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
28
18
0.04
36
32
2.28
--
3.98
SAND
46
29
1.39
42
83
2.30
--
1.08
SAND
52
33
1.39
42
88
2.32
--
1.02
SAND
56
35
1.51
43
92
2.34
--
1.24
SAND
58
36
1.29
43
91
2.36
--
1.16
SAND
55
34
1.33
42
89
2.38
--
0.97
SAND
47
29
1.43
42
84
2.41
--
1.77
SAND
43
27
0.40
39
62
2.43
4.08
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
25
16
---
--
---
2.45
3.35
P = O N E E P- D R S L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH QC FS FR SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
FT. TSF. TSF. :I N1 MM DEG 0 TSF TSF
39.5 -5.4 1.5 '-.60 SANDY STILT AND SILT 18 11 C.05 33 =0 2.47 --
9.2 :9.9 Z.7 4.46 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY 29 17 --- -- --- 2.49 3.59
40.: `_7.�
unI. . uu.1..
LOCATION PC -4
FILE N 5
LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATIO
2) SDD D (Ton/ft-2) 5 O (PERCENT)
u
D
' DEPTH
W
1
1
1
I
I
E
P 2 (D N E E R D R 2 L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
PROJECT NAME:
HIGHLAND SOIL
PROJECT_ 140. =
6574012-0
LOCATION
PC -4
DATE
01/03/88
AVERAGE UNIT WEIGHT
OF SOIL PPCF)-- 125
' DEPTH QC FS FP. SOIL BEHAVIOR. TYPE SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
?I
N1
MM
DEG
TSF TSF
1.0
0.0
4.00
CLAY
1
4
---
-- ---
0.01 0.06
1.4
_0.5
0.0
0.20
SILTY SAND
6
16
0.09
-- ---
0.03 --
0.8
18.5
0.1
0.32
SILTY SAND
5
13
0.09
-_
-
0.05
1.1
47.0
0.1
0.19
SAND
7
17
1.48
-
-
C.07
1,4
106.2
0.2
0.17
SAND
14
33
1.79
-- ---
0.09 --
1.7
110.9
1.2
1.04
SAND
21
46
0.76
-_
-
0.11
'
2.1
58.4
2.5
2.79
SILTY SAND
27
57
0.05
-
-
=_
0.13
2.4
81.7
1.4
1.66
SILTY SAND
22
45
0.09
-- ---
0.15 --
'
=.7
3.1
90.5
96.9
1.8
2.0
1.99
2.03
SILTY SAND
SILTY SAND
25
27
50
51
0.08
0.08
-_
-
-
-
0.17 =_
0.19
3.4
103.5
1.4
1.30
SAND
23
43
0.38
-
-
0.21
].7
99.4
0.9
0.91
SAND
IS
33
0.85
--
---
0.23 --
4.0
81.'.
0.6
0.75
SAND
15
250.92
46
74
0.25
'
4.4
4.'
0.4
0.62
SAND
12
20
0.91
45
58
0.27
4.7
-0.6
0.`-
0.65
SAND
12
21
0.95
45
70
C.29 --
'
5.3
g7,8
84.3
0.6
1.0
0.71S
1.22
AND
SAND
:5
20
C3
32
1.03
0.28-45
45
75
73
0.31 --
0.33
5.7
88.5
1.2
1.39
SAND
23
36
0.10
45
74
0.35 --
6.0
99.4
1.2
1.23
SAND
22
33
0.44
45
76
0.38 --
6.3
103.5
1.3
1.29
SAND
23
35
0.40
45
77
0.40
6.7
109.3
1.4
1.26
SAND
24
35
0.48
45
78
=_
0.42
7.0
107.5
1.3
1.21
SAND
23
33
0.53
45
77
0.44 --
7.3
102.1
1.3
1.23
SAND
22
32
0.46
44
75
0.46
'
7.6
99.4
1.3
1.27
SAND
22
31
0.39
44
74
0.48
8.0
97.3
1.2
1.21
SAND
21
29
0.45
44
73
0.50 --
9.3
101.6
1.2
1.22
SAND
22
30
0.47
44
73
0.52
8.6
105.3
1.3
1.21
SAND
22
30
0.52
44
74
0.54 =_
8.9
122.4
1.4
1.14
SAND
24
31
0.71
44
78
0.56
9.3
126.6
1.5
1.17
SAND
25
32
0.70
44
78
0.58 --
9.6
124.6
1.4
1.10
SAND
24
30
0.77
44
77
0.60
'
9.9
111.1
1.1
1.03
SAND
21
26
0.78
43
73
0.62
10.2
96.7
1.1
1.14
SAND
20
25
0.53
42
68
0.64 --
10.6
73.7
1.0
1.37
SILTY SAND
20
24
0.09
41
59
0.66
10.9
33.5
1.1
3.34
SANDY SILT AND SILT
14
17
0.02
37
34
0.68
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
LEPT_F.
FT.
C'C
TSF.
FS
TSF.
FR
%
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
N N1
D50
MY.
PHI
DEG
DR
PO
TSF
SU
TSF,
,
11.'2
15.1
0.5
3.04
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
7
8
---
--
---
0.70
0.90
11.5
2.6
D.3
2.46
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
6
0.01
32
20
0.72
--
t
11.9
14.4
0.4
2.50
SANDY SILT A14D SILT
6
7
0.02
32
20
0.74
--
12.2
16.4
0.5
3.17
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
3
S-
---
--
---
0.76
0.98
12.=
14.1
C.4
2.84
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
6
7
---
--
---
C.. 78
0.83
'
12.=
13.0
0.4
2.92
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
6
7
---
--
---
0.80
0.76
C.2
2.10
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
5
0.02
;1
20
0.82
--
_.:
_
0.2
2.6
SANDY SILT AND SILT
-
C.02
3C
20
O.S4
--
,
._.3
C:.3
2.43
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
5
0.0-
30
20
0.87
--
14.2
?.6
0.2
2.08
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
4
0.02
30
20
0.89
--
14.`_
10.3
0.2
2.33
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
5
0.01
30
20
0.91
--
14.6
42.3
0.5
1.12
SILTY SAND
12
12
0.08
37
33
0.93
--
'
15.2
28.7
0.9
3.18
SAND? SILT AND SILT
i2
12
0.02
35
20
0.95
--
15.5
23.2
0.7
2.97
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
10
0.02
33
20
0.97
--
15.8
26.6
0.8
2.89
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
11
0.02
34
20
0.99
'
16.1
10.3
0.5
4.76
CLAY
10
10
---
--
---
1.01
0.58
16.5
7.7
0.2
2.86
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
4
4
---
--
---
1.03
0.42
16.8
8.3
0.2
2.06
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
3
0.01
28
20
1.05
--
-17.1
17 . 1
7.6
C.1
1.85
SANDY SILT AND SILT
3
3
0.02
27
20
1.07
--
17.5
9.6
0.2
1.98
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
4
0.02
28
20
1.09
--
17.3
10.0
0.2
2.19
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
4
0.01
29
20
1.11
--
18.1
11.0
0.2
1.91
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
4
0.02
29
20
1.13
--
'
12.4
13.c
C.3
2.2S
SANDY SILT AND SILT
6
5
0.02
30
20
1.15
--
18.3
=9.9
0.7
2.37
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
10
0.04
34
20
1.17
--
19.'_
'3.5
C.9
1.21
SAND
19
18
0.10
33
43
1.19
--
'
19.4
50.4
0.8
1.49
SILTY SAND
14
13
0.08
36
30
1.21
--
19.5
26.5
1.0
3.92
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
12
---
--
---
1.23
1.58
20.1
13.4
0.8
4.35
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
10
9
---
--
---
1.25
1.07
20.4
57.8
0.8
1.35
SILTY SAND
16
14
0.09
37
33
1.28
--
'
20.7
48.9
0.8
1.57
SILTY SAND
14
12
0.07
36
27
1.30
--
21.1
34.1
1.1
3.14
SANDY SILT AND SILT
14
12
0.02
34
20
1.32
--
21.4
11.7
0.5
4.12
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
6
6
---
--
---
1.34
0.64
t
21.7
8.9
0.2
2.13
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
3
0.01
27
20
1.36
--
22.0
10.3
0.2
2.24
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
4
0.01
28
20
1.38
--
22.4
11.6
0.3
2.67
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
5
4
---
--
---
1.40
0.64
22.7
10.8
0.3
2.60
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
5
4
---
--
---
1.42
0.58
'
23.0
31.3
0.6
1.98
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
8
0.05
33
20
1.44
--
23.4
15.2
0.6
4.09
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
8
7
---
--
---
1.46
0.86
23.7
24.6
0.7
2.89
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
8
0.02
32
20
1.48
--
,
24.0
13.1
0.4
2.76
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
6
5
---
--
---
1.50
0.72
24.3
15.4
0.8
4.75
CLAY
16
13
---
--
---
1.52
0.93
24.7
69.9
1.1
1.52.
SILTY SAND
19
15
0.09
37
34
1.54
--
25.0
268.0
1.7
0.63
SAND
37
30
1.63
43
88
1.56
--
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
H
I
P = O N E E R D R = L L 2C N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
EPTH
''C
FS
FR
SOIL 3EF3AVICR TYPE
SPT
050
PHI
;:R
PO
SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
,.
N
N1
MM
DEG
,
TSF
TSF.
25.3
310.2
2.4
0.76
SAND
44
35
1.60
44
93
1.58
--
25.7
255.:;
1.7
0.67
SAND
36
29
1.55
43
85
1.60
--
36.031
.9
2.2
0.70
SAND
43
34
1.66
44
33
1.62
--
26.3
294.4
1.9
0.63
SAND
40
32
1.69
43
=0
1.64
--
26.6
303.1
1.7
C.56
SAND
41
32
i.77
43
'?1
1.67
--
_,.
327.9
2.1
0.63
SAND
44
34
1.75
44
94
1.69
--
_-.
235.E
_..
J.70
SAND
41
32
1.02
.3>0
1.71
--
2-.6
1.7
0.67
SAND
37
28
1.57
42
c4
1.73
--
'S.0
2=7.;;
1.5
0.57
SAND
36
27
1.66
42
33
1.75
--
28.3
245.7
1.4
C.56
SAND
34
26
1.63
42
81
1.77
--
23.6
190.5
1.1
0.58
SAND
28
21
1.47
41
70
1.79
--
28.5
113.3
1.0
0.92
SAND
20
15
0.92
38
47
1.81
29.3
31.2
1..2
3.91
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
15
11
---
--
---
1:83
1.84
29.6
22.5
1.0
4.26
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
12
9
---
--
---
1.85
1.29
29.9
55.2
1.5
2.74
SANDY SILT AND SILT
18
13
0.04
34
21
1.87
--
30.2
16.4
O.i
4.20
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
9
6
---
--
---
1.89
0.91
30.6
47.3
0.6
1.32
SILTY SAND
13
10
0.08
34
20
1.91
--
30.9
227.9
1.4
0.62
SAND
33
23
1.53
41
75
1.93
--
31.3
276.9
1.6
0.58
SAND
38
27
1.69
42
34
1.95
--
31.6
268.0
1.7
0.62
SAND
37
26
1.64
42
82
1.97
--
31.9
242.1
1.9
0.78
SAND
36
25
1.42
41
77
2.00
--
32.3
246.3
2.4
0.99
SAND
39
27
1.25
41
78
2.02
--
_'2.:
153.4
1.2
0.30
SAND
25
17
1 l
39
E7
�.04
--
�2.9
45.;
1.2
2.71
SANDY SILT AND SILT
15
10
0.04
33
20
2.06
--
33.2
30.1
1.2
3.32
CLAYEY 3I7 -T AND SILTY CLAY
14
10
---
--
---
1.08
1.75
33.6
54.5
0.7
1.27
SILTY SAND
15
10
0.09
34
20
2.10
--
33.9
28.0
0.8
2.72
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
7
0.03
30
20
2.12
--
34.2
13.2
0.5
3.63
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
7
4
---
--
---
2.14
0.69
34.5
15.1
0.4
2.66
SANDY SILT AND SILT
6
4
0.01
27
20
2.16
--
34.9
9.6
0.2
2.08
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
3
0.02
25
20
2.18
--
35.2
8.9
0.2
2.13
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
3
0.01
25
20
2.20
--
35.5
11.7
0.3
2.40
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
3
0.01
26
20
2.22
--
35.9
17.3
0.6
3.21
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
8
5
---
--
---
2.24
0.97
36.2
11.7
0.4
3.69
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
6
4
---
--
---
2.26
0.59
36.5
93.0
0.8
0.88
SAND
17
11
0.83
36
35
2.28
--
36.8
212.3
1.2
0.56
SAND
30
19
1.54
40
68
2.30
--
37.2
240.8
1.2
0.48
SAND
33
21
1.69
41
73
2.32
--
37.5
251.8
1.3
0.52
SAND
34
22
1.69
41
75
2.34
--
37.3
253.1
1.3
0.51
SAND
35
22
1.70
41
75
2.36
--
38.2
264.2
1.3
0.51
SAND
36
22
1.73
41
76
2.38
--
38.5
266.7
1.5
0.56
SAND
36
23
1.69
41
77
2.41
--
38.8
237.4
1.5
0.61
SAND
34
21
1.56
40
71
2.43
--
39.1
201.4
1.1
0.55
SAND
29
18
1.51
39
64
2.45
--
P 2 O N E E R D R 2 L L 2 w G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEFTH OC FS TR
FT. TSF. '_'SF.
39.5 148.4 1.1 0.71-
3).2
.713).2 142.2 1.2 0.82
40.1 156.0
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE SPT
D50
PHI DR
PO SU
N N1
`4M
DEG
TSF TSF
SAND 23 14
1.28
38 50
2.47 --
SAND 23 14
1.14
.'.3 =8
2.49 --
wc I w•wioo
t LOCATION PC -5
FILE Y 8
0 TIP RESISTANCE (TAM/ft'Z) 500 0 �CToFPt IDN S a FRICTION RATIO
' 0
I
I
1
u
I (M)
I
I
1
P S O N E E R D R S L L S N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
v -
PROJECT NAME: HIGHLAND SOIL
PROJECT NO. 6574012-0
LOCATION PC -5
DATE 01/03/88
AVERAGE UNIT WEIGHT CF SCIL \PCF)-- 125
DEPTH OC FS
77. TSF. TSF
U.
6.o
' 7.3 176.9 2.3
7.6 157.2 1.7
8.0 144.1 1.6
C.4
13.6
0.1
'
0.z
7.7
0.2
1.1
12.2
0.4
1.4
15.0
0.6
1.7
28.6
0.7
2.1
38.3
0.5
2.4
62.6
0.9
' 7.3 176.9 2.3
7.6 157.2 1.7
8.0 144.1 1.6
2.7
=,0.4
1.2
'
3.1
d8.4
1.3
3.4
110."
1.5
3.7
142.
1:7
4.
75.4
2 1
_.4
_TO.0
2.3
4."
.83.1
2.3
V
174.3
2.2
5.3
180.1
2.3
5.7
131.2
2.5
,.
6.0
6.3
205.4
213.8
3.2
3.2
6.7
205.1
3.2
7.0
189.1
2.9
' 7.3 176.9 2.3
7.6 157.2 1.7
8.0 144.1 1.6
10.6 170.6 Z.2-
10.9
.210.9 184.1'1.0'
FR SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
1.03 SANDY SILT AND SILT
1.03 SANDY SILT AND SILT
2.60 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
3.59 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
4.21 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
2.59 SANDY SILT AND SILT
1.Z6 SILTY SAND
1.41 SILTY SAND
1.36 SAND
1.44 SILTY SAND
1.40 SAND
1.21 SAND
1.17 SAND
1.19 SAND
_. SAND
1.28 SAND
1.29 SAND
1.37 SAND
1.56 SAND
1.51 SAND
1.54 SAND
1.51 SAND
1.30 SAND
1.11 SAND
1.10 SAND
1.07 SAND
0'.93 SAND
0.74 SAND
0.71 SAND
0.74 SAND
1.07 SAND
i.32 SAND
1.29 SAND
0.88 SAND
SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
N N1 MM D£G 1, TSF TSF
2 9 0.03 -- --- 0.01 --
4 13 0.04 -- --- 0.03 --
4 10 --- -- --- 0.05 0.48
6 15 --- -- --- 0.07 0.76
8 19 --- -- --- 0.09 0.93
10 23 0.03 -- --- 0.11 --
11 23 0.07 -- --- 0.13 --
17 35 0.09 -- --- 0.15 --
23 45 0.17 -- --- 0.17 --
23 44 0.10 -- --- 0.19 --
26 47 0.33 -- --- 0.21 --
27 49 0.74 -- --- 0.23 --
32 55 0.90 48 99 0.25 --
35 59 C.93 48 100 0.27 --
34 56 0.83 48 99 0.29 --
23 53 0.7,9 48 D7 0.31 --
34 54 0.79 48 97 0.33 --
35 55 0.72 48 97 0.35 --
41 63 0.63 48 100 0.38 --
42 63 0.69 48 100 0.40 --
41 61 0.64 48 99 0.42 --
38 55 0.62 48 96 0.44 --
33 48 0.78 47 93 0.46 --
28,40 0.90 46 89 0.48 --
26 36 0.86 46 85 0.50 --
25 33 0.84 45 82 0.52 --
23 31 1.00 45 81 0.54 --
23 30 1.24 45 84 0.56 --
24 31 1.28 45 85 0.58 --
26 33 1.27 45 87 0.60 --
30 38 0.98 45 88 0.62 --
32 40 0.73 45 87 0.64 --
32 40 0.77 45 87 0.66 --
30 36 1.19 45 90 0.68 --
8.3
134.0
1.4
'
8.6
134.0
1.3
8.9
145.9
1.1
3.3
151.5
1.1
9.6
164.0
1.2
9.9
172.4
1.8
10.2
168.1
2.2
10.6 170.6 Z.2-
10.9
.210.9 184.1'1.0'
FR SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
1.03 SANDY SILT AND SILT
1.03 SANDY SILT AND SILT
2.60 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
3.59 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
4.21 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
2.59 SANDY SILT AND SILT
1.Z6 SILTY SAND
1.41 SILTY SAND
1.36 SAND
1.44 SILTY SAND
1.40 SAND
1.21 SAND
1.17 SAND
1.19 SAND
_. SAND
1.28 SAND
1.29 SAND
1.37 SAND
1.56 SAND
1.51 SAND
1.54 SAND
1.51 SAND
1.30 SAND
1.11 SAND
1.10 SAND
1.07 SAND
0'.93 SAND
0.74 SAND
0.71 SAND
0.74 SAND
1.07 SAND
i.32 SAND
1.29 SAND
0.88 SAND
SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
N N1 MM D£G 1, TSF TSF
2 9 0.03 -- --- 0.01 --
4 13 0.04 -- --- 0.03 --
4 10 --- -- --- 0.05 0.48
6 15 --- -- --- 0.07 0.76
8 19 --- -- --- 0.09 0.93
10 23 0.03 -- --- 0.11 --
11 23 0.07 -- --- 0.13 --
17 35 0.09 -- --- 0.15 --
23 45 0.17 -- --- 0.17 --
23 44 0.10 -- --- 0.19 --
26 47 0.33 -- --- 0.21 --
27 49 0.74 -- --- 0.23 --
32 55 0.90 48 99 0.25 --
35 59 C.93 48 100 0.27 --
34 56 0.83 48 99 0.29 --
23 53 0.7,9 48 D7 0.31 --
34 54 0.79 48 97 0.33 --
35 55 0.72 48 97 0.35 --
41 63 0.63 48 100 0.38 --
42 63 0.69 48 100 0.40 --
41 61 0.64 48 99 0.42 --
38 55 0.62 48 96 0.44 --
33 48 0.78 47 93 0.46 --
28,40 0.90 46 89 0.48 --
26 36 0.86 46 85 0.50 --
25 33 0.84 45 82 0.52 --
23 31 1.00 45 81 0.54 --
23 30 1.24 45 84 0.56 --
24 31 1.28 45 85 0.58 --
26 33 1.27 45 87 0.60 --
30 38 0.98 45 88 0.62 --
32 40 0.73 45 87 0.64 --
32 40 0.77 45 87 0.66 --
30 36 1.19 45 90 0.68 --
1
P 2 O N E E R D R 2 L L 2 N G
i
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH
�C
FS
FR
`OIL 3EHAV=CR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
N
N1
:SIM
DEG
TSF TSF.
11.2
1; 0 . -1
0.9
7.55
SAND
25
30
1.47
45
86
0.70 --
11.5
166.0
1.0
0.61
SAND
25
29
1.41
45
84
0.72 --
_1.3
142.E
0.8
).55
SAND
21
25
1.43
44
78
0.74 --
12.2
143.`_
0.5
0.43
SAND
20
23
1.55
44
78
0.76 --
i' S
140.3
0.9
O.o-`
SAND
22
25
1.32
43
77
0.78 --
12.9
133.7
1.1
0.69
SAND
24
27
1.31
44
30
0.80 --
13.2
0.9
0.61
SAND
23
25
1.33
43
79
0.82 --
-.-
C.E
0.4`_
SAND
24
:6
1.37
44
2
0.84 --
_._
C.?
.55
SAND
24
25
1.46
43
S0
0.87 --
14.2
163.9
1.3
0.77
SAND
27
28
1.26
44
31
0.89 --
114.5
159.2
2.0
0.98
SA14D
33
35
1.12
44
87
0.91 --
14.8
175.8
2.0
:.14
SAND
31
33
0.92
44
82
0.93 --
15.2
158.8
1.6
1.01
SAND
27
28
1.00
43
77
0.95 --
15.5
152.6
1.0
0.68
SA14D
23
24
1.32
43
75
0.97 --
15.8
133.5
0.9
0.64
SA14D
21
21
1.31
42
70
0.99 --
16.1
114.7
1.3
1.09
SAND
22
22
0.72
41
64
1.01 --
16.5
158.4
1.6
1.00
SAND
27
27
1.01
43
75
1.03 --
16.3
166.6
1.7
0.99
SAND
28
28
1.04
43
77
1.05 --
17.1
146.3
1.6
1.07
SAND
26
26
0.90
42
72
1.07 --
17.5
164.1
1.7
1.02
SAND
28
27
1.01
42
76
1.09 --
17.8
163.3
2.2
1.34
SAND
32
30
0.70
42
75
1.11 --
18.1
225.0
3.7
1.66
SAND
46
44
0.59
44
88
1.13 --
12.4
252.1
2.9
1.09
SAND
42
39
1.20
44
93
1.15 --
18.:'
240.3
1.9
0.78
SA14D
26
33
i.42
44
30
1.17 --
19.1
189.5
1.3
C.68
SAND
2S
26
1.38
43
79
1.19 --
19.4
196.4
1.2
0.62
SAND
29
27
1.45
43
31
1.21 --
19.8
215.0
1.6
0.73
SAND
32
29
1.39
43
84
1.23 --
20.1
221.0
1.5
0.70
SAND
33
29
1.44
43
84
1.25 --
20.4
225.0
1.8
0.80
SAND
34
31
1.36
43
85
1.28 --
20.7
262.6
2.2
0.83
SAND
39
35
1.43
44
91
1.30 --
21.1
230.4
2.0
0.72
SAND
40
35
1.58
44
93
1.32 --
21.4
253.0
1.5
0.60
SAND
35
31
1.62
44
39
1.34 --
21.7
211.5
1.1
0.53
SAND
30
26
1.56
43
81
1.36 --
22.0
157.1
0.8
0.48
SAND
23
19
1.52
41
69
1.38 --
22.4
97.6
0.5
0.51
SAND
15
13
1.34
39
49
1.40 --
22.7
43.6
1.0
2.29
SANDY SILT AND SILT
14
12
0.05
35
21
1.42 --
'
23.0
37.4
0.9
2.49
SANDY SILT AND SILT
13
11
0.04
34
20
1.44 --
23.4
60.5
0.6
1.06
SILTY SAND
16
13
0:10
36
31
1.46 --
23.7
74.1
0.6
0.85
SAND
15
12
0.68
37
37
1.48 --
'
24.0
98.6
0.9
0.94
SAND
18
15
0.80
38
47
1.50 --
24.3
111.5
1.0
0.92
SAND
20
16
0.90
39
51
1.52 --
24.7
139.4
1.4
1.00
SAND
25
20
0.95
40
61
1.54 --
25.0
147.1
1.2
0.78
SAND
24
19
1.20
40
63
1.56 --
n
P = O N E E R max LL 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH �C FS FR SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
FT. TSF. TSF. ., N N1 MM DEG TSF TSF.
25.3
173.;
1.2
0.70
SAND
27
21
1.33
41
69
1.58
'
`_
''
207.4
0.0
0.00
SAND AND GRAVEL
22
17
4.45
42
76
1.60
26.i
-4.5
3.4
7-.64
CLAY
45
35
---
--
---
1.62 2.68
20.3
'-6.60
216.9
_31_.7
3.5
1.5
1.13
0.63
SAND
SAND
37
33
29
26
1.04
1.53
42
42
77
30
1.64 --
1.67 --
27.0
272.7
2.2
0.80
SAND
40
31
1.48
43
87
1.69
27.3
272.7
1.9
.69
SAND
39
30
1.59
42
;6
1.71 --
_7.0
2_3.G
1.1
0.50
SAND
31
24
1.62
42
78
1.73
22.0
207.8
'_
0.55
SAND
30
23
1.54
41
'4
1.75
28.3
::09.4
1.1
0.51
SAND
30
22
1.58
41
74
1.77 --
28.6
207.1
1.'.
0.54
SAND
30
22
1.54
41
73
1.79
28.9
189.3
1.0
0.52
SAND
27
20
1.53
41
69
1.81
23.3
153.6
0.7
0.48
SAND
22
16
1.52
40
60
1.83 --
29.6
187.8
1.1
0.61
SAND
28
20
1.44
40
68
1.85 --
29.9
185.6
1.0
0.52
SAND
27
19
1.52
40
67
1.87
30.2
204.3
1.2
0.58
SAND
30
21
1.50
41
71
1.89
30.6
2_5.9
1.2
0.54
SAND
32
23
1.60
41
75
1.91 --
,�
30.9
219.2
1.2
0.53
SAND
31
22
1.58
41
74
1.93
31.3
209.5
1.3
0.61
SAND
30
22
1.49
41
71
1.95
31.6
188.3
1.4
0.74
SAND
29
20
1.32
40
67
1.97 --
31.9
189.7
1.2
0.62
SAND
28
20
1.44
40
:i7
2.00 --
32.3
204.0
1.1
0.51
SAND
29
20
1.55
40
70
2.02
32.6
211.5
1.1
0.50
SAND
30
21
"_.59
41
71
_-
2.04 -
32.9
_35.4
1.5
0.65
SAND
34
23
1.53
41
75
2.06 --
33.2
?50.n
7.0
0.80
SAND
37
25
1.43
41
7$
2.08
33.6
304.9
1.9
0.61
SAND
41
28
1.73
42
86
2.10 --
33.9
303.0
2.2
0.73
SAND
42
29
1.62
42
85
2.12 --
'
34.2
34.5
293.5
300.5
2.5
2.3
0.86
0.76
SAND
SAND
43
42
29
28
1.48
1.58
42
42
84
84
2.14
2.16
34.9
323.6
3.2
0.99
SAND
48
32
1.42
42
87
2.18 --
35.2
311.4
4.1
1.30
SAND
52
34
1.11
42
85
2.20 --
'
35.5
245.4.2.5
1.01
SAND
39
25
1.23
41
75
2.22
35.9
237.2
2.2
0.94
SAND
37
24
1.27
41
73
2.24
36.2
265.9
1.9
0.71
SAND
38
25
1.55
41
78
2.26 --
36.5
304.3
3.0
0.98
SAND
46
29
1.39
42
83
2.28
36.8
258.5
1.6
0.60
SAND
36
23
1.63
41
76
2.30
37.2
275.8
1.4
0.50
SAND
37
23
1.76
41
79
2.32 --
37.5
274.0
1.2
0.42
SAND
36
23
1.82
41
79
2.34
37.8
276.8
1.5
0.54
SAND
37
23
1.72
41
79
2.36
38.2
269.8
1.6
0.60
SAND
37
23
1.65
41
77
2.38 --
38.5
228.2
1.5
0.66
SAND
33
20
1.50
40
70
2.41 --
38.8
252.3
1.3
0.53
SAND
35
21
1.68
41
74
2.43
39.1
227.8
1.1
0.49
SAND
32
19
1.65
40
69
2.45
P = O N E E R D R = L L Z N G
DEPTH ZC FS FR
FT. TSF. TSF.
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT 050 PHI DR PO SU
N N1 MM DEG TSF TSF
19.5 223.E =.1 0.51 SAND 31 19 1.62 40 06 2.47 --
29.3 219.3
LOCATION P[-9 • VV
FILE M 9
O
I
I
DUTN
I
I
7
P 2 O N E E R D R 2 L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
PRCJECT NAME: HIGHLAND SOIL
FROJECT NO. 6574012-0
LOCATION PC -6
DATE 01/03/88
AVERAGE UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL (PCF)-- 125
DEPTH
QC
FS
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO SU
'T.
73F.
T-zF.
N
N1
MM
DEG
TSF TSF
9.4
0.0
0.42
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
3
11
0.04
--
---
0.01 --
0.4
0.8
=3.0
16.2
0.2
0.1
0.78
0.49
SILTY SAND
SILTY SAND
1
5
19
12
0.07
0.07
-_
-
-
-
0.03 =_
0.05
1.1
39.8
0.1
0.40
SILTY SAND
8
20
0.09
-
-
0.07
1.4
77.4
0.3
0.40
SA14D
12
27
1.40
--
---
0.09 --
1.7
73.4
0.3
0.42
SAND
11
25
1.34-_
0.11
2.1
71.4
0.3
0.45
SAND
11
24
1.28
-
__-
-
0.13
2.4
69.3
0.4
0.51
SAND
11
23
1.17
--
---
0.15 --
�,
2.7
3.1
69.8
70.6
0.4
0.4
0.50
0.50
SAND
SAND
11
11
22
22
1.18
1.20
--
-_
---
-
0.17 --
0.19
3.4
113.1
1.0
0.86
SAND
20
36
0.99
-
-
0.21
3.7
145.4
1.2
0.81
SAND
24
42
1.16
--
---
0.23 --
4.0
155.8
1.5
0.88
SAND
27
47
1.15
48
97
0.25
4.4
175.1
1.8
1.02
SAND
30
51
1.04
48
98
0.27
4.;
178.:
2.0
i.10
SAND
31
52
0.97
48
98
0.29 --
5.0
165.2
1.9
1.14
SAND
30
49
0.89
48
95
0.31
5.3
156.3
1.7
1.10
SAND
28
45
0.91
48
93
0.33
5.7
181.0
1.9
1.06
SAND
31
49
1.01
48
97
0.35 --
6.0
163.5
1.8
1.11
SAND
29
45
0.92
48
93
0.38
6.3
135.3
1.5
1.13
SAND
25
38
0.79
46
86
0.40 =_
6.7
117.8
1.1
0.94
SAND
21
31
0.91
46
80
0.42
7.0
99.8
0.8
0.78
SAND
17
25
1.01
44
75
0.44 --
7.3
115.0
0.8
0.72
SAND
19
27
1.16
45
78
0.46
7.6
139.3
1.1
0.78
SAND
23
32
1.17
46
84
0.48
8.0
132.5
1.1
0.86
SAND
22
31
1.07
45
82
0.50 --
8.3
8.6
62.7
27.8
1.0
0.8
1.52
2.84
SILTY SAND
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
17
11
23
14
0.08
0.02
41
37
58
34
0.52 ==
0.54
8.9
47.6
0.8
1.77
SILTY SAND
14
18
0.07
40
48
0.56
9.3
58.3
1.6
2.68
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
19
24
0.04
40
54
0.58 --
9.6
51.9
1.8
3.37
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
20
26
0.02
40
49
0.60
9.9
57.1
1.0
1.80
SILTY SAND
16
21
0.07
40
51
=_
0.62
10.2
53.0
0.8
1.51
SILTY SAND
15
18
0.08
39
48
0.64 --
`'
10.6
10.9
39.4
29.3
1.2
1.1
2.92
3.72
SANDY SILT AND SILT
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
14
14
18
16
0.03
---
38
--
39
---
0.66
0.68 1.79
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L = N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
I
DEPTH
�C
FS
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR.
PO
SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
N
N1
MM
DEG
°;
TSF
TSF.
11.2
45.6
1.0
-.26
SILTY SAND
14
17
0.05
33
42
0.70
--
11.5
51.6
1.1
2.21
SILTY SAND
16
18
0.06
39
45
0.72
--
1.9
- .5
'0
i.0
1.32
SILTY SAND
20
24
0.10
41
57
0.74
--
1:..2
1_41.1
1.5
1.08
SAND
26
29
0.86
43
77
0.76
--
12.5
198.,
1.1
0.56
SAND
29
33
1.50
45
90
0.78
--
12.9
103.3
0.7
0.69
SAND
17
19
1.15
42
66
0.80
--
-
7.5
1.._
2.35
SILTY SAND
1`-
16
0.05
38
39
0.82
--
12.32.39
SANDY SILT A14D SILT
12
14
0.04
_6
"2
0.84
--
13.3
_i.:
0.7
3.10
SANDY SILT AND 3ILT
9
10
0.01
33
20
0.87
--
14.2
35.9
1.1
2.98
SANDY SILT AND SILT
14
14
0.03
36
29
0.89
--
14._
33.9
1.3
3,33
.CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
16
17
---
--
---
0.91
2.06
14.8
35.3
1.3
3.68
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
16
17
---
--
---
0.93
2.15
15.2
28.7
1.0
3.59
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
13
---
--
---
0.95
1.73
15.5
29.6
1.1
3.61
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
14
---
--
---
0.97
1.79
;5.8
27.1
1.1
3.87
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
13
---
--
---
0.99
1.63
16.1
16.2
0.6
3.72
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
8
8
---
--
---
1.01
0.95
--i 6-. 5a25,.�9-1,.,0=-3:.-6.7-2MAYEY=SILT=A14D-S-11
TY- CLAY
-1=2=�2-----------=I
03'=1
16.8
87.6
1.2
1.41
SILTY SAND
23
23
0.10
40
53
1.05
--
17.1
152.2
1.8
1.19
SAND
28
28
0.80
42
73
1.07
--
17.5
223.0
2.2
0.99
SAND
36
35
1.18
44
38
1.09
--
17.8
174.0
2.3
1.32
SAND
33
32
0.75
43
78
1.11
--
18.1
136.4
2.6
1.92
SILTY SAND
36
34
0.09
41
68
1.13
--
18.4
126.4
1.-
-.20
SAND
25
23
0.67
41
05
1.15
--
13.8
S2.'-
1.6
2.49
SILTY SAND
19
1S
0.05
37
38
1.17
--
19.1
J4.5
1.4
3.92
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLA7
;6
'_
---
--
---
1.19
2.08
19.4
31.2
0.9
2.82
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
11
0.03
34
20
1.21
--
19.5
16.2
0.7
4.25
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
9
8
---
--
---
1.23
0.94
20.1
14.3
0.3
2.31
SANDY SILT AND SILT
6
5
0.02
30
20
1.25
--
20.4
15.0
0.4
2.61
SANDY SILT AND SILT
6
6
0.01
30
20
1.28
--
20.7
12.2
0.3
2.38
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
5
0.01
29
20
1.30
--
21.1
10.8
0.2
2.04
SANDY SILT AND SILT
4
4
0.02
28
20
1.32
--
21.4
10.8
0.3
2.42
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
4
0.01
28
20
1.34
--
'
21.7
10.8
0.3
2.31
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
4
0.01
28
20
1.36
--
22.0
16.9
0.5
2.96
SANDY SILT AND SILT
7
6
0.01
30
20
1.38
--
22.4
16.2
0.6
3.45
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
8
7
---
--
---
1.40
0.93
22.7
38.6
1.2
3.14
SANDY SILT AND SILT
15
13
0.02
34
20
1.42
--
23.0
38.3
1.5
1.66
SILTY SAND
24
20
0.09
38
44
1.44
--
23.4
187.6
1.6
0.86
SAND
30
25
1.21
42
74
1.46
--
23.7
239.5
2.2
0.93
SAND
37
31
1.28
43
84
1.48
--
24.0
268.3
2.5
0.94
SAND
41
34
1.35
43
39
1.50
--
24.3
240.7
1.9
0.80
SAND
36
29
1.41
43
84
1.52
--
24.7
220.9
1.3
0.60
SAND
32
26
1.53
42
80
1.54
--
25.0
253.5
1.4
0.56
SAND
35
28
1.65
43
85
1.56
--
P = O N E E R max LL 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH 2C FS FR SOIL BEHAVICR TYPE SPT D50 PHI OR PO SU
FT TSF. TSF. N N1 MM DEG % TSF TSF.
I
=5 :3
'S
=47.4
=28.1
1:4
'
0.58
0.56
SAND
SAND
35_8
1.62
43
00^4
1.58
32
26
1.58
42
80
1.60
26.0
206.?
1.2
0.59
SAND
30
24
1.50
42
76
1.62 --
26.3
210.1
1.1-
0.53
SAND
30
23
1.56
42
76
1.64
-6.6
209.9
1.0
C.48
SAND
29
23
1.60
42
76
1.67 --
27.0
219.0_
1.1
0.51
SAND
31
24
1.60
42
7,7
1.69 --
27.3
:34.7
1.4
:.59
SAND
33
26
1.58
42
80
1.71 --
'
:'
:23.4
1.4
3.58
SAND
34
26
1.60
42
°1
1.73
23.6
133.7
1.2
0.50
SAND
29
22
1.47
41
72
1.75 --
28.3
74.7
2.0
2.69
SANDY SILT AND SILT
23
17
0.05
36
33
1.77 --
28.6
35.2
1.7
4.83
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
19
14
---
--
---
1.79 2.09
28.9
118.8
2.1
1.79
SILTY SAND
32
24
0.10
38
49
1.81
29.3
229.8
1.2
0.51
SAND
32
24
1.63
42
77
1.83 --
29.6
167.3
2.0
1.19
SAND
31
22
0.85
40
63
1.85
29.9
313.7
1.9
0.61
SAND
42
31
1.74
43
90
1.87 --
30.2
295.6
1.6
0.55
SAND
40
29
1.76
43
87
1.89 --
30.6
305.3
1.5
0.48
SAND
40
29
1.84
43
89
1.91 --
30.9
326.9
1.9
0.58
SAND
43
31
1.80
43
91
1.93
31.3
330.4
1.9
0.59
SAND
44
31
1.80
43
91
1.95
31.6
330.9
2.0
0.60
SAND
44
31
1.79
43
91
1.97 --
21.9
32.3
343.0
338.3
2.5
2.6
0.71
0.76
SAND
SAND
47
47
33
33
1.71
1.65
43
43
92
92
2.00
2.02
2.0
-88.6
:.0
0.68
SAND
40
28
1.63
42
84
2.04 --
32 0
=73.3
1.8
0.66
SAND
38
26
1.61
42
82
2.06 -
33.2
264.2
1.8
0.59
SAND
38
26
1.56
42
80
G.Oa
33,6
268.5
1.8
0.69
SAND
38
26
1.58
42
81
2.10 --
33.9
264.2
1.4
0.54
SAND
36
24
1.70
42
80
2.12 --
'
34.2
34.5
231.8
202.3
1.1
0.9
0.49
0.44
SAND=_
SAND
32
28
21
1.66
41
73
2.14
19
1.61
40
67
2.16
34.9
175.0
0.7
0.41
SAND
24
16
1.62
39
61
2.18 --
35.2
238.0
1.0
0.42
SAND
32
21
1.74
41
74
2.20
'
35.5
365.2
6.0
1.64
SAND
65
43
0.91
43
92
2.22
35.9
301.5
2.8
0.94
SAND
45
29
1.42
42
84
2.24
36.2
266.5
1.7
0.64
SAND
37
24
1.61
41
78
2.26 --
36.5
275.3
2.4
0.85
SAND
41
26
1.44
41
80
2.28
36.8
252.4
1.7
0.68
SAND
36
23
1.54
41
75
2.30
37.2
251.0
1.2
0.48
SAND
34
22
1.7,1
41
75
2.32 --
37.5
252.5
I
I
WTN
W.
LOCATION a PC -7 '
FILE • c IO
LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATIO
u iar nwulAnct
"On/ft-Z7
600 O (Tom/ft-2)
S O (PERCENT) B
I
i
10
I
I
I
P = O N E E R D R = L L = N G
' INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
I.
1
I
0
I
1
I
C
I
?ROJECT :LAME. HIGHLAND SOIL
PROJECT NO. 6574012-0
LOCATION PC -7
DATE 01/03/88
.OVERAGE UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL (PCF)-- 125
DEPTH
QC
FS
,T.
TSF.
TSF.
0.1
2.6
0.1
0.4
30.1
0.0
0.3
31.2
0.1
1.1
100.6
0.1
1.4
144.0
0.4
1.7
129.8
0.4
2.i
112.8
0.1
2.4
123.3
0.0
2.7
153.8
0.1
3.1
165.8
0.5
3.4
169.4
0.3
3.7
168.9
0.8
4.0
182.5
0.8
4.4
183.2
0.9
4.7,
169.9
0.3
5.0
150.9
0.7
5.3
153.1
0.7
5.7
156.3
0.8
6.0
125.4
0.7
6.3
89.7
0.4
6.7
87.0
0.4
7.0
80.4
0.4
7.3
82.7
0.4
7.6
101.0
0.5
3.0
101.2
0.6
8.3
101.9
0.7
3.6
100.1
1.5
8.9
83.3
2.3
9.3
71.3
3.1
9.6
69.3
2.4
9.9
90.8
3.3
10.2
84.2
3.6
10.6
81.5
3.3
10.9
77.4
3.1
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO
SU
°.;
N
N1
MM
LEG
TSF
TSF
2.27
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
1
5
---
--
---
0.01
0.16
0.13
SILTY SAND
8
24
0.10
--
---
0.03
--
0.38
SILTY SAND
8
22
0.09
--
---
0.05
--
0.11
SAND
13
32
1.86
--
---
0.07
--
0.27
SAND
20
45
1.72
--
---
0.09
--
0.27
SAND
18
39
1.71
--
---
0.11
--
0.10
SAND
15
31
1.88.--
---
0.13
--
0.03
SAND
16
33
1.97
--
---
0.15
--
0.08
SAND
20
39
1.92
--
---
0.17
--
0.28
SAND
22
43
1.73
--
---
0.19
--
0.47
SAND
24
45
1.55
--
---
0.21
--
0.48
SAND
24
43
1.54
--
---
0.23
--
0.46
SAND
26
45
1.57
48
100
0.25
--
0.46
SAND
26
44
1.57
48
99
0.27
--
0.49
SAND
24
41
1.53
48
96
0.29
--
0.46
SAND
22
35
1.53
48
92
0.31
--
0.44
SAND
22
35
1.56
48
92
0.33
--
0.50
SAND
23
35
1.50
48
92
0.35
--
0.54
SAND
19
29
1.40
46
34
0.38
--
0.45
SAND
13
20
1.40
44
73
0.40
--
0.47
SAND
13
20
1.35
44
72
0.42
--
0.46
SAND
12
18
1.33
43
69
0.44
--
0.42
SAND
12
18
1.39
43
69
0.46
--
0.51
SAND
15
21
1.36
44
74
0.48
--
0.56
SAND
16
22
1.29
44
74
0.50
--
0.64
SAND
16
22
1.20
44
73
0.52
--
1.53
SILTY SAND
26
35
0.10
43
72
0.54
--
3.40
SANDY SILT AND SILT
30
39
0.03
42
66
0.56
--
4.35
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
33
43
---
--
---
0.58
4.42
3.52
SANDY SILT AND SILT
26
34
0.03
41
59
0.60
--
3.65
SANDY SILT AND SILT
34
43
0.03
42
67
0.62
--
4.30
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
38
47
---
--
---
0.64
5.23
4.08
SANDY SILT AND SILT
35
43
0.01
41
62
0.66
--
4.03
SANDY SILT AND SILT
33
40
0.01
41
60
0.68
--
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L 2 N G '
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
I
DEPTH
FT.
QC
TSF.
FS
:'SF.
FR
0.
SOIL FEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
N N1
D50
MM
PHI
DEG
DR
PO
TSF
SU
TSF.
,
11.2
74.0
3.0
4.11
SANDY SILT AND SILT
33
39
O.CI
41
57
0.70
--
11.5
93.3
3.7
3.90
SANDY SILT AND SILT
37
44
0.02
42
65
0.72
--
11.9
130.1
4.2
4.18
SANDY SILT AND SILT
43
50
0.01
42
66
0.74
--
12.2
97.3
4.0
4.08
SANDY SILT AND SILT
41
47
0.02
42
65
0.76
--
2.5
82.9
3.7
4.51
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
39
44
---
--
---
0.78
5.13
,
12.9
101.5
3.2
3.14
SANDY SILT AND SILT
33
37
0.04
42
65
0..80
--
_'
109.42.6
2.37
SILTY SAND
31
35
0.07
42
67
0.82
--
_3.:
_13.-
1.6
1.23
SAND
'-6
Z9
0.41
4Z
70
0.34
--
-3.8
104.0
2.6
2.50
SILTY SAND
30
33
0.07
41
54
0.87
--
14.2
62.4
3.0
4.81
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
32
34
---
--
---
0.89
3.84
14.5
67.9
2.9
4.33
=LAYE': SILT AND SILTY CLAY
32
33
---
--
---
0.91
4.19
14.8
35.7
Z.6
4.58
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
28
29
---
--
---
0.93
3.42
15.2
59.7
2.4
4.07
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
Z7
28
---
--
---
0.95
3.67
15.5
63.8
2.9
4.50
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
31
31
---
--
---
0.97
3.93
15.8
75.4
3.0
4.02
SANDY SILT AND SILT
32
33
0.01
39
49
0.99
--
16.1
64.5
2.9
4.47
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
31
31
---
--
---
1.01
3.97
--16:..5-55:.=6-2..:6=4:,=59-CLAYEY-SZ=LT=--AND=SILTY-CLAY=2827===---=
--==1:03-3
4'lc-
16.8
52.5
2.2
4.23
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
25
24
---
--
---
1.05
3.21
17.1
63.8
2.4
3.79
SANDY SILT AND SILT
26
Z6
0.02
38
41
1.07
--
17.5
X62.5
2.7
4.35
CLAYEY SILT'AND SILTY CLAY
29
28
---
--
---
1.09
3.84
17.8
47.5
2.3
4.90
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
25
24
---
--
---
1.11
2.90
18.1
35.3
1.3
3.71
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
16
15
---
--
---
1.13
2.14
18.4
33.8
"..2
3.67
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
15
14
---
--
---
1.15
2.04
18.8
74.7
1.2
1.55
SILTY SAND
20
19
0.09
38
44
1.17
--
19.1
89.9
0.9
1.03
SAND
i8
11
0.60
=7
-U
1.1
--
'
19.4
88.3
0.9
1.04
SAND
18
17
0.57
39
49
1.21
--
19.8
65.2
1.1
1.66
SILTY SAND
18
17
0.08
37
38
1.23
--
20.1
63.0
2.2
3.56
SANDY SILT AND SILT
25
22
0.02
37
36
1.25
--
20.4
36.6
1.8
4.95
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
20
18
---
--
---
1.28
2.20
20.7
37.4
1.4
3.61
SANDY SILT AND SILT
16
15
0.01
34
20
1.30
--
21.1
46.8
1.5
3.18
SANDY SILT AND SILT
18
15
0.03
35
25
1.32
--
21.4
40.7
1.3
3.19
SANDY SILT AND SILT
16
14
0.02
35
Z1
1.34
--
21.7
54.3
0.9
1.73
SILTY SAND
16
13
0.07
36
30
1.36
--
22.0
52.7
0.7
1.37
SILTY SAND
15
13
0.08
36
28
1.38
--
22.4
38.0
1.4
3.58
SANDY SILT AND SILT
17
14
0.01
34
20
1.40
--
22.7
21.Z
1.0
4.53
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
12
10
---
--
---
1.42
1.23
23.0
14.7
0.6
4.28
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
8
7
---
--
---
1.44
0.83
23.4
13.5
0.4
3.25
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
6
5
---
--
---
1.46
0.75
23.7
24.4
1.0
3.89
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
12
10
---
--
---
1.48
1.43
24.0
33.9
1.6
4.81
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
19
15
---
--
---
1.50
2.03
24.3
41.8
1.3
3.11
SANDY SILT AND SILT
16
13
0.03
34
20
1.52
--
24.7
44.9
1.6
3.45
SANDY SILT AND SILT
18
15
0.02
34
20
1.54
--
25.0
20.3
0.9
4.48
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
11
9
---
--
---
1.56
1.17
P = O N E E R D R Z L L = N G
DEPTH KC FS FR
' FT. TSF. TSF.
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
N N1 MM DEG TSF TSF.
25.3
28.1
1.0
3 \41
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
10
0_01
32
1.58
--
'
25.?
18.7
0.8
4.11
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
10
8
-20
-
1.60
1.07
26.0
11.5
0.5
3.99
CLAYEY SILT AND 'SILTY CLAY
6
5
---
--
---
1.62
0.62
26.3
21.7
0.8
3.55
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
10
8
---
--
---
1.64
1.25
26.6
30.9
1.2
3.82
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
14
11
---
--
---
1.67
1_83
27.0
29.1
C.7
2.34
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
8
0.04
32
20
1.69
27.L
91.0
2.2
2.42
SILTY SAND
27
20
0.07
37
41
1.71
--
2?.6
26?.:
3.Y
i.23
SAND
46
25
1.04
43
35
1.73
'
28.0
311.7
3.1
0.99
SAND
47
35
1.40
43
91
1.75
=_
28.3
312.7
3.3
1.05
SAND
48
36
1.35
43
91
1.77
--
28.6
28.9
329.0
314.0
3.6
3.1
1.09
0.99
SAND
SAND
50
47
38
35
1.34
1.40
43
43
93
91
1.79
1.81
=_
29.3
179.5
3.3
1.86
SAND
43
32
0.26
40
67
1.83
29.6
92.4
2.3
2.53
SILTY SAND
27
20
0.06
37
40
1.85
--
29.9
86.4
2.6
3.05
SANDY,SILT AND SILT
28
20
0.04
37
37
1.87
30.2
54.7
2.1
3.80
SANDY SILT AND SILT
23
17
0.01
34
21
1.89
30.5
121.0
3.4
2.84
SILTY SAND
36
26
0.06
38
48
1.91
--
30.9
44.8
1.9
4.15
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
21
15
---
--
---
1.93
2_68
31.3
27.1
0.6
2.10
SANDY SILT AND SILT
9
6
0.04
31
20
1.95
31.E
21.7
0.0-
2.72
SANDY SILT AND SILT
9
6
0.02
30
20
1.97
--
31.9
59.9
2.2
3.09
SANDY SILT AND SILT
24
17
0.04
35
28
2.00
--
22.3
30.5
0.9
2.98
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
8
0.02
31
20
2.02
32.6
70.1
'I.=-
3.51
SANDY SILT AND SILT
26
18
0.03
35
27
2.04
32.^-
:18.2
2.1
1.78
SILTY SAND
32
22
0.10
3S
46
2.06
--
33.2
122.3
7.9
2.35
CTT MV SAND
35
24
0.08
_3
47
2.08
--
'
33.6
51.6
2.4
4.57
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
26
17
---
2.10
3.09
33.9
47.7
1.4
2.98
SANDY SILT AND SILT
17
11
0.03
33
20
2.12
--
34,-'
34.5
28.9
21.7
1.0
1.1
3.46
5.03
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
CLAY
13
22
9
14
___
__
__-
-
2.14
2.16
167
1.22
34.9
32.6
1.0
2.97
SANDY SILT AND SILT
13
8
0.02
31
20
2.18
35.2
33.9
0.5,,
1.39
SILTY SAND
10
6
0.07
31
20
2.20
--
35.5
28.5
0.4
1.37
SILTY SAND
8
6
0.06
30
20
2.22
35.9
57.7,
1.5
2.55
SANDY SILT AND SILT
18
12
0.05
34
20
2.24
36.2
84.0
3.4
3.99
SANDY SILT AND SILT
35
23
0.02
36
31
2.26
--
36.5
67.7
3.3
4.89
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
35
22
---
--
---
2.28
4_09
36.8
42.2
1.3
3.13
SANDY SILT AND SILT
16
10
0.03
32
20
2.30
37.2
29.8
0.2
0.77
SILTY SAND
8
5
0.08
30
20
2.32
--
37.5
39.4
0.5
1.19
SILTY SAND
11
7
0.08
32
20
2.34
--
'
37.3
50.2
1.1
2.13
SILTY SAND
15
9
0.06
33
20
2.36
38.2
53.0
0.9
1.72
SILTY SAND
15
9
0.07
33
20
2.38
38.5
39.4
0.5
1.35
SILTY SAND
11
7
0.07
32
20
2.41
--
38.6
76.0
1.9
2.45
SILTY SAND
23
14
0_06
35
26
2.43
--
39.1
79.5
3.8
4.83
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
40
24
---
2.45
4.81
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH QC FS FR SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
FT. TSF. TSF.I N N1 MM DEG 06 TSF TSF
39.5 63.2 2.4 3.85 SANDY SILT AND SILT 27 16 0.01 34 20 2.47 --
39.3 35.9 1.5 4.15 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY 17 10 --- -- --- 2.49 2.09
40.1 52.3 2.8 3.35 SANDY SILT AND SILT 29 19 0.03 35 28 2.51 --
TIP
IE
DEPTH
(m)
URIC t U41U.1.0
LOCATION PC -8
FILE M 11
LOCAL FRICTION
FRICTION RATIO
(PERCENT) B
I
I
L:
r
I
I
I
P = O N E E R D R S L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
PROJECT NAME: HIGHLAND SOIL
PROJECT NO. 6574012-0
LOCATION PC -8
DATE 01/03/88
AVERAGE UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL (PCF)-- 125
DEPTH QC FS
FT. TSF. TSF,
0.1 1.4 0.0
0.4 4.8 0.0
0.8 9.5 0.0
1.1 8.6 0.0
1.4 10.9 0.0
1.7 28.1 0.1
2.1 155.7 0.1
2.4 239.3 0.7
2.7 279.7 2.0
3.1 285.6 2.1
3.4 295.2 2.9
3.7 270.9 2.6
4.0 241.2 2.1
4.4 229.8 2.1
4.7 221.3 1.7
5.0 198.6 1.4
5.3 180.4 1.2
5.7 156.5 1.0
6.0 142.8 1.0
6.3 125.5 0.8
6.7 92.5 0.6
7.0 83.0 0.5
7.3 76.2 0.5
7.6 62.8 0.4
8.0 84.4 0.6
8.3 91.6 0.8
8.6 91.3 0.7
8.9 93.2 0.8
9.3 101.9 0.7
9.6 84.2 1.0
9.9 59.8 2.1
10.2 55.8 2.2
10.6 54.4 2.1
10.9 58.5 2.3
FR SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
0.74 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
0.42
SANDY
SILT
AND
SILT
0.11
SILTY SAND
0.23
SANDY
SILT
AND
SILT
0.37
SANDY
SILT
AND
SILT
0.29
SILTY SAND
0.04
SAND
0.29
SAND
0.70
SAND
0.75
SAND
0.97
SAND
0.95
SAND
0.86
SAND
0.91
SAND
0.77
SAND
0.72
SAND
0.65
SAND
0.65
SAND
0.67
SAND
0.64
SAND
0.63
SAND
0.60
SAND
0.64
SAND
0.60
SAND
0.72
SAND
0.85
SAND
0.81
SAND
0.80
SAND
0.67
SAND
1.13
SAND
3.51
SANDY
SILT
AND
SILT
3.89
SANDY
SILT
AND
SILT
3.92
SANDY
SILT
AND
SILT
3.95
SANDY
SILT
AND
SILT
SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
N N1 MM DEG TSF TSF
1 3 --- -- --- 0.01 0.08
2 5 0.04 -- --- 0.03 --
3 8 0.05 -- --- 0.05 --
3 7 0.05 -- --- 0.07 --
3 8 0.05 -- --- 0.09 --
8 17 0.09 -- --- 0.11 --
20 42 1.96 -- --- 0.13 --
31 63 1.85 -- --- 0.15 --
39 77 1.59 -- --- 0.17 --
41 77 1.56 -- --- 0.19 --
44 82 1.38 -- --- 0.21 --
41 74 1.34 -- --- 0.23 --
37 64 1.35 48 100 0.25 --
36 61 1.27 48 100 0.27 --
33 56 1.38 48 100 0.29 --
30 49 1.36 48 100 0.31 --
27 43 1.39 48 97 0.33 --
24 37 1.35 48 92 0.35 --
22 34 1.31 47 89 0.38 --
20 29 1.29 46 83 0.40 --
15 22 1.17 44 73 0.42 --
14 20 1.14 44 70 0.44 --
13 19 1.02 43 66 0.46 --
11 16 0.90 42 60 0.48 --
15 20 0.98 43 68 0.50 --
17 23 0.86 43 70 0.52 --
16 22 0.91 43 70 0.54 --
17 22 0.94 43 70 0.56 --
17 21 1.16 43 72 0.58 --
19 24 0.41 42 65 0.60 --
23 29 0.02 40 53 0.62 --
24 30 0.01 40 50 0.64 --
24 30 0.01 39 49 0.66 --
26 31 0.01 40 50 0.68 --
P =
O
N
E E R D R Z
T.
L
S
N
G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION
TEST DATA
DEPTH
7C
?S
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO
SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
%
N
N1
MM
DEG
o
TSF
TSF.
,
11.2
59.8
2.5
4.16
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
27
33
---
--
---
0.70
3.70
11.5
61.3
2.5
4.10
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
28
33
---
--
---
0.72
3.79
'
11.9
58.4
2.5
4.22
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
27
31
---
--
---
0.74
3.60
12.2
59.7
2.6
4.34
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
28
32
---
--
---
0.76
3.68
12.5
62.0
2.0
3.29
SANDY SILT AND SILT
23
26
0.03
39
49
0.78
--
12.9
32.6
1.3
4.07
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
16
18
---
--
---
0.80
1.99
13.2
47.4
1.3
2.68
SANDY SILT AND SILT
16
17
0.04
38
39
0.82
--
13.`_
`.1.6
1.6
3.08
SANDY SILT AND SILT
19
20
0.03
38
41
0.84
--
t
13.8
32.6
1.1
3.25
SANDY SILT AND SILT
13
14
0.02
36
26
0.87
--
14.2
47.6
1.5
3.11
SANDY SILT AND SILT
17
19
0.03
37
37
0.89
--
14.5
33.9
1.3
3.75
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
15
16
---
--
---
0.91
2.06
14.3
24.3
0.6
2.35
SANDY SILT AND SILT
9
9
0.03
34
20
0.93
--
15.2
29.7
1.1
3.64
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
14
14
---
--
---
0.95
1.80
15.5
77.5
1.2
1.59
SILTY SAND
21
21
0.09
39
51
0.97
--
15.8
114.2
1.4
1.24
BAND
24
24
0.54
41
65
0.99
--
,
16.1
72.8
2.4
3.31
SANDY SILT AND SILT
26
26
0.03
39
47
1.01
--
16.5
44.9
1.5
3.38
SANDY SILT AND SILT
18
18
0.02
36
31
1.03
--
16.8
29.9
0.9
3.07
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
12
0.02
34
20
1.05
--
17.1
26.6
0.7
2.63
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
10
0.03
34
20
1.07
--
,
17.5
31.1
1.0
3.25
SANDY SILT AND SILT
13
12
0.02
34
20
1.09
--
17.3
18.1
32.0
28.6
1.2
1.0
3.81
3.64
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
15
13
14
12
---
---
--
--
---
---
1.11
1.13
1.93
1.71
,
13.4
27.2
1.1
3.86
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
12
.---
--
---
1.15
1.63
18.3
31.3
1.3
4.25
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
16
15
---
--
---
1.17
1.88
19.1
30.0
1.3
4.40
CLAYEY SILT AP:D SILTY CLAY
15
14
---
--
---
1.19
1.80
19.4
25.0
0.9
3.48
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
11
10
---
--
---
1.21
1.49
19.8
23.1
0.9
3.72
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
11
10
---
--
---
1.23
1.37
20.1
25.2
1.1
4.29
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
12
---
--
---
1.25
1.50
20.4
27.2
1.4
5.07
CLAY
27
24
---
--
---
1.28
1.62
20.7
49.0
2.2
4.51
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
24
22
---
--
---
1.30
2.98
21.1
87.5
2.6
2.91
SANDY SILT AND SILT
27
24
0.05
38
46
1.32
--
21.4
53.0
2.5
4.79
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
27
24
---
--
---
1.34
3.23
21.7
77.4
3.0
3.81
SANDY SILT AND SILT
31
27
0.02
38
41
1.36
--
22.0
67.2
3.0
4.48
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
32
28
---
--
---
1.38
4.11
22.4
57.1
1.6
2.77
SANDY SILT AND SILT
19
16
0.04
36
30
1.40
--
22.7
49.0
1.2
2.35
SANDY SILT AND SILT
15
13
0.05
35
25
1.42
--
'
23.0
42.8
1.4
3.27
SANDY SILT AND SILT
17
14
0.02
34
20
1.44
--
23.4
34.0
1.1
3.24
SANDY SILT AND SILT
14
12
0.02
33
20
1.46
--
23.7
31.3
0.9
2.78
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
10
0.03
33
20
1.48
--
'
24.0
32.0
0.9
2.84
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
10
0.03
33
20
1.50
--
24.3
34.0
1.0
2.79
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
10
0.03
33
20
1.52
--
24.7
97.9
2.7
2.74
SILTY SAND
30
24
0.06
38
46
1.54
--
25.0
138.2
3.8
2.76
SILTY SAND
41
33
0.06
40
60
1.56
--
'
P = O N E E R D R = L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH QC FS FR SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
FT. TSF. TSF. % N N1 MM DEG 0 TSF TSF.
25.3
440.6
4.0
0.91
25.7
484.1
5.2
1.07
26.0
485.5
5.8
1.19
-6.3
559.5
3.6
0.64
26.6
418.6
5.7
1.36
27.0
482.7
7.8
1.62
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND AND GRAVEL
SAND
SAND
60 48 1.68 45 100 1.58 --
68 54 1.58 46 100 1.60 --
71 56 1.47 46 100 1.62
68 54 2.28 46 100 1.64 --
66 52 1.24 45 100 1.67 --
81 63 1.07 46 100 1.69 --
unit � wiuoi ou
LOCATION PC -9
FILE N 12
LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATIO
❑ TIP RESISTANCE (Ton/ft-2) 50D 0 (Ton/ft-2) 5 0 (PERCENT) e
£H�
1
11
I
i
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L S N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
'
FROJECT
NAME:
HIGHLAND SOIL
PRCJECT
NO.
6574012-0
LOCATION
PC -9
DATE
01/03/88
AVERAGE UNIT WEIGHT OF
SOIL (PCF)-- 125
DEPTH
QC
FS
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
?HI
DR
PO SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
%
N
N1
MM
DEG
TSF TSF
0.1
6.8
0.0
0.15
SANDY SILT AND SILT
2
8
0.05
--
---
0.01 --
0.4
0.8
44.9
53.3
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.08
SAND
SAND
6
7
17
19
1.93
1.83
-_
-
-
-
0.03 =_
0.05
1.1
65.3
0.1
0.08
SAND
8
21
1.87
--
---
0.07
1.4
78.9
0.0
0.03
SAND
10
23
1.96
--
---
0.09 --
1.7
112.9
0.0
0.01
SAND
14
31
1.99
-_
-
0.11
2.1
144.8
0.2
0.15
SAND
19
40
1.84
-
-
0.13
2.4
149.6
0.5
0.30
SAND
20
41
1.69
--
---
0.15 --
2.7
145.5
0.7
0.47
SAND
21
41
1.52-_
__-
0.17
'
3.1
141.4
0.9
0.64
SAND
22
41
1.33
-
-
0.19
3.4
143.1
0.7
0.47
SAND
21
38
1.51
--
---
0.21 --
3.7
126.7
0.5
0.39
SAND
18
32
1.56
--
---
0.23
4.0
106.6
0.4
0.36
SAND
15
26
1.56
47
82
0.25 =_
4.4
95.2
0.3
0.33
SAND
13
23
1.58
47
78
0.27
4.7
95.2
0.3
0.33
SAND
13
22
1.57
46
77
0.29 --
5.0
93.9
0.3
0:31
S*P:D
13
22
1.59
46
76
0.31
'
5.3
97.6
0.3
0.31
SAND
14
22
1.61
46
77
0.33
5.7
100.6
0.3
0.29
SAND
14
22
1.64
46
77
0.35 --
6.0
6.3
101.0
98.1
0.3
0.3
0.29
0.28
SAND
SAND
14
14
21
20
1.64
1.65
45
45
77
75
0.38 =_
0.40
6.7
96.6
0.3
0.28
SAND
13
20
1.64
45
74
0.42
7.0
102.0
0.3
0.25
SAND
14
20
1.68
45
75
0.44 --
7.3
102.0
0.2
0.24
SAND
14
20
1.71
44
75
0.46
7.6
96.6
0.3
0.27
SAND
13
19
1.65
44
73
0.48
8.0
98.0
0.3
0.35
SAND
14
19
1.55
44
73
0.50 --
3.3
110.2
0.4
0.34
SAND
16
21
1.59
44
76
0.52
8.6
117.0
0.4
0.30
SAND
16
22
1.65
44
77
0.54
8.9
121.3
0.3
0.24
SAND
16
22
1.73
44
77
0.56 --
9.3
125.8
0.3
0.25
SAND
17
22
1.73
44
78
0.58
'
9.6
134.8
0.4
0.27
SAND
18
23
1.71
44
80
0.60 =_
9.9
133.3
0.4
0.29
SAND
18
23
1.69
44
79
0.62
10.2
133.3
0.3
0.24
SAND
18
22
1.74
44
79
0.64 --
10.6
160.5
0.4
0.25
SAND
22
26
1.75
45
85
0.66
'
10.9
131.9
0.5
0.39
SAND
19
23
1.57
44
77
0.68
P 2 O N E E R Max LL = N G ,
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH
QC
FS
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO SU
FT.
TSF.
TSF.
o
N
N1
MM
DEG
%
TSF TSF.
,
11.2
130.9
0.5
0.38
SAND
18
22
1.58
43
76
0.70 --
'
11.5
126.5
0.7
0.51
SAND
19
22
1.43
43
75
0.72 --
11.9
107.4
0.8
0.78
SAND
18
21
1.05
42
69
0.74 --
12.2
93.6
1.6
1.67
SILTY SAND
25
29
0.09
41
64
0.76 --
12.5
102.0
1.5
1.44
SAND
25
29
0.20
42
66
0.78 --
12.9
108.8
1.3
1.17
SAND
22
25
0.59
42
68
0.80 --
13.2
62.6
2.1
3.32
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
23
25
0.03
39
47
0.82 --
13.5
37.9
1.4
1.38
SAND
24
26
0.23
41
63
0.84 --
13.3
71.4
1.4
1.96
SILTY SAND
20
22
0.07
39
51
0.87 --
14.2
57.1
1.8
3.10
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
20
22
0.03
38
43
0.89 --
14.5
77.5
1.9
2.48
SILTY SAND
23
24
0.06
40
52
0.91 --
14.8
95.7
1.2
1.21
SAND
21
22
0.42
41
60
0.93 --
15.2
99.3
1.1
1.11
SAND
20
21
0.59
41
61
0.95 --
15.5
15.8
43.5
68.2
1.5
1.7
3.40
2.48
SANDY SILT AND
SILTY SAND
SILT
18
21
18
21
0.02
0.05
36
39
32
45
0.97 --
0.99 --
,
16.1
106.6
0.8
0.75
SAND
18
18
1.09
41
62
1.01 --
16.5
70.7
1.1
1.61
SILTY SAND
19
19
0.09
39
45
1.03 --
16.8
35.4
1.3
3.68
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
16
16
---
--
---
1.05 2.14
17.1
28.6
1.0
3.43
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
13
12
0.01
34
20
1.07 --
,
17.5.
82.9
1.9
2.23
SILTY SAND
24
23
0.07
39
50
1.09 --
17.8
134.6
2.2
1.66
SAND
33
32
0.22
41
68
1.11 --
18.1
127.8
3.5
2.73
SILTY SAND
38
36
0.06
41
66
1.13 --
18.4
137.4
2.5
1.79
SILTY SAND
36
34
0.10
41
68
1.15 --
18.8
193.1
1.6
0.83
SAND
31
28
1.25
43
81
1.17 --
19.1
198.7
1.9
0.94
SAND
32
30
1.16
43
81
1.19 --
'
19.4
183.6
1.7
0.90
SAND
30
27
1.16
42
78
1.21 --
19.8
171.4
1.9
1.08
SAND
30
27
0.97
42
75
1.23 --
20.1
140.1
1.6
1.17
SAND
27
24
0.77
41
66
1.25 --
20.4
132.0
1.6
1.23
SAND
26
23
0.67
41
64
1.28 --
,
20.7
108.8
1.0
0.93
SAND
20
17
0.88
40
56
1.30 --
21.1
122.4
0.5
0.39
SAND
17
15
1.56
40
60
1.32 --
21.4
155.0
0.7
0.42
SAND
22
19
1.58
41
69
1.34 --
21.7
148.2
0.8
0.56
SAND
22
19
1.43
41
67
1.36 --
22.0
142.8
0.8
0.57
SAND
21
18
1.41
41
65
1.38 --
22.4
124.9
0.6
0.50
SAND
18
16
1.44
40
59
1.40 --
22.7
93.8
0.8
0.90
SAND
17
15
0.82
38
47
1.42 --
23.0
55.8
1.6
2.83
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
19
16
0.04
36
29
1.44 --
23.4
73.5
1.7
2.31
SILTY SAND
22
18
0.06
37
38
1.46 --
23.7
160.7
1.4
0.86
SAND
26
22
1.15
41
68
1.48 --
'
24.0
185.0
1.4
0.76
SAND
29
24
1.30
41
73
1.50 --
24.3
214.9
1.6
0.74
SAND
32
26
1.39
42
79
1.52 --
24.7
257.0
2.0
0.76
SAND
38
30
1.48
43
86
1.54 --
25.0
274.7
2.2
0.78
SAND
40
32
1.50
43
89
1.56 --
11
I
I
11
I
[J
I
I
P 2 O N E E R D R 2 L L 2 N G
DEPTH QC FS
£T. TSF. TSF
25.3
282.9
1.0
25.7
136.6
1.9
26.0
288.3
1.9
26.3
282.9
1.9
26.6
288.3
1.9
27.0
273.4
1.7
27.3
240.7
2.0
27.5
108.8
2.5
28.0
100.6
3.4
28.3
102.1
3.4
28.6
54.4
1.7
28.9
54.5
1.6
29.3
176.8
3.3
29.6
243.4
3.8
29.9
191.5
3.8
30.2
66.1
2.4
30.6
49.1
1.8
30.9
38.1
1.7
31.3
69.4
2.9
31.6
36.7
1.3
31.9
32.6
0.8
32.3
38.1
0.9
32.6
42.4
1.1
32.9
51.7
2.2
33.2
112.0
4.4
33.6
100.6
4.6
33.9
151.0
5.2
34.2
149.6
4.5
34.5
53.0
2.9
34.9
46.2
2.6
35.2
49.0
2.7
35.5
32.6
2.0
35.9
47.6
1.4
36.2
35.4
1.2
36.5
44.9
2.4
36.8
133.3
4.3
37.2
250.2
3.9
37.5
322.3
4.4
37.8
376.7
5.5
38.2
308.2
4.5
38.5
266.6
4.8
38.8
186.3
5.4
39.1
136.9
6.2
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO
SU
o
N
N1
MM
DEG
a
TSF
TSF.
0.35
SAND
36
29
1.91
43
90
1.58
--
1.41
SAND
29
23
0.50
40
59
1.60
--
0.66
SAND
40
32
1.64
43
90
1.62
--
0.68
SAND
40
31
1.62
43
89
1.64
--
0.65
SAND
40
31
1.66
43
89
1.67
--
0.60
SAND
38
29
1.66
43
87
1.69
--
0.82
SAND
36
28
1.39
42
81
1.71
--
2.32
SILTY SAND
31
24
0.07
38
47
1.73
--
3.37
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
34
26
0.04
38
44
1.75
--
3.33
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
34
26
0.04
38
44
1.77
--
3.18
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
20
15
0.03
35
22
1.79
--
2.97
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
19
14
0.04
35
22
1.81
--
1.88
SAND
43
32
0.23
40
66
1.83
--
1.56
SAND
47
34
0.73
42
80
1.85
--
2.00
SAND
48
35
0.19
41
69
1.87
--
3.59
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
26
19
0.02
35
27
1.89
--
3.71
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
21
15
0.01
34
20
1.91
--
4.52
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
19
14
---
--
---
1.93
2.26
4.22
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
32
22
---
--
---
1.95
4.21
3.59
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
16
11
0.01
32
20
1.97
--
2.48
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
11
8
0.04
32
20
2.00
--
2.31
SANDY SILT AND.SILT
12
9
0.04
32
20
2.02
--
2.50
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
14
10
0.04
33
20
2.04
--
4.20
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
24
17
---
--
---
2.06
3.10
3.94
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
44
30
0.02
37
44
2.O6-
--
4.54
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
47
32
---
--
---
2.10
6.16
3.43
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
49
33
0.04
39
55
2.12
--
2.97
SILTY SAND
45
30
0.06
39
54
2.14
--
5.37
CLAY
53
35
---
--
---
2.16
3.18
5.64
CLAY
46
31
---
--
---
2.18
2.75
5.56
CLAY
49
32
---
--
---
2.20
2.92
6.10
CLAY
33
21
---
--
---
2.22
1.90
2.94
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
17
11
0.03
33
20
2.24
--
3.51
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
15
10
0.01
31
20
2.26
--
5.44
CLAY
45
29
---
--
---
2.28
2.66
3.20
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
42
27
0.05
38
47
2.30
--
1.56
SAND
48
30
0.75
41
75
2.32
--
1.37
SAND
54
34
1.08
42
85
2.34
--
1.47
SAND
63
39
1.08
43
91
2.36
--
1.44
SAND
54
33
0.98
42
83
2.38
--
1.82
SAND
55
34
0.56
41
77
2.41
--
2.91
SILTY SAND
54
33
0.07
39
61
2.43
--
4.51
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
61
38
---
--
---
2.45
8.41
P 2 O IV E E R D R S L L = N G
DEPTH 2C FS FR
FT. TSF. TSF.
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
SUIT BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
N N1 MM DEG TSF TSF
39.5 257.0 6.0 2.32 SILTY SAND 68 41 0.10 41 74 2.47 --
=9.3 2:0.2
DATE 3 01/03/68
' LOCATION a PC -10
FILE N 13
LOCAL FRICTION FRI
0 TIP RESISTANCE (Ton/ft'2) SDO D (Ton/ft'Z) 5 0
0
I
1
I
1
[1
' DEPTH
(M)
I
1
C
L�
I
P Z O N E E R D R 2 L L 2 N G
I
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
I
' PROJECT NAME: HIGHLAND SOIL
PROJECT ?:0. 6574012-0
LOC?.TION PC -10
DATE 01/03/88
AVERAGE UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL PPCF)-- 125
DEPTH
QC
FS
£R
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO SU
_.
"S£.
"SF.
o
N
III
MM
'EG
'TSF TSF
C.1
=0.2
0.0
0.13
SILTY SAND
3
11
0.08
--
---
0.01 --
0.4
30.4
0.0
0.05
SILTY SAND
5
16
0.10
-_
-
0.03
0.8
40.8
0.0
0.10
SAND
6
15
1.64
-
-
0.05
1.1
69.1
0.0
0.03
SAND
9
22
1.95
--
---
0.07 --
1.4
142.8
0.5
0.32
SAND
20
46
1.66
-_
-
0.09
1.7
186.8
0.8
0.44
-SAND
26
58
1.60
-
-
0.11
==
2.1
138.0
0.5
0.34
SAND
19
40
1.64
-
-
0.13
2.4
133.7
0.6
0.43
SAND
19
39
1.54
--
---
0.15 --
2.7
170.6
1.3
0.74
SAND
27
52
1.29
-_
-
0.17
3.1
151.0
0.9
0.58
SAND
23
43
1.41
-
-
0.19
3.4
191.7
0.9
0.46
SAND
27
50
1.58
--
---
0.21 --
3.7
4.3
194.6
216.9
0.8
0.8
0.43
0.26
SAND
SAND
27
29
49
51
1.61
1.73
--
48
---
100
0.23 =_
0.25
4.4
130.9
C.5
0.52
SAND
26
45
1.52
48
99
0.27
4.;
159.0
0.9
0.55
SA11D
23
Z9
1.45
46
94
0.29 --
:.0
153.6
0.3
0.51
SAND
22
36
1.48
46
93
0.31
'
5.3
148.6
0.7
0.48
SAND
22
34
1.50
48
92
0.33
5.7
149.:.
0.7
0.50
SAND
22
34
1.49
47
91
0.35 --
6.0
143.1
0.6
0.45
SAND
21
31
1.53
47
89
0.38 =_
'
6.3
135.3
0.7
0.48
SAND
20
30
1.49
46
86
0.40
6.7
130.4
0.6
0.44
SAND
19
28
1.51
46
84
0.42 --
7.0
125.1
0.5
0.43
SAND
18
26
1.52
46
82
0.44 --
7.3
137.5
0.5
0.39
SAND
19
28
1.58
46
84
0.46
7.6
159.8
0.6
0.34
SAND
22
31
1.66
46
90
_=
0.48
8.0
168.1
0.6
0.3.5
SAND
23
32
1.67
46
91
0.50 --
8.3
178.4
0.7
0.40
SAND
25
34
1.63
46
92
0.52
8.6
126.4
0.7
0.43
SAND
22
30
1.57.
46
87
0.54
8.9
124.6
0.4
0.31
SAND
17
23
1.65
44
78
0.56 --
9.3
102.8
0.3
0.27
SAND
14
18
1.66
43
72
0.58
9.6
64.1
0.3
0.48
SAND
11
13
1.14
41
56
0.60
==
9.9
62.8
0.3
0.54
SAND
11
14
1.02
40
54
0.62
10.2
59.3
0.3
0.52
SAND
10
13
1.01
40
52
0.64 --
10.6
49.1
0.6
1.16
SILTY SAND
13
16
0.09
39
45
0.66
10.9
49.0
0.4
0.74
SAND
13
15
0.14
39
45
_=
0.68
P 2 O N E E R D R 2 L I.. S N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH
QC
FS
FR -
SOIL EEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO SU
.T.
TSF.
TSF.
11
N1
MM
DEG
06
TSF TSF.
11.2
119.1
0.5
0.42
SAND
17
20
1.52
43
73
0.70 --
11.5
142.8
0.7
0.48
SAND
21
24
1.50
44
79
0.72 --
11.:
152.3
0.8
0.54
SAND
22
26
1.45
44
81
0.74 --
2.2
164.1
0.9
0.56
SAND
'_4
28
1.45
44
83
0.76 --
12.5
156.2
0.6
0.36
SAND
22
25
1.64
44
81
0.78 --
12.9
153.7
0.5
0.34
SAND
21
24
1.66
44
30
0.80 --
_3.2
154.'
S
0.3:
SAND
21
24
1.65
44
'.9
0.82 --
_70.0
?.8
0.45
SAND
24
26
1.57
44
32
0.84 --
13.3
.72.5
G.'o
0.48
SAND
25
27
1.55
44
32
0.87 --
14.2
206.4
1.20.56
SAND
30
32
1.52
45
89
0.89 --
14.5
193.8
1.2
0.64
SAND
29
30
1.42
44
86
0.91 --
14.3
199.6
1.2
0.62
SAND
29
31
1.45
44
87
0.93 --
15.2
176.4
0.9
0.50
SAND
25
26
1.52
43
81
0.95 --
15.5
132.8
0.6
0.44
SAND
19
19
1.52
42
71
0.97 --
" 15.8
128.6
0.8
0.60
SAND
20
20
1.34
42
69
0.99 --
16.1
185.3
1.0
0.55
SAND
27
27
1.49
43
82
1.01 --
16.5
192.9
0.9
0.45
SAND
27
27
1.59
44
83
1.03 --
100.3
'_97.1
0.9
0.47
SAND
28
27
1.58
44
84
1.05 --
17.1
195.9
0.-9
0.43
SAND
27
27
1.61
43
83
1.07 --
17.5
200.0
0.9
0.43
SAND
28
27
1.62
43
83
1.09 --
17.8
195.3
0.9
0.45
SAND
27
26
1.60
43
82
1.11 --
13.1
193.1
0.9
0.47
SAND
27
26
1.57
43
31
1.13 --
18.4
185.3
0.3
0.42
SAND
26
24
1.61
43
79
1.15 --
13.3
_55.2
0.6
0.41
SAND
22
20
1.59
42
-2
1.17 --
19.":
94.0
9
0.9v
SAND
18
16
0.81
39
52
1.19 --
19.4
07.1
1.2
1.32
SAND
22
20
0.18
39
49
1.21 --
_9.8
?9.6
0.8
1.67
SILTY SAND
14
13
0.07
36
29
1.23 --
20.1
131.7
1.1
0.80
SAND
22
20
1.13
41
64
1.25 --
20.4
195.9
1.1
0.54
SAND
28
25
1.52
43
79
1.28 --
20.7
181.0
0.8
0.46
SAND
26
23
1.57
42
76
1.30 --
21.1
119.6
0.9
0.71
SAND
19
17
1.19
40
59
1.32 --
21.4
38.1
0.5
1.34
SILTY SAND
11
10
0.07
34
20
1.34 --
21.7
24.4
0.2
0.74
SILTY SAND
7
6
0.08
32
20
1.36 --
22.0
31.3
0.7
2.24
SANDY SILT AND SILT
10
9
0.04
33
20
1.38 --
22.4
47.6
0.0
0.04
SAND
6
5
1.89
35
24
1.40 --
22.7
10.8
1.6
14.67
CLAY
11
9
---
--
---
1.42 0.59
23.0
76.2
2.0
2.59
SILTY SAND
23
19
0._05
37
39
1.44 --
23.4
88.4
1.4
1.63
SILTY SAND
24
20
0.09
38
44
1.46 --
23.7
105.8
1.2
1.11
SAND
21
18
0.65
39
50
1.48 --
24.0
115.6
1.0
0.87
SAND
20
16
0.99
39
53
1.50 --
24.3
87.2
1.5
1.73
SILTY SAND
24
19
0.09
38
42
1.52 --
24.7
49.6
1.5
3.00
SANDY SILT AND SILT
18
14
0.03
35
23
1.54 --
25.0
87.7
1.2
1.39
SILTY SAND
23
19
0.10
38
42
1.56 --
I
[1
I
I
P = O N E E R D R 2 L L S N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH QC FS
FT. TSF. TSF.
25.3109.6 1.2
25.7 035.7 1.9
2.i.0 44.8 2.2
26.3 -2.1 2.3
26.6 133.7 1.4
27.0 150.0 1.9
27.' 157.1 1.9
- -^4
28.0 176.8 1.3
28.3 161.7 0.9
28.6 160.0 1.1
23.9 240.4 3.7
29.2 220.3 2.9
29.6 214.4 1.8
29.9 177.9 0.8
30.2 142.8 0.9
30.6 61.5 0.3
30.9 34.0 0.6
31.3 35.7 0.9
31.6 25.8 0.4
31.9 22.0 0.4
32.2 28.6 0.6
-Z.S 28.6 1.3
3....J 55.0 3.1
33.2 '2.8 2.9
33.6 100.0 3.0
33.9 98.6 3.7
34.2 53.9 2.8
34.5 108.8 4.5
34.9 191.8 3.4
35.2 181.6 5.0
35.5 191.8 5.1
35.9 217.4 3.5
36.2 135.9 4.4
36.5 118.1 4.5
36.6 94.6 4.5
27.270.7 3.7
37.5 154.5 4.1
37.8 233.9 3.6
38.2 170.7 3.9
38.5 106.7 5.3
38.8 126.5 3.3
39.1 126.5 3.2
FR
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
DR
PO
SU
%
N
N1
MM
DEG
TSF
TSF.
1.13
SAND
22
18
0.64
29
50
1.58
--
2.16
SILTY SAND
25
19
0.07
37
41
1.60
--
4.86
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
24
19
---
--
---
1.62
2.70
3.25
SANDY SILT AND SILT
25
20
0.03
36
34
1.64
--
1.05
SAND
24
19
0.86
39
57
1.67
--
'.24
SAND
29
22
0.74
40
62
1.69
--
i.20
SAND
29
23
0.30
40
63
1.71
--
C.95
SAND
23
25
1.17
41
74
1.72
--
0.74
SAND
27
21
1.30
40
67
1.75
--
0.55
SAND
24
18
1.46
40
63
1.77
--
0.66
SAND
24
18
1.35
40
63
1.79
--
;.52
SAND
46
34
0.76
42
80
1.81
--
1.31
SAND
40
29
0.89
41
75
1.83
--
0.86
SAND
33
25
1.28
41
74
1.85
--
0.45
SAND
25
18
1.58
40
66
1.87
--
0.63
SAND
22
16
1.34
29
56
1.89
--
0.44
SAND
10
7
1.19
35
24
1.91
--
1.71
SILTY SAND
10
7
0.06
32
20
1.93
--
2.49
SANDY SILT AND SILT
12
9
0.04
32
20
1.95
--
1.63
SILTY SAND
8
6
0.05
30
20
1.97
--
1.59
SANDY SILT AND SILT
7
5
0.05
30
20
2.00
--
Z.14
SANDY SILT AND SILT
9
7
0.04
31
20
2.02
--
5.46
CLAY
29
20
---
--
---
2.04
1.66
3.64
SANDY SILT AND SILT
32
22
0.03
26
34
2.06
--
4.01
SANDY SILT AND SILT
31
21
0.01
35
28
2.08
--
3.03
SANDY SILT AND SILT
31
21
0.05
37
40
2.10
--
3.75
SANDY SILT AND SILT
37
25
0.03
37
39
2.12
--
5.10
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
30
20
---
--
---
2.14
3.23
4.13
SANDY SILT AND SILT
45
30
0.02
37
42
2.16
--
1.79
SAND
43
29
0.38
40
65
2.18
--
2.76
SILTY SAND
52
34
0.07
39
62
2.20
--
2.66
SILTY SAND
54
35
0.08
40
64
2.22
--
1.61
SAND
44
29
0.62
40
70
2.24
--
3.22
SANDY SILT AND SILT
42
27
0.05
38
49
2.26
--
3.84
SANDY SILT AND SILT
44
28
0.03
37
43
2.28
--
4.72
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
46
29
---
--
---
2.30
5.77
5.19
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
38
24
---
--
---
2.32
4.27
2.52
SILTY SAND
44
28
0.07
38
53
2.34
--
1.53
SAND
45
28
0.74
40
71
2.36
--
2.31
SILTY SAND
47
29
0.09
39
57
2.38
--
4.92
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
53
33
---
--
---
2.41
6.52
2.57
SILTY SAND
37
22
0.07
37
44
2.43
--
2.51
SILTY SAND
36
22
0.07
37
44
2.45
--
P 2 O N E E R D R S L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
DEPTH QC FS FR SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE SPT D50 PHI DR PO SU
FT. TSF. TSF. t N N1 MM DEG TSF TSF
39.5 104.7, -.9 4.72 CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY 50 30 --- --- 2.47 6.39
39.9 'S.Z
DATE . 01/04/89
LOCATION . PC -12
FILE M 18
LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATIO
0 TIP RESISTANCE (Ton/ft'Z) 500 0 (Ton/ft'2) 5 0 (PERCENT) B
0
I i I
I'
i 'I II I I 'i i SII
i
DEPTH
(m)
i II
11
[1
I
L
[J
11
P S O N E E R D R = I.. L = N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
-FO E._.
.L,ME
.
3IG::LA2iD :OIL.:
PFO.iECT
NC.
6574=)12-)
DATE
1/04;89
AVEFA3E L2:IT
WEI_-:HT
-.
s:I = F' -- ---
FS
-F
SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE
SPT
D50
PHI
ER
PO SU
cT.
TSF.
TSF.
N
211
'.MDEG
TSF TSF
SAND
_
34
0.4
--
---
)5 --
_.-
-----
3.:
-._°
7A2ID
42
99
0.34
--
---
;.07 --
-•-
_.32
3AND
36
:34
C.81
--
---
0.09 --
_.'
3.0
_.80
SAND
40
o3
0.:5
--
---
0.1 --
2.1
104.4
2.6
2.47
SILTY SAND
36
=4
0.07
--
---
0.13 --
?.}
1.47
SILTY SAND
21
44
0.09
--
---
0.15 --
:.7
'8.0
1.2
1.47
SILTY SAND
21
41
0.09
--
---
0.17 --
3.'.
74.4
3.0
2.67
SILTY SAND
23
43
G.US
--
---
0.19 --
3.4
125.7
2.3
:.34
SILTY SAND
24
62
0.1
--
---
0.21 --
3.7
124.3
).9
0.72
SAND
20
36
1.19
--
---
0.23 --
4.0
1'.2.-
0.71
C.64
SAND
16
29
1.ZC
47
31
0.25 --
4..1
?�.8
J.5
:.56
SAND
13
23
_.li
-_
46
74
0.27 --
4.7
:._
.3
0.42
SAND
12
20
1.:0
45
73
0.23 --
`_.0
::4.7
^.5
_
SAND
16
26,:.:
.6
Z0
-1.21 --
,.
Ei
SAND
j7
-'
- -
46
30
.._13 --
5.-48
S 2dD
14
::
1.37
45
-3
;.35 --
E
SAPID1J
15
1.33
44
-,0
0.33 --
6.3
:5.9
0.2
0.66
SILTY SAND
7
11
0.08
23
39
0.40 --
6.71
62.5
0.2
0.35
SAND
10
14
1.36
42
62
0.42 --
7.0
55.1
0.3
0.45SAND
9
14
1.04
4Z
37
0.44 --
7.3
58.4
0.3
0.56
SAND
11
15
0.89
42
58
0.46 --
1.6
31.6
0.4
0.54
SAND
13
18
1.22
43
68
0.48 --
8.0
.-I
0.5
0.49
SAND
14
20
1.35
44
72
0.50 --
S.3
98.4
0.5
0.54
SAND
15
21
1.31
44
72
0.52 --
8.6
95.9
0.5
0.51
SAND
15
20
1.34
43
71
0.34 --
3.9
66.0
0.8
1.20
SILTY SAND
18
23
0.10
41
58
0.56 --
9.3
33.3
1.0
3.00
SANDY SILT =.ND SILT
13
17
0.02
38
38
0.58 --
9.6
21.5
0.5
-.3-7
SANDY SILT AND SILT
8
10
0.03
25
25
0.60 --
9.9
46.7
1.0
2.23
SILTY SAND
14
18
0.05
39
45
0.62 --
10.2
47.6
1.6
2.32
SANDY SILT AND SILT
18
23
0.02
39
45
0.64 --
10.2
50.2
1.6
3.19
SANDY SILT AND SILT
19
23
0.03
39
46
0.66 --
10.9
59.8
1.1
1.717
SILTY SAND
17
Z1
0.07
40
51
0.68 --
E R D R
=
L
L
2
N
G
P S
O
N
E
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION
TEST
DATA
S
=R
301L to A I :, `:PE
SPT
Z50
c-_
-..
30
SJ
'T..
75F.
75F.
..
-
..
:Ii
:-IM
ZcG
"SF
TSF.
- •
- : 0 .:
_ . _
.. 07
CL'YE" YE'_ ZTL? :-.ND SZLTY =1 AY
: i
17
---
--
---
:. 7 ^
1..
1
3.13
SANDY JIT, AND SILT
'4
.G
?
4
.72
--
SANDY 31-7 .'ND O Ii:T
17
0
0 . 0
3
1
0.74
--
,
_.:
_
.:3
SZL:_ 3AND
21
_�
,..
'_
_-
C.76
--
:.5
SAND
23
26
C.:9
4'
:4
0.73
--
__.:
u9
SILTY SAND
11
24
" D9
40
_.54
SILTY SEND
Z'_
Z6
0.09
41
0
0.82
--
_.:
c._
_.74
SILTY SAND
Z4
:=
0.09
11
x.84
--
-.:
SEND
-_9
_2
0.5_
__
4
0.67
--
;.14
,
J
1.7
:.75
SINTI SAND
-8
0.C9
-1
:1
0.91
14.3
71.4
i.Z
1.62
SILTY SAND
20
:D
0.08
::
9
0.93
--
`.:
_.0
1.56
SILTY SAND
18
19
0.08
:3
46
0.95
--
I
SILTY 3A14D
11
17
0.03
3
41
0.97
--
15.E
51.7
C.1
0.19
SAND
7
7
1.55
37
'_6
0.99
--
16.1
11.22
1.1
10.16
CLAY
1:
11
---
--
---
1.01
0.64
15.5
57.2
0.3
1.33
SILTY SAND
16
15
0.09
33
.9
1.03
--
,
.0
1.63
SILTY SAND
i6
12
J.OS
:_
1_9
1.C5
--
17.1
46.5
_._
:.03
SAND ILT AND SILT
15
15
0.03
--5
31
1.07
--
17.`_
'10.1
1._
3.04
SANDY SILT AND SILT
15
14
0.03
16
26
1.09
--
,
7.0
-:.S
SILTY SAND
19
19
0.10
28
44
i.11
--
:c.l1.3
Z.D
311TY SAND
:4
23
0.07
39
49
1.13
--
13.1
140.6
1.1
0.75
SAND
Z2
21
1.21
1
i9
1.15
--
_s.:
__5.:
1.5
0.38
;AND
Z7
:5
_._2
_
74
1.1'.
--
'
_._
3AND
__
_9
_.�;
._
>_
..i9
_-
:.:
:=).
1.4
V.7i
SAND
i0
:3
1.77
:3
31
1.21
--
1a.8
137.J
1.'1
J.. -
SAN
i
o
8
1.23
_-
20.1
196.1
1.Z
).61
SAND
29
26
1.45
43
30
1.25
--
Z0.4
134.4
":..
7.57
SAND
27
24
1.47
42
2.7
1.28
--
:0.7
151.9
0.8
C.55
SAND
22
20
1.45
41
69
1.30
--
21.1
132.1
0.6
:.45
SAND
19
1-'1.52
40
53
1.32
--
,
21.4
_21.7
0.4
0.33
SAND
17
15
1.63
40
60
1.34
--
_1.7
135.6
0.5
^.40
SAND
18
16
1.56
40
60
1.36
--
155.0
0.7
0.44
SAND
22
19
1.56
41
68
1.38
--
'
Z2.4
172.3
1.0
0.60
SAND
26
Z2
1.43
41
72
1.40
--
:2.7
177.6
0.9
0.50
SAND
26
ZZ
1.53
42
73
1.42
--
:3.0
-_26.4
1.2
0.51
SAND
32
27
1.62
43
82
1.44
--
'
23.4
2_2.7
1.2
0.53
SAND
31
Zu
1.60
42
31
1.46
--
_:.7
322.4
1.3
0.60
SAND
32
27
1.53
42
81
1.48
--
24.
237.7
1.4
0.58
SAND
33
Z3
1.60
43
83
1.50
--
24.Z
233.2
1.5
0.63
SAND
33
27
1.53
43
82
1.52
--
'
24.7
213.3
1.4
O.o4
SAND
32
:6
1.48
42
79
1.54
--
Z5.0
198.6
1.2
0.59
SAND
29
23
1.47
42
75
1.56
--
_
P S O N E E R D R S L L
rEPT_ cS
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
S N G
-.R
'_.
TS=.
F.
7 H I
R
?0
:.0
?d
N1
MM
LEG
TSF TSF.
5-
SAND
_°_.45
41--
4S
SAND
23
13
_. _
_.
_.60
2...
1C4
�S
20
-7.
197."_
D.
_.•42
SAND
_2
i7
1.57
40
33
1.64
--
0.40
SAND
__
13
1.61
40
;.
1.67
--
^9
24r.
'_1
i6
.9.5
_55.1-
1.3
--
243.3
1:3
,_0.2
20
_.51
41
_0
:0.9
--
37SA?dL
31.3
262.`_
1.7
'
-1.6
251.4
1.E
°=
31.°
'5' S
1.4
-
-.75
--
'
i3•-
-----
-
0
34._
2110.-
4_
-`-
4.5
110.5
1.4
-SAND
34.9
125.1
3.
'
35._
35.4
_.0
J.40
25.5
31.3
0.5
1.37
35.9
12.1
0.2
--
36.2
14.6
0.5
24
36.5
80.3
1.3
1.85
36.8
28.4
1.4
35
37.ZZ
r-
42
81
37 '-
158.E
0.O
SAND
34
25
1.7
42
38.2
206.c
1.0
'
38.5
180.5
0.9
1.58
3E.3
147.6
0.8
--
0.59
132...
0.7
'39.:
1.66
42
;2
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
S N G
-.R
SOIL c'cH .VI R TYPE
SPT
:�`_ 0
7 H I
R
?0
:.0
?d
N1
MM
LEG
TSF TSF.
5-
SAND
_°_.45
41--
4S
SAND
23
13
_. _
a
75
_.60
--
44
SAND
20
I
1.54
40
_.•42
SAND
_2
i7
1.57
40
33
1.64
--
0.40
SAND
__
13
1.61
40
;.
1.67
--
4?
SAND
'_1
i6
1.49
40
?'1.69
--
0.42
SAND
26
20
_.51
41
_0
1.71
--
37SA?dL
27
r_
1.67
:1
-2
1.73
--
°=
SAND
-
--
-
-.75
--
40
SAND
0
--
_. 0
4_
-`-
:.79
--
0.43
-SAND
32
'_4
1.67
:2
-3
1.31
--
J.40
SAND
"8
1
1.37
41
-'_
1.83
--
4.44
SAND
33
24
1.74
42
30
1.85
--
0.50
SAND
35
25
1.71
42
81
1.87
--
0.57
SAND
34
25
1.61
42
79
1.89
--
^..62
SAND
35
25
1.58
42
79
1.91
--
0.59
SAND
37
^_6
1.66
42
;2
1.93
--
0.66
SAND
37
26
1.5'?
42
81
1.95
--
0.63
SAND
36
25
1.58
42
79
1-.97
--
0.54
SAND
35
25
1.68
42
30
2.00
--
^.59
SAND
32
i.55
41
74
2.02
--
_.71
SILTY SAND
26
13
;.0`_
1:-
'5
2.04
--
6S
SAND
27
18
.4
A Y')
3
.06
--
54
SAND
--
:.45
SAND
__
i.60
-10
E
2.10
--
1.27
SAND
32
i
1.7'
2.i2
--
:._
SILTY SAND
58
39
0.09
40
`9
2.14
--
1.22
SAND
23
15
0.55
37
42
r.16
--
_ -
SILTY SAND
35
23
C.)S
3°.
6
2.18
--
2.74
SANDY SILT AND SILT
13
3
0.03
31
20
2.20
--
1.69
SILTY SAND
e
6
0.06
31
20
2.22
--
1.91
SANDY SILT AND SILT
5
3
0.02
,5
20
2.24
--
3.35
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
7
5
---
--
---
2.26
0.77
1.57
SILTY SAND
22
14
0.09
35
29
2.28
--
4.93
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
16
10
---
--
---
2.30
1.63
3.70
C'-AYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
12
7
---
--
---
2.32
1.43
4.72
SAND
25
16
1.29
36
54
2.34
--
_.05
SAND
29
13
0.38
39
56
2.36
--
J.47
SAND
29
18
1.60
40
65
2.38
--
0.48
SAND
26
16
1.55
29
60
2.41
--
..5i
SAND
22
13
1.48
38
50
2.43
--
0.51
SAND
20
12
1.45
37
46
2.45
--
P = O N E E R D R = L L = N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
.:OI- =E3A I0R -•Pr
ADT IS'J i JI t:P. PO JU
N N1 14M LEC TSF TSF.
SANC _'f a_ a V :n _ J ... 4 i
GATE 31/04/89
_ZZATION PC -i7
FILEL 0 22
LOCAL FRICTION
(Tom/f6-2) E
it
II i
(M)
FRICTION RATIO
(PERCENT)
P
S
(D N
E E R D R
S
L
L
S
N
G
'
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION
TEST
DATA
?RO:E__
NAME:
HIGHLAND SOILS
:ATE
01%04 b9
-NIT
WEIGHT
--F
SJIL PPCF)-- 125
;•C
cS
cR
.`'.-OIL ZEHAVIOR TYFE
SPT
L50
PHi
2R
?0 SU
=T. TSF
TSF.
N
t71
'MM
DEG
TSF TSF
;.1
).78
SAND'I SILT AND--
J.�
SAND
13
54
1 --- _-
--
---
0.03
.__.-
1.5
0.47
SAND
41
99
:.39
--
---
0.05 --
'
471.4
2.7
:.57
SAND AND GRAVEL
58
99
2.15
--
0.07
`_C6.3
3.5
0.68
SAND
u4
?9
1.96
-
---
-
0.09 --
1.7 483.5
3.0
0.62
SAND
61
99
1.99
--
---
0.11 --
;73.8
2.7
0.72
SAND
51
99
1.7' --
0.13
'
=.1
_.4 `_-0.7
3.3
1.32
SAND
44
69
0.97
--
--
0.15 --
_._29.'
4.0
2.07
SILTY SAND
40
73
0.05
--
---
0.17 --
1.4
0.93
SAND
25
48
1:05
-_
0.19
'
-
'J .9
' .E9
SAN D
21
33
25
-
---
-
0.21 =_
- 155.0
1.0
2.64
SAND
24
42
1.36
-
-
0.23
4.. =40.3
1.1
C.75
SAND
22
29
1.22
48
?2
9.25 --
=_2.V0.3
62
SAND
19
33
1.30
46
38
0.27
^.5
48
SAND
_5
_
1
47
30
0.29
1i4
J.4
_.29
SAND
_°
24
___
4J
-?
0.31 --
'
-1.4
).4
".40
SAND
SAND
:_
13
_:
21
'_.SC
1.4G
40
45
-3
75
0.23
0.35
u 34.9
0.4
42
SAND
13
19
1.40
44
72
0.38 --
76.2
0.4
0.47
SAND
12
18
1.28
44
59
0.40 --
71.4
0.2
J.42
SAND
11
16
1.32
43
66
0.42
'
_.7
0.3
0.98
SAND
11
16
1.39
43
65
0.44
_ 75.2
0.3
0.40
SAND
11
16
1.39
43
66
0.46 --
7.6 37.7
3.0 77.4
0.4
1.1
0.40
1.43
SAND
SILTY SAND
13
21
18
29
1.45
0.09
43
43
70
55
0.48
0.50
8.2 47.E
1.1
2.21
SILTY SAND
15
20
0.05
40
50
0.52 --
3.6 56.0
1.3
1.99
SILTY SAND
19
25
0.07
41
59
0.54
'
_4.4
2.1
3.36
SANDY SILT AND SILT
24
31
0.01
40
52
0.56 =_
r 3 57.7
2.1
3.55
SANDY SILT AND SILT
23
30
0.02
40
53
0.58
?.E ?5.1
1.9
1.98
SILTY SAND
26
34
0.08
43
69
0.60 --
9.9 38.4
2.8
3.21
SANDY SILT AND SILT
30
37
0.04
42
66
0.62
t
i0._ i5`_.1
3.4
-.20
SILTY SAND
42
52
0.09
45
84
0.64
'_07.4
2.7
0.88
SAND
45
55
i.48
18
100
0.66 --
iC.9 362.6
2.'
0.75
SAND
49
60
1.71
48
100
0.68 --
'
P 2
O
N
E E R
D R S
L
L
S
N
G
'
INTERPRETED
CONE PENETRATION
TEST
DATA
'
3C-:. .E:d:
.'..2r. -=?I
-PT
Z10
c I
=>.
=C
CU
,
c _
TSF.
'SF.
N
Ni
.:M
22.2.
TSF
TSF.
'
;5
SAND
;3
-
- -
18
::0
:.70
--
19'
SAND
45
2_
_.__
.-
::;0
0.72
--
_.:
SAND
54
e3
1.33
48
1'0
^..74
--
,
_.42
SA1d7
53
c1
1. DC
-
.00
0.76
--
--.__.21
SAND
=7
'5
0.73
--
__.:
2==
1.7'-
SAND
57
'64
0.71
17
:00
:J.80
--
_
237.2
4.3
-.92
SAND
84
?
.'0
48
:-iC--
'
.13 AIM
84
i4._
_^ .:
_.c
;.65
SAND
2-
_4
_.ot
'S
l.'
:
--
14._
SAND
AND GRAVEL
39
41
_.36
47
_C0
0.93
--
:5 :
30.2
2.9
2.53
SA14DY
SILT AND SILT
30
21
0.03
10
=2
0.95
--
..7'
SAND
48
49
1.73
47
100
0.97
--
'
15.3
_33.:
2.0
-.60
SAND
44
44
1.79
46
100
0.99
--
16.1
329.1
C.2
J. C'S
SAND
AND :,RAVEL
34
34
4.62
46
100
1.01
--
iu.=
112.;
2.0
3.211
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
22
22
0.03
8
41
1.03
--
'
:6.=
X64.=
2.:
=7
SAND
47
46
1.38
4',
'_00
1.05
--
:7.1
:84.2
2.4
0.63
;AND
50
49
i.E6
-7
:00
1.07
--
. 7.=
:42.3
2.2
O.cS
SAND
46
44
1.75
46
100
1.09
--
'
_- 3
251.:
1.3
0.52
SAND
25
33
_.68
44
92
1.11
--
lE.:
c2.=
1.4
:.-2
SILTY SAND
23
21
0.09
39
=8
1.13
--
_c. _
_5.a
;.3
2.91
SANDY
SANDY
:;ZLT =-i1D ILT
GILT AND SILT
10
'�•^.
6
0.C2
0.04
2..
--
20
_0
1.15
_•.7
--
--
'
-.:
LAYEY 3::.T "ND1.20
SANDY
SANDY
'T AND SILT
iT Al 1D SILT
26
20
24
18
0.02
0.02
3
:'
-0
i.23
--
0.1
2.2
1._ 2
2.96
SANDY
_L_ AND SILT
115
14
0.03
35
23
1.25
--
20.4
__.:
7
3.19
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
10
9
0.01
22
20
1.28
--
20.7
117.=
2.3
3.46
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
25
22
0.03
3',
38
1.30
--
21.1
8.
1.5
3.80
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
17
15
---
--
---
1.32
2.32
,
21.4
29.2
0.7
2.26
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
10
9
0.04
33
20
1.34
--
21.7
_2.0
23.2
23.8
0.6
0.6
2.46
2.54
SANDT
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
SILT AND SILT
9
9
7
8
0.02
0.02
32
32
20
20
1.36
1.38
--
--
'
_2.:
25.3
0.7
2.59
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
10
8
0.03
32
20
1.40
--
22.7
21.1
C.6
2.66
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
8
7
0.02
31
20
1.42
--
"'
"2 2
0.8
3.37
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
10
3
---
--
---
11.44
1.30
,
23.4
27.:
1.1
2.83
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
13
.1
---
--
---
1.46
1.65
23.7
1:7.
2.1
:.79SILTY
SAND -T1
26
0.099
54
1.48
--
_4.0
L7.2
2.8
11.31
SAND
39
32
0.20
41
66
1.50
--
24.2
122.4
..2
3.40
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
41
23
0.04
39
55
1.52
--
'
24.7,
63.9
2.°
3.91
SANDY
SILT AND SILT
27
22
0.01
36
31
1.54
--
__.
173.4
3.11
_...
SILTY SAND
46
37
0.10
41
69
1.56
--
'
' P S CD N E E R D R S L L S N G
FT. TSF. TSF.
1
1
1
CJI
II
7
Li
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
=OIL BEHA"IIOF TYPE SPT D50 PHI PO SJ
N Ni 7M :EG b TSF TSF.
06
SAND
2.9
43
_T
_.-4
9J
34.3
2.6
'-
65.9
1.5
-5
36
_..
.'3.6
4.O
_7._
_52.
_.6
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
28
22
0.04
J6
4O
1.62
--
_?.
=32.1
3.3
2_.5'
_50._
5.5
30._
406.4
5.1
3C.
449.6
5.i
SIL':
27
21
31.
1 5 1 .
2 .5
3:.6
239.=
1.5
'1
=02.0
4.0
2.=
113_
5.1
32.
58.a
_
:.69
SAND
36
26
0.30
40
.52
1.71
34.2
147.8
3.3
34.-
i07.a
3.4
4.9
6.6
2.7
__._
_6.6
1.3
35.3
34.0
1.2
35.3
43.5
1.4
36.2
29.5
0.8
36.5
35.4
1.0
36.5
40.7
1.3
17.2
26.7
0.8
37.-
27.3
1.2
37.-
55.6
1.E
33.Z
31.2
1.3
38.5
57._
1.8
38.03
45.6
1.8
29.1
54.4
1.2
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
=OIL BEHA"IIOF TYPE SPT D50 PHI PO SJ
N Ni 7M :EG b TSF TSF.
06
SAND
43
_T
_.-4
9J
Gs
a.JS
'-
1.31
SAND
-5
36
1.00
43
36
i.60
--
2.03
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
28
22
0.04
37
4O
1.62
--
2.28
SILTY SAND
d
)
15
O.C6
=5
21
1.64
--
_._0
SANDY SILT F.ND
SIL':
27
21
0.01
36
30
1.07
--
4.01
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
40
31
0.02
33
44
1.69
--
:.69
SAND
36
26
0.30
40
.52
1.71
--
a4
SANDY ZILT =.114D
__L
_2
24
=.02
35
5
1.73.
--
_.-_
SANDY SILT AND
9ZLT
:2
9
..03
°2
_'O
-.'.5
--
-•--
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
--
=.6a
SILTY SAND
22
16
0.'3^•
-16
35
1.79
--
i.52
SILTY SAND
11
3
0.07
=3
20
1.81
--
3.37
SA17DY SILT AND
SILT
28
21
0.03
36
35
1.83
--
1.35
SAND
49
36
1.01
42
86
1.35
--
i.55
SAND
62
45
0.96
44
95
1.87
--
=.24
SAND
62
45
1.34
44
100
1.89
--
1.13
'SAND
65
47
1.49
45
100
1.91
--
0.98
SAND
60
43
1.60
44
100
1.93
--
O.E9
SAND
48
34
1.76
43
95
1.95
--
0.52
SAND
40
28
1.30
42
37
1.97
--
1.96
SAND
49
34
C.26
40
69
2.00
--
4.52
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY :.LAY
52
36
---
--
---
2.C2
6.93
5.20
ZlAYE." SILT AND SILTY CLAY
33
23
---
--
---
2.04
3.55
2.04
SILTY =AND
41
_3
).c9
39
56
2.06
--
SANDY ---LT AND
ST
41 Y1
-3
C.05
--a
Y^-
-. 8
4._„
S;UNDI SILT AND
Sl:,.
YJ
.._
'J. D1
3"
=9
_.10
--
5 =A14LY
IL'1' AND
SILT
33
22
0.03
36
36
2.12
--
'.23
SILT? SAND
41
27
0.09
39
54
2.14
--
3.12
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
34
23
0.05
37
41
2.16
--
4.79
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
29
19
---
--
---
2.18
3.40
3.53
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
16
10
0.01
32
20
2.20
--
3.56
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
15
10
0.01
31
20
2.22
--
3.29
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
17
11
0.02
32
20
2.24
--
2.57
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
11
t
0.03
20
20
2.26
--
2.77
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
13
8
0.03
31
20
2.28
--
3.10
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
15
1C
0.03
32
20
2.30
--
3.14
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
11
7
0.02
30
20
2.32
-
4.14
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
14
9
---
--
---
2.34
1.59
2.84
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
19
12
0.0.1
33
20
2.36
--
4.19
CLAYEY SILT AND °SILTY CLAY
15
10
---
--
---
2.38
1.80
3.06
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
20
12
0.03
33
20
2.41
--
4.04
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
21
13
---
--
---
2.43
2.70
2.15
SILTY SAND
16
10
0.06
3.;
20
2.45
--
P S O N E E R D R = L L = N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
SOIL F-E3Aw'1--R -YPE
SPT --SO :R ?0 SU
t; t11 M DEG TSF TSF.
=o.- -.o =.i' :LAY :7 =1 --- -- --- ...?' 4.01
_ _ . b L % .
uAIt Ul/uaiea
LOCATION PC -18
FILE a 21
LOCAL FRICTION FRICTION RATI❑
0 TIP RESISTANCE (Ton/ft"2) 5❑❑ ❑ (Ton/ft"2) 5 O (PERCENT) 8
0
P (D N E E R D R S L L S N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
?RG:E::T 'TAME: HIGHLAND SOILS
.3C.,'^ION ?C-:8
01/04/39
AVERAGE -_..IT ';EIGHT JF SCIL ?CF)-- 125
3EF^_E
<c
=S
=R
SOIL BEHAV13r- TYFE
SPT
D50
F__
-- F
?0 SU
'
�T.
TSF.
TSF.
N
N1
_!M
..v
TSF TSF
?0
SILTY -AND--
_
SILTY SAND
__
-
--
---
0.03 --
0.
SANDY SILT A,4D
-LT'2
32
O.CS
--
---
0.05 --
i.i
3.5
_.46
SAND
10
39
:5
0.07
'
1.4
=07.;
31.:
"1.3
:.09
SAND
2 8
64
=. 3 6
--
---
•0.09 --
1.7
184.=
1.6
3.95
SAND
29
1i5
1.2_
--
---
0.11 --
`::
=20.4
2.3
_.93
SILTY SAND
33
69
0.09
-
0.13
'
:6.-
1.3
3.44
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
22
44
0.02
=_
-
=_
0.15
_.-
1111.�
2.'_
1.86
SILTY :AND
30
59
0.09
--
---
0.17 --
3.1
a5,2
.3 9
n,92
SAND
18
34
0.7?
--
---
0.19 --
'
73.3
1.4
_.£0
SILTY SAND
22
40
0.08
0.21
.4
74.6
2 .0
2.08
SILTY SAND
23
41
0.05
__
___
^,.2_^
4.0
58.5
=.
3.66
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
24
41
0.02
45
66
0.25 --
4.4
06.:_
1:9
SA14DY SILT AND
SILT
22
37
3.3
4='
:9
'?.27
4.7
:o._
_
y.35
20
_ANDY SILT AND
.--LT
25
4--
3
=5
�9
0.29
4.5-
-2Ti
�z ,,
'J
_--
_-
_--'
:i._
1.1
:.=4
SANDY SILT AND
CT SAND
.-__T
?
24
.0
33
:-.0i
0.10
5
74
0.35
6.0
63.2
2.4
3.73
SANDY SILT AND
SIL^.
26
39
0.02
43
64
0.38 -
6.3
71.4
2.1
2.87
SANDY SILT AND
SIi,T
23
35
0.04
43
57
0.40 --
6.7
iE2.5
1.3
0.7;
SAND
26
-3 8
1.25
47
92
0.42
'
7.0
134.'
1.0
0.74
SAND
^2
31
1.21
46
34
0.44
7.3
89.0
.7
0.82
SAND
16
23
0.88
44
71
0.46 --
7.6
74.2
0.6
0.73
SAND
14
20
0.77
43
65
0.48
8.0
78.
0.6
0.60
SAND
15
20
0.81
43
66
0.50 --
8.3
56.5
0.4
,.76
SAND
12
17
0.44
41
55
0.52 --
8.6
135.5
3.9
0.66
SAND
21
28
1.30
45
,82
0.54 --
8.9
150.1
0.3
0.52
SAND
22
29
1.47
45
35
0.56
9.--
127.3
0.6
0.47
SAND
19
24
1.48
44
79
0.58 --
3.6
110.2
0.3
0.30
SAND
15
20
1.64
43
73
0.60 --
9.9
51.3
0. 2
0.28
SAND
11
14
1.59
42
63
0.62
'
10.2
84.7
0.2
0.20
SAND
11
14
1.72
42
64
=_
0.64
10.0
73.4
0.3
0.38
SAND
11
13
1.40
41
59
0.66 --
i0.9
63.2
0.2
0.33
SAND
10
12
1.32
40
53
0.68 --
'
P S O N E E R D R = L L S N G
INTERPRETED CCNE PENETRATION TEST DATA
_- . _ iL F.
SOI AL1. . - _.. 7'E
_'?
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
ANDY SILT AND SILT
SILTY SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
3AP'ID
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SA14D
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SPT
350
P11
=.
PO STJ
1�
_=
1.46
41
-
0 --
16
iS
_. ._
4 _
..4_-
14
1E
1.5--
42
35
C.74 --
15
17
:.53
42
:7
;.76 --
13
-4._
36.3
0.2
0.20
:5.:.
303.Y'
0.3
3.34
15.5
57.4
0.3
0.59
15.5
71.-
0.6
0.86
:5.1
:10.3
0.3
C.44
1.-.5
'_27.8
C.6
0.44
11S.3
0.6
'J.48
17.1
109.2
0.5
0.44
17.5
115.o
0.4
..35
17.0
97.9
0.3
1.32
18.1
94.6
0.3
C.26
40
=b
0.93 _-
0.24
:3.3
36..
0.5
0.59
0.95 --
11
11
0.81
33
40
0.97 --
14
-3.
14G.c
0.5
6
20.1
159.0
^.5
0.30
20.4
'64..
0.6
i.38
20.7
192.0
0.9
0.45
..1.1
189.9
0.7
0.35
21.4
207.;
0.8
0.39
21.7
212.0,
0.8
0.39
_2.0
197.2
C.8
C.41
41
1'5.3
0.6
0.33
22.1
173.4
0.5
C.29
-2.3
17.;.0
0.5
2..1
23.4
163.0
0.5
0.31
23.7
145.1
C.5
0.32
-4.3
141.5
0.5
0.33
_4.s
139._
0.3
J.-1
24.7
152.2
3.4
0.28
25.0,
199.9
0.8
0.42
SOI AL1. . - _.. 7'E
_'?
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
ANDY SILT AND SILT
SILTY SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
3AP'ID
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SA14D
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SAND
SPT
350
P11
=.
PO STJ
1�
_=
1.46
41
-
0 --
16
iS
_. ._
4 _
..4_-
14
1E
1.5--
42
35
C.74 --
15
17
_.=9
42
:7
;.76 --
13
--
:.74
4C
=_
_.78 --
9
10
:.02
34
:0
^.30 --
:0
__
0,.05
33
29
0.82 --
:3
14
:.:7
-1
34 --
7
13
--4
1.56
so
0.--
12
13
:.58
40
=b
0.93 _-
12
13
1.53
40
'-5
0.95 --
11
11
0.81
33
40
0.97 --
14
14
0.61
39
47
0.99 --
16
16
1.47
41
63
1.01 --
18
18
1.52
41
68
1.03 --
18
17
1.45
41
55
1.05 --
16
16
1.47
41
61
1.07 --
16
16
1.59
41
i3
1.09 --
14
13
1.59
40
56
1.11 --
13
12
1.65
40
74
1.13 --
11
11
1.65
�-9
48
1.15 --
1413
1.18
3:
:9
1.17 --
16
:_
1.5_
YJ
0
_._9
D9
_.-1
20
13
1.62
41
67
1.23 --
22
20
1.70
42
-1
1.25 --
23
21
1.63
42
72
1.28 --
27
24
1.59
42
78
1.30 --
26
23
1.68
42
77
1.32 --
28
25
1.68
43
31
1.34 --
29
25
1.69
43
81
1.36 --
27
24
1.63
42
78
1.38 --
24
20
1.69
42
72
1.40 --
23
20
1.73
41
72
1.42 --
24
20
1.71
41
71
1.44 --
22
19
1.70
41
59
1.46 --
20
17
1.67
40
63
1.48 --
20
16
1.66
40
62
1.50 --
19
15
1.78
40
61
1.52 --
21
17
1.72
40
64
1.54 --
28
22
1.63
42
75
1.56 --
P S CD w E E R D R = L L = N G
' INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
=EHnv--t YPn
PT.
_50
.I
_3
?0
U
i .
rSF•
-3F.
;i
`il
MM
DEG
TSF
TSF.
-'•-
---•-
1.7
..7
`.AND
33
26
1.34
42
'3--
_5.i
SAND
30
2 9
1.31
='
dl
1.60
--
'
-6.J
_51 .
1.5
'.58
SAND
_5
_8
1.63
43
54
:.32
_43.c
_.o
0.E7
SAND
;5
27
1.52
42.
32
1.64
36.0
246.7
_.�
='.55
.SAND
35
24
1.01
42
33
1.67
--
=_.__.-6
SAND
39
31
1.74
43
=0
1.69
-�•
SAND
_
3'
1.77
=4
.71
--
1.0
:..3
SAND_.o'
43
:9
:.i3
--
'
._
7..
_AND
AND
_
-
- =.
--36.7
'_.9
SAND
30
__
_0
1.56
42
-4
:.73
--
23.5
154.2
2.0
21
SAND
30
23
0.83
40
:'_3
1.81
--
9.3
=
92.5
3.1
:.22
3ANDY SILT AND
SILT
32
23
0,04
37
40
1.33
.e
u0.5
2
3.30
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
25
19
0.02
35
25
.85
29.5
48.2
1.5
3.15
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
18
13
0.03
34
20
1.87
--
'
30.2
_O.6
69.4
i08. c
3.1
4.5
4.50
4.:s
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY `LAY
-SANDY SILT AND SILT
33
46
24
33
---
0.02
--
38
---
44
1.89
1.91
4_22
30.-
-57.-
`_.0
19
SILTY SAND
48
34
0.05
39
50
1.93
--
31.3
2'34.7
5.1
2._1
SILTY SAND
50
40
0.09
41
'.1
1.95
--
'
31.6
232.1
2.:
=.07
SAND
45
32
1.29
42
36
1.97
31.9
236.4
2.8
D.98
SAND
44
31
1.35
42
35
2.00
--
�58.0
I-
_.-/
SAND
47
33
0.84
42
SO
_.02
32.=
275.=
3.7
1.3`
SAND
47
33
1.01
42
82
2.04
'
1
.£
SAND
50
34
1.19
42
37
2.06
.3..
337.3
;.:_2
SAND
_
36
1.24
43
'..08
--
_ c
-19.]_.
3
_ 17
�.-'d
SAND
SAND
50
5C
:.4
.25
? 2
38
?.10
Z.1
--
4.Z
417.9
3.7
0 E
SAND
57
31
38
•.Yu
1.67
-2
44
:'V
99
-
2.14
--
24.5
414.E
3.2
0.78
SAND
55
37
1.77
44
?8
2.16
--
'
34.9
408.7
2.0
3.73
SAND
54_36
1.80
44
97
2.18
35.2
371.5
2.4
0.65
SAND
--4-9
2Z
1.82
43
93
2.20
35.5.371.6
2.3
0.62
SAND
49
32
1.84
43
93
2.22
--
35.3
36.2
338.1
2^c5.6
2.5
1
0.75
0.63
SAND
SAND
47
39
30
25
1.67
1.66
42
42
88
81
2.24
2.26
3'0,.5
309.4
1.8
0.58
SAND
41
27
1.77
42
34
2.28
--
36.0
193.6
2.1
_.13
SAND
32
21
0.95
39
61
2.30
--
'
37.2
48.2
1.9
3.90
CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY
22
14
---
--
---
2.32
2_86
37.3
46.2
1.1
2.44
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
15
9
0.05
32
20
2.34
37.:.
104.7
1.7
1.58
SILTY SAND
28
17
0.10
36
38
2.36
--
38.2
55.8
1.4
2.56
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
18
11
0.05
33
20
2.38
'
38.5
30.6
0.5
_.63
SILTY SAND
9
6
0.06
30
20
2.41
=_
33.3
36.7
0.6
1.50
SILTY SAND
it
7
0.07
31
20
2.43
--
39.1
42.8
1.5
3.55
SANDY SILT AND
SILT
38
11
0.02
32
20
2.45
--
P S O N E E R D R J L L 2 N G
INTERPRETED CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
SPT .:Su F??I ::P np SU
:l 1I1. Am _7-: 1,TSF TSF.
3.1i SAND:' SILT AND SILT 30 i9 O.C4 .0 33-.47 --
_29.7 4.0 =.05 31LTY SAND 40 `_4 :.u5 27 45 2.49 --
11
1
1
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1
LABORATORY TESTING
' A. Classification
' Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil
Classification System. Classification was supplemented by
' index tests, such as Particle Size Analyses. Moisture
contents and dry densities were determined from relatively
' undisturbed samples.
B. Particle Size Analyses
Particle size analyses, consisting of mechanical analyses
' using sieves, were performed on representative samples of
on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D 422. Test results
are shown on Figures C-1 and C-2.
' C. Sand Eouivalent
A sand equivalent test was performed on a representative
' sample of subsurface soils to supplement visual
classifications and mechanical analyses. The laboratory
' standard used was ASTM D 2419. This test result is
presented on Figure C-3, Table I.
' D. Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Relationship
' A maximum dry density/optimum moisture relationship was
determined for a representative sample of on-site soils.
' The laboratory standard used was ASTM D 1557 (Five -Layer
Method). This test result is summarized on Figure C-3,
Table II.
LABORATORY TESTING - Continued
E
F.
Expansion
An expansion test was performed on a representative sample
of the upper 10 ft of on-site soils. The sample was
remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 lb/ft2 in
accordance with the Uniform Code Standard No. 29-2. This
test result is presented on Figure C-3, Table III.
Direct Shear
A direct shear strength test'was performed on a bulk sample
considered representative of on-site soils. The sample was
remolded to 90% relative compaction, saturated and tested in
accordance with ASTM D 3080. This test result is presented
on Figure C-4.
H. Consolidation
A consolidation test was performed on an undisturbed sample
representative of the soils underlying the project site to
determine the compressibility characteristics of on-site
soils. The sample was saturated part-way through the test
to simulate possible adverse field conditions. This test
result is presented on Figure C-5.
Test
Location
B-3 @ 0-5'
TABLE I
RESULT OF SAND EQUIVALENT TEST
(ASTM D 2419)
TABLE II
Sand
Equivalent
20
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP
(ASTM D 1557)
Optimum
Maximum Moisture
Test Dry Density Content
Location (pcf) A)
B-3 @ 0-5' 129.9 8.3
TABLE III
RESULT OF EXPANSION TEST
(UBC STANDARD 29-2)
Test Expansion Expansion
Location Index Potential
B-3 @ 0-5' 0 Very Low
Job No: 08-6574-012-01-00 Figure C-3
400<
3001
W
N
a
x
r
0
z
W
cr 2001
m
ovn✓cr,n vv("P �a.) v.. FRI
NO.. (FEET) (PSFCTIONS
•••••• ••+••
�
Silty SAND
B-15 0-5 30
i
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
1100,
1
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 8000
NORMAL LOAD (PSF)
4000
3000
LL
N
r
S
r
O
Z
W
2000
N
4
2
¢
W
x
OJ
100(
BORING
NO.
I EPTH -
(FEET)
COHESION.
(PSF)
ANGLE OF
FRICTION°
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
00
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 8000
NORMAL LOAD (PSF)
w_mo_m-nn SHEARING STRENGTH TEST
I
.1
r
I
I
I
I
M
z
O
Fa
z
CL
x
W
c
BORING NO.
DEPTH (FEET)
SYMBOL
EXPLANATION
B-4
9-10
FIELD MOISTURE
— — — — — — — — — — SAMPLE SATURATED
REBOUND
3.0
2.0
1.0
. 0
1.0
2.D
3.0
4.0
5.0
I
e.D1
Z.0
8.0
0.0
DDo 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
N W♦ n
0
0
o
0
0
0
N
0 0 0
0 0 pp
0 O O
/7 ♦ tl
0
0
o
O
0 0
0 0
O 0
O O
N W
0
o
0
O
v
0 c
0 c
0 C
0
n
NORMAL LOAD (PSF)
74-012-01-001 LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST IFIGURE C -s
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
11
n
U
I
APPENDIX D
STANDARD DETAILS
' STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.
GENERAL
1
'
2.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1
3.
OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 5
4.
SITE PREPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 6
5.
SITE PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 6
6.
EXCAVATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 8
6.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 8
L
6.2 CUT SLOPES . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 9
6.3 PAD AREAS . . .
9
7.
COMPACTED FILL . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 10
'
. . . . .
7.1 PLACEMENT
. .
10
7.2 MOISTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 12
7.3 FILL MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 12
7.4 FILL SLOPES . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 14
7.5 OFF-SITE FILL . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 16
8.
DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 16
9.
STAKING . . . . .
17
10.
SLOPE MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 17
10.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 17
'
10.2 IRRIGATION
18
10.3 MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 18
10.4 REPAIRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 19
11.
TRENCH BACKFILL . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 19
12.
STATUS OF GRADING . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 20
ISTANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECT
1.
GENERAL
1.1
The guidelines contained herein and the standard
'
details attached hereto represent this firm's standard
recommendations for grading and other associated
operations on construction projects. These guidelines
'
should be considered a portion of the project
specifications.
1.2
All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part
of these guidelines.
1.3
The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines
without prior recommendation by the Geotechnical
Consultant and the approval of the Client or his
authorized representative. Recommendations by the
Geotechnical Consultant and/or Client should not be the
controlling agency prior to the execution of any
changes.
1.4
These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard Details
may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations
contained in the text of the preliminary geotechnical
report and/or subsequent reports.
1.5
If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these
grading guidelines or standard details, the
Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the governing
interpretation.
2.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
2.1
ALLUVIUM - unconsolidated detrial deposits resulting
from flow of water, including sediments deposited in
river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the
foot of slopes and estuaries.
'
2.2
AS -GRADED (AS -BUILT) - the surface and subsurface
conditions at completion of grading.
2.3
BACKCUT - a temporary construction slope at the rear of
earth retaining structures such as buttresses, shear
keys, stabilization fills or retaining walls.
'
2.4
BACKDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar
drainage system placed behind earth retaining
structures such as buttresses, stabilization fills and
'
retaining walls.
2.5 BEDROCK - a more or less solid, relatively undisturbed
rock in place either at the surface or beneath
superficial deposits of soil.
2.6 BENCH - a relatively level step and near vertical rise
excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be
placed.
2.7 BORROW (Import) - any fill material hauled to the
project site from off-site areas.
2.8 BUTTRESS FILL - a fill mass, the configuration of which
is designed by engineering calculations to stabilize a
slope exhibiting adverse geologic features. A buttress
is generally specified by minimum key width and depth
and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress normally
contains a backdrainage system.
2.9 CIVIL ENGINEER - the Registered Civil Engineer or
consulting firm responsible for preparation of the
grading plans, surveying and verifying as -graded
topographic conditions.
2.10 CLIENT - the Developer or his authorized representative
who is chiefly in charge of the project. He shall have
the responsibility of reviewing the findings and
recommendations made by the Geotechnical Consultant and
shall authorize'the Contractor and/or other consultants
to perform work and/or provide services.
2.11 COLLUVIUM - generally loose deposits usually found near
the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity
through slow continuous downhill creep (also see Slope
Wash).
2.12 COMPACTION - is the densification of a fill by
mechanical means.
2.13 CONTRACTOR - a person or company under contract or
otherwise retained by the Client to perform demolition,
grading and other site improvements.
2.14 DEBRIS - all products of clearing, grubbing,
demolition, contaminated soil material unsuitable for
reuse as compacted fill and/or any other material so
designated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
2.15 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - a Geologist holding a valid
certificate of registration in the specialty of
Engineering Geology.
dM
2.16
ENGINEERED FILL - a fill of which the Geotechnical
Consultant or his representative, during grading, has
made sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that
the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with
the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and
the governing agency requirements.
2.17
EROSION - the wearing away of the ground surface as a
result of the movement of wind, water and/or ice.
2.18
EXCAVATION - the mechanical removal of earth materials.
2.19
EXISTING GRADING - the ground surface configuration
prior to grading.
'
2.20
FILL - any deposits of soil, rock, soil -rock blends or
other similar materials placed by man.
2.21
FINISH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at
which time the surface elevations conform to the
approved plan.
2.22
GEOFABRIC - any engineering textile utilized in
'
geotechnical applications including subgrade
stabilization and filtering.
2.23
GEOLOGIST - a representative of the Geotechnical
Consultant educated and trained in the field of
geology.
2.24
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - the Geotechnical Engineering
and Engineering Geology consulting firm retained to
provide technical services for the project. For the
'
purpose of these guidelines, observations by the
Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the
Soils Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering
Geologist and those performed by persons employed by
and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultants.
2.25
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - a licensed Civil Engineer who
applies scientific methods, engineering principles and
professional experience to the acquisition,
interpretation and use of knowledge of materials of the
earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering
problems. Geotechnical Engineering encompasses many of
the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock
mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related
sciences.
2.26
GRADING any operation consisting of excavation,
filling or combinations thereof and associates
operations.
2.27 LANDSLIDE DEBRIS - material, generally porous and of
low density, produced from instability of natural or
man-made slopes.
2.28 MAXIMUM DENSITY - standard laboratory test for maximum
dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified, the
maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in
accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 1557-78.
2.29 OPTIMUM MOISTURE - test moisture content at the maximum
density.
2.30 RELATIVE COMPACTION - the degree of compaction
(expressed as a percentage) of dry unit weight of a
material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight of
the material.
2.31 ROUGH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which
time the surface elevations approximately conform to
the approved plan.
2.32 SITE - the particular parcel of land where grading is
being performed.
2.33 SHEAR KEY - similar to buttress, however, it is
generally constructed by excavating a slot within a
natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion
of the slope without grading encroaching into the lower
portion of the slope.
2.34 SLOPE - is an inclined ground surface the steepness of
which is generally specified as a ratio of
horizontal:vertical (e.g., 2:1).
2.35 SLOPE WASH - soil and/or rock material that has been
transported down a slope by mass wasting assisted by
run-off water not confined by channels (also see
Colluvium).
2.36 SOIL - naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt,
clay, etc., or combinations thereof.
2.37 SOIL ENGINEER - licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
soil mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer).
2.38 STABILIZATION FILL - a fill mass, the configuration of
which is typically related to slope height and is
specified by the standards of practice for enhancing
the stability of locally adverse conditions. A
stabilization fill is normally specified by minimum key
width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A
stabilization fill may or may not have a backdrainage
system specified.
' 3.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of
the project and satisfactory completion of all grading
and other associated operations on construction
projects, including, but not limited to, earth work in
' accordance with the project plans, specifications and
controlling agency requirements. During grading, the
Contractor or his authorized representative should
' remain on-site. Overnight and on days off; the
Contractor should remain accessible.
1
2.39
SUBDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar
drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alignment
'
of canyons or former drainage channels.
2.40
SLOUGH - loose, non -compacted fill material generated
'
during grading operations.
2.41
TAILINGS - non -engineered fill which accumulates on or
adjacent to equipment haul -roads.
2.42
TERRACE - relatively level step constructed in the face
of a graded slope surface for drainage control and
'
maintenance purposes.
2.43
TOPSOIL - the presumably fertile upper zone of soil
which is usually darker in color and loose.
2.44
WINDROW - a string of large rock buried within
engineered fill in accordance with guidelines set forth
by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3.
OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
'
3.1
The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observation
and testing services and should make evaluation to
'
advise the Client on geotechnical matters. The
Geotechnical Consultant should report his findings and
recommendations to the Client or his authorized
representative.
'
3.2
The Client should be chiefly responsible for all
aspects of the project. He or his authorized
representative has the responsibility of reviewing the
findings and recommendations of the Geotechnical
Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have
authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to
'
perform work and/or provide services. During grading
the Client or his authorized representative should
remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible
to all concerned parties in order to make decisions
'
necessary to maintain the flow of the project.
' 3.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of
the project and satisfactory completion of all grading
and other associated operations on construction
projects, including, but not limited to, earth work in
' accordance with the project plans, specifications and
controlling agency requirements. During grading, the
Contractor or his authorized representative should
' remain on-site. Overnight and on days off; the
Contractor should remain accessible.
1
SITE PREPARATION
4.1 The Client, prior to any site preparation or grading,
should arrange and attend a meeting among the Grading
Contractor, the Design Engineer, the Geotechnical
Consultant, representative of the appropriate governing
authorities as well as any other concerned parties.
All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice.
4.2 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of
vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees,
roots of trees and otherwise deleterious natural
materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and
grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed
excavation and fill areas.
4.3 Demolition should include removal of buildings,
structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities
(including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach
fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels,
etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface
improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition
of utilities should include proper capping and/or
re-routing pipelines at the project perimeter and
cut-off and capping of wells in accordance with the
requirements of the governing authorities and the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant at the
time of demolition.
4.4 Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to
be removed or demolished should be protected by the
Contractor from damage or injury.
4.5 Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or
demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be
graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and
demolition operations should be performed under the
observation of the Geotechnical Consultant.
4.6 The Client or Contractor should obtain the required
approvals from the controlling authorities for the
project prior, during and/or after demolition, site
preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate
approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with
grading operations.
SITE PROTECTION
5.1 Protection of the site during the period of grading
should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Unless
other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon
among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of
the project should not be considered to preclude that
' 5.7 Rain -related damage should be considered to include,
but may not be limited to, erosion, silting,
saturation, swelling, structural distress and other
adverse conditions identified by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for
site protection until such time as the entire project
1
is complete as identified by the Geotechnical
Consultant, the Client and the regulating agencies.
5.2
The Contractor should be responsible for the stability
'
of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the
Geotechnical Consultant pertaining to the temporary
excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration
of stability of the completed project and, therefore,
should not be considered to preclude the
responsibilities of the Contractor. Recommendations by
the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to
preclude more restrictive requirements by the
regulating agencies.
5.3
Precautions should be taken during the performance of
site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the
work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor
'
or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions
should be made during the rainy season to adequately
direct surface drainage away from and off the work
site. where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should
'
be kept on hand to continually remove water during
periods of rainfall.
'
5.4
During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be
kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected
slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during
periods of rainfall, the Contractor should install
checkdams, desilting basins, rip -rap, sand bags or
other devices or methods necessary to control erosion
'
and provide safe conditions.
5.5
During periods of rainfall, the Geotechnical Consultant
should be kept informed by the Contractor as to.the
'
nature of remedial or preventative work being performed
(e.g., pumping, placement of sand bags or plastic
sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.).
'
5.6
Following periods of rainfall, the Contractor should
contact the Geotechnical Consultant and arrange a
walk -over of the site in order to visually assess rain
related damage. The Geotechnical Consultant may also
recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in
his assessments. At the request of the Geotechnical
Consultant, the Contractor shall make excavations in
'
order to evaluate the extent of rain related -damage.
' 5.7 Rain -related damage should be considered to include,
but may not be limited to, erosion, silting,
saturation, swelling, structural distress and other
adverse conditions identified by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
6.
Soil adversely affected should be classified as
Unsuitable Materials and should be subject to
overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or
other remedial grading as recommended by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
5.8 Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or
erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0
foot, should be overexcavated to unaffected, competent
material. Where less than 1.0 foot in depth,
unsuitable materials may be processed in -p' --ace to
achieve near -optimum moisture conditions, then
thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the
applicable specifications. If the desired results are
not achieved, the affected materials should be
overexcavated, then replaced in accordance with the
applicable specifications.
5.9 In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion
gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, they
should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill
in accordance with the applicable specifications.
Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or
less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by
moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough
recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading
guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired
results are not achieved, all affected materials should
be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in
accordance with the slope repair recommendations
herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope
repair procedures may be recommended by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
EXCAVATIONS
6.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS
6.1.1 Materials which are unsuitable should be
excavated under observation and recommendations
of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unsuitable
materials include; but may not be limited to,
dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible
natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft
bedrock and non -engineered -or otherwise
deleterious fill materials.
6.1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical
Consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture
conditions should be overexcavated, watered or
dried, as needed, and thoroughly blended to a
uniform near optimum moisture condition (as per
guidelines, reference 7.2.1) prior to placement
as compacted fill.
6.2.4 If, during the course of grading, adverse or
potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are
encountered, which were not anticipated in the
' preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant
should explore, analyze and make recommendations
to treat these problems.
6.2 CUT SLOPES
6.2.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant and approved by the regulating
agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be
steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical).
6.2.2 If excavations for cut slopes expose loose,
cohesionless, significantly fractured or
otherwise unsuitable material, overexcavation
and replacement of the unsuitable materials with
a compacted stabilization fill should be
'
accomplished as recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the
'
Geotechnical Consultant, stabilization fill
'
construction should conform to the requirements.
1
of the Standard Details.
6.2.3 The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut
slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical
Consultant should be notified by the contractor
prior to beginning slope excavations.
6.2.4 If, during the course of grading, adverse or
potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are
encountered, which were not anticipated in the
' preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant
should explore, analyze and make recommendations
to treat these problems.
6.2.5 When cut slopes are made in the direction of the
prevailing drainage, a non -erodible diversion
swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the
top -of -cut.
6.3 PAD AREAS
6.3.1 All lot pad areas, including side yard terraces,
above stabilization fill or buttresses should be
overexcavated to provide for a minimum of 3 feet
(refer to Standard Details) of compacted fill
'
over the entire pad area. Pad areas with both
fill and cut materials exposed and pad areas
containing both very shallow (less than 3 feet)
'
and deeper fill should be overexcavated to
provide for a uniform compacted fill blanket
with a minimum of 3 -feet in thickness (refer to
Standard Details). Cut areas exposing
significantly varying material types should also
be overexcavated to provide for at least a
3 -foot thick compacted fill blanket.
Geotechnical conditions may require greater
depth of overexcavation. The actual depth
should be delineated by the Geotechnical
'
Consultant during grading.
7.
6.3.2 For pad areas created above cut or natural
slopes, positive drainage should be established
away from the top -of -slope. This may be
accomplished utilizing a berm and/or an
appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil
areas away from the top -of -slopes of 2 percent ,
or greater is recommended.
COMPACTED FILL 1
All fill materials should be compacted as specified below or
by other methods specifically recommended by the Geotechnical ,
Consultant. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of
compaction (relative compaction) should be 90 percent of the
laboratory minimum density.
7.1 PLACEMENT
7.1.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the
Contractor should request a review by the
Geotechnical Consultant of the exposed ground
surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the
exposed ground surface should then be scarified
(6 -inches minimum), watered or dried as needed,
thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum
moisture conditions, then thoroughly compacted
to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum
density. The review by the Geotechnical
Consultant should not be considered to preclude
requirement of inspection and appoval by the
governing agency.
7.1.2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin
horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 -inches in loose
thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should
be watered or dried as needed, thoroughly
blended to achieve near optimum moisture
conditions then thoroughly compacted by
mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift
should be treated in a like manner until the
desired finished grades are achieved.
7.1.3 The Contractor should have suitable and
sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and
watering apparatus on the job site to handle the
amount of fill being placed in consideration of
moisture retention properties of the materials.
If necessary, excavation equipment should be
"shut down" temporarily in order to permit
proper compaction of fills. Earth moving
equipment should only be considered a supplement
and.not substituted for conventional compaction
equipment.
7.1.4
when placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent
to areas sloping steeper than 5:1
(horizontal:vertical), horizontal keys and
vertical benches should be excavated into the
adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should
be sufficient to provide at least 6 -foot wide
'
benches and a minimum of 4 -feet of vertical
bench height within the firm natural ground,
'
firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No
compacted fill should be placed in an area
subsequent to keying and benching until the area
has been reviewed by the Geotechnical
'
Consultant. Material generated by the benching
operation, should'be'moved suff-iciently away from
the bench area to allow for the recommended
review of the horizontal bench prior to
'
placement of fill. Typical keying and benching
details have been included within the
accompanying Standard Details.
7.1.5
within a single fill area where grading
procedures dictate two or more separate fills,
temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created.
When placing fill adjacent to a false slope,
benching should be conducted in the same manner
'
as described above. At least a 3 -foot vertical
bench should be established within the firm core
of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to
placement of additional fill. Benching should
proceed in at least 3 -foot vertical increments
'
until the desired finished grades are achieved.
'
7.1.6
Fill should be tested for compliance with the
recommended relative compaction and moisture
conditions. Field density testing should
conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-64, D
2922-78 and/or D 2937-71. Test should be
provided for about every 2 vertical feet or
1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test
interval may vary as field conditions dictate.
'
Fill found not to be in conformance with the
grading recommendations should be removed or
otherwise handled as recommended by the
'
Geotechnical Consultant.
7.1.7
The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical
Consultant and/or his representative by digging
'
test pits for removal determinations and/or for
testing compacted fill.
'
7.1.8
As recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant,
the Contractor should "shut down" or remove
grading equipment from an area being tested.
'
-11-
7.2
7.3
7.1.9 The Geotechnical Consultant should maintain a
plan with estimated locations of field tests.
Unless the Client provides for actual surveying
of test locations, the estimated locations by
the Geotechnical Consultant should only be
considered rough estimates and should not be
utilized for the purposes of preparing cross
sections showing test locations or in any case
for the purpose of after -the -fact evaluating of
the sequence of fill placement.
MOISTURE
7.2.1 For field testing purposes, "near optimum"
moisture will vary with material type and other
factors including compaction procedures. "Near
optimum" may be specifically recommended in
Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may be
evaluated during grading.
7.2.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill
following an overnight or other grading delay,
the exposed surface or previously compacted fill
should be processed by scarification, watered or
dried as needed, thoroughly blended to
near -optimum moisture conditions, then
recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet or
other dry or other unsuitable materials exist to
depths of greater than 1 foot, the unsuitable
materials should be overexcavated.
7.2.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or
overwatering by other means, no additional fill
should be placed until damage assessments have
been made and remedial grading performed as
described under Section 5.6, herein.
FILL MATERIAL
7.3.1 Excavated on-site materials which are acceptable
to the Geotechnical Consultant may be utilized
as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation
and other deleterious materials are removed
prior to placement.
7.3.2 Where import materials are required for use
on-site, the Geotechnical Consultant should be
notified at least 72 hours in advance of
importing, in order to sample and test materials
from proposed borrow sites. No import materials
should be delivered for use on-site without
prior sampling and testing by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
'
7.3.3
Where oversized rock or similar irreducible
material is generated during grading, it is
'
recommended, where practical, to waste such
material off-site or on-site in areas designated
as "non-structural rock disposal areas". Rock
placed in disposal areas should be placed with
sufficient fines to fill voids. The rock should
be compacted in lifts to an unyielding
'
condition. The disposal area should be covered
with at least 3 feet of compacted fill which is
free of oversized material. The upper 3 feet
should be placed in accordance with the
'
guidelines for compacted fill herein.
7.3.4
Rocks 12 -inches in maximum dimension and smaller
may be utilized within the compacted fill,
'
provided they are placed in such a manner that
nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill should be
placed and thoroughly compacted over and around
'
all rock. The amount of rock should not exceed
40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4 inch
sieve size. The 12 -inch and 40 percent
recommendations herein may vary as field
'
conditions dictate.
7.3.5
During the course of grading operations, rocks
or similar irreducible materials greater than
12 -inches maximum dimension (oversized
material), may be generated. These rocks should
not be placed within the compacted fill unless
'
placed as recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
'
7.3.6
Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of
greater than 12 -inches but less than 4 feet of
maximum dimension are generated during grading,
'
or otherwise desired to be placed within an
engineered fill, special handling in accordance
with the accompanying Standard Details is
recommended. Rocks greater than 4 feet should
'
be broken down or disposed off-site. Rocks up
to 4 feet maximum dimension should be placed
below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should
'
not be closer.than 20 feet to any slope face.
These recommendations could vary as locations of
improvements dictate. Where practical,
over -sized material should not be placed below
'
areas where structures or deep utilities are
proposed. oversized material should be placed
'
in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or
unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground
surface. Select native or imported granular
soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and
'
thoroughly flooded over and around all
-13-
7.4
windrowed rock, such that voids are filled.
Windrows of oversized material should be
staggered so that successive strata of oversized
material are not in the same vertical plane.
The Contractor should be aware that the
placement of rock in windrows will significantly
slow the grading operation and may require
additional equipment and/or special equipment.
7.3.7 It may be possible to dispose of individual
larger rock as field conditions dictate and as
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant at
the time of placement.
7.3.8 Material that is considered unsuitable by the
Geotechnical Consultant should not be utilized
in the compacted fill.
7.3.9 During grading operations, placing and mixing
the materials from the cut and/or borrow areas
may result in soil mixtures which possess unique
physical properties. Testing may be required of
samples obtained directly from the fill areas in
order to verify conformance with the
specifications. Processing of these additional
samples may take two or more working days. The
Contractor may elect to move the operation to
other areas within the project, or may continue
placing compacted fill pending laboratory and
field test results. Should he elect the second
alternative, fill placed is done so at the
Contractor's risk.
7.3.10 Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed
and evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant,
and/or in other areas, without prior
notification to the Geotechnical Consultant may
require removal and recompaction at the
Contractor's expense. Determination of
overexcavations should be made upon review of
field conditions by the Geotechnical Consultant.
FILL SLOPES
7.4.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant and approved by the regulating
agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be
steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical).
7.4.2 Except as specifically recommended otherwise or
as otherwise provided for in these grading
guidelines (Reference 7.4.3), compacted fill
slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to
grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner
core. The actual amount of over -building may
vary as field conditions dictate. If the
desired results are not achieved, the existing
slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed
'
under the guidelines of the Geotechnical
Consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be
increased until the desired compacted slope
surface condition is achieved. Care should be
taken by the Contractor to provide thorough
mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the
overbuilt slope surface.
'
7.4.3 Although no construction procedures produces a
slope free from risk of future movement,
overfilling and cutting back of slope to a
compacted inner core is, given no other
constraints, the most desirable procedure.
Other constraints, however, must often be
'
considered. These constraints may include
property line situations, access, the critical
nature of the development and cost. where such
'
constraints are identified, slope face
compaction may be attempted to conventional
construction procedures including backrolling
techniques upon specific recommendation by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
t
As a second best alternative for slopes of 2:1
(horizontal: vertical) or flatter, slope
construction may be attempted as outlined
herein. Fill placement should proceed in thin
lifts, i.e., 6 to 8 -inch loose thickness. Each
lift should be moisture conditioned and
thoroughly compacted. The desired moisture
'
condition should be maintained and/or
re-established, where necessary, during the
period between successive lifts. Selected lifts
should be tested to ascertain that desired
compaction is being achieved. Care should be
'
taken to extend compactive effort to the outer
edge of the slope. Each lift should extend
horizontally to the desired finished slope
'
surface or more as needed to ultimately
establish desired grades. Grade during
construction should not be allowed to roll off
'
at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to
elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope.
Slough resulting from the placement of
individual lifts should not be allowed to drift
'
down over previous lifts. At intervals not
exceeding 4 feet in vertical slope height or the
capability of available equipment, whichever is
'
less, fill slopes should be thoroughly
backrolled utilizing a conventional
sheepsfoot-type roller. Care should be taken to
-15-
maintain the desired moisture conditions and/or
re-establishing same as needed prior to
backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the
slopes should again be moisture conditioned and
thoroughly backrolled. The use of a side -boom
roller will probably be necessary and vibratory
methods are strongly recommended. Without
delay, so as to avoid (if possible) further
moisture conditioning, the slopes should then be
grid -rolled to achieve a relatively smooth
surface and uniformly compact condition.
In order to monitor slope construction
procedures, moisture and density tests will be
taken at regular intervals. Failure to achieve
the desired results will likely result in a
recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant to
overexcavate the slope surfaces followed by
reconstruction of the slopes utilizing
overfilling and cutting back procedures and/or
further attempt at the conventional backrolling
approach. Other recommendations may also be
provided which would be commensurate with field
conditions.
7.4.4 Where placement of fill above a natural slope or
above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope
configuration as presented in the accompanying
Standard Details should be adopted.
7.4.5 For pad areas above fill slopes, positive
drainage should be established away from the
top -of -slope. This may be accomplished
utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2
percent in soil areas.
7.5 OFF-SITE FILL
7.5.1 Off-site fill should be treated in the same
manner as recommended in these specifications
for site preparation, excavation, drains,
compaction, etc.
7.5.2 Off-site canyon fill should be placed in
preparation for future additional fill, as shown
in the accompanying Standard Details.
7.5.3 Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated
(up canyon) should be surveyed for future
relocation and connection.
8. DRAINAGE
8.1 Canyon subdrain systems specified by the Geotechnical
Consultant should be installed in accordance with the
Standard Details.
'
8.2
Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope
stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed
in accordance with the specifications of the
'
accompanying Standard Details.
8.3
Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away
from slopes and areas of structures to suitable
'
disposal areas via non -erodible devices, i.e., gutters,
downspouts, concrete swales.
'
8.4
For drainage over soil areas immediately away from
structures, i.e. within 4 feet, a minimum of 4 percent
gradient should be maintained. Pad drainage of at
least 2 percent should be maintained over soil areas.
'
Pad drainage may be reduced to at least 1 percent for
projects where no slopes exist, either natural or
man-made, of greater than 10 feet in height and where
'
no slopes are planned, either natural or man-made,
steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio.
8.5
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine
'
grading should be maintained throughout the life of the
project. Property owners should be made aware that
altering drainage patterns can be detrimental to slope
'
stability and foundation performance.
9. STAKING
9.1
In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior
to the placement of the stakes. This, particularly, is
important on fill slopes. Slope stakes should not be
placed until the slope is thoroughly compacted
(back -rolled). If stakes must be placed prior to the
completion of compaction procedures, it must be
'
recognized that they will be removed and/or demolished
at such time as compaction procedures resume.
9.2
In order to allow for remedial grading operations,
'
which could include overexcavations or slope
stabilization, appropriate staking offsets should be
provided. For finished slope and stabilization backcut
areas, we recommend at least 10 feet setback from
proposed toes and tops -of -cut.
'
10. SLOPE
MAINTENANCE
10.1
Landscape Plants
In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope
planting should be accomplished at the completion of
grading. Slope planting should consist of deep -rooting
vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to
the southern California area and plants relative to
native plants are generally desirable. Plants native
-17-
10.2
10.3
to other semi -arid and arid areas may also be
appropriate. A Landscape
party to consult regarding
planting configuration.
Irrigation
Architect would be the best
actual types of plants and
10.2.1 Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope
faces, not placed in trenches excavated into
slope faces.
10.2.2 Slope irrigation should be minimized. If
automatic timing devices are utilized on
irrigation systems, provisions should be made
for interrupting normal irrigation during
periods of rainfall.
10.2.3 Though not a requirement, consideration should
be given to the installation of near surface
moisture monitoring control devices. Such
devices can aid in the maintenance of relatively
uniform and reasonable constant moisture
conditions.
10.2.4 Property owners should be made aware that
over -watering of slopes is detrimental to slope
stability.
Maintenance
10.3.1 Periodic inspections of landscaped slope areas
should be planned and appropriate measures
should be taken to control weeds and enhance
growth of the landscape plants. Some areas may
require occasional replanting and/or reseeding.
10.3.2 Terrace drains and downdrains should be
periodically inspected and maintained free of
debris. Damage to drainage improvements should
be repaired immediately.
10.3.3 Property owners should be made aware that
burrowing animals can be detrimental to slope
stability. A preventative program should be
established to control burrowing animals.
10.3.4 As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting
should be readily available, or kept on hand, to
protect all slope areas from saturation by
periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This
measure is strongly recommended, beginning with
the period of time prior to landscape planting.
'
10.4
Repairs
10.4.1 If slope failures occur, the Geotechnical
Consultant should be contacted for a field
review of site conditions and development of
recommendations for evaluation and repair.
10.4.2 If slope failures occur as a result of exposure
'
to periods of heavy rainfall, the failure area
and currently unaffected areas should be covered
with plastic sheeting to protect against
additional saturation.
10.4.3 In the accompanying Standard: Details,
appropriate repair procedures are illustrated
for superficial slope failures, i.e., occurring
'
typically within the outer 1 foot to 3 feet + of
a slope face.
11. TRENCH
BACKFILL
11.1
Utility trench backfill should, unless otherwise
recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless
'
otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should
be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum
'
density.
11.2
As an alternative, granular material (sand equivalent
greater than 30) may be thoroughly jetted in-place.
Jetting should only be considered to apply to trenches
'
no greater than 2 feet in width and 4 feet in depth.
Following jetting operations, trench backfill should be
thoroughly mechanically compacted and/or wheel -rolled
from the surface.
11.3
Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending
'
below a 1:1 projection from the outer edge of
foundations should be mechanically compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum
'
density.
11.4
within slab areas, but outside the influence of
foundations, trenches up to 1 foot wide and 2 feet deep
'
may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by
jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site
materials are utilized, they should be wheel -rolled,
tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For
'
minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted
or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary,
'
based on review of backfill operations during
construction.
7
12
11.5 If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable
to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a
buried conduit, the Contractor may elect the
utilization of light weight mechanical compaction
equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean,
granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted
in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating
mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of
-utility trench compaction may also be appropriate-, upon
review by the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of
construction.
11.6 In cases where clean granular materials are proposed
for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding
or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be
considered subject to review by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
11.7 Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not
recommended in slope areas unless provisions are.made
for a drainage system to mitigate the potential
build-up of seepage forces.
STATUS OF GRADING
Prior to proceeding with any grading operation, the
Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least two
working days in advance in order to schedule the necessary
observation and testing services.
12.1 Prior to any significant expansion or cut back in the
grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should
be provided with adequate notice, i.e., two days, in
order to make appropriate adjustments in observation
and testing services.
12.2 Following completion of grading operations and/or
between phases of a grading operation, the Geotechnical
Consultant should be provided with at least two working
days notice in advance of commencement of additional
grading operations.
-20-
I
1
1
1
SURFACE OF
FIRM EARTH
MATERIAL
\\\ COMPACTED FILL j
TYPICAL BENCHING \\\\ /
SEE DETAIL BELOW u
DETAIL
MINIMUM 9 FT PER LINEAR FOC
OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE
1'
3/4'
3/S'
NO.4
NO.30
NO.50
NO.200
PERCENTAGE
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
5-15
0-7
0-3
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NCLINE-TOWARD- DRAIN
MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS
DOWN)
� I' FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING
14' �1�
MINIMUM
APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40
POLY -VINYL -CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR
APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH
STRENGTH 1000 psi
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA. SUBJECT TO
FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING
LENGTH OF RUN
UPPER 500'
NEXT 1000'
> 1500'
' TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
PIPE DIAMETER
4-
S.
5'
FINAL NATURAL SLOPE.
LIMITS OF FINAL EXCAVATION
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
FILL
i
tx
i�/iMPSEa1p/////
VN 10' TYPICAL BENCH L
1
MINIMUM—
DOWNSLOPE
KEY DEPTH
15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH
A
COMPETENT EARTH
MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCH
HEIGHT
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS
REQUIRED PER RECOM-
MENDATIONS OF SOILS
ENGINEER DURING GRADING
WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS,
BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. HOWEVER, FILL IS
NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUIT-
ABLE MATERIAL.
TYPICAL BENCHING - FILL, SLOPE OVER NATURAL GROUND DETAIL -
NO.: 08-8574-012-01-00 J DATE: OCTOMER 1989 'FIGURE:
4' DIAMETER PERFORATE
PIPE BACKDRAIN
4' DIAMETER NON -PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL DRAIN
PROVIDE STRUCTURAL: SETBACK PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
H12
ED S
PROVIDE BACK DRAIN PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. AN ADDITIONAL BACK DRAIN AT
MID SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPES IN EXCESS
OF 40 FT HIGH OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED
KEY DIMENSION PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
(GENERALLY 114 SLOPE HEIGHT, IS MINIMUM)
FILL SLOPE OVER CUT SLOPE MITIGATION DETAIL
II NOj ,.n_ecTA_m9_m—ne DATE: OCTOBER 1989 1
FIGURE: D-3
e
TLix
\lq .2
\ �C
swu,.w cwr. mmmu�aaa
J sww¢n cVo rm w. n.�
UV
SOURCE: HIGHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
KRDC, Inc. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, CA 92390
GEOLOGY
Legen d
TEMECULA
REGIONAL CENTER
V-15
FIGURE 28
Pauba Formation
op8
Sedimentary Bedrock
oal
Alluvium -
ar
Artificial Fill
Test Borings
Cone Penetration Tests
Geologic Contact
Liquefaction Boundary
TEMECULA
REGIONAL CENTER
V-15
FIGURE 28
I
Drainage Plan
' a. Plan Description
This site is within the boundaries of the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's
Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan. The subject site is
' exposed to the Santa Gertrudis Channel passing along the
northerly boundary of the site, which is being improved
under Assessment District 161 (A.D. 161.
The proposed drainage plan in Figure 1, utilizes the
project streets, parking lots and storm drains to
conduct storm water. A storm drain system is proposed
to carry storm water that exceeds the street capacity.
The actual size and location of the drainage system will
be determined at the tract map stage of development per
the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control
District. No diversion of drainage is contemplated.
The pipe sizes noted on the drainage plan are based upon
the hydrologic analysis and are preliminary.
b. Development standards
1)Drainage and flood control facilities and
improvements, including any necessary channelization,
shall be provided in accordance with Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District
requirements.
2) it is anticipated that major, backbone drainage and
' flood control facilities will be maintained by the
County Flood Control District.
' 3) Based upon the F.E.M.A. maps dated May 1, 1984, the
100 -Year flood plain extends southward from Santa
Gertrudis Creek to, and in some areas south, of
' Winchester Road. Upon completion of the AD 161
improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek, the FEMA maps
must be modified to remove these areas from the flood
plain. This needs to be evaluated further at a
future date.
1
Water and Sewer Plan
a. Plan Description '
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is the governing
agency with regard to the sewer services. EMWD has
indicated that adequate sewer service can be provided
for the proposed project with the existing sewer lines
and extension of the sewer facilities.
Sewage generated from the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan area will be treated at the EMWD Temecula
Regional Water Reclamation facility. The treatment
plant currently has a capacity of 3.4 Mgd with an
expansion to 4.2 Mgd currently under construction. The
plant is in the planning stages to expand to 6.5 Mgd.
The proposed regional wastewater collection facilities
which will serve the project area are shown on Figure 2.
The proposed facilities are in accord with current EMWD
master planning. Proposed on-site facilities are shown
on Figure 3.
Per the EMWD design guide, the average sewage generated
for commercial developments is 3,000 gallons per day per
gross acre, with a peaking factor of 2.0.
This project will be served by the existing 15" sewers
in Winchester Road and Ynez Road, and new 15" sewers in
Margarita Road and Apricot Avenue and a new 8" and 10"
sewer in Loop Street "B".
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) is the governing
agency with regard to the water services for the site.
RCWD_has indicated that adequate water service can be
provided for the proposed project with the existing
facilities (wells and storage tanks) and the
extension/addition of water mains.
The proposed regional water distribution and storage
system improvements for the project area are shown on
Figure 4. The plan for providing water service to the
area is based on RCWD's existing facilities and is
compatible with future upgrades/extensions. Figure 5.
shows proposed water distribution lines for the project.
Eastern Municipal Water District is in the process of
Master Planning a District -wide reclaimed water system,
although no reclaimed water lines or facilities
currently are available in the project area. EMWD will
require the project to construct reclaimed water lines
on-site so that when the regional system is complete,
the project can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for
certain types of irrigation;.
b. Development Standards
1)All water and sewer lines shall be placed
underground.
2) All lines will be designed per the Eastern Municipal
Water District's and,Rancho California Water
District's requirements.
3) The infrastructural system will be installed to the
requirements of the Eastern Municipal Water District
and Rancho California Water District.
4) Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be
installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the Riverside County Health
Department.
5) The project will comply with EMWD requirements for
installment of on-site reclaimed water lines.
Grading Plan
a. Plan Description
The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan grading
reflects the mass import necessitated by the two level
design of the mall. It is intended that the proposed
site slope from the northeast to the southwest to
facilitate drainage flows to the double 7' X 5'
reinforced concrete box (see Figure 6 Conceptual Grading
Plan.)
It appears that the project site will require
' approximately 2.2 million -"cubic yards of import. This
figure may vary as final grading plans are developed.
The Conceptual Grading Plan establishes a basis for
' appropriate treatment of drainage requirements and
accommodates a street system that meets County of
Riverside standards for acceptable grades.
b. Development Standards
1) All grading activities shall be in substantial
conformance with the overall Conceptual Grading Plan
(Figure 6), and shall implement any grading -related
mitigation measures outlined by the preliminary
geotechnical investigations.
2) Prior to any development within any area of the
Specific Plan, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan for
the portion in process shall be submitted for
Planning Department approval. The Grading Plan for
each area shall be used as a guideline for subsequent
detailed grading plans for individual stages of
development within that area, and shall include:
Techniques employed to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process;
approximate time frames for grading; identification
of areas which may be graded during higher
probability rain months (January through March), and
preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
3) All streets shall have a gradient not exceeding 15%.
4) Prior to initial grading activities, a soils report;
and geotechnical study shall be performed that
further analyze on-site soil conditions and slope
stability and include appropriate measures to control
erosion and dust.
5) Slopes exceeding ten feet in vertical height shall be
hydromulched, prior to final acceptance and prior to
the beginning of the rain season (October - March).
6) Detailed grading plans shall be prepared prior to any
on-site grading for each project or group of
projects.
7) Where cut and fill slopes are created higher than ten
(10) feet, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans
shall be submitted to the Planning Department when
grading plans are submitted for approval. The plans
shall be reviewed for type and density of ground
cover, shrubs and trees.
8) The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance
and upkeep of all planting and irrigation systems
until those operations are the responsibility of
other parties.
I
1
9)
Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual
'
impacts to surrounding areas.
10)
The toes and tops of all slopes higher than ten (10)
'
feet shall be rounded with curves with radii designed
in proportion to the total height of the slope, where
drainage and stability permit such rounding.
'
11)
Potential brow ditches, terrace drains or other minor
swales, determined necessary at future stages of
'
project review, shall be lined with concrete.
12)
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed -
free and planted with interim landscaping within 90
days of completion of. grading, unless building
permits are obtained
13)
Unless otherwise approved by the County of Riverside
all cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at
inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal
'
feet to one (1) vertical foot. The Grading Plan will
reflect a contouring and landscaping program intended
to control slope erosions.
14)
A grading permit shall be obtained from the County of
'
Riverside, as required by the County Grading
Ordinance, to
prior grading.
15)
If any historic or prehistoric remains are discovered
during grading, a qualified archaeologist should be
consulted to ascertain their significance.
]obc:cr7
1
'
I
1
1
1
1
1
60 Ac
i
t0 X 5 RCB
o•
-f*00 AC
J.I. OnvIGwn Y.wcl.tIP,. I.R.
ss �i .ncw+[c*un[ PLANNING
uADi APE�nc�TECTLAE
ice" _._,-• . =.
Land Uso Layouts, Circulation Alignments. and
Inlraseucturo Layouts"'
ConcuptualiActual
Layouts and Alignments may chango n No
Adopted Specific Plan and in Final Plans.
MASTER
DRAINAGE PLAN
FIGURE 1
EXISTING
Illltlllltl
CHANNEL
EXISTING
RCP NETWORK
EXISTING
RCB .
PROPOSED
RCP NETWORK
PROPOSED
RCB
720
100 YR. FLOW RATE (CFS)
48
PIPE DIA. (INCHES)
FIGURE 1
I
\
1�
I
r
a 9�
�.
I I
1 I
I
� I ,
I PIMLM uuroMn,� `
7
\1 I
1 • I I
a I
1
1 N
NOT TO SCALE
F—
L
SEWER FACILITIES
I �•�ie ��'e't �J I ++I
I EPENP�yE �.IE��J rcf c`ijP h
I
I\
1
3
AUq 4 ItA
"rti `
II
+srarrox I I ;
loo i iP pD I I
pN
arc
S
pP co flo
,�
EXISTING
SEWER LINES
�I
I
I
'
I
is I
s
I �•�ie ��'e't �J I ++I
I EPENP�yE �.IE��J rcf c`ijP h
I
I\
1
3
AUq 4 ItA
"rti `
II
+srarrox I I ;
loo i iP pD I I
pN
arc
S
pP co flo
,�
EXISTING
SEWER LINES
%
%
4:b
%
0
1 2
w, % 0
�cp
U)
2
64.82 A(�
'A
till, 110111
Y
3
97.80 AC
Q
NID 10.
0
0 800
A
7.75 AC
15'.
10,
PRICOT AVENUE
4
5.49 A Land Use Layouts, Circulation Alignments, and
Infrastructure Layouts are Conceptual. Actual
Layouts and Alignments may change in Me
Adopted Specific Plan and in Final Plans.
J. P 0
Mr :v1doon Aweocl.t.� ln�
NG SU.�EII.G
10�ff I�D�K..C.IT�IT..E
MASTER
SEWER PLAN
EXISTING
Fs11@rf1�el11mSEWER LINES
PROPOSED
F1111117111111 SEWER LINES
FIGURE 3
I
I
1
1
1
I
_____-
I I
I I
I I
� I I
I
I
� I
1 I ...rwo Vuro.r.�
92 I I
1 `/mac I 1
1 \ I
Ll
1
J
1
I
i
NOT TO SCALE
WATER FACILITIES
,,,,,,,,,,, EXISTING
WATER LINES
I
spO.
Z�
_ J.F. o.vId... A..onI.c., Enu
ENLINEf NrNL >4NNING SUFVEv�NL
ANC-IECt UF( VNDSCAK 1PCNrtECYU E
N
o 800
Land Use Layouts, Circulation
Inlrastructuro Layouts are Cor
Layouts and Alignments may E
Adopted Specilic Plan and in I
MASTER
WATER PLAN
EXISTING
WATER LINES
PROPOSED
WATER LINES
FIGURE 5
O.vid.u. A..eel�t�ti lna
f NGirvEFA�N4 DUNNING SUNVF�ING
�. Qr C� •F4rvIlEC1UN! UNp54AVE 1PCNIfECf UPE
rots, and
Actual
1 the
is.
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING PLAN
GRADING IN AREA BOUNDED BY WINCHESTER ROAD, YNEZ ROAD,
MARGARITA ROAD, AND APRICOT AVENUE IS. BASED UPON PRELIMINARY
GRADING PLAN BY ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES DATED 05/14/90.:
FIGURE 6
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
70
PAD & ELEVATION
PROPOSED
es
CONTOUR & ELEVATION
HP
HIGH POINT
■ LP
LOW POINT
GRADING IN AREA BOUNDED BY WINCHESTER ROAD, YNEZ ROAD,
MARGARITA ROAD, AND APRICOT AVENUE IS. BASED UPON PRELIMINARY
GRADING PLAN BY ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES DATED 05/14/90.:
FIGURE 6
' An Archaeological Assessment of
the Regional Center Specific Plan
Riverside County, California
I
11
' by: Christopher E. Drover Ph.D.
Consulting Archaeologist
' 13522 Malena Drive
Tustin, California 92680
(714) 838-2051
' for: Mr. Douglas Wood
Wood and Associates
' 1000 Quail Street Ste 165
Newport Beach, California 92660
' 21 October 1989
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENT
tSUMMARY................................................3
' SUMMARY OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ...........................3
' EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENT***....***.****,***** ... *******6
1 RESEARCH METHODS AND STRATEGY ..........................7
RESULTS.---- ...
' IMPACTS AND MITIGATION.................................7
REFERENCES CITED.......................................8
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY:
On 28 September 1989, Mr. Douglas Wood of Douglas Wood and
Associates, requested an archaeological assessment of a parcel in
Temecula, California. The subject property is under consideration
for a Specific Plan. A cultural resources assessment was
' necessary to satisfy the requirements of the County of Riverside
with regard to identification and protection of cultural
resources.-
' An archaeological records check and survey were undertaken
in early November, for the approximately 230.80 acre project site
' located on the Murrieta 7.5' USGS quadrangle, to ascertain
whether any cultural resources might be impacted by the proposed
development. A surface survey conducted on the subject property
' and a check of the archaeological site records on file at the
Archaeological Research Unit (ARU), University of California,
Riverside, were accomplished.
A 7.5' USGS map of the subject property provided the
boundary reference for the actual land area surveyed. The subject
' project lies northwest of Temecula, immediately north and east of
the intersection of Winchester and Interstate 15.
Survey activities conducted earlier in 1988 resulted in the
definition of no new archaeological sites. No cultural resource
constraints (mitigation measures) exist for the proposed project.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE:
' A review of the archaeological site records on file at the
ARU showed no sites within the subject property boundaries,
however, one site (Riv-1730) is recorded immediately south of the
project, just northwest of the I -15 --Winchester Road
intersection. The site, however, has been previously mitigated
and is no longer in existence (Drover 1986). The site in question
consisted of a campsite --village from which the predominant
artifacts consisted of food (vegetal) processing tools. The site
was estimated to be 4 -5;000 -years old based on it's time
sensitive artifact content.
The general project area was previously studied in a general
records search and reconnaissance (White 1980) but actual survey
of the property was not conducted until 1988 by Drover (1988).
The prior survey was undertaken of 1,049 acres,
the Rancho California Commerce Center, for the Bedford Group by
the author. No cultural resources were identified as a result of
the study (Drover 1988).
Perhaps the most pertinent regional study of the general
area regarding prehistoric land use is that accomplished at
Perris Reservoir (O'Connell et al. 1974). This research took
place about 20 miles north of the property, in the San Jacinto
Plains. Not much is known about the general
settlement/ subsistence patterns of the project vicinity but the
Perris Reservoir project provides a general model of prehistoric
land -use patterns. Most of the archaeological sites described in
that study were late prehistoric age (pottery present) and may
have resulted from population intrusions from the Coachella
Valley caused by the desiccation of Lake Cahuilla (ancestral
Salton Sea) (Wilke 1978). Settlement patterns seem to consist of
campsites (located near perennial water sources) and temporary
processing locations (O'Connell et al. 1974).
Considering the topography and proximity of the subject
' parcel to water, site density may be expected to be moderate as
in similar areas of the Perris Reservoir. The lack of surface
water and bedrock granite over most of the project site may
' preclude the most common type of sites in the area, bedrock seed
grinding locations. Based on settlement/subsistence models
generated by O'Connell et al. (1974), temporary food
gathering/processing, or campsites might be expected near the
subject project (Riv-1730 was at least a campsite if not a short-
term village site).
Through time, land use patterns at nearby Perris Reservoir
changed from being rather sporadic between 2200 years ago (the
earliest occupations) to about A.D. 1500 when an influx of
population with different subsistence exploitation strategies
' (O'Connell et al. 1974).
At European contact times, the study area was within areas
' occupied by groups known as the Luiseno, named after the Mission
San Luis Rey de Francia in present-day Oceanside, California,
1 Which some of their linguistic group frequented. The Luiseno
' culture area incorporated southwestern Riverside County, northern
San Diego County, eastern Orange County and was linguistically
comprised of a language of the Shoshonean language family
(Kroeber 1925: Plate 57). The Contact period ethnicity of the
study area is clear as Luiseno villages such as Pechanga and Pala
are relatively close to the project area. Ethnographic literature
pertinent to the Luiseno and surrounding ethnographic groups is
fairly extensive and has been collected since the 1800's (see
Barrows 1900; Sparkman 1908; Kroeber 1925; White 1963 and Bean
1972).
EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENT:
The physiography of the subject property consists of low,
flat (cultivated in barley in recent years) grasslands on low
benches and hills immediately above Santa Gertrudis Creek. The
drainage on the property is generally northeast to southwest
toward Santa Gertrudis Creek. Soils on the property consist of
decomposed granitics with recent, alluvial topsoil.
Precipitation is mainly a result of winter dominant, frontal
storms from the northwest, although occasional summer
thundershowers result from damp air intruding from the southern
(Gulf of Mexico --Sea of Cortez) monsoon season.
The property ranges from 1050 to approximately 1100 feet
above sea level. It contains little native vegetation; that which
remains is located in arroyos where cultivation was impractical.
The one-time native plant association consisted of a sage -scrub
community and native grasses, dominated by buckwheat (Eri000num
fasiculatum), and california sagebrush (Artemesia californica).
The Santa Gertrudis stream channel would have supported a rich,
riparian habitat at one time dominated by plants such as willow
(Salix sp.), oak (Quercus sp.) and seasonal, edible plants. The
above mentioned plant community are noted as having some
ethnographic uses among the neighboring Cahuilla (Bean and Saubel
1972).
RESEARCH METHODS AND STRATEGY:
'
Field methods consisted of an on-site, intuitive survey,
conducted by Mr. Andy Jackson in November, 1988. Survey of the
parcel included intuitive, somewhat circular transects defined by
'
the project boundaries and geographical contours. European
grasses (Gramineae) and other ground cover exist but are few in
'
number due to dry conditions resulting in relatively good
conditions for observation.
rRESULTS:
No archaeological sites were located during survey
activities although the project area would have been conducive
for prehistoric plant food gathering and/or processing if not
short-term habitation.
tIMPACTS
AND MITIGATION:
As no archaeological sites were found, no cultural resource
constraints exist for the project and no mitigation measures are
proposed.
However, if any cultural resources are encountered as a
result of grading, is recommended that a qualified archaeologist
be consulted.
REFERENCES CITED
Barrows, David P.
1900 The Ethno-botany of the Coahulla Indians of Southern
California. Chicago Press. (Reprinted 1976 by Malki
Museum, Banning).
Bean, Lowell J.
1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern
California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of
Plants. Banning, Ca.: Malki Museum Press.
Drover, Christopher E.
1986 The Santa Gertrudis Site Riv-1730: A Cultural Resource
Mitigation Plan and Implementation. Rancho California.
UCARU Miscellaneous Manuscripts 191. University of
California, Riverside.
1988 An Archaeological Assessment of the Rancho California
Commerce Center. The Bedford Group. UCARU Miscellaneous
Manuscripts. University of California, Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
O'Connell, J. F., P. J. Wilke, T. F. King, and C. L. Mix (Eds.)
1974 Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric
Demographic Change in Southeastern California.
Sacramento: Department of Parks and Recreation
Archaeological Reports 14.
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. Berkeley:
University of California Publications in American
Archaeologv and Ethnology 8: 147-234.
White, R. C.
1963 Luiseno Social Organization. Berkeley: University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnography 48: 91-194.
' White, Christopher W.
1980 Cultural Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment for
the KACOR/Rancho California Property. The Planning
Center, 170 Laurel Street, San Diego 92101.
Miscellaneous Manuscripts 191 University of
California, Riverside Archaeological Research Unit.
Wilke, Philip J.
1971 Late Prehistoric Change in Land Use Patterns at Perris
Reservoir. Los Angeles: University of California Los
Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13.
1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla,
' Coachella Valley, California. Berkeley: University of
California Archaeological Research Facility
Contributions No. 38.
I
11
I
I
"SIF .v{S/, IT <
nomill /1'�prl.
R) r ' � vn
71
1 � /
L" ! .• ' � Q � rel I Cc � 1._ ;-' -� � ��,/ �` �. ( , r� _ 1
`'•` `�� "—'n1��/ (— i , �i � i 1 � `?1 v r � `.;�Jf�' oo f tom. f—�\` �'��, C / '^�
g
Ga¢i�¢ `'1• ` o / ✓ / �' 1 �b�
Well '. ) _ ` <: 1 . _/✓/�.:/
BM 1010 ,`•e � C' _ `"i��j,� /✓l._, �\ t
NDo'
Reservoir
oir`.�
4` +O es \ 1
SUSH-a PAPAL J
U
1 1 C�rr_Iniw rcKrttV CF/1M 171 4KI �`. „ o �,J�v� L✓�' '��
I
I
I
I
1
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
REGIONAL CENTER,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
MR. DOUG WOOD
WOOD AND ASSOCIATES
1000 QUAIL, SUITE 165
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
PREPARED BY:
DR. FRANCES M. GOVEAN
RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES
23352 MADERO, SUITE J
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
19 OCTOBER, 1989
IINTRODUCTION
The following report presents the results of RMW's assessment of
the paleontological resources of the Regional Center, Winchester
Hills, Rancho California, California.
The study site is an irregularly shaped parcel of approximately .
231 acres located northeast of Interstate 15 and southeast of
Banana Avenue (Winchester Road) on the southeast (Figure 1).
The purpose of the following report is to assess the known and
potential paleontological resources within the study area. This
study is based on a review of published pertinent paleontological
and geological literature and the locality records of the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino
County Museum. Dr. J. D. Stewart of the Los Angeles County
Museum and Mr. Robert Reynolds of the San Bernardino County
Museum were contacted concerning any known fossil localities both
within the site and in the general vicinity. Mr. Dave Stevens,
Ms. Marilyn Morgan and Ms. Diana Weir conducted a walkover survey
' of the site on November 3, 1988. No fossils were located during
the survey.
STRATIGRAPHY AND PALEONTOLOGY
The study area is primarily recent alluvium with exposures of the
Pauba Formation. The Pauba is exposed mainly along stream
channels and gullies. The Pauba Formation is Pleistocene (10,000
to 1.8 million years) and was deposited in ancient streams that
' flowed across the landscape during the last."Ice Age." Recent
grading monitoring has produced large numbers of fossil
vertebrate animals from this formation within the Rancho
California and Murrieta area. Fossil camel, horse, antelope,
bison and elephant have been excavated and archived at the Los
1(�
BM 1
Ile
1
.app
#) BMW
23352 MADEROs SUITE J
MISSION VIEJO CA 92691
(714) 770-8042
v
FIGURE 1. APPROXIMATE LOCATION
REGIONAL CENTER. RANCHO
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA.
USGS 7.5 MIN. MURRIETTA QUAD. 1953
PHOTOREVISED 1979.
' Angeles County Museum. Several specimens, including one
tentatively identified as a carnivore, are awaiting study and
should expand this fossil list considerably. The earliest
recorded fossils were a tapir and a horse exposed northeast of
the Ynez Road and Winchester Road intersections (Mann, 1955,
Raschke, 1988)• A fossil horse skull was excavated on P.M.
19677, next to the study area (Raschke 1988). Mr. Robert
' Reynolds, San Bernardino County Museum, reported that over 75
different taxa have been collected from the Pauba Formation and
' the "unnamed sandstone" unit within the Winchester Hills area.
The collection at San Bernardino -County Museum contains fossils
' that vary in size from small rodents to large grazing animals.
' The recent alluvial deposits are sediments laid down by streams
that flowed across the region within the last 10,000 years.
These sediments are considered to be too young geologically to
contain any significant fossils.
CONCLUSIONS
' The Pauba Formation has contained large numbers of significant
vertebrate fossils within the area of Rancho California,
Murrieta, and the Winchester Hills. Their large numbers and
diversity suggests that they will be of great importance in our
understanding of the Pleistocene paleontology of southern
California and possibly even North America (Raschke 1988).
Raschke (1988) postulates that this area of southern California
may have been a major migration pathway for land animals between
North and South America during the Pleistocene. Continued
expansion of the fossil collection from the Pauba Formation could
shed additional light on both the populations and migrations.of
' animals in the Pleistocene.
At the end of the Pleistocene, nearly 32% of the larger land
animals became extinct. As the Pauba Formation was being
deposited during this time, studies of the fossil vertebrates may
a
provide valuable additional information on this mayor extinction
event. '
The paleontologic sensitivity of a rock unit is determined by its
past history of fossil discovery. This sensitivity is a measure
of the potential for the discovery of paleontological resources
during earthmoving activities. Grading and other developmental
activities can expose fossils, but by the same token, can destroy
these same remains. This would have a significant adverse impact
on the paleontological resources of the region. However, proper
mitigation measures can reduce these adverse impacts to
acceptable levels.
Considering its past history of fossil discovery., the Pauba
Formation is considered to have a Moderate to High
paleontological sensitivity. The recent alluvium is considered
to have a LOW paleontologic sensitivity. However the recent
alluvium over the study parcel could be a thin veneer and grading
could expose any underlying Pauba Formation. Proper mitigation
measures are required to reduce the adverse impact of development
and protect the paleontological resources of the study area.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following measures are required to reduce the adverse impacts
of development to an acceptable level and to protect the fossil
resources of the site. These mitigation measures are drawn from
past efforts and have proven successful in protecting
paleontological resources, while allowing the timely completion
of developments in Rancho California and elsewhere in southern
California.
1. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform
inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils.
The frequency of these inspections will depend on the
4
' frequency of the discovery of fossils and the rate of
excavation.
' 2. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct
grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to
facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage.
3. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present
it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
processing through fine screens.
Prances M. Govean, Ph.D.
Paleontologist
r
t
REFERENCES AND PERSON CONTACTS
Dr. J.D. Stewart, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. (213)
744-3318.
Mr. Robert Reynolds, San Bernardino County Museum. (714)
825-4825.
Mann, J.F., Jr., 1955. Geology of a portion of the Elsinore
Fault Zone California: Calif. Div. Mines Special Report 43,
22 pp.
Morgan, Marilyn, 1988. Paleontological Report Fossil Vertebrate
Localities in the Pauba Formation, Rancho California,
Riverside County, California, Tracts 20735-7-8-9 & 20881.
Prepared for Warmington Homes. Ms. on file at RMW Paleo
Associates, Mission Viejo, CA.
Morgan, Marilyn, 1988. Paleontological Report. Tracts 21672 and
21673 Rancho California, Riverside County, California.
Prepared for Mesa Homes. Ms. on file at RMW Paleo
Associates, Mission Viejo, CA.
Raschke, R., 1986. Final Report on the Results of
Paleontological Monitoring Efforts at Corporate Park V.,
P.M. 19677, Rancho California: Prepared for Kaiser
Development Company, 4 pp. Ms. on file at RMW Paleo
Associates, Mission Viejo, CA.
Raschke, R„ 1987. Final Report on Paleontological Resources
Monitoring at Margarita Village., Tracts 20735-1,-2, -3, -4,
-5, -6 and 21802, 21082-2, -3, -4 Rancho California,
California: Prepared for Kaiser Development Company, 5 PP.
Ms. on file at RMW Paleo Associates, Mission Viejo, CA.
Raschke, R., 1988. Assessment of the Paleontological Resources
within Tentative Parcel Map 23336, Winchester Hills, Rancho
California, California, 4 pp. Ms. on file at RMW Paleo
Associates, Mission Viejo, CA.
1
' BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
I
Prepared for:
Douglas Wood & Associates
1000 Quail Street, Suite 165
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
(714) 851-3119
Prepared by:
S. Gregory Nelson
Consulting Biologist
24230 Delta Drive
Diamond Bar, CA. 91765
November 3, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. PROJECT IMPACTS 5
A. Generic Impacts 5
B. Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts 7
C. Cumulative Impacts 7
V. MITIGATION MEASURES 7
VI. REFERENCES CITED 8
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
1
A. Purpose
1
B. Scope
1
II. METHODOLOGY
1
A. Literature Review
1
B. Field Investigation
2
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
2
A. Biotic Communities
2
B. High Interest Species
4
C. Areas of Special Biological Importance
5
IV. PROJECT IMPACTS 5
A. Generic Impacts 5
B. Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts 7
C. Cumulative Impacts 7
V. MITIGATION MEASURES 7
VI. REFERENCES CITED 8
' I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide planners and
decision -makers with a biological assessment of proposed
development plans for the proposed Temecula Regional Center,
encompassing approximately 241 acres located in western Riverside
County in the City of Temecula. Permanent development has been
limited to scattered ranch structures (now demolished), reservoirs
(no longer operational) and fences. Past and present land uses have
been limited to agriculture and grazing, however, limited areas of
' naturalized grassland habitat remain on-site. In addition, one
endangered species is known to occur in the area of the project
site. The potential for the site to possess significant biological
resources, including the habitat of an endangered species warrant
this investigation and make its findings key to the environmental
review process.
B. Scope
The project site encompasses approximately 241 acres within
the general Temecula/Rancho California area in Riverside County.
The current status, significance and sensitivity of biological
resources on-site are discussed and are then analyzed with respect
to the direct and indirect potential impacts associated with the
' proposed development plan. Based on the extent and magnitude of
impacts identified, mitigation measures are recommended.
Although a comprehensive background description of resources
within the entire site is provided, focus of the report is placed
on those resources of potential significance. For purposes of this
report, biological resources as used here refer to vegetation and
wildlife, including birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. No
attempt is made to address insects and other invertebrates. This
is an accepted professional practice, since invertebrate animals
' are extremely difficult to inventory and vegetation and wildlife
serve as adequate indicators of biological impacts.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Literature Review
The study began with a review of information sources relating
to biological resources of the project site and surrounding area.
' Habitat designations used in this report are according to the basic
classification system of Munz and Keck (1959) as amplified by
Cheatham and Haller (1975) and Thorne (1976). Floral taxonomy
follows the current regional flora of Munz (1974). Common plant
names, where not available from Munz (1974), are taken from Abrams
(1923), Hitchcock (1950), and Robbins et al (1951). Vertebrates
identified in the field by sight, calls, tracks, scat or other
signs are cited herein according to the nomenclature of Stebbins
(1972) and Collins, et al. (1978) - amphibians and reptiles; Small
(1974) and AOU (1928) - birds; and Hall (1981) and Jones, et al.
(1982) - mammals. Authorities used for determination of sensitive
biological resources are as follows: Plants - FWS (1982a), CDFG
(1982a), Smith, et al. (1980) and CNDDB (1983); Wildlife - FWS
(1982b), CDFG (1980, 1982b), and Tate and Tate (1982). Assisting
in the preparation of this report was documentation of regional
biological resources appearing in County of Riverside (MEI) and
local biological resources appearing in Pacific Southwest
Biological Services (1980) and The Planning Center (1988).
B. Field Investigation
The purpose of the field survey was two -fold. First, existing
information and preliminary mapping was verified and refined.
Second, site specific supplemental data was collected to give a
complete picture of biological resources on-site.
Site investigations were conducted on November 20, 1988 by
Mr. S. Gregory Nelson, Consulting Biologist. The entire property
was surveyed using an existing dirt access road and walk -over
surveys of those areas which are not accessible by vehicle. Weather
at the time of the survey was cool, with a temperature range of
approximately 50 degrees F to 60 degrees F. The physical nature of
the project site permitted a complete direct examination of
virtually all terrain within its confines.
The survey did not employ quantitative census techniques.
Rather, emphasis was placed on the evaluation of habitat integrity
and importance, the inventory of plant and wildlife species, and
the delineation of significant habitat areas. Inventories were
conducted within several representative examples of the various
habitat types found on-site.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Biotic Communities
Following are descriptions of the biotic communities -
consisting of plant and wildlife species found on-site. As the term
implies, biotic communities are predictable assemblages of species
which exist within the same physical habitat and have a very close
and complex set of interrelationships. Introduced grassland is the
only truly developed biotic community found on-site. For detailed
inventories of plant and wildlife species found on-site, the reader
is referred to a previous report prepared by The Planning Center
(1988), which is found as part of Appendix E, Biological
Assessments.
' Introduced grassland covers the entire site. This community
derives its name from the predominance of introduced grass and herb
species which have replaced native vegetation as the result of
grazing and other past disturbances. It is a community which is
widespread in Southern California today, particularly the western
Riverside County area.
The introduced grassland on-site includes a variety of
"subcommunities", or subtypes. The majority of the site is
abandoned pasture. On-site there are several foundations from
raised buildings, an abandoned horse track and an abandoned pond
which does not appear to have held water for some time.
Common plant species found in all introduced grassland are
red -stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), foxtail chess (Bromus
rubens), soft chess (Bromus mollis), wild oats (Avena fatua),
common barley (Hordeum vulgare), lupine (Lupinus sp and mustard
(Brassica aeniculata). Other species included croton (Croton
californicus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), cudweed
(Gnanthalium sp.), doveweed (Eremocarpus setiaerus), and western
ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachva). In physical appearance, this
vegetation forms a dense groundcover, growing to a height of
' approximately two to four feet (except when mowed or grazed). As
a result of its annual lifeform, introduced grassland typically
sprouts and grows rapidly following the onset of the winter rains
with the most flowering taking place in the spring. Plants then
die back and dry out over the summer and fall.
' Due to their altered conditions, large, open expanses of
introduced grassland pasture and dryland farmed area generally
support a limited abundance and diversity of wildlife. Several
ground -nesting birds and burrowing mammals were observed, including
the western meadowlark, mourning dove, beechy ground squirrel,
audubon cottontail, and valley pocket gopher. Other species typical
of grassland foraging habitat were observed as well. These included
the red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, turkey vulture, brewers
blackbird, and loggerhead shrike. A number of other species are
expected including western fence lizard, side -blotched lizard,
gopher snake, horned lark, vesper sparrow, killdeer, deer mouse,
and coyote.
C. High Interest Species
The site is located within the geographical range of one
species designated as "endangered" by the U.S Fish and Wildlife
Service. This is the Stephen's kangaroo rat, (Dipodomvs stephensi).
Historically, the species was found throughout the San Jacinto
Valley of Riverside County, with small populations also being found
in southern San Bernardino Valley and north-western San Diego
County. Recent research, however, indicates the current
distribution of this species includes many disjunct isolated
localities. This reduction is believed to be due to widespread
agricultural and urban development within areas of preferred
habitat. Based on information gathered to date, soil types and
vegetation density appear to be the primary ecological factors
limiting the distribution of this species (Bleich, 1977, 1973;
Thomas, 1975). Generally, populations are found in soils having
high percentages of sand and gravel in relatively flat or gently
rolling areas and covered by open, grassy herblands where scattered
shrubs occur.
Based on field observations, the site is not believed to
contain any habitat areas suitable for the Stephen's kangaroo rat.
As described above, essentially the entire site is under dryland
farming, which involves annual mowing and tilling. In addition a
Stephen's kangaroo rat survey and trapping program was conducted
over an approximately 120 acre portion of the project site (The
Planning Center, 1988), including habitat areas similar to those
found over the entire site. This survey and trapping program
resulted in no Stephen's kangaroo rat captures, observed tracks,
or other evidence indicating their presence. However, it is
anticipated that the presence or absense of the SKR will be
determined separately from this report.
The project site is also within the geographical range of the
San Diego horned lizard and the orange -throated whiptail, both of
which are listed as "Species of Special Concern" by California
Department of Fish and Game. Although worth mentioning, these
species are not expected to occur on-site due to its disturbed
condition.
The site also provides potential habitat for a group of birds
included on the Audubon Society's early warning list, known as the
"Blue List" (Tate et. al. 1982). These bird species are listed
below:
Marsh hawk
Turkey vulture
Snowy plover
Merlin
American kestrel
Ferruginous hawk
Loggerhead shrike
Vesper sparrow
Prairie falcon
Burrowing owl
Barn owl
Short -eared owl
Bewick's wren
Western bluebird
Grasshopper sparrow
Savannah sparrow
Blue -listed species are not rare or endangered and the listing
is advisory only. According to the Audubon Society, the list is an
early warning list of species whose populations indicate non-
cyclical declines or range contractions and which are recommended
for monitoring by wildlife agencies, conservation groups and
individual researchers.
No rare or endangered plant species are reported or expected
from the project area (Smith et.al. 1980).
LJ
L
1
LJ
PI
I
I
LJ
�J
I
�I
1
' D. Areas of Special Biological Importance
As indicated by the preceding discussion, the site provides
habitat for a number of wildlife species. However, none of these
species are rare or endangered. The area is considered to be a
fairly important raptor wintering area. This determination was made
as a result of the area being a location where raptorial birds
(hawks, vultures, eagles, owls and falcons) concentrate due to a
high abundance of roosting sites, a good supply of prey species
(small mammals and birds) and suitable hunting habitat (generally
open brushland and grassland). As a raptor wintering area, however,
the site is not of high significance within the context of regional
' biological resources. It was not, for example, called out as an
area of high biological importance by the California Department of
Fish and Game (1979) as was the area around Perris Reservoir
because of its raptor habitat.
IV. PROJECT IMPACTS
A. Generic Impacts
1. Causal Factors
Adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife are expected to
occur as the result of several causal factors originating with the
' construction, presence and inhabitation of urban development as
proposed. These causal factors can be grouped into two major
categories -- the removal or alteration of physical habitats
through earthwork and the introduction of increased ambient noise
levels, exogenous species and other disturbances related to man's
activities.
Biotic communities, as described in the previous section are
assemblages of plant and animal species occurring in the same
physical habitat. They occur together in an orderly predictable
' manner and have a very close and complex set of interrelationships.
As a consequence, first order impacts resulting from causal factors
will, in turn, result in second order impacts which will, in turn,
result in third order impacts, and so on. Typically, the degree to
which this chain -like reaction proceeds toward the complete
breakdown and loss of community stability and integrity will depend
on the severity and magnitude of the causal factor.
' 2. Loss of Habitat
Construction activities will result in the removal of physical
,habitats through cut, fill and other grading activities necessary
for roads, building pads, utilities, fuel modification and flood
control. The first order impacts of habitat loss will be the direct
loss of vegetation and the destruction of less mobile wildlife
forms.
In and of itself, the significance of vegetation loss will
depend on the diversity and availability of plant communities and
associations affected. From the standpoint of biological diversity.,
the loss of introduced grassland from the site will not constitute
a significant adverse impact. The same will be true for the loss
of less mobile wildlife forms since they are highly habitat
dependent and their abundance and diversity are directly related
to those of their habitats.
The impacts of vegetation loss through direct removal will,
in turn, have potential effects on wildlife. As vegetation is
removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either
be destroyed (as mentioned above for less mobile forms) or will be
displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they will crowd and
disrupt local populations. Although increased competition and
predation will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat
carrying capacity levels, either displaced or local wildlife will
be lost. Since the determinants of their severity are the relative
importance of habitats lost to local and regional wildlife
populations, the abundance and diversity of wildlife these habitats
support, the availability of these habitats, and the habitat
dependency of the associated wildlife, the loss of habitat from the
site will not be significant.
3. Harassment of Wildlife
Causal factors generated during human activities resulting '
from the construction and inhabitation of urban land uses may be
collectively termed "harassment".
Harassment is defined as those activities of man, and his
associated domestic animals which increase the physiological costs
of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction
in wildlife populations. The most common form of harassment
expected to accompany development of the site include excessive
construction -related noise, background noise, light and glare and
the introduction of feral cats, dogs and children which are
unnatural predators and competitors for wildlife.
B. Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic
community to urban development will reduce areawide dryland farming
foraging habitat for raptors. As mentioned above, however, the area
is not considered to be of high significance in this regard, nor
does it contain the habitat for rare and endangered species and the
loss of habitat will not be significantly adverse. The same holds
true for the loss of habitat supporting other grassland species of
wildlife.
Based upon these findings, it is concluded that the proposed
project will not result in significant adverse impacts. '
C. Cumulative Impacts
Although not significant in itself, the loss of introduced
grassland habitat described above for the proposed project will
contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to
biological resources on a regional basis. These impacts are those
which are now occurring in the region as a result of past and
planned developments in the region. These impacts include:
-An overall reduction in the naturalized biotic resources of
the region.
-Loss of secondary foraging habitat for migratory
populations of birds of prey which are winter visitors to t h e
region.
' V. MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project will not result in any significant
adverse impacts. Therefore, no mitigation measures for biological
impacts are warranted, and none are recommended.
1
I
I
I
VI. REFERENCES CITED
Abrams, Leroy. 1923. "Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States
Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 4 Volumes.
American Ornithologist's Union (AOU). 1957. Thirty-fourth
Supplement to the AOU Checklist of North American Birds. Auk
(Suppl.) 99(3): lcc-16cc.
Beauchamp, R.M. 1980. Report of a Biological Survey of the
Interstae 15 - Rancho Villages Portions of Rancho California,
Riverside County.
Bleich, V.C. and O.A. Schwartz. 1974. Western Range Extension of
Stephans Kangaroo Rat ("Dipodomys Stephensi"). A Threatened
Species. California Fish and Game 60: 208-210
California Department of Fish and Game. 1979. Areas of Special
Biological Importance. State of California Resources Agency,
Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1980. "At the
Crossroads: A report on the Status of California's Endangered and
Rare Fish and Wildlife". State of California Resources Agency,
Sacramento, CA. 147 pp. + Addenda.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1982a. "Designated
Endangered or Rare Plants". Summary list from Section 1904 Fish
and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act). State of California
Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 4pp.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1982b. "Endangered,
Rare and Threatened Animals of California", Revised March 15, 1982.
State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. Photocopied
List. 4pp.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 1983. Data Base
Record Search for Information on Threatened, Endangered, Rare or
Otherwise Sensitive Species and Communities in the ,Vicinity of
Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County, California. California
Department of Fish and Game, State of California Resources Agency,
Sacramento, California.
Cheatham, Norden H. and J. Robert Haller, 1976. "An Annotated List
of California Vegetation Types". Berkeley, CA: University of
California Natural Lands and Water Reserve System.
Collins, J.T., J.E., Hukeey, J.L. Knight and H.M. Smith. 1978.
"Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American
Amphibians and Reptiles". Soc. Study Amphibians and Reptiles. Herp.
Circ. 7.
' County of Riverside. 1981. General Plan, Environmental Management
' Element. County Planning Dept., Riverside, CA.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1982a and 1982b. "Endangered and
Threatened Plants and Wildlife", In: "Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants". Federal Register 50 CFR 17.11 Aand 17.12.
' U.S. Department of the Interior, Reprint. 13pp.
Hall, E.R. 1981. "The Mammals of North America". John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Hitchcock, A.S. 1950. "Manual of the Grasses of the United States".
U.S. Department of the Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No.
200. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1051 pp.
Jones, Jr., J.K., D.C. Carter, H.H. Genoways, R.S. Hoffman and D.W.
' Rice. 1982. "Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of
Mexico, 1982". "Occas. Pap. Mus. Texas Tech Univ.", No. 80.
Munz, Phillip A. 1974. "A Flora of Southern California". University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1086 pp.
Munz, Phillip A. and David D. Keck. 1959. "A California Flora".
' University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1681 pp.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services. 1980. Rancho Villages Policy
' Plan General Plan Amendment. County of Riverside.
Robbins, W.W., Margaret K. Bellue and Walter S. Ball. 1951. "Weeds
of California". State of California Department of Agriculture. 547
PP.
Small, Arnold. 1974. "The Birds of California". MacMillan
Publishing Co., New York NY. 270 pp.
Smith, James P. Jr., R. Jane Cole and John 0. Sawyer, Jr. 1980.
' "Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California".
Special Publ. No.I (2nd Edition), California Native Plant Society.
115 pp. + Supplements.
' Stebbins, R. C. 1972. "Amphibians and Reptiles of California".
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
' Tate, James, Jr. and D. Jean Tate. 1982. "The Blue List for 1982".
American Birds 36(2): 126-135.
The Planning Center. 1988. Biological Survey for Rancho California
Parcel BP7-1, Parcel Map No. 23336. Prepared for Rancho California
Development Company.
Thomas, J.R. 1973. Stephen's Kangaroo rat Survey, 1972-1973.
California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Admin. Rep. 73-5.
11
Thomas, J.R. 1975. "Distribution, Population Densities and Home
Range Requirements of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys ,
stepehnsi). M.A. Thesis, California State.Polytechnic University,
Pomona. vii + 64 pp.
Thorne, Robert F. 1976. "The Vascular Plant Communities of '
California". in Latting, June ed. "Plant Communities of Southern
California". Riverside, CA: California Native Plant Society Special '
Publication No. 2, pp. 1-31.
IJ
n
1
11
11% Environmental Impact Reports • Biological Inventories • Endangered Species Studies
6 October 1990
Bedford Properties
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 676-5641
Re: Update survey for Stephens' kangaroo rats (Dipodomvs ste-
Phensi - SKR) on the 241 -acre Temecula Regional Center
project site; Specific Plan 263; EIR No. 340; located east
of Interstate 15 and immediately north of Winchester Road in
Rancho California; Riverside County (Figure 1). The site
will be converted into a variety of commercial developments.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Following is a letter -report describing the results of a field
survey for the Stephens' kangaroo rat on the above-described
property.
BACKGROUND AND METHODS
The Temecula Regional Center (TRC) project site was originally
surveyed for Stephens' kangaroo rats in 1988 (Montgomery 1988). A
subsequent investigation cCvered the same area, as part of a
survey of an extensive expanded area to the north and south
(Montgomery, March 1989). SKR were present in the TRC area during
both surveys, although the distribution of the species was always
very limited. The 1.3 acres of occupied SKR habitat identified in
the 1988 survey had not changed during the 1989 survey.
A third site ch
the property on
gist certified
nia Department
purpose of this
' er surveys, as
Riverside.
eck for Stephens' kangaroo rats was conducted on
9 August 1990 by Stephen J. Montgomery, a biolo-
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Califor-
of Fish and Game to trap and handle SKR. The
investigation was to update the results of earli-
required on an annual basis by the County of
All sections of the property were initially inspected for poten-
tial SKR habitat, which typically consists of sparsely covered
disturbed grasslands or shrublands in level to gently sloping
terrain. This assessment showed that habitat conditions on the
' property were similar to those prevailing during the previous two
site surveys. However, it was noted that areas described as
-- .. — ---- -- -- — . .. .. nuc ""Vu i :a L v a j
In addition, SKR were still present in the general area indicated
during the previous investigations. Therefore, a trapping survey
was deemed unnecessary, since a previous investigation had veri-
fied that the Stephens' kangaroo rat was the resident species in
this area.
In order to determine the current distribution of SKR on the
property, a detailed inspection was conducted for such kangaroo
rat sign as burrows, scat and tracks. All occupied SKR habitat
was mapped, and habitat quality (burrow density) was determined
according to the methods established by O'Farrell and Uptain
(1989).
+Immediate ly surrounding lands were also assessed for their poten-
':'tial for occupation by the species.
The weather was hot and clear during the site visit.
RESULTS
Topography on the site is essentially identical to that described
for the area by Montgomery (1988). The southern one-half of the
property is upland terrain that is generally flat or gently
sloping. The northern one-half lies in the Santa Gertrudis Creek.
Soils in the southern portion are generally loamy and suitable
for SKR; those in the northern portion are. sandy and mostly
unsuitable for the species.
Vegetation in the upland portion of the site consists of elements
of ruderal and disturbed grassland communities, which are typical
for recently disturbed substrates. Dominant species identifiable
at the time of the survey included a variety of non-native annual
grasses, telegraph weed (Heterotheca arandiflora), sunflower
(Helianthus annuus , Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) and fila-
ree (Erodium cicutarium). The creekbed contains this same dis-
turbed vegetation association, augmented by a very sparse ripar-
ian community comprised of several small cottonwood trees (Popu-
lus fremontii.) and a few individuals of mulefat (Baccharis. sali-
cifolia). A single large cottonwood also occurs at the northern
edge of the upland section.
The various parts of the property have been entirely disturbed in
recent years, from cultivation or grading activities. Three water
pump stations occur on the site, and several dirt roads are
present. The creekbed has been heavily disturbed through the past
several years. Sheep have grazed the upland part of the site in
recent months, and signs of California ground squirrels are
abundant.
yuoaa..] i., Ull ULJl Olt *L WOO 1Z LLa( W \iWVVJ. LLLLD
constitutes an increase of 0.4 acres of habitat at this site
since the 1989 survey. SKR were noted in association with ground
squirrel burrows in the formerly disced field, south of the area
' mapped in 1988 and 1989. The species has, therefore, colonized
fallow fields since March 1989.
Although Stephens' kangaroo rats formerly were common in the
' general region of this property (Montgomery 1980), the only
population known in the immediately adjacent properties occupies
a narrow strip of habitat directly to the northeast, across
Margarita Road. This population is essentially an extension of
the population on the presently surveyed property. At greater
distance, a small isolated population was recently identified
' approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast (Montgomery 1990), and
O'Farrell and Uptain (1989) noted a remnant population 1.5 miles
to the southeast. Therefore, the identified SKR population on
the Temecula Regional Center and immediately adjacent property is
' isolated from other populations of the species. Nonetheless, this
population has survived at very small densities for a minimum of
2 1/2 years.
iLands surrounding the occupied SKR habitat area are all unsuit-
able for the species, with the exception of the narrow strip of
occupied habitat immediately to the northeast beyond Margarita
Road. To the northwest are cultivated fields. To the southwest
are disturbed lands. To the southeast are cultivated and other-
wise disturbed lands.
The property does not occur in any of the SKR preserve study
areas.
SUMMARY
The property contains 1.7 acres of occupied SKR habitat. This is
an increase of 0.4 acres of occupied habitat since March of 1989,
indicating that the species is colonizing disturbed, formerly
disced and unsuitable, habitats. The property does not occur in
any of the SKR preserve study areas.
' Sincerely,
01
Stephen J. Mont emery
Certified Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Biologist
' 3
Montgomery, S. J. 1980. in, Pacific Southwest Biological Serv-
ices, Report of a biological survey of the Interstate 15 -Rancho
Villages portions of Rancho California. Prepared for Kacor Realty
Inc. (Rancho California) and The Planning Center (San Diego).
. 1988. Letter -report of a field reconnaissance
and trapping survey for Stephens' kangaroo rats in the area
described by Tentative Parcel Map No. 23335 (C-21); located north
of Temecula; Riverside County. Prepared for The Planning Center.
Newport Beach, Calif.
1989. Letter -report of a site check for Ste-
phens' kangaroo rats on the 1,049 -acre Rancho.California Commerce
Center property; .Comprehensive General Plan Amendment 179; Zone
`.Change 5181 and 5188; located in Rancho California. Prepared for
Bedford Properties. Rancho California, Calif.
. 1990. Letter -report of a habitat mapping
survey for Stephens' kangaroo rats on the Pulte Homes property
located immediately east of Winchester Road and north of Murrieta
Road (portion of Section 18, T7S, R2W). Prepared for Pulte Homes
Corporation.
O'Farrell, M.J. and C. Uptain. 1989. Assessment of population and
habitat status of the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephen-
si). Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Non -game Bird and Mammal
Section Report (July 1989).
4
Cn' +----< - -- -- �- -- ------ ---.4 rriet
I +'7
I
1
p \\ I r( y� i �
'l I
�G _1
♦ I 4 _ I Y / I I
\ 6 \ 1 \ i �♦ -�T /
\I
NN
/r \4
7__
r\ �a \\�
NNNN
14
111 �i I I
r \
1 i
Figure 1. Vicinity map for the Temecula Regional Center project
I
I
I
I
I 1
'
Margarita^Rd---
1AJ;r C
it
``
• �, n FYI .
Figure 2. Occupied Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat (circled with ,
heavy line) on the Temecula Regional Center project. Only the
northern extremity of the property is shown, since SKR were only
' SJM BIOLOGICAL CONSUL"IAN"I
Environmental Impact Reports Biological Inventories Endangered Species Studies
'
Re: An ammendment to a previous
Stephens' kangaroo rat report on
the 1049 -Rancho California
Commerce Center property;
located
northeast of Temecula, in the County of Riverside
(see
'
Figure).
ACRES OF OCCUPIED STEPHENS' KANGAROO RAT HABITAT ON THIS
SITE
'
9.5
ACRES
OVERALL ABUNDANCE OF STEPHENS'
KANGAROO RATS ON THIS SITE
(i.e.
'
THIS CONSTITUTES AN ASSESSMENT
OF HABITAT QUALITY, BASED
ON THE
METHOD OF O'FARRELL
AND UPTAIN 1989)
TRACE TO LOW
1
These calculations and abundance determinations were made by
' Stephen J.. Montgomery on the best available maps that were sup-
plied by the client.
' Sincerely,
Stephen J. Montgomery
4S.✓/ii-9IU��O1•:C'. .gid// i"'e3 ;=a. r♦ r Z.�(r ' U L— }
Hot
/J '•
1134
Riparian
Mixture of Cultivated �• '0,
and
and Disturbed )'v (r S 11
ss
)
Location of SKR
1 - r _
�.Ar� �f '_�Y��l I 11 ��•� � Ill Ij
-® l l �1.1100 �w
/ I
films"ilfCI
GaQmY SA
/...
Y BM 1010 : �. •: , ( �� � .' c �,�� ni
Wtll
1 .. �"\ ki, \ ;44 I � u U X10 / � __•0 / S{��l �:: /`' i �1
(7�-if
1k,
\\p ir
G w `$V $.� - O�P� ,s Rasarv°
R ir%
II,
Figure 1. Site Locations of occupied types 'g pCalifornia Commerce Center ,
property. Locations of occupied Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
habitat and are shown. Source:
Murrieta 71/2 -min. USGS Ouadranale.
i
i
/
/
Al
1 } i ♦ ia.... /
Location of SKR /
i
i6
for r.o � LLi�tf 06: .
O 1 P �Tp M/CAP 40 E ,06666 / 0111,2 ' V'S
r P. MO, tLJUP yb_,
Elb
O
I � `
1
NA I 7F
/ A ,
1 Figure 2. Detailed map of occupied Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
-...-._ .:_._ habitat, as determined during February; and March 1989 field
1 reconnaissances and substantiated in'a 1988 live -trapping
survey. Diamonds show sites exhibiting SKR sign and/or
prior positive trapping results. Scaler 1 inch equals 300
feet.
Bedford Properties
I
I
I
I
I Temecula Regional Center EIR
(Specific Plan 263)
Traffic Impact Study
Update
I
I
I
I "AIM&
Eamon'
Wilbur Smith Associates
April, 1991
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
Bedford Properties
Temecula Regional Center EIR
(Specific Plan 263)
Traffic Impact Study
Update
Wilbur Smith Associates
'
3600 Lime Street, Suite 226
Riverside, California 92501
'
Contact Person: Robert A. Davis
(714) 274-0566
1
I CONTENTS
1.
1 I. Introduction And Summary ......................................... 1
A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives ............................. 2
1 B. Executive Summary ............................................ 2
H. Proposed Project Development ....................................... 6
A. Location ..................................................... 6
1 B. Proposed Land Use ............................................ 6
C. Site Plan Layout ............................................... 6
D. Zoning and Land Use .......................................... 8
E. Phasing and Timing ............................................ 8
i
III. Area Conditions ................................................. 9
A. Study Area ................................................... 9
B. Study Area Land Use .......................................... 10
C. Site Access . 11
D. Traffic Conditions ............................................ 13
1 E. Transit Service ............................................... 14
F. Transportation System Management (TSM) Programs .................. 14
IV. Projected Traffic .............. 15
A. Traffic Forecasting Methodology .. • ............................... 15
1 B. Site Traffic .................................................. 17
C. Existing Plus Project Traffic 18
' D. Non -Site Traffic .............................................. 19
E. Total Traffic Projections ........................................ 20
1
1
CONTENTS
(continued)
V. Existing Plus Project Traffic Analysis ................................ 21
A. Roadway Segment Service Levels ................................. 21
B. Existing Plus Project Intersection Service Levels ...................... 22
C. Existing Plus Project Roadway Needs .............................. 22
VI. Year 2000 Traffic Analysis
A. Project Vehicle -Miles of Travel .................................. 24
B. Site Access ................................................. 25
C. Off -Site Capacity and Level of Service Analysis ....................... 26
VII. Findings ..................................................... 30
A. Site Accessibility .............................................. 30
B. Traffic Impacts ............................................... 30
C. Roadway Improvement Needs .................................... 31
D. Compliance With Riverside County General Plan Circulation Policies ...... 32
VIII. Recommendations ............................................. 34
A. Site Access/Circulation Plan ..................................... 34
B. Off -Site Roadway Improvements .................................. 34
C. Transportation System Management Actions ......................... 35
IX. Conclusions................................................... 36
X. Phasing Plan .................................................. 37
A. Proposed Temecula Regional Center Development Phasing ............. 38
B. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan ......................... 38
Appendix.............................................. 46
TABULATIONS
I:
ITable
Follows
Page
I
I
11
[1
I
I
la.
Assumes Land Use (Regional Mall Alternative) ........................
5
lb.
Assumed Land Use (Power Center Alternative) .......................
5
I
2a.
2b.
Vehicle Trip Generation Rates (Regional Mall Alternative) .............
Vehicle Trip Generation Rates (Power Center Alternative) .............
16
16
3a.
3b.
Vehicle Trip Generation Summary (Regional Mall Alternative) ..........
Vehicle Trip Generation Summary (Power Center Alternative) ...........
16
16
4.
5a.
Existing Plus Project ICU Summary ...............................
ICU Summary (Year 2000 Without Project) .........................
21
23
I5b.
ICU Summary (2000 With Project) ................................
23
6.
ICU Summary (Year 2000 With/Without Project With Improvements) .....
28
I
I
11
[1
I
I
ILLUSTRATIONS
Follows
Figure
Page
1.
Development Area and Sub -Areas .................................
5
2.
Existing Traffic/Roadway Characteristics ............................
10
3.
Anticipated Transportation System ................................
11
4.
Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic ................................
17
5.
Projected Daily Traffic (Year 2000 Without Project) ...................
19
6.
Projected AM Peak -Hour Traffic (Year 2000 Without Project) ...........
19
7.
Projected PM Peak -Hour Traffic (Year 2000 Without Project) ...........
19
8.
Projected Daily Traffic (Year 2000 With Project) .....................
19
9.
Projected AM Peak -Hour Traffic (Year 2000 With Project) .............
19
10.
Projected PM Peak -Hour Traffic (Year 2000 With Project) ..............
19
11.
ICU Analysis Intersections .......................................
19
12.
Roadway Segment Service Levels (Year 2000 Without Project) ............
26
13.
Year 2000 AM Peak -Hour Service Levels With and Without Project .......
26
14.
Year 2000 PM Peak -Hour Service Levels With and Without Project .......
26
15.
Roadway Segment Service Levels (Year 2000 With Project) .............
26
16.
Recommended Future Off -Site Traffic Lanes and Regional Center
Access Configuration ..........................................
29
17.
Recommended Future Circulation System ..........................
31
18.
Temecula Regional Center Phasing Plan ...........................
37
19.
1992-1994 Implementation Period ................................
38
20.
1994-1995 Implementation Period ................................
40
21.
1995-1996 Implementation Period ................................
41
22.
1996-1998 Implementation Period ................................
42
23.
1998-1999 Implementation Period ................................
43
24.
1990-2000 Implementation Period ................................
44
I. Introduction And Summary
Bedford Properties plans to develop a 201 -gross -acre parcel of land located east of Interstate
15 and south of Winchester Road. As planned, the 201 -acre Temecula Regional Center
development would include a mix of commercial uses consisting of retail, office, and hotels.
A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
The purpose of this report is to document the Temecula Regional Center Traffic Impact
Study. The study was performed for Bedford Properties by Wilbur Smith Associates. The
objectives of the study were:
o To review existing roadway and traffic conditions;
o To identify the probable traffic increase related to the proposed Regional Center
and other development in the area;
o To assess the ability of existing and planned roadways to accommodate projected
post -project traffic; and
o To provide traffic -related inputs to the General Plan Amendment Environmental
Impact Report (GPA-EIR).
The scope of the study included:
o Collection and assembly of inventories of existing roadway conditions and current
traffic flow.
o Evaluation of projected traffic impacts, including: (1) projections of growth for
area background traffic; (2) anticipated project trip -generation; (3) assignment of
project -related traffic to the area roadway network; and (4) volume -capacity
analyses of primary access roadways and intersections.
1
o Identification of appropriate measures to mitigate anticipated project -related
traffic impacts and other area roadway deficiencies.
o Evaluation of area build -out traffic conditions with the project and long-range
transportation system needs to meet minimum level of service requirements.
B. Executive Summary
This section presents an overview of the Temecula Regional Center Traffic Impact Study.
More specifically, it briefly summarizes the development proposal and the key findings,
conclusions and recommendations from the traffic impact analysis.
Site Location and Study Area - The proposed Regional Center site is located in the northern
part of the Temecula urban core area. The project site abuts the east side of Ynez Road,
immediately south of Winchester Road. As proposed, the fully developed site would be
bounded by Winchester Road; Ynez Road; Apricot Avenue (new roadway); and Margarita
Road (new roadway).
The area of primary impact was assumed to include:
o The Winchester Road corridor from Diaz Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road;
o The Ynez Road corridor from Date Street to Rancho California Road;
o The Margarita Road corridor from Date Street to Solana Way; and
o Apricot Avenue from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Development Description - The Regional Center development was assumed to include the
following approximate development units for each of the proposed land uses:
o Core retail center - 1,125,000 SFGLA (regional mall alternative), or
- 800,000 SFGLA (power center alternative);
o Fringe area retail - 548,000 SFGLA (both alternatives);
I
o Fringe area office - 810,000 SFGLA (regional mall alternative), or
- 1,260,000 SFGLA (power center alternative); and
' o Hotels - 250 rooms (regional mall alternative), or
- 400 rooms (power center alternative).
The distribution of assumed uses within the project site is provided in Tables la and lb for
the two development alternatives. The distribution of retail and office square footage may
vary in the final development.
The project site is located within an area designated as Land Use Category 1 (Heavy
Urban). Existing zoning for the site is R -R (Rural Residential) for the northern two-thirds
of the project and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture) for the southern portion. The Southwest
Area Plan designates this site as commercial.
Principal Finding - The traffic impact assessment performed for the project resulted in the
following findings:
o Access to and from the site is good. There appear to be opportunities to modify
the number and configuration of proposed on-site access points to optimize
driveway/roadway spacing while at the same time maintaining a favorable level of
accessibility.
to
While the Temecula Regional Center will have an impact on travel patterns and
traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project, the level of impact is not as high
as would be expected. A large portion of the project -related shopping trips would
be captured from traffic flows projected to use the streets adjacent to the project.
New trips which would be added to the area streets would in many cases be
added to the off -peak -direction traffic flows and non-critical movements at
intersections. This results in more efficient use of available street and intersection
Icapacity
and minimizes the effects of the added traffic on Level of Service.
o Although projected traffic volumes on the planned street network would result in
peak -hour service level "E" or 7' at two intersection locations, additional
improvements have been identified which would achieve the minimum Level of
Service D or better at all intersections. These improvements would be needed
with or without the project.
I3
o A summary of the intersection service level analysis results is provided in Tables 5 and
6.
Conclusions - The Temecula Regional Center will add traffic to the adjacent street network
over and above that which would be attributable to other ongoing and planned development
projects. Assuming that recommended improvements are implemented, all but one
intersections would operate at Level of Service D or better.
Development of the Temecula Regional Center will provide a more favorable balance of
jobs and housing in the Southwest area. It would also serve a regional -oriented shopping
market demand which currently does not e)dst in the area. This would have a beneficial
effect on reducing total vehicle miles of travel for the region by providing more local
employment and shopping opportunities. The project thereby results in decreased levels of
air pollution and congestion which would otherwise be associated with a less "balanced" land
use proposal (e.g., residential uses).
Recommendations - The recommended roadway and intersection improvements for the
study area are depicted in Figures 16 and 17. All off-site improvements are recommended
for accommodating future traffic volumes with or without the project.
The developer should be responsible for "direct project access" improvements along the site
boundaries and on-site improvements as well as a "fair -share" amount towards the
implementation of needed off-site improvements. Bedford Properties is a principal
participant in the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12 and Winchester
Assessment District 161. These two improvement districts will provide funding for almost
all of the needed off-site improvements. Additional "fair -share" participation would be
warranted in the implementation of those off-site improvements not addressed in the current
improvement districts.
4
H. Proposed Project Development
This section describes the proposed Temecula Regional Center project in terms of location,
land use, zoning, site plan and implementation schedule.
A. Location
The proposed Regional Center site is located within the City of Temecula, immediately east
' of Ynez Road; and south of Winchester Road (see Figure 1). The proposed future
alignments of Margarita Road and Apricot Avenue would ultimately bound the project on
the east and south sides of the project site respectively.
B. Proposed Land Use
As proposed, the Temecula Regional Center would consist of three principal project
development areas. These project sub -areas are depicted in Figure 1 and proposed land use
alternatives are summarized in Tables la and lb. Sub -Area la, located in the northeastern
portion of the site, would include a mix of retail, office and hotel uses. Two land use
alternatives are being considered for Sub -Area 2 which comprises the central and western
' portion of the site. The "regional mall' alternative would consist of an enclosed retail
shopping mall and several detached clusters of retail uses. The "power center" alternative
would include a somewhat smaller open-air retail shopping center, detached clusters of retail
uses, office uses, and hotel uses. Sub -Areas lb and 3 would include a mix of office and
retail uses. The ultimate distribution of land use within the site will be a factor of future
market conditions. Specific land uses and square footage of floor area may vary in the final
development plan. The proposed land use assumed in this study is considered a "likely"
development scenario but is not assured.
C. Site Plan Layout
The proposed conceptual site plan for the Temecula Regional Center project is presented
in the attached Appendix to this report for illustrative purposes. Future refinements of the
1 5
M m r r M M w M M M M !f• = M M 11111111110 M
iI►N�
IFMRUU
INEME
Wiii
LEGEND:
(3) Sub - Area Identification
CHESTER MEADOWS
CAMPOS VERDES
Development Area And Sub -Areas
Regional Center OR Traffic Study R.
' Table la
Assumed Land Use
Regional Mall Alternative
Temecula Regional Center
1
BY DEVELOPMENT AREA
I
CJ
I
I
Development
Area *
Net
Acres
A rwc
Size
Unit
Land Use
Sub -Area l
Retail
548
ksf
Office
la
39.20
Hotel
250
rooms
250
ksf
Retail
350
ksf
Office
250
rooms
Hotel
lb
32.77
35
ksf
Retail
420
ksf
Office
Sub -Area 2
97.80
1,125
ksf
Retail (Mall)
250
ksf
Retail (Detached from Mall)
Sub -Area 3
5.49
13
ksf
Retail
40
ksf
Office
Total I
175.26
• Refer to Figure 1.
• ksf - Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Area)
I��� \\�17i1.`7x s Y • C
Land Use
Size
Unit
Retail Mall
1,125
ksf
Retail
548
ksf
Office
810
ksf
Hotel
250
rooms
Note: land use allocations and square footage stated in the table are based on the developers current "best guess" apprmdmations
1 of how the site may be developed.
121D1e 10
Assumed Land Use
Power Center Alternative
Temecula Regional Center
RMT&TAWON&A Ed TUMVITi ME
Development
Area *
Net
Acres
Appmx
`
Size
Unit
Land Use
Sub -Area 1
Retail
548
ksf
Office
la
39.20
Hotel
400
rooms
250
ksf
Retail
350
ksf
Office
250
rooms
Hotel
lb
32.77
35
ksf
Retail
420
ksf
Office
Sub -Area 2
97.80
800
ksf
Retail (Power Center)
250
ksf
Retail (Detached from Power Center)
450
ksf
Office
150
rooms
Hotel
Sub -Area 3
5.49
13
ksf
Retail
40
ksf
Office
Total
175.26
• Refer to Figure 1.
• ksf - Thousand Square Feet (Gross leasable Floor Area)
ftra W1.0191.3WO M21091 [i'1
Land Use
Size
Unit
Retail Power Center
800
ksf
Retail
548
ksf
Office
1,260
ksf
Hotel
400
rooms
Notc Land use allocations and square footage stated in the table are based on the developers t nt "beat guess" approximations
of how the site may be developed.
[1
1
1
I
1
1
site plan may result in changes to the layout and breakdown of building square footage.
Proposed access for the Regional Center is described below:
o Primary on-site access and circulation would be provided by the north -south
Regional Center Road (identified as Loop Street 'B" on the site plan) which
would essentially form the boundary between the core retail center (Sub -Area 3)
and Sub -Areas la and lb. This principal project road is assumed to be a four -
lane roadway with median provisions for left turns. Full movement intersections
are planned at 700 to 800 -foot spacings between Winchester Road and Apricot
Avenue.
o A secondary on-site access road is proposed which would provide an east -west
connection between Regional Center Road and Margarita Road. This road (not
specifically identified on the site plan) would essentially be a westerly extension
of General Kearny Road and would form the boundary between project Sub -
Areas la and lb. This new on-site extension of General Kearny Road is also
assumed to be a four -lane roadway with left -turn bays.
o Apricot Avenue is proposed to cut through the southern extremity of the project
site in an east -west direction between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. Apricot
Avenue would serve as access to the project via the Regional Center Road
intersection located midway between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. Right -turn
in -and -out site access is proposed on Apricot Avenue midway between Ynez
Road and Regional Center Road, and between Regional Center Road and
Margarita Road.
o Access intersections along Winchester Road are proposed at two locations equally
spaced between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. The west intersection would
serve the main entrance to Sub -Area 2 (proposed core retail center). The east
intersection would be located at the new north -south Regional Center Road.
Right -turn in -and -out access driveways are proposed midway between the full
access intersections.
o On Ynez Road, three access points are proposed. One full movement access
intersection for Sub -Area 2 would be located opposite the main signalized
intersection for Palm Plaza (P.P.11222). A right-in/right-out access driveway is
proposed immediately south of Apricot Avenue and would serve project Sub -Area
3
3. A second right-in/right-out access driveway is proposed between the Palm
Plaza intersection and Apricot Avenue.
o Two full -access intersections are proposed on Margarita Road between
Winchester Road and Apricot Avenue. One intersection would be located at the
new General Kearny Road extension and one midway between Winchester Road
and General Kearny Road (opposite the proposed Campos Verdes Loop Road).
Additional limited access (right -in -and -out) is proposed at one location along the
Margarita Road frontage of project Sub -Area lb.
D. Zoning and Land Use
Existing zoning for the site is a combination of Rural Residential (R -R) and Heavy
Agriculture (A-2-20). The commercial uses targeted for the site expansion would be
consistent with the Southwest Area Plan Commercial designation for this area. The project
site is located in an area currently designated as Land Use Category 1 (Heavy Urban).
E. Phasing and Timing
According to Bedford Properties, the entire Temecula Regional Center could be developed
within a ten-year period. Future area demographics and market trends would, however,
have significant influence on the actual project development schedule. Preliminary
scheduling for the Sub -Area 2 portion of the project calls for its completion within a five to
seven-year period.
Given the uncertainties in the project development schedule, the traffic impact study
addresses full development of the Temecula Regional Center. Assumptions regarding other
area development (included in the traffic analysis) are discussed later in the report.
7
I III. Area Conditions
r
This section describes the traffic impact study area for the Temecula Regional Center
project in terms of coverage, land use, and existing and planned transportation system.
rA. Study Area
Under Riverside County guidelines, the area of significant traffic impact is defined to include
all intersections which would experience an increase of five percent (5%) or more in existing
rpeak hour traffic volumes as a result of the project. These "typical case" guidelines could
not be used in defining the Regional Center study area for the following reasons:
' o The addition of new planned area roadways will drastically change existing travel
' patterns; and
o Many new intersections will be formed by the expanded roadway network.
Other factors, such as those listed below, result in the actual new project trips which would
' be added to the adjacent street system to be significantly less than the total number of
vehicle trips generated by the project.
ro The new shopping opportunities offered by proposed retail development in the
Regional Center would intercept a portion of the traffic (e)isting and future)
which would otherwise pass the site on the way to other retail establishments in
Temecula and outside the area.
o Since Winchester Road is a principal access road between the Temecula
employment center or I-15 and several large residential developments located to
' the northeast, the convenience of the Regional Center location would encourage
shopping trips to be made as a secondary purpose (e.g., stopping "on the way
' to..." or "on the way home") rather than a primary purpose (e.g., home to shop
and returning home).
11
' 8
It is clear, however, that the Regional Center would have a significant influence on area
travel patterns and traffic conditions. For the purpose of this traffic impact assessment, the
area of detailed study was essentially defined by the roadway corridor which would provide
primary access to and from the project. The following primary access corridors were
designated for detailed study:
o The Winchester Road corridor from Diaz Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road;
o The Ynez Road corridor from Date Street to Rancho California Road;
o The Margarita Road corridor from Date Street to Solana Way; and
o Apricot Avenue from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
B. Study Area Land Use
The project site is situated in the northern Temecula area, which is currently under
development. Existing zoning in the area is a combination of IP, M -SC, C -P -S, R -R and A-
2-20 (Heavy Agriculture). The Southwest Area Plan designates the Regional Center site as
Commercial. The surrounding area is designated as predominantly Commercial with some
Light Industrial and higher density residential.
Existing land use development in the area is limited with most nearby development occurring
in the Ynez Road corridor. This development includes a mix of light manufacturing, auto
sales and service, office, and retail centers. Existing residential development in the area is
limited to the recently completed projects of Roripaugh Hills and Woodcrest Country.
These residential areas are located northeast and southeast of the Regional Center site.
In accordance with County guidelines for traffic impact studies, all approved development
projects in the area were assumed to be completed in the development of future background
traffic forecasts at project build -out. It should be noted the nearby planned projects
identified in Figure 1 were also assumed to be built -out by the completion of the Regional
Center. Other planned (but not yet approved) projects within an approximate two-mile
radius were also included. More remote planned but not yet approved projects were
assumed to be 50 percent developed. Approved and planned development included in this
study is tabulated in the Technical Appendix.
O
' C. Site Access
The existing roadway network serving the project site is depicted in Figure 2. The roadway
facilities providing access to and from the project site include:
' o Escondido Freeway (1-15) - The Escondido Freeway is a major north -south
freeway serving the Temecula area, linking it to Riverside, the Los Angeles
metropolitan area (via the Corona Freeway) and San Diego. In the vicinity of the
proposed project, I-15 has eight through travel lanes. Project site access to and
' from I-15 is provided via a "modified diamond" type interchange with a 'loop"
ramp in the northwest quadrant. The interchange is located on Winchester Road
(State Route 79) west of the project site.
o Winchester Road (State Route 79) - Winchester Road is a regional state highway
which provides regional access to and from the Hemet/Banning area (northeast
of Temecula) as well as local access to and from I-15. Winchester Road is a four -
lane Major Street west of Jefferson Avenue and a two to four- lane Urban
Arterial east of Jefferson Avenue. Winchester Road west of Jefferson Avenue
has generally been improved to its planned four -lane cross-section. East of
' Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road will ultimately provide six travel lanes. The
improvement of Winchester Road east of I-15 is being funded by Assessment
' District 161. The widening of Winchester Road between 1-15 and Margarita
Road is currently underway and should be completed by the third quarter of 1991.
' o Ynez Road - Ynez Road, which is located immediately west of the project site,
is currently a four -lane road in the vicinity of Rancho California Road, but
narrows to two lanes north of Rancho California Plaza. Adjacent to Palm Plaza,
Ynez Road has already been widened to its ultimate six lane section. North of
Winchester Road, Ynez has been improved to a full four -lane (Major) cross-
section. The General Plan Circulation Element currently designates Ynez Road
(between Palm Plaza and Rancho California Road) as a six -lane Urban Arterial.
' This section is currently in design review and will be implemented via the
approved Community Facilities District 88-12.
o Mariearita Road/General Kearny Road - Margarita Road is a two to four -lane
Arterial street which currently becomes North General Kearny north of Solana
' Way. Margarita Road will ultimately be extended north across Winchester Road
and continue north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
' 10
SAM
Existing Traffic/Roadway Characteristics
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
I Road
(In Th
cles Pi
uctlon
Figu
o Solana Wav - Solana Way is a two-lane Major road which connects Ynez Road
with Margarita Road (a north -south Arterial located east of Ynez Road). East
of Margarita Road, Solana Way becomes a Secondary road serving residential
' areas in the vicinity of the project site.
o Rancho California Road - is a principal east -west roadway which provides access
' to I-15 and the Plaza and downtown Temecula business areas from residential
areas east and west of the I-15 freeway/business corridor. East of Front Street,
Rancho California Road is an Arterial roadway providing four travel lanes to a
point east of Ynez Road and the Town Shopping Center.
o Jefferson Avenue/Front Street - Jefferson Avenue, located west of I-15, is
currently designated as a four -lane Major Street within the project study area.
' South of Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue is improved to its ultimate cross-
section. The improvement of Jefferson Avenue between Santa Gertrudis Creek
' and Date street is currently underway and should be completed within one year.
o Nicolas Road - is a two-lane east -west roadway which intersects with Winchester
' Road northeast of the project site. Nicolas Road, a designated Arterial, currently
serves the newly developing residential area located east of Winchester Road.
rI
Traffic controls at many of the principal intersections along major access roads serving the
' project area are currently limited to "stop" sign control except at the Winchester
Road/Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road/I-15 Ramp intersections and Ynez Road/Rancho
' California Road intersections which are signalized. Four-way stop controls currently exist
at the intersection of Winchester Road/Ynez Road and Margarita Road/Solana Way. Three-
way stop controls are in use at the intersection of Ynez Road/Solana Way.
The currently planned circulation element for the area (as reflected in the Riverside County
' General Plan) is depicted in Figure 3. Typical cross-sections for - the various street
classifications designated in the circulation element and a summary of planned travel lanes
' and estimated daily vehicle design capacities (by roadway classification) are provided in the
Appendix attached to this report.
1
11
°14
e
DATE ST. A I A
4L4L
U J � a
Y
W
u N
w CHERRY St.
a IC 2L
0
Avlh,
III
/A
N A58G(Sag
UA
w 11 �9
4 v 2 QprP ��
i I 7 .
A P H DATE ST.
qL A A 4L 4L
t% N
4L 4L
e a <
e
a
j N J A -ST.
0 <
C 2L
5 AL OOG G
9 < C tiV P
2L
Cpr/Nrwv r'tRd. IC 2L n
Anticipated Transportation System
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
Figuj
LEGEND
2L
Number OI Traffic Lanes
F
Freeway, R/W 200 Fl.
PROJECT
UA
Urban Arterial, R/W 134 F'
SITE
A
Arterial, R/W 110 Ft.
M
Major, R/W 100 Ft.
S
Secondary, R/W 88 FL
IC
industrial Collector, R/W T
C
Collector, R/W 66 FL
tEAq
SP
SPeclel Project Road, R/W
HY q0.
110 FL
Ae
ModlRed Arterial Section W/
R/W Varies.
Anticipated Transportation System
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
Figuj
' D. Traffic Conditions
Estimated 1990 average daily traffic volumes are depicted in Figure 2. Actual 1990 morning
and evening peak -hour traffic volumes are included in the Technical Appendix. Information
1 on 1990 traffic conditions was prepared using recent traffic counts obtained through field
investigations, from Caltrans District 8, and from the Riverside County Road Department.
Traffic counts were factored, where necessary, to estimate 1990 daily traffic volumes. To
update available counts, the following traffic growth assumptions were applied:
' o An increase of 10 percent per year was applied to 1988 and earlier traffic counts
available for I-15.
11
1
o
An increase of 14 percent per year was applied to 1989 traffic counts on local
12
roadways. This traffic growth assumption is significantly higher than the five
percent average growth rate currently experienced in Riverside County, but
reflects the higher than normal average traffic growth recently experienced in the
'
Temecula area.
o
Peak -hour factors ranging from 10 to 12 percent were applied to recent peak -
hour traffic counts to estimate 1990 daily traffic volumes where recent counts
were not available.
The evaluation of 1990 traffic volumes and roadway capacities in the project study area
indicated:
o
All existing roadway segments in the study area are currently operating at Level
of Service C or better.
'
o
Field observation of traffic conditions at the recently signalized I-15 ramp
intersections on Winchester Road indicate that these intersections are operating
at service level 'D" or better during the morning and evening peak periods.
'
According to the ICU analysis, these interchange ramp intersections could operate
at service level "C" or better if they were interconnected or synchronized.
11
1
12
o The Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue intersection should operate at service
level "C' or better according to the ICU analysis. However, eastbound traffic
queues at the Winchester Road approach to the southbound I-15 off -ramp do not
allow full utilization of signal green time for eastbound movements at the
Jefferson Avenue intersection.
E. Transit Service
Local transit service is not available today in the study area, and it is not likely to be
available (to any significant degree) within the next three to four years. Although area
population at project build -out could support some form of transit service, none has been
assumed in the traffic analysis.
F. Transportation System Management (TSM) Programs
At the present time, TSM programs in the Temecula area are limited to car pool incentive
programs which have been implemented by a few of the major employers.
13
I
I
1
J
1
I�
IV. Projected Traffic
This section describes the methodology used for projecting traffic generated by the proposed
Temecula Regional Center project (site traffic) and other non -site related traffic in the study
area. For the purpose of the traffic impact assessment, traffic volumes have been projected
for the following three study year/development scenarios.
o Eidsting plus project (to satisfy EIR requirements);
o Year 2000 without project; and
o Year 2000 with project.
'Be year 2000 scenario has been designated to: 1) represent regional development
conditions (population level) which would reasonably support the market demands of a
regional shopping mall and other retail/employment opportunities proposed in the Temecula
Regional Center; and 2) to represent build -out development conditions in the study area for
assessing long-range transportation needs. The year 2000 has been selected to represent this
condition for purposes of convenience in identification only. The actual date of project
completion could occur before or after the year 2000.
A. Traffic Forecasting Methodology
Traffic volumes were estimated using the TranPlan traffic forecasting model previously
developed by Wilbur Smith Associates for the Rancho California Regional Transportation
Planning Study. The regional forecasting model consists of over 400 transportation analysis
zones (TAZ's) and over 4,500 street links. The TAZ's were expanded to include the special
land uses proposed in the Temecula Regional Center project as well as the planned
Margarita Meadows Commercial Center, Winchester Hills development, Winchester
Meadows Industrial Park and Campos Verdes residential project. The street network was
also re -coded to reflect the anticipated on-site circulation network and off-site roadway
access to the four projects. A copy of the detailed link-node/TAZ network developed for
the Regional Center study area is provided in the Appendix attached to this report.
14
Socioeconomic data was estimated for the TAZ's within the Southwest Area Community
Plan (with the exception of the immediate study area TAZ's) based on the existing,
approved, planned, and unplanned land uses within the Southwest Area. Socioeconomic
data which was estimated included the number of dwelling units, population, retail
employment, and non -retail employment. Trips generated from TAZ's outside the
immediate study area were estimated as a function of dwelling units, retail employment, and
non -retail employment. The residential trip rates for Riverside County from the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) forecasting model were used to estimate
residential trip productions. Trip attractions for retail and industrial uses were estimated
using equations cited in NCHRP 187 Quick -Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques
and Transferable Parameters.' 1978.
The TAZ's which defined the Temecula Regional Center project and other major planned
developments within the immediate study area (including the Ynez corridor) were treated
as special traffic generators and the vehicle trips generated by these TAZ's were estimated
using site specific trip generation rates. A detailed summary of vehicle trip production and
attraction estimated to be generated within the project study area TAZ's is included in the
attached Appendix.
Vehicle trips were distributed between the TAZ's using the Gravity Model trip distribution
method. The Gravity Model estimates trips between TAZ's as a function of the trip
production, trip attractions, and travel time friction factors between TAZ's. The Friction
Factors included in the Gravity Model were obtained from the SCAG traffic forecasting
model. The Gravity Model produced a daily trip table of daily productions and attractions
between TAZ's. The production and attraction trip table was then converted to a daily
vehicle trip origin/destination table. An evening peak -hour vehicle trip table was developed
by factoring the daily origin/destination trip table.
The vehicle trip table was then assigned to the street network using an equilibrium traffic
assignment model. The traffic volumes were assigned in five iterations. For each iteration,
the travel time on each street link was recomputed as a function of the volume -capacity ratio
on that link. The vehicle trips were then reassigned to other travel paths based on the new
travel times. The resulting traffic volumes on the network are therefore capacity restrained
volumes. Vehicle trips were assigned for all day and evening peak hours. Traffic
assignments were also developed for the network without the Regional Center project to
simulate traffic conditions for the "no build" scenario.
is
B. Site Traffic
' The estimation of peak -hour and daily traffic to and from the project site involved four
different procedures: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, (3) mode split, and (4) trip
' assignment.
Trip Generation is the procedure used to estimate the number of vehicle trips entering and
leaving the project site during peak periods and on a daily basis. Vehicle trips generation
estimates have been developed for the two project land use alternatives defined in Tables
' la and lb. Daily vehicle trip generation rates used for the Temecula Regional Center uses
are based on information developed and published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition. Daily vehicle trip rates
applied to the two Regional Center land use alternatives are summarized in Tables 2a and
2b.
Application of the trip generation rates (presented in Tables 2a and 2b) to the Regional
' Center land use alternatives (presented in Tables la and lb) results in the daily vehicle trip
generation summarized in Tables 3a and 3b. Based on the assumed land use mix, both the
' 'Regional Mall" and "Power Center" land use alternatives would generate approximately
64,850 daily vehicle trips.
' Peak -hour trip generation for the project land use alternatives (also summarized in Tables
3a and 3b) has been developed using the TranPlan model which essentially factors the daily
vehicle trip production and attractions according to trip purpose (e.g., home-based work,
' home-based other and non -home based). The factors used to develop peak -hour trip
generation are based on NCHRP average factors which have been adjusted according to
' SCAG/RIVSAN model characteristics. Peak period factors are summarized in the separate
Technical Appendix. TranPlan model estimates for the A.M. peak -hour project trip
generation were found to be conservatively higher when compared to manually estimated
trip generation using standard ITE peak -hour trip rates. Trip generation for the P.M. peak
' hour were consistent with the standard rates.
A comparison of peak -hour trip generation for 'Regional Mall" and "Power Center"
' alternatives shows insignificant differences between the two, both on a project -wide scale and
individual Sub -Area basis. As such, the remainder of the traffic analysis has been based on
traffic generation for the 'Regional Mall" alternative only.
16
Table 2a
Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Regional Mall Alternative
Temecula Regional Center
Source: rrE Trip Generation, Fourth Edition except where noted
• - Size noted only where size is used to determine trip rate. Floor area values are based on current approximations.
" - Estimated based on proximity to Regional Mall. ,
ksf -Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Area)
;'DAILY _ _
LOCATION OF
LAND USE
SIZE*
UNIT
TRIP RATE
LAND USE
RETAIL:
Regional Mall
1,125
ksf32.0
Sub -Area 2
Adjacent to Mall
Sub -Area 2
Within Core Area
Sub -Area la & lb
Fringe Area
Sub -Area 3
OFFICE:
Small
40
ksf
24.4
Sub -Area 3
�r
350
ksf
10 0
Sub -Area la
Lai e
420
ksf
9.6
Sub -Area lb
HOTEL
room
8.7
Sub -Area la
Source: rrE Trip Generation, Fourth Edition except where noted
• - Size noted only where size is used to determine trip rate. Floor area values are based on current approximations.
" - Estimated based on proximity to Regional Mall. ,
ksf -Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Area)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
Table 2b
Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Power Center Alternative
Temecula Regional Center
Source: M Trip Generation, Fourth Edition except where noted
• - Size noted only where size is used to determine trip rate. Floor area values arc based on current approximations.
•• - Estimated based on proximity to Power Center.
ksf - Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Area)
DAILY
LOCATION OF
LAND USE
SIZE*
UNIT
TRIP RATE,
LAND USE
RETAIL:
Power Center
800
ksf
36.0
Sub -Area 2
Adjacent to Power Center
36.0 **
Sub -Area 2
Within Core Area
38A :' **
Sub -Area la & lb
Fringe Area
40A **
Sub -Area 3
OFFICE:
Small
40
ksf
24.4 .....
Sub -Area 3
350
ksf ...........................................
10.0...1:.. __ .'
Sub -Area la
i
420
..........................................
..........................................
ksf9
6 !'
Sub -Area lb
Large
450
ksf
9.4 s
Sub -Area 2
HOTEL
room
8.7
Sub -Area la & 2
Source: M Trip Generation, Fourth Edition except where noted
• - Size noted only where size is used to determine trip rate. Floor area values arc based on current approximations.
•• - Estimated based on proximity to Power Center.
ksf - Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Area)
Table 3a
Vehicle Trip Generation Summary
Regional Mall Alternative
Temecula Regional Center
PROJECT VEHICLE TRIPS
LAND USE/ TOTAL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DEVELOPMENT AREA TAZ I SIZE UNIT DAILY In Out Total I In Out Total
Retail
250 ksf
8,750
Office
350 ksf
3,500
Hotel
212 *rooms
1,849
Retail I I 35 ksf I 1,225
Office 420 ksf 4,030
RetailI I 250 ksf 8,000
Mall 1.125 ksf 36.000
Retail I I 13 ksf I 520
Office 40 ksf 976
ksf- Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Area)
• - Assumes optimistic 85 percent occupancy.
Note. Peak hour trips indicated in this table only include those trips which would enter and leave the individual development sub -areas.
Additional trips (approximately 5 to 10 percent) would occur within each development sub -area.
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Table 3b
Vehicle Trip Generation Summary
Power Center Alternative
Temecula Regional Center
LAND USE/ TOTAL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
DEVELOPMENT AREA TAZ I SIZE UNIT I DAILY In Out Total I In Out Total
Retail
250 ksf
9,500
Office
I
350 ksf
I
3,500
Hotel
800
212 * rooms
1.849
Retail 1 1 35 ksf 1 1,330
Retail
250
ksf
9,000
Power Center
800
ksf
28,800
Office
450
ksf
4,240
Hotel
127
rooms
1,105
SUB -AREA
1;496 :
.... ...... .... .. .... ....... ..
........ 82 114�
Retail
13
ksf
520
Office
40
ksf
976
ksf- Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Area)
- -Assumes optimistic 85 percent occupancy.
Note: Peak hour project trips indicated in this table only inleude those trips which would enter and leave the individual development sub -areas.
Additional trips (approximately 5 to 10 percent) would occur within each development sub -area.
Trip Distribution is the procedure used to identify the roadways used in traveling to and
from the project site, and the percentage of site -related travel that will use each roadway.
The traffic forecasting methodology used in the study does not require assumption to be
made regarding the distribution of trips. The distribution of project trips was performed
using the Gravity Model method which distributes trips between area traffic zones based on
the magnitude of trip productions and trip attractions in each zone and the travel times
between traffic zones.
Modal Split is the procedure used to reduce the estimated number of site -related vehicle
trips to reflect: (1) public transit access to the site; and (2) higher than normal car pool,
bicycle or pedestrian access to the site. In the case of the Regional Center project, standard
ITE trip rates were used directly and no additional modal split factors were applied.
Trip Assignment is the procedure used to allocate the vehicle trips generated by the project
to roadways within the study area based on the trip generation, trip distribution, and modal
split procedures described above. The methodology used in this study employed the use of
the TranPlan model to assign project -related vehicle trips to the area network. For the
purpose of illustrating "project only" traffic, project -related trips were assigned to the area
roadway network in an isolated fashion using the distribution generated by the Gravity
Model. This method reflects the desired distribution of project traffic without the affects of
capacity constraints. The analysis of future traffic conditions "with the project" (discussed
later) reflects traffic assignments (including project and non -project trips) which are capacity
restrained.
Daily traffic volumes generated by the project site are depicted in Figure 4.
C. Existing Plus Project Traffic
E)dsting plus project traffic projections have been developed only for the purpose of
satisfying the EIR documentation requirement. for this scenario. Any conclusion or
interpretation drawn from the information should carefully consider the following factors:
o The scenario is purely hypothetical since the project could not be developed
without additional area development occurring.
17
DATE ST. 1.0
C
V
FHHY 1.1 +r
m
(0.2)
A
SITE
\\ m
III ° m
PD' 9
,�P n
P6PP 9�0
s
FP Nq
9
LEGEND
1.3 Total Traffic (In Thousands)
(0.9) Project Traffic (In Thousands)
(*) Less Then 100 Vehicles Per[
jq Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic
Asp Regional Center EIR Traffic Study Figun
' o The addition of project traffic to existing traffic flows does not take into account:
- the double counting of project trips which would actually be drawn from
existing traffic passing the site;
1 - the influence that the new shopping and employment opportunities offered by
the project would have on existing area travel patterns; and
- the effects of the post -project roadway system (availability on new routes) on
the distribution of existing traffic.
' All of the above factors would have the affect of "reducing" the net impact conclusions
typically drawn from a comparison of existing traffic volumes with existing plus project traffic
volumes.
These notwithstanding, existing plus project daily traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 4.
D. Non -Site Traffic
Non -site related traffic volumes have been projected for the year 2000, which essentially
represents build -out conditions within the project study area.
Year 2000 Non -Site Traffic projections represent traffic generated by other area
development anticipated to be in place at the time the Regional Center project is built out.
Area development assumptions represented by the scenario include:
o Existing land uses;
o Build -out of county -approved project land uses;
o Build -out of all planned but not yet approved projects within an approximate two-
mile radius of the Regional Center including Margarita Meadows, Winchester
' Hills, Campos Verdes, Winchester Meadows, and proposed projects in the Ynez
corridor; and
i
18
o Fifty percent build -out of all other major projects within the Southwest Area '
Community Plan which have been identified as having plans "in progress" and
most of which are in some stage of formal review by area planning agencies. '
It is estimated that this level of local and regional development would reasonably support t
the employment and shopping opportunities planned for the Regional Center. The
methodology used for developing traffic increases associated with other local development
projects was essentially the same as that used for developing site -related traffic projections:
o Trip generation for nearby existing planned and approved development projects �.
was based on previous project specific traffic studies where available. Standard
ITE or City of San Diego trip factors were used where earlier studies were not
readily available. Trip generation for other more remote existing approved and '
planned projects was based on the following:
- residential trip rates (productions) from the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) forecasting model; and
- retail and non -retail employment rates from NCHRP 187 Quick -Response
Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferrable Parameters. 1978.
o Non -site traffic distribution was developed using the Gravity Model method. It
should be noted that the roadway network used for the "without project"
development scenario did not include any on-site roads except for the Apricot
Avenue roadway segment between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
Projected Year 2000 Non -Site Traffic Volumes for study area roadways are depicted in
Figure 5 (daily) and Figures 6 and 7 (AM and PM peak hours).
E. Total Traffic Projections
Total traffic projections for the study area roadways were developed by adding in the vehicle
trip generation (primarily trip attractions) for the Regional Center traffic analysis zones and
modifying the roadway network to include on-site roadways. The TranPlan modeling process
was thus repeated and a new set of forecasts was developed. The resulting year 2000 traffic
projections for the "with project" scenario are depicted in Figure 8 (daily) and Figures 9 and
-—10-(AM and -PM peak hours):
19
IIID m = IIII= l illi li W1111111111 Ili ,•r r Ii IiIII�f w iI�
IT
f � i
a
0
a
DATE ST. 29.8
28.8
Y �
w n a
¢ N
F CHENNY 5{
s 5.1
�1
m
iml
as%
Wl
I ASXX�
7
sA �' 4.7
NTA
T.-
6
80.0 39.4
22.5
to
N
It
.2 21.8 17.9 DATE ST. 9.S
1.0
LEGEND
8.7 Traffic Volume (In Thousan
Projected Daily Traffic
Year 2000 W/O Project
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
Figur
i= M i# ttttt• M m: 9U= Ifil sw 11111111110 = sw so M
745
-0 "52U
m a x-543
1 1 _ 1,356
"W* —1423m
WINCHESTER RD. 409
354
✓
.1 N o
L .l 1.
573, 1 1
66J
1232-•
1376-+
5131 n n
180
1888/
10
183-
100✓
22 -
AT AVE. C '�i
B lk
AW
�:":2„
M M .s M mom s m m m� m m I� �
LEGEND
15 Traffic Volume
Projected PM Peak Hour Traffic
Year 2000 W/O Project
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study Figun
M M 4M no ,M.IM
►\\
\\1
WIl
r�
dw: i m
M M on
>M M M w M
Projected Daily Traffic
Year 2000 W/Project
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
LEGEND
8.7 Traffic Volume (In Thoi
Figui
Projected AM Peak Hour Traffic
Year 2000 With Project
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
LEGEND:
12 Traffic Volume
Figure 9
M11110111 immImmign Mon mom MM wmmm
II
lie
10/
LEGEND:
12 Traffic Volume
ASCII
SUERN Projected AM Peak Hour Traffic
WOR1
VVA Year 2000 With Project
UR %M ASSoa,s Winchester Meadows Traffic Study Figure 91
(! a■� MM M M r= M r M M M IIS M M M
Projected PM Peak Hour Traffic
Year 2000 With Project
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
LEGEND:
40 Traffic Volume
Figure 1
OVJLQF&
rIillaulk
L■■..
ABA
I 4 S9oCl4,F5
a M M MW ii• = ii• M iitii MIM it
Projected PM Peak Hour Traffic
Year 2000 With Project
Winchester Meadows Traffic Study
LEGEND:
40 Traffic Volume
Figure 1
1 V. Existing Plus Project Traffic Analysis
Analysis of the "existing plus project" scenario has been performed specifically for the
purpose of satisfying EIR requirements. The analysis of this scenario is often used as a
means of identifying the incremental impacts of a project and usually provides a good
approximation of project impacts when applied in an area which already has an established
arterial street network. In the case of the Temecula Regional Center, the surrounding street
network will be significantly improved (whether or not the Regional Center project is
implemented) and current travel patterns will change dramatically. It is also highly likely
that a portion of the existing trips being made on the adjacent streets would be intercepted
' by the Regional Center project. Existing traffic volumes do not reflect the future roadway
configuration or the influences of the project. Project traffic assignments, on the other hand,
reflect trips which would be attracted to the site from areas which are not yet developed and
currently have no roads in place. These new facilities must be assumed to exist, however,
in order to realistically distribute trips to and from the project. It also must be recognized
that new retail development projects do not generate new shopping trips, but rather compete
with other retail establishments for a share of the market demand which will exist as a result
of residential development in the area. If the new Regional Center is not built, the shopping
demand would have to be satisfied by other retail centers. Given the lack of "regional -type"
centers in the area, local residents would be forced to travel much longer distances to satisfy
their shopping needs. Considering all of these factors, it is very difficult to draw any logical
conclusions regarding incremental project -related impacts from the existing plus project
' scenario analysis.
A. Roadway Segment Service Levels
Volume -capacity comparisons were made for all roadways which would provide primary
access to the Temecula Regional Center. Roadway capacities used in this analysis are based
' on Riverside County "standard" capacities developed for General Plan Circulation Element
roads (refer to Appendix A) and reflect the available traffic lanes assumed in the anticipated
area roadway network (see Figure 3).
I
0
Findings of the existing plus project roadway service level analyses indicate that all roadway
segments in the area would operate at service level 'B" or better assuming the anticipated
roadway network is implemented. It should be noted that this does not suggest that the
anticipated roadway network improvements would need to be implemented "in their entirety"
to accommodate existing plus project traffic volumes. Based on the magnitude of the traffic
volumes, a far less extensive roadway network with fewer traffic lanes than those assumed
in the analysis would adequately serve the combined total of existing plus project traffic
flows. Several of the planned new roadway facilities (e.g., Margarita Road and Jackson
Avenue north of Date Street) will be needed primarily to serve new already approved
residential projects in the area. Furthermore, if these new residential projects are not built,
then the Regional Center would, in essence, be losing a share of the anticipated market
demand created by residents of those projects and therefore attract fewer trips.
B. Existing Plus Project Intersection Service Levels
Analyses were made of existing plus project traffic movements at intersections located along
primary access routes to determine traffic service levels for the scenario. The Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure was used to evaluate peak -hour traffic service levels
at all major intersections. The results of the existing plus project ICU analyses are
summarized in Table 4. Intersection approach lanes assumed in the ICU analysis reflect
standard configurations which could be provided with the anticipated roadway classifications
and standard cross sections.
Based on the ICU analysis, all intersections would operate at Level of Service 'B" or better
with existing plus project traffic flows and the future anticipated roadway network. As
explained earlier, this does not imply that the incremental increase in traffic due to the
project would require that all of the intersection improvements assumed in the analysis need
to be implemented. In most cases, fewer intersection approach lanes could be provided and
still result in acceptable service levels.
C. Existing Plus Project Roadway Needs
Given the nature of the Temecula Regional Center project and its relationship/interaction
with future residential development in the area, it is difficult to access the true incremental
21
= Ml ® M
Table 4
ICU Summary
Existing Plus Project
Temecula Regional Center
Wilbur Smith Associates
les: T - Thm Lane; R - Right -Tum Lane; L - Left -Tam Lanr, NB - Northbound; SB - Southbound; EB - Eastbound; WB - Westbound
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) LOS - Level of Service
17 -Apr -91 _
Location
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Intersection Approach Lanes
NB SB EB
Existing
Existing W/Project
Existing
Existing W/Project
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
A
Campos Verdes Loop & General Kearny Rd.
0
A
7
A
0
A
4
A
0
0
0
0
I
I
2
0
1
2
19
Margarita Rd. & General Kearny Rd.
0
A
13
A
0
A
18
A
2
I
1
2
l
1
2
0
2
2
10
Margarita Rd. & Apricot Ave.
0
A
13
A
0
A
Is
A
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
13
Ynez Rd. & Solana Way
26
A
33
A
30
A
30
A
3
1
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
N
Margarita Rd. & Solana Wy.
16
A
21
A
24
A
37
A
2
0
2
2
1
l
1
1
2
2
K
Ynez Rd. & Rancho California Rd.
55
A
61
B
67
B
76
C
3
0
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
h0
Ynez Rd. & Apricot Ave
0
A
i5
A
0
A
l8
A
3
t
l
3
1
2
2
1
I
2
12
Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.
32
A
52
A
42
A
75
C
2
1
2
2
l
1-
3
1
2
3
N
Regional Center Rd. & Apricot Overpass
0
A
21
A
0
A
16
A
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
2
:6
Regional Center (E) Rd. & Winchester Rd.
0
A
22
A
0
A
39
A
I
I
2
I
1
1
3
1
l
3
�8
Margarita Rd. & Winchester Rd.
0
A
16
A
0
A
20
A
2
1
1
2
0
2
3
1
1
2
9
Margarita Rd. & Reg. Ctr. DOCampos V. Rd.
0
A
9
A
0
A
7
A
2
l
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
Il
Winchester Rd. & Nicolas Rd.
16
A
24
A
22
A
29
A
3
l
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
i2
Jefferson Ave.&Winchester Rd.
31
A
31
A
56
A
59
A
3
1
1
2
0
2
3
1
I
2
6
Jefferson Ave & Date St.
0
A
4
A
0
A
4
A
2
t
I
2
0
2
2
l
1
2
i3
Diaz Rd. & Winchester Rd.
0
A
6
A
0
A
6
A
2
l
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
19
Ynez Rd. & County Center Dr.
0
A
8
A
0
A
9
A
2
I
1
2
t
I
t
I
1
l
4
Ynez Rd. &"C" Street
0
A
8
A
0
A
8
A
2
I
l
2
1
l
1
1.
1
I
i2
Ynez Rd./Jackson Ave. & Date St.
0
A
8
A
0
A
8
A
2
0
2
2
1
1
2
l
2
2
12
Winchester Rd. & Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.
16
A
27
A
21
A
30
A
2
l
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
C
Reg Center W. Dr. & Winchester Rd.
0
A
8
A
0
A
6
A
1
I
2
I
1
1
3
1
1
3
.9
Roripaugh Rd. & Winchester Rd.
0
A
10
A
50
A
59
A
t
I
I
I
1
1
3
1
1
3
J
Jefferson Ave & Overland Apricot Ave
0
A
3
A
0
A
3
A
2
I
I
2
0
2
2
0
2
1
i1
Margarita Rd. & Win. 1111 Il" Street
0
A
7
A
0
A
5
A
2
0
I
2
1
0
0
1
I
0
A
"Ir Street & General Keamy Rd.
0
A
l0
A
0
A
7
A
I
I.
I
I
1
1
2
0
1.
2
0
NB 1.15 Ramps & Winchester Rd.
29
A
56
A
42
A
57
A
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
it
SB 1-15 Ramps & Winchester Rd.
60
A
61
B
50
A
53
A
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
0
3
N
Regional Center Rd. & General Kearny Rd.
0
A
6
A
0
A
12
A
2
1
0
2
0
t
0
0
0
0.
.2
North "C" SL & Campos Verdes Loop
0
A
6
A
0
A
6
A
l
1
1
l
1
l
1
1
1
1
.6
"II" Street & Campos Verdes Loop
0
A
7
A
0
A
7
A
I
I
1
l
I
1
1
1
l
1
.7
_Campes Verdes Loop & East "C" St.
0
A
3
A
0
A
3
A
1
0
l
1
1
0
0
1
t
0
Wilbur Smith Associates
les: T - Thm Lane; R - Right -Tum Lane; L - Left -Tam Lanr, NB - Northbound; SB - Southbound; EB - Eastbound; WB - Westbound
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) LOS - Level of Service
17 -Apr -91 _
impact of the project based on the existing plus project analysis. Any number of roadway
improvement scenarios could be formulated which would adequately service the combined
total of existing plus project traffic flows. As demonstrated in this analysis, the minimum
improvement needs would be far less, but yet consistent with, roadway improvements which
are under construction, under design or planned. Furthermore, the developer is currently
a major participant in two Assessment/Community Facilities Districts which will ultimately
fund most of the planned roadway improvements in the area.
The assessment of cumulative development impacts with and without the project (addressed
in the following chapter) provides a more realistic evaluation of the project -related impacts
on study area roadways.
W
VI. Year 2000 Traffic Analysis
Traffic analyses were performed for the proposed project access driveways, on-site roadways,
and at key locations along primary access routes (off-site) serving the project. This analysis
addresses future (year 2000) traffic conditions both with and without the project.
' The methodology used in the traffic operations analysis follows the requirements set forth
in the '"Traffic Impact Study Report Preparation Guide" developed by Riverside County
Road Department. The analyses include volume/capacity comparisons for: (1) key roadway
segments; and (2) intersections that would be used by site -related traffic. The analyses focus
more on the evaluation of study area intersections since intersections are typically the
limiting capacity factor when determining a roadway's traffic carrying ability.
' The analysis of peak -hour operating conditions at study area intersections was performed
' using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Highway Capacity Manual
traffic flow rate adjustment factors assumed in the ICU analysis are documented on the ICU
worksheets provided in the separate Technical Appendix.
' The results of the ICU analyses are summarized in Table 5a (without project) and Table 5b
(with project). Also included in Tables 5a and 5b are the intersection approach lane
configuration required to achieve the service level indicated. The locations of intersections
included in the ICU analysis are illustrated in Figure 11. Intersection identification numbers
shown in Figure 11 are referenced in Tables 5a and 5b.
' A. Project Vehicle -Miles of Travel
' Total vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) generated by the Temecula Regional Center project was
estimated by multiplying the total daily project vehicle trips by the average trip lengths
estimated for trips made within the Southwest Community Plan Area and for project trips
which would have an origin or destination located outside the Southwest Community area.
Based on an estimated average trip length of 8.7 miles, the 64,850 total project trips would
generate an estimated 564,195 vehicle -miles of travel daily.
1
23
r i r r w mom M Ir r r r r r
Table 5a
ICU Summary
Year 2000 Without Project
Temecula Reeional Center Update
r M r
Ids
Location
AM Peak
ICU LOS
PM Peak
ICU LOS
T
NB
R
L
Intersection Approach Lanes
SB EB
T R L T R
L
T
WB
R I
1138
Campos Verdes Loop & General Kearny Rd
32
A
29
A
0
0
0
0
I
1
2
0
1
2
0 f
1139
Margarita Rd. & General Kearny Rd.
61
B
61
B
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1 1
1140
Margarita Rd. & Apricot Ave
62
B
58
A
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
0 f
1143
Ynez Rd. & Solana Way
72
C
64
B
2
2
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
l 7
1144
Margarita Rd. & Solana Wy.
72
C
72
C
2
0
2
2
l
1
l
l
2
2
0 1
1186
Ynez Rd. & Rancho California Rd.
75
C
76
C
3
0
2
2
l
2
2
l
2
3
0 I
1190
Ynez Rd. & Apricol Ave.
80
C
80
C
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1.
1
2 7
1.191
Ynez Rd. & West Mail Dr.
36
A
50
A
3
0
2
3
1
0
0
1
2
0
0 0
1192
Yaez Rd & Winchester Rd.
93
E
81.
D
2
l
2
2
l
1
3
l
2
3
1. 2
1194
Regional Center Rd. & Apricot Overpass
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
1195
Regional Center Rd. & Fast Mall Dr.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I1%
Regional Center (E) Rd. & Winchester Rd.
62
B
M
A
0
0
0
0
I
l
3.
0
l
3
1 0
1198
Margarita Rd. & Winchester Rd.
71
C
60
A
2
1
1
2
1
t
3
l
2
3
I 2
1199
Margarita Rd. & Regi Clr. Dr4Campos V. Rd.
35
A
42
A
2
1
0
2
0
l
0
0
0
0
1 1
1201
Winchester Rd. & Nicolas Rd.
68
B
50
A
3
1
l
3
I
1
l
1
l
1
1 1
1252
Jefferson Ave & Winchester Rd.
l05
F
88
D
2
I
l
2
0
2
3
1
1
2
1 2
1256
Jefferson Ave & Date SL
69
B
74
C
2
1
I
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
1 2
1263
Diaz Rd. & Winchester Rd.
67
B
51
A
2
1
I
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
2 l
1349
Ynez Rd. & County Center Dr.
38
A
49
A
2
1
l
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 l
1350
Ynez Rd. & "C" Street
59
A
52
A
2
I
l
2
l
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1352
Ynez Rd./Jackson Ave. & Date SL
75
C
57
A
2
0
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
t 1
1375
Margarita Rd. & Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.
52
A
40
A
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0 l
1381
Roripaugh Rd. & Nicolas Rd.
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
I442
Winchester Rd. & Murdeta Hol Springs Rd.
55
A
59
A
2
t
2
2
t
1
2
1
2
2
1 2
2002
Regi Center W. Dr. & Winchester Rd.
41
A
38
A
0
0
0
0
1
I
3
0
1
3
1 0
2018
Margarita Rd. & Marg(Wln Mead.
25
A
43
A
2
l
1
2
l
I
1
0
l
l
I 1
2019
Roripaugh Rd. & Winchester Rd.
44
A
58
A
I
I
l
I
1
1
3
1
1
3
1 1
2023
Jefferson Ave. & Overland Apricot Are
69
B
67
B
2
I
l
2
0
2
2
0
2
1
1. 1
2027
Margarita Rd. & Date SL
56
A
47
A
2
1
l
2
1
I
2
1
2
2
1 1
2051
Margarita Rd. & Win. IHIIs W Street
40
A
30
A
2
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
I
0
0 f
2060
"H" Street & General Kearny Rd.
26
A
30
A
I.
1
l
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0 1
2090
NB 1.15 Ramps & Winchester Rd.
88
D
53
A
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
1 1
2091
SB I-15 Ramps & Winchester Rd.
79
C
64
B
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
I
0
3
0 f
2209
Regional Center Rd. & General Kearny Rd
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2210
Regional Center Rd. & Soulh-Frst Mail Dr.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3000
Regional Center Rd. & South Access Rd.
Wilbur Smith Associates
T - Thru Lane•, R - Right -Turn Lune•, L. Left -Turn IBnr, NB - Northbound; SB - Southbound; EB - Eastbound; WB -Westbound.
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) LOS - Level of Service
17 -Apr -9l
Table 5b
ICU Summary
Year 2000 With Project
Temecula Regional Center Update
'de
Location
AM Peak
ICU LOS
PM Peak I
ICU LOS
T
Intersection Approach Lanes
NB SB
R L T R L
T
EB
R
L
T
WB
R 1
A38
Campos Verdes Loop & General Kearny Rd.
38
A
38
A
0
0
0
0
1
l
2
0
1
2
0 I
[139
Margarita Rd. & General Kearny Rd.
52
A
60
AI
2
I
l
2
l
l
2
0
t
2
0 I
U40
Margarita Rd. & Apricot Ave.
58
A
42
A!
2
0
2
2
l
0
0
2
1
0
0 I
1143
Ynez Rd. & Solana Way
78
C
78
C
2
2
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
[144
Margarita Rd. & Solana Wy.
68
B
71
C
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0 1
1186
Ynez Rd. & Rancho California Rd.
81
D
82
6
3
0
2
2
t
2
2
1
2
3
0
Ll%
Ynez Rd. &Apricot Ava
69
B
77
C
3
L
2
3
1
2
2
1
l
2
l
A91
Yom Rd & West Mail Dr.
42
A
66
B
3
I
2
3
t
2
1
0
2
1
0
1192
Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd
90
D
94
E
2
L
2
2
1
1
3
L
2
3
1
1194
Regional Center Rd & Apricot overpass
60
A
58
AI
0
0
0
" 0
1
2
2
0
1
2
1
[195
Regional Center Rd & Fast Mail Dr.
22
A
22
Al
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1%
Regional Center (E) Rd & Winchester Rd
71
C
75
C
1
L
1
L
0
1
3
t
1
3
I
L198
Margarita Rd & Winchester Rd
71
C
71
C
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
t
2
3
1
a"
Margarita Rd & Reg. Ctr. DrJCampos V. Rd
36
A
62
B
2
L
t
2
I
1
l
1
L
L
0
1201
Winchester Rd & Nicolas Rd
70
B
56
Al
3
L
1
3
1
1
I
1
L
1
1 1
L252
Jefferson Ave.&Winchester Rd
109
F
89
D
2
L
t
2
0
2
3
1
1
2
1
1256
Jefferson Are & Date St.
77
C
76
C
2
l
1
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
I
1263
Diez Rd & Winchester Rd
76
C
52
Al
2
l
t
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
2 ]
1349
Ynez Rd & County Center Dr.
42
A
56
Al
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
L350
Ynez Rd & "C"Street
61
B
51.
A
2
1
1
2
t
1
l
l
1
1
1 I
1352
Ynez Rd./Jackson Ave & Date St.
78
C
63
BI
2
0
2
2
t
l
2
I
2
2
1 I
1375
Margarita Rd & Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
77
C
48
A!
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0 ]
[442
Winchester Rd & Marrleta Hot Springs Rd
62
B
62
B'
2
l
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2002
Reg. Center W. Dr. & Winchester Rd
48
A
70
BI
1
l
1
1
0
1
3
1
1
3
1 '
2018
Margarita Rd & MargJWln Mead
44
A
50
A'
2
I
1
2
1
1
1
0
l
1
1 I
2019
Roripeugh Rd & Winchester Rd
47
A
62
B�
1
l
t
l
1
1
3
1
I
3
1 I
1023
Jefferson Ave & Overland Apricot Am
so
C
80
G
2
l
1
2
0
2
2
0
2
1
1
2027
Margarita Rd & Date St.
80
C
54
Al
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
I
1051
Margarita Rd & WhL HIIW W Street
54
A
34
Al
2
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0 I
2060
"H" Street & General Kearny Rd
35
A
40
A
1
1
t
1
L
1
2
0
1
2
0
2090
NB Ids Ramps & Winchester Rd
79
C
59
A
01
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
1
2091
SB 1.15 Ramps & Winchester Rd
77
C
69
B
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
0
3
0 I
2209
Regional Center Rd & General Kearny Rd
48
A
73
C
2
(
1
2
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
2210
Regional Center Rd & South -East Mail Dr.
24
A
38
A
2
I
I
2
1
I
1
1
1
t
L
3000
I Regional Center Rd & South Access Dr.
26
A
32
Al
2
I
I
2
1
I
l
1
1
1
1
Wilbur Smith Associates
T - Thru'Lane; R - Right -Tum Lune; L. Left -Turn Lanr, NB - Northbound; SB - Southbound; Ell - Eastbound; WB -Westbound.
ICU - Iniersectlon Capacity Utilization (%) LOS - Level of Service
17 -Apr -91
R
1263
MR110k
IIallilau
lXIl♦N/
%WWWO,
1256
1262
2023
z
0
N
4 '
1143 d
i
l 1188
RANCHO CA RD.
1350
1349
1194
1352
1144
1140
196
2051
1199
PJ ROJECT
1 SITE
DATE
2027
1201
1442
11ER4 LEGEND
2oso KEARNy 2019 Intersection ID Numbi
1138 aD4p ICU Analysis Intersec
---- Project Boundary
ICU Analysis Intersections
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study Figure
It should be noted that the proposed Regional Center would intercept a significant number
of existing and future trips which would otherwise leave the area and travel longer distances
to satisfy shopping needs offered by regional -type centers. Local employment opportunities
offered by the Regional Center would also help reduce commuter work trips to employment
' centers outside the region.
1 B. Site Access
On-site access would consist of minor driveways, major roadways, and internal circulation
roadways (not shown on the site plan). The minor driveways would be limited to right -turn
' in -and -out of the site along the major arteries which generally border the Regional Center
site. Since these restricted movement access points do not allow movements which would
cross the traffic flows on the major arteries, their potential impact on traffic operation is
greatly reduced. Peak -hour traffic volumes projected at the restricted access driveways
indicate moderate to low usage (less than 200 vehicles total in and out) in most cases.
Specific recommendations regarding major and minor access points are addressed later in
the report and should be considered in the design of internal circulation roadways.
' Major Access Intersections Alone Winchester Road would be located at Regional Center
Road and at North Mall Drive (Sub -Area 2). While the Regional Center Road intersection
would not exist without the project, the second intersection identified as North Mall Drive
was assumed to exist for access to T.T.23335 located north of Winchester Road. This
intersection would operate at service level 'B" or better during the AM and PM peak hours
for year 2000 development conditions without the project. With the Regional Center
' project, both access intersections would operate at service level "C" or better during peak
periods.
' Major Access Intersections Along Ynez Road would be limited to one opposite the currently
planned main access to Palm Plaza (P.P.11222). This intersection would operate at service
' level "A" without the Regional Center project and service level "C" or better with the
project.
' Although Apricot Avenue could be considered an on-site roadway, its primary function
would be to serve through traffic. Discussion of the Ynez Road/Apricot Avenue intersection
is included in "Off -Site" intersection analysis.
24
Major Access Intersections Along Margarita Road would be located at the proposed westerly
extension of General Kearny Road and midway between Winchester Road and General
Kearny Road (opposite the proposed Campos Verdes Loop Road). Without the Regional
Center project (and the extension of General Kearny Road), the intersection of Margarita
Road and General Kearny Road would operate at service level "B" or better during peak
periods. With the Regional Center and the extension of General Kearny Road into the
project, the intersection would continue to operate at Level of Service B or better. The
Campos Verdes Loop Road/Margarita Road intersection would operate at service level "A"
without the project and at service level "B" with the project.
Major Access Intersections Along Apricot Avenue would be limited to one at the southern
terminus of Regional Center Road. This intersection would not exist without the Regional
Center. With the Regional Center, the intersection would operate at service level "A" or
better during peak periods.
Major Intersections Along Regional Center Road, other than those already discussed, would
be on-site and are not assumed to exist without the project. With the project, all four
intersections would operate at service level "C" during peak periods. Projected traffic
volumes are low enough at most of these intersections that it would be possible to eliminate
one of these full movement intersections. Specific recommendations will be discussed later
in this report.
C. Off -Site Capacity and Level of Service Analysis
Future year 2000 off-site traffic conditions were analyzed for three scenarios:
o future traffic without the project on planned roadways:
o future traffic with the project on planned roadways; and
o future traffic with the project on planned roadways with additional improvements.
The comparison of with and without project conditions on area roadways provides a measure
of the relative impact of the proposed project.
M
r
u
I
[1
C]
1
Year 2000 Levels of Service Without Project for roadway segments within the project study
area reflect future traffic conditions with all planned area roadways except those which
would be within the Regional Center project boundaries. Apricot Avenue, however, was
assumed to be built between Ynez Road and Margarita Road even though a portion of this
roadway segment is within the project boundary.
As shown in Figure 12, all of the area roadway segments would operate at Level of Service
C or better without the project except for the following four roadway segments:
o Winchester Road between I-15 and Ynez Road - Level of Service E/F (V/C =
1.02);
o Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek - Level
of Service D (V/C = 0.88);
o Date Street between Jefferson Avenue and Business Park Street - Level of
Service D (V/C = 0.81); and
o Washington Avenue between Date Street and Cherry Street - Level of Service D
(V/C = 0.90).
As summarized in Table 5a, ICU analyses of the principal intersections in the study area
indicate that year 2000 peak -hour traffic without the project would result in service level "D"
at three intersections and service level "E" or worse at two intersections. These intersections
and corresponding "without project" service levels are identified in Figures 13 and 14 for the
morning and evening peak hour respectively.
The ICU analysis indicates that without the project, intersection operating conditions would
generally be worse during the AM peak hour than during the PM peak hour. Without the
project, two intersections would operate at "E" or worse during the AM peak hour. One of
these intersections would be operating at service level "F." During the PM peak hour, only
two intersection would operate at service level "D".
Year 2000 Levels of Service With Project reflect all planned area roadways including new
on-site project roadways. As illustrated in Figure 15, all roadway segments in the study area
would operate at service level "C" or better except for the following:
o Winchester Road from I-15 to Ynez Road - Level of Service E/F (V/C = 1.11);
26
1
1I
II
LEGEND
0.34 Volume Capacity Ratio
A Level Of.Service
Roadway Segment Service Levels
Year 2000 W/O Project
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
Figure
F
(C)
(D)
PROJECT
¢ o P •,0♦ , SITE
LEGEND
O �r� PPP PO EqA� NEARNY qq Without Project
(E) Service Level
O
With Project
SO�H4 WAY Project Road
1kv� RANCHO CA, RD.
'D) Year 2000 AM Peak Hour Service Levels
ZYA With And Without Project
i� u Regional center EIR Traffic Study Figur,
D(D)
SITE
LEGEND
j—Without Project
D (E) Service Level
With Project
Project Road
IkV� RANCHO CA, RD. I
�� +C(D)Year 2000 PM Peak Hour Service Levels
I� With And Without Project
HA�oRa Regional Center EIR Traffic Study Figur
EF
0.47 -
0.88Aff
-io -
o
11. n
10AD
a
11 c 0.71
40
0
A
B
F Tp iTt C
-8 0
C4
UI'I
qi dy
9Y.2S
O
O Mn " N Q
Ca �
il�lr tip
D9
OIII�I
0.73
0.64
APRICDT OiI
raO
9v
oN
9'O
0.74
o
DTE STREET
0.75 0.81
0.46
C 01-
0.84
053CO
.
0.53C DATE STREET
0.29
v
0.8
0'8
A A
0.
A
m
O AC
oJ
0y1
EF
0.47 -
0.88Aff
-io -
o
11. n
10AD
11 c 0.71
0.63 U
0.71 d
A
B
F Tp iTt C
-8 0
UI'I
qi dy
t7 w
O
O Mn " N Q
Ca �
il�lr tip
p
OIII�I
0.73
0.64
APRICDT OiI
SITE
r•
LEGEND
0.34 Volume Capacity Ratio
A Level Of. Service
A_wHq Wq �
p U O 0.17
MAP c 4
W U Roadway Segment Service Levels
A Year 2000 W/Project
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study Figure
1]
L
u
o Ynez Road from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek - Level of Service
D (V/C = 0.82);
o Jefferson Avenue from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek - Level of
Service "D" (V/C = 0.90);
o Date Street from Jefferson Avenue to Business Park Street - Level of Service D
(V/C = 0.81 to 0.84); and
o Washington Avenue from Cherry Street to Date Street - Level of Service D (V/C
= 0.90).
The ICU analysis results summarized in Table 5b indicate that year 2000 peak -hour
conditions with the project would result in service level "D" at three intersections and service
level "E" or worse at two intersections. These intersections and corresponding "with project"
service levels are depicted in Figures 13 and 14 for the morning and evening peak hour
respectively.
During the AM peak hour, two intersections would operate at Level of Service D and one
at Level of Service F. Evening peak -hour conditions with the project would result in Level
of Service D at two intersections and Level of Service E at one intersection.
' The ICU analysis indicates that conditions with the project would slightly be better at some
critical locations and slightly worse at an almost number of other intersections. A closer
look at AM peak -hour volumes reveals that the influence of the project on area travel
' patterns would result in more balanced directional traffic flows and more efficient use of
available capacity. It should be noted that the TranPlan model trip generation for the AM
' peak -hour project trips were found to be slightly higher for the retail commercial uses within
the project than would result from using standard ITE trip rates. Therefore, the AM peak -
hour ICU results for the "with project" condition are somewhat overstating the project
' impacts.
�I
J
27
Year 2000 Levels of Service With Additional Improvements were evaluated for all
intersections found to operate at service level "E" or worse with the project. For comparison ,
purposes, these intersections were also analyzed for the "without project" scenario. Level of
Service D is considered acceptable for Category 1 (Heavy Urban) projects if limited to peak ,
periods. Service Levels and ICU values for critical intersections with additional
improvements are summarized in Tables 6a and 6b. The analyses indicate that with '
additional intersection improvements, peak -hour service levels with the project could be
improved to "D" or better at all intersections. As shown in Table 6 both intersections would
operate at the same Level of Service with or without the project. Since the Temecula '
Regional Center project would clearly add traffic to the area street system, this finding
suggests that the traffic demand distribution at two the intersections (with the influence of '
the Regional Center) results in slightly better utilization of the total intersection capacity.
�J
h
I JI
L
1
f�
Q
Table 6
ICU Summary
With Additional Improvements
Temecula Regional Center
. Year 2000 Without Proiect
M i i
ade
Location
AM Peak
PM Peak
Intersection Approach Lanes
ICU LOS
ICU LOS
NB SB EB WB
T R L T R L T R L T R
192
Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.
87 D
79 D
2 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 4 0
252
lJefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd.
83 D
88 D
2 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 1 3 0
Year 2000 With Proiect
ode
Location
AM Peak
PM Peak
Intersection Approach Lanes
ICU LOS
ICU LOS
NB SB EB WB
T R L T R L T R L T R
192
Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.
85 D
89 D
2 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 4 0
252
Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd.
f 85 D
89 D
2 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 1 3 0
Wilbur Smith Associates
les: T-Thm lanr, R -Right -Turn Lane, L. Left -Turn lane; NR - Northbound; SR- Southbound; ER - Eastbound; WR- Westbound.
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) LOS - Level of Service
23 -Apr -91
I
I
1
1
1
1
VII. Findings
A. Site Accessibility
The planned circulation system offers a number of major access routes to and from the
Regional Center project site ranging from regional Freeway facilities to local secondary
streets. Based on the analysis of proposed project access driveways and major access streets
located around the perimeter of the site, direct access to the site was found to be more than
adequate. There does, however, appear to be an opportunity to reduce the number of
intersections along Regional Center Road and still maintain a favorable balance of
accessibility and good operating conditions. Access recommendations at the perimeter of
the site and along the currently planned internal project roadways are depicted in Figure 16.
It should be recognized that access recommendations identified in this study are based on
preliminary planning level land use proposals which would ultimately be refined and
specified in more detail at the plot plan preparation stage. Once detailed site plans and
internal circulation plans are developed, it may be necessary and/or desirable to make minor
modifications to access driveway locations, and specific operational characteristics (e.g.,
restricted movements) at potential access driveways. These design issues would have to be
reevaluated based on the more detailed plot plan and prevailing traffic conditions.
B. Traffic Impacts
A project of the magnitude of the proposed Regional Center would unquestionably have an
impact on area traffic conditions. The commercial -oriented Regional Center would serve
as a major trip attractor in the Southwest Area Community. The Regional Center would
be the destination of many residential trips (both shopping and work trips) which would
otherwise travel to other retail establishments or employment centers within and/or outside
this region. Given the location of many of the already approved major residential projects
(e.g., along Winchester Road northwest of the project site), a significant portion of the trips
which would be destined to the Regional Center would pass directly by the site even if the
project were not to be developed. The relatively small difference in projected daily traffic
volumes on the area roadways with and without the project are partially due to this factor.
The similarities in traffic projections on area roadways with and without the Regional Center '
can also be attributed to the likelihood that Regional Center traffic would displace some of
the through traffic (longer trips) which would be using the area roadways because they are '
somewhat more convenient than other alternative routes. These longer trips would be more
willing to use alternative routes as greater proportions of the area roadway capacities are ,
used by local traffic which has no other choice. In summary, it is clear from this study and
from other studies done for the study area that many of the area streets such as Winchester
Road in the vicinity of I-15 and Ynez Road will experience high levels of traffic demand ,
regardless of what develops on the project site. It should be noted that the "without project"
scenario assumes no development occurs on the project site. Development of the site ,
according to existing zoning would result in traffic conditions which are worse than those
assessed in this study for the "without project" scenario.
As reflected in Table 5b and Figures 13 and 14, year 2000 traffic conditions with the
Regional Center project would result in peak -hour service levels of "E" or worse at two study '
area intersections. During the AM peak, only the critical intersection of Winchester
Road/Jefferson Avenue would be worse with the project (ICU = 1.09) than without the '
project (ICU = 1.05). Conversely, the critical intersection of Winchester Road/Ynez Road
would operate better with the project (ICU = 0.90) than without the project (ICU = 0.93):
Future operating conditions during the PM peak -hour were found to be worse with the ,
project ( ICU = 94) than without (ICU = 0.81) at the critical intersection of Winchester ,
Road/Ynez Road.
In the above summary, critical intersections are defined as those which would operate at '
Level of Service E or worse (ICU greater than 0.90) either with or without the project.
1
C. Roadway Improvement Needs '
Year 2000 traffic conditions with the project reflect significant increases in area traffic
volumes due to other approved and planned development projects in the study area. As is '
evident from the analysis of the "without project" scenario, the cumulative non -site traffic
flows would have a maior impact on future off-site roadway (e.g., Winchester Road and '
Ynez Road) and intersection needs for the area. Some of these improvements are either
currently under construction or under design as part of the Winchester Assessment District
161. Other needed improvements would be included in the recently approved Ynez '
Corridor Community Facilities District -88-12. -
30 '
Improvements identified in this study (either as part of the "base" improvements or "added"
improvements) may not be totally consistent with improvements currently being designed or
' proposed as part of area Assessment/Community Facilities Districts. For the purpose of this
study, recommendations include the ultimate improvements which would be needed to
' accommodate future traffic with the project. Other than those improvements related to
direct project site access and on-site circulation roadways, virtually all of the recommended
improvements would be needed to accommodate traffic conditions without the proiect.
' Recommendations for the basic roadway network configuration, roadway classifications, and
number of travel lanes are illustrated in Figure 17. Specific recommendations regarding the
recommended approach lane configuration for intersections in the study are presented in
' Figure 16. These improvements would result in peak -hour service levels of "D" or better at
all study area intersections.
' D. Compliance With Riverside County General Plan Circulation Policies
' The project would comply with minimum service level "D" policy for peak -hour traffic
operation at area intersections. This assumes that recommended improvements are
implemented. Several of the recommendations would require increases in the number of
' standard travel lanes typically provided for the street classification and also increases in
right-of-way requirements.
' Current Riverside County access control policies for the spacing of intersecting streets are
' as follows:
o Expressway - 2,640 feet;
o Arterial - 1,320 feet;
' o Major - 660 feet; and
o Secondary - 330 feet.
' Since Winchester Road has been designated by Riverside County as a full access restricted
Urban Arterial, it implies that the intersection spacing policy would be similar to an
' expressway or possibly between that of an expressway and arterial. These spacing policies
are designed to minimize the potential disruptive effects of side street traffic on the major
' street traffic flows and ultimately to maximize the major street capacity. It is our
understanding that the City of Temecula has requested that this section Winchester Road
be classified as an Urban Arterial without limited access control and that driveway and street
intersections locations along Winchester be granted with the concurrence of the City of
Temecula.
' 31
TRANS
2 TO
\If/
A.\
s A400413
-1')1. (• 3
REGIONAL CTR. RD. 7
Iry
+
U ry
ry/
/
2
2'
RIGHT IN AND OUT ONLY
1
1%
)l
17Vi lGrepNt•Feprexnitllm)
�
p •- N .-
iD
it
it
NI }N
•4 N,- —4
WINCHESTER RD. J C2 4
.�
TRANS o
i3 T04 !
.-3
`2 '3
0,
.% ! �.
13
`2
i7.
4
3y
1 t r 3
i
�• 3 },
•� r (• 3 �'
1,
• 3
�'
') r
•3 J! �. r-2 3
/ 1T,
✓
11 ^
1�
�. _
^ 3
%• 3 •1 t �• 3•
it
3--
3—. ^N..
•-3
4
iD
N!
TN
11 tN
3—/*) r•
NN
~;
it
N! i
N ^
2
) t f
! 1
D�
�•
REGIONAL CTR. RD. 7
Iry
+
U ry
2
2'
1
1%
)l
r
Recommended Future Off -Site Traffic Lanes
And Regional Center Access Configuration
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
11"',
Rp
LEGEND
,2>- Number of Traffic Lam
Trans Transition
Figu
OVARM
I.an'1
MWERN
WINP.146W
IAFA
$' O
ATA Mod.`
ILYCHEARY
6C•
f.l
J
1• s M DAZE
04 A 4L 4L
6 + J
y- 4L U N Q
J
a' v
C vryV P
2L
s
IC 2L v
SITE
4L
r
LEGEND
2L
Number Of Traffic Lanes
F
Freeway, R/W 200 Ft.
UA
Urban Arterial, R/W 174 F
A
Arterial, R/W 110 Ft,
M
Major, R/W 100 Ft.
S
Secondary, R/W 88 Ft.
IC
Industrial Collector, R/W 7
C
Collector, R/W 66 Ft.
.SP
Special Project Road, R/W
110 Ft.
MOD.
Modified Urban Arterial, R
<
Dentes Change In Planne
Transportation System
Signal
Recommended Future Circulation System
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study Figu
The access plan for the Regional Center takes into account the following goals:
o The desire to maintain the spacing requirements of major full movement
intersections;
to The need for adequate access to all development areas which comprise the
Regional Center project; and
o Due to the nature of the Regional center, which is very retail -oriented, the
successful marketing of the project to major tenants will weigh heavily on the
' "perceived' accessibility of the site.
It is clear that all of these goals cannot be met. The recommended access plan reflects the
desire to maximize full movement intersection spacing and at the same time maintain a high
level of accessibility.
With the recommended access plan, the following minimum spacing would be maintained
tfor full movement intersections:
o Winchester Road - approximately 1,200 feet;
o Ynez Road - approximately 780 feet;
o Margarita Road - approximately 1,100 feet; and
o Apricot Avenue - approximately 800 feet.
The intersection spacing provided along Winchester Road would be close to that required
for an Arterial but substandard for that of a full access controlled Urban Arterial. It should
be noted that due to the heavy left -tum movements at the Ynez Road and Margarita Road
intersections, the introduction of one or more intersections between these two major arteries
would actually improve peak -hour operating conditions with or without the project.
IProject access intersections along Ynez Road and Margarita Road would also be slightly
substandard but are controlled by alignments of other non -project streets (e.g., Palm Plaza
main entrance, Campos Verdes Loop Road and General Kearny Road). Assuming that
Apricot Avenue is designated as a "Major," the recommended access plan would meet the
intersection spacing policy for this road.
I
32
I
VIII. Recommendations
The year 2000 improvement needs identified in this study address problems which would be
caused by already approved and other planned development projects in the area. This is
demonstrated in the analysis of "without project" conditions. The introduction of the
Regional Center would measurably change travel patterns in the area and add traffic to the
adjacent street network. However, a comparison of improvement needs with and without
' the project indicates marginal differences, which are primarily related to access
considerations at the perimeter of the project and on-site circulation.
The developer should be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site
boundaries and on-site improvements as well as a "fair -share" amount towards the
implementation of needed off-site improvements. Bedford Properties is a principal
participant in the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12 which provides funding
for the Apricot overcrossing, Winchester interchange loop ramp, Rancho California
' interchange loop ramp, and Ynez Road widening to six lanes. The developer is also a
participant in Winchester Assessment District 161 which provides funding for the
improvement of Winchester Road (six -lane Urban Arterial) and Margarita Road (four -lane
Arterial). Additional "fair -share" participation would only be warranted in the
implementation of those off-site improvements not addressed in the current improvement
districts.
A. Site Access/Circulation Plan
' The recommended site access plan is depicted in Figure 16.
tB. Off -Site Roadway Improvements
Recommendations for the future area circulation system are identified in Figure 17.
1
1
33
C. Transportation System Management Actions
The primary transportation system management opportunities in the study area appear to
be:
o The continued enforcement of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
Trip Reduction Plan (for other major employees in the area); and
o Encourage the implementation of transit service in the Temecula area where:
- express transit into and out of the area during the morning and evening
commuter peaks;
- fixed route local bus service between higher density residential areas and
major activity centers; and
- demand responsive transit services such as dial -a -ride for the lower density
and more remote areas.
o Promotion of future public transit through the adoption of appropriate local
planning ordinances which would require special transit -oriented design features
to be incorporated into future development projects.
o The adoption of local ordinances which would require larger employers in the
area to implement car pool or van pool programs. Large employers could also
be encouraged to implement staggered work hours or flex time programs for their
employees.
o In conjunction with future park-and-ride facilities to be provided by the Regional
Center, provisions should also be made for the development of a future transit
transfer station. The development of such a facility would promote future use of
public transit, reduce vehicular travel and reduce parking demand at the regional
mall.
34
IX. Conclusions
The traffic study findings indicate that the Temecula Regional Center would have an impact
on travel patterns in the area. While development of the project would likely result in more
total traffic in the vicinity of the site, the resulting redistribution of traffic would result in
only moderately worse impacts during the peak periods. During the AM peak hour, the
influences of the project on travel patterns were actually found to result in better operating
conditions at several of the area intersections than without the project.
Off-site improvements recommended in the study would be needed to accommodate future
I non -site traffic conditions (no -build scenario) as well as conditions with the Regional Center
project. With the recommended improvements, all study area intersections (with or without
the project) would operate at service level 'D" or better during peak periods.
It should be noted that the traffic analysis does not assume vehicular travel reductions which
could be realized by the provision of local transit service or Trip Reduction Programs being
implemented by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Though difficult to
measure, the effects of these factors alone could result in service level 'D" being achieved
at the critical intersections without additional improvements.
In the comparison of with and without project conditions, it must be recognized that the
"without project" scenario assumes that no development occurs on the project site.
Development of the site according to existing zoning (primarily residential) would result in
traffic conditions which are somewhat worse than those stated in this study for the 'without
project" scenario.
' Bedford Properties is a principal participant in Assessment District 161 and Community
Facilities District 88-12 which will provide funding for most of the roadway improvements
needed to accommodate Year 2000 traffic volumes with the project. Recommended on-site
improvements would be the responsibility of the developer to implement. Additional "fair -
share" participation would only be warranted in the implementation of those off-site
' improvements not addressed in the current improvement districts.
'
35
X. Phasing Plan
Findings of the year 2000 traffic analysis indicate that substantial roadway improvements will
be needed in the study area whether or not the Temecula Regional Center project is
implemented. Although these new and improved roadway facilities would be serving the
immediate access needs of numerous planned development projects within the study area,
most of the improvements would also play an important role in serving the circulation needs
of the Temecula commercial core area. Some of the improvements (e.g., Winchester Road -
S.R. 79 widening and I-15/Winchester Road interchange reconstruction) would even serve
future regional circulation needs.
The intent of the "conceptual circulation system phasing plan" developed in this study is to
present a logical implementation scenario for the construction of needed area -wide
improvements which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the Temecula Regional
Center. It should be noted that year 2000 roadway needs have essentially been based on full
development (build -out) of all land uses within the study area.
The timing of major development projects in the area will have very strong influence on the
timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development projects are
implemented, they will require access. Many of the phased roadway improvements
suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local access needs and at the same
time work towards completing the ultimate area -wide circulation network. In many cases,
the phased improvement is over -designed for the anticipated local development access needs
but considers ultimate needs and the desire to minimize future construction impacts related
to phased widenings (e.g., initially building two lanes and the widening to four lanes at a
later date). The assessment of financing/implementation responsibilities for area -wide
roadway improvements should consider that the key elements of the planned circulation
' system (including the Apricot overpass, Date Street overpass, and Winchester Interchange
improvements) will be needed even if proposed area development projects are not
implemented.
1 Since it is more difficult to predict the rate of long-term (5 to 10 years) development than
short-term (1 to 5 years) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs
for implementation periods beyond 5 years could vary significantly from the conceptual plan
presented in this study. It is also important to consider that many of the roadway
' improvements identified would involve a multi-jurisdiction/agency review and coordination
process which could impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein.
36
A. Proposed Temecula Regional Center Development Phasing
Based on current market trends, Bedford Properties anticipated that development of the
Temecula Regional Center property would follow the general phasing plan illustrated in
Figure 18.
B. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan
As illustrated in Figures 19 through 24, roadway. improvement needs have been defined for
seven implementation periods starting in 1991 and ending in the fourth quarter of year 2000.
A detailed listing of anticipated roadway improvement needs and corresponding
development status of the Temecula Regional Center project is presented on the following
pages for each implementation period.
37
r
1
I
1
1
k
1
1
M
M M ism lam. M m m wm w M M M M M M !, M
nn
111111MA
INAPT
avi
LEGEND:
(3) Sub - Area Identification
Phase Implementation Period
I 1992 To 1998
II 1998 To 2000
Temecula Regional Center Phasing Plan
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
Figure
t1992-1994 Implementation Period
IAnticipated Project Development Status:
Io Project Phase I - (15% build -out of Sub -Area 2)
' o Incremental project trip generation - 6,600 daily vehicle trips
- 470 P.M. peak -hour trips
o Cumulative portion of total project trips - 10%
Roadway Improvement Needs Anticipated by 1994 (fourth quarter):
o Roadway Segment Improvements
- Winchester Road from I-15 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (6 lanes)
(Winchester Assessment District 161);
- Ynez Road from Winchester road to Ynez road (6 lanes) (Community
Facilities District 88 - 12);
Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek (4 lanes);
- Margarita Road from Solana Way to Rancho California Road (4 lanes);
- Jefferson Avenue from Cherry Street to approximately Elm Street (4 lanes);
t- Date Street from Adams Avenue to Jefferson Avenue (4 lanes);
- Adams Avenue from Cherry Street to appro3dmately Elm Street (2 lanes); and
Cherry Street from Adams Avenue to Jefferson Avenue (2 lanes).
Winchester Road from Jefferson Avenue to I-15 (6 lanes);
Rancho California Road/I-15 Interchange Ramps (off -ramp widenings);
38
R41gb � o
4tap�
"tMo *
lk
V1r �*
Phase l
15% Build -Out Sub -Area 2
1992-1994 Roadway Needs
(10% Of Total Project Trip Generation)
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
RAN
LEGEND:
Existing Road
---
Planned Or Proposed Road
2L
Number Of Lanes
Q
Signal
❑
3 -Way Stop
❑
4 -Way Stop
YC
Denotes Improvement Needed
By The End Of Implementation
Period Noted
Ramp Widening & Slgnalization
EEDenotes
Portion Of Project Site
Built -Out
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Being Developed During The
Implimentation Period Noted
Figure 1
- Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to approximately Elm Street (4
lanes);
- Nicolas Road from Winchester Road to approximately Calle Medusa (4
lanes);
- Date Street from Diaz Road to Adams Avenue (4 lanes); and
'
- Murrieta Hot Springs Road from approximately Date Street alignment to
Leon Road (4 lanes).
'
o New Signal Locations
- Winchester Road/Ynez Road;
- Winchester Road/Enterprise Circle (east);
- Ynez Road/Palm Plaza Access;
- Ynez Road/ACS Access;
- Ynez Road/Solana Way;
r-
Jefferson Avenue/Date Street; and
- Jefferson Avenue/North Jefferson Business Park Access (Adams Avenue).
- Rancho California Road/I-15 Access Ramps;
I-
Winchester Road/Nicolas Road;
- Winchester Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road;
- Winchester Road/Diaz Road; and
- Solana Way/Margarita Road.
39
1994-1995 Implementation Period
Anticipated Project Development Status:
o Project Phase I - (40% build -out of Sub -Area 2)
o Incremental project trip generation - 11,000 daily vehicle trips
- 800 P.M. peak -hour trips
o Cumulative portion of total project trips - 27%
Roadway Improvement Needs Anticipated by 1995 (fourth quarter)
o Roadway Segment Improvements
- Apricot Avenue from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road (4 lanes);
- Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road (4 lanes);
- Murrieta Hot Springs Road from approximately Date Street alignment to I-
215 (4 lanes); and
- General Kearny Road from Margarita Road to approximately LaColina Road
(4 lanes).
o New Signal Locations
- Winchester Road/Project Sub -Area 3 Access;
- Winchester Road/Margarita Road;
- Apricot Avenue/Jefferson Avenue;
- Apricot Avenue/Ynez Road;
- Apricot Avenue/Margarita Road;
- Margarita Road/General Kearny Road;
- Date Street/Diaz Road; and
- - Date Street/Adams Avenue.
6
�G9
� 9
9
f
/
� Nq
1 g
A
r
Phase)
40% Build -Out Sub -Area 2
�+o
J 1994-1995 Roadway Needs
(27 % Ut Total Project Trip Generation)
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
T_
LEGEND:
—�
Existing Road
Planned Or Proposed Road
2L
Number Of Lanes
O
Signal
3 -Way Stop
❑
4 -Way Stop
Denotes Improvement Needed
By The End Of Implementation
Period Noted
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Built -Out
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Being Developed During The
Implimentation Period Noted
Figure
I
I
I
_,
I
I
I
I
1995-1996 Implementation Period
Anticipated Project Development Status:
o Project Phase I - (60% build -out of Sub -Area 2)
o Incremental project trip generation - 8,800 daily vehicle trips
- 620 P.M. peak -hour trips
o Cumulative portion of total project trips - 40%
Roadway Improvement Needs Anticipated by 1996 (fourth quarter):
o Roadway Segment Improvements
- Winchester Road/I-15 Interchange Ramps (off -ramp widenings and new loop
on-ramp);
- Regional Center Road from Winchester Road to Apricot Avenue (4 lanes);
- Margarita Road from Santa Gertrudis Creek to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
(4 lanes);
- Ynez Road from appro)dmately Equity Drive to Date Street (4 lanes); and
- Date Street from Ynez Road to Margarita Road (4 lanes).
o New Signal Locations
- Winchester Road/I-15 Access Ramps (signal modifications and/or
replacement);
- Apricot Avenue/Regional Center Road; and
- Margarita Road/Campos Verdes Loop Road.
41
M M M M M M M W= M M M r M am= M
4L
�J
61. . 6L
Phase l
60% Build -Out Sub -Area 2
44
21
%AD a
AV 1995-1996 Roadway Needs
(40% Of Total Project Trip Generation)
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
LEGEND:
Existing Road
— — —
Planned Or Proposed Road
2L
Number Of Lanes
Q
Signal
]
3 -Way Stop
❑
4 -Way Stop
A
Ramp Widening 8 Signalization
*
Denotes Improvement Needed
By The End Of Implementation
Period Noted
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Built -Out
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Being Developed During The
Implimentation Period Noted
Figure
1996-1998 Implementation Period
' Anticipated Project Development Status:
' o Project Phase I - (100% build -out of Sub -Area 2)
o Incremental project trip generation - 17,600 daily vehicle trips
t- 1,250 P.M. peak -hour trips
o Cumulative portion of total project trips - 68%
' Roadway Improvement Needs Anticipated by 1998 (fourth quarter):
o Roadway Segment Improvements
- Winchester Road/I-15 Interchange Bridge Structure (widen to 6 lanes);
- General Kearny Road from Regional Center Road to Margarita Road (4
' lanes);
- Date Street from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (4 lanes);
and
' - Winchester Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Benton Road (6 lanes).
' o New Signal Locations
' - General Kearny Road/Regional Center Road;
- Ynez Road/County Center Drive;
- Ynez Road/Equity Drive;
- Margarita Road/Winchester Hills Access; and
- Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
' 42
M M M M M i M Will r M M M M M M= M
A
4L
2L
V
4L
Phase)
100% Build—Out Sub—Area 2
11111111
.,�-
FAFN
1996-1998 Roadway Needs
(68% Of Total Project Trip Generation)
o Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
0ru
9`
LEGEND:
•� Existing Road
Planned Or Proposed Road
2L Number Of Lanes
Q Signal
A Widen Winchester Rd. Overpass.
* Denotes Improvement Needed
By The End Of Implementation
Period Noted
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Built -Out
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Being Developed During The
Implimentation Period Noted
Figure S
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1998-1999 Implementation Period
Anticipated Project Development Status:
o Project Phase II - (50% build -out of Sub -Area 1 and 100% build -out of
Sub -Area 3)
o Incremental project trip generation - 11,170 daily vehicle trips
- 850 P.M. peak -hour trips
o Cumulative portion of total project trips - 85%
Roadway Improvement Needs Anticipated by 1999 (fourth quarter):
o Roadway Segment Improvements
- Date Street from Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road (6 lanes); and
- Jackson Avenue from Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (6 lanes).
o New Signal Locations
- Date Street/Ynez Road;
- Date Street/Margarita Road;
- Date Street/Winchester Hills Development Access Roads (2 locations);
- Jackson Avenue/Winchester Hills Development Access Road; and
- Winchester Road/Winchester Meadows Development Access Road.
43
M M W M W M M M M M r M M r M M r
4L
J
a
Phase 11
50% Build—Out Sub—Area 1
$%
'oC4ryq Phase 11
100% Build Out Of Sub—Area 3
-•�R'ogryN L 2L
oto
a
W �� �- 1998-1999 Roadway Needs
A (85% Of Total Project Trip Generation)
soow,a Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
41.
LEGEND:
Existing Road
— — Planned Or Proposed Road
2L Number Of Lanes
Q Signal
* Denotes Improvement Needed
By The End Of Implementation
Period Noted
EMDenotes Portion Of Project Site
Built -Out
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Being Developed During The
Implimentation Period Noted
Figure 2
1
I
1
I
L
I
1
11
1990-2000 Implementation Period
Anticipated Project Development Status:
o Project Phase II - (100% build -out of Sub -Area 1)
o Incremental project trip generation - 9,680 daily vehicle trips
- 730 P.M. peak -hour trips
I
o Cumulative portion of total project trips - 100%
Roadway Improvement Needs Anticipated by 2000 (fourth quarter):
o Roadway Segment Improvements
- Winchester Plaza Road from I-15 to Project Sub -Area 3 Access (widen to 8
lanes);
- Eastbound Winchester Road from Project Sub -Area 3 Access to ,east of
Margarita Road (widen to 4 eastbound lanes);
- Eastbound Apricot Avenue from east of I-15 overpass to Regional Center
Road (widen to 3 eastbound lanes);
- Northbound Margarita Road from Campos Verdes Loop Road to north of
Winchester Road (widen to 3 northbound lanes);
- Eastbound Winchester Road from Enterprise Circle Drive to Jefferson
Avenue (widen to 3 eastbound lanes); and
- Northbound Jefferson Avenue at approach to Winchester Road (widen to 3
northbound lanes).
o Signal Improvements
- Modify/upgrade affected signals (as necessary).
44
M M= M A M M w M M M M M M w M M
AL
A
r
RWo
AF 1999-2000 Roadway Needs
^" (100% Of Total Project Trip Generation)
Regional Center EIR Traffic Study
41.
V
Sub -Area 1
41.
WN
LEGEND:
Existing Road
Planned Or Proposed Road
2L Number Of Lanes
Q Signal
Denotes Improvement Needed
By The End Of Implementation
Period Noted
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Built -Out
Denotes Portion Of Project Site
Being Developed During The
implimentation Period Noted
Figure 24
Appendix
45
M= M M MMM = M M M M M .M MM M
f.V
J-
�I r ==
Uo
BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92390
Retail/ Office/
Hotel
71.
Retail Commercial
97,
Core/ Support Retail
I✓
Retail/ Office
t
�
�I r ==
Uo
BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92390
SPECIFIC LAND
USE PLAN
PROJECT TOTAL 20
TEMECUI
REGIONAL CENZ
FI(
Legen d
Retail/ Office/
Hotel
71.
Retail Commercial
97,
Core/ Support Retail
Retail/ Office
5.
Subtotal
175.
Roads
26.
PROJECT TOTAL 20
TEMECUI
REGIONAL CENZ
FI(
m mm =. M M=== m m= r m m r
+�� tial q.\2f m 199
iii 0p3 .'51 2042%
G /
VKF'�1 / 2071 ♦ $ X02' \\ 1361
00 53
>Z2054 205. / .3\ 13a5
TO 0 eta
1353 / \ 2025 1201 Q 19D
]j- 2050 / Q 212 \ /
20. '2041 \ /
En 1..5 2050 3 2072 /
m 2039
HZ2070 136!
1 2038 1358 2073 /
m ♦ _� 213 135
2.11l3521D 2010 20..
01 ♦ 1\ 20 p 196
Z . I \ ` ` 20 / 2051 /
tole 1 \ 1359 20.5 / 1200
11 fief 20.7 1 ues
m ` / 1 zo6a 401 0.1s7
N 1 360
p 104 0052 1 9 398
0 ]9e 3120 2010
`� 21• 21, 935. 135
-
*0 65 2026'22-1
-� 3mae 2021
D 8192 2019 p 157
N 2037 /
• 2035 1a
(n ♦♦p / 1s195 / Q 3RF 368 221.♦
01 306 as
p 19. 2076 / 11v7 f ♦ ♦ 1f .08
13.5 20 1 2615 1137
1196 1 - 205 2 \
0 160 1 ` 161 \
1 1\ 199\ 392221\1
♦`0 fat 2063 1 Atf5B 1 \
/ 1 1 0 397 2052
20591
/ 2002 1 1 1139
D95
p f S 60
21.5 39
.. 1192 1 OD 2.o P03
15D p 393
208
2090 G.1
1181 1 2210 1.0
09 730 1 -2211
87 4139
1252
1
1 1
\ 2 926 4017
\ f fvo
25.
J 190 391 'f 1.5
yf.1
2023
11.2
0 -f li
222
2156 17.7
291
♦bpm d1f. fu.
1251
223
Regional Center update
Southwest Area Plan - Approved and Planned Projects
Project Land Use Daily
Sub Quantity Daily Vehicle Trip Rate Veh
82
Towne Center
Retail
565
ksf
38
21,470
195
Winchester Highlands (PM21361)
Ind Park
30
acres
70.0
2,100
195
Winchester Highlands (PM21361)
Bus Park
30
acres
200.0
6,000
398
Winchester Hills
Res/MF
. 235
dus
6.6
1,551
404
Winchester Hills
Office
248
ksf
11.1
based ontwo story on11.4acres 2,753
403
Winchester Hills
Res/SF
175
dus
10.0
1,750
401
Winchester Hills
Res/MF
297
dus
6.6
1,960
400
Winchester Hills
Retail
170
ksf
62.0
10,540
402
Winchester Hills
Res/SF
179
dus
10.0
1,790
399
Winchester Hills
Res/SF
155
dus
10.0
1,550
215
Winchester Hills
Bus Park
49.6
acres
130.0
6,448
216
Winchester Hills
Res/MF
318
dus
5.5
1,749
214
Winchester Hills
Bus Park
70.5
acres
131.0
9,236
212
Winchester Hills
School&P
29.8
acres
40.0
1,192
213
Winchester Hills
Res/SF
258
dus
10.0
2,580
395
Winchester Hills
Park
7.2
acres
40.0
288
390
Winchester Hills
Res/SF
152
dus
10.0
1,520
217
Winchester Hills
Res/SF
179
dus
10.0
1,790
196
Winchester Meadows
Retail
47.57
ksf
66.6
3,166
196
Winchester Meadows
Office
63.42
ksf
11.8
748
196
Winchester Meadows
Lt. Indus
1.82
acres
186.7
340
196
Winchester Meadows
Ind. Park
23.57
acres
73.3
1,729
396
Winchester Meadows
Retail
89.44
ksf
66.6
5,953
396
Winchester Meadows
Office
119.24
ksf
11.8
1,407
396
Winchester Meadows
Lt. Indus
3.38
acres
119.1
403
396
Winchester Meadows
Ind. Park
21.38
acres
75.9
1,622
113
Ynez Auto Park
Auto S&S
3000
Wilbur Smith Associates
1 Regional Center Update
Southwest Area Plan - Approved and Planned Projects
Project Land Use Daily
Sub Quantity Daily Vehicle Trip Rate Veh
' TAZ Name
Area Land Use
#
type
# Source
Trips
113 (TM23316)
Rcs/MF
284
dus
6.6
1,874
160 (TT23335)
Retail
6
acres
400.0
2,400
114
ACS Expansion '
Mfg
3280
'
114
Auto Sales & Service
Auto S&S
3680
389
Campos Verdes (TP25213)
2+3 Res/MF 268 dus 6.6 ITE 210
1,769
387
Campos Verdes (TP25213)
4+s+6 Res/MF
378 dus
6.6 ITE22o
2,495
'
405
Campos Verdes (TP25213)
s Res/MF
0
0.0 ITE 210
0
397
Campos Verdes (TP25213)
1 Retail
10 acres
800.0 ITE820(25%cowmp)
8,000
393
Campos Verdes (TP25213)
r Office
9.3
acres
200.0 ITE 750
1,860
392
Campos Verdes (TP25214)
14 Res/SF
141
dus
10.0 ITE210
1,410
406
Campos Verdes (TP25215)
1s Res/SF
65
dus
10.0 ITE210
650
161
Carls Jr Center
Retail
4.5
acres
400.0
1,800
394
Enterprise Circle North
Bus Park
35
acres
200
7,000
2
Existing/Future Res
Res/MF
136
dus
6.6
898
162
Ind Park 4 East (PM23561)
Bus Park
9950
162
Ind Park 4 East (PM23561)
Retail 10 acres
6000
138
Ind Park 4 West (PM19582)
Retail 5 acres 600
3,000
' 138
Ind Park 4 West (PM19582)
Ind Park
150 70
10,500
194
Ind Park 5 Phase II
Ind Park
31 acres 70.0
2,170
81
North Plaza (PP11374)
Ret/Off
472 ksf
15700
1
Office Towers 1&2
Office
2000
'
139
Palm Plaza (PP11222)
Retail 455 ksf 40.0
18,200
1
Plaza Shopping Center
Retail 185 ksf 40
7,400
2
Quality Suites
Hotel/Rest
2200
118
Rancon Bus Center
Ind Park 97 acres 70
5000
136
Rancon. Bus Center
Ind Park 31 acres 70
5000
117
Rancon Bus Center
Ind Park
180 acres
70
5000
136
Rancon Bus Center
Bus Park
16.4 acres
200
5000
137
Rancon Bus Center
Bus Park
16.4 acres
200
3,280
136
Rancon Bus Center
Office
3.5
acres
200
5000
'
137
Rancon Bus Center
Office
3.5
acres
200
700
113
Solana Shopping Center
Retail
5
acres
800
4,000
136
TAZ136 (- Rancon. Bus Ctr)
Ind/Mfg
10
acres
60
5000
'
137
TAZ137 (- Rancon Bus Ctr)
Ind/Mfg
58
acres
60
3,480
391
Temecula Regional Ctr
4 Retail
13
ksf
40.0 ITE 820
520
391
Temecula Regional Ctr
4 Office
40
ksf
24.4 ITEM
976
'
140
Temecula Regional Ctr
a Office
300
ksf
10.4 ITE710
3,120
388
Margarita Meadows Center
Retail
173.78
ksf
60.1 ITEs2o
8,881
' 388 SUB REGIONAL AREA 1 Hotel 125 rooms 8.7 1,088
388 SUB REGIONAL AREA 1 Office 97 ksf 14.0 1,358
' Wilbur Smith Associates
RIVERSIDE COUNTY HIGHWAYS
IJOTE: FOR ADDITIONAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, REFER TO COUNTY
ORDDIANCE NO. 461.
134' R/W
110'
12' 8' T
12't 12 ' 14 18' 14' i 12'T 12' '8' 12'
' URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY
' 110' R/W
d6'
12' 8' 12 —12' 22' nedian 12t 12' 8'--12'
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY
1 10'R/W
' 64'
?3' 9' - 12•- 12' ' 12' 12' 8' 23'
MOUNTAIN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY
100' R/W
76'
12' 8 12'-F12' 12'12' 12' 8' 12'
' MAJOR HIGHWAY
88' R/W
'
641
1 2' 8' 12 12' 12' 12' 12'
'
_L,
' SECONDARY HIGHWAY
' 66' R/'N
114'
11 0' 12' 2' 10' 1'
Level a( :trrlce d Is one Polaris anality
e7 carr;7ce a M�cleultr (last al nlgt.ay
un pravlde. It It a cdndllldn of free
Ila. In notch there It little or oo re-
tlrlclloa of spnJ or uneuverablilty
u.%ad be the pretence of other venk les.
UVn,lIng ....J It in the nlgnast nage
,nJ density Is Io..
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
level of Service b It • tone of sbble f
Uo.[•ver, operii�nq Spred It beginning to
rnlrided by other traffic. Under free
+qconditions dens sly It lo., "shit.
loon on oure
nerab111I, It ngllgible,
and them It Il It It rrobablI It, of
I
re dual i.. In Shed or 11.
rale. Inn lams df air. lee ,p-
proala.tn !,plus detlgn lot-
.
ot /
.net for high+,1, IYPe rvnl nigh•
+Ltlualnq I, en. Yt.
LEVEL OF SERVICE B
—Is
I 1 Incl of SerrlSe C Is still a ton. o( liable
l{T vol✓e and a oosn, level
f ens) dr herr are Lrcho mitrlcled In
led. 11 1111[1 SM nI, change
l]JI] / lana, or Pass. Open tong Speeds aye
y,1 In lar nngr ul 7/1 to )// of
LL ..I.u.; deadly It (roe to to 1S
` eeel.et per ]".adoe on Irrru,t.
' irn lye Inh level g.neaall,
,elected
ell e
` ,eK hJ al lesan ap11(!
""gin
I [r llrrlm our Jru qn y"Wpotei,
❑ D \ _ Va.,. kat out ur 4an .di",
,mer if., PP ,on of pr le.vans
\ 11¢ nlylvr, \,,.lice levels
Jur big 1'++e prrluJt icy,
k
yr.nl4 tl hr.
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
level of Service 0 appraachot
T- nb a ere n qe operating
Wrote but art subject to co
s.dJen variation. fr"Mao t
and driving lunfort are loov
lane density has In, rmed 1
aS and SO .asp. are sae probe
o/ accidents Pat Inlru,ed.
Jr ire rt .culd pn.balel, const
this ter. ort Ind .nnLsfa
IDq.
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
-y Ina uDMr IIYII of level of Service C Is 1
uptdty of Ina Gc7 tT ly, peemllun In
tone It unstable, Speedt and It.. rete
p Il vat ).ale, and there It little Indep
S dente of Spred selection gr eblll
to unt•1111. Since nee&.,% art
` I t ,hurl and .,all tong lMW, tubj,
W raplJ fluU mllon, driving t
10
oro H lo. a,.d act Want pole.
\hiqh. pt though Aluo, obtuilances
orenituu dffu11lilt,r cundltions nrce,sary,
dear), .nmslraLle end
ould 4 avoided .Arnerl
/u.iLle.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
u,,I of S1e.1(e I aescrl Let forced
(la+ oM ral�uil ail er etntll, has
r.moo ooil. o,hICn It rom
ally In the range al 70 lb IS
rpa do Iree llo.I.qIadllll IS.
SMed and rate of Ilw vat be -
In. the Ir.rlt atulned In
tone I and rap fol dull
tIK V<r10J t, do.V to Sero
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
F
s
't, /It
r
TOWNS...
/ A
OP.I f
•
L
e X SOUTH TOWN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULATION
STUDY AREA 6
0
0
i
G
5
0
PO.O
1
1 1 1
1
1
\�.
u
OF
J
/ A
OP.I f
•
L
e X SOUTH TOWN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULATION
STUDY AREA 6
0
0
i
G
5
0
PO.O
7.S.
1
1 1 1
1
1
D
1 1 1
eEc.EP
OF
J
;m
�
z
1�
I e
I
s
Au 1
1
p1'
D
1
1
1
1• xn•tcL 1
�� 1
"ND J
1
i
is to
�xiq
M •
i/
y 2
PO •
h
•
w
O
i 4�
r
�•
.MryPEPtr
POAB
° '
T•�•���BV Tx
AIt EA 7 1 ... SHIP • e°u rx
1
1
1 1
:xrsrrn
1
uroce
PP.P 1
a0
1
1
OF SUPERVISORS THROUGH RCSOLUTION NO. 04-77 AS A PART OF THE PUBLIC
cuaaulcmax nwNr OP AT
ty".OL
FACILITIES A11U GERVICCS ELEMENT OF THE COMPRERFUSIVE GENERAL PLAN.
1
SECONDARY W'
_—_—
RESOLUTION DA1L RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION DATE
1.— j
I ��►.y`�
1^irnx
1 Ponlr
1 I 1 �
'M-527 12 IBM N00-415 121988
MOUNTAIN ARTERIAL 110'
85 - 391 508 85 P D9- 596 1.20 89
7.S.
1
1 1 1
1
1
D
1 1 1
eEc.EP
OF
J
;m
�
z
1�
m
I
s
Au 1
1
p1'
D
1
1
't
"ND J
1
•POND
•
I
O�
1
1 1 1
1
1
D
1 1 1
eEc.EP
OF
J
o
�
• P
SL
1 ,IIP 1
1 1
1 1
.!PSOx 1
D
1
't
1
•
\O
y
a
•POND
•
I
O�
Z • r
D
�
OF
J
o
�
• P
o
D
t.°
M •
i/
y 2
PO •
w
O
vn Ln
�•
•
POAB
° '
T•�•���BV Tx
AIt EA 7 1 ... SHIP • e°u rx
THIS .AAP WAS ADOPTED MARCH 6, 1904 BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD
LEGEND
OF SUPERVISORS THROUGH RCSOLUTION NO. 04-77 AS A PART OF THE PUBLIC
cuaaulcmax nwNr OP AT
ty".OL
FACILITIES A11U GERVICCS ELEMENT OF THE COMPRERFUSIVE GENERAL PLAN.
SECONDARY W'
_—_—
RESOLUTION DA1L RESOLUTION DATE RESOLUTION DATE
MAJOR 100,
•BH -H62 13.n.Br • OO.A05 10.688
,
ARTERIAL 270•
0-60
'M-527 12 IBM N00-415 121988
MOUNTAIN ARTERIAL 110'
85 - 391 508 85 P D9- 596 1.20 89
URBAN ARTERIAL 134-
r••••
•05 002 10¢905 •09.615 1219.09
'.O5-)50 129105 05 G39 121909
EXPRESSWAY VARIABLE
MEEKS
.P
•W -Yr LtSW
FREEWAY VARIABLE
t®
•W.45e ID21,W
SPECIFIC PLAN ROAD VARIABLE
02.134 512 OT
87-956 12 22 83
BRIDGE
.BB -1)9 6-1400
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
..
• INDICAT ES AMENDMENT TO TI IIS MAP
STATE AND FEDERAL LANDS""
""""""^"...
NOTE: CIRCULA DON MAPS ARE A GRAPHIC REPRESEN A TION IDENTIFYING INE GENERAL L OC.0 RpI
AND CELS p7b RON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED THOROUGHFARES IN ME COUNTY. ANVOUESIpNS
REGAROWO PRECISE ANGNMFNr OR MIPROVEMENT STANDARDS SHOULD BE REFERRED TO RIE
COUNTYROAGDEPARRNENT..
HIGHWAY CAPACITY
FOR
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
' GENERAL PLAN ROADS
NUMBER DESIGNI) MAXIXUM2) PEAK HOUR VOLUME3)
' NOTE: All capacities are based on improvement to full County
standards under optimum operating conditions. Capacity can be
' significantly reduced by a high incidence of pedestrian
traffic and turning movement=_. Substandard vertical and
horizontal alignment, or any condition which might restrict
sight distance will also reduce capacity.
FREEWAY
4 60,000
86,000
61000
6,880
FREEWAY
6 96,000
132,000
138,000
91600
11,040
FREEWAY
8
190,000
13,200
15,200
FREEWAY
10 168,000
240,000
16,800
19,200
EXPRESSWAY
4 50,000
80,000
5,000
6,400
EXPRESSWAY
6 78,000
120,000.
7,800
9,600
'
ARTERIAL
4 24,000.
38,000
2,400
3,040
ARTERIAL (Urban)
6 38,000
59,000
3,800
4,720
'MAJOR
4 24,000
38,000
2,400
3,040
SECONDARY
4 20,000
30,000
2,000
2,400
'
COLLECTOR4)
2 12,000
18,000
1,200
1,400
1) "Level of Service C" is used for analysis and evaluation,
and is
'
defined as a stable
flow condition
in which volume and
density
restrict the freedom
to select speed,
change
lanes or pass.
Values
indicate Average Daily
Traffic.
2) "Level of Service E". This value reflects
the absolute
maximum
volume under ideal
conditions. This
level
is characterized by
'
unstable flow, extremely high volumes and limited operating
with intermittent vehicle queuing. Values indicate Average
speed
Daily
Traffic.
'
3) Peak Hour Volume is
assumed to be 10
percent
for Level of
Service
C and 8 percent for
Level E, based on
higher
volumes spread over a
longer time period.
'
4) Capacities are for
initial stage two-lane
arterials;
majors
and secondaries will
be similar.
' NOTE: All capacities are based on improvement to full County
standards under optimum operating conditions. Capacity can be
' significantly reduced by a high incidence of pedestrian
traffic and turning movement=_. Substandard vertical and
horizontal alignment, or any condition which might restrict
sight distance will also reduce capacity.
Noise Assessment for the
Temecula Regional Center
City of Temecula
1
I
'
Prepared for:
Douglas Wood &Associates
567 San Nicholas
Suite 301
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Prepared by
'
Fred Greve, P.E.
William Bloomer
Mestre Greve Associates
280 Newport Center Drive
Suite 230
'
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 760-0891
'
Report # 90-91
Revised May 1, 1991
' Noise Assessment for Temecula Regional Center
City of Temecula
' 1.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
1.1 Introduction
The proposed project calls for the development of the Temecula Regional Center which covers a
total of 201 acres. The project will consist of mix commercial uses including retail, office and
' hotels. The project is located in an incorporated area of the City of Temecula in County of
Riverside southeast of the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. This study is a
revision of our report # 90-91 (completed April 4, 1990, "Noise Assessment for Temecula
' Regional Center, City of Temecula") and is based on updated traffic data which accounts for the
deletion of any proposed development north of Winchester Road.
1.2 Noise Criteria
Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. A -
weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the
frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit 1 provides examples of various noises and their
typical A -weighted noise level. .
The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the Average noise level on an energy basis for any
L specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy Average noise level during the hour,
specifically, the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can
be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the
fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound
measured for one hour may be expressed as a one hoar Leq of 57 dBA.
' Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account
for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on
man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that
occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time
of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility
assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a
time weighted 24 hour Average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time weighted
refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for
occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5
dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods
' and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time
periods. The day -night or Ldn scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are
not penalized. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL,"
or simply "60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of
communities are presented in Exhibit 2.
The City of Temecula is a newly incorporated city therefore it does not have any noise standards
yet. The City of Temecula has retained the County of Riverside noise standards.
The criteria used to assess the acceptability of community noise levels varies with the
municipality. The County of Riverside uses 65 CNEL as the critical criterion for assessing the
' compatibility of residential land uses with noise sources. The County of Riverside recommends
MGA 1
SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS
(A+Seab Weighted Sound Levels)
SOURCE: RepsGced from Mclrille C. Breach and R Dab Boland. Ouldoer choke b We Mamnolitan Fnvironme m.
PW Wbd by 00 City of Lee Angolm, 1970. P.2.
Exhibit 1
Examples of Typical Noise Levels
OVER-ALL LEVEL
LOUDNESS
dB(A)
Sound Prmuro Level
Approu. 0.0002
COMMUNITY
HOME OR INDUSTRY
Bern Judgere
Microbare
(Outdoor
of Different gen
Level
Military Jr AbmO Tsko ORWilh Aga-buner
Oxygen Toafi(121)
120 dB(A) 32 Timer on lad
130
UNCOMFORTABLY
Fran Aircraft Cartier O 50 R(130)
120
LAUD
TutboFan Abcndl OTake OBPoww
RNedng Machtae(110)
110
O200R (90)
Rock -N -Roll Bad(10&114)
ILO dB(A)16 Timr rlad
Jet nova O 1000 R (163)
100
Social; 707. DC -8 O 6080 R
100 dB(A) 8 Thumas Lout
VERY
Berne ldndbg(106)
Bell J -2A Helicopter O 100 R (100)
LOUD
Power Mona (96)
90
Boeing 777• DC.9 O 6080 R
Brae{ydmg
Nowspepa Press (97)
90 dB(A) 4 Tunas an Lad
Molacycle ®23R (90)
Cr Wash O 2D R (89)
Food Blander (88)
Prop. Airplane FlyoverO 1000 R (88)
S O
Dlaei Truck. 40 MPII O 50 R (eq
M1114 Machine (83)
Land
80 dB(A) 2 Those ra
Dknl Train. 45 MPII O 100 R (23)
Garbage Disposal (SO)
High Urban Ambient Sound (86)
MODERATELY
Passenger Cr. 65 MRI O 25 R C77)
living Room Musk O6)
70 dBW
O
LOW
Freeway O 50 R•Iimn Pavement
TV -Allo. Vuten Clem
Edge. IMAM (76 +a- 6)
Cub Register O 10 R (6570)
Air Conditioning Unit O 100 R (60)
Electric Typewriter O 10 R (6Q
'ubwrber (Rim) O 10 R (60)
60 dB(A) IR r lad
Convreatbn (60)
sit
QUA
LargsTrudormertOl00R(SO)
56 dB(A) 104 r Lad
40
Bird Calls (M)
LowLi
er mit Urban Ambient Saud (40)
d0 dB(A) Ip r Lad
JUST AUDIBLE
(dB(A) Scab lnarn"od)
TURLSIIOLD
10
OPHEARWG
SOURCE: RepsGced from Mclrille C. Breach and R Dab Boland. Ouldoer choke b We Mamnolitan Fnvironme m.
PW Wbd by 00 City of Lee Angolm, 1970. P.2.
Exhibit 1
Examples of Typical Noise Levels
I
I
tl
t
CNEL Outdoor Location
Apartment Next to Freeway
*�� 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport
E-- Downtown With Some Construction Activity
—Urban High Density Apartment
4 Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue
E— Old Urban Residential Area
F— Wooded Residential
< Agricultural Crop Land
<— Rural Residential
E— Wilderness Ambient
Exhibit 2
Typical Outdoor
Noise Levels
that the exterior living areas (yards and patios) for new residential land uses do not exceed 65
CNEL. In addition, for multi -family residential projects, the California Noise Insulation Standard
(California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) requires that the
indoor noise levels in multi -family residential development do not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB. The
County of Riverside indoor noise standards are consistent with the state standards. The County
of Riverside requires that both single family and multi -family developments achieve an indoor
noise standard of 45 CNEL.
Commercial retail, office and hotel land uses are also included as part of the project. The
California Department of Health Services has published guidelines for determining the
compatibility of various land uses with noise levels. The guidelines are summarized in Exhibit 3.
The guidelines rate compatibility in terms of "normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable,
normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable." The guidelines are used to assess the
compatibility of the proposed project with the noise environment.
The County of Riverside does not have any noise standards for commercial retail, office and
hotel land uses. It is our recommendation that a 50 CNEL interior noise standard be applied to
the commercial retail and office areas; and a 45 CNEL interior standard and a 65 CNEL exterior
standard be applied to the hotel areas.
1.3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels
The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise
Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic
volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise
level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the
time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them
results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over
many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. For the
roadway analysis, worst-case assumptions about future motor vehicle traffic and noise levels
have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort, specifically, no reductions in
motor vehicle noise have been assumed in spite of legislation requiring quieter vehicles at the
time of manufacture.
Existing traffic volumes and estimated speeds were used with the FHWA Model to estimate
existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. Traffic volumes were obtained from the Temecula
Regional Center Traffic Impact Study, by Wilbur Smith Associates (April 1991.)
The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are given
in Table 1. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value
shown. Note that the values given in Table 1 do not take into account the effect of any noise
barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels.
Mrd
I
I
1-
I
L�
I
I
I
I
41
I
I land Use Category I Community sAn60 �Noise Exposure
CNEL,
75 90
dB I
Residential - Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
Residential - Multiple Family
Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels
Schools. Llbrarlm Churches
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Audibod=36 Concert Halls,
---
���---
Playgrounds, Neighborhood puke
I Golf Courses, Riding Stables st? ssiY F?I. a >[sltits
Water Reerestioo, Cemeteries
I'Liace Buildings. Business
Commercial and Residential
Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities . . .. 2=1
Agriculture El
rfiR Normally Acceptable
Specified Land Use Is Satisfactory,
Deed Upon the Assumption that
Any Buildings Involved are of
Normal Conventional Construction,
Without Any Special Noise Insulation
Requitement:. -
® Conditionally Acceptable
New Construction or Development
Should be Undertaken Only After a
Detailed Analysis of the Noise
Reduction Requirement is Made and
Needed Noise Insulation Features
Included In the Design. Conventional
Construcuont but with Closed
Windows and Fresh Alt Supply
Systems or Air Conditioning, Will
Normally Suffice.
® NomWlyUnaceepuble
New Construction or Development
Should Generally be Discouraged.
It New Construction or Development
Does Proceed, a Detailed Analysis of
the Noise Reduction Requirements
Must be Made and Needed Noise
Insulation Features Included in the
Dadip .
_ Clearly Unaccepta6to
New Construction or Development
Should Generally not be Undemken.
Exhibit 3
California Land Use Compatibility Studies
Table 1
EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Distance to CNEL Contour from
Centerline of Roadway (Feet)
Rnndwov i in4 7A rNTi i 6Q rNRI. 611 f NrU
RW - Contour falls on roadway.
I
East of Murrieta Creek
RW
88
190
West of Jefferson Ave.
RW
88
190
Jefferson Ave to 1-15
67
145
312
1.15 to Ynez Road
68
146
316
E. of Ynez Road
RW
96
207
W. of Regional Ctr.
RW
96
207
W. of Margarita Road
RW
96
207
E. of Margarita Road
RW
92
197
W. of Nicolas Road
RW
92
197
E. of Nicolas Road
RW.
88
190
W. of Murrieta Hot Spr
RW
88
'190
E. of Murrieta Hot Spr
RW
66
143
SOLANA WAY
Ynez Road to Margarita Road
RW
55
119
East of Margarita Roasd
RW
RW
63
WASHINGTON AVE (DIAZ ROAD)
-
South of Winchester Road
RW
65
140
JEFFERSON AVENUE
North of Date Street
RW
72
155
S. of Cherry Ave.
RW
72
154
N. of Winchester Ave.
RW
88
189
Winchester to Apricot Ave
54
115
249
1-15
Date Street to Winchester
169
364
784
S. of Apricot Avenue
161
346
746
YNEZ ROAD
N. of Winchester
RW
60
129
S. of Winchester
58
124
268
Winchester to Apricot Avenue
50
108
233
S. of Solana Way
RW
92
199
MARGARITA ROAD
N. of Winchester Road
RW
RW
RW
S. of Apricot Avenue
RW
RW
RW
S. of Solana Way
RW
RW
82
NICHOLAS ROAD
S. of Winchester
RW
RW
74
MARGARITA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
N. of Winchester
RW
RW
84
RW - Contour falls on roadway.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
i
The data in Table 1 indicate that a major noise corridor exists along Interstate 15. Noise levels
directly adjacent to the interstate exceed 70 CNEL. Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue and Ynez
Road have noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater at edge of roadway right-of-way. Other roadways
in the project vicinity have low levels of traffic and correspondingly low levels of noise.
2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS
Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups; temporary and long term.
Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long
term impacts are further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the project
and those impacts which occur at the project site.
2.1 Construction Noise
Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators can reach high levels. Grading activities typically represent one of the highest potential
for noise impacts, however, most of the grading should occur away from existing residential
land uses. However in some areas grading will be occurring adjacent to newly developed areas.
For these situations, the most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local
control of construction hours. When construction occurs adjacent to existing residential
development the hours of construction should be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through
Friday. Construction should not be permitted for these circumstances on weekends or federal
holidays.
2.2 Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed development of the Temecula Regional Center will generate traffic, and as a result
may alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed
project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the change in roadway noise
along these streets was determined. Due to other planned development in the area which has
already been approved there will be an increase in traffic in the surrounding area with or without
the Temecula Regional Center project. The change in noise was calculated for these roads and is
shown below in Table 2. Column 1 shows the change in the future noise levels over existing
noise levels. The future noise levels include the sum of noise levels generated from existing
traffic and noise levels generated from traffic due to cumulative development in the surrounding
area including the project. Column 2 shows the change in future noise levels (with the project)
over future noise levels (without the project.)
MGA 3
Table 2
FUTURE NOISE INCREASE LEVELS (0)
liti
Date Street to Winchester
Future Noise Incr.
Future Noise Incr.
Roadway Link
over existing
due to project
JEFFERSON AVENUE
North of Date Street
3.1
-0.1
Date Street to Cherry Ave.
-
0.1
S. of Cherry Ave.
3.7
0.4
N. of Winchester Ave.
3.6
0.1
Winchester to Apricot Ave
0.9
0.1
S. of Apricot Ave
-
0.2
MADISON AVENUE
1.4
-0.5
N. of Date Street
2.9
1.3
liti
Date Street to Winchester
3.8
0.5
S. of Apricot Avenue
3.7
0.2
JACKSON AVENUE
N. of Date Street
0.2
Date Street to C Street
0.6
C Street to County Ctr
0.5
County Cir to Winchester
5.7
0.3
YNEZ ROAD
S. of Winchester
2.5
0.3
N. of Apricot Avenue
1.4
-0.5
Apricot Ave to Solana Way
2.9
0.8
S. of Solana Way
4.2
0.1
LINCOLN AVENUE
N. of Date Street
0.0
MARGARITA ROAD
N. of Date Street
1.4
Date Street to A Street
2.0
A Street to B Street
2.1
B Street to Winchester
12.8
1.6
S. of Winchester
-
0.7
N. of General Kearny
0.6
General Kearny to Apricot Ave
-1.1
Apricot Ave to Solana Way
15.1
0.3
S. of Solana Way
7.1
0.3
NICHOLAS ROAD
S. of Winchester
4.4
0.9
MARGARITA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
N. of Date Street
-
-0.3
Date Street to Winchester
6.3
0.1
S. of Winchester
-
-0.3
Table 2
FUTURE NOISE INCREASE LEVELS (0)
Future Noise Incr.
Future Noise Incr.
Roadway Link
over existing
due to project
DATE STREET
'
Diaz Road to Adams Street
-0.1
Adams Street to Jefferson Ave
-
-0.2
Jefferson St. to 1-15
1-15 to Business Park
-
0.2
0.2
Business Park to Jackson Ave.
0.2
Jackson Ave to Lincoln Ave
-0.1
East of Lincoln Ave
-0.3
West of Margarita Road
-0.3
East of Margarita Road
-0.1
W. of Margarita Hot Spring Roa
0.7
CHERRY STREET
Adams Street to Jefferson Ave
1.2
WINCHESTER ROAD
East of Murrieta Creek
2.4
0.4
West of Jefferson Ave.
0.7
0.3
Jefferson Ave to 1-15
1.0
0.0
1-15 to Ynez Road
3.1
0.4
E. of Ynez Road
3.9
0.3
W. of Regional Ctr.
3.4
-0.1
W. of Margarita Road
3.9
0.4
E. of Margarita Road
3.8
0.3
W. of Nicolas Road
3.4
0.5
E. of Nicolas Road
3.8
0.3
W. of Margarita Hot Spr
3.7
0.6
E. of Margarita Hot Spr
4.9
0.1
APRICOT AVENUE
W. of Jefferson Avenue
-
-0.3
1-15 to Jackson Ave
0.4
Ynez Road to Regional Ctr.
0.8
Regional Ctr to Margarita Rd
-1.5
SOLANA WAY
Ynez Road to Margarita Road
4.2
0.1
East of Margarita Roasd
1.3
-0.7
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
Regional Ctr to Margarita Road
_
-
East of Margarita Road
0.8
Far East of Margarita Road
-
0.9
WASHINGTON (DIAZ ROAD)
North of Date Street
South of Date Street
1.3
North of Winchester Road
0.0
South of Winchester Road
3.6
-0.1
ADAMS AVENUE
North of Date Street
2.5
South of Date Street
1.5
In community noise assessment changes, noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as
significant, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of
1 to 3 dB residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific
evidence is available to support the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold. In laboratory
testing situations humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dB.
However, in a community noise situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and
changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a
laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become
discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dB, and 3 dB appears to be appropriate for
most people.
The data in Column 1 of Table 2 indicate that the future noise levels will increase substantially
(greater than 3 dBA) over existing noise levels for sensitive land uses along some streets in the
vicinity of the project. This is due to the relatively low amount of traffic currently in the area A
maximum change of 15.1 dB exists along Margarita Road (between Solana Way and Apricot
Avenue) which will have a noise exposure just less than 70 CNEL at roadway right-of-way edge.
Furthermore, Winchester Road, Washington Avenue (Diaz Road), Jefferson Avenue, Jackson
Avenue, Ynez Road, Margarita Road, Nicholas Road and Margarita Hot Springs Road have
noise increases greater than 3 dB. Those roadways that have noise increases greater than 3 dB
and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL may significantly impact already existing residential
developments adjacent to these roadways. Such roadways include Margarita Road, Winchester
Road and Nicolas Road. Roadways along planned residential areas that are not yet developed can
be mitigated by the developer at the time of construction.
The future noise levels are likely to increase slowly over the years rather than immediately. This
problem is a regional problem due to the intense development throughout this area The Noise
Element of the General Plan is intended to develop strategies to address regional problems. The
Temecula Noise Element should be updated to address this area. (The California Department of
Health recommends that Noise Elements be updated every five years.)
The future noise increase levels due solely to the project specified in Column 2 are all less than 3
dB. This indicates the project will contribute slightly but insignificantly to the noise increase
problem in the area.
MCA 4
1 2.3 Noise Levels On -Site
Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Model to project future unmitigated noise levels for all of the roadways. The modeling results are
reported in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These projections do not
take into account any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. Future traffic noise
levels impacting the project site were presented in Table 3. For the project site the data is also
presented graphically in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 shows the 60 and 65 CNEL noise contours for the
project site.
' The data in Table 3 indicate that limited portions of the project site proposed for residential use
(such as hotels) may experience traffic noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without some form of
mitigation, specifically lots along Winchester Road, Margarita Road, General Kearny Road and
Regional Center Road. Measures will be necessary to ensure that residential areas planned along
these roadways will experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL, and indoor noise levels
less than 45 CNEL. The usual forth of mitigation is through the construction of sound walls and
sound insulation for the buildings. If the hotel areas were to be built adjacent to Winchester Road
they could be exposed to noise level of 70 CNEL or greater. According to the California Land
Use/Noise. Compatibility guidelines (Exhibit 3) hotel land use inside the 70 CNEL zone are
"normally unacceptable", new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If
new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
' If the commercial retail and office. spaces were to be built adjacent to Winchester Road, Apricot
Road and Ynez Road, they could be exposed to a noise level of 70 CNEL or greater. According
to the California Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines (presented previously as Exhibit 3)
commercial retail and office land uses inside the 70 CNEL zone are "conditionally acceptable",
new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysts of the noise
reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air
conditioning, will normally suffice.
11
I
If the commercial retail and office spaces were to be built adjacent to General Kearny Road,
Regional Center Road and Margarita Road, Apricot Avenue, Ynez Road and Winchester Road
they could be exposed to noise levels exceeding 65 CNEL. According to the California Land
Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines (presented previously as Exhibit 3) commercial retail and
office land uses inside the 70 CNEL zone are "normally acceptable", specified land use is
satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any building involved are of normal conventional
construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
M!: d
Table 3
FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
1
Distance to
CNEL Contour from
Centerline of Roadway (Feet)
Roadway Link
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
DATE STREET
Diaz Road to Adams Street
62
134
290
Adams Street to Jefferson Ave
63
135
291
Jefferson St. to 1-15
68
146
314
1-15 to Business Park
68
146
314
Business Park to Jackson Ave.
67
145
312
Jackson Ave to Lincoln Ave
RW
111
238
,
East of Lincoln Ave
RW
107
230
West of Margarita Road
RW
107
231
East of Margarita Road
RW
98
210
W. of Murieta Hot Spring Road
RW
72
156
CHERRY STREET
Adams Street to Jefferson Ave
RW
RW
73
C STREET
Adams Street to Jefferson Ave
RW
53
113
,
B STREET
W. of Margarita Road
RW
RW
89
A STREET
W. of Margarita Road
RW
RW
RW
,
COUNTY CENTER
Jackson Ave to C Street
RW
RW
53
WINCHESTER ROAD
East of Murrieta Creek
RW
128
276
,
West of Jefferson Ave.
RW
98
212
Jefferson Ave to 1-15 '
79
169
365
1-15 to Ynez Road
109
235
506
E. of Ynez Road
81
175
377
W. of Regional Ctr.
75
161
348
W. of Margarita Road
81
175
377
E. of Margarita Road
76
164
352
W. of Nicolas Road
72
155
334
E. of Nicolas Road
73
157
338
W. of Margarita Hot Spr
72
155
334
E. of Murrieta Hot Spr
65
140
302
APRICOT AVENUE
W. of Jefferson Avenue
RW
71
153
1.15 to Ynez Road
47
101
217
Ynez Road to Regional Cir.
49
106
228
Regional Ctr to Margarita Rd
RW
75
161
SOLANA WAY
Ynez Road to Margarita Road
RW
105
226
East of Margarita Road
RW
RW
76
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
Regional Ctr to Margarita Road
RW
86
185
East of Margarita Road
RW
89
192
Far East of Margarita Road
RW
81
175
WASHINGTON AVE (DIAZ ROAD)
South of Date Street
72
155
335
North of Winchester Road
59
126
272
South of Winchester Road
53
113
244
ADAMS AVENUE
North of Date Street
South of Date Street
RW
RW
RW
RW
86
115
,
1
Table 3
FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
Distance to CNEL Contour from
Centerline of Roadway (Feet)
Roadway Link 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL
I
I
V� Vv
North of Date Street
Date Street to Cherry Ave.
54
57
117
122
251
262
S. of Cherry Ave.
58
126
271
N. of Winchester Ave.
71
153
330
Winchester to Apricot Ave
61
132
285
S. of Apricot Ave
55
119
257
MADISON AVENUE
N. of Date Street
RW
74
160
1-15
Date Street to Winchester
302
650
1401
S. of Apricot Avenue
284
612
1318
JACKSON AVENUE
N. of Date Street
57
124
267
Date Street to C Street
59
128
275
C Street to County Ctr
60
128
276
County Ctr to Winchester
67
143
309
YNEZ ROAD
S. of Winchester
85
184
396
N. of Apricot Avenue
71
154
332
Apricot Ave to Solana Way
78
168
362
S. of Solana Way
82
177
380
LINCOLN AVENUE
N. of Date Street
RW
RW
RW
REGIONAL CTR ROAD
Winchester to General Kearny
RW
80
173
General Kearny to Apricot Ave
RW
80
173
MARGARITA ROAD
N. of Date Street
RW
88
191
Date Street to A Street
RW
83
179
A Street to B Street
RW
85
182
B Street to Winchester
RW
112
240
S. of Winchester
RW
93
201
N. of General Kearny
RW
85
184
General Kearny to Apricot Ave
RW
97
208
Apricot Ave to Solana Way
52
112
241
S. of Solana Way
52
112
242
NICHOLAS ROAD
S. of Winchester
RW
68
146
MARGARITA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
N. of Date Street
Date Street to Winchester
RW
RW
75
103
162
221
S. of Winchester
RW
80
172
RW - Contour falls on roadway.
I
I
��' _ � asp � �•. ••oo .; ' -, 1 L'''
Verve KUL __ (. •.V
N _
Exhibit 4
Future On -Site CNEL Noise Levels
1p. en
Exhibit 4
Future On -Site CNEL Noise Levels
' 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 Construction Noise Impacts
Construction adjacent to existing residential development should be limited to the hours of 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Construction should not be allowed on weekends or
federal holidays.
3.2 Off -Site Noise Impacts
No significant off-site impacts are projected for this project. Noise levels in the surrounding
areas will increase substantially in years to come. However, the increases are due to regional
development, and the proposed project by itself will contribute little but insignificantly to the
ultimate noise levels.
' 3.3 On -Site Noise Impacts
Mitigation measures are needed to reduce noise levels in outdoor and indoor residential areas
exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL. Specifically, lots along Winchester Road,
Margarita Road, General Kearny Road and Regional Center Road may experience noise levels
exceeding 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. The area bounded by these roadways is
the only portion of the project in which hotels are planned. The measures below are presented to
' demonstrate feasibility, and should not be interpreted as design specifications. A more detailed
noise analysis will be warranted when grading plans are developed.
The FHWA Model described previously and future traffic volumes were used to assess the
feasibility of sound barriers in reducing the noise levels along the roadways of concern. A 5 foot
observer height as recommended in the FHWA Model was utilized. It was assumed that a noise
barrier would be constructed at the residential property line and that the observer was located 5
feet from the barrier. It has been assumed that no second story balconies will face the roadway
for units located inside the 65 CNEL impact zone. In general, second story balconies should not
overlook major roadways due to potential noise impacts. However, if such balconies are planned
additional noise mitigation will be necessary.
Noise barrier heights were calculated for sample locations along Winchester Road, Margarita
Road, General Kearny Road and Regional Center Road In most areas the barrier will have to
reduce the noise level by approximately 1 to 5 dBA. Walls of 3 to 5 feet may be required along
General Kearny Road, Regional Center Road and Margarita road. Walls of 6 feet or greater may
be required along Winchester Road. However, it is not aesthetic to have walls exceeding 6 feet.
A more desirable alternative is a combination berm and wall which would reduce the wall height
considerably. The noise barrier heights projected may be reduced considerably through site
design, such as setbacks from the roadways, grade separations, and exterior living area
orientation. The barriers could be a berm, wall, or a combination berm and wall. Walls should
not contain holes or gaps, and should be constructed of slumpstone or other masonry material.
Final noise barrier heights should be determined when final grading plans are developed that
show hotel setbacks, and precise pad elevations.
Exhibit 5 presents a standard condition utilized by the County of Orange. We recommend that a
similar condition be attached to this project. This will insure that the project meets the indoor and
Ioutdoor noise standards for the City of Temecula
L
I
MGA 6
N1 All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against
present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting
the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 dB CNEL in
outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CHEL in all habit-
able rooms. Evidence prepared under the supervision of a County -certified
acoustical consultant that these standards will be satisfied in a manner
consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted as
follows:
A. Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior to the
issuance of Grading Permits, at the sole discretion of the County, an
Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the Manager, Develop-
ment Services Division, for approval. The report shall describe in
detail the exterior noise environment and preliminary mitigation meas-
ures. Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards
may be included in the report in which case it may also satisfy •S"
below.
B. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical analysis
report describing the acoustical design features of the structures
required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be
submitted to the Manager, Development Services Division for approval
along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound
attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report(s)
have been incorporated into the design of the project.
C.
D.
Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field
testing in accordance with Title 25 regulations may be required by the
Manager, Building Inspection Division, to verify compliance with STC
and IIC design standards.
Exhibit 5 r
Example Condition of Approval
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
Since the City of Temecula does not have standards for commercial retail, office and hotel land
uses, the interior noise criteria as specified in the County of Orange "Noise Element and Land
Use/Noise Compatibility Manual" should be applied. The indoor noise criteria specified that an
acoustical report will need to be completed prior to issuance of building permits to show
mitigation measures, if any, needed to meet the county's interior noise standards for the
commercial retail, office and hotel buildings. The County of Orange standards require that
commercial retail and office buildings are not to exceed 50 CNEL for the interior, hotel buildings
are not to exceed 45 CNEL for the interior and 65 CNEL for exterior living areas.
MGA 7
I
I
I
IJ
I
I
I
[1
C)
1
I
MGA
APPENDIX
Traffic Data Used to Calculate Noise Levels
8
I
••••• ADT
(in thousands)
•••••
Future
Future
Roadway
Link
Speed
Existing
w/ Protect w/o Prolect
DATE STREET
Diaz Road to Adams Street
45
28.3
28.8
Adams Street to Jefferson Ave
45
-
28.5
29.6
Jefferson St. to 1-15
45
-
32.0
30.8
1-15 to Business Park
45
-
32.0
30.6
Business Park to Jackson Ave.
45
-
31.6
30.5
'
Jackson Ave to Lincoln Ave
45
21.1
21.4
East of Lincoln Ave
45
-
20.0
21.2
West of Margarita Road
45
-
20.2
21.6
East of Margarita Road
45
17.5
17.9
W. of Margarita Hot Spring Road
45
_
11.2
9.5
CHERRY STREET
Adams Street to Jefferson Ave
35
-
6.7
5.1
WINCHESTER ROAD
East of Murrieta Creek
45
15.1
26.3
23.8
West of Jefferson Ave.
45
15.1
17.7
16.6
Jefferson Ave to 1-15
45
31.6 _
40.0
40.2
1-15 to Ynez Road
45
32.2
653
60.0
E. of Ynez Road
45
17.1
42.1
39.4
W. of Regional Ctr.
45
17.1
37.2
38.1
W. of Margarita Road
45
17.1
42.0
38.1
E. of Margarita Road
45
15.9
36.0
35.8
W. of Nicolas Road
E. of Nicolas Road
45
45
15.9
15.0
35.0
35.7
31.3
33.0
W. of Margarita Hot Spr
45
15.0
35.0
30.4
E. of Margarita Hot Spr
45
9.8
30.2
29.2
APRICOT AVENUE
W. of Jefferson Avenue
40
14.6
15.5
1-15 to Jackson Ave
40
-
24.5
22.5
Ynez Road to Regional Ctr.
40
-
26.5
22.0
Regional Ctr to Margarita Rd
40
-
15.7
22.0
SOLANA WAY
Ynez Road to Margarita Road
40
10.0
26.1
25.6
East of Margarita Roasd
40
3.8
5.1
6.0
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
Regional Ctr to Margarita Road
40
-
19.4
-
East of Margarita Road
40
20.4
16.9
Far East of Margarita Road
40
17.8
14.5
WASHINGTON (DIAZ ROAD)
-
North of Date Street
45
South of Date Street
45
35.2
25.9
North of Winchester Road
45
-
25.8
25.9
South of Winchester Road
45
95
21.9
22.3
ADAMS AVENUE
North of Date Street
40
6.1
3.4
'
South of Date Street
40
_
9.5
6.7
JEFFERSON AVENUE
North of Date Street
45
11.1
22.9
23.5
Date Street to Cherry Ave.
45
-
24.4
24.1
'
S. of Cherry Ave.
45
11.0
25.6
23.4
N. of Winchester Ave.
45
14.9
34.4
33.3
Winchester to Apricot Ave
45
22.5
27.7
26.8
S. of Apricot Ave
45
-
23.7
22.6
MADISON AVENUE
N. of Date Street
35
21.7
16.1
I-15
Date Street to Winchester
55
53.7
128.2
113.4
S. of Apricot Avenue
55
49.8
117.0
112.3
I
•'••• ADT
(in thousands)
•""
Future
Future
Roadway
Link
Speed
Existina
w/ Profect w/o Prolect
JACKSON AVENUE
N. of Date Street
45
-
25.0
23.8
Date Street to C Street
45
-
26.2
22.7
C Street to County Ctr
45
-
26.4
23.5
County Ctr to Winchester
45
8.4
31.2
29.3
YNEZ ROAD
S. of Winchester
45
25.2
45.3
42.6
N. of Apricot Avenue
45
25.2
34.7
39.0
Apricot Ave to Solana Way
45
20.4
39.5
32.6
S. of Solana Way
45
16.1
42.6
41.5
LINCOLN AVENUE
N. of Date Street
40
-
1.6
1.8
MARGARITA ROAD
N. of Date Street
40
-
20.2
14.6
Date Street to A Street
40
-
18.4
11.5
A Street to B Street
40
18.9
11.6
B Street to Winchester
40
1.5
28.6
20.0
S. of Winchester
40
- -
21.9
18.5
N. of Genera: Kearny
40
-
19.1
16.6
General Kearny to Apricot Ave
40
-
23.1
29.6
Apricot Ave to Solana Way
40
0.9
28.6
26.7
S. of Solana Way
40
5.7
28.9
27.2
NICHOLAS ROAD
S. of Winchester
40
4.9
13.5
11.1
MARGARITA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
N. of Date Street
40
-
15.8
16.9
Date Street to Winchester
40
5.9
25.3
24.6
S. of Winchester
40
-
17.3
18.4
THE LEVANDER COMPANY, iNc. 1815 Via EI Prado, Suite 308, Redondo beach, California 80277 (213)540-1546
HMRANDUM FAX (213)543.5135
' To: Mr. Douglas L. Wood Date: April 5, 1991
Douglas Wood &,ociates
' FrM: Dale H. LevanderFile; #1342
Ronald W. Wade
' Subject: ATTF:'RNATF`. FISCAL FROJ PIONS--TEMEMIA REGIONAL CENTER
SPECIFIC PLAN
At your request, we have prepared this memorandum as a supplement to our
report of March 19, 1991, which evaluated the fiscal impacts of a land -use
alternative derived from a modified land -use plan prepared by Turrini &
Brink. Building space estimates used in the March 19 report were based
Wort discussions with Bedford Properties, Inc. arra prototypical development
' densities from our files.
Since preparation of this report, Turrini & Brink has prepared estimates of
building space for the revised land use plan based on two alternative
retail forms:
o A regional center.
' o A power center.
' As can be seen from Table 1, the total amount of building space reflected
in the Marg 19 report and that in the two later alternatives is quite
close, ranging from 2,600,000 square feet to 2,858,000 square feet.
Projected cash flows are also relatively close:
' o $13.7 million to $15.2 million during the ten-year development
period.
' o $2.3 million to $2.8 million for Year 11 and beyond.
Detailed projections are contained in the initial report and the two sets
' of computer printouts attached.
If you have any ccai ents or questions concerning the above, please give us
a call.
IEHIA F1W: jw: S97
cc: Mr. Barry Burnell, Tannin & Brink
Attachment
Table 1
ALTERNA= CCMPARISONS
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
PRa7ECPED CASH FLOW ($00015)
Total 10 -year Devel
Period 15,204 15,407 13,667
Year 11 and Beyond
(Annual) 2,689 2,787 2,260
Source: Bedford Properties, Inc.; Douglas Mood & Associates;
T&B Alternatives
Report of
Regional
Power
3/19/91
Center
Center
BUILDING SPACE (SF)
Retail Camnercial Core
1,125,000
1,125,000
800,000
Other Retail -Type
500,000
500,000
500,000
Fast Food/Restaurant
27,000
32,000
32,000
Financial Office
13,000
16,000
16,000
Hotel
125,000
175,000
250,000
General Office
810,000
810.000
1,260,000
Total
2,600,000
2,658,000
2,858,000
# HOTEL ROOMS
250
350
500
PRa7ECPED CASH FLOW ($00015)
Total 10 -year Devel
Period 15,204 15,407 13,667
Year 11 and Beyond
(Annual) 2,689 2,787 2,260
Source: Bedford Properties, Inc.; Douglas Mood & Associates;
Table At
SAVARY CASH FLOW (IN 1998 LTtSTANT Da.LARS) Alternative At Regional Center
CITY OF TETECIU FISCAL IMPACTS
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
le -Year Developaent Period
Total Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr IB
2 MING ITEMS
7
1
I Revenues
67
i Secured Property Tax -Fire
788
i Secured Property Tax General
959
T Property Tax -Unsecured
175
B Sales Tam
18,691
a Transient Dmpawy In
912
a Franchises
a
I Civil Penalties
a
? Traffic Fires
e
1 Property Tranef Tax -Resale
1
I Motor Vehicle In Lieu
a
S Cigarette Tax
/
i State bas Tax
1
r Total Revenues
21,514
Expetditurea
Owls
1342CR2
2X2
84/14/91
Year 11
I geyord
7
7
51
67
76
125
134
132
168
168
9
9
62
8t
93
152
164
185
254
204
2
2
11
15
17
28
311
34
37
37
234
234
1,769
1,954
1,954
3,011
3,010
3,263
3,263
3,263
11
e
0
8
a
190
1911
190
332
332
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
0
a
e
e
e
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
1
1
1
a
e
1
1
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
/
1
e
e
e
e
252
252
1,891
2,116
2,140
3,514
3,528
3, 824
4,184
4,104
I Poli" Protection
4710
1
25
25
191
tri
267
431
459
314
SSB
I Animal Control
e
1
1
a
e
a
1
/
1
0
0
! Fire Protection
4065
8
19
19
146
" 182
m
320
358
392
425
1 Street Maintenance
261
7
12
27
27
31
31
31
31
31
31
1 Park Maintenance
0
8
e
e
a
0
B
0
8
8
e
S Recreation services
0
1
a
e
0
0
1
a
0
e
8
i Adainistration
1,007
1
11
14
73
90
lee
158
168
107
203
r Total Expenditures
I
6,041
8
67
86
437
543
683
949
1,089
1,124
1,218
I Net Surplus/(Deficit)
I
15,470
(1)
185
166.
1,437
1,573
1,53!
2,99
4519
4699
2,787
-i To Expenditures
256.0
(100.8)
2732
192.6
333.3
289.0
255.0
269.4
249.8
24&0
228.0
2.787
228.8
e
e
1 D&TIME ITEMS
e
i Revenues
e
Property Transfer Tax --Nem
a
i Fire Mitigation Fees
797
Development Control Fees
1,518
1 Total
i
2,315
Expenditures
fie
Fire Capital Facilities
797
I Development Control Services
1,510
Total
2,315
Net surplus/(Deficit)
e
-i To Expenditures
e.e
Continued on next page............
90
2.787
228.8
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
36
e
. 237
fie
41
234
41
78
63
0
e
6e
a
480
139
90
439
as
158
Re
e
a
104
0
637
289
128
671
128
236
293
8
a
36
a
237
68
41
234
41
78
63
e
e
68
0
409
139
a0
431
88
159
149
a
0
104
1
637
298
128
Sit
128
236
283
9
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
e
N/A
La
N/A
0.8
U
11.0
0.6
1.8
&0
0.e-
N/A
61 Table At
62 SYIBBIRY CAM FIAT (IN 1996
63 CITY ff TEMEW FISCAL 1
64 Tesecola Regional Cmter 6
65
66
67 IB -Year Bevelopeent Period
SB Ites Total Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr IB
69
71
71
72
73 10TAL MMIN6 I QBE -TIDE ITEMS
74
75 Revenues 23,229 8 356
76
77 Expenditures 8,339 8 171
78
79 NetSurplus/(Deficit) 15,478 (8) 183
88
81 —f To Expe:ditum IBS 1 1116.8) 1821
82
83 -
84
85
B6
87
BB
89
98
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
181
111
182
103
IH
185
IK
187
IBB
1e9
118
III
112
113
114
115
116
117
IIB
119
WOW DR1185)
MPAm
nific Plan
Alternatta At ReglovIal Center
120 Source: The Leva,der Coepany, Im. See detailed tables.
$MIS
252
4318
2,324
21268
4,173
3,636
4,059
4,287
86
1,874
750
731
1,620
1,137
1,368
1,421
166
1,457
1,373
1,537
2,533
2,319
2,699
2,787
192.6
135.7
289.6
210.3
137.7
221.6
198.4
196.1
1342M
4372
84/04/91
Year it
I k7o:d
4,004
1,210
2r 787
228.8
121
Table A2
1112[82
122
DEVELmw
SCEIt1E
Alternative
A: Regional
Center
5372
123
CITY OF TDFW FISCAL I)MACfS
84/64/91
124
Temecvla Regional Center Specific Plan
125
126
127
IB -Year
Development Period
Year 11
126
It"
Total
Yr I
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr le
1 Beyond
129
138
RSIDD7TIAL WITS COMM
111
1
132
e
133
8
134
135
136
117
Total
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0
0
0
0
136
-CmIative
0
1
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
e
e
139
146
RESIDENTIAL AGES DEt47DM
141
61
142
6e
143
144
145
146
147
Total
69
0.0
0.8
61
6e
61
6e
61
0.0
6e
68
60
146
149
0OPERCIAL WILDING SPACE
158
CO40.M (MI's SF)
151
Rau Retail Commercial
1,125.0
7/8.8
425.8
152
other Retail -Type
508.0
100.0
90.e
968
190.0
120.1
153
Fast Fond/Restaurant
32.8
12.0
3.0
11.0
6.0
1154
financial Offim
16.8
8.0
61
155
Hotel 1359 Rooms)
175.1
100.9
75.8
156
General Office
eia.e
135.1
135.0
135.0
135.1
135.9
135.0
157
Total
2,650.1
6e
1261
8.0
796.0
22A9
115.1
779.0
135.9
261.0
2161
0.0
158
159
CIM COlERCIAL KM SPACE (000's SF)
IW
Ball Retail Commercial
1,125.8
8.9
68
68
780.0
706.8
700.9
1,125.1
1,125.8
1,125.0
1, 123.e
1,125.9
I61
Other Retail -Type
500.0
8.9
180.1
189.0
190.0
288.0
280.8
380.8
389.8
SIB.0
506.8
500.9
162
'Fast Food/Restawant
MI
0.8
12.0
12.0
12.1
15.0
15.9
26.0
26.1
32.e
32.1
32.e
IW
Financial Office
16.9
0.1
1.0
8.8
8.1
8.0
8.1
16.8
16.0
16.0
16.8
16.0
164
Hotel (350 Roomm)
175.1
60
9.8
60
6e
0.0
8./
106.0
1e0.e
100.8
175.0
175.1
165
seal office
BILI
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
135.8
270.8
495.8
540.8
675.0
016.6
810.0
166
Total
2,650.0
6e
129.8
1260
910.0
1,138.8
1,273.0
2,600
4187.0
2,448.1
2,658.1
2,658.0
167
168
COOEICIAL LM A.9Elt
169
DEVELOPS (ACES)
170
Ball Retail Commercial
168
8.1
61
68
49.8
69
60
10.2
1.0
L9
0.1
0.0
171
Ocher Retail -Type
37.1
0.0
7.4
0.8
6.7
6.7
0.0
7.4
0.0
8.9
0.6
8.0
172
Fast Food/Restaurant
2.4
68
8.9
0.8
0.9
62
6.8
0.8
0.8
11.4
1.1
e.e
173
Financial Office
1.2
0.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
9.0
0.0
0.6
6.1
8.0
0.0
0.1
174
will 1359 Rooms)
7.e
8.8
e.e
0.1
0.1
8.0
e.e
4.e
0.6
1.8
3.e
1.0
175
6eneralOffice
47.7
0.0
e.9
0.8
e.e
8.0
e.6
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.9
0.0
176
Total
175.3
0.8
8.9
0.8
56.4
14.8
8.8
51.9
6e
17.3
11.0
60
177
178
MAL RES/COM ACRS DEYELOPEB
175.3
68
69
0.9
56.4
14.8
0.0
51.8
1.0
17.3
11.8
0.9
179
180 Sources Bedford ProPertiesi The Lavender Company, Inc.
IBI
Table A3
192
CM
Alternative At Regional Center
13
S.
183
(IF CIUWASIOUS
CITY ff TF]ELLLA FISCAL
IImPL75
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
94184
185
186
RESIDENTIAL WIT FACTORS
-Per Capita
Taxable Purch-
meERC1A1. FRCIBRS
187
Not
-
% e
Amt !Ise
Rent
—Per g Taxable
Saln-
Sales -
Population
Bevel
Unircor
Unircor
Bldg Sp
Hotel Bldg Sp
Devel
per g I
189
189
198
Per
Units
Value
County
�y
Per Ac
Boxes Per Room
Valve
f to
Act to
Annual
Chit
Per Rc
Per Unit
Total
Stores
Stores
Ig)
Per Ac (g)
Per SF
Total Non
Res
Ib r -op,
Sales 1,1
191
. 192
193
194
—
In 1998 Constant t
—
In 1998 CxrataM. i
195
1%
Kill Retail Commercial
14, eS3
MRS
175.88
lee.e
175. Be
197
Other Retail -Type
13,580
HOAR
175.08
100.8
175.09
198
Fast Food/Restaurant
13,588
130.M
3M ell
1e8.0
3e8. to
199
Firercial Dffiom
13,508
130.08
8.88
1.0
1.00
Hotel 1358 Roos)
25,088
58 5"
148.89
e.BO
LO
bee
23.73
201
Average
General Office
16,981
139.00
8.18
8.9
B.eo
202
Average
15,163
114.2e
LOS
e.0
LN
203
281
205
le -Year
Development Period
Year 11
2%
Item
Total
Yr I
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7 Yr B Yr 9
Yr to
B Beyond
208
289
POPIIATIM ADDO
210
211
1
1
0
0
8
0
0
0 0 e
-0
0
212
0
8
0
8
0
e
8
1 1 1
e
0
213
0
e
0
0
8
0
0
8 0 0
e
0
214
0
1
e
1
0
1
0
0 1 8
8
e
215
216
217
Total
I
1
0
8
e
8
e
8 0 0
0
0
218
219
DAUT1VE POWTIN
228
221
I
e
0
0
0
0
0
0 e 0
8
1
222
0
0
0
e
/
0
0
0 8 I
1
e
223
e
0
e
8
I
e
e
e 0 0
1
0
224
8
1
1
8
1
1
e
0 1 0
0
0
225
226
227
Total _
0
1
e
8
8
e
6
1 e 8
0
0
228
229
E1@lMMW ADDED
E38
271
Nall Retail Comancial
X31 a. 260—
e
e
8
1, 4ee
e
0
858 0 8
0
e
272
Other Retail -Type
Kato 4rm
8
208
8
too
in
B
288 0 24B
1
0
233
Fast Food/Restaurant
168
1
6e
e
e
15
0
55 B 30
e
0
234
Financial Offiom
56
1
2e
1
e
0
8
EB e e
0
I
275
Hotel (358 Rocmf)
175
B
8
8
0
8
1
lee 1 0
75
0
236
Genera O/fix
2, S35
0
1
0
0
473
473
473 473 473
.
473
0
277
Total
-0
288
a
1, 58e
668
473
1,786 e e
e:
8
2336
---Cumulative
720
e
288
2811
1, Abe
2,536
3, US
4,714 4,714 4,714
4,714
4,714
248
Continued m next page ..................
"
241
Table RT (Continued...... page 2)
Per Am (1)
1342M
242
DEVEIDPNEIff IEAE111ES
Alternative Al Regional Center
am
243
CITY OF TEIEW FISCAL IMPACTS
84/04/91
244
Tommie Regional Center Specific Plan
255
245
1
256
ADDED EACH YEAH (s008's)
246
257
Res/Ccs
Developed Acres Only
247
0 -Year
Dralopsmt Period
Year 11
248 Itm
Total Yr I Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4
Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 0 Yr 9 Yr 18
1 Beyad
249
261
e
e
250
EXISTING AS`.E.M NEIE
Per Am (1)
251
252
Total Amount (000'5)
2S3
254
lard Arca
255
NEW DEVEIDANET7T NUE
1
256
ADDED EACH YEAH (s008's)
257
Res/Ccs
Developed Acres Only
258
Residential
1
259
8
250
e
8
261
e
e
262
e
/
263
e
1
264
e
e
265
Total Residential
8
266
1
e
267
Commercial
e
258
Mall Retail Comm, let
112,580
269
Other Retail -Type
55,000
270
Fast Food/Resteerant
4,161
Z71
Financial Office
2,000
272
Hotel 1350 Rooms)
24, SIR
273
General office
195,300
274
Total Commercial
MI, 540
275
e
e
276
Total IM Deni Value
393,50
277
- Cusulative
e
278
e
e
279
Total Sgl-Fee
1
288
--Ctmlative
e
291
e
e
282
FXISTI60 ASSESSED NUE
e
283
RE SLED Ise20'st
e
284
Residential
e
285
Commercial
13,083
286
Total
13, BBS
287
42,500
8
288
ASSESSED NUE OCNEASE (a8¢0's)
1
289
Residential
0
296
Commercial
290,456
291
Total
290,456
2%
1
0
293
Mr"TIVE ASSESSED NUE
e
294
INCREASE (e808's)
1,430
295
Residential
1
2%
Commercial
298,456
297
Total
290,456
298
1,040
1
299
1-
/
300
Cwtinaed on neat page ..................
0
13,104.5
Per Am (1)
Total
lard Arca
65,180
1
201.3 Acres)
Res/Ccs
Developed Acres Only
74,60
1
175.3 Ams)
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e'
e
e
1
e
e
1
e
1
e
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
/
1
If
78,181
0
8
42,500
8
e
e
1
0
II,/B1
0
9,900
9,920
0
II,e80
8
13,200
1
1
0
1,560
8
e
3%
1
1,430
/
780
1
0
0
1,011
1
1
0
1
1,040
1
0
1-
/
e
e
0
e
0
8
14, BBB
8
e
le, 5e0
1
8
8
0
0
17,550
17,550
17,558
17,551
17,550
17,558
1
1
13,680
0
79,908
Z7, 811
17,550
87,520
17,558
311,530
20,055
0
0
13,600
1
79,900
27,840
17,558
87,520
17,558
31,530
28,05E -
e
8
13,686
13,688
93,500
121,30
138,898
226,410
243,961
275,498
383,540
303,540
0
e
1
e
1
0
8
8
8
e
e
0
1
1
0
1
0
e
1
8
1
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0
664
a
4,213
1,108
593
3,1106
593
1,290
817
8
0
664
1
4,213
1,106
593
3, SM
593
1,291
817
8
e
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
e
1
e
e
12,936
0
75,687
26,732
16,957
83,714
16,957
38,241
27,233
0
e
12,936
a
75,687
26,732
16,937
93,714
16,957
30,240
27,233
0
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
12,936
12,936
68,623
115,356
132,312
216,026
232,983
263,223
290,456
290,456
e
12,936
12,936
B8,623
115,356
132,312
216,026
232,983
263,223
292,456
290,456
311
3112
Table A3 (Continued...... page 3)
1342[R2
3B3
DEAh1DP1IX1 MEASM
CITY OF TIMMIA FISCAL IMPACTS
Alteative
n
As Regional Center
g2
�
704
Ta la Regional Center Specific Plan
11/7 4/91
385
306
307
3118
Itee
10 -Year
Developaent Period
Year tl
309
Total Yr 1 Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr i8
1 Beyond
319
ANIM TAITABLE SALES U✓CIUSES
-
--
--
311
T8 CITY (70B0's)
312
313
314
Residential Purchases
315
316
0 1 e
e
e
0
1
0
e
e
e
e
317
1 1 8
e 0 e
e
1
e
e
9
e
e
9
e
e
1
318
8 9 9
9
0
8
8
e
9
e
"1
e
0
e
e
e
319
A
1 1 e
/
0
e
1
B
1
1
e
e
321
Total Res Purch
e 9 e
B 1 /
e
e
0
1
0
e
e
e
0
e
9
G
322
0
11
B
1
0
0
323
324
Regional Center Establisheent Sales
323
Mall Retail Caseercial
1,155, 11BB 0 e
0
122,580
122,500
122,588
196,975
1%,875
195,875
196,975
106,875
326
Other Retail -Type
474,258 a 17,580
17,90
33,29
49,8011
49,888
66,389
66,509
87,580
87,500
07,500
321
Fast Food/Restaurant
54,608 8 3,6110
3,689
3,680
4,508
4,500
7,808
7,800
9,600
9,600
9,689
320
Financial Office
8 0 0
0
9
8
9
8
e
8
329
Hotel 139 Rooes)
1 / 0
0
e
e
e
0
0
1
330
General Office
0 8 8
8
9
8
a
9
0
e
0
e
0
e
331
332
Total Estab Sales
1,683,99 8 21,100
21,1eB
159,351
176, BHB
176, Me
271,175
211,175
2^.3,975
1
293,975
e
293,975
333
334
Tota Tax Sales Increase
1,683,89 0 21,100
21,100
159,39
176,009
176,708
271,175
Z71, 175
293,915
293,975
293,975
335
WIM ROM SALES IseeB's)
336
337
Total
11,269 e 1
0
0
1
0
2,373
2,373
2,m
4,12
4,152
338
RRIC STREET MAINTENANCE CIBIR¢0 III PROECT (IN LANE MILES)
339
Maya Streets
340
Winchester Road (2-4 Lanes)
1.36 0.68
0.68
341
Yrce goad (2 -Lanes)
1.12 1.12
342
Margarita Road (2 -Lams)
2.76
1.83
1.63
343
Ibricot goad (2-4 Lanes)
6.61
8.61
344
Loop Street 0 (4 -Laws)
2.73 1.36
1.36
345
Street A (4 -Lams)
1.61
IL61
346
8.98
347
Total
8.48 1.Be 1.36
4.29
0.9
1.83
0.^1
LOS
0.08
5.811
0.80
0.80
349
349
Neighborhood Streets
150
Factor
23L0 Lima] Feet Per Developed Single-Fasily
Residential Ane
151
7 Lam Lineal Feet
1 0 e
e
0
1
0
e
It
e
e
352
7 Lane Niles
0.90 0.81 0.M
LOB
LOB
8.98
LOB
LOB
0.00
0.89
Les
e
8.00
353
3554
Total All Streets
8.48 1.80 1.36
4.29
Lee
1.63
0.88
8.10
9.00
8.01
0.91
0.00
ori
--Cueulative
1.69 316
7.45
7.45
8.48
8.40
8.48
8.48
8.48
0.411
8.48
3%
357
PAR ACRES TO BE MAINTAINED BY CITY
39
B Aces
8.0 0.e 0.9
8.8
Le
0.0
8.1
0.9
0.e
11.0
0.9
0.e
359
-Cusulative
0.8 0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.1
9.6
6.1
0.0
368
Source: Bedford Properties; The
Levardur Cospany, Inc,
351 Table At 1342M
362 IEVEIBE AND COST FMCIBN6 (IN 1998 CONSTANT BRIARS) Alternative Al Regional Center &M
363 CITY OF TEIECWI FISCAL IMPACTS $4/84/91
364 Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
365
366
367
368
369
Item
378
8.17
371
372
=INS ITEMS
373
374
Revenues
375
Secured Property Tax—Fire
376
Secured Property Tax—General
377
Property Tax—Unsecured
378
Sales Taxes
379
Transient Occupancy In
381
Franchises
381.
Civil Penalties
3B2
Traffic Fires
387
property Tramf Tax- Resale
384
Motor Vehicle In Lies
385
Cigarette Tax
386
State Sas Tax
387
388
389
Expenditures
390
Police Protection
391
Animal Control
392
Fire Protection
393
Street Maintenance
394
Park Maintenance
395
Recreation Services
3%
Administration
397
398
399
IND
RE -TIME ITEMS
401
412
Revenues
463
property Transfer Tax Ne
484
Fin Mitigation Fees
405
Development Control Fm
486
407
108
Expenditures
109
Fire Capital Facilities
411
Development Control Services
411
412
413
14
415
416
417
410
419
128
Source: The Levarder Company, Inc.
Per Per SF Per Per per
Per per Res Core Hotel Bevel tare/Lin
f 11,000 Capita Wit Bldg Sp Room Acne Mile
177
7.93
18.88
1.11
LOO
6.44
8.17
219
8.879
33.27
1.89
1250.
101.16 8.218
3.44
130.00 8.168
18.88
20.08 38.81
8.551
0.58
8.50
/66.89 8.388
466.00 8.308
s of $1.08 Per uee A.P. In Ratel Applied to Cme New Bevel Yal Increase ITa
M of Secured Property Taw (Table All.
s of Taxable Sales (Table N).
It of Room Sales (Table A3).
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 3).
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 31.
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 31.
Applied to Cum Mm Devel Value— Residential Only (Excl Apartments) (Table X
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 93).
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table AD.
Applied to Cumulative Population iiable All.
Applied to Cum Population A Building Space Completed Each Year (Table 112).
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table ATI.
Applied to Cum Residential Units (Table A2) A Building Span Completed (Table
3,689 Applied to Cumulative !are Miles (Table 0.31.
6,080 Applied to Park Acres iTable 0.3).
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table AD.
Applied to Total of Other Expenditures (Table All.
Applied to Annual New Devel Value— Residential Only (Excl Apartments) (Table
Applied to Residential Units A Building Span Completed Each Year (Table A21.
i of Ncvr Denlopmerd Value Added Each Year liable All,
Applied to Residential Units A Building Spam Completed Each Year (Table A21.
Y of New Development Value Added Each Year (Table A3).
I Table Al
2 Se1WNY CASH RON (IN 1990 CDGTANT MIM)
3 CITY OF TDOW FISCAL IMPACTS
4 Temecula Reginal Center Specific Plan
5
e
6
7
7
78
a
Item
9
164
10
189
Il
1
12
ROWS ITEMS
13
94
14
Revenues
15
Secured Property Tax -fire
16
Secured Property tax Se m at
17
Property Tax--Onsecured
18
Sales Taxes
19
Transient Occupancy In
2e
Franchises
21
Civil penalties
22
Traffic Fines
23
Property Trarsf rax -Resale
24
Motor Vehicle In Lieu
25
Cigarette Tax
26
State Gas Ta
27
Total Revenues
28
2,632
29
Expenditures
38
Poll" Protection
31
Animal Control
32
Fire Protection
33
Street Maintenance
34
Park Maintenance
35
IMseation Services
36
Administration
37
Total Expenditures
38
e
39
Not Surplus/(Deficit)
48
e
41
-% To Expenditures
42
e
43
QE -TIME ITEMS
44
e
45
Revenues
46
Property Transfer Tax -tem
47
Fire Mitigation Fees
48
Development Control Fees
49
Total
58
51
Expenditures
52
Fire Capital Facilities
53
Development Control Services
54
Total
S
e
56
Net Surplus/(Deficit)
57
e
58
-% To Expenditures
59
e
68
Continued on next page............
m m m m
Alternative B, pow Center
19 -Year Derelopmen'. Period
Total Yr I Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr a Yr 9 Vr U
9808's
1342CM
S 372
84/04/91
Year It
A Beyond
86e
e
7
7
57
78
93
125
141
164
189
189
1,848
1
9
9
69
94
113
153
ill
199
231
230
191
8
2
2
13
17
21
28
31
36
42
42
16,748
a
234
234
1,963
2,148
2,148
2,379
2,379
2,632
2,632
2,632
1,186
8
0
0
0
9
8
237
237
237
475
475
e
0
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
9
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
9
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
20,833
a
252
252
2,181
2,337
2,374
4922
4959
4268
3,567
3,567
2,863
0
25
25
212
276
320
415
459
538
See
608
e
a
0
0
It
e
1
0
e
e
e
e
2, let
0
19
19
162
210
244
316
338
484
457
457
261
7
12
27
27
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
0
e
e
e
e
It
e
e
e
e
0
e
e
a
e
e
e
1
e
0
1
e
e
a
1,861
1
11
14
Be
103
119
153
ISS
193
218
218
6,365
a
67
a6
481
621
714
915
1,899
1,158
1,387
1,387
13,667
(8)
185
166
1,620
1,716
1,668
2,816
1,958
2,118
2,268
2,268
214.7
118&81
215.2
192.6
336.4
276.6
232.6
219.2
193.4
182.3
173.8
173.8
e
e
e
e
8
e
e
e
0
e
e
e
857
a
36
0-
267
9l
63
135
63
101
lel
9
1,788
1
68
0
450
tell
137
291
137
216
224
a
2,558
1
104
8
717
279
281
428
280
387
325
9
657
0
36
9
267
91
63
136
63
lel
191
0
1,708
8
68
a
45e
188
137
291
137
216
224
1
2,558
a
194
0
717
279
200
429
201
307
325
8
0
9
0
e
9
1
1
1
e
0
e
a
e.0
M/A
La
N/A
9.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
8.e
0.8
WA
m m r m m m m m m m m m m
61
Table Al 1342[83
62
SIMRY CASH RID (IN 1991 CWWT MIM) Alternative Be Panner Carter RX2
63 -
CITY OF TEIEWA FISCAL IMPACTS 64/11/91
64
Tayecula Regional Center Specific Plan
Sosrcer The Lavender Caepanyl Inc. See detailed tables.
I8 -Year
Development Period
Year 11
I Itee
Total
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr S
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr 11
1 Beyond
88881 e
MTAL SIMS i IBE -TIME ITEMS
Revenues
22,998
1
356
252
2,818
2r 616
4574
3,349
3,159
3,575
4891
3,567
Expenditures
i
8,923
8
171
B6
1, 19B
899
913
1,343
1,218
1,465
1,631
1,387
Net Broylesfftficit)
13,667
(e)
185
166
1,628
1,716
1,Ue
2, e86
1,958
2,118
4268
2,268
—% To Expenditures
153.2
(IBIS)
IBL 1
19-6
135.2
198.8
181.8
149.4
161.4
144.1
138.6
173.8
Sosrcer The Lavender Caepanyl Inc. See detailed tables.
121 Table R2
122 DEVEltolENf SCHEME
123 CITY OF TDEUU FISTIL INDICIS
124 Taeecola Relioml Grder Spiclfir Plan
125
126
1V le -Yew
128 Item Total Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4
129 _
lie
RESIDENTIAL UNITS CO(PI.M
00&0
Le
0.9
131
00&0
1
BBB.e
$me
132
an.0
0
800,0
161
133
500.1
e
100.0
100.0
134
200.0
200.0
300.0
3Be.e
135
SM.9
50&0
162
Fast Food/Restaurant
136
0.0
12.8
12.0
12.0
137
Total
e
0
0
136
--cumulative
163
e
e
139
6.e
8.8
9.9
8.1
149
RESIDENTIAL ACRES BEVELM
Me
16.0
16.8
141
164
e.1
250.0
0.0
142
e.0
Ll
0.0
/.1
143
125.0
125.8
258.0
250.0
IN
General office
1, 26e.1
8.0
0.e
143
e.0
- 218.0
420.0
630.0
146
1, e50.9
1,26e.0
1,268.0
166
147
Total
e.8
e.e
&e
148
1,3130
1,5230
1,917.1
2,187.0
149
COIEICIAL BDILDIIS SPRY
2,ma. e
167
150
COMEIED (900'1 SF)
151
Retail Parr Center
099.0
12
Other Retail -Type
See.e
CII9ERCIAL LAHO1 AREA
108.0
153
Fast Food/Restaurant
32.0
12.0
154
Fin iml Office
16.1
&1
1S5
Hotel (500 Raoul
280
156
General (If it"
1,260.0
157
Total
2, Lao
e.e
120.0
ISO
Retail Power Center
56.9
e.9
0.1
159
CIN (DI ERCIAL BLDS SPAM 00's
GF)
Le
1.1
Alternative Bt Parr Center
Development Period
Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr le
e 1 e e e 0
e e e e e e
LB e.e e.0 LB e.e &e e.0 0.9
eee.e
90.8 9&1 188.0 128.8
3.0 11.0 Le
e.0
125.0 125.e
2180 210.0 210.0 218.8 210.0 218.1
0.e MO 383.0 210.0 454.0 Me 336.8 335.0
134WO
5372
04/84/91
Yew 11
{ Beyond
e
e
1.1
e.e
168
Retail Power Center
00&0
Le
0.9
0.9
00&0
SOL e
BBB.e
$me
000.E
an.0
SOL e
800,0
161
Other Retail -Type
500.1
0.B
100.0
100.0
190.1
200.0
200.0
300.0
3Be.e
Me.9
SM.9
50&0
162
Fast Food/Restaurant
32.0
0.0
12.8
12.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
26.0
26.0
32.0
32.1
me
163
Financial office
16.0
0.1
6.e
8.8
9.9
8.1
0.1
16.0
Me
16.0
16.8
16.0
164
Hotel 1388 Roost
250.0
0.0
e.e
e.0
e.1
0.0
/.1
125.1
125.0
125.8
258.0
250.0
165
General office
1, 26e.1
8.0
0.e
&0
e.0
- 218.0
420.0
630.0
840.0
1, e50.9
1,26e.0
1,268.0
166
Total
2,959.0
e.0
120.0
12e.0
1,018.0
1,3130
1,5230
1,917.1
2,187.0
4210
2,858.8
2,ma. e
167
168
CII9ERCIAL LAHO1 AREA
169
OEVELOPE➢ (ACRES)
104
Retail Power Center
56.9
e.9
0.1
0.1
56.9
Ll
Le
1.1
e.1
e.e
0.1
8.e
171
Other Retail -Type
37.8
0.0
7.4
0.0
6.7
6.7
8.0
7.4
8.0
0.9
Le
Le
172
Fast Food/Restaurant
2.4
0.8
e.9
0.0
be
L2
0.e
Le
e.0
L4
,
8.8
0.0
173
Finamial Office
1.2
8.0
0.6
0.1
0.8
Le
0.8
0.6
0.0
&1
e.0
0.8
174
Hotel (508 Rooms)
10.9
8.0
8.8
0.8
0.0
8./
b0
5.8
L8
8.1
5.0
0.0
175
. Sveral Office
67.8
e.0
e./
0.0
8.1
11.3
11.3
11.3
I1.3
11.3
11.3
&9
176
Total
175.3
e.e
&9
e.0
63.6
10.2
11.3
21.1
11.3
28.6
16.3
Le
m
179
TOTAL RES/MW ACRES OEt4LM
175.3
O.e
0.9
&8
636
16.2
11.3
a1
11.3
20.6
16.3
0.9
179
190 S6tmt Bedford Propertiat The Levander Company, Ins.
i
181
Table A3
134
182
DEVE DmR
ME0.911E5
Alternative
Bs Pow Center
Su
183
CITY OF TEIECU A FIMX IMPACTS
N/
184
Temecula Regional Center Specific plan
185
186
RESIDENTIAL UNIT FACTORS
-per Capita Taxable P•urcb-
MPWRCIAL FACTORS
187
New
f e
Ant 1
New
—per SF
Taxable Sales -
188
Population
Devel
Unincor
Unincor
Bldg Sp
Hotel Bldg Sp
Bevel
per 4 E
189
per
Units
Value
Camty
County
Per Ac
Roos Per Room
Value
t to
Ant to
Annual
190
Unit
Per Ac Per Unit
Total
Stores
Stores
ISF)
lir Ac MSF)
per SF
Total
No -Res
No., Res
Sales I,a
191-
192
193
—
In 1990 Constant i
—
In 1990 Constant i
194
195
Retail Peer Center
14,063
180.011
175. Be
IBLO
175. e8
1%
Other Retail -Type
13,5118
118.08
175.00
100.1
175. Be
197
Fast Food/Restaurant
13,508
130.6
38L 08
IBLI
30L
198
Financial Office
13,508
130.80
1.00
0.1
8.00
199
Hotel 1588 Roos)
25, 0ee
51 500
140.00
0.00
& 1
0.0e
23.73
208
General Office
16,554
130.00
1.00
8.6
a. el
201
Average
Average
16,36
118.98
L Be
0.8
0.00
282
203
294
26
le -Year
Development Period
Year 11
296
Iter
Total
Yr I
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7 Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr 11
1 Beyond
207_-
20a
289
POPULATION ADDED
210
211
a
/
1
0
e
1
/
0 e
a
1
1
212
1
0
1
e
e
e
0
0 e
0
1
e
213
-
1
1
e
0
1
e
0
a 1
1
0
1
214
1
1
t
0
i
1
e
0 0
0
1
1
215
216
217
Total
a
0
0
1
1
1
e
e 1
0
e
e
218
219
CU M LATM POPULATION
220
221
8
1
8
1
1
1
1
a 0
1
a
B
222
1
e
1
0
a
1
0
0 1
0
a
1
223
0
0
1
0
e
a
1
1 0
e
1
1
224
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
1 0
a
e
e
225
226
227
Total
8
1
0
9
e
1
a
1 1
1
1
1
228
229
EXPLOY101T ADDED
230
231
Retail Pow Center
ci d° �4-,SW
1
a
1
1,608
0
e
0 0
e
1
1
232
Omer Retail -Type
hoe-,
a
201
a
188
IN
I
m 0
248
1
9
233
Fast Food/Restaurant
161
/
60
1
e
15
0
55 a
30
0
0
234
Financial Office
56
0
28
e
0
0
e
28 0
0
1
1
' 235
Hotel (500 Rooms)
258
0
0
e
a
1
0
125 0
0
125
0
236
Be* al Office
4,410
0
0
0
0
735
735
735 735
735
735
0
237
Total
`lT -=4,876—
0
288
a
1,780
939
735
1,143 e-
0
e
e
238
—Cumulative
0
Zea
208
2,068
2,%a
3,733
4,876 4,a76 4,876
4,076
4,676
239
240 Continued 0 rest page ..................
211
Table A3 IContimud...... page 2)
213
DEVELOPIQII MEAg)RES
Alternative
B, goer Curter
1342M242
gin
CITY OF TEIEt10A FISCAL
IMPACTS
240
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
01/0V91
215
216
217
210
Item
16-Year
Development Period
Year 1!
219
Total
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 1
Yr 5 Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr B
Yr 9
Yr I9
C Beyond
Me
EXISTINS ASSESSED VIRE
251
'
252
Total Aroont It000's)
136081.5
per Acre 11)
253
251
Total
Ind
Area
65,088
1
201.3 Acres)
m
fEW DE�41Dp m MA
Nes/Com Developed Acres only
71,619
I
175.3 Rcresl
256
ADDED EACH YEAR ISM's)
-
257
258
Residential
259
260
e
e
0
e
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
e
251
1
1
0
e
1
8
1
If
8
6
9
e
0
0
0
0
0
e
O
262
0
0
8
0
e
e
1
1
9
0
1
1
0
9
253
261
e
/
e
e
0
0
/
e
0
e
e
e
2E5
Total Residential
0
0
e
/
1
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
1
e
8
6
0
9
O
266
1
/
0
e
0
257
Commercial
258
Retail peer Center
8B, ABB
e
e
e
e0, we
/
0
0
0
8
1
269
Omer Retail-Type
55, ee9
0
11,008
a
9, gee
9,900
a
11,880
1
13,208
1
0
1
270
Fast Food/Restawant
1,168
8
' 1,560
8
9
390
0
1,130
0
780
0
9
271
Financial Office
2,089
8
1,840
0
0
0
0
1,010
1
0
1
O
272
Hotel Ree Rooe:)
ARM
0
1
8
0
0
E
17,509
0
0
17, see
8
273
General Office
163,808
If
8
1
1
27,300
27,300
27,380
27,308
27,300
27,3011
0
271
Total Cammmrcial
310,010
0
13, 60e
1
89,909
37,590
27,388
58,279
27,300
11,280
44,80
1
275
276
Total New Devel Value
340,840
0
13,690
0
89,90E
77,5%
27,3E9
58,270
27,300
11,280
11, NO
O
277
278
-Cmlative
1
13,60
13,600
103,580
111,098
168,396
225,660
253,%0
295,240
310,60
340,940
279
Total Sgl-fu
0
9
0
- 0
8
0
1
1
e
0
9
280
. -Cusalative
/
e
e
0
1
9
/
If
0
0
O
281
0
262
EXISTING ASSESSED VYLIE
283
RERX D (s000-s)
281
Residential
0
1
e
e
e
0
e
e
If
0
0
285
Commercial
13, e85
0
661
0
1,744
1,358
644
1,875
041
1,510
1,217
O
e
286
Total
13, BBS
0
661
9
1,744
1,356
SAA
1,875
641
1,510
1,217
0
287
288
ASSESSED VIBE INCREASE 14000's)
289
Residential
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
1
1
291
Commercial
326,956
0
I2,936
8
85,156
36,232
25,156
56,393
26,156
39,710
13,583
O
O
291
Total
326,956
0
12,936
8
85,156
36,232
26,156
56,395
26,156
39,719
13,563
O
292
293
CIMIATIVE ASSESSED VALIE
291
INCREASE Ife00'0
-
295
Residential
e
1
0
0
6
0
1
e
0
0
1
2%
Commercial
326,956
0
12,936
12,936
98,092
131,321
160,781
217,176 213,633 293, 32 326,956
g
326,92
297
Total
326,956
1
12,936
12,936
98,11%
131,321
160,781 217,176 213,633 20,372 326,956
326,956
2%
299
]PIN
Continued m neat page..................
391
Table A3 lContinved...... page 3)
1342CR3
382
BEVEL WIT
MEASURES
Alternative
Ba Poser Curter
SLM
• 363
CITY IF TEMEUU FISCAL
IRPACTB
e4/84/91
384
Imecula Regional Center Specific Plan
305
306
387
10 -Year
Development Period
year 11
308
Itm
Total
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr B
Yr 9
Yr It
1 Beymd
389
318
IYIM TAXABLE SALES INCREASES
311
M CITY 11008's)
-
312
313
314
Residential Nnvhames
315
0
B
0
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0
316
1
e
1
0
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
317
8
e
8
1
1
8
1
8
0
/
1
8
318
8
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
6
0
e
/
319
1
. 0
1
1
e
e
e
e
1
B
e
e
320
1
e
1
/
8
1
1
e
e
e
e
e
321
Total Ren Pesch
e
e
1
e
e
e
1
e
e
e
e
e
322
323
3 4
Regional Center Establishrnt Balm
325
Retail Pour Center
980, we
e
1
0
118,088
118,888
140, NO
140,080
148,M
148,800
148,900
148,800
326
Other Retail -Type
474,251
0
17,580
17,580
33,250
49,088
49,008
SS, 588
66,588
87,588
87,500
87,508
327
Fast Food/Restaurant
54, SM
B
3, SM
3, S00
3,600
4,500
4,580
7,888
7,000
9,680
9,680
9,680
32a
Financial Office
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
e
e
329
Hotel (500 Ram)
e
1
1
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
e
338
General Office
e
e
e
e
e
e
1
e
e
0
e
e
331
Total Estab Balm
1,500,058
8
21,108
21,180
176, SSB
193,50e
193,500
214,308
214,308
237,1L0
237,lee
237,180
332
333
Total Tax Salm Increase
1,588,851
1
21,100
21,108
176,850
193,58!
193,588
214,388
214,380
237, IN
237,100
237,10E
334
335
A K ROM SALES 11000191
336
Total
14,828
e
e
e
e
e
e
2,%6
4966
4966
5,331
5,931
337
338
MIC STREET MRINIENARCE BARBED m PROJECT (IR LAE RILES)
339
Major streets
348
Winchester Road 12-4 Lnesl
1.36
L60
O.SS
-
341
Ynez Road (2 -Lanes)
1.12
1.12
342
Rargarita Road (2 -Lancs)
2.06
1.63
1.33
343
Apricot Road (2-4 Lares)
L61
L61
-
344
Loop Street B 14 -anal
2.73
1.36
1.36
345
Street A 14-Laresl
1.61
0.61
346
0.00
347
Total
8.40
1.81
1.36
4.29
US
1. Ill
Leg
8.80
LOB
LOB
LBB
8.80
340
349
Neighborhood Streets
35B
Factor
230.8
Lineal Feet Per Developed Single-Faeily Residential Acre
351
1 Lane Lineal Feet
e
1
1
1
0
e
e
e
e
0
8
8
32
1 Lane Miles
LOB
L00
IL So
0.e0
LOS
0.80
9. se
0.08
8.00
LOD
LOB
LOS
353
354
Total All Streets
S.48
1.80
1.36
4.29
0.00
1.W
S. IS
0.88
8.88
0.88
8.88
Lee
355
--Cneulative
1.80
3.16
7.45
7.45
0.48
8.48
8.48
8.48
8.48
8.48
8.48
356
357
PAL( ACRES To BE MAINTAINED BY Cm
358
1 Aces
B.e
8./
/.0
Le
0.e
Le
0.9
&1
Le
0.9
ae
0.0
359
--cwelative
0.8
0.0
9.1
e.1
1.1
9.6
0.0
8.8
e.e
0.9
0.8
360 Source: Bedford Propertiml The Levarden Cospany, Inc.
361
Table At
362
REVENF W CST FACT085 (IN 1998 METANT DCLLAA5) Alternative At Power Center
363
CITY OF TEMEClU FISCAL IMPACTS
764
Tesecula Regional Center Specific Plan
363
366
7.63
367
368
369
Ites
379
% of Taxable Sales (Table Ali.
371
372
RSOING2 ITEMS
373
- Applied to Cusulative Population tTable 3).
374
Revenues
373
Secured Property Tax—Fire
376
Secured Property In General
377
property Tax-Ahnnecured
370
Sales Taxes
379
Trim int Occupancy Tax
388
Franchises
381
Civil Penalties
382
Traffic Fires
383
Property Transf Tax—Resale
384
Motor Vehicle In Lieu
383
Cigarette Tax
366
State Gas In
387
388
3,689 Applied to Cusulitive (are Kiln (Table AU.
389
;Expenditures
391
Police Protection
391
Anisal Control
392
Fire Protection
393
Street Maintenance
394
Park Maintenance
393
Recreation Services
3%
Administration
397
398
399
448
X -TIME ITEMS
401
482
Aevenues
483
Property Transfer lax -tea
404
Fire Mitigation Fees
403
Development Control Fees
486
407
488
Expenditures
489
Fire Capital Facilities
418
Development Control Services
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
428 Sourest The Levander Cospany, Inc.
i
Per Per SF Per Per Per
Per Per An Com Hotel Bevel lane/Lin
% 41,108 Capita Unit Bldg Sp Aon Acre Mile
1342LM
9.372
84/84/91
5.77
% of 81.08 per 7110 AV. In Patel Applied to Con New Bevel Val Increase C
7.63
10.66
% of Secured Property Tax (Table All.
1.11
% of Taxable Sales (Table Ali.
8.80
% of Roos Sales (Table AD.
0.N
- Applied to Cusulative Population tTable 3).
6.67
Applied to Gmulatin Population (Table 3).
2.19
Applied to Cusulatin Population (Table 3).
1.179 -
Applied to Gu New level Value— Residential Bnly (Excl Apartsents) (Table
33. B7
Applied to Cmdative Population (Table 93).
1.09
- Applied to Cusulative Population (Table ATI.
12.58
Applied to Cnulative Population liable All.
-
181.16 6.216
3.44
Applied to Cm population s Building Space Completed Each Year (Table 921.
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table All.
130.66 0.168
Applied to Cus Residential Units (Table A21 6 Building Spare Cospleted (Tab
3,689 Applied to Cusulitive (are Kiln (Table AU.
6,we Applied to Park fires 17able All.
10.68 -
Applied to Cusulative Population (Table All.
20.60
38.81
Applied to Total of Other Expenditures (Table RI1.
1.5% - Applied to Annual Men Bevel Value— Residential Ad!Y IExcl
Apartments)(Tab(
466.11 1.380 Applied to Residential Units t Building Space Capleted Each Year (Table
A21
1.51 % of New Developsent Value Added Each Year (Table Ai).
466. Be 0.388 Applied to Besidntial Units 8 Building Space Cospleted Each Year liable A21
1.31 % of Nen Development Value Added Each Year (Table AT).
M M � = M M M
I
I
CJ
1
C]
11
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
--CITY OF TEMECULA—
Prepared For
Douglas Wood & Associates
November 9, 1990
J4� M
Natelson Levander Whitney, Inc.
1815 Via E1 Prado, Suite 308
Redondo Beach, California 90277
Tel: (213)540-1549
1
1
1
1
1
pV\:llWiTi
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1
I.
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 3
II.
Development Program and Measures . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
1. Land Use and Building Facilities . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
2. Buildout Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
3. Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
4. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 5
5. New Development Values and Assessed Value Increase
. . . 5
6. Taxable Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 7
7. Roam Sales . . .. . . . . . . . .
. . . 7
8. Public Streets to be Maintained . . . . . . . . .
. . . 7
9. Flood Control Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 8
III.
Riverside County Revenue Factors . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 9
1. Ongoing Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 9
2. One -gime Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 10
IV.
Riverside County Expenditure Factors . . . . . . . . .
. . . 12
1. Ongoing Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 12
2. One -Time Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 13
V. Detailed Projections and Fiscal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Introduction
At the request of Douglas Wood & Associates, and on behalf of their client
Bedford Properties, we have prepared this fiscal impact analysis of the
Temecala Regional Center Specific Plan. The subject site is located within
the newly incorporated City of Temecula. This is the second fiscal
analysis we have prepared of this project. At client request an earlier
' analysis was prepared under the assumption that the project remained in
unincorporated County area. Because of tine limitations, this analysis
utilizes a considerable amount of detailed research prepared for the
' earlier analysis, particularly evaluation of service requirements and costs
thereof. No detailed contact was made with City officials. Thus, our
analysis is subject to revision at a later date to incorporate City inputs.
' However, we are confident that this analysis presents a fair statement of
overall fiscal impacts of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan on the
City of Temecula.
' An accepted revenue -cost methodology has been utilized including:
o Utilization of 1990 constant dollars without consideration of
' future inflationary impacts on either revenues or expenditures.
o Case study analysis of those revenue items which are most
directly affected by new development activity; principally
property taxes, sales taxes, and room taxes.
o Case study analysis of those services which are most directly
' affected by new development, principally police protection, fire
protection, and street maintenance.
o Utilization of appropriate projection factors (per square foot,
per acre, per lane mile, etc.).
o Assumption that the level of governmental services to be provided
to the area under study will be equal to those currently
prevailing in the City.
' o Assumption that existing sources of revenue will prevail.
In this analysis, we are dealing with a projected ten-year development
' period. Within this timeframe, we have considered both annual (ongoing)
financial items and one-time financial items, the latter involving cost and
revenue aspects of the development process itself.
' This analysis utilizes information from the following sources:
' o Project description from the draft environmental impact report
prepared by Douglas Wood & Associates.
0 officials of Bedford Properties, the developers of the Temecula
Regional Center, who have provided information on ccnmk-rcial land
uses, and anticipated buildout schedules.
o Discussions with the acting Planning Director for the City of
Temecula
o Discussions with Riverside County officials concerning costs of
providing contracted services, including police protection, fire
protection, and street maintenance.
o Riverside County Assessor rolls, providing measures of current
assessed values.
o Discussions with Riverside County Auditor -Controller concerning
property tax rate allocations, which have not yet been
established by County staff for the City of Temecula.
o Reports from the State Board of Equalization providing a basis
for more closely identifying the effective sales tax rate
realized by the City of Temecula.
0 our file of prototypical new development measures, obtained from
extensive prior research, covering development densities, new
development values, and taxable sales generation factors for
coamiercial land uses under consideration.
We want to note that the projected development utilized in this analysis—
in terms of both land use and timing—is based upon expectations of the
developer and his planning consultant. We have not undertaken an
independent market analysis of the project.
This report is summary in nature, presenting principal findings and
conclusions, including an Executive Summary in Section I following.
Appendix A contains detailed computer calculations covered in this report.
With respect to the coupiter calculations, it should be noted that the
commuter program is available to prepare alternate projections upon
request.
Appendix C contains a list of governmental officials contacted. Additional
research data are available from our files upon request.
2
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan project enccmpasses a lard area
' of approximately 241 acres, and is planned for over 3.0 million square feet
of commercial building space including a 375 zoom hotel. This development
is projected to occur over a ten-year period.
' Key measures of resultant development at full buildout are as follows:
' o New development values (to go on Assessor rolls) of $345.9
million, versus $15.7 million assessed value currently.
o Taxable sales of $374,4 million annually.
o Room sales of $4.4 million annually.
1
1
I
I
L1
L1
I
These measures have been used to compute various revenue and cost
estimates. All dollar figures are in 1990 constant dollars.
The Temecula Regional Center project is estimated to provide a net surplus
to the City of Temecula of approximately $21.1 million during the ten-year
development period and $3.6 million annually thereafter approximately, as
follows:
��L
Secured Property Tax—Fire
it n It general
Unsecured Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
One -Time Items
Total
Expenditures
Police Protection
Fire Protection
Street Maintenance
Administration
Ore -Time Items
Total
Net Surplus
3
10 -Year Year 11
Development & Beyond
Period (Annual)
$000's
$ 928
$ 191
1,130
232
206
42
24,921
4,156
925
356
2.635
—
30,744
4,977
3,183
634
2,425
483
261
31
1,174
230
2.635
—
9,678
1,377
21,066 3,599
217.7% 261.3%
These projections are in 1990 constant dollars.
As indicated above, the principal revenue by far is sales tax generation.
As also shown, the cost of fire protection—which is assumed to be taken
over by the City—will be substantially more than fire protection taxes to
be transferred to the City. In this respect, we feel that our projections
are appropriately conservative.
Please refer to Appendix Table Al for annual summaries and Appendix Tables
A2 thru A4 for detailed calculations.
4
II.
1 DE'VEMPMMENr PROGRAM AND MEASURES
1 1. LAND USE AND BUILDING FACIIS'IIFS
' Projected land uses, as detailed in Table 1, include a major retail
commercial core and a 375 room hotel. Acreage allocations and coverage for
commercial use were provided by project planners. Further definition of
i
commercial building space is based upon our discussions with the developer,
as well as our prototypical files.
Commercial building space is projected to be constructed within a ten
years. The buildout schedule has been provided by the developer. Detailed
annual quantities for individual categories are found in Appendix Table A2.
3. POPULATION
' Because no residential development is included in this project, no
population is projected in this analysis.
4. EMPLOYMENT
Temecula Regional Center commercial facilities will employ an estimated
7,766 persons at full buildout, based upon prototypical employment factors
detailed in Appendix Table A3. This measure is not utilized directly in
mutation of detailed revenues and costs.
' 5. NEW DEVELOPMEKr VA= AND ASSESSED VALUE INCREASES
' Existing &s --sed value of the property is $15.7 million, based upon our
review of detailed assessor parcel records. At full buildout, we estimate
new commercial facilities will be valued at $345.9 million. This figure is
expressed in 1990 constant dollars, without consideration of ongoing
inflation. In detailed property tax computations, we have utilized a net
increase figure of $330.2 million.
' Detailed projections by land use and year are presented in Appendix Table
A3. Prototypical commercial valuation factors have been utilized, ranging
1 5
Table 1
LAND USE & BUILDING FACILITIES
AT FULL BUILDOUT
Land Camnereial Commercial
Area Building Building Space
(Acres) Space (SF) Per Acre
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
Retail Commercial Core
80.0
1,125,000
14,063
Other Retail -Type Buildings
51.8
725,800
14,000
Fast F004/Restaurant
3.4
48,000
14,000
Financial Office
1.8
25,000
14,000
Hotel (375 Rooms)
7.5
187,500
25,000
General Office
54.8
907,000
16,563
Total Commercial
199.3
3,017,500
FLOOD CONTROL C1iP,EaIEL
10.7
ROADS
31.1
Grand Total
241.1
3,017,500
Source: Bedford Properties; Douglas Wood & Associates;
Natelson Levander Whitney, Inc.
from a high of $140 per square foot of building space for hotel facilities
to a low of $100 per square foot for the regional mall.
' 6. TAXABLE SALES
Taxable sales to be generated by the Temecula Regional Center
retail establishments are estimated at $374.4 million annually by the end
of Year 10 (full buildout) . Annual projections are detailed in Appendix
Table A3.
Total establishment sales are based upon per -square -foot factors derived
from our analysis of sales performance of commercial projects throughout
' Southern California. Our analysis considers vacancy factors.
' 7. ROCM SAIES
This analysis assumes that a total of 375 hotel rooms will be constructed,
200 zooms in year 7 and the remaining 175 rooms in year 10. We have
assumed a $50 per night room rate and a 65% occupancy level.
8. PUBLIC STREETS TO BE MAINPA=
Based upon scaling of the land use map, we estimate that—at time of full
' buildout—the Temecula Regional Center will contain an estimated 3.40
street miles, as follows:
#
Imes
Charged
Street
To
Lane
Miles Total
Pr i
Miles
Major Streets
Winchester Road
0.68 4
2
1.36
Ynez Road
0.56 4
2
1.12
'
Margarita Road
1.03 4
2
2.06
Apricot Road
0.30 4
2
0.61
Loop Street
0.68 4
4
2.73
Street A
0_15 4
4
0_60
Total
3.40
8.48
Only one-half of the perimeter
streets have been
charged to
the project.
It is assumed that maintenance
for the other half of the streets
will be
charged to adjacent projects.
'
We have also meted 8.48 total
lane -miles attributable to the project as
indicated above, consistent with County cost factors which are
related to
lane miles. The lane -mile
maintenance cost generated by
total has been
the development.
utilized in estimating
Please refer to Appendix
Table A3 for annual completions.
7
9. FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES
Required storm drain facilities will be constructed at the expense of the
developer. Zhe ongoing maintenance will be provided by Riverside County.
III.
' RIVERSIDE COUNN REVENUE FACTORS
1. ONGOING ITEMS
' (1) Property Taxes—Secured
We estimate that the City of Temecula will receive 12.80% of the $1.00 per
$100 assessed value tax rate, as follows:
County Fire Transfer 5.77%
' County General Transfer 7.03
12.80
This allocation is preliminary, inasmuch as the County Auditor/Controller
has not yet—at time of this report—released allocations for next year.
The above estimates are based upon previous allocations for Tax Rate Area
094-036, in which the project is located, as follows:
' o Transfer at 100% of the County Fire Protection District
allocation of 5.77%.
o Transfer of 25% of the County General allocation of 28.10%.
The County General estimate is based on the County's current practice for
handling annexations, whereas for new incorporations a more detailed
computational approach is used. Nevertheless, inasmuch as property taxes
are a relatively small part of the City's total revenue picture for this
' project, we are confident that the figures utilized are appropriate for
preliminary financial estimation purposes.
' (2) Property Taxes-�Jnsecured
Erased on prototypical experience, unsecured property taxes have been
' estimated at 10% of property taxes generated by commercial establishments.
(3) Sales Tax
' Sales tax is estimated at 1.11% of taxable sales discussed earlier. This
rate is couposed of two elements:
' o The statutory 1.00% tax rate applicable to cities arra counties,
the latter for taxable sales realized in unincorporated areas.
o An additional 0.11%, which accounts for additional tax payments
made to city and county governments by the State Board of
Equalization.
9
These additional revenues are identified in the SBOE's regular sales tax
reports as "unallocated" amounts at both the County and the State level.
These taxable sales cannot be identified to specific locations and thus,
cannot be directly allocated to city or county governments. These
"unallocated" amounts are in actuality allocated to cities and counties on
the basis of reported taxable sales. Please refer to Appendix Table B1 for
statistical backup.
(4) Transient Occuoancv Tax
This tax is based upon 8.0o of hotel/motel room sales.
(5) Per -Capita Items
A number of revenues are collected by cities on a population basis. These
include:
o Motor vehicle in -lieu.
o Cigarette tax.
o State gas tax.
o Civil penalties.
o Traffic fines.
Inasmuch as the project contains no residential units and thus no
population, these factors are disregarded in this analysis.
(6) Franchise Fees
These fees are disregarded in this analysis.
(7) . Property Transfer Tax—Resale
This analysis assumes that acumeroial properties to be developed will not
be sold, and consequently that no property transfer tax will be collected.
2. ONE-TIME ITEMS
(1) Property Transfer Tax—New
As with property transfer tax for resale, this analysis assures that
commercial properties developed will not be sold at the outset of
development. Thus, they are disregarded in this analysis.
(2) Fire Mitiqation Fees
This analysis assumes that the City takes over the Fire Protection
function. Also, it assumes that the City will charge fire mitigation fees
in accordance with current county practice. Effective as of July 1, 1990,
the County Structural Fire Protection District collects a one-time fee of
10
30 cents per square foot of conmercial building space, the factor utilized
in this analysis. This fee is assumed to equal capital facility cost
requirements, discussed subsequently.
(3) DeveloWient Control Fees
Based upon Southern California prototypical experience, we estimate that
development control fees are equal to 0.5% of new development value added
each year. These are one-time fees which can be set to cover rebated
development control costs. It is assumed that this function is a break-
even situation.
I
I
I
I
IV.
RIVERSIDE COURrY EXPENDMURE FACIORS ,
L1
1. ONGOING
(1) Police Protection ,
Annual police protection cost is estimated at 21.0 cents per square foot of '
.commercial building space. This factor is that projected by the County
Sheriff to cover police protection costs in unincorporated areas of the
County. This analysis assumes that the City will contract for police
protection services from the Sheriff's Department at this level. ,
(2) Fire Protection
As noted earlier, this analysis assumes that the fire protection function '
is taken over by the City; but that the City in turn contracts for services
with the Country Structural Fire Protection District. In this analysis, we
have utilized District factors applicable to unincorporated areas within '
the County under the assumption that this level of service will be
contracted by the City. On this basis, ongoing fire protection costs
attributable to new development are projected at 16.0 cents per square foot ,
of commercial building space annually.
(3) Street Maintenance
,
Street maintenance is estimated at $3,689 per lane mile
per year. This
factor is that provided to us by the Riverside County Road Department,
applicable to their experience in unincorporated areas of
the County. our
'
analysis assumes that the City will contract for services from the Road
Department at this level.
Per -Capita Factors
'
(4)
Several City costs are population driven, including:
o Animal control.
o Park maintenance.
o Recreation services.
,
Inasmuch as the project will contain no residential units
and population,
these factors are disregarded in this analysis.
(5) Administration
,
Administration costs are estimated at 20% of other costs.
preliminary factor, based upon our analysis of many other
This is a
cities in the
12
State. Most City administrative costs are in the range of l0% to 150 of
other costs; and thus we judge that our 20% factor is appropriately
conservative for preliminary estimation purposes.
2. ONE-JPIl`iE IMIS
(1) Fire Capital Facilities
Capital costs of fire protection are estimated at 30.0 cents per square
foot of commercial building space. These costs are assumed to equal
projected mitigation fees as discussed earlier.
' (2) Development Control Services
Development control functions include those activities directly supportive
of new development, including a variety of planning, building control, and
engineering faux -tions. This analysis assess that these costs will be
equal to development control fees charged for new development, inasmuch as
the County can establish fees sufficient to cover costs. This methodology
' has been employed in many other cost -revenue evaluations.
1
I
LJ
LI
�1
7
1 13
RA
DETAILED PROTECTIONS AND FISCAL M:)DEL
A full set of detailed projections are contained in Appendix A. This set
of projections covets a ten-year projection period:
o Each of the ten years during the development period.
o An additional year beyond full buildout.
Detailed projections are in the form of four tables:
o Table A1. A two-page summary of projected City cash flaws by
fund.
o Table A2. A one-page table presenting base development schedules
of ccmrerclal building space and residential values.
o Table A3. A three-page table presenting annual and cumulative
measures used to compute various revenues and expenditures—
including new development values, assessed value increases,
taxable sales, room sales, and lane miles of publicly maintained
streets.
o Table A4. A one-page table presenting unit revenue and
expenditure factors by fund.
These appendix tables have been prepared in a form so that the basis of all
Mations can be determined without reference to additional
documentation.
Detailed computer printouts are contained in capiter disk form. These
disks can be made available to client staff for their subsequent use.
In addition, we will assist the client in further evaluation of project
alternatives if appropriate. The fiscal model is in Symphony Spreadsheet
form and requires approximately 100,000 bytes of ccupater memory.
14
1
H7
11
I
1
A
A Computer Projections
B Unallocated Taxable Sales
C Governmental Officials Contacted
1
1 15
Table AI 1328CR1
SlMMARY CASH FLOW (IN 1990 CONSTANT DOLLARS) SLD2
CITY OF TE7ECLEA FISCAL IMPACTS 11/07/90
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
18 -Year
Development Period -
Year II
It"
Total
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr 18
$ beyord
-
---
$000'5
ONGOING ITEMS
Revenues
Secured Property Tax -Fire
928
0
11
17
61
78
95
143
161
172
191
191
Secured Property Tax-6ereral
1,130
0
13
20
74
95
115
174
197
210
232
232
Property Tax -Unsecured
2%
0
2
4
14
17
21
32
36
38
42
42
Sales Taxes
24,921
0
412
652
2,266
2,521
2,761
3,841
4,156
4,156
4,156
4,156
Transient Occupancy Tax
925
0
0
0
6
0
0
190
190
190
356
356
franchises
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
Civil Penalties
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Traffic Fires
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
0
0
Property Transf Tax -Resale
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
Motor Vehicle In Lieu
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cigarette Tax
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
State Gas Tax
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
Total Revenues
28,110
0
438
692
2,415
2,711
2,992
4,379
4,740
4,766
4,977
4,977
Expenditures
Police Protection
3,103
0
36
57
225
277
330
492
551
582
634
634
Animal Control
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fire Protection
2,425
0
27
43
171
211
251
375
420
444
403
483
Street Maintenance
261
7
12
27
27
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
Park Maintenance -
0
8
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recreation Services
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
8
0
Administration
1,174
1
15
25
85
104
122
180
200
211
230
230
Total Expenditures
7,0"
8
89
153
508
624
735
1,079
1,202
1,269
1,377
1,377
Net Surplus/(Deficit)
21,066
(8)
348
540
1,907
2,087
2,257
3,301
3,537
3,497
3,599
3,599
-Y To Expenditures
299.1
(100.0)
389.2
353.0
375.3
334.7
307.3
306,0
294.3
275.6
261.3
261.3
ONE-TIME ITEMS '
Revenues
Property Transfer Tax -New
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
6
0
0
0
Fire Nitigation Fees
905
0
51
30
240
75
75
233
83
45
73
0
Development Control Fees
1,738
0
96
56
4%
153
153
436
169
98
163
0
Total
2,635
0
147
86
646
228
228
666
253
143
237
0
Expenditures
Fire Capital Facilities
905
0
51
30
240
75
75
233
83
45
73
0
Development Conhvl Services
1,730
0
96
56
406
153
153
436
169
98
163
0
Total
2,635
0
147
66
646
228
228
668
253
143
237
0
Net Surplus/(Deficit)
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
--Y To Expenditures
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
N/A
Continued on next page..........,.
61 Table Al
62 9119WRY CASH FLOW (IN 1990 CONSTANT DOLLARS)
63 CITY OF TEXCLlR FISCAL IMPACTS
64 Temecula Regional Center Specific plan
65
66
67 IB -Year
68 Item Total Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3
69
78
71
72
73 TOTAL CN'GOINO I CIE -TINE ITEMS
74
75 Revenues 30,744 0 585 T78 3,860 2,939 3,220
76
77 Expenditures 9,670 0 236 239 1,154 852 %3
78
79 Net Surplus/(Deficit) 21,%6 (8) 348 540 1,907 2,887 2,257
Be
— Development period
Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10
IK""Ir
01 —11 To Expenditures 217.7 (100.0) 147.3 226.1 165.3 245.1 234.4
62
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
97
98
99
100
101
102
1N
104
11+5
106
107
128
109
110
11
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120 Source; Natelson Levander Whitney, Inc. See detailed tables.
13MRI
9.372
11/07/90
Year 11
I Beyond
5,047
4,992
4,909
5,213
4,977
1,747
1,455
1,411
1,614
1,3T7
3,301
3,537
3,497
3,599
3,599
188.9
243.1
247.0
223.0
261.3
m m m=== w m= m==== A m
121
Table A2
I=R1
122
DEVELOPMENT
SCFEDLILE
q.112
123
CITY OF TE7EW FISCAL IMPACTS
11/07/90
124
Teuecula Regional Center Specific Plan
125
126
127
18 -Year
-
Developsent Period -
Year 11
128
Item
Total
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr 0
Yr 9
Yr 10
1 beyond
129
138
RESIDENTIAL WITS COMPLETED
131
0
132
B
133
0
134
135
136
137
Total
0
0
0
0
0
B
B
0
0
0
8
0
138
--Cmulative
B
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
139
140
RESIDENTIAL ACRES DEVELOPED
141
0.9
142
0.0
143
144
145
146
147
Total
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.6
140
149
COMMERCIAL BUILDING SPACE
150
COMPLETED (000's SF)
151
Retail Comercial Core
1,125.0
700.0
425.0
152
Other Retail -Type Buildings
. 725.8
145.8
92.0
94.0
94.0
92.0
94.0
114.8
153
Fast Food/Restaurant
48.8
IS.B
3.0
6.0
6.8
3.0
6.0
9.0
154
Financial Office
25.0
10.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
155
Hotel
187.5
100.0
87.5
156
General Office
907.0
150.0
150.0
150.8
150.0
150.0
157.8
157
Total
3,017.5
0.0
170.0
I00.B
ON.0
250.0
250.0
775.0
278.0
150.0
244.5
0.0
158
159
qAM COMMERCIAL BLDG SIMILE (000's SF)
160
Retail Comercial Core
1,125.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
700.8
700.8
700.0
1,125.0
1,125.0
1,125.0
1,125.0
1,125.0
161
Other Retail -Type Buildings
725.0
0.0
145.0
237.0
331.0
425.0
517.6
611.0
725.0
725.0
725.0
725.0
162
Fast Food/Restaurant
48.0
0.0
15.0
18.8
24.0
30.0
33.0
39.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
163
Financial Office
25.0
0.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
20.0
20.0
25.8
25.0
- 25.0
25.0
164
Hotel
187.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.8
IP0.0
100.0
100.0
187.5
187.5
165
General Office
907.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0..0
150.0
300.0
450.0
600.0
750.0
907.0
977.0
166
Total
3,017.5
0.0
170.0
270.0 1,070.0
1,320.0
1,570.0
2,345.0
2,623.0
2,773.0
3,017.5
3,017.5
167
168
COMMERCIAL LAND AREA
169
DEVELOPED (ACRES)
170
Retail Comercial Core
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.8
0.0
0.0
30.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
171
Other Retail -Type Buildings
51.8
0.0
10.4
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.7
8.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
172
Fast Food/Restaurant
3.4
0.0
1.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
173
Financial Office
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
174
Hotel
7.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
175
General Office
54.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.5
0.0
176
Total
199.3
0.0
12.1
7.1
56.9
16.2
16.2
50.4
18.2
9.1
13.8
0.0
177
178
TOTAL RES/CDK4 ACRES DEVELOPED
199.3 -
0.0
12.1
7.1
56.9
16.2
16.2
50.4
18.2
9.1
13.0
0.0
179
180
Source; Bedford Pivpertiesp Natelson
Levarder Whitney, Inc.
181
Table A3
-
182
DEVELOPMENT
MEASURES
183
CITY OF TDECLU FISCAL IMPACTS
184
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
185
186
RESIDENTIAL UNIT FACTORS
-Per Capita Taxable Porch-
COMMERCIAL FACTORS
187
188.
Population
New
bevel
3 P
Uninoor
Rot 8
Unincor
New
—Per SF
Taxable Sales-
189
Per
Units
Value
County
County
Bldg Sp
per Ac
Hotel Bldg Sp
Rooms Per Room
Devel
Value
f to Pat to
per SF
190
191
unit
Per Rc Per Unit
Total
Stores
Stores
(SF)
Per Pc (SF)
Per SF
Total
Non-Res IWn-Res
Annual
Sales 1
192
—
193
—
In 1990 Constant P
—
-
194
In 1990 Constant P
195
196
Retail Commercial
Core
14,063
I0e.00
175.00
108.0 175.00
197
Other Retail-Type Buildi
14, NO
I10. 00
225.00
100.0 225.00
198
Fast Food/Restaurant
14,000
1.30.00
300.00
100.0 ..00.02
199
Financial Office
14,000
130.00
0.00
0.0 0.00
2N
Hotel
25,008
50 508
140.00
B.e9
0.0 0,00
23.73
201
Average
General Office
16,563
130.00
0.00
6.8 B.ee
202
Average
15,144
114.63
0.80
0.0 8.08
203
204
205
18-Year
Development Period
Year 11
205
Item
Total
Yr I
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7 Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr 10
1 Beyond
207
208
—
209
POPULATION ADDED
219
211
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 8
0
0
0
212
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0 0
0
0
g
213
0
0
8
0
B
0
9
0 B
0
B
0
214
9
6
B
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
6
0
215
216
217
Total
B
6
0
0
0
0
0
B 0
0
0
0
218
219
CLBLLATIIE POPULATION
220
221
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
B
B
A
-222
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
B
223
0
0 -
0
0
0
0
B
0 0
0
0
9
224
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0 0
0
0
8
225
226
-
227
Total
0
6
9
B
B
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
228
229
EMPLOYMENT ADDED
230
231
Retail Commercial Core
2,250
0
0
0
1,408
0
8
850 B
0
0
0
232
Other Retail-Type Buildings
1,450
0
290
184
188
IBB
184
IBB 228
0
0
233
Fast Food/Restaurant
24B
B
15
IS
38
alt
IS
30 45
0
B
0
234
Financial Office
88
0
35
18
0
8
t8
B 18
0
0
0
235
Hotel
IBB
0
B
B
0
0
0
100 0
0
88
0
0
-
236
General Office
3,175
0
0
0
8
525
525
525 525
525
553
0
237
Total
7,766
B
400
217
I,61B
743
742
1,693 973
525
856
0
238
---Cumulative
0
400
617
2,235
2,978
1,719
5,412 6,385
6,910
7,766
7,766
239
246
Continued on next page..................
M
M M M
M
=
M
M
=
M M
M
M
M
M
241 Table A3 (Continued...... page 2) 125CR1
242 W410POW WSWES 91,72
243 CITY OF TEMECLXA FISCAL IMPACTS 11/07/90
244 Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
245
246
247 10 -Year Development Period Year 11
248 Itee Total Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10 1 Beyond
249
250
EXISTING ASSESSED VALLE
Per Acre 11)
251
252
Total Amount (1000's)
253
254
255
AEN DEVELOPMENT VALLE
241.6 Acres)
256
ADDED EACH YEAR (4021s)
257
78,616
250
Residential
259
B
A
260
B
0
261
0
A
262
0
A
263
B
0
264
0
0
265
Total Residential
0
266
0
0
267
Commercial
0
268
Retail Commercial Core
112,500
269
Other Retail -Type Buildings
79,750
270
Fast Food/Restaurant
6,240
271
Financial Office
3,250
272
Hotel
26,250
273
General Office
117,910
274
Total Commercial
345,900
275
0
0
276
Total New Devel Value
345,980
2T7
-Cusulative
0
278
0
0
279
Total Sgl-Fam
0
280
-Cuulative
0
281
0
0
282
EXISTING ASSESSED VALLE
0
283
REPLACED 11800'51
B
264
Residential
0
285
Commercial
15,665
286
Total
15,665
287
0
0
288
ASSESSED VALLE INCREASE (3000's)
15,950
289
Residential
0
290
Commercial
330,235
291
Total
330,235
M
1,950
390
293
O-KOTIVE ASSESSED VALLE
390
294
INCREASE ($W s)
B
295
Residential
0
2%
Commercial
330,235
297
Total
330,235
298
0
B
299
0
0
308
Continued on next Page ..................
0
15,665.0
Per Acre 11)
Total Lard Area
65,000
(
241.6 Acres)
Res/Coo. Developed Acres Only
78,616
1
199.3 Acres)
0
B
B
B
B
0
0
0
0
8
0
B
0
B
B
B
0
B
0
B
0
B
0
0
0
B
0
0
B
0
B
8
0
B
0
0
B
B
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
B
B
0
0
0
B
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
B
B
8
0
B
0
0
70, ON
B
B
42,500
0
0
0
0
0
15,950
10,120
10,340
10,348
10,120
10,340
12,540
0
0
0
0
1,950
390
780
780
390
780
1,170
B
0
0
0
1,300
650
0
0
650
0
650
0
B
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
14,000
0
0
12,250
0
0
0
0
0
19,500
19,500
19,500
19,500
19,500
20,410
0
0
19,200
11,160
81,120
30,628
30,660
87,120
33,860
19,5W
32,668
0
0
19,200
11,160
81,120
30,620
30,660
87,120
33,860
19,500
32,6U
0
0
19,200
30,360
111,480
142, IN
172,760
259,880
293,740
313,240
345,900
345,900
0
0
B
B
0
0
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
955
562
4,475
1,274
1,274
3,964
1,431
712
1,020
0
B
955
562
4,475
1,274
1,274
3,964
1,431
712
1,020
0
0
0
B
0
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,245
10,598
76,645
29,346
29,386
83,156
32,429
18,789
31,640
0
0
18,245
10,598
76,645
29,346
29,386
83,156
32,429
18,788
31,640
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
16,245
28,844
105,489
134,835
164,222
247,378
279,807
298,595
330,235
330,235
0
10,245
28,844
105,489
134,835
164,222
247,378
279,807
298,595
330,235
330,235
301
Table A3 (Continued...... page 3)
1728LR1
3N
DEVELOPMENT
MEASURES
'
9572
303
CITY OF TEMECUA FISCAL IMPACTS
11707/90
304
Tmecula Regional Center Specific Plan
305
306
307
IB -Year
-
Development Period
-
Year II
308.
It
Total
Yr 1 Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Yr 6
Yr 7
Yr 8
Yr 9
Yr IB
1 Beyond
309,
310
ANNUAI. TAXABLE SALES INCREASES
311
TO CITY (3000's)
312
313
314
Residential Purchases
315
0
0 0
8
8
0
0
0
B
B
0-
0
316
0
0 B
0
B
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
317
0
0 0
0
8
0
0
0
B
0
B
e
310
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
B
319
B
0 0
B
8
8
0
8
B
0
B
0
320
0
0 0
0
0
0
B
0
0
B
8
0
321
Total Res Purch
0
0 8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
322
B
0
323
324
Regional Center Establishment Ales
325
Retail Comercial Core
1, 155, ON
0 0
0
122,500
122,508
122,500
196,875
196,875
196,875
196,875
196,875
326
Other Retail -Type Buildings
- 999,225
0 32,625
53,325
74,475
95,625
116,325
137,475
163,125
163,125
163,125
163,125
327
Fast Food/Restaurant
98, BN
8 4,500
5,400
7,208
9. ON
9,908
11,700
14,400
14,480
14,400
14,400
328
Financial Office
0
0 0
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
329
Hotel
0
0 0
0
6
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
0
330
General Office
8
0 a
B
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
331
Total Estab Ales
2,245,125
6 37,125
58,725
204,175
227,125
248,725
346,050
374,400
374,/00
374,400
0
374,480
332
333
Total Tax Ales Increase
2,245,125
_0 37,125
58,725
204,175
227,125
248,725
346,050
374,400
374,400
374,400
374,400
334
335
ANNUAL ROOM SALES (SAO's)
336
Total
11,566
0 0
8
0
0
0
2,373
2,373
2,373
4,448
4,448
337
338
PUBLIC STREET MAINTENANCE CHARGED TO PROJECT (IN LANE MILES)
339
Major Streets
340
Winchester Road (2-4 Lanes)
1.36
0.68
0.68
341
Ynea Road (2 -Lanes)
1.12
1.12
342
Margarita Road (2 -Lames)
2.06
1.03
1.03
343
Apricot Road (2-4 Lanes)
0.61
0.61
344
Loop Street 8 L4 -Lanes;
2.73
1.36
1.36
345
Street A (4 -Lanes)
0.61
0.61
346
0.00
347
Total
8.48
1.80 1.36
4.29
0.N
1.N
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
348
349
Neighborhood Streets
350
-Factor
230.0 Lineal Feet Per Developed Single-Fanily
Residential Acre
351
1 Lace Lineal Feet
0
0 0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
352
1 Lane Miles
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B.N
0.00
0.00
353
354
Total All Streets
6.48
1.80 1.36
4.29
0.00
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
355
--Cuuulative
1.80 3.16
7.45
7.45
0.48
8.48
0.48
8.48
0.46
6.48
8.48
356
357
PARA ACRES TO BE -MAINTAINED BY CITY
358
1 Acres
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
359
---Cmulat ive
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
360
Source; Redford Properties; Natelson Levander Whitney, Inc.
Table A4
REVENUE RIB COST FACTORS (IN 1990 CONSTANT DOLLARS)
CITY OF TEMECU A FISCAL IMPACTS
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan
Per Per SF Per Per Per
Per per Res Come Hotel Bevel Late/Lin
Item % 11,000 Capita Unit Bldg Sp Room Acre Mile Comment
M&CR1
5272
11/07/90
Revenues
Secured property Tax -Fire
5.77
% of 11.00 Per $100 A.V. Tax Rate; Applied to Cum New Bevel Val Increase 1
Secured Property Tax --General
7.03
Property Tax-thnsecured
10.00
% of Secured Property Tax (Table W.
Sales Taxes
1.11
% of Taxable Sales (Table A3).
Transient Occupancy Tax
8.00
% of Room Sales (Table 0.
Franchises
6.44
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 3).
Civil Penalties
0.07
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 3).
Traffic Fines
2.19
- Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 3).
Property Transf Tax -Resale
0.879
Applied to Cum Nex Devel Value- Residential Only (Excl Apartments) (Table
Motor Vehicle In Lieu
33.27
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 43).
Cigarette Tax
1.09
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table A3).
State bas Tax
12.50
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 43).
Expenditures
Police Protection
101.16
0.216
Applied to Cum Population I Building Space Completed Each Year (Table A2).
Animal Control
3.44
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table 93).
Fire Protection
130.1+a
0.160
Applied to Cum Residential Units (Table A2) I Building Space Completed (Tab
Street Maintenance
3,689 Applied to Cumulative Lane Miles (Table AM.
Park Maintenance
6,006 Applied to Park Acres (Table A3).
Recreation Services
18.00
Applied to Cumulative Population (Table AM.
Administration
26.00 38.01
Applied to Total of Other Expenditures (Table All.
ME -TIME ITEMS
Revenues
Property Transfer Tax --Nem
0.550
Applied to Annual New Bevel Value- Residential Only (Excl Apartments) (Tab
Fire Mitigation Fees
466.00
0.300
Applied to Residential Units I Building Space Completed Each Year (Table h
Development Control Fees
0.50
% of Rev Development Value Added Each Year (Table A3).
Expenditures
Fire Capital Facilities
466.M
0.3E0
Applied to Residential Units I Building Spare Completed Each Year (Table A2.
Development Conhnl Services
0.50
% of New Development Value Added Each Year (Table A3).
Source: Natelson Levander Aitney, Inc.
Table Bl
UtALLOCATED TAXABLE SALFS
AT STA`IE AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY LEVELS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Total Taxable Sales
Identifiable to
County Location
Net "Unallocated"
— % "Unallocated"
To Identifiable
Total Taxable Sales
Identifiable to a
City or Unincorporated
Area
Net "Unallocated"
—% "Unallocated"
To Identifiable
• ►• • • �•
• •AI
1985 1986 1987 1988
- - - - - - -. - - - $0001s - - - - - - - - - - - -
2061809,128
201,442,691
5,366,437
2.66%
214,910,748
209,066,759
5,843,989
2.80°6
232,564,584
226,519,384
6,045,200
2.67%
5,402,546 5,958,886 6,740,821
4,995,073 5,550,897 6,222,423
407,473 407,989 5181398
8.16% 7.35% 8.33%
10.82% 10.15% 11.00%
(4 -Year Average = 10.62%)
Source: State Board of Fq alization; Natelson Levander Whitney, Inc.
s:65
249,755,187
243,480,785
6,274,402
2.585o'
7,549,881
6,994,950
554,931
7.93%
10.54%
-7i ..
. at, li . gly .% ""gas
Adm;nisttative Office
John Johnson
Auditor -Controller
Raymond Boyer
Jeff Ashbaker
Sheriff
John Jones
Fire District
Ray Regis
Walter Andrews
Road Department
Ed Studor
CITY OF TIIECSAA
Planning Director Gary Thornhill